The Cretan
Member
A middle finger and some words like fuck, I think.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Batman v Superman Ultimate Cut |OT| - Men are still good (out now)
- Thread starter Ahasverus
- Start date
A middle finger and some words like fuck, I think.
And Affleck's butt.
Bat ass
The Lamonster
Member
I watched the ultimate version last night with my wife and we both thought it was epic and amazing. I love how heavy the whole thing is. Never saw it in theaters.
[KoRp]Jazzman
Member
Finally watched it last night as I wasn't really big on seeing it in theaters, so we watched the ultimate version, and I didn't mind it at all. Though I will say i went in with very low expectations so that could be the reason for thinking its ok.
That being said, Eisenberg's Lex is just awful, and it feels so forced that they had to make him be socially awkward/autistic because he's super smart. Affleck was actually really good in the role as was Gadot for how little she was in it. I will say I don't love that Batman uses guns and seemingly indirectly kills everyone in a fight, just seems to like a cop out to make him edgier and dark.
Gotta say though, might give JL a shot in the theater though now after this.
That being said, Eisenberg's Lex is just awful, and it feels so forced that they had to make him be socially awkward/autistic because he's super smart. Affleck was actually really good in the role as was Gadot for how little she was in it. I will say I don't love that Batman uses guns and seemingly indirectly kills everyone in a fight, just seems to like a cop out to make him edgier and dark.
Gotta say though, might give JL a shot in the theater though now after this.
[KoRp]Jazzman;211343037 said:
I like the character Lex, I have no problems with how they wrote him.
It's just Jesse's take that I didn't like. If he played him like how he played Zuckerberg in Social Network I would have loved it but I mean, what the fuck is this?
Kenzodielocke
Banned
I need to apologize to all Superman fans.
First of, I don't think Zack is especially great with characters. He has always issues in potraying them. But when I watch his movies, I can see the idea behind it and I like it most of the time. Execution is lacking.
To me, Superman doesn't work. He is lame. At least in most of his comics and animated movies. I think it was a great way to introduce this kinda Superman to the movieverse, in these times. I appreciate when superheroes struggle, because deep down, Superman might have godlike powers, but he always be a human. And humans struggle with life.
Again, execution is not hit or miss with Snyder, but I really liked Man of Steel. It brought the character of Superman closer to me - and I even read a lot of comics since them.
I can live with this arc. Points that are blank I fill in my head. I will greatly appreciate when Superman returns to save to world in Justice League and that will give me a huge smile in my face. He has no reason to be that Superman he was in MoS and BvS. He has become an ideal, humanity can strive for. Just like his kryptonian daddy always said.
So, let us all be a little more optimistic and less stigmatizing.
First of, I don't think Zack is especially great with characters. He has always issues in potraying them. But when I watch his movies, I can see the idea behind it and I like it most of the time. Execution is lacking.
To me, Superman doesn't work. He is lame. At least in most of his comics and animated movies. I think it was a great way to introduce this kinda Superman to the movieverse, in these times. I appreciate when superheroes struggle, because deep down, Superman might have godlike powers, but he always be a human. And humans struggle with life.
Again, execution is not hit or miss with Snyder, but I really liked Man of Steel. It brought the character of Superman closer to me - and I even read a lot of comics since them.
I can live with this arc. Points that are blank I fill in my head. I will greatly appreciate when Superman returns to save to world in Justice League and that will give me a huge smile in my face. He has no reason to be that Superman he was in MoS and BvS. He has become an ideal, humanity can strive for. Just like his kryptonian daddy always said.
So, let us all be a little more optimistic and less stigmatizing.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
There's a way to make Superman less of a "boring blue scout" character (I disagree with that, but that's for another time), and more of a human. But the problem in BvS is that the conflict doesn't really go anywhere, and stays in limbo: Superman struggles with responsibility > still ends up doing what he does while not really changing public opinion. Also, the resolution of the conflict is equally shitty. Superman dies and now the world feels sorry for him for no reason other than obligation, because there's no pathway that's shown where the audience shifts from being 50/50 to fully appreciating Superman. It's pretty jarring and unbelievable.
Also, I disagree that he has become the ideal in death. Superman died in a time where everyone was split about him, and he didn't really do anything to mimic his father's words. At least as it pertains to uniting people. Furthermore, people didn't really strive for his ideal. The people that were positive on him, relied on him to solve their problems instead of relishing in his positivity to become better people. In fact, you could argue that he hasn't really changed the world in the way that Jor-El thought he would.
All Lois' fault too. Fuck Lois, lol. Worst girlfriend ever.
digitalrelic
Banned
I had very low expectations for this one. Wasn't excited after seeing all of the trailers and DEFINITELY wasn't excited when the piss poor reviews came out for it.
That said, with the Ultimate Edition being my first viewing, I was pleasantly surprised.
Loved Affleck's Batman. He came off as truly unhinged and scary. Superman was kind of boring, and Cavill continues to be pretty stale in the role, but he was acceptable.
There were definitely lots of issues, particularly with the third act. The "Martha" scene was pretty solid in concept but poorly executed. It felt rushed and it wasn't convincing. Same with the emergence of Doomsday and Wonder Woman. How a 3 hour movie can seem so rushed and underdeveloped in so many different facets, I don't know.
Still, I found the acting to be solid, the plot to be interesting, the fight scenes well shot, and the score and cinematography beautiful. It's a solid 7/10 from me. Enough to make me interested in future DC entries.
Also.. Holy fuck, marketing/trailers really fucked this film up badly. It severely reduced the impact of the Doomsday appearance, the Wonder Woman appearance, the special Batman armor, Lex Luthor shaving his head, etc.. etc.. Like holy fuck, wayyyy too much exposure and plot reveals in those trailers. Hopefully they learn from it and go more of the Star Wars route in the future.
That said, with the Ultimate Edition being my first viewing, I was pleasantly surprised.
Loved Affleck's Batman. He came off as truly unhinged and scary. Superman was kind of boring, and Cavill continues to be pretty stale in the role, but he was acceptable.
There were definitely lots of issues, particularly with the third act. The "Martha" scene was pretty solid in concept but poorly executed. It felt rushed and it wasn't convincing. Same with the emergence of Doomsday and Wonder Woman. How a 3 hour movie can seem so rushed and underdeveloped in so many different facets, I don't know.
Still, I found the acting to be solid, the plot to be interesting, the fight scenes well shot, and the score and cinematography beautiful. It's a solid 7/10 from me. Enough to make me interested in future DC entries.
Also.. Holy fuck, marketing/trailers really fucked this film up badly. It severely reduced the impact of the Doomsday appearance, the Wonder Woman appearance, the special Batman armor, Lex Luthor shaving his head, etc.. etc.. Like holy fuck, wayyyy too much exposure and plot reveals in those trailers. Hopefully they learn from it and go more of the Star Wars route in the future.
Aggelos
Member
One think noticed when we first meet Alfred he doesn't like Bruce new methods of criminal hunting it sounds like Bruce actually never used to kill until recently. Way Alfred talks it like brutal Bats is a new thing due to Metropolis incident and fear (cue that speech about fear and rage).
I can't believe how much of the main plot was cut from the theatrical release after finally watching this. Basically everything thst had to do with framing Superman was cut, and made it a huge mess.
Still a lot of problems, but a much better movie now.
Still can't believe that dream sequence made it into any release like that, it feels like it was directed by somebody else. The choreography was high school play levels of bad, and I have trouble picturing Snyder of all people okay-ing it.
Still a lot of problems, but a much better movie now.
Still can't believe that dream sequence made it into any release like that, it feels like it was directed by somebody else. The choreography was high school play levels of bad, and I have trouble picturing Snyder of all people okay-ing it.
The Lamonster
Member
Who was the guy saying "am I too soon?" What was that all about?
The Flash through the magic of the Speedforce went back in time to give a warning to Bruce Wayne about Lois being the key.
Yes that is exactly what's happening in this movie. It's amazing to me how many of my real life friends who happen to be pretty big movie buffs watched this movie recently and didn't pick up on the clues the movie was giving. It's like everything in today's movies needs to be spelled out through explicit character dialog.
We had people in this thread arguing it's far fetched that Lois deduced that Kryptonite was what making Superman weak. It's shocking.
GuitarAtomik
Member
I would agree if:
A) The movie didn't clearly link his escalation to the branding element. Him not branding Lex at the end speaks to this specifically.
B) The Robin outfit on display wasn't holding a halberd implying Robin was probably killing dudes with an axe when he was active too.
Just because something is in the movie doesn't mean it's presented well. This is doubly true for the theatrical cut that didn't have a hobo give explicit character dialogue to Clark about how Batman has changed. The absence of that scene makes it incredibly ambiguous how much his methods had actually escalated. What makes it even muddier is how there's ZERO immediate change in Bruce's methods after he flip flops on his murder quest which raises the question of how much actually changed for him following the Black Zero Event. The only change we see is at the end when he decides not to brand Lex, which is additionally a narrative mess because the bat brand was a death sentence that was enacted by Lex himself. Bruce knew his brand was killing criminals but did he know Lex was pulling the trigger? In that case, wouldn't the brand effectively no longer be a death sentence if performed on Lex? But if he doesn't know that, and we have no reason to believe he does, then Bruce refraining from branding Lex is an empty gesture since it wouldn't have led to his death anyway. But why happily kill all the mercs but not the man truly responsible? Oh, because we need him for sequels. That's literally the only logical reason and has nothing to do with his character arc. The whole thing is just inconsistent and poorly executed.
Correct.
When does Bruce decide to stop killing thugs? In the jail cell with Lex? Because it sure wasn't when he was going to save / saving Martha.
We the audience won't know if Bruce has changed his ways until JL.
"Men are still good. We fight. We kill. We betray one another. But we can do better. We have to."
That's from the same guy at the beginning of the movie who shrugged off Alfred saying he was taking things too far. You don't get much more obvious. The only thing he could have done to be more obvious he was going to walk a better path was if he just blatantly said, "I'll minimize as many deaths as possible in the future."
People love to point at the deaths during the Martha rescue but it's been explained over and over that it was Superman's sacrifice that inspired Bruce. I'm not sure why that has to continuously be explained. My 8 year old figured that out on the first watch. I have hard time buying "it wasn't presented well" with that in mind.
Him not branding Lex at the end speaks to what specifically? I'm unclear on what you mean.
Alfred explicitly states that the turning point for Batman was the arrival of Superman and how it engendered a feeling of powerlessness in Bruce, changing all the rules and his prosecution of criminals. He starts branding criminals and not giving much of a shit in his search for the White Portugese. The halberd is really a stretch
Inspired Bruce to form the JL because he believes Superman is dead, and the world is without its heavy hitter. Yes, that is obvious.
You come off as being willfully ignorant here. What does that monologue have to do with the Justice League?
Didn't you just answer your own question? Why did he kill the mercs but not the man responsible. His arc had completed and he no longer wanted to kill. You are making your own judgement and passing it on as fact that it was "just for the sequels". After watching Superman die he says he won't fail him in death, which I took to mean he would be a better hero.
How is it an empty gesture if, as you said, he doesn't know that the brand is no longer a death sentence? That makes no sense. If he still thinks its a death sentence, and then doesn't brand Lex, it means he is choosing not to kill everyone in his path anymore.
Yea clearly it has no bearing on forming the JL. It's about Bruce's actions.
And a newly added line in the UE just following the fight with Superman drives this point home even further
"I don't deserve you, Alfred. No Master Wayne, you don't."
Superman's sacrifice. It inspired Bruce to do exactly how? To do what?
I actually watched the TC at release and have recently bought the UC (because hey I have Man of Steel and I kinda liked it so why not pick that also).
The guys getting shanked in prison was Lex?
I didn't hate the movie but found some plotpoints a bit pointless, if they left that kind of info out of the TC we got the shitty version in theatre!
I did watch the TC and I can tell you I was sure the branding would have been a death sentence for Lex at the end!
Huh, I remember that in the TC. Also I don't know if I agree with that. That seemed more like a joke to me about how awesome Alfred is. Though I suppose it could go either way.
He literally just answered your question.
...
The line is "men are still good, we fight, we kill...we can be better"
So seeing this dude who he thought was the enemy, who he was hating an hour ago, sacrifice his life, made him realize he can be better than a killer. How does that not make sense? Maybe you can argue that it should have been handled better or you just didn't like how they presented it. But the fact is that it's there.
Do you mean you DID watch the TC? Yes if you watch the UC, you'll see that Lex orchestrated the branding killing of at least 1 person, so we can assume he did them all. We did indeed get the shitty version in theaters lol.
It's not in the TC, and I suppose it has a double meaning, yeah, Alfred was probably like "I told you so"
MegaManTrigger
Banned
This makes no sense. You can't selectively kill and then simultaneously claim "see! Batman became better!" Otherwise, there's no point in suggesting he'll be a better hero if he's resorting to old habits.
The first part of the bolded was actually just repeating Guek's question, sorry if that wasn't clear. My point is that he is going to be a better hero after Superman, which is shown by him not branding Lex.
All that's really clear is that Bruce realizes after Supes' death is that, ya know, maybe heroes shouldn't be fighting each other. Not when there's a bigger threat near.
I meant I went into the theatre for the movie so yeah the TC.
That whole branding thing we have no idea in the TC that it wasn't just prisonners retaliating people captured by Batman.
A bit gross but it kinda made sense.
the ending sequence was cut with boxing glove so I didn't really get why the scene was shot that way.
Bat didn't brand Lex because he's not killing anymore? I don't know he still got to the trouble of infiltrating the prison and bringing his branding with him after all.
I was nearly sure he came in branding AND killing Lex because that's murderous batfleck for you.
He didn't, cool he had a change of heart or something.
Batman will be better in the future, great.
I don't really care about the no kill rule when the comics didn't always care about it and the Burton films really didn't give 2 shit about it.
rule of cool is acceptable in movies after all and it's harder to explain and pull it off in an action filled movie like that.
I mean it's like Rambo going no kill route when he's exploding everything and all that, doesn't really make sense in a movie if you ask me.
I'm actually looking forward to seeing the UC now, thanks guys!
This is 100% true, and I'm ok with that. I rationalize it as he killed the guys because
1- he was in a rush
2- they were clearly very bad and about to kill an old woman
3- at the end of the day most of them killed themselves (the guy with the grenade, Kgbeast using the flamethrower etc).
Meanwhile Lex's encounter was more peaceful, he was already under the watch of Justice, there was no need to kill him, and of course the police would not want that inside their cells. His change of heart would be more pronounced then too.
Makes sense to me.
The flamethrower guy is kgbeast?
I don't think branding Lex would have meant much outside of Batman flexing. Remember, all the prisoners Batman branded got sent to a Metropolis prison (Mrs. Santos clarifies this). Batman was transferring Lex to Arkham and Lex isn't going to orchestrate his own spanking anyway. Even without the transfer there would be no more deaths because of the brand. Lex wouldn't have the power to get it done.
Edit: It's supposed to say "shanking" but I'm leaving it as is.
I don't know how you can come to this conclusion but not the other, without being willfully ignorant.
If you want to say that it's not clear that Bruce will be a better hero, then you can't really say the above either. He doesn't EXPLICITLY spell out either point for you, but does mention it. You are seriously just believing what you choose to believe at this point. His dialogue specifically mentions killing and being better, but all that means to you is that heroes shouldn't fight?
I don't think branding Lex would have meant much outside of Batman flexing. Remember, all the prisoners Batman branded got sent to a Metropolis prison (Mrs. Santos clarifies this). Batman was transferring Lex to Arkham and Lex isn't going to orchestrate his own spanking anyway. Even without the transfer there would be no more deaths because of the brand. Lex wouldn't have the power to get it done.
Edit: It's supposed to say "shanking" but I'm leaving it as is.
But does Batman know it was Lex's doing? If he doesn't then he might think the branding could kill in there too, and just does it to scare Lex
The issue isn't so much over Bruce's decision to form the League. That was fine and easily understandable. The problematic aspects stem from Bruce's penchant for killing and the changes surrounding that aspect of the character. I don't think Superman's death had anything to do with that because there's no reason for it to. No overt reason anyway. It's not like Clark was above using deadly force even when he didn't have to. That's the very first thing he does in the movie! There's nothing in the movie to suggest Bruce decides to stop killing after Clark dies. There's nothing that directly contradicts that notion either so it's easy to see what you want to see. Bruce being inspired to no longer be so cynical and recognizing the need for heroes to work together against a common enemy feels pretty explicit, the rest does not.
As for the brand thing, I mean it's an empty gesture from the audience's point of view since it's now an empty threat. I'd have preferred if Bruce had branded him anyway as a constant reminder of how actions and stated he now knew Lex was behind the prison killings. Hell, how cool would it have been if he had branded him with Superman's shield insignia instead of the bat brand!
GuitarAtomik
Member
That the recent escalation was him branding criminals. Alfred throws this in front of Bruce...
...and says "New rules(?)" implying the brand is what's new. The whole brand situation is specifically what puts Batman on Clark's radar not him killing people. After "New rules" Alfred goes in to his "Fear" speech and what does he specifically say it turns people? Cruel. Yes, that could be in reference to killing, but "cruel" is not one of the first words I'd use to describe Batman killing while trying to get the job done. Using it to describe him branding criminals for no real purpose is. Him not branding Lex at the end is him completing this "cruel" arc. Maybe killing too, but nothing implies the killing part was ever an issue.
Why is that? When Robin has traditionally been depicted with a bo staff as a weapon, why is it that him all of a sudden having a halberd makes it a stretch that he probably didn't have an issue with killing in the context of a movie where Batman has no issue with killing?
Well you don't get it if you don't know his real name, but yeah the movie actually used 3 comic villains.
At no point in the movie is it mentioned or implied that he uses a halberd. Doesn't matter what's in the book or concept art if it isn't represented in the film.
A costume designer also said they wanted Diana's armor to be red like it was covered by centuries of her enemies blood. Doesn't mean it's true if it's never mentioned in the film.
No, you can't just decide Superman killed that guy when he explicitly says later he didn't kill anyone.
And this idea that Bruce has some revelation that heroes should work together instead of fighting is absurd. He didn't know about any of them before so he couldn't have been thinking about heroes clashing. A revelation means you thought one way and then something happens that changes your perspective. Bruce thought he was doing the world a favor by being ruthless and killing off a potential threat. His revelation was understanding he was was wrong.
1. Clark does not use deadly force in this movie. You could try to argue the terrorist guy, but I would point out that it's 100% possible that Superman leads the way through the wall and the guy is not dead. Superman even says "I didn't kill those men".
2. I still firmly believe that "we kill...we can do better" line is directly saying that he can be better than the uncaring murderer that he has been the past few months. But you're right, it's vague enough that it can go either way.
3. Again, it depends on if Bruce knows the truth or not. Don't think of it as a threat, think of it as his character arc. If he doesn't know Lex's involvement, and chooses to brand him, doesn't that mean he wants Lex to die? So by choosing not to brand him, he chooses to be better and NOT give him a death sentence.