Not only that but he knew bruce wayne was batman too
BGOL review .. BATMAN V SUPERMAN... (thoughts, summary, spoilers)
- Thread starter stretchwallz
- Start date
Not only that but he knew bruce wayne was batman too
Ok. I saw it. I loved it.
As i said before going in, the negative reviews seem directed at the dark backdrop of the film, and that was something that i prefer in my comic films. One of the reasons i think the XMen franchise is such trash is because it leans far too cheesy and borderline cartoonish (along with horrible casting and writing). This movie is the opposite of that. It attempts- and largely succeeds- to bring super hero characters into our world as opposed to bringing the audience to theirs. The result is a drama heavy, storied, and some what dark film that some people will take issue with. Personally, i loved that shit. Also loved how they littered the film with real life news, media personalities to push that notion forward.
Batman:
Affleck pulled it off. Biggest criticism ive seen is about his dream sequences. I had ZERO issue with them. This is an old, jaded, battered, bitter Batman haunted by countless demons. His night terrors helped to hammer that home greatly imo. This muthafucka is depressed, and filled with anger and regret.. and he directs most of it at Superman. His fight scenes were great. Easily the best of ANY big screen Batman ever. Going in i thought Ben would struggle pulling off Bruce Wayne more than Batman but he did a very decent job there too. This was assisted by limited screentime as that character (limited in his social interactions with others outside of two party scenes). Also here a few complaining about Batman using guns... I kinda agree there. His gun usage consisted of a kyrptonite gas grenade launcher and redirecting guns in the hands of henchmen at other henchmen during one fight scene... Not overdone but i can see some not liking that. Thats just something i chalk up to an attempt to put a real life spin on the character.
Superman:
Its hard to make this boring muthafucka interesting but they did a decent enough job... i guess. He was the same guy from MOS
Lex:
Horrible. The biggest problem with this Lex is it wasnt Lex. If we had no reference point to the character then it would have been fine. But the moment they told us this was Lex Luther it failed miserably. Again, i chalk this to an attempt at give the film a real world modern interpretation. This is the face of the new billionaire tycoon. But it aint Lex Luther.
Wonder Women:
Pleasantly surprised. Much better than i anticipated. She had limited lines and screentime but she did a decent enough job pulling the role off.
Film itself:
Again, i enjoyed it alot. There was a slight pacing issue where it was rushed during BvS conflict and Bats came around to helping Supes and his moms. The Justice League characters reveal was also a bit cheesy and seemed like something we would see on an episode of Arrow.
Overall its a very good film imo... Top 5 comic flick in my ratings. Looking forward to the R rated blu-ray.
As i said before going in, the negative reviews seem directed at the dark backdrop of the film, and that was something that i prefer in my comic films. One of the reasons i think the XMen franchise is such trash is because it leans far too cheesy and borderline cartoonish (along with horrible casting and writing). This movie is the opposite of that. It attempts- and largely succeeds- to bring super hero characters into our world as opposed to bringing the audience to theirs. The result is a drama heavy, storied, and some what dark film that some people will take issue with. Personally, i loved that shit. Also loved how they littered the film with real life news, media personalities to push that notion forward.
Batman:
Affleck pulled it off. Biggest criticism ive seen is about his dream sequences. I had ZERO issue with them. This is an old, jaded, battered, bitter Batman haunted by countless demons. His night terrors helped to hammer that home greatly imo. This muthafucka is depressed, and filled with anger and regret.. and he directs most of it at Superman. His fight scenes were great. Easily the best of ANY big screen Batman ever. Going in i thought Ben would struggle pulling off Bruce Wayne more than Batman but he did a very decent job there too. This was assisted by limited screentime as that character (limited in his social interactions with others outside of two party scenes). Also here a few complaining about Batman using guns... I kinda agree there. His gun usage consisted of a kyrptonite gas grenade launcher and redirecting guns in the hands of henchmen at other henchmen during one fight scene... Not overdone but i can see some not liking that. Thats just something i chalk up to an attempt to put a real life spin on the character.
Superman:
Its hard to make this boring muthafucka interesting but they did a decent enough job... i guess. He was the same guy from MOS
Lex:
Horrible. The biggest problem with this Lex is it wasnt Lex. If we had no reference point to the character then it would have been fine. But the moment they told us this was Lex Luther it failed miserably. Again, i chalk this to an attempt at give the film a real world modern interpretation. This is the face of the new billionaire tycoon. But it aint Lex Luther.
Wonder Women:
Pleasantly surprised. Much better than i anticipated. She had limited lines and screentime but she did a decent enough job pulling the role off.
Film itself:
Again, i enjoyed it alot. There was a slight pacing issue where it was rushed during BvS conflict and Bats came around to helping Supes and his moms. The Justice League characters reveal was also a bit cheesy and seemed like something we would see on an episode of Arrow.
Overall its a very good film imo... Top 5 comic flick in my ratings. Looking forward to the R rated blu-ray.
Man every live action superhero movie is basically copying Bruce Timm. I know the guy didn't create the characters but his ability to seemlessly add a level of vulnerability to each character is still unmatched. I mean just look at hawkgirl and John Stewart. He made you care about their relationship and nobody gave a shit that it was technically an interracial relationship.
Dude he blew up a henchman by firing an assault rifle into the gas tank of a henchman. He pulled the trigger on that. He freaking murdered dude. The batman that I know... Would have never pulled the trigger on a gun. This is unacceptable man.
Hmm didn't Batman kill thugs in The Dark Knight Returns comic book?
If I remember he killed some of the clown thugs and killed Joker?
If I remember he killed some of the clown thugs and killed Joker?
Well, the Batman that you know is a fucking pussy! This aint him.
And again, it was a gun still in the hand of another henchmen that he pointed at a man who was holding a flamethrower to the head of 60 year old women.
I can see how purists take issue with it but in the context of everything else i stated, i can deal with it.
Ok then but this make all of the flashbacks to his parents pointless. Batman doesn't use a gun because that's all he really saw when his parents were killed. He never really saw the face of the killer. So why have all these flashbacks to the gun used to kill his parents if he is just going to use a gun to kill someone else.
But he didnt "just use a gun". You present it like he was walking around with a holster and 6 shooter the entire film. Not the case. During ONE fight scene, he pointed guns still in the hands on henchmen toward other henchmen. During the same scene, he pointed a rifle in the hand of a henchmen toward a guy who was holding a flamethrower at the head of a senior citizen. He shot the flamethrower (obviously i know the end result was the apparent death of that villain but the distinction was purposely illustrated).
As for the parental flashbacks... I think its overdone in Batman films period. BUT, i did see the point in the context of again showing just how tortured and traumatized of a human being he is...And it also served to assist in drawing commonality between he and superman as evidenced at the conclusion of their fight scene when Supes called his mother by name. So, to the end, i think it served its purpose.
Chose not to read all in this thread..maybe just a couple reviews. Personally,I loved the movie. Being a self professed comic book nerd, I realize this is a fantasy world. I look more to storyline...portrayal of actors in roles. For me...and let me first say, i am not an Affleck fan...but I must admit I liked him as Batman. I like his portrayal of an older, grizzled by the world and his mission type of Batman. I wanted to dislike him ever since they said he was going to be Batman. But it seems as though he pulled it off, at least for this movie. Wasn't familiar with Gal Gadot, but now looking forward to the Wonder Woman movie. She's seemed to have the right amount of sexiness and bad ass! The set up for the other movies was refreshing...almost thought I was watching something out of the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe for those that don't know). The length of the movie didn't bother me at all. Matter of fact, I didn't even realize it was as long as it was. Had it been another 30 minutes, wouldn't have bothered me a bit. I liked Jesse Rosenberg as Lex Luthor...even though he will always be Mark Zuckerberg to me! I liked how they incorporated him in as the son of Lex Luthor. Overall for me...as I started out saying...I loved the movie, and will go catch it a second time I'm sure to look for anything I might have missed the First time. Heard a couple of cats in the theater saying that if Marvel had done this movie, it would have been much better. I don't necessarily agree..and I'm a Marvel Comics fan, but I do have some love for DC comics characters. They just might have been non DC Comics fans. However, I will say this. To me...Captain America : Civil War better bring it because right now...for me...BvS is the business!!
And the movie aint horrible like other folks have been saying, Ive seen way worse
Missed thatMaggie and Negan makes an cameo appearance in BVS.
Thomas and martha wayne
The Exact Moment Ben Affleck Realized ‘Batman v Superman’ Sucks
He hasn’t felt this low since “Gigli.”
03/25/2016 12:13 pm ET
When it comes to bad action movies, we’ve all Ben there and done that. But “Batman v Superman“ was supposed to be different.
It had a great cast, and it had all the hype. Like, c’mon. This movie was supposed to kick off the beginnings of “The Justice League” franchise.
Then reviews came out, and they weren’t good.
In an interview with Yahoo, the cast was asked for their opinion on the reviews, and Ben Affleck’s blank response is genuinely just the saddest thing. And if that wasn’t enough, someone set it to Simon & Garfunkel’s “The Sound of Silence.”
After seeing the movie, all we can say about Affleck’s reaction is, “We agree.”
“Batman v Superman” is in theaters now.
One Brutally Murdered Batman v Superman Character Has a Surprising Nam
Note: This post discusses a very early scene in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Spoilers about that scene follow.
When director Zack Snyder began to establish the DC Comics movie universe with 2013's Man of Steel, comic-book purists blanched at his vision of a Superman who would not only kill if necessary, but would also allow thousands of innocent people to die while fighting a supervillain. Snyder's follow-up, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, is no less brutal: The first few scenes of the film are filled with casualties, from Bruce Wayne's parents (gunned down, once more, in slow motion) to the Metropolis citizens who perished during Superman's climactic Man of Steel battle, replayed here from Bruce Wayne's man-on-the-street perspective.
Still, the film's most startling death is one that goes by in a flash, and if you aren't paying close attention, you'll miss why it's so provocative.
Not long after Bruce Wayne's grim introduction, we catch up with Man of Steel's Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who has traveled to Africa to interview a suspected terrorist. She's accompanied by a photographer (played by The OC's Michael Cassidy), but while Lois is busy peppering the terrorist with questions, a henchman confiscates the shutterbug's camera, exposes the roll of film, and finds a tracking device hidden deep inside the camera. That surprise prompts another reveal — the photographer admits that he's actually a CIA agent using Lois's trip to gather secret intel — and, quickly, the entire encounter goes south: The terrorist becomes enraged, Lois is taken hostage, and the photographer-cum-secret-agent is executed with a point-blank gunshot to the head.
That's about it for Cassidy's character, who's never identified by name ... until the closing credits, when eagle-eyed audience members may notice that the character is Jimmy Olsen.
Yes, that Jimmy Olsen, the classic Superman character with the can-do attitude who works as a photographer at the Daily Planet and tags along with Lois and Clark Kent on their adventures.
Zack Snyder shot him in the head.
This may not be the first time that Snyder has toyed with the character, but it's definitely the darkest. Rumors flew during the production of Man of Steel that actress Rebecca Buller would be playing a gender-flippedJenny Olsen — and indeed, Buller has admitted that "there was an evolution of what they wanted my character to be" — but in the final cut, at least, the character was named Jenny Jurwich. The version of Jimmy that we briefly see in Batman v Superman is somewhat more in line with the character's traditional depiction ... well, at least until he reveals himself to be a secret agent and is brutally gunned down in front of Lois. That's not the sort of thing you usually find in a Superman comic, but in Zack Snyder's dark DC universe, it's a casualty so commonplace that most moviegoers won't even realize it happened.
Note: This post discusses a very early scene in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Spoilers about that scene follow.
When director Zack Snyder began to establish the DC Comics movie universe with 2013's Man of Steel, comic-book purists blanched at his vision of a Superman who would not only kill if necessary, but would also allow thousands of innocent people to die while fighting a supervillain. Snyder's follow-up, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, is no less brutal: The first few scenes of the film are filled with casualties, from Bruce Wayne's parents (gunned down, once more, in slow motion) to the Metropolis citizens who perished during Superman's climactic Man of Steel battle, replayed here from Bruce Wayne's man-on-the-street perspective.
Still, the film's most startling death is one that goes by in a flash, and if you aren't paying close attention, you'll miss why it's so provocative.
Not long after Bruce Wayne's grim introduction, we catch up with Man of Steel's Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who has traveled to Africa to interview a suspected terrorist. She's accompanied by a photographer (played by The OC's Michael Cassidy), but while Lois is busy peppering the terrorist with questions, a henchman confiscates the shutterbug's camera, exposes the roll of film, and finds a tracking device hidden deep inside the camera. That surprise prompts another reveal — the photographer admits that he's actually a CIA agent using Lois's trip to gather secret intel — and, quickly, the entire encounter goes south: The terrorist becomes enraged, Lois is taken hostage, and the photographer-cum-secret-agent is executed with a point-blank gunshot to the head.
That's about it for Cassidy's character, who's never identified by name ... until the closing credits, when eagle-eyed audience members may notice that the character is Jimmy Olsen.
Yes, that Jimmy Olsen, the classic Superman character with the can-do attitude who works as a photographer at the Daily Planet and tags along with Lois and Clark Kent on their adventures.
Zack Snyder shot him in the head.
This may not be the first time that Snyder has toyed with the character, but it's definitely the darkest. Rumors flew during the production of Man of Steel that actress Rebecca Buller would be playing a gender-flippedJenny Olsen — and indeed, Buller has admitted that "there was an evolution of what they wanted my character to be" — but in the final cut, at least, the character was named Jenny Jurwich. The version of Jimmy that we briefly see in Batman v Superman is somewhat more in line with the character's traditional depiction ... well, at least until he reveals himself to be a secret agent and is brutally gunned down in front of Lois. That's not the sort of thing you usually find in a Superman comic, but in Zack Snyder's dark DC universe, it's a casualty so commonplace that most moviegoers won't even realize it happened.
Explaining Batman’s Odd Dream in Batman v Superman
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is nothing if not ominous. The movie is filled — perhaps to a fault — with references to events and characters that audiences are presumably going to see in future installments of the so-called DC Extended Universe (or DCEU). But the most explicit supposed foreshadowing shows up about a third of the way into the movie, when Batman falls asleep at his desk and has a grim, sepia-toned vision of the future. (What, you didn’t know about Batman’s famous Bat-Precognition?)
If you were left scratching your head at the weird stuff that happens in the dream sequence, you can find some answers here about what was going down — and how it relates to a few more of the movie’s most mysterious moments, as well as to the planned superhero team-up Justice League: Part One, coming next November. Big spoilers ahead, of course.
Was there some unifying thread to all the omens and cameos?That appears to be the case. The key to everything is a character named Darkseid (pronounced “dark side”). He was introduced in the world of DC Comics in 1970, the brainchild of one of the medium’s greatest geniuses, writer/artist Jack Kirby. Darkseid’s a nearly invincible alien dictator from a distant world called Apokolips, where he has crushed his population’s will and lords over them with the help of a cabinet of sadistic cronies.
But Apokolips isn’t enough for him: he’s often depicted as obsessed with finding something called the “Anti-Life Equation,” which would allow him to kill or subjugate everyone in the cosmos. He’s a literal god and more or less the ultimate personification of evil. In other words, to use a video game metaphor, he’s DC's Final Boss. When DC rebooted its fictional universe in 2011, the new origin story of top-tier superteam the Justice League involved them all coming together to fight Darkseid. Having that be the organizing principle for the filmic League would be a logical bit of brand synergy.
What was the symbol future-Batman sees carved into the ground?That’s our first tip-off to Darkseid’s presence in the DCEU. He’s traditionally associated with the Greek letter "omega," often wearing outfits that feature the symbol and firing dangerous energy rays that have been variously referred to as Omega Beams or the Omega Sanction. That brings us to the dream sequence. Batman is wandering a Mad Max–esque landscape and, at one point, gazes out toward a ruined city. In the expanse between him and the ruined buildings, you can see a massive omega inscribed on the soil. Presumably, this means Batsy is dreaming of a future in which Darkseid has accomplished his goal of conquering Earth and branded it accordingly.
What was with the giant grasshopers?Ah, yes, the grasshopper-men. Batman meets up with a rag-tag group of dudes who claim to be offering him some Kryptonite, but it turns out to be a trap. He’s soon beset by soldiers with the Superman insignia on their shoulders, and then things get weird. The soldiers get some winged backup from flying creatures that look like humanoid insects. These are another Kirby creation: Parademons. They’re Darkseid’s foot soldiers, always dependable for a mindless rush into battle on their master’s command.
So is future-Superman working for Darkseid?
I … guess? That was left ambiguous. Given that the Supertroopers and the Parademons are working in concert, it would appear that the Man of Steel is in some way allied with the big, bad space-meanie, for reasons unknown.
What was Superman talking about when he yelled at Batman in the dream?After Batman is captured and strung up, Supes shows up and tells the Dark Knight, “She was my world, and you took her from me.” Maybe this dystopian future came to be as a result of Lois Lane dying (perhaps due to something Batman did) and Superman subsequently giving in to rage at his adopted world? That’s similar to the setup of DC’s recent hit video-game Injustice: Gods Among Us, which would make this another example of brand synergy. That game didn’t feature Superman working for Darkseid, but it’s not unreasonable to think Supes might have allied himself with the Apokoliptan after turning against humanity.
Who was the guy who appears in that weird portal right after the dream?
That’s the Flash, played here by Ezra Miller. (There’s currently a screen incarnation of the character on The CW’s The Flash, but that show’s entirely unrelated to the DCEU.) He’s often depicted as being able to travel through time, either by running really fast or using some kind of time-travel technology. Since he’s wearing a weird mechanical suit (which is not a mainstay of the comics version of the Flash), the latter seems to be the case here. It appears that he’s coming from the future to warn present-day Batman about something involving Lois Lane. It’s all deliberately vague, but seems to fit with Superman’s “she was my world” bit.
What was up with the video of the dismembered kid and the scientist?
Later in the movie, Wonder Woman looks at some video footage relating to other DC heroes. One video shows a scientist named Silas Stone (played by Joe Morton) attempting to save a kid (played by Ray Fisher) who seems to only consist of a ripped-up torso and head. This was a look at the origin of Cyborg, a longtime DC character who’s slated to get his own DCEU movie in 2020.
He debuted in 1980 but got a big push from DC for new popularity in the aforementioned 2011 reboot. He’s a young football star named Vic Stone who, in the rebooted continuity of the comics, gets injured in a laboratory accident while visiting his emotionally distant dad. Silas saves his son’s life by grafting experimental robot parts to the boy. But in the movie, as in the comics, Vic’s new robotic life is forever changed by the presence of a weird box. In the comics, Silas’s newfound cybernetic parts attach themselves to yet another Kirby invention called a Mother Box. Mother Boxes are pieces of extremely advanced technology used by gods like Darkseid, and they can do all sorts of magical things — creating teleportation wormholes, healing the sick, merging living organisms, you name it.
In the movie, we see Silas bring a mysterious, moving box near Vic, at which point it shape-shifts and replaces the kid’s body. Given that ever-present brand synergy, it seems likely that this was the big-screen debut of the Mother Box. (It’s also possible that Daily Planet editor Perry White’s earlier mention of a “football underdog” whose dreams were dashed is a reference to Vic and his injuries.)
What was Lex Luthor babbling about at the end?
Darkseid, most likely. When Lex is imprisoned and yelling at Batman, he says, “He’s hungry, he’s found us, and he’s coming!” Given that the camera then moves to Lex’s father’s painting of hell and zooms in on Satan, the hidden meaning is pretty obvious to anyone in the know about comics mythology.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is nothing if not ominous. The movie is filled — perhaps to a fault — with references to events and characters that audiences are presumably going to see in future installments of the so-called DC Extended Universe (or DCEU). But the most explicit supposed foreshadowing shows up about a third of the way into the movie, when Batman falls asleep at his desk and has a grim, sepia-toned vision of the future. (What, you didn’t know about Batman’s famous Bat-Precognition?)
If you were left scratching your head at the weird stuff that happens in the dream sequence, you can find some answers here about what was going down — and how it relates to a few more of the movie’s most mysterious moments, as well as to the planned superhero team-up Justice League: Part One, coming next November. Big spoilers ahead, of course.
Was there some unifying thread to all the omens and cameos?That appears to be the case. The key to everything is a character named Darkseid (pronounced “dark side”). He was introduced in the world of DC Comics in 1970, the brainchild of one of the medium’s greatest geniuses, writer/artist Jack Kirby. Darkseid’s a nearly invincible alien dictator from a distant world called Apokolips, where he has crushed his population’s will and lords over them with the help of a cabinet of sadistic cronies.
But Apokolips isn’t enough for him: he’s often depicted as obsessed with finding something called the “Anti-Life Equation,” which would allow him to kill or subjugate everyone in the cosmos. He’s a literal god and more or less the ultimate personification of evil. In other words, to use a video game metaphor, he’s DC's Final Boss. When DC rebooted its fictional universe in 2011, the new origin story of top-tier superteam the Justice League involved them all coming together to fight Darkseid. Having that be the organizing principle for the filmic League would be a logical bit of brand synergy.
What was the symbol future-Batman sees carved into the ground?That’s our first tip-off to Darkseid’s presence in the DCEU. He’s traditionally associated with the Greek letter "omega," often wearing outfits that feature the symbol and firing dangerous energy rays that have been variously referred to as Omega Beams or the Omega Sanction. That brings us to the dream sequence. Batman is wandering a Mad Max–esque landscape and, at one point, gazes out toward a ruined city. In the expanse between him and the ruined buildings, you can see a massive omega inscribed on the soil. Presumably, this means Batsy is dreaming of a future in which Darkseid has accomplished his goal of conquering Earth and branded it accordingly.
What was with the giant grasshopers?Ah, yes, the grasshopper-men. Batman meets up with a rag-tag group of dudes who claim to be offering him some Kryptonite, but it turns out to be a trap. He’s soon beset by soldiers with the Superman insignia on their shoulders, and then things get weird. The soldiers get some winged backup from flying creatures that look like humanoid insects. These are another Kirby creation: Parademons. They’re Darkseid’s foot soldiers, always dependable for a mindless rush into battle on their master’s command.
So is future-Superman working for Darkseid?
I … guess? That was left ambiguous. Given that the Supertroopers and the Parademons are working in concert, it would appear that the Man of Steel is in some way allied with the big, bad space-meanie, for reasons unknown.
What was Superman talking about when he yelled at Batman in the dream?After Batman is captured and strung up, Supes shows up and tells the Dark Knight, “She was my world, and you took her from me.” Maybe this dystopian future came to be as a result of Lois Lane dying (perhaps due to something Batman did) and Superman subsequently giving in to rage at his adopted world? That’s similar to the setup of DC’s recent hit video-game Injustice: Gods Among Us, which would make this another example of brand synergy. That game didn’t feature Superman working for Darkseid, but it’s not unreasonable to think Supes might have allied himself with the Apokoliptan after turning against humanity.
Who was the guy who appears in that weird portal right after the dream?
That’s the Flash, played here by Ezra Miller. (There’s currently a screen incarnation of the character on The CW’s The Flash, but that show’s entirely unrelated to the DCEU.) He’s often depicted as being able to travel through time, either by running really fast or using some kind of time-travel technology. Since he’s wearing a weird mechanical suit (which is not a mainstay of the comics version of the Flash), the latter seems to be the case here. It appears that he’s coming from the future to warn present-day Batman about something involving Lois Lane. It’s all deliberately vague, but seems to fit with Superman’s “she was my world” bit.
What was up with the video of the dismembered kid and the scientist?
Later in the movie, Wonder Woman looks at some video footage relating to other DC heroes. One video shows a scientist named Silas Stone (played by Joe Morton) attempting to save a kid (played by Ray Fisher) who seems to only consist of a ripped-up torso and head. This was a look at the origin of Cyborg, a longtime DC character who’s slated to get his own DCEU movie in 2020.
He debuted in 1980 but got a big push from DC for new popularity in the aforementioned 2011 reboot. He’s a young football star named Vic Stone who, in the rebooted continuity of the comics, gets injured in a laboratory accident while visiting his emotionally distant dad. Silas saves his son’s life by grafting experimental robot parts to the boy. But in the movie, as in the comics, Vic’s new robotic life is forever changed by the presence of a weird box. In the comics, Silas’s newfound cybernetic parts attach themselves to yet another Kirby invention called a Mother Box. Mother Boxes are pieces of extremely advanced technology used by gods like Darkseid, and they can do all sorts of magical things — creating teleportation wormholes, healing the sick, merging living organisms, you name it.
In the movie, we see Silas bring a mysterious, moving box near Vic, at which point it shape-shifts and replaces the kid’s body. Given that ever-present brand synergy, it seems likely that this was the big-screen debut of the Mother Box. (It’s also possible that Daily Planet editor Perry White’s earlier mention of a “football underdog” whose dreams were dashed is a reference to Vic and his injuries.)
What was Lex Luthor babbling about at the end?
Darkseid, most likely. When Lex is imprisoned and yelling at Batman, he says, “He’s hungry, he’s found us, and he’s coming!” Given that the camera then moves to Lex’s father’s painting of hell and zooms in on Satan, the hidden meaning is pretty obvious to anyone in the know about comics mythology.
What We Liked and Hated (Mostly Hated) About Batman v Superman
Last night, two of Kotaku’s staffers went to see DC Comics’ biggest superhero icons duke it out on the big screen. World’s Finest, it ain’t.
Mike Fahey and myself are probably the most superhero comics-loving people here at Kotaku. But we both went to Batman v Superman out of a sense of duty rather than excitement. After it all was said and done—in my case, brown liquor was administered to dull the throbbing—we convened in Slack to talk about it. There are many spoilers ahead.
Evan Narcisse: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was the first time in a long while that I approached a major superhero movie with active dread. I already had low expectations based on how I felt about Man of Steel. I lowered them as the first reviews started to hit (though I didn’t read any of them) and lowered them even more after texting with a friend who saw it on Tuesday. Somehow, it managed to come in even lower than those twice-reset fears. This movie simply shouldn’t exist.
I stay reading superhero and genre work because, when it’s at its best, I get a certain kind of metaphorical cleverness and emotional resonance that it’s tough to find anywhere else. Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are aspirational symbols. Zack Snyder says he understands that but this movie turned them into the worst versions of themselves.
Mike Fahey: I went into Batman v Superman the same way you did, apparently. I was never really excited about the film, my expectations tempered by Man of Steel. There were some early buzz on Twitter over the weekend from insane people (or possibly just trolls) calling it the best Batman movie ever, so my hopes raised slightly, but by the time Thursday night rolled around I was actively dreading stepping into the theater. An hour in and I was ready to step back out. I wanted to get up and leave, and only stayed for the sake of this conversation.
So you are welcome, readers.
Evan: Like, I already knew that Snyder’s take wasn’t one for me. I went in hoping to see cool fights, a nice debut for Wonder Woman and how he’d fold in callbacks to the source material. Only the Wonder Woman stuff made me feel positive in any way.
Again, spoiler warning: We’re about to get into the plot so avert your eyes if you care. But you really shouldn’t, because it’s dumb.
BvS is set two years after Man of Steel and opens with a dream sequence recap of Batman’s origin. It then cuts to Bruce Wayne desperately scrambling through Metropolis trying to save people during the big Supes/Zod throwdown from the last movie.
Mike: Snyder set the tone early with the worst on-screen version of Batman’s origins I have ever seen. Bruce Wayne and his parents walking down the street, a mugger accosts them with a gun, and Thomas Wayne takes a swing at him.
Evan: Yeah, from the very beginning, I felt like Snyder doesn’t get why certain aspects of these characters’ mythos have become so powerful. Up until this point, Thomas Wayne was always shown in a way where protecting his son was the priority. I mean, taking a swing at a mugger just escalates things to an even more dangerous degree.
Mike: Everything in that first few minutes, dream or not, is just bad. Martha Wayne’s pearl necklace catching the gun, young Bruce falling into the underground cave, only to be lifted up towards the light by swirling bat-symbolism. It established a tone, and the tone was “Here be some deep bullshit.” “This movie is heavy,” the movie says over and over again, pleased with itself.
Evan: Yeah! The word that came to mind for me was “lugubrious”. Even Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal of Lex Luthor, where he’s supposed to be a manically spastic super-genius trust-fund asshole, felt way too heavy-handed. There’s no zip, nothing nimble anywhere in this movie.
Mike: Except for the one line towards the end, which I’m sure we’ll get to.
Evan: Meanwhile, Kal-El has been living with Lois Lane as Clark Kent and flying around as Superman, winning hearts by saving lives but still the center of controversy. The tension about whether Superman does more harm than good moves to the foreground when he intervenes to save Lois Lane from terrorists in an African country. A senator holds hearings to call him to accountability, but has also been meeting with Lex Luthor, who wants her to let him bring newly-discovered Kryptonite to the U.S. so he can play with it.
Mike: I don’t care how many lives Superman has saved at this point. By starting the movie off (ignoring the dream sequence now) showing the horror of the street-level destruction from Bruce Wayne’s point of view, I was convinced Superman needed to be taken out. No rational person would call someone who’d caused so much death and destruction a hero. It doesn’t help that Henry Cavill is a plastic doll.
Evan: Yeah, that one montage where he’s saving lives felt like the most cynical middle-finger bullshit. “So, this is what you wanted?! Here, Clark is saving so many lives now! Happy?!”
Mike: He doesn’t even deserve a secret identity, that monster.
Evan: Part of my problem with BvS is that its story logic is so terrible. It’s a collection of plot beats with scant, rotten connective tissue. The thematic underpinnings that are supposed to tie things together are awful. Batman wants to kill Superman—calling it the most important thing he’ll ever do—because he’s too powerful, Superman isn’t sure about his place in the world, Wonder Woman left humanity because underexplained bad reasons. It’s impossible to accept the movie as sincere.
Mike: As much as I loved her, there needed to be a little less Wonder Woman in this. Bringing her in during the fight against the grey, genital-free mutant ninja turtle Lex Luthor created using the genital-free mutant ninja turtle machine he found on the Kryptonian ship would have been enough. Lacing her throughout the story made me expect more from her. But I am getting ahead of the movie here. We’ve got at least two more dream sequences to get through before that confrontation.
Evan: Man, the fucking dream sequences... They were undoubtedly the worst part of the movie, as far as storytelling. Bruce falls asleep and sees into a future ruled by Superman with an extra helping of parademons?! Gets visited by someone who you can’t really tell is the Flash, in a riff on Crisis on Infinite Earths?!
Mike: Hahaha. I was thinking the same thing. “How are these people going to know that’s the Flash?” If those dream sequences were cut completely this would have been a much more… well, no. I at least wouldn’t have been falling asleep towards the end.
Evan: This franchise hasn’t earned any of its invocation of the fantastic. There’s a dissonance at its heart. Snyder’s been setting up a ultra-gritty, grounded take on this universe and then starts sprinkling sci-fi shit in there. It doesn’t hold together. Normal-dude Batman, of all people, has clairvoyant foreshadowing powers. FOH.
Mike: As does Lex Luthor, apparently. He spends the entire movie feeding Jolly Ranchers to CIA agents and hinting at Darkseid. I half expected him to start handing out pamphlets about it.
Evan: Hahahahahhahaha!
Mike: There is a lot of groundwork being laid here. Strip it all away and this might have been a much tighter, more enjoyable film. The first few Marvel movies kept the expanded universe stuff to post-credits scenes. Batman v Superman is very impatient about expanding the DC cinematic universe.
Evan: This is Warner Bros trying to do in one movie what Marvel did in, like, four or five. Teasing the other metahumans in security footage? Weak. One friend said the Cyborg tease was like a bad YouTube fan film.
Mike: Hahahaha. It was! It was like someone superimposed a scientist over a faded Iron Maiden album cover and then went to town in Aftereffects.
Evan: I think the biggest sin in BvS is that it robs these versions of Clark and Bruce of the chance to stand up for their convictions. Supes wants to take out Bats because he thinks the Bat goes over the line; Bats wants to kill Supes because he’s too powerful to exist. Only then Lex kidnaps Martha Kent. So then the whole reason Clark and Bruce fight changes. It’s not because they’re these diametrically opposed larger-than-life figures. It’s because of weak-ass plot contrivance. And then! They stop fighting because a decades-old bit of trivia. It’s the worst nerd dog-whistle ever.
Mike: And then Lex Luthor activates his Doomsday machine. After five, thankfully. Not a lot of people on the streets of Metropolis after business hours. Fuck you, movie.
The thing is, at a basic level the basic plot here could be good. The motivations behind the Batman and Superman conflict. Batman and Wonder Woman both investigating Luthor, Batman trying to hijack Luthor’s Kryptonite shipment—these are beats that would have worked really well in comic book form. But then Snyder had to go all Watchmen on it.
Evan: This movie is what happens when meatheads decide they’re going to wave the nerd flag. We have to talk about the the big event near the end because, again, it shows Snyder’s fundamental misunderstanding of superhero symbolism. Once Doomsday shows up, you know Superman is going to die. That’s the only thing Doomsday is good for: killing Superman. Superman dies and then Batman and Wonder Woman talk about, essentially, forming the Justice League.
Mike: Superman falling on his spear. SYMBOLISM YOU GUYS! GET IT?
Evan: This is a Justice League that starts with Superman’s death. It feels wrong because it’s centering darkness and loss in this emo, fetish-y way that undermines any messaging about hope or altruism. Worse still, it sets up like at least five years of dread. I’m so nervous about the rest of this universe they’re building.
The movie keeps telling us that Batman and Superman are doing justice but never convinces you of that.
Mike: There are two good things about this movie. One is Wonder Woman’s grin in the middle of the Doomsday fight. That moment alone gave me hope for the next movie in this undertaking.
Mike: The other is the only line in the movie that made me laugh. Batman saves Superman’s Martha. “I’m a friend of your son’s.”
That’s all the good. I could list dozens of bad things. Perry White as the newspaper editor who tells his reporters what to write. The Doomsday contrivance. Being able to see Gotham from Metropolis. The f***ing bagpipe funerals. Superman hanging over the flood victims like glowing alien Jesus. “We get the symbolism. Could you possibly save us now?”
Evan: Hahahaaha, yep. After I saw the movie, I had drinks with friends who hadn’t yet. As I ranted about what I didn’t like, we were all musing about how much money BvS might make and whether it might stifle plans for more DC superhero movies. I still want those movies to happen but I desperately want them to branch out into different tonalities. For a lifelong fan like me, watching these characters get twisted into nigh-unrecognizable form is like torture. There’s no optimism here. Seeing “good” triumph over “evil” here is like watching a snuff friends where they kill the Superfriends.
Mike: In closing, let me just say this is the one time I enjoyed the breakfast cereals more than the movie they represented.
Last night, two of Kotaku’s staffers went to see DC Comics’ biggest superhero icons duke it out on the big screen. World’s Finest, it ain’t.
Mike Fahey and myself are probably the most superhero comics-loving people here at Kotaku. But we both went to Batman v Superman out of a sense of duty rather than excitement. After it all was said and done—in my case, brown liquor was administered to dull the throbbing—we convened in Slack to talk about it. There are many spoilers ahead.
Evan Narcisse: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was the first time in a long while that I approached a major superhero movie with active dread. I already had low expectations based on how I felt about Man of Steel. I lowered them as the first reviews started to hit (though I didn’t read any of them) and lowered them even more after texting with a friend who saw it on Tuesday. Somehow, it managed to come in even lower than those twice-reset fears. This movie simply shouldn’t exist.
I stay reading superhero and genre work because, when it’s at its best, I get a certain kind of metaphorical cleverness and emotional resonance that it’s tough to find anywhere else. Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are aspirational symbols. Zack Snyder says he understands that but this movie turned them into the worst versions of themselves.
Mike Fahey: I went into Batman v Superman the same way you did, apparently. I was never really excited about the film, my expectations tempered by Man of Steel. There were some early buzz on Twitter over the weekend from insane people (or possibly just trolls) calling it the best Batman movie ever, so my hopes raised slightly, but by the time Thursday night rolled around I was actively dreading stepping into the theater. An hour in and I was ready to step back out. I wanted to get up and leave, and only stayed for the sake of this conversation.
So you are welcome, readers.
Evan: Like, I already knew that Snyder’s take wasn’t one for me. I went in hoping to see cool fights, a nice debut for Wonder Woman and how he’d fold in callbacks to the source material. Only the Wonder Woman stuff made me feel positive in any way.
Again, spoiler warning: We’re about to get into the plot so avert your eyes if you care. But you really shouldn’t, because it’s dumb.
BvS is set two years after Man of Steel and opens with a dream sequence recap of Batman’s origin. It then cuts to Bruce Wayne desperately scrambling through Metropolis trying to save people during the big Supes/Zod throwdown from the last movie.
Mike: Snyder set the tone early with the worst on-screen version of Batman’s origins I have ever seen. Bruce Wayne and his parents walking down the street, a mugger accosts them with a gun, and Thomas Wayne takes a swing at him.
Evan: Yeah, from the very beginning, I felt like Snyder doesn’t get why certain aspects of these characters’ mythos have become so powerful. Up until this point, Thomas Wayne was always shown in a way where protecting his son was the priority. I mean, taking a swing at a mugger just escalates things to an even more dangerous degree.
Mike: Everything in that first few minutes, dream or not, is just bad. Martha Wayne’s pearl necklace catching the gun, young Bruce falling into the underground cave, only to be lifted up towards the light by swirling bat-symbolism. It established a tone, and the tone was “Here be some deep bullshit.” “This movie is heavy,” the movie says over and over again, pleased with itself.
Evan: Yeah! The word that came to mind for me was “lugubrious”. Even Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal of Lex Luthor, where he’s supposed to be a manically spastic super-genius trust-fund asshole, felt way too heavy-handed. There’s no zip, nothing nimble anywhere in this movie.
Mike: Except for the one line towards the end, which I’m sure we’ll get to.
Evan: Meanwhile, Kal-El has been living with Lois Lane as Clark Kent and flying around as Superman, winning hearts by saving lives but still the center of controversy. The tension about whether Superman does more harm than good moves to the foreground when he intervenes to save Lois Lane from terrorists in an African country. A senator holds hearings to call him to accountability, but has also been meeting with Lex Luthor, who wants her to let him bring newly-discovered Kryptonite to the U.S. so he can play with it.
Mike: I don’t care how many lives Superman has saved at this point. By starting the movie off (ignoring the dream sequence now) showing the horror of the street-level destruction from Bruce Wayne’s point of view, I was convinced Superman needed to be taken out. No rational person would call someone who’d caused so much death and destruction a hero. It doesn’t help that Henry Cavill is a plastic doll.
Evan: Yeah, that one montage where he’s saving lives felt like the most cynical middle-finger bullshit. “So, this is what you wanted?! Here, Clark is saving so many lives now! Happy?!”
Mike: He doesn’t even deserve a secret identity, that monster.
Evan: Part of my problem with BvS is that its story logic is so terrible. It’s a collection of plot beats with scant, rotten connective tissue. The thematic underpinnings that are supposed to tie things together are awful. Batman wants to kill Superman—calling it the most important thing he’ll ever do—because he’s too powerful, Superman isn’t sure about his place in the world, Wonder Woman left humanity because underexplained bad reasons. It’s impossible to accept the movie as sincere.
Mike: As much as I loved her, there needed to be a little less Wonder Woman in this. Bringing her in during the fight against the grey, genital-free mutant ninja turtle Lex Luthor created using the genital-free mutant ninja turtle machine he found on the Kryptonian ship would have been enough. Lacing her throughout the story made me expect more from her. But I am getting ahead of the movie here. We’ve got at least two more dream sequences to get through before that confrontation.
Evan: Man, the fucking dream sequences... They were undoubtedly the worst part of the movie, as far as storytelling. Bruce falls asleep and sees into a future ruled by Superman with an extra helping of parademons?! Gets visited by someone who you can’t really tell is the Flash, in a riff on Crisis on Infinite Earths?!
Mike: Hahaha. I was thinking the same thing. “How are these people going to know that’s the Flash?” If those dream sequences were cut completely this would have been a much more… well, no. I at least wouldn’t have been falling asleep towards the end.
Evan: This franchise hasn’t earned any of its invocation of the fantastic. There’s a dissonance at its heart. Snyder’s been setting up a ultra-gritty, grounded take on this universe and then starts sprinkling sci-fi shit in there. It doesn’t hold together. Normal-dude Batman, of all people, has clairvoyant foreshadowing powers. FOH.
Mike: As does Lex Luthor, apparently. He spends the entire movie feeding Jolly Ranchers to CIA agents and hinting at Darkseid. I half expected him to start handing out pamphlets about it.
Evan: Hahahahahhahaha!
Mike: There is a lot of groundwork being laid here. Strip it all away and this might have been a much tighter, more enjoyable film. The first few Marvel movies kept the expanded universe stuff to post-credits scenes. Batman v Superman is very impatient about expanding the DC cinematic universe.
Evan: This is Warner Bros trying to do in one movie what Marvel did in, like, four or five. Teasing the other metahumans in security footage? Weak. One friend said the Cyborg tease was like a bad YouTube fan film.
Mike: Hahahaha. It was! It was like someone superimposed a scientist over a faded Iron Maiden album cover and then went to town in Aftereffects.
Evan: I think the biggest sin in BvS is that it robs these versions of Clark and Bruce of the chance to stand up for their convictions. Supes wants to take out Bats because he thinks the Bat goes over the line; Bats wants to kill Supes because he’s too powerful to exist. Only then Lex kidnaps Martha Kent. So then the whole reason Clark and Bruce fight changes. It’s not because they’re these diametrically opposed larger-than-life figures. It’s because of weak-ass plot contrivance. And then! They stop fighting because a decades-old bit of trivia. It’s the worst nerd dog-whistle ever.
Mike: And then Lex Luthor activates his Doomsday machine. After five, thankfully. Not a lot of people on the streets of Metropolis after business hours. Fuck you, movie.
The thing is, at a basic level the basic plot here could be good. The motivations behind the Batman and Superman conflict. Batman and Wonder Woman both investigating Luthor, Batman trying to hijack Luthor’s Kryptonite shipment—these are beats that would have worked really well in comic book form. But then Snyder had to go all Watchmen on it.
Evan: This movie is what happens when meatheads decide they’re going to wave the nerd flag. We have to talk about the the big event near the end because, again, it shows Snyder’s fundamental misunderstanding of superhero symbolism. Once Doomsday shows up, you know Superman is going to die. That’s the only thing Doomsday is good for: killing Superman. Superman dies and then Batman and Wonder Woman talk about, essentially, forming the Justice League.
Mike: Superman falling on his spear. SYMBOLISM YOU GUYS! GET IT?
Evan: This is a Justice League that starts with Superman’s death. It feels wrong because it’s centering darkness and loss in this emo, fetish-y way that undermines any messaging about hope or altruism. Worse still, it sets up like at least five years of dread. I’m so nervous about the rest of this universe they’re building.
The movie keeps telling us that Batman and Superman are doing justice but never convinces you of that.
Mike: There are two good things about this movie. One is Wonder Woman’s grin in the middle of the Doomsday fight. That moment alone gave me hope for the next movie in this undertaking.
Mike: The other is the only line in the movie that made me laugh. Batman saves Superman’s Martha. “I’m a friend of your son’s.”
That’s all the good. I could list dozens of bad things. Perry White as the newspaper editor who tells his reporters what to write. The Doomsday contrivance. Being able to see Gotham from Metropolis. The f***ing bagpipe funerals. Superman hanging over the flood victims like glowing alien Jesus. “We get the symbolism. Could you possibly save us now?”
Evan: Hahahaaha, yep. After I saw the movie, I had drinks with friends who hadn’t yet. As I ranted about what I didn’t like, we were all musing about how much money BvS might make and whether it might stifle plans for more DC superhero movies. I still want those movies to happen but I desperately want them to branch out into different tonalities. For a lifelong fan like me, watching these characters get twisted into nigh-unrecognizable form is like torture. There’s no optimism here. Seeing “good” triumph over “evil” here is like watching a snuff friends where they kill the Superfriends.
Mike: In closing, let me just say this is the one time I enjoyed the breakfast cereals more than the movie they represented.
[URL='http://io9.gizmodo.com/batman-v-superman-fails-in-all-the-ways-that-man-of-ste-1767005085']Batman v Superman Fails In All the Ways That Man of Steel Succeeded
Three years ago, Superman got his own Christopher Nolan-influenced movie reboot, full of brooding portents and Kryptonian politics. Man of Steel was a pretty good movie, albeit one with serious flaws. Now the sequel is out, and it deals with a lot of the same ideas and themes. And fumbles them completely.
Minor spoilers ahead. Like, if you’ve seen the trailers, you’ll be okay.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’re probably aware that critics generally don’t like Batman v Superman. I agree with them. It’s a shitshow, without any redeeming qualities. I’m not sure how much I have to add to what other people have already said about this film—except that I’m in a somewhat unique position as someone who quite liked Man of Steel and loathed Batman v. Superman. So I’m mostly going to talk about why I think one works and the other doesn’t.
First off, Batman v Superman is technically a sequel to Man of Steel, but it’s more properly a do-over. It’s the same movie, more or less, with the same structure and the same themes. Basically, both movies ask, “Can we accept Kal-El as an okay guy, even though he’s an alien?” Everyone chews over this for two hours, then there’s a big-ass fight and we get an answer. Except this time, there’s Batman.
So why do I think Man of Steel manages to be a satisfying movie (just about), but Batman v. Superman is as boring as watching compost break down? I’ve thought about this a lot, the past few days, and I think it comes down to four things: 1) Story. 2) Genre. 3) Characters. 4) Action.
I’m just going to go thru them one by one.
1) Story
Man of Steel has a lot of shortcomings, but one thing it has going for it is a very solid arc, and a real through-line, that actually pays off.
What few people seem to get about Man of Steel is, it’s actually a very optimistic movie. Here’s what happens: Kal-El is sent to Earth, the survivor of a doomed planet, and is raised by the Kents, who fear what’ll happen to him if other people find out he’s an alien. So they urge him to keep his powers secret, and Pa Kent even sacrifices his life to deter Clark from using his powers publicly. Years later, some more aliens show up, and they’re evil as all fuck. Superman is forced to emerge from hiding to fight them.
So the first time anybody finds out about Superman is not when he saves a plane from crashing, but when he gets caught up in a giant scrape with other members of his own species. This scenario stacks the deck massively against anybody ever accepting, let alone welcoming, Superman. But because Superman shows so much concern for human life, and is clearly fighting to protect Earth from his own kind, he wins people over.
As I said in my review back in the day, Christopher Meloni has the single most important line of dialogue in the whole movie, when he says of Superman: “This man is not our enemy.” It’s lucky that they got an actor of Meloni’s caliber to deliver that line, so it actually registers instead of seeming cheesy or a throwaway. It’s actually a powerful moment, and a turning point in the film.
Man of Steel’s whole point is that xenophobia can be overcome, and that people are actually capable of distinguishing between Superman and General Zod, even in a fraught situation. I will generally forgive a lot if a movie has a solid narrative through-line, and a beginning, middle and end that actually add up to something, and Man of Steel aces that. (Even as it stumbles in other areas.)
Meanwhile, I could narrate the excessively convoluted plot of Batman v. Superman for you (if I wasn’t trying to avoid spoilers)—but there’s no way to describe the story of the film. There’s no there there, and the closest the film comes to having an arc is kind of flimsy and falls apart if you even look at it. This movie’s version of Meloni’s pivotal line is so laughable, your face will hurt.
Basically, everything in Man of Steel clearly comes from the film-makers thinking about Superman, and the fact that he’s an undercover alien, and trying to figure out what story they can tell about that, one that’s never been told before. Everything in Batman v. Superman, meanwhile, comes from the title. You know you’re making a movie where Batman and Superman have to fight, so you have to reverse-engineer a plot that justifies it. It’s the worst kind of inductive reasoning.
Throw in an unexamined ambition to pay tribute to Frank Miller’s famous Bats/Supes slugfest in 1986's The Dark Knight Returns, and you’re left with a movie that has no center of gravity, one that just barely lives up to its title but delivers nothing real.
And I’m just gonna leave this 2005 quote from Batman v. Superman co-writer David S. Goyer here: “Batman vs. Superman is where you go when you admit to yourself that you’ve exhausted all possibilities... It’s somewhat of an admission that the franchise is on its last gasp.” (I already quoted it here, but it bears repeating.)
2) Genre
Director Zack Snyder is really good at a few things, chief among them splashy imagery. He’s basically perfected the “comic book panel in live action” thing that Robert Rodriguez and a few others have toyed with, using CG effects, greenscreen and a ton of slow-mo to create a splash page on a big screen.
Snyder’s films superficially belong to various genres, but by and large, he only does one: pulp action.
In Man of Steel, Snyder’s penchant for the kinetic-but-static image gets a bit grating after a while, but it works with the story in a few ways: The sterility goes well with the alien society of Krypton, and helps us feel Clark Kent’s alienation. The lingering shots of laundry and cornfields convey wistfulness. The alien attack is vaguely awe-inspiring. Etc. But mostly, Man of Steel uses Snyder’s stylized-pulp gimmicks in the service of a pulpy story about aliens who come to Earth looking for a skull full of DNA. Man of Steel is a comic-booky story about aliens, with a Nolanesque sheen.
Meanwhile, Batman v. Superman is a genre mutt, and not in an interesting way. This is not because Batman and Superman belong to different genres—which is what I was thinking at first, when I was trying to puzzle this out. Rather, the genre confusion happens because someone (co-writer Chris Terrio?) has tried to graft a political thriller onto a superhero slugfest.
Batman v. Superman is not actually a political thriller—the plot has almost nothing to do with politics, or conspiracy, or government, or other things that political thrillers are generally about. But the movie spends tons and tons of energy creating the trappings of a political thriller, basically out of nothing. There are endless scenes where people dig for classified secrets, or talk about mysterious codephrases. People say things like, “I’ve denied your import license” with bloody-minded seriousness. None of this stuff amounts to anything, but it’s where the movie’s energy is.
And the fact that the “political thriller” ends up being the world’s shaggiest shaggy dog story is just part of the problem. This movie also wants to have Something to Say about the American zeitgeist—and just as I surmised, there is an elaborate metaphor about fascism and hero-worship. If you thought Bane’s weird “Occupy Wall Street” posturing in The Dark Knight Rises was spot-on and relevant, you’ll probably still find this stuff tiresome and incoherent.
The other problem, though, is that if Batman v. Superman actually had the guts of a political thriller to go with its borrowed skin, the last person you would hire to direct it is Zack Snyder. His lens clambers past an endless succession of government chambers, corporate headquarters and newspaper offices—even this movie’s Batcave looks like a weird industrial loading deck—and he finds nothing to fix onto.
This is where Snyder and Christopher Nolan part ways. Nolan would have had a field day with this material, and you might not even care that it’s pointless and dumb. Snyder can do a reasonable job of adapting Nolan’s “dark, gritty” approach to superheroes to his own style, but he’s at a total loss with this thriller stuff.
3) Characters
In both films, Henry Cavill’s Superman is a constipated cipher. His personality consists of a bored scowl, his charisma is nil. Man of Steel surrounds him with somewhat more memorable characters—with mixed results, admittedly. But Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Amy Adams and to some extent Russell Crowe all work hard to anchor the movie’s emotional arc, and there are some moments of real feeling, here and there.
Meanwhile, Batman v. Superman’s other characters are either given short shrift, or are just as unlikable as Cavill’s Superman.
Batman, for instance, is a psychotic thug. Bruce witnessed the carnage, and decided to blame Superman even though he saw firsthand that the worst destruction was caused by those floating alien death platforms that Superman was trying to destroy. And now, Bruce is convinced that Superman is just too powerful to be allowed to continue being Super—because, as he says, if there’s even a one percent chance that Superman is our enemy, we have to treat it as a 100 percent certainty.
As part of the movie’s belabored fascist metaphor, Bruce has nightmares (visions?) in which Superman becomes a dictator over a post-apocalyptic world, aided by an army of Super-stormtroopers and flying monkeys. This doesn’t feel much like Batman—not because he’s so brutal and demented, but because the real Batman is a lot smarter than this.
Simply put, this movie has an idiot plot, and Batman is the idiot.
And then there’s Lex Luthor. Someone clearly told Jesse Eisenberg that this movie is the Dark Knight to Man of Steel’s Batman Begins, and he’s doing his damndest to give a Heath Ledger-esque performance. There are a lot of cackling and muttering and gesticulation and squawking. Watching the trailers, I had thought Eisenberg’s loopy acting might be this movie’s saving grace—but a concentrated dose of his faux mania actually turns out to be the worst thing, and it fits weirdly with the movie’s desperate craving to be taken seriously.
Jeremy Irons, as Alfred, is mostly there to be a sounding board for Batman’s bizarre rants, and to deliver the important message that fearing what you don’t understand will turn you into a monster. (He practically winks at the camera as he says that.)
There are no likable characters in this overstuffed film. There aren’t even any interesting characters in this film. To some extent, this goes back to the aforementioned problems with story and genre, but also excerbates them.
4. Action
There are plenty of reasons to watch superhero movies—for the fun and escapism, for the big questions about power and responsibility, for the themes of heroism. But one of the main reasons to watch a superhero film is for the punching. There’s something satisfying and enjoyable about watching people with extraordinary powers or skills wail on each other.
The action in Man of Steel was bloody fantastic. Superman and his fellow Kryptonians throw down with some clever, exciting uses of superspeed, flight, strength and heat vision. I actually did not mind that those fight scenes go on for ages, because they’re beautiful. Not only that, but those fights help tell the story, because you see Superman’s learning curve, and meanwhile the other Kryptonians slowly realize they don’t need their fancy armor.
A movie called Batman v. Superman is going to live or die based on the quality of its fight scenes. And... they’re completely humdrum. There are a few good moves here and there, and Wonder Woman has a couple of killer images. But the super-fighting is almost all just kind of... there. Even leaving aside the fact that everything leading up to the big fight sequence is mind-numbing, the actual fighting is just kind of adequate. The CG takes over. There’s a lot of people being whacked through walls and floors, but not a lot of sense of motion or urgency. People are just flying around and being flung everywhere, like pseudo-wirework. All the best bits are in the trailers.
Maybe Snyder took to heart all the criticisms of the wanton destruction in Man of Steel? (This whole movie, after all, is just an elaborate meta-discussion of that issue.) Whatever the reason, there’s just not the same joyful brawling as the first movie, and the fighting doesn’t pack the same narrative punch, either.
I’ve always had a soft spot for Man of Steel. And that’s why I’m sad that Batman v. Superman, is essentially a rehash of that earlier film, using the same basic structure and engages with all the same ideas—except with the grace and agility of a man with all his fingers duct-taped to each other, and then to a styrofoam beer cooler.
[/URL]
Three years ago, Superman got his own Christopher Nolan-influenced movie reboot, full of brooding portents and Kryptonian politics. Man of Steel was a pretty good movie, albeit one with serious flaws. Now the sequel is out, and it deals with a lot of the same ideas and themes. And fumbles them completely.
Minor spoilers ahead. Like, if you’ve seen the trailers, you’ll be okay.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’re probably aware that critics generally don’t like Batman v Superman. I agree with them. It’s a shitshow, without any redeeming qualities. I’m not sure how much I have to add to what other people have already said about this film—except that I’m in a somewhat unique position as someone who quite liked Man of Steel and loathed Batman v. Superman. So I’m mostly going to talk about why I think one works and the other doesn’t.
First off, Batman v Superman is technically a sequel to Man of Steel, but it’s more properly a do-over. It’s the same movie, more or less, with the same structure and the same themes. Basically, both movies ask, “Can we accept Kal-El as an okay guy, even though he’s an alien?” Everyone chews over this for two hours, then there’s a big-ass fight and we get an answer. Except this time, there’s Batman.
So why do I think Man of Steel manages to be a satisfying movie (just about), but Batman v. Superman is as boring as watching compost break down? I’ve thought about this a lot, the past few days, and I think it comes down to four things: 1) Story. 2) Genre. 3) Characters. 4) Action.
I’m just going to go thru them one by one.
1) Story
Man of Steel has a lot of shortcomings, but one thing it has going for it is a very solid arc, and a real through-line, that actually pays off.
What few people seem to get about Man of Steel is, it’s actually a very optimistic movie. Here’s what happens: Kal-El is sent to Earth, the survivor of a doomed planet, and is raised by the Kents, who fear what’ll happen to him if other people find out he’s an alien. So they urge him to keep his powers secret, and Pa Kent even sacrifices his life to deter Clark from using his powers publicly. Years later, some more aliens show up, and they’re evil as all fuck. Superman is forced to emerge from hiding to fight them.
So the first time anybody finds out about Superman is not when he saves a plane from crashing, but when he gets caught up in a giant scrape with other members of his own species. This scenario stacks the deck massively against anybody ever accepting, let alone welcoming, Superman. But because Superman shows so much concern for human life, and is clearly fighting to protect Earth from his own kind, he wins people over.
As I said in my review back in the day, Christopher Meloni has the single most important line of dialogue in the whole movie, when he says of Superman: “This man is not our enemy.” It’s lucky that they got an actor of Meloni’s caliber to deliver that line, so it actually registers instead of seeming cheesy or a throwaway. It’s actually a powerful moment, and a turning point in the film.
Man of Steel’s whole point is that xenophobia can be overcome, and that people are actually capable of distinguishing between Superman and General Zod, even in a fraught situation. I will generally forgive a lot if a movie has a solid narrative through-line, and a beginning, middle and end that actually add up to something, and Man of Steel aces that. (Even as it stumbles in other areas.)
Meanwhile, I could narrate the excessively convoluted plot of Batman v. Superman for you (if I wasn’t trying to avoid spoilers)—but there’s no way to describe the story of the film. There’s no there there, and the closest the film comes to having an arc is kind of flimsy and falls apart if you even look at it. This movie’s version of Meloni’s pivotal line is so laughable, your face will hurt.
Basically, everything in Man of Steel clearly comes from the film-makers thinking about Superman, and the fact that he’s an undercover alien, and trying to figure out what story they can tell about that, one that’s never been told before. Everything in Batman v. Superman, meanwhile, comes from the title. You know you’re making a movie where Batman and Superman have to fight, so you have to reverse-engineer a plot that justifies it. It’s the worst kind of inductive reasoning.
Throw in an unexamined ambition to pay tribute to Frank Miller’s famous Bats/Supes slugfest in 1986's The Dark Knight Returns, and you’re left with a movie that has no center of gravity, one that just barely lives up to its title but delivers nothing real.
And I’m just gonna leave this 2005 quote from Batman v. Superman co-writer David S. Goyer here: “Batman vs. Superman is where you go when you admit to yourself that you’ve exhausted all possibilities... It’s somewhat of an admission that the franchise is on its last gasp.” (I already quoted it here, but it bears repeating.)
2) Genre
Director Zack Snyder is really good at a few things, chief among them splashy imagery. He’s basically perfected the “comic book panel in live action” thing that Robert Rodriguez and a few others have toyed with, using CG effects, greenscreen and a ton of slow-mo to create a splash page on a big screen.
Snyder’s films superficially belong to various genres, but by and large, he only does one: pulp action.
In Man of Steel, Snyder’s penchant for the kinetic-but-static image gets a bit grating after a while, but it works with the story in a few ways: The sterility goes well with the alien society of Krypton, and helps us feel Clark Kent’s alienation. The lingering shots of laundry and cornfields convey wistfulness. The alien attack is vaguely awe-inspiring. Etc. But mostly, Man of Steel uses Snyder’s stylized-pulp gimmicks in the service of a pulpy story about aliens who come to Earth looking for a skull full of DNA. Man of Steel is a comic-booky story about aliens, with a Nolanesque sheen.
Meanwhile, Batman v. Superman is a genre mutt, and not in an interesting way. This is not because Batman and Superman belong to different genres—which is what I was thinking at first, when I was trying to puzzle this out. Rather, the genre confusion happens because someone (co-writer Chris Terrio?) has tried to graft a political thriller onto a superhero slugfest.
Batman v. Superman is not actually a political thriller—the plot has almost nothing to do with politics, or conspiracy, or government, or other things that political thrillers are generally about. But the movie spends tons and tons of energy creating the trappings of a political thriller, basically out of nothing. There are endless scenes where people dig for classified secrets, or talk about mysterious codephrases. People say things like, “I’ve denied your import license” with bloody-minded seriousness. None of this stuff amounts to anything, but it’s where the movie’s energy is.
And the fact that the “political thriller” ends up being the world’s shaggiest shaggy dog story is just part of the problem. This movie also wants to have Something to Say about the American zeitgeist—and just as I surmised, there is an elaborate metaphor about fascism and hero-worship. If you thought Bane’s weird “Occupy Wall Street” posturing in The Dark Knight Rises was spot-on and relevant, you’ll probably still find this stuff tiresome and incoherent.
The other problem, though, is that if Batman v. Superman actually had the guts of a political thriller to go with its borrowed skin, the last person you would hire to direct it is Zack Snyder. His lens clambers past an endless succession of government chambers, corporate headquarters and newspaper offices—even this movie’s Batcave looks like a weird industrial loading deck—and he finds nothing to fix onto.
This is where Snyder and Christopher Nolan part ways. Nolan would have had a field day with this material, and you might not even care that it’s pointless and dumb. Snyder can do a reasonable job of adapting Nolan’s “dark, gritty” approach to superheroes to his own style, but he’s at a total loss with this thriller stuff.
3) Characters
In both films, Henry Cavill’s Superman is a constipated cipher. His personality consists of a bored scowl, his charisma is nil. Man of Steel surrounds him with somewhat more memorable characters—with mixed results, admittedly. But Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Amy Adams and to some extent Russell Crowe all work hard to anchor the movie’s emotional arc, and there are some moments of real feeling, here and there.
Meanwhile, Batman v. Superman’s other characters are either given short shrift, or are just as unlikable as Cavill’s Superman.
Batman, for instance, is a psychotic thug. Bruce witnessed the carnage, and decided to blame Superman even though he saw firsthand that the worst destruction was caused by those floating alien death platforms that Superman was trying to destroy. And now, Bruce is convinced that Superman is just too powerful to be allowed to continue being Super—because, as he says, if there’s even a one percent chance that Superman is our enemy, we have to treat it as a 100 percent certainty.
As part of the movie’s belabored fascist metaphor, Bruce has nightmares (visions?) in which Superman becomes a dictator over a post-apocalyptic world, aided by an army of Super-stormtroopers and flying monkeys. This doesn’t feel much like Batman—not because he’s so brutal and demented, but because the real Batman is a lot smarter than this.
Simply put, this movie has an idiot plot, and Batman is the idiot.
And then there’s Lex Luthor. Someone clearly told Jesse Eisenberg that this movie is the Dark Knight to Man of Steel’s Batman Begins, and he’s doing his damndest to give a Heath Ledger-esque performance. There are a lot of cackling and muttering and gesticulation and squawking. Watching the trailers, I had thought Eisenberg’s loopy acting might be this movie’s saving grace—but a concentrated dose of his faux mania actually turns out to be the worst thing, and it fits weirdly with the movie’s desperate craving to be taken seriously.
Jeremy Irons, as Alfred, is mostly there to be a sounding board for Batman’s bizarre rants, and to deliver the important message that fearing what you don’t understand will turn you into a monster. (He practically winks at the camera as he says that.)
There are no likable characters in this overstuffed film. There aren’t even any interesting characters in this film. To some extent, this goes back to the aforementioned problems with story and genre, but also excerbates them.
4. Action
There are plenty of reasons to watch superhero movies—for the fun and escapism, for the big questions about power and responsibility, for the themes of heroism. But one of the main reasons to watch a superhero film is for the punching. There’s something satisfying and enjoyable about watching people with extraordinary powers or skills wail on each other.
The action in Man of Steel was bloody fantastic. Superman and his fellow Kryptonians throw down with some clever, exciting uses of superspeed, flight, strength and heat vision. I actually did not mind that those fight scenes go on for ages, because they’re beautiful. Not only that, but those fights help tell the story, because you see Superman’s learning curve, and meanwhile the other Kryptonians slowly realize they don’t need their fancy armor.
A movie called Batman v. Superman is going to live or die based on the quality of its fight scenes. And... they’re completely humdrum. There are a few good moves here and there, and Wonder Woman has a couple of killer images. But the super-fighting is almost all just kind of... there. Even leaving aside the fact that everything leading up to the big fight sequence is mind-numbing, the actual fighting is just kind of adequate. The CG takes over. There’s a lot of people being whacked through walls and floors, but not a lot of sense of motion or urgency. People are just flying around and being flung everywhere, like pseudo-wirework. All the best bits are in the trailers.
Maybe Snyder took to heart all the criticisms of the wanton destruction in Man of Steel? (This whole movie, after all, is just an elaborate meta-discussion of that issue.) Whatever the reason, there’s just not the same joyful brawling as the first movie, and the fighting doesn’t pack the same narrative punch, either.
I’ve always had a soft spot for Man of Steel. And that’s why I’m sad that Batman v. Superman, is essentially a rehash of that earlier film, using the same basic structure and engages with all the same ideas—except with the grace and agility of a man with all his fingers duct-taped to each other, and then to a styrofoam beer cooler.
[/URL]
Last edited:
I agree with you about this... That's why I think it would have meant more to show him refuse to use guns... Since they were obviously going for the tortured Bruce Wayne in this film. He just came across as psychotic in this film. Obviously everyone knows that he is.... But it's not blatant. For example...he was going to straight up murder a weakened superman in cold blood without any real build up like in the comic where it made sense why they would fight.
All I know is that for those who enjoyed this movie... I hope you like it while it lasts... It will be number 1 this weekend but the reviews are brutal. I don't see this having any legs and they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing. I'm just hoping that DC doesn't decide to reboot this again.
Am I the only here that remembers that Superman returns and Green Lantern were supposed to kick off the universes for DC until they fell below expectations.
Am I the only here that remembers that Superman returns and Green Lantern were supposed to kick off the universes for DC until they fell below expectations.
But see, it sounds like your issue is that his reasoning differed from the source material more than his reasoning not being justified. I think his rationale was explained. He faulted him for the destruction, used that anger and resentment as a release for other anger and resentment he felt, and viewed superman as a potential threat to humanity that he should extinguish before it had opportunity to cause more destruction.
Also keep in mind he is dealing with the death and regret of losing Robin (something im surprised more havent discussed), and probably feels it could have been prevented had he been more proactive in eliminating that threat. So i viewed it as him being more adamant on snuffing out lingering threats at any cost and accepting himself as the lesser evil.
It was alot going on in that movie man. Shame its gotten such bad reviews.
no he most certainly did not. he made a point of TELLING the audience he was using concussion grenades, rubber bullets, etc.
Man these reviews have been brutal by the critics and now the people who are actually going to see the movie are basically saying the same thing the movie critics have said. Only good thing I'm hearing is Ben Affleck was good as batman. I'll wait til Blu ray, I don't waste money at the movies on average to below average films!
6/10, lex is awful. Plot was ok, Lois lane is awful too.
if JL Parts 1 and 2(as well as Suicide Squad and all the solo movies)get the same kind of reviews as this,DC will probably redo the whole thing as well as possibly call up the agents of Tom Welling,Grant Gustin,Stephen Arnell and Melissa Benoist
there will be no JL pts 1 or 2 if this movie does less than $600 million domesticallyif JL Parts 1 and 2(as well as Suicide Squad and all the solo movies)get the same kind of reviews as this,DC will probably redo the whole thing as well as possibly call up the agents of Tom Welling,Grant Gustin,Stephen Arnell and Melissa Benoist
People said the first one went to the end of the world scenario way too soon. This one seemed like they should've made another Superman movie before this. Also, how is Superman still alive? I could see if they shot his body into outer space and the sunlight healed him.
Man this shit done pissed ere'body off.
I'm going to see it tomorrow still just to join the bitching.
I'm going to see it tomorrow still just to join the bitching.as long as no thinks this is better...
i bet there will be a Suicide Squad XXX movie next..w/ Kleio returning as Harley and Joanna Angel as Enchantressprobably also get Misty Stone for Amanda Waller
A bit off topic but this is from this thread and needs to be addressed...
I more than disagree with your assessment. In this case you should not challenge the general consensus on BGOL. I'll admit she has a sexiness to her and is pretty in the face. And sexiness can more than make up for lack of booty without a problem but I'm sorry that does not past mustard here... There are about 3 general levels (which have other levels with them). Most women fall in the first two but the 3rd is not that numerous and when you fall in there it take a lot of other qualities to overcome it...
1. Has Booty
2. Doesn't really have a booty
3. Owe Booty or Negative Booty....
This woman falls into the 3rd category. Do you not remember "Fast & Furious"(2009) Here is a reminder of her owing booty(NEGATIVE Booty...):
In this Batman v Superman movie they showcased her well by not showing this...as long as she hasn't gotten any thicker in that area in the past 6-7 years they need to do what they did with this move stay away from shots that would accentuate that absence of body...
I more than disagree with your assessment. In this case you should not challenge the general consensus on BGOL. I'll admit she has a sexiness to her and is pretty in the face. And sexiness can more than make up for lack of booty without a problem but I'm sorry that does not past mustard here... There are about 3 general levels (which have other levels with them). Most women fall in the first two but the 3rd is not that numerous and when you fall in there it take a lot of other qualities to overcome it...
1. Has Booty
2. Doesn't really have a booty
3. Owe Booty or Negative Booty....
This woman falls into the 3rd category. Do you not remember "Fast & Furious"(2009) Here is a reminder of her owing booty(NEGATIVE Booty...):
In this Batman v Superman movie they showcased her well by not showing this...as long as she hasn't gotten any thicker in that area in the past 6-7 years they need to do what they did with this move stay away from shots that would accentuate that absence of body...
it deserves to be shredded - its arrogance and lazy writing.
like all myths these are character driven stories - (eg: any Hercules vs Clash of the Titans) UNLESS a new myth is created from scratch. Goyer and Snyder swear they get it but just like Singer the work shows they do not understand these characters -at all.
According to Zack Snyder, Batman’s Kill Policy Is Basically Steve Urkel Asking ‘Did I Do That?’
In today's edition of Zack Snyder Keeps Saying and Doing Things, Zack Snyder said some more things. Specifically, the thing he said is that Batman's famously steely moral compass is actually more like, "Whatcha gonna do?" Explaining why his Batman — spoiler alert — kills people, the BvS director said, "I tried to do it by proxy. Shoot the car they’re in, the car blows up or the grenade would go off in the guy’s hand, or when he shoots the tank and the guy pretty much lights the tank [himself]. I perceive it as him not killing directly, but if the bad guys are associated with a thing that happens to blow up, he would say that that’s not really my problem." You know, your basic "Oopsies" defense. Snyder also employed the "But Someone Else Did the Thing I That I Did" tactic, tattling on Christopher Nolan and Tim Burton to HeyUGuys by pointing to a video that shows Batman killing in those movies, too. With that rock-hard line of logic, who are we to question Snyder? But it sure is impressive that Batman can shrug so hard under that heavy costume.
http://www.heyuguys.com/exclusive-zack-snyder-explains-detail-dark-knight-kills-batman-v-superman/
In today's edition of Zack Snyder Keeps Saying and Doing Things, Zack Snyder said some more things. Specifically, the thing he said is that Batman's famously steely moral compass is actually more like, "Whatcha gonna do?" Explaining why his Batman — spoiler alert — kills people, the BvS director said, "I tried to do it by proxy. Shoot the car they’re in, the car blows up or the grenade would go off in the guy’s hand, or when he shoots the tank and the guy pretty much lights the tank [himself]. I perceive it as him not killing directly, but if the bad guys are associated with a thing that happens to blow up, he would say that that’s not really my problem." You know, your basic "Oopsies" defense. Snyder also employed the "But Someone Else Did the Thing I That I Did" tactic, tattling on Christopher Nolan and Tim Burton to HeyUGuys by pointing to a video that shows Batman killing in those movies, too. With that rock-hard line of logic, who are we to question Snyder? But it sure is impressive that Batman can shrug so hard under that heavy costume.
http://www.heyuguys.com/exclusive-zack-snyder-explains-detail-dark-knight-kills-batman-v-superman/
Similar threads
