Batman v Superman: Allegory

Someone posted this neat little video on some of the visual inspirations for some of the shots in 'Batman v Superman'. There is also some nice illustrations of symmetry and mirroring.

youtube.com/watch?v=qOpHKXj-tZM

Other urls found in this thread:

blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2016/03/11/inside-chris-terrios-vision-for-batman-superman-and-justice-league/
pulpklatura.tumblr.com/post/141843209469/batman-v-superman-the-modern-revenge-tragedy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

DUDE SURFACE LEVEL SYMBOLISM LMAO

The story alludes to the visual symbolism. They are not separate.

SO

DEEP

AND

DARK

Plebs already arrived.

WHOA

THIS IS THE POWER....

OF SOMEONES HEAD CANON AND WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE IS THERE......

It's fairly explicit. Except the Napoleon pose.

we all get the symbolism faggot

the problem with the movie is that it's still 90% capeshit so it trying to be something deeper is even more jarring. Especially with the hamfisted "Superman has to fight Batman even though neither of them really wants to and will then change their mind about it because their moms have the same name" plot

You can make a Superman as Jesus allegory, and you can make a dumb capeshit action movie, but you can't put them together or else you get the nonsensical characters and events of BvS

All dem allegories. The fuck is wrong with Synder?

Doesn't mean they aren't wrong and this movie was one giant garbage mess

Stick to Marvel. You get all the cartoon shit you can ask for there.

This seemed to do a pretty good job. Gee, I wonder why Zack's movie didn't turn out so well?

Just a reminder that symbolism is the lowest artistic tool there is.

Here's a quote from Tarkovsky himself:
>"I am an enemy of symbols. Symbol is too narrow a concept for me in the sense that symbols exist in order to be deciphered. An artistic image on the other hand is not to be deciphered, it is an equivalent of the world around us. Rain in Solaris is not a symbol, it is only rain which at certain moment has particular significance to the hero. But it does not symbolise anything. It only expresses. This rain is an artistic image. An image cannot be a symbol in my opinion. Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in so to speak, it can be fully deciphered. That's not what image is. A symbol is not yet an image. Although image cannot be explained, it expresses truth to the end... Its meaning remains unknown. An image — as opposed to a symbol — is indefinite in meaning. One cannot speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite."

Do you now understand how fucking surface-level Snyder's work is?
It's laughable

>not referring to him as Hack Snyder
You had one job.

Dc is still capeshit, capeshit will never have artistic merit, you're still watching cartoon shit just like marvel cucks

The Dark Knight was pretty good. BvS is just slightly below TDK.

desu that's pretty objectively wrong and most cognitive research has shown that human thinking is almost solely dependent on symbols to simplify and organise the world around us

and you can definitely speak of the infinite world by applying tools that are definite and finite, all of our tools are that

BvS is a film that is great at it's core but suffers significantly from corporate involvement that shoves in Wonder Woman and commercials for Justice League for no reason. The central aspect of the film is great. The story of Bruce's/man's redemption and rebirth as through the sacrifice of Superman/Jesus is great and naturally compelling. Supes arc of going from a distant god-like alien to becoming a loving Jesus figure who embraces and is embraced by mankind is great.

The film brilliantly deconstructs and then reconstructs these characters at their core, and gives them rational reasons to be the "muh" versions of the comics. Batman is given a reason to have a no-kill rule, because he's seen what happens when he abandons it.

Then you have the pointless WW and JL shit.

But the rest of the movie is great.

Agreed. Without Wonder Woman ruining the climax, this movie would've been so much more impactful. I fear the studio meddling is only going to get worse from here on out.

I mean seriously, who is not interested in seeing Batman reborn and given new purpose in life by seeing Kal-El(which translates to "Voice of God" in Hebrew) sacrifice himself in defense of humanity. It's great. It's philosophical, mythological, and human and grounded.

Another samefag: Snyder is also the only director today who can properly grasp comic book imagery and aesthetics. No other movies look like comic books the way Snyder's do. From things like set and costume design to the way shots are framed.

>It's great. It's philosophical, mythological, and human and grounded.
not really, the "Batman loses his faith in doing good but regains it" angle has already been done in half of the previous movies, and this one just has it happen because of an outside force which is contrary to Batman's solitary outlook

Batman and Superman are both interesting characters in their own right, but there's really no reason to put them together in one movie. It's less that they play off each other and more that they hobble each others' potential for growth.

I'll accept this shit in Marvel movies because honestly most of the characters are bland and uninteresting on their own, and they need the others to complement one another.

Batman vs. Superman is a stupid marketing gimmick and what ruined the movie, it should have focused on just one, had no retarded reason for them to fight each other and then conveniently team up, and not had a dumb doomsday monster finale but rather focused on the characters

But he has no artistic integrity, he only copies from the comic book (literal frame by frame) and tries to recreat the cool moments with half ass-ing everything around them.

The only thing he adds is the biblical elements which is a high school tier thinking.

It's an interesting premise that was ruined by a poor storyteller. The character motives and actions are nonsensical in the movie, and seemingly designed only to get us from one piece of imagery to another.

>Someone
it's blatantly you, shoving your shit video down around like it's worth something
if you're going to analyse a film, analyse one worth analysing
this is just embarrassing

>"Batman and Superman are both interesting characters in their own right"

Superman is the least interesting comic book character in existence, he isn't even a character, he is just a figure with superpowers.
Absolutely no depth.

WW theme was the best part of the movie kid

You're reading the wrong Superman material.

All the DC movies have talented people working on them, but also seem to have some terrible idiot ok'ing certain shit that nobody would be ok with. I mean, where is there a jar of piss in this movie? Why doesn't Henry Cavill ever get the chance to actually act besides quick dramatic one liner like "Superman was just the dream from a farmer from Kansas". Why are the meta-human introductions all shitty video recording, this could have been introduced so much better to just cut to them.

you wanna know how i know you don't read comics?

>Superman is the least interesting comic book character in existence
Look at this fag and laugh.

...

Snyderkuks BTFO

Radiator.

Radiators.

Sooo deep ommmggg xxxDXdXDDDD

"I wanted to really dig into everything from ideas about American power to the structure of revenge tragedies to the huge canon of DC Comics to Amazon mythology."

blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2016/03/11/inside-chris-terrios-vision-for-batman-superman-and-justice-league/

"Characters were secondary and they must serve the plot in the sense that their personal motivations help the plot progress in a cause and effect way. Usually said characters tend to be larger than life (important for creating distance between the audience and the characters so as not to induce horror) whilst embodying human characteristics so as to titillate the audience and encourage them to invest their tragic emotions of pity and fear into the plot."

pulpklatura.tumblr.com/post/141843209469/batman-v-superman-the-modern-revenge-tragedy

Maybe you should try to think about the imagery presented instead of shitposting.

There is no "thinking" necessary, it is so on the nose.

This post explained it pretty much.

Except there's nothing on the-nose about it. Do you even realize that the story has allegorical components that extend all the way back to Zod's first scenes? In my opinion, that portion of the tale ends with Lex's "Communion" scene.

thats objectively wrong user

>All paintings in the movie are ACTUAL PAINTINGS!
Fucking blows my mind. You'd think they'd just put cereal boxes in a frame but no. Those paintings were paintings.

i love how people use a quote that makes for a poor sense (Implying that sybolism can only be used in a specific way) and also claim to have "gotten it" when all they ever manage to mention is the jesus analogues for superman, which snyder didn't even create.

I bet you fucks think allegory and symbolism mean the same thing

>Someone posted...
>implying it isn't your shitty video and are fishing for views on Sup Forums.
Get a fucking job.

The problem isn't that it tried to make capeshit deeper, you fucking pleb piece of shit. Not everything has to be disposable trash like a Marvel flick. The problem was that it failed in it's narrative, due to different writers having a hand at the script, studio meddling and Zack Snyder's weaknesses as a storyteller.

And Kubrick had a different opinion. It's almost like different filmmakers have a different view of cinema and art. Really makes you think, huh?

Are you retarded? Do you even know what artistic integrity means?

Superman is the one superhero that allows for greater artistic endeavors, even more so than Batman.

So your criticsm basically boils down to "not muh Batman". Your opinion can safely be depostied into the trash.

So that one quote by a contrarian like Tarkovsky nullifies all the art and artists throughout the history of humanity that used symbolism as a valid form of expression? Read a book for once in your life and learn to think for yourself, dumb nigger.

>the problem with the movie is that it's still 90% capeshit so it trying to be something deeper is even more jarring.
>About The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, Roger Ebert, retrospectively noted that in his original review he had "described a four-star movie, but only gave it three stars, perhaps because it was a 'Spaghetti Western' and so could not be art".
Now replace "Spaguetti Western" with "Superhero movie".

this movie has replaced baneposting
starting to see screens of this movie more than Big Guy or CIA lately

Jesus Christ, this like a student film.