Marvel had no control over that as Wolverine and Spider-man's movie rights were part of another company, and if Amazing Spider-man 2 actually succeeded, they'd never have gotten the rights...  

And that Spider-man and Wolverine weren't really big parts of the Avengers anyways.

What about the lack of Ant Man's involvement in Age of Ultron? In the comics he is the one who actually triggered the events. Marvel had the rights to Ant Man... so?

I've just watched the movie.

I'm not a fan of shared universes. They tend to become crouded and confused. Fox X-Men is a mess, MCU dosen't make sense if you follow every movie, and for my account only one out of 4 I find realy good.

And we can clearly see how confuse the DCU can become in BvS. A single movie has almost has to fit the lore of Marvel phase 1 and 2!

It's not bad. But it's just too much information in very little time. This movie could have been broken in 3, two hours each flicks.

The ideas behind this DCU are great and all the cast are fantastic, it feels more realistic and engaging . I want to see more of those characters for many years to come.

Changing the direction now would be far worst then stick to their guns.

I saw it today. Not as bad as I thought, not great either, just meh, but it was more enjoyable than I really thought. I really get the criticisms, baring Ben Affleck. I don't like Ben Affleck. Normally. But he's really a great Batman. Believe me :P

Hmmmm... so you said something that was dead wrong, so now you're going to switch to something completely different to deflect that?  *sigh*

If they wanted to actually do the Age of Ultron storyline as it was in the comics, they'd have needed the rights for the Fantastic Four and the X-men.  They would also need to invoke time travel, alternate realities, and the movie would have to be utter shit because Age of Ultron was other shit.  Ant-man is a second tier character, and it made far more sense to change the story rather than rush to shove in Hank Pym when they wanted to use Scott Lang as the Ant Man in world.

There is a big difference between not doing things exactly as the comics did them, and rushing things.

The Avengers was a culmination of 7 years of work and 6 films which introduced the major characters.  The idea of the Avengers was built out throughout these movies, and we already knew all of the stars their personalities, and so on.  Aside from Hawkeye (who did have a minor cameo in Thor), all of the characters were introduced and well defined before the Avengers.  The four main stars had all had their own movies.  Most of the films leading up to the Avengers were fairly well received.  The build to Avengers was spread across the movies.  Marvel had already established a fairly consistent tone that worked for them.

On the other hand, Justice League seems to be built on the foundation of 2 poorly received movies, after just 4 years of world building.  Only three movies (including Suicide Squad which is iffy) will have been released by then, and of the 6 members of the Justice League, only 2 will have been given any sort of meaningful introduction.  (Maybe 2 1/2).  The movies are still struggling to find a tone that works, and the build to Justice League is entirely crammed into Batman vs Superman.

Marvel had nearly double the time, and more than double the films.  Saying that DC's effort were rushed while Marvel's weren't is not a showing of double standards.  It is showing of common sense and a basic understanding of math.

I still find it strange how they're trying this shared universe film thing without really giving any of the heroes their own solo film aside from Superman.

Yeah, there was the Dark Knight trilogy but that didn't represent Affleck's Batman. And now they're just gonna get Wonder Woman in before the first Justice League movie and then another few films before the second part, and then Cyborg after. It's just a mess in my opinion. I don't even care about Marvel's movies that much but they paced everything so much better.

It also seems to be very common for people to try and strawman opposing arguments to make them seem less valid.  People have offered plenty of legitimate reasons to have doubted the film that go far beyond differences between the MCU and Ben Affleck.  Critics actually seem unanimous in their praise for Affleck, and they still didn't like the movie.

I don't get how this could have shit reviews but then something like Ant-man gets good reviews.

It's clearly a matter of what people expect from a comic book movie.

And many of those critics expected or hope for a Mavel style movie. Just like MoS they are complain using a idealised image of what Superman and Batman should be or should do. Remember how some complained that the Batmobile had guns... but even Nolan's had gun.

There is no scape from that unless one make a master piece like The Dark Knight. It's not a easy task.

You should whatch "The death of Superman Lives". Studios are usualy very afraid of taking risk. And just like SW TFA showed it pays off doing the basics.

Irrespective of whether there are other valid criticisms, these ones aren't valid. And yet, we're still seeing them. Just look at this thread.