Spoilers Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Grading & Discussion

[JacksonArcher]

Even better question: why didn't they write a tight two-hour movie instead of a cluttered three-hour one? Each of the four pre-Avengers MCU movies was about two hours even, and none have so far exceeded 2:30 (not counting five minutes of end credits). Raiders of the Lost Ark is 1:55. The Wrath of Khan, 1:53. Hell, Casablanca is only 1:42.

Movies generally don't end up being three hours by accident. Filmmakers are fairly savvy about scripts' page-to-minute ratios, and goodness knows the studios have the money to record and edit table read to time things out. Heck, combine that with the storyboards that are being drawn anyway, and you can pretty much preview your own movie. That the studio apparently didn't demand a page one rewrite when Snyder and Co. presented their three-hour script was an, if not the, early problem.

As someone that has some filmmaking experience, I'll argue that running length is always a variable when it comes to workprint edits. My films are always longer than the script. Sometimes by a lot and sometimes only a few minutes longer than the projected length. It is possible Snyder and company always figured the movie would be long. If you read an interview with the film's editor, David Brenner, it sounds like everyone involved in the film knew it was always going to be long, too.

Snyder has gone on record saying the Ultimate Edition was his preferred version of the film - the version he wanted to release. It sounds like for a long while that version was always going to be the one intended for release until some executives at Warner Bros. got nervous and ordered trimming. If you watch the Theatrical Cut, it reeks of last minute tinkering. Scenes abruptly transition from one to the other, with very minimal flow from one scene to the next. The Ultimate Edition actually feels like a cohesive film with a narrative that makes sense and editing transitions that don't make you scratch your head in literal confusion.

I still think the film as a whole has some fundamental story problems, but the Ultimate Edition is a much stronger film. I don't think all of the blame can be laid at Snyder's feet, at least not for the Ultimate Edition. I think WB should have committed to the three hour version if that was the version Snyder always intended to make. And yes, while most of the Marvel films are two hours, they had the advantage of being standalone adventures introducing solo heroes. Batman v Superman had the almost insurmountable task of being a sequel to Man of Steel and introducing a new Bruce Wayne, Alfred, Lex Luthor, Diana Price/Wonder Woman while simultaneously planting the seeds for the Justice League, future storylines/installments and addressing fans' concerns from the last movie. I'm not sure in which universe Batman v Superman could have been a good two hour movie with all of that to address.

Perhaps if WB actually made a standalone Superman sequel, rebooted Batman and perhaps made the Wonder Woman film before tossing them all together in one film that was suppose to set all this up, a Batman/Superman film could have been 2 hours. However, that's not how WB went about doing this, so alas.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

...because its supposed to be serious. This is a dark universe, and has little room for Guardians-style quips, or heroes running around grinning. If that was the aim, they could have repackaged the 1979 Legends of the Super Heroes

Why do people only go for complete extremes on their examples and forget that it's possible to have a well done middle ground that still can skew closer to the darker/more serious side of things yet not get (seemingly) completely engulfed in it? When people say it's too serious, they don't automatically want it to be Guardians of the Galaxy or Deadpool.

 

[Gaith]

It is possible Snyder and company always figured the movie would be long. If you read an interview with the film's editor, David Brenner, it sounds like everyone involved in the film knew it was always going to be long, too.

Exactly, and that was one of the core problems. They came up with a weak story, and thought it was worth three hours of screen time. It wasn't.

I think WB should have committed to the three hour version if that was the version Snyder always intended to make.

Again, no, they should have demanded a more concise, tighter story. Failing that, they should have scrapped the useless Africa subplot and had Lois be investigating Luthor. They should have told Snyder not to revisit the Wayne murders in painterly, ponderous detail. They could have cut the entire Metropolis/Bruce flashback sequence and shown him helplessly watching on TV from the other side of the world while on a business trip. They should have justified Diana's presence in the movie by having her be the one to yank Bruce back to his senses, rather than to provide some extra muscle any other powered character could have done. They should have cut the Senate subplot, and just have some rogue element of the government be all in with Luthor and his suspicion of the god in their midst. They could have had Lex figure out a way to mind-control Supes into being evil, thus requiring Batman to fight him for non-stupid reasons, while also negating any need for Doomsday. Boom - that's definitely half an hour of cuts from the theatrical right there, and a much better two-hour story. (If I may say so myself. )

I'm not sure in which universe Batman v Superman could have been a good two hour movie with all of that to address.

The same universe in which Casablanca, Jurassic Park, The Fifth Element, The Mummy ('99), Ocean's Eleven ('01), Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Valkyrie, Iron Man, Thor, Charlie Wilson's War, Guardians of the Galaxy, and countless other movies over the decades have successfully juggled large casts and multiple plot elements plus action sequences in two hours or less. Good TV pilots do that in just 40-60 minutes every year. Great writers can do wonders with two hours. WB could've hired some... but they chose not to.

 

[dahj]

they should have demanded ... they should have scrapped the useless ... They should have told Snyder not to ...They could have cut the ... They should have justified ... They should have cut the ...They could have had

You seem to wanna watch movies designed by a committee. There's plenty of those.

I'm glad though that WB and DCEU aren't going that route...

 

[Tosk]

I'll take a committee over Goyer. But I'm glad it doesn't have to be either/or.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

...because its supposed to be serious. This is a dark universe, and has little room for Guardians-style quips, or heroes running around grinning. If that was the aim, they could have repackaged the 1979 Legends of the Super Heroes...

Serious doesn't have to mean grim and pompous, which is what this movie was (I'm referring to the theatrical cut, personally, fyi). And this universe, according to the makers of it, actually isn't supposed to be anywhere near as super-serious as you apparently think. We're only a few months away from Suicide Squad, which has been repeatedly compared to GotG based on the trailers, and we've had direct confirmation that the Justice League movie will have a lighter tone, along with the repeated claim that that was always the plan. This tone was nothing more than a deliberate creative choice for this particular movie (I know some will pull MoS into that claim as well, but I found the MoS tone much more compelling and generally less pompous than this one - with even an actual hint of playfullness every now and then). And it was a deliberate choice that didn't work out very well. (Obviously, some may disagree with that)

 

[Pingfah]

Watched the extended cut yesterday, haven't seen the theatrical cut.

Awful. Awful film. I cannot even muster up the effort to critique it. That would be an even bigger waste of time than watching it was. Boring shite.

 

[Commander Richard]

...they should have scrapped the useless Africa subplot and had Lois be investigating Luthor.

I'm indifferent about that part but I do wish that Jimmy Olsen wasn't killed off.

They should have told Snyder not to revisit the Wayne murders in painterly, ponderous detail.

I agree to a point. It did feel like we didn't need to see this again.

They could have cut the entire Metropolis/Bruce flashback sequence and shown him helplessly watching on TV from the other side of the world while on a business trip.

Seeing the destruction of Metropolis from Bruce's perspective was a strong start and one of the best parts of the movie. I wouldn't want that replace by him watching it on TV.

They should have justified Diana's presence in the movie by having her be the one to yank Bruce back to his senses, rather than to provide some extra muscle any other powered character could have done.

I liked her suddenly showing up in the nick of time. Plus, I think that she herself was a bit jaded on humanity and needed to come around after a century of exile. Fleshing that out a bit more and perhaps even having her movie come out before this one might have been helpful.

They should have cut the Senate subplot, and just have some rogue element of the government be all in with Luthor and his suspicion of the god in their midst.

I'm indifferent about that stuff too so I don't have any real opinion.

They could have had Lex figure out a way to mind-control Supes into being evil, thus requiring Batman to fight him for non-stupid reasons, while also negating any need for Doomsday.

Too soon to make Superman evil. We were at the stage where he needed to deal with the aftermath of Metropolis and gain people's trust in general as a hero.

 

[Gaith]

You seem to wanna watch movies designed by a committee. There's plenty of those.
I'm glad though that WB and DCEU aren't going that route...

Don't kid yourself: with very rare exceptions (the Star Wars prequels are the most prominent example), all mega-budget movies are made by a team of writers, producers, and executives, this one included. Besides, I'll take a good movie over a bad one any day, and so long as it's good, I don't much care how many people shaped it.

I think that she herself was a bit jaded on humanity and needed to come around after a century of exile. Fleshing that out a bit more and perhaps even having her movie come out before this one might have been helpful.

And the sudden appearance of an alien monster baby restores said faith?! Though I agree with your implication there was no good story reason for her to be in the movie at all. I really thought Lois would be the one to show up and break Bruce's murder-fever. That it turned out to be neither of them was baffling...

Too soon to make Superman evil. We were at the stage where he needed to deal with the aftermath of Metropolis and gain people's trust in general as a hero.

Well, that begs the question of did we really need a whole movie built around the promise of those two fighting each other in the first place, a movie heavily inspired by a specific, very dark/dystopian graphic novel written by a crazy person that reflected on decades of more friendly interactions? Myself, I'm of the don't mix Bats and Supes at all camp, so...

 

[davejames]

Why do people only go for complete extremes on their examples and forget that it's possible to have a well done middle ground that still can skew closer to the darker/more serious side of things yet not get (seemingly) completely engulfed in it? When people say it's too serious, they don't automatically want it to be Guardians of the Galaxy or Deadpool.

Exactly. I have no problem with serious movies or even serious superhero movies, but this one was SO grim and serious (and full of brutal murders and incredibly bitter and angry characters and lots of pretentious dialogue about gods and devils), that it just seemed to completely consume the movie. Nolan's Batman movies had a lot of those same things too, but it was balanced out with more naturalistic dialogue, plenty of characters who didn't take themselves too seriously, and just an underlying sense of fun and wonder in watching Batman in action.

Obviously I wasn't expecting BvS to be as fun and comic booky as the old Batman/Superman animated movie here, but that doesn't mean it was necessary to make the world as viciously real and bloody and depressing as they did in order to set up this fight between the characters. And it wasn't necessary to hammer us over the head continuously with just how important and symbolic the entire thing was. I mean, ok, we get it already! Ugh.

 

[Commander Richard]

And the sudden appearance of an alien monster baby restores said faith?!

No but it did set up a good reason for her to come out of hiding and help.

Though I agree with your implication there was no good story reason for her to be in the movie at all.

I wasn't suggesting that there was no good reason for her to be in the movie. I was just countering your suggestion that she should have been the one to talk Bruce down. I think that her presence and lack of involvement was fine the way it was but if I had to offer an alternative maybe they could have simply done a bit more to explore that.

Well, that begs the question of did we really need a whole movie built around the promise of those two fighting each other in the first place, a movie heavily inspired by a specific, very dark/dystopian graphic novel written by a crazy person that reflected on decades of more friendly interactions?

I thought that The Man of Steel was also an inspiration for the movie.

 

[Garak]

Saw the extended cut. Still don't get all the hate. This is by no means a masterpiece but is a good, well shot and entertaining movie. I really like the tone of it, the action is just fantastic and I love how it's the precursor to the Justice League. The story flows along better with the extended cut for sure.

Batfleck still holds up as a really solid Batman, this still surprises me. Jesse Eisenberg isn't a very good Luthor at all. Henry Cavill is great. Gal Gadot nailed it, wish she had more screen time. Jeremy Irons is awesome. Lois Lane is kinda meh, thought she was much better in Man of Steel.

Bring on more of this universe! I think it's great how we have two distinctly different comic book universes, it's a good time to be alive if you're into that sort of thing.

 

[dahj]

Gal Gadot nailed it, wish she had more screen time.

Just under 11 months now till she has a whole movie's worth of screentime

 

[ichab]

Saw the extended cut. Still don't get all the hate. This is by no means a masterpiece but is a good, well shot and entertaining movie. I really like the tone of it, the action is just fantastic and I love how it's the precursor to the Justice League. The story flows along better with the extended cut for sure.

Batfleck still holds up as a really solid Batman, this still surprises me. Jesse Eisenberg isn't a very good Luthor at all. Henry Cavill is great. Gal Gadot nailed it, wish she had more screen time. Jeremy Irons is awesome. Lois Lane is kinda meh, thought she was much better in Man of Steel.

Bring on more of this universe! I think it's great how we have two distinctly different comic book universes, it's a good time to be alive if you're into that sort of thing.

I enjoyed it very much as well but understand why it's not everyone's cup of tea. It's a movie grounded in reality that just happens to have superheroes in it whereas a Marvel movie is always reminding you every five minutes that it's a superhero movie and never takes itself seriously.

I am also glad that both are taking different approaches so that viewers have a real choice.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

And this universe, according to the makers of it, actually isn't supposed to be anywhere near as super-serious as you apparently think.

They knew what they were shooting, and selected all that made the final cut. BVS was intended to be grim, with its very up-front themes of Superman not acting as God, the mass murder at the hearing, Batman/Wayne's mission to kill (murder) Superman, etc. That's not the CW Flash, or any other lighter material, so if the producers claim they were not trying to be "super serious," then they must have been working on another film at the same time BVS was written, shot and finished. Further, there was a noisy group of fans who complained about how dark BVS (and Man of Steel) was, comparing it to the "lighter" moments or tone in the Marvel movies--Civil War included. They were not complaining for no reason.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

BvS was quite grim and dark, and that was the filmmakers's intend. However, I remember days before the release one of them (don't remember who exactly, but it might very well have been Snyder himself) suggested that BvS was like the "Empire strikes back" of the DC movieverse, saying that following movies would not be as dark and lighter in tone. Furthermore, reports from the set visits of "Justice League" further suggest the lighter and even more humorous approach for that movie. "Suicide Squad" also looks way more humorous. Therefore, while BvS (and to a lesser extend MoS) were quite dark and serious, the same can not be said about the overall universe of these movies. The following movies will be lighter, funnier and more optimistic in tone. To what extent remains to be seen, of course.

 

[Tosk]

I remember days before the release one of them (don't remember who exactly, but it might very well have been Snyder himself)

It was Chris Terrio.

 

[Showdown]

I remembering hearing BvS would be the darkest too. Let's hope the next films will find a better balance of dark grim and levity.

 

[Gaith]

It's a movie grounded in reality

No.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Which reality are the DC movies grounded in? Certainly not the one I'm familiar with.