Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Justice League

Ben Affleck says some 'Batman v Superman' criticism was "fair", promises 'Justice League' is lighter

By

·

October 5, 2017

Batman v Superman was disliked for many reasons by critics, but one thing that they all seemed to keep bringing up was the movie's dark tone. In a new interview with Empire Magazine, Ben Affleck addressed the criticism saying that some of it was "fair".

“I can understand people saying [Batman v Superman] was too dark, or this was outside the tone of what I’m used to seeing with a Batman story, and I think that’s a fair criticism,” Affleck said.

Affleck then reiterated what Justice League writer Chris Terrio said last year before Batman v Superman even came out, that Justice League would be a bit lighter. “Zack [Snyder] wanted to make a movie that was more fun, that was a little bit light, that wasn’t so encumbered with heavy melodrama,” he said.

Gal Gadot also chimed in, adding "Justice League is not a dark or heavy movie. It doesn't have the weight that Batman v Superman had."

Are you looking forward to a lighter, more fun movie with Justice League? Or would you prefer a tone that's more consistent with what we saw in Batman v Superman? Let me know in the comments below.

SOURCE: Empire Magazine (November 2017)

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com

563 comments

IamTheOneWhoKnocks
October 5, 2017
It wasn’t the dark tone, but the story telling and editing was poorly done. I did not feel the highs and lows of the movie, it was consistently flat. The blue ray felt more complete and I thoroughly enjoyed that version a lot more.
1. Blockhead Jr.
  October 5, 2017
  Your opinion is the only one that matters. 😂😂
  1. coffeesodabeer
    October 5, 2017
    You could have the "broken" characterizations if the movie made the time to explain them. As it was you had to figure that out as you went along - and that is saying something as the movie needed the UE's 3 hour cut to even make logical plot sense. What was the rest of the movie about? Oh yeah, setting up Justice League. The ideas were fine, the execution was bad.
    1. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
      October 5, 2017
      That to me was the "main" issue. BvS was a springboard to Justice League, big mistake. Batman and Superman are just too big of characters to use them as a set up for the franchise. Superman's hatred for Batman felt out of place with no rhyme or reason to it. Batman's, well we saw in the opening scene, but they needed to delve more into his past than just dialogue for the general audience to understand. Hence, the fight felt like it had no weight to it at all. Thus, I hope they understand the difference between a dark tone and good storytelling in a movie. If you have light without good storytelling, then you have campy, and if you have dark without good storytelling, then you have what we got in BvS.
  2. Hunter Zolomon
    October 5, 2017
    Yeah people forget that it seems Gordon is ok with Bats killing and branding people in the DCEU. A major reason GCPD leave Bats to do his thing and turn a blind eye to the stuff he does is because he doesn't kill, the moment he starts going that far Gordon and the GCPD would go after him. People on here have said Simmons version is the best so far (based on what a trailer shot?) and i'm sure Simmons will be amazing as always but the fact is he isn't the best because he lets Batman kill, Oldman's Gordon would have gone after Bale's Bats if he starting killing like Affleck does and that alone puts him above Simmon's version.
2. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
  October 5, 2017
  Yeah, this was movie that definitely needed build up with prior movies. Well, what's done is done, they can just move forward from here.
  1. Unn
    October 5, 2017
    its a superman movie
3. Hunter Zolomon
  October 5, 2017
  It also didn't help that i think WB were forcing a Batman Vs Superman battle (because they have been wanting that since the 90's) and that Snyder wanted to adapt The Dark Knight Returns Bats Vs Supes fight. Problem with that of course is that fight only works because the two of them in the story had a ton of history and friendship, there's also a pretty good reason hy they fight while in BvS they have no history and the reasons for them fighting are just poor and dumb and make both Bruce and Clark seem stupid and easily led by Luther.
  1. akt.nation
    October 5, 2017
    I don't share the same opinions as you for the most part, Legend. In fact, I'm nearly 100% opposite of you in your thoughts on these 2 DC Films (MoS, BvS). However! I just wanted to say, after reading your comments for months -- if not years -- now, I always, respect how you post here.
    Some people call you a troll. That's untrue. You're definitely not a troll. You're just very engaged in the characters and you really care about these comics. And so you post a lot about what you care about. And when you do, it's always something intellectual. Kudos to you, mate.
    I will say, however, this is one thing I agree with you the most, and it is my biggest criticism of BvS. They forced Batman and Superman out of their normally portrayed character just to make a film. And that is what hurt the film the most. All other problems, I'd say, stem directly from that one thing.
WhitnAle01
October 5, 2017
Personally, I liked the tone that was taken in Batman v Superman, but I really want to see more movies like Man of Steel. Man of Steel was the perfect Superman movie for me, I was really invested in the story, it was dark like DC should be, it had some, very little moments of comedy, but it was a darker, more realistic story, and I enjoyed that. If you take that formula, and put some more comedy relief in there, that would be the movie I want to see, and that's the direction I want Justice League to go.
Les Grossman
October 5, 2017
The theatrical cut was a mess, but it still had a lot of great moments. UE however, a masterpiece. My only complaint is the most infamous scene, I understand what it stands for and what it is meant to do but it was executed too damn poorly. I hope the Batman's solo outing will be dark as well, making it lighter would be a mistake, an ensemble movie like this needs to have a bit of both.
Drake Grayson
October 5, 2017
I loved the dark nature of BvS and thought it was a great representation of the tone you would need for a movie in which the two most iconic superheroes battle against each other. Zack is an adult comic book fan and has made his films specifically for that crowd and I love him for that. Making Justice League lighter and more fun makes perfect sense because of the new team members being introduced. I might not agree with all the story decisions made thus far, but the tones have all been on point in my opinion.
1. Robin Bankes
  October 5, 2017
  Agreed. It makes sense that a movie about struggling and broken heroes was dark, bleak and moody, it also makes sense that the follow-up film with the same characters that are reinvigorated with hope and inspired has a lighter tone than its predecessor.
  1. Drake Grayson
    October 5, 2017
    Exactly. You hit it on the nose. Personally, I would have saved the confrontation of the two characters and Death of Superman for end of DC films... BUT with what they were going for and what WB wanted from Snyder, I can totally understand using the 45 year old weathered, beaten down by tragedy Bruce who almost becomes the very same villain who turned him into Batman in the first place... and now after his epiphany coupled with weird nightmares and heroes visiting him from future, he recognizes need for teammates and the feeling of Hope you mentioned, which Zack first established in MoS with Superman in his talk with Jor-El.
    1. Rust
      October 5, 2017
      To me, having Batman and Superman duke it out later on (as in The Dark Knight Returns) never made any sense. The bond they've established by that point should logically be absolute, and you have to bend Superman very out of character to create that scenario.
      It makes much more sense to settle out their differences before they get to know each other, because once they do know each other, it's nothing but complete respect.
      BvS handled the concept more sensibly, I feel. Batman being at this point in his career and suffering is the perfect catalyst for a conflict, and that still only works if he can't trust Superman yet.
      1. Drake Grayson
        October 5, 2017
        I hear ya. I probably wouldn't have done it at all and opted for more of a World's Finest type of story like the animated Superman show gave us in the 90's. And I said in my response above that I thought it worked for what they were going for in BvS. It was essentially a bridging movie from MoS to JL with a heavyweight battle set before the climax.... Frank Miller's DKR helped define Batman despite being set in the future of Bruce and Clark's relationship. Time and ideological differences led to the battle between past teammates. It definitely made sense within the context of his narrative, but again, I wouldn't have gone that route at all. BvS is still my favorite live action Batman movie for the most accurate representations of Bruce, Alfred and Diana by non cartoon versions.
Spencer Jacobson
October 5, 2017
The tone would have been fine with even DECENT writing... and better acting from a few key players.
1. Jack
  October 5, 2017
  Ben did the best he could with lines like "WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME!?!?!?!""
mr nobody
October 5, 2017
Tone wasn't the problem. It was the stupid plot and misrepresentation of the characters what made this movie blow. If they didn't understand that then JL will suffer from the same things
1. Mark
  October 5, 2017
  "Middle-aged man, already getting burnt-out and wondering if his life's work was even worth it, is suddenly forced to confront something that makes his entire existence seem paltry and wasted" is hardly a stupid plot.
  The Passion story from the Gospels is hardly a stupid plot.
  Man being goaded by Satan into deicide is hardly a stupid plot.
  1. BugsMeany
    October 5, 2017
    Faked killings in Africa as a convoluted means of getting Superman in the Capitol building so that it can be blown up (after a callback involving a urine jar) to make people hate Superman, but cutting a detail that would exonerate him—that’s stupid.
  2. mr nobody
    October 5, 2017
    It is when that middle aged is Bruce Wayne, the greatest detective in the world and he can't figure out wether or not Superman is evil. "Hey, in my dream Superman was evil so I'm just gonna kill him irl because I just kill everyone now"
    lololol "forced to confront"he wasn't forced, people actually tried to stop him. Superman and Alfred
    It is stupid when Luthor creates an uncontrollable superpowered creature to destroy the self controlled, noble creature he fears cause he's a pussy.
    It is stupid when your second movie in the entire universe contains two of the mosy iconic storylines of the characters in the latest years.
    +what BugsMeany said.
    Listen, symbolisms are ok and whatever but that doesn't make a movie good. A movie s good when the actions of the characters make sense and things happen because are plot driven, not because they are cool like flash's vision, like the knightmare vision...
    Don't be offended because the movie is bad. You didn't make it so what do you care. I'm envious you liked it but when you have minimal common sense you can tell this movie is idiotic
    The Passion story from the Gospels
    Man being goaded by Satan into deicide are themes, not plots, you dummy
    1. BugsMeany
      October 5, 2017
      Great points, especially the one at the end. Loving BvS, and that Snyder is back for JL, would be a happier existence. I envy its fans.
2. mr nobody
  October 5, 2017
  Most of the comics I've read, most of the shows I've seen, the video games I've played, the animated movies I've seen have a similar take on who Batman is and what he does. This was very different and I would've appreciated more one that I was familiar with. I'm open to new takes but this one wasn't good for me. You liked it, good for you. What's your fucking problem? You either discuss with an open mind or you gtfo
  1. NinjaGamer13
    October 5, 2017
    All you gotta do is read the comic that inspired this move: The Dark Knight Returns. Take that Batman and put him in this realistic, post-MoS world. More or less, the result is Batfleck.
    1. mr nobody
      October 5, 2017
      https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
      1. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Batfleck didn't use a firearm either
      2. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Except the Batmobile and Batwing having lethal bullets what Batfleck used to kill people. Returns Batman used Rubber Bullets what hurt like hell but don't kill.
      3. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Did Batfleck really kill any more people with his vehicles than Michael Keaton did (torched a guy with the jet engine)? Christian Bale (dropped mines that wrecked some police cars in the chase scene)? Kevin Conroy in Arkham Knight (constantly smashing thug's vehicles and shooting missiles at them and such)?
        And where were your complaints about the deadly weaponry with Michael Keaton's Batmobile, Christian Bale's Tumbler, and the Batmobile from Arkham Knight?
      4. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        I'm just going to repeat this response again.
        Bale had weapons but never used them to kill, Keaton killing has widely been
        criticized and the Batmobile in AK has rubber bullets for thugs with
        rockets only used on unmanned Drones or tank things Deathstoke and AK
        drive where the rockets wouldn't kill them.
        I would also add when i said Returns Bat i meant the TDR Batman not Batman Returns Keaton Batman.
      5. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        It's ambiguous, actually.
        Bale flips POLICE (not even criminals) cars with explosives during a chase, blows up the entire League of Shadows dojo with a single branding iron, "doesn't save" Ra's, pushes Two-Face off a building, kills Talia...
        Yet he is remembered fondly. Not constantly berated like Batfleck...
        The Batmobile in AK uses immobilizer missiles to blow up manned cars, smashes through cars all the time, etc.
        None of them are held guilty, though, whether they killed anyone or not. Batfleck deserves the same benefit of the doubt.
      6. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        https://uploads.disquscdn.c... https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
      7. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        You do realize that is a scene taken - shot for shot - directly from TDKR, right? Thanks for proving my point.
        Where were your complaints about the deadly weaponry with Michael Keaton's Batmobile, Christian Bale's Tumbler, and the Batmobile from Arkham Knight?
      8. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        In the comics he never killed the guy though despite what Snyder thinks. Bale had weapons but never used them to kill, Keaton killing has widely been criticized and the Batmobile in AK has rubber bullets for thugs with rockets only used on unmanned Drones or tank things Deathstoke and AK drive where the rockets wouldn't kill them.
      9. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        It's ambiguous, actually.
        Bale flips POLICE (not even criminals) cars with explosives during a chase, blows up the entire League of Shadows dojo with a single branding iron, "doesn't save" Ra's, pushes Two-Face off a building, kills Talia...
        Yet he is remembered fondly. Not constantly berated like Batfleck...
        The Batmobile in AK uses immobilizer missiles to blow up manned cars, smashes through cars all the time, etc.
      10. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Bale never kills cops, he takes out the cars but never kills them otherwise Gordon, the GCPD and Mayor who already don't trust him would have brought that up. He blows up the League sure and people die yes but he never intended to kill only escape, man slaughter yes but not murder. The Ra's thing is hard, he never kills him direct but he leaves him to die, one could argue how could he save him? as Bat himself has to glide out so he couldn't off saved him anyway. No he doesn't push Harvey of the roof on purpose, he pushes him away to save the life of the child and they all go over, he never intended to kill or even harm Harvey then and was only focused on saving a child, self-defence that would be not murder or even man slaughter. Talia again was not intended, she had a nuke about to go off and he needed to stop her it was just when he did it caused a crash what killed her.
      11. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Don't get me wrong; I'm not accusing Baleman. But do you see the picture now? Take a look at your comment right there. Now compare it to every BvS fan comment defending and explaining BvS. It's all the same.
      12. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Alfred mentions the day after the car chase that Bruce is lucky no one got killed. But really, if you blow up police cars, the assumption would be that they're dead. But we give him the benefit of the doubt, because that's what the story asks us to do. And that's fair.
        But now treat Batfleck the same way. Or else you're being inconsistent. If Baleman can blow up buildings and police cars and push people off roofs and we say it's fine, then Batfleck can smash a car or two. Heck, Arkham Knight Batman smashes cars like crazy, but we even get to see the criminals run out of them afterward. That's just the nature of the beast - realistic or not.
      13. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        I would say Bats would be completely justified even in his (complicated) no-kill rule intentionally throwing Two-Face off the building (which we really don't know either way if it was intentional or not).
        And even thought he DEFINITELY could save Ra's, I would say leaving him was fair.
      14. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        He crashed Talia's car. Normally a crashed car someone would survive in Batman's world, as I have established, but if you're not holding him guilty of that, you DEFINITELY can't hold Batfleck guilty
      15. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        But Bale never aims or intends to kill while Batfleck intends very clearly to kill, thats the difference here. Bale's kills are indirect and never intended, he never murders anyone while Batfleck does. Yeah he crashes her car because she has a fucking live nuke about to go off, he never intended for her to die in the crash and never murders her.
      16. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        I would argue Batfleck's are indirect, so where do you get the idea he intends to kill any more than Bale?
      17. Hunter Zolomon
        October 6, 2017
        For starters he chose machine gun rounds to destroy the trucks and cars, you wouldn't choose those unless you wanted kill, he brands knowing thats a death sentence (what Luther takes adavantage off in the UE), he kicks a grenade at two thugs knowing what that will do, theres the "i believe you" bit and he plans to murder Superman what he would have done if Supes never shouted "MARTHA!!!!". All of those except maybe the "I believe you" bit are classed as murder. Bale's kills would all be classed as manslaughter with maybe the Ra's one being murder although as i've said he couldn't him even he tried because Bats had seconds to escape and he could only glide out so how could he save him?
      18. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        Where were you when I did complain about that? Because I obviously did
      19. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        So you hate on TDKR as much as you hate on BvS?
      20. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        Yeah, I don't like too much either. But at least its plot makes sense. BvS is a clusterfuck of ideas
      21. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        BvS makes sense if you pay attention and quit WANTING to hate it.
      22. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Also, dude, TDK Trilogy are great movies. TDKR is a legendary comic. Get your act together.
      23. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        lol doesn't mean I can't dislike them. I'm not saying they are bad, I'm saying I don't like them. BvS on the other hand... that is bad. Technically it was bad. Any film maker, film student and film fan knows the errors in BvS
      24. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Nah man, sorry
      25. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        It is though, from a film making view the film is highly flawed. If it wasn't then why was it highly panned by critics then and top critics at that including top film makers and even its own cast (you should hear what Irons thinks about the film)?
      26. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        It isn't. If it was, then why was it praised by some critics, including film makers and its own cast (you should hear what Diane Lane thinks)?
      27. Hunter Zolomon
        October 6, 2017
        Only 27% of critics liked it and only 63% of the audience liked it (thats pretty low for audiences) according to RT. Mulitple top film makers have said they weren't impressed, Jeremy Irons a cast member has been pretty honest that he wasn't impressed and Affleck has implied in the past he wasn't a huge fan what this article implies even more
      28. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        Space Odyssey.
        The general audience numbers weren’t far from the average of every Marvel up to that point when BvS came out, especially in the beginning, before the critics started really swaying public opinion. And regardless, either way not only a majority, but MOST people liked it, so you’re not helpin yourself with that number.
        Multiple top film makers have said they WERE impressed, too.
        Multiple cast members have been pretty honest that they were impressed, too.
        See, pointless.
        But in the end, I don’t care so much about what all those other people think. I just care about what IS.
      29. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        Furthermore, why were 2001: A Space Odyssey and many other now highly celebrated films initially disliked by critics?
      30. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        (And all those movies I mentioned)
      31. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        If so, lighten up. That's part of the DNA of the Batmobile at this point. Doesn't make Batman a killer.
      32. Bob Burger
        October 5, 2017
        Batman killed tho......that makes him a killer....
      33. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        He's killed in the comics, too. Batman's no-kill rule is not as simple as some would like to think at times. It is a complex and rich thing to study.
      34. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Batman killed in the Golden Age but that doesn't count because everything was different then like Superman not flying or being anywhere near the power levels he later becomes. Silver Age, Bronze Age, Post Crisis and N52 Batman never really killed though unless you count Darkseid but then that hardly counts because Darkseid at that point was killing the Multiverse and kinda needed to be stopped, any other time usually has a plot reason behind like The Cult. Really the main times Bats kills is Golden Age, Keaton's Batman, Darkseid or Elseworld stories.
      35. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Darkseid totally counts. It adds to the complexity of his "no-kill" rule. He will if he NEEDS to. KGBeast was locked up to starve, so I thought it was fair to use the same character to die in BvS, plus by using that ambiguous scene from TDKR.
      36. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Darkseid doesn't count because of the context of Final Crisis, Darkseid was dying anyway but it had to be another other way his death so they could save the Multiverse, i've actually just finished reading Final Crisis this past weekend so the story is fresh in my mind. As for KGBeast well i've just read up on that and Bats later on told police where he was so no Bats didn't kill him and KGBeast never died, also the BvS version is KGBeast in name only as the comic version is highly dangerous, fucking huge and can rival Batman in fighting skills wheres the BvS was shit, i didn't even know it was him until in the credits because he was nothing like him.
      37. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        See, now we're delving into the grey areas. This is what I'm talking about - complicated. Just like with Ra's in BB and Two-Face in TDK, etc.
        That was a total retcon.
        It doesn't matter if Anatoli in BvS was like how he is in the comics - it's still him.
      38. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        I wouldn't say Nolan's Batman was a killer. Or Arkham Knight's. Or BvS'.
      39. Bob Burger
        October 5, 2017
        Nolan's Batman did kill except it was accidental (forgot the legal term for it). He didn't intend to kill but he was the causation of killing said victims.
        I don't know much about Arkham Knight Batman.
        But Batfleck was a straight up killer.
      40. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Manslaughter? So do you hold him guilty as a killer, though? Do you hate on him and think he's not Batman? 'Cause I think that's a bit unfair, especially considering the story of those movies overall is so phenomenal and true to the spirit of the comics.
        The only case where Batfleck actually definitely killed someone was with KGBeast. Though that was still indirect. And it was directly paralleling two different comics and it was necessary to save Martha's life and he's the brutal TDKR Batman, so it's more than fair.
      41. Bob Burger
        October 5, 2017
        He's technically killed people. He would be held guilty as a killer in real life. I don't hate his Batman only because the overall films were made so well that the benefits heavily outweighed its problems.
        Batfleck killed people when in the Batmobile. He shot and ran over people with his Batmobile. He's a straight up killer.
      42. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Bale never intended or went out to kill but yeah Batfleck is full blown murderer.
      43. Bob Burger
        October 5, 2017
        Yeah man, that's what I'm trying to say. I forgot the legal term for it so I just call it, "accidental murder" lol.
      44. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Manslaughter?
      45. Bob Burger
        October 5, 2017
        Yeah it's involuntary manslaughter. Before writing up, "accidental murder" I assumed it was manslaughter too, then I looked for a definition for that and it said, "with intent to kill" so I assumed I was wrong.
        But checking my history and choosing that page again I just read the murder section part.
        Can't believe I wasn't sure that it was manslaughter lmao. Considering that I aced all my legal tests in school lol.
      46. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        He never ran over anyone. He smashed and shot up vehicles. Just like Baleman did (to cops, even, AND to Talia - though only Talia was said to have died from it). In Arkham Knight, the Batmobile also smashes up criminals' cars and shoots missiles at them, yet they always survive. Batfleck deserves the same benefit of the doubt.
      47. Bob Burger
        October 6, 2017
        The cops in the Nolan trilogy have a much higher chance of survival rate than do the guys getting their car shot up by multiple bullets, then rolling on the ground, tumbling around for a good 6 metres or so then eventually bursting into flames and being bulldozed straight through by an advanced Bat vehicle.
        There is no way those guys survived in that Batfleck chase.
      48. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        I would say there is no way the cops survived their cars being flipped over by literal bombs or the criminals joyriding in Arkham Knight survived the Batmobile immobilizing them with missiles and they ripping through them, either, yet they all lived. Lesson is, in superhero movies, assumed deaths don’t count.
        But either way, the movie goes to lengths to show that Batfleck is not a “killer.” He does not actively seek out criminals and say “I’m gonna kill this guy.” He, just like Nolan’s Batman, simply sometimes “doesn’t save” or unintentionally or indirectly kills people; it’s just that, UNlike Nolan’s Batman, he is further in his career, more hardened and jaded than ever, and more brutal, so, as a result, those “manslaughter” type things might happen more often around him than they used to, but he doesn’t care too much anymore. And obviously, his whole character arc is that he realizes that was wrong of him and he changes for the better. So yeah.
      49. Bob Burger
        October 6, 2017
        Different worlds, different universe's, different scenarios, different outcomes.
        Nolan's cops that he flipped over have a much higher percentage of surviving.
        Batfleck is a full blown killer, he literally mowed down people in that batmobile chase.
      50. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        Um no. Nolan’s Batman flipped police cars, shot at trucks in the Bat, blew up dojos, threw Two-Face off a building, and “didn’t save” Ra’s. Arkham Knight Batmobile rips through criminals cars and blows them up. Yet none are called murderers. Batfleck does it, and he’s as bad as the Joker to you guys all the sudden. Different universes, yeah, but it’s the SAME thing. Assumed deaths are not fair to hold against Batman in any setting. But even so, these assumed deaths would technically be indirect still, just like TDK Trilogy’s.
        No he didn’t. He shot up CARS and destroyed them. He did not poke out of the Batmobile with a handgun and sharpshoot the men in the truck.
      51. Bob Burger
        October 7, 2017
        I already know that Nolan's Bat killed some dudes in that dojo. I'm specifically referring to when he flipped some cars over. They have a highly likely chance of surviving.
        He SHOT UP CARS AND BULLDOZED THEM WHICH HAD PEOPLE IN THEM WHICH BURST INTO FLAMES!!!! = DEAD PEOPLE. I can't take you seriously anymore.
      52. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        Flipping over cars with bombs is highly questionable, especially since they’re police cars.
        Arkham Knight Batmobile blows up cars and rips through them all the time, but the criminals always survive. It’s an assumed death, dude. It’s possible they’re horribly injured. When he ran through them, the guys were already gone.
      53. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Arkham Knight's Batman never once killed so why do you keep bringing that up, the Batmobile had non lethal rubber bullets for thugs and rockets for unmanned drones, if you ran someone over the Batmobile would let out a electric shot what knocked them out before the Batmobile even touched them. Hell the Arkham universe Batman never killed once, i've played those games all of them multiple times on different consoles and Gens and know them like the back of my hand so please don't try to challange me on them with this.
      54. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        That's exactly my point - they do things that would normally kill people, but aren't held guilty of killing. No electric shock happens when you smash a car or use a missile to blow it up at they're driving - yet they live. Baleman somehow doesn't kill the cops that he blew the cars up during the car chase, and isn't held guilty of his intentionally killing Ra's or Two-Face or blows up the dojo.
        So Batfleck deserves the same benefit of the doubt. If AK can smash a car to pieces and the passengers survive, so can he.
      55. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        If you run someone over a electric shock happens what knocks them out, you can't use rockets on manned cars only Drones, jesus christ do you want some footage proving this? Also if you destroy cars they jump out and survive so again Arkham Bat never kills.
      56. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        Dude, I 120%-ed the game. I know what I'm talking about. When you smash through a car, it just blows it up - no electric shock. And you DO shoot immobilizer missiles at manned vehicles during chases. In both cases, everyone somehow survives, every time. That's what I literally said.
      57. Hunter Zolomon
        October 6, 2017
        Yeah well i 240% the game and have played a 3rd time after that what doesn't even count me just exploring and dicking around so yeah i know it pretty well. Ok i accept you know the game (although when you run over someone yes a electric shock happens, a quick search of YT will show you that). Anyway as you yourself admitted they all survive, detective visions shows their alive so the fact is Arkham Batman never kills and never should have been brought up.
        The whole point here is Batfleck (and Keaton's Batman but i'm not going there at this time in the morning as i don't like that he kills either) murders, he cold blooded murders people and the film makes a point of showing and telling you they are dead. Does Bale and comic Bat have blood of their hands? Ok sure whatever but are they cold blooded murderers? No they are not and the films and comic make a point of showing that.
      58. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        This isn’t a competition lol, I’m just tying to show you I’m not speaking from complete ignorance. Good on you, though. I plan on playing again - I just haven’t gotten to it yet because I only very recently played it, as it took my waaaay later than everyone in the world to get an Xbox One lol. Loved the game to pieces overall, though.
        Yeah, I know about the running-over electroshock (which still confuses me how it supposedly makes all the momentum of the vehicle nonexistent but whatevs lol) , I just wasn’t talking about that.
        Right, they do all survive, and that’s my point: in Batman media, and really all superhero media, people go through stuff all the time that would normally kill them, but for the sake of a no-kill rule or what have you, they always survive. Assumed deaths can’t really ever count definitively; they must be explicitly confirmed if we are to give equal benefit of the doubt to the character in all media he appears in, including with BvS.
        Where does BvS make a point of showing and telling me Batman straight-up murders people in cold blood? Because I only see a lot of ambiguity. In fact, the movie goes to lengths to show that Batfleck is not a “killer.” He does not actively seek out criminals and say “I’m gonna kill this guy.” He, just like Nolan’s Batman, simply sometimes “doesn’t save” or unintentionally or indirectly kills people; it’s just that, UNlike Nolan’s Batman, he is further in his career, more hardened and jaded than ever, and more brutal, so, as a result, those “manslaughter” type things might happen more often around him than they used to, but he doesn’t care too much anymore. And obviously, his whole character arc is that he realizes that was wrong of him and he changes for the better. So yeah.
      59. Hunter Zolomon
        October 6, 2017
        "This isn’t a competition lol, I’m just tying to show you I’m not speaking from complete ignorance." Honestly i never intended for it to come out that way, i was trying to make a light joke but yeah sorry it came across as me being a ass (i typed that at 5am after all).
        I'm not going to continue to debate or argue because its going no where and we are both just repeating are ourselves. I thank you for not getting aggressive or other stuff and i will i say sorry if i came across as a asshole. So i'm just going to end it here.
      60. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        No problem, I’m sure I’ve done the exact same, and sorry if I did
        Well I think we had some good discussion. Thank you for that.
        I think we might’ve been going somewhere ;) But I respect that decision. I hope you keep an open mind about the movie and at least see some value in the opposing opinion enough to leave it be when it crops up, or handle it respectfully. Cheers
      61. Hunter Zolomon
        October 6, 2017
        Nice to end this on a good note.
      62. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        If Baleman can flip police cars with bombs and they survive, Batfleck can shoot up a truck
      63. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Difference in the Nolan films they survive wheres in BvS they make it clear they die, its really that simple.
      64. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        No, actually, in Nolan films they are said to survive (somehow), in the case of the cops, but are left ambiguous in the case of the dojo, and are outright killed in the case of Ra's, Two-Face, and Talia
      65. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Because it's complicated. Batman as a character is complicated.
      66. Bob Burger
        October 5, 2017
        ..........what?
    2. Hunter Zolomon
      October 5, 2017
      I read TDR again shortly after BvS (and again this year as its my favorite Batman story) and yeah TDR is not really like Batfleck, he doesn't kill, he inspires Gotham to better at their lowest, defeats Superman but never once tries to kill him, inspires the Mutants to be better people and help save Gotham and other more. Maybe you should read The Dark Knight Returns and actually i think Snyder should as well instend of just reading the Batman Vs Superman fight.
      1. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Again, TDKR Batman, but in THIS setting with THIS setup. So he'd inevitably be even more brutal. But at any rate, tell that to the ambiguous fate of the mutant holding the kid hostage. Related to that, shall we discuss Batman's locking KGBeast up to starve in a separate comic? Or heck, Christian Bale's "not saving" Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins?
        He didn't kill Superman, by the way. He almost did. But then he realized that he drifted from being Batman by doing that. That's the whole climax of his character development in the movie.
      2. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        "But at any rate, tell that to the ambiguous fate of the mutant holding the kid hostage" Read it please because he never kills him, Miller has said himself he never killed in TDR and he wrote the comic so his word means more then anything you think or Snyder thinks on that bit.
      3. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        I would love to see a source for that. Either way, though, it was ambiguous in the story.
      4. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Can't find the source and honestly i think i saw it in a comic news mag so honestly look for it yourself. Anyway i found this though what shows you that Batman didn't kill him, goes into detail as well.
        http://www.cbr.com/movie-le...
      5. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        Eh, some of those points are pretty arguable. Ultimately, Frank Miller seemed to want to go for a "Did he just???" effect, and Batman's relationship with his one rule is sometimes murky, plus factoring in the dire situation with Martha, and I really think it's not an issue
      6. Hunter Zolomon
        October 6, 2017
        Honestly i think its Miller's poor art implying something he never intended then anything else.
      7. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        Could be :P
      8. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        Plus the fact this is supposed to be a broken (though recovering at this point) Batman
      9. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        You see how blood comes from his shoulder and not his head, see how there's no bullet hole in his head. He's alive and Batman never killed him.
        https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
      10. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        There's no bullet hole in his shoulder either. That blood could be from anywhere - right through the head, heart, shoulder, arm... who knows
      11. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Look at the angle he shot him its the other side in the shoulder and the blood has bled out to where see it in the other scan, hell the bullet hole in the wall shows where he was shot and its too high up for his heart. Jesus Frank Miller has said Batman never killed him so your view is void here.
        http://www.gothamcalling.co...
3. Hunter Zolomon
  October 5, 2017
  "Translation: "I want the animated series, but live action."
  Nah i wanted something what is based on the comic versions and acted like them because you know thats why we like these characters. Funny TAS is heavily praise because it does just that.
Jesse Hernandez
October 5, 2017
Just don’t make it a Marvel Movie... DC is unique in its own way with the epic music, Fighting scenes, powerful imagery... idk bout SS... but I’m open for fun
1. Andrei Wayne
  October 5, 2017
  Couldn't agree less. If DC becomes like Marvel, it would fully lose its identity.
  1. Unn
    October 5, 2017
    it already started , ss,ww
    1. BatFlash
      October 5, 2017
      Wonder Woman is for me the good middle line between BvS and upcoming Justice League. I think DC should make their next movies like this. It is not too Marvel neither.
      1. Unn
        October 5, 2017
        wonder woman is a Marvel like movie, you got "overrated movie" cheap jokes, a great adventure and the hero is dumb as fuck. sure there is great moment in ww but overall its a boring movie,a great adventure.
      2. BatFlash
        October 5, 2017
        Well I think that is better than many Marvel movies (including Guardians of the Galaxy, which in my opinion was overrated and with cheap jokes and stuff). Although I agree with SS.
      3. Unn
        October 5, 2017
        what did i missed ?another xena like ?
      4. Andrei Wayne
        October 7, 2017
        Wonder Woman wasn't really like a Marvel movie. The jokes were decent, and it ended on a high note, despite the heavy loss Wonder Woman had to endure (Steve Trevor's death). Plus, what is the problem with a great adventure? The film was full of hope and made me feel good about myself. You know its a good film when you come out of the theatre uplifted as hell. The film to me was a great World War 1 film, and honestly the only problem for me was the final fight which was executed very poorly. Suicide Squad I also quite have to disagree. It wasn't really a Marvel film. It's actually REALLY unique where it stands, because it definitely is *dark*, but has some great humour and the bar scene made the "heroes" empathise with themselves and overall it was a great scene. Not to mention the amazing soundtrack. DC never disappointed me recently. (though Green Lantern sucked)
      5. Unn
        October 12, 2017
        "she lost steve" a man she meet 1_2 days max,
        " high note" like what?
        "full of hope" why every hero movie has to be hopeful.
        "it was a great movie about ww1" not at all, if you knew how the ww1 went down it was discusting and it didnt feel like it in the movie.
        Ss wasnt dark at all, another great adventure(see the patern) with no real threat, a dark superhero movie would be watchmen otherwise all those "dark superheromovies" are eyes candy with an happy ending.
    2. Unn
      October 5, 2017
      they use the same blueprint of any marvel movies, "cheap jokes, the villan/hero is dumb as fuck, it has to be a great adventure with a happy ending, the power of love can defeat anything, ww is a copycat of Captain Amer first avenger.
      1. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Do you actually read WW or you one of those who thinks they know the characters because they watch the films? I say this because WW felt like i was watching a WW comic brought to life, the jokes were funny and were used well (hell the biggest laugh with the ice cream was straight from the comics), Ares felt like Ares and his plan made sense, sure there was a happy ending because why not? and well yeah WWI kinda ended in real life so it had to come together and there was loss considering Steve died and "power of love"? Yeah love and compassion is who Diana is, thats her greatest strength and power. Anyway you're clearly are too young to understand love (or maybe you're a man child? who no one will love?) and have no idea how powerful that emotion is and what that can do and give to someone.
      2. Unn
        October 5, 2017
        i can see you like wonder woman and you willing to give it a free pass.
      3. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        No i like good films and Wonder Womans comics and the film was a good film what was true to the comics, the fact it has a 92% on RT, an A Cinemascore and made a fuck ton of money suggests most feel the same as me.You sound like the type of person where if you have a different opinion then everyone and everything else must be wrong haha.
      4. Unn
        October 5, 2017
        im the kind of people who like challenging movies. The kind of movies that makes you think.
      5. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Shouldn't be watching BvS or comic book films then although TDK is different and is a film what makes you think (that film foreshadowed so fucking much of todays world). End of the day i love films what makes you think, tomorrow i'm seeing the new Blade Runner and i'm sure that will be one of my favorite films this year along with Dunkirk and Logan but i also love a good action film or something not to deep that i can sit back and relax and enjoy, WW was never aiming for deepness and i'm glad it doesn't. If i want a deeper film then i will dig out my Kubrick collection, watch one of Nolans mindbenders or watch Triangle. I'm a person what just loves good film deep or shallow i don't care as long as i enjoy them
      6. Unn
        October 6, 2017
        TDK is not a movie that make you think, not a forshadow of today world,
      7. Unn
        October 6, 2017
        tdk = drunken batman
Martin Borrego
October 5, 2017
I wouldn't say it was dark. Gone Girl was dark, that's an example of a dark film to me. BVS was heavy, very heavy and I think that was it's biggest issue general audience wise. Also these are films that shouldn't be cut down to size. They need to show in it's entirety. You don't cut down rebirth to 30 - 40 pages, hell even 60. You show that son of a Batman in it's entire 80 page format. Some films work the same way. especially big universe franchise films like LOTR, Harry Potter, Marvel, DC, Star Wars, etc etc.
1. Unn
  October 5, 2017
  it you think bvs was heavy, dont watch watchmen the extented edition.
  1. Hunter Zolomon
    October 5, 2017
    At least Watchmen is a near page for page recreation of the comic, BvS can't even get Batman right.
    1. Unn
      October 6, 2017
      bvs get batman right for the first time. those so call fan (book comic reader) doesnt know their characters as much as they think they do, batman has killed in these comic so many time.
  2. Martin Borrego
    October 5, 2017
    I did and it is one of my favorite films :)
Luisbats
October 5, 2017
I didn’t mind the tone at all, to each is own but myself and others liked batman v superman the way it is, no complaints, for those who didn’t like it, consider it trial and error but hoping everyone enjoys justice League, just be positive people
Vger64
October 5, 2017
I like the knight dark
lowdevil
October 5, 2017
I wish WB would realize that 'tone' and 'dark' will have no affect on negative criticism with great writing and a comprehensive script. Two things BvS were a little light on. I enjoyed the film very much but there were issues. Lack of comedy was not one of them.
Ned Ryerson
October 5, 2017
You just need both. That's all. If Batman is going to be a dedicated psychopath to killing Superman and starts branding criminals and not caring too much that other people are killing them in prison aftewards, then Superman can't also the entire movie also be a depressed, what-is-the-point-of-being-superman, Eyore character too. You need something to play off the pure misery and existential depression of it all. It's not that you can't go heavy and dark; it just needs a balance... and really good writing to tie it all together. You need convincing scenes with realistic dialogue that don't just seem like ready made exchanges for a trailer or exposition. You could dial back BVS's grimness like 15% and tighten up the narrative and flow, have at least a few heartwarming moments other then when Batman saves Martha, and it'd be stellar.
Seb
October 5, 2017
Honestly, these "acknowledgement of criticism" articles piss me off more than they reassure me... because it's extremely clear they still have no fucking clue as to why BvS was that badly received.
1. Nick
  October 5, 2017
  Well a lot of critics say that the reason they didn't like it was because it was too dark. They are just responding to those critics. Maybe the critics are just mistaken as to why the movie didn't rub them the right way.
  1. Seb
    October 5, 2017
    Not really... I implore you to read actual reviews. It was barely the "main" criticism, if at all. It's only fanboys who used it as a scapegoat, they were the ones popularizing the idea that supposedly, the tone was the problem. Even though it never has been. And suppose you were right... Why have they STILL nearly 2 years later, failed to acknowledge that the film had lots more problems than just "the tone". How many more times must I hear "they are just responding to X amount of people" before they actually start addressing the REAL criticism?
2. Bob Burger
  October 5, 2017
  Nah man, Ben Affleck deep down knows why BvS was bad. He just doesn't want to say it around Zack. The dude has won 2 Oscars, so he knows quite a lot in film-making.
3. Human target
  November 1, 2017
  They do. Bad editing. That's why.
LobsterHov
October 5, 2017
It's not that the tone of JL has to mirror the tone of BvS, nor should it be a rapid departure from what has already been set in motion. A progression of tone from "disillusionment" to "hope" born from struggle was always part of Zack's plan for these movies, as stated by Terrio way before BvS was released.
I just hope that they haven't abandoned that sense of "seriousness" which has underpinned these movies so far (with exception to Suicide Squad of course). It really made the DCEU feel more real and tangible; it set it apart from the MCU. My only fear is whether they've conflated that "seriousness" with the "disillusionment" in BvS and thrown the baby out with the bathwater, as a reactionary measure. You can show growth from disillusionment towards a hopeful tone, without killing off that seriousness in exchange for contextually needless humor which just removes any sense of danger in the story.
1. Robin Bankes
  October 5, 2017
  Bingo!
2. NinjaGamer13
  October 5, 2017
  I trust Zack - and, by extension, Joss - to carry out the original vision he had for what you are describing relatively unscathed.
Reverse_Flash
October 5, 2017
LOL BvS had a lot more problems than just the tone.
The story was a mess, character development was poor, dialogue was bad, CGI was over the top.
Light or dark, when a movie is bad, it is bad. I'm sure Ben knows this, but he won't openly say it.
1. mabruno
  October 5, 2017
  BVS was not necessarily a mess. It looked like a mess because of the theatrical cut. The extended version looks much better and more coherent.
  1. Guest
    October 5, 2017
    Still a mess when the first act takes about 2 hours..
    1. Nick
      October 5, 2017
      Definitely a lot of content they could have cut out that was not necessary to the plot of BvS. The knightmare scene is a perfect example. Although the fight scene was cool, it could have easily been removed from the movie.
  2. BugsMeany
    October 5, 2017
    That story didn’t warrant 3 hours. The Godfather needed less time.
  3. Reverse_Flash
    October 5, 2017
    Ultimate cut made more sense but in exchange it became overlong and tedious.
    BvS needed a straightforward story but it diverged into unnecessary subplots.
2. Den
  October 5, 2017
  Imagine being retarded enough to believe that.
  1. Reverse_Flash
    October 5, 2017
    That BvS was any good?
    Yeah, there are plenty of people here.
3. Nick
  October 5, 2017
  CGI over the top? I don't see how they could have pulled the movie off without the amount of CGI they used. The movie was intended to feel more like a comic book.
  1. Nick
    October 5, 2017
    Hmm. Hard to compare the two because they are completely different movies and they were trying to do different things with CGI.
    1. Bob Burger
      October 5, 2017
      CGI for Supes and Doomsday made sense. But for the other things they used it for was quite unnecessary.
  2. Hunter Zolomon
    October 5, 2017
    The trick with CGI is not how much you use but how you show and use it, BvS and it seems JL are not using it well, Doomsday for instance looked terrible and never once looked ike a real thing and sadly Cyborg is looking that way plus the green screen stuff in JL. Compare that to the Apes in the latest Apes film or Rocket and Groot in GotG or Hulk where those characters feel real and part of the world you're watching you can see the problems in BvS effects, when you watch them you forget you're watching a CGI character where's with BvS and JL i can't look past the CGI because it stands out way to much.
  3. Reverse_Flash
    October 5, 2017
    For starters, lay back on all the explosions and destruction.
    https://images.moviepilot.c...
    http://media.comicbook.com/...
    https://www.comicbookmovie....
    Problem is Snyder likes everything over the top. Everything has to get destroyed, everything has to explode or be on fire, or at least have sparks. And Doomsday was way over the top.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      October 5, 2017
      It's Doomsday!! Have you watched the cartoons or animated film? If DD showed up MoS 3, you would see a shit ton of CGI. His whole MO is about destruction.
      1. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Of course but i would also expect good CGI and fight what doesn't look like one of those CGI trailers what they put out for video games (actually some of those look better then the shit BvS put out for CGI). Compare the Doomsday fight to Hulk Vs Hulkbuster in AoU and you can see what looks more real while using still using a ton of CGI (i'm sure you don't agree though because its Marvel), in AoU it felt like they really were fighting in city and trashing it and Hulk actually looked like a real thing while Doomsday has too much going on for it to look real, the fight in BvS also has too much bloody Green Screen so the battleground doesn't look real either.
        Tell you what Michael Bay may be a shit film maker but at least he films on location if he can for his action scenes and actually has a ton of pratical effects and explosions with the CGI, you would be suprised on how much of the Transformers action scenes actually were happening. Snyder on the otherhand relies on Green Screen and CGI for most of his action bits, even something as simple as the Warehouse fight had CGI added to it (The Raid films shit over that fight scene and they don't need CGI for a simple hand to hand fight scene or any fight). JL is also suffering from pointless Green Screen like the Rooftop bit with Gordon, its so clearly Green Screen while Nolan used actual rooftops for his rooftop bits with Gordon.
      2. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        Lol, I like this automatic assumption that I somehow hate everything about Marvel. Despite not liking AoU, I never complained about its CGI.
        Guses what? I felt that both films' CGI were alright.
      3. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        I've seen you criticize Marvel a fair bit already on this thread when people have brought them up so its easy to assume.
    2. StarTheory
      October 5, 2017
      Personally I didn't care much about the destruction, more with how dark the entire fight was. It was difficult to see what the fuck they were doing with all the smoke and shit around them.
Schuyler Finley
October 5, 2017
Sigh. And here we go again.
Andrei Wayne
October 5, 2017
Well, I never had a problem with BvS but I dont know if I should be taken with a bit of a grain of salt since I LOVE Batman. Obviously I can acknowledge abominations such as Batman and Robin, but BvS just really wasn't that bad. On the contrary. It was amazing. The dark tone works fine with this more depressed generation, of which I happen to be a part of. Anyway, simply put, I always loved the dark tone. And a lighter tone does not equal GOOD, for example Suicide Squad. Very very good film on first viewing, but watching it again and again really makes it painful since the story is so stupid.
Guy
October 5, 2017
The dark tone wasn't my issue at all. It was the incoherency that had me put off. I still kinda wish they pulled it off like the Batman & Superman "World's Finest" animated movie; the initial tension, conflict of interest, relationship, and 1-upping-of-each-other between the two were PERFECT!
Dom510
October 5, 2017
No it was just too complex for your fragil little mind
1. Andrei Wayne
  October 5, 2017
  I also personally didn't find it to be THAT stupid. People hate the "Martha" scene, but I believe it shows some beauty, as Batman, in that moment, realises Superman is not a stupid mindless crazy alien and actually has a mother that he cares about; something Batman doesn't have. Batman had been through the pain of losing a family member, and perhaps doesn't wish Superman the same fate.
  1. mr nobody
    October 5, 2017
    The BIG problem in the Martha scene is the execution. Snyder just wanted to emphasize the fact that they are both Martha rather than on the fact that Superman has a mom. And thats where the power of the scene was lost.
    As you say it is about Batman realizing Superman also has a mother and that makes him kinda human or sensitive or whatever. But him saying Martha is less powerful than him saying "save my mom" Yes, we know both have a mom Martha and that's kinda cool and some people hadn't figured that out (?) But the way the conversation happens is so weird and awkward that it becomes a funny moment rather than a powerful one. People stuck with the "your mom's name is the same as mine we are bffs now"
    Had he just said "gotta save my mom" Bruce would've reacted instantly rather than "Why did you say martha?" and then Lois having to explain it. Like, seriously why did Lois have to be there lol.
    1. Andrei Wayne
      October 5, 2017
      I guess he said Martha to stop Batman from killing him, since at that moment, undoubtedly, Batman was gonna kill him with no regrets. Then Batman remembered his mother, and this whole thing brought more sympathy on Superman.
      1. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        Man, I dunno about you but if I'm in a fight a the other guy says my mom's name I'll just try to fuck him up even more haha
        Remember, he's a vigilante cause of his dead parents so if he was just reminded of them even more motivation to finish what you started
    2. mr nobody
      October 5, 2017
      OMG LOL. NO
      I honestly don't remember so I could be wrong but Superman didn't know he was Bruce, did he?
      LOLOL why is it meaningless if it is the fact that Superman has a mom what makes him stop, not that he said Martha.
      And, no way Superman is that smart anyways. He would never outsmart Batman
      1. Andrei Wayne
        October 5, 2017
        Superman did know Batman is Bruce. Before the fight even starts, he addresses him as Bruce and tries to ask for his help. I remember cos I have seen the film a good 5 times. Also if you read any comics, you would know that Superman is incredibly smart. To continue, you say if he said his mum's name you'd fuck him up even more. Well, Superman said "Save Martha", and to Bruce this probably meant that his mum is still alive and that he could still save her.
      2. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        Cool, didn;t remember him calling him Bruce.
        I dunno, man, I never got the feeling that Bruce thought his mom was alive. Superman is smart, but doesn't outsmart Batman is what I mean. Especially in a battle that batman has been preparing for for a long time.
      3. Fotbollsgurun
        October 5, 2017
        Superman knows Bruce is Batman when he stops the Batmobile. He sees trough the suit. The film doesn't tell you that but it's obvious.
      4. Justin Forbes
        October 10, 2017
        You are so right, I am wondering what "if" Superman did not say his mother's name "Martha". He say like "Please don't kill me, Please save my mother" without saying her name... What could Batman do? Kill him anyway?
      5. Fotbollsgurun
        October 5, 2017
        Yes Supes knows the first time they meet as Superman and Batman.
    3. C P
      October 5, 2017
      I agree with the poor execution. It just needed a few more lines, "Save my mom" "Save... Martha" and both the emotional and name connection would have been there. In my opinion it wasn't just the name but the perspective in which batman found himself, he was about to become Joe Chill and superman was a man with a family, and he becomes another broken promise, "20 years in Gotham Alfred, we've seen what promises are worth, how many good guys are left?" He was supposed to have been the last good guy, after him there would be nothing. I found the scene strong and powerful.
      1. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        Yeah, there was no need to say Martha, who the fuck refers to their mom by their name? The ONLY reason I see for him to do that is if he was covering his identity but I don't think that's what he was doing
      2. Unn
        October 5, 2017
        he was a adopted, most of the time they call thier foster parent by their names,
      3. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        It's not like they adopted him when he was 12. He was a new born so it doesn't apply
      4. Unn
        October 5, 2017
        it does apply as soon as you know they are not your real parents,
      5. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        As far as Clark is concerned Martha is his Mom, in the comics he either calls her Mom or Ma and nothing else, hell in the DCEU until that scene he calls her Mom the entire time.
      6. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        It really doesn't make a difference. "Martha," "my mom," "my mom Martha" - it all has the same effect, motive, result, resolution, meaning, etc. That's why people's complaints about the Martha scene are just baseless complaints from people who refuse to give the movie the light of day because they've been trained to deliberately hate it so much.
        Regardless, if I think I'm gonna die and I need to tell a complete stranger to rescue someone, I'm gonna try to tell him their name, not my relation to them. You know, 'cause I want him to actually have a chance to find her ._. Plus, he may have wanted to preserve his secret identity, too, who knows. It really doesn't make a difference either way in the end.
      7. Unn
        October 6, 2017
        and ? you never call your parent by the first name ?
      8. Hunter Zolomon
        October 6, 2017
        Why would i? My Mum and Dad are my Mum and Dad so i cam them Mum or Dad or Mother and Father. Bit like how Clark before that scene never once calls her Martha and only says Mom or Mother.
      9. Unn
        October 12, 2017
        but some people do call their parents by their real name
      10. Hunter Zolomon
        October 12, 2017
        Yeah but the Clark never did before that scene and thats the point, also how the fuck is Bruce supposed to know who Martha is? If he said "save my Mom, Lex has my Mom save her" then Bruce would know exactly what Supes means.
      11. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        If I think I'm gonna die and I need to tell a complete stranger to rescue someone, I'm gonna try to tell him their name, not my relation to them. You know, 'cause I want him to actually have a chance to find her ._. Plus, he really may have wanted to preserve his secret identity, too, who knows. That's not unlikely, actually. But it really doesn't make a difference either way in the end.
      12. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        the only sensical thing you've said today. I actually give you that one. Cuz hey, guess what? I'm not here to bother people and troll. Have something substantial to say? I'm all ears. Wanna bother, no thanks.
      13. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        Well thank you for opening your mind. ...While simultaneously proving its closed shut tight in other areas with that personal attack.
      14. TheBalzan
        October 6, 2017
        I for one do
      15. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Your interpretation of the scene was spot on!
        But no, it really doesn't make a difference. "Martha," "my mom," "my mom Martha" - it all has the same effect, motive, result, resolution, meaning, etc. That's why people's complaints about the Martha scene are just baseless complaints from people who refuse to give the movie the light of day because they've been trained to deliberately hate it so much.
      16. Bob Burger
        October 5, 2017
        It does make a difference.
        One just so happens to be the same name of another superhero.
        The other one refers to a loving female parent. So yeah there is a difference.
        They both have the same effect but one of them has more benefits than the other. The most beneficial one would be, "Mum".
      17. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        The result is the same - Batman is triggered, the issue resolves when he realizes Superman has a human mother, just like Batman himself, named Martha. Really, now that I think about it, simply saying "mom" without the name would flat out not work; Batman needed the trigger word to snap out of the rage and see himself in the same position as Joe Chill, and if Supes would've only said "mom," Batman wouldn't have connected to it the same, as he even mentions Superman's "parents," assuming they were as alien as he is
      18. Bob Burger
        October 6, 2017
        I understand the result is the same. Mum works just as well as Martha, it's just from a critical standpoint and a general audience standpoint, the word "Martha" invokes more criticisms than the word Mum does.
        I'm talking about outweighing the benefits and costs here. Using mum would have much, much less criticism than Martha and would invoke the same feelings that Bruce experienced with Martha.
      19. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        It shouldn’t. That’s not the movie’s fault. That’s the critics’ fault.
        And I wouldn’t agree. I fullheartedly believe that “mom” would have invoked almost just as much of a negative reaction as “Martha” did - the “SAVE MY MOMMYYYYYY ;o;” memes would be endless. Not to mention it wouldn’t work within the story, since Batman figured Superman’s parents were alien threats just like him, and “Martha” is a much more emotionally and psychologically loaded word for Batman than “mom” is. Plus, then we wouldn’t have gotten the cool connection with their moms having the same name, which I thought was kind of beautiful and showed that alien or human, they are both the same, both people, both superheroes. The only other viable option than “Martha” would be “my mom Martha.” But that’s unrealistic; I’m sure that’s what Superman WOULD’VE explained if he wasn’t choking to death - that’s what makes Lois’ interjection that serves the exact same purpose so necessary. Plus, it is also possible Superman was still trying to preserve his identity.
      20. Bob Burger
        October 6, 2017
        It wouldn't of invoked as much criticisms as Martha did.
        Here are the facts; critics hated it and the majority of the general audience were like, "wtf? seriously? they got the same name so they're fine now? mum would of been smarter".
        So no the blame is not on the critics or the majority of moviegoers, the blame is placed on that scene itself.
        Stop trying to defend something that is so easily be seen as an issue. I understand what the movie tried to depict there, critics obviously understood what they were trying to do, and moviegoers also know what happened, but it was such a poorly executed scene. It is an issue and you're in the minority.
        Mum would've definitely been better. Facts.
      21. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        It would’ve evoked almost as much, if not the same. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that if someone WANTS to dislike something, they will find a way to dislike it. People who mock the Martha scene already decided not to pay enough attention to the rest of the movie to make that possible. “SAVE MY MOMMYYYY” is just as mockable.
        Most of the critics didn’t like the movie, yes, I know that.
        But that second claim is unprovable. And considering most of the general audience liked BvS, it’s probably false.
        Regardless of what people “think,” though, it’s not the movie’s fault if they’re wrong, which they would be - because of the reasons I explained.
        So no, the blame is not on the scene itself, it is on the audience criticizing it, for not giving the movie a chance. If they had any desire to actually fairly judge the movie and give it the opportunity to be good in their eyes, they would have, but instead they just use whatever they can as ammunition against it to justify their predetermined feelings for it.
        Stop trying to make an issue out of something that really isn’t that big of a deal and is so easily not an issue.
        People criticizing the scene either didn’t understand it or wanted to hate on it.
        And I am not in the minority; most people I know who saw it weren’t even phased by the Martha scene, they didn’t even think twice of it. Because it makes sense. Only people who are out to hate it or who blindly follow critical voice did that. Or, in some cases, there were people who liked the movie, but still poked fun at the Martha scene, often times just as a joke, though.
        How was it poorly executed? The acting? There was nothing wrong with the acting. It wasn’t remarkable, but it certainly wasn’t bad; it got the job done.
        No. Facts.
      22. Bob Burger
        October 7, 2017
        I'm really really tired of you continuing to argue a quote so easily seen as something so stupid. If you know anything about film-making, you'd understand.
      23. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        Or so easily seen as perfectly fine by most people ._.
        Wow, what a juvenile way to resolve an argument LOL If you knew anything about storytelling and the sociology of a movie audience and critical response, you’d understand.
      24. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        I’d be really tired of arguing, too, if I were losing. Just cut the Martha scene some slack already and quit hypercritizing BvS like you people for some reason do.
      25. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        "Martha" is a MUCH more emotionally and psychologically loaded word for Batman than "mom"
    4. coffeesodabeer
      October 5, 2017
      No way the intent was for Superman to "play on Wayne's...trauma" intentionally. He was about to die. He was in desperation telling Batman his mom was in danger.
      1. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        These people make up these theories and hidden meanings to justify the wreck of a movie BvS was. it's pointless arguing with them, but it's fun
    5. Vulpini
      October 5, 2017
      Still with the "bad execustion" bullshit? The big problem is when people aren't aware of what's going on, or not paying any attention when something is happening RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM. The whole scene is about Bruce's mental state, and see him from a different perspective. From a perspective, in which he's the villain with the gun.
      Bruce didn't give a single fuck about "Superman". He wanted him out of the picture, no matter what. The word "MARTHA" was nothing more than a trigger word.
      Jesus, just look at these PTSD symptoms. The name, and the situation he was in, reminded him of his parents' death. How hard is that to understand? Your illogical complains are getting out of hand. It's been more than a year, and you people still refuse to see it from Bruce's point of view. Which was the whole fucking point of it.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
      1. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        Alright, cool, fair enough, he has PTSD. Those were just some examples. The movie is poorly written, poorly directed and poorly edited and that's just fact when you know the slightest thing about film making. Dunno about you but I do know about this stuff so While you are right, the way it's presented is poor, it's lazy, it's convenient. I'm not saying I don't understand it, you don't have to explain it. I'm saying it's dumb the way everything happens.
        Just fucking try to understand for a second, you rant about a lot of crap that I don't even adress
      2. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        No, that's an opinion. And a baseless and incorrect one at that :P
    6. BugsMeany
      October 5, 2017
      Maybe it could have worked but Cavill and Affleck's line readings failed to sell it. At all. Cavill's drawn-out moaning and Affleck's over-the-top bafflement result in unintentional comedy. That's THE Big Moment, and that's when the otherwise-fine actors stumble.
      1. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        How else would you portray being choked and stood on and poisoned with gas while speaking? And crazed bewilderment? There was nothing wrong with their acting. It's not that hard. Just an audience that was only paying half attention
      2. BugsMeany
        October 5, 2017
        Yes, on paper that’s correct. Onscreen it didn’t work.
      3. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        I have enough experience acting and watching movies to know that that scene wasn't really bad. It's not remarkable. It just gets the job done. However, I do know that an audience only half paying attention is a sure-fire way to find it laughable.
    7. AnonymousHero
      October 5, 2017
      Absolutely on point. Thank you for saving me a couple paragraphs.
    8. AnonymousHero
      October 5, 2017
      Haha! You're giving ol' Clark too much credit in that moment. He's good but he's not thinking that deep.
    9. Gavin
      October 5, 2017
      Also, they should have cut Batman saying, "I bet your parents taught you that you mean something, that you're here for a reason." This makes Batman look even more like a villain, knowing the person (alien) he's going to kill most likely has caring parents. Such a terrible scene.
      1. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        Oh shit, I didn't even remember that line. He actually says that before the martha scene?
      2. Gavin
        October 5, 2017
        Yep. He says that a couple of minutes before he gets Martha PTSD. The scene is a fucking joke.
      3. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Oh yeah he says that, the fact Supes is ok with him after MARTHA!!!!! Is pretty strange really when the guy just tried to murder you and said some pretty fucked up shit just before he did.
      4. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        lol a year it's passed and the movie still disappoints me
      5. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Alien parents are as bad as alien Supermen. "Martha" made him realize he was a man, just like the rest of us. That's why that name was essential.
      6. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        He still didn't think of Superman or his relations as human. "Martha" is what made it click.
    10. Jordan Smith
      October 5, 2017
      Wow, I've never thought of it that way. I loved the scene & understood its gravitas. But in truth, if Superman accepted he was going to die but told Batman "Save Martha, she's my mom." It would have been much more powerful. Although I think trolls online would just change their trolling from "Matha!!!" to "OOOHHH SAve muh mom."
      Thanks for a great insight.
      1. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        Dayum, never though I'd see the day someone would read something with an open mind. Thank you. Yeah, either he had to say "Save Martha Kent" or "save my mom" But Martha by itself is Snyder jacking off to the fact he realized they both had the same name
      2. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        No, it really doesn't make a difference. "Martha," "my mom," "my mom Martha" - it all has the same effect, motive, result, resolution, meaning, etc. That's why people's complaints about the Martha scene are just baseless complaints from people who refuse to give the movie the light of day because they've been trained to deliberately hate it so much.
        Also, by the way, the movie wasn't written by Snyder. It was written by Chris Terrio (Harvard-graduated, award-winning writer of Argo) and David S. Goyer (co-writer of Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises). So, you know, only the best in the business.
      3. Jordan Smith
        October 6, 2017
        Yes, no problem it was an interesting point. Much more interesting than the person trying to rewrite the definition of "opinion."
      4. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        No, it really doesn't make a difference. "Martha," "my mom," "my mom Martha" - it all has the same effect, motive, result, resolution, meaning, etc. That's why people's complaints about the Martha scene are just baseless complaints from people who refuse to give the movie the light of day because they've been trained to deliberately hate it so much.
      5. Jordan Smith
        October 6, 2017
        Well that's why opinions are subjective, I feel it is different, you don't. Gavin's point below gives a perfect reason why the scene doesn't work.
      6. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        Opinions are subjective to a degree. I try to form my beliefs on as little “feeling” as possible. I like to base it on actual facts and objective truths. Objectively, “my mom Martha” and “Martha” get the same thing done. One is arguably more realistic, though (“Martha”), because Superman was struggling to say ANYTHING at that point, and that is what made Lois’ interjection explaining that that is his mother necessary. But both get literally the same exact information across with the same exact motivations and results and such in story.
      7. Jordan Smith
        October 6, 2017
        Opinions are utterly subjective. Based on the definition. Facts can be both objective & told from a subjective presupposition - but not opinions. My opinion is that the extra sentence adds something different, you think it doesn't - if that doesn't show subjectivity then I don't know what does. Take care pal.
      8. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        I guess I should say “conclusion,” then. You can keep your opinions. I’ll stick with my fact-based conclusions that you’re ignoring with no good reason (except perhaps to propagate the irrational hatred for a decent movie that means a lot to a lot of people - but that’s not a *good* reason, then, is it?).
      9. Jordan Smith
        October 6, 2017
        Very odd comment. I love BvS. In fact if you read my comments you'll see no indication I disliked it. My first comment says "I loved this scene." Not sure how someone who thinks he's really intelligent could come to that "fact based conclusion."
        It's very simple really, opinions are subjective, if you don't want to take it from a published author, take it from a dictionary.
        Still baffled how anyone could think my comments sound like I have a "hatred" for this movie. What a strange person?
      10. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        Sorry, that’s fair. I thought based on your criticizing the Martha scene here that you were one of the BvS haters.
        But what you base them on doesn’t have to be. How do you explain away the reasons they did end up going with “Martha”? Or do your personal feelings mean more to you than reasons? You’ve still avoided responding to that. Published author or not.
        Most critics of BvS do hate it. It’s not that much of a stretch. Sorry again.
      11. Jordan Smith
        October 25, 2017
        I don't check this thing so sorry for the late reply & thank you for changing your tone from argumentative & offensive to apologising. I don't criticize the Martha scene, I really enjoyed it, even teared up. I think for normal movie goers it was silly, but for me it was a perfect representation of how Bruce could humanize this alien who he thought was a potential monster. Although I get why people laugh at it, for me it worked. But I enjoyed the other comments people left because it made me think about the scene in ways I hadn't previously. I do believe the other ways the scene was described above would give a different outcome & view for the audience.
        Again, for maybe the 3rd time, maybe you have me mixed up, I love BvS, in all of my comments I've alluded to being a fan & never claimed not to like it - so I think you are so used to BvS haters online that even though I've said multiple times that I love it, you aren't convinced.
        I'm not sure what personal feelings you are talking about, if you are still trying to debate objective & subjective that is over, the previous reply from myself ended that - you got the definition wrong, easy mistake. If the "feelings" pertain to anything else I've missed, let me know, I don't like to leave people without answering their questions- I would never avoid one. Even if it does take weeks. I'll stick around if you see this any time soon.
        If you can clarify what you mean about the "explain away martha" I'd appreciate it, as I don't follow.
      12. NinjaGamer13
        October 25, 2017
        I don’t remember quite what I was talking about, either, haha
      13. NinjaGamer13
        October 25, 2017
        But I think we’ve come to a fairly good common ground, and I respect your attitude
      14. Jordan Smith
        October 25, 2017
        No problem, my fault for not signing in to Discuss. Take care.
  2. Gavin
    October 5, 2017
    Batman actually realizes Superman has a mother that he cares about, yet minutes before Batman says, "I bet your parents taught you that you mean something, that you're here for a reason." I feel like that's only something a caring mother and father would say. LMAO. Batman stopped because Superman uttered the name Martha, not because he had a mother.
    1. NinjaGamer13
      October 5, 2017
      an *alien mother
    2. ArkhamFreak
      October 6, 2017
      Personally I thought the scene was mostly done right. The only problem was the editing and that line "I bet your parents taught you that you mean something, that you're here for a reason." If someone is going to murder me why would I tell them to save my mother? The only reason Batman found out it was Clark's mom was because Lois busted it for superman; remember superman would not answer batman when he asked clark to tell him why he said that name. As far as Clark was concerned Batman was a murderer, so telling your murderer to save your mom is like asking them to kill your mom because all they want to do is make you suffer.
2. mr nobody
  October 5, 2017
  "Symbolisms and references, man. You don't get it. Snyder is god because there's secret meaning to every fucking stupid thing. Symbolisms mean a good story, not coherent actions done by the characters. You are so simpleminded. No need for solid story" - Snyder dick riders
  1. mr nobody
    October 5, 2017
    SO. MANY. STUPID. DETAILS
    Lex creating Doomsday. Like seriusly the very first thing Doomsday does is throw a punch at Lex lol. "I'm afraid of this well kept man, saving people in exchange for nothing so I'll create an uncontrollable abomination"
    The damn bullets in Africa
    The jolly rancher scene...
    Please tell me you've seen the angry joe rant. or at least the sketch he made with
    Nostalgia Critic https://www.youtube.com/wat...
    1. mr nobody
      October 5, 2017
      seriously, Angry Joe is such a fan of Superman his criticism and pov is super interesting. it's a long video his BvS rant but definitely worth the watch
      1. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        Damn, will read soon. I always forget the pa Kent scene and it's true it's incredibly idiotic, though MoS wasn't so bad.
      2. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        Thanks, good read. Agree with him on every single thing except that I was laughing at all the destruction, I just couldn't believe Superman gave no fucks
    2. Schuyler Finley
      October 5, 2017
      In the extras, Lex had a different line about DD: "Obeys only me!" He assumed that DD would listen to him, but like Icarus, he didn't realize his folly until it was too late.
      1. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        Fair enough. Still a bit silly that they already used doomsday and that was his origin. I would've preferred a badass metalo powered by the kryptonite lex gets before batman stole it. It makes more sense for lex to create a weapon he knows how it works that a blind test on an alien ship.
      2. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        But Snyder said that JL will explore more of DD's origins. And Lex tampering with kryptonian tech fits his character in the film. He considers himself to be superior than everyone else, and is outsmarting the world's greatest detective and "God". Him deciding to prove his genius by fooling with alien tech makes total sense. And I think Lex has done similar plans like this in the comics and cartoons where he foolishly meddles in stuff that's beyond his comprehension.
      3. Seb
        October 5, 2017
        Doesn't make it any better... How the hell can "the smartest person on Earth" be so goddamn stupid and naive to believe DD would "obey only him"? That line doesn't fix anything.
      4. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        Because Lex got in over his head. And is Lex the smartest in THIS universe?
      5. Seb
        October 5, 2017
        They haven't outrightly stated it in the movie, but Geoff Johns has said so... or at least said that he's smarter than both Batman and Superman. And really, it doesn't take a genius to figure out DD would be uncontrollable.
    3. Unn
      October 5, 2017
      same thin can be said about ultron.
      1. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        I'm not a marvel fan so I only watched it once so I don't remember what you are talking about
      2. Unn
        October 5, 2017
        tony stark created ultron(against everyone opinion) then couldnt control it. force his buddys to help him
      3. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        then yeah lol
  2. Unn
    October 5, 2017
    superman dont go after ciriminals it was crystal clear in the movie this is why he didnt want to go after batman, he wanted the justice to do their works.
    the gps tracker was plan b, and it work,
    how can you swap car with a fucking creat that required a fork lift to lift it
    1. Schuyler Finley
      October 5, 2017
      But Superman didn't know those guys were criminals. He just saw Batman attacking a Lexcorp vehicle. And Batman was only gonna steal the cargo, not the crate itself.
      1. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        But this is a comic book universe, and knowing Lex, he probably has some form of paperwork that'll exempt him from this.
      2. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        But the Lexcorp truck wasn't endangering lives. They were defending themselves because of Batman.
    2. Unn
      October 5, 2017
      sup didnt kill anybody in africa, didnt go after lex he save him from doomsday, superman dont go after criminal to avoid what happen to zod, superman mindset was helpng people if they are in danger" natural disaster,people stock somewhere" . but he wont go after criminals because he believe that there is a justice system for that, this is why clark kent went after batman trying to expose him not superman. because clark kent knows every action he takes have consequences even if its for the "good cause" if you were listen the movie you would see that
      1. Unn
        October 5, 2017
        he respond because lois was in danger,same thing with lex, but after that hhe let them go. superman didnt like the way this batguy making law over gotham, not because of the branding, the branding come after lex sent him pictures, it put oil on the fire.
      2. Unn
        October 6, 2017
        they were blowing up batman, not a regular guy
      3. Unn
        October 6, 2017
        it was a batman and a bunch of bad guys, at 3am in the morning in an empty port. no body was injured,
      4. Unn
        October 12, 2017
        batman didnt kill anybody he was returning fire, too bad that theose criminals died, superman doesnt go after criminals,he let them go because they werent an imminent threat. batman was the one who were chasing them, and superman had no idea that they were up to something,he doesnt do investigation about what kind of merchandise is allow to the gotham's port, superman came in gotham to deal with batman, and how would it look if superman was threating gotham regular citizens,even if they were criminals. this is what the movie is about responsability what superman can and cant do.
  3. Fotbollsgurun
    October 5, 2017
    Batman places the tracker on the truck just in case. The criminals wouldn't be smart enough to change vehicle.
    1. Fotbollsgurun
      October 5, 2017
      They didn't expect Batman to be there, Lex did of course.
      They were probably under orders to get directly back to Lex no matter what.
      1. Fotbollsgurun
        October 5, 2017
        Absolutly. But it's a movie.
3. Bartholomew Hunt
  October 5, 2017
  I find it astonishing how an incredibly tiny minority think that most of the world didn't understand the movie just because it was collectively loathed. The movie sucked ass. It had nothing to do with the dark theme (check Logan). It sucked because the narrative sucked, the acting sucked (Isenberg and Cavil), because it was needlessly and relentlessly grim, because the editing was all over the place, and yes, because of MARTHAAAAAAAAA!
  1. Seb
    October 5, 2017
    Umm.. It clearly had EVERYTHING to do with the dark tone. That's why people fucking HATED The Dark Knight way back when, remember? Yeah, me neither.
    1. StarTheory
      October 5, 2017
      Let's not forget Logan either, might just be the worst comic book movie ever created.
  2. mr nobody
    October 5, 2017
    lolol exactly!
  3. Dom510
    October 6, 2017
    Martha scene actually makes sense. If you didn’t understand the scene watch the cinema wins video on it. The guy describes it perfectly.
  4. Nahuel Benvenuto
    October 7, 2017
    Logan is not a great movie
    1. Bartholomew Hunt
      October 7, 2017
      I didn't find it to be great either, but I thought it was a very well done movie. Surely, it's a masterpiece compared to the dumpster fire BvS.
      1. Human target
        November 1, 2017
        Dumpster fire ? Yeah far from it.
  5. Human target
    November 1, 2017
    The movie didn't suck. The narrative in the ultimate edition didn't suck. The acting didn't suck. needlessly grim ? Hell no. It wasn't even grim. The editing in the ultimate edition is great. And it wasnt collectively loathed. That's bullshit.
4. Origami Rose
  October 5, 2017
  Your fragile mind cant even spell so...
  1. Dom510
    October 6, 2017
    Typo.
5. DCFan
  October 5, 2017
  This video gives one of the most OBJECTIVE criticism/analysis of Batman V Superman that is on the internet in my opinion. I recommend it for everybody not just for you.
  https://www.youtube.com/wat...
  1. Seb
    October 5, 2017
    I didn't like the film at all, but that "analysis" is pure garbage from beginning to end. I can be an asshole sometimes, but the guy who made that video? He's a pretentious SJW snob with delusions of intellectual and moral authority.
  2. Bartholomew Hunt
    October 5, 2017
    Very insightful though he goes deeper than needed. He could've just said that everything was random and the movie sucked.
6. Bob Burger
  October 5, 2017
  "No it was just to complex for your fragile little mind" - Coming from the people that can't comprehend incoherent narratives' and poorly executed themes. Yep, I do see fragile minds indeed.
  1. Dom510
    October 6, 2017
    Watch the ultimate edition. Narrative is pretty coherent there.
    1. Bob Burger
      October 6, 2017
      I have, it's better than the theatrical cut but it still has problems.
7. NinjaGamer13
  October 5, 2017
  It wasn't complex, you really think people can't understand that simplistic substanceless jizzfest? We understand it, it's just that it was rubbish and as intelligent movie goers we expect more than pretty fight scenes.
8. ryan
  October 5, 2017
  lmao bro stop it wasn't complex at all.. most of the setups in that movie were HORRIBLE!
  1. Human target
    November 1, 2017
    Hell no
9. roguegeek
  October 5, 2017
  Calls people stupid, but can't properly spell in his response. The irony of this comment is amazing.
  1. Dom510
    October 6, 2017
    Never called him stupid, just said he obviously didn’t understand the movie. And it was a typo, jackass.
    1. roguegeek
      October 6, 2017
      Sure it was, man. 👍
    2. Zakultron
      October 7, 2017
      You act like this is a philosophical complex movie about morality and life it wasn't. It was an average action flick movie and was about as complex as transformers movies.
      1. Human target
        November 1, 2017
        Well it was actually more complex that those films.
10. rodo
  October 5, 2017
  Complex... are you serious? Why do people think this pretentious thing was complex?
  1. Human target
    November 1, 2017
    Pretentious ? Bullshit.
    1. rodo
      November 1, 2017
      Zack tried so hard to make it complex but he failed... or what? Is complex for you?
      1. Human target
        November 2, 2017
        He never wanted it to. Be complex but it is deeper than your average superhero movie. I'm not saying that it's complex but it has more depth than people think.
      2. rodo
        November 2, 2017
        That's exactly what he wanted to do... he tried to make it complex, deep, dark and adult ... and it is only dark in some way ... otherwise we could say that it is a pseudo-complex, pseudo-deep and pseudo-adult film.
        I'm going to say something you said to me in another discussion... you're jumping to senseless conclusions; according to your psychic powers, which ones are my average superhero movies?
      3. Human target
        November 2, 2017
        He never tried to make it any of those things. He tried to make it different. That's all. It's not dark, it's serious. People Confuse those two. He just wanted it to have more depth than your average superhero films.
        It's not senseless. It's baseless. And I never made any conclusions. When I said your average superhero movies, I mean superhero movies in general, not yours personally.
      4. rodo
        November 3, 2017
        He never tried? Bullshit.
      5. Human target
        November 3, 2017
        Nope it's the truth.
      6. rodo
        November 4, 2017
        Naa... Is the truth that all the Snyder acolytes say to themselves.
      7. Human target
        November 4, 2017
        And it's also the universal truth that snyder haters deny.
      8. rodo
        November 4, 2017
        Thanks god I'm not a hater. I'm someone with common sense.
      9. Human target
        November 4, 2017
        Sure, jan. Keep telling yourself that.
      10. rodo
        November 4, 2017
        It's true... I loved 300, Watchmen, The Owls of Ga'Hoole and, I don't love it but I don't hate either, Man of Steel.
        "Keep telling yourself that" lol... It's funny coming from an acolyte who does not stop telling to himself that his messiah is a genius.
      11. Human target
        November 4, 2017
        I ain't an acolyte but like you I am a fan. A big fan, and I didn't call him a genius. The cast that worked with him did.
      12. rodo
        November 5, 2017
        Sure
      13. Human target
        November 5, 2017
        Still true
      14. rodo
        November 5, 2017
        "Sure, jan. Keep telling yourself that."
      15. Human target
        November 6, 2017
        Still is. Doesn't matter what you say.
      16. rodo
        November 6, 2017
        Is not but if it makes you feel better...
      17. Human target
        November 6, 2017
        Oh it still is, wbether you like it or not
      18. rodo
        November 8, 2017
        Not really... but if you live better believing that lie, go ahead. I want the best for you buddy.
      19. Human target
        November 9, 2017
        Oh very much really. it's the absolute truth. But if you want to bury your head in the sand, go right ahead if that makes you happy ,bro
      20. rodo
        November 9, 2017
        It's a curious choice of words...
      21. Human target
        November 9, 2017
        Yes, they are.
      22. rodo
        November 9, 2017
        But curious of "funny" not of "interesting" or "correct".
      23. Human target
        November 10, 2017
        Yeah sure
      24. rodo
        November 16, 2017
        Thanks God you accepted you're wrong.
      25. Human target
        November 16, 2017
        I didn't. ;) but please continue making things up.
      26. rodo
        November 17, 2017
        Yes, you did it.
      27. Human target
        November 17, 2017
        No I didn't.
      28. rodo
        November 18, 2017
        I said " not of 'interesting' or 'correct' " and you said Yeah Sure... It's ok buddy :) nobody will judge you for changing your opinion (from an incorrect to a correct one)
      29. Human target
        November 18, 2017
        I didnt. Apparently you can't tell the difference between a sarcastic answer and a real one. So that's on you. So I didn't change my correct opinion.
      30. rodo
        November 19, 2017
        Of course I can ... but apparently not you.
        Greetings.
      31. Human target
        November 19, 2017
        Your previous comments prove other wise. Cheers.
      32. rodo
        November 20, 2017
        Your last replys too.
      33. Human target
        November 20, 2017
        So they prove that I'm right. Thanks.
      34. rodo
        November 20, 2017
        your replies only show a broken or nonexistent ability to detect sarcasm.
      35. Human target
        November 21, 2017
        Are you describing your own replies ?
      36. rodo
        November 21, 2017
        Nope, I clearly said "your replies".
      37. Human target
        November 21, 2017
        yet you're describing your replies.
11. Bob Harris
  October 6, 2017
  The characters were all off.
  1. Human target
    November 1, 2017
    No they weren't.
12. Dom510
  October 6, 2017
  Or it was just a typo.
13. Frank
  October 7, 2017
  This
Dom510
October 5, 2017
I like both. But as long as they don’t go full marvel and make jokes every 5 seconds which thankfully I don’t think they’ll ever get to that point
1. Andrei Wayne
  October 5, 2017
  I think Suicide Squad did it well, even though the movie wasn't amazing. It felt awesome, had great bits, and DEFINITELY an awesome soundtrack.
2. Nick
  October 5, 2017
  Yea I think it would be reasonable for it to be light sometimes when they are together. It would actually be weird if they were all serious all the time. I suspect the lightness is mainly going to be brought out in the team by Aquaman and Flash. I think that was smart to bring in characters that bring out the lightness in others in a group setting.
Fubar
October 5, 2017
I'm extremely excited either way, but it appears in the Justice League trailers the whole movie was filmed in those dark shaded tones that Zack Snyder shoots all his films with. Which can seem quite gloomy, even if there is humor involved.
Clyde Lain
October 5, 2017
I fuckin' loved BVS. Especially the UE and can't wait for JL. 'Nuff said.
1. Blockhead Jr.
  October 5, 2017
  UE
Reverse_Flash
October 5, 2017
One thing about the story...
The fight between Batman and Superman was not the final result of a clash of ideologies, like one would expect. Even though there was tension between Batman and Superman, the fight ultimately happened because Lex Luthor kidnapped Martha and not because the tension between Batman and Superman escalated so much that they had to fight. One of them didn't even want to fight, even though he did. So the title of Batman v Superman makes little sense to me.
To make it worse, Superman could have told Batman that his mom was in danger plenty of times during the fight. He could've told him instead of making his badass landing. He could told him instead of saying "stay down, If I wanted it, you'd be dead already". He could've told him instead of cracking his douchey smile at Batman when he recovered from kryptonite. Hell, even Captain America was smart enough to tell Iron Man that Bucky was controled by Hydra in Civil War.
When you think about it Civil War got right everything that BvS didn't. I remember thinking before BvS and Civil War came out, that The Avengers fighting each other at that point made a lot less sense than Batman fighting Superman, as the Avengers were all friends while Batman/Superman, didn't know each other. But once I saw both movies, it was the latter one that didn't make any sense. At the end of both movies I could understand why Iron Man wanted to kick Cap's ass. But Batman being so angry and irrational at Superman because his employees died while Superman was evidently trying to save the world, that just doesn't make any sense.
Even Baron Zemo did a better job than Lex Luthor. He pulled the strings and tricked the Avengers into nearly killing each other, by their own will. He didn't have to kidnap their moms to make them fight.
It's sad, considering Civil War was actually an answer to BvS and that BvS was based on a better received comic book than Civil War.
1. Schuyler Finley
  October 5, 2017
  Sigh. Just sigh
2. mr nobody
  October 5, 2017
  BRAVO!
3. Schuyler Finley
  October 5, 2017
  This is just all kinds of wrong, and I'm sick of it.
  The film freaking beats you over the head numerous times that Batman isn't gonna listen to reason, but of course "it's misrepresentation of the character".
  BULLSHIT!
  The fight wasn't about ideologies. No one said it was gonna be like that. "But Batman being so angry and irrational at Superman because his employees died while Superman was evidently trying to save the world, that just doesn't make any sense." BULLSHIT!
  Batman was pissed because of the events from MoS AND the potential danger Superman is. "Oh but he's Superman he saved the world. He wouldn't become evil". Stop being so delusional. It's common sense that someone as powerful as Superman would be viewed as being dangerous by anyone with half a brain. If someone like that existed in the real world, I bet that most people on here would be terrified of the guy.
  Imo, Civil War got everything wrong. You had characters act completely out of their normal self,, just so that the plot would progress. Zemo is the luckiest villain in all of cinema because if Cap had simply told Tony about his parent's death, then there wouldn't have been a final fight. Instead, Cap tells Tony WHEN TONY FINDS OUT ON HIS OWN AND IS BEYOND PISSED AT CAP FOR HIDING IT FROM HIM!!!
  There's more that I that I can talk about, but I'm done. Christ, I get that you people were disappointed with BvS, but for fuck's sake GROW UP ALREADY!!!
  1. mr nobody
    October 5, 2017
    Batman can be suspicious about Superman, fair enough. But he shouldn't just kill him without asking any questions. "My neighbor has a Hummer and he could run over a lot of people so I'm gonna kill him" That's what Batman came down to pretty much. This move had a badass, hotheaded, idiotic Batman. No wonder more than half of the audience didn't like it.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      October 5, 2017
      But Batman was supposed to act irrational. He only saw dangers of Superman while Alfred is all but begging for him to see reason. But Alfred wasn't at Metropolis during the Black Zero event. He didn't see the destruction that Superman and Zod had wrought due to their fight. I hate that I have to repeatedly tell this to people. It doesn't matter how smart you are, if you was in Bruce's shoes during MoS, you would NEVER be the same person again.
      Also, unless the Hummer has a doomsday device inside of it, your analogy is wrong.
      1. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        I mean, yes, you are right, that's why he did it. You don't have to explain why he did it though. That's exactly what we are mad about. That this specific rationale by batman is stupid. I believe that there's a flying alien, I believe there's a crazy guy with a bat suit running around the city but I don't believe for a second that Batman would think like that. Under any circumstances. No freaking way Black Zero messed him up more than Joker killing Jason. If the Joker is alive there's no justification for Batman wanting to kill Superman
        I mean this is "shoot first ask questions later" 101. Batman wants to kill him without all the facts first. That's not the greatest detective in the world shit. That's called POOR WRITING. Everything is just so fucking convenient throughout the whole movie, it's ridiculous.
      2. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        But he's never witnessed an event like Black Zero before. He just suddenly finds out that there are aliens and gets first front row seats to cataclysmic destruction. And there was nothing he could do to stop it.
        I think Ayer should've at least hinted why Ayer isn't buried six feet in SS.
      3. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        Fair point that this is a first time for him. But I still don't buy that he wouldn't do research on him or even reach out before going awol on him
      4. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        I don't think there's much he could do. I doubt there's a lot of info about Superman, and I can't see how Batman would be able to contact him. Superman is saving people around the entire planet, so it's not like in the cartoons where he would mostly be at Metropolis.
      5. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        It's not like the greatest detective in the world only uses google for research. Easiest way for him to start would be going somewhere where Superman just saved the day, look for clues and go from there. Hair, fingerprints, footprints... I dunno, whatever detectives look for in crime scenes to look for someone. You know, being a detective?
      6. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        Yeah, but Superman would usually be at some far location. Bruce Wayne can't just take random vacations to the various places that Superman has been at. Someone may notice a pattern.
      7. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        lolololol homie, you are stretching it and thinking small. Why the hell would Bruce announce publicly a vacation to someplace Superman just visited? You know he can just go as Batman in his plane, looks for what he needs and leave right? And it's not like he has to follow him every step and make it obvious. It's the damn Batman we're talking about, man. Now he can't even investigate something?
      8. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        But don't the tabloids and such follow Bruce Wayne, the millionaire playboy?
      9. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        Not enough to figure out he's been the Batman for at least 15 years. I mean, seriously, listen to yourself. Now you are just saying Batman can't disappear 8 hours one night/day to gather some info and come back lol
      10. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        But you seem to forget that Superman would doing things throughout the entire planet. One day, he may be at New York, the next day he's in Antarctica.
        Now I don't know how fast the Batplane can fly, but you're basically having Batman fly all across the globe every week just hinging on the slum chance that he'll find some DNA or something from Superman.
      11. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        He doesn't have to go to every single location though, he can go to as many as he can staying in the dl, especially is Superman is as active as you make it sound. I imagine if the Batplane is as fast as the fastest jet in the world, he'd be flying at 7,200 km/h
    2. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
      October 5, 2017
      Comparing a hummer to a fictional god like being?? Really...
      1. dugzino
        October 5, 2017
        Close enough, right?
      2. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
        October 5, 2017
        As close as we are to the sun.
      3. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        Not really wanting to understand what I mean?? Really...
        Try harder, you'll get it
      4. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
        October 5, 2017
        I try not to rationalize lunacy...
      5. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        LOL GTFO I even upvoted you on a comment lol dunno what your problem is and what's so hard to understand about the example I made. I didn't compare them, I used it as an analogy, something your tiny brain might not understand
      6. BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
        October 5, 2017
        Clearly your overly sensitive...have fun with that..I have no problems...I dont care if you upvoted me...I dont look for those...
  2. dugzino
    October 5, 2017
    Zack got pretty social, but not THAT social. Hahahahaha
    And no, it's not about letting go, it's about injustice.
    BvS was simple. It was like Blade Runner. You either loved it or hated it. There are no inbetweens. And the reasons for the haters seem cheap af to lovers.
    1. dugzino
      October 5, 2017
      There goes those RT "stats". What about the peoples thoughts?
      Because who gives a crap about biased thoughts about "professional" critics.
      I read one where he talks about a scene he didn't like that never took place in any of BvS's versions. I became biased as well now. I hated both Avengers, maybe even more than Iron Man 3. So how am I supposed to say something nice about its director? And don't even get me started on Disney's CGIs. They're closer to games from the late 90s than actual reality-ish.
      But then again, Watchmen was perfect, 300 was great, Sucker Punch, I believe its director cut would've been perfect as well and I already liked its theatrical cut, then came the best superhero origin movie ever, Man of Steel, and then the close to perfect BvS UE (Watchmen's still the best superhero movie I've seen so far). So after all these movies I loved from Zack Snyder, all I can get is either they hate his guts for some reason, or his storytelling is way too hard for them to grasp.
      Stanley Kubrick anyone?
      I'll always put Zack Snyder and Stanley Kubrick in the same bag.
      Now what I want is Zack Snyder directing a Metal Gear Solid movie while having Hideo Kojima by his side. Make it happen!
      1. BugsMeany
        October 5, 2017
        I'm with you but it was the general audience that would've gotten it to $1B.
        The first weekend is for the fans; after that the normies, who are a much larger group. $166M is a tremendous opening. Making only $164M afterward is disastrous. Not even reaching $900M worldwide is inexcusable.
      2. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        "Stanley Kubrick anyone?
        I'll always put Zack Snyder and Stanley Kubrick in the same bag."
        Seriously? What? You think their in the same bag? Kubrick has a fair few of the best films ever made what is a widely shared opinion, even his weakest film is better then Snyder's best film. Kubrick in 80 years time will still be talked about and his films held in such high regard and discussed, Snyder won't even be remembed in the film world and will be long forgotten along with his films. Harsh sure but its fucking true and you're deluded if you think otherwise.
      3. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Kubrick is one of greatest film makers to have ever lived with a fair share of his films being classed as some of the greatest films ever made, the fact that guy compares him to Snyder is just....i have no words.
      4. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        "And don't even get me started on Disney's CGIs. They're closer to games from the late 90s than actual reality-ish." Clearly never played a 90's or early 2000's games, what are you 12?
        So you think they look alike?
        https://gaminghistory101.fi...
        http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/...
  3. Schuyler Finley
    October 5, 2017
    Lol, so are you gonna also say that to the people, especially Reverse Flash, who repeatedly talk shit about the film and WB in general in almost every article Chris posts?
  4. Reverse_Flash
    October 5, 2017
    "The film freaking beats you over the head numerous times that Batman isn't gonna listen"
    The fact that it is adressed doesn't change that it doesn't make any sense. The only thing one can conclude is that this version of Batman is simply dumb and irrational.
    "The fight wasn't about ideologies"
    No, it was about one guy being irrational and the other guy having his mom kidnapped. Ideologies were established but ultimately they went out the window, making "Batman V Superman" title kinda pointless.
    "Batman was pissed because of the events from MoS AND the potential danger Superman is"
    Potential danger doesn't mean you have to be reactive. Batman creating weapons to destroy Superman in case he becomes a threat is understadable. Trying to destroy a guy who didn't hurt a fly in 33 years and who only came out of the shadows to defend the world? That's not understandable.
    And don't even get me started on how all that rage suddenly disappeared, in 2 seconds...
    "Imo, Civil War got everything wrong."
    Of course you would think that. You're a blind DCEU fanboy who lives inside his little bubble. You can't possibly understand why one movie was widely praised while the other was widely panned.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      October 5, 2017
      Jesus, for a comic book fan, you sure can't seem to understand that Batman is KNOWN for being hard-headed at times. Even the Arkham games showed that with Alfred, Barbara, and Tm telling Bruce to listen to them for once.
      What ideologies are you talking? Superman was pissed at first because Batman was going to basically treating criminals like cattle. Batman was only scared about Superman's potential. There were no ideologies conflicting with each other.
      Oh Christ, again the film beats you over the head with bringing up Batman's past experiences numerously. For Bruce, it makes sense. It's only a matter of time before Superman goes rogue.
      "Of course you would think that. You're a blind DCEU fanboy who lives
      inside his little bubble. You can't possibly understand why one movie
      was widely praised while the other was widely panned."
      Wow, way to be mature, dude. Seriously, I don't even know why I bother with you. You always talk shit on every article that Chris post, and then resort to name calling when you get called out. I rather be a fanboy, than someone like you.
      1. Reverse_Flash
        October 5, 2017
        "you sure can't seem to understand that Batman is KNOWN for being hard-headed at times"
        Other depictions are irrelevant, and not a good way to justify this one.
        "What ideologies are you talking?"
        Their approach for justice exactly. Batman was a lot more brutal than Superman.
        "For Bruce, it makes sense. It's only a matter of time before Superman goes rogue."
        We all got that. That's why he's dumb.
        "You always talk shit on every article that Chris post, and then resort to name calling"
        False. Not in every article. And "fanboy" is hardly name calling. Don't be so sensitive.
      2. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        "Other depictions are irrelevant, and not a good way to justify this one."
        Keep moving that goal post.
        "Their approach for justice exactly. Batman was a lot more brutal than Superman.
        Except that only Superman is talking anything about justice to Batman. Batman is only having those one-sided conversations with Alfred.
        "False. Not in every article. And "fanboy" is hardly name calling. Don't be son sensitive."
        You're clearly using it as a derogatory word.
        http://airstre.am/dopamine7...
      3. Reverse_Flash
        October 5, 2017
        They clearly had a debate over the "bat vigilante in Gotham". Sups also threatened him in the Batmobile chase scene and Batman threatened him back.
        There was clearly tension being built up, but it never culminated. Clark didn't try to stop Bruce because of what he was doing, but because he was forced to by Lex.
        Lex's manipulation tactics also seemed irrelevant because of the above. Not to mention Bruce was already angry at Sups.
      4. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        So that one argument was totally about ideology, and not just them telling us why they don't like each other?
        Just keep moving that goal post, it'll eventually work for you.
      5. Reverse_Flash
        October 5, 2017
        They had clearly different approaches and ideas. I'm not talking about political ideologies. Just that they had differences and those differences led to tension, which in the end turned out to be pointless.
        Not sure why that's so hard to grasp.
      6. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        What differences?
        All Clark did was tell Bruce that Batman is scaring Gotham and it's citizens.
        Did Bruce defend himself and/or say that Superman's way of handling criminals is no better?
        Nope. He just smirked and laid out his reasons for hating Superman. There was no ideology conflict. Plain and simple. It was just two guys not liking each other.
      7. Reverse_Flash
        October 5, 2017
        "Did Bruce defend himself"
        He did by talking bad about Superman. Clark did as well by telling Bruce that people didn't share his view of Superman. It's clear they had different ways of thinking.
        Tension escalated when they threatened each other later in the movie.
        And then....Lex Kidnaps Martha and forces him to fight Batman.
      8. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        Noooooo. I'm talking about him defending Batman's actions actions towards criminals. He just says that Clark is acting hypocritical since The Daily Planet writes " buff piece editorial about an alien who if he wanted to can burn
        the place down, and there wouldn't be a damn thing we can about it".
        You're avoiding that ideology talk now.
      9. Reverse_Flash
        October 6, 2017
        Bruce attacking the Daily Planet and Superman IS defending Batman.
        You thinking that they needed to have a debate on how to treat criminals to make it a battle of ideologies is just ignorant on your part. There are several ways to depict conflicting ideas.
        The movie's script was not that clever, but they do make it clear that Batman and Superman had conflicting views on justice, on Batman's approach and on Superman's existence.
      10. Schuyler Finley
        October 6, 2017
        No it isn't. He's not defending his actions. All he's doing is telling not Clark throw to a stone in his glass house. At best, he avoided the subject.
        It's only Superman who cares about justice. There's no conflicting views about that. And Bruce NEVER talks about justice to Clark. It's only about how dangerous Superman is. That's all that Batman cares about. After their first talk about Bruce's brutality, Alfred never speaks of it again. Why? Because that wasn't what the film was about. Clark is the only one in the entire film who cares about Batman's actions.
        Bruce knows that what he's doing is wrong. He even calls himself a criminal. There's was no conflict about that. The rest of his talks with Alfred were only about Superman.
        So, you're wrong.
      11. Reverse_Flash
        October 6, 2017
        Ever heard the phrase "the best defense is a good offense"?
        Attacking is also defending yourself. Bruce defends Batman by criticizing the Daily Planet and Superman. Clark disagrees.
        There's a conflicted idea being worded.
        If they didn't have a opposed ideas/approaches then why did they threaten each other?
        Also, you're missing the main point, which is that the evident tension between each other never culminated.
  5. Bob Burger
    October 5, 2017
    The entire half of the film of BvS was showing both their ideologies which was a reasonable story arc for them to fight but then they just totally went, "Fuck that!" and threw in a plot device of Lex Luthor kidnapping Martha which is why Superman fights Batman.
    Can't you see that failed plot narrative that was just thrown away?
    1. Schuyler Finley
      October 5, 2017
      What are the ideologies? Everyone keeps mentioning ideologies, but no one's even saying what they are.
      1. Bob Burger
        October 5, 2017
        Batman sees Superman as a possible threat of the entire human race, even if there's a 1% chance that he is an enemy he has to take it as an absolute certainty.
        -That's a reasonable reason for Batman to fight Superman.
        On the other-side of the spectrum we have Supe's views of Justice.
        Clark Joseph Kent doesn't agree in the ways in which Batman does justice. Judge? Jury? Executioner? This is what Clark sees in Batman, someone who is brutal, someone who is relentless and Bat-Brands criminals. Even though it wasn't Batman's intention for those he branded to be killed (Lex's plan), he did make them a target which led to their deaths.That's what Clark sees from behind the curtain of Lex's manipulative ways.
        The UE furthered this idea when Clark visited the GCPD and talked to one of the known associates of the deceased branded criminal. Stating that even tho he was a criminal, he was also a father and didn't deserve death, that a man like that no pen can stop him, but only a fist. It furthered this narrative plot, this disdain of Clark against Batman.
        Clark's arc of Batman being the bad guy should've been further explored upon so they could've of fought. Half of the film was pretty much building up to that but Lex straight up kidnapped Martha, which is the only reason why he fought Batman. That investigation stuff he did, the hate against Batman was ultimately unnecessary in the end if he fought over saving his mum as opposed to Clark slowly hating Batman.
4. lowdevil
  October 5, 2017
  Bringing Civil War into your thesis for comparison is like bringing a Ukulele to a gun fight. In other words, stop trying to fight. Civil War has more plot holes than pot holes in Michigan. And i have never been to Michigan.
  1. Reverse_Flash
    October 5, 2017
    They were movies with similar premises. By all means comparable.
    1. lowdevil
      October 5, 2017
      Believe me i completely understand when fans compare these films. Especially because CW was a knee jerk reaction to hearing Batman was going to fight Superman (admission by Marvel). And because of that fact it suffered greatly while getting free passes. I just hate it when i see comparisons of the two.
      They are completely different other than being CB films. Both have glaring flaws but whats always irked me other than comparisons, is that CW is seen as the superior film ,when I see the film as the years worst. Again, personally, BvS is not great by any means. But the extended version makes the CW argument ineffectual.
      1. Reverse_Flash
        October 5, 2017
        So comparisons with Civil War bother you because most people think Civil War is better.
      2. lowdevil
        October 5, 2017
        First of all lets start with the title. Why Civil War? So many have come down on the BvS title when its the CW title that makes zero sense. It has nothing to do with anything besides pandering to the few marvel comic fans. In that point it also does little to compare to the actual comic book! Funny. A pointless title.
        Forget about plot holes because this can go on forever. Both have dozens and which is less than irrelevant.
        Lets talk about Martha. The punching bag vs the MCU brawl.
        The airport fight was a friendly meaningless brawl that said "hey, Marvel fans, look how crazy we are" and the fans ate cake. It was laughable and completely unnecessary.
        With the BvS fight, as silly as Martha was, its still thought provoking with plenty of consequences. Everyone missed the point with Martha. Batman suddenly sees Superman as a person with a mother instead of a reckless God.
        Its better than the intimate trash brawl in CW.
        Overall the extended bvs is the superior film while still remembering both are less than satisfying. In essence we are comparing one week old, to two day old fish.
      3. Reverse_Flash
        October 5, 2017
        I'd say Civil War was more of an aiport gang fight, but it was well put together. We knew they were not trying to kill each other, but the conflict was believable and the tension was well built up. In BvS, the tension goes nowhere.
        The last fight though, that was pretty baddass. And the motivations were also a lot better than those of BvS. You could understand why Iron Man would want to kill the Winter Soldier and beat Cap, a lot better than Batman's irrational hate for Superman.
        "Everyone missed the point with Martha. Batman suddenly sees Superman as a person with a mother instead of a reckless God."
        Batman confirmed he already knew Sups was a person with a mother when he said "I bet your parents taught you that you mean something; that you're here for a reason."
      4. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        "Compelling reason"......what was so compelling about them acting out of character and not having Tony under house arrest after the AoU? Those plot holes are the reason why the film shouldn't work, especially with the plot hole about Tony not looking at the Hydra files.
      5. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        I'm not about talking acting out of characters in regards to the comics. I'm talking about in regards to their respective film universe. Tony is ALWAYS snooping around, and yet he never bothers to check the Hydra files?!
        Cap was against people keeping secrets, and yet he thinks it's a good idea not to tell Tony that Hydra made Bucky kill his parents?!
        And again, TONY SHOULD BE UNDER HOUSE ARREST FOR AoU!!
        I want to like the MCU movies, but their poor joke insertion kills any tense scene that I try to get invested in. GotG 2 almost won me over, but its poor joke insertion ruined my experience.
      6. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        "And again, TONY SHOULD BE UNDER HOUSE ARREST FOR AoU!!"
        and Batman should be hunted by Gordon and the GCPD for murder and branding thugs but hey you will ignore that or find some weak excuse because its the DCEU.
      7. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        You do remember that the GCPD supports his actions, right? People tend to not care about criminals.
      8. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        You do know that the GCPD only support his actions and turn a blind eye when he stays in line right? He starts killing then Gordon would go after him because thats crossing the line, surely a supposed Batman fan would actually know that right? Because thats basic knowledge on their and the GCPD relationship with him.
        Also its not caring about criminals but playing by the rules, you don't start murdering criminals and turning a blind eye because they broke the law, thats really not how it works or how Gordon works. Damn thats some poor logic and a poor understanding of Batman or Gordon.
      9. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        So treating criminals like cattle isn't crossing the line? I'm not even saying that Gordon is indifferent towards criminals. I'm saying the citizens and regular cops don't care. The cops don't talk to Clark when he asks questions about Batman's victim.
      10. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Cops ignoring Clark is easily explained as Cops don't tend to like talking to reporters unless they really need to especially when it concerns something what could get them into trouble. Citizens may not care about murder or branding but cops do especially Gordon, Bruce has crossed that line and ended a truce he has with Gordon and the GCPD. Again this is basic Batman and his relationship with GCPD and Gordon knowledge.
        You will no doubt throw the "its a different Universe and not the comics" but as far as i'm concerned if you don't bother staying close to the comics then why fucking bother basing it on them? Films don't have the pleasure of the Elseworlds or What If name because they are talking a character known to comic fans and then putting them on screen for the general audiance to know them, having a Batman what kills and a Gordon what doesn't seem to care about that makes the general audience think thats how it is. Films impact the general view hence why some people still think Joker killed Bruce's parents and Ra's trained Bruce before he was Bats. Hell i've seen people this very night argue Barry is faster then Wally because he is the CW show, movies and TV really do impact how people view these characters so making huge changes isn't a good idea as it harms how the character is known. I know people who hate Superman because he's a moody asshole in MoS and BvS or think he's "boring" because of the Donner films, films sadly impact views more then comics because films appeal to everyone while comics don't.
      11. Schuyler Finley
        October 6, 2017
        Because as a writer, you're telling you're own story, and some of the general audience don't follow the comics. It's called "adaptation" for a reason. You can't repeatedly stick tot eh comics because the films will be the same. Same plot points. Same story. Same everything.
      12. Hunter Zolomon
        October 6, 2017
        But you stay true to the characters and story thats the trick. Imagine some writer or director doing a Flash film where Barry killed his foes, hurt the CCPD if they got in the way, had a green suit, abused Iris and was basically a shit. Now is that different and how the writers wanted there Flash to be? Yep sure. Is that a great adaptation though? Fuck no and not one Flash fan would like it.
        Ok i done a extreme example there but i used your logic. Nolan changed a lot with Batman but he stayed true to who the character is and got a ton of awards and praise for that. Ledger's Joker is very different but the Joker spirit is there so along with all the other deserved praise and awards Joker fans also loved him. CW The Flash S1 changed a lot but still had The Flash spirit and was also loved. You get what i'm saying here? Superman and Batman don't feel true to who they are in BvS and oh look at that the film is panned by movie critics and comic fans, sure movie critics had other problems rather how the characters were done but comic fans sure don't like the way they were done.
        Thing is i've noticed the bigger DCEU fanboys on here who comment on anything to do with it don't hang aroundthe comic news or reviews section, hell the recent article list of best Batman TAS episode has a low comment count. I've also noticed the people who don't like BvS or the way the DCEU is also comment on and chat on the comic news and reviews section. I've noticed this for a while and it does make me wonder things about the DCEU fanboys, i will let you work that one out yourself.
      13. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        I sure hope your "compelling" fight wasn't the airport one
      14. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        That was one of the better parts of a flawed, but still alright, movie. By no means BETTER than BvS' though. I don't see any problem with the motives in BvS. They were compelling, dramatic, and real. Broken Batman traumatized by MoS making a preemptive strike to prevent further chaos, being the paranoid and damaged guy he is. Superman distrustful of Batman, but still too noble to fight him until Lex has to force his hand by kidnapping his mother. That's some good stuff. I was on the edge of MY seat, that's for sure.
      15. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        What's wrong with the motives in BvS? Or do you just WANT to dislike that movie and use anything as ammunition to do so, even if I could name 101 movies that do the same exact things but AREN'T hated for it? 'Cause that's usually the case with BvS critics, from my experience
      16. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Which ones?
      17. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        Martha scene was one of the best scenes of the movie. It’s not the movie’s fault some people didn’t get it because they were only half paying attention.
        Batman’s motivations were very true to character, compelling, and done believably. What problem did you have?
        Lex is the one I really don’t get everyone’s complaints about. I could literally write essays on that character; he is written with such intriguing backstory and motivations, and seeing how those intersect with Batman and Superman’s in the film is highly fascinating.
      18. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        Thanks for the insults. No, once again, you’re misreading me. I do not hold to the idea that only geniuses can understand BvS. I believe anyone can with a open, fair mind and an adequate amount of thought or attention. Which is why I actually literally mentioned paying attention in my comment, as opposed to intelligence. It’s not that complicated; it’s a pretty easy scene to understand if - once again - you pay attention, which is why it’s such a baffling travesty that so many didn’t.
        Were you born in 2002 or later? If not, I would expect you to understand the realistic toll such a cataclysmic and 9/11-esque event as the Battle of Metropolis would have had, especially on someone who is already psychologically troubled / mentally unstable AND lost a building full of people he knew or cared about in the event. Bruce is very very clearly portrayed as having PTSD-like symptoms in BvS, on top of his already being a naturally paranoid and untrusting character. Intense psychological distress and paranoia resulting in an already hardened man losing his hope in life and spurring him into making a preemptive strike based on the extinction-level abilities of the alien threat at large is in fact a very compelling motivation. And very incredibly politically relevant for America, as well. If you want to make light of such a very serious real-life issue and claim it is ridiculous go ahead. I dare you to tell that to people directly affected by 9/11. No need to be a disrespectful brat.
        Wow. You need to take a chill pill, my friend. You really sound like exactly the kind of toxic, hate-mongering bully that plagues the majority of us normal people who simply enjoyed a movie you folks for whatever reason have such devoted hatred for.
        I never once suggested BvS could only be understood by super-intellects. Rather, it shocks me and breaks my heart that such plain, attainable elements of this actually good story (I do not believe it was perfect, but that is not enough to keep it from being good) were lost to some people, including Lex’s motives, which I found very rich.
        As an English major, I probably could do in-depth character analysis for him lol, but this is hardly the medium for that, and I really don’t appreciate you tone, so I don’t think I’ll be doing quite that.
      19. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        Yet almost every negative review I have read from critics - professionals - did not actually GET what they were criticizing, and I believe that can only come down to an unWILLINGness to. It’s hard to find a detractor of BvS who properly understood it for what it was, as opposed to their own hate-fueled versions. People need to be unbiased and fair minded. Same thing happened with MoS to some degree - a vocal minority came out and just constantly, incessantly, passionately spoke against the film, incredibly often for reasons that are blatantly, provably, objectively false misinterpretations of what the movie clearly showed. And to this day, if you show those people what they missed, they will look at you and say, “Well that’s your opinion,” and walk away. Because it is clear: people don’t WANT to like these movies. For some reason there is this need in a group of people to hate on these movies, and they try to come up with whatever they can to do so to the fullest, most inane extremes. I just don’t get the agenda against the movie.
        Perhaps it is simply conditioning. Maybe some people have been softened by the fun, but simple, Marvel films, as some theorize, and it is preventing them from fully grasping more serious and layered superhero movies? Or maybe it is just the mob mentality of people going with the crowd - whatever the loudest voice says must be true? I don’t know. It’s likely a mix, depending on the crowd. But I can tell you, as unlikely as it may seem, many people just don’t get BvS.
      20. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        I don’t think there’s some major conspiracy. Just a weird group of people who really want to hate on these movies for some weird reason that I can’t understand.
        But Logan is still under the Marvel brand, in a way. There’s definitely some bias there, to some degree, and I seem to recall it still being a fairly straightforward plot - dramatic and intense and with good acting and emotional layers, but still not asking for a whole lot of thought. I could be wrong, though; it has been awhile since I saw it.
      21. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        But hey, I’m just theorizing here. Like I said, I really don’t know why things are the way they are for sure.
      22. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        Though I actually don’t want to downplay it too much. There are other aspects of BvS that are truly deep and complex that very well may have gone over some people’s heads. But that’s to be expected when it was written by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer. Brilliant writers.
      23. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        They DID include complex themes, whether the delivery was failed or not (which I always find a hilarious claim - because what objective thing do you people base that on - and also because it seems to have only come in response to the fans’ pointing out all the themes and things TO them, which they simply missed the first time, lol). So that means there ARE things that are truly complex in BvS. I could make a whole list. I could send you links to countless articles and essays and videos all analyzing and digging up the rich themes and metaphors and allusions and allegory throughout the film. Few superhero movies have given enough material to be as deeply analyzed as BvS has been. Whether you like it or not, the complexity is there - the motives, the religious and political themes, the character studies, etc. And I find it extraordinarily hubristic to make such claims about writers like Terrio and Goyer.
      24. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        I don’t see my other, earlier reply... That’s weird...
      25. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        Don’t worry, I think I found it. And you did reply to it, having read it. But thanks again for insulting me.
      26. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        Why do you feel a need to make so many personal attacks?
      27. Reverse_Flash
        October 7, 2017
        "Martha scene was one of the best scenes of the movie"
        LMAO!!!!!!
        Shuyler Finley, you better up you game because this dude is putting your Most Delusional Fanboy title in jeopardy.
      28. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        It was. Not my fault you didn’t get it. It was the emotional and developmental climax of Batman’s story arc and spoke volumes of truth about his character and psyche. As a Batman fan since as long as I can remember, it was a very fulfilling moment.
        Go watch CinemaWins’ video for BvS or something. Balance out some of that negative propaganda you’ve been sipping on for two years.
      29. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        And how was that down to him rather than the (literally ingenious) writers?
      30. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        But he didn’t write it. He has some degree of influence on the story, sure, but HE is not the writer. People are just unwilling to admit they’re arrogant enough to think they know writing better than Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer, and producing better than Christopher Nolan, and so they put all the blame on Zack Snyder, because he’s the least obviously and undeniably great of the people involved in the film.
      31. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        That’s awfully rude. And no, actually, I never said he had a major impact. I know his role was minimal, BUT he DID have some part in it, no matter how badly you haters wish you could act like he didn’t at all.
      32. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        That is a baseless assumption that does not seem true of a director of such caliber and professionalism as he is. He had some role, some influence, some contribution. We don’t know how much or how little.
      33. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        I’m not going to take the time to copy and paste what you just responded to here, but it applies equally to this reply as it did to the other comment, since you have said essentially the same thing.
5. Reverse_Flash
  October 5, 2017
  "They named it Batman V Superman instead of Batman VS Superman for a reason"
  And that's exactly my point. They were on opposed sides but ultimately they don't confront each other because of it. The tension becomes secondary because one of them was threatened to fight. So the "v" makes little sense.
  "Superman is the one that is manipulated into fighting Batman, but Batman wants to fight Superman."
  No, he was threatened with his mother's life. Batman was the one who was shown to be manipulated by Lex's fake letters, which also didn't make any sense. He was already angry at Superman, so Lex's plan seemed just irrelevant.
  "During the fight, it is possible that Batman thinks Superman is just trying to manipulate him."
  I won't come down to fight you. My mom is in danger, please help me.
  See how easy that was? Superman didn't even try that once. He said "you don't understand" and then pushed Batman 100 feet away. How does that help him? How is that being smart?
  It's not that Batman didn't listen, it's just that Superman didn't try to make him listen. All he had to say was "Martha".
  1. Hunter Zolomon
    October 5, 2017
    I know it was so easy for Supes to say "look i need your help, Lex has my Mom and he's the true threat whose trying to tear us apart, i don't want to us fight instend i want us to work together", it was so fucking simple.
6. dugzino
  October 5, 2017
  "douchey smile" don't forget that Kal El has the codex running in him. Which makes him a fight lover like Zod. Superman is not a passive superhero at all. He can be brutal. And yeah, why not just make him fly over to Bruce to begin with and explain everything and end the movie in 30min.
  Because everybody would think rationally when their mother has been kidnapped by a monster.
  Supes dropped down, tried 3 times to reason with Bruce while getting hits
  *Supes drops down* "Bruce you have to listen to me, Lex wants us to-" gets sonar hit
  *Supes walks to Bruce* "You don't understand-" B: "I understand!"
  *Supes throws Bruce* "Stay down. If I wanted it, you'd be dead already."
  Now, go and try to reason with a person who chose to end you, have fun!
  If you people have it SO hard to grasp these easy details, just stop it, ffs.
  He tried 3 different freaking approaches!! Soft - Hard - Threatening
  When threatening doesn't work after being thrown, how do you expect to make it work???
  And all this, while there's a countdown to his mother's death.
  1. Reverse_Flash
    October 5, 2017
    "Kal El has the codex running in him. Which makes him a fight lover like Zod"
    And then he turns super sayan...LOL just lol. Funniest faboy deduction I've heard so far.
    It's funny that in 33 years he chose to stay away from any confrontation despite loving to fight. Not to mention he didn't seem thrilled about fighting Zod or Faora (no douchey smile). Funny he also didn't became a scientist or a leader, despite having the codex in him. Yeah no. The codex doesn't affect him at all.
    "Bruce you have to listen to me, Lex wants us to-"
    Replace with "My mom, Martha is in danger". Batman then snaps back from his trance.
    "You don't understand-"
    Replace with "My mom, Martha is in danger" again.
    "Stay down. If I wanted it, you'd be dead already."
    Replace with "My mom, Martha is in danger". Stay out of reach and avoid confrontation.
    And then there's the other zillion times he had the chance to tell him. Sorry, but no. Pretending like Superman did everything that he could to tell Bruce is absolutely ridiculous.
    1. NinjaGamer13
      October 5, 2017
      So now you are literally rewriting the movie in order to justify it being "bad." Pathetic. You can't fairly criticize anything if you won't let there even be the opportunity for good exist.
      1. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Its true though, Superman saying those things would have advoided that fight, i mean its common sense really.
      2. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        And Cap telling Tony about what happened AGES ago would have made sense, too, no?
        Thank goodness neither of those things happened, or we wouldn't have had either movie to begin with
      3. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        Cap didn't tell Tony about Bucky because 1 he wasn't 100% sure and 2 what would be the point especially when Tony is known to act out when angry or upset? Remeber before the big reveal about Bucky killing Tony parents Cap had no idea that would be brought up and revealed to Tony, they went there intending to fight multiple Winter Soldiers and not each other, Zemo played them big time and actually won because of that.
      4. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Superman didn't tell Batman about-- oh wait, he did. Yet you still complain.
      5. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        He didn't though, he never said anything indicating his Mom is in danger until he lost the fight and had a blade at his throat. All he does before hand is say "you don't understand" or threaten Batman, the one time he tries sure Batman cuts him off but instend of just saying it again and making Bruce listen he doesn't and just pushes and throws him around.
      6. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Yeah he did - when the blade was at his throat. And he tries to tell him in like 5 different ways throughout the fight - while being assaulted by a bloodthirsty madman and poisoned with Kryptonite gas and pummeled around. It was handled about as realistically as it could be. Quit holding BvS to this impossible critical standard that no other movie gets held to just so you can feel justified in continuing to hate it.
        Besides, why do you want the fight to end immediately anyway? What kind of movie would that be?
      7. Hunter Zolomon
        October 5, 2017
        A good couple of minutes Supes has the way upperhand and is throwing and pushing Bats around, he could off ripped of that suit and crushed his gadgets and forced him to listen. He tries once to explain things but then never bothers afterwards, watch the fight again and you will see, the stuff is quouted by Supes is on this thread so look for it and you will see he hardly boothers.
        "Quit holding BvS to this impossible critical standard that no other
        movie gets held to just so you can feel justified in continuing to hate
        it." Maybe you should quit acting like the film flawless then. I'm criticizing BvS a lot because weirdly enough i'm on a BvS article where the main star is talking about its criticisms.
        "Besides, why do you want the fight to end immediately anyway? What kind of movie would that be?" Actaully i want a fight what makes sense, looks good and has logic like TDR, Hush, Injustice and all the other fights between them in the comics,
      8. Reverse_Flash
        October 6, 2017
        LMAO
        This dude is arguably a more delusional fanboy than Schuyler Finley.
        Wow just wow.
      9. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        I have no idea what you’re talking about
      10. Reverse_Flash
        October 7, 2017
        Just that you're almost as delusional as another blind fanboy who posts here.
      11. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        I’m not delusional. I just don’t have this weird, almost religious need to hate on a fictional thing that really isn’t that bad and bully and berate everyone who enjoys it so that they feel like they are wrong for doing so. BvS haters go on and on about the movie this way. I’m just tired of it.
    2. NinjaGamer13
      October 5, 2017
      He actually DID do the "Martha" thing, like you're wanting. Yet still people complain. So don't act like that would've made it better for you.
      1. Bob Burger
        October 5, 2017
        He didn't actually, only until just before getting stabbed did he mention Martha. Not once did he say it before-hand, he easily could've but he simply said nothing at all.
      2. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Yeah he did - just before getting stabbed.
        I would love to see how eloquent you are while trying to fight off a bloodthirsty madman.
        He tried to stop him every way he could. Just 'cause it wasn't your favorite order doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. In fact, thank goodness he did it in that order, or we wouldn't have a fight. And thank goodness we don't end all movies that abruptly and easily, or no one would watch them.
      3. Bob Burger
        October 5, 2017
        Alright I'll take your theoretical fight challenge.
        1) I have superpowers, strength & speed combined
        2) I pick up Batman and say, Lex kidnapped my mother I need your help, please listen to me I need your help.
        BOOM! I just won that fight. Stop being so ignorant stating that Clark tried to stop him every way he could. You're being blinded by delusion. Everytime Clark could speak before getting hit by kryptonite he could've of said, "My Mother has been kidnapped I need your help". If you are that ignorant to ignore such a thing then you are completely deluded.
        The fight could've happened another way, a fight between their ideologies OR Batman coulvd'e straight up shot Clark with the kryptonite as soon as he landed, causing Supes to not be able to breath for a while and make him unable to talk. Then Supe's would then be fighting for his life, trying to speak but he can't, there's that struggle of him doing everything in his power to talk but he simply can't. But nearing the end as Batsy about to stab Supe's, then Supe's throat could slowly clear away and then mention that his mother has been kidnapped.
        THAT is an example of Supe's trying to stop him every way he could.
      4. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        Once again, in your world, NO MOVIES WOULD EXIST. And it's not that simple. You're ignoring all of the numerous factors playing into the fight. That fight was handled about as realistically as a fight between the godlike alien Superman and the bat-costumed vigilante Batman can be. Loosen up and quit WANTING to hate the movie; that's the only way you can be fair here. I'M not the deluded one. I'm just being fair.
        Bats overloaded his super senses with sonic weaponry (that would have hit HARD) and softened the meat with machine gun turrets.
        Then you would complain about why his throat magically cleared just in time. That's straight up deus ex machina style. Like I said, it was handled about as realistically as such an inherently fantastical thing could be.
        Quit being hypercritical of BvS. Everyone judges it waaaaaay harsher and holds it to an infinitely higher critical standard than any other movie. It truly amazes me. People are DESPERATE to find fault with it. And that's as far form objectivity and fairness as someone can be. I can name 101 other movies that do the exact same things people complain about BvS doing, but are celebrated.
      5. Bob Burger
        October 5, 2017
        No, in my World there are more ways to write up a story. No one is just stuck with one concept.
        Dude if anything, you're the one ignoring every factor that was played in that fight.
        I'm not wanting to hate the movie, the movie does that by itself.
        Well his throat magically clearing just in time with actual struggle of doing everything he could is better than saying nothing at all.
        This ain't about realism, this is about making a story better.
        Also, please name the 101 other movies that do the exact same thing and give an essay and analysis for each one as to why you think that.
        Also these 101 other movies have to be critically acclaimed otherwise your argument lacks any weight.
      6. NinjaGamer13
        October 5, 2017
        YOUR version of the story is worse though XD Someone struggling to communicate with a raging madman constantly beating him and poisoning him and who he was told by a someone when he investigated him can't be reasoned with, before finally being able to just barely get his message across with his last breath is pretty reasonable - realism-wise AND storytelling-wise.
        People complain about Lex having an overcomplicated plan, for example. I would direct you to the Joker in TDK.
        People complain about the plot of BvS. I point to Civil War (which has almost literally the exact same plot).
        People complain about the fights causing too much destruction. I say look at Age of Ultron - where Hulk and Iron Man destroy a city with people in it. Or pretty much every other superhero movie in history, for that matter lol
        You complain about Superman's communication during the fight. I point to literally any movie or TV show with interpersonal drama ever.
        Etc.
      7. Bob Burger
        October 5, 2017
        I admit the whole just in time thing was stupid. But the fact of the matter remains, Supe's did not do everything he possibly could to reason with Bruce and say, "My mother has been kidnapped". That's just a fact.
        I gave the example of him choking and not being able to talk to show that, that him communicating would be an issue and he would be trying to do everything in his power fighting Batman to survive. This would show that Supe's is doing everything he can to communicate with Bruce but he simply can't. So that is better storytelling and also more realistic because if my mum was kidnapped I'd say to Batman, "Bruh, my mum has been kidnapped I need help please."
        When it comes to the destruction of cities and such, and people complaining. That's mainly about whether or not it could have been avoided. Hulk for e.g. in AoU was mind-controlled, he could not be communicated with at all. Stark had 2 choices, try to contain the fight reasonably well there and knock him out OR somehow lure him out of the city.
        "You complain about Superman's communication during the fight. I point to literally any movie or TV show with interpersonal drama ever."
        I would like many examples please.
      8. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        Yes he did, within the bounds of such a fantastical concept of film. It's really not that big of a deal. The whole point of the movie is them fighting. Let them fight. They provided just enough explanation and motive and dialogue to appease anyone not deliberately seeking to hate the film.
        But they already made it difficult for him in the movie as it is - he's being constantly assaulted, he's getting angry with and is already highly untrustworthy of Batman, he's being choked by kryptonite gas repeatedly, he is predisposed to believe Batman can't be reasoned with because of that one lady's comments when Clark went investigating earlier, etc.
        I'm pretty sure Doomsday couldn't be reasoned with either lol
        But either way, destruction can be good and shouldn't always be avoided - I thought it was a very thought-provoking concept to explore in both BvS and Civil War
        Civil War, Fear the Walking Dead, Star Wars, Lost, TDK movies, and more. Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Without characters not communicating in the most simple possible way, we get drama. With it, we have nothing worth watching.
      9. Bob Burger
        October 6, 2017
        "Yes he did, within the bounds of such a fantastical concept of film. It's really not that big of a deal."
        Could you please prove that because you sound completely wrong in almost every sense of the word.
        Link the video of when they fight and mention the areas where Supe's was doing all he can to say (and at moments where he can actually speak), "My mum has been kidnapped, I need your help.".
        "But they already made it difficult for him in the movie as it is - he's being constantly assaulted" etc paragraph.
        I understand that. I'm talking about in the actual fight itself between Batman and Supes. Nothing held Supes back (except when coughing) to say, "I need your help, my mum is in danger". That's why I brought up my idea of Supes not being able to talk whole way through the fight to make the scene actually make sense.
        "I'm pretty sure Doomsday couldn't be reasoned"
        I'm fine with that, he was uncontrollable. Zod on the other hand, Supes had great opportunities of taking that fight in the farmlands around Smallville.
        "Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Without characters not communicating in the most simple possible way, we get drama."
        But like what exactly? give me quotes, give me an analysis and essays.
      10. Reverse_Flash
        October 6, 2017
        He said Martha when he was about to get killed. He had countless chances to say it before. He risked himself and his mom by not doing so.
        In other words, Superman was very dumb.
      11. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        He tried to tell Batman in like 5 different ways over and over throughout the fight, and this is while having to keep him at bay constantly, being repeatedly poisoned, etc. The only people who complain about the fight are those who deliberately want to nitpick in order to come up with ways to feel justified in ruinin it for themselves so they can continue to hate on the movie. Nitpicking can ruin literally every movie ever. Doesn’t make it legitimate, just makes it petty.
      12. Reverse_Flash
        October 7, 2017
        All he needed to say was "My mom Martha is in danger".
        Takes 2 seconds. The fact that he couldn't do that proves how dumb he was.
        It's laughable you're saying he had no way to tell him.
      13. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        It’s laughable you’re nitpicking the movie so unreasonably. Two-second solutions are easy in hindsight; I’d love to see you have such an easy time in Superman’s position. If you nitpick every movie and TV show with the same standard you’re nitpicking BvS, not only would you ruin just about every movie with any kind of interpersonal drama out there, but you would make storytelling impossible.
      14. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        They provided reasons why he was struggling and they had him try to communicate multiple times, while still giving us the fight we were promised, and he did eventual get his message across, despite the struggles he had to go through, the heat and disorientation of the fight, his own personal anger for Batman, and his being predisposed to believe Batman can’t be reasoned with based on what a lady told him earlier in the film. What more could you ask for? The details of how that all happened don’t matter as long as they were done and aren’t GROSSLY inadequate, unless you hold all fiction to unreasonable standards.
        I can sit and nitpick The Dark Knight all day. Do you know how many unfeasible things are in that? But why? I want to ENJOY movies. So, again, as long as the explanations are not grossly inadequate, why nitpick ...unless of course my goal is to propagate the irrational hatred for this movie
        If you got your way, no movies would be good, and we wouldn’t have even had a fight in BvS.
        Hey, you mentioned Civil War. Wouldn’t it have made sense for Cap to have told Tony AGES ago before all that drama happened?
    3. NinjaGamer13
      October 5, 2017
      I mean heck, we could just not have the movie at all if all the resolutions were so simple. We could just not have ANY movie, for that matter
      1. Reverse_Flash
        October 6, 2017
        They lacked creativity that's the problem. Why take the route of Superman being forced to fight because his mom was kidnapped in the first place?
        They could have given Superman other motives. They could have continued escalating the tension between the two instead of relying on a cheap gimmick. They could have made Superman actually want to fight Batman.
        The conflict they created was weak and had an easy solution, but that doesn't mean that any other conflict would have an easy solution too.
      2. NinjaGamer13
        October 6, 2017
        Then all of you would have complained about how they made Superman evil. This was literally part of what everyone was whining about having that no one sees for some reason. BvS paints Superman in one of the most noble ways of any movie he has been in - he is constantly doing the right thing even under immeasurable stress. Lex wanted Superman to want to kill Batman; that’s why he kept instigated him with the photos and things. But Superman just wouldn’t have it. No matter what, he never stooped to fighting Batman ...until Lex had to force his hand by kidnapping his mother. And even THEN he didn’t want to kill Batman. We got the best Superman we could ask for, yet people still complain he supposedly doesn’t act like himself. What YOU’RE suggesting they had him do would’ve made those complaints 100x worse.
        The conflict was horrifying and edge-of-the-seat-level stuff. The resolution was much more elegant and ingenious and beautifully character-driven than the alternative that everyone predicted - that they would just stop fighting in order to fight Metallo or some sort. Bringing the two characters into this intertwining character arcs that converge at their climax in the final moment of the fight to resolve it as well as the development of the characters - perfect.
      3. Bob Burger
        October 6, 2017
        You've got to watch A+ level movies man, trust me you'll understand why BvS is bad some day.
      4. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        I have, and I like them as much as I like BvS. Thanks for looking out for me, though, my friend
      5. Bob Burger
        October 7, 2017
        You haven't been paying much attention to those A+ movies, clearly.
      6. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        Oh, no, I’m pretty obsessive and geeky by nature, and I love analyzing and studying stories and characters, on top of having some experience and interest in acting, so I think I’m all good there. Thanks again, though! Your concern is appreciated!
      7. Reverse_Flash
        October 7, 2017
        "how they made Superman evil"
        No, Superman doesn't need to be evil to fight by his own will.
        Again, they lacked creativity.
      8. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        He would have been called that if you had your way, though. You don’t get it - people find whatever reason they can to hate this movie, regardless of how good the explanations might be. Heck, he was FORCED to fight Batman, and people STILL think he’s evil! You’re wrong, man. Sorry.
7. Hunter Zolomon
  October 5, 2017
  With Zemo in CW he actually won as he wanted to destroy The Avengers and he did just that, The Avengers will be facing Thanos at their weakest. Lex on the otherhand brought the JL together and gave them all their Logo's. Pretty funny really haha.
8. NinjaGamer13
  October 5, 2017
  This has got to be a joke. You clearly WANT to dislike BvS.
  1. Reverse_Flash
    October 6, 2017
    I'm a DC fan.
    I love Batman and Superman. I hate Iron Man and I can barely stand Captain America.
    I tried to like BvS. I couldn't. As much as my fanboy side wanted to, I just couldn't. The movie was an absolute mess and I can't even defend it or feel bad about all the criticism it got. Sorry, but we deserve better.
    Never I imagined that I would like a Marvel movie with Iron Man and Captain America over a movie with my all time 2 favorite superheros together. That's how bad BvS was.
    1. NinjaGamer13
      October 6, 2017
      I don’t believe a single word of that. It’s stupidly easy to like BvS if you actually want to. But instead you went to the critics and you ate up everything they had to say and allowed that to shape your opinions instead of thinking for yourself. BvS shouldn’t even need a defense. It only makes two major errors that I can think of, and those alone are not enough to make it a horrible movie. And even if it WAS a bad movie, most people with common sense and a fair mind agree that it has received a remarkably and inexplicably unbalanced level of hate from pretty much any other movie out there.
      1. Reverse_Flash
        October 7, 2017
        "I don’t believe a single word of that"
        Your problem.
      2. NinjaGamer13
        October 7, 2017
        Your problem for trying to make up a story to make your hate for the movie seem more legitimate.
9. BugsMeany
  October 5, 2017
  >>> yet one - BvS - does it FIRST, and with seriousness and emotion and beautiful cinematography, while the other - Civil War - gets the idea from the other, and then does it halfheartedly and with okay cinematography, but it is Civil War that gets all kinds of praise, and BvS is genuinely considered a heap of trash.
  You write that as if Civil War were conceived, written and filmed in the six weeks between their release dates.
  1. NinjaGamer13
    October 5, 2017
    Marvel execs admitted they lifted the idea after BvS was announced
10. KelVintage1
  October 7, 2017
  Beautifully written man! I agree but I still can't hate the film....
nipple_pinchy
October 5, 2017
People that say that never explain how or why it's actually bad. You're just clinging to a bandwagon trying hard to be cool. People suffering from Tall Poppy Syndrome.
nipple_pinchy
October 5, 2017
I loved BvS: UC but I get that general audiences think of superhero movies as kids' fare so it has to be light and poppy to get general acceptance. Whatever gets me more good DC movies, I'll be happy.
1. BugsMeany
  October 5, 2017
  Kids made The Dark Knight a $1 billion hit? That argument is both old and thin.
  1. nipple_pinchy
    October 5, 2017
    People expect dark from Batman. TDK was a traditional Batman movie--a great movie, but traditional; what GA/critics didn't like was a dour Superman faced with dealing with a real world that denied him the ability to be the Superman we want him to be. That's all that was.
    They expected hands-on-hips, quip-slinging Superman but that guy cannot exist in our world. JL and movies going forward won't change the DC characters but the world around them to allow them to be heroic without real world consequences.
StarTheory
October 5, 2017
Everytime someone says the story was too "complex" and "smart" for you, it reminds me of those dumb IQ puzzles that Meme pages post on Facebook.
"Only geniuses can solve them" even though a fucking child can figure it out. It's a way for dumb people to feel better about themselves.
1. Seb
  October 5, 2017
  Hahahahaha... Probably the best analogy I've read in a while XD
2. Seb
  October 5, 2017
  They see things that simply aren't there. It's quite weird actually.
3. Bob Burger
  October 5, 2017
  I know that feeling of delusion.
  I defended BvS for about a year or so until after multiple viewings I realised how badly made it was. Had to cut away my bias and look at it in a proper view.
  1. Hunter Zolomon
    October 5, 2017
    You know after seeing it the first time i so wanted to like it but i gave up after the 3rd watch and just admitted its a really poor film.
4. Hunter Zolomon
  October 5, 2017
  Their minds would implode at a Kubrick film haha, speaking of him someone on here has said Snyder is on Kubricks level so yeah that was said haha.
Schuyler Finley
October 5, 2017
I'm just tired of people. Same fucking arguments. Same back and forth. Nobody on both sides looks good from all of this, and we get this shit:"Lol fanboys are so stupid" and "Lol this film was too smart for these guys". Nobody can fucking get along and enjoy shit anymore, because we're fucking arguing about a fucking movie that's over a fucking year old, but some fucking people have the fucking nerve to say talk bad about the film.
Hey!!!! If the film is so fucking bad and you hate it, STOP FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IT THEN!!
1. mr nobody
  October 5, 2017
  I wish we could get along too but we have different opinions and that's fine. The problem is when someone on either side says something and someone responds aggressively. You'll have trolls always on both sides too so you gotta pick who you respond to.
  About still talking about BvS, I guess you don't understand. To some of us, these characters represent a lot. We really really like them and seeing a DC character in a live action movie doesn't happen everyday. We had our expectations and we invested emotionally and economically in the movie. We read news, we discussed, we got excited, we bought merchandise and what not. And then the day comes and the final result is nothing but an experiment (hope fans of the movie can actually agree with me on this one, that at least the movie is a big deviation from traditional Batman and experiments on the characters?).
  All the anticipation and expectations are crushed by a major let down. It pissed a lot of us and we are frustrated over what they are doing with the chance we get to see a live action version of comic book characters. So we come here to let our opinions out on stupid subjects because our friends don't really care about Batman as we do lol. This is a space to find people people who think alike. We are Batman nerds who got our hearts broken, let us be and bash the fucking movie. lol
  Debating and discussing is fun and I've talked to ppl who make me see things from a different angle but some are just trolls who will mock or attack others and not really exchange ideas.
  P.S. Anybody wanna complain about The Last Airbender?
  1. Schuyler Finley
    October 5, 2017
    I get that people are passionate. I really do, but I'm just tired of the senseless arguments. It's been over a year now, and we're still having the same arguments. It's like I'm the only one who's tired of it. Hell, I had a similar conversation with folks on The Mary Sue who were saying that if JL ends up being divisive, then they'll just stay off the web for a while, because defending the DCEU films for years is just tiring at this point.
    1. mr nobody
      October 5, 2017
      I mean, nobody has to do it, we do it until it stops being fun. Don't care about other's opinions as much is all I can say. And it is a pointless discussion. in over a year I have yet so see someone change their mind. Endless debate for sure. At least we agree on this man.
    2. Schuyler Finley
      October 5, 2017
      Yeah I know that I shouldn't had opened the article, but I thought "Let's see what people are gonna say now".
      1. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        So why are we having theses same arguments every week for the past year?
        What's the point?
      2. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        Again, ever single week for over a year?
        Like I told Mr. Nobody, I get that people are passionate, but this continuing argument is just making everyone, including me, look bad. In the end, we're arguing about a film that's about fictional characters. Hell, MoS still gets shit and it's been four years now.
    3. Seb
      October 5, 2017
      I get you... But as someone from "the other side"... I feel like you reply more to my comments than I reply to yours. Not saying you're not allowed to do so, but if you're so tired of it yourself, then why do you - just like the rest of us - ALWAYS resort to the same old arguments yourself? Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again? Your criticism applies just as much to you as it does with others.
      1. Schuyler Finley
        October 5, 2017
        I don't know. I mean, this ain't the first time I blew up on here. It's a cycle. I get mad, but then calm down after a good night's rest.
      2. mr nobody
        October 5, 2017
        I love this philosophical conversation lol We all do the same shit every time
      3. Seb
        October 5, 2017
        No my point is, you're saying there's no reason to argue because both sides use the same arguments over and over again. But that includes you. And tbh, I've seen you reply more to my comments than the reverse (which is fine btw). I'm just saying, if it bothers you so deeply, why not "practice what you preach" so to say?
2. Reverse_Flash
  October 5, 2017
  And you say you're not triggered...
  If BvS criticism bothers you that much then you can just avoid the comment section in BvS articles.
  1. Schuyler Finley
    October 5, 2017
    Yeah, I'm not taking any advice from you, dude.
    1. Reverse_Flash
      October 5, 2017
      You should. I've been a fanboy too and believe me, you'll feel much better once you stop being emotionally invested in these movies and getting angry at criticism.
3. Rust
  October 5, 2017
  It's like they think they're doing their version of God's Holy Work. Like it's necessary to bitch about a done-and-over-with movie as though it's going to fix some huge injustice in the world. A delusional crusade.
  It happened, some people didn't like it, other people did like it. We all have preferences, but it's over. Time to live with reality and try to find things to enjoy while we have time remaining in our lives to do so.
  Frankly, I've resolved to calmly block anyone being childish about this stuff and focused instead on enjoying comments like yours and a handful of other people who tend to contribute smart or fun vibes.
  Like, I'll give anyone with a reasoned opinion a chance. I'll start with civil discussion until it inevitably escalates and we hit the wall where their bitter psychology starts obscuring their perception of sense and evidence, but I'm not participating in that garbage behavior anymore. Just brush it off, block them if they're over the top (sadly common), and keep moving.
  It's pointless to let a cesspool drag me down to it's level, because I
  know I can't change a crusader by crusading against them myself. That's a victorless war and a waste of time.
dugzino
October 5, 2017
But I loved BvS's tone :(
Wish it'd continue in that direction. DC has a solid fanbase, that love that kind of movies. It could easily continue in that direction, even hit the R-ratings, it'd still work.
1. Schuyler Finley
  October 5, 2017
  Man, I'm really starting to hate the fanbase.
  1. Schuyler Finley
    October 5, 2017
    https://media.giphy.com/med...
  2. jrvc
    October 5, 2017
    and the people like me who like both?
2. NinjaGamer13
  October 5, 2017
  This hopeful Justice League story is a natural progression from the darkness of BvS that Zack and Chris Terrio planned all along. As long as Joss Whedon is doing his job and keeping with Zack's vision - which he sounds like it is - you should have nothing to fear. This will be a great movie, I'm sure.
Nick
October 5, 2017
I like the tone of BvS. My main problem is that the pace is too fast because it has so much content they try to jam into the allotted timeframe. If you miss one tiny detail you start to get confused about what is going on. I had to watch the movie several times to fully understand it. They should have definitely made it into two movies. Have the first movie be about BvS. Introduce Wonder Woman in the second movie then have Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman fight Doomsday. Then I think people would have been a lot more accepting of letting Superman die in the second movie. And they could have had Batman discover the other meta-humans at the end of the second movie when Superman dies and Wonder Woman and Batman realize another threat is coming and they can't fight it alone. Then end the second movie with them starting to attempt to recruit the other JL members.
My other problem was the Martha scene. They should have done more to make it more easily understandable to the audience how it was possible for Batman to all of a sudden change his mind about Superman because of that one instance.
I think it is okay for JL to be more light in tone because it makes sense. It seems like a natural progression. Just as long as they don't make it too light. Just as long as the lightness makes sense. Mainly if the lightness is in the interactions between the JL members. I still think the fight scenes and the overall mood of the movie should be dark with Steppenwolf trying to destroy the Earth. I still expect people to die and for there to be tears and it be somewhat emotional.
BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
October 5, 2017
I love the grittier dc and the mood of bvs...I just did not like the weird story and showcasing doomsday...it should have been Lex in his armor...with the heroes clashing based on their ideogies not because of some crumbs thrown together by Luthor...I do not like the blue hue Zack throws over his films...and it would have been great to see growth of the man of steel instead of being killed off...him fulling embracing he is the beacon of hope for mankind.

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year

Browse By Author

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com