Right. I think it was something along the lines of "do you even feel fear like a man does? You're not Brave"
or something along those lines. Just further dehumanizing him in his eyes
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Batman v Superman Extended Edition trailer + details
- Thread starter bananafactory
- Start date
- Status
or something along those lines. Just further dehumanizing him in his eyes
cj_iwakura
Member
"You're not brave. Men are brave."
I don't think anything really needs to be explained in the Africa plotline or even be in the movie itself.
This movie needed less plot, not more. There needs to be an edit of the movie that has the bullet sublot completely removed, nothing interesting happened there and so much time was wasted.
Sorry, you just hit on a common meme about how Clark isn't his idealic self because the Kents are pragmatists. The dude does everything he can for others, even saves the life of the person who started it all, and yet fans are mad he didn't smile while doing it. It seems a lot of "failures" of this movie are because the movie didn't go in the direction the fans wanted.
I don't buy that. Superman's wanton disregard for the little folk is highlighted in both Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman. And he gets his from pa Kent, who didn't want Clark to use his powers because it would have been inconvenient and from ma Kent who says "you don't owe this world a thing. And you never did."
This is a Superman I'd believe would snap a neck because it's expedient.
There's a difference between pragmatic and cynical. The Kents in these films are not pragmatic.
I liked the theatrical cut, I'll like this.
As I'm not a big comic reader I don't bring any prejudices about what the characters should be, and I actually quite like the take on moving Supes away from the square-jawed all-American hero and into something more morally ambiguous.
Same goes for Batman - I've always found the 'but he doesn't kill people!' Thing funny, given he leaves a trail of crippled and seriously injured victims wherever he goes.
WW was also awesome.
As I'm not a big comic reader I don't bring any prejudices about what the characters should be, and I actually quite like the take on moving Supes away from the square-jawed all-American hero and into something more morally ambiguous.
Same goes for Batman - I've always found the 'but he doesn't kill people!' Thing funny, given he leaves a trail of crippled and seriously injured victims wherever he goes.
WW was also awesome.
Discotheque
Banned
it's a cool idea but i'm about ready now for him going back to being a clean cut archetypal hero. he should be done with doubting himself. that talk with his dad in BvS and then the ending should be the end of it.
edit: or they should just commit and have him heat-vision his protesters in the next one lol.
Yeah, the biggest problem is the Kent's.
And that's because the guy on Smallville was MUCH better (acting and writing) at delivering platitudes, being a simple man, and conflicted between wanting Clark to be who he was and not have him be an object of fear in the world.
That, and Jor-El is a horrible, horrible character. Turning him into an action hero was some staggeringly stupid shit. He's the guy who sends Clark to Earth, that's all you need him to do.
Discotheque
Banned
Kents and Jor-El/Zod were the best thing about man of steel. Costner is a realist. And no he wasn't saying drown them in the bus. "Maybe..." is the guy trying to find an answer for his kid without sounding like a hypocrite. I found that kind of alien parenting refreshing. He knows how hungry world governments would be to use Clark as a weapon. He's not holding the kid back so much as knowing he's not ready yet to be a hero.
The problem with Jor-El's monologues though is Superman. He's making speeches that are more suited to the Donner/Singer Superman than anything Cavill does in Man of Steel. "You will inspire them"...nah you're scaring the shit out of them tbh.
edit: I haven't seen Smallville so I can't really comment on that Kent.
The problem with Jor-El's monologues though is Superman. He's making speeches that are more suited to the Donner/Singer Superman than anything Cavill does in Man of Steel. "You will inspire them"...nah you're scaring the shit out of them tbh.
edit: I haven't seen Smallville so I can't really comment on that Kent.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
So a high dive, swim, and one fight scene makes a character an action star now....
And there is nothing wrong with the Kents. Them reassuring Clark that it's OK to live his life in anonymity and as human isn't wrong, or terrible. It's hypocritical to even think so.
Goyer should havee thrown in at the end of the speech "in the sun. But before that they will fear your power, it will take a long time and maybe even your death before they trust you or inspire them."
And there is nothing wrong with the Kents. Them reassuring Clark that it's OK to live his life in anonymity and as human isn't wrong, or terrible. It's hypocritical to even think so.
Goyer should havee thrown in at the end of the speech "in the sun. But before that they will fear your power, it will take a long time and maybe even your death before they trust you or inspire them."
Discotheque
Banned
lmao. goyer playing the long game, that would have been hilarious.
I didn't find anything wrong with that line, to be honest. She wants Clark to be Superman because he wants it, not because he feels an obligation. She's just trying to help him realize that.
Uh... yes.
Jor-El going toe to toe with Zod, who's been trained from birth to be a soldier, may have been a comment on ''you can choose your path, you don't have to stick to the path given to you', but it was still ludicrous. And yes, riding on a space lizard as your world explodes around you hunting for a macguffin is pretty far from the standard idea of Jor-El as a scientist.
Except it's emotional bullying. And the undercurrent of 'they'll fear you' is creepy as fuck. Especially today. Because it turns Clark Kent from a guy who believes in hope to a guy who, at the age of 30, is emotionally broken and tormented and filled with angst.
Like sure, that's a lot of people in their 30s... but that's not Superman. And while I think the comparison falls down a tad flat, really Superman should be more like MCU Captain America - someone raised with values who sees the world is broken, but believes it can be better and will fight and fight until he's no longer needed, and then he'll happily walk away.
The thing is, Superman can't be morally ambiguous. The moment he starts to compromise his beliefs and values, is the moment he starts to go down a path he will not be able to pull himself away from, and God help the poor mortals who try to stop him. Crossing the line and killing Zod removes the line. It opens the door for him to compromise his morals each time he's up against a "no win situation."
It's actually Batman's greatest fear in the movie, and Superman literally does NOTHING to dispel those worries. The conflict between the two doesn't end because Superman manages to prove to Batman that he isn't a monster. It ends because their mothers share the same fucking name. I mean, Jesus Christ is that awful.
The whole point of Superman is that he is a nigh unstoppable God, yet due to his stellar upbringing from the Kents, who are honest, Noble, genuine, and selfless people, Clark grows up to become a great man. He understands and respects the burden of his powers, but he has a rock solid moral compass. He's not perfect, of course, and he's often challenged and tempted to take the easy path to solving his problems, because, well, his powers allow him to do such things, but he will never take that easy path if it's not the right path. The right way isn't often clear cut, so he chooses the path that will result in the least amount of harm to come to humanity.
How Superman manages to maintain his morality and integrity while dealing with foes that will commit atrocities with no compunction, is what makes him an interesting, compelling character. When he's up against a no win scenario, and he comes out on top, you cheer. Superman isn't boring because he's good, or a Boy Scout. Superman is boring when writers don't understand why he's such a complex character. I'm actually not a big Superman fan. I don't hate him, but I like him when he's done well, like in the Superman Animated series, and comic storylines like All Star Superman and For All Seasons to name only two.
Superman moping about his place in the world for two whole movies isn't interesting, deep, or emotionally stirring. It could be, for a first to second act in a single film, but by BvS, he should have been a beacon that humanity rally's behind. The problem is really that BvS is a movie tha we should have gotten after Man of Steel 2, Wonder Woman, Batman, Dawn of Justice, and Justice League 1. It's a story that wasn't earned in any capacity. The world's reaction to the battle of Metropolis is enough meat for the entirety of Man of Steel 2. WW and Batman solo films would have been able to establish both characters and their mindsets and motives, Dawn of Justice could have been the trinity coming together, and setting out to find the other meta humans, and dealing with a threat tha would require all three, while hinting at a threat that perhaps the three of them aren't enough to handle, thus cementing the need for a Justice League.
The JL movie would be the payoff, and maybe another sequel, one that lays the groundwork for a rift in the relationship between Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. Maybe the death of Maxwell Lord and Ted Kord causes friction.
Then, you give us Batman v Superman. By that point, relationships have been established, friendships built, and tension is at its highest. You can put all the Dark Knight Returns imagery and fan service you want in that film, and it'd have felt earned. Sure, it may have taken 8 years to get there, but fuck would it have been worth it. Maybe cap off the whole thing with a Doomsday movie after BvS.
But no, Warner/DC wanted that Marvel money, but they didn't want to do the work to get there. They wanted to short cut their way to Avengers style profit, failing to realize that Avengers worked because, even though the stories for both films are average at best, audiences were all on board because the cast is so damn personable and likable. It's not the quips or the light tone, it's that Tony, Steve, Thor, Hulk, Widow, Hawkeye and the rest are relatable characters. They act like human beings, not living action figures being mashed together like a kid playing. Would you want to have a beer with Superman or Batman? Fuck no. But I'm sure most of us would hang with Steve or Natasha at a bar.
I'm a huge DC and Marvel fan. I grew up loving their characters. What we've gotten on the big screen with MoS and BvS are poor imitations of those characters. Arguably the most iconic characters in comics, and audiences aren't resonating with them because they don't really feel like them. Affleck was a solid Batman, but all we get of him in this movie is the obsessed Bruce and brutal Batman. There's not much humanity to buoy that rage, and it makes him feel distant and removed from us. Not very empathetic. The best Bruce/Batman scene in the entire movie isn't the warehouse scene where he goes all Arkham video games on us. It's the scene at the very beginning, where Bruce is witnessing the battle between Clark and Zod, and the buildings are coming down, and people are dying, and we see Bruce actually behaving like a human being and being a hero. The rest of the movie is downhill for every character after that scene.
I haven't written off the DC Cinematic Universe yet, however. I just don't think it needs to take three movies to get characters on the screen that resemble their iconic and heroic comic counterparts.
It's actually Batman's greatest fear in the movie, and Superman literally does NOTHING to dispel those worries. The conflict between the two doesn't end because Superman manages to prove to Batman that he isn't a monster. It ends because their mothers share the same fucking name. I mean, Jesus Christ is that awful.
The whole point of Superman is that he is a nigh unstoppable God, yet due to his stellar upbringing from the Kents, who are honest, Noble, genuine, and selfless people, Clark grows up to become a great man. He understands and respects the burden of his powers, but he has a rock solid moral compass. He's not perfect, of course, and he's often challenged and tempted to take the easy path to solving his problems, because, well, his powers allow him to do such things, but he will never take that easy path if it's not the right path. The right way isn't often clear cut, so he chooses the path that will result in the least amount of harm to come to humanity.
How Superman manages to maintain his morality and integrity while dealing with foes that will commit atrocities with no compunction, is what makes him an interesting, compelling character. When he's up against a no win scenario, and he comes out on top, you cheer. Superman isn't boring because he's good, or a Boy Scout. Superman is boring when writers don't understand why he's such a complex character. I'm actually not a big Superman fan. I don't hate him, but I like him when he's done well, like in the Superman Animated series, and comic storylines like All Star Superman and For All Seasons to name only two.
Superman moping about his place in the world for two whole movies isn't interesting, deep, or emotionally stirring. It could be, for a first to second act in a single film, but by BvS, he should have been a beacon that humanity rally's behind. The problem is really that BvS is a movie tha we should have gotten after Man of Steel 2, Wonder Woman, Batman, Dawn of Justice, and Justice League 1. It's a story that wasn't earned in any capacity. The world's reaction to the battle of Metropolis is enough meat for the entirety of Man of Steel 2. WW and Batman solo films would have been able to establish both characters and their mindsets and motives, Dawn of Justice could have been the trinity coming together, and setting out to find the other meta humans, and dealing with a threat tha would require all three, while hinting at a threat that perhaps the three of them aren't enough to handle, thus cementing the need for a Justice League.
The JL movie would be the payoff, and maybe another sequel, one that lays the groundwork for a rift in the relationship between Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. Maybe the death of Maxwell Lord and Ted Kord causes friction.
Then, you give us Batman v Superman. By that point, relationships have been established, friendships built, and tension is at its highest. You can put all the Dark Knight Returns imagery and fan service you want in that film, and it'd have felt earned. Sure, it may have taken 8 years to get there, but fuck would it have been worth it. Maybe cap off the whole thing with a Doomsday movie after BvS.
But no, Warner/DC wanted that Marvel money, but they didn't want to do the work to get there. They wanted to short cut their way to Avengers style profit, failing to realize that Avengers worked because, even though the stories for both films are average at best, audiences were all on board because the cast is so damn personable and likable. It's not the quips or the light tone, it's that Tony, Steve, Thor, Hulk, Widow, Hawkeye and the rest are relatable characters. They act like human beings, not living action figures being mashed together like a kid playing. Would you want to have a beer with Superman or Batman? Fuck no. But I'm sure most of us would hang with Steve or Natasha at a bar.
I'm a huge DC and Marvel fan. I grew up loving their characters. What we've gotten on the big screen with MoS and BvS are poor imitations of those characters. Arguably the most iconic characters in comics, and audiences aren't resonating with them because they don't really feel like them. Affleck was a solid Batman, but all we get of him in this movie is the obsessed Bruce and brutal Batman. There's not much humanity to buoy that rage, and it makes him feel distant and removed from us. Not very empathetic. The best Bruce/Batman scene in the entire movie isn't the warehouse scene where he goes all Arkham video games on us. It's the scene at the very beginning, where Bruce is witnessing the battle between Clark and Zod, and the buildings are coming down, and people are dying, and we see Bruce actually behaving like a human being and being a hero. The rest of the movie is downhill for every character after that scene.
I haven't written off the DC Cinematic Universe yet, however. I just don't think it needs to take three movies to get characters on the screen that resemble their iconic and heroic comic counterparts.
Discotheque
Banned
you're right there but although Cap 2 and 3 are great I really don't want Superman's personality to be like that character tbh. Steve is consistently one of the more boring things about these films when he speaks. It just feels like he's a talking head to repeat his moral beliefs ad nauseum.
Nah I just want Superman to talk like he does to Lois Lane in the old films or like he does to the passengers of the plane he rescues in Returns. Down to earth good boy from kansas. Not so stoic and wooden like Cap has been.
Batman v Superman doesn't work if it's set after they become friends. I mean arguably it doesn't work before they become friends either, but Batman/Superman aren't Iron Man/Cap - they're more like Bucky/Cap and Rhodey/Stark. Actual bros.
Sure, they fight in Elseworld's (I say fight, brainwashed Superman/Batman faking his death), but in main continuity they rarely fight and even at the darkest moments (Infinite Crisis) they're fundamentally opposed belief wise, but they have no real desire to fight each other.
And the idea of MOS - Batman solo - MOS 2 - Batman v Superman bewilders me. The idea that a Batman solo film where he's reacting to MOS just seems like it negates the whole 'you're dangerous' part on both sides. Once we see that Batman is heroic, and that Superman's heroic in MOS 2, doesn't that kinda neuter both of their arguments in the film?
I mean, sure, we as an audience know they're both heroic deep down. But in a Batman film set post MOS he'd be doing research on Superman and in minutes see that shit - maybe he's the reason Metropolis/Gotham weren't terraformed. I mean it's dumb he doesn't see this in BvS anyway, but with a completely solo Batman film there's even less reason for him to go 'oh, I should fight Superman.'
EDIT - and I concur with the poster above.
Donner Superman would be a nice contrast to Snyder Bats.
Sure, they fight in Elseworld's (I say fight, brainwashed Superman/Batman faking his death), but in main continuity they rarely fight and even at the darkest moments (Infinite Crisis) they're fundamentally opposed belief wise, but they have no real desire to fight each other.
And the idea of MOS - Batman solo - MOS 2 - Batman v Superman bewilders me. The idea that a Batman solo film where he's reacting to MOS just seems like it negates the whole 'you're dangerous' part on both sides. Once we see that Batman is heroic, and that Superman's heroic in MOS 2, doesn't that kinda neuter both of their arguments in the film?
I mean, sure, we as an audience know they're both heroic deep down. But in a Batman film set post MOS he'd be doing research on Superman and in minutes see that shit - maybe he's the reason Metropolis/Gotham weren't terraformed. I mean it's dumb he doesn't see this in BvS anyway, but with a completely solo Batman film there's even less reason for him to go 'oh, I should fight Superman.'
EDIT - and I concur with the poster above.
Donner Superman would be a nice contrast to Snyder Bats.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
I wonder how many times you can keep rephrasing "not muh Superman" and "not muh Jor-el".
So now the kents are emotionally bullying clark by telling him it's OK to just be human.
MCU Cap is a soldier, he fights because he feels it's his righteous obligation. MCU Cap is more Batman than anything else. He knows what the mission is and he knows the mission will out live him and he knows he won't get to walk away happily. Tony is the one who thinks he'll get to go home. This is the crux of their conversation in AoU
brickarts295
Member
Damn thats actually pretty ballzy, nice to see Superman not being the nice guy for once XD
No, they're emotionally bullying Clark by telling him 'hide who you really are.' Which is some fucked up parenting. Is it really difficult to figure out that shaming someone and telling them to hide who they are is a bad thing?
Discotheque
Banned
this isn't Singer's x-men lol. there's no thematic context to that idea here. them wanting him to hide his powers is just that. they don't think a kid is ready for the kind of responsibility his outing would bring him.
This isn't true. He fights for everyone, it's why he flew to India to stop the machine. And the kents were rightfully afraid humanity wasn't ready for him. And they're a great mirror with Jor who is super optimistic, and Clark ends up being the best of both worlds. The whole series has been about the cost of having gods on our earth, and it wouldn't be some clean neat thing.
Why do critics always take Lex's view point for this movie?
Until the time is right. They say it at the end of MoS, when she confirms Pa kent always knew he'd be awesome, and then it cuts to pa smiling as Clark poses with a cape over the dog. Which directly ties into pa kent showing Clark how to be superman by saving the dog and Clark from being torn from them and experimented on or turned into a weapon, our what if he wasn't as strong as they thought and gets ripped to shreds himself? Please watch those movies again, pa kent is scared for Clark when saying that "maybe."
I don't know how this UC will end up, but there's absolutely a possibility that an edit with more plot could fix what you're complaining about. It's not impossible that a more fleshed out plot would add to the bullet plot, adding things that are interesting to you.
All these things are why I've thoroughly enjoyed MoS & BvS approach to the characters. Nolan was getting there, but your description of Battfleck is exactly what I'd expect of a neo-fascist billionaire vigilante - especially one who has had a remaining part of his humanity ripped away by two aliens fighting.
As for Supes...well, you might think that inspirational stuff is depth, I see it as cardboard cutout idealism. Cavill's superman actually feels like a genuine uber-mensch - a character who can make any choice he wants to without constraint, and the unpredictability in the two movies makes him a more interesting character for it.
Zod's death wasn't something he could find a way around either. It was a Kobayashi Naru test for him, in that he'd lose whichever decision he made - and in the end he commited a merciful act, because Zod's genetic & social conditioning meant he was incapable of making the choices Supes has the capacity to, and his only course would be to keep fighting. He would never be able to find any kind of peace. The Brave New World-esque elements of Kryptonian genetic engineering is frequently missed in discussions about MoS IMO.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
So Clark HAS to use his powers to be who he really is, a good person. He has to be a super powered alien god, as opposed to just being Clark Kent a person who still wants to do good things at his day job. A person, a reporter, who could help better the lives of more people with a pen, than he could as Superman.
But the point of MoS was that eugenics were wrong, which is why Jor was able to stand up to Zod in a fight and Clark was able to win the day. Zod was like liquid snake in that he believed in his genetic fate to his core so in the end, it consumed him and turned him into a monster, which was where Batman was headed when Clark stepped in.
I get what you're saying but Snyder and crew didn't sell it. Pa Kent wanted his son to suppress what he actually was, despite him clearly desiring to use his powers, because he was afraid the world would shun him? Cmon. The kid is a god, he can literally save the world ten times over. What kind of person, let alone a parent, wouldn't want him to do good by the entire planet? Let alone allowing themselves to die in an unintentionally hilarious manner, scaring the kid for life, just to prove that point?
It was all so awkward and unbelievable. It was one of the farthest departures from a character in the film and made me realize that Snyder just didn't get the character and his supporting cast.
You might even say the Kent's are against hope, which makes Clark the same, despite what the S on his chest is supposed to mean.
A betrayal of character, like having ASM do anything to have Peter avoid taking responsibility or making his responsible for his own actions.
Joel Was Right
Member
That trailer was awful.
Discotheque
Banned
i think the casting of ezra miller kind of confirms he's going to be the wally-esque loudmouth of the group though.
Jonathan Kent is probably one of the single best things about Snyder's Superman.
He begins to realize the implications of what people could see in Clark when he saves the bus. The woman talking about "an act of god." Kent knew humanity would either fear Clark, or project onto him their religious fanaticism. He didn't want Clark to deal with any of that, least of all attract Government attention. Everything he did was so that Clark could grow up as Clark Kent, so that he eventually as an adult, he could shoulder the decision himself when he is ready and be prepared for the consequences. As he says, he knows he will one day change the world, but it will up to him in what way.
There's literally nothing wrong with Martha saying that Clarke "doesn't owe the world a damn thing" She's absolutely correct. She's just stating, whatever he decides it needs to be because of his wants and desires, and not anyone elses
It's a stark contrast to the naive old picture painted of the Kents in which they literally sew for Clark his Superman costume, putting on him that burden. Idealistic, but ill advised.
He begins to realize the implications of what people could see in Clark when he saves the bus. The woman talking about "an act of god." Kent knew humanity would either fear Clark, or project onto him their religious fanaticism. He didn't want Clark to deal with any of that, least of all attract Government attention. Everything he did was so that Clark could grow up as Clark Kent, so that he eventually as an adult, he could shoulder the decision himself when he is ready and be prepared for the consequences. As he says, he knows he will one day change the world, but it will up to him in what way.
There's literally nothing wrong with Martha saying that Clarke "doesn't owe the world a damn thing" She's absolutely correct. She's just stating, whatever he decides it needs to be because of his wants and desires, and not anyone elses
It's a stark contrast to the naive old picture painted of the Kents in which they literally sew for Clark his Superman costume, putting on him that burden. Idealistic, but ill advised.
Discotheque
Banned
you should check out Midnight Special if you liked that stuff (dad protecting his superpowered kid from government and religious cult). Also because jeff nichols is one of the best directors out there right now.
Completely, but the point I was rebutting was the idea that Supes crosses some kind of rubicon as a character when he kills Zod, that it was expedient & he should've come up with some better way of resolving the situation.
FWIW I also believe that the down-home Smallville morality would have classified Zod as a mad dog who needed to be taken out round back & shot...
That's a bit extreme. He's just conflicted and has been since childhood as you brought up. He wants to do better but that's not how he was raised. He's doing what he can. I don't think thats necessarily a bad thing either. Just different
Agree with all of this.
I also wonder how much of the little boy in the cupboard terrified by his super-hearing and listening to the jibes & insults is still in there, buried under the assurance & training of adult Supes (probably my second or third favourite scene in MoS, definitely my favourite dramatic scene).
A lot of people thought Superman was being framed for killing those people. That trailer literally explained that was not the case.
What morals and principles it was his first day with the suit. Also I don't get why people think Superman has no principles. I mean let's see what else could he do. A genocidal maniac wanted to bring Krypton to earth. He was going to kill every man woman and child along the way, he couldn't be imprisoned by earthly means, no way Superman could put him back in the phantom zone, he couldn't cover his eyes cos it was show, Heat vision hearts Kryptonians and he barely survived against him in a road. All roads point to if he wants to save the planet, he has to kill him. People don't seem to want Superman to be confronted with any problems or dilemmas. I find this shit stupid with Batman's no kill rule and I have always found the arguments as to why the Joker still draws breath foolish and yes I have seen Under the Red Hood. It would be too easy my arse, double, triple and quadruple tap him. You'll save 100s of lives. I want whenever someone is presented with the option save the lives of billions of people or let a genocidal general run roughshod over humanity to pick snapping Zod's neck every time. I really find it weird you talk about when Superman is presented with tough choices he'll walk down the path that poses the least amount of harm and yet you're critical of him killing Zod. I was going to go through your points paragraph by paragraph but I had to add it to this paragraph cos well you're arguments don't hold weight.
Regarding the mothers. No no no no no. Why don't people get this. The conflict ended because the man who Alfred had been telling Bruce was a good man, a man who saved many lives constantly, who when on his deathbed pleads only to save a woman called Martha. You argue that Superman killing makes him compromise his principles makes him not upright yet you can't see how Batman killing a man who at his death pleads to says the life of his mother makes Batman realise he is as bad as Joe Chill, the reason he became Batman. WB execs weren't kidding when they said people would miss the point.
Why would he be a beacon to humanity. Sure he saves a lot of people and he is revered as a god. But his presence leave a lot of collateral damage in his wake. Whether it's him accidentally hailing Kryptonians, him getting into a fight in Metropolis etc etc. Also funny you cite the animated series the collateral damage that Superman inflicted was insane. Punching villains through buildings and all manner of other fuckery.
BVS I thought was a great way to deal with the MoS criticism (which I think on reflection were mostly unwarranted) and I thought Batman being the antagonist due to how paranoid he is kinda clever. Batman wouldn't think to himself, "let's be Superfriends with this superpowered being who leaves a lot of destruction in his wake. Sure he's our friend now but what about in the future. The shit going on in the Middle East is evidence that kinda thinking ain't far fetched. Also what's Natashas's defining characteristic? Get moist at everything in a supersuit (Cap, Tony, Bruce Banner, Black Panther am I missing anyone) and do Superhero 3 point landings every chance she gets. I'd like to hang with her in a bar cos if I tie a cape round my neck, wear my underwear over my trouser and claim my superpowers are the ability to drop shitty chat up lines at a moment's notice. She might well fuck me. I find it interesting that Superman is told by one of his fathers go out and save people whilst the other says look I get why you do what you do but people won't like you and will distrust you. From the actions in the film, Jonathan Kent was right.
We talking Africa? It looks like the opposite to me...a lot of shit goes down there, including missile explosions. I thought maybe to set it up as him doing the damages?
He literally says he didn't cause the damage there.
Frozenprince
Banned
Thank you.
The whole point of them "forcing the burden" on to him is that they realize he has a gift and that he should use that gift to do as much good as he can do for the world. That's the universal constant with Clark Kent.
You're missing my point, none of that is needed, no one cares what happened in Africa. The movie already tried to juggle way too many plots, it doesn't need even more, it needs less.
The point of the Africa scenes were to further highlight the damage Supernan left in his wake but again we're all entitled to our opinions.
King Gilga
Member
I haven't see the movie yet (I ended up flaking because of the reviews) so I'll probably just check this out.
I disagree. I think the reason no one cares what happened in Africa is because the film as it was gave us little reason to care for it. The narrative design clearly cared about Africa because it was literally the linchpin of first act. The consequences of Superman intervening in Africa is what kicks off everything.
It's true that the movie attempts to juggle a lot, but that doesn't mean that the solution is always "more" or "less". What the movie needed was less distractions and more context. Expanding on Africa might not be what fans want to see because it doesn't seem exciting or relevant to "Batman vs Superman" in the larger scheme of things, but it might be what the story needs to give context to the flow of events which eventually leads to everything else.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
Stop making sense. The ignorant majority won't care.
Frozenprince
Banned
Oh that's just precious.
I respect Dead's opinion even if I disagree with that characterization of the Kents. He clearly has a point. But this? This sort of shit can fuck off.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll