Wait what?
-
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
Wait what?
Weirder physics are how his grappling hook can hold his weight. Not only that, he gently lands on his feet like his suit doesn't have any mass. :lol
esmith08734
Member
That's a horrible cover, wow.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
It's a cheap way discredit someone's argument because they don't love a movie like you do.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Thank you.
You think the significance of that scene is they have the same name. He's right.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
I said that the way the conflict is resolved is contrived.
Ironic that you agree with the "you don't understand" BS, and then you go off and misconstrue what I said.
Prove me wrong Grandmaster with pics
If you think the film's boring, I disagree but I can understand. But when you have people saying shit like, " i don't think Superman wanted to help people IMO" and you respond "he wanted to help people despite everyone telling him to keep his head down, here are the points where he helped people" or "Superman never once tried to speak for himself" until you remind people what happened when he tried to do just that. I think BVS was unfairly shat upon and people's criticisms were unfairly harsh. It doesn't mean I or other people thought the film was perfect, but shit like Batman/Superman would never kill in the comics, expect all the times they did, or Batman on film would never kill, except when he did, or he'd never kill in modern superhero films, except the fuck tonne of times he did. When subjective opinion encounters objective facts and people refuse to be swayed, it's hard not to feel people hate Snyder just to hate Snyder. I come across as a huge Snyder-apologist when that's not the case, I just think people don't wanna look at things differently. I thought Mos was kinda meh with moments of brilliance when I saw it, then I saw some retrospectives and other people defend it and watched it again and I changed my mind. Suckerpunch however was irredeemably shit.
TheRealTalker
Banned
going to watch it
seems like they added extra linking stuff that would make the difference
seems like they added extra linking stuff that would make the difference
It's a comic book movie about two of the best well known bad guys fighting each other, the whole thing is contrived. And again, it's not about moms, it's that Clark is human and not a distant uncaring unfeeling alien god. "Martha" is specifically triggering his Catholic guilt over his past, and now it shows him that he has recreated that scenario as the bad guy.
starchild excalibur
Member
Curious to hear how much of an improvement this is over the original. Can't be bothered to dedicate the time to watch this all over again.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
"It's a comic book movie, everything is contrived!" is a horrendous argument. There have been so many comic book movies that managed to construct a great plot, and great reasoning behind character motivations.
And yet, Superman telling Batman that he's letting his mom die is what stopped Batman from outright killing him. If not for that, Superman and Martha were going to be dead. Superman uttering that key word, and Lois explaining what it meant is what stops the conflict and moves Bruce towards somehow seeing Clark's humanity (which I feel the film doesn't even communicate well). Not to mention, Bruce somehow is okay with Clark and all paranoid feelings about him is thrown out the window because plot. You can deconstruct its significance and interpret what it does to Batman all you want, but that's what the writing says, and it is an asspull way to end the conflict.
I'm not trying to discredit him because he didn't love a movie I did. I'm trying to say that the thing he posted is ridiculous and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the movie.
How is it luck for superman to say that his mother needed to be saved? He doesn't want to actually fight Batman, and his mother actually is in trouble. He went there to try to reason with him. How do you reason with someone who, presumably, tries to save people? Tell them that someone is in danger. Now it's funny you have issue with the dialogue selection of "Martha" instead of "Mother" and then the next sentence say it was luck for Superman to say his mother needs to be saved. He didn't actually luck into saying 'mother,' because he didn't say that. Lois Lane did. The funny thing is that if Superman had said "mother" instead of Martha that scene would still work, in my opinion. Batman still realizes he's tarnished his own legacy at that point and become that which he hates. He'd realize Superman is more human, and he'd realize he could get redemption for his own mother's death by helping here. He'd realize Superman is needed against Doomsday and that the only real solution to what's going on is what happened in the movie. The fact that "Martha" is the trigger just makes it a bit more of an 'aha moment,' and it's probably there even moreso for the easter egg rather than being needed.
I just literally can't see any "luck" to this scene at all. Superman's arc was following toward that point, where he needed to reason with Batman and his mom was in trouble, and Batman's entire arc through the movie lead to that as a soft turning point. I say soft turning point because his actual turning point was at the end when Superman sacrificed himself.
Bruce let himself down. He doesn't need to know Superman really well for his existential crisis to be more or less 'solved' at that point. His legacy was in jeopardy when he saw Superman doing what he did. That coupled with his decades as batman showing him that people don't stay good, that they all eventually go lead to the Batman we see in the movie. Superman sacrificed himself, which contradicted that everyone goes bad. But that fight against Doomsday also showed that the meta-human/super-human problems aren't going away. He thought his legacy hinged on getting rid of a super-human that could destroy the world when he was going after Superman. That problem still exists, though, but he knows he needs those super-humans in order to take on that problem. He's been shown that first hand. That's the entire point and that's the lead-in to Justice League.
One of my biggest problems with the film is that the Batman Superman conflict is handled so poorly. They begin setting it up by showing us the both Bats and Supes have issues with the way the other operates but that's cast aside to have Luthor set up the fight instead. The Extended cut won't be able to fix that.
Nothing about the ending went over anyone's heads. It's a ridiculously contrived way to solve the conflict, presented terribly with no believable shift in the characters' viewpoints or behaviors, which never addresses Batman's initial (and completely correct) belief about Superman's danger to the human race. And yes, it is about the mothers' names, not the "realization that Superman has emotions or an inner life or humanity" or whatever the hell the latest asspull from the inexplicable defenders of this pile of shit film are using currently.
At no point in the film does Batman express any kind of skepticism in terms of Superman having emotions or human motivations, he's simply saying "He's too powerful, nobody should be that powerful, I have to stop him." That's it, that's the conflict from Batman's side, and that conflict is never resolved properly. The only way to reconcile the outcome with the explanation defenders of that idiotic scene give is if Batman somehow convinced himself Superman was not a sentient being, which is clearly not the case.
Is there a way in which the "Martha" gag could be used to catalyze a believable character shift? Yeah, probably, but it wasn't in this movie at all. A full rewrite might be able to make it work by changing Batman's motivation and making Superman more human to the audience so they'd be rooting for Batman to realize the kind of man he was trying to kill. But it's not there in the film as it exists. Even in the places where Snyder has an opportunity to build Superman into that character, he fumbles it or sidesteps it, such as not letting Superman give his own point of view in a scene designed to let Superman do exactly that, instead choosing to just blow something up. Again. And for no reason whatsoever, since one scene later it's revealed everyone knows Superman didn't have anything to do with it, yet somehow didn't put together the Luthor connection despite obvious circumstantial evidence. Hell, how about in the pitiful "fine, here you fanboys go" montage of Superman saving people he could have looked just a tad less like he was attending his own dog's funeral for a couple of shots?
The "Martha" thing is harped on specifically because despite the apparent attempt to use it as a thematic catalyst for shifting the conflict, there's nothing below the surface that indicates that thematic shift should or could take place. As such, in the context of the film itself, yes, they literally stop fighting because their moms have the same name, as the film has done nothing to lay the groundwork for that shift being anything else. Claiming otherwise is dragging outside knowledge or context of the characters into the film, which is just fans doing Snyder's work for him. This is nothing new, given the absurd defenses of Man of Steel I've read over the years, but BvS really does drive home that he has no business telling these stories about these characters.
tl;dr - The shoes have some problems, dude.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
What can "fuck off" is the constant ignorance you see despite legitimate counters to the common criticisms from many, many people.
People are so blind to what actually happened that their biases won't let them see it. How many complaints of destruction, yet in DC animated movies/comics we see Superman deliberately causing damage like throwing Dark Seid through a children's hospital..... but hey, it's colorful so nothing to see here.
Ignorant majority is not incorrect, and it shouldn't even be offensive considering that's generally how life is. I mean, look at America's political system.
Its specifically a comic book movie about the two of the biggest comic icons, just about every time they've fought has been contrived. No he's saying that Batman is the killer, which is a completely different thing, because Batman has already been condemning himself for his parents death.
This doesn't track when one of the main complaints is about Clark's self doubt and "depression" or reluctance which is a decidely human conflict.
You mean the paranoid feelings immediately proven wrong by Clark proving he has human feelings enough to care for another human over his own life? Batman knows he's wrong, and has been wrong for a couple of years. He's trying to be the absolute good guy Clark has shown to be, which he can by saving Clark's mom. This also allows him to be the righteous avenger he always wanted to be, instead of a moneyed thug beating other thugs up because he's got better equipment. "We've always been criminals."
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
You mean like Tony Stark knowing that Bucky was under mind control, yet still wanted to kill him and Cap? Or how about Cap explaining what was going on and the threat they're going after, yet was cut off by Black Widow during the airport scene? Like bitch, he's literally trying to talk some sense to you and you cut him off with "You can't punch your way through this one.." And this was after they deliberately destroyed airplanes, tons of cars, and fucked shit up in this forced battle. No complaints about destruction from the audience though despite that being a plot device earlier in the movie.
But hey it's Marvel and there's no Snyder, so it's great!
MegaManTrigger
Banned
He doesn't want to fight Batman, but has absolutely no problem with throwing him upwards towards a building, has no reservations with smashing him through walls, let alone care that there's a vulnerable human behind the cowl (This is a whole other issue I have with inconsistencies in Superman's characterization, but this is why I can't take the "Superman didn't want to fight" argument seriously)? Also, there were ample amounts of time to tell Batman what was really going on. When he was floating in the sky away from Batman's reach, he could've said that his mom was at risk. When he exerted his dominance after the Kryptonite gas wore off, he could've said that his mom was at risk. As if Lex Luthor's plan didn't already do it enough, all of this goes to show how incredibly forced the conflict is because the conflict itself was built with the idea of audience spectacle in mind rather than narrative significance.
I said luck because if he didn't say that, Batman was ready to drive the Kryptonite spear into Superman, and he'd be dead. All he did was buy himself enough time for Lois Lane to explain what he meant. Furthermore, that luck to say that is what prevents the "bad ending" dimension from being the reality. If he said mother, it wouldn't change the contrived and forced nature of the conflict, but it'd be better than somehow saying "Martha" so I agree that it'd work better with that one simple change.
Im not talking about his existential crisis. Im picking apart that dialogue where he specifically said I've failed him in life. I won't fail him in death. Help me find the others like you. How do you all of a sudden conclude that you failed him in life when for the majority of the film, youve had paranoid feelings about what Superman represented? Even if you argue that the failure is not realizing who Superman was, the paranoia that Batman presented is never actually resolved and Snyder expects the audience to buy another shift without showing his work. Not to mention, another incredibly sloppy way to set-up the Justice League, especially going so far as to rely on the death of one of its central figures (obviously he will return, but not until the movie starts, in which case, Batman may have already recruited major members by then).
broncobuster
Banned
Want to say it's the cowl size and thick neck that causes it. It's necessary for him to move his head freely but it can look off.
MarkMclovin
Member
Nope, nothing can save it. Not even a better trailer.
It's that and it's also the shape of the eye holes. They look sort of droopy under certain lighting situations.
Yautja_Warrior
Member
I don't care about the R rating, it's hardly going to be a really hard R anyway, I just want that extra 30 minutes to make the film feel less rushed, fill in the plot holes and just make it a better movie.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Oh goodie, another person trying to bait Marvel vs. DC flamewars. Like that doesn't get old.
1) Implying Tony would be completely okay with Bucky killing his parents. It was completely understandable why Tony wasn't willing to listen to Cap. As much as Tony was governed by his emotions, it was understandable why he sought vengeance. Also, who said he was killing Cap?
2) It took him until
The psychiatrist's death
I already said that I preferred DC to Marvel in terms of comics and animations, but let's be ignorant to that and insult people for liking Marvel since that's the much better strawman to attack.
Clark saying "mother" would be his death, as Batman would think he's about to get attacked by Clark's alien family. This is a very nuanced point that you keep glazing over. Yes it is, it's what the Martha scene is. He has failed Clark in life because he spent the past 2 years hating and scheming against him instead of allying with and building each other up. And this is the entire point. Why would they create the justice league if they've got the most powerful man on the planet? His death creates a power vacuum that only a fellowship of those bound together in his honor can even hope to fill.
I love how this gets a pass, but Clark getting attacked by 3 different weapons before lifting a hand to Batman is out of character and bad.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
So just because some of the fights in their 70 year history were contrived, that means its okay? Thats horrible logic. Worlds Finest animated movie had a good reason to fight (where Superman disapproves of Batmans methods and calls him no better than a criminal), The John Byrne comic also had a good reason behind Superman being skeptical of Batman (and a nice and hilarious way to resolve the conflict). I could name more.
Also, the quote I bolded in your post is factually incorrect.
Which is completely irrelevant to what I said. I meant humanity in the sense that Batman realizes Superman has a human side after seeing previously Superman as an Other figure, neither man nor God.
The point isnt about being proven wrong. The problem is the film never resolved that and expects the audience to buy that Batman has changed those feelings without actually showing how thats changed. This is why so many people have problems with a Brutal Batman, particularly because the movie never shows you how he degraded. Something as simple as Alfred, how can I be good. Criminals werent good to Alfred. I cant let the same thing happen again.
People with knowledge of Batman lore can make good inferences based on what DC Easter eggs has been shown, but the movie just wants the audience to accept that Batman is brutal, has no qualms with killing thugs, and somehow returned to being a good guy without giving the arc the nuance it needed to display effective character development.
You have got to be kidding me. "You're letting them kill my mother" would have similar impact as "you're letting them kill Martha." How in the world would Batman be thinking about alien family when it was common knowledge in MOS and in the first part of BVS that he has no family, That he's one of a kind? The only reason the "Martha" line exists is to force a common ground that stops the fight, which in turn exposes just how contrived the conflict and its resolution is.
And that entire bolded point is absolutely asinine. In the many years that Justice League were in the comics, they never had to kill off one of its central figures just to create the League. It's a sloppy way to have the Justice League formed. Furthermore, when you introduce that logic, it makes zero sense. So Superman has to die because he creates a power vacuum, so why do we have Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern and if we really want to dive into comics: Martian Manhunter, Captain Marvel. Sure they may not have the same abilities as Superman, but they are powerful metahumans in their own right. Let's kill off all of them, what's the point? They'll easily create a power vacuum for other heroes, maybe even regular underpowered heroes.
Why are you even comparing the two? This is literally an apples to oranges scenario. You're comparing Batman who was motivated to kill Superman in a mission that he perceives is going to save mankind from the terrible dimension that Flash foretold vs. Stark who is personally motivated because Bucky is the one who killed his parents. They are both personal missions for different reasons.
Doctor Ironic
Member
What would you prefer? He clearly states he doesn't want to have to fight Bruce. I thought people complained about Snyder Supes being too violent?
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
It took A LOT for Superman to snap Zod's neck, leaving him emotionally distraught.. Yet somehow there are still people who think that he would just do that to anyone, that he is void of emotions without a concern for human life.
Nonsense.
Nonsense.
You're trolling me now. This is literally the movie.
Batman knows he has a family, he even says it while fighting. "You're parents probably told you you you were special, my parents taught me by dying." Again you're missing the point. He thinks Clark is an unfeeling alien who doesn't care about humanity. "You're not brave. Men are brave." And he shows his repentance by asking to do something for someone else. Clark's problem is specifically that Batman is only beating up lower income hoods to take out his anger. Clark shows him that humanity should be fought for out of hope and love, not beaten into your world view just because you have the power to do so. And no my reading of his life is not incorrect. Batman has become Joe chill, so he is the them in his own mind, hence his freak out. Batman doesn't need to ask what to do, Clark has shown him. It sounds like you just need more exposition where people state their feelings out loud like black panther, this is not that movie, this is a movie about action men.
I disagree. I thought the fight in BVS made more sense than the airplane brawl in Civil War. Yet CW hasn't attracted as much scrutiny.
Really? Two things.
1) Remember in the trailers where Alfred says that man is not your enemy and that he is a good man? And Batman is like how many men remain good. He did just that.
2)I kinda thought that was the point all he saw was a freak dressed like a clown. All Bruce could see was the potential damage from the existence of a Superman. He was more worried about
1) Superman bringing the war to earth
2)what happens if Superman goes rogue regardless of how improbable it is
3) and all the collateral damage in his wake whether it's in Africa or Senate hearings. A lot of the film talked about how the existence of Superman leads to a lot of collateral damage in his wake. Superman kills a Warlord and Lex frames Superman as causing a subsequent power vacuum leading to a village being purged and Senate hearings as to what Superman's role in the world should be.
Batman only began to see him as a man with motivations and human feelings when Superman was close to death. Superman when near death he doesn't call Batman a crazed vigilante or a cunt, he doesn't plead for his life, he tells Superman," You're letting him kill Martha....". I bet adding or making it clear he said "You're letting him kill Martha Kent" could have made it more clear and have helped the ending make more sense to the general public.
I disagree see above
That was the point! Lex wouldn't let Superman explain himself. Lex wants to show people one can't be all powerful and all good. Instead Lex made it seem that everywhere Superman goes, shit goes to well, shit.
I might be weirded out too if people looked to me in such reverence like a god. Thing is if I had Superman's powers it might be damn near warranted. What did you want him to do? Fly around with a big, shit-eating grin on his face everytime he's about to save a cat from a tree yelling here I come to save the day!
The film only began with his parent's death, their funeral and him going to where they were laid to rest to remind audiences how much his parents death still affects him.
I think a lot of the rebuttles to MoS criticisms hold water. Hell I thought it was better upon rewatch.
So true. You know those jokes that start with misdirects, that lead to a punchline. Sort of like this:
One could do this with a lot of the criticisms people have with BVS and the twist can be, you're talking about Civil War.
It's really kind of embarrassing. I feel like I'm reading a Dark Souls/Bloodborne thread (and I'm a die hard Souls/Borne fan but Christ the snobbery is unbearable).
The problem isn't that people don't "get" what Snyder and crew were going for. It's that Snyder clumsily, and hamfistedly bungles the execution. The movie tries to be deep. It tries to be philosophical. It tries to have metaphorical imagery and scenes dripping with subversive intent, but it all has the subtlety of a sledgehammer. It's not that we can't see the symbolism and intent of the director and his crew. It's that it's laughably bad. The movie is a boring, pretentious, self important slog. It was Snyder trying to show us how "deep," he can be.
I actually really like Watchmen. I own the director's cut and think it gets a bad rap, but Snyder just isn't a good film maker.
BvS isn't a bad movie, as I wrote in my review a few months back, but it's not very good. The editing is a major culprit, but flat, one note characterizations and performances that are wildly inconsistent in both how they match the tone of the movie, and how they play off of each other (Lex feels like he's from a totally different movie, an while I enjoyed Diana, she has no more characterization beyond wanting something from Lex, flirting with Bruce, the joining in the finale).
We know exactly what Snyder was trying to do. He just did it badly for the vast majority of of the movie.
With that said, there are individual scenes that, when viewed separately from each other, work really well. As I mentioned, the opening of the movie with Bruce and the battle of metropolis is really good. The warehouse sequence is of course a standout. Even the scene with Lex and Holly Hunter where she drops the "granny's peach tea" line is a good scene. Unfortunately, most of the other scenes are lacking in just about everything that makes a movie enjoyable to watch: solid dialogue, characterization, cast chemistry, and plot relevance. The reason why the Bruce/Alfred scenes work so well is because they have the aforementioned qualities. Irons and Affleck have a nice rapport with each other, so whenever we got to see them interacting with one another, the movie picks up.
Unforunately, the other half of the equation just wasn't as interesting. Cavill didn't have anyone to play off of in any meaningful way. Every scene with him an Adams fell flat, and I really like Amy. I think she'd have been a fantastic Lois Lane if they actually gave her something to do, and actually let her play to her strengths. Cavill, despite being a jackass, can be incredibly charismatic and charming. We get literally NONE of that in either Superman movies.
Everybody just feels wasted. Henry Lenix is an excellent actor, and he's relegated to boring military man yet again. What should have been a simple movie about the differences in ideology between Batman and Superman was instead an overlong, plodding, schizophrenic mess.
There is no hidden depth that's simply eluding the poor fanboy plebes who just want I see the DCCU crash and burn (I want my Spectre, Booster Gold and Blue Beetle movies, dammit! I want this shit to be good!).
I actually don't mean to be so harsh on the movie, but if I didn't care, I wouldn't be in these threads. I didn't like MoS at all, but I was giving BvS a chance, because, in typical Snyder trailer fashion, it looked like it'd be a better movie. It shocks me that I actually liked MoS more. Then again, I liked Winter Soldier more than Civil War (although I do still really like Civil War), so I don't know. Sequels are hard to do, I guess.
The snobbery about people not understanding the movie is silly, though. Not liking a movie doesn't mean I didn't get it.
It's not like BvS is Green Lantern, or Ghost Rider, or Fant4stic. It's just boring and try too hard for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fis-9Zqu2Ro
Tell me about, they literally say this shit in the trailers
MegaManTrigger
Banned
How am I trolling? And are you seriously kidding me? In BvS Clark at one point voices his displeasure with Batman's methodology, but that is NOT the reason why they fight. The reason they because is because Lex has his mother held hostage and forces Superman to fight Batman, or else Martha is dead. In World's Finest, Superman finds Batman in Metropolis and stops him since he doesn't want vigilantes in his town. This is how they begin their conflict. Those two are nothing alike. IMO it was much better set-up in the feature animated film than in BvS. The way it's set up in BvS is one of the many examples of inconsistencies and throwing away plot lines to get to the next major plot line.
I don't need more exposition, but thanks for making the assumption. You can communicate character development in many ways that's not tied to exposition. Film is a visual medium, you can communicate development through visually or narratively. My example is merely one way to do it, there are many other ways.
You just defeated your own argument, if Batman knows (or rather, assumes) Superman has a family, then why is saying "mother" going to be any worse than saying Martha? How am I missing the point? I've been arguing that the way it's been set-up is contrived and force and all you keep doing is pointing back to the surface-level examples. It's still contrived and forced. Batman's character development is wonky and poorly written.
Also, that's not even close to Clark's problem. You're hyperfocused on so-called "low-income goons" when socio-economic status wasn't even the point. Clark's issue is with Batman taking the law into his own hands, but to be fair, this Clark has no idea about how truly corrupt Gotham is, and why Batman is taking things into his own hands. It's not about hope or any of that nonsense, in Clark's eyes, Batman is a criminal and should not be celebrated as he seems to be in Gotham.
The only snobbery I've seen is from detractors who are just flabbergasted anyone likes this movie. Others seem to be intent on explaining away the dumb memes that pop up, like Snyder allegedly being an objectivist, when in reality, this movie refutes that entire ideal. Or those who think Snyder doesn't get superman, because he decided to ground Clark's idealism in reality.
Assumption? You just literally wrote you needed Batman to say:
So no, you said it yourself. The rest of what you have to say has been explained over and over. Check my posts, but at this point it seems you're building your points of fuzzy memories of a movie you seemed to not enjoy watching. Wait till the movie comes out then come back with more salient points.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
I never said that it had to be the ONLY way to communicate character development. So again, it's one example.
At this point, you're not even providing good counterpoints, so really, what's the point in continuing?
Sorry you couldn't enjoy this good movie.
There are many people as good and idealist as Clark Kent in real life.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Amazing the themes and layers people keep trying to put on this trash when EVERY interview Snyder has ever given shows him to be a simple man who just likes to watch superheroes wreck shit up.
But Terrio isn't, and in every interview he comes off as a very illustrated writer who is fond of universal themes. Try again.
This is a lie. Dude has art degrees, his mother was a painter and teacher, and he compared himself to Verhoven on the release of 300. If anything dude is about showing humanity at it's most grotesque and subverting that notion.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll