Support NeoGAF

[Prototype]

I think it's been proven that this is a very different movie than a typical superhero blockbuster. I'm not trying to say it's made better/worse than other superhero films, but BvS does a good job telling you the story without exposition. What would appear to be throwaway dialogue or visuals is actually part of the world building. Lex making that basketball shot is a huge part of his motivations for the film. On the surface, that doesn't make much sense. Much like the candy scene many have issues with.

What I took away from the movie is this is my preferred method of story telling. Reminds me a lot of Dark Souls and Bloodborne - the world building is done in each scene, locations, character actions, etc, but if you're not dissecting what's around you, you won't get it and may feel empty.

Holy shit. You are WB and Synders bread and butter. You are giving the movie way too much credit. It's a bad movie. The story is poorly executed, the editing is a mess, and worship of the "moment" over anything of actual substance is flooded throughout the entire 2 1/2 hours. It fails on almost every level. It's not "world building" when ciritical character motivations are entirely missing or swept under the rug.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

Man I really really wanted to see that scene where Supes faces the US government and explains himself. In fact, after seeing the first trailer I was assumed that the senate testimony was going to be about his actions during the Black Zero Event, not a new incident in Africa.

I agree with this. Superman really needed that positive moment (and more lines in general lol), and the explosion would have been an even bigger blind side. Plus it probably would have put him in to an even darker place if it had come right at the end of a speech where he was starting to win over the room and turn around everyone's attitude towards him.

 

[Bleepey]

Holy shit. You are WB and Synders bread and butter. You are giving the movie way too much credit. It's a bad movie. The story is poorly executed, the editing is a mess, and worship of the "moment" over anything of actual substance is flooded throughout the entire 2 1/2 hours. It fails on almost every level. It's not "world building" when ciritical character motivations are entirely missing or swept under the rug.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I for one look forward to seeing how the Robin died. What happened to Wayne manor. Shame Suicide Squad didn't have those scenes.

I agree with this. Superman really needed that positive moment (and more lines in general lol), and the explosion would have been an even bigger blind side. Plus it probably would have put him in to an even darker place if it had come right at the end of a speech where he was starting to win over the room and turn around everyone's attitude towards him.

It's something Lex would do.

 

[JB1981]

Holy shit. You are WB and Synders bread and butter. You are giving the movie way too much credit. It's a bad movie. The story is poorly executed, the editing is a mess, and worship of the "moment" over anything of actual substance is flooded throughout the entire 2 1/2 hours. It fails on almost every level. It's not "world building" when ciritical character motivations are entirely missing or swept under the rug.

I do think the movie makes use of visual shorthand in favor of verbal exposition throughout. This is different than proving proper character motivation however

 

[Veelk]

He clearly tries to say Martha Kent. Listen you can hear the choking. Martha was his father's last word.


1) next time you or anyone says civil war did things better I'll stil do it. I'll settle for Martha moments over the reason they stopped playfighting was because Vision missed Falcon and got the guy in the near invulnerable super suit. If he got falcon he would have either shot him and killed him instantly or got his glider and led to him falling to his death. It's weird Snyder is held to a higher standard, Richard Donner has Superman torture Zod, before throwing him against a wall to crack his ribs and drown yet, snapping Zod's neck to save the planet is beyond the pale.

2) You do realise the bodies were burnt in the film. Also why would Batman go to Africa to play coroner. When reputable sources from press to govt agencies are saying Superman's actions caused unforeseen events. Also the film literally has Superman say "I didn't kill those people". What do you think the senate hearing was for? To see him flex and have people mirin his pecs whilst mock his receding hairline. No it was for him to explain and defend himself cos of the Africa incident. Holly hunter said as much.

3) if he's trying to say save Martha Kent and Lex took her but he could not be so chatty cos he had a boot to his throat at the same time.

1. The only person that brings up the comparisons when their not relevant is you. Like, it'd be one thing if you were actually making some kind of point of contrast, but it's only ever "WELL PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH IT WHEN MAHVEL DOES IT". It's like an annoying younger sister that's constantly crying that her older sister gets to say out late or drive a car while she doesn't. You never actually make a point with it, you just bitch about a supposed double standard that nobody really brought up in the first place.

2. See, this is why it's actually really difficult to actually debate you vs just kinda laughing at your persecution complex here. You pay very selective attention and never really comprehend the full scope of anyone's argument. You're never actually going to understand or be convinced by any argument presented against you because by the time you register it, it's a shadow of what it was. Like, I am not even gonna repeat myself, because your justifcations here don't actually refute what I've been saying, especially the part about the burned bodies (Hint:

Spoiler

Yes, I remember the bodies being burned. But were they burned in a manner consistent with Superman's lasers? Nope.

)

3. Again, I really wonder how these arguments shape in your mind that you think "he can't be chatty" is an actual refutation of "this word is meaningless to the person he am talking to"

 

[IconGrist]

(Hint:Yes, I remember the bodies being burned. But were they burned in a manner consistent with Superman's lasers? Nope.)

We've never seen what effect Superman's heat vision does to a human body. Superman can control the intensity of his heat vision (which we know from Man of Steel the various times he used it like cauterizing Lois' wound or melting the steel beam Zod attempted to hit him with). So you can't definitively say that the burns were inconsistent.

 

[Veelk]

We've never seen what effect Superman's heat vision does to a human body. Superman can control the intensity of his heat vision (which we know from Man of Steel the various times he used it like cauterizing Lois' wound or melting the steel beam Zod attempted to hit him with). So you can't definitively say that the burns were inconsistent.

That's a technically correct, but really weak defense.

For one, we've never seen Superman's heat vision widen to the extent of a full human body, so regardless of anything, to burn them the way he did, he'd have to, one by one, burn them top to bottom for their entire bodies to be charred black the way they are. But honestly, I think this isn't something that anyone would know. Every public use of Superman's heat vision was at full blast.

Two, it would bring up the question that, if he was trying to kill them, why he wouldn't go full blast with his laser eyes?

Three, Lex's soldiers still couldn't really replicate his effects unless they brought their own lasers capable of charring people. Again, it's far more likely that they just used a flamethrower, which would leave residue.

Four, the point here isn't to prove Superman didn't do it, the point is anyone who'd look at this would see that this is clearly not Superman's MO. The point of this whole thing is to set superman up. Even if it didn't vindicate superman, just the fact that this is really weird would be reason to look at it with some scrutiny and from there all it can do is fall apart.

 

[IconGrist]

That's a technically correct, but really weak defense.

For one, we've never seen Superman's heat vision widen to the extent of a full human body, so regardless of anything, to burn them the way he did, he'd have to, one by one, burn them top to bottom for their entire bodies to be charred black the way they are. But honestly, I think this isn't something that anyone would know. Every public use of Superman's heat vision was at full blast.

Two, it would bring up the question that, if he was trying to kill them, why he wouldn't go full blast with his laser eyes?

Three, Lex's soldiers still couldn't really replicate his effects unless they brought their own lasers capable of charring people. Again, it's far more likely that they just used a flamethrower, which would leave residue.

Four, the point here isn't to prove Superman didn't do it, the point is anyone who'd look at this would see that this is clearly not Superman's MO. Even if it didn't vindicate superman, just the fact that this is really weird would be reason to look at it with some scrutiny and from there all it can do is fall apart.

Well, one, people are going to believe whatever they are shown. So you have burnt bodies on the news, a woman claiming to have witnessed the entire thing and that Superman was indeed responsible. No one actually knows the real extent of Superman's capabilities and can only theorize. No one actually bothered to do autopsies on the burnt bodies and they were likely just left there (or the place was overrun by bandits or something and the bodies disposed of. It's not like the US military had any reason to stay. They had their man). Hell, they were just going to bomb the hell out of the place anyway even with Lois and their inside man still there. So there's no one to refute that Superman didn't burn those bodies (except Lois but you are already aware that I found her lack of intervention to be the one real issue with BvS).

 

[Subpar Spatula]

1. The only person that brings up the comparisons when their not relevant is you. Like, it'd be one thing if you were actually making some kind of point of contrast, but it's only ever "WELL PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH IT WHEN MAHVEL DOES IT". It's like an annoying younger sister that's constantly crying that her older sister gets to say out late or drive a car while she doesn't. You never actually make a point with it, you just bitch about a supposed double standard that nobody really brought up in the first place.

2. See, this is why it's actually really difficult to actually debate you vs just kinda laughing at your persecution complex here. You pay very selective attention and never really comprehend the full scope of anyone's argument. You're never actually going to understand or be convinced by any argument presented against you because by the time you register it, it's a shadow of what it was. Like, I am not even gonna repeat myself, because your justifcations here don't actually refute what I've been saying, especially the part about the burned bodies (Hint:

Spoiler

Yes, I remember the bodies being burned. But were they burned in a manner consistent with Superman's lasers? Nope.

)

3. Again, I really wonder how these arguments shape in your mind that you think "he can't be chatty" is an actual refutation of "this word is meaningless to the person he am talking to"

It is actually really odd you are going to extreme nitpicks in BvS but don't for Marvel. Like, come on, the intensity of how Superman's heat vision burns a body is a discussion point. Think on how silly that really is overall.

 

[JB1981]

That's a technically correct, but really weak defense.

For one, we've never seen Superman's heat vision widen to the extent of a full human body, so regardless of anything, to burn them the way he did, he'd have to, one by one, burn them top to bottom for their entire bodies to be charred black the way they are. But honestly, I think this isn't something that anyone would know. Every public use of Superman's heat vision was at full blast.

Two, it would bring up the question that, if he was trying to kill them, why he wouldn't go full blast with his laser eyes?

Three, Lex's soldiers still couldn't really replicate his effects unless they brought their own lasers capable of charring people. Again, it's far more likely that they just used a flamethrower, which would leave residue.

Four, the point here isn't to prove Superman didn't do it, the point is anyone who'd look at this would see that this is clearly not Superman's MO. The point of this whole thing is to set superman up. Even if it didn't vindicate superman, just the fact that this is really weird would be reason to look at it with some scrutiny and from there all it can do is fall apart.

He was there. There are eyewitnesses. The incident happened in a third world under rule of a warlord. i's not like UN inspectors are going to go on in and investigate what happened. You are really overthinking this entire thing

 

[StrawberryJam]

Just recently watched the extended version. Some quick thoughts.

- This movies biggest problem is that it is boring. So boring. Batman and Robin may be a disaster but at least its funny.

- Fuck Jesse Eisenberg in this movie.

- The whole movie is imbued with an over inflated opinion of itself. It clumsily grasps themes that could be interesting in the right hands.

- Seriously, fuck Jesse Eisenberg in this movie.

- In it's obsession with being a dark movie they forgot to write any likeable characters. Wonder Woman is fine I suppose.

- I can no longer abide Zack Snyder as a director of films. Go make car adverts or something.

- Watch World's Finest instead. Does more in 64 minutes than BvS ever could with 3 fucking hours.

 

[neojubei]

Just recently watched the extended version. Some quick thoughts.

- This movies biggest problem is that it is boring. So boring. Batman and Robin may be a disaster but at least its funny.

- Fuck Jesse Eisenberg in this movie.

- The whole movie is imbued with an over inflated opinion of itself. It clumsily grasps themes that could be interesting in the right hands.

- Seriously, fuck Jesse Eisenberg in this movie.

- In it's obsession with being a dark movie they forgot to write any likeable characters. Wonder Woman is fine I suppose.

- I can no longer abide Zack Snyder as a director of films. Go make car adverts or something.

- Watch World's Finest instead. Does more in 64 minutes than BvS ever could with 3 fucking hours.

So damn true.

Comicgirl19 did a damn good review of this movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRq_rOVPF2s

 

[StrawberryJam]

So damn true.

Comicgirl19 did a damn good review of this movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRq_rOVPF2s

Quote from review:

"Batman's dad is a cheap motherfucker."

I love it.

 

[Veelk]

Well, one, people are going to believe whatever they are shown. So you have burnt bodies on the news, a woman claiming to have witnessed the entire thing and that Superman was indeed responsible. No one actually knows the real extent of Superman's capabilities and can only theorize. No one actually bothered to do autopsies on the burnt bodies and they were likely just left there (or the place was overrun by bandits or something and the bodies disposed of. It's not like the US military had any reason to stay. They had their man). Hell, they were just going to bomb the hell out of the place anyway even with Lois and their inside man still there. So there's no one to refute that Superman didn't burn those bodies (except Lois but you are already aware that I found her lack of intervention to be the one real issue with BvS).

No, but that doesn't mean I don't expect people, especially Batman, to try and be discerning. The idea that the US government would just leave bodies of soldiers there without a care in the world, especially when they can be potentially informative of Superman's powers and especially when they are made the centerpoint of the superman controversy, to be really unbelievable. Someone would be taking a look.

It is actually really odd you are going to extreme nitpicks in BvS but don't for Marvel. Like, come on, the intensity of how Superman's heat vision burns a body is a discussion point. Think on how silly that really is overall.

Okay, first of all, I don't see whats wrong with using Superman's heat vision intensity when it is literally the central plotpoint of the entire movie. This isn't casual bickering over power levels, it's literally the thing that the plot of the movie hinges on. It's a worthy talking point, yes.

Second, I just flat out talk about DC much more than I talk about Marvel, so the reason you don't see me bitch about Marvel as much is probably that. Bleepey is usually the one who keeps bringing up the marvel comparisons, raving about Snyder is being held to a double standard that no one except him brought up.

But when I do compare it to Marvel, I do indeed do it unfavorably...and there's a reason for that. It's not that I don't nitpick Marvel (I'm kinda iffy on Iron man's varying capabilities like how he takes a direct shot from a tank in the first movie, but steve can punch him through the suit in Civil War and so on), but there is usually good stuff to say in response to whatever is being criticized because they are much better written. Like, I don't deny that you can pick apart Zemo's plan to a similar extent in terms of utility, but his character is done so much better in terms of motivation and intention that I don't come down as hard on him about it. There are good qualities about marvel movies that mitigate the effects of their shortcomings. That's not a double standard, it's just the fact that movie's experience is something you experience as a whole. When I say Civil War does what BvS fails to do, I'm not talking about the villain's plotting, but as the overarching storyline. The characterization, the pacing, the set up, the resolution, it's all so good that when we actually do get down to picking Zemo's plan apart, those are indeed nitpicks that don't majorly detract from the overall experience, while nitpicks of Lex's plan are just further problems to add to the pile.

But here's the thing that gets me: No one here is saying Zemo's plan is immaculately plotted and believably practical. Criticizing Lex's plan isn't an endorsement of Zemo's. We could pretend Civil War doesn't even exist and BvS would not be any better for it.

 

[Bleepey]

Just recently watched the extended version. Some quick thoughts.

- This movies biggest problem is that it is boring. So boring. Batman and Robin may be a disaster but at least its funny.

- Fuck Jesse Eisenberg in this movie.

- The whole movie is imbued with an over inflated opinion of itself. It clumsily grasps themes that could be interesting in the right hands.

- Seriously, fuck Jesse Eisenberg in this movie.

- In it's obsession with being a dark movie they forgot to write any likeable characters. Wonder Woman is fine I suppose.

- I can no longer abide Zack Snyder as a director of films. Go make car adverts or something.

- Watch World's Finest instead. Does more in 64 minutes than BvS ever could with 3 fucking hours.

I watched World's finest and honestly.... No. Just no. People who say that are blinded by nostalgia. Joker magically knows Superman is weakened by kryptonite. Same for Batman. Batman dislikes Supes cos he wants to fuck Lois Lane? Yeah, just no.

 

[Bleepey]

Well, one, people are going to believe whatever they are shown. So you have burnt bodies on the news, a woman claiming to have witnessed the entire thing and that Superman was indeed responsible. No one actually knows the real extent of Superman's capabilities and can only theorize. No one actually bothered to do autopsies on the burnt bodies and they were likely just left there (or the place was overrun by bandits or something and the bodies disposed of. It's not like the US military had any reason to stay. They had their man). Hell, they were just going to bomb the hell out of the place anyway even with Lois and their inside man still there. So there's no one to refute that Superman didn't burn those bodies (except Lois but you are already aware that I found her lack of intervention to be the one real issue with BvS).

I'd also like to add the film explained why no one believed Lois. They said the reason no one believed her that Superman didn't cause an international incident was because she was biased being Superman's girlfriend and the govt supported the frame up so that their hands could be washed clean of any involvement in the Africa incident.

https://youtu.be/V0fR2xlaIWo

It is actually really odd you are going to extreme nitpicks in BvS but don't for Marvel. Like, come on, the intensity of how Superman's heat vision burns a body is a discussion point. Think on how silly that really is overall.

It's been explained to him already he's just being more obtuse than a Shawshank prison warden. Superman doesn't use his vision on regular people, hell Zod never had the chance to cos of Supes' neck snapping.

 

[Veelk]

Superman doesn't use his vision on regular people, hell Zod never had the chance to cos of Supes' neck snapping.

I mean, just to be clear, is the argument here really "We have no way of knowing what Super Heat vision strong enough to melt steel will do to a human body"?

 

[IconGrist]

No, but that doesn't mean I don't expect people, especially Batman, to try and be discerning. The idea that the US government would just leave bodies of soldiers there without a care in the world, especially when they can be potentially informative of Superman's powers and especially when they are made the centerpoint of the superman controversy, to be really unbelievable. Someone would be taking a look.

Well I hate to break it to you but that's exactly what our government would do. None of the burnt bodies were US soldiers. They'd leave cleaning that mess up to the local government. Even if the local government bothered to do autopsies why would they share anything they learned?

And I think you are really reaching on this 'his heat vision is the centerpoint of the Superman controversy' thing. The African woman mentions fire but only for dramatic effect. She was lying after all and wouldn't be able to describe it. Besides that not one person brings it up. You'd think if that was so important somebody would at least mention it. Only the incident as a whole is brought up and that Superman potentially slaughtered a bunch of people. How he did seemed irrelevant. Senator Finch didn't even set up the hearing at Capitol Hill until after the African woman confessed to lying and even that was just to expose Luthor as the person behind the incident. At that point the incident is no longer a focal point but instead the Capitol Hill bombing (which so happens to take place smack dab in the middle of the movie). The incident is never mentioned again. Superman's heat vision was never the centerpoint of any controversy.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I mean, just to be clear, is the argument here really "We have no way of knowing what Super Heat vision strong enough to melt steel will do to a human body"?

Heat vision can't melt steel beams.

 

[LionPride]

I mean, just to be clear, is the argument here really "We have no way of knowing what Super Heat vision strong enough to melt steel will do to a human body"?

Yes. Yes it is.

Also, Superman Returns earns a death a lot more than BvS. I really liked Superman and Clark in that movie. His death then revival felt earned unlike this movie.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

So the Martha moment can resonate with people, it's his father's dying words. Least that's was the intention. Is it far fetched that his father would try to defend his family.

Yeah fair enough. Although I still think Thomas Kent throwing a punch was stupid, and doesn't really serve any purpose. If someone was trying to rob you by gunpoint getting in front of your wife and child to protect them is fair enough, but throwing a punch when they have a gun pointed at you from four feet away is literally suicide.

It's what happened in real life. I think 1) the shock of seeing that men can fly 2) real life security protocols say that people should stay in buildings to protect falling glass

Nah, I don't buy it. I re-watched that part again and watched the World Engine scene from MoS, and it's literally flattening the city underneath and around it. In the scene when the guy is on the phone to Bruce it shows a building not too far away crumbling and then he turns to the staff and tells everyone to leave.

Were you not awake the last few years. 99% of the damage was Zod, Supes tried to take the fight away but wasn't able to, yet was still blamed.

Yeah, this is fair enough.

They were there to make it seem like everywhere he goes death follows. Metropolis fight (yes i know Lex didn't cause this), people die. Tries to save his girl, people die. Goes to senate hearing. People die. Remember at the start of the film he has a positive reputation. Monuments are erected in his honour, Daily Planet speaks well of him, newscasters speak glowingly of him and by the end of the film his monuments are defaced, people protest him at the senate hearing and even don't want his help at the bombing.

That's fair enough, but I think Superman would be the type to stay after the destruction and help clean up. Especially after the senate bombing. I dunno; maybe I missed important bits of information from the Extended Cut.

The whole point was to not make it too easy. You do realise Luthor knew who everyone was when he loved bringing people together?

I don't think Bruce getting info about Aquaman et al was part of Lex's plan? Why would he want them to find or know about one another?

You didn't notice the contrast of the senator literally eating out of his hand to the other senator who refuses to take the bourbon and knows bullshit when she sees it despite what you call it.

Yeah, but I don't see what that has to do with Lex's character? He doesn't seem to have any clear motivation; he alternately mentions Daddy Issues, hating gods, having defence against Krytonian powers and then, at the end, mentioning "He has found us" or suchlike. Was he trying to kill Superman on behalf of Darkseid?

2) everyone killed by Batman shot first

I didn't re-watch the whole film, but there's at least one scene where Batman smashes into a car then drags it behind him, and they weren't shooting at him first (his target vehicle moved out of the way).

3)what do you think the Robin costume with bullet holes in them was? Freaks dressed like clowns? Alfred saying throughout the film, yo Bruce you're kind of acting like a prick.

Yeah, I realise that. I just think a bit more depth/background on Robin's death would have been more interesting than half of the other stuff that happens in the film, and would have given more texture to Batman's personality and actions (brutality) in this film compared to previous Batman media. Specifically Nolan's films, which go out of their way to show a Batman who does not kill.

Oh come on really, You don't even see his face in the flood. He was grinninhg when savingf ther girl from the bilding, but objected to being worshipped like a God. You know like this:

I didn't say we saw his face during the flood, but you can read a lot from his body language and the tone of that sequence. I think the film should have shown him saving more people and doing it more happily and with more positivity. There's so little positive stuff with Clark or Superman in this film, that scene with Lois in the bath is a great scene, but sadly isolated.

Yeah it was kinda stupid. It's not like the film mentioned power was being drawn to a kryptonian scout ship, or that somewthing was flying like as kryptonian, or shot out eyebeams like a you get the idea. Do people really need this shit spelt out to them or do they just not pay attention? It's hard for people to laugh at the argument BVS is too smart for some people when despite some of BVS's faults there is stuff like this which is explained and shown in film.

Alright, fair enough. I didn't like this scene though, and I felt like it was engineered to give Lois something to do and give her an other opportunity to be saved. I wish she wasn't so wasted in this film.

I read most of that and I feel you missed the point. Constantly.

Wow, thanks for the input. Maybe you could explain why, instead of trying to patronise me.

Because that's the most important event that happened in Bruce's life - it's basically the origin of Batman. It's also a catalyst for the (nice on paper, stupidly executed) twist during the Bat vs Supes battle. It was also just 2 - 3 minutes of the opening, which most movies spends showing... just various things or landscapes anyway, so there's really no damage done there.

Yeah, okay. I have softened a bit on this since I saw the film, although I don't think they needed to show young Bruce falling into the cave etc (especially as this was a dream).

Not everyone. Some people hate him, or rather fear him because he's basically a god who could destroy the whole city with his eyes if he wanted to. That's why there's the whole Senate hearing - to decide if a person with such power could be free to do whatever he pleases without any obligations.

Other people revere him. There's a statue of Superman in the center of Metropolis.

I liked how there was a statue of him with plaques around, presumably listing those who died. But you would think that in the 18 months since that happened there would have been some kind of senate hearing, where it would be established that Superman was defending earth and was a hero. I know obviously there's still going to be people who hate and fear him, but I really don't think it made enough effort to show him as selfless and heroic. They didn't spend enough time with Clark and/or Superman alone. Like that bit in Superman Returns where's he's just floating over the planet listening. I really like that part.

And Doomsday was a backup plan. The primary plan was to make people hate Superman and to put him against Batman.

It wasn't a backup plan, as it was happening regardless. I mean, if Batman successfully killed Superman, then what? Was Lex counting on Batman to be able to kill Doomsday as well? What if he failed, Wonder Woman hadn't got involved and Doomsday had wrecked all of Metropolis and Gotham, and then went pouncing around the world destroying all population centres?! Considering Lex hated Superman for being a 'God', it just strikes me as dumb that he would in response make another God.

Uhm, there's:
- destroyed Robin's costume with Joker's writings all over it
- destroyed Wayne's mansion
- Bruce's comment: "Twenty years in Gotham, Alfred; we've seen what promises are worth. How many good guys are left? How many stayed that way? "
- Bruce's comment: "Maybe it's that Gotham City and me... we just have a bad history with freaks dressed like clowns. "

Yes, the movie doesn't show you the exact scene that pushes Batman over the edge, but it clearly indicates that over those 20 years a lot happened that got Batman to the place he is right now.

Yeah, okay - that's fair enough.

And he couldn't really do anything about the bomb, because the second he understood there's a bomb in the courtroom, it was too late - it already exploded destroying everything around him. And in that moment he knew he failed.

The theatrical cut is also guilty of cutting way too much things. In the extended cut there's a scene where Superman helps rescue the survivors of the bombing incident.

No, he wasn't. Luthor was toying with both Supes and Batman at the same plan. Those letters Bruce was receiving ("Your family died because of YOU" - or something like that) was to feed Bruce with guilt and hate. It was all orchestrated by Lex.

I still think his plan was bad because the two things weren't related - somehow sending letters goading Bruce fed his hatred for Superman? It's lucky that he didn't direct his anger towards Two-Face or the Riddler instead, as they have more in common with the Joker than Superman does.

As I said earlier - the idea was good on paper: Batman in that moment was to realize that he became the man he feared - the murderer of his parents, and "Martha" (the last thing his father said before he died) was the keyword to wake him up. However, the execution was terrible and far-fetched with Clark unable to simply say "save my mother" or "save Martha Kent", or anything that would sound realistic.

Yeah, I understand that making Superman seem human with parents and Lois risking her life defending him was the catalyst which removed Bruce's red mist, but I just don't think the execution was very good. It's a decent enough idea on paper though.

True that. DCCU Superman didn't really get that much character development and wasn't really shown as a good person, especially in BvS.

This is what bothered me too. I feel like they should have spent less time on side-stuff and more on Bruce and Clark's characters.

It's not Lex Luthor it's Lex Jr

Does that actually matter? The character is Lex Luthor, regardless of his father's name. In actual fact, I think they should write him out of the next movie (I seriously hate this portrayal), and have someone playing his dad show up at the prison in the next movie, talk to him through one of those phone booth things and say something like "You're a disappointment, son. You always have been." and then just leave, to be the proper Lex Luthor and the true villain in a Justice League movie or Man of Steel sequel.

Besides, the title sequence was beautiful. Snyder at his best.

Can't disagree with this. The visuals and cinematography are gorgeous throughout.

T. in the extended edition, this is better explained. they have a witness planted by Lex who says Superman did it. she is the key witness in the hearings. she has change of heart and is then killed by KGBeast.

Fair enough; again a failing of the theatrical cut, and maybe I should find the time to watch the Extended Cut.

WTF, no! it's the worst soundtrack hans zimmer has ever scored. just awful.

You take that back!

the kyrptonite was from the indian ocean where the terraformer in the first movie was trying to recreate Krypton's environment. Zod had nothing to do with it.

I don't recall the exact dialogue, but it being a byproduct of the terraforming procedure is plausible, so fair enough.

And this is the problem i have with folks who dislike this movie. it is not a 3/10 movie. is it flawed? yes. But in no way is it a bad movie like Thor 2, Iron Man 2, fucking Ghost Rider and Daredevil. Those movies are in the 3-4 range.

I stand by that - I think it's a very poor execution of an idea which should have been a slam-dunk. Probably the only bit I thought worked without some kind of compromise or caveat was the warehouse scene (up until Batman shoots KGBeast).

I look at other comic book movies and it's amazing how formulaic they have all become. And the moment they try to do something different like Civil War they fall into the same trap as BvS where they fail to setup proper motivations and kind of meander towards the conclusion. i think both movies suffer from these same issues and yet Civil War escaped all criticism. bizarre.

I think Civil War is a much better movie, but it's not without flaws either. Winter Soldier was considerably better.

He clearly tries to say Martha Kent. Listen you can hear the choking. Martha was his father's last word.

This isn't true because there's a pause before the choking sound.

yet, snapping Zod's neck to save the planet is beyond the pale.

I think the backlash over Supes snapping Zod's neck is unfair. It was a fight he could barely keep on top of, and he clearly didn't want to have to kill him as Zod was the last vestige of his home planet. After doing so he was clearly distraught, but the pacing of the film was the main issue, as in the next scene he crashes the satellite and makes vague threats to the military.

3) if he's trying to say save Martha Kent and Lex took her but he could not be so chatty cos he had a boot to his throat at the same time.

Which again is why he should have said this before the fight when he was in control of the situation.

Man I really really wanted to see that scene where Supes faces the US government and explains himself. In fact, after seeing the first trailer I was assumed that the senate testimony was going to be about his actions during the Black Zero Event, not a new incident in Africa.

Yeah, it's a shame that wasn't in the film in some capacity. Again, we needed more characterisation of Supes.

Heat vision can't melt steel beams.

It certainly can, because Zod tries to hit him with a steel beam in MoS but he melts it with his heat vision.

 

[Bleepey]

Yeah fair enough. Although I still think Thomas Kent throwing a punch was stupid, and doesn't really serve any purpose. If someone was trying to rob you by gunpoint getting in front of your wife and child to protect them is fair enough, but throwing a punch when they have a gun pointed at you from four feet away is literally suicide.

Who knows what you might do in such a situation.

Nah, I don't buy it. I re-watched that part again and watched the World Engine scene from MoS, and it's literally flattening the city underneath and around it. In the scene when the guy is on the phone to Bruce it shows a building not too far away crumbling and then he turns to the staff and tells everyone to leave.

There was rising anger across downtown Manhattan yesterday as more and more stories from survivors of Tuesday's assault converged on the horrific truth: that staff had been instructed to remain - or even return - inside No 2 World Trade Centre after the first tower had been hit and was in flames.
Most were turned back by officials of the Port Authority, which had commissioned and supervised the building of the centre in the Sixties.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/16/september11.usa3

Yeah, this is fair enough.

That's fair enough, but I think Superman would be the type to stay after the destruction and help clean up. Especially after the senate bombing. I dunno; maybe I missed important bits of information from the Extended Cut.

https://youtu.be/C5STJH4xbLw?t=83

I don't think Bruce getting info about Aquaman et al was part of Lex's plan? Why would he want them to find or know about one another?

Lex had a general curiosity about metahumans

Yeah, but I don't see what that has to do with Lex's character? He doesn't seem to have any clear motivation; he alternately mentions Daddy Issues, hating gods, having defence against Krytonian powers and then, at the end, mentioning "He has found us" or suchlike. Was he trying to kill Superman on behalf of Darkseid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuwNhed4ObU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qrCs2rmT3g

I didn't re-watch the whole film, but there's at least one scene where Batman smashes into a car then drags it behind him, and they weren't shooting at him first (his target vehicle moved out of the way).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_EbYdg9sqg

Maybe

Yeah, I realise that. I just think a bit more depth/background on Robin's death would have been more interesting than half of the other stuff that happens in the film, and would have given more texture to Batman's personality and actions (brutality) in this film compared to previous Batman media. Specifically Nolan's films, which go out of their way to show a Batman who does not kill.

Batman killed a shit tonne in the Nolan films. Even Jonah Nolan admitted as such. Baleman was just a big fat hypocrite.

I didn't say we saw his face during the flood, but you can read a lot from his body language and the tone of that sequence. I think the film should have shown him saving more people and doing it more happily and with more positivity. There's so little positive stuff with Clark or Superman in this film, that scene with Lois in the bath is a great scene, but sadly isolated.

Each to their own.

Alright, fair enough. I didn't like this scene though, and I felt like it was engineered to give Lois something to do and give her an other opportunity to be saved. I wish she wasn't so wasted in this film.



Wow, thanks for the input. Maybe you could explain why, instead of trying to patronise me.



Yeah, okay. I have softened a bit on this since I saw the film, although I don't think they needed to show young Bruce falling into the cave etc (especially as this was a dream).



I liked how there was a statue of him with plaques around, presumably listing those who died. But you would think that in the 18 months since that happened there would have been some kind of senate hearing, where it would be established that Superman was defending earth and was a hero. I know obviously there's still going to be people who hate and fear him, but I really don't think it made enough effort to show him as selfless and heroic. They didn't spend enough time with Clark and/or Superman alone. Like that bit in Superman Returns where's he's just floating over the planet listening. I really like that part.

They had like a montage where he rescued people on a ship, saved a space shuttle, saved people from flooding, to name a few

It wasn't a backup plan, as it was happening regardless. I mean, if Batman successfully killed Superman, then what? Was Lex counting on Batman to be able to kill Doomsday as well? What if he failed, Wonder Woman hadn't got involved and Doomsday had wrecked all of Metropolis and Gotham, and then went pouncing around the world destroying all population centres?! Considering Lex hated Superman for being a 'God', it just strikes me as dumb that he would in response make another God.

Superman is shown to be not all powerful as how he is viewed. If Batman won Doomsday would not be needed. He expected to control Doomsday.

Yeah, okay - that's fair enough.

And he couldn't really do anything about the bomb, because the second he understood there's a bomb in the courtroom, it was too late - it already exploded destroying everything around him. And in that moment he knew he failed.

The theatrical cut is also guilty of cutting way too much things. In the extended cut there's a scene where Superman helps rescue the survivors of the bombing incident.



I still think his plan was bad because the two things weren't related - somehow sending letters goading Bruce fed his hatred for Superman? It's lucky that he didn't direct his anger towards Two-Face or the Riddler instead, as they have more in common with the Joker than Superman does.

The letters were the final straw.

Yeah, I understand that making Superman seem human with parents and Lois risking her life defending him was the catalyst which removed Bruce's red mist, but I just don't think the execution was very good. It's a decent enough idea on paper though.

Probably could be done better since so many people missed the point.

This is what bothered me too. I feel like they should have spent less time on side-stuff and more on Bruce and Clark's characters.



Does that actually matter? The character is Lex Luthor, regardless of his father's name. In actual fact, I think they should write him out of the next movie (I seriously hate this portrayal), and have someone playing his dad show up at the prison in the next movie, talk to him through one of those phone booth things and say something like "You're a disappointment, son. You always have been." and then just leave, to be the proper Lex Luthor and the true villain in a Justice League movie or Man of Steel sequel.



Can't disagree with this. The visuals and cinematography are gorgeous throughout.



Fair enough; again a failing of the theatrical cut, and maybe I should find the time to watch the Extended Cut.



You take that back!



I don't recall the exact dialogue, but it being a byproduct of the terraforming procedure is plausible, so fair enough.



I stand by that - I think it's a very poor execution of an idea which should have been a slam-dunk. Probably the only bit I thought worked without some kind of compromise or caveat was the warehouse scene (up until Batman shoots KGBeast).



I think Civil War is a much better movie, but it's not without flaws either. Winter Soldier was considerably better.



This isn't true because there's a pause before the choking sound.

https://youtu.be/Oufremzw7d8?t=97

Nope. You can clearly hear "you're letting him kill Martha choke choke"

I think the backlash over Supes snapping Zod's neck is unfair. It was a fight he could barely keep on top of, and he clearly didn't want to have to kill him as Zod was the last vestige of his home planet. After doing so he was clearly distraught, but the pacing of the film was the main issue, as in the next scene he crashes the satellite and makes vague threats to the military.



Which again is why he should have said this before the fight when he was in control of the situation.

Tried to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58KXLPE7M_s

Yeah, it's a shame that wasn't in the film in some capacity. Again, we needed more characterisation of Supes.



It certainly can, because Zod tries to hit him with a steel beam in MoS but he melts it with his heat vision.

 

[Mr_Zombie]

I still think his plan was bad because the two things weren't related - somehow sending letters goading Bruce fed his hatred for Superman? It's lucky that he didn't direct his anger towards Two-Face or the Riddler instead, as they have more in common with the Joker than Superman does.

I don't remember if it was like that in the TC, but in the Extended Cut that Bleepey posted ("Capitol Bombing Scene") Bruce reads the "You let your family die" scribbling while the TV shows a scene from the bombing aftermatch. The sentence is wrote on a paper describing the destruction of Metropolis (Superman vs Zod fight). It's clear that the purpose of it was to show Bruce that bad things happen and people die when Superman is around; to put a salt on the old wound: "you did nothing when your parents were being murdered; you did nothing when Superman was destroying Metropolis and let your employees die; now more people are dying and you're still doing nothing".

Also, in the next scene when Alfred looks at the paper, there's also a drawing of the capitol on fire which would indicate that Lex purposely sent those things right before the bombing, to make the connection. Again, I don't remember whether it was like that in the original version.

Was this a good plan? Well, no. Like a lot of things in BvS, it makes sense only if you start ignoring that a lot of things shouldn't (couldn't) happen if only some characters would stop and start thinking logically for a while. But it still makes sense that Lex orchestrated all of this.

IIRC the thugs killing the branded bandit in the prison was also Lex's doing. But, once again, I think the whole scene of the killing was deleted from the theatrical cut.

 

[Mighty Chin]

My Wife watched this by herself on the weekend. This is what she said.

"What the Fuck was that?"

I told her it's best to not talk about it.



Haha reading Bleepy trying to defend this movie is hilarious.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

https://youtu.be/C5STJH4xbLw?t=83

I mean, posting relevant scenes from the Extended Cut in defence of the Theatrical Cut isn't really a defence for anything, besides highlighting how poor the cinematic cut was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuwNhed4ObU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qrCs2rmT3g

A few lines about his (abusive) father and a hatred of Gods is not good enough character motivation for me, but each to their own.

https://youtu.be/Oufremzw7d8?t=97

Nope. You can clearly hear "you're letting him kill Martha choke choke"

I don't agree, but whatever.

Tried to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58KXLPE7M_s

Again, you're missing my point. Literally nothing Batman did to Superman at this point of the fight had any effect. He says "Bruce please, I was wrong you have listen to me. Lex wants to... You don't understand, there's no time." And then he literally starts beating up Batman. Why not just explain the fucking situation rather than immediately trying to kill Batman (and he pushes Batman through a building and then throws him at the rooftop, so unless he knew that the armour was strong enough to survive this impact then he was trying to kill Batman at this point in the fight)?

Anyway, we're going over old ground and we're obviously not going to agree, so I'm out.

IIRC the thugs killing the branded bandit in the prison was also Lex's doing. But, once again, I think the whole scene of the killing was deleted from the theatrical cut.

Yeah, I've seen that scene on YouTube (and already knew about it), but it's definitely not in the theatrical cut. It's a shame they cut out so much shit which gave a bit more context to events and decisions.

 

[OraleeWey]

Just watched this and I liked it. Not sure why there was so much hate. I remember it unfold when the movie first came out. Anyway, I'm a superhero noob and there's too many of em. Too many movies, comics, universes, etc.

From my understanding, it goes like this, Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman Vs Superman. This movies are in chronological order aren't they? Am I missing something else? What is after Batman vs Superman? Which movies do I need to watch in order to get this while story?

 

[CaviarMeths]

Just watched this and I liked it. Not sure why there was so much hate. I remember it unfold when the movie first came out. Anyway, I'm a superhero noob and there's too many of em. Too many movies, comics, universes, etc.

From my understanding, it goes like this, Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman Vs Superman. This movies are in chronological order aren't they? Am I missing something else? What is after Batman vs Superman? Which movies do I need to watch in order to get this while story?

With any movie series, always release order.

Man of Steel (2013)
Batman v Superman (2016)
Wonder Woman (2017)

 

[OraleeWey]

With any movie series, always release order.

Man of Steel (2013)
Batman v Superman (2016)
Wonder Woman (2017)

Thank you. Yes, it's not "Superman", like I wrote above, it's Man of Steel.

Alright, so chronologically so far it's, WW -> MoS -> BvsS. What comes next after that?

 

[Keym]

Thank you. Yes, it's not "Superman", like I wrote above, it's Man of Steel.

Alright, so chronologically so far it's, WW -> MoS -> BvsS. What comes next after that?

Suicide Squad (2016), then Justice League later this year.

 

[OraleeWey]

Suicide Squad (2016), then Justice League later this year.

Suicide squad is part of the same timeline ?

 

[Wingfan19]

Suicide squad is part of the same timeline ?

Yes, it immediately follows Batman v Superman, referencing events in that film.

 

[OraleeWey]

Yes, it immediately follows Batman v Superman, referencing events in that film.

This is where all my confusion with superhero movie lies.

Anyway, screw it I'll just watch it and then kook forward to Justice League.

Is SQ a movie of its own or are there more movies leading up to it?

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Nah. Suicide is before Wonder Woman, ironically..

 

[OraleeWey]

Nah. Suicide is before Wonder Woman, ironically..

How's that possible? I remember watching the SQ trailers and it looked like modern world. WW was like 1900's.

 

[Wingfan19]

How's that possible? I remember watching the SQ trailers and it looked like modern world. WW was like 1900's.

He meant it as in, it came out before Wonder Woman, but of course in the movie universe it's set after, since WW is in World War 1.

Man of Steel
Batman v Superman
Suicide Squad
Wonder Woman

That's the order the movies came out. You should (but don't have to) watch them in that order.

 

[OraleeWey]

He meant it as in, it came out before Wonder Woman, but of course in the movie universe it's set after, since WW is in World War 1.

Man of Steel
Batman v Superman
Suicide Squad
Wonder Woman

That's the order the movies came out. You should (but don't have to) watch them in that order.

I see. Alright yeah. So I'm going to assume that there will be more movies after Justice League because I remember seeing The Flash and (was that Poseidon?) as well in BvsS? I think there was alto that one guy in the video tapes, not sure who he was.

 

[Wingfan19]

I see. Alright yeah. So I'm going to assume that there will be more movies after Justice League because I remember seeing The Flash and (was that Poseidon?) as well in BvsS? I think there was alto that one guy in the video tapes, not sure who he was.

Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg were shown in the "file footage" that Bruce found. They are filming Aquaman now and it will be out December of 2018. DC only has 1 movie next year (they were supposed to also have Flash coming out next year, but the director dropped out and there's been other problems), but we will get the new line up of movies this Saturday at Comic Con during their panel.

DC has in some way or another announced the following movies...

The Batman - directed by Matt Reeves
Aquaman - directed by James Wan
Flash
Gotham City Sirens (a movie starring Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy, and Catwoman) - directed by David Ayer (same guy that did Suicide Squad)
Suicide Squad 2
Batgirl - directed by Joss Whedon
Nightwing - directed by Chris McKay
Wonder Woman 2 - will most likely be directed by Patty Jenkins again
Shazam/Black Adam
Justice League Dark

Again, this Saturday at Comic Con, WB and DC should clarify release dates, directors, and new casting announcements for most if not all of these movies.

 

[OraleeWey]

Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg were shown in the "file footage" that Bruce found. They are filming Aquaman now and it will be out December of 2018. DC only has 1 movie next year (they were supposed to also have Flash coming out next year, but the director dropped out and there's been other problems), but we will get the new line up of movies this Saturday at Comic Con during their panel.

DC has in some way or another announced the following movies...

The Batman - directed by Matt Reeves
Aquaman - directed by James Wan
Flash
Gotham City Sirens (a movie starring Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy, and Catwoman) - directed by David Ayer (same guy that did Suicide Squad)
Suicide Squad 2
Batgirl - directed by Joss Whedon
Nightwing - directed by Chris McKay
Wonder Woman 2 - will most likely be directed by Patty Jenkins again
Shazam/Black Adam
Justice League Dark

Again, this Saturday at Comic Con, WB and DC should clarify release dates, directors, and new casting announcements for most if not all of these movies.

Thanks.