MooseKnuckles
Banned
I think I figured out which other famous pop-culture dad inspired Pa Kent's mountaintop speech
A true inspiration
A true inspiration
-
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
As someone who has never read comics or had any affinity for any comic book characters, and as someone who's enjoyed most of the Marvel movies, I have to say this is absolute trash. It's laughable how awful it is, Batman was cool, and Jeremy Irons was great, but that's it. So many ridiculous moments, awkward lines, stupid scenes. Can't believe they're going to let Snyder continue with the JL movie. Eisenberg was infuriatingly awful.
Very well said. This is the crux of the problem of the movie for me. Conceptually, it just doesn't work when there is no clear conflict between the two characters that are supposedly opposing each other.
That has literally nothing to do at all with what he was saying, but okI think I figured out which other famous pop-culture dad inspired Pa Kent's mountaintop speech
A true inspiration
She was coming to see what happened to Clark.
Anyway I do love Amy Adams, but I don't feel fully enthusiastic about her portrayal as Lois. I'm not an expert on what the character is in all the comics, etc, but the best live action Lois for me remains Erica Durance from the Smallville tv series. Very sassy/fiery. Yet Amy's version has none of that vibrancy. I think Amy in her natural state (with all the talk of thinking Gal and Henry are hot, etc) is more Lois than her acting as Lois.
Keaton didn't really have the whole "broken and emotionally compromised over time" excuse Affleck had though. Keaton was killing people day 1.
I am a very texually focus'd critic. I am not opposed to using outside sources, but the primary source above all else is the film itself.
The actual problem of Man of Steel's destruction was that Superman was not showing a strong regard for people. And while he does philosophize a great deal on the nature of his actions in BvS, that's not the same as having regard for people themselves. Even as he's saving them, he's extremely distant. In the montage we get where he's randomly saving people, he's slack faced, grimacing, but never looking happy at the good he's doing, or showing joy at how the people he's saving are thanking him. Showing he cares about the people he saves means...well, showing it. There's so many ways to do this. Have him know their names, maybe accept their gifts, just fucking talk to them and not whatever this is.
He has people literally trying to touch him, and he's off staring at who the hell knows what, as if he's not even registering they're there.
So how should he have done it differently? Well, how about he actually talks to people, for a start. How about him just asking if the person he just saved is okay, or trying to find out about them, or whatever. This would be so simple to do, just have a person cut into the montage where they talk about a conversation they had with the guy. As it is, Superman is, if anything, more distant and inhuman than he was in man of steel. He doesn't cause as much death by proxy of destruction, but Lois and Martha and his Pa Kent hallucination are the literally the only people in the movie he actually talked to as a human being.
Snyder accidentally made Superman have little regard for the human life around him by engaging in too much destruction. The actual fix was to strengthen Superman's regard by depicting him caring for the people he saves. Talking about it in the abstract and then engaging in the same level of destruction in a 'safe space' doesn't fix the actual problem.
MooseKnuckles
Banned
I mean, it's an exaggeration but the core of Kevin Costners message is that even the noblest of intentions can cause unexpected consequences, and those failings will haunt you.
If you combine that with his message to Clark from MoS that he shouldn't be using his powers in fear of people turning on him (I think that was the general vibe, only watched MoS once on release), it isn't a stretch to say that the main thrust of what he's trying to get across is that superman shouldn't try to help those in need because of the potential for failure. Further compounded by Martha's 'you don't owe them a damn thing' line.
I just found it strange that his parents seemed to be promoting self-interest so heavily, it feels more natural that as characters they should be the ones inspiring him to help others, not preventing it.
Saint Gregory
Member
I'm reading Miller's TDKR for the first time and it's making my head hurt because now I see all the concepts this film tried to lift from it while at the same not apparently not understanding any of it.
It feels like the writers tried to apply Batman's doubts about himself at this late point of his career and the public debate in Gotham about Batman's actions to Superman in the Snyderverse. It may explain the lack of contrast between the two characters in BvS. They probably thought it was really clever to adapt TDKR this way when it would have made a ton more sense to have just done a straight adaptation instead. I guess the big problem would have been Superman's role would have been significantly diminished and this movie was originally intended to be MoS part 2.
The other thing that stands out to me is the extent to which, at least so far, Batman is trying to still keep his #1 rule intact to the point where he's going out of his way and even risking his life to save some of the bad guys. Really big change from Batfleck.
It feels like the writers tried to apply Batman's doubts about himself at this late point of his career and the public debate in Gotham about Batman's actions to Superman in the Snyderverse. It may explain the lack of contrast between the two characters in BvS. They probably thought it was really clever to adapt TDKR this way when it would have made a ton more sense to have just done a straight adaptation instead. I guess the big problem would have been Superman's role would have been significantly diminished and this movie was originally intended to be MoS part 2.
The other thing that stands out to me is the extent to which, at least so far, Batman is trying to still keep his #1 rule intact to the point where he's going out of his way and even risking his life to save some of the bad guys. Really big change from Batfleck.
You're literally twisting the scene in the movie in order to justify your viewpoint.
Superman is seen smiling, happy, warm and gentle as he recovers the girl and gives her back to the arms of his mother. As the crowd starts to worship him, he starts to become more uncomfortable, for OBVIOUS reasons. He is not comfortable with people worshiping him, as they clearly are. This one scene alone encapsulates a good portion of his character's arc. A man who wants to do good and likes doing good but is distraught and unsure at how his actions are making others view him.
When does he say this?
Okay, so he has one scene.
How about another? What about the other scenes where he's not showing any kind of joy at saving people? How about when the crowd stops worshipping him, he says "Hey, guys, can you stop that? I'm no god, I'm just a guy that is trying to do right here." You're not really refuting my main point, which is that Superman doesn't actually talk to the people he's saving enough, if not at all. That scene you're talking about pretty much describes the root of the problem. Even if he's happy saving people, he's not communicating that effectively.
If he's not comfortable with people worshipping him, how about he cuts the socially awkward penguin act and just starts talking with people if he doesn't want them worshipping him. And if people insist on worshipping him despite that (which they would, atleast a good deal of them), then that's on them, because Superman is doing his utmost to undercut that interpretation.
I mean, you are projecting what you think he should be as opposed to what he is imo.
This guy grew up isolated from others due to the awakening of his powers. His reaction and anguish towards how others perceive him and how he acts due to it is very much in line with his character as depicted in the films. I mean for one, imagine, the hubris it takes for a man to actually exclaim out loud "now now everyone, I am no god, but thank you" That isn't Clark in these movies.
I don't know, I just see a lot of criticism based on what people are perceiving they think Superman should do, while disregarding that there is a character arc in these movies, and the character grows within that context and the world they have presented, not based on pre-conceived notions of what Clark "should do"
Kevin Smith said it was as if Snyder read the fourth issue of DKR without ever reading the first 3 not any of the 50 years of stories prior to it that give that issue meaning.
Spot on.
People have this pre-conceived idea of what these characters "should do" but they don't take into consideration that Superman for example is still very young to this whole superhero thing, he is conflicted about what people think of him. People want the end product superhero from the comics but that approach would be so boring in a multiple movie format. He will get there just not right now.
Batman has lost his patience, he is old, 20 years fighting crime, watching loved ones die, seeing crime continue to rise and now this "God" that could potentially destroy the world. The impact that has on him as a human being completely justifies his actions in this universe.
This line of reasoning makes no sense, and never has.
What possible criticism can there be of anything without some kind of reference point of what it 'should be'. it's not possible to deem something bad without having an idea of what is good, what it 'should be'.
Suppose that BvS was nothing but Batman and Superman staring at each other for two hours without doing anything. Give me a criticism of it that doesn't involve some form of the stating a movie shouldn't be two hours of two guys staring at each other. No one would want to watch a film that's two hours of two just staring at each other, but anything anyone says could be countered with "You're projecting what you think the movie should be, when what it is is two guys staring at each other for two hours" and that would be as valid there as it is here.
What superman of Snyder's universe is is cold and distant 'hero' that never actually connects with the people he's saving, and that coldness contributes to everyone thinking he's some diety, which is basically the root of all his problems in BvS, while he does nothing to try to fix that problem. That makes him a character that lacks any sort of agency, and he spends the rest of the film naval gazing the philosophical idea of what it means to be a hero instead of just connecting with people.
And this isn't a comic book faithfulness thing, just to be clear. I have no insistence of Superman adhereing to his comic roots. This is a simple matter of "Oh no, people see me as this godlike figure and can't see the real me! What do I do?! Surely not talk to them so they get to find out the real me..." I say this is bad characterization on the principle that this has let to a very dull movie imo, so yeah, I feel pretty secure in saying that this is not what this 'should be'.
It takes hubris to proclaim humility? Wha...?
I don't know about others, but I've discussed his character arc at length. It's very poor, so yeah, again, I don't feel it 'should be' poor. I didn't think that saying writing in movies shouldn't be bad would be a controversial opinion, but apparently it is.
CosmicGroinPull
Member
Some gorgeous concept art
That last one could be made into a poster for the movie tbh.
Ummm... did they draw this before or after Gal Gadot was cast?
Would you suggest that she is ... Too skinny?
I mean, the problem is you keep twisting what the movie actually presents on screen in order to back up your view of the characterization
It's absolutely fair to criticize a character arc, obviously everyone has their definition of what is good in order to criticize what they deem bad, but when there seems to be willful or perhaps negligent misrepresentation of that character in order to back up said criticism, it becomes hard to agree that it's a fair criticism, and that is further muddied by the fact that there is without a doubt a decent chunk of people who absolutely do project onto this character values that they feel he should have due to their like of one particular representation over another. I mean, again even in this post you say Superman never connects with the people he is saving, when there is literally a scene showing him in that situation.
Criticize the character arc all you want, criticize the plotting and construction as well ( I do too, it's a mess), but in the end I suppose you did not see the movie I did when it comes to how Superman was portrayed. I know others recognized what I did, and others see it as you did as well, which is interesting, but yeah....
PowderedToast
Junior Member
i really like the visual of superman wrapped in his cape.
also brings to light how thin gal gadot's wonder woman is. i would've preferred for her to be more muscular and thicker, if only to have a different kind of female body type on screen
CosmicGroinPull
Member
Nope, but people who have been saying so can now point to that drawing and say: 'See, even they think she should be more built'... LOL
Well, if you feel I'm misrepresenting the movie in some way, call that out, because this whole "should be" discussion has nothing to do with anything. As for other people, I don't know what everyone else is doing, I'm only in charge of my own arguments against it.
I think I've adequately backed up what I mean, and even posted a gif demonstrating Superman's distance from the people around him. If his issue is that people see him as nothing but a cold, God-like figure, the first and most obvious thing to try is to tell people "hey, guys...seriously, it's not like that.", yeah, he should probably do that, not just...nothing. The senate meeting is stated to be the first time Superman's communicating with people, and if he wants to avoid that, that simply shouldn't be the case. A matter of both character agency and common sense, which is something most people want to see. It's a very dull movie when you have a character who has a problem, has a means to potentially solve that problem, and just doesn't do it and is sitting around being miserable because of that problem.
But fine, lets say you want to see a movie like that. What is the benefit of this? I probably won't agree with you, but don't worry about that, I just want to hear what the theoretical benefit is supposed to be. What do we as an audience gain from superman just sitting around and naval gazing about his issue that we can't get from actively seeing it in action when he's interacting with people and can't get rid of the god perception however hard he tries. I mean, usually, the goal is usually SHOW, don't TELL, as much as possible, but you seem to be arguing that telling Superman's philosophical dilemma is the better path.
If you can mount a convincing argument for why that makes for the better movie, I'll be pretty impressed, even if I don't agree with it. But don't just tell me I'm twisting what is being shown, because I'm not. I've made every effort to support my arguments with the movie, and the conclusion I've come is Superman lacks character agency to even try and solve his problem and his thematic issue doesn't actually get resolved, not with Batman's fight, nor with the Doomsday fight (in the sense that people have stopped viewing him as a godlike figure. I don't consider people switching their view points from a uncertain god to benevolent god as a fix to the issue that he's had). And through all that, it doesn't leave me with the feeling that good stories leave typically leave me with.
And yes, I don't think that 'should' happen. Again, call me crazy, but I just wouldn't have thought that the opinion that writing in a movie should be good would be that outlandish and controversial, and this isn't, so yes, I don't think BvS should be a bad movie, even if that's what it is.
D.Lo
Member
I just thought of a new one (probably already thought of)...
So Wonder Woman has been around for 100 years right. And she's been in hiding, but came out of hiding to help when she saw a kryptonian bad guy destroying a city right?
So why didn't she appear last movie, when three kryptonian were destroying way more stuff AND Zod was using two giant machines to terraform earth and kill every single person on the planet?
So Wonder Woman has been around for 100 years right. And she's been in hiding, but came out of hiding to help when she saw a kryptonian bad guy destroying a city right?
So why didn't she appear last movie, when three kryptonian were destroying way more stuff AND Zod was using two giant machines to terraform earth and kill every single person on the planet?
Because she wasn't in Metropolis at the time??
She was on the plane about to leave before seeing that shit on the TV.
D.Lo
Member
So she needs to see stuff on TV?
Zod sent a message about his impending invasion worldwide in the last film, days before the destruction. You might have thought most of the world would be watching.
And it's not like she's living in some log cabin, she's someone who flies around stealing flash drives from millionaires.
She could have been in Themescira, which is cut off from the rest of the world.
D.Lo
Member
So how did Lex know about her, and how did she know Lex had files on her.
Or maybe a wizard did it.
I just meant during the Zod episode. This is assuming she can just travel in and out as she wishes, and isn't banished like in some stories.
You're literally complaining about nothing.
We don't need a scene of lex looking for meta humans after Man of Steel events, it's a completely useless scene when the movie already tells you he doesn't like them and hates/fears them.
That's not what he's complaining about.
It's entirely trivial though. It adds and takes nothing away from the plot to be addressed. How did Lex know about any of the others? Because he looked for them. That's all there is to it.
His question is how Wonder Woman knew he had files on her. It's not entirely useless, as Wonder Woman's understanding of the modern world will be pivotal in the coming years as she gets characterized, I guess.
I agree that it's not something strictly necessary to show, but even if it's not necessary to show, it's good to have a reason for why things happen that aren't explicitly shown. It helps keep the world you're writing consistent. If this was a better writer, I'd give it the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was an awesome battle of cat and mouse between lex and wonder woman where he had to work his ass off to get even just that small photo of her. Hours where he spent hunting just the idea of meta humans, then came across one slim lead, which would likely lead to a dead end like hte others, but he kept finding inconsistencies in military reports of Steve Trevor's campaign, and kept digging. Maybe Wonder Woman found out and tried to sneak some stuff away, but he managed to snatch just single photograph that confirmed her existance in the early 19th century.
This isn't worthless stuff, and having the audience concious of the fact that there is awesome stuff happening in this world even when they're not looking is a great way to get them invested into the world. Every good writer I know of has something like that going on where "There's this awesome stuff happening on the side, but that's not the story I'm telling you today" But you need to have faith in the writer for that to work. As it is, I'm pretty sure the writer just went "Uh...so he just found a photo one day, I don't know how, he's rich and evil so he probably has guys for that"
It's not unreasonable that she wouldn't be around. The span of time of that invasion in Man of Steel is incredibly miniscule despite what it seems. The Smallville and Metropolis fight seemingly happen within only acouple hours of eachother. Seems that she's already living in "man's world", hiding in plain sight by that point, but a 20 minute fight between Superman and some Kryptonians in Smallville would be over well before she could even get to the airport. And even if she wanted to help in Metropolis, pretty sure most commercial air traffic would be halted as one of the world's largest cities is literally being pounded into the ground by an alien space laser.
For all of MoS' and BvS' problems, this isn't really one of them.
I saw it with adjusted expectations and actually thought it was decent, I can at least understand why they went different ways with the characters, even though some things didn't click for me. I really hope Batman lightens up a bit now, though I'm interested how the solo movie will approach his brutal approach. I do hope someone other than Snyder/Terrio is brought in to make another Superman movie.
And yeah, Amy Adams is wasted on Lois, someone needs to be brought in to make her a better character.
And yeah, Amy Adams is wasted on Lois, someone needs to be brought in to make her a better character.
I'm late but Lois was right there when Batman told Superman to check out the ship crash site. She then sees Superman fighting a giant monster. It's a pretty safe assumption that he came from the crash site, therefore Kryptonian, therefore similar weakness to Superman. It's not that farfetched
D.Lo
Member
Exactly, she is linked to the outside/modem earth world. This isn't a Thor situation.
This is the issue with a world where super humans are not unique, following a movie which was premised on the idea that Clark was the first one on earth.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Saw it and thought it was actually pretty good. It's not going to top any Best Of lists, but it's enjoyable and leagues ahead of MoS.
RIP Hot Asian Chick
D.Lo
Member
Oh yeah I forgot about that chick. She was hot. Brutal how she died, an actually effective character moment in the film for a character (Lex).
Yeah I liked it, a mess but much more fun than the crappy MOS, mainly because it had less Cavillman.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I think having an explanation on why diana needs that photo, will help. Its pretty jarring that she needs it for unknown reason , and it became too obvious that its just a bad excuse to tie her into this movie.
And with wonder woman movie being an origin movie, i am guessing we wont get that answer at all
And with wonder woman movie being an origin movie, i am guessing we wont get that answer at all
As well as origin and being set in ww1, it is also going to have some modern elements.
Also I read in an interview somewhere, that they said in her solo film you will see the moment that photo was taken.
I don't regard that telling his dilemma is really required. I feel they show enough to make it clear. I can't speak to what other audiences want or gain from this besides me. I appreciate that his entire dilemma is shown, visually, through action, or inaction, his own, and others, and that this is for the most part not a movie where talking heads are sitting at a table verbatim discussing the theme and messages of the movie in soundbytes to each other as if it were a normal conversation to have between humans. That is not interesting to me as an audience member.
This is what I see: The character is portrayed as one who does good above all costs, has an unshakeable morality, no matter the obstacles paved in his way. That he anguishes and is troubled at the way people view him is one of his most humanizing traits, and that visibly he is unable to approach how to deal with it, again is what sells him as human to me. Superman going around telling people that he's not a god...so that he can combat this perception...this isn't in line with the character as written, both here and in Man of Steel to me. This is a challenging situation and incredibly unsettling situation for a person to be found in and Clark as we have seen him, from childhood to adulthood, is not someone equipped to properly deal with it...no one would be really. That he is internalizing it natural, to me. Really It's how this character IS, flaws and all.
And thematically, Superman is absolutely humanized through his actions to the rest of the world. Nothing says it better than the memorial dedicated to him, again showing more than telling. Gone is the god like statue of a being seemingly lifting people to the heavens, now a man buried, under ground, honored as a soldier fallen who willingly sacrificed his life to save others. Honestly, I do not even feel that a story of him coming back to life would completely undo this too, because simply by the virtue of his actions, he has shown the qualities of a man, not a god and the world has seen it, but whether this is accomplished is a discussion a few years from now when it happens.
Let me be clear, this isn't a perfect movie. But to me the way it's characters are portrayed is not a problem, at all. For me the issues are all critically pointed towards it's pacing, editing and flow. That despite all that I still enjoyed it quite a bit is due to how the characters and situations worked for me.
longdi
Banned
Another Synderlism I can think of is, he should have kept supes dead and buried at the end. The closing tease should have been darksied or that dude in the cut scene with lex. The audience would then have a better grasp of bats and lex motivation in the show.
I think there is a serviceable film somewhere despite the Synderlism. Even in TDKR there were Nolanism but Nolan had 3 hrs to work with. The movie is a 60% for me, no way is it a 28% metacritic rating. The EE may push it to 65% and then the JL movies wil make it a 68%. At least this how I see it.
I think there is a serviceable film somewhere despite the Synderlism. Even in TDKR there were Nolanism but Nolan had 3 hrs to work with. The movie is a 60% for me, no way is it a 28% metacritic rating. The EE may push it to 65% and then the JL movies wil make it a 68%. At least this how I see it.
Well, I don't agree with any of that. I mean, you're restating the basic he goes through in a highly idealized state. "Anguishes"? That's a bit dramatic. He doesn't 'anguish', he angsts. Anguish is usually associated with some kind of great depiction of emotion, Superman just kind of putzes around with a frowny face, dissatisfied with how his image is, but doesn't actually take any initiative to improve it. Guy doesn't even try until the Senate meeting, which blows up in his face, and then doesn't try again for the rest of the movie. His refusal to even try to fix the problem he has just is more eyeroll worthy to me than anything else.
And if you're satisfied with that....*shrug*, you do you, I guess. It's true there aren't truly objective rules to writing, though I feel there are certain ones that might as well be. Just know that you're in a distinct minority. People generally want proactive protagonists in all genre's across any medium, but especially so in superhero comics. And while it's not necessary to always just give the people what they want, and there certainly can be a good stories of pure naval gazing can be written (Ever read "God's Debris" by Scott Adams? Go pick it up), this certainly wasn't a well written story as far as I (and clearly several other critics) are concerned, and you can't counter that by acting as if we're inducing some kind of unfair standard by saying that a character should be proactive in their situation if they have a viable solution at hand like superman, or that seeing a character be bigoted to the point of stupidity isn't something that's good to watch.
What is reminding someone that it's a minority opinion going to accomplish? Not everything works for everyone, there will always be outliers in everyone's taste. There's lots of movies I could not give a fuck about even though tons love them, that doesn't give me pause, and there is tons I like that are universally agreed to be great and that doesn't make me feel better about it.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I think showing when the photo is taken isn't enough, unless they have an explanation on why she doesn't have the photo yet Luthor has it, at the end of the movie.
It's just a way of saying not many people agree with that opinion. It's not necessarily invalid - I have plenty of minority opinions - but it's worth knowing when what you think isn't where most people stand. Don't take it personally.
I mean, it's just odd, because virtually every creative writing teacher will advise to that you make a protagonist proactive, because inactive protagonists are VERY difficult to pull off. And, predictably, if people have something good to say about BvS at all, they usually point to Batman. I think it's partially because Affleck acting is absolutely on point, but he's also actively pursuing his desire. He wants Superman dead, so he's searching for a kryptonite, weaponizing it, and then intends to fight him to accomplish his goal. I think this Batman is a shitlord who I never want to see again, but I can understand people preferring him to Superman when all he does is putz around being depressed the world doesn't see the real him when he never shows the world the real him for no reason I can see. I've also seen Wonder Woman get more love, which you could argue is a counter since she's pretty inactive for most of the movie, but it's a matter of exposure. The movie isn't about her, so she only has to be active in one scene, and that's the Doomsday fight.
The problem is that she doesnt see anything from her view, she just go out from that building see something going on from afar, and then turns back to get the spear, from her point of view anything could be happening there, but she decides to look for the only thing that can could kill Superman.
I really like this movie, but Lois figuring out that is a big stretch, and one of the problems the movie has.
D.Lo
Member
My problem is the movie giving Lois a role at all.
For all the 'Batman is useless in the JL' jokes, at least he brings smarts and technology to the party, all Lois brings is Ralph Wiggum-style 'I'm helping'!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked