Why did this scene confuse so many audiences and critics? I understood it pretty well

Why did this scene confuse so many audiences and critics? I understood it pretty well...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3Ixd0Ygj1vQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkseid
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Because it has no real relevance to the rest of the film, just the sequel.

It's a manifestation of Batman's distrust of Superman as reflected in his subconscious

also Spider-man had no point or relevance in Civil War, just the sequel, and everybody seemed to love that so I don't think that's it.

when youre used to seeing by the numbers shlopp drop from marlel, you lose the ability to appreciate avant garde kino

>I understood it pretty well.
A U T I S M
U
T
I
S
M

Holy shit my theater got visibly angry at this scene because they didn't understand what's going on.

DC really shouldn't have overestimated the intelligence of audiences (and critics) who have been braindrained by Marvel

whats the big symbol on the ground supposed to mean? what are the big fire things coming out of the ground? why was batman shooting guns and killing people?

>people think it was a "dream" and don't realize he was literally seeing into the actual future stemming from the current direction of events, thanks to the Flash

I've only even seen the fucking movie once and I understood it, why is this hard?

what's autistic? It's a sequence that shows Darkseid-ruled earth and a rogue superman. It's left ambiguous if it was just a dream or a vision of the future

also why would superman become evil? thought he was a good guy?

what part of KNIGHTMARE don't you understand?

>whats the big symbol on the ground supposed to mean?

It's the symbol of Darkseid (pic related)

>what are the big fire things coming out of the ground?
Fire pits, that are seen on every world Darkseid conquers

>why was batman shooting guns and killing people?

The original version of Batman used guns and killed people. With the comic code authority, they scaled the character back to make him more child-friendly. Snyder chose to use the older interpretation of the character

>Why did this scene confuse so many audiences and critics?

a gun-touting, murdering batman in a post-TDKR world will confuse anybody

jesus, you jumped to the "b-b-but MARVEL!!!!"argument pretty quick

that's the thing, as a manifestation of his distrust, it doesn't even work. It doesn't make sense. What are the bug things? Why is there a big omega sign? Why is everything fucked up and a spaceship thing looming over them? It makes no sense in the context of the rest of the film. It's just a really shitty shoehorn setup for the sequel.

Batman's distrust for superman had already been clearly established. There's no context for the stuff that happens in this scene and for flash showing up. The payoff won't happen into the next movie, so as far as this movie is concerned, it's a confusing scene that just "looks cool" but doesn't really fit.

For spiderman, there was a least some context: ironman needed back up. That's it. They don't try to make it anymore than that. He wasn't a setup for his movie. It wasn't like tony told him "you gotta go home kid, you have to get ready for Homecoming ™ - coming to theaters July 7, 2017"

Lois was killed by unknown means in this possible future timeline, causing Superman to become rogue as his last connection to humanity was severed

It's a common trope for evil versions of Superman, the Superman cartoon in the 90s did it too

Holy shit you DCucks can't go one post without bitching about Marvel. Just shows how insecure you are.

How is it confusing? Batman has used guns and killed people before in the comics.

I didnt really get it. like.... why it happened or how, or wtf was going on, but I thought it was pretty cool. I wish there was more of this. More batman seeing a wasteland and superman as a leader, less lex luthor making them fight. Batmans fears, even if they manifest through magic/science as motivator and not lex luthor as a manipulator works much better. They could have used scarecrow, he got away at the end of TDKR, so that's a loose end to tie up, but his fear gas on batman would have been good. I get they're using lex from Smallville which is cool for those people, but they used him too much I think.

>What are the bug things?
Parademons, minions of darkseid

>Why is there a big omega sign?
symbol of darkseid

>Why is everything fucked up and a spaceship thing looming over them?

because obviously darkseid invaded earth

I mean, I saw this movie once and understood it fine. You seem confused by things due to a lack of knowledge of comics.

Perhaps this film was too rich in DC universe lore for you to understand? I guess marvel does appeal to non-fans better by keeping things simpler...

>For spiderman, there was a least some context: ironman needed back up. That's it. They don't try to make it anymore than that. He wasn't a setup for his movie. It wasn't like tony told him "you gotta go home kid, you have to get ready for Homecoming ™

Lol, that's literally what it was. They shoved him in there at the last minute when Sony gave the rights to Disney. He was JUST in the film to hype up spider-man homecoming and played no relevant contribution to the plot. Hell he appears in the airport fight scene then immediately disappears after, never to be seen again. It was shoehorned and poorly shot.

>Mravle has to consistently fuck with their narrative to appeal to the largest audience aka lowest common denominator

Helpful hint most people don't give a fuck about the comics since they've never read them. BvS is the first time most will see batman using and condoning deadly force

>Helpful hint most people don't give a fuck about the comics since they've never read them. BvS is the first time most will see batman using and condoning deadly force

So the flaw with a gun-toting batman is not the character of batman, but because mainstream audiences don't understand the character?

Plus Batman killed people in the iconic 80s version.

Batman has killed people in every mainstream depiction he's in besides TAS, even the campy 60s version.

Don't give me that Batman Begins nonsense where he didn't technically kill Ra's. Beating up a guy and leaving him on a train you're running into a building is killing him.

>Plus Batman killed people in the iconic 80s version.

Again, most people don't give a fuck since they've never seen it. Seeing batman using/condoning lethal force is new to them.

Are you intentionally being thick to further discussion or is your stupidity legit?

breh, no need to even explain that shit to me. I have cursory knowledge of it and knew what was going on, but imagine the 90%+ of movie going audience that know nothing of batman beyond the previous movies. The movie needs to explain all those things to them within the movie, but they didn't. The sequel will.

>You seem confused by things due to a lack of knowledge of comics.
>Perhaps this film was too rich in DC universe lore for you to understand?
if you don't think this is a problem, you should stick to making threads in Sup Forums. Movies shouldn't demand required reading for you to understand them.

> I guess marvel does appeal to non-fans better by keeping things simpler...
>B-B-BUT SPIDERMAN
jesus, how butthurt are DCucks that thy have to resort to flame wars? How do you even know that I like marvel? Try being less defensive and resorting to attacking marvel, it does nothing but emphasize how much of a butthurt DCuck you are.

and if you haven't even noticed yet, I'm not even shitting on the movie, just answering OPs simple question objectively.

>Batman has killed people in every mainstream depiction he's in besides TAS, even the campy 60s version.

Except he's not lauded for being a murderer in "kill or be killed" settings. BvS hamfists a death-incarnate batman

In this movie we see a harsher batman, disenfranchised with what we know as batmans 'traditional justice'
This is perhaps down to the Joker killing Robin or something (especially if you read into that script leak where bats confronts the Joker in the burning rumble of Wayne manor where he punches out his teeth and Joker says something about being him not being "beautiful or sonething)
Various characters obviously capitalise on this, especially Luthor in his manipulation of Bats into fighting Supes, and obviously the classic Batman distrust and paranoia.

The flash vision/whatever is essentially the full manifestation of this, a ruthless Bats fighting the new regime with guns blazing etc.

What i think is In the end Bats is inspired by Supes and his sacrifice and hopefully we'll see Batman return to what everyone knows and loves.
You kinda see elements of that in Suicide Squad.

The whole line between Bruce and Alfred about how many good guys stayed that way, how many turned bad?
That's totally Bruce talking about himself.

Still a overwhelmingly disappointing movie.

underrated

>ask questions
>"breh, no need to even explain that shit to me"

Holy shit

And I disagree that all movies should be saturated to the point that everyone can easily understand them

It's relevant that most of the "problems" of BvS were also present in Civil War and people didn't criticize them there.

>"underrated"ing your own post
pretty sad desu

>Again, most people don't give a fuck since they've never seen it

like you have any way of knowing this

there was no 3 movie build up for the marvel redditors

the original was me not him, so there

>>ask questions
>>"breh, no need to even explain that shit to me"
>Holy shit
are you autistic? Can you not pick up on rhetorical questions? Can you not pick up context? These are actual questions I'm asking, but you don't have to answer them. It doesn't matter.

>And I disagree that all movies should be saturated to the point that everyone can easily understand them
they don't have to be easily understood, but a movie should 100% be self contained. Putting a setup for a punchline in the sequel is what gets everyone mad.

Honestly I just don't get hoe he could become more evil. What's the kill count before someone becomes evil?

like?

>he is honestly challenging the idea most people don't read comics

Whose Darkseid? Was he in the superman movie?

>It's a manifestation of Batman's distrust of Superman as reflected in his subconscious

except it isn't

not really

Civil War suffered from huge plotholes, a villain scheme that made no sense, bad CGI, shoehorned characters for marketing purposes, too much quips that took you out of the moment, etc..

BvS lacked most of these problems save that Luthor was annoying and his plan didn't make much sense. Also the shoehorning, but their presence was so short I don't think it was that bad

Who's hyped?

youtube.com/watch?v=3Ixd0Ygj1vQ

>I'm biased but I'm gonna act like I'm not
BvS was worse.

I'd say a majority of moviegoers have seen the 80s batman movie at one point or another, and Batman kills people there pretty maliciously.

sure batman killing people with blades, explosions, barehands and derailing trains, ok, sure.

Batman killing people with the weapon that killed his parents, was expressively shown he hates gun in canon material, hell even quit being batman in beyond because he had to resort to using one to merely threaten someone haunting him to the moment his parents die.

But hey let me strap a billion guns to everything cause i'm mature in a mature universe and not messup my characterization.

Sure thing kiddo.

Better directors could do this through the actual story itself without having to rely on a cut away.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkseid

this, how the fuck can people think it was just a dream when Batman sees parademons in it and Superman talks about Batman taking "her" away from him when he knows nothing about Superman personal life.

that's the thing, snyder did ok of showing it without that scene. But that scene's purpose wasn't for that.

The Injustice storyline where Lois dies.

>Zack "Kubrick" Snyder
>better directors
>GeorgeCostanza.bmp

>are you autistic? Can you not pick up on rhetorical questions? Can you not pick up context? These are actual questions I'm asking, but you don't have to answer them. It doesn't matter.

Oh wow so now you're claiming you're not confused. It's just that mainstreamers were confused. Who cares? Why should a director be restricted by the knowledge of the masses?

>they don't have to be easily understood, but a movie should 100% be self contained. Putting a setup for a punchline in the sequel is what gets everyone mad.

absolute nonsense when talking about superhero movie. Literally every other superhero movie in history has done this. It's like criticizing the end of Batman Begins because of the Joker's calling card

this

>It's a manifestation of Batman's distrust of Superman as reflected in his subconscious

I'd like to have what you're having because on way shape or form did this scene depict that. You can make up you little theories and such, but it served added nothing to movie. He didn't get more angry after this scene. We knew Bruce's manifestation of anger from the Black Zero event. This was made for future films. It's why Flash was in it. The scene wasn't a dream.

I agree. In Marvel it'd have been Batman waking up in a dream to 90s music and he sees evil Superman throw someone through a roof. Batman responds "wow, remember to left swipe that guy".

>I'd say a majority of moviegoers have seen the 80s batman movie at one point or another

>I'd say the majority of 18-35s have seen the 80s batman movie at one point or another

You just proved his point that no of that stuff had anything to do with the rest of the movie

>criticism of a film
>lel XDDD insecure dcuck XDDD
it's just fucking criticism

if anything this vision proves he was right in fearing Superman

>im 12 and wat is the DCEU

>Sympathetic characters praying Christian prayers
>Christian imagery
>Bashing glorious communist east germany

It's clear why critics hated it at least

>Oh wow so now you're claiming you're not confused.
I never claimed I was. I think I've been pretty clear that I understood the scene and I was just answering OP's question.

>Why should a director be restricted by the knowledge of the masses?
why should the masses need to know years worth of comic history to understand a shoehorned sequel setup?

> It's like criticizing the end of Batman Begins because of the Joker's calling card
that's a cute false equivalence. I like how you're comparing a few seconds at the end of a movie to a pretty long out of place sequence in the middle of a movie

A lot of people need everything spelled out for them to understand it, including people on this board, which is why this is even being debated in the first place.

it's a criticism in defense of DC. Defend DC without saying "B-B-BUT MARVEL!!!!"

Your absolutely right, Snyder did just ok with this movie

>I never claimed I was. I think I've been pretty clear that I understood the scene and I was just answering OP's question.

>why should the masses need to know years worth of comic history to understand a shoehorned sequel setup?
So you're okay with the idea that every movie has to be 100% understandable for everybody, and no movie can reference another even if it's part of a franchise?

>that's a cute false equivalence. I like how you're comparing a few seconds at the end of a movie to a pretty long out of place sequence in the middle of a movie

Oh, so it IS okay for a movie not to be self-contained as long as it meets some magical limit of how many minutes it can be. Way to move that goalpost

Have you ever imposed this rule on any other movie?

To be honest I can see why it could be misleading to someone with no previous knowledge

OK, what do you think the numbers are and what is your proof to back it up?

Was this part of the WW email?

I must have missed that...

>no issues using anecdotal evidence until shown he's an idiot

>p-p-put up or shut up

holy shit you cannot be serious...You seriously have some reading comprehension problems.

I never said a movie needs to be 100% understandable. Every scene within the movie should serve the movie, not the sequel. Even you stupid little joker example serves the movie. It sets up that batman isn't done, that he's just started his career as batman, it doesn't even necessarily set up the sequel. If TDK never came out, no one would go "but what about that joker card!?" If the JL movie doesn't come out, the parademons, the omega sign, the dystopia, flash showing up, all that shit makes zero sense in the context of the movie. The only people who know what's going on would be people who know the comics. So to answer OP's question again, people are confused by it because it has no relevance to the rest of the movie.

Spider-Man directly fit in Tony's adjacent character arc about funding the future, putting his stock in people instead of his own self, kicked off by his donation to MiT students in the beginning of the film. He was his own character with his own motivations that still managed to serve the narrative.

For some reason we needed a alt-universe dream sequence followed immediately by a prophetic warning from another future's character from a future movie just to sell the same idea. Then the movie still added about two other commercials for future movies within the movie because they don't want to do post credit sequences.

It's not the reference that's at fault it's how it was used. Even if you knew about reference it still doesn't make sense to put it in the middle of the movie where it does nothing to help with the rising action. The movies entire momentum if there was any is dropped at that point.

>It's a manifestation of Batman's distrust of Superman as reflected in his subconscious

The audience doesn't need a "manifestation of Batman's distrust of Superman." We all saw why Batman distrusts Superman. We don't need a dream sequence that adds nothing to the plot at all, other than an unnecessary fight scene.

Batman v Superman is a shit movie, anyway. Most of the scenes in the movie are questionable.

How the fuck could you not understand this, really.

>thinks Im the same user

Who's the idiot? You're talking to multiple people dingleberry.

Im the one saying there's no way to know. Im not that user that said the majority have seen it. I disagree with the idea of knowing that precisely. I say, it's impossible. You're saying its possible and have an idea of what the numbers are. So....where is the basis for your information?

who is darkseid? how a i supposed who that is?

Why are you being stupid

Confuse me? what movie is this even from?

>also Spider-man had no point or relevance in Civil War
I really wish Spiderman wasn't in Civil War and they had Tony Stark meeting him in his room at the beginning of Homecoming or something.

Would have been a good surprise but of course "MUH MOVIE MUST MAKE A BIG BOX OFFICE SO CRAM HIM IN"

lol, way to grasp at straws for that Spider-man nonsense. He could have "funded the future" easily without having Disney shoehorn in another character out of the blue to spout the same old quips.

Why not "fund the future" with established characters from past movies?

By being literally retarded or just shitposting on purpose.

Injustice: The Movie

>Why not "fund the future" with established characters from past movies?
because he was already "funding" them?

>I never said a movie needs to be 100% understandable.

You earlier

>they don't have to be easily understood, but a movie should 100% be self contained

No wonder a movie that isn't just marvel quips confuses you!

>Even you stupid little joker example serves the movie. It sets up that batman isn't done, that he's just started his career as batman, it doesn't even necessarily set up the sequel.

and the dream sequence sets up that Batman views superman as a super-powered tyrant

I mean you'll of course deny this, but it's 100% clear you never applied this arbitrary "you can't reference a sequel in a movie" rule until just now.

>>I never said a movie needs to be 100% understandable.
>You earlier
>>they don't have to be easily understood, but a movie should 100% be self contained
I'm not every going to respond to you anymore. You literally have a reading comprehension problem. You literally quoted me saying they don't need to be understandable.

yeah cause you naturally understood this without ANYONE telling you what it meant.

You are here in this thread to learn something so stop acting all high and mighty you humongous fat faggot

It's sad you think this.

He already stated his motive and his intent. Adding this "knightmare" is redundant to that end. All it really accomplishes is "world building" and shoving completely irrelevant action into the movie half way to keep the audience interested.

Its fucking useless and a better written movie would have scrapped it altogether.

Huh, I might have seen that. Must have been an incredibly forgettable piece of cinema

k, you just keep jumping from thing to thing. First you feigned that you were confused, then you claimed you understood it fine and the REAL problem was that mainstream audiences might have problems. Then it was that a movie should shouldn't reference a sequel

You just seem desperate to create special rules and conditions that ONLY apply to BvS.

But keep up that "hurrr reading comprehension" shit.

Why are YOU being stupid? You can't stick a massive action dream sequence in there without context and then complain that the audience doesn't have a clue what the fuck is going on.

>way to grasp at straws for that Spider-man nonsense
It's literally explained for you.
I'm sorry you can't even follow a capeshit movie, I'll pray for you, son.

>Why not "fund the future" with established characters from past movies?
Because Peter was separate from the Avengers who Tony foresaw failing in Age of Ultron and saw the Accords as the probable nail in the coffin.

And who from the past movies represents the future moreso than Peter?

>Gets BTFO

Y-you just had to mention marvel didn't you!!

>Because Peter was separate from the Avengers who Tony foresaw failing in Age of Ultron and saw the Accords as the probable nail in the coffin.

And who from the past movies represents the future moreso than Peter?

I can invent in-universe reasons to explain sequel setups too!

It's clear you'll say anything to justify the shoehorned spider-man but not the darkseid foreshadowing

I'm very clearly not jumping to thing to thing. I never feigned confusion, and my point the whole time has been that mainstream audiences who don't know the comics would have a problem. Your reading comprehension problem and marvel insecurity if clouding your understanding of what I've been very clearly saying. I'll say it one last time boiled down simply to answer OP's question:
the scene confused so many audiences and critics because it had no real relevance to the rest of the film, just the sequel.

holy shit, you are stupid. why don't you create your own set of rules for making a movie and try publishing it, dumb faggot

So answer these 3 questions:

1.) Can a movie reference a sequel.

2.) If you answer no to #2, do you hate nearly every genre movie ever made?

3.) Should a movie write itself around how easily every part of its potential audience can understand

4.) Should a comic book movie appeal to comicbook fans

>knowingly debate with multiple people
>does nothing to differentiate themselves
>"higher than thou" attitude for your ineptness

/clap

Also you did claim a movie should be 100% self-contained, I just quoted the wrong post earlier

see

Foreshadowing is cool, when it's well written. I can tell you why it's not written well in Age of Ultron either, but you don't want to hear that because it's already a lauded movie whereas Civil War is generally liked so you feel more like a snowflake.

Explain why did we need several jarring allusions to a character we haven't met yet everyone seems to know about and vaguely reference the need to prepare for?