This movie that fails in every fundamental way possible is secretly great because of symbolism that's never used for...

>this movie that fails in every fundamental way possible is secretly great because of symbolism that's never used for anything other than itself
Why is this allowed? Is Sup Forums pleb central?

Other urls found in this thread:

rottentomatoes.com/m/1000085-2001_a_space_odyssey/
explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/film/4f4b8bf00dfa0)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)
archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/filename/Lex - Caught/image/YkqyyVF6MlbDlL7vcUBMVg/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Still haven't seen it
Gave capeshit a break this year.

>Is Sup Forums pleb central?

You just figured this out now?

>symbolism used for anything other than itself.

Why does Lex get a halo?

why don't you tell us in a screencap of your own post, Sup Forums?

Because you watched this movie too many times in slow motion like the drone you are, the symbolism is not used for anything at all.

>Clark on the left
>Lex on the middle
>Bruce on the right

Woah, what did Snyder mean by this??

People went in expecting a standard movie that tries but fails to make any sense

BVS doesn't even try to make sense because that isn't the point of cinema. The point of the movie is to explore what the presence of Superman would do to a society, not to craft some foolproof narrative

double penetration

Why don't you refute one of them, then?

Didn't have to watch it in slow motion. It's every bit as lengthy as the scene guys like you like to point out from MoS.

The symbolism is just a cop out by DC fanboys. Throwing in a bunch of DUDE JESUS LMAO doesn't make a film good.

While I appreciate the fact they made an attempt to make more out of the films then what the MCU throws out, it doesn't excuse the film for being so poor.

They really fucked up on this one. It had a lot of potential. He should've just made Frank Miller's in live action.

>it's too complicated for me
>so I'll just call it shit

I think shitcapekino might be more fascinating to talk about

When did anyone just call it shit? Can you stop arguing with strawmen DCuck or are you this deranged from pretending horrible movies are good?

It's so dense. There's so much going on.

R/dc_cinematic

So all you've got is memes just like the robot parrot you're letting the world turn you into.

All you got is pretentiousness and the emperor's new clothes.

>watches BvS once

What's pretentious about it? Pretentious would be having Superman pull out a ball cap with "God" embossed across the bill and put it on whenever someone thought of him as a god.

People point out what the imagery was there conveying and even that's not good enough for you. Nothing ever will be.

I don't think you know what pretentious means because your hypothetical has nothing to do with pretentiousness.

>it's shit because I say so!
>haha how can DCucks even compete?

This is an art board, please leave

You have no idea of what pretentious means, yet you preach on an on about the supposed depth of a toy catalogue.
That's inherently pretentious.

Where did I ever claim that it was shit? Do you ever get tired of arguing with strawmen?

>pretentiousness

You don't know what this word means though, a movie about dressed up adults fighitng each can't be pretentious

No, it does. It would be pretentious to explore a theme where perception changes reality and then expect people to find it deep while providing no visual examples of it. That's what would make the ballcap pretentious.

The movie pretends to have gravitas and depth that it lacks, it is pretentious.

The movie opens about 15 minutes in with child Bruce Wayne being lifted into the air by a colony of fucking bats man.

How much more pretentious can it get?

>inb4 MUH SYMBOLISM

>>this movie that fails in every fundamental way possible
>I didn't say it was shit, ugh strawmanning much? can you please, just, not?

Refer to this post, please

So dream imagery is pretentious now?

I think I know what your definition of "pretentious" is now - it's anything you don't like.

How does it succeed then?
Fuck off retard, your je ne sais quoi emperor's new clothes bullshit can only get you so far.

marvelcucks triggered
again

>I got BTFO on the other thread so I'll flood this one
Pathetic as fuck kek

Pretentiousness is the illusion of depth but substance when you dig deeper. The theme of Superman being alluded to as a God is pretentious because it goes no where. Having further hamfisted visual representation via the hypothetical ball cap doesn't add any more pretentiousness than is already present in the movie.

No. A colony of fucking bats lifting child Bruce Wayne in the air is pretentious. Stop defending this shit man.

It has depth. It's one of the reason it's so hated, besides the console wars and the NOT MUH scum, it's a movie with actual depth about some middle aged man dressed up as a bat fighting an overpowered alien. People can't see through the absurdity of the premise, but the movie has religious and political themes conveyed mostly through imagery, and parts of the narrative is explained by symbolism instead of the villain doing the exposition while twirling his moustache. So it's a little deep, even in a slightly shallow blockbuster way

>This is an art board
Then why are you here when you post on Sup Forums and /thefirstletterofthealphabet/?

Can we have a chat about the 'Martha' scene lads? It is an elephant in the room desu.
I get it, I get that its a homage to Rosebud. It genuinely is that. Does it work? No. Do I appreciate that Snyder put the effort in that scene? Yes.

>it's hated because it has depth
Jesus, you guys are nuts. It's "disliked" because it's drags on. It's boring. It has plot holes. The editing is terrible. It's not disliked because it has depth. There are plenty of films with depth that are praised, e.g 2001. I can put my shit in a museum and call it art. It's still shit.

At very least it succeeds in making you this mad about a movie you didn't like a year from watching it. This thread itself is proof that movie cuts very deep. No one can deny that the opening scene is about 9/11 or that Bruce Wayne quotes Cheney when asked why would he fight superman. No one can deny Luthor being triggered because his human power (knowledge, money, political influence) means nothing against some alien who can level a city in minutes, because he says so.

He succeeds in generating discussion, at very least. That's why these kind of threads, where some reddit memesters spout "it's so bad lmao!" or "M-MARTHA HAHAHAHA" shit are so embarrasing. You're fueling the movie's mythos and helping it achieve the cult status, therefore ensuring more movies like these get made. You should give it a rest

It goes everywhere. Superman isn't a god. It's people interpreting him in terms of their own hopes and fears.Beneath all the godly imagery is a man who's essentially the same as any of us.

It's also a good working visual metaphor for a hero who's only godly powerful because of the environment he's in. Remember - the way they've set the stage is that Kryptonians only become like Superman in Earth's environment thanks to a combination of different factors - richer atmosphere, less gravity, younger sun.

The way people see him, both good and bad, is changing their world. It might even be what's waking magic back up.

Man, say what you will about DC movies: at least they get discussed for longer than a week unlike Marvel movies.

>2001

It was destroyed by critics and hated by the audience, it almost ruined Kubricks career. Also it was called pretentious like this week in this same board by probably you or one of your reddit friends.

Same with Tree of Life, Mulholland Drive, everything Trier has ever made, there are like 9000 videos on youtube explaining the ending of Enemy ("it's not an alien invasion, spiders are women guys"). No man, depth is hated, even the minimal depth that a capeshit movie can have. Disney knows the deal better than anyone

That's how I felt about it, too. I'm waiting to find out that Clark actually said "my mother" and Bruce just heard "Martha" because there was no way he was *not* going to hear it when facing down cold-blooded murder.

Calling people reddit for no reason is a good way to look like an idiot. Just a protip.

2001 has a much higher critical acclaim than BvS so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. A few critics will always have bad things to say about movies, that's opinions.

rottentomatoes.com/m/1000085-2001_a_space_odyssey/
It's got a 94% and 9./10. Much higher than BvS. I personally find it to be insufferable for the first and last half hour. Just proving a point. Most critics don't hate depth.

2001 was considered entry level trash before tasteless plebs like you and all the other game of thrones, mad max fury road imbeciles joined this board.

Tree of Life was also praised heavily among critics(It ended up #107 on the agreed Best of films of all time list explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/film/4f4b8bf00dfa0) and 99% of this board when it released you fucking bane tourist.

Who the fuck is this tourist

I liked this movie but the Martha scene was shit, it could have been made so much simpler and easier. Just make Superman save a kid in the beginning of the movie and then have the kid show up when Bat is about to kill him, protecting Sup and calling Bruce a monster, and then make a parallel scene of Bat retreating horrified and Joe Chill doing the same. BAM, the same message and not even the dumbest of marlelcucks wouldn't get it.

>Beneath all the godly imagery is a man who's essentially the same as any of us.

Invulnerability and godlike powers would have a dramatic effect on the psychology of a human being.

So, no, superman is not compatible with any sort of "dude just like us lmao" writing and any attempt to force it is utter incompetence.

Because WB/DC has to devote marketing resources to realigning public opinion to be favorable towards their movies.

Yeah, it's almost like Pa Kent understood that and tried to give him as normal an upbringing as possible considering the circumstances.

Is he a god or isn't he?

Rotten Tomatoes didn't exist in 1968, when I said it almost ruined Kubrick's career I don't know how could you think about RT when the guy is fucking dead.

Yeah thats what your pleb ancestors use to say about The Avengers 1 when it came out compared to TDKR

That's why there are daily threads discussing the Suicide Squad's themes right?

Aren't we talking about critics in modern times?

Nevertheless, back in 1968 the movie had mixed reviews. Some praise, some critical. Virtually none of the criticisms were of "it's too deep!" variety.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)

>almost ruined Kubrick's career
>meanwhile in the real world he got an unprecedented contract with WB because of it
Who the fuck is this tourist?

>implying that the weakly premised shitposts constantly used to ding this flick are sincere
You are the shill here.

are you trying to imply there aren't daily suicide squad threads?

>Pauline Kael said it was "a monumentally unimaginative movie",[152] and Stanley Kauffmann of The New Republic called it "a film that is so dull, it even dulls our interest in the technical ingenuity for the sake of which Kubrick has allowed it to become dull."[153] Renata Adler of The New York Times wrote that it was "somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring."[154] Variety's 'Robe' believed the film was a "[b]ig, beautiful, but plodding sci-fi epic ... A major achievement in cinematography and special effects, 2001 lacks dramatic appeal to a large degree and only conveys suspense after the halfway mark."[155] Andrew Sarris called it "one of the grimmest films I have ever seen in my life ...2001 is a disaster because it is much too abstract to make its abstract points."[156] (Sarris reversed his opinion upon a second viewing of the film, and declared, "2001 is indeed a major work by a major artist."[157]) John Simon felt it was "a regrettable failure, although not a total one. This film is fascinating when it concentrates on apes or machines ... and dreadful when it deals with the in-betweens: humans ...2001, for all its lively visual and mechanical spectacle, is a kind of space-Spartacus and, more pretentious still, a shaggy God story."[158] Eminent historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. deemed the film "morally pretentious, intellectually obscure and inordinately long ... a film out of control".[159]

wew where did I read all this about a recent movie?

Accept the possibility that both sides are shilling. Both stand to gain from spinning things in their favor.

You clearly just didn't understand the aesthetic and thematic brilliance that is Snyder's masterpiece

That's okay, it took me multiple rewatches to finally pick up on the subtleties and philosophical implications of his work

Do you know what cherry picking is? Like I said, it had mixed reviews. You deliberately skipped over the positive ones. You don't even have an argument anymore, you're just being disingenuous to try and save face now.

>it's almost like Pa Kent understood that and tried to give him as normal an upbringing as possible

If you think pa kent remotely resembled a "normal" father, you have to be some sort of recently emerged AI.

Pretentious.

Strongest possibility: OP is a shill, people putting actual thought into this idiocy are just idiots.

>y-you are a shills
>he says in a thread made to mock a year old movie of the only franchise competing with the dominant studio currently

Dude have some self-awareness, it's getting painful to read you

I don't know. I've never been responsible for the upbringing of an invincible alien. You act like Clark's nature would only affect him and disregard how it would affect anyone around him. It's disingenuous at best.

>Same with Tree of Life
an absolute fucking mong thats for sure

>if you didn't like BvS you are a shill!
wew

Imagine being this paranoid.

The "thought* OP put into it was to present it as a negative, so who's he shilling for? How deep does the subtlety go? Is he a DC marketer trying to reverse-astroturf by coming across as the sort of dullard who can't even interpret the more obvious uses of imagery correctly, or is he a Disney guy just trying to cast more shade at a rival franchise?

Or is he a government plant looking to discourage people from looking into the very deepest messages being subtly conveyed by the film?

I'm acting like MoS completely disregarded how being invulnerable would affect child development and instead just forced what it needed to kick off a cinematic universe.

You guys do know that there are people in this moment saying that Rogue One is better than some of the original trilogy movies right? I mean there are shills, that's a cold hard fact. I don't give a fuck about Trump but Hillary did have shills "correcting the record", shills exist.

And as I said no one made threads about Green Lantern a year from the release, or Thor 2 or whatever. It's not that you guys are shills, the problem is that you're too transparent

>or is he a Disney guy just trying to cast more shade at a rival franchise?

DING DING DING

The goal of marketing on mongloian basket weaving scrolls is to maintain presence. Positive threads need to be constantly babysat. Negative threads generate their own replies.

Implying disney shills would constantly bump threads for their competition is idiotic.

Because it's not actually about the movie. Never was.

It's about rallying behind something that's universally reviled, to prop it up as "proof" of being misunderstood geniuses.

It's not about liking the movie, it's about protecting our own, very easily bruised egos.

>randomly bringing up R1
WEW

What do you say it would change?

Or is OP merely a troll pretending to be a government plant pretending to be Disney guy pretending to be a DC marketer attempting to reverse astro-turf in order to maximize replies discussing his intentions?

What if you're merely the OP pretending to be an observer pretending to postulate about how OP can be a Disney guy, a DC marketer, or a government plant in order to encourage more Yous?

What if I'm OP?

>Disney shill attempting to talk about film fundamentals
Iron Manlet vs Captain Homo proved that you shiteaters will gladly pay for the greatest crimes of cinema. Kill yourself.

>archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/filename/Lex - Caught/image/YkqyyVF6MlbDlL7vcUBMVg/

Are you a shill? It would explain why you had no idea about this boards history with the films you listed to save face.

Absolutely everything.

MCUcks are so sad they don't even bother talking about their direct-to-DVD shitfests anymore. Sad!

>Positive threads need to be constantly babysat.

Go look at the archive. Positive or negative makes zero difference. If there's a positive or a negative discussion up simultaneously, the positive threads linger while the negative threads die.

Take note at the amount of people attacking OP after this tourist fucked up Has someone called his marketing friends from /r/dc_cinematic/twitter? Not only this, he refuses to respond to his mistake yet keeps replying to this thread and newers posts.

What if we've all been OP THIS ENTIRE TIME?

Are Disney shills still mad that BvS is an actual film with a coherent theme and impressive visuals instead of just stripped-down dialouge and shit CGI to sell toys?

Notice how what used to be MCU shilling is now BvS hate campaign. The poor fucks can't even talk about their videogame shit anymore.

>marvel pajeet tries to undermine DChad patrician status but gets BTFO instead.

Focus in on a specific component of child development. Any one thing will suffice.

Confirm

>MCUcks still obsessed with BvS
Is it because Dr Quips threads die after three posts you divert your shilling elsewhere?

>the positive threads linger while the negative threads die.

Why would you post falsehood disproved by watching the board for a minute?

>23:37
>23:38
Not even trying lad. Sad.

The intro of BvS alone has more talent put into it than the MCU combined. Marvel Pajeets say what they're paid to say. After all who else would willingly defend the MCU if not under salary?

I'm not even the guy talking about Kubrick.

Note that the poster counter has not risen since this post yet the same posts about OP and Marvel keep happening. 23 when my post was made and still 23 even with more posts.

Looks like someone is doing heavy damage control to hide the fact that he isn't actually a local

Empathy.

Fuck me.

I meant:
>24:38

>marvel pajeets
Only one autist uses this and he's been samefagging this thread like mad.

Marvel Pajeets can only copypaste words and sentences from other posters. It's something I noticed. Why is this?

Because I can search the archive, and I've been a fan analyzing this film from the very beginning.