DC Universe

[Randall]

Okay, so here's my take on BvS...

I kinda liked it.

It would be a stretch to say that I enjoyed it, at least until the final scenes. It's too dark and dreary for my tastes, with too bleak of a world view. And overall I'd only give it maybe 5/10. But yes, I did like it in the end. Just a bit.

Perhaps Snyder's reach exceeded his grasp, but he certainly can't be faulted for a lack of ambition. This was a big, lumbering comic book film, even if it was one that seemed like a badly written, overly pretentious comic book. But you know what? I've read a lot worse. And some of those were considered classics by many fans, despite having inexplicable dream sequences, massive plot holes, minimal characterization, and confusing storytelling. Snyder is the film equivalent of Grant Morrison.

Or, yes, Frank Miller.

This is largely the Frank Miller iteration of the characters, like it or not: Batman as a borderline psychopath, now aging and steeped in regret and powerlessness. Superman is the naïve man-child with more power than brains, and existing to be a pawn for others. The Dark Knight Returns was a cool Elseworlds story (before the word was coined), but here Snyder has made it the mainstream movie version. I don't think it's a good idea, but it is what it is.

I made my peace long ago with the film versions not being the "real" ones. Even the Dark Knight films seem like Elseworlds tales to me (that was NOT Ra's al Ghul), with the final chapter being the most poor. Superman The Movie is my favourite film, but it departed lots from the comic books. So, if BvS is an adaptation of DKR, plus a certain other story that I shall avoid naming due to spoilers, then so be it.

The movie has problems in its plotting, consistency, logic, pacing, and... sure, lots more. But so do most of today's overblown effects films. Picking apart the logic in one of these just seems pretty pointless. That's not really a defense of BvS, but I do wonder why it has been singled out for so much derision. I liked BvS more than Fury Road (hugely overrated, with hardly any plot to speak of), and certainly more than schlock like Green Hornet, Green Lantern, most of the X-Men films, or a couple of recent Bond outings.

I really liked the shoehorned intros to the Justice League, and the bizarre Flash appearance, which was very comic book-y (a la Crisis on Infinite Earths). In fact, I loved that part. For some (a few?) comic fans, the moment lands. As a part of a cohesive film, it fails, sure; Snyder is asking us to go all in with these films, hoping we are looking forward to Justice League, even if many movie goers were actually left in the dust.

I was also okay with Lex knowing the heroes' identities; he's brilliant and evil, and he knows stuff. He has files on all the secret superhumans of the world, after all. (I thought that part was obvious enough.) In today's age, secret identities would really be difficult to keep. This speaks towards Snyder's reluctance to buy fully into the fantasy of superhero myths (despite giving Batman an improbable underwater lair, etc.), just as his view of the world is cynical and harsh. In attempting to make a complex, so-called realistic world out of a superhero universe, he guts its traditions. It's not the film series I asked for, but I still find it interesting.

Also, the kryptonite effects were well explained--- at least twice. And Perry referred to Gotham's vigilante as "the Gotham Bat-Man", so he was called Batman once. It would have been nice for Diana to get introduced properly, but... we all know anyhow. It didn't bother me. Lex here is different, but he's Lex "Junior" after all; we may see Lex Senior later. Jesse played the part as written, and it didn't bug me at all. At least there was no Otis the dumb henchman in this one! This is a different take on Lex, but... this ain't the Donnerverse, or Smallville. In fact, this bratty Lex almost reminds me of the one seen in the old Superboy comics (or the Superboy TV show, for that matter, not that that's a great touchstone, but there is precedent).

Affleck was fine as Batman, and this was certainly the best ever realization of the character on screen, in *visual* terms. He looked great in action. And I liked Gadot as WW. She's exotic, she's got an accent, and she looks beautifully regal. They could have toned down the chest enhancement in her costume, but whatever. It was a little silly, but not a deal breaker for me.

And Snyder still managed to give us huge fights, Wonder Woman, Doomsday, a gutsy Lois Lane, a glimpse at the Apolokolips threat, and more.

Yes, the film was big and messy, overwrought, cheesy in its heavy-handedness, and clunky; but I had to admire it all the same. I can even forgive some of its missteps.

And I'm looking forward to seeing the director's cut on Blu-ray, which adds another half-hour to the run time. That may sound like poison to some, but I'm betting it clarifies some plot points and adds a few character beats. One scene has already appears online, showing how Lex relates to the Apokolips threat. That alone makes the film better-rounded. Warner forced Snyder to bring down the length, and it may (may!) have harmed the film.

My pal that I saw it with was of the similar opinion: The film has its problems, but it's far from the disaster some call it out to be. His biggest issue was with Bruce's visions, which certainly were weird. But we both were there to enjoy the film, not tear it down. Despite Snyder's best efforts to beat us into submission, we still managed to find some enjoyment out of it.

[Ben]

Rand and I will be taking a trial separation for a time.

[Randall]

Did I go too far with dredging up Otis? Or was it the Fury Road crack?

[Ben]

Fury Road.

[Dacey]

So it's not the Batman and Superman movie we deserve, but the one we need right now?

My failed attempt at a Dark Knight reference aside, I am happy that Rand "kinda liked" the movie. And I'll still be picking up the Extended Cut (or asking for it for my birthday), although part of me wonders if making the film even more dialogue heavy will solve any of the issues I had with it.

[EricJ]

My other favorite line from an online blogger said that Eisenberg's Luthor "gibbered like an escapee from a Wes Anderson movie".

While AVClub only referred to Lex as "coked", it did say that if Snyder's idea was to depict both heroes as angry, angsty, and driven by private demons, where's the essential dramatic "conflict" between the two? (Which was one of the problems watching Wolverine battle it out with Sabertooth in another fondly remembered flop comic movie.)
"It's not 'Day vs. night', as Luthor rhapsodizes, it's 'Early evening vs. later evening'."

My pal that I saw it with was of the similar opinion: The film has its problems, but it's far from the disaster some call it out to be. His biggest issue was with Bruce's visions, which certainly were weird.

And gives you some idea of why Joss Whedon had the script/directorial discipline to cut Thor's weirdo abstract visions out of Age of Ultron, which were also originally meant to plant more Portentous Clues leading to future tie-in movies.
Whether it ran better without them is a matter of opinion, as is the idea of whether it would have run better with them.

[James]

...My pal that I saw it with was of the similar opinion: The film has its problems, but it's far from the disaster some call it out to be. His biggest issue was with Bruce's visions, which certainly were weird. But we both were there to enjoy the film, not tear it down. Despite Snyder's best efforts to beat us into submission, we still managed to find some enjoyment out of it.

I went in to enjoy it too. For me its biggest sin was the joylessness of it all. It just was not fun (and by "fun" I don't necessarily mean "funny"). It was almost a chore to sit through.

...gives you some idea of why Joss Whedon had the script/directorial discipline to cut Thor's weirdo abstract visions out of Age of Ultron, which were also originally meant to plant more Portentous Clues leading to future tie-in movies.
Whether it ran better without them is a matter of opinion, as is the idea of whether it would have run better with them.

Marvel has kind of "earned" the right to set up future movies though. They've got a proven track record and audiences trust them. DC has a lot of money and the desire to make more movies. But they haven't earned the fans' interest in potential sequels yet.

[Randall]

"Joyless" is certainly a fair and unfortunately true description. But, based on Man of Steel, and the gloomy trailers for BvS, I was quite prepared for what we got. It was neither the movie we wanted or deserved, but it is what Snyder wanted to give us. Any man who makes a gloomy Superman film ain't going to brighten it up once Batman is introduced. I just watched BvS as a dystopian Elseworlds story (lots of precedents for those in the comics), since bemoaning the lack of what I really wanted just makes me sad.

It's just so bizarre that Warner trusted their franchise with someone who views superheroes so negatively. Over most of their history, the DC heroes were seen as being sunny and beyond reproach, and were actually ridiculed for being too positive--- as opposed to Marvel's conflicted heroes. It's only in the past 15 years or so that their comics turned so dark (beginning with the despicable but sometimes admittedly compelling Identity Crisis). Even the Death of Superman story of the 1990s still rebounded with the thrilling and fun Coming of The Supermen storyline. But today's mainstream DC under Didio, Johns, and Lee seems more interested in death and failure, masquerading as "high stakes" and "testing the heroes." It's just sad. And it's sad that I have to go back to the 1980s to find a Superman film I want to show to my son.

I just viewed Kevin Smith's hour-long review of BvS. We had a lot of similar feelings on it, including his "Paradaemon theory": that many DC fans were just happy to see Paradaemons, or to have the Trinity up on the screen together. So happy, in fact, that all else could be forgiven. I likely fall into that category, though I did actually find the movie quite interesting, even if the tone wasn't what I wanted. And, like Smith, I'm still all in for what comes next, despite reservations about how it's being done. There was just enough "right" about the BvS film to keep me invested.

[EricJ]

It's just so bizarre that Warner trusted their franchise with someone who views superheroes so negatively.

Remember, this is the studio that creates whole alternate universes in their mind when it suits their corporate strategy:
The same studio that tried to wipe Bugs Bunny disks and classic DVD's off the face of the earth because it suits them to believe "The public doesn't want them anymore!" is the same studio ready and willing to believe that they can create a Linked DC Universe because "Look how much the public loved Man of Steel! It'll be our central storytelling lynchpin!"

(Old saying, Warner: "Reality, that's the part on the outside of the head." )

Over most of their history, the DC heroes were seen as being sunny and beyond reproach, and were actually ridiculed for being too positive--- as opposed to Marvel's conflicted heroes. It's only in the past 15 years or so that their comics turned so dark (beginning with the despicable but sometimes admittedly compelling Identity Crisis). Even the Death of Superman story of the 1990s still rebounded with the thrilling and fun Coming of The Supermen storyline. But today's mainstream DC under Didio, Johns, and Lee seems more interested in death and failure, masquerading as "high stakes" and "testing the heroes." It's just sad. And it's sad that I have to go back to the 1980s to find a Superman film I want to show to my son.

DC darkening its heroes in the print comic is more a case of the writers trying to make 30's heroes "relevant", especially after some of the embarrassments of the marketable 70's. (Wonder Woman's return to her Greek-Amazon roots has more than lived down her "Jumpsuit years".) Frank Miller gave us the Dark Knight, and John Byrne gave us Contemporary Superman vs. Lex Trump, but the rest of the heroes seem to be franchise-rebooted every five years.
Pretty much in the same way that Marvel print-comics keep trying to reinvent Captain America or Wolverine by killing them off/stripping their powers every other year.

Most of the DC writers are proud to say that Challenge of the Superfriends reruns on Saturday morning first got them hooked on the characters, but for Warner, it's the OPPOSITE:
Cartoon Network's bullying campaign of putting all the sins of Hanna-Barbera onto the heads of Aquaman and the Wonder Twins has traumatized the studio beyond repair of ever treating the DC movie franchises (or even the "serious" CN action toons) with 100% confidence, and feel they have to preemptively overcompensate, as symbolized by the Mean Badass Aquaman we got in this movie.
With Snyder, it's a case of too much fan loyalty; with Warner, it's a case of not enough.

[Dacey]

Am I in a minority when I say that I didn't find Man of Steel overly negative or gloomy? Ultimately I found the movie's version of Superman hopeful (heck, he even said as much out loud!), and when compared to Returns and even some parts of Quest for Peace, I didn't find him to be terribly depressed, either (not that having a "depressed" lead character is a bad thing by any means).

Granted, it was also using Superman as a "mythic" figure, which I personally had no issues with. But I've also been a Snyder fan for a long time, which is why I'm a little surprised I didn't like BVS more than I did (although, as I said in my review, at least some of it is clearly due to studio interference).

[James]

...Any man who makes a gloomy Superman film ain't going to brighten it up once Batman is introduced...

Quote of the thread! That's great!

[Randall]

Thanks, James! I think Snyder kept true to his vision from MoS, so I wasn't surprised by the tone of BvS.

Dace, maybe "overly serious" could be substituted for "gloomy," though there did seem to be lots of clouds in Metropolis in MoS. But I did find that film negative in the sense of being overly inspired by today's post-9/11 paranoia and mistrust. (Anyone else remember the pre-9/11 world?) Yes, Snyder wanted to make a film contemporary, and "of its time"... but the whole world today isn't really all about the negative, especially if one detaches oneself from watching the news, which is more hyperbolic, sensationalistic, and negative than ever. People's everyday lives are much as they ever have been. Snyder could have chosen to show a world steeped in the negative, but with Superman offering hope and optimism. If you got that from MoS, that's great; but I had trouble feeling it, to say the least (note all the rubble and Zod's snapped neck). I thought it was a good sci-fi film, but a misguided Superman film. For the "real" Superman, look at the Legion of Superheroes episode of Smallville, where Clark absolutely refused to believe that his friend had to be sacrificed for the greater good. He found a way, even if it later came at a cost (reflecting one of the themes of BvS, admittedly). But the point is that Superman ALWAYS finds a way to succeed without sacrificing his principles. It's a central tenet of the character, even if it may not be particularly "realistic."

[gaastra]

BVS will make less then the smaller budget man of steel after dvd sales! Ouch!

http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/04/08/ ... n-of-steel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU0_g2aBwBc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QDu3YipqKY

[Randall]

Warner spent way too much on this film, though I enjoyed the visuals to an extent.

I am reading the Art of BvS book right now, and it does help to hear from the filmmakers re: what they were going for. It just was not what much of the audience wanted. But as time passes, I actually find myself appreciating the film more, especially seen as a lengthy prologue to Justice League.

[Dacey]

Regardless of how one felt about the film, I still find it baffling that we've come to the point where a movie making nearly $300 million in 17 days (and nearly $800 million worldwide) somehow classifies as being a "disappointment."