BvS What Went Wrong w/ Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (SPOILERS) - Part 3

[Whatupman]

We're shown it. After the destruction of Wayne Enterprises, we actually see and hear how Batman has become unhinged. He's branding people, Alfred is concerned about him, and he's on Clark's radar at the Daily Planet. Several people have remarked upon his more brutal and reckless methods, particularly in his pursuit of the kryptonite shipped on the White Portuguese. We see Bruce's nightmares. We see the fever spreading.

Except we don't ever see how Batman is before the destruction of Wayne Enterprises, do we? So how do know that he's more cruel now? Because we're told. We're not shown that there's a difference in him now, because we never get to know who he is before the change happens. And "several people have remarked upon his more brutal and reckless methods"? How is that not telling us? Ah, Bruce's nightmares. And did we ever see how Bruce's dreams were before he was cruel? No. So where are we shown that grief, tragedy, loss and failure have turned a good man cruel?

Bruce is operating under his own internal logic. His logic is that heroism is a beautiful lie. The light is a lie. He sees Superman lauded as a hero but can only see where Superman falls short. He clearly explains to Alfred that his decades as Batman have taught him that good does not breed good. How many good men stay that way? He fears the time when Superman falls.

And once again we're told, not shown. The quote "How many good guys are left? How many stayed that way?" would've actually had some meaning if we saw at least one good guy turn bad, but we don't. If that quote, for example, came after we had seen the fall of Harvey Dent, then it would've had meaning. Now it's just a line without an anchor.

It's not easy at all. First, we do see how their ideologies become mixed with manipulation to lead to the big fight. Lex is stoking the fire but didn't create the fire in the first place. Like all corrupt and evil tyrants, he takes existing ideological and political differences and magnifies them for his own ends. I don't see how it is easy at all to use Lex to show how the rich, powerful, and privileged are the true source of escalating conflict between those who should be allies. In this film, we get to see the ideological differences clash at the same time we see how that conflict is fueled by powerful third parties who want to gain and maintain power and control at all costs. It is a much more interesting story, in my opinion.

We'll have to disagree on that one. For me, that's definitely taking the easy way out. It's safe. There's no choice for us to choose a side, when we know that Lex is behind it all.

Not if the goal is to reveal that the Man of Steel's greatest weakness are his human connections. It is a way to directly contradict the public's wrongful opinion of him as a detached other. It is a way to highlight just how human this god is. It reminds me of a Lois Lane line from Adventures of Superman #640 by Greg Rucka:

"You look at Superman, and you wonder, what can he possibly have to worry about? What could possibly ever hurt him? But just because his skin is invulnerable, that doesn't mean his heart is. And that's how you hurt Superman. You break his heart."

How else does Lex show Superman that he has figured him out and cornered him? Going after Lois and Martha shows Superman that Luthor not only knows he's Clark "Joe" Kent who loves Lois Lane and his mother, Martha Kent, but it shows that he has complete control of these people. It is a power play that cuts to the heart of Superman. Kidnapping Lois is also a way to intimidate her and get under her skin, since she's obviously planning to expose him.

Actually, if you want to contradict the public's wrongful opinion of him as a detached other, then you could just use a human that Superman doesn't have a connection to. If Superman saves a person that he doesn't know ... if he's willing to risk his own life for a complete stranger ... doesn't that more prove that he's good than if he was only saving a woman he loves? All humans are Superman's weakness, not just the ones he know. Instead they went for the cliché road with Lex kidnapping the woman he loves. Well, women he love. That wasn't redundant at all ...

 

[Assassin32]

Why should I do anything for someone who calls my opinions ridiculous and proceeds to treat me like some sort of research subject for study? How would you like it if I asked for you to provide a list of references in order for me to understand how you arrived at your opinions and judge your opinion worth taking seriously? You have got to be kidding me! Unless you intend on having discussion about this film, which is what this thread is about, I am not interested in any further conversation with you.

It seems like you want your unpopular opinion on this movie to be understood, and your empassioned posts aren't helping your cause. So that's why you might want to share more about your aesthetical index. But, if not, that's your prerogative.

 

[misslane38]

Except we don't ever see how Batman is before the destruction of Wayne Enterprises, do we? So how do know that he's more cruel now? Because we're told. We're not shown that there's a difference in him now, because we never get to know who he is before the change happens. And "several people have remarked upon his more brutal and reckless methods"? How is that not telling us? Ah, Bruce's nightmares. And did we ever see how Bruce's dreams were before he was cruel? No. So where are we shown that grief, tragedy, loss and failure have turned a good man cruel?

We see that Bruce has turned cruel because we see the branding, we see the recklessness, and we see the nightmares. We are not just told that Batman is doing these things. We see them, and we also see how the fever worsens throughout the course of the film as even more events conspire to compound the trauma and sense of powerlessness.

And once again we're told, not shown. The quote "How many good guys are left? How many stayed that way?" would've actually had some meaning if we saw at least one good guy turn bad, but we don't. If that quote, for example, came after we had seen the fall of Harvey Dent, then it would've had meaning. Now it's just a line without an anchor.

The line informs us of Bruce's point of view after two decades of crime fighting. It has meaning because it has meaning for Bruce. He's the anchor.

We'll have to disagree on that one. For me, that's definitely taking the easy way out. It's safe. There's no choice for us to choose a side, when we know that Lex is behind it all.

But why do you have to choose a side? That's what I don't get. I like the "easy way out" because I don't have to choose a side. I appreciate empathizing with both characters and wanting both characters to find a way out of the conflict that has kept them from being the friends and allies they should be. I am fascinated by the fact that outside influence would genuinely be required in order to generate a violent conflict between two heroes. It's a narrative decision that allows me to focus on the real villain while simultaneously appreciating the good and the bad in Batman and Superman that have brought them to this place/

Actually, if you want to contradict the public's wrongful opinion of him as a detached other, then you could just use a human that Superman doesn't have a connection to. If Superman saves a person that he doesn't know ... if he's willing to risk his own life for a complete stranger ... doesn't that more prove that he's good than if he was only saving a woman he loves? All humans are Superman's weakness, not just the one he know. Instead they went for the cliché road with Lex kidnapping the woman he loves. Well, women he love. That wasn't redundant at all ...

But Lex doesn't want to prove Superman is good. He wants to prove that Superman can be pushed to do bad things when it is personal. He wants to break him and expose him as selfish.

 

[Predator jp]

We see that Bruce has turned cruel because we see the branding, we see the recklessness, and we see the nightmares. We are not just told that Batman is doing these things. We see them, and we also see how the fever worsens throughout the course of the film as even more events conspire to compound the trauma and sense of powerlessness.

then the killing gets in the way for me.
"ok, now he brands people, that's cruel. oh wait, now he doesn't care if poeple dies during his mission? so why Alfred or Clark doesn't mention the killing? has this Bats ever had no-kill codes? or are they telling me that the branding is more cruel than the killing?"

 

[misslane38]

It seems like you want your unpopular opinion on this movie to be understood, and your empassioned posts aren't helping your cause. So that's why you might want to share more about your aesthetical index. But, if not, that's your prerogative.

Huh? My opinion of this film is evidence of my aesthetic preference. My tastes and preferences are diverse that a mere listing of what I like and don't like will accomplish nothing of relevance related to this film and my opinion of it. Unless you can understand that this sort of analysis has no place here and only works if it goes both ways, then there's nothing more we can say to each other.

then the killing gets in the way for me.
"ok, now he brands people, that's cruel. oh wait, now he doesn't care if poeple dies during his mission? so why Alfred or Clark doesn't mention the killing? has this Bats ever had no-kill codes? or are they telling me that the branding is more cruel than the killing?"

Perhaps because we are not meant to believe those men are dead. When the film wants us to focus on Batman as a killer (i.e. when he confront KGBeast while saving Martha), it does.

 

[Whatupman]

We see that Bruce has turned cruel because we see the branding, we see the recklessness, and we see the nightmares. We are not just told that Batman is doing these things. We see them, and we also see how the fever worsens throughout the course of the film as even more events conspire to compound the trauma and sense of powerlessness.

You're missing the point. The fact is that we don't actually see how Bruce's changing. We understand that the branding and the recklessness is new because that is what we're told. We don't see Batman not branding people and not being reckless before his turn, do we? Yes, we see his nightmares, but again, we don't know how his dreams were before the turn, so we never actually see a good man turn cruel.

The line informs us of Bruce's point of view after two decades of crime fighting. It has meaning because it has meaning for Bruce. He's the anchor.

That's not how it works though. Just because something has meaning for a character in the movie, doesn't automatically mean that the audience will feel that meaning. It would be easy if that was the case. And also, we don't see why it has any meaning for Bruce.

But why do you have to choose a side? That's what I don't get. I like the "easy way out" because I don't have to choose a side. I appreciate empathizing with both characters and wanting both characters to find a way out of the conflict that has kept them from being the friends and allies they should be. I am fascinated by the fact that outside influence would genuinely be required in order to generate a violent conflict between two heroes. It's a narrative decision that allows me to focus on the real villain while simultaneously appreciating the good and the bad in Batman and Superman that have brought them to this place/

Alright. I don't find that compelling at all, but if that's what you like, that's what you like.

But Lex doesn't want to prove Superman is good. He wants to prove that Superman can be pushed to do bad things when it is personal. He wants to break him and expose him as selfish.

So Lex wants to contradict the public's wrongful opinion of Superman as a detached other? Wouldn't he actually want to make that opinion stronger?

 

[Assassin32]

My opinion of this film is evidence of my aesthetic preference.

You know what? You're right. And you've certainly said a mouthful there.

 

[Nemeres]

The idea of being appreciated carries weight with Superman because his mission is to inspire hope. So if his good actions seem to provoke more fear and anxiety than hope and change, then that is going to make him question whether the world is ready for Superman. Public opinion is important because Superman can see how polarization can generate devastating conflict and violence.

He's not doing much of that with his limited personality and nonexistant communicative efforts. Particularly odd for a journalist who deals with public opinion for a living. People minimize that requirement as just wanting chattiness for the hell of it, but it's absurd to imagine any leader of any kind actively shunning that skill. None of his flashy saves keep him from being suspected from wrongdoing at the key moments, a plotpoint that is exacerbated by him being such a mute question mark to the public. There's no mission statement, no quotable POVs that put him on the same level as real-life inspirational people. He inspires less even by deserting right when things are at their most dire. He's, again, blatantly ineffective, and by his own consent, which makes that plea for pity/empathy hollow.

Superman's issues with Batman are the means through which Clark works through his own concerns about the role of a superhero in society.

It was obviously meant to show Clark as a committed reporter, but with something that he has to abandon midway through for the sake of the mandatory team-up, and which won't allow him to have any social impact as a journalist. He doesn't with his inconsequential little Batman crusade, and it negates his agency as a character. Ironically, Bats saves the day by using the very ways that he'd taken issue with.

And, most importantly, it gives his eventual need to team up with Batman or fight him to the death more weight and meaning. That we can see Superman put aside his ideological differences with Batman in order to ally in a fight for a good cause, then we see his character more clearly revealed. In other words, the fact that Superman will discard his anti-Batman crusade when more priorities come up is meaningful rather than meaningless.

Like "finally" a good cause? Was there no need to save kidnappees before his own mom needed it? Are Batman's means ok now when they weren't then? It says he'll shift ideology to his convenience when he's on the victim's end of it. It's very much meaningless when it substracts meaning from his early ideology and he all but acknowledges that he's in the wrong of it for no other reason that "I'm the one who needs Batman now". He gets negated as a character time and again.

 

[Docker2.0]

Ah its been nearly 4 days since we've had a 'we didn't get it' post. I thought it was starting to die out. Thank you, hapless, for restoring my faith in blind fanboyism towards this "masterpiece".

If you have to look THAT deep into a movie, then you will never get it. How can a movie expect to make money when most of the audience doesn't get it?

 

[misslane38]

If you have to look THAT deep into a movie, then you will never get it. How can a movie expect to make money when most of the audience doesn't get it?

But it's not deep at all. All of this stuff is right there in the film. It's not disguised or subtextual. Most of it is stated outright and paired with visuals just to make it more clear. My experience, which you can take or leave, is that most people do "get it." They get it, but they don't like what they get. They understand the themes, messages, motivation, plot, and characterization just fine, they just don't approve of them. It's not a story or a characterization that is appreciated, so it is discounted. For example, I don't think anyone watching the film didn't "get" that Bruce was struggling with some version of traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety that was clouding his judgment. I think that was understood but disliked. Most of the reviews I read seemed to grasp the big ideas and plot points just fine. What was disliked more than anything was the tone of the film and its deconstructionist take on these characters.

 

[misslane38]

He's not doing much of that with his limited personality and nonexistant communicative efforts. Particularly odd for a journalist who deals with public opinion for a living. People minimize that requirement as just wanting chattiness for the hell of it, but it's absurd to imagine any leader of any kind actively shunning that skill. None of his flashy saves keep him from being suspected from wrongdoing at the key moments, a plotpoint that is exacerbated by him being such a mute question mark to the public. There's no mission statement, no quotable POVs that put him on the same level as real-life inspirational people. He inspires less even by deserting right when things are at their most dire. He's, again, blatantly ineffective, and by his own consent, which makes that plea for pity/empathy hollow.

I disagree. While Clark is struggling to figure out how to best be Superman, he is still working out how he can be most effective, including communication. He is a mute question mark, and I think Clark is aware of how that may be making things worse for him. He doesn't appear in front of Senator Finch's committee to say nothing in his own defense. At the point at which Superman decides to speak for himself, he silenced by the bomb. I empathize with him because I can see him struggling with settling into his role as Superman. He hasn't quite figured out how to communicate best with the public, and he doesn't always perfectly execute his heroic efforts. I pity and empathize with someone who is learning something new and being judged on such a massive worldwide scale upon which any misstep has the potential to generate devastating consequences.

It was obviously meant to show Clark as a committed reporter, but with something that he has to abandon midway through for the sake of the mandatory team-up, and which won't allow him to have any social impact as a journalist. He doesn't with his inconsequential little Batman crusade, and it negates his agency as a character. Ironically, Bats saves the day by using the very ways that he'd taken issue with.

Clark took issue with the branding. Batman did not brand anyone when he saved Martha.

Like "finally" a good cause? Was there no need to save kidnappees before his own mom needed it? Are Batman's means ok now when they weren't then? It says he'll shift ideology to his convenience when he's on the victim's end of it. It's very much meaningless when it substracts meaning from his early ideology and he all but acknowledges that he's in the wrong of it for no other reason that "I'm the one who needs Batman now". He gets negated as a character time and again.

Superman's needs are not wholly ideological at that point. I don't think he would have chosen Batman as an ally if not for the fact that his other option was a more violent interaction. It's Lex Luthor who forces Superman to discard his own ideology. But, when given the choice, he still maintains his own ideology by not becoming a killer himself. He will reach out to Batman not only because he must but because it's the only way to save himself. Is it selfish that Superman changes when the challenge is personal? Sure, it is a little bit. But isn't that how they both grow? Both Superman and Batman see each other and themselves more clearly as a result of their conflict. They see their own humanity and goodness alongside the hypocrisy and the mistakes. But they get through it, and they put those things aside because they realize there are greater evils.

 

[misslane38]

You're missing the point. The fact is that we don't actually see how Bruce's changing. We understand that the branding and the recklessness is new because that is what we're told. We don't see Batman not branding people and not being reckless before his turn, do we? Yes, we see his nightmares, but again, we don't know how his dreams were before the turn, so we never actually see a good man turn cruel.

But the standard you are applying here is not one that I have ever seen applied to fiction or character development. Scores of stories have introduced us to characters in media res. The recent 2005 reboot of Doctor Who, for example, establishes that the Ninth Doctor is struggling with PTSD from his time fighting the Time War, which included the Doctor's own choice to execute the genocide of his own people in order to save all of creation. The post-Time War Doctor is darker, but it isn't until the 50th anniversary episode in 2013 that we see any of that backstory. Most critics and fans embraced the Ninth Doctor and were able to connect with the new series just fine.

That's not how it works though. Just because something has meaning for a character in the movie, doesn't automatically mean that the audience will feel that meaning. It would be easy if that was the case. And also, we don't see why it has any meaning for Bruce.

Of course it does if the concern in the first place is understanding a character's point of view. Are you seriously telling me an audience could not understand or empathize with, let's say, a cop who has become jaded from years of experience of corruption and loss unless the audience literally watches all of those years unfold onscreen? When Lois Lane is first introduced in Man of Steel, she tells her companion who has just praised her work reporting from a warzone that she gets writer's block if she's not wearing a flack jacket. Is this bit of self-disclosure irrelevant to creating my understanding of her character and motivations solely because I did not see her both experience writer's block or inspiration while in the midst of battle?

Alright. I don't find that compelling at all, but if that's what you like, that's what you like.

Yes, it's an issue of preference. The argument you were making before suggested that there was an objective qualitative difference between a narrative that encourages the audience to choose a side and a narrative that is more complex than that.

So Lex wants to contradict the public's wrongful opinion of Superman as a detached other? Wouldn't he actually want to make that opinion stronger?

The public, including Bruce if we consider his nightmare, already perceives of Superman as a detached other for seemingly abandoning his principles only when people he cares about are at risk. He's a detached other because he will gladly abandon humanity, even put humanity at risk, for selfish reasons. It enables Lex to sell Superman to the public as a selfish and capricious god. He exposes him as the man we see in Batman's nightmares.

You know what? You're right. And you've certainly said a mouthful there.

Just to be clear, rather than dispute my opinion of the film, you decided to dismiss me as ridiculous while also appealing to an argumentum ad populum fallacy to further undermine the validity of my point of view. You then proceeded to question my taste before finishing with yet another dismissive flourish. You still have yet to actually address any of my counterarguments. That's the "mouthful" that you have shown me.

 

[Whatupman]

But the standard you are applying here is not one that I have ever seen applied to fiction or character development. Scores of stories have introduced us to characters in media res. The recent 2005 reboot of Doctor Who, for example, establishes that the Ninth Doctor is struggling with PTSD from his time fighting the Time War, which included the Doctor's own choice to execute the genocide of his own people in order to save all of creation. The post-Time War Doctor is darker, but it isn't until the 50th anniversary episode in 2013 that we see any of that backstory. Most critics and fans embraced the Ninth Doctor and were able to connect with the new series just fine.

Really? You have never heard the phrase "Show, don't tell" applied to fiction or character development? It's quite standard that you should show the audience the character development, not just have characters talk about it. And the thing I was commenting on was that you wrote that we were shown a good man turn cruel because of tragedy, grief, failure and loss of life, which is incorrect. BvS is partly about the battle for Batman's soul and for him to return to the man he once was. The problem is that we never get to experience how he was before the destruction in Metropolis, so we can't feel exactly how far he has fallen. Can you imagine how much stronger the story would've been if we had actually gotten to know Bruce before his change? How much stronger it would've been if we actually were invested in his character before the change? The battle of his soul would've been so much richer. I think author Robert McKee put it well:"Show, don't tell, means respect the intelligence and sensitivty of your audience. Invite them to bring their best selves to the ritual, to watch, think, feel, and draw their own conclusions. Do not put them on your knee as if they were children and "explain" life, for the misuse and overuse of narration is not only slack, it's patronizing.".I haven't seen Doctor Who, so I can't comment on that.

Of course it does if the concern in the first place is understanding a character's point of view. Are you seriously telling me an audience could not understand or empathize with, let's say, a cop who has become jaded from years of experience of corruption and loss unless the audience literally watches all of those years unfold onscreen? When Lois Lane is first introduced in Man of Steel, she tells her companion who has just praised her work reporting from a warzone that she gets writer's block if she's not wearing a flack jacket. Is this bit of self-disclosure irrelevant to creating my understanding of her character and motivations solely because I did not see her both experience writer's block or inspiration while in the midst of battle?

Of course we wouldn't have to see all of those years to understand the jaded cop, but we sure should see something of it, and not just have one line about how all good men turn bad. When Bruce says that in BvS it doesn't have any meaning because we haven't seen any good men turn bad. So why should we believe and understand Bruce? Just because he says so? The movie had a golden opportunity to show us Bruce's fall from a good man to a cruel one, but they decided to jump over that character development and only tell us about it. It frustrates me, because if they had shown us that, then Bruce's line about how good guys don't stay that way would've had so much more meaning. Or, as I previously said, if we had gotten to see Harvey Dent's fall. And that example with Lois doesn't work because her experience with writer's block doesn't play an important part in any huge character development that she goes through in the movie, does it? Not from what I can remember anyway. But actually, yes, it would've been stronger to see that, than just being told it.

Yes, it's an issue of preference. The argument you were making before suggested that there was an objective qualitative difference between a narrative that encourages the audience to choose a side and a narrative that is more complex than that.

Umm, no. The argument I was making before suggested that I found a qualitative difference between a narrative that encourages the audience to choose a side and a narrative that simply tells the audience who the bad guy is. That's why I wrote "I find ..." and then later "For me ..."

The public, including Bruce if we consider his nightmare, already perceives of Superman as a detached other for seemingly abandoning his principles only when people he cares about are at risk. He's a detached other because he will gladly abandon humanity, even put humanity at risk, for selfish reasons. It enables Lex to sell Superman to the public as a selfish and capricious god. He exposes him as the man we see in Batman's nightmares.

So by saving Lois from falling to her death, Superman proves that he's selfish, capricious and the man from Batman's nightmares. That doesn't make sense. Because it was the kidnapping of Lois that started this argument. Why couldn't Lex draw out Superman by using innocent people Superman doesn't know, and then tell him that he kidnapped his mother? Just because Superman saved Lois when she was falling to her death doesn't show anyone that he's selfish, capricious and the man from Batman's nightmares.

 

[Predator jp]

Perhaps because we are not meant to believe those men are dead. When the film wants us to focus on Batman as a killer (i.e. when he confront KGBeast while saving Martha), it does.

wait, KGBeast died in that scene?
we never seen the body so i assumed he survived just like thugs in the car Batman blew up during the chase scene.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

The public, including Bruce if we consider his nightmare, already perceives of Superman as a detached other for seemingly abandoning his principles only when people he cares about are at risk. He's a detached other because he will gladly abandon humanity, even put humanity at risk, for selfish reasons. It enables Lex to sell Superman to the public as a selfish and capricious god. He exposes him as the man we see in Batman's nightmares.

I could be wrong about this but the Nairomi incident comes to my mind in this particular issue. Everything that happened there and the stuff that has got something to do with Superman occured because Lois was in there and her life was in danger. It tells me that Supes would do anything to save Lois at any cost and that should also extend to the other people that Supes deeply cares about. Now the way Bruce and the public perceives it is Superman killed people trying to save a reporter who happens to be close to Superman and it shows that Supes is willing to go to any lengths to save those who are close to him so whenever someone he closely associated with is in any form of danger, he would abandon his principles and put humanity at risk like you mentioned. I think Lex did a pretty good job to sell that to the public. I hope I'm not missing key points here.

 

[TeeKay]

wait, KGBeast died in that scene?
we never seen the body so i assumed he survived just like thugs in the car Batman blew up during the chase scene.

Those thugs must be superhuman to survive being blown up by guns and having a car hapooned and dragged through the streets only to be thrown on top of another car.

 

[AnneFan]

They died because Batman killed them. The arguments that follow accepting that fact is where the real disagreements start.

 

[Steamteck]

If you have to look THAT deep into a movie, then you will never get it. How can a movie expect to make money when most of the audience doesn't get it?

God, stuff like that seriously triggers the elitist in me. Please tell me its really not that hard for folks.

 

[Docker2.0]

God, stuff like that seriously triggers the elitist in me. Please tell me its really not that hard for folks.

For a movie being to deep that few got it?

 

[misslane38]

For a movie being to deep that few got it?

All the conversations I've had with people who might fall into the "didn't get it" camp never come off as people who don't understand the film the same way I do in the sense that we both intellectually grasp the same themes, details, and concepts. The type of understanding or "getting" that seems to come into play is more emotional than intellectual. For example, if I were to discuss Luthor's motivations in the film, the debate isn't rooted in a misunderstanding of what motivated Lex in the film but rather whether or not the person with which I am discussing the film appreciates or likes Lex's motivations.

 

[jihado86]

Having some "stuff" in a movie doesn't mean it's a good movie, what really matters is how you present your "stuff".
BvS fans claim that we didn't get it. Well, we got everything. But everything was misused, it's like making a food with amazing ingredients, but the final result sucks, why? because not everything can be put together and tastes good. Chicken is delicious, so is chocolate. But, you can't cook grilled chicken with chocolate.
You know what BvS fans did? We told them this food sucks, they said, you don't get it, it had chocolate in it, you didn't taste it. Well, we tasted the chocolate and that's what made it suck. Maybe you enjoyed it, but it really sucks.

 

[Docker2.0]

All the conversations I've had with people who might fall into the "didn't get it" camp never come off as people who don't understand the film the same way I do in the sense that we both intellectually grasp the same themes, details, and concepts. The type of understanding or "getting" that seems to come into play is more emotional than intellectual. For example, if I were to discuss Luthor's motivations in the film, the debate isn't rooted in a misunderstanding of what motivated Lex in the film but rather whether or not the person with which I am discussing the film appreciates or likes Lex's motivations.

It's not that but they really should have built up Lex and Bruce. The movie was jam packed with a lot of things that were really assumed. Was Wonder Woman active all those years? Why was she invited to Lex's party if she wasn't? Why did Superman have such a problem with Batman but not Wonder Woman or this "blur" that was doing the same thing? Not to the extreme but he was taking the law into his own hands..........the same as Superman. There were a lot of questions but those just popped in my head without thinking about more.

Having some "stuff" in a movie doesn't mean it's a good movie, what really matters is how you present your "stuff".
BvS fans claim that we didn't get it. Well, we got everything. But everything was misused, it's like making a food with amazing ingredients, but the final result sucks, why? because not everything can be put together and tastes good. Chicken is delicious, so is chocolate. But, you can't cook grilled chicken with chocolate.
You know what BvS fans did? We told them this food sucks, they said, you don't get it, it had chocolate in it, you didn't taste it. Well, we tasted the chocolate and that's what made it suck. Maybe you enjoyed it, but it really sucks.

Agreed. It sounds like people are making excuses for the DCCU but if you demand better films, then they'd have to evolve. Zack Snyder is to dark a director to be in charge of the DCCU. Do I think John's is the answer? Not sure because I thought he was in "charge" a few years back but it seemed to be a very short leash. I really wish they'd have some input from Bruce Timm who really introduced the DCAU the perfect way.

 

[Assassin32]

Just to be clear, rather than dispute my opinion of the film, you decided to dismiss me as ridiculous while also appealing to an argumentum ad populum fallacy to further undermine the validity of my point of view. You then proceeded to question my taste before finishing with yet another dismissive flourish. You still have yet to actually address any of my counterarguments. That's the "mouthful" that you have shown me.

I do not agree that I've ignored your counterarguments because the word "counterargument" implies that some discernible refutation of the original argument was presented. You spliced up my paragraph, destroying its unity and context, and went off on independent tangents that often diverged from the fragments they were ostensibly addressing. In some instances, my points had obviously gone over your head completely. In others, you were performing elaborate routines of mental gymnastics. I've seen this before. We all have in these forums. It is a phenomenon that has emerged among certain sects of the titular characters' fanatics. I am confident that if the names were not Batman and Superman, this film would have virtually no supporters. Indeed, if the characters were not called Batman and Superman, the ill-conceived screenplay would have never been approved by the producers.

So, yes, I dismissed your opinion of Batman v Superman. But in my defense, your opinion of the film seems to be that it is a quality piece of storytelling.

 

[misslane38]

I do not agree that I've ignored your counterarguments because the word "counterargument" implies that some discernible refutation of the original argument was presented. You spliced up my paragraph, destroying its unity and context, and went off on independent tangents that often diverged from the fragments they were ostensibly addressing. In some instances, my points had obviously gone over your head completely. In others, you were performing elaborate routines of mental gymnastics. I've seen this before. We all have in these forums. It is a phenomenon that has emerged among certain sects of the titular characters' fanatics. I am confident that if the names were not Batman and Superman, this film would have virtually no supporters. Indeed, if the characters were not called Batman and Superman, the ill-conceived screenplay would have never been approved by the producers.

So, yes, I dismissed your opinion of Batman v Superman. But in my defense, your opinion of the film seems to be that it is a quality piece of storytelling.

So still more of the same arrogant and dismissive nonsense instead of engaging in an actual discussion?

 

[misslane38]

Having some "stuff" in a movie doesn't mean it's a good movie, what really matters is how you present your "stuff".
BvS fans claim that we didn't get it. Well, we got everything. But everything was misused, it's like making a food with amazing ingredients, but the final result sucks, why? because not everything can be put together and tastes good. Chicken is delicious, so is chocolate. But, you can't cook grilled chicken with chocolate.
You know what BvS fans did? We told them this food sucks, they said, you don't get it, it had chocolate in it, you didn't taste it. Well, we tasted the chocolate and that's what made it suck. Maybe you enjoyed it, but it really sucks.

This isn't a fair judgement. It removes subjectivity from the analysis by assuming that what the movie was the equivalent of chocolate and chicken or that the "stuff" was misused. BvS fans don't agree that there was chocolate messing up the chicken or vice versa, because they don't agree that those are the ingredients used or with the interpretation. It's wrong to suggest that BvS fans knowingly like and praise a indisputably poor product.

It's more like any food, really. Not everyone is going to have the same taste. Some people are used to the food they eat with their families and cultures growing up. Some people like savory foods more than sweet ones. Some people are vegans. You can put a meal in front of any individual, and based on their preferences and tolerances, they can either like or dislike it. More importantly, however, a movie cannot be accurately and easily compared with food. In this case, as with most art, there is room for interpretation, and where interpretations diverge and mix with pre-existing preferences comes different reactions all of which are valid.

So to claim that a work is objectively unpalatable, and so those liking it have bad taste is not fair. It is still open to interpretation.