ryutaro's mama
Member
"Hey you guys got this right? Cool. I'm gonna go find Lex and beat the living shit outta him."
Batman v Superman Spoiler Thread: Don't believe everything you read, Son
- Thread starter N7Commander95
- Start date
- Status
"Hey you guys got this right? Cool. I'm gonna go find Lex and beat the living shit outta him."
I was laughing at Lex's lines at the end. It was supposed to be creepy but it really wasn't.
Also heyyyyyyy gorl!
It really was one of the best parts!
Also heyyyyyyy gorl!
Ahhhh I thought it was a setup for something. Thanks!
Ideally Clark would have seen where the kryptonite staff was, sped up to Diana, told her, kept Doomsday occupied while Diana fetched it, and then moved away to let her wreak havoc.
They both have super speed. It would have taken as much time as it did for weakened Clark to fly over with the staff.
FlutterPuffs
Member
He might be there to cover the rocket launch but yeah, Superman in this movie totally moves at the speed of the plot.
Biggest question mark was when he saved Lois falling from the building.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Oh, I didn't remember that. I thought there was one on the ground.
Smokey_Run
Member
How's he getting there? How would he even know where Lex is at that point? I think it serves a purpose for him to be hiding on the sidelines. It shows he's no physical match for these types of threats and needs people like Wonder Woman and Superman on his side.
Also, they show getting between the two cities is not easy. Lois and Bruce both have to take a helicopter to get from one to the other on short notice. Batman had no ride at that point.
There was another ground shot right before she goes for her dropped sword I think they mean. It was very close to an upskirt but wasn't framed that way. It was just how she was positioned there.
Diana was tanking hits the entire fight. No blood, no bruises, no sweat even. Real MVP. She could've done in Doomsday if the script didn't require that Superman die so it could have an emotionally manipulative (and hollow) funereal sequence after the battle. Ryutaro's right.
They had Clark's ass come back from death by nuke prior, no one in the audience believed that he died by Doomsday.
So what's the point of the final 10 minutes?
They had Clark's ass come back from death by nuke prior, no one in the audience believed that he died by Doomsday.
So what's the point of the final 10 minutes?
His death was more to forward Bruce's redemption rather than anything to do with Superman.
Maybe 1/3 of my theater stayed through the entire credits waiting for a more solid reveal. But nope.
This is a fair point. Bruce was kind of like "ok maybe I should stop being such a dick".
ambar_hitman
Member
How many of you missed Chris Pine?
How many of you missed Chris Pine?
I don't see how missing him was possible.
Jack Remington
Banned
I'm going to watch this again to see if I can find it in me to dislike it. Since apparently I'm really missing out.
There have been movies I came to dislike after an initially positive experience. Revenge of the Sith was probably the best example.
There have been movies I came to dislike after an initially positive experience. Revenge of the Sith was probably the best example.
I can see that but the film skips the necessary character beats, so Bruce's newfound acceptance feels unearned.
ambar_hitman
Member
Jack Remington
Banned
They could give him the Hellbat suit.
Guilty. Even here I have a hard time recognizing him. D:How many of you missed Chris Pine?
Cross post from the non-spoiler thread
Disclaimer: I actually like Man of Steel, and felt the movie got a lot right with Superman. The loose ends from that movie needed to be handled well in this movie. Well...
The haters were right: The movie's Batman dragging Superman into the darkness, not Superman pulling Batman into the light.
For all the talk of Superman inspiring "hope" in people and being a "savior", he does very little inspiring hope in people in this movie. Saving people and inspiring people are two separate things. Everything he does in this movie feels more like damage control for his battle with Zod in Metropolis than any real need or want to save and protect people. The Superman of Grant Morrison's All Star Superman who stops to talk a girl down from committing suicide is nowhere in this depiction.
Batman's an easier character to write because his world is a dark reflection of our own filled with psychopaths, genocidal maniacs and two-faced politicians. Superman's world is better than that merely by his existence. Having a scene with a suicide bomber killing people in the Senate with Superman in it is not something I want to see in a Superman movie. Batman (and the evils of this world) have brought Superman down to our level, a Superman without hope, which isn't the point of the character.
P.S. Luthor was written fine, but Eisenberg was a horrible casting decision. If you listen to the dialogue and ignore Eisenberg's performance, there's a decent Luthor in there, but the A-typical casting choice was a swing and a miss.
Disclaimer: I actually like Man of Steel, and felt the movie got a lot right with Superman. The loose ends from that movie needed to be handled well in this movie. Well...
The haters were right: The movie's Batman dragging Superman into the darkness, not Superman pulling Batman into the light.
For all the talk of Superman inspiring "hope" in people and being a "savior", he does very little inspiring hope in people in this movie. Saving people and inspiring people are two separate things. Everything he does in this movie feels more like damage control for his battle with Zod in Metropolis than any real need or want to save and protect people. The Superman of Grant Morrison's All Star Superman who stops to talk a girl down from committing suicide is nowhere in this depiction.
Batman's an easier character to write because his world is a dark reflection of our own filled with psychopaths, genocidal maniacs and two-faced politicians. Superman's world is better than that merely by his existence. Having a scene with a suicide bomber killing people in the Senate with Superman in it is not something I want to see in a Superman movie. Batman (and the evils of this world) have brought Superman down to our level, a Superman without hope, which isn't the point of the character.
P.S. Luthor was written fine, but Eisenberg was a horrible casting decision. If you listen to the dialogue and ignore Eisenberg's performance, there's a decent Luthor in there, but the A-typical casting choice was a swing and a miss.
There was one on the ground. I think it happened after she rolled? She smiled in it too. That's the one I think I enjoyed most.
I think this interview is referencing it. Unless it's referencing the one in the trailer as shown above?
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-wonder-woman-gal-gadot-20160324-story.html
Smokey_Run
Member
My friend and I joked when we got back to the car "Why didn't they just lay him out in the sun for awhile?" lol
Edit: I understand why, nobody was actually around to see the Sun recharge him after getting hit by the nuke.
BronsonLee
Member
Wonder Woman's just out there having a ball
Trolling Bruce
Beating Doomsday's ass
Technically getting Clark killed
Trolling Bruce
Beating Doomsday's ass
Technically getting Clark killed
TheSlySoul
Member
I never really understood the Sun in Superman context.
Sometimes it gives him strength other times it is Kryptonite.
The whole plot of Superman IV was the sun nuke villain weakened him so he was a match.
Yeah, that's what I thought too. I'm not a superman expert but they just showed him recover after the nuke because of the sun. I would have thought people like Lois and martha would know to stick him out in the sun again so he can come back to life, or is it somehow not as simple as that?
Oh well, we pretty much know he'll eventually come back to life so I was a bit bummed it ended there.
StopMakingSense
Member
Well there's your problem
I think the phrasing is important because she says other "worlds" so my mind immediately goes to Ares
It's a good thing he didn't say "Save my mom" either. He'd have been skewered.
Biggest-Geek-Ever
Member
Really did think Eisenberg's Luthor was the drizzling shits. As someone(s) pointed out, he IS Jim Carrey's Riddler to a tee.
Maybe I missed it, but I think his father went nameless right? They could in theory just introduce him as the actual Lex Luthor, even though they did the whole going bald thing (I found it kind of funny that X-Men essentially got beaten to the punch on that "big reveal")
Maybe I missed it, but I think his father went nameless right? They could in theory just introduce him as the actual Lex Luthor, even though they did the whole going bald thing (I found it kind of funny that X-Men essentially got beaten to the punch on that "big reveal")
Bruce would have stopped the second Clark said that it was his mum in trouble, no matter her name.
What am I saying. Bruce wouldn't even have been trying to kill him in the first place.
Maybe contain him or something.
Later on when they're friends and Clark entrusts him with Kryptonite he'll kind of sort of promise to kill him if the need arises. But really you know Bruce is trying his hardest to figure out a way to stop him without resorting to that.
HammerFace
Banned
I think Lex Jr. implied Lex Sr. was dead when he rambled on about his father's study and how he left it exactly the same.
I honestly don't believe that, it was only the power of the flashback that made him step back. Or at least that's what the film conveyed to me
OrochiJR
Member
I saw the film yesterday, and thought about the "Batman doesn't kill" thing and how it works in the confines of this movie.Well, he didn't actively snap someone's neck, or shot a gun at someone's face, aside from the Knightmare, but that is Elseworlds material anyway. He rather did everything to incapacitate his enemies, while leaving them to fend for their lifes themselves. Dude's could have quickly jumped of from their exploding vehicles, it isn't Bats' fault that they aren't fit enough to do so. 
Normally Batman beats his opponents up pretty badly, breaks bones and does mean shit to them. He is a big dude and knows how to fight, there must have certainly been cases of brain hemorrhages, permanent disabilites or paralysis he has caused in his wake (Not that comic books would touch upon this topic).
Alternatively it's just an old, tired Batman that stopped giving a fuck or relaxed his rule a little bit (like with the aforementioned not actively killing but not saving them either, a thing he also said to R'as Al Ghul in Batman Begins IIRC).
Normally Batman beats his opponents up pretty badly, breaks bones and does mean shit to them. He is a big dude and knows how to fight, there must have certainly been cases of brain hemorrhages, permanent disabilites or paralysis he has caused in his wake (Not that comic books would touch upon this topic).
Alternatively it's just an old, tired Batman that stopped giving a fuck or relaxed his rule a little bit (like with the aforementioned not actively killing but not saving them either, a thing he also said to R'as Al Ghul in Batman Begins IIRC).
Smokey_Run
Member
I doubt either of them know. I would question if Clark even knows it. Jor El tells him our Sun is the source of his powers in Man of Steel, but who knows if he'd even understand what it could do for him.
I think that's the thing I disliked the most about the ending. If you're going to spend what felt like 10+ minutes on his funerals, don't do the dirt bullshit! Give the audience even a second to believe he's actually dead when the credits roll. I hope he doesn't show up for half of the Justice League movie. Otherwise, what the hell was the point of killing him?
Also, what the hell did they do with Doomsday? I mean if Clark is alive, I assume the Sun can recharge Doomsday since it's basically Zod, right?
element
Member
They interviewed him on the featurette a while back. Really hard not to connect the dots. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuOvq2bD8hM
I think this Luthor is fine, we don't need to "correct" it to be closer to previous Luthors.
Making the rest of the world realize that they actually wanted him around? I dunno, I don't know what Snyder actually wanted out of it.
I don't think it's too big a deal if the audience knows he'll be back in a second. Comic readers have been dealing with that forever and it's mostly fine. Well, maybe not but whatever. I'm not so interested in superhero deaths because I expect them to stay dead, but rather how they can work narratively. (Like Bruce's death in Morrison's run.) Doesn't mean it was done well here, but I think the audience knowing a character isn't permanently dead isn't necessarily a bad thing.
BronsonLee
Member
Well that probably would've stopped Bruce too (since it gives Clark humanity) and been actually better. Him saying Martha made Bruce flip the fuck out
Alx
Member
Yeah I notice it. Also it happened just after I noticed one of the warehouses on the pier was labeled "Nicholson (something)". I guess there are many Easter Eggs hidden here and there.
(I can't believe nobody seems to have noticed all the Excalibur references...)
Smokey_Run
Member
Biggest-Geek-Ever
Member
If he tones down the histrionics, sure. I did actually enjoy his taunting of Superman as he held Martha's life over his head. More of that, please.
I do suspect, that if there is some sort of soft reboot of talent following this, Eisenberg will probably be a causality. I don't necessarily blame him for his turn here, but it lends itself so easily to be torn apart and sighted as a major weak point.
Hell yes it would have been. The only reason for having "Martha" cause this eruption of animus I can think of is to justify us having to see the Waynes gunned down for the 10,000th time.
I mean my idea of Bruce. This version? I dunno.
Pandora012
Member
Is it me or was there a Shazam reference near the beginning of the movie?
I think Alfred talks about a guy using thunderbolts.
Ehh I didn't mind Doomsday, since his whole thing is him coming back stronger and stronger. (I hope I'm remembering the right guy.) So I imagine he is going to be a bigger threat later on. As for superman's "death", I think it was necessary for this story. The people in this universe probably would never have accepted him if he didn't make that sacrifice. That and it seems like it went towards helping Bruce with his redemption. (Though not sure if that's the correct word)
I think Alfred talks about a guy using thunderbolts.
Ehh I didn't mind Doomsday, since his whole thing is him coming back stronger and stronger. (I hope I'm remembering the right guy.) So I imagine he is going to be a bigger threat later on. As for superman's "death", I think it was necessary for this story. The people in this universe probably would never have accepted him if he didn't make that sacrifice. That and it seems like it went towards helping Bruce with his redemption. (Though not sure if that's the correct word)
HammerFace
Banned
Right, that's why I was like: "Nevermind, this wouldn't even be happening."
I don't think it's out of character for Bruce to get really emotional and kind of go off like he did and not listen to reason, but it's usually limited to more intimate moments. Like people threatening his children.
Jack Remington
Banned
Pretty sure it's early on in TDK Returns where Bruce is just coming out of retirement, is stalking some goon in the shadows, and says something like, "There are eight different moves I can use on him from this position. Five of them cripple. Three of them kill." Not the exact quote, but Batman had totally killed people,by that point in the Miller story.
Saw this today, I enjoyed it after going into it with low expectations. I think calling it Batman V Superman does it a great disservice, Dawn of Justice as the single title would have felt more appropriate.
I have no qualms with this interpretation of Superman or Batman, deviation from the source material can sometimes be a good thing. The only issue I did have with the movie is the white elephant in the room, Superman's death.
It just doesn't feel earned if that makes sense. Another poster in this thread makes mention of the Stark v Rogers story thread and how it works for the upcoming Civil War. The reason why it works is because we've seen this relationship grow over the course of a few movies.
Batman and Superman have no relationship in this movie. The death just feels hollow because there's no build up to the initial fallout and then the team up against Doomsday. It's a death for the sake of being a death for shocking the viewer. Outside of that I enjoyed the ride for what it was. Man Of Steel is still a more enjoyable movie to me.
I have no qualms with this interpretation of Superman or Batman, deviation from the source material can sometimes be a good thing. The only issue I did have with the movie is the white elephant in the room, Superman's death.
It just doesn't feel earned if that makes sense. Another poster in this thread makes mention of the Stark v Rogers story thread and how it works for the upcoming Civil War. The reason why it works is because we've seen this relationship grow over the course of a few movies.
Batman and Superman have no relationship in this movie. The death just feels hollow because there's no build up to the initial fallout and then the team up against Doomsday. It's a death for the sake of being a death for shocking the viewer. Outside of that I enjoyed the ride for what it was. Man Of Steel is still a more enjoyable movie to me.
TheSlySoul
Member
I thought it was funny, wanted Batman to use it on Superman.
HammerFace
Banned
Wasn't what Clark received in the envelope at the daily planet pictures of a dude that was killed because of the branding?
He was killed by Luthor's hired goons (notice they were a series of Polaroids just like the ones Luthor showed Superman of Martha?), same way Bruce was being played by Luthor by denying the disabled guy his checks. But the movie didn't explain it very well, at all.
That was a huge issue I had, too: Batman and Superman don't meet up, compare notes, and realize they're both being played like a fiddle by Luthor. That was a crucial beat the movie really needed.
- Status