For me, it was more than flow. The character's actions just made no sense to me. Why were they even fighting? Here are two good guys, who fight for justice, and they are duped by Lex? Oh, but the name Martha fixes everything. Weak. The movie was just blah, and I really really wanted to like it.
I don't doubt that it's probably an improvement but it's not going to all of a sudden turn into a movie that is worth my time. It can go from a 4/10 movie to a 5/10 movie for all i care, it's still no good.
It's like Batman is morally opposed to using guns (well until he gets old) but he's totally cool with using the superman version of a gun in kryptonite staff thing? Serial? Just fatal character flaws. They should have gone down a different angle. Like Superman is being mind controlled by purple kryptonite, or Batman is old and the new Batman (maybe Terry McGinnis?) is a bit more headstrong and more idealistic, and he's the one who tries to kill Superman. Hell, you could even rope in a bit of controversy between Bruce and Terry. Like Bruce has to don the suit again to stop Terry, and in that three way struggle Bruce is injured or dies or something. Said injury makes Terry stop and think, he reassess the situation and decides that he was in the wrong. I don't know, I don't write for a living.
Um...did you just totally miss that Bruce Wayne/Batman mistrusts someone with that much power after thousand died (including his employees friends) in the battle with Zod? There was no one to hold Superman accountable for his actions. That was the basis of the whole movie. Batman thinks there needs to be someway to hold him in check...just in-case.
No one cares about Terry McGinnis. Matter of fact.........99.9% of the movie going population doesn't even know who Terry McGinnis is. So, why would you base your movie universe on that? Terry McGinnis has no ties to the Justice League formation.
Holding him in check, by having safe guards is one thing, trying to kill superman because he is too powerful is ludicrous. Also Batman and others in the movie were blaming superman for the deaths that occurred vs zod??? When Superman was the only reason zod didn't wipe out the entire planet. Its like getting mad at the firemen for wetting your furniture after putting out the massive fire in your apartment building. Batman wasn't the only poorly written character tho, even in the extended version, Superman's investigation/motivation against Batman was STUPID. We are suppose to believe Superman (himself a vigilante) thinks Batman is someone he must stop, because he is aiding the police and stopping criminals and branding some of them??? Kent feeling upset/blaming Batman because the slave runner he incarcerated got killed by some other criminals in jail is beyond stupid. Which of course led to the first Batman v superman encounter. Superman seeing Batman chasing a caravan of heavily armed criminals who are blasting away with machine guns and unbeknownst to him could be carrying a nuclear warhead, decides to let them go and stop the guy chasing them. It gets worst after stopping Batman, he incredulously tells Batman not to respond to the Bat signal, which is usually a signal for help from the authorities and then just flies off, not chasing or catching the guys with guns carrying the unknown shipment, actually he didn't even care lol. The worst writing however is when superman faces of Batman after meeting lex luthor. -so he has one hour to save his mother from lex and either needs batmans help or head. what does he do? NEITHER! instead of telling batman right away about Martha, he takes his time throwing batman around, from this wall to that, through this floor to that, nevermind that his mother is being held hostage and is about to die in 45 minutes. Instead he waits till oh the 55 minute mark to finally mention it. I love Batman and Superman. I enjoyed the fighting scenes, especially WW vs Doomsday. I didn't even mind that Batman killed people, used guns, in fact i love that! but damn was the writing terrible. It would have mad a hell of a lot more sense if one or both of them were brainwashed, in fact thats the only way this plot made any sense.
Basically I really did clear up some things opened up a few more questions but it was BETTER 3 hours is an awefully long running time though This killed any momentum they may have had They seriously should have broken it into 2 90 minute movies Cut the movie at the discovery of the other metas . . . .. would have given them a year of people guessing and getting excited for the show down later. . . . . . The decision to do this all in one movie is where the fatal flaw happened Rocket River it was too ambitious
I just watched this last night for the first time and I can't believe that they can take Superman/Batman material and turn out something that boring. It may be due to having such low expectations but I didn't hate Big Ben as Batman as much as I thought I would. Hopefully with him writing and directing the next Batman we may get something worth watching.
It was originally 4 hours and they cut it down to 2 and a half. I think the intention was to put it into 2 parts, but they decided not to at the last second. Otherwise I can't fathom why he would make a 4 hour movie. Part of me thinks them (WB) is letting Snyder direct Justice League because they screwed him over. I still think he's an idiot though, just listen to one of his interviews.
Thank goodness for small miracles. The only thing worse than one BvS is two of them. Master Baiter gets rep for "I can't believe that they can take Superman/Batman material and turn out something that boring." I feel the exact same way.
Purely hypothetical like I said; by forcing him to cut down 2 movies into 1 movie to speed up Justice League (and avoid backlash from recent failures like the 2 part Hunger Games ending or Hobbit series). If that happened, that's technically screwing Snyder. a) It explains why the original theatrical cut makes 0 sense. b) It explains why after releasing such a sucky movie they're still entrusting him to make Justice League. (Which, while it'll make money regardless botching it would be bad)
The ONLY reason Snyder is still on JL is because it was about to start shooting when the horrible reviews came in. They made major course corrections as a result, adding several producers including Affleck, giving DC comics writer Geoff Johns a much bigger role, and getting rid of executive producer Charles Roven (who had been huge on BvS). They did everything BUT take Snyder off JL and the ONLY reason he's still directing is because they didn't have time to change directors. Warner's had a set visit for journalists very early and, in a highly unusual move, didn't embargo anything. They wanted to spread the word that they got the message and that Justice League wouldn't be anything like BvS.
All the more reason to do it. Look, I'm not looking at building a franchise, I'm looking to make an interesting story. If you don't know who Terry is, its a bit more fun to see him in that light. You clearly really liked this movie, and I'm happy for you. I think it's heavily flawed at best.
Just watched the Ultimate Cut (only version I've seen) and can't imagine the original cut if this is the case. Just a bad movie overall and a long one at that. The acting was pretty bad overall and Eisenberg as Lex junior was just terrible. The making of Doomsday, intro of the Justice League, the BvS make up, and ending just seemed lazy and cheap to me. Batfleck was the only saving grace of this movie IMO, thought he did a good job. The warehouse scene was also pretty sweet.
