Google The Problem of Evil and Epicurus's Trilemma. At the end of the day you're complaining about Lex having an irrational hatred of Superman. So just like the comic then. Guess why they always have lex's motivations based on Superman thwarting his real estate plans in other films.
-
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.
- Status
Google The Problem of Evil and Epicurus's Trilemma. At the end of the day you're complaining about Lex having an irrational hatred of Superman. So just like the comic then. Guess why they always have lex's motivations based on Superman thwarting his real estate plans in other films.
So because this is a problem in the comics, it also has to be a problem in the DCEU? I mean, ok? And if thats the entire point-irrational hate-then why spend the first half of the movie setting up an interesting question regarding the implicit inequality of power only to have it all boil down to irrational hatred? Those two sections of the film are completely at odds with each other in terms of setting up his character's motivation and is likely a large reason for why people don't understand why he was doing this. Further, I would argue if that is the case (irrationality) then validates the joker-lite villain critiques which I always thought were used a bit liberally in comparison between the two characters.
Yo it ain't even worth it
Lex's motivation is jealousy with a bit of a general hatred for men with power. Superman is a man with power he didn't earn. Double whammy for DCEU Lex. In the comics it's a bit more fleshed out because Lex believes he should be recognized the way Superman is and feels he clawed and scratched for everything he has. It's just plain ol' jealousy for DCEU Lex. This is why Lex says "They need to see the fraud you are."
And obviously he's nuts. An interesting note is Lex's weird little idiosyncrasies are nearly absent in the beginning in the movie and progressively get worse as the movie goes on. He's breaking down as more of his plans unfolds until by the end of the movie he's a full on lunatic.
And obviously he's nuts. An interesting note is Lex's weird little idiosyncrasies are nearly absent in the beginning in the movie and progressively get worse as the movie goes on. He's breaking down as more of his plans unfolds until by the end of the movie he's a full on lunatic.
He's a major problem with the movie. He just isn't a compelling villain. He's completely unintimidating. Rambling, jittery. Completely dull.
DING DING DING DING DING.
And it isn't a conspiracy that people struggle to understand his motivations: they aren't clearly expressed. Like, it's delivered amongst his dumb rhyming nonsense ("The road to Superman is Lois Lane" is one of the lines I think, and other Riddler-y bullshit like that), in which he basically expresses his anger at God (and thus an omnipotent force like Superman) is based in God not stopping his dad from hitting him.
DING DING DING DING DING.
Fuck this movie, seriously.
That's not a riddle. It's a pun, lol. His entire shtick the whole movie involved puns.
Puns are also within the Riddler's jurisdiction. Any sort of stupid wordplay, really.
Bruh he told puns. Any motherfucker can tell puns and do wordplay, shit ain't just for Nygma. Lol. Lex constantly told puns because he was a socially stunted fuck who had so much power. His motivations are expressed clearly. I may dislike the movie, but Lex is not the issue
Count Dookkake
Member
He told puns because he is a criminal genius.
Worst part of the movie for me, easily. I couldn't take him seriously whatsoever. Completely miscast in every way.
Why? For what they wanted the character to be, he worked
You reminded me now of the nonsense with the bell
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Yeah, I absolutely was not a fan of that Daffy Duck Luthor. Probably the worst thing I've seen Michael Cera in..
Crimson_Echidna
Banned
Laughing Chris Evans and Sad Ben Affleck were the best things to come out of this movie.
CaviarMeths
Member
There's a pretty solid 2 hour movie hiding in there. The theatrical cut had a pile of shit that went nowhere and had nothing to do with the plot, at the expense of actual pieces missing from the story. The ultimate cut restored the missing pieces... but all that shit that shouldn't have even been in the theatrical cut is still there. Start by cutting out Doomsday and everything relating to it (like Lex trying to gain access to the Kryptonian ship), any of the Iron Man 2-esque stuff that only exists as a trailer for Justice League, and go from there.
Still a much better film than the abysmally awful Suicide Squad, which had no redeeming qualities at all.
Still a much better film than the abysmally awful Suicide Squad, which had no redeeming qualities at all.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
My fixit list:
- Pull the entire Death of Superman treatment, from I want the alien craft, Zod's body, Jolly Rancher, all saved for the next movie. You're introducing Kryptonite in this one, that's enough.
- Pull Martha. I didn't hate it, but the entire rest of the internet hated it, so it wasn't a good idea. If you need an extra reason for Superman to fight, well he was working with the military in Man of Steel... follow through on the Dark Knight Returns vibe and have the U.S. order him to apprehend Batman.
- We need Old Lex. Even if he dies in this film and it sets up young Lex for Jolly Rancher jollies in the next movie. Ken Spacey or Clancy Brown... have him a legitimately likeable character that gains Wayne's trust, lures to his side of the Superman argument in these boardroom and cocktail party settings. Perhaps they both lost buildings and loved ones in Man of Steel. Make him a foil character for Bruce Wayne, just having found his foil obsession.
- Diana can still show up to get the trinity started. It is her, not mention of Martha, that stops them fighting long-enough to listen to each other and realize it was all Lex Sr's. plan.
- Having a less batshit-crazy backup plan than his son, Lex Sr. hacks Batman's battle armor and shows up in his own battle armor, finish the movie with a 2-on-2 with Lex using Batman as both weapon and human shield.
- Knightmare is credits stinger. All Doomsday, Darkseid, and Lex Jr. get shuffled off to Dawn of Justice: The Totally Separate Movie
See I disagree entirely. He is the central point of conflict in the movie-or at least one fo the main components that sets everything in motion. To obscure his reasons for doing this fundamentally undermines why an audience should care given they have no point of origin in understanding his motivations. If it all boils down to "hes just crazy", then thats a pretty weak cop out then actually confronting and dealing with the questions he sets forth to start the movie regarding superman.
I'm going to ask again until I get an answer in this thread, in what way does the extended cut make the movie better or alleviate its problems, because ultimately it doesn't do any of that for me. Its just a longer BvS.
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
Some key things:
It detailed the reason why people assumed Superman had killed all those rebels in Africa during the rescue scene. Seeing machinations for Superman's downfall detailed that early in the movie gave Lex's overall plan a much stronger presence.
This got filled in more additionally when it was revealed that the African witness before the congressional hearing had been coerced into lying and was dispatched. There was no bloody murder crackdown on the villages.
And also, for me, after the bombing in congress, scenes of Superman rescuing and helping with the wounded were critical. In the theatrical cut he just boogies. This was especially egregious considering how much flak Man of Steel got for not really showing Superman bother to save very many people.
That said, it makes you tired of slow-motion shots when the movie comes in at that length. The emotional tone fails more, but the story succeeds more. Personally I'd take better story and less slomo.
This is kind of a ridiculous question to answer. No matter what anyone says your response basically begins and ends at "it did nothing for me" so why ask in the first place? You won't find much in the way of objective answers. It either helped the movie for you or it didn't.
Lex has motivations. It's fear of the other, fear of not having power, fear controls every action he makes.
It is your personal opinion that the UC does not make the movie better, no one will get you to change that mindset.
1. I fail to see how this set up superman any more so than it did in the theatrical (which I would also argue shouldn't have actually set up superman but they pretended it did). Unless I am misunderstanding your post, but in no way shape or form should anyone have thought he was responsbile for people being shot (the flame thrower really did not destroy the bullets which I know some have argued for in here).
which I guess ties into your second point with the witness- why would he have used bullets to kill people? The whole set up really never made any sense and while the extended cut tried to make it more explainable, it still ultimately boils down to 1. people saying superman killed people with bullets but also Lois was there so she could have easily attested to the fact that he didn't and 2. if there is one group of people in contemporary America that American's could give a shit less about, its groups associated with terrorism. If superman did just shoot up terrorists, people would be putting up 100 more statues of superman rather than chastizing him for it.
I only added that in there so as to let someone explain their view to me on the matter, which I am genuinely curious to hear. The EC explained things better but didn't actually add anything we didn't already know from before and whats worse, it did it in the most boring way possible. Its like the star wars prequel critiques, these additional scenes just had characters tsanding around telling the audience talking points of the movie rather than showing us. What really made it worse was that we already knew the majority of these things.
Lex never gives the impression of being afraid and I'm not sure where that would be coming from. His arguments about building a weapon of self defense may explain that but it seems like a logical calculation rather than one made of fear. Other than that most of his motivations, as bleepy pointed out, have to do with an actual philosophy of unjust power, which is interesting topic but the movie and the character fail to deliver on exploring it by basically, as others have argued, just ending up with "well hes insane". I see nothing in there that would suggest hes just afraid of superman, especially when he has such a control over not only him but many of the other DC heros as well at that point-while additionally gaining knowledge of darkseid and the like.
And again, I'm asking for discussion and elaboration on what parts specifically the EC gave that fundamentally made it a different and better movie-really shouldn't be that hard to give or dismiss my question just because I stated that my impressions of it were the opposite (to which, again I'll add that I just threw in there on the chance that I misremembered something or the like).
I know it's been brought up and discussed in this thread but the Martha scene. I turned to my wife who turned to me at the same time and said "why the fuck didn't Superman just tell Batman that his mom was being held hostage by the guy everyone already knows is totally evil instead of fight him pointlessly for 20 minutes?" Then I looked around for a second and could tell everyone was thinking the same thing in a packed theater.
What a train wreck
What a train wreck
I've mentioned this before but in order for Batman and Superman to really "fight" each other you have to come up with some dumb ass shit to make that happen. It's such a stretch for either character but especially for Superman. It was going to be awful no matter how they played it.
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
Only when someone gave you what you ask, you took it and you...
You didn't discuss the coerced African witness or the rescuing people at the congress bombing. You just discussed the bullets because it's the only point I brought up that the movie added that had an plot-armor chink you could pierce.
So you're not looking for discussion and elaboration on what parts of the EC made the movie better in my ind. You're actually looking for parts of the EC that didn't make the movie better in your mind. Anything else, you'll ignore, apparently. And then appeal again as if you haven't been provided with what you asked for, seemingly surprised when people seem to point out the futility in acquiescing.
Sigh. Opinions on the internet. It's been the same since my old days on Trekweb. No one is also meta enough to accept "there's no accounting for taste" about their own opinion.
Well yeah they fight because they have to, but there are probably at least a million plausible reasons for them to fight that can't immediately be deconstructed by the average movie goer before the fight even starts.
But we get MARTHAAAAA
Superman tried to tell him three times. He was greeted with gunfire, ultrasonic waves and weaponized kryptonite. Batman wasn't going to listen bro.
Name 5
Metalingus5150
Member
One of the things that came from this is that I noticed people don't like to admit they like a bad movie.
It's okay to like a bad movie.
It's okay to like a bad movie.
Name me some yo
I'm not a talented Hollywood script writer, I'm just an average Joe schmoe film watcher. I've seen enough movies and read enough comic books to know that these situations can be and have been done.
It's Superman and Batman in a comic book universe, they can literally do anything they want too justify it logically. That they choose not to speaks to a level of incompetence.
Nah bruh, don't say that there are millions of possibilities and not name a few.
Name some.
See, the core issue is that Batman's motivations to fight Superman are great until it all falls apart in it's execution. You're can't sit here and tell me that there exists no plausible scenario in which these two fight because I'm not willing to sit down and rewrite the entire script (where the basis of the whole fight is premised on) for you?
Have you ever critiqued anything without having an entire dossier to do it because it was so bad even you could see exactly what the problem was? I hope not
Have you ever critiqued anything without having an entire dossier to do it because it was so bad even you could see exactly what the problem was? I hope not
modernmalady
Member
Man, I can't believe it's been one year since I saw this garbage in the theaters. I went to go see it with my dad on opening weekend and we were both falling asleep at various times during the film. I was like "well as long as we get some sick fight scenes like in MoS then everything will be okay for now" but ohhh man I had no idea what I was in for.
Bruh you gonna name some scenarios or do everything but do that?
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
are you going to pay him money to do so? Hollywood people get paid to pitch things, if an unpaid amateur can do better in two seconds, somebody fucked up.
This unpaid amateur shouldn't say there are millions of other possibilities and not list off any because...
Only when someone gave you what you ask, you took it and you...
You didn't discuss the coerced African witness or the rescuing people at the congress bombing. You just discussed the bullets because it's the only point I brought up that the movie added that had an plot-armor chink you could pierce.
So you're not looking for discussion and elaboration on what parts of the EC made the movie better in my ind. You're actually looking for parts of the EC that didn't make the movie better in your mind. Anything else, you'll ignore, apparently. And then appeal again as if you haven't been provided with what you asked for, seemingly surprised when people seem to point out the futility in acquiescing.
Sigh. Opinions on the internet. It's been the same since my old days on Trekweb. No one is also meta enough to accept "there's no accounting for taste" about their own opinion.
I guess I wasn't clear-I was more or less categorizing those two points under the "things we already knew and more of it diidn't really change the movie" line. When I said Lois could refute the woman's witness testimony, I was saying why her role wasn't really important or how it changed the dynamics of the set up. The entire set up makes no sense so expanding on the epiphenomena of what follows that plot really seems inconsequential in alleviating the underlying issue in the first place. Thats removed from subjective taste-I'm not basing my assessment of whether or not it makes sense due to how much I liked it. Having a witness confess that superman was responsbile for the village could be directly refuted by people who were there (lois) AND paints superman as a gun totting thug which everyone already knows isn't something he does.
Him saving people helped make him look more like then superman weve all become accustomed to I don't disagree; but this is like a bare minimum requirement for the character and I would *subjectively* argue that it doesn't really enhance his character to the point of overlooking the rest of the film and his actions.
So yes I am looking for conversation and i'm unsure why people keep having this antagonistic response to my posts. Am I coming off combative? If so I'm not trying to. I genuinely want people to point out how the newly added scenes "fixed" the probelms of the movie-which isn't a matter of taste by the way. Whether or not you like it really doesn't effect that the entire set up to the court hearing by framing superman for shooting terrorists to save a nationally renowned journalist (who is also white woman) is absolutely preposterous no matter what way you look at it. The cia knew she was there/he was there, she could have testified he didn't do it in response to some random woman's testimony, all the while lois finds out lex is behind it.
If there is more to discuss I am more than happy to discuss it and am in no way looking to argue about the quality of it-only whether this actually fixes the mistakes in the story. I don't think my stance is unreasonable with regards to that set up.
Killer Queen
Banned
I like the movie, and while I originally felt that way, yeah he kinda is.
That would have been better than what we got.
Discotheque
Banned
Nahhh. This would have been pretty dumb.
I think their head was in the right place with batman kind of being blinded by fear due to the metropolis attack but the execution could have been much better. A lot of the stuff that gets batman and superman riled up about each other between the metropolis attack and their own fight is convoluted and some of it nonsensical even
But the actual metropolis attack being a reason for batman to hunt him? A better reason for the fight than most imo
- Status