Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (March 24th, 2016)

[daikkenaurora]

Maybe I'd like someone to explain it to me, because, in many of the reviews I've seen, I see the same complaint, with nothing really elaborated on. I just like the double standard, is all. If a fan of the movie was to say "you just didn't understand it," it would be met with the prerequisite eyeroll and the "just because I didn't like it doesn't mean I didn't understand it" line, but, if someone finds it incoherent, aren't they, by definition, not understanding it? I'm not looking for a fight or anything, but I'm genuinely curious, because I see the same complaint and it only goes as deep as that.

I dont think this is the case. The dream sequences can be considered incoherent but you understand what they are trying to say.

Something that I would say is incoherent is Lex Jr.

 

[crows]

I've got to say, "what the **** was so incoherent about it?" I see this same complaint over and over and over and over and over...and over again, and I genuinely can't understand it. Particularly after seeing it a second time. Literally, the only things that are even the slightest bit jarring are the visions, and there are, like, three of those in the movie, and each of them serves a thematic purpose.

Maybe I'd like someone to explain it to me, because, in many of the reviews I've seen, I see the same complaint, with nothing really elaborated on. I just like the double standard, is all. If a fan of the movie was to say "you just didn't understand it," it would be met with the prerequisite eyeroll and the "just because I didn't like it doesn't mean I didn't understand it" line, but, if someone finds it incoherent, aren't they, by definition, not understanding it? I'm not looking for a fight or anything, but I'm genuinely curious, because I see the same complaint and it only goes as deep as that.

Lex was an incoherent character, we all went over this, and the cop out cliche answer from the people defending this was "Well he is crazy, he is crazy so what he does doesn't have to make sense" which was kind of a bs answer.
Lex is the main pull behind some of the motivations for the conflict, he is the one rattling cages, but he is written in a way that the character makes no sense, makes no sense in a way that it didn't make rational sense to do some of the things he did to achieve some of the things he wanted to achieve, he is basically the second main thing making things happen (the other one was batman)

The joker in Dark Knight also did some of these things (making it as he went along) but at the core of his character you knew where he was coming from, you knew what his goal was, with Lex you kinda know he wants to take down superman but they never really tell you why, they NEVER tell you why he would like batman to die, you never know why he would create a Doomsday monster if he hates aliens so much, there is a lot left out that doesn't explain most of what he is doing.
the joker was Chaos and he did some things that were crazy but you at least knew his rationalization of things, the Joker explains to Harvey part of it, he even tells the audience.

Lex barely explains something about his dad and gods or whatnot but it is not well written. Creating doomsday is illogical. he ALREADY has kryptonite, he KNOWS kryptonite will kill superman.
he really did not need to create an unstoppable brute mindless monster, I do not buy "HES CRAZY BRO, HES SO CRAZY" bs cop out excuse, they needed doomsday to be created for the final fight so the writers have him create him for no good reason.

having a wonder woman at the end, a superstrong person that has a weapon that can easily stab and injure the monster in the movie and not using that sword to kill him is not logical. I know Snyder wanted the spear because of jesus or whatever

But it is not logical to have her not be able to defeat the monster, she could have taken Doomsday down by herself for example. instead of cutting his arm shhe could have cut out his head.

there are a lot of little things like that that are kind of illogical or have no real good reason for being in the movie. Louis knowing they need the spear is not logical, how the hell did she know the monster was Kryptonian, how did she know the spear will kill it? how?
thats not being able to understand the movie, thats literally not logical for her to know.

 

[batfan08]

I dont think this is the case. The dream sequences can be considered incoherent but you understand what they are trying to say.

Something that I would say is incoherent is Lex Jr.

I'd argue that his ramblings were incoherent, but the meaning behind them made total sense. His snafu at the library fundraiser, for instance. Ranting and raving about Prometheus stealing fire from Olympus and giving it to man, only to be punished by the gods, and talking about how philanthropist means "giver of life" and a that ****. Everyone in the audience is, raising their eyebrows and saying "what the **** is this guy on about," yet it clearly illustrates who his character is and what his motivations are; that he's a little man with an ego problem who's just pissed that he's no longer relevant.

 

[crows]

I'd argue that his ramblings were incoherent, but the meaning behind them made total sense. His snafu at the library fundraiser, for instance. Ranting and raving about Prometheus stealing fire from Olympus and giving it to man, only to be punished by the gods, and talking about how philanthropist means "giver of life" and a that ****. Everyone in the audience is, raising their eyebrows and saying "what the **** is this guy on about," yet it clearly illustrates who his character is and what his motivations are; that he's a little man with an ego problem who's just pissed that he's no longer relevant.

if the entire problem was ego, then why create doomsday... wouldn't try to kill superman with his kryptonite be more of an ego boost? being THE one that kills superman?
instead of creating some monster that he cant even control?

 

[daikkenaurora]

I'd argue that his ramblings were incoherent, but the meaning behind them made total sense. His snafu at the library fundraiser, for instance. Ranting and raving about Prometheus stealing fire from Olympus and giving it to man, only to be punished by the gods, and talking about how philanthropist means "giver of life" and a that ****. Everyone in the audience is, raising their eyebrows and saying "what the **** is this guy on about," yet it clearly illustrates who his character is and what his motivations are; that he's a little man with an ego problem who's just pissed that he's no longer relevant.

I'm gonna stick a cherry jolly rancher in your mouth. lol

 

[kryptonianmutie]

I'm gonna stick a cherry jolly rancher in your mouth. lol

[emoji38]
Yeah, it's dumb **** like that in BvS that's making me look forward to a fan edit.

 

[batfan08]

I'm gonna stick a cherry jolly rancher in your mouth. lol

Do you really want me to? Okay. He was asserting his dominance and reminding the Senator who he was talking to.

 

[daikkenaurora]

Do you really want me to? Okay. He was asserting his dominance and reminding the Senator who he was talking to.

Oh, you mean the idiot Senator who gave clearance to alien technology and the body of an alien creature in order to get.... wait, he didnt get anything did he? Asserting his intelligence onto dumba**es. Impressive. And how does a Senator have the clearance to do this anyway? "Maybe it was under the radar". No one wouldnt notice an alien body missing?

 

[batfan08]

Oh, you mean the idiot Senator who gave clearance to alien technology and the body of an alien creature in order to get.... wait, he didnt get anything did he? Asserting his intelligence onto dumba**es. Impressive. And how does a Senator have the clearance to do this anyway? "Maybe it was under the radar". No one wouldnt notice an alien body missing?

I don't understand why everything needs to be spelled out for everyone. You can see the difference in temperament between Senator Finch and Luthor's houseboy. We know that Senator is clearly under Luthor's thumb based on what he lets Luthor do (the aforementioned Jolly Rancher). Why do we have to see Luthor having pictures of the Senator with his mistress taken, or whatever, and why do we have to see whatever legislation that Senator tried to put through in order to get Luthor his approval? I feel like this movie gets an unfair amount of scrutiny for doing things that aren't all that uncommon in films. He extorts a crooked politician to get what he wants. Why do they need to write a book on how he does that? I feel like The Onion's Civil War review actually sums up your thought process pretty well:

 

[a-dev]

Honestly you can't compare BVS to CW. Civil war had 8 years of character development. BvS had one slugfest movie 3 years ago where the main part of the story was how much stuff can I destroy as character development, and a new Batman and Wonder Woman we know nothing about. I loved Affleck as Batman, and would love to learn more about him. Wonder Woman seems one dimensional for me because I still know practically nothing about her or where she comes from. We may think we know these characters based on the comics they are derived from, but we obviously don't.

I may be misunderstanding you but this, to me, reads like ''BvS rushed it's universe-building and crammed everything into one film with no build-up'' and because of that it should be...excused from comparison to Civil War? That feels like moving the goal-posts to me so no one comes down hard on BvS.

The year has had 2 superhero movies that pit good guys against good guys - the comparison is inevitable, preferences are inevitable. Marvel and DC both chose their respective paths to this kind of scenario. IMO one of those paths is quite simply the better one and from what I'm hearing has resulted in a far more satisfying film.

 

[batfan08]

if the entire problem was ego, then why create doomsday... wouldn't try to kill superman with his kryptonite be more of an ego boost? being THE one that kills superman?
instead of creating some monster that he cant even control?

I don't think they're exclusive. Ultimately, it's the combination of his fractured ego and his hatred of Superman that creates Doomsday. What's more of an ego-boost than literally playing God? I also don't think it's entirely unreasonable for someone so cunning as to know the identities of both Superman and Batman, and to manipulate each of them into a confrontation, to have contingencies in place, should one of his plans fail.

 

[batfan08]

Lex was an incoherent character, we all went over this, and the cop out cliche answer from the people defending this was "Well he is crazy, he is crazy so what he does doesn't have to make sense" which was kind of a bs answer.
Lex is the main pull behind some of the motivations for the conflict, he is the one rattling cages, but he is written in a way that the character makes no sense, makes no sense in a way that it didn't make rational sense to do some of the things he did to achieve some of the things he wanted to achieve, he is basically the second main thing making things happen (the other one was batman)

The joker in Dark Knight also did some of these things (making it as he went along) but at the core of his character you knew where he was coming from, you knew what his goal was, with Lex you kinda know he wants to take down superman but they never really tell you why, they NEVER tell you why he would like batman to die, you never know why he would create a Doomsday monster if he hates aliens so much, there is a lot left out that doesn't explain most of what he is doing.
the joker was Chaos and he did some things that were crazy but you at least knew his rationalization of things, the Joker explains to Harvey part of it, he even tells the audience.

Lex barely explains something about his dad and gods or whatnot but it is not well written. Creating doomsday is illogical. he ALREADY has kryptonite, he KNOWS kryptonite will kill superman.
he really did not need to create an unstoppable brute mindless monster, I do not buy "HES CRAZY BRO, HES SO CRAZY" bs cop out excuse, they needed doomsday to be created for the final fight so the writers have him create him for no good reason.

having a wonder woman at the end, a superstrong person that has a weapon that can easily stab and injure the monster in the movie and not using that sword to kill him is not logical. I know Snyder wanted the spear because of jesus or whatever

But it is not logical to have her not be able to defeat the monster, she could have taken Doomsday down by herself for example. instead of cutting his arm shhe could have cut out his head.

there are a lot of little things like that that are kind of illogical or have no real good reason for being in the movie. Louis knowing they need the spear is not logical, how the hell did she know the monster was Kryptonian, how did she know the spear will kill it? how?
thats not being able to understand the movie, thats literally not logical for her to know.

His reason for wanting to kill Batman is pretty simple: he wants to destroy Superman. Ultimately, whoever wins that fight, Luthor succeeds. If Superman kills Batman to save his mother, he proves to the world that he's a false idol who's just as selfish as the rest of us. If Batman kills Superman? Well, then Superman's dead, mission accomplished. Why Batman? Because he was the best man for the job. Who else is crazy enough or skilled enough to take on Superman?

As for the spear, perhaps it was Superman doing what heroes do, and putting the greater good against his own sense of self-preservation. He saw this thing take a direct hit from a nuclear warhead and barely flinch; maybe he wants to be sure that he isn't putting his friends in harm's way?

 

[karamazov80]

I also don't think it's entirely unreasonable for someone so cunning as to know the identities of both Superman and Batman, and to manipulate each of them into a confrontation, to have contingencies in place, should one of his plans fail.

This is true, but for a disorganized schizophrenic like movie Luthor to do it is very impressive. Many of those folks can't even make their own breakfast.

 

[daikkenaurora]

I don't understand why everything needs to be spelled out for everyone. You can see the difference in temperament between Senator Finch and Luthor's houseboy. We know that Senator is clearly under Luthor's thumb based on what he lets Luthor do (the aforementioned Jolly Rancher). Why do we have to see Luthor having pictures of the Senator with his mistress taken, or whatever, and why do we have to see whatever legislation that Senator tried to put through in order to get Luthor his approval? I feel like this movie gets an unfair amount of scrutiny for doing things that aren't all that uncommon in films. He extorts a crooked politician to get what he wants. Why do they need to write a book on how he does that? I feel like The Onion's Civil War review actually sums up your thought process pretty well:

You are missing the point...It's an alien body! it's not some document someone has in a briefcase or stored away in a vault. I dont care how shady this Senator is or what Luthor has on him. Him being able to give Lex an alien body does not seem plausible. That thing would be hidden and have the smallest of access. *cough cough Independence Day I thought the point of the DCU was to be more realistic and believable.

And even if this was all possible, wouldn't he give Lex the goods AFTER he gets the kryptonite? Isnt that how shady deals work? I give you the briefcase of money at the same time you give me the drugs.

 

[batfan08]

You are missing the point...It's an alien body! it's not some document someone has in a briefcase or stored away in a vault. I dont care how shady this Senator is or what Luthor has on him. Him being able to give Lex an alien body does not seem plausible. That thing would be hidden and have the smallest of access. *cough cough Independence Day I thought the point of the DCU was to be more realistic and believable.

And even if this was all possible, wouldn't he give Lex the goods AFTER he gets the kryptonite? Isnt that how shady deals work? I give you the briefcase of money at the same time you give me the drugs.

I'm trying to understand your reasoning here. Why would the Senator want the Kryptonite?

 

[Prime Clone]

The one thing that got me as bad editing was deciding to put the scene where Diana finds the Luthor video while the fight between Batman and Superman is about to start. Can someone explain why Snyder decided to put that scene there?

That was the only thing that bugged me too. Though I did wonder why Batman needed a tracker to know the Kryptonite was going to Lexcorp, and Superman didn't seem to realise or care why Batman was chasing the truck.

if the entire problem was ego, then why create doomsday... wouldn't try to kill superman with his kryptonite be more of an ego boost? being THE one that kills superman?
instead of creating some monster that he cant even control?

I got the impression Doomsday was a fallback option. After all, Batman stole the Kryptonite.

 

[daikkenaurora]

I'm trying to understand your reasoning here. Why would the Senator want the Kryptonite?

Who was the guy who gave Lex Jr full access to the alien tech? Didnt he want the Kryptonite weapon as a deterrent?

 

[ironwez20]

Well seeing civil war and bvs I have to say civil war is just the all around better movie and that hurts cause a batman v superman movie is a movie we waited years for and I always wanted to see the DC franchise share its universe but nope. Wb are dumb af. If they were smart they'd make a soft reboot out of a teen Titan movie. That's what I wanna see screw aqua man .

 

[jye4ever]

Man I feel like an outcast for liking both BvS AND CW!

Could you guys ever forgive me.

 

[karamazov80]

Man I feel like an outcast for liking both BvS AND CW!

Could you guys ever forgive me.

It's a forum Civil War! Either you're with us, or you're with the enemy JYE. WITH THE ENEMY!!!