BvS appreciation thread

cont

Other urls found in this thread:

moviepilot.com/posts/3838863
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

I posted this piece of dialogues in the last thread

Lois: I need a chopper to Gotham. Call the heliport.
Perry White: Chopper? We can barely afford a bicycle. You want to chase a story? Go to the ship. Superman's probably there already.
Lois: Perry, it's not for a story.
Perry White (after a moment of hesitation): Jenny, get her a chopper to Gotham. And forget the heliport, put her on the god damn roof. On the roof, Lois!

I wanted to see if dcucks could explain the symbolism behind this reasonig. Some cunt answered that it was because Perry knows that superman is clark, as with many interpretation of this character. But then it brings the question to why will Perry use a chopper, for which he doesn't have the budget, to risk the life of his best reporter to bring her closer to a dangerous zone of conflict between powerful beings where lightning comes from ? Because if lois lane didn't showed up when batman was freaking out after remembering his mommy before trying to kill superman he wouldn't have realize superman is human ? I wanna know in all honesty what does this part signify ?

It was implied that Perry White knew Clark Kent was in fact Superman.

White also figured out that the request was very important and urgent for Lois, not because of something work related, but because of personal reasons. Reasons that probably relate to Clark Kent (and Superman).

>it's another BvS thread

Get comfy DCbros.

Lois Lane is the key to all of this. If we get lois working. Because she's a funnier character than we've ever had in any of the movies before

Reminder that Marvel nu-males are BTFO

Where the fuck in the movie do they imply this shit? I've been in more threads about this movie than I can count and this is the first time I've seen anybody make that claim

It signifies that Perry isn't a heartless prick and beyond even that, that he not only trusts Lois's instincts as a reporter, he trusts her as a person and places a higher value on her personal crisis, regardless of what it is, than another damn news story.

My question is, why risks the life of lois lane by bringing her closer to the fact between two super beings ? You can see lightnings and shit. My answer is there, because there is no other logical reason appart to put lois in the arms of superman and making batman more trouble about the nature of superman. It doesn't makes sense, it justify itself by being just there. The fact that Perry is aware of who superman is is worse to explain why he would put his budget and is employee simply because he know it was urgent. If he couldn't afford to risk his budget he certainly couldn't afford the life of Lois too. this simply doesn't make sense

It isn't explicitly said but you see how perry don't want to publish any pictures of superman after his death. Plus he always knew superman is clark, the same way aunt may knew spiderman is pete. He's a reporter, he's supposed to feel this thing

Anyone got the multipart gestalt with Excalibur, 2001:space odyssey and Christian artworks symbolism.

meant: closer to the fight
and also: making batman more troubling about

No, that's just the only reason you're willing to see because it fits your bias.

You could apply that same reasoning to literally everything that's ever been committed to page or screen, but you won't and we both know why.

Pajeet shilling in full force again

One of the big themes of MoS is that the traditional family model is the cornerstone of a healthy person and society. That's why the sexless Krypton was such a fuck up, that's why Jor-El and his wife fought to bring Superman to life the old way, that's why the Kents taught Superman well.

Basically man need woman, woman need man, man and woman produce healthy children, healthy children produce a good society. If any of this are missing everything is fucked.

In MoS Superman and Lois relationship and connection is what saves them during most of the threats that befall them. If Superman had been alone he'd be fucked. If Lois had been alone she'd be doublefucked. But since they're together they're able to help each other survive everything.

This happens again during BvS. The beginning of the movie wants to make you think that their relationship is a liability. That Superman can't be a hero and stay with Lois at the same time. But in the end they do doubletake on this and tells us "No, the only reason he's a Superman is because he has Lois, his woman, giving him strength. They support each other".

That's why Superman is always there to save her, and that's why Lois will always be there to help Superman even if she knows she can't do much as a mere human.

It's pretty retrograde idea, but it's something that both movie pushes for.

Heck, why do you think Wonder Woman showed up and only interacted with Batman? Because Batman needed a woman that can give his life some hope and strength, just as Wonder Woman need a man that can give her some hope and strength. That's why they, two cynical souls, are going to team-up to do their mission. Because together one can support each other.

Lex, by the way, is fucked because he's always discarding the women in his life as mere things to be used, abused and thrown away. He'll never be a healthy and strong person.

Come on, lois had no reason to be here, and perry shouldn't use the limited ressources of his business to help is favorite employee if he can't even use it for his job

>lois had no reason to be here

Her man just told her that he was in a tight spot and would probably have to kill Batman. Her man needed her. It doesn't matter if she can take Batman down or not. She'd be there, even if to hold his lifeless corpse or just witness the horror of seeing him being forced to kill another man. She'll always be there for him.

But it isn't logical at all in this scene, that's the problem. It's makes sense to put an emphasis on relations between man and women, but their roles can't just be there, a character can't be put in one place without reason to justify a theme. For a story so "complex" it's kinda disapointing

But her boss has to know the danger for his precarious company and for her life when thinking if she had to go there.

What's so illogical about a woman facing danger without any care because she's more worried about her lover getting hurt or doing something stupid?

Did your mother never do something like that for your father?

You know she's a reporter who's constantly throwing herself at danger to cover some story, right? That's just par for the course for her, right? Only this time it was for some personal matter.

these are the most autistic threads on Sup Forums

Any DCbros want to take a crack at this one?

Throughout the movie, Lex talks about his dad, often in glowing tones, but when he's talking to Clark on the helipad, he says, "Every little boy's special lady is is mother."

Never once does he ever mention his own mother, not even in passing. Is that a clue of some kind, maybe hinting at his psychology, or do you think any of these things might explain it:

1) His dad killed her(fists, abominations, etc.) and he finds it painful to think about.

2) He never knew her.

3) He doesn't have one and is actually some sort of clone?

these are the best threads on Sup Forums

it's an interesting question, it's weird because BvS is more focused on mothers, whereas MoS is focused on fathers. it might be a deliberate omission to indicate the lack of motherly influence on lex, which contributes to a fucked up psychology.

If he didn't know at the start, he for damn sure knew in that moment. You can see it in his face when he's looking at Clark's obit at the end.

Well, during the movie he talked to the senators how his father was smart because he knew how to use his son, Lex, to look like a good dad with the investors and the media. For example by giving the company Lex's name instead of using his or taking Lex, even as a kid, to all the social gatherings relating to the company.

And what Lex does throughout the movie? He presents himself like this great humanitarian who's worried about his employees, consumers and his general fellowmen, but in truth his a hideous person that cares about no one. He's basically repeating his father's sins.

If we go by how he treated his cute Asian assistant, the black African witness and the senator lady, which was using and discarding without a care in the world, then that might perhaps clue us in how his father must have treated his mother.

For example, he said that to Superman, but he wrote on the pictures of Superman's mom those weird-ass shit calling her a witch.

It seems entirely possible that Lex Sr. was abusive towards/responsible for the death of Ms. Luthor. Maybe we'll get some more about this in JL, because Lex is likely to show up in it.

Yeah, I've been thinking about that a lot, in association with the fact that Lex kills three out of the four women he's associated with in any way. Well, five if you include Diana.

I knew you'd bring that up. Yes she did some interview with a warlord in africa. But i think it's different to prepare an interview with a criminal than to run in a clearly instable zone where there is ongoing action going on and that doesn't justify the fact they supposedly don't have the budget for the chopper. If the though of lois justify her actions, the dialogue between her and perry doesn't justify the use of the chopper. Like the pilots won't have a pay ? Or the finance of the daily planet will be dig a little more ? why care about it in the first place if he doesn't care to use it for personnal reasons

Here's a question

To what extent is the negative view of BvS and MoS explained by the films promotion of Randian, Christian, anti-media, and traditional family values?

Good points. Wasn't there at least one of Luthor's backstories in the comics where his abusive dad killed his mom and Luthor later killed him? I seem to vaguely remember that.

>But i think it's different to prepare an interview with a criminal than to run in a clearly instable zone where there is ongoing action going on and that doesn't justify the fact they supposedly don't have the budget for the chopper.

The alien scout-ship being turned on and attracting all the attention was in Metropolis. The fight between Superman and Batman that was about to happen was in Gotham.

People could see Batman turning on his light, which hadn't happened in a while, but that's not so odd since no one cares about what happens in Gotham.

So Perry either didn't knew Clark was Superman and just helped Lois because he cares for her and can see this is deeply important for her... or he knew Clark was Superman and that could mean Clark decided to go after Batman for real, which is a very stupid thing to do, and hoped that Lois, as his girlfriend, could put some sense into him. Specially when shit was about to go down in Metropolis.

You can choose.

High.

The thing that makes no sense about Sup Forumstards is you agree with everything she's saying.

If her avatar was a white man man, the review was fresh and there was an exclamation point at the end it would be LOL / OUR GUY/

Either Lex Sr. abused/killed Lex's mother, or Lex's mother abandoned the family/son. Or Lex's mother ignored all the abuses her son was going through.

Either way Lex has issues with women.

I'm not a Sup Forumstard, but I don't think the film is cold, cruel, incoherent, raging, misogynistic, or fascistic.

>or he knew Clark was Superman and that could mean Clark decided to go after Batman for real

That's a damned good observation, especially considering he already knew Clark took issue with how Bruce appeared to be handling things in Gotham. It hints that he did already know or at least suspect Clark's secret.

Nah, man. There's nothing misogynistic about BvS. Just because the movie advocates about the traditional family model that doesn't mean the movie is misogynistic since the movie tries to elevate the female characters in the movie. Either as mothers, lovers or just as a person.

I know about that obvious stuff, of course, but I do wonder how many critics had a base dislike of the film for its themes, even if they weren't aware of it.

It's sexist

Critics hate Snyder for his "backwards ideas" since 300, when they complained about the movie depiction of the Persians or about homophobic the Spartans seemed.

I remember how there was several articles pointing out at the time how the actual Spartans used to fuck each other and place flowers in their hairs, which is something the movie failed to depicted. Of course they failed to take into account that the movie was based on a comic book and not the actual history.

Then Suckerpunch and Watchmen, which pretty much made him the worse person ever. During Suckerpunch release they even tried to imply that he fucked most of the girls starring the movie and how that was abuse.

I wonder how the critics will handle the fact that the american spy deflower Wonder Woman in her solo movie. Or how she goes apeshit after he dies because he was the love of her life.

Personnaly i hated the christian imagery because i found them too obvious.

>or about homophobic the Spartans seemed

Do you mean homoerotic?

OC

well done, added to the folder,

I think tons of the SJW crowd pretty much decided to preemptively skewer any film from Snyder post- 300 and Suckerpunch. The hilarious part is they're so knee-jerk reactionary that they're blind to the actual messages of his films.

Also, besides saying that "The Fountainhead" is his favorite book, has there ever been a single other shred of evidence suggesting he really does espouse Objectivism?

I mean, my favorite book is "The Brothers Karamazov," that doesn't make me a Tsarist Slavophile.

ahahahahahahahah

48 replies
12 posters

>Logan has DC cucks on suicide watch

Go on, tell me about your Oscar for best make up

lol

>muh allegories and hamfisted symbolism

>has there ever been a single other shred of evidence suggesting he really does espouse Objectivism?

I think MoS has a very heavy Objectivist influence. I think the film is an (attempted) reconciliation between Christianity and Objectivism, by highlighting the fact that the Jesus character is left to freely choose of his volition to become a heroic figure when he's an adult, instead of it being hammered into him as a kid that he has an obligation to sacrifice himself to save people.

I like Logan, it's a good movie. A little overrated, but overall one of the best recent entries in the genre.

A lot of them weren't all that obvious, or even all that Christian for that matter.

Did you pick up on Bruce as Paul, the Apostle?

Nice one.

I think he's a clone. Just a feeling I have. Nothing to back it up

Goddamn. I know it's a fake but it looks so good.
I will be forever frustrated they clearly will not go there.

henry cavill tweeted out a closeup of the superman suit in black and silver during the JL filming, so i think we will get the black and silver suit

See, that's the weird part to me. That isn't strictly an Objectivist stance. Making heroism an obligation cheapens the act of being a hero in the first place. It's entitlement of the most disgusting kind to suggest that one is more obligated to act heroically than another based solely off their relative capacity. By that logic, we should all defer to the tallest man alive to rescue all our kittens.

It's one of the reasons I've always kind of rankled at Uncle Ben's "With great power comes great responsibility." Sure, I get that you can interpret that in a lot of ways, but when it's used to suggest that Spidey's more obligated to help than the next guy, it pisses me off. That's not even heroism at that point; it's just obligation.

It's solidly executed story with characters that were established in the actual movie which is a nonexistent shit in capeshit. Compared to logan, where we are supposed to empathize
with what the characters are going through even though we are not shown their inner workings on screen and timeline is a fuckfest BvS is very good.

That being said a lot of scenes are boring even if necessary and I was really disappointed that they have backed out of collateral damage in the last fight, that shit would have gone hand in hand with the overall themes of sublime and fragility of humans in the overall scale of things.

The movie is hated solely because it wasn't a quipfest, but luckily the league movie will be full on avengers but with subdued color palette so from now on I can happily ignore this franchise as well.

I think that was a silly tease.
Like Malone as Robin/Batgirl or the dead Robin costume.

It's hated for having a shitty unfocused story. Everyone who is arguing for BvS being good has a different explanation about its "themes" and "inner workings" of character development because they are just filling the gaps they came up with.

It's funny how I read all these lofty explanations on the "depth" of the story yet none of what they said comes into play in the final act of the movie where they fight doomsday. It's like no one here has an ounce of understanding story structure.

It had cool fight scenes I'll give it that though.

That image is so fucking gay lmao

Which scenes didn't play out? That batman/superman ones established their views in the particular movie, the espionage i dunno there was something about something, it was convoluted but it actually made b fight s, lex's scenes also established him even if some people didn't like what was established all that much, he through convuluted means, achieved what he set out to do.

There was nothing wrong with the story structure, everything was at place for this particular story and this particular story was perhaps needlessly convoluted, but now that i think about it it kind of makes sense: there had to be a whole series of events to make batman truly paranoid about superman. The scenes that truly sucked were related to the establishment of the justice league but thankfully there were few.

No, what are the parallels between paul and bruce ?

All of them, people in this thread and the one before go on and on about the depth, symbolism, etc, of the movie yet all it culminates to is a four way fight with a monster and the only thing that carried over from what happened before this point is that batman and superman are now buddies.

The climax is supposed to be where you prove or show the theme of the story yet none of that is present in the final battle because there is no theme in this story.

It's supposed to culminate in justice league part 2, you retard

They presented in the final story with Superman's sacrifice and, specially, during Superman's funeral.

Really hope Justice league atleast gets fucking average ratings. I'll love it but I know it's gonna get shit as usual. I wish DC had a better start with their movies there's A LOT better stories to translate to film from DC than marvel. Marvels comic events are boring as fuck

Sure it does. Clark chooses to go out a hero, risking himself before he'll let anyone else do it, and he does it facing the literal embodiment of the guilt that's been dogging his every act for two years.

Bruce first comes to see him as a man and finally for what he truly is - a hero. It inspires hope in him, he realizes how far he's fallen, and starts talking steps to set things right, opening up the door to a legacy he never even imagined might be possible.

You'll call this headcanon, I'm quite sure.

Just nightowl my shit up.

literally this

Can someone answer me this please ? I'm struggling with it

The climax is when Superman (God) died. For our sins (Doomsday). It's pottery. Bravo Snyder

I'm serious

Like Paul to the Christians, Bruce is one of Clark's biggest persecutors. He has his "Road to Damascus" moment when the Flash shows up in what is, for all intents and purposes, vision. That vision, accompanied by a blinding light, metaphorically blinds him, narrowing down his obsession with vengeance and ramping up his fears of what sort of potential threat Superman could become. The "scales" fall from his eyes during their confrontation and the final fight.

Then off he goes, the most zealous convert, to spread the good news.

>Then off he goes, the most zealous convert, to spread the good news.

In literal terms, he forms the Justice League, something (presumably) based on the example of the sacrifice of Superman. So he converts people to being like Superman, noble heroes, by spreading the "good news" of his sacrifice.

It's a very fitting example.

I've got a good read that goes in great details while staying objective (not praising the christian imagery, rather explaining them)
"True to this form, Superman and Doomsday literally impale one another, both dying. Tellingly, as Lois weeps (analogous to many images of Jesus' mother weeping over his body), the camera pans out to reveal wooden rubble in the shape of Crosses.

It's also no coincidence that this film was released on Good Friday, when Christians celebrate the death of Jesus!"

moviepilot.com/posts/3838863

I'm actually kind of hoping that Lex sort of takes on Glorious Godfrey's role from that old "Legends" miniseries, simultaneously badmouthing the League while playing something akin to a false prophet for Darkseid.

Can someone post the shot of Clark's death with Lois, Bruce, and Diana surrounding him? I need a new DC wallpaper.

...

Thanks for that. I love how this can be approached from so many different angles.

I pray, that justice leauge gets boats of cash. Cause you know that if dc gets a reboot they will cow toe to the marvel method of quips, forgettable villians,

why snyder is so hated here? he directed watchmen, man of steel and the dawn of justice. this is like the holy trinity of capekino.

Batfag and Superfag are faggots lol

That sounds like your opinion

Why wouldn't it work? It's k-kino r-right? :^)

people hate what they don't understand

Don't forget Dawn of the Dead and 300. It's easy to love him.

unf

my gal lookin thiccc

I understand how the numbers compare to Marvel's

Those movies are old

Snyder could film himself getting a loaf of bread and it would be a visual masterpiece.

Answering the question of this thread...

Perry White knew Clark was Superman, that's why he got a chopper for Lois.

Why?

You have to remember that in MoS, Lois wrote an article about an alien who saved her life, Perry read it but decided not to published it (the world is not prepared).

Then, the alien appeared and a lot of shit happened.

Then, a man who look just like the alien, got a job in the Daily planet thanks to Lois.

Then, Lois is in danger (again) in Africa and is saved (again) by the alien. BTW, everybody knew that Lois was dating Clark.

Then, Clark has an obsession with Batman (as a journalist).

Then, when the capitol incident happened, the alien and the journalist dissapeared AT THE SAME TIME.

Perry: Still no Kent (Superman)?
Lois: No

Then, something strange happened in the alienship, just by the time the Batman signal appeared again in Gotham.

Then, Lois ask for a chopper in order to get to Gotham. "It's not for a story"

Perry's mind: "OK, this girl, who's dating clark/superman, wants to go to Gotham, maybe there's Superman, he hates the Bat and there's his signal, she really need to be there, something is happening, it's more important than a simple story"

Jenny, get her a chopper to Gotham.

Sorry for my english...

Which PS2 game is that?

>facts are now considered opinions
this man's a nihilist there's nothing to be afraid of.

I thought the implication was that clark's life was in danger?

God these films are SO FUCKING GOOD

That sounds an awful lot like your opinion

I think we're all missing the real reason why we watch these movies

Appreciation for masculinity?

I really hate how they are forcing the tone and themes of the dark knight into the rest of the new DV universe

I mean they flat out said they weren't using the flash from the CW because he wasn't "dark enough" for this universe. Now you can rightly criticize the CW flash all day for the flaws it has but not bringing it into justice league when it was one of their very few successes because it isn't "dark enough" is really fucking stupid