Why BVS is not a correction of MOS

Why BVS is not a correction of MOS

Many passionate detractors of Man of Steel genuinely believe that Batman V Superman is an apology to the events that transpired in the former, especially when it came down to the destruction. This is ABSOLUTELY false.

Editorial Opinion
By Shield23 - Jan 10, 2016 05:01 PM EST
Filed Under: Batman vs. Superman

Yes, MOS was nearly 3 years ago while I am once again addressing it (to some extent), but given that BVS is right around the corner from release, it's perfectly reasonable I would say. Many detractors dislike MOS so passionately that they strongly believe that WB/DC is trying to make amends to them by addressing the destruction they so much complained about among other things. The destruction, like I said MANY times before, is a recurring theme in Superman comics, but more importantly, it was ALWAYS going to be addressed regardless of the fans' viewpoints. The most recent proof is an interview with Superman himself Henry Cavill, which was released on this site by @Kr08 on 01/04/2016. Henry said (point made in bold),

"The reception of my first Superman movie, from what I've read, was fairly mixed. Everyone I've spoken to enjoyed the movie, but [not] unlike if you're going to meet a stranger in the street, they're not going to badmouth you to your face. There's no intentional move, I don't think, in Batman v. Superman to address any issues that people had with Man of Steel. It's just a continuation of that storyline and they continue to develop that world and introduce new characters."

That pretty much means WB/DC are accepting EVERYTHING that has happened in MOS regardless of fan reactions. In essence, they really don't care what detractors have to say. In fact, while these people continue to make the claim of BVS being a "recompense" for MOS, they fail to understand that WB/DC has NEVER cared for their opinions at all. The proof has been there since before even MOS came out. That being said, I ask this. If the studio really cared for negative opinions, why has the following occurred in spite of CLEAR nitpicking and criticism?

1. Edgy Superman- On 04/11/2012, a year and two months before MOS' release, Kent actor Dylan Sprayberry made it absolutely clear what kind of Superman we would be getting. He said the aim was to,

"make it more realistic and emotional so it's not just the all-american superhero that saves everyone. He has dilemmas and love and struggles throughout the whole movie, especially when he's a kid."

If this description generated bad reception, chances are actually seeing Supes like this in the final product would be worse; and for many, it was. Regardless, because the studio decided to take this route despite these complaints, the answer if whether or not they care is "no".

2. No briefs Superman- I was surprised at how many people hated the lack of trunks not being there. I was even more surprised when I learned Zack looked through hundreds of different versions of them and desperately wanted them in the film, but ultimately realized it was far too silly for the take on Superman he was attempting. And because the studio let this slide, the answer if whether or not they care about the bad reception to the decision is "no".

3. Superman killing Zod- I am not going to spend a lot of time on this or reiterate in detail the fact that Superman has killed at least a handful of times in comics. I am only going to say that WB/DC were with Nolan and Goyer and against Zack on this until his explanation convinced them to relent. And because they relented, KNOWING FULL-WELL that this scene would have serious backlash within Superman fandom, the answer to the question if whether or not they cared about such a bad reception is "No".

4. Doomsday- I was actually in the camp of people who hated the idea of Doomsday appearing so soon, as Superman has only just begun his official career. However, when I learned that rumors suggested that he would be similar to his version in the DCAU, I got over it. But others obviously didn't, especially when he finally appeared in the most recent trailer. They unflatteringly compared his appearance to a troll, a ninja turtle, and the MCU Abomination (which isn't even a fair comparison, as his appearance in the film compared to the comics was extremely inaccurate, anyway); ignorant to the possibility of him evolving during the fight to look more traditional. The fact that WB/DC has yet to comment on Doomsday's appearance in fan-related detail means the question if whether or not they care about the bad response is what? Aye...NO.

5. Cast of Characters- One of the more annoying criticisms is the casting backlash; Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Jesse Eisenberg (especially), and Ezra Miller. The annoyance factor isn't even due to the obviousness of an actor's function being to push the boundaries of their skills and convey a convincing performance of a character they have nothing in common with. No. It's the factor of having very pathetic reasoning. Many can't forgive Ben for Daredevil, believing solely for this reason that he is undeserving of the Batman mantle despite the fact that that was a completely different period of his career. Many believe Gal cannot pull off Wonder Woman due to being "skinny" and "flatchested". Gr​oan. Others feel Ezra is too effeminate and Asian-looking to portray the Flash (though clearly, many of them would desire to see Grant Gustin for obvious reasons). Still, belief is maintained in Jesse's inability to play Luthor due to his being youthful in physical appearance and habitual in comedic roles; also adding that Bryan Cranston should have had the role. And speaking of Bryan Cranston, he said it best when speaking of an actor's abilities and not being cast as Lex,

"Not one conversation [about Lex Luthor]. It was all fan-driven. They're thinking, 'Who can play Lex Luthor? Who's bald? Who can be menacing? Oh! Walter White! We can get that guy.' And it's like, it's not very inspiring casting."

No, it isn't. And it defeats the purpose of an actor's ambition. Still, because WB/DC allowed Zack to move on with his casting decisions, the question of whether or not they care about the reception to such casting is as clear as day: Nein (no).

6. Characters' Appearances- Lastly, we have the look of the characters that many are not at all okay with. Many like Batfleck's suit, but hate the short ears and fatbat symbol despite referencing TDKR. Many hate that Wonder Woman's costume seems darker and is devoid of the leotard-like look in exchange for a skirt despite the fact that she has only appeared in dark environments (which means it would look different in the light like Superman's in BVS) and the fact that Wonder Woman has worn a skirt before in comics during her first appearance in the Golden Age and during Jim Lee's run. Others complain about Aquaman's general appearance despite the fact that he has had long hair and a beard before in the 90s comics. Still, many desire to roll their eyes at the site of a smaller Luthor with hair, despite the fact that it's Luthor's intelligence and demeanor that makes him a serious threat (not his stature) and the fact that he is CLEARLY destined to lose his hair at some point. And finally, while we haven't seen Ezra's suit, he described it as "post-apocalyptic", which many groaned at despite it being in keeping with the tone of the DCEU. However, like before, because WB/DC gave the go-head on these appearances, it is once again quite clear that the studio's level of care towards the bad reception is a nyet (no).

Despite all of the detractors' complaints, cursing, trolling, and even threats, all of this has taken place and will only grow down the line. That being said, I finally make my point via a question: Can anyone honestly believe that based on all of this evidence that the studio decided to respond to fan reactions by addressing the destruction rather than it actually being in the plans all along? Especially when MOS in many ways takes from the comics (destruction being a recurring theme in Superman comics, especially during alien invasions and super-powered showdowns)? Also, what makes people think WB/DC, very busy and very intelligent people, waste their valuable time reading blogs and threads from people they don't know and are quite likely below their age group? It's nonsensically illogical. They NEVER listen to these people. They NEVER make decisions based on scattered reception. And they will NEVER allow some petty verbal and online backlash stop them from moving forward. That's the way it is. Shield out.

 

SUPERMAN Artwork Reveals First Look At Anthony Carrigan's Metamorpho, Hawkgirl's Wings, And More
Related:

SUPERMAN Artwork Reveals First Look At Anthony Carrigan's Metamorpho, Hawkgirl's Wings, And More

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

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

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.

Pasto
Pasto - 1/10/2016, 7:57 PM
I guess we can add this article to the list of unneeded crap ruining CBM.
Erik10101
Erik10101 - 1/10/2016, 9:29 PM
Although BvS may not be a "correction" of MoS, it's silly to think studios do not react to fan reaction. Studios react to fan reaction all the time (retcon of Mandarin in IM3, Shredder in TMNT, Domashev becoming von Doom in F4).

"what makes people think WB/DC, very busy and very intelligent people, waste their valuable time reading blogs and threads from people they don't know and are quite likely below their age group? It's nonsensically illogical. They NEVER listen to these people. They NEVER make decisions based on scattered reception. And they will NEVER allow some petty verbal and online backlash stop them from moving forward. That's the way it is. Shield out."

This isn't even true for WB/DC. Jack Black was set to star in Green Lantern until fan reaction forced the studio to go with a less comedic version of GL out.
gamecreatorjj
gamecreatorjj - 1/10/2016, 11:51 PM
I love Man of Steel despite it's flaws. Truly, it's one of my favorite comic book movies. However I am not blind to the fact that it did have flaws and that BvS is addressing some of those flaws.

It would be stupid of WB to not look at audience and critical reaction of Man of Steel and see where they could go from there. If they plugged their ears and ignored it all, BvS would end up falling to the exact same problems Man of Steel fell to.

Movies need to evolve, and part of evolution is reacting to an outside stimulus. In this case, that stimulus was the critical reception, and Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, should benefit from that evolution.
GoldenMan
GoldenMan - 1/11/2016, 3:19 AM
He says before he's seen the movie.
TexasAvenger
TexasAvenger - 1/11/2016, 5:57 AM
Watch the movie come out and prove you wrong.
Shield23
Shield23 - 1/11/2016, 10:00 AM
Sorry guys. I changed the summary to "an apology" as opposed to "a response". I rushed in the process. My bad. However,


@Scorpion8125


Hmm...nope!





@Erik10101


That was then. This is now. WB/DC have gotten their act together, finally. But my point is, addressing the destruction in MOS was clearly always the plan and that based on all of the criticism MOS has gotten and BVS is getting keeps falling on deaf ears means that those who stubbornly believe that this is all an apology for them are seriously kidding themselves.





@gamecreatorjj


I like you. You say you love MOS despite it's flaws and is one of your favorites. Me too! I also agree with what you're saying about movies evolving. But to be honest, I think, at least for Superman's side of the story, things were always going to evolve in these movies regardless of critical response. @JaredsJoker said it best. With the same director as before further taking the reins in regards to ideas and vision, it is pretty clear that addressing destruction was always the plan, especially when Zack's personality is factored in. Zack says he makes movies primarily for him, as in, he makes them to see his work flourish and doesn't allow bad reception to keep him from moving forward. Also, you have to consider that WB/DC has pretty much said "yes" to everything Zack wanted to do since MOS, that's pretty telling.





@JaredsJoker


Haha, thanks! And right on, man! MOS AND BVS FTW!
GiantNerd
GiantNerd - 1/11/2016, 4:28 PM
@ManCalledSting

JaredsJoker is Mantiniumborn.

He's as transparent as they come.
AgentZero
AgentZero - 1/11/2016, 10:08 PM
Sorry man but your article is stupid. YES BvS is a correction to MOS. End of the conversation. No need to try and defend it miserably.

At the end of MOS the city is rebuilt and shiny brand new. They didn't indicate anything about the people's opinion of Superman. When General Swanwick talks to Superman at the end it's only like they're surveilling him. You don't feel like the repercussions are upon him. The lack of pressure on Clark Kent is so non-existent that he's looking for a job. So a big YES to anyone who asks if BvS is correcting the ending of MOS.

MOS came out in 2013 and in 2012 you had the perfect example of acknowledging what happened at the end of a movie : The Avengers.



Here you have a senator inquiring about the whereabout of the Avengers and talking about accountability for the destruction done to the city.







The three above pictures show you people mourning their loved ones who died and those who died in general during the incident by placing notes on a mural and lighting candles.

This right here is acknowledging right away and not brushing off what happened. Not some stupid correcting after the fact BS.

On a sidenote the fact that the military is surveilling Superman via satellite to see "where he hangs his cape" is DUMB and utterly STUPID considering that they went to pick up his baby shuttle at his damn HOUSE. Wouldn't they care to investigate after the incident why that thing was where it was and connect the dot? Surely a few reports should have been filed after this incident. And let's not talk about the fact that Supes went to a fricking military base so they had cameras and took photos of him and tried to ID him to see who he was. But hey it's Zack Snyder for you !!
sickboy76
sickboy76 - 1/12/2016, 2:31 AM
How many more times will this dude post the same article written different ways?
Shield23
Shield23 - 1/12/2016, 11:49 AM
@AgentZero

First of all, it's NOT a correction. Not with the same visionary, Zack Snyder, at the helm of BVS still executing his plans and having the full support of WB/DC. Don't you think if they disagreed with anything he did in the past few years, they would have fired him rather than have him be in charge of the DCEU (which he named btw)? WB/DC have done it before in the past, firing someone for not living up to their expectations. Why didn't they do that with Zack, especially when he argued with them about Superman killing Zod? The only thing so-called "stupid" here is the fact that people don't seem to get that their negative opinions hold no bearing whatsoever.

Second, You don't pay attention well, do you? Not all of Metropolis was destroyed. Just a section of it. You can clearly still see most of the city still standing after Superman destroyed the World Engine and even during his fight with Zod. And how is it shiny brand new, exactly? You see a blur of Clark on his bike with the city around him also blurred. You don't see destruction where he's going because not all of the city was destroyed. MOS was strictly an origin film, aimed at Superman's introduction. The sequel, regardless of Batman's presence, was always going to be about his reputation as a result of the people's reactions towards his actions. It's a great way to tell Superman's story layer by layer. Just because you and a handful of other people think it's BS because destruction wasn't immediately addressed doesn't mean it is.

Swanwick clearly doesn't trust him, as he demanded to know who he really was during his conversation with Lois in the interrogation room but didn't get a response. He had no clue why Zod was here for Superman, which makes his distrust even more evident. That being said, it's perfectly reasonable for him to follow him with a drone. And Military I.D. him via pictures? Maybe you should read a Superman comic (like Superman Earth One especially, which MOS is heavily inspired by and featured the military with pictures of Superman's face, but never being able to track his Clark persona) some time. That happens a lot in many comics and they never seem to be able to identify him as Kent. And how do you know they picked up his baby ship from his house? They never showed that. It's more reasonable to say he brought it to them via, oh I don't know, with his strength and flight powers? Seriously? You can do better than that.

Also, how do you know he doesn't have like a college degree or something that would allow him to get work at the Daily planet? Just because they didn't show him in college doesn't mean he never went. We see him work on a crab-fishing boat, in a bar, and at a cargo station, but we never see any applications or interviews prior to his getting hired. That being said, just because we don't see him earn a degree in journalism or English doesn't mean he couldn't have gotten it prior to getting hired.

I find it difficult to take you seriously not just given your immature comment of calling my article "stupid" and "miserably defended", but also because you are basing your cases on unfair comparisons (The Avengers) and unfounded assumptions (job at the planet, rebuilt Metropolis, surveillance drone, baby ship, etc.). And in any case, that's not even the point of my article. The point is to get the message of the destruction in MOS not being a reaction to fan criticism, as based on my evidence above, they NEVER really care for what the fans' gripe about. The fact that Zack is still involved and in charge of the DCEU (meaning he is continuing to bring his own vision and ideas to the table despite MOS backlash) should really tell detractors something.
Shield23
Shield23 - 1/12/2016, 12:26 PM
@AgentZero

Also, The Senator and mourning people may have addressed the destruction in their own way, but it was pretty much just glossed over via a few screens. In BVS, there's gonna be some real weight to it, as the entirety of the movie's tone will be a result of Superman's war against Zod causing destruction and death. It won't be just glossed over like at the end of Avengers.
TheTank
TheTank - 1/20/2016, 1:35 PM
I am looking forward to this movie, however...I was more so looking forward to a straight up sequel to Man of Steel than this JLA precursor.

I thought Man of Steel was decent at best, which isn't much different than the way I felt about Batman Begins when i first saw it. I did think Batman Begins was sufficient as a platform for future and more interesting movies which is ultimately what we got, despite the very few, most people feel like The Dark Knight was a superb movie. I was hoping after Man of Steel, that because we got most of the set up out of the way, that we would have been given a superior sequel, which is something Kevin Smith had even said in one of his podcasts. Unfortunately WB is so greedy and is trying to cash in on that Avengers sized payday without putting in the dues to earn it. We were given a stable of great Marvel movies leading up to the avengers, with only one year in between the last Phase 1 movie and the Avengers. With the DCCU we are getting BvS and then another 2 years before we see the JLA. Granted there is a Wonder Woman movie due in between those 2 dates but it feels so backwards and that isn't the movie everyone is going to want to see after seeing BvS.
View Recorder