Why Batman v Superman Will be one of the Movie Industry's Biggest Disappointments

In the multibillion-dollar movie business, the stakes don’t get much higher than a movie coming out this Friday, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

The movie is DC’s attempt to do what Marvel has done: build a moneymaking machine, aka create an ongoing universe of films based off comic books that all connect to each other. To make that happen, Warner Brothers (which owns DC) is releasing this film based around the world’s most popular superheroes, Batman and Superman, to jumpstart that universe.

To ensure its success, Warner Brothers has spent $400 million – $250 million on production and another estimated $150 million on marketing – on Batman v Superman. And industry insiders say the movie must gross at least $1 billion ($1 billion!) to justify the 10 movies (10!) it is expected to set up.

But here’s the thing – the reviews started coming in Tuesday night, and they are bad. Really bad, as in a Rotten Tomatoes score of 36 percent (which is not good. At all.). Critics are saying the movie is too dark, occasionally boring, occasionally dumbfounding and generally disappointing.

The movie could still make a billion dollars, as the Transformer franchise proved making a good movie is not necessarily a prerequisite for making ten figures in the movie business. But, like the Transformer movies, there’s very little chance Batman v Superman will have the sort of cultural and financial impact DC would like it to have, and certainly nothing compared to what Marvel has done.

Ultimately, the movie will serve as one of the biggest disappointments and missed opportunities in the history of the film industry, considering the potential earnings it could have made for both itself and for future DC films. 

But what’s really interesting is to understand why it will disappoint. There will be the conventional wisdom put forth on the failures of Batman v Superman, but like most conventional wisdom, it won’t really be accurate.

Instead, there’s actually a very simple reason why the film failed: They hired the wrong guy.

The conventional (and inaccurate) wisdom why Batman v Superman won’t work: It was an act of desperation.

Even if you aren’t a fan of comic book movies or know little about the movie industry at all, it is hard to avoid what Marvel has done. Since 2008, the comic book and film company has released roughly two movies a year, almost all of which have made more than $500 million and several of which have made over $1 billion.

Clearly, Warner Brothers wanted to do the same thing. So they made Batman v Superman, which along with introducing a new Batman, also introduces Superman villain Lex Luthor, Wonder Woman, another Superman villain Doomsday, Aquaman and, allegedly, other super hero characters that will appear in unadvertised cameos.

Basically, instead of years of building a universe over time, like Marvel did, DC is trying to do it all in one 153-minute movie that critics universally (and expectedly) declared “bloated.”

The thing is, fans would probably forgive DC for copying Marvel and building its own universe, because a lot of people love Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and all the other great DC characters (myself included). What people won’t forgive though is rushing it, to the point where the movie is such an obvious money grab, people will feel dirty going to see it.

Or so that’ll be the conventional wisdom put forth on why Batman v Superman disappointed. But that’s not really true.

The truth: Batman v Superman will disappoint because DC hired the wrong person.

Nothing about writing this section is pleasant, because Zack Snyder, by all accounts, is an incredibly nice man. And he is skilled at certain aspects of film.

But, in total, Snyder is a decidedly average filmmaker. And that’s the fundamental reason Batman v Superman will be a disappointment.

Snyder is the director DC hired to build its cinematic universe. He has directed six other mainstream movies that weren’t part of the DC universe, and the average Rotten Tomatoes score for those films is 52.5 percent.

That's the very definition of average. And well below what Marvel’s movies generally get, with most receiving a score of over 80 percent on Rotten Tomatoes (which is very good).

Snyder’s first DC universe film was 2013’s Man of Steel. Its Rotten Tomatoes score was 56 percent, or pretty much exactly what you’d expect from him: mediocrity.

For Batman v Superman, his most expensive film to date, average reviews would be an improvement at this point. As of this morning, the film has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 36 percent (which means that 36 percent of critics who reviewed the movie liked it), which is not very good at all.

My question – what is DC thinking? Why would they think a man with a completely average resume would suddenly make a great movie, in which it could build its empire around? What would give them any indication that Batman v Superman would be received any better than any other Snyder film?

Before Batman v Superman, Snyder had a reputation for making beautiful, convoluted movies that take themselves too seriously and have wooden characters. The critics’ consensus of his latest film?

Despite some talented actors and some beautiful action, the film is too convoluted, too serious and the script devoid of character development. Who would have guessed?

The bigger business lesson in all this: Money can’t fix everything.

I’m still left shaking my head my Snyder was hired as “the man” for DC to invest hundreds of millions of dollars with. There was no reason for them to expect him to all-of-a-sudden improve as a filmmaker, as he is 50-years-old and relatively established.

Even if they wanted to take a chance, they could have hired him to do a single movie, Man of Steel. After that movie got (expectedly) middling reviews (which it did), they could have moved on to someone else.

It doesn’t make a lot of sense. But here’s my theory: They thought he made beautiful films (which he does), and his weaknesses – i.e. character development, plot – could be overcome by hiring great actors and great scriptwriters.

Basically, surround him with great people, and he’ll get better. Or, more cynically put, spending a truckload of money will fix his innate problems.

It didn’t. Because no matter how much talent you have, no matter how much money you spend, an organization is only as good as its leader. For DC, they hired an average leader, and they got an average result (when they needed a spectacular one).

Big picture, for businesses, sometimes it isn’t a matter of spending more money. Or adopting a new strategy. Or taking months off to reassess, which DC did on Batman v Superman (which was originally expected to be released last year).

Sometimes, you have to look at your leader, and wonder how great they really are. Because, no matter how strong the rest of the talent is or how ingenious the strategy is, you probably aren’t going any further than where they can take you.

About Dan Berith and the Plight of the Lions

One promise about Dan Berith and the Plight of the Lions – you’ll never experience a faster read in your life. And it just might change your perspective on things.

Buy it here on Amazon today.