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

[Arrrrgggh]

Someone else on another forum made a good point: Zack Snyder, personally, in his heart of hearts, does not believe in the concept of the superhero. He doesn't believe that someone with great power could ever have great responsibility. He doesn't believe that someone with the ability to move planets could ever have a sense of altruism, could ever help people for the sole reason of it being the right thing to do.

Simply put... he's Lex Luthor.


I guess this is all a master plan to smear Superman by Lex Luthor

I've said it before, but I honestly believe (I need to believe) that this is actually the dawn of the Justice Lords or their rough equivalence. Things make soooo much more sense when you look at it from that perspective.

And what version of Man of Steel and Batman v Superman did they watch?

The same one everyone else watched.

 

[BigJake]

Snyder's idea of the superhero is basically the idea that was pioneered in the works he clearly leans toward and is a fan of -- an era where superheroes wrestled with moral complexity and where simple clean-cut ideals weren't always enough to win the day. You can't be a fan of the Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns and also be a likely candidate for creating stories where Superman's unblemished white-bread goodness is consistently preserved by Comics Code and writer fiat.

I think the really interesting question to ask about Snyder is how deep his ideological debts to Frank Miller (which obviously exist) go. Because the thing about the superhero idea in the end is that it's fundamentally fascistic, and without that gee-whiz idealism to buoy it up -- and without anything else to replace it -- it can sink down to those fundaments quite easily. Hence Miller's own deterioration into outright fascism, which Snyder brought to the screen little-altered in 300. I'm always watchful for this tendency in subsequent Snyder movies, because 300 made me quite suspicious of him... but much as he obviously still loves the classic Miller material he does seem to be growing beyond that stuff in a way Miller himself never did.

 

[Mudd]

I love it - remind people and demonstrate incontrovertibly that Superman's been killing people for decades in the comics, and some people have to advance excuses for it. None of that obviates the essential point, of course.

Did you even actually read the trilogy in question and the follow-up stories? I'm guessing "no,"

Unsurprisingly, you're guessing wrong.

 

[Arrrrgggh]

Unsurprisingly, you're guessing wrong.

Yeah... no I didn't. But hey, only a total loser (sorry, had to edit that from idiot; wherever would have I gotten the idea to do that?!) would decide to lie after making it abundantly clear that they hadn't. Amirite?

 

[Kai "the spy"]

In his intital run he has Daredevil blow up a helicopter with a grenade launcher killing the pilot (born again) so even early on he didn't take it that seriously...

It's been over a decade since I read Born Again, but wasn't the whole point of the story Fisk breaking DD morally?!

I don't think Batman has had that status for 30 years? Superman maybe longer..

My rule of thumb is that if something was a matter of canon when the teenagers who first read it are now lining up for prostate exams we can forget about it. Otherwise we have to start taking about how Superman is a sick pervert who takes illegal tissue samples of his friends without their knowledge to make tiny clones of them...

Well, Batman's been working with Gordon for most of his career, even in the last couple of years. And the Justice League works with the U.S. government and other nations' governments, even in the New 52.

Snyder's idea of the superhero is basically the idea that was pioneered in the works he clearly leans toward and is a fan of -- an era where superheroes wrestled with moral complexity and where simple clean-cut ideals weren't always enough to win the day. You can't be a fan of the Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns and also be a likely candidate for creating stories where Superman's unblemished white-bread goodness is consistently preserved by Comics Code and writer fiat.

I love 'Watchmen', but I also see it as what it is, a deconstruction of a genre. The purpose of genre deconstruction is to figure out what makes it work by seeing what doesn't make it work. I bet Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons would be the first to agree. They both have done more traditional and brilliant superhero work before and after 'Watchmen', like Gibbons' "World's Finest", or Moore's ABC line of comics.

I think the really interesting question to ask about Snyder is how deep his ideological debts to Frank Miller (which obviously exist) go. Because the thing about the superhero idea in the end is that it's fundamentally fascistic, and without that gee-whiz idealism to buoy it up -- and without anything else to replace it -- it can sink down to those fundaments quite easily. Hence Miller's own deterioration into outright fascism, which Snyder brought to the screen little-altered in 300. I'm always watchful for this tendency in subsequent Snyder movies, because 300 made me quite suspicious of him... but much as he obviously still loves the classic Miller material he does seem to be growing beyond that stuff in a way Miller himself never did.

Well, as I've said before, BvS was a huge improvement over MoS in my opinion, but judging by the statements Snyder makes time and time again, I get the feeling that's not his accomplishment. He's great at visuals and superhuman fights, though.

I love it - remind people and demonstrate incontrovertibly that Superman's been killing people for decades in the comics, and some people have to advance excuses for it. None of that obviates the essential point, of course.

Yeah, you're right, context is for dorks!

 

[JoeZhang]

It's been over a decade since I read Born Again, but wasn't the whole point of the story Fisk breaking DD morally?!

No he breaks him mentally and anyway this occurs after he gets better.

Cap guns someone down with an uzi and Tony Stark kills many many people in the comics (including burning people to death with flamethrowers) - basically there are very very few heroes where the no kill rule is actually true.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Well, Cap's a soldier, so it makes sense for him to kill in combat. And the comics' Tony Stark is anything but a high standard on moral issues. I personally liked him as maybe the best villain the Marvel Universe ever had during the Civil War arc. Sure, debatable, but that's how I viewed him.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Anything that Miller has a character do says more about Miller than the character.

 

[Thestral]

He's allowed to be conflicted and debate with himself only if he is always victorious and always correct. That forces the "good Superman story" to live within some awfully narrow parameters, and if you'll forgive my saying so is exactly what made the character so boring for so long. Basically it rules out any story with a situation too complicated or difficult for Superman's ideals to deliver an uncontroversially heroic solution; it's incredibly hard to make interesting content when painting on a canvas that restricted.

Actually I think "Kingdom Come" is a good take on this where Superman doesn't bend from his moral ideals but is not always victorious (and ultimately not always correct in his approach), but one of his key moral principals - that is, not killing - is maintained. I've never read "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?" though.

To be fair, it also made for a perfectly entertaining little call-out for the many otherwise-inclined people watching the movie.

Was it though? I assumed that was just a random CIA agent (after thinking initially it must be Jimmy because camera) until the end credits when Jimmy Olsen appeared and I realized I was right at first after all.

 

[Arrrrgggh]

I've never read "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?" though.

If you don't feel like tracking it down and reading it, they did a pretty decent conversion of it as an animated movie (Superman vs. the Elite). It's pretty much an intentionally failed attempt to deconstruct Superman. It's a fun read/watch.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

they did a pretty decent conversion of it as an animated movie (Superman vs. the Elite).

The one that ends with Superman apparently having he technology to strip people of powers, no problem using it, and never bothers doing it any of the various super villains the frequently use said powers to kill people and escape from prison?

 

[Gaith]

All the "anything short of a billion is a failure" stuff really seems like kabuki theater.

How about possibly making substantially less money than the third Hobbit ($956m worldwide), a movie that was made almost by accident? Or perhaps less than the last Twilight half-movie ($829)? Not joining Alice in Hot Topic-land in the billionaire's club? You can't tell me that doesn't sting. I imagine the movie will make a tolerable profit, enough for the WB to soldier on for the time being, but to say it isn't at least something of a disappointment... come on, now.

Anyhow, I give it a D+. Affleck was good, and it held my interest, but boy howdy, it was not a good film, and, like MoS, much worse than any MCU flick to date. Makes Thor: The Dark World (a movie I really like, mind) look as polished as Zodiac.

I confess I haven't read the entire thread, but I do have one burning question: what was with those "experimental" bullets Lois was investigating? Were they meant to frame Superman... who doesn't need guns? Were they just coincidentally being used in an incident Superman became involved with? And what was experimental about them? Aren't bad old-fashioned bullets effective enough as is? (Of course, I have many more questions, ranging from why Clark knew Lois had been shoved off a building to just why Zuckerberg wanted Supes to kill Bats in the first place, to why a spaceship carrying the genetic code for banned monsters speaks to a human stranger in his alien English, and happily does whatever he says for no apparent reason. So many questions... )

I've always thought that mixing Batman and Superman just because the rights situtation permitted was a bad idea, and this rubbish did not change my mind. With an h/t to io9, I leave my last word (well, for tonight, anyway) to BvS co-writer Goyer, c.2005:

"'Batman Vs. Superman' is where you go when you admit to yourself that you've exhausted all possibilities. It's like 'Frankenstein meets Wolfman' or 'Freddy Vs. Jason.' It's somewhat of an admission that this franchise is on its last gasp."

.

 

[BigJake]

Actually I think "Kingdom Come" is a good take on this where Superman doesn't bend from his moral ideals but is not always victorious (and ultimately not always correct in his approach), but one of his key moral principals - that is, not killing - is maintained.

"Kingdom Come" is about an "alternate" Superman though, which preserves the basic principle that the really Realsies main-sequence Superman is never ever allowed to face such choices or challenges. For my money it's about on the same level as all the false-reality "Superman" stories in, say, the "Superman: Jimmy Olsen's Best Pal" comic.

Was it though? I assumed that was just a random CIA agent (after thinking initially it must be Jimmy because camera) until the end credits when Jimmy Olsen appeared and I realized I was right at first after all.

I got that he was Jimmy Olsen right out the gate. I can't remember if the camera was my cue or not.

 

[BigJake]

it was not a good film, and, like MoS, much worse than any MCU flick to date. Makes Thor: The Dark World (a movie I really like, mind) look as polished as Zodiac.

This matrix of film quality is entirely inscrutable to me, sorry.

 

[Mach5]

How about possibly making substantially less money than the third Hobbit ($956m worldwide), a movie that was made almost by accident? Or perhaps less than the last Twilight half-movie ($829)? Not joining Alice in Hot Topic-land in the billionaire's club? You can't tell me that doesn't sting. I imagine the movie will make a tolerable profit, enough for the WB to soldier on for the time being, but to say it isn't at least something of a disappointment... come on, now.

It's 2016, anything under a billion is a letdown for a 200+ million dollar movie.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-seen-earning-less-profit-than-superman-alone

WB can spin this all the want, but in reality, it's probably a total nuthouse over there right now.

 

[BigJake]

Wow, they're off pace by twenty whole millions, hey? Dr. Evil must be dismayed.

(I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sure the execs are legit "disappointed" at this point by any tentpole effort that does not allow them to outright purchase China with money left over for an army of killer robots. But you'll forgive me if my "kabuki theater" impression stands.)

 

[Mach5]

Wow, they're off pace by twenty whole millions, hey? Dr. Evil must be dismayed.

Jake, you don't usually miss the point, but when you do...

 

[BigJake]

Jake, you don't usually miss the point, but when you do...

My point is that normalizing the annual GNP of a mid-sized Third World country as the expected take of a film release is completely fucking nuts. What's your point?

 

[Mach5]

normalizing the annual GNP of a mid-sized Third World country as the expected take of a film release

What? That would be the GNP of Micronesia, population 100.000.

What's your point?

That BvS, despite being tremendously superior to the abomination that was MoS, despite being hyped to kingdom come, despite having BATMAN, is actually a step backwards in terms of profit, and not a massive step forward, like it was supposed to be. This thing was supposed to bring DC back into the race with Marvel. Instead, Kevin Feige and Bob Iger are probably laughing their asses off somewhere.

 

[dahj]

^^
They've made more than enough to make more movies. That's really all fans should worry about.
Whether some high up WB executive will get enough of a bonus to buy himself his seventh yacht is really not...