Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 2

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]378225[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]376941[/split]

 

[Tec15]

Toxic fanboy entitlement strikes again.

 

[DrCosmic]

The structure of WB is such that they don't have the reliance on superheroes. The truth is there was never any urgency on their part to 'get it right' because of that structure and because the genre wasn't nearly as lucrative as it is now. The only reason there's a concerted effort now from WB, and other studios for that matter, is because the genre is in a golden period and they are trying to capitalise on it. Once it dies down WB will move on to the next hollywood fad and they will continue making movies as they always have. WB have never had, and will never have the need to rely on superheroes, ever. A lot of those films were in development hell because there wasn't a need for them to be ready. There is now which is why WB have come out all guns blazing in recent months.

I understand this sentiment, and used to share the same thought about four or five years ago. However, this does show a lack of long term planning. Perhaps a normal lack of long term planning, but when we say where did DC/WB go wrong... that lack of planning is hurting them now. They relied on Harry Potter, a franchise with an end date and then afterwards they planned to... see what happens? No need to hit the ground running? That was a poor move, perhaps only in retrospect, but a poor move nonetheless. They underestimated the competition, both Disney and Marvel, and they've lost a great deal of market share because of it. If they weren't doing a suddenly aggressive push for superheroes, I could say they were playing the long game, but superheroes are their long term strategy, so... starting that later while relying on Hobbit-as-a-trilogy wasn't smart.

 

[Breogan]

Seems locked, maybe mod can move context header up top?
Back in 02-01-2012 when Avengers came out.
This was the original context and header/opening questions, (the topic of discussion very JL Movie specific) -

How did they drop the ball on the evident JL movie?

Why couldn't they pull this off?

That's what's being asked.

 

[Docker2.0]

Classic!

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Something's wrong...I'm not looking forward to a movie featuring Batman and Superman. That has never happened before!

I will give the movie a chance...if it's bad, they'll probably reboot Batman and Superman once again, and then we'll get the Justice League movie in 2035 or something. It will compete against Marvel's Squirrel Girl or Devil Dinosaur.

 

[Flint Marko]

The previous posts in the last page about "fan entitlement" are ridiculous. Note that no one argued any of the points I was making, just saying that the sentiment I was expressing is "greedy".
That's completely asinine. As Lantern Venom perfectly put, DC has chosen to sit on a lot of viable properties until right at the last minute and as a fan I more than have the right to express disappointment in them. It's not a sense of "entitlement", it's me being completely baffled at WB's lack of foresight.
You say be satisfied and grateful for the movies we are getting now; yet clearly as you can see, some of us aren't even happy with how those are turning out. The idea of a Zack Snyder Superman/Batman, and then a Snyder JL doesn't do a ton for me. It's too little too late, and as I've said before, to tell me I am being whiny, selfish, or "spoiled" in any regard is ludicrous.
They are a business that had the opportunity to make something a lot of people would have greatly enjoyed and paid to see; they didn't, let other people do it first, and are now striking while the iron is hot to try and copy that success (which I think will damper the final quality of the product), and some of us are going to naturally be a little disgruntled at that.

 

[DrCosmic]

It's also interesting how they're trying to hold back these properties (Jupiter Ascending as well) to make them more perfect... but something tells me it's just going to end up muddy.

Repost from last thread part:

They went wrong when they waited.

Back in 2008, when it became clear what Marvel was hitting on they had the chance to either make that happen or continue on the path of solo hero trilogies they were on. What they did was wait to see how Marvel would do.

If they had chosen the Nolan path, they could have had a Sucker Punch-less Snyder doing his Superman trilogy the way he's always dreamed, without having to set up a Justice League or even be tied to Nolan. There were options aplenty in terms of Nolan-like talent generally sticking to indies. A JJ Abrams Green Lantern before he got on Star Trek? Geeez. Nicolas Windg Refn's Wonder Woman trilogy with Christina Hendricks and Ryan Gosling would be a sight to behold. (EDIT: I forgot Whedon's WW, my bad. They could have had Whedon writing and directing Wonder Woman... and honestly, Avengers may not even have been a major factor in all honesty.) These could have all been TDK-level in terms of cultural currency. DC could have played each of their heroes as equal to the Avengers in terms of appeal. Then in a few years, they could play that card using the Multiverse to cash in. In fact, if they had been incredibly clever, they could have used the TV shows for all the minor heroes as they've done with Arrow and Flash setting up Crisis and cash that in before Avengers 3 and take the team up crown with no contenders, bringing back Bale after a 5-10 year break, Hendricks after a briefer break, all with groundbreaking trilogies under their belt. Heck, if it were me, it would have been a once in a lifetime event, filmed all at once, Lord of the Rings style.

The alternate way, they would have had to override Nolan, but they could have fast tracked Superman and or Green Lantern to come out 2010, 2011, with Bvs doing 2012 or 2013 and not having to play catch up so badly, with the pressure that comes with that.

But they waited until Marvel was all but proven before even starting, and they did it in almost the most copycat way possible. That's where they went wrong. Indecision, lack of independent creative thought. Lack of commitment to anything but what Marvel was already doing.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

to tell me I am being whiny, selfish, or "spoiled" in any regard is ludicrous.

I have noticed that many of the Snyder-fans get angry and hostile if you criticize Man of Steel/Snyderman vs Batman. With comments like "You didn't like MoS because you expected a campy Christopher Reeve movie!" Or "watch silly Marvel movies instead, hater!".

I didn't want or expect a new Donner-movie. I wanted something completely new...instead we mostly got the same story all over again, with the same origin story (come on, even my dog knows how Superman began) General Zod, ******* truckers etc, only it's darker, and more depressing.

"It's not depressing" they shout. "It has plenty of funny/light moments". When you ask them to come with examples, it's always:

1. Lois Lane needs to tinkle!
2. He destroyed that guy's truck! Bwahaha!
3. Dicksplash! *gets hernia from laughing*
4. Superman hits the mountain! *slaps knee, starts to choke*
5. Superman laughs and smiles when he's flying for the first time. Awww!
6. He's kinda hawt! *roars with laughter*

Or they admit that the movie is joyless, but say it's a good thing. "Warner shouldn't copy Marvel". Like having funny moments in a movie is unoriginal?

I'm actually prefer DC's characters...but Marvel's movies are better.

 

[Docker2.0]

That's the thing: we are all comic book fans but if you say anything bad about a company, you are labeled a fanboy of the other brand. No one wants to see a bad movie nor does anyone on stock in either company so what's the point? WB has dropped the ball with DC and it's plain as day and anyone who can't acknowledge that is blind as all out. Now this rush to cram all these heroes into one film with no introduction sounds like wanting to do JLA like the Avengers but doing it this route, you can say you did it differently. I honestly think BvS will do well at the box office but not as much as people think and I really don't think JLA will do that well at all.......well not Avengers type money anyway.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I'll admit that DC has for the most part mishandled their properties. They let Nolan have too much say. They should've started a unified cinematic universe far sooner.

But i really don't think Marvel's universe is all that much better. IMO DC has quality on Marvel. None of the Marvel products even touch the better DC films imo. Marvel's best doesn't come close to DC's best. DC is very slow with their adaptations but a lot of the time they are just far more ambitious.

A lot of the Marvel movies are just rush jobs, i would never want to see the DC universe rushed like a lot of the MCU films have been. I say that WB should take their time and do the best that they possibly can.

I'm not completely satisfied with the MCU, i think the majority of the films in that film universe are extremely overrated. DC's products are generally higher quality IMO. And the tone of those Marvel films... I'm not a fan at all... they have a general tone that overlaps all their films, all their films feel similar. That lighthearted jokey tone does not work for me. I'm sorry but superhero comedies are not what i want to see.

So yeah, basically neither studio is perfect. A lot of people think the MCU is perfect, but i think a lot of those movies are completely mediocre, and I'd be disappointed if DC and Marvel switched places. DC has taken way too long to get going on their universe, but their best products are better than Marvel's best products, and I'd rather have quality over quantity.

If WB can stick to their schedule, they will destroy Marvel in the next few years. I've always thought that DC had a far superior roster compared to Marvel, and now they're getting the chance to show everyone that.

The answer for DC is not to "do it like Marvel", because IMO Marvel's way is far from perfect, DC is going to have to find their own way.

 

[Docker2.0]

Other than Nolan's Batman, what else has DC done? GL bombed, SR was decent, MOS got slaughtered by critics and the tone is to dark for Superman.......I honestly don't know how you can say DC has more quality than Marvel. You may prefer DC to Marvel and that's your choice but to say it has done more quality wise...........I just don't see how that's possible.

 

[SofNascimento]

I don't think they did something wrong as much as they didn't even try. Therefore, I'd have to say their lack of vision and commitment is to blame.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Other than Nolan's Batman, what else has DC done? GL bombed, SR was decent, MOS got slaughtered by critics and the tone is to dark for Superman.......I honestly don't know how you can say DC has more quality than Marvel. You may prefer DC to Marvel and that's your choice but to say it has done more quality wise...........I just don't see how that's possible.

I mean TDKT is higher quality and more ambitious than anything Marvel has done IMO. GOTG played it safe with that general Marvel tone, just set in space this time. The Avengers is the only GREAT Marvel movie imo.

and yeah MOS is very divisive but i prefer it to everything Marvel has put out, except for The Avengers. MOS and Avengers are equal imo.

and the first two Superman movies are better than anything Marvel has come out with or will ever come out with.

i also prefer every Batman movie to every Marvel movie, except for MAYBE Avengers, and even then, Avengers is only preferably to Batman and Robin.

So yeah, it's a clearly biased opinion, i'm a DC fan first, and a superhero fan second. It's not the way i want to be, i wish i could get as much enjoyment out of Marvel products, but i just have always vastly preferred DC's characters.

With the Marvel movies, the movies have to sell me on the character, i only really care about the X-Men and Spider Man, i don't give much of a damn about any of the Marvel characters beyond them. So i'm being sold on these characters every time i see their movies, with DC, i'm sold on all their characters before the movies come out, so it's just a more enjoyable experience for me.

 

[Docker2.0]

I mean TDKT is higher quality and more ambitious than anything Marvel has done IMO. GOTG played it safe with that general Marvel tone, just set in space this time. The Avengers is the only GREAT Marvel movie imo.

and yeah MOS is very divisive but i prefer it to everything Marvel has put out, except for The Avengers. MOS and Avengers are equal imo.

and the first two Superman movies are better than anything Marvel has come out with or will ever come out with.

i also prefer every Batman movie to every Marvel movie, except for MAYBE Avengers, and even then, Avengers is only preferably to Batman and Robin.

So yeah, it's a clearly biased opinion, i'm a DC fan first, and a superhero fan second. It's not the way i want to be, i wish i could get as much enjoyment out of Marvel products, but i just have always vastly preferred DC's characters.

With the Marvel movies, the movies have to sell me on the character, i only really care about the X-Men and Spider Man, i don't give much of a damn about any of the Marvel characters beyond them. So i'm being sold on these characters every time i see their movies, with DC, i'm sold on all their characters before the movies come out, so it's just a more enjoyable experience for me.

At least you can admit it. Some guys take this stuff way to personal. I'm hoping that DC gets their universe off the ground but I can't lie, I'm not liking the things I'm hearing. Superman isn't a dark character and them cramming the JLA into one movie without any background build up is not maximizing profits. The thing is, DC needs their character's background exposed more because other than Batman,Wonder Woman and Superman, there are like 3 different kinds of Flashes, hundreds of Green Lanterns and the like. I honestly think that's one of the reasons GL did so bad at the box office because the complaint I heard most was "I thought he was black".........not Ryan Reynolds was the problem. But we shall see.

 

[Flint Marko]

I'll admit that DC has for the most part mishandled their properties. They let Nolan have too much say. They should've started a unified cinematic universe far sooner.

But i really don't think Marvel's universe is all that much better. IMO DC has quality on Marvel. None of the Marvel products even touch the better DC films imo. Marvel's best doesn't come close to DC's best. DC is very slow with their adaptations but a lot of the time they are just far more ambitious.

A lot of the Marvel movies are just rush jobs, i would never want to see the DC universe rushed like a lot of the MCU films have been. I say that WB should take their time and do the best that they possibly can.

I'm not completely satisfied with the MCU, i think the majority of the films in that film universe are extremely overrated. DC's products are generally higher quality IMO. And the tone of those Marvel films... I'm not a fan at all... they have a general tone that overlaps all their films, all their films feel similar. That lighthearted jokey tone does not work for me. I'm sorry but superhero comedies are not what i want to see.

So yeah, basically neither studio is perfect. A lot of people think the MCU is perfect, but i think a lot of those movies are completely mediocre, and I'd be disappointed if DC and Marvel switched places. DC has taken way too long to get going on their universe, but their best products are better than Marvel's best products, and I'd rather have quality over quantity.

If WB can stick to their schedule, they will destroy Marvel in the next few years. I've always thought that DC had a far superior roster compared to Marvel, and now they're getting the chance to show everyone that.

The answer for DC is not to "do it like Marvel", because IMO Marvel's way is far from perfect, DC is going to have to find their own way.

Marvel spent at least 6 years developing the universe up until the Avengers; what about that is rushed? If you want to talk about rushing, look no further than what WB is currently doing with DC. It's tough to argue that they are taking their time.
As for their movies being of a higher quality, the only thing you can really point to is Nolan's trilogy. The rest of their cinematic outings, especially in the past twenty years, have left a lot of people unsatisfied.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Regarding tone, I'd much rather Superman takes on the darker tone of MOS than the tone of one of the MCU movies. The MCU is a ****ing joke to me now. Way too much comedy, and I really hate it. GOTG was just a big joke to me. I would've liked to have seen that movie succeed without relying on jokes every 2 seconds. It clearly seems like the general public is enamored with Marvel's COMEDY/SUPERHERO hybrid. But i'm really not impressed, i like my comic book movies to be a bit more serious. Hopefully DC/WB take a very different approach. I hope they continue with the tone established in MOS, I thought it was fine. Characters like Plastic Man and Shazam can be more comedy, but as a general rule, i want the DCCU to be far more serious and less reliant on comedy. **** the superhero/comedy hybrid, that is not the way to go.

and regarding GL, John Stewart should never be the lead of a GL film. Hal Jordan is the superior GL, and the one that is most deserving of leading a movie franchise.

 

[Flint Marko]

These are movies about men in funny outfits punching each other. The comedic tone is somewhat warranted.

 

[8ulk]

Regarding tone, I'd much rather Superman takes on the darker tone of MOS than the tone of one of the MCU movies. The MCU is a ****ing joke to me now. Way too much comedy, and I really hate it. GOTG was just a big joke to me. I would've liked to have seen that movie succeed without relying on jokes every 2 seconds. It clearly seems like the general public is enamored with Marvel's COMEDY/SUPERHERO hybrid. But i'm really not impressed, i like my comic book movies to be a bit more serious. Hopefully DC/WB take a very different approach. I hope they continue with the tone established in MOS, I thought it was fine. Characters like Plastic Man and Shazam can be more comedy, but as a general rule, i want the DCCU to be far more serious and less reliant on comedy. **** the superhero/comedy hybrid, that is not the way to go.

and regarding GL, John Stewart should never be the lead of a GL film. Hal Jordan is the superior GL, and the one that is most deserving of leading a movie franchise.

Personally i like serious grounded , darker & edgier superhero movies as much as i like lighter funnier ones.
as you can see in my top 6 comic book adaptions of the SUPERHERO genre are > [Watchmen , MOS , The Avengers , CAP 2 TWS & X Men Days oF Future Past , GoTG] both dark and funny tones.

I m really grateful that both tones can be found. I really enjoy both.

Reading your post make me feel sad for you. I f you cant enjoy the MCU films its got to be depressing in your life. How can you not enjoy the MCU films ? or some of them at least ? You re really have to be depressed or something. Forgive me i cannot understand.


Thers is nothing more EPIC in cinema history than the Avengers had to offer. And im pretty sure The avegers2 AOU will be better. Im glad im not you.

 

[Rorschach2012]

These are movies about men in funny outfits punching each other. The comedic tone is somewhat warranted.

/genericmarveldefenderresponse
Some comedy is fine, but Marvel overdoes it. it's a general complaint. i realize you're a huge MCU defender, but it really isn't perfect, and even its defenders often admit that the comedy is overdone a lot of the time.

jokes are fine.

but when the genre is superhero/comedy, then it becomes a problem. and there are quite a few superhero/comedy films in the MCU. **** superhero comedy, if i want that ****, i'll watch some parody, unrelated to Marvel or DC. but now, a lot of Marvel films border on parody. It's disrespectful to the source material, it's like they can't adapt some stuff without making a joke out of the source material.

i'd like to see Marvel attempt to make more films that don't use comedy as a crutch.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Personally i like serious grounded , darker & edgier superhero movies as much as i like lighter funnier ones.
as you can see in my top 6 comic book adaptions of the SUPERHERO genre are > [Watchmen , MOS , The Avengers , CAP 2 TWS & X Men Days oF Future Past , GoTG] both dark and funny tones.

I m really grateful that both tones can be found. I really enjoy both.

Reading your post make me feel sad for you. I f you cant enjoy the MCU films its got to be depressing in your life. How can you not enjoy the MCU films ? or some of them at least ? You re really have to be depressed or something. Forgive me i cannot understand.


Thers is nothing more EPIC in cinema history than the Avengers had to offer. And im pretty sure The avegers2 AOU will be better. Im glad im not you.

I do enjoy the Marvel films, i just don't think they're perfect and they're overly reliant on the comedy. I don't hate the MCU at all, i just think most DC films are vastly superior, that's just my opinion. I've always been a DC fanboy.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

The structure of WB is such that they don't have the reliance on superheroes. The truth is there was never any urgency on their part to 'get it right' because of that structure and because the genre wasn't nearly as lucrative as it is now. The only reason there's a concerted effort now from WB, and other studios for that matter, is because the genre is in a golden period and they are trying to capitalise on it. Once it dies down WB will move on to the next hollywood fad and they will continue making movies as they always have. WB have never had, and will never have the need to rely on superheroes, ever. A lot of those films were in development hell because there wasn't a need for them to be ready. There is now which is why WB have come out all guns blazing in recent months.

None of that justifies why Marvel is ahead of DC movies wise. "They haven't tried" is a poor excuse when in fact they have tried. Also, let's not act like superhero movies weren't huge hits before Marvel Studios. Spider-Man was a huge hit, as was thier Batman movie beforehand as well as other superhero movies. They didn't have confidence in their properties nor in the market for them to succeed.

"They didn't feel like they need to get it right" is such (for lack of a better word) DC apologist thinking.

These are movies about men in funny outfits punching each other. The comedic tone is somewhat warranted.

Yeah let's not act like these movies need to be completely serious. The only Marvel movie I feel like the humor almost completely undermines the tone of the movie are the Thor movies. The Cap movies don't have too much humor in it (First Avenger's humor is part of the pulpy style it emulates). Marvel makes movies that completely emulates their tones in their comics.

The problem with DC's movies is not the lack of humor, nor do I believe that DC needs to be like Marvel to succeed. It's the blatant misunderstanding of their characters. They underestimated the potential and the scope of GL, to the point where they hired a journeyman director who's known for his work in practical effects (Martin Campbell) to direct a CGI ladden space movie. I understand Marvel did the same with Thor and Kenneth Branagh, but that choice made sense given the Shakespearan nature of Thor's story.

Man of Steel had a many problems with the character to point where I honestly do not believe Zack Snyder or David Goyer understand the character. I know this was the first attempt at doing a Post-Crisis Superman, and I know they wanted to take more of an existentialist approach, but I feel like their efforts at that were mixed at best, and they did little to actually dig into the more existentialist decisions and moments in Clark's life they required more to dig into.

Two moments I go into: The death of Jonathan Kent and the death of Zod (the latter I had no problems with the actual action). The death of Jonathan Kent I'm mixed on. I just don't buy Clark doing nothing and letting him die. I never felt that was in his character to do that. He's used his powers before in the movie and has shown to be defiant of Jonathan beforehand. I just don't buy that he would let him die so easily. Yes, he would have risk getting caught but this is a guy with Super-speed who could save Jonathan without even getting seen.

The killing of Zod (along with the rest of the Battle of Metropolis) completely lack introspection. This is a huge missed opportunity for the character as he just fights Zod and Metropolis gets destroyed, and we don't get anything after on it. Just Superman taking down a drone and getting hired for Daily Planet as Clark. You could have had Superman help get people out the rubble. You have had him help rebuilding Metropolis. You could have had Superman at least go more through the motions of why it's a difficult decision beyond a scream. I feel like everything after the killing of Zod was a huge missed opportunity.

 

[Flint Marko]

/genericmarveldefenderresponse
Some comedy is fine, but Marvel overdoes it. it's a general complaint. i realize you're a huge MCU defender, but it really isn't perfect, and even its defenders often admit that the comedy is overdone a lot of the time.

jokes are fine.

but when the genre is superhero/comedy, then it becomes a problem. and there are quite a few superhero/comedy films in the MCU. **** superhero comedy, if i want that ****, i'll watch some parody, unrelated to Marvel or DC. but now, a lot of Marvel films border on parody. It's disrespectful to the source material, it's like they can't adapt some stuff without making a joke out of the source material.

i'd like to see Marvel attempt to make more films that don't use comedy as a crutch.

Reducing me and my arguments as a generic "Marvel defender" is a bit patronizing, considering that I haven't done or said anything to imply that I think they are beyond criticism. I clearly like the series, but that's because they've earned my praise.
They aren't perfect, and at times the comedy is out of place, but to call them outright "superhero comedies" is not accurate. I really don't see how you could argue the comedy was inappropriate in TIH, either Captain America movie, Iron man 1 and 3, the Avengers, even Guardians. The material warrants it; it isn't disrespectful to the comic incarnation, because these are fun, colorful books about super-powered adventurers. There are a good portion of jokes in the original source material. Look at how they handled Captain America; they respectfully portray him as a straight-laced, kind-hearted, boy-scout when they easily could undermine that idea with plenty of jokes and jabs at his expense.
Also, and this is something that people often overlook, but humor can be a powerful storytelling tool when used properly. Guardians was a fantastic example of that; the jokes and comedic sensibilities of each character tell you something about them and gives audiences an insight into how they see the world. Tony Stark's swarm and flippancy are intrinsic to his personality and make him a lovable *****ebag, which is exactly what the character has been since the beginning. It may not be the tone you prefer, but it's a tone that works with a good majority of these characters and gives the series a "Raiders of the Lost Ark" sense of fun and excitement.
I can completely get on board with a dark tone, however. TDKT is a great example of that, because both the characters and the story they were telling warranted that approach. I don't think it's a great default for superheroes, however, and I'm not exactly excited about seeing DC's future films if every one will be humorless and dour.

None of that justifies why Marvel is ahead of DC movies wise. "They haven't tried" is a poor excuse when in fact they have tried. Also, let's not act like superhero movies weren't huge hits before Marvel Studios. Spider-Man was a huge hit, as was thier Batman movie beforehand as well as other superhero movies. They didn't have confidence in their properties nor in the market for them to succeed.

"They didn't feel like they need to get it right" is such (for lack of a better word) DC apologist thinking.



Yeah let's not act like these movies need to be completely serious. The only Marvel movie I feel like the humor almost completely undermines the tone of the movie are the Thor movies. The Cap movies don't have too much humor in it (First Avenger's humor is part of the pulpy style it emulates). Marvel makes movies that completely emulates their tones in their comics.

The problem with DC's movies is not the lack of humor, nor do I believe that DC needs to be like Marvel to succeed. It's the blatant misunderstanding of their characters. They underestimated the potential and the scope of GL, to the point where they hired a journeyman director who's known for his work in practical effects (Martin Campbell) to direct a CGI ladden space movie. I understand Marvel did the same with Thor and Kenneth Branagh, but that choice made sense given the Shakespearan nature of Thor's story.

Man of Steel had a many problems with the character to point where I honestly do not believe Zack Snyder or David Goyer understand the character. I know this was the first attempt at doing a Post-Crisis Superman, and I know they wanted to take more of an existentialist approach, but I feel like their efforts at that were mixed at best, and they did little to actually dig into the more existentialist decisions and moments in Clark's life they required more to dig into.

Two moments I go into: The death of Jonathan Kent and the death of Zod (the latter I had no problems with the actual action). The death of Jonathan Kent I'm mixed on. I just don't buy Clark doing nothing and letting him die. I never felt that was in his character to do that. He's used his powers before in the movie and has shown to be defiant of Jonathan beforehand. I just don't buy that he would let him die so easily. Yes, he would have risk getting caught but this is a guy with Super-speed who could save Jonathan without even getting seen.

The killing of Zod (along with the rest of the Battle of Metropolis) completely lack introspection. This is a huge missed opportunity for the character as he just fights Zod and Metropolis gets destroyed, and we don't get anything after on it. Just Superman taking down a drone and getting hired for Daily Planet as Clark. You could have had Superman help get people out the rubble. You have had him help rebuilding Metropolis. You could have had Superman at least go more through the motions of why it's a difficult decision beyond a scream. I feel like everything after the killing of Zod was a huge missed opportunity.

Boom, hit the nail on the head.
Another thing to add to that is this quote from Snyder about the immense destruction in the final battle:

"We really wanted to show it wasn’t just like they thought, like the PG-13 version where everyone just gets up and they’re fine. I really wanted to show the violence is real, people get killed or get hurt and it’s not fun or funny.”

I can totally get behind that idea, and he's exactly right in wanting to bring that to the big screen, but that idea wasn't explored and the wanton violence and mayhem were reduced to nothing more than destruction porn. As you mentioned, they could have had some sort of fallout or some kind of consequences being shown, ever so briefly, but the movie rushed past it to get to the last few end scenes.

 

[Rorschach2012]

MY OPINIONS

Avengers is truly great, but would've benefited from a more serious tone and more threatening enemies.

Captain America: TWS is pretty much the most overrated film on these boards. It's good, not great. TFA is a good film, just didn't nearly reach its potential.

GOTG is completely overrated. Overly reliant on comedy and it's basically a parody.

Thor movies are just mediocre romantic comedy/superhero films. They both have zero replayability. Second one is far worse, i couldn't even finish the movie, had to read the rest of the plot online.

Iron Man 1 is good, but 2 and 3 are watchable, mediocre films with zero replayability.

TIH is mediocre with zero replayability.

Most of their efforts have been very mediocre films that i have no interest in rewatching.

DC on the other hand, has multiple masterpieces. TDKT is near perfect, MOS is epic and awe inspiring (divisive opinion i know, but i never claimed this post is fact)

and Superman I and II are indisputable classics. The Burton Batman movies will forever be some of my all time favorite movies.

DC has their fair share of **** though. I'll admit that DC has done some **** movies. They definitely have. But DC's best films are way better than the best Marvel films. Marvel is generally pretty damn mediocre and overhyped. They have one great movie.

IMO DC has several great movies. and several awful movies.

I still prefer DC's lineup. I'll take TDKT, Burton's Batman films, Superman I and II and MOS over 1 great movie and a bunch of overhyped/mediocre movies any day.