Batman V Superman

[Mailliw73 he/him]

I saw it last night and quite enjoyed it. Yes, there's a bit too much happening sometimes, and there's a couple plot holes, but I liked it. I'll be back later with spoiler discussion.

[LUNA]

Also, the soundtrack was TOP NOTCH xP

[Left he/him]

So I just got back from it, I'll post a fuller reaction later, but for now, I liked it a Lot more than Man of Steel.

[Pagerunner he/him]

So upfront I did not see the movie. I had no intention of seeing the movie except to rent it at some point, so I did not care about spoilers in the review I watched. Then curious about what the reviewers stated, I wikied the plot. So take what I say as biased that I came into it not interested, and I am basing my opinion on the summary. Having warned of that, I will put all my comments in a spoilers tag as they spoil the entire movie. This is more to go back and forth with those who have seen the movie and get their thoughts on my issues, as they have seen it, while I have only read it.

 

So first issue. Batman has been around for 20 years by this point while Superman's devastation of Metropolis happened a little more than a year ago. So Batman is so upset at Superman about the destruction, but where was he during it all? The whole world was in danger, including Gotham, so why didn't he show up then and put his two cents in?

Second, from what the review said, we never actually learn why Lex Luther hates Superman so much. He calls him a monster or a demon, but never learn the motivation behind wanting to destroy him so badly.

Third, and this is a big one for me, throwing in/name dropping wonder woman, cyborg, the flash, and aquaman. I sympathize with the writers and directors of these superhero movies. They have to find a way to make these characters plausible in today's world on the big screen. Captain America? Easy, super syrum, giving him above human strength, agility, and endurance but far from invulnerable. Iron Man? Again easy, genius builds his own suit, that can be damaged/destroyed. Thor? Norse God.......ummmm....so you see......ummmm....... But they accomplished that awesomely. They introduced him in his own film so the audience could get to know him individually, and still grounded it in the world by the simple statement of "I come from a world where science and magic for you is indistinguishable". So you could look at it as plausible. They are just far further down the line in technology and genetics than we are. So I could buy that when you then have him meet the other avengers. Then by the time quicksilver and scarlet witch show up, more of the out there abilities don't seem as far fetched. But now lets look at DC. We go from a Batman series that are completely grounded in reality. Ras al Gul doesn't have his lazarus pit. Bane does not have his venom. Everyone is fundamentally human and "natural". Then we jump to superman and suddenly its "aliens". Ok, well I as an audience member could buy that. The figurative camera is "zooming" out persay from just cities or just earth, and realizing there is more out there. But now we jump to "oh by the way, there is a 5,000 year old amazonian daughter of Zeus, a guy that got struck by lightning and run faster than light, a dude with cybernetic implants, and a sponge er um guy that lives under the sea....." We went from completely grounded in reality, to science fiction, to mythology, more science fiction and fantasy. I am not saying it couldn't work. Just it could have been done/explained so much better as evidenced with Marvel. They gradually and organically let us learn the galaxy is not that much of a lonely place as we thought. And also, although I was iffy about Iron Man 3, I loved that they included Tony Stark getting anxiety after the Battle of Manhattan. I mean storms, even if I had abilities, if I suddenly found out an alien army existed and wanted to wipe us out and we just barely beat them, I would freak out too. But the movie just takes for granted the audience will go "oh, ok."

Fourth, Batman and Superman suddenly become besties because their mom's name are the same? Really?

 

Fifth, this is more from the review I watched by I agree, they killed off Superman way too early. It is like when Kirk dies in the latest Star Trek and Spock yells Khan. In the original movie, they had been friends for years, and built a brotherhood like bond. So when Spock died, Kirk getting all upset about it makes sense. When Kirk dies in the new movie, they still couldn't stand each other. So why is Spock all broken up by Kirk's sacrifice? It wasn't earned. Same here with Superman's death. He didn't build a bond with any of the other characters. He didn't show that he is the type of person that would do the right thing, no matter how hard it is, or easy it would be to just kill or crush with his powers, because it is the right thing to do. They never show why he is a symbol of hope to the world, and why his death would be so devastating. They just kill him and then two seconds later "bring him back". It cheapens it. Now any future Superman movie you know he will survive, because why kill him again?

 

 

So in summation, I didn't even see this movie, and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Can anyone who has seen it redeem it for me enough to want to see it? And I realize I already know the whole plot, what would be the point? But I never care about spoilers. Even when I know the end of something, I still enjoy experiencing it. But I don't see much reason to in this case.

 

I just saw the movie, and I loved it. I think it's a little unfair to read a plot synopsis and say that it's a bad movie, since there's so much more to a movie than a blow-by-blow of what people do. To answer your questions point-by-point:

 

1) He was unprepared to fight, and he knew it. During the events of Man of Steel, he was trying to protect his people by helping to evacuate the city. He spent the next year-and-a-half hunting down Kryptonite to be able to battle Superman or other Kryptonians.

 

2) Superman is demonized because of the destruction wrought on Metropolis during the events of Man of Steel. There is an active campaign by Lex to further make Superman look like a villain (by staging attacks and blaming them on Superman). As to Lex's overall motivations... they are left blank, but Lex is kind of insane, and the end of the movie hints at other forces at work. So, that mystery is left a little hanging, but I don't think it derails the plot. When the movie starts, everyone is afraid of Superman; the US Gov't is considering working with Lex to build Kryptonite weapons.

 

3) I'm not quite sure I understand the point you're trying to make. This is not Christian Bale's Batman, just played by a different actor, but a new character set in Man of Steel's world. We don't get detailed backstories for Batman and Wonder Woman in the movie, they show up as characters with histories that we only get rare glimpses of, and I think that's okay. The Justice League has tremendous name recognition already; I don't find it jarring at all that there are different kinds of metahumans (as they were referred to in the movie) already on Earth. I think comparing it to Marvel is not completely valid; Marvel had sold their most popular superheroes to other studios, so they had to build recognition of Cap, Iron Man, and Thor for the plebs. (Like myself, who hadn't heard of them before their movies came out. I had heard of the Justice League, however.) However, I will say that I think there was a bit too much focus on the other members of the Justice League, for them to never show up. It was just sequel hook material, like the cave sequence in Avengers 2. If the other members of the team had showed up, maybe it would have been worth it. But I'd have rather Wonder Woman never opened the files on-screen.

 

4) More on this down below. This was Batman's first glimpse into Superman as a human. He prepared to take down this god-like interloper. He fought him, beat him, and was about to kill him. Then, he learned that Superman was a person, had a mother, and Superman was fighting to save his mother. That their names were both "Martha" isn't a significant tie between the heroes on its own, but it provided enough of a shock to Batman to get him to think of Superman as a person.

 

5) I'm not quite sure where you're coming from here, either. Batman and Wonder Woman aren't emotional at Superman's death; it's Lois, Mrs. Kent, and the people of Metropolis. You're right, they don't show why his death is a symbol of hope, because the movie doesn't present it as such - he's a fallen soldier who fought against true villainy. (Some more on that below, as well.)

 

Now, stepping out of the plot, I'd like to mention what I thought of as the major theme for this movie.

 

Despite being a sequel to Man of Steel, I felt like thematically, this fit more with Watchmen, another of Zach Snyder's superhero movies. What makes superheroes better than regular people? What gives them the right? And what keeps them acting as heroes? (Who watches the Watchmen?) You have Superman operating outside of the law and causing collateral damage, you have Batman acting as a criminal to further his own purposes, and you have Wonder Woman turning away from being a hero because the world is a terrible place. Superheroes are soldiers - Wonder Woman in WWI, Superman in the battles of Man of Steel, and I have a pretty strong feeling Batman was in Iraq. They are all distrustful of each others' motives, not a team, and actively working to destroy one another. What makes them heroes?

 

In Watchmen, the answer is bleak - superheroes are no better than ordinary men. They have the same flaws, the same tendencies towards evil. In Man of Steel, we get a different answer - the villains drive our heroes towards greatness. The Watchmen need no Watching when they have a purpose, when they are soldiers with an enemy to fight.

 

That's why the scene where Batman finds out Superman's mother's predicament is so powerful. He was a hero without a villain, and he was turning into a villain trying to save the world. From that moment on, there is no wavering in the heroes' actions, no questioning of each others' motives, no infighting or doubt. They work as a team to save Mrs. Kent and stop Doomsday, even at the cost of Superman's life. But Superman can die, because he's not alone - the thing that ties the team together is what they are fighting against, not what they're fighting for. This drives the Justice League hints at the end of the movie - there is something bigger coming, and they need to take the aimless heroes and unite them with a common purpose.

 

In Watchmen, the superheroes have goals, and they fight another and turn to evil to accomplish them. For the first two-thirds of BvS, the superheroes have goals, and fight another and turn towards evil to accomplish them. For the last third, they have enemies, and it redeems them.

 

The last redeeming feature is actually the depth of story behind the story of the movie, something that reminds me a lot of Brandon's writing, with Secret History and whatnot.

 

There's the story behind Batman, which is not told, but pieces are shown. Robin's old costume, with taunts scribbled across it. Wayne Manor, burnt and abandoned. Alfred saying that Bruce has always been more effective than the Bat. It got me wondering what kind of connections there were in the movie to Batman's history. I've seen a theory that Lex could also be the Joker, based on his mannerisms; I'd like to compare the writing on Robin's old costume and some of Lex's crazy writing, see if they could be a match.

 

And then, Batman is also having these 'visions' about Superman. Inside the scope of the story, it could be paranoia-fueled dreams, drawn from Batman's fear of Superman's destructive power. But there are some odd pieces that don't quite fit. There was a mysterious figure (might have been a new Robin, but it could have been Flash or anyone else who wears red) that seemed to contact Batman from the future, saying not to trust Clark (you were right about him). Mysterious bug-men that are attacking a post-apocalyptic Gotham City. The threats Superman made to Batman in that dream sequence where Batman was captured, which I couldn't connect to anything specific that had happened in the movie. My brother and I theorized that the dreams were messages sent back in time from an alternate timeline where Batman let Martha die, and it turned Superman into a villain, resulted in the destruction of Gotham, and the arrival of invaders from space (aforementioned bug-people). Time-travelling dream messages let them change the course of events, reconcile Batman and Superman, and alter the timeline. We're seeing only the altered timeline, with the main timeline's actions being "BvS: Secret History."

 

And then, at the end, we get a weird sequence where I think Lex is having a vision, like Batman's. We're at Superman's funeral (with Bruce in attendance), and we cut away to Lex in prison. Guards disappear, Batman shows up, says some stuff, Lex starts going crazier. Then, back to the funeral, where they're still burying Superman. Either they have some non-linear storytelling, or Batman didn't actually make it there. Many of Batman's visions were presented as actually happening until he suddenly woke up, tricking the audience into thinking it was actually happening. (When young Bruce started flying in the intro, I was quite confused.) There are subtle clues in the level of realism that provide some hints whether or not it's a vision (Bruce flying with the bats, Batman taking a bullet to the back of the head point-blank). The way the guards disappear and Batman breaks into a maximum security prison (when before, he had trouble getting into Lex's house) makes me think that Lex might also be having a vision. We just don't get to see him wake up. So, I think there's definitely something deeper going on with visions, and I expect we'll have to revise a lot of the events of this movie the same way Mistborn: Secret History revised some events of the original trilogy.

 

Well... that's a lot of words. Suffice to say, I think there is a lot to think about in this movie, both from a thematic point of view on what makes superheroes "super," and from an overarching Justice League plot point of view. I'd recommend seeing it, and look beyond what is happening to figure out what it all means. I don't think you'll be disappointed; I certainly wasn't.

[Quiver he/him]

I just saw the movie, and I loved it. I think it's a little unfair to read a plot synopsis and say that it's a bad movie, since there's so much more to a movie than a blow-by-blow of what people do. To answer your questions point-by-point:

1) He was unprepared to fight, and he knew it. During the events of Man of Steel, he was trying to protect his people by helping to evacuate the city. He spent the next year-and-a-half hunting down Kryptonite to be able to battle Superman or other Kryptonians.

2) Superman is demonized because of the destruction wrought on Metropolis during the events of Man of Steel. There is an active campaign by Lex to further make Superman look like a villain (by staging attacks and blaming them on Superman). As to Lex's overall motivations... they are left blank, but Lex is kind of insane, and the end of the movie hints at other forces at work. So, that mystery is left a little hanging, but I don't think it derails the plot. When the movie starts, everyone is afraid of Superman; the US Gov't is considering working with Lex to build Kryptonite weapons.

3) I'm not quite sure I understand the point you're trying to make. This is not Christian Bale's Batman, just played by a different actor, but a new character set in Man of Steel's world. We don't get detailed backstories for Batman and Wonder Woman in the movie, they show up as characters with histories that we only get rare glimpses of, and I think that's okay. The Justice League has tremendous name recognition already; I don't find it jarring at all that there are different kinds of metahumans (as they were referred to in the movie) already on Earth. I think comparing it to Marvel is not completely valid; Marvel had sold their most popular superheroes to other studios, so they had to build recognition of Cap, Iron Man, and Thor for the plebs. (Like myself, who hadn't heard of them before their movies came out. I had heard of the Justice League, however.) However, I will say that I think there was a bit too much focus on the other members of the Justice League, for them to never show up. It was just sequel hook material, like the cave sequence in Avengers 2. If the other members of the team had showed up, maybe it would have been worth it. But I'd have rather Wonder Woman never opened the files on-screen.

4) More on this down below. This was Batman's first glimpse into Superman as a human. He prepared to take down this god-like interloper. He fought him, beat him, and was about to kill him. Then, he learned that Superman was a person, had a mother, and Superman was fighting to save his mother. That their names were both "Martha" isn't a significant tie between the heroes on its own, but it provided enough of a shock to Batman to get him to think of Superman as a person.

5) I'm not quite sure where you're coming from here, either. Batman and Wonder Woman aren't emotional at Superman's death; it's Lois, Mrs. Kent, and the people of Metropolis. You're right, they don't show why his death is a symbol of hope, because the movie doesn't present it as such - he's a fallen soldier who fought against true villainy. (Some more on that below, as well.)

Now, stepping out of the plot, I'd like to mention what I thought of as the major theme for this movie.

Despite being a sequel to Man of Steel, I felt like thematically, this fit more with Watchmen, another of Zach Snyder's superhero movies. What makes superheroes better than regular people? What gives them the right? And what keeps them acting as heroes? (Who watches the Watchmen?) You have Superman operating outside of the law and causing collateral damage, you have Batman acting as a criminal to further his own purposes, and you have Wonder Woman turning away from being a hero because the world is a terrible place. Superheroes are soldiers - Wonder Woman in WWI, Superman in the battles of Man of Steel, and I have a pretty strong feeling Batman was in Iraq. They are all distrustful of each others' motives, not a team, and actively working to destroy one another. What makes them heroes?

In Watchmen, the answer is bleak - superheroes are no better than ordinary men. They have the same flaws, the same tendencies towards evil. In Man of Steel, we get a different answer - the villains drive our heroes towards greatness. The Watchmen need no Watching when they have a purpose, when they are soldiers with an enemy to fight.

That's why the scene where Batman finds out Superman's mother's predicament is so powerful. He was a hero without a villain, and he was turning into a villain trying to save the world. From that moment on, there is no wavering in the heroes' actions, no questioning of each others' motives, no infighting or doubt. They work as a team to save Mrs. Kent and stop Doomsday, even at the cost of Superman's life. But Superman can die, because he's not alone - the thing that ties the team together is what they are fighting against, not what they're fighting for. This drives the Justice League hints at the end of the movie - there is something bigger coming, and they need to take the aimless heroes and unite them with a common purpose.

In Watchmen, the superheroes have goals, and they fight another and turn to evil to accomplish them. For the first two-thirds of BvS, the superheroes have goals, and fight another and turn towards evil to accomplish them. For the last third, they have enemies, and it redeems them.

The last redeeming feature is actually the depth of story behind the story of the movie, something that reminds me a lot of Brandon's writing, with Secret History and whatnot.

There's the story behind Batman, which is not told, but pieces are shown. Robin's old costume, with taunts scribbled across it. Wayne Manor, burnt and abandoned. Alfred saying that Bruce has always been more effective than the Bat. It got me wondering what kind of connections there were in the movie to Batman's history. I've seen a theory that Lex could also be the Joker, based on his mannerisms; I'd like to compare the writing on Robin's old costume and some of Lex's crazy writing, see if they could be a match.

And then, Batman is also having these 'visions' about Superman. Inside the scope of the story, it could be paranoia-fueled dreams, drawn from Batman's fear of Superman's destructive power. But there are some odd pieces that don't quite fit. There was a mysterious figure (might have been a new Robin, but it could have been Flash or anyone else who wears red) that seemed to contact Batman from the future, saying not to trust Clark (you were right about him). Mysterious bug-men that are attacking a post-apocalyptic Gotham City. The threats Superman made to Batman in that dream sequence where Batman was captured, which I couldn't connect to anything specific that had happened in the movie. My brother and I theorized that the dreams were messages sent back in time from an alternate timeline where Batman let Martha die, and it turned Superman into a villain, resulted in the destruction of Gotham, and the arrival of invaders from space (aforementioned bug-people). Time-travelling dream messages let them change the course of events, reconcile Batman and Superman, and alter the timeline. We're seeing only the altered timeline, with the main timeline's actions being "BvS: Secret History."

And then, at the end, we get a weird sequence where I think Lex is having a vision, like Batman's. We're at Superman's funeral (with Bruce in attendance), and we cut away to Lex in prison. Guards disappear, Batman shows up, says some stuff, Lex starts going crazier. Then, back to the funeral, where they're still burying Superman. Either they have some non-linear storytelling, or Batman didn't actually make it there. Many of Batman's visions were presented as actually happening until he suddenly woke up, tricking the audience into thinking it was actually happening. (When young Bruce started flying in the intro, I was quite confused.) There are subtle clues in the level of realism that provide some hints whether or not it's a vision (Bruce flying with the bats, Batman taking a bullet to the back of the head point-blank). The way the guards disappear and Batman breaks into a maximum security prison (when before, he had trouble getting into Lex's house) makes me think that Lex might also be having a vision. We just don't get to see him wake up. So, I think there's definitely something deeper going on with visions, and I expect we'll have to revise a lot of the events of this movie the same way Mistborn: Secret History revised some events of the original trilogy.

Well... that's a lot of words. Suffice to say, I think there is a lot to think about in this movie, both from a thematic point of view on what makes superheroes "super," and from an overarching Justice League plot point of view. I'd recommend seeing it, and look beyond what is happening to figure out what it all means. I don't think you'll be disappointed; I certainly wasn't.

I think you have a very valid point about the Batman-turning-heel aspect. Looking at the movie as a while, that seems to be Bruce's arc; Alfred warns him about how rage "turns good men cruel", and we're told that Batman being more brutal than ever before, right up to the point where Batman is going to kill a man...and Superman asking him to save his mother is what feels Bruce back from the edge.

That's why I'm not so sure the final Lex-scene is a vision. We're told early on that the Batbrand is, effectively, a death sentence. Branding is a sign if how dark and cruel Bats was becoming anyway, but marking out enemies for prison...?

It was a line that Batman was crossing. So the ending, where he confronts Lex -a maniac, the one responsible for the Death of Superman- is significant because Bruce doesn't use the brander. It shows that he meant what he said about "not failing [superman] in death"; after all, Superman said he wasn't going to hurt Lex when he took him in.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Quiver

[Briar King]

Saw it last night and wish I hadn't. I was so bored after that really awesome opening for the next 2+hrs. If I wasn't bored I was confused at all the strange random arcs or I was groaning and eye rolling.

Bad movie

[Dunkum he/him]

every trailer I have seen has been extremely off-putting.  grim, scowly superman and manic, jibbering Lex Luthor in particular bother me to no end.  basically every time I see a picture of angry superman or hear luthor's monologuing, it makes me want to see the movie a little bit less; mostly I think this is because I am biased by the thoroughly excellent JLU versions of both characters.  at this point, I have no plans to see it, though I suppose if a bunch of my friends decided they were going to, I wouldn't refuse.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

I've heard and read some advance reviews (with spoilers, because that's how low my interest in this is) and to be honest, I'm even less interested in seeing it than I was before. There are so many more excellent iterations of both characters (though I'm more familiar with the ones for Batman) that I furthermore don't see the point in watching this movie. If I want more Batman, I can re-watch The Dark Knight or Under the Red Hood. 

[Briar King]

The only positive thing I can say about seeing it is that for some reason I was charged as a child(35!!!!lmao) and saved $2 on ticket. My 2 friends were so mad at my luck.

[Darkness Ascendant he/him]

I will be watching it (hopefully) on Tuesday. 

People HAVE been saying that it's a horrible movie however, my mates and I are going to go watch it and judge it for ourselves.

[Blaze1616 he/him]

I loved it. Very good. All the reviews I've looked at feel like they were trying to actively find things wrong with the movie, and the only explanation as to why they would do this is because people feel a weird loyalty to the Marvel movies for whatever reason. Like, I can't think of any other reason, because most of the complaints are just wrong. *shrugs*

 

The movie was fantastic. I loved this beaten and broken Batman, a take on the character that you never really see in the comics. This is a Batman that I can totally believe would be in stories like The Killing Joke, and I love it. WAY better than the Dark Knight incarnation. Affleck outperformed all of my expectations, and it was rusting awesome.

 

Cavill also did fantastic, and I feel he really captured this incarnation of Superman. A man who does what he can for good, even when the world is actively fighting against him. A man who chooses to be a Hero not because of the benefits gained, but because it is the right thing to do, period. Throw in a bit of emotional turmoil as he goes out of his way to save the woman he loves, and it's just....yes. Please. Give me more. 

 

This movie deserves a sequel. Regardless of whether it earns one with revenue, regardless of the obvious clues both in the movie, and the news outside of the movie that a Justice League is coming, this movie was good enough that it deserves a sequel. 

 

The only part of the movie I wish had been different:

was the scene where Diana is watching the clips for Cyborg, Flash, and Aquaman. First, why did she watch them out of order? That tickled my OCD nerve. If you're going to watch all of them, watch them in order lady. Second, I really don't like the actor for the Flash. That better not be Barry Allen (I didn't see any names in the scene), because if it is Barry, I'm just...ugh...no. Literally any other Flash I'd be able to get over it (Wally pushes it, but I'd live), but Barry is my favorite Flash, and that kid looks nothing like him, at all. It's the long black hair, and the fact that they clearly tried to look the part. It's just wrong, and I can't get over how wrong it is. I liked Ezra Miller in Perks of Being a Wallflower, but...urg. 

 

Needless to say, I'm excited for where the DCEU goes. My analysis of the movie: Haters gonna hate, so go see it gosh darn it!

[WayneSpren he/him]

I loved this movie. I wish there was a bit more batman in it though.

[azninvasion99 he/him]

It was better than I thought it would be, but it still wasn't great. I thought Eisenberg was severely miscast, I didn't like his Lex at all. I love Frank Miller's Batman so I enjoyed Affleck's portrayal well enough. Worder Woman was a breath of fresh air at the end, I'm more excited for her solo film now. I just wish DC didn't go with Snyder to run their universe, he is fine when he is adapting dark books (300, Watchmen) but when it comes to the DCU as a whole, just bleh.

[Dunkum he/him]

Cavill also did fantastic, and I feel he really captured this incarnation of Superman. A man who does what he can for good, even when the world is actively fighting against him. A man who chooses to be a Hero not because of the benefits gained, but because it is the right thing to do, period. Throw in a bit of emotional turmoil as he goes out of his way to save the woman he loves, and it's just....yes. Please. Give me more.

for an explanation on at least some of the hate, let me zero in on this right here: one of my problems with this movie, based on every trailer I have seen of it (again, haven't actually watched it), is Cavill's superman.  every image I see of him, the only thing I can think is "That doesn't look like superman"  and it all comes down to mood.  every image I have seen, he is angry and dark, and that just does not fit what I think Superman should be.  so when I see angry Cavill scowling down from the screen, I can't associate that image with the Superman I am familiar with.  I'm not blaming Cavill for this, it sounds like it comes more from the writers and director, and he is just playing it the way they want him to, but its things like this that put people off.

[Left he/him]

So I'm finally getting around to writing out what I think, yay!
Affleck and Cavill did great jobs. I really don't like what Snyder has done with their respective characters though.

Really!?! Batman using a gun? He's killing people? Multiple times? What the braize.... C'mon really?

I didn't like Lex. I don't want a Joker for Lex Luthor, the man who runs for president and is one of the classiest villains of all comic book time. Eisenburg's/Snyder's Lex had almost zero class, and way too many psychological issues for me.

I really liked the setup for Justice League, although that dream scene was really confusing at first. Wonder Woman was cool, but I didn't feel like I really connected with her at all.

I didn't go into the movie expecting to like Doomsday. He was in the trailer, and I was honestly pretty mad that he was, I felt like Snyder was letting way too much out. Once he was introduced though, I thought he was really cool and I was glad that he was in the trailer because otherwise I feel like he would've just been a mute monster snuck in. Knowing what to expect helped me.

 

I really wish they hadn't shown the dirt rising above Superman's grave. It would've been so much more powerful. I feel like if Snyder really wants to be brave and daring with his version of the Justice League, he has to be willing to do things like leave us wondering if Superman really actually is dead. Telling us he isn't, honestly feels a little wussy.

The Justice League setup: I really, really, really, really, really, really hope that Flash is good. The Flash I grew up with was one who played a huge part in the JL because of how positive he was. He lifted up characters like Batman. He balanced out the darkness.
I feel like never has there been more need for a Flash in the DC universe than right now with as dark as both Superman and Batman are. Please let him bring balance to the DC.

So I'm wondering....Where is Green Lantern? He's supposed to be the 7th member isn't he? Have they just not cast someone yet?

I guess that's the end of my spoiler comments

 

I don't want to accuse the critics of being "Marvel Fanboys", but I do wonder if they've gotten too used to Marvel super hero movies. It seems like they're all accusing it of not being Marvel ish, there's no quips, it's not happy, there haven't been enough introduction films.
I really liked the movie, I liked it more than Man of Steel( which rates below Dark Knight Rises for me), and I felt like it was incredibly carefully put together in a way that's really kind of beautiful. A dark and maybe depressing beautiful, but it's supposed to be. I feel like so many complaints against the film aren't willing to except a basic premise of darkness, which doesn't seem fair to the films.
There are issues with the film, I talked about them above, the ones I hear about confuse me though since they don't seem like real issues to me....

[Curious Anamaximder he/him]

Uh.... Well I didn't like it that much, but it was 3/5 stars.

Some things were stupid, but Wonder Woman was awesome.

[Blaze1616 he/him]

for an explanation on at least some of the hate, let me zero in on this right here: one of my problems with this movie, based on every trailer I have seen of it (again, haven't actually watched it), is Cavill's superman.  every image I see of him, the only thing I can think is "That doesn't look like superman"  and it all comes down to mood.  every image I have seen, he is angry and dark, and that just does not fit what I think Superman should be.  so when I see angry Cavill scowling down from the screen, I can't associate that image with the Superman I am familiar with.  I'm not blaming Cavill for this, it sounds like it comes more from the writers and director, and he is just playing it the way they want him to, but its things like this that put people off.

 

Edit: this morphed into a long ramble rant. There are very minor spoilers that I don't feel are worth spoiling, because they are easter eggs in the background that are very easy to miss when watching the movie.

 

And that's fine to feel that way, but I still don't fully get it. We're talking about DC here. We're talking about the company who is infamous for making a new universe for every idea they get. We're talking about the company who loves to make new stories about their characters with new character twists thrown in. We're talking about that company. The DCEU is no different than any other DC story, it's an alternate universe with their iconic characters being different than their Earth 1 counterparts. This will likely never get brought up (that they aren't Earth 1), or for the sake of non comic nerds they will call this movie universe Earth 1 in future movies which involve the multiverse, but this set of characters is just an alternate group. In this particular universe, Superman is a bit more brooding, a bit more troubled. He's conflicted about how his powers are affecting man kind, that his existence is driving certain men to do unspeakable acts all in the name of keeping humanity "safe". 

 

More than that, though, I don't think this Superman is so different from the one you know. All of his brooding or anger comes after specific events involving specific characters, and I can't really blame him for feeling the way he does. If anything, he handles the situations much better than one could reasonably expect. 

 

Same with Batman, as he has grown tired and frustrated with the world, and to have an individual with the destructive prowess that Superman has thrust upon the planet, he cracks. He loses it just a bit. And can you blame him? He's lost his parents, he's lost Robin, and no matter how much effort he puts in, Gotham will always need him once more. There will always be another criminal he has to put down. This isn't a Batman so different from the one in the comics. This is a Batman taken one step further. This is the Batman who has finally grown tired of criminals escaping prison, so he takes steps to make sure they never escape again. This is a Batman who understands that his aging will not stop, that he will not be able to protect Gotham forever, a Batman who is struggling to cope with the changing world. 

 

And if you ask me, this is good. We don't need yet another series of Superman movies about the same guy. You'll never get another set of Superman movies as impactful as the first two Reeves films. And we don't need a reboot of the 2004 film already. Supes needed a breath of fresh air. Snyder has given it to him.

 

Likewise, we don't need yet another Dark Knight. Heck, the Dark Knight movies were pushing it if you ask me, as the three movies in the early 90's were enjoyable. Snyder's given him a breath of fresh air as well, delivering a Batman similar to the one in The Killing Joke, as I commented on in my previous post.

 

In addition, to act like Marvel is not doing this as well is, well, ludicrous. Perhaps the MCU is staying fairly faithful, mostly due to the fact that the characters they've used lack a set of already made movies (that are of quality, anyways). But Spiderman, X-men, and the Fantastic Four are all offering things slightly different than what we know of. Small changes, some of which have larger impacts on the characters than others. 

 

I apologize for ranting. I'm not angry or upset that you feel the way you do, just genuinely confused as to why this is an issue at all, and why people only complain about it with DC. And don't misunderstand me, I love the MCU, and have been following all of their movies since Iron Man, before Disney even bought them, seeing each of them in theaters no less. But it feels like we've reached a point where Marvel can do no wrong, and DC can do no right, and that's just an unfair bias, if you ask me.

 

So I'm wondering....Where is Green Lantern? He's supposed to be the 7th member isn't he? Have they just not cast someone yet?

I guess that's the end of my spoiler comments

 

Commenting on a specific Justice League member that wasn't shown or mentioned in the movie

To my knowledge, they are saving their new GL for his solo movie, though I've got a feeling he's going to be a part of the Flash solo movie, since the two of them have such rich history together.

[Pathfinder]

I just saw the movie, and I loved it. I think it's a little unfair to read a plot synopsis and say that it's a bad movie, since there's so much more to a movie than a blow-by-blow of what people do. To answer your questions point-by-point:

 

1) He was unprepared to fight, and he knew it. During the events of Man of Steel, he was trying to protect his people by helping to evacuate the city. He spent the next year-and-a-half hunting down Kryptonite to be able to battle Superman or other Kryptonians.

 

2) Superman is demonized because of the destruction wrought on Metropolis during the events of Man of Steel. There is an active campaign by Lex to further make Superman look like a villain (by staging attacks and blaming them on Superman). As to Lex's overall motivations... they are left blank, but Lex is kind of insane, and the end of the movie hints at other forces at work. So, that mystery is left a little hanging, but I don't think it derails the plot. When the movie starts, everyone is afraid of Superman; the US Gov't is considering working with Lex to build Kryptonite weapons.

 

3) I'm not quite sure I understand the point you're trying to make. This is not Christian Bale's Batman, just played by a different actor, but a new character set in Man of Steel's world. We don't get detailed backstories for Batman and Wonder Woman in the movie, they show up as characters with histories that we only get rare glimpses of, and I think that's okay. The Justice League has tremendous name recognition already; I don't find it jarring at all that there are different kinds of metahumans (as they were referred to in the movie) already on Earth. I think comparing it to Marvel is not completely valid; Marvel had sold their most popular superheroes to other studios, so they had to build recognition of Cap, Iron Man, and Thor for the plebs. (Like myself, who hadn't heard of them before their movies came out. I had heard of the Justice League, however.) However, I will say that I think there was a bit too much focus on the other members of the Justice League, for them to never show up. It was just sequel hook material, like the cave sequence in Avengers 2. If the other members of the team had showed up, maybe it would have been worth it. But I'd have rather Wonder Woman never opened the files on-screen.

 

4) More on this down below. This was Batman's first glimpse into Superman as a human. He prepared to take down this god-like interloper. He fought him, beat him, and was about to kill him. Then, he learned that Superman was a person, had a mother, and Superman was fighting to save his mother. That their names were both "Martha" isn't a significant tie between the heroes on its own, but it provided enough of a shock to Batman to get him to think of Superman as a person.

 

5) I'm not quite sure where you're coming from here, either. Batman and Wonder Woman aren't emotional at Superman's death; it's Lois, Mrs. Kent, and the people of Metropolis. You're right, they don't show why his death is a symbol of hope, because the movie doesn't present it as such - he's a fallen soldier who fought against true villainy. (Some more on that below, as well.)

 

Now, stepping out of the plot, I'd like to mention what I thought of as the major theme for this movie.

 

Despite being a sequel to Man of Steel, I felt like thematically, this fit more with Watchmen, another of Zach Snyder's superhero movies. What makes superheroes better than regular people? What gives them the right? And what keeps them acting as heroes? (Who watches the Watchmen?) You have Superman operating outside of the law and causing collateral damage, you have Batman acting as a criminal to further his own purposes, and you have Wonder Woman turning away from being a hero because the world is a terrible place. Superheroes are soldiers - Wonder Woman in WWI, Superman in the battles of Man of Steel, and I have a pretty strong feeling Batman was in Iraq. They are all distrustful of each others' motives, not a team, and actively working to destroy one another. What makes them heroes?

 

In Watchmen, the answer is bleak - superheroes are no better than ordinary men. They have the same flaws, the same tendencies towards evil. In Man of Steel, we get a different answer - the villains drive our heroes towards greatness. The Watchmen need no Watching when they have a purpose, when they are soldiers with an enemy to fight.

 

That's why the scene where Batman finds out Superman's mother's predicament is so powerful. He was a hero without a villain, and he was turning into a villain trying to save the world. From that moment on, there is no wavering in the heroes' actions, no questioning of each others' motives, no infighting or doubt. They work as a team to save Mrs. Kent and stop Doomsday, even at the cost of Superman's life. But Superman can die, because he's not alone - the thing that ties the team together is what they are fighting against, not what they're fighting for. This drives the Justice League hints at the end of the movie - there is something bigger coming, and they need to take the aimless heroes and unite them with a common purpose.

 

In Watchmen, the superheroes have goals, and they fight another and turn to evil to accomplish them. For the first two-thirds of BvS, the superheroes have goals, and fight another and turn towards evil to accomplish them. For the last third, they have enemies, and it redeems them.

 

The last redeeming feature is actually the depth of story behind the story of the movie, something that reminds me a lot of Brandon's writing, with Secret History and whatnot.

 

There's the story behind Batman, which is not told, but pieces are shown. Robin's old costume, with taunts scribbled across it. Wayne Manor, burnt and abandoned. Alfred saying that Bruce has always been more effective than the Bat. It got me wondering what kind of connections there were in the movie to Batman's history. I've seen a theory that Lex could also be the Joker, based on his mannerisms; I'd like to compare the writing on Robin's old costume and some of Lex's crazy writing, see if they could be a match.

 

And then, Batman is also having these 'visions' about Superman. Inside the scope of the story, it could be paranoia-fueled dreams, drawn from Batman's fear of Superman's destructive power. But there are some odd pieces that don't quite fit. There was a mysterious figure (might have been a new Robin, but it could have been Flash or anyone else who wears red) that seemed to contact Batman from the future, saying not to trust Clark (you were right about him). Mysterious bug-men that are attacking a post-apocalyptic Gotham City. The threats Superman made to Batman in that dream sequence where Batman was captured, which I couldn't connect to anything specific that had happened in the movie. My brother and I theorized that the dreams were messages sent back in time from an alternate timeline where Batman let Martha die, and it turned Superman into a villain, resulted in the destruction of Gotham, and the arrival of invaders from space (aforementioned bug-people). Time-travelling dream messages let them change the course of events, reconcile Batman and Superman, and alter the timeline. We're seeing only the altered timeline, with the main timeline's actions being "BvS: Secret History."

 

And then, at the end, we get a weird sequence where I think Lex is having a vision, like Batman's. We're at Superman's funeral (with Bruce in attendance), and we cut away to Lex in prison. Guards disappear, Batman shows up, says some stuff, Lex starts going crazier. Then, back to the funeral, where they're still burying Superman. Either they have some non-linear storytelling, or Batman didn't actually make it there. Many of Batman's visions were presented as actually happening until he suddenly woke up, tricking the audience into thinking it was actually happening. (When young Bruce started flying in the intro, I was quite confused.) There are subtle clues in the level of realism that provide some hints whether or not it's a vision (Bruce flying with the bats, Batman taking a bullet to the back of the head point-blank). The way the guards disappear and Batman breaks into a maximum security prison (when before, he had trouble getting into Lex's house) makes me think that Lex might also be having a vision. We just don't get to see him wake up. So, I think there's definitely something deeper going on with visions, and I expect we'll have to revise a lot of the events of this movie the same way Mistborn: Secret History revised some events of the original trilogy.

 

Well... that's a lot of words. Suffice to say, I think there is a lot to think about in this movie, both from a thematic point of view on what makes superheroes "super," and from an overarching Justice League plot point of view. I'd recommend seeing it, and look beyond what is happening to figure out what it all means. I don't think you'll be disappointed; I certainly wasn't.

 

1) That still doesn’t explain why he didn’t pop up as batman and use his skills/technology to help save those people. All over the internet you hear “batman has a plan for that”. You mean to tell me he would be in another city, without his suit or any of his tech ever? Zod broadcasted to the planet and was using an engine that was destroying the world. If it wasn’t for superman, there would have been no world later for him to be prepared to fight on. You couldn’t have a more pressing situation to say “hey, grab your stuff and do something! Anything!”.

2) Yeah, but as everyone has been saying, Lex is not the Joker. He is not insane. He is calculating. The movie practically hinges on the plot of him pushing Batman and Superman into a fight, but we never know why or have to guess? That still feels like a gaping plot hole to me.

3) I did not realize it was a reboot, but I still feel my point stands. From an uninitiated standpoint it is jarring and they do not know what is going on. From an initiated standpoint it feels like they just tacked the names on in an attempt for an easter egg to try to gather hype for the future movies. Marvel did it cleverly with after credit scenes and made it organically part of the story. BvS just threw it in, in the background.

4) So here is a question. If Superman’s mom’s name was Alice for instance, would the scene have played out the same way? The way it is structured I do not think so. There are a lot of better ways to show Superman is a person, and have respect than a literal name drop.

5) Because it cheapens his death. There is no reason for Batman and Wonder Woman to want to honor Superman, or gather people to help defend the world the way he tried. See I think comparing it to the Watchmen is exactly the problem. Snyder draws on multiple plot lines with multiple overarching messages which just results in muddying the waters.

 

 

Edit: this morphed into a long ramble rant. There are very minor spoilers that I don't feel are worth spoiling, because they are easter eggs in the background that are very easy to miss when watching the movie.

 

And that's fine to feel that way, but I still don't fully get it. We're talking about DC here. We're talking about the company who is infamous for making a new universe for every idea they get. We're talking about the company who loves to make new stories about their characters with new character twists thrown in. We're talking about that company. The DCEU is no different than any other DC story, it's an alternate universe with their iconic characters being different than their Earth 1 counterparts. This will likely never get brought up (that they aren't Earth 1), or for the sake of non comic nerds they will call this movie universe Earth 1 in future movies which involve the multiverse, but this set of characters is just an alternate group. In this particular universe, Superman is a bit more brooding, a bit more troubled. He's conflicted about how his powers are affecting man kind, that his existence is driving certain men to do unspeakable acts all in the name of keeping humanity "safe". 

 

More than that, though, I don't think this Superman is so different from the one you know. All of his brooding or anger comes after specific events involving specific characters, and I can't really blame him for feeling the way he does. If anything, he handles the situations much better than one could reasonably expect. 

 

Same with Batman, as he has grown tired and frustrated with the world, and to have an individual with the destructive prowess that Superman has thrust upon the planet, he cracks. He loses it just a bit. And can you blame him? He's lost his parents, he's lost Robin, and no matter how much effort he puts in, Gotham will always need him once more. There will always be another criminal he has to put down. This isn't a Batman so different from the one in the comics. This is a Batman taken one step further. This is the Batman who has finally grown tired of criminals escaping prison, so he takes steps to make sure they never escape again. This is a Batman who understands that his aging will not stop, that he will not be able to protect Gotham forever, a Batman who is struggling to cope with the changing world. 

 

And if you ask me, this is good. We don't need yet another series of Superman movies about the same guy. You'll never get another set of Superman movies as impactful as the first two Reeves films. And we don't need a reboot of the 2004 film already. Supes needed a breath of fresh air. Snyder has given it to him.

 

Likewise, we don't need yet another Dark Knight. Heck, the Dark Knight movies were pushing it if you ask me, as the three movies in the early 90's were enjoyable. Snyder's given him a breath of fresh air as well, delivering a Batman similar to the one in The Killing Joke, as I commented on in my previous post.

 

In addition, to act like Marvel is not doing this as well is, well, ludicrous. Perhaps the MCU is staying fairly faithful, mostly due to the fact that the characters they've used lack a set of already made movies (that are of quality, anyways). But Spiderman, X-men, and the Fantastic Four are all offering things slightly different than what we know of. Small changes, some of which have larger impacts on the characters than others. 

 

I apologize for ranting. I'm not angry or upset that you feel the way you do, just genuinely confused as to why this is an issue at all, and why people only complain about it with DC. And don't misunderstand me, I love the MCU, and have been following all of their movies since Iron Man, before Disney even bought them, seeing each of them in theaters no less. But it feels like we've reached a point where Marvel can do no wrong, and DC can do no right, and that's just an unfair bias, if you ask me.

 

 

Commenting on a specific Justice League member that wasn't shown or mentioned in the movie

To my knowledge, they are saving their new GL for his solo movie, though I've got a feeling he's going to be a part of the Flash solo movie, since the two of them have such rich history together.

Sorry, but I have to call issue with the comment that Marvel does not get called out on regarding changing characters. There was a huge rage all over the internet just for choosing to make Johnny Storm black. Now that in and of itself is ridiculous, but it was an issue for a lot of people for a long time. Then there was the more valid issue with the tone of the Fantastic Four movie, the portrayal of the characters and the treatment of Dr. Doom. Plenty of people complained about how Tobey Macguire portrayed spider-man while loving Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock. Plenty of people loved and hated Andrew Garfield’s Spider-man and hated Rhys Ifan’s Lizard. I have always said if they could have somehow had Tobey Macguire portray Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield portray Spider-man, Alfred Molina portray the Lizard, and Rhys Ifan Doc Ock, it would have been perfect. X-men too has gotten criticized for changes to the characters. People have complained about killing off Cyclops the way they did. People have complained about making Rogue young. People have complained about making Mystique a “good” guy in Days of Future Past. So by your own examples, Marvel’s properties are not exempt from criticism regarding changes, and a prime connection, the Fantastic Four movie utterly bombed for the same reason Batman v Superman is being so banned by the critics. It doesn’t do the characters justice. For Snyder to base his latest rendition Batman off a story where Batman has become jaded, said screw you to the world, until he feels he is dragged back in and forms a totalitarian regime of what he says goes, and then expect people to believe that that type of person could then want to join a team is disjointed. People have criticized Spider-man for going through so many reboots, so soon and the same stands for Batman. I feel it is DC trying to avoid being accused of copying Marvel, and forging their own path, but not actually taking the time to truly think it through. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by Pathfinder

[Blaze1616 he/him]

Sorry, but I have to call issue with the comment that Marvel does not get called out on regarding changing characters. There was a huge rage all over the internet just for choosing to make Johnny Storm black. Now that in and of itself is ridiculous, but it was an issue for a lot of people for a long time. Then there was the more valid issue with the tone of the Fantastic Four movie, the portrayal of the characters and the treatment of Dr. Doom. Plenty of people complained about how Tobey Macguire portrayed spider-man while loving Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock. Plenty of people loved and hated Andrew Garfield’s Spider-man and hated Rhys Ifan’s Lizard. I have always said if they could have somehow had Tobey Macguire portray Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield portray Spider-man, Alfred Molina portray the Lizard, and Rhys Ifan Doc Ock, it would have been perfect. X-men too has gotten criticized for changes to the characters. People have complained about killing off Cyclops the way they did. People have complained about making Rogue young. People have complained about making Mystique a “good” guy in Days of Future Past. So by your own examples, Marvel’s properties are not exempt from criticism regarding changes, and a prime connection, the Fantastic Four movie utterly bombed for the same reason Batman v Superman is being so banned by the critics. It doesn’t do the characters justice. For Snyder to base his latest rendition Batman off a story where Batman has become jaded, said screw you to the world, until he feels he is dragged back in and forms a totalitarian regime of what he says goes, and then expect people to believe that that type of person could then want to join a team is disjointed. People have criticized Spider-man for going through so many reboots, so soon and the same stands for Batman. I feel it is DC trying to avoid being accused of copying Marvel, and forging their own path, but not actually taking the time to truly think it through. 

 

I know all of that. My intent wasn't to say "look at all these movies that aren't criticized for doing something different", but to say that those movies, too, were criticized, yet the MCU escapes criticism (except for Iron Man 3). I can see how my post could be taken the way you took it though, I was not very clear with my wording there.

 

Also, I did not feel that Batman's change of heart was disjointed. In that moment, that key scene, Batman realized how ridiculous he was being. It all came crashing down on him, the weight of his decisions, his prejudice against Supes, and his reckless behavior. Is it so hard to believe that a man like Bruce Wayne could go through character development of that sort, considering the villains he has to deal with on a regular basis? I think not.

 

In addition your tone seems very hostile, so if you are angry there's no reason to be salty, if you didn't like the movie so be it. I enjoyed the Green Lantern movie, even though most people can agree it was not very good. You're within your rights to not enjoy a movie others believe is good.

 

Also, I wouldn't say DC is copying Marvel, considering Justice League was created 3 years prior to Avengers in the comic-dom, and DC's superhero movies were of good quality long before Marvel's were. It was just a matter of time before a project such as these two were made as movies, and Marvel happened to do it first. In addition, saying that DC isn't thinking it through also seems kind of odd, as they delayed this movie by a whole year to ensure it was as they wanted it to be. Perhaps that makes the movie even worse in your eyes, but yeah, I don't think they can say this movie isn't as they want it to be. 

[The Invested Beard]

To be fair, Fant4stic was not part of the MCU. It was made by Fox. That does change the dynamic somewhat.

[Blaze1616 he/him]

To be fair, Fant4stic was not part of the MCU. It was made by Fox. That does change the dynamic somewhat.

 

Correct. Fatastic 4 and X-Men move rights both belong to Fox, Spiderman movie rights belong to Sony, and every other Marvel character belongs to Disney, as it currently stands, to my knowledge. Sony has given Disney the rights to use Spidey in their movies (I don't recall hearing anything about Disney actually buying the rights) and Quicksilver is in a gray area in that both Fox and Disney have used him, and nothing has happened legally (to my knowledge).

[Pathfinder]

I know all of that. My intent wasn't to say "look at all these movies that aren't criticized for doing something different", but to say that those movies, too, were criticized, yet the MCU escapes criticism (except for Iron Man 3). I can see how my post could be taken the way you took it though, I was not very clear with my wording there.

 

Also, I did not feel that Batman's change of heart was disjointed. In that moment, that key scene, Batman realized how ridiculous he was being. It all came crashing down on him, the weight of his decisions, his prejudice against Supes, and his reckless behavior. Is it so hard to believe that a man like Bruce Wayne could go through character development of that sort, considering the villains he has to deal with on a regular basis? I think not.

 

In addition your tone seems very hostile, so if you are angry there's no reason to be salty, if you didn't like the movie so be it. I enjoyed the Green Lantern movie, even though most people can agree it was not very good. You're within your rights to not enjoy a movie others believe is good.

 

Also, I wouldn't say DC is copying Marvel, considering Justice League was created 3 years prior to Avengers in the comic-dom, and DC's superhero movies were of good quality long before Marvel's were. It was just a matter of time before a project such as these two were made as movies, and Marvel happened to do it first. In addition, saying that DC isn't thinking it through also seems kind of odd, as they delayed this movie by a whole year to ensure it was as they wanted it to be. Perhaps that makes the movie even worse in your eyes, but yeah, I don't think they can say this movie isn't as they want it to be. 

Can I ask what part you felt was me being confrontational/salty? I re-read that, and could not see it. Only thing I could see is when I said about Batman saying screw you to the world, which regarding the comic book I am referencing, he did. Not diminishing how you feel, nor saying you are wrong to feel as you do, just want to understand how what I wrote came across that way towards you.

 

I did not say Batman's change of heart was disjointed, I said the way they chose to portray it via:

 

their mother's sharing the same name

 

was disjointed.

 

My comment about copying was how they are making and presenting the movies, not the comic book source material. 

 

Delaying a project does not mean necessarily thinking things through, nor mean the betterment for the project. The video games Watch Dogs, and Destiny are prime examples. Both games got delayed claiming they wanted to put more work into a quality product, and in both cases they actually ended up cutting a massive amount of content, and cut corners resulting in many ways a shoddy end result. 

 

To be fair, Fant4stic was not part of the MCU. It was made by Fox. That does change the dynamic somewhat.

I understand, I was just replying to the properties he mentioned in particular

Edited March 29, 2016 by Pathfinder

[Blaze1616 he/him]

Can I ask what part you felt was me being confrontational/salty? I re-read that, and could not see it. Only thing I could see is when I said about Batman saying screw you to the world, which regarding the comic book I am referencing, he did. Not diminishing how you feel, nor saying you are wrong to feel as you do, just want to understand how what I wrote came across that way towards you.

 

I did not say Batman's change of heart was disjointed, I said the way they chose to portray it via:

 

their mother's sharing the same name

 

was disjointed.

 

My comment about copying was how they are making and presenting the movies, not the comic book source material. 

 

Delaying a project does not mean necessarily thinking things through, nor mean the betterment for the project. The video games Watch Dogs, and Destiny are prime examples. Both games got delayed claiming they wanted to put more work into a quality product, and in both cases they actually ended up cutting a massive amount of content, and cut corners resulting in many ways a shoddy end result. 

 

I understand, I was just replying to the properties he mentioned in particular

 

Ah, perhaps it was just me then. The overall tone just felt hostile, but no worries, I'm having a weird day emotionally, my apologies 

 

I felt the movie did a good job building to that Martha issue. They were showing repeatedly that Batman's parent's death still takes a toll on him, so when Supes brings up his own mother, the two sharing a name really hit home for Bats. After all, it's not like they changed either parents' name to make this work, they've both always been Martha in the comics.

 

I understood that's what you meant, I was merely saying that I feel it's wrong for the public to consider DC as the copier when history shows Marvel as the one playing catch up, in comics and movies alike, except in this instance.

 

I 100% agree that delaying does not mean that the product will be good. However, delaying does allow the company making the product to have extra time to review their product to ensure that it is released as they want it to be. In both VG examples you provided, you can't say that the companies making the game were not okay with releasing their final product, otherwise they would have delayed it again. A product being good and a product being what the producer wants it to be on release are two different things.

[Edgedancer he/him]

I 100% agree that delaying does not mean that the product will be good. However, delaying does allow the company making the product to have extra time to review their product to ensure that it is released as they want it to be. In both VG examples you provided, you can't say that the companies making the game were not okay with releasing their final product, otherwise they would have delayed it again. A product being good and a product being what the producer wants it to be on release are two different things.

Eh, that's a misleading thing to say at best. (Not that it has all that much to do with the discussion but still.) Developing a product comes with costs, so at some point delaying a product is no longer an option, because the developing costs just surpass any kind of revenue the producers might expect from it, 'forcing' them to recuperate their losses by releasing a product they are fully aware is subpar, even by their own expectations.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Edgedancer

[Blaze1616 he/him]

Eh, that's a misleading thing to say at best. (Not that it has all that much to do with the discussion but still.) Developing a product comes with costs, so at some point delaying a product is no longer an option, because the developing costs just surpass any kind of revenue the producers might expect from it, 'forcing' them to recuperate their losses by releasing a product they are fully aware is subpar, even by their own expectations.

 

Though this is true, examples of this are usually products that are delayed by far more than a single year.