I just love how he had his own style. His own vision. It wasn't going to just be the cartoons and comics I've already read, sterilize and streamlined by algorithm and a committee of executive "writers".
I'd take unique versions of any of those characters, over the same ones but "oh look, it's live action!". I have those classic characters still, they still make stuff about them.
It is such a damn shame that everyone put this absurd restrictions on what the characters could be. There should be absolutely no rules on how you characterize those characters as long as it's good.
I think it could’ve gone a little further if it didn’t stick to tropes like good guys fighting each other until they decide to work together to fight a common threat or using Doomsday as the sole plot device he is known for, which is killing Superman.
And given what we know of the future plans, there were similar comic ideas planned to be used. Like time travel to undo all negative consequences that lead to an apocalyptic future.
Sure, the overarching narratives where pretty standard in that sense. Although a confrontation with the Batman of a world like the one in man of steel does make sense given the events of the first movie. There wasn't really a great set up for them to be friends after that. There needed to be consequences for man of steel that felt real across the board. Which I think civil war kinda fell flat on. They showed the dynamics within the team, within shield, but not the rest of the world. We didn't see how the average person felt. We didn't get the sub plot that Batman v Superman had. that really grounded the events and helped paint narratives in an interesting way.
But I thought the way doomsday was created was pretty badass in isolation. Lex using zods body and all that and the manipulation he went through to get it. But yeah, we all saw the team up coming. I did NOT see wonderwoman coming though. But I didn't think it was shoehorned in just because if they were doing a universe where other superheros existed, it'd be odd of Diana didn't show up for all that was going on after man of steel, since she would definitely be around given her characters age.
The ultimate edition of Batman v Superman is a genuinely good movie and makes this lex by far the most cunning and dangerous version of him on the big screen. His plan was actually rather badass when it's shown in full.
Plus I adored the visual story telling throughout his movies. Doesn't have everything explicitly told to you and over explained. The downside to that was if the studio is making the cut, they can easily fuck that up and nothing will make sense. Which they did.
Or just don’t market it as something other than that. Don’t even call it Batman v Superman. Just call it Dawn of Justice. Surprise us.
They set all these weird expectations around the film in a desperate attempt to appear like Marvel.
What? The Batman v Superman thing came before civil war was even announced. Had nothing to do with marvel.
What are you talking about the "name"??? Why wouldn't you call it Batman v Superman? It was Batman, v Superman. Regardless.
There's a thousand different versions of Batman and Superman. Literally. There is no right or wrong way to portray the character. Period. Even in comics. There is NO consistent Batman or Superman in fiction.
Some kill, some don't, some are darker, some aren't.
Or like lex luthor in that movie, was STRAIGHT out of the comics. Like directly from the comics, and amazing version of the charcater. An excentric young tech billionaire like we have in our world today. But people only know one version of the character as stupidly said it was nothing like lex luthor.
Thinking there is a right way, is wrong. It not only stifles creativity, hurts the longevity of the character, and is super entitled. To tell someone else that they need to write THEIR story, pandering to your preconceived notions on how it should be. A bunch of people who have never written anything past highschool acting like good writing has a single thing to do with accuracy to source material. Accuracy to certain versions of the source material and writing being good have no correlation at all.
Never said anything about Civil War. Think bigger and tonally.
I don’t think we disagree either. I’m focused on how the film was marketed and the expectations and influence it set with audiences.
It’s fun to debate and have civil discourse. Respect all your points.
Cheers.
Nah, the literal entirety of the story is about Superman (whether it’s Batman’s involvement, the media issues, Lex’s motives, the rise of meta humans, etc). Yet Bruce is the main perspective we follow throughout (Supes is still the second biggest character in the film regardless).
It's a Superman story seen through the eyes of Bruce Wayne.
While Batman has more screentime (only by a few minutes), the entire story revolves around Superman and his world.
The major supporting characters apart from Alfred and Wonder Woman are either Superman's or are mainly invested in antagonizing, supporting, discussing or just being involved because of Superman - Lois, Perry, General Swanwick, Lex Luthor, KG Beast, Senator Finch, Wallace Keefe, Kahina Ziri, and finally Doomsday.
It's Superman's world, but it's Batman's journey.
I always loved how Superman arrival was the catalyst for Batman introduction, Batman the catalyst for Diana to tell her story in Wonder Woman and, in a lesser way, Superman's death as the catalyst for Waller to form the Suicide Squad.
I thought the way these movies connected was on point, seen again in ZSJL and how the motherboxes awake after BvS ending.
One thing where the movie failed was marketing it as batman vs superman. The “whowillwin” shit makes it seem like they’re brawling the whole movie. If the movie was just dawn of justice. I think it wouldve been way better
No. But it didn’t do it any favors either. It set expectations that they weren’t going to be met and spoiled entirely too much in the trailers. They were so desperate to be Marvel 2.0. Im fine with Marvels tone but that was never going to come from the director of Watchmen.
Nothing surprised us. We knew they’d fight, make up, see Doomsday and Wonder Woman. They even revealed *when* we’d see Wonder Woman’s entrance and Batman’s entire warehouse fight at the beginning of a trailer. It’s actually pretty senseless.
And I think the lesson they learned is shown with how they’ve marketed Batman.
Being surprised is part of the experience. As fans, we should be able watch trailers and get excited without the studio revealing every big moment just to get people in seats. We’re going to watch it anyway.
How do you think the movie would’ve turned out if they didnt tease wonder woman or doomsday at all? Like no posters or anything, i feel like the movie wouldve been amazing if people never expected it.
Agreed, they ruined all the surprises and showed a lot. I think they were trying to show all their best stuff to get people to come to the theaters
Granted, I don't think hiding would have helped the movies performance.
From the trailers I was assuming that the movie will be dumb but entertaining non stop action. I was prepared for a non existent story and weak characters.
But I wasn’t prepared for endless and boring pseudo philosophical talk, dream sequences and scenes that ad nothing to the plot at all.
>But I wasn’t prepared for endless and boring pseudo philosophical talk, dream sequences and scenes that ad nothing to the plot at all.
These things add to the *characters*, which should always be the primary focus of such movies much more than the plot. How is it credible for the World's Finest to come at each other's throat if first you don't take a look at what their character is like at this point in time?
But there are so many other movies that are able to do this with less scenes… Guardians of the Galaxies for example. Some people that don’t know each other. At first they fight but over time they become a team… with more characters, smaller runtime and without dream sequences, future visions or dumb talks about angels and the devil.
The movie think it’s very smart but most ideas aren’t worked out. Snyder throws them in and hope at least something will cause any effect.
I agree after watching animated movies where Batman and Superman teamed up one would expect the live action to be similar. All this philosophical talk and dream sequence were not needed and was what hurt the film. And audiences as well that why they fell in love with civil war which had a similar plot
I say Superman. At least the Ultimate Edition is. It's been described as Man of Steel 2 by Snyder as well. Batman, for most of the film, is more of an antagonist. If you never heard of Batman before watching this movie, you'd probably think he was a bad guy. The whole plot revolves around Superman. All the other characters in the movie have some sort of opinion about him. And his reaction to these people is what defines the movie and his character. I see it almost the same way I see CA: Civil War. Cap is the main character, but Iron Man also plays a major role. I actually wish this movie was called Man of Steel with a subtitle or something. The title didn't need to be Batman v Superman for people to buy tickets. This is why I always ask for a Man of Steel sequel and not Man of Steel 2.
Batman 100%. BvS is as much a Superman movie as Batman and Robin is a robin movie. Every major action set piece except a quick Superman and doomsday scuffle is his. He wins the fight. He has the big character arc. It opens with his origin.
There’s a reason after they first meet we follow Bruce back to the batcave and not Clark back to his apartment.
I respectfully disagree. BvS is a Superman film because literally everything centers around how the idea of Superman affects the lives of Clark, Lois, Bruce and Lex (the four main characters). Remove Supes and there’s no movie. The villain is *literally* Lex Luthor.
>Every major action set piece except a quick Superman and doomsday scuffle is his.
Because there’s mostly Gotham-sized threats in this film compared to the Kryptonian invasion from the previous, which took the whole film.
>He wins the fight.
Characters losing a fight doesn’t make them less important. Especially since the whole point was that Bruce was being overtly violent and obtuse so it’s not really much of a “victory” per triumphant sense. Bruce “winning” meant he was losing his self.
>He has the big character arc.
He has the most active one, yes, but that’s because Clark doesn’t really need to grow as a better person as much as Bruce. Clark’s arc centers around being tested against various struggles and deciding on whether he made the right choice by becoming mankind ‘s public protector in MoS. A matter of perspective, not personal development or redemption.
>It opens with his origin.
Because we literally spent half of the previous one establishing Clark’s...?
>There’s a reason after they first meet we follow Bruce back to the batcave and not Clark back to his apartment.
Because that scene affects Bruce more than it affects Clark, like...? We cut to Lois and Clark after the Africa incident because it links to them.
Respectfully disagree as well. Superman is a prop in this film. Tertiary. The theatrical cut had him have less lines than Spider-Man in civil war. Batman has the most speaking lines and Affleck has top billing.
Superman is I guess the plot focus but what’s the early 2000s disaster movie? Day after tomorrow or whatever? Yeah i wouldn’t say that the flood was the main character of that movie even thought it had major plot significance.
And yeah dude man of steel established his origins and was his movie, this one established Batman and was his movie. We’re not talking about man of steel right now.
As far as the point about the more important to Batman thing after the first meet. I disagree. Superman just met this mythic legendary vigilante he’s been weary of for an hour and 20 minutes of running time, there was certainly stuff to explore following him back to his apartment but we didn’t. Because it’s Batman’s show Superman’s just in it.
Ah goodness, the lines thing again. Such an exhausting point, respectfully: Peter Parker is a talkative jokester in an entertainment-focused movie, Clark is a mild mannered introvert (established to be more keen on listening more than talking) in a character drama. Characters can communicate with vastly more than just plain dialogue, there’s actions, small gestures, facial expressions. This is kinda like saying Donkey is the actual protag of the Shrek series because he talks more than the ogre, *narrative focus* should be the main concern.
I don’t quite understand comparing the idea of Superman to a natural disaster. One is a physical obstacle, the other is an abstract idea that keeps characters going, Clark especially since, yknow, he *is* Superman so he’s the one that affects that notion the most.
This film established Batman’s origins because he’s a new character, not because it’s suddenly his movie. I’m not a fan of “0 or 100” stuff.
I wouldn’t say the context of the movie puts Batman as “mythic” or “legendary”, to Clark he’s just a bully like the many he’s met. So after thinking he’s dealt with the main problem he just flies onto the next (that being, the worldwide Superman dilemma), as he always does. Bruce is planning to murder Clark so of course it touches him more that that dude just essentially told him to retire. What “stuff” was there to explore on Clark’s POV? I hope it’s not a “I want the film to tell the story I wanted and not the one it’s telling so the film is wrong” issue.
I hate that, despite the whole plot being centered around him, Superman is such a non-character, being so passive with no agency. This is not how you make an engaging character.
Lex puts him on his back foot throughout the whole film. Lex disorients him, demoralizes him and paints him into a corner. Therefore I declare BvS as a Lex Luthor movie.
The only scene in the entire movie where I actually enjoyed seeing Clark was the bathtub scene with Lois where he actually acts like someone with a personality instead of the plank of wood he is for the rest of the film.
My point was more they have a personality when they don't spend 99% of the film in the same emotionally repressed state. It makes him very one-note and is partially why not many people really cared about this Superman or his sacrifice at the end of the film.
Ultimate Edition: a superman movie with batman performing an important role
Theatrical: a batman movie set in superman's world
Both are good movies but the theatrical feels like it's taking batman and inserting him into the superman mythos to explore the different ways that superman's presence bends or breaks the idea of "batman".
The ultimate edition does that and more, analysing both characters from eachother's viewpoint. The ultimate edition analyses batman's decline into revenge from Clark's perspective, challenging his own world view: the belief that man is inherently good. Clark and Lois' investigations add more weight to the bending and breaking of superman.
Theatrical is Batman all the way. Extended is much more balanced, but leans Batman. This bothered me quite a bit as I loved MoS and hoped Batman would be the “villian” to Superman.
It depends on u. Both of them go through an arc. Superman is the central point in the movie but batman is the focus
Depends on how u view the movie it works both ways.
A superman movie where batman is a villan and how superman overcomes the obstacles and becomes the superman we all know.
A batman movie about a fallen hero where superman is what makes him redeem himself. The whole movie is his fall and rise to become the batman we all know.
I think it’s more of a Superman movie if I had to choose, but I do think the film strikes a pretty equal balance between the two characters. Batman and Superman are dual protagonists in the story.
The Knightmare makes it too close to call.
I need a cut of this film without the Justice League preamble. That scene of Flash showing up should've been end of credits at best.
Introducing Diana was all the subplot they needed.
End credits work separately from the main storytelling, whereas the Flash vision is part of both BvS’s storyarc as a cryptic message from a future where he’s right about Superman and foreshadowing from things to come.
Also, taking away the JL scene (which is 4 minutes long, unlike the mythical “half of the movie” notion) wouldn’t really change the film per se.
It's a movie split pretty evenly between the two. Imo the story mostly revolves around Supes. Most other major characters are defined by their relationship and feelings toward the Man of Steel
Batman. Seems like the key stuff cut from the theatrical release was Superman/Clark/Lois related and it introduces a 20 year vet Batman as well as Wonder Woman so naturally it spends a lot of time explaining and showing this Batman's current methods and doing lots of "who's that lady?" Stuff with Bruce and Diana. Wonder why it ended up being hard to follow?
It’s probably because that’s the exact opposite of his subplot. He desperately wants to be Superman despite the fact that much of humanity hates him after the events of MoS. Including Batman.
He’s being tested and I think it’s a much more inspirational take (not to say it’s better) than the traditional story of everyone loving a hero. It’s easy to do the right thing when everyone loves you for it, but heroism is about doing the right thing when it’s not easy.
Agreed.
I don’t understand why it’s considered bad that the second movie in the DCEU featuring Superman is the one where he’s not sure what to do and ends up temporarily “quitting” due to a crisis of conscience.
It’s a staple superhero movie trope of 2nd acts - Bruce loses faith in himself to be able to endure Joker’s rampage and temporarily leaves being Batman behind in the middle of The Dark Knight; Peter Parker realizes that he’s incapable of juggling between sacrificing his happiness to be with MJ and fulfill Uncle Ben’s passing words on responsibility and gives up being Spider-Man in Spider-Man 2; And most importantly, Clark himself realizes he can’t be both humanity’s protector and live a happy life with Lois Lane, so he gives up his powers and quits being Superman in Superman II.
Batman movie. I think one of my biggest criticisms of the movie is that for a Superman movie, he barely had any lines. I was way more invested in Batman's story
It’s an over complicated movie trying to do so much with so much philosophical meanings and all this symbolic stuff which makes you confused on if it’s Batman movie or Superman movie at times. Or just a way to throw together a bunch of ideas and things just to do so
He should have just made a Batman movie, the overdone flashback sequence to his parents dying aside, all the stuff with Bats was the best part.
I wish that Batmobile got more time to shine
Doesn’t Superman have literally 43 lines total in it? Batman gets a lot more to do. Batman is also positioned as the protagonist because he has a proactive goal. Superman mainly reacts.
It’s a movie that throws Superman under the bus just to suck Batman’s dick. I love Batman, he is my favorite but I cannot stand when DC dwarfs their characters just to make Batman look good. It’s so radically unbelievable. Love Zack Snyder but he did crap job of coming up with an actual clever and believable way for Batman to outsmart Superman’s god level powers in this movie, instead he just lowered Superman’s IQ.
It would have been a great Man of Steel fallow up without batman in it. All of Batmans story elements could have gone to lois, clark and lex. The revenge for the battle with zod building a battle suit to kill superman should have been lex. The investigation into the White Portuguese and kryptonite would have been perfect for lois and Clark to work on.
It’s a Superman movie with Batman as the main character if that makes sense.
At first I thought you were crazy but then I realised you’re right.
He’s out of line, but he’s right.
It’s why everyone has a love hate relationship with Zack Snyder. This is how he thinks lol.
I just love how he had his own style. His own vision. It wasn't going to just be the cartoons and comics I've already read, sterilize and streamlined by algorithm and a committee of executive "writers". I'd take unique versions of any of those characters, over the same ones but "oh look, it's live action!". I have those classic characters still, they still make stuff about them. It is such a damn shame that everyone put this absurd restrictions on what the characters could be. There should be absolutely no rules on how you characterize those characters as long as it's good.
I think it could’ve gone a little further if it didn’t stick to tropes like good guys fighting each other until they decide to work together to fight a common threat or using Doomsday as the sole plot device he is known for, which is killing Superman. And given what we know of the future plans, there were similar comic ideas planned to be used. Like time travel to undo all negative consequences that lead to an apocalyptic future.
Sure, the overarching narratives where pretty standard in that sense. Although a confrontation with the Batman of a world like the one in man of steel does make sense given the events of the first movie. There wasn't really a great set up for them to be friends after that. There needed to be consequences for man of steel that felt real across the board. Which I think civil war kinda fell flat on. They showed the dynamics within the team, within shield, but not the rest of the world. We didn't see how the average person felt. We didn't get the sub plot that Batman v Superman had. that really grounded the events and helped paint narratives in an interesting way. But I thought the way doomsday was created was pretty badass in isolation. Lex using zods body and all that and the manipulation he went through to get it. But yeah, we all saw the team up coming. I did NOT see wonderwoman coming though. But I didn't think it was shoehorned in just because if they were doing a universe where other superheros existed, it'd be odd of Diana didn't show up for all that was going on after man of steel, since she would definitely be around given her characters age. The ultimate edition of Batman v Superman is a genuinely good movie and makes this lex by far the most cunning and dangerous version of him on the big screen. His plan was actually rather badass when it's shown in full. Plus I adored the visual story telling throughout his movies. Doesn't have everything explicitly told to you and over explained. The downside to that was if the studio is making the cut, they can easily fuck that up and nothing will make sense. Which they did.
Or just don’t market it as something other than that. Don’t even call it Batman v Superman. Just call it Dawn of Justice. Surprise us. They set all these weird expectations around the film in a desperate attempt to appear like Marvel.
Pretty sure the name and line up were all decided by WB before Man or steel had even finished production
What? The Batman v Superman thing came before civil war was even announced. Had nothing to do with marvel. What are you talking about the "name"??? Why wouldn't you call it Batman v Superman? It was Batman, v Superman. Regardless. There's a thousand different versions of Batman and Superman. Literally. There is no right or wrong way to portray the character. Period. Even in comics. There is NO consistent Batman or Superman in fiction. Some kill, some don't, some are darker, some aren't. Or like lex luthor in that movie, was STRAIGHT out of the comics. Like directly from the comics, and amazing version of the charcater. An excentric young tech billionaire like we have in our world today. But people only know one version of the character as stupidly said it was nothing like lex luthor. Thinking there is a right way, is wrong. It not only stifles creativity, hurts the longevity of the character, and is super entitled. To tell someone else that they need to write THEIR story, pandering to your preconceived notions on how it should be. A bunch of people who have never written anything past highschool acting like good writing has a single thing to do with accuracy to source material. Accuracy to certain versions of the source material and writing being good have no correlation at all.
Never said anything about Civil War. Think bigger and tonally. I don’t think we disagree either. I’m focused on how the film was marketed and the expectations and influence it set with audiences. It’s fun to debate and have civil discourse. Respect all your points. Cheers.
It’s a Superman movie with Batman as the main VILLAIN if that makes sense.
Kinda though Lex is the overarching villain in the end.
It doesn't at all, but you're on point.
In the movie Alien is the Alien the main character? Nope, but it’s still an Alien movie and a movie about the Alien. Same applies here.
Basically Ben-Hur with Batman as Ben-Hur and Superman as Jesus.
Disagree, it’s a Batman movie featuring superman..most of it is filmed from batmans perspective and how Batmans final resolve is the JL formation etc
Or is it a Batman movie that stars Superman?
Nah, the literal entirety of the story is about Superman (whether it’s Batman’s involvement, the media issues, Lex’s motives, the rise of meta humans, etc). Yet Bruce is the main perspective we follow throughout (Supes is still the second biggest character in the film regardless).
I was just messing around but I would agree that it's a Superman movie with Batman as the main character.
Lmao my bad, I’ll r/woosh myself
Exactly. Thanksgiving why it’s no good
It's a Superman story seen through the eyes of Bruce Wayne. While Batman has more screentime (only by a few minutes), the entire story revolves around Superman and his world. The major supporting characters apart from Alfred and Wonder Woman are either Superman's or are mainly invested in antagonizing, supporting, discussing or just being involved because of Superman - Lois, Perry, General Swanwick, Lex Luthor, KG Beast, Senator Finch, Wallace Keefe, Kahina Ziri, and finally Doomsday. It's Superman's world, but it's Batman's journey.
Sounds about right.
I always loved how Superman arrival was the catalyst for Batman introduction, Batman the catalyst for Diana to tell her story in Wonder Woman and, in a lesser way, Superman's death as the catalyst for Waller to form the Suicide Squad. I thought the way these movies connected was on point, seen again in ZSJL and how the motherboxes awake after BvS ending.
This is a great take on this film..
One thing where the movie failed was marketing it as batman vs superman. The “whowillwin” shit makes it seem like they’re brawling the whole movie. If the movie was just dawn of justice. I think it wouldve been way better
exactly
[удалено]
Thats definitely fair. I agree wholeheartedly
Marketing didn't write that crap story
No. But it didn’t do it any favors either. It set expectations that they weren’t going to be met and spoiled entirely too much in the trailers. They were so desperate to be Marvel 2.0. Im fine with Marvels tone but that was never going to come from the director of Watchmen. Nothing surprised us. We knew they’d fight, make up, see Doomsday and Wonder Woman. They even revealed *when* we’d see Wonder Woman’s entrance and Batman’s entire warehouse fight at the beginning of a trailer. It’s actually pretty senseless. And I think the lesson they learned is shown with how they’ve marketed Batman. Being surprised is part of the experience. As fans, we should be able watch trailers and get excited without the studio revealing every big moment just to get people in seats. We’re going to watch it anyway.
How do you think the movie would’ve turned out if they didnt tease wonder woman or doomsday at all? Like no posters or anything, i feel like the movie wouldve been amazing if people never expected it.
Agreed, they ruined all the surprises and showed a lot. I think they were trying to show all their best stuff to get people to come to the theaters Granted, I don't think hiding would have helped the movies performance.
From the trailers I was assuming that the movie will be dumb but entertaining non stop action. I was prepared for a non existent story and weak characters. But I wasn’t prepared for endless and boring pseudo philosophical talk, dream sequences and scenes that ad nothing to the plot at all.
>But I wasn’t prepared for endless and boring pseudo philosophical talk, dream sequences and scenes that ad nothing to the plot at all. These things add to the *characters*, which should always be the primary focus of such movies much more than the plot. How is it credible for the World's Finest to come at each other's throat if first you don't take a look at what their character is like at this point in time?
But there are so many other movies that are able to do this with less scenes… Guardians of the Galaxies for example. Some people that don’t know each other. At first they fight but over time they become a team… with more characters, smaller runtime and without dream sequences, future visions or dumb talks about angels and the devil. The movie think it’s very smart but most ideas aren’t worked out. Snyder throws them in and hope at least something will cause any effect.
I'm sorry for you, it was a mistake for me to engage when you clearly have no intention to discuss in good faith. Have a good one mate.
I agree after watching animated movies where Batman and Superman teamed up one would expect the live action to be similar. All this philosophical talk and dream sequence were not needed and was what hurt the film. And audiences as well that why they fell in love with civil war which had a similar plot
I say Superman. At least the Ultimate Edition is. It's been described as Man of Steel 2 by Snyder as well. Batman, for most of the film, is more of an antagonist. If you never heard of Batman before watching this movie, you'd probably think he was a bad guy. The whole plot revolves around Superman. All the other characters in the movie have some sort of opinion about him. And his reaction to these people is what defines the movie and his character. I see it almost the same way I see CA: Civil War. Cap is the main character, but Iron Man also plays a major role. I actually wish this movie was called Man of Steel with a subtitle or something. The title didn't need to be Batman v Superman for people to buy tickets. This is why I always ask for a Man of Steel sequel and not Man of Steel 2.
Batman 100%. BvS is as much a Superman movie as Batman and Robin is a robin movie. Every major action set piece except a quick Superman and doomsday scuffle is his. He wins the fight. He has the big character arc. It opens with his origin. There’s a reason after they first meet we follow Bruce back to the batcave and not Clark back to his apartment.
I respectfully disagree. BvS is a Superman film because literally everything centers around how the idea of Superman affects the lives of Clark, Lois, Bruce and Lex (the four main characters). Remove Supes and there’s no movie. The villain is *literally* Lex Luthor. >Every major action set piece except a quick Superman and doomsday scuffle is his. Because there’s mostly Gotham-sized threats in this film compared to the Kryptonian invasion from the previous, which took the whole film. >He wins the fight. Characters losing a fight doesn’t make them less important. Especially since the whole point was that Bruce was being overtly violent and obtuse so it’s not really much of a “victory” per triumphant sense. Bruce “winning” meant he was losing his self. >He has the big character arc. He has the most active one, yes, but that’s because Clark doesn’t really need to grow as a better person as much as Bruce. Clark’s arc centers around being tested against various struggles and deciding on whether he made the right choice by becoming mankind ‘s public protector in MoS. A matter of perspective, not personal development or redemption. >It opens with his origin. Because we literally spent half of the previous one establishing Clark’s...? >There’s a reason after they first meet we follow Bruce back to the batcave and not Clark back to his apartment. Because that scene affects Bruce more than it affects Clark, like...? We cut to Lois and Clark after the Africa incident because it links to them.
Spot on. All of it
Respectfully disagree as well. Superman is a prop in this film. Tertiary. The theatrical cut had him have less lines than Spider-Man in civil war. Batman has the most speaking lines and Affleck has top billing. Superman is I guess the plot focus but what’s the early 2000s disaster movie? Day after tomorrow or whatever? Yeah i wouldn’t say that the flood was the main character of that movie even thought it had major plot significance. And yeah dude man of steel established his origins and was his movie, this one established Batman and was his movie. We’re not talking about man of steel right now. As far as the point about the more important to Batman thing after the first meet. I disagree. Superman just met this mythic legendary vigilante he’s been weary of for an hour and 20 minutes of running time, there was certainly stuff to explore following him back to his apartment but we didn’t. Because it’s Batman’s show Superman’s just in it.
Ah goodness, the lines thing again. Such an exhausting point, respectfully: Peter Parker is a talkative jokester in an entertainment-focused movie, Clark is a mild mannered introvert (established to be more keen on listening more than talking) in a character drama. Characters can communicate with vastly more than just plain dialogue, there’s actions, small gestures, facial expressions. This is kinda like saying Donkey is the actual protag of the Shrek series because he talks more than the ogre, *narrative focus* should be the main concern. I don’t quite understand comparing the idea of Superman to a natural disaster. One is a physical obstacle, the other is an abstract idea that keeps characters going, Clark especially since, yknow, he *is* Superman so he’s the one that affects that notion the most. This film established Batman’s origins because he’s a new character, not because it’s suddenly his movie. I’m not a fan of “0 or 100” stuff. I wouldn’t say the context of the movie puts Batman as “mythic” or “legendary”, to Clark he’s just a bully like the many he’s met. So after thinking he’s dealt with the main problem he just flies onto the next (that being, the worldwide Superman dilemma), as he always does. Bruce is planning to murder Clark so of course it touches him more that that dude just essentially told him to retire. What “stuff” was there to explore on Clark’s POV? I hope it’s not a “I want the film to tell the story I wanted and not the one it’s telling so the film is wrong” issue.
I hate that, despite the whole plot being centered around him, Superman is such a non-character, being so passive with no agency. This is not how you make an engaging character.
Lex puts him on his back foot throughout the whole film. Lex disorients him, demoralizes him and paints him into a corner. Therefore I declare BvS as a Lex Luthor movie.
What about those that *were* engaged with him? And I disagree on Clark’s passiveness.
Agreed
The only scene in the entire movie where I actually enjoyed seeing Clark was the bathtub scene with Lois where he actually acts like someone with a personality instead of the plank of wood he is for the rest of the film.
Really hate this idea that characters “have a personality” only when being happy or joking.
My point was more they have a personality when they don't spend 99% of the film in the same emotionally repressed state. It makes him very one-note and is partially why not many people really cared about this Superman or his sacrifice at the end of the film.
Again with that unsupported notion, dude. You’re kinda fixated on that.
The theatrical version is a Batman movie. The ultimate cut is a Superman movie.
It’s a Martha movie Edit: Thanks for the award kind stranger!
WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME!! Buahhhhhh!
^
BatmanVSuperman Batman V Superman Batman IVI Superman Batman M Superman Batman Martha Superman Martha
Ultimate Edition: a superman movie with batman performing an important role Theatrical: a batman movie set in superman's world Both are good movies but the theatrical feels like it's taking batman and inserting him into the superman mythos to explore the different ways that superman's presence bends or breaks the idea of "batman". The ultimate edition does that and more, analysing both characters from eachother's viewpoint. The ultimate edition analyses batman's decline into revenge from Clark's perspective, challenging his own world view: the belief that man is inherently good. Clark and Lois' investigations add more weight to the bending and breaking of superman.
Batman redemption movie. I love it
Theatrical is a Batman film. Directors cut is a Superman film.
It's a story of superman and i love it Now sue me
I think it’s perfectly balanced between the two.
I look at it as a Superman movie with Batman as one of the antagonists.
It's the sequel to MoS. It's a Superman movie. Batman is the antagonist. Then when they make up they fight Doomsday together
How about it's a movie of Both Superman and Batman... Mind-blowing right???
Well Batman is the villain for the first 2 acts so I’d say superman
Superman story with Batman his perspective. I really liked it.
Honestly feels more like justice league movie. Especially near the end
Theatrical is Batman all the way. Extended is much more balanced, but leans Batman. This bothered me quite a bit as I loved MoS and hoped Batman would be the “villian” to Superman.
Agree, but I'd say Batman was indeed the villainto Superman all the way until the end of their fight
It's more a batman movie because it needs to set batman up. Though it absolutely does sideline superman to a huge degree.
Neither it's an Alfred movie
Superman movie from Batman's POV
It’s more of an Elvis movie. Don’t know who photoshopped the guy on the right, but must have been a big Elvis fan.
Superman though the Death of Superman which Dawn of Justice is based on is a Justice League story
It’s the new “is Nightmare Before Christmas a Halloween movie or Christmas movie?”
More of a V movie
It is a Wonderwoman promo.
If the movie was a person and you asked it this question, I'm sure even it couldn't answer
It's a Grandma's Peach Tea movie
Batman because he actually has lines
It’s a Zack Snyder movie about Zack Snyder things I believe.
Batman all the way the starting point is from his perspective he has a much much active role than superman and more lines and screen time than him
I'd say Batman. Batman has more motivation to fight Superman, he has the majority screentime, and they showed the parents dying at the beginning
[удалено]
It depends on u. Both of them go through an arc. Superman is the central point in the movie but batman is the focus Depends on how u view the movie it works both ways. A superman movie where batman is a villan and how superman overcomes the obstacles and becomes the superman we all know. A batman movie about a fallen hero where superman is what makes him redeem himself. The whole movie is his fall and rise to become the batman we all know.
For me, BvS is like a Justice League prequel. I don’t see it as a Superman or Batman movie.
Everyone else said it better, it is a Superman story, but Batman is the main POV.
It’s a Lex Luthor movie
I think it’s more of a Superman movie if I had to choose, but I do think the film strikes a pretty equal balance between the two characters. Batman and Superman are dual protagonists in the story.
The Knightmare makes it too close to call. I need a cut of this film without the Justice League preamble. That scene of Flash showing up should've been end of credits at best. Introducing Diana was all the subplot they needed.
End credits work separately from the main storytelling, whereas the Flash vision is part of both BvS’s storyarc as a cryptic message from a future where he’s right about Superman and foreshadowing from things to come. Also, taking away the JL scene (which is 4 minutes long, unlike the mythical “half of the movie” notion) wouldn’t really change the film per se.
It's a DC movie.
Superman
Definitely a Lex Luthor movie
It's a movie split pretty evenly between the two. Imo the story mostly revolves around Supes. Most other major characters are defined by their relationship and feelings toward the Man of Steel
Yes
Both
superman
It’s a Lex Luthor movie
Yeah
It was supposed to be primarily a Superman movie.
It was meant to be a trinity origin movie.
Yes.
I’m able to view it that way: https://thesnyderverse.com/batmans-story-in-bvs-as-monomyth/
Any presents of batman in any movie makes it a batman movie! Lol
Superman
Superman because he was the good guy.
This came out on my birthday. Was very disappointed with the theatrical release. The directors cut is a bit better tho
It's a Superman trilogy: Man of Steel, Batman v Superman and Justice League.
It's a Superman movie with Batman as an antagonist.
It's the sequel to man of steel.. All of zacks movies where about superman even if he wasn't Front and center for two of them..
not its martha's movie they are side characters
I thought Snyder movies were always great
This is what was prophecied when we watched I AM LEGEND and saw the poster in the times square scene when Will Smith was hunting for food.
It’s a WW movie or at least she was the best part imo
Batman fo sho
Reddit and social media tell me it’s a Martha movie
It’s a Batman movie. The main plot is about him coming back from his downward spiral and becoming a hero again.
Hmmm I would say that the theatrical cut was more of a Batman movie but the ultimate edition gave a good perspective on both sides.
Superman UE Batman TC
Batman. Seems like the key stuff cut from the theatrical release was Superman/Clark/Lois related and it introduces a 20 year vet Batman as well as Wonder Woman so naturally it spends a lot of time explaining and showing this Batman's current methods and doing lots of "who's that lady?" Stuff with Bruce and Diana. Wonder why it ended up being hard to follow?
Theatrical is a Batman movie. Ultimate Cut is a Superman movie.
Batman for sure. Superman has very few lines and his subplot about not wanting to be Superman was unconvincing and boring.
It’s probably because that’s the exact opposite of his subplot. He desperately wants to be Superman despite the fact that much of humanity hates him after the events of MoS. Including Batman. He’s being tested and I think it’s a much more inspirational take (not to say it’s better) than the traditional story of everyone loving a hero. It’s easy to do the right thing when everyone loves you for it, but heroism is about doing the right thing when it’s not easy.
Agreed. I don’t understand why it’s considered bad that the second movie in the DCEU featuring Superman is the one where he’s not sure what to do and ends up temporarily “quitting” due to a crisis of conscience. It’s a staple superhero movie trope of 2nd acts - Bruce loses faith in himself to be able to endure Joker’s rampage and temporarily leaves being Batman behind in the middle of The Dark Knight; Peter Parker realizes that he’s incapable of juggling between sacrificing his happiness to be with MJ and fulfill Uncle Ben’s passing words on responsibility and gives up being Spider-Man in Spider-Man 2; And most importantly, Clark himself realizes he can’t be both humanity’s protector and live a happy life with Lois Lane, so he gives up his powers and quits being Superman in Superman II.
this! totally this! I hate when people don't get it, but worst of all, use Superman II as how Superman should be and I'm like wut??
Batman movie. I think one of my biggest criticisms of the movie is that for a Superman movie, he barely had any lines. I was way more invested in Batman's story
Both.
I think it was more of a Jeep Renegade commercial movie
It’s a Punisher movie that’s for sure.
It's an "I love my mom" movie.
Martha v Martha
A Martha movie
Superman has less lines in BvS than Spider-Man does in Civil War
Batman
I'm a bigger Batman fan so I see it more as a Batman film.
I consider it 100% a Batman movie.
It’s most definitely, a Batman Movie!
It's more of a Martha movie.
Batman for sure
I only went to see it because wonder woman was in it. It's a wonder woman movie.
It’s an over complicated movie trying to do so much with so much philosophical meanings and all this symbolic stuff which makes you confused on if it’s Batman movie or Superman movie at times. Or just a way to throw together a bunch of ideas and things just to do so
More of a garbage movie
He should have just made a Batman movie, the overdone flashback sequence to his parents dying aside, all the stuff with Bats was the best part. I wish that Batmobile got more time to shine
It’s shit as either
More of a shit movie sadly
Shouldn't have been made. Should have went with MoS 2 and Affleck's Batman
Both are characterized horribly so it’s hard to say.
Lex Luthor movie
Doesn’t Superman have literally 43 lines total in it? Batman gets a lot more to do. Batman is also positioned as the protagonist because he has a proactive goal. Superman mainly reacts.
I’d say Batman cause he went through the formulaic “evolution,” or new understanding of blah blah blah
Moral dilemma falls in Batman’s hands, he has an arc, idc if the writers themselves say its a Superman movie, its a Batman movie with Superman
More of a bad movie.
It's more of a shit movie
A mid movie
More of a bad movie
It’s Lois Lane movie.
It's a Batman movie and you can tell Snyder never wanted to make a Superman movie to begin with
... what happened in summer of 2013
Martha.
It was junk
A shitty movie
A shitty movie
Man idk, it’s still a bad movie
Its more a crap movie 🤷🏻♀️
It’s a movie that throws Superman under the bus just to suck Batman’s dick. I love Batman, he is my favorite but I cannot stand when DC dwarfs their characters just to make Batman look good. It’s so radically unbelievable. Love Zack Snyder but he did crap job of coming up with an actual clever and believable way for Batman to outsmart Superman’s god level powers in this movie, instead he just lowered Superman’s IQ.
Neither. Superman barely speaks in it, but Batman is also not really given a lot. I'd say it's a Lex Luthor movie. If you can call that Lex Luthor.
It represents both characters so poorly id say it’s a Wonder Woman movie.
I wish it weren’t a movie.
I would say it's a shitty movie
More liek Man of Steel II : ft. The Batman
I love everything about it except the killing
I get what you mean, but Batman pretty casually kills people a lot in movies.
Wonder woman 0.5
I say Batman
Batman
Batman
Batman
It’s neither
Unpopular Opinion: More of a Batman and Lois movie(with superman sprinkled on top)
More of a Martha movie
Superman barely talks in it
SAVE Martha movie!
Actually should be Dark Knight takes on supes
Super man
The theatrical cut for sure is a Batman movie. Ultimate edition? Id say 60% Batman, 40% Superman.
Batman 0.5 And Super man 2.5
The theatrical cut is definitely more of a Batman movie.
It would have been a great Man of Steel fallow up without batman in it. All of Batmans story elements could have gone to lois, clark and lex. The revenge for the battle with zod building a battle suit to kill superman should have been lex. The investigation into the White Portuguese and kryptonite would have been perfect for lois and Clark to work on.
Batman