Why Batman vs Superman limits future films rather than sets them up? (Not in the way you're thinking).

Why Batman vs Superman limits future films rather than sets them up? (Not in the way you're thinking).

A few thoughts as to why Batman Vs Superman reduces the possibilities for the Future of the DC cinematic universe. Read it and then weep!

Editorial Opinion
By CSHMovies - Mar 31, 2016 01:03 AM EST
Filed Under: Batman vs. Superman
Spoilers! Obviously.

Right off the bat (see what I did there?) I’m going to say that I did not enjoy BVS and thought it was full of missed opportunities. Don’t worry! I’m not going to repeat what everyone else on the interweb has been saying for the last few days. In fact I’m going to try and explain some thoughts I had on what narrative decisions in the film mean for the future of this franchise.

It was clear in the film that Zack Snyder wanted to sow the seeds of the Justice League and hint at future characters and storylines that other films can be based on. Of course all of these teases weren’t always effective (or subtle... I mean what was that flash cameo about?). Of course they are necessary to build a larger universe hence the subtitle Dawn of Justice, But some decisions just seemed to be made with no foresight whatsoever. Somehow BVS managed with one hand to be too concerned with setting up so many future storylines while on the other hand seriously limiting the future possibilities for this DCEU or whatever it’s called.

In one of the first scenes an unnamed undercover CIA agent is killed and we only find out in the credits that it was in-fact Jimmy Olsen a character who has a close relationship with superman and Lois Lane in the comics. The explanation for this was that Snyder “didn’t have room” for him, this is an odd decision because it wasn’t as if it shocked the audience as I’m certain that no one in the theatre even knew who that was supposed to be, It just seems a huge waste. Just because Snyder believes that there isn’t room for him what’s to say that another director for future films may think the same. This just seems to be a total lack of foresight on his behalf and a blatant lack of consideration for future directors on his part. if he did it for dramatic purposes then that would have been a pretty powerful and shocking death (especially as the initial plan was to have a big actor play him and kill him off Game of Thrones style) but as the audience didn’t even know for sure who the character was it seems totally unnecessary and bizarre.

Another narrative issue is that Lex Luther is arrested in the end, it made sense that the character that was presented would be caught but it seems like another waste of a character which is pivotal to the superman universe that has so many great stories in the comics. Lex Luther is someone that is constantly a thorn in Superman’s and the Justice League’s side. While It’s possible that this Luther may be swapped out as it's made clear that he is in-fact Lex Luther Jr. I would imagine that this could happen due to the damning response from fans and critics alike about Eisenberg’s portrayal. But yet again (and yes I’m going to use that word again) a waste!

Finally the death of Clark Kent, not Superman. It is in-fact his alter ego I’m more concerned for. How does he come back? If so does he walk into the daily planet after months of being dead and go back to his job like nothing has happened? I’m assuming that he will use another identity but surely that will confuse someone who hasn’t seen this film and is confused why superman is now called Joe Dangercock. This again just confuses the audience and restricts future directors and writers who would have liked to play with the idea of Superman also working in the media, a job that superman wanted to “keep his ear to the ground”.

It just seems like Warner Brothers doesn’t have a man in charge like Marvel does who takes care to ensure that the wider universe is set up and maintained. If Zack Snyder had someone like Kevin Feige to keep on a leash then the film universe may have more narrative options because artistically he is a very good director he just cannot write a coherent story to save his life isn’t a consistently good storyteller. Snyder has shown with some of the decisions in this film that he hasn’t considered what they could mean for future movies and has written future directors into corners.

I’m really interested to hear people’s views on this so, feel free too comment. Even if its abuse, I could use a laugh.
James Gunn Reveals His Title For A (Hypothetical) BATMAN And SUPERMAN Team-Up Movie
Related:

James Gunn Reveals His Title For A (Hypothetical) BATMAN And SUPERMAN Team-Up Movie

BATMAN: Ben Affleck's DCEU Appearances Ranked From Worst To Best According To Rotten Tomatoes
Recommended For You:

BATMAN: Ben Affleck's DCEU Appearances Ranked From Worst To Best According To Rotten Tomatoes

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

jakmanuk
jakmanuk - 3/31/2016, 1:33 AM
The Jimmy Olsen thing isn't that big of a deal as they never state in the film that it's Jimmy Olsen, just the credits. So if they have a Man of Steel 2, they can always bring the character Jimmy Olsen, just with a different actor

No more Clark Kent also allows Superman to be a hero 24/7, which I think could work better for any potential sequels as one of the weakest aspects, in my opinion, of all superman films is how nobody can tell the difference between the two

Lex being arrested is easy to fix, by either having him escape prison, coordinate everything from prison (Eg Wilson Fisk) or have his dad also be a big bad in the DCEU
TheDarkKnight12
TheDarkKnight12 - 4/12/2016, 5:43 AM
@jakmanuk - https://www.quora.com/How-can-Superman-hide-his-identity-just-by-wearing-a-pair-of-glasses
The disguise is the best thing about Clark Kent's character. Obviously Snyder thinks it's lame and he killed that off because he is incapable to portray something of that caliber. Also how Lois Lane knows Superman's identity killed so much fun. Snyder is a fun-hating guy whose idea of making a dark movie is "no humor no smiles"
kong
kong - 3/31/2016, 4:53 AM
Lex will probably just get out of prison after the Darkseid thing, claiming that the Kryptonian tech possessed him or something. And [frick] that whole Lex Luthor Sr. crap. Eisenberg is Luthor get over it.

Clark came back after the Death of Superman storyline, and I think said that he was just lost in destruction of the battle. The only problem will be for those at his funeral, who he'd have to reveal his secret to. But I mean he trusts it with the owner of a Smallville IHOP manager so I bet those close to him during life would keep the secret.

And if they really want to just being in another Jimmy Olsen in a future movie. Different character, same name.

You really tried with this one didn't you?
Kyos
Kyos - 3/31/2016, 8:00 AM
@Kong - There are ways for Lex to come back, sure, but they have to make it convincable. After BvS I'm pretty sceptical about that.

Clark is dead. He can either come back making his secret identity public (not sure that's a good idea seeing how Ma... Kent became a target already), or if they change things via time travel.

Your Jimmy Olsen solution would mean that DC started their universe with an X-Men type approach to these things. They can do that, but quite frankly I expect them to do better.
DerekLake
DerekLake - 3/31/2016, 5:42 AM
I agree. Snyder doesn't want Jimmy Olsen so he kills him. Snyder doesn't like secret identities/alter egos so he kills "Clark Kent." Snyder doesn't want Superman in the Justice League so he kills him. Snyder doesn't actually like Superman as a character, but only as a plot device and object against which other characters react. It's not the decisions themselves, it's the reasons Snyder gives for making them. And it's clear from his actions that WB has absolutely no interest in a Superman sequel with any of Superman's supporting characters.
CSHMovies
CSHMovies - 3/31/2016, 6:11 AM
@DerekLake - Absolutely, its clear that he doesn't know how to use the character. which isn't a crime, i'm just surprised that hes been allowed to write certain characters into corners before it even becomes clear the direction the DCEU is headed.
WYLEEJAY
WYLEEJAY - 3/31/2016, 7:22 AM
All I'm taking away from this...is Joe Dangercock. I think I found my new alias.
CSHMovies
CSHMovies - 3/31/2016, 7:29 AM
@WYLEEJAY - You have my blessing!
pesmerga44
pesmerga44 - 4/1/2016, 7:46 AM
@CSHMovies - Can I use the alias James Steelballs and @WYLEEJAY we can make a 70's style cop show called Cock and the Balls. Perfect I am on the phone with Hollywood we are getting this done.
WYLEEJAY
WYLEEJAY - 4/1/2016, 10:49 AM
@pesmerga44 - LMAO! Damn that sounds awesome. It needs to have that old A team level of cheeziness to work. And I get a porn stache. Like Jeff Foxworthy.
CSHMovies
CSHMovies - 4/1/2016, 11:52 AM
@pesmerga44 - Yes you may. all I ask is for the merchandising rights... And a shit load of money of course :P
pesmerga44
pesmerga44 - 4/1/2016, 12:32 PM
@WYLEEJAY - You get the porn stache and I will have the afro and we will make the best damn 70's cop show the whole world will ever see.
Forthas
Forthas - 3/31/2016, 9:09 AM
I think there is even more to it than that. I am not sure I understand why Wonder Woman is keen to sticking around. If she was just there to recover something from Luthor then mission accomplished. What is her motivation for forming the Justice League.

Then there are the other metahumans. Aren't they going to have to spend A LONG time just showing why someone like Aquaman would join them (...his mother's name is not Martha is it?).

Also given that Wonder Woman just took on an almost indestructible monster, doesn't that deflate the drama of her fighting World War 1 soldiers in her upcoming movie? I think that her movie just lost audience members because the "first time" factor was taken away from that film, since it will no longer be the first time she was seen on film.

What about that Kryptonian technology lying around? What will happen to it? Shouldn't Batman be trying to round it up or at least destroy it?
katzb724
katzb724 - 3/31/2016, 12:52 PM
The Jimmy Olsen thing sucks, I wish Snyder never said it was him in that interview he did. Then he could have deleted that blurb in the extended edition and Jimmy could still be alive. Or, we never actually see Jimmy die, and the Daily Planet never mentions it, so maybe he did survive.

I liked Eisenberg as Lex. I dont know what all the complaining is about. He was an amalgamation of all the different portrayals of Lex. He was cocky, brilliant, ad evil, and it showed it what he does during the movie.

If I saw it correctly, the article that Perry White is holding at the end only says that Clark Kent is missing, not that he is dead. As for the funeral for Kent, I believe nobody but Marhta, Lois, Bruce, and Diana saw the body in the casket. it can easily be explained that Clark was presumed dead, and they had a ceremonial burying of an empty casket.

CSHMovies
CSHMovies - 3/31/2016, 2:06 PM
@katzb724 - That's interesting about the article about the Clark Kent death. I've only seen the film once so i must have missed that. if that is the case then that makes more sense.
DerekLake
DerekLake - 3/31/2016, 4:41 PM
@katzb724 - It was in the end credits anyway. And Jimmy Olsen doesn't seem to be a Daily Planet reporter, but a reporter "assigned to" Lois.
Dascoyne
Dascoyne - 3/31/2016, 1:23 PM
Of course there's no foresight. Snyder wants to make the biggest impact possible in a single movie. Universe-building, long term plans and comics don't seem to interest him. This segment of the Empire Online interview was telling:

Chris Hewitt: Can you say something about Darkseid?
Zack Snyder: I donno. What is his symbol again? It's something like a "Z" but a Greek "Z" or something? I donno. That's so ... I donno. Does that appear in the movie? I don't think so ... oh maybe.
Chris Hewitt: That giant ...
Zack Snyder: Oh that giant impression on the ground! Yeah. Oh yeah. There's that. That's right ... umm. I mean, maybe he exists ... out in the universe somewhere ... looking for something? ... something that's against life? I donno.
CSHMovies
CSHMovies - 3/31/2016, 2:24 PM
@Dascoyne - Somehow i'm not surprised by those quotes.
huckfinnisher
huckfinnisher - 3/31/2016, 4:22 PM
@Dascoyne - having only read the transcription of this interview I assumed
Snyder was being secretive as opposed to not knowing what he was taking abit. Not that I like the reject.
View Recorder