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

Status
Not open for further replies.
ryutaro's mama said:
He tells him not to come to the signal if it goes up, implying that if Gordon or whoever summons him, don't bother going.

The signal being used to summon Superman (and more directly, Lex knowing it's him that turned it on) is a hilarious leap the script makes for reasons.
Click to expand...

No, it makes perfect sense to me. Under Batman's reasoning, Clark would be watching the skies for the signal, to see if he shows up at it. Or alternatively just looking to break it.
 
Poodlestrike said:
It really doesn't matter. Across the river or across the world, it's barely a hop skip and a jump away for Superman in any case. The physical distance is perfectly irrelevant.

What a useless nitpick.
Click to expand...
Thats why I said that it was just the first thing that came into my mind and pointed to my last couple of posts in this thread. Next time I will copy and paste them.
 
ryutaro's mama said:
And your shitty explanation for the other plot point where Superman just falls asleep when a bomb goes off because the script needed it to.
Click to expand...
That's the entire point of that whole plot point, yar? That Superman made a great blunder at that moment, when he could have seen the bomb but chose not to? It's what drove to hom that he actually fell short of the "Superman" ideal he was always chasing and what caused him to do the whole hang-up-the-mantle-for-a-journey-of-self-discovery to begin with.

Of course whether it's executed well is another matter, but I think it is conceptually fine.
 
The Icon said:
And that's what made the movie good to him. I don't understand why that personally matters to you. At least on such a way you feel the need to bash him for it. Is it too much to say you just don't agree with his assessment and maybe engage him in conversation? Or just outright ignore him instead of trying to tear his opinion apart like yours matters anymore than his does.

I'm kind of ranting here. I'm not trying to attack you but I've been seeing this a lot and not just for BvS.
Click to expand...

It wasn't my intent to bash him. I was trying to highlight how silly what he said sounded (to me) so that he would elaborate instead of going back to these points or similar points. I think it's reasonable that when you post a big long post discussing a movie in a thread that is about discussing a movie, then someone can disagree with your opinion and point out why they think your line of reasoning is odd or not well thought out.

Again I don't think anyone can like a movie just because it has "references" in it so I was trying to draw out the more contemplative answer. If that really is the be all end all of why someone likes a certain movie than to me that opinion really isn't worth considering. I hate to say "objectively" but objectively that opinion holds less weight than the opinion of someone who has put thought in past that gut reaction and can actually explain WHY they liked the film.
 
Hylianhero777 said:
It wasn't my intent to bash him. I was trying to highlight how silly what he said sounded (to me) so that he would elaborate instead of going back to these points or similar points. I think it's reasonable that when you post a big long post discussing a movie in a thread that is about discussing a movie, then someone can disagree with your opinion and point out why they think your line of reasoning is odd or not well thought out.

Again I don't think anyone can like a movie just because it has "references" in it so I was trying to draw out the more contemplative answer. If that really is the be all end all of why someone likes a certain movie than to me that opinion really isn't worth considering. I hate to say "objectively" but objectively that opinion holds less weight than the opinion of someone who has put thought in past that gut reaction and can actually explain WHY they liked the film.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree. If his why was because he saw his favorite characters depicted to his liking and specific scenes he liked and he giggled like a maniac at references and it all resulted in his enjoyment than that seems more than valid to me. On the other hand if none of those worked for you and you spent the whole movie shaking your head than that is perfectly valid as well.
 
Scrooge McDuck said:
That's the entire point of that whole plot point, yar? That Superman made a great blunder at that moment, when he could have seen the bomb but chose not to? It's what drove to hom that he actually fell short of the "Superman" ideal he was always chasing and what caused him to do the whole hang-up-the-mantle-for-a-journey-of-self-discovery to begin with.

Of course whether it's executed well is another matter, but I think it is conceptually fine.
Click to expand...

It's worth pointing out that earlier he tells Lois that he does not care what other people think and (in a way) his mother reinforces that with her little speech. The never looks at those he could not save or (to keep it in line with the stupid Jonathan Kent vision) those that got injured as a result of him. I think in the hands of a capable director these things could have worked well together.
 
Scrooge McDuck said:
That's the entire point of that whole plot point, yar? That Superman made a great blunder at that moment, when he could have seen the bomb but chose not to? It's what drove to hom that he actually fell short of the "Superman" ideal he was always chasing and what caused him to do the whole hang-up-the-mantle-for-a-journey-of-self-discovery to begin with.

Of course whether it's executed well is another matter, but I think it is conceptually fine.
Click to expand...

It wasn't necessary. If they played Superman being extremely reflective following the events of MoS (a logical conclusion for the loss of life there) then he could have gone through those beats independent of another tragedy he failed to stop. See, my comments on Superman from my review:

ryutaro's mama said:
Superman...wow...ok. where do I start? He doesn't feel like Superman at all, and certainly not like a Superman in a post Metropolis world. He isn't introspective at all. He cost the world thousands of lives and even if it was collateral damage, he doesn't seem moved by it. The first we see him, he is driving an African warlord through a wall. Where is the reflection? A missed opportunity....what might have been is, having the film open with Superman in the north, in solitude. Maybe this is where you work in the scene with Pa Kent's ghost. Perhaps, the narrative is while he works a day job at the planet trying to move on, he spends his alone time in the fortress broken by the guilt of what he let happen. He still does a save or two, but he is having a hard time coping with the loss he was part of causing...i'll put the fanfic to the side for a bit and come back to it later...Superman feels inconsistent with the world he lives in. He finally comes to Capitol Hill and is once again, powerless to stop the loss of tons of people. The explosion scene was weird and did less to solidify Superman's eventual redemption. The only time it is even brought up, is on Lois' patio and he is sulking, not emotionally broken. As a Christ analog, it was so weird seeing him perform this way. When doing saves in this film, Superman seems so blah about doing any of it. The Dia De Los Muertes scene showed it all. Resigned to a fate of helping people...that isn't the Superman I know or even the one introduced in MoS.
Click to expand...
 
Just saw it. I liked it.

They established a universe with Man of Steel and this film stays true to that universe. The characters, and most of the actions they make, make sense in that established universe. Like Man of Steel this film has interesting ideas but the execution is flawed from time to time.

I like the fact that this film really goes for the Superman = Lois and Clark, but they should have earned it a bit more. That could have been executed a bit better for example. But near the end when Superman is dead and you see Lois and Clark lying there between God (WW) and Man (Batman) that was pretty well done.

From the start I knew this film would serve as a set-up for a Justice League film. I liked the Flash sequence. I really enjoyed WW. I didn't like Diana going on her laptop looking at those videos.

Now that I'm writing this I'm actually looking forward to go see it again. There are a lot of things in this film that I like. I'm personally not that bummed out by Batman killing. Once again, it makes sense in this established universe. For all the things this film tries to do it does a decent job. I thought the editing was sloppy at times but overall pretty decent.

Like in the opening of the film the editing does a great job of establishing the entire film. From a young Bruce Wayne to the origin of Bruce's grudge towards Superman and him looking towards the sky and you just see him thinking about how he can beat such power. The film then takes us to the thing that allows Batman to have a chance against Superman. Cut to the desert and the set-up of Lex's plan with his henchman and the aforementioned Lois and Clark = Superman. Than the fallout of Superman's actions there and cut to Lex wanting kryptonian tech.

In those first 15 minutes the board is set and the pieces are on it. Never for a moment it left me wondering why those cuts happened and it basically made the rest of the film pretty easy to follow, with the exception of a few sequences.

Would it be a better film if it would do half the things the studio needs it to do now? Absolutely. But overall it's not as bad as I thought it would be and as I as I said before I'm looking forward to re-watching it.
 
How did the special bullets somehow setup Superman as the killer of African soldiers?
They should have tried mimicking his laser sight atleast or something
 
Houndi101 said:
How did the special bullets somehow setup Superman as the killer of African soldiers?
They should have tried mimicking his laser sight atleast or something
Click to expand...

This is probably my least favorite plot line in the whole movie and it makes less and less sense the more you think about it.
 
Houndi101 said:
How did the special bullets somehow setup Superman as the killer of African soldiers?
Click to expand...

Uhm, that wasn't the point? The way I saw it, it wasn't the killing of the soldiers that Superman got blamed for but the power vacuum he created by taking out the warlord. Which wouldn't have happened if Lex's henchmen hadn't shot up the place and unmasked the secret agent.
 
FeD.nL said:
Uhm, that wasn't the point? The way I saw it, it wasn't the killing of the soldiers that Superman got blamed for but the power vacuum he created by taking out the warlord. Which wouldn't have happened if Lex's henchmen hadn't shot up the place and unmasked the secret agent.
Click to expand...

I think that's a stretch. He even came out and said, "I didn't kill those men."

Why would he say that defending himself unless he was getting accused of it?
 
jrh2 said:
This is probably my least favorite plot line in the whole movie and it makes less and less sense the more you think about it.
Click to expand...

The whole Lex Luthor plot is fucking stupid. This Batman already thinks that Superman is a dangerous entity. That's clearly established in the first 5 minutes of the film, everything else is pretty unnecessary, and overkill.

And Lex essentially does a hostage situation to force Superman into action, so that's hardly something which requires 90 minutes of screen time to set up.
 
jrh2 said:
I think that's a stretch. He even came out and said, "I didn't kill those men."

Why would he say that defending himself unless he was getting accused of it?
Click to expand...

Where did he say that? I thought he was completely silent during the senate hearing. But then I must have missed and if so then I'm wrong with how I interpreted that sequence.
 
El Topo said:
It's worth pointing out that earlier he tells Lois that he does not care what other people think and (in a way) his mother reinforces that with her little speech. The never looks at those he could not save or (to keep it in line with the stupid Jonathan Kent vision) those that got injured as a result of him. I think in the hands of a capable director these things could have worked well together.
Click to expand...

Yes, I feel like the film has some interesting ideas that are both weren't given enough space to breathe. Instead they chose to put allocate time and emphasis on weird things like that dream of Batmonster coming out of Martha's grave (seriously, what the heck was that? Is it another reference to something?) and highly dramatic and overlong scene of Batman standing on top of that tower overlooking the smuggling port, with high-tension music and vocal and everything.

ryutaro's mama said:
It wasn't necessary. If they played Superman being extremely reflective following the events of MoS (a logical conclusion for the loss of life there) then he could have gone through those beats independent of another tragedy he failed to stop. See, my comments on Superman from my review:
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that my only exposure to Superman are Superman Returns and Man of Steel, so I am neither particularly interested in nor well-equipped to approach the discussion about Superman's characterization from how much he feels like the Superman of the 75+ years of comic history.

Again, I think it is conceptually fine, even coming from the destruction of MoS. Superman at the beginning of BvS was in denial about the whole collateral damage thing but was clearly stressed out, as evidenced by him looking like he's smelling fart all the time and his whole lashing-out crusade against Batman for not chasing the same ideal he chased. It took a undeniable, complete blunder at the Capitol Hill to make him realize that "Oh my God I'm not Superman".

They could have included some build-up scenes to expound on this more instead of a largely irrelevant mini-story that would tie to Justice League: Infinity Stones or whatever.
 
I know that this movie will probably do very well with audiences and be a financial success-ish, but bad critical response harms the overall brand.

So after the heat dies down in a few weeks, anyone want to do a thread to calculate how long it is before Snyder and Terrio are removed/demoted?

Or how much executive meddling will go into play for Justice League.
 
FeD.nL said:
Where did he say that? I thought he was completely silent during the senate hearing. But then I must have missed and if so then I'm wrong with how I interpreted that sequence.
Click to expand...

It wasn't during the hearing, you're right about him being silent then. He said it some other time, I don't remember when, but I'm absolutely sure he said it and that the implication was that he killed the soldiers.

I mean the bullets looked odd... maybe the implication was that they were special alien bullets that only Supes could have? I dunno. If that was the idea then they totally overlooked actually saying that.
 
I want to know how long the people that said it was good change their mind to it was ok/bad? I also want to know how long the people that say it was the the biggest pile of crap ever say it was ok/bad?
 
FairyD said:
Is it really that bad?
Click to expand...

It's really boring. I had low expectations, too. I expect a movie to entertain me at the very least. First 90 minutes is the the movie trying to setup the fight, finding "reasons" (more like excuses) for something like that to actually happen. Nothing that could be construed as entertaining happens. The plot is just a whole bunch of nonsense. Then the fight happens. And most of the fight is in the trailers. If you've seen the trailers, you've seen this movie.
 
Beefy said:
I want to know how long the people that said it was good change their mind to it was ok/bad? I also want to know how long the people that say it was the the biggest pile of crap ever say it was ok/bad?
Click to expand...

On Tuesday I put it at B-, which to me is tepid enjoyment/okay. Maybe I'll drop it to C+, because I've been told B enters the "good" range, although it's a negligible difference.
 
jett said:
It's really boring. I had low expectations, too. I expect a movie to entertain me at the very least. First 90 minutes is the the movie trying to setup the fight, finding "reasons" (more like excuses) for something like that to actually happen. Nothing that could be construed as entertaining happens. The plot is just a whole bunch of nonsense. Then the fight happens. And most of the fight is in the trailers. If you've seen the trailers, you've seen this movie.
Click to expand...

Seriously, I feel like the actual Batman vs. Superman fight itself was 5 minutes tops. The fight with Doomsday was longer.

skljfl;asfjhklashgfpdhklsjfgdloshfgfghosildfnsn
 
Uzumaki Goku said:
Well, the cast seem despondent. I gotta say I feel sorry for them. Their hearts were in the right place I'm sure.
Click to expand...
I do believe nobody sets out to make a bad film. And by the nature of the medium unless you're really talented it's hard to know whether you've done well or not until all the pieces are assembled.

That said I still can't quite believe that the same WB that looked at a promising young director with some great films under his belt and took a risk and gave him the reins to Batman looked at Snyder's back catalogue (and Watchmen) and gave him DC Universe in totality to shepherd.

Just plain weird. They needed to try and find another emergent talent like Nolan who could deliver something interesting with the material not give it to a director whose talents are best suited to making short action sequences and pretty much nothing else.
 
So, the movie is all over the place. It was interesting till Doomsday showed up and we got another boring CGI fight.

Best Batman, he nailed it and I loved Lex. Didnt care about Wonder Woman, just shows up and joins the fight, whatever.

Its not that bad, but the 2nd trailer spoiled everything.
 
Beefy said:
I want to know how long the people that said it was good change their mind to it was ok/bad? I also want to know how long the people that say it was the the biggest pile of crap ever say it was ok/bad?
Click to expand...

It will depend on the second viewing.

I hated Man of Steel from the first viewing and it only got worse to the point where I'll never watch it again.

I enjoyed BvS despite the pacing and editing problems, if I see plot holes or other stuff that really annoy me I'll be less enthused. But Batman fans melting over how the character is scripted in the movie (Batman can't kill omg noooo etc) is pleasing me greatly, now they understand why Superman fans were fuming in Man of Steel (and not just for killing Zod but how they got the character completely wrong).

Random nitpicks: Jonathan Kent has sure put on a lot of weight since he died
Zod's hair still grows while dead ? hmmmm!!!
 
As the movie began and you knew Bruce's parents fate I thought of two things:

The Flashpoint story -
TOXWj.jpg


...and how both moms are named Martha (Wayne & Kent).

In that crazy dream with the Superman Army, who were the bug/flying people?
 
I just watched the movie. I loved the Excalibur symbolism, and the new Alfred. Disliked Superman and Zuckerberg. Batfleck was ok.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
When you read a book and it has a song, do you sing it?
13
92
bitbydeath replied
Superman | Full Trailer
2 3
109
910
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