Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
SVTStingRay
Sr Member
anti-gravity?
Banner
Well-Known Member
It's meant to show that Kal El isn't "fully dead" yet. This scene from Man of Steel shows that same interaction with the particles around him the first time he truly flies.
Last edited by a moderator:
JoMamma_Smurf
Master Member
I saw the extended cut. It's grim as ****!! Like seriously!! This IS NOT a Superman film.. This is barely a comicbook film. It's not true to the material at all. Well at least not one story line. It's like Zac Snyder watched/read some good Batman graphic novels and just randomly picked **** out of them and threw it in a movie. It makes me so angry. I hate it.
OldKen
Master Member
Well, I was hoping this cut might've been better... I trust your judgement Vegeeta.
Why can't we get new AND well made movies with our favorite characters? Why won't they TRY to stick to the source EVER? Transformers, GIJOE, COUNTLESS others. Now Ghostbusers.
Only Marvel/Disney scratch the surface!
Batman and Superman should be 2 of the easiest characters to make movies with. The tone of Superman is important and missed here.
Eh, rant over.
Why can't we get new AND well made movies with our favorite characters? Why won't they TRY to stick to the source EVER? Transformers, GIJOE, COUNTLESS others. Now Ghostbusers.
Only Marvel/Disney scratch the surface!
Batman and Superman should be 2 of the easiest characters to make movies with. The tone of Superman is important and missed here.
Eh, rant over.
That's what all comicbook movies do... Even those with titles lifted straight from a comic don't follow very much the arc inside... Also no, it's not a "superman" film, it's a versus/team up film. For the rest I can't argue, it's pretty dark indeed.
Fawbish
Sr Member
Fair play on hating it.
Kinda strange reasoning though?
It's very much a continuation of Superman's evolution from Man of Steel in my eyes. Clark Kent is a reporter who works at the Daily Planet, cares about people and wants to stand up for people who can't stand up for themselves (and doesn't write articles about himself as Superman, thank god...). He is also an alien with god like capabilities, who is learning his place here, and all that comes with it, which is delightfully meaty and has tons of discussion/interesting points of view brought up about us as a species and him. Superman saves people. He is distraught when that bomb goes off, and it almost breaks his spirit. He still saves people after the bombing. Superman saves everyone at the end, working with others. He continues to do the right thing when faced with the utmost hatred and given every reason NOT to do the right thing. He's willing to throw down when necessary, in a bad ass way. He loves Lois Lane.
So he isn't your Superman because....? If it's "he doesn't smile" - well, he does. Even in a movie where there are many, many reasons to be unhappy, he smiles and cheers Lois up in the tub. He smiles when he is saving the young girl at the Day of the Dead. He smiles as he realises that no matter the outcome, he will always fight for this world, even when he is faced with his probable demise and he is saying goodbye to the love of his life. He arrives at that conclusion after he has gone through genuine struggle to get there.
"He isn't hopeful" perhaps? I think he is. The Superman that they built a monument to in the middle of Metropolis, and whose funeral is attended by an entire city, and who is so obviously adored at the end? Who inspires Batman to change his ways for the better? Clark Kent's funeral, attended by many, some of which are aware of his true identity, shows the impact he made as "just a man".
It's all extremely Superman to me. Of course he looks a little different, his costume is a little darker. He is an introspective person in this interpretation (kinda makes sense for a guy who in the source material has a house called the Fortress of Solitude...) rather than someone that flies to a rooftop to give an interview to a reporter and x-raying her underwear (don't get me wrong. I love that scene, I love Reeve's interpretation.) He is seen as a "nerd" by his co-workers, though he is not bumbling around the office in a slapstick sketch.
What changes would you have made to have him be closer to the source material (which itself has massive variation, but I'll get what you mean)? Genuine question, I'm much more interested in discussing it than shouting right or wrong.
OldKen made a point about the tone. We've all heard Justice League will be lighter in tone, and more straight forward as a film. I think this will be a nice natural progression from this point, and I look forward to it. I think it will be earned. I think a lighter, more jovial tone will work well in Justice League. However this film isn't Justice League. It is a story of the most powerful individual on the planet and a vengeful, single minded vigilante who come to eventual blows because of a manipulative, dangerously intelligent and egotistical sociopath. I also hope to god that they dont kneejerk the lighter tone - I dont think they will. I appreciate that the film makers have gone into such depth to give us a different take on these characters. The animated films are excellent at portraying some of what we have seen in the cartoons, and a few comics more directly (Superman vs The Elite).
I think assuming that Snyder simply looked at a few comics and decided to just put them in a blender is vastly underestimating film making as an artform.
maffhewdc
Sr Member
To be honest, the extended cut changed my opinion. I think it's a good movie now. It's not very great to the point where it deserves an Oscar or something, but it does redeem itself. I don't understand why they'd have to cut those scenes out of the film, I mean they really really help a lot with the flow in the storytelling. When I first saw it, everything felt like it was just being thrown into there. For example: in the thatrical release, I didn't even understand why Superman was blamed for the death of the people in the desert. It's not like he would use a bullet to kill people, he's capable of more than that. In the extended cut, Luthor's goons actually burned the men alive, something that Superman could do with his laser vision. It just really helped a lot with the storytelling and in my opinion, they could've just cut the scenes with "violence" a bit shorter.
JoMamma_Smurf
Master Member
Don't get me wrong. I loved some snippets of the film. It is WAY better than the original cut. It explains a lot of plot holes and answers several questions. As a happy result I like Lex a little more now because we have more story. This is supposed to be a sequel to MOS. Superman is not superman. He's confused all the time, his moral compas changes all the time. He's not the boy scout who stand for Truth, Justice, and the American way. That's my Superman, I miss him. Batman on the other hand kills so many people it's insane. I really wanted to love this movie. I was sooo pumped for it. I watched the first trailer like a zillion times. I'm so disappointed.
Loved it. I grew up with Reeve Superman and I think that Cavill looks like Superman. I think his interpretation is more realistic for the times we live in now. As I watched and saw how the reporters and senators and others looked at him with disdain or fear and others looked at him as a Hero. I liked the campy Reeve Superman in it's time however these are different times and if we saw a Reeve style Superman we would think him naive possibly even goofy. we would insult the movie then and then say it does not reflect modern society and values of which modern man has very little. I would not let my 9 year old watch this. but that is OK he can watch the old Superman.
Chris
Chris
Fawbish
Sr Member
Fair enough, he isn't the classic boyscout in that regards. Are there any examples in the comics that stand out to you of the boy scout version? I'm building up my digital collection at the moment, always open to recommendations!
I don't remember his moral compass changing?? When did that happen?
I do think we are past the "conflicted" part of his story arc though, and Justice League will have a Superman that is more sure of himself and his actions, and that confidence will come to the fore in how he acts. He's already confident, but I think the next film will show his interactions with humanity more, interactions with other characters that will allow for a more fun dynamic etc. I think his brush with death will possibly bolster him and have him determined to live up to the "savior" standard that humanity will have for him after the sacrifice.
I quite liked some of the extra dialogue in the confrontation with Lex in the ship just prior to Doomsday,
Superman, arms crossed, confident. "You've lost."
Lex, pissed off. "I don't know how to lose."
"You'll learn."
It's little bits of classic Superman/Lex stuff.
edit:
Batman, after realising how much of an idiot he has been, and that Alfred is /still/ standing by him and doing his tireless Alfred role.
"I don't deserve you, Alfred."
"No sir, you don't."
Last edited:
Snikt
Sr Member
Its a Batman/Bruce Wayne movie with a couple supporting characters, lets be real here. According to WB Batman is the only hero in their stable that can make money...
JoMamma_Smurf
Master Member
I LOVED those moments as well. Great interactions. I loved how they explained why Clark couldn't see the bomb in the wheelchair.
What I mean by "moral compass" is: One minute he's set on one track like going after Batman for violating civil rights and how brutal he's become. But earlier he literally used Lois as bait to stomp out terrorists and killed at least one. Then later he considers just giving up all together because he can't save everyone. I was hoping he was over all that unsure stuff.
Fawbish
Sr Member
He didn't use Lois as bait chief! Clark knew she would be on a dangerous assignment (though it was supposed to be above board and non CIA interaction) and so I choose to believe he was nearby/edge of his hearing range (it would be nice to have this told to us). As soon as he heard gunshots, he was on the way, which gives Lex's guys just about enough time to dump the bodies and burn them. The CIA respond to their guy being shot by sending in the UAV, escalating the situation. Then wham, you have the Superman vs drone scene, and the saving Lois scene.
Superman didn't kill anyone in that scene. If you watch closely, Superman would have to grab the general by the back of his jacket, therefore Supes arms/shoulders/head would be going through those walls first. Now even though it's pretty brutal (and therefore not really your boyscout Supes, agreed) - Clark even explicitly states that he didn't kill anyone there in the next scene with Lois in the bath. Sure, the guy that had a gun to Lois' head might have a few broken bones and a concussion, definitely.
But he absolutely didn't use Lois as bait, it was her own free will to be getting that scoop (General Swanwick even claims she was being greedy for a scoop, and this is why Lois feels guilty, that she may have inadvertently caused all of this - when in fact, it probably would have gone fine, if not for Lex)
Edit: And as for Supes being unsure - that's total opinion so it can go either way. I like seeing him go on a journey to get to the confident Supes, some people want that immediately. I think we will all get what we want in Justice League. :thumbsup
JoMamma_Smurf
Master Member
He's so pure of heart his body repels dirt?
Mektar
Sr Member
lol cheers for that :lol
Pikezer1337
Active Member
Question? I hear a lot of people complain about Batman killing people. Was no one angered when Bale's Batman burned down the village containing the League of Assassins and most definitely killed a good amount of them/didn't save Ras Al Ghul/ran over tens of cars with the Tumbler which probably had people in it/shot and killed the driver of the truck/ inadvertently killed Harvey Dent. I feel like Bale's Batman killed at least 15 people on screen but no one said anything. This is a legit question because I wasn't on any type of forums when that trilogy came out so I'm not aware if people were pissed.
Last edited:
He didn't shoot thugs with machine-guns for starters, and while it was reckless driving nobody died by the tumbler (cf Alfred's line "it's a miracle no-one got killed"). Dent and Ra's are riding on the line, but the monastery stunt must have roasted some ninjas, even if technically he wasn't batman yet.
What people complain about is Batman, in the suit and with 20 years of career behind him, mowing down vehicles with .50 cals. Which was a bit strange indeed. I did notice that he never starts the shooting actually, but he reciprocates swiftly when shot at. Except for the Russian, but that was part of the DKR homages.
What people complain about is Batman, in the suit and with 20 years of career behind him, mowing down vehicles with .50 cals. Which was a bit strange indeed. I did notice that he never starts the shooting actually, but he reciprocates swiftly when shot at. Except for the Russian, but that was part of the DKR homages.
Pikezer1337
Active Member
I do doubt as incompetent as the GCPD is that they could determine there were no deaths within an hour or so. But there is also the time in The Dark Knight where he is in the tumbler and goes underneath the trash truck and completely squashes the drivers and passengers side.
I mean yeah I'll admit it's a bit out of character to be in the Batwing and firing bullets and blowing up cars but it just didn't make me go, "Oh maa gawddd wtff".
I mean yeah I'll admit it's a bit out of character to be in the Batwing and firing bullets and blowing up cars but it just didn't make me go, "Oh maa gawddd wtff".
Similar threads
