BvS What Went Wrong w/ Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (SPOILERS) - Part 1

[javonstokess]

Even then, it was Ra's who destroyed the controls, so it was his own fault.

Which is a copout in and of itself. Batman STILL would have saved him. I feel like the writers didn't know how to end the movie or didn't want it to end with Ra's getting away again.

Most comic books would have ended that way...

 

[parkerpete]

I have confess I'm still baffled by saying Batman not killing is silly because it's unrealistic in BvS - a movie featuring a flying god, an immortal warrior princess, Momoa holding his breath and Ezra Miller not being Grant Gustin enough.

I think what brings out the vitriol in people about this movie is that it reveals a deep philosophical and ethical breach between two types of fans:

1. Those fans who love superheroes mostly for bad-ass imagery and power fantasies, vs.

2. Those fans who think superpowers are cool and everything, but worthless without the aspirational/inspirational value of the heroic ideal and the emotional truth of superhero stories.

It's not necessarily a deal-breaker for me that Batman kills. (As many, many, many other people have said, he certainly kills in 'Batman Returns'... a movie I still enjoy) But Snyder is clearly more interested in the violence than the consequences of that violence on the character. Just like he did with 'Watchmen', he constantly upgrades the violence of the characters while ignoring any authentic motivations and emotions that drive those characters through the story. Subtext, nuance, and plot clearly bore the piss out of him.

What's Batman supposed to MEAN in this story? Why should we care about him? Because we know what a Batman is?

Who is Superman supposed to BE in this story? Why should be care about him? Because he's dressed up like Superman?

Blood, F-bombs and boobs is enough to get an 'R' rating, but it's not enough to tell a mature story. A mature story has to have thematic resonance, relatable characters, and an intelligent story. Snyder's 'BvS' has none of these things.

It's like when I was eleven and drew blood over all the characters in the comics because I wanted to see more exxxxxtreeme violence. Snyder's just an eleven-year old, drawing blood on his G.I. Joes.

 

[Slade W]

Which is a copout in and of itself. Batman STILL would have saved him. I feel like the writers didn't know how to end the movie or didn't want it to end with Ra's getting away again.

Most comic books would have ended that way...

He left Catman to drown in the comics before. Personally, I prefer it when he saves villains though.

 

[Jason Kane]

Nope. The rumours of Affleck playing Deathstroke were true after all.

A-HA!! So Jena Malone's mystery role before she got Woodley'd was Rose Wilson/Ravager all along!

 

[FunkMiller]

I think what brings out the vitriol in people about this movie is that it reveals a deep philosophical and ethical breach between two types of fans:

1. Those fans who love superheroes mostly for bad-ass imagery and power fantasies, vs.

2. Those fans who think superpowers are cool and everything, but worthless without the aspirational/inspirational value of the heroic ideal and the emotional truth of their stories.

It's not necessarily a deal-breaker for me that Batman kills. (As many, many, many other people have said, he certainly kills in 'Batman Returns'... a movie I still enjoy) But Snyder is clearly more interested in the violence than the consequences of that violence on the character. Just like he did with 'Watchmen', he constantly upgrades the violence of the characters while ignoring any authentic motivations and emotions in how those characters evolve through the story. Subtext, character, and plot clearly bore the piss out of him.

What's Batman supposed to MEAN in this story? Why should we care about him? Because we know what a Batman is?

Who is Superman supposed to BE in this story? Why should be care about him? Because he's dressed up like Superman?

Blood, F-bombs and boobs is enough to get an 'R' rating, but it's not enough to tell a mature story. A mature story has to have thematic resonance, relatable characters, and an intelligent story. Snyder's 'BvS' has none of these things.

It's like when I was eleven and drew blood over all the characters in the comics because I wanted to see more exxxxxtreeme violence. Snyder's just an eleven-year old, drawing blood on his G.I. Joes.

Nicely put

 

[The Joker]

I think what brings out the vitriol in people about this movie is that it reveals a deep philosophical and ethical breach between two types of fans:

1. Those fans who love superheroes mostly for bad-ass imagery and power fantasies, vs.

2. Those fans who think superpowers are cool and everything, but worthless without the aspirational/inspirational value of the heroic ideal and the emotional truth of their stories.

It's not necessarily a deal-breaker for me that Batman kills. (As many, many, many other people have said, he certainly kills in 'Batman Returns'... a movie I still enjoy) But Snyder is clearly more interested in the violence than the consequences of that violence on the character. Just like he did with 'Watchmen', he constantly upgrades the violence of the characters while ignoring any authentic motivations and emotions in how those characters evolve through the story. Subtext, character, and plot clearly bore the piss out of him.

What's Batman supposed to MEAN in this story? Why should we care about him? Because we know what a Batman is?

Who is Superman supposed to BE in this story? Why should be care about him? Because he's dressed up like Superman?

Blood, F-bombs and boobs is enough to get an 'R' rating, but it's not enough to tell a mature story. A mature story has to have thematic resonance, relatable characters, and an intelligent story. Snyder's 'BvS' has none of these things.

It's like when I was eleven and drew blood over all the characters in the comics because I wanted to see more exxxxxtreeme violence. Snyder's just an eleven-year old, drawing blood on his G.I. Joes.

Bravo

 

[chintai80]

I think what brings out the vitriol in people about this movie is that it reveals a deep philosophical and ethical breach between two types of fans:

1. Those fans who love superheroes mostly for bad-ass imagery and power fantasies, vs.

2. Those fans who think superpowers are cool and everything, but worthless without the aspirational/inspirational value of the heroic ideal and the emotional truth of superhero stories.

It's not necessarily a deal-breaker for me that Batman kills. (As many, many, many other people have said, he certainly kills in 'Batman Returns'... a movie I still enjoy) But Snyder is clearly more interested in the violence than the consequences of that violence on the character. Just like he did with 'Watchmen', he constantly upgrades the violence of the characters while ignoring any authentic motivations and emotions that drive those characters through the story. Subtext, nuance, and plot clearly bore the piss out of him.

What's Batman supposed to MEAN in this story? Why should we care about him? Because we know what a Batman is?

Who is Superman supposed to BE in this story? Why should be care about him? Because he's dressed up like Superman?

Blood, F-bombs and boobs is enough to get an 'R' rating, but it's not enough to tell a mature story. A mature story has to have thematic resonance, relatable characters, and an intelligent story. Snyder's 'BvS' has none of these things.

It's like when I was eleven and drew blood over all the characters in the comics because I wanted to see more exxxxxtreeme violence. Snyder's just an eleven-year old, drawing blood on his G.I. Joes.

yup and snyder's a grown-ass 50 year old man. he should know better.
the movie at times felt like a teenager or some 20 something year old wrote the damn thing.

 

[DarkVictory]

......

1.) Dump the opening scene of Wayne's parents death and show the death of Jason Todd instead
You are robbing a future director the chance to fully explore that storyline for a montage.

- No, I'm saying they should have explored it more fully here in the way 'Dark Knight Returns' did. Jason Todd's actual death was never that great of a story arc in the comics. (Heck, it was left up to a fan vote). The death of Jason Todd's real value was in showing Batman becoming less of himself. This is what BvS aspired to, why not use it?

2. Have Perry White Actually WANT Clark to Investigate Batman
The movie was showing that people, not editors, drive the press.
People read stories online and printed media is dying. People are more interested in sports than crime and that is what the paper has to cater to or go out of business.

You are kind of reaching here.

For starters, Batman is not a 'crime story' in the same way you report about a mugging. In a world with Superman, people are going to start to be interested in these kinds of stories. Second, the film already showed people were interested in Batman stories because we see Batman stories being shown on the TV news. Finally, you ignore the most important part that it was a built in opportunity to discuss key dynamics of the film, which is far more important than the movie making a statement about 'people driving the press' that it didn't really make.

3. Have Batman Actually Fight Crime on Some Level
Batman says that pulling up weeds is a waste of time and that is why he devoted all his energy into taking down Superman. That was to be his legacy and in his mind a far more powerful legacy then putting out fires.

I know, but if the film actually wants us to think of Batman as a good guy in SOME way, we should see him doing something good. Outside of the opening scene, Batman does nothing but plot the assassination of the hero.

I think what brings out the vitriol in people about this movie is that it reveals a deep philosophical and ethical breach between two types of fans:

1. Those fans who love superheroes mostly for bad-ass imagery and power fantasies, vs.

2. Those fans who think superpowers are cool and everything, but worthless without the aspirational/inspirational value of the heroic ideal and the emotional truth of superhero stories.

It's not necessarily a deal-breaker for me that Batman kills. (As many, many, many other people have said, he certainly kills in 'Batman Returns'... a movie I still enjoy) But Snyder is clearly more interested in the violence than the consequences of that violence on the character. Just like he did with 'Watchmen', he constantly upgrades the violence of the characters while ignoring any authentic motivations and emotions that drive those characters through the story. Subtext, nuance, and plot clearly bore the piss out of him.

What's Batman supposed to MEAN in this story? Why should we care about him? Because we know what a Batman is?

Who is Superman supposed to BE in this story? Why should be care about him? Because he's dressed up like Superman?

Blood, F-bombs and boobs is enough to get an 'R' rating, but it's not enough to tell a mature story. A mature story has to have thematic resonance, relatable characters, and an intelligent story. Snyder's 'BvS' has none of these things.

It's like when I was eleven and drew blood over all the characters in the comics because I wanted to see more exxxxxtreeme violence. Snyder's just an eleven-year old, drawing blood on his G.I. Joes.

This is a nice summary of things I think about in a lot of Batman related discussions.

I often group people in a similar, but slightly different way as:

1. People Who Really Love Batman

2. People Who Really Love the Idea of Batman

Not that there is anything wrong with either approach, but as you say, for the group that actually love the character of Batman, his motivations and characterization are more important than his Batsuit.

Snyder is a director who clearly cares less about the actual characters than how awesome they look.

 

[The Guard]

3. Have Batman Actually Fight Crime on Some Level

I know, but if the film actually wants us to think of Batman as a good guy in SOME way, we should see him doing something good. Outside of the opening scene, Batman does nothing but plot the assassination of the hero.

But he thinks he IS doing something good. The point is that he is misguided in his efforts.

As far as doing "nothing", Batman fights crime at the beginning of the movie, saves Martha Kent and tries to stop Doomsday afterward. It's also hinted he's going to assemble the heroes who are in hiding. Not bad for someone who is essentially one of the villains of the piece. That's hardly "nothing".

 

[FunkMiller]

yup and snyder's a grown-ass 50 year old man. he should know better.
the movie at times felt like a teenager or some 20 something year old wrote the damn thing.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that most of the people defending the film are probably around that age too.

 

[FunkMiller]

Not that there is anything wrong with either approach, but as you say, for the group that actually love the character of Batman, his motivations and characterization are more important than his Batsuit.

Snyder is a director who clearly cares less about the actual characters than how awesome they look.

...and this is why Nolan's batsuit in the second two movies was pretty damn terrible. He was concerned with substance over style.

 

[spider-neil]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that most of the people defending the film

Movies are subjective. There is no 'right' or 'wrong', it all boils down to what you enjoy or not. Unless of course the all seeing all knowing Rotten Tomato is the ultimate judge of movies and opinions are irrelevant.

 

[FunkMiller]

Movies are subjective. There is no 'right' or 'wrong', it all boils down to what you enjoy or not. Unless of course the all seeing all knowing Rotten Tomato is the ultimate judge of movies and opinions are irrelevant.

The only movie tomatoes I pay any real attention to are the ones George Clooney had to run away from.

RT can be a useful tool when deciding whether to shell out cash to see a movie, but it should never, ever exceed word of mouth or actually reading multiple reviews to draw your own conclusions.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Had this thought I posted in another thread. What if BvS was broken up into three 90 minute movies released all in one year? It would give the movie time to expands the parts that weren't fleshed out, while offering shorter time for people to have to sit in the theater (ergo, more showings per day). Something along the lines of:

Batman/Superman: Public Enemies (March 2016) - Supes and Bats are considered vigilantes in their own right, but both have a steady stream of supporters. Their methods of seeking justice differ putting them at odds during their first meeting.

Batman/Superman: World's Finest (June 2026) - Supes and Bats must find a way to put their differences aside to take down Lex Luthor, will their ideology get in the way of their uneasy alliance?

Batman/Superman: Dawn of Justice (Sept 2016) - knowing his demise is imminent, Luther creates an ungodly creature to destroy the heroes out to bring him to justice. Bats and Supes must convince Wonder Woman to join their battle against Doomsday

Then have the Blu-Ray ready to release for the holidays. Maybe do some December IMAX screenings of the complete film. No one would be able to compare it to Marvel because no one has done that before. Each movie tells its own "act" while ending on a big action set piece (and gives Bats and Supes two chances to square off). Thoughts?

 

[parkerpete]

Had this thought I posted in another thread. What if BvS was broken up into three 90 minute movies released all in one year? It would give the movie time to expands the parts that weren't fleshed out, while offering shorter time for people to have to sit in the theater (ergo, more showings per day). Something along the lines of:

Batman/Superman: Public Enemies (March 2016) - Supes and Bats are considered vigilantes in their own right, but both have a steady stream of supporters. Their methods of seeking justice differ putting them at odds during their first meeting.

Batman/Superman: World's Finest (June 2026) - Supes and Bats must find a way to put their differences aside to take down Lex Luthor, will their ideology get in the way of their uneasy alliance?

Batman/Superman: Dawn of Justice (Sept 2016) - knowing his demise is imminent, Luther creates an ungodly creature to destroy the heroes out to bring him to justice. Bats and Supes must convince Wonder Woman to join their battle against Doomsday

Then have the Blu-Ray ready to release for the holidays. Maybe do some December IMAX screenings of the complete film. No one would be able to compare it to Marvel because no one has done that before. Each movie tells its own "act" while ending on a big action set piece (and gives Bats and Supes two chances to square off). Thoughts?

That's a pretty great idea Poni-- make it a yearlong event, immediately distinguishing it from other franchises.

However, you'd have to have a studio that understands the properties, and a quality script and director working in harmony. Of course, this would exclude Zack Snyder.

The saddest part is, you can only bring Superman and Batman together for the first time once. And these idiots blew it completely. After 'Avengers', and this debacle, WB will never have such a huge built-in audience. They squandered their biggest moment to establish the DC Universe franchise. I mean, how do you waste 3 YEARS in development and not have a crisp, solid, vetted, brain-trust approved SCRIPT???

Marvel knew they only had one shot at 'Avengers'. So they hired ONE guy to write AND direct, who knew and loved the characters, and was the creator of a beloved nerd sci-fi/fantasy franchise himself.

Sound like someone we know? Yeah. Sounds a lot like George Miller. WB really should sell the rights to Marvel, because they have proven themselves utterly clueless.

 

[The Guard]

You know who wouldn't think that was a great idea?

The people who had to budget, edit, score and do effects for 270 minutes of movie in that amount of time.

 

[chintai80]

That's a pretty great idea Poni-- make it a yearlong event, immediately distinguishing it from other franchises.

However, you'd have to have a studio that understands the properties, and a quality script and director working in harmony. Of course, this would exclude Zack Snyder.

The saddest part is, you can only bring Superman and Batman together for the first time once. And these idiots blew it completely. After 'Avengers', and this debacle, WB will never have such a huge built-in audience. They squandered their biggest moment to establish the DC Universe franchise. I mean, how do you waste 3 YEARS in development and not have a crisp, solid, vetted, brain-trust approved SCRIPT???

Marvel knew they only had one shot at 'Avengers'. So they hired ONE guy to write AND direct, who knew and loved the characters, and was the creator of a beloved nerd sci-fi/fantasy franchise himself.

Sound like someone we know? Yeah. Sounds a lot like George Miller. WB really should sell the rights to Marvel, because they have proven themselves utterly clueless.

i bet marvel probably can do a better job of adapting superman and batman to live action too.
but they already sort of have, it's called captain america and daredevil. t:

which is frustrating because i tend to like dc's characters more than marvel too.

 

[Poni_Boy]

You know who wouldn't think that was a great idea?

The people who had to budget, edit, score and do effects for 270 minutes of movie in that amount of time.

Why not? The budget wouldn't be much more than what it was for BvS. Snyder pretty much made a 4 hour movie. His EC was 3+ hours but he shot so much more footage (at least 6 hours worth).

And they already spent an extra year in post prod for BvS. That's a long time to edit and score one movie.

And the box office return could be threefold what it would be with one movie. 90-minutes = more showings too.

There's a reason studios film two part movies at once and release them separately. More box office bang for your production buck. Even if each movie "only" made $800 mil that means $2.4 BILLION from all three. All from at most a $500 mil release budget (production + marketing).

Doesn't sound like a win to you?

 

[parkerpete]

You know who wouldn't think that was a great idea?

The people who had to budget, edit, score and do effects for 270 minutes of movie in that amount of time.

You're right, if it took Warners 3 years to produce 'Dawn of Justice', it would probably take them 25 to make 4.5 hours of something that was actually good.

 

[Tymminator]

Had this thought I posted in another thread. What if BvS was broken up into three 90 minute movies released all in one year? It would give the movie time to expands the parts that weren't fleshed out, while offering shorter time for people to have to sit in the theater (ergo, more showings per day). Something along the lines of:

Batman/Superman: Public Enemies (March 2016) - Supes and Bats are considered vigilantes in their own right, but both have a steady stream of supporters. Their methods of seeking justice differ putting them at odds during their first meeting.

Batman/Superman: World's Finest (June 2026) - Supes and Bats must find a way to put their differences aside to take down Lex Luthor, will their ideology get in the way of their uneasy alliance?

Batman/Superman: Dawn of Justice (Sept 2016) - knowing his demise is imminent, Luther creates an ungodly creature to destroy the heroes out to bring him to justice. Bats and Supes must convince Wonder Woman to join their battle against Doomsday

Then have the Blu-Ray ready to release for the holidays. Maybe do some December IMAX screenings of the complete film. No one would be able to compare it to Marvel because no one has done that before. Each movie tells its own "act" while ending on a big action set piece (and gives Bats and Supes two chances to square off). Thoughts?

 

[Stark Bauer]

Had this thought I posted in another thread. What if BvS was broken up into three 90 minute movies released all in one year? It would give the movie time to expands the parts that weren't fleshed out, while offering shorter time for people to have to sit in the theater (ergo, more showings per day). Something along the lines of:

Batman/Superman: Public Enemies (March 2016) - Supes and Bats are considered vigilantes in their own right, but both have a steady stream of supporters. Their methods of seeking justice differ putting them at odds during their first meeting.

Batman/Superman: World's Finest (June 2026) - Supes and Bats must find a way to put their differences aside to take down Lex Luthor, will their ideology get in the way of their uneasy alliance?

Batman/Superman: Dawn of Justice (Sept 2016) - knowing his demise is imminent, Luther creates an ungodly creature to destroy the heroes out to bring him to justice. Bats and Supes must convince Wonder Woman to join their battle against Doomsday

Then have the Blu-Ray ready to release for the holidays. Maybe do some December IMAX screenings of the complete film. No one would be able to compare it to Marvel because no one has done that before. Each movie tells its own "act" while ending on a big action set piece (and gives Bats and Supes two chances to square off). Thoughts?

I think it's a novel idea. Given that there is a 6 hour cut that exists, they could either use that footage/film additional footage (such as Robin's death for instance) to further flesh out the story and characters.

I would suggest dividing it into three 2-hour movies, but 90 minutes can work equally well, as long as the story feels concise and helps further Batman and Superman's' development, i.e. Get the audience to be emotionally invested in both of them.

Another reason I would support this is because I would perceive it as the DCEU acknowledging that they are behind the MCU in building their universe. Releasing three movies would address the concern that DC aren't taking the time to help audiences familiarize themselves with these versions of the characters and the world that surrounds them. It wouldn't feel as rushed.

On the other hand, there could be franchise fatigue, as 3 releases in one calendar year could make the movies more routine, the Wachowskis tried a similar idea with the Matrix iirc, releasing both sequels in the same calendar year.

On the other other hand lol, I'm going to contradict myself, our society as someone mentioned below is becoming more accustomed to the Netflix model of delivery and consumption. Movies are being churned out and released on BR DVD within 6 months of theatrical release. So yeah, it could work lol. Screw franchise fatigue and all hail binge watching XD

I noticed a typo. You meant 2016 right? We aren't gonna do a Flash and time travel to the year 2026 to watch part two eh?

 

[FunkMiller]

Why not? The budget wouldn't be much more than what it was for BvS. Snyder pretty much made a 4 hour movie. His EC was 3+ hours but he shot so much more footage (at least 6 hours worth).

And they already spent an extra year in post prod for BvS. That's a long time to edit and score one movie.

And the box office return could be threefold what it would be with one movie. 90-minutes = more showings too.

There's a reason studios film two part movies at once and release them separately. More box office bang for your production buck. Even if each movie "only" made $800 mil that means $2.4 BILLION from all three. All from at most a $500 mil release budget (production + marketing).

Doesn't sound like a win to you?

You could sell tickets for all three movies at once. Like the season pass model they use in video games for downloadable content. Give a discount as well, both on cinema tickets and the blu rays.

If Netflix ever decide to release movies at the cinema, this could well be a model they'd adopt.

 

[ManWithNoName18]

Don't you guys remember Enter The Knight? It came out back in 2015, hardly anyone talks about it now that Dawn of Justice came out.

 

[Poni_Boy]

You could sell tickets for all three movies at once. Like the season pass model they use in video games for downloadable content. Give a discount as well, both on cinema tickets and the blu rays.

If Netflix ever decide to release movies at the cinema, this could well be a model they'd adopt.

Exactly. If you're gonna try to revolutionize your film slate why not go all in and try to revolutionize the industry too. James Cameron would think of the year long marketing campaign. It would be a year long event, constantly buzzing. As long as it was executed with a filmmaker with vision and the pedigree to back it up. Like Cameron. Or Abrams even.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I noticed a typo. You meant 2016 right? We aren't gonna do a Flash and time travel to the year 2026 to watch part two eh?