BvS The Unabashed SPOILER Thread. ENTER AT OWN RISK. - Part 5

[dario2739]

You mean like a "not again" look on his face?

Even that! Not emotionless though – as he said to Lois afterwards he should have spotted the bomb, even though Lex had probably made it so he wouldn't spot it anyway.

 

[Andreth]

This is why I call him a nihilist. Bleak outlook on life. Rejection of a moral code. He has no empathy to anyone that doesn't satisfy a selfish need. He looks constipated while he's saving people. Kills one dude senselessly to save Lois, Sometimes he just floats over them, watching them scream for help. Corpses are getting extra crispy around him, *shrug* whatever. Poor me. Why is my life so haard? And he was actually contemplating killing Batman if Batman didn't help him. Not in the moment, before hand. Jesus. This is the Superman fans want?

whaaat? I can't believe this

That scene where he's carrying the girl after the mexico disaster and gives her to his parents showed such warmth from him, especially in his face.



And for the 10000 time , he didn't kill the warlord, he didn't push him through the brick walls, he flew with him. The holes on the walls were done by him. Yes I use my eyes, use yours too. You're acting like he was still next to Lois when this happened.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Spear what guy??? I used my eyes and all happened to fast for mine or your eyes, so you didn't see exactly what happened either, but I do find it funny people would rather think the worst. For me though, I think Superman's head and shoulder would have hit the wall first – I don't think he killed the guy. The hearing is all about how he was framed for killing everyone else and how the terrorists allies sought retribution on locals.

Are you serious? I've seen it twice and it was clear as day both times. Lois drops her arms from the warlord's arm around her. Nods to Supes. Supes smirks at her. Spears the guy at full speed through the brick wall. The USES that guy to break through the wall. His cape is flying behind him the whole time. Through the building behind then up up and away. C'mon now.

 

[Andreth]

Spear what guy??? I used my eyes and all happened to fast for mine or your eyes, so you didn't see exactly what happened either, but I do find it funny people would rather think the worst. For me though, I think Superman's head and shoulder would have hit the wall first – I don't think he killed the guy. The hearing is all about how he was framed for killing everyone else and how the terrorists allies sought retribution on locals.

Yeah, we have superman feeling guilty for the most part of the movie because of the collateral damage and deaths his existence is causing (even the ones in Africa) and yet some keep saying he killed that guy.

 

[The Guard]

Really?

He seemed absolutely devastated to me, I think I even saw him crying. I'm gonna have to check it the next time, I remember seeing tears.

He's clearly crying, if not in shock.

 

[Rapunzel]

I feel bad for Supes when he's beating himself up for not seeing the bomb. I mean, come on, it's the freaking US Capitol-- there's tons of security and x-ray/scanner checks. I don't blame Supes for not looking. Especially given that he's probably worried about what others will say and how he will respond. And he probably also feeling really bad for Wally's situation.

 

[The Guard]

That's referring to the villagers who were massacred. She obviously saw him spear the guy. And they can bs all they want, that dude is dead. Getting bashed through a wall at over 100 mph then through another building? C'mon guys. Use your eyes

Superman goes through headfirst. He later says he didn't kill anyone. He says that in part because filmmakers knew how people would react and the questions that would raise.

 

[redhawk23]

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/03...ocking-thing-he-did-to-a-beloved-dc-character

Snyder talks about Jimmy Olsen. He thought it'd be "fun" to have him brutally executed at the start of the film.

Jimmy Olsen is actually how they began talks with Jesse Eisenberg. They were going to a "Psycho style fakeout" and cast a well known actor to be immediately killed off. Then Snyder's producer/wife recommended that he be Lex instead and the part was rewritten.

What a chain of disastrous decisions.

 

[The Guard]

Uh, no it's not. Zack said straight up that it was Jimmy, and that he is most definitely dead - all because he didn't fit into their future plans.

Zack thought it'd be a good idea to just bring him in a kill him. For funsies.

Zack also says he's having fun. It's an Easter egg. The character is not even called by name and talks about his "cover"

 

[Sleiek]

I don't understand the problem here? Yeah, he killed off a character, but some of you are acting like he's the only director to have ever killed off someone in a CBM before. With Burton, he killed off Joker and Penguin. Nolan killed off Ra's, Two-Face, Rachel, Bane and Talia. Sometimes people die in these movies. Or were you expecting to go into BvS, and have Jimmy Olson single-handedly take on Doomsday, and save the world?

Besides, the universe they are trying to build, Jimmy Olsen isn't necessary. There are too many other characters to use.

Wait a minute, yeah, Superman solo films could be problematic. But they still have that other woman and Lambard.

 

[Web-Head]

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/03...ocking-thing-he-did-to-a-beloved-dc-character

Snyder talks about Jimmy Olsen. He thought it'd be "fun" to have him brutally executed at the start of the film.

Jimmy Olsen is actually how they began talks with Jesse Eisenberg. They were going to a "Psycho style fakeout" and cast a well known actor to be immediately killed off. Then Snyder's producer/wife recommended that he be Lex instead and the part was rewritten.

What a chain of disastrous decisions.

 

[Andreth]

Besides, the universe they are trying to build, Jimmy Olsen isn't necessary. There are too many other characters to use.

Jimmy wasn't necessary. It's his sick idea of what "having fun" with the characters means. This coming from the director of future dc movies.

 

[redhawk23]

Zack also says he's having fun. It's an Easter egg. The character is not even called by name and talks about his "cover"

He's apparently identified by name in the longer cut.

And regardless of whether he's identified in the credits or in the film, it is extremely indicative of the nonsensical and wrong headed way Snyder approaches all of these characters.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Looked like dismayed shock... disbelief to me... seriously what do people expect here... I genuninely cannot believe the **** this movie is getting in here!

This. All day and night.

 

[The Guard]

He's apparently identified by name in the longer cut.

And regardless of whether he's identified in the credits or in the film, it is extremely indicative of the nonsensical and wrong headed way Snyder approaches all of these characters.

And again, he talks about their cover.
That's not a character in any real sense. Its literally just a nod to a character people know.

 

[Sleiek]

I feel bad for Supes when he's beating himself up for not seeing the bomb. I mean, come on, it's the freaking US Capitol-- there's tons of security and x-ray/scanner checks. I don't blame Supes for not looking. Especially given that he's probably worried about what others will say and how he will respond. And he probably also feeling really bad for Wally's situation.

Superman is the heart of the film no doubt. I was constantly empathizing with him. I felt really bad for him. He is so conflicted. Oh that sacrifice in the end, that's when I fully teared up. The only other parts where I almost teared up was the Waynes murder. I thought I would tear up more than I did, going by what I have been hearing on the net.

 

[BatMeng]

Wait a minute, yeah, Superman solo films could be problematic. But they still have that other woman and Lambard.

Superman solo films will be problematic without Clark Kent!

 

[X Knight]

So Jimmy Olsen was the guy executed in Africa.

http://comicbook.com/2016/03/25/batman-v-superman-zack-snyder-reveals-who-is-playing-jimmy-olsen/



How the hell was Snyder allowed to get away with this...

wow!! I just can't...........wow!!

I defended Snyder and MOS, but there are no words for this.

This is such a huge slap in the face of fans, not just what they did with Jimmy in the film but now also Snyder's reasoning as described in the article.

This just shows such a huge disrespect for the characters and lack of understanding of what makes these characters so endearing for all of these years.

No wonder the critics ( and many fans here ) are tearing the movie apart.

 

[Da-Scribe]

People complaining about a useless character getting killed off? A character that none of us even knew was someone from the comics to begin with? Lawd.

 

[Motown Marvel]

I haven't watched interviews, and so I was just going off what I saw onscreen. To me, it wasn't clear the guy was dead, but fair enough. He wasn't working alone, I assume, so there are likely others who could weigh in on what was happening.

It doesn't matter. The movie establishes that Lois was successful. In terms of the movie's own internal logic--messed up as you may think it is--she succeeded in clearing Superman's name. That matters in terms of how we judge her. We can't say a character didn't accomplish something when the script tells us that he or she did. You can argue that it wasn't believable to you, but you can't argue that it didn't happen. If it happened, then Lois' accomplishments are real in the context of the film. If you don't buy it, that's fine. It doesn't make it true that Lois' investigation was pointless and she herself was useless, though.

I don't get you. On the one hand, you tell me what the film states doesn't matter with regard to Lois' investigation successfully proving Lex's conspiracy to frame Superman. On the other hand, you're telling me that the film states something about the General so it has to be true and unchanged even though the end of the movie tells us that Lois had proved her suspicions correct. You're assuming that the extraordinary circumstances wouldn't have allowed for the information to be revealed or that the General wouldn't have enough courage, especially after the tragedy at the capitol, to put his own neck on the line for truth and justice. The fact remains that the script tells us that it was all proven in the end, making your straw grasping to delegitimize that truth and the accomplishment that comes from that reality seem incredibly unfair to Lois.

Yet, she accomplished them. Whether you buy it or not, it doesn't matter when it comes to what the movie establishes as her contribution.

You can't substantiate what you're alleging either.

I would have loved her to be utilized more and for more of the dots to have been connected on screen, but you don't have to go a step further to dismiss what the movie did establish in terms of her accomplishment. At the very least, you could frame your critique more accurately as there needed to be more to support the plot's conclusion rather than what it seems like you're doing, which is to deny even what the script states that she accomplished.

We've gone back and forth on this topic to a degree which it's become pointless. It's clear you are not open to anything beyond yer entrenched position despite what logic com you are confronted with. But at the end of it, all I'm saying is, a storyteller can't make a claim without providing the content to substantiate it. Yes, the film and characters claimed success on matters which yielded an end result. But those claims are hollow and illogical when there is no valid content to substantiate them. If you are fine with how it all played out on screen, ok. But I have made my assertions as to why the logic is grossly flawed and you are clesrly not interested in it. I have no desire to continue what has become a circular debate which has no end.

 

[Poni_Boy]

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/03...ocking-thing-he-did-to-a-beloved-dc-character

Snyder talks about Jimmy Olsen. He thought it'd be "fun" to have him brutally executed at the start of the film.

Jimmy Olsen is actually how they began talks with Jesse Eisenberg. They were going to a "Psycho style fakeout" and cast a well known actor to be immediately killed off. Then Snyder's producer/wife recommended that he be Lex instead and the part was rewritten.

What a chain of disastrous decisions.

He reminds me of someone, this Snyder

 

[kguillou]

I gotta see it again but I respectfully disagree guys. I dont remember seeing a spec of shock on Supes' face. I know people react differently to tragedy and maybe Snyder was going for sort of a subtle but heavy reaction but Cavill looked pretty stoic while a bunch of innocent people were just fried.

 

[X Knight]

People complaining about a useless character getting killed off? A character that none of us even knew was someone from the comics to begin with? Lawd.

if he's such a useless character, why even bother making him Jimmy Olsen?

just make him nameless CIA guy #1 who gets shot.

Snyder chose to make that character Jimmy Olsen and then chose to kill him off like a useless character. for "fun" it seems.

that's the part us fans are mad about.

 

[Supa]

Even if they had no plans for Jimmy whatsoever, it's still a **** move. Imagine if a Spidey film that decided to drop the romance angle opened with "oh what's the name of the girl that got hit by a car and died?" "Oh that was Mary Jane"
Or a Batman film with "What's the name of the murder victim?" "Tim Drake"

 

[BatsDC]

And again, he talks about their cover.
That's not a character in any real sense. Its literally just a nod to a character people know.

You're literally arguing against what the director has come out and said.