Support NeoGAF

[Veelk]

Um, no.

The point is that there are 3 issues propelling Batman's desire to kill Superman: inadequacy (this super powered being comes out of nowhere, makes him feel small; resolved by a) beating his ass and b) the Martha moment shocking him into seeing him as just a person with powers), legacy ("if this super-being comes along, what good am I," again addressed by the realization that he's just a person), and finally the semi-rational fear of Superman. This is mostly a rationalization constructed to justify his feelings resulting from the previous two motivations; once they're gone, this would be weakened considerably, but even if it wasn't, Superman turns around and dies for the planet, thus making it clear that there was nothing to fear from him at all.

Batman IS fundamentally changed by the events of the second half AS A WHOLE. You don't get the cut off the ending of the movie and turn it into a gotcha.

First off, the first two you are redundant. Feelings of Inadequency could easily be the result of feeling his legacy isn't recognized in his presence. I mean, either way, it boils down to Superman making his dick feel small, so it's the same general idea.

His inadequacy is resolved by a fight where Superman wasn't even trying to fight him? And how would recognition of Superman as a person make him feel alright about his legacy? Unless Batman is a complete moron, (which is he, I guess), these issues aren't resolved at all. Batman didn't 'beat' superman, Superman just didn't want to fight him, even as he fought back (which is another issue entirely, but whatever), and Batman realizing that he's a person doesn't mean Superman's presence won't outshine is accomplishments.

It'd be better to say that Batman's resolution to the legacy is to make the JL his legacy, by organizing the team of super powered beings, if anything, but I'm willing to bet anything that it's just a happy accident we could use that as an excuse

The only resolution that works even a little is his recognition of SUperman as a person, but the previous aspects haven't been resolved at all.

 

[Poodlestrike]

His inadequacy is resolved by a fight where Superman wasn't even trying to fight him? And how would recognition of Superman as a person make him feel alright about his legacy? Unless Batman is a complete moron, (which is he, I guess), these issues aren't resolved at all. Batman didn't 'beat' superman, Superman just didn't want to fight him, even as he fought back (which is another issue entirely, but whatever), and Batman realizing that he's a person doesn't mean Superman's presence won't outshine is accomplishments.

It'd be better to say that Batman's resolution to the legacy is to make the JL his legacy, by organizing the team of super powered beings.

The only resolution that works even a little is his recognition of SUperman as a person, but the previous aspects haven't been resolved at all.

It means he can live with it.

Batman's issue with Superman is partly grounded in the same feelings Lex Luthor usually has with him. That no matter what he does, Superman can simply come along and do it better. The Martha moment makes him realize that despite being Super, he's also a Man, and that at the end of the day there's nothing wrong with being outdone by someone else. That his guy comes from a similar place as he does, a desire to help. Not some freakish alien. A man, with a mom, named Martha.

This is (except the last bit) evident, but it's not something he'd stopped and actually thought about because that's something people do from time to time, they fail to examine their blind spots. Everyone's an idiot, I guess. Under the bus with the human race!

And stop with the dick measuring things, it's not about that. Terrible metaphor. He felt helpless in the shadow of Metropolis, the legacy partially spins out of that, and the Dick Cheneyisms spin out of the both of those to rationalize them away.

 

[Dead]

Some gorgeous concept art

That last one could be made into a poster for the movie tbh.

 

[VenomBoss]

Reminds me of decent from cross paintings of Jesus.

 

[A.D. Skinner]

I think it was extremely obvious that this was what was the plan. The character is being made but people just want it all, immediately.

Zack Snyder is my guy. I'd love him as a gum buddy.

 

[jackdoe]

Zack Snyder just wanted to have some fun with the character! Which is why Jimmy Olsen gets shot in the head by a terrorist and Mercy Graves dies in a suicide bombing. That's fun, right? So fun.

A famous actor playing a fake Jimmy Olsen who gets offed in the opening minutes could actually be darkly humorous. Kind of like the Samuel L Jackson "Gotcha" moment in Deep Blue Sea.

 

[Veelk]

It means he can live with it.

Batman's issue with Superman is partly grounded in the same feelings Lex Luthor usually has with him. That no matter what he does, Superman can simply come along and do it better. The Martha moment makes him realize that despite being Super, he's also a Man, and that at the end of the day there's nothing wrong with being outdone by someone else. That his guy comes from a similar place as he does, a desire to help. Not some freakish alien. A man, with a mom, named Martha.

This is (except the last bit) evident, but it's not something he'd stopped and actually thought about because that's something people do from time to time, they fail to examine their blind spots. Everyone's an idiot, I guess. Under the bus with the human race!

The bolded is addressed literally no where in the film. No where.

And you're not really arguing anything new here. You're just saying "Yeah, I guess Batman did just kinda forget about his other issues once he saw Superman as a person."

Which doesn't change the fundamental nature of the complaint here: the plot threads regarding Batman's inadequency aren't resolved or addressed, they're just not there anymore, and you're filling it in with "Well, I guess Batman must have realized those things aren't a big deal"

I feel like conversations with you boil down to "Here's what BvS fucked up" and you reframe every blunder as "But they meant to do that, so it's not actually a fuck up"

And stop with the dick measuring things, it's not about that. Terrible metaphor. He felt helpless in the shadow of Metropolis, the legacy spins out of that, and the Dick Cheneyisms spin out of the both of those to rationalize them away.

It is TOTALLY about that. Taking a dick measuring contest seriously doesn't change what it is.

 

[tell yourself.]

Just saw the movie in imax, superman is really unlikeable and felt underdeveloped compared to batman.

Wonderwoman was fine, but again just underdeveloped.

This movie just felt so long and had left a pretty bad taste in my mouth.

the cameos were cool though

 

[broncobuster]

Hey, in the concept art Batman is helping against Doomsday!

 

[Brakke]

The only resolution that works even a little is his recognition of SUperman as a person, but the previous aspects haven't been resolved at all.

Also, Batman "seeing Superman as a person" shouldn't matter at all: Batman has so far demonstrated no qualms with deploying (even lethal) violence against people. Seeing Superman as a person resolves a conflict in which Batman hates him for being alien (which is kind of in there, but doesn't seem to be the driving thing; after all, he doesn't appear to hate Wonder Woman even after learning that she's apparently immortal), but does not resolve Batman hating Superman for 1) leaving a wake of collateral damage and 2) presenting an existential threat to mankind.

Somewhere in this thread someone came at the whole scene sideways: Batman goes on tilt because the idea of standing over a beaten man whose last word is "Martha" puts him in Joe Chill's shoes. Batman is become the monster. Which could have been an interesting idea... except that earlier in the film, Batman clearly names himself a criminal and has no qualms about that. Plus, Joe Chill sucked for leaving a sad orphan behind... Superman doesn't have anybody to leave behind so the analogy is weak anyway.

The Martha scene gestures at several worthwhile ideas, but essentially is a climax from some other (or several other) possible story just transposed into this one, where it signifies nothing.

 

[jackdoe]

Hey, in the concept art Batman is helping against Doomsday!

Wow, if they had actually staged the fight like the concept art, it would have been a lot more fun.

 

[Apt101]

I saw this a second time today with a bunch of people who hadn't seen it yet. I like it a lot less after a second viewing. The first 20-ish minutes are still brilliant, but I was able to really focus on the shortcomings more during a second go 'round.

I really don't like Lex now nor how they handled his ending segment. It was dumb.

I also realized this was easily the least entertaining and energetic Batmobile scene, going all the way back to Burton's Batman.

While the dramatic elements were actually fine, and those involving Bruce Wayne directly great, I am now realizing this was just awful for a tentpole superhero movie with Superman and Wonder Woman in it. The Dark Knight was great as its own thing, but extending that tone to something that is meant to be the cornerstone of a colorful comic world was a really bad idea.

In hindsight, WB really should have never granted Snyder so much creative freedom. He has really fucked things up for them.

 

[Poodlestrike]

The bolded is addressed literally no where in the film. No where.

And you're not really arguing anything new here. You're just saying "Yeah, I guess Batman did just kinda forget about his other issues once he saw Superman as a person."

Which doesn't change the fundamental nature of the complaint here: the plot threads regarding Batman's inadequency aren't resolved or addressed, they're just not there anymore, and you're filling it in with "Well, I guess Batman must have realized those things aren't a big deal"

I feel like conversations with you boil down to "Here's what BvS fucked up" and you reframe every blunder as "But they meant to do that, so it's not actually a fuck up"

And I feel like every conversation with you boils down to "Oh, well, I guess that happened, but I didn't like it so it doesn't count."

Seriously, it does address his helplessness and inadequacy. You might not feel like it does so sufficiently to satisfy you, but it does. They're reframing Luthor's traditional issues onto Superman. You want another parallel? Traditional Luthor never figures out that Clark Kent is Superman because he can't accept the possibility that anyone so might could be so humble. Batman never figures out that Clark Kent is Superman because he can't accept that as an out. He can't accept that someone so mighty could be so human. It suddenly reframes the whole dynamic, he's not a man out to slaughter a monster anymore.

Also, Batman "seeing Superman as a person" shouldn't matter at all: Batman has so far demonstrated no qualms with deploying (even lethal) violence against people. Seeing Superman as a person resolves a conflict in which Batman hates him for being alien (which is kind of in there, but doesn't seem to be the driving thing; after all, he doesn't appear to hate Wonder Woman even after learning that she's apparently immortal), but does not resolve Batman hating Superman for 1) leaving a wake of collateral damage and 2) presenting an existential threat to mankind.

Somewhere in this thread someone came at the whole scene sideways: Batman goes on tilt because the idea of standing over a beaten man whose last word is "Martha" puts him in Joe Chill's shoes. Batman is become the monster. Which could have been an interesting idea... except that earlier in the film, Batman clearly names himself a criminal and has no qualms about that. Plus, Joe Chill sucked for leaving a sad orphan behind... Superman doesn't have anybody to leave behind so the analogy is weak anyway.

The Martha scene gestures at several worthwhile ideas, but essentially is a climax from some other (or several other) possible story just transposed into this one, where it signifies nothing.

Batman doesn't actually hate Superman for leaving collateral damage or being an existential threat, that's just his rationalization. This is made self evident by his habit of quoting Dick Cheney. You don't have your character ape Dick Cheney unless you want to make it clear that they both don't know what they're doing and are wrong.

And as for the mooks, you're aware that dehumanizing is a thing humans do to other humans, right?

 

[KOMANI]

This relies on a fundamental misreading of the conflicts and the characters. Bruce's conflict is over his feelings of helplessness, that his legacy is going to amount to nothing, and that he feels threatened by Superman's existence. All three of these things are resolved by the end. The Martha moment is the start of his turnaround, not the end of it. If Superman hadn't sacrificed himself to save the world, who knows what might have happened? Maybe the next day Bruce takes another swing at it.



Why would the bomb make any noise at all out of the ordinary sounds he'd hear coming out of an electric wheelchair?

And what on earth else would it be but a bomb?

Why do you expect Lex Luthor's self-evidently crazy ramblings to hold up to critical scutiny? This is a man who created a worldview in which it is necessary for the powerful to be evil so he can excuse his father, who he both despises and venerates.

Of course bombs make noise, especially to the ears of superman. Forget noise... He couldn't X-ray the damn place? The guy who defiled his statue was sitting right there, he obviously knew something was wrong when the junior senator kept stuttering.
I just feel the dialogue and story were bad. They certainly weren't good.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Of course bombs make noise, especially to the ears of superman. Forget noise... He couldn't X-ray the damn place? The guy who defiled his statue was sitting right there, he obviously knew something was wrong when the junior senator kept stuttering.
I just feel the dialogue and story were bad. They certainly weren't good.

Why would they make noise? Seriously. What component of an electronic bomb is going to make any noise at all before the explosion.

They actually mention the X-ray thing after the fact, he just... didn't think to do it. He walked in there assuming everything would be copa cetic, because why wouldn't it? And then he beats himself up over it.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Of course bombs make noise, especially to the ears of superman. Forget noise... He couldn't X-ray the damn place? The guy who defiled his statue was sitting right there, he obviously knew something was wrong when the junior senator kept stuttering.
I just feel the dialogue and story were bad. They certainly weren't good.

The fact that Superman could have seen it if he was looking for it was a plot point of the film. Superman can hear everything around him at all times and has learned to specifically focus on some parts of the environment otherwise the constant noise is unbearable - that was part of the arc with his mother in MoS.

 

[Veelk]

Also, Batman "seeing Superman as a person" shouldn't matter at all: Batman has so far demonstrated no qualms with deploying (even lethal) violence against people. Seeing Superman as a person resolves a conflict in which Batman hates him for being alien (which is kind of in there, but doesn't seem to be the driving thing; after all, he doesn't appear to hate Wonder Woman even after learning that she's apparently immortal), but does not resolve Batman hating Superman for 1) leaving a wake of collateral damage and 2) presenting an existential threat to mankind.

Somewhere in this thread someone came at the whole scene sideways: Batman goes on tilt because the idea of standing over a beaten man whose last word is "Martha" puts him in Joe Chill's shoes. Batman is become the monster. Which could have been an interesting idea... except that earlier in the film, Batman clearly names himself a criminal and has no qualms about that. Plus, Joe Chill sucked for leaving a sad orphan behind... Superman doesn't have anybody to leave behind so the analogy is weak anyway.

The Martha scene gestures at several worthwhile ideas, but essentially is a climax from some other (or several other) possible story just transposed into this one, where it signifies nothing.

Humanization/dehumanization/othering is a weird concept, even though we use it every day. We can justify it with something stupid (aka, racism. Racists don't look at black people as fully developed human beings, so they consider it right that we don't regard their life as worth while) to something that is arguably justifiable (aka evil people. For instance, few people would share tears if we found that Hitler was somehow still alive and someone came in and shot him. He's evil, so his life is not worth while). It's obviously more complex than that, but the main reason we dehumanize is because it is both difficult to process large groups of people as inherently human. It probably also goes against our tribalism roots, where people where dehumanization was encouraged. Hell, the root word for just about any human civilization basically boils down to "True Human", implying other civilizations are not. But the entire concept of dehumanization is that you take a person and simplify them, make them a stereotype of themselves instead of the actual person they are. It is a practice that is inherently creates a less intellectual world view because it takes the complex and makes it simple.

What really bothers me about the whole martha scene is that Batman clearly didn't even consider Superman to be anything but an alien. I mean, it's not that he entertained the thought and dismissed it, but he was just completely blindsided by the concept. It'd be one thing if he decided that his threat as an alien took priority over everything else that he might be or something, but the fact that that small tiny bit of humanization is all that was needed for him to want to be BFF's with Superman just indicates to me that Batman is a very stupid individual that didn't so much as consider his evaluation of Superman to be one dimensional until he was literally smacked in the face with it.

 

[GhaleonEB]

This relies on a fundamental misreading of the conflicts and the characters. Bruce's conflict is over his feelings of helplessness, that his legacy is going to amount to nothing, and that he feels threatened by Superman's existence. All three of these things are resolved by the end. The Martha moment is the start of his turnaround, not the end of it. If Superman hadn't sacrificed himself to save the world, who knows what might have happened? Maybe the next day Bruce takes another swing at it. .

Kinda thought it had more to do with his anger over Superman's destruction of the city and his worry that such power unchecked could destroy the world (the 1% line). He wasn't worried about being overshadowed, he wanted to kill an existential threat.

Even granting the conflicts you described, none of them are addressed between the characters. Neither of them ever learns why the other doesn't like him. They just fight because.

 

[Brakke]

What really bothers me about the whole martha scene is that Batman clearly didn't even consider Superman to be anything but an alien. I mean, it's not that he entertained the thought and dismissed it, but he was just completely blindsided by the concept. It'd be one thing if he decided that his threat as an alien took priority over everything else that he might be or something, but the fact that that small tiny bit of humanization is all that was needed for him to want to be BFF's with Superman just indicates to me that Batman is a very stupid individual that didn't so much as consider his evaluation of Superman to be one dimensional until he was literally smacked in the face with it.

OR we're misreading the scene, and it isn't about humanizing Superman at all. Because, as you say -- and I agree -- it's a ridiculous turn that requires we also think that Batman is either a complete idiot or an irreparable sociopath.

Buuuuut I can't imagine any other reading of the scene that really flies either. So we're just left with a dumb mess.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Kinda thought it had more to do with his anger over Superman's destruction of the city and his worry that such power unchecked could destroy the world (the 1% line). He wasn't worried about being overshadowed, he wanted to kill an existential threat.

Even granting the conflicts you described, none of them are addressed between the characters. Neither of them ever learns why the other doesn't like him. They just fight because.

Actually, Supes does know (or thinks he knows) why, because IIRC Lex straight up tells him at the top of the tower that he's been goading Batman into fighting. Batman, meanwhile, isn't particularly interested. I guess that could be more statisfyingly handled.

And again, the existential threat is not his real motivation. That's part of what the "good men cruel" speech from Alfred is about, he's calling out Bruce for how his feelings of helplessness on the day of the Metropolis attacks are driving his actions to an unreasonable extent. The 1% comments are just a rationalization, and definitely not supposed to be a reasonable position for him to take. You see a microcosm of that play out in the nuke scene, the president evaluates the situation, decides the threat is too dire not to take action, takes action, and it backfires pretty much perfectly. The existential threat position is one the movie expects the audience to reject, and in the end, so does Batman.

 

[Brakke]

But nuking Doomsday doesn't backfire, it just fails.

This whole "just rationalizations" kick isn't very persuasive.

 

[Poodlestrike]

But nuking Doomsday doesn't backfire, it just fails.

This whole "just rationalizations" kick isn't very persuasive.

No, it backfires.

The goal was to kill Doomsday, yeah? Superman was in the position of taking him into space, where he couldn't harm anybody. Then they nuke him. And not only does that fail to kill him, it drops him right on Stryker's Island, a stones' throw from where they started. AND it takes Superman out of the picture, albeit temporarily (though they have no way of knowing that).

 

[Veelk]

And I feel like every conversation with you boils down to "Oh, well, I guess that happened, but I didn't like it so it doesn't count."

I generally don't like bad writing, you have me there. I do more than just say what I don't like though, I've also given lots of reasons why it negatively affects the film. If we follow your line of reasoning, then all that means is that we're watching an intellectually deficient ape rage about something he forgets when he discovers something most children would think to ask about. And if that's enough for you, fine, but what's good about this? What makes this story new, or interesting, or deep, or anything? It baffles me that "things happening" is sufficient reason for it to be good for you. How do you gauge what a bad movie is when it's own existence is by itself a credit to it's quality?

Seriously, it does address his helplessness and inadequacy. You might not feel like it does so sufficiently to satisfy you, but it does. They're reframing Luthor's traditional issues onto Superman. You want another parallel? Traditional Luthor never figures out that Clark Kent is Superman because he can't accept the possibility that anyone so might could be so humble. Batman never figures out that Clark Kent is Superman because he can't accept that as an out. He can't accept that someone so mighty could be so human. It suddenly reframes the whole dynamic, he's not a man out to slaughter a monster anymore.

I've always regarded Lex not seeing Superman's identity to be pretty moronic of him too. The reason his narcissism and ego is so eyeroll worthy is that it means he can't see what is in front of him. Thought it's not like he's the only one. I mean, people have been rolling their eyes at people not recognizing Superman with glasses since the 50's. I wish they'd drop that aspect, or atleast make it more subtle, like in Azzarello's Man of Steel, where the narcissism is there, but it's much more complex than "Well, he's so blinded as fuck by his own prejudices that Superman could wear a neon sign saying "I'm Clark Kent" and he wouldn't be able to read it"

That Lex has this same stupidity doesn't really make Batman's stupidity any less severe.

 

[Joel Was Right]

How are we measuring GAF's reaction to the film so far?

A "meh" or a "it's actually decent"?

 

[Poodlestrike]

I generally don't like bad writing, you have me there. I do more than just say what I don't like though, I've also given lots of reasons why it negatively affects the film. If we follow your line of reasoning, then all that means is that we're watching an intellectually deficient ape rage about something he forgets when he discovers something most children would think to ask about. And if that's enough for you, fine, but what's good about this? What makes this story new, or interesting, or deep, or anything? It baffles me that "things happening" is sufficient reason for it to be good for you. How do you gauge what a bad movie is when it's own existence is by itself a credit to it's quality?



I've always regarded Lex not seeing Superman's identity to be pretty moronic of him too. The reason his narcissism and ego is so eyeroll worthy is that it means he can't see what is in front of him. Thought it's not like he's the only one. I mean, people have been rolling their eyes at people not recognizing Superman with glasses since the 50's. I wish they'd drop that aspect, or atleast make it more subtle, like in Azzarello's Man of Steel, where the narcissism is there, but it's much more complex than "Well, he's so blinded as fuck by his own prejudices that Superman could wear a neon sign saying "I'm Clark Kent" and he wouldn't be able to read it"

That Lex has this same stupidity doesn't really make Batman's stupidity any less severe.

I guess I just don't regard "psychological hangup" and "stupidity" as interchangeable. Idk.

How are we measuring GAF's reaction to the film so far?

A "meh" or a "it's actually decent"?

It's more of a "Zack Snyder ate my baby." The worst movie EVER. Worse than F4ntastic 4. Worse than Catwoman.

Worse than Thor 2.

 

[Blackhead]

How are we measuring GAF's reaction to the film so far?

A "meh" or a "it's actually decent"?

Why not create new thread/poll and ask that question?

 

[MHWilliams]

How are we measuring GAF's reaction to the film so far?

A "meh" or a "it's actually decent"?

Meh. 5 or 6/10. There's a decent movie somewhere in there, but not what's up onscreen.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

How are we measuring GAF's reaction to the film so far?

A "meh" or a "it's actually decent"?

Consensus seems to be that it's not good. To what degree of "not good," that gets contested.

But people who consider it to be a legitimately good movie, full stop, seem to be a minority.

 

[Veelk]

OR we're misreading the scene, and it isn't about humanizing Superman at all. Because, as you say -- and I agree -- it's a ridiculous turn that requires we also think that Batman is either a complete idiot or an irreparable sociopath.

Buuuuut I can't imagine any other reading of the scene that really flies either. So we're just left with a dumb mess.

Yeah. I wouldn't blame Batman for falling into the "Hostile Alien" stereotype, because we are ALL subject to such things. But intelligent people are aware that they happen and do their best to try to counter that, so they have as complete and authentic understanding of things as possible. If Batman just tried to resist it, but had his fear control him despite that, that'd be one thing, but that's not what happens.

The whole Martha thing could have worked in so many different ways, but not the way it was depicted.

I guess I just don't regard "psychological hangup" and "stupidity" as interchangeable. Idk.

So I'm genuinely curious, how do you distinguish them? What is the difference because between someone who, say, generalizes all muslims as terrorists because they fear terrorism vs someone who does does the same thing 'out of stupidity'?

Because I feel they are functionally identical. Doing things like allowing yourself to make an obviously incorrect generalization and ignoring evidence to the contrary has always been what it means to be stupid to me. I honestly don't even understand what possible other definition you could have.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

It's more of a "Zack Snyder ate my baby." The worst movie EVER. Worse than F4ntastic 4. Worse than Catwoman.

Fucking LIES! LMAO

 

[Dunlop]

But nuking Doomsday doesn't backfire, it just fails.

This whole "just rationalizations" kick isn't very persuasive.

Forgetting that they were able to target a nuke in space to a human size target

- Why fire the nuke in the first place, supes could have just chucked him towards the sun and let inertia do its thing
- The impact from the nuke should have sent them both hurling away from the planet as they were already in Zero G, how did Doomsday fall back into orbit and Superman just stay in place

...ok sorry got that off my chest, the nuke itself did backfire as doomsday absorbed the power

 

[Poodlestrike]

So I'm genuinely curious, how do you distinguish them? What is the difference because between someone who, say, generalizes all muslims as terrorists because they fear terrorism vs someone who does does the same thing 'out of stupidity'?

Because I feel they are functionally identical.

I guess I'd say that even the people generalizing muslims as terrorists aren't "stupid." They're terrible people, but not necessarily stupid.

Though a lot of them probably are.

Bruce doesn't try to figure out Superman's identity, doesn't even consider that he has one, not necessarily because he's stupid, but because it's a blind spot in his psychology from the trauma at Metropolis. He decides that Superman is a monster, and that tunnels his vision down to a pinprick.

Forgetting that they were able to target a nuke in space to a human size target

- Why fire the nuke in the first place, supes could have just chucked him towards the sun and let inertia do its thing
- The impact from the nuke should have sent them both hurling away from the planet as they were already in Zero G, how did Doomsday fall back into orbit and Superman just stay in place

...ok sorry got that off my chest, the nuke itself did backfire as doomsday absorbed the power

The first is because scared people make terrible decisions, which is part of the movies' themes.

The second is just dodgy comicbook physics, lol.

 

[Veelk]

Forgetting that they were able to target a nuke in space to a human size target

- Why fire the nuke in the first place, supes could have just chucked him towards the sun and let inertia do its thing
- The impact from the nuke should have sent them both hurling away from the planet as they were already in Zero G, how did Doomsday fall back into orbit and Superman just stay in place

...ok sorry got that off my chest, the nuke itself did backfire as doomsday absorbed the power

Yeah, that Nuke made NO sense to me whatsoever.

I honestly don't understand what the point of that scene is except to show that general society holds the same shitbag attitude toward superman as Batman. Alledgedly, it also made Doomsday stronger, but I don't feel that was shown in any way in the fight. He's still all glowy and growly and shit. I think that's the point where he grew the spikes, but that could have just been a continuing part of his growth, so idk.

I guess I'd say that even the people generalizing muslims as terrorists aren't "stupid." They're terrible people, but not necessarily stupid.

Though a lot of them probably are.

You haven't answered the question. What is the distinction?

 

[rekameohs]

If they missed with the nuke and accidentally blew up some innocent town, that would've been hilarious. Would have perfectly fit in tone with the rest of the movie.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Yeah, that Nuke made NO sense to me whatsoever.

I honestly don't understand what the point of that scene is except to show that general society holds the same shitbag attitude toward superman as Batman. Alledgedly, it also made Doomsday stronger, but I don't feel that was shown in any way in the fight. He's still all glowy and growly and shit. I think that's the point where he grew the spikes, but that could have just been a continuing part of his growth, so idk.



You haven't answered the question. What is the distinction?

I guess... and I'm just articulating this for the first time so bear with me if I mess up the language...

I guess it's down to bad attitudes like that being born out of ignorance and fear rather than what I'd call stupidity. And fear is something I can understand. So's ignorance.

Stupid to me is what you call someone when their actions stop making sense, period. Like, I get why scared people make bad choices, I get why Batman fails to consider that Superman could be a person. Neither of those is "stupid" to me.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Geezuz. I'll repeat again. Any trailer for this movie ALONE is better than the whole of Fan4stic. No contest..

 

[Poodlestrike]

Geezuz. I'll repeat again. Any trailer for this movie ALONE is better than the whole of Fan4stic. No contest..

You realize I was speaking hyperbolically about the GAF reaction, not making my own assessment of the movie.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

So I'm genuinely curious, how do you distinguish them? What is the difference because between someone who, say, generalizes all muslims as terrorists because they fear terrorism vs someone who does does the same thing 'out of stupidity'?

Because I feel they are functionally identical. Allowing yourself to make an obviously incorrect generalization and ignoring evidence to the contrary what it means to be stupid.

So far there have been about 10 Kryptonians seen by humanity. ~9 of them were bent on destroying the human race on 1 was on our side. The 1 on our side did fight for us but the fighting resulted in major collateral damage. Now, the 1 on our side is (according to media reports and testimony) flying around the world and intervening in international affairs on a whim and leaving a trail of dead bodies and conflict in his wake.

This is one person, not all Muslims. He's not generalizing classes of people based on the actions of a few, he's fearing the psychological trajectory of one person whose actions appear to Bruce to be highly questionable. He's also fearing the power of this one person, because unlike any random given Muslim, Superman could wipe out humanity before breakfast and there is literally nothing anybody could do to stop him. The fate of the human race depends solely on the whims of this person. Perhaps he will simply decide to rule us as a tyrant instead of wiping us out - that's his prerogative.

The idea of weaponising Kryptonite and keeping it on hand as a backup plan in case Superman went rogue is something that even idealistic comic book Batman does. In this movie, the only difference is he's seeking to deploy it preemptively based on the collateral damage in Gotham/Metropolis and the subsequent things Lex is framing him for. Thus, the character arc is him re-evaluating and humanzing Clarke.

 

[Veelk]

I guess... and I'm just articulating this for the first time so bear with me if I mess up the language...

I guess it's down to bad attitudes like that being born out of ignorance and fear rather than what I'd call stupidity. And fear is something I can understand. So's ignorance.

Stupid to me is what you call someone when their actions stop making sense, period. Like, I get why scared people make bad choices, I get why Batman fails to consider that Superman could be a person. Neither of those is "stupid" to me.

But that makes no sense because no one ever does something literally out of nonsense. There is always some internal logic that comes to that action. Get the stupidest person in the world, ask them why they did a stupid thing, and they'll give some kind of line of logic that explains why they thought their action was the correct choice.

Post

At this point, the conversation I'm having with Poodlestick has moved on from discussing the movie specifically, but how he regards psychological hangups vs stupidty. I wasn't arguing that the case with Superman was analogous to muslims, but he makes a distinction between ignorance and fallacies vs 'genuine' stupidity, and I don't really understand it, so I brought up the example as I wanted to use an extreme example so more clearly see where he draws the line between people that use othering as a 'psychological hangup' vs 'stupidity'.

 

[RDreamer]

What really bothers me about the whole martha scene is that Batman clearly didn't even consider Superman to be anything but an alien. I mean, it's not that he entertained the thought and dismissed it, but he was just completely blindsided by the concept. It'd be one thing if he decided that his threat as an alien took priority over everything else that he might be or something, but the fact that that small tiny bit of humanization is all that was needed for him to want to be BFF's with Superman just indicates to me that Batman is a very stupid individual that didn't so much as consider his evaluation of Superman to be one dimensional until he was literally smacked in the face with it.

I don't believe this is true at all. Yes there's a bit of 'othering' going on there, but Superman being human doesn't solve the problem. Batman summarized the problem straight up in real terms to Alfred when he said "How many good ones are left? How many stayed good?" It isn't that Superman is an alien. It's that Superman, like anyone Batman has seen could turn bad. If he's doing this kind of damage while good, then on the 1% chance he turns bad, then we're all fucked. That's part of his views on it. So he is viewing Superman a bit as a human, it's just that after decades his views on humanity are kind of fucked.

Why do people keep acting like Batman suddenly became his BFF? Seriously is it because he told Superman's mom he was a friend of her son? Did people really take that line like that? He said that in order to assure her she was safe not because he was actually Superman's friend.

There were a few things actually going on at the moment he switched. The biggest was an opportunity for Batman to redeem himself of his own mother's death by finally saving "Martha." Remember, his parents' death is the big reason he's even batman to begin with. His helplessness there is kind of a big deal. So he gets this opportunity at redemption at the same time Superman is both humanized and needed to deal with something else big at the same time. Batman can't do both things at once, so yes he lets Superman go to deal with that while he gets his redemption.

Batman's full turn doesn't actually come until the end of the movie. It comes when Superman sacrifices himself and proves that some people can stay good. Some don't turn bad. The movie bookends itself with these profound funerals that change Bruce for life. His parents put him on the path to Batman and now Superman became his hope to get back on the path of believing in humanity. Read how the quotes at the beginning and end of the movie, they explain a lot about his character.

This isn't just xenophobia and he's not suddenly BFFs with superman. That stuff is reductionist nonsense. He has a sudden philosophical crisis and by the end of the movie it's mended. The "Martha" scene is part of the turning point, but it's not the point of change.

 

[Poodlestrike]

But that makes no sense because no one ever does something literally out of nonsense. There is always some internal logic that comes to that action. Get the stupidest person in the world, ask them why they did a stupid thing, and they'll give some kind of line of logic that explains why they thought their action was the correct choice.

I don't know if I'd always say that's true.

But again, part of that definition is that it makes sense to me. If someone can walk their logic through in a way that tracks, even if I disagree hugely, it's not what I'd call stupid. It might be naive, or ignorant, or hateful. But stupid? Idk.

And it's Poodlestrike D:

 

[Gordon Shumway]

You realize I was speaking hyperbolically about the GAF reaction, not making my own assessment of the movie.

"GAF" Seems to be irrational with this flick..can't be certain about much anymore lol. The game done changed!

 

[inky]

Yeah, that Nuke made NO sense to me whatsoever.

I honestly don't understand what the point of that scene is except to show that general society holds the same shitbag attitude toward superman as Batman. Alledgedly, it also made Doomsday stronger, but I don't feel that was shown in any way in the fight. He's still all glowy and growly and shit. I think that's the point where he grew the spikes, but that could have just been a continuing part of his growth, so idk.

As with many things with the movie, you could actually try to fit many ideas into having that scene which is what makes it so frustrating.

It makes sense in that the government would obviously react to this monster and destruction in some way. It makes sense to put this idea of using "ultimate measures" against this kind of power, measures that could have a negative effect on your own world. It makes sense that the discussion between the military advisers and the phone-president revolves around this decision of "should we use it even though it might kill Superman?" (considered to be their ally I guess --that aspect is still unclear to me). It makes sense to show anyone, you know, human beings reacting to what is happening, the destruction again, using nuclear weapons against this threat, even the possible death of Superman.

But like with many things in the movie it's so fucking sloppy it immediately becomes camp. Independence Day did this (speaking of camp) as many other movies probably have, and did it better, because it is better executed and the story pacing and perspective allows it. Instead of thinking about all the "big questions" it asks, as other posters put it, you are wondering about the mechanics and the editing and the whole point of it all. It seems to happen in all but 2 minutes: the conversation, authorization, deploying of this weapon, "May God have mercy on our souls", Doomsday crashing back on Earth, etc. And nothing comes off it. It becomes, like you say, a pointless thing in an already overstuffed affair.

It just seems to be there because Snyder wants to have "the moment" in his movie. Like I said before (and I'm being hyperbolic for the sake of making a point) Snyder is the kind of director that would kill Superman to have "a moment" where the American flag is folded, revealing a Superman branded black casket to a melancholic tune, accentuated by a slow motion shot of a cannon shell falling to ground. He splatters ideas on the screen but rarely develops them, and sometimes his visuals are enough to hold them up a bit. Sometimes.

 

[KOMANI]

Why would they make noise? Seriously. What component of an electronic bomb is going to make any noise at all before the explosion.

They actually mention the X-ray thing after the fact, he just... didn't think to do it. He walked in there assuming everything would be copa cetic, because why wouldn't it? And then he beats himself up over it.

The fact that Superman could have seen it if he was looking for it was a plot point of the film. Superman can hear everything around him at all times and has learned to specifically focus on some parts of the environment otherwise the constant noise is unbearable - that was part of the arc with his mother in MoS.

Haha I love how you guys are defending plot holes in the movie but using the sloppy writing to justify it. Anyway, you may quote me but I'm bowing out of this thread. Hahaha.

 

[RDreamer]

Haha I love how you guys are defending plot holes in the movie but using the sloppy writing to justify it. Anyway, you may quote me but I'm bowing out of this thread. Hahaha.

How is that a plot hole if it's explained clearly in the movie and is even a large part in the theme of Superman's arc?

 

[KOMANI]

How is that a plot hole if it's explained clearly in the movie and is even a large part in the theme of Superman's arc?

Hahaha :x. I'm out man, don't try to drag me back in this. I'm out I say!

 

[RDreamer]

It just seems to be there because Snyder wants to have "the moment" in his movie. Like I said before (and I'm being hyperbolic for the sake of making a point) Snyder is the kind of director that would kill Superman to have "a moment" where the American flag is folded, revealing a Superman branded black casket to a melancholic tune, accentuated by a slow motion shot of a cannon shell falling to ground. He splatters ideas on the screen but rarely develops them, and sometimes his visuals are enough to hold them up a bit. Sometimes.

Or he wanted to kill Superman because then the movie is bookended by the funerals that have a profound affect on this Batman's life. ... And he wanted Batman to be the one gathering the Justice League in the next movie and that seques perfectly into that.

 

[Veelk]

I don't believe this is true at all. Yes there's a bit of 'othering' going on there, but Superman being human doesn't solve the problem. Batman summarized the problem straight up in real terms to Alfred when he said "How many good ones are left? How many stayed good?" It isn't that Superman is an alien. It's that Superman, like anyone Batman has seen could turn bad. If he's doing this kind of damage while good, then on the 1% chance he turns bad, then we're all fucked. That's part of his views on it. So he is viewing Superman a bit as a human, it's just that after decades his views on humanity are kind of fucked.

I'm pretty sure actual racists don't literally view black people as having no connection whatsoever to white people as human beings, but that doesn't exclude othering. Hell, the othering inherent with nearly all the dialogue Batman has regarding him. "That freak brought the war to us" "Men are brave. You're not brave." "you're not even a man" etc, etc. It's rhetoric that classifies the target as something outside what is human. That's all that's needed. That he recognizes that Superman can be theoretically nonharmful and then become harmful like people have is like saying he must also recognize dogs as humans because they can do the same thing too.

Why do people keep acting like Batman suddenly became his BFF? Seriously is it because he told Superman's mom he was a friend of her son? Did people really take that line like that? He said that in order to assure her she was safe not because he was actually Superman's friend.

The terming is flippant, but I think it's pretty evident he wants to be allies now. Especially with his forming of the justice league afterwards. If you can take Martha's line about Superman being Batman's Friend because of the capes non-literally, then you can take my BFF quip as such as well.

This isn't just xenophobia and he's not suddenly BFFs with superman. That stuff is reductionist nonsense. He has a sudden philosophical crisis and by the end of the movie it's mended. The "Martha" scene is part of the turning point, but it's not the point of change.

You're making this out to be more than it is. That you can project these things onto the plot doesn't mean their inherent within it. I don't mind projection as far as personal experience goes, there's no reason to fix a movie up as much as possible if it's needed. But what your describing are abstract connections that can be at best placed within the open holes that the narrative leaves, not that their part of the narrative snyder is trying tell. You can fill them up, but you can't tell others to do the same if they don't want to.

I don't know if I'd always say that's true.

But again, part of that definition is that it makes sense to me. If someone can walk their logic through in a way that tracks, even if I disagree hugely, it's not what I'd call stupid. It might be naive, or ignorant, or hateful. But stupid? Idk.

Well, I guess you have just different life experiences, because I've met plenty of people who've made laughably horrific decisions, and they had some kind of reasoning for it every time. By the definition you put forth, I've apparently never met a stupid person in my life. What do you think the statistical probability of that is?

 

[Poodlestrike]

The terming is flippant, but I think it's pretty evident he wants to be allies now. Especially with his forming of the justice league afterwards. If you can take Martha's line about Superman being Batman's Friend because of the capes non-literally, then you can take my BFF quip as such as well.

I think it's evident he wants to help him rescue his mom. And he's clearly willing to view him as something other than the end of the world. But past that... the "I'm a friend of your son" was clearly supposed to be tongue in cheek, and he only really, fully turns around after Superman dies.

You're making this out to be more than it is. That you can project these things onto the plot doesn't mean their inherent within it. I don't mind projection as far as personal experience goes, there's no reason to fix a movie up as much as possible if it's needed. But what your describing are abstract connections that can be at best placed within the open holes that the narrative leaves, not that their part of the narrative snyder is trying tell. You can fill them up, but you can't tell others to do the same if they don't want to.

I'd say he's right, honestly. If for no other reason than he's killing mooks before Superman's death and declines to kill or brand Lex afterwards. Plus he outright talks about it.

The connection definitely does exist. It might not be explicit enough for a lot of people, but it's there.

Well, I guess you have just different life experiences, because I've met plenty of people who've made laughably horrific decisions, and they had some kind of reasoning for it every time. By the definition you put forth, I've apparently never met a stupid person in my life. What do you think the statistical probability of that is?

By my definition? Pretty good.

Duh.

 

[RDreamer]

The terming is flippant, but I think it's pretty evident he wants to be allies now. Especially with his forming of the justice league afterwards. If you can take Martha's line about Superman being Batman's Friend because of the capes non-literally, then you can take my BFF quip as such as well.

So how is that a sudden shift? By the time he wants to form the justice league, superman is dead. Batman doesn't know he's in a movie universe and superman will be back. He's just dead. He also knows now that threats will be much bigger now and he needs people like Superman to fight them. He can't anymore. His legacy now depends on this.