ByNinja gamer, writer at
Be the batman
Ninja gamer

My thoughts on batman vs superman

I personally loved the movie. I admit that it wasn't perfect, but it doesn't deserve the amount of criticism it has got. There is a shorter summary at the bottom right after the line 'what is the truth behind the failure of batman vs superman?.' You may not want to read this article all in one go, but instead just keep returning to it.

How it was set up to fail?

  • This movie had one of the most hated directors, Zack Snyder or Hack Snyder (as some people call him). He tends to have very mixed reviews on his movies and this makes people instantly think his work is bad, although it is not.
  • Ben Affleck is a very hated actor. I know people who said they will not watch the movie, just because it has Ben Affleck in it. He had already acted in daredevil, where many people hated his performance and the film (although I quite liked it.
  • Henry Cavill was not very well received in man of of steel, due to the fact people didn't like that he didn't really smile and he didn't feel like a symbol of hope.
  • Gal Gadot who is not that well known as an actress, however was still heavily criticised for how she was too thin or her breasts were too small, for the part of Wonder Woman.

This is the way fans and critics went into the movie, with doubt and negativity.

General Audience, Huh?

This is a point of minor significant, but I personally find it strange when people get annoyed at being called the general audience. It is not meant to be an insulting term in most context's. It's just the fact that you may not know the lore and canon behind the media. For example, I have never watched Harry Potter, or read the books, so if I saw it, I may not understand the implications behind everything.

Angry at being accused of not understanding the movie.

I don't really understand that as well, you either get the plot or you don't. To me it seems like so many people just didn't understand the underlying material in the movie.

Not understanding the plot doesn't make you stupid. So why do people get angry when told they didn't understand batman vs superman?

My friend who is not a comic book fan said he didn't understand why batman and superman stopped fighting each other after it was revealed their mother's had the same name. I replied, not calling him stupid or berating him, that he didn't understand it, and explained that it was so much more.

Look at this video if nothing else to see the underlying plot for batman vs superman.

If you got this from the movie then by all means you understood it and congratulations. However think. I mean really think. Did I understand and actually see the story under the surface?

Disney paying the critics is delusional

To be honest none of us can tell if this is true, as we don't know what happens behind closed doors.

I personally don't know if it is true. However it is possible. We as fans enjoy the movies however for the companies this is real money.

When comic book movies come out, it actually also increases sales for comic books as new fans want to try out comics. This was seen in the increase in sales of batman ,during the dark knight, and marvel comics, after the avengers.

Fans of dc will most likely know that DC are starting a new retcon called DC rebirth. This is basically DC returning back to their roots, by taking the best pre-new 52 and the new 52 characters, and putting them in one universe. DC are returning to issue one for their comics. This invites more new fans as the books don't look as daunting, and those that are new get a different sense of the DC universe. However those unfamiliar may think is this what the dc universe is really about? People now think the movie is bad so therefore the comics will be too.

Also marvel did the same thing with their all new all different marvel universe where they took their best characters and it is a success, for what I have seen, so why won't it work for dc.

Now onto Captain America Civil War.

There was one comment on rotten tomatoes that I found interesting. It was by the US Today:

Tear away the powers, abilities and egos, though, and the third Captain America movie is at its core a deep exploration of friendship and family and what sacrifices should be made to hold onto both.

Now compare that to his Batman vs Superman review.

Director Zack Snyder proves he just might be the biggest fanboy of all by creating a superhero movie suitably epic for having Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and all their derring-do.

Is that a good thing for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, though? Well, not always in this massive though improved sequel (*** out of four; rated PG-13; in theaters Friday) to Snyder’s Man of Steel. BvS does well laying groundwork for a cinematic universe that could hold an entire Justice League. But it unpacks too much material for even a 2½-hour film, leaving Dawn of Justice a superpowered jumble at times

But that takes a backseat to the joys of watching Gal Gadot’s awesome Wonder Woman smile gloriously in the middle of a fight, Ben Affleck turning in a strong take on an older Dark Knight and his alter ego Bruce Wayne, and a story about two orphans.

Batman plays a major role from the start, as a quick recounting of his origin leads to Bruce driving into the 9/11-type destruction of Metropolis and seeing the carnage wrought by Superman’s Man of Steel battle against Zod.

Fast-forward 18 months, and Superman becomes part of another incident saving his love, Lois Lane (Amy Adams). Enough’s enough for three folks: Sen. June Finch (Holly Hunter), a congresswoman who wants to hold Superman accountable; Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), a xenophobic villain planning to annihilate this alien interloper; and Batman, who’s waging his own war against criminals while figuring out what to do about the Man of Steel.

Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) lives for battle in "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice."

BvS starts losing its way when Lois secretly meets with government officials, someone tries to sneak a dirty bomb into Gotham City, Lex is conniving in pretty much every way, and Batman has a post-apocalyptic nightmare that involves evil Superman, a large Omega symbol, a locale that looks like Dark Knight: Fury Road and a fleeting superhero sighting.

The subplots dovetail decently into the big finish, one Snyder pulls off with a surprise return, one huge shocker and the promised throwdown between Batman and Superman. For those wondering why these two have to fight, there is a very good storyline reason for the two frenemies coming to blows, and in the director’s action-packed movie resume (300, Watchmen), that faceoff and their inevitable alliance with Wonder Woman against Lex's vicious monster Doomsday vault to the top of Snyder's best-told fight sequences.

Henry Cavill is again a solid Superman (and Clark Kent), even more the second time, though Affleck and Gadot are really special in their debuts. Whether skulking around in an evening dress or brandishing bulletproof bracelets in costume, Gadot proves to be just as entertaining and watchable as either of the headlining heroes.

Affleck’s Batman is a surprisingly emotional one. A few scenes showcase a strong, even flirty chemistry between him and Gadot, rivaling that of Cavill and Adams and of the cinematic Caped Crusaders over the years, Affleck seamlessly moves between Batman and Bruce Wayne.

BvS will please those either waiting for the two main players to lock horns on a movie screen, or those who've just been pining for Wonder Woman forever. And for the nerdier crowds, a fleeting glimpse at other superheroes hints this is the Dawn of something potentially sensational.

Although he doesn't represent all critics, and he did write it in a positive light, he still misses the mark. There is evidence he looked further in his review of civil war so why not the same for Batman vs Superman. There are reviewers who even write as if they didn't even see the movie and relied on YouTube videos ( which are great but one sided) for their reviews. For example the Guardian:

Like a big, wet glob of fetid bird droppings tumbling down from the sky, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has landed with an audible splat. It’s been almost three years since director Zack Snyder revealed the project at San Diego Comic-Con and in those years, the multimillion-dollar hype machine has been slowed only periodically by rumblings that something was amiss with the film. Amid splashy trailer releases and return trips to Comic-Con there’s been a steady drumbeat of skepticism in the background. How bad could it be? Well, it turns out, pretty bad.

Despite the 30% Rotten Tomatoes score, you probably rushed out and gobbled up this picture with the reckless abandon of DJ Khaled confronted with a horse trough full of fried chicken. You – the hypothetical reader whom I am very certain is terribly attractive, very intelligent, and wise beyond your years – probably want someone to explain what it is you just witnessed. I would like to offer up my expertise free of charge so that you might better understand the many layers of this motion picture event. I warn you now that this is a spoiler-heavy article, so if you haven’t seen the film and want to remain untainted, please click away immediately. I won’t mind. I mean, you’ve already clicked on it anyway, so cha-china.

The film opens with one of many dream sequences. Let me just say here early that Batman v Superman is mostly dream sequences, and those scenes that are not dreams still seem to function as though the basic laws of reality do not exist. Granted, this is a film about an alien and an alcoholic billionaire pervert throwing each other around in the rain while grimacing heavily. I should probably cut it some slack.

Anyway, Bruce Wayne dreams about his parents being gunned down in front of a movie theater. This is intercut with Bruce Wayne tumbling down a hole where he discovers a massive gathering of bats in a cave. These bats swarm around him, magically lifting him up and out of the hole while he strikes a Christ pose. In other words, we are off to a smashing start. After that, we witness Metropolis being wiped out by Superman and General Zod fro the last movie. Superman destroys one of Bruce Wayne’s buildings by accident, which makes Wayne hate Superman. This is an important plot point. You see, Batman only approves of the destruction of private property when he’s the one doing the destroying. Later in the film, Batman tears through the city in his own personal tank, blows up some cars, shoots up a building with his Batwing, kills numerous anonymous henchmen, and lures a dangerous mutant back to a populated area without a coherent plan to defeat it. But he’s not an alien, so it’s OK. I should also mention that Bruce Wayne has a second dream about his dead parents in which blood pours out of his mother’s tomb, then explodes to reveal a demon inside of it. I think maybe he has some unresolved issues.

Bruce Wayne is not alone in hating Superman. The United States government is none too pleased with the last son of Krypton leveling large parts of a major city. Lex Luthor, a wealthy businessman and scientist, also hates Superman. Now, you probably couldn’t quite figure out why Lex Luthor hated Superman so much. Unlike Batman, he has no clear professional jealousy. In fact, in a brief aside, Luthor mentions the construction projects his company undertook after Superman wrecked Metropolis. If he had just kept his mouth shut and let Superman topple a few more buildings, he could have kept raking in the government contracts for decades to come. Instead, he spends most of the movie trying to get Batman and Superman to fight, then creates a monster in a pool of brown toilet water for no reason. I thought this guy was some kinda genius? It doesn’t make sense at first, but upon second viewing, it’s clear that Lex Luthor is actually a malfunctioning android and his moronic behavior is due to his circuits being fried. Every bizarre character choice can be chalked up to what I like to call the “Android Defense”. Something happened in Batman v Superman that doesn’t make any sense? It was probably done by a secretly malfunctioning robot.

Sorry, got a bit off track here. Batman has another dream, where Superman has become a fascist dictator with his own army of stormtroopers. Batman is a lone freedom fighter rebelling against Superman’s iron rule. At the end of the dream, Superman punches a hole in Batman’s chest. Batman wakes up and sees The Flash (not identified as such, I just know because I’m a nerd) inside a time vortex. Flash explains some important plot points for another movie, then disappears. Why is The Flash invading Batman’s dreams? Why did he travel back in time? He’s got to juggle a lot of balls and he only has one butler to handle all of his affairs. He’s not a huge note-taker and doesn’t maintain an iCal. Things slip through the cracks. That’s why he sent The Flash back in time in the first place, like a really elaborate Post-It note.

Unfortunately, if Batman had never forgotten about his dream, he never would have sent back The Flash to remind him about the dream, which creates a major paradox, which I don’t want to get into right now.

I haven’t even mentioned Wonder Woman, AKA Diana Prince, warrior princess of Themyscira. Wonder Woman periodically shows up at parties to annoy Bruce Wayne. She steals some computer files from Lex Luthor during a fundraiser for a library or something. Then, Bruce and Diana meet at a totally different party where they stare at a dagger in a glass case. You may have wondered whose party that was, why either of the characters were at that party, and what the point of the knife in the box was. Look, cool people get invited to parties all the time that you don’t know about. You should be used to this by now. Stop asking. It makes you look desperate.

Bruce Wayne opens up Lex Luthor’s computer files and discovers a photo of Wonder Woman from the first world war, plus some trailers for other Warner Bros movies. Luthor even designed logos for all of these movies in Adobe Illustrator. Why does Lex Luthor have four blatant bits of product placement on his computer? Because he’s been maintaining a secret double life as a film publicist. You thought running a multinational corporation while trying to murder an indestructible flying alien was hard? Try selling the Aquaman movie.

Back to Superman, he’s quite depressed over the mixed reaction to his theatrical heroics, and I don’t mean the reviews for Man of Steel either. Some worship him for his daring deeds, while others are terrified of the unchecked power he wields. Using that divided public opinion against him, Lex Luthor attempts to frame Superman for a variety of very un-Superman activities – shooting up a village, neglecting to stop a suicide bomber, and drinking red wine with seafood. Of course, Superman would do none of these things, but that doesn’t stop the public from turning on him, playing directly into Luthor’s hands.

Dejected, Superman flies off to Buffalo, New York, or some other desolate, snow-covered landscape. There, we are treated to yet another dream sequence. This time, Clark Kent imagines seeing his father throwing bricks on to a pile of other bricks while telling a story about inadvertently ruining the lives of his neighbors during a flood. At this point, you may have asked yourself why Superman flew out to this barren wasteland. You may have also asked what that pile of rocks was? Maybe you thought it was the place where Clark Kent’s dad is buried, but I’m fairly certain it’s been established that he was buried on the Kent farm. So why the hell is Superman having visions of his dead dad in the middle of nowhere? As with everything, there is a simple answer. Nothing reminds me more of Kevin Costner’s acting than a pile of rocks, bricks and twigs in the snow. So, it’s natural that when one sees a pile of inanimate objects, one would pause to consider Kevin Costner. This movie makes perfect sense.

Considering the title of the film, Batman and Superman fight toward the end of the story. It’s as brutal and ruthless as it is boring, with the fisticuffs coming to an abrupt end when Batman realizes that his mom and Superman’s mom have the same first name. If only Biggie and Tupac’s moms had the same first name. They might still be here today.

Lex Luthor’s monster, Doomsday, is unleashed and Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman join forces to defeat him. Why did Lex Luthor create a monster he couldn’t control when he easily could have just shot Superman with a kryptonite rocket 30 minutes into the movie? Why did he waste all of that time convincing Batman and Superman to fight if he was just going to create Doomsday? What if Batman killed Superman? Would Lex Luthor still have a need for a rampaging, uncontrollable beast?

At the end of the film, Superman sacrifices himself to defeat Doomsday, leaving Batman and Wonder Woman to form the Justice League in his absence. Lex Luthor has gone crazy (because he is a malfunctioning android) and has had his head shaved because long hair is strictly forbidden in solitary confinement, as everyone knows. He could have hidden a knife or a grenade in that moptop. Batman mourns his friend, who he had been pals with for a grand total of a couple hours and had previously been single-mindedly obsessed with murdering. Why was Batman so broken up about the death of a man he had spent two years despising? Because, as a great man (me) once said (right now, for the first time), the greatest friendships are the ones that burn out the quickest. If you learn anything from this movie, it should be that. If I were Warner Bros, I’d be throwing that brilliant aphorism on a T-shirt right now.

This review was overly harsh to the film. I purposely showed a positive review and a negative review, to not make myself seem biased, but also to show that whether the review good or bad, they can miss the main crux of the story. In both reviews they don't identify the underlying subplot shown in the video above. The fact they couldn't see something that brought a grown man to tears, shows they weren't really looking hard enough.

A video by Knightwing01 talks about why critics may have hate this film:

But what about the plot holes in the movie?

I will go through almost every plot hole seen online and try to explain it to the best of my ability. These are all legit just type 'bvs plot holes' in google and you will find it.

No wind in the bat well?

At the very beginning of the movie, little Bruce Wayne is lifted from the bat cave by swarming winged mammals — yet his hair and clothes are undisturbed by any kind of wind. Spare us the "it's a dream sequence" defense; aerodynamics still exist in our neural activity. There would be wind.

It was a dream anyway you look at it, obviously as this guy seems to think that the bats were lifting bruce up for real. This isn't really a plot hole, but more technical design and I doubt the bats wings would have made that much wind.

Jimmy Olsen is shooting on 35mm film.

During the terrorist showdown in Nairomi, photographer Jimmy Olsen (yep, that was him, as a CIA operative instead of the usual earnest shutterbug; no, you would not know this unless you paid attention to the film's closing credits) sees a film canister pulled from his FILM CAMERA right before he's whacked, execution-style. No one shoots photos on 35mm anymore, especially journalists. It's just not done. At all. Ever. But if they did ...

This is minor and doesn't really affect the plot. He was probably using what the CIA provided him with. I seriously doubt many people whether african warlords or whoever really know what is meant as 35mm film. I sure don't, being from africa and all. Having said that a film industry should.

Nobody is stupid enough to hide a tracking device in the film canister.

As it turns out, the beacon that gave Jimmy away was stashed inside said 35mm film roll. Look: If some rough customer took issue with his taking pictures — which seems really likely on an assignment like this — that person's first move would be to pull out Jimmy's film roll. Not even Central Intelligence is that stupid.

I doubt the CIA could have expected KGBeast there. However I have to agree with this point.

Superman said he did nothing wrong in Africa?

If an alien whose speed, strength and reflexes were so advanced that he could get to you before you could pull the trigger on a cocked handgun — then smash you through a wall of cinderblocks — you'd die. Instantly. There's no way that guy survived. Yet later in the film, Clark Kent whines that he didn't do anything wrong in Nairobi.

He was taking out a bad guy. The guy clearly didn't realise, that the point was to make it seem like superman did something wrong even though he didn't.

Your on Sports!

Daily Planet editor Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) tells Clark Kent that his assignment is to write a follow-up on a football game. The Daily Planet is a major metropolitan newspaper in a city with a pro football team; they'd definitely have a full-time sportswriter. No — they'd have several full-time sportswriters, who would absolutely riot if the new kid were tasked with analyzing a heartbreaking loss.

We don't know if the daily planet has several full-time sportswriters. What we do know is that the daily planet isn't doing so hot, especially as Perry White points out that no one is reading newspapers. The daily planet may not be in a position to hire sportswriters.

They messed up journalism

2016 Best Picture Spotlight set a new standard for accurate portrayals of the Fourth Estate — then Batman v Superman chucked those portrayals into a dumpster. In the interest of saving ink, here's just a quick list of the glaring, stupid, no-way-that-happens journalism on display in the Daily Planet newsroom:

- Clark Kent does not have a beat

- Clark Kent does not get in actual trouble for never being reachable/at his desk

- Clark Kent does not get in actual trouble for pursuing a story (the Bat) he's told to drop

- Clark Kent is not FIRED for never actually writing the story he's been assigned

- Lex Luthor's arrest for the bombing of Congress is buried on Page 12

- The editor gives assignments by writing headlines out loud. NEVER

- Wait, why is the Editor-in-Chief giving out daily assignments to cub reporters? NOPE

- Reporters are composing stories on layout pages? NO NO NO

- Reporters have cramped side-by-side workstations in a badly lit pit of despair. Wait, that one's actually true

I personally don't know much about journalism, however we see Lois is given a lot of leeway, so Perry may do that for all his good staff and also because Clark and Lois are together. However I must admit that is a good point. Kinda similar to Joe West in the flash tv series, he is never at his job.

The US Government would try to seize the kryptonite.
Lex Luthor is negotiating with a Kentucky Senator/subcommittee member about bringing a megaweapon of planetary importance into the country? And she's like "Nah, we decided to pass"? NOOOOPE. The government would be absolutely throwing armies of special-ops at acquiring that rock, commandeering it, stealing it — whatever it took.

True, but lex was trying to bring it into the city. It isn't a problem for the government regarding that matter. She didn't want to bring it in because she didn't trust lex. Maybe the government would try to take it, however in the superman doomsday fight, it appears the government believe they have sufficient materials to combat superman. Plus the only people who knew its affects were the senators, lex and his scientists. Who would have told the government since finch died the day after and the other senator wanted lex to have it?

Why is superman manning a russian rocket.

Seriously, what is he doing there? The rocket goes up; it explodes, and he emerges with the manned capsule. Why would Superman even be in proximity to this routine rocket launch? There's no way he could have 1) sensed its distress from 5,000 miles away and 2) covered that ground to reach it in 1 to 2 seconds. And there is no reason for him to be standing by just in case the rocket explodes. Either this is explained in a later movie, or it's just incredibly stupid.

Truth is he would't be manning it or be able to fly that fast. I agree with this point however it was really meant to show his heroics, however the russian's may have already been uncertain about the model. Although he did manage to save lois lane whilst in the artic or wherever.

The stupid, pointless 'green bulbs' ruse in Batman's future dream

When Batman is hallucinating about fighting Superman's future forces, he stars out by ostensibly taking delivery of Kryptonite in a box. Unfortunately, he's been sold out. There's a green glow on his face when he opens the chest, but it turns out to be ... green lightbulbs? Why would those be in there, even in a dream? So the villains can get a shot of green light on his face? WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT. OH, THE ANSWER IS THEY WOULDN'T.

It's times like this I wonder if people did see the movie. It was kinda obvious it was meant to be a kryptonite bomb to kill superman. It wasn't a case of green lightbulbs. It even had the LexCorp sign.

If decrypting data caused hallucinations, more kids would be hackers

Batman's hallucination — and his visit from time-traveling The Flash — is triggered by the decryption of data. As anyone who has had a hallucination will tell you, they've got nothing to do with data decryption.

It wasn't triggered by the decryption. The whole point of that flash scene was making the audience question was it a dream or was it real. To this day we don't know.

Batman's huge noisy car chase, where a quiet burglary would do

Bruce hits the Kryptonite vessel with a tracking bug. He could've left it at that, going back for the goods later (which he eventually does, with such ease that we don't even get to see it). Instead, he immediately gives chase — creating an incredible ruckus, announcing his intentions to Lex Luthor and attracting the attention of Superman. What an idiot.

From some of what I heard Lex wanted batman to have the kryptonite, but I'm not entirely sure. However he placed the tracker just in case he lost it. If the tracker was never on it he wouldn't have been able to recover it. He attacks the guys as it is better for him to have it as soon as possible.

Then he leaves a Batarang at the burglary site!

Bigger idiot than we thought.

I don't believe I have ever seen batman go and pick up his batarangs after a fight. That is so minor and petty, which may prove how this guy went into the movie hating and got what he expected. Maybe this guy is actually an even bigger idiot. However interestingly enough this could introduce tim drake, as a kid who studies batman.

Aquaman isn't exactly camera-shy

Assuming, safely, that Aquaman does not want to be discovered by mankind, why would he swim up to, linger in front of, and then spectacularly swim away from a submersible that is CLEARLY SHINING A LIGHT ON HIM AND RECORDING IT ALL.

I completely agree, I thought this cameo was the worst. He just lingered there, which was terrible.

Superman calls his mother 'Martha'

Just imagine for a moment: Your bitter, now-murderous adversary has you at spear-point, your mom is minutes from being killed by her captors and you are making a final plea for sympathy. Would you say "They're going to kill [your mom's first name here]"? NO, IDIOT, you'd say, "They're going to kill my mom!" And the thing is, Batman might even relate to that! Certainly more than Phyllis, or Patricia, or Maresa, or whatever your mom's name is.

I can see why people think this, but you have to remember he is adopted, so his parents may have introduced themselves by their first name, also as this superman is a modern intake, maybe zack snyder thought ma and pa didn't work. Also watching the super girl tv series, you notice how kara calls her adopted parents by their first name too.

Pretty much everything Lois Lane does

Lois rolls up on this conversation long after the name "Martha" is uttered. And yet somehow, as Batman is screaming "WHY DID YOU SAY THAT WORD" (he would say "name," but OK), she explains to him that Superman was saying his mother's name. Later, Lois throws the kryptonite spear — which, again, she knows nothing about — into the water. Then she tries to retrieve it, again, without actually knowing that it would be useful in killing Doomsday. GRRRRR.

In this movie lois was given more material and for me personally it worked well. She was there not also to clear up the mommy issues, but to show that superman has a human side as well, and people that care about him. He is not an aloof god. Lois throws the kryptonite spear cause she knows it is weakening superman. She is a journalist, she is obviously gonna be able to discern that superman is weak among the glowing green rock. Then when she retrieves it, she makes an educated guess. People make lois seem as if she is not a pulitzer-prize winning journalist, but some idiot. The only alien she has experienced is kryptonian and the green rock was hurting superman. She assumes that the monster is kryptonian too and puts two and two together.

Lois pulls Superman out of the water

He's the Man of Steel, capable of stopping the Batmobile with his ankle like it was a soccer ball. And yet Lois Lane can drag his soaking-wet body up out of a pool of water deep enough to drown a person. (And then he somehow manages to fly all the way to Doomsday while holding the kryptonite spear, which moments ago was powerful enough to prevent him from even getting his head above the surface of a measly pool.) Look, Amy Adams couldn't drag Henry Cavill six inches to save his life.

Superman inhaled the kryptonite which made it more hurtful than him just being around it. When he flew with the spear you see he was hurting as well and was struggling to fly. He didn't lose his powers when around the kryptonite so probably did some heavy lifting himself. But again this is minor.

'I thought she was with you'

Batman knows who Diana Prince is at this point; he's creeped all over her at a party, he's seen the photos, he's sent the slimy email. This line almost gets a laugh — except it rings totally false, because Batman a) knows exactly who she is, and b) knows damn well she's not with Superman. Who is, again, dating a preternaturally instinctive newspaper reporter who can drag him away from a watery grave.

Does this guy think that batman really had time to research this woman whilst training and setting up traps. When he says it all she has done is defend him and attack doomsday with her bracelets. Why couldn't she be with superman?

Got Zod?

Early in the film, Lex Luthor reveals that Kryptonite can damage Kryptonian cells. He proves this by showing a video of scientists slicing through the dead body of General Zod with it. Then, he asks for the government to turn Zod's body over to him so he can do tests. So…if the government had Zod's body, how did Luthor do those tests? Or, if Luthor already had Zod's body, why did he need the government's permission to take it? This is confusing. Help?

Lex is only allowed to do a few tests in the lab he doesn't have full access, he probably has to go through various amounts of checks and screenings. With the body in his control, he can do whatever he wants.

Can't stop the signal

Right before the film's title bout between Batman and Superman, Lex reveals that he's kidnapped Martha Kent, and that he's manipulated Batman into fighting Superman. But how does he time the kidnapping of Martha to line up with when Batman planned to call Superman out with the bat-signal in Gotham City? Luthor is smart, but he can't be that smart.

True, but I personally assume he waited until batman was ready. As he also seemed to have time to take and produce those photographs.

Identity Crisis

And another thing! Do we ever find out how Luthor figures out Superman's secret identity? Or is he just, like, "I'm way smart, you guys"? When the villain learns the hero's secret identity, that's generally a pretty huge moment. In Batman v Superman, it seems kind of like an afterthought.

This was actually explained in the prequel comics where it was shown both batman and lex had been monitoring superman for a while, and lex had been monitoring batman.

Explosive testimony

When Superman goes to testify before the senate around the middle of the movie, he isn't able to get a word out before the whole building explodes, killing everybody except him. After this, he kind of bails on Metropolis and climbs a mountain, while the media wonders where he's gone, and whether he's to blame. But this plot is never picked up again. It's kind of ironic that the senate hearings designed to pick up the dangling plot of Metropolis's destruction from Man of Steel are, likewise, completely destroyed and then forgotten about.

True, could have been brought up in batman vs superman fight. Shoulda, coulda, woulda -- didn't.

Best laid plans

It's clear that Lex Luthor is totally cuckoo-bananas in Batman v Superman. But he still seems to generally know what he's doing, and why. The big problem, of course, is that the audience isn't really in on his plan. At all. We know he wants Batman and Superman to fight, and perhaps he even knows that Bruce Wayne is Batman (but, again, how?). He also seems surprised when he hears that Batman has saved Martha Kent, so clearly he planned on one of them to die. Assuming this would have happened, he still had his Doomsday monster to unleash on the world. But…why? What would the monster have accomplished if either of the still-living heroes hadn't stopped it? Was he able to control the monster because it was created using some of his blood? Even if he could…where does a giant rock monster thing fit in to his plans? What is his plan beyond getting one of the super-dudes killed? Does it have to do with Darkseid? Or is it just lazy writing? So hard to tell…

This perfect explanation was copied from reddit and written by GokuYasha:

In short: he's anti-religion/god because he was abused by his father as a child. Probably sexually. He wanted to kill god and religion and get back at his father. ‎
I really like them. But I'm writing this mainly for the people who think he had NO motivations or his motivations made no sense. Shout out to my homeboy Jon Schnepp <3‎. Some of this is speculation and opinion though:
First Lex says he doesn't want us to have to wave flowers at tyrants and wants to prevent superman taking over. And he doesn't want to have to rely on the kindness of monsters like superman.
His stronger motivations are revealed throughout the movie though. When he talks to the senator in his dad's room there's a lot of religious stuff like the angels and demons painting. Lex probably had a really religious dad and upbringing. And later when talking to superman on the helipad he says "no man in the sky intervened to protect me from daddy's fist and abominations". Clearly his father abused him, and "abominations" is a strong word so it was probably sexual, especially considering catholocism was probably involved. This would explain why he reacted badly to the senator touching his hand and his childish insanity etc. But mainly it explains why he hates God, his father, and superman and why killing or defaming Superman would defeat all 3. More evidence is him telling superman there's a problem with "you on top of everything" like God and his father. He says god can't be all good and all powerful and vice versa. Then he says "they need to see the fraud you are". He either wants superman to kill batman and prove he's not all good, or be killed and prove he's not all powerful. And either would also attack God and religion since superman is being worshipped and humans are linking him to God and religion so much. An Lex clearly links superman to God and religion. And by attacking God and religion he's attacking his father since he was so religious. That's why he says things like the fight is "God vs. Man" and during his speech at his party he talks about prometheus ruining God's plan to destroy mankind. And atheists like Lex are some of the most butthurt people I've ever experienced. A ton of them would definitely try as hard as Lex to kill or defame God and religion :P
The final thing is Lex's motivation to unleash Doomsday with no failsafe. Some say that made no sense but it was actually his only other chance to kill God (superman). So Doomsday may have actually been a failsafe lol. And since he knows Darkseid is coming he probably doesn't care about destroying the world. Maybe he even thought Doomsday would protect him cuz Lex used his own DNA to make him so it's like his son, and he was acting that way right before Doomsday tried to punch him. Plus there's too much we don't know yet. Like more details on his meta-human thesis, maybe he wanted to kill all of them too. Maybe he was following Darkseid's orders etc.‎
And also Lex seems way crazier/shaken/broken in jail at the end. It seemed like it was because he knows Darkseid is coming, but he knew that earlier and didn't seem too crazed about it. Maybe it's because he knows Doomsday or Superman can't stop him now or something. But I think it's because he's afraid of getting raped again in jail. ‎

Another redditor called StevieSomethin said:

Books are knowledge, and knowledge is power, and I am… heheheheh, no.

I…uhm, no, what am I?

I…what was I saying?

No, the bittersweet pain among men is having knowledge with no power. Because… because that is paradoxical!

And uhm heheh…thank you for coming."

Supermans existence makes him contradict himself after all he's worked for and learnt. The feeling of powerlessness does make men cruel for both Wayne and Luthor.

You should check out sites like reddit if you want to understand the true character of lex.

What I would like to add is since his dad abused him, he also hated those with more power than him. This may be the link to darkseid as he believes darkseid may give him more power.

Super non-senses

Luthor lures Superman back to Metropolis by pushing Lois Lane off a building. The last time we saw Superman, he was hiking around the snowy mountains, talking to the ghost of his dead Earth-dad. So either: Superman was already back in Metropolis and he heard Lois fall, and saved her, or he was way the heck out in the mountains and heard her from there. In either case, Superman definitely has super hearing, right?
Wrong! Because if he did, he probably would've been able to tell that his mom was being held right across the water in Gotham City. So it begs the question: how super are Superman's senses? Super enough to catch Lois Lane anywhere, anytime, but not so super that he'd be able to rescue his mom who's being held in a building across the bay?

What many people don't seem to realise is that superman turns on and off his powers, therefore he could not hear both the bomb and his mother. His mother also went quietly she didn't exactly scream like lois did. Superman would have saved whoever it was, lois or not, when they are screaming at the top of their lungs. The bomb issue was kinda addressed in the movie but people still bring it up. Superman said he wasn't looking. If he searched for his mother they also said that they will kill her.


Batman wants to kill Superman, because he thinks Superman is a threat to humanity. He is 100 percent sure about this, and has shot at him, blasted him with sonic waves, shot him with Kryptonite gas bullets (twice!), swung him around from a rope and bashed him into giant pillars, and even smashed his head in with a sink. He's just about to literally kill him in the face with a giant Kryptonite spear until he finds out that Superman has a mom, and that her name is Martha, just like his mom, and that she is in some deep trouble.
And that's it. That's all it takes to convince Batman that Superman is 100 percent on the level and is totally a good guy. For starters, couldn't Superman have made more of an effort to get this point across a little sooner? But ignoring that, how does Batman do an about-face that quickly and with that much certainty?

When watching the film again I looked out to see if superman had the chance to tell batman and he didn't really. Also batman already knew lex was a threat but he thought superman was more of a threat. They didn't become best friends after. He didn't think superman was a 100% good guy he just realised his mother was in more trouble. They just put their differences aside as there was a bigger threat in the form of doomsday.

A questionable Bat-plan...

Alright, so Batman and Superman are fighting Doomsday, right? And Batman realizes that the Kryptonite spear (that he casually threw on the ground in Gotham City) is the key to beating the monster. So his plan is to lure Doomsday back to Gotham City so he can get the spear and kill him. But…like…that's not a great plan, is it? Let's discuss.
First, Batman is mad at Superman because Metropolis is destroyed in a fight with Zod in Man of Steel. This is the main motivation for his anti-Superman shenanigans throughout the movie. But the first chance he gets, he wants to lure a gigantic bone-monster to his city? Just so it's near a spear? Wouldn't it have made more sense to get the spear and bring it to the monster?
Second, at one point we see Batman give control of the Batwing over to Alfred, who flies it remotely. If this is one of their routine moves, why not let Alfred fly the Batwing and attack Doomsday while he gets the spear? Or why not send the Batwing to get the spear while he fights Doomsday?
Oh, it's probably because this way Superman could get it and valiantly die in battle with Doomsday. Right, got it. Carry on.

Batman's Whole Issue With Superman

So as you might have guessed from the first half of the title, the movie is about Batman and Superman going head to head. Even though the "v" that goes down in the movie is only about 20-25 minutes long, Batman sure doesn't keep it a secret that he absolutely wants to destroy Superman. But...why?
Batman's whole deal with Superman is that he wants to kill him because he's a potential threat, and he could potentially kill people. But here's the thing, Batman is not only a potential killer himself, but he's also an ACTUAL MURDERER!
Say what you will about the Batman during the Knightmare sequence, at least that Batman wasn't as merciless as the real one! In Bruce Wayne's dream, he kills people swiftly with a gun. Batman outside of the Knigtmare sequence kills people too, but in a more explosive way that involves heavy machine fire and absolute zero remorse!
Seriously, if Batman is so hellbent on killing Superman before he hurts someone innocent, why is Batman over here killing tons of unnamed goons?! You might make the argument that Batman is only killing guilty people, and that he has some sort of Punisher style morality.
But Batman is planning to kill Superman, a dude who has only killed one person, a GUILTY Kryptonian by the name of Zod! So really, Batman is killing someone innocent who's only killed guilty people, just like him. As Lex Luthor would frantically say: "That is paradoxical"!

Batman hates superman because he kills innocents. Batman believes that superman has no regard for human life. This was actually quite clear. He also weighs up the chance of him turning evil as no one can stop him.

Why Are So Many Batman Villains Alive?

While we're on the topic of Batman's oddly conditional killing-rule in BvS, why are so many of Batman's rogues still walking the streets? The Joker is still apparently walking around, causing havoc and hurting people "really, really bad". And yet, you would think that with Batman's tendency to absolutely decimate the guilty, Joker would be on the tip-top of his list!
And it's not just The Joker, who you could argue is just really good at avoiding Batman's cross-hairs, as we've seen in the Suicide Squad trailers, the team is made up of a quite a few Batman villains who should honestly be pushing daises in this universe.
Harley Quinn, Deadshot, Killer Croc, and even occasionally Katana are all Batman villains. Are you telling me that ALL of them have managed to avoid getting murdered by this vengeful Batman?
That's kind of hard to believe. Maybe Suicide Squad will see Batman taking out a couple of the team members? That'd be super dark, and I don't know if I'm ready to see that! Or maybe Batman just likes to kill unnamed goons? Attention all criminals: if you're going to commit crimes in Gotham, you better give yourself a clever nickname asap!

We don't really know this one as the other movies haven't come out yet. Maybe when they do we will know.

Doomsday's Creation

Let's stay on the topic of Doomsday, Batman v Superman's second and most powerful villain. Why is he so powerful? I mean, I know he's Doomsday and all, but shouldn't the methods of his creation make him weaker?
See, Lex creates Doomsday by adding a couple drops of his own blood onto the body of a deceased Zod. The Kryptonian ship (which, extra plot hole, has ZERO security) does the rest from there, mixing the Zod/Lex blood cocktail into an abomination (wrong movie)!
So you're telling me that the body of a Kryptonian soldier that's been dead for two years, mixed with the blood of lanky, neurotic Lex Luthor equals doomsday.
Ok...sure, I can live with that. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go sneeze on the body of a lizard and make Godzilla! (No lizards were harmed or sneezed on in the making of this article).

The ship had security but it was bypassed by the fingerprints of zod. Also this is an alien physiology, how would we know. You have men in this universe flying through the sky and this is what he questions, the birth of a monster.

Batman's Vigilante Status

As we all know, the Batman in BvS is much older and more experienced than any Batman we've seen on-screen before. He's been in the vigilante business for 20 years, and as a result, he's seen things!
He's lost comrades (as referenced with the vacant vandalized Robin suit) and his innocence as well. He's also clearly lying about how long he's been fighting crime, because nobody has heard of him until now!
In the movie, Batman is still being called "The Bat" by newspapers, and his string of vigilantism only seems to just now be picking up steam in both Gotham and Metropolis. The cops fear him, and act as if he's some mysterious creature in the night. But as covert and mysterious as Batman is, there's no way he'd be able to operate in Gotham for so long without getting large attention much sooner than 20 years later. This would make sense if it was Batman: Year One, but this is Batman: Year Twenty-Something, and therefore is just odd.

He still gets the bad guys, it is not like he is killing innocents. Evidently by that earlier scene, where he brands the man, it shows that the police still view him as a good guy as well. This was also a homage to the dark knight returns.

Superman Being Framed For Deaths In Africa

One of the plot points (because there are many) in Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, is that Superman is being held accountable for his actions during the battle in Metropolis. But it's not just that battle that he's being held accountable for.
Apparently, Supes is also being framed for killing people in Africa whilst rescuing Lois Lane from terrorists. Here's the thing though, there's no way Superman can be framed for this.
We saw the killings in Africa, they were carried out by members of Lex Luthor's gang. True, no one else saw that, and they did see Superman swoop in. But as we clearly saw, the villagers in that African village were killed by bullets and bombs, not exactly Superman's choice of weapon. Are you telling me that the government didn't pick up a single bullet or grenade shrapnel and thought "This is clearly the work of terrorists!"? Or worse, that the whole world actually believes that all-powerful Kryptonian warrior Superman suddenly felt the need to use guns and bombs to kill people, just this once?

I didn't understand how this was so confusing, no one thought he killed them but it is just when superman arrived everything went upside down. Also the CIA were secretly there, it is not like they would admit to being illegally in that country. Even the words said that superman was to blame doesn't mean he killed the people he was framed and a scapegoat. The argument against Superman in this case is that he took unilateral action, without the consent of anyone to remove a warlord from the region, which in turn led to violence and a whole lot of blood shed. The villagers just heard Superman come down and all of a sudden they were getting shot, so they'd rather Superman never come at all. I suspect this will be expanded upon in the director's cut.

Why Hasn't Clark Kent Heard Of Bruce Wayne?

When he arrives at the party during the scene where the pair first encounter one another in person, Clark Kent - a journalist for a major news corporation - literally has no idea who Bruce Wayne is. He literally asks: "Who's that?" He's somehow oblivious to the incredibly famous billionaire that almost everyone in this fictional world knows about.
Also: if Clark Kent has been on Earth for decades, wouldn't he have heard of Batman prior to the events of this movie? Ideally, he'd have know about him during Man of Steel, too, but that oversight can be (almost) forgiven on account of the fact that Man of Steel didn't know it was the first movie in a cinematic universe when it was made.
Surely, though, Batman - a fully-fledged superhero - would be known to everyone, especially since he's been fighting crimes in Gotham for more than twenty years?

Zack Snyder after the second trailer cleared up that he actually did know who he was. They knew about each other as well so...

Why Doesn't The "World's Greatest Detective" Realise That Clark Kent Is Superman?

On the other since of the fence, doesn't it seem a little weird to think that Bruce Wayne/Batman doesn't recognise that Clark Kent is Superman when he meets him?
In the world of the movie, after all, Superman has been a crime-fighting superhero for 18 months... surely Batman would have taken a keen interest in this guy (and his face) in that time? And given that Batman is supposed to be the "world's greatest detective," it seems somewhat bizarre to think that he comes face to face with Clark Kent at the party and can't put two and two together. It's just a pair of glasses, Bruce! Glasses! C'mon!
Granted, this aspect of the film probably asks that you just suspend your belief, and that was fine and dandy when Superman - as a film series - was less serious affair. But given that Batman v Superman is set in a gritty and realistic world, the whole Clark Kent/Superman alter-ego thing doesn't work. A fake beard or something, at least.

The glasses are a running gag and he did know. Once again check out the prequel comics, also in the movie Batman was never surprised of the fact.

Why Does Wonder Woman Bother To Try And Retrieve That Photograph?

Batman v Superman doesn't just feature the titular heroes, of course: Diana Prince (A.K.A. Wonder Woman) is also in this movie, mostly slinking around in revealing dresses.
Why she's in the film, exactly, isn't ever made all that clear to audiences, however, although the writers do try and explain what she's doing getting involved with Batman and Superman, but in the process of doing so they accidentally generate a plot hole.
Because Wonder Woman states she has come out of isolation to get her hands on a photograph of herself from a hundred years ago, for fear it will end up in the wrong hands. Thing is, she comes out of hiding and risks exposure in order to avoid exposure, which makes no sense at all. If she'd stayed away, nobody would ever have found her - photograph or no photograph - thus ensuring her identity would remain secret.
This seems to be a case of the writers over-thinking things; they didn't need to build in a huge reason for Wonder Woman to show up, because it just resulted in the film tripping itself up - and wasting a lot of time - explaining the reasons.

The reason she is in the film is it shows she is more than 100 years old and also can possibly reveal the identity of Themsycira which is meant to be closed off to the world of man, and also a secret. It is made abundantly clear.

Why didn’t Superman clean up the World Engine?

One of the most surprising things we learn in Batman v Superman is that the Indian Ocean World Engine is… just sitting in the Indian Ocean. 18 months after destroying, it’s just sitting there. It’s hard to imagine that a giant alien spaceship, powered by god-knows-what that is leaking into the water, is good for the local ecosystem. And it’s hard to imagine that Superman believes leaving the alien tech to be scavenged by just anybody is a very good idea. So why doesn’t he clean it up? Hell, if he had cleaned it up the whole movie might not happen, since the Kryptonite would never have been an issue.

I wasn't so sure but I found a redactor (again) who could explain. He is called rebelinthought12345:

Well, perhaps Superman didn't, but for the most part it appears cleaned up. there's not giant wreckage all over the place, and Luthor's team is pretty much searching for scraps.

Why is Lex Luthor equipping his death squads with ‘experimental bullets’?

Lex has an overly complex and largely nonsensical plan to lure Superman into action in Africa, and he would have gotten away with it, too… if it wasn’t for the experimental bullets with which he equipped his mercenaries. What? Why would he do that? Even setting aside the fact that he basically left behind bullets that he all but personally signed, why go to the expense? These guys were never supposed to be in contact with Superman anyway, as if the bullets would even have stopped him. And don’t get me started on the fact that Jimmy Olsen, war atrocity victim, has a giant beeping tracking device in his camera like this was a 1960s spy caper.

This made sense to me as they would be hard to register if not in the government. Also experimental bullets are meant to be better so why not,when lex's guys also had to shoot the terrorists and warlords.

Why does Lex Luthor blow up the Senate hearing and kill his assistant?

At least I think Mercy Graves is killed in the explosion. It’s hard to be sure, but she seems to disappear out of the film after that sequence.
At any rate, the important question is “What does Lex hope to gain by blowing the place up?” He already has the kryptonite in the country, so he doesn’t need to eliminate Senator Jar of Piss immediately or in a particularly grand manner. And everybody knows it was a suicide bombing as soon as it happens - it isn’t like people believe Superman went berserk in the Senate hearing. I’m not even sure why the bombing would turn public sentiment THAT starkly against Superman, which I guess is what Lex was trying to do? I’m not entirely sure what the point of THAT would be, either.

This was a means to get the senator out of the way as well as she stopped lex's plans. Lex isn't exactly sentimental is he.

This isn't to turn the public against Superman, this is to show the public that Superman is not all powerful and they should not revere him like a God. It also creates doubt. It's not enough for Lex to kill Superman, he wants to tarnish his image. This DEFINITELY could've been expanded further to explain Lex's motivations further and it SHOULD'VE been clarified, but it wasn't.

Why does Superman stop Batman in the middle of clearly chasing bad guys and let the bad guys get away?

As Batman is about to get the kryptonite from Lex’s goons Superman shows up, totals the Batmobile, threatens Batman and then flies away. Is Superman stupid? Did he not notice the running gun battle raging around him? Even if he thinks Batman is a menace he must understand the other dudes are also menaces, as they are firing automatic weapons. And yet Superman is way more concerned with chastising Batman. Again, the whole movie could have been wrapped up faster if Superman had stopped Lex’s goons and taken the kryptonite himself and thrown it into the sun or something.

This is by ArtimusGG:

Look at the way the question is phrased, and you'll see the problem. "Bad guys?" To Superman, Batman is the "bad guy." He's also driving his Batmobile through buildings, dragging cars behind it and flipping it onto others, and shooting his machine gun (although he was returning fire).
Superman doesn't trust Batman, and there is no clear good/bad guy label for them to go off of. The audience obviously has those labels, because we have comic/TV/film history to go off of, but that's not part of the universe. Superman possibly heard all the noise from the car chase and decided to stop Batman, warning him to stop or else.

Why does Superman fight Batman if he doesn’t want to fight Batman?

Superman goes to Gotham to get Batman to help him rescue Martha. I’m not entirely sure what he thinks Batman can do that he, a man with powers of flight, super speed, X-ray vision and super-hearing can’t, but that’s the plan. The problem is that Batman isn’t there to talk - he’s there to fight.
So why does Superman fight him? Why does he keep advancing towards him after he sets off the first trap? Why does he flick him across the lot where they meet? Why throw Batman? Superman could just hold Batman down if he needed to and speak to him.

This is by SanatDutta:

If he wanted, he would've heat visioned his face off. He tried to reason with him but since Bats was acting like such an stupidly he just tried to knock some sense out of him.

Also superman went there for help but the more he tried talking the more batman was actually attacking him, which was getting superman angry. You see superman's expression change after he is shot by the bullets from helplessness to anger.

Why does Clark Kent follow Bruce Wayne downstairs at the Luthor fundraiser if he has X-ray vision and could watch him from anywhere in the house?

We cannot be entirely sure but perhaps he wanted to confront him instead of letting him roam free as he pleased.

Why didn't wonder woman kill doomsday?

She was holding her lasso around doomsday and trying to restrain him. If she didn't doomsday would have probably caught superman mid-air and killed superman with the spear himself.

What were Batman's motivations and how was he so easily tricked by Lex?

He saw superman as an unchecked power. He thought superman didn't care about those that died other but instead if he looked good and saved the day. This also links to the martha scene as Batman realises for the first time, Superman has people he cares for and those that care about him as well. Especially when batman says 'your not a god, your not even a man.' He also thought that if he was to turn bad no one could stop him. Batman was never tricked by Lex, Lex clearly stated that in the movie that his plan didn't work. Also he saw superman as much more of a threat than lex.

What were Superman's motivations and how he was not a beacon of hope?

He thought batman was too brutal as he saw the bat branding. There was no influence from Lex from that respect. He recognises batman as a good guy but effectively again as an unchecked power. We see this as batman races through the streets not caring about collateral damage. Supes just wants bats to stop as he can not see any way forward, for Batman to continue.

How was lex planning to control doomsday?

This is my personal favourite point that is brought up because it really perfects the ideal of a shared universe. There is no indication that the doomsday we know is the first one as we see in man of steel that superman is the first natural birth. This leads me to believe that actually forms of doomsday were created on krypton and the kryptonians killed them. I think that is just a perfect way to show how linked this is. Therefore most likely Lex had a method to probably kill doomsday, which he learnt from the kryptonian ship. Also in man of steel to support my doomsday on krypton theory is that zod is looking for the codex to create more kryptonians. If he could have simply just have killed one of his officers and mixed some human blood he most likely would have.

There are a few others which you can tell me in the comments.

If you were expecting some long conspiracy theory or some way I was supporting either the haters or lovers of this movie, then you will be disappointed. Even though I love the movie I can still recognise the flaws.

What is the truth behind why the movie failed?

For me WB had a goal and managed to achieve it. They set up the universe well and picked people who knew what they were doing. Snyder-Terrio laid foundations for further movies. A lot of people hate Snyder as a director but I see his work as fitting a particular style that is good and works for him. If WB wanted they could have hired someone else even after the man of steel backlash. Someone who could have made it fun or something panned for critics but they didn't and that was a good choice. Ultimately it wasn't Snyder or Terrio that caused it to fail.

The movie for a non-fan I have to admit may have seemed very confusing as the cameo bits may have felt like it was taking you out of the movie. I personally understood all the hints e.g. nightmare scene so it didn't bother me. However I believe for the critics who are not fans it would have made the movie feel very disjointed. Although I do not agree with the critics, ultimately I cannot even blame them for the failure of the movie. If you actually sieve out the rubbish ones ( the second one above), you actually see good ones that actually bring up legitimate points.

Or maybe it was the choppy editing, however for me it was similar to that of Justice League War, which is loved by many. It brought different character arcs together to form the justice league similar to this movie, so I wouldn't even blame the editing staff.

Or maybe it was just the huge number of plot holes in the movie. However there are movies that are critically acclaimed but are riddled with potholes. For example the much loved Star Wars The Force Awakens. If your interested you can read it here:

and if you want even more:

So I wouldn't blame the plot holes either.

Maybe it is the characters however most people say that Batman and Wonder Woman were on point. For me personally everyone was on point. With regards to Lex Luthor although he was different I liked him and could see him in those final moments become cold calculating Lex instead of fun calculating Lex. His motivations were good to me and I would say weren't really a problem. If you compare his motivations to some marvel villains such as aldrich killian (Iron Man 3, which I love) ,who hated Tony, cause Tony was getting laid, whilst he was shivering in the cold. There are also much worse portrays of villains that don't stick to source material but people still love such as Bane (The Dark Knight Rises), Mandarin (Iron Man 3) and Yellow jacket (Ant-man). All films I loved and many others loved but the villains were not like their comic book counterparts.

So what could it be, what changed so much to ruin the film for many.

The answer to that question is the fans. The fans did not support the content. I am not saying that people should blindly or sheepishly argue that the movie is great, especially if they don't agree. I am saying that fans should support the good bits of the movie. I tend to frequent reddit (as you may be able to tell) and I was astounded by the change in reaction over a weak. On the Monday and Tuesday before the film came out so many people were praising Snyder for making a great film and complimenting the film. Then

the embargo lifted and the critics completely buried the film. People without even seeing it argued against those that liked it. Fans went into the film disappointed, nervous and deep down ready to hate the film and that is what they came out with. Fans didn't even appreciate the good bits but instead just condemned the movie as a flop. This even caused some people on reddit to leave DCEU reddit just because it was such a toxic place to be. To be honest with you if us as fans can't even support the content for the good things how do we expect the critics or non-fans to.

For me this was not a comic book movie as most would say, but instead read like a comic book. More dialogue, less action and for some that worked for other that didn't really work.

To the fans I would say just try to keep on supporting the DCEU and DC in general through the good times (maybe suicide squad) and the bad times. We as fans all deep down want people to fall in love with what we loved, when we were younger, but we have to first be willing to look at the positives and support the content (not blindly but fairly) so we can ease the new potential fans into the world that is the DC Universe.


Latest from our Creators