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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saw this earlier. For people that don't like Martha scene.

http://imgur.com/a/DIdY8

It still doesnt help anything more

In fact I think the person who made those pictures has misintepreted a little. He didn't see Superman as an enemy of the world. He sees him as a walking timebomb.

Even viewing Superman as a human in the end, doesn't change that fact. Even Bruce Wayne himself said so. If there's a 1 percent chance that he's their enemy, they have to destroy him.
 
You can make anything sound dumb by removing all context.

For me, it isn't less dumb with context. Like I said, Batman lacking both self awareness as to what he was doing and basic intelligence to try and understand as Superman as something other than a threat is the actual stupid element of the movie. That it's reversed by something (as in, that it is what triggers the reversal of that mindset) as unbelievably trite as their mothers having the same name is really just the cherry on top. People are saying there are good ideas badly executed in this movie, and that's true to an extent and I'll even be the first to say there are no truly bad ideas....but all that said, it's hard to make a Batman/superman conflict without going out of your way to have one of them act really stupid and definitely shouldn't have been the way these characters first met.
 
It still doesnt help anything more

In fact I think the person who made those pictures has misintepreted a little. He didn't see Superman as an enemy of the world. He sees him as a walking timebomb.

Even viewing Superman as a human in the end, doesn't change that fact. Even Bruce Wayne himself said so. If there's a 1 percent chance that he's their enemy, they have to destroy him.

Yep, the 1% line in particular just kills the whole thing.

It's dumb with or without context.
 
You're grasping at straws. When people want to make fun of something, they don't deliberately misrepresent it, they repackage it with some hyperbole "Lol, they friends cuz their mom's have the same"

LOL. You can see it however you want if it makes you sleep better at night. Look at all of the posters above and below you though if you want further clarification.

Wait, did you make the comic?
 
Yep, the 1% line in particular just kills the whole thing.

It's dumb with or without context.

That line reminds me of this for some reason.

giphy.gif


I guess they both don't make sense.
 
I've been thinking about the Martha scene, and reading the last page or so of this thread inspired me to try a little rewrite. I've felt since seeing BvS that the fight should have ended with a draw or Superman otherwise neutralizing Batman so he could talk some sense into him. That way you still have Batman snapping out of his rage, but more as a result of Superman appealing to his better nature and being that inspirational, hopeful figure in a way people have wanted to see in Snyder's films (Jesus imagery aside).

Anyway, I'm by no means a writer and this isn't in the standard screenplay format, but I think the end of the fight and moments after could have gone something like this:

Superman knocks Batman backward and immediately breaks a nearby pillar, collapsing a section of the unstable ceiling and trapping Batman on his back under some rubble. He tries but is unable to free himself. The shadowy figure of Superman walks closer. Batman stops struggling once Superman's face is visible in the light.

Batman grimaces then quietly says, "Do it." Superman looks slightly confused. Batman becomes agitated and tells Superman more adamantly, "Finish it." Superman calmly responds, "No." Breathing heavily Batman yells back, "Kill me!"

Superman tells Batman, "I don't want to kill you. You need to understand - I don't want to hurt anyone." Batman still appears skeptical but is breathing less heavily.

"I'm not your enemy, Bruce. I'm here to help...” Superman pauses and exhales. “...but tonight I need your help." Batman has mostly calmed down and Superman continues, "Lex wanted us to fight. He kidnapped my mother and demanded your life for hers.”

Batman looks down for a moment then back up at Superman who says, “We have to act quickly. There’s still time to save Martha.”

Batman’s eyes widen immediately. Flashes of the night his parents were murdered appear. The gun. The pearls. His mother falling. Batman closes his eyes and moves his chin toward his chest while gritting his teeth. More sudden flashes. The funeral. The tombs. His mother’s name. Martha.

Scowling, Batman opens his eyes and bellows out in pain. Superman moves in closer, leans downward, and extends his right hand. Batman meets his sympathetic but determined gaze, now having a better understanding the godlike alien. Batman’s hand grabs that of Superman, who effortlessly pulls him up and out of the rubble. Batman collects himself, then Superman turns and sees Lois running towards them.

Then it proceeds as we know. Lois tells Batman and Superman about Lex and the scout ship. Batman suggests Superman to go see about Lex and promises that Martha won't die tonight. Slightly different route but similar result in forging the B/S relationship. I was probably influenced by that reddit post from last year regarding a rumored earlier draft of the screenplay in which Superman does get the upper hand.
 
Yep, the 1% line in particular just kills the whole thing.

It's dumb with or without context.

That line reminds me of this for some reason.

giphy.gif


I guess they both don't make sense.


Let's re-imagine some alternate scenarios from the last two batman films where the same principle basically applies

If there is even a 1% chance that this machine you built that spies on everyone in the city will fall into the wrong hands, I can't allow it to exist, Mr Wayne.

If there is even a 1% chance that this fusion reactor I built could be transformed into a weapon, I need to shut the program down.

His logic is pretty simple, that he believes that Superman wields far too much power and that humanity's security shouldn't be dependant on his whims. He asks Alfred in the same scene how many good people are left in Gotham, how many remained good over the years. He's concerned that Superman could turn on humanity under the right conditions, just as the other 5? 10? Kryptonians humanity has met have. You might think Batman shouldn't be having thoughts like that, however it's only about a step removed from some versions of the Comic batman where he keeps giant stashes of Kryptonite or has full contingency plans in place for the Justice League turning evil.
 
EVERYONE understands this,
.

I assure you this is not the case.

They become best friends because their mothers share the same name. That is literally what happens. Describing it simply like that might ignore some nuance (lol) over why this happens, but that is actually the plot point. "Batman learns they both have mothers so they become best friends" is equally true/dumb.

Poetry.....
 
Let's re-imagine some alternate scenarios from the last two batman films where the same principle basically applies

If there is even a 1% chance that this machine you built that spies on everyone in the city will fall into the wrong hands, I can't allow it to exist, Mr Wayne.

If there is even a 1% chance that this fusion reactor I built could be transformed into a weapon, I need to shut the program down.

His logic is pretty simple, that he believes that Superman wields far too much power and that humanity's security shouldn't be dependant on his whims. He asks Alfred in the same scene how many good people are left in Gotham, how many remained good over the years. He's concerned that Superman could turn on humanity under the right conditions, just as the other 5? 10? Kryptonians humanity has met have. You might think Batman shouldn't be having thoughts like that, however it's only about a step removed from some versions of the Comic batman where he keeps giant stashes of Kryptonite or has full contingency plans in place for the Justice League turning evil.

Couple points of contention here

1. The main difference is that the cell phone machine and the fusion reactor are things, whereas Superman is a being. You destroy the threat of the former, no one dies. You destroy Superman, a person dies. That makes it a whole different ballgame that requires a different sort of thinking, or else you are literally reducing human beings to just resources.

2. Intrinsic value of human life aside, I see your point with the cell phone device, but not the fusion one. Batman approved of the fusion reactor existing because he was planning on providing the city with free energy or something. He had a plan in place something went wrong but having a contingency to shut down the program in the event that something goes down is different from shutting something down because it might go wrong. So that's not a valid example. He readily accepts the existence of a dangerous thing in that case, and simply plans for the worst case scenerios, which is the opposite of what he does in BvS.

3. As far as comic book batman goes, Batman has contingency plans, but those plans were specifically designed to beat the other heroes. However, they had to be specifically modified by Savage in order to become lethal. Similarly, Batman has kryptonite in place to stop Superman, but no plans to kill him. So even in those cases, Batman was putting lives first. Furthermore, in the comics, there was an instance where the villains swapped bodies with the hero, so he's not just doubting their own characters, but the idea that something might go wrong, because he can cite a past incident where their powers were put to evil use. With BvS, he's intending to kill superman for something he might do and doesn't even take the time to check if Superman is even likely to do something like that. 18 months, and the guy never even learns that he has family, doesn't even recognize him as clark kent when he stares him in the face, something Lois and Lex were able to figure out. Batman of the comics made contingency plans because he's smart, Batman of BvS is trying to murder a guy out of paranoia. It's not the same thing.
 
Could someone please sum up what Batman said to Lex in jail at the end of the movie? I couldn't really follow what he was saying.
 
Couple points of contention here

1. The main difference is that the cell phone machine and the fusion reactor are things, whereas Superman is a being. You destroy the threat of the former, no one dies. You destroy Superman, a person dies. That makes it a whole different ballgame that requires a different sort of thinking, or else you are literally reducing human beings to just resources.

2. Intrinsic value of human life aside, I see your point with the cell phone device, but not the fusion one. Batman approved of the fusion reactor existing because he was planning on providing the city with free energy or something. He had a plan in place something went wrong but having a contingency to shut down the program in the event that something goes down is different from shutting something down because it might go wrong. So that's not a valid example. He readily accepts the existence of a dangerous thing in that case, and simply plans for the worst case scenerios, which is the opposite of what he does in BvS.

3. As far as comic book batman goes, Batman has contingency plans, but those plans were specifically designed to beat the other heroes. However, they had to be specifically modified by Savage in order to become lethal. Similarly, Batman has kryptonite in place to stop Superman, but no plans to kill him. So even in those cases, Batman was putting lives first.

But that's the point, he doesn't see Superman as a human being but as 'an alien who could burn the whole place down'. The only time he remotely humanizes his foe he likens him to the Joker. This Batman is so caught up in his crusade and achieving his goal that the last thing he wants to do is make his opponent seem human. In my opinion this Batman works in this universe, I understand his motivations as flawed as they may be.
 
Poetry.....

Explain to me how the plot works when you remove "Martha".

EDIT: Actually forget that. This is such a dumb debate, but I was offended that somebody would think I'm the kind of idiot that apparently wouldn't understand such a deeply dumb and basic movie.

Instead explain to me Lex's Lolita quote, because that deeply confuses me. Her name isn't Lolita (or Dolores), it's not morning, she's not a little girl, and Lex isn't an old pedophile. I need a pretentious Lion King comic explaining that scene to me.
 
It still doesnt help anything more

In fact I think the person who made those pictures has misintepreted a little. He didn't see Superman as an enemy of the world. He sees him as a walking timebomb.

Even viewing Superman as a human in the end, doesn't change that fact. Even Bruce Wayne himself said so. If there's a 1 percent chance that he's their enemy, they have to destroy him.

I'm sure it's been repeated numerous times in this thread that the one percent speech is a spin on the Cheney Doctrine. It is not intended as a sensible viewpoint. Perhaps it's a failure on Snyder's part if you inferred, you know, "kick that alien's ass!!" It is inherently an irrational justification for action.
 
But that's the point, he doesn't see Superman as a human being but as 'an alien who could burn the whole place down'. The only time he remotely humanizes his foe he likens him to the Joker. This Batman is so caught up in his crusade and achieving his goal that the last thing he wants to do is make is opponent seem human. In my opinion this Batman works in this universe, I understand his motivations as flawed as they may be.

And that point is, for lack of a better word, goddamn stupid.

This isn't even an a matter of empathy or a call for a morally good hero. Or maybe it is, but lets put that aside from now.

You have a potentially dangerous man. What do you do with that? Well, first thing you should do is investigate him. Find out what he's doing. Find out why he's doing it. Find out his history. This lets you know what his weak spots are. If he's greedy, then you know your way of putting pressure on him to is to threaten his money. If he's got a family, you know a good way would get him under your control would be to find a way to threaten them. Really, that's a smarter idea than anything. Basically what Lex did, except do it on the contingency that superman starts destroying shit.

What is the most galling thing to a batman fan like me is that he isn't merely paranoid, but he's a idiot, refusing to see Superman as a human being when that's the easiest way to resolve this either way. If Kryptonite hadn't worked, "Stop or we kill lois/your mom/some random child/whatever" would literally be the next go to strategy for someone who actually wants to stop the guy, and it is the easiest, most obvious thing to do. Evil, sure, but we're not looking toward Batman being a good guy, but someone who gets the job done. Well, this would get the job done. Threaten to kill someone Superman wants to protect, and he's putty in your hands. Lex brought superman to his knees in seconds with it, and that's because he had the sense to actually think beyond "zomg, suparmun's an alieean, wtf, kill it"
 
But that's the point, he doesn't see Superman as a human being but as 'an alien who could burn the whole place down'. The only time he remotely humanizes his foe he likens him to the Joker. This Batman is so caught up in his crusade and achieving his goal that the last thing he wants to do is make his opponent seem human. In my opinion this Batman works in this universe, I understand his motivations as flawed as they may be.
Someone who just happens to still be alive for some reason
 
This post is why that image exists.

The image is irrelevant. The dumb thing about that scene is:

Superman says martha instead of sav save my mom, which would have added way more context without the mental gym.

Batman has an epifhany he did not earn. So he hated thig being for 2 hours, and because of that one line he let go of all his reasoning for killing superman?

When people say that batman and supes became friends because of a name, they mean that that is what snyder got across due to poor execution. All of what the image says happened is probably what snyder intended, but did not achieve. IS not an understanding fault, is a snyder is terrible fault.
 
Couple points of contention here

1. The main difference is that the cell phone machine and the fusion reactor are things, whereas Superman is a being. You destroy the threat of the former, no one dies. You destroy Superman, a person dies. That makes it a whole different ballgame that requires a different sort of thinking, or else you are literally reducing human beings to just resources.

This version of Batman does not have a "no kills under any circumstances" rule. He sometimes kills people if he considers it necessary. If he did, the plot would instead be a slightly modified version, where he plans to subdue Superman and throw him in superprison or something to that effect. It wouldn't change the motivation though.


2. Intrinsic value of human life aside, I see your point with the cell phone device, but not the fusion one. Batman approved of the fusion reactor existing because he was planning on providing the city with free energy or something. He had a plan in place something went wrong but having a contingency to shut down the program in the event that something goes down is different from shutting something down because it might go wrong. So that's not a valid example. He readily accepts the existence of a dangerous thing in that case, and simply plans for the worst case scenerios, which is the opposite of what he does in BvS.

In TDKR, Batman shut the program down and told everyone it was a failure because it became clear that it was possible to weaponize the technology. This is what I was referring to - he considered it too dangerous to have around despite its potentially vast benefits. People have mocked the line of dialogue about "if there's a 1% chance he's our enemy we have to take it as a certainty that it is", but I really don't know why, the implication of his reasoning is very clear and it is neither illogical nor out of character. What is out of character is that he's willing to kill both Superman and other goons in the film (at least - he doesn't pretend like he's not a killer but then kill people on the regular like in all the other movies lol), however that is not a flaw in his line of reasoning, but a different take on the character.

Batman of the comics made contingency plans because he's smart, Batman of BvS is trying to murder a guy out of paranoia. It's not the same thing.

Batman in the comics has very long standing relationships built on trust with the JL membership, in a world where superhumans predate his donning of the cowl and they're proliferating all over the place. In this version he's introduced to superhumans like 25 years into his crusade when he's already had any and all optimism sucked out of his body and where Superman's first major public appearance involves an apocalyptic battle against a Kryptonian invasion with significant collateral damage. He's also being further manipulated by Luthor's PR smearjob behind the scenes. Yeah, it's not the same origin story as the JL cartoon or whatnot, but what of it? Please keep in mind my post was directed at whether or not the 1% line "made sense", since to me his line of reasoning is very clear.
 
This version of Batman does not have a "no kills under any circumstances" rule. He sometimes kills people if he considers it necessary. If he did, the plot would instead be a slightly modified version, where he plans to subdue Superman and throw him in superprison or something to that effect. It wouldn't change the motivation though.

Yeah, but the issue is that he doesn't seem to have a meaningful value of human life period. He kills people less because it's necessary and more because things are just easier that way. Even his issue with Superman's threat is undermined because he goes out of his way to prolong the fight with him just to make insults. He could have killed in him the first two seconds of the fight by stabbing him with the spear the moment he got first gassed superman, but he decided he'd rather tell him how he sucks. If he truly believes that Superman is that kind of danger, and then why is he standing their talking? Everything that goes on in that fight tells me that his actual issue with superman is more how his existence is a threat to his ego than to the world. And you can't tell me all the super happy fun times he had with criminals couldn't have gone any other way.

In TDKR, Batman shut the program down and told everyone it was a failure because it became clear that it was possible to weaponize the technology. This is what I was referring to - he considered it too dangerous to have around despite its potentially vast benefits. People have mocked the line of dialogue about "if there's a 1% chance he's our enemy we have to take it as a certainty that it is", but I really don't know why, the implication of his reasoning is very clear and it is neither illogical nor out of character. What is out of character is that he's willing to kill both Superman and other goons in the film (at least - he doesn't pretend like he's not a killer but then kill people on the regular like in all the other movies lol), however that is not a flaw in his line of reasoning, but a different take on the character.

But he continued it in secret, iirc. I mean, that's why it was still around for Talia to take. He was working on it until it could be used without weaponizing it. If he didn't find a way, he was prepared to destroy it, but he hasn't. So he clearly believed it in, he just was going out of his way to do it safely. He was minimalizing that percentage of it being weaponized as much as he could while still going through with it, which is again the opposite of the 1% line he gives in BvS.

And while I don't really have an interest in defending Burton's films, in TDK trilogy, what he is opposed to being is an executioner, not a killer. That's where I think his no kill rule is probably depicted probably the best it can be in regards to adaptations. The only exception to that is Ra's al Ghul in BB, which I heard a few excuses for, but I never quite got over. But everything else, from the league headquarters scene, to Harvey Dent, or Talia, that's all him simply trying to preserve his life or the lives of innocents, and he accepts people will die in those kinds of environments while still doing everything in his power to not cause more deaths than needed. What he won't do is take it upon himself and judgementally kill someone simply because he thinks they're scum, like the farmer in BB. The fundamental function of Batman in the Nolan trilogy is to jump start the police and legal systems that have been bogged down by corruption and crime by suppressing organized crime enough so that the police and legal teams can get a foothold. So his kill policy makes perfect sense there, because it's not his job to kill or even save innocents or anything like that. His job is to make it so that the proper authorities can do their jobs. So doing things like issuing death sentences is simply not his division and he takes no measures to make that decision.

That's as practical a interpretation of a cinematic batman as I've seen. Though I do find it funny that hollywood feels the need to make that revision in the first place. I'm not married to the idea, but it'd be interesting to see Batman with an actual no kill policy.

Please keep in mind my post was directed at whether or not the 1% line "made sense", since to me his line of reasoning is very clear.

The line of reasoning for that line is clear in so far that I understand why he is saying it, but that doesn't make it rational. Honestly, if nothing else, that line is a self-fulfilling prophecy waiting to happen. It's a line that denotes how far gone Batman is that he thinks that any measure of danger MUST be eradicated (though like I said, I'm not convinced that this is what is actually happening when the fight itself happens). It's a knee jerk reaction given by the paranoid and cowardly.

There's no question that Superman's power is something that should be assessed and in some way kept in check. But intentionally making Superman your enemy for the mere fact of his existence instead of....you know, assessing who he is, finding out what he is about (which is only more likely to give you ways in which to keep him in check anyway), is just stupid. It's an immediate jump to the nuclear option that doesn't consider more peaceful alternatives. And even the movie acknowledges that by the end. Batman finds out that superman is an actual person with a mother, named martha, like his. If the mere revelation that Superman has human relations blows his mind so goddamn much that he does a 180 on his stance, and is now okay with letting the living thermal nuclear threat exist, it shows how small minded his viewpoint was.

That's the major difference here. Yeah, threats are threats and only an idiot would ignore them. But there is a difference between dismantling a machine and murdering someone because you're afraid of them. And there is a major difference between 'keeping a threat in check' and forcing antagonism because your afraid of what someone might do. The line is being mocked not because it doesn't make sense for why batman would say it, but how fucked his mindset is. And you're right, in other continuities, batman performed similar actions of threat prevention and contingency planning, but for various reasons, the actions there were made nuanced by Batman willing to give others a chance to prove them wrong or taking safety measures while still going through with it. BvS Batman stewed about how to murder a guy for 18 months, and then backtracked when he discovered information that he could have found out if he did the most meager amount of research on Superman at all. Plenty of Batmen have taken precautionary measures, but BvS stands out as being stupid about it.
 
Explain to me how the plot works when you remove "Martha".

EDIT: Actually forget that. This is such a dumb debate, but I was offended that somebody would think I'm the kind of idiot that apparently wouldn't understand such a deeply dumb and basic movie.

Instead explain to me Lex's Lolita quote, because that deeply confuses me. Her name isn't Lolita (or Dolores), it's not morning, she's not a little girl, and Lex isn't an old pedophile. I need a pretentious Lion King comic explaining that scene to me.

calm your ass down lol. i didn't imply you needed that stupid comic at all nor did i call you an idiot. but you absolutely did miss the point or you're just being really facetious about it, particularly that best friends bit. that comic lays it out (in an awkward way no doubt) straight up.
 
WOW I saw this one late. Is there an easter egg link or something to explain some of the things that didn't make sense?

I'm mainly referring to when Bruce was decrypting the files and he had that dream about being in the desert, and then when he 'woke up' (still dreaming) some guy is like yelling at him about Lois through a portal. What was he yelling and who was that :(

Also any small hints on what happened to Robin? Is the Robin = Joker rumour still alive? I only noticed the costume and the "How many good people? How many stay that way?" line.

EDIT: Also, at some point in the movie everyone just knows eachothers secret identities! How did that even happen
 
Yeah, I only just saw it last night. I liked it, but acknowledge it's a mess on several fronts. Affleck nailed Batman. Alfred sexy af too. /deep review.
 
I'd really love to see Goyer's original script for this movie. Combining The Dark Knight Returns and the Death of Superman into one movie then throwing in the New Gods sounds like, and turned out to be, a totally insane mess.

Looking forward to seeing the Director's Cut add 40 minutes of footage without explaining why the hell Batman is having these prophetic dreams.
 
WOW I saw this one late. Is there an easter egg link or something to explain some of the things that didn't make sense?

I'm mainly referring to when Bruce was decrypting the files and he had that dream about being in the desert, and then when he 'woke up' (still dreaming) some guy is like yelling at him about Lois through a portal. What was he yelling and who was that :(

Also any small hints on what happened to Robin? Is the Robin = Joker rumour still alive? I only noticed the costume and the "How many good people? How many stay that way?" line.

EDIT: Also, at some point in the movie everyone just knows eachothers secret identities! How did that even happen
1- Possible vision of the future/memories collide. Happens in the comics when Flash (the screaming guy) travels to the past.

2- Nah Joker is not Robin, Snyder denied it.

3- Superman heard Alfred talking to Bruce's ear in the party. I don't think Bruce knows Clark is Superman until the Martha thing. Lex knew both from the beginning because he's Lex Luthor.
 
I didn't make the Chill connection, and I'm not convinced the filmmakers had it in mind either.

Its quite obvious they did, they even replay Batman's mothers neckless breaking from Chills gun recoiling during that moment. Im not event a comic book fan and it was clear, Batman almost became Chill, someone he vowed to stop. It wasnt the best execution, but Batman sold it clearly.
 
Why does everyone in BvS remember every little throwaway turn of phrase said by or to themselves, across multiple conversations days apart

lois did it with the secretary of defense ("having a halo")
luthor did it with that senator ("granny's peach tea," UGH)
batman did it with wonder woman (boy's share too :B)

ugh
 
Its quite obvious they did, they even replay Batman's mothers neckless breaking from Chills gun recoiling during that moment. Im not event a comic book fan and it was clear, Batman almost became Chill, someone he vowed to stop. It wasnt the best execution, but Batman sold it clearly.

That wasn't the point of the flashback. The point was "My mother, who was named Martha, was killed".

Maybe they intended to portray both but I didn't get that impression.
 
Finally saw this, was shit other than Batman fighting thugs and actually doing detective work. Any chance WB fires Snyder anytime soon?
 
calm your ass down lol. i didn't imply you needed that stupid comic at all nor did i call you an idiot. but you absolutely did miss the point or you're just being really facetious about it, particularly that best friends bit. that comic lays it out (in an awkward way no doubt) straight up.
Did Batman not give a huge speech at the end of the film how he needs to be a better person because of his life-changing experience of being best friends with Superman for that 20 minutes before Doomsday killed him?

And of course I'm being really facetious, because the movie is goddamn stupid. Humor is a natural defensive reaction when bad shit happens, and if Zack Snyder could learn about this and stop making his movies so joylessly robotically grimdark that would be great.
 
Why does everyone in BvS remember every little throwaway turn of phrase said by or to themselves, across multiple conversations days apart

lois did it with the secretary of defense ("having a halo")
luthor did it with that senator ("granny's peach tea," UGH)
batman did it with wonder woman (boy's share too :B)

ugh

You really have a problem with that?
 
Why does everyone in BvS remember every little throwaway turn of phrase said by or to themselves, across multiple conversations days apart

lois did it with the secretary of defense ("having a halo")
luthor did it with that senator ("granny's peach tea," UGH)
batman did it with wonder woman (boy's share too :B)

ugh

This is something you seriously have a problem with? That characters paid attention and actually listened to the people they were talking with and actually have decent memories!? That's a problem for you?
 
This is something you seriously have a problem with? That characters paid attention and actually listened to the people they were talking with and actually have decent memories!? That's a problem for you?

Today is a day for truth. Some people are unaware they have terrible memory. Even when explained they are the ones who have a problem they simply forget and the argument starts anew.
 
Why does everyone in BvS remember every little throwaway turn of phrase said by or to themselves, across multiple conversations days apart

lois did it with the secretary of defense ("having a halo")
luthor did it with that senator ("granny's peach tea," UGH)
batman did it with wonder woman (boy's share too :B)

ugh

Is nitpicking your super power, by any chance?
 
WOW I saw this one late. Is there an easter egg link or something to explain some of the things that didn't make sense?

I'm mainly referring to when Bruce was decrypting the files and he had that dream about being in the desert, and then when he 'woke up' (still dreaming) some guy is like yelling at him about Lois through a portal. What was he yelling and who was that :(

The flash came through. It was most likely a set up for jl films, as we see parademons and darkseids omega symbol + the ending tease.
He said that bruce was right to fear supes and that lois was the key. Then he said "did I come too early"?

Edit:

Basically the plot of one of the two upcoming JL films involves a plot whereby Darkseid comes to Earth. For some reason, possibly because somebody lets Lois die or kills her somehow, Superman is working for him. That's basically what we saw in the dream. When he wakes up and there's the guy in the portal, that's The Flash coming through using the power of

F7bttaW.gif


to change the past by delivering a warning. Except as he says, he came too early because Batman didn't know about the rest of the JL bros yet. As to why it was filmed like a dream BOTH times... we don't know.
 
I'd really love to see Goyer's original script for this movie. Combining The Dark Knight Returns and the Death of Superman into one movie then throwing in the New Gods sounds like, and turned out to be, a totally insane mess.

Looking forward to seeing the Director's Cut add 40 minutes of footage without explaining why the hell Batman is having these prophetic dreams.
They're gonna answer some of those things in Justice League. Warner Bros. wants you to watch Justice League without writing "Watch Justice League!" on the movie screen. :P

BvS turns out to be an adaptation of a much older Superman story. Like, Snyder took an old issue and turned it into a 5-minute story within the story. It involves themes from past versions of Superman too; the philosophical schtick isn't just pulled from nothing. I want to write about it more perhaps in the DCCU thread.
 
Looking forward to seeing the Director's Cut add 40 minutes of footage without explaining why the hell Batman is having these prophetic dreams.

That's probably just multidimensional disruption nonsense.

What I want to know is how Superman is able to induce hallucinogenic therapy upon himself.
 
In some stories, you just need to fix a few key pieces for the rest of the movie to fit.

With BvS, it's a film that is conceptually broken. It doesn't mean that you can't make a good film out of it, it means that you shouldn't. Fixing them as enemies from the start like this is not a good start to the JL universe as a whole.
 
Has anybody (over) analyzed the Batmonster dream scene yet? That's the only sequence where I have no idea at all what they are going for. Granted, I'm absolutely horrible at interpreting movie dream-sequence to begin with. But really, does it symbolize something? Or is it just a reference to a scene in some comic like that whole "Superman nuclear-ed" thing?
 
the actual fight was so stupid. it could have been cool, but it was so stupid.

Batman prepares for Superman, a guy who can fly and shoot lasers out his eyes...by putting pressure plates and sensors on the ground that assume Superman is going to...walk towards him?

Superman can operate in space...no air in space. But he breathes in the kryptonite gas...twice?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom