Directed by Zack Snyder
Shown: Diane Lane (as Martha Kent)
Much has been made of the use of the name “Martha” in the film “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”, and the actress who played the role of Martha Kent in both “Man of Steel” and “Batman v Superman” spoke with The Hollywood Reporter about returning for the “Justice League” movie.
“I don’t think I’m allowed to talk much about it. But it was good for me, selfishly, to have a reunion with everyone and meeting some of the new characters,” Lane told The Hollywood Reporter Friday at a women’s filmmaker luncheon, presented by Chanel and the Tribeca Film Festival.
As for the controversy about Superman using his adopted mother’s name as a trigger to stop Batman from making a fatal mistake, the actress said, “It’s the compassion for a man who’s lost his mother. When you understand the wound, you can work better with people.”
Diane Lane will reprise the role of Martha Kent in “Justice League,” which is scheduled to be released on November 17, 2017.
The headline for this article made me think she was defending the whole movie. This is more about defending one scene/moment in the movie. She could still think the movie is rubbish overall
Of course if she did think it was garbage I doubt she’d say so for at least another 20 years. It’s generally considered a bad career move to trash a movie you worked on especially one that wasn’t very long ago.
I don’t even think it’s the concept of Batman feeling something at the mention of the name Martha that breaks that scene for people so much as it is how it was done. Which is really just indicative of how not well thought out or paced the whole affair is to begin with. But the damn DKR brawl has always been more about booking the match than it is writing the characters IMO.
1) Batman hearing “Martha” and being paused made no sense after his relentless drive to KILL Superman. He was ready to murder Superman, and that fixation was quelled by a gossamer idea . . . and Lois Lane.
2) Diane Lane needs not defend “Martha”. She could, however, explain “you don’t owe them anything”.
I can explain “you don’t owe this world a thing, you never did.”
In as short of an answer as possible, why does Clark Kent choose to be Superman?
In MOS? No idea.
Who said he chose to be Superman? In fact in MOS he was never even called Superman. There was only one reference to him being that. Even the name of the movie, Man of Steel, doesn’t really reference him as Superman. So far we’ve had two movies and both haven’t had him been called Superman to his face. Until someone, and I don’t care who, calls him that I still think the character as a whole is not complete.
If you jump, you might catch my point.
No, traditionally, why does he do it? In BvS we see he’s doing it out of an obligation, like he owes the world something. Like being Superman is a burden. She’s saying he should be Superman because he wants to be, not because he feels like he owes it to people. Traditionally, like in the John Byrne reboot, Birthright, Lois and Clark and so on he wants to be a hero of some kind. He pursues it with the costume and identity of Superman being a by product of that desire. However, as expressed by Snyder, in Man of Steel… Read more »
Nice analysis. I’m not certain how much it applies to BVS, though.
Well fundamentally what I’m saying is she can see her son isn’t happy and telling him if it’s not going to make him happy (being Superman) then stop doing it.
I don’t believe during that whole conversation that she refers to him in any sense as “Superman”. She is more so referring to his abilities to help in general. He’s not obligated to help or owes anything was the drift that I got.
It’s the same thing.
Using his abilities to help is being Superman.
Yeah I get it, you want to hear Superman being used 1,000,000 in a movie, but that isn’t the point.
As per usual, i agree with what you’re saying here and in your previous comment. I think the character of superman in both MoS and especially BvS has been lazily written by Goyer, Snyder and Terrio. He seems to be there for only one purpose and that is for the characters around him to react to. I think the Martha comment of ‘..,or be none of it’ was written to show what a typical mother would say to her son. My problem with the scene was that Superman, once again, says nothing in the scene. That will continue to be… Read more »
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I think that we haven’t seen a fully developed Superman in either of the two movies. That’s why he hasn’t been called it to his face. I believe that aspect will change in JL. To what extent? I don’t know. I’m hoping he’ll realize how important he is and maybe when he returns his suits colors will define him in a somewhat brighter way.
That’s not what I meant at all. I think we haven’t seen a fully developed Superman in either of the two movies. I hoping when he returns in JL that he’ll understand how important he is and maybe when he makes his official return he might even have on a suit that might define him in somewhat of a brighter way.
The movie is called Batman v ‘Superman’ And he is called as such through out the entire film. Not sure how being called Superman to his face will change anything.
He has only been referred to as Superman. He has not been called to his face anything but Kal or Clark in both the movies. And I think it will change things greatly. And put his mind set squarely around the fact as to who he is on this planet.
Pretty much. Jon and Martha, in this film, are neck and neck for the worst parental advice ever.
You mean that they can give to an alien from another planet??
spot on.
I agree with the analysis, but I’m more lenient toward this version of Superman, because there is a coherent story-arc for the character between the two movies (and would’ve been more consistent if Batman was ejected from the second one entirely). It’s not that Clark doesn’t want to be Superman and be a hero, it’s that he hasn’t figured out exactly how to do it. In Man of Steel he does it from the shadows out of fear of being discovered. In BvS, he is out in the open, but the entire movie follows Superman not through Clark’s eyes, but… Read more »
Just maybe there was a plan in place that was to take place over several movies. Did they expect all the crap-o-la along the way? I don’t think so. But I am willing to see what develops with him in the JL. I would be willing to bet there’s going to be a big fundamental change in him.
I’m skeptical that the powers that be over the DCCU have learned a damn thing from their mistakes.
THAT is most definitely concerning. The only public statements I’ve really heard have concerned lighter tones and humor, which is NOT the main problem. Still keeping my fingers crossed though.
Or it was a poorly delivered line, in a badly contrived scene. But hey, it probably sold some action figures.
That whole delivery was stupid.”Save , Martha” who, in an admittedly desperate situation, would refer to his mother by her first name? The whole situation was stupid and forced. In a realistic setting he would have flown right up to Batman and said “Lex Luthor has my mom, come help me save her”
Superman could have just saved his mother on his own.
That’s what I’m saying, you’re telling me he just somehow can find Lois in free fall from a building in time to catch her but can’t find his Mom sitting in a warehouse for an hour?
and why did it take him so long to get to the scout ship? Are they trying to tell me that it took the whole 10 minutes of that Batman fight for Superman to get to Lex?? I didn’t understand that at all. Logic went out the window just so they could showcase Batman breaking bones.
And people still argue about that scene? I thought it was pretty powerful and moving.
Agreed! I for one wasn’t going to over analyze it and turn it into a make or break part of the movie the way some have done.
in the right hands I absolutely agree that the scene in question could have been powerful and moving. You can see what they were going for, but it was poorly executed and I think I’m being generous with that. I like the idea of Batman seeing superman as a human and seeing himself as the type of person that murdered his parents, but it took a lot of mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion. It could have been written 10x better and had more of an impact if done correctly. So as it stands, yes it’s going to continue… Read more »
1. Why didn’t they think to have the kryptonite affect his ability to speak and show him desperately trying to say something to Batman? That makes so much more sense. 2. Why couldn’t he say ‘save my mom’ (that should have had the same effect on Batman) and show bruce being the one that is shooting the Wayne’s to show that he’s become what he despises. 3. About one minute before the Martha scene Bruce mentions Supermans parents teaching him that he’s here for a reason… How does hearing ‘Martha’ humanize Superman, when he was just thinking about supermans parents.… Read more »