A Review Of Suicide Squad (2016), With Some Spoilers

 Image Copyright Warner Bros. Used under fair use provisions.

In the weeks leading up to its release, Suicide Squad was looking to be a repeat of Bats v Supes. There were repeated reports of trouble behind the scenes, reshoots and reedits, as the trailers went from dour to paint factory explosion. People involved started talking against film reviewers, such as Cara Delevingne whom said not to listen to critics, they don't like superhero films. Rotten Tomatoes gave it 26% at time of writing(1). Some frankly insane fans started a petition to close that website, based mainly on that, before the film was even out. And all the while, the film was trending for a record breaking opening weekend and a sharp drop off. This is all despite an honestly interesting idea, and it being a genre first. Its the dirty dozen, but with super villains. Its DC's answer to Guardians of the Galaxy. But is it any good?

Almost.

Suicide Squad has quite blatantly been tampered with during production, not enough to ruin the experience, but they probably should have left it alone. Its a cake they took out the oven too soon, only for the cook to cut bits off, shove it back in, and cover it all in day-glo icing. There's still enough sugar sprinkles and chocolate chips to salvage the mess, but its not a top tier product. Suicide Squad is not as funny or as colourful as the trailers make it look. You've probably seen all the good jokes already, and I suspect the bad ones to be from the reshoots. Tone is inconsistent, never feeling quite natural, and frequently punctuated with popular pop music. The positives, such as they are, suggest a darker and more elegant Director's Cut. They've basically put LEDs and chrome rims on a hearse with this film, and then painted it pink. Key scenes seem to be missing, replaced with clunky exposition, while character motivations are a mess. Its a hard movie to make an emotional connection with, good or bad, and is therefore unsatisfying. Be it the studio, the editor, or the director, Suicide Squad shares so many flaws with Batman V Superman I don't blame anyone whom was bitterly disappointed by this film.

On a more specific level, I can't work out why Harley Quinn, and by extension The Joker, are in this film. I mean, obviously, they are there to draw in fans, but narratively it makes no sense. Harley is just a mortal woman with a baseball bat and a mental illness in this world, and yet she's on a team with a professional assassin, a man whom controls fire, and a sorceress. There's nothing she does the other squaddies don't do, and is an absolute liability at all times, so there's no narrative reason for her to be there(2). If this film had been about an attempt to capture The Joker or similar, then, yeah, she'd be on the team, but this isn't what the plot is. I'd also like to make the surprising, and somewhat worrying, complaint that they seem to have romanticised the relationship between the two. Something that was explicit in the cartoons that created her was that Harley was in an abusive relationship, her affection being largely one-sided and taken advantage of frequently. She is a battered wife, and therefore both sympathetic and somewhat blameless for her part in The Joker's horrific crimes. In this film, their relationship is much more even, and she ends up being much less likeable as a result. And to be honest, the scenes with both could have been excised from the film with little effect. This film is so fundamentally confused about its own existence, that Harley, or for that matter, everyone, lacks a coherent arc. The inevitable world building scenes are also a problem, Batman showing the same disregard for his secret identity as he does in the Justice League trailer.

Does Suicide Squad get anything right? Well, while its clearly not the single vision it should be, the film does end up being the better of DC's films this year, not that this is strictly saying much. Having little prior investment in a majority of the cast, I was less immediately hostile to their depictions than Zack Synder's wrong-headed approach to Superman. I also found Jared Leto's Joker to be less immediately irritating than initial reports suggested. Certain characters, like Viola Davis as Amanda Waller and Will Smith as Will Smith(3) honestly do shine. Margot Robbie is a star in the making. And throughout, there's the sense that there was a better movie in there, somewhere. Its a confused film, but unlike Synder's work, its more interesting than aggressively stupid.

The Verdict

Suicide Squad is not overtly terrible, but its close. Its also a fair distance from being good. There are many basic story telling flaws present, and while the film is interesting enough to distract from this, its not something that's going to do well in repeat viewing. If you are a diehard DC fan, you'll find something to like, but don't be daft and start criticising the critics. Its good for one watch, and maybe a Director's Cut. But it ain't Guardians of the Galaxy.

Foot notes

1. Which means 26% of reviewers gave it a positive review, BTW. Not that it scored 26 out of 100.
2. You can make similar arguments about Captain Boomerang, but he's an original member of the team from the comics, and a world-class bank robber. He's got as much reason to be there as anyone.
3. Not a typo.
   
   

Opinion Piece: My Opinions Of The Batman. Again.

Right, I said I'd do some effing opinion pieces, didn't I? Well, I struggled a bit, given my new business demanding a lot of my time, and disqualifying some 90% of my ideas on grounds of potential bias. But sometimes, you get that spark of inspiration, and the need to do something else with your brain. So, here's a ramble about why I think Batman really needs to take a back-seat in Warner Bros attempt to make a cinematic universe, and will hopefully finally express my mixed feelings on the character.

Image Copyright Warner Brothers etc.

The thing about Batman at this point is that he's undemanding in terms of SFX, and you've got a bounty of material to draw on. He's easy. While Bats does fight alien ghosts of a Tuesday, he's basically on the level of James Bond. He's a gadget guy, prefers not to be shot, doesn't use guns because of his origins, and most of his foes are of that nature. He's a rich dude whom trains his mind and body like a champion. Depicting him in live action is only as difficult as you want it to be, whereas characters with actual Super Powers, especially the weird looking ones, only really became possible with CG(1). Narratively, he's also easy to get behind, being the archetypical grim and gritty superhero. Even before Frank Miller and Alan Moore took a swing at him, Batman was a guy whose parents were murdered in front of him as a child, and overcame unimaginable loss to start a quest to end crime, but decides not to take human life for fearing of becoming what he hates. He's just enough of an everyman to be easily empathised with, flexible with tone, and the psychological aspects are endlessly fascinating. Furthermore, the character has arguably the best selection of colourful villains, many being evil counterparts or reflections of Batman's personality. Its the best possible material to adapt. It resulted in arguably the greatest cartoon series of the 90's. The most memorable TV series of the 60's. Some spectacular video games. And two genre defining films by Chrisopher Nolan. If you've ever been anywhere near the Superhero genre, you know this, I do not have to explain further. This foundation is so strong that people say Ben Affleck is the best bit of Batman V Superman, despite the myriad flaws and troubling characterisation associated with that film.

Like the guns and vehicular homicide, but more on that shortly.

Batman however has some problems, ones which mark the DC universe and the expectations of viewers. The simple truth is that not all characters are Batman. Especially the grimdark version Frank Miller codified, and a large subset of comics fans tend to hold in high regard. Not every superhero works the same way, or operates in the same context, but yet WB and many others treat the character as the gold standard of the genre when it comes to live action adaptations. This is kinda daft. you get a homogenisation of the genre, where a bunch of wannabees end up imitating the wrong things. See the comic book industry in the 90's, or what happened to anime after Neon Genesis Evangelion came out.

Its for this reason why Arrow isn't called Green Arrow. Why Man of Steel was essentially Superman Begins, via Zack Synder. Why Bats V Supes took its inspiration from the Dark Knight Returns. And why we have a TV series that's basically about Batman before he was famous, even though there's no obvious narrative there, and it presents all the problems of a prequel. This is also why, I think, the Marvel films get stick for their lighter tone and lack of memorable villains. Yes, the latter complaint is reasonable(2), but the first bit isn't. Marvel has shown another way of doing things, where antagonists are obstacles to be defeated, not more important than the lead characters. There is an ingrained mindset that these things should be serious, one that is slowly breaking down, but not fast enough to avoid hobbling the new DC film series out of the gate. Warner Bros in recent years has only really managed to produce Batman films, or films that fit into a similar Venn Diagram. They haven't been able to do Superheroes that don't fit that template, and even then, the Batman movies are patchy. They've basically got it into their heads that the dark and gritty is the only way to go, something a lot of fans encouraged, its difficult for them to change tracks now(3). It will be interesting to see how Suicide Squad works out, with the rumours of comedic re-shoots and increasingly technicolour advertising. But, then again, Bats is in that too.

I thought there was a “no jokes" policy.

Then there's the whole “unfortunate implications” business. Going by recent films alone, it would be easy to view Batman as a mentally unbalanced billionaire whom uses his money to beat up the under-privileged, as opposed to spending on Police and Social Programs. A violent power fantasy bordering on Fascistic, excused by a childhood tragedy. The character's origins as detective whom eschews guns on principle, gets lost in translation. This is what happens when you repeatedly invoke “darkness” and “realism” on a character whom dresses like a rodent to fight a murder clown. You can only push it so far before the whole edifice comes crashing down. Yes, this is a train of thought that utterly defeats the point of the guy, and can be contradicted by citing specific comics and scenes, but its an argument that can be made(4). The Dark Knight, for example, is probably still in my top 5 Superhero films, but you do find a certain Right Wing circa Dubya Bush feel to events. This is a film where the hero flies into another country, does an “Extraordinary Rendition”, beats up a guy in a Police interrogation, and hacks every phone in Gotham in an attempt to find a single person, although he does step back from that. This looks more dirty than heroic, if you are of that mind. You can say I'm reading too much into it, and maybe. But then again, the Ben Affleck version is even worse, a multiple murderer whom brands criminals, humanity and reason apparently absent. He's just a lump of brutality, deciding to eliminate Superman for reasons that can only be described as hypocritical. And don't forget, the 1989 Batman was pretty killy too.

Pretty deliberate attempt at murder there.

What I'm trying to say here is we don't need another Batman film. At least not without a pretty comprehensive reworking. The realism angle has been drained dry, and the direction Synder took was unpleasant. And while I will always enjoy The Animated Series, the best thing for the character and for DC, is just put him in the background for a while.

Footnotes

1. Yes, Superman did a good job in 1978ish, but that was at the upper limit of practicality and money at the time. Note how long it was between that film and Spider-Man.
2. That said, DC cinematic villains stopped being good circa 2012. Note I said 2 Nolan films.
3. Although, Batman: The Brave & The Bold does exist.
4. Like how Indiana Jones was unnecessary in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice, A Short Spoilers Review

I went to see Batman V Superman on Easter Sunday, and then the internet exploded. The critics hated it. Fans loved it. Other fans didn't. It made pots of money. It might not make all of the money. It might do. There's a petition to remove its director Zack Synder from the DC universe. There's a counter-petition to keep him. Its all so dramatic, and I think, dear reader, you may have your mind made up already. But, you know, I've written a lot about this film, so here's my short essay on the film. Here be spoilers. And no, this isn't an April Fools Day prank, although the word fool could be used here very easily.

The fairest comparison I can make at the time of writing is to Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Its breaking financial records. Its fulfilled a deep emotional need of fanboys. But no matter how much Warner Bros. tries to say you should ignore the critics, its not very good.

I'm sorry, I tried, but it isn't a good film.

Batman V Superman is a functional action film, with a few flashes of brilliance, but falls over once you stop to think. Before anyone says I shouldn't be thinking too hard about superheroes, the film puts Superman in a government hearing, and Zack Synder adapted Watchmen, so the intellectual angle is already invoked. The film is overly fond of dream sequences that may or may not be visions of future films, and tends to jump from scene to scene suddenly, so what should be a simple story becomes convoluted. Character motivations are muddy, often boiling down to "we need these characters to fight", or "because comics", but not "in these circumstances, he would do this". Lex Luthor is particularly bad on this front, he just seems to have spontaneously decided one day that Superman was a threat and is trying to justify it after the fact. Rumours fly about multiple different drafts of the script, with different villains, being amalgamated into one, and this would be easy to believe. Lex isn't alone with the silliness either, Lois Lane has her reputation ruined by the third act, WE NOW ENTER SPOILER TOWN, where she damsels herself through an act of stupidity. Having chucked a kryptonite spear into water, she must retrieve it for something to do, and then almost drowns as a result.

OK, lets put aside matters of writing for moment, as a sufficiently charming or directed film can overcome this. Lets give it the fairest shake, and talk action sequences. And these are good, when they eventually happen. You've seen most of the memorable bits in the trailers, Batman being a highlight, but its a long wait between sequences, and an even longer wait for the title fight. If you ever wanted to see Superman beaten up, including the use of a sink, this is your movie. Its just a shame about how it starts and ends. The fight could have been prevented by Supes saying “He's kidnapped my Mum”, and it ends with him saying “He's got Martha” instead. “Martha” is coincidentally the name of both Bats and Supes respective mothers, a piece of trivia that gets treated as a revelation here. I mean how often do you use your mother's first name?

I'm sorry, I realise I was meant to be talking about the action.

Ahem, well, as entertaining as seeing Bats punch people is, things go south once Doomsday wakes up. In a prolonged CG sequence not dissimilar in feel to the Micheal Bay directed Transformers films, we get another big fight. One that is hard to follow, done in contrasting colours, and goes on far too long. Wonder Woman makes her present felt, and is welcome, but Doomsday himself is a deeply unconvincing CG creation that seems to have been borrowed from the first Lord of the Rings film. And, at this point, I really have to start addressing the adaptation.

Now, if you watched Man of Steel and felt they'd missed the point of the character, bad news folks, they doubled down. Superman is still the perpetually depressed alien of minimal charisma, repeated religious symbolism, and generalised destruction. While the trailers imply his arc is about facing the consequences of the last film, its more about him having a crisis of confidence that he's causing harm by rescuing people. There's an odd dream sequence with Pa Kent, which seems to be the film's statement of principle, where Pa recounts how his attempt to save the family farm from flooding drowned some horses downstream. If you believe that he should be a symbol of hope, this film will anger you as the tone is utterly opposed to that. Not only does Supes flat out murder someone in the first five minutes, a terrorist admittedly, but still, the movie goes places that should have been struck down at the first draft. There's a suicide bomber in a wheelchair. Superman standing in the flaming remains of that attack. A big jar of urine. A frankly horrifying origin story for Justice League member Cyborg. Government officials believing Superman would need bullets to kill people. An alien spacecraft left to rot in the Indian Ocean. Batman branding people. Pa Kent. Those dream/vision sequences of a post-apocalyptic future. An ICBM being able to hit a man sized target in flight. Batman killing a bunch of people, first with guns, then with cars. Jesse Eisenberg's entire depiction of Lex Luthor. Jimmy Olson being shot dead as an exposed CIA agent. And then, Superman is killed by Doomsday, as part of a forced heroic sacrifice.

Yes, they killed Superman.

Warner Brothers grand plan for a shared cinematic universe is to build one on Superman's corpse.

Funeral scene and everything.

Then something starts to happen to the casket.

Then credits.

Thanks WB.

It's not that better for the rest of the trinity. Gal Godot's performance as Wonder Woman bodes well, but we don't get that much time with her. She doesn't actually speak to Supes either, and her main function seems to be a vector for all the world building stuff. Said world building has subtlety of a party political broadcast, because if its not dreams, its what amounts to a playlist of 30 second teaser trailers. Ben Affleck's Batman works well, but he was never going to be the problem, was he? He's won an Oscar, and Batman is a comparatively easy character to do at this point. He's compelling as Bruce Wayne too, interactions with Jeremy Iron's Alfred being a highlight. That said, this Dark Knight is a multiple murderer, so its not perfect.

So how did we get here? Well, as I suspected, this film is drawing heavily on two different comic series, Frank Miller's “The Dark Knight Returns” and the Death of Superman storyline. Both are well-regarded in their way. Frank Miller has largely ruined his reputation at this point, but TDKR is still considered a classic, if one that's notable for an unflattering depiction of Superman. The other is exactly what it sounds like, and was one of the big, huge, 90's comic events that sold gangbusters. Obviously, it didn't take, and as it was essentially an extended publicity stunt, its got its detractors. Doomsday on screen isn't that far from the comic depictions, if only for the fact that he only really does one thing, show up out of nowhere and kill Superman. While there is merit in adapting either, the themes therein don't really make sense for movie #2, or together. At the barest minimum, if you are killing Supes, give us a while to get to know him, and do it for his third or forth movie. That way, they would have earned it. If you want Batman to be an angry old man, as he is in Miller's work, let him age a bit on screen first, as opposed to promising the answer in future sequels. What WB and co actually did was latch on to these stories due to popularity, not because of merit, but because they were in a hurry. Too much. Too soon. All in a desperate, desperate, I say, attempt to catch up with Marvel. What story is there for Superman now beyond resurrection? What is there for Batman other than flashbacks? Not much that's obvious or good. Maybe he's killed all his big name villains by now.

The Verdict

Just don't. I hope I never have to talk about this film again.

Images Copyright Warner Brothers and DC, used under fair use provisions.

Blog Update And Eight Opinions

Okay folks, I'm back. Partially. The family matter is ongoing, and I don't feel I can talk about it here, but I've been away too long. So, I'm running a Sunday service for the foreseeable future. I've no shortage of demands on my time now, and I'm going to Botcon 2016, which is gonna be something of a distraction. And a good source of material too, don't get me wrong, but JEEEEEEETTTTT LAAAAGGGG. In the meantime, here's an article touching on the varying toy, political and nerd film news that happened while I was away.

Source unknown. Please tell me, I'd love to know.

The New York Toy Fair reveals

Yay! Chromedome! Yay! Fort Max! Yay! Almost Everything! Hang on, where's Computron and Liokaiser? Oh, there's Computron, yay!

The TakaraTomy versions of Titans Return toys, such as Hardhead

This is a complex one. The Japanese versions of Transformers tend to get lots of praise for superior paintwork and very closely following the G1 cartoon, and they've taken the step of retooling the faces for that purpose. So Hardhead has a mouth, like most of his appearances. However, purists will note that the Japanese cartoon continuity diverged from the Western version sharply in 1987, and had their own exclusive series. Which of course, does not line up with any Hasbro depiction. The whole “Takara makes stuff that reminds me of the cartoon I saw as a kid, and Hasbro don't, so its better” argument doesn't really apply here. It is however interesting to see these these come with mini-vehicles intended for release for $5 price point in the West. On a more objective standpoint, if the price is proportional, this would be a legitimate improvement. Given that I found Hardhead for preorder at $36, maybe not.

The Deadpool movie

An obvious labour of love, that deserves all the praise and money its receiving. If you like the trailers, especially the uncensored ones, go see it. Its easily the best non-Marvel Studios superhero film since 2008, both in terms of entertainment value and adaptation. I just hope Hollywood won't learn the wrong lesson from its success. You know, that Deadpool isn't popular merely because he minces people and says bad words and is from the 90's. Its because it was made by people whom cared, who did a good job, backed up with a spectacular advertising campaign.

Batman V Superman to get a “R Rated” home release

Oh god, too late. This has apparently been in works for a while, so its not Warner jumping on a trend. Its still a bloody stupid idea, regarding a film which has had seemingly nothing but stupid ideas. These characters are intended for children. Here's a more detailed rebuttal. And another.

The Venom film that doesn't involve Spider-Man

Oh god, too late.

On Donald Trump

Oh god, too late.

The new Ghostbusters trailer

Wow, what a lot of controversy. I'm almost afraid to talk about this, lest I accidentally I align myself with a bunch of misogynistic and/or entitled troll fanboys. The thing is this: I didn't find the trailer funny. I didn't find it engaging. It felt like exactly every other Hollywood comedy, possibly involving Adam Sandler, but could have been made by or starring anyone of the tinsel town standbys. Its too early too tell, humour is subjective, but I didn't like it. I'm also inclined to say that all the gender controversy is just giving the film free advertising, which it may not deserve.

And finally, the E.U Referendum

Look, whatever you decide, try to read up on the situation. I mean actually, read, don't just watch a rolling news channel. Don't use a single newspaper or website, and seek ones you normally wouldn't read. You're probably best off starting with the BBC; everybody has an agenda, but at least the beeb has impartiality in their charter. And then actually vote. And then shut up about the result, whatever it may be.

So sick of hearing about this.

Saving Superman

As regular readers may note, I'm not hugely keen on how they seem to be handling Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice. Its got the look of a disaster. Yes, yes, the film isn't out yet. I'm being a judgemental fanboy. It could be awesome, nobody knows. There are talented people working on it. I will say two things in my defence, however. First off, I don't actually like Superman, so there's no childhood being ruined here. My position is one of detached respect. And secondly, I don't like it when someone is clearly doing it wrong. The sensible response when Man of Steel had a less than stellar reception was to go back to the drawing board, and acknowledge the criticisms. It was not to make a sequel to a quite dour film, and make it darker by putting Batman in it. Nor was drawing inspiration from the “Dark Knight Returns”, or “Death of Superman” plotlines. Nor was allowing this cover for Empire Movie magazine.

Yeah, that's not a pose that inspires hope and awe. Restraining orders? Yes. But not hope and awe. So, in the event that BVS:DOJ fails so hard they have to start again, here's a list of suggestions on how to fix the mess that the cinematic Superman has become.

Go watch some Bruce Timm cartoons

Its well-known at this point that Batman V Superman is a hurried attempt to get a DC cinematic universe up and running in the quickest possible time. Understandable, given Marvel has been so profitable at this, but the folks at Warner Bros. seem to have forgot they already did that on TV. The classic Batman: The Animated Series gave us an entire shared cartoon universe, and eventually the Justice League Unlimited series, arguably the best and most successful comic adaptations until, well, Marvel. That continuity ran for fourteen fricking YEARS! Something about it must have worked. Get yourself a DVD boxset or three, get over any snobbery you may have about cartoons, and take notes.

If you have to be realistic, dump the secret identity
The fact that Clark Kent manages to disguise his role as Superman via glasses is something that's been openly mocked since forever. With the march of technology being what it is, its a façade that would not last 30 seconds, and hasn't been remotely tenable since the home video camera. And lets be honest here, the whole secret-identity-revealed plot point has been done to death. So bypass it completely. Have Supes be based in the Fortress of Solitude, he can still interact with Lois and Jimmy as part of his day job. Make it a commentary on celebrity, his identity revealed before the film even starts. Pop that zit, and deal with the consequences.


Set it in the 30's
Its said that Supes is old fashioned, so play to that strength, and make it a period piece. The secret identity problem largely vanishes, and Superman is just the hero for the Great Depression. Lex Luthor as an evil industrialist in this time makes a crazy amount of sense, too. And speaking of period pieces....

Have him fight racists
Oh, you want Superman to be edgy and dark, do you? You want to match his optimism with dirt? Bring him down to Earth? Well, the radio show version had the titanic balls to take on the Ku Klux Klan in 1946. Seriously, it was almost a journalistic expose, and actually did some good. Be they Nazis, or Donald Trump supporters, squaring off some proper nasties will only reinforce how good Supes is.

Or stop having him fight people
Look, Superman is a physical god, and there's no sensible foe for him to face in a mere punch up. Remember the fight with Zod in Man Of Steel? Did it not get boring? So either go bigger or a lot smaller. Give him a challenge that cannot be resolved by merely punching it. Superman v an earthquake. Superman v an arm-smuggling ring. Superman v famine. Superman v the subtle manipulations of billionaire Lex Luthor. Superman v President Luthor. Not Superman v guy with identical powers again. And if you have to do the alien invasion once more, go full Independence Day.

And Finally, NO MORE KILLING
Seriously folks, can we get over the Superheroes killing people trope please? Especially with blueboy here. Superman has sufficient level of power he does not need to kill anyone, and nor does he have the inclination. That scene with Zod? Should never have happened. DC and Warner Bros: Marvels mocks you on this front. So stop doing it.

New Batman V Superman Trailer Released: Doomsday? Seriously, DOOMSDAY!?

Well, the trailer was out, and its confirmed a rumour so dumb I'd discounted it. Here is the trailer.

There's a lot to breakdown here, so much so I think an article is in order, but I'll limit my comments today to the reveal. In a stereotypical example of a trailer spoiling a film's big twist, Lex Luthor will create Doomsday, seemingly from General Zod's remains. Doomsday is of course best known, and perhaps only known, for "killing" Superman in the early 90's. He's been in plenty of comics since, but if you are getting a "Bane breaking Batman" vibe to events, you aren't wrong. This means the main influences on Batman V Superman  now include a plotline where Superman is beaten to death by a monster in biker shorts.


I restate my pessimism about this project.

Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice Gets A Trailer For A Trailer

Well, it seems on Wednesday we are a new Batman V Superman trailer, and WB has put out a teaser for it. This is annoying trend, but here is the clip.

Its speculated this all adds up to a dream sequence, which may mitigate my concerns about neck snapping.  This is still very much what I don't like about the project though. Nobody should kneel to Superman, and his response should be "stop it guys". And you don't put dream sequences in a trailer because they are ultimately meaningless and misleading. Still, to each their own, I suppose.

Batman V Superman: Well Done, You've Made Me Sick Of Batman, Warner Bros.

Goddammit. It finally happened. I no longer like Batman. At least in the wider cinematic context, and the style of comic film he's associated with. This is not something I thought I'd be writing a few years back. What caused this? Well, if we are talking camel crippling straws, the latest reported comments by director Zack Snyder on what originally was the Man of Steel(MOS) sequel. The following statement was made as part of a wider interview, with a fair few bits are worth picking apart, but I'm limiting myself to just one today. This is Snyder responding to rumours that the screentime ratio of Batman V Superman was favouring the former:

“Only in that because it’s a different Batman than the Batman that was in the Chris Nolan movies, so we have a little bit more explaining to do—and you just had a whole Superman movie,” he smiled. “But I think only in that way, because you need to understand where Batman is with everything. And that’s more toward the beginning, but it evens back out as it goes on.”

Source: The Daily Beast.

First off. We all know whom Batman is. He's just had a trilogy, and four major films beforehand. Second, they clearly have learned nothing. I now have to beat a dead horse, and prejudge a film that isn't fricking out

I didn't like MOS, I admit wholeheartedly. But I can see what they were going for, even if they "failed". The train of thought that led to MOS is easily discerned. The Nolan Batman films were a great success, despite the tepid reception of the third, and a decision was made to follow that template. Christopher Nolan was to produce, while Zack Synder of Watchmen & 300 was to direct. The team would also feature David S. Goyer as screen writer, also of the Nolan films, as was composer Hans Zimmer, although he's done loads of stuff. It was a good plan, in so far as Hollywood logic goes, and it did result in a pot of money. It also resulted in a mixed response to say the least, and said pot wasn't big enough for Warner. What went wrong? MOS wasn't a terrible film by any means. It was however an earnest attempt to make the wrong movie. And now they are making the wrong sequel.

This is what WB wants from a Superman sequel

Batman is a fairly easy character to do on screen. He's got a bounty of material to draw on, and his powerset is something that requires comparatively modest special effects. Yes, being a ninja with a tragic past and Scrooge McDuck levels of personal wealth counts as a super power for the purposes of this article. Batman, thanks largely to the efforts of Frank Miller in the seminal Dark Knight Returns, is also the personification of the grim and gritty anti-hero approach to Super-heroics. You know, the style of comics that made teenagers and then adults and then critics feel comfortable with still reading about Lycra bodysuits and bank robbers, while completely ignoring the Adam West TV series. Dark, and perhaps self-defeating. 1980's. “Realism” in genre about masked men with capes beating people up. An approach that speaks, if wielded improperly, to some deep-seated embarrassment and inferiority complex in the creative team about their work. The same attitude that Snyder and especially Goyer tend to display in interviews. This is a problem, as Superman is inherently the very thing that movement rallies against, a perfect and wondrous hero. He goes around in bright colours. He's a boy scout. He's moral and nice. He never kills, he never has to, he's a physical god. He's never in danger either, unless you break out the Kryptonite, or you break out a doppelgänger. He's the personification of hope. He's even powered by fricking sunlight. Putting that in a landscape of moral decay and urban despair works about as well as you might expect. The result is something like this:

 Image taken completely out of context.

The context isn't a vast improvement though....

You get either an unflattering portrayal, see Mr Miller again, or some variation on the theme of fallen hero with feet of clay. This approach is of course why MOS ended with Metropolis in ruins and a snapped neck. Its also why Pa Kent committed suicide by tornado, while Clark watched. And its why the box office didn't break a billion. It just doesn't feel right. 

Note, this is without me going into the Krypton plotline, and the Space Jesus overtones. Or that bit from the trailer where Batman seemingly snaps a dude's neck.

See about 2:40 in this trailer.

What Warner Brothers should have done afterwards was some serious soul searching. Their plan had not worked out as well as they hoped, and so was in need of a change. There response has been instead to double down on the grim, bringing in Batman and what appears to be a partial adaptation of the aforementioned Dark Knight Returns. This seems to the WB default these days. Gotham is essentially Batman without Batman. Arrow actually is. This only compounds the problem. A dark take on Superman only looks sillier next to Batman. There's supposed to be a contrast. They don't know what the hell they are doing. And if they are listening to anyone, its humourless Batman fanboys, not the wider community. Its not the 80's any more. Superheroes are allowed to be fun and inspiring, as well as face horrors and challenges. As they should be.

Marvel isn't everything. But at least they know what century this is.