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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

Scroll up to the giant gif post.

It's almost certainly prophetic regarding what will happen in the future movies. We see:

  • Parademons (Darkseid's winged minions)
  • The giant omega symbol associated with Darkseid
  • Evil superman talking about how Batman "took her from me" and saying "she was my world".

Then when he wakes up, we see Ezra Miller's Flash in the time portal saying "you were right to fear him!", "Lois is the key!" and "am I too early?" He hasn't seen any of the metas up to that point, including Flash. But he saw him in the dream-within-dream.


So piecing it together:

  • The apocalyptic dream is a future scenario that may or may not come to pass
  • The Flash came back in time to warn Bruce, but accidentally arrived too early
  • Superman turns evil based on Lois lane dying, as happened in the "Injustice: Gods Among Us" storyline.

What's not clear is why or how the Flash entered Bruce's dreams. It's going to require some serious comic book science to explain that. Especially the part where he wakes up and it's a two-layer dream. Flash can time travel, but not project dreams. One theory regarding the apocalyptic vision was that it was Bruce's memories merging with his future self when the time portal was open temporarily. Why did he then fall asleep after the Flash warning though? NO IDEA.

You're putting too much thought into it.

That nightmare scene only serves to put the name "Martha" on your mind once again. And for fan service, showing the ManBat.

I don't recall martha being featured in that dream.
 
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?

You're putting too much thought into it.

That nightmare scene only serves to put the name "Martha" on your mind once again. And for fan service, showing the ManBat.
 
Scroll up to the giant gif post.

It's almost certainly prophetic regarding what will happen in the future movies. We see:

  • Parademons (Darkseid's winged minions)
  • The giant omega symbol associated with Darkseid
  • Evil superman talking about how Batman "took her from me" and saying "she was my world".

Then when he wakes up, we see Ezra Miller's Flash in the time portal saying "you were right to fear him!", "Lois is the key!" and "am I too early?" He hasn't seen any of the metas up to that point, including Flash. But he saw him in the dream-within-dream.


So piecing it together:

  • The apocalyptic dream is a future scenario that may or may not come to pass
  • The Flash came back in time to warn Bruce, but accidentally arrived too early
  • Superman turns evil based on Lois lane dying, as happened in the "Injustice: Gods Among Us" storyline.

What's not clear is why or how the Flash entered Bruce's dreams. It's going to require some serious comic book science to explain that. Especially the part where he wakes up and it's a two-layer dream. Flash can time travel, but not project dreams. One theory regarding the apocalyptic vision was that it was Bruce's memories merging with his future self when the time portal was open temporarily. Why did he then fall asleep after the Flash warning though? NO IDEA.



I don't recall martha being featured in that dream.

I appreciate the explanation, but I didn't mean the prophetic, post-apocalyptic dream. Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I meant is the slow dream of Bruce visiting Martha's grave and suddenly there's a Batmonster bursting out.
 
That's probably just multidimensional disruption nonsense.

What I want to know is how Superman is able to induce hallucinogenic therapy upon himself.

How many dream fake-outs did this movie have, 5? There was the origin scene that turned out to be a visual metaphor/dream when young Bruce was levitated by bats into the light. Then there was Bruce being woken from his future apocalypse dream by the Flash, which turned out to also be a dream. Then Superman had that weird daydream about his dad. Also Bruce dreaming about the Batman monster coming out of his mother's tomb.

Did I miss any? Why would you write a movie like this?
 
Superman becoming evil because Lois dies is going to be so dumb -___-

pls stop Zack
That's exactly what will happen.

Superman in JL is going to be nothing more than a plot device.


How many dream fake-outs did this movie have, 5? There was the origin scene that turned out to be a visual metaphor/dream when young Bruce was levitated by bats into the light. Then there was Bruce being woken from his future apocalypse dream by the Flash, which turned out to also be a dream. Then Superman had that weird daydream about his dad. Also Bruce dreaming about the Batman monster coming out of his mother's tomb.

Did I miss any? Why would you write a movie like this?
Apparently there were more dream sequences in the script thanks to Goyer but Terrio had them taken out.

Man if Goyer went full ham on this this movie would've been a wild fever dream and not in a good way.
 
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 farily common in super hero films.

Didn't you get the memo?
 
Comics Max Lord did it.
Injustice Joker did it.
DCAU Darkseid did it.

Did Zack do those too

No, but it's a tired, cliche, and sexist trope that reduces a main female lead to a plot device to advance the males storyline (Women in Refrigerators), and it's especially lame when it's something the dead woman in question would have never wanted to happen. No trope is inherently bad, of course, it can be well done. But it is lazy, especially in a movie that already treats it's female characters in a questionable manner.
 
You're putting too much thought into it.

That nightmare scene only serves to put the name "Martha" on your mind once again. And for fan service, showing the ManBat.

Oo, so the ManBat is an actual creature from the comics? If it's actually there only for fan-service, then I think putting it in like that is a bad decision. Especially considering that they could have put an actual grave visitation in its place, complete with a conversation with Alfred or some such.

(or just craft another scene entirely because using grave visitation as a method to convey how important the departed is to the visitor is so passe)
 
No, but it's a tired, cliche, and sexist trope that reduces a main female lead to a plot device to advance the males storyline (look up Fridging), especially when it's something the dead woman in question would have never wanted to happen. No trope is inherently bad, of course. But it is lazy.
It has nothing to do with Lois, even if she's involved most of the time.

The ends being discussed is Superman's moral compass being inverted. It's actually kind of popular now, by the bigwigs at DC/WB and the fan response. Snyder's take is mostly after the fact.
 
Oo, so the ManBat is an actual creature from the comics. If it's actually there only for fan-service, then I think putting it in like that is a bad decision. Especially considering that they could have put an actual grave visitation in its place, complete with a conversation with Alfred or some such.

(or just craft another scene entirely because using grave visitation as a method to convey how important the departed is to the visitor is so passe)
I'm pretty sure that wasn't meant to be Man Bat from the comics. It was just a giant demon bat used as a visual metaphor to show that Bruce is still haunted by his parents death.
 
It has nothing to do with Lois, even if she's involved most of the time.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. She's reduced to a plot device so Superman's moral compass can be inverted, aka so his storyline can advance at her expense. You pretty much just described the problem exactly.
 
Yeah, that's kind of the point here. She's reduced to a plot device so Superman's moral compass can be inverted, aka so his storyline can advance at her expense. You pretty much just described the problem exactly.
No. Ma and Pa Kent, Batman could also fill that role. It's just more often than not Lois because she is more present than the others.

Anyways, that's a total derail of what I was talking about.

My point was that we MAY get a brainwashed and/or evil Superman on screen because it is a popular thing in comics and related media. However, it is not because of Snyder.
 
You're putting too much thought into it.

That nightmare scene only serves to put the name "Martha" on your mind once again. And for fan service, showing the ManBat.

What about the giant omega symbol? Ive read that is a Darkseid thing, including those flying things (parademons?). I'm not super familiar with DC lore, but that scene starts to make more sense in the grand scheme of things once I read that. Not so much for this one movie per-say, but as a precursor to things to come in the cinematic universe.
 
No. Ma and Pa Kent, Batman could also fill that role. It's just more often than not Lois because she is more present than the others.

Yes, potentially, they could...but it's statistically speaking, it's rarely is. It's usually the woman, hence why we have the trope name "women in refrigerators". It's like saying "Damsel in distress" isn't a sexist trope because you could put a man in that place just as easily. Maybe, but that's not how it's been done.

And it's a story. The only reason Lois is more present than others is because she's written to be present. It's not something that is outside the writers control to change.

My point was that we MAY get a brainwashed and/or evil Superman on screen because it is a popular thing in comics and related media. However, it is not because of Snyder.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Snyder not the one in charge, or atleast has some measure of influence as the director of how the story? Then he has the power to imply that Superman turned evil for different reasons, but it's already heavily implied to the point of nigh confirmation.

Besides, I feel it's wrong to imply that Synder is a corperate slave without an ounce of his own creative muscle that shapes the story to what it is. He's awful at it, but he's not in corperate meetings saying "Yes, sir, right away, sir." at whatever the big suits demand. From what I recall, it was his idea that Superman fight Batman, and that's how we got BvS.

When has Lois Lane not been a plot device for Superman?

Various comic stories, I guess. All Star Superman basically had her own issue with superman with a deuteragonist.

Though, honestly, even if you're going to argue she has been nothing but a plot device in the 75+ years of the character's existence, then all that means is that it's up to the next writer to characterize her better.
 
Various comic stories, I guess. All Star Superman basically had her own issue with superman with a deuteragonist.

Though, honestly, even if you're going to argue she has been nothing but a plot device in the 75+ years of the character's existence, then all that means is that it's up to the next writer to NOT do that.
Even in All Star Superman, Lois Lane is just there to advance Superman's character and story. She doesn't have her own character arc or development... it's all just tethered to Superman.

Her place in comic book history makes her more of an archetype but I see where she'd be confused for heavily stereotyped.
Stuff like this is why it's hard to make a live action Superman movie in this day and age while also adhering closely to the comics.
 
Even in All Star Superman, Lois Lane is just there to advance Superman's character and story. She doesn't have her own character arc or development... it's all just tethered to Superman.

I mean....she does have a character arc that is with Superman, but the focus of is on her. It's her thoughts, her emotions at the forefront of the narrative. The entire storytelling method depends on it. That's why we have the suspense of what superman is up to when she's all paranoid.

I know what you're saying and I agree there should be a character arc that is independent of Superman's, but I disagree that she's just there for superman in that case. That said, it don't think it's an especially strong example either. I'm sure there are better ones, but you probably have to ask Slayven for that.

But I maintain what I said. Okay, lets say that Lois is only ever there for to be Superman's benefit and that's been the only way in which she has been used by writers for 75 years. I find that highly unlikely, but lets say. All that means is that Goyer had the obligation to take the first step toward more of her own characterization. And then Terrio. And now whoever has the bad luck of writing the next film featuring her.
 
Yes, potentially, they could...but it's statistically speaking, it's rarely is. It's usually the woman, hence why we have the trope name "women in refrigerators". It's like saying "Damsel in distress" isn't a sexist trope because you could put a man in that place just as easily. Maybe, but that's not how it's been done.

And it's a story. The only reason Lois is more present than others is because she's written to be present. It's not something that is outside the writers control to change.
Lois is more present because hers is the most logical... she and Clark are married or in a relationship, and live together. Clark's parents are either dead or in another state, and Batman lives across the bay and is not in as close a relationship as Lois's. heh

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Snyder not the one in charge, or atleast has some measure of influence as the director of how the story? Then he has the power to imply that Superman turned evil for different reasons, but it's already heavily implied to the point of nigh confirmation.

Besides, I feel it's wrong to imply that Synder is a corperate slave without an ounce of his own creative muscle that shapes the story to what it is. He's awful at it, but he's not in corperate meetings saying "Yes, sir, right away, sir." at whatever the big suits demand. From what I recall, it was his idea that Superman fight Batman, and that's how we got BvS.
One of the stories he borrowed from was Dark Knight Returns. Its popularity is dictated by the fans. So DC/WB/Snyder probably thought they were giving the fans what they wanted (partially).

I wouldn't have asked for a Versus story at all. But DC/WB had been working on one since the early 2000s. My expectations for DC movies have been in check for a very long time.

I just try to enjoy the good things Snyder and his crew have done (as of BvS's reception, I'd say that he was severely underappreciated). That's just me though.
 
I'm pretty sure that wasn't meant to be Man Bat from the comics. It was just a giant demon bat used as a visual metaphor to show that Bruce is still haunted by his parents death.

If so, then... I hesitate to call it "dumb" because I never get these kind of trippy dream sequence, anyway. I'll just say that it didn't come across very well for me and maintain that making the visit not a dream would serve the purpose better.
 
Even in All Star Superman, Lois Lane is just there to advance Superman's character and story. She doesn't have her own character arc or development... it's all just tethered to Superman.

Stuff like this is why it's hard to make a live action Superman movie in this day and age while also adhering closely to the comics.
I agree... in All-Star's ending she provides the womb to carry Superman Secondus. Morrison may have gone a little far with that. :p

bolded: Well you can't make a Superman line of comics where someone who's Not Superman is the main character. The closest they can get is their relationship.

They got pretty close in the 90s when the Lois and Clark show put their interaction above everything else. But modern Supes isn't even married, and Lois revealed his identity to the entire world.

I suppose New 52 has a more independent take of the character. However, her importance is at risk because there are any number of female superheroes occupying that same world.
 
Lois is more present because hers is the most logical... she and Clark are married or in a relationship, and live together. Clark's parents are either dead or in another state, and Batman lives across the bay and is not in as close a relationship as Lois's. heh

Again dude, it's a story. You can manipulate those variables however you wish to make someone else be the logical choice. Clark's parents are in another state? Oh, what a coincidence, here they were, visiting their loving adopted sun before a giant firebreathing dragon sat on them. Batman is across the bay? Shit, that hardly stopped them from meeting each other in BvS, just kill them on some mission they have together. It's that simple. Plotlines don't need to be statistically probable in order to happen, merely possible within the context of the narrative.

And keep in mind, this isn't just superhero comics. Across all action movies in general, you'll hear endless variations of "I was a good man, until my wife/daughter/girlfriend/sister/female acquintance died". It's not just lois that always is the one dying, it's female relations in general. The superhero genre hardly has a monopoly on treating female characters as plot devices.

One of the stories he borrowed from was Dark Knight Returns. Its popularity is dictated by the fans. So DC/WB/Snyder probably thought they were giving the fans what they wanted (partially).

Sure, but DC/WB/Snyder aren't dictated by popularity unless they allow themselves to be. And there are a LOT of batman stories that are as popular than TDKR. It's not like they're stricken for choice.

And I'm not sure what your point here is anyway. That they should get credit for not intentionally sabotaging their own movie? Of course story writers try to give people something they'll enjoy. The ones who don't are either out of a job or in the severe minority. A for effort doesn't count as much to me. They should be more aware of what makes for a good story and they should be conscious of the tropes they use and how they can affect culture, especially when handling characters of this cultural significance. And Lois dying for superman's character development is a tired, sexist cliche. I demand better.
 
Again dude, it's a story. You can manipulate those variables however you wish to make someone else be the logical choice. Clark's parents are in another state? Oh, what a coincidence, here they were, visiting their loving adopted sun before a giant firebreathing dragon sat on them. Batman is across the bay? Shit, that hardly stopped them from meeting each other in BvS, just kill them on some mission they have together. It's that simple. Plotlines don't need to be statistically probable in order to happen, merely possible within the context of the narrative.

And keep in mind, this isn't just superhero comics. Across all action movies in general, you'll hear endless variations of "I was a good man, until my wife/daughter/girlfriend/sister/female acquintance died". It's not just lois that always is the one dying, it's female relations in general. The superhero genre hardly has a monopoly on treating female characters as plot devices.

Sure, but DC/WB/Snyder aren't dictated by popularity unless they allow themselves to be. And there are a LOT of batman stories that are as popular than TDKR. It's not like they're stricken for choice.

And I'm not sure what your point here is anyway. That they should get credit for not intentionally sabotaging their own movie? Of course story writers try to give people something they'll enjoy. The ones who don't are either out of a job or in the severe minority. A for effort doesn't count as much to me. They should be more aware of what makes for a good story and they should be conscious of the tropes they use and how they can affect culture, especially when handling characters of this cultural significance. And Lois dying for superman's character development is a tired, sexist cliche. I demand better.
Lois is not a disposable Bond girl. In most cases, she is the love of Superman's life. So yeah, if she dies, it's a big deal for him. I actually have more issues with him turning evil. Injustice is a crap concept in general, but people buy both the game and the comics.

Superman could turn his back on Earth for one other big reason: that it's full of irredeemable sacks of shit like Lex Luthor. If Superman balanced both possibilities; the death of Lois and an unchanging populace, he would still mourn Lois more. Because that's how important Lois and Clark are to each other, not because of some stupid trope thing.

You are going in too hard on the sexism angle. I know that Lois has a massive history of sexist portrayals. She had an entire line of comics dedicated to it.

But you are also ignoring that he could be brainwashed by Darkseid. And all of this happened in a dream sequence. So we may still be overreacting a bit.
 
Lois is not a disposable Bond girl. In most cases, she is the love of Superman's life. So yeah, if she dies, it's a big deal for him.

No shit. Loved ones dying is a big deal for anyone. That's what makes them loved ones. The problem is when it's used as an exclusive plot device for that person without paying attention to the character of the deceased. Which I'm fine with, as not every character needs to be, strictly speaking, a character rather than a plot device, but this has been disproportionately done to women. If the fact that it's sexist doesn't bother you, then the fact that it's a cliche should. It's boring.

Superman could turn his back on Earth for one other big reason: that it's full of irredeemable sacks of shit like Lex Luthor. If Superman balanced both possibilities; the death of Lois and an unchanging populace, he would still mourn Lois more. Because that's how important Lois and Clark are to each other, not because of some stupid trope thing.

You...don't seem to understand how tropes work. They're components of stories. Clark and Lois being love interests is a trope. Lex luthor being a corperate evil scumbag is a trope. They're all tropes. If something works, it's because the writer used tropes correctly, if it doesn't, it's because he used them incorrectly. Even being tropeless is a trope.

"This didn't happen because of a trope" is not a statement you can give to any story. You can't have a story do something without it being a trope.

You are going in too hard on the sexism angle. I know that Lois has a massive history of sexist portrayals. She had an entire line of comics dedicated to it.

We'll have to wait and see if he'll pulls that particular trigger, but you throwing out alternative explanations does nothing to mitigate the fact that if he does go this route, it will be as problematic, atleast to those who care about how cultural icons inform our society anyway. That's the nature of fridging a female character and I don't feel acknowledging it's existence and that's it's not a good thing is 'going too hard' at all. It's nothing more than describing a thing for what it is.

Also, I don't have to wait for Snyder to fuck this up, BvS already treats it's female characters like crap. Lois does nothing and has to be rescued in every scene she's in where there's actual danger, making her the perpetual damsel in distress, while Martha is also used as a bargaining chip against Superman by Luthor. The only other women we see are the sex slaves, who are only depicted in their victimized state and some random woman that Bruce is shown sleeping next to. Wonder women excepted, women in this film have a very defined role for the commanding male characters. So given the fact that it's BvS already uses tired, cliche, sexist tropes of women whose purpose in stories revolve around being the objects of rescue by men, I have no reason to believe that Snyder won't also go for this one here too. Now, I'd love to be surprised, but that's unlikely, given the clues being dropped here are about as subtle as a brick to the face. Even if it ends up being something different, I'm still convinced htat the intention here and now is "Lois died, therefore Superman is evil".
 
I didn't plan to give this one money, and if I was going to see it I was going to use one of the Buy One Get One free coupons I have from Cineplex via buying Coke. I have a few.

However, last night didn't go as planned. A friend texted me, asking if I wanted to go see a movie, and that was his pick. I was okay with it. He'd previously told me he'd buy the one ticket and I could get in free, but he was later getting here and didn't want to use his credit card online (he did at the movies, though?). He said he'd just buy both, but I felt bad about that and ended up buying my own.

As for the movie: It jumped around a lot. Far too much. The opening wasn't very good, and it wasn't cohesive. The middle of the movie had a similar issue.

It got better, but was still somewhat silly and not great overall. It's okay. And I probably liked it more now than I would have before, given that I went in expecting it to suck.

Man, though. How many false endings does one movie need? It just went on and on and on and on and on.

Jesse Eisenberg overacted more than he needed to.
 
So piecing it together:

  • The apocalyptic dream is a future scenario that may or may not come to pass
  • The Flash came back in time to warn Bruce, but accidentally arrived too early
  • Superman turns evil based on Lois lane dying, as happened in the "Injustice: Gods Among Us" storyline.

The (not so) funny thing about including the whole dream sequence and Flash's message into this movie is that it proves that what Batman said earlier (the "if there's a 1% chance he's our enemy we have to take it as a certainty that it is") is indeed true. All it takes for Superman to turn evil is something as trivial (in the grand scheme) as Lois' death. She's dead and poof, the unstoppable alien god-like figure snaps and is now evil, a 100% enemy.

It really clashes with Superman's sacrifice and Batman's ending speech about believing in good people and whatnot.
 
Curiosity got the the better of me and I watched the movie today. It wasn't as bad as some of the jokes and stuff I've been reading, but it the plot was baffling.

Top three things I liked

1) Batman fights (Dream & Real). Killing aside, his fighting style is more brutal than I'm used to seeing.
2) Batman Training montage. Old school as fuck.
3) Wonder Woman and her song bed that came on. It was jarring, but in a good way. Her fighting was cool to watch. I was hoping Batman was going to chime in with a "Hey, I noticed your sword was doing a better job than anything than we did besides the spear. What's up with that?"

Top three things I didn't like

1) Lex Luthor becoming more unhinged as the story went on. I guess that's is setting up the Justice League movie with Darkseid? The 90's cartoon biased me on that front. I want smooth, conniving, and haterade fueled Lex.

2) That crazy motherfucker killed Mercy. Where is the loyalty to your head stooge?

3) This fucking Martha shit. I saw the jokes posts, but it's so much worse and funnier when I saw this meaning behind them. With the Flash making his warning I thought Lois was going to be the lynch pin in this conflict. The leaps made to kidnap Ma Kent just to set up a Chekov Stunner was just dumb. Her whole appearance could have been scrapped. The only saving grace in the whole thing was seeing Batman just fuck up a warehouse full of goons to rescue her.

Bonus 4) Man, how the fuck is Lex getting all the personal details of Clark, Bruce, and Lois? I get this world is suppose to be like ours and data security is a tenuous thing for a guy like Lex, but Bruce should be the most secure guy out there. He should have a bit of trouble making the connection.
 
I don't mind Lex Luthor knowing who Batman is, even if it's an off-screen thing. It's just executed poorly in the film.

Lex Luthor: Man of Steel, a great comic book, handles a similar set-up much better. It's a pretty cool way of saying "You think Batman's smart, well Lex Luthor is smarter", and the film wasted that opportunity. It also helps the narrative of Lex Luthor manipulating Batman behind the scenes; Bruce knows that Lex is doing something villainous, but he doesn't know that Lex knows who he is, so he underestimates him.

Learning Clark Kent's identity seemed to be a function of kidnapping Martha Kent, which seems to have only occurred so they could point out that name coincidence. But within this universe Clark is dating Lois, and Superman is breaking international law to save her, so it wouldn't be hard to be two-and-two together.

Lex sucks so bad in this film though. Characterisation like this:

07BKaJY.jpeg

could have elevated the film. The characterisation was shitty all around.
 
I'm watching Superman TAS right now and reading All Star Superman and Lex is such a fucking bad ass. The fact that Snyder felt he needed to be "quirky" or whatever the fuck Eisenberg's spin on the character was is absolutely insane.

Lex should talk like a bad ass, match wits with Superman, and look like this:

aQ9n7F4.jpg


Lex in BvS strikes me as a weird, creepy, spontaneous asshole. Don't even get me started with Superman himself. Those two are by far the biggest dropped balls of the DCCU so far.
 
I know I'm in the minority but I appreciated the contrast of a big burly Superman opposed by a lanky squirrely Lex. I liked that he didn't look physically imposing and still made Supes his bitch.
 
I know I'm in the minority but I appreciated the contrast of a big burly Superman opposed by a lanky squirrely Lex. I liked that he didn't look physically imposing and still made Supes his bitch.

I think it's something that can work, but I also like the big, imposing Lex. Lex Luthor is a dude who refuses to believe he's less than Superman, and so being in peak physical health fits in with the notion of him trying to be all a human can be, and being pissed at the idea than an alien might be more than him. That angle doesn't work so much for a scrawny or even overweight Lex, both of which have happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom