this in every conceivable way imo. it's not even close a close run thing.

Would anyone actually choose BvS?

from what i've read on the imdb boards back when they existed, there are plenty of people who would chose bvs over this. while i can trot out the old saying "different strokes for different folks" in truth, i have no idea why anyone would.

@shane56 said:

Which is better

The parallels are noticeable but the execution and quality is not. Civil War is far better and it is not even close.

@MirrorMask said:

Would anyone actually choose BvS?

I think you should had added 'sane' after anyone.

@shane56 said:

Which is better

I'm surprised anyone has to ask - Civil War by far.

CW is a 9.5 , BvS is a 3...Affleck as batman and WW were awesome, but everything else was horrible.

@shane56 said:

Which is better

Civil War is better. I don't get why it's got such a relatively low rating on this site.

CW could be average and still be better to me.

BvS has the disadvantage of being built around a stupid idea.....Batman fighting Superman.

Nothing about that makes any sense. Batman has no chance. It's like a fight between a flea and a bear.

The silly premise meant they had to make both characters stupid to get them to fight in the movie. Superman somehow just starts bullying Batman several time when he could just talk to him instead. Supes of course can't figure out kryptonite is bad the SECONDtime Batman uses it and of course forgets he has super speed and could end the fight in seconds. Batman is anything but "the world's greatest detective" as he spends over a year being obsessed with Superman while not even finding out that Superman is one of the good guys...or even the name of Supes' Mom! Batman can't even find out about kryptonite...Luthor does that for him.

So the movie had to deal with the big catch-22. If Superman is good, there is no reason for them to fight. If Batman is the greatest detective on earth and infallible, he should know that. If Superman is a rogue who needs to be killed, Batman has no chance and will die almost instantly.

Civil War had that advantage going in. Much easier to set up a fight between Cap and IM without making them stupid. They are also much closer in power level. IM has the advantage of course, but is not crazy town if Cap wins like it is with Batman beating Superman.

Civil War is far superior to Batman v Superman.

Batman v Superman should have easily been much better than Civil War. But the nonsensical plot that crammed so much material into 2.5 hours resulted in a complete train-wreck of a movie. Tried to be a Man of Steel sequel, a Batman reboot, a Wonder Woman reboot, and a Justice League prequel, all in one movie.

Zemo's plan to divide the Avengers and force Tony and Steve to fight, though a bit too convenient, was at least more coherent and defined compared to Lex Luthor's plan to pit Batman against Superman. Lex Luthor was just super obnoxious and chock-full of random nervous tics, a completely terrible villain.

Zack Snyder definitely knows what he's doing when it comes to the visual aspects, but he cannot tell a coherent story at all. Which is why I'm basically praying that Zack actually takes the criticism of BvS to heart and actually deliver a stellar Justice League movie. The Russo Brothers did a phenomenal job of juggling around the 15+ characters in Civil War and managed to deliver a well-done movie. BvS struggled to even balance 4 characters (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and Lex Luthor) and managed to be an overstuffed mess.

Zack Snyder definitely knows what he's doing when it comes to the visual aspects

now that i agree with. bvs was stunning visually. as you say the story was an incoherent mess. i watched bvs twice and the second time i actually felt angry that such a sloppy mess was released.

That's not even a comparison! It's Civil War all the way!

THis.

BvS has the disadvantage of being built around a stupid idea.....Batman fighting Superman.

Nothing about that makes any sense. Batman has no chance. It's like a fight between a flea and a bear.

The silly premise meant they had to make both characters stupid to get them to fight in the movie. Superman somehow just starts bullying Batman several time when he could just talk to him instead. Supes of course can't figure out kryptonite is bad the SECONDtime Batman uses it and of course forgets he has super speed and could end the fight in seconds. Batman is anything but "the world's greatest detective" as he spends over a year being obsessed with Superman while not even finding out that Superman is one of the good guys...or even the name of Supes' Mom! Batman can't even find out about kryptonite...Luthor does that for him.

So the movie had to deal with the big catch-22. If Superman is good, there is no reason for them to fight. If Batman is the greatest detective on earth and infallible, he should know that. If Superman is a rogue who needs to be killed, Batman has no chance and will die almost instantly.

all of this is true. at least the comic version of batman would be genius enough to find a way to stop superman, but only as an absolute last resort.

i have always enjoyed the complex friendship that superman and batman had. if that had been cultivated on film and then batman had to disable (not kill, because again that is not something batman does as a first resort) superman in a sequel as he was under the influence of darkseid, that could have packed quite the emotional punch.