Batman v Superman - Dawn of Justice - Cultivating Apathy

[gorfias]

Even batman should't be that dark. I mean part of his moral compass is not killing people. If you make his badguys to bad then him not killing them just looks sillier and sillier. Plus if batman didn't kill them then the cops sure as hell would..

I see this tomorrow with my nephew and I had heard that in this, Batman does have a casual attitude about not killing which undermines his character. One of the best depictions of him was "Kingdom Come" where he is a dark, snarky old bastard and he is turning down helping Superman. In reality, he is not being cynical, he is acknowledging that he is human and will be of limited assistance. Superman reminds him that he knows, deep down inside, Batman doesn't want anyone ever being killed.

I haven't seen it but apparently he doesn't have a casual attitude to not killing, he goes out of his way to rack up a rather large body count.

I just came home from seeing it.

Neither Batman nor Superman! seem too worried about killing people.

My overall impression: THE EXACT OPPOSITE of just about everyone else I'm reading. The movie is 2.5 hours long. Critics write that the first 2 hours are an unbearable drag, waiting for the fun of the last .5 hours.

I find the 1st 2 hours a blast. Like Watchmen meets Dark Knight. Fun stuff mixed with thought pieces and character development. The last .5 hours is fun to look at but a noisy mess with leaps of logic to match Superman 4. And it commits a sin I read about in these pages: it assumes a sequel and spends time making you look forward to that rather than enjoy what is on the screen. Final verdict: VERY imperfect but, if you love this stuff as I do, see it. You will appreciate it.

 

[josemlopes]

Even batman should't be that dark. I mean part of his moral compass is not killing people. If you make his badguys to bad then him not killing them just looks sillier and sillier. Plus if batman didn't kill them then the cops sure as hell would..

I see this tomorrow with my nephew and I had heard that in this, Batman does have a casual attitude about not killing which undermines his character. One of the best depictions of him was "Kingdom Come" where he is a dark, snarky old bastard and he is turning down helping Superman. In reality, he is not being cynical, he is acknowledging that he is human and will be of limited assistance. Superman reminds him that he knows, deep down inside, Batman doesn't want anyone ever being killed.

I haven't seen it but apparently he doesn't have a casual attitude to not killing, he goes out of his way to rack up a rather large body count.

I just came home from seeing it.

Neither Batman nor Superman! seem too worried about killing people.

My overall impression: THE EXACT OPPOSITE of just about everyone else I'm reading. The movie is 2.5 hours long. Critics write that the first 2 hours are an unbearable drag, waiting for the fun of the last .5 hours.

I find the 1st 2 hours a blast. Like Watchmen meets Dark Knight. Fun stuff mixed with thought pieces and character development. The last .5 hours is fun to look at but a noisy mess with leaps of logic to match Superman 4. And it commits a sin I read about in these pages: it assumes a sequel and spends time making you look forward to that rather than enjoy what is on the screen. Final verdict: VERY imperfect but, if you love this stuff as I do, see it. You will appreciate it.

I liked the entire movie but there is a certain hit in quality after the tea jar scene. Something that makes me wonder how anyone could say that the movie is boring at the start.

Does no one watch dramas or anything other then action movies?

...and the cameos of Cyborg, Flash and Aquaman were surprisingly clever...

Weird, to me that was the worst part of the movie, (except Flash, he made sense, altough his first presence would have been enough), they felt so forced and in your face, especially Aquaman.

 

[gorfias]

I liked the entire movie but there is a certain hit in quality after the tea jar scene. Something that makes me wonder how anyone could say that the movie is boring at the start.

Does no one watch dramas or anything other then action movies?

That tea jar scene was spectacular. Really reminded me of Dark Knight.

I wonder why DC isn't making movies that can feel serious but have the tone and fun of the Marvel movies. I think it is that... Marvel is already doing that so, DC can say "us too!" and fail, or offer something different. I hope audiences give them props so we get both styles.

 

[Cheesy Goodness]

I just got back from seeing the movie. I have so much to say and don't know how to properly articulate it.

The proper editing would have fixed a lot of the problems. The flow from one scene to the other almost gave me whiplash. If I didn't know any better, I'd say this movie was edited by an automated computer program and not an actual human. It felt like more work was put into efficiently cutting down the time to 2.5 hours over coherent storytelling. After hearing 30 minutes was being added into the home version, it all made sense. Scenes will come and go swiftly, so be prepared.

A few other ramblings:

- Ben Affleck's Batman was freakin' awesome. I hope his character is better served in future movies.

- The Justice League tie-ins were very shoehorned and unnecessary.

- Jessie Eisenberg's manic, twitchy Luther was strange and unfitting to the character. I didn't hate him, but it felt like he was channeling the Joker somewhat.

- Superman is still mopey. I like Henry Cavill as Superman, but he doesn't have much to work with.

- Doomsday does not need to be here. Generally, I think Doomsday is a horrible, one-note villain, but he should have been saved for another movie if they were going to use him.

- Overall, the movie is a mixed bag. I think I like more than I dislike it. I will gladly watch it again when the director's cut gets released. I hope my theory about the editing pans out. It it worth seeing? Absolutely! Just don't expect perfection.

 

[Hawki]

Does no one watch dramas or anything other then action movies?

Raises hand...

Honestly, I find myself enjoying dramas far more than action movies these days. Bridge of Spies was my top movie of 2015 (admittedly you can call that a thriller). Likewise, this year, my top ten list has drama/thriller films like Eye in the Sky, Concussion, The Big Short, and while some movies have action in them (10 Cloverfield Lane, Zootopia, The Revenant), they're certainly not action movies in of themselves. On the other end of the spectrum, action movies I've seen this year like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Gods of Egypt stand as the worst films I've seen this year. Deadpool currently holds the #9 spot, which is most certainly an action movie, but will probably fall out by the year's end.

So, yeah. This doesn't stop some dramas from being lacklustre in my eyes (e.g. Lady in the Van and Hail, Ceasar!), but frankly I'm finding them far more interesting. The ethical, political, and legal issues raised in Eye in the Sky prompted discussion among friends and family, but, well, let's be honest, the Escapist (or many Internet sites) probably aren't the best place for that kind of discussion unless you want a shouting match. But that's a far more relevant conversation to the real-world than who would win in a brawl? Heck, even Zootopia prompted intelligent discussion, even if its themes were obvious (not that I'm complaining, Zootopia's currently the best film I've seen this year).

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Saw the midnight showing last night. Pretty terrible. As bad as moviebob said? Nah. He exaggerates. But its REALLY fucking bad! Like its not lube-less anal rape painful. But its certainly lube-less anal sex painful.

Has anything ever been as bad as Bob says it was? I tend to like and dislike the same movies as him but apart from fantfourstic I don't think I've ever gotten as worked up over a movie, I don't think I've ever gotten that worked up over actual crimes.

Green Lantern; I think he was right on the money with Green Lantern.

I'm honestly amazed at how much of a drumming this movie is getting. Like I wasn't expecting much out of it personally but I'm supposed to be one of those never pleased types about this sort of shit. I expected it to at least resonate and do okay with general audiences and less invested critics but all I'm hearing is either 'Second Coming of Christ' or 'Satan is assaulting Heaven's Gate'

So what Batman and Superman should not kill in the inevitable fight against Darkside and his huge Army of soldiers?

Because the Avengers did kill in the fight against the Aliens.

The (three primary) Avengers are in order: an American soldier who saw battle in the fields of Europe in World War II, a high functioning alcoholic narcissist and king of the MIC (who suffered PTSD from nearly dying) and one of the most famously violent members of a Pantheon famous for reveling in bloodshed. They wouldn't be adverse to killing mainly on strength of their backgrounds alone. Superman and Batman have entirely different experiences and circumstances to shape them as people and heroes.

You do realize that Darkseid is unresonable. That is armies will attack and kill without mercy.

Superman and the Batman will not even the chance to knock them out and send them all to jail.

Funny, people complain about Prince Anduin Wrynn in World of Warcraft for being a painfully stunted pacifist in the face of a clear unreasonable warlike enemy and the fans wants to push him into War against the enemies of the alliance (Garrosh's horde, THe Burning Legion)

But when Superman has to fight and kill everyone wants him to be the same pacifistic upholder of Justice.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

God, I can not wait to see how much money DC pissed away on this mess.

About $400 million total. WB said that it needs to make 1 Billion to be considered successful. In America, opening day was approx. $82 million, with projected weekend being $170 million. With a 6 week run, factoring diminishing returns, I personally guess it will make approx. 750 million total. If WB 1 Billion is domestic alone, I don't think they will make it.

 

[JimB]

You do realize that Darkseid is unreasonable. That his armies will attack and kill without mercy.

Superman does not believe in choosing who lives and dies (which is a reason I draw a distinction between Superman and the character in the Snyderverse, whom I will call Kal-El). He will save every life he can, and he will mourn the ones he can't, but he will not accept responsibility for a trigger he didn't pull. The civilians who die during Darkseid's invasion are Darkseid's fault, not his.

I also think you're excluding huge amounts of middle ground here, implying that killing aliens left and right is the only way to save the population. The population can be evacuated and/or put into a stronghold to defend. With the speeds some of the Justice League are capable of moving at, it is eminently possible to defend life by a means other than taking life.

Funny, people complain about Prince Anduin Wrynn in World of Warcraft for being a painfully stunted pacifist in the face of a clear unreasonable warlike enemy and the fans wants to push him into war against the enemies of the alliance (Garrosh's horde, the Burning Legion); but when Superman has to fight and kill everyone wants him to be the same pacifistic upholder of justice.

That's really only a funny thing if you first demonstrate an overlap in the two groups of people arguing those two different things, and then demonstrate that the reasonings behind those arguments are contradictory. I have nothing to say about it because I have nothing to do with Warcraft and no idea what you're talking about, but I tend to suspect the prince you mentioned is not invulnerable, capable of lifting entire planets with his bare hands, and faster than the speed of sound. If he's not those things, then holding him to the same standard one holds Kal-El to seems a tad silly.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

You do realize that Darkseid is unreasonable. That his armies will attack and kill without mercy.

Superman does not believe in choosing who lives and dies (which is a reason I draw a distinction between Superman and the character in the Snyderverse, whom I will call Kal-El). He will save every life he can, and he will mourn the ones he can't, but he will not accept responsibility for a trigger he didn't pull. The civilians who die during Darkseid's invasion are Darkseid's fault, not his.

I also think you're excluding huge amounts of middle ground here, implying that killing aliens left and right is the only way to save the population. The population can be evacuated and/or put into a stronghold to defend. With the speeds some of the Justice League are capable of moving at, it is eminently possible to defend life by a means other than taking life.

Funny, people complain about Prince Anduin Wrynn in World of Warcraft for being a painfully stunted pacifist in the face of a clear unreasonable warlike enemy and the fans wants to push him into war against the enemies of the alliance (Garrosh's horde, the Burning Legion); but when Superman has to fight and kill everyone wants him to be the same pacifistic upholder of justice.

That's really only a funny thing if you first demonstrate an overlap in the two groups of people arguing those two different things, and then demonstrate that the reasonings behind those arguments are contradictory. I have nothing to say about it because I have nothing to do with Warcraft and no idea what you're talking about, but I tend to suspect the prince you mentioned is not invulnerable, capable of lifting entire planets with his bare hands, and faster than the speed of sound. If he's not those things, then holding him to the same standard one holds Kal-El to seems a tad silly.

1. Ok then they evacuate the population and/or placed them in a stronghold to defend, but there is still the matter of dealing with the Hostile Aliens/Forces that could still be after them.

2. But Prince Anduin is now King of a grand Alliance of Different Races with a whole slew of Warriors and Heroes who can control either has control over Holy Powers tha can go as far as raising a recently slain person, control of the very classical elements of Earth, Wind, Water, and Fire Avatar stlye, Mighty Warriors capable of killing Great Demons and Monsters.

 

[JimB]

Okay then, they evacuate the population and/or placed them in a stronghold to defend, but there is still the matter of dealing with the hostile alien forces that could still be after them.

Yes. These are things they have the power to deal with in a nonlethal fashion.

Prince Anduin is now king of a grand alliance of different races with a whole slew of warriors and heroes who can control holy powers that can go as far as raising a recently slain person, control of the very classical elements of earth, wind, water, and fire Avatar-style, and mighty warriors capable of killing great demons and monsters.

Uh, okay. Again, I have no familiarity with Warcraft, so none of that has the context to make any sense to me. If you insist he has the personal power necessary to pacify an entire army, then...sure, I guess. That still leaves you with the problem of having to demonstrate that real people are making both the statements you attribute to them and are doing so for hypocritical reasons.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Okay then, they evacuate the population and/or placed them in a stronghold to defend, but there is still the matter of dealing with the hostile alien forces that could still be after them.

Yes. These are things they have the power to deal with in a nonlethal fashion.

Prince Anduin is now king of a grand alliance of different races with a whole slew of warriors and heroes who can control holy powers that can go as far as raising a recently slain person, control of the very classical elements of earth, wind, water, and fire Avatar-style, and mighty warriors capable of killing great demons and monsters.

Uh, okay. Again, I have no familiarity with Warcraft, so none of that has the context to make any sense to me. If you insist he has the personal power necessary to pacify an entire army, then...sure, I guess. That still leaves you with the problem of having to demonstrate that real people are making both the statements you attribute to them and are doing so for hypocritical reasons.

1. Do you assume that the DC heroes aswell as Marvel Heroes in general has the power to ward off ALL threats non-lethally? Even in the face against Mighty and Powerful Foreces that at times can overpower the heroes? In the inevitable Infinity Gauntlet movie Thanos will have all the gems in his Gauntlet, with it he has the power nearly unto a GOD. Even surpassing Normal Superman. And Darkseid has the Anti Life Equation.

2. The criticism against Anduin is that his pacivity and "there is got to be another way" attitude renders him to in-action and incapable of doing what is necessary, where he tries to find another to deal with a great evil threat even if the only answer to stop it is to fight and kill the evil/powerful threat.

I try to apply this criticism to Superman.

 

[JimB]

Do you assume that the DC heroes as well as Marvel heroes in general has the power to ward off all threats non-lethally?

I have not said one word in this discussion about DC heroes in general, Marvel heroes in general, or Marvel heroes at all. I do not know what game you are playing at, Samtemdo8, but whatever it is, I will thank you to drop it and please limit yourself to responding to comments I have actually made, which in this instance are specifically about members of the Justice League who can be expected to appear in the upcoming movies.

Darkseid has the Anti-Life Equation.

I don't know what continuity you're talking about, but in any continuity I'm familiar with, he has no such thing, because all life would have ended if he did.

The criticism against Anduin is that his pacifism and "there has to be another way" attitude renders him to inaction and incapable of doing what is necessary, where he tries to find another to deal with a great evil threat even if the only answer to stop it is to fight and kill the evil/powerful threat.

I try to apply this criticism to Superman.

If you're the one applying this criticism, then why did you originally attribute it to others in order to mock their apparently imaginary hypocrisy?

 

[DefunctTheory]

Even surpassing Normal Superman. And Darkseid has the Anti Life Equation.

What? First of all, the anti-life equation is actually pretty pathetic - Most of the time it's actually used, it never really does anything that a Batman villain couldn't do on any given day of the week. The only time I'm aware of it actually killing someone is when Luthor shows it to Darkseid, at which point Darkseid dies.

Pretty shitty result, as far as math goes.

That and Lex Luther's in Batman vs Superman had so many random reasons for doing what he did- that no one could pin point what his motivation was. Without a logical or understandable conclusion as to why he hated Superman makes him ... well, a mess of a character people don't take interest in anymore.

I think there's two possibilities when it comes to Luther's motivations in this movie.

1. He's an anarchist, and he's simply offended at the pure power Superman has, as well as disgusted by the US government as a whole, or...

2. He finally lost the legal fight trying to lift the court order that mandated that he stay at least 500 feet away from any school building. Robbed of the joy of underaged teenagers, the supremely creepy Luther decides to take on Superman and Congress because what the hell else is he supposed to do?

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Saw the midnight showing last night. Pretty terrible. As bad as moviebob said? Nah. He exaggerates. But its REALLY fucking bad! Like its not lube-less anal rape painful. But its certainly lube-less anal sex painful.

Has anything ever been as bad as Bob says it was? I tend to like and dislike the same movies as him but apart from fantfourstic I don't think I've ever gotten as worked up over a movie, I don't think I've ever gotten that worked up over actual crimes.

Green Lantern; I think he was right on the money with Green Lantern.

I'm honestly amazed at how much of a drumming this movie is getting. Like I wasn't expecting much out of it personally but I'm supposed to be one of those never pleased types about this sort of shit. I expected it to at least resonate and do okay with general audiences and less invested critics but all I'm hearing is either 'Second Coming of Christ' or 'Satan is assaulting Heaven's Gate'

So what Batman and Superman should not kill in the inevitable fight against Darkside and his huge Army of soldiers?

Because the Avengers did kill in the fight against the Aliens.

The (three primary) Avengers are in order: an American soldier who saw battle in the fields of Europe in World War II, a high functioning alcoholic narcissist and king of the MIC (who suffered PTSD from nearly dying) and one of the most famously violent members of a Pantheon famous for reveling in bloodshed. They wouldn't be adverse to killing mainly on strength of their backgrounds alone. Superman and Batman have entirely different experiences and circumstances to shape them as people and heroes.

You do realize that Darkseid is unresonable. That is armies will attack and kill without mercy.

Superman and the Batman will not even the chance to knock them out and send them all to jail.

Funny, people complain about Prince Anduin Wrynn in World of Warcraft for being a painfully stunted pacifist in the face of a clear unreasonable warlike enemy and the fans wants to push him into War against the enemies of the alliance (Garrosh's horde, THe Burning Legion)

But when Superman has to fight and kill everyone wants him to be the same pacifistic upholder of Justice.

Yeah, no fucking shit Darkseid is unreasonable. I didn't have an issue with them killing Doomsday - I mean what the fuck else are they going to do with him? - but Superman didn't need to kill the guy that had Lois at gunpoint; he'd won that fight by virtue of showing up and killing him counts as a unilateral strike by (ostensibly) an American citizen on a foreign country: wars have been fought over less. That's my beef; Superman has to kill Darkseid, fair enough, they aren't recycling him for next month here so proper closure and all that. Also I think you're confusing pacifism with reasonable restraint. A pacifist wouldn't do a damn thing at all, Superman strikes me as more the guy who gets in between a fight and breaks it up.

Also, why wasn't Luthor given the death penalty since he's guilty of acts of terrorism?

 

[Czann]

So it's a mess? Of it is a mess.

You can't tell a story while trying to build an entire universe in a single movie. And Lex Luthor... ugh!

They had the money and the time but they still managed to screw this one badly.

 

[Ralancian]

It's not great but it's not terrible either people saying it's terrible really need to watch Batman & Robin again and I think it's probably better than the Tim Burton Batman movies (which have not aged well post Nolan Trilogy).

I'm interested to see what ended up on the cutting room floor (almost 30minuites) and what difference it makes. I get feeling watching the film that it won't be inconsequential, despite what Snyder is saying and the studio may have badly screwed with the movie.

 

[Zenja]

What little we saw of wonder woman was cool, but she was, as most "characters" in this movie...a cardboard cutout at best. There was nothing at all to differentiate her from Superman. She could take a superpunch and had a sword+shield. The "trinity" moment was lame, the only enjoyable moment in the entire movie was when they were all 3 attacking Doomsday. A bit cool.

Despite her being in the whole movie, I chalk up her role to a mere cameo. The lack of color really bugged me this time around.

Honestly, if he had cut the amount of slow motion "check this out people" scenes by half, we might have had time for some actual story.

This annoyed me so much during the movie. Slow motion scene.. because Lex sees the spaceship. Slow motion scene.. because Lex is walking down a hallway. Seriously, I started blocking this stuff out so much that after seeing the movie and watching reviews, I kept seeing people talk about the 'theme song sound effect' they played for every character when they were on camera and I didnt even notice that. It's like Snyder thought EVERY scene in the movie was EPIC! This is seriously at annoyingly levels.

Also, Lex was a disgrace. Capably acted, but all over the place and never what he should be.

Spoiler: WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS - (I basically agree)

What bugged me was that Batman was doing what Lex should have been doing the whole movie. That is, making an argument for why Superman is a menace. All movie long Lex just acts wacky until the last 40 minutes, then he wants Supes to kill Batman? WTF sense does that make? Wouldn't Doomsday just do that anyway? Isn't Supes the REAL threat to his endgame here? (Which is nonsensical anyway, but still) and Bruce is giving out monologues like "You will bleed, you must be held accountable!" and obtaining kryptonite the role Lex is usually doing. PLus, killing people. I mean this Bruce is playing the part of Lex Luthor. Lex should have been making a case against superman the whole movie to the public and the government and by extension to the audience, but he doesn't. Bruce is doing that for some reason. Lex just does convoluted plans that make no sense unless I missed something and basically acts like a crazy spoiled brat with social ineptitude.

I did enjoy the movie but it is very flawed. I agree with the score 6/10. It is above average thanks to Affleck and Cavill's chemistry and performances. Their supporting cast is wasted thanks to a bunch of convoluted sub-plots and. Gal Gadot even as good as she did as WW, she really is just a cameo for the most part as most of her scenes don't even show her talking much, if at all. Afflek does pull most of the movie himself though as this is more of a Batman movie than a Man of Steel sequel. I think Batman gets more screentime this time around until the last 30 minutes.

 

[Mangod]

So, having read close to a hundred reviews by this point, general concensus seems to be that, while the actors are doing their best, they're just not given enough material to work with. The movie is too busy trying to set up the DC Cinematic Universe, instead of focusing on being a good movie in it's own right.

In summary: Go watch the World's Finest 3-parter from Superman the Animated Series instead:


And then just steam through the DCAU Justice League while you're at it. The DCAU is awesome.

 

[GestaltEsper]

So, having read close to a hundred reviews by this point, general concensus seems to be that, while the actors are doing their best, they're just not given enough material to work with. The movie is too busy trying to set up the DC Cinematic Universe, instead of focusing on being a good movie in it's own right.

In summary: Go watch the World's Finest 3-parter from Superman the Animated Series instead:


And then just steam through the DCAU Justice League while you're at it. The DCAU is awesome.

Warning: The Bat-wank may actually be worse here than in BvS. Still, at least it's coherent.

 

[Mangod]

So, having read close to a hundred reviews by this point, general concensus seems to be that, while the actors are doing their best, they're just not given enough material to work with. The movie is too busy trying to set up the DC Cinematic Universe, instead of focusing on being a good movie in it's own right.

In summary: Go watch the World's Finest 3-parter from Superman the Animated Series instead:


And then just steam through the DCAU Justice League while you're at it. The DCAU is awesome.

Warning: The Bat-wank may actually be worse here than in BvS. Still, at least it's coherent.

True. As compensation, here's Batman getting backhanded!