Is it good or is everyone just meming it

Is it good or is everyone just meming it

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=kjS6bQ5OQ-o
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

If you want an action movie it's good.
If you want a Marvel flick it's probably not for you.
If you want a comic film it's hella fucking awesome.

everyone is just memeing it

First 2/3rds are preddy gud
Last third shits the bed with bad action and forced plot beats.
UC is 6.5-7/10; MoS is better.

Peak capeshit. Nothing else comes close except Unbreakable.

1/10 one of the worst movies ever made
Sup Forums is the only place in the whole internet with people who loves this abomination
snyder should kill himself

absolute piece of shit, dont waste your time
even the worst marvel flicks are miles better

If you watch the Ultimate Cut it's pretty good.
Of you can't sit through three hours then maybe it's not for you.
I don't recommend the Theatrical.

I can only speak for myself - its one of the best capeshit I've seen and I've seen a lot of capeshit

>getting memed on for 2 years

this
dont listen to snyder drones, it's absolute shite
go watch wonder woman if you want some decent capeshit

jesus fucking christ, Sup Forums is such a shithole because of you dcucks,at least marvel drones dont ruin this board

First part is glorious, second part is slow, disjointed and weird, last third is CGIfest with shitty acting.

Some scenes are great and better than anything Marvel has ever done (Metropolis destruction, Bruce's parents death, Superman's DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCH THE MOVIE funeral).

But overal story is clumsy, most characters lack any motivation, action scenes were worse than Marvel (And Marvel has a story with dealing with bad action sequences), plot is overstuffed and you feel like they include 1000 things just to build up, and not for any real reason.

7/10

Seriously this. It's watchable if you love capeshit but it's really pretty bad. Guy who played lex Luther nailed it though

I liked the theatrical over the ultimate...

...

It's fucking awful
it's nonsense story telling for about 2 hours followed by an hour of bad CGI men hitting each other and then eventually a bad CGI monster man

this

I wish they included more "neutral evil Lex" of the end, and less of the "flamboyant funny BOYS Lex"

no this board is full of contrarians the movie is shit

Then hide the thread and fuck off.
You're contributing nothing to the board by bitching.
You're as bad as a reddit crybaby.

In other words, it's just like every superhero movie ever.

It's pretty damn good

most superhero movies are 90-120 minutes - this had the audacity to add an extra hour of its bullshit. Yes, most capeshit is fucking terrible though

>Metropolis destruction

generic disaster porn

>Bruce's parents death

This is well shot but not mind blowing and already been done a couple times before.

>Superman's DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCH THE MOVIE funeral

Two long boring funerals does not a good scene make. especially when he's not even dead. Logan had a superior DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCH THE MOVIE funeral and much shorter.

BvS is shit. Literally no one can raise a decent point as to why its good except LOL IM TROLLING

If you're not married to the characters as they've appeared in cartoons, know comics lore, and don't need a story spoonfed to you like an autistic child, you'll love the shit out of it.

It treats the characters as actual human beings, complete with their own psychologies, the plot's Byzantine in just about the best way possible, and Eisenberg's Luthor is an incredible revamp of the character.

When you're done, ask yourself why Bruce chooses to make a spear, then head on back to his dream for the single-most vital clue.

I'm with this guy.

No, it's garbage.
But for some weird reason it became politicized and you have to like it if you don't want to be called an SJW.

I did too. All the Ultimate really did was fill in blanks I'd already filled in for myself.

>Hamfisted Superman=Jesus shit
>treats them like human beings

superman literally cries for mommy during the fight. batman remembers he had a mommy. they have butt secs later then the guy who made face book remembers that frankenstien was a book and wonderwoman is there just to introduce a character they hope will grow the dc brand

avengers catch up move 1 the abridged edition

at least bvs seems like honest filmmaking

its divisive OP, give it a try and hopefully you wont regret it. For me, i really enjoy it thought there are a few weak moments, WW email scene specifically.

>know comics lore
most people that claim to hate it as fans, know fuck all in truth

>22ip's
>32 posts
Jesus Christ you autistic faggot, sorry the MCU is in such a shitty place at the moment, hopefully Thor will be good for a change.

Nice. You can regurgitate. Now let me explain why you're wrong:

Superman =|= Jesus,

Just because you're a barely literate, uncultured twat doesn't mean everyone is. Get an education.

Funny coming from someone who doesn't know what 'explain' means.

The movie is a lot like "The Happening"

>TDK was a big success and was gritty so let's make our new movies gritty in the laziest way possible
>Marvel films are popular and they have a cinematic universe quips so let's shoehorn that in our movies the laziest way possible

>Peak capeshit is a 5/10
Really makes you think

Oh, so you really want to be spoon-fed. then?

Why doesn't Lex see him as Jesus? Why does Lex mention three other deities? Why does Lex say that Zod "flew too close to the sun"? What about all the other iconography that's not associated with Jesus? And last of all, why are you ignoring that the image I originally provided in isn't even a depiction of Jesus to begin with?

MoS was about Clark growing up from being a guy from Kansas with strange powers and searching his purpose on Earth to a superhero who embraces his destiny and saves the world. The character arc in BvS is about Clark learning to deal with aftermath of that: the burden of being a public superhero and thus the object of political interest and controversy. He learns that despite his powers, he can't always do the right thing and save everyone. People will still die because he is fallible. A true hero is one who may fall down but just gets back up again.

When Superman saves the child from the burning apartments, he is surrounded by dead people embracing him, even worshipping him. But Superman doesn't happily take it all with a smile. In fact, he reluctantly turns his head away in what appears to be him feeling some sort of dread or pain.

I think this is Superman realizing that he is surrounded "by the dead". That he is so different from them, they will know death, he will not. Maybe it's even part shame, knowing that our fates are set in stone while his isn't. A God among men. But he also desires to be one of us.

In his fight against Batman, Batman says "you don't know what it means to be brave. Men are brave". And this is true to some extent. An immortal God figure cannot be brave as there is no risk involved. "It's time you learn what it means to be a man" means coming face to face with death, which is what separates Superman from man. If he can't do that, then he cannot be brave and he cannot be man.

This dilemma of death is eventually adressed in the climax of the film, as he comes to terms with his own mortality, and pays the ultimate price of a human being. Superman becomes man. Superman overcomes the final trial. And that is accepting his own death. And this is when Batman finally recognizes Superman as man.

Bravo Snyder

not him, but wasn't that just implication Bruce never wanted to really skewer Supes anyways?

Why does Lex do anything? What about the clear focus on Jesus iconography in MoS?

watched the ultimate cut and thought it was the same type of cookie cutter no risks no interesting visuals nothing remarkable in general snoozefest as every other capeshit movie nowadays

aka okay mcdonalds movie

only grew to hate it because of how the kids on this board talk about it

It's utterly pretentious capeshit that suffers from bad pacing, script and mediocre acting. Those alone are the standard capeshit fare. The absolute characterizations of the titular characters though is unforgivable.

That is exactly what it is. More to the point, it's Bruce's unconscious warning him that by turning a blind eye to what Superman really is, he's allowing his own obsessions to consume him.

>clear focus on Jesus iconography in MoS?
kingdom Come? duh

If you're a 12-22 guy, it's really good. Basically, Snyder is incapable of understanding characters or motivations beyond adolescent masculinity. His visuals are pretty, but largely lifted from other sources. His themes are hamfisted and surface-level. None of this will bother the young male demographic.

If your tastes are little more mature, you'll quickly find yourself annoyed by Snyder's over-reaching, pretentious psuedo-depth.

So, really the answer is "it depends." You do you, man. It's totally okay to love the movie and it's totally okay to hate it.

watch the ultimate edition.
theatrical was kinda bad.

figured as much, though my dude that not man-bat, that's meant to be an adaption of the bat creature that Bruce saw in a flashback in DKR.

Only difference is DKR Bruce didnt get consumed.

That supports Superman=Jesus

>but largely lifted from other sources
eh?

you havent read kingdom come have you

>Why does Lex do anything?

Because unlike pretty much everyone else on the planet, Lex learned what the metahumans really are and what their presence means. Their presence is significant and quite possibly not a random occurrence. Lex understands, quite possibly because of what he learned from the Kryptonian AI, that gods and magic are an actual thing, that metahumans didn't inspire our myths. Our "myths" were the reality and the metahumans are just echoes of those forces.

>What about the clear focus on Jesus iconography in MoS?
Wasn't all that clear in focus, actually. It's just that the very least perceptive picked up on the most blatantly obvious and called it "hamfisted" without even bothering to ask themselves why it was there and what it might mean, For example, here's Superman filling the role more commonly assigned to figures like Horus and Apollo. Given the desert setting, you decide which you find more appropriate.

Snyder is well known for lifting panels straight from famous issues when constructing scenes. If he didn't do it as often as he does, it would be a pretty cool homage to the comicbook source.

You're not referring to the biblical concept?

>It's just that the very least perceptive picked up on the most blatantly obvious and called it "hamfisted" without even bothering to ask themselves why it was there and what it might mean

youtube.com/watch?v=kjS6bQ5OQ-o

I look on Clark's Day of the Dead rescue as both a call-back to his shared vision with Zod in MoS and an omen of sorts. an indication that he's leading humanity down the wrong path, much like what the talking heads on TV are discussing.

Pic related is the moment when he really starts to understand what it is he's been seeing - worship. plain and simple.

Why does that make him want to kill Superman?

>It's just that the very least perceptive picked up on the most blatantly obvious and called it "hamfisted"
It's a fucking movie. It has to be judged on what it actually SHOWS.
You can make up some "deep" fan fiction in your head with every movie no matter how shitty.

I think I've come to the conclusion regarding this movie...

Everyone has it all wrong. I could sit here and try to explain why you aren't understanding the movie, but it wouldn't work... Because words cannot describe this movie.

And isn't that what movies are for? To tell a story that can't be told through words?

Either you "get" this movie, and see it for what it is - an extremely well crafted, well thought out work of contemporary art... or you don't.

And here he is unquestionably being depicted as Apollo. The iconography depends on who's looking and what sort of god they see him as. That's up to and including the digital "ghost" of his own father.

I've been saying the same thing about Boku No Pico. But all these plebs here just don't get deep art.

No, he's referring to a miniseries called "Kingdom Come" that came out back in the 90s.

It's sort of a "if Armageddon actually happened in the comic book world, what would it look like?" take on the characters in a potential future that's experienced a metahuman "baby boom."

desu DC has mastered the 'what if' stories
gods and monster, flashpoint, kingdom, red son, allstar..

>Why does that make him want to kill Superman?

To step into the role Superman is starting to fill in people's lives. Lex is already seen as a philanthropist, a "saint" if you will, but he wants more. He wants to be seen as the savior of mankind, even if he has to do it from a threat he created, even if he has to do it by proxy. He's willing to both drag down mankind's current savior as well as use him to eliminate the only other man on the planet who could conceivably fill that role in the same way as him.

>It's a fucking movie. It has to be judged on what it actually SHOWS.
But everything we're talking about *was* either shown or alluded to.

I agree. The neutral "let's just cause chaos because fuck it why not? I'm bored and can do it!"

The movie fails to sell us on Lex being seen as a saviour or even Superman.

>But everything we're talking about *was* either shown or alluded to.
No it was vague and full of contradictions.

ohh, no that's a good point actually

Sup Forums is paradise. I come everyday from see wee baby like you cry

It will never make me fail to laugh and cry inside that this board is infested with retarded fagmonster manchildren that consider themself "enlightened" and "patrician" because they enjoy a shitty superhero movie based on characters targeted towards actual children.

>The movie fails to sell us on Lex being seen as a saviour or even Superman.

Lex isn't seen as a savior. just a philanthropist.

>Superman not seen as a savior
Yeah, that's why people aren't reaching out to him like a holy relic, and painting his symbol on their roofs like some sort of updated Passover, huh?

Why do you think he's just hovering there? He's starting to realize the message he's sending to people, how his angle of attack is every bit as important as the end result. What message does it send if he rescues those people first? What about last?

>"I want to know how he decides whose lives matter and whose lives do not."

Solid 6/10

Half is good half is bad

I really enjoyed the ending with Superman's memorial, the literal message of Superman's goal right there; inspiring hope in humans to look to each other as allies and support and hope

>Lex isn't seen as a savior. just a philanthropist.
He's a full on rapist.

All masterworks of the genre, all the way back to TDKR.

99% of the movie shows Superman as a villain, as someone who doesn't give a fuck, someone who punches guys, as a criminal, etc..

What do you think the film is about?

You can use buzzwords like adolescent masculinity, ham-fisted themes and pseudo-depth... but anyone can say X is not good. But did you truly understand it? Did you comprehend it or just reject it upon delivery and provide yourself the most simplistic and cynical interpretation of the work. What is your counter-example to your perceived failures in BvS?

>If you want an action movie that's actually a boring drama for over half of it's length, it spends a long time on inconsequential things not related to the main plot, motivations that come off as rushed and half baked, and has a very unsatisfying climax, it's good.

No it doesn't. There's more heroism in this 3 second shot than a host of other movies. Or are you the sort of turbo-autist that actually needs to see things happen on-screen in realtime to accept their place in a story?

jesus christ do we really need ANOTHER bvs/mos thread? I mean really...

It means the movie does an extremely bad job at portraying it.

Imagine a movie where the character is shown to be nothing but a jerk on-screen but you slice in a few cards that say "He's a good guy".
That's pretty much what a Snyder Superman movie is.

So jerks drop what they're doing to go rescue a kid from a burning building, then get concerned and confused and frustrated when people worship them?

>But did you truly understand it?

Ah yes, the ole "you didn't understand it, that's why you don't like it" argument.

It's a pretty damn good comic book movie.

Not him, but if you're , you're nowhere near as "above" this film as you think you are. Come back when you actually earn the right to be smugly dismissive.

In case you didn't notice, you've just been smugly dismissed. Justifiably so.

In a completely disconnected scene that contradicts the rest of the movie.

It's pretty the same as all the other capeshit, just slightly grittier. I wouldn't bother

Ah yes avoiding the question because you're afraid to expose your ignorance. If you did understand it, I would gladly accept your analysis.

You're a retard.

>because I can't follow themes, they don't connect

All on you, buddy. I watched the original Friday the 13th last week. Shitties romcom I've ever sat through. the slapstick was overdone and almost none of the jokes landed. The murders were a bit out of place, too.

I'm not the one praising a lazy action flick made by a simpleton.

>you've just been smugly dismissed

SAVE
MARTHA

No, you're just the simpleton who declares things stupid when you don't understand them.

The movie is about Batman fight Superman. On a deeper level, it's a film about what Snyder perceives as the internal struggle of a god learning to live among mortals, and struggle of mortals learning to accept the reality of gods. There certainly are attempts to dissect the concept of heroism, but they rarely go beyond the depth of browsing wikipedia articles about the subjects the film attempts to engage with and looking at classic examples of heroes in art. Basically, Snyder engages with his sources on a sophomoric level. Ostensibly, he is aware of the sources and what they are readily interpreted as, but because he has not devoted the appropriate resources to their study, he does not actually understand them. The result of this is that he is unable to adequately engage with them. Consider something like Milton's Paradise Lost. A quick look at the wikipedia page will tell you that Satan is the "hero" of the work, and if you only read the first 2 books, which happen to be the most exciting and visceral, you may come away with that same impression. But actually studying the work in the context of its creation and the philosophy of its author will reveal that Satan is merely designed to APPEAR as the hero. This is absolutely clear to anyone who as actually read the entire work.

Yes, there are allusions in Snyder's work, and yes they SEEM to display depth, but because Snyder doesn't understand the works he alludes to the work itself misses the mark.

Probably the one thing I really didn't like was all the real world media types doing cameos. They should have just made up a bunch of fictional counterparts in the DC comics tradition of making up fake countries and people to stand in for real world thing.

Hey, I'm not the guy who jumped into the discussion calling other people's tastes juvenile, like a pretentious twat, then stepped on my own dick by revealing exactly how much I didn't understand.

Here's your fedora back.

It's great

Exactly.
If you get the film, it's a masterpiece.
If you don't it's chaotic trash.
Similarly, hearing Virgil's Georgics recited in the original Latin sound beautiful to one who speaks the language.
To the ignorant forsaken pleb they hear only gibberish.
Cinema is a language, and like James Cameron said, Snyder is creating a new cinematic language.

>DUDE MUH ELEMENTARY LEVEL SYMBOLISM