Batman v. Superman moral dilemma:

Batman v. Superman moral dilemma:
>Species from another planet has proved that alien life forms exists
>These aliens are extremely powerful and some of them (except for Superman) has proven to be dangerous for life on Earth.
>Superman, although he saved Earth from Zod and his Men, may still be a threat in some peoples eyes. We fear what we don't know.
>People are now asking themselves if we can rely on 'one of them' to protect us from that which we may not be able to protect ourself from
>Could we defend ourself and our people or should we believe in this distant 'god' from above?
>Should there really be a Superman?

Captain America Civil War and the entire Avengers morale dilemma:
>DUDE FUCKING HYPOCRITS LMAO
>THEY'RE NOT HYPOCRITS
>WTF I HATE THE AVENGERS NOW

C A P E K I N O

Pure.

>DUDE FUCKING MARTHA
>MARTHAAAAA
>WE FRIENDS NOW

i literally cannot fathom that people don't understand BvS
its mind-boggling to me, that people can be so self-centred and attentionless to not be able to grasp even the most basic subsets of BvS
quipfags are the worst movie-watchers ever

>gay dudes in tights

ok bro

The best thing about BvS is that it doesn't answer any questions it proposes

True art that makes you think

emotional cults always try to drag you in with feelings of superiority

anyone who tells you that you are good or smart is trying to use you for something

baneposting is defacto: nolan is a supreme hack. everything that originates from nolan is garbage

If dubs - based Thanos kills Snyder. Affleck directs JL 2. Avengers vs. Jl in 2025.

you can go deeper. In trying to do something about Superman, looking at him as a threat, you create animosity. That is what Batman did. He turned Superman into an enemy. He did win, but when you face dilemmas like this in real life, turning a friend into an enemy, crating unnecessary animosity is obviously worse than the benefits of having a powerful friend. You also don't know if there are more evil aliens around or coming in the future. So, Batman is wrong.

*Quip*

Well, of course he is. That's the point of his story arc

This is too bad to be bait. You must actually believe this.
If rub-a-dub-dubs, Dwayne Johnson leaves DC to play someone in the Marvel movies.

When Superman said "Save Martha" Bruce became surprised and confused. For years it's been bothering him that he could have saved his Father and Mother, it bothered him that he didn't Save Martha. If only Bruce didn't decide that he wanted to leave the cinema early.

Then Lois helps him understand that it's Clark's own mothers name, Bruce realizes that maybe he's not that different from us 'Earthlings'. He has a mother who he loves and a mother that loves him back, something that Bruce used to have, so why would he want to take that away from Superman?

Bravo Snyder, you have truly created pure Capekino.

You have to go back.

Burgersteins really call their parents by name even in near death situations?

Yeah, I agree

It's over. The king of Sup Forums has spoken.

>Despite the supergeeks’ arguing either against working for the restrictive capitalist government or for their own sense of doing right and correcting injustice, the fact is, nothing here has gravitas. Civil War is politics as adolescents misperceive social/global crisis. This has been going on for so long (ever since Hollywood realized the bounty to be had in cajoling comic-book culture’s ready audience; since, say, the 1978 Superman film, then 1989’s Batman) that, by now, the brainwashing is complete. The trivializing has grabbed such hold that when a genuine pop artist like Zack Snyder deepens comics lore into visionary, moral art (the profound Man of Steel and Batman v Superman), many fanboys, and critics, react with anger, resentment — and ignorance.To praise Civil War as entertainment is to accept its puerile conflicts. This is the moral reduction that has happened to American youth culture in the wake of the generational dissents of the Vietnam War. Movies as violent as the Marvel flicks are not pacifist but are proof of anti-military sentiment — such as became evident in the confused Ferguson protestations about “militarized police,” a foolish, redundant term exploited by manipulative media outlets and politicians. Civil War furbishes aggression simply to excite viewers who are as programmed as poor Bucky.

Fanboys do not own the franchises of Batman and Superman movies, so director Zack Snyder went against the mob and dared to raise the genre to a level of adult sophistication in 2013’s Man of Steel, the most emotionally powerful superhero movie ever made.

It helps that Snyder is also visionary, inclined to extravagant spectacle and gifted with a signature erotic touch. An early montage equates violence, wealth, loss, and grief through symbolic images of bullets, pearls, blood, and tears.

Snyder’s opening sequences interweave the origin stories of these mythic heroes and their alter egos. What has become overly familiar through years of repetition acquires new dynamism — and new understanding — that particularizes and personalizes each wounded man’s suffering. Not only are these time-shifts audacious (movie marquees announce the 1940 The Mark of Zorro and the 1981 Excalibur — implying the evolution of history), but so is Snyder’s proposition about the nature of heroism and vengeance: Both stem from the way individuals react to and comprehend their experiences. Snyder’s thrillingly intelligent use of interior conflict and political antagonism vastly outclasses Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises — all noxious — which were bellwethers of our culture’s decline.

He creates the year’s first great movie image by examining Superman’s “divinity” when he is surrounded by Day of the Dead multitudes. The image echoes our current desperation regarding “populism” — and that’s truly audacious.

Cont.

In this age of petty Marvels, most comic-book movies merely perpetrate fantasies of power, but Snyder, enacting his personal aesthetic, braves a film that examines those fantasies. He boldly challenges popular culture’s current decay.

Snyder intends to resolve the conflict between commerce and art, power and morality. “Knowledge with no power is paradoxical,” one character says. “Man made a world where standing together is impossible,” frets another. With Batman v Superman, the battle for the soul of American culture is on.

DChads read writers like Shakespeare and Dostoevsky, whereas I bet not a single marvelcuck ever has. Hell, I bet they did not realize that Cap was supposed to DIE at the end of the film because they had never read the comic.

Such a shame that Snyder utterly failed in portraying any of these messages in any meaningful way.

Instead we had a Joker Lex, who was truly awful. Batman had his reasons to hate superman, but what pushed him over the edge to start the fight is utterly unclear. Was it the hearing being blown up? That was demonstrated to not be the fault of Superman. Hell, he had even turned up to answer for his actions, exactly what Batman wanted!

The motives were a mess and the setup for the show down bollocks, plot holes all over the place.

>HOW DARE THEY TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH A CHARACTERS PERSONALITY

What?

It's pure kino, stop resisting you're only being delusional.

...

i felt that in Adrien Brody's Detachment
it didn't offer any solution just fuckign despair, resonated with me at the time considering suicide every night
then i met a girl and she gave me joy to live
then she left me now i'm just numb, neutral