^ Yeah, just remembered. 
Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I watched Superman IV the other day, not because I think it's a great film or anything, but because I'm marathoning Cannon films. Despite that, it's not an awful film, I think it has a lot of good ideas, and it's still great to see Reeve as Superman. Those effects though... there is nothing "special" about them
Also, I just got my ticket off of Fandango for Saturday at 11. I'm excited, and yes, I will be forming my own opinion
I've not long been back since seeing it at the iMax but in all honesty... I enjoyed it, mostly.
I understand what people are saying with some of the scenes and dream sequences but I went in with super low expectations to be honest.
They do try and cram a lot in, especially the JL stuff but I thought batman and WW were done very well. Superman wasn't featured as much as I thought.
Yes it's heavy on CGI in parts and the why batman "sees sense" scene wasn't exactly compelling but I think it was decent. Could have been a lot worse.
I think I'll go and see this again, I rarely go the cinema a second time for a film.
I understand what people are saying with some of the scenes and dream sequences but I went in with super low expectations to be honest.
They do try and cram a lot in, especially the JL stuff but I thought batman and WW were done very well. Superman wasn't featured as much as I thought.
Yes it's heavy on CGI in parts and the why batman "sees sense" scene wasn't exactly compelling but I think it was decent. Could have been a lot worse.
I think I'll go and see this again, I rarely go the cinema a second time for a film.
- As I was leaving the theatre, I was thinking that 1986's The Man of Steel comic told the story a bit better.
- I thought that the JL stuff was minimal and fit in alright. No complaints there.
But I did think that Aquaman's cameo was unintentionally funny.
- I never noticed that Bruce and Clark have mothers with the same name.
And oddly enough it's what saved the day.
Last edited:
Saw it last night. I thought it was excellent. Even the worst casting that I absolutely hated, Jesse Eisenberg, worked. They seriously implied that this was the original Luthor's kid, and as Lex Jr he was a good fit. All three principle actors were excellent in their roles, Wonder Woman was phenomonally fun, and I thought it handled this version of Superman and Batman's motivations very well. Especially Batman's line - You can't be brave. Only men can be brave. Clark answered that in the end, and ultimately why he would continue to try to do the right thing for the people he loved, regardless of what the world around him thought.
I understand the criticism of too many dream sequences, but at least one of them wasn't a dream sequence - it was a set up for the next movie with the Flash trying to travel back in time to warn Bruce. Hell it had parademons in it - something that Bruce wouldn't have known, yet is a huge indicator of a future timeline where Darkseid has arrived on Earth and corrupted Superman.
Oh, and the early comment on MoS not being thought out well with the main fight being in Metropolis just being tagged on. That entirely misses the point - this movie was a specific set up for this one, the writers have planned in numerous hooks that aren't clearly understood on the first viewing. Clearly that was intended and works organically into this plot.
Anyway, I think these movies won't be as popular as the marvel movies because they are less about humour and fun and quite frankly less accessible. But I thought this movie was surprisingly well done, and showed the difference between the Marvel pantheon and the DC one quite well. Marvel is about superheroes, and does that fantastically well. DC is about demigods, myths, and archetypes. This movie showcased that.
I understand the criticism of too many dream sequences, but at least one of them wasn't a dream sequence - it was a set up for the next movie with the Flash trying to travel back in time to warn Bruce. Hell it had parademons in it - something that Bruce wouldn't have known, yet is a huge indicator of a future timeline where Darkseid has arrived on Earth and corrupted Superman.
Oh, and the early comment on MoS not being thought out well with the main fight being in Metropolis just being tagged on. That entirely misses the point - this movie was a specific set up for this one, the writers have planned in numerous hooks that aren't clearly understood on the first viewing. Clearly that was intended and works organically into this plot.
Anyway, I think these movies won't be as popular as the marvel movies because they are less about humour and fun and quite frankly less accessible. But I thought this movie was surprisingly well done, and showed the difference between the Marvel pantheon and the DC one quite well. Marvel is about superheroes, and does that fantastically well. DC is about demigods, myths, and archetypes. This movie showcased that.
I did not enjoy it at all. Here's my full review (spoiler free) but it just felt empty. And Superman, oh wow Snyder really does not get the character at all. I think he smile once during the whole film, and he actually utters the line
"No man can stay good in this world."
Because that's what we all want, a Superman who isn't optimistic and doesn't believe in the good of people. I'm not going to paste my whole review here but I did not enjoy this. I felt empty and vacuous. The switch when between the two being antagonists to being allies was far too abrupt and the whole thing felt rushed. And can someone show me how to do spoilers because I really want to talk about something towards the end of the film but I don't want to spoil it for people.
Thank goodness we have Supergirl.
"No man can stay good in this world."
Because that's what we all want, a Superman who isn't optimistic and doesn't believe in the good of people. I'm not going to paste my whole review here but I did not enjoy this. I felt empty and vacuous. The switch when between the two being antagonists to being allies was far too abrupt and the whole thing felt rushed. And can someone show me how to do spoilers because I really want to talk about something towards the end of the film but I don't want to spoil it for people.
Thank goodness we have Supergirl.
I get that some people (Snyder) believe in a different Superman than I do. And I get that I won't always get the Superman I want. But at least now I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I have no interest in this Superman. And what sucks is that Cavill isn't set to ever play Supes at this point for anyone except Snyder, so I can't even hope for someone else's take on him.
Just write spoiler around it (with brackets) like you would quote.
Is it about the way it felt like they couldn't wait to kill off Superman? I should have been emotional about that, and I was. Angry.
I like the take on Supes. And this is a popular take in the late 2000s storylines. How to be a good man trying to do the right thing in a world where people are so flawed.
The Death of Superman is his most iconic storyline. And he's just as dead in the movies as he was in that storyline. IE Not at all. They clearly show that at the film's end, when the dirt rises from the grave just like it does when he's about to fly.
They are creating a version of the Kingdom Come version of that character, which is heavily engaged in Christian overtones of sacrifice as part of the godhead. And when he resurrects, the cult of Superman is going to be a really big deal. I think this is a very mature and philosophical take on the character.
But yeah, it isn't about fun. Its the Joseph Campbell's Heroes Journey writ large. Jesus wept.
They are creating a version of the Kingdom Come version of that character, which is heavily engaged in Christian overtones of sacrifice as part of the godhead. And when he resurrects, the cult of Superman is going to be a really big deal. I think this is a very mature and philosophical take on the character.
But yeah, it isn't about fun. Its the Joseph Campbell's Heroes Journey writ large. Jesus wept.
Oh, and one of the many, many plot hooks they put out there that could come to fruition later on.
Don't like Eisenberg's Luthor? Well, you could still see the 90s Byrne run of the character, the powerful megacorp builder who hates Supes not out of inherent evilness but because he represents the death of the ambition of mankind now that God is among them. Eisenberg may well be Lex Jr, not Lex himself. He was constantly talking about his father. He set that up perfectly. Daddy's dead? All sorts of reasons that might not be true.
This writing team does a great job of mining ideas for future tie ins - like they did with the destruction of Metropolis leading to the conflict with Batman and Superman's growth as a hero. They also set up Braniac(or any other cosmic villian) in MoS - just a couple of throw away lines talking about the destruction of the Kryptonian outposts throughout the galaxy.
And there's a strong likelihood of the scene in MoS where the whales seem to save Superman will later be tied in to a flash back with the introduction of Aquaman, who could have easily been at the refinery fire.
There's a lot of depth built into these movies that can come to fruition down the pike.
This writing team does a great job of mining ideas for future tie ins - like they did with the destruction of Metropolis leading to the conflict with Batman and Superman's growth as a hero. They also set up Braniac(or any other cosmic villian) in MoS - just a couple of throw away lines talking about the destruction of the Kryptonian outposts throughout the galaxy.
And there's a strong likelihood of the scene in MoS where the whales seem to save Superman will later be tied in to a flash back with the introduction of Aquaman, who could have easily been at the refinery fire.
There's a lot of depth built into these movies that can come to fruition down the pike.
I've used the word "soulless" to describe past work of Snyder's. (Watchmen, specifically.)
One thing from your review, about Lex Luthor:
trekkiebaggio said:
I don't think Luthor was insane, at all. It was obvious, at least to me, what had happened to him to make him this way.
When he starts pinging like a Mother Box in the prison cell, it was clear he'd had some sort of encounter with a New God, possibly Metron, possibly Darkseid. (I favor the latter, because Luthor's plans are aimed at eliminating Superman by breaking his power, which would be a boon to Darkseid.) Luthor was probably always an eccentric, and his encounter with the divine unhinged him. He had witnessed, perhaps even interacted with, something that his own mind couldn't comprehend, and it left him changed.
I think there's a lot more to it than a Pryor vehicle. It's actually my favorite of the Reeve movies, since it's the most consistent and sure of itself in tone. The first two films were torn between treating the subject matter with serious realism and embracing all the lunacy and plot illogic of Silver Age comics, so they were inconsistent -- and of course the second was badly marred by the change of directors and the reshoots. But S3 is full-on Silver Age whackadoo from start to end, and it's sure of itself in a way its predecessors aren't. O'Toole is utterly luminous as Lana, a better love interest than Kidder's Lois. Robert Vaughn's Ross Webster makes a far better Lex Luthor than Luthor himself did (though that's the fault of the writers, not Gene Hackman) and is a prototype for the evil-businessman Luthor who'd emerge in the comics a few years later. Even Richard Pryor doesn't dominate the film as much as he could have -- the majority of the deleted scenes on the DVD are his, indicating that his role was reduced considerably in editing -- and his character fits the Silver Age archetype of the bumbling, comical scientist taken advantage of by the villains.
Fine, but since when did Batman have the power to experience prophetic visions of the future? Or since when did the Flash have the ability to project them?
I think that's giving Snyder way too much credit. At the time that movie was made, they didn't know if they'd be making a second one, and they sure didn't expect Batman to be in it.
I get that some people (Snyder) believe in a different Superman than I do. And I get that I won't always get the Superman I want. But at least now I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I have no interest in this Superman. And what sucks is that Cavill isn't set to ever play Supes at this point for anyone except Snyder, so I can't even hope for someone else's take on him.
I'd be more okay with Snyder's approach if he were doing something with characters that were surrogates for Superman and Batman. There have been a lot of deconstructive superhero tales using surrogate characters, like Watchmen and The Authority and Powers. Granted, Miller did The Dark Knight Returns as a deconstruction using Batman, Superman, et al. themselves, and so did Kingdom Come, but those were meant to be one-shot, alternative takes on the characters, not their baseline portrayal.
Or click on the + symbol above the editing window, the one to the right of the smiley, image, and media insertion icons. You get a dropdown menu including Quote, Spoiler, Code, and Strikethrough options.
I deliberately sought out spoilers for the film -- since I have no intention of seeing it in the theater -- and I was hardly pleased by that, but I can't say I was surprised.
It's symbolic of how little faith Snyder and Warner Bros. have in Superman as a concept. They couldn't figure out what to do with him, and they couldn't wait to get rid of him. Yeah, yeah, I know they're gonna bring him back, but killing a character is something you do when you've run out of ideas, and they've barely gotten started.
I wouldn't say it's his most iconic storyline, just one of the most heavily hyped.
And it was a testament to the excess and stupidity of '90s comics, that instead of killing off Superman in a story that had any real depth or meaning, they just had some mindless brute punch him for a dozen issues. So of course it's the storyline that Snyder would want to adapt.
And really, would the death of Superman have carried much weight if he hadn't already had a bunch of other iconic stories beforehand? The story of his "death" mattered because of how central his life had been to the DC Universe, and how much the world loved and revered him. Superman dying in a world where half the people hate him doesn't seem to carry the same weight.
And really, would the death of Superman have carried much weight if he hadn't already had a bunch of other iconic stories beforehand? The story of his "death" mattered because of how central his life had been to the DC Universe, and how much the world loved and revered him. Superman dying in a world where half the people hate him doesn't seem to carry the same weight.
Okay that song has been used twice now whenever affleck is sad lol
Affleck not smart enough to understand batman superman
I get that some people (Snyder) believe in a different Superman than I do. And I get that I won't always get the Superman I want. But at least now I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I have no interest in this Superman. And what sucks is that Cavill isn't set to ever play Supes at this point for anyone except Snyder, so I can't even hope for someone else's take on him.
Just write spoiler around it (with brackets) like you would quote.Is it about the way it felt like they couldn't wait to kill off Superman? I should have been emotional about that, and I was. Angry.
Ah thanks! Yeah, I mean some people are going to be fine with Superman the way he's presented here but not for me.
The thing with the death is that it didn't feel earned at all. It's like the only way they could show him being heroic was for him to sacrifice himself, and the bit at the end "If you want to look at his monument look around you" felt so unearned. The world hated him now all of a sudden he's inspiring people. Snyder really does just love trading on the tropes of Superman without actually showing them and developing them in his film. Another criticism I had is that somehow Lois just knows to try and get the spear. And then another cliché, Clark sent the wedding ring. I'm only surprised they didn't throw in the pregnancy trope as well. It seems their process was "okay, so the biggest Batman story is Dark Knight Returns and the biggest Superman story is The Death of Superman so hey let's do those and that guarantees us success.
But yeah, I should have been a wreck when Superman died. But as I said in my review I was more emotional watching the Civil War trailer I've seen 5 or 6 times than I was in the whole film of BvS.
But yeah, I should have been a wreck when Superman died. But as I said in my review I was more emotional watching the Civil War trailer I've seen 5 or 6 times than I was in the whole film of BvS.
Hmm, that's an interesting theory but if that is the case I wish that had been shown in the film.
That sounds just like what bothered me about Man of Steel.
It was just tossing in the expected bits and pieces of the Superman story without doing anything to earn or justify them. It was form over substance. Snyder pays lip service to ideas that he seems to have no interest in really exploring.
And yes, the creative process seems to have been based largely on using those two stories as a template. I wonder why they went with stories that are 2-3 decades old, rather than anything more recent. I mean, sure, Nolan's films were basically adapting Year One and The Long Halloween, but this is going back even further.
And yes, the creative process seems to have been based largely on using those two stories as a template. I wonder why they went with stories that are 2-3 decades old, rather than anything more recent. I mean, sure, Nolan's films were basically adapting Year One and The Long Halloween, but this is going back even further.
Since we know nothing at all about this version of the Flash, evidently from the very first time we are introduced to the character. Because that is Ezra Miller in that scene.
From the various DC universe versions of the Flash, he is heavily involved in alternate realities and time travel. To use that character to foreshadow makes a hell of a lot of sense. This has a lot of similarities to Flashpoint and to Injustice: Gods Among Us.
They can easily retcon the specific way that it was implemented. Putting that into a dream sequence was jarring - my first reaction was what the hell?!?!?! Then I realized what Snyder was doing and loved it. The fact that Parademons are in the scene and the Flash are both huge plot points that this isn't just a dream. Wayne knew nothing about either of them at the time.
Yet its seamless and provides an explicit transition. The writing staff should get credit whether it was intended or it was a beautiful retcon. Indeed, the biggest controversy among the fans of the first movie becomes the main plot point of the second. Superman's internal journey is directly tied into that concept, and the scene with Pa Kent speaks to it to its very core.
I think you aren't giving these guys enough credit. I can understand not liking their take, but there's no doubt they are talented at crafted these concepts. These are far better done IMO than the Marvel movies. Marvel is better at fun, humour and the comaraderie that Wheedon is so great at. These guys are better at weaving the plot into strong statements and iconic moments.
Yep, these aren't your classic versions of the characters. Some people won't like that take. Fair enough.
Much of the plot from Man of Steel came not from the Byrne arc of the same name (back when he reinvented the character again), but instead more similar to J Michael Stracyczinski's Superman: Earth One series. Casting Superman as a young character trying to understand his role in the world is far more relatable to a younger generation than the authority figure who always implicitly knows what to do and why. To see a Superman arc with character develoopment IMO is a great idea. And I think in a few movies we'll see him go from naive supermanchild to iconic character - and perhaps even past that into brooding demigod that we saw in Kingdom Come. A character that can do almost anything can become staid really quickly. Knowing whether you should is the moral dilemma - and again, the story from Jonathan Kent about damming the river is a brilliant rendition of that, and helps really underscore the struggle.
IMO its odd that you have a strong opinion of a film that you haven't seen. But I get the feeling a lot of the reviewers simply don't understand the movie. As an example, concerning your conclusion in the spoiler:
The character clearly isn't dead. He will definitely be in a future movie, assuming the box office supports that. The ending scene has Lois drop dirt on the coffin in the grave outside of Smallville. The last image is the dirt beginning to vibrate and raise up into the air - the same effect we see in MoS when Supes learns to fly. Its clearly a symbol of not only resurrection but ascent into the heavens. Personally it gave me chills.
They aren't writing the character off. They are preparing it for the next step in the story telling. Superman will clearly be a central figure in the Justice League.
They aren't writing the character off. They are preparing it for the next step in the story telling. Superman will clearly be a central figure in the Justice League.
It wasn't a perfect story, but it was an international phenomenon and brought much needed exposure to DC. It was the highest sales arc of all time for Superman, and made numerous periodical covers such as Time magazine. And of course in the imagery in Snyder's version, its quite a different concept, having to do with Superman's ascension as a near divine character, dripping in resurrection symbology. Needless to say, this will likely be the change between the man tormented by his father's doubts, and the rise of the 'classic' paragon of justice and truth. it's a massive character development moment if done correctly.
Of course, I predicted that the next Supes would be driven by the destruction of metropolis when I saw MoS in the theaters. It makes too much sense. They could still screw up the arc, but it's clear how they set his last supper, and what they can do with the results.
Of course, I predicted that the next Supes would be driven by the destruction of metropolis when I saw MoS in the theaters. It makes too much sense. They could still screw up the arc, but it's clear how they set his last supper, and what they can do with the results.
I think this movie will be more appreciated as time goes by. The editing was a bit rough at times, and I get that it can be hard to follow. But I think it succeeded brilliantly in the things it tried to do.
If you don't like what it was trying to do, then I can certainly understand why you wouldn't like the film.
You know, once you've seen it. *wink*
Fair enough. Did have some questions about your reaction in the spoiler section though.
Not sure I understand what you mean by 'earned' in this context. Certainly it made sense within the context of the movie. It wasn't foreshadowed, I grant you that.
But whether or not Clark would sacrifice himself for this world was talked about. His discussion his mom for example, where she told him he had a choice what to be, but he didn't owe the world anything. Basically his choice came down to one between the two loves of his life that Lex threatened, Lois and Martha. Martha would have had him live a good quiet life. Lois always was questing for the truth regardless of the consequences. He chose Lois, saying that this was his world, and most important because he loved her, and she was his world. I thought they set that up well.
Within context of the story, Supes was having a VERY bad day, being exposed to kryptonite multiple times, to the point that Batman could have killed him and Lois had to save him from it. Plus being nuked, plus fighting doomdsay - which any comics fan knows kills him anyway. Him dying in that context - at least as much as Superman can die - makes perfect sense, and sets up the resurrection arc and him becoming the messiah like figure we see, the 'classic' Superman of the comics.
I have more about the rest, such as Lois' actions being understandable as she knows Superman as much as anybody and personally I loved the fact that she did the smart thing and helped save the day, but I'll let it go.
Another thing that I like - they make interesting scenes that they mine for later use, such as the end of MoS. I agree its an interesting theory, which could be a lot of fun. But I like the fact that the writers are two steps ahead of us on these things. IMO that's good writing.
It also makes some sense that...
what remains of the future Justice League would try to contact Batman, since he'd be the best likely candidate to stop them. Much like his efforts in other media to create protocols aimed at incapacitating potential "rogue" members of the league.