Is it a Comic Book or a Graphic Novel Movie

Rating: 8/10 (28 March 2016)

This is not a comic book movie; it is a graphic novel movie. Both are Superhero movies, but that is the only similarity. Marvel makes comic book movies. They have a lighter tone and are more comedic. Much of the story telling is told via action sequences and not stand alone dialogue. The last is a bit of a generalization, but a fair one when comparing a Marvel and DC movies. BvS is a graphic novel movie. It is not so much focused on the action, but on the darkness and grittiness of human nature. More dialogue and character development is necessary to convey the darkness and grittiness. For an example of the difference, compare The Avengers and The Dark Knight trilogy. I am not saying either are better. All I am saying is that they are different.
In my view, while BvS has its flaws, it is being hurt by the success of Marvel's comic book universe. As DC tries to build its own universe, the inevitable comparison is made. However, one should judge BvS on its own merits. It would have been easy for DC to copy Marvel, but instead DC tries to forge its own path. If one went into BvS looking for a comic book film, the disappointment was inevitable. However, BvS may have gone too far down the darkness route. People go to the movies for an escape. Yes, there are some hard hitting movies that are successful, but who wants to see a continuum of films steeped in darkness, it is just too heavy. In BvS:DOJ every decision is wrought with anxiety and with the weight of the world on everyone's shoulders. It can be depressing.
I accept that TDK trilogy was darker and a success. That is because Batman is born out of the most horrendous of circumstances - a child witnessing the brutal murder of his parents. The bat is a symbol of fear. However, that does not translate that all superheroes should be portrayed that way. Superman is a symbol of hope. He fights for truth and Justice. WW is also a far brighter character. People do not want to see these characters painted with the darkness of Batman. The darkness has another knock on effect. It means less action and more dialogue. That suited a complex character like Batman, but a film that boasts Batman, Superman and WW gives people an expectation of more action. There was simply too much dialogue and still sequences. People want more from Superman. (All these reasons are probably why MOS suffered as well.)
However, I gave this movie an 8. I love its extreme graphic novel nature. I love the depth of character and gravitas. However, I can see why the general public wants something lighter. That is not because the general public are not intelligent as other would argue (ridiculously in my view). It is simply that they go to the movies to escape the very frequent depressing nature of reality. As an aside, WB's marketing was awful. They messed up. They marketed this movie as a slug fest because they knew it would draw crowds. As people were misled and were expecting a lot more action, the reception suffered immensely.
This film is criticized for allegedly cramming too much into one movie to build the JL as opposed to the time it took to build The Avengers. I find this wholly misguided. The main plot is LL trying to drive a wedge between the public/Batman and Superman. BvS also goes to great lengths to develop the mistrust they all have for each other, which in turn adds weight to the BvS smack down. I think this was done very well. Interspersed with the main plot were very few scenes that laid the seeds for the JL. What is the problem? There was the desert dream scene, Batman's 'vision' and of course, the footage of other league members, among others. It all fit in with the general plot i.e. Batman's Superman paranoia and Batman obtaining Lex's research.
I really do not get the gripes with the movie not explaining the coming threat to be dealt with in the forthcoming JL movie. It is called foreshadowing. Have Marvel not done the same thing with setting up The Infinity Wars?
In terms of introducing WW, she played a minor part in the film to set up her character. It was done tastefully.
In terms of taking longer to build the DCU - why? Marvel had no idea an ambitious project like The Avengers would work. Now that such movies have a track record, DC can move to the JL quicker. Why risk a bunch of origin movies for lesser known characters? Origin movies are generally slow and boring. BvS:DOJ introduced the JL characters very cleverly. Short and sweet. We can now get a good JL movie and not be hampered by origins. Origins can be dealt with later if needed.
Moving forward, DC has to lighten the tone a little. They can keep their darker universe, but some hope and levity with a bit less dialogue is needed. They should put all solo movies on hold and focus on JL. If that is a success, the solo movies can follow. Why risk the DCU on solo movies that may not work, which can risk everything. BvS has set JL up. Let's just get to it.
As an aside, I think utilizing Doomsday was a mistake. I get his purpose â€“ to unite the trinity â€“ but some other villain should have been used. The first JL movie should have used Doomsday and the death of Superman. That would have set up all the solo movies in a world without Superman, followed by Superman and JL movies dealing with the resurrection. That is the classic Superman/JL story that every movie goer could have identified with. A missed opportunity.