What was the point of this film?

What was the point of this film?

The plot was weak and it just felt like filler.

Just like Age of Ultron it's there to set up Infinity War by getting all the characters in one film.

When will the majority of the audience realize this?

Other urls found in this thread:

strawpoll.me/11824427/r
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>What was the point of this film?

Advertisement for the next film
Also fulfills contracts

How's that razzie award, retard?

>What was the point of this film?
To make money, tell a story, burn contracts, advance a cinematic universe, and entertain the masses.

>The plot was weak
Zemo won and the Avengers are split up into camps. With the lack of heros in the cinematic universe it was never going to be massive but it did its best to tell the story in a shortened time frame.

Age of Ultron was meant to introduce more characters to the team, show them working together, and set the stage for future cinematic experiences. It also introduced the Earth heroes to the Infinity Stones.

>When will the majority of the audience realize this?
They dont care. They will never care. The majority of the audience wants to be entertained. A great deal of people enjoy seeing their favorite heroes on film. It's why Spiderman and Batman and Superman movies can be dogshit but will always make money.

The majority audience wants to be entertained and Civil War accomplished that.

What was the point of this film?

The plot was weak and it just felt like filler.

Just like Suicide Squad it's there to set up Justice League by getting all the characters in one film.

When will the majority of the audience realize this?

For your information, I hated batman vs superman much more than this.

The ending fight baffled me

Tony is a fucking retard and is irredeemable

>The plot was weak and it just felt like filler.

Almost every marvel film

It was rushed to make lots of money. They made the story around the concept of maximizing profits and minimizing costs.

the point of the movie was to make a lot of money, it did

>The plot was weak

Except it wasn't

I have a hangover and this almost made me vomit. How do people get sick watching Cloverfield but not sick watching this?

At least it had some themes and meaning, unlike any other marvel movie

The first movie is about them coming together.
The second one was about them coming together, even though they were already together.

This movie establishes why they'll have to get together.

That's really the only thing i have against Marvel movies right now. It feels like they exist solely to exist, to fulfill contracts, to slowly ever-so-slowly build up to the infinity wars. DC probably isn't doing much better since things seem rushed but i read they had to cram like 3 movies into one for BvS because WB was getting nervous. I'll have to wait and see but it seems DC is setting themselves up to wrap up the mother boxes with Steppenwolf and possibly even Darkseid in only 3 movies (not counting SS or WW since they're not really direct sequels). Marvel has just taken too long for me to build up and dropped the ball big time on a few things that could have been great like Civil War

Except it was.

OP here. I agree with everything you said. I hate BvS much more than this. Both movies suck.

How did Tony discover Spider Man?

Did he personally go out and track him?

The whole plot revolves around zemo wanting revenge for hydra failing in winter soldier. Not exactly the strongest of storyline.

The point was to make money. And they succeeded.

Honestly, this shows two of the main three problems that Marvel has in their movies. The cinematography, especially colouring is extraordinarily bland, with them managing to make Dr Strange look dull in all but few scenes, as well as the fact that they don't know how to do any sort of action choreography in fucking superhero action movies.

Batman vs Superman might be a worse movie overall, but jesus, at least they knew how to do both of those things properly, when the muddled plot was out of the way.

They're two competing companies that miss crucial aspects of the thing that they are competing in, Marvel's just more successful because they realized that they can dull their movies and make them more accessible with quips that break the flow and ruin the tone in most of them.

The media told them it was fine so they thought it was fine. The same people are out protesting against Trump because that's what the media told them and they must obey it no matter what.

Except it wasn't

oi, you're just conflating things you dislike. I dislike both Trump and Marvel.

Except it was.

Except it wasn't.

except it was

Except it wasn't

except it was strawpoll.me/11824427/r

This really shows that the Marvel shills are just 2-3 guys posting 24/7 on Sup Forums desperately damage controlling their abortion of a cinematic universe. Nobody even liked this year's Marvel turds.

Except it wasn't

It's the other way around. There's about 2-3 BvS shills. One of which calls everyone pajeet.

>(You)

Forgot my file

Funny, the strawpoll showed a decisive BvS win considering the votes. Meanwhile nobody even gave a shit about the Marvel turds. But these threads are always rampant with the same Marvel apologists doing what you're doing now.

>The whole plot revolves around zemo wanting revenge for hydra failing in winter soldier.
No, Zemo has nothing to do with Hydra outside of breaking the code on the SHIELD files leaked onto the internet.

Zemo wants to ruin the Avengers because he blames them for Sokovia, and his family dying as a result.

He just has to do it in a more roundabout way because despite his military training, he's just a squishy normie.

Most of us BvS shills don't even like the movie. We just do it to trigger Marvel shills.

Nice falseflagging there Mickey

>assblasted DC"""chad"""" detected

>Civil War
>4%
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm not a marvel apologist nor have I once brought Marvel up. Nice projecting. That poll probably allowed multiple votes. Wouldn't be the first time.

>I-IT'S NOT FAIR MARVEL WAS SUPPOSED TO WIN
HAHAHAHAHAHA

Strawpoll allows you to vote for the same thing more than once? I do not believe you.

The Razzies have received criticism, including from news sources such as Indiewire and The Daily Telegraph, for several issues, including that members of the Golden Raspberry Foundation are not required to watch the nominated movies, and that seemingly anyone can join the Golden Raspberry Foundation, so long as they pay at least $40, which is different from the invitation-only Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Critics take issue with the Razzies picking "easy targets" and mainstream films instead of those which are perceived as less popular but more deserving productions, continuing to appeal to celebrities, seemingly for publicity and attention, over other, worthier films and performances.
BvS was better than Civil War, you faggot pleb

>anyone can join the Golden Raspberry Foundation, so long as they pay at least $40
Boy, I wonder what corporation decided to intervene and nominate only DC movies and conservative movies.

If only there was a giant corporation now that could easily influence these awards and critics through their massive wealth....

If you set them up as such they do. I've seen a few strawpolls on here set that way and it's obvious the OP is samefagging the results.

Time Warner is just as rich as Disney.

Rekt the competition

It wasn't set like that though. It was one vote per IP. You lost. Deal with it or go and protest like all those roasties in Washington.

I already told you I don't like Marvel. Quit projecting.

But Time Warner obviously didn't influence the Razzies given the obvious absense of the true stinker of the year - Doctor Strange.

Doctor Strange is so bad that even the shills gave up on it when it was just a lesser, more stale Iron Man filled to the brim with meme actors and zero personality whatsoever.

>invitation-only Academy

circlejerk of pretentious twats

>seemingly anyone can join the Golden Raspberry Foundation

will of the people

Maybe you should just accept the majority of people don't share your opinion. Most people didn't like BvS. Most peopled liked Dr. Strange.

>Most people didn't like BvS. Most peopled liked Dr. Strange.
With nothing to back that up but your Poo flinging posts. The Sup Forums strawpoll said it all. The 3-4 Marvel Pakis don't change that.

>strawpoll ousts Marvel shills big time, confirmed vocal minority of shills
>NO STOP ACTUALLY IT'S FAKE I DON'T EVEN LIKE MARVEL STOP STOP
Is anyone even surprised anymore? Do we still pretend these shills aren't here?

Sup Forums is a small community of contrarians. Look at any review aggregate's audience scores. For example, BvS only got 64% liked it.

>b-but RT is a conspiracy!
More credible than some random strawpoll. There's a reason why BvS had a massive drop after opening weekend. Audiences didn't like it. Just accept it.

>will of the people
The will of the people always lines up with critics.

You sound like Beyonce (is that the joke? I haven't seen a marvel movie since GOTG since they all look fucking terrible)

>the marketing department say it's too soon for the market to absorb another Avengers title, but the guys down in merchandising say we need a new ensemble movie to meet projected toy sales

>how about we take the least shitty property in our basket of shitty properties and make its next installment a flavourless kludgefest with so many characters that there's no time to develop any of them in any meaningful fashion

>capital. Now if anyone needs me I'll be attending my son's bar mitzvah.

Basically

>BvS beat both Civil War and Dr Quips at blu-ray/DVD sales
>b-but bad word of mouth
Meanwhile, does anyone even care still about Marvel's garbage? I have honestly never seen anyone on Sup Forums talk about them in earnest. Maybe they just have a fuck-ton of kids who line up to watch these movies.

>muh 1m more in blu-ray + dvd sales
Really?

Look at these box office performances. Take Batman v. Superman, two of biggest superheroes in comic book history, vs. Dr. Strange, a nobody.

After 4 weeks, BvS is performing less than Dr. Strange. Do you not understand how front-loaded that movie was? It had very little repeat customers and very little word of mouth, just a massive opening week hype. Audiences didn't like it.

>audiences didn't like it
>went out and bought millions of more blu-ray copies than Marvel's turds
Doesn't matter anyways really. People are tired of the Marvel concept. Dr Strange flopped. Even Suicide Squad destroyed it at the box office and that one had the entire media running a hit job on it. Marvel is becoming desperate. I heard Infinity Quips has like 400 million budget. They are overspending to keep up.

The production company only had 5 days left on the costume rentals, might as well bang out one more movie.

Can anyone even make the claim that Marvel's movies hold the slighest artistic integrity or a sense of geniune passion?

I don't think so. These are assembly-line productions akin to AAA videogames. Disney are pushing this line because they want to remove the middle man, the director. They want complete control over their IPs. They don't want the auteurs. They want focus-tests. They want fanservice. They want safe. This will change cinema for decades if Disney is successful in pulling this coup off. Let's hope they aren't.

>people are tired of marvel
>marvel continues to hit 1b + on major releases

>dr. strange flopped
>165m budget with 660m budget
>4x budget is a flop

>even suicide squad destroyed it
>joker, harley + batman cameo

How do you function being so deluded?

>Batman v. Superman, two of biggest superheroes in comic book history, vs. Dr. Strange, a nobody.

This works in Marvel's favor. That's precisely right, Dr Strange is a nobody, They can just remake Inception and The Matrix and no jimmies are rustled. But if Clark Kent's dad says "maybe" or his suit is too dark or there's no John Williams theme, it suddenly "doesn't understand the character".

The theatrical cut of BvS was constipated and confused, so I'm not saying that movie was perfect. But rebooting Superman and Batman is more like rebooting SW or Bond. You are pushing against decades of expectations on who the characters should be. Marvel movies get to be 'new' things.

>165m budget
You forgot the massive reshots that completely fucked the movie up and inflated the budget even further.

So Dr. Strange was supposed to outperform BvS in box office?

>Maybe they just have a fuck-ton of kids
Glad you agree that Marvel fans have sex, in(D)Cel

Suicide Squad also had reshoots. But those don't count, right?

"They" as in Marvel, you fucking idiot. It's a given Marvel movies are primarily made for kids and retarded manchildren.

All memes aside people I know who like marvel flicks didn't particularly like this one

It's not awful but it seems kinda lazy and half assed

When did I say they didn't? It's you that attempted to portray Dr Strange was some low-budget hit when in truth, it was desperately reshot because Disney wanted the maximum market appeal. They failed with that. Dr Strange was bad. Fucking China-pandering trash.

Basically any kind of explosive device would kill all the avengers with the possible exceptions of Hulk and Thor

Really? It's the exact opposite for me, I thought Civil War was okay but many people I know say it's one of the best superhero movies ever.

In concept it sounds awesome (14 heroes fighting each other while being manipulated by a third party) but in execution I didn't care about anything until toward the end with the Cap/Tony/Bucky fight.

Neither of us have any figures on how much extra the reshoots cost, if anything. So let's not bother with that. My point was 660m with a 165m budget is not a flop in any world. And I say the same thing to people who say Suicide Squad flopped when it was an obvious success.

The only one that flopped was MoS and the execs didn't care since it was a franchise reboot. BvS came very close to flopping, though.

Not necessarily - and it didn't. But for how long does that cut the mustard ?

The MCU is the biggest mainstream action movie franchise in the world. It's not 2007 anymore. I'm not slagging Marvel movies off, they're well-made. Alls I'm saying is that they have a freedom. In the case of BvS, the same brand power that got a 27% RT movie to near-$900 million can also work against it.

I personally don't think there's a hell of a lot wrong with MoS. That movie most certaily does not reflect what would be a 55%er in most cases. If it was about an original character named 'Spaceman' it'd be in the 75-80% range, at least.

>they're well-made
Prove it.

Do you want me to fly to LA and periscope a tour of Disney's Marvel lot while they work on ___Man ? How can i prove that ?

the point is that it goes deeper in to each of the character's personal philosophies regarding what makes them an ethically good or bad team whilst they're being pressured by government officials on one side and a villain with a personal vendetta and nothing to lose on the other
It also introduces some new characters as a way of showing the effect the avengers have on increasing numbers of vigilante behaviour
I think it's a pretty good movie desu

MoS is one of the most successful Superman movies on film and a major hit compared to Superman Returns.

I'm done replying to you. Fucking idiot.

The brand name only works against it when DCEU continually pumps out trash movies audiences don't like. If they keep it up, they're going to ruin their brand names. It wasn't a decade ago that Batman hit 1b twice. How DCEU couldn't get a Batman v. Superman to hit 1b is a very telling sign of how bad the movie was to audiences. Supporting that is the box office results that show the movie was massively front-loaded and had huge weekend drops.

The hype over the movie was incredible, people were excited (as evidence by the huge opening weekend) people wanted to see Batman again. They wanted to see Batman fight Superman. What they got instead was 8 minutes of the fight and a terrible CGI shitfest half an hour at the end. Why the fuck didn't they spend all that time on the main fight?Why was the Doomsday fight bigger than the main reason people went to see this movie for? It was a slap in the face to fans and audiences. This is coming from someone who saw the movie with friends in the theater. We left disappointed. That's not how you make money. You don't disappoint your audiences. Say what you want about Marvel, but they obviously don't disappoint their fans.

Last ditch attempt to play catch up with marvel instead of doing good solo movies before the ensemble
retarded move
granted we don't really need another batman origin movie but one about batmans decline in to becoming the more gritty and worn out batfleckwould've been good
a man of steel sequel would've been handy too
also wonder woman should've come before throwing her character in to the mix

>MoS is one of the most successful Superman movies on film and a major hit compared to Superman Returns.
>a 2016 movie made more money than the ones in the 70s
Gee, you don't fucking say? Man of Steel had a 225m budget and hit 670m. That's slightly less than 3x budget, usually the standard used for profit. Don't get upset over facts.

Why do you marvel drones pretend Justice League cartoon doesn't exist? Technically Batman and Superman had their own cartoons first but obviously they don't need em. You don't need to give superheroes individual movies before they team up.

Normal adults don't watch cartoons moron.

You were an adult in 2001? Parents never let you watch Cartoon Network?

>Synder chooses to change the characters significantly

>hurr y dee cee needs to familiarize audiences with these characters

guarantee those cartoons are just as bad as this movie
the difference being this movie has even less of an excuse

What's your guarantee?

The cartoons are kino. Shut your fucking mouth idiot.

Do you even need an answer to this question or are you just being stupid?

>losing argument
>hurr durr pretend I'm a new poster with a stupid reaction image
kys

Marvel doesn't have any pressure of reinvention on them whatsoever. They're 'barely' arriving at that with Spiderman, and it gives them a lot of room.

I mean, i loved MoS, and i felt the same way about BvS as you did. One thing i did not dislike is the characterization of Batman or Affleck's performance.

But that whole 'MurderVerse' thing comes into play. This is what happens when you have to reboot a character for the 5th time in 25 years and the last chapter was barely 3 years ago. Are they gonna start Bruce Wayne at square one all over again not 36 months after 'The Dark Knight Rises' ? That would be testing the patience of audiences. They have to do different things, new angles.

The thing with the MCU is ... this is new. Conventionally, you don't have contiguous franchises with 15 films starring the same characters. We used to do that with serials in the 30s, or Police Academy. So when 'Superman Returns' fails, it makes total sense for WB to say "Let's try a fresh angle".

Now, though, people don't want 'fresh'. They want The Force Awakens : the same movie with 2 new characters. They do not want to be emotionally challenged with beloved characters. They do not want Batman to come so close to crossing his line that it looks like he's The Punisher, even if the narrative justifies it ( which IMO it did. ) We'd never get a 'Batman Returns' in this climate.

>change the characters significantly
Superman still flies, raised by farmers Kansas, thinks killing is something to whine about, is weak to a magic rock, works at he Daily Planet with his girlfriend Lois, from a dead planet named Krypton

Batman is dressed like a Bat, is masterful at fighting, has a butler named Alfred, has a nemesis named Joker who killed his sidekick, is a playboy millionaire etc. Only "difference" is he kills, which the movie addresses. Not that he doesn't kill in all the other movies., serials, and early comics.

You don't have to like the dark tone but don't pretend the Justice League is in any more need of buildup with the Snyderverse.

Yeah I liked Batfleck a lot too. Always been a fan of TDKReturns. I don't think they needed to reboot Batman though. Batman doesn't need one, in my opinion. But an origins on how he fell from grace, e.g Robin's murder, should have been first. Superman was an origin we didn't need. We know he comes from Krypton, we didn't need that long exposition. They could have started with him being found by the Kent's and that would have saved 20 minutes of screentime better used elsewhere.

>Now, though, people don't want 'fresh'. They want The Force Awakens : the same movie with 2 new characters. They do not want to be emotionally challenged with beloved characters.
I think that's patently false and a cop-out to exclude the shit movies DCEU has been pushing out. "Audiences just don't want good movies anymore". Rogue 1 pretty much proved that wrong by having a spin-off with a cast of entirely fresh characters then killing them off while still hitting 1 billion.

>Superman still flies, raised by farmers Kansas, thinks killing is something to whine about, is weak to a magic rock, works at he Daily Planet with his girlfriend Lois, from a dead planet named Krypton

i mean basically at his core he's the same character as the standard comic book approach. he's a guy trying to do the right thing, wrestling with his role in the world while maintaining a strong moral compass

the only real difference is he doesn't smile as much. but seriously, go read morrison's action comics and tell me "dude snyder doesn't get superman lmao"

batman is probably the most accurate portrayal of the character ever done on film. the obsessive, mentally ill in some ways, constantly trying to undo the trauma of his parents death, totally focused on the mission, etc. it's basically how batman has been written exclusively since 86

They're able to take things slower, since they know they have funding for multiple movies for years to come. That doesn't happen often with these superhero movies.

All you mentioned is merely superficial. Superman is now a brooding asshole with ambivalent attitude towards his status as defender of humanity. Batman violates the one rule he's held up above all, and then its gone in a few minutes.

I think this character development deserves proper exploration in a solo move, otherwise you're just confusing the audiences by changing iconic characters, and putting them in an ensamble film with several literally whos is a guaranteed failure.

Which is where DC is heading by the looks if it.

>none of this is about characterization and personality
Snyder fags don't understand characters.

If DC made a good film to start with they'd be able to do the same

So I'm a big fan of Superman as a character, and the thing that's always brought up about Superman is that he's a person. He's relatable in a way that, for instance, Batman isn't. He's not a rich, torturous psychopath who takes at-risk youths under his wing to fight crime and die.

To take a line from BvS, Superman is "just a guy who's trying to do the right thing."

And so "just a guy" faced with unlimited power and the responsibility of the world on his shoulders wouldn't be all happy-smiles all the time. He would get disillusioned, he would have his faith in humanity challenged. He wouldn't be Christopher Reeves' Superman all the time. Sometimes he would get mad, as he did in Morrison's Action Comics, or All-Star Superman. Sometimes he would do a necessary evil in a difficult situation - i.e. killing Zod in Man of Steel.

And this is important: he would have his altruism challenged by people all the time. That's what BvS is about in large part, by the way. Basically every character in the film is constantly attacking him or belittling him, saying he can't actually be a good guy. Turns out he is. He really is as good as he's made out to be.

Anyway, that to me is a much more inspiring, relatable, compelling character than a Superman who's all smiles all the time, never gets mad, never does a bad thing even if it might be necessary to avert the destruction of humanity, regardless of the circumstances he's in.

To me, as a real fan of the character who reads Superman comics all the time, the Superman presented in Man of Steel and BvS is one of the best versions of the character ever written. And I assume Justice League will allow him, after facing the trials and tribulations any good hero has to go through, be a little closer to the go-lucky, man-of-smiles version of the character from the Donner films.

>I don't think they needed to reboot Batman though. Batman doesn't need one, in my opinion.

>an origins on how he fell from grace, e.g Robin's murder, should have been first

> Superman was an origin we didn't need.

Here is my point : these are all things people have said are both *good* about the DCU *and* 'bad'. "*We should've had a Batman movie before the team-up ; it's rushed without it.*" "*We don't understand Bruce*." "*We should've had another Superman movie*". Know what I'm saying ?

I agree with you on not needing a Batman reboot, and while i love that Krypton scene it *is* a little too long.

>I think that's patently false and a cop-out to exclude the shit movies DCEU has been pushing out.

Fair enought, but remember : I don't think MoS is 'shit'. MoS, to me, is what might've happend with TFA if that movie was not as conservative as it is.