Fire & Water Network All-Star Special – Batman v Superman

It's finally here: BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE, and we've assembled the entire FIRE AND WATER PODCAST NETWORK to talk about it! Listen to Shag, Rob, Chris & Cindy, Ryan, and Siskoid discuss about what they liked, didn't like, and what's next for the DCU movie universe!

DISCLAIMER: BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE has become the most polarizing thing in popular culture outside of a political stump speech. Some of us at the FIRE AND WATER PODCAST NETWORK hated the film, some enjoyed it, and some had mixed feelings; but we all got together to review the film as our first ever Network All-Star Special.

We hope you listen to and enjoy our review episode, even if you disagree with our opinions. Even if you *strongly* disagree with our opinions. Even if our opinions on BATMAN V SUPERMAN make your blood boil and your teeth ache. Like we said, polarizing. If your feelings about the movie are so strong that you'll hear no dissenting opinions, maybe you shouldn't listen to this episode. There are plenty of other quality podcasts on the FIRE AND WATER PODCAST NETWORK (and also HERO POINTS).

If you do listen to the show, we would love to hear from you! Share your feedback on the episode and on the movie in general, but please keep your comments respectful. Seriously, don't be a bigger dick than Ryan is during this episode. Thank you!

Have a question or comment? Looking for more great content?

Subscribe via iTunes:

This podcast is a proud part of the FIRE AND WATER PODCAST NETWORK:

Thanks for listening! Fan the Flame and Ride the Wave!

49 responses to “Fire & Water Network All-Star Special – Batman v Superman

  1. About to listen to this on my way home. Nicely timed.

    Re the disclaimer: I think most people would struggle to be a bigger dick than Ryan is generally.

  2. Like Chris, my dislike of the film has increased with every passing day. I gave it 4 out of 10 on Waiting For Doom and it’s been heading south since there.

    Negatives you missed include:
    – the aversion of Metropolis people to evacuating no matter what is going on.
    – the Pa Kent vision where he talks about his heroic dream for his son (WTF!!!)
    – Lex has no cameras on his servers at a party he knowingly invited Batman, Superman & a woman who’s at least a 120 years old.

    Imagine how great it would have been to see Batman & Superman to race to confront each other only to mutually reveal the pieces of the way they’ve been manipulated and formulate a joint tactical response.

    Ryan wasn’t a dick at all, btw. And great job Siskoid for his adjudication. Plus, Cindy was the funniest.

    1. Among the things I didn’t get a chance to mention:
      -The Wayne building that needed a phone call from the boss to evacuate when an alien ship is outside the window destroying the city. I knew the plot was already in trouble.
      -The unresolved, mystifying subplot about the special bullets.
      -The score, I did like Wonder Woman’s 300-ish theme.
      -That Batman obviously DID arc, because he DOESN’T brand Luthor at the end.
      -Mercy Graves was in this.
      -Probably other things.

      I believe the Ryan Dickery was edited out. Also, Cindy is always the funniest.

    2. Paul, I’m glad you brought up the Pa Kent part. I meant to bring that up. That whole scene was clearly Snyder trying to address the hate that the MoS version of Jonathan Kent received. The problem is… it totally contradicted what we saw of the character in the previous film! In BvS, Clark tells Lois something about trying to be the hero his father wanted, blah-blah (while, as Rob pointed out, Congress is still burning). Then, he has a conversation with him on that snowy mountain, and it’s a very encouraging, very classic Pa Kent-style speech. Apparently, Clark has a much more heroic ideal of his adoptive father than what he really is, because in MoS, all he wanted was for his son to hide from his abilities. He even died for it!!!


  3. I will be listening to this episode tonight with great interest. Personally, I truly enjoyed the film and found it much more satisfying than several of the recent Marvel films (Avengers 2, Iron Man 2 & 3, & either of the Thors, for example) & much better than that absolutely awful 007 bore Spectre. A couple of random thoughts before I listen to the FW All-Stars:

    1. I like Eisenberg’s Luthor.
    2. Wonder Woman was great (audience applauded when she showed up in costume; Gal Gadot has real screen presence).
    3. I was never distracted by Affleck’s Bat-voice (in contrast to Christian Bale) & didn’t mind a gun-toting Dark Knight.
    4. I only saw the movie once & will again (plus buying the extended cut in July).

    Thanks in advance for what I’m sure will be a thought-provoking episode.

  4. I cant wait to hear this convo.

    I may be back with comments if I am compelled to add on to the conversation. But this ALL STAR FWPodcast is awesome!!!

  5. Best part was listening to Ryan sputter and glitch arguing with Shad about Lex’s plan and whether or not it made sense. And for the record Shag, you’re wrong (I never get tired of saying it.) Sure, you can no-prize the hell out of the movie and come up with ways to construct a semi-coherent “plan,” but if the film was decently made at all you wouldn’t have to.

    1. Was Lex’s plan any less coherent than any of the plots mounted against James Bond over the years? If you sit down to think about it practically nothing made sense in The Avengers:
      How does Selvig know how to harness the Tessaract to create a portal? How does Selvig manage to insert a failsafe even though he’s otherwise completely mind-controlled by Loki? Why does Loki provide a distraction in Germany less than 100 yards from the minions he wants to distract the Avengers from? Why does Loki let himself be captured? Why does no one think it’s weird when Loki sticks around, completely unattended, while Cap, Hulk and Thor are fighting? If Loki wants to make the Avengers turn against each other on the Helicarrier, why does he send Hawkeye to blow it up, forcing the Avengers to overcome their differences in order to work together to save their own lives? Also, why did Loki order Hawkeye to blow up the Helicarrier when he was in it? Why does Loki’s mind-conrol staff affect people through their clothes by not through Tony’s arc reactor? How did Bruce Banner know to go to New York City — that exact spot in New York City — after he was thrown from the Helicarrier? Why do a bunch of seemingly living, non-robotic aliens all simultaneously die when a nuclear bomb goes off on the other side of the galaxy?

      My only point here is to say that most of these action blockbusters hold up to much scrutiny.

      1. Chuck-

        While I agree most big action movie plots make no sense when you examine them, I would suggest that the better films of the genre get by on “the wit of the staircase.” As in, all a movie plot has to do is make sense AT THE TIME, so you are carried by the story and not worrying about such leaps of logic. But if a movie’s plot mechanics are so contrived that you find yourself going “Wait, WHAT?” as it unspools (forgive my old-timey terminology) then the screenwriters haven’t done a good enough job at covering their tracks. I can’t follow the plot of MALTESE FALCON to save my life, but I get so caught up in it I don’t care.

        1. Agreed. Plus, all movies have inconsistencies and plot holes. The original Star Wars has a massive doozy of a plot hole, in fact.

          But the reason that I didn’t see it for THIRTY YEARS is a testament to how engaging and entertaining the movie is and how good the characters were.

          But from what I heard of BvS, the plot sounds a LOT like the “Dark Knight Rises” or “Star Trek Into Darkness”, where the story just keeps moving at a breakneck pace because it someone making it understands that the second that the movie slows down and takes a breather, the whole thing will collapse under its own absurdities.

          The more you think about the story and the characters’ motivations, the less they make sense.

          Sometimes with a Bond movie, that’s okay. Because the plot is usually the least important part of a Bond film. But “Batman v. Superman” sounds like a movie obsessed with sounding smart and adult. Based on everything I’ve read and seen of the movie seems to hint at this. And what I’ve seen from interviews and panel appearances of the people who made and starred in it, It’s aiming above just being a popcorn flick.

          And it sounds like it failed in this really badly.

          Zack Snyder is not Michael Bay.

          Michael Bay is a guy who aims low and hits the mark every time. But Snyder is a director who clearly wants to make something smart and profound…

          …but the guy is just punching out of his weight class. He has an interesting visual style, but he just isn’t an introspective director and his understanding of the material he adapts seems to be very shallow. He frequently misses the point of the stories he tells.

          He fudges character motivations and he ends up creating these giant pretentious operatic movies where the movie’s substance contradicts the spoken dialogue. “Man of Steel” has all of these speeches about hope and Superman being an inspirational figure, but it doesn’t pan out in the characters’ actions or in the plot.

          The result is a mess of a movie that reminds me a bit too much of how superhero comics acted in the 1990s. For all their clear demands to be taken seriously as adult literature, they just did everything to prove that they were immature, adolescent and insecure.

          1. Yes, exactly! We often judge films on whether or not they succeed at what they’re trying to do. If all you want to do is entertain, blow stuff up, whatever, the you may succeed where a more ambitious film crashes because its grasp far exceeds its reach.

      2. What Rob said. But going a bit further, Lex’s plot was so far reaching, going back to immediately after the Supes/Zod battle, that he almost had to have Grant Morrison 4th Wall Breaking Powers to pull it off. Add in that his plot was multi-leveled, and that Plan B (Doomsday) and Plan C (Darkseid) involved going against the very mission he set himself upon in the first place (destroying the alien God who could rule or destroy us all), and you have that rare movie plot that smacks you upside the head IN the theater with how incoherent and rambling it is.

        The opinions of this post reflect only those of the poster. And probably his wife.


        1. The opinions of this post reflect only those of the poster. And probably his wife.

          If you guys only knew how much time I spent on this episode editing out all of Cindy’s profanity…

      3. My issue in this case has nothing to do with the nuts and bolds. Hell his plan holds about as much water as that of Heath Ledger’s Joker. I can deal with logistical plot holes. It’s motivational ones that I can’t deal with. As long as I understand WHY somebody is doing something then I can plaster over the holes in the HOW part. But it takes about 5 no-prizes to even try to wrap my head around what Lex wants, why he wants it and how the things he’s doing are getting him any closer to it.

  6. Hi F&W Team:

    I am confident about one thing – That I had much more fun listening to this 2 hour episode of your podcast than I would have had watching BvS for 2 1/2 hours.

    My favorite superheroes are Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Green Arrow. So, a movie featuring three of those in prominent roles and one in a cameo should easily be a film I would want to see on opening day. Yet, I knew to avoid this movie completely.

    Ruth and I were in line for the first preview showing of Man of Steel three years ago and I was proudly wearing a Superman shirt. As I left the cinema, I was repeatedly asked what I thought of the movie and I honestly didn’t know what to say. I didn’t want to tell all of them they were waiting in line to watch a horrible movie.

    As an Aquaman fan I really wanted to be there on opening night to see him on the big screen for the first time, but after MoS I knew I needed to wait to hear the reviews and fan reaction.

    Having studied film, I appreciate good film reviews from competent reviewers who understand the medium, but I also wanted to hear what fans said. The reviews are bad and the fan response is decidedly mixed with most who like it talking about the “spectacle” of seeing it on the big screen, but spectacle doesn’t interest me. I want a good movie.

    Listening to your discussion, I am confident that my opinion would fall very close to Ryan’s and Rob’s. Everything I’ve heard about the construction of the story and the portrayal of Batman and especially Superman is eveything I do not want to see done with those characters. Especially in an early movie in a proposed series.

    Based on what else I had heard, I’ve chosen not to go to the movie for now and your show reinforced that decision. I don’t want to financially support a bad version of these characters in the hopes of getting a better movie later in the series. I don’t honestly think WB would learn such a subtle lesson. They certainly didn’t learn it from the mixed response to MoS.

    I’m sure I’ll rent it digitally sometime in the future … and I’m sure when I do I’ll be happy that I didn’t spend any more money on it than that.

    Thanks for a fun episode … about a bad movie 🙂


    1. Darrin, normally I would advocate that you see a film first before deciding how you feel about it, but in this case, if you really didn’t like Man of Steel, then I can’t imagine you’d enjoy this either. I think MoS is the superior of the two films. Despite me not being a big fan of it’s direction, I feel it’s a far more cohesive, and much less dark, film.


      1. Man of Steel at least has that cool Jor-El mini-movie, but I’m not sure it’s better than BvS. But then, I’m not the kind of person who feels the need to rank every episode of Two and a Half Men either.

        1. I think MoS hangs together better, and it’s a little more clear in what it wants to do. What kind of film it wants to be. Others mileage may vary.

          1. I didn’t like Man of Steel but this… THIS?… I felt like booking that one-way trip to a Swiss clinic. Honestly Darrin, you’re making the right decision for your peace of mind.

          2. Sorry, hit ‘send’ too soon. At least Man of Steel had the generally fun Krypton scenes (prior to Holo-Ghost Jor-El). This was just monotone misery. As Shagg might say, find your Jor.

        1. Yes, I agree, I think it’s the right decision for me and Ruth too Martin. It’s painful for us to see Superman treated in this way. Hopefully Justice League will set things right because we really want to see the team on screen together.

  7. I forgot to complain about this during the episode, so here’s another problem I had with BATMAN V. SUPERMAN.

    The filmmakers overreacted to the very vocal complaints about the disaster porn that was Act III of MAN OF STEEL. I, as much as anybody, felt sick at the wanton destruction during the Battle of Metropolis when buildings are crashing on top of people; innocent men, women, and children are running through the dust and debris, screaming, crying, and dying; and all while Superman is half a world away fighting a robot in the Indian Ocean. So Warner Bros. and Zack Snyder went out of their way to sequester the combatants in BvS in an uninhabited part of Metropolis and/or Gotham. No innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire of this rock ’em/sock ’em throw down.

    The problem is, that’s absolutely wrong for the Superman/Doomsday bout. That fight needs scale and above all it needs stakes. You NEED to see the buildings crashing on people when Doomsday comes to town. You need to see people running through the smoke, people hurt, people dying. And Superman NEEDS to see that. That’s why he chooses to make the ultimate sacrifice.

    There was no sense of urgency in the final battle, just three superheroes fighting a monster in a junkyard. The end fight in MAN OF STEEL should have been the fight in this film.

    1. But Doomsday stood on top of a building and a helicopter floodlight showed that Kryptonians have no penises (Clark must have magic fingers to keep Lois coming back.) Sure that’s enough of a stake raising? Mmmmmm… steak braising.

  8. I saw the film on Wednesday, and I’m very interested to hear your thoughts. I must say that while there were things I didn’t like about the film, I ended up enjoying it.

  9. I haven’t seen the film and have no intention to do so; certainly not by paying money. I hated Man of Steel with a passion that burned hotter than Superman’s Zod-killer vision. And, that wasn’t the part that ticked me off. It was the total disdain for all of the characters; but, especially Jonathan Kent. Greg Hatcher articulates my issues brilliantly, in his column here:

    Greg’s an old Bronze Ager, just like me (just a few years older) and I’m with him on the importance of Jonathan Kent as Superman’s moral compass. He cites a passage from Elliot S! Maggin’s novel, Miracle Monday (released to ride the Superman II coattails), which illustrates the strength of Jonathan that provides the inspiration for Clark as he grows into manhood. Snyder and Nolan want to make it a birthright from Jor-El, apart from the DNA that provides the building blocks for his power. The Silver Age did a lot to present Jor-El as a heroic figure; but, every age made a point that t was Jonathan who shaped Clark’s worldview. Snyder doesn’t get it, Nolan doesn’t get it, Warner doesn’t get it. Richard Donner got it. Glen Ford inhabited it. Smallville got it and John Schneider inhabited it. Same with Lois and Clark, Superman TAS, even The Adventures of Superman.

    Leaving that aside, I tired of attempts to dirty up Superman, to make him relatable. Superman was fine as he was; it’s the filmmakers who can’t understand a decent, honest person who does the right thing because that is what you should do. They live in a world where altruism is more often a PR venture. For all that I hate the Star Wars prequels, I cannot dislike George Lucas because he has always given away a lot of his money to help worthy causes and doesn’t seek publicity for it. That’s Superman, for me, and Captain America and Chris Evans and Christopher Reeve both proved that you can present someone who does the right thing because that’s who they are, regardless of how many people make fun of it. In the end, by staying true to their nature, they win the cynics over. Jim Shooter even understood it in Superman and Spider-Man 2, when J Jonah, the biggest costume hater in the Marvel Universe, dubs Superman a real hero, as even he can’t find fault with what he does.

    Nothing I heard here makes me want to see this film and I don’t care if the franchise succeeds or not, as it has no bearing on the characters. The comic stories are still superior and there is still the masterpiece that is the animated universe, brought to us by the gang at Warner animation. They understood and delivered what the movies have not. I’m also of the opinion that episodic tv is a better vehicle for presenting better conceived superhero stories. It more closely mirrors the storytelling mechanisms of the comics. In that realm, DC/Warner has been killing it, while Marvel struggles (less so since the Netflix stuff started). Supergirl gives us a heroine who inspires, much like Wonder Woman did in the 70s. I love seeing little girls excited by Melissa Benoist and thinking Supergirl is cool. That is something DC has failed to deliver for years (in part, I believe, because of so few female voices handling the female characters).

    Anyway, I’m glad that Wonder Woman has potential, as that was a component that I considered to be among the weakest, aside from Snyder, as director. The film I really want to be done right is Shazam; but, I know Hollywood won’t give me what I want, there, so I’m just hoping for entertaining.

    Really, there are so many other characters at DC and Marvel I would rather see on the movie screen and are more tailor made for film. I’d love to see a nice Dominic Fortune period piece, or an Enemy Ace film, or Killraven, or a Master of Kung Fu that really is Bruce Lee-meets-James Bond (I did hear that Shang Chi will be in the Iron Fist tv series). I’d kill for that long in-Development Hell Starman tv series to come about. I’d love to see a Warlord movie, now that the technology exists to have dinosaurs, Automags, swords, and Deimos & Atlantean science. Plus, I’d like to see that helmet on the screen!

    Oh, and I want my Manhunter movie, tv series, direct-to-video; whatever, as long as it is true to Goodwin and Simonson.

    1. We didn’t want to compare this film to the MCU, but I personally think their version of Captain America is a perfect example of how Superman SHOULD be handled in a modern film. Even if you add quite a bit of realism (like Winter Soldier, and apparently, Civil War), Evans’ Steve Rogers is STILL that man with ideals who stands up for them, even if the world deems them out of fashion. Unfortunately, this Superman is presented as someone who isn’t sure what ideals he even holds…if any.

  10. This was a podcast episode that was incredibly entertaining and engrossing, but also at times made me very sad. The sad part is not the fault of your show, but rather Zack Snyder. Superman is my favorite comic book superhero, and my thoughts echo what many of you commented on, that Snyder does not like Superman. Sadly, while I watched the film, I felt pretty much the same way as Ryan Daly. When he described this film as a fundamental misunderstanding of the characters, he was exactly on point. Now, I do think these characters are open to interpretation…there can be multiple versions…I love the Golden Age version of Superman, the Silver Age version in the Weisenger era, and I grew up with the post Crisis era. Similarly, I love the 66 Batman and the Brave and the Bold Batman, and the 90s Batman. But there has to be a breaking point…a point where the character is changed so much that he becomes a different character. And this film is it. My biggest problem with this Superman, besides being sad constantly, is his parents. Jonathan and Martha are the motivation of Superman. He becomes the hero he is because of their influence. There is nothing about his parents here in either film that could inspire him to become Superman. They love him, yes…but their instinct in the first film is for him to hide, to cover up his powers. In this one, Martha tells him he can be Superman, not be Superman, it doesn’t matter! And I did not find his vision of Jonathan inspiring at all! I couldn’t understand why he would want to continue being Superman at all! Especially since he looked miserable being Superman the entire time. When I saw this film, I felt like I was being constantly pelted with reactions and motivations that did not fit the Superman and Batman I knew. while I agree with the consensus that Wonder Woman was the best part, I think that is due to two things…the actress did a good job as Wonder Woman, and the director and writers did not delve deeply enou into her character to screw her up.

  11. There are tons of small details I could go into as well that bothered me. Superman does nothing to detect or prevent the explosion at Congress, but Batman has time to save Martha from the flamethrower explosion? After Clark gets disabled by the Kryptonite bullet, he clearly recovers, and knocks Batman down. And then basically stands there so Batman can recover and reload and knock him down again?? He literally pushes Batman and just sits there while he reloads. HE IS SUPERMAN. I can suspend disbelief as much as any comic and sci-if fan, but not if it makes the characters look incompetent.

  12. Interesting discussion – the best bit that I took from the discussion is that it is possible to have a debate on the merits/demerits of BvS without it degenerating into a childish, tit-for-tat game of oneupmanship that you see on the message boards and on Facebook. Too many people on there seem to think that because he/she either thought that the film was THE BEST THING EVER or THE WORST THING EVER, that their view supercedes everyone else’s. While there was a lot of divergent views expressed on the podcast, no one was trying to impose their view on the others, which is a testament to the great people that were involved in the podcast.

    Personally, I thought the film was very good. Did it have flaws? Sure it did, most action films do. However, I got caught up in the film and it held my attention for the 2 and a half hours. I saw the midnight showing on the Thursday night/Friday morning, so if it wasn’t intriguing, I would have definitely fallen asleep! I am definitely looking forward to the films coming down the line, and think Wonder Woman would be a great film *fingers crossed* I will probably go and see the film again to see how it holds up in a second viewing and will definitely be getting the DVD. I do understand the bits people did not like though and kudos to the All Star team for outlining these in the podcast.

  13. What a great podcast, can we have these regularly? call it, I dunno, All-Star Squarkroom

    I didn’t fancy this film after the previous (alleged) Superman one, but I’m such an old DC fan I couldn’t resist. How could I appreciate the discussion without knowing the material? I really wanted my preconceptions to be overturned, but no, this is worse than Man of Steel, just depressing from beginning to end. I could never commit to Smallville because Tom Welling’s Clark Kent was such a miserable Malcolm – yes, he had problems, but he could fly! He could move at super-speed. Chicks dug him. He had amazing parents. I never imagined we’d see a more joyless Superman in my lifetime, but Snyder takes the angst and cubes it. Apart from one early scene which made a nice splash, this was misery after anger after angst. If poor Henry Cavill were allowed to smile his face would crack like Bizarro No1.

    What was the biggest criticism last time? The damage to life and property. So what happens this time? Even more mass destruction of city and, bugger the evacuation nonsense, lives. It’s set 18 months after the first film and still Superman doesn’t understand that getting a massively powerful adversary away from populated areas immediately is a good idea. One of the things that saddens Superman in the comics is that he can’t save everyone. But he saves everyone he can. Zak Snyder’s version seems interested only in saving Lois or Ma Kent. Everyone else can just crawl through the rubble.

    Oh hang on, I’m being unfair. There is that wee tyke in Mexico.

    Really, though, Superman is so very, very thick in this film. He doesn’t bother using his super-senses to check a courtroom is safe when called to testify. He has no way for his mother to contact him instantly if she’s in trouble, and then he doesn’t know how to go about finding her. He jumps at a piece of deadly Kryptonite rather than try to grab it via a long tool…

    As for Batman, he’s been obsessive in the comics, but has never been so lunatic paranoid that he outright plots to murder Superman. And the thing that turned the story, while an actual bit of comic detail, was laughable. Suddenly he calls his mother by her forename?

    But the thing I really hate most about this film is that Snyder seems to have no idea that superhero stories are about hope. Here, we have Superman saying no one can stay good for ever; Wonder Woman says she gave up on mankind 100 years ago. And Ma Kent says mopey Clark should let the world go hang!

    What the heck? Even Perry White, the embodiment of crusading journalism and surrogate father to the Daily Planet staff, is a bad-temped git.

    And Lois, while brave, was written with no spark at all.

    And then there’s Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, a giggling ninny my boyfriend Steve spent the whole film thinking was going to turn out to be the Joker. And Mercy, the world’s worst anti-industrial espionage operative.

    Thank goodness for Gal Godot, who lit up ever scene she was in – I can’t wait for the standalone Wonder Woman film. And more of her cool tune.

    I’d like to see more of Aquaman, too. His cameo here was just ‘splash splash GRRRRAH’ and I want more. I hate the presentation of Flash with a passion – a brown-haired Barry I can take, but a slob? Go away, Kid Slacker. The Cyborg bit was soooo creepy, I look forward to more. Really, the big battle with Doomstroll should have climaxed in Aquaman, Cyborg and Flash silhouetted in the smoke, cartoon credits style, the Cavalry there to save the day.

    Did Siskoid really say: ‘Frank Miller wanking’? Quite right too.

    Another question – when Bruce woke up in that glass box by the lake, was that an arm sticking out of the bed? Was there a lady person in there?

    Ryan says that one moment threw him out of the film to such an extent that he began sending Facebook messages. And no one picked him up on this breach of the Wittertainment Code of Conduct! Then again, I’ve seen films in US cinemas, audiences just chat away… Adopt the code!

    Regarding the idea that Superman is conflicted because people are basically worshipping him, it’s not hard to deal with adulation, just smile as Christopher Reeve would’ve done, and say ‘I’m just a guy doing my best, we all do what we can, thanks folks, be good to your parents, bye’.

    @MikeGillis, do tell, what’s the Star Wars plot hole? I saw the film when it came out in the Seventies, but that’s it. And yes indeed, as for films moving at such breakneck speed you don’t care, that really doesn’t apply here – you do start thinking ‘the man has to be told to evacuate the building?’ or ‘Mercy just LEFT him down there?’

    Let’s end on the positive. WW as stated. Alfred. The Batman vs thugs dance. And Bruce Wayne’s beautiful tween three-piece suit.

    1. I usually cut Tom Welling a bit of slack because he had to portray the whole “teen angst” thing, for the target demographic.

      Superman being “thick ” (Batman, for that matter) is one of the things that bothered me in Man of Steel and sounds like it is worse here. It’s bothered me in all of the Batman films, Burton and Nolan (Schumacher’s were just too dumb to bother). These guys were noted for using their brains, in my day and pretty much up until the 90s. They started doing more punching than thinking in the 90s, but would occasionally pull back from the brink, when in the hands of good writers. In the films, not so much. The movie Batman couldn’t solve an Encyclopedia Brown mystery and I wonder if Superman didn’t use his x-ray vision to cheat on tests, in school. In my day, Batman solved complex mysteries and took down maniacs, without guns or excessive violence. Superman, especially in the hands of someone like Elliot Maggin, used a series of strategies, employing his abilities, to accomplish some task with minimal danger to those involved. In one of his novels (I believe it’s Last Son of Krypton), Superman stops a band or airborne thieves by taking out each one in a slightly different manner. With a couple, he causes their helicopter backpacks to malfunction, forcing them to land on nearby rooftops, where he uses his heat vision to fuse the locks on the doors leading to the stairs; thus, trapping them on the roofs until they can be collected. With others, he uses his Super breath to knock them off course and disable their rotors. He calculates how long it will take them to fall, while he attends to some of the others, and sets up his cape to catch the falling crooks, with no harm to them. In another chapter, he stops a tidal wave by first plunging into it, to create a vacuum, which counteracts some of the momentum of the water mass. he then creates a trench on the ocean floor to redirect some of the volume of water. He then uses his heat vision to vaporize a portion, which in turn be uses his super breath to direct the water vapor into the direction of an area plagued by drought. He doesn’t completely stop the wave; but, he minimizes it to the point that it causes no major damage. In the Bronze Age, he more often out-thought his opponents than subdued them by force.

      1. Great points, Jeff, I love those Maggin books. They exemplify the best of Superman – resourceful, compassionate, a friend to all. This latest movie isn’t worth of being on the same planet as those novels.

    2. @Mart Gray

      It’s really simple and obvious, yet I didn’t notice it until about 3 years ago.

      So, the Rebel Alliance launches all of their starfighters to go blow up the Death Star, but they have a time limit. They to destroy the station within 30 minutes or the Death Star can use its planet-destroying laser to blow up the moon that the Rebel base is on.

      The Death Star needs to move into range, and can’t immediately fire its afore-mentioned planet-destroying laser.

      Because a planet is in the way.

      It hits me on a rewatch when Tarkin is looking at the screen display of the big crosshairs over the planet blocking Yavin IV.

      Why not just blow up the big planet? It’s not like the moon would survive the explosion. And even if it did, it would sail off into space and kill everyone on it.

      (NOTE: I reject the “the laser doesn’t work on gas giants argument, because it never says so in the movie. All else is just No-Prizing to fix a plot hole.)

  14. I’m pretty much with Shagg on this one and that’s why it was hard to listen to this episode. To be honest, I turned it off after a certain point. That’s not to say everyone else’s opinion on the episode wasn’t valid and I turned it off out of a “Screw You” feeling…far from it. There were some excellent points made. But when you liked this movie (not saying it’s perfect, I just liked it) listening to the constant badgering and negativity gets to you.

    Hell, it’s part of the reason I was dreading seeing this movie that Thursday night. But, the crowd I went with cheered at the best possible moments and made the whole experience fun. I can see some of the complaints, but yea, Shagg, you and I are on the same wave length, here!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *