#BvS SPOILER THREAD

[The Laughing Fish]

A heartfelt review on the film from documentary filmmaker Brett Culp, bringing a perspective about how the film is about Superman inspiring Batman to become a hero again and Batman's evolution inspiring Superman that he still matters and how these heroes represent today's society.

I saw this early yesterday. As much as I can nitpick the way that the scene is set up, I can't deny that Superman calling out his mother's name to get Batman to understand his pleas for his help and the sentimental connection between the two heroes made it effective, and giving Batman the chance to save another Martha. In fact, everything that happened onwards made me forgive any misgivings I had earlier on in the film.

Going back to what TDK said earlier, Superman really proved himself to be such a selfless hero in the end despite how lots of people kept mistrusting him and looked down on him. Admittedly I had problems with plot points involving him beforehand, but he made up for all of it with that heroic sacrifice against Doomsday. One that inspires Batman and Wonder Woman to carry on his legacy. I think it's an uplifting ending than most people are giving it credit for, in my opinion.

[BatmAngelus]

I'm curious what made Culp, as well as Kevin Smith and Max Landis, say that Batman wasn't Batman in this movie.

Kevin Smith said he wasn't a detective. Batman was certainly a detective here, trying to figure out who or what the White Portuguese was, as well as discovering what was on it and that the meteor in Lex's possession had the power to take out Superman.

Some critics point out that he was a poor detective because he was manipulated by Lex, but Batman was only being manipulated emotionally. It's not like Batman believed that Superman killed those people in Africa or in the Senate hearing, only to find out he was wrong later. Batman's motivation to fight Superman has nothing to do with his detective work or incorrectly deducing that Superman was behind something that he really wasn't.

He saw the terrible cost of a Kryptonian's power during the Metropolis attack. Heard all the media controversy surrounding what happened in Africa. Found out one of his own employees had gone crazy after the Metropolis attack and blew up the Senate and Superman had the power to stop it, but didn't. And then he got a vision of the future where Superman was ruthless and a figure was warning him that he was "right" about his feelings on him. It's directly after this vision that Bruce shares to Alfred about his plans to steal the Kryptonite and "destroy" Superman.

Do I think it could've been executed better? Absolutely. But the film definitely develops Batman's paranoia over Superman in order to push him into challenging him to the fight.

Another common criticism against this Batman is the branding and the killing. Did we forget that the last time we saw Batman, he shot down Talia and her truck driver? I saw very little outcry about that. And that was the same movie where Batman outright said "No guns, no killing." At least this one didn't claim to have a moral line, only to hypocritically cross it later without much ceremony.

This Batman is partially responsible for the deaths of Lex Luthor's thugs. We've seen Batman do this to henchmen, not only in film, but also in the comics. There's a whole thread about it in the forum:
http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=1406.0

This Batman is willing to crash through cars and buildings. We saw that in Begins and Dark Knight too.

This Batman has machine guns on his Batmobile and his Batwing. We saw that with Michael Keaton and Christian Bale (and to be fair to Keaton, his car only used the machine gun to blast through Axis Chemicals, but wasn't used on any people). This is nothing new. If anything, Schumacher should be praised for having vehicles that didn't show machine guns.

And for the record, I'm pretty traditional. I prefer a Batman who avoids lethal force on the thugs. I'd rather not have machine guns on the Bat-vehicles. I'd rather he didn't crash through random cars and buildings.

But other than a slightly more graphic portrayal, I don't see how this Batman is much different from what we've seen before on screen. Does it disappoint me that this version continued the trend? A little bit. But if you're gonna hold it against this film, then hold it against all of them.

If anything, this Batman probably made the most sense in crossing the line. He clearly has gone through the trauma of the Metropolis attack (that Brett Culp in the above video said was comparable, in trauma, to him reliving his parents' deaths) as well as, we can assume, the death of Jason Todd/Robin at Joker's hands. Much like the Batman in Dark Knight Returns and the Batman after Death in the Family, his tactics become more brutal as he takes it out on the criminal element. Alfred points this out that this wasn't always how things were.

At the end, after the death of Superman, Batman visits Lex Luthor. He has the opportunity to brand him and give him a death sentence in that prison (sidenote: I guess I don't understand why the Bat brand causes people to want to kill you. It'd be one thing if he did it to people who ratted out other criminals. But he's only branding the people he captured. Why does that cause other prisoners to want to kill them?). Instead, Batman punches the wall and disappears, refusing to dole out that kind of punishment on Lex.

This, plus his dialogue at Superman's funeral about how "Men are still good," indicate to me that this Batman has found himself again. Fingers crossed that it means this is a Batman who won't kill again and has seen the error of his ways, having been inspired by Superman. We'll just have to see in the Justice League.

I do think it would've helped a bit if we had had a movie or two with this Batman beforehand, to show how things used to be for him. An emotionally healthier Batman who originally avoided lethal force. Then Joker murders Robin by the end. That way, in BvS, you'd see the clear contrast and know this was a Batman who lost his way, rather than a Batman who's always been like this. Maybe the solo Batfleck movie will be a prequel, but I doubt it.

But even without it, Batman was still Batman to me in this movie, from beginning to end.

[Dagenspear]

I'm curious what made Culp, as well as Kevin Smith and Max Landis, say that Batman wasn't Batman in this movie.

Kevin Smith said he wasn't a detective. Batman was certainly a detective here, trying to figure out who or what the White Portuguese was, as well as discovering what was on it and that the meteor in Lex's possession had the power to take out Superman.

Another common criticism against this Batman is the branding and the killing. Did we forget that the last time we saw Batman, he shot down Talia and her truck driver? I saw very little outcry about that. And that was the same movie where Batman outright said "No guns, no killing." At least this one didn't claim to have a moral line, only to hypocritically cross it later without much ceremony.

He didn't shoot Talia or the truck driver on purpose. That was all accidental. There isn't an element of hypocrisy at all. Why would there be ceremony?

This Batman is willing to crash through cars and buildings. We saw that in Begins and Dark Knight too.

But that Batman wasn't willing to blow up cars and smash through them into explosions and drag cars with him to slam into other cars and blow them up.

This Batman has machine guns on his Batmobile and his Batwing. We saw that with Michael Keaton and Christian Bale (and to be fair to Keaton, his car only used the machine gun to blast through Axis Chemicals, but wasn't used on any people). This is nothing new. If anything, Schumacher should be praised for having vehicles that didn't show machine guns.

In TDKT, those weapons were used for destroying things in his way that were unoccupied and trying to get vehicles to change course, not trying to blow up people in vehicles.

If anything, this Batman probably made the most sense in crossing the line. He clearly has gone through the trauma of the Metropolis attack (that Brett Culp in the above video said was comparable, in trauma, to him reliving his parents' deaths) as well as, we can assume, the death of Jason Todd/Robin at Joker's hands. Much like the Batman in Dark Knight Returns and the Batman after Death in the Family, his tactics become more brutal as he takes it out on the criminal element. Alfred points this out that this wasn't always how things were.

Alfred says everything's changed and has no other qualms about it in the movie. The movie gives Alfred so little as a character to go off of that he seems to just shrug his shoulders and allow Bruce to have free reign with whatever, even things that he doesn't like. Alfred says that things have changed, but the movie doesn't treat it like it is. Alfred takes this all as business as usual and Bruce does with little to no fanfare. No one seems to care really and treats it like this is nothing new. I don't think Batman actively killed people after Jason's death in the comics. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[BatmAngelus]

We've argued enough, ad nauseum, months ago about Batman's shooting at the trucks in The Dark Knight Rises. I don't think either of us has much more to add to that, so let's agree to disagree.

But that Batman wasn't willing to blow up cars and smash through them into explosions and drag cars with him to slam into other cars and blow them up.

Bale's Batman doesn't drag other cars like Affleck did, but he certainly damaged occupied cars. In addition to the Dark Knight Rises, there's the beat at 02:37 of that video in The Dark Knight. He sends the driver's side up to the ceiling, where it smashes in. Very unlikely the people inside survived.

Alfred says everything's changed and has no other qualms about it in the movie. The movie gives Alfred so little as a character to go off of that he seems to just shrug his shoulders and allow Bruce to have free reign with whatever, even things that he doesn't like. Alfred says that things have changed, but the movie doesn't treat it like it is. Alfred takes this all as business as usual and Bruce does with little to no fanfare.

Valid point on how Alfred treats Bruce, though more of a critique on Alfred's character than on Batman's.

Also, Gough and Caine still stayed after Batman killed and, with one exception, didn't really call him out on his lethal methods either. The one exception was in Begins where Caine's Alfred criticized Batman for endangering cops and civilians, but at that point, according to the movie, "no one was killed." He said nothing about The Dark Knight chase or incidents where criminals actually died, though.

No one seems to care really and treats it like this is nothing new

If that's true, why did the news bother reporting that Batman was branding people or show how disturbed Clark was about the Batman's methods?

I don't think Batman actively killed people after Jason's death in the comics.

To clarify, I didn't say he killed people after Jason's death, but he was certainly more cold and brutal.

The last chapter of the Death in the Family is a rare occurrence where Batman refuses to save a wounded Joker (the only main difference between this and the end of Batman Begins is that Joker actually survived and came back, while Ra's didn't). Batman got rougher with criminals and needed Dick Grayson and later, Tim Drake to pull him back, as covered in Year Three and A Lonely Place of Dying.

[Paul (ral)]

In The Dark Knight Bales Batman blew up parked cars (remember the kids watching?) because they were in his way!

[Dagenspear]

We've argued enough, ad nauseum, months ago about Batman's shooting at the trucks in The Dark Knight Rises. I don't think either of us has much more to add to that, so let's agree to disagree.

Lucius says to redirect the truck. That's what happens in the movie.

Bale's Batman doesn't drag other cars like Affleck did, but he certainly damaged occupied cars. In addition to the Dark Knight Rises, there's the beat at 02:37 of that video in The Dark Knight. He sends the driver's side up to the ceiling, where it smashes in. Very unlikely the people inside survived.

Yes, unlikely. But likelihood isn't what I was talking about, but intention in combination with action and overabundance. Batman in BvS wrecks a car, then drags the car with him, then uses it to destroy another car, with people still in it. Then he blows up a car with his guns and then smashes through it, with people still in it. TDKT situation and BvS situation aren't the same.

Valid point on how Alfred treats Bruce, though more of a critique on Alfred's character than on Batman's.

Also, Gough and Caine still stayed after Batman killed and, with one exception, didn't really call him out on his lethal methods either. The one exception was in Begins where Caine's Alfred criticized Batman for endangering cops and civilians, but at that point, according to the movie, "no one was killed." He said nothing about The Dark Knight chase or incidents where criminals actually died, though.

Alfred got too little to do in the Burton movies for my tastes. But I will say that the Burton movies never posed that as out of the ordinary. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. Batman in TDKT never actively kills anyone on purpose and the movie was very avoidy on saying that the people in those trucks were killed, or even showing them be killed with certainty. Like it or don't like it, but the movie doesn't show them die in firey detail.

If that's true, why did the news bother reporting that Batman was branding people or show how disturbed Clark was about the Batman's methods?

That wasn't what I meant really. I was talking about how no one views this as an issue that's new. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[BatmAngelus]

Lucius says to redirect the truck. That's what happens in the movie.

And if I shot at someone and they died as a result, I'm responsible for that person's death, regardless of my original intention. Batman could've stopped or redirected the truck without having to resort to using firearms, if he was so against using guns or killing like he says earlier in the film.

TDKT situation and BvS situation aren't the same.

They both smash the thugs' vehicles to a deadly effect. Affleck does more than Bale in this regard, but both Batmans are destructive in their chases and cause deaths.

That wasn't what I meant really. I was talking about how no one views this as an issue that's new.

And my point is that those parts prove that these issues are new. Why would the news even report about the Bat-branding and why would Clark suddenly take interest in Batman's methods, after his 18 months as a reporter, if Batman had been acting that way for a long, long time? If this was a common thing, the news would just say "Batman gave the famous bat brand last night" and not explain it. And Clark would've had an article about it before the time the movie is set.

[Dagenspear]

And if I shot at someone and they died as a result, I'm responsible for that person's death, regardless of my original intention. Batman could've stopped or redirected the truck without having to resort to using firearms, if he was so against using guns or killing like he says earlier in the film.

He never says he's against guns. He tells Selina not to use guns and not to kill. But he has often, in every adaption, including TDKT, supported police and their use of firearms. That was for Selina and her potential lethal illegal use. But I wasn't talking about being responsible for death. But what the movie says is Batman reason for his actions and that the killing of those driving the vehicle wasn't the intent.

They both smash the thugs' vehicles to a deadly effect. Affleck does more than Bale in this regard, but both Batmans are destructive in their chases and cause deaths.

Cause, yes. Outright, purposeful murder that is specifically shown to be happening in detail is what I'm talking about.

And my point is that those parts prove that these issues are new. Why would the news even report about the Bat-branding and why would Clark suddenly take interest in Batman's methods, after his 18 months as a reporter, if Batman had been acting that way for a long, long time? If this was a common thing, the news would just say "Batman gave the famous bat brand last night" and not explain it. And Clark would've had an article about it before the time the movie is set.

Why? Because those involved in the writing process didn't think the character's reactions through of the characters. The news says that the bat brand is death sentence to inmates, showing that this isn't something new. It's happened before. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[The Dark Knight]

I'm only skimming the surface here, but even though I don't have an issue with Batman intentionally killing, instead of accidentally killing ala Bale's Bat, I do think Affleck's incarnation will go through a character arc. The Batmobile turrents are off in Suicide Squad. He seems inspired by Superman after the events of BvS. Batfleck's hard line is a result of being disillusioned and weary after 20 straight years of war. Now he has a bunch of friends. Watch this space.

[The Laughing Fish]

Now that the film has been out for a week, Zack Snyder teased that the three hour long Director's Cut will include additional shots of the Martha Kent rescue scene, some extra shots of the Doomsday battle, an extended version of the ending, and a "much different" North Africa sequence.

http://www.comingsoon.net/dvd/news/670699-batman-v-superman-ultimate-cut-release-date-and-details#/slide/1

By the way, has anyone else here mentioned that Jena Malone had her role in the theatrical version cut out, and the role is rumoured to be Barbara Gordon?

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Why-Batman-V-Superman-Saving-Jena-Malone-R-Rated-Cut-117687.html