• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Batman v Superman Ultimate Cut |OT| - Men are still good (out now)

GuitarAtomik

Member
Jun 13, 2008
18,046
1
0
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 I'm he film unless it's mentioned.

It is in the movie.

 

Dead

well not really...yet
Jun 6, 2004
26,023
0
1,655
37
Houston, TX
It is in the movie.
Still doesn't mean anything as it's well known that Jason Todd was more prone to violence than Bruce was. Regardless, There's nothing in the movie to indicate one way or another in regards to Robin. The ninja turtles carry around swords and they don't kill dudes. It's a stretch no matter what.

There's also nothing in the movies text or subtext that indicated Batman killed before while there is plenty of text and subtext regarding Batman's disregard to criminal life being a more recent development.

It's important to note Batman isn't going out to intentionally murder criminals. He simply doesn't care of they get caught in the crossfire, which again fits Bruce's state of mind in the film. (criminals are like weeds)
 

Krathoon

Member
Mar 26, 2011
1,092
770
870
It seems like they really polished the movie with the extended cut. I am thinking about swinging by Best Buy and getting it.
 

GuitarAtomik

Member
Jun 13, 2008
18,046
1
0
Still doesn't mean anything as it's well known that Jason Todd was more prone to violence than Bruce was. There's nothing in the movie to indicate one way or another regardless.
How do we know that was Jason Todd? Why would Batman let him have that type of weapon while working with him if he wasn't ok with it?

Either way there's nothing in the movies text or subtext that indicated either of them killed before while there is plenty of text and subtext regarding Batman's disregard to criminal life being a more recent development.

Not specifically, but pretty much everything talking about the recent escalation is in relation to the branding. Again, the branding being reported on everywhere is specifically what puts Batman on Clark's radar.

It's important to note Batman isn't going out to intentionally murder criminals. He simply doesn't care of they get caught in the crossfire, which again fits Bruce's state of mind in the film. (criminals are like weeds)
Crossfire? If we were just talking about the fight scene with him saving Martha specifically (a scene where he opens with blowing up a bunch of occupied cars with the Batwing), maaaaaaybe. I wouldn't describe the guys in the car he knocked over with the Batmobile and then dragged a few blocks so that he could throw it on top of another car smashing both occupants "in the crossfire" though.
 

LosDaddie

Banned
Dec 22, 2008
15,465
2
0
Longwood, FL
www.gamespot.com
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?



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

I mean, you can believe whatever you want. That's fine. 😊

But There's nothing in the movie that leads people to believe Batman killing thugs is the wrong way to go about things. Killing all those thugs in the warehouse enabled him to save Martha. He didn't kill Lex because he's needed for future sequels.

Bruce's only revelation was that we was wrong about Superman. He watched Supes sacrifice himself for the world, a world Batman just mintutss ago thought Supes was a threat to.
 

Ashhong

Member
May 10, 2007
33,977
0
945
How do we know that was Jason Todd? Why would Batman let him have that type of weapon while working with him if he wasn't ok with it?



Not specifically, but pretty much everything talking about the recent escalation is in relation to the branding. Again, the branding being reported on everywhere is specifically what puts Batman on Clark's radar.

But as has been pointed out, the branding basically equals murder. Why would Alfred care enough to lecture him on branding if he's been out there murdering fools left and right?

I mean, you can believe whatever you want. That's fine. ��

But There's nothing in the movie that leads people to believe Batman killing thugs is the wrong way to go about things. Killing all those thugs in the warehouse enabled him to save Martha. He didn't kill Lex because he's needed for future sequels.

Bruce's only revelation was that we was wrong about Superman. He watched Supes sacrifice himself for the world, a world Batman just mintutss ago thought Supes was a threat to.

????????????

He has specific lines that says exactly what he thinks. How is it that you can ignore words that are said plain as day? Do you really need him to stand there and specifically say "we fight, we kill thugs..but we can do better"? Would that make it better for you? You again attributing saving Lex to his "need for future sequels" just shows how ignorant you are being.
 

Mael

Member
Oct 23, 2009
23,428
0
0
France
Batfleck killing doesn't seem like a normal thing for Batman to do,
After all he is lectured about the branding that leads to killings so I don't think that's something he does (on top of that what's the point of branding people to be killed afterwards when he can just accidentally kill them anyway he certainly doesn't give a shit about the goons he dispatch in the most brutal manner).
The last scene was shown in a way that somehow Batman had to kill flamethrower guy, there's no real impact to that scene because Batman fucking murdered goons left and right before anyway.
He's just another guy the bat has put 6 feet under.
My point is even the TC makes it a point that Batman is different and more violent than before, not even stopping at killing like he did before.
We can discuss why it's a bad idea but that's another discussion.
 

ffejeromdiks

Banned
Mar 26, 2014
2,905
2
445
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.

Bruce is definitely ashamed of his actions and is basically admitting to Alfred that he was right about everything. He's saying it in a "I can't believe you stuck with me through that Alfred...." kind of way.

Basically the BvS equivilent of "Still haven't given up on me Alfred?"
 

GuitarAtomik

Member
Jun 13, 2008
18,046
1
0
But as has been pointed out, the branding basically equals murder. Why would Alfred care enough to lecture him on branding if he's been out there murdering fools left and right?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's one of my big problems with the movie. Normally I'd give a movie the benefit of the doubt on that point and say that's what they were going for, but everything points to the branding as the escalation. If it was about the killing, why doesn't anyone (not Alfred, not the paper, not the news reports, not Superman) ever mention the killing (other than the brand meaning death in prison)? If your answer is "they were trying to be subtle", I'd say "Why?" The answer to that would either be that that wasn't actually their intention, or it was and it's bad writing.
 

Ashhong

Member
May 10, 2007
33,977
0
945
Batfleck killing doesn't seem like a normal thing for Batman to do,
After all he is lectured about the branding that leads to killings so I don't think that's something he does (on top of that what's the point of branding people to be killed afterwards when he can just accidentally kill them anyway he certainly doesn't give a shit about the goons he dispatch in the most brutal manner).
The last scene was shown in a way that somehow Batman had to kill flamethrower guy, there's no real impact to that scene because Batman fucking murdered goons left and right before anyway.
He's just another guy the bat has put 6 feet under.
My point is even the TC makes it a point that Batman is different and more violent than before, not even stopping at killing like he did before.
We can discuss why it's a bad idea but that's another discussion.

I think the conversation now is about whether or not Batman is changed from these events.

I still have a problem with people saying he murdered KGB. If you watch it, he shoots the tank but it doesn't explode. There's no fire until KGB shoots the flamethrower. Also let's not pretend that this isn't a comic book movie where he could return as a burned up man. I'm not saying he will, I'm just saying it's not crazy to think he's alive. Look at Crossbones in Civil War, didn't that dude get crumbled in like 20 stories of a building?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's one of my big problems with the movie. Normally I'd give a movie the benefit of the doubt on that point and say that's what they were going for, but everything points to the branding as the escalation. If it was about the killing, why doesn't anyone (not Alfred, not the paper, not the news reports, not Superman) ever mention the killing? If your answer is "they were trying to be subtle", I'd say "Why?" The answer to that would either be that that wasn't actually their intention, or it was and it's bad writing.

Doesn't the news report specifically say that the branding is a mark of death? Sorry I might not be understanding your last question
 

Sojgat

Member
Jan 29, 2012
16,375
1
0
Guys, Snyder just threw in all the killing during the action scenes because he thought it was cool. It's a creative choice that doesn't make any sense with the story being told, and most likely isn't referenced anywhere in the screenplay. It sure isn't directly referenced anywhere in the film, no one even brings it up. This is why it sticks out so much, and people keep harping on about it.
 

guek

Banned
Apr 27, 2011
18,684
1
0
No, you can't just decide Superman killed that guy when he explicitly says later he didn't kill anyone.
That's another example of Snyder's clumsy directing. Why make it look like he used deadly force in the first place? That line is Snyder's way of having his cake and eating it too. He does the same thing later when Clark throws Bruce through a building and then says he doesn't want to kill him. It sure looked like he does. Either way though, there's still no solid connection between Superman's death and Bruce's supposed decision to stop killing. There's no reason Superman would be that kind of symbol for him.

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.

The revelation was that he was wrong and...they should instead work together! Hence the justice league!

btw, are you happy now? I resisted becoming embroiled in BvS debates for awhile but here I am. IS THIS WHAT YOU WANTED??!
 

Dead

well not really...yet
Jun 6, 2004
26,023
0
1,655
37
Houston, TX
The context is that Batman never specifically goes out with a target to kill, this is an important distinction. Goons die in the crossfire and he's shown as not caring and being callous, he's not specifically going on a murder spree but he no longer cares about having to avoid criminal casualties. It fits within the frame of mind he's depicted as having. Someone who feels their crusade has failed, that sees himself as a criminal and sees a world where criminals are weeds who just regrow. It
even fits within the branding leading to killing as he clearly does not care if that happens.
 

Ashhong

Member
May 10, 2007
33,977
0
945
That's another example of Snyder's clumsy directing. Why make it look like he used deadly force in the first place? That line is Snyder's way of having his cake and eating it too. He does the same thing later when Clark throws Bruce through a building and then says he doesn't want to kill him. It sure looked like he does. Either way though, there's still no solid connection between Superman's death and Bruce's supposed decision to stop killing. There's no reason Superman would be that kind of symbol for him.



The revelation was that he was wrong and...they should instead work together! Hence the justice league!

btw, are you happy now? I resisted becoming embroiled in BvS debates for awhile but here I am. IS THIS WHAT YOU WANTED??!

Hm, I believe Justice League idea comes from "the feeling" he has of things to come. I don't see how that is the revelation he gets out of Superman's death..
 

guek

Banned
Apr 27, 2011
18,684
1
0
Hm, I believe Justice League idea comes from "the feeling" he has of things to come. I don't see how that is the revelation he gets out of Superman's death..

Isn't the "we can do better" line and him talking a bout how he failed Superman in life but wont in death right next to him talking to WW about finding more heroes?
 

GuitarAtomik

Member
Jun 13, 2008
18,046
1
0
Doesn't the news report specifically say that the branding is a mark of death? Sorry I might not be understanding your last question

Other than that (I edited it in). Again though, that's in context of the brand. My last question is if it's about the killing, why does NO ONE mention the fact that he's killing dude's all the time? The only time they do is in context of the brand which is specifically focused on in this movie. What I'm trying to say is if Batman's recent escalation was purely about him killing, then muddling that with the brand fixation was bad writing.
 

IconGrist

Member
Jun 5, 2013
7,297
0
0
Wheat Ridge, CO
Isn't the "we can do better" line and him talking a bout how he failed Superman in life but wont in death right next to him talking to WW about finding more heroes?

That whole thing is him talking about people. Diana says, "Man made a world where standing together isn't possible."

"Men are still good."

Bruce is talking about people and himself especially. Then goes on to talking about forming a team to "stand together". It's two separate thoughts that bleed into each other.

Imagine he threw a "Speaking of which" or "While we're on the subject" in there.
 

Dead

well not really...yet
Jun 6, 2004
26,023
0
1,655
37
Houston, TX
That whole thing is him talking about people. Diana says, "Man made a world where standing together isn't possible."

"Men are still good."

Bruce is talking about people and himself especially. Then goes on to talking about forming a team to "stand together". It's two separate thoughts that bleed into each other.

Imagine he threw a "Speaking of which" or "While we're on the subject" in there.
Honestly the whole point is that it ties more into the idea that Batman as a character will eventually fall into the same moral chasm as the one he waged a crusade against if he is alone, he can't do 20 years of that shit alone and we saw the cost. The character can only survive when surrounded by the friends we as comic readers know he should have, hence his rebirth amongst a new fellowship of others like him.
 

JB1981

Member
May 12, 2006
30,989
0
1,395
Toms River, NJ
Other than that (I edited it in). Again though, that's in context of the brand. My last question is if it's about the killing, why does NO ONE mention the fact that he's killing dude's all the time? The only time they do is in context of the brand which is specifically focused on in this movie. What I'm trying to say is if Batman's recent escalation was purely about him killing, then muddling that with the brand fixation was bad writing.

Why do you keep asking this? Who is he killing all the time other than than Lex's goons while in pursuit of Kryptonite?
 

guek

Banned
Apr 27, 2011
18,684
1
0
That whole thing is him talking about people. Diana says, "Man made a world where standing together isn't possible."

"Men are still good."

Bruce is talking about people and himself especially. Then goes on to talking about forming a team to "stand together". It's two separate thoughts that bleed into each other.

Imagine he threw a "Speaking of which" or "While we're on the subject" in there.

Hmm. That's not the impression I got. You asked earlier why I don't recognize Bruce's arc in the movie but that's not true, I do think he has a clear arc. I just don't think it has much to do with whether or not he kills. The change I see in the character is him going from a paranoid recluse to recognizing yes, men are still good, meaning not just him but others he can work with as well. That ties into the whole "how many [good people] are left?" line he throws at Alfred earlier in the movie. That final scene with Diana is a recognition that yes, there are still good people left, and they have to work together to stop what's coming.
 

JB1981

Member
May 12, 2006
30,989
0
1,395
Toms River, NJ
Hmm. That's not the impression I got. You asked earlier why I don't recognize Bruce's arc in the movie but that's not true, I do think he has a clear arc. I just don't think it has much to do with whether or not he kills. The change I see in the character is him going from a paranoid recluse to recognizing yes, men are still good, meaning not just him but others he can work with as well. That ties into the whole "how many [good people] are left?" line he throws at Alfred earlier in the movie. That final scene with Diana is a recognition that yes, there are still good people left, and they have to work together to stop what's coming.

I want to believe you are having a genuine difference of opinion on this topic but I honestly think you have a genuine blind spot here
 

Ashhong

Member
May 10, 2007
33,977
0
945
Isn't the "we can do better" line and him talking a bout how he failed Superman in life but wont in death right next to him talking to WW about finding more heroes?

Honestly I just thought he meant men could do better, as in heroes in general can be better. The line starts with "Men are still good" so to me it feels like more a general statement and not directed at forming the JL

Other than that (I edited it in). Again though, that's in context of the brand. My last question is if it's about the killing, why does NO ONE mention the fact that he's killing dude's all the time? The only time they do is in context of the brand which is specifically focused on in this movie. What I'm trying to say is if Batman's recent escalation was purely about him killing, then muddling that with the brand fixation was bad writing.

Well what killing do we see? There is the branding, the car chase, and the warehouse scene. The branding is brought up in the newspapers and Alfred in a way. The car chase nobody really knows about the deaths except maybe Superman. There were no other witneses, and he does tell him to stop at least. And then the warehouse deaths nobody knows about.
 

guek

Banned
Apr 27, 2011
18,684
1
0
I want to believe you are having a genuine difference of opinion on this topic but I honestly think you have a genuine blind spot here

And I think you see what you want to see even if it's not explicit in the movie :p

That doesn't mean you're not being genuine in your opinion too, just as I am. I aint trolling, bro
 

IconGrist

Member
Jun 5, 2013
7,297
0
0
Wheat Ridge, CO
Hmm. That's not the impression I got. You asked earlier why I don't recognize Bruce's arc in the movie but that's not true, I do think he has a clear arc. I just don't think it has much to do with whether or not he kills. The change I see in the character is him going from a paranoid recluse to recognizing yes, men are still good, meaning not just him but others he can work with as well. That ties into the whole "how many [good people] are left?" line he throws at Alfred earlier in the movie. That final scene with Diana is a recognition that yes, there are still good people left, and they have to work together to stop what's coming.

It's a fair way to look at it but considering what Bruce has been through it doesn't make sense for him to completely ignore his "failure" that he acknowledges. His failure being to let his rage guide him. Batman's moral compass from before is something Snyder expects you to know used to be there. Alfred only implies it. Affleck described this Batman in interviews as being at the end of a 20 year run as Batman who finds himself morally bankrupt. Not that he was always morally bankrupt.

Whether or not you're okay with that knowledge not being explicitly stated in the movie will differ from person to person and is a different discussion.
 

LosDaddie

Banned
Dec 22, 2008
15,465
2
0
Longwood, FL
www.gamespot.com
????????????

He has specific lines that says exactly what he thinks. How is it that you can ignore words that are said plain as day? Do you really need him to stand there and specifically say "we fight, we kill thugs..but we can do better"? Would that make it better for you? You again attributing saving Lex to his "need for future sequels" just shows how ignorant you are being.

Yes, anyone who disagrees is ignorant. Keep it up, breh.

The movie has serious flaws. The only thing those lines said to me that Bruce realized he was wrong for assuming a meta-human was automatically a threat. Not that killing thugs was wrong.
 

GuitarAtomik

Member
Jun 13, 2008
18,046
1
0
Why do you keep asking this? Who is he killing all the time other than than Lex's goons while in pursuit of Kryptonite?

If he's only killing Lex's goons, why do you think Alfred's Fear speech is just about him killing when that takes place before the batmobile scene? He doesn't get anywhere close to Lex's goons until he's able to track down the Russian guy and clone his phone.
 

guek

Banned
Apr 27, 2011
18,684
1
0
It's a fair way to look at it but considering what Bruce has been through it doesn't make sense for him to completely ignore his "failure" that he acknowledges. His failure being to let his rage guide him. Batman's moral compass from before is something Snyder expects you to know used to be there. Alfred only implies it. Affleck described this Batman in interviews as being at the end of a 20 year run as Batman who finds himself morally bankrupt. Not that he was always morally bankrupt.

Whether or not you're okay with that knowledge not being explicitly stated in the movie will differ from person to person and is a different discussion.
Yup, that's one of the bigger issues I have with Batman in the movie. The film is definitely better for those familiar with the source material. I'll freely admit too that I don't like giving the movie the benefit of the doubt because I don't care for Snyder's way of storytelling to begin with.
 

JB1981

Member
May 12, 2006
30,989
0
1,395
Toms River, NJ
If he's only killing Lex's goons, why do you think Alfred's Fear speech is just about him killing when that takes place before the batmobile scene? He doesn't get anywhere close to Lex's goons until he's able to track down the Russian guy and clone his phone.

Because Alfred's speech is not about him killing people? It's about the brand and increasingly brutal methods against low-level criminals in pursuit of intel regarding the White Portugese and a dirty bomb being brought into Gotham harbor.
 

GuitarAtomik

Member
Jun 13, 2008
18,046
1
0
Because Alfred's speech is not about him killing people? It's about the brand and increasingly brutal methods against low-level criminals in pursuit of intel regarding the White Portugese and a dirty bomb being brought into Gotham harbor.

That's exactly what I've been saying -__-

The brand is the recent escalation.
 

IconGrist

Member
Jun 5, 2013
7,297
0
0
Wheat Ridge, CO
Yup, that's one of the bigger issues I have with Batman in the movie. The film is definitely better for those familiar with the source material. I'll freely admit too that I don't like giving the movie the benefit of the doubt because I don't care for Snyder's way of storytelling to begin with.

And I completely understand the movie not working in that sense. It expects you to have certain bits of information before you've watched any of it.

As an example, I knew what the Knightmare was. Why it looked that way. What it was implying. Where it was going. I knew at the end that was The Flash. My brother next to me didn't have the slightest clue what was going on.

Since I'm privy to the required information the movie worked for me and especially so in the UC. I do feel it was mistake to approach it that way because there were so many it didn't work for. I'm thankful to the MCU for not leaving me in the dark for the most part since I'm not well-versed in their characters and stories. I may not like every one of their outputs but I at least can follow along without ever feeling lost.
 

GuitarAtomik

Member
Jun 13, 2008
18,046
1
0
Ok we agree on that but I don't understand why you have an issue with it?

I have an issue with branding being made the big line Batman's crossed when killing should have been that line. The way Batman is killing guys in this movie does not suggest we are seeing him doing it for the first time. If it is, the movie doesn't acknowledge it at all. That's a problem. The alternative is that we have to assume Batman's been killing for a while now (long enough for him to be completely desensitized to it), which makes making a big deal out of him branding people now completely toothless and ridiculous. You don't escalate from killing to branding (unless you murder them afterward). That's a problem.

There was an opportunity here to (clearly) say Batman has recently gone too far by having no problem with killing criminals. That could have been powerful. Instead, they muddle it up with the whole branding aspect. Even that could have been salvaged if the only people he "killed" were the branded criminals knowing they'd be murdered in prison, but that's not the case here.
 

Sojgat

Member
Jan 29, 2012
16,375
1
0
The context is that Batman never specifically goes out with a target to kill, this is an important distinction. Goons die in the crossfire and he's shown as not caring and being callous, he's not specifically going on a murder spree but he no longer cares about having to avoid criminal casualties. It fits within the frame of mind he's depicted as having. Someone who feels their crusade has failed, that sees himself as a criminal and sees a world where criminals are weeds who just regrow. It
even fits within the branding leading to killing as he clearly does not care if that happens.

So Batman kills a dozen criminals with the Batmobile, while recklessly endangering multiple civilian motorists (possibly causing the death of a truck driver). Superman sees all this, gives Batman the "Consider this mercy" speech, and then just flies away.

Bullshit, He would've carted Bruce's ass off to jail right then and there. There is absolutely no story consideration given to the fact that Batman is going around murdering people. It's as if he's not actually doing it. It's nonsense.
 

JB1981

Member
May 12, 2006
30,989
0
1,395
Toms River, NJ
I have an issue with branding being made the big line Batman's crossed when killing should have been that line. The way Batman is killing guys in this movie does not suggest we are seeing him doing it for the first time. If it is, the movie doesn't acknowledge it at all. That's a problem. The alternative is that we have to assume Batman's been killing for a while now (long enough for him to be completely desensitized to it), which makes making a big deal out of him branding people now completely toothless and ridiculous. You don't escalate from killing to branding (unless you murder them afterward). That's a problem.

There was an opportunity here to (clearly) say Batman has recently gone too far by having no problem with killing criminals. That could have been powerful. Instead, they muddle it up with the whole branding aspect. Even that could have been salvaged if the only people he "killed" were the branded criminals knowing they'd be murdered in prison, but that's not the case here.

I think Bruce's state of mind is pretty well addressed in the "a beautiful lie" opening, Alfred's scolding of his branding and violent interrogation methods, Bruce viewing himself as a criminal and Alfred actively persuading him not to put on the suit because it's Bruce Wayne that's been getting good information, not the Bat.
 

AgentOtaku

Member
Nov 21, 2005
31,045
1
0
38
Spokane, WA
This is never gonna be available to rent, is it?

LIke they did this on purpose, didn't they

I REALLY do want to see this version, but feel gross for being forced to buy it.
Already saw the theatrical when it came out and appreciated what a glorious disaster it was...
 

MrMephistoX

Member
May 18, 2007
6,665
4,133
1,575
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this previously but Watchmen and Batman v Superman seem to compliment each other...3 parts Batman Ozi the playboy, Roarshach the rage, and Night Owl the detective...up against a Superman unchecked. I am also drunk...discuss

I envision Watchmen as Bruce's fever dream whilst Superman bellows "Maaarthaaa!"
 

MrMephistoX

Member
May 18, 2007
6,665
4,133
1,575
Ultimately...Batman is more dangerous than Superman due to one precept...The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...
 

Sir Alemeth

Member
Apr 25, 2007
3,527
7
975
OK wtf. I passed this movie up because of all the horrible reviews. I just watched this version now and thought it was absolutely amazing. I loved every minute of it.

Great movie...I saw the Ultimate Edition btw. I guess the Theatrical version is that bad to warrant the horrendous reviews.

9/10
 

Ahasverus

Member
Sep 25, 2010
21,269
4
0
Colombia
www.facebook.com
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this previously but Watchmen and Batman v Superman seem to compliment each other...
It is! BvS is the spiritual sequel to Watchmen
OK wtf. I passed this movie up because of all the horrible reviews. I just watched this version now and thought it was absolutely amazing. I loved every minute of it.

Great movie...I saw the Ultimate Edition btw. I guess the Theatrical version is that bad to warrant the horrendous reviews.

9/10
Welcome to the madhouse!
I think I am finally going to watch this tomorrow.
You're not ready.
 

AMUSIX

Member
Jul 23, 2006
8,732
0
0
San Diego
Just finished watching this with my wife. I had seen the TC without her, and thought is was a horrendous mess of a movie...a 2/5 for me.
The TC was a chopped up mess of scenes that had no sequence to them, people doing shit for no apparent reason, and, really, was so disjointed that the oppressive tone of everything had nothing to stand on, so it just brought everything down.


This cut....WOW. Holy shit, I have never seen a movie improve so much with a director's cut as this did. There was so much necessary world-building, so much groundwork that needed to be laid to show character's motivation, so many threads were properly tied together, and, holy fuck, they made Luthor's plan understandable! The dour, heartless feeling the movie has was given support, fixing one of the biggest problems with the film.

Yeah, after watching this, both my wife and I thought it was a great, solid movie. There are still some problems (Lois running back for the spear, "Martha!", it's uninhabited, and Lex) but the movie is definitely now a 4/5, one I'd easily recommend to others.