@Nilitch:
They do– but as Henry Cavill said in the movie "not everyone thinks like" Bruce (scene at Lex Luthor's banquet or whatever it was).
Also, people like him now because I guess they found out Lex Luthor was making him look like a baddy from all along--- and Superman is actually a nice guy.
They forgave him about destroying Metropolis because urgh this time he didn't ?
Anyway, everyone knows he's a good guy now and I don't even get why it's a criticism about JL because it was settled at the end of BvS.
Again, Show Don't Tell.
It's a valid criticism of JL because it's a loose end that BvS left open that JL did nothing to address. It flat out ignored it.
It's like when people criticize the part in Star Wars where Yoda tells Luke Skywalker he needs to complete his training before confronting Vader so he can't leave yet, Luke Leaves anyway, and then when Luke comes back in Return of the Jedi, Yoda is like "Nevermind, you already leared everything you need to know"
It can be explained away, and I'm pretty sure there are EU novels and comics that came up with an explanation. Pretty sure Yoda gave Luke Jedi holocrons so he could train on his own before coming back, but just because you can rationalize and explain it, doesn't mean the film makers didn't drop the ball in conveying that to the audience in the movies themselves.
Now, in this case I actually like the end result. I LIKE that Batman and Superman are just friends in the movie. It brings them more in line with where I think they should be as characters and what I wanted to see in an adaptation of them, but BvS still exists and when judged as a sequel to BvS is where I think this counts as a failing.
@Nilitch:
Zack Snyder's Superman isn't canon. And I always thought the characters were gonna change. I had no problem at all with the dark tone because I was pretty much sure the characters were gonna get through some chara-developments
That's my entire issue.
We got very little character development for Superman here, and what we did get in Man of Steel was reverted in BvS.
He spends most of MoS unsure of himself. Contemplating if he should be this savior for the people of the world or not. His arc for this movie ends with him embracing his role as savior. This is shown both symbolically when he puts on the suit and then works his way up to flying in that scene, and then at the end he flat out tells that general "Hey, here's your crumpled up drone. Trust me, I'm here to do good".
They completely ignored this in BvS and reverted him back to mopey and unsure for seemingly no reason. I've gone to great lengths before on how this hurts Superman's character arc, undoes what good MoS DID do, and ultimately works against the primary conflict of BvS before. I don't really want to repeat myself.
@Nilitch:
The people who fought alongside her during the war were like "uhh, she's just a strong women. Also, her father is Zeus, I'll just drop a punchline and forget about it during the rest of the movie and eventually treat her like a naive child when she'll say who the villain is and all"
What? She never told anyone she was Zeus' daughter. She didn't know until the final battle with Ares.
Also, every time she told someone Ares was responsible for the War they thought she was Crazy and/or naive and they ended up being right. Ares wasn't responsible for mankind going to war in general.
Also, I love how her acting naive and being amazed by things in the modern (Compared to Themyscira) world equate to being "Childish" to you. Sorry, but this is how someone would act in Diana's shoes.
She lived her entire life on an island of Amazons with ancient Greek era technology and never seeing any person other than herself who wasn't already an adult.
@Nilitch:
No ?? At least not in in the Snyder-universe. Anyway, it's just a moral judgment I guess
The entire thematic situation Zack Snyder is going for in the movies, which is very very clear because he basically beats you over the head with it is:
"Can the world trust a being as powerful as Superman? What if a godly being like him decides to just kill everyone?"
This is why Holly Hunter didn't like him, this is why Lex Luthor didn't like him, and this is why Batman didn't like him.
"If we think there is even a 1% chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an ABSOLUTE certainty"
The entire point of these movies is supposed to be Superman gaining the trust of the people of the world.
If people are just supposed to worship him because he has Godlike powers, then in what way does that prove Lex Luthor Wrong? In what way does that prove Pre-MARTHA! Batman wrong?
They needed to SHOW US him doing good things and proving he has a moral and kind character in order to SHOW the audience Batman and Lex were wrong. One montage of him saving a few people that is more interested in playing up the god imagery than showing that he cares for the people he's saving did not accomplish that.
We REALLY needed like 2 movies between MoS and BvS, at minimum to demonstrate this.
@Nilitch:
I'm talking about Martha.
The hate is sticking to "haha Martha" even though we've been saying since the movie was released that it's not only about the same name. Just like Affleck said in this movie "yeah uhu he's super-human, has a gf, a mom and all–- and he's nice etc". Even though it was poorly executed of course.
Really a lot of this is also poor execution. A LOT of it.
The "MARTHAAAA" thing gets rightly mocked because of poor execution. I GET what they were going for, but they did nothing to work towards it.
"MARTHAA" was supposed to snap Batman out of seeing im as an inhuman alien monster and cause him to see the human side of Clark. I get that. It's just awful in its execution.
RIGHT before this as Batman is dragging Superman to where he's going to stab him, he says:
"I bet your parents taught you, that you mean something. That you're here for a reason. My parents taught me a different lesson. Dying in the gutter. For no reason at all.
They taught me the world only makes sense, if you force it to."
I know they included this line because it was in The Dark Knight Returns and this whole movie was Zack Snyder trying to adapt that movie while still making it about Superman as best he can, but that line is part of what ruins the "MARTHAAA" scene because here's Batman FLAT OUT SAYING he knows Clark was raised by adopted human parents.
Then there's the really stupid awkward way they had Clark shout "MARTHAAA" like that. They just REALLY needed him to say her name out loud like that. He knows Batman knows who he is by now. So why is he just saying her first name? Why not "My Mother"? Or if he didn't know Batman knew his secret by now, what about "Martha Kent?" How the fuck is Batman supposed to just know who "Martha" is?!
It's because Zack Snyder REALLY needed him to dramatically shout "MARTHAA" like that.
It was sloppy and akwward and came across REALLY REALLY dumb so I mock it.
@Nilitch:
I thinl only the comicbook fans are mad at Steppenworlf's weapon not being explained or what, because I couldn't care less wtf it was.
Uh, what?
! I don't want a freaking explanation of what the Axe was in and of itself, what I want is an explanation for why he had NO PROBLEM controlling the Parademons before it was destroyed, and then AFTER it gets destroyed, suddenly he loses control of them and they attack him.
! Why does this happen? Why did the Parademons attack him? I focus on the axe because destroying it SEEMS to be what caused this, but the movie does nothing to explain this. They were never trying to break the axe specifically. Splitting up the Mother boxes was their goal. They just somehow got super lucky and destroying the axe caused the Parademons to turn on him…. for some reason...