Does Batman v Superman work better as part 2 of a trilogy?

[Kevin Roegele]

On it's own, Batman v Superman is unavoidably downbeat and disappointed a lot of people. But now we've had Justice League, which is very much the continuation of BvS with what amounts to a happy ending, does it redeem BvS in some ways? Is BvS more effective as the dark middle section of a trilogy than on it's own?

Or...is it just a very bleak, joyless movie which jars horribly with the lightened tone of Justice League?

 

[FunkMiller]

With many changes, it would work as a story told towards the END of a cinematic universe narrative. Not at the bloody beginning. That was the point of The Dark Knight Returns (which is the only reason BvS really exists). It was a story that can only work with a lot of history behind it. Zack Snyder's complete inability to grasp this very simple narrative fact is one of his biggest mistakes.

 

[DrCosmic]

I don't think it does better as part of a trilogy. It certainly gives the sense that this is 'going somewhere' but it also highlights the really REALLY poor worldbuilding that fails the whole trilogy instead of just itself, and the themes are almost entirely irreconcilable with either MoS or JL.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Tone had very little to do with BvS sucking. It being a garbage fire of a movie, miserably torturing every tenet of functional storytelling and bludgeoning to mush every known tenet of character building is why it continues to fail. It would've been just as gross even if it was light hearted.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Justice League really throws off the idea of it being a trilogy. I wish it would've been more of Zack's vision that made it through. Say what you will about MOS and BvS, they were both very much Zack's films, and BvS really felt like a sequel to MOS. It's a shame that JL feels more like a Whedon film.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

With many changes, it would work as a story told towards the END of a cinematic universe narrative. Not at the bloody beginning. That was the point of The Dark Knight Returns (which is the only reason BvS really exists). It was a story that can only work with a lot of history behind it. Zack Snyder's complete inability to grasp this very simple narrative fact is one of his biggest mistakes.

Does it need a lot of story behind it? Superman and Batman clashed the first time they met in the post-Crisis universe, in Man of Steel #5, and were uneasy allies for a long time afterwards.

I agree that The Dark Knight Returns version of Batman should not have been done in BvS, but not the Batman and Superman conflict itself.

 

[The Guard]

I don't think it does better as part of a trilogy. It certainly gives the sense that this is 'going somewhere' but it also highlights the really REALLY poor worldbuilding that fails the whole trilogy instead of just itself, and the themes are almost entirely irreconcilable with either MoS or JL.

How so?

 

[Kevin Roegele]

How so?

I think one of them is that Justice League reverts to a quite simplistic moral view, almost Super Friends-esque; whereas Man of Steel and Bats V Supes tried to present these characters in more realistic fashion where everyone has shades of grey, and even acts of heroism have consequences. Justice League totally avoided that.

The two previous films went to great lengths to establish that, despite his state funeral at the end of BvS, Superman would be loved by some people and feared by others, that he'd be a controversial figure. JS gives us a very simple, smiley, beacon of hope Superman, which doesn't make a lot of sense given all that has happened. It's the Superman audiences wanted, but it's not the Superman from the previous films.

 

[FunkMiller]

Does it need a lot of story behind it? Superman and Batman clashed the first time they met in the post-Crisis universe, in Man of Steel #5, and were uneasy allies for a long time afterwards.

I agree that The Dark Knight Returns version of Batman should not have been done in BvS, but not the Batman and Superman conflict itself.

You certainly need some history between the characters for conflict between them to work. They require conflicting ideologies to be convincing ‘enemies’, and that means a lot of character development to justify those ideologies.

You sure as hell can’t have the first time they meet be when they go to war with one another, because you then have to manufacture a reason for two blatantly good men to fight. And doing it via external manipulation undercuts both Batman’s intelligence and Superman’s integrity.

Frankly, Batman and Superman fighting is always a pretty ****** narrative route to go down imo. Miller’s attempt is probably best, but even that gives us a negative depiction of Superman.

 

[Boom]

On it's own, Batman v Superman is unavoidably downbeat and disappointed a lot of people. But now we've had Justice League, which is very much the continuation of BvS with what amounts to a happy ending, does it redeem BvS in some ways? Is BvS more effective as the dark middle section of a trilogy than on it's own?

Or...is it just a very bleak, joyless movie which jars horribly with the lightened tone of Justice League?

Nope.

If MoS/BvS/JL are intended to be a three-film arc, then it has to be the most tonally-disjointed trilogy I have ever seen. Justice League is so different from Batman v Superman in terms of tone and execution that it's legitimately distracting.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Nothing will ever redeem BvS, especially not a CGI crapfest like Justice League.

 

[Mandon Knight]

If Justice League had been completed and released as was originally conceived in similar tone and content, story and development, yes.

Now, to a certain degree, it ties in well with MoS but has very little connective tissue 'feel' to JL, if any. The 'dots' don't match or join and as the character 'thrust' is very different to the point of them being in some parts, different iterations of what we expect/want, then no, overall, but yes as a segway to a film, that if WB/Whedon hadn't destroyed then I suspect what was being built in BvS would have justifiable pay off.

 

[the last son]

As bad as I thought bvs was justice league was twice as bad. At least bvs tried and failed harded, but tried. JL was garbage. No trying just cookie cutter garbage.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

You certainly need some history between the characters for conflict between them to work.

But Man of Steel # 5 works great, and it's the first time they meet.

Anyway, surely the only way Batman would ever actually attack Superman would be if he didn't know him. By the time he's met him, and knows what a force for good he is, he'd never fight him unless Supes became a Goverment stooge or something, like in TDKR.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Maybe yes and maybe no, depends on the execution.

 

[Frodo]

I think it could have worked better as two movies , which was the rumor for a brief period.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

I think it could have worked better as two movies , which was the rumor for a brief period.

That's interesting. I'd never heard that.

 

[Pennywise]

Nope, it wouldn't work better as a trilogy.

 

[random_havoc]

Justice League really throws off the idea of it being a trilogy. I wish it would've been more of Zack's vision that made it through. Say what you will about MOS and BvS, they were both very much Zack's films, and BvS really felt like a sequel to MOS. It's a shame that JL feels more like a Whedon film.

Say what I will? Don't mind if I do. BvS is utter garbage and the only mistake the WB execs made was letting Snyder anywhere near another movie after that one in the first place. Kicking him off part way through is the least they could do.
Justice League is rated better by critics and fans, there's a reason for that. (Again, it's because BvS is a flaming pile of fecal matter)

 

[The Guard]

I think one of them is that Justice League reverts to a quite simplistic moral view, almost Super Friends-esque; whereas Man of Steel and Bats V Supes tried to present these characters in more realistic fashion where everyone has shades of grey, and even acts of heroism have consequences. Justice League totally avoided that.

Super Friends-esque?

I mean, a decent portion of JUSTICE LEAGUE deals with the consequences of Superman's heroism...his death. The film talks about the impact the crusade has had on Batman, Aquaman rejects outright heroism, Wonder Woman details the nature of leadership and heroism; sending people into battle, the personal risk and her conflicts with this...the film doesn't delve into "gray area" themes as much as BVS or detail the public's reaction to things, but it certainly doesn't avoid any of the more serious aspects of heroism, either.

The two previous films went to great lengths to establish that, despite his state funeral at the end of BvS, Superman would be loved by some people and feared by others, that he'd be a controversial figure.

That is really not the message intended by the end of BVS. The point of the state funeral and the mourners is that he is largely accepted in death because of his sacrifice. He is, more than ever, one of them and accepted as such.

He was controversial, but that was before he essentially "proved himself" to humanity. There's no reason to believe there would be the same level of controversy immediately upon his return, and even if there was, the film doesn't deal with this anyway.

JS gives us a very simple, smiley, beacon of hope Superman, which doesn't make a lot of sense given all that has happened. It's the Superman audiences wanted, but it's not the Superman from the previous films.

I guess you missed the part where he's confused, angry, conflicted Superman for a bit there.

He's actually not that complex in BVS...he's still a pretty straightforward hero with straightforward desires to save people. The issues surrounding him. in terms of his relationship with the world, are a bit more complex...but those issues are essentially resolved at the end of BVS.

The fact that Clark cracks a few jokes in JUSTICE LEAGUE and not so much in MOS and BVS does not mean the character was never capable of doing those things...that simply wasn't the focus of the film. Even mostly serious people can make jokes if they're in the right mood.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Actually I’d say the problem is precisely that it was thought up to be the darker middle chapter. Didn’t Terrio himself say that?

Whereas it should have been something more timeless and standalone. A meeting between a fully formed Superman and Batman in their normal status quo. A superhero the world loves and one the people fear, etc.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Super Friends-esque?

I mean, a decent portion of JUSTICE LEAGUE deals with the consequences of Superman's heroism...his death. The film talks about the impact the crusade has had on Batman, Aquaman rejects outright heroism, Wonder Woman details the nature of leadership and heroism; sending people into battle, the personal risk and her conflicts with this...the film doesn't delve into "gray area" themes as much as BVS or detail the public's reaction to things, but it certainly doesn't avoid any of the more serious aspects of heroism, either.

Justice League gives the characters basic emotional hurdles to overcome before they join the League, so they don't all just say yes immediately. It's very simple screenwriting. It's not really anything to do with heroism.

That is really not the message intended by the end of BVS. The point of the state funeral and the mourners is that he is largely accepted in death because of his sacrifice. He is, more than ever, one of them and accepted as such.

He was controversial, but that was before he essentially "proved himself" to humanity. There's no reason to believe there would be the same level of controversy immediately upon his return, and even if there was, the film doesn't deal with this anyway.

I guess you missed the part where he's confused, angry, conflicted Superman for a bit there.

He's actually not that complex in BVS...he's still a pretty straightforward hero with straightforward desires to save people. The issues surrounding him. in terms of his relationship with the world, are a bit more complex...but those issues are essentially resolved at the end of BVS.

BvS is absolutely crammed full of scenes discussing the impact of Superman on the world, whether he's a good thing or not, what his responsibilities are, and so on. Lois explains to him there are consequences to what he does. Holy Hunter's character illustrates how Superman just acting instinctively creates all kinds of problems.

Justice League completely ignores all this and has Superman as a simple hero.

The fact that Clark cracks a few jokes in JUSTICE LEAGUE and not so much in MOS and BVS does not mean the character was never capable of doing those things...that simply wasn't the focus of the film. Even mostly serious people can make jokes if they're in the right mood.

Or if Joss Whedon is paid to cram them in.

 

[Frodo]

That's interesting. I'd never heard that.

Oh yeah. You could probably do a google search and find some older articles running with the rumor.

It was a bogus and short lived rumor, but at that time, with the release date being pushed back, rumors of everyone from Metallo, to Carrie Kelly, a love interest for Bruce Wayne, and an appearence by Dick Grayson , in addition to the news that Wonder Woman would be included in the film, some fans speculated that the film would be a two-parter.

 

[The Guard]

Justice League gives the characters basic emotional hurdles to overcome before they join the League, so they don't all just say yes immediately. It's very simple screenwriting. It's not really anything to do with heroism.

Like...a number of other movies. Being straightforward screenwriting doesn't make it bad.

If it has nothing to do with heroism, then why does Diana talk about the nature of heroes risking their lives? Why do Bruce and Arthur have a conversation about heroism and its costs?

How does a movie showing the conflict that heroes face have nothing to do with heroism?

BvS is absolutely crammed full of scenes discussing the impact of Superman on the world, whether he's a good thing or not, what his responsibilities are, and so on. Lois explains to him there are consequences to what he does. Holy Hunter's character illustrates how Superman just acting instinctively creates all kinds of problems.

That's...three scenes. Four if you count the scene with Jonathan. I don't consider that "crammed", in any real sense.

BVS is, at heart, a movie about Superman and his impact on the world after his arrival. Superman is not the central concept of the story of JUSTICE LEAGUE, so why would JUSTICE LEAGUE explore the same themes?

Justice League completely ignores all this and has Superman as a simple hero.

Ignores what?

Again, why would JUSTICE LEAGUE explore the same territory as the previous film? Characters have moved on from the events of BVS in JUSTICE LEAGUE.

Superman was a fairly simple hero in BVS. It is the world that had a complex reaction to him. That was resolved in BVS after his sacrifice. Why would they then rehash it in JUSTICE LEAGUE?

 

[Spider-Fan]

I can't believe I am going to say this, but...I agree with The Guard on a point!

BvS was directly about the Superman problem. People were nervous about him and afraid of what he could do. No one knew if he was a force for good, etc. But, when he died, people looked to him as a hero. The struggle of the Superman problem is no longer present because he proved his intentions by sacrificing himself. JL would have been backtracking to cover this ground again. Now the door was open for Superman to be the beloved icon we know.

I don't think they conveyed or portrayed this the best way possible. But, in regards to how the story developed in universe, the Superman problem was resolved in BvS.