Geoff Johns will co-run DC Films for Warner Bros. after 'Batman v Superman' backlash

Warner Bros. is shaking up its DC Comics movie business after the poor reception that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice received.

The Hollywood Reporter has the details:

The Burbank-based studio is making changes to the way it handles its DC Entertainment-centered films, giving oversight of the feature projects to a pair of executives and creating a dedicated division for the films. Current exec vp Jon Berg and Geoff Johns, DC's CCO who successfully launched the comics label's foray into television, will co-run DC Films, according to multiple sources. Warner Bros. declined to comment.
Berg was already working on BvS, Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman and Justice League. He also is a conduit to Ben Affleck, having worked with the actor-filmmaker on Argo and Live by Night, the crime thriller Affleck recently wrapped as director, writer and star for the studio.
With Berg and Johns, Warners is attempting to unify the disparate elements of the DC movies with a seasoned film exec and a comics veteran that together can hopefully emulate the way Marvel Studios has produced its films under the vision of president Kevin Feige. But sources also say Warners still wants to remain filmmaker-driven. As part of the new job, Berg and Johns will become producers on the Justice League movies.

The Hollywood Reporter notes that the under performing box office numbers and negative reception to Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice are the reasons for these executive changes. Warner Bros. also recently appointed Ben Affleck as Executive Producer to strengthen Justice League: Part One, and more changes at DC Films are expected.

Warner Bros. is also currently working on the third act of Suicide Squad, which just under major reshoots. The Hollywood Reporter's sources say that it was Suicide Squad that escalated Johns' involvement in DC movies and that he is involved in the movie's post-production.

Geoff Johns' new position will not interfere with his job as CCO at DC Comics, and he will still report to DC Entertainment president Diane Nelson.

SOURCE: The Hollywood Reporter

825 comments

Jcool

May 17, 2016

and this was also in the report:

And the studio is working to smooth out the third act of Suicide Squad, its big August movie from director David Ayer that could change the perception of its DC line. The movie’s trailers have generated massive positive interest in the all-star actioner that features DC villains and the studio wants to make sure audiences’ expectations are not only met but exceeded.

Squad recently went under major additional photography (multiple sources say it was not to add humor) to clear up the issues. Sources say that it was Squad that escalated Johns’ involvement in DC movies and that he is involved in the movie’s post-production.

BatmanNewsChris
May 17, 2016
Yep, just added that in. Did I miss anything else major? I covered the executive changes and Suicide Squad notes.
1. Jcool
  May 17, 2016
  This is what i noticed:
  - Berg was already working on BvS, Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman and Justice League. He also is the conduit to Ben Affleck, having worked with the actor-filmmaker on Argo and Live By Night, the crime thriller Affleck recently wrapped as director, writer and star for the studio.
  - Warners parted ways with screenwriter Seth Grahame-Smith who was to have made his directorial debut with The Flash. In another example of post-BvS fallout, the studio didn’t feel confident in a first-time director and is now looking for a more seasoned filmmaker who can not only handle a large $150 million-plus movie but who can also have an authoritative stamp.
  1. BatmanNewsChris
    May 17, 2016
    Added in the part about Berg. The Flash director news is pretty obvious to me. I'll leave that to the full article over at The Hollywood Reporter.
  2. Cisco007
    May 21, 2016
    They need to hire a more experienced filmmaker for Flash than Smith. It was a head scratcher when they hired him in the first place.
Your_Mama1
May 18, 2016
Johns is an awful choice. The guy is a comic book
fanboy, he knows nothing about film which has been shown on both Green
Lantern and B v S. The guy didn't help then and won't be able to help
moving forward. Berg on the other hand is probably not a fanboy and can
read the script and watch the rough cut with more objectivity which may
actually help. Although, if he was a part of B v S then again, it won't
help much. Yikes. WB is in serious trouble with these decisions.
1. Batdan
  May 18, 2016
  Johns wrote Darkseid War, probably the best Justice league story in a good 5 years!! and now he's in charge of a cinematic universe that seemed to revolve around Darkseid's world (mother boxes, Steppenwolf, parademons). I can't wait to see what he brings!:D
  1. Emperor Joker
    May 18, 2016
    Worth noting that Johns has been writing Justice League for over 5 years, so Darkseid war being the best JL story in 5 years is both a pro and a con for Johns.
    1. Ace20xd6
      May 19, 2016
      Throne of Atlantis, and the Amazo Virus storylines were both great, and I actually liked Forever Evil.
2. Lea
  May 18, 2016
  That's why he won't be heading DC Films alone. He's there to ensure the movies stay true to the comics (and he is a great writer and he does know DC Comics); Berg is there for his movie expertise.
  1. Your_Mama1
    May 18, 2016
    Thank God for Berg. Although we'll see if this works out or not.
    1. Darnea King
      May 20, 2016
      Why are we thanking god for Berg, or applauding his expertise when he was already in charge while BvS was being made and he didnt help then?
      This combination may help streamline things, but so far Geoff Johns is the only New face in this equation, everyone else has already come up short.
3. Your_Mama1
  May 18, 2016
  Thank you.
4. m'a
  May 18, 2016
  Sickening copy and paste skills.
  1. KelVintage
    May 19, 2016
    Thanks jackass. Hahaha.
  2. Your_Mama1
    June 7, 2016
    I know right? HAHAHA.
Your_Mama1
May 18, 2016
So basically the third act was terrible. No way would they spend over ten million dollars on an ending that they loved. Ayer is full of crap.

Shawn J.

May 17, 2016

When you have two captains, do you really have a ship? Just like having two quarterbacks, you have no quarterback.

JJ
May 17, 2016
Whatever. Snyder sucks. I had so much faith.
1. MrMovies
  March 28, 2017
  Keep whining
Jcool
May 17, 2016
http://i.imgur.com/VAA4VF7.gif
obarium
May 17, 2016
2 Directors worked well for The Winter Soldier and Civil War, well enough to get them Marvel's 2 biggest films. Johns and Berg have different skills and experience that will all come in handy, I'm sure.
1. Kal-Il AKA Ultraman
  May 17, 2016
  not too mention they will also do Infinity War - which will be THE biggest superhero project ever made.
  1. UC
    May 18, 2016
    Ever made? Clearly you never heard of Justice League.
    1. Drew Douglas
      May 18, 2016
      Over a dozen films all leading to one massive project. Yeah, I'd Infinity War is the bigger of the two movies.
    2. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      From that perspective, I would agree. On the other hand, the first JL movie is something countless people have dreamed of passionately for so long, so it's bigger in the sense that it's a debut, and Avengers already had their (awesome) debut.
      I'm hoping the general audience isn't fatigued of Marvel by the time Infinity War comes out, because there are so many properties of theirs that deserve to get made into films still. I want to see at least two more waves... Still going strong so far. :)
    3. Rust
      May 19, 2016
      I'm worried about both. Marvel has had a lot of movies coming out really quickly, soon DC will be spitting tons out too, and meanwhile we'll keep getting X-Men movies on the side.
      It seems like a great time from the angle that we're finally getting movies for all these characters, but it could honestly kill the genre if the GA gets sick of the bombardment.
      Also, I would say dark superhero movies are still selling just fine. That may not be the case in the near-future, but BvS got close to a billion dollars, and that ain't pennies. Lots of people went to it.
    4. Ravager
      May 18, 2016
      Not where it counts.
    5. Ravager
      May 18, 2016
      I'm sorry that alot of people would rather see JL than Infinity War but that's the truth. Nice defense mechanism by the way, calling me a "biased fanboy" takes the pressure of that truth off yourself.
    6. Fastguy77
      May 18, 2016
      A lot of people? You mean DC fans? Sorry dude but DC is in the minority currently and has been for a longggg time.
    7. Ravager
      May 19, 2016
      That doesn't really change my point.
    8. Fastguy77
      May 19, 2016
      Ya it does. There are less DC fans.
    9. Ravager
      May 19, 2016
      Not really.
    10. Fastguy77
      May 19, 2016
      Not really? Comic book sales say otherwise. Box office results say otherwise.
      But a guy on a DC fan site says different so I guess you are right.
    11. Ravager
      May 20, 2016
      Glad you see it my way :)
    12. Toregilio Macapungay
      May 18, 2016
      Just like how many people saw BvS than Civil War? Oh wait.. Did that happened?
    13. Ravager
      May 19, 2016
      I won't even bother to explain that.
    14. Ravager
      May 19, 2016
      It's nice here, lots of magical castles and epic landscapes...
      Hey wait a minute, shouldn't you be getting back to the troll bridge over there?
      That is where you work, right?
    15. neodymium
      May 21, 2016
      Lololol.. Uh no one even knows am Infinity war is coming!
      I bet Thanos will be just as effective as Zemo.
      And we know why.more people (kids) saw Civil War over BvS. BvS was a drama. Civil war was playtime. A good fun movie. My kid and all his friends loved it because of the action. They could care less about the story. They want to see it again, and I don't blame. They are Marvels target audience. Parents will take their kids to go see these movies mamy times. If DC watered down their films to be more mindless action adventure fun then BvS would easily hands down make a billion like all the other action adventure films that did. Fast and Furious. Star wars. Jurassic Park. marvel Avenger films. These are not serious films with a lot of fun. BvS was not even close in.thar category. It wasn't kid friendly. And you can't use the Dark Knight as an example because that movie mostly made a billion because of Heath Ledgers performance but mostly because of his death. AND it had to be re-released in theaters just so it could reach a billion, so of course the anticipation for the Dark Knight Rises was high and would easily make a billion as well.
      People place way too many unreasonable expectations on DC when they are performing pretty much exactly was they should
    16. Ravager
      May 19, 2016
      Call me "biased" all you want, doesn't change a thing.
    17. Ace20xd6
      May 19, 2016
      I was always more excited for Justice League than any Avengers project, But at this point Infinity Wars sounds like a bigger project to pull off with all the superheroes going to be in it. Justice League sounds like a much more difficult project than The Avengers with having more godlike characters and having a higher budget, or the same but without 50 mil going to just one actor.
    18. Darnea King
      May 20, 2016
      Justice League will be lucky if it rivals Avengers 1. Infinity War is the next level.
2. Flidais
  May 18, 2016
  I know that may not be the case of experience in the workplace, but Russos have cooperated for a while, techniques don't necessarily help to coordinate and adjust people, and Kevin Feige is the very captain, not Russos, he didn't film directly, they did
  I'm worried how many people are responsible for this project now, and how their power relations are arranged
3. ᗩᖇᑕᕼᗩᑎGᕮᒪᒪ
  May 18, 2016
  well, they were family, literally. Just a tad different situation
  1. Flidais
    May 18, 2016
    family isn't necessarily a factor makes them get along well either, sometimes even worse
4. Shawn J.
  May 18, 2016
  Not referring to having two directors.
  1. obarium
    May 18, 2016
    But it is an example of 2 people working together to serve a common, artistic goal.
Joshed
May 18, 2016
I look at it more like a captian and his first officer. Geoff Johns will be the Creative talent at DC Films and Jon Berg the Executive.
ᗩᖇᑕᕼᗩᑎGᕮᒪᒪ
May 18, 2016
Not so in the movie business. Too many heads can destroy a film. Green Lantern comes immediately to mind. IP's work better with an Emperor so to speak making the ultimate decisions rather than 2/3 "heads/execs" with the same power.
1. Axxell
  May 18, 2016
  Well, it's better than "every director for himself" as it was before...
Mark Barnes
May 18, 2016
dido, my captain.
brian61992
May 18, 2016
Ehh the quarterback thing is debatable
Fastguy77
May 18, 2016
It really comes down to having talented people. Case in point Snyder.
I'd love to know what the studio is wanting to change with Suicide Squad as the trailers looked great.

KingOfAmerica

May 17, 2016

Almost at $900 million...and still the "debate" rages on??? #PureNonsense

BatmanNewsChris
May 17, 2016
That's not how business works. It's not about how much money you make, it's about how much of a profit you make.
1. towblerone
  May 17, 2016
  As much as I loved BvS, it clearly was not a family-friendly movie. It was a movie whose story was aimed more at adults but that WB wanted to get repeat family business from.
  I think the story was just too heavy and emotionally exhausting for your average movie-goer who just wanted to see cool superhero stuff and for Batman and Superman to punch each other. I don't think audiences want much more than that and as sad as that is, it is apparently the state of the movie-going public.
  1. Steven Kaye
    May 17, 2016
    Are you insinuating that the majority of today's moviegoers are idiots? Because if you are...I wholeheartedly agree.
  2. N.G.
    May 17, 2016
    Just cuz you missed the film's intelligence and emotion doesn't mean it isn't there.
    And oh, believe me, it is there.
    You oughta give Man of Steel Answers Insight Commentary a listen...
    1. Poochie
      May 17, 2016
      B v. S is the Newt Gingrich of superhero movies. A dumb person's idea of what an Intelligent movie is.
    2. N.G.
      May 17, 2016
      I don't think Batman v Superman has some genius plot or anything. The plot was fairly simple with some twists, but it was good.
      But that's not why I think it's a smart film. It's the characterization, which was spot-on and really well developed for the most part. That's all that really mattered to me.
      People like you must think just about every superhero movie plot is retarded if Batman v Superman's gets slaughtered.
    3. OGmacrazy
      May 18, 2016
      The problem with it, and with Man of Steel to a smaller degree, is that it tried to do way too much when they clearly couldn't pull it off. The run time was very long, but it failed to deliver with most subplots. If you are trying to make an intelligent movie, but don't have the screenwriting power to deliver, then it's just a great premise wasted. I loved BvS, but it was not a very smart movie, at all. They should learn from this and start making the subplots actually matter instead of presenting them and then just leaving them or making them a mess.Terrio clearly came into the movie way too late to iron Goyer's mess out, and I still have faith for JL, but they need to learn from their mistakes. Fans ignoring this and just accepting anything they're offered does not help. Thankfully, the box office spoke, and now they know they screwed up.
    4. towblerone
      May 17, 2016
      On its face it wasn't a deep movie, but the subtext was and what I personally enjoyed about it. I think to dismiss it entirely is being just as foolish as the people you're blatantly criticizing.
    5. Poochie
      May 18, 2016
      The movie had its moments, but they were few and far between. That opening had so much promise!
      I just find it annoying when fans start insulting people's intelligence for a movie that was all over the place and could not juggle it's players.
      Whatever question there was about Superbeings having too much power blew up along with Granny's peach tea.
    6. Chris82
      May 18, 2016
      This comment is spot on! The problem is people wanted B v S to be amazing and are in denial that it wasn't!
    7. Dogg Haus
      May 18, 2016
      @ Poochie. You misspelled "Bernie Sanders".
    8. Poochie
      May 18, 2016
      Let me fix it; D-o-n-a-l-d T-r-u-m-p.
      Also: http://www.theatlantic.com/...
    9. Fastguy77
      May 18, 2016
      Lol this. It is beyond sad how the diehards won't give in. BvS was a travesty. But us common folk just don't get the intelligence.
    10. Fro
      May 17, 2016
      Dude stop, im a fucking software engineer, believe me Im not stupid. There was nothing intelligent about that movie.
    11. towblerone
      May 17, 2016
      Some beg to differ. Not that it matters as it appears the DCEU is changing course to avoid these discussions entirely.
    12. N.G.
      May 17, 2016
      Yeah, that doesn't make you a genius at analyzing plot and character in film.
      In my opinion the best analysis of this movie so far is Dr. Awkward's from Man of Steel Answers Insight Commentary.
    13. Fro
      May 17, 2016
      So you have to be a genius to understand BvS. Come one man. There was nothing intelligent about that movie. Glad they are making changes, i want great dc movies.
    14. Jonathan Rizo
      May 17, 2016
      I'll laugh when the movies still don't live up to expectations.
    15. The Dark Knight
      May 17, 2016
      As they've till now?
    16. Jonathan Rizo
      May 18, 2016
      yeah but if they turn out worse that would give me the extra laughs.
    17. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      It's sad that you would get a laugh out of the world having less good things in it. Marvel and DC both deserve to succeed.
    18. Jonathan Rizo
      May 18, 2016
      No I would be mocking all these idiots that think they know what's best for DC. I enjoyed the hell out of BvS, my only complain is Lois they can't write her for shit but that's it. So there you go, to me you people are sad and that's why I will laugh so hard if your so called plan fucks it up.
    19. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      With that information, it appears I misinterpreted you. I'm glad you liked what you did about BvS, at least.
      And, personally, I don't claim to know what's best or have any sort of plan, but I still don't see merit in mocking others when things go poorly for them.
    20. Jonathan Rizo
      May 19, 2016
      because their know it all attitude bothers me so I like making fun of them, pretty simple.
    21. Toregilio Macapungay
      May 18, 2016
      JL part 1 will have you rolling on the floor
    22. N.G.
      May 17, 2016
      All it takes to enjoy Batman v Superman is to be observant and willing to engage in the movie. Don't dismiss it because it goes in a different direction than may be expected.
    23. Fro
      May 17, 2016
      I dont go in a movie wanting it to go in a certain direction. I go in wanting a good movie. You liked it, fine, i respect that. But dont say it was too intelligent for people to understand and BS like that. We got it.
    24. N.G.
      May 17, 2016
      I never said you have to be a genius.
      The movie goes in a confronting direction that a lot of people don't want Superman/Batman to go in. I'm saying that if you decide not to reject it as nonsense and try to engage and discover why they made it the way they did, you might just learn why some people love it.
    25. N.G.
      May 17, 2016
      "I was observant."
      Really? And yet you don't remember the scene at Lex's gala where Clark hears Alfred giving Bruce directions via earpiece?
      I don't know, maybe Clark figured it out right about then?
      Superman is clearly shown to save lives all over the world. It never says he doesn't save lives in Gotham. He just can't save lives 24/7 because it's literally impossible.
      Superman to Lois: "This is my world... *you* are my world."
      Terrible observations.
    26. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Superman has a whole planet to worry about. It's not inconceivable that he might not immediately recognize Bruce Wayne, who lives in an entirely different city.
      Clark did all sorts of research about Batman for the Daily Planet. It's not difficult to surmise that a combination of that and some field research led him to the conclusion that Bruce Wayne is Batman.
      Are you really gonna suggest that the filmmaker's didn't attempt to explain it?
      It's made abundantly clear throughout both Man of Steel and BvS that Superman is in love with Lois and she gives him faith in humanity. How much more needs to be said?
    27. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      ...Or perhaps they expect you to figure out a couple things on your own instead of wanting to be spoon-fed everything?
      "As for Lois Lane, that's a weak response because if that was her purpose, to be Superman's love interest and to give him faith, then she needed to have a lot less time in the film."
      What are you even talking about at this point?
    28. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      "What are you even talking about at this point?" - standard copout to sound smart
    29. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      I've went around in circles with this guy more than enough and thoroughly established my point. There's nothing left to say.
      Especially not to a statement like "She wasn't made to be important enough! Therefore she should have been in the movie less!!"
    30. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      You're dismissing the importance of the Jonathan Kent scene.
      The film is saying that Superman should ultimately be able to withstand all the evil and hatred and doubt in the world so long as he holds onto the love that he shares with one person, which was tested throughout the film as Lois held on to the symbol and fought for it while Clark doubted it.
      That is a powerful theme, and whether you personally care for it, it had plenty of buildup and prominence to justify Lois's part in the story.
    31. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Yeah, I get it. You don't like Lois and now all of a sudden you'd prefer spectacle over thematic development.
      Whatever, dude.
    32. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      You've offered no solution for how to "fix" Lois in this movie besides having her as a minor character. Sounds like you're gonna hate her character whatever they try to do with her.
      And why do superhero movies "have to" be a certain way?
      I for one am glad to see Synder and company forging a new path, however many people don't seem to like or understand it.
    33. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      There's no good reason why the girlfriend of Superman and the greatest reporter in the world wouldn't be a major character.
      The movie was plenty long, did you really, honestly want the Doomsday fight to keep going...?
      Maybe the extended cut will fulfill that wish.
    34. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      How much more spectacular did the fight need to be, exactly?
    35. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      How do you propose they do a battle between the Trinity and Doomsday -without- copious amounts of CG?
      Further, what makes CG automatically not entertaining?
      Adding Lois to the mix is what gave the scene a heart, instead of just being a slugfest. It gave Superman dialogue, and a tangible purpose to put his life on the line for.
      I would call that more important, well-earned, and satisfying than lots of flashy action on it's own.
    36. Azrael
      May 18, 2016
      "A forced idea to kill Superman, only to confirm he'll return from the dead before the credits role. Us as fans knew he'll return, but for everyone else,"
      Everyone else? You seriously believe that everyone including fans and general audience alike wouldn't figure out that Superman's return would be imminent given the fact that Justice League is on the horizon? and the fact that this in only the second film in an extended DC universe? Anyone exerting common sense would know that his supposed death would not be permanent.
    37. Axxell
      May 19, 2016
      1) Not everyone knows about JL
      2) Even if they did, they don't know who's going to be there.
      Not revealing his resurrection would've at least created some time for the audience to mourn, so to speak, and reflect on what he truly meant. This resurrection pretty much sets Superman up as an indestructible character, so you know there will be no tension when he appears to be on the brink of death in the future, no matter what.
    38. Azrael
      May 19, 2016
      1) Not everyone knows about JL
      BvS is basically the springboard for the JL film not to mention the entire DCEU. That was one of the purposes the JL cameos and foreshadowing throughout the film. For those that seen the film, it would be difficult not to know about it.
      2) Even if they did, they don't know who's going to be there.
      Based on BvS we have a clear picture of those likely to make an appearance in the JL.
      "This resurrection pretty much sets Superman up as an indestructible character, so you know there will be no tension when he appears to be on the brink of death in the future"
      I don't believe a later resurrection reveal would even negate this issue though. So whether or not the audience finds out sooner rather than later or vice versa all tension is already out the window.
      Still I don't believe anyone truly believes that DC's most iconic and recognizable hero next to Batman was permanently dead after the second film in a newly established DCEU.
    39. Axxell
      May 19, 2016
      Its hard not to know when BvS is basically the springboard for the feature film, thus the JL cameo.
      You know this because you follow DC news. The GA only follows as much as each release tells them, so unless somewhere the movie specifically says Justice League is coming, they wouldn't know what WB plans to do next.
      Based on BvS is already obvious who will be in the film.
      That's the problem...because instead of creating expectation, WB decided to show their cards early.
      What do you mean gave the audience time to mourn? Why would anyone truly believe that DC's most iconic hero's death was permanent within the DCEU after the second film no less?
      Why kill him at all, then? If everyone knows Superman can't die, then there's no point, right?
      So how exactly does would that change anything? Whether or not the audience finds out sooner rather than later or vice versa of an imminent Superman return. Either way it wouldn't matter.
      It goes back to my point that doing the Death of Superman story was too early...they've already put him up against his most challenging opponent; it's hard to think what could possibly pose a serious threat to him from here on out.
    40. Azrael
      May 19, 2016
      "You know this because you follow DC news. The GA only follows as much as each release tells them,"
      Granted the GA may not follow DC news to the extent of your average DC fan would. I tend to give GA a bit more credit especially when I consider how deep we are within the CBM era and with other studios telling expanded story set within their cinematic universes. What's apparent however is the many cameos and foreshadowing that was done throughout the film that hints to bigger plans and a possible future film.
      "That's the problem...because instead of creating expectation, WB decided to show their cards early."
      I don't believe DC showed their cards early with simple cameos and the other various easters eggs, things like that are commonplace within these types of films. Those simply wet the appetite and usually may create expectations. I do however feel that their executions could have been handled better. Even if you insist that they did show their cards early, one could hardly blame them at this point since they're so late in the game.
      "Why kill him at all, then? If everyone knows Superman can't die, then there's no point, right?"
      When one looks at his death within the context of the narrative then I can see the purpose for them doing so. IMO it seems like it was done for the sake of the story rather than the audience. Much of the film centered around Superman's place within the world around him. With the world at large being so divided over him and many being so distrustful, his sacrifice kinda settled that. The only thing I really had problem with was perhaps the timing. This is something they definitely could have done at some later time once he was more fleshed out as a character.
      "It goes back to my point that doing the Death of Superman story was too early...they've already put him up against his most challenging opponent; i"
      On this we can agree. However in the grand scheme of things whether or not they waited until later to hint at a future Superman return I don't think it would have made a huge difference, also WB/DC would be crazy enough to leave a character like Superman permanently dead.
    41. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      There was a lot more to the fight than that.
      I thought it was pretty powerful when they had the stare-down at the monument of Superman; the way Doomsday looked at it in silence for a moment, then looked at him. He smashed him through his own monument out of pure hatred, crumbling it ontop of him, threw him across the entire span of water and through a building, they had an epic eye-blast war with a tornado of flames and rubble whirling up around them, and Superman even flew him up into space to try to suffocate him and they both got -nuked-. There was a level of tension and uncertainty in the moments leading up to that point.
      They both landed killing blows on each other very savagely. We saw Superman get straight-up punctured through his entire chest, and it wasn't easy for him to push the spear through Doomsday either. We also saw Superman leap in the way and -save- Lex right after all the crap Lex put him through, and the way he catches Doomsday's fist is a very potent moment. I would consider the near-dead, nuked Superman floating in space and turning slowly toward the sun as part of the spectacle too.
      And, needless to mention: lots of borderline pornographic cape-blowing-around-dramatically throughout the whole ordeal.
      I thought all of those elements together with Batman and Wonder Woman's antics (like the struggle with her epicly glowing lasso, or when she cut a car thrown at her clean in half with her sword, or when she slammed his leg out from under him with swift, expert maneuvering and her shield, leaving a red-hot welt on his unstable skin) made for a fight that had a pretty large level of spectacle - not to mention the scary amounts of havoc Doomsday was causing so quickly.
      It can't go any more over the top than all that without being too much, in my opinion.
      In fact, I would say it very nearly -was- too much. I felt like all the lightning exploding off of Doomsday constantly might be too much spectacle for me, personally, but I forgave it in the moment as not a big deal. Spectacle was truthfully the one thing not missing from the fight, even if you didn't like the Lois stuff interspersed throughout.
      And that's fine, you can not like that stuff, but at least consider that others did enjoy Lois' participation, so it boils down to personal preference as opposed to objectively being bad.
      Now comes the part where I say: 'You left out all of that stuff in your analysis here'. I don't mean to sound insulting about this, but can we please remain honest here and look at the whole thing and judge, as opposed to making a huge deal out of a few details and disregarding everything else?
      The CGI might not be the best thing either of us have ever seen, but it wasn't outright terrible by any means. It's on par with most of what we see in movies these days, and on the higher end of the spectrum.
      I really can't see them doing huge fight scenes like this via putting a guy in a suit (I'm assuming you mean more than a mo-cap suit, but an actual prosthetic costume) any better than they already executed it.
      I mean, the whole airport battle in Civil War was literally all CG, and Spidey was basically 100% CG at all times. It's simply the only way to do huge, sprawling superhero smackdowns or complex animations for superhuman abilities with any semblance of practicality. It's the only way to have the flexibility to do whatever you want with the fight as there's only so much you can do with trampolines and wires.
      I agree that practical methods should be used at every possible opportunity, but I also have to concede that there are times where it's just not the best way to go.
    42. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      You're right, he overestimated how much the audience would care to pay attention to his movie.
    43. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Sure, let's hear these major plot holes that you couldn't manage to find explanations for no matter how hard you tried.
    44. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Superman was in Smallville when his mother was attacked in Man of Steel.
      In Batman v Superman, he's half a country away from her in Metropolis.
      No, it isn't explicitly stated that he can't hear that far--Snyder clarified in an interview because Superman's power levels have always fluctuated--but it can be assumed based on information given that he can't hear that far.
      It's also shown that he cant hear the building on fire in Mexico from Metropolis: he has to see it happening on the news.
      The only reason he saved Lois in Africa presumably is because he knew she was there and was keeping an eye out for her.
      Honestly, that's one of the easier-to-defend parts of BvS.
    45. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Where in the movie is it said that Superman can ever hear everybody on the planet?
      ...Please point me to this.
    46. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Are you kidding me?
      An offhand remark from a director out of context suddenly changes everything about the movie?
      But then simultaneously anything he can say about the superfluous elements of the movie means it's bad?
      No. The only thing that matters is the MOVIE and whether the MOVIE itself makes sense on its own. Applying comic book logic to these movies is stupid.
    47. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Right. Yep. That's Snyder's problem. Applying too much comic book logic.
      That's why Superman's alien origins are given great importance, and why Batman ends up responsible for criminal's deaths like how a real Batman would, and why secret identities never stay secret, and why the general populace doubts and hates Superman instead of taking him for granted, and why Superman struggles to hold onto hope during dark times in a realistic and uncertain world.
      It's just too much like the comic books!
      Let's not forget that your "plot hole" argument failed miserably, by the way.
    48. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      You just went full jackass.
      So my argument doesn't make sense because there's no explicit, spelled-out-to-the-brainless-audience evidence for it despite being the logical conclusion to make based on WHAT OCCURS IN THE FILM.
      But yours make sense because you're going off of rules that were never, ever established in either movie even once... Yeah, sound logic there!
      And the glasses are Snyder's fault? *Snyder's* fault? Going with a trope for such a minor part of one movie makes him a hack despite all the revolutionary changes he's made throughout two?
      AND despite the fact that Clark's identity is found out by the end of the movie anyway???
      Wow. You're the thickest, most asinine troll I've met on this site so far.
      Bye.
    49. Rust
      May 19, 2016
      Because Superman already took the spear and had a far more realistic chance of even getting close enough to Doomsday without immediately dying? Seems like a much wiser idea for Supes to try first when you consider the raw power at play in the battle.
      I don't see how a little bit of common sense is a plot hole.
    50. OGmacrazy
      May 18, 2016
      Easy. In Man of Steel it is shown that Clark ALWAYS concentrates on his mother's voice when things are tough. He was in the goddamn ocean and he heard her. So it's pretty fair to say that Superman can clearly hear way further than that. Snyder was just confronted with a question about a plot hole and gave a half assed excuse on the spot. It's pretty fucking clear that that's what happened if you watch the interview with the fanboy goggles off. It's ok to love a movie and be aware of it's flaws. For how much I loved the movie, there were major issues with it.
    51. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      Superman probably did try to find his mom, but since he was stressed out, he probably focused his hearing enough to block out any other noise. Not to mention, KGBeast probably threatened Martha not to make any noise.
    52. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      She tried to scream, but one of the henchmen had covered her mouth.
    53. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      She tried to scream, but one of the henchmen had covered her mouth.
    54. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      Superman still manages to hear Lois Lane underwater, which is difficult enough as it is before being compounded by the noise of all the wreckage and explosions Doomsday was creating at the moment. The movie is just very inconsistent on this.
    55. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      I can't argue with that. Even other people keep debating about his super hearing.
    56. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      It's only easy to defend if you ignore the fact that Martha was being held in a warehouse nearby...he still couldn't hear her as well as he seems to hear Lois...
    57. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      The only one that did massively well and was universally acclaimed was The Dark Knight, and I'm pretty sure, in a general sense, that had more to do with Heath Ledger's Joker than audiences being so intelligent that they noticed the brilliance of the movie.
      BvS went in a direction that divided audiences and didn't sit well with Marvel-obsessed critics. It's as simple as that.
    58. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      He didn't say it was just Marvel critics and fanboys; he also said it divided audiences.
      Overlooking some parts of what he said while acknowledging other parts is also what people are doing to BvS. It's not fair criticism if you don't take everything into account before slamming him, or it.
    59. Matches Malone
      May 18, 2016
      Dark Knight Rises is sitting "Certified Fresh" at 87% on Rotten Tomatoes from critics and 90% from the audience and grossed over a billion dollars. BvS cannot claim success by either metric. Pretty sure TDKR also did "massively well" despite your revisionist history of it.
    60. OGmacrazy
      May 18, 2016
      Batman Begins - 70 on metacritic/8.3 on imdb
      The Dark Knight - 82 on metacritic/9 on imdb
      The Dark Knight Rises - 78 on metacritic/ 8.5 on imdb
      Seems like the trilogy is beloved both by critics and audiences, with Heath Ledger only being in one of these. You are reaching for excuses to support your arguments, with no actual evidence. Seriously, is Batman V Superman your grandfather or something? Why so defensive?
    61. Toregilio Macapungay
      May 19, 2016
      Marvel-obsessed critics LOL, is this what we call people who gives their opinions on crappy movies
    62. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      Yeah put in this random dream sequence that has no relation to the movie, bring this red suited guy blasting through a computer, I'm sure audience will appreciate that. Put in this woman looking at an email of random videos when Batman is suiting up for a fight, something everyone's been waiting for.
    63. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Even if you don't like those scenes, that comes nowhere close to making it a bad movie. Unless you didn't really care to begin with, it just doesn't.
    64. OGmacrazy
      May 18, 2016
      Stops the action, makes for terrible pacing, and only serves to tease further movies, instead of helping the story of the movie we're watching. Teasers should be reserved for trailers, not the movies that preceed other movies. It was a major flaw with Age of Ultron, and it is a major flaw with BvS, only on a larger scale.
    65. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      The videos were hardly random, man. It was strung throughout the movie as Wonder Woman's motivation, and clearly was relevant to Batman's concerns about Superman - and metahumans in general. It teaches the audience, and Batman, that there is a lot more out there, and does it in a way that sets up some of what's to come.
      It also shows us just how busy Lex has been, and how quickly he is accumulating knowledge of our heroes, which makes him even more threatening of a foe.
      The dream sequence was related to the movie in that it illustrates Batman's fears of where this metahuman path may take the world, and himself. It, along with the Flash's mysterious message, is meant to make the audience ask questions about who he is, what might happen in the future, and how Batman will choose to handle it. It's supposed to give you thematic questions, not answers.
      None of that is random, and all of it fits within the central theme of the plot. It's disappointing that it has to be explained, because it's not rocket science.
    66. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      The videos DO seem pretty random, considering all Wonder Woman was looking for was her picture...I still don't get why Bruce sent her the videos as well.
    67. Rust
      May 19, 2016
      Because it had clearly become about more than just her and her picture, and the bigger picture, if you'll pardon the pun, was just as relevant to her as it was to him.
      They were now unofficial allies and both tied up in this mess. Seems like a good idea to share information with such a relevant ally to try and further your chances of tackling the situation one way or the other - and just to be nice (as well as probably flirt a little bit). 'Boys share too.', etc.
      Him sharing with her means she shares more info with him, and, being Batman - specifically, a version of Batman that is still trying to understand (and still fears the potential threat of) metahumans, having essentially a fellow spy on his side in Wonder Woman is his ticket to the thing he always needs most: knowledge.
      Knowledge is how Batman operates. He needs information, and he needs connections to get information. You get connections by shows of good faith and an interest in volunteering those connections new information that they perhaps didn't know, so you get information by giving information. The more they cooperate and volunteer new data, the more he knows, and the more he can apply what he learns onto what he decides to do going forward.
      Maybe this is only obvious to me because I grew up watching a lot of spy and gangster movies.
      Now, that's just the strategic take on it. Batman is of course a strategist, and he's heavily implied to be making plans around all this stuff behind the scenes in the movie, so I consider it perfectly valid as an assessment.
      If you don't buy the strategist angle, the other take is simply, 'Here's a little surprise I found along with your picture. Make of it what you will.' It is easily explained as a friendly gesture to a new friend. Doesn't have to be any more complicated to that to make sense, and doesn't require a lot of critical thinking.
    68. Axxell
      May 19, 2016
      That would be surprisingly careless for a person who hardly trusts anyone...he's willing to kill Superman having barely talked to him, yet here comes this strange, mysterious woman who stole your data from under you, he suspects she's another metahuman (you know, the people who COULD wipe out the entire human race, therefore must be killed). Yet he gives her information about other metahumans without knowing where her allegiances lie...
      If that's not enough for you to question this move, remember what Batman said when Wonder Woman appeared during the Doomsday fight..."I thought she was with you". If Batman really thought she was allied with the man he was at the moment trying to kill, why did he send this info to a friend of one of his targets? It's as if he had sent secret information to Harley Queen knowing she's on the Joker's side...makes no sense.
    69. Rust
      May 19, 2016
      They built enough trust for that earlier in the movie. Moreover, there's nothing to lose for him by sharing that info, so you're exaggerating how careless he's being. She showed her good faith anyway when she returned the data and started cooperating with him.
      You pointed out that she stole the data, but you left out the rest of their interactions, and that she returned it. Selecting key points and ignoring others isn't an honest way to form a point of view and argue it.
      And if you're going to call that careless, what do you call his trusting of any other newly made ally in the comics and cartoons? All of the Robins were risky leaps of trust, and your standards must also be applied to Catwoman, who Diana Prince somewhat mirrored in this film. If we follow your logic, Batman has been a careless character since the 1940s.
      As for the 'I thought she was with you' line, the easy guess is that he may have been just teasing Superman.
      None of this takes a lot of imagination.
    70. Axxell
      May 20, 2016
      They built enough trust for that earlier in the movie. Moreover, there's nothing to lose for him by sharing that info, so you're exaggerating how careless he's being.
      "Nothing to lose"?! Would you say the same thing if Wonder Woman was an evil conqueror trying to build an army of superpowered people to attack the world with? Would you be fine with her having the ability to recruit these people knowing now that they exist?
      You pointed out that she stole the data, but you left out the rest of their interactions, and that she returned it. Selecting key points and ignoring others isn't an honest way to form a point of view and argue it.
      Irrelevant. Do you think I'd be forgiven if I walk into the Oval Office at the White House, made copies of secret documents and walked out with them? Just because I left the original behind?
      And if you're going to call that careless, what do you call his trusting of any other newly made ally in the comics and cartoons?
      Careless too. And as I said, inconsistent.
      As for the 'I thought she was with you' line, the easy guess is that he may have been just teasing Superman.
      Yeah, how could you not tell by the way he looked at Superman that he was obviously joking...Batman's such a teaser...
    71. Rust
      May 22, 2016
      He's already prepping for that very sort of scenario; he's even having nightmares about it. Keeping yourself on the inside via shows of good faith only aids the information flow.
      Honestly though, that's just a small potential bonus effect that I'm suggesting the possibility of, not saying was necessarily intended, and I favor the idea that he had decided from her behavior that she is a potential friend with an intriguing, mysterious past.
      Batman and Superman have never been perfectly careful or 100% logically consistent at all times if you look at their history. I tried to illustrate that by bringing up Robin and Catwoman, et cetera. They are vulnerable, they are fallable, and some of their most careless moments are their most defining ones in one way or another.
      There are numerous possible explanations both complicated and simple if you care to analyze every suspected plot hole in BvS further, but it's become clear to me that there's no amount of post-explanation or fan-made suggestion that will satisfy this mindset. I feel like I've already been too insulting toward some people, so continuing this with a quote war might not be the best way to go.
      You'll have to reconcile minor plot holes as what they are for yourself, or forever be bothered by movies that don't break every single nuance down in exhaustive detail for you. That's essentially every superhero movie ever made, so we could be having this discussion forever. In fact, I'm already seeing some people bickering about plot holes in Civil War and disregarding the good stuff in the film because they're so distracted by it. Makes me sad, and tired.
      I just hope the good elements of whatever movies you have similar issues with also reach you, as the great stuff seems to be brushed aside as unimportant by so many with the 'rip the plot holes wide open!' approach to being a viewer.
      As a final offering: Batman does have a charming history of making little quips now and then, so he can indeed be a teaser in his own way - even a few times within BvS itself. I quoted 'Boys share too', but there are some nice examples with Alfred as well. This is another aspect of the film that's not nearly as unusual or ill-fit as people en masse seem to think for some reason. Personally, I like that kind of Batman. I consider him warm-hearted underneath the dark exterior.
      I'm sorry if any of the occasional aggressiveness of this talk was stressful or annoying for you. I'm still working on not being a dick. Have a good day, man.
    72. Axxell
      May 23, 2016
      Hey, I'm only supporting the claim about the videos being out of place in context. I would never say the movie is irredeemable or completely devoid of anything good, but there should be nothing wrong with being able to discuss points like these. Have a good day yourself.
    73. Jaime spenser
      May 18, 2016
      The audience expected more from a film that seems like TMNT.
    74. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      The TDK trilogy also spent a lot more time spelling out it's themes and repeating them to ensure the very people you're talking about could keep up, and it's been criticized for that amongst a minority of fans who felt like they were beating us over the head too much and wanted something more subtle and less 'overly preachy'. That actually threw some more praise Tim Burton's way for a while, too, but I digress.
      Of course, being the minority, that crowd isn't really heard or catered to terribly often for obvious (I assume) reasons. Personally, I was okay with it. And, judging by the reaction to BvS, it was clearly necessary for the GA to stay on board.
      There's a difference between the movie being smart and the audience being smart. TDK was smart, but more of it's subtlety was sacrificed because people generally don't keep up with subtle, or implied, things. They need to be told the obvious, and they need to have everything thoroughly explained. I find it unfortunate, and it eats up a lot of valuable screen time, but now Zack sees the true face of the audience for these movies and hopefully understands he has to adjust his methods accordingly.
    75. Toregilio Macapungay
      May 18, 2016
      Going by his track record in Comic Book Movie, he shouldn't have overestimated how much the audience would care to pay attention to his movie, he sucks at directing and forecasting and thus 27% RT
    76. Poochie
      May 18, 2016
      ... and then promise an uncut version.
      It's like the DLC of movies.
    77. Poochie
      May 18, 2016
      How many times was she in distress? Not quite deep there.
    78. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      "Superman to Lois: "This is my world... *you* are my world.""
      Lmfao! All attempts made by Snyder to make Lois relevant to story as a journalist, and you zeroed down them to Lois solely being Superman's love interest
      Yup, terrible observations.
    79. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Mkay. Let's just forget about Clark's scene in the mountain with his father discussing the topic of trying to be a hero but failing to make everything right (the exact theme of the film), which Jonathan says he managed to get over by falling in love with Martha.
      "She gave me hope that there was still good in this world... she was my world."
      Hmm, sounds like that sort of ties into Superman's situation with Lois.
      But nah, go ahead and laugh and ignore everything that contradicts your accusations. You totally don't sound like a fool or anything.
    80. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      That all screams like "ma love interest"
    81. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      Disregarding the value of that line as established by the scenes building up to it in the movie, and disregarding the rest of Lois' character aspects, does not mean she's been dumbed down to 'ma love interest'.
      That is something you have chosen to do yourself, and contradicts all evidence to the contrary in the film itself.
      The film can't be blamed for your choice of perception, or your choice of dismissal.
    82. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      Well, it provides tangible evidence to the authorities. We see a couple of scenes with General Swanwick that flesh this point out.
      The government can't just take Superman's word for it. You can't just have a trial where Superman says, 'Well, Lex confessed to me.' because Lex will just say, 'Prove it.' and smile.
      Everything must be considered before dismissal. Lois is catching a lot of undeserved flack.
    83. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      Everyone thinks they're so smart and observant and know for a fact that the movie fails for this and that reason ... until they say what they saw and you realize they completely missed the obvious, even in cases when it's spelled out more than once.
      The blind upvotes illustrate the hivemind at play. No one is critically examining what these people say and comparing any of it to actual facts demonstrated in the films. They just bolster the mob because they've already made up their minds.
      This is a textbook example of the real problem the movie faced: society itself.
    84. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      I think you missed the part of this conversation where this point is proven illogical. Not very observant.
    85. Rust
      May 19, 2016
      Which point, exactly? My point about society, or Noah's multiple points that utterly debunk a number of bogus, half-baked criticisms of BvS?
      Pretty sure I observed both, and have yet to see a convincing counter-argument.
    86. Axxell
      May 19, 2016
      Well since you're replying to Noah's point about being "observant" of the Gala scene, it's "obvious" I'm referring to the same. And as I said, his claim that Clark finds out Batman's identity through a phone conversation with Alfred, has been proven illogical, since nothing in the conversation he hear could possibly make Bruce Wayne identifiable to the Batman persona.
    87. Rust
      May 19, 2016
      It doesn't take a lot of deductive reasoning to 2 + 2 the earpiece conversation with the aggressive nature of Bruce's response to being quizzed on the Bat vigilante in Gotham, and the fact that he flaunts his wealth (which is obviously necessary for Batman's tech) derogatorily toward him all in the same scene. It's almost like he's fearlessly revealing himself right to Clark's face; like he's aware. The change in his eyes from faux-drunk to 'Don't mess with me, boy' is swift.
      If all of that isn't screaming, 'I'm Batman!', I don't know what is.
      This movie really does boil down to things needing to be overly spelled out for people. Hopefully Zack has learned that lesson for next time.
    88. Axxell
      May 19, 2016
      No, what's happening is you're filling in the blanks based on prior knowledge. The movie doesn't really show how Kent deducts Batman's identity. All the gala scene screams is "entitled rich prick who hates the media". None of which would be exclusive to Batman.
    89. Rust
      May 19, 2016
      It also screams, 'this guy is engaging in criminal spy activity with a secret ear piece and I obviously need to check him out more closely'. Please include all the evidence.
    90. Axxell
      May 20, 2016
      Disputable, and even then, none of that ties him to Batman anyways.
    91. Azrael
      May 18, 2016
      "journalist for nearly two years having no idea who the richest man in Gotham is"
      Just because he couldn't ID Bruce on sight doesn't mean he had no idea whom Bruce Wayne was. So unless Bruce is the sort to constantly remain in the public eye then I wouldn't be surprised if anyone would immediately recognize a reclusive billionaire philanthropist.
      "this movie wants us to believe Superman never felt the need to stop crime in Gotham but is willing to globe throttle."
      I believe the film was conveying the fact that Superman was far more preoccupied with Batman's methodology in how he fought crime, not necessarily eradicating crime in Gotham. Secondly Superman "globe trots"frequently in other mediums. So if that bothers you then your gripe should be with the source itself.
      "how did Supes find out Batman is Brue Wayne? "
      He likely ascertained that when he eavesdropped on Bruce secretly communicating with Alfred at the party Lex was throwing.
    92. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Another point... Crime in Gotham is underground and in the shadows. That is not AT ALL Superman's specialty. How exactly is he supposed to eradicate crime in Gotham??
      His specialty is dealing with major crises and saving lives. And that's what he does. He's not some vigilante/detective like Batman.
    93. Jaime spenser
      May 18, 2016
      I was willing but the film wasn't willing for me.
    94. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      Being a software engineer doesn't necessarily equate to understanding everything ever.
    95. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      True, but his point was that he's not stupid. He never claimed to understand everything ever.
    96. Rust
      May 19, 2016
      When you say (in effect), 'I'm a software engineer, so I am therefore able to understand this other thing just as well', you are indeed implying a universal level of knowledge based on your developed mental skill-set in one particular subject.
      Which isn't to discount his (her?) expertise in software engineering, that's actually great, but I'm simply saying it doesn't make you impervious to missing things in movies.
      My phrasing of it was obviously crude hyperbole before, but I figured everyone here to be able to understand not to take it 100% literally.
      Should we just call that 'Snydering', when you assume someone will get something because it seems like a no-brainer, but a lot of people just don't for some reason?
    97. Axxell
      May 19, 2016
      Let me make it easier for you to understand:
      Noah claims that if you think the movie made no sense, it must be because you're not intelligent.
      Fro is intelligent, and yet he found the movie made no sense.
      Therefore, Fro's scenario proves Noah's claim as false.
    98. Rust
      May 19, 2016
      Noah actually claimed there that the intelligence and emotion of the movie was missed, not that the viewer is unintelligent for missing it. Perhaps he stated otherwise elsewhere, but it's not what I see in this comment thread.
      So, to make it easier for you to understand, I'll reiterate: Being a software engineer doesn't necessarily equate to understanding everything ever.
      Being that this is the case, it is impossible for Noah's claims to be rendered unequivocally false by such a statement. There is room for someone to be intelligent and still just not get something, or to overlook it.
    99. Axxell
      May 19, 2016
      Noah actually claimed there that the intelligence and emotion of the movie was missed, not that the viewer is unintelligent for missing it.
      And how does he assume that because one doesn't consider it intelligent, it's because one missed it? If anything, it's more likely that the majority understands it and is right about the movie NOT being as smart as he's convinced it is.
    100. Rust
      May 19, 2016
      I don't equate majority rule with what is true and correct. That suggested likelihood is questionable to me based on my experience with not only society, but the movie itself.
    101. Axxell
      May 20, 2016
      Considering his lack of arguments for his ignorant claim, and the fact BvS defenders can't make an argument that holds up to more than 3 lines of questioning, I'm gonna say that's just his own biased opinion.
    102. The Dark Knight
      May 17, 2016
      This is embarrassing
    103. N.G.
      May 17, 2016
      Batman v Superman is a movie all about criticism.
      How could I claim to love it if I can't deal with a little bit of criticism myself?
    104. The Dark Knight
      May 17, 2016
      If you think putting random symbolism and Christ allegories makes a movie intelligent, I've nothing to say. Maybe the script holds some weight, but when it comes to translating it on screen, Zack Snyder simply fails.
    105. N.G.
      May 17, 2016
      Superman's journey in Batman v Superman is about finding out what the symbol of Superman means and whether it can withstand the evil of mankind.
      Batman's journey is one of freeing himself from a life of cynicism and dehumanization by recognizing the humanity and good in an all-powerful man.
      Allegories got nothing to do with it. You're simply either dismissive or unobservant.
    106. The Dark Knight
      May 17, 2016
      "Superman's journey in Batman v Superman is about finding out what the symbol of Superman means and whether it can withstand the evil of mankind."
      - the same thing which was used in Man of Steel? It's one of the things that Snyder fails to understand that audiences simply don't care about. You want deep? Look at Nolan Batman movies, it asked the right questions and had themes that audiences would care and relate about.
      What would you do in the boat situation, would you give in to the chaos and terror and lose your humanity?
    107. N.G.
      May 17, 2016
      By its nature, Superman stories are more about ultimate power than the grounded, evil-in-society themes in the Nolan movies.
      Man of Steel ended with the formation of the Superman symbol, yes, but it never had the chance to really test that symbol the way Batman v Superman did.
      Maybe it's just me, but I found all that "TV debate footage" about Superman in BvS to be extremely interesting.
    108. The Dark Knight
      May 17, 2016
      Also, none of the things you said makes it an intelligent movie. It's all unexplored themes put in the film randomly. The Dark Knight, Winter Soldier, those are the examples of intelligent movies.
    109. Fro
      May 17, 2016
      Well said
    110. Jaime spenser
      May 18, 2016
      Aguring with you is waste because you're impervious to the fact that people dislike mediocre movies. This movie wasn't intelligent at all.
    111. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Martha can be seen as a stretch, but it had thematic buildup. But sure, ignore that.
      This is a "terribly handled film" only as much as you aren't willing to pay attention and engage in it.
      You're no better than the Superman protesters, hating him for things he didn't do and not paying attention to the good he did do.
      It's fitting, really.
    112. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Don't trust me? That's fine. Instead, listen to the expert who noticed most of this stuff I'm arguing for in the first place and said it far more eloquently than I ever could:
      http://www.manofsteelanswer...
      http://www.manofsteelanswer...
    113. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      Lmao, an expert? Lol
    114. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      You don't even give it a chance without judging its value, huh?
      And yet you claim you aren't being overly dismissive...
      Nevermind that the guy's built up a large audience with dozens of articles and podcasts. Or that he practices law. Or that his podcasts are *extremely* insightful and in-depth. Nope, who cares about any of that!?
    115. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      All I see is a Snyderite overwhelmed with symbolism and Christ allegories and CGI effects.
    116. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      You literally haven't listened to the podcasts
      But sure.
    117. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      The fact that you've to listen to these podcasts and read assumptive articles to understand the movie screams Snyder's bad storytelling to me.
    118. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Yeah, discussing a movie's complexities means that it has bad storytelling. That adds up.
      You still haven't listened to the podcasts and therefore I'm about finished speaking to you.
    119. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      Who said he had to listen to them to understand them?
      He's merely suggesting you do so (because you clearly missed some things), not that he himself had to.
    120. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      I've watched it 3-4 times, it's enough and I picked up everything. And clearly he needs help of those articles and podcasts
    121. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      I watched it 3 times myself, and I don't mean to be offensive, but it does seem like you picked up on less things than I did. This isn't to say I am smarter than you, because I don't think I'm any sort of genius, but it does suggest that maybe something slipped your attention for whatever reason.
      If we're going to debate it honestly, it's only fair to hear what he's trying to show you.
      I listen to everyone's negative opinions and reply point-by-point, but few seem to be willing to listen to my counter-opinions, and the typical inclination is to dismiss everything inconvenient to their opinion without considering it seriously.
    122. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Okay, dismiss it without giving it a chance. You've got me there.
      "Your opinion is just this guy's opinion"
      ...And your opinion IS your own despite being shared by a majority?
      Just because I believe what this guy says means I'm a mindless drone? Mmkay.
    123. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      You most likely were pleased by the spectacle the first time and then proceeded not to care about the movie's themes and intricacies.
      "What intricacies??? The movie was stupid!!"
      Just listen to the DAMN PODCAST.
    124. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      *Assume I know everything there is to know*
      *My opinion is right, and I'm not biased--they are*
      ^ Recipe for success.
      [Also... not that I should even bother at this point... but if you listened to the podcast, you'd know that Dr. Awkward presents his views as observations and theories with ample room for considerate discussion.
      Not like this garbage we're throwing around here.]
    125. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      Agreeing with somebody doesn't equate to being programmed what to think by them. Obvious straw man.
    126. Axxell
      May 19, 2016
      Tell that to the people who dismiss the audience reception of BvS as "sheep" because they agree with the critics...
    127. Rust
      May 19, 2016
      There are certainly people who form their own opinions here. If we are honest, both sides have to admit that there are also sheep on either side of the fence. That's just society. There are freethinkers and there are plenty of followers too.
    128. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      It really is reflective of the real world, isn't it?
    129. Joker
      May 18, 2016
      Gotta love that weak response, "Just cuz you missed the film's intelligence" It isn't intelligent in any way, stop kidding yourself.
    130. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Those who deal in absolutes are certain to be wrong.
      If you honestly and vehemently believe that there's no redeeming value to this film despite all the many, many things it does right, then I can do nothing for you.
      I think the characterization in Batman v Superman is really good. Shoot me. I don't give a crap. I've defended myself all over this page and offered plenty of arguments for how I'm able to enjoy this film, but no, we have to deal in absolutes all time time. The movie sucks, it's a failure, Snyder sucks, the DCEU is screwed, blah blah blah.
      Time to move on.
    131. Joker
      May 18, 2016
      Your taste in film is questionable then. I suggest you find a new hobby
    132. Jaime spenser
      May 18, 2016
      Ha good joke.
    133. Adam Gallacher
      May 18, 2016
      You got a link?
    134. Adam Gallacher
      May 18, 2016
      Also completely off topic but my sister who's second name is Gallacher has a son, my nephew called noah. Though he has taken his dad's name Goodsir. Coincidence and all that
    135. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      Man of Steel Answers is a one sided site made with the sole purpose of defending DCCU films. I do admire the guy's dedication, but he often makes flawed points, which are frequently made into canned responses by fanboys who don't fully understand the logic but hey, it sounds smart.
    136. Toregilio Macapungay
      May 18, 2016
      MoS Commentary includes neck snapping guidelines for beginner
  3. towblerone
    May 17, 2016
    Hmm, I liked CW, but I didn't consider it deep on any level. People liked it because it was light-hearted, had some chuckles and Spider-Man was swinging around.
    I saw BvS 5 times and while I had some scruples with it(Lois being useless near the end, Zuckerberg as Lex) I think it was an excellent movie with the right balance of story, plot, action and drama. The acting was on-point, except for a few cringe-inducing moments from Zuckerberg.
    CW was just a family friendly movie from the outset so it drew in a bigger audience, it was harmless enough that it didn't trigger the critics so this helped snowball what was already going to be massive. I really liked CW and thought it was a triumph. I'm just disappointed that movie-goers only want one type of superhero movie.
    Oh well, I got Watchmen, MoS and BvS, so if DC remains light-hearted to a fault from here on in, I'll be fine as long as I get to see more DC characters in live-action.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      May 17, 2016
      Same here. I wish they would keep going with Snyder's direction because there's a crap ton of story potential in it. Still, I would love to see a JL movie where the gang is just hanging and being one big family like the Avengers were in that after-party scene from AoU.
    2. towblerone
      May 17, 2016
      There's enough diversity of character within the JL that you can portray some of the members as the gods they are(Superman, WW, Aquaman), the bitter, war-weary human who is just as much a god(Batman), the wise-cracking youngsters who got their powers by accident(Cyborg, GL) so there's plenty of room for witty repartee, quips and snarkiness among the JLers.
    3. Schuyler Finley
      May 17, 2016
      As much as I love comedy, I'm getting really tired of the quips. Not everyone should be throwing jokes around, and if you're gonna have someone like Batman making jokes too then that should only happen once every other movie.
    4. towblerone
      May 17, 2016
      Absolutely. It had to be true to the chaarcter. I personally liked the "Oh shit." moment Batfleck had in BvS, because, as an audience, it's what we all would've said in that moment.
      I think the key to these characters is that you have to help the audience inhabit them and get in their skin so that the decisions they make within the context of the story fit the decisions the audience themselves would make. However, you have to do all of this without it all becoming too dull and predictable. That's one of the conflicts.
    5. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      It seems to be really hard to do DC characters because audiences want the characters to act a certain way. And as we've seen with BvS and MoS, if you try to do something different, audiences will want your head.
    6. towblerone
      May 18, 2016
      The one thing that does annoy me about casual audiences is that I've heard for years how Superman is boring and too over-powered and can win any situation so his stories are uninteresting, so Snyder and co. craft this damaged, vulnerable Superman who is imperfect, trying desperately to fit a mold he himself had no hand in creating, and all of the problems he's trying to solve can't necessarily be dealt with purely by aid of superpowers... and people still complain. lol So there's no winning.
      I think, ultimately, casual moviegoers don't really know what they want. They just don't want to be offended or to have their immersion impacted so you can't make them reflect in any way on anything. Just dazzle them for 2 hours and let them get back to their lives.
      If I could write Superman, I'd have hit deliver witty lines with that confident, impenetrable aura that Reeve did during his run as Superman, but show this idealistic Kryptonian as living in a far FAR more dangerous world than Reeve's Kal-El had to live in.
      Reeve's Kal-El had to deal with a kennel of puppies; Cavill's Kal-El has to deal with a kennel of full-grown dogs bred to fight and kill. So, it's the same Superman, but the world around him is changed. The audience in many ways is the same; we're mostly the same kinds of people as movie-goers were in the 70s and 80s, but the world around us has evolved to become much more vicious. Deliver that Superman to us, one that is willing to negotiate with a bank robber who's taken hostages rather than punch him through a wall, one who saves a cat out of a tree, one that shows up to give a few words of wisdom to Boy Scouts, whatever.
    7. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      I agree. I'm not a Superman, (Team Batman WHOO-HOO!!!), but I don't find him boring. I can see why people love and hate him. But I do find it funny how most people seem to hate a character that they find to be "perfect".
      And with Reeves' character, I find it naive like with MCU's Captain America.
    8. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      Maybe people like this naive, lighthearted, more upbeat aspect of Superman?
    9. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      I can understand. It's just like with Cap, the naivety can make the character look stupid sometimes.
    10. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      Yep, CW is overrated, but it really does a few things great which makes you wish BvS had done that good.
    11. towblerone
      May 18, 2016
      I agree entirely. How CW managed to juggle so many characters and successfully conclude so many varying arcs is a technical and narrative marvel(no pun intended). I thought that the pacing, for the most part, was spot on, save for a few dragging scenes, but the philosophy of the opposing forces was enough to keep you thinking when there wasn't a bunch of action scenes filling the screen with fire and explosions.
      As far as BvS goes, there were some scenes that really could've expanded the philosophical stances of several of the characters, but those scenes were either truncated in editing or were never written in at all.
      I'm really psyched to see the 3-hour cut of BvS that will hopefully be more critically accepted than the theatrical cut which seemed effective, but chopped into an uneven package.
    12. towblerone
      May 18, 2016
      "Considering Snyder said "you can't have them talk in their costumes" I think they never even wrote a scene in which these two spoke. " Yeah, THAT confounds me to no end. I hope that was just Snyder being confused at the question or joking because the notion of superheroes not talking in costume is insane.
      I was a bit frustrated in that there was so much contextual build-up between the conflicting ideologies of these two men that when the time came and they were face to face, little was said.
    13. towblerone
      May 18, 2016
      There had to be some kind of 'lost in translation' thing going on or Snyder making a joke. I mean, most of Watchmen was people in costumes having conversations.
      I don't think he honestly believes that these characters can't converse while in costume. WB wouldn't allow a director to handle a movie like JL if he had that opinion.
    14. towblerone
      May 18, 2016
      No, there were several scenes where the characters were sitting around talking
  4. OGDickGrayson
    May 17, 2016
    Agreed. I felt more for the three heroes fighting to the death in CW than I did for Superman dying. That's a huge issue.
  5. Rorschach's Journal
    May 18, 2016
    Why do people keep thinking BvS was intelligent? Chris Terrio was the writer. What has he done? Ok, yeah, he's an English Lit from Harvard and an MLitt of Cambridge. He also won something called the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. He also tried to channel Morrison for his DCEU work. All this means jack, because as any smart software engineer can tell you, THIS MOVIE WASN'T INTELLIGENT. This objective opinion is also backed up by Rotten Tomatoes critic aggregate. Despite 91 critics thinking the movie was good, twice that many had the opposite reaction. Might makes right!
  6. Ravager
    May 18, 2016
    Ha, good one.
  7. Ravager
    May 18, 2016
    Um..how is it more emotional? Superman getting stabbed through the chest and screaming as that music played will probably go down as the most dramatic superhero death in movies. I never expected them to do that because I thought they'd go the Marvel route concerning death...thank god I was wrong.
    Love them or hate them, atleast DC has the balls to put a major character in the coffin and keep them dead for more than 2 minutes, can't say the same for Marvel.
    1. Jaime spenser
      May 18, 2016
      It wasn't emotional at all none cared that he died I heard no one crying in the theaters at all. It was like ehhh who cares. LOL they will bring him back they are acting just like marvel! DC will bring the character back that doesn't show any balls at all. If they had balls he would stay dead.
    2. Ravager
      May 18, 2016
      1.) Work on your grammar
      2.) You don't need to cry to be affected by something, If you weren't ten, you'd know that.
      3.) The difference is, Dc atleast showed that they could bury a character if they wanted. Marvel has never, and will never get that far.
    3. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      If you really want to play semantics, Superman was never buried in the movie.
    4. Ravager
      May 19, 2016
      ...
    5. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      Superman getting stabbed through the chest and screaming as that music played will probably go down as the most dramatic superhero death in movies.
      Not when people don't care.
    6. Ravager
      May 19, 2016
      Whatever, that's your opinion.
    7. Axxell
      May 19, 2016
      As well as most people's...
    8. Ravager
      May 19, 2016
      Because dragging out the argument is always the best option...
    9. Axxell
      May 20, 2016
      What does that have to do with the point?
    10. Ravager
      May 21, 2016
      You know what you did :D
  8. Jaime spenser
    May 18, 2016
    You should of signed up to play he joker! Debating with BvS zack synder cock lovers who defend it to the death are so impervious to the truth.
  9. Jules Badguy
    May 18, 2016
    It had its flaws but it was still a spectacular ride. I saw it twice and loved it. Can't wait for the 3 Hour cut. And Civil War was great too.
  10. Adam Gallacher
    May 18, 2016
    I finally watched civil war last night and it never had any emotional weight until the final act. As cool as it was seeing the avengers fight each other it had no real stakes. I actually groaned with frustration when Black Widow says Hawkeye "we're still friends right?" in the heat of the battle. You might not like BvS but removing myself with my love for DC and looking at both films from neutral standpoint BvS did a much greater job showing real stakes in all of its fight scenes. Batman wanted to kill Superman not crack jokes (why were the avengers even fighting themselves I mean really? Aside from visual spectacle I actually didn't know why. To stop Bucky?) Martha was in mortal danger so there was an urgency in the warehouse fight scene. And of course Doomsday was going to destroy the planet. After watching both films I have came to realise that the many faults BvS had, Civil war also had but it just disguised it with "fun" and jokes. marvel knows what it's audience wants and thats the same shit it always dishes out. Winter Soldier looked set to be a turning point but that was followed up by the 2nd worse mcu movie Age of Ultron. I thought Civil War would take it to that level Winter Soldier promised it would but alas it didn't (it's not even a cap movie it truly is an avengers film) that is not to say civil war is bad. It has great action (if a little hollow at times) BP and Spiderman were great and the final fight scene was great mainly because it looked like a real fight with real emotion. Also was not much of a war. Isn't Cap meant to die like he did in the comic? I'm not sure never read it. It's really crazy how BvS is sitting at 27 % on rt while civil war is so highly praised. I just don't get it.
    1. Kris Knight
      May 18, 2016
      It was actually agonizing sitting through Civil War. How forced was that character conflict and battle? How ridiculously convenient was that plot? I don't remember the last time I cringed that much watching a movie. Horrible jokes and puns. Unbelievable character decisions. And the dreadful acting (mainly Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Paul Bettany and Elizabeth Olsen).
      I remember throwing my hands in the air and letting out a big "WHAT?!" in the theater when I saw there was a camera that caught the Starks' murder. High-quality security night cameras (and multiple angles) on barren roads, in the middle of nowhere, in 1991, not only viewing, but also recording (that survived intact for 25 years). And Bucky seemed to know this, decides to destroy the camera AFTER he kills them. I mean, c'mon, I've seen bad writing and horrible plots before, but this is legendary stuff right there.
      And Stark Sr, driving a shitty car with his wife, in the middle of nowhere, on a shitty road, in the middle of the night, with no backup, no help... while carrying the worlds most advanced biological weapon in his trunk. Yup, the Russos are indeed geniuses.
      Tony Stark, the same guy who cracked into SHIELD's (and by consequence HYDRA's) most classified files in seconds, was apparently too busy (over 25 years) to take even a moment to look into his own parents' suspicious death (that we just discovered about now, after 3 Iron Man movies and 2 Avengers).
      People are giving far too much credit to Zemo for "breaking up the Avengers"... There was already an ideological divide... His whole plan came down to two steps: 1) Frame someone who people already suspected as being a bad guy, 2) Show Tony an uncomfortable "home video".
      What was his character depth? What was his backstory? How can one guy with no resources accomplish so much on a global scale, with no one getting on to him? He manipulated the whole goddamn planet and its leaders, and all the superheroes. Tony Stark has supercomputers and Vision (whatever he is). No one figured this out??? Scarlet Witch couldn't have figured it out?? T'Challa is supposed to be one of the smartest people in the world... Didn't he want to look into this murky intelligence a little further before jumping to conclusions??
      And where the hell was Nick Fury?? I understand SHIELD doesn't exist anymore. But when the heroes you personally assembled are in conflict and fighting each other, as a paternal figure to them all, wouldn't you TRY to reach out to them and help them solve their problems diplomatically???
      In Winter Soldier, in a span of a day, Captain America and Black Window single-handedly uncover the truth about decades-old HYDRA conspiracy within SHIELD. Here, this wimpy little solider from an insignificant small country is manipulating them outright, and no one sees it coming?
      And those fights. My God, how unbearably forced and full of jokes and puns. Because, as we all know, when you're out to murder your best friends in a brutal fist fight, it's best to bring your best comic material to the fight and make a fun show out of it. That's logical, that's what really happens. It's what people want. SMH.
    2. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      Save for the found footage of the Stark murders (you do have a point there), I don't see all the complaints you claim are in the movie. How can you say the character conflict was forced, and at the same time concede that "There was already an ideological divide"? Seems to me like a natural progression of the character traits they've already established, per your own admission. You just seem to be grasping (like complaining about Stark Sr's car? Really? As if this is the first time in history someone tries to transport sensitive material in a low key manner...). Your complaint about Zemo being too good of a villain and your tantrum about Nick Fury not being there because you want him to, makes no sense. The movie already explains Zemo's backstory and motivation plenty well, and the movie pretty much establish, as the comics do as well, that Zemo is one of the smartest villains in the Marvel universe. Your incredulity is only a result of your refusal to accept this simple fact, just because he's "from a small country".
    3. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      Really? You didn't get why the Avengers were fighting each other? Did you miss the part about Bucky being framed for the bombing at the UN? Because that was a pretty lengthy scene. True, Martha and Doomsday were used to create "stakes" in BvS, but they came off as forced and nonsensical plot devices under scrutiny, only serving as an excuse for the Batman/Superman fight and the Death of Superman adaptation.
      If you feel like CW lacked "stakes", it's because CW is a story about human conflict. It doesn't need to have a life on the line to have tension and emotion; that's not what it's about. Ideology as a driving element is as viable as any other for motivation, and I'm glad the MCU explores different layers of human interaction instead of having every conflict in their movies driven by the need to save a damsel in distress or stopping a monster.
    4. Adam Gallacher
      May 19, 2016
      Aw c'mon man! There was no tension at all in that airport fight. Black Widow is fighting to stop Bucky? Let him escape tho yeah? Spiderman is fighting bucky cos iron man said so (he's a kid easily swayed) iron man fighting bucky? OK can get behind that since he felt like he actually believed in stopping bucky. Vision and his puppy dog crush for most of the movie but for being such an intelligent life form never showed much smarts in that fight. Black Panther again I can get behind that he believes bucky to have killed his father. War Machine is a total government stooge so makes sense. And on caps side you got Hawkeye because like he is retired with a family and had no reason whatsoever to be included in this. Antman? Really cool but again why exactly? All these guys fighting each other and never once did I think "these guys truly believe in what they are fighting for. This is just a cool spectacle to get through before the real fight happens. And you are talking about damsel in distress where I saw world annihilation. Sure lois got caught up in it and she was a bit shoehorned in. Doomsday wasn't shoehorned in however. It's pretty much since Lex introduction thst he has a plan with zods body. Spiderman for as cool as he was and am glad he was in the movie but at the same time was unnecessary. Why is he even on iron man's side? Was he not the main reason of conflict in the civil war comic storyline? Because he never wanted to reveal his identity? They were just no war to think of in Civil War. It's not a bad film I would rate it 6/10 but it was just another avengers movie rather than a sequel to thoroughly excellent cap movie. Avengers just isn't really my cup of tea. These storylines are epic in scope with serious consequences and parts of civil war nailed that at certain times. Like iron man being called out by the grieving mother, the truly horrifying loss of life in wakanda and like a said that final fight (it was a bit contrived with the video tape of starks parents but hell i can let that slide and enjoy the emotional conflict) the rest of the film jus never felt even to me. The structure of the film flowed fast and well but it's actual tone was up and down. Winter Soldier is a film that felt it was made for the more mature audience. Civil War like the other avengers before it felt like a movie made for the kids and I'm just not a big fan of that. Leave the jokes for the avengers series just don't sell me an avengers movie and make it a joke filled comedy actioner and disguise it as a captain America film.
    5. Axxell
      May 20, 2016
      This is just a big wall of rant that doesn't make any one single solid point; just rambling about stuff you simply didn't like, supposed plot holes that are clearly explained in the movie and stuff you openly admit to know little about.
    6. Adam Gallacher
      June 1, 2016
      My point is, Civil war was a disappointment. It had the chance to really shake up the mcu but it didn't. Winter Soldier had the promise of big change. What follows was a very poor Avengers film and another missed opportunity (civil war) so yet again I need to wait for the next film to see if it lives up to Winter Soldiers promise. But judging by the crazy money civil war made it won't. The mcu will carry on with the same formulaic methods that have financially been successful. The mainline story of the mcu is pretty much done for me. Only the left field movies have my interest now. They are the only ones I reckon will take any kind of risks
    7. Axxell
      June 1, 2016
      I've only heard those arguments spelled from you and other DC fanboys in the extreme minority. Most everybody else thought the opposite.
    8. Adam Gallacher
      June 3, 2016
      Aw fuck off then. So am a dc fanboy cos I liked BvS and not civil war? Seriously people need to stop using that bloody word. Yes I'm a huge DC fan and wow I love alot of marvel stuff too but can't like both now can we? After the promise of Winter Soldier I thought the Russos would really step out Marvels formulaic run and make a real game changer with civil war and for me it was played way too safe. Just because "everyone else liked it" doesn't necessarily mean it's better than anything else, film is subjective. If you loved it great, I didn't so what. At least Marvel is putting out Daredevil one of THE best comic book TV/film adaptation and everything with the Netflix side is very promising. I gave valid reasons for not liking the civil war but you just dismiss them with "you're a fanboy" it's the wrong attitude to have mate
    9. Axxell
      June 4, 2016
      I'm just pointing out your arguments are the same as every other DC fanboy, claiming that they loved X Marvel movies, but the last one is always horrible and formulaic and comedic. The stuff you brought up as reasons for not liking CW is weak; you only point out thing you didn't like, but nothing the movie really failed to accomplish. You say the film had no tension, but then proceed to whine about who's on who's side. You have no point; you're only grasping for excuses to thrash CW.
    10. Adam Gallacher
      June 5, 2016
      I'm hardly thrashing Civil War. If I give the film a 6.5/10 that to me is a score for a decent to good movie. The fight at the airport did lack tension TO ME this all my opinion you can't possibly back it up with facts because each person views things differently. I think I made a fair point as to the why I felt that way. As cool as the fight looked as soon as Hawkeye and Widow have thst exchange where they say "we're still friends right?" that to me sucked out all tension with the fight. I dont understand how "whining about who's on who's side" has any correlation with the tension I was referring to. What my point about who's on who's side is that certain characters felt lacking in any real reason why they were there in the first place. You know you can be underwhelmed by a film or a book or an album when it is the sequel to something you hold in high regard.
      Maybe you need to understand that just because certain people may like marvel more than dc or vice versa those same people can still remove those particular preferences and watch the film for what it is. I confess to being a huge DC fan with Batman my favourite character. But I still love so many movies with marvel characters. My main issue with the Disney Marvel films is that so many feel generic and with 13 or so movies out it's only occasionally tried to break the mold and it's no surprise that when they do this its with their best movies (cap 2, GotG and to a lesser degree avengers)
      This is all my opinion though and I'm not trying to be a blind fanboy and liking something just for the sake of liking it I think I only did that with the star wars prequels (well phantom menace but then I was 10 years old when I seen it) believe me when I say this if I really really liked civil war or any movie for that matter I would say but unfortunately for me I was let down with a film that I enjoyed in parts but in mo rush to watch it again. Who knows maybe 6 months down the line I might watch it again and it might turn out to be much better second time around. But as of right now I am in the minority. But being in the minority does not make my points for the film any less valid than yours
    11. Axxell
      June 6, 2016
      I guess as long as there's one guy who thumbs their nose at whatever you do, everything is flawed and disappointing, even if the majority understood it. But since all opinions are valid, I think that Marvel achieved what they set out to do if most people enjoyed it. There's nothing else to do or say to the ones who nitpick at the things they just didn't understand.
    12. Adam Gallacher
      June 7, 2016
      Haha. Jeez you are quite condescending in your tone. Yip I don't have the intellect to understand things thus that's the reason I don't like said things. It seems to me that it is you acting like these "DC fanboys" that say if you don't like BvS it's because it's too smart for you.
      Marvel definitely succeeded with what they set out to do. A billion plus dollars proves that. Props to them. Fingers crossed Dr. Strange meets my nitpicking, low level intellect expectations.
  11. Kris Knight
    May 18, 2016
    Ha, I'm with you. Not starting a fanboy battle or anything, but I found Civil War extremely boring and ridiculous. I actually felt like walking out, but I was with a group of fanboys who were orgasming at the sight of Spiderman lol...
    I just don't try to understand these CBM worlds any more... I thought BvS was a masterpiece, saw it four times, notwithstanding a few flaws here and there (Ultimate Cut is shaping up to correct everything anyway). Civil War remained as flat, generic, formulaic, forced, convenient and uninspired as all the recent Marvel movies. Yet, it gets universally praised.
    And it's setting up a panic at WB for no reason. It's pretty obvious now. CBMs have changed, and the critics are going to destroy anything DC unless they become carbon-copies of Marvel (it has become click-bait gold to destroy DC in any medium). Audiences are sheep, so they'll follow the trend. The days of big-budget dark, gloomy, adult superheroes are finished (for now). You can still be successful, but not at the scale of BvS (+$250M budget). The only reason Deadpool succeeded that much with an R-rating is because it appealed to the lowest common denominator (dick jokes galore and sketch-comedy concept, with doses of cool action, always a winning formula for the masses). A serious/dark/adult R-rated CBM will NOT succeed as well as Deadpool.
    So it's all good WB/DC are focusing their movie productions. I'm just worried they're adding too many producers to theses projects. It's good to have input from a variety of experts. Too much can also cause indecision and confusion. I just hope the best for them.
  12. Kris Knight
    May 18, 2016
    Yep I agree, you pretty much summarized the issue in a few words. I loved BvS, but this is what it is.
    Marvel and Disney have always built their business model to appeal to the lowest common denominator within the masses. That's what "pop" is. And they're the most pop of all movie studios. They take zero risks with their big properties. They thoroughly manufacture the product to guarantee them maximum profits, planet wide. They have their own failures also, that I concede (John Carter, Lone Ranger, Tomorrowland... hence why they've announced they'll make less of those going forward).
    And planet wide is a very key aspect of their model. Take Asia for example. What sells in the comicbook world there? Dark, gloomy characters? No, they're into the bright, flamboyant, campy, childish, cheesy, outrageous, comic and humorous. That's why Marvel/Disney movies are selling so well over there (i.e China, South Korea, etc). You can't discount the cultural differences from one market to another.
    WB's business strategy was to always be a little different. They're not universal in their tone, like Marvel/Disney are. They make edgier movies. Give more freedom to filmmakers. They take more risks. And unfortunately, for certain projects, they rely too much on a niche clientele to make a profit (i.e. Harry Potter, Hobbit).
    And in this case, they anticipated that allowing the filmmakers to make a dark/character-driven/emotional/grown-up expensive and esoteric movie would pay off because their 2 biggest properties (B and S) would sell by themselves. It worked to some degree, but obviously not as much as they wanted (min $1B box office).
    So they're at the crossroads right now. There's one thing to consider. Snyder and Terrio have said multiple times, during BvS' production, that this was going to be the darkest movie of the DCEU continuity. So I'm not sure how much they'll change course, because the original plan was to evolve towards more brighter movies anyway.
    In any case, all hope will rest on Suicide Squad. If by any chance, it doesn't surpass WB/DC's expectations critically and monetarily, then I don't know what they'll do. There will be 2 options really: Either continue in the same vein, but readjust the costing of the projects to generate more profits internally. Or dramatically readjust the course to closely follow Disney's universal pop model. The latter will be extremely sad.
    1. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      I always get a kick out of watching the sour and snobby way a DC fan analyzes the difference between DC and Marvel, always taking care to simplistically dismiss Marvel's success and the people who like their movies, while thumping chests about DC being "edgy", because edgy is cool...
  13. Axxell
    May 18, 2016
    Well, just because it had good points doesn't mean it was "intelligent"...maybe not "mediocre" either, but still very flawed.
2. King Of America
  May 17, 2016
  Of course...that's just common sense. But it's almost at a billion. It didn't make the profit margin they were hoping for, like a couple of the other films...but neither did Man Of Steel. But B v S still made money...just not enough in their eyes.
  Considering the TREMENDOUS and UNPRECEDENTED backlash that B v S received it's still an undeniable and noteworthy achievement that it has just about banked 900 Million.
3. Fro
  May 17, 2016
  Yup exactly, considering civil war already passed it in 11 days being opened domestically.
4. Axxell
  May 18, 2016
  There's still an expectation of profits for theater runs. Studios count on those to make decisions about their future.
towblerone
May 17, 2016
While I agree, and personally loved BvS, I get that WB/DC wanted BvS to pull it at least a billion easy... and it should have.
I think, sadly, that the grounded, more esoteric superhero stuff that Snyder wanted and I personally applauded, is not the direction in which the DCEU will or should go.
With this new direction I think things could be much better. We could have an imposing, god-like Superman, but also one that we admire as much as are in awe of.
I have faith that things will improve from here on in.
1. King Of America
  May 17, 2016
  I agree. I loved it also but it had it's flaws. I loved Civil War also BUT it had major flaws. The constant jokes were nonstop in CW so that's one of the main reasons critics and audiences love those Marvel flicks #TheyCantHandleDarkness
  1. towblerone
    May 17, 2016
    I think right now the cultural zeitgeist is such that we don't want to be reminded of the dark times we live in. The economy is just bouncing back, we're dealing with a litany of wars in the Middle East, ISIS, domestic political strife, .etc. People just want to go see colorful superheroes punching each other but where there's no significant fallout within the narratives.
  2. Knight-Errant
    May 17, 2016
    Nonstop jokes? I must've seen a different version.

obarium

May 17, 2016

This is good news. Better late than never.

KelVintage
May 18, 2016
Please show some freaking respect to the Man of Steel. They need to bring in Supergirl. Obviously there's interest in her from girls of all ages around the world based off of 13 million viewers for a television show. Make her a bit grittier than the television version (NOT difficult in the DCEU) and you have more box-office profits. Superman and Supergirl will be able to bring in money as long as the film is good of course. Hell, have Wonder Woman and Batman cameo if necessary.
It worked for Captain America. Notice how Cap hasn't really had a solo film since the First Avenger? There's a reason for that. Marvel is smart enough to know that because of his character, Cap is a bit dry for a two hour-plus film. Thus they add in other characters to work with and challenge him.
Also, WB really needs to tighten their belt. $200 million production budget and $100 million marketing spend on Man of Steel 2. Not a penny more. It's ridiculous to say that a Superman movie needs $400 million to be good. Screw that. Smarten up WB! GIVE US MAN OF STEEL 2 PLEASE!
1. Tres Swygert
  May 18, 2016
  They do not need to bring in Supergirl right now. For what? It's the start of the Superman story that they're doing, that would be too early for her to just show up when we just got introduced to him. Sure, bring her in the next couple of movies or so in the Superman story, but not now. He just got here. Supergirl needs to survive her own problems on the small screen.
  1. KelVintage
    May 18, 2016
    They need her for box-office and a film featuring both would solve some budget concerns on the Supergirl show. They need to find a young actress who is both a decent actress and willing to sign a multi-picture deal for the DCEU. Also, they need to challenge Clark without going too dark. Give him the responsibility of taking care of a younger family member who drives him a bit crazy. That's why they need her.
    1. Tres Swygert
      May 18, 2016
      Those reasons sound good, but again, she is not needed now in the storyline they are doing for Superman on the big screen. It's too soon, they just got to doing Superman, and to bring Supergirl just now would be more distracting in focusing on Superman alone. We just had him work with Batman and Wonder Woman, speed demon to the Justice League focus, and not giving this Clark Kent to fully understand his 'own' position as a hero.
      Adding Supergirl now would be another focus to try and understand, when we have yet to have Superman be the Superman people desire him to be. When he does, bringing in Supergirl on the big screen will not be as difficult or distracting, and would allow her to have her own focus.
      As for the show, the show universe is completely distant from the film universe, as Zack Snyder mentioned concerning the Flash and why he didn't pick up the tv Flash actor. Another reason why bringing her in now into the film universe structure would feel odd and out of place. If the show needs to be saved, the show should do a better job in interesting people to watch it. Hopefully they will this season, otherwise she will be short lived small screen wise after a possibly season 3 and/or season 4.
Your_Mama1
May 18, 2016
This is awful news. Johns is a hack. The only guy who is really motivated is Affleck. I imagine he's been pissed off with the reaction to B v S for months now.
1. obarium
  May 18, 2016
  I disagree, Johns knows DC comics and he has many revered stories under his belt.
  Of course Affleck has a passion for Batman and quality films, but he can only do so much, having a guy like Johns working in the background to help steer and guide this universe can only be good for the future of DC Films.
  1. Your_Mama1
    May 18, 2016
    We'll see mate. So far, Johns has accomplished absolutely nothing.

Overwatch89

May 17, 2016

This is really good news.Glad to see WB addressing the real issues and working on fixing them.

towblerone

May 17, 2016

Geoff Johns is heavily involved in the DCTV stuff, correct? Or am I wrong?

I think it's telling that the DCTV stuff has been almost universally praised and that the tone of those shows, for the most part, is fairly light, big on spectacle but also centers on more "human" characters without weighing down audiences' emotions to depressing levels, which is how Marvel approaches their movies.

The Marvel shows, especially on Netflix, are actually more in line with the tone of MoS and BvS, but those are internet programs, aimed at an older audience and whose characters are inherently dark to begin with(Daredevil, Elektra, Punisher).

Kal-Il AKA Ultraman
May 17, 2016
yes Johns is actually one of the showrunners on Flash (or at least co-creator and executive producer) and also produces Supergirl. he also wrote episodes for Arrow (and Smallville) and I am pretty sure he is involved in Gotham in some form as well.
1. towblerone
  May 17, 2016
  Yeah, f#ck it. Let Johns run the DCEU. I thoroughly enjoyed the heavier, more grounded movies but if it means I'll eventually get to see my obscure favorites on the big screen(Vixen, Booster Gold, Metamorpho, Dr. Fate, Firestorm, Metal Men, Doom Patrol, .etc) then I'm open to compromise.
  I just want the DCEU to be successful.
Abkinxoc
May 17, 2016
lets not compare mos or bvs to the netflix marvel shows.
1. towblerone
  May 17, 2016
  I just did.

Kal-Il AKA Ultraman

May 17, 2016

Finally steps in the right direction. There is absolutely nothing wrong with following Marvels model of a unified division under a united leadership with one carefully laid out and planned out vision. Thats how Marvel created its success after all. It´s just sad they could not do this from day one and needed this major negativity and backlash surrounding BvS to get their head in the game.

CageRage
May 17, 2016
Didn't you read! WB still wants to be filmmaker droven PLUS they wanna hire a more auteur driven director for flash
Mark
May 18, 2016
The thing is, that's completely against everything DC has ever stood for. They've always given their group editors far more freedom and had much less "upstairs" editorial control than Marvel; most of the time they never had an EIC and the Executive Editor (Dick Giordano when I was a kid) didn't exercise nearly as much control as Smilin' Stan. So in a lot of ways the way they structured the movies has echoed the way they ran the comics publishing. That leads to a less-consistent product; you can wind up with Neil Gaiman's The Sandman, or you can wind up with Sonic Disruptors, but you essentially bet that the hits will outweigh the misses.

Memorian

May 17, 2016

https://media.giphy.com/med...
This actually makes me really excited and is relieving some of my skepticism and worries. It's cool.

I just really want them to have someone to head and run everything (I wish it came sooner than later).

Your_Mama1
May 18, 2016
Johns is an awful choice though. The guy is a comic book
fanboy, he knows nothing about film which has been shown on both Green
Lantern and B v S. The guy didn't help then and won't be able to help
moving forward. Berg on the other hand is probably not a fanboy and can
read the script and watch the rough cut with more objectivity which may
actually help. Although, if he was a part of B v S then again, it won't
help much. Yikes. WB is in serious trouble with these decisions.
1. Jaime spenser
  May 18, 2016
  Zack Sydner is filmmaker only and non comic book fan.
2. Memorian
  May 18, 2016
  We honestly have no idea how Involved Johns was in BvS. His name could've just been tossed in there to give the film credibility. But as you've stated, Berg does know films so it seems like they'd be able to work off of eachother. It's hard for me to pre-judge. Even though it's said they were involved with BvS and we see how that's turned out... I think we'll get a true feel of what these films are like under the new regime when we see JL.
  I just like that they're atleast TRYING to move some pieces around and fix things and not sticking their heads in the sand and pretending everything is okay.

N.G.

May 17, 2016

This sounds great and all, but gahh... please, Warner Bros., don't backpedal on the tone of the DCEU.
Just because the general populace softened up by Marvel movies can't handle it doesn't mean it isn't good or that it won't win people over eventually.
Honestly, which movies are going to withstand increased scrutiny in 10-20 years? Iron Man? The Avengers? Ant Man? ...Or Man of Steel/Batman v Superman?
Snyder made amazing movies, don't let the masses of oblivious complainers tell you otherwise.

(Yes, they should always strive to improve and listen to criticism, but when their movies are as solid as they are, they shouldn't cave to the haters and try to copy Marvel instead.
I'll admit BvS has a few, FEW issues, but I stand by my praise of Man of Steel and most of BvS.
Screw the haters.)

El Kano
May 17, 2016
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh you can't say something positive about Snyder over here
1. N.G.
  May 17, 2016
  I also loved Eisenberg's Lex Luthor...
  I'm basically cannon fodder on these sites.
  1. Kal-Il AKA Ultraman
    May 17, 2016
    yeah you lost me on this one.
    1. N.G.
      May 17, 2016
      To be fair, I had no attachment to the "classic Lex" so I was more open to this newer interpretation.
      People really seem to be missing the point with him. He's a powerful man with a history of child abuse and extreme devotion to the idea that God cannot be all powerful and all good. And he has serious issues when people challenge his sense of control and his ideals.
      I didn't expect it to work, but I thought he played that character really well.
    2. towblerone
      May 17, 2016
      To me, the "classic" Lex was the shrewd industrialist from the 80s, but that guy wouldn't work now. That Lex would be an artifact of a bygone era. The new Zuckerbergian Lex was the right direction but I think that some of actor's choices were a bit off. Or it could've been mistakes in the editing because it seemed like Lex started to go off his rocker for apparently no reason.
      I think that as far as story flow goes, Lex went into the Scout Ship/Genesis Chamber earlier in the movie, communed with Steppenwolf and learned of the 100,000s of worlds, which drove him batty.
      As shown in BvS, he was unhinged even before learning of "devils that come from the sky".
    3. N.G.
      May 17, 2016
      He definitely was more unstable than previous Lexes. But I don't know, a guy with such a huge power complex being challenged by a god from the sky is probably gonna act a little more rashly in a more realistic setting than a comic book one.
    4. Abkinxoc
      May 17, 2016
      what were lex luthor's motivations, and how was his plan supposed to help him achieve his motivations?
    5. N.G.
      May 17, 2016
      Motive totally drove Lex. His whole point is to expose the "oldest lie in America," that power can be innocent, to the world. Superman represents this "lie." He has to not only kill Superman, but destroy the symbol of Superman as well.
      That's why he instigates the incident in Africa and that's why he bombs the capital, to call into question Superman's usefulness and make people doubt his character.
      He instigates Batman's fight against Superman in an effort to prove that mankind is stronger than "god", and as a contingency plan, develops Doomsday, the symbol of true power in the world--a Devil born to kill "god."
      That's what I understand anyway. It's open for discussion.
    6. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      ba ha ha ha
      kgb beast shooting a bunch of african warlords (with bullets) was supposed to frame superman? Blowing up the capital with an explosive and telling you in the very next scene that it wasn't superman was supposed to frame superman?
      im dying.
      Okay i see what ure saying. superman failed to save the capitol building so people are supposed to not see his "usefulness." Luthor, the greatest mind on the planet killed hundreds of people to prove that superman should have been able to stop it even tho all the armies and national security firms on earth can't stop bombings?
      Wouldn't people feel more afraid because of the bombing of the capital and turn to superman as the only hope of stopping things like terrorism? sorry i just don't see how bombing the capitol building is supposed to make people doubt superman's character. they tell you in the very next scene he had nothing to do with it. nah.
      releasing doomsday was supposed to call superman's usefulness into question? lol.
      releasing doomsday was supposed to call superman's character into question? What if superman defeats batman which is the most likely scenario, batman is a vigilante who shoots, kills, tortures, and brands people. how is defeating batman going to disprove superman's usefulness or call superman's character into question?
      nah. nothing about luthor's actions make sense with those motivations. Luthor makes no sense to anyone paying attention.
    7. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      You're trying to draw your own conclusions that the movie doesn't bring up at all.
      You seem convinced that Luthor bombed the capital so that people would think Superman wasn't powerful enough to save everybody.
      That wasn't the point at all.
      He did it to say, essentially, that "Superman is walking target. Destruction will follow wherever he goes, and whatever good he does is outweighed by the suffering that will follow him."
      Instead of forming a simple conclusion for why it doesn't work, why not engage a little harder and try to understand why the film is the way it is? You might just learn what they were going for.
    8. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      whoa whoa whoa.
      these were YOUR words:
      "That's why he instigates the incident in Africa and that's why he bombs the capital, to call into question Superman's usefulness and make people doubt his character."
      Now because i pointed out the logical fallacy of that you want to change it to :
      "whatever good he does is outweighed by the suffering that will follow him."
      lol. okay lets explore your new reasonings. Obviously no one thinks superman caused the bombings. bombings existed before superman and would exist without a superman. You're saying lex luthor, the smartest man on earth gambled the lives of hundreds of people on the general public holding superman responsible for he bombing and that the good he does is outweighed against the suffering that follows him? ridiculous. he just got done saving flood victims and floods aren't caused by him. a space shuttle accident that had nothing to do with him, a house fire. . .etc etc and somehow because a bomb goes off the public is supposed to turn against him? nonsense. did the public turn against the armed forces after 9-11? no they rallied to the armed forces and the presidents approval rating was the highest it had ever been.
      sorry but that reasoning makes no sense either. Anyone who actually stops to think about luthor's motivations and actions would see it makes no sense.
      swing and a miss.
      try again?
    9. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      All the dialogue about questioning Superman leads to the conclusion that people think he's more trouble than he's worth.
      It's ridiculous how? You're deciding that the people in Batman v Superman can't question Superman and wonder if he's just a bringer of crises based on... what?
      This movie universe established a world where people question superheroes.
      If you don't buy that, because your conclusions of course make complete sense, then there's nothing that can be done.
    10. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      People were supposed to come to the conclusion that the guy who saves flood victims, stops space shuttle accidents, house fires and kittens from trees is "more trouble then he is worth."? lol. nah.
      They built a statue to him, with some basically worshipping him. the day of the dead has people fighting just to lay hands on him, but because he failed to stop a bombing, something god himself fails to do everyday, the world was supposed to turn against superman? this is the machiavellian plan of the worlds smartest man?
      Releasing doomsday was supposed to establish a world where people question the need for superheroes? umm only if lex luthor is the least intelligent super villain ever.
      for someone who loves lex luthor in bvs, you don't seem to have a firm grasp on his motivations or actions. then again no one does.
    11. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      Right, cuz when a guy who healed people and challenged evil showed up around 30 AD, everybody totally loved him, right?
      Not saying Superman is a perfect Jesus allegory, but come on--you think a real world would immediately trust and love an unknown being as powerful as Superman if he were real? Not a chance. He would be the most controversial figure in world history.
      As for "no one understands Lex Luthor"...
      This guy does.
      http://www.manofsteelanswer...
    12. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      yeah umm 30 ad was a long time ago in a fictional book with giants and unicorns in it. I'm gonna need something a bit more intellectual from you. I'm willing to read that guys article or whatever, but YOU were the one who said YOU understood and liked lex luthor. why do YOU have such a difficult time explaining anything about him yourself? 3-5 people going around up voting each other yet each of you gives a different answer as to what his motivations were or how his actions make any plausible sense. Does that seem suspicious at all to you. I can tell you helmut zemo's motivations and how his actions make sense. so can the majority of people who saw that movie. thats called 'coherent story telling'.
      heres a link for you too
      http://www.vulture.com/2016...
    13. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      "yeah umm 30 ad was a long time ago in a fictional book with giants and unicorns in it."
      It's also impossible for men to fly and humanoid aliens don't walk among us.
      If those facts were proven wrong, do you think people might react in a somewhat extreme way?
      I understand that Lex is trying to expose "power can be innocent" as a lie and that the people begin to doubt Superman largely because he's seen as collateral. That much is said within the film itself. Most of the details are open to debate, discussion, and interpretation because film is a visual medium.
    14. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      lets not be silly. you are using a fictional book's story of what happened 2000 years ago to somehow prove how real people would react today.
      filmaking 101: the audience should understand what the villains motivations are.
      So much for jesse eisenberg being a good villain. . .
    15. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      If a being like Superman were to appear, there would undoubtedly be a sizable group of people who refuse to trust him.
      "Do you know the oldest lie in America, Senator? That power can be innocent."
      "No man in the sky intervened when I was a boy to deliver me from Daddy's fists and abominations."
      "Now God bends to MY will."
      If you can't surmise something vaguely representative of Luthor's motives by watching the movie, you just aren't paying attention.
      Why he does exactly what he does takes a little more effort of course, but it's really not that difficult to discover so long as you're observant and open-minded. Which shouldn't be a problem for you, I'm sure.
    16. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      ah, yet again you've changed your understanding of luthor's motive to mean that luthor wanted to prove that superman wasn't innocent.
      lex luthor risked his fortune, freedom and future to prove superman isn't innocent.
      okay lets explore your NEW reasonings. Wasn't superman obviously innocent of kgb beast attack on the african warlords? wasn't superman obviously innocent of the capitol bombing as revealed in the very next scene?
      how does superman defeating a known vigilante murderer who is trying to kill him prove he isn't innocent?
      how does releasing a 7 foot tall engine of destruction with no genitalia prove superman isn't innocent?
      how does letting batman get an email with the names of the justice league on it prove superman isn't innocent?
      There is no shame in admitting you have no idea what lex's motivations are or how his actions would help him secure his motivations. I don't feel any shame admitting it.
    17. man_you_fear_19
      May 18, 2016
      The thing in Africa was to show that Superman's intervention can have unexpected consequences. Sound familiar? And blowing up the capital was about punishing the Senator, to further the concept that destruction follows Superman, like Noah Gallagher points out below, and to push Batman further over the edge; once again people died because of Superman.
      Doomsday was a plan B because he, Lex, just pissed off an alien with superpowers by kidnapping his mother. It's obvious in the movie that either Lex believes he can control Doomsday or has gone completely insane and doesn't care, which is why Superman must save him.
      Yeah a vigilante who shoots, kills, tortures, brands people, and yet the cops still respect him, and so does probably the majority of Gotham. Even if Batman was hated, Superman killing him, like Zod, would further reinforce peoples' fears about him.
    18. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      uh huh. and what were the consequences of stopping an african warlord again? a bunch of mercenaries got shot by other mercenaries? lol. nah.
      lex luthor the greatest mind on earth blew up the capitol and killed hundreds of people to punish the senator? Why not just. . .i don't know . . .punish the senator? People were supposed to think destruction follows superman? terrorist bombings happen everyday before superman existed and whether or not he exists. was he responsible for 911 too? That makes no sense.
      Batman, the worlds greatest detective was supposed to blame superman for an explosive going off and try to kill him? lol. that makes no sense.
      oh so now lex is just insane? what happened to him being a great villain with a well thought out plan? releasing doomsday was supposed to turn the general public against superman? Lex would have to be the least intelligent villain ever. Why not just release sharks with lasers in their teeth. How is doomsday supposed to help lex realize his motivations?
      The cops respect batman? the same cops that were shooting at him? Killing batman was supposed to turn the same cops who themselves tried to kill batman against superman? lol. that makes no sense.
      I have yet to hear a bvs fan give solid reasoning for lex luthor's motivations vs actions.
    19. man_you_fear_19
      May 18, 2016
      No if you paid attention maybe you would understand better. Innocent people in the village were killed because of Superman.
      Why kill hundreds of people with the Senator? Because he can and who cares about those "nobodies". Is it really that hard to follow? Yes people were supposed to think destruction follows Superman and to further raise questions about him, like why didn't he stop the bombing? No he was supposed to further see Superman as a threat to humans because more people died around him.
      I said possibly. Why else would he not flinch away from Doomsday? Either he thought he had control or was starting to go insane, suicidal, whatever, he wasn't thinking clearly. No Doomsday was supposed to kill Superman. "Man" didn't do it so the "devil" was going to.
      Yes one cop shot at him and the other asked something like why was he shooting at the good guy. Is English your first language? Killing Batman would only further prove Superman's opponents right and possibly turn more people against him.
    20. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      uh huh
      two bvs fans say they loved lex luthor's characterization. One says his motivation is to protect humanity. the other says he doesn't care about humanity or about how many hundreds die. one says he wants to stop superman from becoming corrupt and turning against humanity, the other says he he could care less about the death of hundreds of humans he killed. One says lex was smart and machiavellian, the other says he was crazy.
      Am i wrong to wonder if any of you have any idea what ure talking about?
      Do people hold the president or the military responsible for terrorist bombings? Do people see the president or the military as a "threat to humanity" No they blame the person or group that made the bomb.
      They built a statue to the guy. I'm pretty sure they aren't going to turn on him bc he failed to sense a bomb. do you have proof the general populace even knows he has X-ray vision? no?
      Why is it perfectly okay for the cops to try to KILL batman but not alright for superman to defeat batman which is the most likely scenario?
      so now lex luthor the smartest man on earth isn't "thinking clearly"?
      which is it? are you thinking clearly? cause all of your "logic" just leads to more questions.
    21. man_you_fear_19
      May 18, 2016
      Yes some people do blame the president for terrorist bombings if they think his policies led to or kept them from being prevented.
      Did you pay attention to the discussions people were having about Superman or the protestors outside the Capitol? Just because
      Metropolis built a memorial and statue of the guy doesn't mean that everyone is in love with him. Who said anything about X-ray vision?
      Nobody said it was ok for the cops to kill Batman. It's not ok for Superman to kill him either unless he wanted to further the idea that he is a killer.
      You do realize that someone can be a genius and not thinking clearly at different times?
    22. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      1. the general public does not know he has X-ray vision and therefore would have no reason to believe he could stop a bombing. if you have proof the general public knew about his X-ray vision provide it. but whose to even say he is always using it? there are X-ray machines at airports but weapons get thru all the time.
      2. a cop did shoot at batman.
      3. why would the worlds smartest man think superman would need to kill batman? superman pulls satellites out of orbit. batman throws bat shaped boomerangs. How does superman defeating batman further luthor's motivations?
      4. yes i do expect the worlds smartest man to think clearly, especially when he is risking his business, his freedom, jail time and his life all in the pursuit of one goal. whatever that goal was supposed to be. do you know what that goal was, cause i don't?
    23. man_you_fear_19
      May 20, 2016
      You are the one that brought up X-ray vision. People see a guy who can fly, shoot lasers out of his eyes, among other things, are probably just going to assume he would be able to stop bombings too, somehow.
      Yep I'm pretty sure I already said that.
      Because he said kill Batman or I'll kill your mom. Because it makes Superman less of a hero and further gives credit to those who do not like him or fear him.
      Well that is your hang up and not the movies. And given the political power Lex was wielding in BvS, I highly doubt he will still be in jail for JL. Everything he does in BvS, is about demonstrating power or gaining more power, which is probably overcompensation for his feeling of powerlessness as a child. Lex's whole goal/motivation is about power. He wanted to show that his intelligence was enough to defeat at least one if not both Batman and Superman.
    24. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      You could also say that the bombing would be interpreted, or at least suspected, by quite a lot of big voices to be Superman doing it himself. He never spoke, and looked very grim, then boom. That's all the public saw or knew until investigations later would shed more light.
      And, as we see in these comments, people who have made up their minds will brush off evidence that contradicts their bias. Some people in the world of the movie, realistically, would shrug off the 'bomb evidence' as a cover-up conspiracy to save Superman's image.
      Either way, it looks really bad on him, and that was the point. Bizarre that so few people understand something so blatant.
    25. alec
      May 18, 2016
      He didn't say it was to frame Superman, learn to read. And now you just put the word usefullness everywhere with no reason god, learn to read : Superman can't prevent a bombing>people doubt him. Superman beats Batman so Doomsday comes in to kill superman (there's no "usefulness" matter here) and if Batman beats Superman then Lex proved his point. He was driven by his wish to kill Superman so he didn't even think about what would happen with Doomsday if he were free and that's because he's young !
      This is not the Luthor from the comics, this is not only his son but also a young man. If you're not happy with him then just think of him as a new character, they could have called him Sam and no one would complain because it would be based of no character from the comics. Do you complain because Deadshot is black in the movie but not in the comics ? Do you complain because Lois Lane is redhead ? Do you complain because Killer Croc is as tall as a human ? Do you complain because the Joker has tattoos ? Then don't watch the movies if you can't handle ADAPTATIONS
    26. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      yet another bvs fan gives yet another answer as to what lex luthor's motivations were. If his motivations were clear how come you guys can't agree on what they are? So now Lex just wants to kill him just to kill him and he didn't think past unleashing doomsday and what it would do to humanity.
      this is what you said:
      "He was driven by his wish to kill Superman so he didn't even think about what would happen with Doomsday if he were free and that's because he's young !"
      The dc universes smartest man didn't consider the consequences of releasing a creature he calls doomsday. . .
      You failed to say what is motivation for wanting to kill superman is. i mean he is risking everything to kill superman so he must have a better reason then he's a man child mad at his meanie daddy.
      Okay so he just wants to kill superman, and his plan is to use a normal human rather then the other superheroes he already obviously knows about? Why use a normal human instead of wonder woman? or the super fast guy? or the guy who lives at the bottom of the ocean? or cyborg. He had files on them, but chose to use a normal human? lol. nah.
      You excuse that ridiculousness by saying; "he's young."
      okay so a young guy who didn't think past what would happen if i release "doomsday" is running a multibillion dollar business and having private meetings with congressmen? lol nah
      nothing you said makes any sense whatsoever.
      swing and a miss.
      try again?
    27. alec
      May 18, 2016
      His motivations aren't clear because it is not explicit like Marvel movies where they just put everything in your face, here you actually have to think because it's trying to give a real aspect with implicit thoughts.
      "The DC universe's smartest man" is Lex Luthor from the comics, this is Lex Luthor Jr. and he's a young man with no experience.
      "Power can be innocent", he's talking about the power of Superman, I won't get into details because 1 you're just going to contradict me and 2 it's long (which is good because DC makes implicit movies not like some other company)
      He clearly has information about the other meta-humans but how can he use them ? Can he convince any of them to fight Superman ? Did he even find them ? Flash can run away, Cyborg can't even live normally, WW is hiding, Aquaman has a kingdom underwater, what does he care about surface dwellers ?
      Who ran a "multibillion dollar business" ? His father, so he just took the reins (?). Don't you see how he acts with congressmen : he puts a candy in the mouth of the guy and gives a jar of piss to the girl so I'm right in saying he's young and has no experience.
      Doesn't make sense to you because you are just obsessed in hating this movie for no reason and you have an over the top ego by believing everything you think of this movie is a fact.
    28. Axxell
      May 19, 2016
      The DC universe's smartest man" is Lex Luthor from the comics, this is Lex Luthor Jr. and he's a young man with no experience.
      Evidence? Because everywhere I've seen, this character is called Lex Luthor, not Lex Luthor Jr.
      He clearly has information about the other meta-humans but how can he use them ? Can he convince any of them to fight Superman?
      He convinced Batman to do it. Surely he could've been even more persuasive with Wonder Woman who was actually going straight to him, given the circumstances and gotten a better result.
    29. alec
      May 19, 2016
      http://dccomicsextendeduniv....
      http://www.mtv.com/news/234...
      He convinced Batman because he saw Batman already hated Superman, and bruce Wayne isn't hiding (Barry isn't either but he's not popular, Arthur lives in the ocean, Victor I don't think he's in any capacity of actually move or fight because he has a new "body", Diana didn't want anything to do with humans.
    30. Axxell
      May 20, 2016
      The end credits only have Jesse Eisenberg as "Lex Luthor". Don't care about any other rumors.
      And as I said, he could've gotten better people to do the job. Diana didn't want anything to do with humans...and yet she came back to them for a picture, fought for them and cared enough to show up at Superman's funeral...doesn't sound like a difficult person to convince. And Barry...being unpopular is irrelevant. All Luthor had to do for either of them was to convince them that Superman was a serious threat.
    31. alec
      July 5, 2016
      I know it's late but after re watching BvS, lex says "my father was the "Lex" before the "corp"" meaning his father was named lex luthor thus jesse playing lex luthor jr
    32. Rust
      May 18, 2016
      God.. the entire plot of the movie totally flew over so many people's heads to the point that you have to spell out Lex's already very spelled out motives like this...
      And then these people continue, after having the obvious broken down so patiently and generously for them, to bluster about, expressing how they still don't get it - and with an air of arrogance!
      When people are proud of misinterpreting things, take pleasure in being viciously biased, spit in the face of clear evidence for the sake of petty victory, and protect their lack of understanding instead of simply understanding, it's time for a bigger discussion.
      This extends beyond BvS. It's every topic around us; be it entertainment, politics, science/religion, whatever. Society needs real help.
    33. Axxell
      May 19, 2016
      Surely that can't be what his end goal was - who was he trying to prove mankind's strength to? What does he achieve by doing so? I know those are the words he used, but they don't really explain his motives for wanting to make a statement.
    34. Mark
      May 17, 2016
      Lex's psyche is founded on the Problem of Evil, and the logical conclusion from it that God cannot be both all-powerful and all-good. The existence of Superman, who apparently IS all-powerful and all-good, is an affront to the very foundation of his personality, and therefore must be destroyed. Because the alternative is WHERE THE FUCK WERE YOU WHEN MY FATHER WAS BEATING THE SHIT OUT OF ME??? , and at that point we're wandering into nervous breakdown territory even without communing with the New Gods.
      tl; dr: Lex's sanity is based on the concept that no being such as Superman appears to be can possibly exist.
    35. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      so ure saying his motivation was to prove that superman was neither all powerful or all good? So he has superman fight batman. if Batman defeats superman that proves superman isn't all powerful. okay. not sure superman ever claimed to be. And if superman defeats batman that proves he isn't all good? uh. . .so if superman stops a vigilante that kills people and brands them that somehow proves he isn't all good? nah.
      If superman KILLS batman a man who is trying to kill him, that somehow proves superman isn't good? nah.
      releasing doomsday as a backup plan, thats somehow supposed to prove that superman isn't all good? how so?
      Releasing doomsday is supposed to "call superman's character into question"? nah
      Lol his motivations and actions make no sense to anyone who is actually thinking.
    36. towblerone
      May 18, 2016
      Lex was abused by an overbearing, God-like father where he learned that all power is corrupting. Lex sees Superman, a god-like father, emerge to great fanfare among the people of Earth. Lex worries that Superman will be corrupted and use his power to abuse the people of Earth that same way Lex's father abused him.
      Lex engineers a plan to pit a business rival, Bruce Wayne(whom he also knows is Batman) against Superman by framing Batman with a series of escalating incidences that Superman would consider crimes. This all leads up to the Senate bombing/the branded criminal being killed in prison that seals Batman and Superman's fates and will ultimately pit them against each other.
      However, Lex has a wild card; he's engineering a Kryptonian super-weapon(Doomsday) to unleash on Superman should the Batman fail. In his mania, though, Lex thinks he can control DD, as Lex is essentially DD's father. In this instance, the irony is that "the father" Lex, has actually been corrupted by his own power in creating DD and has put under threat the very planet he sought to protect Superman from.
      Superman ends up cleaning up Lex's mess(with help from Batman and Wonder Woman) and becoming the hero in death that Lex was afraid of, because now the world has almost unilaterally accepted Superman, which was Clark's and Jonathan/Martha's goal all along. Superman died, but now the world accepts him.
      When he's resurrected in a future movie, THAT version of Superman is the one we know in OUR culture, and the one we love and champion.
    37. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      k. so basically ure saying lex's motivation was to stop superman before he becomes corrupted and turns against humanity so he has batman fight superman and releases doomsday.
      lol. lets explore that. say superman defeats batman which is obviously the most likely scenario? How is superman defeating batman going to achieve that? Say batman defeats superman without killing him, which is the second most likely scenario? how does that achieve your stated motivation? Nah
      okay so his backup plan to protect humanity is to release a seven foot tall walking engine of destruction with no genitalia that cannot be controlled or stopped? how exactly does that protect humanity?
      I have yet to hear one bvs lover give clear and concise reasoning for lex luthor's motivations vs actions. They make no sense to anyone actually using their brains. That is not the case with helmut zemo.
    38. towblerone
      May 18, 2016
      It's not that I'm saying it. That WAS Lex's motivation. It wasn't even implicit. It was explicit. He stated it as such. I can't spend all night explaining it to you. I mean, watch the movie again. It's all made pretty clear and evident. Shouldn't be difficult to understand.
    39. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      then you shouldn't have any trouble explaining how lex's actions would help him achieve his motivations, . . .unless of course you can't. . .
    40. towblerone
      May 18, 2016
      Dude, I've been conversing FOR HOURS on various websites with people answering the same questions. This isn't my job. I don't owe you my time. Don't like the movie. My taxes won't go up.
    41. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      like i said. i have yet to hear one single bvs fan explain how luthor's plan makes any sense, and yet these are the people who claim: "oh you just didn't understand bvs cause its for adults"
      lol
      then the second you ask them a simple question like;
      "whats the villains motivation?"
      they say, "i don't have time to answer your question, i must take my leave"
      poof
      batsmoke.
    42. ArtimusGG
      May 18, 2016
      People can explain it to you but they can't understand it for you. Sorry, you're just wasting everyone's time.
    43. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      nah you just can't explain how lex's actions help him obtain his motivations and are wasting everyone's time. Im sure you will try to turn this personal in your frustration. But I'm willing to listen if you want to put on your big boy pants and go to bat.
    44. ArtimusGG
      May 18, 2016
      Put your big boy pants on and examine it yourself. Stupid kid.
    45. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      I don't think anyone here can say they understand it if they can't harmonize all of Luthor's actions in the movie in a logical way. People here just keep providing different answers for Luthor's motivations that don't stand to scrutinity; that's why they get tired of trying to explain them.
    46. Fro
      May 18, 2016
      Its funny how everybody that has tried to explain has a different take on Lex. That's just proof, that nobody knows wtf his motivations were and it did not make any sense. In other words bad writing for a bad movie.
    47. towblerone
      May 17, 2016
      Don't get me wrong; I really liked the motivation behind Lex. He was essentially trying to protect the world from a father figure(Superman) that he believed would ultimately become abusive, as his own father did, except the ramifications would extend to a global scale.
      I think it would've been better had they just made Lex a bit more sympathetic so we understood the machinations behind his plan and that he was going what he thought was "good". The best villains are always the ones that think they're doing good.
      Under the right direction, Eisenberg could play Lex even better in future films, but the range of his paranoia has to be wrangled in. More Hannibal Lecter: reserved, cold, calculating, and less Carrey's Riddler: bombastic, flamboyant, loud.
      I really look forward to seeing Eisenberg again in the DCEU.
    48. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      lex luthor. the worlds greatest super villain is the equivalent of one of those bad youtube pranksters. HE PISSES IN A JAR! lol.
      yep. best iteration of the character ever!
      ha hah hahahahahahha
      remind me what comic book he pissed in a jar again. i want to reread it.
    49. El Kano
      May 18, 2016
      OH NO HE PISSES ON A JAR http://www.pride.com/sites/...
    50. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      . . .and how does pissing in a jar help him achieve his motivation?
      let me guess. . .you have no idea.
    51. N.G.
      May 18, 2016
      ^
      ? ? ? ? ?
    52. residentgrigo
      May 18, 2016
      He had a complete meltdown during his last days of being the US President. To an even higher degree than in the film.
    53. Mark
      May 17, 2016
      To me, the "classic" Lex was the mad scientist from the pre-Crisis era, and this Lex hearkened back to that incarnation in some ways.
    54. towblerone
      May 18, 2016
      EXACTLY. Exactly right. Especially his incarnation during the 40s and 50s in those old serials. He was a classic movie monster mad scientist, so there was a bit of everything sprinkled into new Lex's DNA: the Trumpian industrialist from the 80s, the mad scientist from the 40s and the new age digital messiah from current day.
    55. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      the sniveling man child hipster millennial with daddy issues who pisses in a jar. . .
      PISSES IN A JAR!
    56. residentgrigo
      May 18, 2016
      Death of Superman and Infinite Crisis Lex are highly comparable to the one in BvS and he was a mad scientistic to begin with, so you can feel free to also call Eisenberg a "classic" too.
    57. Axxell
      May 19, 2016
      I guess you could take "mad scientist" to mean anything these days, but I don't think Luthor has ever been like a knockoff Joker type of mad...
    58. residentgrigo
      May 19, 2016
      I recently re-read all of Morrison´s JLA and Lex had kind words
      about the Joker to say. His positive outlook on the Joker remained the
      same during Infinite Crisis and both teamed up in the animated universe too. They are obviously different characters (Lex has some good in him and can make good points at times) and calling BvS´s Lex a Riddle knockoff is equally misguided but all of them share HIGHLY important traits.
      Film Lex though has a lower regard for human life than some (but hardy all!) comic incarnations of him and the abuse he suffered at the hand of his father is right out of the Man of Steel post-Crisis reboot too. That one quickly lost his red hair but the Lex Jr. clone-body (Lol,
      comiXs logic) had even enough for a red ponytail and a 11/10 beard. The only missing trait to have a 100% comic accurate Lex from the Death of Superman would have been an Australian accent.
      I also recently read 1994´s Superman/Doomsday: Hunter/Prey (the
      first sequel to his death and Doomsday´s backdoor origin) and it lines
      up incredibly well with Snyder´s take. It even featured R-level gore, an
      utter lack of levity and Superman thought of Lois as his moral center /
      connection to humanity. How familiar…
    59. Axxell
      May 20, 2016
      None of which prove insanity is anywhere near being a defining trait of Luthor.
    60. residentgrigo
      May 20, 2016
      He wasn´t crazy in BvS either.
      Jeph Loeb´s take on Lex was though. He became addicted to Venom during his presidency and legitimately went mad for a bit. The very first comic Lex (he is older than Superman) was a megalomaniac too and that characterization constancy came back during the Golden and Silver age. Are Siegel´s and Shuster´s Lex off base too? Lol.
    61. Axxell
      May 20, 2016
      You're trying to define Luthor by a few series and special circumstances out of his entire history, and using that to justify why Luthor was off his rocker for the entire film.
    62. residentgrigo
      May 21, 2016
      All are key points in his narrative (both wiki and wikia go over them too) or inception and i am not deafening anything. You don´t have to like the film, even if it´s ripped right out of the comics.
    63. Akil Manaz
      May 18, 2016
      I had attachment to the classic Lex, but I'm open to change. I don't understand why others have to be narrow minded and bitch about any little changes,
  2. El Kano
    May 17, 2016
    You liked Lex?!?!?! Run dude! lol
    1. towblerone
      May 17, 2016
      GRENADE!
  3. Ace20xd6
    May 18, 2016
    I was willing to give it a chance and thought I was going to like it the first scene we saw of him with Holly Hunter, especially the way he said we won't have to depend on the kindness of monsters. His method to get Batman to fight felt half assed and last minute by the writers with just notes and the senate bombing. And his plan of Doomsday felt uncharacteristic since he had no way to control him, I think it would have been more in character if he had made Metallo out of one of the survivors or the warlord Superman shoved through a wall.
    1. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      Or Bizarro?
    2. Ace20xd6
      May 18, 2016
      That would work too, I just think Metallo and maybe other anti metahuman drones would he better onscreen fighting the trinity. Plus I just finished rereading Kingdom Come today so a cyborg like Metallo just fit better in my mind of a Lex that would find Supes as a demon and would think metahumans belittles human achievement, that's why he tried to get Bats to fight versus Wonder Woman or the Flash.
      But yeah Bizzaro would definitely be something more likely for audience to feel he can control.
  4. Akil Manaz
    May 18, 2016
    Not on this one. You should come here more often. Aside from controversial articles such as this one (which attract trolls and haters), the majority of users here are positive regarding the DCEU
  5. The real Carlo$ Danger
    May 18, 2016
    I hated lex man.
The Dark Knight
May 17, 2016
Snyder believes superheroes can't have a serious talk in their costumes with credibility, do you wish this guy should make Justice League with a thinking like that?
1. N.G.
  May 17, 2016
  Yes, I'd take Snyder's new, original vision over more Marvel sameness any day.
  1. The Dark Knight
    May 17, 2016
    It's not an original new vision. And Marvel isn't same but I don't care anyway, your comment already went out of context.
    1. N.G.
      May 17, 2016
      So it's unoriginal? It's not a new take at all?
      "I was paying attention" -- I'm starting to doubt that.
  2. Jaime spenser
    May 18, 2016
    Sydner new original vision isn't new its killing the superhero genre.
  3. OGmacrazy
    May 18, 2016
    So you want the Justice League to either not talk to one another, or have them there as their alter egos?
    The fuck, dude?
2. Schuyler Finley
  May 17, 2016
  I would love to see Power Girl having a serious talk while wearing her cleavage hole costume. And I would love to see WW have a serious talk while wearing her swimsuit costume.
  1. The Dark Knight
    May 17, 2016
    That's what I call not respecting characters
    1. Alright x3!
      May 17, 2016
      Thor is what I call not respecting a character
    2. Schuyler Finley
      May 17, 2016
      I respect the characters, but a lot of characters' original costumes can't work in a live-action movie. Even Marvel couldn't make PG's original costume work in one of their movies.
    3. The Dark Knight
      May 17, 2016
      She does have that armor warrior costume now, not the swimsuit.
    4. Schuyler Finley
      May 17, 2016
      True. I prefer her wearing the pants.
    5. The Dark Knight
      May 17, 2016
      And Snyder was taking about Batman and Superman, not WW or Power Girl
    6. Schuyler Finley
      May 17, 2016
      But you said, "Snyder believes superheroes can't have a serious talk in their costumes with credibility". I just gave you examples of two superheroes who wear, as some would say, risque costumes.
  2. El Kano
    May 17, 2016
    LOL
3. residentgrigo
  May 18, 2016
  Don't believe everything you hear son...
  That (insightful) interview is highly misconstrued and he made Watchmen, so the no-costumes argument is 100% void. His Watchmen even wore the costumes all the time, unlike the Avengers, no offense.
  1. The Dark Knight
    May 18, 2016
    Watchmen was a page-to-page adaption, it's different with BvS
    1. residentgrigo
      May 18, 2016
      None forced him to be so slavish to Watchmen and Bruce quoted Miller nearly 1 to 1 during his attempt to murder Clark, with both in full costume and an orchestra in the background. Snydra couldn´t have been more faithful, if his life depended on it. Even the dog from MoS + Lana and Pete had a cameo @ the end. Don´t crucify a man for giving his all. The only other equally dedicated comic director is Bryan Singer , aka. the man who helped re-stared it all. Apocalypse gonna be great, screw the haters.
4. Akil Manaz
  May 18, 2016
  That is not what he said. Ever seen Watchmen? It's a movie directed by Snyder about Superheroes that talk about serious shit from start to finish and have credibility.
  The fact that you misinterpret everything he says just shows how retarded you are.
larva
May 17, 2016
The business man Lex is a cliché for me. We have seen that Lex EVERYWHERE. That's why I like this new interpretation of Lex Luthor. And, yeah, Jesse overacted in some parts, buts it's understable the pressure of doing a character that "everyones loves" and making it different. That's why that dude will never see the movie. Plus, I find really stupid the "let's hate Jesse Einsenberg for just being Jesse Einsenberg" bull.
1. Ace20xd6
  May 18, 2016
  The sad part though is that the intelligent business Lex had never been on the big screen. This was the first movie with Lexcorp. Most of the hate comes from the schizophrenic twitches and the pee jar scene.
  1. man_you_fear_19
    May 18, 2016
    What's wrong with the pee jar scene? I haven't read a ton of comics but a Lex that not only kills someone for challenging him but gives them a big "F U" on the way out, seems to fit the character I've read.
    1. Ace20xd6
      May 18, 2016
      I didn't mind it, just a common complaint I heard, Lex is evil enough to steal forty cakes after all. That's as many as four tens! And that's terrible! I think it's just a weird thing so people use it as a label to articulate their criticisms like complaints about Supes killing Zod in MoS. My problem was just how much he acted more like Toyman, his plan and how it was executed.
      I'm fine with him knowing their secret identities and not explaind how, but telling the audience that he knows was felt like an afterthought since we just had the quick scene at the party as a hint, and then he kidnaps Martha Kent near the end. His plan to get Batman to fight Supes was just send notes and a bombing. And for Supes kidnapping his mom, which felt like the laziest way for the writers to get them to fight, especially when Dark Knight Returns had a better reason. But creating the uncontrollable monster Doomsday just felt too out of character for me.
    2. man_you_fear_19
      May 18, 2016
      I don't know I thought that scene along with the whole Jolly Rancher scene just demonstrated Lex's whole want and abuse of power and how he reacts when his power is questioned.
      Maybe the explanation is in a deleted scene. I'm not sure Lex was trying to get Batman to fight. If he was you would have thought he would have made sure Bruce got those notes sooner and how do we know that that guy wasn't the one writing the taunts, not Lex? I didn't have a problem with the kidnapping. It gave the writers a way to start and end the fight.
      In TDKReturns, it's fine that Superman works for the government but I don't think that would have worked in this movie, and without the Martha ending, how would you have ended the fight?
      Hasn't Lex created clones of Superman and even Bizzaro at one point? I don't think Lex thought Doomsday would be uncontrollable.
    3. Ace20xd6
      May 18, 2016
      But what method did he have tp control him? Plus Lex did tell Lois he was the one to send the notes, I think his words were "a few notes there". Most people like Jeremy Jahns wanted it to be a clash of ideologies, like in Dark Knight Returns Batman being a vigilante more extreme than ever and Supes trying to obey the law and work for the military to the point where he's going where he doesn't want to.
      I'm actually working on a fan rewrite, and what i have so far in my version of the fight is that instead of the Wayne murders it's Robin dying, prompting Bruce to retire. He visits Barry Allen after the vision and watching the videos himself to convince the Flash to help him, especially since he's not an alien.
      Superman on the otherhand is working closer with the government, mainly stopping natural disasters. At the Senate hearing Lex says he's not doing enough, that he shouldn't have gone to Africa just because he wanted too, and that if Superman really thinks that he's not above the law then he wouldn't let a vigilante like Batman run around near his city. And Superman agrees and promises to stop him after getting the Senate's permission.
      So Superman goes willingly to face Batman, who has more gadgets this time. After Batman and Flash win. Bruce tells Supes that this is for all the lives who died in Metropolis and starts naming them. Supes interrupts and continues naming, says he knows the names of all 5,452 (or whatever the exact number is), including the ones from Smallvile. and they talk it out and Flash convinces Bruce not to do it since those two are on the same side. I haven't gotten the exact conversation down though.
    4. man_you_fear_19
      May 21, 2016
      Perhaps he thought because his DNA was in the mix he would have some kind of control. Yeah sorry I remember that now. Yeah I saw his review, but that is what the comic and the animated movie is for. Why would everyone want to see what we have already read and seen? Besides are you telling me that people wouldn't be complaining if they had based the fight on ideologies instead? Someone fighting for an ideology seems far less likely to stop fighting than someone doing it because of an irrational fear. The only reason they stop in TDKR is because Batman is smart enough to give Superman an out, but after the fight nothing has really changed.
      That's not too bad. Personally I think Batman retiring seems more out of character than him killing. Also including the Flash seems a lot like CW, when Stark gets Spiderman to help, which wasn't bad but I rather DC not make movies like Marvel. Superman working for the government in general just doesn't seem right, especially after the ending of MOS when he straight up said he needed to do things on his own terms. So is Batman's motivation the same as BvS, essentially fear of what could happen? If so why wouldn't he have a similar fear of the Flash and why would Superman knowing who he "killed" change Batman's fear? Also why would Superman stop fighting? Batman would still be a vigilante.
    5. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      It's something that Joker would do than Lex
    6. residentgrigo
      May 19, 2016
      Lex is a full blown terrorist in Lex Luthor: Man of Steel and Justice League: Rock of Ages. I can name more... and his plan in the 78 film isn´t that far off from counting as terrorism either.
    7. Abkinxoc
      May 18, 2016
      Oh lex pissing in a jar and killing hundreds of people and destroying a federal building and basically throwing away his life, fortune and future all to get back at one person who questioned him is an iteration of the character you've read? what comic?
    8. residentgrigo
      May 18, 2016
      He burned about 30-ish people, as the news ticker revealed.
      Comic Lex is also a far worse serial killer and an occasional terrorist. Just read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
    9. man_you_fear_19
      May 20, 2016
      So a man that does whatever he wants and doesn't care who gets in his way, doesn't sound like Lex?
  2. residentgrigo
    May 18, 2016
    Lexcorp is promised to return in JL and Lex is basically incapable of being persecuted (he is sitting in Belle Reve btw.) so he shall return. Comic Lex is also constantly in and out of prison. Just as Hackman Luther...
    Just take the films as they come and i loved the piss. Such utter dictation!
  3. JJ
    May 21, 2016
    Yeah people keep saying that we've gotten the businessman intelligent Lex before but I do not think so. Hackman and Spacey didn't quite get it right. I would have loved to see some badass actor with presence light up the screen as Lex but I'll have to wait till the next reboot
2. The Dark Knight
  May 19, 2016
  So business man Lex is a cliche and the mad scientist is not? And it's not like he's original. He's basically Riddler/Joker
3. JJ
  May 21, 2016
  What about people like my mom who don't know about these characters, and the first taste of Lex Luthor she gets is an Adderall snorting psychopath that Jesse eisenberg portrayed? First world problems, but Snyder robbed her of potentially enjoying a classic character.
CaptainPsychopath
May 18, 2016
People didn't dislike BvS because of its tone, they disliked it because the film wasn't very good. (Not saying the film was terrible, it was just ok)
1. N.G.
  May 18, 2016
  Almost every complaint is "Why did/didn't Superman/Batman/Lex do this?"
  Which seems to show me that people don't like the characterization largely because they prefer a different tone than dark and heavy/believable.
  1. El Kano
    May 18, 2016
    THIS. If I criticize BvS it's because of the pacing/editing not because "destroyed muh beloved characters"
  2. CaptainPsychopath
    May 18, 2016
    I was more referring to the pacing/editing and some bad writing. also I was talking more of the general audience, most complaints about characterization is from people here.
  3. Axxell
    May 18, 2016
    Oh, BvS is dark alright....just not very "believable".
  4. JJ
    May 21, 2016
    Why did Batman say "I thought she was with you..." to Superman even though 1) Batman and Diana they met at that party 2) they met again at that other party 3) She had NOT met Clark/Superman yet 4) Batman saw a picture of her in Wonder Woman gear 5) Batman emailed her
    Let me guess...Batman was joking? Lmao
2. Schuyler Finley
  May 18, 2016
  Uh, every complaint I've read about BvS always included the movie's dark tone.
  1. Fro
    May 18, 2016
    You should read more. I read over 150 reviews and if anybody mentioned dark tone, it was so minor compared to the other flaws they mentioned. Nice try though.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      1) I highly doubt you counted the number of reviews you've read.
      2) Even if it was minor complaint, it was still a complaint nonetheless.
    2. Fro
      May 18, 2016
      you can doubt me if you want, but it's true. I enjoy reading reviews and i did not even mention the youtube critic reviews that I listened to as well.
Marcelo Tobar
May 18, 2016
Thanks Noah, i agree with you on most of the points you made...
And thanks for the linkmto that man of steel page, it seems awesome, gonna check it out soon...
And i share with you, the problem of why everything is in absolutes with most people...
For some reason, things now are to either totally love or totally hate something... People have closed their eyes and their minds, and with that they don't allow themselves to enjoy things that while they might not be master pieces, are pretty good still...
Schuyler Finley
May 18, 2016
I can see Iron Man still being looked at as being good. The Avengers? Eh, some people have already pointed out how weak the story is and that the team-up novelty has worn-out. Ant-Man? .......BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Sigh...I'm giving it two thumbs-down.
1. N.G.
  May 18, 2016
  Yeah, I still like Iron Man. That's one of the only really solid MCU films in my opinion.
  Wish it had a good villain though.
  1. Schuyler Finley
    May 18, 2016
    It's my favorite MCU film. Also I was disappointed that they killed off Stane. I thought he was gonna be a long standing villain for Tony until the Mandarin arrives.
  2. Tres Swygert
    May 18, 2016
    I can't say of a Marvel film where they had a decent villain (minus the Spider-Man films that doesn't include Sandman).
    1. Axxell
      May 19, 2016
      Loki's a great villain...Zemo too.
    2. Tres Swygert
      May 19, 2016
      I'm honest, I'm not familiar with Zemo, so I can't comment on that character. But I disagree on Loki, he's not a villain to me. Just a pawn.
2. The Dark Knight
  May 18, 2016
  It's funny because flavour of the week Ant-man was actually a better of a film than BvS
  1. Schuyler Finley
    May 18, 2016
    Eh, it's people's opinion. I'm not getting upset about it. I wanted to enjoy the film, but it only pissed me off. Even my dad was happy that we didn't spend any money to see it.
  2. residentgrigo
    May 18, 2016
    Ant-man and the incomplete cut of BvS are both a 8,5/10 for me. Can´t we just appreciate both? I love variety and choice.
    1. OGmacrazy
      May 18, 2016
      Calling it an incomplete cut is just helping the argument that the movie simply wasn't good. Editing is a major part of the filmmaking business, and that was absolutely horrendous in BvS.
    2. residentgrigo
      May 19, 2016
      Blade Runner was incomplete till 2007 and it already was my favorite film in that state. The manga Hi No Tori will forever remain unfinished, due of the death of the author, but people call it a masterpiece anyway. The same can be said about the original Dune books. Nothing needs to be perfect... Cinema cut Watchmen and Kingdom Of Heaven were already good films before they were "fixed" in post. The same can be said about BvS and i liked 95% of the editing decisions. MoS had slightly "worse" editing if you ask me.
    3. OGmacrazy
      May 19, 2016
      Blade Runner was ALWAYS a great film. They simply added things they hadn't before, and it certainly wasn't an extra 30 minutes right off the bat with even more useless subplots and characters to make the movie even more of a mess, probably. I loved BvS, but the movie's filled with flaws, and ignoring this makes you a fanboy and stops the progress we should want. Thankfully the box office spoke, and they hired George Miller, an actual brilliant visual and storytelling director to produce Justice League.
    4. residentgrigo
      May 19, 2016
      Final Cut utterly rewrote the protagonist and the earlier dvd cut already came up with (aka restored) another ending and even basic tone. BvS is incapable of being changed that drastically and BL was torn apart in the 80s. I even saw the original Ebert/Siskel review.
      Ebert gave the cinema cut of Watchmen a 4/4 btw. (even i have to disagree here) but he wasn´t a fan of 300 and SP. Eh.
  3. Fro
    May 18, 2016
    lmfao, it sure was.
Ken
May 18, 2016
"Snyder made amazing movies" "general populace softened up by Marvel movies can't handle it doesn't mean it isn't good " "I'll admit BvS has a few, FEW issues"
Your fanboyism is showing. The movie is a complete mess and failed miserably. I suggest you watch other films instead of just watching superhero films all the time, boy. You have a horrid taste. You clearly have no clue about filmmaking. Was the plot coherent? No. Were the characters emotionally engaging? Absolutely not. Was the film made out of a bunch of random scenes Zack Snyder thought were "cool" and slapped together in a random order? Yes. The movie is sitting at 27% on Rotten Tomatoes, are you more intelligent than the critics? Absolutely not. Stop being a dumb, blind, stubborn zombie fanboy and grow up. The execs are in panic mode and Ben Affleck, himself, came out and said that he's very disappointed in this piece of garbage. True DC fans would criticize this abomination.
1. Schuyler Finley
  May 18, 2016
  Easy with the insults, dude. You're not making your argument look good.
2. N.G.
  May 18, 2016
  *Presume to know anything about me and my tastes and knowledge*
  *Deny anything of quality within a creative work that many like*
  *Present your opinions as fact*
  *Majority rule is the final word*
  *Make up stories about the people involved with the film*
  *Claim to be a true fan*
  Ahh, the recipe to the worst comment ever. It never fails.
  If you actually came at me with some logic for why you hate this movie, and I mean specific, logical, relevant things, any alleged plot holes would be filled in, and we would eventually come to a stalemate and realize that this movie is, for the most part, extremely well crafted, but it mainly comes down to personal taste. We would part as gentlemen with different opinions.
  That, or you would just spew childish hatred because you don't know how else to deal with people liking something that you don't.
3. alec
  May 18, 2016
  Ben wasn't disappointed in this awesome movie, he was disappointed about the reception
  1. Axxell
    May 19, 2016
    Is that why he's taking the reins in the JL movie now? If he thought Snyder did such a good job, why not leave things as they are?
    1. alec
      May 19, 2016
      He's not taking reins, he's executive producer, Snyder is still there. He did actually think Snyder did a good job, he said he even learned from him. Given the poor reception the movie had he wants to give people something they won't argue over and not only he's there to help Snyder as a friend but also because WB asked him to be exec prod.
      I'm answering to you because I'm not idiot, but if you're not happy with what I think, don't just contradict every (before you defend yourself I'm exaggerating) comment I make.
    2. Axxell
      May 20, 2016
      Given the poor reception the movie had he wants to give people something they won't argue over and not only he's there to help Snyder as a friend but also because WB asked him to be exec prod.
      He's helping Snyder...by taking power from him? C'Mon...
    3. alec
      May 21, 2016
      If he doesn't help and JL turns out to be bad for critics and some part of the audience then Snyder could go away from JL2, but if Ben helps doing a better movie Snyder will probably stay (unless they fire him and hire Ben as director of JL2)
UltimateBadass
May 18, 2016
SPOT ON !! Haters can burn in hell ! :D
1. Jaime spenser
  May 18, 2016
  You can burn fake DC fans.
Simon
May 18, 2016
great point and also my opinion; MCU movies are good most of the time but mostly popcorn entertainment
films like Man of Steel or BvS(really liked MoS, loved BvS) have more weight, more staying power imo
we will see and to be fair; there is nothing wrong with a few lighter DCEU movies, its all about the menu; have steak on it, but also ice cream
something for everyone
1. Axxell
  May 19, 2016
  I feel the MCU has more variety and tonal range through their movies. You've got thrillers, action, comedy, etc. The DCCU (and most of the DC films overall) are pretty much monotone, dark films.
residentgrigo
May 18, 2016
I wrote a 900 word IMDB review for BvS, with the score of a 9/10 and final stopped lurking on this site due to the film, so You Are Not Alone. Lex the best thing about the film, btw. No more land deals! Snydra or bust!
http://www.manofsteelanswer...

Knight-Errant

May 17, 2016

This seems a little premature. At least give the current direction until JLA. When waters get rough, you don't just abandon ship, you weather the storm. Constant changes & new leadership never bode well for sports teams.

So now Johns oversees the comic book branch, TV branch, & movie branch. How long before each start to suffer because of his responsibilities?

Plus I really enjoy the MCU, but I don't believe their formula is the only formula for success. Their movies will stand the test of time 10-20 years from now. Hopefully the DCEU will as well.

We'll see how things go.

Jcool

May 17, 2016

This would be a little better news if Geoff Johns wasn't still working on comics and reporting to Diane Nelson. Would like him to be focused just on the movies.

Kal-Il AKA Ultraman
May 17, 2016
hell no, he first and foremost needs to be involved in comics. Thats where his heart and craft truly lies. Thats where he belongs.
1. Tres Swygert
  May 18, 2016
  That maybe so, but I think Jcool is saying is that Geoff is going to become stretched thin in trying to make DC better all around. You have Geoff for the comics division, and I just heard that he works on the tv division as well...now you want him to tackle the film division.
  Something has got to give in order for Geoff to not feel burdensome and providing strong content consistently, instead of trying to do almost everything for DC. Which is understandable, he's only human, not Superman. (lol)

Sergio

May 17, 2016

well, at least if SS ends up not working as expected geoff jonhs will be the one to blame, i mean, that's why he's more in charge now, to have a head to cut off if shit hits the fan

Trevor Douglas Allen

May 17, 2016

Johns was a huge part of the DCEU before BvS came out. In an early magazine article about the DCEU; Johns, the Snyder's, and Charles Roven were named as being the head creative team. Also, following him & several directors on Twitter it was clear he was part of preproduction for each movie. Snyder, Ayer, and Jenkins each thanked Johns for all his help on Twitter.

This just seems like a natural progression. BvS probably just pushed it to being a more concrete thing and a designated title.

RoboDouche

May 17, 2016

Glad something positive is finally happening. Please be good Suicide Squad!!!

OGDickGrayson

May 17, 2016

Great news if true.
It still is sad that WB reacts harshly to everything though.

Sergio
May 17, 2016
well, after over the top bad reviews and asinine critics plus internet trolls and malicious sites jabbing snyder and BvS left and right, i don't think they should be happy and mantain course, that's just reacting to all that pressure
1. Abkinxoc
  May 18, 2016
  Yes and the reptilian disney execs paid off every critic on earth, and everyone is to blame except snyder.
  1. El Kano
    May 18, 2016
    Indeed http://mycatbirdseat.com/wp...

ArtimusGG

May 17, 2016

Lmao no. They would be tone deaf to not react to the BvS reception. Changes along the way were expected, happened to MCU as well.

Sergio
May 17, 2016
antman went thru multiple rewrites and an actual change of director but i don´t see anybody bringing that up and although marvel movies end up making a lot of dough anyway many of the people that have worked in that universe (actors and directors alike) have very negative things to say about marvel; the point being that all this behind the scenes stuff is pretty much bussiness as usual, its media making a huge deal out of it
1. Fro
  May 17, 2016
  Oh it got brought up plenty.
2. Abkinxoc
  May 18, 2016
  antman was a good movie tho, obviously marvel did something right. Im glad marvel doesn't just let directors who have never read a comic book just do what they want.
  1. Schuyler Finley
    May 18, 2016
    I found it irritating since they kept breaking their rules with Antman's "size" change. Also it irritated me that they had "killed" off Wasp. I think they were too afraid of doing the Hank Pym and Janet relationship right on-screen.
ArtimusGG
May 19, 2016
No, I don't think there's too many changes. There are changes, but they're not overreacting. Remember, MCU and Disney underwent changes throughout the establishment of their universe, and they're doing great.
We'll have to see how their films turn out and how the actors and directors on those films feel about the process.

Martinezxyz

May 17, 2016

At the risk of sounding greedy, will this cut on his writing for a bit? Indefinitely?

Tres Swygert
May 18, 2016
Perhaps. Can't have Geoff stretched thin on duties.

Abkinxoc

May 17, 2016

The true fans demanded better and dc/wb listened.

towblerone
May 18, 2016
Hmmm. I wouldn't generalize detractors as "True fans". I'm a lifelong DC fan, in all forms of media, and loved MoS and BvS. I just don't think the tone of those movies fit the cultural zeitgeist we're in now. Casual moviegoers didn't want esoteric, emotional movies. They want superheroes that smile, wink at the camera and get involved in harmless, cartoonish action while playing one-liner tennis with each other. AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
But writing off people who enjoyed MoS and BvS as somehow not being "true" fans is a bit problematic.
1. Abkinxoc
  May 18, 2016
  "esoteric emotional movies"
  The moment you realize marvel made you care more about the death of an ant then you did about the death of superman is the moment you realize one is not quite "esoteric or emotional."
  No one is asking for "superheroes that smiles, wink at the camera and get involved in harmless, cartoonish action." They are asking for a coherent story that doesn't have dream sequences within premonitions, wrapped in a riddle. People want establishing shots and basic filmmaking 101 techniques. Maybe we will never get a classic cohesive dceu, but hopefully now we will get a coherent one.
  1. man_you_fear_19
    May 18, 2016
    If people couldn't understand a dream sequence, maybe they should go back to school and not the movies. Please explain to me what kind of establishing shots you feel should have been in this movie because I've seen this gripe a few times.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      Yeah, it's kinda stupid for people to complain about Batman not needing guns in the dream sequence since he's obviously in a freaking war.
    2. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      Point
      .
      .
      .
      .
      You
    3. Tres Swygert
      May 18, 2016
      Thank you!
    4. Jaime spenser
      May 18, 2016
      If people like you and Sydner doesn't understand what the audience wants they should go back to school and not making movies.
    5. man_you_fear_19
      May 20, 2016
      So just because he didn't make the movie YOU want Snyder should stop making movies? Maybe all the studios should close and Walmart could start making all the movies since there apparently is a formula for it and lots of you want every movie to be the same.
  2. towblerone
    May 18, 2016
    I have to respectfully disagree on some of those points.
  3. Schuyler Finley
    May 18, 2016
    I didn't care about the ant because i knew it was gonna die and there was nothing distinguishing it from the other ants. That wasn't like the ant death in Honey I Shrunk the Kids.
2. OGmacrazy
  May 18, 2016
  So The Dark Knight, the most beloved super hero film by critics and fans alike, or at least up there, was a popcorn movie with winks and smiles and shit?
  Because I actually think it had way more emotion, depth, intelligence and sense than BvS, in a way that's not even comparable... So, your comment goes immediately out the water with this one counter-example. But thanks for playing.

Mr. Nice Guy

May 17, 2016

A few things

1. Geoff Johns was already heavily involved in BVS

2. As mentioned in the article Jon Berg acts as a conduit for Ben Affleck. This pretty much means Ben Affleck is running the DC show.

3. The 3rd act of SS is "unsatisfactory" but WB is fixing that so its a good thing and Faraci's reputation has taken another blow.

4. WB still want to be filmmaker driven

5. Zack Snyder is still directing

To sum it all up... Nothing has changed the DC Universe rages on.

Sergio
May 17, 2016
and don'f forget that upcoming harley's movie, how it got greenlighted if SS has so much trouble?
1. BatmanNewsChris
  May 17, 2016
  The Harley movie hasn't been greenlit yet.
  1. Sergio
    May 17, 2016
    well, maybe not the correct term to use but it was indeed announced as to be produced
    1. BatmanNewsChris
      May 17, 2016
      They're working on a script right now, but Warner Bros. hasn't agreed to make it yet. They'll probably want to see how Suicide Squad does first. Maybe even wait until after Wonder Woman to see how female lead movies perform at the box office.
    2. Sergio
      May 17, 2016
      in all honesty i don´t think WW does bad, she IS WW and patty jenkins is a more than solid director, as per SS, ayer just won´t dissappoint and so far the trailers are selling one hell of an idea, if anything, all these exec changes and add ups might end up being quite a menace, if not handled properly, my opinion.
    3. Tres Swygert
      May 18, 2016
      I agree with you that the Wonder Woman film will spark interest and desire to seeing her be the lead in her own film. That still means the film has to perform well in order to inspire WB to go for other female lead films, such as the project Margot Robbie desires. I hope WW is successful next year to where we do get more Wonder Woman films and female lead films...because, and I will say again from another post, DC has way better female characters than Marvel.
    4. residentgrigo
      May 18, 2016
      You have to play with all the card in the deck and be mindful of your timing. Give me Sirens, Lobo, Booster, Sandman and way more Synder. I am game baby.
      I actively waited since 1997 to see a Batman/Superman film, so i couldn´t be happier with all of this. What a time to be a DC fan!
  2. Pix Layer
    May 17, 2016
    Exactly. People hear a rumor and suddenly assume this movie is coming out next year or something.
2. Axxell
  May 18, 2016
  I don't think anyone said SS was in trouble; on the contrary, WB was reported to just doubling down on what fans reacted positively to. That's not a sign of trouble.
KelVintage
May 18, 2016
Snyder is gone after Justice League Part 1. I imagine the relationship between WB and Snyder is not in a good place at all. Best for both sides to move on. I'm sure he's feeling pretty worn down and disrespected right about now. I can't help but feel sorry for the guy although I don't agree with his vision entirely.
Your_Mama1
May 18, 2016
Absolutely correct. Nothing has changed. Johns is an awful choice. The guy is a comic book
fanboy, he knows nothing about film which has been shown on both Green
Lantern and B v S. The guy didn't help then and won't be able to help
moving forward. Berg on the other hand is probably not a fanboy and can
read the script and watch the rough cut with more objectivity which may
actually help. Although, if he was a part of B v S then again, it won't
help much. Yikes. WB is in serious trouble with these decisions. The only guy who is really motivated is Affleck. I imagine he's been pissed off with the reaction to B v S for months now.
Ace20xd6
May 19, 2016
But did he have control over the overall story, especially more than Snyder?

CageRage

May 17, 2016

Zack Snyder is still directing

End of story

pud333

May 17, 2016

Inevitable something like this would happen. Snyder had two kicks at the ball and both times he didn't connect the way he should have. This is welcome news because the DCEU needed someone who had a more broader view and more classic view of these characters, not just someone like Snyder who saw most things through Frank Miller's view of these heroes. The DCU has 75 years of history, and Miller, as formidable as he once was, is only a small part of that history. However, at this point, I am skeptical as to what kind of affect it will have on JL.

That said, I watched MoS last Friday right before I went to see BvS for the last time in theatres. It was the second time I have done this, and I am impressed at how well both movies complement each other. They make each other better. I still stand by my comments that once JL is done, the three Snyder films will bookend each other in one giant, epic story.

Andrew

May 17, 2016

I'm glad - Zack Snyder is no longer in charge of the DCEU - he can focus on HIS films

Kurosawa's Bitch

May 17, 2016

I hope WB at least lets Zack makes Justice League the way he wants to let the ma finish his trilogy

larva

May 17, 2016

I'm kinda sad that hating Snyder is a "thing" now.

N.G.
May 17, 2016
I think it's always been a thing.
Sadly it didn't stop when he made an actual really good movie--Man of Steel.
(I never saw Watchmen so I can't speak for that. Don't care for his other films though.)
1. ArtimusGG
  May 18, 2016
  Give Watchmen a go it's amazing, get the ultimate cut
2. OmegaCorleone
  May 18, 2016
  Watchmen's directors cut is one of his best films. Highly recommended.
residentgrigo
May 18, 2016
Look up the 300 reviews. That's how it started, sir. The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness. It turned good (?) film critics cruel...
300: Rise of an Empire is a B- btw. Watch it too, if you haven´t already.
1. OGmacrazy
  May 18, 2016
  Well, shit dog... How can fans like you ever hate or dislike or admit anything was wrong with a DC film if you actually enjoy or say you enjoyed movies like 300: Rise of an Empire?? Jesus fucking Christ.
  1. residentgrigo
    May 19, 2016
    I admitted on this very site that MoS and BvS are flawed films. So were Burton´s and Nolan´s films (Rachel, the editing in Begins, too many subplots in Rises). So what? A B+ is still an all around win.
    1. OGmacrazy
      May 19, 2016
      Yeah, but Nolan's movies were a thousand times better. It's as simple as that. They felt like actual movies worried about the story and focused on it, instead of pretty storyboards that Snyder wanted the movie to emulate, and nice and shiny visuals. BvS, for all it accomplished (a great Batman, a great Alfred, a good introduction to Wonder Woman, a realistic depiction of Supes) also did a lot more wrong (barely let Lex Luthor be known by the audience, especially his motives and raison d'etre, too many subplots that were useless, constant interruption of the story by flashbacks/dreams/unecessary introductions to JL members we could have had later on, or in a post-credit scene, and just edited as if by someone with some kind of mental disorder, to name a few).
      Also, aren't you a little mad at the actual batman vs superman fight?
      Superman could have just picked Batman up, talked some sense into him like "Lex Luthor has my mother, he kidnapped her and made me confront you! Please, I need your help, I do not want to fight!"? It was such an obvious "only ever happens in the movies and would never happen in reality" moment, and that always takes me away from the movie watching experience.
    2. residentgrigo
      May 19, 2016
      The “original” fight in DKR isn´t that long (it´s slightly longer in the
      10/10 cartoon film adaptation), Batman has partners and it was most
      importantly a media circus. Bruce pulled a power play there and shamed
      the president´s lap dog in front of the army! I actually never had a
      problem with the very first Miller Superman, who is a fascinating
      examination of a politically compromised icon, as he is still a hero.
      DK2 (that fight is pure garbage btw.), All Star Batman and DKRIII are
      all a mess and a dishonor to Superman´s legacy. Maybe even Batman. I am
      still not quite able to call any of them bad. Oh well.
      BvS though was a life and death slugfest due to Batman´s unwavering kill
      frenzy. Superman tries to talk it out, than to subdue him but is
      finally locked in a vicious battle to the death/survival. They threw in
      everything and the actual kitchen sink, so i was more than satisfied.
      There aren´t all than many scenarios BvS could have adapted or come up
      with that could work. BvS needs to have sequels and can´t really shame
      anyone (as beautifully DKR did). The fight in Hush or the opening arc of
      the New52 are basically what Batman vs Doomsday was. A one man
      desperation act and tickets can´t be sold that way. The gladiator match
      ultimately works due to the dark and manipulated place Bruce is in.
      Going with a, now falling, 20 year old vet, was a stroke of genius.
      Batman entered the (redeeming) 3rd act of his career after the fight and
      especially the end. Superman though only ended his 1st after being
      shived, as his father was (!), by Zod. That´s what i loved about Batman
      Begins. Bruce was still “beginning” when the film ended and not even the
      sequel featured a fully formed Batman. Superman also only became comic
      Superman (note the S curl towards the end) when he decided to TRUST in
      his peers and sacrifice himself. This low burn structure slightly harms
      Nolan´s vision due to the trilogy structure but the DCEU is a franchise,
      so i will never complain about proper build up. Especially as we are
      already seeing payoff! And that´s what´s lastly good about the fight. It
      was a major event in out protagonists live but we got to move on and
      don´t have to awkwardly insert it because someone awkwardly decided to
      100% ret-con Ironman´s character and his backstory. Oh sorry, wrong film.

Alright x3!

May 17, 2016

As long as Greg Berlanti stays away Christ almighty that man is a true hack.

residentgrigo
May 18, 2016
Uncle Guggie is way worse! I even dislike his actual comics.

Alright x3!

May 17, 2016

He did get the spirit of Superman right

MaoZD
May 18, 2016
Cap is not badass, smiling or heroic at all in Civil War.
You must not have watch Dawn of Justice, he DID NOT believe nobody stays good in this world!
1. N.G.
  May 18, 2016
  He actually does say that, to Lois right before fighting Batman.
  But it isn't a grim, absolute statement: it's sort of said as an uncertainty.
2. MaoZD
  May 18, 2016
  He was uncertain, the way he delivered the line sounded like a question which he proved himself wrong by the end. He stayed good.
N.G.
May 18, 2016
Ughhhhh.
It's not about ABSOLUTES. What is it with you people?
Man of Steel and Batman v Superman are about a REAL Superman dealing with REAL questions that DO NOT have obvious answers.
Why would he trust completely to some sappy, unrealistic hope that he has no logical reason to believe in at this point?
1. N.G.
  May 18, 2016
  Public opinion should *never* be the final word on whether a movie is good or not.
  In this superhero-saturated climate, it's not crazy that a certain type of Superhero movie is hated by a majority.
  I've seen Man of Steel many times, and each time I'm more and more solid in my belief that it is an incredible, amazing, superb film. I really don't care who says otherwise, because every argument goes around and around in circles because people don't want to like it in the first place.
  1. N.G.
    May 18, 2016
    The audience reaction has been split, and the movies have made plenty of money.
    The verdict on whether a movie is good or not is UP TO YOU, and NO ONE ELSE.
  2. man_you_fear_19
    May 18, 2016
    So a "fringe minority" spent almost 870 million dollars on a crappy movie?
    1. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      $860 million is pretty much guaranteed when you've Batman in the film's title. Especially a cool one with violent action scenes
    2. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      A "fringe minority" blind to it's faults and committed to spending every bit of disposable income just for the sake of supporting the DCCU...there are people who've individually spent hundreds of dollars (literally) to watch this movie, for that sole reason.
    3. man_you_fear_19
      May 21, 2016
      I'm not going to say BvS is perfect but maybe you can tell me what "faults" there are that make it so unwatchable. Do you have proof of these people existing or is that just something you heard on the Internet? And why would WB change things if there are people like this? These are the people that will continue to support these type of movies for the next ten years, when a good part of the general audience has moved on.
2. Schuyler Finley
  May 18, 2016
  But audience reception for both films are split almost evenly.
  1. Schuyler Finley
    May 18, 2016
    Well it's kinda hard to do that when there's a crap ton of sites that shows different audience ratings. But from what I can gather is that the majority is split at the movie.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      Aren't Metacric's scores still weighed differently depending on the critic's popularity? Also, I said audiences, not critics. And Metacritic's user score for BvS is 7.2.
    2. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      Says who?
      And while it shows that there are some concerns with how things are going, we don't know what is actually going behind those closed doors. For all we know, Johns loves what Snyder is doing with the DCEU.
    3. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      No, but I'm not a guy who immediately assumes the worst. I actually wait and see how things turn out.
    4. Fro
      May 18, 2016
      67% on rotten tomatoes for an audience score for a superhero movie is BAD! Also cinemascore of B is horrendous for this type of movie as well.
    5. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      Again, says who? Over half of the audience, on RT, liked the movie. I don't see the rules saying that a superhero movie has to have a certain audience score. It's just that the film didn't live up to people's impossibly high expectations.
    6. Fro
      May 18, 2016
      Do you blame us for having high expectations for the trinity on screen for the 1st time. And cool, over half the people you say, well Antman has an 86% audience rating, in other words MORE people liked that movie. The flavor of the week remember? LOL
    7. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      No, I don't blame people for having high expectations. Even I had high expectations. And like I said to another commenter on here, I don't care that people loved Ant-Man. I particular didn't like it, and I don't see a point in getting upset about people liking it.
    8. Fro
      May 18, 2016
      Im not upset people like BvS at all, the only thing that bothers me is when people say that you have to be intelligent to understand and like BvS. Thats just plain DUMB.
    9. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      Now that I can understand being upset about. I wouldn't say that the film is smart. It's just that it's not the usual blockbuster films that we've been getting for the past few years. The only thing that bothers me is when people complain about stuff that the movie does tell you about.
  2. Schuyler Finley
    May 18, 2016
    Well if you go by RT, most audiences liked both films. IMDB. Same with IMDb. And from the many review videos and articles that I've seen, the reception is split almost evenly. There's no one site that has an actual of whether audiences like the film. It's why I tell people tht you can't really call the film "good" or "bad".
    1. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      RT is filled with vocal fanboys who want their flag flowing like this very site, the average movie-goer doesn't review the movie after getting home from a show
    2. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      So ignore the positive reviews of the movie because they must obviously be fanboys, and only read the negative reviews. Gotcha.
      Besides, while the average moviegoer doesn't review a movie after seeing it, there are still a crap ton of people who post post their reviews or just opinions on the internet. You can't just keep calling everyone a fanboy because they like the movie.
    3. The Dark Knight
      May 18, 2016
      I don't read audience reviews period.
      I watch the film first mostly, form my opinion and if I was too much invested in it, I read a few critic reviews.
    4. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      I read both sides just to get a feel of what to expect when I see the movie. It's not like critics aren't ever wrong about a movie.
    5. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      All he said is that audience ratings are unreliable because DC fanboys flooded the poll (before the movie was even out, mind you) in order to get the ratings up to a perfect 100%. It's a fact. When anyone on the internet can just go and submit a biased vote, then it's not trustworthy. It's not about it being a positive score; it's about it not being a scientific poll.
    6. Schuyler Finley
      May 18, 2016
      But there are also votes from people who didn't even watch the movie or weren't interested in seeing it. And I even included IMDb. So what audience rating can you go by?
    7. Axxell
      May 19, 2016
      Like I said, any online poll is not trustworthy, that goes for IMDB, RT or any other. Frankly, the only one that comes close to being scientific is Cinemascore, even though audiences tend to be very generous on exit polls, even with bad movies, but at least it's way less likely to be influenced by mob vote.
man_you_fear_19
May 18, 2016
So because Snyder decided to make a character that is interesting rather than a version that has been done many times before, they should just change everything? Everyone that didn't like Superman in MOS or BvS says that the last movie would have made a billion dollars if we had a smiling Superman. What if those people are wrong and a good portion of the people that helped BvS make 800+ million decide they don't like that version? Will you all be happy then when you have to wait another ten years for a new Superman movie?
I believe we will get a more hopeful, "traditional" Superman in JL and beyond, but I am glad that we have seen what has made that character who he is. And Captain America has been just as brooding and moody at times, as he should be given his situation. Just because Marvel doesn't delve into their characters' inner turmoil as much doesn't mean it still isn't there.
1. Meg
  May 18, 2016
  This is where it went wrong, my friend. It seems that WB, and Zack Snyder in particular also believe they are making Superman interesting. No they are not. I'm not saying the Superman we're having atm is terrible or anything, but you know what, he is not Superman. They wanted to focus on his inner turmoil? Great. But they went at it the wrong way. They changed the teaching that Pa and Ma Kent suppose to give Clark. He is who he is because of them. He sees the good in people, he loves humanity so much because he was raised by love and kindness, and because the Kents would NEVER tell him to abandon people in distress so that he can blend in. They made him brooding. They made him doubt himself. The Superman I grew up admiring would never do that. Because the moment someone like him, whose power is so overwhelming he could destroy everything if he wanted to, starts doubting himself and questioning the goods of this world, it's all over. Superman is a beacon of hope. People call him cheesy, dorky, big-blue boy scout, but in dark times, he's the one they look to. Snyder tried too hard with the Jesus symbolism, but Superman isn't God, and never was. He's just a guy with a lot of power and love, who always tries to do the right thing, but is so boss he can stay good even in this muddy world, surrounded by evil.
  1. man_you_fear_19
    May 18, 2016
    And yet besides what you see as faulty parenting, he still did save those kids on the bus, because this Superman is a good person at his core too. He saves the people on the oil rig, saves that girl in the burning building, he saves those people from the flood, and he saves the whole damn world and people still question his intentions and whether or not he is necessary. Anyone who does nothing but good and keeps getting criticized is bound to doubt themselves. If he just kept smiling like nothing was wrong that wouldn't read as an authentic character; that's a crazy person. And by the end of the movie he is still good, but the road getting there is more interesting than if you tell people in MOS this guy is good and will always be good because he was raised with good values.
    1. Meg
      May 18, 2016
      Interesting. So that's how you perceive this version... You're not wrong. The half of the audience who loved MoS probably had the same opinion as you. However, people like me see things differently. It's too tiring to explain, and maybe I even can't wrap my fingers around my feelings for these movies. I didn't see it as faulty parenting. Pa Kent acted as any father would in normal situations. Also, he did save people, I'll give him that. But what about other things? I dislike the writings for Superman in these movies because it doesn't add up. He said lines that should've never appeared on his lips. He did things that the original Superman would never do. It bothered me. I know one of the major reasons why I can't bring myself to accept the brooding Superman has a lot to do with me being a long-time fan. But Zack Snyder promised us fans the Superman we've always wanted to see, and we didn't get that.
    2. man_you_fear_19
      May 18, 2016
      I see what you are saying. I've read some Superman comics and grew up loving the Reeve movies but maybe it's because I'm more of a Batman fan that I don't have such a problem with this characterization.
      If Snyder completes Superman's arc in JL and gives you the Superman you want to see, do you think that will change your opinion about these other movies? That's what seems to make sense to me story wise and is what I hope happens.
      Just curious, which lines did you have a problem with?
    3. Meg
      May 18, 2016
      In MoS I don't remember, but he didn't talk a lot in that movie anyway. In BvS, a few lines such as "Nobody stays good in this world", "consider this mercy". Tbh, i had more problems with his action, or inaction than his lines.
    4. Axxell
      May 18, 2016
      Within the movie, it makes sense that Superman doubts himself, since Pa Kent taught him at an early age that it's ok to let people die in order to hide; no one that grows up with that kind of parenting could possibly be very committed to saving people. I just didn't like it. Sure, there's been plenty of times Superman has experienced skepticism in other canon stories, but his childhood upbringing is what keeps his coming back to the kind of optimism that shines a light even in the darkest room. I don't see how this Superman could possibly do that considering his story so far.
    5. man_you_fear_19
      May 21, 2016
      I understand what you are saying but that's basing his whole upbringing on two or three scenes. He obviously has been taught right from wrong and besides their concerns of how the world will react, they also tell him that he will change the world. They told him that he was sent here for a reason and was meant for bigger things. So while at times the Kent's take on society seemed pessimistic, especially Pa Kent saying maybe he should have let the kids die (not that it was ok to let them die), I think overall they were optimistic people. Also you have Jor-El influencing and reinforcing the idea that Superman could do great things on Earth.
  2. The Dark Knight
    May 18, 2016
    Couldn't have said it better, or maybe I'd have paragraph it a bit
2. The Dark Knight
  May 18, 2016
  Look at how Russos changed Cap for modern world, now that's called a good change. Snyder's objectivist version of Superman just isn't likeable.
  1. man_you_fear_19
    May 18, 2016
    I've only read maybe two CA comics so I'm not sure, how exactly did they change him and how would that work for Superman?
3. man_you_fear_19
  May 20, 2016
  I'm sure he wishes things were going better. He's probably not happy about the backlash or the box office but many of his movies have had similar results, so I assume he's used to it and probably isn't even focused on it anymore since he is working on JL.
  As far as the stories about Ben and Johns go, I don't know how much or to what extent those are true. Maybe WB is just doing damage control so things will settle down before SS comes out. Maybe Ben is more involved so that he will further learn how to make movies like JL, so that he is more comfortable when he makes his Batman movie, and it only makes sense to have someone, like Johns, to be overseeing all the movies to make sure they work together. Or that could all be wrong and WB hates Snyder is just using his name while Ben really directs JL so that investors don't get scared and are letting Johns call all the other shots.
Meg
May 18, 2016
Thank you. You took the words right out of my mouth. I never understood why they had to change Superman so much. If something is not broken, don't fix it.
1. The Dark Knight
  May 18, 2016
  New 52 Superman is worse than MoS version though
  1. Meg
    May 18, 2016
    Oh I refuse to read the New 52 for that exact reason
Schuyler Finley
May 18, 2016
But Superman didn't think that "nobody stays good". That was Batman.
Also Superman wanted to save his father, but instead he chose to follow his father's wishes and not save him; I'm sure this has been done before in other stories.

MaoZD

May 17, 2016

Could this be Batman Returns all over again? Complaints of being too dark leading to a more comedic and lighter Batman Forver/Batman & Robin?

Stay the course WB! You are playing with fire! Let Zack finish his story at least that way real DC fans will still have their trilogy when future films are Marvelized.

OssamNin
May 18, 2016
reading this made me feel sick, and scared, imagine if that happened again! it would be even worse than Batman&Robin, and it would be probably impossible to recover from that now
1. MaoZD
  May 18, 2016
  At least we will still have Man of Steel, Dawn of Justice and Justice League.
  1. OssamNin
    May 18, 2016
    but I want a Batman solo trilogy, and Green Lantern u.u
    1. MaoZD
      May 18, 2016
      You will still get them but expect Batman to have a dance-off distracting The Joker
    2. OssamNin
      May 18, 2016
      oh please no x'D
The Dark Knight
May 18, 2016
Except Batman returns was too violent and sickly. I still can't watch it with a straight face
1. OssamNin
  May 18, 2016
  this is true, just looking at the Penguin makes me want to vomit, it's not just dark, it's disgusting.
  1. The Dark Knight
    May 18, 2016
    It's part of Burton's style
    1. OssamNin
      May 18, 2016
      Still disgusting, Burton is a hit or miss, and in Returns he missed
Meg
May 18, 2016
I don't think it will happen though. Still, what you said worried me greatly. If WB really thought changing the tone would do any good, it'd prove to be a disaster. The real problem has never been the tone being too dark or anything that trivial. The Dark Knight trilogy has proven that superhero movies don't need to be similar to Marvel in order to be good or be successful. If anything, they should focus on making good movies first before thinking about building the universe. Where has it gone, the era when a movie was so good people demanded for a sequel?
Jaime spenser
May 18, 2016
The real DC fans ain't you or zack Sydner fanboys like you.

Eingoluq

May 18, 2016

Oh thank God! By Neptune's beard, I prayed for a true fan at the helm. Snyder was not really a DC fan. He liked the large graphic novels and big story lines like Flashpoint or Killing Joke but he didn't really like the threads between these story lines.

MaoZD
May 18, 2016
If BVS got 90% RottenTomatoes you would be worshipping him.
1. The Dark Knight
  May 18, 2016
  I'd too. But he didn't. Your point?
  1. JoshDen
    May 18, 2016
    Exactly, right there with you
2. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
  May 18, 2016
  Of course, we all would...but that did not happen, so changes need to be made.
3. Jaime spenser
  May 18, 2016
  You still worship him no matter what he makes.
4. ᗩᖇᑕᕼᗩᑎGᕮᒪᒪ
  May 18, 2016
  "If" - yeah ok sparky
5. Eingoluq
  May 18, 2016
  I'm a Snyder fan, but boy this movie disappointed me. My feeling towards this movie are my own. It has nothing todo with Rotten Tomatoes. For instance I gave MOS a 4.5 out of 5. but BvS I gave a 2.5

Joshua Nawaqavanua

May 18, 2016

finally! exactly as predicted a good outcome has come from the tragedy that was Batman vs superman. We had go through our rubbish phase of movies to arrive here. Ben Affleck is now the executive producer of the justice league (he claims he is only "SUPPORTING" Snyder but we will see), Geoff Johns and that other guy are now setting aside time from their schedule to helm the DCEU its all coming together!. But in saying that there's also the worry that the new additions will do nothing but ruin the DCEU even more, I mean Johns had reportedly worked on some of the crap movies that DC has dished out. However that could have been due to him being to busy to even oversee those projects proper (since he has quite a huge roll in DC already). Then there Affleck who is an outsider to comics and he could do an even worse job of destroying the law at DC, then again he does know how to make one hell of a movie. in saying all that the future of the DCEU looks more hopeful then ever and I hope that the new additions succeed!.

Foomankru

May 18, 2016

"The Hollywood Reporter’s sources say that it was Suicide Squad that escalated Johns’ involvement in DC movies and that he is involved in the movie’s post-production."

What does this mean? Is this suggesting Suicide Squad is in trouble?

BatmanNewsChris
May 18, 2016
They said in their article that they basically re-did the whole end of the movie with the big reshoots.
1. Foomankru
  May 18, 2016
  Ahh...thanks. Certainly interesting. Leads to some validation of rumors that SS was in trouble- this was mentioned in the last podcast by Sean and Andy.
2. Axxell
  May 18, 2016
  Could be that Ayer was trying to do something that would shortchange the future of the DCCU, like killing characters that they have plans for?
Foomankru
May 18, 2016
Well that's not good
1. Foomankru
  May 18, 2016
  It's all interesting to hear when just a few days ago, they announced the Harley spinoff movie. So I'm hopeful that whatever changes Johns made to the final act of SS is going to make it really great.
BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump
May 18, 2016
It might have been a radical third act..perhaps many deaths...who knows...just have to wait until aug. 5th

Batman News Archive

Geoff Johns will co-run DC Films for Warner Bros. after 'Batman v Superman' backlash

825 comments

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year