Author Brent A Harris dives into what went right - and what went wrong with Batman v Superman, which has set records for how quickly people have stopped going to see it...
***SPOILERY SPOILERS OF MAJOR
SPOILS!*** Do not read unless you want to get your hopes of seeing a
good superhero flick dashed before you even set foot in a theater.
Superman v Batman is a terrible film.
I’ll admit, there are parts I enjoyed, which we will discuss at the
end. But first, underneath its flashy fights, Superman v Batman is a
fundamentally flawed film as dull and grim as its color pallet. It
suffers along two lines: the filmmakers have a crucial
misunderstanding of the title characters, and the core of the film -
the fight between two iconic superheroes - is a set-piece disaster,
billowing with two empty capes.
Joss Whedon once stated that if you
have two superheroes fighting over a misunderstanding, then the
audience isn’t invested in the outcome. Instead, it becomes an
antsy affair, as you know the moment the two stop and talk, they’ll
(b)romance it out. So, certainly, this fight, the fight of the
century, the fight between two of the most popular characters ever:
one a broody cynic, the other a symbol of hope, would clash over an
ideal, over an issue, over… anything substantial and worth the
audience’s time and intelligence. Yet when it comes down to it, the
hack filmmakers have them fight over… Superman’s mommy.
Really.
What a coincidence. All our mother’s
names are ‘Martha!’
That’s right. What’s worse is at
first, the filmmakers spend an impressive amount of time slogging
through a possible motivation and justification for the fight, only
for them to throw it all away 5 minutes beforehand to set up
radically different reasons. You could have walked into the theater
right then and been as confused as everyone else in the audience. And
then the two supposed heroes fight (although by then, neither are
established heroes), then they stop to talk it out because of course
it’s a misunderstanding and not at all a fight motivated by
fundamental core beliefs, and then they become best buddies. Joss
Whedon called it three years ago. The age of stupid superhero movies
should have ended with Avengers. The blue-print to success was right
there. The problem was, Snyder and Goyer were too arrogant to have
listened, and the Studio was too anxious to make money.
*Facepalm*
Let’s back up a bit to talk about the characters of Superman and Batman. After all, the fundamental misunderstanding of these characters is the other reason fight falls flat. The filmmakers chose to ignore the classic versions of these superheroes in favor of grim, gritty, Ayn-Randish, post-modernism. But in doing so, the filmmakers didn’t update the heroes for a new generation—they destroyed them. Here’s the problem: Batman doesn’t want to just stop Superman from doing whatever it is Superman isn’t actually doing—Batman wants to KILL him instead. Nevermind that Bruce could see Superman as a flawed hero, just starting out, who may need some guidance from a wizened older Batman. But suddenly, Billionaire Lex Luthor sees Superman as an alien threat and wants… excuse me: billionaire Bruce Wayne sees Superman as an alien threat and wants to KILL him. With Kryptonite. I think you can forgive my confusion, as Batman plays Lex Luthor in this film.
Okay… so what that Batman has
killed in the comics? So has Superman. After 70 years of history,
there’s bound to be a writer who gets it just as wrong as
Snyder. It doesn’t make it right.
At this point, I've come to the
realization that even if Snyder has a remote grasp of the characters,
he doesn’t care, because — in order to justify Batman wanting to
kill Superman — they show that Batman straight up murders criminals.
Snyder has made Batman a cold-blooded vigilante, ala Marvel’s
Punisher. Batman shoots criminals. He runs over their faces with the
Batmobile, he sets them on fire, and he tosses cars onto soft squishy
human heads. What’s worse, he ‘brands’ criminals so that,
inexplicably, they are horribly murdered behind bars. If Superman had
been taking the high moral ground all this time, he’d have a firm
reason to stop Batman in his tracks. But since Superman is just as
guilty of straight up killing his enemies, (unless that warlord in
the beginning of the film only ended up in critical condition
after being torn through a wall at super-sonic speed) the fight
couldn’t have been about that.
Surprisingly, despite Superman’s lack
of morality, the film spends an hour and a half setting just that
type of fight up, only for it to change immediately beforehand.
Superman warns Batman to stop (although he’s got no right to do so,
no moral ground to stand on). Then warns he’ll stop Batman if he
sees him again. Batman sees Superman as a threat to humanity. Then
decides the only answer is to stab the Man of Steel to death. In
other words, the filmmkers had to drastically alter the character of
Batman to bring him to a point where he would want to ‘kill’
Superman.
Yet at the same time, they had
destroyed the classic, hope and optimism of Superman, which gave
Superman no moral business to stop Batman. This means that the
filmmakers had to give Superman a different reason, not just to fight
Batman, but to kill him. Yes, KILL Batman. Thankfully, Snyder found
one five minutes before the fight. Just in the nick of time, too.
They gave the two a reason to fight when they could have just as
easily talked it out. So, there was no real point. Because
fundamentally, the two had no reason to punch each other.
Dude, Bruce, have you been working
out?
And Superman. Poor Superman. Superman
doesn’t want to stand for anything in this film, he wants to rescue
Lois, brood better than Batman, and generally stand around
apathetically as if he just inhaled a mega-dose of Superman III
Tar-ptonite. He never, ever, once thought outside the box to engage
his opponents. He never, not once, took the moral high ground. His
best scene in the movie is when Superman walks calmly into Congress.
There’s a touch of Christopher Reeve there. But everything else was
rubbish. There were infinitely better ways of handling the wheelchair
bomb, the warlord, or asking Batman for ‘help’. And, at the end,
Superman could have just as easily given the McGuffin Weapon to Diana
to dispatch Doomsday. So, perhaps the best thing he could have done
was to die in the end, because in those 30 seconds, he had more
character growth than in two entire movies.
That gives me hope that when Superman
returns, he’ll have evolved into the Superman we know. And maybe
that morality will rub off on Batman, and we will start to see a dawn
of a new age of justice, rather than the rancid, garbage-heap of
‘modern’ and ‘edgy’ that we got. True heroes last for
centuries because of the timelessness of what they stand for, not
because they look cool snapping necks and blowing stuff up.
There are bits of wonder in the film.
I’ll admit, the acting was as good as it could have been with the
material the cast was given. Ben Affleck did a great job of playing
the murderous Owlman, and I would love to see him play Batman in a
film he wrote and directed. Henry Cavill is stuck in a script that
doesn’t work for him, but I know he has the spark of Superman
within him. We just have to demand, as an audience, that he gets that
chance to play him. Wonder Woman was fantastic. Perry White steals
every scene he is in. And Jesse Eisenberg played a wonderful villain
called, Arcade.
What a Marvel comics villain is doing in a DC
film, I do not know, but Arcade, as you may or may not know, is a
twentysomething son of a ridiculously wealthy father, whom he kills
to inherit the fortune. In committing the murder, Arcade comes to
find he loves the thrill, so he develops into a crazy, murderous
manipulator who creates massive machinations of death for the thrill
of it. In other words, Arcade was in this movie, not Lex Luthor.
Marvel might want to look into that copyright infringement.
Meet Arcade. The other, other, Lex
Luthor.
The ‘Easter
eggs” of the other Justice League members seemed contrived and
forced. It was as if I were watching previews for future films, in
the same way Age of Ultron failed in keeping its film self-contained.
Studios should focus on telling the story at hand, not advertising
for movies yet to be filmed. On the other hand, I think I’m one of
the few people who felt the dream-sequences worked. This is because I
am convinced that it is the Flash showing Batman a future earth, and
not because Bruce Wayne has suddenly become telepathic. So, I’m
willing to give the Flash dreams a pass, although I’m hesitant to
see what this universe does to my all-time favorite hero.
The shining part of the film for me was
a cameo by a certain famous astrophysicist. In his scene, he brings
up what I think was the intent to be the central theme of the film,
which was the collective gasp earth took after the realization of
knowing its place in the universe has changed. It was a real
Copernican moment which grounded the film (morseo than any muted
color palette) and gave it a true sense of purpose. The world must
reassess its place and in that process, come to understand this
‘Superman’ that has changed everything. That was brilliant and a
film along those lines could have given the audience something fresh
and new, while at the same time, showcasing two of the most
well-known superheroes in an inspiring centerpiece of the film. Save
their fight for after we see the heroes band together. For now, we
want to be uplifted. We want to believe that we can fly. That we can
zip line across buildings, with our cape blowing in the wind. But for
that, we’ll need our classic heroes back.
I'm pleased to know I'm not missing much. The premise is just wrong. It's like lining up all the demons and angels on the playground before letting two average guys take turns picking participants for a pickup game that decides the fate of the universe. Some things are better left alone. As the great Robert Plant would say, "What is and should never be..."
ReplyDelete