Despite being one of the worst theatrical experiences I can remember, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has persisted in my mind. Somewhere at the fringes, where I could subconsciously try and make sense of what it was I had seen. Thankfully the release of the “Ultimate Cut” has given the film the coherence it so desperately needed in theaters. It’s still by no means a masterpiece, it’s still a muddled piece of storytelling, but it can now at least standup to some kind of intellectual rigor. And in doing so I think I’ve come to some semblance of peace and understanding with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

For starters when watching this movie one thing must be clear: the movie Zack Snyder and company have made, doesn’t want to be the movie Warner Bros wants it to be. Warner Bros. billed this movie as the start of their own cinematic universe of pictures, eight years after Marvel had changed the franchise picture game Warner Bros. was finally getting in it. Warner Bros. lusted for that Avengers money, like every other studio with superhero IP did. And, so, Batman v Superman seeded a larger universe, with the inclusion of Wonder Woman, a momentum stopping trailer ring for 5 years’ worth of movies, and one of the most mind numbing counterproductive cameos ever. Batman v Superman goes through these motions, however begrudgingly.

Marvel Studios has reached these financial and critical heights on a then - daring plan for a series of interconnected but modular feature films that replicated the interconnectedness of reading superhero comics and mixing it with our growing collective understanding of “quality TV”. The key to this success, Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige says is simple “We’ve always said if there’s any ‘secret’ it’s respect the source material, understand the source material and then, any adaptation you make from the source material should be done only to enhance whatever the original pure spirit of the source material was.” This is not to imply that Zack Snyder doesn’t “respect the source material”, his arrogant messaging about using the “true cannon” aside. Feige’s quote underscores what Marvels films strive towards, which is showing their characters as their best selves. That doesn’t mean they are perfect, Tony Stark is secretly MCU’s greatest villain just as he is in the comics. But their movies are about giving us characters who are meant to inspire; and do so playfully with a growing thematically rich texture.

With Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, Zack Snyder has shown he isn’t interested in showing these icons as their best selves. That’s for the comics, previous movies, and televisions series to do. No, he wants to explore their iconographic limits and our collective understanding, to make us question them. A deconstructionist bent isn’t surprising from the person roped into directing an adaptation of Watchmen. But, to deconstruct, there must be something constructed. It took Marvel 8 years and 12 movies to reach Captain America: Civil War. Zack Snyder didn’t even wait for one movie. It’s here that the chasm exists between Warner Bros. and Snyder’s interests. Warner Bros. wants all of that Marvel money and respectability, but telling deconstructionist stories out of the first movie meeting of two of your greatest icons isn’t going to get you that long term – record box office drop-offs for BvS and Suicide Squad attest to this. Audiences leaving the movie theater and watching it later at home are left wondering, why would they want to watch more movies about a Batman who unambiguously kills and a in story universe that is dourer, almost hilariously cynical, and uninspiring, except in the death of icons they freely admit to not understanding?

To understand Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, one must remove themselves from watching it as the movie Warner’s wants it to be, or how Marvel Studios, the DCAU, and decades of mainstream comics has studiously trained us too see these characters. This movie doesn’t want to spawn a half decades’ worth of preordained pictures, much less exist with them. It cannot, and is not, an example of mainstream characterization in the way Warner Brothers wants. In the parlance of DC comics, one must approach this movie as the ultimate Elseworld’s movie. By positioning the film as effectively an Elseworld tale, the film has room to push and question the limits of its characters and show breaks in dogma. That was half of the function of Elseworld tales, to create alternate stories of these characters that created a collective understanding and context for these characters that and helped reinforce their mainstream (read: main continuity at the time) interpretations. Elseworld stories through this collective operate on a level of assumed knowledge by the audience; a knowledge that the author can toy with or use to expedite the storytelling process.

Now that I think I can come at this movie for what it is, and not what everyone else wanted it to be, maybe I can get around to writing that look at the Bruce Wayne-Batman of BvS as representative of an amoral self-reflexive sado-masochistic masculinity. And how much of Superman is mediated through screens/perception, though I haven’t gotten very far on that front.

“This is an imaginary story... aren't they all?” – Alan Moore