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

But he can be there whenever Lois is in danger? Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are too fast. I'll catch it.

Then he convinently shows up after they have Lois on gun point.

 

Yet he could hear her banging on concrete mind you during his battle with DD. This renders your point mute considering all the noise and whatnot that was going on during that battle yet he heard her.

 

Dude that's superman, its part of his character. Lois is always in danger and he always saves her, thats nothing new and part of the hero lore. Spiderman with mj and countless other heroes. The nitpicking is off the charts.

 

I have no problem with Superman not being able to be everywhere at once. My problem is, if Superman can always be there in the nick of time to save Lois, no matter where she is, then it's inexcusable that he wasn't able to find where his mother was when she's in a neighboring city.

 

He didn't let her be kidnapped in the first place he isn't omnicient, that is the all point Lex is proving.


Lol like comick book were state of the art complex and intellectual writing with no damzel in distress. You reducing the emotion, Lex wanted Superman to bend on his knees before him, Lex has been violently treated by his father, Superman represent power, Lex's twisted child maniac trauma.

In the desert there was a lot of fight and missile shot before he take action, he is not that immediate. Of course ha has to let Batman handle it 1)because for Batman it allows to save a Martha and he can moove on 2) as a sign of trust and the new friendship to come 3) because Superman has to deal with a kryptonian ship shooting thunderbolt

You're just nitpicking and ruining yourself a enjoyable movie, but i had my problems and personnal flaws for it, especially with the third act, was the execution and some dialogues, but not the motivation or the choice of the character.

 

She was right next to him, and hammering the stone just before the water, wich amplifies resonnance, plus it is a clear repetitiv noise, that's what distress call are, repettiv and organized to draw attention, not any confused sound in a battle. You'r taking whatever argument to try watering your dry point.

 

And this is the point some folks here are missing. We are criticising it because that's the rules set in this universe not some made up nonsense. I absolutely had no problem with Martha kidnapped. My problem is the poorly storytelling that accompanied this. It didn't make sense to me. Had the movie been written better, this conversation shouldn't be happening at all. I'm done debating that point.

 

"It didn't made sens to you", at least he confess. It's so fun Flint Marko just said a post earlier he felt "you didn't understand BvS" coming. You do all the work for us that's too nice.

I already answered all your points earlier with adding different elements to it, context, comparison you made false blablabla .. If you can't change your point of view i don't care, keep dismissing things that don't make sens to you, maybe you will realize the poor story telling is only in your head but i can understand, me too having flaws with the movies and things that seemed poor but you know what i dont let it spoil the movie experience for me, i don't go over my head with it. All movies have flaws or could have been done diferently like I wanted it, my right way...but that's not what art is about, it's about receiving the other vision. What a superpower we have.

 

Cool story bro.

 

There is a scene in there where a woman tells Clarke that "A man like that (Batman) is only stopped by fists". Now, you can claim that the premise still is weak- I have nothing to say about that- it's personal opinion. But the Extended Cut addresses this issue.

 

From there you can also draw parallels to Lex who use the term "fist and abomination" of his father. Lex canno't he the fist but he has knowledge and is looking for for a fist, first Batman and DD has a last resort, born of his blood and an abomination. He it is all very telling of the personnage.

It is also well thought that Batman is becoming more violent and radical and only when he will encounter a symbol of real superpower and after wanting to destroy him (in fact desteoy what he project onto him) will see he is human like him, he realize he went on too hard and doesn't burn the flesh of Lex.

 

Wasn't DD already being cooked up as the fight was happening?

 

You said Clark was paying attention to Lois because she was on a dangerous investigation (even though there's nothing in the film to make us think that). If that's the case then yes, he let her be kidnapped.

I understand exactly what they're doing. It isn't complicated. But it doesn't work.

Superman allowing Batman to save his mom doesn't make any sense no matter how many times you hammer home what it meant on a story level. No one would ever allow that to happen in that situation. It defies logic and reason. You can continue to explain the thematic importance of this, and how it was an important moment for the characters, but the simple fact that it doesn't make any sense throws all of that out the window.

No, I'm applying the same critical thinking skills I apply to every movie I watch. This one doesn't hold up. If you find it enjoyable then great, I respect that, but understand these problems I'm listing are far more than nitpicks.

 

This is where it all comes from, logic and reason are definied by our subjective view and the emotional layering behind them. In the end we have two opposite view, i think we all heard what the other had to say, i try to give different view on those matters and you gave yours. You can always find reasons and logic to contradict something, and that's where nitpick come from to me, you did it toward the movie and i do it toward your arguments after, and then you and then me and... it's endless and at a certain stage we repeat ourselves without the intention of changing, so we camp on our post and end with the famous addage agree on disagreeing thing.

We can always move on a different point and repeat the process t:

 

In this specific instance where you quoted me, there's almost no arguing with my point - Superman trusted a complete stranger who just tried to murder him to save his mother. That defies logic and reason. That isn't how anyone would act. It was done simply because we needed to give Batman a badass fight scene, not because it was an organic, natural extension of the story and where the characters were a the moment.

 

That is not how i felt it, i choosed my view, you choosed yours. My point wasn't that it don't defies logic and reasons but quiet the opposite.. .i told you something different in my last post and you keep bringing the same argument i also said i thought we already said all that has to be said. My last post on this subject.

 

Your point addressed how it functioned on a story-telling level, my point was that none of it matters since that isn't how anyone would act - if you try to kill me one minute, I'm not going to trust you implicitly to save my mother the next minute.

You never offered a rebuttal to that, so yes, I'm going to bring up the same argument.

 

Okay an argument..hum..Superman understand Batman has been playe dlike him by Lex Luthor and was blinded by his rage, as a compassionate forgiving figure and symbol of hope, remember the S on his chest, he decide to trust the man. He also understand that a ship from his alien home world is draining the power from all other the city and that canno't be a good sign, he decide that he has to take care of the alien stuff, since logicaly and by the laws of reason it is more likely to bring Zod like stuff or people like him (and it so more likely to cause mass destruction and he is trying to avoid people being killed) and let Batman take care of the "human stuff" about a kidnaping. If you remember Batman beggin the movie in two position: Martha dies, woman afraid of him and closing themselvs in a cage. He close full ark and redemption to relive his trauma. We not in Superman's head or heart, we don't know how he work all that out and like i said if there is something of a flaw around this third act it's more on the dialogues and some lines that i felt were just dumb (Batman, WW in the plane, ...) but it is still your personal view like you said "i'm not going to trust you imlicitely...", you not Superman, i think you just have a hard time projecting on the character because he doesn't lmet your expectation and you develop ad aeternum. I made my point. Superman is hope. That's also the point of the film, if he doesn't act like it then it's not Superman. And Bruce doesn't get his redemption and "fails" him and doesn't regain hope for humanity, and Superman end the movie like Bruce beggin it, rising from the ground. Hope is dope.

 

And therein lies the most embarrassing failure of the DCEU thus far: Superman has yet to become a relatable, three-dimensional character.

This is the most frustrating part about debating anything with certain DCEU defenders - the continuous need to point the finger towards the critic and say it's their fault that they didn't like the movie.

No one would act how Superman does, and trust this murderous stranger to save his mom. No one. I'm glad you attempted to address this argument, but my point still stands.

 

And that's one of the reasons the Martha moment doesn't work. It still cracks me up though.

 

I relate to Superman personnaly, more MoS than BvS wich had more character to treat and had a more hard time, but i still do. The fact i'm pointing out that your personail view don't come from any previous DCeU defender you have encounter. This "all is subjective" perspectiv comes from my personnal journey in the shadow and is something i think cruely lack our society who take refuge under reason and objectivity as a guiding light. Now when you tell me "no one would act etc..." That is your personnal view of it, you're making generalities, i'm the living proof your not absolutely right as is stand before you saying it is not the only way. you don't want to change tour logic, you stay in certain thinking processing, and it is fine, i do to. "No one would act" what do you know? Life is so complex. Especially when there is a big alien ship shouting thunderbolt and a maniac on the loose. You didn't get invested and couldn't relate to the character ok but to me, like i said, it more has to do with other details in the movies that this particular moment.

 

The movie will never live that down. Ever. It's merchandise famous now.

 

Many films have those wretched moments that become a source of mockery that transcends the film itself.

The Bat-Credit Card, Peter Parker dancing while under the influence of the Symbiote, Anakin Skywalker trying to hit on Padme while talking about sand, etc.

Martha is that moment for this film. You're right. It will never live it down. People will be making fun of it 20 years from now.

 

That's actually the saddest part about BvS. Its only memorable scene is one that was memorable for the wrong reasons. It will go down in history as one of the most famous face-palming moments in a film ever.