We're not much into name-calling or finger-pointing, but every once in a while something so utterly stupid comes across us that leaves us no choice. The sad thing is, we agree with them that BvS is not as bad as it is being perceived.
Check out this article from the New York Post and try and puke your way through the headline: "Batman v Superman’ is too smart for Marvel fans"
You know what the worst part about this is? The fucking fans approve of the movie at a 71 percent clip. So, are you unable to do math or do you think all these "critics" are Marvel fans?
Maybe the article's author, Kyle Smith, saw DC Comics opening for an Assistant Editor, maybe it's just the New York Post being the New York Post, but holy shit, this is a whole new level of being a contrarian for the simple act of being a contrarian.
It's lazily written. Poorly researched and points the finger at Marvel fans being too dumb to get "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice."
Oh, sorry that Marvel fans are too dumb to pick up on massive holes in the plot, no fucking backstory to the movies' main antagonist and blowing shit up just to blow shit up. You want an actual, worthwhile and thought-out post on BvS? Then head on over to Gawker's io9, or for fuck's sake, read our review on the movie.
Expecting fans to know a shit ton coming into a movie doesn't make them dumb, it makes the filmmakers look lazy, unapologetic and, frankly, unqualified to do the task at hand.
Let's start breaking down Kyle Snyder err I mean Smith's article:
Kyle: "The critics say it’s worse than leprosy. In fact, it’s even worse than last year’s “Entourage” (33 percent approval on Rotten Tomatoes against an appalling 29 percent for “BvS”)."
CoN: Nice comparison. That makes sense. How about comparing it to more similar products, say like SuckerPunch (23 percent), 300 (60 percent), Man vs. Steel (56 percent), Watchmen (65 percent) ...
The funniest part of this all, you ask? Each of these movies had a better approval rating by fans. Researching that took 45 seconds on my phone. Nice work.
Kyle: "This dimension lends the film a gravity and level of interest that places it at the opposite end of the spectrum from such sophomoric Marvel movies as “The Avengers: Age of Ultron,” “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Deadpool.” All three feature brainless, low-stakes action that’s as interesting as watching a waiter fall down the stairs while carrying a tray of dishes; juvenile, self-referential jokes that are neither clever nor funny; and an imaginative perspective whose boundaries are marked by other movies and comic books."
CoN: What led Kyle down this flat-out wrong trip into verbal diarrhea? The fact that Superman is referred to as "the Superman." Yeah, because I think deep, thoughtful and smart things about anything that has the word "the" in front of it.
Calling Guardians and Deadpool "brainless, low-stakes action" is just lazy. Yeah, just because there is humor means there isn't meaning. Just because Deadpool likes a good dick joke and takes a bullet up his B-hole doesn't mean he's stupid, maybe sophomoric, but stupid? No, no. no my dear, sweet, gullible flat-brained Kyle.
Deadpool worked so well because pieces of cliche'd crap exists like "BvS." It's not a movie that just makes fun of itself, remember those opening credits: "British Villain," "CGI Character," "Hot Chick" and so on. Maybe Kyle didn't get those references because he was so busy trying to figure out Jesse Eisenberg's backstory, was trying to make Super err I mean, "the Superman's" random, pointless scene to Mexico political and religious. Seriously, a scene that rips us out of a thinly-lined plot just to show us Superman, shit, sorry Kyle, "The Superman" as a God-like figure.
Kyle: "I wouldn’t call “Batman v Superman” the most coherent film of the year, but it’s pretty much the opposite of mindless entertainment, and some of the critical complaints sound a lot like, “Thinking makes my head hurt.” Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe that’s not it at all. Maybe a wisecracking raccoon and Deadpool’s masturbation jokes are just a lot more interesting."
CoN: You know, I feel bad for people who hear one off the wall joke or, in this instance a talking Raccoon, and can't get past it. Humor doesn't automatically mean dumb. It doesn't automatically mean something isn't deep or has a point to exist.
Wade Wilson is portrayed as a shitty dude who gets cancer, falls in love with a stripper and does everything in his power to hold onto everything he loves. He takes part in a crazy experiment just for the chance to get another day with the person that he loves the most in life. Just because he loves a good jerk-off joke doesn't make him uninteresting. It makes him human-like. Something, Zack Snyder failed to do with any of his characters. The only character he spent anytime trying to force substance into was "the Superman," which he failed at miserably for the second time in five years.
Rocket Raccoon. This is where Kyle and his editors fail so miserably. Rocket is a smart, intelligent, psychotic anthropomorphic raccoon whose best friend is a tree that can only say three words.
Isn't that just the most insane character description? Yet, Rocket is more relatable than "the Superman," he is more lovable than "the Superman" and he is much more deeper than Snyder's "the Superman."
This is a character who has been ripped limb from limb and put back together time and time again. So what that he has a sick sense of humor. Rocket has the ability to see anybody for who they really are. That's what that gets looked over. It's not a coincidence that Rocket is able to understand Groot. He has studied his buddy's mannerisms, his emotions and the context they fall in.
This takes thought, this takes work and this takes compassion. Yeah, he's a homicidal CGI'd raccoon, so if you can't get a kick out of that, then maybe you should just stick to Snyder flicks as you seem to be a fan of pretty things that don't care enough to make sense.