I never said it was realism. Those are your words. I just fail to see how this movie can't try to do something abstract while operating within the framework of a superhero movie. What was such a deconstruction of these characters? Snyder asked the questions and tackled the questions, and he did it while honoring the characters' 75+ year histories. That's what I can't understand. People say "one of the tenets of being Superman is that Superman never kills," but Superman did kill in the comics.
Whether you like it or not, whether you want to marginalize it and say it was a one-time occurrence that was out of character, or whatever, he did it, and that makes it valid. Batman has gone through phases where he's killed. Sure, you could say that the Golden Age Batman was merely a rough sketch of the character that we've come to know and love, but, if that version of the character can go through phases and transition into the Batman of today, why are we so averse to watching that character evolution on screen?
Thing is, those occurences were either retconned, were part of AUs, or are better simply left fogotten. Does anyone remember Avengers: The Crossing? Where Stark turned out to be a traitor manipulated by Kang, who tried to kill the Avengers and was then killed and replaced by his pure, teen self, only for Adult Tony to come back later with no explaination? That was never retconned, so it's still canon. Does it mean that we have to see an evil Tony somewhere down the line? Or an abusive Spider-Man? He did hit a pregnant MJ after all. Or even a female Ultron, a Demon Hulk or Donald Blake-is-Thor-who's-somehow-both-a-person-and-a-persona? These things are all canon, yet, we go for the "normal" versions of these characters, because these have been the staple of them for decades.
Everybody talks about how dark Superman is because of the tone of these films, but I don't understand that. He smiled in Man of Steel, he was overcome with joy when he flew for the first time, and, while he was careless, he clearly evolved between the two films. We see him making an effort to save people and to help people, and, honestly, just take a look at his influences, for instance. Jonathan and Martha Kent are not the saints they were in the comics. They're parents. The point is, they've done everything that they could to protect their son, even if it meant forsaking the world, and they made it crystal clear that, whatever path he took in life, it would be his own.
I think that's pretty powerful right there. That this Superman was raised to basically do what he wanted, and what he chooses to do is help people. He can't control how they respond to him, like in Mexico, for instance, but he still does it. The film deals with some heavy themes. When half of the world worships you and the other half hates you, how does that affect you? It's going to, and we see Clark reflect on that in the film.
You consider everything that Martha Kent said to him, and everything that's happened, and he's a man who's torn between two worlds. Should I be Clark Kent or Superman? He's tried the balancing act, and look what happened. Not only could you argue that his balancing the Clark Kent aspect of his life and prioritizing his own personal relationships in his duties as Superman directly led to his being called before congress, which put the men and women convening there in the crosshairs of a man with a vendetta, but the turmoil he was feeling left him careless, and it cost them all their lives. Then, you consider the fact that the man who did it was a victim of the battle of Metropolis and it's not difficult to see how he might be feeling contemplative.
Ultimately, though, it's these trials and tribulations that forge him into Superman. That's what his death is all about. This film is an evolution of the character we met in Man of Steel, but it's still not the complete picture, and we know that because of all the doubt and self-conflict. The ending of the film is his ascension. That's why they didn't hide the fact that he's coming back. It was the final test, and he was willing to sacrifice not only his own happiness, but himself for the good of the world, and isn't that what you're saying Superman should be about?
I can't really dissagree with anything here. As I've said multiple times, the intentions were good, but the execution? Not so much. The themes are hamfisted, the scenes are shot in a way that turns an act of heroism by Superman into him standing there just waiting to be "praised" instead of putting things straight. The Superman I know would just crack a smile, tell them that he's not so different and fly up, up and away. He wouldn't just stand there for the easily impressionable people to treat him like a God.
I don't see why it's such a cardinal sin for the heroes we watch to be vulnerable or have doubts or, in Batman's case, lapses in judgement. If anything, I feel like it could make them even stronger. You talk about realism and nihilism, but this film isn't completely nihilistic. It's a dark movie, to be sure, and it's heavy and dense, but, by the end of it, you're left in a somewhat more hopeful, optimistic place. At the beginning of the film, you see a Batman who is absolutely a nihilist. He's old, he's tired, and he's stopped caring, and he's stopped seeing the line that separates him from the criminals he's dedicated his life to combatting. Superman and his sacrifice help to redefine that line. In Batman's case, it is very much a deconstruction, but it's also a reconstruction for that character, framed against Superman becoming the hero he was meant to be.
Again, nobody's saying that these characters shouldn't have doubts and whatnot, but they should be in line with their "history". They shouldn't just be there for them to be "deep". The intentions were good, but the script, the lines, the delivery, it all made them look more like predetermined lines spoken by robots with programmed emotions rather than genuine lines by "real" characters. "The bat is dead, bury it, consider this mercy" or "You are not brave, men are brave" are cringeworthy lines that are just there to sound "epic".
Another problem is that they talk about only the 2 extremes. I don't believe anyone in this day and age would view Superman as a God and try to worship him. As a celebrity, yes. And yeah, you could argue that we do "worship" them in a way, but this whole "God vs Man" thing is just there to "elevate" the film. It doesn't do a good job of portraying the reaction of the world and no, a TV montage doesn't count in my book. Then again, it is a staple of comic books. When such techniques are used, you never see anybody saying "yeah, I guess he's cool, I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other".
I could see how someone might find the movie pretentious, but I don't see how that can act as an inherent criticism. I could argue that there are a lot of thoughtful, yet seemingly pretentious films that are, often, unanimously praised, and that the most pretentious notion of all is that this film is dismissed based on the fact that, as you said, it's a movie about "capes." I also feel like criticisms like crappy editing, plot conveniences, and choppy writing are all a bit unfounded. They were unconventional, surely, but I'd submit that they're no less crappy than any other unconventional choices.
Well, I'm not one for pretentious film that are chock-full of symbolism, so I'm not really the guy to ask this. Stuff like Boyhood, the Tree of Life, etc, etc, do nothing for me because they suffer from the same problem: They hit you over the head with their "complexity" and "deepness" that turn the whole movie sour. From a technical standpoint Boyhood is a masterpiece, but from a "story" perspective? Not really.
Birdman was a great movie that was almost universally praised, and, yet, we had shots of dinosaurs and the beginning of creation, and a whole variety of those "unconventional" editing choices, yet I didn't see people refer to it as crappy. All of the visions in this movie were no different, and each tied in, thematically, with where we were, currently, in the story.
The difference is that Birdman was part satire, part drama, part black-comedy. It dealt with a mentally ill man who was typecasted and his journey through the film world. The critics were all looking for pretentious ****e in that universe, wanking over stupid things and putting down others while they, themselves couldn't do any better. It was a movie about the inherent stuckup-ness of them. In the end, the whole message is that yes, sometimes less is better and that everyone can surprise you. In general, its point was that yes, super-heroes are ridiculous, but they're also icons and that doesn't make them bad. They just "are".
As far as the writing goes, I can agree with that. I think everything in the movie served a purpose, and led somewhere, but I don't think such a dense film can make for a great viewing experience. I can't really say that it was "incoherent" because of that, but I also think that it takes a lot of reflection to tie everything together, and, potentially, even multiple viewings, and, on that note, I can't really say that's a good thing for a blockbuster of this caliber to do.
Well, the truth is, WB wanted to play catch-up and get some of that sweet Avengers money, that's it. That's why they shoehorned the JL members, that's why they shoehorned Wonder Woman and Doomsday, etc, etc. They were attempting to built a lore that could sustain their universe, by simply throwing it all together in a blender. It's not an incoherent film because it's hard to follow, it's choppy because it tries to juggle so many things at once and, naturally, it fails. Such big, ensemble pieces should not be the second movie in the universe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, it's not about BvS. When I say that cape-centric films can't be deep it's becuse yeah, they can't unless you change the dundemental history of these characters. They can't because when you boil it down, they feature an alien who works like a plant and gains super-powers, a guy who was gifted a special ring made by ancient aliens which works based on his emotions and a guy who's part of a race which, somehow, evolved from fish and yet is very similar to humans. They're ridiculous and there's no way around that. I'm not saying that they can't be more than Saturday Morning Cartoons, but they'll never be more than action-adventure films whose main selling point is action. It doesn't mean that they can't be good films, but they can't "transcend" the medium.
I don't really want to talk about BvS again, truth be told. Everything's been covered and I don't expect anyone's opinion to change. I'm sorry if it came out like that it wasn't really my intention, but I guess I got carried away. What I did talk about though is the "nature" of comic books and the difference between a CBM and an SHM. I've been reading lots of things from various publishers for a lot of years, and this is simply my take.
PS: On the realism part, I wasn't responding exclusively to you, just to the general "audience", who thinks that darkness equals realism. Look, I'm not really dissagreeing with anything here. I liked both MoS and BvS fine, just not enough to classify them as more than average movies. They had a different direction, and that was good, I never said that I wanted yet another comedy film. But to simply say it's great because it's different doesn't jive with me.