Support NeoGAF

[MegaSackman]

Watched it last night (my second after the original), It makes a tiny little more sense but this is a really heavy movie... every take has so much weight, it's exhausting.

Mother's scene is impossible to redeem.

 

[IconGrist]

Guys, Lois hears Doomsday's roar along with the aftermath of the solar flares and Doomsday's crash back to Earth after being nuked then heads back for the kryptonite. So many people in this thread saw one version of the movie or another (it's in both cuts) how this escapes so many people when this is brought up is beyond me. It's not like she was sitting down listening to some music in her apartment and all of a sudden decided to go find some kryptonite.

 

[DeathyBoy]

Guys, Lois hears Doomsday's roar along with the aftermath of the solar flares and Doomsday's crash back to Earth after being nuked then heads back for the kryptonite. So many people in this thread saw one version of the movie or another (it's in both cuts) how this escapes so many people when this is brought up is beyond me. It's not like she was sitting down listening to some music in her apartment and all of a sudden decided to go find some kryptonite.

People rationalise dumb shit in Civil War, hilariously

 

[FunkyPajamas]

Guys, Lois hears Doomsday's roar along with the aftermath of the solar flares and Doomsday's crash back to Earth after being nuked then heads back for the kryptonite. So many people in this thread saw one version of the movie or another (it's in both cuts) how this escapes so many people when this is brought up is beyond me. It's not like she was sitting down listening to some music in her apartment and all of a sudden decided to go find some kryptonite.

She's already seen what that glowing pointy thing does to Superman (when Batman had him pinned down), why wouldn't she think of using that against another super being?

Makes sense to me. *shrugs*

 

[Bleepey]

Guys, Lois hears Doomsday's roar along with the aftermath of the solar flares and Doomsday's crash back to Earth after being nuked then heads back for the kryptonite. So many people in this thread saw one version of the movie or another (it's in both cuts) how this escapes so many people when this is brought up is beyond me. It's not like she was sitting down listening to some music in her apartment and all of a sudden decided to go find some kryptonite.

BVS suffers from the same problem MoS suffers from in that so much happens throwaway things have huge importance. Stuff like the plot hole in MoS where people say why didn't Superman cover Zod's eyes and there was a scene people forget Superman's eye beams damaged Thaora.

 

[Kadey]

After Doomsday died and soldiers are arresting Lex in the pool of blood. what's that Demon thing that disappears?

 

[OldRoutes]

After Doomsday died and soldiers are arresting Lex in the pool of blood. what's that Demon thing that disappears?

We don't know, yet! Could be Steppenwolf.

 

[SJRB]

Guys, Lois hears Doomsday's roar along with the aftermath of the solar flares and Doomsday's crash back to Earth after being nuked then heads back for the kryptonite. So many people in this thread saw one version of the movie or another (it's in both cuts) how this escapes so many people when this is brought up is beyond me. It's not like she was sitting down listening to some music in her apartment and all of a sudden decided to go find some kryptonite.

Not to mention she knows it came from the Kryptonian crash site. She's a reporter, putting 1 and 1 together is literally what she does for a living and has been doing the entire movie.

This is getting sad.

 

[Alienous]

Guys, Lois hears Doomsday's roar along with the aftermath of the solar flares and Doomsday's crash back to Earth after being nuked then heads back for the kryptonite. So many people in this thread saw one version of the movie or another (it's in both cuts) how this escapes so many people when this is brought up is beyond me. It's not like she was sitting down listening to some music in her apartment and all of a sudden decided to go find some kryptonite.

Exactly. It's well know that she has telescopic vision.

Not to mention she knows it came from the Kryptonian crash site. She's a reporter, putting 1 and 1 together is literally what she does for a living and has been doing the entire movie.

This is getting sad.

Now that's fair.

And it isn't 'sad'. Good filmmaking answers these kinds of questions before they are asked.

 

[Smokey_Run]

Plus, there are these things called smartphones. They are pretty handy in letting you find information fairly quickly.

Should it have been shown in the movie, probably. However, people complain about this sort of stuff all the time. "Will movies stop holding our hands!" It's becoming fairly obvious that the answer is no.

 

[SJRB]

Now that's fair.

And it isn't 'sad'. Good filmmaking answers these kinds of questions before they are asked.

Which this movie does, unless you're unwilling to see.

 

[icespide]

Plus, there are these things called smartphones. They are pretty handy in letting you find information fairly quickly.

Should it have been shown in the movie, probably. However, people complain about this sort of stuff all the time. "Will movies stop holding our hands!" It's becoming fairly obvious that the answer is no.

what information would she have looked up?

 

[Smokey_Run]

what information would she have looked up?

You don't think a huge fucking monster destroying a city wouldn't be breaking news on every major site/news channel/social media platform? Let alone the number of texts and calls someone would receive about it, especially a reporter in said city.

Hell, in the movie it's literally on CNN when the power starts to go out in the city before Doomsday ever leaves the ship.

 

[Strangelove77]

what information would she have looked up?

actually, never mind. I'll move on.

 

[Ahasverus]

what information would she have looked up?

The cnn coverage that was shown I guess. Well she already knows about somethibg going on in the ship and that Lex is there. She sees the blast. That's enough for a conclusion, a long shot one, but she's a pulitzer winning journalist so *shrugs

 

[icespide]

You don't think a huge fucking monster destroying a city wouldn't be breaking news on every major site/news channel/social media platform? Let alone the number of texts and calls someone would receive about it, especially a fucking reporter in said city.

Hell, in the movie it's literally on CNN when the power starts to go out in the city before Doomsday ever leaves the ship.

I was literally just asking. no need for all the fucking

 

[IndoAssassin]

One thing I still don't get is was that governor lady Lex's mother? He never mentions it, but the way he talked to her about his father seemed like she was but then he says he's an orphan.

 

[Smokey_Run]

I was literally just asking. no need for all the fucking

Bad habit. It's not a sign of anger, just years of growing up around my father that's still imprinted on me years later. Sorry if it came across that way.

 

[icespide]

Bad habit. It's not a sign of anger, just years of growing up around my father that's still imprinted on me years later. Sorry if it came across that way.

aye it's cool. no worries. folks just seem on edge in BvS threads

 

[Ahasverus]

One thing I still don't get is was that governor lady Lex's mother? He never mentions it, but the way he talked to her about his father seemed like she was but then he says he's an orphan.

Nah, she's just a senator he wanted to manipulate. Both Lionel and her mother died on an accident when Lex was like 13 according to the expanded Universe stuff. He probably had part in that dead

 

[Lord Virgin]

aye it's cool. no worries. folks just seem on edge in BvS threads

See what Snyder is doing to us!

 

[IndoAssassin]

Nah, she's just a senator he wanted to manipulate. Both Lionel and her mother died on an accident when Lex was like 13 according to the expanded Universe stuff. He probably had part in that dead

Yah but when he says "You don't think dad would mind if I changed something in this room". Instead of saying "my dad".

Also how when they first meet, how they forget to shake hands or are reluctant. Man I hate it when movies make me have to overthink everything.

I guess he considered himself an orphan after his dad died because she was never part of his life.

 

[Bleepey]

Batman and Superman being on the big-screen together might have been one of the most anticipated pieces of entertainment in my life.

I'll criticize "SAAAAVE MUUURRTHHHHAAAAAA!" as much as I want.



Which is fine, I'm just saying that there's no way back from that. If Batman is a character who feels he can kill and redeem himself, then there's no reason for him to stop killing. It breaks this version of the character, for me, and all of the potential stories they could tell that revolve around his unyielding reluctance to inflict death on others.

Some people's interpretation of Batman is one who doesn't kill, others like one who kills.

 

[Alienous]

Some people's interpretation of Batman is one who doesn't kill, others like one who kills.

Who are these people?

Not killing is as core to Batman's character as can be. It's his 'one rule', and it's based on the discipline on which all his super-human abilities are based - he refuses to break it, even when he absolutely should.

To throw that out when this is the Batman you want to exist in a universe for a decade would be as silly as changing his name, or deciding he doesn't wear a costume anymore.

 

[Zabka]

Who are these people?

Not killing is as core to Batman's character as can be. It's his 'one rule', and it's based on the discipline on which all his super-human abilities are based - he refuses to break it, even when he absolutely should.

To throw that out when this is the Batman you want to exist in a universe for a decade would be as silly as changing his name, or deciding he doesn't wear a costume anymore.

Everyone who makes Batman movies.

 

[Ahasverus]

Yah but when he says "You don't think dad would mind if I changed something in this room". Instead of saying "my dad".

Also how when they first meet, how they forget to shake hands or are reluctant. Man I hate it when movies make me have to overthink everything.

I guess he considered himself an orphan after his dad died because she was never part of his life.

He was just using that to make a point. Don't overthink it but that's BvS for you. At least you could say you can't to turn off your brain to watch it.

 

[.la1n]

Passed on watching this in the theater. Watched the extended cut and thought it was pretty entertaining. I never really felt like Henry Cavill was Superman but he had some genuinely good moments towards the end of the film, I feel like he's starting to figure the role out.

I thought the best part of Ben Affleck's Bruce/Batman performance was when he was running through the destruction as Bruce Wayne trying to save people during the Superman/Zod fight. Felt like something in line with how I see the character. I thought his fight scenes as Batman had the weight and confidence that other Batman films have lacked previously.

Having said that, they went a little far in the amount of unrestrained deaths caused by Batman. I have no problem with Batman being old, tired, and less forgiving but it went a little far I thought. I can see moments of greatness with Ben's grasp of the character so a standalone film could be amazing.

I'd say the last third or so is where it really fell apart, Doomsday was a throwaway villian. I love Jesse Eisenberg but his Lex was terrible, chewing scenery like a damn giraffe. That last scene with his head against the jail bars? Embarrassing.

 

[cr0w]

We don't know, yet! Could be Steppenwolf.

It's been confirmed as Steppenwolf, and he'll be the main villain in JL.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Surprised with Angry Joe's review. I expected him to praise this to high heaven but no, still admits that this cut fixes nothing except for some plot holes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxnnHlUq4U

What did you think?

I'll make my post tomorrow.

 

[Alienous]

Surprised with Angry Joe's review. I expected him to praise this to high heaven but no, still admits that this cut fixes nothing except for some plot holes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxnnHlUq4U

What did you think?

 

[Bleepey]

Who are these people?

Not killing is as core to Batman's character as can be. It's his 'one rule', and it's based on the discipline on which all his super-human abilities are based - he refuses to break it, even when he absolutely should.

To throw that out when this is the Batman you want to exist in a universe for a decade would be as silly as changing his name, or deciding he doesn't wear a costume anymore.

Bob Kane and Bill Finger, his creators who had him pistol wielding in his early issues. To give an example

 

[CraigerGamer]

I didn't see the TC so I can only go off the Directors Cut. I think the movie is cast really well. I also think the actors and actresses did a great job in portraying their characters. I found the plot to be the real weakness of it all. Batman's anger was just, why? Brooding Superman, maybe I'm just not used to this version of him. But, Superman goes to Washington? Seeing him hover to his podium, in costume, jus seemed laughably out of place. In the end, I just didn't understand the hate.

I will be first in line to see a Wonderwoman movie though. I didn't appreciate the character until she actually started fighting. Best part of the movie hands down.

Overall, it was entertaining with an eye roll every 15 minutes or so. MoS was awesome IMO, so take this as you will.

 

[Alienous]

Bob Kane and Bill Finger, his creators who had him pistol wielding in his early issues. To give an example

Superman couldn't fly when he was first introduced. He didn't have heat vision either. Kryptonite was introduced 10 years after he was created.

Superman can fly. He does have heat vision. His weakness is Kryptonite. Those are core parts of Superman as a character.

In the formative years of the character Batman was depicted as using a weapon. Then he became the character that we have known for the better part of 75 years - the one who doesn't kill. That is core to the character. It wasn't in 1939, but it isn't 1939.

 

[Shaanyboi]

You lead a very charmed life if you think that Martha scene comes close to being worse than "what a story, Mark" from The Room, or "oh my God" from Troll 2, or "what? No. I'm not" from The Happening.

Like maybe you haven't seen many of the genuine worst scenes ever shot, but I assure you that the Martha scene is a masterpiece in comparison to a lot of truly bad cinema.

Why do people think comparing a bad thing to an even worse thing somehow invalidates criticism? Comparing this to something like The Room doesnt diminish peoples' disappointment in BvS. Tommy Wiseau making a bad movie doesn't make this better.

 

[FunkyPajamas]

I'm probably in the minority of the people that doesn't have a problem with Batman being so brutal that bad guys end up dead. Let me clear something up: Batman impaling guy to wall with knife? Fine. Batman throwing guy against wall and guy breaks skulls and die? Fine with me. Batman breaking guys neck after he's been impaled against wall and is neutralized? Too much.

I feel like the "no kill" rule would look a bit silly when we have this huge hulking Batman trying to neutralize a room full of bad guys that are actively trying to kill him with guns. Is he going to take the time to knock every single one of these guys until they're all down but alive and only then proceed to the next room?

And then we get to the real world where punching the crap out of somebody (but never killing!) can still lead to a person in a wheelchair/coma for the rest of their life. Is that really so much better than killing?

Batman using guns/explosives [edit: against regular humans] like The Punisher = out of character. Batman punching the living shit out of bad guys and those bad guys happen to die because they were thrown around by a 6.5", 200lbs monster? Shit happens; and that's entirely fine by me.

 

[Shaanyboi]

I'm probably in the minority of the people that doesn't have a problem with Batman being so brutal that bad guys end up dead. Let me clear something up: Batman impaling guy to wall with knife? Fine. Batman throwing guy against wall and guy breaks skulls and die? Fine with me. Batman breaking guys neck after he's been impaled against wall and is neutralized? Too much.

I feel like the "no kill" rule would look a bit silly when we have this huge hulking Batman trying to neutralize a room full of bad guys that are actively trying to kill him with guns. Is he going to take the time to knock every single one of these guys until they're all down but alive and only then proceed to the next room?

And then we get to the real world where punching the crap out of somebody (but never killing!) can still lead to a person in a wheelchair/coma for the rest of their life. Is that really so much better than killing?

Batman using guns/explosives [edit: against regular humans] like The Punisher = out of character. Batman punching the living shit out of bad guys and those bad guys happen to die because they were thrown around by a 6.5", 200lbs monster? Shit happens; and that's entirely fine by me.

Fine by me. Those fuckers tried burning a woman alive - I'd say they earned getting beaten the fucking shit out of and be horribly crippled. And they'll live to stay scared.

But Batman of all people going straight Punisher-style on a bunch of goons? No thanks. Scare em, hurt em, and I could atleast understand killing in a "no way out" scenario (hell, the KGBeast kill was pulled straight from the comics and meant to evoke that very notion). But where it isn't necessary? Don't be so quick to go to it.

 

[Bleepey]

Superman couldn't fly when he was first introduced. He didn't have heat vision either. Kryptonite was introduced 10 years after he was created.

Superman can fly. He does have heat vision. His weakness is Kryptonite. Those are core parts of Superman as a character.

In the formative years of the character Batman was depicted as using a weapon. Then he became the character that we have known for the better part of 75 years - the one who doesn't kill. That is core to the character. It wasn't in 1939, but it isn't 1939.

The thing is there have been many interpretations of a character. The light and bright interpretation of Batman by Adam West and Brave and the Bold are just as valid as Tim Burton's gothic or Zach Snyder's contemporary interpretation.

 

[Alienous]

The thing is there have been many interpretations of a character. The light and bright interpretation of Batman by Adam West and Brave and the Bold are just as valid as Tim Burton's gothic or Zach Snyder's contemporary interpretation.

Snyder's intepretation isn't invalid. I'm just saying that it kills a lot of future story potential, for me.

Fine by me. Those fuckers tried burning a woman alive - I'd say they earned getting beaten the fucking shit out of and be horribly crippled. And they'll live to stay scared.

But Batman of all people going straight Punisher-style on a bunch of goons? No thanks. Scare em, hurt em, and I could atleast understand killing in a "no way out" scenario (hell, the KGBeast kill was pulled straight from the comics and meant to evoke that very notion). But where it isn't necessary? Don't be so quick to go to it.

Yeah, I don't mind Batman doing anything up to crossing the line and killing. Crippling? Ok. Heck, I don't mind him crossing the line, but I want it to be a huge character moment.

But when Batman is killing for convenience sake I'm not a fan.

For example, Justice League Mortal, the scuttled Justice League film

Spoiler

had Batman kill. As I recall the villain utterly bests the League, having planned for every eventuality. The Batman walks up behind him and snaps his neck - 'you didn't plan for this' style

. Batman abandoning the rule because of some ultra-demanding circumstance doesn't bother me. Doing it in a way where the story seems to ignore it, and it's just because explosions are cool - nope.

 

[FunkyPajamas]

Fine by me. Those fuckers tried burning a woman alive - I'd say they earned getting beaten the fucking shit out of and be horribly crippled. And they'll live to stay scared.

I'm fine with that as well. I'm saying that's not any better than killing someone (in my opinion).

But Batman of all people going straight Punisher-style on a bunch of goons? No thanks. Scare em, hurt em, and I could atleast understand killing in a "no way out" scenario (hell, the KGBeast kill was pulled straight from the comics and meant to evoke that very notion). But where it isn't necessary? Don't be so quick to go to it.

But that's the thing, he isn't "going straight Punisher-style", he's not torturing them. He's being relentless in his methods to neutralize them. He's not spending extra time in cutting people or sniping them out, or breaking more bones than absolutely necessary to take them out of the fight except for that one guy stuck to the wall (which again, I see as too much). Bad guy gets thrown into a wall and happens to break his skull? I don't care. Guy is stuck to wall and Batman comes closer and then we hear the sound of bones breaking? I assume neck broken (could be wrong), that's not cool.

But as I said, I'm sure I'm in the minority. IF the movie went out of its way to show nobody is dead (people moaning and crawling on the floor with Alfred confirming all vitals accounted for) I would be happy as long as the fight choreography didn't suffer for it. This is the first time we've actually seen a live-action Batman fight like he should. I'm not going to cry over a bit of henchmen blood.

 

[Blader]

We don't know, yet! Could be Steppenwolf.

Wasn't it confirmed to be Steppenwolf?

 

[The Adder]

Bob Kane and Bill Finger, his creators who had him pistol wielding in his early issues. To give an example

For literally one year. No guns and no killing became a part of his ethos in 1940, the year after his inception.

I think 75+ years as a character defining trait superceeds the character's inception. Elsewise Batman as a blonde man in a red body stocking wearing Da Vinci wings is an even more valid intepretation of the character than any other.

 

[Bleepey]

Snyder's intepretation isn't invalid. I'm just saying that it kills a lot of future story potential, for me.



Yeah, I don't mind Batman doing anything up to crossing the line and killing. Crippling? Ok. Heck, I don't mind him crossing the line, but I want it to be a huge character moment.

But when Batman is killing for convenience sake I'm not a fan.

It was hinted that Batman's bodycount is a recent thing, possibly as a result of what the Joker did. I think and hope a lot of what happens will hopefully pay off and be explained in later movies, how did Robin die, impact Of the knightmare sequence, Lois and Superman, Lex going to Arkham etc etc.

 

[Bleepey]

For literally one year. No guns and no killing became a part of his ethos in 1940, the year after his inception.

I think 75+ years as a character defining trait superceeds the character's inception. Elsewise Batman as a blonde man in a red body stocking wearing Da Vinci wings is an even more valid intepretation of the character than any other.

That was Kane's original idea, but never in any comic to my knowledge. Also there have been many, many interpretations where Batman has killed. Not just one instance.

 

[The Adder]

That was Kane's original idea, but never in any comic to my knowledge. Also there have been many, many interpretations where Batman has killed. Not just one instance.

There have been many elseworld intepretations with a killer Batman. There have been many murderous pretenders to the throne. There have been a few situations where Bruce has been forced to let someone die. There have been times where Bruce has teetered over the edge and only stopped because something oulled him back.

There have not been any interpretations of a canonical Batman willing to kill to get what he wants since 1939. It's not who the character is. Not even in his darkest hour post-Jason.

 

[broncobuster]

I don't fall one way or the other on Batman killing, presummably when it's at his darkest moments. I know some act as if killing once taints you for life but several Batman stories involve the redemption and reformation of characters. It's within the spirit.

Where I take issue is the noncommittal of whether Batman in fact kills. We all know Snyder's manslaughter quote, but in the film it's merely alluded to that Batman is meaner and going further. For all the action It's that "you didn't see a body" type loophole. What you have are situations where Batman could kill but doesn't. In the warehouse he aims a gun in the air to scatter goons rather than simply shooting them.

Spoiler

He shoots KG Beast's canister, when he could've shot him directly.

It's why saying Batman is now The Punisher is absurd. Punisher would've murdered everybody. This Batman maybe kills one out of twenty goons and it still won't commit about the twentieth. Compare it to the Knightmare that shows Batman killing everybody with guns and all. There's a clear division within the film between a Batman who kills and a Batman who is brutal. In the end it's wishy washy.

 

[Saint Gregory]

I was going to buy this digitally on Amazon but no UHD? What's the deal with that?

 

[Zabka]

There have been many elseworld intepretations with a killer Batman. There have been many murderous pretenders to the throne. There have been a few situations where Bruce has been forced to let someone die. There have been times where Bruce has teetered over the edge and only stopped because something oulled him back.

There have not been any interpretations of a canonical Batman willing to kill to get what he wants since 1939. It's not who the character is. Not even in his darkest hour post-Jason.

Batman shot Darkseid with a radion bullet in Final Crisis.

 

[Shaanyboi]

I don't fall one way or the other on Batman killing, presummably when it's at his darkest moments. I know some act as if killing once taints you for life but several Batman stories involve the redemption and reformation of characters. It's within the spirit.

Where I take issue is the noncommittal of whether Batman in fact kills. We all know Snyder's manslaughter quote, but in the film it's merely alluded to that Batman is meaner and going further. For all the action It's that "you didn't see a body" type loophole. What you have are situations where Batman could kill but doesn't. In the warehouse he aims a gun in the air to scatter goons rather than simply shooting them.

Spoiler

He shoots KG Beast's canister, when he could've shot him directly.

It's why saying Batman is now The Punisher is absurd. Punisher would've murdered everybody. This Batman maybe kills one out of twenty goons and it still won't commit about the twentieth. Compare it to the Knightmare that shows Batman killing everybody with guns and all. There's a clear division within the film between a Batman who kills and a Batman who is brutal. In the end it's wishy washy.

But what about the car chase? He's shredding cars with bullets then driving right through their fiery wreckage, tossing a car on top of another full of goons. Then right before the warehouse, when he's in the plane, he blows up all their cars (and there's no way afew didn't die in that explosion).

There's a very intentional bit of shock value to Batman straight up wielding a pistol in the nightmare sequence, but there's not as great as divide between that and his current methods as you're suggesting.

 

[shoreu]

I'm probably in the minority of the people that doesn't have a problem with Batman being so brutal that bad guys end up dead. Let me clear something up: Batman impaling guy to wall with knife? Fine. Batman throwing guy against wall and guy breaks skulls and die? Fine with me. Batman breaking guys neck after he's been impaled against wall and is neutralized? Too much.

I feel like the "no kill" rule would look a bit silly when we have this huge hulking Batman trying to neutralize a room full of bad guys that are actively trying to kill him with guns. Is he going to take the time to knock every single one of these guys until they're all down but alive and only then proceed to the next room?

And then we get to the real world where punching the crap out of somebody (but never killing!) can still lead to a person in a wheelchair/coma for the rest of their life. Is that really so much better than killing?

Batman using guns/explosives [edit: against regular humans] like The Punisher = out of character. Batman punching the living shit out of bad guys and those bad guys happen to die because they were thrown around by a 6.5", 200lbs monster? Shit happens; and that's entirely fine by me.

He took a team of professional snipers/ assassindmotor skills from their hands.

They deserved it.

But he knows how to restrain himself to not permanently hurt someone.

 

[Bleepey]

There have been many elseworld intepretations with a killer Batman. There have been many murderous pretenders to the throne. There have been a few situations where Bruce has been forced to let someone die. There have been times where Bruce has teetered over the edge and only stopped because something oulled him back.

There have not been any interpretations of a canonical Batman willing to kill to get what he wants since 1939. It's not who the character is. Not even in his darkest hour post-Jason.

Says who? DC's editorial that let those various in continuity Batmen see print? WB execs who allowed every Batman barring George Clooney the definitive Batman to hold true to your sacred rule?