Battle of Metropolis - MOS/BvS edit

[Dagenspear]

I am re-watching the film now and I have to say I really love the way this film opens. For starters, I find the "Beautiful Lie" to be one of the most poignant portrayals of Thomas and Martha's deaths put to film. I really love the way Burton did it, but I think this version is a little better.

I can't agree. Burton's was beautifully done to me.

And with the second half of the sequence, with Bruce in Metropolis. I love it. I was never terribly critical of Man of Steel's climax. Some people pointed to Superman II where Superman leaves to protect the people and Zod follows him, but that was a different Zod. Terrance Stamp's Zod was egotistical. He even had the world in the film for a time while Superman was in la-la land with Lois, but was depicted as being somewhat bored. With Superman, he saw that challenge.

Though the different Zod doesn't change that Superman should still try instead of engaging in a fight with him thoughtlessly. Though I never blamed Clark for the Metropolis destruction.

Man of Steel's Zod was more genocidal and driven to protect his species, more so than Superman II's Zod, who wanted to rule the world, but not necessarily wipe out the entire human race, which is what Zod was going to do with the World Engine. When Superman destroyed the world engine, Zod became enraged and still wanted to destroy to humanity

David Goyer said is was more like Zod committing suicide, death by cop. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[The Laughing Fish]

I was never terribly critical of Man of Steel's climax. Some people pointed to Superman II where Superman leaves to protect the people and Zod follows him, but that was a different Zod. Terrance Stamp's Zod was egotistical. He even had the world in the film for a time while Superman was in la-la land with Lois, but was depicted as being somewhat bored. With Superman, he saw that challenge.

I'll go one better and question why the hell didn't Superman take the fight far away from Metropolis in the first place? If he was smart enough to take the fight somewhere else from the very beginning once he meets Zod, he would've spared the city from all the danger and damage. Instead, he fights Zod and co while everybody else is caught in the middle of the turmoil. Not very smart of him, if you stop and think about it. I think it's a deeply flawed point by fans looking to compare Cavill unfavourably to Reeve there.

Back on topic, I love Bruce's perspective on the battle and I love the aftermath scenes where he rescues a little girl. I also like the imagery as the shot pulls away from him and you see the Wayne Enterprises logo upside, which to me symbolizes that his world has turned upside down (again) by what he perceives as a new threat.

I've written the following from another thread, but I want to repeat here because you brought up that moment in the beginning.

What's more bizarre is people are still wondering why would Batman view Superman as a threat in the first place.

When MOS came out, there was backlash over Superman "destroying Metropolis and causing collateral damage". I remember watching some hyperactive fools on YouTube complain passionately that the S did not stand for hope, but it stood for destruction instead. These people had an enormous distaste for Superman and didn't care about him at all. But what makes it even more astonishing to me is a lot of these people didn't have any sympathy for Batman for having such a prejudiced view of Superman. If anything, I'd say Batman in this film represents as an avatar to the audience who deeply hated MOS and have a lot of things in common with those type of people.

BvS established Batman as a witness to the destruction and deems Superman responsible from his point of view. He believes that nobody with such power could ever remain good and must be destroyed, and like the haters in the audience, completely ignored all the good deeds that Superman continues to do. Before realising that he was the one who was on the verge of becoming evil at the end of the fight later on in the film, Batman deemed Superman with extreme distaste and didn't regard him as a god or a man, much like the haters. To me, it seems there is a contradiction between the complaints for Superman in the DCEU and not understanding the premise behind Batman's opposition towards him in BvS. And it's not something that critics themselves have seemed to realise.

[GoNerdYourself]

BvS established Batman as a witness to the destruction and deems Superman responsible from his point of view. He believes that nobody with such power could ever remain good and must be destroyed, and like the haters in the audience, completely ignored all the good deeds that Superman continues to do. Before realising that he was the one who was on the verge of becoming evil at the end of the fight later on in the film, Batman deemed Superman with extreme distaste and didn't regard him as a god or a man, much like the haters.

Which is a major theme of the film. Superman himself even questions it when he approaches Lois before his brawl with Batman. I'm paraphrasing, but he says something like "No one in this world stays good forever" as he flies away. It's a theme that might possibly continue into Justice League as the nightmare/Flash scene seems to suggest.

To me, it seems there is a contradiction between the complaints for Superman in the DCEU and not understanding the premise behind Batman's opposition towards him in BvS. And it's not something that critics themselves have seemed to realise.

I've defended the character of Superman from faux-intellectual, superficial zealots for years, people who whined that he was just "boy scout in a cape." That's he's "not edgy enough." (To me, the use of the word "Edgy" as either a criticism or praise is a clear sign of a misguided pseudo-intellectual brat) These are the people that think every character should be like Wolverine, Batman, or Deadpool.

And yet these same people criticize Cavill's Superman for not being that boy scout. It's the Kobayashi Maru.

[Dagenspear]

When MOS came out, there was backlash over Superman "destroying Metropolis and causing collateral damage". I remember watching some hyperactive fools on YouTube complain passionately that the S did not stand for hope, but it stood for destruction instead. These people had an enormous distaste for Superman and didn't care about him at all. But what makes it even more astonishing to me is a lot of these people didn't have any sympathy for Batman for having such a prejudiced view of Superman. If anything, I'd say Batman in this film represents as an avatar to the audience who deeply hated MOS and have a lot of things in common with those type of people.

BvS established Batman as a witness to the destruction and deems Superman responsible from his point of view. He believes that nobody with such power could ever remain good and must be destroyed, and like the haters in the audience, completely ignored all the good deeds that Superman continues to do. Before realising that he was the one who was on the verge of becoming evil at the end of the fight later on in the film, Batman deemed Superman with extreme distaste and didn't regard him as a god or a man, much like the haters. To me, it seems there is a contradiction between the complaints for Superman in the DCEU and not understanding the premise behind Batman's opposition towards him in BvS. And it's not something that critics themselves have seemed to realise.

If he's a bad guy, his good deeds don't erase his bad. Though that doesn't mean this Superman is a bad guy. He's not. But the "haters" aren't killers who want to murder Superman for no real reason. Trying to make an awkward jab at the "haters" via butchering Batman's character and making him a bad version of Punisher, while never holding him responsible for it, is irresponsible writing wise. I don't see why it matters in general or should matter to the critics at all.

[Dagenspear]

I've defended the character of Superman from faux-intellectual, superficial zealots for years, people who whined that he was just "boy scout in a cape." That's he's "not edgy enough." (To me, the use of the word "Edgy" as either a criticism or praise is a clear sign of a misguided pseudo-intellectual brat) These are the people that think every character should be like Wolverine, Batman, or Deadpool.

And yet these same people criticize Cavill's Superman for not being that boy scout. It's the Kobayashi Maru.

For some reason I don't think this is their idea of what they mean when they ask for it to be edgy. But that's just my thought.

[thecolorsblend]

I bow to nobody in my affection for Superman. If Snyder's Superman passes muster for me, that's all I need to know. I don't need someone whose knowledge of Superman begins and ends with Superman- The Movie telling me what's what.

[The Laughing Fish]

Which is a major theme of the film. Superman himself even questions it when he approaches Lois before his brawl with Batman. I'm paraphrasing, but he says something like "No one in this world stays good forever" as he flies away. It's a theme that might possibly continue into Justice League as the nightmare/Flash scene seems to suggest.

Indeed, and of course, Lex wanted to prove that a powerful "God" can't be truly all good and wanted to deconstruct Superman at every opportunity. Although in that case, Lex hated the concept of deity altogether.

I've defended the character of Superman from faux-intellectual, superficial zealots for years, people who whined that he was just "boy scout in a cape." That's he's "not edgy enough." (To me, the use of the word "Edgy" as either a criticism or praise is a clear sign of a misguided pseudo-intellectual brat) These are the people that think every character should be like Wolverine, Batman, or Deadpool.

And yet these same people criticize Cavill's Superman for not being that boy scout. It's the Kobayashi Maru.

I definitely understand what you mean. But I suspect a lot these zealots are just trolls who enjoy taking the piss out of people. For instance, there is some hack writer who makes her living from some clickbait website complaining on Twitter recently about Zack Snyder going to far for making Batman frightening, as if "he was treating the character as if he was in a Japanese horror film". As you can tell, the fact that Batman is supposed to evoke fear to remain threatening to the criminal underworld in Gotham City is something that eludes from this pretentious, attention seeking know-it-all.