For the first question, Marvel are not going with hyper realism and humour, that's why Marvel get away with more than DC. 

Ironman is an ass. He pays for his douchery in Civil War. I just hope they stick to the comics. If they do, Thor will be handing him a beating of a life time for killing cap, profiting from the civil war, tricking people by creating a fake Thor and being an asshat. 

If they change the story to side with Stark then I am no longer interested in the MVU either. 

Batman vs Superman isnt even realistic. DC is trying to pose as realistic. If this was realistic batman wouldve been dead by the military (making nolans movies closer to reality than this), failing to reach the age hes at in the movie. Wonder Woman would not have revealed herself either and there would be no lex luthor. There is no real world scenario. Its just dark and dramatic. Thats what they mean to say.

Kickass is more realistic than Batman vs Superman, because it acknolwdges that superheroes really dont exist and that superheroes at meant to be inspirations. Being a vigilante has its limits.

No we need Bannaman Vs Danger Mouse.

Kick-Ass.  Now there's a movie that differed from the comic!  He rode off on a fucking Jet Pack that he got off of ebay at the end of the movie.  In the comic, he was just an emo kid that liked comic books.  He said the right ingredients for being a hero was "Loneliness and despair" and changed it to something like "Hopefulness and optimism"

Big Daddy went from some accountant who ran off with his kid and paid for their exploits with his comics collection to some ex cop framed for a crime.  He gave Hitgirl some cocaine, too.  In fact, they reavealed Red Mist as a villain right off the bat instead of the surprise reveal almost at the end of the first story.  They did some "Let's kill him over the internet" thing instead of shooting Big Daddy in the head and letting Kick-Ass plan his own escape. I can't remember ever being more pissed with a comics movie than with the changes they made to Kick-Ass!

But, upon repeated viewings, that film was decent.  Lost its dark gritty edge for something mainstream and light hearted.  I guess that's what comics have to do these days to please their audience.  Just leave the gritty source material behind and dumb things down.

@Bolded: Considering how many people had a hard time keeping up with what was going on in BvS, I'm inclined to agree.

That was the point I was trying to make. They rejected, replaced and destroyed so much good story telling to make it more realistic / gritty and they still done a crap job. 

Even Nolan's trilogy wasn't realistic, but at least he told a better story and made it work.

I see where I put "That's what comics have to do these days"

Now that I think about it, that's what comic book films have always done aside from a few exceptions.  There have been some great films but, as a whole, they always seem to make changes for the mainstream audience.  Even Transformers has some really great stories in comic book form.  Lots of soul searching and self doubt.  But people want "Giant robots smash each other" so that's what they give us.

I'm one of those who followed BvS and loved it.  I watched it twice and I'm looking forward to owning it.  I think the reason Winter Soldier is my favorite movie is because, according to many critics, they didn't make a superhero movie.  They made a spy thriller with a superhero in it.  Just like how Dark Knight wasn't a Batman movie.  It was a crime thriller with Batman in it.

BvS wasn't a superhero movie either, to a degree.  Up until the big fight, it asked a lot of compelling questions that were asked in comics (and some movies) before.  Just like X-2: X-Men United (I think)where they said some mutants are more dangerous than a nuclear missile or in Iron Man 2 where they said the Iron Man armor was too dangerous for Tony Stark to have.  In a world where characters like The Hulk exist, would they be okay with him running around with Captain America or would they say "Wait.  This is an uncontrollable monster who has fought the military.  This isn't cool!"  BvS addressed this head on in a different way and, for many, that was the worst part of the movie. 

This worries me.  I was kind of a fan of Iron Man in the early 90's but then they did some crazy story where he turned evil and got replaced with a kid version of himself to take on himself.  That story.... the less said about it, the better.  Then, they screwed him up in heroes reborn.  Anyway, long story short, Iron Man wasn't an A-List character until his movie.

Now, he's the box office draw.  He may even be the average fan's favorite character.  I've seen several animated adaptations since the first film where he was actually leading the team instead of Cap.  When Civil War (comics) came around, I was pretty impressed by Tony Stark.  Even though he was logically right, he came off as the villain against Captain America who, in my opinion, was morally right.  I don't think the movies have the guts to make Tony Stark the obvious bad guy and if they do, I will stand up and applaud in the middle of the theater.

What a great post, felt the need to compliment it. 

The Dark Knight and Winter Soldier are probably my favorites right now because of how you described them. I thought the same thing when I watched Winter Soldier the first time: it wasn't your typical comic/hero movie. It was a spy thriller type of movie that had some important themes sprinkled throughout. As for The Dark Knight, that film is a masterpiece imo on many levels. 

I also followed BvS better than most did, apparently, and feel that I took quite a bit away from it and enjoyed its themes. I really think most of the critics were expecting something entirely different than what they're used to. And when they walked away, they didn't understand it, so all they could do was thrash it to pieces, and many people took their criticisms and copied them when they didn't like it either.

Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, there were some things that could have been done much better or differently, but I stand by saying the film was much better than popular opinion perceives it. IMO, and I'm looking forward to the Directors Cut.

No idea which thread to use as there's a few that have been updated within the past few days by various posters.

Anyway, I'm posting a link from the one site that if you've kept up with, you'd know they've made it an attempt to squash this movie (they have probably 4 negative articles to every positive one - I'm looking at you IGN):

http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/04/15/the-original-cut-of-batman-v-superman-was-four-hours-long

So, the original take was supposedly 4 hours long and fleshed out more of everything, BUT, this wasn't 4 hours that could have been shown in theaters necessarily, this was just the first take of everything filmed as all movies do. The Directors Cut, which we're hearing rumors may be released in theaters soon, and will be available on DVD/BR, is right around 3 hours, so an extra 30 mins. of content from the theatrical release (2 hours 31 mins, I believe). It should also be noted that on average it was only 10-20 mins longer than most MCU movies. So again, I don't quite understand everyone saying it was too long.

However, reading peoples comments, hearing peoples opinions, and reading the critics reviews, it wouldn't have mattered, really, how long this movie was. Because for the people complaining it was too long, are saying there should have been more. And the people saying it's too short (there are few) are saying there should have been a part 1 and 2. There really was no winning with this movie, and perhaps WB is to blame as they rushed their universe and had only ONE film as its foundation (MoS). They really need to learn from this movie and make the rest of their slate the best it can be.