BVS Discussion

I liked a lot of things about BvS. The fight scenes and cinematography were amazing. I LOVED Wonder Woman’s introduction and music. I liked seeing Clark investigate he Batman as a journalist in the extended version. I liked that Bruce Wayne actually seemed to do stuff other than be a facade.

I thought the movie tried to do too many things. The clips of future Justice Leaguers could have been the post-credit scenes. A lot of the dream sequences annoyed me (Pa Kent gave a morose story and was a waste of time IMO, Bats shouldn’t need Flash to tell him that Lois is important in the future, and Knightmare… was an OK way to showcase Bruce’s fears about Superman, but he should know not to just act on ‘what if’ fears, and (in hindsight) there was no payoff in Justice League to make the time devoted to the Knightmare worth it). I thought Batman was manipulated too easily into fighting Superman. I didn’t like Batman using guns and branding people; this didn’t kill the whole movie for me, since I knew they were referencing the older, more jaded, more violent Batman from Miller’s stories, but I think they took the violence too far. As for the ‘realizing Superman’s humanity’ moment (aka Martha!), I saw what the film makers were trying to do, but I don’t think it was particularly well executed. For example, Superman’s power levels still gave him at least a 1% chance of becoming the Knightmare version, regardless of how much he loves mom - perhaps mom’s death is what drives Superman to Knightmare-Superman a la Injustice. For as far gone/against Superman as Batman was portrayed earlier in this film, he seemed to turn around and buy into Superman being the greatest hero ever too quickly.

BvS was a movie that… happened. From the stand point of cinematography, it’s a masterpiece. It’s visually different from pretty much every superhero/comic book movie that came before it as well as after it. There’s some really interesting symbolism in it, too, which really increases its rewatchability. And then there’s the warehouse scene, which is still one of my favorite sequences in a comic movie ever. Even some of the things that a lot of critics dumped on have their redeeming qualities in my eyes. While the Martha scene is not executed in the best way, I think ultimately it serves its purpose of humanizing Superman in Bruce’s eyes, and is an interesting way to show the development of character. Batman killing worked too, until Zack Snyder’s “Wake Up” comment. The way Alfred reacts to him (can I add how amazing Jeremy Irons is in this role?) makes it clear that this isn’t who Bruce used to be. This is a broken husk of the real Batman, and had this not been his introduction into a larger universe, especially in a Superman movie, it could’ve been really interesting to explore and see what went wrong. And the Knightmare scene, when taken out of the context of the movie, is pretty amazing. When put all together, though… I think it’s kind of mess. There’s too much going on, too much being set up and from a storytelling stand point, it just doesn’t work. No matter how awesome Wonder Woman was, her getting crammed in there wasn’t good for the movie or fair to the character. Oh, and Doomsday… I’d really rather not have to remember him. Luthor… I think Jesse Eisenberg was good in the movie, but he certainly wasn’t Lex Luthor. Overall, I don’t feel all that strongly about it either way. There are parts I like, parts I don’t, and some I even hate. I think in the end, it was three hours of wasted potential, but isn’t necessarily awful.

1 Like

Let’s give the whole quote, shall we.

@DeSade-acolte wrote (All I have to say to Mr Snyder is “Hate to burst your bubble, but you aren’t as good O’Neil, Miller and others to numerous to mention. Stay the hell away from DC and superhero movies in general. You are way not the smartest kid in that class.”)

Let me make this perfectly clear. That is not a PERSONAL attack. It is a PUBLIC attack on a PUBLIC person, who has engaged in PUBLIC attacks on those critical of his superhero films, including drop f-bombs.

IMO, if Mr Snyder is going to PUBLICLY “dish it out”, he had better be ready to PUBLICLY “take it” as well.

If I get the opportunity to directly speak to Mr. Snyder on his film making (unlikely as that is, unfortunately), I will gladly, and emphatically, say that to his face for all the PUBLIC to hear. Of course, that would be only if my statement had to comply with DCU “Community Guidlelines”. If not being bound by DCU “Community Guidlelines”, it would be far more biting and in his face. I’d return the favor with a few f-bombs of my own in my statement, since they seem to be at a level of discourse Mr. Snyder understands.

For anyone who has any doubt that I would make that statement PUBLICLY to Mr. Snyder’s face. All I will say is that you don’t know me. I’ve said FAR worse, in PUBLIC to a PUBLIC person based upon their PUBLIC words and actions. Including both, my district’s member of Congress and one of the two Senators of my state.

Perhaps, Mr. Snyder should refrain from making PUBLIC attacks against his critics. Mr. Snyder is perfectly happy, PUBLICLY, “getting up in the grills” of his critics. IMO, his critics have a right and, I’d argue a duty, to PUBLICLY, “get back up in his grill” too.

There are those who disagree with this, as is their prerogative. I respect their right to do so. However, I am also prepared to defend my comments, and do so within posted DCU “Community Guidelines”.

It is love or hate isn’t it? While I think some of the criticisms of the movie have merit, I still loved it and have watched it more times than I have any MCU movie. Whenever any of the Trinity are on screen together I think the movie has energy and I want to see more. The first half of the movie is more vignettes than a coherent whole but I find the pieces interesting and as in all Snyder films beautifully shot. The downsides I agree with: the politics in the end go nowhere, Lex Was on hyper 11, dial it to a 9.

1 Like

@Awesome_Squid
When you say Batman was a maniac for killing all those people, yet momentarily stopping because of Superman, I think there is more to his psyche than that. The first time we see Batman in the film, he clung to the wall, and literally moved like a cockroach when he crawled onto the ceiling. The criminal received the branding but was still alive. The next time he interacts with criminals as Batman was in the Batmobile, so he could justify the deaths as being not his fault, but his Batmobile’s. After that, he fights Superman and is about to kill him, but Lois saves his life. Next, with the warehouse, he was on a time deadline, so he wasn’t going to be as careful about ensuring they survive. Penultimately, with Doomsday, if he knew how to fight Doomsday, he would’ve, but he knew that he would be killed. Last, with Lex Luthor, he almost killed him by putting the Bat-brand on him, but after Superman’s death, he changed. Throughout the whole film, Batman was a cold-blooded killer who wouldn’t lose a second in sleep over who he killed. It wasn’t until another ally of his died that he was pulled out of that mentality. Apparently Dick Grayson’s death caused Batman to lose his sensibility towards life, but Superman’s death returned that.

@TornadoSoup
The Doomsday in BvS was never the Kryptonian Doomsday. Zack Snyder revealed that this version was a copycat.

I personally loved the film, and I know there is major division over the Martha scene, but that scene shares more than it can be shown. It is well known that Batman’s greatest weakness is being trapped in a coffin of his parents, so his grief and tragedy that emerged from their deaths is HIGHLY significant. The whole reason he became Batman is to fulfill a promise to them to provide justice. So, every time he puts on the cowl, he is reminded of his parents’ murder. Something that significant will result in many forms of associating objects or other people to his parents. Once that has been established, hearing the name Martha would definitely bring back old attachments, which is why that scene is so poignant. I read that people think that Batman was too emotional, but when Superman said “Save Martha”, Batman thought he was mocking him. So, he became even more angry and was about to kill Superman once he knew why he taunted him when Lois showed up.

1 Like

So Batman is a cold-blooded killer who actively seeks justice as a cold-blooded killer?

@abfgmsw Besides the branding (which was over the top and I hated), I liked that scene with Batman where he clinger to the wall. It’s the kind of freaky thing I would expect to see if I was a criminal in Gotham. If I was to make a Batman movie I would make him sort of disturbing like that. Most people who make Batman movies lean in on how menacing he is, but I think creepy Batman would be fresh and the way to go. In combination with some menacing it could add some nice variety to Batman’s presence on screen that we haven’t really seen before. For as much as I dislike Zack Snyder’s movies, I’ll admit he has some great shots in his movies.

That being said, I don’t think it makes much sense that Batman would justify killing someone by convincing himself that it was technically the car that killed the criminal, not him. That’s weird. But I don’t care how he justifies it, the fact that he’s willing to kill all these people at all is the problem. Not only do I believe it is a bad interpretation of the character, I believe it actually ruins the plot of the movie. I bring that up in my first comment on this thread. Having a redemption arc for a Batman who kills might be able to be pulled off, but it can’t be pulled off at the same time as a plot that only works if Batman doesn’t kill (see first comment). It but also doesn’t work here because of Snyder’s added edginess (I don’t know how anyone doesn’t think he’s being edgy after listening to him give interviews and talk about his movies), which blurs the line between what is part of the redemption arc and what Snyder enjoys because it’s shocking and “real”. Even if his plan was to make Batman change into a better person, it’s impossible to see because the movie and him appear to relish in the death and destruction wrought by Batman. I know that Superman’s story in the movie focuses on how Batman’s actions are horrible, but the way the action scenes where Batman kills people are shot and structured makes it feel like it’s supposed to be something the audience is on board with. In the end, the movie sends a very confusing message because Snyder wants to eat his cake and have it too. Superman says that Batman’s actions are bad, but the big action scenes Snyder wanted to include almost glorify what Batman’s doing; Batman’s killing people left and right so he can have a redemption arc, but the Martha scene requires killing to be a difficult decision that he can barely convince himself to do; the intended redemption arc almost gives this movie a kind of hopeful message, but things like Jimmy getting shot in the head happen. It also doesn’t help that so many things are happening in the plot. It makes it hard for audiences to make connections like Robin’s death causing Batman to get angrier. I don’t believe stuff like that should be stuffed down audiences’ throats, so I respect that Zack Snyder didn’t make it feel super obvious and forced, but it may have been lost in all of the noise of the movie, which definitely wasn’t the intention. If some of these conflicting and confusing things were cleared up, I think the whole plot of the DCEU might have fallen into place a bit better.

I want to be clear that I’m not angry at anyone for enjoying this movie. I’m glad you do. However, I do not enjoy it and believe it is not a good movie. I’m glad you’re taking the time to discuss this instead of being rude.

2 Likes

It could have been so much more-but it just didn’t deliver. Afflack was great as Bats-but the story tried to cram in way too much in such a short amount of time-and Supes would dominate Batman

1 Like

*clung

because things can’t clinger to the wall

1 Like

@wvp As much of a Batman fan as I am, I must admit that there’s absolutely no way Batman should ever be able to defeat Superman in a fight unless Superman was severely weakened or intentionally trying to let Batman win. Maybe Batman could if he was able to sneak up on him, but there’s no way that should be possible either.

1 Like

I don’t think the movie was glorifying Batman’s actions though. To go back to Batman’s first appearance in the film, there were all those women who WANTED (emphasis) to stay in the cell despite having police officers there because they feared Batman. I know that the film crammed a lot in a short two and a half hour film, but he needed the audience to understand what his version of Batman was like. With Superman vocalizing his disagreement with Batman’s techniques, he was the moral entity of the film. There are more quotes in the film, but one that sets the tone of the film is “No one stays good in this world.” That line carries over from The Dark Knight when Harvey Dent said, “You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” The “edgy” mood was already established. Zack Snyder is great with visuals and comic book knowledge, but I think and strongly believe if he and Christopher Nolan collaborated on a Batman film (which they practically did for Man of Steel, albeit Superman), then their film will be unparalleled. Despite that missing component,

I still love the film. Also, I am glad there are fans that are equally as disappointed as I was entertained with the film because that creates more conversation than two people who enjoyed the film or thought it was okay.

1 Like

I loved BvS. The only aspect of it I didn’t enjoy was the manner in which Luthor was played. Never thought of a Luthor as being quirky, but I enjoyed the movie nonetheless. Luthors have been self serving, self assured, and selfless. When I think of a strong Luthor, I think of Michael Rosenbaum and Clancy Brown. Visually the movie was a treat. Though in hindsight the Doomsday from the Krypton series is a little more appealing visually.

2 Likes

@abfgmsw I meant that the action scenes seem to glorify Batman’s violence. There’s no reason for it to be that way. If Snyder wanted to show that Batman’s in the wrong, which I think he did, he shouldn’t have made the action scenes so epic (for lack of a better word). I think he just wanted to cram some cool action scenes into the movie, but it ended up being at expense of the movie itself. Like I mentioned earlier, Snyder seems to be trying to have his cake and eat it too. I think this recurring problem in the movie makes it dissolve into a sort of confusing mess that’s difficult to understand. The audience is never sure what exactly is happening, why it is happening, or what greater meaning what is currently happening has. I think this in combination with the edginess leads the movie to be a murky and negative mess.

1 Like

@Awesome_Squid
I don’t think Snyder is edgy at all. IMO, he wants to be edgy or have the perception he is, but he isn’t. That, ultimately, is the fatal flaw of his trilogy. If you have to show us how edgy you are, you ain’t.

I doubt a live action Return of the Dark Knight will ever be made. Much of the dark and edgy feel from that book are visible to me in BvS. I was part of the audience, and can see where ZS would have ended up had he continued. A potential Superman (Animated) “Legacy” movie plot would have piqued my interest. That being said, maybe the potential is still there if The New Gods movie ever sees the light of day.

1 Like

@DeSade-acolyte I’m not so sure edgy means what I thought it did. I meant that Zack Snyder is a person who constantly wants to show how shocking he is.

At the beginning, before the movie got made-- they made a mistake. Batman VS Superman, instead of Superman and Batman, your two favorite heroes-- together! Too late to worry about that. The final, resulting movie-- and I do mean the slightly longer version, it just plays out better-- is actually terrific. The only thing I would seriously change-- for me, anyway-- is towards the end-- when the batwing (or whatever we call it in this movie) opens fire with machine guns on the thugs holding Kent, it should be Alfred who remotely pulls the trigger, not Batman.

1 Like

@Awesome_Squid
So what was confusing?
I think that if Zack Snyder wrote pointless action scenes to show some edge, why didn’t he have a scene where Batman actually stole the Kryptonite while Lex Luthor was away?

1 Like

@abfgmsw I don’t think the action scenes were him trying show how edgy he was. I think that he just thought they would be cool to include. And I don’t believe the action scenes are pointless either, just in conflict with the tones and messages present in the other scenes in the film. The scenes that are pointlessly shocking scenes are the ones like Jimmy Olsen getting shot. That was only included to be shocking. There was no point to it.

2 Likes

@Awesome_Squid
Thanks for the clarification. I will admit there are a number of points in Snyder’s work I do find shocking,

Shockingly bad sections of film that make we want to puke.