Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
Christopher, I think you are making a smart decision in not seeing this in the theater. I respect your opinions. Even if I don't always agree with them. I also enjoy your books. I think I can make a reasonable deduction that you are going to hate this movie.
Why do I say that? Because I kind of liked Man of Steel and I REALLY disliked this one! I have a coupon to see the movie from buying a DVD of a season of Smallville. That was only good starting today, the official opening day. But I work 3rd shift and was not sure when I would get a chance to see it. So I decided to pay to see it before work last night. I figured I would use the free ticket to see it again some time later...
I am not sure i have any desire to see this movie again! I am not one for writing reviews. Maybe I will soon, once I have time to process my thoughts. For now - I am very unhappy how it treated the characters.
Which is exactly the problem. The coherence of a story shouldn't depend on waiting for later stories to fill in the gaps. Even if a story is part of a series, it should make sense within itself. Teasers for later installments should just be a little something extra, not an excuse to avoid giving explanations in the work itself.
I am fully aware of that as well. But he has not been established as a character capable of projecting psychic visions of the future into other people's brains. That's my point.
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.
When I wrote my review of MoS three years ago, I addressed this idea directly:
Now, I might be able to forgive Superman’s killing of Zod and his failure to save lives in general… if he never lets it happen again. I’d like to see a scene very early in the sequel (if there is one) which establishes that he’s deeply unsatisfied with his failures and that they’ve motivated him to become much more careful and dedicated about saving lives and finding nonlethal ways of dealing with his enemies. Then I can chalk up the grotesque shortcomings of this movie to Superman’s learning curve. I can forgive a mistake more easily if the culpable party admits the mistake and strives to do better as a result. The same goes for the filmmakers, of course — this would also show that they’d recognized their own monumental mistakes here and resolved to correct them.
And I have said already in this thread and elsewhere that the fact that BvS was a reaction to the criticisms of MoS was a promising development. However, what I'm hearing about the final result does not live up to my hopes. Superman still kills people, and so does Batman. And rather than maturely addressing the issue of collateral damage, I gather, Snyder just pays lip service to it and then falls back on the Saturday morning cartoon conceit of "It's fine, the whole section of the city is conveniently empty." Which is a very superficial way of responding to the concerns and misses the point entirely. The main reason I hated the climactic action of MoS so much wasn't just that the loss of life was being ignored, it's that watching superheroes knock down theoretically empty buildings for 15 minutes straight is enormously more boring than watching them save lives and protect people. It's misunderstanding what superheroes are all about.
That said, I saw an interesting review (I think it was linked here yesterday) likening Snyder's films to Godzilla movies and apocalyptic anime. There is a tendency in Japanese fiction to portray powerful beings as morally ambiguous and dangerous to civilians who get in their way. I suppose that's Snyder's approach to superheroes. Maybe if I look at the film in that light when I see it, I'll be more sanguine about it. I still think I'll want to fast-forward through a lot of the CGI disaster porn, though.
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)
Again, you don't need to tell me any of this. I've had the trade paperback of Byrne's TMoS on my bookshelf for the past quarter-century or more. It's nearly as much my template for Superman as the Elliot S! Maggin novels from a few years earlier. And it shows how to do a Batman-Superman conflict well.
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.
In theory, sure, but that's been done far better in Byrne's TMoS, in Superman: Birthright, and even in Smallville, so help me. MoS Clark was unsure of himself and trying to learn, yes, but the way he dealt with that was by blindly obeying the instructions of any male authority figure, from Objectivist Jonathan Kent to Jor-El to some random priest to Zod himself. He never made a decision of his own or asserted an independent path. I don't think that's very relatable to young people trying to define themselves as individuals with wills of their own.
As I said in my review quoted above, I could've forgiven MoS if it had been the start of a real learning curve for Superman, but nothing I've read has convinced me that he has one. He hasn't grown into the more noble and admirable Man of Tomorrow, but just become brooding and distant. Many reviews are saying that he's one of the most underdeveloped roles in the film.
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.
I don't think I want to wait that long. I mean, come on, these first two films have both been very, very long. They had room to allow their main character to go through quite a lot of character growth. So why drag it out until some hypothetical sequel a decade from now?
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.
I'm sorry, I think Snyder's Jonathan is one of the worst imaginable people to lay out a moral compass. To me, he was the villain of MoS as much as Zod was. Every positive thing that Clark achieved in the film was the result of rejecting Jonathan's terrible advice.
IMO its odd that you have a strong opinion of a film that you haven't seen.
As a rule, I try to keep an open mind. But I have a very strong opinion of MoS, and this is a film from the same director, and the reviews all seem to agree that it stays the course, that it continues the things I didn't like and adds even more. (I am deeply, deeply sick of movies that make Batman a killer, and this seems to be the most murderous Batman in screen history.) I still intend to see the film eventually, when I have the option to turn down the volume and control the pace of viewing and not be as distressed by the sensory overload, and I'm open to being pleasantly surprised. There were things about MoS that I loved, but they were ruined by the things I deeply hated. So I don't doubt there will be things about BvS that I find worthwhile. But it sure sounds as if the parts I hated are still there in full force.
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.
Yes, obviously. I already stated that I'm aware of that.
I explicitly did say that I know he'll be resurrected. But that was not my point. I wasn't saying I expected Superman to stay dead, I was saying that it felt symbolic of their attitude toward the character. Symbolism is not literal.
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.
All humans be like, "Yo man you wrecked the place. Not cool dude." And Batman be like, "This guy got no respect, Imma eff his shit up for reals." Even though Batman be just as reckless and crazy with other people's lives and property. And then he's like, "I gotta get Doomsday to follow me into the city so I can go get my shit I left behind" instead of getting his shit and bringing it to Doomsday. He's like, Bat-Hypocrite or sumthin'.
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'm reluctant to reply to this, because you've said you don't intend to see this and you're working from second-hand information, so you're missing the context, but...
I've seen the Knightmare Batman sequence -- Batman in the desert, a fight with Superman soldiers, Parademons -- characterized as a dream sequence. As you say, it seems like a prophetic vision.
As far as I can tell, it's not. It doesn't play like a prophetic vision. It doesn't have the dream-like quality that the flashback to the Waynes' murder has. This is the future. In the future, Darkseid has invaded the Earth, turned it to ashes, Superman is in league with Darkseid and his Parademons, Lois Lane is dead, the resurrected Superman (which could explain why the soldiers seem to worship him) blame Batman personally, and the Justice League is fighting a desperate battle to destroy Superman for some reason.
And the Flash brings a flash of the future with him when, like the first issue of Crisis where he shows up from the future in front of Batman to tell him about the Anti-Monitor.
I don't know how Batman "sees" what the Flash's future is like. Maybe it's something J'onn J'onzz does. Maybe it has to do with quantum states of reality and, momentarily, Batman's mind links with his future self when the Flash breaches time. I don't know. The actual mechanism doesn't matter.
The point is, it's not a prophetic vision at all. This is what will happen, this has happened (from a certain point of view), the Flash has come back in time to warn Batman that the key to all this is Lois, and Batman, in my opinion, misinterpets this in such a way that it propels him into his battle with Superman, which will then lead to Darkseid and his minion Superman subjugating the Earth.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Knightmare Batman sequence was how Justice League Part 1 ends, to be honest.
I'm reluctant to reply to this, because you've said you don't intend to see this and you're working from second-hand information, so you're missing the context, but...
I've seen the Knightmare Batman sequence -- Batman in the desert, a fight with Superman soldiers, Parademons -- characterized as a dream sequence. As you say, it seems like a prophetic vision.
As far as I can tell, it's not. It doesn't play like a prophetic vision. It doesn't have the dream-like quality that the flashback to the Waynes' murder has. This is the future. In the future, Darkseid has invaded the Earth, turned it to ashes, Superman is in league with Darkseid and his Parademons, Lois Lane is dead, the resurrected Superman (which could explain why the soldiers seem to worship him) blame Batman personally, and the Justice League is fighting a desperate battle to destroy Superman for some reason.
And the Flash brings a flash of the future with him when, like the first issue of Crisis where he shows up from the future in front of Batman to tell him about the Anti-Monitor.
I don't know how Batman "sees" what the Flash's future is like. Maybe it's something J'onn J'onzz does. Maybe it has to do with quantum states of reality and, momentarily, Batman's mind links with his future self when the Flash breaches time. I don't know. The actual mechanism doesn't matter.
The point is, it's not a prophetic vision at all. This is what will happen, this has happened (from a certain point of view), the Flash has come back in time to warn Batman that the key to all this is Lois, and Batman, in my opinion, misinterpets this in such a way that it propels him into his battle with Superman, which will then lead to Darkseid and his minion Superman subjugating the Earth.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Knightmare Batman sequence was how Justice League Part 1 ends, to be honest.
I'm reluctant to reply to this, because you've said you don't intend to see this and you're working from second-hand information, so you're missing the context, but...
Wrong. I've said repeatedly that I do intend to see this, but I'm not going to see it in the theater. The climax of Man of Steel was so overwhelming with its noise and blaring, repetitive music and sheer sensory overload that just wouldn't stop that it almost physically drove me out of the theater. No way am I putting myself through that again without a damn good reason. So I'll wait until I can watch it on my own TV with my finger on the volume control. But I absolutely will see it. I'm dying to see Gadot's Wonder Woman. And I'm curious about Affleck's performance as Batman, even if it has to be yet another killer Batman. And I liked Cavill as Superman, though I get the impression that he doesn't get much to work with here. There's a lot of stuff in this movie I do want to see, but what I've read about the nature of the action and the climactic sequence is enough to convince me to wait for home video.
I don't know how Batman "sees" what the Flash's future is like. Maybe it's something J'onn J'onzz does. Maybe it has to do with quantum states of reality and, momentarily, Batman's mind links with his future self when the Flash breaches time. I don't know. The actual mechanism doesn't matter.
And that's where we differ. I think it's bad writing to toss in a plot point through random magic rather than through something that makes sense within the narrative. (One of my go-to examples was a Knight Rider episode where KITT's CPU had been stolen, Michael Knight was trying to find it, and he just randomly had a moment of psychic rapport that led him to the CPU -- an ability never hinted at before or since -- because the writers lacked the time or will to think of a legitimate solution to their plot problem.) Even a work of fantasy needs to play fair by its own internal logic. You don't just get to change the rules at a whim in order to force in a necessary plot point. That's just an excuse to avoid doing the work to justify it.
And that's where we differ. I think it's bad writing to toss in a plot point through random magic rather than through something that makes sense within the narrative.
It does make sense within the narrative. You're missing the context for those events. Which is why I was reluctant to reply to you at all; you're talking from second-hand sources, not primary ones.
What is the context? I would argue that the sequence only makes any kind of sense because you have years of comics stories and knowledge of the characters to piece together a pretty good idea of what it could all mean. The movie itself gives you jack in terms of knowing what the heck is going on.
Saw it at midnight and while it didn't meet all my expectations I still enjoyed the movie and glad I went first thing to see it (B+). The film takes it time for a while and I like that, no need to just make it a Michael Bay 2.5 hours action marathon and there is more than enough for the final hour to please you. Yes some parts were rushed n a little half baked but overall if you like comic book stories then this movie should please you overall but more casual movie goers especially any who didn't see MoS will probably not enjoy it as much.
Am glad DC is trying to be different from Marvel, there was no room for light hearted jokey moments, Batman & Superman have always been characters with the weight of the world on their shoulders and have the demeanour that follows it. I thought Batman's action scenes were brilliant and Affleck was superb + Wonder Woman made a cracking entrance onto the big screen. The little bits with the Justice League left me wanting more though I will admit I don't care for Cyborg and would of preferred GL or Green Arrow (though Arrow of course is not a meta human). Plenty of comic book references and I want to know whose coming? why do I have a feeling Brainiac has been behind the scenes? at least it would explain how Luther was able to use tech beyond him so easily (more I google more it looks like Darkseid). As for the epic levels of destruction towards the end, when gods fight things go boom simple as, this is comic book land after all.
If this had come out before most of MCU it would be praised but if your not doing it like Marvel then your in the wrong seems to be most people's view. I do wonder if a 2 part story line would of been better to really flesh it out and go deep and actually introduce more Justice League people in the 2nd part. I also believe WB have rushed things and they should of gone the route of..."Man of Steel" "The Batman" "Wonder Woman" "BvSOJ 2 Parter" then Justice League.
What is the context? I would argue that the sequence only makes any kind of sense because you have years of comics stories and knowledge of the characters to piece together a pretty good idea of what it could all mean. The movie itself gives you jack in terms of knowing what the heck is going on.
To be fair, I think that is a problem with the movie -- the events do make sense, but you have to know DC Comics, especially what they published between 1985 and 1995, to fully understand the backstory. What I found intriguing was the extent to which this film behaved like a comic book, in the sense that it has backstory that happened before, doesn't take pains to explain it, knows the audience who knows it will recognize it, and tries to keep it not overwhelming for the audience who doesn't. So when I say it makes sense within the context of the narrative, that's because I am familiar with the backstory it's drawing upon from Crisis and the Fourth World.
Batman has a vision about Parademons: this indicates that something is happening involving Darkseid. The Flash shows up babbling about the future: this indicates that Batman's vision is the future. Luther starts pinging like a Mother Box and talks about how the message was heard in the stars: this suggests that the Fourth World's plans are already afoot.
This is why the film is getting such poor notices, in my opinion. It works, it's subtle, but it's going to be difficult to fully understand.
I'm reluctant to reply to this, because you've said you don't intend to see this and you're working from second-hand information, so you're missing the context, but...
I've seen the Knightmare Batman sequence -- Batman in the desert, a fight with Superman soldiers, Parademons -- characterized as a dream sequence. As you say, it seems like a prophetic vision.
As far as I can tell, it's not. It doesn't play like a prophetic vision. It doesn't have the dream-like quality that the flashback to the Waynes' murder has. This is the future. In the future, Darkseid has invaded the Earth, turned it to ashes, Superman is in league with Darkseid and his Parademons, Lois Lane is dead, the resurrected Superman (which could explain why the soldiers seem to worship him) blame Batman personally, and the Justice League is fighting a desperate battle to destroy Superman for some reason.
And the Flash brings a flash of the future with him when, like the first issue of Crisis where he shows up from the future in front of Batman to tell him about the Anti-Monitor.
I don't know how Batman "sees" what the Flash's future is like. Maybe it's something J'onn J'onzz does. Maybe it has to do with quantum states of reality and, momentarily, Batman's mind links with his future self when the Flash breaches time. I don't know. The actual mechanism doesn't matter.
The point is, it's not a prophetic vision at all. This is what will happen, this has happened (from a certain point of view), the Flash has come back in time to warn Batman that the key to all this is Lois, and Batman, in my opinion, misinterpets this in such a way that it propels him into his battle with Superman, which will then lead to Darkseid and his minion Superman subjugating the Earth.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Knightmare Batman sequence was how Justice League Part 1 ends, to be honest.
Take this scene out of the movie, and what changes? Absolutely nothing. Does Batman even do a thing about Lois or have a scene with her to try to make sure she's alright and safe knowing she's so important?
Then please tell me. I have no reluctance about spoilers in this case. I want to be part of this conversation, but I'm hampered by the fact that I don't feel I could endure watching the movie in the theater and thus have no choice but to wait (and I have no interest in any sort of bootleg download, so nobody offer me one, please). In the meantime, I'm trying to learn what I can.
To be fair, I think that is a problem with the movie -- the events do make sense, but you have to know DC Comics, especially what they published between 1985 and 1995, to fully understand the backstory.
Which means that it doesn't make sense, period. A story needs to be understandable within itself, as a self-contained work. If it depends on familiarity with other works outside of itself to be understood, then it's being done wrong. The comic-book reader base is a tiny fraction of the moviegoing audience. Most of the people who see this movie will not know DC's output between 1985-95. Heck, that's the whole reason for doing an adaptation -- to bring a work or a concept to a new audience that wasn't previously familiar with it.
So when I say it makes sense within the context of the narrative, that's because I am familiar with the backstory it's drawing upon from Crisis and the Fourth World.
But that's not the same narrative. That's a different narrative that this narrative is using as its starting point. It's a different reality, a different Earth in the Multiverse.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with slipping in an Easter egg that only fans of the comics will get -- like when Supergirl made that offhand reference to Lobo the other week, say, or Daredevil's nods to Melvin Potter's Gladiator costume. But those are just passing details with no real story impact. If it's actually an important plot point within the movie itself, it's just plain crappy writing to make it comprehensible only to that small fraction of the audience that has prior familiarity with the comics.
Then please tell me. I have no reluctance about spoilers in this case. I want to be part of this conversation, but I'm hampered by the fact that I don't feel I could endure watching the movie in the theater and thus have no choice but to wait (and I have no interest in any sort of bootleg download, so nobody offer me one, please). In the meantime, I'm trying to learn what I can.
Which means that it doesn't make sense, period. A story needs to be understandable within itself, as a self-contained work. If it depends on familiarity with other works outside of itself to be understood, then it's being done wrong.
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.
Earned in the sense that they just basically blew their load early. In my opinion they haven't established Superman as a hero who is accepted by everyone. Even in this film he's filled with doubts about whether we're even worth saving, and he hasn't embraced the philosophy of "I'm going to be a hero for earth because it's the right thing to do and I'm going to be a symbol for people to look up, to inspire them, to show them how good they can be'. So the fact that everyone is now mourning him came across as very false. All the people who were protesting him being an alien are going to be overjoyed that he's gone. And don't you think it would have had more of an impact if say in three-four movies time they did the death of Superman, then they have all the heroes that he's brought together come to the funeral and pay their respects? I can't get over the fact that Superman barely smiled at all. It doesn't feel to me that they've built him up well enough as a hero for his death to have any impact. It just seemed to be there as a shocking way to get people to go and see the film, to keep people talking about it. And the thing is, they've played this card now. They can't use the death of Superman again.
I agree with Christopher in that it seems like they don't know how to write Superman as a hero so they just do the easy thing and kill him and have him inspire people that way. How about showing him be kind to people, heck Bruce mentioned that he's saved kittens from trees I want to see that! I want to see him be friendly with the people he's saved, to give them a smile and a wink, to actually feel like he cares about people rather than being the stoic, brooding figure portrayed in the film. I want to mourn this character, and I want to see why the world would mourn him, but I just don't.
Which is exactly the problem. The coherence of a story shouldn't depend on waiting for later stories to fill in the gaps. Even if a story is part of a series, it should make sense within itself. Teasers for later installments should just be a little something extra, not an excuse to avoid giving explanations in the work itself.
I'm pretty sure foreshadowing is still a norm in many forms of media. Marvel is certainly chock full of them. Granted, that scene might have worked better for a construction point of view as a post credit scene where it stood by itself. It was a very impressive scene with considerable emotional shock in the film though, and yet another apocalyptic vision of Superman that motivated Wayne to confront him.
Hard to know what you are aware of, considering you haven't seen the film and that scene with Miller isn't in any of the trailers that have been released.
I am fully aware of that as well. But he has not been established as a character capable of projecting psychic visions of the future into other people's brains. That's my point.
This character hasn't been established AT ALL when this event takes place. It is literally the first time we see him. Heck, we don't even know it is a dream sequence. The sequence happens, Bruce wakes up at his desk in the batcave. Lots of potential explanations for that, as Allyn commented on.
To me, getting the context of that scene is a fun thing that I can hope to get in the next film, and increases my enjoyment. To you, who already don't like it, its an annoyance. Fair enough - but there isn't just one correct way to do this.
When I wrote my review of MoS three years ago, I addressed this idea directly:
And I have said already in this thread and elsewhere that the fact that BvS was a reaction to the criticisms of MoS was a promising development. However, what I'm hearing about the final result does not live up to my hopes. Superman still kills people, and so does Batman. And rather than maturely addressing the issue of collateral damage, I gather, Snyder just pays lip service to it and then falls back on the Saturday morning cartoon conceit of "It's fine, the whole section of the city is conveniently empty." Which is a very superficial way of responding to the concerns and misses the point entirely. The main reason I hated the climactic action of MoS so much wasn't just that the loss of life was being ignored, it's that watching superheroes knock down theoretically empty buildings for 15 minutes straight is enormously more boring than watching them save lives and protect people. It's misunderstanding what superheroes are all about.
I'm not aware of Superman killing anyone in this movie. Batman does, and that was a bit jarring. I'd have preferred if that wasnt' the case. But then, this isn't Burton or even Abrams Batman. This is one that has lost Robin, and more than a bit of hope. Superman's first action when fighting Doomsday is to take the fight out of the city - and off the planet, into orbit. Clearly he has learned from his previous mistakes.
I'd say being a savior is part of the superhero genre, but it's just one aspect of it. Comics have grown darker and more cynical over time, and there's tons of anti-heroes walking around now. But its hard to argue that the Punisher isn't a story about a superhero anti-hero. And of course one of the main plot points is specifically about saving innocents, and how trust is established between Supes and Batman.
That said, I saw an interesting review (I think it was linked here yesterday) likening Snyder's films to Godzilla movies and apocalyptic anime. There is a tendency in Japanese fiction to portray powerful beings as morally ambiguous and dangerous to civilians who get in their way. I suppose that's Snyder's approach to superheroes. Maybe if I look at the film in that light when I see it, I'll be more sanguine about it. I still think I'll want to fast-forward through a lot of the CGI disaster porn, though.
Well, again that's a difference between Marvel and DC. DC characters are considered demigods, and there's a lot of references within the universe of what happens when these guys go at it. Metropolis has been destroyed and rebuilt, Coast City was wiped out entirely, Star City goes from one disaster to the next. Hell, Gotham became a massive pentitentiary/insane asylum in No Man's Land. I think that is fairly well established in the mythology.
But I certainly understand personal preference on whether its enjoyable to watch.
Again, you don't need to tell me any of this. I've had the trade paperback of Byrne's TMoS on my bookshelf for the past quarter-century or more. It's nearly as much my template for Superman as the Elliot S! Maggin novels from a few years earlier. And it shows how to do a Batman-Superman conflict well.
Honestly, I thought that conflict was rather silly, though I loved the reboot of Supes. Having Batman threaten that a random person be killed if Superman touched him - and then admiting it was Batman himself. You'd think the demigod that can see everything would have noticed the bomb. Dumb dumb dumb. And the Magpie as the villian that brought them together? Not Byrne's finest hour.
In theory, sure, but that's been done far better in Byrne's TMoS, in Superman: Birthright, and even in Smallville, so help me. MoS Clark was unsure of himself and trying to learn, yes, but the way he dealt with that was by blindly obeying the instructions of any male authority figure, from Objectivist Jonathan Kent to Jor-El to some random priest to Zod himself. He never made a decision of his own or asserted an independent path. I don't think that's very relatable to young people trying to define themselves as individuals with wills of their own.
Don't follow that at all. He rejected his dad by being Superman period. He rejected Zod, an obvious authority figure, because he wouldn't be party to the destruction his vision caused. He even rejected the resurrection of the Kryptonians if it could have been done without the destruction, because of the potential for harm to human society.
As I said in my review quoted above, I could've forgiven MoS if it had been the start of a real learning curve for Superman, but nothing I've read has convinced me that he has one. He hasn't grown into the more noble and admirable Man of Tomorrow, but just become brooding and distant. Many reviews are saying that he's one of the most underdeveloped roles in the film.
I think there's some significant moments for Clark in this film, even though the movie is less focused on Superman than MoS was. However, there isn't lengthy exposition. Instead there's vignettes where people continue to give him advice. Ultimately the movie is about what Superman will be. And what his reason for being a superhero is. Everything is set up for that to come to complete fruition in the next movie.
I don't think I want to wait that long. I mean, come on, these first two films have both been very, very long. They had room to allow their main character to go through quite a lot of character growth. So why drag it out until some hypothetical sequel a decade from now?
Eh? Justice League is coming out next year. Supes will definitely be in that one, and for him to be in that one, they'll have to address this. I'm positive that's the plan.
I'm sorry, I think Snyder's Jonathan is one of the worst imaginable people to lay out a moral compass. To me, he was the villain of MoS as much as Zod was. Every positive thing that Clark achieved in the film was the result of rejecting Jonathan's terrible advice.
Jonathan's discussion in this one is brief, but memorable.
It's all about unintended consequences, and it makes the character in the first one far more sympathetic. He's seen what good intentions can do if they aren't guided correctly. He's scared for Clark. He's scared that the pain that those things caused him will happen to Clark on a massive scale because of what Clark can do.
Which is exactly what happened at the end of the first movie, and led to the plot of the second.
As a rule, I try to keep an open mind. But I have a very strong opinion of MoS, and this is a film from the same director, and the reviews all seem to agree that it stays the course, that it continues the things I didn't like and adds even more. (I am deeply, deeply sick of movies that make Batman a killer, and this seems to be the most murderous Batman in screen history.) I still intend to see the film eventually, when I have the option to turn down the volume and control the pace of viewing and not be as distressed by the sensory overload, and I'm open to being pleasantly surprised. There were things about MoS that I loved, but they were ruined by the things I deeply hated. So I don't doubt there will be things about BvS that I find worthwhile. But it sure sounds as if the parts I hated are still there in full force.
Probably true. But there's a bit of redemption in Batman in this one as well.
Yes, obviously. I already stated that I'm aware of that.
I explicitly did say that I know he'll be resurrected. But that was not my point. I wasn't saying I expected Superman to stay dead, I was saying that it felt symbolic of their attitude toward the character. Symbolism is not literal.
... if you aren't intending to kill the character off, I don't see how that's in any way 'not knowing what to do with him, and trying to get rid of him.' They didn't get rid of him - they are setting him up for his next act. His death is significant, as it is the redeeming point of the character and the character defining his moralilty. If you define the superhero as the savior complex, that's about as explicit as you can get.
But yeah, if you didn't like MoS, you won't like this. Again, IMO, what choices they made they exercised well, and the story is internally consistent and has a strong arc. I'm not only excited to see what they do next, but also excited about the Wonder Woman story, and I wasn't prior to this movie.
A book in which, as in every other book, I tried to explain everything that needed explaining, rather than just assuming the readers would understand it. That's one of the first rules of tie-in writing -- recognizing that every story may be someone's first. Heck, that was drilled into me way back in high-school English: Never assume your readers already know something. Recognize that different people have different levels of knowledge and make sure that what you write is understandable to all of them.
Besides, it's invalid to draw an equivalency between novel tie-ins to a TV franchise and a movie adaptation of a comics franchise. In the former case, it's a reasonable expectation that the vast majority of readers will be people who are already fans of the franchise, so there are some things that can essentially be taken as read (for instance, you can probably get away without giving a detailed physical description of Kirk or Spock or Starfleet uniforms). In the latter case, it's a given that the majority of your audience will not be intimately familiar with the source material.
I'm pretty sure foreshadowing is still a norm in many forms of media. Marvel is certainly chock full of them. Granted, that scene might have worked better for a construction point of view as a post credit scene where it stood by itself. It was a very impressive scene with considerable emotional shock in the film though, and yet another apocalyptic vision of Superman that motivated Wayne to confront him.
Maybe. As Allyn validly (if a bit harshly) points out, I haven't seen the scene yet and might be missing something. But I still feel one should balance foreshadowing with the general rule that a story should work as a complete whole within itself.
Hard to know what you are aware of, considering you haven't seen the film and that scene with Miller isn't in any of the trailers that have been released.
I do read the news items. And it's obvious that it wasn't going to be Grant Gustin's Flash in the film. Of course this is a separate continuity, so of course its Flash is different.
Spoilery spoilers
I'm not aware of Superman killing anyone in this movie.
I think you mean Nolan, not Abrams. As for Burton's Batman, he was absolutely a killer. And Nolan's was kind of hypocritical about it, doing things like refusing to execute a League of Assassins member and then punctuating his moral stand by blowing up the whole building and evidently causing dozens of deaths.
Well, again that's a difference between Marvel and DC. DC characters are considered demigods, and there's a lot of references within the universe of what happens when these guys go at it. Metropolis has been destroyed and rebuilt, Coast City was wiped out entirely, Star City goes from one disaster to the next. Hell, Gotham became a massive pentitentiary/insane asylum in No Man's Land. I think that is fairly well established in the mythology.
But I certainly understand personal preference on whether its enjoyable to watch.
It's not about whether mass-destruction scenes in general are watchable. I like Godzilla movies. I just don't like the way Snyder handles it. The destruction in MoS went on far too long, it was soulless and impersonal and repetitive, it was gratuitously excessive and overdone, the music was obnoxiously blaring, and you could've removed virtually all of it from the film without affecting a single plot point or line of dialogue, since literally nobody in the film even verbally acknowledged that it had happened at all (though obviously that is not the case with the sequel). Another director could've handled the same material far more effectively, I think.
Honestly, I thought that conflict was rather silly, though I loved the reboot of Supes. Having Batman threaten that a random person be killed if Superman touched him - and then admiting it was Batman himself. You'd think the demigod that can see everything would have noticed the bomb. Dumb dumb dumb. And the Magpie as the villian that brought them together? Not Byrne's finest hour.
Even so, it shows Batman fighting Superman in the only way that makes sense -- with his mind, with his gift for advance planning and strategy. And it shows both of them being smart enough to recognize pretty quickly that they're on the same side despite their differences. No, Magpie wasn't a great villain, but nobody picking up a Batman-meets-Superman story is there to see the villain.
Eh? Justice League is coming out next year. Supes will definitely be in that one, and for him to be in that one, they'll have to address this. I'm positive that's the plan.
The parademon dream sequence (or whatever it is) is visually striking and adds some interesting motivation in the movie, and sets up a future movie. However, it is in no way necessary to the plot of this one.
As far as every aspect of a story have to be self-contained, that's a good way to write a story but hardly necessary these days. There's some expectation of a greater story outside the one told in the 2 hour window. Heck, the Lost forums were more interesting than the show itself.
I've had a day to mull over what I saw and here are my biggest problems with this film.
Firstly, all of the setup and deviations from the main story to furiously cram in 4-5 movies worth of world building into one. This was also the main problem with The Amazing Spider-Man 2. This film was billed as Batman v Superman. Not Batman has weird dreams, emails with Wonder Woman about the Flash and fucking Aquaman while Superman flits about and doesn't give a shit who dies in the process. Where Amazing stood head and shoulders above BvS is the characterization of Peter Parker/Spiderman and his relationship with Gwen. When he or the two of them were on screen, you couldn't take your eyes off them.
Contrast that with Batman in BvS. Here, he kills criminals left, right and centre, puts innocents in harms way without the blink of an eye and displays none of the intelligence, empathy or character that defines who Batman is. Batman does not kill. You can make him old, young, black or white but his refusal to kill even the most hateful and deserving is a defining characteristic of what and who he is. Putting aside the overt attacks on people and vehicles, there is a scene where an assailant pulls the pin on a grenade, which Batman cased him to fumble. Then Bats just lets the guy explode.
No. That's not who Batman is. It just isn't. He might as well have been The Punisher with money and a mask. I also hated, hated, hated the way he looked and moved. Batman is not a lumbering brute who shugs off bullets because of magic fabric armour. He's agile, lithe and always running because the bullets flying towards him will hurt and kill him. There are plenty of problems with Nolan's Bat-films but aside from a terrible coy "I don't have to save you" in Begins, his Batman is resolute in his refusal to kill or put others in harms way.
On to Superman, who is dour, callous and completely unconcerned about anyone's wellbeing except Lois. The so-called 'trap' at the outset of the film where Lex connives to make Supes look like a killer could not have worked if Supes was the man he should be. He would never have let that gunfight continue after saving Lois. He'd have put her on a rock somewhere and flown back to stop the violence. Instead, he just swans away and shrugs when told about the body count and the subsequent violence in the adjacent village. This complete indifference to human life runs counter to his supposed problem with Batman. Where Supes couldn't care less about dead Africans killed in a conflict that his appearance started, he pursues and tries to stop Batman from his admittedly brutal anti-crime methods.
I could go on and on but the bottom line is that Zach Snyder doesn't understand either character and doesn't care one way or the other. I can watch the two Garfield Spider-Mans anytime and find more than enough heart and character beats to gloss over overstuffed world-building or excessive run-times. I can watch any of the Nolan Bat-films (even the last one, where Batman takes a turn at being James Bond) and be enthralled at the down-in-the-mud struggle of Batman to keep ahead of the crushing wave of crime and misery that he's trying to hold back with his bare hands. But this film: It doesn't start either Batman or Superman in any recognizable sense, has no narrative through line to carry us past the world-building and it's just plain joyless. Nolan's Bat-films are a laugh-a-minute compared to this morass of long stares and barely contained contempt. And that's just Superman, let alone the utterly lost Batman who knows only rage.
As I said originally: This movie is bad and it should feel bad. I really hope this marks the end of this particular take on the DC universe.
OJ 2 Parter" then Justice League.
