So I just got out of Batman v Superman and like most everybody I didn't care for it. After thinking about it I realized that it's because they wrote most all the characters horribly.

• First let's start with Lex Luthor. Clearly he was just Riddler in disguise. It seriously just felt like somebody told Jesse Eisenberg to act like the most generic eccentric villain possible. To be fair though, he nailed The Riddler.

• Next is Batman. They took the character from Dark Knight Returns and gave him the motivation of an imagined Injustice: gods Among Us scenario. You know who else hates Superman for what there is a "1 percent" chance of him becoming?? Lex Luthor! Seriously though in another example of an oppositely written character, Ben Affleck nailed Lex Luthor.

• Even Doomsday was screwed up. He was just Parasite. The CGI guys for Doomsday nailed Parasite.

• Honestly, Superman and Lois were about the only two mostly in character. Though Superman already established his willingness to kill in the last movie so his fundamental principals were already ruined.

This all really sucked because it ruined not only what should have been an awesome movie, but also a really cool character with Ben Affleck. I mean aside from Bat being a cold blooded murderer willing to kill an innocent man based on a crazy dream, I really like him. I thought Ben felt the most like Bruce Wayne of all the previous actors and even had a great portrayal of Batman in the suit. His fight scene was amazing and if they hadn't ruined his fundamental character I would have loved to see this Batman in more movies.

@roronuffy: agree with it all.

Lex Luthor is Riddler, Batman is Midnighter, Superman is Superboy, Doomsday is Parasite?

@roronuffy: What about Wonder Woman?

Wonder Woman didn't feel written like anybody, she wasn't in it enough to mess her up I don't think. Unless somebody disagrees ????

i loved it, Ben Affleck's Batman is my Favorite Batman. i can't wait to see the Flash movie and Cyborg, Wonder Woman.

Batman wasn't at all like Lex. He didn't have the same messiah complex (come to think of it, Batman and Lex are somewhat similar regardless). He was more an amalgam of Batmen. TKDR, a little Thomas Wayne, some normal Batman. I wish they had explained why his moral code has changed but it isn't solely a Batman movie. Definitely something cerebral about him.

@darthaznable: I felt like Batman definitely had the messiah complex in this film. He even says multiple times that he his killing superman for the sake of the world and Alfred hints that he expects to die in that fight. He says that "1 percent" line which is really what separates him from Batman. Every incarnation of Bat would agree with that line and say that it is a reason to "prepare" not "kill". That is the differenece between Bat and Lex. Even in his most Brutal incarnations I.E. Thomas Wayne and TDKR wouldn't kill superman because of his potential danger if he turned against them if hadn't shown any indication that he would.

@iknowwhoyouare: I felt like she was was mostly catwoman until that last scene. She talked and acted exactly like Anne Hathaway. I will say she handled that fight just like WW though.

@buttersdaman000: Batman's reason to kill in the movie was horrible logic that Batman wouldn't use and so out of character that it just pulled me out of the movie. Batman would use that "1 percent" line in the movie as reasoning to prepare for the worst like JLA: Tower of Babel. Lex would use that logic to kill an innocent man. It doesn't matter how weathered Bruce got in any incarnation, he would never kill an innocent man or even attempt it because of a perceived potential threat. I doubt even Thomas Wayne would kill an innocent unless he was 100% sure.

How exactly was it horrible logic? It was certainly out of character for Post-Crisis Batman, but i'd hardly call it bad logic. And that's the thing you missed - Batman didn't think Superman was innocent, or at the very least, he didn't think he'd remain innocent for long.

hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................

@buttersdaman000: He's the world's greatest detective, he doesn't make assumptions based on 1% chances (in fact no one does). The only people who use that logic in comics are J Jonah Jameson, General Lane/All comic book generals, and super villains. It just doesn't work in the Superhero universes because you'd literally have to kill every super hero. Even The Punisher and Midnighter wouldn't act on something you might do and it doesn't get more ruthless than them as far as good guys go.

Also it shows Batman gave into fear, the one superhero who consistently separates himself from even guys like superman because he is without fear and always uses his head first gives into crazy biases. Everything about that character trait was about as far a way from fundamental Batman morals as you could get.

Hey! I take offensive this! Supes in the movie didn't have enough attitude to be Superboy. =p

No...he wasn't making an assumption. He was basing his perception of Superman on things he's witnessed i.e no one stays good forever.

No, it doesn't show Batman gave into fear either. It was a heightened version of Batman we see in the comics. You know, a version so paranoid that he has counter measures to kill/defeat all his friends should they turn bad?

My problem with Batman in this movie is he wanted to kill Superman from the start. Sure Batman makes plans but he doesn't act on those plans until Superman goes rogue or is brainwashed etc... but this Batman was 100% ready to kill Superman from the start of the movie. At that point in the movie, Superman was a good guy but Batman wanted that Kr and that suit to go in a kill him. His disregard for criminal lives was weird too...the only thing I can say is Miller finally found a Batman that he likes haha

@buttersdaman000: batman had 18 months to study superman after the mos incident. He would have seen the good considering for some reason there was a statue of superman in the movie meaning someone thought he was good. Bats should have never been played and manipulated by lex and also should have been the one who knew about the other metas. So I get why he says bats reminds him of lex.. and Jesse definitely played a good riddler

@buttersdaman000: Yeah he has measures but doesn't implement them until needed. He had no reason to do this to Superman so he absolutely gave into his fear of what he would become.

@incursion2: That's so close to the truth it made me laugh. Wonder if Snyder is setting up Justice Lords instead of Justice league?

If he is, then I'll probably find out on Netflix.

• Lex: If he was the Riddler, he was a pretty crappy one at that since he omitted the whole riddle compulsion. What they did do was take the other live action Lex's and stopped him acting like a complete cornball obsessed with realestate.
• Batman: No, they took the Dark Knight Returns Batman and put him in a world where Superman only appeared 2 years ago and as part of his debut saw the deaths of a whole lot of Wayne Enterprises employees.
• Doomsday: I dont think you know who Parasite is if this was your impression. More importantly, just read Hunter/Prey and you get where they got this Doomsday from.
• Superman: So which people did Superman actually kill this time? And I do mean; who did he kill and not; whose deaths were blamed on him by Lex pulling strings?

I think you've missed something fundemental here, Bruce hated Superman because of all the employees he lost when Zod's heatvision kicked in and set fire to Wayne Financial. In Bruce's head, none of that would have happened if Superman had not been there, so he holds him equally responsible for that as he does Zod. The crazy dream just kicked him into actions he had already planned on doing... not that Bruce was short on crazy dreams to begin with considering he had something that looked like Man-Bat leap out of his mothers tomb as well. As Affleck put it; his Bruce was in dire need of therapy before Superman showed up.

Regarding him killing, you may be right that it doesn't seem like him, or the one we are used to. But perhaps it should be looked at in another way; this is Bruce Wayne, 20 years or so as Batman, 10 years ago he lost Robin, he's seen everything crime can do and has evolved to, and he's evolved with it. Alfred perhaps sums it up the best when he comes down with the newspaper: "New day, new methods." This Bruce may simply have lost touch with his original goals and methods in the long fight he's been in, and it may have been something like the encounter with Superman and the discovery of Wonder Woman that was sort of needed to make him realize how far off he might have been going. That said, this is based on the Dark Knight Returns Batman, who didn't have any real qualms about letting the villains die if he couldn't really do anything to stop them. And ofc:

You are ofc welcome to argue that he didn't kill the girl, but from the splatter of the wall along with the hole and the size of that machinegun... I would say survival chance is low.

@newecho: the riddler joke is interesting. But think of it this way. Isnt that exacly how a son of actual Lex Luthor would turn out? Deranged, insecure and pretentious at the same time.

@chimeroid: I suppose but that was still supposed to be lex luthor...now can they retcon his dad being alive and give us a better one? Yeah .. that lex can't do anything that lex should be able to do since the whole world knows he blew up the capitol. He can never become the shrewd business man ..

It was not. Lex Luthor (the one from comics) is obviously the father of this character. Lex Jr. even took time to tell us Seniors lifestory which is literally taken from New 52 Lex Luthor origin. The movie really makes sure we realize this is not a comic book character but rather a newly invented son of a comic book character.

@chimeroid: I realize that but it is still this universe's lex luthor. If he isn't the lex that is always the smartest man alive then bruce looks even dumber in my opinion. Now again this could berretconned to where his dad is alive and he becomes the riddler like son of him then ok I willchange my oopinion then of the character but as of now they are wasting him

Nah, everybody was fine, I thought. Even Alexander Luthor, who was clearly not supposed to be his father (the real Lex).

@outside_85:

• Lex: He is the riddler in the way that he acts and his weirdly obsessive quirkiness. His mannerisms and the way he behaved was how I would expect someone playing the riddler to behave. Obviously, I did not mean he is literally the riddler complete with riddles an all.

• Batman: It doesn't matter which Batman you are using, even if it were the Golden Age one that used guns, Batman would never be willing to kill a man because of a potential threat. Every incarnation of Batman has seen casualties of war and still never was pushed far enough to kill innocent men. Even TDKR Batman who was older than BvS Batman, seen more than BvS Batman, and even had way more of a reason to kill his version of Superman never had any intention of killing him.

• Doomsday: It's odd that you brought up Hunter/Prey since that version of doomsday uses only the tiniest amount of energy manipulation that I'm not sure even counts. If you've read it you would know that the Apokolips traders, Darkseid,The Radiant, Superman, and even Waverider all blasted him with various forms of energy and all he did was tank it. Never once did he use an energy projectile of any sort. If you really wanted to bring up an example you should have said Reign of Doomsday since at least that series has some of the doomsday clones using energy absorption and projection. But you know who does use energy manipulation consistently like it was shown in the movie? Parasite. Clearly this more of an example of you not knowing Doomsday than me not knowing parasite.

• You clearly didn't read what I said because I never said Supes killed anyone in the movie. I said he killed in the last movie, as in MoS.

As far as the rest, I didn't miss any of that. I completely understand what Snyder was going for in his characterization of Batman. Most humans would do exactly the same thing after witnessing all the messed up stuff that Batman had seen, but that isn't the point of superheroes And shows Snyder has a complete disconnect with audiences and why they love superheroes.

They are super not only because of powers but because they are better than us and most especially Batman, since he has no powers. Batman is Batman largely because he never gives into fear, he takes far more than any regular human could handle and remains uncompromising. This Batman was afraid in every way, even willing to kill an innocent man for his fear of the future. A true Batman may realize potential dangers and plan for it, but never act on it. In this way he was no better than any super villain and was the very antithesis of Batman.

I don't care for these directors trying to change these heroes inherent characteristics, and as much as anyone may argue that, clearly the the reviews show the majority of the population agrees. This movie made all its money on hype and the popularity these characters have built on their own. This terrible movie will almost certainly hurt the profits any future movies would have made. That is why Marvel will continue to destroy DC in the movie verse, because as much as they may change things there characters stay true to their comic versions.

@roronuffy:

Batman:Then let me just point out the people who were killed by Batman's actions... weren't innocents, all of the thugs were criminals. And regarding Superman, like I said; Batman held him responsible for the destruction in Metropolis.

Doomsday: I wouldn't bring up Reign of Doomsday, because it was a crap story. I bring up Hunter/Prey because it's the only version of Doomsday (as far as I remember) that regenerated and adapted without needing him to die first. Also you have to consider that even when Doomsday first showed up, he was chronologically thousands of years old having already died at the hands of the Radiant, killed several Green Lanterns and forced a Guardian to blow himself up, the BvS one had just emerged from the 'womb'.

Superman: Which is an old and flawed thing to bring up, easily countered by asking: Well how else was it going to end with no Kryptonite, no knowledge of red sunlight and involving a guy who said multiple times he was going to kill everyone on the planet unless Kal killed him? Just knock him out and hope he wasn't feeling as genocidal when he woke up?

No, Snyder has an interest in making the superheroes like real people rather than posters.

You're describing a very stupid Batman, you are going to have him prepare and wait till the ball is already rolling? Good luck to that moron, because he isn't stopping anything like that. Also you are painting a pretty glorified image of him that hasn't really been in use since the early 80'ties, because part of the appeal of Batman is that he is actually nearly as bad as the people he beats up. They do it to help themselves, he does it to make himself feel better, the only real distinction between him and the crooks is that he pretends he does it for justice.

In other words; You dont care for directors who may have a different opinion than your own about what would be interesting to be seen on screen. You want the consensus versions of the characters. And I find that pretty sad, because we as a comicbook reading audience are now living in a spoiled time where superhero movies are the big pull of cinema, yet you are still not interested in anyone rocking the boat or challenging your perception of these characters, when Marvel would happily drown you in their kid-friendly MCU of idiotic jokes and mass appeal without providing you with a single challenging thought or deed.

@outside_85:

Batman: We're having some sort of misunderstanding here, I never said the thugs were innocent I said Superman was. Batman is supposed to be the world's greatest detective and should have known Superman was not responsible. All he did was defend the earth so Batman's reasoning was as dumb as the people that want to nuke other countries off the map because of the potential threat they may pose. Destroying Superman just takes away you're only form of protection against future aliens of that power and Batman should have realized that. This version was dumb and his reasoning dumb and based on fear. That's not based on the 80's version that's based on every version, and if you can't see that then you clearly don't follow Batman.

Doomsday: All of his adaptations in that comic came from his previous deaths at the hands of The Radiant and Superman. He didn't adapt to anything as it was happening in that comic, he was already immune to energy. Also the movie version wasn't from space and hadn't fought Green Lantern or anybody, did you even watch the movie? The movie completely changed Doomsday's origin completely and made it just a creature Kryptonians could create whenever they needed a weapon just like the computer said. He was created by Lex as a mixture of Zod, Lex, and kryptonian technology. He was only doomsday in name and appearance only and everything else was an amalgam of different characters, like parasite. But I really could care less they changed Doomsday, I only mentioned him to show that Snyder chose to change just about everything.

Superman: I didn't really have a huge problem with killing Zod, though I'd have preferred for him to find another way.

Again I realize what Snyder was going for I just completely disagree. Superheroes are posters, not real people. That is the point. If Batman were Batman than he would prepare for the worst, but not be an idiot and kill the earth's best and only line of defense against threats he now knows are very real. Just like in Tower of Babel Batman would have things in place to take them out if the time came, but if he acts before knowing if they ever will turn evil then he is just a cold blooded murderer. If you hate super heroes being better than the rest of humanity then I would question why you even read comics in the first place.

And you're right I do disagree with directors taking creative liberties to the point where they change fundamental characteristics. If you want something new and fresh so badly, then just create your own character. That be like taking Gandalf and saying "Well, regular humans are weak and give into temptation so I'm going to make a Lord of the Rings movie where Gandalf puts on the ring to gain power and goes into Mordor to fight Sauron hand to hand." If you want to change classic characters then be ready for people to hate your product and the majority of us to say you were wrong to do so and that it sucks.

Based on your argument, you should have loved Deadpool in the Wolverine: Origins movie because he was the absolute opposite of a consensus character. And that's fine, you can love that director's new take on Deadpool in that Wolverine movie and the way he "challenged our perception of the character", but the rest of us didn't because he sucked and the director changed the fundamental nature of the character. Challenging the audience's perception of a beloved character is not some new and deep idea, it's been done since Shakespeare and even long before that. It's just as cliche as writing exactly what the audience expects and occasionally it does pay off. In this case clearly it didn't and it will cost DC in the end no matter how much the minority of people that liked the movie defend it.