The Official Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Movie Thread

[Roman Brady]

Terrio came in and "rewrote" the script and this is still the best he could come up with. All that babbling about greek tragedy bullshyt and we get a movie for 7th graders, and it's supposedly the most "intellectual" thing he thinks he's ever written.

either the original script was that bad or terrio is overrated only time will tell with justice league

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

either the original script was that bad or terrio is overrated only time will tell with justice league

"I began to think Batman and Superman occupy different parts of the mythic imagination. In superhero stories, Batman is Pluto, god of the underworld, and Superman is Apollo, god of the sky. That began to be really interesting to me — that their conflict is not just due to manipulation, but their very existence. In the end, there’s a common humanity which I think is discovered at a certain moment in the film."

just look at this pretentious nonsense

also it indicates that he might have been the brains behind the martha reveal.

 

[Dr. Narcisse]

It's just so amazing to see that someone else saw what I saw in the movie

A man with power trying to do the right thing and almost succumbing to the evils of the world like Batman and Lex. I loved when he pointed out that Batman and Lex were two sides of the same coin with the same motivation to hate Superman.

That article makes me want to see the film again

If there were not so many BvS threads I would make a thread about the analysis some have made about this film.

Superman is stronger than Batman, but his one great vulnerability renders him more tragically destructible than Batman’s multivariable modalities of death. It also explains, in one phrase, the entire plot and its implications: Superman may be able to kill Batman at will, but Batman, in order to combat Superman effectively, has to have help. He has to make an alliance, even an unwitting one, with other forces, which, in the event, turn out to be the forces of evil, at the command of Lex Luthor.​

Snyder’s movie dramatizes the very presence of a being with unlimited power, Superman, in a world of people whose powers are (fortunately) sharply limited. As the story makes clear, Superman is nearly a god, while Batman is mainly a man. It isn’t too much of a spoiler to say that what ultimately unites them is mothers (all that’s missing is the apple pie). Batman won’t help Superman try to save the world, but he’ll help Superman try to save his mother, because the desire to do so indicates that, essentially, Superman has—despite it all—a human heart.

Different article

Snyder manipulates this new paradigm so that mankind’s sense of mortality is embodied by Batman, Superman, and their arch-nemesis, Lex Luthor. (All three characterization performances are, well, perfect.) When Superman’s motives are questioned, the skepticism and vilification create an antagonism between him and Batman that Snyder lays out as an ideological conflict and that Luthor exacerbates. Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg, who played Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network and thus personifies the craven millennium) cynically whines about “The oldest lie in America: that power can be innocent.” He even threatens a senator (Holly Hunter) who heads an investigation into Superman’s guilt. Luthor’s obsession with Superman (“He answers to no one. Not even, I think, to God”) reveals envy that is unmistakably demonic; a development that coheres with Snyder’s spiritual-social vision of post–9/11 grief and desire for salvation. He creates the year’s first great movie image by examining Superman’s “divinity” when he is surrounded by Day of the Dead multitudes. The image echoes our current desperation regarding “populism” — and that’s truly audacious.

Still, the equation of moral myth and contemporary political catastrophe marks an important advance. Snyder intends to resolve the conflict between commerce and art, power and morality. “Knowledge with no power is paradoxical,” one character says. “Man made a world where standing together is impossible,” frets another. With Batman v Superman, the battle for the soul of American culture is on. In an interview, Snyder described Batman’s hatred for Superman as “finding reinforcement of those feelings in the media.” So Snyder employed a supporting cast of political pundits who expand Batman v Superman into a kind of meta-media commentary: Anderson Cooper, Charlie Rose, and Nancy Grace are among those crossing the line from TV news to Hollywood fantasy. They frequently, brazenly blur the distinction between fact and fiction, objectivity and venality, mendacity and truth. This has been going on at least since the 1990s, and it still is a problem for both journalism and Hollywood (Nancy Grace, Lawrence O’Donnell, and Dr. Drew Pinsky popped up last week in Midnight Special). Soledad O’Brien and Neil deGrasse Tyson also appear in Batman v Superman, along with Andrew Sullivan, seen shouting, “Every act is a political act!” That may be so (Snyder’s a sly dog), but pundits who don’t stick to their day-jobs lose credibility.

Read more at: Batman v Superman Returns Soul to Superheroes, by Armond White, National Review​

​

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

you could write a 3 page dissertation on green lantern if you tried hard enough.

 

[HHR]

Overall, I get, and to an extent even appreciate, what they're trying to do with the DCU. It's fundamentally grounded in "reality" and the concepts of heroism they inject are definitely interesting.

Unfortunately, from a storytelling perspective, they are completely fukking clueless. They do a good job of establishing the characters in the real world...and then they don't act like real people. The motivations are muddled at best and their actions are often completely nonsensical and serve only to push the story.





Also, opening the movie with Bruce's parents death is a laughable decision.

There are the ingredients for an excellent film in here, unfortunately it's all buried in a wildly convoluted script and guided by a director incapable of finding it.

 

[Arishok]

If there were not so many BvS threads I would make a thread about the analysis some have made about this film.

Different article

​

fukk it just do it. I feel like there's no space for those of us who really want to dissect this film and analysis it.

 

[Dr. Narcisse]

Overall, I get, and to an extent even appreciate, what they're trying to do with the DCU. It's fundamentally grounded in "reality" and the concepts of heroism they inject are definitely interesting.

Unfortunately, from a storytelling perspective, they are completely fukking clueless. They do a good job of establishing the characters in the real world...and then they don't act like real people. The motivations are muddled at best and their actions are often completely nonsensical and serve only to push the story.





Also, opening the movie with Bruce's parents death is a laughable decision.

There are the ingredients for an excellent film in here, unfortunately it's all buried in a wildly convoluted script and guided by a director incapable of finding it.

This scene was incorporated so they can draw from it later in the movie.

His parent's death....he falls into the cave and "rises" *its a dream*

The following scene is the attack on Metropolis and shows the first time he's feels helpless since his parents death.

This time he falls and does not do Batman like things. Only until finding humanity in Superman that he rises and becomes Batman again.

I think it gets better on multiple viewings. But I can see how you feel that way about how the story is unfolds.

 

[HHR]

This scene was incorporated to so they can draw from it later in the movie.

His parent's death....he falls into the cave and "rises" *its a dream*

The following scene is the attack on Metropolis and shows the first time he's feel helpless since his parents death.

This time he falls and does not do Batman like things. Only until finding humanity in Superman that he rises and becomes Batman again.

I think its gets better on multiple viewings. But I can see how you feel that way about how the story is unfolds.

I see all the beats, I just don't like how they were delivered. Everything just felt rushed, muddled and ultimately unearned.

 

[klutch2381]

Snyder kind of was giving Superman those Dr. Manhattan vibes in this film. I think once he got the backlash for Man of Steel they scrapped the idea of going for a more classic Superman. Hopefully that version in the Justice League movie instead of the New 52 stoic version.
What do you think of this article though breh.

Zack Snyder Loves Superman, And 'Batman V Superman' Proves It

Just read it. There's a fine line between making connections between things in a film when the audience isn't spoon fed, and inferring, extrapolating and conflating things that aren't actually there. For me, I think the author does the latter.

"Superman stands in stark contrast to that cynical world. He wants to be a symbol of hope, he wants to use his powers for good, he wants to inspire us to overcome our skepticism and learn to have faith again, to believe there will be good ol’ days in our future after all."

Like, where and when does this happen at? It would be great if it did, but it doesn't actually occur in either film. Snyder's Superman is a hero by default.

"I got these powers, I may as well use them. "

 

[Diunx]

The only thing this movie made me think about is what is Snyder's ideal of heroism in the context of Superman. I just re-watched the Doomsday animated movie and no hyperbole Superman is more heroic in 20's minutes of that than he is in two feature length Snyder films. I get the sense that Snyder thinks that it doesn't matter how a heroic act takes place, but so as long as it does "take place." In other words, he doesn't seem to discern any difference from the unwilling hero, accidental hero, conscious hero, etc. Whereas in terms of heroism (at least in the medium of film and TV), I'm of the belief that people overwhelmingly do make that distinction, and actually do care about context. It's one of those things where people have Kantian deontological views on a behavior. Essentially, the consequences of Superman's choices don't matter being that consequence is often out of one's control. What does matter is if he acted out a sense of duty and for the reason/motivation -- which Kant would say are known to us by categorical imperatives or universal laws.

We want our heroes to want to be heroic. We want them to act out of a sense of duty. We want Superman to want to actually be Superman. Not to go about it like it's a 9-5 that he's been schlepping to for 11 years with no raises, shytty benefits and he has to drink 3 cups of coffee to get through the workday. After two movies, I have no idea what sense of motivation Snyder's Superman operates on. He does heroic shyt, but it's always with a pained expression, dour look on his face like he'd rather be crocheting or some shyt. When the opportunity presents itself in his movies for Superman to explain his feelings or thoughts on his actions it's always fumbled. The bathtub scene with Amy Adams is a prime example when she said, "I'm not sure it's possible." For better or worse, Superman has an undeniable sense of self and his place in the world in a greater context. He knows who he his, which leads to why he's here and gives him a sense of duty. If you take that away from him, he's no longer Superman. You completely alter the ethos of the character. Thus, I'm not sure who the fukk Cavill is supposed to be playing.

You don't have to make Superman the saving cats from trees, tripping over his feet when not in costume, random fact dropping klutz. Those are purely external circumstances. However, you do have to make him actually WANT to be Superman.That's an internal thing that manifests itself externally.

We went from, "There's nobody left to help them now... the people of the world ."

To:

"I'm not sure if you can love me and still be you ."

Response?

Silence.....

When the congress blew up and they show "superman" moping in the flames I was like "nikka blow off the fire and look for any survivors or go check if the people outside are ok "

 

[Arishok]

Just read it. There's a fine line between making connections between things in a film when the audience isn't spoon fed, and inferring, extrapolating and conflating things that aren't actually there. For me, I think the author does the latter.

"Superman stands in stark contrast to that cynical world. He wants to be a symbol of hope, he wants to use his powers for good, he wants to inspire us to overcome our skepticism and learn to have faith again, to believe there will be good ol’ days in our future after all."

Like, where and when does this happen at? It would be great if it did, but it doesn't actually occur in either film. Snyder's Superman is a hero by default.

"I got these powers, I may as well use them. "

I interpreted that entire scene when he saving various people with the voiceovers asking if they need a Superman to equal what the author is saying.

 

[Dr. Narcisse]

When the congress blew up and they show "superman" moping in the flames I was like "nikka blow off the fire and look for any survivors or go check if the people outside are ok "

I could be wrong, but this Superman doesn't have "Cold breath"

I thought it was a good scene. It was very human moment for him When a tragic "aww fukk moment" happens people don't respond right off the bat and he knew he was catching the blame no matter what. Thats what Superman looking stunned/shocked looked like. I think as he left he knew no one was alive.

It wasn't a good "Superman moment"

But I enjoyed it as a good Clark moment when he felt that weight. shyt hit the fan and he felt it.

I may catch heat for this, but I liked Superman leaving because the world doesn't accept him/collecting his thoughts. Instead of losing his powers so he can be with Lois (like in Superman 2)

 

[klutch2381]

I interpreted that entire scene when he saving various people with the voiceovers asking if they need a Superman to equal what the author is saying.

The thing is that all of the voiceovers aren't skeptical or cynical views. All of them aren't asking that. If that weren't the case and that montage happened simultaneously, I might buy that. Yet, it's a hodgepodge of non-linear philosophical and political ideas: some positive and some negative. One of them even says what people in that world are doing is placing their own failings, inadequacies onto Superman and making egregious determinations about him from that -- which is an extremely positive and noble view.

The writer is giving Snyder's storytelling skills and aptitude for insight wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much credit.

 

[Breh Obama]

This movie improves the more times you watch it. Most here seem to agree.

Watched Ant-Man (film I liked) last night and was ....it got worse.


Then again maybe thats just how it is for comedies. Age of Ultron still about the same for me.

Age of Ultron definitely gets better for me everytime.....there's really alot there visually that's hard to soak in and enjoy just in a couple viewings. That's the same reason why MOS got better for me. It really is a great movie. Its just that most people never gave it a 2nd chance.

 

[Arishok]

The thing is that all of the voiceovers aren't skeptical or cynical views. All of them aren't asking that. If that weren't the case and that montage happened simultaneously, I might buy that. Yet, it's a hodgepodge of non-linear philosophical and political ideas: some positive and some negative. One of them even says what people in that world are doing is placing their own failings, inadequacies onto Superman and making egregious determinations about him from that -- which is an extremely positive and noble view.

The writer is giving Snyder's storytelling skills and aptitude for insight wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much credit.

Not all of them but some were skeptical and negative views which were side by side to with him helping folks and the positive views which spells out Superman just wanting to help but the negative views toward him are weighing their toll. It's like no matter how much good he does, he can't get everyone on his side and its making him go more and go "fukk this "

That also plays into him going to Bruce like "I get it ", he understands how Batman became a cold, cynical guy.

It says something when multiple people come to the same conclusion. I felt the author better articulated everything I thought about it the film