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

[friendly-fire-press]

I think the main problem, for me, was the way Superman was portrayed. A one dimensional lovesick fool who didn't seem capable of anything unless his girlfriend was holding his hand. He saved her 3 times in the one movie but seemed unfazed by the loss of other peoples lives, their endangerments, etc that's not heroic, it's insulting

At least in Man of Steel the character was a little more complex and heroic (because he didn't necessarily value one person's life over everyone else's)

[Prime]

Man...that was my entire problem with the movie. Superman had barely a personality and barely spoked. Plus it was disjointed as f.

[Steven Kaye]

A great film, and not at all disjointed or hard to follow. Personally, the only thing I'd cut out is Bruce Wayne's vision - aside from that, everything works.

[Cowtools]

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.

[DieHard200904]

I think the main problem, for me, was the way Superman was portrayed. A one dimensional lovesick fool who didn't seem capable of anything unless his girlfriend was holding his hand. He saved her 3 times in the one movie but seemed unfazed by the loss of other peoples lives, their endangerments, etc that's not heroic, it's insulting

At least in Man of Steel the character was a little more complex and heroic (because he didn't necessarily value one person's life over everyone else's)

Superman: Doomsday handled Superman better, that moment where he dropped off Lois in that animated flick may have been quick, but it showed in that animated flick that Superman in that animated movie was a capable hero, despite being engaged and in about the same relationship status. You could also see despite the brief dropoff that Lois understood it too. Superman: Doomsday did a lot of things well.

I hate to admit it, but Marvel kind of has me a little won over movie speaking, I expect there to be some flaws with CA3, but so far they seem to have somewhat of a grasp of things with Captain America, not so much Avengers, but it's kind of sad to see DC, which holds three of my characters, is doing in the face of some pretty hard competition from Marvel.

[batnbreakfast]

Yeah, you are supposed to work UP to Doomsday.

You save Doomday for the third Superman movie.

BvS tried to get the DC cinematic universe to the same place that the Marvel movies were after 5 movies. Not caring
that they were doing it at Superman's expense.

Only if your idea of a great superhero movie is being formulaic (we've seen that already) and two people duking it out. I hate Doomsday, I hate Bane, too.

[batnbreakfast]

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.

Oh, how great WW was! She's no killer like Batman (only uses her sword for buttering sandwiches and didn't harm a fly in World War I). She's concerned with human life and law unlike Superman. Well I didn't see her saving innocents either. I liked her portrayal but we have only seen glimpses of her. Maybe she'll have her character assassination in her upcoming movie.

[Tra-EL]

I've been on other boards going into GREAT depth and discussion about BvS. Is this the perfect Superman in theory? No, but judging the merits of the continuous story from Man of Steel that naturally carried over from its own saga to BvS, I absolutely loved the film and really understood how the story effected Superman in this and what's to come. Though the ending was somber, I thought it was done gracefully to the character enough that it satisfied me and made me into highly anticipating where we are heading in the DCEU.

It took me a few viewings for Man of Steel to decide if I loved the film and I did. But I really loved BvS the first go-around and Superman's role and the way Henry played it had a lot to do with it. Like I said, it's not the ideal; classic Superman JUST YET, but there are walls that are still meant to be broken down. The arc showed we are getting closer to that in this DCEU. 2 films won't decide the end result. I'm excited and along for this ride.

[batnbreakfast]

I've been on other boards going into GREAT depth and discussion about BvS. Is this the perfect Superman in theory? No, but judging the merits of the continuous story from Man of Steel that naturally carried over from its own saga to BvS, I absolutely loved the film and really understood how the story effected Superman in this and what's to come. Though the ending was somber, I thought it was done gracefully to the character enough that it satisfied me and made me into highly anticipating where we are heading in the DCEU.

It took me a few viewings for Man of Steel to decide if I loved the film and I did. But I really loved BvS the first go-around and Superman's role and the way Henry played it had a lot to do with it. Like I said, it's not the ideal; classic Superman JUST YET, but there are walls that are still meant to be broken down. The arc showed we are getting closer to that in this DCEU. 2 films won't decide the end result. I'm excited and along for this ride.

Great post! Yeah, there are problems but all the oh-so-great comicbookmovies (TDK, Guardians, Winter Soldier)... do they really have less problems? Less plotholes? Better acting? SOME of the negativity thrown towards BvS is hypo-crazy

[rpmaluki]

Only if your idea of a great superhero movie is being formulaic (we've seen that already) and two people duking it out. I hate Doomsday, I hate Bane, too.

But all stories are formulaic. It's just that there's different formulas for different stories.

[Photon Torme]

They always do a better job in the animated movies. If only those people were doing the live action versions.

The animated Flick called Superman: Doomsday handled Doomsday and Superman's battle with him in a great way. It was gut wrenching when you saw him drop off Lois to go get Doomsday, you can tell that they cared for each other while at the same time Kal was driven by his need to protect people and juggled both desires in that moment. It was also even more weighted with it being a standalone Superman movie without other DC superheroes, making it more a drive on Superman's conscience that he had to stop Doomsday.

It was then clear that this version of Superman had been at his job a long time as well.

Basically, in terms of Doomsday, Superman: Doomsday did better than Dawn of Justice.

I always liked Superman there to found the JL as well not be a martyr who inspired it's founding.

Zack Snyder may have some heart for him, but I doubt he or WB knew how to handle it in the best way.

[Jim Kelly]

I've been on other boards going into GREAT depth and discussion about BvS. Is this the perfect Superman in theory? No, but judging the merits of the continuous story from Man of Steel that naturally carried over from its own saga to BvS, I absolutely loved the film and really understood how the story effected Superman in this and what's to come. Though the ending was somber, I thought it was done gracefully to the character enough that it satisfied me and made me into highly anticipating where we are heading in the DCEU.

It took me a few viewings for Man of Steel to decide if I loved the film and I did. But I really loved BvS the first go-around and Superman's role and the way Henry played it had a lot to do with it. Like I said, it's not the ideal; classic Superman JUST YET, but there are walls that are still meant to be broken down. The arc showed we are getting closer to that in this DCEU. 2 films won't decide the end result. I'm excited and along for this ride.

I think what the movie did was give a way into the Superman/Batman friendship and the movie needed all that time to get the audience there.

Not for me--because I'm from the generation where Superman and Batman were friends from the first time they met and it always seemed obvious to me that they would be, being so similar in their origins and their goals.

But for all those who have become used to the Dark Knight who is a loner and exists outside any higher authority--it's a problem to find a way how Superman and Batman get to be friends. So having them fight it out Human Torch/Sub-Mariner style--knocking the hate out of each other and getting to common ground in this cathartic battle--was a way to get the modern generation to accept that the Sun and the Moon can be friends.

I don't know about the logic. I wasn't always thinking about the logic, throughout the movie. But movies shouldn't have to be logical. This is a psychological drama and it should be allowed to leap over logic sometimes to hit those moments that have a psychological truth.

And, in this movie version, Batman doesn't get to be friends with Superman for long, before that's all taken away from it. So it still fits with that idea of the Masked Manhunter as a guy who is full of angst and regret for all his losses--and how all those bitter souvenirs motivate his actions in their aftermath.

[misslane]

I think the main problem, for me, was the way Superman was portrayed. A one dimensional lovesick fool who didn't seem capable of anything unless his girlfriend was holding his hand. He saved her 3 times in the one movie but seemed unfazed by the loss of other peoples lives, their endangerments, etc that's not heroic, it's insulting

At least in Man of Steel the character was a little more complex and heroic (because he didn't necessarily value one person's life over everyone else's)

One dimensional? Visit this site that breaks down the differences between a three dimensional character and other characters, and then justify that accusation. For example, it says that a 3D character "appear as credible people who you might know. Like humans, they have flaws and failings. They are individual and also seek to relate to others." That sounds like Superman to me. He makes mistakes in this film and he makes unique connections with several characters. The site continues, "The trick of creating a 3D character is to add detail that is not strictly necessary for the plot, yet which helps to create a sense of reality. The critical trick in this is to do it without losing the reader, who will quickly get bored if you go too much and too quickly into character development." I'd say little touches like the fact that Clark lives with Lois and cooks or that Perry likes to hound him about sports' stories are minor touches that flesh out his life beyond the confines of the plot.

Or how about this site's break down of characters and their dimensions? According to it, a 1D character is one that:

A one-dimensional character constitutes the "walk on" parts of the story. These are your waiters, your cab drivers, bartenders, a mother walking down the street, or the random pikeman your hero stabs through the face (though not always). They are briefly seen and do not speak. One-dimensional characters that spend more than several pages in your story should be made two-dimensional. Beside possible subplots, adding realism to an environment, or even promoting general interest, any interaction with a main character serves to flesh out the personality of both characters and add dimension to a scene or personality. Any walk-on that could successfully be made into two-dimensional character should...unless doing so awkwardly upstages an important character/moment or harmfully dilutes the pacing of a scene.

Meanwhile, a 3D character is one that:

A three-dimensional character however, plays an important role in the story and constitutes all major characters, including villains. They have complex emotions and sometimes conflicting motives, troubled pasts and deep worries. They are alive with passion and ambition and desire, never apathetic (and if they are, they are overly apathetic).

Your criticism of Superman as one-dimensional does not hold up to scrutiny. It's a hyperbolic slam on the character with nothing in the narrative to support it. In this film, Superman has concerns that he expresses about his role in the world and his effectiveness. He makes tough decisions, has deep emotions, and has goals (e.g. taking down the Batman) that we see him pursue onscreen.

As for your other claim, it's just as confounding. You say, Superman is "lovesick fool who didn't seem capable of anything unless his girlfriend was holding his hand. He saved her 3 times in the one movie but seemed unfazed by the loss of other peoples lives, their endangerments, etc that's not heroic, it's insulting." Except, Lois isn't holding Superman's hand throughout everything in this movie. The first issue that came up was the incident in Africa. While Lois was shown to be concerned about it, Clark actually wasn't. He said he didn't care what people thought. Clark then pursued exposing the Batman's harsh vigilantism without any input or prodding from Lois. The thing that ultimately got him back in the game following the Capitol bombing wasn't Lois, although she helped, but talking to his father's spirit in the Arctic. I can't believe anyone who saw the movie would suggest that Superman was unfazed by the loss of others' lives. First of all, he is shown saving loved ones as well as strangers in this movie; he takes a nuclear blast and dies to save the world. Second, his crisis of faith comes after the Capitol bombing where he is shown very plainly to be fazed by the losses there.

Nothing you've said about the depth or nature of Superman's characterization remotely resembles the film, in my opinion.

[DieHard200904]

They always do a better job in the animated movies. If only those people were doing the live action versions.

IKR!!! I mean I have enjoyed so many of their animated DC flicks over the years. Sometimes I wish that Snyder and Co. took some pointers from those.

[krazijoe]

Here are some random thoughts and **********SPOILERS**********:
- It was great to see Wonder Woman on film. But there is absolutely no real backstory or origin provided to her. What we know is she's hanging around wherever Lex is, Bruce finds out she's been alive forever, and she shows up in Wonder Woman garb. Just terrible development and a clear sign that she wasn't really needed in the movie. Even still, her presence was a pleasant happening.

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.