Justice League *SPOILERS from Pg 59*

[Matches Malone]

Originally Posted by Josh-a-tron

He seemed just fine killing Luthor's minions with his car, which takes the "It's because he's an alien" out of the equation.

I do totally concede this point. I remember watching an interview with Snyder in which he was challenged on this his response was “Meh, everyone else, (Burton, Nolan), has done it why cant I”. I honestly don’t think there’s any deeper meaning to the vehicle based deaths us than “the director thought it looked cool”. I personally hated this inconsistency and felt it took away from the extremeness of Batman’s decision to kill Superman.

[Hellboy]

Originally Posted by Josh-a-tron

My point is, if he's willing to go after and kill an Alien that has been roaming the world helping people who happened to be in a fight that caused a ton of collateral damage then why on earth would he not hunt down and kill the Joker with the same veracity? Considering he actually tries to kill as many people as possible, It has nothing to do with when they last met, but we see Batman actively gearing up and planning to kill another being, why is the Joker still alive if this is the Batman we're now dealing with? Wouldn't he have hunted down and killed him, especially after killing Robin, since that's the mind set we're seeing in this film.

Just saying, it doesn't make a lick of sense.

You're making a lot of assumptions. Who's to say he hasn't tried hunting The Joker down? We have no insight into The Joker's whereabouts in this film (and maybe Batman doesn't either) so outside of the influence Joker may have had on Bruce's current mental state he's largely irrelevant in BvS. We don't know what Batman's done or what he'd do were he to encounter The Joker again.

Batman is simply no longer concerned with criminal collateral damage. Thats why some of Luthor's minions end up dead. He incapacitated them when he could but killed when he had to. He's not letting their well being jeopardize his mission and/or end goal anymore. If he was a murderer he wouldn't be branding his prey when he takes them down, he'd be killing them. Their subsequent murder in prison was constructed by Luthor to paint Batman as an judge, jury and executioner to further pit Superman against him.

Batman sees taking out an alien being that is threatening humanity as eliminating a threat, simple as that. This singular vision is clouding his objectivity and is the inherent flaw in his way of thinking. A way of thinking he may very well have abandoned once he realizes he shouldn't kill Superman and that they are indeed on the same side. That by acting like an indiscriminate bulldozer so to speak he may have been doing the very thing he was trying to prevent, costing more innocent lives. Superman ultimately seems to be responsible for reeling Batman back in. By not killing Batman when he easily could have Bruce seems to regain his objectivity, to course correct and maybe start on the path to returning to the hero he once was, not the jaded vigilante he had become.

[Luminous]

Originally Posted by Hellboy

That’s a pretty massive oversimplification of Bruce’s motives. You’re leaving out his current state of mind. He’s been immersed in darkness for years, suffered countless personal losses and battled a lot of crazies in his tenure as Batman. For good or bad he’s been driven to extremes before Superman even comes on the scene. He’s in a dark place. Alfred alludes to as much multiple times through the film, but he knows ultimately Bruce is going to do what Bruce wants to do.

As for the building you’re referring to, it was filled with friends and employees he felt responsible for. Losing them in a manner that made him feel completely powerless isn’t a position he’s accustomed to being in, but he’s been there before.. e.g. the death of Robin and it enrages him. He feels a responsibility to deal with Superman because any one man with that much power is a threat to humanity. In his current state he sees things in black and white rather than being objective. Alfred - “The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men, cruel”

The “Martha” problem so many seem to have is one of the most ridiculous overreactions I can think of in a film I’ve ever seen. The fact that their mother’s name is the same isn’t really the point. It’s just the catalyst that snaps Bruce out of his current toxic mindset because it resonates with him. For the first time he sees Superman as Clark, a man who wants to save his mother. Not some all powerful super-being with no ideals. It emphasizes the duality of these two characters. His mind was clouded until this and for the first time it becomes clear to him they’ve been pitted against one another from the beginning masterfully by Luthor.

As far as the casting of Lex is concerned, I’ll somewhat agree with you here. Eisenberg was miscast. More importantly the choice to portray Lex as borderline psychotic was completely out of character IMO. He’s not the Joker, he’s a calm, cool and calculating master manipulator that plays others against themselves like he’s playing a game of chess. Fortunately I think that was conveyed rather well in the intricacies of his detailed plans.

As for the story jumping all over the place, that’s a problem in the heavily edited theatrical version only. The Ultimate Edition rectifies the flow problem brought on by studio meddling with a Director’s vision. The layered narrative plays out a bit like a mystery as the viewer is meant to put the pieces of Lex’s plan together the same way our protagonists eventually do.

Excellent post. Summarized my thoughts on this film perfectly. Especially the Martha debate (can't believe it's even a debate). The criticisms of that scene are downright silly.

[Josh-a-tron]

Originally Posted by Hellboy

You're making a lot of assumptions. Who's to say he hasn't tried hunting The Joker down? We have no insight into The Joker's whereabouts in this film (and maybe Batman doesn't either) so outside of the influence Joker may have had on Bruce's current mental state he's largely irrelevant in BvS. We don't know what Batman's done or what he'd do were he to encounter The Joker again.

I'm not making any assumption, I'm posing the question. This Batman is going to take out Superman because he's a threat, the joker is alive, Superman since the fight has been helping humanity where as the Joker only takes life. It's not irrelevant, it's a completely relevant question as to who this Batman is, except that really don't give us a reason for him being this way. Again, as I stated this in the last post I think, he goes after Superman because of collateral damage caused in the fight with Zod, but doesn't even seem to care about any of the good Superman is doing, doesn't even question his motives or whether he's right or not.

Originally Posted by Hellboy

Batman is simply no longer concerned with criminal collateral damage. Thats why some of Luthor's minions end up dead. He incapacitated them when he could but killed when he had to. He's not letting their well being jeopardize his mission and/or end goal anymore. If he was a murderer he wouldn't be branding his prey when he takes them down, he'd be killing them. Their subsequent murder in prison was constructed by Luthor to paint Batman as an judge, jury and executioner to further pit Superman against him.

That was not collateral damage, he directly caused their deaths without even flinching. You don't slam the vehicle someone's in into the side of a building and cross your fingers hoping they make it. He knew exactly what he was going to do, otherwise not only is this Batman a terrible detective he's also pretty stupid. As for the branding, there is no reason given for him sparing one criminal and killing the others. He has a ton of gadgets disabling a vehicle without turning it's occupants into jello shouldn't be out of the question.

Originally Posted by Hellboy

Batman sees taking out an alien being that is threatening humanity as eliminating a threat, simple as that. This singular vision is clouding his objectivity and is the inherent flaw in his way of thinking. A way of thinking he may very well have abandoned once he realizes he shouldn't kill Superman and that they are indeed on the same side. That by acting like an indiscriminate bulldozer so to speak he may have been doing the very thing he was trying to prevent, costing more innocent lives. Superman ultimately seems to be responsible for reeling Batman back in. By not killing Batman when he easily could have Bruce seems to regain his objectivity, to course correct and maybe start on the path to returning to the hero he once was, not the jaded vigilante he had become.

There is no development in the film to tell us what he once was or why he has become this way directly. The only thing that gives us a hint at that is the funeral scene at the end of the film. If you look at his actions throughout the film until that final moment I'd assume this just how Batman is, because up until that point there's no reason to believe otherwise. They don't give us enough Developmental scenes with Batman to tell us he has ever been another way.

[LegendaryOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Josh-a-tron

I'm not making any assumption, I'm posing the question. This Batman is going to take out Superman because he's a threat, the joker is alive, Superman since the fight has been helping humanity where as the Joker only takes life. It's not irrelevant, it's a completely relevant question as to who this Batman is, except that really don't give us a reason for him being this way. Again, as I stated this in the last post I think, he goes after Superman because of collateral damage caused in the fight with Zod, but doesn't even seem to care about any of the good Superman is doing, doesn't even question his motives or whether he's right or not.



That was not collateral damage, he directly caused their deaths without even flinching. You don't slam the vehicle someone's in into the side of a building and cross your fingers hoping they make it. He knew exactly what he was going to do, otherwise not only is this Batman a terrible detective he's also pretty stupid. As for the branding, there is no reason given for him sparing one criminal and killing the others. He has a ton of gadgets disabling a vehicle without turning it's occupants into jello shouldn't be out of the question.



There is no development in the film to tell us what he once was or why he has become this way directly. The only thing that gives us a hint at that is the funeral scene at the end of the film. If you look at his actions throughout the film until that final moment I'd assume this just how Batman is, because up until that point there's no reason to believe otherwise. They don't give us enough Developmental scenes with Batman to tell us he has ever been another way.

Those are some solid arguments Josh and part of the reasons I think 'Martha', what that moment supposed to represent, is the epitome of how rushed and poorly conceived the movie was.

I think everybody agrees that it was the wake up call for Bruce, the chance to be The Batman he used to be, and what he did next? He went and killed the majority of those criminals at the building, just like he did in that batmovil sequence.

[JP Sarri]

The biggest flaw with BVS was its over reliance in the preconceived notion that viewers understood the characters and the forces at play. It relied heavily on the premises that most moviegoers were somehow more or less familiar with the source material, and therefore would find the references easy to follow. Unfortunately, this plot device was its own Achilles heel.

Like some in here have mentioned, without proper character development, it is almost impossible to build any sort of emotional attachment to the characters on screen. In other words, a foundation needs to be set to explain the motives and the reasons on which each character operates within the parameters of that particular story. Every story needs to answer these simple questions; How do we get from point A to point B, and then to point C? And most importantly; why should the audience care?

In my opinion, it was naive to assume that most people would put two and two together just based on their own previous knowledge of the characters and their background story. The truth of the matter is that BVS is a gorgeous movie to look at, but with a very poor plot and many underwhelming subplots. At the end of the day, visuals cannot compensate for a subpar story. This movie is a clear example of it.

[Bullseye]

Sigh.....Empire gave it 2/5. And the embargo by RT to not compile the critics score yet is not a good sign.

[Bullseye]

More non spoiler summary reviews;
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/justi...-mixed-a155366

[Bullseye]

TOTAL Film gives it 2/5
http://www.gamesradar.com/justice-le...gn=buffer_tffb

[Gothamite]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

And the embargo by RT to not compile the critics score yet is not a good sign.

That's due to RT wanting people to watch their show, during which they reveal the scores at the end of each segment. They started this not long ago.

Having said that, it's not difficult to do this the old-fashioned way, actually reading reviews for oneself. Both the positive and negative reviews say the same thing:

1) Gal Gadot is awesome.

2) The tone is a lot more light-hearted than any of the previous movies.

3) The movie feels generic, like any other big studio product that wants to please everyone (therefore unable to satisfy anyone).