How much of BvS was Snyder's original vision?

And yes I'm talking even the ultimate cut here.

One reason I'm doing this is I find it so ironic people want to blame Snyder for what they see as DC doing a Shared Cinematic Universe wrong, while I'm certain a Shared Universe was NOT his original plan at all.

There is much I love about the film and much I hate.  And I'm not saying Snyder's original vision would have had none of what I dislike, since I do have issues with MOS.

But, I think MOS under performing did make Warner change direction.

The-Fanboy-Perspective insists Batman being in the sequel and starting a shared universe was always the plan.  And I do think execs at Warner always considered it an option.  But I think while he may never admit it, originally Snyder was as against the Shared Universe idea as Nolan was.

Now a director being pressured to change his original vision is not necessarily synonymous with hating the experience or the film he wound up making, by the time he was filming I think Snyder loved getting to play around with Batman and Wonder Woman and The Flash and the allusions to Apokolips and Injustice.  And sometimes people change their original plans without external pressure at all, so it not being the original plan does not make it inherently invalid artistically.

And I think we do still have a version of his original plan.

Batman V Superman is still very much the middle act of a trilogy.  And because of that it was always going to be darker then Man of Steel, but maybe without Batman and specifically the DKR aspects it would not have been as unrelentingly dower.  Because MOS did have a sense of Humor, and so did Watchman and Sucker Punch and literally every other Snyder film.  Yet his reputation has become joylessness because of this one single film.  Much of this film is way more typical Snyder then Man of Steel was, but it is also far far darker and grittier then typical Snyder.

What Angry Joe hates the most was always going to be in the film.  The-Fanboy-Perspective is absolutely right that the Death of Superman was necessary, it's what makes this the middle act of a Trilogy and why in fact it works as that far more then The Dark Knight does.  Nolan read Joseph Campbell for Rises, but Snyder was drawing on him from the start.

Lex Luthor in some capacity I think was also always part of the plan, based on the constant LexCorp logos in MOS.

Aspects of what I'll say below could make it sound like I'm suggesting Snyder's original plan was almost exactly the same but with different characters playing the roles.  Obliviously that's not what I think.  I do not think any of the Flash, Aquaman or Cyborg stuff had equivalents in the original plan, nor the Injustice inspired future dream/vision, nor Clark investigating Batman though I hope he would have been investigating something, for many seeing investigative reporter Clark was their favorite part.  And certainly not the Martha stuff, which does happen to be what I loved most.

The Wayne Enterprises logo on that Satellite in MOS was seen as evidence of a shared universe even before they announced Batman V Superman.  But it was the same Logo from the Nolan films, no thought put into it at all.  There were all these fan theories that it might be relevant to how Bruce gets involved, and it wound up not being mentioned at all.  SR also mentioned Gotham and the Shumacker Bat-Films each mentioned Metropolis, those didn't lead to crossovers.

Instead we got Metropolis and Gotham being twin cities right next to each other, with the Bat-Signal visible from Metropolis.  Yet no mention of Gotham in MOS.  Originally when people said "where was Batman when Zod attacked" I was like, you're idiots, he isn't a global player and his concern is Gotham.  Once I realized Gotham and Metropolis were barely different cities, then I was like OKAY why was none of that mentioned? ever?

That twin cities decision tells me that whatever aspects of Bruce/Batman's role in this came from Snyder's original plans, were meant to be played by someone in Metropolis.  It might be two roles put together, with Alfred included to provide for when the role needed to be two people.  Or maybe not.  But if so I actually think that is a potentially brilliant way to write Batman into a story he wasn't originally in.

Maybe some of the Batman stuff was going to be a Metropolis urban vigilante like Steel or Gangbuster or The Gaurdian. And/or maybe Superman's fight where he nearly loses because of Kryptontie was meant to be against Metallo or Conduit or a Green Battle Suit Lex Luthor.  (Of course many details of that fight as finally filmed were clearly taken from DKR).

Actually the more I think about it, the more I think much of Bruce Wayne's role might have been the original plan for Luthor.  I think most of Eisenberg's role in this better fits a character like Maxwell Lord or Westfeild, someone corrupt in the Government who is good a greasing the wheels.

The-Fanboy-Perspective article I linked to also pointed out the significance of beginning and ending with a funeral.  If it wasn't originally gonna be Batman then how does that fit?  Maybe it was an idea that came to Snyder or one of the writers after Batman started being added to the script.  Or maybe it was going to begin with a Funeral of someone who died during the Zod attack?  Someone at the Funeral of their friend or relative who I'll call Jack who died during all that, who then flashed back to it.  I think the whole revisiting the ending of MOS from a more mortal perspective could have always been the plan, that was something I found really cool.

Remember that empty pod in the ship in Man of Steel? And the Prequel comic to explain it?  How there was all that speculation on it maybe setting up Supergirl?  What if Wonder Woman's role was originally meant for Supergirl?  Maybe someone suggested, this female character who's been on the Earth for centuries and has Superman's power levels could easily be replaced with Wonder Woman to set up her movie.

Man of Steel was a first contact film.  Michael Bailey talks about why that is central to what he doesn't like about it.  I think telling a Superman Origin story as a first contact film is a very valid way to do that story.  But it doesn't fit a shared universe where we learn later that all these Amazons and Atlanteans and Mother Boxes have always been here.

I'm not necessarily saying Snyder's original vision required Humans and Kryptonians as the only sentient species who exist in the Universe, (though aspects of MOS make it hard to believe otherwise, all that searching Zod and company did to find nothing).  But the Fantasy/SciFi hybrid of the New Gods mythos, the purely fantasy mythos of Wonder Woman and Aquaman, and more Doctor Who like SciFi mythos of The Flash fit in many Superman universes, but not in Man of Steel.

I think something like the Steppinwolf reveal might have always been planned, but it might have originally been Eradicator or Brainiac, perhaps a more TAS/Smallville inspired Brainiac.

I also think Justice League is going to be a version of what Snyder always planned for his third Superman film, the final act of the Trilogy.  And even Superman not being in the first 30 minutes to an hour of it could have been the same, but with the original plan being a World Without A Superman/Reign of The Supermen kind of story for that part.  I think the Codex being in his DNA may factor into how he resurrects.  And maybe Wonder Woman and the male Leaguers are replacing Supergirl and the 4 would be replacement Supermen.   In the story being told now, Cyborg being made from a Motherbox could mean he'll get taken over by Steppinwolf at some point and have to fight the others.

I've defended how DC is setting up it's Universe differently then Marvel's, not telling 7 origin story films first, by saying I want to just jump into an already rich universe, like every new Comic Book fan does, and many Animated Films do.  The thing is, I knew all that time but avoided drawing attention to how Man of Steel being an Origin film goes against that effect, it's now made the original Superhero the youngest.

Batman V Superman is absolutely a sequel to Man of Steel in that it uses the same cast for all common characters, and draws on it's events (far more then The Dark Knight drew on Begins).  Yet it winds up for all the reasons I just said and some others I can't explain not truly feeling like the same universe to me.

The Comics themselves often have that vibe with all the Continuity re-shifting.  Following the original Crisis on Infinite Earths the Teen Titans were carrying on the same story-lines, but Superman's world is totally different and Wonder Woman started over, Batman was compatible at first but more and more flashback comics would rewrite his earlier history.  Or DKSA being a totally different kind of world to DKR.

Films did this back in the Universal Monster days.  Frankenstein Meets The Woflman references Ghost of Frankenstein events even though the town is a completely different kind of town, and takes place before it time period wise.

Man of Steel actually fits in the Nolanverse better then it does the 2016 and up DCEU.  The question of why Superman did nothing about Bane threatening to Nuke Gotham is because he didn't show up yet, he learned to fly a year later.  And it's Wayne Enterprises uses the same logo.  I'll designate it Earth-N.  And so those Fan Trailers of Bale and Cavil crossovers can be valid again.

BvS and Suicide Squad feel to me like the same universe even though they are tonally and stylistically different films.  But MOS does not.

There is a 97.6% chance of failure.

There may very well be.

I was a little bugged by this trailer, many will love it, it's more similar to the style of TFA's trailers then the last one.

First is the line I mentioned in the title.  Part of Star Wars is repeating themes I know, but there is something so on the nose about how they want us to think of that iconic line I've seen two different images use to make fun of Fi from Skyward Sword, that it took me right out of the trailer.

At the same time, it's that this doesn't seem to be being played humorously.

I just did a post on my concerns with future Star Wars films being too Dark.  And this definitely felt like it was going for a Dark tone.

But, I'm not as bothered by darkness here as I am for post ROTJ stuff.

The thing about TFA is that (as much as I enjoyed it) increasingly doesn't sit well with me, is how it virtually takes away the happy ending of Episode VI.  As much as I was never into the old EU, now called Legends, it seems like they told interesting new adventures, without taking away that happy ending.

Star Wars can get dark certainly, but I feel like the Galaxy's darkest hour should begin in the middle of Episode III and end in Episode VI.  But since TFA it doesn't seem that way anymore.

There is a moment at about 1:05 or 1:06 where the score sounds to me a little like Elfman's Batman score.

The big thing is seeing Vader.  I thought it was meh.

I like seeing an Asian character finally, and seeing more of that the Force is revealed by non Jedi.

Aria and Noel Kahn are twin children of Mary Drake

If someone called this before me, I genuinely thought of it on my own.

I think Kenneth is Charlotte's father and Peter Hastings is Aria and Noel's father.

"But you ship Sparia and you just made Aria and Spencer sisters" I've shipped Incestuous Ships before.

Also the Aria is -A theorists are going to have a field day with this episode.

The standard Trilogy structure.

The term "Trilogy" is connected to the way plays in Ancient Greece often came in 3s (or 4s with the 4th being a Satyr play).  But I feel to modern audiences the definition of a Trilogy comes from the original Star Wars trilogy more then anything else.

Certainly no major Film trilogies predate Star Wars, The Godfather didn't become a Trilogy till after, and Coopola didn't even want to call that one Part III, it was never made with a Trilogy format in mind.

Remember Randy's scene in Scream III?  Where he attempts to lay out the rules of a Slasher trilogy's third film?  Well he had no actual slasher trilogies to cite and so instead just cited Star Wars. And even then got it wrong as the second film had the more shocking twist that makes us rethink the first film.

In prose literature there were trilogies, but they only line up to some aspects of what Star Wars makes us think of as a Trilogy's rules.  LOTR was really one big book published in three Volumes, C.S. Lewis did not originally plan out of the Silent Planet to have sequels at all.  But again perhaps the first modern prose trilogy was Alexandre Dumas' D'Artagnan romances.

Lucas was trying to follow the theories of Joseph Campbel, so certainly his structure had a basis in what came before.  But it's also clear he wound up making conventions as well as following them.

Mostly the Trilogy convention I'm talking about is the assumption that the Second/Middle Film must be the Darkest.  And even when someone isn't going for a Trilogy they still feel the need to make the second film waaaay Darker then the first.  That's why The Dark Knight and Batman V Superman are both very dark in their own different ways.  And every time someone wants to hype up their second installment as being oh so dark they cite Empire as the precedent, and also Wrath of Kahn, a movie that was arguably Empire's first imitator.

First I find it an interesting overlooked lesson for the narrow mindedness of modern writers to point out that The Empire Strikes Back happens to kill less people then either it's predecessor or follow up, yet is undeniably darker.  ANH kills Owen and Beru, Ben Kenobi, and an entire planet right in-front of a woman who grew up there.  And then all but one villain between the Deathstar blowing up and what happens to Greedo.  ROTJ kills Yoda, and all it's villains, one right after being redeemed.  But Empire kills only random war casualties, and Imperial officers Vader force chokes after appearing in only 1 or 2 scenes, the one officer we spend enough time with to maybe care about gets let off the hook at the end.  And no notable good guys are killed, the most is one major character being captured.

So I'm tired of modern TV writers going all "if we don't kill someone every other episode, or at least once a season, how will the show have stakes?", TESB had high stakes without killing anyone.

But back on topic.

I find it notable in light of that being so central to Empire's legacy, that the most notable Trilogy to defy this, "the Second must be the Dark one" structure, is the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy.   Lucas defied an expectation he himself set, and I think that is at the heart of why the Prequels are so unfairly hated.

Now the "Evil must prevail in the end because it's a Prequel" premise could be said to be why it was unavoidable that this time the third film would be the Darkest.  But it's interesting that AOTC doesn't try to be noticeably Dark at all.  I mean it is probably darker then TPM, but in a lot of ways it's more reflective of what a Sequel was expected to be before Empire/Jedi defined the modern Trilogy.

In a lot of ways The Prequel trilogy follows the pattern of LOTR more then it does the previous Star Wars trilogy.  Return of The King in both books and films is the Darkest chapter of the saga, though it having the ending may balance that out, but the ending is bittersweet.  ROTJ had it's dark moments, but mostly those are only superficially dark, wanting us to think Luke could fall so that it's a victory when he doesn't.

TPM like FOTR is what one would expect from their relevant Fantasy sub-genre, (though TPM is more capable of working as a stand alone), and both have allegedly "boring" council scenes.  Then the Middle installment is about a War breaking out, while in the third the War ends.  Also ROTK and ROTS both reach their climaxes in a Volcanic setting, right from the teaser it was clear Mustafar would have a Mordor vibe.  Frodo and Anakin are both consumed by The Dark Side in the Crack of Doom.

I also do not think it's a coincidence that Saruman and Dooku were played by the same actor, Dooku I think was intentionally a hybrid of Dracula and Saruman.  And both are killed early in the third film.

Another Trilogy that perhaps helps explain why The Prequels are so different from the OT as a Trilogy is the D'Artagnan trilogy.  That trilogy also ends in a Dark Place, but with the promise of A New Hope, that was for Dumas the coming French Revolutions.  Aramis also goes from being a Hero to a Villain by the end.

And now how should these observations help us evaluate the New Trilogy that just started?  We only have one film right now, but expectations are that this Sequel will again try to be Empire/Wrath of Kahn/The Dark Knight.  Whether or not that is how it must be is perhaps a difference between Prequel fans and Prequel haters.

The reaction to BvS has shown that audiences are getting tired of every Saga being a downward spiral (and Suicide Squad's unanimously good word of mouth in-spite of bad critical reviews shows you can't blame BvS's failure on anything else about the DCEU besides being dark).   And the legacy of Temple of Doom shows that a Lucas Film property isn't always praised when it goes dark. So maybe it's time to do something different from either Lucas Trilogy.

The Force Awakens actually is dark enough that we could see a Trilogy where the first installment is the darkest for a change.  TFA has been called the darkest of all seven movies currently, but you'll have trouble convincing me it's darker then Sith.  Still it's certainly a superficially Dark film, one that entered production when The Dark Knight Rises was big and being Dark in general was still the in thing with only Marvel defecting from that.  All three first installments kill the mentor figure, but Han's death is able to carry an emotional wait that Qui-Gon and Ben Kenobi's could not.

I don't think a franchise with "Wars" in the title should ever stop having some dark themes, but if Episode VIII turns out to be done with the objective of being the Darkest thing ever, at Christmas time,  I really don't think it'll go over well.

Suicide Squad was awesome

It was a fun, emotional and fast paced entertaining film.  Far more fun then Batman V Superman but not as artsy, which is what I prefer.

Will Smith was great, and Amanda Waller was perfect.  But Harley Quinn was the best.

Some might complain about the story structure early on, but I don't care, the film fits together better then The Godfather Part II did.

I've seen people talk about how The Joker only has 10 minutes of screen time.  As I've said before The Joker is a less is more character, since Leto's Joker is going to be in far more movies then any previous Live Action Joker, it's good with start with only a taste.  Batman also cna be a less is more character and that's why I loved his scenes in this movie.

The negative reviews for this should be ignored, the criticisms are the opposite of what Batman V Superman's were.  This is a movie that pretentious critics won't understand but Comic Book fans will.

This to me far more so then any MCU film feels like we're seeing a Comic Book universe brought to life.

See this movie, I highly recommend it, don't like the negative nellys be vindicated.

I've watched the Batman V Superman Ultimate Edition

I enjoyed it.  I don't know how much of it is the extra material and how much is just me being more willing to accept what bothered me on the repeat viewing, but I enjoyed it.

The movie still isn't as great as I was hoping, but it's a good movie.

Batman is not a killer in this, it's explained that the branded criminals being killed in Prison was also manipulated by Lex.

This is not a legitimate R rated, film, Warner promoted it as a R rated version and so the MPAA played along, but if this had been the theatrical version it would not have gotten an R, it shows less then The Wolverine's theatrical version did (and has the same number of F bombs).  And it is in fact a less dark film then the theatrical version of this was, thanks to how much better it paints Superman and Batman both.

I noticed something when Superman and Doomsday were killing each other.  The Score at that point really had me thinking of Dancing Mad form Final Fantasy VI, maybe it's just me.

So my advice to everyone is check it out.

Petition to add Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to the Presidential Debates

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/request-commission-presidential-debates-allow-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-presidential-debates

I've already signed it.