That's exactly how the movie frames it, when he talks to Pa Kent on the mountaintop it's about that, doing the right thing(working hard to save the farm from the flood) having unintended consequences for the innocent(Lang's horses dying).
Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
That's exactly how the movie frames it, when he talks to Pa Kent on the mountaintop it's about that, doing the right thing(working hard to save the farm from the flood) having unintended consequences for the innocent(Lang's horses dying).
"I'm afraid I didn't see it because I wasn't looking."
Well, I thought he was talking about never considering he could be a target of such an attack which would put other people into danger. He was not aware of the level of hatred against him, and therefore he wasn't looking.
Well, I thought he was talking about never considering he could be a target of such an attack which would put other people into danger. He was not aware of the level of hatred against him, and therefore he wasn't looking.
I count First Class as a Singer movie, too. Of course Vaughn was the director, but Singer had still a big part in it. He co-wrote/co-produced the movie.
So . . . you're accusing the movie of bad writing because Superman had reacted emotionally to Congress' bombing, instead of engaging in the "correct" response? Is this another one of those "Superman is not being the proper hero" complaints that have been dumped on Cavill's character for the past three to four years?
This constant need to put Superman in some emotional straight jacket so that he can be everyone's perfect hero is becoming increasingly frustrating to me. It seems as if society is determined to contain pop culture is some kind of one-dimensional and conservative box. Thank God, Zack Synder had decided to go his own way.
And for that is quietly being shown the door.
Why was Lex fixated on Superman and not the other metas? Simple. Superman was famous.
And as for Snyder not understanding the material, I don't know about that but he did kill off Jimmy rather quickly thinking it was good shock value. I didn't think that was a good move.
And as for Snyder not understanding the material, I don't know about that but he did kill off Jimmy rather quickly thinking it was good shock value. I didn't think that was a good move.
Kinda like he did with Superman himself...
Last edited:
Yeah, I am disappointed by this. Snyder's works were flawed, but at least they weren't Marvel clones.
Snyder is a guy who is really big on symbolism and poetry. So much so, that I think most people miss what he goes for entirely. Granted, better writing would help communicate his vision better, but I think Snyder likes for the visuals to tell the story to the audience.
Last edited:
I thought the writing in "Batman v. Superman" was pretty damn good, with the exception of the plot arc involving Batman and Lex Luthor. I thought that particular plot arc was a bit confusing. But I was a lot more impressed by the film and "Suicide Squad" than I was by any of the Marvel films of 2016. Hopefully, I'll enjoyed both DCEU and MCU's output in 2017.
It never ceases to amuse me when people attempt to conflate allegory with insight when really, it's most often the mark of a decidedly banal storyteller.
Symbolism is all well and good, but unless it's actually saying something other than "hey look! this thing is like that other thing!" then there's really nothing of substance there. As a general rule of thumb: the more blatant the allegory, the more superficial the thinking behind it.
Symbolism is all well and good, but unless it's actually saying something other than "hey look! this thing is like that other thing!" then there's really nothing of substance there. As a general rule of thumb: the more blatant the allegory, the more superficial the thinking behind it.
That's the thing though. Snyder didn't get credit or applause for his allegory, allusion and symbolism. Most everything he put in BvS was overlooked/the audience just didn't get it. It's nearly been a year since BvS and it's only now being slightly reappraised by viewers. None of which will help the reputation it has now. Like they say, if you have to explain an art piece, song or joke to someone, than it's obvious that they missed the point and won't appreciate it.
Well I can't speak for the collective audience, but I found it impossible not to notice all the clumsy, half-arsed Christ and Faustian allegories smeared all over this movie. "Getting it" hardly improved the experience for me. Quite the contrary, it just made it more obvious the director had no clue what he was really trying to say with this movie. This is first year film student crap.
Also I think the way it usually goes is that if someone needs to explain the joke, then it just wasn't all that funny to begin with. It's a poor comedian that blames the audience for not laughing.
Animal Farm???
Note the qualifier "general rule".
Also, not really the same thing since allegory wasn't the subtext, but the text itself. It was meant to be a very specific history lesson first and foremost.
I found the movie to be thematically rich, thought provoking, remarkably rewatchable and with a lot to say.
Actially, I've always said if you have to explain an art piece, song or joke to someone, it wasn't constructed very well.
If they wanted to go with the whole "consequences of Supermans' actions!" thing in BvS, they should've had Lex turn that Wheelchair guy into Metallo or something.
And instead of just Doomsday, he first tries to clone him and frame him. Unfortunately, the clone breaks down and turns into Bizarro. When Lex tries to salvage him, he accidentally augments him into Doomsday.
Basically, Superman plays a role in both villains' creation which gives him some self-reflection rather than "I can't save everyone so I won't try anymore."
And instead of just Doomsday, he first tries to clone him and frame him. Unfortunately, the clone breaks down and turns into Bizarro. When Lex tries to salvage him, he accidentally augments him into Doomsday.
Basically, Superman plays a role in both villains' creation which gives him some self-reflection rather than "I can't save everyone so I won't try anymore."