Batman vs Superman

So I just watched Batman vs Superman for the first time.

All of the stuff with the characters in their civilian identities and trying to solve mysteries is really good, and I like how it's got a lot of focus on character interaction rather than fighting. Wonder Woman is definitely the highlight of the movie, since she's played as this mysterious woman then has some of the best action in the fight scene at the end.

Clark and Lois being pretty passionately in love was refreshing, but I definitely feel like Supes got the short end of the stick as far as screentime goes. So much of his time is spent on plot stuff that he doesn't have a lot of time to just be Superman, while Batman gets a few good scenes. On the other hand, the Batmobile chase scene and the "The bat is dead"/"Do you bleed?" scenes were the absolute worst part of the movie, reminding me of the worst parts of the Nolan movies.

Isenberg was okay but I wasn't too keen on his take on Luthor as being so unhinged. I don't think such a young actor was a good choice for Luthor, either. And killing Jimmy Olsen was unforgivable.

Despite a few problems though, I definitely think it was worth watching. The fact that people say its bad kind of blows my mind; it's definitely better than stuff like the X-men trilogy or the Thor movies. And it didn't have the kind of issues Suicide Squad did. It kind of reminds me of how critics savaged Waterworld at release despite it being pretty decent.

Other urls found in this thread:

craveonline.com/site/515353-exclusive-interview-deborah-snyder-talks-man-of-steel-and-easter-eggs
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I don't think it deserved the hate it got. Honestly, it really feels like critics were somehow really opposed to the idea of the movie more than anything.

Because Disney paid them.

2 posts, this has got to be a record for actual discussion of any possible merit to the film.

yeah, I agree, idk why critics were so savage. Mob mentality I guess.

It's weird because it's not even as bad as crap like Batman & Robin or Daredevil, but it gets treated like the worst movie ever made.

>idk why critics were so savage
Two words, ZACK SNYDER. Anyone who does just a little bit of research knows that his wife (Deborah Snyder) who is a producer for Warner Bros. is the ONLY reason this piece of shit Hack gets ANY work.

It was another politics thing. It portrayed masculinity, traditional family values, etc. too positively. If you look at the reviews, they're all jumbled up and reaching for some excuse to hate the movie. Literally every aspect was both praised and hated by some critic. It's baffling how there was nothing universally hated or praised. Some people hated Affleck and loved Eisenberg and vice versa for example. It's surreal.

>malfunction
Did you even read the post before posting your cookie cutter response? It's funny because it also pushes a debunked meme.

I think you're replying to the wrong post, but if not, what are you fucking talking about fampai?

That literally has nothing to do with the merits of the movie. You're making excuses.

>why were the critics so savage if the movie wasn't so bad
>ZACK SNYDER! WHAT A HACK!!!
If the movie wasn't bad, then why would he be considered a "hack" and how would that affect the critical reception? Clearly it was just another copypaste gone wrong.

>That literally has nothing to do with the merits of the movie
The Director is a complete Hack. How is that NOT?

It was good, not what everybody was hoping it would be. I've watched it at least four times and I can't bring myself to watch civil war again.

>the movie is bad because the director is bad

Not an argument.

>MCU shillbot gone ROGUE

Except every movie he has made, with the exception of 300 and Watchmen, has been complete incoherent garbage.

> superman is a main character of the film and has 43 lines of film, including a death scream
> fucking spider-man in civil war had more dialogue in 10 minutes of screentime. absolutely unacceptable in a BvS movie
> lex is shit. there is 0 defending this. completely awful miscast
> cut shit with clark doing actual investigative reporting
> gadot is shit. there is 0 defending this. completely awful miscast
> martha
> the rest of the justice league is introduced via youtube clips. MUH EASTER EGGS JUST LIKE MARVEL. disgusting. fucking youtube clips
> how do they even have their symbols on lex's harddrive. did he actually give them their own symbols? disgusting.
> doomsday fight because MUH MONSTER.
> why does clark have to kryptonite spear him. why can't he just give the fucking thing to wonder woman
> why does bruce make a fucking spear out of it. he's the goddamn batman, make other tech with it, oh wait, MUH JESUS SPEAR OF DESTINY REFERENCE
> magic cia bullet
> batman of murder kills tons of dudes
> batman is world's greatest detective, can't figure out his own finances were being rused by lex into not paying wheelchairfag
> lex kills mercy for no reason
> double dream sequence
> blowing your load on omega symbol and parademons so early
> cramming death of superman AND dark knight returns into one story when both are deserving of their own solo movie
> MUH PISS JAR LEX
> bad color palette
> had zod's body, could've used michael shannon in the future, what a waste
jeremy irons alfred was based tho. alfreds have always been based in live action, the comic, cartoons, and video games

I bet you shit suckers think the Star Wars prequels are better then the original trilogy too.

Every post 9/11 zombie movie does the exact same thing and plenty of those were critic darlings. That's not it.

Not an argument.

Throwing a tantrum won't make your argument more valid.

It's hard for the character, Alfred, to not be horrible. Selfless, loyal, and fatherly. He's everything a Sup Forumsmrade wants in a father they'll never have.

Speak for yourself. I killed my father and took his land.

Think what you want, Hack Snyder is still a cancer that kills any movie he's a part of.

Nitpicking and nonsensical meme arguments. Saying "HURR ITS BAD" is not a valid argument.

Would you kill your father if your father was Alfred Pennyworth?

Still not an argument.

Id have to. Its a rite of passage for my species.

> nitpicking
nice try

>fucking spider-man in civil war had more dialogue in 10 minutes of screentime
Gee, the guy infamous for never ending banter, talking a lot?

most of spidey's dialogue is when he's peter talking to stark and aunt may in the apartment

in the airport fight he has around 17 lines.

Very obnoxious shit posting.

BvS had more of a plot than CW, so CW could waste screen time on filler.

The entire CW movie was filler.

So why was Jimmy Olsen an FBI agent, and shot in the face immediately?
Does that mean the only 2 humans on Earth Supes care about have vaginas?
If the old one has a heart attack and he gets bored of his fleshlight is he going to go full Injustice?

I went into this movie more hyped than I was for civil war and left kinda thinking of well that was alright. not trying to start a marvel DC thing either I like DC comics more but so far the movies havent been as good
I think the main problem was the movie had no tension for me since I knew they were gonna team up with wonder woman and fight doomsday.
I loved battfleck but felt Henry Caville was barely used in his own sequel.

>So why was Jimmy Olsen an FBI agent, and shot in the face immediately?
Snyder already explained this. He wanted to shock the audience.

Tldr I agree.the movie had its issues but lex wasnt a casting problem, you could have had anyone play lex but it's how they wrote the character

CIA.
The FBI don't operate in Africa.

>I loved battfleck but felt Henry Caville was barely used in his own sequel.
That's your problem. It wasn't his sequel, it was Batman's first movie.

>He wanted to shock the audience.
I think making his movie worse then MOS was shocking enough.

Well it was kind of both, I just felt like all his time on screen was wasted just staring with a blank look on his face

>Well it was kind of both, I
No, it wasn't.
They tried Superman, it didn't make a gorillion dollars, so WB does what it always does and went 'It's time to do nothing but Batman for five years".

You should've known the second the title was announced that Clark was going to take a backseat. I know I did.

>It was another politics thing. It portrayed masculinity, traditional family values, etc. too positively.

There does seem to be this idea that politically Snyder and BvS are right wing and some people seem to hate them for that, but it makes no sense to me because if anything BvS was really skeptical of power structures and authority. I mean the opening scene in Nairomi basically has the General calling bullshit on the war on terror. "Men with power obey neither policy nor principle Miss Lane, no one is different, no one is neutral." Then Superman fucks up a drone for the second time in the DCEU. Batman's justification for his preemptive crusade against Superman quotes Dick Cheney. The villain is a tech billionaire who manipulates the government. Clark is disgusted when he sees Gotham police idolising Batman's brutality. Superman himself uses his power selfishly to protect the people he loves at the expense of others. It's a deeply pessimistic film that basically echoes Luthor's sentiment "The oldest lie in America is that power can be innocent."

I liked it.

Why the literal fuck is this on Sup Forums?

Take this trash to Sup Forums

MODS

Is this the DCEU safe space thread

No thread is safe, unless you're on /r/dccinematic.

Seems like a fitting home for a degenerate like you, why don't you head off there, son? Be with other 'people' like you.

breddy gud fampai

Bait thread.

>and I like how it's got a lot of focus on character interaction rather than fighting.


Character interaction was one of the worst aspects of the movie.

On his own movie, Civil had less lines (42) than Spider-Man CAMEO on Civil War.


The fight had so little weight or gravitas at the end, that a character had to literally kidnap the mother of one of them to actually force them to clash.

The x-men trilogy had better writing and antagonists.

Ha. This movie is the best possible argument that masculinity and traditional family values need to go the way of the dodo.

thats actually not true, she had no idea he was going to be hired to do it and it was in fact Nolan that did it you stupid idiot


craveonline.com/site/515353-exclusive-interview-deborah-snyder-talks-man-of-steel-and-easter-eggs
We met the Nolans on a plane going to CinemaCon when they were there for Inception, we were doing [Legend of the] Guardians, and we never met them before. Yet we were both husband and wife team at the same studio and people kept saying, “Oh you guys have to meet.” So we had a really nice conversation of the plane and we said, “Listen when everything calms down we gotta get a meal together.” So a couple months after that we got a call and Chris [Nolan] had said, “Hey, do you guys want to come over for lunch and grab that meal, and would you mind if we talked to you about Superman?” Zack got off the phone and we were like… [Gasps]! And I said “I don’t know, Zack. I don’t know how…” And he was such a fan of the character, he had different trepidations, right? His trepidation was, “I don’t know how to do this character justice. I’m not sure I know how to do that.” And I was like. “I don’t know how you make him accessible to a modern audience.” But we said, sure we’ll come and listen and they pitched us the idea that Chris and [David] Goyer had for the story. We really felt that they had an in into making him relatable, into making you care about him. But of course we wanted to read the script because the pitches are usually better than the script, and we were so pleased when we read the script. It was a really great way of getting at him. So then it was like, okay… Zack said, “I want to do this. I really want to do this.” And I said, “I feel like they really figured out a way to make this work.” And then I don’t think you can think about what the responsibility is. [Laughs] It’s like, too huge, right? So then you just have to go about your day-to-day.

Batman's name literally comes first in the movie, they were both main characters. And part of the point is that Superman does more through his actions, while Batman justifies shitty actions with a lot of talking.

see

>using an interview from before the movie came out to try and support your argument

you dumb

> how do they even have their symbols on lex's harddrive. did he actually give them their own symbols? disgusting.

Are you trying to tell me that Lex Luthor, a corporate mogul, used branding?

Superman doesn't interfere in politcal matters 99% of the time. Part of the whole "letting humanity choose their own path" thing. Jimmy, being CIA, is a political player. Lois is an innocent journalist who was promised safety.

That's a pretty desperate attempt to spin Superman letting a guy get shot in the face.

Headcanon.

The interview is just a jab at the universe coming from people who worked there, not part of the argument mate.

No need to get this triggered, shill.

>doomsday falls onto a deserted island
>batman discovers that doomsday is kryptonian because he shoots lasers out of his face
>batman tells alfred that he needs his kryptonite spear to save the day
>instead of doing the logical thing by going to get the spear then doubling back to deserted island, batman lures doomsday to the spear in gotham
>wonder woman magically shows up out of nowhere and at the right time too
>louise lane, hiding in an abandoned building with no power, suddenly knows EVERYTHING that's going on outside, and tries to fetch the spear to help superman win the fight
>meanwhile wonder woman is chopping doomsday to pieces
>even though wonder woman is winning, superman declares the battle a loss, and decides to sacrifice himself in order to save the day

for a film you seem to hate so much, you do seem to know it down to quite an autistic detail. Who counts the lines of dialogue in a film.

>SJWS are anti-DCEU
Whoa, who would have thought! Anyone who hates the DCEU is an SJW that needs to go backs to tumblr.

Wonder Woman wasn't winning anything he regenerated when she severed a limb.
Her holding the lasso was the only thing restraining him physically and restraining his shockwaves.

Man of Steel (2013) changes I would have made (I love Mos for the record)
> The tornado scene would have been much faster paced and lingered ALOT less, Pa would have told Clark out loud "No protect you mother" when Clark offers to get the dog, Pa would have gotten to his feet right when Clark gets to the underpass so it would not seem like Clark is standing around doing nothing for a extended period, Pa waves him off and Clark hesitates for a split second and Pa is blown away immediately.
> After Clark kills Zod, I would have a long montage of him helping people out of the wreckage of the city, using his hearing to detect people who are buried.
> When Clark accidentally drags Zod into Smallville, I would had have him look up and realize such right before crashing into the gas station and try to swerve out of the way but is moving too fast to do so.
> Removed scene of Lois insulting House of Cards guy at the end, Removed her tinkle & measuring dicks lines.
> Would have had Clark state to Lois "I have to go help people' after embracing in the wake of rescuing her from the Black Hole only for them to hear Zod emerging.
> Would have not had Clark & Lois kiss in the midst of the destruction, or at the least I would have removed the joke about relationships going down hill.
> Added 1 or 2 positive memories Clark has with his dad.
> Would have removed Clark destroying the truckers truck.
> Emphasized a bit more how much Clark has held back over the years out of not wanting to punch down.
> Emphasized Pa Kents concern about Clark's secret harming society so people wouldn't dismiss his motives as purely selfish.

Anybody who actually does a bit of reasearch knows she literally only produces Zack's movies and therefor has little to no saying over at WB.
He brings her along, not the other way around.

TO BE HONEST, his arm regenerated into a spike.

A single spike without fingers, it is kind of a downgrade.

It would be funny if he ended up a limbless guy on 4.

>but I definitely feel like Supes got the short end of the stick as far as screentime goes

Well, the be fair, the movie as a whole is basically a commentary on how people perceive Superman in different ways, and then politicize his actions. He doesn't get to to have as much screen time and agency because he's robbed that every time he does something heroic in public by the media and politics.

DELETE THIS!!!!!

The only universal truth that you can say about BvS is that it was polarizing. Which is a sign of good art.

That and Eisenberg refused to be Jimmy, so Snyder had no use for the character beyond that point apparently.

Your comparison is kinda odd as B&R actually IS the worst movie ever made and DD was kinda decent.

>because he's robbed that every time he does something heroic in public by the media and politics.

Actualy, by the writters and directors.

MILLER many years ago wrotte a "how the public see Batman" and managed ti have the character have a shit load of agency.

We have just incompetent writting to blame.

But Mos wasn't incoherent in anyway whatsoever.

Some guy counted them soon after the movie came out and everybody else is repeating it. I doubt it's that specific user who counted them.

>> why does clark have to kryptonite spear him. why can't he just give the fucking thing to wonder woman
Because that would be fucking cowardly as fuck and she was the only thing restraining him with the Lasso.

Eisenberg refused to be Jimmy because Jimmy was going to be shot.

>implying Superman didn't have agency

>> cramming death of superman AND dark knight returns into one story when both are deserving of their own solo movie
Death really doesn't deserve it, it wasn't a notably good story, this film did it 50 times better.

Are you sure? They completely rewrote Lex for Eisenberg, I doubt they would do that if he was only originally going to be cast as a cameo.

>Which is a sign of good art.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Good shitpost.

Anything "good" that people have to say about it, can be said about the Prequels of Star Wars.

Stop making execuses to defend a shit ptoduct with made up definitions of what makes good art. You are confusing being a contrarian with artistic merit.

We sure saw it on how he went to fight Batman like a cartoon character.

While batman saved his mother, something that HE should be able to do much more easily.

So Duchamp's Fountain is objectively good art?

That only matters when there are arguments made on both sides, not when one side consists of dicksucking fanboys dismissing criticism as "nitpicking" and "I likd it bcuz xD", you pesudo-intellectual faggot.

Yes, but you can do that way more easily and effectively in comics where the character can just do hammy narration and you can pace it better.

Yes. Controversy is one sign of good, progressive art, after all. Plenty of filmmakers feel inspired by Snyder, even James Cameron. And Ben Affleck.

As an avant garde art piece, yes.

Nice strawman, as if 80% of the complaints of BvS don't consist of "it don't make sense" and "not muh Batman/Lex Luthor/Perry White's nubian Ceasar's Ghost!"

>Ben Affleck
No wonder Live by Night was also a piece of shit.

Batman and Robin was the best kind of bad. It's so bad, you can watch it again as a comedy. BvS on the other hand, is the type of bad that you never want to watch it again.

>Controversy is one sign of good, progressive art, after all.
So you got nothing except circular reasoning then.
And I guess the guy who destroyed it as a happening was also making great art since that was controversial too.
That guy who wanted to attack the Louvre paintings with machettes while shouting Allah Ackbar was so close to becoming an objectively great artist.

Explain why.

The other 20% is them pretending that good scenes were bad by simplifying them. You could do that for literally every movie to make it look bad, but coincidentally for some reason they only do it for BvS. Disney was afraid of it and are afraid of the DCEU brand so they're trying to use memetic warfare against it. Unfortunately for them, it isn't working.

No, 80% of the complaints come from narrative problems mentioned above, useless shit like movie trailers/Darkseid faggotry revealed too early bogging the movie down.
And yes, you can't just dismiss shitty handling of characters because it comes up often, answer it, faggot.

Also James Cameron's heyday is far behind him, the guy hasn't made anything good in 20 years.

Why the fuck is Sup Forums still a safe space for DCEU threads? Why the fuck are the fanboys still endlessly making posts about it?

Literally everywhere else, people hate the DCEU and rightly so. Reddit, YouTube, Twitter, Tumblr, all these places hate the DCEU, so why are these dumbfucks allowed to post here? All they do is make shitpost and start console war threads(Look at Sup Forums, it's a lost cause since full pro DCEU posters). Sup Forums will be lost to those people unless something is done.

Either ban all DCEU threads and move them to Sup Forums or ban all the DCEU posters

>Anything "good" that people have to say about it, can be said about the Prequels of Star Wars.
Not not really, pretty much the whole cast besides Jesse gave decent to fantastic performances while I can't think of anyone in the prequels who were decent besides Lee & the actor who played Jango and both were underused.
Lois made for a MUCH more well written and competent female then Padme.
Both Clark & Bruce's angst & indecision was a million times better acted and more believable then Anakins.

How can he shock the audience by shooting Jimmy in the face if nobody in the audience knew it was Jimmy?

Those could be debated, sure, since you can't define or quantify artistic quality with absolute truths. Not everything controversial is great art, but plenty of great art was controversial at the time of its creation. Look at cubism. It tells a lot about the person how they respond to art.

Because dissenting opinions are allowed on Sup Forums?
If you ban DCEU you should also ban MCU, those threads are also filled with shitposting.
t. Marvelfag.

But arguing that none of the characters were as good as the source material isnt bad.


If they wanted to do something different, at least make it good. Like Logan, that people agree to be an amzing movie. You just try to dissmiss any complain patethicaly, while reality shows that people are willing to forgive new takes on characters if they are entertaining.

>narrative problems
There are none. There's not a single problem with the movie. Get over it.