Watcher the director's cut of BvS for the third time last night. Why the fuck do people think this is a bad movie?

Watcher the director's cut of BvS for the third time last night. Why the fuck do people think this is a bad movie?

Because they saw the theatrical release.

because masterpieces are only apreciated by smart people, which are few in numbers. Don't try to force it on them let them watch marvel.

BECAUSE IT JUST IS

t. Marvelet

I genuinely don't understand why it was so hated. I like Marvel movies too but after the first avengers movie they got so boring. Origin stories in Marvel have all been nearly the exact same thing with different powers. The Civil War movie had such horrible cgi I could notice it while watching and I don't even pay attention to that crap.

It's not a bad movie infact it's a pretty good movie, but anybody saying it's a masterpiece is just memeing.

For all its great parts the 3rd act was pretty dumb and Doomsday's design was borderline embarrassing

Because even with the ultimate cut its extremely bloated. Horrendously edited. Poorly cast. Baldly acted. Lazily written. Painstakingly dull. Unbelievably boring. Unnecessarily broody. Terribly paced. And that is just the first hour, there is still two more hours left.

The shear number of pointless subplots are simply staggering. Plot holes? You mean mystery elements. The fact that someone read the script and decided it was worthy of spending over 250 million to bring it to the screen boggles my mind. This is what happens when you take five different scripts that have no sense of correlation. Did editing and streamlining the story not cross anyone's mind.

The production is big on making terrible decisions and this is clearly evident in the casting. Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luther is laughably bad giving his rejected Social Network performance as twitching Mark Zuckerberg. Gal Gadot is by far the biggest miscast. Most people complained when she cast due to her poor physicality and zero resemblance to Wonder Woman. Those points are fine, but the biggest drawback is that she's frankly not a good actress. She has the emotional range of a potato. Her big reveal in costume is complete with a 'cool' guitar rift like it's some Robert Rodriguez film. During action scene she is replaced by her cgi double which obviously looks bigger and muscular in comparison to Gal Gadot's actual physical appearance. I just couldn't help by have a good chuckle at that.

Shitty acting- don't care about any of the characters

>shitty music- Hans Zimmer and "Junkie XL" are embarrassments.

The biggest misstep in the entire production is the appointment of Zack Snyder as director. It seem like he just walked of the set of making Watchmen and nobody seemed to tell him that he wasn't contracted to direct a lackluster patchwork Watchmen sequel. An opening scene that features Jeffrey Dean Morgan being killed with a slo-mo shot of a shell casing exiting a gun; the government against masked vigilantes, a powerful god-like superhuman figure; a man that dresses in a black costume and fights crime with gadgets coming out of retirement; the death of a famous hero; not one, but three funeral scenes. How is this not recycling elements of Watchmen.

Zack Snyder has the inability to direct scenes where no action takes place and he can't mask it with stylish cgi backgrounds like he did in 300. Simply put when there's no explosions it dull and boring. Simple character interactions prove to be a struggle for a director who still gets his philosophy for his movies from teenage web forums. Religious references that completely lack subtlety and elegance doesn't make you movie 'intellectual'.

Other grievances include: a scene and a plot point that revolves around urine; Lex Luther's so called evil plan; Knightmare; a hyped fight that just ends up being a normal fistfight; and actual teaser trailers for future movies in the franchise.

>cgi
>cinematography
pick one. at least the dark knight had practical sets and lighting, all shillynder had to do was point a camera at a green screen and let the animators fill it up. digusting

Because there are a lot of really stupid people in the world.

>For all its great parts the 3rd act was pretty dumb and Doomsday's design was borderline embarrassing

Doomday design was lacking, but I love how full on apocalyptic the third act is and Superman's death scene is, I dare say, pure kino.

*blocks your path*

Because the (((thought leaders))) at Disney told them it is.

This guy would have looked good in The Hobbit tbqh

I like how he was continually growing and evolving as he absorbed more energy.

Because there is no good in-universe reason for anything that happens in it, and its clear all the events are simply ticking off a checklist of what WB wanted the movie to be.

You're a blind, obtuse moron if you really think that.

>dude pay more money
>dude ignore the theatrical
>dude the jews sabotaged it
>dude its totally better

shills need to gtfo and stay out

Your pic is the perfect example why is it a bad movie.
Empty pretty pictures with on the nose biblical symbolism, frame by frame copypasting the visuals from the comis and callbacks which only make those scenes ironically even more simplistic and finite because there is only one universal singular answer to every scene.
Once you "get" it there is nothing else to it.

Also lmao at those laughable studio shoved e-mail character setups and the marvel like "She with you? thought she was with you?!?!" quippy third act

For a capeshit a good portion of the movie was practical

It needs quips and memes to be a good movie user.

>more false flagging shills
MODS DO FUCKING SOMETHING

Not enough poop jokes or china pandering

Because they are plebs used to the childlike simplicity and escapism of marvel flicks

>lmao at those . . .
And you were doing so well, millennial.

It was well worded, even if you don't have the slightest clue what the fuck you're talking about. Did you even realize that these movies are about the dangers of sacred cows?

No, I'm going to go ahead and guess you didn't.

Because they aren't neckbeard mongoloids who watch cartoons for children

>le fun is bad

never change Sup Forums

Because it's extremely poorly written and acted aside from Affleck. Snyder makes pretty movies but they're always just style over substance and full of empty symbolism. When I found out he started as a music video director his whole career made a lot more sense to me since he seems to have never gotten better than that and it's what most of his really films feel like.

>dude if you don't like bad cartoons you're a millennial Lmao
What planet are you living on?

>childlike simplicity
Is this ironic? You're talking about Zack Snyder movies, the man is so functionally illiterate he literally can't string together a coherent sentence. Please don't marvel boogeyman here, all capeshit is bad, but at least marvel drones don't pretend those movies are anything but simple schlock. Dc fans are like 13 year old cultmembers

Your lack of counter argument, and thus, concession, has been noted.

paid schills to get people to buy it
just an assclown

>

The fact that you can't appear to type a post with proper grammar was my first clue, junior.

>empty symbolism.
what does that even mean. It's not a symbol if it doesn't mean anything. That's literally the definition.

Tell me about the artistic importance of the e-mail character setups please I beg you, because it is the most lazy pathetic exposition delivery system I've seen in a film in recent times

They tell you what Lex was planning, They're the only thing that do.

And no, I'm not going to tell you. If you haven't figured it out by now, I certainly have neither the time nor the inclination to explain it to yet one more dumbass with a vastly over-inflated estimation of their own intelligence.

Bye.

I don't mind what they are telling me but HOW they are telling me.

Fucking multiple frame emails, the lowest exposition device there is..
It could've been just text on screen telling you about the characters and it would have the same effect. It is completely lazy and with no artistic integrity whatsoever.
That whole scene is just one big studio intervention where they just shoved that right into the story with no thought of it all.

What are they telling us, then? Don't be afraid.

he can afford a aircraft

Reminder that this is the only review that actually understood the film and the one review that haters will never be able to debunk.

Paid shills are using bots to search for hot words online and instantly flock to discussion to spread their narrative. The methods are out there for anyone to use and marketing teams are abusing it to maximum for smear campaigns.

Nice hugbox there DCuck

That's not what a hugbox is, you illiterate Marvel poo. Good job ousting yourself though. It didn't take long before the buzzwords started flying from the paid Marvel shills.

He made people hope, and for that ((((they)))) fear him.

It's literally capekino.

>w-why didn't you save me

this. very solid good looking movie, but the lex luthor seemed so unimportant

Lex Luthor was extremely important, especially for Bruce. Shame you missed out on vital characterization.

Its the same. The only opinion that matters is the one you share any dissenting opinion not allowed.

You fuckers are pathetic. Its pity i feel

That's not what a hugbox is, you dumb Paki. The Armond review is laid plain for you to debunk. But you won't do that. First because you lack the vocabulary to do so, second because you lack the intelligence to do so, third because your shilling script says it's faster to just post Evans gifs.

>Its pity i feel

Yes, exuding from all of us for you.

What was Lex's motivation for hating Superman now again?

Batman v Superman has some good ideas, but it's an objectively poorly constructed film with too many useless subplots and pointless tie ins to later films because GOTTA HAVE THAT AVENGERS MONEY.

Every attempt at drawing emotion out of the audience falls flat (pic related) and its own themes are hollow and meaningless. Batman realizes how far he's fallen once Superman is begging for his mother's life in front of him, and then murders two dozen people in the next action scene. Lex Luthor's posturing and monologuing about the nature of God and Power is pointless because his ultimate plan is "build monster to kill Superman".

So many times I've had to explain this to inbred Marvel fans

Lex's childhood was traumatic where he grew up with an abusive father. The times he prayed for an all-powerful savior to help him, no one came. He alone had to suffer his childhood with no one to help him.

Fast forward to adulthood and there is this supposed all-powerful all-good man roaming the skies, being held as a coming saint to mankind. Lex despises this as there was no such savior for him. This is why Lex challenges Superman, to finally debunk the myth of Superman so he can feel his traumatic childhood validated.

Next time you want to make an argument, don't use the most recycled Marlel arguments debunked a million times already. You already reveal your hand and bias.

>to finally debunk the myth of Superman
how would he debunk that

So I take it you haven't even seen the movie then? Because this retardation is quite something.

He wants to debunk the myth of Superman (since he doesn't believe the myth of Superman) by creating the ultimate dilemma for Superman, where has to prove himself either all-powerful (by killing Bruce and saving his mother) or all-good (by allowing himself to be killed by Bruce).

But he cannot be both according to Lex. And this is the dilemma presented to Superman. In very clear way. That literally nobody who watches the movie can miss.

Luthor.
Explain to me why he knows everything about Superman.
Aside from the actual Batman v Superman fight, that is all I have issue with.

>where has to prove himself either all-powerful (by killing Bruce and saving his mother) or all-good (by allowing himself to be killed by Bruce).
Or they team up and stop Luthor, a possibility a suuuper genius like him really should have considered.

Did he really have to make Superman's nemesis a Jew?

You mean like he was trying to do before Batman attacked him?

Bruce was extremely broken at that point, and Luthor was constantly reinforcing his prejudices to Superman by manipulating events against Superman.

Do you believe a scene spent on Luthor finding out about Superman's identity would add to the film in a substantial manner? Or do you think it's better to assume that a billionaire with pathological interest in Superman who also lives in Metropolis already figured it out?

Because:

1) He's wired into the military that we already saw trying to track Superman at the end of MoS.

2) He has a ridiculous amount of resources at his disposal.

3) He's both the head of a monstrous tech conglomerate as well as being a genius in his own right.

4) (And most importantly) He's the tech mogul that knows our secrets. If you can buy Donner's con-man, subway-living Lex laying hands on a couple of ICBMs, I don't see how you have a problem with an info wiz putting two and two together.

Because television-bred comic-book fanboys are one of the most autistic fanbases that through absolute shitfits when their favorite IPs get turned into movies that don't adhere absolutely to the prebuilt expectations. It's literally a case of "This is different. I don't like this."

There's a reason that Disney test-audiences the fuck out of their movies and hires spineless hack tv directors with no vision. They know that if they get their movies to adhere to the fanboys' expectations they can make a couple billion dollars a year at minimal effort.

I thought he got his info from Darkside.

>let's spend several scenes giving Superman motivation to kill Batman, and then just brush them away, because Lex just says, "Kill Batman or I will kill your mom."
>and then Superman encounters Batman and still doesn't want to kill him

What a waste of time this fucking movie was.

Are you a fucking idiot? Superman never once wanted to kill Batman.

Damn, son. You're dumb.

>give several scenes of the main characters literally explaining their motivations clearly to the audience through other characters (Lois, Alfred, the Senator)
>mongoloids still don't understand the characters' motivations

Except Marvel movies aren't made for fanboys, they're marketed to general audiences. Lore etc is all watered down to be easily digestible in 2 hours at a time. Their goal is to make movies anyone can enjoy even if they've never read a Marvel comic in their life. In the first place there aren't that many hardcore comic fanboys left, the cape comic industry has been continually shrinking for decades. Most people who like superheroes these days like them from TV shows and movies, not comics, and they have only a casual, nostalgic interest in them. Marvel movies are made for those kinds of people, not the obsessive fans.

>27%
>sub 1 billion
>film with batman and superman

hows that for an argument

>Marvel bot starts spouting box-office numbers again when we were talking about the actual film
This is getting tiresome and sad.

>not the obsessive fans
user they did the exact same thing with the Star Wars TFA. Sure, they want general audiences, but they know that fanboys/girls are especially profitable to market to, as they're the kind of people who'll obsessively see the movies again and again in the theaters and then buy the collector's edition and action figures. To offend that kind of extremely devoted but volatile fanbase isn't in Disney's vocabulary. They test these movies to adhere to the comics, hitting every already-predetermined plotpoint, catchphrase, speech and fights. Everything is tailor-made (aside from the actual filmmaking) to be as close to the comics as possible to keep from estranging their most profitable demographic.

the third act is almost entirely CGI...

Only way to capture the magnitude of the event. Practical effects would be impractical in that situation

How about useless, inappropriate or shallow user?

Look at the Le Mort imagery, outside of the most tenuous line that doomsday is Mordred to Superman's Arthur there is nothing whatsoever which actually links the symbols to any meaning outside of being simple 'look! Look! Imagery guys!'

Why are you making shit up to explain the flaws of this film? In no way was the e-mail thing associated with Lex´s plan - this is never referred to as such in the film. Furthermore, the entire sequence is made all the more stupid by Bruce e-mailing Diana about the meta-humans and then making the stupid "I thought she was with you" remark to Superman when she shows up.

Can someone explain the Lois subplot, what was her purpose in the film? It amount to her finding out that Lex is the one who framed superman, but in the end it never comes into fruition. He is sent to jail over Doomsday thing, so is crime in the framing is overshadowed.

The biggest blight in the entire subplot is the fact that Lex fucking Luthor is retarded enough to to use special metal for the bullets that killed the terrorists (and poor shoehorned Jimmy Olson). It makes logical sense other than to start the narrative for Lois to investigate. Did he want to get caught, his whole reason for shooting and burning the bodies was to blame superman for it...

How does Mark Zuckerberg know everything about (you)?

Don't disagree with your point but dimishes the statement that for a superhero film this particular one had a good portion of practical effects.

Script is just bad, camera moves too much even in scenes when it's absolutely pointless, color correction is overused.

It's a passion play wrapped in an Elizabethan revenge tragedy drawing on arthurian mythology by way of Boorman's 'Excalibur' to examine themes of power and truth in post 9/11 America. It used the modern American mythology of super-heroes to hold up a mirror to American society and everyone recoiled in horror and denounced it to save their precious illusion of the United States.

>Why the fuck do people think this is a bad movie?

cause it's a bad movie