Ughhhh....this isn't the CORE myth Batman. I just told the other cat this isn't the same version.
BGOL review .. BATMAN V SUPERMAN... (thoughts, summary, spoilers)
- Thread starter stretchwallz
- Start date
Ughhhh....this isn't the CORE myth Batman. I just told the other cat this isn't the same version.
We don't know. We'll have to wait and see. It's called mystery, cliffhanger..whatever..
you didn't read the question I wrote:
core myth Robin is killed by Joker - Batman doesn't really change over all
vs.
in this myth why would Robin being killed by Joker automatically be the thing that changes Bats to a killer? Is it the event and an accumulation of other things or
maybe even... Batman and Robin was always lethal in this myth?
I know that didn't change him in the books. I OWN ALL OF THOSE BOOKS. What I'm saying is, in this interpretation it did. Maybe it was a culmination of things like you suggested. Maybe it finally took it's toll on him...his way of fighting wasn't working. Shit how could it work anyway? You beat up a killer, put him away. pat yourself on the back and the next week the same guy breaks out and kills 20 kids. after a while you gotta think your way isn't working. I remember the Joker telling Bats that in DK returns that "all those murders were on his head because he never used the FINAL solution". Eventually he did when he broke the Joker's neck.
*I remember when I read that part in High school and for the first time I really thought about Batman as a character and how much death and despair he could have stopped if he'd just ended some of those people when he had the chance. I really think this movie is the living embodiment of that same thought process come to life on screen.
But that has NOTHING to do with the matter at hand. That scene and dialogue have zero to do with what we are currently discussing. This about the assertion that character motivation was not explained. That exchange was presented as a satisfactory justification to stop Batmans rage and create common ground between characters using a empathetic figure in the form of their mother. Two totally different issues.
I actually found that aspect very problematic myself. But thats more of a pacing and writing concern... and NOT one concerning character motivation. Motivation had long been established by that point.
Yea. There are more than a few expressing similar concerns. Im saying i totally disagree and that i find it hard for comic heads to sincerely feel that way. Im also saying that the story being incomplete is a legitimate concern... Just that the motivation of the character isnt absent here.
Hey man, we have some similar objections.. My point hinges on the character motivation aspect. Im with you on most of what you type above. My point continues to be that Batman- specifically his motivations- was NOT part of what was wrong with this film. I thought that shit was well presented.Because every movie has a slightly different version of Batman in it and I don't want to leave a movie trying to figure out if this Batman was a continuation of what I already know or is this a different take on the Character. And the first time I watched it none of that was clear....
Who wants to leave a movie saying... I think I know what happened.. I didn't get some of it, but I'm sure after my second viewing all of this will make perfect sense? Like I said.. I had no idea going in... that this was a grizzled Batman that had given up was tired and was now murdering people... and the first time I left.. I only knew that Batman was killing people.... Why exactly..
The second I did... but that was only because of everyone's details about the movie on this board and reading spoilers.
I completely missed the part about this being the Lex that we know's .. Son.. Since they were both called Lex and Lex is typically short for Alexander. I just assumed it was Lex and I never really paid attention to Actual lex Luthor's fathers name.. Like I've never paid attention to the name of Batman's mom until this movie. I would have had a completely different view of Lex in this movie if I knew that one simple thing.
Damn it.. I told myself that I would stop bitching. Man I can't believe that I'm this emotionally attached to this movie.
the way movie is presented-
what you are saying could be true
but it could also be that Batman and Robin have always been lethal in this story...
does Batman blame himself for Robin?
grief n guilt drove him after Robin so now he sees in every criminal the person that murdered his parents and somehow merging it with Robin's murderer?
or
did he always see in every criminal the person that murdered his parents and now just lumped that together with Robin's murderer?
Last edited:
like said before:
Is it Robin's murder and an accumulation of other things or
was Batman and Robin always lethal in this myth?
no where in this movie did it suggest he is more brutal and lethal than before - Zack Snyder says that Robin died 10yrs prior to to bvs, so has he been this Bat for 10 yrs or was he always this way but now just tired?
I got you... I finally see your side on it. I guess we just saw it two different ways. I will also admit that as a HUGE superman fan.. A lot of my anger is probably attributed to the treatment of the Character in this movie.
Yeah that scene was just weird... I guess they short of set it up with the first scene. I think my biggest issue with this is not that it caused him to stop, but to immediately become best friends to the level of joking with each other.
Ok. This is actually a very good question. Based on understanding and assumptions going in, combined with everything shown and discussed in the film, i think he was changed. But you're right, since we dont know for sure about THIS particular Batmans mythology and history (or if it differs from what weve known for 50 years), its a dam good question to wonder if what we are seeing is a changed man or just the same guy fundamentally just older and grizzled.
Good question.
So i assume in saying that you are saying that what was explained still left room for the answer to your question to be ambiguous... Then there we can agree. Which goes back to my earlier point about nuance and it not being either or.
Understood. Never really been a huge Superman guy. I didnt really like MOS until the second viewing or so.
Yea man, that was pretty bad on several levels.. From concept to execution..
And sadly, thats not something that can be fixed with the extended version. It is what it is. You have an entire relationship turning on a guy calling out his mother by her first name. Just bad writing there.
liked wonder woman but worried how theyre going to do her movie
Liked affleck as batman
Cavell is solid as superman
Lois Lane is still annoying
didn't care for HOW luthor was portrayed
HATED how Doomsday comes about (another missed opportunity)
was very muddled in story...why was the legless dude sending checks back to bruce wayne??
perry white's disillusionment with reporting actual investigation news was a huge stretch
overlong
Did I mention how much I HATED how they brought in Doomsday?
the batmobile scenes where so dark I really couldn't see anything to enjoy it.
And how they did Doomsday sucked donkey..
overall it worked for an action/comic flick but meh..
Liked affleck as batman
Cavell is solid as superman
Lois Lane is still annoying
didn't care for HOW luthor was portrayed
HATED how Doomsday comes about (another missed opportunity)
was very muddled in story...why was the legless dude sending checks back to bruce wayne??
perry white's disillusionment with reporting actual investigation news was a huge stretch
overlong
Did I mention how much I HATED how they brought in Doomsday?
the batmobile scenes where so dark I really couldn't see anything to enjoy it.
And how they did Doomsday sucked donkey..
overall it worked for an action/comic flick but meh..
I hear all that....but what did u think about Doomsday tho?
you know whats REALLY annoying is when people get rewarded for bad behavior...the flick made more than half a billion and that only bolsters the bad writing and poor character development.
Last edited:
Again... another reason why I love this place. Just like Fam we can also get into heated discussions and just like Fam.. the majority of the time we work shit out...
Side note.. that was a very good question....
It reminds me of that scene from the Ballard of Ricky Bobby where everybody describes their version of Jesus. I guess we all have to go with our own opinion on the myths of theese characters.
BEST summary of the film I read so far from another board:
I think what brings out the vitriol in people about this movie is that it reveals a deep philosophical and ethical breach between two types of fans:
1. Those fans who love superheroes mostly for bad-ass imagery and power fantasies,
vs.
2. Those fans who think superpowers are cool and everything, but worthless without the aspirational/inspirational value of the heroic ideal and the emotional truth of superhero stories.
It's not necessarily a deal-breaker for me that Batman kills. (As many, many, many other people have said, he certainly kills in 'Batman Returns'... a movie I still enjoy) But Snyder is clearly more interested in the violence than the consequences of that violence on the character. Just like he did with 'Watchmen', he constantly upgrades the violence of the characters while ignoring any authentic motivations and emotions that drive those characters through the story. Subtext, nuance, and plot clearly bore the piss out of him.
What's Batman supposed to MEAN in this story? Why should we care about him? Because we know what a Batman is?
Who is Superman supposed to BE in this story? Why should be care about him? Because he's dressed up like Superman?
Blood, F-bombs and boobs is enough to get an 'R' rating, but it's not enough to tell a mature story. A mature story has to have thematic resonance, relatable characters, and an intelligent story. Snyder's 'BvS' has none of these things.
It's like when I was eleven and drew blood over all the characters in the comics because I wanted to see more exxxxxtreeme violence. Snyder's just an eleven-year old, drawing blood on his G.I. Joes.
I think what brings out the vitriol in people about this movie is that it reveals a deep philosophical and ethical breach between two types of fans:
1. Those fans who love superheroes mostly for bad-ass imagery and power fantasies,
vs.
2. Those fans who think superpowers are cool and everything, but worthless without the aspirational/inspirational value of the heroic ideal and the emotional truth of superhero stories.
It's not necessarily a deal-breaker for me that Batman kills. (As many, many, many other people have said, he certainly kills in 'Batman Returns'... a movie I still enjoy) But Snyder is clearly more interested in the violence than the consequences of that violence on the character. Just like he did with 'Watchmen', he constantly upgrades the violence of the characters while ignoring any authentic motivations and emotions that drive those characters through the story. Subtext, nuance, and plot clearly bore the piss out of him.
What's Batman supposed to MEAN in this story? Why should we care about him? Because we know what a Batman is?
Who is Superman supposed to BE in this story? Why should be care about him? Because he's dressed up like Superman?
Blood, F-bombs and boobs is enough to get an 'R' rating, but it's not enough to tell a mature story. A mature story has to have thematic resonance, relatable characters, and an intelligent story. Snyder's 'BvS' has none of these things.
It's like when I was eleven and drew blood over all the characters in the comics because I wanted to see more exxxxxtreeme violence. Snyder's just an eleven-year old, drawing blood on his G.I. Joes.
If this is the best summary you're read then you clearly havent read much of this thread if any. There are FAR better summaries offered by both opposing sides here.
And this makes me think he didnt even watch the fucking movie. To ignore subtext, nuance and plot is ignorant if not dishonest. If anything, most critics- including the ones here- acknowledge subtext and plot. They just have issue with both being poorly fleshed out and/or entirely too convoluted.
poorly fleshed out and or too convoluted means it may as well not exist... the end result is the same PEOPLE DIDN'T GET IT.
No.
people STILL didin't get it so you can go around in circles on this if you want to the onus of getting those things across is on the writer and director and its pretty much agreed that they failed to do that. Anything else is nitpicking.
i was surprised with this movie ...it actually was good..i might actually go back and watch the man of steel now. the movie wasnt as dark as i thought it was gonna be and the story moved at a good pace. they totally fuckin wasted doomsday's character.i was like i know he said doomsday but please dont be doomsday...please . i hate when comic book movies put two three villains in them. hate it. just characters going to waste...no real development.but overall i had a great copy chilling while it was raining shit was good
Who's going in circles? You said that was the best summary you've read. I told you this thread was littered with summaries FAR better, detailed and articulate. I then pointed out the fallacy present in the summary and noted how bad it actually was. Nothing circular about that.
up the copy and run the link muthafucka!
Its like they don't think one villain can fill out a feature length run time
and its also like they don't want to use or pay the writers of the great story arcs they use bits and pieces of as basis for their fucked up "original" story.
Doomsday should have been introduced after they assembled justice league THEN he kicks most of their asses and then he and Supes rock it and kill each other. Doesn't matter that it was already done in comic form thats what fan boys want to see anyway a live version of that.
Props. I will post it in the movie section tho. Delete here before they start bitching.
if nothing else that fight scene in the warehouse where batman is rescuing supermans mom was fucking SPECTACULAR!!!
That scene alone soldifies afflecks handle on the character..
That scene alone soldifies afflecks handle on the character..
It was good. Slow, but the second half was really enjoyable. Jesse Eisenberg was TERRIBLE though....just fuckin terrible.
I don't know what possessed Snyder to pass over the dude from breaking bad and rewrite lex for Eisenberg
Yea man, that was pretty bad on several levels.. From concept to execution..
Just brainstorming here.....
What if Bruce noticed Clark watching him at Lex's party, and being the detective he is senses that Clark can tell that he is being fed directions in his ear. Bruce knows that he is not sloppy, so this reporter must be exceptional in order to catch it. Continuing on in the film, Batman continues his investigation of the Superman and they finally encounter each other. After tearing the doors from the Batmobile, Clark says,
"The Batman is dead. Bury it....Bruce" *after using xray vision*
-Then Bats says,
"Tell me do you bleed?"
-Superman flys off, Batman then says
"You will.......Clark"
-Just then a glow grows from clouds and he from the sky he draws the "where" on the ground in heat vision. Then Bats says,
"Watch for my light."
-I think this set up makes the Martha reveal more poignant. Bruce can then say something like,
"Why did you say that? Saying my mother's name won't save you!"
-Then Lois can come and say,
"No, it his mother's name."
Similar threads
