Batman vs Superman Ultimate Edition: Does it make the movie better?

The biggest issue with the theatrical cut of the film is that there wasn't much content. There was a lot of time jumps and skips. A lot of story lines introduced but not really explored. All to cut it down to a watchable run time for your average movie-goer. Now let's breakdown what the ultimate edition adds and see if it helps the film as a whole.

Subplot in Africa is explored more:

We see a little bit more depth here. The under cover agent who dies to protect Lois is given a name...Jimmy Olsen, A nice nod to the character who is Superman's best friend in the comics. We see a new female character added as well who seems to be a mole planted by Lex to help turn people against Superman. She testifies to the senate and blames him for the death of her "family" in the attacks he is believed to be responsible for.

Superman is more human:

My biggest issue with the film when I first saw it was the lack of Superman. We pretty much just saw him pose and use his powers. Throw in the occasional one liner and that's it. We didn't see any more depth or exploration from him as a character, It might as well have just been a Batman film. In the ultimate cut, We see him investigate this bat vigilante of Gotham as Clark Kent. We see him interact with more people and actually be human. It was nice to see that and it was something that definitely should have been in the original cut of the film. It made the character feel a lot less wooden and a lot more real.

Aside from that, We have a few small filler scenes that don't really amount of much and that's it. Now as to how I'd rate it. When I first saw the film, I gave it a 7 out of 10 despite it's flaws. I am gonna stick with that score. The ultimate cut helps explain a couple of plot lines better and explores Superman's character depth a bit more but nothing major is really added. The ultimate cut helps make sense of things that may have confused you in the theatrical cut but doesn't really improve the film as a whole.

What could possibly improve a bad movie more than making it 30 minutes longer?

-Byshop

I didnt have as much of a problem with superman in the movie. The trouble was that most of the other characters were very under developed. The movie tried to introduce too much at once. It would have been better to have a batman film with the new batman before this one.

my only problem was with jessie esienbergs performace as lex luthor he reminded me more of the joker than lex luther.

I haven't seen the movie and have no intention of watching either cut, but it just annoys me this trend of making a movie and then immediately releasing the "proper" cut right afterwards. Feels like a ripoff. I understand that some movies get neutered by studio executives for various stupid reasons, and have no problem with director's cut that is released later. My problem is that when we know that the alternate cut is being put together before the theatrical cut is even released, it just feels like a ripoff.

With something like Blade Runner, it was a while before another cut was released. So it genuinely feels more like, "we screwed up by hindering the director's vision, here's what he really wanted you to see." And more importantly, by allowing some time to pass, this guarantees that they still have to make a good theatrical cut. Even if it's inferior to the director's vision, no one's gonna care about a proper director's cut 3 years down the road if the movie was always shitty in the first place. The movie already has to get some relevance with the inferior theatrical cut for anyone to actually care that a better version is now being released.

But that goes out the window with this lame double-dipping shit. If they were planning on releasing a "proper" cut before the theatrical cut was even released, then that tells me that they were INTENTIONALLY making the movie shittier just so they could sell it to me twice. They can **** off with that. And to top it off, they're releasing the better version pretty much IMMEDIATELY, which shows that they're trying to get people to double dip really quickly before time has passed and everyone decides they don't want ANY cut of the movie. I seriously hate this shit. It's a horrible trend that deserves to die.

Byshop - I enjoyed the movie for the most part. Flawed but good. Loved Affleck as Batman and I think he's the best and most realistic Batman we've ever seen. The ultimate cut really just explains the Africa sub-plot a bit more and that's about it. The rest is just filler scenes that don't offer much to the plot.

Sonicare - I think they set up BvS perfectly with Man of Steel and I loved that introduction of Bruce running into the wreckage to save people. It wouldn't have really worked having a sequel to Man of Steel and a solo Batman film before the epic clash. I do agree that they introduced too much too soon. I would have made a casual mention of the JL at the end, Like they did with the Avengers at the end of Iron Man. Probably cut out Wonder Woman's part too because she was really just eye candy until the very end.

Johnmclane26 - Agreed. I would have preferred an older Lex. Someone like Bryan Cranston....if only right?

MrGeezer - I also agree. Most director's cuts are garbage and do nothing to add for the original film. I think the only exceptions would be for Blade Runner and Apocalypse Now, At least that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

That's pretty much how I look at it. They tried to cram to much into one movie, I guess they are trying to catch up with the marvel movies.

Superman II: Richard Donner cut is glorious. If you haven't, check that out.

@sayyy-gaa:
Yeah that's another one that truly makes the film that much better.

That was an excellent break down. I totally think the 30 minutes makes a huge difference, and liked it much more. Not need to say, i own it.

I really didn't like it. It's probably my least favorite Zach Snyder movie, maybe after Sucker Punch. Snyder has always been style over substance, and that's fine, because he's got a great sense of style. The film was mostly competently made, but the screenplay was awful which is surprising because there is a good Batman Vs Superman storyline they could have used already but instead they wrote a completely new and very mediocre one. Loose character motivations, tons of plot holes, Eisenberg's Luthor was way too over the top (which is too bad because I think he's a good casting choice).

-Byshop

They had to introduce so much to catch up to Marvel, who took numerous films to introduce as many characters as DC did in one. After this one though, I think we can expect a lot higher quality stuff. As least Affleck isn't rushing his solo Batman film and actually wants it to be written well before he even considers to start filming. I have very high hopes with James Wan behind Aquaman and the Wonder Woman film looks very promising as well. Not sold on Flash though because of how good the TV show is and they have the writers of Green Lantern, which was just a mess of a movie, writing the script.

My bro who only knew the negative things some critics were saying, watched the extended edition that I got a week ago or so for the first time, and said he enjoyed it. I watch the theatrical and I enjoyed it but I enjoyed the extended even more. It fleshes out the story slightly and makes it more manageable. I still think some will still get confused and not know what's going on though but that's because they don't know the source material from the comics. I'm still getting it on disc because I want to see the deleted scenes and extras.

Cant cure the fact that Zach Snyder cannot write a film with a clear direction, Eisenberg ripped of Ledger's joker, cant make Wonder Woman have a point, cant make Doomsday good like he was in the Death of Superman, cant make Superman be such an insufferable, wooden prick.

I was actually happy about Batman murking people. It;s about time he starts killing people, instead of putting them in jail, to let them escape time and time again to kill more, while he rationalizes like a sociopath.

@hillelslovak:
He didn't write BvS.

He still directed it. If I saw a script like that, I would demand it be changed.

Yes, when Batman is running around murking people you know the world has gone mad.

-Byshop

Probably better off buying the straight to DVD/Blueray animated movies - pretty much all of them have been fantastic where for years the live action movies failed. Bought The Dark Knight Returns for my nephew 2 Christmas' ago, hopefully he's watching that and not this crap.

Not as mad as putting people who have killed thousands into a prison you know will escape, only to kill more, and play yourself off as a hero. Batman is weird.

@uninspiredcup: Yup. That's the better storyline I was referring to.

-Byshop

Most director's cuts aren't an improvement and aren't necessary, but at least when they're released YEARS after the original version, the movie still has to have some relevance or else they wouldn't have bothered releasing a director's cut. Like, I prefer the theatrical cut of Alien, but by the time the director's cut had been released Alien had cemented its relevance. Even if the director's cut is worse, it's still interesting to see how it was "supposed" to turn out.

But these "director's cuts" that get released immediately after the movie goes on home video? They haven't earned a director's cut. That's not something that's likely to have any relevance in even 5 years time, and they're trying to sell us a better version the second the movie goes on home video? Nuts to that. If they thought they had a better version in the can, then they should have made THAT the theatrical version instead. Then maybe the movie WOULD have some relevance in 5 years (though still, probably not).

But yeah, that should be the standard. Release the movie, then wait a few years (I'm gonna arbitrarily say 5 years, but your mileage may vary). If people still care about your movie after 5 years, then go ahead and release a director's cut. But if after 5 years no one cares about your movie, then don't bother. Director's cuts are for movies that people care about, and no one cares about your shitty movie. If you had a better version of the movie ready for theatrical release 5 years back, then THAT should have been the official theatrical release and then MAYBE now people would actually give a shit about your movie.

Even the director's cut didn't save the movie, It just helped explain sub plots a bit more. I think we can all agree that outside some epic one liners and Affleck's performance, This movie sort of sucked. I still liked it better than Civil War, Now that was some predictable garbage.

I watched the Extended cut and have not seen the Theatrical version, so I don't know if it makes the movie better. I give this version a 5/10.

Batman doesn't kill, if he kills then it isn't Batman.

If a film wants to explore a radical idea, an idea which I be honest, I think is impossible to reconcile with the very concept of the Batman; An idea which in essence is the antithesis to traditional interpretations of the Batman character (not counting early, protero-Batman before it was fully developed) then by God and heaven it has to be backed by a script of the first rate in order to not make it feel simply as a device to get cheap trills because you are too incompetent to make the Batman character work within the confines already established.

Yes, I'm not the first, nor will be the last person, to note that it is ridiculous that Batman keeps catching these criminals just to see them escape, create mayhem and murder people just to apprehend them again just to restart the vicious cycle. In the comics it is fine because writers don't seek finality, but if you put any weight on it the idiocy starts to show.

But in reality wouldn't the solution be that Batman, with all his intelligence and resources, to actually build a damn unpenetrable, inescapable SuperMax type of prison? Better yet, where the **** is the death penalty? Oh I get it, they are insane so they can't be put death. But I digress.

The movie doesn't make a good case for Batman's transformation into a gun shooting, cattle like skin burning so others criminals can kill them in prison guy. Ok, so he feels powerless and that makes him cruel, bo-hoo. Lets throw decades of established reasoning for why Batman doesn't kill (humans), or doesn't use guns (again, not counting early, pre-developed protero-Batman) over board then.

Tangent aside, the movie lost me at about the 2:00 hour mark. Some background first. When Bruce is explaining his rationale for why he has to kill Superman he says that Superman has "the power to wipe out the entire human race". That if there is even a "1% that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty... and we have to destroy him". Even more jaw dropping, Batman says that killing Superman is probably the only thing, in fucking 20 years of battling crime (in this continuity), "I do that matters", "This is about the future of the world. This is my legacy."

That's a tall order. And I suspected the screenplay would have a difficult time walking all that talk back (which was inevitable of course since Batman wasn't actually going to kill Superman, was he?) and my suspicion was proven right.

Batman doesn't kill Superman because, wait for it, Superman's mom happens to have the same name as Bruce Wayne's mom and this confuses Batman. Wow.

Superman: [hardly breathing] You're letting them kill Martha...

Batman: What does that mean? Why did you say that name?

Superman: Find him... Save Martha...

Now, we know why this is important to Superman: Martha is his mother and has been kidnapped by Luthor and if he doesn't kill Batman she will be burned as a witch. Fine. Why is this important to Batman? Because it is the last thing "Martha" that he father says before he dies. But why is saying "save Martha" important enough to stop Batman from killing Superman? This is the moment in the film in which of course Batman and Superman are supposed to find some common ground in order to stop killing each other. The moment in which they understand that they seek the same goals by using different means. "Find him", Superman says referring to Luthor/Luthor guys. For Batman "find him" would mean finding the "non-descript" guy that kills his parents. Non-descript guy is a metaphor for crime and evil. Martha Wayne is dead so she can't be saved in the flesh, so what is Bruce saving? Her memory? The promise of fighting crime in the name his parents? How? How is not killing Superman suppose to "save Martha"? Batman is trying to kill Superman precisely to save Martha. Millions of potential Martha's and Thomas' Waynes that will die if Superman goes bad (according to Batman's reasoning). Does the fact that Superman has a mother and could relate on that level with Bruce negates all his reasoning to kill Superman? If it does then the movie fails to make a good case for it, while building the case for why killing Superman is logical for about 2 hours.

I don't buy it, it feels incredibly contrived. The screenplay wrote itself into a corner and it didn't knew how to effectively get out of it.

All of this aside from dubious stuff like Lois going back to the water to find the Kryptonite spear: how did she know that they need it to kill Doomsday? (I guess she assumes anything alien comes from Krypton, but it seems a little iffy.)

I think the Doomsday plot line was completely unnecessary. A well written Batman vs. Superman storyline could easily carry a film by itself. Plus now they have use the "Superman has died and comeback" trope which means (if the writers have any dignity) that Superman can't be killed again and by extension any future sense of danger regarding Superman is diminished since he won't be killed again or he will be killed again and irreversibly jump the shark.

But not everything was horrible, some of it was just bad :P

Like that non-nude bathtub Amy Adams scene. "Look at us, we are so mature, when has Marvel given you this much skin"? It felt out of place, gratuitous.

I did like most of Bruce's dialogue with Alfred.

Alfred: You're gonna go to war?

Bruce Wayne: That son of a bitch brought the war to us two years ago. Jesus, Alfred, count the dead... thousands of people. What's next? Millions? He has the power to wipe out the entire human race, and if we believe there's even a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty... and we have to destroy him.

Alfred: But he is not our enemy!

Bruce Wayne: Not today. Twenty years in Gotham, Alfred; we've seen what promises are worth. How many good guys are left? How many stayed that way?

Loved the whole "Twenty years in Gotham, Alfred; we've seen what promises are worth. How many good guys are left? How many stayed that way?". The despair (And no, that doesn't mean he has to kill).

Alfred: You know you can't win this. It's suicide.

Bruce Wayne: I'm older now than my father ever was. This may be the only thing I do that matters.

Alfred: Twenty years of fighting criminals amounts to nothing?

Bruce Wayne: Criminals are like weeds, Alfred; pull one up, another grows in its place. This is about the future of the world. This is my legacy.

Love Bruce making a point about how he has reached an age his father never did, his parents death is ever present.

But my favorite scene was probably the first Batman/Superman interaction:

Superman: Next time they shine your light in the sky, don't go to it. The Bat is dead. Bury it. Consider this mercy.

[Superman begins to walk away]

Batman: Tell me. Do you bleed?

[Superman flies away as Batman watches on]

Batman: You will.

Damn son, Superman throwing down the law.

@69ingChimpmunks: I've watched the Ultimate cut. I'll admit, it is better. It feels like a more complete movie, but I still don't think it's a good movie. It addressed some of the ambiguity in the character motivations, but the core problems remain because the biggest issues weren't with what was missing, but with what was there.

-Byshop

Yup, They just introduced too much and because of that, It watered down the entire movie. We just accept and move on. Suicide Squad looks very promising, I can't wait to see Leto's Joker. His seems to be the truest portrayal of the Joker we've seen yet and I know he's talented enough to compete with Ledger.

i thought ultimate edition was at least twice as good as the theatrical release. i was fond of, and distinctly impressed by dawn of justice when i saw it in theater. on it's own i thought it did a great job of embracing man of steel as well as shaking off it's shortcomings. not to say that man of steel was terrible but some shaking off was needed. there was nothing really all that flashy left out of the main release. all the stuff fresh in ultimate was inbetween this and that. i wouldnt say the main version is skippy, but ultimate does have a bit more of a swagger to it. it is epic though. my butt hurts. also the weird guy in the lightning dream is supposed to be the flash. who was that monster that melted when the cops came for lex supposed to be though?

the movie is very good it had alot to overcome when it came out and it did. however... everything that anyone dreaded about afleck being the batman did come to pass. that version of batman is a great betrayal of many things the character has long upheld. i understand the decisions made in order to allow that story to organically render, still... bad form. also i didnt like eisenburg's lex. he played it a tad flippant or loony as if he was peeved he wasnt the joker. eisenburg should have been the joker. they should have just let bloody billy zane be lex.