BvS The Unabashed SPOILER Thread. ENTER AT OWN RISK. - Part 4

[Tim_Riggins]

Man, I also loved that scene between Clark and his dad, that was beautiful.

 

[Mjölnir]

This is the most peculiar casting and portrayal I've seen in a movie in a while. Why Eisenberg? I mean he's a fine actor, but why him? And why redefine Lex? Was there something wrong with the Lex character that I didn't know about, where they have to change who he is? Lex Luthor has always been cool and controlled, a genius tycoon who is also brilliant scientific and criminal mastermind. Yes, the Riddler is a perfect comparison for this Lex....he comes off as this little peeve, an annoying, floppy-haired mad scientist, talking at the speed of sound and eating Jolly Ranchers. Why???

Lex's characterization is just another one of the odd and baffling decisions Synder and company made in this film. I just don't understand why they took this route. Why is this movie so damned dreary and depressing? Who wants to see heroes constantly dreary and depressed? Nolan's Batman, if that's the standard they are trying to achieve, was not dreary or depressing. There were plenty of light moments, happy times, jokes, lots of hope and inspiring themes. I loved coming back to Nolan's Gotham over and over again. I don't want to come back to this Synder universe. But I want the JLA movie more than anything....sigh...

Yes, it's very surprising how that was the way they went with that character when the've chosen basically the opposite way with everyone else. Superman was made a darker, less shining beacon of hope character already in MoS, and Batman is a straight up killer in this incarnation. And then Lex was a campy villain in the middle of that.

 

[Zordan]

First Flash cameo was aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarghwesome.

 

[Zordan]

and was Dan Amboyer cut from this movie?

 

[roach]

Lex Luthor has always been cool and controlled, a genius tycoon who is also brilliant scientific and criminal mastermind.

Actually this is incorrect. The Lexcorp genius tycoon as been part of the character since 1980 in the Man of Steel limited series by John Byrne. Before that he was pretty much a mad scientist. In fact his first appearance sees him trying to provoke two European nations to go to war.

 

[Zordan]

now he is tycoon and mad scientist.

 

[roach]

now he is tycoon and mad scientist.

I was just countering the argument that Luthor has alway been an evil businessman

 

[FVD]

As far as the Batman killing thing goes, I still like to think his Batmobile was using rubber bullets as he's always done. And another cool thing I noticed was Chris Pine in the 1918 WW photo where he's clearly Steve Trevor as they've already cast him as for the solo movie.

 

[Dr doomsday]

Yes, it's very surprising how that was the way they went with that character when the've chosen basically the opposite way with everyone else. Superman was made a darker, less shining beacon of hope character already in MoS, and Batman is a straight up killer in this incarnation. And then Lex was a campy villain in the middle of that.

Campy uh do people know what that term even means anymore, it's sure used a lot. Campy doesn't mean over the top, or even humorous. Lex is not campy of course like always I'm certain fans are just remembering a few scenes and blowing them out of proportion, like always.

Who wants to see Dark heroes well me for starters. This is not flaw it's not a mistake and it's where fifty percent of the complaints lie. How can a movies actual quality be judged if no ones willing to move beyond the tone. It's too depressing dude never watch the crow. What's depressing, being serious isn't depressing. How is this anywhere near as depressing as Batman Returns now there's a depressing movie. DC is not being judged for what it is at least not fairl.

Unheroic, Superman saved the world, he saved the workers he saved the bus, he saved batman's soul, he sacrificed everything. I fail to see how this Superman isn't heroic, Batman's meant to be less heroic here, that's the idea. I can't get behind the critics or the people here so long as the too dark complaint exists. Once DC is judged for it's own tone and not as what critics want Superhero movies to be (cough Marvel) or once they finally accept the idea of a dark superman before they start judging I'll take their opinion into consideration, but right now they're too biased to Marvel and the reeve movies.

 

[BFB5647]

Anyone noticed that the scene where Supes is unconscious in space and his face is deformed from the rocket explosion, is straight out of Dark Knight Returns?

Also, who else loved the Bats/Supes fight? It was my favorite scene from the film. Batman basically kicked Supes' ass.

Can anyone provide details of the rocket explosion in space. Who launched the rocket? Was it nuclear?

 

[TWayneP]

As far as the Batman killing thing goes, I still like to think his Batmobile was using rubber bullets as he's always done. And another cool thing I noticed was Chris Pine in the 1918 WW photo where he's clearly Steve Trevor as they've already cast him as for the solo movie.

If rubber bullets can rip apart and blow up cars ... sure.

 

[whatsername]

When he hears the name "Martha" and learns it is the name of Superman's mother who is in danger, he not only suddenly recognizes the humanity within Superman, but also realizes that it was HE who had lost the humanity within him. He had become exactly the kind of monster he thought he was fighting against. He lost the fight with Superman before it even began, partially because the rage and emptiness inside him clouded his judgement to the point that he allowed himself to be so easily manipulated by Luthor -- something I'm guessing wouldn't have happened in the past -- and failed to recognized or believe in the potential for Superman to be inherently good.

This moment -- along with what comes after (fighting side by side with Superman and watching him essentially sacrifice himself) -- does not only change his opinion about Superman, but it seemingly restores his faith in humanity and gives him hope again, as evidenced by the "men are still good" conversation he has with Wonder Woman. Beyond that, this experience is what drives him to want to seek out the other metahumans to join him and Wonder Woman in protecting humanity -- rather than continuing on working alone in near isolation. Let's remember that after the various personal losses he had suffered over the years (including the death his partner Robin and most likely people close to him who turned bad or betrayed him), it's a huge reversal for him to able to trust in other people enough to want to work and fight side by side with them as Batman.

This and everything else you wrote in that post. Thank you so much! Someone gets it.

 

[whatsername]

Can anyone provide details of the rocket explosion in space. Who launched the rocket? Was it nuclear?

The military (ordered by the POTUS) launched the rocket to nuke Doomsday (and with it Superman) and yes, it was nuclear.

 

[Mjölnir]

Campy uh do people know what that term even means anymore, it's sure used a lot. Campy doesn't mean over the top, or even humorous. Lex is not campy of course like always I'm certain fans are just remembering a few scenes and blowing them out of proportion, like always.

Who wants to see Dark heroes well me for starters. This is not flaw it's not a mistake and it's where fifty percent of the complaints lie. How can a movies actual quality be judged if no ones willing to move beyond the tone. It's too depressing dude never watch the crow. What's depressing, being serious isn't depressing. How is this anywhere near as depressing as Batman Returns now there's a depressing movie. DC is not being judged for what it is at least not fairl.

Unheroic, Superman saved the world, he saved the workers he saved the bus, he saved batman's soul, he sacrificed everything. I fail to see how this Superman isn't heroic, Batman's meant to be less heroic here, that's the idea. I can't get behind the critics or the people here so long as the too dark complaint exists. Once DC is judged for it's own tone and not as what critics want Superhero movies to be (cough Marvel) or once they finally accept the idea of a dark superman before they start judging I'll take their opinion into consideration, but right now they're too biased to Marvel and the reeve movies.

It fits as far as I could see on the Cambridge Dictionaries. Of course a more productive way to bring it up to a non-native speaker (as my location clearly indicates) would have been to explain it yourself, but you seem more interested in lashing out.

Your part about dark heroes is misdirected as I never responded to that part of the post I quoted, so therefor you should direct that to the person that actually stated it. Especially in a post where you're complaining about incorrectness.

As for just remembering a few scenes of Lex, no. The personality he showed in the trailer is there for the entire movie, it's who he is (speculations about it being a public persona were wrong). His final scene in the movie (not in the trailers) being the one that probably takes it the furthest and best cements the comparison to Carrey's Riddler.

 

[writer0327]

Campy uh do people know what that term even means anymore, it's sure used a lot. Campy doesn't mean over the top, or even humorous. Lex is not campy of course like always I'm certain fans are just remembering a few scenes and blowing them out of proportion, like always.

Who wants to see Dark heroes well me for starters. This is not flaw it's not a mistake and it's where fifty percent of the complaints lie. How can a movies actual quality be judged if no ones willing to move beyond the tone. It's too depressing dude never watch the crow. What's depressing, being serious isn't depressing. How is this anywhere near as depressing as Batman Returns now there's a depressing movie. DC is not being judged for what it is at least not fairl.

Unheroic, Superman saved the world, he saved the workers he saved the bus, he saved batman's soul, he sacrificed everything. I fail to see how this Superman isn't heroic, Batman's meant to be less heroic here, that's the idea. I can't get behind the critics or the people here so long as the too dark complaint exists. Once DC is judged for it's own tone and not as what critics want Superhero movies to be (cough Marvel) or once they finally accept the idea of a dark superman before they start judging I'll take their opinion into consideration, but right now they're too biased to Marvel and the reeve movies.

I don't think this has anything to do with Marvel or the critic's love affair with Christopher Reeve. This iteration of Superman only appeals to a certain segment of people, hardcore comic book fans. The Crow is dark and dour, but the Crow doesn't have the same popularity as Superman. Kids haven't been dressing up as The Crow for the better part of 5 decades and wearing The Crow pajamas to bed and carrying The Crow lunchboxes to school either. On the other hand, Superman has been around for a very long time, he's an American icon right next to baseball and apple pie, and is generally viewed as a bright, hopeful character. Accepting a different characterization of an 80-year-old comic book superhero that people aren't used to, a dark Superman as you put it, is going to take some doing. If it is going to happen and have appeal to a wide audience, it needs to be in the hands of a capable director who knows how to handle an extremely difficult proposition.

The question isn't why can't the general public accept a darker Superman, the question is if Superman should even be dark in the first place. I mean, if one wanted to, one could make rainbows and unicorns dark and depressing too. Is this the proper tone for Superman films? The answer to that question seems to be a strong, resounding NO.

 

[TDKR1977]

Can anyone provide details of the rocket explosion in space. Who launched the rocket? Was it nuclear?

America launched it. Yes, nuclear.

 

[whatsername]

Another thing that got me is how Superman while confronting Armoured Batman in Gotham just addressed him as Bruce. Would he have figured it out during Lex's party overhearing his conversation with Alfred realising that Bruce was up to something, but not exactly figuring out he's Batman too? Maybe that will be addressed in the Extended Cut.

Superman can see right through the cowl. Of course he knows who Batman is. But yeah, I loved that he called him Bruce, too.

 

[Plaidchuck]

The thing with superman is you don't kick off a movie universe as him world weary and moping. You do that down the line when you want to adapt TDKR or kingdom come.

 

[Zordan]

they kinda did TDKR, KC and Death of Superman.

 

[vantheman77]

I don't think this has anything to do with Marvel or the critic's love affair with Christopher Reeve. This iteration of Superman only appeals to a certain segment of people, hardcore comic book fans. The Crow is dark and dour, but the Crow doesn't have the same popularity as Superman. Kids haven't been dressing up as The Crow for the better part of 5 decades and wearing The Crow pajamas to bed and carrying The Crow lunchboxes to school either. On the other hand, Superman has been around for a very long time, he's an American icon right next to baseball and apple pie, and is generally viewed as a bright, hopeful character. Accepting a different characterization of an 80-year-old comic book superhero that people aren't used to, a dark Superman as you put it, is going to take some doing. If it is going to happen and have appeal to a wide audience, it needs to be in the hands of a capable director who knows how to handle an extremely difficult proposition.

The question isn't why can't the general public accept a darker Superman, the question is if Superman should even be dark in the first place. I mean, if one wanted to, one could make rainbows and unicorns dark and depressing too. Is this the proper tone for Superman films? The answer to that question seems to be a strong, resounding NO.

When you say Superman, many will think of the Christopher Reeve films than anything else.

Let's ask ourselves. Why is Superman: The Movie revered and why is Man of Steel controversial?

 

[Tony Stark]

When you say Superman, many will think of the Christopher Reeve films than anything else.

Let's ask ourselves. Why is Superman: The Movie revered and why is Man of Steel controversial?

First off because Reeve was Superman. The sameway that Robert Downey Jr. has embodied himself with Tony Stark/Iron Man, Reeve embodied Superman.

Second of all, Reeve was a great actor. He was best known for Superman, but he was a Juliard graduate and a stage trained actor, and he did a ton of great stage productions and movies in addition to Superman.

Superman: The Movie is revered because it was the first big budget full fledged comic book movie that still holds up on its own today. Sure it's a bit campy but it's a great film and the cinematography is incredible. That movie had a ton going on as well, but it held up because of the chemistry with Reeve and Kidder.

 

[G'c]

Hi guys long time lurker first time poster in a long time.

Just watched the film yesterday night. Disregarding my feelings for the film, for people who have seen it, can you be so kind to answer some of the questions which I don't quite get from the first viewing of the movie:

Spoiler

1. How come Clark knew Bruce is Batman? I knew Clark overheard Bruce talking with Alfred in the party scene but there does not seem to be other scenes that indicate otherwise.

Spoiler

2. Did lex actually know bruce is batman? If not, how does he know that bats would be so pissed at supes (i.e. to set up the fight).

Again sorry that the above might be obvious questions to you guys but I didn't quite catch it the first time watching it. Thank you!

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

Loved Lex, he was fresh, they did it this way because we've seen him portrayed three (four?) times before and it's best to do something completely different rather than the same thing. I never felt it was dreary or depressing though, that's one complaint I don't get, I didn't get it on MOS, I still don't, it's dark, but not that dark. Terrio said JL Part 1 would be much lighter, so there you go.

That I dont necessarily agree with. Because first off all we havent seen the TAS and JL/JLU Lex in live action before. Second of all why is it automatically best to do something different?

 

[matt47]

That I dont necessarily agree with. Because first off all we havent seen the TAS and JL/JLU Lex in live action before. Second of all why is it automatically best to do something different?

Exactly. If anything. He plays it like what we've seen already on the big screen as apposed to something trully different.

 

[haephestus]

Re: G'c's questions

Superman has x-ray vision. When Superman first confronted Batman during the Batmobile chase, I presume he saw Batman's true face and realised that it was Bruce Wayne who he had met earlier at Lex's party.

That's if Clark Kent hadn't figured it out already using journalistic skills acquired from working at the Daily Planet and from shadowing Lois Lane. Although, if he already knew who Batman was, I don't know why he would bother asking who Bruce Wayne was when he saw Bruce arrive at Lex's party. Then again, I didn't know why Lex knew who Clark Kent was since he wasn't a respected journalist. Unless Lex had already figured out that Clark was Superman.

I presume that Lex knew that Bruce was Batman. If he knew who Superman was, it stands to reason that he could also determine Batman's true identity. Also, Lex was taunting Bruce through his letters purportedly sent by Wally. The only reason for Lex to mentally manipulate Bruce Wayne would be if he knew that Bruce was Batman.