Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice movie thread for your reading pleasure 2 2

[Prince Namor]

And since when is the real world used in the background of a movie referred to as 'dystopian'?

[Cimm]

Before labeling me a hater, consider that I really like Superman as originally envisioned and believe there's more room for exploration of that legacy.

I'm just not the kind of fan who believes rebooting characters means tossing out those things that make the character likable and heroic.

Dystopian? Destruction of Superman?

 

Deconstruction. ...and yes, very dystopian

 

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, our 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"?

 

On one level, Dystopianism is a feeling of hopelessness in the world. Is this a world worth saving? Is this a world I'd want to live in? Are any of these people I'd want to know, much less be around?

 

So many of the performances in the first film were hokey and poorly filmed. Performances seemed more like cameos of characters we were never invested in. As pointed out repeatedly, I haven't seen the second film, but the confused, piecemeal plot has been discussed ad infinitum.

 

I don't like Henry Cavell in the Superman role. He just doesn't sell it for me. This plays into my next rhetorical question: Is the Superman character as written and acted so much bigger than real life and disconnected from it that his actions seem cold and mechanical?

 

The question audiences who've seen this movie should ask is does this type of movie make me feel good? ...Did I come away from this film feeling good about these characters? ...about the world? ...about my place in it?

 

Food for thought.

 

I grew up near a lot of farms and knowing a lot of farm people. I always thought of Clark/Superman as someone who could have been one of those people who just happened to have powers. I got that feeling with Christopher Reeves and Tom Welling, and to a lesser extent with Brandon Routh. But I didn't get that feeling at all with Dean Cain (though I still liked the show), and I don't get that feeling at all with Henry Cavill (whether its him or the directing or the plot, I'm not sure).

 

For me, that wasn't really my problem with the movie, but I don't think its unreasonable if a lot of people wanted to connect to Superman the way they 'think' they should, then were frustrated when they couldn't. That seems very reasonable. They think Superman is supposed to be 'better' because of his humanity, not in spite of it. Zack Snyder might have wanted to tell a different story, but it was risky and for the most part it didn't pay off.

 

 

As human beings we are fragile and at a moments nod from death. Superman represents, for many, the indestructible human, the perfect specimen, with no fear of death, who can easily distinguish the difference between wrong and right, in a fantasy world that is either black or white. It's the most simplistic of concepts for the child who has just discovered real world bummer (parents divorcing or dying or abuse) and has always worked at it's best in that simple format.

 

Some of us prefer to wonder how we could ever relate to a being like that, in an actual reality world like ours, and how he would be able to relate to us. And how he could rise above the frailties that make our world so grey and be bigger than that. How he could inspire us to want the same.

 

For some of us, Zack nailed it perfectly.

 

Note the bolded parts. I have a much easier time relating to Superman, as played by Henry Cavill, and directed by Zack Snyder, in that he makes the difficult choice, does the right thing for the right reasons without hiding behind some idyll wherein death is never the answer. True evil exists, and there is nothing finer or more noble than ending it. I find a world of do-gooders who would allow a Zod, or Doomsday, or Joker to continue stealing oxygen far more dystopian, misguided, and unrealistic.

[revat]

Before labeling me a hater, consider that I really like Superman as originally envisioned and believe there's more room for exploration of that legacy.

I'm just not the kind of fan who believes rebooting characters means tossing out those things that make the character likable and heroic.

Dystopian? Destruction of Superman?

 

Deconstruction. ...and yes, very dystopian

 

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"?

 

On one level, Dystopianism is a feeling of hopelessness in the world. Is this a world worth saving? Is this a world I'd want to live in? Are any of these people I'd want to know, much less be around?

 

So many of the performances in the first film were hokey and poorly filmed. Performances seemed more like cameos of characters we were never invested in. As pointed out repeatedly, I haven't seen the second film, but the confused, piecemeal plot has been discussed ad infinitum.

 

I don't like Henry Cavell in the Superman role. He just doesn't sell it for me. This plays into my next rhetorical question: Is the Superman character as written and acted so much bigger than real life and disconnected from it that his actions seem cold and mechanical?

 

The question audiences who've seen this movie should ask is does this type of movie make me feel good? ...Did I come away from this film feeling good about these characters? ...about the world? ...about my place in it?

 

Food for thought.

 

I grew up near a lot of farms and knowing a lot of farm people. I always thought of Clark/Superman as someone who could have been one of those people who just happened to have powers. I got that feeling with Christopher Reeves and Tom Welling, and to a lesser extent with Brandon Routh. But I didn't get that feeling at all with Dean Cain (though I still liked the show), and I don't get that feeling at all with Henry Cavill (whether its him or the directing or the plot, I'm not sure).

 

For me, that wasn't really my problem with the movie, but I don't think its unreasonable if a lot of people wanted to connect to Superman the way they 'think' they should, then were frustrated when they couldn't. That seems very reasonable. They think Superman is supposed to be 'better' because of his humanity, not in spite of it. Zack Snyder might have wanted to tell a different story, but it was risky and for the most part it didn't pay off.

 

 

As human beings we are fragile and at a moments nod from death. Superman represents, for many, the indestructible human, the perfect specimen, with no fear of death, who can easily distinguish the difference between wrong and right, in a fantasy world that is either black or white. It's the most simplistic of concepts for the child who has just discovered real world bummer (parents divorcing or dying or abuse) and has always worked at it's best in that simple format.

 

Some of us prefer to wonder how we could ever relate to a being like that, in an actual reality world like ours, and how he would be able to relate to us. And how he could rise above the frailties that make our world so grey and be bigger than that. How he could inspire us to want the same.

 

For some of us, Zack nailed it perfectly.

 

I don't disagree with any of what you said either. I think you got what he was going for. But I think a LOT of people identify Superman more with 'the farm boy/boy scout' and needed a good reason to feel otherwise, and a lot of those people didn't think they got a good enough reason. And for me if the technical and some plot elements of the movie were better, I feel I could have connected in that way too (the way you did), as could many other people. I just don't think he 'set up' the paradigm shift well enough to make it 'believable' for a lot of people, a lot of people felt like it was 'forced' for the sake of being different or 'art', just not 'honest' enough.

 

Of course that's just an opinion, and there are many reasons to like or dislike this movie, but I don't think people are being disingenuous or close minded by saying they couldn't connect with this particular version of superman, and it affected their enjoyment of the movie.

[Prince Namor]

Before labeling me a hater, consider that I really like Superman as originally envisioned and believe there's more room for exploration of that legacy.

I'm just not the kind of fan who believes rebooting characters means tossing out those things that make the character likable and heroic.

Dystopian? Destruction of Superman?

 

Deconstruction. ...and yes, very dystopian

 

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, our 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"?

 

On one level, Dystopianism is a feeling of hopelessness in the world. Is this a world worth saving? Is this a world I'd want to live in? Are any of these people I'd want to know, much less be around?

 

So many of the performances in the first film were hokey and poorly filmed. Performances seemed more like cameos of characters we were never invested in. As pointed out repeatedly, I haven't seen the second film, but the confused, piecemeal plot has been discussed ad infinitum.

 

I don't like Henry Cavell in the Superman role. He just doesn't sell it for me. This plays into my next rhetorical question: Is the Superman character as written and acted so much bigger than real life and disconnected from it that his actions seem cold and mechanical?

 

The question audiences who've seen this movie should ask is does this type of movie make me feel good? ...Did I come away from this film feeling good about these characters? ...about the world? ...about my place in it?

 

Food for thought.

 

I grew up near a lot of farms and knowing a lot of farm people. I always thought of Clark/Superman as someone who could have been one of those people who just happened to have powers. I got that feeling with Christopher Reeves and Tom Welling, and to a lesser extent with Brandon Routh. But I didn't get that feeling at all with Dean Cain (though I still liked the show), and I don't get that feeling at all with Henry Cavill (whether its him or the directing or the plot, I'm not sure).

 

For me, that wasn't really my problem with the movie, but I don't think its unreasonable if a lot of people wanted to connect to Superman the way they 'think' they should, then were frustrated when they couldn't. That seems very reasonable. They think Superman is supposed to be 'better' because of his humanity, not in spite of it. Zack Snyder might have wanted to tell a different story, but it was risky and for the most part it didn't pay off.

 

 

As human beings we are fragile and at a moments nod from death. Superman represents, for many, the indestructible human, the perfect specimen, with no fear of death, who can easily distinguish the difference between wrong and right, in a fantasy world that is either black or white. It's the most simplistic of concepts for the child who has just discovered real world bummer (parents divorcing or dying or abuse) and has always worked at it's best in that simple format.

 

Some of us prefer to wonder how we could ever relate to a being like that, in an actual reality world like ours, and how he would be able to relate to us. And how he could rise above the frailties that make our world so grey and be bigger than that. How he could inspire us to want the same.

 

For some of us, Zack nailed it perfectly.

 

Note the bolded parts. I have a much easier time relating to Superman, as played by Henry Cavill, and directed by Zack Snyder, in that he makes the difficult choice, does the right thing for the right reasons without hiding behind some idyll wherein death is never the answer. True evil exists, and there is nothing finer or more noble than ending it. I find a world of do-gooders who would allow a Zod, or Doomsday, or Joker to continue stealing oxygen far more dystopian, misguided, and unrealistic.

 

Yep. Killing Joke still drives me nuts because the Joker never really 'paid' for what he did to Barbara.

Fate caught up to the Green Goblin. The Joker just carries on with no real justice applied.

[Prince Namor]

Is this the 'contemporary' Captain America we're talking about?

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

Funny

 

I was just watching Winter Soldier this morning, and was kinda shocked at Caps blatant disregard for killing

[Bosco685]

Jeez! A fellow is out for a day, and I come back to dystopian denial.

 

 

[Bosco685]

DCEU posted the Wonder Woman intro scene.

 

 

[SkunkApe]

DCEU posted the Wonder Woman intro scene.

 

 

 

 

I seriously cannot get enough of that scene.

[Bosco685]

DCEU posted the Wonder Woman intro scene.

 

 

 

 

I seriously cannot get enough of that scene.

 

You and me both, buddy.

 

[Davenport]

As pointed out repeatedly, I haven't seen the second film, but the confused, piecemeal plot has been discussed ad infinitum.

Well hell.

 

I don't like Henry Cavell in the Superman role. He just doesn't sell it for me. This plays into my next rhetorical question: Is the Superman character as written and acted so much bigger than real life and disconnected from it that his actions seem cold and mechanical?

 

The question audiences who've seen this movie should ask is does this type of movie make me feel good? ...Did I come away from this film feeling good about these characters? ...about the world? ...about my place in it? ...about the value of life in general?

 

Food for thought.

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.

[Batman]

Great post!

[Prince Namor]

[Larryw7]

Great post!

 

Yep.

[Cat-Man_America]

Jeez! A fellow is out for a day, and I come back to dystopian denial.

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

Of course, there's always room for a range of interpretations, but our definitions of well written complex feature films probably differ. And at the risk of getting repetitious, why does WB allow Zack and his writers to go so dark that the heroes come across more like villains or so emotionally screwed up that the characters appear to need psychiatric counseling on the set?

 

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.

 

Research the comic history a little deeper. The Martha thing was apparently just a device used to sell an awkward scene, it has no bearing on comic history. The coincidence is precious to be sure, but it doesn't demonstrate brilliant scriptwriting.

 

The character who would become Martha Kent was originally called Molly Kent by Jerry Siegel based on an unpublished version from 1938. Superman #1, released in 1939 referred to the character as Mary Kent (the most popular name given to girls in that year). The name varies through the 1940's and becomes Marthe in Superboy #12 (1951).

 

BTW, reviews of the Martha scene vary widely. Apparently not everyone found it as moving as you did, but I'll take your word for it.

 

DM

[Bosco685]

BTW, reviews of the Martha scene vary widely. Apparently not everyone found it as moving as you did, but I'll take your word for it.

 

I found it to be quite moving, and an interesting plot twist. Like some common bond the two heroes never realized they had until that moment when the pieces all come together.

 

Sorry to use brevity for an answer. But sometimes it's best. Like the mentioning of the name 'Martha' between two strangers leading to a familiar bond.

 

 

 

 

[Comicopolis]

As pointed out repeatedly, I haven't seen the second film, but the confused, piecemeal plot has been discussed ad infinitum.

Well hell.

 

I don't like Henry Cavell in the Superman role. He just doesn't sell it for me. This plays into my next rhetorical question: Is the Superman character as written and acted so much bigger than real life and disconnected from it that his actions seem cold and mechanical?

 

The question audiences who've seen this movie should ask is does this type of movie make me feel good? ...Did I come away from this film feeling good about these characters? ...about the world? ...about my place in it? ...about the value of life in general?

 

Food for thought.

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.

 

Exactly - watched the movie with the wife and we both thought that that scene was significant and highly effective.

[Bosco685]

OK, I cheated a little. I was going to wait for the uncut Blu-ray before viewing but a friend had a copy on his laptop so... but I only watched the fight. I don't get all the hubbub about the Martha thing. The way I saw it, all it did was create a moment of pause in the beat-down that allowed Lois to get between the two to embrace Clark. Shielding him. Bruce wasn't going to go through her. The interruption ends his momentum. It was a good scene.

 

 

 

To me, the big deal that then brought Bruce Wayne out of his rage was he originally perceived Superman as a non-human who could burn down the planet - but now he finds out Superman has a mother. Now he is more human than alien. Add to his Lois Lane displaying her love for him by getting in-between their fight to explain the name, and it shows that Superman the alien was really Clark Kent - the adopted son of Earth.

 

I had never seen that done before across any of the animated or live DC movies, and found it to be a really nice touch.

[Davenport]

Research the comic history a little deeper. The Martha thing was apparently just a device used to sell an awkward scene, it has no bearing on comic history. The coincidence is precious to be sure, but it doesn't demonstrate brilliant scriptwriting.

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.

 

 

[Bosco685]

OK, I cheated a little. I was going to wait for the uncut Blu-ray before viewing but a friend had a copy on his laptop so... but I only watched the fight. I don't get all the hubbub about the Martha thing. The way I saw it, all it did was create a moment of pause in the beat-down that allowed Lois to get between the two to embrace Clark. Shielding him. Bruce wasn't going to go through her. The interruption ends his momentum. It was a good scene.

 

 

 

To me, the big deal that then brought Bruce Wayne out of his rage was he originally perceived Superman as a non-human who could burn down the planet - but now he finds out Superman has a mother. Now he is more human than alien. Add to his Lois Lane displaying her love for him by getting in-between their fight to explain the name, and it shows that Superman the alien was really Clark Kent - the adopted son of Earth.

 

I had never seen that done before across any of the animated or live DC movies, and found it to be a really nice touch.

 

Well I got all that as well but I meant the negative hubbub I heard where people say he just utters the word and they instantly stop fighting and become friends. It didn't go down like that at all.

 

This has been my difference of opinion with DavidMerryweather throughout all this discussion. There are really solid, emotional scenes in this movie that he has no experience with yet. And enough people have pointed this out, his 'many dislike it' argument doesn't fly.

 

When you allow yourself to hate a production so much, you miss out on having an unbiased first-viewing to form an experienced opinion.