Yesterday I saw Batman V Superman.......it was ok...[MAJOR SPOILERS THREAD]

[Hero in a half shell]

snippy

Yes the fight between Batman and Superman was the main draw of the movie however it lacked any weight because a) we knew that Doomsday was going to show up and they'd have to stop fighting each other and fight him instead

I guess I was in a pretty unique scenario when I watched the film: I had specifically kept away from all trailers or spoilers, and while I did vaguely understand Doomsday would be in the film, I didn't know in any way to what reason, so I wasn't as taken out of the movie by prior knowledge.
I also had to wait a week to watch it with my sister, so I had seen the headlines that it was a confusing spectacle of mess, and I entered the cinema with zero expectations and prepared for Snyder weirdness, which helped infinitely.

The trouble with the Flash sequence was two-fold and depended on how geeky and up on the behind the scenes movie and/or comic stuff you are aware of. For someone like myself (very geeky), I had no trouble with it. I had a decent understanding of what was happening, and what it all meant. There was a large amount of people however that had no clue what was going on, or thought it was just another dream sequence like all the rest. There were those who are unfamiliar with the Flash, or the Cosmic Treadmill, and so none of that all made sense, and then you also had a large segment of people that, upon being told it was the Flash, confusedly said "that wasn't Grant Gustin."

I actually would have to agree with you on this, my sister was completely confused at that point, and I had to take the time to explain it to her in the car home. "That's the Flash, he travelled through time because reasons to warn Batman of something unspecified"
Also, I can see the confusion in the separate TV series Flash existing, that's a total mess - One that DC Comics should have been careful to address before creating a new iteration for this film, but it's okay, Snyder gave the movie Flash a moustache, so we would be able to tell the difference!

Honestly, I hated the Bats vs Sup fight. In a lot of ways, it was the movie condensed into one sequence - A bunch of individually neat things that, when jammed together, make absolutely no sense and actively undermine each other. And the fact that it followed TDKR made it even worse, because in the context of this movie, that fight doesn't make sense.

In TDKR, Batman never intends on killing Superman. He just wants to bring him to his knees - To make him realize what it means to be helpless (Among with some other things). In this context, Batman's string of nifty but ultimately useless gadgets makes sense - It's all there to distract and hurt Superman, not kill him. It also makes sense because Batman knows fully well that Superman doesn't want to kill him - He knows he can take his time.

In the movie, it doesn't make any sense. Batman is going up against a being he knows can kill him in a heart beat, and who he believes will kill him. His whole plan is made specifically to get rid of a man he thinks is a cold blooded murderer, but it's success hinges entirely on Superman not being just that.

That's why Batman has the Kryptonite spear in BvS - It's the murder weapon. I don't think Batman believes Superman is actually a stone cold killer - Yet, but as he says to Alfred, if there is even a 1% chance he could become one, then he needs to be taken down. Batman's a bit crazy in this, just like the Dark Knight Returns version, he's older, more paranoid, and he's just been worn down by years of fighting crime with nothing to show for it. He's at his wits end, and slowly slipping into madness. Superman's appearance gives him something to strive for - Some major level threat that he can focus on and attack, because Supe's already destroyed much of Metropolis, Bruce has seen that first hand, and he is being framed in scandal after scandal by Luthor which makes him look uncaring, or guilty as sin.
Batman sees Superman as an unexploded nuke. Not necessarily lethal yet, but if it goes off, humanity is doomed, so he plans to defuse the bomb early.

And then Superman's side is just as dumb. While misunderstanding due to incompetence is a frequently used device in most forms of media, it's taken to eleven in this fight. Unlike the TDKR fight, where Superman at least has the excuse of being nuked to hell just a few days ago, Superman is in peak shape. He could kill Batman easily. He could disable Batman easily. He could take Batman for a carpet ride around the world to explain what's going on and still have enough time left over to find his Mom. But instead, he pretends like he's a floating Terminator and just mumbles to himself about his Mother.

I agree fully that the beginning of the fight was forced Stupidity on Supermans part, right up until the first Kryptonite grenade, I think Snyder did a great work at showing that's the point that Superman begins sustaining damage, and gets irrational because Batman is stopping him from saving his mother (again, it would have helped if he had ATTEMPTED to tell Batman this at the start, but whatever.) Once the grenade goes off, Superman is weakened substantially, to a level Batman can damage, but still has enough power to properly wreck Batman every time he gets a solid hit in. The threat of the fight from that perspective itself was pretty good, Batman was temporarily evening the playing field with his grenades, then superman would recover only for Batman to release another one (but Superman got wise to this fast, and stopped him releasing the final one, almost leading to Batman's death) Then Bats gets the spear, and it's just a constant drain on Supes powers.

I went into the movie expecting it to completely blow, and many scenes surprised me with their competency, specifically Batflecks acting, which was excellent, Wonder Woman was also well acted, and avoided being really out of place or silly, the coincidence with both S and B's moms being called Martha was something I never considered before, but it's really interesting that that's the case (I don't know if the comics have ever drawn any attention to this coincidence) And I enjoyed the main fight, although Supes being inevitably resurrected in the next movie will completely remove any agency and emotion from the ending of this one, and just make him seem more invincible and unstoppable (which was already a problem, but now he can RISE FROM THE DEAD - The Jesus imagery is pretty much complete.)

These posts are getting long. Please accept this picture of a cat dressed as Batman as way of apology

Spoiler: I am the night!

 

[mduncan50]

These posts are getting long. Please accept this picture of a cat dressed as Batman as way of apology

Now if it were these two fighting it would make more sense to me.

 

[DefunctTheory]

These posts are getting long. Please accept this picture of a cat dressed as Batman as way of apology

Spoiler

Now if it were these two fighting it would make more sense to me.

Spoiler

Someone call John Oliver. Whoever did his All Dog Supreme Court video has a new project now.

 

[mduncan50]

These posts are getting long. Please accept this picture of a cat dressed as Batman as way of apology

Spoiler

Now if it were these two fighting it would make more sense to me.

Spoiler

Someone call John Oliver. Whoever did his All Dog Supreme Court video has a new project now.

Well hell... need to even up the sides:

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Considering the hate I saw for this movie beforehand, I came away actually kind of pleasantly surprised. Yeah, there's shit tons of things wrong with it, but that didn't stop me from enjoying it.

Things I liked:

- Batfleck. Perhaps the best film incarnation of Batman I've seen. And I especially dug how they gave a reason for his metallic growl, and it made total sense: Batman is a theatrical vigilante, why wouldn't he alter his voice via technology?
- Props at least for the balls in Eisenberg as Luthor. They had a vision and stuck with it. Didn't really turn out that great, but points for sticking to your guns.
- The action and spectacle, the level of which you really don't get in Marvel movies. Of course it went totally overboard, but I couldn't help my inner 10-year old boy getting hyped.

And the rest:

- Eisenberg as Luthor. What were they thinking? I'm not even a comic fan, and this guy really didn't engage me. He was annoying, flip-floppy, nonsensical and miscast. The casting opportunity of the century was missed in not casting Bryan Cranston.
- The script. Granted, a lot of its problems did fade away as the movie progressed, but during the first half hour I was totally "DC has no idea what they're doing, do they?" In so many scenes it was obvious they had to hurry the plot along, and just had like 5 lines, and on to the next scene we go! At least half the plotlines could have been dropped to make a more coherent movie.
- It's obvious they didn't learn from what people criticized in Man of Steel, ie. we have more city destruction, and likely even more collateral damage. They try to handwave it by saying "the city's been evacuated" in what seems like 5 minutes. Bullshit.

And more which I can't recall now because I'm tired.

 

[DefunctTheory]

- Eisenberg as Luthor. What were they thinking? I'm not even a comic fan, and this guy really didn't engage me. He was annoying, flip-floppy, nonsensical and miscast. The casting opportunity of the century was missed in not casting Bryan Cranston.

While I think Bryan Cranston would have made an amazing Luthor, I would hesitate before approving of it. While I think Cranston has the acting chops to differentiate between different roles, I wouldn't trust WB, nor Snyder, to force it and make him do 'Heisenberg Without Meth.'

I would readily approve, however, if they let him play Hal Luthor.

Or maybe he'd be better off as a new, original villain.

- It's obvious they didn't learn from what people criticized in Man of Steel, ie. we have more city destruction, and likely even more collateral damage. They try to handwave it by saying "the city's been evacuated" in what seems like 5 minutes. Bullshit.

To be fair, at least Batman isn't a complete asshole. He say's the docks/warehouse district he's taking Doomsday to is not evacuated or 'empty,' but entirely abandoned. It's also where he fights Superman, so it's possible it's Wayne Industry property that he's intentionally bought up and removed everyone from (Though maybe that's giving them a bit too much credit).

 

[mduncan50]

Considering the hate I saw for this movie beforehand, I came away actually kind of pleasantly surprised. Yeah, there's shit tons of things wrong with it, but that didn't stop me from enjoying it.

Things I liked:

- Batfleck. Perhaps the best film incarnation of Batman I've seen. And I especially dug how they gave a reason for his metallic growl, and it made total sense: Batman is a theatrical vigilante, why wouldn't he alter his voice via technology?
- Props at least for the balls in Eisenberg as Luthor. They had a vision and stuck with it. Didn't really turn out that great, but points for sticking to your guns.
- The action and spectacle, the level of which you really don't get in Marvel movies. Of course it went totally overboard, but I couldn't help my inner 10-year old boy getting hyped.

And the rest:

- Eisenberg as Luthor. What were they thinking? I'm not even a comic fan, and this guy really didn't engage me. He was annoying, flip-floppy, nonsensical and miscast. The casting opportunity of the century was missed in not casting Bryan Cranston.
- The script. Granted, a lot of its problems did fade away as the movie progressed, but during the first half hour I was totally "DC has no idea what they're doing, do they?" In so many scenes it was obvious they had to hurry the plot along, and just had like 5 lines, and on to the next scene we go! At least half the plotlines could have been dropped to make a more coherent movie.
- It's obvious they didn't learn from what people criticized in Man of Steel, ie. we have more city destruction, and likely even more collateral damage. They try to handwave it by saying "the city's been evacuated" in what seems like 5 minutes. Bullshit.

And more which I can't recall now because I'm tired.

I think the fact you're not a comics fan that may have helped your enjoyment of the film. I can only imagine I would have had a better time if I wasn't so pissed off at all the things they were getting wrong.

While I don't agree with the action being better than Marvel, it's not really something I'm going to argue because it's really completely different kinds of action. It's like comparing great MMA fights to battles between jets and tanks. Nearly every early review of Civil War has called the airport scene the greatest action scene in the history of comic book movies, so I'm actually interested to see how that compares.

Edit: Saw that the Nostalgia Critic v Angry Joe review just came out. For those that don't know they did a very entertaining Man of Steel review crossover a couple of years back, with the NC saying how terrible it was and Joe arguing how awesome it was (Note: a superman t-shirt is part of his character's costume). I've just started watching, but it doesn't appear that things are quite so balanced this time.

http://channelawesome.com/batman-v-superman-nostalgia-critic/

Edit2: Seeing Joe go full angry at the end was epic. These guys work awesome together.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I never thought I'd actually say this, but the grimdarky tone and lack of humor didn't bother me at all. I might even say it was slightly refreshing. Considering most of Marvel's films can be categorized as action comedy, and especially after Joss Whedon fucked Age of Ultron and turned every character in it into a quip machine, seeing a totally serious superhero movie actually felt like a nice change of pace.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Well, for starters, this movie's Luther isn't Lex Luthor, but Alexander Luthor. I'm aware they both technically have the same birth certificate name, but there is a difference.

He's always been Alexander Luthor. I don't see any difference. All they really did was change his father's name from Lionel to Alexander.

The Luthor in this movie isn't that. He's not charismatic, he's creepy. He's not articulate, he's down right incompetent in a public setting. He dominates everyone around him not through the power of his character, but by being so awkward and, I have to say it again, so creepy that everyone is dumbfounded and unable to act because they just don't know what the hell his problem is. His goals are nebulous - He want's to get rid of Superman, because... why? Here's where I think the Joker thing comes in - Luthor seems to be an anarchist. His motivations aren't to elevate himself, like Luthor typical does, but to drag everyone else into the mud, like the Nolan Joker. He seems to just want the world to burn, because fuck it, why not.

I actually kinda buy that. Luthor is normally a much better public speaker than Eisenberg played him as.

I still found him charismatic in the sense that he was persuasive, as you can see when he's trying to get the senators on his side and during his main motive rant against Superman about halfway through the film. But articulate or eloquent, no. It'd be difficult to see this guy getting elected president.

As for his motives - they're pretty clearly explained in his rant to Superman in the middle of the film. He's a misotheist. He hates the idea of a higher power; he considers power incompatible with virtue, which is a classic theological problem [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil] that seems appropriate for a guy like Superman, who is both powerful and good.

Essentially, he thinks the world is a shit place full of evil. Therefore, if God exists, he's either impotent or malevolent - if he was all-powerful and all-good, the world wouldn't be such a shitty place and his father never would have beaten him when he was a child. So Superman shows up, dropping out of the sky to save people like a flamboyant Jesus, and Luthor decides that either Superman is not that powerful or he's not that good. Because he's clearly very powerful, Luthor decides he has to be a fraud. That's his whole plan - he wants to besmirch Superman's reputation and, eventually, blackmail him into compromising his morals.

I actually find the whole dynamic extremely interesting, because when I think about it the three main players in the movie (Superman, Batman and Lex) are all motivated by their opinion of humanity. Superman thinks people are inherently good, and that they deserve to be saved. Batman thinks people are inherently bad, and that you have to force them to behave. He doesn't trust Superman because he wouldn't trust anyone that powerful - he probably wouldn't trust himself with that power.

Meanwhile, Lex doesn't necessarily think that people are good or evil, but that God, if he exists, must be evil - if he was good, the world would be a better place. Superman-as-God enrages him on a basic psychological level because it implies that someone all-powerful does exist and they are all-good, and they still decided not to save him from his father.

Anyway, now I'm rambling. What really fucking bugs me about Snyder films in general is how they always touch upon the surface of really interesting philosophical or psychological questions, but then skim off without actually getting their feet wet, so to speak. Either I'm projecting complex motivations where there aren't any (very possible) or Snyder is deliberately not delving into this interesting stuff because he thinks audiences are dumb and they would get bored if Luthor started talking about philosophy for more than thirty seconds. I had the same feeling about Sucker Punch. It's almost, almost, really really smart, but the actual film you actually got never actually said any of the smart stuff; it just implies it, then skips off across the surface of the lake, laughing while you sink.

tl;dr reading too much into bad films

 

[SweetShark]

Well, for starters, this movie's Luther isn't Lex Luthor, but Alexander Luthor. I'm aware they both technically have the same birth certificate name, but there is a difference.

He's always been Alexander Luthor. I don't see any difference. All they really did was change his father's name from Lionel to Alexander.

The Luthor in this movie isn't that. He's not charismatic, he's creepy. He's not articulate, he's down right incompetent in a public setting. He dominates everyone around him not through the power of his character, but by being so awkward and, I have to say it again, so creepy that everyone is dumbfounded and unable to act because they just don't know what the hell his problem is. His goals are nebulous - He want's to get rid of Superman, because... why? Here's where I think the Joker thing comes in - Luthor seems to be an anarchist. His motivations aren't to elevate himself, like Luthor typical does, but to drag everyone else into the mud, like the Nolan Joker. He seems to just want the world to burn, because fuck it, why not.

I actually kinda buy that. Luthor is normally a much better public speaker than Eisenberg played him as.

I still found him charismatic in the sense that he was persuasive, as you can see when he's trying to get the senators on his side and during his main motive rant against Superman about halfway through the film. But articulate or eloquent, no. It'd be difficult to see this guy getting elected president.

As for his motives - they're pretty clearly explained in his rant to Superman in the middle of the film. He's a misotheist. He hates the idea of a higher power; he considers power incompatible with virtue, which is a classic theological problem [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil] that seems appropriate for a guy like Superman, who is both powerful and good.

Essentially, he thinks the world is a shit place full of evil. Therefore, if God exists, he's either impotent or malevolent - if he was all-powerful and all-good, the world wouldn't be such a shitty place and his father never would have beaten him when he was a child. So Superman shows up, dropping out of the sky to save people like a flamboyant Jesus, and Luthor decides that either Superman is not that powerful or he's not that good. Because he's clearly very powerful, Luthor decides he has to be a fraud. That's his whole plan - he wants to besmirch Superman's reputation and, eventually, blackmail him into compromising his morals.

I actually find the whole dynamic extremely interesting, because when I think about it the three main players in the movie (Superman, Batman and Lex) are all motivated by their opinion of humanity. Superman thinks people are inherently good, and that they deserve to be saved. Batman thinks people are inherently bad, and that you have to force them to behave. He doesn't trust Superman because he wouldn't trust anyone that powerful - he probably wouldn't trust himself with that power.

Meanwhile, Lex doesn't necessarily think that people are good or evil, but that God, if he exists, must be evil - if he was good, the world would be a better place. Superman-as-God enrages him on a basic psychological level because it implies that someone all-powerful does exist and they are all-good, and they still decided not to save him from his father.

Anyway, now I'm rambling. What really fucking bugs me about Snyder films in general is how they always touch upon the surface of really interesting philosophical or psychological questions, but then skim off without actually getting their feet wet, so to speak. Either I'm projecting complex motivations where there aren't any (very possible) or Snyder is deliberately not delving into this interesting stuff because he thinks audiences are dumb and they would get bored if Luthor started talking about philosophy for more than thirty seconds. I had the same feeling about Sucker Punch. It's almost, almost, really really smart, but the actual film you actually got never actually said any of the smart stuff; it just implies it, then skips off across the surface of the lake, laughing while you sink.

tl;dr reading too much into bad films

I will admit your explanation of why you like this version of Lex is very nice.
Normally as you already know I prefer the other version of Lex we know [even if he is the son of Lex, I know, my mistake], but if the film was actually good and it had the version of this Lex to be more "polish", I would love that too.

 

[mduncan50]

Well, for starters, this movie's Luther isn't Lex Luthor, but Alexander Luthor. I'm aware they both technically have the same birth certificate name, but there is a difference.

He's always been Alexander Luthor. I don't see any difference. All they really did was change his father's name from Lionel to Alexander.

The Luthor in this movie isn't that. He's not charismatic, he's creepy. He's not articulate, he's down right incompetent in a public setting. He dominates everyone around him not through the power of his character, but by being so awkward and, I have to say it again, so creepy that everyone is dumbfounded and unable to act because they just don't know what the hell his problem is. His goals are nebulous - He want's to get rid of Superman, because... why? Here's where I think the Joker thing comes in - Luthor seems to be an anarchist. His motivations aren't to elevate himself, like Luthor typical does, but to drag everyone else into the mud, like the Nolan Joker. He seems to just want the world to burn, because fuck it, why not.

I actually kinda buy that. Luthor is normally a much better public speaker than Eisenberg played him as.

I still found him charismatic in the sense that he was persuasive, as you can see when he's trying to get the senators on his side and during his main motive rant against Superman about halfway through the film. But articulate or eloquent, no. It'd be difficult to see this guy getting elected president.

As for his motives - they're pretty clearly explained in his rant to Superman in the middle of the film. He's a misotheist. He hates the idea of a higher power; he considers power incompatible with virtue, which is a classic theological problem [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil] that seems appropriate for a guy like Superman, who is both powerful and good.

Essentially, he thinks the world is a shit place full of evil. Therefore, if God exists, he's either impotent or malevolent - if he was all-powerful and all-good, the world wouldn't be such a shitty place and his father never would have beaten him when he was a child. So Superman shows up, dropping out of the sky to save people like a flamboyant Jesus, and Luthor decides that either Superman is not that powerful or he's not that good. Because he's clearly very powerful, Luthor decides he has to be a fraud. That's his whole plan - he wants to besmirch Superman's reputation and, eventually, blackmail him into compromising his morals.

I actually find the whole dynamic extremely interesting, because when I think about it the three main players in the movie (Superman, Batman and Lex) are all motivated by their opinion of humanity. Superman thinks people are inherently good, and that they deserve to be saved. Batman thinks people are inherently bad, and that you have to force them to behave. He doesn't trust Superman because he wouldn't trust anyone that powerful - he probably wouldn't trust himself with that power.

Meanwhile, Lex doesn't necessarily think that people are good or evil, but that God, if he exists, must be evil - if he was good, the world would be a better place. Superman-as-God enrages him on a basic psychological level because it implies that someone all-powerful does exist and they are all-good, and they still decided not to save him from his father.

Anyway, now I'm rambling. What really fucking bugs me about Snyder films in general is how they always touch upon the surface of really interesting philosophical or psychological questions, but then skim off without actually getting their feet wet, so to speak. Either I'm projecting complex motivations where there aren't any (very possible) or Snyder is deliberately not delving into this interesting stuff because he thinks audiences are dumb and they would get bored if Luthor started talking about philosophy for more than thirty seconds. I had the same feeling about Sucker Punch. It's almost, almost, really really smart, but the actual film you actually got never actually said any of the smart stuff; it just implies it, then skips off across the surface of the lake, laughing while you sink.

tl;dr reading too much into bad films

I will admit your explanation of why you like this version of Lex is very nice.
Normally as you already know I prefer the other version of Lex we know [even if he is the son of Lex, I know, my mistake], but if the film was actually good and it had the version of this Lex to be more "polish", I would love that too.

I personally don't buy the "son of Lex" BS for two reasons. First, nobody said a word about this being Lex's son until after all of the backlash over the casting of Jessie Eisenberg. Actually kind of surprised they didn't say that this Batman is JP Valley when they were catching flack for casting Ben. Just kind of hit me that that would have actually been interesting because this Batman is written and played more like Jean Paul. Second is that I find it hard to believe that they started out with the decision to kill off Superman's greatest foe without them even sharing a scene together. Even Goyer isn't that clueless, right?

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

Well, for starters, this movie's Luther isn't Lex Luthor, but Alexander Luthor. I'm aware they both technically have the same birth certificate name, but there is a difference.

He's always been Alexander Luthor. I don't see any difference. All they really did was change his father's name from Lionel to Alexander.

After a bunch of crowd rumbling prior to the movies release, they Word of Godded the movie's Luthor as 'The Real' Lew Luthor's son. It's largely semantics, but I'm clinging to it because I'll be damned if they piss all over this. Either its possible 'The Real' Luthor is still around, ready to swing in and save the DCCU, or he's dead and safe from the Golden Showers Goyer/Snyder are giving out.

The Luthor in this movie isn't that. He's not charismatic, he's creepy. He's not articulate, he's down right incompetent in a public setting. He dominates everyone around him not through the power of his character, but by being so awkward and, I have to say it again, so creepy that everyone is dumbfounded and unable to act because they just don't know what the hell his problem is. His goals are nebulous - He want's to get rid of Superman, because... why? Here's where I think the Joker thing comes in - Luthor seems to be an anarchist. His motivations aren't to elevate himself, like Luthor typical does, but to drag everyone else into the mud, like the Nolan Joker. He seems to just want the world to burn, because fuck it, why not.

I actually kinda buy that. Luthor is normally a much better public speaker than Eisenberg played him as.

I still found him charismatic in the sense that he was persuasive, as you can see when he's trying to get the senators on his side and during his main motive rant against Superman about halfway through the film. But articulate or eloquent, no. It'd be difficult to see this guy getting elected president.

Is he though? He convinces them to give him a body and a ship they've had 18 months to tinker with but can't figure out, for which his company is quite obviously the best choice (Since it's head quartered right there in Metropolis). And then he get's immediately shut down when he tries to import Kryptonite. I get the distinct feeling that maybe if he'd hired a more charismatic company rep to deal with the US government, that thing would have been on US soil hours after asking, but Luthor's overall creepiness and unconstrained 'I'm gonna kill'em' attitude shoots that shit right down.

As for his motives - they're pretty clearly explained in his rant to Superman in the middle of the film. He's a misotheist. He hates the idea of a higher power; he considers power incompatible with virtue, which is a classic theological problem [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil] that seems appropriate for a guy like Superman, who is both powerful and good.

Essentially, he thinks the world is a shit place full of evil. Therefore, if God exists, he's either impotent or malevolent - if he was all-powerful and all-good, the world wouldn't be such a shitty place and his father never would have beaten him when he was a child. So Superman shows up, dropping out of the sky to save people like a flamboyant Jesus, and Luthor decides that either Superman is not that powerful or he's not that good. Because he's clearly very powerful, Luthor decides he has to be a fraud. That's his whole plan - he wants to besmirch Superman's reputation and, eventually, blackmail him into compromising his morals.

I actually find the whole dynamic extremely interesting, because when I think about it the three main players in the movie (Superman, Batman and Lex) are all motivated by their opinion of humanity. Superman thinks people are inherently good, and that they deserve to be saved. Batman thinks people are inherently bad, and that you have to force them to behave. He doesn't trust Superman because he wouldn't trust anyone that powerful - he probably wouldn't trust himself with that power.

Meanwhile, Lex doesn't necessarily think that people are good or evil, but that God, if he exists, must be evil - if he was good, the world would be a better place. Superman-as-God enrages him on a basic psychological level because it implies that someone all-powerful does exist and they are all-good, and they still decided not to save him from his father.

That may very well be what they were aiming for, but in the movie all I got was anarchy. Admittedly, anarchy share's a lot with any philosophy that hates power, but that doesn't shine through very much in the movie, probably because Luthor also seems to have a big problem with the US government, whether they're helping him or not, and the very fact that not only does Luthor create his own God (Which, while it may conform more to his universal views, is still a very bizarre thing to do if you hate power in general), but in deleted scenes that supposedly 'make the movie make more sense,' he's freak'n praying to a Darkseid lackey.

Anyway, now I'm rambling. What really fucking bugs me about Snyder films in general is how they always touch upon the surface of really interesting philosophical or psychological questions, but then skim off without actually getting their feet wet, so to speak. Either I'm projecting complex motivations where there aren't any (very possible) or Snyder is deliberately not delving into this interesting stuff because he thinks audiences are dumb and they would get bored if Luthor started talking about philosophy for more than thirty seconds. I had the same feeling about Sucker Punch. It's almost, almost, really really smart, but the actual film you actually got never actually said any of the smart stuff; it just implies it, then skips off across the surface of the lake, laughing while you sink.

tl;dr reading too much into bad films

You'll get no argument from me, it's one of the huge problems with BvS. It brings up dozens on ideas (For example - Is Batman really executing by proxy, or was it just a goof), but then zooms past them without answering anything because we only have 2.5 fucking hours here people, no time to dawdle or think about this.

I personally don't buy the "son of Lex" BS for two reasons. First, nobody said a word about this being Lex's son until after all of the backlash over the casting of Jessie Eisenberg. Actually kind of surprised they didn't say that this Batman is JP Valley when they were catching flack for casting Ben. Just kind of hit me that that would have actually been interesting because this Batman is written and played more like Jean Paul. Second is that I find it hard to believe that they started out with the decision to kill off Superman's greatest foe without them even sharing a scene together. Even Goyer isn't that clueless, right?

Two things:

1. Considering that the DCCU guys seem to be blazing along their chosen trail, ignoring the reviews and complaints from fans and just doing whatever the hell they want, what are we to make of them changing the Luthor character from Lionel's son to 'The Real' Luthor's son? It seems like an odd thing to change when you're just going to ignore every other scrape of feed back and claim your not changing anything.

2. Jesse Eisenberg is claiming his character got mutilated by the editor. I'm curious as to what got cut that could make him seem more like a super villain and less like a pedophile.

 

[Cheesy Goodness]

snip

Call me crazy, but I think Eisenberg's Luthor has really grown on me. I think your interpretation of his character was more than likely what they were going for, and I don't believe you are projecting at all.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

That may very well be what they were aiming for, but in the movie all I got was anarchy. Admittedly, anarchy share's a lot with any philosophy that hates power, but that doesn't shine through very much in the movie, probably because Luthor also seems to have a big problem with the US government, whether they're helping him or not, and the very fact that not only does Luthor create his own God (Which, while it may conform more to his universal views, is still a very bizarre thing to do if you hate power in general), but in deleted scenes that supposedly 'make the movie make more sense,' he's freak'n praying to a Darkseid lackey.

The "Communion" scene is definitely problematic. I think the difficulty they experienced trying to reconcile Lex's character as portrayed in the film with the future possibility that he might collaborate with Darkseid was a factor in that scene getting cut.

I think cutting that scene was a good idea; it was more unnecessary foreshadowing in a film already full of threads for future films, and also for the same reason you pointed out in that it makes Luthor seem hypocritical.

You'll get no argument from me, it's one of the huge problems with BvS. It brings up dozens on ideas (For example - Is Batman really executing by proxy, or was it just a goof), but then zooms past them without answering anything because we only have 2.5 fucking hours here people, no time to dawdle or think about this.

Completely agree.

I will admit your explanation of why you like this version of Lex is very nice.
Normally as you already know I prefer the other version of Lex we know [even if he is the son of Lex, I know, my mistake], but if the film was actually good and it had the version of this Lex to be more "polish", I would love that too.

Call me crazy, but I think Eisenberg's Luthor has really grown on me. I think your interpretation of his character was more than likely what they were going for, and I don't believe you are projecting at all.

Thank you! When I was writing that whole post, I was super worried that I was just over-analyzing it and spouting a bunch of rambling nonsense. Having other people agree helps convince me I'm not crazy.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

Really enjoyed the film tbh. Yeah a few flaws and dodgy bits, but really can't understand why it's been panned so much.