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

[Scherazade]

I know there are a lot of opinions about what is financially a success for this movie, but anything less than $1 billion should be considered a failure for the studio. Note that I did not say a failure of a movie. I haven't seen it yet, but I have seen several movies that I consider to be masterpieces that bombed, and BvS is no bomb. The fact is, we live in a world where movies making over a billion dollars is not rare. When several superhero movies (including two of the studios previous efforts), the Fast and Furious, Jurassic Park, Marvel and Transformers franchises can do it, there is no excuse for the first live action movie featuring the DC trinity to not be on that list too. Something did not work and the studio should try and figure out what that is.

$1 billion seems to be the benchmark, but I figured this movie would've easily crested that. If the movie could've made $1.1 billion, which is more than The Dark Knight Rises made in 2012 but less than the Avengers movies, but ends with $900 million, that missing money could've helped fund a ton of projects (or a couple large ones) at the studio.

On a related note, I will be somewhat pleased if the movie stays below a billion dollars, just so fans, critics and studio heads will stop thinking they have a guaranteed big hit. Maybe after Sony's hopes for Amazing Spider Man 2 were dashed, and now this, people will be more cautious in their predictions. Another thing I don't think was put into account is how much competition there is with superhero movies these days. If BvS came out before Marvel's string of successes, it would've had a better chance of crossing the threshold. Combine with the popularity of review aggregators, and people are much more careful where they spend their time and money. I'm sure more than one person stated, "I'll just wait for Civil War."

 

[Ovation]

Hell, not even that, just those two pages.

"You have ruthlessly murdered all the people on this planet--Five billion humans! That is a crime without equal! The Nazi Holocaust pales by comparison."

"What I must now do is harder than anything I have done before. But as the last representative of law and justice on this world, it falls to me to act as judge, jury...and executioner."

Ok. But they were powerless, and permanently so. And Superman was a veteran hero. In Man of Steel, Zod is NOT powerless, has explicitly stated his goal is to wipe out humanity AND is about to kill a family. A highly inexperienced Superman, facing a relentless and implacable foe--in what has clearly become a war--makes a difficult choice, and not at all in a gleeful or casual manner. Not a murder at all.

One can argue the filmmakers didn't need to place the character in that situation but given the situation as presented, Superman's action was justifiable.

 

[The Old Mixer]

You're not going to draw me into an argument about the relative merits of what Superman did in MoS, because I wasn't arguing for or against it. My post was about the misrepresentation of those two pages.

 

[Ovation]

It's not a private conversation. Your post simply provided information relevant to my points made earlier.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Who said anything about a private conversation? My post was about one thing, not the other. If you want to go back and forth about the ending of MoS, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to draw me into that.

 

[DarKush]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/R-Rated-Batman-V-Superman-Cut-May-Coming-Theaters-123667.html

 

[Arrrrgggh]

Ok. But they were powerless, and permanently so. And Superman was a veteran hero.

Yep. A veteran hero who not only actually tried but succeeded in stopping them with gold kryptonite. Unfortunately, there was no one left to turn them over to for their crimes, of which they were not even remotely repentant, so it was legitimately left to him to act as their actual judge and jury for their crimes, and seeing as how they were indeed guilty (and admitted to being guilty), they were punished the only way people who've actually commited genocide on a grandiose scale deserved to be punished. And afterwards he was actually quite upset about having to do that and it showed for a long, long time. By a writer who actually did understand the character in question.

Absolutely none of that was true in MoS. Not only did he NOT try to find some other way to stop Zod or the other Kryptonians (such as converting the phantom zone drive of his ship/Kara's ship into a projector, for example; and no, stopping their Kryptoforming attempts wasn't him trying to stop them), but when he did kill Zod, his only remorse lasted, what, ten seconds of screen time. And all over an act he could have stopped countless other ways (covering his eyes, redirecting his head [he was strong enough to snap his neck afterall], etc.). After which he was A-OK with it, and continued to be okay with it even in BvS where he killed at least one person directly and countless others indirectly. Oh, and he was totally prepared to kill Batman, too, cause, you know, mommy. (Who, again, encouraged Supes to just say "fuck it" to the world, demonstrating yet another galactically huge misunderstanding of the characters in question on Snyder's part.)

 

[Set Harth]

(such as converting the phantom zone drive of his ship/Kara's ship into a projector, for example

Say what? "Kara's ship"?

What are you talking about? There's no Kara in these films.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Yep. A veteran hero who not only actually tried but succeeded in stopping them with gold kryptonite. Unfortunately, there was no one left to turn them over to for their crimes, of which they were not even remotely repentant, so it was legitimately left to him to act as their actual judge and jury for their crimes, and seeing as how they were indeed guilty (and admitted to being guilty), they were punished the only way people who've actually commited genocide on a grandiose scale deserved to be punished. And afterwards he was actually quite upset about having to do that and it showed for a long, long time. By a writer who actually did understand the character in question.

It should also be noted that the post-Crisis Superman didn't know how permanent the effect of Gold Kryptonite would actually be. For all he knew, their powers might have returned over time, and Zod even taunted him about them getting their powers back.

After which he was A-OK with it, and continued to be okay with it even in BvS where he killed at least one person directly and countless others indirectly. Oh, and he was totally prepared to kill Batman, too, cause, you know, mommy. (Who, again, encouraged Supes to just say "fuck it" to the world, demonstrating yet another galactically huge misunderstanding of the characters in question on Snyder's part.)

Sorry, but on that I have to disagree. That's not what I saw on the screen.

 

[Ovation]

Yep. A veteran hero who not only actually tried but succeeded in stopping them with gold kryptonite. Unfortunately, there was no one left to turn them over to for their crimes, of which they were not even remotely repentant, so it was legitimately left to him to act as their actual judge and jury for their crimes, and seeing as how they were indeed guilty (and admitted to being guilty), they were punished the only way people who've actually commited genocide on a grandiose scale deserved to be punished. And afterwards he was actually quite upset about having to do that and it showed for a long, long time. By a writer who actually did understand the character in question.

Nope. Did NOT "have to" execute them. Could drag them back to his own universe and use the Phantom Zone projector. And as to the "long, long time"--benefits of a long-form storytelling medium.

Absolutely none of that was true in MoS. Not only did he NOT try to find some other way to stop Zod or the other Kryptonians (such as converting the phantom zone drive of his ship/Kara's ship into a projector,

And he would know to do this how, exactly? And who's going to restrain Zod while he takes the time to learn how to reverse engineer a device he's never seen before, from tech he's barely been exposed to and then will have to experiment with before knowing it will work?

for example; and no, stopping their Kryptoforming attempts wasn't him trying to stop them), but when he did kill Zod, his only remorse lasted, what, ten seconds of screen time. And all over an act he could have stopped countless other ways (covering his eyes, redirecting his head [he was strong enough to snap his neck afterall], etc.).

He could have delayed Zod--prolonged the fight (oh, wait, that would the same fight everyone says went on for far too long--even though it barely reached 10 mins or so in a 2 and half hour movie). But, again, who was going to restrain Zod? Not a de-powered Zod, unable to threaten anyone (but was executed anyway by the "One and True Superman" (patent pending)), but a fully powered one who explicitly declared his intention of wiping out humanity--you know, mass genocide (the crime the de-powered, non-threatening Zod deserved execution for, but, somehow, the fully powered, existentially threatening one did not).

After which he was A-OK with it, and continued to be okay with it even in BvS where he killed at least one person directly

Not in the movie I saw--pretty sure I would have noticed that.

and countless others indirectly.

When? Batman certainly did that--don't recall Superman doing anything of the kind.

Oh, and he was totally prepared to kill Batman, too, cause, you know, mommy. (Who, again, encouraged Supes to just say "fuck it" to the world, demonstrating yet another galactically huge misunderstanding of the characters in question on Snyder's part.)

Was that before or after he showed up to meet Batman and tried to reason with him, all while being attacked? If Superman had been "totally prepared to kill Batman", Batman would have died in an instant--never getting a chance to show how well "prepared" he was.

As for Martha's views--you're right, they're not like the 42,978 other times when she's June Cleaver in farm clothes. That was kind of the point. (Though, again, your caricatures of what actually happened in these films are unpersuasive and, frankly, laughable). That you don't like the choice of character portrayal does not make it illegitimate to explore. It simply makes it different.

 

[Ovation]

It should also be noted that the post-Crisis Superman didn't know how permanent the effect of Gold Kryptonite would actually be. For all he knew, their powers might have returned over time, and Zod even taunted him about them getting their powers back.

He could have brought them back and then used the Phantom Zone projector on them, if he thought they'd get their powers back in his universe. Unless he didn't have that tech on hand in that continuity (I don't recall). But, apparently, that should not have been a problem as such tech can be whipped up in an instant by someone who's just learned of somewhat related tech the day before--if some interpretations offered elsewhere in the thread are to be taken seriously.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

So Superman killing a guy fast and painless in the heat of the moment to save lives is horrible, but Superman killing a depowered enemy with a form of fucking radiation poising is totally acceptable

 

[Kai "the spy"]

He could have brought them back and then used the Phantom Zone projector on them, if he thought they'd get their powers back in his universe. Unless he didn't have that tech on hand in that continuity (I don't recall). But, apparently, that should not have been a problem as such tech can be whipped up in an instant by someone who's just learned of somewhat related tech the day before--if some interpretations offered elsewhere in the thread are to be taken seriously.

No, he didn't have a Phantom Zone projector, nor did he even know of the Phantom Zone until after he brought back the Eradicator from his self-imposed exile.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

So Superman killing a guy fast and painless in the heat of the moment to save lives is horrible, but Superman killing a depowered enemy with a form of fucking radiation poising is totally acceptable

It was not acceptable, especially not to himself. That's where the whole self-imposed exile comes in.

And I'm not criticizing the act of the character in that situation, I criticize the makers of the movie for putting him in that situation without being able to show the personal consequences.

 

[Arrrrgggh]

Nope. Did NOT "have to" execute them. Could drag them back to his own universe and use the Phantom Zone projector. And as to the "long, long time"--benefits of a long-form storytelling medium.

Again, I have to ask if you even read the comics in question. Because it just becomes more and more painfully clear that you haven't every time you comment on them.

And he would know to do this how, exactly? And who's going to restrain Zod while he takes the time to learn how to reverse engineer a device he's never seen before, from tech he's barely been exposed to and then will have to experiment with before knowing it will work?

Any number of ways that were available to him and the writers (since, you know, it wasn't a documentary of real life events). Why, he even had the avatar of one of Krypton's most brilliant scientists available to offer up the suggestion. Alternatively, there could have already been a similar device on Kara's scout ship. Or Doc Hamilton could have theorized it as a possibility and all Supes would have had to do was keep Zod and co. busy until he finished retrofitting it. etc.

He could have delayed Zod--prolonged the fight (oh, wait, that would the same fight everyone says went on for far too long--even though it barely reached 10 mins or so in a 2 and half hour movie). But, again, who was going to restrain Zod? Not a de-powered Zod, unable to threaten anyone (but was executed anyway by the "One and True Superman" (patent pending)), but a fully powered one who explicitly declared his intention of wiping out humanity--you know, mass genocide (the crime the de-powered, non-threatening Zod deserved execution for, but, somehow, the fully powered, existentially threatening one did not).

Again: Not a documentary. The writers purposely wrote the story so that Superman would be a murderer. They wanted him to do it, showing without question that they didn't understand the character one. single. bit. It was 100% a conscious effort on their part to do it.

Nevermind that it's coming from the same guy who thought it would be "fun" (his exact word, by the way) to include and then murder at least two well-known characters from the mythos (that would be Jimmy Olson and Mercy Graves) because, you know, fuck them. Pointless murder is just so much fun in the Superman mythos!!!

Not in the movie I saw--pretty sure I would have noticed that.

Then not only do you show a lack of an ability to pay attention, but have no idea how physics work. (Hint: Being hit by a ~200 lbs. mass traveling fast enough to obliterate two stone walls in the blink of an eye isn't something anyone walks away from.)

Was that before or after he showed up to meet Batman and tried to reason with him, all while being attacked?

Oh, you mean when he tried reasoning with him by not reasoning with him at all. You know, like telling him that he was being blackmailed and in what he (idiotically) thought was a no-win situation, and that he didn't know what to do. 'Cause, nope. Apparently your idea of reasoning with someone is just giving them an ultimatum to stand down and then glare menacingly.

As for Martha's views--you're right, they're not like the 42,978 other times when she's June Cleaver in farm clothes. That was kind of the point. (Though, again, your caricatures of what actually happened in these films are unpersuasive and, frankly, laughable). That you don't like the choice of character portrayal does not make it illegitimate to explore. It simply makes it different.

Yeah, because her telling him to let the world burn made her such a fascinating and interesting character. Just like it did his dad. Nevermind that it defeats the entire point of both characters in every concievable way. He might as well have been found by the military, or just left as an orphan. As, apparently, it's only his genetics that instilled him with his "morality" (<choke>) and made him a "good" (<bwahaha>; <ahem> sorry, tried really hard to keep a straight face saying that) person; not the people who raised him his entire life.

Which, again, was 100% the writers'/director's fault, demonstrating a massively huge misunderstanding of all the characters involved.

It's just fucking sad and embarrassing that Marvel has created two characters (Captain America and the most recent incarnation of Colossus) that are more Supermanish than Superman himself is. Especially when -- and this can not be stated often enough -- WB already has the talent to not only have updated and modernized the character, but also maintain his core traits and write deep and interesting stories involving him.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Who decided that the Kryptonian 3 had to die?

It seems like its more of an editorial level decision since it kicked off all that Supermanless Earth stories, than that Byrne blind sided everyone as he was leaving.

 

[BigJake]

Again: Not a documentary. The writers purposely wrote the story so that Superman would be a murderer. They wanted him to do it, showing without question that they didn't understand the character one. single. bit. It was 100% a conscious effort on their part to do it.

So basically, anyone who "understands the character" would never dare write him in a story that contains difficult life-or-death moral decisions that have no convenient outs? The sin of the writing team was setting up a morally difficult situation and then actually following through on it?

Your criticism doesn't sound at all interesting, and this character you supposedly "understand" doesn't sound very interesting either. It basically sounds like he has to have the level of moral difficulty in any and every story he's in pre-Nerfed by the writing team, and that that's the kind of pablum you're accustomed to seeing him in, and that you're upset that someone refused to play by those rules. To each their own but I kind of prefer the character in MoS, because characters are often more interesting when they actually face difficult choices and don't get to choose a perfect solution; those are the kind of tensions in fictional stories that reveal the stuff people are really made of and the pain choosing a vocation like Hero of the World can really involve, which makes those characters in turn easier to relate to. I'm guessing here, but that's probably what those evil, murder-happy "writers" were thinking.

Also, Jimmy Olsen ranks just below Krypto the Superdog as awful parts of the Superman mythos go. Don't miss him a bit.

 

[Ovation]

So basically, anyone who "understands the character" would never dare write him in a story that contains difficult life-or-death moral decisions that have no convenient outs? The sin of the writing team was setting up a morally difficult situation and then actually following through on it?

Your criticism doesn't sound at all interesting, and this character you supposedly "understand" doesn't sound very interesting either. It basically sounds like he has to have the level of moral difficulty in any and every story he's in pre-Nerfed by the writing team, and that that's the kind of pablum you're accustomed to seeing him in, and that you're upset that someone refused to play by those rules. To each their own but I kind of prefer the character in MoS, because characters are often more interesting when they actually face difficult choices and don't get to choose a perfect solution; those are the kind of tensions in fictional stories that reveal the stuff people are really made of and the pain choosing a vocation like Hero of the World can really involve, which makes those characters in turn easier to relate to. I'm guessing here, but that's probably what those evil, murder-happy "writers" were thinking.

Also, Jimmy Olsen ranks just below Krypto the Superdog as awful parts of the Superman mythos go. Don't miss him a bit.

Thanks. Saves me the need to offer another rebuttal. But don't be too hard on Jimmy. He has his moments.

 

[Samurai8472]

There was a scene from BvS that was cut for being too dark( I know)

http://io9.gizmodo.com/zack-snyder-actually-cut-a-scene-from-batman-v-superman-1769852911

We had a scene that we cut from the movie where he tries to look for her when he finds out that Lex has got her. It was a slightly dark scene that we cut out because it sort of represented this dark side. Because when he was looking for his mom he heard all the cries of all the potential crimes going on in the city, you know when you look.

I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.

 

[Arrrrgggh]

So basically, anyone who "understands the character" would never dare write him in a story that contains difficult life-or-death moral decisions that have no convenient outs? The sin of the writing team was setting up a morally difficult situation and then actually following through on it?

Yes, because that's exactly what I said. And there wasn't anything morally difficult about that scene. Morally difficult is what Byrnes put Superman through in the aforementioned comics and the aftermath. MoS was just "aww fuck, we're too shitty to come up with anything interesting or show that Superman is actually a genuinely sympathetic and caring person who'd do anything to try to save people, even bad guys so... uh... hey, let's just snap Zod's neck. Now make Supes look sad while he's doing it and a few seconds after, and......... done! Never gonna come up again. Man we're awesome. In the next movie, let's fuck up Batman, too, by making him a gunnut who loves killing people both directly with fully-automatic machineguns and indirectly with his bat brand! Awww hellz yeah! Do we understand these characters or what!?"

Also, Jimmy Olsen ranks just below Krypto the Superdog as awful parts of the Superman mythos go. Don't miss him a bit.

And I care that you don't miss him or think he's an awful part of the mythos... why exactly? And what does that have to do with Zack Snyder thinking pointless murder is "fun" and an appropriate aspect of the Superman mythos, which was the actual reason I brought him up?

Thanks. Saves me the need to offer another rebuttal. But don't be too hard on Jimmy. He has his moments.

Translation: "I have no actual rebuttals, so I'll just cop out but try to act like I'm intellectually superior to everyone (especially since I haven't, in fact, read the comics being discussed, but admitting even that is too hard for someone like me)." Gotcha.