A community for fans of the Snyderverse and Zack Snyder's other projects. Please keep discussions civil, respectful and on-topic.
Discussion
It was really enjoyable to watch the movie but there are two things I didn't like about the movie. First the fight between Batman and Superman I think it had a lot of pointless punching. And the second thing is the Kryptonian creature, it looked like a video game boss fight. I'd like to know what are your thoughts about this.
Sort by:
New
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
Disagree. I love the third act. Doomsday looked very good.
I overall love the movie, but the Batman and Superman fight was sloppy. It had a lot of cool moments, like when Clark is getting his power back while getting his face punched. But the lack of communication was a little frustrating. There were too many moments when one of them should have said something, but they just stared at each other before another punch. As for the Doomsday wannabe, I liked the fight, but it felt shoehorned in. Having said that, all of my favorite super hero movoes have these elements of studio interference or odd moments. WB has a track record of making dumb ass choices.
I love the 3rd act. I have rewatched that movie if not every week, every other week, since it came out. That and Man of Steel are hands down my favorite comic book films.
Agreed. Right up until they tried to adapt The Death of Superman in the last 30 minutes I genuinely loved BvS. That last act should've been an entirely separate movie imo.
Okay my thoughts on it are kinda long. This is my favorite movie.
Batman vs Superman is a literary analysis of the Greek and Christian mythologies surrounding Prometheus and Satan: specifically in why one is the hero and the other the villain for nearly the self same action? To answer this question each of the main characters has both a Greek and a Roman counter part. Superman as a god like being represents both Zeus and Jesus. Luther knowingly sets himself up as both Prometheus and Lucifer. And Batman is the one to choose. He decides between the Greek role of Heracles the mortal that can fight gods, and Micheal the arch Angel the closest thing Christianity has to a god of war.
Now like any analysis we have to have a metric to judge it on. And Luther tells us the metric, philanthropy. Luther specifically tells us the definition Batman is to use to decide between him and Superman, between Greek mythology and Christian mythology. That definition is “love of mankind”.
Luther spends a lot of time manipulating Bruce based on his personal familial tragedy into thinking Superman is an enemy; “you let your family die!”. And Batman is fairly receptive to this. How could he not be? Batman is famous for accessing and being prepared for tactical threats and Superman is such a threat. As such “if there’s even a 1% chance that he’s our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty” is a very reasonable stance to take by a man that saw his employees die to this alien having a death match in his city.
Which begs the plot question of why did he change his mind? The obvious answer, which received criticism, is “Martha”. Their mom’s shared a name so Batman switched sides. I hate it received criticism because it takes someone watching it without any thinking to see what happened there. Batman changed sides in that scene because Superman has a human mother.
Batman’s ideology up to that point had been “if there’s even a 1% chance”. Superman having a mother meant he couldn’t turn against humanity without turning against his mother. The only time Superman fought savagely in man of steel was when his mother was threatened. Superman could never turn against humanity and Batman now realized this.
But what’s more important about that scene is it’s the answer to the satan/Lucifer question; why is one of them the villain and the other is the hero? When applied through the filter of philanthropy, love of mankind, the Christian god has more love for man kind than Zeus does because the Christian god has a human mother. That connection and love that the Christian god has for humanity fundamentally changes the nature of the act between Prometheus and Lucifer.
Prometheus gave fire to man kind for the sake of man kind. Satan gave knowledge to man kind purely to spite the Christian god. Lucifer has no love for man kind. Neither does Zeus. In both mythologies the one that loved man kind is the hero, the good guy.
Moving back to Batman vs Superman, Luther recognized that Batman chose to be Michael and accepted his role as the devil. “If man will not kill god, then the devil will do it!” That Kryptonian beast, doomsday was his weapon of choice to try and kill god. And in a supremely symbolic act Superman saved Luther from doomsday (representing that any can be saved by god from their own mistakes) and Superman have his life just as god did to save the people he loved, including his mother and wife (yeah there’s some discussion about if Jesus was married).
So yeah. This movie is steeped in literary analysis and symbolism. It’s a shame so few people actually paid attention this movie enough to pick up on that.
That was an interesting post, thanks, but I do think you are putting a huge amount into the film that simply isn’t there on screen at all. Batman did not change sides because Superman has a human mother: he changed sides because the name made him see Superman as a person not an alien killing machine.
Snyder has a regrettable tendency to throw ideas at the screen without ever developing the and that’s what he does here.
Even if you want to phrase it the way you did the anchor to his humanity is his mother. That’s why he reacted the way he did to Zod, that’s why Luther used her as the threat and Lois as the attention getter, and why Batman switched sides.
Also Snyder didn’t develop them? I gave you the quotes. Snyder basically spoon feeds us those developed ideas. And further what I left out is Snyder puts his characters in front of pictures of who they represent. He put Superman in front of Jesus paintings, Luther in front of devil paintings and Batman in front Micheal paintings.
You say it’s undeveloped or underdeveloped. But that’s not a supportable case at all. It spoon feeds us the comparison. It explicitly gives us the standard to judge it with. It explicitly shows us who represents who. And tells us explicitly why Batman joins Superman, “his mother”.
If you aren’t picking it up it’s because you didn’t pay enough attention. That or have a hard time with symbolic literature. The latter I find more forgivable.
He gave the exact reason why the Martha scene matters and then says it was an undeveloped idea. I never saw an issue with the scene. It always made sense to me.
He’s probably calling it underdeveloped because he’s a more experienced film maker now. There’s no such thing as a finished piece of art, only one where the artist stopped working in it.
Please tell me that anyone here making negative points AT LEAST are talking about the BvS UC....otherwise I can't take you seriously.
Why? There’s definitely more in the UC but the idea that criticism of the main commercial cut of a film isn’t valid seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Because the main commercial cut is a broken film released to get more people in more showings. It's not the real film.
That hardly precludes criticism of it. In fact, I’d argue it makes it essential: BvS should absolutely be judged by the version most people were supposed to see. Perhaps that way, studios will start to learn.
That's what I'm saying mate. That BvS should be judged based on the BvS UC not the TC.
I really dug the 3rd act. It felt epic to me. Great showcase for the powers of each member of the trinity!
And it was clear that this newborn Doomsday was rapidly growing into something truly unstoppable. Thank goodness they were able to take it out. Everyone coordinated the attack perfectly to pull it off. Kudos to Batman for the plan and getting the last grenade off at just the right moment.
Fascinating that if Batman hadn’t created the Kryptonite spear and gas grenades in his attempt to kill Superman, they would otherwise have been unable to defeat the apocalyptic threat of a mature, fully grown Doomsday.
I straight up struggle with BvS
It feels kind of aimless at some points.
If anything. The third act has some sense of focal point. Yeah it's not great, but atleast it was going somewhere.
I just feel that BvS by someone other than Zack Snyder but who understands what makes Snyder great.
I re-watched BVS recently, and yeah, it is a struggle to keep myself interested.
I actually like the third act as it’s some of the best superhero action you’re going to see, it’s the first and second act I have the problem with. The batman/superman antagonism is forced and Superman’s descent into disillusioned mopy man is totally rushed.
But the ideas that are being explored are completely original and I think necessary for the genre.
Wouldn’t say they are completely original at all.