Davenport

He knows from Luthor's party where he over-hears (super hearing) Bruce Wayne in communication with Alfred. And I think (could be wrong) that Superman calls his mom "Martha" because of his secret identity, or at least as a layer of anonymity for his mom. "Martha" is who she is in life, and she's a kidnap victim of Luthor. Lois is the one who spills the beans, connecting the dot for Bruce to what he's asking of him: PLEASE, please go save her. You know, this is kinda spoon-feeding it. But I'll lay it out anyway. It was a surprise in the theater (for me anyway). The build up and going it we thought we would be cheering for Batman during the fight. He's a human and so are we. Kick his alien butt... But during the actual fight Bruce is the alien, completely detached from his humanity. He's lost it at that point. Superman is us, asking for understanding, begging for aid, needing a friend, someone to step up on our behalf. It was a nice twist from the previews.

Holy ! William Stout and Mark Schultz in the guest lineup. This might be the year to finally make the effort to get there.

I really liked Diane Lane as Martha Kent. She nailed the 'farmer's wife' salt-of-the-earth persona. Martha's talk with Clark, "You don't owe this world a thing. You never did." was the perfect counter-balance to Lois' influence. She's grounding Clark in that moment. Giving him the key to what will make him truly "super". Free will. Choosing to aid others from his heart. And not some sense of per-ordained obligation. Lois, as a reported, is connected to people's need for hope. She's not wrong to project that on to Clark. But Martha knows better and trusts her son to get there on his own terms.

No. (a) as a lifelong fan of the two I'm floating in enough comic history thank you, and (b) you have zero-experience of the film . So any lack of perspective is lopsided, 100% on your side. So go see it, come back and trash it with authority. Otherwise... For the writers to employ a minor factoid in that manor, to b-slap Bruce all the way back to HIS humanity, was clever if not brilliant imho. After thousands of comic, film, animation and tv stories it was FRESH and unexpected. A fan can't ask for more than that. You haven't seen it, but Bruce was going to kill him. So yeah, it came out of left field and changed the whole dynamic. Good writing and a surprise.

Well hell. As a lifelong fan I felt GREAT, and why wouldn't I? For the 1st time EVER on film Batman is FAST (like in the animated offerings). That alone was worth it. The Rookie-Cop-with-the-shogun scene was damn near perfect. How I always imagined Batman. A shadow-man, patient when called for yet quick as a blink. And Superman is both real and conflicted. A person trying to wrap his head around people's reaction to his choices and efforts. Like we all do every day. The portrayal seems authentic. Consider... all the DC available for consumption. Animation universes, Comic universes, Lego universes, Gaming universes, specific Children's fare and Elseworlds, on and on. So isn't there room for some well written complex feature films of these characters? No one knows where the story is going yet. Maybe it will be good over all. Maybe not. But the two story-snippets we've been exposed to so far are pretty damn satisfying. IF (big IF) a viewer can leave their pre-conceptions and personal-resistance behind for a couple of hours. Sit there emotionally-open and let the story unfold as it will. Viewers may be surprised at how rich and fresh it is if they do. Something new and unexpected. Example: How long has these two character's shared-name of their Mothers sat out there. Fifty, sixty years? I've NEVER seen it used like that before in story. It struck me as powerful, unexpected, obvious and clever... all at the same time. That's good stuff, man. And the film is chocked full of it, given half a clear-eyed chance.

Dystopian? Destruction of Superman? What did they toss out about Superman that makes him unlikable? So far we know... He loves his mom and Lois. He killed Zod, given little choice, reluctantly, saving an innocent family in the process. He killed Doomsday. He's saved the entire planet He saved soldiers and earned the military's respect He does rescues all over the world. He had words with the Bat vigilante of Gotham. And best of all, by film's end HE INSPIRED BATMAN with his choices, ending Wayne's downward spiral. And what's so "dystopian" about BvS? It's set in modern times, out time, and the people are free to think whatever they want about Superman. Unless I missed some 'Soylent Green is people' moment. Any world more than 4 colors is "dystopian"?

I'm a huge fan of 'Superman: The Animated Series' and think this writer couldn't be more wrong. What really drives me nuts is judging THIS Superman when it's only getting started. MOS was about revealing himself and SAVING THE ENTIRE PLANET. 'Batman v Superman' begins 18 MONTHS after that. So it's like reading a Prelude and Chapter 1, then concluding a novel sucks because it's nothing like 'See Spot Run' you grew up with. People know very little about this Superman so far. His character is developing, the beginning stages of who he'll become, and he's been at it a whopping two whole years on earth.

The only way the writer gets away with the Zootopia-comparison is both films happen to be in theaters right now. Sit tight kiddies... Batman Lego Movie will be here before you know it.

"Aside from that, Zootopia is easily distinguishable as a children’s movie, while Batman v Superman uses classic characters that were aimed at children to attempt a more adult-oriented story. While comics fans know that these two characters have undergone a metamorphosis into more adult realms over the years, general audiences were likely expecting something more palatable for families given the natures and histories of both characters." Given the Trailers and the MOS prequel-movie, why ANYONE would think Batman v Superman woulda/coulda/shoulda been all-ages fare is beyond me. Warner took a chance. Just like DC's writers did with Batman The Dark Knight Returns, Kingdom Come, For The Man Who Has Everything, Identity Crisis and other substantive works. Good for them. I, for one, am glad I lived to see it. Personally I'd had about enough Clark Kent as a bumbling stumbling oaf and Lex as some real estate obsessive. Not all superhero films need to be wise crackin' one-liner yuk-fests ala Guardians of the Galaxy or Deadpool. Those film's are GREAT for what they are. But there's plenty of viewers for adult dramas like MOS, BvS, Watchmen and Netflix's Daredevil too. Someone alert the press.

Ditto your 'FILM' sentiment. I'm coming at it from a story-junkie pov. I personally think if the exact same story, same actors, same director had the Netflix's Daredevil format, to bring viewers along s-l-o-w-l-y, much of the and moaning would dissipate. It's as rich and complex as Daredevil imho. And as rare. Plus on the back end, everyone should think about how easily Batman and Superman could've been the next Lone Ranger or The Spirit. That danger is ever-present when bringing 70 year old comic book characters to film.

I think a lot of the 'dislike' is due to a key story element: These are NOT the characters we've known. It's a NEW take. Batman got there in the end though. But prior to the film Batman has had a 10 year career in a world without Superman. We've NEVER seen that before (as far as I know). No Superman to raise the bar. Until the film's storyline. Right? That was a main focus of the story. Alfred's concerns. Batman's devolving ethics... It's good stuff. Complex. Fresh. Bingo! Very well said Davenport and you have hit my biggest problems with the movie. I don't mind some tampering with my favorite characters, which Batman and Superman are, it's just I thought it went too far and I blame Snyder for that. And you are right, I like the Batman we get at the end. You're 'blame' is my 'appreciate', so I looked it up. Here's where it goes: "screenplay by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer". We both got to the same place by film's end. That's the main thing. And I don't think we're supposed to like Batman...at first. We're Alfred, right?, looking at a hero who's lost and still loosing his way. Too dark, too obsessed, too vengeful. He's right on the verge of becoming what he detests. We hate it and our heart breaks for his plight. That's the film's set up. Now we go for the ride. For me there were two key moments... And... So, yeah. As a lifelong fan I got emotionally played. Sounds like you did too. Not an easy thing to do. I thought it was very clever over all, unexpected and absolutely fresh. Dang it! Don't make me like or appreciate this movie after I left the theater thoroughly disgusted - almost vowing to never watch another Zack Snyder movie again. Seriously though, I appreciate those elements in the movie, but it's not where I thought the DCU should launch from. For instance, I would like to have seen a crime fighting Batman before I got dark, vengeful Batman. My only question going forward is... do I buy the Blu-ray when it comes out? I had sworn not to when leaving the theater, but not so sure now. You're almost there 40sJohn. So one more consideration... All the PR. And the Trailers. The very Title itself, focus you on 'Batman v Superman'. But... Man, you've got to appreciate that perception-shift. From the 'King Kong vs Godzilla' PR slant to what it actually became in the theater? It's damn near genius. But I'll settle for extremely clever. How about you?

I think a lot of the 'dislike' is due to a key story element: These are NOT the characters we've known. It's a NEW take. Batman got there in the end though. But prior to the film Batman has had a 10 year career in a world without Superman. We've NEVER seen that before (as far as I know). No Superman to raise the bar. Until the film's storyline. Right? That was a main focus of the story. Alfred's concerns. Batman's devolving ethics... It's good stuff. Complex. Fresh. Bingo! Very well said Davenport and you have hit my biggest problems with the movie. I don't mind some tampering with my favorite characters, which Batman and Superman are, it's just I thought it went too far and I blame Snyder for that. And you are right, I like the Batman we get at the end. You're 'blame' is my 'appreciate', so I looked it up. Here's where it goes: "screenplay by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer". We both got to the same place by film's end. That's the main thing. And I don't think we're supposed to like Batman...at first. We're Alfred, right?, looking at a hero who's lost and still loosing his way. Too dark, too obsessed, too vengeful. He's right on the verge of becoming what he detests. We hate it and our heart breaks for his plight. That's the film's set up. Now we go for the ride. For me there were two key moments... And... So, yeah. As a lifelong fan I got emotionally played. Sounds like you did too. Not an easy thing to do. I thought it was very clever over all, unexpected and absolutely fresh.

I think a lot of the 'dislike' is due to a key story element: These are NOT the characters we've known. It's a NEW take. Batman got there in the end though. But prior to the film Batman has had a 10 year career in a world without Superman. We've NEVER seen that before (as far as I know). No Superman to raise the bar. Until the film's storyline. Right? That was a main focus of the story. Alfred's concerns. Batman's devolving ethics... It's good stuff. Complex. Fresh.

I wonder if studios assume this brings some form of reality to a film. Though I don't know how much that comes across to audiences. I assume it's more "brand placement". News-talking-heads are each their own 'brand' with fans and followers. So I assume the studio expects a mention on their respective shows. PR buzz leading to butts in theater seats. Yep. I blame RoboCop. 1987 and wait, what?... there's Leeza Gibbons.

I wonder if studios assume this brings some form of reality to a film. Though I don't know how much that comes across to audiences. I assume it's more "brand placement". News-talking-heads are each their own 'brand' with fans and followers. So I assume the studio expects a mention on their respective shows. PR buzz leading to butts in theater seats.

looks like the same actress that played the genderless angel in (Keanu Reeves) Constantine. Implies transcending gender is a higher state of being (ala Heaven's Gate suicide cult).

I don't think he actually does. The ending scene, at least to me, implied that all Lex wanted was Supes removed to make way for "him" (i.e. Darkseid). There was one Lex-rant that explained it pretty well... He went on and on about no one ever rescued HIM from his father. How he called out to God constantly no avail. 'God' this and 'God' that, how anyone 'all powerful' can't also be 'all good'. So Superman is a surrogate for Lex's lunacy/god-hatred. Lex doesn't just want to destroy Superman, he has to PROVE TO THE PLANET that Superman is 'bad' (1st by framing him for the 'terrorist' murders, then by forcing him to kill & behead Batman). When Lois tells Lex "You're psychotic", it was an understatement imho.

The daily dollars are interesting, but the long-term significance in pop culture will eventually tell the tale. BvS made me want to re-watch Man of Steel. Maybe Justice League will enrich BvS further, once it hits next year. So far Man of Steel and BvS is one hell of a story, but only the beginning of something epic (if Warner follows through and doesn't start second-guessing/pandering). How it all hangs together is yet to be seen.

I thought that Affleck was a wonderful Batman. Batman has never been portrayed better imho (excluding Kevin Conroy/B:TAS/JL/JLU. I think most complaints of Batman are because this Batman in this Universe has had a full 20 year career without Superman's existence/influence/inspiration. That's new and has to be taken into account. It's what Alfred was speaking to, about becoming cruel.

Well, I did my part for the 2nd week. Saturday I was telling a friend all about BvS, how much I enjoyed it. I'm sure I was going on and on... Saturday night he called from a theater. He was taking his wife, son, daughter and her boyfriend. I crossed my fingers they would all like it. Taking an entire family is a lot of money. ...And I got a call today about how much they enjoyed themselves. To me it's the 1st time Batman and Superman have been played with zero cheeziness. Clark Kent isn't some bumbling buffoon, there's no bat-nipples or neon hockey sticks. Finally, rich complex characters in an unfolding adult storyline, who happen to be Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman. 'Bout damn time.

For 75 years Batman and Superman have been portrayed as contemporaries. But not in BvS. - Batman is older, jaded and his moral compass is twisting. - From MOS to BvS is 18 months. That's all. A whopping 1.5 years of Superman's presence in this DCU. - Superman is still finding his footing and evolving. He's in love. He's unsure. His mom reinforces free will, his lover reinforces heroism, his nation wants to politicize his every move. BvS is something new altogether. So it's understandable critics and fans expecting swashbuckling silliness would be left cold. But the flip side is at least once, one time, we get to see these characters in an adult storyline. Yes, it borrows from numerous comic plotlines, but overall the narrative is a new take. Without spoilers, I thought the ending was genius. It wove the story so Superman will influence and inspire all the other heroes. You see it beginning with Batman and Wonder Woman. A fresh shortcut (18 months) to the same place. Superman, an ideal to live up to...

After the viewing that's exactly what I thought too. And probably why the initial reviews were so negative. The critics must've been expecting typical blockbuster fare. In my opinion it felt like the 1st volume of a book series. A dark rich adult-novel on film. Laying a foundation, establishing characters, themes, complexity and world-building. Moving a larger story forward. I guess critics expecting paint-by-numbers were bound to leave dissatisfied. In my opinion the context changed. MOS becomes a stand-alone prelude, BvS being Book One of something epic. I'll say I'm as satisfied with BvS as I am Netflix's Daredevil. My highest live-action-comic compliment. And I can't wait for the next part of the story.

Some day statue collectors may have Avengers walking around their house...

They really should give Bruce Timm a crack at DC live-action. Maybe his track record of excellent JL/DCU storytelling choices would work for film too. At least he'd have it storyboarded out for plot/pacing to squash potential suckage that doesn't quite work, no matter how cool it initially seemed on the written page.

Cool image. I still think the best live-action Batman is the 2003 Batman:Dead End version. For a low-budget demo reel Sandy Collora nailed the visuals.