Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

OwaynOTT

And Fantastic 4 is akin to Villa: shambolic both.

ps3lover

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't get the whole "the film isn't kid friendly" thing, my little brother who is 8 saw it opening weekend and loved it. All he wanted to do was come up to visit me and go see it again. There's a lot of adult content there but this is a film for 12 year old boys and it's a shame that so many won't get to experience it on the big screen.

Why wouldn't they get to see it? The movie is 12 rated, they don't really need their parents permission.

Mickeroo

OwaynOTT wrote: »

And Fantastic 4 is akin to Villa: shambolic both.

Liverpool are Spiderman I'd reckon, used to be the best around now a bit of a sleeping giant....signing Klopp could be analogous to the Marvel/Sony deal.

Should probably stop this now....:o

OwaynOTT

Mickeroo wrote: »

Liverpool are Spiderman I'd reckon, used to be the best around now a bit of a sleeping giant....signing Klopp could be analogous to the Marvel/Sony deal.

Should probably stop this now....:o

Yep, this off-topicness is more suited to the Liverpool thread.

ps3lover

ps3lover wrote: »

Why wouldn't they get to see it? The movie is 12 rated, they don't really need their parents permission.

Perhaps because most 12 year old boys aren't in a position to just head off to the cinema. In fact I imagine that for most it takes planning, lifts from a parent, money from a parent, etc. And what of all the 6 year olds who want to see the film, there's many who won't get the chance given all the talk of how the film is too dark and adult.

Chain Smoker

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't get the whole "the film isn't kid friendly" thing, my little brother who is 8 saw it opening weekend and loved it. All he wanted to do was come up to visit me and go see it again. There's a lot of adult content there but this is a film for 12 year old boys and it's a shame that so many won't get to experience it on the big screen. The dark tone of the film reminded me a little of all those great 80s films I grew up on, those films where death was often central to the plot. There was a similar out-lash against The Good Dinosaur with a lot of opinions pieces on how it was too dark for kids and I know plenty of people who didn't take their kids, which is a damn shame given just how good a film it is. There is nothing in Batman V Superman that is too adult, yes it explored adult themes and issues but so does a lot of great kids cinema.

I wasn't saying "isn't kid friendly" as in kids wouldn't be able to handle it but that parents would be scared off by some of the feedback, I guess "parent friendly" might be a more apt way of phrasing it. Sure I was watching the Silence of the Lambs when I was 8 and I turned out okay-ish, was watching Die Hard and the like from earlier still; there's gonna be some kids that'll see all sorts but the statistic tend to bear some weight that age ratings and the like do have an impact.

And a parent who lets their kid see it might not necessarily agree to letting their kid buy a ton of merchandise of a morally dubious batman.

FunLover18

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't get the whole "the film isn't kid friendly" thing, my little brother who is 8 saw it opening weekend and loved it. All he wanted to do was come up to visit me and go see it again. There's a lot of adult content there but this is a film for 12 year old boys and it's a shame that so many won't get to experience it on the big screen. The dark tone of the film reminded me a little of all those great 80s films I grew up on, those films where death was often central to the plot. There was a similar out-lash against The Good Dinosaur with a lot of opinions pieces on how it was too dark for kids and I know plenty of people who didn't take their kids, which is a damn shame given just how good a film it is. There is nothing in Batman V Superman that is too adult, yes it explored adult themes and issues but so does a lot of great kids cinema.

I'm 25 and I found it boring and incoherent, I can't imagine it holding the interest of kids. I wouldn't say it's 'not kid friendly' as I don't think it's unsuitable, I just don't think it's very entertaining.

ps3lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps because most 12 year old boys aren't in a position to just head off to the cinema. In fact I imagine that for most it takes planning, lifts from a parent, money from a parent, etc. And what of all the 6 year olds who want to see the film, there's many who won't get the chance given all the talk of how the film is too dark and adult.

Can't they just say they're going to see Zootopia and go see Batman V Superman instead?
And **** the 6 year olds, movie wasn't made for 6 year olds. Last time they tried to appeal Batman for kids we ended up with Batman & Robin.

Chain Smoker

Chain Smoker wrote: »

I wasn't saying "isn't kid friendly" as in kids wouldn't be able to handle it but that parents would be scared off by some of the feedback, I guess "parent friendly" might be a more apt way of phrasing it. Sure I was watching the Silence of the Lambs when I was 8 and I turned out okay-ish, was watching Die Hard and the like from earlier still; there's gonna be some kids that'll see all sorts but the statistic tend to bear some weight that age ratings and the like do have an impact.

And a parent who lets their kid see it might not necessarily agree to letting their kid buy a ton of merchandise of a morally dubious batman.

I wasn't saying that, just that I have seen a lot of people saying that the film isn't suitable for kids. It happened with Batman Forever, someone told my dad that it was far too dark for me to see and I ended up having to wait till the day it came out on VHS and watching it with my dad at home. Afterward he said that had he'd have taken me to see it no problem.

ps3lover wrote: »

Can't they just say they're going to see Zootopia and go see Batman V Superman instead?
And **** the 6 year olds, movie wasn't made for 6 year olds. Last time they tried to appeal Batman for kids we ended up with Batman & Robin.

And how does millions of kids going to see Zootopia help the box office for this? When Rambo came out it was estimated that millions of dollars was spent on tickets for Meet the Spartans by teenagers who then snuck into Rambo.

FunLover18 wrote: »

I'm 25 and I found it boring and incoherent, I can't imagine it holding the interest of kids. I wouldn't say it's 'not kid friendly' as I don't think it's unsuitable, I just don't think it's very entertaining.

My 8 year old brother loved it, as did the kids of quite a few friends. Just because you didn't enjoy it does not mean that kids won't, in fact I'd say that most 8-12 year old boys would love it given that it's Batman and Superman fighting which is most kids dream team up.

FunLover18

Deleted User wrote:

My 8 year old brother loved it, as did the kids of quite a few friends. Just because you didn't enjoy it does not mean that kids won't, in fact I'd say that most 8-12 year old boys would love it given that it's Batman and Superman fighting which is most kids dream team up.

Of course, I'm not doubting you but at the same time just because one 8 year old enjoyed doesn't mean they all will. Kids are just as different in their opinions as adults. I would be genuinely curious to know what the consensus is amongst the 8-12 age bracket.

RedemptionZ

I've never heard of 8 year olds criticizing movies tbf. They might prefer one over the other but they'll watch basically anything they're allowed to. Most would probably enjoy it if only for the superhero theme. They'd probably love the Green Lantern too though. Some of the ****e I watched and enjoyed when I was younger would make BvS look oscar worthy.

ps3lover

I read they are planning to release the R rated cut of Batman V Superman into theatres.

Jan Van Eyck

Bruce Willis might make an interesting Batman.

FunLover18

RedemptionZ wrote: »

I've never heard of 8 year olds criticizing movies tbf. They might prefer one over the other but they'll watch basically anything they're allowed to. Most would probably enjoy it if only for the superhero theme. They'd probably love the Green Lantern too though. Some of the ****e I watched and enjoyed when I was younger would make BvS look oscar worthy.

This is where I'm coming from. I also watched and enjoyed a lot of ****, but there had to be something to enjoy. BvS for me lacks any sense of fun, I can imagine 8-12 year old being entertained by the action beats when they come around but I can't see the bits in between holding their attention much. That's just my opinion though, it doesn't bother me if kids enjoy it, it just surprises me.

Arghus

OwaynOTT wrote: »

I think the runaway success of Deadpool is akin to Leicester's City run in the league this year and Batman v Superman is kinda like Utd (if they had been top at any stage and faded away, I coulld have said Aresnal because there is a similarity in the subsequent drop off of both after a stellar start but Arsenal aren't a big enough name to be an anaology for batman and superman).

And that's enough of the football

You'll have to forgive me with the football analogies, but...

If you are going to compare Deadpool's success to a team's season, then Leicester probably isn't the best comparison. What's happening there is unprecedented: success literally no-one saw coming. Now Deadpool was a relatively minor comic book character and a bit of a risk because it was a hard R, but it had a lot of things in it's favour too:

- It had the Marvel brand, which is currently like box-office gold dust. A lot of people, who have not or will not ever read a comic, recognise Marvel as a movie studio and associate anything with that name on it as equating to a mix of competence and entertainment. Marvel is a bigger draw than some, if not most, of the characters it's making movies about; I think the brand was definitely a stronger draw than the characters for movies like Guardians of The Galaxy or Ant-Man; did those movies become hits because people knew or inherently cared about the heroes involved? Or was it more to do with the fact that they were Marvel movies - and that means, nine times out of ten, you'll be at least entertained with something slick and breezy?

- Deadpool was good and people, generally, found it funny and a breath of fresh air. Positive word of mouth helped generate big-bucks. Not to keep repeating myself, but I think that again underlines how strongly people trust Marvel; their formula is now so successful that they can afford to deviate from it, slightly, in the confidence that people will still turn up, if the product is considered good enough.

- Lets not forget about the marketing! Deadpool’s production budget does seem relatively modest, but, I'm sure the money spent plastering advertising just about everywhere for months and months before the film was released, was no small amount: it must have been massive. If Deadpool was to have failed, it wouldn't have been from lack of awareness from the public. I don't really buy this idea that it's some kind of "the little movie that could": it had serious financial fire-power to push and push it into the public consciousness, until it felt like a massive event movie.

I think if Deadpool had flopped, it would have been a major surprise. There was risk, but it was fairly calculated. It's made more money than it had been predicted to do, but it's definitely not the minnow punching way above it's weight. Leicester City? I think it's more like Athletico Madrid.

Chris_Heilong

I would have thought it was a very long and quiet film for kids but coming out of the Cinema all I could hear were 8 year olds singing its praise. My 10 year old son saw the film later with my brother and both of them loved it.

Mickeroo

Arghus wrote: »

You'll have to forgive me with the football analogies, but...

If you are going to compare Deadpool's success to a team's season, then Leicester probably isn't the best comparison. What's happening there is unprecedented: success literally no-one saw coming. Now Deadpool was a relatively minor comic book character and a bit of a risk because it was a hard R, but it had a lot of things in it's favour too:

- It had the Marvel brand, which is currently like box-office gold dust. A lot of people, who have not or will not ever read a comic, recognise Marvel as a movie studio and associate anything with that name on it as equating to a mix of competence and entertainment. Marvel is a bigger draw than some, if not most, of the characters it's making movies about; I think the brand was definitely a stronger draw than the characters for movies like Guardians of The Galaxy or Ant-Man; did those movies become hits because people knew or inherently cared about the heroes involved? Or was it more to do with the fact that they were Marvel movies - and that means, nine times out of ten, you'll be at least entertained with something slick and breezy?

- Deadpool was good and people, generally, found it funny and a breath of fresh air. Positive word of mouth helped generate big-bucks. Not to keep repeating myself, but I think that again underlines how strongly people trust Marvel; their formula is now so successful that they can afford to deviate from it, slightly, in the confidence that people will still turn up, if the product is considered good enough.

- Lets not forget about the marketing! Deadpool’s production budget does seem relatively modest, but, I'm sure the money spent plastering advertising just about everywhere for months and months before the film was released, was no small amount: it must have been massive. If Deadpool was to have failed, it wouldn't have been from lack of awareness from the public. I don't really buy this idea that it's some kind of "the little movie that could": it had serious financial fire-power to push and push it into the public consciousness, until it felt like a massive event movie.

I think if Deadpool had flopped, it would have been a major surprise. There was risk, but it was fairly calculated. It's made more money than it had been predicted to do, but it's definitely not the minnow punching way above it's weight. Leicester City? I think it's more like Athletico Madrid.

Your points are valid but Deadpool wasn't made by Marvel, it was made by Fox. Then again, maybe your post kind of shows the average punter doesn't know or care about that and think anything with a Marvel logo is a Marvel Studios film which possibly contributed to the film's success on some level. I think, like you say, the marketing was what made Deadpool a success (helped by the fact a lot of people liked the film too once it was released too).

Arghus

Mickeroo wrote: »

Your points are valid but Deadpool wasn't made by Marvel, it was made by Fox. Then again, maybe your post kind of shows the average punter doesn't know or care about that and think anything with a Marvel logo is a Marvel Studios film which possibly contributed to the film's success on some level. I think, like you say, the marketing was what made Deadpool a success (helped by the fact a lot of people liked the film too once it was released too).

Okay, I may have been technically wrong in not giving Fox ANY credit, but it was a co-production with Marvel studios, using Marvel characters, featuring Marvel's name ahead of Fox on advertising and promising some semblance of familiar, if slightly unfamiliar, Marvellous craic. Fox may have made sure that everything got done and everyone got paid but I think the name of their production partners was more responsible towards generating goodwill and eventual bums on seats.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't get the whole "the film isn't kid friendly" thing, my little brother who is 8 saw it opening weekend and loved it. All he wanted to do was come up to visit me and go see it again. There's a lot of adult content there but this is a film for 12 year old boys and it's a shame that so many won't get to experience it on the big screen. The dark tone of the film reminded me a little of all those great 80s films I grew up on, those films where death was often central to the plot. There was a similar out-lash against The Good Dinosaur with a lot of opinions pieces on how it was too dark for kids and I know plenty of people who didn't take their kids, which is a damn shame given just how good a film it is. There is nothing in Batman V Superman that is too adult, yes it explored adult themes and issues but so does a lot of great kids cinema.

Some adults think that kids can't watch anything except 'Frozen' or 'Bridge to Terabithia' or they'll be "damaged" in some way.

Shit...in my day kids were brought to see the likes of 'Jaws', 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'The Dark Crystal', 'Labyrinth' or 'Return to Oz' and we loved it.

Mickeroo

Tony EH wrote: »

Some adults think that kids can't watch anything except 'Frozen' or 'Bridge to Terabithia' or they'll be "damaged" in some way.

Shit...in my day kids were brought to see the likes of 'Jaws', 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'The Dark Crystal', 'Labyrinth' or 'Return to Oz' and we loved it.

Bridge to Terabithia was considerably more traumatic than any of those imo

Liam O

Arghus wrote: »

Okay, I may have been technically wrong in not giving Fox ANY credit, but it was a co-production with Marvel studios, using Marvel characters, featuring Marvel's name ahead of Fox on advertising and promising some semblance of familiar, if slightly unfamiliar, Marvellous craic. Fox may have made sure that everything got done and everyone got paid but I think the name of their production partners was more responsible towards generating goodwill and eventual bums on seats.

Fox have generally been pretty good at what they've done with regards their characters (well on the X-Men side of things-one or 2 misfires notwithstanding) so not sure how you can go without giving them a lot of credit. The last 2 X-Men films have been fantastic imo.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

Some adults think that kids can't watch anything except 'Frozen' or 'Bridge to Terabithia' or they'll be "damaged" in some way.

Shit...in my day kids were brought to see the likes of 'Jaws', 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'The Dark Crystal', 'Labyrinth' or 'Return to Oz' and we loved it.

Mickeroo wrote: »

Bridge to Terabithia was considerably more traumatic than any of those imo

While I don't know about you. But I remember seeing a man get devoured by a great white shark in one of those films.

Mickeroo

Tony EH wrote: »

While I don't know about you. But I remember seeing a man get devoured by a great white shark in one of those films.

I knew what I was signing up for with Jaws, Bridge to Terabithia wasn't even a fantasy film much less cheerful.

Hrududu

Mickeroo wrote: »

Bridge to Terabithia was considerably more traumatic than any of those imo

I'm with you on this.

cowboyBuilder

Finally saw this tonight, I was expecting it to be awful, and it wasn't that bad.

If they had removed Wonder Woman (waste of time nothing character - embarrasing really - just a pretty face)

Doomsday - what the f*ck was that ? - and the fight scenes with him.

Then the crap with Aquaman and the flash etc - it would have been a very good film.

But it was still enjoyable old rubbish.

Ben Afleck was a great Batman, as was Superman - I enjoyed all their scenes.

TonyD79

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Finally saw this tonight, I was expecting it to be awful, and it wasn't that bad.

If they had removed Wonder Woman (waste of time nothing character - embarrasing really - just a pretty face)

Doomsday - what the f*ck was that ? - and the fight scenes with him.

Then the crap with Aquaman and the flash etc - it would have been a very good film.

But it was still enjoyable old rubbish.

Ben Afleck was a great Batman, as was Superman - I enjoyed all their scenes.

The scenes with flash etc and Wonder Woman's involvement were needed really since DC haven't followed Marvels route when introducing the avengers. Perhaps you were expecting it to be tagged on to the end of the credits?

Bacchus

TonyD79 wrote: »

The scenes with flash etc and Wonder Woman's involvement were needed really since DC haven't followed Marvels route when introducing the avengers. Perhaps you were expecting it to be tagged on to the end of the credits?

Just because they were needed in WB's eyes doesn't mean that they worked in the movie. An end credits approach would have been better btw. Follow up on the final dialogue between BM and WW saying they need to find others like them and then have the end credits scene show BM finding the files on Luthors drive.

Between the forced scenes setting up future movies and the comments from Ayer that WB requested the reshoots of Suicide Squad, the idea that directors have free reign on the creative vision of the DCMU is being eroded (2 movies in).

mickoneill31

TonyD79 wrote: »

The scenes with flash etc and Wonder Woman's involvement were needed really since DC haven't followed Marvels route when introducing the avengers. Perhaps you were expecting it to be tagged on to the end of the credits?

That would have been the perfect place for them. It was a a perfect end credit scene, in the middle of the movie.

Penn

Bacchus wrote: »

Just because they were needed in WB's eyes doesn't mean that they worked in the movie. An end credits approach would have been better btw. Follow up on the final dialogue between BM and WW saying they need to find others like them and then have the end credits scene show BM finding the files on Luthors drive.

Between the forced scenes setting up future movies and the comments from Ayer that WB requested the reshoots of Suicide Squad, the idea that directors have free reign on the creative vision of the DCMU is being eroded (2 movies in).

I didn't mind really WW or her watching the short clips of the others. But the Knightmare sequence and Flash coming back from the future or whatever was way over the top, to the point where it completely takes you out of the movie you're watching to watch a setup for stuff that might not be relevant for another 3-4 movies.

There's a difference between hinting at what's to come, and spending 5 minutes in the middle of a movie showing you a dream/possible-alternative-future of completely different versions of characters, some of whom haven't even been introduced yet (many people who watched it didn't even cop it was The Flash first time round).

That's why Marvel do them during the credits. They don't interfere with the actual movie you're watching, and they get to the point fairly quickly.

cowboyBuilder

TonyD79 wrote: »

The scenes with flash etc and Wonder Woman's involvement were needed really since DC haven't followed Marvels route when introducing the avengers. Perhaps you were expecting it to be tagged on to the end of the credits?

The movie was Batman v Superman.

Not Batman v Superman teaming up with Wonder Woman with brief introductions to the Flash, Water man, some fire scientist etc....

cowboyBuilder

Who was Lex talking about at the end ?

They heard the call, they woke them up ??

Otacon

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Who was Lex talking about at the end ?

They heard the call, they woke them up ??

Darkseid

GAAman

Expecting DC to do a credits scene is like expecting burger king to do a big mac

Otacon

GAAman wrote: »

Expecting DC to do a credits scene is like expecting burger king to do a big mac

Penn

GAAman wrote: »

Expecting DC to do a credits scene is like expecting burger king to do a big mac

Yeah but shoehorning in 5 minutes of "This will all make sense 3 years from now" is like forcing you to have a bite of a chicken kiev while you're eating your Whopper. Neither will taste as good as they would have with some degree of separation between them.

Nervous Wreck

GAAman wrote: »

Expecting DC to do a credits scene is like expecting burger king to do a big mac

They did one for the Green Lantern movie. They now seem to be pointedly not doing them because they seem to think it's a Marvel thing but it's been done way before Marvel so I don't get their reluctance. As people have said, it'd make their movies flow much more to have the self-contained movie but with an epilogue to set up future characters/plot lines.

SteM

GAAman wrote: »

Expecting DC to do a credits scene is like expecting burger king to do a big mac

Not only is that an awful analogy but now you've made me want a burger!

GAAman

SteM wrote: »

Not only is that an awful analogy but now you've made me want a burger!

I'm the hero fast food places need....

:cool:

Mickeroo

Don't think after credits was necessary, just better editing regards the future vision(which seemed completely out of place and daft) and a more organic way to work the other heroes in. A proper role for WW would have helped too, while I thought Gadot did alright with what she was given she could have been edited out of the film completely and it wouldn't have changed how anything played out very much.

Bacchus

Mickeroo wrote: »

Don't think after credits was necessary, just better editing regards the future vision(which seemed completely out of place and daft) and a more organic way to work the other heroes in.

That would also have been fine. Main problem with the JL intros and the dream sequences was how jarring it was. I said it in my original review but all I could think when we got one of them was "and we now return to our scheduled broadcast". They were so out of place and ruined the flow of the movie. So either solution (post credits or better, more organic editing) would have been better.

Mickeroo wrote: »

A proper role for WW would have helped too, while I thought Gadot did alright with what she was given she could have been edited out of the film completely and it wouldn't have changed how anything played out very much.

Agreed, her character did nothing for 2 hours and then shows up with a mega guitar riff and a sword for the mega brawl. All she seemed to do was do to drift from party to party. Her whole subplot of trying to get the photo was nonsense too... 1. What was her plan to get it? Only for Batman with his super tech she'd have been at a loss. She couldn't even decrypt the files in the end anyway 2. What does stealing a copy of a photo achieve? The original (and other copies) will still exist regardless. She worked very well in the fight though. However, again, the fight could easily have been reworked that Superman focused on Doomsday while Batman went to get the spear.

cowboyBuilder

Otacon wrote: »

Darkseid

OK, so comic book universe stuff ?

Is there a nice summary of all the extra characters ?

also did I miss a credits scene ?

e_e

I've come to the conclusion that this film would have been so much tighter and more thoughtful if it just ditched the villain altogether. Instead of being about two heroes we love with different ideologies tragically trying to destroy each other it becomes about 2 uncharismatic lunkheads falling for the most idiotic and inconsistent evil masterplan ever. Hell it could have even given Wonder Woman more to do with her stopping them from fighting and moving into the Justice League.

There is "why did they do it this way?" stuff all over Dawn of Justice. I'm still baffled by it weeks later.

SteM

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

also did I miss a credits scene ?

Nope.

cowboyBuilder

Wonder woman taking a Turkish Airways flight somewhere, could she not just have hopped to wherever she was going ?

e_e

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Wonder woman taking a Turkish Airways flight somewhere, could she not just have hopped to wherever she was going ?

I liked that scene of the heroine deciding not to fly off somewhere while everything was going to hell... when it was in The Dark Knight Rises.

JakeArmitage

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Wonder woman taking a Turkish Airways flight somewhere, could she not just have hopped to wherever she was going ?

Wonder women can fly

Brief_Lives

Reports that the directors cut could be nearly 4 hours long..
I'd watch that from the comfort of my couch ...... and toilet, and couch again....

techdiver

Brief_Lives wrote: »

Reports that the directors cut could be nearly 4 hours long..
I'd watch that from the comfort of my couch and toilet, and couch again....

No, the original cut of the movie was 4 hours long. The extended edition is conformed as being 3 hours. No wonder the pacing was off, considering the movie was essentially cut in half!

Makes me think that they should have done a 2 part series. The could have released them close together too (within a year). I do remember a rumour about a year and a half ago about that happening. Part 1 was to be called "Enter the Knight" and part 2 was to be "Dawn of Justice". I wonder was there any credence to that rumor after all and was it considered??

It might have made more sense overall...

Ben Gadot

It's been a hard month for DC fans. Their tentpole universally panned while Marvel get their best plaudits to date.

Yet you can't take anything away from Marvel, as most of their success on screen has been down to the credit of their B players.

WB and DC had their A++ players on screen and they produced a luke warm to derisive effort. I liked this film but there's no getting away from the fact that it has failed miserably.

The most frustrating thing is that there's nothing special about the Marvel format. Their films are the definition of simplicity yet the masses can't get enough. The only films of theirs I've watched more than once are the phase 1 films, after that while entertaining on first viewing, they become forgettable.

How DC didn't make lemonade out of that I'll never know.

techdiver

Ben Gadot wrote: »

It's been a hard month for DC fans. Their tentpole universally panned while Marvel get their best plaudits to date.

Yet you can't take anything away from Marvel, as most of their success on screen has been down to the credit of their B players.

WB and DC had their A++ players on screen and they produced a luke warm to derisive effort. I liked this film but there's no getting away from the fact that it has failed miserably.

The most frustrating thing is that there's nothing special about the Marvel format. Their films are the definition of simplicity yet the masses can't get enough. The only films of theirs I've watched more than once are the phase 1 films, after that while entertaining on first viewing, they become forgettable.

How DC didn't make lemonade out of that I'll never know.

Yeah, it's depressing and almost predictable at this stage.

Whilst I am a fan of both DC and Marvel, Superman and Batman are my favourite's. Along with Spiderman in Marvel. So oddly enough, the characters I like the best are the ones not getting the plaudits of late (Spiderman being the black sheep of Marvel properties, even if it was fostered by Sony).

Whilst I really enjoyed BvS and I believe the complete slating it received is over the top, I'm not too blinkered to look past the obvious problems with the movie. At this stage I hope we can dump the whole angry, brooding Superman and get back to what the character really stands for. I do think it is time to jettison Snyder, he is a poison brand and can't be given creative control any more. He is great visually (the opening sequence is really beautiful in BvS), but he tends to lose the run of himself. It is probably too late for Justice League Part 1 at this stage and unless he pulls a critical and commercial hit out of the bag (based on his history, I can't see it happening), I can't see how WB can stick by him.

I still want the DC movies to distinguish themselves from the Marvel ones. I do fine them too slapstick at times. I think a balance can be found.