Batman v. Superman

[Arcana]

BREAKING NEWS!: Warner Bros. just released a deleted scene from Batman vs. Superman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUzvASr8s

That came out a little while ago, and here's my theory:

Spoiler for Hidden:

The creature shown is, as the reigning theory goes, Steppenwolf, general of Darkseid.  What I think is happening here is that Luthor learned about Darkseid from the Kryptonian computer and somehow managed to figure out how to use it to communicate with Apokolips.  During Byrne's run on Wonder Woman Darkseid tried to war with the Olympians to eliminate them as a threat to his power; in the cinematic JL he might be lured to Earth by discovering from Luthor that Earth has some powerful "meta humans" including a Kryptonian (he probably didn't know Superman was dead at that moment), a wielder of the Speed Force, and an Amazonian.  Maybe this Darkseid is like the 80s Flash Gordon's Ming the Merciless: if he discovers a world that he deems a threat he neutralizes it, and when Luthor communicates with Steppenwolf he reveals enough to make Earth a threat to Darkseid.

Some people think the computer is just showing Luthor something, but I don't think so.  The scene is titled "Communion" and there's some voices you can hear in the video that seem to imply the figure in front of Luthor was actually communicating with him, and not just talking at him.  I think that's Kryptonian three-d Skype.

[Vee]

interesting theory. could be.

Spoiler for Hidden:

i was thinking it was a representation of the original kryptonian doomsday (luthor mentions something about one, but i can't recall exactly what). steppenwolf hadn't occurred to me as that looks nothing like him and he's not prone to roaring. i'd probably be more willing to think it's kaliback or mantis if it's someone from apokolips.

I'm pretty much all in on the Darkseid mind control theory at this point so Luthor only coming into contact with Apokolips after getting access to the ship doesn't really work for me. Especially since I think the dead eyed government official who gave Luthor access was under mind control. Luthor seems surprised at how easily he gets the access so it doesn't seem like a bribe situation, and the guy seemed to be in some sort of trance to me as I was watching it.

[Arcana]

interesting theory. could be.

Spoiler for Hidden:

i was thinking it was a representation of the original kryptonian doomsday (luthor mentions something about one, but i can't recall exactly what). steppenwolf hadn't occurred to me as that looks nothing like him and he's not prone to roaring. i'd probably be more willing to think it's kaliback or mantis if it's someone from apokolips.

I'm pretty much all in on the Darkseid mind control theory at this point so Luthor only coming into contact with Apokolips after getting access to the ship doesn't really work for me. Especially since I think the dead eyed government official who gave Luthor access was under mind control. Luthor seems surprised at how easily he gets the access so it doesn't seem like a bribe situation, and the guy seemed to be in some sort of trance to me as I was watching it.

Spoiler for Hidden:

This is the image that convinced me the theory was sound:



Here's a cap from the scene:



The horns clearly seem to be part of a helmet, as his face is surrounded by a relief outline similar to the helmet Steppenwolf is shown wearing in the above picture.  Also, look at the gloves.

Circumstantial evidence suggesting that Steppenwolf is a likely candidate for the BvS writers to tap is that in his backstory there's both a connection to Doomsday, and apparently in the New 52 continuity he leads Darkseid's forces in an invasion of Earth-2.

[Vee]

Ah I see. I miss the Ming-stache though.

[CG]

I choose to see it as "Batman used a gun, ergo there is no rule that says Batman never uses guns."

It is only cherry picking if I was trying to assert that Batman is comfortable killing people: see, he did it once, so it must be normal for him.  I did no such thing.  I asserted your rules about Batman have exceptions.  I am only required to produce one to demonstrate that fact.

Fair enough. He used a gun.

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I'm taking the exact opposite position of you.  When I say that TDKR shows a Batman that has no rule against using guns, I'm not trying clumsily to say that Batman loves to use guns.  I'm saying Batman in TDKR has no rule against using guns, at least no rule he isn't willing to break.  If I meant more, I would have said more.

Also fair.  The problem with the general conversation is that these exceptions to the no guns rule are being held up as justification for normalizing his use in BvS.  Just like Superman killing a handful of times in 75 years of comics being held up as justification for his actions in MoS.  You weren't doing that and I didn't mean to imply that you were.

In either case, if you are going to apply a standard of "Batman doesn't kill unless there is unambiguous evidence of the kill" then it is hypocritical not to apply that standard to BvS. 

Ouch.  I don't think hypocrisy accusations are called for. 

First - I have not seen BvS, nor will I.  I'm not even talking about the movie.  I'm objecting to your assertion that he kills in DKR.  I'm taking it from reviews that he kills in BvS, but I only care in that DKR is being used as justification for it.

The fact of the matter is that killing someone is a major plot point in DKR.  It's what drives the plot to the climactic battle.  Either the wool has been pulled over everyone's eyes, including Batman's biggest detractors and enemies (police, media, government) and they ignore it for half the book which leaves a fairly big plot hole or it doesn't actually happen. 

I choose to follow the line of reasoning that the people who dislike Batman would use all available facts to tear him down.  His detractors even acknowledge he hasn't killed anyone until the Joker commits suicide and frames Batman. 

It is obvious that Batman isn't making a personal confession about his attitude towards guns.  He is trying to make sure his army isn't a murdering mob.  This is the next panel:



He's trying to keep some control over his followers, not making a New Years resolution.

Frankly, the subsequent panel proves my argument.  He isn't saying "you".  He's saying "we".  Then he shows them the weapons they use.  Perhaps this is a reaffirmation of what his beliefs are, but other than one panel where he uses a gun, his characterization is pretty consistent: no guns.

Alex Ross' art is always amazing!  I would chalk up Batman's gun here as gizmo for delivering wacky payload, like a grapple or smoke gun.  Clearly he uses gun-like items when the form factor calls for it. 

When you make a major motion picture and one of the most common screenshots from the movie has Batman with some kind of rifle or shotgun, this is a problem.  These kind of exceptions shouldn't be what you put into a mass audience's exposure to the character.  Until DC's Cinematic Universe starts to shape up, I won't be supporting them.

[Vee]

When you make a major motion picture and one of the most common screenshots from the movie has Batman with some kind of rifle or shotgun, this is a problem.  These kind of exceptions shouldn't be what you put into a mass audience's exposure to the character.  Until DC's Cinematic Universe starts to shape up, I won't be supporting them.

Well except that apart from a dream/vision and a 'wacky payload gun-like gizmo' he's still bringing a belt to gunfights in DoJ.

I for one thought the inclusion of a gun in the screenshots/trailers was meant to drum up interest. And really 'why does bats have a gun?' would have intrigued me quite a bit about the movie had the trailers not been peppered with such atrocious lines. As it turned out I saw it expecting Manos the Hands of Fate level dumpster fire and was pleasantly surprised, so much so that I'm starting to think awful trailer might be a new strategy (the Deadpool and Supergirl trailers also had me thinking worst thing ever, but I liked the former and the latter was still bad, but not even a fraction as bad as the trailer suggested). At least I hope that's the case, 'cause, y'know, Suicide Squad.

The one thing I think is really successful about DoJ and bodes well for the rest of the DCCU, is that love it or hate it or rage boycott it, it's at least drumming up a lot of interest and buzz. Sure there are plot holes all over and characters with inexplicable motivations and completely unexplained bits, but they're at least at a level where they seem like they might have some interesting payoff in future movies. They at least leave open the possibility that the filmmakers are crazy like a fox instead of just incompetent. There's mystery there, which if they manage to keep going could make the DCCU really something. Even with all their success and money-printing, real anticipation-driving mystery is something the Marvel CU hasn't managed to pull off.

[Arcana]

Alex Ross' art is always amazing!  I would chalk up Batman's gun here as gizmo for delivering wacky payload, like a grapple or smoke gun.  Clearly he uses gun-like items when the form factor calls for it.

The point though was that in a sense it doesn't matter what you or I think, but rather what Batman thinks.  If it is his rule, its up to him to decide if he's actually breaking it or not, and in this case Batman believes he is breaking his own rule.

You know, this does bring up a subtle point.  When people say "Batman has a no-kill rule" or "Batman never uses guns" its not obvious if that refers to Batman the character or Batman the story.  In other words, does the character of Batman believe he has this rule, or is that a rule that writers of Batman should always follow.  Those aren't the same thing, because people are imperfect.  In the Alex Ross story, Batman believes he has such a rule (against guns), and yet he also believes it is the right thing to do to break it in this one case.  That's Batman having a rule that the character himself can choose to break or not break.  Similarly, Alex Ross the writer understands that such a rule exists for writers but decides to play with that rule to tell an interesting story.

Incidentally, there was a lot of debate about what "the gun" might be in the promo materials prior to the release of the movie.  I think it is not a spoiler to say it is not a gun in the conventional sense.  It is a thing that (in my opinion) every version of Batman would be comfortable using, even the no-kill no-gun versions.

[Arcana]

Something else came up while I was reading various articles about Batman.  Grant Morrison said in an interview that Batman kills the Joker at the end of the Killing Joke.  I never really thought about it that way: I always saw the book as implying that they were doomed to go at each other forever.  But when I look at the book through Morrison's eyes, it now seems much more logical to me that Batman does in fact kill the Joker.

Obviously, that act isn't in continuity because the Joker shows up after the Killing Joke.  And the script doesn't say "Batman kills the Joker" (you can actually read the script here).  But Brian Bolland (the artist) seems to imply that it is supposed to be ambiguous what happens in the end, and it can only be ambiguous if one of the possible endings he was thinking about was that Batman does kill the Joker.

Also, Batman himself basically says that this event is their last chance to avoid what he sees as a death spiral where eventually one of them will have to kill the other.

But what sells the idea to me is the Joke.  For those who don't remember, this is the joke the Joker tells at the end:



Its not actually a very funny joke, really.  But it makes Batman laugh hysterically.  I think that's because the joke is about them.  Batman and the Joker are both trapped in the asylum.  Batman manages to jump across the roof and escapes the prison of insanity.  The Joker is afraid to make the leap.  So the Batman extends a hand to him, as he does in the Killing Joke.  The Joker sees the offer like the first man shining the light across the way - its a totally ridiculous offer.  But the punch line is that the Joker doesn't see the offer as ridiculous, rather he's so far gone he doesn't see the offer as crazy, he's afraid it will actually work just well enough for Batman to hurt him even more by revoking the help.

The joke is that Batman offering to help the Joker is exactly like two crazy people debating whether or not one will turn off a flashlight half way.  Batman is trying to convince the Joker he won't turn off the flashlight, when any sane person would see that's besides the point.  In other words, they are doomed.

When Batman realizes this, he laughs.  But then, if Batman realizes that the Joker is genuinely hopeless, that all along he's been offering a flashlight to a crazy person, his belief that there is an option besides killing the Joker has to end.  And that's when he kills him, which is why the laughter suddenly ends.

It is certainly not the only interpretation of what happens at the end.  But I think it is a viable one.

[eabrace]

it now seems much more logical to me that Batman does in fact kill the Joker.

[Tenzhi]

Just got back from seeing it.  And overall I think I liked it.  Probably could've cut a few Bat dreams/visions.  And that Lex was just as awful as he seemed in the trailers.

I liked Affleck's Batman.  I liked Gadot's Wonder Woman - what little we got.  I dislike the Flash and Aquaman on appearance alone.

The Doomsday fight had too much dark chaos blur going on.

And I wonder what Lex was heralding at the end.  The hunger bit doesn't seem very Darkseid-ish.  I'm thinking it might be the swarm or brood or whatever it is Blue Beetle was mixed up with.

[CG]

You know, this does bring up a subtle point.  When people say "Batman has a no-kill rule" or "Batman never uses guns" its not obvious if that refers to Batman the character or Batman the story.  In other words, does the character of Batman believe he has this rule, or is that a rule that writers of Batman should always follow.  Those aren't the same thing, because people are imperfect.  In the Alex Ross story, Batman believes he has such a rule (against guns), and yet he also believes it is the right thing to do to break it in this one case.  That's Batman having a rule that the character himself can choose to break or not break.  Similarly, Alex Ross the writer understands that such a rule exists for writers but decides to play with that rule to tell an interesting story.

Yes, I agree with the distinction about story vs. character. 

I have made the same point to people who ask what's wrong with Superman killing Zod in MoS.  I usually use this analogy: "If they remade Die Hard starring Bugs Bunny, is it still a Bugs Bunny movie?  It's got Bugs Bunny in it, but does Bugs kill people with guns?"  There are certain genre conventions for a Bugs Bunny story that you can't just remove without taking away some of the essential elements of the character.  Similarly, a Superman story shouldn't generally have Superman the character killing people.  There are any number of Superman rip-offs that aren't afraid of killing or mass carnage that would work very well for the story they told (Apollo, Invincible off the top of my head), but those characters don't have the box office name recognition of Superman.

It's because the writers put Superman in the position where that was the only solution.  A good Superman story is where he doesn't have to kill anyone and he manages to save the day.  There are stories where that isn't the case, but those are to contrast the "normal" story and provide some variation or examination.  After which, they usually return to the no killing rules and experiment with some other aspect of the character.

Another point I like to make to friends is that the Marvel movies are made by the comic book company.  Those characters are done in as much the same vein as the comic books as they can.  The writers understand what made the characters popular in the first place and try to capture that and put it up on the screen.

DC movies are made by WB, DC's parent company.  That's one step removed and as such, you get new creators wanting to put their own spin on the character, but don't have the comic's editorial staff to reign them in.  So, you get something in the ballpark, but not always great from DC.  (Donner and Burton worked out well, whereas Schumacher and Snyder chose to deviate from the normal story and were controversial)

For Fox and Sony, you're way removed from the DC comics company so all bets are off.  It depends on the creative team and how closely to the source material they want to hew.  Deadpool was so good because Ryan Reynolds and the rest of the team really loved comic book DP and wanted to put that up on the screen.  Green Lantern, not so much.

[CG]

It is certainly not the only interpretation of what happens at the end.  But I think it is a viable one.

Moore has said in the past that he meant it to be ambiguous.

[CG]

http://www.hitfix.com/news/box-office-experts-batman-v-supermans-huge-second-weekend-drop-is-alarming

BvS box office dropped 68.4% in its second week.  There's some debate about what the cause is (Wrestlemania, NCAA March Madness, Spring Break, bad word of mouth) and what the net effect will be. 

[hurple]

Yes, I agree with the distinction about story vs. character. 

I have made the same point to people who ask what's wrong with Superman killing Zod in MoS.  I usually use this analogy: "If they remade Die Hard starring Bugs Bunny, is it still a Bugs Bunny movie?  It's got Bugs Bunny in it, but does Bugs kill people with guns?"  There are certain genre conventions for a Bugs Bunny story that you can't just remove without taking away some of the essential elements of the character.  Similarly, a Superman story shouldn't generally have Superman the character killing people.  There are any number of Superman rip-offs that aren't afraid of killing or mass carnage that would work very well for the story they told (Apollo, Invincible off the top of my head), but those characters don't have the box office name recognition of Superman.

It's because the writers put Superman in the position where that was the only solution.  A good Superman story is where he doesn't have to kill anyone and he manages to save the day.  There are stories where that isn't the case, but those are to contrast the "normal" story and provide some variation or examination.  After which, they usually return to the no killing rules and experiment with some other aspect of the character.

Another point I like to make to friends is that the Marvel movies are made by the comic book company.  Those characters are done in as much the same vein as the comic books as they can.  The writers understand what made the characters popular in the first place and try to capture that and put it up on the screen.

DC movies are made by WB, DC's parent company.  That's one step removed and as such, you get new creators wanting to put their own spin on the character, but don't have the comic's editorial staff to reign them in.  So, you get something in the ballpark, but not always great from DC.  (Donner and Burton worked out well, whereas Schumacher and Snyder chose to deviate from the normal story and were controversial)

For Fox and Sony, you're way removed from the DC comics company so all bets are off.  It depends on the creative team and how closely to the source material they want to hew.  Deadpool was so good because Ryan Reynolds and the rest of the team really loved comic book DP and wanted to put that up on the screen.  Green Lantern, not so much.

Very good summation.

I'll add this, Superman killing Zod is not out of character.  In extreme circumstances he has resorted to that very measure.  However, it has always left him in a moral quandry (which I assume was what that horrid screeching thing he did in MoS was supposed to represent).   

I also have no issue with there being wanton massive destruction as he attempts to stop Zod, since Zod wants to "kill all humans" and Superman is attempting to stop him.  That makes sense.  (However, Superman callously adding to the destruction rather than try to move them away from the "kill zone" does not sit well.)

But...

There is NO WAY that should have been the first story told with a new Superman who is "new" to the Earth.  The renegade Kryptonians story should always be told well after Superman is established as a trusted hero on Earth and his refusal to kill is also well established.  That lends the story serious gravitas and an emotional core that actually means something to the audience.  Otherwise, the whole shebang is just a disaster-porn movie with superheroes. (MoS, I am looking at you)

[Golden Girl]

http://www.hitfix.com/news/box-office-experts-batman-v-supermans-huge-second-weekend-drop-is-alarming

BvS box office dropped 68.4% in its second week.  There's some debate about what the cause is (Wrestlemania, NCAA March Madness, Spring Break, bad word of mouth) and what the net effect will be.

Under a billion would be almost too delicious a level of humiliation for WB and Snyder's pitiful "movie".

[Vee]

Under a billion would be almost too delicious a level of humiliation for WB and Snyder's pitiful "movie".

Wait, if it doesn't get to a billion it's a delicious level of humiliation? We clearly have differing views of what constitutes 'humiliation'. The article you link predicts 900M worldwide which would put it ahead of all but 3 of the marvel cinematic u movies.

[CG]

Wait, if it doesn't get to a billion it's a delicious level of humiliation? We clearly have differing views of what constitutes 'humiliation'. The article you link predicts 900M worldwide which would put it ahead of all but 3 of the marvel cinematic u movies.

There are questions about how much the movie cost to make and market.  From what I've read, all that foreign box office doesn't make it back to WB.  It might have a huge box office, but still not make a lot of money depending on what they spent to make/market it.

There's also the actual box office vs. expectations.  IIRC, it was expected to break a billion, easily.

[Tenzhi]

A strange expectation.  Did they expect popularity to spring up fully formed from names and genre to carry the movie to victory?

[Arcana]

Under a billion would be almost too delicious a level of humiliation for WB and Snyder's pitiful "movie".

You have a remarkable sliding scale of mockery.  I'm actually hoping it just barely crosses the billion mark, so you can say how pitiful it was that it only made a pathetically small amount more than a billion dollars.

[Arcana]

There are questions about how much the movie cost to make and market.  From what I've read, all that foreign box office doesn't make it back to WB.  It might have a huge box office, but still not make a lot of money depending on what they spent to make/market it.

There's also the actual box office vs. expectations.  IIRC, it was expected to break a billion, easily.

I think a reasonable comparison point is to compare BvS to Avengers Age of Ultron.  They both have production budgets of about $250 million and were probably both marketed internationally at a similar level.  AoU opened to about $191 million domestically and reached $459 million domestic and $946 million international for a total take of about $1.4 billion.  The Ultron split was about 33% domestic and 67% international.  BvS opened to $166 million domestic and currently sits at $260 million domestic and $423 million international for a current take of $683 million and a 38%/62% split.

Conservative projections are that BvS gets to about $365 million domestically, although it is possible it could cross $375 million.  If the split holds that would project to about $600 million international and about $960 million total.  That would make it the fourth best Warner movie of all time (unadjusted for inflation) behind The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part 2, and about 40% better than Man of Steel (which had a production budget of $225 million).

On the one hand, it is a marked improvement over Man of Steel.  On the other hand, I'd say it would have to be considered a disappointing return compared to the more successful Marvel movies.  Its significantly lower performing than Age of Ultron with a similar budget.  If you think the Avengers movies should really be compared to the JL movies and BvS should be compared to the lesser lead-up Marvel movies it isn't necessarily better: Iron Man 3 had a production budget of $200 million and crossed $1.2 billion worldwide.  But there is one interesting comparison point.  A lot of people think Winter Soldier was one of Marvel's better movies not called The Avengers.  It had a $170 million budget and came in at $260 million domestic and $455 million international for $714 million total worldwide.  That was considered a success.  BvS had a budget that was about 47% higher.  You'd therefore expect to get about 47% more return on that investment than Winter Soldier.  That projects to about $382 million domestic and $669 million international.  That's actually not too far from the current projection of $365/$600 million.  That's about 8% under par relative to Winter Soldier.  8% under Winter Soldier isn't necessarily good, but it doesn't sound like a disaster to me either.  Also, Winter Soldier opened in April, outside the summer months, and that also makes it a reasonable comparison point to BvS.

Overall, though, I think anything near $900 million means the movie ends up being profitable for some definition of profitable.  Keep in mind though that the point of making big budget movies isn't to be profitable, its to make money.  We often joke about Hollywood accounting, but it is important to note that Hollywood accounting gets a bad rap because it is often used to manipulate and take advantage of people.  For many years my own business was never profitable but very successful.  That's because as an owner, I simply paid myself (and my employees) performance bonuses consistent with making my net corporate profit near zero.  I made money, even if my company didn't, so I consider that a success.  Hollywood productions are like that.  There's a corporate entity that "makes" the movie, but the point is not for that entity to make money, the point is for the parent company to make money, for the director to make money, for the actors to make money, for the grips and carpenters and caterers and accountants to make money, for the ad agencies and personal assistants and costumers and movie theaters to make money.  $900 million dollars in ticket revenues means a lot of people made a lot of money collectively on the movie, and as long as its enough to power the engine of movie making, how profitable the actual movie production itself is is almost irrelevant.

If everyone associated with a movie makes enough money to want to do it again, and the parent company gets enough money to pay people to continue making them, and the distribution network makes enough money to want to distribute another one, that's a success even if the movie itself makes exactly zero dollars net.  Its not about making money, it is about everyone around it making enough money to want to do it again.