I have no problem with the portrayal of Superman himself. I found him quite sympathetic. My problem is with the scenarios he’s placed in throughout Man of Steel that take away his opportunity to present his best self. That problem generally doesn’t carry into BvS, since it’s Lex Luthor creating those scenarios in the sequel and not Jonathan Kent (or General Zod).
In BvS, Superman never takes the time to give Lois a sit-down interview to calm the irrational fears people have of him. He just mopes about it. He never tries talking it out with Batman, he just lets him machine gun enemies down then threatens him and flies away. He just gives up against Lex and has the attitude of “Guess I lost already and have to kill Batman”. And that’s not even getting into doesn’t have time for some reason to save Jimmy Olsen, but arrives with plenty of time to splat the guy threatening Lois through a wall.
1 Like
BvS establishes that the Daily Planet already has a reputation for writing puff pieces about Superman. That’s not going to work.
He has no reason to talk anything out with Batman for most of the film. Batman is terrorizing and torturing people. Superman’s obvious choices are to turn him over to the police or to tell him to stop his actions. If BvS could be faulted for anything, it could be that it doesn’t do enough to give Superman a reason to surmise that turning Batman over to the police would be ineffective (though audiences familiar with Batman could easily surmise that doing so would be a waste of time if Jim Gordon is the commissioner, and Justice League confirms this).
At that point, he was short on options. Luthor was holding his mother ransom. It’s here that he tries to reason with Batman (and never takes advantage of the various opportunities to kill him), and he gets shot with Kryptonite gas and nearly impaled for his trouble.
This is where the Ultimate Edition shows one of its advantages by establishing where Superman is in relation to the other characters during the sequence.
What was the reason?
He doesn’t try because Jonathan Kent taught him that people are garbage.
Have you not watched the director’s cut of the movie? Superman gets involved with the situation because the U.S. was going to conduct a drone strike on the village. He takes out the drone and then arrives to get Lois.
I have a lot of problems with how MoS portrayed Jonathan Kent, but he never said anything like that. The most he said was the line more commonly heard in X-Men media: “People are afraid of what they don’t understand.” His concern was always that Clark would act impulsively without regard to the potential consequences and would thereby expose himself to the world prematurely. It’s a common concern seen in depictions of Jonathan Kent, but MoS admittedly took it to more of an extreme than prior versions, and that’s one reason why I don’t like MoS.
Regardless, Clark refers to Superman as “the dream of a farmer from Kansas” in BvS, and he seems to be referring to Jonathan’s insistence that Clark was “sent here for a reason.”
Never- I hated the first cut, so I definitely didn’t want to watch a longer version. So he was unaware that his woman was on a dangerous mission then… ?
He doesn’t have to outright say it to teach it. When Clark asks if he was supposed to let the children on the bus drown to protect his identity and Jonathan says ‘Maybe…’ that’s teaching him people aren’t trustworthy. And especially with how he handles the tornado scene. He gives his life, needlessly, to keep his son safe from people who can’t be trusted.
Then it’s possible that you’re judging the movie based on the studio’s interference. Besides, it’s only the longer version that reveals the CIA agent to be Jimmy Olsen, so your problem with the scene seems to be tied to something that’s not even in the theatrical cut…
He obviously knew that she was conducting an interview with a potentially dangerous person, but the only reason that the situation escalated was because the CIA got involved and the KGBeast was smart enough to figure out that Jimmy was a spy. Superman was obviously hovering close enough to keep an eye on the military’s behavior, but since when has he ever stood right over Lois’s shoulder any time she interviews someone?
I think you’re overstating this notion. If people were entirely trustworthy, then there’d be no need for Superman to disguise himself as a mild-mannered reporter. In the comics, he doesn’t just disguise himself from the public: he disguises himself from Lois (before their engagement, at least), Jimmy, Perry, and other close friends and colleagues in his life. He clearly thinks that there’s some room for caution, but that’s not the same thing as being overly distrusting of everyone.
It’s simply not wise to let everyone in Smallville know that he’s superhuman. Lana and Pete might keep their mouths shut, but would everyone? We know exactly what would happen if the U.S. government found out about him: it’s shown in Flashpoint.
I would say if he knows she’s interviewing someone who may decide to put a bullet in her head, hovering over her shoulder isn’t a bad place to be. And he lets Jimmy eat a bullet before he decides ‘Okay, enough sitting on the sidelines…’
He doesn’t disguise himself as a mild mannered reporter to hide from anyone. He enjoys his life as Clark and he keeps his secret from those closest to him to protect them from harm.
In the comics, his father taught him that people were worth saving and he enjoys his life as Superman. In these movies, he seems to take little to no joy in saving people- he seems burdened by it.
He’s not close enough to them to intervene at that point. Again, that’s obvious in the Ultimate Edition.
And as for everything else you said, I really could just start posting a bunch of comic book panels that demonstrate otherwise, but most of those problems are related to Man of Steel, and this is a thread about Batman v Superman.
I honestly didn’t care for it when I first saw it. I partly blame the crowd I was in just not being into it. I saw it a week later on an IMAX and thought it was awesome. The Director’s Cut explained so much more and made it truly enjoyable.
I am a big Batman fan and having first been introduced to Batman through the Arkham games (I know, I know. I don’t remember if I ever saw the animated series as a kid) I felt like alot of the Batman fights and Batmobile scenes came right out of the game. Batfleck is my favorite Batman, right after Conroy. I like to say the only problem with BvS (at least the Director’s cut, because honestly the theatrical doesn’t explain anything) is that there’s not enough Batman. However I can’t complain because I really like looking at Henry Cavill. Lol
I also really appreciate how much screentime and merch Wonder Woman got despite not even being a title character. She stole the show. Thank you Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL for that amazing WW theme.
Most things people hate about BvS, at least on Batman’s side, I actually like. The fact that he’s angry and won’t listen to reason. The retelling of his origin with the emphasis on his mother’s pearls. The Martha scene, which people make fun of, but it’s a great reminder that Bruce is and always will have that little Bruce who lost his parents inside to fuel what he does. “Batman doesn’t kill” well technically he didn’t except for the nightmare sequence. It was all “accidents”. Like the video game. I mean, no one complains when Keaton’s Batman set people on fire on purpose and let’s innocent people plunge to their death. RIP Christmas tree lighting ceremony lady. (Or when Reeves’Superman kills Zod and then laughed about it)
BvS was also never meant to be Marvel. It’s meant to make you think. And I think alot of people just want a feel good Marvel superhero film that they can ship characters and gush over actors. I’m just saying that because my friends are mostly Marvel stans who have never read any comics and they like the Marvel films that are just fun. BvS is too dark for them. But I like my Batman dark. Unless he’s a parody like Lego Batman.
1 Like