Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
This may have been covered earlier in the thread but what's been the opinion on the extended cut of Batman v. Superman?
Right, because we all know it's impossible to have any humor in a movie or TV series about a war.
I'm not talking about turning it into GoTG or Suicide Squad, I'm just saying that there could at least be more humor and lighter moments than there were in BvS.
Or that it at least not have as much blood and death or pretentious speechifying from bitter and angry characters. They can make a serious WW or Justice League movie that still has an underlying sense of wonder and grandeur like MOS had, and that still depicts it's characters in an inspiring way.
That's all I'm really asking for.
It makes the extraneous sub-plots more coherent, gives Clark and Lois a lot of extra screen time, shows more clearly how Lex is manipulating events. However it does nothing to address fundamental issues such as Lex's motivation for doing all of this, Batman's sudden onset of stupidity and poor math skills, Lois's bizarre nonsense where she nearly drowns herself for no good reason, the awkward foreshadowing that could have been cut right out of the movie or the use of what I can only characterise as sound-bite philosophy in place of actual underlying themes. And the Martha thing still feels deeply unconvincing.
For a film about two blokes in tights getting into a slapfight, it's surprisingly grim and pretentious and the new edit does little to fix that. It just gives you more of it. Zach Snyder is a very stylish director, but it's increasingly clear that it's entirely superficial and that he has a very poor grasp of the deeper themes and questions he's haphazardly invoking.
Last edited:
I'm sure it will come to me eventually, but what do you mean by "Batman's sudden onset of stupidity and poor math skills"?
The former is a reference to him (supposedly the world's greatest detective) missing that Lex is deliberately manipulating both he and Clark despite all the pieces being right there under his nose (quite literally in the case of the wheelchair guy's cheques.)
The latter is the whole "1% chance = absolute certainly" tosh.
I dunno. I understand the argument that he's making there, that ANY risk on that level is an intolerable risk.
I might even agree with it if I were convinced that there weren't any other potential world-ending extraterrestrial threats out there. But since we can't say for sure whether there were any other Kryptonian survivors, I think it's better to keep Superman in reserve just in case there is another General Zod out there or some other threat that only Superman is readily available to deal with.
It all sounded completely reasonable (I mean, in the circumstances) for a Batman who'd been broken and driven to cruelty after years of endless and seemingly pointless effort only to have all of his control taken away by a force completely outside his ability to do anything about.
Yeah, 1% =/ Absolute, but we're not supposed to be shown somebody acting reasonable. And his detective work on Lex is still a lot better than most movie Batmen - plus the whole "crisis of everything." This isn't a Bruce on top of his game by any stretch of the imagination - mentally, emotionally, ethically. It's a broken Bat.
Yeah, 1% =/ Absolute, but we're not supposed to be shown somebody acting reasonable. And his detective work on Lex is still a lot better than most movie Batmen - plus the whole "crisis of everything." This isn't a Bruce on top of his game by any stretch of the imagination - mentally, emotionally, ethically. It's a broken Bat.
It's probably a reference to something Dick Cheney said to George W. Bush regarding anti-al-Qaeda policy. (The Israeli security guy in the World War Z movie used a similar phrase to explain his country's early anti-zombie preparations.) As a general formulation, it may precede Cheney in national security circles; I don't know.
Indeed.
I'd be OK with that if there were an appreciable character arc. But there isn't. For a second the "Martha" nonsense looked like it was meant to be a turning point for him but *nope*, straight back to murdering people! It's everything that's *terrible* about the Frank Miller Batman.
This man is supposed to have one of the most formidable intellects on the planet (so is Lex, incidentally) so even at his lowest, he should not be a knuckle dragging thug, justifying his unthinking behaviour with half baked drivel. If there were any depth of characterisation to support this I'd at least be OK with it, but like so much of the rest of the film there are no depths to be had (despite Affleck's best efforts to the contrary.)
In this movie, Batman is little more than a bubbling pot of unthinking, barely coherent post 9/11 self righteousness in a cowl.
Again though, if they at least took the time to play this out as a character arc, I'd at least respect it. But they don't. Like so much else in the film it's all skin deep. Pretence, posturing and sound-bite philosophy. Like a first year sociology/psych student trying to look edgy and insightful after only skimming their text book's chapter titles.
Oh and I'm sorry but I really don't find "but it's not as bad as Burton/Schumacher/Nolan" to be a compelling argument. It's just another brand of bad. Indeed one could argue it's worse as the others only ever paid lip service to the detective side of things in between fight scenes and establishing shots of Gotham.
No, this movie spends half it's run time one investigative journalism, with Lois & Clark digging into the different strands of what turns out to be the same web. What's worse is that Bruce is standing there with all the evidence in front of him and simply fails to notice *any* connection.
Even if he went ahead with his plan anyway it should have given him pause. It should have made him question. Dig deeper. Examine the facts. But instead he stupidly carries out his plan to murder someone without a second thought. It makes him look like a moron.
Hell, they make Lois look like a more competent investigator than Bruce. Which I would be OK with in theory, except nothing she did has any effect on *anything*. That whole business with the kryptonite lance is a microcosm of her character arc in this movie. It's all running around, doing pointless things to little effect, contriving a reason for Superman to come rescue her. It's impressive that they can make Lois appear on the surface to be a strong, capable and intelligent character while at the same time have her act like a moronic, ineffectual damsel in distress. Those are some serious character gymnastics.
It's probably a reference to something Dick Cheney said to George W. Bush regarding anti-al-Qaeda policy. (The Israeli security guy in the World War Z movie used a similar phrase to explain his country's early anti-zombie preparations.) As a general formulation, it may precede Cheney in national security circles; I don't know.
It certainly wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.
Nevertheless, putting the words of those two chuckleheads in the mouth of Bruce Wayne is hardly going to make him look clever or like an insightful tactician. It's going to make him look like an angry war mongering right wing nutter and not a terribly bright one at that. Besides, regardless of what it may be a reference to, such things must still work within the context of the story and on the face of it, it's a ridiculous line.
Last edited:
I disagree. Even though what he said uses percentages, it's still not a mathematical statement. It's rhetorical hyperbole. He's not saying that a 1% chance IS an absolute certainty, just that it must be treated as such because any chance is an intolerable risk.
Agreed. For comparison, imagine if someone gave you a pill and said "This pill will make you three inches taller and better looking, but there is a 1% chance you will turn inside out and die a horrible, protracted death."
Your priorities may differ, but I wouldn't risk it.
The thing is, he doesn't say"there *is* a 1% chance", he says "if there is a 1% chance". He's basically speculating and has no idea what's going to happen. He's just decided he's going to murder Superman for the remote possibility that he *could* turn on them. It's still nonsense and it's still poor characterisation.
It's a symptom of a larger problem with the way Batman is written in this movie. He's written as a killer. Batman is not supposed to be a killer. Part of his mystique is that he's *that good* he can jump into a room with 50 heavily armed men and not *need* to kill a singer person. Indeed, will go out of his way to make sure none are killed by accident.
Even if Batman were to come to the conclusion that Superman must be dealt with, murder would never be his first recourse. He would look to neutralise or remove his powers, which would involve some detective work and some science.
Also all of this is massively inconsistent with his attitude towards Diana. His email's "where have you been?" is almost accusatory in a "we could have used you two years ago" way.
It's a symptom of a larger problem with the way Batman is written in this movie. He's written as a killer. Batman is not supposed to be a killer. Part of his mystique is that he's *that good* he can jump into a room with 50 heavily armed men and not *need* to kill a singer person. Indeed, will go out of his way to make sure none are killed by accident.
Even if Batman were to come to the conclusion that Superman must be dealt with, murder would never be his first recourse. He would look to neutralise or remove his powers, which would involve some detective work and some science.
Also all of this is massively inconsistent with his attitude towards Diana. His email's "where have you been?" is almost accusatory in a "we could have used you two years ago" way.
Last edited:
Bruce had no idea she has any powers whatsoever, all he knows is she hasn't aged a day in quite some time.
It's clearly meant as a "you seem to have been alive a 100 years ago, what's up with that?", a statement of curiosity, not accusation.
So his decision is completely arbitrary? If some dude has the power to destroy Earth, and there is even a 1% chance he might do it, then it has to be taken as a certainty and he must be killed.
If there's a 1% chance that one of his villains will murder innocent people, then don't worry about it?
That might work if we were talking about a Batman who agonizes over killing, but he doesn't. Not even a little bit. So why is The Joker still alive?
Because he can't possibly kill Robin...