Amph Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

Do you disagree, Darkslayer?

 

It is resolved. Clark has to learn to accept that being Superman means that not everyone will like what he does, which informs his relationship going forward with Bruce's actions as Batman. He has to look past the brutality of Batman to see the good inside. And at the end of the film, we see people mourning Superman for dying in order to stop Doomsday.

He wasn't inside because he's not going to blow himself up just to prove a point. And while Lex did pay for Wallace's bail and supplied the wheelchair, there's nothing that proves that Lex was the one who tampered with it. Wallace Keefe could have done that in order to try and kill Superman. His apartment would look suspicious with all the anti-Superman propaganda. And Lex would have had evidence of explosive material planted to implicate Wallace.

It's in the film. On why he hates Superman.

LEX: "See, what we call God depends upon our tribe, Clark Joe, 'cause God is tribal; God takes sides! No man in the sky intervened when I was a boy to deliver me from daddy's fist and abominations. I figured out way back if God is all-powerful, He cannot be all good. And if He is all good, then He cannot be all-powerful. And neither can you be. They need to see the fraud that you are. With their eyes. With blood on your hands."

On Darkseid being involved.

LEX: "The bell's already been rung. They heard it; the creatures among the stars. They'll come... He'll come. He's angry... Ding-dong... Ding-dong... Ding-dong..."

And considering that Darkseid is technically a god, then that is why he favors him and will do what he wants against Superman.

 

I was saying "really" to the pointless attack on people's religion. What does that even have to do with Batman v Superman?

 

Ender was explaining what would probably happen in the real world if Superman showed up. Religious people probably would hate him, as they tend to be most bigoted and hate filled.

 

It's not going to change some people's hate, so why bring it up? Why would Superman mainly focus on thinking about how would others view him rather than do what he thought was right?

They made Batman attempted murderer, which he should have been charged.

And this raises him as a suspect, to blow up the congress.
No way, the bomb certainly wasn't something Wallace could have made, it was able to avoid the detection in the congress, only the technology from something like Lex Corp could have made it. What he did, was simply telling people: "I blow up the congress".

No, all of these only shows he hates Superman but not why, why did he think like this? Why would he create Doomsday to kill everyone including himself. Again the movie had failed to explain why, why did he form such opinion.

 

"Zod."

It might change. We have two JL films and potentially another solo film.

He is doing what he thinks is right. But when people question whether he should get involved, then that makes him wonder if he is really doing good. He focuses on the negative because he wants to be accepted.

Who would charge him? Superman? He's a) forgiven him and b) is dead.

How? No one has a reason to suspect that he was behind the bomb. Finch, who realized that Lex was crazy enough to do that, is dead. Lex's excuse was that he had to hit the john. Nothing links him to the bombing.

Or Wayne Tech. Or S.T.A.R. Labs. Or Kord Industries. As to being detected, that's if it was x-rayed, which it wasn't. No chemical testing was done. The only one who would know is Superman and he wasn't paying attention by his own admission.

No, more like, "I blame Superman for everything wrong with my life. So I'm going to destroy the False God, once and for all."

Because he's psychologically damaged from years of abuse.

Because it is Darkseid's will.

 

No, you can't change how some people think.

Which shouldn't be the focus, he is Superman, he shouldn't spend so much time on questioning himself, otherwise he should quit as a superhero if he doesn't have a big heart to ignore the negative.

Serious crimes like Murderer does get charged regardless of how does the victim and their family think about.

Are you kidding?
He was not present during the trial.
He bailed Wallace out.
He gave Wallace that wheelchair.
The bomb could avoid the detection in the congress.

All of these were enough to tie him with the explosion and makes him the NO.1 suspect, he was beyond stupid as a criminal.

But it was given by the Lex Corp so it's settled..
It was, even in federal offices, you need to remove everything that is metal to scan them, not to say a trial in the congress. There is no way Wallace would be able to get in there without having it scanned.

No way because he didn't have the skill to make the bomb.

None of these was shown in the movie=bad storytelling.

Again, it wasn't shown in the movie, non-comic fans couldn't even understand what was he talking about.

 

Sure, you can. There have been bigoted people who stopped being bigoted. Sexist people who stopped being sexist.

Just because he is Superman doesn't mean that he cannot be affected by negative feelings towards him. Even in the comics, he stops to question himself from time to time. And he did quit, for a little bit until he remembered what Jonathan had told him once and that gave him the strength to carry on.

Considering that Bruce saved Martha and paid to have Clark buried in Smallville, I don't think she's going to charge him with attempted murder. Certainly not Lois. So again, who is going to charge Bruce with attempted murder?

Doesn't mean anything. Lex having to go to the bathroom doesn't mean that he was involved. He was a guest, not the accused.

Doesn't mean that he knew how disturbed Wallace Keefe was. All it shows is that Lex was being a good Samaritan when Bruce Wayne wasn't.

And there are multiple other companies that could supply the materials necessary. And if Lex planted evidence that Wallace Keefe acted alone, there's nothing that the police can do to charge Lex with the bombing

All circumstantial and unproven without evidence. Lex's lawyer would get the charges dismissed. No D.A. would even bother to try to bring charges.

We know, but knowing and proving are two different things. For all we know, Lex did get the materials from one of those tech giants.

If the bomb was disguised in such a way that it would be undetectable, then yes, it is possible. We know that terrorists are attempting that even now. At least one confirmed bombing happened in such a manner in real life.

No way to prove that he didn't.

Uh, why do we need to see Lex being beaten by his father? We know it happened because he told us it did.

Non comic fans didn't know who Thanos and Apocalypse were, but they were still inserted into the film preceding the one that fully introduced them.

 

No, some people won't change, and it's meaningless to change people's opinion.

Iron Man and the Avengers hadn't been worrying about it for a long while, why should Superman worry about it?

The law enforcement will, otherwise if someone was killed and he got no relative then nobody could charge the murderer.

It raises question and make him suspicious, especially with everything else plus together.

He didn't know? Wallace was arrested because of he was damaging the statue of Superman and lost two legs and you say Lex didn't know? The bomb was inside the wheelchair and the wheelchair was given by Lex.

No, the wheelchair was given by Lex is enough for the police to focus on him alone, all they needed to do is to see the technology or even when was it installed inside the bomb, or where did the signal come from, just through forensic testing. What evidence could Lex plant? Wallace could not.

What circumstantial? The wheelchair was given by Lex Luthor, this alone is enough to focus the investigation on him. As soon as the technology was proved to be Lexcorp, he's in big trouble.

Proving what? He gave the wheelchair to Wallace and even had a meeting with him. That's enough to focus the investigation on him. There is no way he could walk free to the ship to make Doomsday during the investigation.

There is no disguising, without high level technology it could not avoid the detection when you are attending a congress meeting, plus obviously the signal was triggered from outside. Wallace himself is easily excluded from the case.

How could he? He didn't have the knowledge at all even if the material was planted to him.

Plus it's easy to test out that the bomb was triggered outside, there is no way Wallace could have made it.

Why do we need to see Superman's past? Batman's past? To understand their character.

That's why both franchises spent time and effort on them, which BVS didn't.

 

Oh gods...

 

I'm struggling with the idea that it's meaningless to change someone's opinion.



The rest is just behgrahwaffle nonsense as normal.

 

Because the strongly right wing Christian bloc in America would absolutely, given their history of anti-intellectualism, fear and insecurity, see Superman as an aberration and affront to their God.

You confuse an attack on right wing Christians with all Christians, methinks.

 

Again, you seem to be pointlessly insulting people. I am a Christian, and am very right-wing. And even though I oppose things like LGBT marriage and abortion, I would never condemn anyone who takes part in those institutions any more than I would condemn myself for my many sins.

You called the God of right-wing Christians bigoted, yet made a very broad stereotypical statement about them. So said the pot to the kettle.

I have respect for you and have had several good conversations with you on this thread, Ender Sai. I do not wish to start a pointless arguement with you. I simply felt that I needed to say my piece here.

 

darth-sinister, you're up. I frankly think we're on the verge of some pretty big insights into human nature, so let's just keep pushing this.

 

I once thought people could change, but the truth is, even before damn cold hard fact, some of them just refuse to admit it.

It got nothing to do with any of the argument here, not speaking about any of you guys.

 

I won't say her name.

I won't say her name

I won't say her name

 

I second this post. Ender, it appears I took your initial post too seriously. Apologies for that - I just get very defensive about my faith sometimes because it's the most important part of my life.

 

Though Ender is a bit blunt, the genesis of this train of thought is best articulated in the film.

Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We're talking about a being whose very existence challenges our own sense of priority in the universe. And you go back to Copernicus where he restored the sun in the center of the known universe, displacing Earth, and you get to Darwinian evolution and you find out we're not special on this earth; we're just one among other lifeforms. And now we learn that we're not even special in the entire universe because there is Superman. There he is, an alien among us. We're not alone."

And so taking that kind of thinking, whether you're overtly religious or not, and following it through, you have the kind of thinking that would come about if we found out that we're not alone in the universe. And that someone would be like Superman, how would people react? This is why in the early Golden Age stories, people were afraid of him when he first appeared. It is why it was revived about ten years ago.

Yes, people change and opinions can change. Just because it hasn't happened to you and someone you know, doesn't mean that it cannot happen.

It doesn't matter when they start worrying, just that they should. That was the point in the movie version of "Civil War". That they should have been more vigilant of how the world perceives them, thus the end result of what's happened wouldn't have been such a shock. Besides, Superman always takes failure more hard than most superheroes.

The GCPD isn't going to charge Bruce with trying to kill Clark. They're not even aware that they even fought. And Jim Gordon isn't going to be pushing for that. Clark has family, but his family isn't going to charge Bruce with trying to kill him. Do you even read what you write?

No, it doesn't. There's nothing that links Lex Luthor to the bombing compared to what there is with the kidnapping and attempted murder of Martha Kent.

You're getting yourself confused. Lex knows all about Wallace and the bomb, but if questioned, Lex's defense is that he didn't know that Wallace was unstable. That he was going to try and kill Superman. Lex will have framed Wallace and claimed that he had no knowledge, nor involvement in what happened.

This assumes that Lex didn't make sure that the wheelchair and the explosives could be traced back to him. Which he would do, because Lex Luthor is rarely sloppy. He had killed his own father and made sure that no one knew that he did it. I'm thinking he could pull off such a feat again.

He did. The fact that the FBI and Homeland Security didn't go after him is testament to the fact that he covered his tracks.

And there is high level technology from other companies. Wayne Tech, S.T.A.R. Labs and Kord Industries. All three are tech giants just as Lexcorp is. All three are capable of the same thing. Lex would have made sure that the explosive material and the tech behind it would have come from one of those companies, or at least said items are too common to be easily traced back to him.

Are you sure that he doesn't know how? What exactly was his position at Wayne Enterprises? He might have worked for Wayne Tech's Applied Sciences division.

How? No one is scanning radio frequencies of unusual origin. And are we certain it was remote triggered and not on a timer?

We can also understand from their own words.

Uh, what? Thanos's next appearance was in "Guardians Of The Galaxy" and Apocalypse was in "X-Men: Apocalypse". Both movies where we start to find out who they are and what their motivations are. Darkseid's debut will be in "Justice League". So far, Warner Bros. and Snyder are right on track with those films. Those films where they just tossed in a villain without explanation for the wider audience and then dealt with that in another film.

 

Sinister, man, I admire your dedication. But at this point, I don't know which of you is worse: Slowpoke with his constant inane ramblings that spread a non-issue for 10 pages, or you for simply not ignoring him. You cannot have an argument with someone who will never concede he's wrong, even if he constantly trips on his own words just as long as he think he's validating his point.

 

Yeah Sinister, seriously?

If you don't respond to Slowpoke the rest of us don't die inside a bit.

Right now you two are this:



If you don't respond he'll go back to spamming the entire internet with terribad fan casting suggestions that all involve Kate Beckinsale. Seriously, google "Slowpokeking kate beckinsale". She's Helena Bonham Carter to his Tim Burton.

 

Kate Beckinsdale better be playing Rachael or I'm out

 

Apparently, it wasn't clear enough that I was being sarcastic.

 

Sinister v Slowpoke:



The film will get a deluxe blu-ray home release here that includes a "144 Page Hard-Cover Graphic Novel Batman vs Superman: The Greatest Battles" as well as the "Theatrical Cut & Ultimate Edition".

Would totally get.

 

Can it still be the Dawn of Pedantry if it's been going on since page 1?