MovieChat Forums > Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) Discussion > Is this the worst line of dialogue in th...

Is this the worst line of dialogue in the entire history of superhero movies?


When discussing Superman, Batman tells Alfred that "if we believe there is even a 1% chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty". That looks like an absolutely terrible line written on paper and sounds like an absolutely terrible line when spoken. Even in a non-superhero movie it would sound absolutely terrible. How did it ever make it into this movie?

Why would you ever have to take something with a 1% chance as an absolute certainty? Especially with something as malleable as a person, which is what Superman is. That logic would inevitably lead to all kinds of mistakes and failures.

That line sounds completely unbecoming of a superhero. I don't understand how a superhero could be so unforgiving of another person who's anything less than an outright villain. It just makes Batman sound like a total jerk. Batman used to have values but this version doesn't seem to have any.

reply

I get his point; if that '1% chance' turned out to actually be the case, the consequences would be catastrophic beyond comprehension. There must be no chance of that happening. But it needed some expanding on in the way he said it.

reply

That line still sounds terrible, regardless of how sound the logic is behind it. And it's still abominable thinking coming from a superhero. A superhero shouldn't be so rash and drastic. Batman trying to destroy Superman could just as easily just make things worse.

reply

I don't know if you saw the theatrical cut *only* or extended edition, but there's no reason to settle for the theatrical. It was a bad movie that removed so much of the essential narrative as to render it almost non-sensical. It was likely done to fit more showtimes in during the course of the day in an effort to pass the $1 billion box office goal.

The extended is the ACTUAL movie where the events are clear. In that movie, Lex Luthor is not just a token bad guy who is after kryptonite, Zod's body, and technology from Krypton. He was much more than the creator of the Doomsday monster.

Batman v. Superman Extended has two equal protagonists in Batman (Wayne) & Superman (Kent), and one main machiavellian antagonist in Lex Luthor. No matter what other flashy comic-book spectacle the film has to offer, the crux of the story is simply how Lex Luthor has a scheme to define what Superman is in Wayne's mind, and simultaneously who Batman is in Kent's mind.

So, when Bruce Wayne and Alfred have this "1% chance" conversation, it's almost like Wayne is indoctrinated. He has been carefully manipulated by Luthor to behave unlike a traditional Justice League superhero that you seem to expect. Instead, it's the typical comic-book-Luthor's rationalization for the destruction of Superman being spoken by Wayne as if Superman were Batman's archnemesis.

It's only when the two superheroes have an actual conversation post-battle (The famous "It's his mother's name" scene) where Wayne sees the human side of Kent for the first time. Despite being a little clunky in it's presentation, I have no idea why that scene receives so much criticism—particularly from those who could follow the details of the extended version. It has nothing to do with Martha or the name itself, and everything to do with the fact that Batman finally sees Superman for the first time using actual logic. That logic is that there is a nil% chance that a child raised in Kansas by heartland farmers who actually cares for those people could be an enemy of Earth or a threat to humanity.

The intricacy and execution of Luthor's scheme to get them to battle is where the heart of the film's greatness lies. If any footage of his plot is cut out (which it was) then the viewers are left wondering why Batman is not Batman and Superman is not Superman. That's what you have done here with your OP.

reply

I think it's just bad because Affleck said it.

reply

It means he treats the problem seriously. Let's say you were handling the disposal of nuclear waste, the safety of a crew on a barge or the protection a celebrity. Could you afford a serious lapse once every 100 days? You'll want to remove every risk factor out of the equation. That's how I see it.

reply

I understand what the line means. The problem is it's just a terrible sounding line in general and it represents bad wisdom for a superhero.

reply

Batman is incredibly calculated and thorough. Read the Dark Knight Returns if you don't know what I mean

reply

You can be calculated and thorough but also unwise at the same time. And the line just sounds terrible. Maybe the delivery itself was a big part of the problem.

reply

Looks like you can't handle the truth.

reply

I thought the line was fine, and of course not even close to being the worst line of dialogue in the history of super hero movies.

reply

My post above is just the long way of saying that the superhero, Batman, didn't actually say the 1% line. Lex Luthor did.

It's logic is as rambling, idiotic and "paradoxical" as Lex Luthor's drunken speech to his guests at his house party.

He's not actually a brilliant and rational scientist. He's an evil misanthropic idiot-of-a-villain who for a brief moment influences both Kent & Wayne.

Lex Luthor : [giving speech] Books are knowledge and knowledge is power, and I am... no. Um, no. What am I? What was I saying? The bittersweet pain among men is having knowledge with no power because... because that is *paradoxical* and, um... thank you for coming.

reply

AND this:

Lex Luthor : Boy, do we have problems up here!

[sets timer and stands up]

Lex Luthor : The problem of evil in the world. The problem of absolute virtue.

Superman : I'll take you in without breaking you, which is more than you deserve.

Lex Luthor : The problem of you on top of everything else. You above all. Ah. 'Cause that's what God is. Horus. Apollo. Jehovah. Kal-El. Clark Joseph Kent. See, what we call God depends upon our tribe, Clark Jo, because God is tribal. God take sides. No man in the sky intervened when I was a boy to deliver me from Daddy's fist and abominations. Mm-mm. I've figured it out way back, if God is all powerful, He cannot be all good. And if He's all good then He cannot be all powerful. And neither can you be. They need to see the fraud you are. With their eyes. The blood on your hands.

Superman : What have you done?

Lex Luthor : And tonight they will. Yes. Because you, my friend, have a date! Across the bay. Ripe fruit, his hate. Two years growing. But it did not take much to push him over actually. Little red notes, big bang, you let your family die! And now, you will fly to him, and you will battle him, to the death. Black and blue. Fight night! The greatest gladiator match in the history of the the world: God versus man...

reply

I only saw the theatrical cut. I don't believe watching the extended edition would make that line sound any less terrible to me. Your whole idea that Lex Luther somehow caused Batman to say that line doesn't make it sound any less terrible. And a superhero shouldn't be so easily influenced by a supervillain.

That conversation between Lex Luthor and Superman also sounds ridiculous. Why does Luthor care whether Superman is all good or all powerful in the first place? Why does he want to expose Superman? I don't understand his motivation. God, I hate this movie.

reply

See the Extended!

A traditional story with good guys against bad guys, where the good guys come out on top, works best (and is actually exciting ) if the bad guys partially succeed or present an actual threat. A very solid way to construct a powerful villain is by having him corrupt the good guys, as Luthor has done.

I understand you must be a fan of Batman, and don't like to see him so sullied, particularly since he's the "world's greatest detective," but it certainly made for an interesting and novel approach that hasn't been seen before in live action.

The real mistake is not in BvS, but in the fact that Ben Affleck's Batman was never given a solo movie (preferably before this one) where we could all see how brilliant and capable he was. However, there is no reason you can't just watch The Batman (2022) or Nolan's trilogy and imagine Ben Affleck and Jeremy Irons in their roles, and his version of the young Bruce Wayne growing into a legend and force-of-nature. A savior of Gotham. He obviously has a similar back-story.

BvS represents Wayne at the lowest point of his career and life. Scenes like the dead Robin costume ("Jokes on You, Batman") serve to highlight his trauma and loss of spirit. He was easy pickings for Luthor here. Also, don't forget all the chaos from Man of Steel (2013). He lived it! Wayne Tower collapsed in front of him.

reply

You make it sound like the extended edition goes into a lot more detail about how Luthor corrupted Batman. If this was an interesting and novel approach then it wasn't well executed. From what I saw in the theatrical cut it was mostly Batman's lack of moral compass that caused his corruption. I'm not a huge fan of Batman but I like my superheroes to have a strong moral compass and to not be so easily corrupted by others. That's what I like so much about certain portrayals of superheroes such as the MCU version of Captain America. It's that much worse here because we never got to see this version of Batman earn his credibility as a superhero in the first place. The credibility that he would need for him losing his way to really mean anything. I can't watch superior Batman movies and imagine Affleck in those roles.

reply

The extended version makes it clear that the deaths in the desert terrorist camp where Lois is first saved by Sups were murders by a gang of Russian mercenaries led by a DC comic book villain know as KGBeast. Later, it’s revealed that KGBeast is working for Luthor and also smuggling the Kryptonite (found in the Indian Ocean meteor) to the States.

This whole event in the desert was staged simply to make Superman look like a unhinged genocidial murderer, and that led to the Senate hearings and all the media hoopla. But all he really did was destroy a drone, save Lois and capture a terrorist.

KGBeast or Luthor bribed, employed or otherwise forced a Nigerian woman with relatives there to say in the hearings that Superman fried the whole camp with his heat vision. Later, she had a crisis of conscience and was going to confess that she made it up, but was then killed by KGBeast when he pushed her in front of a Subway train.

Lois figured this all out via evidence, so it strengthened her character as a journalist. Almost all these scenes were cut out, and the few that remained made little sense.

You can see now that Luthor went through and carried out a hell of a plan in order to make Superman look like a madman.

The theatrical version just includes some moments of him using a injured Wayne Inc employee blame Superman, and Bruce believes it.

So, I agree. Without the Nigerian murders being pinned on Superman, it makes it look like Bruce and many others had a weak moral compass, or were too reactionary.

It almost makes Luthor look like a incompetent villain who had no real scheme and just got lucky. However, he WANTED Batman to steal the kryptonite.

All characters look much worse in the theatrical version, and the movie is non-sensical.

I agree other Batman movies are better, but I certainly don’t fault Ben Affleck for that. He did a fine job. The problems lay elsewhere.

Hope that helps.

reply

You talk about all these details of the plot to make Superman look bad as if they all add up to something. But as I said before in reference to what you called an interesting and novel approach, it wasn't well executed. None of it really interested me. I didn't find Affleck's Batman or Cavill's Superman all that compelling as characters. Eisenberg's Luthor was just unexplained nonsense. Part of the problem could be that the MCU showed what really great superhero movies could look like. Captain America: Civil War had a very similar plot to Batman v Superman but did everything so much better.

reply

It's a bad film, but I don't have a problem with that line.

Batman is making a cost-risk analysis here, and saying that the cost of Superman being a threat to humanity is SO big, it far exceeds the minimal risk that he may be a threat.

Nuclear war, for example, is extremely unlikely, but we must do EVERYTHING we can to avoid it, however minimal that likelihood.

reply

No matter how good of an explanation you have for the logic behind that line it still just sounds bad. I just hate listening to him say it. And his cost-risk analysis is total b.s. Batman trying to destroy Superman could just as easily make the whole situation with Superman even worse. Batman deciding that his analysis was wrong just because Superman's stepmom had the same first name as his mom is further b.s. And for Batman to be so unforgiving and to try to murder Superman is just completely unbecoming of a superhero, which is what Batman is supposed to be.

reply

Chance of pluricelular life? Close to zero. Inteligent life? Even closer to zero. Technology? You get the idea.

And still here we are.

1% is quite high. 1% is the chance of dying of Covid ...

reply

1% is a probability that Batman made up out of thin air. And it discounts the possibility that trying to kill Superman could just make the whole situation even worse.

reply

You're right, the probability is much higher.

Look at all the Kryptonians that reach Earth, most of them are evil assholes. Even humans are more than 1% assholes and given the chance and unlimited power they would fuck up everything in a heart beat for their own gain.

Putin has a 90% support rate in Russia ffs.

reply

I don't agree that the probability is much higher. The actions of the other Kryptonians that came to Earth can't legitimately be used to cast doubt on Superman's character. They were only evil to the extent that they wanted to save their very civilization and they wanted to do that by terraforming Earth. But Superman was completely opposed to that agenda and he stopped them. Superman dedicated himself to protecting Earth. You can't legitimately cast doubt on him by comparing him to people with an agenda that he was totally opposed to.

Batman's analysis is all the more b.s. because him trying to kill Superman could just as easily make the whole situation worse. Batman attacking Superman would be one of the easier ways to turn Superman into a real threat to Earth, especially if the attack didn't succeed.

reply

You are talking from your point of view, as someone that knows all the lore and everything.

From Batman's point of view they were just evil and there was no justification for their actions. Some could say that Hitler only wanted his nation to thrive, that doesn't excuse his actions - although some might even agree with him.

"him trying to kill Superman could just as easily make the whole situation worse. Batman attacking Superman would be one of the easier ways to turn Superman into a real threat to Earth"

- and that would only prove his point, that Superman could turn and that would be the end.

Let me ask you this: are there comics with evil Superman?

https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Superman_(Injustice)

reply

Regardless of what Batman thought about General Zod and his followers, he knew that Superman stopped them. He knew that whatever they were for, Superman was against. When I said that Batman attacking Superman would be one of the easier ways to turn Superman into a real threat to Earth what I meant was that Batman's attack on Superman and his battle with Superman itself could be a threat to Earth. I did not mean that it could turn Superman evil. And if Batman attacking Superman could actually turn Superman into an enemy of Earth then that would be a reason for Batman to not attack Superman. If that possibility were real then that would make Batman's decision to attack Superman especially stupid.

reply

Batman intended to kill Superman, a preemptive strike. And he almost did it … so I would say that he was right …

reply

Batman's choice to attack Superman was still very stupid. Batman just got lucky that he was able to do as well as he did against Superman. And there's still the fact that his attack on Superman was completely unbecoming of a superhero.

reply

As everyone else seems to have pointed out the line is fine, makes sense and is far from being the worst line in the entire history of superhero movies.

reply

there is a 1% chance that the op is 100% correct.

must be an absolute certainty.

reply

This film is just awful in almost every sense of the word. It is a movie made by money hungry producers. It is completely reactionary. It is a trend chasing corporate piece of trash. It was chasing that team up superhero trend. Hey Avengers did it so lets cash in on that trend. It showed that money was the driving force behind this film rather than creativity. Not surprising though Man of Steel was the same way. bastardized trend chasing versions of movies prior to it. I find it funny this blew up in their faces. I think this film is worse than Batman & Robin.

reply