Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)


Recommended Posts

 

 

Ok, FINALLY got to see the freakin' movie with the wife. Here are my thoughts... and it's LONG. Just a heads up.

 

First off, to hell with the haters. I loved it. It had several issues, and I'm going into them, but overall I really liked it. The issues with the movie, where the script was concerned, fit the Universe they are building. The other issues... directing/editing, etc, well... there's no good excuse for those, so no hating on pointing those out; that kind of stuff can ruin a movie experience for anyone. I'm just saying don't let it stop you from watching the movie.

 

Affleck was awesome. Seriously, that guy buffed out just right for Batman. And part of his personality worked so well because of Jeremy Irons as Alfred. I loved, loved, loved that they made it obvious Alfred is integral to Batman's success. He's not just the guy that helps out behind the scenes, he's an active participant that would have meant failure for Batman if he hadn't been there from the beginning. They are a team in every sense of the word. And yea... the fight scenes that Batman has are freakin' cool. Loved it.

 

One of the "issues" people have is that in this Universe, Batman kills people. And I mean like, no kidding... kills people. I think people are missing the scene where we see Robin's uniform on display with The Joker's message: ha ha ha. In the comics, The Joker kills Robin and continues to mock Batman over it. Basically saying, because you have this code against killing the bad guy, Robin ended up dead, paying for your weakness. I can definitely see that being the point where Batman decides, yea... sometimes you just have to put the rabid dog down. I mean, Batman is already insane: he dresses up like a giant bat and gives bad guys bruises and nightmares. And then there's the short speech Alfred gives him about how everything has changed; Batman used to dispense justice, but now he's become cruel. No doubt talking about not just the "branding" of criminals, but killing as well. So yea, I think it fits the narrative of the Universe they're creating.

 

I think they did an excellent job of pointing out why Batman felt the need to take on Superman. They did not have to retell his Origin story. That broke up the flow of the movie, so I completely get the hate with that. The whole movie felt... jumbled. I agree they tried to tell too many different stories at once, but Batman's origin wasn't just them throwing in another storyline, it was rehashing what didn't need to be rehashed. We didn't get the other characters' origin stories in this, so his felt... forced. And again, it was distracting for absolutely no good reason.

 

But man, that opening. Seeing the events from Man of Steel through his eyes, you can relate to his concern over what Superman is, and what he's capable of. I did NOT like that the point he made to Superman after kicking his ass in the comic book didn't play out in the movie. In the comic, Batman makes a point of saying, "Look, now you know you're not invincible. If you ever get out of line, there's a least one person who can take you out... because I just did. And I'm the guy who will end you if necessary."

 

Superman was just ok. I like Henry Cavill in the part, both as Clark and Superman, but I'm still not happy with the direction they've taken the character mentally. I get that they're trying to show his struggle with staying upbeat and positive in a very cynical and cruel world (he even has a line about staying the good guy in this world)... but man, I really don't like Emo Superman at all. In the comics, he goes after Batman because he's ordered to-- after all, it's his job to hunt down criminals, especially extraordinary ones. In this... well, you saw it. It was just... meh.

 

But the fight itself? Loved it. Especially when the Kryptonite first wears off... that was a good look he gave Batman while getting punched. It was pretty much straight from the comic, and again I was really looking forward to that. Batman creates the suit, gets his gadgets ready, and it's a straight-up brawl. The end of the fight, though. Meh. I really, really wanted that line from the comic. Instead we got, "Our moms have the same name." I mean.... meh. I was expecting Batman to raise the spear and be like, "I know your weakness. I own your weakness. THIS is mercy." And then just walking away. Something like that.

 

But, yea... moving on.

 

And those dream sequences... were they necessary at all? I don't think so. They were just another distraction the movie really didn't need. They were another reason the movie, in general, felt jumbled and why I think people didn't enjoy it. It kept taking you away from the main plot, which people went into thinking was the final showdown between Batman and Superman. I mean, that's the title of the damn movie. So I get it. But while I understand why others didn't like it for that reason, I still really liked this movie.

 

Next up is Wonder Woman. I didn't like her interaction with Batman at the start. It felt like... we're going to throw her into this scenario JUST to show her to you as her alter ego. Meh. But when she shows up as Wonder Woman, I love that they played up how much she loves battle. She wasn't taking it near as seriously as Superman or Batman. For her, it was also fun. And she kicked ass. And she had her lasso. Yea, I liked Wonder Woman just fine. Looking forward to her movie.

 

Lex... good god, could he have been any further from the comics? The actor is great. I have no doubt he gave them exactly what they asked for, so no hate for him. But whomever wrote his character should be shot. Is he a criminal, or just an insane billionaire? I mean... he felt more Joker than Lex Luthor with the whole "insane" line from Lois, or just his portrayal of crazy. Of all the characters, I disliked how Lex was portrayed the most; even more than Emo Superman. And creating Doomsday? Really? Meh.

 

The cameos were good. Just enough to make you go, "Who is that, exactly?" Like, you know who Aquaman is, or the Flash, and maybe you know Cyborg, but the movie gives you nothing else so when their movies comes out, maybe you'll actually go see them to find out. And going with the Universe they created, it makes sense that they're a mystery to the audience like they are to Batman. Which would also allow them to add something else from the comics: Batman's dossier on every metahuman he encounters, where he outlines the perfect tactics, weapons, etc to take them out if necessary. I think there was an animated Justice League movie that showed the Justice League members finding out Batman had created that dossier, and he tells them exactly why he did it: if you get out of line, I'm the guy that's coming for you; and I'll succeed.

 

That pretty much covers it. There are some character issues, but that's just the writing team playing with new ideas. I don't like them all (especially Lex), but I'll run with it to see where it leads. I still have hope that Superman will find his, and maybe grouping with the Justice League will return Batman to his "no killing" code. But, we'll see. And I'm anxious to see, which is the point of why I really liked this movie. It did a great job of setting things up for change once the Justice League is formed. There is plenty of character development still available for them to pursue if they don't drop the ball.

 

One last point of note:
Was anyone else expecting Perry White to bring Clark into the office and saying something like, "I've been a journalist for 40 years. I pay attention to detail. Do you really think I can't see past the stupid glasses when I'm posting pictures of Superman on the front page of MY newspaper? Go ahead and keep saving the world, just make sure I have my sports piece by close of business. Now get out of my office."

 

Edited by McCordRm
  • Like 1
9 hours ago, LOC said:

Well I'm certainly awaiting his transformation into the Superman we all know and love as well. But with the world being set up the way it is, and the basic dynamics of the whole thing - I just don't see Superman ever becoming one we are all happy with. I mean, yeah I'm sure because of the backlash this go round that the JL movies will be lighter in tone (god I hope so) and Superman and Batman etc will obviously be more friends than anything. Which is great, since they don't have to spend 2 hours explaining why Batman hates Superman again :D

 

And don't get me wrong, I love the angle they are going with - that this is an untested Superman who is brand new to the game etc. But they are also dropping hints as to where they may go story wise (and if they do go there, I'm done with this universe real quick) and let's just say uh, no thanks Synder I have video games for that :)

Hmm. Maybe these are actually the Justice Lord versions as in the Justice League cartoon, and later on we'll see the actual heroic Justice League, drawn from the DC TV/movie multiverse - Brandon Routh as both Superman and Atom, Christian Bale as Batman (or even Kevin Conroy of the DC Animated Universe - he looks the part in real life!), Steven Amell as Green Arrow, Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern etc.  Of course, the last one would require prying Ryan out of the Deadpool costume . . .

 

Maybe Helen Slater as "Superwoman".

 

And Grant Gustin and John Wesley Shipp as their two different versions of Barry Allen. Because you can never have too much Flash. (Unless preceded by the word "Adobe".)

 

Too bad this would be impossibly expensive.

I really doubt they're going to do injustice, the hints in the movie about that, the batman nightmares and flash cameo are part of a alternate future that has already changed because of the events in BvS.

 

Rumors are that JL part 1 could have the surface world vs atlantis, further expanding the world and as setup for the aquaman and flash movies that are set to follow it, then we get darkseid in jl part 2.

43 minutes ago, George P said:

I really doubt they're going to do injustice, the hints in the movie about that, the batman nightmares and flash cameo are part of a alternate future that has already changed because of the events in BvS.

 

Rumors are that JL part 1 could have the surface world vs atlantis, further expanding the world and as setup for the aquaman and flash movies that are set to follow it, then we get darkseid in jl part 2.

Reign of the Supermen maybe? There were certainly enough people injured in the MoS ending battle that a Hank Henshaw/Cyborg Superman equivalent could be found easily. A Superboy clone could have been a project in place already, Steel could be readily done - just have John Irons' tech what Batman based his anti-Superman suit on. And the Eradicator could be the Kryptonian ship's attempt at a clone. Leaving the real Superman to come sort out the mess in the final act.

 

Yes, I know that's way too complicated for a film plot, but if I'm gonna speculate, I'm going LARGE! :woot:

I think JL part 1 starts filming this week, we'll know more as time goes on, at this point i'm fine with them using the first part to introduce atlantis and a setup to the aquaman movie that comes up next.

 

Hell it's exciting to see batman in the suicide squad movie since it looks like his part is going to be bigger than people expected.

26 minutes ago, George P said:

I think JL part 1 starts filming this week, we'll know more as time goes on, at this point i'm fine with them using the first part to introduce atlantis and a setup to the aquaman movie that comes up next.

 

Hell it's exciting to see batman in the suicide squad movie since it looks like his part is going to be bigger than people expected.

And why does he show up?

 

tumblr_n7w6mzwSip1rrkahjo8_250.gif

 

:laugh:

I enjoyed this more than I expected, or rather it wasn't as bad as I was expecting. They crammed way to much into the movie. And Snyder's overall direction is still something I don't like. I found some of the action was quite difficult to actually see due the rapid shot changes & high contrast look of the movie.

 

I did like Affleck as Batman & Irons as Alfred. Though I did not like Eisenberg's performance at all. Bizarre casting choice and even more bizarre take on the character.

 

 

 

On 11/04/2016 at 9:57 PM, Hurmoth said:

Plus, Batman and Robin make a great drinking game movie. There is a category of bad films that are so bad, they're actually good fun to watch. Ice-related puns FTW :laugh:

-Nothing- is as bad as Superman IV...

On 11/04/2016 at 11:57 PM, George P said:

Bruce is raging because of the feeling of being powerless to do anything when MoS was going down, and fear of failing that's turned to rage.  Again that line in the movie is key, more people should've picked up on it.

Yup. I had no problem at all seeing that, it was pretty damned obvious really.  I was more surprised by the sudden about face actually and felt it was a bit rushed.

 

On 12/04/2016 at 2:17 AM, George P said:

I don't think he's emotionless though,  he's seen as conflicted about his role in the world,  we also see him rage and get angry.  We also see him come to terms with what he had to do to stop doomsday.  I like this superman because he's not the perfect version we're used to,  at least not yet,  I think we'll get there though.  Remember he's just started out,  it's been 18 months since he started being superman,  he'll get there in my opinion. 

I always hated the big blue boyscout. "Flawless" superheroes are as boring as hell, which is probably why Spider-man was always my favourite.  A flawed Supe's who wrestles with his actions and isn't utterly invulnerable to everything? Much more interesting to me.

2 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I always hated the big blue boyscout. "Flawless" superheroes are as boring as hell, which is probably why Spider-man was always my favourite.  A flawed Supe's who wrestles with his actions and isn't utterly invulnerable to everything? Much more interesting to me.

Not only that but it gives us room to see him grow as a hero, i think by the end of JL1 we'll see him even better at the hero gig.

  • 2 weeks later...

Small update, with all the hate around this movie, I find it funny that websites still haven't stopped talking about it.   Money wise, looks to be at $319 million in the US, sure for two big names as this in one movie it should've been double, but hey, WB is fine about it since it's not a flop,  as it stands it's done better than most Marvel films,  and sits at $850 million worldwide.   It won't hit $1billion, hell, Suicide Squad has a good chance of making more, but regardless, as the second movie in the DCEU, it's done good for WB.

54 minutes ago, DocM said:

I still think the R version may get a limited theatrical release, with this scene as one of the hooks

 

 

  Hide contents

 

 

and perhaps more of Lois in the tub ;)

 

I have to wonder, would they or are they fine with the $850-$860million it'll probably end up with world wide?  I mean, if you show the R version here why bother with the BD version later?   I think what they should do, is have a limited viewing for some critics and see what they say with the extra 30min version.     At this point it's all about, do you go for that extra kick and aim for $1billion WW, and give up on lower BD sales?  Or just hold off and make up what you will on BD/Streaming sales because I know I'm for sure looking forward to the directors R-rated cut.

2 hours ago, DocM said:

I'd look at the short run & its promos as ads for the R rated BR version. Not everyone reads the websites where it's being discussed. 

Tough call, Cap 3 is almost here and it's got solid reviews so I don't know if WB will risk it.

  • 1 month later...

The rumors are true. Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is heading back to select theaters around the U.S. in Ultimate Edition form.

 

The 151 minute extended cut is currently scheduled to play at a dozen U.S. theaters, a pair of which are in the Los Angeles area but it will also be popping up in Austin, Chicago, Columbus, Houston, Phoenix, and New York.

 

http://comicbook.com/2016/06/22/batman-v-superman-ultimate-edition-getting-limited-theatrical-re/

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!