Lol since when does Superman call Ma Kent by her first name?

lol since when does Superman call Ma Kent by her first name?

Other urls found in this thread:

audienceseverywhere.net/mean-film-make-sense/
youtu.be/z5FZkuu9vII
youtube.com/watch?v=0Y8iRvQdSGA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

He's begging him to save her, so he's trying to tell him who she is. That's why he's calling her by her first name.

Since when are you so fucking stupid?

THAT'S HIS MOMMY

Should've saged so the thread could've died. Now it's back to page 1

How someone's first name be useful in that situation?

I chalk it up to bad writing.
They should have had Lois say it.

So why not say Martha Kent?

Since Snyder literally wrote this script.

He also wrote the base script for JL and that movie is clearly fucked too.

Gee, it's almost like Batman had his foot on Superman's throat, he was in pain, and he was struggling to get the words out.

He said a lot of stuff before

>SAY VEMARTHA

What does Vemartha mean?

How would a first name help batman find his mom?

LOIS EXPOSITIONWOMAN IS HERE TO CLEAR EVERYTHING SHE'S THE KEY TO ALL THIS.

ALFRED GOOGLE MARTHA K-KENT

A MARTHA KENT DISAPPEARED FROM KANSAS 2 DAYS AGO

TO THE BATMOBILE

since the plot needed a way to call back to martha

Bravissimo Snyder

Is this a DCfag false flag or are Marvelfags this dumb?

clone confirmed

It's one extra syllable for fuck sake...

not with the foot on his throat he didnt.

She DID say it, like right after this

Did Batman know his secret identity at that point?

>We have to save mom!

>Why did you say that word? That's what I called MY mom!

Shit writing.

Don't say it too loud, those fuckers that have read philosophy books will apply some random analysis to say the movie is "deep" even though the same analysis would probably apply to The Cleveland Show.

Yep if I were to say "I have kids!" I say "Jim and Mary"

Jim is a fag and Mary is a slut.

>those fuckers that have read philosophy books
Those monsters! Why can't everyone just watch trashy blockbusters all day?

Since he learned Lex's trick and copied it to defeat Batman. Top quality strategist with a super-brain.

Exactly. It just didn't feel right, so it took a lot of people out of the scene, hence it's notoriety.

Yes, and it's idiotic that he wouldn't have known the name of Clark's mother considering lineage is one of the first things you'd learn while researching a person's history.

When is it implied that Bruce knows who Clark is?

It was supposed to be Mary first because off all the jesus stuff.

I thought it was supposed to be the moment where Batman would go "maybe murder is a bit too far after all, people have families", not even 5 minutes later he's killing everybody in that warehouse fight and the extended edition makes it even worse.
Guess i was wrong.

only to explain the confusion, not for confirmation to save that person

>audienceseverywhere.net/mean-film-make-sense/

>Let’s look at a major climactic moment in both films. In Civil War, the final brawl between Cap and Tony is spurred by the revelation that Bucky killed Tony’s parents. Cap tries to reason with Tony. After all, Bucky was brainwashed at the time. “I don’t care. He killed my mom,” says Tony, and the fight begins. In Batman v Superman, the title bout is about to end with Batman skewering Superman on a Kryptonite spear when Superman asks him to “save Martha.” Martha Kent is his adoptive mother’s name, and Lex Luthor is holding her hostage to induce the fight. Martha also happens to be the first name of Batman’s murdered mother. This revelation humanizes Superman in Batman’s eyes. He throws down his weapon and agrees to help. “No Marthas will die tonight.”

>Civil War’s mom scene is the result of a lot of context-free scenes scattered throughout the film. It opens with the Starks’ murder, though we don’t know it’s them just yet. Tony’s first appearance is in a memory of the last time he saw his parents. The night of their death is revisited a few times before the moment where Tony learns the truth. It’s all seeded so precisely. You can’t argue that it comes out of nowhere. It makes logical sense, but is there an emotional truth? Civil War doesn’t put in the legwork to make this scene mean anything. All it cares about is getting to the scene without tripping.

>Then there’s Batman v Superman. Its mom scene was widely and loudly mocked. From the Civil War lens, the scene doesn’t make sense. Why does Superman call his mother by her first name here? Why does Batman care enough to immediately stop trying to kill Superman? There isn’t a checklist of previous scenes that explicitly set up this one. Most people found it ridiculous. Unlike Civil War’s mom scene, Batman v Superman’s has an emotional truth at its core. We know Batman harbors tremendous guilt about the deaths of his parents. We know that he is threatened by Superman’s superhumanity, and disgruntled over being lectured on his brutal methods by a man who killed thousands in his fight against General Zod. It’s only when he sees Superman at his weakest, begging for his mother, that Batman can see himself in Superman. He drops the spear because he recognizes Superman’s essential human frailty for the first time. Yes, it takes a goofy and nonsensical route on its way to that moment. It’s enough that the moment itself is so emotionally raw. It has a naked power that something as overwritten as Civil War never comes close to achieving.

You guys are fucking dumb.

Superman learned Batman's identity during the gala Lex Luthor threw together when he opened Metropolis Public Library. Superman heard Bruce talking with Alfred about hacking Lex's servers with his super-powers. That was the only reason why Clark went to interview Bruce about Gotham and Batman, and later followed him around the place before going to Mexico to rescue that girl from the burning house.
So Superman knew that Batman = Bruce Wayne and that Bruce's mother's name was Martha, like his.

Batman during the fighting was trash-talking Superman's parents, as if they were probably aliens too. Here's what he said as he dragged Superman: "I bet your parents taught you that you mean something, that you're here for a reason. My parents taught me a different lesson, dying in the gutter for no reason at all... They taught me the world only makes sense if you force it to." This was taken directly from the DKR comic.

So Superman knew what name to use in an attempt to appeal to Batman vigilante senses. Superman use of that name connected to his past as well the way Superman said it, which reminded Batman of his father uttering the same thing during his last moments, chocked and angered Batman. You can see that Batman's pissed off and threatening Superman to explain himself while still holding the kryptonite spear.

It is only after Lois showed up to explain that the "Martha" Superman talked about was actually Superman's earthly mother and that she was in danger that Batman thought things over and threw the spear in disgusting, taking the opportunity to save Superman's mom to redeem himself, because he still felt guilty about letting his parents die, specially his mom.
You can see this in the moment that Superman was about to go and rescue his own moment, before Batman stopped him and said that he'd do it, and that Superman should go see Lex and the Scout Ship, because something was happening to it.

There, was that so hard?

This.

>all this subjectivity
I don't know why some people try to make objective statements based on their own subjective opinions.

Civil War resonated emotionally with me just fine.

So? They say as much at the end.

>For the record, I don’t even like Batman v Superman all that much. But I’d rather it was the future of blockbuster cinema than Civil War. The former is messy and stupid, but riddled with blunt feelings and vague psychology. The latter is sensible and clinical, but there’s no there there. Both films are all about building up to a big fight. Civil War wants to justify its fight, excusing its own gratuitous fanservice by laying out the path it takes to get there. Batman v Superman doesn’t make sense by that definition, but it feels like it does. For me, the power of cinema is in feeling more than comprehending. I understood Civil War perfectly. It just didn’t have anything worth understanding.

But frankly, most people were more drawn to the emotionally tense scene in CW where Tony finds out Bucky killed his parents, not to mention the ending scene where Black Panther throws away his hatred towards Zemo.

I also disagree with the notion that BvS 'feels' like it makes sense, in all honesty.

>Civil War’s mom scene is the result of a lot of context-free scenes scattered throughout the film. It opens with the Starks’ murder, though we don’t know it’s them just yet. Tony’s first appearance is in a memory of the last time he saw his parents. The night of their death is revisited a few times before the moment where Tony learns the truth. It’s all seeded so precisely. You can’t argue that it comes out of nowhere. It makes logical sense

But... there are set-ups for the "Martha" scene.

Batman in the movie felt powerless about helping the people in his life, not only his parents but also his partner Robin, his employees at the Metropolis attack and the people of Gotham in general.

Batman felt so powerless that he started to see his life mission as futile.

Batman seeing his life as futile made him to wonder about his parents death a lot and how he failed them and their legacy, to the point where him being older than his father when he died and still having accomplished nothing of worth being something that gnawed at his core.

Batman because of all this was having constant nightmares about his parents deaths, his mom and the bat, to the point where he wasn't being able to sleep properly and was taking hardcore medicines to function.

Batman in the film is shown constantly saving women. For example during the Metropolis attack, when he finds that little girl his first question is to ask where her mother was, not were her parents were. This show that Batman was constantly obsessed about saving the female figure. This has to do with his father, because in the movie it is alluded (although not that much) that Batman based himself on his father role model, and since his father went down trying to defend Martha, his mom, Batman took that as something that he also had obligation to do.

So the Martha scene did indeed have a bit of set-up leading up to it in an attempt to explain Batman head space.

The base concept in the MARTHA scene was fine, Bruce suddendly realizing that Superman wasn't an animal to be put down but a person with loved ones just like him.

The problem is that the excecution was awful and destroyed all the potential the scene could have.

Like, scant seconds before the MARTHA, Batman tellls Superman something along the lines of "I bet your parents told you, you were special". So, the movie shows he IS aware that Superman must have had parents that cared for him, and then goes on into Batman realizing that very same thing? Nonsense.

Then, the whole calling your mother by name. Nobody does that, which for many made the scene feel forced and silly.

THEN, you hava Lois awkwardly coming up and having to spell it to Bruce (I guess by this time, Snyder had realized that Lois had to do SOMETHING in the movie), which is both unecessary and redundant, because hey, there is a woman right there who quite obviously knows and cares for Superman.

Again, the scene could be fine with some very minor changes, but Zack Snyder and his pals were more interested in showing cool shit than delivering a coherent and poignant moment.

Fucking please, i made the sad choice of studying philosophy for the last 3 years and i cringe every single time people mention Plato and whatnot to try paint these movies as something they definetly aren't

I garantee you those people never touched one of those books

>there are people in Sup Forums who fell for the "overanalizing BvS and calling it Kino" Sup Forums meme

See .

Superman called his mother by her name because he knew that Batman would give no crap about his parents precisely because of what Batman had said earlier.

If Superman had said "You're letting them kill my mom!", Batman would simple say "Well, then. One less alien to kill" and go on with the killing.

Superman also knew Batman real identity and knew that the Martha name would chock him momentarily.

Why you guys never take that into account? WHY?

I'm not sure who I feel sorry for more, the guys making something out of nothing with 'kinoposting' or you studying philosophy for the last three tears.

But can you say why Bucky killing Tony's parents is in the movie? They set up the how, but why is it there? It just feels like some weird add on to the story. The MARTHA fits into the movie in a character based way, it says something about Bruce and Clark. What does the Civil war scene say about Bucky, Tony, and Steve?

That's all character stuff, which is why the MARTHA scene works I think. But there's no plot reason for it to happen.

What i don't get is why Captain America, in all these years, never told Tony about Bucky being brainwashed to kill the Starks.

Tony's father was Steve's good friend, too. If anything he should have done out of respect for his friend.

But the plot reason is that Superman used something that he knew would affect Batman in a deep way in order to gain some time. You can see that Batman was shocked and angry, clutching at the spear on his hand and screaming at Superman to explain why he had said that name. Superman was still trying to catch his breath and strength.

And then Lois showed up.

Tony knows Bucky was brainwashed, but it's hard to get over your emotions when you've literally just watched a video of them being murdered when all the years before you thought they just died in an accident.
As for Steve, he only found out during the Winter Soldier movie, not sure how long that time span is, even then he wasn't quite certain, it was the Zola scene if you forgot.
youtu.be/z5FZkuu9vII
>accidents will happen
Otherwise if you still aren't sure you could watch the end of Civil War again, he wrote Tony a letter explaining himself.

Why did Superman know that would effect Batman that way?

If nothing else i won't spend the next 3 years trying to convince the world i did something incredible

Well, the death of his parents was something that is shown to profoundly have affected Tony, to the point he spent an absurd amount of cash to develop an incredibly advanced and revolutionary technology simply to ease his pain. It is part of what springs Zemo's trap on the heroes.

And the parent's death was part of the larger plot, Howard was delivering the serum, as he had become aware that SHIELD was compromised by HYDRA. Hell, it was setup in Winter Soldier.

The scene doesn't work if Bruce knows Clark's secret identity. The entire thing is predicated on Bruce having Lex's characterization and Lex being the only one that's able to work out secret identities, but not evil enough to do shit after the fact.

Because Superman knew who Batman was.

youtube.com/watch?v=0Y8iRvQdSGA

so instead of saying "you are letting him kill Martha" how about "save Martha kent"

Bruce didn't had Lex characterization. Lex never thought of what he did as futile or wanted to kill himself along with Superman.

Lex also did a lot of nasty shit with the knowledge of their secret identities.

He didn't, anyone saying he did know is misreading the scene. He's just desperately trying to save his mom, at first Batman thinks Superman is playing some kind of mind game on him (by saying Bruce's mother's name), but when he realises it's Superman's mum he sees himself in him. That's why he stops.

Because one hinges on your guilt and small window of time while the other doesn't.

Superman knew very well who Batman was and what effect Martha's name would have. He brought time with it.

>But can you say why Bucky killing Tony's parents is in the movie?
What do you mean by "why"?
That was Zemo's entire plan, not the accords shit. It was a wedge he purposefully went out and found so he could drive the team apart.

>What does the Civil war scene say about Bucky, Tony, and Steve?
That Steve is still living in the past and will put stuff that reminds him of his past ahead of his future, and that he believes in extenuating circumstances but taking responsibility for one's actions, while Tony is off being full totalitarian in order to absolve himself of his own guilt and responsibility and claims futurism as a means to justify his selfishness.

So their deaths affect Tony to make a machine that does exposition for him? No one's arguing his parents' death isn't important to the plot, just what does it mean? It's like it was written into it to make Tony angry and that's it.

>What i don't get is why Captain America, in all these years, never told Tony about Bucky being brainwashed to kill the Starks.

It's a fair guess that Cap wanted to capture Bucky first.

Plus, in Winter Soldier he only became aware that Tony's parents were murdered by HYDRA's orders, not who specifically did it. He obviously came up with the info at some point of his investigations, but we don't know when, could it be fairly recent.

>Tony knows Bucky was brainwashed, but it's hard to get over your emotions when you've literally just watched a video of them being murdered when all the years before you thought they just died in an accident.

See, that's the contrived thing. If Tony had learned earlier during a better moment he might still be angry but he'd have time to think things over.

>As for Steve, he only found out during the Winter Soldier movie, not sure how long that time span is, even then he wasn't quite certain, it was the Zola scene if you forgot.

They had two or three movies between that. Tons of times for Steve to tell Tony about what he learned.

The reason why he didn't was because of "reasons" and because Tony learning about it in the worst moment would add to the film.

no he did not.

Steve still had time to tell Tony in a better moment.

>Bruce didn't had Lex characterization.
Let me rephrase. Bruce has COMIC Lex's myopia.
You know that whole "Bruce didn't think Clark was even human and didn't have a secret identity" thing you guys keep claiming makes the movie make sense?
That's Lex's thing in the comic as to why he doesn't recognize that Superman and Clark Kent are the same guy. There's even a point where he gets a facial recognition program, the program says "100% certainty. Superman is Clark Kent" and rather than believe that the alien god would want to slum it as the ultimate beta male, Lex tosses the computer in the trash.

The movie only works if Batman is too dumb and myopic, for whatever reasons you want to attribute to him, to figure out who Superman is on his own. The justification you give for that myopia is one that traditionally belongs to Lex Luthor. The ability to discern Clark's secret identity using one's intellect and open-mindedness on the other hand, is usually given to Batman. The two were switched.

But now that I've said that you'll try and deny it because the movie is supposed to be "perfect".

Yes, he fucking did. Watch the movie.

So the bit about Tony's parents is just there so the Avengers have reason to split? Doesn't really say anything about the characters. And all the stuff you say it says are implied by the rest of the movie, that scene doesn't add anything.

Nothing in the film implies Clark knows about Bruce's mother. You're filling that in with your own head to explain why he says her first name.

Either you're intentionally obfuscating meaning in order to deride something as more shallow than it is, or you're looking at one chapter and claiming it's the entirety of the book. Either way what you're doing is intellectually dishonest

>a machine that does exposition for him?

It's literally NOT exposition because Tony immediately points that's not how it really happened. The scene is there to show the extents Tony goes to get over his parents deaths.

>Lex tosses the computer in the trash.
this looks hilarious in my head.
>Bruce has COMIC Lex's myopia.
this

>So the bit about Tony's parents is just there so the Avengers have reason to split?
Not that user, but are you serious right now? Yes, the villain, his goals and the means to achieve that goal were "just there" so there could be a movie. What kind of question is that?

>Doesn't really say anything about the characters
You must be doing this on purpose, he just explained that to you

>Nothing in the film implies Clark knows about Bruce's mother.

This is true, he didn't even know who Bruce Wayne was.

People who think that Batman thought of Superman as some sort of monster didn't payed attention to the movie.

Batman's biff with Superman wasn't because he was an alien. Not entirely.

Batman whole arc was that he stopped believing in the mission. He started to think that putting on a costume and acting as a hero was futile and only brought problems.

He began to think like that after he witnessed Superman battling Zod. That's why he thought back on Robin's death, something that was cause by his mission.

The hole deal was about collateral damage. Batman would ruin only Gotham and his close associates, but Superman had the potential of fucking the whole world. That's why Batman's resolve got stronger and stronger with each new news about Superman's lately fuck-ups.

ITT: DEFENSE FORCE thinking harder about this three second exchange of dialogue than Zack Snyder has about literally anything he's done in his entire life.

Intellectually dishonest? I'm just saying it seems like an asspull to give the climax some emotion.

If Superman knew who Batman was he'd know about the Waynes murder.

He knew. He picked on it when Bruce was talking with Alfred through the coms.

Are you Donald Trump by chance? Is it hard for you to empathize with a person, fictional or not, that they would have a hard time keeping it together when thinking about a dead loved one?

Why is that, when Marvel or DC movies are being discussed, people invariably bring the "well, at least the movies from the other guys are dumber in this way" argument? because that's a shitty defense, you are not actually arguing that the movie you like is good, just that the other movie is worse.

>Yes, the villain, his goals and the means to achieve that goal were "just there" so there could be a movie.

Yeah, but it doesn't mean they can't also have some meaning. It's just easier to throw it in there without any thought. What's a good way to make Tony mad at the climax? Have Bucky be his parents' killer!

Didn't Tony build Iron Man because he wanted to be a better person after years of neglecting his shit and his company?

You do know that the movie was scripted also by other people, right?

Yes, he became Bruce was Batman, but he literally did not know *who* was Bruce Wayne, another reporter even mocks him for that.

>Is it hard for you to empathize with a person, fictional or not, that they would have a hard time keeping it together when thinking about a dead loved one?

I'm not arguing that, that's obvious. That's actually the part that makes it feel so easy and cheap.

When you only have one leg to stand on, that's the leg you stand on.

>Yeah, but it doesn't mean they can't also have some meaning

And it doesn't have meaning because...?

So because it makes too much sense it's bad?

He didn't knew who Bruce was BEFORE hearing him talking with Alfred through the coms. You really think that he wouldn't check up on Bruce after that whole exchange between them?

Sure, they could have shown a scene with Clark googling the Waynes murder, but still.

And ultimately it is the director who says "this is it, this script is fine".

Because otherwise Marvel "wins".
And Sup Forums says they're shallow popcorn movies and not deep, so it must be true.

Because it has nothing at all to do with what the movie has been pretending it's about.

autism: the thread

I think what user is saying that maybe Zemo plans would have be better, at least for him, if his plans to split the Avengers apart was something other than what happened with Tony's parents.

I kinda agree with him, because that's something that only affects Steve and Tony relationship, which wasn't that big or strong anyway, and also because Steve had tons of moments to tell Tony about it.

But he's still nit-picking the shit out of the movie.

Weird how Zack Snyder is literally the only filmmaker that gets this pass. Funny how you always hear "M. Night Shyamalan is a hack!" instead of "Goddammit! It looks like M. Night Shyamalan was tragically tricked through no fault of his own into making a film written by horrible screenplay writers for the seventeenth time in a row!"

People are too hard on Shyamalan.

M. Night Shyamalan usually script his own movies, though.

For example i try to defend the directors that worked on the Thor movies, because seriously, they're all fine. It's the studio and the scripts faults. The scripts are usually changed tons of times.