Batman v Superman Spoiler Thread: Don't believe everything you read, Son

Status
Not open for further replies.
RepairmanJack said:
I won't kill you...unless you're in your car when I attach a cable to it and swing it around for a while and then slam it down on top of another car full of people. If that happens...I can't help you.
Click to expand...

Haha. The dragged car didn't have people in it.

RepairmanJack said:
Was it? If so that scene transitioned a little weird. It seemed like he disabled one of their vehicles and then when he got past it he grabbed it.
Click to expand...

The driver of the car that was disabled was shown watching him drag the other car away.
 
NotLiquid said:
I get that part. Like I said, I get the "logic" behind it. I'm just questioning why it's a good idea to have the scene play out like that. There's a big difference - one is the criticism of a plot hole while the other is a criticism of direction, and if there's anything Man of Steel proved at least to me was that it had a completely muddy direction which, at least for now, I'm skeptical about in terms of how much it's improved between movies.

Like you said, maybe I won't fully "understand" it until I watch it, and I still intend on eventually doing that, but I don't expect this to be an issue that's resolved on account of explanation.
Click to expand...
No it definitely threw me off a bit too, but it has more relevance than just that. His hallucinated dad tells him a story that has plot relevance and tells Clark things are easier when you have someone to love, someone to bring you back down to the world. It ties into Lois being extremely important to Clark which the film already hit on twice before, which is why I think Injustice is a possible story future considering Superman loses his shit there after Lois dies.
 
Is the plot for JL going to be about all the heroes taking turns to save Lois so she doesn't die before Supes returns at the end? Lol.
 
duckroll said:
Is the plot for JL going to be about all the heroes taking turns to save Lois so she doesn't die before Supes returns at the end? Lol.
Click to expand...

That's the shittiest part about the ending stinger. So he somewhat starts coming back to life immediately but I'm going to watch Justice League and wait 'til some kind of climax for him to actually show back up? Fuck you, why even kill him. It's just dumb.
 
RepairmanJack said:
That's the shittiest part about the ending stinger. So he somewhat starts coming back to life immediately but I'm going to watch Justice League and wait 'til some kind of climax for him to actually show back up? Fuck you, why even kill him. It's just dumb.
Click to expand...

Kill him. He's out of the public eye. Everyone hates him (including the viewing audience! har har.) Time to reset and live on the farm with Martha. Big threat requiring the League. He's back, baby!
 
RepairmanJack said:
She was pretty pointless in this movie and it would have of excused her not being in Justice League, if not for the fact that a character has to say she's important.
Click to expand...

I mean, I'm pretty sure we're getting Injustice out of one of the Justice League movies, so I get it

But she was pretty useless in this movie.
 
Lmao, Batman straight up murders people in this? So it's Burton Batman all over again, great...

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if Batman eventually started killing when necessary. I know comic book fans probably wouldn't like it, but it's something that's always bothered me about Batman and superheroes like him.
Having him kill people in the first movie though? Fucking lol.
 
EdibleExplosives said:
Lmao, Batman straight up murders people in this? So it's Burton Batman all over again, great...

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if Batman eventually started killing when necessary. I know comic book fans probably wouldn't like it, but it's something that's always bothered me about Batman and superheroes like him.
Having him kill people in the first movie though? Fucking lol.
Click to expand...

Hey, only the best film Batmans murder.

This isn't a new Batman though. First film but he's been at it for a long time now.
 
EdibleExplosives said:
Lmao, Batman straight up murders people in this? So it's Burton Batman all over again, great...

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if Batman eventually started killing when necessary. I know comic book fans probably wouldn't like it, but it's something that's always bothered me about Batman and superheroes like him.
Having him kill people in the first movie though? Fucking lol.
Click to expand...

By all accounts, this is an older, established Bats who has lost Robin. My feeling is that people will love him in this. Only comic book purists will be really upset over the body count, however low or high it is.
 
bob_arctor said:
By all accounts, this is an older, established Bats who has lost Robin. My feeling is that people will love him in this. Only comic book purists will be really upset over the body count, however low or high it is.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with him not caring about the safety during his fights, but the whole branding thing seems a little far. A batman that's ruthless and just beats the shit out of people because he is fed up, I am all for. I actually really hope the explanation for Joker's teeth is that he knocked them all out after someone in here mentioned it before. The branding just feels a little too weird.
 
EdibleExplosives said:
Lmao, Batman straight up murders people in this? So it's Burton Batman all over again, great...

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if Batman eventually started killing when necessary. I know comic book fans probably wouldn't like it, but it's something that's always bothered me about Batman and superheroes like him.
Having him kill people in the first movie though? Fucking lol.
Click to expand...
I find him using guns is way more insulting than killing. Guns do not seem to be a Batman type of weapon.
 
thecouncil said:
Hey, the best Batmans on screen have murdered.

This isn't a new Batman though. First film but he's been at it for a long time now.
Click to expand...

It's just really weird to introduce Batman so that he's already killing people. A lot of casual movie goers will be confused, Batman not killing anyone is something everyone knows about the character from the Nolan movies. "I only have one rule" in TDK, "I don't have to save you" in BB and all that.
 
TheSlySoul said:
I find him using guns is way more insulting than killing. Guns do not seem to be a Batman type of weapon.
Click to expand...


2151039-bat_gun.png


Damn you, Comics Code!
 
I saw it.

I understand the pacing and editing issues, as well as the story choices, can piss off reviewers and some people.

But I didn't feel lied to watching this. It was exactly what I expected.

It doesn't deserve the god awful reviews it s getting.
 
Henkka said:
It's just really weird to introduce Batman so that he's already killing people. A lot of casual movie goers will be confused, Batman not killing anyone is something everyone knows about the character from the Nolan movies. "I only have one rule" in TDK, "I don't have to save you" in BB and all that.
Click to expand...

He sure ain't saving anyone in this one either.

Haha, no...
Watch the movie. It really is not that weird or jarring or whatever. It's nothing. The least of this movies problems, I'd say. This Batman characterization is awesome. He's a brooding, brutal hulk of a Batman and it is great.
 
The only gun he uses is one to shoot kryptonite gas grenades I believe.

I did love the warehouse fighting scene where he shoots his grapple gun in a guy's shoulder.

He also gets killed almost when a thug shoots his helmet but I think the bullet ricochets off it.
 
Ok I feel like someone should address the Batman kill thing in detail.

It's mostly similar to Batman action in movies; where someone is TOTALLY dead, but you don't see them get killed, no blood, etc.

There are like, two instances where he kills someone; knocks a grenade away, and the mook goes to grab it, explosion. Not on him. Then he kills KGBeast who has a flamethrower ready to toast Martha Kent. No other option.

The other instance of lethal intent is when he is going to kill Superman. He has him dead to rights.
 
thecouncil said:
Hey, only the best film Batmans murder.

This isn't a new Batman though. First film but he's been at it for a long time now.
Click to expand...

bob_arctor said:
By all accounts, this is an older, established Bats who has lost Robin. My feeling is that people will love him in this. Only comic book purists will be really upset over the body count, however low or high it is.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but not seeing that development makes it feel pointless. Also, how the flying fuck is The Joker still alive in this universe?

TheSlySoul said:
I find him using guns is way more insulting than killing. Guns do not seem to be a Batman type of weapon.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. Gross.
 
bob_arctor said:
Wait. You mean there are different interpretations and depictions of Batman?
Click to expand...

Thats why the "like the comics" defense is so utterly pointless. These characters have been around for 75 years, they're been literally anything and everything at this point. You can justify any stupid decision with "well durrr Superman killed in the comics" or "hay Batman had a gun at the beginning" or "there are PLENTY of comics where Superman is a dopey mopey bore confused about his place in the world instead of doing cool Superman things like wrestling a genie or inspiring hope or tricking Mr. Mxyzptlk"
 
BronsonLee said:
Ok I feel like someone should address the Batman kill thing in detail.

It's mostly similar to Batman action in movies; where someone is TOTALLY dead, but you don't see them get killed, no blood, etc.

There are like, two instances where he kills someone; knocks a grenade away, and the mook goes to grab it, explosion. Not on him. Then he kills KGBeast who has a flamethrower ready to toast Martha Kent. No other option.

The other instance of lethal intent is when he is going to kill Superman. He has him dead to rights.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the whole branding, which makes it seem like it only happens once when Alfred talks about it, but the news and paper seem to reference more.
 
BronsonLee said:
Ok I feel like someone should address the Batman kill thing in detail.

It's mostly similar to Batman action in movies; where someone is TOTALLY dead, but you don't see them get killed, no blood, etc.

There are like, two instances where he kills someone; knocks a grenade away, and the mook goes to grab it, explosion. Not on him. Then he kills KGBeast who has a flamethrower ready to toast Martha Kent. No other option.

The other instance of lethal intent is when he is going to kill Superman. He has him dead to rights.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this, this doesn't sound as terrible as what I read before.
 
RepairmanJack said:
Don't forget the whole branding, which makes it seem like it only happens once when Alfred talks about it, but the news and paper seem to reference more.
Click to expand...

Ooh, yes, the branding. That's a recent thing that he seems to save for the worst of the worst. The news paints it as a death sentence, and Alfred is clearly not ok with it.

EdibleExplosives said:
Thanks for this, this doesn't sound as terrible as what I read before.
Click to expand...

The no-kill rule isn't in effect, but this is a grizzled, beaten down, broken Batman. They'll likely address it in Affleck's solo movies.
 
BronsonLee said:
Ok I feel like someone should address the Batman kill thing in detail.

It's mostly similar to Batman action in movies; where someone is TOTALLY dead, but you don't see them get killed, no blood, etc.

There are like, two instances where he kills someone; knocks a grenade away, and the mook goes to grab it, explosion. Not on him. Then he kills KGBeast who has a flamethrower ready to toast Martha Kent. No other option.

The other instance of lethal intent is when he is going to kill Superman. He has him dead to rights.
Click to expand...

Superman is actually a tad more problematic because that guy he speared through a bunch of walls at superspeed was unambiguously dead even if they didn't show it.
 
kmag said:
Superman is actually a tad more problematic because that guy he speared through a bunch of walls at superspeed was unambiguously dead even if they didn't show it.
Click to expand...

Don't put a gun to Lois Lane's head and expect to live

Also that's the problem with showing Superman's powers, they likely didn't write that guy to die, but physics and gravity probably indicate he's mush
 
Saya said:
The only gun he uses is one to shoot kryptonite gas grenades I believe.

I did love the warehouse fighting scene where he shoots his grapple gun in a guy's shoulder.

He also gets killed almost when a thug shoots his helmet but I think the bullet ricochets off it.
Click to expand...
Naw, he also uses the gun the dude was holding to shoot the flamethrower tank.
That's really the only kill in the movie I can't excuse.

BronsonLee said:
Ok I feel like someone should address the Batman kill thing in detail.

It's mostly similar to Batman action in movies; where someone is TOTALLY dead, but you don't see them get killed, no blood, etc.

There are like, two instances where he kills someone; knocks a grenade away, and the mook goes to grab it, explosion. Not on him. Then he kills KGBeast who has a flamethrower ready to toast Martha Kent. No other option.

The other instance of lethal intent is when he is going to kill Superman. He has him dead to rights.
Click to expand...
Eh Superman is an aliens, we're totally cool with killing aliens!

RepairmanJack said:
Don't forget the whole branding, which makes it seem like it only happens once when Alfred talks about it, but the news and paper seem to reference more.
Click to expand...

According to the movie, he has only done it twice (and looks like may do it to Luthor as well)

What I was confused about was why it was deemed mark for death, think give you instant cred in prison surviving the Bat!
 
BronsonLee said:
Don't put a gun to Lois Lane's head and expect to live

Also that's the problem with showing Superman's powers, they likely didn't write that guy to die, but physics and gravity probably indicate he's mush
Click to expand...

“You know why you and me are gonna do a good job on ‘Superman?’ Cause you and me — we’re from the streets.”

"a violent, caged animal — a f--king killer."

but seriously, it's just another example of Snyder's total inability to restrain himself when he thinks something is cool. I get the Lois in danger rage is thematically important if they're going to do an injustice style story like they allude to, but there were better ways of showing that without Superman straight up ending a fool.
 
RepairmanJack said:
Seems like he used it on a rapist and a human trafficker so people that usually have a bad time in prison anyways? At least as far as I know.
Click to expand...

So seems like a chicken-egg thing since they were probably gonna have a hard time anyhow

And don't think the people died... they were touch and go... from what I remember of the news report.
 
BronsonLee said:
Ok I feel like someone should address the Batman kill thing in detail.

It's mostly similar to Batman action in movies; where someone is TOTALLY dead, but you don't see them get killed, no blood, etc.

There are like, two instances where he kills someone; knocks a grenade away, and the mook goes to grab it, explosion. Not on him. Then he kills KGBeast who has a flamethrower ready to toast Martha Kent. No other option.

The other instance of lethal intent is when he is going to kill Superman. He has him dead to rights.
Click to expand...

KGBeast is in this? Is he just kind of there in the scene where he dies or does he show up anywhere else?
 
Penguin said:
So seems like a chicken-egg thing since they were probably gonna have a hard time anyhow

And don't think the people died... they were touch and go... from what I remember of the news report.
Click to expand...

Didn't they show morgue shots of the human trafficker at one point? Aren't those the pics Clark gets?
 
My only real issue with Batman is the branding. I actually think he's the best part of the movie and it makes me more excited for Affleck's stand alone. The branding just seems unnecessary. If you want to make him ruthless, just have him beating people to near death and have him having no discrepancy from level of crimes or whatever. The branding just seems weird to me.
 
So with the reactions to this, for Justice League:
Hire a new director,

1. Keep this Superman "dead" and out of it.
or
2. Get a new Superman and say he is from Earth 2 or some shit.
 
dan2026 said:
So Batman kills people, brands people and uses guns?

Who the fuck is this character?
Because it isn't Batman.
Click to expand...

Guns is kind of a dumb nitpick. It's like a smoke grenade launcher to get superman to inhale kriptonite. Other than that there is just a gun in the nightmare which who really cares about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
When you read a book and it has a song, do you sing it?
13
85
bitbydeath replied
Superman | Full Trailer
2 3
109
890
Alebrije replied
Superman Day - Behind The Scenes Look Of James Gunn's Superman
18
1K
Connificent replied
how do you read the news?
49
2K
0neAnd0nly replied
Superman (2025) 4 minute scene released
2 3 4
163
5K
Hari Seldon replied
Top Bottom