Here’s One Reason Why BATMAN v SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE Wasn’t The Blockbuster Warner Bros. Wanted It To Be

Here’s One Reason Why BATMAN v SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE Wasn’t The Blockbuster Warner Bros. Wanted It To Be

Clark Kent writes puff piece editorials on the Man of Steel saving cats out of trees, so here’s my editorial on why Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice didn’t perform as expected. Hit the jump to check it out!

Editorial Opinion
By NightWatcher - Apr 05, 2016 10:04 AM EST
Filed Under: Batman vs. Superman

 



Before I get started, I think that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an awesome film, even though it had a few flaws. The film currently has a 29% on Rotten Tomatoes, and it grossed $500 million in five days, just before suffering the biggest 2nd weekend drop ever for a Batman or Superman film. Along with that, the film has divided fans into two groups. The first one consisting of the fans who enjoyed the film, and the other being the fans who agree with the critics and thought the film was bad. How come Batman v Superman wasn’t loved by majority of the fans, nor the critics? Here’s my take on this…

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is to Warner Bros, what The Avengers was to Marvel Studios. What I mean by that is, Batman v Superman (like Marvel’s The Avengers) was the first film within the company that featured multiple big name heroes battling each other, then teaming up to fight the big bad in the end. With that said, how come Dawn of Justice didn’t excel just as Marvel’s 2012 blockbuster? Was it because The Avengers had better characters? A better cast? A better director? No, no, and no. The reason for Batman v Superman’s tumble was the studios’ build-up. And by “build-up” I’m not referring to the film’s marketing, I’m talking about their character build-up.



Marvel Studios built up The Avengers for four years (2008-2012), starting with Iron Man. DC and Warner Bros also built up Batman v Superman for four years (2012-2016). Here’s the HUGE difference though: During Marvel’s four year build-up, they released 5 films. Five films that introduced us our iconic heroes, their heroic adventures, and their backstories. However, Warner Bros only released...one film during their four year build. And this one film only introduced us to one hero. I think it’s because of that, that Batman v Superman didn’t get the praise it should have.

If Warner Bros would have taken their time, and they wouldn’t have rushed just to challenge Marvel, success would have come with ease. I feel as though if WB would have followed by the following release schedule I mapped out below, Batman v Superman would have been successful.

·         Man of Steel (2012)
·         Solo Batman film (2014)
·         Wonder Woman (2014)
·         Man of Steel 2 (2015)
·         Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

That schedule above would have enabled WB to properly set up for Batman v Superman, and everything wouldn’t have felt like it was crammed into the Snyder-directed film. Also, the “Death of Superman” storyline would have held much more weight, considering the fact that we would have already seen the Man of Steel and all his glory, in two of his solo films. Another upside to the schedule is that we would have had a better understanding of Batman’s morals, and Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman. Basically, we just would have had a better understanding of ever hero (and villain, if Lex Luthor would have appeared in Man of Steel 2), and the film would have been easier to manage.



How can Warner Bros fix this going forward? Well, I have an idea that might work, however, I’m not sure everyone will agree with it. Here is it…..Push Justice League’s release date back, and follow by the following release schedule:

·         Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
·         Suicide Squad (2016)
·         Wonder Woman (2017)
·         Solo Batman Film (Takes Justice League’s 2017 date)
·         Man of Steel 2 (2018)(Booked as “The Return of Superman”)
·         Justice League (Late 2018 or Early 2019)

I would say that, that schedule is pretty convenient. Even so, I’m not so sure that Warner Bros is patient enough to run with it. If they continue to follow by their current schedule, they’ll be taking a bit of a risk. The DCEU isn’t dead, far from it. It’s just broken. Now, it’s up to the studios to see how they’re going to fix it.

What's your take on all of this? Share your thoughts in the comment section below!
James Gunn Reveals His Title For A (Hypothetical) BATMAN And SUPERMAN Team-Up Movie
Related:

James Gunn Reveals His Title For A (Hypothetical) BATMAN And SUPERMAN Team-Up Movie
BATMAN: Ben Affleck's DCEU Appearances Ranked From Worst To Best According To Rotten Tomatoes
Recommended For You:

BATMAN: Ben Affleck's DCEU Appearances Ranked From Worst To Best According To Rotten Tomatoes

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
1 2
SummersClan
SummersClan - 4/5/2016, 8:21 AM
WB had like a year between Avengers doing gangbusters and Man Of Steel's release. While that film was in the can, they should have been mapping out their universe and slate, rather than announce a BvS movie and delay with a 3 year absence of no comicbook films. They were arrogant and thought MOS would be the next Dark Knight.
Forthas
Forthas - 4/5/2016, 8:55 AM
The absolutely HUGE mistake that Warner Brothers made was not building on the world that the Nolan films created. Those films are the only films that can even compete in the same league critically and commercially as the Avengers, Iron man and more recently Captain America. It is an unmitigated disaster of their own making that is only going to be made worse with this nonsensical belief that a solo Batman directed by Ben Affleck will somehow change that equation. The only thing it will do is saturate the Batman brand even more than it already is and needed to be.

It is FALSE that the Ben Affleck Batman is the "definitive" version. He was OK at best and that fact that he was unable to carry the film on the strength of his performance...a movie rigged to focus on him ... means nobody outside of the misguided fans that think that Batman V Superman is a great movie think that his version of Batman is that interesting. No matter how much logic is twisted by these misguided people to try to convince themselves that Affleck is a good Batman does not change the fact that Bales version is virtually universally loved. By both his critical response and his box office success the Nolan Batman films should have been the anchor to a broader universe that could have included Man of Steel a good but flawed movie.

The absolute dumbest decision which Snyder takes credit for is that after he was initially encouraged by studio executives to recruit cast members from Nolan’s Batman trilogy, he chose not to.

“I was like, ‘Hey, come on guys, let’s all understand, it’s a different world.’ In the Batman universe that Chris Nolan created, Superman would have a hard time existing,” said the Watchmen director. “That’s why we did a reboot on the universe, so we could allow these characters to exist together. We needed to do that to have Batman exist in this world.”

After the disastrous two movies which have basically destroyed beloved DC characters...why are we listening to Zack Snyder?????????????

It is completely FALSE that the Nolan version of Batman cannot fit in a world of super human beings. You can blend the world of the Nolan Batman into the larger Justice League world. I have seen it done and that type of story telling would have turned out A LOT better than the garbage that is in theaters now...and would have given Marvel a real run for its money with smart accessible and relate-able characters and stories that honor the source materials and at the same time does not confuse and alienate the average film goer and film critic.

I have said for the past three years that Warner Brothers and DC would rue the day they moved away from the Nolan Trilogy. The last two films of which are more successful than the current Batman V Superman gimmick which both films accomplished WITHOUT 3D SCREENINGS!!!!

If Warner Brothers is smart ...and that is a big IF...then they should return to the formula that brought them to the dance. Build on the Nolanverse!
fishybashi
fishybashi - 4/5/2016, 9:35 AM
@Forthas - yeah, they really could have used the storyline of a Batman coming out of retirement due to the presence of a superhuman with questionable morals. BvS tone and look doesn't even feel consistent with MOS, which I loved. Having Lucius Fox die in BvS, for instance, instead of a nebulous "Jack" would have resulted in more audience emotion. It took me a second watch to like BvS, but it would have been so easy to come up with a well loved story that built upon the Nolanverse. WB did EVERYTHING that they were warned not to do: don't rush things, don't have too many characters, make it more fun. Nolan's trilogy was not necessarily "fun" in tone, but it had "real". MOS had "real". BvS is just strange. It almost feels restricted and small, when it could have been grand. For instance, they could have started the movie with an epic 30 minute treatment of the terrorist in Africa storyline. Lots of drama. Lots of action. Instead, no storyline is fully followed through, and Superman doesn't really do anything heroic aside from save Lois and kill monster whose mission was to kill him. Where are the stakes? Such a missed opportunity.
Armpitwebs
Armpitwebs - 4/5/2016, 9:50 AM
@Forthas -
I enjoyed the Nolan films (TDK is an amazing film) but, for a "universe" I think I'd prefer a more comics-geared approach to the real-world approach.
It is imperative, however, that those in charge understand, appreciate and apply the traits of the characters that made them popular in the first place!
Forthas
Forthas - 4/5/2016, 10:24 AM
@Armpitwebs - If you enjoyed the Nolan films why is a "more comics geared" approach a bad thing? Consider this...even of the Marvel films, the most "comic book-y" films like the Thor movies have had the least success commercially and critically whereas the more realistic - Captain America the Winter Soldier, is considered one of if not the best Marvel film within that universe.

While I know it is hard to see how the tone of the Dark Knight would mesh with say Aquaman, the key to it is in its present ion. For example if you ever watched the film District 9, it presented as a Pseudo- realistic story about aliens coming to earth. It was realistic because it was presented in a series of news reports, documentary and found footage. It 'felt" real. I am not suggesting that they do those things specifically, but there are creative techniques to make a fantasy film feel more realistic. In fact you stated MOS (which used some of those techniques) had that so you know it can be done. You also stated that it took you two viewings to like BvS which again suggest the "realistic" approach may be more appealing to you.

All that I know is that they went for full on comics fantasy and so far it has not worked. Things like the flash point scene and para-demons are among the things that confused general audience members that don't know much about these things. If Warner Brothers wants billion dollar films then they will have to appeal to the broader audience. Fans will always be there!

Armpitwebs
Armpitwebs - 4/5/2016, 11:18 AM
@Forthas -
You make some excellent points. I like your District 9 example.
When I consider my thoughts that I prefer comic-accurate adaptations, I realize that what I enjoy is an experience that stays close to the heart and soul of the characters' comicbook established traits and motives. Add a well conceived adaptation of a good plot and sprinkle in enough tweaks and changes to give it an interesting twist and it can work regardless of cinematography.
If film makers change the heart, soul and traits of established, beloved characters then no amount of cool imagery or clever plot twists will make me overlook the fact that they either didn't get the essential component right!
Forthas
Forthas - 4/5/2016, 11:34 AM
@Armpitwebs - Well stated.

I just wanted to add one more thing then feel free to have the last word. People are wrong to believe that the Nolan Trilogy did not contain any fantasy elements:

1) Batman used a device to control bats:
2) He glided around the city on a cape that almost magically became rigid when a current was run through it;
3) Harvey Dent walked around Gotham City with half his face missing;
4) The Tumbler (a glorified tank) was jumping from rooftop to rooftop;
5) Batman's sonar device took control of peoples cell phones to map the environment around them;
6) Bane collapsed a football field;
7) the fear toxin used by Scarecrow is from a practical standpoint impossible;
8) The microwave emitter is a science fiction fantasy;
9) Bane punched through a concrete pillar without breaking his hand; and
10) The Bat (wing) somehow outran missiles.

There is in fact plenty of fantasy elements in the Dark Knight movies. It is all in how the movies presented these elements that made the difference which could be done (although admittedly a it tricky) but based on something I have seen very doable.

Great chatting with you...Best!
Armpitwebs
Armpitwebs - 4/5/2016, 12:24 PM
@Forthas -
It just felt to me like Nolan wanted to keep it more grounded. I was pleasantly surprised when he handled two-face the way he did.
I've enjoyed every Nolan film I've seen.
Your list makes sense to me. I got the impression that Nolan wanted to limit the degree of "suspended disbelief" to the levels of a Jason Bourne or James Bond flick. (The Wayne/Fox conversations were a pretty obvious nod to the Bond/Q "gadget introduction" sequences of the Bond films.)
I enjoyed our chat as well!
huckfinnisher
huckfinnisher - 4/5/2016, 12:57 PM
@Forthas - See that was exactly the problem I and many others had with Nolan franchise. He claimed to be doing a realistic Batman but he used fantasy where he wanted to, so he basically wanted to pick and choose the fantasy aspects of Batman. It's ridiculous that he would do no superpowers for the sake of "realism" then turn around and use unrealistic fantasy things where it suited him. It was extremely condescending of him to say clayface can't exist but a microwave that could vaporize all water in a city can. Basically he claimed to be doing a realistic batman while only using fantasy aspects when his plot had problems. Why couldn't he figure out a realistic plot for Ras? Instead of vaporizing all the water? My problem isn't that there were fantasy elements, but that he snootily scoffed at superpowers but used fantasy when it suited him. If your making a realistic Batman, then fine but don't use fantasy elements. If your going to make a fantasy Batman, then embrace all the eccentricities, don't claim to do one while picking things out of the other. It's a spit in the face.
huckfinnisher
huckfinnisher - 4/5/2016, 1:08 PM
@Forthas - Nolanverse can't work because of how Nolan used the characters. Stated over and over in Nolan franchise (contrary to comics) that anyone can be Batman, which I find ridiculous. A perfect combination of training, genetics, determination, intelligence, cunning etc. is needed to be Batman and I again found it insulting that Nolan implied that Batman was somehow a symbol of that when he is most definitely not. Not any man can stand toe to toe with Superman and Wonder Woman. And the idea that anyone could somehow deflates Bruce as Batman because he ceases being special and becomes tthe guy that just happened to do it instead of the only guy with the willpower and drive to do it. That is what makes Batman special. Many have worn the mantle of Batman but it is shown that Bruce is by far the most effective, in the Nolan films he implies that Bruce is not special at all, save for money and training. It is just baffling to reduce a character who is vengeance incarnate and make him into what superman should be; a symbol of hope. Batman is fear, superman is hope, Nolan is garbage. His Batman movies are more about what he thinks would make a good story then what Batman truly is, as evidenced by his liberties with the character and the fantasy elements.
He basically went, oh I know better then years and years of comics who this character is.
Besides all that why can't you just pretend Affleck is re-cast Bale? Nothing in the movie contradicts that. If you assume John Blake (garbage character) took up the mantle of Robin, not Batman, and subsequently died at the hands of the Joker, inspiring Bruce Wayne to come out of retirement in Paris or whatever. Nothing in the story keeps you from connecting this movie to the awful Nolan franchise.
Forthas
Forthas - 4/5/2016, 1:37 PM
@huckfinnisher - I don't think that Nolan snootliy scoffed at superpowers. I am not sure why you think it is a spit in the face. It is not any kind of attack on the fans but rather taking into account how much fantasy non-comic book audiences will accept. I don't think it is an accident that films like Guardians of the Galaxy and the X-men films seem to have a box office ceiling of about $700-$800 million.


I think Nolan was not sure how to handle them and that is in part why Batman was easier for him to do. But some characters are defined by their "powers" so for example he made Bane super strong when he did not really have to and he also made two face faithful to the comics when he could have simply put scars on his face and called it a day. I think he tried to push the "unbelievable" element as far as could and to some extent I agree that it would have to be pushed a bit further but even still there are outlandish things that I think should be left out. So fine! You don't have clay face ... OK stick with less fantastical opponents, which is what he did and it turned out great. There are many good stories that could be told that don't have ultra-fantastical villains in them.

Would you like to have seen Fin Fang Foom in Iron Man?. I would not because it stretches the suspension of disbelief so why not use another villain who is more relate-able (read human).

At the end of the day if DC fans want ultra successful movies (cracking the $1 billion threshold) they will have to learn not to expect every type of outrageous thing that exists in the DC universe to be represented. If only because the movie then has to spend valuable time explaining the origin and abilities of these villains and heroes which the general audience may wind up regarding as silly.
Forthas
Forthas - 4/5/2016, 1:59 PM
@huckfinnisher - If you look at the statement

"...anyone can be Batman" ... the Nolan films themselves contradict it, when Batman had to contend with the vigilantes who were "wearing hockey pads!" So I don't think that it means that any person can actually become Batman, rather anyone can be a hero which is the closing speech that Batman gives to Jim Gordon in the Dark Knight Rises.

"Not any man can stand toe to toe with Superman and Wonder Woman."

But why should this be a goal for Batman. The Affleck Batman could not stand toe to toe with Superman - no matter how much he trained. He needs a suit and kryptonite...just like everyone else. Besides, the movie goes out of its way to suggest that Superman could easily defeat him if that is what he wanted to do kryptonite and all.

If Batman is vengeance incarnate, what makes him a superhero? While you may not like the Nolan version, the general public has embraced that version and rejected Affleck critically and at the box office. That is why I can't pretend he is a recast Bale...because he simply is not. My questions to you is that when Affleck was cast as Batman and everyone had misgivings, the response was wait until you see the movie. We have now seen the movie and every measurable stat reveals that audiences prefer Bale.

What keeps me from connecting the story to the critical and commercially successful Nolan trilogy is because there is not part of it that reaches that artistic and financial level of those films. To me that is not Batman, a sentiment echoed by Kevin Smith - Affleck's close friend of all people.
Kozmik
Kozmik - 4/5/2016, 8:57 PM
@fishybashi - I would argue that in terms of tone, Batman v Superman is similar to Man of Steel, and that's the problem. I don't understand what you mean by "Real" but there was nothing about either movie that I would use that term.

Now, grim, that I can accept. Though the problem is, who wants to see superheroes they sort of recognize, but who aren't like they remember, who live in a world that–despite the presence of superheroes–feels hopeless?

As I said, it's not real at all, but dark and more than a little bit uninvolving.

The thing is, people are coming to understand that.
fishybashi
fishybashi - 4/6/2016, 5:49 AM
@Kozmik - thank you for your comment. To me, there were more scenes in MOS that felt organic. The Metropolis scenes to me felt like the stakes were high. The BvS scenes feel more contained and isolated, and the use of CGI made it feel more fantasy. To me, a tone that would have been similar to the X-Men movies is more consistent to MOS. In fact, MOS felt more real to me than the X-Men universe, hence why this discussion that the Nolanverse could have easily been integrated. If TDKR occurred one year after TDK instead of 8 years then it would have been more likely. Watching BvS a second time helped me like it. But I'm now on the fence with Snyder. I feel that BvS is Snyder's solo work and to me Snyder failed in so many levels to create universal acceptance of this universe. BvS failed to explain a lot of things and became more a philosophical piece than a realistic superhero movie.
Kozmik
Kozmik - 4/6/2016, 8:02 AM
@fishybashi - Dude, I dig the friendliness! Very cool when disagreement doesn't spill over into vitriol, name-calling or silly attacks! You many not win the Internet, but you deserve to.
huckfinnisher
huckfinnisher - 4/8/2016, 12:22 PM
@Forthas - @Forthas - Sure audiences/ critics seemed to enjoy the Nolan films more, that is not to say that everyone agrees that Bale is better then Affleck. There are plenty of movies I enjoy despite the fact I feel one character may have been miscast or was not the best possible cast.

Why should it be important that Batman be able to stand up to characters like Superman and Wonder Woman? I don't know maybe its because they are on the same team together. If Batman is not at least comparable then there is no point to having him on the team. Sure he needed a suit and kryptonite but that isn't the point I was making. Even if you had slapped eny average guy in the suit he would not have been as effective as Batman in the suit or else what is the point of the character?

"That us why I can't pretend..." SO you can't pretend that its Bale recast because the audiences didn't like Ben Affleck? Strange to me you wuold choose to form your opinions around popular general consensus instead of your own thought process. You literally said that the general public embraced Bale and rejected Affleck which is why I can't just pretend he is Bale recast. Even though nothing in the story would contradict it for you you can't look passed others opinions?

And I understand what Nolan was doing and I find it incredibly snooty. In the worst way possible. He cherry picked what he wanted and pood on the rest. Where is Dick Grayson? Is his character too unbelievable? Why did Nolan choose to represent Batman having only been batman for like a year or two before retiring, thus pooping on any possibility of mining the time between movies for new material. Nolan's version of Batman has one major villain, Ras, then about a year later Joker, then he retires. WTF. How can you retire Batman after only a few years? It literally is a slap in the face. So Nolan world there is no Riddler, or Pengiun, Black mask etc. Not because Nolan just didn't want those to be villains in his movies, but because by making Batman retire you close the door on those characters.

"stick with less fantastical opponents." This is why Nolan Batman is no good for JL. All there is is fantastic. Nolan doesn't know how to tell any story but his own. All of his films are extremely pretentious. Inception being the worst offender. Just use this as an example, in an interview Nolan said that he waited to make TDKR because he didn't have the right story yet. And what we ended up with was a super convoluted Talia Al Ghul , Batman coming out of retirement and retiring again in the same movie, and a scene where it shows that Bruce literally stopped giving a F what happened to Gotham in favor of making Alfred's dream for him come true. None of these characterizations are accurate. Bruce, even if he does retire (which he has never done in cannon) it is shown he still cares and makes himself involved in Gotham. Nolan sacrificed this truth about Bruce as a character because he thought he could tell a better story then 60 + years of comic book writers. He is painfully sophomoric that way, he couldn't just make a character study of Batman, or adapt well known comic stories with a few changes, he has to tell his story. This is ok for a director/ writer but not okay for a CBM writer or director because in most comics the character is the most important. This is why Marvel has been succeeding where DC is failing. They don't wait three years between movies till some inspiration strikes and they have an idea for a pseudo intellectual art piece their lit. proffessors would be proud of, as Nolan does. Marvel knows thier characters already have great stories to tell and they don't need some overly artistic director to come in and condescend that he knows better then the comics that made the character popular. Nolan sacrificed so much of Batman's character for the story he wanted to tell, because he thought his version of Batman's story was somehow more poignant then the one that already exists.

Look at Marvel, faithfully adapting (for the most part) storylines that exist so they can focus on making the most enjoyable part of the movie the larger then life characters, rather then DC putting the characters to the side for a "better" story which always ends up pissing fans off.

Lastly, if Nolan's own movie contradicts the "anyone can be Batman" schtick that he himself put into place wouldn't that mean he was a bad writer/ director? Why go out of your way to show Bruce intimating that anyone can be Batman if that is not what you really want the character to mean in the movie? As for those hocky pad guys, Bruce said the only difference between them was that he wasn't wearing hockey pads. Implying that if he was in the hockey pads and one of them in the batsuit, that they would be superior to him. A buck naked Bruce is still Batman. That is what Nolan didn't understand. Batman is a special character and there is nobody else like him, he is not just the guy that happens to be rich enough to be Batman. Like really, that is your version of Batman? The only reason he is special is that he is rich enough to afford the gadgets? I feel sorry for your lack of understanding of the character if that is the case.
Armpitwebs
Armpitwebs - 4/5/2016, 9:24 AM
Good article and I agree with your assessment of BvS. I hope they find a person who loves and appreciates the characters to provide guidance and right the ship.
It is hard to be hopeful though.
fishybashi
fishybashi - 4/5/2016, 9:38 AM
I feel I could write a better BvS movie. That's pretty sad for WB. They are clueless.
SimplyAz
SimplyAz - 4/5/2016, 9:53 AM
I loved MOS and thought that BVS was good but it should have been great, although I think it needs a second viewing for me.

I would like Duncan Jones to take over, as I think he will do fantastic things with it and Moon is a fantastic film, with drama and heart in it.
SimplyAz
SimplyAz - 4/5/2016, 9:53 AM
Fifa1
Fifa1 - 4/5/2016, 10:52 AM
The reason they made this movie is because the box office return for man of steel was disappointing. It made less than $700 million worldwide and it had a huge budget, comparable to BVS. So they decided let's stick in Batman and watch the money come rolling in. This movie is going to top off at $900 million, a huge disappointment. They should reboot and start over.
sKeemAn
sKeemAn - 4/5/2016, 12:02 PM
I completely agree with this article. I would only change the lineup.

MOS
MOS 2
Batman Solo
Batman vs Superman.

I personally dont think WW would need her solo before BvsS because they could give her a reason to be there w/o all the additional world building that BvsS was trying to do.
Going forward I do believe that WB/DCEU needs to push back JL for Batman solo and MOS sequel. In those movies they can have features of Flash & Aquaman to get people excited to see those characters in JL.
1 2
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder