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

[Ovation]

That's the problem with pretending things are more complex and cynical in today's world. You can justify any bad decision in the movie as "this isn't the 50's" and pretend that makes it better.

In the real world, some things really are black and white. Saving a bus full of innocent children from dying has no moral complexity. You do it, and then work out the ramifications later. Same with saving your father. There are absolutely zero situations where trying to do this isn't the right thing to do.

The fact that some people can find any justification in pretending this is a morally grey area is almost scary.

The point of the scene with Jonathan Kent is not that he is correct in suggesting Clark should have let the children die (I watched it again very recently--the more I see it, the less problematic it becomes). The point is he (Jonathan) doesn't have a definitive answer to a very big question--and to a more immediate one. Let's leave aside the "ramifications of answering the question of 'are we alone in the universe'" and consider a far more intimate and immediate concern. Jonathan and Martha are, first and foremost, thinking like parents--not moral adjudicators for humanity. It is a more overtly cynical and paranoid world today than the 50s. They would be delusional NOT to think the government would swoop in to take Clark away if he "went public". He's what, 12-14 in that scene? If my kids had powers like Clark (they don't--just typical 10 and 14 year olds), you bet your ass I wouldn't want them to "go public" at that moment and I would DEFINITELY have a selfish reflex, if only for a moment, where I might say something similar to what Jonathan says to Clark. Such a reflex is entirely understandable on the part of a parent--for whom the safety of his own child is paramount. There is precious little I would not do to protect my children, at the cost of many of the values I hold dear. But anyone who thinks Jonathan is just blithely endorsing the death of a busload of children, with no indication of how horrible that would be, is misinterpreting the scene, both in purpose and performance. Jonathan has a human reaction, weighing the safety of his only child (adoptive or not, makes no difference) against the lives of others for whom he has no direct responsibility. His is not a "fuck 'em, let them die" attitude. Not in the least. And frankly, it is beyond baffling to me that anyone would read the scene in that fashion. Again, one can be disappointed the Kents are not the "paragons of virtue" they are usually made out to be. Nothing wrong with that disappointment. But such disappointment does not justify twisting the scene (and many others, as I've seen done in many instances) into something it plainly is NOT, just to make one's disappointment clearly heard.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

. It is a more overtly cynical and paranoid world today than the 50s.

And for the record it wasn't that great in the 50s either.

 

[theenglish]

The point of the scene with Jonathan Kent is not that he is correct in suggesting Clark should have let the children die (I watched it again very recently--the more I see it, the less problematic it becomes). The point is he (Jonathan) doesn't have a definitive answer to a very big question--and to a more immediate one. Let's leave aside the "ramifications of answering the question of 'are we alone in the universe'" and consider a far more intimate and immediate concern. Jonathan and Martha are, first and foremost, thinking like parents--not moral adjudicators for humanity. It is a more overtly cynical and paranoid world today than the 50s. They would be delusional NOT to think the government would swoop in to take Clark away if he "went public".

Also, people seem to forget that this scene is meant to accompany this other flashback in which he says "you are my son."

 

[Ovation]

And for the record it wasn't that great in the 50s either.

True (I'm an historian by profession, so discussions of the 50s have been a prominent part of my work for some time). However, popular culture, especially comic books like Superman, were decidedly NOT overtly cynical and paranoid, nor were mainstream films and TV programmes. It is in that sense I meant today was more "overtly cynical and paranoid". I should have been clearer in my intention.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Our governments decide not to save the lives of innocent people for various reasons, even when they might be able to, despite an implicit understanding that it's bad for innocents to die. It's simply that, in the collective judgment in such cases, doing what is necessary to save them would create worse conditions. For example, it is the policy of many governments not to pay ransoms to terrorists for their citizens. In the real world, it's not always practical to do the right thing.

I have no problem with Jonathan Kent teaching Clark that a person intent on doing the right thing must be cognizant of the risks involved. By the events of BvS, Superman knows that people can destroy him, if they are willing to do what is necessary.

It would be easy for a being who is truly invulnerable to do the right thing, if he were so inclined, because the possibility of negative consequences wouldn't exist. But Superman isn't such a being. Even though Jonathan Kent didn't know about Kryptonite, as far as I can recall, we know that he knew that Clark needed nurturing. The need for nurturing is a pretty clear sign of vulnerability; in their native habitats Kryptonians are indeed vulnerable, and I really doubt that the Kents would have been surprised to have this confirmed.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Our governments decide not to save the lives of innocent people for various reasons, even when they might be able to, despite an implicit understanding that it's bad for innocents to die.

"If you see an old lady crossing the street, do NOT help her, since our governments teach us that we should let people die when dealing with ransoms". This is seriously where we are as a culture?

Your extreme example has nothing to do with the simplicities of basic human decency. When you're in a position to help someone, you do it. This isn't about finding complex gray areas and twisting justifications to excuse awful parenting. It's really REALLY easy to say "Help people, BUT you have to also be aware" instead of "I dunno, maybe let them die."

But it doesn't matter anyways, since at the very first sign of annoyance with somebody, he all but gave up his precious "secret" anyways by wrapping a truck around a lightpost. So frustrating on so many levels.

 

[Ovation]

"If you see an old lady crossing the street, do NOT help her, since our governments teach us that we should let people die when dealing with ransoms". This is seriously where we are as a culture?

Your extreme example has nothing to do with the simplicities of basic human decency. When you're in a position to help someone, you do it. This isn't about finding complex gray areas and twisting justifications to excuse awful parenting. It's really REALLY easy to say "Help people, BUT you have to also be aware" instead of "I dunno, maybe let them die."

But it doesn't matter anyways, since at the very first sign of annoyance with somebody, he all but gave up his precious "secret" anyways by wrapping a truck around a lightpost. So frustrating on so many levels.

Way to both miss the point I made about parenting as well as take his comment out of context. Nuances are a bitch.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Way to both miss the point I made about parenting as well as take his comment out of context. Nuances are a bitch.

I saw the point. I still disagreed, though. Nuances are great in stories, they just have to work.

The problem isn't just the one scene, it's the movie as a whole that does things like this. If the "nuances" of this scene were the only fault of the movie, then that would be easy enough to look past. But things just built and built to the point where you really can't go back and justify these little moments in the context of the whole movie.

And if more than one person sees this (and quite a few did, and not just dummies like me), then the problem becomes less about the audience and more about the film-makers. And sadly, these creators kept the momentum going into Batman v Superman with the very nuanced dialogue like a phrase as synonymous with Superman like "No one stays good in this world" as Peter Parker's "With Great Power must come Great Responsibilify". (Honestly, were any of Superman's lines very Superman-like in this movie? "If I wanted it, you'd be dead already"? "Consider this mercy"? )

 

[Ovation]

I saw the point. I still disagreed, though. Nuances are great in stories, they just have to work.

The problem isn't just the one scene, it's the movie as a whole that does things like this. If the "nuances" of this scene were the only fault of the movie, then that would be easy enough to look past. But things just built and built to the point where you really can't go back and justify these little moments in the context of the whole movie.

And if more than one person sees this (and quite a few did, and not just dummies like me), then the problem becomes less about the audience and more about the film-makers. And sadly, these creators kept the momentum going into Batman v Superman with the very nuanced dialogue like a phrase as synonymous with Superman like "No one stays good in this world" as Peter Parker's "With Great Power must come Great Responsibilify". (Honestly, were any of Superman's lines very Superman-like in this movie? "If I wanted it, you'd be dead already"? "Consider this mercy"? )

The whole point is that it's NOT a Superman story like almost all the others. I understand people not liking the choices made by the filmmakers. I refuse to accept that it's "wrong" to take ANY fictional character in a different direction just because that direction is outside the "comfort zone" of the audience's expectations. It's not like the filmmakers hid their intentions to try something different. Of course they're not entitled to acclaim for the results. No creative artist is. But they ARE entitled to try.

I knew going in that Superman and other characters would be presented differently than what I was used to seeing. But even if I hadn't known, I would judge their efforts based on what they were attempting, not simply on the basis of what was already so familiar to me in previous incarnations. I do the same when a musical artist puts out something new. Sometimes the new direction works, sometimes not. But I NEVER fault them for trying.

Superman is not a sacred cow that can only be presented one way. Nothing is in fiction. Like or don't the version on offer. But all the "you can't do that with Superman" blather--sorry, but, "yes you can".

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

So they basically present a character to us for 80 years who, after the initial kinks are worked out, is fairly consistent, then take away what makes up that character save for superficial elements, and the audience is at fault for the jarring change?

Why not call him Hyperion or Marvel Man or Eradicator at that point.

I know they want to sell based on the big S. But then, that also implies brand recognition. Which, as I said, they had multiple decades of getting us to recognize what that brand is about.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

So they basically present a character to us for 80 years who, after the initial kinks are worked out, is fairly consistent, then take away what makes up that character save for superficial elements, and the audience is at fault for the jarring change?

Why not call him Hyperion or Marvel Man or Eradicator at that point.

I know they want to sell based on the big S. But then, that also implies brand recognition. Which, as I said, they had multiple decades of getting us to recognize what that brand is about.

What is there to find fault with in BvS, on Superman's angle? He saves people frequently, takes the fight away from civilian populations, and makes the sacrifice in the end to save the day. Supes was the person we were supposed to root for in the movie.

Ironically, everyone has been praising Affleck's Batman, despite his in your face use of lethal force and extreme tactics used in pursuit of what he wants.

 

[theenglish]

I can't believe people are still having this debate. People seem to feel that this Superman is radically different from other versions we have seen over the decades when that is just not the case. There have been many different interpretations of the character on screen and in the comics and Snyder version falls within that spectrum, not outside of it. Heck Tom Welling or Dean Cain's version of of Superman were arguably less like the character than Snyder's.

 

[Ovation]

So they basically present a character to us for 80 years who, after the initial kinks are worked out, is fairly consistent, then take away what makes up that character save for superficial elements, and the audience is at fault for the jarring change?

Why not call him Hyperion or Marvel Man or Eradicator at that point.

I know they want to sell based on the big S. But then, that also implies brand recognition. Which, as I said, they had multiple decades of getting us to recognize what that brand is about.

You are still missing the point. I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else) to like the take on the character. I'm pointing out the FACT that no ONE interpretation of a fictional character is sacrosanct. You prefer the same serving of vanilla cake on offer for the past half century or more, that's your prerogative. You don't like the new recipe, that's fine. You don't want anyone to try a new recipe because you're happy with the old one--tough. Some of us like to try new recipes. We even enjoy some of them. Doesn't mean we don't like the original. Just means there's more than one way to bake a cake.

I just read about a production of Romeo and Juliet called R&J. In it, all roles are gender swapped. NOT what one would expect but sounds intriguing to me. I don't know if the production is good, I haven't seen it. But good or not, I'm happy to know it's been tried. But I suppose someone should have told the production company "hey, you can't do that, that's not the real Romeo and Juliet". Heaven forfend someone try to challenge the audience and do something unexpected. Can't be having that.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

This is probably silly of me, but I have a serious problem with any version of The Flash having facial hair...

Where are those Just For Men guys when you need them? "If you're gonna be the Flash you can't have no 'stache. It's just weird to see the Flash with a beard."

 

[Guy Gardener]

Barry can't get no poon in Gorilla City without a beard.

 

[theenglish]

I think Ovation has said it very well. You don't have to like Snyder's take (I, for one, have very mixed reactions about it) but you can't say that it is an incorrect or wrong take either.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think Ovation has said it very well. You don't have to like Snyder's take (I, for one, have very mixed reactions about it) but you can't say that it is an incorrect or wrong take either.

My sentiment exactly.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

You prefer the same serving of vanilla cake on offer for the past half century or more, that's your prerogative. You don't like the new recipe, that's fine. You don't want anyone to try a new recipe because you're happy with the old one--tough. Some of us like to try new recipes. We even enjoy some of them. Doesn't mean we don't like the original. Just means there's more than one way to bake a cake.

Tell that to Coca-Cola.

I just read about a production of Romeo and Juliet called R&J. In it, all roles are gender swapped. NOT what one would expect but sounds intriguing to me. I don't know if the production is good, I haven't seen it. But good or not, I'm happy to know it's been tried. But I suppose someone should have told the production company "hey, you can't do that, that's not the real Romeo and Juliet". Heaven forfend someone try to challenge the audience and do something unexpected. Can't be having that.

It still sounds like Shakespeare I bet (probably identical tone and identical dialogue) which makes this a poor example. People know, based on decades of experience, exactly what they're getting into. A new way to present the play, but the exact same play when all is said and done.

If they wanted to challenge and do something unexpected, create something new and original. Otherwise, why bother using the established brand in the first place?

 

[Ovation]

Tell that to Coca-Cola.

You mean the company that offers Coke Zero, Diet Coke, Cherry Coke etc., trading successfully on their brand? New Coke was a failure but that's because the company tried to replace the original--not what is happening here. But thank you for playing.

It still sounds like Shakespeare I bet (probably identical tone and identical dialogue) which makes this a poor example. People know, based on decades of experience, exactly what they're getting into. A new way to present the play, but the exact same play when all is said and done.

Clearly you haven't seen many plays. No. It's NOT "the exact same play". And "sounds like Shakespeare"? You'd find the original incomprehensible and as for productions today--there is no "sounds like Shakespeare" rule (just as there's no "looks like Shakespeare" rule--or do you think all productions should be played exclusively by men in Elizabethan garb, regardless of the story, as was the case for the original?). People keep putting on Shakespeare to offer NEW interpretations, not simply to ape the original. They don't all succeed but God bless them all for trying.

If they wanted to challenge and do something unexpected, create something new and original. Otherwise, why bother using the established brand in the first place?

They wanted to explore the icon itself and consider it in new context. But clearly that's "wrong". And, incidentally, current Coke ain't the original either.

 

[dahj]

And, incidentally, current Coke ain't the original either.

It just hasn't been the same since they removed cocaine from the recipe...