Nope. That was a lame moment. The motivations behind that battle were forced. Likewise the resolution.
Nope. That was a lame moment. The motivations behind that battle were forced. Likewise the resolution.
No it made perfect sense and the battle wasn't forced at all.
Batman's justification boils down to prejudice. He's an alien who could burn the whole place down and if there's 1% of a chance he could go against us then we treat it as a certainty. The Batman I know makes contingencies but doesn't act until a crime has been committed. Here he's no different from people who hate all muslims because of the actions of a few terrorists and if he really believed in what he was saying, he would be working with Lex Luthor to take down Superman. Then there's Superman preaching that Batman is violating civil liberties. He needs to look in the mirror and recollect his own actions against terrorists and global jurisdiction.
"The Batman I know..."
That's the conflicting sentiment right there.
The character, as he was written for the movie, had justification for his methods, in my opinion. He was written with manifestations of PTSD from his two decades of Batman-ing (in the movie universe) and the death of Robin, so it had nothing really to do with prejudice because he was actually on the same general side as Lex (planetary security). Also, his knightmare might've fueled some of his rage as well.
Like a Jackson Pollock painting, some may see the meaning of life, and others may see splattered paint.
I, personally, didn't pick up on any feminine/masculine dichotomies.
I do agree that the article makes sense though. It was an interesting perspective, for sure.
Of course it's a different take on the character. Do you think the superman in the dark knight comic was accurate to the way he has been potrayed in other comics, no he was very different because ot is an elseworld story. Batman v Superman is an elseworld story, just because it's not what you expected or what you're used to does not mean there's a problem with it. By the way superman was in no way hypocritical did you even watch the movie. He didn't hurt the terrorists, Lex Luthor did. The only terrorist he attacked was the one that tried to put a bullet in Lois's head and he later tells Lois that he didn't kill anyone so obviously that guy was alive when superman was done with him. He is also not a military or police force he is a civilian and is only saving people just like the red cross so he doesn't need any special global jurisdiction. Next time judge the movie for what it is and not based on your own preconceived notions.
Personally I found Lex's plot quite fascinating in its unfolding. Also, I think that this whole story about "separate movies" is quite rubbish; Marvel teased their forthcoming characters at the end of their films. The only difference with DC is that they did it within the film and tried to integrate it into the whole story, rather than appear as an afterthought. With regards to Batman's life, etc. well they only did that stuff for Peter in Guardians of the Galaxy, and people still liked the story and all the other characters, because they had no expectations going into it. With your comments, it looks like you just wanted a different story to be told, which in no way is a "flaw".
In my opinion, it's troubling writing UNLESS Superman says it deliberately to elicit the reaction that it does in Batman, i.e., he figured saying "Martha" specifically might jar Bruce out of his madness. It is a tactic that Superman uses out of desperation then (Superman is about to be killed), but Superman was hoping to eventually subdue Bruce and be able to talk sense into him. If it is intentional there is a beautiful symmetry to Batman defeating Superman physically and Superman defeating Batman psychologically--neither of which we would have assumed going into the fight.
Let's not forget that in comic book canon Superman is about as smart as Batman. Both are genius level intellects.
We know that Superman is aware that Batman is Bruce Wayne at the start of the fight since Superman calls out to him as "Bruce!" then. But although the film doesn't show it (which is a mistake imo) Superman surely must have figured out that Batman is Bruce very early on. Clark is an investigative reporter! After the two of them meet at Lex's charity ball and Clark overhears Bruce engaged in what appears to be corporate espionage (which is bizarre for a CEO, right?) he absolutely would have researched Bruce Wayne. It's fine with me if in the film's world Bruce Wayne keeps a fairly low profile asn a billionaire industrialist. That would make sense in a more reality based fictional world, i.e., that Clark doesn't know who much about him yet. But at that point he would research him and read about his parents death. And of course by the time he shows up to kick the Batmobile and deliver the "the Bat is dead, bury it" speech he then too would heave used his X-Ray vision to see who is behind the cowl.But I think at that point Superman shows up because he already knows the Batman is Bruce and may even have monitored him for a while.
If Superman says Martha in order to put Batman in touch with his childhood trauma, then just after this brutal battle Batman abruptly siding with Clark then makes perfect sense. Superman has actually given Bruce's sanity back to him, and has helped him ground himself again when Bruce had been so lost before that (to the point that he tortures criminals). It was actually a great gift. Batman is a genius so once he kind of snaps out of his made rage, he realizes how important what Superman has done for him with all of this truly is. Batman is about to kill Superman, and instead of simply killing Batman in return (which, let's face it, Superman could easily have done at any step of the way in the fight) Superman essentially gives Bruce his whole integrated self back. So yeah, Bruce has found in Superman a true friend.
This is a film that makes the viewer work to cipher a lot of things out. Even Luthor's rambling explanation is cryptic in terms of making clear what he has done. It's consistent and okay that it we don't get any sort of on-the-nose exposition for Superman deliberately choosing to say Martha to put Batman in touch with himself at that point. I actually love it that the film does this, and leaves it up to the viewer to connect the dots.
But what the film does need to remove doubt that it is poor writing is to show us a brief glimpse of Clark reading the story of the Thomas and MARTHA (!) Wayne murders during his research phase earlier in the film. We know that the theater release version left out a significant scenes that show Clark researching the Batman over in Gotham. There is still a full hour of film that we have not seen from the original four hour cut of this movie. I hope that in that footage there is such a scene of Clark researching Bruce Wayne after Lex's charity ball. Because as a reported he absolutely would. And all we need is a scene of Clark reading that headline "Thomas and Martha Wayne murdered in front of theater" (or some such, but displaying the name Martha). Because then we finally have all the puzzle pieces we need to fit all of this together. But without that puzzle piece there is doubt as to whether it is just awkward or even lazy writing. In my humble opinion.
You know that I disagree with this and prefer it to be a coincidental. I like that he hot lucky and superman knowing that saying that word would elicit that kind of reaction from Bruce creates problems from other areas for me and actually seems like poor writing to me. I feel like I have to suspend my belief a little more. In my opinion it's more meaningful if batman comes to realize how he has lost his way on his own instead of by some strategic tactic by superman.
Of course the goal is to be entertained, so why are you getting in the way of your own entertainment. As we have established, a lot of the so called flaws you had with the movie are due to your own expectations, you not paying attention or you taking one part of a scene annd analyzing it without realizing that you need the other parts of the scene for it to make sense.
" Do you hear me complaining about Wonder Woman?"
I think the reason for that is that you know the film received good reviews and the general audience mostly agrees that it was a great film so if you tried to criticize wonder woman falsely the sane way you are doing now you'd get more of an opposition and a lot of hate.
You have done an incredible job so far containing the Martha hate. Kudos!
For (3) above, FWIW I don't see it as planned! I think Superman was just going to try to reason it out with Bruce and calmly explain everything. But Bruce has basically gone mad--he's completely off his rocker. So he wouldn't be able to trust Clark anyway at that point. It's only when Clark's back is to the wall (he's about to die in like one second) that he kind of summons this creative solution as a way to try to jar Bruce back to himself. Clark needs to do something brilliantly creative at that point because he's run out of physical options and his ability to speak is down to wheezes and gurgles.
As to the difference of our takes on it no worries, it's all good, I was just trying to remember your take on it, it's been a while! (Something about this type of communication makes it easier for me to forget for some reason.)
All credit due to the very excellent Suicide Squadcast podcast. They were able to put into words how I felt about the portrayal after over a year since BvS came out. Highly recommend that podcast.
BvS UE is a masterpiece to me. There is so much to peel away and unfold, interpret, analyze, etc. I think its complexity was what turned people off tinge honest.
It migth be, my personal in this is that a Villain doesn't need to liked, he does need a certai charismas that makes you recognize his schemes as good but not enough to root for them.
I will definitely check that out. Thank you.
And we're riding in the same boat. I'm still mesmerized by how much is presented to us in BvS (it has taken the record for my personal highest-number-of-viewings, beating out Batman from 1989). And it bums me out that it didn't receive more positive feedback, because it is BY FAR the most unique, layered, and complex superhero movie I've ever seen.
Imo there truly is no right or wrong to this, btw. I say it from time to time but just want to reemphasize that. :-)