300 and Watchmen were so critically acclaimed

What went wrong?
Ever since snyder helmed the DCEU his films have been reviled and hated

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Snyder
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I'm gonna blow your fucking mind with this.
Ready?
Make sure you're ready.
Superman isn't Watchmen or 300. Characters are not universal. Different settings and messages require different sensibilities to render effectively.

...

I was going to say that being critically acclaimed sounded weird.

...

...

So Snyder's films were always hated by critics?

Why did WB give him the helm to DCEU then?

...

Some people just fall upwards.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Snyder

His wife is one of the top people on warner, second only to the chairman himself

>Watchmen was critically acclaimed
LOL

>When Zack Snyder and James Gunn worked together.

Wrong. Characters like Superman can work in any setting because they are versatile and enduring. Audiences just stupidly refused to accept a new take on that character of Superman, regardless of how good it was, because every mother fucker alive knows who Superman I'd and has preconceptions about him.

Why are people so boring? Why does everyone want everything to be the same shit, time and time again?

>Audiences just stupidly refused
>No it's the Audiences that are wrong! Snyder couldn't have done anything wrong!

>audience opinion is wrong
>critcs are wrong
>top critcs are wrong
>oscar arong wrong
>public reception(box office) is wrong
>I'm the only person right in this world

Or maybe JUST maybe the movie sucked, snyder is a fucking terrible director and you are a 2 digit iq faggot pretending to get a message that simply don't exist in a shitty story.

Deconstructions are not something you can build a universe upon

There wouldn't be an MCU if they used Superior Iron Man, Captain Hydra or Unworthy Thor as their first movies.

Likewise, making things like TDK returns, Death of Superman and Injustice for the DCEU were questionable choices

300 and Watchmen were liked by fans because they didn't stray too far from the already gritty deconstructions of their sources

Imagine if someone made 300, but it is rated pg13, and the Spartans win over the Persian empire with the power of friendship

Or Watchmen, but is a happy team of superheroes saving the world like the Harry PartRidge animated parody

Tou can only bent the characters so much before the are no longer the same and the fans of the medium start bitching

Also, critics never liked Snyder that much, he is a great cinematographer but he always falls into stumps as a storyteller

He wasn't the right man to build a franchise with 20 interconnected movies

The entire rest of the planet and every reasonable says you're wrong. You can't even be bothered to make a new copypasta.
And there's nothing new about deconstructing Superman.
300 isn't a deconstruction of anything. It's just Frank Miller being Frank Miller

Marvel happened.

Cape movies got turned into formulaic quips and anything breaking that mold is "bad".

Yeah, who would have thought introducing 3 main characters in their own movies before shoving them into one ensemble movie would be a good idea.

Also who would have thought taking impossible, even ridiculous, at their base superhero characters super serious would go wrong?

He doesn't get or like the characters especially Superman.

>300: average score 6.1/10

>Watchmen: average score 6.3/10

Care to try again?

Man critics are retarded.

The only thing that went wrong was Whedon. Snyder is kino incarnate.

Also they're only reviled and hated by the critics Marvel paid.

those were rated R films, so that was probably important

When you're strategy to break the mold is to make ridiculously shit films it shouldn't be a surprise that they fail. Also do you Snyder cocksuckers just pretend Deadpool and Logan don't exist when you say shit like that? Regardless of whether or not you liked them they definitely weren't formulaic Marvel rip offs.

They were pretty good movies though, and saying this as someone who watched Ragnarok 3 times I'd watch 300 over it if both were on television.

the suits are putting toomuch presure on him i guess,and whats worse he is paying attention to them

MoS was good but suffered from all the chracter driven stuff in the middle being too short and the action towards the end being too long. BvS is legitimitely great and in my opinion criminally misunderstood. I really think it's one of the best movies in the genre. Justice League is hardly even a Snyder film in its current form and probably had the studio breathing down his neck well before he dropped out so whatever.

>critically acclaimed

>still blaming Marvel when the MCU has just been following the trends set by Fox's first X-Men trilogy and Sony's first Spider-Man trilogy

What is so fundamentally misunderstood about BvS? What did audiences at large not "get"?

People liked, the serious Daredevil runs, Red Sun, Invincible, Mircaleman, hell the original infinity gauntlet saga you know where Pete mentions his supporting cast got wiped out and later he's killed by being bludgeoned to death?

It's execution you don't need quips to work

>Watchmen was critically acclaimed
It has a 6.2/10 average review.
That is lower than Iron Man 2.
It is lower than Amazing Spider-Man.
Watchmen is not an "acclaimed" movie, it is simply on the lower end of "not rotten and awful".

It is only called a great movie by Snyderkino enthusiasts.

This is a director that decided to have Superman kill Zod so Superman's aversion to killing would have a backstory. Because that apparently needed a backstory because Superman just not wanting to kill people is unbelievable. Snyder did not understand Superman. Plain and Simple.

>you don't need quips to work

Yeah, you need a coherent narrative with characters people care about. Disney/Marvel does that well. WB/DC...not so much.

And "Watchmen" also suffered from having been exceptionally late to the party in terms of adapting the themes and messages of the original comic. About the only thing "Watchmen" had over other comic book/superhero movies is the sex - and yes, that includes Comedian raping Silk Spectre.

And what's worse is how it didn't even matter because the very next film had Superman going up against Mutant Zod the Doomsday Clod and Supes didn't even hesitate to both fight and kill the cavetroll. Having Supes hesitate to kill again might have added some semblance of dramatic heft to his death.

You should probably read that article. He pulled her up, not the other way around. She's never produced anything that wasn't directed by him before WW.

Watchmen's biggest problem is that it even TRIES to be a Superhero movie.
The story is supposed not supposed to be about how the Justice League has a lot of problems getting along with each other.
It's supposed to be about fucked-up people LARPing as comic book adventurers who can't solve the world's problems, and then a Neurotic Superman appears and is super-effective.

Was 300 actually any good? I passed on watching it back when it was all hyped up because it just looked really gay.

>This is a director that decided to have Superman kill Zod so Superman's aversion to killing would have a backstory.

You do know that almost the exact same thing happened in the Superman comics, right?

>movies are all style and no substance
>has only a superficial understanding of the characters and materials he adapts
>got hired through his wife who works at warner bros.
>disciple of ayn rand

i can't understand why anyone would hate his movies.

It's Gulf War propaganda masquerading as a Sandal and Toga epic crossed with Lord of the Rings.
If you can tolerate a movie about ancient world slave-mongering sadists beating their chests about FREEDOM!!! while fighting trolls and mutant Iranians then go for it.

there's nothing lord of the rings about 300 besides faramir being one of the spartans

>You do know that almost the exact same thing happened in the Superman comics, right?

Uh, no it didn't. If you're talking about the "Superman killing Zod and his goons in an alternate universe", that version of Superman had his no-killing rule long before that.

>You do know that almost the exact same thing happened in the Superman comics, right?

What HASN'T happened in comics by this point? A lot of it is stuff that wouldn't sell to regular audiences, especially the family audiences that used to enjoy Superman movies.

A considerable number of these awkward stories come from John Byrne, including the one you're referencing.
Byrne had scientists forcibly doing tests on pregnant 12 yr old girls to make supermen, let WB try to sell that.

Not that user, but the headsman? Other shit?

"Man of Steel" never tries to imply that Superman was raised with the value of "murder is wrong". It never gets into why Supes feels so shitty about killing Zod. It literally assumes that the audience knows Superman has a "no-kill rule" like Batman - simultaneously relying on the general knowledge of Superman as a storytelling crutch and spitting in the face of people who have that knowledge by contriving a situation where Superman had to kill just so the film could have a massive third-act CGI superbattle with bonus 9/11-invoking imagery.

I'm not sure if I'd say they didn't get it, intellectually, I mean there's some smaller stuff, narratively and thematically, that's easy to miss on first watch but none of that is really integral to understanding it. I have enough faith in the general audience to say they probably understood the plot and its themes just fine.

It's misunderstood in the sense that I feel many took it not being what they expected as it not having any merit whatsoever. I mean, I see why portraying those characters the way they did and focussing on the things they focussed on is not what many people want to see in this kind of movie, with characters like these, in times like these. People want something hopeful and escapist. I get it. I had some of the same feelings when I first watched it, took me a rewatch to really appreciate the movie.

But if you take it as what it as, if you accept it being dark, subversive and operatic to the point of occasionally bordering on camp I think it's pretty rewarding. It's an extremely specific vision with probably an extremely specific audience but it's not bad in the way something like, I dunno, Pixels or, actually, Suicide Squad is bad.

But then, I'm the guy who loves Southland Tales, so take all of that with a grain of salt.

>The spartans keep going on and on about freedom
>they have a king
>80% of their population are slaves
>the entirety of their senate is old wealthy land owners

makes me kek every goddamn time

300 had War Rhinos instead of Elephants, and the dark lord is a 7' Transexual instead of ghost armor, there's roughly the same ratio of hill trolls tho.

That's complete bullshit, producers are like tier 4 at best at Warner Bros.
I don't know where people got the idea that she's that all-powerful Hollywood mogul when she's not even an influential producer beyond the DC movies.

If you read up about the Persian Empire of the time, it was practically the most liberal part of the world. Xerxes was leading a coalition of nations, he wasn't flogging a chain-gang of whipped slaves at all.

Don't blame the audiences, audiences will take anything and run with it if it's presented to them correctly.
The tone wasn't the issue, the "new take" wasn't an issue, making shitty movies was the issue.

I don't think many critics failed to understand BvS perhaps they treated it more harshly because by taking itself more seriously it invited itself to be treated more harshly and obvious bias too, but they weren't off the mark. Even for example the "Martha" scene. On its most base level as a climax to Batman's character arc in the movie it makes perfect sense it's not like it's hard to get
>Show Bruce's origin
>Shows that he's clearly still emotionally damaged by the experience
>MoS happens
>These godlike entities who have seemingly no care at all for mere mortals kill what we can assume is hundreds if not thousands in a battle
>Film shows Batman going down a dark path, cops are scared, less human movements, Alfred literally says branding (which lead to beatings or death) is new.
>Then we learn coming back wasn't about stopping minor criminals and that the whole thing with Lex was never about stopping Lex, but instead getting Kryptonite to kill Superman. (which if you believe he killed those guys in the car chase paints that in an even worse light)
>He then dawns more menacing costume further away from his traditional batman days and goes to kill the guy
>Finally at the climax moments before he unambiguously crosses a line and kills a guy who cannot defend himself for no reason other than fear of what he could do Superman says through random chance something that gets through to batman
>He realizes the humanity in the man he's about to kill, he realizes that he was about to become just as bad as the random thug who killed his parents, and is so disgusted he gives up his hate, reforms back into his old self (old costume, uses fists and gadgets instead of just shooting all of them via the plane etc, actually makes jokes (the levity is supposed to show contrast)
>then he saves the life a kind mother named Martha perhaps symbolically doing what's he's always wanted.

It just wasn't done well.

looking over that list Synder just seems to be a tool used for WB.
Watchman was made both for the merc and to get pressure on Moore to let it go back to DC. Dawn of the Dead was made as a trademark security. Ga'Hoole was because agreements for the film rights were at risk, hell Man of Steel was a pressure push to get out during the risk of losing the rights to Clark Kent/Superman.

I know, that parts even better. The Persian Empire was one of the most benign Empires in the world and let annexed lands keep their governments and religions.

Even better - the Greeks LOST that war, Athens burned (something the Persian Emperor regretted), and then Persia had to withdraw due to supply issues stemming from the Athenian Navy under Themistoclese fucking their shit at sea. The Spartans barely contributed at all except to buy time for the Athenian navy

two kings, actually

Wait so he was always shit? It was just the producers who were incompetent by casting him?

>if you take it as what it as, if you accept it being dark, subversive and operatic to the point of occasionally bordering on camp I think it's pretty rewarding

No, it isn't.

The Knightmare adds nothing to the film - no setup to or payoff for anything done before or after that sequence. Lex's plan is so convoluted and full of logic holes that Batman could drive the Bat-tank through it without killing someone. Bruce is never shown as the Batman he was, which means we never see the contrast between hopeful/optimistic/"good" Batman and cynical/nihilistic/"bad" Batman necessary for the deconstruction to work. Superman has even less personality than MoS, and just as empty a narrative surrounding him. Lois Lane could be cut out of this movie near-entirely without anything being lost. The logic of Wonder Woman having been around for a century but knowing less about other metahumans than Lex Zuckerberg is astounding in its idiocy. The narrative structure of the film is so meandering and fractured that I would be amazed if you could plot the damn thing out in five parts, let alone three. Oh, and one more thing: "Martha"...just..."Martha".

A film does not necessarily need a coherent narrative. (Shit, I love "Utena: The Movie", and that ends with one of the main characters turning into a car because SYMBOLISM.) But audiences generally want to be able to follow a narrative and care about characters. The DCEU offers only incoherent narratives and characters who are so far beyond just being metaphors for recognizable human behavior that they become parodies of themselves and the "known" version that came before them - all so DC could make a "dark" superhero universe based around turning The Most Famous Superhero Ever into a brooding blue-suited bitch.

Yes, I've seen MovieBob's video too. And I absolutely get his point, it's clunky in the sense that Superman saying "Save Martha" is a bit contrived because noone in that situation would mention their mother by her first name. But I don't think a single piece of clunky dialogue and Affleck's performance not quite selling his reaction stop it from working thematically.

boyo's never made a good film in his life

Pure Nepotism. It's what WB runs on.

>I don't think a single piece of clunky dialogue and Affleck's performance not quite selling his reaction stop it from working thematically

You would be one of the few people who think that way. Even by the standards of superhero/comic book movies, that is an absolutely ridiculous bit.

The main problem is simple:
Snyder wanted to have his Conflicted, Angry, Menacing and Controversial Superman...
and it didn't sell any better than Morose Stalker Superman in Returns to audiences.
So the studio pushes hard for the Superman audiences want but Snyder does not.
It becomes a horrible fucking creative conflict.

By Justice League the studio is fed up with the premise of Superman being a heel, and bring in Whedon to feebly try and rehabilitate the character, but having Superman act live Reeves for all of 10 minutes is too little too late.

Not to mention how JL retcons Superman as being a Reeve-style Superman before his death, tackling criticism of the way Superman was handled in MoS and BvS.

>He realizes the humanity in the man he's about to kill, he realizes that he was about to become just as bad as the random thug who killed his parents, and is so disgusted he gives up his hate, reforms back into his old self (old costume, uses fists and gadgets instead of just shooting all of them via the plane etc, actually makes jokes (the levity is supposed to show contrast)

Which still boils down to the fact that Superman's mother just happens to have the same name as Batman's. If Superman said any other name, he'd be royally screwed. Also, Batman continues killing dudes even after that scene, which completely undermines any character development of that moment.

>anything breaking that mold is "bad"

Explain to me the existence of Logan and Wonder Woman.

It also ignores how Lois shows up at basically the last second. She could've shown up and thrown herself in front of Superman without saying a word, forcing Batman to kill her if he wanted to kill Supes. A moment of dramatic hesitation as Batman figures out what he has become, then he tosses away the spear. A much better scene with no need for Bale-esque growling.

300 made a ton of dough,: 456mil gross on a 65mil budget.
Watchmen was meh at best in terms of money.
MoS did pretty decent: 668mil on a 225mil budget.

Honestly if they kept his budgets down he might be considered a bankable director.

It took WB too long to figure out that a Superman built to appeal to teenage loner-autists wasn't going to appeal broadly enough to give them them returns they were banking on.

Justice League's theatrical cut is a desperately lame apology; by the time they whip out the "I believe in Truth, and Justice" and the old theme tune, there's just too much damage done.

What's inexplicable is how they thought it was a good idea to return Diana to her DAMAGED state in BvS, when the actually successful Wonder Woman ended on a forward, positive note.

Affleck Batman was always complete shit, it's incredibly the amount of fanboyism it gets on Sup Forums. Justice League takes an even larger shit on the character.

The problem isn't that it doesn't work thematically, it's that it looks fucking stupid and forced.
See Snyder's movies make sense thematically, albeit laboriously, but that's not what's most important to make a good story.

>Watchmen was meh at best in terms of money
He says as he carefully avoids posting the easily findable grosses of Watchmen

Stop being such a goddamn apologetic shill, for just a single day.

WB's largest mistake with the DCEU - the mistake it makes in pretty much every film but "Wonder Woman" - is the insistence on answering to fan backlash and criticism. Even "Man of Steel" was basically "we're gonna get as far away from 'Superman Returns' as we possibly can because people seemed to really hate that movie".

>Snyder's movies make sense thematically

BvS had a coherent theme?

Superman didn't seem out of character in MoS, he was just in a somewhat grim and "realistic" movie that was obviously trying to ape the style and atmosphere of the Nolan Batman trilogy. I think this could have worked if Snyder had an endgame that led to Superman becoming more positive and confident about his role in the world. Presumably it was expected to have a sequel or two before moving on to crossover material.

I don't care about the no killing rule. It was always a goofy artifact left over from the Silver Age and there is no more reason to cling to it than there is to cling to plotlines like Lex Luthor going back in time to become Superman's dad just to mess with his head.

>What's inexplicable is how they thought it was a good idea to return Diana to her DAMAGED state in BvS, when the actually successful Wonder Woman ended on a forward, positive note.
Makes more sense narratively desu, not that that matters more at this point but, you know.

Jesus Christ dude, not everybody is into your companywar shit.
I hate Snyder's movies, I just couldn't be bothered to copy the actual figures.

Supermans central character arc is "Is my presence actually good for this world?" which makes sense considering his backstory. He spent his entire childhood having weird powers that made it hard for him to relate to other people, when he found out what the deal wit him is he attracted an alien warlord to the world who attempted the genocide of the entire human race and could only be defeated in a battle that cause massive destruction.He tries to do good but death and destruction seem to follow him so he starts to wonder if there really is a place for him among humans. I think that's a solid premise.

We didn't see what this version of Batman was like before but we know that he hasn't always been like this through his interactions with Alfred. In a perfect world we would have had a Batman movie before that ends with the death of Robin but it's not the one we live in. If even Alfred is starting to lose faith in him we can assume Bruce has gone off the deep end.

The dream sequence or "Knightmare", if we wanna use that incredibly dorky expression, is, apart from being a neat action sequence for its own sake, a neat insight into how Bruce sees Superman. An evil fascist alien overlord. Yes, the flying demon henchmen are a pointless but inoffensive reference and yes, if I had to reedit the movie i'd cut out the scene with the Flash afterwards that implies it's a vision of the (potential) future but I don't mind it in general.

I mostly agree with the point about Wonder Woman. I can kinda see how she didn't openly interfere with purely human matters like wars and natural disasters and such but if she was around to fight Doomsday at least she should have been around to fight Zod. The movie would be better in general if it had less of that franchise movie stuff (which leads us back to the Flash scene) but if you wanna work on a movie like this on a budget like this yiu probably can't avoid stuff like that.

They almost did something neat out of it in BvS, but it ends up feeling super fucking insecure.

I've felt it didn't work well before bob's movie even beyond the clunky delivery you have to assume what Batman was like before the changes to make his rebirth into it work. Let's not even get into the fact that it failed to connect to people which is kinda the point of cinema. Even a statement as pretentious as "cinema as a religious experience" kinda assumes it will connect with the audience so somewhere along the line it missed it's mark. Conceptually it's flawless execution wise you needed something more, it could have just been the rest of the movie cause honestly I think bob and others conflate their negative feelings about aspects into one another. Like people hating JL so much nothing except the GCI deserves a 4/10, plus back on Bob it's hypocritical of him and other critics to postulate that hypothetically you didn't need a Ant-man or BP movie to care for them then go around and say AM, Flash, Cyborg needed more time, sure it would be better if they did (and I've had friends say it's enough) but it's not a deal breaker.

Also on the line of Batman's rebirth yeah we can assume he was like "classic" Batman or Nolanman but that's cheat, like I disagree with why should I assume anything is a given about Superman, explaining a no kill rule makes sense. Cause here's the thing Superman in the comics absolutely will not kill, he didn't even kill Darksied in FC "the counter note" merely disengaged him from eality so that he'd fall into the black hole that was his heart. That's the kind of super dedication that has more reason behind it than "well the ordinary good person wouldn't kill other people" because an ordinary person if they had a gun (in a situation where they couldn't run) would definitely aim to at least debilitate and probably accidentally kill. Superman would drop the gun and go at the guy 1v1 instead just for the chance to save the knife guy too. Super dedication like that I feel bares reasoning.

>Superman didn't seem out of character in MoS
I'm sorry but Superman moping around on fishing boats between age 18 and 33 is OOC as fuck.

Like I said execution-wise it didn't do it right. Like I don't think saying "mother" would fix it but like it'd at least just be bad and not a meme.

Say what you will here about critically acclaimed or what, but I felt 300 and Watchmen fit his doom and gloom gritty edgy style better than supes. Superman is a boyscout, not the Comedian. So while I enjoyed the other two to an extent, it felt like Snyder was fit there. But not with the JL.

It's not like "I killed this genocidal maniac once and it felt bad until I kissed my gf" is that great a motivation either, especially given how little is made out of it in BvS.
I mean seriously, is there anything in BvS that harkens back to some sort of regret for having had to kill?

Man of Steel's trailers promised a movie that wasn't delivered in theaters, it did massive frontloaded box office, with the help of months in advance pre-sales and stifling critics til it opened. It fell out of theaters on word-of-mouth, because it is in fact a non-Hopeful, overlong shitfest.

Batman vs Superman promised to have the Caped Crusader, the most bankable character in Superherodom, beat the shit out of the asshole in Man of Steel. And Wonder Woman!
Audiences weren't prepared for Batman to be an even worse asshole than Superman, and for the movie to blatantly try and revise the events of Man of Steel and rehabilitate Superman's image. Still, it had Batmobiles batmobiling and colossal marketing, so while it fell way short of Civil War it wasn't a catastrophe.

Justice League blatantly ignores all issues of theme and character from the rest of the DCEU. Cavill was always Christopher Reeve, Batman needed a Snickers bar, and Wonder Woman is still the reluctant hero we left in BvS. The rest of the cast is just thin as fuck Hollywood tropes, and audiences just don't give much of a fuck, in spite of critical supression and flooding audience review boards with paid responses.

Fuck the DCEU. No one building it had anything more than contempt for the comics and the fans of the mythos.

>Supermans central character arc is "Is my presence actually good for this world?"

And if anything had actually been done with that arc - narratively and thematically - in BvS, maybe that would mean something. But the film ignores the gigantic upheavals in global politics, religion, etc. that Superman's presence would have on the world in favor of giving us the Brooding Blue-suited Bitch.

Showing Batman in his "good" state - or even having Alfred directly tell us about Batman's "good" state - would have made far more of a difference than relying on the same kind of cultural osmosis that BvS wanted to either mock, sidestep, or mock while sidestepping. (Mockstepping? We'll go with that.)

The Knightmare is a clunky piece of shit that serves no purpose in the film. Take it out and it does not damage the film at all. And the "WE HAVE TO TAKE IT AS AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" speech, combined with all the prior brooding about Superman, shows how Batfleck feels about Supes without the need for an action sequence that shits all over the film's two primary characters and has no connection to the narrative other than the tenuous one you just tried to make. If you can pull an entire sequence out of a film without having a negative effect on the film, that sequence IS a negative effect on the film.

>and Wonder Woman is still the reluctant hero we left in BvS.
Seriously though, I keep seeing this criticism, but why wouldn't she be? Her movie was a prequel, there's no narrative reason for her to act in JL like she did in WW.
And this is another checkmark on the list of why you don't make prequels.

Justice League doesn't even mention the destructive alien attack, that Superman is an alien, or that he was killed by a fellow alien.

The whole premise of Superman's controversial alien heritage is completely dropped. That he's superhuman is meaningless, as we have a superhuman league of heroes following superhumans in Suicide Squad.

The only theme left by JL is "we are going to blow up a lot of CGI shit, plz gib us a billion."

>I keep seeing this criticism, but why wouldn't she be?

Superman's death is supposedly the catalyst for Batman becoming less of a murderous dickhead. Why wouldn't it spur Diana into returning to her old ways of being a superhero who actively tries to help people?

>the same kind of cultural osmosis that BvS wanted to either mock, sidestep, or mock while sidestepping. (Mockstepping? We'll go with that.)
MoS did the same thing, it was all about mockstepping the perceived audience's view of Superman.

Executional error not a idea error.
This how about instead of the Nightmare/future vision why not have some flashback to the good old days so we at least know the new Batman, so that the contrast is more stark and not just in our perceived idea of Batman but in the provable DCEU version.

Although I think you're too harsh on the nightmare like remove the references it's an okay scene.

The Jenkins film intentionally moves her character arc away from being this tragedy-weary figure lurking in the shadows; and audiences and critics rewarded it with awesome reviews and large monies.

Do you really think it makes sense to devolve her character back to BvS? In a movie that is already pretending that Superman was never like he was in the previous two films?

>It's not like "I killed this genocidal maniac once and it felt bad until I kissed my gf" is that great a motivation either, especially given how little is made out of it in BvS.

Nothing from MoS carries over from BvS outside of "Supes 9/11'd Metropolis and Zod parked his car in the middle of the city." For all Snyder said that BvS would deal with the consequences of the aftermath of Man of Steel, it never engages with anything interesting.

I still can't believe that Snyder made the Superman Trials about a TOTALLY UNRELATED INCIDENT TO THE ZOD INVASION. He invented some totally new tragedy involving roasted Africans and magic bullets and Jimmy Olsen being executed for literally no reason other then to give Lois Lane the most worthless subplot in comic movie history.

There are people in this thread right now who still do not understand MoS and BvS

Because nothing in BvS indicated that it did. After Supes dies she mostly just stands there. They made a big stink about the effect it had on Batman, and it """made sense""" for him, but Diana? She wasn't in the same place as Batman in regards to Superman.
They just kind of forgot to tell us how the events of the movie had an effect on her I guess.

The Lois subplot was there literally just so Lois could be in the movie for more than five minutes. She was even more of a prop in BvS than she was in MoS; she might even be more of a prop in BvS than Rachel was in The Dark Knight Trilogy.

We get it.
We just still think they suck.

>Everyone says that about [Christopher Nolan’s] Batman Begins. ”Batman’s dark.” I’m like, okay, ”No, Batman’s cool.” He gets to go to a Tibetan monastery and be trained by ninjas. Okay? I want to do that. But he doesn’t, like, get raped in prison. That could happen in my movie. If you want to talk about dark, that’s how that would go.

>“I thought, if it were Jesse Eisenberg and he got out and he goes, ‘I’m Jimmy Olsen,’ you’d be like, oh my God, we’re gonna have Jimmy Olsen in the whole movie, right?’” Snyder says. “And then if he got shot, you’d just be like, ‘What!? You can’t do that.’”

Nigga let me make it clear
1917->2016->2017
Besides wasn't JL half done by the time WW was in theaters?