1) Luthor is very much Depending on the Writer, but if you ask a comics fan, when they think of the Platonic ideal of Luthor, they think Brainiac-Level intellect, they think Mad Scientist and Evil Genius. They don't think cool boss. It's not always the case that Luthor is shown as a Benevolent Boss or that BVS!Prologue!Bruce is closer to Comics!Lex at all. The DCAU version of Luthor was a corporate-gangster who had Bad Boss tendencies, and an abusive dynamic with Mercy Graves and his whole arc in the DCAU was that Luthor realized that he was having way more fun as a criminal mad scientist aspiring god than he did as a businessman. So the assumption of that entry, that Luthor being a charismatic competent businessman type, and this being familiar is debatable, questionable, and empirically dubious. Heck in No Man's Land, Luthor was shown as a predatory figure who wants to make an Earthquake-ravage Gotham subject to Villainous Gentrification and in John Byrne's Man of Steel he did a very sleazy gambit on a waitress. The only version of Luthor that fits what you are describing is Azzarello's Luthor Man of Steel, whose main premise is that he has Unreliable Narrator. Luthor as businessman is established in multiple comics as an abusive, sociopathic, scheming, pervy figure with a Mask of Sanity.
And also keep in mind Public Medium Ignorance. The number of people who read comics is small but a Vocal Minority, the number of people who see cartoons is greater than that, the number of people who see movies is greater than anything. So to most people, Luthor is Gene Hackman salesman huckster, or Kevin Spacey salesman huckster. Snyder's take on Luthor is more or less an updated take on Gene Hackman's Luthor-as-snake-oilman. Luthor doesn't invent or create his own stuff, he doesn't appear to be considered a genius, but merely a creature of inherited wealth with annoying tendencies. He's also a Darkseid cultist, at least in BVS he is until they retconned that in the next film. There's no way Eisenberg's dweeby-evil nerd Luthor can remotely fit into that scene you describe unless you recast, rewrite and reconfigure the film. They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character/Plot only works if the alternative is something that still depends on stuff the movie has in its toolbox, i.e. same cast, situation, plot-stuff and so on. There's already an entry complaining about how Eisenberg is an updated Hackman, and we don't have the Evil Genius Luthor of the comics.
2) Zack Snyder's vision of the DCEU has always been idiosyncratic. So asking for a "traditional" (albeit alternative) Luthor to go against a Superman who is unveiled to the world as a Destructive Saviour and who snaps Zod's neck is not going to work. As the Indecisive Deconstruction entry on the main page goes, the movie depends on people's familiarity with comics for its big moments even if it the narrative and characterization radically departs from it. So Superman snaps necks, Batman kills, Batman commits to pre-meditated murder and so on. The opening scene, where Superman is revealed to the world in a Miracleman=esque manner is itself idiosyncratic and more or less creates problems for the movies going forward because they later pretend that some people like Superman when there's little reason to believe. It works however for a Batman who decides to kill Superman.
Because the big surprise of Batman V Superman is not that Batman distrusts Superman and wants Kryptonite as a "check-and-balance", the big surprise is that he plans to outright hunt down and kill Superman. Because even Frank Miller didn't go there. To basically make Batman do something so out-of-character the Metropolis scene is needed. Remember Batman is going all the way in the film, he was inches from stabbing Superman with Kryptonite until the "Martha" scene. That's the big dramatic surprise of the film. If you are doing a Batman/Superman team-up that is going here, then having Luthor do that is pointless, because Luthor is Luthor and he would kill Superman if he had the chance. You need a character who can go that far and then back away, and Bruce does that better.
So in either case, the schema you propose doesn't work.
Um... You seemed to have missed that my revised entry cuts out any reference to the prologue's portrayal of Bruce being more "faithful" to the comics' version of Luthor, except in a single note. Even in my note, my only comment was that Bruce is shown as a wealthy businessman who owns a massive office complex in Metropolis, just like Lex Luthor. Nowhere did I say anything about Bruce being closer to Luthor in personality.
You can rattle off esoteric factoids about the comics as much as you want, but I'm not talking about any of that—I'm talking about the fundamentals of characterization and plot. It's a basic tenet of good storytelling that a compelling conflict between a protagonist and antagonist must give both characters a well-realized reason to be at odds with one another. Functionally, Luthor is this film's antagonist, while Batman and Superman are co-protagonists whose conflict is based on a misunderstanding. Hence, it's a pretty glaring storytelling flaw that Batman is given a compelling and well-realized reason to distrust and hate Superman, while Luthor isn't. And you don't have to be a lifelong comic book fan to know that Lex Luthor is Superman's nemesis, so your point about Public Medium Ignorance is kind of irrelevant.
My point still stands: the movie forgets to explain why the antagonist Luthor hates and distrusts the protagonist Superman (which is the constant element of his characterization, even Depending on the Writer), even though the film includes a prologue that presents the perfect opportunity for explaining it. That's a textbook example of They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot.
Edited by TheMightyHeptagon
I concede your points about the revised entry and me neglecting it.
You are confusing ends with means. It might be a Foregone Conclusion to you and other audience that this is what happens, but within the movie, for the majority of the movie, Batman is the Antagonist of the film. Him pre-meditating to kill Superman is unconnected to Luthor's shenanigans.
I don't see how your proposed changes can make a movie where Batman decides to pre-meditate to murder Superman, to get the audience on board with him doing that, and somehow still have empathy for him that they can buy the redemption, friendship, and team-up at the end. In your scenario, you would have to construct an entirely different film.
Hmm.. Luthor in the original Richard Donner films didn't have that motivation either, aside from one-dimensional bad guy. Joker in The Dark Knight also didn't have motivations. So it's not necessary.
In BVS, Luthor gives his motivations of hating Superman because he hates God and is some kind of misotheist. Your propsoed scenario where he caes about the deaths of Metropolis and its civilians, and his co-workers doesn't square with him murdering civilians and Mercy Graves in the Capitol bombing would open its own can of worms. And many would buy that as a cheap Kick the Dog moment to somehow excuse Superman. So making Luthor pure evil works. Within the film, Luthor is hinted to be a Darkseid cultist and a traitor to the human race. Obviously there were Sequel Hook that became Aborted Arc. Luthor knows about and has kept track on metahumans well before Superman was unveiled to the public, so there's obviously stuff about him that isn't tied to that.
Yes, I suppose it's theoretically possible that if someone walked into the movie without the slightest inkling of knowledge about either Batman, Superman or Lex Luthor, they might have assumed that Superman was the protagonist, that Batman was the antagonist, and that Luthor was an incidental supporting character. But even from that theoretical perspective, that still doesn't turn out to be the case. The second act revolves around Superman and Batman putting aside their differences and joining forces, and the climactic battle pits them against Luthor and his creature—with both of them on the same side. Not to mention that a major plot point involves Luthor kidnapping Superman's mother to force him to fight Batman to the death, which he clearly doesn't want to do; if they were truly the protagonist and antagonist, they wouldn't need another character to force them into open conflict. So once you've actually seen the film and can discuss it as a whole—as we're discussing it now—it's still obvious that Luthor is the antagonist, not Batman.
You're reading way too much into a relatively simple observation. I'm not here to reimagine the entire movie, I'm just observing that the filmmakers included an opening scene that could potentially have filled a gaping hole in a major character's motivations, but chose not to explore it in a way that would have done that. Are you seriously implying that I shouldn't be allowed to make that observation unless I can account for every single change to the narrative that would result from exploring that idea?
Yes, I'm aware that Luthor was a bit on the one-dimensional side in the Richard Donner version. That's not even remotely relevant to this discussion. My point still stands: the filmmakers explicitly introduce a compelling and poignant reason why some characters might hate and fear Superman, but they leave that reason wholly incidental to the antagonist's motivations for destroying Superman. The observation that "They didn't do it that way in the last movie!" doesn't make my point any less valid.
And I'm aware that the filmmakers at least hint at Luthor's reasons for hating Superman, but they still leave his motivations vague at best. (Case in point: Luthor being in league with Darkseid isn't even hinted at in the original theatrical cut that most people saw)
I find a bit odd that you're making such a point of arguing for Luthor being "pure evil" after you just argued that he isn't the antagonist. So... My point is wrong because Luthor isn't the bad guy, but it's also wrong because he's such a bad guy that it's pointless to explain his motivations? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Nothing that I'm saying in my entry is entirely my own idea. I'm just pointing out how an idea that the filmmakers incorporated into the movie could easily have been explored to give the antagonist a more compelling and well-realized reason to want to destroy the protagonist. That's the very definition of They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot.
And since Lex Luthor lives in Metropolis, is it really that much of a stretch to imagine that he was also there to witness the battle between Superman and Zod, just like Bruce Wayne was? There's a pretty good chance that my proposed "change" to the narrative isn't even a change, and that it already happened that way—even if we didn't see it.
Edited by TheMightyHeptagon
Yes but the Luthor you have in mind cannot remotely be the same Eisenberg!Jolly Rancher!Peace Tea Pee-Jar one. Eisenberg!Luthor is a psychopath who is unsympathetic from the first moment and not intended by Snyder to have any empathetic moments. Having him be in the opening of Metropolis would not make sense from any character perspective for the rest of the film, because his behaviour after the empathetic serious prologue with which the film begins would jar with his behaviour in the rest of the film. The narrative of the film is that Luthor hijacks people's legitimate fears and griefs about the Zod-Superman-Metropolis fight (Scoot Mc Nairy's handicapped guy, Bruce Wayne, Senator Finch) for his own ends.
The fact is They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot and Character only applies when the film has good ideas, good style, and concepts to begin with, but misapplies by execution, debatable choices and so on. So any change or idea put in, has to deal with the work as it exists and have a proper understanding of the film's plot/character beats and ideas. Your proposed change operates on an assumption and implication that the Luthor of the film is not the Luthor of the Film. That is why the entry was removed. Because a Luthor who has an empathetic and compelling moment in Metropolis suddenly becoming a Jolly Rancher stuffing weirdo, Grandma's peach tea gloating Mad Bomber, and more or less frothing-on-the-mouth delusional is absurd. And it's more or less ignoring the fact Luthor doesn't give a damn about Superman's Destructive Saviour attitude. Him being personally affected by Superman's attack would only ruin and hamper the rest of the film. As would the fact that Luthor knows about other metahumans, and his making of Doomsday. To insert Luthor in the prologue of BVS as you suggest as a way to explain his motivations and make us feel for him, is more or less to ask for a different Luthor because in BVS, Luthor's motivations don't have anything whatsoever to do with Superman's actions.
Well firstly, I don't happen to subscribe to the Church of the Three-Act Structure. My opinions on it are closer to Alexander Payne's observations on the quotes page. And Snyder's 'BVS' Doesn't follow the Three Act Structure. The story the film tells is Batman going from wanting to kill Superman to becoming his friend. Batman is the Protagonist of the film, and the movie is about him Jumping Off the Slippery Slope, finally pulling back and eventually having a new idealistic purpose as a result of Superman's character and sacrifice. That's the story of the film. For that story to work, Batman has to be the Villain for most of the film, and he is, and the final part of the film with Luthor, Doomsday, and Wonder Woman's arrival, as Bob Chipman pointed out is like the film starting over again. BVS has a weird plot structure. Not that I am praising the film, I am saying the movie is genuinely weird in its plot structure, it has a very idiosyncratic approach to its characters, genre, and situation.
The Knightmare Sequence is there in the theatrical cut and as Continuity Lockout entry points out, that only works if you recognize the Omega Logo, and at the end, Luthor mutters "bell has been rung in the dark among the stars" hinting at Darkseid clearly. So the fact is Luthor has been colluding with an alien warlord, in the course of his rampage, he commits acts of high treason and mass murder, he invents a grotesque monster like Doomsday...and all of this is done by malice. Having this Luthor be in the prologue and make him faux-empathetic simply doesn't make sense without asking for an entire rewrite. Because the prologue is fundamental for Batman's motivations and actions, and without it nothing in the film works to the extent that anything in the film works.
Yeah... To boil a Wall of Text down to its core points, it seems that you're suggesting that the writers deliberately wrote Lex Luthor as such an irrational character that any attempt at making his actions seem rational is invalid by default—even if it's based on a plot point that the writers wrote into their own movie, but chose not to capitalize on. To put it mildly, that's complete nonsense.
Unless you wrote this film yourself, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that you know every way that a certain character might react in every conceivable situation, and that there couldn't possibly be any dimensions to their character beyond a few odd mannerisms. As if a mentally unstable character couldn't ever do anything with understandable motivations, and a generally unsympathetic character couldn't ever do anything with a conceivable moral justification.
Once again: you are reading far too much into a relatively simple observation about a film's structure. I'm not suggesting a complete reimagining of this film, I'm pointing out that the writers inserted a scene that effectively shows why a character like Lex Luthor might hate and distrust Superman, but they missed a major opportunity by making it incidental to his characterization. That's a textbook example of They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot.
As for your observations about Luthor and Darkseid: Luthor is never even mentioned in the Knightmare sequence, so it's also completely irrelevant to bring it up. And as it's presented in the theatrical cut (which most people saw), Luthor's final line in the prison sequence just establishes that he knows about Darkseid, not that he's in league with him; so citing that as proof that Luthor couldn't possibly have any understandable character motivations is also utter nonsense.
As far as this discussion goes, my point still stands: the writers inserted a genuinely effective scene that could have perfectly explained why Superman's nemesis wants him gone, but they decided to remain vague about his nemesis' motivations instead. Nothing that you have said refutes that point. Even the point that "Luthor's crazy and evil, so he couldn't possibly have an understandable reasons for his actions" is an incredibly superficial reading.
Also: earlier in this discussion, you told me that I was wrong because Batman (not Luthor) is "clearly" the antagonist of the film. And now you're telling me that I'm wrong because Batman is "clearly" the protagonist? Make up your mind, please.
Edited by TheMightyHeptagon
I said the movie is idiosyncratic and doesn't have a conventional structure and that Batman is a villain for most of the film before becoming a hero. That's what I meant no more than that. Batman is the single main character of the film, but he's not someone who entirely occupies a set role of Protagonist and Antagonist. Batman decides to kill Superman independently of anything Luthor does, so that makes him a villain and the Martha moment, right when he's about to cross the Moral Event Horizon finally brings him back to the hero he once was.
More or less, yes. The Luthor in the movie is not by any stretch of the definition a character driven by normal, sane, human actions and motives. Batman is, his reasons for disliking and wanting to kill Superman make sense, albeit in a very idiosyncratic sense since you have to get rid of the Thou Shalt Not Kill rule. Eisenberg's Luthor is an annoying, repulsive, odious and obnoxious guy who provokes visible dislike from Holly Hunter's Senator Finch, from the party people where he blathers about Prometheus, and gloats about Scoot McNairy's handicap when he meets him, and then there's the Pee-Jar on Senator Finch's desk. That is the Luthor of the film. I don't see how this behaviour and characterization coheres with a Luthor suddenly bothered about Metropolis' destruction and caring about employees since the rest of the film doesn't allow him any Evil Virtues, any sympathetic moments whatsoever. This is no humanist at all. He's an utterly evil person.
I will propose this compromise: if you amend your entry to state that Luthor should have been present in the Superman-Zod Prologue at the start of BVS, to better explain how it is that people believe him, or give him access to the Kryptonian ship, since he showed some mettle there, it might make some of his actions at least until The Reveal that he was Evil All Along understandable, ambiguous, and allow Jesse Eisenberg to confuse the audience about whether he is good intentioned or not in the way Luthor in the comics achieves. And also make a point about how demagogues exploit well-meaning people's fears for their own benefit. If you can add that it's fine. But suggesting that Luthor should have empathetic and sympathetic motivations when his actions in the rest of the film don't suggest that at all, is legitimately confusing because people won't know which character you are talking about.
I brought up the Knightmare to point out that the film heavily hints at Darkseid. And since BVS is a sequel to Man of Steel and setting up a Shared Universe, i don't know why it is that I am not allowed to refer to ancillary material. The entire montage of the metahumans only makes sense when you know it's setting up Justice League (2017) and that film makes it clear in the first half that "Luthor's notes" referred to motherboxes and other stuff.
And I don't know what you mean by nonsense. If Luthor hates Superman because he's a Physical God and dangerous alien, that's fine. But for Luthor to do that, and create Doomsday, for Luthor to hate Superman when he knows that there are other Superhumans like Wonder Woman, Aquaman, the Flash elsewhere in the world, for Luthor to do so knowing there are greater and worse alien threats than Superman "in the dark among the stars" and that they are coming to Earth...more or less means that any sympathetic motivation Luthor might have for fearing Superman meaningless, because it's clearly irrational and insupportable by his actions in the rest of the film. Occam's Razor and Arkham's Razor suggests that the simplest example is that he's pure evil and there's nothing explicable about it.
I accept your compromise, and I consider this matter resolved. If you delete my entry again, I'm going to take it up with the moderators.
Many fanboys of the DCEU had poked fun at Marvel with the (then upcoming) release of Captain America: Civil War and noted that because this movie had Batman and Superman in it, it would be praised and gross over a billion dollars, and Marvel's Civil War would never even break $900 million and would never receive such critical affection. Come the third week Captain America: Civil War was released, it had an astounding 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, had already blew past the billion dollar mark and was critically praised as opposed to Batman v Superman, which had a 27% on RT and didn't even break $900 million, sitting at $872 million instead. To add even more insult to injury, Captain America: Civil War is now the highest grossing movie of 2016. Ouch. In comparison with Batman v Superman, Civil War grossed $1.153 billion.
I suggest removing this. Feels like natter and a pointless jab at DCEU fans when we already have enough of this damn Fandom Rivalry everywhere
We really need to determine what to list the "Martha" moment under- it seems that there's consensus that it's very clumsy writing, but the argument is over whether it qualifies as an Ass Pull or not. As it stands, it seems to be a clumsily implemented Chekov's Gun (Because while it's Foreshadowed, for a good portion of the audience it breaks the Willing Suspension of Disbelief.)
Hide / Show Replies
I personally say it doesn't qualifies as an Ass Pull. As you said yourself, it's foreshadowed several times over the movie, and there is actually some logic behind- it's just that it's poorly handled in that there was no good reason for Superman to say his mother's name in front of Batman, amongst other things. It is rather poor writing, but not the Ass Pull kind.
I agree that it isn't an Ass Pull - what I was wondering is what it could be reclassified as, if anything. It's bugging me because I think it's something, but I'm not sure what it is.
Plain and simple, "Martha" is the first In-Universe word spoken in the story (not counting the narration) as Thomas Wayne's last words, along with showing her specific inscription in the mausoleum in the man-bat nightmare. When taunting Superman with having kidnapped his mother Lex says "Martha, Martha. Martha."
On top of all of this, their names are well established in comics lore, so it's not even like they even created that part. An Ass Pull, by definition, cannot have this much set-up and certainly not with something this specific.
Made an account to address these: I thought TV Tropes pages (YMMV included) were supposed to try and remain neutral? The tone here on Bv S/YMMV reeks of bias.
Examples:
1. Broken Base:
- While many people liked to see so many new characters introduced, others think it's another sign of DC rushing the Extended Universe just to compete with Marvel,
That's a given. That's neutral enough.
- without giving each character a much deserved and needed introduction movie first.
Ding ding ding ding. Sounds like someone trying to objectively declare ground rules for the structure of a Cinematic Universe to me. MCU troll maybe?
2. Hilarious In Hindsight:
- A parody of Batman where he is killing criminals
, oblivious to the fact that he's breaking his one rule manages to become funnier after this movie.
Narm: "I didn't kill them, the bullets did" has become the standard mockery of Zack Snyder's statement that Batman didn't "really" kill anyone in the film because they all died through indirect means.
Ding ding ding ding. A quote from the same Patton Oswalt sketch. This is problematic for a few reasons:
A. This is obviously a Patton Oswalt fan trying to be clever. B. Even if this was Narm (somehow), it would actually belong under Memetic Mutation if it had become a 'standard' mockery of anything. Fanboy trying to make a meme that doesn't exist.
3. More of a standard problem with many YMMV pages across TV Tropes and not just this one, but:
- The Midnight Screenings review of the movie pointed out that Batman wearing a duster, pants and goggles over his suit caused him to resemble Silent Bob from Mallrats.
I'm really tired of seeing shitty webcomics and D-list internet stars get quoted and cited in YMMV pages instead of Tropers just forming their own opinions. Am I alone here? I'll ring the bell some more and find out.
Overall, this page is quite a mess. The same complaints 'Martha, Martha' repeated over and over again, a complete lack of neutrality and a lot of 'flaws' that would easily be explained by actually watching the film.
Hide / Show Replies
If you feel edits are necessary, then make them. The only reason we'd need to discuss this is if you were planning on purging whole chunks of this page wholesale, which is something you don't seem to be proposing.
With the first one, I'd say editing it down to "without giving each character their own introduction movie first" is important context there. Claiming "much needed" etc. is a bit much and sounds like it's taking a side, but mentioning that part of the issue isn't.
... I rather fail to see your problem with Number 3, though. Are tropers not allowed to share opinions with things?
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
And now that I've seen the edits you've made, I'm going to have to ask if you even bothered to check the history for the page- a bunch of changes you made were already made and then UNDONE because, as stated in the History page, an ATT established that they were fine.
".. I rather fail to see your problem with Number 3, though. Are tropers not allowed to share opinions with things? "
I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with people intentionally plugging clickbait for comedians, webcomics and internet critics onto articles on this site and passing it off as opinion.
"And now that I've seen the edits you've made, I'm going to have to ask if you even bothered to check the history for the page- a bunch of changes you made were already made and then UNDONE because, as stated in the History page, an ATT established that they were fine. "
I read the history for the page. Albeit read what I could. This page is a clusterfuck of an edit war. If I went overboard, sincere apologies. No offense intended.
Larkmarn: "Claiming "much needed" etc. is a bit much and sounds like it's taking a side, but mentioning that part of the issue isn't. "
Agreed. Removed 'much needed', added back 'introduction movie' bit.
Save Martha!
Why is 'Lois Lane somehow knows Doomsday is a Kryptonian' still under Ass Pull?
Anyone who watched the movie would know that Lois Lane is perfectly capable of putting together, "The thing that came out of the huge light show/explosion happening at the Kryptonian Ship must be of Kryptonian origin."
I feel like you're misusing clickbait horribly. And plugs. Honestly, referencing a critic or something isn't bad form because, D-List or not, it creates some context for the complaint and it does give the edit a bit more validity. We don't require citations for anything but Unfortunate Implications but it doesn't hurt to have something that basically stands as one in case someone comes back later and says "no, I disagree."
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
The reason I asked if you read the page history is because you should've noticed that someone else made some of the exact same edits you did, and they were undone because there's consensus that those things should stay on the page- editing them out again isn't going to change that.
Edited by Rotide
"The reason I asked if you read the page history is because you should've noticed that someone else made some of the exact same edits you did, and they were undone because there's consensus that those things should stay on the page- editing them out again isn't going to change that. "
Like I said, the Edit History for this page is almost as obscene as my credit report. (Ba-dum-tss), so I gathered what I could. I'm not trying to make waves, just really seeing a lack of neutrality around here, and a lot of YMMV/Tropes that sound like, "I didn't watch the movie but I read about it." or "I watched the movie but I made up my mind beforehand that I was going to hate it, so I ignored details and nitpicked the results."
Also;
Why is 'Lois Lane somehow knows Doomsday is a Kryptonian' still under Ass Pull?
/cont The reason for my other edits was simple. Anything that cites Tumblr as a credible source is in of itself illogical, because Tumblr is not a credible source. If you guys keep leaving links to shitty webcomics and Tumblr pages around here, TV Tropes will just turn into another Reddit.
- 1. Considering Super Smash Bros. did the exact same thing and managed to turn obscure titles like Metroid and Fire Emblem commercial successes, the comparisons to Marvel do feel unfair in my opinion.
I... what? That's ridiculously irrelevant.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
^^^^ Also... that's kinda nonsensical. Deleting an entry just because it references something makes zero sense.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
^Makes is seem like a reverse Wikipedia that way.
Also, I don't want to start an argument, but I'll say this much: I DID see the film, and I VERY much feel that Lois going to get the spear was a total Ass Pull.
Lois getting the spear relied on imo two big assumptions:
1. That the spear affects ALL kryptonian biology, not just Superman's
2. That whatever came out of the ship was organic, as opposed to some giant machine.
What's more at that point all she knew for certain was that the spear was capable of hurting superman. So why would she risk getting something that she knew could hurt Superman on the off-off chance it could hurt what he was fighting?
Probable Cod has deleted many things, I'm just wondering, was it approved?
Hide / Show Replies
I messaged them about this- they said they realized they had deleted too much, and they were going to restore it, but I see they haven't yet. At any rate, no, it wasn't approved.
Audience reaction score across Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB, the two most used sites, are consistently above 70%. That's not a bad score, it shows a majority of people liked it. And this would by in large be your average movie-goer because most 'fanboys' I've seen react to this movie either are in the 'It's Average' category or outright hate it, so they aren't inflaming the vote nearly enough to sway it. Shouldn't 'pretty awful' score like some recent edits have put in be more like a 40 or 50% audience rating? I think the recent edits to Contested Sequel and elsewhere calling the audience score bad need be taken out.
Hide / Show Replies
Just amend the existing edits with these facts (put them in notes...and balance it. Remember Contested Sequel should have positives and negatives. Don't take stuff out, we've had problems with that recently. But amendment and modification and links is okay.
The average movie-goer doesn't even go to those sites to rate a movie in the first place. If anything, the huge box office drop of over 80% after the opening weekend is what truly reflects the general public's opinion of the movie.
Edited by Avalance
I'm not sure about IMDB, but the flaw you have to consider with the Rotten Tomatoes Audience Meter is that it doesn't separate the "before release hype" reviews before the "audience reviews" start pouring in. As a result, over 100,000 Trolls/HypedDCfans were giving the movie 10/10 hype scores before the movie was even released, which bloated the Audience Rating to come off higher than it should be.
Edited by Retloclive RLL
^ IMDB reviews do have a voting system, though. People tend to treat them not as credible sources but as ballot boxes. If you look at most of the reviews, good or bad they all tend to average 50/50.
I question the validity of the Hype Backlash entry. Based on the laconic definition of the trope, the description doesn't really fit.
Hide / Show Replies
Seconded. While some fans were very disappointed in the movie, the general consensus from the audience was much more on the positive side. It wasn't outstandingly good by majority vote, but the extreme naysayers seem more like a vocal minority. Plus, bringing up the Marvel comparison feels out of place to me, considering Civil War isn't even out yet and was announced after this film was.
Edited by Vampygirl63
I've posted this a couple times. It keeps being deleted. Is it a bad example, or something?
- Took the Bad Film Seriously: Even critics and viewers who have problems with the film generally agree that the cast is not one of them, and that, with the exception of Jesse Eisenberg, all the actors turn in very strong, serious performances.
Well, I don't know about the "Except for Eisenberg" part (i think the problem is more writing than performance).
But it seems okay. The guy who did the deleting has been removed so you can add it back in.
Yeah, so I noticed... isn't there any way to permanently ban him or something?
The mods can (and, I believe, have) ban his IP; there are ways around that, but they're a sufficient Pit A that most people don't bother with them for long, especially when they only get one quickly-reverted edit in before someone notices and complains and he gets banned again.
They can ban his IP. Mods tend to not do that as a first resort because they're usually pretty reasonable and at least want to hear the guy out in the Edit/Banned thread. Buuuuuuuuuuuuut sockpuppeting is usually a "bounceable" crime (meaning they can't even see TV Tropes at all, they get bounced to Google).
... though honestly, I don't really see this applying. The movie's too base breaking to really count... it's about actors whose solid performances jar with the low-quality of the movie, like they should know better that they're in something awful. This just seems like a stretch.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
I agree. Saying this movie is bad is a bit harsh, considering it's more of a Base Breaker.
I actually am surprised at the depth of the reaction. Everyone's acting like this is Batman And Robin, when it isn't that at all.
It's a mediocre mess but it's got a lot of good scenes, and this applies to every superhero movie.
Eh, there have been enough unambiguously negative reactions to the film that nonetheless find the acting serviceable that I don't think it's that much of a stretch. I would remove the bit about Jesse Eisenberg, though, since it's hardly universal among those who hate the movie but like the actors that he's an exception to that latter. The most common criticism is not that Eisenberg did a bad acting job, but that he did a good job of portraying a character that was not the version of Luthor they wanted to see, being closer to a traditional portrayal of the Joker. That's not an acting problem, that's a writing and directing problem.
Something like:
- Took the Bad Film Seriously: Even critics and viewers who have seriously problems with the film tend to agree that the cast is not one of them and that their performances are generally very strong.
The thing is, say what you will about the movie, but the actors weren't going into it thinking that it was going to be a mess/had no reason to think that. The trope isn't "these actors had a good performance," it's about a performance that's so jarringly serious that it's out-of-place in a bad work.
I just can't see this applying unless we consider "superhero movie" to inherently mean "bad."
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Hmm, fair point. Their performances definitely don't seem out-of-place with the tone of the movie; rather, they're just as grim and self-serious as the rest of the movie is. (Except maybe Eisenberg's, which can feel out-of-place for a different reason: he hams it up in a film that's typically not hammy in the same way.)
Well put.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Something needs to be done about the user TheresOnly1GaryKing. The guy is having an edit-war with everyone just to make sure that only his opinion matters with BvS.
Edited by Retloclive RLL Hide / Show Replies
He's done it multiple times? I was under the impression he only did once on this pic.
If you go down the edit history, you'll see that he's done it several times the past few days.
Edited by Retloclive RLL
Doesn't help his edits are hilariously natter-y.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly is his opinion of the movie? From what I got he seemed to remove both positive and negative edits...
Well, he's been banned regardless. Feel free to clean up.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
magnolia0_01 is almost certainly Theres Only 1 Gary King ban evading.
You can only write so much in your forum signature. It's not fair that I want to write a piece of writing yet it will cut me off in the mid
Okay, why does the following:
- Superman's French VA: Adrien Antoine. While he is a good actor and is pretty good with his lines he's also been Batman 's French VA for the past ten years (The Dark Knight trilogy excluded).
- Superman's French VA: Adrien Antoine
keeps getting deleted? It's factual, the wikipedia pages confirm this and I'd say giving Suiperman Batman 's voice does count as a WTF Casting Agency.
Edited by cricri3007 Hide / Show Replies
Some guy does the deletion...put it back in. I have issued two warnings to him about his deletions and invited him here.
Anything regarding the wiki rotten tomatoes score(and critic and fan reaction) should wait until at least a week after the movie release. Those score are not final. In the end.
Hide / Show Replies
Agreed. Honestly, probably two.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Shouldn't we wait until the movie has actually been released, or at least until the review embargo has been lifted, to start adding tropes like Ensemble Dark Horse or And You Thought It Would Fail? Early reception has been positive but right now we're mostly going off the hearsay from a very few people who have seen the film. IMO it's still to early to say how the majority of critics or general audiences will respond to the movie.
Also, Wonder Woman is a pretty important character, so I question whether she could qualify as an Ensemble Dark Horse even if she is well-received.
Edited by Tyrathius Hide / Show Replies
Agreed. Hell, the movie doesn't even have a Rotten Tomatoes score yet, it's far too early to make judgement calls like that.
I really can't imagine that And You Thought It Would Fail could ever possibly apply.
I think everyone from day 1 knew this would basically print money. Even the nay-sayers (barring the borderline delusional ones) realize that no matter the quality of the movie, this movie is not going to fail.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
I'm gonna go ahead and pull them. They can be readded later if it's appropriate, but I really think we should wait until the movie is released to decide.
An entry under They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot was removed by someone who argued that it was an invalid observation simply because it wouldn't fit in a movie where Lex Luthor was portrayed differently than he traditionally is in the comics:
Respectfully, I have to disagree with the reasons for its removal. Even if the movie features a non-traditional portrayal of Luthor, the point about the opening scene still stands: it sets up a perfectly well-realized scenario for demonstrating why someone would distrust Superman and consider him a threat to humanity, but gives it to Superman's future ally instead of his primary antagonist; and since it's shown from the perspective of a wealthy businessman in Metropolis, it's also (ironically) a far more faithful portrayal of Luthor than the movie's actual portrayal of him. I understand the criticism of the editor who removed that entry, but what if it was simply rephrased rather than outright removed? Case in point:
- With just a few minutes of footage, the opening scene in Metropolis perfectly demonstrates why someone might distrust Superman and see him as a threat to humanity, even though he was just trying to protect innocent people. But that moment of characterization is given to Bruce Wayne (who's all but guaranteed to come around to trusting Superman by the end), while the movie is oddly vague about why Lex Luthor (Superman's nemesis) also distrusts him and sees him as a threat. It might have been far more interesting to explore how such a moment of terror and panic might have kicked off an actual long-lasting conflict with Superman, instead of portraying it as a simple misunderstanding between two heroes that's destined to be resolved. note
Edited by TheMightyHeptagon Hide / Show Replies