Superman in JL movie (contains SPOILERS)

[manofsteel1979]

It undermines the whole invader from space idea? They are still holding hearings on him and debating him constantly. We can't add faces to Rushmore that easy Nevermind all the controversy and loss of life in that world.

They tackle it up front in the movie. Not everyone hates and fears him . Some do,yes. But most of the world had started to become reliant and trust and even worship Superman.It would make sense that a majority of the people who lived near ground zero of the Black Zero event,who came the closest to being wiped off the face of the Planet first,would want to honor the guy who stopped that. Besides,it wasn't solely a tribute to Superman. It was a memorial to the victims and the military,police,etc who died that day. It was called "Heroes park". It would make sense that Metropolis' resident hero figure would be the symbolic focal point of such a monument.

[manofsteel1979]

Realistically since Gothams next door. Billionaire Bruce Wayme and Lex Luthor would work together to block tax payer money on a Superman only statue.

It likely came up to a public vote for and against,and the citizens of Metropolis ended up voting in favor of it which likely stuck in Lex's craw and added fuel to his motivations to frame Superman. He probably concluded that the people of Metropolis were stupid to honor Superman instead of the man who rebuilt the city (namely himself) and resolved to show everyone how wrong they were to trust and worship an alien instead of the great Lex Luthor and LexCorp.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I think that statue is purely there so that someone could graffiti it with false god. It's a contrivance, I guarantee there would be statues to police men, soldiers, and maybe ongoing debate about Supermans contribution or blame.

[Vanguard-01]

Realistically since Gothams next door. Billionaire Bruce Wayme and Lex Luthor would work together to block tax payer money on a Superman only statue.

Why would they care enough to? Bruce Wayne is famous for preferring the world to see him as a careless playboy, and Luthor wanted to maintain an air of neutrality so no one would suspect him when he made his own move against Superman.

[Johnny Thunders!]

Well yeah but that's arguably part why the "realism" falls apart in these movies. Lex and Bruce certainly redefine subtetly in their response to Superman.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

I like your version better.

Thanks. Yours was pretty cool, too.

[manduck37]

They tackle it up front in the movie. Not everyone hates and fears him . Some do,yes. But most of the world had started to become reliant and trust and even worship Superman.It would make sense that a majority of the people who lived near ground zero of the Black Zero event,who came the closest to being wiped off the face of the Planet first,would want to honor the guy who stopped that. Besides,it wasn't solely a tribute to Superman. It was a memorial to the victims and the military,police,etc who died that day. It was called "Heroes park". It would make sense that Metropolis' resident hero figure would be the symbolic focal point of such a monument.

This was one of the details that I really liked in the movie. I like that the park was dedicated to both Superman and the people of Metropolis who lost their lives. It helped reinforce the idea from MOS that Superman wanted to work with regular people. It honored everyone who faced the invasion and was very inclusive.

LOTR and BvS got me thinking about why one felt more hopeful to me than the other. It comes back to the visuals. In the moments of LOTR where the forces of good rally and overcome the odds, visually things get brighter. Sometimes blinding bright. We literally see the darkness being cast out. With BvS, the visuals stay dark the entire time, regardless of what happens on the screen. Even Superman's heroic moments are visually dark. That dark feeling overrides the inspirational moments of the film. So while good things do happen in BvS, they still don't feel good in a visual sense. Lighting and color theory are basic hallmarks of any visual medium. I think they were way off the mark for this film. Which is why many reviews, both good and bad, have used the term "joyless". No matter what's going on, the movie is bleak looking.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I feel bad that Suicide Squad is getting bad reviews and they reacted to the Internet and critics. Despite my complaints, I want the creators to make their movie and second guessing for audiences sounds like the wrong move. Parts I loved of Batman V Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, Supermans feats, Batman's nightmares, especially the Red Son dream, the Batman Superman fight, and the big Doomsday battle. I love the Flash cameo. I like the scale of the ideas, and the maturity of the vision. The TV Universe can be for kids. Snyder's DC can be brutal. I want better dialogue, everyones big speech doesn't work. I think MOS might be the better film but Batman V Supermsn has more cool stuff. The new Justice League trailer looks great and Wonder Woman's was amazing. I bet even Suicide Squad is good enough, not that bad? I have no clue what will happen with Snyder's Superman. I keep imagining Kingdom Come but with New Gods?

[666MasterOfPuppets]

I think that sometimes the problem is that people and even filmmakers pay too much attention to "critics". Look at BvS: it may not have made the money WB wanted, but it made A TON of money nonetheless. And Snyder and Co. pulled that off even though critics utterly destroyed the movie, basically because it wasn't Marvel (you know it's true: critics and even some fans went in with Marvel in mind. This is not Marvel). I mean, some complaints are, IMO, totally unfounded (but that's just me). And this movie could have made more money if it wasn't for critics and some viewers failing to understand what the movie was about.

As for Superman, my guess is that he WILL eventually get his standalone sequel. In the meantime, MOS established his origin and BvS evaluated his impact on the world. Hell, the entire movie revolved around Superman (and rightfully so). JL will hopefully continue the trend while giving the other characters their time to shine, until their solo movies arrive.

[manofsteel1979]

I think that sometimes the problem is that people and even filmmakers pay too much attention to "critics". Look at BvS: it may not have made the money WB wanted, but it made A TON of money nonetheless. And Snyder and Co. pulled that off even though critics utterly destroyed the movie, basically because it wasn't Marvel (you know it's true: critics and even some fans went in with Marvel in mind. This is not Marvel). I mean, some complaints are, IMO, totally unfounded (but that's just me). And this movie could have made more money if it wasn't for critics and some viewers failing to understand what the movie was about.

As for Superman, my guess is that he WILL eventually get his standalone sequel. In the meantime, MOS established his origin and BvS evaluated his impact on the world. Hell, the entire movie revolved around Superman (and rightfully so). JL will hopefully continue the trend while giving the other characters their time to shine, until their solo movies arrive.

Actually if Suicide Squad was getting glowing reviews,id be more worried,because honestly, that likely would have meant they dumbed things down to make the "DC MUST DO THINGZ LIKE MARVEL" acolytes happy. I'm suspicious of critics towards these movies now,especially given the over blown, near orgasmic praise for what was merely an OK movie, namely CA: CIVIL WAR. and all the endless reviews taking pop shots at BvS while saying "THIS is how you make a Superhero vs. movie!". Not that CA: Civil War was a bad movie. It just wasn't deserving of the universal praise it got in comparison to BvS, which now looking back, was just many critics way to get an extra pound of flesh from BvS. So, when I see Critics saying how terrible Suicide Squad is, I'm skeptical until I've seen it myself.

Let's put things in perspective. BvS made 870 million dollars. It's a smash hit on Blu Ray, and yet people seem to insist it was some sort of abomination and flop that makes BATMAN AND ROBIN's failure in 1997 pale in comparison. Yes, I've seen that assertion made online. Everyone is focusing on "OMG IT DIDN"T EVEN MAKE A BILLION DOLLARS!!!!" and ignoring the fact it made 870 million dollars. If that's a failure, I'd like to fail like that. Send me some of that failure now, please. Odds are if it did cross the Billion threshold, I am willing to bet money that suddenly the "magical number" that would have suddenly gone to a billion and a half, and people right now would still be trying to categorize BvS as a dumpster fire that makes the Superman Return fiasco look small.

Let's also mention too that Batman Begins, which is concidered a classic 11 years later and was supposedly a smash hit? Only 374 million WORLDWIDE on a production budget of 150 million. I guess that movie was some ungodly fiasco too, right?

There is unquestionably an agenda among the critics. Which is why I hope WB, while learning some lessons and making some adjustments along the way, don't sacrifice the vision they have for the sake of to satisfying the same critics that give utter tripe like THOR: THE DARK WORLD a "Fresh" rating. Stop trying to chase the gross expectations of box office watchers, many of whom WANT the DCEU to fail and make the movies they want to make in the way they want to make them.

The critics in 1980 SAVAGED the EMPIRE STRIKES BACK.

In 2016 it is considered a masterpiece.

Eventually actual quality will win the day. Not just the fight now.

[daBronzeBomma]

Just bought and watched BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE - THE ULTIMATE EDITION on blu-ray.

The Ultimate Edition is an improvement on the theatrical version, in that it does explain that whole African fiasco much better.

But, as a Superman fan, it still disappoints. Superman definitely took a back-seat to Batman in terms of development, point-blank LOST a fight that was stacked against him from the start (Luthor is the one person who should NEVER figure out Superman's ID, Superman should always know about kryptonite before Batman does), and then was reduced to begging an enraged Batman (who is about to murder him) to save Martha. He had to rely on Lois Lane to save him from the all-powerful Batgod's fury.

And the end of the movie basically justified the worst put-down Batman ever gave to Superman:



So now even movie-goers will have it in their heads that Superman has to frickin' DIE to actually inspire people. Great message, WB/DC. Keep pooping on Kal.

I'm going to go watch CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR as soon as I can. Everyone I know who saw it praised it ... and I have a feeling Marvel's Boy Scout got treated a lot better against it's Playboy Billionaire, regardless of the outcome of that fight.

[Kid A]

Watched the extended cut of this yesterday (and never saw the theater version). Verdict: not shit.

Jesse Eisenberg's Luthor is probably the worst villain in the history of cinema. This dude is definitely getting that razzie. Otherwise, the movie's problems are what you would expect of Snyder. The pacing is awful, and there was no reason for any version of this movie to be this long. The plot is good in the broad strokes, but the logic and motivations that link the flow of everything feel too flimsy and needed to be better developed. The themes are really interesting, but Snyder doesn't cut deep enough into it. Otherwise, it does play up to his strengths. The Batman-Superman fight is cool, as is the fight with Doomsday at the end. Affleck does a good job. Batman has always had fascist overtones and been an inherently right-wing character (see the Nolan movies), so just going full Miller and making him an angry fascist psycho works as a foil to Superman. Visually it's a great experience.

So yeah, could have been much better, but I was expecting so much worse based on the reviews.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Actually if Suicide Squad was getting glowing reviews,id be more worried,because honestly, that likely would have meant they dumbed things down to make the "DC MUST DO THINGZ LIKE MARVEL" acolytes happy. I'm suspicious of critics towards these movies now,especially given the over blown, near orgasmic praise for what was merely an OK movie, namely CA: CIVIL WAR. and all the endless reviews taking pop shots at BvS while saying "THIS is how you make a Superhero vs. movie!". Not that CA: Civil War was a bad movie. It just wasn't deserving of the universal praise it got in comparison to BvS, which now looking back, was just many critics way to get an extra pound of flesh from BvS. So, when I see Critics saying how terrible Suicide Squad is, I'm skeptical until I've seen it myself.

I wholeheartedly agree. I liked Civil War, but by no means is it a better movie than BvS, IMO. Batman v Superman is the far superior movie.

Let's put things in perspective. BvS made 870 million dollars. It's a smash hit on Blu Ray, and yet people seem to insist it was some sort of abomination and flop that makes BATMAN AND ROBIN's failure in 1997 pale in comparison. Yes, I've seen that assertion made online. Everyone is focusing on "OMG IT DIDN"T EVEN MAKE A BILLION DOLLARS!!!!" and ignoring the fact it made 870 million dollars. If that's a failure, I'd like to fail like that. Send me some of that failure now, please. Odds are if it did cross the Billion threshold, I am willing to bet money that suddenly the "magical number" that would have suddenly gone to a billion and a half, and people right now would still be trying to categorize BvS as a dumpster fire that makes the Superman Return fiasco look small.

Let's also mention too that Batman Begins, which is concidered a classic 11 years later and was supposedly a smash hit? Only 374 million WORLDWIDE on a production budget of 150 million. I guess that movie was some ungodly fiasco too, right?

EXACTLY. I remember Bryan Singer answering to the claims that SR was a failure. He said "but that movie made 470 million (or something like that)! But I don't know how much money is enough these days", or something along those lines. Superman Returns (I love that movie, not as much as MOS, but I love it nonetheless) made that amount of cash on a 150 million budget. It even made more money thatn Batman Begins, but still it was considered a failure, thus halting the plans for the sequel (BTW, if anyone here thinks that BvS was "too dark", please find on the net and give a read to the Superman Returns sequel pitch. Now THAT is DARK).

There is unquestionably an agenda among the critics. Which is why I hope WB, while learning some lessons and making some adjustments along the way, don't sacrifice the vision they have for the sake of to satisfying the same critics that give utter tripe like THOR: THE DARK WORLD a "Fresh" rating. Stop trying to chase the gross expectations of box office watchers, many of whom WANT the DCEU to fail and make the movies they want to make in the way they want to make them.

The critics in 1980 SAVAGED the EMPIRE STRIKES BACK.

In 2016 it is considered a masterpiece.

Eventually actual quality will win the day. Not just the fight now.

ABSOLUTELY. I've noticed that "trend" for a while now, and coincidentally I was talking about that issue at my job the other day. It's some sort of agenda where, like you said, the objective is to make the DCEU fail. Superman Returns, Man Of Steel, Batman v Superman and now Suicide Squad (which I haven't watched yet) all got mixed reviews at best, while the Marvel movies (great examples you used there with Dark World and Civil War, because none of them are *that* good) are ALL "certified fresh" (Rotten Tomatoes can go to hell with their "certifications". They have proven that they are worthless) and/or "masterpieces". There's no dissension there.

Give me a freaking break.

And we're on the same page here: I just hope WB/DC stick to their guns and stay true to their original vision. And I'm hopeful about this, because the words of Chris Terrio came to mind when I read your comment: He said that BvS was the "Empire Strikes Back" of the trilogy that started with MOS and will end with Justice League. So, the brighter tone JL will get was already set from the start.

Hell, I still fail to understand why a movie that made 870 million worldwide is a "failure".

[ekrolo2]

Just bought and watched BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE - THE ULTIMATE EDITION on blu-ray.

The Ultimate Edition is an improvement on the theatrical version, in that it does explain that whole African fiasco much better.

But, as a Superman fan, it still disappoints. Superman definitely took a back-seat to Batman in terms of development, point-blank LOST a fight that was stacked against him from the start (Luthor is the one person who should NEVER figure out Superman's ID, Superman should always know about kryptonite before Batman does), and then was reduced to begging an enraged Batman (who is about to murder him) to save Martha. He had to rely on Lois Lane to save him from the all-powerful Batgod's fury.

And the end of the movie basically justified the worst put-down Batman ever gave to Superman:



So now even movie-goers will have it in their heads that Superman has to frickin' DIE to actually inspire people. Great message, WB/DC. Keep pooping on Kal.

I'm going to go watch CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR as soon as I can. Everyone I know who saw it praised it ... and I have a feeling Marvel's Boy Scout got treated a lot better against it's Playboy Billionaire, regardless of the outcome of that fight.

Cap was turned into a manipulative, moronic and self-righteous dick head so I wouldn't hold my breath on enjoying Civil Wars take on Marvel's Boy Scout. I thoroughly hate him after that movie.

[misslane]

Just bought and watched BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE - THE ULTIMATE EDITION on blu-ray.

The Ultimate Edition is an improvement on the theatrical version, in that it does explain that whole African fiasco much better.

But, as a Superman fan, it still disappoints. Superman definitely took a back-seat to Batman in terms of development, point-blank LOST a fight that was stacked against him from the start (Luthor is the one person who should NEVER figure out Superman's ID, Superman should always know about kryptonite before Batman does), and then was reduced to begging an enraged Batman (who is about to murder him) to save Martha. He had to rely on Lois Lane to save him from the all-powerful Batgod's fury.

And the end of the movie basically justified the worst put-down Batman ever gave to Superman:



So now even movie-goers will have it in their heads that Superman has to frickin' DIE to actually inspire people. Great message, WB/DC. Keep pooping on Kal.

I'm going to go watch CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR as soon as I can. Everyone I know who saw it praised it ... and I have a feeling Marvel's Boy Scout got treated a lot better against it's Playboy Billionaire, regardless of the outcome of that fight.

All wrong. Superman didn't have to die to inspire people. The movie makes it quite clear that he already had inspired loads of people. There was a statue honoring him in Metropolis, people basically worshiping him in communities where houses went up in flames on the Day of the Dead, and people looking to him with hope in a flooded out area in another part of the world. Superman had inspired people. It's why Lois is able to say that the symbol on his chest already meant something to people: it gave them hope. The difference between before and after death isn't about inspiration so much as perception. Before he died, Superman inspired as a god like figure and a savior. Dying humanized him. It's also important to note that Superman's inspirational affect was on the people before his death. The affect of his death, conversely, was important to the people in positions of power.

Superman losing a fight against a Batman who only succeeds because he actually wants to fight, while Superman is being himself and wants to avoid fighting and save his mother, and a Batman whose motivation is murder with Kryptonite as a murder weapon isn't a victory I, or any Superman fan, should want for Superman. You mention Lois' role in saving Superman as if it's disgusting for Superman to need help, and even worse from a woman or girlfriend. You also missed the point. Lois doing it is what makes it work. It recreates the night that Thomas and Martha Wayne were murdered and, therefore, places Bruce in the position of the man who killed his parents. Yet, in this scenario, you actually feel it's Superman that comes off poorly? All of your "shoulds" are useless considering there is no rule book for this. Evaluate the story based on what it is and not what you think it should be.

Your assessments seem to largely rest on shallow score keeping instead of a deeper appreciation for story and character. What a shame.