How did they get it so wrong? BvS (may contain spoilers)

[kingaliencracker]

She said in the Movie she is there to get a picture back from Lex, who stole it. The picture and Bruce confronting her about it provide all the backstory needed.

I disagree. Such is life...

[BruceWayneJr.]

Finally saw this last night.
A grating, boring, misanthropic and cruel film. Batman is vicious, vindictive and incredibly stupid. Superman is dull, affectless and seemingly unconcerned with human life or law.
Wonder Woman's brief screen time was the only bright spot.
A tragic waste of time, money and energy. I have no interest in the further adventures of these dull and hateful characters.

It's just shocking to me that no one holding the purse strings at Warner realized your points. What a complete misfire. I'm certainly not looking forward to more of this.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I recently rewatched Man of Steel, I had to, and everything flowed by more smoothly than ever before. I really like this Superman and his story arc. I love Krypton, there's a ton of Jodoroskys Metabarons in this story and I would love more. In flashback of course in another Superman movie. Michael Shannon's Zod is as good as any top tier Supervillan in Cinema. The dialogue, sure... But he's terrifying and equally tragic when fighting Kal. They really lift from Johnny Bates and Miracle Man's battle in London. All great ideas nicely realized.

Batman V Superman, I need to see it again! The Lois parts were unexpected. The big emotional moments worked for me, the capital scene not so much. The real spoiler I missed, the Lois scenes with Ma Kent in Smallvile, I'm so happy I knew nothing about that. People around me cried at the end. The length didn't bother me and I really wanted more of the universe. I had no sense of "Get me out of here, this is too bleak." The drama and tone worked for me. Doomsday looked great, all the fights. I can live with this fight, Batman and Superman. Wonder Woman makes the Worlds Finest Trio! Finally!

Warner's shouldn't blink. They are loyal to directors, I look forward to Snyder's 4th World and JLA. I like the foreshadowing with John Boormans Excalibur. Arthur and Mordred, Kal and Doomsday. What's next, Rock of Ages, Injustice? I have no clue but I am still on board. I can't wait to see Civil War next, but I am glad I saw Batman V Superman first. I don't need two Marvel cinematic universes and the TV shows hit that spot. DC films is in good shape and they should play the long game.

[Buried Alien]

This is probably true for almost any artistic work, but especially for BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE - what you get out of it depends largely upon the baggage you carry into it. It's that kind of film.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Jim Kelly]

I watched MAN OF STEEL on a computer flat screen, while I watched BATMAN VERSUS SUPERMAN on a theatre screen with 3-D glasses. Neither was the optimum viewing experience for either movie, but my knee jerk feeling is that the effects work was better in the second movie.

The scenes of destruction felt too artificial in the first movie and so didn't have enough emotional impact for me. Then again watching movies at home always allows me to be much more removed from the experience; whereas, in a theatre, I'm always more focused on the movie--and I try to get a seat close to the screen, so I have almost no peripheral distaction and I feel like I'm inside the movie.

Both movies were spoiled for me well before I saw them--and I was inundated with everyone's negative opinion. Which may have made the movies more effective as I was constantly surprised how good they were.

With BATMAN V SUPERMAN in particular all the comments I read just don't transfer. Because I've seen great movies from the likes of Frederico Fellini and Orson Welles that do a lot of the same things that are identified as failures in BVS. For example jump cuts, quick cuts, non sequitors. If I held this against BVS, I'd have to reject 8 1/2--a movie I've watched 30 times and still can't get enough of seeing. Or the piling on of scenes and the slow build of CITIZEN KANE--probably the most perfect movie ever made--which I've likely watched 50 times by now.

That's why I don't trust the reviews. I can believe that people didn't like this movie or that movie--everybody's mileage will vary. But I think people are trying to couch their subjective experience in objective terms--as if there are certain rules for how to make a good movie. In fact, the rules keep changing. Thirty years ago, the movies of Andrej Tarkovskij were unsettling with their technique--and still some people probably wouldn't be able to sit through NOSTALGHI--but a lot of what he did in cinema filtered into mainstream movies.

Not that I'd put MOS or BVS quite on that level--but I don't want super-hero movies to play it safe. If they upset people, maybe that's a good thing.

[Johnny Thunders!]

And there's Citizen Kane in this movie too, what more do the critics want?

[DieHard200904]

I watched MAN OF STEEL on a computer flat screen, while I watched BATMAN VERSUS SUPERMAN on a theatre screen with 3-D glasses. Neither was the optimum viewing experience for either movie, but my knee jerk feeling is that the effects work was better in the second movie.

The scenes of destruction felt too artificial in the first movie and so didn't have enough emotional impact for me. Then again watching movies at home always allows me to be much more removed from the experience; whereas, in a theatre, I'm always more focused on the movie--and I try to get a seat close to the screen, so I have almost no peripheral distaction and I feel like I'm inside the movie.

Both movies were spoiled for me well before I saw them--and I was inundated with everyone's negative opinion. Which may have made the movies more effective as I was constantly surprised how good they were.

With BATMAN V SUPERMAN in particular all the comments I read just don't transfer. Because I've seen great movies from the likes of Frederico Fellini and Orson Welles that do a lot of the same things that are identified as failures in BVS. For example jump cuts, quick cuts, non sequitors. If I held this against BVS, I'd have to reject 8 1/2--a movie I've watched 30 times and still can't get enough of seeing. Or the piling on of scenes and the slow build of CITIZEN KANE--probably the most perfect movie ever made--which I've likely watched 50 times by now.

That's why I don't trust the reviews. I can believe that people didn't like this movie or that movie--everybody's mileage will vary. But I think people are trying to couch their subjective experience in objective terms--as if there are certain rules for how to make a good movie. In fact, the rules keep changing. Thirty years ago, the movies of Andrej Tarkovskij were unsettling with their technique--and still some people probably wouldn't be able to sit through NOSTALGHI--but a lot of what he did in cinema filtered into mainstream movies.

Not that I'd put MOS or BVS quite on that level--but I don't want super-hero movies to play it safe. If they upset people, maybe that's a good thing.

People have their own taste as to what they expect vs what they get in the movie. This isn't Batman as they have come to know him, or Lex Luthor as they have come to know him, etc. For some people, even for me, someone who liked Man of Steel, it wasn't exactly within my preference, but I have definitely seen worse.

[Jim Kelly]

People have their own taste as to what they expect vs what they get in the movie. This isn't Batman as they have come to know him, or Lex Luthor as they have come to know him, etc. For some people, even for me, someone who liked Man of Steel, it wasn't exactly within my preference, but I have definitely seen worse.

And if people said just that, I'd be behind them. These movies weren't what I wanted either. But some reviewers have tried to insist that their feeling is an objective judgement and then go on to give an argument based on what they declare as facts.

I knew already that these movies weren't going to be my Superman and Batman, so when I looked at them, I set that expectation aside and watched them as movies. It's a subjective judgement, but I think that on the whole Snyder made the movie he wanted to make and good on him for doing that. The challenge of making any movie is imposing--I doubt most people could do it and come up with anything worth watching.

[Jon-El]

Comic book adaptations are so different than regular films. With a normal movie, there's no audience expectations beyond trailers & word of mouth. With a film about Superman & Batman, you have current comic readers who expect a certain interpretation, former readers who have a certain interpretation in their heads, and non comic people who know the characters from cartoons, older TV shows or movies, or simply pop culture. It's tough to bring a film to the screen that will please the majority. I think that's why the Marvel characters have an easier time. They honestly not as well known among non comic people. One fewer segment to have to please.

I wasn't crazy about the movie but think it reflects the post 9/11 world fairly well. A more upbeat Superman would seem out of place. People point to Captain America as being similar but with Cap, you have a soldier. He can be a Boy Scout but he still has a certain edge.

[Captain Haddock]

She said in the Movie she is there to get a picture back from Lex, who stole it. The picture and Bruce confronting her about it provide all the backstory needed.

Erm... no, not really. There is a 60-70 year old picture of someone who does look a lot like Gal Gadot/Diana Prince, sure. But in real life there's 100 year old pictures that look a lot like Nick Cage/Keanu Reeves/whoever. It's something of a meme in fact. Doesn't mean we assume it actually is them. And it doesn't begin to explain a single thing about anything - how did Lex get it, what's he going to do with it? How did Diana find out about it, what's SHE going to do with it/about it once she gets it back? Where the heck has the costumed hero been in between the war and now? Why should we care? No-one ever says the name Wonder Woman. No-one associates her with any heroine so are we to assume all of WW's super-heroics somehow went underneath the radar? Why is this a big deal? Why would Diana give a damn about a bunch of other super-powered types?

It's literally just there so we know they exist before they appear in the next movie. And I say that as someone who thought the film was decent and Gal/Diana the best thing in it.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I almost feel that Marvel Movies, because they have such a lighter tone, they are more versatile than the DC Snyder Movies, the Nolan ones are just a different animal. With Marvel Movies, it's easier to have somber moments that contrast with all the lightness, with Man of Steel and Batman V Superman, the lightness doesn't always work with the somber tone of the films.

One problem I still have with Man of Steel is the look of Metropolis as it falls. It plays on the American audiences experience with 9-11, the buildings and the dust, and the people trapped in rubble, watching it in the theater, all I could think of was New York. Plus, watching Lois and Clark share a kiss on the rubble, it seemed out of place, all the death just doesn't seem to fit with a romantic moment.

With Batman V Superman, I dislike the ambiguity of "You don't owe this world a thing and you never did..." It doesn't surprise me that The Fountainhead might be Snyder's next film.
On NPR, one reviewer said that the Snyder Superhero movies are fatalistic. "In order to save the farm, we had to drown some horses..." I think that's a fair criticism and it's very different than the mood of most Superhero movies.

[Idiscyple]

Clark was a no show in both Movies. Man of Steel and This one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jObt...ion_3125415791

[Buried Alien]

Clark was a no show in both Movies. Man of Steel and This one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jObt...ion_3125415791

Actually, I feel that Henry Cavill tends to play Superman as Clark Kent in his Superman outfit, more so than Christopher Reeve and other previous live action Superman ever did.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Pharozonk]

This is probably true for almost any artistic work, but especially for BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE - what you get out of it depends largely upon the baggage you carry into it. It's that kind of film.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

It's still a mess of film without comic fanboy nitpicks though.

[Ascended]

But I think people are trying to couch their subjective experience in objective terms--as if there are certain rules for how to make a good movie.

I think there's some truth to that, actually. At least as far as superheroes go.

Marvel's Avengers movies have created a very successful format, and most of their films have followed that format to one degree or another, to great critical success. The fact that none of their films have bombed yet is practically a statistical impossibility, and this formula is now largely seen as the basic blueprint for superhero movies, and most people expect superhero movies to abide by that tone and methodology.

Bottom line; when people go to see a superhero film, they now expect it to follow a particular formula. They expect witty one-liners and comedy mixed with highly choreographed action and what passes for heartfelt moments in big summer blockbusters. Its worth noting that even Deadpool followed this format; although they pushed the envelope into the R-rating, they were still doing the same thing as Iron Man, just with more adult jokes.

Movies that try to move away from that Marvel formula are breaking some sort of rule. Batman gets a pass because he's supposed to be dark and gritty and people expect that from him, and maybe Wolverine to a lesser extent. But Superman, to the average person, isn't meant to be serious. The average person still thinks of Chris Reeve or Tom Welling. They dont think of the rough and tumble social crusader whose actions were, if well meaning, questionable. They dont see the scientist and philosopher trying to understand humanity from an outsider's perspective. They only see a sliver of the character, and if they're even aware of his greater range and verisimilitude, its a vague concept floating in the back of their minds, without definition and perhaps without conscious acknowledgement.

Not that I'd put MOS or BVS quite on that level--but I don't want super-hero movies to play it safe. If they upset people, maybe that's a good thing.

Its worth noting that at the time, Donner's Superman got some pretty mixed reviews as well. Today its a classic, and if you speak out against it you can pretty much assume a mob will come for you. It'll be interesting to see how Man of Steel is remembered twenty years from now, if its remembered at all.