Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zack Snyder, March 25th, 2016) Movie • Page 41

I'll argue that Bat's hate for Superman was done well, but not the other way around which is why they went with the cheesy "I have your mom" motivation. The scene where Bruce is holding the little girl who just lost her mom while he's looking up at Superman and Zodd fly around sold me completely. That look on his face....

 

What would have made more sense is if Supes stayed hovering in the air and explained how Lex had played both of them and that they needed to team up to stop him. Instead, Supes slammed into the ground in the most confrontational way possible and advanced towards Batman.

 

(Chunky Bubbles voice) You seem troubled.

 

yeah, he tried to like once to talk to him lol. They should have made it more of a point to show Superman trying to talk Bruce down while Bruce is going crazy on him, blinded by rage.

 

Yeah after that Lex confrontation Superman has no reason to fight Batman, and in just about any interpretation of Superman, wouldn't fight Batman in that situation. But they have a meaningless slugfest. Superman should have been doing everything he could to reach Batman on a personal level. Instead they punch each other a lot. It would have been really effective if Superman just let Batman beat the shit out of him, still pleading about Lex, so that Batman could understand, since he's not fighting back, maybe there's something to what he's saying. Instead we got the Martha line.

 

See? This is what I'm talking about. I have people I regularly disagree with on here but still like, but you keep falling back on this gross Reddit mentality. Which, I dunno, maybe you don't know better. I could see that being the case. But, if you have the ability to post here as much as you do, then you should probably have the ability to look into these issues honestly and come to a better understanding on why they're problems, instead of writing them off as stupid "outrage."

 

Pretty much. But then, I don't think they were able to update Batman/Superman in the Synder-verse in a way that allowed for that sort of development. There's no nuance in his films, just a hyper procession from spectacle to spectacle.

 

That's funny because I've never been on reddit.

I have to write that off as stupid because there is context to why that is a non issue. You'll never see me posting "Oh, I think this scene were a man abuses a woman is cool". A scene where a super villain gets hit by a super hero because she is trying to kill him (let alone him saving her life) is worth defending against people saying it's sexist just because its a man and woman. Context people. I don't need to research anything, I have logic the situation of that scene is not anything to be worried about. Sorry if you don't agree.

 

Context: a film in which women are often portrayed as weak, gets a strong female character, only to have them get battered in order to humanize (read: feminize) them.

 

Harley was battered in order to humanize her? The scene to me showed how crazy she is. Even if she was drowning, she tried to kill someone who was trying to help her. Classic Harley. That is all I took from the scene. If you disagree and see something different, that's completely fine but don't get all up in arms when someone challenges that.

 

Whenever I have seen this come up with you, all I have seen are people calmly and in detail explaining why that scene played off to them. Your characterizing them as being "triggered" or "up in arms" or otherwise invalidating the criticisms is unfair and misguided.

 

How can you emphasize the context of the film a scene exists in, but be so (seemingly willingly) ignorant of the context of the society that it exists in? Images and words and stories have power beyond intent, and that intent does not absolve something from the way it ties into larger societal issues.

 

hahaha yet you quoted me not using those terms and actually making a point. Hmmmm.

 

?

 

Because it's just a piece of fiction. You have a great point if that's all you are looking for. The people writing, shooting, acting or watching the movie just want to see a good movie. Movies are meant to escape reality and just have a good time for a few hours right? I feel like this thought process is putting responsibility on the whole movie crew that they aren't thinking about when making it. It's not their responsibility to show the world how to act.

 

Oh, so if I used a certain term it discredits the rest of what is said. Now I know how the game is played

 

Well, no, but you're mischaracterizing the opposing side. You're making it seem like people are frantically and loudly dismissing the scene with no backing. I haven't even seen the word "triggered" used about the scene in conversations here, and no one appears to be "up in arms". Those are your word choices, how you're defining those who take issue with the scene. I don't care if you think the scene is fine, or contextualized. You're free to feel however you want about it and debate it with others. My issue is the way you're responding to those who disagree by painting them as "triggered" or "up in arms", as if that discredits the rest of what is said.

 

Fair point.

 

I mean, I don't care what you see. I'm just pointing out a different interpretation. The essence of your comments privileges an interpretation that ignores the valuations implicit in any text or social artifact. You evoke terms that are meant to take those into consideration, then denigrate them. It is problematic, to say the least, and conspicuously shallow if we would like to be honest.

 

There's no such thing as "just a piece of fiction" because nothing exists in a vacuum. It's not just a simple matter of films either didactically "showing the world how to act" or having no influence at all. Irresponsible fiction can reinforce genuinely harmful attitudes. And, the inverse is true, too. A friend of mine was just telling me last night how she loved a character in a cartoon series when she was young because it was a female character valued for her intelligence instead of being a pretty princess; she wouldn't have understood that at the time, but it had a truly positive impact on her.

It's not a game, and viewing it as such is probably why you continue to be terrible on this front. But, hopefully your time on here eventually changes that.

 

I appreciate all the thought that went into those responses. All I can say is this just boils down different outlooks on life. The claims that I'm shallow and have terrible outlooks on these issues are just as correct as my claims that I'm not, seeing as they are just opinions. No one can talk for everyone, so my view points about fiction just needing being entertainment instead of needing to be PC and teaching values are still valid just because you have valid points to why it isn't.

This is why I stay out of politics

 

That is a spectacularly bad post.

 

Question for comic readers: How do the books currently handle physical altercations between Batman and his female villains like Poison Ivy?

 

I can't remember the last time I really saw one. Characters like Ivy, Catwoman, and Joker's Daughter have mostly been relegated to fighting Batwoman or Batgirl. There has been a lot of outrage whenever something comes up, so they've moved away from it. Talia is mostly seen as a figurehead, so you don't see much with her.