Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

Drumpot

Watched the ultimate cut and loved it. Like watchmen, the extended version allowed the movie to breath and feel more epic. Before people get upset, I'm only comparing the fact that these two movies were movies I enjoyed but felt the extended versions enhanced the theatrical releases. Many directors cut movies don't really add much to movies, but this for me particularly shows a more cohesive plan of luthors playing out.

I've seen this 4 times now and while I hated Jesse as luthor, he's kind of grown on me, I still prefer hackmans luthor but I allowed myself to enjoy his own take on the character. Anybody who saw this once, IMO, can't really give a decently objective review because there are so many things that could be missed n one viewing and for me anyway it's gotten better on repeat viewing.

I don't think the UC will change people's minds much. This is a more complete film then the cinematic release, but it doesn't change much of the tone or story. If you disliked it, you might feel you are just being subjected to an extra 30 mins of a movie you don't like.

With regards to Clark Kent, I immediately thought of Jimmy Olsen who was only in this movie so his character was somewhere in the movie. As many complained, the justice league is the Target so it makes sense that there will be little need or room for secondary characters or stories. They don't plan another standalone superman , so if we look at the avengers movies as a template, the alter ego characters and minor characters in the superhero universe are far less important.

While fans of the comics will defend the importance of Clark, I don't think he is needed in the justice league universe. He didn't show up until the last seconds of man of steel and was a pretty uninteresting character in BvS so he doesn't fit into the bigger strategy.

Nervous Wreck

Sad Professor wrote: »

But they buried his body.

Yeah that was something that bugged me. They made a big deal about how it was Clark they buried instead of Superman. Idiots.

Sad Professor

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Yeah that was something that bugged me. They made a big deal about how it was Clark they buried instead of Superman. Idiots.

I think they wanted to have dual funerals with the emotional emphasis on the Kansas one and the only way to do that was if they had Clark's body in Clark's coffin. I'm sure at some point somebody piped up with "but that means we've killed Clark Kent forever!" and Snyder said "awesome" and that was the extent of how much they thought about it.

It's really only a problem for the next standalone Superman film, which I assume Snyder isn't doing so he doesn't give a sh*t. Unless there isn't going to be one, in which case Clark's secret identity is one less talky sub-plot for Snyder to be juggling in Justice League.

Nervous Wreck

Interest thoroughly piqued by all the positivity for the ultimate cut, I decided to watch it and have just finished. Still a minus 6 for me. I don't know what you people got out of that but it was still awful imo. People had said there was more character development etc but I saw none of that. Can't believe I wasted another three hours on that...

Drumpot

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Interest thoroughly piqued by all the positivity for the ultimate cut, I decided to watch it and have just finished. Still a minus 6 for me. I don't know what you people got out of that but it was still awful imo. People had said there was more character development etc but I saw none of that. Can't believe I wasted another three hours on that...

All the feedback from people/reviewers who watched the extended version states that the extended version will only enhance the movie for people who enjoyed it and will do little to nothing for those who didn't like it.

The extended version definitely adds more menace to Luthors character and shows he was manipulating events the whole time. It also fleshes out more how or why the two superhero's came to blows that seemed a bit wafer thin in the TC. Small bits (like Luthor/Batman dialogue at end and extension of superman saving Lois at start) really added something to the movie.

I didn't like the TC when I initially saw it, but like I said, on repeat viewing it has grown on me. I love the idea that a horrible life weathered Batman is redeemed by Superman's helpless state in trying to save his mother. I also like the idea of Superman trying to find his way in the world (expanded in the UC), while Luthor is manipulating public opinion against him.

Luthor was the biggest problem for me when I initially watched it. I didn't like Jesse's portrail, but I do feel the UC expands on this character from an indirect POV, where he is scheming in the backround in a more intelligent way then it came across on the TC.

pixelburp

It's a fair point that the Ultimate Edition addressed definite issues of pacing and plotting that made the theatrical release problematic, but the underlying core was still so rotten those extra 40 odd minutes just felt like a longer trip to the dentist than any form of important plot polyfilla. It was a sequel that continued to use the turgid and straight-up miserable tone present in Man of Steel, full of anguish and angst as if the life of a Superhero was one of woe, loneliness and tragedy. This was another 3 hours of Superman glowering at everyone for having the temerity to be in peril. I've seen more empathy towards humans from The Hulk, and Synder managed to make rescuing people look boring & workaday.

And it's not a case of simply aping Marvel's occasionally vanilla, PG-13 approach to its own universe (though honestly Civil War did a far better, more mature job in addressing the notions of heroes at odds with each other & the human, emotional cost of vigilantism); there are plenty of stories and tones that can be taken, but the 'Synderverse' has either willingly or accidentally forgotten the 'hero' in Superhero - filling it instead with this adolescent idea of what constitutes 'darkness' and responsibility.

Full disclosure: I don't actually like Superman, and never have. The Donner films were fun for their time but watching them again they're incredibly goofy, and not in a good way. Otherwise, I've found Superman a tedious, bland semi-character who has never really broken away from being a power-fantasy for a pair of 1930s teenagers. Stories only ever seem to struggle in working around his near-invincibility, usually resorting to contrivance and conveniences to give him some vulnerability - physical or otherwise. His personal life has had a mild bit of family tragedy (by the standards of dramatic fiction), but aside from that, even his human persona is idyllic.

But! That said, to me there's still a clear, modern story that's both relatable and meaningful that could have translated pretty brilliantly into a new film franchise - that of the immigrant. Kal'El is the ultimate foreign national; forging a new life and identity in a strange & alien land while dealing with the responsibility and power he wields. It's a human interest, underdog story that mixes in the superheroics, not unlike other franchises such as Spider Man.

Instead, we got the 'lonely god' forced epic, of glowering and posturing above the world - because I guess that made for a better visual in the eyes of Zack Synder. And to me this is where the rot is greatest. He may draw a lot of flak and some of it a tad unfair, but he has earned a lot of it too. Sure, there's no doubt he brings a distinct visual style and is arguably more the auteur than any or most of Marvels own stable of directors, but his work is - and has been over his career - utterly tone deaf. Everything's either completely hollow or just smacks of ... posturing, I guess it the only way I can phrase it. Watchmen, Sucker Punch, 300; all his films look great but there's nothing remotely human - or humane - in his characters & this has culminated in a depressed slog through the lives of a gloomy Superman or murderous Batman; all looked very dramatic but dear god it was wretched to behold.

Tony EH

Drumpot wrote: »

All the feedback from people/reviewers who watched the extended version states that the extended version will only enhance the movie for people who enjoyed it and will do little to nothing for those who didn't like it.

The extended version definitely adds more menace to Luthors character and shows he was manipulating events the whole time. It also fleshes out more how or why the two superhero's came to blows that seemed a bit wafer thin in the TC. Small bits (like Luthor/Batman dialogue at end and extension of superman saving Lois at start) really added something to the movie.

I didn't like the TC when I initially saw it, but like I said, on repeat viewing it has grown on me. I love the idea that a horrible life weathered Batman is redeemed by Superman's helpless state in trying to save his mother. I also like the idea of Superman trying to find his way in the world (expanded in the UC), while Luthor is manipulating public opinion against him.

Luthor was the biggest problem for me when I initially watched it. I didn't like Jesse's portrail, but I do feel the UC expands on this character from an indirect POV, where he is scheming in the backround in a more intelligent way then it came across on the TC.

Haven't seen the extended cut yet, but probably will, having thought the cinema cut was ok. Good, but not a great film. But, certainly and absolutely not the fly ridden, shitfest, that some people so desperately (it seems) want to have you believe.

The problem with BvS, is that is suffers from what so many Hollywood films do these days. It's merely adequate for an audience that expects spectacular. But, in fairness, "spectacular" is very difficult to achieve now. Most people are fatigued with that sort of thing.

Having liked the grumpypants Superman of 'Man of Steel' and think Batman should be a cross between the Joker and Judge Dredd, I'm perfectly fine with their portrayals in both Nolan's and Snyder's efforts. Batman should be taking his cues from Miller or 'Arkham Asylum', or dare I say it 'AllStar Batman and Robin' and not the 1940's/50's/60's.

Frankly goody-two-shoes superheroes simply won't cut it. I even thought Wonder Woman was ok in this, and I think she's one of the most stupid Superheroes to ever be created. Her portrayal in the aforementioned 'AllStar Batman and Robin' from a few years ago was probably the best thing ever. LOL. She was a complete C U Next Tuesday... :pac: ...and it made perfect sense.

But, the film does go off the rails with the Doomsday thing (which I have no idea about) and no amount of adding or cutting will help that. That's like a separate film altogether. But, I suppose once Bats and red knickers end their scrap, there was nowhere else to go.

Drumpot

Tony EH wrote: »

Haven't seen the extended cut yet, but probably will, having thought the cinema cut was ok. Good, but not a great film. But, certainly and absolutely not the fly ridden, shitfest, that some people so desperately (it seems) want to have you believe.

The problem with BvS, is that is suffers from what so many Hollywood films do these days. It's merely adequate for an audience that expects spectacular. But, in fairness, "spectacular" is very difficult to achieve now. Most people are fatigued with that sort of thing.

Having liked the grumpypants Superman of 'Man of Steel' and think Batman should be a cross between the Joker and Judge Dredd, I'm perfectly fine with their portrayals in both Nolan's and Snyder's efforts. Batman should be taking his cues from Miller or 'Arkham Asylum', or dare I say it 'AllStar Batman and Robin' and not the 1940's/50's/60's.

Frankly goody-two-shoes superheroes simply won't cut it. I even thought Wonder Woman was ok in this, and I think she's one of the most stupid Superheroes to ever be created. Her portrayal in the aforementioned 'AllStar Batman and Robin' from a few years ago was probably the best thing ever. LOL. She was a complete C U Next Tuesday... :pac: ...and it made perfect sense.

But, the film does go off the rails with the Doomsday thing (which I have no idea about) and no amount of adding or cutting will help that. That's like a separate film altogether. But, I suppose once Bats and red knickers end their scrap, there was nowhere else to go.

I don't think the film actually needed Doomsday. If anything, Doomsday was more important for the Justice league story then this. I think had the director not have to squeeze Justice league setups, that the movie would of been epic and the "Martha" bit would of been more powerful. It was actually a wonderful moment of redemption for Batman, but the need to squeeze the Doomsday side story into it sort of spoilt the moment.

I get why people dislike this movie , but I genuinely feel the "major" gripes are actually minor issues that are just blown out of proportion because it didn't meet expectations (whatever they were for each individual). I find that with some (oddly seems to happen with Snyder movies!) movies that I initially don't like, if I reappraise my expectations I can actually enjoy them on second and future viewings.

I think the reason a 2.5 hour movie can feel rushed or poorly edited is because the director has an epic story to tell that the studio is chopping. Watchmen is the perfect example and to a lesser degree BVS. IMO, both extended version of the movies were much more epic and cohesive.

Marvel movies are enjoyable but they are also very much a conveyor belt and processed product. I found some of the chaos and rough cut stuff in BVS kind of enjoyable. That said, I enjoy both franchises and prefer to think that I don't have the same prejudice and passion that puts people into HATE camps.

Tony EH

If I'm honest, I prefer what Snyder has done to anything I've seen from the Marvel films so far. They're just so by-the-book. In saying that, I should declare also that I am neither a fan of Marvel or Snyder. I don't like '300', I think his 'Dawn of the Dead' was a travesty compared to Romero's original and didn't like 'The Watchmen' (when I first saw it). But I do think that it's one of the most over rated comics ever talked about.

The Marvel movies, though, just leave me cold. They're so factory, I could live my life without ever bothering with another one again. In fact superheroes leave me unsatisfied in general, even if they have been "adulted" up for a more mature audience in recent times.

I've read a good deal of Batman though and probably my favorite comic character was Judge Dredd. But, even then, the very good material is really quite small. I also find comics and heroes to be a very flippant medium. They spend a large amount of time building up a mythos and then say fuck all of that and scrap everything and go off in hugely different directions as to completely wreck whatever it was that the character was about in the first place.

My wife is the real Batman fan in our house and I'm trying to build a TPB library for her. Actually, I'm trying to build it back up for her after everything was destroyed and frankly, it's a nightmare. You'd need an encyclopedia just to get any kind of relevant timeline or order going.

It's indicative of how difficult it is to bring a comic to the screen. There's just so much crap to negotiate, that it's almost inevitable that the end product will draw fire from some quarters.

GreatDefector

Tony EH wrote: »

But, I suppose once Bats and red knickers end their scrap, there was nowhere else to go.

Snyder's Superman has blue jocks

Tony EH

GreatDefector wrote: »

Snyder's Superman has blue jocks

Damn...you just wrecked the film for me.

:mad:

For a movie called Batman vs Superman, there was a whole lot of Batman vs Superman.

Nerdlingr

Watched it at the weekend and thought it was a grand film. Dunno what all the negative press was about. I enjoyed it enough. More than the dark knight rises and some of the marvel stuff. Might have been a bit rag doll stuff at the end and jesse eisenberg could have been better but all in all not a bad show.

edit : it was the extended version I saw.

Mr Freeze

Deleted User wrote: »

For a movie called Batman vs Superman, there was a whole lot of Batman vs Superman.

Was or Wasn't?

I thought it was pretty poor now myself, its not even worth discussing in depth.

I just hope Suicide Squad turns out better, I only have a passing interest in the Marvels films and as a Batman fan and DC fan I should be more into the DCEU stuff, but I have less interest in it than the Marvel stuff, BvS did nothing to change my opinion.

Mr Freeze

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Was or Wasn't?

I thought it was pretty poor now myself, its not even worth discussing in depth.

I just hope Suicide Squad turns out better, I only have a passing interest in the Marvels films and as a Batman fan and DC fan I should be more into the DCEU stuff, but I have less interest in it than the Marvel stuff, BvS did nothing to change my opinion.

Ha. That was supposed to be "wasn't".

I watched the Extended Edition and a lot of it fell into the same pitfalls that the Marvel movies fall into - their individual ones just acting as a means to bleed into the larger ones. There was a good few blink and you'll miss it hints and nods towards the likes of Darkseid, but was only something you'd get if you were familiar with the comics, which I wasn't and had to Google a lot of it.

mickoneill31

Deleted User wrote: »

Ha. That was supposed to be "wasn't".

I remember thinking exactly that when I saw it originally in the cinema.
For a movie called Batman V Superman there's not a lot of Batman or Superman.

Deleted User wrote: »

I watched the Extended Edition and a lot of it fell into the same pitfalls that the Marvel movies fall into - their individual ones just acting as a means to bleed into the larger ones. There was a good few blink and you'll miss it hints and nods towards the likes of Darkseid, but was only something you'd get if you were familiar with the comics, which I wasn't and had to Google a lot of it.

Agree with you their too. The directors cut was miles better but it's still not great.

I think they could have lost the desert scene and it wouldn't have affected the movie. Losing the dream within a dream Flash sequence would have been good. And losing the bit of Wonder Woman reading her emails to introduce the new characters could have been moved to an end credits scene.
Adding Darkseid at the end was just another pointless bit for me. I don't read the comics so I was only aware of who he was by reading the internet.

Tony EH

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Watched it at the weekend and thought it was a grand film. Dunno what all the negative press was about. I enjoyed it enough. More than the dark knight rises and some of the marvel stuff. Might have been a bit rag doll stuff at the end and jesse eisenberg could have been better but all in all not a bad show.

edit : it was the extended version I saw.

Yeh. I saw the extended version a few days ago, but came away with pretty much the same result. Still just a solid 6/10 for me. Not a great film by any degree (no superhero film is). But, it's certainly not the cinematic disaster that some people are trying to make you believe it is.

Mr Freeze

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Adding Darkseid at the end was just another pointless bit for me. I don't read the comics so I was only aware of who he was by reading the internet.

I think that was Steppenwolf, not Darkseid, they might be saving Darkseid for later in the DCEU.

You know what really confused me about that whole thing-

Was Batman having a premonition? Or was that something that actually happened (seeing the Flash in a portal) before the events of the movie and he was just remembering? Or was it just a dream?

Nervous Wreck

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You know what really confused me about that whole thing-

Was Batman having a premonition? Or was that something that actually happened (seeing the Flash in a portal) before the events of the movie and he was just remembering? Or was it just a dream?

The implication was that the desert dream was just a dream and the Flash dream was a real vision (so I don't know why it was in a dream...). Both must be considered precognition though cos Batman would not, as far as the narrative of the film tells us, at this point have any prior knowledge of The Flash, Darkseid or Parademons. So apparently Batman is psychic in Snyder's vision of the DC universe...

Nervous Wreck

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

The implication was that the desert dream was just a dream and the Flash dream was a real vision (so I don't know why it was in a dream...). Both must be considered precognition though cos Batman would not, as far as the narrative of the film tells us, at this point have any prior knowledge of The Flash, Darkseid or Parademons. So apparently Batman is psychic in Snyder's vision of the DC universe...

That just doesn't make sense.

*sigh*

I mean, I'll admit that it wasn't anywhere near as bad as I thought it was going to be, but it wasn't great either. Affleck made an OK Batman/Wayne (if not more brooding than any other portrayal we've had so far), Cavill seemed like he wasn't given much to do, and don't even get me started on Eisenberg's Luthor.

Is he Luthor Jnr, with his father being the real Lex?

Honestly though, it felt like they were relying far too much on people being familiar with the DC comics and Universe when it came to things like Darkseid's symbol and Steppenwolf. I definitely wasn't, so a lot of that stuff was straight over my head, and it feels like it would have gone straight over the heads of the wider audience too.

Mr Freeze

Deleted User wrote: »

... Steppenwolf. I definitely wasn't, so a lot of that stuff was straight over my head, and it feels like it would have gone straight over the heads of the wider audience too.

I thought I knew the comics well and I had to google to see who Steppenwolf was.

I also just want to point out how ridiculous it was to have Batman, who hated Superman to the extent that he was going to murder him, have the whole first 2/3 of it building up this hatred and bloodlust, suddenly go out the window because Superman said the name "Martha".

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

I also just want to point out how ridiculous it was to have Batman, who hated Superman to the extent that he was going to murder him, have the whole first 2/3 of it building up this hatred and bloodlust, suddenly go out the window because Superman said the name "Martha".

I had heard & read people mocking this plot device before I got to see the film, so honestly I expected the reality to be different, simply being a case of internet-rage oversimplifying or deliberately mis-reading something.

But no, the writers actually thought the best way to break up the fight was by our 'heroes' realising their mums had the same name.

Tony EH

Mr Freeze wrote: »

I thought I knew the comics well and I had to google to see who Steppenwolf was.

Get you motor running...

techdiver

pixelburp wrote: »

I had heard & read people mocking this plot device before I got to see the film, so honestly I expected the reality to be different, simply being a case of internet-rage oversimplifying or deliberately mis-reading something.

But no, the writers actually thought the best way to break up the fight was by our 'heroes' realising their mums had the same name.

Not to be a contrarian on this point, but Superman saying Martha just gave Batman a pause and stopped him in his tracks/distracted him. He wanted to know why Superman said the name before killing him. It was only when Lois arrived and blocked the way and said it was Superman's mother's name did he stop and let Superman explain the Lex took her. The saying of "Martha" didn't stop Batman from killing him directly.

My bigger argument was why didn't Superman make a bigger attempt to state this at the start instead of fighting straight away (I know for the purposes of the movie they would have to fight though).

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I also just want to point out how ridiculous it was to have Batman, who hated Superman to the extent that he was going to murder him, have the whole first 2/3 of it building up this hatred and bloodlust, suddenly go out the window because Superman said the name "Martha".

pixelburp wrote: »

I had heard & read people mocking this plot device before I got to see the film, so honestly I expected the reality to be different, simply being a case of internet-rage oversimplifying or deliberately mis-reading something.

But no, the writers actually thought the best way to break up the fight was by our 'heroes' realising their mums had the same name.

The way I see the "Martha thing" is that, until then, Batman simply viewed the Kryptonians as dangerous aliens, with a violent penchant for destruction, which is after all what he witnessed Superman and Zod doing in Metropolis. Plus, even though Superman was fighting Zod, his motive at that point wasn't clear. When Superman says "save Martha", he stuns Batman and catches him cold. Batman realises that this being is not just an alien or a pretend god. He actually cares about his "mother", who just happens to have the same name as Bruce's, which unravel's his blind fear/anger.

The REAL problem with the "Martha thing", is not that Superman utters the word and catches Bruce off guard, it's that the "world's greatest detective" didn't know that nugget of info in the first place.

But then, that can be offset by the fact that this Batman is a jaded Batman. He's pissed off, older and not the same man he was after 20 years of fighting crime in Gotham. He's slipping and making dubious decisions, as Alfred keeps scolding him about. Their own relationship is fractured too and very tense. Batman's methods are in question the whole film.

To be honest, I've read MUCH, MUCH worse in the comics than that scene and in fact, could see that scene in a comic and it would be perfectly fine.

I don't really get the hang ups people have about it.


EDIT: and yeh, what Techdriver says above :pac:

IncognitoMan

techdiver wrote: »

Not to be a contrarian on this point, but Superman saying Martha just gave Batman a pause and stopped him in his tracks/distracted him. He wanted to know why Superman said the name before killing him. It was only when Lois arrived and blocked the way and said it was Superman's mother's name did he stop and let Superman explain the Lex took her. The saying of "Martha" didn't stop Batman from killing him directly.

My bigger argument was why didn't Superman make a bigger attempt to state this at the start instead of fighting straight away (I know for the purposes of the movie they would have to fight though).[\B]

Well earlier on (in the extended cut) when Clark is doing his research about batman and visits the Gotham police station and speaks with the wife/girlfriend of one of the criminals murdered in jail due to having the bat symbol branded on him. The girl tells Clark that there is no reasoning with the bat, the only thing he understands is violence, a punch.

Also for the entire first half of the film Superman has only had negative exposure to Batman mainly due to Lex playing both off against each other, so it would stand to reason that in Clark's mind he doesn't think batman is the most reasonable of men. Also whenever Clark tries to expose the bat through the paper he is constantly met with a brick wall and told to leave it adding to his frustration.

To be fair he does try to state his side but batman keeps interrupting with his "tricks" so probably just gets to the stage were superman is like "time is running out, I have to do something and I know this guy isn't going to just listen".

Also yeah like you said they had to get them fighting someway, is it the best reason for 2 superheros to fight? No.
But the reasons are there. It isn't the worst piece of motivation I've ever seen in a superhero film or as Tony EH pointed out the comics.

I think you're bang on the money with the Martha stuff.

Penn

I could almost, almost forgive the Martha thing if it was done in a good way. It wasn't. It was done incredibly poorly.

The first thing Superman thinks to shout when it's quite likely he's about to die is "You're letting him kill Martha!"

Who's him? Who's Martha? How does he think Batman is supposed to know what that means?

The second thing he thinks to shout is "Find him. Save Martha!"

Who's him? Who's Martha? How does he think Batman is supposed to know what that means?

The simple fact is that if Superman had said any other name (eg if Lex took Lois instead and he shouted to save Lois, or if either of their mothers names were different), Superman would be dead. It's f*cking ridiculous.

Nervous Wreck

Penn wrote: »

I could almost, almost forgive the Martha thing if it was done in a good way. It wasn't. It was done incredibly poorly.

The first thing Superman thinks to shout when it's quite likely he's about to die is "You're letting him kill Martha!"

Who's him? Who's Martha? How does he think Batman is supposed to know what that means?

The second thing he thinks to shout is "Find him. Save Martha!"

Who's him? Who's Martha? How does he think Batman is supposed to know what that means?

The simple fact is that if Superman had said any other name (eg if Lex took Lois instead and he shouted to save Lois, or if either of their mothers names were different), Superman would be dead. It's f*cking ridiculous.

Yeah, I actually didn't mind the sentiment of the Martha fiasco; it was the execution that was really the kicker in that scene. I hated 96% of the film but I could've gotten on board with that interaction if it hadn't been done SO poorly.

Incidentally, I also quite liked Superman's goodbye to Lois. It was one of very few bits of dialogue that I think they got right.... Actually, it may genuinely be the only bit of dialogue I didn't dislike.

conorhal

Well I caught the extended edition and I have to say it is an improvement on the theatrical cut in that there is a lot more plot clarity about the senate hearings (which are still as rousing as a Starwars trade agreement debate) but the movie is still sunk by stupidity and the fact that it tries to shoehorn in the set up the DC universe of superfriends or whateverdefug, which feels more forced then an ugly sister attempting to jam on one of Cinderella's slippers (or even perhaps this metaphor!). To make matters worse they did so in the most confusing and inept manner possible, by simply inserting random $h1t into a movie so dull that you were already barely paying the minimal level of attention necessary to follow the plot.

.

Penn

Mr Freeze

Tony EH wrote: »

The way I see the "Martha thing" is that, until then, Batman simply viewed the Kryptonians as dangerous aliens, with a violent penchant for destruction, which is after all what he witnessed Superman and Zod doing in Metropolis. Plus, even though Superman was fighting Zod, his motive at that point wasn't clear. When Superman says "save Martha", he stuns Batman and catches him cold. Batman realises that this being is not just an alien or a pretend god. He actually cares about his "mother", who just happens to have the same name as Bruce's, which unravel's his blind fear/anger.

I genuinely believe that you put more thought into that paragraph than Synder and co did (or ever could) when they came up with the Martha thing.

Penn

Mr Freeze wrote: »

I genuinely believe that you put more thought into that paragraph than Synder and co did (or ever could) when they came up with the Martha thing.

Absolutely, especially because about a minute before that, Batman says to Superman "I bet your parents taught you that you mean something, that you're here for a reason. My parents taught me a different lesson, dying in the gutter for no reason at all... They taught me the world only makes sense if you force it to."

Batman already knows and acknowledges that Superman has parents. He obviously doesn't know the full story behind how Clark was raised, but he knows he was raised to try and do good.

Still tries to kill him because of 1% chance he might turn bad until Superman says the most cryptic thing possible which just coincidentally happens to trigger Batman's memories of his mother.

IncognitoMan

Penn wrote: »

Absolutely, especially because about a minute before that, Batman says to Superman "I bet your parents taught you that you mean something, that you're here for a reason. My parents taught me a different lesson, dying in the gutter for no reason at all... They taught me the world only makes sense if you force it to."

Batman already knows and acknowledges that Superman has parents. He obviously doesn't know the full story behind how Clark was raised, but he knows he was raised to try and do good.

Probably more talking about his alien parents there. Like even through he's an alien he'd be sure he'd still have parents. As far as I remember he doesn't connect superman to humans at all until the Marta and Lois stuff.

Penn

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Probably more talking about his alien parents there. Like even through he's an alien he'd be sure he'd still have parents. As far as I remember he doesn't connect superman to humans at all until the Marta and Lois stuff.

Yeah that's what I mean, he doesn't know about the Kents but he still acknowledges that Superman likely has parents who taught him to be good. He already knows Superman has a mother. It's only when he hears Martha that he thinks about his own mother.

Drumpot

Penn wrote: »

Yeah that's what I mean, he doesn't know about the Kents but he still acknowledges that Superman likely has parents who taught him to be good. He already knows Superman has a mother. It's only when he hears Martha that he thinks about his own mother.

Ok, if people think that the Martha scene was corny because its very convenient that they both have the same mothers, then fair enough. But any of the arguments like "theres no way that Batman just stopped because their mothers have the same name" are extremely naieve and misguided opinions.

Batman had blind rage focused on Superman. Pain and suffering had made him cruel (as Alfred put it). He was willing to do anything (including murder) to reach his goal, very much like an addict who would do anything to get his next hit.

It is perfectly plausible and realistic that a person could have a lightbulb moment of clarity in the manner that Batman had, particularly after a prolonged period of suffering and anguish (joker killing robin) followed by a target to focus that pain (Kryptonians) and a remarkable turnaround in his feelings for superman. From having my own mental health issues, I found the "Martha" moment a bit cringy, but the reaction of the characters totally believable. But the more I watched the movie, the more I felt it was a powerful moment and less cringy.

Google, "moment of clarity" for more reference on what actually happened to batman.

techdiver

Drumpot wrote: »

Ok, if people think that the Martha scene was corny because its very convenient that they both have the same mothers, then fair enough. But any of the arguments like "theres no way that Batman just stopped because their mothers have the same name" are extremely naieve and misguided opinions.

Batman had blind rage focused on Superman. Pain and suffering had made him cruel (as Alfred put it). He was willing to do anything (including murder) to reach his goal, very much like an addict who would do anything to get his next hit.

It is perfectly plausible and realistic that a person could have a lightbulb moment of clarity in the manner that Batman had, particularly after a prolonged period of suffering and anguish (joker killing robin) followed by a target to focus that pain (Kryptonians) and a remarkable turnaround in his feelings for superman. From having my own mental health issues, I found the "Martha" moment a bit cringy, but the reaction of the characters totally believable. But the more I watched the movie, the more I felt it was a powerful moment and less cringy.

Google, "moment of clarity" for more reference on what actually happened to batman.

This sums up my views on the "Martha" scene. Whilst it might have been delivered in a poor manner, people glibly saying (in an angsty teenage tone), "Batman decided not to kill Superman, because their mothers have the same name, yeah right", is crap and misses the point. You articulated it perfectly.

The hearing the name "Martha" gives him pause to want to know why Superman said it! It wasn't the reason he didn't kill him. It was only when Lois blacked the way and explained it was Superman's mothers name that it gave Batman pause to think and it humanises Superman in Batman's eyes. it also allowed Superman to explain what was going on and defuse the situation somewhat.

Mickeroo

The issue is how badly it was done in terms of dialogue and story telling. The reasoning people have come up with is sound as to why Superman saying Martha stopped Batman in his tracks but the fact that it requires the amount of projection and background knowledge of the comics that's evident in the above posts to actually stand up just shows how badly thought out and executed by the film makers it actually was Imo.

Penn

Drumpot wrote: »

Ok, if people think that the Martha scene was corny because its very convenient that they both have the same mothers, then fair enough. But any of the arguments like "theres no way that Batman just stopped because their mothers have the same name" are extremely naieve and misguided opinions.

Batman had blind rage focused on Superman. Pain and suffering had made him cruel (as Alfred put it). He was willing to do anything (including murder) to reach his goal, very much like an addict who would do anything to get his next hit.

It is perfectly plausible and realistic that a person could have a lightbulb moment of clarity in the manner that Batman had, particularly after a prolonged period of suffering and anguish (joker killing robin) followed by a target to focus that pain (Kryptonians) and a remarkable turnaround in his feelings for superman. From having my own mental health issues, I found the "Martha" moment a bit cringy, but the reaction of the characters totally believable. But the more I watched the movie, the more I felt it was a powerful moment and less cringy.

Google, "moment of clarity" for more reference on what actually happened to batman.

techdiver wrote: »

This sums up my views on the "Martha" scene. Whilst it might have been delivered in a poor manner, people glibly saying (in an angsty teenage tone), "Batman decided not to kill Superman, because their mothers have the same name, yeah right", is crap and misses the point. You articulated it perfectly.

The hearing the name "Martha" gives him pause to want to know why Superman said it! It wasn't the reason he didn't kill him. It was only when Lois blacked the way and explained it was Superman's mothers name that it gave Batman pause to think and it humanises Superman in Batman's eyes. it also allowed Superman to explain what was going on and defuse the situation somewhat.

I'm not denying any of that. But the point remains that if Ma Kent wasn't called Martha, Batman would have driven the spear through his heart and killed him. It was specifically and purposefully shoehorned in that hearing the name Martha is what snapped Batman out of it.

Tony EH

Penn wrote: »

Absolutely, especially because about a minute before that, Batman says to Superman "I bet your parents taught you that you mean something, that you're here for a reason. My parents taught me a different lesson, dying in the gutter for no reason at all... They taught me the world only makes sense if you force it to."

Batman already knows and acknowledges that Superman has parents. He obviously doesn't know the full story behind how Clark was raised, but he knows he was raised to try and do good.

Still tries to kill him because of 1% chance he might turn bad until Superman says the most cryptic thing possible which just coincidentally happens to trigger Batman's memories of his mother.

He doesn't know that they're on earth though. Superman is an alien as far as Batman in concerned. He could be talking about parents on a distant world.

But then Superman throws a curve ball and says he's trying to save his (not so) old mum...here...on planet earth.

Drumpot

Penn wrote: »

I'm not denying any of that. But the point remains that if Ma Kent wasn't called Martha, Batman would have driven the spear through his heart and killed him. It was specifically and purposefully shoehorned in that hearing the name Martha is what snapped Batman out of it.

It was no more shoehorned into the story then any other motive of any other character. The fact that Martha has been part of the universe of both characters for so long (ie the director didnt just decide to make them have the same parents name to suit his story) suggests it's one of the most consistent elements of the characters story arc actually used.

This was far less of a forced strategy then the final twist of captain America civil war which was still very enjoyable. I think people are getting hung up on the non macho element of the story (that two powerful , awesome superheroes could be affected so much by their mothers). The only reason the fight started was because supermans mum was in trouble. The only reason it stopped was because batman could connect with superman on a personal, human level, from a very shared personal fact.

I accept people were disappointment in how it was used but I don't think it wws a bad plot device.

Tony EH

Mr Freeze wrote: »

I genuinely believe that you put more thought into that paragraph than Synder and co did (or ever could) when they came up with the Martha thing.

Perhaps. We'll never know unless he actually makes a comment on that though.

Can't say I'm a Snyder fan TBH. I think his films are too much whizzbang and not enough substance. His 'Dawn of the Dead' for example is like a poor MTV remake of Romero's far, far, superior original.

Where Romero's actually has some commentary on our consumerist society, with society literally eating itself in a shopping centre. Snyder's simply says "look at me, look at me, I can do it as well...but faster!!!".

I actually think 'Batman Vs Superman' is his best film.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If we saw this "Martha thing" in a panel of a comic, nobody would have batted an eyelid.

IncognitoMan

I really think there's things in the film you could pick on more than the Martha scene. The reason for them to stop fighting was always likely to be a bit of a stretch so it could have been far far worse tbh.

For example Lex. I just can't get on board with the Jesse Eisenberg version of Lex. I really hope we see very little of that character going forward (I know he's done stuff for justice league already) and they bring in Bryan Cranston (or someone of similar talent) to play Lex Snr seeing as how they left themselves that little get out clause.

He's just so bad. And feels out of place in the film. He feels more like a tribute to Jim Carrey's riddler than Lex.

Tony EH

Mickeroo wrote: »

The issue is how badly it was done in terms of dialogue and story telling. The reasoning people have come up with is sound as to why Superman saying Martha stopped Batman in his tracks but the fact that it requires the amount of projection and background knowledge of the comics that's evident in the above posts to actually stand up just shows how badly thought out and executed by the film makers it actually was Imo.

It's a film based on a comic book character. Have you read many of the comics? Or any comics? Far, far too often you fill in the missing stuff between the panels, when it's spelt out for you in a box, as if you were an idiot. :pac:

'Batman Vs Superman' for all its flaws, plays out like a comic book. It doesn't tell you everything about the character, but everything is actually there for the film's story to run on its own merit.

Superman is a, relatively, newly emerged being in this world. He only just revealed his power in 'Man of Steel'. He's not trusted by humanity and a jaded Batman, pissed off from years of, seemingly, fruitless crime fighting, doesn't trust him either after witnessing the destruction in Metropolis and presumably 1000's of deaths as a result. Nobody knows Superman or what he's capable of, or what allegiances he has to anyone or anybody in this world. There's a case to say that not even Superman knows who or what he is in this universe. He's still learning about what it is to be him as well.

I spose it's hard to see these characters through their screen representations eyes, when they are so ingrained in everyone's minds since they were children.

Nervous Wreck

Tony EH wrote: »

It's a film based on a comic book character. Have you read many of the comics? Or any comics? Far, far too often you fill in the missing stuff between the panels, when it's spelt out for you in a box, as if you were an idiot. :pac:

'Batman Vs Superman' for all its flaws, plays out like a comic book. It doesn't tell you everything about the character, but everything is actually there for the film's story to run on its own merit.

I think mickeroo's point is the opposite of what you inferred from his post. The audience is beaten over the head with every little point in this film. The point of the Martha revelation is clear as day. But it's done with all the grace of a guy kicking himself in the balls.

Tony EH

IncognitoMan wrote: »

I really think there's things in the film you could pick on more than the Martha scene. The reason for them to stop fighting was always likely to be a bit of a stretch so it could have been far far worse tbh.

For example Lex. I just can't get on board with the Jesse Eisenberg version of Lex. I really hope we see very little of that character going forward (I know he's done stuff for justice league already) and they bring in Bryan Cranston (or someone of similar talent) to play Lex Snr seeing as how they left themselves that little get out clause.

He's just so bad. And feels out of place in the film. He feels more like a tribute to Jim Carrey's riddler than Lex.

I didn't mind Eisenberg as Lex. I'm presuming he's a young Lex? If he's to appear in the next film(s), I reckon he might be more of what Sperman fans are used to seeing? I'm guessing here. I've never read a Superman comic in my life.

To me Lex Luthor is Gene Hackman. :pac:

However, as you say, there are much worse sins in 'Batman Vs Superman' than Martha (or even Lex).

The whole Doomsday thing didn't fit at all and for me knocked off at least two stars. Also, the cobbling together of a Justice League origin belonged in another film altogether. THAT should have been what the next film was about.

In the end 'Batman Vs Superman' just has way too many things going on in it, that by the end the viewer is knackered.

Tony EH

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I think mickeroo's point is the opposite of what you inferred from his post. The audience is beaten over the head with every little point in this film. The point of the Martha revelation is clear as day. But it's done with all the grace of a guy kicking himself in the balls.

Oops. Maybe.

Sorry it's been a long day in work Mick.

IncognitoMan

Tony EH wrote: »

I didn't mind Eisenberg as Lex. I'm presuming he's a young Lex? If he's to appear in the next film(s), I reckon he might be more of what Sperman fans are used to seeing? I'm guessing here. I've never read a Superman comic in my life.

To me Lex Luthor is Gene Hackman. :pac:

However, as you say, there are much worse sins in 'Batman Vs Superman' than Martha (or even Lex).

The whole Doomsday thing didn't fit at all and for me knocked off at least two stars. Also, the cobbling together of a Justice League origin belonged in another film altogether. THAT should have been what the next film was about.

In the end 'Batman Vs Superman' just has way too many things going on in it, that by the end the viewer is knackered.

I'm not sure Jesse Eisenberg can play him the way I'd hope to see him so yeah I'm hoping daddy Lex shows up maybe in the next standalone superman or even perhaps a part in the solo batman film seeing as the 2 cities are so close together in this universe. Either way less of Jesse's Lex going forward for me is good.

Yeah I do think they could have maybe filmed 2 movies back to back in batman v superman and Dawn of justice at the same time and released them 6 months or even a year or so apart in the cinema. Would have dealt with the problem of the long running time leading to the inferior cut of the film going out. Release both at around 2 hours and you'd have had even longer to set everything up.

When I've been talking to friends who skipped out on BvS at the cinema (mainly because of reviews) I still can't say to them that they definitely should see it because if you are in anyways at all not on board for this film then the 3 hour run time will kill it for you. There's no way in hell I'd watch a 3 hour Harry Potter film for example

Penn

Tony EH wrote: »

He doesn't know that they're on earth though. Superman is an alien as far as Batman in concerned. He could be talking about parents on a distant world.

But then Superman throws a curve ball and says he's trying to save his (not so) old mum...here...on planet earth.

No, that's the issue. He doesn't say Mum, he says Martha. Superman says "You're letting him kill Martha!", and then "Find him! Save Martha!" At that point, Batman has no idea who "him" or "Martha" are. He doesn't know Martha is his human mother.

Superman could (and should) have said "Lex Luther has my mother!" or similar. He could have actually given Batman some useful information. Instead, he picks the one thing to say that can give Batman his moment of clarity or at least stall him enough until Los comes in by just purely coincidentally saying Martha which was also Batman's mothers name (which Superman didn't know).

If their mothers had different names and Superman said "You're letting him kill Joan!", Batman would have driven the spear through his heart.