Your movie can’t win when it tries to be five things at once. This is the central flaw that Zack Snyder’s “Batman v. Superman” suffers from.
It’s trying to be “The Death of Superman.” It’s also “The Dark Knight Returns,” and a Justice League origins story movie, and the story elements just don’t mix. In order to fit these stories into a convenient 2 hour 33 minute run time, key moments had to be redacted, and unmasterfully so.
I’ve had a lot of time to think about what went wrong in this movie, and have come to the conclusion that “Batman v. Superman” was just an impossible film to make. I’ve had some gripes with Snyder’s directing in the past, but I don’t think even a miracle director like Ang Lee or Stanley Kubrick could’ve made a cohesive film with such a poor concept in mind, which was clearly dictated by studio demands rather than genuine interest in making a good movie.
You can tell that Snyder had a checklist of things the film had to accomplish. Did he set up Batman? Check. Did he convey Superman’s struggle with a realistic world? Check. Did he set up the Justice League? Check? Did he cram in the “Death of Superman” story line? Check. It didn’t matter if he did these things well, it just mattered that they were included.
As a result, this is the most manufactured, dry movie I’ve watched since the “Star Wars” prequels. Yes, there are some good parts (basically anything that includes Ben Affleck’s Batman), but the movie as a whole is a mess, though it covers what the studio wanted it to.
If this was entrusted to a lesser director, this film would join the ranks of “Batman and Robin,” effectively killing off DC’s comic book movies in the near future. Zack Snyder did not make a masterful movie, but he made a competent flick from impossible studio demands.
He did not kill off DC’s cinematic universe; if anything, he made people excited for a solo Ben Affleck Batman film. Gal Gadot also proved to be a competent Wonder Woman. Snyder also knows how to make a visually stunning movie, and for that reason, “Batman v. Superman” was guaranteed to do well at the box office.
Yet I can’t help but wonder if “Batman v. Superman’s” success is more of a result of having a strong IP and state of the art visual effects rather than actual mastery of art. Snyder is very good at cinematography and special effects, but the film just doesn’t work as a narrative.
I don’t think that this film was ever intended to be a good movie. Warner Bros. made it with the sole intent of making money, as is the case with most studios. However, most films don’t have the strong brand “Batman v. Superman” has, meaning that they have to rely off of being a good flick rather than name recognition.
Warner knew that a certain amount of people will always see a Superman/Batman movie, even if its awful. Throw in some well-made sequences, and the majority of people will see that flick, even if its not very well made overall. It’s why the “Star Wars” prequels and “Man of Steel” made so much money. It’s why communities have sprung up of people defending these films, latching onto the small moments of artistic success in overall drab productions of popular franchises.
Warner’s demands directly clashed with the quality of the film, but the company didn’t care. “Batman v. Superman” didn’t need to be a good movie, it just needed to be competent enough to set up the next five or so films.
Overall, I do not think it was possible for “Batman v. Superman” to be a critical success. The studio involved valued their own personal agendas above making a good movie, banking off the strong DC comic brands to sell tickets. As long as one aspect of the film worked (in this case, the Batman segments), they knew they couldn’t lose.
Mitchell Chapman 