-
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 Ultimate Cut |OT| - Men are still good (out now)
- Thread starter Ahasverus
- Start date
Which will be nice to see (if it happens at all) but that wouldn't retroactively make the previous depictions any better.
I'm sure this may have been answered but I can't find it...
Why does everyone think Superman killed those people when he rescued Lois? I mean, the hostage taker yeah... that's on him. But everyone else was shot so... why would they think it's him? I'm sort of confused by this.
Why does everyone think Superman killed those people when he rescued Lois? I mean, the hostage taker yeah... that's on him. But everyone else was shot so... why would they think it's him? I'm sort of confused by this.
You watch theatrical or ultimate cut? Ultimate cut does a better job of explaining what's going on behind the scenes there.
Remember KGBeast burned all bodies so it appeared as if Superman had burned them. That and the actress testifying. While there was no damned evidence against Superman, there was a lingering doubt, enough to make people doubt his intentions and/or his powers. Remember: "If God is all good then he's not all powerful, if he's all powerful then he's not all good", that sums up Superman's situation as planned by Lex.
People thought it was irrational that a woman who just saw her previously indestructible boyfriend damn near dye to a magical green rock would throw it away to hopefully never see the light of day. Upon seeing a monster that might want to destroy life as we know it, she deduces it was Kryptonian because it flew and fired red eye beams, she realised maybe Batman might be able to kill it and so went to get the spear. But it's stupid because people don't pay attention. Snyder should really spoonfeed audiences for JL.
ffejeromdiks
Banned
Well obviously, but Flash time travels to this particular Bruce Wayne, implying that it is (or was rather) the future of that particular reality.
Uh, it's the entire crux of Bruce forming the Justice League, of course it was evidence to him and he took it very seriously.
Wonder Woman: The others like me, why did you say they'll have to fight?
Bruce Wayne: ...Just a feeling
Ultimate. No, saw all that... I guess I was expecting more government cover-up type thing since it seems so trivial to disprove.
The government had no official hand in the terrritory, and of course Lex didn't need to have Superman found guilty, he just had to play to the irrational fear caused by his power, just like in the capitol. It's actually pretty realistic, we all know that guy using the same primal fear tactic right now.
I am pretty sure that was Lex's warning after messing with the alien tech. Like, I'm sure the dream didn't help, but Lex's rambling is far more concrete than a frikken dream.
I mean, holy shit, if Bruce is actually still paranoid enough to form his league based on a dream he had, then that pisses me off even more. Did you know that even the Salem Witch Trials didn't allow mere dreams to be evidence of anything? When the 17th century Salem residents are using more substantial evidence to make their decisions than you, you know you're badly written.
So, I'm gonna stick to Lex being the one.
The motivation is definitely from Lex. But I imagine that dream will hold more weight once Bruce learns Barry can actually time travel.
Well, at that point, it's verifiable evidence. But at the nonce, Bruce just thinks it's a dream, and if he thinks it's more than that, then....I guess I'll talk about how BvS is a stupid, stupid, stupid movie for the billionth time.
I also literally watched this movie for the first time last night and can confidently say I share the exact same sentiments. Lex Luthor was also insufferable, but not in a way that made him fun to watch as a villain. The first half of the movie had too many inconsistent cuts to different places or plot points that just made the first couple of hours feel unsmooth and not particularly coherent.
Alright, I giggled.
Watched this again and the pace is absolutely horrific, every scene makes me think get on with it, not because I just want a action scene but there is no need for most of this stuff being there or presented that way, always cutting away to drag it all down. This film needed half the scenes of the original cut and a reworked story. It's a mess that should have never got to filming, it's just all wrong. The film is exhausting. It's darker every time I watch, that Justice League trailer made it even worse. Even when it's not dark, Snyder manages to suck everything out of it, don't know how to explain it but it looks horrible.
There is so many easy mistakes in simple scenes. Looks to the cleaner, do I know you. How did that crap ever get off the page. The tension should have been seeing her inevitable capture as the guys closed in and she realises it's about to go down or just out of nowhere. Such sloppy work. I know many wouldn't bat an eye at stuff like that but it's so shit to me, other stupid stuff like Bruce running towards a collapsing building, not even a great shot which is probably the excuse to do it but it's just crap. That Batmobile chase was atrocious, who the hell choreographed that mess and holy bad CGI.
The film is dire. Yes, Alfred had some lines, Batman had a moment, Wonder Women but so much of it is just awful and there is no need to serve up that trash if they had the right people working on it.
There is so many easy mistakes in simple scenes. Looks to the cleaner, do I know you. How did that crap ever get off the page. The tension should have been seeing her inevitable capture as the guys closed in and she realises it's about to go down or just out of nowhere. Such sloppy work. I know many wouldn't bat an eye at stuff like that but it's so shit to me, other stupid stuff like Bruce running towards a collapsing building, not even a great shot which is probably the excuse to do it but it's just crap. That Batmobile chase was atrocious, who the hell choreographed that mess and holy bad CGI.
The film is dire. Yes, Alfred had some lines, Batman had a moment, Wonder Women but so much of it is just awful and there is no need to serve up that trash if they had the right people working on it.
Isn't that the implication though whenever anyone uses the "it's all part of Superman's arc, just wait and see" argument?
I don't think people thought it was irrational, more that it was a contrived way to give Lois something to do.
Those are basically two separate things. It will be a part of Superman's arc but if the finale of that arc is good that doesn't mean it automatically elevates the rest. Not for everyone. "Wait and see" is just said by people hoping for a little vindication so they can say "I told you so" later. Worthless addition to a conversation.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
Not that we don't pay attention. I get why she did it but it felt more contrived than it needed to be. I think the movie plays a lot better upon 2nd veiwing and after knowing that seen is coming it's not so bad like I felt in the movies.
Also, I watched the theatrical cut for 30mins yesterday before I had the wrong disc in the blu ray player. WB Blu Rays always have those double stacked cases that hide the other disc.
ffejeromdiks
Banned
Bruce woke up from the dream and there was papers flying around and shit, he's the worlds greatest detective, he knows it was more than just a goddamn dream.
If Bruce was referring to Lex...why wouldn't he just say so..."Why did you say we'll have to fight?" "well because Lex implied he contacted aliens" He has no reason to withhold that information from WW, whereas he has plenty of reasons to withhold "uh...I saw a vision of the future...and some dude told me to find meta humans"
It's definitely cheesy, and poorly written in areas but it's so very comic booky so i'm more than okay with it.
Haha, don't get Veelk started on this bit.
Batfleckman just wants to put a hurting on sex traffickers, pop pills, get drunk, fuck Wonderwomen and raaaage like a motherfucker
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Amazing how you insult the audience while completely missing the point of the criticism in the first place. The issue is how contrived it is, and forces Lois to have a role only to completely make said role inconsequential. She throws away the spear only to realize that it could have been used as a weapon. Also, only Batman knew that Kryptonite had an adverse effect on Superman, so how in god's green Earth was Lois able to know that Kryponite harmed Superman? Let alone that it could harm Doomsday. For all we know, a neutral person could have assumed that Batman beat the super out of Superman. There's a clear logical gap that the film never explains or shows.
That is still the saddest and most backhanded compliment I keep seeing thrown around whenever people point out how utterly stupid some shit is in comic book movies. Comic books tell stories differently due to their strengths as a medium, but they do not operate by any kind of different standards. Stuff that would be stupid in a novel is equally stupid there, and vice versa.
If you think the scene itself has merit, fine, defend it on it's own merits, but saying it's comic booky is just a way of saying 'Comics are stupid anyway, so this is just true to form'.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
This man is not the world's greatest detective. He irrationally has a hate boner for Superman, rather than trying to see what he's all about, like a typical detective would do.
Beat the super out of Superman? Are you serious? This is a guy who was shrugging off cars landing on him and tanked Capitol Hill exploding without his hair getting messed up. Pretty sure someone like Lois can put together the weird glowing green rock was responsible.
Says the guy who will be first in line to say I told you so!
I'll be among the first to salute you though if it does come to pass.
Besides, there are multiple logical conclusions he could draw long before he ever started believing his dream was real. How about there being a draft in the batcave?
This is assuming that Bruce even noticed the papers gently and silently drifting down the floor. The guy literally just woke up and is clearly concentrating on calming himself, not even looking at the papers. He may have missed them at all.
Says the guy who will be first in line to say I told you so!
I'll be among the first to salute you though if it does come to pass.
Haha, I love a good "told you so" moment but honestly I'd just be happy to get a great Superman moment and leave it at that.
MisterHero
Super Member
I feel like part of this movie's theme was "It's okay to be wrong sometimes." or "It's okay to disagree." Considering how some people in the real world really, REALLY, insist on having the last word on something, maybe the inexplicable attitude of a certain character wasn't so far off.
elrechazado
Banned
She witnessed the fight where batman was poised over superman with a glowing green spear. Doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to understand that. Larry Holmes could deduce that one. Knowing it can kill the man she loves, she throws it away. How would anyone in that universe "neutrally " think or assume batman defeated superman??
Lois being there is also 100% explained and reasonable- she knows lex's plan is for them to be fighting and begs her boss to let her heli over.
She also witnessed the insane sparking and lightning off of the kryptonian ship. A giant monster appears using superman powers - flying, super strength, eye beams, and because she is not an idiot she gets the idea to go try the spear.
Incomprehensible how any of this is confusing, far fetched, or even a stretch by the movie 's own terms.
I have tons of problems with this movie, but this complaint makes no sense.
How is it contrived? It makes sense for the reasons I stated above. Superman had only just returned. Wonder Woman didn't know where it was, and I can't recall but I don't think Batman knew exactly where the spear was either. She was the only one that could get it back.
How did she know? Hmm let's see: she rushes into the room to see her previously indestructible and bulletproof boyfriend with a huge suspicious-looking flashing green spear in his face. Can you honestly argue that maybe it was some dude in a Bat costume that punched him into submission when he had previously proven himself so strong that he could drag ships across the sea floor.
But hey, let's go with your logic shall we. What else did she see, she also saw said spear being used to make a huge gash on his fucking face and yet you are debating how she knew kryptonite caused Superman harm? Are you serious? You don't have to be the world's greatest detective to put 2+2 together and think, maybe that suspicious glowing spear, that was used to cut Superman and left him with a huge scar on his face, and when it was thrown away from him he was suddenly able to stand, might, and this is going to sound crazy cause Superman some fucking harm. Sweet fucking Christ. Dislike the movie all you want, but now you're looking for excuses to bitch.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
Contrived in the sense of the story, and what the character does. The only reason she goes after the spear is because writers didn't know what better role to give her during the Doomsday shitstorm, plus she doubled as a damsel in distress. It's not about being the one that knows where it is, it's also about dumb character actions that make zero sense in the context of the film. Superman was already very far away from the spear's range, so Lois's actions were redundant.
She never actually saw Wayne slicing Kent's cheek. The gash happened BEFORE she even walked into the room with Wayne and Kent. Maybe you should watch the fight scene again before arguing nonsense. Again, all she sees is a cut that she could have deduced came from the spear, but could be from literally anything through her POV (especially when spears are impaling weapons rather than used to slice).
elrechazado
Banned
Your definition of contrived seems to be that any writer had any character do any thing. Ok....
Elysium-777
Member
Is there any way to just rent the UC? Both Vudu and Amazon only have the Theatrical version for rent.
1) Yeah Lois Lane is a bit of a damsel in distress but at least in this film Lois actually played an active part in killing Doomsday. Fuck sake, she threw away the spear that damn near killed her bf and she risked drowning to get the spear so that the trinity could have a tool in killing doomsday.
2) This is seriously not the hill you wanna die on. Fine the gash was already there when she walked in. You got me! But I like how you ignore everything else. All I ask is, you being objective. Imagine you're Sherlock Holmes/ Dude from Psych/Batman/ Hercule Poirot/Nancy motherfucking Drew name a notable detective of your choice.
You walk into a room with what is for all intents and purposes pretty much a God. Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, can fly, shoot lazer beams out of his eye and can do more than a Swiss Army Knife. He can't move, looks close to death, and has the urban legend of what is probably the Batman standing ontop of him with a giant-glowing spear his face with blood trickling down his face and a huge scar that looks like something sharp cut him. Also, when said glowing spear is thrown away he is now able to get up. In your report or huge reveal, which do you conclude as to the most probable reason why Superman was pinned to the floor, cut and bleeding with a huge scar and was able to get up once the spear was thrown away?
a) He probably was damaged by some outside unknown agent or from being punched
b) The big sharp glowing green pointy stick.
If this was on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, you used the 50-50 lifeline and it was the literal million dollar question, would you say it probably wasn't the green pointy stick and go with a? Like... seriously?
i usually get the "not muh superman" card pulled on me whenever I criticize snyder's superman
but I find that kinda odd when I look at some of the other depictions of DC characters I approve of.
For example, I love Adam West's Batman. And Keaton's. And Bale's. And even Affleck's! One of those has to be "not muh Batman", right?
Even better example is Joker. Like many, I was ready to rip Heath's Joker to shreds. "There's no way he can follow Nicholson's Joker, dude is going to ruin the character."
Lo and behold, we got the greatest Joker and the greatest comic book villain in film history. Heath's Joker is the very definition of "not muh Joker", and I still hear from plenty of people who can't accept his take and love Romero/Nicholson's take even more. I am not one of them.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm completely open to a new interpretation of a character. In fact, I believe the best case scenario is creating something new and different and knocking it out of the fucking park, like Heath's Joker!. The next best scenario would be... taking the best traits of Superman, from the most beloved depictions of the character, like Donner's Superman or All Star Superman, and portraying him in that way. Is it "same old, same old"? Yeah, I guess. But that same old same old is a great, iconic, beloved character.
Spider-Man is my very favorite superhero. He's my avatar FFS. Raimi's take often gets shit on here on GAF because it's "too different from the comics" or "not true to the character". Tobey's Peter Parker/Spider-Man is my favorite depiction of the character. Easily. "Not muh Spider-Man"?
The worst case scenario is what we got in Man of Steel and BvS. Snyder tries something different with the character (which is admirable!)... but he fails! Now we have an unlikable character, and my default reaction is "Why couldn't you at least look at the 75+ years of incredible source material and create something great based on that?!"
I believe Snyder does not understand the character at a fundamental level, unfortunately. I doubt this will be fixed with Justice League, either.
but I find that kinda odd when I look at some of the other depictions of DC characters I approve of.
For example, I love Adam West's Batman. And Keaton's. And Bale's. And even Affleck's! One of those has to be "not muh Batman", right?
Even better example is Joker. Like many, I was ready to rip Heath's Joker to shreds. "There's no way he can follow Nicholson's Joker, dude is going to ruin the character."
Lo and behold, we got the greatest Joker and the greatest comic book villain in film history. Heath's Joker is the very definition of "not muh Joker", and I still hear from plenty of people who can't accept his take and love Romero/Nicholson's take even more. I am not one of them.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm completely open to a new interpretation of a character. In fact, I believe the best case scenario is creating something new and different and knocking it out of the fucking park, like Heath's Joker!. The next best scenario would be... taking the best traits of Superman, from the most beloved depictions of the character, like Donner's Superman or All Star Superman, and portraying him in that way. Is it "same old, same old"? Yeah, I guess. But that same old same old is a great, iconic, beloved character.
Spider-Man is my very favorite superhero. He's my avatar FFS. Raimi's take often gets shit on here on GAF because it's "too different from the comics" or "not true to the character". Tobey's Peter Parker/Spider-Man is my favorite depiction of the character. Easily. "Not muh Spider-Man"?
The worst case scenario is what we got in Man of Steel and BvS. Snyder tries something different with the character (which is admirable!)... but he fails! Now we have an unlikable character, and my default reaction is "Why couldn't you at least look at the 75+ years of incredible source material and create something great based on that?!"
I believe Snyder does not understand the character at a fundamental level, unfortunately. I doubt this will be fixed with Justice League, either.
Merriweather
Member
I watched this last night with my wife, who didn't see it in the theatre.
It's definitely more fleshed out, but still too long, not fun and too damn serious.
It's definitely more fleshed out, but still too long, not fun and too damn serious.
backflip10019
Member
Watched the theatrical version over the weekend and it was bad. Like I paid $5 to rent it digitally and felt ripped off. I hardly feel this way with most rentals.
You shouldn't have done that what the hell.
I'm gonna love this.
Lone_Prodigy
Member
I ended up watching the last half of this first, and then went back and watched the beginning.
Agree about the pacing and cutting away to a bunch of different plotlines. If I didn't already know what would happen, I likely would've been thoroughly confused.
-Is Affleck's Batman different from Bale's? Why is there a Joker-painted Batsuit? Why is Wayne Manor in ruins? Is there a backstory there?
-Why is the Secretary from MoS even in this?
-Why is Clark Kent suddenly interested in Batman, to the point where he neglects his reporting job?
-Why show the inmates getting shanked, is it to show that Batman is willing to have people killed, thus explaining his motive for trying to kill Superman?
-Would anyone who's not a comic book fan understand the references to Darkseid?
Agree about the pacing and cutting away to a bunch of different plotlines. If I didn't already know what would happen, I likely would've been thoroughly confused.
-Is Affleck's Batman different from Bale's? Why is there a Joker-painted Batsuit? Why is Wayne Manor in ruins? Is there a backstory there?
-Why is the Secretary from MoS even in this?
-Why is Clark Kent suddenly interested in Batman, to the point where he neglects his reporting job?
-Why show the inmates getting shanked, is it to show that Batman is willing to have people killed, thus explaining his motive for trying to kill Superman?
-Would anyone who's not a comic book fan understand the references to Darkseid?
bishopcruz
Member
Did you actually watch the movie? Literally everything is answered save possibly the last question. Not always in specifics, but via context.
In order:
- Yes, of course. Bruce has had a 20 year career, the ROBIN suit, Wayne Manor in ruins, and the like show that a lot of bad shit has gone down in that time. We don't need the specifics, he's Batman.
- To give us insight into the politics of what's going on, and show that the government is having issues figuring out how to deal with Supes.
- Answered completely in the movie, unless you didn't see the UC. It's right there.
- Completely the opposite, it's to show that Lex is manipulating things to make Bats look worse to Clark. Again, pretty much spelled out.
- Probably not, though I'm guessing it's intent was to tie in to JL later, and to be able to look back and go OH! It could have been handled a lot better.
Lone_Prodigy
Member
So are you saying Batman is marking them, but Lex is doing the killing? If that's the case, should Bruce be concerned?
The Cretan
Member
Yes. Don't bother to watch the theatrical cut.
Ok, cool. Thanks. And why is this one R?
BFIB
Member
Bruce is marking them because he wants other inmates to fear him. Lex took it further because he already knew it'd pique Clark's interest. Alfred even questions why Bruce is doing this. Like Bruce said "criminals are like weeds".