There's just so many layers and things in the movie that make you think, for example I could never quite figure out what Lex Luthor's motive was for hating Superman and then I realized it's because he is an atheist! (amongst other things, some social commentary I believe) They did such a great job of melding mythology, superhero's, philosophy, symbolism, whilst utilizing it all to make some great social commentary. I am really glad that DC is not completely giving into public demands and keeping to their vision.
Here's what someone wrote about it and I thought it was better then I could say. I also really like these movies because they are so unlike most other movies out their, and they visually really stunning and interesting to me, plus I really like the soundtrack. The weird bass they play throughout Superman's scenes in beginning to give kind of an other wordily and eerie vibe to his presence and public perception.
"
The reason why it got bad reviews is because any film that requires for the audience to think mythologically or philosophically is ridiculed especially if it's adhering to a comic book audience that has never experienced such a perspective.
The symbolism of Apollo(being superman) v Pluto(being batman) was extremely interesting. Or even the climatic scene of Martha (which was a perfect salute to St.Michael's Archangel) was more original than any film before this. Marvels Civil War (came out a month after bvs) received great reviews but was identical to this film in terms of themes and motives but because it wasn't layered with symbolism (mythological and philosophical) the viewers had an easier time understanding it.
I dare anyone to present to me something they hated about this film, whether it's Lex, Superman, batman or Lois Lane and I'll show you how the logic is flawless. It's up to the viewer to pay attention to answers presented to them and it's not the writers problem if the audience refuses to acknowledge key words/scenes that seem easy to miss.
This is what Chris Terrio (Oscar winner for argo) said about writings bvs…
“I have written “Justice League Part One,” but I won’t necessarily write “Part Two.” This has been the most rigorous intellectual exercise I’ve had in my writing life. For “Batman v Superman,” I wanted to really dig into everything from ideas about American power to the structure of revenge tragedies to the huge canon of DC Comics to Amazon mythology. For “Justice League,” I could be reading in the same day about red- and blueshifts in physics, Diodorus of Sicily and his account of the war between Amazons and Atlanteans, or deep-sea biology and what kind of life plausibly might be in the Mariana Trench.
If you told me the most rigorous dramaturgical and intellectual product of my life would be superhero movies, I would say you were crazy. But I do think fans deserve that. I felt I owed the fan base all of my body and soul for two years because anything less wouldn’t have been appreciating the opportunity I had.”
Here's what someone wrote about it and I thought it was better then I could say. I also really like these movies because they are so unlike most other movies out their, and they visually really stunning and interesting to me, plus I really like the soundtrack. The weird bass they play throughout Superman's scenes in beginning to give kind of an other wordily and eerie vibe to his presence and public perception.
"
The reason why it got bad reviews is because any film that requires for the audience to think mythologically or philosophically is ridiculed especially if it's adhering to a comic book audience that has never experienced such a perspective.
The symbolism of Apollo(being superman) v Pluto(being batman) was extremely interesting. Or even the climatic scene of Martha (which was a perfect salute to St.Michael's Archangel) was more original than any film before this. Marvels Civil War (came out a month after bvs) received great reviews but was identical to this film in terms of themes and motives but because it wasn't layered with symbolism (mythological and philosophical) the viewers had an easier time understanding it.
I dare anyone to present to me something they hated about this film, whether it's Lex, Superman, batman or Lois Lane and I'll show you how the logic is flawless. It's up to the viewer to pay attention to answers presented to them and it's not the writers problem if the audience refuses to acknowledge key words/scenes that seem easy to miss.
This is what Chris Terrio (Oscar winner for argo) said about writings bvs…
“I have written “Justice League Part One,” but I won’t necessarily write “Part Two.” This has been the most rigorous intellectual exercise I’ve had in my writing life. For “Batman v Superman,” I wanted to really dig into everything from ideas about American power to the structure of revenge tragedies to the huge canon of DC Comics to Amazon mythology. For “Justice League,” I could be reading in the same day about red- and blueshifts in physics, Diodorus of Sicily and his account of the war between Amazons and Atlanteans, or deep-sea biology and what kind of life plausibly might be in the Mariana Trench.
If you told me the most rigorous dramaturgical and intellectual product of my life would be superhero movies, I would say you were crazy. But I do think fans deserve that. I felt I owed the fan base all of my body and soul for two years because anything less wouldn’t have been appreciating the opportunity I had.”