The Problem With Fanboys: Batman v Superman Edition

So, the reviews are for Batman v Superman and at this point, I think we're far enough away from the release to say the overall response is somewhat mixed (which is mainly considered bad for a movie that made no bones about putting all of its eggs firmly in one basket. The most entertaining aspect so far has been the backlash to the backlash. As someone that wanted this film to be good enough to rival Marvel or at least show the potential to do so, it is hilarious to watch DC fans who bet the farm on Dawn of Justice do backflips to defend it at its most indefensible moments. 

Serioiusly, guys, it's come down to people claiming that people hating it because of their "Marvel bias" is what has caused the movie to tank. The argument is that fans are being hyper critical of plotholes that they would have let pass in a Marvel movie. Now, that could be so. After all, plenty of good movies have inconsistencies. The problem is that Batman v Superman doesn't do itself any favors. See, plotholes can be overlooked if the movie manages to be entertaining and effective in other aspects. For example, if Robert Downey Jr. is entertaining enough, it's easy to forget about some instances in The Avengers movies when logic falls apart. Now, multiply that factor times Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Joss Whedon's sarcastic self aware script (in the first movie, at least), the occasional Don Cheadle "BOOM, you looking for this?" joke, etc. It's drinking Jack and Coke; you coating something arguably hard to swallow with something that is decidedly less hard to swallow. To call Batman v Superman hard to swallow would be a vast understatement. And it's not just because sad sack ass Movieverse Superman is like the superhero version of Eyeore from Winnie the Pooh or because Batman (despite being awesome) was a walking Call of Duty killstreak or because parts of the movie require the lead characters (one of which is the World's Greatest Detective) to be utterly stupid for the barely discernible plot to make sense. It's the fact that all of these put together amount to Zack Snyder's blatant disdain for his audience. He was so obviously salty about having to tone it down and being unable to do new Superman murder, he devoted the opening to a ground level, 9/11 view of the old Superman murder. This isn't even speculation because Snyder has been trying to justify himself since Man of Steel, saying weird shit like superheroes murdering are okay as long as they don't murder as much as the First Order from The Force Awakens (for those of who didn't see The Force Awakens, Zack Snyder compared the two most popular superheroes in human history to an empire of evil space nazis capable of destroying star systems. That his benchmark for good guy murder, y'all.

Marvel has demonstrated at least some regard for doing what they believe the fans want. Even when you have to eat your vegetables (Thor 2), you're offered some dessert (Guardians of the Galaxy) when you finish them. Dawn of Justice is an marginally edible block of instant microwaveable meat loaf and Zack Snyder is the barely attentive nanny who just wants you to shut the fuck up and finish your dinner while he eats your dessert right in front of you. There's a scene where Holly Hunter looks terrified at the sight of a jar of human urine, a callback to Lex Luthor's metaphor about pissing on someone and telling them it's Granny's Peach Tea. First off, the idea of a superhero movie that features a giant jar of piss is, in itself, beyond the pale. Second, it's actually a very apt metaphor for the movie and the director's relationship with it and the viewership. Batman v Superman is two hours of piss and Zack Snyder hates you for not having the imagination to pretend it's peach tea as you choke it down. So, there's that.

Don't forget to check out my Black Nerd Problems comic review of Invincible Iron Man. Feel free to like, review, and comment as you see fit.