Batman V Superman

[ParadoxicalZen he/him]

Also Hulk rights are still technically owned by universal I think.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

Also Hulk rights are still technically owned by universal I think.

Distribution rights.

[Dunkum he/him]

And that's fine to feel that way, but I still don't fully get it. We're talking about DC here. We're talking about the company who is infamous for making a new universe for every idea they get. We're talking about the company who loves to make new stories about their characters with new character twists thrown in. We're talking about that company. The DCEU is no different than any other DC story, it's an alternate universe with their iconic characters being different than their Earth 1 counterparts. This will likely never get brought up (that they aren't Earth 1), or for the sake of non comic nerds they will call this movie universe Earth 1 in future movies which involve the multiverse, but this set of characters is just an alternate group. In this particular universe, Superman is a bit more brooding, a bit more troubled. He's conflicted about how his powers are affecting man kind, that his existence is driving certain men to do unspeakable acts all in the name of keeping humanity "safe". 

 

And if you ask me, this is good. We don't need yet another series of Superman movies about the same guy. You'll never get another set of Superman movies as impactful as the first two Reeves films. And we don't need a reboot of the 2004 film already. Supes needed a breath of fresh air. Snyder has given it to him.

 

Likewise, we don't need yet another Dark Knight. Heck, the Dark Knight movies were pushing it if you ask me, as the three movies in the early 90's were enjoyable. Snyder's given him a breath of fresh air as well, delivering a Batman similar to the one in The Killing Joke, as I commented on in my previous post.

snipped down a bit, so I can offer a cogent response: I agree that it isn't inherently bad for them to experiment with the character, and try different takes on him, but at the same time, you have to expect that taking a beloved character and making these sorts of changes to him will rub some people the wrong way.  based on everything I have seen and heard, they took a character who most people grew up with as a beacon of hope and goodness, and basically took both of those attributes away from him (not to say he isn't good, but certainly not the shining example of it).  To many, including me, it just doesn't work, others, clearly, have a different opinion.

 

on the "we don't need another dark knight" comment: but this is kind of my point.  what is Man of Steel or Batman vs Superman if not a dark knight style version of the superman character?  I know that wasn't your actual point, but that was my initial reaction to it.  for the record though: I have no opinion on affleck's batman.  nothing I've seen of him suggests that he is a bad portrayal.  Superman and luthor were the parts that bothered me.

 

likewise, I am not a Marvel apologist, but I am also a lot less familiar with their characters.  they could make as many changes as they wanted to Thor and I would literally never know.  similar but to a lesser extent with most of the others, so to the extent that my problem with BvS is that I don't like their version of Superman, that was just not really going to be an issue with Marvel.  plus, subjectively, I kind of like the quippy Marvel movies, so even changes to characters to get them into that format are generally not going to bother me too much, whereas the dark and brooding DC films are less likely to be to my tastes.

[Blaze1616 he/him]

Fair enough...

 

I too love the quippy Marvel movies, though in my opinion I really like that DC is going in a different direction. It bring variability to the superhero subgenre, considering I don't want all hero movies being quippy. That said, I'm looking forward to how they handle the Flash in this universe. He's usually a character that would have quippy movies, so I'm wondering if they'll change him at all, or use him as a foil for the other heroes.

[ThirdGen]

Finally saw it last night.

 

It's not as Earth-shatteringly bad as the initial wave of hate indicated, but it's a bad movie.

 

Most everything's been elaborated above, but specifics in spoilertags:

 

Evil Batman, moron Superman, moron Lois - most characters in this are just doing dumb things constantly.  No Brainiac here.

 

My favorite character by far, though, was Perry White.  He was awesome.

 

So... yeah.  Pointlessly dark, the plot and fights end up being random gibberish when they're not outright distasteful.  And it's way too long.

 

Common criticisms of it that weren't really fair:

- Lex Luthor's motivation is often describes as nonsensical, or his goals changing on a whim.  I disagree.  In the world of this story, hating Superman seems like a valid opinion.

- The "jar of pee" that people complained about - storm off, it was a cruel joke played by a villain.

 

The one criticism that's totally, 100% fair is how silly it looks when Batman does an about-face at the name Martha.  "Ugg friends with you now.  Go club bad guy together."

[Blaze1616 he/him]

Here's an interesting review by the illustrious Howard Taylor. He makes a very good point on a simple change the movie could have used to make it seem less bleak.

[The Honor Spren she/her]

This video is pretty much how I feel, but worded better:

https://youtu.be/eE4YgpkRGtI

Edited March 31, 2016 by The Honor Spren

[Delightful]

What I said before holds true from reviews I've seen: if I see this movie (probably out of cinemas) it won't be for batman or superman. It will be for Wonder Woman.

[Dellexe he/him]

I find this good as an action movie, and I look forward to future DCCU movies, but I was... not satisfied.

As a nerd, I understood a lot of the references, but I can easily see how a lot of critics would criticize it because a lot of things are not explained at all. 

Pacing felt kinda disjointed. Random scenes with Supes and Lois felt poorly placed or like they didn't mesh with the surrounding scenes.

I felt Lex's character was terrible compared to his comic/animated character. Entertaining at times, but not as strong a character as he could have been. 

Lois randomly decides to throw the spear down into the water, then randomly also realizes she needs to get it out, which brings Supes over. 

Speaking of the spear, why would Bats, a cunning, take-no-risks kind of guy, save the spear for so long and get into a fistfight with Supes instead? 

Why did the drone in the ship not attack Lex like it did Lois? 

Why is Batman being visited by someone from the future... or something... in visions? These visions also do nothing to help the movie. They set up Darkseid, but do nothing else in my opinion. And even the Darkseid reference feels out of place, it either shouldn't have been there or it should have been more prominent, but as it was it felt really shoe-horned in. 

-

As an action movie, I like this a lot. Big explosions, fast paced sequences, I love it. 

As something more in depth... eh. It could have been much stronger. Serious potential, Bats+Supes+Wonds, but it falls short of those names in my opinion. 

[Quiver he/him]

So... I saw it for a second time last night.

 

On a rewatch, the weaknesses of the movie become more obvious. There are pacing issues, particularly on Superman's side of the story. His ten-minute retirement, for instance, seem's rather forced. Even after a second watch, I still can't understand his motivations for doing so; "I'm afraid I didn't see it because I didn't want to," is... a confusing sentiment. That he was too concerned with thinking everyone was good to think otherwise? Because it's not a sentiment he ever expressed before or after the fact.

 

I liked Cavil in Man of Steel, but I admit, his scenes in this movie were a little more underwhelming. Part of that, I feel, is because he wasn't allowed to actually do very much. Superman has very few lines in this movie. In a way, that's effective; it paints him more as a symbol than a man. The montage sequance of his good deeds, interspersed with the news commentary emphasizes that. And, whether it's the direction, the lightning, or just Cavil's presence, he mkes a dude standing in front of a national senate in a blue body suit not ridiculous.

However, I do think they failed in showing Superman as a Man. It's a recurring problem for the Superman movies, really. Watching a second time, there are some flashes of it, but they mostly come from Clark's side of the table - his frisky playfullness with Lois in the bathtub scene, or his objection about "Poor people don't buy papers", about the way media creates value. Superman, however, never really get's to have moments of warmth or happiness, which is kind of frustrating.

But I blame the script and Snyder for that, not Cavil. Because those moments when he is allowed to be Clark Kent, he pull's it off. 

 

Also, I would pay so much for a story of Clark Kent, intrepid reporter, taking on the Bat of Gotham. If that story isn't online somewhere, I might write it myself, because that would be fascinating.

 

Lois' storyline was a little disjointed. It's unclear how, exactly, merc's shooting terrorists in a desert = Superman. I still think it's an unclear plot point, but upon reflection, I think I understand what they are getting at with it. Not to get overly political... but between the on-going Senate hearings and 'knock-on' effects, I kind of view it as a fictionalisation of the Benghazi hearings.

Amy Adams, I liked. I loved the opening with her in the desert, the fact that her journalistic ability is what is foregrounded this time around. Yes, the sub-plot is somewhat confusing and -to be honest- doesn't quite make sense... she is fun to watch. I kind of came away from the film with the impression that she is the heart of the film, and of the DCU going forward. Whcih is, admittedly, slightly troubling since that's usually Superman's role, but if it means more Amy Adams, I'll take it.

 

Wonder Woman. I should just link to her theme. Goddamn awesome. I'm excited for her movie. Her "I've fought monsters from other worlds before" line kidn of makes me think of Lovecraft and seriously, Wonder Woman vs Cosmic Horror in the Trenches of World War One. This... this is the series I never knew I wanted until now. 

 

Lex... Lex. Eh... he has good moments. however, this is not Lex Luthor. Or, rather, it is not my Lex Luthor. I'm a 90's kid; that means when I think of Lex, I think of Clancy Brown, JLU animated Lex. Heck, I even think (more rarely) of Rossenbaum's Smallville Lex.

However, Eisenberg is basically playing the Gene Hackman Luthor again. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that - one could argue the manic energy Lex has is what set's him apart from Batman and Superman- but... I don't like it. It feel's like Lex is still stuck in his Silver Age incarnation. His motivations are never really explained, which is rather frustrating. We get some flashes of it; his 'ding-ding-ding' mantra at the end certainly suggests that he has been contacted by Darkseid, though precisely when that happened is confusing; was Lex killing Supes basically a hired hit by a New God? Because that would be kind of awesome.

On the other hand, his earlier outburst that "The bittersweet truth of man is Knowledge without Power, because that is paradoxical" set's up Lex brilliantly. He is the smartest man in the room; he should be the most powerful. Superman is more powerful than he is. That contradiction of his basic world view is an interesting insight to the character, particularly coming off his earlier scenes where he wins at sports and at coercing a US offical into playing along with his wish list. As the movie goes on -particularly during the rooftop scene- Lex is too manic for my liking; his flipping the photos to the ground feels much more like the Joker than Lex Luthor. Even early on, his intonations can be a bit on the crazie, zany side... but I do think there was potential for the character which was never fully realized.

I did get kind of a 'Doctor Who' vibe from him in certain scenes though. So that was kinda neat.

 

... which brings us to Batfleck. And guys? Batfleck nailed it.

I want to start by addressing a point I've seen brought up, a lot, by reviews and fans; Batman's brutality, and the fact he uses guns. I'll address the latter first, but the fact is, there are interconnected, and I feel it builds up to the entire theme of Batman's arc; that he is on the edge of becoming a villain.

So, guns. I've been confused by the 'Batman uses guns' remarks, since, after my first watch, I couldn't really think of a time they were referring to. On a second watch through, I know what people mean... but I need to reject it as a criticism of the character. (Mostly)

 

First off: the Knightmare Sequence. Batman snatches guns off enemies, and shoots people to death. This is a thing that, very undeniably, happens. And it's our first introduction to Batman in action, given the 'sex trafficker' beatdown was relegated to just seeing the aftermath. As such, it's understandable that that sequence will color our view of Batman going forward.

(The fact that the Knightmare is a really well shot sequence filled with stand-out Easter eggs and tidbits, making it even more memorable doesn't help).

 

...But, as the title says: it's a nightmare. Or a vision of a 'Bad Future'. This is a sequence that ends with Superman vaporizing dudes to death, and punching a hole through Batman's chest. If anything, Batman using guns is just an indication that this future is wrong, just in case the firepits and parademons weren't enough. So I don't count that as a violation of Bruce as a character.

 

The sniper rifle to plant a tracer on a truck... I'll accept that as a tool. It's the same logic I have for not being bothered by the kryptonite grenade launcher, though I do wish he wasn't carrying it during the Trinity's group shot. It does look unfortunately like a rifle, which kind of spoils to moment slightly.

 

The Batmobile and Batwing... yeah, I can't defend those. Those are guns. And he is pretty actively aggressive about using them, too.  No one seems to have died during the car chase sequence, but the cars blowing up and flipping at the end? Yeah, those dudes died. But I am far more troubled by him flat out incinerating the flamethrower dude, since that seems more more like pre-meditated murder, rather than an action in the heat of a moment.

 

 

Honestly, that moment is the only one I really object to, since it breaks the flow of his character arc. Because it is clear to me that Batman? Is the villain of this movie.

 

Yes, this Batman is especially brutal, and cold, and angry. And yes, part of that it because of his background, and the Joker, and so on. But it's not just that. Alfred makes mention that Batman branding criminals is "New rules," suggesting that Bruce wasn't always so dark. And his line about the rage making "Good men cruel," is probably the most important line of the movie, because it set's up the ending:

 

Batman went to Gotham Harbor to kill Superman.

 

There isn't any other way to explain it. He set up traps, and weapons, and built a suit to take him down. This isn't the Batman preparations of the comics or the shows, where such things are precautions (usually undertaken with Superman's approval) geared towards an unlikely-scenario which Batman doesn't want to happen/ Batfleck built these things, made his spear and his gas and sonic disruptors, and planned all along to kill Superman. And look at his expression, his lines during it.

 

Frst, he goads Superman to Gotham. And note that Superman was just going to ignore him. He warned Bruce before that 'The Bat is Dead', but when push comes to shove... Superman just ignores it. He wasn't going to fight Bruce,e xcept when there was no other option... and even then, he was pulling his punches. Clark only really started fighting back when it was clear that Bruce wasn't listening to what he had to say...

 

Because Bruce was enjoying it. He doesn't just beat up Superman; he taunts him.

 

"You're not brave; men are brave." 

"I bet your parents taught you you were here for a reason. Mine taught me a different lesson."

"You're not a god. You're not even a man."

 

And it all culminates with Batman about to stab Superman through the heart.

 

The movie points out that people who have been branded by Batman basically die in prison. Bruce is a smart guy; the idea that he wouldn't know that is inconceivable. So even if he doesn't kill people, he tacitly marks them for execution by inmates. Which is why I think his last scene with Lex is so powerful, because it brings him face to face with the man who killed Superman...

And Bruce doesn't brand him. Because he vowed to not fail Clark in death the way he did in life.

 

This movie is, effectively, Batman's Killing Joke. It is Batman on his worst day, Batman on the day when he nearly became the thing he hates. Batman, with his boot on an innocent man's neck. Batman, ready to kill a man with his own bare hands. Batman, taking glee he showing that he is better than Superman.

It is Batman at his worst. And Batman not branding Lex, showing that he has taken the meaning of Superman to heart, is Batman at his best.

 

So.. I'm not prepared to condemn Batman's character based on this one film, because it is, very clearly, exceptional circumstances for him. If Justice League or Batman picks up, and Bruce doesn't seem to have learned anything from this? Then I will criticize him. But this movie, on it's own, actually paints a pretty compelling reason for why he acts the way he does, and I found it, on the whole, a satisfying one.  

 

What am I getting at here? That the movie has problems, problems which could have been fixed. This is a film which has, as it's central question, 'what does Superman stand for', but never allows the character to actually articulate those beliefs. One could say that actions speak louder than words -and his sacrifice at the end of the film certainly has galvanized the world in a way that talking never would... but I still feel that the character should have been allowed to express himself the way that Batfleck did. A scene where Clark talks more frankly to Lois' about his belief in people would have been an excellent counterpoint to Bruce's "One Percent!" speech, and set up the "That dream is all some people have," moment with Lois better.

 

...But.

I liked it. And, seeing it a second time, I actually liked it more, and could enjoy the movie for what it was, rather than what I wanted it to be. I think there is a lot to unpack from it, certainly more than the constant hate it is receiving would indicate; I haven't even mentioned the (heavy-handed) religious themes, or the (subtler) undercurrent of Civil Liberties.

 

Overall, I think it's a film worth watching. If nothing else, give it a chance and make up your own mind. yes, it is a very different kind of Superhero movie, and yes, I remain kind of frustrated that a Superman film doesn't showcase the character at his best... but I also feel it is a marked improvement from Man of Steel, and actually has me interested in seeing where they go next with the DCEU.

 

(Even if I am still mad at how it's messing with the Flash and Arrow...)

Edited April 1, 2016 by Quiver

[Blaze1616 he/him]

Speaking of the spear, why would Bats, a cunning, take-no-risks kind of guy, save the spear for so long and get into a fistfight with Supes instead? 

 

I feel like this happened because Bats wanted to show Superman how unspecial he really was. Remember that at that point in the film, Bats is incredibly furious towards Superman, so taking the God Among Men down a few pegs before killing him is something I view as totally plausible. Also keep in mind that this fury towards Supes is likely messing with Bruce's cunning-ness, which the movie hints at for some of the previous scenes.

 

 

Overall, I think it's a film worth watching. If nothing else, give it a chance and make up your own mind. yes, it is a very different kind of Superhero movie, and yes, I remain kind of frustrated that a Superman film doesn't showcase the character at his best... but I also feel it is a marked improvement from Man of Steel, and actually has me interested in seeing where they go next with the DCEU.

 

I thought of this as a Batman movie, honestly. His name is first on the title card, and Supes already has a movie in this Justice League series. Add in the fact that, as you note, the movie is mostly focused on the Bats, and to me it just makes more sense.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Blaze1616

[The Invested Beard]

Saw it yesterday finally.

 

Loved it. Can't really see why all the critics didn't like it. Finally the world's greatest detective does some stuff to live up to the title! And his fights were perfection. WW was great. Love the different approach to world building where not everyone gets their own movie, it's just a story that includes all these characters. Felt so much like a DC comic I was very pleased.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

Though the movie was entertaining for a good portion, it was a mess as well. A lot of issues would be with the flow and just how pointless the superman portions were for the most part.

I mean, there seems to be no follow through on anything to do with Superman and Lois Lane might as well not be in the film.

You can certainly still enjoy it, like I said it has some very entertaining parts. But don't kid yourselves, the critics are justified in their negative reviews as well.

[The Invested Beard]

Though the movie was entertaining for a good portion, it was a mess as well. A lot of issues would be with the flow and just how pointless the superman portions were for the most part.

I mean, there seems to be no follow through on anything to do with Superman and Lois Lane might as well not be in the film.

You can certainly still enjoy it, like I said it has some very entertaining parts. But don't kid yourselves, the critics are justified in their negative reviews as well.

 

Difference of opinion I guess. I felt like all the things you mentioned worked well in the framework of the movie. Didn't find the Superman stuff pointless at all.

[Quiver he/him]

You can certainly still enjoy it, like I said it has some very entertaining parts. But don't kid yourselves, the critics are justified in their negative reviews as well.

 

I shall certainly be the first to admit the movie has it's flaws, and I don't begrudge negative opinions about the film.

 

My complaint, hoenstly, is the sheer venom a lot of opinions I've seen for the movie seem's to show. There's a difference between "This is a bad movie", and "This is a movie with no redeeming features whatsoever,", and an awful lot of the reviews I've seen seem to throw BvS into the second category. 

[ThirdGen]

 

I shall certainly be the first to admit the movie has it's flaws, and I don't begrudge negative opinions about the film.

 

My complaint, hoenstly, is the sheer venom a lot of opinions I've seen for the movie seem's to show. There's a difference between "This is a bad movie", and "This is a movie with no redeeming features whatsoever,", and an awful lot of the reviews I've seen seem to throw BvS into the second category. 

 

Exactly.  It's a bad movie, but it's not one of the worst of all time.  Even among superhero movies, Batman & Robin, X-Men: the Last Stand, Ghost Rider, all worse.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

I shall certainly be the first to admit the movie has it's flaws, and I don't begrudge negative opinions about the film.

My complaint, hoenstly, is the sheer venom a lot of opinions I've seen for the movie seem's to show. There's a difference between "This is a bad movie", and "This is a movie with no redeeming features whatsoever,", and an awful lot of the reviews I've seen seem to throw BvS into the second category.

Agreed, I can see many people can enjoy the movie, even if they are disappointed. I even enjoyed a good portion of it...mostly the parts with Batman.

[IndigoAjah he/him]

Interesting. It wasn't a mediocre film, or a good one or a bad one. It was a mishmash of truly awful and very good. The beginning, clumsy. The pacing, non-existent. The plot, overcrammed. The narrative flow, jumpy with no natural movement between scenes especially at the beginning. I thought this was one of the worst DIRECTED films I have ever seen in technical terms. Also, the ending, waste of a future plot though I get why it was chosen in terms of mood and homage. Not sure we needed

Doomsday

yet either though I'm mixed on that.

 

But the acting was good, the mood consistent and I like the darker, TDKR Batman. I liked the philosophical overtones, the implications of what is to come

Darkseid

, Gal Gadot, Amy Adams, Lex's magnificent manipulation, the action, the references, the homages to key graphic novels

 

Weird film. Overall, the technical issues overshadow the better points for me, but I can see how it has split critics and audience

 

EDIT: I was saying to my friend - what this film most reminds me of, for flaws and good points and for being a mixed movie, is Revenge of the Sith

 

Also

on the Martha thing changing Bats mind- this was horribly clumsy in execution, but I think really very well thought out in concept, like a lot of this film (I think Snyder's direction seems appalling here). Hearing his mother's name, when her death is clearly even more damaging to this Batman than most, invokes a need to know why Supeman said this. When Lois reveals that it's Clark's mother's name too, both Lois but more so the love Superman has for his conveniently evocatively named mother bring Bruce to realise two key facts - 1) Superman has a mother and a lover and he loves people and they love him. He is deeply human, a key part of why Batman thought he had to destroy him, and this was a quick way to get some insight into that. 2) Superman, about to die, begs for help for his mother. This WOULD strike a chord with Bruce but also fundamentally reveals to him that Superman is not only a man but a GOOD person, and he is not willing to kill a good person, nor let an innocent one die. Even this Batman isn't that far gone.

However, I do concur that it was very clumsily done

Edited April 6, 2016 by IndigoAjah

[Iarwainiel I she/her]

I liked this film.

 

Maybe it's that I didn't have many expectations: I haven't read comics / graphic novels since I was a child long ago (though that will change soon with "White Sands"!). I also haven't seen the recent Batman movies (saw the first one with Christian Bale; the others seemed too much like horror and I don't do horror, just not my thing). And I intentionally told myself not to expect a Marvel Universe film - I really love those, so didn't want to set myself up for disappointment.

 

Maybe that mindset helped me to like BvS.

 

I thought the casting was great, especially Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman - she is perfect for that role! I loved her joy as she leapt into battle.

 

There's one point that Sander-fans, specifically WOT fans, might appreciate: Am I the only one who thought of Lan and Demandred when

Superman pulled himself closer to Doomsday so that the kryptonite spear would penetrate deeper and kill him/it?

Maybe that ploy has been used in other movies/books too, but I'll always associate it with AMoL.

 

Finally, there was a short part of the music, right near the end, which sounded very close to Zimmer's score for POTC. Maybe it's that I listen to POTC often at work (speeds me up!), but it was a glaring similarity and kind of cool.

 

If you have a chance to see this while it's still in the theaters, it's worth it IMO. I went on discount day and skipped the 3D, so it wasn't much $$.

 

My 2 cents.

[IndigoAjah he/him]

Well the score was by Zimmer and he does "borrow" from his previous scores, so it was probably musically nearly identical to the piece from PoC, just like much of PoC is identical to Gladiator

[Delightful]

So.......I have a lot of thoughts.

The good:

Gal Gadot. She's fantastic.

The fact that they actually nuked the monster, and it just got meaner.

That Clark Kent could hear Wayne's earpiece.

Lex Luther was creepy as all hell.

That they had the guts to actually kill off superman (?)

The bad:

They both happen to have mothers named Martha?!

Wayne's confusing dream sequence.

The way the two just flew off and abandoned the kryptonite spear. I have to assume they trusted Lois to deal with it otherwise that was a very very stupid move.

I have no idea what Luthor wants, why he thinks aliens know superman is dead, and how the hell he made the monster.

After a while of angry superman collateral damage speeches......batman kills a bunch of people and destroys half the city to steal kryptonite? Seriously?!

And the hint that superman is Alive. Plus, you're telling me he can survive a nuke, but being stabbed in the chest is something he can't recover from?

Other nit picks, like what if he was in Texas when lex pushed Lois off the tower?

How come Wonder Woman didn't find the picture in the same files Wayne easily found them in?

How did Luthor have the "official

Symbols" of wonder woman, flash, arrow, and whoever the fourth guy was?

Tl;dr: part really good, part awful, everything else ranged from slightly confusing to ok. Rather a bit of a mess.

Also, I may have gone to see this wearing one superman sock, one batman sock, and feeling like a traitor to marvel.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Delightful

[ThirdGen]

They both happen to have mothers named Martha?!

 

That part is accurate to the comics.  It seems contrived, but as somebody on Twitter pointed out, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both have mothers named Dorothy.  So it's not totally outside the realm of possibility.

[Delightful]

That part is accurate to the comics. It seems contrived, but as somebody on Twitter pointed out, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both have mothers named Dorothy. So it's not totally outside the realm of possibility.

It's mostly annoying that a hugely significant plot point revolves around total coincidence rather than a character moment.

[Blaze1616 he/him]

The bad:

They both happen to have mothers named Martha?!

 

Plus, you're telling me he can survive a nuke, but being stabbed in the chest is something he can't recover from?

Other nit picks, like what if he was in Texas when lex pushed Lois off the tower?

How did Luthor have the "official

Symbols" of wonder woman, flash, arrow, and whoever the fourth guy was?

 

Just trying to shed some light:

 

1) As ThirdGen pointed out, this is true in the comics. As for your follow up, I actually thought it was a very interesting decision, to use the coincidence as the thing that makes Bats realize he's being ridiculous. It speaks volumes as to how far overboard Bats had gone, that only a coincidence of this magnitude would make him see reason.

 

2) His vicinity to the Kryptonite is likely the cause of the lack of invincibility. Plus, you know, he didn't actually die.

 

3) Superman's powers actually include Super Hearing and the obvious Super Speed. His hearing, specifically, allows him to hear noises all across the globe, and he can even tune to specific frequencies. so him being able to hear Lois from anywhere is no surprise. His ability to get to her is also no surprise, as his Super Speed allows him to sort-of keep up with Flash (who is faster than Supes in a foot race), and his flying speeds surpass the speed of light. So, as was the case in the beginning of the movie when Lois was in the Middle East, Supes can get to her in short amounts of time even when he's on the other side of the planet. Here's a list of his powers. Even his sense of smell can detect scents across the globe.

 

4) I assume they did this so that the audience wasn't in complete confusion. Wonder Woman's iconography is fairly well know, as is Flash's, and so the mental leap that Cyborg's and Aquaman's symbols were indicative of another future hero was more like a mental step. It's also possible that Lex's icons are the reason those three adopt those symbols in this universe, or that those three have begun doing hero things on the down-low, and the videos that Gal opened were simply the initial footage of the individuals, and so Lex was using the symbols that those characters had already adopted. 

[Quiver he/him]

It's mostly annoying that a hugely significant plot point revolves around total coincidence rather than a character moment.

 

Funnily enough, that's... a point in the canon of both characters. I think their parents have always been "Martha Wayne" and "Martha Kent".

 

I kinda liked it, actually. 

 

A lot of Batman and Superman canon concerns itself with the relationships between the heroes and their fathers. The Nolan Batfilms foreground the Thomas/Bruce relationship, whereas I don't think Martha ever gets a line in. And Jonathon dying is a hugely important motivator for both the Reeve and Snyder Superman films, not to mention the impact of Jor-El.

 

By contrast, I don't think their mothers have ever really gotten any kind of exposure. You could argue that them sharing a name means they don't really differentiate the two; that could be a valid complaint. But I rather liked that despite the setup -despite Thomas telling Bruce Waynes are Hunters, despite Jonathon telling Clark about the faith of humanity- I liked that the crux of the movie involved motherhood.

 

...Now, thre are still issues, certainly. Martha NEVER gets to do anything in the film. But I still kinda like it, as least on the conceptual level.

 

Lois throwing away the spear was the dumbest sub-plot though. What was the point of her nearly drowning? Just have her go the building to get it, and have the building come down around them! The turn about time of that means Lois put herself in danger for no reason, and it was dumb.