Negativity towards the DC films? - Part 1

[Marvin]

The reality is most people don't want to work when consuming entertainment. They want a clear path, or at the very least a clear perspective. For the most part they're not interested in vagueness. A clear path doesn't mean a simple story, it doesn't mean it can't be thought provoking, it just means the foundations are firmly in place. You can have a complex story that requires the audiences attention that still follows that principle.

Of course you can have that(most pixar is). And of course 'most' people don't want to work, it's a basic conceit of the block buster. It's why giving big budget money to stuff that supposedly skate the line, like inception and that ilk are considered risks.

The present issue being the simple and clear are somehow the gold standard, let alone the only way to do this stuff. What is simply a preference. What most 'want' isn't to be confused for what is 'quality' rather the only type of quality. Sometimes things can be complex and vague, that one has to do some work to figure them out might not be the preference(still surprised to here that given the types of reviews i read growing up), but that doesn't make it null.

The avg cinema score of the bay stuff(A) is much higher than the scores of say fightclub/seven/12 monkeys/prestige/Arrival and many more of that ilk. All B's. I'm pretty aware of what people want in this regard myself. I do think however if you end up getting a **** critical score, you are far better off if your film does play to what people want and is a good time at that. It's how bay does it when the chips are down.

 

[StormC]

The difference between directors like Kubrick and Snyder is one is much more talented than the other.

 

[Marvin]

The difference between directors like Kubrick and Snyder is one is much more talented than the other.

One could say the same about the gaps in their respective audiences.

That being said I never said the two were equal(that's a different discussion) I said being an active audience is hardly un orthodox, active audiences are required for a great many best picture winners(not all). The excuse that one guy supposedly isn't the same, though seemingly approaches visual symbolism is kinda rare on this stage and genre, is neither here nor there.

 

[Loki882]

There's a HUGE difference between exploring some serious philosophical questions that maybe have no one "right" answer, and having basic character motivation and plot details makes sense. And that's where the previous DCEU films had problems imo.

Also to be frank, most people don't go to superhero films to be made to do homework in order to understand them. They go primarily to be entertained, and that's not wrong of them because that's how the comics were set up from the beginning. Now CAN they explore some deeper themes and ideas, certainly. But if you're so far up you're own butt with how "deep and artistic" you are that you lose your audience, then that's YOUR fault. Because you need to understand your audience and react accordingly.

You know why Nolan's Batman films are so popular, because he understood that. He was able to find the right balance between exploring some deeper ideas while also making entertaining films that most of the audience would like. Captain America: TWS is another good example of this.

 

[Sleiek]

Honest question, as a DCEU fan: why does Superman do what he does? What is his motivation? I genuinely can't find one and it's the most glaring flaw to me in this franchise. In my eyes it is failing to do one of the most basic things any sort of story should do. So I'm genuinely curious to hear your reading of Superman.

In my opinion, there was no motivation in the beginning. He doesn't know what his purpose is. Take the first scene of grown up Clark Kent. He is at sea, trying to find his way around. Sees people in need of help. Doesn't hesitate for a second, finds them a path to the helipad, waits for them to get into the chopper. Reason for why he does that? Do you really need one? He has a genuine desire to help whenever he can. And there is no actual reason why he does what he does. He just does it because he wants to help. No one really "taught" him to help. He hasn't met Jor-El, who wants him to help, until later on. His adoptive father doesn't encourage him to seek opportunities to help others because he is protective. Yet, he still helps. What more can I ask for. Just thinking about this makes me emotional. Superman used to be boring to me until Man of Steel. What's changed? The movie starts with him trying to find a purpose while all this time helps others at the same time. That's powerful stuff. His desire to help others didn't come to him, it was always within him. Let me take a minute and breathe.

 

[Consona]

Honest question, as a DCEU fan: why does Superman do what he does? What is his motivation? I genuinely can't find one and it's the most glaring flaw to me in this franchise. In my eyes it is failing to do one of the most basic things any sort of story should do. So I'm genuinely curious to hear your reading of Superman.

I'm seeing WW tomorrow and I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that I'll be able to tell why she's doing what she does. They'll make me feel like I know and understand this character, and I'm very excited.

TLDR: I could do TLDR, but I don't want to. t:

Snyder's Superman is, to me, the most interesting superhero by far. On one hand he's very empathic, and I think his empathy is what drives him, there is no "I want to be a good person because A, B, C," exposition, instead you can see him caring about others, the look on his face, the actions he takes, rescuing kids on the bus, even the ass-holes, the oil rig rescue, the scene with waitress, you don't need a narration see to that, it's clearly shown, he knows he possesses power to help and so he does, because he cares, and if you need a narrative, watch those scenes when he speaks to his Earth father and mother, Lois, the priest... Lines like "The only way you could disappear... ...is to stop helping people altogether, and I sense that's not an option for you." or "My father believed that if the world found out who I really was, they'd reject me...out of fear." Then the cut to his argue with Jonathan "I'm tired of safe. I just wanna do something useful with my life."

Then you have scenes where Jonathan shares his concerns and reasons for them, scenes where Clark argues with him, scenes where his doubts are shown and explained, about Zod, about people of Earth. Scenes where he asks for advice. You see little Clark learning who he is, how people can be nasty to each other, to him for being different, those three bullies when he's reading Plato's Republic t:, he has to learn to control his temper, yet he saves people who were mean to him, like the child on the bus... There's a conflict inside of him, but it is put there from outside... *the world* is not ready... but he? *he* was always ready to help!
Man, all the scenes and dialogues in this film... just watch it. I cannot and don't want to recite them all here and make the points. It's all in the film.

So, to answer your question: His motivation is his empathy for others, a sense of usefulness when others need help. And quite frankly, if one needs a racional and well explained reason to be a caring person, then he's a psycho- and socio-path, since he doesn't possess the emotional faculty to feel and recognize others need help.
And that's why he's Superman, the man who he is, the biggest superhero, because his gut feeling is to help others no matter his own harm. And he does or wants to do that throughout the whole film. Sometimes he's stopped by protectiveness of his father, sometimes by external forces, like Zod. And a lot of time, mainly in BvS, he's conflicted because he wants to help, yet other people hate him for things he does or who he is, he acknowledges the world is not black and white, ideal,... Yet he always goes and helps!!! He saves that girl at day of the dead, the astronauts, the crew of the capsized ship, etc., and even Luthor from Doomsday. 'Cause he's the fricking Superman. He does not need some petty and artificial reasoning for being helpful, being helpful is at his core. And I think from reading Plato he knows all the reasoning is petty and artificial.

I rewatched the film today, and, together with TDK, it's the best CBM. It's so moving, I cried several times during the film, it's so energetic and powerful, the story is fantastic and it gives you food for thought, characters are nicely detailed, villains are the best ones since The Joker, Zod has so many lines in it actually and Faora is pure awesome, it has the best fight scenes hands down, it's visually stunning, those desings and effects, the World Engine sequence is the most beautiful thing I've seen in any CBM, plus the amazing Zimmer's soundtrack... man I just love this film so much.

This movie is the biggest cognitive dissonance for me. I think what Snyder, Goyer, Nolan and all those other people were able to accomplish is astonishing, yet the movie is so panned. Just does not compute. Seems like I'm an alien life form too or something.

See, with so much hate and salt about MoS and BvS here, I'd love to discuss those films seriously, but what I get when I try is mockering of Snyder's work,"too deep for us, yea" bull***t, etc. But on the other hand I just cannot overlook when someone slams those films, so you know, tough position.
Plus that "Having some fun in a distant parts of this forum..." post is an inside joke, for we get some nice vitriol in these parts of the forum for defending Snyder...

 

[Marvin]

There's a HUGE difference between exploring some serious philosophical questions that maybe have no one "right" answer, and having basic character motivation and plot details makes sense. And that's where the previous DCEU films had problems imo.

Also to be frank, most people don't go to superhero films to be made to do homework in order to understand them. They go primarily to be entertained, and that's not wrong of them because that's how the comics were set up from the beginning. Now CAN they explore some deeper themes and ideas, certainly. But if you're so far up you're own butt with how "deep and artistic" you are that you lose your audience, then that's YOUR fault. Because you need to understand your audience and react accordingly.

You know why Nolan's Batman films are so popular, because he understood that. He was able to find the right balance between exploring some deeper ideas while also making entertaining films that most of the audience would like. Captain America: TWS is another good example of this.

Go watch waking life, the fountain, The seventh seal(1950s), Cloud atlas, hell even Blade runner. This are films where you could see said difference(i suspect they all failed with the GA). Morally ambiguous and deeply philosophical. Where 'plot details' and char. motivation are hard to decode if you will. MOS? very simple almost lacking plot in some cases given it's early and matter of fact third act. At a certain point the antagonist wants to destroy the world(as is expected of comic books apparently) and superman wants to.. No, the previous dceu films are very easy. And one doesn't need to do 'homework' to keep up, they need to(matter of fact) simply pay attention and or try or both imo. If homework is needed it's when people have to keep up with one of these various cinematic universes or binge all the starwars films prior, or like with rebootprequels(creed/JW).

I agree with the rest, WB should have made something far more straight forward with this material, the often described big budget art/indie film is only an accomplishment when it's done with none properties in my experience. Which is why JLA is looking to be a smash, Barry figures out bruce wayne is batman cause he throws a batarang at him, even the kids will own this plot beat.
I happen to think nolans films were popular for a litany of reasons, but yes also because his batman wasn't momento/prestige or even interstellar. They understood the expectations and limitations of needing even kids to fully grasp the stuff. Enter jla(again). I also think that mega boost in relevance tied coincidentally with Ledgers death playing the joker in last role etc. I saw similar happen with Paul walker. Begins...only did so well.

 

[Osiris-Rex]

Honest question, as a DCEU fan: why does Superman do what he does? What is his motivation? I genuinely can't find one and it's the most glaring flaw to me in this franchise. In my eyes it is failing to do one of the most basic things any sort of story should do. So I'm genuinely curious to hear your reading of Superman.

I too am baffled by that.
They did a vastly superior job of explaining Supergirl's motivation in the Supergirl TV series. She saved her sister and an airplane load of people and was so jazzed she could help people she wanted to keep on doing that.
The pure joy and wonder on her face while standing on the wing right then and there told you that she had found her calling. Simple as that.
Even Adventures of Superman did a better job. Clark Kent wanted to get a job with the Daily Planet so he scooped Lois Lane by saving a man dangling from a blimp and then as Clark Kent got the interview with the man.
Thus being Superman lets Clark Kent get the scoop on that snotty Lois Lane. His joy was in making her look foolish.
Although he is shown rescuing people in Man of Steel, you never got the idea this was something he wanted to do as a life's work. It was almost like he was cleaning the lint trap in the dryer. He was doing it because
he felt this was something he had to do, not because he wanted to do it.

 

[Marvin]

They did a vastly superior job of explaining Supergirl's motivation in the Supergirl TV series. She saved her sister and an airplane load of people and was so jazzed she could help people she wanted to keep on doing that.
The pure joy and wonder on her face while standing on the wing right then and there told you that she had found her calling. Simple as that.

And there it is. You ever stop to ask yourself how the world felt about her existence and what he was doing? Imagine if you will the fairly tale like world she lives in was closer to our real world, and she was the first alien god to touch down with the power of several nukes in each eye and no real gov't control on her. What would people russia and china think, what would all the people that are kept in line by way of religion think....she's jazzed in part because the world is jazzed. Contrast this to clark saving the bus and what he understands are the implications of this act. Maybe not so jazzed, no I don't think getting a thrill is the way to go about his motivation. Speaking personally him doing something to make him happy isn't so heroic in my eye. If anything not enjoying but wanting to be useful is far more so.

This is the crux of the matter i find, people wanting the end goal without stopping to take in anything approaching the context and how much sense it makes. An example of this would be, take a look at how much FUN and enjoyment the avengers have doing their job when the world and co are loving them for doing so. Then watch civil war and look at how much gotdamn 'fun' they are having doing their jobs. But compared to supergirl....
Still he did smile when saving the girl in bvs from burning building, only for the context and implications to soon surround him.

Be optimistic though, not only is the studio mandating a change to the prior way this material has been handled, but they have set up for a paradigm shift in the the cinematic world given superman died for everyone and they all love him now. Next time he saves a cat from a tree even batman will applaud and i'm sure he'll enjoy it.

As for motivation I find myself asking again, just what was it in 1979?

 

[The Guard]

Funny you should mention that...

Think about it. Even in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, do we ever see Clark overtly express what his motivations are in any formative way? Prior to becoming Superman, I mean.

I know he's all "Here to fight for truth, justice and the American Way" once he becomes Superman, but even Jonathan's Kent's wordly teachings amount to "You have powers and you are here for a reason and it's not just to be better than other people". Which is a similar level of motivation that Jonathan provides in MAN OF STEEL, albeit with some conflict. And while Jor-El tells him who he is and where he comes from, how his powers work, and "trains" him, he still gives Clark no concrete reason for wanting to be a good man and help people, other than that he can inspire humanity by doing so. But that doesn't speak to Clark's motivations so much as Jor-El's.

And keep in mind, this is a version of the character we DON'T see wanting to help people as a child or young man as we do in MAN OF STEEL...which I would consider far more formative.

I don't remember STAS or SMALLVILLE's take that well as it's been a while since I've seen them, but it wouldn't surprise me if it delved deeper into it simply because of the additional screentime provided by the medium of TV. I remember enjoying the "Kent" elements on SMALLVILLE. I'd guess most of the "Kent" formative stuff was in the pilot of STAS.

While I will agree that it would be nice to see Superman enjoying what he can do, even in the comics and most versions of the character from movies and TV, Superman does what he does first and foremost because he can. Because he has the power to do so, and feels that he has a duty to use that power to help others. Enjoying what he can do is very much secondary, in almost every incarnation of the character. It is his duty, it is the core of a hero, to use their strength and abilities to help others and to put their lives on the line if needed.

Superman does what he does because he can and because he wants to help people. I don't watch MAN OF STEEL and see a man who doesn't want to help people. Quite the opposite. I see a man who hasn't made a game of it. Who treats it as his holy work, his mission. And MAN OF STEEL was not wrong to present the "duty" side of the character. That's key in the comics. The error, in terms of faithfulness to the classic character, was skimping on the other half of the equation, the passion for it.

Interestingly enough, WONDER WOMAN didn't really show who taught Diana to help people either. We were just told in voiceover that it was the Amazons' duty to stop Ares. No one complained about a lack of motivation for her basic altruism, near as I can tell. I guess she smiled enough while she was doing it . And yes, I get that it is shown that she genuinely cares throughout the film, but I do think Superman is shown to genuinely care about people as well, just in a different, less overt fashion. He doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve as much as Diana does.

As for being SUPERGIRL...being jazzed that you can help people is not a motivation. It is a reaction. It does not, in itself, explain why you are a good person or why you help people.

 

[idiot09]

Of course you can have that(most pixar is). And of course 'most' people don't want to work, it's a basic conceit of the block buster. It's why giving big budget money to stuff that supposedly skate the line, like inception and that ilk are considered risks.

The present issue being the simple and clear are somehow the gold standard, let alone the only way to do this stuff. What is simply a preference. What most 'want' isn't to be confused for what is 'quality' rather the only type of quality. Sometimes things can be complex and vague, that one has to do some work to figure them out might not be the preference(still surprised to here that given the types of reviews i read growing up), but that doesn't make it null.

The avg cinema score of the bay stuff(A) is much higher than the scores of say fightclub/seven/12 monkeys/prestige/Arrival and many more of that ilk. All B's. I'm pretty aware of what people want in this regard myself. I do think however if you end up getting a **** critical score, you are far better off if your film does play to what people want and is a good time at that. It's how bay does it when the chips are down.

In my opinion, there was no motivation in the beginning. He doesn't know what his purpose is. Take the first scene of grown up Clark Kent. He is at sea, trying to find his way around. Sees people in need of help. Doesn't hesitate for a second, finds them a path to the helipad, waits for them to get into the chopper. Reason for why he does that? Do you really need one? He has a genuine desire to help whenever he can. And there is no actual reason why he does what he does. He just does it because he wants to help. No one really "taught" him to help. He hasn't met Jor-El, who wants him to help, until later on. His adoptive father doesn't encourage him to seek opportunities to help others because he is protective. Yet, he still helps. What more can I ask for. Just thinking about this makes me emotional. Superman used to be boring to me until Man of Steel. What's changed? The movie starts with him trying to find a purpose while all this time helps others at the same time. That's powerful stuff. His desire to help others didn't come to him, it was always within him. Let me take a minute and breathe.

Go watch waking life, the fountain, The seventh seal(1950s), Cloud atlas, hell even Blade runner. This are films where you could see said difference(i suspect they all failed with the GA). Morally ambiguous and deeply philosophical. Where 'plot details' and char. motivation are hard to decode if you will. MOS? very simple almost lacking plot in some cases given it's early and matter of fact third act. At a certain point the antagonist wants to destroy the world(as is expected of comic books apparently) and superman wants to.. No, the previous dceu films are very easy. And one doesn't need to do 'homework' to keep up, they need to(matter of fact) simply pay attention and or try or both imo. If homework is needed it's when people have to keep up with one of these various cinematic universes or binge all the starwars films prior, or like with rebootprequels(creed/JW).

I agree with the rest, WB should have made something far more straight forward with this material, the often described big budget art/indie film is only an accomplishment when it's done with none properties in my experience. Which is why JLA is looking to be a smash, Barry figures out bruce wayne is batman cause he throws a batarang at him, even the kids will own this plot beat.
I happen to think nolans films were popular for a litany of reasons, but yes also because his batman wasn't momento/prestige or even interstellar. They understood the expectations and limitations of needing even kids to fully grasp the stuff. Enter jla(again). I also think that mega boost in relevance tied coincidentally with Ledgers death playing the joker in last role etc. I saw similar happen with Paul walker. Begins...only did so well.

Very well said guys and I absolutely agree.

 

[idiot09]

Interestingly enough, WONDER WOMAN didn't show who taught Diana to help people either. We were just told that it was the Amazons' duty to stop Ares. No one complained about that motivation for her basic altruism, near as I can tell. I guess she smiled enough while she was doing it. And yes, I get that it is shown that she genuinely cares throughout the film, but I do think Superman is shown to genuinely care about people as well, just in a different, less overt fashion. He doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve as much as Diana does.

The difference is Diana grew up with people who were born warriors, and she knew that to be her destiny. She grew up with people who told her who she was, she belonged, and had a great and formative childhood with her family in a paradise island.

Contrast that with Clark. He grew up in our cynical world, he didnt know why he was different, why he had trouble fitting in. He was bullied and mocked in school. His parents loved him, but he had no one else. He wondered if god made him abnormal. Then he realised he was an alien, and he was alone in a planet with different beings. That he would never fit in.

The contrast is staggering. Yet Clark grows up to be the hero against all odds. Diana doesnt become a public hero. Clark does. He takes all the hits again and again from the public. And only when he turned the tide, and after his death when the world embraces costumed heroes, do the others come out including Diana, Barry etc.

Spoiler

People criticise Clark for momentarily being cynical after his mom and girlfriend were kidnapped, and he was asked to kill another life for her mothers and after death following everywhere he went. Diana froze and blamed mankind and steve and called them all evil and not deserving of her help when her idealistic world viewpoint broke. Diana wasnt more heroic.
She was idealistic.

They are both heroes. But Clark's is no less and arguably more, because the challenges he faced were much grander. And why shouldnt he? He is Superman. And he faced all those odds and came up the victor.

 

[MbJ]

People are citing arthouse or complex dramas that won acclaim and are using that as proof of a bias against DC for attempting those same things, but again, I feel it's much more likely that people bashed it because those attempts simply weren't implemented well.

Just because a movie is attempting to be deep and symbolic doesn't mean it's automatically good. I don't think anyone here would ever argue that Batman v. Superman wasn't trying for some grandiose sense at symbolism and melodrama; it just executed it extremely poorly.

 

[Loki882]

^Exactly.

 

[TripleJ]

The difference is Diana grew up with people who were born warriors, and she knew that to be her destiny. She grew up with people who told her who she was, she belonged, and had a great and formative childhood with her family in a paradise island.

Contrast that with Clark. He grew up in our cynical world, he didnt know why he was different, why he had trouble fitting in. He was bullied and mocked in school. His parents loved him, but he had no one else. He wondered if god made him abnormal. Then he realised he was an alien, and he was alone in a planet with different beings. That he would never fit in.

The contrast is staggering. Yet Clark grows up to be the hero against all odds. Diana doesnt become a public hero. Clark does. He takes all the hits again and again from the public. And only when he turned the tide, and after his death when the world embraces costumed heroes, do the others come out including Diana, Barry etc.

Spoiler

People criticise Clark for momentarily being cynical after his mom and girlfriend were kidnapped, and he was asked to kill another life for her mothers and after death following everywhere he went. Diana froze and blamed mankind and steve and called them all evil and not deserving of her help when her idealistic world viewpoint broke. Diana wasnt more heroic.
She was idealistic.

They are both heroes. But Clark's is no less and arguably more, because the challenges he faced were much grander. And why shouldnt he? He is Superman. And he faced all those odds and came up the victor.

Perhaps that's what people want - a more idealistic Superman (I find that version is not only boring, but the most dangerous version). I think someone of Superman's stature should consider the consequences of his actions, and how he affects the world.

 

[Marvin]

People are citing arthouse or complex dramas that won acclaim and are using that as proof of a bias against DC for attempting those same things, but again, I feel it's much more likely that people bashed it because those attempts simply weren't implemented well.

Just because a movie is attempting to be deep and symbolic doesn't mean it's automatically good. I don't think anyone here would ever argue that Batman v. Superman wasn't trying for some grandiose sense at symbolism and melodrama; it just executed it extremely poorly.

"People" here aren't citing dramas to prove bias against DC.
A person(me) here is explaining just how bloody simple it is to discern a basic character motivation from a film that isn't as overt as Aladin. And then when that person(me) is told that all of these films should be as simple(r) and as easy to read as Aladin, this person cited the fact that complex dramas, FAR MORE COMPLEX ones than BvS do just that and are given acclaim for their ability to force us think to rise above popcorn and for kids story telling. That such things aren't infact bad and that making the audience have to do work and think is seen as a good thing, was a retort for the people here suggesting the opposite.

I then said MoS asking you to figure out clarks motivation, just a little. Not the way Malick/Kubrick does mind you but just a little...is hardly a crime against cinema. Not once using Malick/Kubrick to assert bias against DC. Not every movie is gonna have a character shout their motivation or swear it over their dead uncles body. Sometimes it comes by way of analyzing the characterization presented throughout the film. Ironically he does actually say it in the film.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I think at this point it's clear that there isn't a bias towards DC. MOS, BvS, and Suicide Squad were just very divisive films in a cutthroat genre with lots of competition.

 

[metaphysician]

It's just as reliable for the CW DC shows as it is for the Netflix Marvel shows. So why does the RT praise for the Netflix shows count but not for the CW shows? Sounds like a bit of a double standard, if not outright hypocritical.

*cough* At least on my part, I don't take their ratings seriously for either.

 

[MbJ]

I think at this point it's clear that there isn't a bias towards DC. MOS, BvS, and Suicide Squad were just very divisive films in a cutthroat genre with lots of competition.

And yet here we are...

 

[Jekecy]

This thread needs to be closed with one post for posterity showcasing these:

The excuses and complaints should just cease. It technically should have already with the success of Nolan's Batman series, but since it's considered a different era and a "fluke" directorial success...here we are. Wonder Woman to the rescue.

 

[Flint Marko]

Just returned from WW.

Diana speaks, has a discernible personality, agency, and makes actual choices that impact the plot. She's an active character with a real motivation that is clearly defined and dramatized beyond vapid, Goyer-level lip service.

Conversely, Clark is a blank slate who spends most of his time silently reacting to things happening around him.

I don't have a lot of time on my hands so I can't get into it too deeply at the moment, but it's insane how much better WW is than the previous DCEU efforts in basically every single respect.

 

[TeeKay]

Just returned from WW.

Diana speaks, has a discernible personality, agency, and makes actual choices that impact the plot. She's an active character with a real motivation that is clearly defined and dramatized beyond vapid, Goyer-level lip service.

Conversely, Clark is a blank slate who spends most of his time silently reacting to things happening around him.

I don't have a lot of time on my hands so I can't get into it too deeply at the moment, but it's insane how much better WW is than the previous DCEU efforts in basically every single respect.

Look I'm not sure if you'll agree but I feel like WW is what Snyder tried to do with MoS character wise. WW is a far more realized character than Superman in the DCEU.

 

[NealKenneth]

Yes, with WW suceeding to this extent, I hope we can finally lay to rest the idea that critics have any sort of bias against DC. I'm sorry guys, but DC just hadn't made a good film since Nolan.

 

[Boy Scout]

I think at this point it's clear that there isn't a bias towards DC. MOS, BvS, and Suicide Squad were just very divisive films in a cutthroat genre with lots of competition.

It was always clear. If you thought otherwise, it was your own fault.

 

[Flint Marko]

Look I'm not sure if you'll agree but I feel like WW is what Snyder tried to do with MoS character wise. WW is a far more realized character than Superman in the DCEU.

The similarities are certainly there but I'm not sure how deep this comparison could go. There's so much more meat on the bone with WW.