This week marks the 4 year anniversary of Batman v Superman

Crimson-Death

Member
Oct 27, 2017
915
Purgatory
It's a smarter movie than its detractors will admit and a dumber movie than its defenders will admit. At the basest level, It's at least interesting.

I enjoyed it.
This right here.
I didn't like a lot of things about it, how they tried to shoe horn things for the next movies, the editing in some parts is atrocious, Lex Zuckerberg, Psycho Murderous Batman, the Lord of the Rings troll/Gigante/Doomsday, any Doomsday at all at that point in that universe, the jar of pee, on and on.
But it is enjoyable on an Elseworlds level sort of way. Just not a good fit for the movies.
 

Firemind

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,258
I shit because I care.

This would have been an absolute dream realized. A fully alive, breathing, connected DC Universe-one rich with possibility and story. The DCAU was a template-proof that an audience was there and that these characters were beloved.

The one catch? The producers had to give a shit.

And they hired Zack Snyder.

They had Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. They had a Superman who was miserable. They skipped right to Doomsday.

Everything was gift wrapped for them and they went out of their way to ruin it. To spite fan’s love of the franchises. To try to be “edgy” for no other reason than to just do it.

It was a fucking failure and rightfully so. Until the people behind the scenes actually give a shit about DC Comics then I think we’re within our rights to call them out on it.

My apologies to the “fans” who care more about Zack Snyder than the actual characters themselves who have painted themselves into a corner for years and now have no recourse but to keep on defending this trainwreck else they have to admit they were wrong.
Let it go man. You'll be healthier in spirit and mind. There are worse things in the world right now than a four year old movie.

The point of it is to express yourself well for your own pleasure. I do it because I like doing it. I write 1000+ word posts all the time and if what I write isn't ignored, even then it's rarely responded to with the same detail and effort I put in. And the most annoying times are when people are putting in effort to reply to you in terms of word count, but for whatever do not accurately respond to your arguments because they have failed to comprehend them. That's the worst bit, it makes you want to tear your hear out correcting them, but most of the time they will refuse to be corrected.

So, yeah, if your motivation for writing long posts is so people can respond with merit, I'd say don't do it, because that's about a 1 in 50 reply, if your lucky.

As for me, I don't really remember when I stopped talking about BvS, but I think I did it around the time DC decided it was "nope-ing" out of the Snyder aesthetic. Regardless, however much repetition there was in my posts about how BvS is one of the worst films ever made, I'm pretty sure I thought up some new stuff post-second post since I can tell you my full reaction was still formulating then, and once it did, whatever repetition came out would have been in service to trying to find a new angle to view the film from, for better or worse. But I can absolutely tell you that in no way did I come out of the theater with my opinion fully formed.
If nothing else, I can appreciate your perceptive thoughts about the movie over the years.
 

IconGrist

Member
Oct 26, 2017
314
As many times as I have seen both cuts I don't know that my full opinion of the movie has been formed just yet. Every rewatch has been met with a new like and dislike which changes my perception. Some minor, some major. I used to think outside of a misstep or two Lois was generally well portrayed. It was about a year before I realized her conversation with Clark on the balcony basically ruins the movie. I still enjoy it but I find that scene hard to get through. The Martha moment I still have a minor issue with because the moment feels rushed and I'm a little bitter that Batman technically won that fight. But that detail in particular is admittedly a bias of my own.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,976
If nothing else, I can appreciate your perceptive thoughts about the movie over the years.


As many times as I have seen both cuts I don't know that my full opinion of the movie has been formed just yet. Every rewatch has been met with a new like and dislike which changes my perception. Some minor, some major. I used to think outside of a misstep or two Lois was generally well portrayed. It was about a year before I realized her conversation with Clark on the balcony basically ruins the movie. I still enjoy it but I find that scene hard to get through. The Martha moment I still have a minor issue with because the moment feels rushed and I'm a little bitter that Batman technically won that fight. But that detail in particular is admittedly a bias of my own.
So...what are your general thoughts as of now?
 

Khanimus

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
17,888
Greater Vancouver
As many times as I have seen both cuts I don't know that my full opinion of the movie has been formed just yet. Every rewatch has been met with a new like and dislike which changes my perception. Some minor, some major. I used to think outside of a misstep or two Lois was generally well portrayed. It was about a year before I realized her conversation with Clark on the balcony basically ruins the movie. I still enjoy it but I find that scene hard to get through. The Martha moment I still have a minor issue with because the moment feels rushed and I'm a little bitter that Batman technically won that fight. But that detail in particular is admittedly a bias of my own.
Adams always struck me as a good Lois with bad material. There are so many lines across all three of the Snyder movies that seem like a struggle for any seasoned actor.
 

IconGrist

Member
Oct 26, 2017
314
So...what are your general thoughts as of now?
If I look at the movie on its own I'm still a fan. I can still sit through it and be genuinely entertained by the ideas it presents even if they aren't as well executed as I'd like them to be. At least the extended cut. The theatrical cut is an abhorrent mess of a movie. The extended cut isn't some gem but at least 90% of the movie makes some type of sense with the newly added scenes and doesn't make Superman look like he acts the way he does for no apparent reason.

The problem I have developed with Batman v Superman is actually caused by Justice League. The movie now feels like a sentence someone was trying to say that ultimately trailed off and ended with an entirely different topic. It's a bit like what you said earlier about putting effort into a 1000+ word post just for someone to reply with either a half-hearted attempt or missed your point entirely and the frustration that leaves you with. I can't say with any confidence that Snyder's original Justice League movie would have been good or bad. I can't say anything and that makes BvS a pointless watch these days.

The simple answer to your question is this: I hate it.
 

FaceHugger

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,904
U, S, and A
Remember that part where Batman is in the batmobile chasing (and murdering) a bunch of bad guys shooting machine guns and rocket launchers out of the back of a truck and then Superman flies in and wrecks the batmobile and wags his finger at Batman for being too mean and doesn’t seem interested in the machine gun shooting and rocket launching bad guys as they just drive away?


I actually think there’s a good bit to like in BvS. The first third or so is solid and I dig the kooky fever dream stuff but the bad in the movie is SO bad it utterly ruins the whole thing.
This is pretty much the entire movie in a nutshell. It struggles to explore other themes, but when both of the supposed heroes are compassionaless and self absorbed it falls short in every way.

It's so strange because Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake nailed how to collect a multifaceted crowd of characters. Here he has two of the most iconic characters in history and he fucks it all up royally, not understanding either.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,976
If I look at the movie on its own I'm still a fan. I can still sit through it and be genuinely entertained by the ideas it presents even if they aren't as well executed as I'd like them to be. At least the extended cut. The theatrical cut is an abhorrent mess of a movie. The extended cut isn't some gem but at least 90% of the movie makes some type of sense with the newly added scenes and doesn't make Superman look like he acts the way he does for no apparent reason.

The problem I have developed with Batman v Superman is actually caused by Justice League. The movie now feels like a sentence someone was trying to say that ultimately trailed off and ended with an entirely different topic. It's a bit like what you said earlier about putting effort into a 1000+ word post just for someone to reply with either a half-hearted attempt or missed your point entirely and the frustration that leaves you with. I can't say with any confidence that Snyder's original Justice League movie would have been good or bad. I can't say anything and that makes BvS a pointless watch these days.

The simple answer to your question is this: I hate it.
Well, that is atleast a new perspective I haven't heard 1000 times before.

Yeah, JL put a kibosh on anything Snyder was trying to do. But the thing is, for all we heard about it, we haven't heard of many significant changes to the story itself. It sounds like what we got in the movie JL is, atleast in broad strokes, what we'd have gotten with Snyder, except with less levity. I don't know if we'll ever get to see a Snyder cut, but you'd think we'd atleast have heard about major plot/character changes if there had been any. Whereas the biggest change I heard Whedon made, aside from the humor, was the addition of that random russian family. So, hard to tell how much was actually lost.
 

TheMadTitan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,908
It came up on my Facebook memories too. I said it was awesome.

Don't know wtf I was smoking, but only the action scenes were awesome, and most of them have to be stripped of context in order to still be awesome. The movie does have the best Batman vs criminals scene outside of the animated movies and I hope Battison can surpass those in his movie. And I enjoyed the fight with Doomsday even though Doomsday was stupid.
 

IconGrist

Member
Oct 26, 2017
314
Well, that is atleast a new perspective I haven't heard 1000 times before.

Yeah, JL put a kibosh on anything Snyder was trying to do. But the thing is, for all we heard about it, we haven't heard of many significant changes to the story itself. It sounds like what we got in the movie JL is, atleast in broad strokes, what we'd have gotten with Snyder, except with less levity. I don't know if we'll ever get to see a Snyder cut, but you'd think we'd atleast have heard about major plot/character changes if there had been any. Whereas the biggest change I heard Whedon made, aside from the humor, was the addition of that random russian family. So, hard to tell how much was actually lost.
It is hard to say. There's a lot of information about Snyder's original version but no way to tell what is actually true. Some versions have major differences. Others have very little or none. That void of actual knowledge makes BvS pointless. There's a reason Civil War in hindsight, with all of its direct comparisons, was viewed so favorably against BvS. It was its own movie. Yes it left some plotlines open for the greater narrative to continue but BvS hinged on all of its plotlines to conclude in a later movie. Which didn't happen. Either they were glossed over or outright ignored.

To give an example of this - Superman's mental state upon resurrection. Diana and Bruce have an argument and Diana with full confidence tells Bruce if Clark wakes up he's going to try and kill Bruce. Bruce uses Lois to prevent this. Calls her the "big gun". Clark wakes up, and sure enough, is angry with Bruce, tries to murder him but Lois snaps him out of it. Clark makes no attempt to kill any other Justice Leaguer there. He bashes Diana into the cement where he could have hurt her more but goes straight for Bruce who is the least capable person there. Why? The movie outright ignored that Clark and Bruce set aside there differences and fought together to stop Doomsday. Why was everyone so sure Clark was going to forget that and furthermore try and kill Bruce in the first place? Even Clark's line, "You won't let me live, you won't let me die...", makes no sense. He did let him live. Bruce even helped him up and then promised to save his mom so Clark could deal with Lex. That entire subplot has no basis of reason to be there other than to ignore a subplot of BvS.

So in the end BvS doesn't matter.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,976
It is hard to say. There's a lot of information about Snyder's original version but no way to tell what is actually true. Some versions have major differences. Others have very little or none. That void of actual knowledge makes BvS pointless. There's a reason Civil War in hindsight, with all of its direct comparisons, was viewed so favorably against BvS. It was its own movie. Yes it left some plotlines open for the greater narrative to continue but BvS hinged on all of its plotlines to conclude in a later movie. Which didn't happen. Either they were glossed over or outright ignored.

To give an example of this - Superman's mental state upon resurrection. Diana and Bruce have an argument and Diana with full confidence tells Bruce if Clark wakes up he's going to try and kill Bruce. Bruce uses Lois to prevent this. Calls her the "big gun". Clark wakes up, and sure enough, is angry with Bruce, tries to murder him but Lois snaps him out of it. Why? The movie outright ignored that Clark and Bruce set aside there differences and fought together to stop Doomsday. Why was everyone so sure Clark was going to forget that and furthermore try and kill Bruce in the first place? Even Clark's line, "You won't let me live, you won't let me die...", makes no sense. He did let him live. Bruce even helped him up and then promised to save his mom so Clark could deal with Lex. That entire subplot has no basis of reason to be there other than to ignore a subplot of BvS.

So in the end BvS doesn't matter.
The purpose of that happening in JL is more for the emotional reaction of "Oh shit, superman's hostile because he's crazy from the electric shock after being dead." That it doesn't make sense is indicative that Superman's crazy right now. Not that I'm defending it, but it's just a scene that operates on very shallow ideas of emotion. "oh shit, lois is here, and that makes him feel warm fuzzies, so conflict over"

As far as Civil War goes, there are...well, many reasons that it's viewed so favorably, but the core one is the problem I saw coming from a mile away even before Batman v Superman released: I do not care about this Batman or Superman. I don't care about their relationship. The reason Batman fighting Superman is interesting is because the implied tragedy behind it - They're friends, they shouldn't be fighting and it's sad, not awesome (even though it's a little awesome) that they are. That's what Civil War nailed perfectly - When Tony finally breaks and starts hitting Steve, my emotional reaction wasn't "FUCK YEAH, FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!", it was "No! Stop fighting D: " When Batman and Superman fight, I'm bored.

Another way of looking at it is the deaths. When superman died, no one cared. Not even fans. Did you know that I've yet to hear of a single fan who says they were moved to sadness when Superman sacrificed himself killing Doomsday? In all the time I've spoken to and argued with fans, that sentiment has never come up to the best of my recollection. Isn't that kind of insane? But you ask marvel fans how they felt about Iron Man sacrificing himself and you just watch the tears well up in their eyes. That's not because there's contiguity between movies, it's because there's an emotional basis to feel for the characters as human beings, which is what BvS lacked.
 

beyond_death

Member
Oct 27, 2017
696
The theatrical version left me in a state of.. confusion? I honestly didnt know what to think of it despite being insanely hyped for it. The Ultimate cut came along and fixed it though. I loved it.
 

IconGrist

Member
Oct 26, 2017
314
The purpose of that happening in JL is more for the emotional reaction of "Oh shit, superman's hostile because he's crazy from the electric shock after being dead." That it doesn't make sense is indicative that Superman's crazy right now. Not that I'm defending it, but it's just a scene that operates on very shallow ideas of emotion. "oh shit, lois is here, and that makes him feel warm fuzzies, so conflict over"

As far as Civil War goes, there are...well, many reasons that it's viewed so favorably, but the core one is the problem I saw coming from a mile away even before Batman v Superman released: I do not care about this Batman or Superman. I don't care about their relationship. The reason Batman fighting Superman is interesting is because the implied tragedy behind it - They're friends, they shouldn't be fighting and it's sad, not awesome (even though it's a little awesome) that they are. That's what Civil War nailed perfectly - When Tony finally breaks and starts hitting Steve, my emotional reaction wasn't "FUCK YEAH, FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!", it was "No! Stop fighting D: " When Batman and Superman fight, I'm bored.

Another way of looking at it is the deaths. When superman died, no one cared. Not even fans. Did you know that I've yet to hear of a single fan who says they were moved to sadness when Superman sacrificed himself killing Doomsday? In all the time I've spoken to and argued with fans, that sentiment has never come up to the best of my recollection. Isn't that kind of insane? But you ask marvel fans how they felt about Iron Man sacrificing himself and you just watch the tears well up in their eyes. That's not because there's contiguity between movies, it's because there's an emotional basis to feel for the characters as human beings, which is what BvS lacked.
Your last 2 paragraphs aren't really relevant to the conversation we are having. I only brought up Civil War to address a point of why it can be viewed as its own movie and why BvS cannot despite the similarities. I didn't care anymore about Tony Stark in Civil War than I did in Iron Man. Fast forwarding to my emotional investment for a character's sacrifice at movie #22 and how it compares to a character at movie #2 isn't really fair or even needed. No one argues BvS got a little too big for its britches when asking the audience to care.

Back to JL - The movie outlines what exactly is going to happen to Clark through character dialog in a very specific manner. It's not "Superman will lose his mind", it was "Superman is going to wake up and kill Batman". How could they possibly know that? They can't but the movie just rolls with it anyway. Which is what a lot of Justice League is...

What we know for sure about Snyder's JL is that Diana, Barry, Bruce, and Arthur all fail to some degree as heroes on their own. We see a bit of it in the early trailers. The bank (or whatever the hell that place was) blows up that Wonder Woman saves in the actual movie. Originally she failed to prevent it. This happens to everyone in various ways with it linking back to Darkseid. The movie's tagline "You Can't Save The World Alone" makes sense with that in mind. They all have to 'come together' as it were to be the best of themselves. In the actual movie it's "You Can't Save The World Unless You're Superman" since he just arrives and beats the shit out of Steppenwolf with zero effort. It all directly contradicts the ending to Batman v Superman (and subsequently it's continuation in the Suicide Squad post credits scene) to come off more upbeat. But the whole movie is so "upbeat" it makes the victory hollow. Nobody really struggled emotionally, only physically. And even then it didn't matter because Superman won the day with no "I am strong" moment for anyone else. Everyone praises the "Save one" scene with Batman and Flash but it leads to no actual hero moment for Barry. Instead he just runs the wrong direction (off screen mind you), goes the other way and then gets outclassed by Superman in speed, strength and amount of people saved. All of it led to Victor finally fist pumping him and it happened so off to the side most people didn't even notice it. For those that did see it, it didn't matter. Justice League is the canon narrative line for the DCEU so circle back to my original point: BvS doesn't matter so my general thoughts now are that I dislike it because something I once immensely enjoyed has no reason to exist. Even if Civil War's greater universe narrative were stripped from the movie it still works as a sequel to Captain America: TWS. You can't look at BvS as Man of Steel 2.
 

Nora

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,773
I watched the "good" extended cut so I can only imagine how much worse the theatrical cut is. If I'm being generous, this movie is extremely misguided. Every interpretation of every major character (Supes, Bats, Lex) is just about the least interesting it could be. Snyder thinks dark colors and mopey, edgy characters constitute mature writing. Eisenberg's performance is one of the most obnoxious I've ever seen. No, going all-in on your annoying affectations does not make the character interesting. Batman is a total psycho, which is at least a little bit interesting, but it's not really explored, and the JL just ignores it.

It's a bad movie that I really don't like and I like what it represents (Snyder's philosophy on filmmaking and storytelling) even less. I can't comprehend the defense force for this one.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,976
Your last 2 paragraphs aren't really relevant to the conversation we are having. I only brought up Civil War to address a point of why it can be viewed as its own movie and why BvS cannot despite the similarities. I didn't care anymore about Tony Stark in Civil War than I did in Iron Man. Fast forwarding to my emotional investment for a character's sacrifice at movie #22 and how it compares to a character at movie #2 isn't really fair or even needed. No one argues BvS got a little too big for its britches when asking the audience to care.
Not really what I'm talking about. You don't need 20+ movies to care about a character. People teared up over Groot after he died in the first GotG movie. Idk if anyone teared up, but Iron Man 1 ended with a scene of Tony implying to have died before the next scene revealed he recovered (Avengers 1 did too, come to think of it), but people cared because they liked Tony from the onset. If Tony had actually died at the end of Iron Man 1, people would have been sad about it. Plus, plenty of movies that don't have Marvel's staying power that make people sad about their characters dying right from the first scenes.

So I don't agree that the development time Tony got is a valid distinction. It's a factor, maybe, but the important thing was that he was actually developed as a human being for the audience to care about. Superman never was.

And I should specify that I am not talking about you or me, but the general fandom. As a body, people cared about Iron Man. As a body, people didn't care about Superman dying, and that's just really bizarre to me. Like I said, I cannot recall a single instance where someone said they were actually affected by Superman dying. Meanwhile, "We....are....Groot..." has people breaking down.

Back to JL - The movie outlines what exactly is going to happen to Clark through character dialog in a very specific manner. It's not "Superman will lose his mind", it was "Superman is going to wake up and kill Batman". How could they possibly know that? They can't but the movie just rolls with it anyway. Which is what a lot of Justice League is...
I mean, if your asking about the logic of how characters would know this or why this would happen, I'll say I don't know, but I also don't think it really matters. Like, suppose in the movie they found the Motherbox Instruction Manual that explained "Can revive dead people, but they will be crazy for a period afterwards". If that happened, we'd have an answer to the logic problem of how they'd know Superman would go nuts, but the emotional conflict of this wouldn't change and no one would care.

Superman is just arbitrarily crazy for a bit until he remembers Lois exists, then he's good again. The actual problem of the scene is that it makes little emotional sense because it's just there as an "oh shit, superman turned bad maybe" temporarily panic before it's nullified. It means nothing for the characters. They'd need to fix that problem first and foremost and then they can start worrying about the logistic problems of consistent logic.

What we know for sure about Snyder's JL is that Diana, Barry, Bruce, and Arthur all fail to some degree as heroes on their own. We see a bit of it in the early trailers. The bank (or whatever the hell that place was) blows up that Wonder Woman saves in the actual movie. Originally she failed to prevent it. This happens to everyone in various ways with it linking back to Darkseid. The movie's tagline "You Can't Save The World Alone" makes sense with that in mind. They all have to 'come together' as it were to be the best of themselves. In the actual movie it's "You Can't Save The World Unless You're Superman" since he just arrives and beats the shit out of Steppenwolf with zero effort. It all directly contradicts the ending to Batman v Superman (and subsequently it's continuation in the Suicide Squad post credits scene) to come off more upbeat. But the whole movie is so "upbeat" it makes the victory hollow. Nobody really struggled emotionally, only physically. And even then it didn't matter because Superman won the day with no "I am strong" moment for anyone else. Everyone praises the "Save one" scene with Batman and Flash but it leads to no actual hero moment for Barry. Instead he just runs the wrong direction (off screen mind you), goes the other way and then gets outclassed by Superman in speed, strength and amount of people saved. All of it led to Victor finally fist pumping him and it happened so off to the side most people didn't even notice it. For those that did see it, it didn't matter. Justice League is the canon narrative line for the DCEU so circle back to my original point: BvS doesn't matter so my general thoughts now are that I dislike it because something I once immensely enjoyed has no reason to exist. Even if Civil War's greater universe narrative were stripped from the movie it still works as a sequel to Captain America: TWS. You can't look at BvS as Man of Steel 2.
That's True too. Despite being a direct sequel, JL feels like it's straight up from a different universe than BvS. Like the opening has the kids talk about what a beacon of hope Superman was when he was regarded with suspicion and threat up to the moment he died, at which point be became a martyr. But I feel like the "Hope is gone without superman" is one thing that's consistent in the different interpretations of JL we hear about, so.....idk.
 
Last edited:

THErest

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,959
This movie was trash, and I liked Man of Steel despite how much it fucked up Superman (not blaming Cavill either).

It was so overly complicated, it asked too much of the viewer (this Batman is fucking dumb, this Superman is a fucking dick, etc), all of this for a braindead FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT finale that, well, we know how it ended.

I was hoping for a sequel to Man of Steel that brings the inspirational Man of Tomorrow we need to see. Instead it's hyped as a grudge match with a Batman we'd never seen before.

I swear, WB's line of thinking consisted of little more than "Dark Knight is dark => people love Dark Knight => people love dark => EVERYBODY DARK NOW! Let's skip ahead to those fucked up 80s/90s end-time stories instead of, you know, beginning stories, to begin our DCEU."



The Second DC movie in your cinematic universe

and they decide to do:

* The Introduction of Batman
* Dark Knight Returns
* Parts of Death In The Family
* Wonder Womans Intro
* Lex Lutor Intro
* Doomsday Intro
* Parts of Justice League Intro

All

in

there

second

FILM!!!!
Did you forget Death of Superman, or is that lumped in with Doomsday?

And, I agree with what you're saying. I thought it was insane of them to be doing an old and angry Batman for their Batman intro at theh beginning of their universe.
 

skeezx

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,507
i liked the idea of Supe's destructo porn having dire repercussions

should've been basis of a relatively grounded MoS2 though. they just couldn't help themselves could they
 

xyla

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,624
Germany
Alfred was incredibly well casted and the best thing about this movie.

Shame we probably won't see him again in this role.

The rest of the movie is fascinating in it's failure. Have seen it twice because of that and I think it's a good example of what can go wrong, even if you have the best intentions, all the money in the world but are just not the right person for the job.
 

THErest

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,959
i liked the idea of Supe's destructo porn having dire repercussions

should've been basis of a relatively grounded MoS2 though. they just couldn't help themselves could they
I think a lot of people like the idea, and that it was written that way as a course correction after all of the negative reaction to Man of Steel's destruction and Superman not caring. Of course, BvS totally shit the bed when this turned out to be not a course correction at all, but a flubber-esque reaction in which the shit just bounces higher every time it comes back up.
 

Patitoloco

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,980
The Second DC movie in your cinematic universe

and they decide to do:

* The Introduction of Batman
* Dark Knight Returns
* Parts of Death In The Family
* Wonder Womans Intro
* Lex Lutor Intro
* Doomsday Intro
* Parts of Justice League Intro

All

in

there

second

FILM!!!!
Yes, it's absurd.

It has good ideas, and the UC makes it better, but the film would work even better without Lex, Doomsday and Wonder Woman. Honestly, this is the movie where you see that Warner wanted their MCU. Like NOW. YOU BETTER START NOW SNYDER. And that only hurt Justice League even more.

It's one of the films that has made me more angry, because, like I said, it has good ideas, it's shot amazingly, but the execution of the story is SO BAD, and somehow decided to throw out the whole rest of the movie by the 3rd act.
 

Alpha Baymax

Member
Dec 3, 2019
1,386
I shit because I care.

This would have been an absolute dream realized. A fully alive, breathing, connected DC Universe-one rich with possibility and story. The DCAU was a template-proof that an audience was there and that these characters were beloved.

The one catch? The producers had to give a shit.

And they hired Zack Snyder.

They had Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.
Zack Snyder considered casting Bryan Cranston as Lex Luthor and Jesse Eisenberg as Jimmy Olsen. Why didn't we get the original plan?
 

modoversus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,621
México
I swear, WB's line of thinking consisted of little more than "Dark Knight is dark => people love Dark Knight => people love dark => EVERYBODY DARK NOW! Let's skip ahead to those fucked up 80s/90s end-time stories instead of, you know, beginning stories, to begin our DCEU."
I honestly think making DC stuff darker or more serious is valid, as a sort of counter-programming to Marvel, but the execution was terrible on all levels.