"It's time you learned what it is to be a man, Dicksplash."
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Batman v Superman Spoiler Thread: Don't believe everything you read, Son
- Thread starter N7Commander95
- Start date
- Status
Can someone explain to me why people thought Superman was responsible for the people who died who were killed by bullets in Africa?
I thought it was that it was reported the Warlord's troops came back and killed people in retribution of Superman's actions and they blamed that on Supes for some reason, but I've seen other people post different versions.
Also, why did Superman not save Jimmy?.
Superman was being held responsible for being an American intervention on foreign soil. I think this was poorly depicted in the film but if you pay attention to the minor scenes you can pick up on that. No one believed that Superman went down and shot people up. What they were asking was whether Superman showing up and 1-hit-KOing the warlord just to rescue one reporter resulted in the military response that destabilized the region further.
Superman didn't save Jimmy because his name isn't Lois Lane.
It was creating a situation where that through Superman's intervention he creates a situation that lead to a shootout causing the deaths including that of innocents.Can someone explain to me why people thought Superman was responsible for the people who died who were killed by bullets in Africa?
I thought it was that it was reported the Warlord's troops came back and killed people in retribution of Superman's actions and they blamed that on Supes for some reason, but I've seen other people post different versions.
Also, why did Superman not save Jimmy?
Hence the Senate hearing, what Superman should or shouldn't do, etc, etc. It's unilateral intervention and he is being held accountable for it, though the entire scenario was set up by Luthor
They clearly establish they are unbranded. It's why Lois wanted it analyzed by her military contact.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Gordon Shumway
Banned
This is making me uneasy considering he's besties with this dude now based on his mother's name..
fallengorn
Bitches love smiley faces
That... makes a whole lot of sense. Wished they enforced that a bit better.
BronsonLee
Member
I mean, we don't see where Ma Kent goes after he saves he-*vomits*
Ragnorok64
Member
There is literally no reason for him to have done this. Also who sent the journal back to Lois? If it was the army/government why wouldn't they have recovered the bullet from the journal, themselves. It was an international crime scene.
Eh, it puts humanity on the ropes a bit for Justice League. And if you're going to kill him, really, this is probably the best time.
Because then Lois would have even less reason to exist in this movie.
Director's cut man.
I don't think those people were in the region just to pull off that set up. They were private military contractors already in that region working under LexCorp. I mean, it's not really much of a plot hole. It just shows that LexCorp has tentacles all over the world, and works with the criminal elements all over, including in America, and Luthor himself doesn't care to be particularly subtle about it.
EAT MARTHA
Because... these are... super bullets? And because it gives a convenient excuse for Lex to face Superman at all. Because really, those plots literally only come together because Lois bothers investigating it at all. Superman has no interest in any of that stuff until she falls off the tower.
Eh, it's clearly a set up based on the mercs just starting to shoot everyone once Supes arrives
BronsonLee
Member
No wonder Bruce hates Clark so much!
That's the hope, I guess. Editing was a major problem in this movie, so hopefully if stuff gets fleshed out better, it can atleast be received as a somewhat more positive experience... though there's still plenty of bad shit.
Yes the incident itself was a set up, what I mean is, Luthor didn't put a bunch of guys on a plane with LexCorp manufactured military grade weapons to fly there just for that set up. He used people he already had in the region, doing normal mercenary work, to handle the set up. So they were already armed with military grade stuff because they are part of the conflict there.
This is the first time ive thought batman and Superman were cool in a live action film.
Mission Accomplished Snyder
Super bullets that got stuck in a book.
Superman isn't interested in a lot of things. He wasn't interested in the men Batman was chasing and murdering with the Bat Mobile either.
ah ok, yeah you are probably right about that
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Wow..this somehow didn't occur to me until just now lol.
BAHAHAHAHAHA
Goddam!
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
For some reason I thought they were kryptonite prototype bullets that were possibly intended to be fired at supes but I'm unclear on that.
fallengorn
Bitches love smiley faces
A Moleskine in your pocket can save your life.
Sibersk Esto
Banned
I'm confident that they weren't. Lex didn't even have the Kryptonite by that point.
80s Bad Guy
Banned
Maybe? But he also had that head bad guy conveniently there and everywhere, like power washing the floor at the Daily Planet (why?) and operating the flamethrower on Martha.
Wait a minute...
If Lex was planning on stealing the Kryptonite anyhow....why the fuck did he ask the Senators for permission? Was the point of killing her at the capital? To make Superman look responsible? The FBI/Government already concluded that the guy in the wheelchair was the source of the bomb. And then after the Capitol gets blown up, literally no one mentions it anymore...ever.
Goddamn, FUCK this movie.
If Lex was planning on stealing the Kryptonite anyhow....why the fuck did he ask the Senators for permission? Was the point of killing her at the capital? To make Superman look responsible? The FBI/Government already concluded that the guy in the wheelchair was the source of the bomb. And then after the Capitol gets blown up, literally no one mentions it anymore...ever.
Goddamn, FUCK this movie.
roflwaffles
Member
I actually really like Prometheus, despite knowing its not a very good movie.
I don't like this though.
I don't like this though.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
He had small amounts that he used for his experiments, the cargo hauler was significant because it was a truckload of it.
But yeah I dunno why I thought that.
They're not "LexCorp brand bullets" btw. They're not super bullets either. They're just military grade ammunition for high spec weapons which locals in third world countries usually lack. If LexCorp has illegal interests in such countries and operate mercenary units there, it makes sense they'll also arm them with the best they have - and seeing how they're also an arms manufacturer, they can just arm them with their own best stuff. The ONLY reason why Lois found out that the bullet she was investigating was manufactured by LexCorp in the end is because the US Military Guy Whose Name I Forgot told her. And he knows because the US military works with LexCorp.
You have to contort the story to have it make sense, but I'll give it a go.
Alexander "Keikaku" Luthor might have tried the legal importation route as a ploy to make Batman aware that he was bringing Kryptonite into the city; as he wanted Batman to steal it.
He killed the Senator because she didn't comply, and ...
Yeah, I'm out of steam.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
This is making me uneasy considering he's besties with this dude now based on his mother's name..
Oh god.
I think I give the ending more credit than it might deserve.
It's the one moment in the film that makes you think "Superman will return in the next scene and all will be fine", but instead actually shows some appreciated restraint by following through on the commitment of killing Superman, even though as fans we know Superman will return at some point which the film is aware of too by levitating the dirt. It just doesn't decide to be overt as the rest of the film proved itself to be too many times.
It's the one moment in the film that makes you think "Superman will return in the next scene and all will be fine", but instead actually shows some appreciated restraint by following through on the commitment of killing Superman, even though as fans we know Superman will return at some point which the film is aware of too by levitating the dirt. It just doesn't decide to be overt as the rest of the film proved itself to be too many times.
fallengorn
Bitches love smiley faces
I think the problem is, if Lex is going to covertly set-up Superman why leave something that explicitly traces back to his company. Would downgrading his mercs to regular ammunition really jeopardize the op?
Glass Shark
Banned
this movie makes so little sense that I'm starting to believe it was secretly written by George Lucas
They could have dropped a line about Lex having political aspirations as a justification for him trying to work within the system. That might have been enough for me.
Otherwise, Lex Luthor should not be asking anybody for permission to do anything.
Ragnorok64
Member
If they are made of a metal only Lexcop produces they might as well be Lexcorp brand bullets.
fallengorn
Bitches love smiley faces
It was all a ploy to cast even more doubt on Superman. Either he was complicit in the bombing or he let it go off anyway, is what was spun from it. It also pushed Bruce more into "kill Superman" mode.
Yeah I'm thinking Lex obtaining the kryptonite was his main plan but once he was denied that he was like "yeah fuck it I'll frame Superman again by killing the senator and all the other people in the courthouse"
Then once Batman steals it, Lex sees a perfect opportunity to turn him against Superman.
EscoBlades
Ubisoft Marketing
Not comicbook Doomsday.
Maybe you are thinking of Metallo, who has a kryptonite heart.
I'd like to talk about Zack Snyder's cinematography for a moment.
There is a lot of praise for the guy regarding this aspect. He knows how to make a shot look good. But does he? I don't deny that he has some measure of skill, but while he can make the aesthetics of some things neat, he uses very basic techniques, while what Whedon did with Avengers is far more complex and sophisticated.
Lets first look at how Whedon did it.
Sorry for the shitty quality.
First notice the placement about how their all standing in a circle. This makes the circular shot not only the logical choice, but it allows the viewer to get a good look at almost all the avengers. Second, look at the fact that the Avengers are all doing something. It begins with Hulk roaring, then Hawkeye notches an arrow, then Thor spins and readies his hammer in a striking pose, then Black Widow load her gun, and finally Captain America readjusts his shield (you could argue this last one is a bit weak, and I'd agree). Stark is the only one that doesn't get his own shot, but he's there in the background, settling down, joining his team, so he's not absent either. And they all do it as the camera gets to them, so there is always something for the audience to actually look at when you get to each character. This also conveys narrative information. The intentions of these characters is not just clear, it's dynamic. They're getting ready for battle, but the fact that they have their backs to each other implies trust and teamwork between the group, when they have been up to this point mostly divided (especially with Stark. While his dynamic motion is just joining the group rather than showing off his suit, he was one of the ones most resistant to a team, so his joining them is narratively significant demonstration of character development). That they're standing this way, next to one another, gives the shot a sense of narrative conclusion, that showing that something has changed between the beginning of this film and now.
In comparison, we have this.
Let me be clear, this is one of my favorite moments of a movie, one of the few parts, but as with the film in general, it falls short in a number of ways. Really, the real reason I like it is because I've waited for so long to see these 3 come together on screen to kick ass, so even if the fight itself doesn't impress me too much, them coming together does. And it's not entirely an awful shot. All the heroes look great, and the bright fire in the background helps all of them stand out.
HOWEVER
Does this shot really convey the magnitude of awesome it should, cinematographically speaking? It is shot in the most basic, plain way possible. You have the camera being stationary and zooming in, with all 3 characters just standing around. Lets be charitable and say Wonder Woman looks like she's in a battle stance, and I guess you can say Batman is readying his gun, even if it's not much. It'd work better if Wonder Woman flourished her sword a bit or something. Batman looks okay, but it kind of encapsulates how tonally off this movie is when his iconic pose in the Trinity shot is readying a gun of all things. And Superman is just...standing there, literally doing nothing. He could just as easily be waiting in line at Chipotle as in the battle of his life. And they're all stationary, their presence pretty independent of the each other, so you'd be even hardpressed to say they're standing together as a team. The only indication we have that their together now, is that they're facing the same direction, but the shot gives no indication that they trust or will now rely upon one another.
It's not a bad shot, necessarily, but Synder's shortcomings even in his supposed specialized skill as a movie maker become clear when compared to his competition.
There is a lot of praise for the guy regarding this aspect. He knows how to make a shot look good. But does he? I don't deny that he has some measure of skill, but while he can make the aesthetics of some things neat, he uses very basic techniques, while what Whedon did with Avengers is far more complex and sophisticated.
Lets first look at how Whedon did it.
Sorry for the shitty quality.
First notice the placement about how their all standing in a circle. This makes the circular shot not only the logical choice, but it allows the viewer to get a good look at almost all the avengers. Second, look at the fact that the Avengers are all doing something. It begins with Hulk roaring, then Hawkeye notches an arrow, then Thor spins and readies his hammer in a striking pose, then Black Widow load her gun, and finally Captain America readjusts his shield (you could argue this last one is a bit weak, and I'd agree). Stark is the only one that doesn't get his own shot, but he's there in the background, settling down, joining his team, so he's not absent either. And they all do it as the camera gets to them, so there is always something for the audience to actually look at when you get to each character. This also conveys narrative information. The intentions of these characters is not just clear, it's dynamic. They're getting ready for battle, but the fact that they have their backs to each other implies trust and teamwork between the group, when they have been up to this point mostly divided (especially with Stark. While his dynamic motion is just joining the group rather than showing off his suit, he was one of the ones most resistant to a team, so his joining them is narratively significant demonstration of character development). That they're standing this way, next to one another, gives the shot a sense of narrative conclusion, that showing that something has changed between the beginning of this film and now.
In comparison, we have this.
Let me be clear, this is one of my favorite moments of a movie, one of the few parts, but as with the film in general, it falls short in a number of ways. Really, the real reason I like it is because I've waited for so long to see these 3 come together on screen to kick ass, so even if the fight itself doesn't impress me too much, them coming together does. And it's not entirely an awful shot. All the heroes look great, and the bright fire in the background helps all of them stand out.
HOWEVER
Does this shot really convey the magnitude of awesome it should, cinematographically speaking? It is shot in the most basic, plain way possible. You have the camera being stationary and zooming in, with all 3 characters just standing around. Lets be charitable and say Wonder Woman looks like she's in a battle stance, and I guess you can say Batman is readying his gun, even if it's not much. It'd work better if Wonder Woman flourished her sword a bit or something. Batman looks okay, but it kind of encapsulates how tonally off this movie is when his iconic pose in the Trinity shot is readying a gun of all things. And Superman is just...standing there, literally doing nothing. He could just as easily be waiting in line at Chipotle as in the battle of his life. And they're all stationary, their presence pretty independent of the each other, so you'd be even hardpressed to say they're standing together as a team. The only indication we have that their together now, is that they're facing the same direction, but the shot gives no indication that they trust or will now rely upon one another.
It's not a bad shot, necessarily, but Synder's shortcomings even in his supposed specialized skill as a movie maker become clear when compared to his competition.
That needed to be cut, it was odd and that bit made no sense.
I might be remembering it wrong but it went something like
Senate explosion > papa kent scene > Superman saves Lois and she says, "you're back!"
So was I supposed to assume he was gone for a long time and she was surprised that he was back? Because it didn't feel like that at all.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked