Amph Justice League

It was Zach Snyder that killed MoS and BvS, pure and simple. He was neither intellectually nor emotionally equipped to lend his productions the soul and depth necessary for his "mature" narrative to work.

A shame, because as Logan proved, it could have succeeded.

 

I like Zack Snyder's concept of Man of Steel, unfortunately, he focused too much on how the world would react to a Superman rather than Superman forging his way and winning over the world, unlike Diana. The "No Man's Land" scene in the Wonder Woman film is all you need to know about Diana.

 

BVS was a mistake from the beginning, it's not HOW you make it, this should NOT be the project when you only got 1 installment and were still trying to build up the team. Imagine Marvel shot Civil War right after IM1, it would be a worse mess.

It also delayed other movies, we got no DCEU movies in 2014 and 2015, imagine if they had gone with MoS2 to set up the Trinity, then make WW, Flash and Aquaman solo through 2015-17, JL would have been much much easier to handle.

MoS didn't get killed, it was ok despite some flaws. Zack got amazing action scenes and make the scenes exactly like what was in the comic, he wasn't good at storytelling though.

Still, who had made the BVS decision should be the NO.1 to blame for.

 

I'm asking how you form this position since you're ignoring so much of the Batman history in making a very selective call about how this is "Clooney's Batman".

I don't especially love Tower of Babel either; given their universe take it seems like they could be heading in that direction. No intelligent person, or even of average intelligence, could conclude I was championing that story as a personal favourite.

I also said it aligned to the Batman of the film who is acutely aware he's the least powerful member there.

But as for the rich guy comments; based on your posts, it's entirely possible you missed that his comment to Flash was not intended as a literal statement but, irony.

And your comments about how he's not respected as a master strategist - it's a new team. They don't know him, so they can't trust him.

But:

* Batman was the one who figured out they need Superman, and how to do it
* Batman was the one who played the Lois card, in case Superman needed to be controlled
* Batman was literally hanging a dude off a balcony at the start in order to lure out a parademon
* Batman also didn't share his plans with the League, so when he's driving the Batmobile with the speakers playing that sound he realises parademons are faster than he thought and his plan might have flaws. But given he had such little time to study them, it makes sense and he learned his lesson about trusting the team.
* Batman designed and built the Nightcrawler tank and the team jet
* Batman held his own despite his lack of powers.

Your entirely point is predicated on a stupid Batgod meme from the time of Avengers 1, and it misses the point that a team is being formed and thus individuals need to find their strengths in it. To suggest Batman was diminished is just... it's wrong. It's stupid. Your entire argument is dumb, right down to complaining about Batman's teamwork and mentoring as if it somehow ignores his tragic past. Like mentoring Dick, Tim, Barbara, Damien, Jason etc never happened.

We know Nightwing is coming. We know Robin died. We know that hasn't diminished his obsession. We know he's had a team in the past.

Just... ground your criticism in things that you can observe, not baggage you seem to have carried into the film.

 

No BvS was not a mistake from the beginning. The premise actually made alot of sense, as Batman is a paranoid figure and him wanting to kill Superman was perfectly inline. Fanboys didn't think there was anything wrong with that.

 

Yes it was, do you see Marvel make Civil War right after IM1?

We are still forming the team and you try to make the 2 heroes fight? You know you got to

Introduce all the characters
Build up the reason of a big battle
Solve the conflict and make them allies in the same movie
Work together to form the league

Right? And you know with only 1 previous installment, one movie is not going to handle all of these well unless the writers/directors are super brilliant. A lot of this won't help to build up the JL team, Right?

 

Civil War includes a large group of superheroes. Batman and Superman are only two. It’s nothing alike.

 

Good luck convincing him of that.

 

The only important ones are Iron Man, CA, Winter Soldier and BP.
And DCEU don't even have a Batman solo movie, got very little setup for the conflict so they got to do nearly everyone in one movie. What's the NO.1 thing at this stage? To build up the justice league, BVS certainly is not a good idea to do so compare to MoS2 introducing new heroes right?

 

Again Ender, you're just reading into what you want.

I basically said this post BvS Bruce Wayne/Batman is off. He's not the "Do you bleed Batman."
All you done is post out how helpful he is with the plot; not really anything to rebut my comment that Batman has lost his edge. I mean, Clooney Batman figure things out too, but I wouldn't want that Batman leading the Justice League.

Now, I watched, read and played (video games) pretty much every incarnation of Batman, and I feel the Batman that encapsulates every iteration of the character through its history is the Batman of the animated series. He rarely brakes his brooding character, but has that dry sense of humor.

 

The correct answer is not to have Superman and Batman fight at all.

 

So he's not the Batman of the film in which he realised he'd gone too far, become too obsessed and too dark and had had it used against him by Luthor?

Not for nothing but that character growth was already in BvS, literally from the moment he realised that he'd been played against Superman and he says to Alfred, who located Martha Kent, "I don't deserve you". He was humbled.

As for rarely breaks brooding; he spent a lot of this film being a bit of a brooding dick with a dry sense of humour. You have to actually point to specifics to make your case. And I feel you didn't read enough Grant Morrison...

 

EXACTLY!

There could be some minor encounter when they firstly met, but setting Batman VS Superman as the main plot of the movie was a HUGE mistake in the beginning of the DCEU. What they needed to focus on, was to introduce all the new heroes and group them up. Thanks to BVS we have to deal the **** it produced and had all the other heroes' movies delayed.

 

I still don't get what people disliked so strongly about BvS.
The "Martha" thing? I don't see what is wrong with that.

Anyhow, back on topic, JL was fun and exciting. I guess that is what the average filmgoer looks for in a superhero film.
I've found all the DC films to be fun and exciting as well as very interesting and thought provoking.

 

It was a bold, weirdly operatic but very visionary film that did what DC does best, and has a take on its characters that varies from previous takes. It's biggest flaw was that it wasn't a cookie cutter Marvel film.

 

There was a literal jar of piss.

 

It's not the right choice in that stage, simple. You don't have enough setup to make such a movie with deep conflict. And people don't like the dark tone.

 

Having Superman and Batman fight is a story that only serves one purpose: it hurts Superman. It's not a coincidence that Superman's decline in popularity coincided with DKR.

DC has been running from who they are for over 30 years now, since COIE. No one wants a wannabe Marvel when they can have the real thing. Less Miller, Moore and Johns, more Siegel, Fox and Finger.

 

I finally watched the Directors Cut of BvS, and I will say this: the concept was ambitious and sound, it was more memorable than any Marvel Studio movie, and was a large improvement on the abominable MoS. There were just too many impediments to it being a triumph like Logan (Eisenberg's portrayal, the Doomsday crap, etc.)

 

The main problem with discussing DC's characters is 95% of people have never read anything with them written by their creators and so only get their information from Post-Crisis versions that were too often written with scorn for the creators of the characters. So only hardcore purists even know who these characters are and how they are supposed to act. With Marvel, the characters in the movies are close to the classic versions, except Stark is much more snippy due to RDJ. Now Thor (my favorite Marvel character), they have completely blown it with.

Best thing about the Marvel movies by far is Chris Evans' Cap. He's also the most DC like character Marvel has.

 

I think most of the recent discussion was fine, no super fanboyism or hate. Most of the ppl like the movie and could see the flaw.

 

One thing I really, really, really wanted more of, was Batman kicking ass. The stunt work for Batman was amazing in BvS, but sadly we didn’t get anything close to that in JL.