Support my work on Patreon: http://ow.ly/3ymWFu
PayPal Donations Welcome. Click here: http://goo.gl/NSdOvK
My usage of portions of other videos falls under fair use policy based on section 107 of the US copyright law. Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes of criticism, comment, review and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright.
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS YOUTUBE CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDVb4m_5QHhZElT47E1oODg
KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter : http://twitter.com/davecullenCF
it is supposed to be a liberal vs authoritarian ideology. superman represents benevolent authoritarianism, while batman represents benevolent liberalism. superman stops batman because he is the bigger threat to the law, while letting the bigger threat to actual people get away. the idea superman has is that if you make a system well enough and lend it enough power then overall you save more lives. batman feels that doing so is a recipe for corruption, and that the only way to combat such is to have individuals working on their own to help people. of course when one person becomes more powerful they can become corrupted as well, which is why it is important to have others to keep them in check. in true comic book fashion they don't actually have the argument come to a head, but instead a real life villain operating outside both ideological frameworks and thus the heroes are able to combat the villain without betraying their ideologies. the fight scenes are there to keep people entertained, but the meat is a bit deeper, though still a tad hollow.
to really do the argument justice in the movie they should have had superman respect batman's wishes to stay out of gotham, only to have the battle between batman and luthor result in civilian casualties in the crossfire. things dial up, leading to potentially more civilian casualties, but superman jumps in and saves the day. then instead of having luthor's fingerprints on the whole thing you have luthor have used patsies to escape from legal punishment, but not batman, so batman goes into hiding. luthor then manages to gets government to back up his creation of a earth made superman (doomsday), and instead of kidnapping and extortion to manipulate superman he just uses the law. superman then has to choose to betray his principles or to let luthor unleash a monster that kills whole cities. batman could jump in here and save the day by luring it away from a populated place to fight it. this makes batman a criminal for saving lives, and superman tries to get the government to let him get the go ahead. then with an emergency session of congress they agree to let superman save the day. you then have the final battle with doomsday. to end the movie (or start the next) luthor gets off completely as he was just 'acting' on behalf of congress. some politicians get the blame and people are upset, but they didn't break the law so everything is hunky dory, despite the whole thing being exposed as most people just don't care about the facts (possibly touching on media spin).
so if the individuals keeping each other in check get out of hand people die in the crossfire, and if the government is too powerful it isn't held accountable for getting a bunch of people killed. they get into that the liberal side of things can get people killed in the crossfire if unchecked, but they hand wave the corruption of authority as good people can always put a stop to it.
Storm base reviews I tend to think Man Of Steel is more interesting than anything Disney has put out.
BvS is fitfully interesting, this idea of gods versus men, with media manipulating both sides; the metanarrative of that is surprisingly rich... Then it falls into its own footprint through cross-marketing attempts (literally, the film shoehorns mini-trailers in for three characters, complete with cute little marketing logos Batman has evidently made for them).
The irony with the comic book movie junk subgenre is that most of the interesting stuff (X-Men, Man of Steel, etc.) is relatively unsuccessful compared to the safe, mediocre Disney output.
Or maybe that's just par for the course.
I did like the initial two hours of the director's cut. It was slow, less focused on action, dark and grim, but then it derailed into silly action territory. Zack Snyder failed to deliver his theme of Batman's resurrection in the third act.
4:12 I've said it before and I'll say it again. There's something unreal about people who want realism in their fiction. Realism just restricts creative freedom and makes the resulting product less enjoyable and more boring. Just take a look at western developed AAA games. They are a great example of how detrimental realism is to video games. The resulting product is just generic, bland mediocrity.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said Dc was rushing their films.
I think this would have worked better as two films; Dawn of Justice part 1, Batman vs Superman
Same basic story as the film we got, reintroducing Superman and introducing the New Batman and Wonder Woman. Omit Lex and all that garbage instead showing the conflict is a result of Bat's being filled with rage and Superman not yet having worked out what he actually stands for. Wonder Woman is there investigating a greater threat - hence setting up Lex and Doomsday for the next film. The film ends with the fight between Batman and Superman being first broken up by Wonder Woman. Who first flattens both the worn out heroes by showing her power and combat skills, giving them a moment of shared shock to bond over, then shows her brains and heart by not just berating the two naughty boys for fighting, but by showing that she's worked out their reasons why they are fighting and the flaws in their logic.
This ends with her warning them of a bigger threat (Setting up not just Doomsday but also Darkside) and getting them to agree to a truce.
Then we get Dawn of Justice part 2, Doomsday.
This is the arrival of Doomsday (who has nothing to do with Lex), the realisation that he is too powerful even for these heroes and they need help. Then the introduction of the rest of the Justice League to fight Doomsday in which the ending is much the same as the film we got. This helps set up Justice League, as they a viable and realistic reason for coming together again. It would also allow the characters to be fleshed out more in JL, rather than having to spend time introducing them again and their powers.
Yes, its fairly generic but would work as you don't have to be innovative here just make a decent film.
This would, however, have required guts and patience; Things DC has not exactly shown as of late.
It's not perfect, but it's not the worst thing ever. And Justice League was WAAAAYYY better than what the critics are saying. I really enjoyed Justice League, to the point where it made me go back and re-watch BvS again and appreciated it more. It's not that bad. Just my opinion though. Great vid; love your stuff. : )
Eisenberg's Lex Luthor was a train wreck. Manic, bipolar, disjointed, and rambling... an imitation of Ledger's Joker and Brad Pitt in "12 Monkeys."
Also, why make him so young? He's "Lex Junior?" Why the floppy "Joker" hairdo? Why so many unflattering close-ups, looking up his nostrils? If they wanted him to seem insane, why not show some actual insanity... instead of some comedic drama queen behavior? Have him lose his temper. Have him cry like a kid. Have him pull his hair.
I liked it, but the whole "Save Martha!" turning point was laughable. I watched another video explaining it that made it make sense, but if you have to explain a major plot point of your film, you've kinda screwed up.
The best scenes were, ironically, with the non-billed Wonder Woman, whose appearance and musical theme added excitement to the movie, and made it a lot more fun, but I agree she seems shoehorrned in---from a much more fun comic book universe (as her stand alone film proved, she's a very good part of this universe).
Still not a fan of Amy Adams as Lois Lane, I just don't think her or the role works.
The opening introduction of Batman as this still-mysterious, vampire-like urban legend was good. Batman's fight scenes were great, as was Batman's new digs and the new Alfred. Lex Luthor was a good take, but you're right, his motivation needed to be fleshed out more. I believe his motivation was his hatred of father figures/God thanks to his abusive childhood, which makes him try to destroy Superman as a stand in for God/his own father, as Lex's religious iconography in his study, and his behavior as a childish imp show.
It was also confusing as how Lex knew how to create the monster. The whole "Do we need a Superman?" philosophical question really wasn't explained that well, and never has been, since the question is largely moot as there's really no way you can get rid of Superman beyond killing him, which would require a huge effort.
Still, the action was good, and after "save Martha!" everything seemed to make sense, though why Superman didn't insist on saving his own mother was strange (it's your Mom, dude).
+John Mateus I mean Lex's motives were really clear. His motivations boil down to two things, one his hatred of god and two his desire to prove that power cannot be innocent and the existence of a benevolent god is basically an existential threat towards that world view. His hatred of god because he blames god for a rough childhood and, like he constantly rails on about through the movie, "power cannot be innocent." Superman as a benevolent concept shatters and confronts Lex's worldview of supreme-power as inherently corrupt (either in the form of his abusive father or the god that let the abuse happen). And I actually like this as a motivation, its not based around real estate, or to get rich or to rule the world its a motivation based around ideology which is refreshingly original.
"It was also confusing as how Lex knew how to create the monster." Learned it from the ship.
"though why Superman didn't insist on saving his own mother was strange (it's your Mom, dude)." Because he's kryptonian with knowledge of their technology and the ship was going off. As for the save martha scene, it worked for me.
The biggest problem this movie had is that Batman is in it. It's obvious that the script began as Lois&Clark: DOOMSDAY, and then Warner shoehorned in Batman because they thought his mere presence would give them a billion in ticket sales.
If you zoom out enough you see that the framework is still there - Clark trying (and failing) to be the perfect superhero and getting progressively more despondent about it while Lois holds him together emotionally while putting together that Luthor has sabotaged Clark at every turn and smuggled something into the country. Bomb goes off, Clark flies away to be alone just like we saw, Lois confronts Luthor, Luthor throws her from rooftop, Clark catches, all just like we saw, and then instead of the hostage situation, Luthor cuts to the chase and unleashes DOOMSDAY planning to use the kryptonite to kill the thing after it kills Clark, only to discover that it's immune and that he has to help Clark kill the thing. No Batman or Wonder Woman, just Superman V. DOOMSDAY like the comic. At the end Clark flies Lois to safety, "You're my world," Clark goes back ,finishes beating DOOMSDAY to death, dies in Lois's arms, funeral, Lois gets the engagement ring, gravesite, roll credits.
That's what I mean when I say Batman was shoehorned in. He lifts right out.
I agree Dave it was moderately entertaining at times but I don't want to lower my movie watching standard to that. Movies for me have to be adult in nature, realistic in a current or near future world sense and the plot has to be plausible. Zack Snyder is the worse director for this, why because like JJ Abrams who clearly and forever fucked up Star Trek, Im a Trekkie vs a Star Wars fan. Zack and JJ are TV show directors who have not made the successful transition to movies. Batman V Superman like Man of Steel is always dark in nature, no sunny days, clear nights, everything is drab, depressing visual pallets that just scream I need a therapist after watching them. Batman after Dark Night Trilogy had an opportunity to show Bruce older, war weary, understanding a future where he would not be Batman and more elaborate suits would be necessary. DC completely fucked themselves with Zack as director and not grabbing Chris Nolan as the counterpart to Marvel's Kevin Feige.
You will see how DC casts The Flash standalone, Green Lantern Standalone, etc movies. DC heroes have a good even great origin story, it comes down to the writers, directors and casting the right actors for long term projects. Lets avoid the Robert Downey Jr-Iron Man-Tony Stark conumdrum that Marvel is facing. Marvel is on the ropes now as far as competition from DC, why because Agents of Shield was stupid from the start by not explaining the agent Colson character which who should never have been in the show. Add the failure of Inhumans TV show, Thor has medium to good success but nowhere near $1 Billion in sales.
Marvel will again screw themselves with Captain Marvel-Social Justice Warrior actress and storyline. Black Panther will help and should garner success on the level of Captain America Civil War. Back to DC, DC as you stated is rushing to play catch up to Marvel but not realizing Marvel is running out of gas so trying to catch them isn't necessary if they keep a steady learn from Marvel mistakes pace and soon will see their Rabbit and Turtle race won again by the turtle
Not wrong but surprising because there is so much in this film to hate. I too watched the 3 hour version and that's because I skipped it when it was in the theater. I'm not sure if the theatrical version is better or worse, but I can only imagine that if it is considered better the only reason for this comes from the fact that it's always better to consume less $hit instead of more. How you have anything good to say about Eisenberg is truly amazing seeing how his performance is so bad it will very likely be his last as Lex.
One of the things I actually liked most about this movie was the fact that we got Batman and Alfred in midstream. It felt like a nod to fans of Batman's voluminous lore that the Batman we saw in this movie was an older, grittier version (and I was pleasantly surprised by Affleck's performance in the role) that just assumed we knew the origins and even some of the things that would turn the Dark Knight even darker.
I do have to concur that Wonder Woman got a bit overemphasized and her grand entrance in the final battle kind of felt like a trailer for her movie.
I saw it cinema, and I thought it was the best superhero film in recent years. I never understood any of the hate, but then it all makes sense when you realize all the other movies, which are utter shit, get 10/10 reviews and cheering audiences.
Really? You mean the source material of the 1960s, right? Steve Rogers is a bullseye of his 60s identity (maybe with shades of his 40s identity as well). Tony Stark is very close to the source comic... Howard Hughes wealthy playboy needs an iron suit to keep him alive, and he starts to do superhero style activities. Only the comics didn't have Stark wisecracking as much as the films do. Hulk is fairly close... a brute motivated by rage. Thor is close... less noble and philosophic than Stan Lee's vision, but basically a good soul and moral warrior. Nick Fury is completely different, since we can no longer use a WW2 vet... and they have the incessant need to be PC, and showcase racial diversity.
You prefer the style of Logan and TDK because they're more realistic. So superheroes are realistic? Lol
Henry Cavill looks good as Superman and the suit is great. But he has no charisma. If you have no charisma, don't play Superman. He's not a good actor. Plain and simple
The movie isn't great, but I still think if they didnt reveal Doomsday in the trailer the film would have been more well received. The fact that everyone knew what was going to happen the WHOLE time I think is what hurt it the most in the long run...
I think you need to have a spoiler warning. Not all reviews have spoilers, so its good to know if it is a spoiler review or a spoiler free review.
I don't think that Ben Afleck needed his own Batman movie before this movie, or that there needed to be more solo movies before a group movie. Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman are so iconic that the average person knows who they are, and so you don't need an origin story. The main marvel characters don't have that iconic nature, outside of their fan base.
it's not for me that it's bad as a movie it's more the way they waste of The Death of Superman storyline and the completely incoherent plot (I only saw it once in the theater so I can't speak to what you saw) and that they are so clearly rushing towards Justice League that they forgot to have any character building.
One of the main problems with this movie is that the third act (where they fight the big ridiculous monster) came from out of nowhere and had almost nothing to do with what should have been the central focus of the movie (i.e. is superman's approach naive, is batman's approach too harsh?)
Also after watching the animated version a while back, I can say that compared to that this movie was a huge letdown.
Superman, Batman, they are still out there? They were the heroes of my childhood (1980ies), but i gave up on Holy(shit)wood long ago.
Now i go to a small cinema and pay four bucks to see an independent / low budget movie with a great story. Less CGI, more story :)
My chief complaint was that a super hero movie spent so much time presenting super heroes as a bad idea. The subplots of Batman's increasing brutality and governments worrying about Superman's extreme power felt very heavy-handed. Yes we know super heroes wouldn't really work in the real world. But that's the whole point, this is fantasy. Writers seem unwilling to let us enjoy that fantasy world for some reason.
In the end, I just didn't "get" this film. Lex Luthor, though portrayed well enough I guess, had no real reason to do what he did. Nothing was consistent. For example why would Lex be excited to see Kent and Wayne together? Wayne, sure, he's a fellow billionaire, but Kent (we are told) is a back-up sports writer for the Daily Planet, a newspaper whose readership is evidently on the wane.
If the government is worried about Superman, or other aliens, why don't they simply seize the krypotonite? Why does Superman refer to his mother as "Martha"? Why can't Supes swim a few feet with a kryptonite spear, but can fly with one? Why didn't Wonder Woman deliver the weapon?
I will defend this film however: Most of the Marvel films are just as stupid. (A guy with a bow and arrow and a chick with a 9mm can hold their own against people with superpowers? huh?)
“Any excuse to get Super heroes to fight each other these days. Just like with the Marvel Movies it seems...” Well, at least with the Avengers the motivations were a lot more realistic and on one end...logical. Tony Stark wanted to submit to the dictates of a feckless, European Union-like, and largely antisemite, quasi-Islamic state institution known as the U.N, while Steve Rogers wanted to remain independent, more freelance.
I agree. I read that Captain America had felt that he was cheated by authority after being a loyal soldier for so long, and Iron Man had suffered so much trauma and anxiety that he just wanted these sorts of decisions to be someone else's headache.
I don't quite understand where you're getting your impressions of the "European Union-like" body that you mentioned. Not that I'm disagreeing, just not sure where you're coming from
I hate the digital, washed out look of so many modern movies. I especially dislike it in comic book movies like this, because it seems as if they think removing the colour palette will make the movie seem more 'real' or life-like. There is something distinctly wrong, when you can pause a superhero movie like this and look around almost any room you are in and see more interesting and vibrant colours than you see on the screen. That isn't true of the Reeves Superman movies, or even the Burton Batman - which is almost entirely black, but a rich deep black, rather than a washed out grey. Colour won't make a bad movie good, but it will make the film more interesting to look at.
I saw this film in cinemas, I looked at no reviews, and I only watched 1 trailer, but I was still extremely disappointed with this movie. Thought the characters were awful and the scene where batman didn't kill superman because he said 'martha' was just ridiculous.
I was disappointed with the theatrical release but the director's cut made up for it in my opinion. I liked it, not as great as Avengers or Guardians but I still liked it.
'I just wish DC would do to their live-action movies whatever they do with their animated movies. Those are awesome and are far better than any of Marvel's animated flicks. Just use that formula on the big screen and see what happens.
Jesse Eisenberg was completely and utterly wrong as Luthor on every level. No one would listen to this guy, and his plans made no sense.
Also if I have to see one more round of Batman origins on screen again I will probably vomit. Who know who Batman is so we don't need to see his parents die in every fucking movie.
Finally Batman mows down a bunch of security guards for merely doing their jobs makes no sense.
Rolf Hartmann No one would listen to this guy? And yet people do because he has MONEY and INFLUENCE! Did you forget that Lex is Rich as Shit and in charge of a TECH company with contract to the US government?
The whole concept of Batman fighting Superman is stupid and wrong. Sickening.
They're both supposed to be super *heroes*. Good guys.
Over the past decades, "superheroes" have been turned into the modern day equivalent of Olympian gods, with all the immaturity and immorality that goes along with them. No longer do they make right and wrong into black and white matters for little boys as they did in the early days.
Originally, Superman stood for "Truth, Justice and the American Way". We used to know what that was and what it meant. But we've made the world so ambiguous, we've dirtied it with shades of gray, we've politically corrected it so as to appeal to the widest demographic, that they're not heroes at all. Just opinionated assholes with super powers.
Adam West's "Batman" might have been laughable to adults, but as a little kid I learned that doing right is rewarded and doing wrong is punished.
It's like what they did with G.I. Joe. Owned now by a Japanese toy company, as I understand it. I remember playing with G.I. Joes when I was a kid. I didn't fight some weirdo international criminal organization ("Cobra"). I fought Japs and Krauts and N. Koreans and Viet Cong and Soviets and Chinese. G.I. Joe represented real heroes who put their frail flesh on the line for...truth, justice and the American way. And America's lost the way.
Superman and Batman were once servants of Mankind... not because they had to, but because they *believed* in us. And because they ultimately believed in the triumph of good over evil. Now they don't even seem to know the difference between the two. That's why these movies have become repetitive. It always has to be some super powerful "outsider" come to kill us all or enslave us all or make us all eat genetically modified foods.
In the original Iron Man that started this cycle, who was ultimately the bad guy? The warlords? The Moslems? Nope, the American capitalist partner of Tony Stark.
The Guardians of the Galaxy? Suicide Squad? Deadpool? WTF has gotten into people anymore?
Screw "Superhero" movies. Screw the new Pantheon.
What made no sense to me is that the film had an excellent opportunity to clear up the waters with the whole "Zod thing", introduce the opposition and deepen the character of superman and yet it went to the completely different route entirely. It was jarring that instead of exploring the whole event of Zod's invasion from different perspectives, we were introduced to this confusing mess of a plot with Lex trying to make Batman and Superman fight each other.
I am the opposite of you in this regard, though I may not be forever. I've only seen the Theatrical cut, so, from my perspective the film does deserve all the Hatred it got. I think the bad reaction as due to this being the only version may saw, and only one you could see till the DVD and Blue Ray release.
I've heard the Ultimate Edition is better, so I may watch it one day, just to see.
One thing I realized that affected it the most was the "batman v superman" in the title. If they had gone with DAWN OF JUSTICE then I think it would have been a bit better. Since this was a VS /V movie everyone expected a big fight and it didn't help that it was being pushed as a VS/V movie at comic con. Dawn of justice (not batman v superman imo) did the opposite of the avengers. Think of the avengers as you meeting people and becoming friends then going to a party together. Dawn of justice is a party you went to and met people then became friends. Same outcome, but different way to go about it. As much as I loved the movie I will admit that they did get a bit crazy with putting more than 1 story in one movie. But when you have the fans breathing down your neck and your competitor has a head start its no surprise you're going to fumble a bit at the start of your run. I get the feeling DC felt like a daughter who's nagging mother kept asking her "when are you going to get married, all your friends are married and happy. Why aren't you?" over and over again to the point where you just make mistakes. Their problem was buckling under pressure and coming up with different ideas every 5 minutes. I also don't blame them, a lot of people are saying the same thing I've been saying and that is "we're getting comic book movie fatigue". many of us fans are just getting tired and almost 10 years of nothing but mostly marvel we are getting a bit bored. DC wants a bit of the market before people drop these movies. I'm personally done with marvel movies after civil War.
The film was to an extent slandered ish.I thought it was very good and since watching the film i don't watch anymore film reviews, apart from yours :) I can't help but feel that it didn't appeal to some moviegoers because it was more of an intellectual script and that was something that was missing from a lot of these movies. science fiction took an evolutionary step forward with this film in more ways than one.
Dominic Huntsman. You said it best it's entertainment like the entertainment i get from people who reply to me :) Nobody agreed with me i agreed with Dave who just happens to be the nearest thing to Barry Norman where reviews are concerned and Stephen Hawking's where the mind is concerned albeit a bit more agile. it is refreshing to get a semi detached but at the sametime polite reply. There's a joke that would sum up the reviews that modern films get it goes like this ( How many directors does it take to screw in a lightbulb? one and 14 more to say i could have done a better job :) I know what i said might sound opinionated but I'm not opinionated I'm just always right.
I know it's just there are bad films that got better reviews and i really liked BvS
Daves review was one of the few reviews that gave an unbiased true opinion of the film.
Movies seem to be going the same way as religion or sport, your damned if you like it and your damned if you don't. when at the end of the day there just films entertainment plus popcorn :)
Oh and thank you so very much for being polite.
B-rad - I stopped watching Batman and superman a long time ago as there was to much ( Boom & Capow & terrible scripts ) and all the sets looked like they were filmed on a listing ship oh and the obligatory wannabe critic.
This film changed that for me. as for Dude Where's My Car well that film ranks as one of my favourite films of all time.
I believe ladybird books might have the type of intellectual stimulation that your looking for :)
Jason O'Sullivan intellectual script!? Batman fights Superman. Batman and Superman find out their dead mothers have the same first name. Batman and Superman are best friends. Batman and superman team up with wonderwoman ( who, like dave said, had no purpose in the movie besides promoting her upcoming movie). The trio kills the bad monster. Superman dies. Superman starts to come back to life to segway into the sequel.
Not sure what is so intellectual about the script. But if you thought this was intellectual, i can recommend a real thought provoking movie called "dude, wheres my car?"
I only saw the extended cut as well. And I agree with most points you make, it is very clear WW was just thrown in, she should not have been in this film, not like this. The problem is there is no going back now, they can't fix this. I have no idea what mess JL will be.
Thought the warehouse fight scene with Batman was great in this movie.
If Zack Snyder wasn't a moron and had a creative partner to reign in his style over substance approach to film making, he could probably make a great Batman movie, will never happen at the point though. And to think DC hitched their wagon to Snyder, just fucking up on nearly every front.
I thought it was boring ALL the way through .. and really Ben just can't be Batman for me. No real source of conflict between characters other than their inability to grunt their intentions at each other.
Personally I think all your problems with Henry Cavill are all valid, except that they're mostly problems with Superman in general. He's a terrible character really, it's gonna be difficult to make him interesting or relatable. I've never enjoyed Superman in anything but the Injustice game where Lois dies and he goes batshit.
....... Dave, have you read the comic books? I think you don't understand the pain of those who know the stories had to go through this cuntfisted garbage fuckpile of a movie.
even as a stand alone movie, this is the best excuse you can give to this piece of multibillion $ failure
I think part of the reason that it was such a let down was that Snyder did such an amazing job with Watchmen, that movie was pretty much a shot for shot translation of the book to the screen.
Another major problem was that they tried to sandwich at least four major story arcs from the comics (all of them had novel length story runs) into one movie. The DCAU did it so much better because they made all of those arcs into separate movies. Hell, DCAU's version of The Dark Knight Returns runs close to three hours when both parts are watched in one sitting.
Overall, I think the disappointment comes from that fact that a lot of us big time DC fans have waited literally for years to see our favorite characters portrayed live on the big screen and true to the comics, and these movies just aren't doing that. They should just hand over the franchises to the guys doing the Animated Universe, they know how to make a movie that's true to the comics.
Thanks Dave, that was a well 'reserved' review of one the worst Super Hero movies. I'm glad that you found things in the movie that i simply glanced over. You have given me a new opinion of the film even though i still think it was TERRIBLE. In all honesty, this movie would have gotten better reviews if: Superman discovers he is GAY and batman, would finally admit to his WHITE GUILT of being WHITE, RICH, and Powerful etc. In all honesty, the fight sequence should have taken 15 seconds once Superman uses his X RAY vision (24/7) sees the green rocks, then vaporises batman either through his eyes or FREEZES the mutha f@cker through super breath............. REALLY, its no story at all.