You know, I had no idea just how annoyingly clueless and impulsively blunt people could be until just a few years ago and each day since then, I have been more than surprised by their presence all over the internet. For this occasion, I am speaking of the people who have not only made their hatred towards MOS and/or everything Superman related known, but are basing what they think is going to happen in BVS solely on this hatred; not providing any proof to these claims such as:
1. They brought in Batman because MOS sucked
2. Chris Terrio will fix all of MOS' mistakes
3. Martha Kent is still cold and heartless
4. They have to have Batman win because he is more popular and the movie is based on "The Dark Knight Returns"
5. They are addressing the MOS destruction because of fan reactions
Though part of me feels this will be a pointless endeavor, I will see if I can reach out to people who aren't above reason. And thanks goes to @EricBorder for his assistance and references when I began writing this.
1. They brought in Batman because MOS sucked
See now, I HAD to address this one first because this is the most common (and stupid) claim, as Batman was in the plans for the sequel before MOS even came out. Evidence supporting this is that on 06/10/2013, just four days before MOS was released, the sequel was greenlit. On 07/20/2013, just a month and six days after MOS was released (and exactly one day shy of the end of MOS' full three-month theater run on 09/19/2013), it was announced at comic-con that Batman was being introduced in a cinematic format in this sequel. That being said, Batman wasn't brought in by the "money-hungry studio executives who felt Man of Steel didn't bring in big bucks like Batman". This was clearly planned even before MOS came out like I said. Last-minute, rushed ideas aren't WB's thing this time around. Just as well, we were informed of what to expect from MOS YEARS in advance; Zack Snyder telling us on 10/15/2010 that MOS wouldn't be based off of any comic in particular and Dylan Sprayberry telling us on 04/11/2012 that MOS would be far edgier, dramatic, and more serious than any form of Superman film media to date. Further evidence of Batman's appearance in the sequel is that in the actual MOS film, Batman references were made in the form of "Keep Calm and Call Batman" and The Wayne Enterprises satellite destroyed by Zod; the only other references being consistently conveyed like that in the film are for LEXCORP. Eventually, Zack decided to reveal the truth about Batman's appearance via this quote on 04/18/2014 titled, "Zack Snyder explains how Batman ended up in the Man of Steel sequel",
"After Man of Steel finished and we started talking about what would be in the next movie, I started subtly mentioning that it would be cool if he faced Batman... You're in a story meeting talking about, like, who should [Superman] fight if he fought this giant alien threat Zod who was basically his equal physically, from his planet, fighting on our turf... You know, who to fight next?... But I'm not gonna say at all that when I took the job to do Man of Steel that I did it in a subversive way to get to Batman. I really believe that only after contemplating who could face [Superman] did Batman come into the picture."
Zack deeply cares about Superman and his MOS film, as did many people contrary to popular belief. Saying it sucked is a question of opinion amongst Donner fans, random critics, followers of the old school boy-scout Supes, and ultimately the people who ACTUALLY follow the comics. Ignoring them, the general movie-going audience pretty much loved it. Sure the critics gave it an average score, but who cares about critics? They are just snooty/stiff people who get paid to voice their opinion, which doesn't matter in the long run. It's the opinions of the audience that matters, as we are the ones expending all of the money to go see the film, thus giving the company a reward for their investment. As for the audience's rating for MOS, it was an A to A- on a scale of A+ to F. Which means, no matter what the detractors say, MOS is in fact a hit for many and was never in any danger of being upstaged by the cinematic return of Batman. Besides, I would hardly say a movie that grossed more than $668 million is generally unappealing or a failing disappointment; especially when it outgrossed every prior Superman film (obviously), the origin/reboot film Batman Begins ($372 million), and every Marvel Origin film (Iron Man-$585.2 million, The Incredible Hulk-$263.4 million, Thor-$449.2 million, Cap: TFA-$370.6 million, and Ant-Man's $519.3 million; it also made more than Iron man 2's $623.9 million, but that isn't an origin story, so it doesn't count).
2. Chris Terrio will fix all of MOS' mistakes
I actually hadn't heard this one too much, but I've heard it enough to want to include it in this article. Terrio is a great writer, having scripted "Argo" and all. But I would hardly say he was brought in to replace Goyer due to his so-called failure with writing MOS (even the critics I refuse to listen to praised Goyer's MOS script among other things). And what makes people think retconning or re-explaining what people considered to be flaws and plotholes in MOS are an option when the man who directed it is also directing BVS and has gotten away with other fan disapprovals such as casting Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, and Jesse Eisenberg in addition to his earlier getting his way with Superman killing Zod? That's just not smart thinking. And in any case, Terrio replaced Goyer because Goyer had commitments to other projects as stated in an article on 12/18/2013 titled, "Batman VS. Superman script getting rewrite by Argo writer".
3. Martha Kent is still cold and heartless
For some reason, this one infuriates me more than the others and yet, it is only number 3. MOS detractors have made it clear that one of the things they detested the most was the portrayal of Jonathan and Martha Kent and I myself defended the portrayal like many others by saying they were simply being portrayed as parents who put their child before anything and everything else; as any true parent would. Jonathan Kent received most of the hate in MOS, but because he is now deceased, that hatred seems to be descended upon Martha due to the one line she has in the second BVS trailer being something many don't at all agree with,
Martha: People hate what they don't understand. Be their hero, Clark. Be their angel. Be their monument. Be whatever they need you to be…or be none of it. You don't owe this world a thing. You never did.
From a close-minded perspective, that may be cold and heartless, but it isn't. That is an example of a mother talking to her son, not a woman talking to her hero. Martha is the type who wouldn't tell her son to do something simply because he has the ability to do it. She would only advise and support his decision no matter what it is and love him regardless of the outcome. Know what that's called? A mother. A true mother. I know. I was raised primarily by mine.
And Martha is darn right that Superman doesn't owe the world anything. He didn't ask to be born. He didn't ask to be sent to Earth. He didn't ask to be given power. To top it all off, he has dealt with much ridicule and criticism throughout his life, yet that never stopped him from saving us all in MOS and like how he is still doing 18 months later in BVS.
4. They have to have Batman win the fight because he is more popular and the movie is based on "The Dark Knight Returns"
This one doesn't enrage me as much as the Martha Kent criticism, but believe me, that doesn't mean it doesn't make me angry either. How many times does Zack have to tell people that BVS is only inspired by TDKR, not adapted from it? Inspired means he is just taking ideas from the comic (like the fact that this is an older/experienced Batman with a metallic suit and a conflict with Superman) while treating the film as its own. He made this clear on multiple occasions. At one point, he even said that he is a big fan of TDKR and that incarnation of Superman (even if he is inaccurately portrayed), but he also said that he used that particular version of the big guy as a means to understand what NOT to do with him in the DCEU. This was made clear as well when in MOS, Superman trashed a surveillance drone in front of Swanwick and told him to back off of trying to spy on him, as he is going to work on his terms only. Here's a quote from Snyder concerning the BVS and TDKR comparisons; released on 11/12/2013…
"If you were going to do that, you would need a different Superman. We're bringing Batman into the universe that now this Superman lives in."
The thing that makes me even angrier than the above claim is the popularity bullcrap. Seriously? Comics and video games are one thing, but film is something else entirely. They are not going to make Superman look like a joke for the sake of making Batman look good. That's ridiculous. And may I remind people that this new cinematic iteration of Batman will actually be closer to the comic book version unlike all of his previous movie portrayals (even though he is rumored to take great delight in torturing criminals and is an actual playboy as opposed to pretending to be one to throw off suspicion). That being said, here is a little education for the fanboys who don't read comics and are only into Batman for the video games and Nolan films. Comics Batman, though incredibly awesome, is well-aware of his limitations and constantly refers to others, particularly Superman. Batman is also the one who gets roughed up and captured the most and is often portrayed as only a part-time League member, preferring to stay in Gotham most of the time. In addition, the majority of Batman's greatest feats involve his surviving, not winning. Also, contrary to popular belief, in comics, Batman's plans don't always work and he doesn't always have time to plan, hence why he has to rely on tactics as opposed to strategy.
BVS' Batman will have a plan against Superman and he will most definitely prove himself formidable to the unsuspecting novice protector of Metropolis, but don't think that means the Dark Knight won't get roughed up as well.
5. They are addressing the MOS destruction because of fan reactions
Now this…this is ignorance at its absolute finest. I am not going to waste my time again explaining to clueless detractors how mass destruction is recurring in Superman comics just like it was in MOS. Instead, I am going to get right to the point and say this claim is 110% WRONG. Zack Snyder said at the very beginning that he always intended to cause an incredible amount of destruction and casualties and explain it later. The day he truly clarified this was on 08/29/2013, just two months and slightly less than two weeks after MOS came out. This clarification is under the title, "Zack Snyder talks Superman's dilemma and the mass destruction in Man of Steel" and the entire article can be found on Screenrant. But to save you some trouble, here's what Snyder had to say on 08/29/2013 concerning the destruction being in his plan:
"I wanted the movie to have a mythological feeling. In ancient mythology, mass deaths are used to symbolize disasters. In other countries like Greece and Japan, myths were recounted through generations, partly to answer unanswerable questions about death and violence. In America, we don't have that legacy of ancient mythology. Superman (who first appeared in 1938) is probably the closest thing we get. It's a way of recounting the myth."
However, in a recent-ish interview, he has come forth about the destruction in MOS serving a purpose beyond spectacle. This interview occurred on 07/05/2015. Zack Snyder said and I quote in reference to the destruction in MOS,
"I was surprised because that's the thesis of Superman for me, that you can't just have superheroes knock around and have there be no consequences."
The full interview can be found under the title, "Zack Snyder defends Man of Steel ending". Also, on 06/27/2013, just one day shy of two weeks after MOS came out, Zack spoke of his plans concerning the ramifications of MOS' events in an article titled "Zack Snyder talks Man of Steel Sequel; Hints at Lex Luthor and Kryptonite in the Future". Even Batman himself Ben Affleck said that the destruction plays a big part and it is one of the main reasons he was attracted to the project. Having his interview the same day as Zack, Ben said and I quote:
"One of the things I liked was Zack's idea of showing accountability and the consequences of violence and seeing that there are real people in those buildings. And in fact, one of those buildings was Bruce Wayne's building so he knew people who died in that Black Zero event."
I really shouldn't be surprised by the amount of ignorance given the fact that BVS is a film built on the foundation of MOS, a film only half the cinematic audience and comics fandom appreciates. But, as I pointed out just now, FACTS ARE FACTS.
Voice your opinions at the bottom.