Why has WB struggled with Superman on the big screen?

[Username taken]

This is an honest question because I'm starting to wonder if the higher ups at WB actually know what to do with the character or worse still, if they are indeed fans of the character. (I'm not saying that WB ACTUALLY HAVE a problem, just wondering aloud). A broad look at the movies and how WB seem to "dump" Superman after re-launching the character is actually troubling.

After Donner left, we got two very,very horrible Superman movies -Superman 3 (i think Richard Pryor even had more screen time than Superman in this) and Superman 4 (Superman 4 wasn't WB so we can't blame them). Superman Lives was then mooted and developed up to a point but eventually fell apart (as an aside, this movie actually sounded quite interesting after watching the "Death of Superman Lives" documentary"). We then got false starts with Brett "The Predator" Ratner and McG until Singer came up with a version that continued the Donnerverse. At this point, it was clear that WB wasn't comfortable with anything Superman outside of Donner's version. Superman Returns was released and continued the Donner version, Bryan Singer was a good choice on paper but what he made was dull as dishwater and while critics liked it, fans haaaaated it. Superman Returns was not a flop and there was still a possibility of building on this but sequel plans were never developed (which was odd because Batman Begins didn't do spectacularly well but still got a sequel). Superman went dormant again until Zach Snyder came along and gave us Man of Steel which frankly was far superior to all the previous Superman sequels but divided fans and critics alike. Man of Steel re-booted the character and made good money (it wasn't a massive hit but it did well enough) but for some reason, WB simply moved away from a sequel and then we got BvS (i'm not going to go into that, everything that needed to be said about BvS has been said).

Now, we are hearing that WB is developing a Supergirl movie and considered Michael "Killmonger" Jordan as a potential Superman (which all likelihood will not be Clark Kent because of the dynamics of Superman's origin regarding his human identity) and there are no Superman plans for years; to me, this looks like WB giving up on Superman in his most noticeable form and are moving onto something else. Since Donner left, it seems no one has been able to present a working version of the character that WB is actually comfortable with and beyond that have no real interest in producing Superman movies. BvS and JL weren't well received but they are still going full steam ahead with a Batman movie but Superman gets the shaft...why??"

[bat39]

Well, WB clearly has trouble figuring out what they want to do with the character...but its not like the fandom is helping either! Not that its the fandom's responsibility to help guide DC/WB, but they have had an impact in shaping the current era of confusion.

The fact is, to WAY too many people, the Donner Superman is the last word on the character. And while the film is no doubt a legend and will continue to remain so for generations, it is hopelessly outdated when you consider where the superhero genre is right now, particularly on film. At a time when Batman has FAR superceded Superman as the defining face of the genre, and Superman is seen by many as not being 'cool' enough, keeping Superman restricted to the Donner vision really isn't a great idea, to say the least.

And it goes beyond that. Ultimately the debate over Donner Superman is a wider debate over 'classic vs. new'. You have fans who are beholden to what they consider the 'classic' Superman and don't want the character to deviate too much from that (or at all). And you have fans who dislike or even hate aspects of the 'classic' Superman and want things changed up to make Superman more 'relevant', more 'edgy', more whatever. The latter group consists of both fans who legitimately prefer the 'newer' takes over the classic Superman, as well as fans who just don't care for the character in general and blame the 'classic' version for that. The vitriolic 'Superdad vs. Nuperman' war a couple of years back is the perfect example of this. Other debates, like 'Reeves vs. Cavill', or 'Hoechlin vs. Cavill', and of course, 'trunks vs. no trunks', also count.

The reality is that the Superman fandom is fractured. Fans haven't united behind a broad interpretation of the character, unlike the case with Batman. Hell, fans haven't been able to unite beyond the broad idea of the character himself! And since WB, not confident in their own approach to the character, relies a lot on what the fandom is saying as a kind of vague guide...things just get even more messed up.

I think what WB needs to do is just forget all the pressure and make a good Superman movie. Don't try too hard to do a throwback to the 'classic' Superman, or to do a 'rebooted' Superman or an 'updated' Superman. Just do a Superman movie. Let a director build their own vision for the character, and as long as it broadly adheres to the essence of the character, give him or her carte blanche. Treat the next Superman movie the same way you'd treat the next Aquaman movie, or the next Flash movie.

Once the movie is out, some fans will love it, some will hate it. As long as it does reasonably well, build upon that take of the character. And unless something is REALLY off, DON'T LISTEN TO THE FANBOYS!

WB let Nolan do whatever he wanted with Batman. They just wanted a decent Batman movie. The result was the greatest superhero film trilogy ever. Marvel Studios let Feige and Favreau make an Iron Man movie. The rest is history. Fox just let Singer make an X-men movie. You know the rest...

[Kuwagaton]

Since you asked honestly, I have to say: this is a part of that fan perspective that just throws almost anyone or everything under the bus. No one knows what they're doing, no one gets the character, probably no one likes the character, etc. The same people who were involved with the considerable success of Batman and Wonder Woman got behind Superman. The same level of criticism put to BvS or Superman IV is applied to Batman & Robin, but that's a "camp favorite."

Consider that above all, everything is someone's favorite. Superman III, Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, and Justice League all have strong fanbases. The last three movies could have done much worse than they did, for all the money put into them. From the perspective of some people (myself included for these particular films) it's not so much about what was wrong and in fact, there can appear to be little. So there was a good job done, it's just that it's not in the eyes of nearly as many people as they would hope. Sure there's room for improvement, but I wouldn't mull over and target the Superman handlers with it because sometimes that can just happen. We can make a line of box office bombs that starts with Citizen Kane and includes Wizard of Oz, Shawshank Redemption, and Fight Club.

At this point, it was clear that WB wasn't comfortable with anything Superman outside of Donner's version.

This isn't really "clear," as in it represents the thoughts and actions of hundreds of people. It sounds more like your own assertion.

Superman Returns was released and continued the Donner version, Bryan Singer was a good choice on paper but what he made was dull as dishwater and while critics liked it, fans haaaaated it. Superman Returns was not a flop and there was still a possibility of building on this but sequel plans were never developed

From where I sit, this tells us a lot. The movie did alright, but it never seemed like too many viewers were impressed with the overall product. It's interesting to see how many people defend it in light of what came later because you didn't have to go far back then to hear someone mention how they need to change gears. The dormant period after this isn't inexplicable but as you put it, a superior product came along and had just about the same problems with success and division.

Now, we are hearing that WB is developing a Supergirl movie and considered Michael "Killmonger" Jordan as a potential Superman (which all likelihood will not be Clark Kent because of the dynamics of Superman's origin regarding his human identity) and there are no Superman plans for years; to me, this looks like WB giving up on Superman in his most noticeable form and are moving onto something else. Since Donner left, it seems no one has been able to present a working version of the character that WB is actually comfortable with and beyond that have no real interest in producing Superman movies. BvS and JL weren't well received but they are still going full steam ahead with a Batman movie but Superman gets the shaft...why??"

I'm not entirely sure what the latest is on Batman. I read somewhere that they lost Ben Affleck. So it's kind of the same boat except that at the moment he is not Cavill's equal when it comes to being associated with the character. Just six years ago Batman found success with an entirely different actor, and it wouldn't be a surprise if they got a new Batman and did very well because... Batman is a more popular character. A bad Batman sells more than a bad Superman and probably outsells a good Superman. But Batman probably isn't called bad as often because less people seem to be divided on what he is and should be.

[Jim Kelly]

There aren't that many Superman movies in total. And they're spread over many decades. So making a judgement on Warner Bros. based on such little evidence isn't fair. We know that projected Superman movies in general have gone through a lot of proposals and changes before anything actually goes into production and gets released.

Yet when it comes to television and animation, they've been much more successful and people seem to like what's been produced. So maybe the answer is money.

Doing cartoons and TV is relatively cheaper--the movies are expected to be big budget tent poles and they have to make enough profit to justify the investment. When Superman movies fail to meet expectations, it has a devastating effect on the franchise--so maybe the WB producers have gotten gunshy and would rather not do another Superman movie than have another flop.

I think they're better off sticking to animation and television. It's not like we've been in a Superman wasteland, despite the lack of Superman movies. There's always been Superman related shows available to us on the small screen.

[superduperman]

I think there's a couple reasons.

1) The Donner movies cast such a long shadow. They got everything right to the point that anything that comes after them will be judged based on them. So I think much of what WB does is about trying to get out from under that shadow by making a "different" version that will be remembered in it's own right. Unfortunately the only way to do that is to do a version that goes against everything that Superman is known to be. Because the Donner movies hit the nail on the head so perfectly. To give you an idea of how important those movies were, I honestly believe the reboot in 1986 would not have happened without those movies. Because you can see so much of the Donner influence on them. Byrne drew Superman to look just like Reeve. Krypton had a truly alien look just like the movies. Even the first time Ma Kent sees him use his powers is him lifting up the back of a truck just like in the movie. Lois in her first appearance had the Margot Kidder haircut. Those movies defined Superman for an entire generation and probably for generations to come. How do you get people to stop comparing the new movies to the old ones? By making him "serious" and "realistic". And, as with the 1986 reboot, they tend to go overboard on the "we're not the previous version" stuff.

2) Movies are like that analogy about a camel being a horse by committee. Everyone wants to keep their job so everyone contributes something to justify their paycheck even if it's bad. There is also the fact that the money people call the shots most of the time. They saw that Dark Knight made all the money so in their minds they made the connection that grimdark is the way to go with all super hero movies for all time. Now, the creative people would have stepped in and said that was a bad idea for Superman but they don't control the purse strings. Kevin Smith talked a little about this on his podcast when he was working on Superman Lives. When they brought him in his first question to WB management was "Well, why don't you ask the comic book people?" Now, to us, this would make perfectly logical sense but to them, they saw it as two different things. They are movie people and the comic book people are comic book people and never the twain shall meet. They didn't make the connection that the people working on the comics might be the best people to go to when it comes to comic book movies. We saw this with the Jonathon Peters fiasco. Here you had a guy who had no interest in Superman being given the reins to Superman. So it's nepotism over experience.

A good counter example to this is Greg Berlanti and the Arrow-verse. He WANTED to make a Green Arrow TV show and pitched the idea to them. Instead of having it handed off to him by someone up top. So it worked out because you have someone in control who actually wants the job. I would argue Berlanti understands Superman better than the suits at WB do. His few appearances on Supergirl make him look like the classic Superman we all know and love. Whatever you may think of Supergirl beating him. Ditto the guys who made Smallville. The creatives went to the bigwigs and pitched their ideas instead of the bigwigs finding some famous director who had no interest in the franchise and just handing it off to them. Where I think this differs from Marvel is that Marvel has it's own studio that focuses solely on super hero movies. So you don't have a producer who's also working on a romantic comedy on the side. Marvel is run by people who understand the comic book universe because that's their sole function. To make comic book movies. You don't have a studio dividing it's time between projects. Iron Man and Captain America don't have legacies to live up to like Superman does. There's never been an Iron Man movie before 2008. So they aren't trying to move away from past experiences.

[Username taken]

Since you asked honestly, I have to say: this is a part of that fan perspective that just throws almost anyone or everything under the bus. No one knows what they're doing, no one gets the character, probably no one likes the character, etc. The same people who were involved with the considerable success of Batman and Wonder Woman got behind Superman. The same level of criticism put to BvS or Superman IV is applied to Batman & Robin, but that's a "camp favorite."

Not necessarily. I'm wondering why WB decided against further Superman movies after the last two reboots that performed fairly well at the box office. If anyone has any insight, it would be much appreciated because from the outside looking in, it's very difficult to understand.

Consider that above all, everything is someone's favorite. Superman III, Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, and Justice League all have strong fanbases. The last three movies could have done much worse than they did, for all the money put into them. From the perspective of some people (myself included for these particular films) it's not so much about what was wrong and in fact, there can appear to be little. So there was a good job done, it's just that it's not in the eyes of nearly as many people as they would hope. Sure there's room for improvement, but I wouldn't mull over and target the Superman handlers with it because sometimes that can just happen. We can make a line of box office bombs that starts with Citizen Kane and includes Wizard of Oz, Shawshank Redemption, and Fight Club.

True. However, if you present a product (be it a movie, car e.t.c) to an objective public ostensibly targeting the best reaction from the largest number of people within said public; then it stands to reason that the handlers of said product hasn't done well enough when what's produced is completely and utterly rejected by the majority.

This isn't really "clear," as in it represents the thoughts and actions of hundreds of people. It sounds more like your own assertion.

Well, yes, it's my own assertion because that's how it appears to me. I should have phrased my original point better.

I'm not entirely sure what the latest is on Batman. I read somewhere that they lost Ben Affleck. So it's kind of the same boat except that at the moment he is not Cavill's equal when it comes to being associated with the character. Just six years ago Batman found success with an entirely different actor, and it wouldn't be a surprise if they got a new Batman and did very well because... Batman is a more popular character. A bad Batman sells more than a bad Superman and probably outsells a good Superman. But Batman probably isn't called bad as often because less people seem to be divided on what he is and should be.

Or could it be because Batman is an easier character to handle (that is of course besides the popularity)? I think it was James Robinson that said that writing Superman was far more difficult than writing Batman and I remember Stan Lee echoing the same.

[Jim Kelly]

I don't think the Donner/Lester movies are such a problem anymore. They're respected, but not that much more than the Burton or Nolan Batman movies. And there's been enough other things done with Superman on the small screen--like SMALLVILLE--that not everyone thinks Superman has to be Christopher Reeve. The Routh and Cavill movies have established that Superman can be played by other actors in the movies.

Unlike Marvel Studios which is dedicated to only producing Marvel product--Warner Bros. is a large operation and it's easy for them to get distracted by other things. They don't need to make super-hero movies--they're one of the greatest movie companies of all time. If WB did what Disney has done and allowed a DC Studios to be its own division that had to live and die on the movies it produced, then you'd probably see more focus on movie production. But everyone at WB can play with the idea of making comic book movies--and they get so lost in playing with the ideas that not much gets done.

[Agent Z]

I think there's a couple reasons.

1) The Donner movies cast such a long shadow. They got everything right to the point that anything that comes after them will be judged based on them. So I think much of what WB does is about trying to get out from under that shadow by making a "different" version that will be remembered in it's own right. Unfortunately the only way to do that is to do a version that goes against everything that Superman is known to be. Because the Donner movies hit the nail on the head so perfectly. To give you an idea of how important those movies were, I honestly believe the reboot in 1986 would not have happened without those movies. Because you can see so much of the Donner influence on them. Byrne drew Superman to look just like Reeve. Krypton had a truly alien look just like the movies. Even the first time Ma Kent sees him use his powers is him lifting up the back of a truck just like in the movie. Lois in her first appearance had the Margot Kidder haircut. Those movies defined Superman for an entire generation and probably for generations to come. How do you get people to stop comparing the new movies to the old ones? By making him "serious" and "realistic". And, as with the 1986 reboot, they tend to go overboard on the "we're not the previous version" stuff.

2) Movies are like that analogy about a camel being a horse by committee. Everyone wants to keep their job so everyone contributes something to justify their paycheck even if it's bad. There is also the fact that the money people call the shots most of the time. They saw that Dark Knight made all the money so in their minds they made the connection that grimdark is the way to go with all super hero movies for all time. Now, the creative people would have stepped in and said that was a bad idea for Superman but they don't control the purse strings. Kevin Smith talked a little about this on his podcast when he was working on Superman Lives. When they brought him in his first question to WB management was "Well, why don't you ask the comic book people?" Now, to us, this would make perfectly logical sense but to them, they saw it as two different things. They are movie people and the comic book people are comic book people and never the twain shall meet. They didn't make the connection that the people working on the comics might be the best people to go to when it comes to comic book movies. We saw this with the Jonathon Peters fiasco. Here you had a guy who had no interest in Superman being given the reins to Superman. So it's nepotism over experience.

A good counter example to this is Greg Berlanti and the Arrow-verse. He WANTED to make a Green Arrow TV show and pitched the idea to them. Instead of having it handed off to him by someone up top. So it worked out because you have someone in control who actually wants the job. I would argue Berlanti understands Superman better than the suits at WB do. His few appearances on Supergirl make him look like the classic Superman we all know and love. Whatever you may think of Supergirl beating him. Ditto the guys who made Smallville. The creatives went to the bigwigs and pitched their ideas instead of the bigwigs finding some famous director who had no interest in the franchise and just handing it off to them. Where I think this differs from Marvel is that Marvel has it's own studio that focuses solely on super hero movies. So you don't have a producer who's also working on a romantic comedy on the side. Marvel is run by people who understand the comic book universe because that's their sole function. To make comic book movies. You don't have a studio dividing it's time between projects. Iron Man and Captain America don't have legacies to live up to like Superman does. There's never been an Iron Man movie before 2008. So they aren't trying to move away from past experiences.

Arrow and Smallville were originally meant to be Batman shows before those ideas got shot down and were then made into Green Arrow and Superman shows respectively.

[Vordan]

The young people today have no real attachment to Reeve. People were extremely excited for a “Nolan Superman”, MoS has a ton of hype for it and the trailers got a ton of attention. The problem was Snyder clashed way too hard with the basic Superman archetype. His Superman was dour and brooding and never seemed to actually enjoy his job. His first time in costume had him doing a terrible job and left the city ruined. Snyder beat you to death with the Jesus references, and his artistic choices turned people off. Lex sucked ass and nothing can convince me otherwise. Doomsday looked like ****. Lois and Clark’s romance was wooden and cold. Supes death felt hollow, what exactly did he do that made his death such a tragedy?

WB keeps giving the character to people who view him as intrinsically broken and they need to “fix” him. They never bring on the comic guys to help out or ignore their advice. They worship Nolan but fail to appreciate that Nolan’s Bruce Wayne was making quips and jokes throughout his trilogy. Remember “Accomplice? I’m going to tell them the whole thing was your idea.” Levity was totally missing from Snyder’s crap. The world of the DCEU wasn’t worth saving and it’s Superman was one dead Lois away from becoming a Zod-tier threat. There was nothing and no one to look up to.

[Agent Z]

The young people today have no real attachment to Reeve. People were extremely excited for a “Nolan Superman”, MoS has a ton of hype for it and the trailers got a ton of attention. The problem was Snyder clashed way too hard with the basic Superman archetype. His Superman was dour and brooding and never seemed to actually enjoy his job. His first time in costume had him doing a terrible job and left the city ruined. Snyder beat you to death with the Jesus references, and his artistic choices turned people off. Lex sucked ass and nothing can convince me otherwise. Doomsday looked like ****. Lois and Clark’s romance was wooden and cold. Supes death felt hollow, what exactly did he do that made his death such a tragedy?

WB keeps giving the character to people who view him as intrinsically broken and they need to “fix” him. They never bring on the comic guys to help out or ignore their advice. They worship Nolan but fail to appreciate that Nolan’s Bruce Wayne was making quips and jokes throughout his trilogy. Remember “Accomplice? I’m going to tell them the whole thing was your idea.” Levity was totally missing from Snyder’s crap. The world of the DCEU wasn’t worth saving and it’s Superman was one dead Lois away from becoming a Zod-tier threat. There was nothing and no one to look up to.

If collateral damage happening during a fight is doing a terrible job then all superheroes have been doing a terrible job. Also



There are jokes present in MoS and BvS. They just aren't delivered Looney Tunes style.

Actually, he was one Darkseid mind control away from being a threat.

Jokes are present in Snyder movies. They just are t excessive and impeding upon tension.

I would consider saving the planet from annihilation and continuously doing good in face of adversity worth celebrating.

There's plenty to root for in the DCEU if you actually take it onit own merits instead of complaining that it isn't entirely like the Supermsn you're used to.

[Vordan]

If collateral damage happening during a fight is doing a terrible job then all superheroes have been doing a terrible job. Also



There are jokes present in MoS and BvS. They just aren't delivered Looney Tunes style.

Actually, he was one Darkseid mind control away from being a threat.

The fight scenes went on too long, it was wearying. The washed out colors were a bore. Lois and Clark making out immediately after he had just killed someone was stupid. They should’ve wait until the next movie to start hooking them up. But really MoS was the best of the Snyderverse movies. For all it’s flaws I still enjoyed it. Best Zod ever, terrific score, decent acting all around.

BvS is where Snyder fell off the cliff. Superman and Batman are both morons and personality wise are way too similar. Doomsday’s design looks like crap. Eisenberg’s Luthor is utterly awful. Batman is killing people yet the trailers for JL before Snyder departed had Gordon joking around with him which is so utterly stupid. Killing Superman off in the second movie was stupid, I barely knew the guy. Making Steppenwolf the villain was a stupid idea. Cyborg’s design looked like crap.

Snyder’s reign is going down as a failure. Snyder fanboys need to accept that and move on.

[Kuwagaton]

Not a failure to fans. I can whip out the blu-ray and enjoy it no matter how much money it made or what people say about it. Having something to enjoy is a win imo.

Not necessarily. I'm wondering why WB decided against further Superman movies after the last two reboots that performed fairly well at the box office. If anyone has any insight, it would be much appreciated because from the outside looking in, it's very difficult to understand.

Honestly, I think bat39 did nail that in the first response.

However, if you present a product (be it a movie, car e.t.c) to an objective public ostensibly targeting the best reaction from the largest number of people within said public; then it stands to reason that the handlers of said product hasn't done well enough when what's produced is completely and utterly rejected by the majority.

Definitely agreed.

Well, yes, it's my own assertion because that's how it appears to me. I should have phrased my original point better.

Sorry if the way I put it sounds like splitting hairs. What I'm getting though if you're trying to get an answer on why things have gone south with WB, assuming their opinions and motives based on your own opinions is kind of a roadblock in understanding what went down. Maybe someone will answer with an interview they read or discussion they had with someone involved, though.

Or could it be because Batman is an easier character to handle (that is of course besides the popularity)? I think it was James Robinson that said that writing Superman was far more difficult than writing Batman and I remember Stan Lee echoing the same.

Easier to handle and here's what kills me: Batman fans truly believe he is not. Fair enough. But really I think given the sales figures, we might conclude that more Superman readers have read Batman than the reverse. Who in the target demographic hasn't read or seen a tremendously acclaimed and important Batman story? People think he's exactly what they sell: dark, edgy, human... and I can say he is, but so many people fill in the Superman blank with the weak opposite as the result. Some friend on Facebook the other day happened to post something about Superman game rumors, and the thread was filled with people saying he's too boring and powerful for a videogame, specifically unlike Batman. What kind of sense does that make? But you have pros who are actually doing these things admit the same. They might do a short, confused run on Superman and then go kill it on Batman and find much more popularity. Or... bust down the doors on a huge Batman movie trilogy and divide the crowd on a Superman follow-up. It's really ice skating uphill sometimes.

[Agent Z]

The fight scenes went on too long, it was wearying. The washed out colors were a bore. Lois and Clark making out immediately after he had just killed someone was stupid. They shouldÂ’ve wait until the next movie to start hooking them up. But really MoS was the best of the Snyderverse movies. For all itÂ’s flaws I still enjoyed it. Best Zod ever, terrific score, decent acting all around.

BvS is where Snyder fell off the cliff. Superman and Batman are both morons and personality wise are way too similar. DoomsdayÂ’s design looks like crap. EisenbergÂ’s Luthor is utterly awful. Batman is killing people yet the trailers for JL before Snyder departed had Gordon joking around with him which is so utterly stupid. Killing Superman off in the second movie was stupid, I barely knew the guy. Making Steppenwolf the villain was a stupid idea. CyborgÂ’s design looked like crap.

SnyderÂ’s reign is going down as a failure. Snyder fanboys need to accept that and move on.

Lois and Clark did not start making out after he killed Zod. This literally never happens.

Length of fight scenes never seems to be an issue in other superhero fights.

Not smiling 24/7 like a cartoon does not make Superman like Batman and frankly I'll take Snyder's Luthor over another moron with real estate schemes.

I'm sorry who needs to move on exactly? Because it seems like Snyder's detractors can't seem to stop talking about him despite his reign being over.

[Vordan]

Lois and Clark did not start making out after he killed Zod. This literally never happens.

Length of fight scenes never seems to be an issue in other superhero fights.

Not smiling 24/7 like a cartoon does not make Superman like Batman and frankly I'll take Snyder's Luthor over another moron with real estate schemes.

I'm sorry who needs to move on exactly? Because it seems like Snyder's detractors can't seem to stop talking about him despite his reign being over.

Because MoS spent way too much time on them.

Brooding and moping do though. I had hoped for more of the brief glimpse we got at the end of MoS, BvS felt like a regression. They both sucked. Donner’s Lex being campy doesn’t mean Snyder’s Lex was somehow good. Hell Snyder’s Lex was campy himself. Utterly cringeworthy Bible quotes, comparing Superman to Jesus (just like the Donner films did!), an idiotic plan, making Lex into an insane moron, why the hell couldnt we get a Lex like the DCAU? Why did we get a Lex who feeds people jolly ranchers and pisses in jars? Those things aren’t cool or badass they’re stupid.

Our current situation is born of Snyder. Of course we’re talking about him. It’s not JUST his fault of course, WB deserves plenty of blame, but we are where we are right now in part because of the choices Snyder made.

[Sacred Knight]

For this particular go round, the main problem was WB had no interest in building a verse via the building blocks of fleshing out the individual characters. Questionable characterization decisions aside, this was always the immediate killer and guaranteed failure from the start. They wanted what the MCU was in 2012 by doing the absolute minimal amount of work necessary to get there. Even as early as MOS it was never intended to just be Superman's story. They always intended to force it all in as quickly as possible. The surprise is actually that they even bothered to do a stand-alone Superman film to start things out in the first place, and didn't jump right into a team-up of some sort.