Snyder could have worked for Batman, or some violent character...but not for Superman. (And let's lay blame on the writers too... for every good thing, there was something that sabotaged it)'.
I'm not much of a fan of his take on Batman either. Way too Frank Miller.
Here's the thing people like Zach & Frank don't get about Batman: he's not that brutal. 70% of what he does is psychological. He's there to scare the shit out of people as it makes it easier to put them down and keep them down.
Snyder's Batman was outright murderous, clearly killing people left and right and *enjoying it*. That may appeal to hyperactive and slightly bloodthirsty 12 year olds, but it's not what he's about.
Take the scene where he rescues Martha Kent: very cool and well executed...except that at every opportunity it's taken a step too far. Bruce's whole thing is control and self discipline. He's one of the most skilled martial artists on the planet and at this point in his career; a seasoned veteran. He doesn't need to kill or maim anyone. He's that good that he can take out a warehouse full of heavily armed thugs without causing anything worse than a few broken bones and a mild concussion. He's not a murderer or a sadist. That's mostly a reflection of Frank Miller's own twisted little brain.
The thing is... DC already HAS the big group of "Super Friends" in the public consciousness, that they COULD have STARTED that way, and really should have.
Public awareness only really extends to Batman and Superman and all that's really worth is that you can more or less skip over the Crime Alley/Krypon origins. You still need an actual *story* to introduce that version of them to the audience to give them a reason to care. After all, a team-up isn't about people wearing the costumes hanging out with each other, it's about the specific character interactions.
Avengers wouldn't have worked without the lead up movies because more important than their origins; they establish each character's identity and personality.
Since they seemed to have made the decision *after* they'd already made a Superman origin movie, they should have just continued as they were headed. Do a "Man of Steel 2", this time maybe lay in some hints at wider DC universe, or even have Bruce Wayne and/or Diana Prince actually show up in a scene or too, but no Batman or Wonder Woman. Let Clark have the movie to himself and actually build Lex up as an ongoing threat. One who's neck he can't just snap and be done with.
Then you do "post Death in The Family" Batman movie, again, maybe have Clark and/or Diana, or even Lex show up but no other capes beyond perhaps some Daily Planet headlines or news footage. Indeed, the the idea in BvS to show Bruce's perspective of Zod's attack was a good one and something they could have built part of the movie around without needing to make it about killing Superman.
After that you're free to do 'Wonder Woman' and 'The Flash'. At which point you can either jump straight into JL, or do a 'World's Finest' instead of BvS, with Lex as the main antagonist *then* go full JL. You can even keep Apokolips as the "big bad" by layering it into all the other movies as part of the build up.
Steppenwolf would have been ideal as Lex Luthor's "partner" in MoS2 (though I think Desaad or G. Gordon Godfrey would be a better fit.) Intergang being puppeteered by Granny Goodness would have worked for 'The Flash'. And the Old Gods/New Gods dynamic is perfect for Wonder Woman; hell the movie as is would work perfectly fine, you just switch out the reveal to show that Ares really is dead and David Thewlis's character is actually Steppenwolf.
That way. by the time you get to JL, not only are the heroes established, so are the villains.
Really, take away the stylization of the art in the movie and what are you left with?
Besides a well told and heartfelt story about embracing self-identity, the pressures of expectations, responsibility in a position of power, what it's like to feel like an outsider or an "other", how life choices and their consequences can define a person? Well, an awesome soundtrack, obviously!
BTW: saying "take away the visuals from a movie" is like saying "take away the prose from a novel", "take away the canvas from a painting" or "remove the spinal cord of an Olympic gymnast". It's a faulty premise on which to assess merit as it's an integral component of the whole.
To say nothing of Kingpin's idiotic motivations.
His motivations weren't idiotic: he lost his family and wanted them back. Sure, he literally drove them away to their deaths and his method of bringing them back could have obliterated the universe in the process but then he *is* a super-villain, no?
