DCEU Film & Culture Analysis - Part 2 (of 4) | Renegade Cut

[Music] it wasn't long before a sequel to Man of Steel was green-lighted by Warner Brothers in fact it became official four days before the worldwide release of Man of Steel this is an indicator of future events when it comes to DC EU Warner Brothers always puts the cart before the horse Man of Steel made a profit at the box office but considering the massive budget and marketing campaign the returns were seen as a disappointment Man of Steel made a whopping 600 million dollars worldwide which sounds huge but calculating against its production budget and marketing budget combined deadlines estimated that Warner Brothers made approximately 42 million dollars in profit from Man of Steel which is not nothing that's a lot to you and me but for Warner Brothers it's the coins and the sofa cushions they were hoping for a lot more but with critical reaction being what it was some moviegoers opted to stay home I know I did I waited until it was available for home release before I even saw it for the first time but a profit is a profit and Warner Brothers really thought they had something with Snyder and the potential for a shared cinematic universe a la Marvel Studios the plot of Batman V Superman dawn of justice goes thusly Batman is upset with Superman for his role in the destruction of Metropolis Superman is sad because the world still doesn't trust him Lex Luthor is plotting to pit Superman against Batman for reasons he manipulates Batman and Superman into a fight which Batman kind of wins until Superman says Martha Batman Superman and Wonder Woman fight Luthor's latest creation doomsday a resurrected and modified General Zod Superman dies doomsday dies Batman and Wonder Woman are sad the end Batman being upset with how Superman handled himself during the metropolis 9/11 was vindication for DC EU tribalists social media was abuzz with see Superman had to be careless in Metropolis to set up the next movie where Batman doesn't trust him okay first of all no fictional character must do anything because everything they do will always be mutable by the writers second that is a gross missed characterization of events Zack Snyder and company did not even know Batman was going to be in the next DC EU movie Snyder even admitted it in an interview after Man of Steel finished and we started talking about what we would do in the next movie I started subtly mentioning that it would be cool if he faced Batman so let's get our timeline straight here nothing that happened in Batman V Superman dawn of Justice was purposefully set up in Man of Steel there was no plan no Direction no momentum according to David s Goyer some of the Easter eggs and Man of Steel were put there in the hopes of creating sequels but the idea for Batman fighting Superman was simply not in the cards nor was his anger about Metropolis being the motivation in the film the fact that there's an easter egg of a Wayne Enterprises logo on a satellite does not mean Batman was being set up in Man of Steel there's a Booster Gold reference in Man of Steel 2 I'm sorry but the timeline does not lie none of this was planned the creation of the DCE you did not begin in earnest until the casting for Batman V Superman meaning figuring out Batman Aquaman the flash and Wonder Woman there was no blueprint and what could only be charitably called a plan according to Gore himself was scrapped in our world the Man of Steel world Zack has gone on record saying that we're implying there are other superheroes in this world but I don't know that they've come forward yet the idea is that Superman is the first one there might be people helping people but not in costumes and that Superman comes forward and announces himself to the world in him announcing himself he's the one that changes things meet that's a cool plan but that's not what happened as I said it was scrapped Wonder Woman was revealed to be around far earlier than Superman and Batman had apparently been punching criminals in Gotham City for a decade or so prior to Superman putting on his cape and they were both in costumes Alfred mentions how long Bruce Wayne has been at this and that he is now too old to die young now that's okay things change that's not the problem it's just we need to stop pretending the events of Batman V Superman were purposefully set up in Man of Steel or that the existence of Batman V Superman and it's clarification on some matters changes how bad and ill-formed Man of Steel was arguments apologizing for Superman killing someone because it was necessary to set up his character's reluctance to kill Batman in the next movie do not add up because the writers and director did not have this idea set up that far ahead of time arguments apologizing for Superman carelessly blowing up metropolis because it sets up Batman's motivation are equally bunk for the same reason you can't make Man of Steel a good movie by explaining away aspects of it through a sequel the movie must stand on its own frankly even with these explanations it does not actually make Man of Steel make much more sense or make it a quality film I'm just tired of bad arguments popping up in the discourse and yeah that's what these videos are about the discourse more than the movies anyway with Man of Steel in the rear view lets open wide for Batman V Superman dawn of Justice I gave a plot synopsis but it does not even begin to truly explain what's happening in this movie or why [Music] Batman V Superman dawn of Justice is not only a conflict between to be spandex superheroes with emblems on their chests and the better part of a century of source material history it is on paper a conflict between two worldviews two political positions to complete opposites two beings who are diametrically opposed in every conceivable way except their mother's first name that is why the whole save Martha thing is supposed to have emotional resonance it's a we're not so different you and I sort of moment I'll get into that more later I don't want to deviate right now in the screenplay and therefore in the dialogue characters reference the fact that Superman and Batman are total opposites God versus man day versus night even to the point of cringe-worthy meta in jokes but he cares about Clark Kent taking on the Batman hahaha question mark C on paper the movie is telling us that Batman and Superman are polar opposites Batman himself references this when he calls Superman and God and that gods are not brave men are brave because they have something to risk he doesn't say that last part though the part about why men are brave and gods are not the risk thing that's just what I read between the lines there anyway B is knight and human and brooding and dark and s is joyous and optimistic and so they must be accept is Superman the opposite of Batman in the movie yes in deeply rudimentary ways like their difference in power levels of course sure but the movie never speculates on who is physically stronger because we already know Superman is the movie tries to contrast their ideologies and their personalities but the thing is their personalities and ideologies are not too different see the whole day versus night man versus God aspect of the film is undermined by the way Superman is framed by the camera and the acting choices and even by the special effects traditionally speaking Batman is portrayed as a brooding figure he stalks the streets of a city with a deeply worrisome crime rate and his villains are generally insane Batman is portrayed as pessimistic or at least troubled Batman always looks like he's doing his best under difficult circumstances but those circumstances rarely get any better Superman has traditionally portrayed as the opposite he flies above the city of tomorrow he is nigh invulnerable and that may have something to do with the fact that he looks like he's emotionally handling his job better than Batman Superman is beloved whereas Batman is feared Superman sees the best in people whereas Batman is skeptical in theory this conflict of worldviews and ideologies makes sense but the movie does not frame Superman as being particularly different than Batman due to the way film language works when Superman is Superman and not Clark Kent he rarely speaks in fact even when he's Clark Kent he is often alone with his thoughts Superman is shown in montage performing godlike feats of strength but the Man of Steel is mostly seen in shadow or looking off mournfully in the distance or struggling with something or screaming with burning red eyes like a demon the screenplay tells us one thing but the visual language tells us another it creates a dissonance that is uncomfortable to watch and unsatisfying to see play out at the risk of incurring a tribalist reaction when Captain America Civil War set up a conflict between Iron Man and cap they explained their world few differences in such a way that was not only clear but compelling it was done in such a way that audiences could easily side with either character in Batman V Superman Batman is a brooding sad sack and so is Superman their ideologies are thus Batman thinks Superman is dangerous Superman thinks Batman is dangerous it's not an opposite of worldview they're just opposed it's not really opposites except that they mistrust each other their differences and personalities are not pronounced enough in every other portrayal of these characters they are sure but in this movie they are not a movie cannot rely so heavily on audience for knowledge of characters to let us all fill in the blanks now I want this to be clear this is not some fanboy cry about why Superman doesn't act enough like Superman in this Superman movie that doesn't mean that much to me and frankly I'm not too interested in adding to rage about this film that is purely based on so-called ruined childhoods it's a valid feeling to have because your feelings are your own but it's not a helpful position when discussing the actual merits of a film this complaint about Superman being too similar to Batman in the movie is structural it creates an incongruity between what the screenplay is explicitly telling us and what the framing of the camera is telling us I've heard some people claim that Superman as a character does not work in Man of Steel and Batman V Superman because the world is too dark for Superman but that ignores contrast between the conflict of the world and character in a narrative in all Superman's stories he is a light in the darkness the world is facing a huge challenge and Superman steps up with a big smile on his face and conquers it he could have been that way in this movie too instead he's just another corner of the shadow he is as bleak as everything else in the film including but not limited to Batman but his similarity to The Dark Knight is not - the only reason why Superman does not work in the DC EU in order to understand why Superman does not function well as a character with whom the audience can empathize we need to first understand how characters work in a screenplay and since Superman shares top billing with Batman we will consider him on equal footing here even though he is in slightly less of the film than his counterpart when a point-of-view character or protagonist of a film makes choices it reveals to the audience things about that character the choices also affect the plot directly and help the audience empathize with the character a character has a goal and different choices about how to reach that goal one path might be more dangerous or one path might be morally questionable it's in these choices that we learn about the character and it's also in these choices that the character follows their arc pop-quiz throughout the film what would you say is Superman's goal it's not to fight Batman because he doesn't even consider Batman a threat to himself until halfway through the fight which is more than two-thirds of the way through the film the audience might see that as his goal because they read the title to the movie but the character Superman does not is it to expose Batman through journalism maybe he does try this but it seems secondary to his daily concerns for Batman facing off against Superman is his goal for Superman it's his be plot and he mostly undertakes it as Clark Kent Superman has more pushback from Perry White than Batman is Superman's goal to prove to the world that he can be trusted maybe but his obstacle is muddied here who is opposing him sure Lex Luthor but Superman doesn't even know that until very late in the movie if a character doesn't know what his obstacles are or what his goal is he cannot be written to make choices to overcome set obstacles or achieve said goals because Superman's goal throughout the movie is unclear his choices become less important and we learned less about his character he's an action to figure not a character so if you watched a Batman V Superman and you were wondering why you felt so cold toward the Big Blue Boy Scout this might be why who is the protagonist of Batman V Superman is it Batman or is it Superman or is it V the fact that we can even ask this is a problem in and of itself a protagonist in a screenplay is our point of view character we spend more time with Batman than Superman but so much of the story revolves around Superman his place in the world and his complete lack of ability to make decisions also as a follow-up to Man of Steel one assumes he is as important or more important than anyone else in the film yet things happen to Superman more than Superman makes things happen Batman feels closer to being a protagonist we spend time with him not only in the Batcave but also in his dreams we follow his journey I mean he gets top billing right he's the protagonist but he's a weak protagonist due to how much of the movie is about everything non Batman I'm talking Superman being a grouchy puss Lex Luthor being max landis Lois Lane's investigation and so forth so okay is this an ensemble film like x-men or clue well in the first x-men film we have a lot of good guy characters but our point of view character is definitely Wolverine we see things from his perspective for the most part and when Professor X explains the rules of the world and his school and all that he's speaking to Wolverine the screenwriting 101 really our protagonist is our POV things that are explained to the protagonists are really explained to us obi-wan Kenobi doesn't just tell Luke Skywalker about the force Darth Vader the Empire the Jedi and everything else obi-wan is telling us through Luke because our young padawan is our point of view into this world in the last starfighter when alex is taken into space the aliens explain what's going on to him so that we two can figure out what's happening the protagonist isn't just the main character the protagonist is our perspective the reason I bring all of this up is because while Batman is the closest this meandering film has to a protagonist this doesn't really feel like Batman's story he isn't the driving force behind much of anything that happens lex luthor the antagonist makes all the decisions that lead up to Batman being the heck out of Superman he V's him good but the most active character in the movie is Luthor he's setting up the fight he's manipulating both of them he's making decisions about kryptonite and Zod Superman is just along for the ride and Batman is a pawn until the fight is over I'm not sure I want to definitively make the argument that Luthor is absolutely the main character of the film but my point is that a reasonable argument can be made that he's the main character and with this in mind with the antagonist being even more critical and significant in this film than most any other film with a proper antagonist what Luthor does and why he does it becomes that much more important to the structure and the plausibility of this film in other words because Luthor is so important to this story if what he does makes no sense then there is no story spoiler alert for the end of this section what he does makes no sense so there is no story all right so Lex Luthor manipulates both Batman and Superman into a fight to the death by sending letters to Batman and convincing Superman the Batman is bad by hiring men to kill prisoners who Batman Brandt's in jail the second thing is just guesswork if you've only watched the theatrical cut only the extended cut makes that clear which I'm sorry is a failing since that's what most people saw Luthor hurts Superman's public image by making a slaughter in Nairobi appear to be Superman's fault one of the so-called terrorists was actually someone on Luthor's payroll except for the world to believe this they would have to believe Superman used a gun to mow these people down a even with Superman as a fairly new player in the world nobody in their right mind would believe the Man of Steel would need to use a gun to kill anyone the dude can nuke the world with his eyeballs so this is already falling apart Luthor and his wheelchair-bound buddy set off a bomb in the Capitol which is also meant to make Superman look bad but nobody would think Superman would use a bomb for the same reason he would not use bullets and his heroic rescue of the survivors if anything helped his public image let's talk about misconceptions surrounding plot holes plot contrivance 'iz and criticism of movie plots because of everything I mentioned just now Batman V Superman has some of the most obvious and embarrassing plot contrivance 'as seen in recent films there's a difference between the criticism of a plot hole and the criticism of a contrivance not to mention criticism of minor details more commonly known as nitpicking misunderstanding these distinctions have hurt the discourse because they have become lost in a sea of bad YouTube videos and ignorant conflation of inconsequential details and true plot holes so let's nail down some definitions a plot hole is an error or gap in the narrative that violates the internal logic of the film makes the events impossible and the story untenable the internal logic of the film is that Krypton exists and Superman is the last Son of Krypton so as impossible as that is in the real world having impossible characters in this film does not violate its internal logic I mentioned that because whenever someone mentions a plot contrivance in a film someone jumps out from their seat of ignorance and says oh you're looking for logic in a movie with aliens and superpowers huh and then they hiss and slither down a drainpipe whether or not Batman V Superman has plot holes is debatable but it definitely has plot contrivances meeting plot points that seem nearly but not entirely impossible within the framework of the film's internal logic a plot contrivance which is a lesser problem that a true whole is a weak artificial point the narrative that is created to serve the larger plot or make improbable events happen all that Luthor planned stuff plot contrivance --is the idea that it would work out so perfectly for the benefit of Luthor but really the benefit of the screenwriter begs belief and it makes the audience collectively roll its eyes people especially on YouTube keep claiming any minor issue counts as a plot hole criticism of plot holes and contrivances is markedly different from nitpicking details that do not change the flow of the story when I say Luthor's plan is preposterous and therefore as possibly the main character the whole movie is preposterous it is not nitpicking nitpicking is about minor details that have little if anything to do with servicing the main narrative Luthor's plan that's the narrative Luthor himself that's the main guy the person who drives the plot unfortunately nitpicking has become confused with legitimate film criticism and legitimate film criticism has become confused with nitpicking when critics referenced these obvious screenwriting errors and contrivances the DC EU tribalists say that the critics are nitpicking and when the bad YouTube fanboys talk up the easter eggs of the plot the same tribalists consider that more legitimate because it comes from the real fans who notice such things it's a bizarro world of discourse [Music] in a 2016 interview Deborah Snyder longtime producer of Zack Snyder's films and also his wife explained the negative reaction to Man of Steel in Batman V Superman thusly the main thing we learned I think people don't like to see their heroes deconstructed the obliviousness of this quote is staggering the main thing was that people didn't want to watch their heroes deconstructed that is demonstrably false both in terms of whether that is true in and of itself but also in the broader sense of that being the main problem with the DC EU movies by deconstructing superheroes Deborah Snyder is referring to post-modernism an attitude towards skepticism and meta-narratives between text and meaning deconstructing superheroes has been common for superhero fans for quite a while one of the most celebrated comic books of all time was Watchmen a movie that Zack Snyder also adapted he must be you know aware of it everything from the authority to the boys deconstruct the concept of popular superheroes Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy deconstructed the Batman mythos and asked whether or not the world needed a Batman and if memory serves those films were incredibly popular at the box office and among critics ditto for the first kick-ass movie Watchmen had a mixed but mostly positive reviews according to good ol Rotten Tomatoes and after the release of the director's cut instead of the studio mandated shortened version fans and critics looked at it much more favorably so if we look at movies in which deconstruction is the common denominator we find that many of them receive broad critical acclaim and excellent box office receipts this is solid evidence that Debora Snyder's belief about the problem with the first two DC EU movies is bunk it does not add up at all there is too much history within both film adaptations and the source material of comic books deconstructing superheroes and being successful so now that we are done blaming the audience we can once again focus on the flaws of the movies themselves Zack Schneider once said yeah I mean I think I'm obsessed with tone in the movies tone has always been the main thing that I go after with a movie and I really wanted the tone of the three movies to be different chapters and not the same note that you strike like okay there's this again alright then tone is big with them so let's talk about that tone and the audience reaction to the tone as I said in the previous part the tone of Man of Steel and Batman V Superman is bleak and unpleasant and a real slog to get through with no real sense of humor when tribalists defend these movies it's awful and much maligned tone is used as a positive rather than a negative and I believe this misconception and misunderstanding of the tone has a lot to do with misunderstanding the difference between adult and mature these words are used interchangeably indeed they are synonyms but for our purposes today the distinction I am making is this when I say that a movie is adult I mean that it is aimed towards adults it's a rated R movie or it is not meant to be for children that covers everything from pulp fiction to Basic Instinct and indeed the extended cut what Snyder wanted all along is rated R only the theatrical cut was rated pg-13 and if ever there was such a thing as a hard pg-13 it is the theatrical cut of Batman V Superman now when I say a movie is mature I mean that it is for mature audiences but adult audiences may not necessarily be truly mature dito for a film example if you're awful friend tells a racist joke it's certainly an adult joke and not meant for consumption by children but it's also not what one would call mature because the attitude surrounding the racist joke is childish and undeveloped a child could tell the same joke or even conceive of the same joke one definition of mature is fully grown and developed back to the tribalists they tout the grown-up style of Man of Steel and Batman V Superman as a strength Man of Steel deals with big weighty issues about Jesus Christ Batman V Superman doubles on this and much like your friend from high school who just came back from Bible Camp simply will not stop talking about God so this all seems pretty heavy and adult and mature right except that these films handle these topics with all the grace of a person telling the dirty joke it's not entirely for kids but it's also not a fully grown developed idea it's not mature it is adult at times but for all the reasons already stated it's not mature the difference in tone between the DC EU and MCU movies is something that tribalists bring up a lot MCU movies have a fair bit of humor in them even the most serious MCU films like Captain America Winter Soldier have some jokes and some have a lot more than others because Marvel movies crack a smile and DC movies rarely do tribalist fans use this as fabricated evidence to draw a comparison that being that Marvel movies are for babies and DC movies must be for graduate students working on their MFA but since Man of Steel and Batman V Superman are simply more adult and not more mature the argument falls a bit flat adult and mature are not the same Friday the 13th part 8 Jason Takes Manhattan is a film for adults it is not however what one might call a mature film furthermore the theatrical ratings of all DC EU have been pg-13 just like MCU movies it's greater adult miss is marginal at best this hostility toward humor seems more tribalist than anything I imagine if you asked the same people about different non superhero movies they would speak lovingly of comedies they enjoy and comedians they admire the distinction between the grim self seriousness of the DC EU and comparatively goofy tone of the MCU is a way to draw a line in the sand for obvious reasons of tribalism rather than to provide genuine criticism as for humor itself the idea that movies about people dressed in spandex suits should not have humor in them is kind of laughable itself but the advocacy for having humor in action movies is more a matter of audience engagement the audience needs a break if something is the same thing on screen the whole time in the same setting or with the same exact tone it cannot create any a band flow Aladdin is a comedy musical with a goofy ass genie but without stakes and quiet moments we will not care about how it all concludes a Nightmare on Elm Street is a horror movie but if every scene had a jump scare then the scares would lose their bite good screenwriters know how to construct a story with a variety of emotions that the audience should have humor is humanizing it's not just there for a quick chuckle it's an effective way to make an otherwise larger-than-life figure seem grounded so in a movie like Iron Man the up and flow of humor action and deadly serious moments create a character that the audience roots for with the stakes that the audience cares about in Batman V Superman the tone is so grim that the characters don't feel relatable and yet people try desperately to defend this tone batfleck himself said it was a huge hit movie more people went to see that than any movie I've ever made in my career it was the biggest hit of my career and then it had a lot of editorial negativity it was interesting that movie because it was judged not necessarily on execution so much as on its tone people seem to want to have a lighter tone to the movie and I thought that was interesting because it's subjective tone is not a qualitative thing it's subjective right some tones resonate with me that might not with you and the tone of the movie was really parallel to the Frank Miller book which I liked and thought was great okay at the risk of criticizing an oscar-winning filmmaker here Ben Affleck is making a mistake and I don't just mean equating the box office returns and how great this thing was for his career with the actual quality of the film he is claiming that critics were harsh on its tone and not the execution of the film but the tone is part of the execution the tone for all the reasons I just mentioned does not work well it's not just that it's dark it's that it is unceasingly dark and provides no shelter from the storm of its grimness it's a bad screenplay I should mention that the incredibly rare attempts within Batman V Superman to have humor fall flat Jesse Eisenberg's manic performance as Lex Luthor is annoying rather than comical the urine thing was disgusting and Batman saying I thought she was with you is a line for the trailer that does not work within the narrative of the film Batman dude she is with you and you know that you were aware of her existence and Superman was not what the [ __ ] are you talking about and why do I have to listen to junkie XL during the scene when there are better options out there so the urine and the uncomfortable Zaid eNOS of Luthor provide no solace from the onslaught of the grim dark in fact these jokes are themselves grim and unpleasant so the one thing that a movie can use to provide shelter from an overly dark tone comedy is itself dark in tone in this movie [Music] we're going to do some jumping around among multiple movies here because we simply can't discuss the topic of Superman as a parallel to Jesus Christ without showing how it shows up throughout the DCE you Superman was originally written with mosaic features due to his Jewish creators but his later Christianization is what people have come to understand Superman like Jesus is sent from the heavens by his true father to be raised by an adoptive father a man of steel the unusual birth of Christ is paralleled further as his mother gives birth to him in a way that is strange for Krypton it is a natural birth Superman is both a citizen of Earth and a stranger to its people he has powers unlike anyone else and the mere fact of who he is proves to be dangerous his father tells him that he is the Saviour of Earth Superman's very blood is imprinted to make him a savior and the blood of Christ is the component of the survival of humanity when questioned about Superman Peter Pete Ross denies him Superman is able to communicate with his father despite being ethereal and not on earth the villains main crime is betrayal he cannot be trusted after careful reflection and prayer Superman decides to stand up for humanity because that's his mission on earth Superman mentions he is 33 years old the same age as Christ when he died Superman is nearly murdered with a spear a reference to the spear held by lankiness the mid local artifact that allegedly pierced the site of Christ to see if he was still alive the spear comes into play again with doomsday in Justice League Superman is resurrected thus completing both his arc and the story of Jesus Christ and so on and so forth none of this is subtle but believe it or not that's not the problem put a pin in that we'll come back to it Batman V Superman continues this rather than truly expands upon it it's just more about humankind's relationship with God it stumbles through philosophy broaches subjects but does not have the intelligence to resolve them and references far wiser luminaries and intellectuals with no interest or ability to meet theirs standards lex luthor refers to superman as god but also the devil so this is not a one-to-one allegory because luthor also caused doomsday the devil and it's just terribly muddled the DCE use obsession with referencing religion has nothing to do with reference and everything to do with pomposity Luther's mistrust of God or perhaps disbelief in God is brought up again when he references prometheus Luthor's actual theistic beliefs are shockingly vague for a series of films that are otherwise quite blunt as Luthor and atheist a missle theist this would be an important question to answer but the film does not bother when I was younger I thought that the best way to engage with a topic in a film was to be subtle this means allusions to Christ but really anything else I'm not really a film critic but even I know that the word subtlety ends up being part of a film critics vocabulary as a way to differentiate between great works and lesser works that was my go-to trying to explain what is and is not handled properly to make a good allegory or message film I still believe that can be important but I have come to realize that subtlety is a tool not a goal a film does not have to be subtle to make a good point or to be good in general when people talk about Superman as a Christ figure in Man of Steel and Batman V Superman they harp on how obvious it is this scene with a stained glass window in particular as if that is the film's greatest crime I freely admit to taking issue with this as well back in 2013 when I first saw a Man of Steel we don't accept Superman as the Christ figure in Man of Steel in Batman V Superman nor do we accept the latter's onslaught of other spiritual references and we cite the lack of subtlety as the primary cause but something about that does not fully add up one of my favorite films is ashes and diamonds a classic 1958 polish film the protagonist is given certain Christ's qualities and it's not always subtle in the film's most famous scene an upside-down crucifix waves in front of the cam at least a stained-glass window is in the background and not the foreground yet ashes and diamonds is widely considered a great film so what's the difference Klaatu from the Day the Earth Stood Still takes the human surname carpenter and comes from the sky to save humanity it's not even remotely subtle that he's a Christ figure but people love this aspect of the film as well as the film in general the matrix is so explicit about who mio is meant to represent but people sure did love this movie if a complete lack of subtlety did not hinder the Christ figure aspect of these films then why does it feel so awful and awkward in Man of Steel I've come to believe that the Christ figure working or not working for the audience does not always have to do with the Christ figure himself and more to do with the rest of the film if the rest of the film is good then we can accept the Christ figure part of it if the rest of the film is well Man of Steel then we can't this is not arbitrary and it's not a case of hating a movie and then deciding this one aspect is also bad instead it's a case of earning the Christ figure when a movie is structurally bad for all the reasons given earlier but casts its protagonist as Jesus Christ then we feel that this film has not earned this grandiosity people sometimes misuse the word pretentious as meaning overly fancy or too highbrow or elitist but that's not actually true pretentious simply means affecting greater importance to something that is not in other words for our purposes a dumb film trying and failing to be smart is by definition pretentious a good clever movie with good clever ideas is not pretentious by very definition because it has achieved its importance Man of Steel is a pretentious movie because it's something of a poor quality that the artist clearly believes is more significant than it actually is the Christ figure and other spiritual references do not work in the DCE use three films starring Superman but it has nothing to do with lack of subtlety the Christ figure doesn't work because the three movies in the DCE you that have Superman have greater structural problems on related to their spirituality I've said this before in other videos but it bears repeating a movie with a good message needs to be a good movie first when DC EU tribalists used the film universes philosophical pomposity as defense of its importance and quality they are actually unwittingly spotlighting one of the film's series greatest flaws it's not that people who dislike the DCE you don't get it it's that they do get it and what they have in fact gotten is a series of bad movies that have not earned their Christ's allegory in other words Jesus's appearances in the DC EU films do not elevate the quality they broadcast how everything around these appearances and references are not strong enough to hold up the DCE use genuine pretentiousness Jesus can carry a crucifix but he can't carry Man of Steel [Music] Nicolas Winding referent once said that in all of his movies there's one scene that is its heart the one scene that connects everything together that shows the audience what the movie really is in drive its when the driver kisses his girlfriend the lighting changes and he murder stomps a dude into Modern Art in Batman V Superman dawn of Justice the scene is undoubtedly and in arguably the save Martha moment at the climax of the much-anticipated and promised battle between the two superheroes after a bloody conflict Batman appears to have won he cut Superman across the face fulfilling the do you bleed you will prediction and then Superman says save Martha to Batman Batman incredulous says why did you say that name and then Lois Lane appears just in the nick of time to tell Batman that Martha his Superman's mother's name Martha Kent has been kidnapped Martha is also Batman's deceased mother's name Batman drops his kryptonite lion having learned a valuable lesson about something you know maybe the real Martha is the friends we made along the way fans have been quick to mock this scene and the tribalists are just as quick to defend it save Martha is the most ridiculous and frankly me mobile scene in the film and the fact that it is it's emotional climax its heart and said with such weight and sincerity makes it that much more ludicrous and mockable I've thought about this scene honestly far too much over the past couple years I love a big emotional scene I cry at movies and not just you know tragic films but like Star Wars I wear my heart on my sleeve and if you cried during the save Martha scene in Batman V Superman I'm not gonna mock you for that get your cry on it's healthy however our emotional reactions to things are different from our intellectual defenses of them and even though I want to be able to defend this scene I simply can't believe me I've tried I've scoured the internet and found defenses from others what is that critics and haters are fixating on this scene because the rest of the movie is great and this is the only goofy part of the movie okay first of all I reject the premise that the rest of the movie is great second there are lots of goofy parts to this movie the recent critics and such fixate on save Martha is because it's the effort mentioned emotional core of the movie another defense of this scene is that this isn't about Batman learning a mild coincidence that he and Superman's mother both had the same first name it's about recognizing that Superman has parents in general and that makes the Kryptonian more human in Batman's eyes people love him and not just because he saves others with his superpowers he has a family Batman never considered this because he was so focused on building an Iron Man suit and murdering an alien right except immediately before the save Martha thing Batman says that your parents she means something this is right before it happens Batman talks about Superman's parents immediately before discovering he has parents he has considered Superman's familial ties so that defense is bonkers another odd part about this scene is that Superman is saying save Martha instead of save my mother see save Martha narrative Lee makes no sense because Batman cannot conclude who Martha is without context he would need that to you know save her now structurally Superman needs to say Martha instead of mother in the script because that will trigger Batman's memory of his own mother who is also named Martha but in the narrative Superman's saying her name instead at this point is a plot contrivance one defense of this that I've heard in my own comment section years ago was that Superman was actually saying Martha Kent but every time Superman tried to say Kent he came out is because he was being choked nope sorry this defense is disproved simply by watching the movie with the official subtitles on Superman is not desperately trying to say Kent he is just saying Martha the weird thing about this is that the cast and crew really thinks they nailed it and that one word Martha I think is a really cool connection and I don't think Batman sees Superman is human until he realizes that he has a mother no I'm sorry Martha Kent actress but Batman talks about Superman's mother right before and I'm sorry other guy but that is not enough the scene is really really forced now another defense is not narrative but thematic Batman needs this scene to respect the sanctity of all life everyone has people who care about them and that murdering people super or otherwise is wrong except Batman's next mission is to save Martha by employing lethal methods against a dozen or so henchmen so when those who mock the scene say it looks like Batman only spared Superman because mothers have the same first name it's because that's genuinely what it looks like since the intent of the scene is obscured by lines that immediately preceded it and ruined by its aftermath speaking of which Batman sure does kill a lot of people in this movie right this is the next indefensible argument put forth by the tribalists that Batman doesn't actually kill anyone in the movie this popped up so many times in my own comments section and certainly elsewhere I want to be clear about something whether or not Batman should kill criminals is a topic for another video I will save that for my worst video but the idea that Batman simply did not kill anyone in this movie is not logically defensible here Batman rams into a car with a driver inside it spins he uses a grappling hook and then throws it again survival would be miraculous but not impossible so fair enough but right after Batman shreds this other vehicle with a driver and a gunner it rolls over and that explodes into cinders everyone in that vehicle is definitely dead whether one believes this is justified or not Batman definitely killed those people Batman then launches his Batmobile which severs both this vehicle and this individual inside it is not possible that he survived following the safe Martha scene that allegedly restored Batman's belief in the sanctity of life Batman shoots a few men outside a warehouse they die horribly in a fireball some of the injuries in this battle are difficult to ascertain or confirma skills but these two men definitely die by grenade shortly thereafter Batman incinerates a couple others with a propane tank those who were stabbed or brutalized in other ways might have made it through however unlikely that may seem but many of the nameless henchmen are inarguably killed at the hands of Batman or bullets and explosions of Batman it is indefensible that Batman walks away from this film with no blood on his hands again if you believe all these deaths were 100% necessary and unavoidable well that's troubling but another topic defending indefensible scenes is a symptom of the affirmation to tribalism a tribalist can watch this scene and say who are you gonna believe me or your lying eyes many of the Marvel faithful who point out the obvious 'no Cindy see movies would be quick to hand wave them away if they occurred in their chosen films it's intellectually dishonest a film must be approached as it exists and not as we would prefer it to exist when fans don't do this it poisons the discourse an honest interpretation of deaths in MCU and DC EU movies is that so many superheroes are pretty okay with killing people Ironman just wastes men in fiery explosions and punch catapults them in ways that cannot possibly result in non-lethal injuries the falcon incinerates people with missiles Superman pushes a man through several walls with such force and such speed that it would be quite literally impossible for him to survive and Batman's kill count is definitely even higher and even more obvious acknowledging the text of the film is the first step towards criticizing and debating it by willful obfuscation of the text of the film nothing can ever be said of it and while that might appear to be the goal of its defenders willful alpha station of the text of the film also makes genuine and honest positive criticism difficult as well you can't talk about a movie when the discourse surrounding a movie denies what the movie is when Batman V Superman dawn of Justice debuted it received a thrashing from film critics twenty seven percent on Rotten Tomatoes various worst of the Year lists and Ben Affleck memes but to DC EU tribalists this was simply a massive conspiracy to discredit their nascent Cinematic Universe because that is what tribalism does to the discourse nobody can recognize red flags with rose-colored glasses on but Man of Steel and Batman V Superman were just the beginning of this attitude the entrenchment of this tribalism didn't become so pronounced until it was clear that DC EU was not proving a couple false starts sure these things happen but then came Suicide Squad and any denial of the downsides of the DC extended universe became that much harder to justify you

Channel: Renegade Cut

Views: 153,880

Rating: 4.8393297 out of 5

Keywords: renegade cut, dceu, dc extended universe, batman v superman, batman v superman dawn of justice, man of steel, suicide squad, superman, batman, batman v superman scene, batman v superman explained, batman v superman ending, batman v superman clip, batman v superman review, batman v superman analysis, batman v superman fight, batman v superman warehouse fight, batman kills, batman vs superman, the dark knight returns, zack snyder, dceu analysis, dc comics, movie review

Id: RXMazeSl_eo

Length: 50min 6sec (3006 seconds)

Published: Thu Dec 27 2018

Reddit Comments

[u/Boogiepop_Homunculus]

Haven’t watched this, but remember the last time someone tried to analyze the fandom and it turned out to be a hit job?

[u/OopsDoopYup]

Such a boring creator.

[u/[deleted]]

50 minutes jesus .... 10 seconds in I just cant

[u/delsinson]

This is an old post, but this thread is a hilariously accurate case study for EXACTLY the thing he talks about in these videos haha. The Marvel subreddit was definitely more receptive to criticism

[u/LilTylenol]

Oh boy another DCEU video essay. Fuck off.

[u/puddingcup---ILLEGAL]

Although I disagree with many of his points I think he’s right on some things.