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

[davejames]

1. My primary objection isn't even to the idea of Superman killing Zod, it's to the idea that Superman killing Zod is the only way to explain why Superman would never kill again. That's... basically saying the only way to know you shouldn't murder is to murder. It also taints the "Superman-as-Jesus" theme they keep using in Snyder's films, since suddenly you have a messiah figure who has himself engaged in "sin."

I'm not sure it was really meant to be that simplistic. For me the point of the scene wasn't to provide Superman with a lesson in how killing is wrong, but to show us just how painful it was for him and how far removed it was from his basic nature, and to show that this is NOT the kind of action he takes lightly (like so many other superheroes out there who don't react nearly as emotionally as he did after killing the bad guy at the end).

It seemed clear to me that he was being pushed to do something he absolutely did not want to do; it wasn't like killing was something he just routinely did beforehand, until he finally learns at the end that he shouldn't. I'm sure it did cement in his mind that killing was something he never wanted to do again, but I don't think he really needed to be taught or shown that it was wrong in the first place.

 

[eyeresist]

Turtletrekker just posted elsewhere that WB is planning a new Superman movie. Hopefully Snyder will have moved on by then.

I'm not against grimdark on principle, but would like Supes to acquire a bit more range - will we ever see a return to the light comedy of the 1970s movies?

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I would argue that, for the price of a ticket, the audience "deserves" a well made movie that satisfies their expectations.

For the price of a ticket, the audience deserves a well made movie. Expectations are wildly inconsistent and basically irrelevant, except in that an unhappy audience can destroy a movie's profitability.

 

[JeffinOakland]

For the price of a ticket, the audience deserves a well made movie. Expectations are wildly inconsistent and basically irrelevant, except in that an unhappy audience can destroy a movie's profitability.

so, you agree w me

 

[Grendelsbayne]

so, you agree w me

No. The audience deserves no satisfaction, and the creators deserve no loyalty. The audience will get satisfaction or it won't, and depending on that, the creators will get loyalty or they won't.

 

[theenglish]

I would like to add what we all know. Audience attendance and profitability do not mean that the movie is good, just that it is more likely to get a sequel. Many excellent movies never get the audience they deserve.

 

[Ovation]

I would argue that, for the price of a ticket, the audience "deserves" a well made movie that satisfies their expectations.

Nope. It's always nice when that happens but it's not owed to them. Buy a movie ticket, you're owed a seat and a screening. That's it, that's all. Satisfaction is most definitely NOT guaranteed (except for the mechanics of the experience--seat isn't broken, projector bulb isn't too dim, sound system isn't distorted, etc.).

 

[Ovation]

Would it make you happy if I reframed my wording as: "Films have a creative obligation to distill the characters to their essential elements if they want it to be a good adaptation" rather than as an absolute?

Because I thought that conditional was so obvious as not to need stating. Obviously Snyder and Warner Bros. have a First Amendment right to completeky disregard what made Superman Superman if they want. It's their hundred and whatever million dollars to piss away.

The problem is this: nothing is new under the Yellow Sun when it comes to Superman. He's been endlessly reworked and altered over almost 80 years. As Chipman notes, Superman breaks easily when changed; the last change anyone made to him that stuck was changing the shield background from black to yellow. There is a fairly narrow, static range of variation that works for Superman, and psychological realism is not one of them.

Artists have every free speech right to experiment. But with Superman, it is almost certainly not gonna work--just like it didn't in the DCEU.

Worked for me. And while I may not belong to the majority of viewer satisfaction, I'm fairly certain I'm not alone in liking the approach taken. In fact, it worked for me for precisely the reason you claim it fails (the psychological realism) and more. I concur on the ground of structural issues, but the very tone and take on Superman you dislike is compelling enough to me to live with them. Man of Steel is more successful, to me, in terms of its structure (though not without flaws, of course) but both films present a version of Superman I'm happy to have seen.

 

[Makarov]

Let me put it this way:

You can choose to do Santa Claus: The Movie and depict Santa as an angry, verbally abusive man upset that his life didn't go the way he wanted to. But if you do, you're going to end up alienating most of your audience, because you have chosen to spend your two-to-three hours doing a version of the character that fundamentally conflicts with the basic ethos of the character as it exists in the culture at large. Because people want Santa Claus: The Movie, not A Bitter Exploration of What It Means to Learn to Accept Life's Disappointments in the Form of Being Santa Claus: The Movie.

Except the audience wasn't alienated when batman killed the joker in 89. And 89 batman was an awesome movie, which does not line up with what you're saying at all. This is stuff youtube critics and comic fans focus on - the average moviegoer does not care.

So it is with Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman. There is a reason the Christopher Reeve film has a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes compared to MoS's 55% and BvS's 23%.

If you're bringing critics and box office, then marketing has a bigger impact than whether or not these characters adhere to some guidelines on what they should be. Audiences change.

Christopher Nolan handled this brilliantly in the Dark Knight trilogy, introducing themes that were compelling to adults while keeping the films tonally appropriate for children rather than filling them with existential nihilism. Another example of this balance done well is the DC Animated Universe.

Nolan's batman spends the trilogy wondering if his actions are even worth it, no different than Superman here. If anything those movies are more aimed at adults than BvS.

Here's the thing: Lex manipulating them is just a plot device. It is not the story. It is there to facilitate Batman and Superman's conflict. Once they have resolved their conflict, Lex's mechanations are thematically pointless. We are left not knowing what Lex wants, how he is trying to get it, what he planned to do after his unstoppable killing machine defeated Superman, how this relates to Darkseid, or why we should even give a shit about Lex as a character.

Lex isn't the strong point of the movie but listening to what he says pretty much explains his motiviation fairly well. And it's nice to have room to think about things, leave just a little open to interpretation instead of being spoonfed like in other superhero flicks recently.

 

[dahj]

You can choose to do Santa Claus: The Movie and depict Santa as an angry, verbally abusive man upset that his life didn't go the way he wanted to.

Bad Santa was a pretty good movie.

 

[Thestral]

I'm not sure it was really meant to be that simplistic. For me the point of the scene wasn't to provide Superman with a lesson in how killing is wrong, but to show us just how painful it was for him and how far removed it was from his basic nature, and to show that this is NOT the kind of action he takes lightly (like so many other superheroes out there who don't react nearly as emotionally as he did after killing the bad guy at the end).

It seemed clear to me that he was being pushed to do something he absolutely did not want to do; it wasn't like killing was something he just routinely did beforehand, until he finally learns at the end that he shouldn't. I'm sure it did cement in his mind that killing was something he never wanted to do again, but I don't think he really needed to be taught or shown that it was wrong in the first place.

This. So much this.

 

[JeffinOakland]

Nope. It's always nice when that happens but it's not owed to them. Buy a movie ticket, you're owed a seat and a screening. That's it, that's all. Satisfaction is most definitely NOT guaranteed (except for the mechanics of the experience--seat isn't broken, projector bulb isn't too dim, sound system isn't distorted, etc.).

Nothing is guaranteed but satisfaction is expected and is a reasonable expectation. I'm not talking about morality here. Sure, in the grand scheme of things, nobody owes anybody anything at the local movie theatre. It's just a silly movie. If you hated it so much, don't watch it again and don't watch the sequel.

 

[EnderAKH]

Nope. It's always nice when that happens but it's not owed to them. Buy a movie ticket, you're owed a seat and a screening. That's it, that's all. Satisfaction is most definitely NOT guaranteed (except for the mechanics of the experience--seat isn't broken, projector bulb isn't too dim, sound system isn't distorted, etc.).

The problem is, of course, you are looking at movies as an artistic endeavor when they most certainly are not. They are not meant to satisfy the artistic integrity of the artist, they are meant to make large amounts of money for a multi-national corporation. And in the case of the two respective superhero universes, bring people back for the next outing to make even more money. If they fail to do this, the movies are not fulfilling their purpose and are in fact failures, or in the case of BvS, at the very least a disappointment, because for however we may look at it, I am sure WB had a revenue target in mind and while I don't know it for sure I doubt the movie hit it.

 

[Ovation]

The problem is, of course, you are looking at movies as an artistic endeavor when they most certainly are not. They are not meant to satisfy the artistic integrity of the artist, they are meant to make large amounts of money for a multi-national corporation. And in the case of the two respective superhero universes, bring people back for the next outing to make even more money. If they fail to do this, the movies are not fulfilling their purpose and are in fact failures, or in the case of BvS, at the very least a disappointment, because for however we may look at it, I am sure WB had a revenue target in mind and while I don't know it for sure I doubt the movie hit it.

Movies are both artistic endeavours and commercial products. It is true of all popular art (music, film, TV, plays, etc.). Moreover, it has been true going back centuries. Of course the financial underwriters want to make money--as do the filmmakers themselves. It's not charity work. However, even with the goal of making money, studios and filmmakers have taken various approaches to their work. Some (many) take a "cookie-cutter", safe approach (Marvel films come to mind at present, though many westerns, musicals and "sword and sandal epics" of the past also qualify). That approach can yield satisfying results, both financially and in terms of popular art (though not always, of course). It can also become rather repetitively boring and unchallenging.

Others are willing to give their filmmakers a bit of leeway to venture beyond the "tried and true" path--wagering, in effect, that something that challenges audience expectations might yield even greater positive results (both financially and artistically), though with a higher risk of disappointment and, at times, outright failure. I would argue that Warner Bros., unlike Marvel, has given its directors such leeway (Nolan with Batman trilogy, Snyder with Man of Steel/BvsS/Justice League). Earlier examples would include a number of John Ford westerns, Kubrick's Spartacus, Hitchcock's Psycho, any number of seventies "auteur" movies, etc. While the chances for disappointment are greater (and, in financial terms, I'm more than willing to concede Warner Bros. wished for better with the current crop of DCCU films), the chances for something more interesting is also greater. Oh, and lest anyone make the facile, yet erroneous, assumption that I view the Snyder films on an artistic par with the Ford, Kubrick and Hitchcock films noted above, rest assured. I am comparing them on the willingness of all involved to take risks, not on absolute merits in terms of final results.

I find Snyder's take on Superman more interesting, despite the films' structural flaws, than I would have found a lightly freshened do over of the Reeve approach. It is the same with Trek under Bad Robot. While I've liked all three, the latest one is a bit less satisfying to me, in large part because it slides more towards the "original version" than the other two. As I observed to someone elsewhere, not everyone expects or would be satisfied with a cheeseburger where brie is substituted for the classic cheddar slice. It'd probably get a lower "score" in a poll of consumers who were not told ahead of time they were getting brie. However, there is a chance the brie might ultimately prove more satisfying to those who do like it than simply having another slice of cheddar. Bad Robot Trek and Snyder's Superman are the brie to the cheddar of Prime Trek and Reeve's Superman. I like both options. And neither option is inherently more "correct" than the other.

In the specific case of Snyder--I admire his willingness to pursue an examination of the character of Superman in a way it had not been done on film at all (and infrequently, at best, in other media). I further admire Warner Bros.' willingness to let him do so, despite the exceedingly high pressure of "playing it safe" to more readily ensure meeting expected revenue targets. If one or the other party feels the need to adjust their approach, for reasons financial or other, that is up to them. What I cannot fathom is the notion than ANY fictional character/franchise "should not" deviate from its dominant form or "must be/have" specific elements/characteristics in order to be legitimate. That, frankly, is absurd.

 

[Set Harth]

Batman, as depicted, is 15 or so years into his superheroing career. His refusal to kill is foundational and should be present from the start.

This Batman is depicted as having become cruel, in Alfred's words. We are given to understand that the death of Robin at the hands of the Joker

Spoiler

and Harley

had some not insignificant part in this. In other words things were different at "the start".

This aside from the fact that at the actual start of Batman's comics career he had no problem with killing ( or with strafing opponents from Bat-plane as seen in both The Dark Knight Rises and Dawn of Justice ), and the "refusal to kill" business was grafted on after the fact, while being violated all over the place in various instances over the years. And of course the movies have had Batman killing for as long as there have been Batman movies - but ever since the dawning of the Age of Nolan, this same tired talking point keeps getting brought out and dusted off every time. It's like a gift that keeps on giving... one that you don't want. Kind of like herpes.

Which would be an appropriate way to approach Watchmen. Not Batman and Superman.

It's an appropriate way to approach the entire genre of modern superhero films IMO. It's not so much a direct translation of the rose-tinted comic book reality. The idea seems to be to depict the characters as realistic people ( or at least somewhat more realistic ) as opposed to one-dimensional archetypes. The world they inhabit is also a little different.

On the issue of Watchmen, I'm aware that there are Watchmen vibes all over BvS, but I have no problem with that. Superman gets the Dr.Manhattan treatment, instead of unquestioning acceptance on the part of the public. Again, it's meant to reflect what people know to be true about the real world - instead of just sugar-coating it. ( As an aside, Snyder used at least three of his Watchmen actors in BvS, and if you freeze-frame as the camera passes over an article on a certain computer screen you can see that it mentions "watchmen" and asks, "Who watches the watchmen?" )

These characters are at their foundation for children, and while a film can expand upon that so that they are also for adults, children should always be kept in mind as part of the audience.

These films are PG-13, aren't they? You might be thinking of films with a different rating.

Christopher Nolan handled this brilliantly in the Dark Knight trilogy, introducing themes that were compelling to adults while keeping the films tonally appropriate for children rather than filling them with existential nihilism.

You didn't see any nihilism in those films? I think they're a bit closer than you seem to believe, while I've read comments from parents who did indeed find things in those films to be inappropriate for children.

And Batman kills in the Nolan films, lest we forget. It's just that it's "handled brilliantly" in some way that lets you off the hook for damning Snyder's film when it does the exact same thing.

 

[Ovation]

This Batman is depicted as having become cruel, in Alfred's words. We are given to understand that the death of Robin at the hands of the Joker

Spoiler

and Harley

had some not insignificant part in this. In other words things were different at "the start".

This aside from the fact that at the actual start of Batman's comics career he had no problem with killing ( or with strafing opponents from Bat-plane as seen in both The Dark Knight Rises and Dawn of Justice ), and the "refusal to kill" business was grafted on after the fact, while being violated all over the place in various instances over the years. And of course the movies have had Batman killing for as long as there have been Batman movies - but ever since the dawning of the Age of Nolan, this same tired talking point keeps getting brought out and dusted off every time. It's like a gift that keeps on giving... one that you don't want. Kind of like herpes.



It's an appropriate way to approach the entire genre of modern superhero films IMO. It's not so much a direct translation of the rose-tinted comic book reality. The idea seems to be to depict the characters as realistic people ( or at least somewhat more realistic ) as opposed to one-dimensional archetypes. The world they inhabit is also a little different.

On the issue of Watchmen, I'm aware that there are Watchmen vibes all over BvS, but I have no problem with that. Superman gets the Dr.Manhattan treatment, instead of unquestioning acceptance on the part of the public. Again, it's meant to reflect what people know to be true about the real world - instead of just sugar-coating it. ( As an aside, Snyder used at least three of his Watchmen actors in BvS, and if you freeze-frame as the camera passes over an article on a certain computer screen you can see that it mentions "watchmen" and asks, "Who watches the watchmen?" )



These films are PG-13, aren't they? You might be thinking of films with a different rating.



You didn't see any nihilism in those films? I think they're a bit closer than you seem to believe, while I've read comments from parents who did indeed find things in those films to be inappropriate for children.

And Batman kills in the Nolan films, lest we forget. It's just that it's "handled brilliantly" in some way that lets you off the hook for damning Snyder's film when it does the exact same thing.

Well said.

And I certainly won't let my kids watch the Nolan or Snyder films before they're 15, let alone 13 (and I'm a big fan of each). Others are free to do as they wish, of course. But just because they're superhero movies doesn't mean they're meant for children. Plenty of other versions available for them.

 

[Tosk]

I don't even care that Batman kills so much as I wish it were presented better. Batman kills randoms with abandon, but seemingly stops short at killing his Big Bad Guys. (Maybe the Joker's mother was named Martha. )

I want to know why Lex goes to all the trouble of setting up a system where criminals who get branded by Batman get killed in jail when Batman actually does kill people anyway. And why Superman is ticked off at said branded-killings when Batman kills people anyway. And why Batman even brands people in the first place. Apart from giving Lex an easy in, I'm not sure what the branding is supposed to do.

I could see the "Superman mad at Bats for prison deaths" angle if Batman was otherwise spotless, but it's hard to understand Supes' consternation as presented. Maybe it's just me.

 

[Makarov]

Superman doesn't follow Gotham city crime news very closely so this was news to him. Or maybe it was the last straw and he was irritated about Batman for a while. It's some time later after he finds out about the branding that he even decides to do anything about Batman.

 

[davejames]

Turtletrekker just posted elsewhere that WB is planning a new Superman movie. Hopefully Snyder will have moved on by then.

I'm not against grimdark on principle, but would like Supes to acquire a bit more range - will we ever see a return to the light comedy of the 1970s movies?

I was a huge fan of MOS, but after that movie and BvS I have to admit I am kinda ready for a Superman movie that's a bit less... grim.

I don't think they need to get as light and comic booky as the Donner or Marvel movies, but I do think we at least deserve to see a Superman who actually seems happy and confident in his place in the world again. And isn't just some tragic symbolic figure carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders, like we've gotten in the last three Superman movies.

 

[Tosk]

Superman doesn't follow Gotham city crime news very closely so this was news to him.

Maybe so, especially as Clark doesn't recognize Bruce Wayne when he first sees him.

Still doesn't answer the Lex or Bats parts of the equation.