quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
To add to rogues post, in the Batman vs Superman movie (which also sucked) Batman not only was a sociopath (which he is I get that) but he started killing Superman with his kryptonite weapons. Which I find ridiculous since once again, Superman is faster than the Flash and can shoot rays out of his eyes and can go toe t9 toe with gods and win, yet Batman and his toys basically brings Superman to his knees. Until magically Batman realizes how sociopathically idiotic he’s being and decides to fight alongside Superman who 5 minutes earlier he was trying to kill.

I agree with most of that but the argument is that Superman is restrained by his own morality. He refuses to kill humans and most other intelligent species on purpose, and is conflicted when it's forced upon him (e.g., Zod). Batman knows that Superman can kill him and that he doesn't have a chance except for that, but when Supes practices restraint, Batman supposedly realizes it's not an act like he thought. That's circular logic in my mind since Batman really thought Superman was a threat and wouldn't have staged the fight somewhere without having to depend on the weakness he didn't believe in!

Looking forward to catching the ZS version this weekend.

I like that explanation. It is a bit circular but I bet it’s as close to rational as we will get.

As for kryptonite, it’s hard to make a character that is basically invincible. Ie, every Batman movie ever could have been solved by Superman in the first 5 minutes. It’s one reason why I hate Captain Marvel so much. If she hadn’t been fucking around on the wrong side of the galaxy for most of the movie, Thanos would have been fucked.

Invincible heroes are hard to pull off. Superman is the only exception to me.

Oh yeah, have to add: my other problem with B vs S is that Batman even being the sociopathic asshole that he is never seems to kill either. Joker killed a lot of people a lot of times. Escaped constantly. Snapping his neck once which multiple times would have been completely justified would save a ton of lives. Yet, nope he never does. But all of a sudden the aliens arrive, Superman beats them, people die, and I’ve got to kill this guy. Seems a stretch to me.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Oh yeah, have to add: my other problem with B vs S is that Batman even being the sociopathic asshole that he is never seems to kill either. Joker killed a lot of people a lot of times. Escaped constantly. Snapping his neck once which multiple times would have been completely justified would save a ton of lives. Yet, nope he never does. But all of a sudden the aliens arrive, Superman beats them, people die, and I’ve got to kill this guy. Seems a stretch to me.

You're mixing up Zach Snyder's take on the DC heroes with their comic book versions. In the comics, the main DC superheroes don't kill. That includes Batman, even though killing the Joker would probably be the best course of action.

But in Batman vs. Superman, Batman does explicitly kill some of the bad guys. And was prepared to kill Superman.

And Superman killed Zod in Man of Steel, then killed Doomsday in Batman vs. Superman.

Wonder Woman then follows this up by beheading Steppenwolf in Zach Snyder's version of Justice League, after Aquaman stabs him through the heart with a trident.

So in all three of the films of his trilogy, Zach Snyder specifically strayed from the "mainstream DC superheroes don't kill" rule that was so prevalent in the source comics. Even with Batman. Snyderverse Batman would probably kill the Joker at some point.

(Batman and Joker haven't faced off in the Snyderverse, other than Joker's cameo in the epilogue of JL. And Batman needs him alive to defeat Darkseid in that situation. Even then, he's clearly planning to kill Joker someday.)

Interesting. I haven’t read comic books in probably 40 years so I’m basing my vision of their ideology on the different movie versions.

Based on your explanation I think I like Snyder’s take. Leaving super villains alive is a comically (pun) bad idea. Killing the guy so he can’t come back better prepared to conquer the planet the next time seems smart. I just thought his editing choices were.... odd. Like I said earlier, that whole singing to aquaman and smelling his laundry is just a fucked up, artistic to the creepy point, Hollywood choice. I have to think some underling who was too scared to say anything was really wanting to cut that part. Among a whole bunch of parts that could have been cut.

Hey, btw, what was the explanation and story behind the mercenaries in BDUs with Superman patches that fought Batman and his crew in the other film?

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
You're mixing up Zach Snyder's take on the DC heroes with their comic book versions. In the comics, the main DC superheroes don't kill. That includes Batman, even though killing the Joker would probably be the best course of action.

But in Batman vs. Superman, Batman does explicitly kill some of the bad guys. And was prepared to kill Superman.

Sounds like someone hasn't read Dark Knight Returns

That's specifically the Batman design/attitude that Snyder is using for this version of Batman, and where the Batman vs Superman fight comes from, as well as the power armor design used for BvS to fight against Superman.

Many of the shots in BvS are pulled directly from the Dark Knight Returns graphic novel.

Wow. This is way complicated if you haven’t been following from the beginning.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Hey, btw, what was the explanation and story behind the mercenaries in BDUs with Superman patches that fought Batman and his crew in the other film?

It’s the “Knightmare” vision of a future in which Darkseid corrupts Superman.

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Hey, btw, what was the explanation and story behind the mercenaries in BDUs with Superman patches that fought Batman and his crew in the other film?

It’s the “Knightmare” vision of a future in which Darkseid corrupts Superman.

Hm.

But I thought that scene was real, and in the past relative to the plot now, not some vision, because that's where Batman is ambushed while trying to pick up / buy the Kryptonite.

?

I guess I'll rewatch them.

Thanks.

Nope, that scene is a premonition of a possible future in which Superman has been corrupted by Darkseid and turns evil, and Batman and his Resistance are trying to acquire (more) Kryptonite in order to stop Superman and his minions, and eventually defeat Darkseid.

In the "real" timeline, Batman gets the initial Kryptonite he uses to fight Superman during the events of BvS by breaking into Lexcorp and stealing it.

If you're going to go back and rewatch BvS, I'd recommend checking out the "Ultimate Edition". It's basically the extended director's cut, and the plot is a bit more coherent and more fully fleshed-out than the theatrical cut, especially when it comes to Lex Luthor's plan and motivations. (Seems to be a theme with these DC films... Screw up the original version, then try to scramble to salvage it with a recut/re-edited edition later.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RogueJSK,

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Nope, that scene is a premonition of a possible future in which Superman has been corrupted by Darkseid and turns evil, and Batman and his Resistance are trying to acquire (more) Kryptonite in order to stop Superman and his minions, and eventually defeat Darkseid.

In the "real" timeline, Batman gets the initial Kryptonite he uses to fight Superman during the events of BvS by breaking into Lexcorp and stealing it.

If you're going to go back and rewatch BvS, I'd recommend checking out the "Ultimate Edition". It's basically the extended director's cut, and the plot is a bit more coherent and more fully fleshed-out than the theatrical cut, especially when it comes to Lex Luthor's plan and motivations. (Seems to be a theme with these DC films... Screw up the original version, then try to scramble to salvage it with a recut/re-edited edition later.)

Ohhhhh.

Thanks. I'll rewatch if.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Nope, that scene is a premonition of a possible future in which Superman has been corrupted by Darkseid and turns evil, and Batman and his Resistance are trying to acquire (more) Kryptonite in order to stop Superman and his minions, and eventually defeat Darkseid.

In the "real" timeline, Batman gets the initial Kryptonite he uses to fight Superman during the events of BvS by breaking into Lexcorp and stealing it.

If you're going to go back and rewatch BvS, I'd recommend checking out the "Ultimate Edition". It's basically the extended director's cut, and the plot is a bit more coherent and more fully fleshed-out than the theatrical cut, especially when it comes to Lex Luthor's plan and motivations. (Seems to be a theme with these DC films... Screw up the original version, then try to scramble to salvage it with a recut/re-edited edition later.)

Yes, super obvious upon another look, when he wakes up from the nap or whatever after the Flash vision about Lois following the other vision. Thanks...

So, I watched the new version the other day while I was stuck at home recovering from a short illness. I feel asleep 5 or 6 times and had to keep rewinding when I woke up. That was partially due to my condition, but also the movie really did drag at several points. Overall I thought it made more sense than the original, but 4hrs was too long to tell that story. It would have helped if they didn't need to squish in the origin story for Cyborg or to spend so much time trying to introduce Aquaman and Flash.

Bottom line: I did like it better than the original cut, but there is no way I'm ever spending 4hrs to watch it again.

- Bret

I enjoyed it. The first one was a comedy, a tragic comedy.

I think they had to squeeze the origin stories in because they knew there wouldn't be independent movies to support those story lines like the MCU has.

Steppenwolf looked pretty good, actually looked like a legit villain instead of a deformed creature.

Bruce's nightmare ending with Supes the threat he always feared because of his actions should be a movie itself.

The Joker alone would make it worth it.

I was very pleasantly surprised by the ZS cut...although it took all of Sat afternoon to watch it.

Much more enjoyable than the original, better context, longer establishing shots, darker. Good on ya Zack.

I've caught a couple snippets on YT...I hope they come out with a BluRay or on-demand version. I don't have HBO/streaming.

$.02 worth,
Boss

I rewatched it after reading all the comments. It’s still too long, some weird editing choices, but it does make more sense. And a Superman is still a badass.

quote:

Originally posted by dave7378:
Loved Reynolds in Deadpool, hated him in Green Lantern. Deadpool was a massive success.

I'll watch Snyder's version just to see if there is an improvement. The Whedon version was terrible as are most DC movies aside from most of the Bale Batman movies.

This is about DC Justice League not Dea-fool.

Zack Sneider's cut was so nice and interesting. Though it was very log but interesting that i was not time conscious. And have seen the movies a few times. It was nice to be finally introduced to Darkseidus. I also enjoyed the twist as darkseid was the one who fought against the old god explaining why he hated them. I wish Zach will finish the movie because we have to see the end now.