BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[obredaan]

I don't like that bit about superman needing to die to identify with humanity. Sure, it's a valid choice and they have creative license to do it, but it's not something I want to see for the character. Superman has existed on Earth for 33-35 years and been rescuing them for almost as long, and it takes his death to identify with people?

My issue about Batman, WW or whomever forming the league isn't a vote against those characters. My complaint is more about what superman is missing, not what they get to do. He's in a casket and not being seen to interact or participate or endear himself to the audience. If he'd gotten better characterization thus far, I may not have such a resistance to this. But as of now, I feel it's just going to exacerbate the existing issues with his character.

Yeah the whole dying to understand human life doesn't sit well with me. Basically, Snyder is admitting that the pointless death of Jonathan Kent changed nothing for Clark. Superman is still conflicted and doubts his place as a savior and as a human. Seems redundant to go back to this after the way MoS ended.

It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense that Superman finds his humanity in death. This reeks to me of being nothing more than religious symbolism taking precedence over everything else.

 

[The Guard]

He doesn't say anything like that. That's your own assumption about what he means about Jonathan Kent's death when he didn't even mention Jonathan Kent's death.

So it's not ok to use mortality to humanize Superman...but it's okay when the comics use his mortality to humanize him, via the use of Kryptonite or actual death. Just not when Snyder does it.

Again, Snyder never said this is the only place Superman finds his humanity. The fact that some of you apparently think this boggles the mind.

It's pretty clear he found some humanity in his time with Lois.

 

[I am Batman]

Yeah the whole dying to understand human life doesn't sit well with me. Basically, Snyder is admitting that the pointless death of Jonathan Kent changed nothing for Clark. Superman is still conflicted and doubts his place as a savior and as a human. Seems redundant to go back to this after the way MoS ended.

It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense that Superman finds his humanity in death. This reeks to me of being nothing more than religious symbolism taking precedence over everything else.

It doesn't sit well with me either. The people behind these films are going through some weird mental gymnastics with Superman. He has to die to identify with humanity. He has to kill to know he doesn't like killing or that it is wrong to kill. WTF

 

[The Guard]

This is getting ridiculous.

The man was nigh-immortal. He could barely be harmed.

No one recognizes how dying might make him identify more with humanity and how this could be a good thing characterwise?

 

[I am Batman]

This is getting ridiculous.

The man was nigh-immortal. He could barely be harmed.

No one recognizes how dying might make him identify more with humanity and how this could be a good thing characterwise?

I think it could be a good thing characterwise in the hands of a better writer and better director. But based on MOS and BVS I doubt they'll really delve into it or really address it. Honestly I think it was done mostly because Snyder thought it was kinda cool and edgy to do. Oh and also because he really wants Batman to be the one to form the Justice League.

 

[TheBat812]

I'm not sure I understand the complaints about Superman's characterization. He is the idealist pushed to his limits throughout the film and ultimately sacrifices himself in order to save the world, while becoming the symbol of hope that jumpstarts the Justice League that are instilled with the values of good that he always has stood for. I mean, just because the writers have placed these characters in very difficult situations they CAN'T overcome the way that you want them to doesn't make for weak characterization - it's a staple of good storytelling. Batman loses his way and finds his way back to the man he aspires to be, and Clark is the unrelenting symbol of goodness and hope throughout.

 

[MrsKent26]

This is getting ridiculous.

The man was nigh-immortal. He could barely be harmed.

No one recognizes how dying might make him identify more with humanity and how this could be a good thing characterwise?

Yes, I recognize how that could happen.

But he should have been closer to humanity already, after being superman for two years (or I would have preferred that he was).

I will say this though: If this death arc gives us a warmer, more personable superman, I will welcome it. I'll always have a little quibble with the fact that it took his death for that to occur, but that's just a quibble. I'll take a warmer supes no matter how they decide to bring it about.

 

[Sleiek]

I don't know about that. I think a tighter and simpler script would've been better. Having a 2 part movie so early in the franchise is questionable.

That is assuming they want to keep half a dozen plot lines. As I was watching the film, I really saw the potential for a lot more meaningful scenes. If they removed some of the plotlines entirely, they could have done it in a single movie, I guess.

I'm not sure I understand the complaints about Superman's characterization. He is the idealist pushed to his limits throughout the film and ultimately sacrifices himself in order to save the world, while becoming the symbol of hope that jumpstarts the Justice League that are instilled with the values of good that he always has stood for. I mean, just because the writers have placed these characters in very difficult situations they CAN'T overcome the way that you want them to doesn't make for weak characterization - it's a staple of good storytelling. Batman loses his way and finds his way back to the man he aspires to be, and Clark is the unrelenting symbol of goodness and hope throughout.

 

[The Guard]

I'm not sure I understand the complaints about Superman's characterization. He is the idealist pushed to his limits throughout the film and ultimately sacrifices himself in order to save the world, while becoming the symbol of hope that jumpstarts the Justice League that are instilled with the values of good that he always has stood for. I mean, just because the writers have placed these characters in very difficult situations they CAN'T overcome the way that you want them to doesn't make for weak characterization - it's a staple of good storytelling. Batman loses his way and finds his way back to the man he aspires to be, and Clark is the unrelenting symbol of goodness and hope throughout.

But he's not smiling enough, not warm enough, and not making speeches about hope and goodness.

That's pretty much the long and the short of it.

 

[Sleiek]

Yup, pretty much it.

 

[wnjcwjkk]

I don't know about that. I think a tighter and simpler script would've been better. Having a 2 part movie so early in the franchise is questionable.

Idk, I think Man Of Steel and BvS could have been combined, lengthened, and made into a trilogy to get the characters from where they started to where they wound up in the end of BvS.

I love the story both movies are trying to tell, but there are so many aspects, plot lines, themes, character development, etc. that could have been expanded upon by the time we get to the finale of BvS. I think the first movie should have focused fully on Clark, still.


As opposed to Clark being a wanderer doing odd jobs, I would have preferred for him to be a journalist, fresh out of school, working for some underground magazine/news source that covers stories worldwide like HBO Vice, so that he's exploring the world, seeing the horrors and beauty of human nature, as an observer, while contemplating his role in this world. That would have made his transition to the Daily Planet make much more sense.

And, I would have liked more influence from Loeb's Superman For All Seasons, with the love story in the first movie focusing on Lana Lang and his friends with Pete, portraying Smallville as this idyllic idea we have of The Good Old Days, the wholesome ideals of the 50's, Norman Rockwell, classic Americana imagery, Clark has this option of staying in Smallville, marrying his childhood sweetheart, living out the American Dream in it's purest form. But he chooses to go out into the harsh realities of the world because he has this dream that he can make things better, he feels this responsibility to his powers. He breaks Lana's heart, and returns to find she has married somebody else, which breaks his heart.

I feel like that tragic romance story would have more resonance with the audience than shoehorning in the Lois romance to the first movie. Granted, MoS did portray that ideallic American imagery juxtaposed with the real world that Clark ventures out into, but it really didn't give it enough focus to make that choice have a real emotional impact on the audience, in my opinion, as it could have. Also, I think, had they focused a bit more on that aspect and that choice, it would have been symbolic of Superman's role, as a character, in comics and stories in our modern age, as opposed to the Andy Griffeth world of the old Superman comics, and comics in general.


I do love the story they tell in both movies, but it often felt like the story was in Fast Forward, a trilogy could have allowed them to develop the emotional aspects, develop the characters, while still being able to give us a lot of action to appease the Blockbuster fans, and maybe not left as many people scratching their heads, or indifferent towards the story they are trying to tell.


And, had they planned it out from the beginning, and shot the movies relatively quickly, they could have given us the second film a year and a half ago, so that they'd still be on close to the same track with their movie schedule that they have right now.


In my personal critique of the movies, there's nothing I'd want to see cut, I just want more to really flesh out the story leading into the formation of the JL, and where the Superman character is at, both physically, and in terms of public perception, at the end of BvS.

 

[SuperAl]

I'm not sure I understand the complaints about Superman's characterization. He is the idealist pushed to his limits throughout the film and ultimately sacrifices himself in order to save the world, while becoming the symbol of hope that jumpstarts the Justice League that are instilled with the values of good that he always has stood for. I mean, just because the writers have placed these characters in very difficult situations they CAN'T overcome the way that you want them to doesn't make for weak characterization - it's a staple of good storytelling. Batman loses his way and finds his way back to the man he aspires to be, and Clark is the unrelenting symbol of goodness and hope throughout.

Agreed. I am not sure why someone wants him to walk around smiling all the time. He'd look like a sociopath or something.

 

[wnjcwjkk]

Yeah the whole dying to understand human life doesn't sit well with me. Basically, Snyder is admitting that the pointless death of Jonathan Kent changed nothing for Clark. Superman is still conflicted and doubts his place as a savior and as a human. Seems redundant to go back to this after the way MoS ended.

It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense that Superman finds his humanity in death. This reeks to me of being nothing more than religious symbolism taking precedence over everything else.

I don't see it as dying to understand human life, I think it goes with what Batman says "You're not brave. Men are brave." His sacrifice shows bravery and commitment, and helps to cement a positive public perception, so that the world, for the most part, views him as a savior and protector, much like Batman's sacrifice in TDKR.


There are definitely other ways they could have accomplished that, but for me, that was the most appropriate ending.

 

[Jekecy]

But he's not smiling enough, not warm enough, and not making speeches about hope and goodness.

That's pretty much the long and the short of it.

I know you mean to brush these off as petty nitpicks, but you don’t see a fundamental writing issue in a story where a demigod struggles with humanity’s acceptance of him, but his actions of roughly 2 years have had zero (as far as we can see) efforts in initiating dialog to clear the air? Practically every single heroic act he’s committed in these two films has been as a superpowered mute who occasionally lingers long enough for people to stare at him in awe.

Of course there will be people who start to become distrustful or fearful. Clark has made a point to create a persona in which he literally answers or talks to no one in the public eye. It’s numbingly dim-witted.

One instance of him opening his mouth and clarifying his position would’ve extinguished much of his burden. But perhaps that’s precisely why Snyder/Terrio didn’t want to go through that avenue, because it prevents them from easily depicting that story.

 

[Predator jp]

to me, Snyder movies always makes me go "i like the idea but not so much with the execution". and MoS and BvS are not exceptions. is it him or the script or the editer or the studio, idk...BvS UC can't come soon enough...

 

[Mindreaper21]

Superman in this movie is being treated hardly any different than he would in real life. Forget that he's Superman for a second. This alien comes out of nowhere and suddenly people start to die. Mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. Realistically, so many people would hate him even if he did save people. On the internet alone you can see just how hateful some people really are. This movie shows both sides of the coin for a change. We've seen so many stories where Superman is loved and adored by the world, so why is it so bad to show the people that hate him and how it affects him? Superman is just supposed to be this warm happy guy even after all of the people dying around him and being trolled daily no matter how much good he does? Everyone is just supposed to forgive him and love him after all of that? Sure, like that would ever really happen. Superman became a true hero when he decided to put his life on the line to save a world full of people who still would not accept him and died doing it. He made friends with Batman and Wonder Woman and he realized that he didn't have to take on the huge threats alone. In the end, so many people appreciated and honored him for what he did. Just imagine the support he will have once he comes back. This entire time, Snyder has been showing you Superman growing to be the superhero he's known for, but in a different situation. I don't see anything wrong with that. We can't keep having the same old Superman story all the time. Just keep watching to see where this goes.

 

[The Guard]

I know you mean to brush these off as petty nitpicks, but you don’t see a fundamental writing issue in a story where a demigod struggles with humanity’s acceptance of him, but his actions of roughly 2 years have had zero (as far as we can see) efforts in initiating dialog to clear the air? Practically every single heroic act he’s committed in these two films has been as a superpowered mute who occasionally lingers
long enough for people to stare at him in awe.

No...I mean that that is the long and the short of it. It's not a real complex issue.

I never said complaints about this stuff were petty nitpicks. I too would like to see the warmer side of Superman.

But that is the long and the short of it.

The lion's share of your post...that's an assumption based on a few sequences we see in this film. We don't, and cannot, know that or assume it to be true.

 

[Nemeres]

The [BLACKOUT]death[/BLACKOUT] was a bold idea, and it could have certainly worked as an effective conclusion to his arc. If a) the sequence itself had been worth a damn; not boring, not weightless, not so reliant on the forgiveness of dumb logic oversights; and b) if he had spent the film making it so that his eventual sacrifice was the ultimate heroic gesture rather than his only significant one. He spends the film continually failing at becoming a figure of heroism, spending more time questioning his role rather than actually performing it, and when he finally gets himself killed by Cameoutofnowhere Monster, it's the sole course of action he has left. He lets his defeat by death do what he himself - through personality, leadership or intelligence - couldn't. It's a heroic simpleton's death. Another meaning for that S.

 

[Visualiza]

If you have to make comparisons from one movie to the other, that just tells me you can't sell your movie on it's own.

Nah, that's unreasonable and unrealistic, and I think you know that. You compare and contrast everything even at a subconscious level; it's an integral part of how we discern the differences (qualitative or otherwise) between similar things. Am I wrong in assuming that you're only taking this stance because said comparisons are unfavorable, though? I remember this same song and dance from when Man of Steel dropped. The shtick went "Don't you dare say that anything about STM, any of the comics, or *gasp* SR was superior to MoS. That's unfair." It was totally cool to wax poetic about all the ways in which MoS was superior to all of that stuff, however. Veiled comparisons to Marvel were par for the course, too - movies are more mature/intelligent, they took more risks, WB isn't doing it the Marvel way, et al.

Here's the thing, my aim isn't to accuse a particular fanbase of being hypocrites, but to point out how something that a lot of you tend to call dubious is actually pretty innocuous. You can yell about it as emphatically as you want, but the fact is, there's nothing sinister about comparing things when evaluating one or the other, especially when they're as close in scope & concept as CW & BvS.

 

[Jekecy]

The lion's share of your post...that's an assumption based on a few sequences we see in this film. We don't, and cannot, know that or assume it to be true.

Why? People’s distrust of him is a major point of his arc, and certainly if there were any instances of Supes actually conversing or defending his pov to them, it would’ve been covered at some point.

When this Superman has been explicitly shown as a mute with regards to human interaction, how is that not the film telegraphing Superman's lack of a public personality?

 

[Visualiza]

The [BLACKOUT]death[/BLACKOUT] was a bold idea, and it could have certainly worked as an effective conclusion to his arc. If a) the sequence itself had been worth a damn; not boring, not weightless, not so reliant on the forgiveness of dumb logic oversights; and b) if he had spent the film making it so that his eventual sacrifice was the ultimate heroic gesture rather than his only significant one. He spends the film continually failing at becoming a figure of heroism, spending more time questioning his role rather than actually performing it, and when he finally gets himself killed by Cameoutofnowhere Monster, it's the sole course of action he has left. He lets his defeat by death do what he himself - through personality, leadership or intelligence - couldn't. It's a heroic simpleton's death. Another meaning for that S.

Ouch. Scathing, and accurate. Well said.

 

[Mindreaper21]

The [BLACKOUT]death[/BLACKOUT] was a bold idea, and it could have certainly worked as an effective conclusion to his arc. If a) the sequence itself had been worth a damn; not boring, not weightless, not so reliant on the forgiveness of dumb logic oversights; and b) if he had spent the film making it so that his eventual sacrifice was the ultimate heroic gesture rather than his only significant one. He spends the film continually failing at becoming a figure of heroism, spending more time questioning his role rather than actually performing it, and when he finally gets himself killed by Cameoutofnowhere Monster, it's the sole course of action he has left. He lets his defeat by death do what he himself - through personality, leadership or intelligence - couldn't. It's a heroic simpleton's death. Another meaning for that S.

Why must it be the ultimate heroic gesture? Why can't he fail sometimes? Superman isn't the perfect hero in this story, but he wants to be a greater hero than he is and he tries. He has personal issues just like anyone else. Maybe he is a heroic simpleton, but a hero none the less. It's not like Superman hasn't done anything questionable before.

 

[MrsKent26]

Why must it be the ultimate heroic gesture? Why can't he fail sometimes? Superman isn't the perfect hero in this story, but he wants to be a greater hero than he is and he tries. He has personal issues just like anyone else. Maybe he is a heroic simpleton, but a hero none the less. It's not like Superman hasn't done anything questionable before.

He can fail sometimes and have personal issues. That's not the problem with this version. The problem is that fails and issues comprise the vast majority of his screen time.

 

[The Guard]

Why? People’s distrust of him is a major point of his arc, and certainly if there were any instances of Supes actually conversing or defending his pov to them, it would’ve been covered at some point.

I might have misread your post a bit. But you cannot assume what did or didn't happen over a two year period of saving people based on a few sequences in a montage and one Senate appearance.

What is clear is that he never delivered a big speech about his reason for being among them and/or not answering to them. This version of Superman clearly prefers to operate quietly and let his actions speak for him. This becomes a problem, and it's clear he hasn't communicated his position effectively enough, but that does not mean he never speaks to anyone ever.

When this Superman has been explicitly shown as a mute with regards to human interaction, how is that not the film telegraphing Superman's lack of a public personality?

He hasn't been explicity shown as a mute with regards to human interaction either. MAN OF STEEL is a thing. That happened. He talked to people and conversed with them in that film.

 

[NateHevens]

it's 60% of what was shot. no way you take a script and cut that much without hurting what's left. It should have been 2 films. they should have ended part 1 when Bats got the Kryptonite. Show a big fight scene with him infiltrating Lexcorp. Maybe add Diana and let her and Mercy go at it. During that fight we find out Mercy is a cyborg. Make getting the rock a big deal is what I'm saying.

Part 1 should have been Batman VS Superman. Have the fight be the third act. Here you can build the conflict even more, showing both Bruce and Clark investigating each other, as well as Lex's machinations behind the scenes (and Communion could be in the film). Show and tell more about them having mothers with the same name (giving that moment at the end of their fight more weight for GA who didn't know and didn't care). Diana Prince would still be here, as well, but we would not see Wonder Woman yet.

The resolution of the fight would show them deciding to work together, but still not necessarily completely trusting each other.

Part 2, released as soon after as is possible, is all about Doomsday. Here we get the build to that, including seeing the public slowly turning against Lex (hence his being put into prison isn't so out of left field for the GA).

Doing it this way, there'd be more room for Superman to talk. Instead of a "saving people" montage, we could actually get short scenes showing him saving and interacting with those people in both movies. There's more room for character development. Then, [BLACKOUT]Superman's death[/BLACKOUT] has quite a bit more weight to it.

There are three movies going on in BvS: 1) Batman and Superman, 2) Doomsday, and 3) Dawn of Justice. But you'd only need two films (released as a two-parter) to flesh those out.

IMO, doing it this way would have fixed probably a majority of the problems in one go.

Yeah the whole dying to understand human life doesn't sit well with me. Basically, Snyder is admitting that the pointless death of Jonathan Kent changed nothing for Clark. Superman is still conflicted and doubts his place as a savior and as a human. Seems redundant to go back to this after the way MoS ended.

It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense that Superman finds his humanity in death. This reeks to me of being nothing more than religious symbolism taking precedence over everything else.

This is why I hated Jonathan Kent's death; normally, he dies of a heart-attack, which is something Superman is incapable of saving him from. This is a much more valuable lesson for Superman to learn then "don't save me from this tornado, even though you could in such a way that nobody would notice". I still don't even know what the lesson from that was supposed to be.

I know I know... dying from a tornado looks way cooler than dying from a heart attack (and we all know how much importance Snyder places on looking "cool"). I get it. But looking cool isn't as important as telling a good story.

This is getting ridiculous.

The man was nigh-immortal. He could barely be harmed.

No one recognizes how dying might make him identify more with humanity and how this could be a good thing characterwise?

Oh, I think we all recognize it. We just don't think MoS and BvS built up to it very well at all.

ETA:
I pre-ordered the UC and I am looking forward to seeing it, but one thing that disappoints me is that it isn't the full 4-hour film. That's what I want to see. Did they only film those extra 30 minutes, or was the whole 4 hours filmed and then cut to 2.5?