How else do you follow Batman sadistically stabbing someone with a knife?
Batman v Superman Spoiler Thread: Don't believe everything you read, Son
- Thread starter N7Commander95
- Start date
- Status
How else do you follow Batman sadistically stabbing someone with a knife?
Being scared as fuck would be a good place to start.
pffft... that's crazy talk. No, the way to follow up aggressive violence is with a cheeky joke. Snyder understands tone completely! /s
If he had done that then Batman wouldn't of been able to keep his promise to Superman to save his Mom, which would of made Superman even more sad and brooding. Believe me you don't want to see this Superman even more sad and brooding then he already is.
The same could be said for every single movie ever. Nobody ever shoots the hostage right away. Come on now.
He didn't know it was bats, could have been lex or the police. Noticed how he calmed down when the other room got silent, he thought his guys had won.
1)He loses any type of leverage
2)He believes his men could take care of him
3)It's a movie
Because the hostage is usually a desperate bargaining chip (such as with the warlord at the start of the film). But they were sent out there by Luthor to force Superman to fight Batman; the minute your location gets compromised you'd expect they'd be ordered to kill the hostage and attempt an escape. Especially when you're dealing with the prospect of facing Superman. The plan clearly failed; you were never meant to be found. So...
The minute you hear bullets it should be apparent that the plan has gone awry. The punishment for things not going according to plan was killing Martha.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I will ask again: how are people already seeing the Ultimate Edition cut?
Mix Master
Member
Quip seemed straight out of a marvel movie, terrible, terrible placing. But then shit placing goes with the territory of a Hack Snyder big budget film.
It doesn't matter if the plan has gone awry, you don't know for sure it's Superman. You would want to keep her for bargaining as you stated.
I get what you're saying, but at the same time, what would be the point in killing her if you think the jig is up? Would you want to face Superman after killing his mom? I sure wouldn't.
Smokey_Run
Member
It went up on some European streaming service like two weeks ago IIRC. Tonight, theaters are showing it.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Ok, cool. Thanks!
I am still kind of pissed they delayed the Blu-ray back a month. Wtf! I want to watch it in all of its HD, high bit-rate glory!
Smokey_Run
Member
I'm pissed too, but it's just how things are these days. It never really bothered me before, because I didn't care enough.
Why would he kill the hostage and give up his only form of leverage?
Because that seemed to be Luthor's directive. If KGBeast's concern wasn't fufilling the plan ('If you don't fight and kill Batman, Martha dies') he'd have been better off running.
It isn't even so much KGBeast's actions that I have a minor problem with, it's Batman going in guns blazing. You'd imagine his concern would be navigating the building undetected, but he arrives with a blaring light. There was no guarantee they wouldn't just set Martha on fire the minute they knew the location was compromised.
And I know it's a movie.
Lol i deserve this
But then they lose the leverage, lol. You would make a terrible criminal.
You're missing the point.
Okay, lets assume that killing martha is, in fact, a terrible idea that would make them terrible criminals.
What evidence did batman have to think they weren't? How would the conversation have gone if they were? "Sorry superman, I thought these guys were professionals and wouldn't shoot just because I stormed in. Fucking amatuers, right?"
But really, if anyone would be a terrible criminal, it'd be Lex for not hiring people who wouldn't follow his directives to a T. He should have combed for like minded individuals that wouldn't have an issue dying for the purposes of fulfilling his master plan. Those guys are harder to find, but they're there.
Well, it's KGBeast. The guy is not a moron. Amd considering Lex was smart enough to fuck with everybody one would naturally assume he hires decent help. Even the thugs gave Batman some trouble. How many random thugs have you seen give Batman trouble? This sounds like nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. What's the point?
Okay, where is that established in the movie and where does Batman receive that information?
Evidently not, since they don't do what he told them to do.
Okay, let me lay it out step by step then.
Their fighting competence is not nor has at any point been in question. It's not even necessary, because they were supposed to be ready for Superman, not Batman, and they weren't going to take him down with force. They could have been 5 times the fighter batman was and it wouldn't matter because they weren't supposed to be fighting anyone. Their job was this: Kill Martha at the end of 1 hour or if some shenanigans happen. Lex needed someone who would do so, and seemingly hired the wrong group of people for the job, as they clearly did not do as instructed. You don't have to even know how to fight to do this, you just need to point a gun at an unarmed women and pull the trigger. It's not a measure of being able to fight, it's just about how cold-blooded you are.
Now, it's on Lex that he didn't bother finding the right people for the job, but how would Batman have known that he hadn't? All the information he had on them was 1. their location and 2. their instructions. If these guys had been the kind of guys to do what they were told to do, then Batman would have effectively killed Martha the moment he showed up. Because he prioritized taking out the bad guys over securing the hostage.
It's really just another drop in the bucket of portraying batman as a reckless, irresponsible asshole, that's all.
She was by a window, right? One easy way is to sneak in, get in the room with martha, find a way to momentarily distract the people watching her, grab her, and then drop out of the window. Keep in mind, the writer is not the outside looking in, where he's limited to what Snyder has presented. If there isn't an entry point where Batman could get to Martha, well, you can just write one in.
So if the writer wanted to depict Batman prioritizing the security of the hostage, he'd have made it happen.
I need to rewatch it, but where is it laid out that they were waiting for Superman? Why would there even be guards if they were waiting for Superman? What's the point? I only remember Lex saying that they were ordered to kill in 1 hour, not to kill if there are any shenanigans.
Watched it on Youtube, and there is no mention of "kill her if you hear anything".
I mean....fair enough, he doesn't literally say it, but I would think that kind of goes without saying. It's just...asinine otherwise. Lex even said "if you kill me, martha dies." so there are other contingencies on how Martha could die, obviously. And why wouldn't Lex give this rule as well "if you try to find her, they'll kill her before you get close"? All that would do is ensure that Superman has no choice but to fight Batman. If they literally didn't have this rule or not intuitively think to follow it, then it's just another one of many glaring gaps of logic that the film has because there is no reason they shouldn't have instruction to fry Martha the moment they suspect Superman isn't playing by the game Lex set up. Their literal job here is to make sure he does.
As for why guards would be there, I assumed to shout "HEY BOSS SUPERMAN'S HERE, TOAST MARTHA NICE AND CRISPY" in the event that he comes by.
Logically yes, I agree that should go without saying. It's just that I literally cannot think of a single other hostage situation in a movie where this is the case. Never seen the bad guy instantly kill the hostage after hearing gunfire. Is it dumb? Maybe.
I think Lex was 100% confident that Superman wouldn't be able to find her because of two contingencies:
1. If he flew around trying to find her instead of fighting Bats, he would know and have her killed
2. Lex himself didn't know where Martha was, so Supes wasn't going to torture him to find out.
I said this before, but if Superman came flying in to save his mom, why the fuck would I kill her before he got to her? I'm not brainwashed by Lex. I would have to be suicidal to kill her a second before Superman came knocking on the door.
Right, but all the same, it seems the contingency 3 is a pretty glaring omnission
3. "If by some random chance, he or someone else acquires your location, you are instructed to execute Martha immediately."
But as far as other movies go, I can't make a blanket judgement on all instances of the hostage trope occurring. Sometimes it's acknowledged as the stupid thing to do. Something it's internally justified why they can't or don't want to do that. Sometimes it's just a case of bad writing like here.
Either way, in the case of BvS, Lex made a huge mistake, either by forgetting pretty significant instructions or else not hiring the right people for the job, which doesn't make him look good. And since Batman had no way of knowing he made that mistake, it depicts him as pretty reckless. Now, if this had been a different batman movie, this might not be such a big issue, but this batman already has issues with being a complete shitbag, so this counts against him in addition to all the other crap he pulled. It's notable if only in the sense of "look, he couldn't even do this small thing".
Come to think of it, people always say that Batman's character arc is to condemn the Frank Miller-esque dickishness that his character embodies in 90% of the movie. It would have been a really good way of visually depicting character development from before the movie if instead of focusing on eliminating the threat, his priority had shifted to saving the innocent. We'd see character development without ever having him explicitely say it.
You wouldn't have to be brainwashed, just a fanatic. Same flavor of person as the wheelchair guy, just more extreme, willing to murder an innocent for the righteous cause of taking down Superman. Or else just be a complete psychopath who has no regards for the personal safety of anyone, including themselves. Either way, it just goes back to Lex not hiring the right guy for the job.
Is this really necessary, Veelk?
He gets that information the same way we as the audience are told that Batman is capable of handling 18 enemies by himself. You just know or it's implied. Why even argue this point? You could almost break down this wall of illusion with almost any bad guy in any movie ever. You can probably count on one hand the amount of movies that went into the necessary detail to explain the level of threat the "bad guy" possesses or how he/she attained the skill, knowledge or wealth to pull it off. Do these movies ever explain how they know or acquired their thugs? Are we ever given some sort of stat card or resume? We can go down this hole all day, Veelk, and I'm sure you are aware of that so I can only assume you're bored.
I'm fairly certain the orders were to keep Martha alive until Superman's hour was up. We heard the "DING!" after this scene when Superman returns to confront Luthor. This is when Luthor radios in to confirm KGBeast toasted Martha. So technically, he did follow orders despite the trouble with Batman.
Here we go...
This is never stated. All we are told is that Martha is being held somewhere and Lex doesn't know where. She dies in an hour. Anything past that is assumed by you.
Then why are they supposed to be ready for Superman? Were they given kryptonite? No. Why have guards at all? They just had guns and a flamethrower. Something Lex and KGBeast's team know would serve zero purpose against Superman.
Except they did. She was still alive up until the egg timer went off but KGBeast at that point had been taken down. Wasn't the whole argument, "Why didn't they just kill her as soon as Batman showed up?" Which point are we arguing? You call the team incompetent for not following orders but they did follow orders as far as long as possible.
Seemed alright to me. No where in the movie prior did KGBeast fail to carry out one of Lex's objectives. Despite the shenanigans with Batman during the chase he managed to protect the package. yea, Superman got involved but we can't assume Batman would have been successful otherwise.
Weren't you just arguing these guys didn't follow orders?
Does the movie showcase that would have been easier? Let's run through a scenario based on what we know of the floor layout.
Okay, so Batman comes down through the roof or the large windowed section directly behind Martha. There's two ways to handle this. Grab Martha and take off hoping they are terrible shots as you try to escape, or find yourself in a stand off. Now you have KGBeast plus the dude with the LMG next to him and the remaining 15 guys in the other room to contend with. This is a no-win situation. Batman's move as depicted in the movie was risky but not as risky as just going for Martha.
He gets that information the same way we as the audience are told that Batman is capable of handling 18 enemies by himself. You just know or it's implied. Why even argue this point? You could almost break down this wall of illusion with almost any bad guy in any movie ever. You can probably count on one hand the amount of movies that went into the necessary detail to explain the level of threat the "bad guy" possesses or how he/she attained the skill, knowledge or wealth to pull it off. Do these movies ever explain how they know or acquired their thugs? Are we ever given some sort of stat card or resume? We can go down this hole all day, Veelk, and I'm sure you are aware of that so I can only assume you're bored.
I'm fairly certain the orders were to keep Martha alive until Superman's hour was up. We heard the "DING!" after this scene when Superman returns to confront Luthor. This is when Luthor radios in to confirm KGBeast toasted Martha. So technically, he did follow orders despite the trouble with Batman.
Here we go...
This is never stated. All we are told is that Martha is being held somewhere and Lex doesn't know where. She dies in an hour. Anything past that is assumed by you.
Then why are they supposed to be ready for Superman? Were they given kryptonite? No. Why have guards at all? They just had guns and a flamethrower. Something Lex and KGBeast's team know would serve zero purpose against Superman.
Except they did. She was still alive up until the egg timer went off but KGBeast at that point had been taken down. Wasn't the whole argument, "Why didn't they just kill her as soon as Batman showed up?" Which point are we arguing? You call the team incompetent for not following orders but they did follow orders as far as long as possible.
Seemed alright to me. No where in the movie prior did KGBeast fail to carry out one of Lex's objectives. Despite the shenanigans with Batman during the chase he managed to protect the package. yea, Superman got involved but we can't assume Batman would have been successful otherwise.
Weren't you just arguing these guys didn't follow orders?
Does the movie showcase that would have been easier? Let's run through a scenario based on what we know of the floor layout.
Okay, so Batman comes down through the roof or the large windowed section directly behind Martha. There's two ways to handle this. Grab Martha and take off hoping they are terrible shots as you try to escape, or find yourself in a stand off. Now you have KGBeast plus the dude with the LMG next to him and the remaining 15 guys in the other room to contend with. This is a no-win situation. Batman's move as depicted in the movie was risky but not as risky as just going for Martha.
Right. That's what stuck out to me. He was so intent on rescuing Martha, and gives Superman his assurances. Then he shows up, assuming that these cold blooded hitmen (although Batman wouldn't know this, the same hitmen who get Jimmy Olsen killed) wouldn't execute Martha the minute it became apparent things weren't going to plan.
It just didn't fit Batman as a character, for me. As you said, if his priority had been rescuing Martha instead of it appearing like an afterthought, it would have been cool character development for an uncaring Batman.
Well, I don't think it's that unreasonable for Batman to think that they wouldn't kill Martha right away, but we can agree to disagree there.
You would need to find a Joker level of fanatic to do that I think. I just imagine a character burning Martha in front of Superman's eyes...that's some next level villain shit.
I disagree on the afterthought notion. It looked like Batman was a man on a mission to get Martha and that was all he cared about. She was his priority, not the lives of the thugs, etc, which is why he just blows them the fuck up as you guys put it. We can go around and around on the execution bit though, so I'll leave that alone.
How else could he have saved her? The only other way to end a hostage situation is to talk to them and negotiate..
fake edit: I guess he could have entered directly into her room instead of the goons outside first.
And I really despise the "you can just write it however you want" argument. You can kill any conflict in any movie with that.
Civil War becomes a pointless movie this way.
"Tony and Steve are friends so we'll just write that they agree on things and as the front runners of the Avengers competently discover that picture of Bucky was photoshopped not that any of it matters because Scarlet Witch never accidentally killed a bunch of innocent people. Also, the world loves the Avengers and trusts them implicitly despite all of Sokovia being blown to hell. It was globally viewed as necessary. But none of that happened anyway because Tony realized it was a bad idea to be messing with tech he didn't understand so Ultron was never a thing."
So on and so forth. Sometimes you just have to let shit go.
Civil War becomes a pointless movie this way.
"Tony and Steve are friends so we'll just write that they agree on things and as the front runners of the Avengers competently discover that picture of Bucky was photoshopped not that any of it matters because Scarlet Witch never accidentally killed a bunch of innocent people. Also, the world loves the Avengers and trusts them implicitly despite all of Sokovia being blown to hell. It was globally viewed as necessary. But none of that happened anyway because Tony realized it was a bad idea to be messing with tech he didn't understand so Ultron was never a thing."
So on and so forth. Sometimes you just have to let shit go.
Mr. PlayStation
Member
Can some explain if buying the digital hd Batman V Superman Dawn of Justice from PSN or Amazon Video would also give me the ultimate cut or would i have to strictly purchase it on blu ray to watch the ultimate cut. I don't want to see the theatrical cut on digital hd. Seen the theatrical cut in theater twice already.
On PSN you get both. It should say "extended cut + theatrical" or something along those lines.
Okay, you really seem to incapable of grasping the point here.
Again, this has nothing to do with 'threat level'. It doesn't matter how skilled the guys were here. The important factor here is how likely they are to follow through with killing Martha. We are given no evidence of that and more importantly BATMAN isn't given any evidence of one way or another, so the choice he makes to break in and fight it out is on wafflely information of what consequences that action will entail.
Which is something entirely different to determining how batman can fight. I don't need to assume that Batman can take out 18 guys, because we already see him do it. He takes multiple people in the opening scene of the movie, in the chase, and in the knightmare scene. His capability is visually established to the audience long before the warehouse fight, so no, we aren't asked to just assume it.
Right, but again, how does BATMAN know he doesn't have orders to roast martha if he hears sounds of fighting? I went over the stupidity of not having that directive in the previous post, but even assuming that KGBeast does not have that directive, the important thing is that Batman doesn't know one way or the other. The problem here is for all he knew, he could have just given KGBeast the pre-requisite to murder her.
I don't deny that it is an assumption, but it's a pretty reasonable inference here. You boss is antagonizing superman. You have Superman's mom. He'll want to find her. If there is anyone who would be knocking on their door that night, who in the world would it most likely be? Superman.
"HEY BOSS, SUPERMAN'S HERE, HE'S ALREADY ROASTING MY INTESTINES BUT I'M GOING TO SCREAM TO GIVE YOU THE SIGNAL SO YOU KNOW TO FRY MARTHA! READY? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"
Again, the notion that this order wouldn't be assumed is nothing short of asinine. At best, you're passing the buck by saying that they didn't do the obvious thing because Lex Luthor didn't instruct them to do so. Either they fucked up a very simple thing, or Luthor did.
But again, I personally can't imagine that even if it wasn't literally said, then it seems like it's an obvious inference that that's what they were supposed to do. I mean, obstensively, their job is to ensure that Superman plays Lex's game. If Superman isn't playing, they're supposed to roast Martha.
I mean, they're not robots that have to literally be instructed to do a thing in every possible variation of a situation. If Superman is in the building, then something has gone wrong, and they should roast martha.
I'm really not even sure what contradiction you're even pointing out here. At that point, regardless of whether they would in fact follow orders, I'm addressing Batman's knowledge of the situation.
Arguing with you is tiring if only because you look for opportunities to be snarky rather than actually understanding my argument, to the point where I have to lay each and every point out to you, often repeatedly, to have an even hope of you understanding it, assuming you're even actually trying to. Every point has to be laid out in it's most literal and over-explained form and christ, it's just exhausting.
And god forbid I misremember some minor irrelevant detail like "Did Lex literally tell them to kill martha if Superman shows up at their front door? No they didn't, haha, you fail". Even though the entire exercise was designed around the outcome of two possibilities: Superman killing Batman or Superman losing his mother. If Superman isn't killing Batman, then it should be time to burn Martha.
"But he didn't literally say that, veelk"
Ugh.
Okay, first off, you have no way of calculating that or determining that, you're just spouting bullshit here. I could say just as easily Batman could have a less risky move by using his gun jammer and flashbang to give himself more than enough time to save martha, and you could counter that they would be ready with that, I could counter with blah blah blah. No, there is no realistic way of determining which tactic in the chaotic environment of a seemingly realistic fight would be more 'likely' to work. All I said was that Batman prioritized threat elimination over security of the hostage. Whether that was the right or wrong thing to do is irrelevant because....
Second, I already said this was more of a directing decision. If Snyder wanted to have Batman save Martha without even engaging the other guys, he'd have made that happen. If the set was designed to make that too problematic, they could have altered the set, given batman other gadgets, etc. The decision to make Batman prioritize the enemies was a directorial one, and a missed opportunity to visually depict Batman's character development is all I was saying.
You're assuming that people use "It didn't have ot be written this way!" as a means of resolving the conflict rather than trying to work the conflict into a more narratively power way. Like my suggestion above, writing the conflict around Batman's character progression would have been more narratively interesting than writing the conflict around "Hey, wouldn't it be awesome if he took out a warehouse of like 18 dudes?!"
I'm not sure about PSN but on Amazon there are separate links for the Theatrical and the Ultimate. Here's the Ultimate
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01DCQQD9U/?tag=neogaf0e-20
That said, holy shit it's 20$ for the digital? Why???
^Veelk, your whole argument is based around the assumption that these bad guys would be ordered to kill Martha if anything was to happen. I don't think that's a fair assumption to make, and Batman agrees with me. Hell, maybe Lex doesn't even actually want Martha dead, we can't say for 100% certainty.
I do agree it was a directorial decision in the end, and it could have been done better to satisfy more people like yourself. I honestly had no problem with it, but yes, there were other ways to do it. Snyder just wanted a cool action scene.
You know what he could have done, broken the floor directly below Martha, putting her in safety, then grappled up and taken out the bad guys. Tada!
Not really. In Civil War, that dude from Winter Soldier was ready and willing to bomb a huge crowded area, sacrificing his own life. Before that, he just fanatically believed in hydra, even though he repeatedly states how he respects Captain America. Just find someone like that.
It's not next level villain shit, quite the opposite. Just find a fanatic who believes any cost to stop the monster that is superman is for the greater good. Someone entrenched in paranoia, something that this movie in particular has a wealth of.
No, you just keep changing the point. Which is a shitty way to argue. Let's go back to the beginning.
Alienous asks why they didn't just kill Martha as soon as Batman showed up. I said because they would have given up their only leverage should Batman get through them.
That's it, Veelk. There is nothing to argue past that. Yet you come in and start talking about character priorities and competence levels but then competence is irrelevant because reasons and then creating separate scenarios where Batman does something different but when I do it I'm "spouting bullshit".
The only reason we moved on past the initial question was because you wanted to get involved but had nothing to add and started asking "well how does he know?" Because he's Batman. That's why. I mean, what's the end goal here?
You know, in a movie where a common complaint was that there was too much narrative slogging the movie down maybe a little bit of senseless action was just what the movie needed at that point. It's not like the title fight was some huge epic piece.
Well, naturally, I disagree with that, but lets just end it here with the agreement that we both think very little of each other's ability to understand, reason, and debate and leave it at that.
...yeah, this is probably a very good place to end it.
Well, the small difference is that he was trying to blow up Cap at the same time, not maniacally kill his mom in front of him. Killing his mom wouldn't do anything to stop Superman, it would be a senseless murder (not that other murders aren't senseless, but you get what I mean).
Regardless, I see what you're getting at. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.
Mr. PlayStation
Member
Mr. PlayStation
Member
Why has this movie been missing from US PS Store??
GringoSuave89
Banned
dunno what timezone US PS Store is based in, but if it's Pacific Time, it's not the 28th yet.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
PSN doesn't update until late morning/early afternoon on Tuesdays.
Just came back from the screening. Much, much better film than the one we got back in March. Obviously they couldn't release this version of the movie back then because of the length, but I still wonder how things would be if they did.
It solves much of the plot holes and awkward pacing from the other version, and I can easily say that this is the one people should watch from here on out. Unfortunately, the Ultimate Cut pronounced and made worse a lot of the issues I had with the movie.
To me, BvS is a very mean and bleak movie. I'm not trying to say it's about #NotMySupeman or "too dark, give me Marvel!", but I feel they missed the mark with a number of the characters in terms of tone and interactions. To me, Superman is the true victim of this movie. He's symbol of hope in a very hopeless and bitter world. To me, the scene that sealed it for me was when there's an anti-Superman protest where they burn a Superman effigy. They immediately cut to a young kid and his mother watching in horror on TV. This is a fucking horrible, horrible message to send to kids and to people that look up to the character for what he stands for. Which is HOPE.
I'm not so bothered by the Batman killing angle, but I am bothered and somewhat appalled by the angle of which they tried portraying Superman as this JOB-esque figure that constantly has to deal with failure, humiliation, and disappointment. The ending scene of his death was a reminder of how off the mark this movie was. He finally gets the respect and understanding of the public, and they finally see him as a hero. And all he had to do was die --- and that really sucks.
Anyway, that's what bugged me about the movie. I always thought of myself as a Batman guy, so I'm very surprised to see how worked up I am about Superman. I still enjoyed the movie to an extent, but I pleased to hear they're toning down the bleakness for Justice League. I feel awful for Henry Cavill, though. I think he's an awesome Superman, and yet he has to deal with such weird material for the character.
It solves much of the plot holes and awkward pacing from the other version, and I can easily say that this is the one people should watch from here on out. Unfortunately, the Ultimate Cut pronounced and made worse a lot of the issues I had with the movie.
To me, BvS is a very mean and bleak movie. I'm not trying to say it's about #NotMySupeman or "too dark, give me Marvel!", but I feel they missed the mark with a number of the characters in terms of tone and interactions. To me, Superman is the true victim of this movie. He's symbol of hope in a very hopeless and bitter world. To me, the scene that sealed it for me was when there's an anti-Superman protest where they burn a Superman effigy. They immediately cut to a young kid and his mother watching in horror on TV. This is a fucking horrible, horrible message to send to kids and to people that look up to the character for what he stands for. Which is HOPE.
I'm not so bothered by the Batman killing angle, but I am bothered and somewhat appalled by the angle of which they tried portraying Superman as this JOB-esque figure that constantly has to deal with failure, humiliation, and disappointment. The ending scene of his death was a reminder of how off the mark this movie was. He finally gets the respect and understanding of the public, and they finally see him as a hero. And all he had to do was die --- and that really sucks.
Anyway, that's what bugged me about the movie. I always thought of myself as a Batman guy, so I'm very surprised to see how worked up I am about Superman. I still enjoyed the movie to an extent, but I pleased to hear they're toning down the bleakness for Justice League. I feel awful for Henry Cavill, though. I think he's an awesome Superman, and yet he has to deal with such weird material for the character.
I have a question, all of this talk about Superman being a symbol for hope, where does it stem from? Comics? tHe Reeves movies? I've never read or watched either so it's a genuine question.
Obviously there is the S symbol and stuff, but I'm asking because I wonder if kids these days watch this movie, or any movie, and actually think about what kind of ideals a character stands for. Are there real life kids these days that grow up with characters and look up to them?
Obviously there is the S symbol and stuff, but I'm asking because I wonder if kids these days watch this movie, or any movie, and actually think about what kind of ideals a character stands for. Are there real life kids these days that grow up with characters and look up to them?
Weirdly it's there in the first comic.
Superman may fuck up a landlord treating a woman like shit, but the first thing he says to Lois is 'don't be afraid.' Then it's solidified in the Reeve films.
Problem is that the modern films don't really sell it. Whether it's the well-intentioned Superman Returns having Superman leave for five years (which, I'm sorry, nope - ruins the character completely), or MOS/BvS where we're told it, rather than shown it.
Ideally, Superman in the films should be a character who's incorruptible and pure good... but feels torn that he's holding humanity back. Like he loves his adopted planet so much that it kills him that he even has to exist, and yet he believes that his existence can inspire people to rise above themselves. That eventually Earth won't need a Superman (the LSOH represent this because they unite Earth with the wider universe in the future.) Done right, it's essentially a subversion of the old Western trope (guy comes into town to save them, but does bad things and isn't one of them) because Superman doesn't need to do bad things to save the world, and despite not being human is the most human character in comic-books.
It's what the films miss by grounding Lois and neutering Jimmy. She's meant to feel like a character from a 1930s/1940s screwball comedy, Jimmy's meant to be the teen sidekick from an old serial - in terms of iconography, Clark Kent/Superman should feel like he's Cary Grant in the modern day, compared to the grittier 1980s stylings of Batman.
I always thought Superman was the only one who stayed good throughout the whole movie. I mean he saved Lex's life near the end.
- Status