BvS What Went Wrong w/ Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (SPOILERS) - Part 2

It doesn't cement their relationship. They don't have a relationship.

I wouldn't call it hopeful, just like I wouldn't call it that if he gave a gun loaded with kryptonite bullets to Lex thinking he wouldn't shoot him either. But when I think of hopeful I think of personality, not making not very good choices. It worked out, but thinking a human will do the right thing is very different than allowing that human to just run around and go with your mom when he was just was about to seemingly stab you in the face. That guy should be in jail, based purely on the safety of others, not allowed to get away or be given warnings when he's effectively murdered several people in pursuit of a way to murder someone else. And I happen to like the Martha scene and what I see the idea behind it as being.

It is emotional. But Tony was still wrong. And I'm not behind him at the end of the movie. But either way, logically or emotionally, either state wouldn't necessarily make the choice that Clark made. Personally I didn't think about it until it was brought up, but I see the issue for some people being that the choice, emotionally or logically, doesn't make sense to them. Have a very great day you all and everyone!

God bless you all! God bless everyone!

 

It did make sense to me.Something very important and destructive was happening in the kryptonian ship,with all the power being drained from the city,Superman was needed there.Bruce understood that,and told him to go there,while he will go rescue martha.Also its emotional because,Bruce always felt powerless because he couldnt save his mother,and now he wont because he is saving another mother figure named Martha,so thats a beautiful thing as Bruce said "martha wont die tonight",I found that very emotional.Also Clark can trust him more,as he DID NOT kill him,and even threw the spear in anger and frustation at himself,and Clark could see that.Clark also knew it was Lex manipulating Bruce,so he knew that too.

 

I only seen the movie once so I stand corrected there but my point still stands regardless. It's a thing because the film is deferring from its own set of rules. Superman somehow figures out and shows up in Aftica when Lois is in trouble, superman somehow shows up and saves Lois after she's pushed off a building. But can't show up when his mother is being kidnapped? This is the woman who helped him hone his senses after all. That's why I find the conflict superficial. My point it that it was poor storytelling. We can't have characters just do things whatever they want because the plot requires them to rather than follow the logic and rules set in the universe. That's bad writing.

 

Superman was there to protect Lois, it wasn't coincidence. He did that himself because he was worried for her. The movie established that in the apartment scene.

Superman has been shown to be attuned to Lois and also lose complete suppression of his senses when in heightened state. It's Superman lore that he always protects Lois.

 

What? That's convenient.Yet he could hear her banging against concrete during the battle with DD? I can forgive the Africa scene but the other two times? Nah. Especially when Lex pushed her off the building. Huge coincidence. So what it's the lore? He always protects Lois when the plot needs him to but can't his own MOTHER. The person who raised him? The "because it happens in the comics" argument doesn't work in the favour of any movie Especially one that's poorly written. You can't use lore logic to fill in gaps for a film that couldn't tell its story right.

 

Haha you're really trying your hardest but failing again at every turn.

Superman picks up the pounding at the site, knows where that is, realises it must be Lois as she was just there, goes saves her. He clearly picks up other sounds at other times he just acts on this one.

He goes back to Metropolis and goes looking for Lois and finds her. Yes it's written as a save but you may as well wipe every MCU movie with their stupid coincidences and plot contrivances.

Superman trusts Batman as he believes in the good in him and does the Superman thing and goes to where he's needed. That's not only rational but completely in line with his values.

 

Cant we all just agree ,that little plot convenience happens in many movies,and its not a big deal?

 

I fail at what? I'm talking about what's presented in the film. If he can pick up other sounds, why not his mother? Yes because "conflict".

How do we know he's looking for Lois? That's an assumption on your part. He just shows up out of nowhere and saves Lois.

It's funny that no one can actually defend the girl
Without bringing up the MCU. It's irrelevant because that y oversee had nothing to do with the short comings of BvS. It's the " well other movies do it too so it's okay for this movie to do it too". It's a pathetic argument. We're done here because I know what your agenda is.

 

I suggest you all tone down the MCU talk. If a Mod comes in here, they'll be sending people on vacation. I'll Get back on topic.

 

Fair enough.

Back on topic. BvS is remarkable.

 

Even the best movies have areas that can be picked apart and scrutinized, it's inevitable. But in cases like this where the movie in question is so poorly put together, it stands out even more.

Superman can save Lois any time she's in trouble no matter where she is, to the point where Lex has to kidnap and endanger her life so he can get Superman's attention. Once he has it, Lex alerts Superman.... that he kidnapped his mother and endangered her life. That's some clunky writing if I've ever seen it, let alone the inconsistencies it presents with Supermans powers.

 

The all freakin point of Lex is if "God is all good he can't be omnipotent and if he is omnipotent he cannôt be all good" he just proves it.

I don't even understand why is this a thing, Lois and Cark's mom were both kidnapped at the same time, Clark knew Lois was on a dangerous investigation, in Metropolis, when his mother was workin in a tea shop wherever in Kansas. So of course he focus more on Lois.You say this present inconsistencies with Superman power then maybe we can talk why he only heard on TV about the people in Juarez? Superman is flawed, he take priority, he choose Lois as "his world". The moment just built on emotion, and i don't know what's wrong with that but boys it come often in line of misunderstanding here (because why did he not come to save Lois when she was kidnapped in a metro then?) it is when she is falling off a building (maybe he had the time to save martha and get back to his tomato sauce girlfirend on the floor, timejump) he appears like the prince in front of his Lois and is put on his knees by the machiavelic Lex, he went stupid and ignorant, he went naive and innocente. He has been manipulated, he end up on his knees, Lex proved his point.

 

Yes choose Lois over the woman who raised him.

 

Because she's falling off a building

 

Especially given she was in imeddiate danger and clark didnt know yet his mother was in danger.

 

What are you talking about? He didnt know his mother was in danger yet, did you even pay attention in ethier versions of the film?

 

I have no problem with Martha being kidnapped had the movie not established that Supermab can be there for Lois whenever she's in danger. Heck when Zod was threatening Ma Kent. Supes rushed to her aid, nah the girl of my dreams is important to save three ****ing times in this movie.

 

What is presented in this movie that would make us think Clark knew Lois was on a "dangerous investigation"? If he knew that, how'd he let her kidnapped to begin with?

And again, this is all clunky storytelling. I'm going to kidnap a woman he cares about to get Superman's attention so I can let him know I kidnapped another woman he cares about.

This is all on top of the fact that he seemingly can't locate his mother when she's in a neighboring city after we've seen him, on two separate occasions, fly from what we can reasonably infer to be a further distance to save Lois right in the nick of time. No, he'll let the guy who was just trying to kill him take care of finding his mother in time so he can go attend to an unknown threat. Good thing Batman has a magic butler who found her right away. This screenplay gets an F.

 

That's not my point.

 

Re watch MoS Zod threaten her, choke her, throw her away, his lieutenant broke the barn and then Zod angry throw the car into the house. It is a little more noise than half muted scream sha has in BvS, you need to rewatch the films.

In BvS he only knows she had been kidnap when shés thrown off the building, before that Lois and Martha are in the same condition: kidnapped and not noticed by Superman who is not omnicient, as prooved by lex because it his the point of his logic.

 

Hes been there for lois since the first superman movie with reeves. This isnt some huge revelation. He knew where zod was going in mos hence why he showed up at his mas house. Pretty straight forward stuff your
Going against here, not to mention it probably went over your head that they set up superman cant be everywhere at once in these movies.

 

You had a point?

 

Oh wow, we got to the "you just didn't understand BvS" defense in record time.

 

Yes and I've been debating it with other posters in this thread. Read back.

 

Or just not paying attention, put that card away its early in the game. It was establsished when olson got shot superman cant always be there. It may not have said it in big bold letters but it was enough visually