Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion

[Christopher]

Okay, here's what Zack Snyder is now saying about making Batman a killer:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/a...-bvs-body-count-more-manslaughter-than-murder

I tried to do it by proxy. Shoot the car they’re in, the car blows up or the grenade would go off in the guy’s hand, or when he shoots the tank and the guy pretty much lights the tank [himself]. I perceive it as him not killing directly, but if the bad guy’s are associated with a thing that happens to blow up, he would say that that’s not really my problem.

A little more like manslaughter than murder...

What? Like that somehow makes a difference? What a hypocritical attitude. Further proof that Snyder has no comprehension of what being good or heroic actually means.

Snyder goes on:

I would say that in the Frank Miller comic book that I reference, he kills all the time. There’s a scene from the graphic novel where he busts through a wall, takes the guy’s machine gun…I took that little vignette from a scene in The Dark Knight Returns, and at the end of that, he shoots the guy right between the eyes with the machine gun. One shot.

Okay, I don't think this is true. As I recall, The Dark Knight Returns was pretty clear that, while Batman was more violent than he'd been in the past, he still drew the line at killing ("Rubber bullets. Honest.") I found a scan of the scene he's describing, and Snyder's clearly wrong about it in some details -- for one thing, the person Batman fires at is not the same person who had the machine gun, and for another, it's a woman (or a man with long, painted nails). And she (?) certainly is not shot "right between the eyes," since her visor and forehead are clearly intact. I'm not really sure what the panel after the shot is showing. I believe I always took it to mean that Batman had shot next to her head and scared her into submission or something. Looking at it now, there does seem to be a spray of blood, but it looks like it's centered around the shoulder. I suppose it's ambiguous enough that how you interpret it depends on whether you want to see Batman as a killer, and Snyder clearly does. But I don't think that's supported by the rest of the text of TDKR. Batman won't even kill the Joker -- the Joker snaps his own neck when Batman won't finish the job. So I think Snyder's wrong in his interpretation of the scene in question, even aside from the clear factual errors in his statement. He's certainly wrong to claim that TDKR Batman "kills all the time."

 

[thumbtack]

Well, at least the people who haven't seen it say that it's very good.

Gives me hope.

 

[davejames]

There's been talk about WB holding a crisis meeting with the shareholders yesterday.

Could be BS, but considering how much money has been poored into this movie, I can see how some of them could be nervous right now.

Hate to say it, but at this point I'm kinda hoping they do push the panic button and replace Snyder for Justice League. Much as I loved his work on MOS (and suspect BvS isn't nearly as bad as critics say), I just don't think the studio can risk having the two-part Justice League be as incredibly divisive and poorly reviewed as his first two movies have been-- especially when they're so incredibly huge and important to the franchise.

I wouldn't want to lose Snyder's edgy, mythic, and larger than life style, but hopefully a new director could merge that with some better character and storytelling sensibilities as well. And that would probably also help draw back people who were turned off by Snyder's movies and as a result might be deciding to avoid JL entirely.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

What? Like that somehow makes a difference? What a hypocritical attitude. Further proof that Snyder has no comprehension of what being good or heroic actually means.

The door opened by "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you."?

I believe I always took it to mean that Batman had shot next to her head and scared her into submission or something. Looking at it now, there does seem to be a spray of blood, but it looks like it's centered around the shoulder. I suppose it's ambiguous enough that how you interpret it depends on whether you want to see Batman as a killer, and Snyder clearly does.

The scene does seem to be vague but I'd say even Batman's no-kill rule warrants a stay given the situation with the child.

 

[dahj]

Hate to say it, but at this point I'm kinda hoping they do push the panic button and end up replacing Snyder for Justice League.

Justice League is supposed to start shooting next month, and is slated to come out in a little over a year and a half. Barring an extremely disappointing return at the box office, I think he'll stay.

If they really absolutely feel they have to remove him, I hope they can convince Affleck to direct it and keep to both the schedule and to build on the foundation of this movie.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Okay, here's what Zack Snyder is now saying about making Batman a killer:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/a...-bvs-body-count-more-manslaughter-than-murder


What? Like that somehow makes a difference? What a hypocritical attitude. Further proof that Snyder has no comprehension of what being good or heroic actually means.

Snyder goes on:


Okay, I don't think this is true. As I recall, The Dark Knight Returns was pretty clear that, while Batman was more violent than he'd been in the past, he still drew the line at killing ("Rubber bullets. Honest.") I found a scan of the scene he's describing, and Snyder's clearly wrong about it in some details -- for one thing, the person Batman fires at is not the same person who had the machine gun, and for another, it's a woman (or a man with long, painted nails). And she (?) certainly is not shot "right between the eyes," since her visor and forehead are clearly intact. I'm not really sure what the panel after the shot is showing. I believe I always took it to mean that Batman had shot next to her head and scared her into submission or something. Looking at it now, there does seem to be a spray of blood, but it looks like it's centered around the shoulder. I suppose it's ambiguous enough that how you interpret it depends on whether you want to see Batman as a killer, and Snyder clearly does. But I don't think that's supported by the rest of the text of TDKR. Batman won't even kill the Joker -- the Joker snaps his own neck when Batman won't finish the job. So I think Snyder's wrong in his interpretation of the scene in question, even aside from the clear factual errors in his statement. He's certainly wrong to claim that TDKR Batman "kills all the time."

Not a fan of Snyder, but Batman in his early years did kill, like Superman, and the jargon about him not killing were done retroactively. Batman the character has proven a filmmaker or writer or artist can do anything with him. A film needs to follow it's own rules and there should be some consequence when a character does something which violates the order of the world.

It seems any excuse a filmmaker makes when they handle the character wrong, they tend to misquote or describe events in a way to interpret their point of view. As if he thinks audiences don't read the source material; as well as he, but looks at the pictures and thought it so. It's strange to hire someone who hasn't done they're homework in order to do the job appropriately. Tim Burton comes to mind.

 

[JD]

I'd heard rumblings of the bad reviews but avoided them until I saw the film.

The trailers didn't get me particularly excited, but I was still looking forward to it. I have to say, I pretty much hated it. I really wasn't expecting to say that, but it is what it is. I didn't hate it right away, and there are good things about it...but yeah. In my opinion, not great.

I'm still curious about Wonder Woman and Suicide Squad, but I think I'll wait and see what the reactions are in general to Justice League before I plunk down my money.

Just keep in mind that WW and SS are from different writers and directors, so you can't really judge them based on BvS and Justice League.

Okay, here's what Zack Snyder is now saying about making Batman a killer:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/a...-bvs-body-count-more-manslaughter-than-murder


What? Like that somehow makes a difference? What a hypocritical attitude. Further proof that Snyder has no comprehension of what being good or heroic actually means.

That doesn't even make sense. If you blow something up, or something blows up because of what you did and someone dies, you killed that person. IMO there's really no way around that, if something you did caused the person to die, then you are responsible.

 

[Samurai8472]

Hate to say it, but at this point I'm kinda hoping they do push the panic button and replace Snyder for Justice League.
.

The last thing WB want's to do is cause a panic with less than 3 weeks before production

Imagine how embarrassing the headline would be if BVS failed to meet expectations

"Justin Lin replaces Zack Synder on Justice League"

Everyone will know why he was replaced which will cause a cloud of doubt on WB.


The best thing to do is rework/rewrite Justice League during production to fix potential issues.


Otherwise we could get reviews like

"Bloated teamup offers nothing new."

 

[Christopher]

Hate to say it, but at this point I'm kinda hoping they do push the panic button and replace Snyder for Justice League.

I would love that. But from what I'm hearing, it seems unlikely they'd go that far, since they have too much invested in Snyder and too little time to find a replacement before Justice League begins production in two weeks. Rob Bricken on io9 has suggested, though, that they might put a sort of watchdog on him:

But I also think that WB hires someone to babysit Zack Snyder, or at least takes away some creative control. They’ll let him stay, partially because of BvS’s financial success, and partially because it’s such short notice. But someone will be given a dump truck of money to try to stop Snyder from making the same mistakes. I also think that WB’s panic delays Aquaman and The Flash until Wonder Woman and/or Justice League Part 1 come out, and they feel confident they’re not just flushing money down a toilet with the DC logo on it.

I have to wonder if there's enough time to really make a difference, though, since presumably the script is written and a lot of the shooting schedule is set. But maybe a lot of the fixes can be done in editing. I've seen several reviews saying BvS would be a stronger movie with a tighter edit.

I wouldn't want to lose Snyder's edgy, mythic, and larger than life style, but hopefully a new director could merge that with some better character and storytelling sensibilities as well. And that would probably also help draw back people who were turned off by Snyder's movies and as a result might be deciding to avoid JL entirely.

I'm torn. I would happily never watch another Zack Snyder movie again. But I'm eager to see any movie that Gadot's Wonder Woman is in.

The door opened by "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you."?

That's actually one of the least egregious examples. Tim Burton's Batman killed a lot of bad guys -- say, by driving through a warehouse full of them with the Batmobile's machine guns blazing, or by dropping one down a manhole and tossing lit dynamite in after them. Nolan's Batman at least tried not to kill, though he occasionally made exceptions. Schumacher's Batman was also pretty good with the not-killing, though there was at least one notable exception there.

The scene does seem to be vague but I'd say even Batman's no-kill rule warrants a stay given the situation with the child.

Except that it's obscenely dangerous to shoot at someone who's holding a child hostage, especially with such a comically huge machine gun. It would require incredibly precise aim of a sort that a weapon like that probably wouldn't be capable of, certainly not when being held in one hand. The only reason that can be justified as anything other than horrific negligence and child endangerment is because he was the Goddamn Batman and therefore had impossibly perfect aim. But given that he had impossibly perfect aim, he could also have effectively shot to injure rather than to kill.

 

[Corran Horn]

Well, at least the people who haven't seen it say that it's very good.

Gives me hope.

If you say it's good you're require to take a shot at the MCU and also imply anyone disagreeing is too dumb/juvenile to fully appreciate Snyder's vision.

If you say it's bad you're a Marvel fanboi who likes pratfall-style comedy and paint-by-numbers villains.

 

[The Doctor]

Ug. This movie is bad and it should feel bad.

Just as with Man Of Steel, BvS relies on false moral crises and a total misunderstanding of the heroes in the film. Compound that with a total mess of pacing due to the various shoe-horned JLA bits and a villain that was the Joker in all but name and you get a hot steaming mess of a film that takes itself so seriously that even the extremely well-produced action sequences seem like a slog.

I'm super-fucking-glad I didn't pay to see this turd. Booo!

 

[davejames]

I have to wonder if there's enough time to really make a difference, though, since presumably the script is written and a lot of the shooting schedule is set. But maybe a lot of the fixes can be done in editing. I've seen several reviews saying BvS would be a stronger movie with a tighter edit.

The odd thing is they had freakin forever to edit this thing, considering it was shot back in 2014. I think the problem must have just been with all the different plotlines they had to fit in, and maybe there was just no real way to make them all fit and flow together well.

I know some complain about the editing in MOS as well, but other than the somewhat clunky flashback transitions early on, I've always thought the overall story flowed pretty well. But maybe this time there was just way too much stuff for Snyder to juggle.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

OK, I'm heading to the theater now. The movie starts at 6pm but I want to get a good seat, so I'm going an hour early. I've rewatched MOS in order to prep myself. Wish me luck.

 

[davejames]

Think happy thoughts!

 

[Turtletrekker]

Godspeed!

 

[Christopher]

Hope you survive the experience! No, wait, that's Marvel.

 

[JacksonArcher]

You guys can read my review here if you want my in-depth analysis on the film, but my thoughts in a nutshell:

It's big, it's bold... but it's utterly a mixed bag. Some great performances (particularly from Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot and Jessie Eisenberg) but if you disliked Man of Steel, you will likely dislike this. It has some of the most gorgeous visuals in any recent comic-book movie, but the pacing, plotting and script are filled with redundancies and too many Easter Eggs trying to set up Justice League and the entire DC Extended Universe. Some might consider it a slog to sit through, although I find it exciting mostly to see Wonder Woman on the big screen for the first time.

I would go in with tempered expectations. As for Zack Snyder, I think the best case scenario is that he directs Justice League: Part I with significant oversight and supervision but is removed from Part II. Of course, depending on the eventual financial outcome of this film, there might not even be a Part II. I could totally see WB scrapping plans for that and fast-tracking a Ben Affleck Batman solo film.

Bottom-line: If Batman v Superman doesn't reach $1 billion worldwide, I expect WB to make some major shake-ups to its proposed line-up. I wouldn't be surprised if Justice League: Part I is the last Zack Snyder-directed DC superhero film.

 

[Tosk]

Just keep in mind that WW and SS are from different writers and directors, so you can't really judge them based on BvS and Justice League.

Which is why I'm still curious.

Let's hope "the house style" doesn't infect them too much. After BvS I'm finding it very hard to care about the DCCU. Amazingly, I now care even less about the Aquaman, Flash and Cyborg movies than I did before. And because of Snyder, I don't care about Justice League at all.

I don't just blame Snyder though. I've said this before and I'll say it again...Goyer has got to go.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Ok, so I have just returned from BvS and I am now prepared to render my verdict.

I really liked it. It was grand (since epic is too strong a word). I liked that it had something to say about heroism, cynicism, hope, and self-sacrifice. Major props to Cavil, Affleck, Adams, Irons, Hunter, and Eisenberg. They all preformed splendidly. Things that didn't work for me were the transitions between scenes. Seriously, this would be the biggest sin the movie committed, and Snyder really should work on that. I expected Doomsday to be a disposable prop villain, and he was. This dulled the finale for me a bit, but WW and Superman's actions brought smiles to my face.

As for the negative reviews this film has garnered, I think John Byrne said it best back when he was discussing MOS on his website back in 2013.

"Critics judge movies by a different set of criteria than those used by audiences. Some of those criteria make sense, some are based on the critic's personal snobberies, and some are based on skewed expectations (see above). Whatever combination these elements appear in, the result can be a review of a movie that is very much at odds with the opinions of the paying public -- and that can go in either direction, good or bad.

Ultimately, the only way to know if you'll like a movie is to pay attention to what the filmmakers are telling you about it. Are they selling a movie you think you'd like to see? Then go see it. (Of course, there is always the very real chance the filmmakers are lying to you!)"

Having now read some of the negative reviews, I can say that BvS has seemingly been dragged through the mud for doing 'everything wrong'. Almost as if those penning the reviews needed to find fault with everything Snyder tried to do with this film.
List of complaints

Spoiler

- too much action

- not enough action

- great cameos

- a few good cameos

- the beginning is amazing

- the beginning is choppy

- nobody has motivation, or character moments

- Batfleck, Holly Holms, Alfred are great

- Henry doesn't do much

- Henry has more to do, and is more vulnerable, than in MoS

- The last 30 min are amazing

- The last 30 min are boring

- I was bored the whole time

- I was at the edge of my seat, even though the movie was okay

- Too dark, no humor

- Alfred and Lex are funny, and the dark tone helps

- This is not a child's movie

- Silly things happen that break tension

- Perhaps the comic book genre needs a break

- Doomsday fight is amazing

- Meh Doomsday

- Amazing Bats vs Supes fight

- Bats vs Supes skirmish?

- Tailor made for comic book fans, and nerds

- Makes comic fans, and nerds, wish it was never made

- Too many Oscar winning actors

etc

I say go see the film and judge for yourself. Hopefully, you'll enjoy it as much as I did.

Final rating 8.5/10

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[davejames]

^Glad to hear you (mostly) liked it.

Definitely sounds like it's got some issues though. I guess one's enjoyment just depends on how distracting or frustrating one finds those issues to be.