Hey @Zombedy! Thanks for the reply. I super appreciate your thoughts on this topic, especially since I love talking to people with different view points than me. Your words didn't come across as condescending at all. I definitely see your points about applying these films to a general audience and not wanting to replicate the cartoons or comics. I'm sorry if that's how it may have came across on my end, but it's not what I intended. In the beginning of my first comment I talked about how I felt it necessary to separate these films from the comics and other films. I even stated I didn't like comparing these two filmmakers and their visions because they are completely different people with different interpretations. However, if I may, I'd like to expand upon why I don't think Snyder was the right fit. I know you mentioned how my view on the no kill rule was personal interpretation and shouldn't be placed on Snyder, and I'm willing to concede that. However, I feel like your comment did the same thing in the opposite direction. By that I mean that you discussed why you don't mind the killing because of how your personally felt about the character. That is totally okay with me. I'm not saying my interpretation is the right one. I personally value the no kill rule because of it's purpose. The idea that he won't kill because it's the one thing that separates him from the people he fights. For me, it's a major plot point for Bruce Wayne's version of Batman (obviously Thomas Wayne feels differently lol) that is used in numerous storylines and universes. Forgive me for digressing, as I understand your point and would like to be a little bit more objective about Snyder's interpretation of the DCEU and not bring in my personal interpretations of the characters, as you had mentioned at the beginning of your comment.
Comics are a HUGE hobby for me, however, I actually love filmmaking and screenwriting more. It's something I study and analyze pretty much 24/7, comics are more of a get-away and fun thing for me. So, if I look at Snyder's films from a purely technical stand point, I think they are still the weaker portrayals of the characters and universe. I'm not saying the artistic vision of Snyder is any worse than Nolan (once again they are completely different), but when I look at these portrayals from a purely technical stand point I still believe Nolan beats him out. In my opinion, Snyder's films have much poorer technique, but it's 100% okay to disagree with me on this. Let me expand upon this.
The stories, characters, and overall writing in particular are what mainly bother me about Snyder's films. I won't be discussing Justice League in this because I don't believe it's fair to judge him on a film he didn't get to see 100% through. Personally, I wasn't a fan of the film, but I have no idea if he was able to fulfill his vision with it given the tragic circumstances of his departure. So, as for Man of Steel and Batman vs. Superman (and yes I have seen the extended cut of BvS), both struggle with developing justification for character's actions, setting stakes for the characters, and creating a concise plot that develops a well deserved arch. While I will admit that Man of Steel isn't necessarily too bad at any of these things (it definitely contains the best villain of the DCEU so far), it still struggles to in these areas to see everything it sets up to its full potential. I guess this is a personal view and not necessarily a technical point as I had mentioned before, but when the basis of your entire film... nay the film itself doesn't contain the basic techniques that make up a good script you aren't stepping off with your best foot. We open the film with 20 minutes of Krypton and sending Kal El away. It's 100% unnecessary. Superman's origin wasn't necessary. You may disagree, but when the Max Fleisher cartoons can give the same exact information in its opening, and Grant Morrison can do it in just four panels; we have a classic case of "fluffed" up, unnecessary writing. Everyone knows the origin of Superman, even if you haven't seen the films. Why not open on Clark Kent at the Daily Planet. Show us a normal day for this man, make us get to know the character of this universe, and give us a chance to like him. Then enters Zod. He, as a good villian, becomes an obstacle that disrupts the daily life we just saw and Superman must overcome. OR, better yet, introduce a villain we haven't seen on screen before. Man of Steel was the 3rd time Zod has been seen in live action. Why not introduce a new threat that moviegoers haven't seen before. If we want to market these films to just general moviegoers instead of fans, then why not introduce a new villian? Someone no general moviegoer would have even known existed. The threat would be intense and new to the viewers just like it would be for Superman. I mean, everyone knows he beats Zod, he's done it twice before in other films. That's something that the Nolan films did extremely well. I know it's easy to point to the Joker and say he's someone every moviegoer has seen, but not Scarecrow or Ras Al Ghul or Bane or Two Face. All three of them would have been new, and even the Joker was a completely different experience for moviegoers. A completely different interpretations that we hadn't seen in films prior and haven't seen since.
As for BvS, it's not really its own thing. There's a reason its subtitle is: Dawn of Justice. It's only purpose for existing was to set up the Justice League, but it failed at that too. We three main Justice League members introduced were Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. Two out of the Three were already well known amongst moviegoers, but not Wonder Woman, not the rest of the Justice League. It failed at its only purpose, it didn't set up the next movie at all. We got hardly any information on Wonder Woman and none on The Flash, Cyborg, or Aquaman. And on top of that, it's not even really Batman Vs. Superman. It has a somewhat decent fight that is concluded ridiculously. The fight had no justification, at least well thought out or developed one, and didn't serve any purpose outside of introducing Superman and Batman. Why not, instead, spend the film introducing all of these characters. Give us glimpses into their lives, not origins and everything else (save that for the solo movies), but enough to introduce their personalities and powers. Then, in the end, have them all come together to beat Doomsday. Make it the DAWN OF JUSTICE, before they must all learn to work together as a team to take on bigger threats in the next film. But you may disagree, let's say I just focus on it as a film instead of the set up it was trying to be. BvS completely flops when it comes to justifying character actions, as I mentioned when talking about the fight, and doesn't have a clear threat towards the characters. There are four different villains or obstacles in the film: Lex Luthor, Doomsday, Batman, and the overall discussion of holding superheroes accountable to their actions. All of these are things Superman must overcome. It's just too much. It's the second film of the universe, on a purely basic storytelling level, you can't have your main characters tackle all of these obstacles on top of having to set up the entire universe. Because of all of these things taking place within 2 hours, nothing is able to be fully developed or justified. Everything flops. Lex Luthor is a nice opponent, albeit well worn like Zod. I don't have an opinion on Eisenberg's performance, it's unique and on its own. Batman is hardly developed and his actions aren't well justified. Yes, they provide reasoning for why he feels certain ways and wants to take on Superman, but they aren't well developed. He never considers alternatives and thinks out why he feels the way he does, and his hatred is shallow enough to be ended at the single mention of a name. Doomsday comes out at the last minute and turns the climax into another big blue light show.
