It's amazing how a director has made 4 superhero movies and yet still doesn't grasp the essentials of the genre...

It's amazing how a director has made 4 superhero movies and yet still doesn't grasp the essentials of the genre. It's not about costumes, it's not about characters, it’s not about realism and believability, hell it's not even about the stories. The entire genre exists so that it provides a healthy escapism for the audiences in a world riddled with terrorism and mass killings. Post-9/11 capekino has a very specific place in collective cognition: what if we had superheroes to save us? If you look closely at the successful examples of the genre, they have always utilised this understanding. In The Avengers New York city is attacked once again, strikingly above the sky. Debris fall off, buildings get smashed, cars explode, we see common folk on the streets yet at the end we never see anyone's nose bleed. Because superheroes were there to save us this time.

This endless cycle of superhero movies provide a catharsis for the audience who try to rewrite history in their head over and over again to provide a false sense of security. Now don't get excited, there is no grand conspiracy here. In fact even Westerns were more propaganda than superhero movies. As shallow as they may remain, Iron Man criticised arm sales and Winter Soldier criticised surveillance state so these movies are not necessarily an extension of US foreign and domestic policy. It's just the way a giant corporation tries to make money off of people's fears and paranoia. That doesn’t necessarily devalue the superhero genre but it’s still important to know the reason why we have so many of them now.

Essentially, their purpose is to enforce the notion that there is a fantasy realm, a twin earth that faces more serious and catastrophic dangers but somehow still safer. It’s a safe fantasy.

Other urls found in this thread:

imgur.com/AZHs8in
m.youtube.com/watch?v=Od_hmJp76mY
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

When it comes to scholarly studies, Rick Altman is one of the more prominent voices in genre approach to film and as he said in 1999 "The pleasure of genre film spectatorship thus derives more from reaffirmation than from novelty. People go to genre films to participate in events that somehow seem familiar."

So what does Snyder do wrong that Marvel does right everytime? In Marvel movies even though cities are razed and buildings collapse, heroes always look out for the people. Even when they are battling forces beyond their power, one eye is always on the human cost of these catastrophes. I think this approach definitely comes from Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy. Apart from being one of the most successful superhero series, these movies are important because it’s the first line of cape-flick we have seen post-9/11. So in a way, they set the rules for a few decades of movies to come in the same genre. Spider-Man is a neighbourhood hero, so he always looks out for the small guy. Now it doesn’t matter in context, even if Iron Man is a billionaire, in that suit, he has to look out for the small guy because we need it. Even in Age of Ultron when an entire city is being destroyed, heroes save every single human there. Yes it’s a total disaster and some people die (74 in Avengers, 23 in Winter Soldier, 177 in Age of Ultron) but at the end because we don’t see those as on-screen death and because we see so many people rescued, they don’t go beyond fictitious numbers.

In Snyder movies, this just does not happen. Take for example recently the scene in Justice League where Wonder Woman interrupts a reactionary terrorist attack by getting the suit-case bomb away from civilians. That is a perfectly apt super-hero scene, Wonder Woman saves the day and we get to live in a better version of a world after an unsuccessful terrorist attack. If it was our universe, if this hero didn’t exist, innocent people could have died so this should provide the audiences some sense of relief, right? But actually not, because at the beginning of the sequence, the terrorist group still shoots people and kills security forces while entering the building. What Zack does to evoke the same sense of escapism, he just can’t help himself and fails to do one thing: make us feel safe. I am not even going to talk about the total destruction of Metropolis in MoS, that was totally out of genre’s understanding of disasters.

But why does he insist on doing these idiotic mistakes? I think the part of the reason is that the first superhero he did was Watchmen. As a comic, Watchmen was a deconstruction of the superhero comics and it did everything to differentiate and criticise the genre. As an adaptation, you were allowed to do the same with the movie because it is a deconstruction again. Innocent could die on screen, superheroes could be held responsible and world could hate those superheroes. But in another superhero movie, this just wouldn’t work (save for Deadpool and other genre-bending works). Even as much as I find Nolan to be pretentious, he expertly avoided these issues and turned his movies into spectacles that drew attention away from civilian costs of disasters.

I think what I am trying to say is that Snyder is an objectivist cunt that refuses to think of societal implications of the universes he creates. His movies are about the characters that become superheroes, while Marvel movies are about the world that these superheroes live in. Even on an individual level, when JL heroes fight, they were fighting within their own circle. At the end, they were just buying more time so that the biggest superhero, Superman could come and save the day. There is no teamwork and even when they assist each other, it’s very superficial. When you compare that to Avengers’ fight, it’s very striking. In Avengers superheroes function as cogs in a larger machine. This a microcosm of their entire function in society. They save their communities and their own individual struggles matter less because essentially, it does matter less when the entire city is burning. In that sense, as much as it is screamed so by fanboys, Snyder movies are much less realistic than Marvel movies simply because they do not work as societal pieces and only individualist spectacles. And people are clearly not interested in that.

>capeshit
>healthy escapism
Top kek.

Somewhat disagree with this guy desu.

The dark knight series doesn’t really fit in with his points.

You mean like the scene where bruce crashes into the police van to save the accountant? or the ferry scene? or saving the hostages? or catwoman defending the child being mugged?

DCucks keep claiming that any criticism of this guy is baseless but now they are in complete silence. Not even a Marvelfag but OP proves why Marvel > DC in any given movie.

that actually is a pretty interesting take on it
unironically made me think

No, obviously there sequences of people being saved BUT that isn’t the main reason why Snyder has failed. And I don’t think films like TDK bog themselves down by focusing on the hero saving civilians.

Logan didn’t either nor did Deadpool.

I don't think there is ONE reason why Snyder keeps failing. I think there are also gigantic issues with storylines, production schedules, marketing, movie pacings etc. So it's pretty useless to say 'hey that's the reason why his movies are so bad' but this is more of a take on genre studies and why he fails in that aspect ideologically. I keep hearing that his movies are intellectually superior and that's why there is an audience backlash against them and that's what I wanted to refute basically, by saying that his movies have holes in them "intellectually" as well, whatever that means anyway.

>it's not about characters, it’s not about realism and believability, hell it's not even about the stories
Then it shouldn't exist.

whoa....I wish I could watch these capeshits and see them as deep as you fuckbois do. Even the Sup Forums lauded Winter Soldier I find super boring because there really is no story to tell. Its just gratuitous CGI shots with quick-cuts, quips and (insert auto manufacturer) product placement. These stories don't stand on their own; the story is the filler plot for CGI fight porn.

Wrong. Nobody wants superheroes to protect them, everyone wants to be the superhero.

Sorry OP but the fact you criticized Snyder is going to make everyone on Sup Forums not want to read you. Enjoy posts like this and then for your thread to die. At least now you will understand comic shitters are brain damaged, and so are snyderfucks.

...

the problem was trying to force a universe out of his interpretations of the characters.

With Man of Steel you have a Superman who hid most of his life only coming out when the planet is going to be wrecked because of his presence.

With Batman v Superman you had a Batman close to retirement yet he's supposed to set up the Justice League. So you have a Superman too new for all the hero worship the world gives him and a Batman too old to start a cinematic universe plus you have a shitty Lex Luthor.

Here is the gold star, pack your back and go home since you already know it all.

Bewilders me that so many don´t get that. Hence why the latest super hero movies suck big time.

I don't see them as deep either user. I mean 'depth' is relative and anyone can tell that they fall on the shallow end of the spectrum. These readings of cape-shit aren't about their intellectual capacity but their cultural impact and audience responses. If you look at them through their context (when they come out, who watches them etc) then they become quite meaningful. In that sense they don't have to stand on their own because they are meant to be a response to a cultural phenomenon anyway.

It's okay, there are anons like that still find it interesting that's all that matters. I think we can all agree that liking snyder has become sort of a meme but Sup Forums doesn't have to be about memes all the time. There is still some room for more level-headed discussions.

MUERE MUERE MUERE MUERE MUERE MUERE MUERE MUERE MUERE MUERE MUERE MUERE

People want an adventure. Not a snoozefest.

Marvel explores strange foreign countries and worlds. And historical settings and well known wars. Most DC movies not really.

also world war 1 as a setting for a superhero movie is a fucking terrible idea compared to ww2

I'm the one few that didn't mind Lex that much. Yes, he should lose that ridiculous stutter but there's a good basis there for him to develop into the villain from the comics.

Thats also why Wonder Woman was a success.

>Hence why the latest super hero movies suck big time.
But they don't? They still get quite a positive audience response. Maybe it's just you who doesn't like them anymore and if you agree with then that means they are not pandering to that aspect but there is no claim to be made about recent superhero movies being worse than anything that came before them.

In my opinion, they are more of the same.

I can understand your approach but why you throw Snyder trilogy in it?
In MoS Superman surrender to Zod to avoid kriptonians hurting humans. The fact his battle with Zod destroy so many things (and killed some) fueled Wayne into try to stop him (in BvS). So its not like what you say is completely absent in Snyder capemovies.

The truth is if a superhero movie isnt retarded it will not work because their target audience want to turn their brain off the moment their enter the theather while Snyder movies really activates your almonds.

This is the only possible way you can justify Thor 3 box office.

>Marvel explores strange foreign countries and worlds.
Only about 2-3 movies did that. The rest primarily take place on Earth/America.

>healthy escapism

>capeshit

>Snyder
>understanding anything

>sokovia
>wakanda
>assgard
>weird dark world planet in thor 2
>all the planets in both GOTG movies, including the multicultural one with trillions of different aliens in them
>syberia in civil war
>random place in ant-man (where he explores the avengers facility)
>Kar Mataj or whatever it was called that country in Dr. Strange
>the middle east in all iron man movies
>that planet Hulk was in in Thor Ragnarok
Come on dude, its okay that you're a DCuck but I think its already time to move on and enjoy both brands.

You're citing JL after WB butchered it? JL is not a Snyder film. Bits are.

You're treating superheroes like it's a film genre. It's not really. Superheroes started with comics. Silly fantasy and sci fi scenarios.

Then Marvel in the 60s and 70s began pushing serious storylines. Like Spider-Man fighting drug dealers. Tapping social relevance. In the 80s, things like Watchmen got published. The Dark Knight Returns. More serious stories for people who had grown up reading comics and were now adults. And that trend has continued to the present day.

Comic book movies have had a range of tones and styles. Earnest, hopeful ones like the Donner Superman movies. Dark and Gothic things like the Burton Batman or the Crow. A lot of earlier superhero movies were these passion projects that directors fought to get off the ground. The modern example of that being Deadpool.

My point here is that they do different things. There's no one way every or has to be

Iron Man is fighting terrorists.
Captain America is fighting nazis in 1 and 2.
The hulk didnt and flopped.
Thor 2 and 3 explore Asgard and Sakaar.
Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2 explore foreign worlds.
Dr Strange explore exotic nations.
Black Panther is going to explore an exotic nation.

All the avengers movies were generic super heroes unite to fight one big baddie that DC also does.

Narrative acknowledgment of the killings of innocents doesn't lessen the iconographic impact on audiences. In biggest European cities, a bomb going off or a truck killing civilians is now a normalised event. In most US cities gun shootings are so. Just because similar acts of terrorisms are explained in the script and even become a narrative point in a sequel doesn't mean it stops cognitively troubling movie-goers.

Audiences want to see similar catastrophes but they also want to see people surviving from that.

And I did mention Snyder trying to play for audience's catharsis in the recent JL movie also. But the point is: even when he tries to play by the books, he fails. He just can't see it.

>their target audience want to turn their brain off the moment their enter the theather
For the most part. Normies don't watch capeshit for the characters or the lore. They just want something in the background to make then laugh while they're receiving a handjob from their gfs.

Okay sure your analysis is good but instead of watching this recycled garbage maybe you can apply your insight into storytelling and search for meaning in actual good movies (which are released frequently) where they purposely input meaning rather than the same rehashed bullshit

I think it's fair to take them as their own sub-genre of Action-Fantasy at this point. Certainly they bend with other genres, much like Sci-Fi does (Star Wars for Western, Alien with Horror, Blade Runner with Noir etc) but hybridisation of certain genres has been a thing for a long time. This does not constitute as an evidence as to why they shouldn't be called their own sub-genre.

I imagine most people also liked the alien planet in Man of Steel.

>They save their communities
>Snyder movies are much less realistic than Marvel movies simply because they do not work as societal pieces and only individualist spectacles

Go fuck yourself, commie.

And this, along with the appeal to traditional, spiritual values, is why I like Snyder.

How do you know I don't already? No superhero movie is even in my top 10 list this year but I am still interested in seeing them and discussing them. I don't feel like I am 'above' any given genre.

I'm sorry, but your premise is already dead when you consider he only got to truly realize his vision in the theatrical version one time (MoS). BvS and Watchmen got other cuts available to the public, but their theatrical versions, albeit good in my opinion, are inferior to his vision. Justice League is a frankenstein monster that has no vision in its final version, due to multiple things like him leaving mid-production, studio interference, clashing directors' visions etc.

Plus, you're assuming there's only one way to do a superhero story post 9/11. If we had this limited viewpoint in the 80s, for instance, after Reeve's Superman was turned into the safe blueprint for hero stories, we wouldn't have gotten many of the comic book classics of the past, like Alan Moore's Watchmen and Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, which deconstruct the characters and genre, because people would just say "nahhhh, just make the one safe optimistic take of the heroes people have come to expect".

Pic related is why Marvel movies will always succeed financially but fail to actually make a cultural impact. It's the reason no one talks about Marvel movies after they leave the theaters and focus on the next one. They're 'good', they make money, but they're safe and not memorable because their formula is not new. That may be good for the Disney executives, but is it good for the fans? I'm not sure.

Man of Steel brought a new interpretation of the character to the big screens and it still gets 500+ post threads here to this day, for instance, with people defending and attacking the movie. Watchmen still gets people talking whenever it's mentioned, some think it's boring, some think it's the best comic book adaptation ever. BvS is one of the most divisive movies ever, it still gets people riled up. MoS was released in 2013, along with Iron Man 3 and Thor: Dark World. Anyone talks about those?

who gives a fuck about comics?

Snyder doesn't.
Marvel doesn't.

You need to grow up

>quite a positive audience response
Jesus dude. Are you going to tell me Justin Bieber, Miley, Ed Sharon and whatever fucking mainstream shit that is out there and making millions gets "quite the positive audience response"?

I don't think you realize Snyder is an atheist making fun of chrstianity in all of his movies. Not surprised an alt-righter doesn't get it, you voted for Drumpf.

>Snyder doesn't.
Pretty sure he does.

A lot of people wanted more of MoS, so yes.

>Snyder sucks because his movies don't fit my ridiculous criteria for judging capeshit

Yeah, because it's not even worth responding to. There's no objective template for what a capeshit movie has to be. Snyder may be shit but it's certainly not because he does his own thing instead of trying to construct a "safe" escapist parallel world or whatever.

>Pretty sure he does.
You have never read any comics have you? The greatest criticism to Snyder is how he doesn't follow the fucking comics. What do you think people yelling "NOT MY SUPERMAN" mean?

You must if you're bothering to reply. Either you like capeshit and want it to be silly fantasy, or you pretend not to like it and shit post about hating it because no one can just enjoy shit on Sup Forums

>characters working together for a common goal and making the scenes fluid is a "ridiculous criteria for judging super hero films"
Wow

just wow

>You must
I care about the well being of my fellow Sup Forums posters.


If you think any universe, Marvel or DC, cares about comics. Then you don't know anything about comics or these movies. So you should kill yourself to death for making such an abomination of a post.

imgur.com/AZHs8in
based reddit does it again

No but I can cite them and their financial success to say "Pop music today isn't any worse than it was 10 years ago". If you want to claim recent superhero movies are worse than they were, try to bring some evidence to the table other than a totally subjective claim.

I don't understand the argument that the last two movies don't belong to him. There is only so much you can change in the cutting floor and pick-up shoots and none of the points I mention belong to that stage in filmmaking.

Also as I said before, Snyder is a meme on Sup Forums, his movies didn't have any more cultural impact than Marvel movies.

And I am not saying there is only one way to make superhero movies, but audiences do expect genre works to follow a very simple guide-book. That's why we have something called 'genre'. They are not limitations, they exist so that you can make recognisable works of culture. Even more edgy works like The Dark Knight, Deadpool and Logan followed them to some degree. Filmmaking isn't about getting your hands on a camera and shooting what you have in mind, it's a cognitive process and successful directors gave a fuck about it ever since Citizen Kane.

It's called character development. Maybe in the comics you can get away with Superman suddenly showing up out of nowhere and being the beacon of all that is good and just and everybody loves him, but in a live scenario you have to explain the time and work it takes to get there.

>ignoring the fact that the rest of OP's posts are critiques on purely ideological grounds

>characters working together for a common goal and making the scenes fluid is a "ridiculous criteria for judging super hero films"
WOW

JUST WOW

>but in a live scenario you have to explain the time and work it takes to get there
yeah that sounds pretty good
that's why "What's so funny about truth, justice, and the american way?" is actually good as opposed to grimdark DO YOU BLEED bullshit

>Ideological grounds based on sociological and psychological aspects

>It's called character development.
Comic fans don't want character development, they want their characters like in the comics.

good points. DCEU also doesn't care much about consequences whereas MCU does.

In Spiderman: Homecoming you have a villain created by consequences. First by the battle in NYC that left a lot of alien tech on the ground then the special Stark/government salvage team pushing out the small business guy who then decides to operate illegally by scooping up odds&ends from the superhero fights and thus earning the name Vulture.

With Avengers 2 you have a worried Iron Man creating Ultron in the hopes of having something to carry on if the Avengers are no more in order to protect the planet and this creation leads to the death and destruction which creates the villain Zemo who manipulates the Avengers into fracturing in Civil War.

In MoS and BvS massive damage occurs with far less consequence. In the beginning of BvS Batman is motivated to fear Superman due to the destruction in MoS but he tosses that fear away because of "Martha!" The one sign we have public dissatisfaction is the trial scene where there are some Superman detractors and one crippled security guard who blows up the freaking Capitol and it's hardly addressed again.

Like MoS we have another destructive scene where people died because of Superman's presence and yet at the end of the film he is given a State funeral and his loss is so great that by Justice League they are calling it a world without hope because it's been a year since Superman died after an amazing career of saving the day for less than 2 years while inadvertently causing a lot of death and destruction just by his mere presence.

Whereas in the MCU the government didn't take the Avengers and superheroes in general lightly and therefore came up with the Registration Act particularly after the death caused in the fight at the beginning of Civil War. The consequences help drive the plot and characters but in DCEU it's just stuff that happens and for the most part brushed over so that really nothing matters.

But he's not Lex Luthor - he's the bastard lovechild of the Joker and the Riddler.

>Even more edgy works like The Dark Knight, Deadpool and Logan followed them to some degree

None of those followed the formula, they simply broke away from it in a way you enjoyed. They're as different as MoS, BvS and Watchmen, you just happen to not gel with the latter examples.

And giving exactly what audiences expect might be a successful (and even smart, from a business standpoint) thing to do, but it doesn't move the genre forward. Iterating on a tried formula (Marvel's modus operandi) may be profittable, but it leads to stagnation.

Also, if you had seen the trailers for JL you'd notice pretty much 70% of all scenes were altered / cut after Whedon took over. Rumors point to 45 min of cut material that was CGI-ready and even more altered stuff in reshoots. Video below related. Tell me how that doesn't completely change a director's vision. Hell, even the scenes were Whedon just changed the colors are already altering the original director's vision.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Od_hmJp76mY

I'm not even saying Justice League would've been good, cause that would be stupid to say since I haven't seen his version, I'm just saying it's not his vision.

>In the beginning of BvS Batman is motivated to fear Superman due to the destruction in MoS but he tosses that fear away because of "Martha!"
Did you forget the part where he tried to minimize civilian casualties by leading Doomsday away from populated areas? The entirety of BVS was about consequences, especially Superman's self doubt over whether his interventions are actually making things worse.

Yes, and I don't understand why that's even relevant here. Do you mark down art films because they don't fit your idea of what an art film should focus on?

It is simply absurd to say that Snyder has failed because he isn't following the blueprints of what the genre is supposed to be. That can only lead to stagnation and unoriginality like what we've been seeing in the MCU. Snyder treats his films like art rather than just a moneymaking tool for WB, which is why he isn't going to follow any kind of preestablished manual of how to make superhero films or whatever. Maybe it hasn't worked because Snyder himself is not a good director, but I don't see anything wrong with this fundamental decision and quite frankly it saddens me that people do.

>Did you forget the part where he tried to minimize civilian casualties by leading Doomsday away from populated areas?
Actually he did it for the spear

Well said.

kinopost

This is sadly why Marvel movies will always win despite being garbage. The audience wants their heroes to be comic book 1:1 representations (or 'fun' versions of them, not ones at challenge their very concepts) instantly and they get exactly that, whatever the cost (a plot that makes sense, organic character development, etc).

>Marvel cares about consequences

huhuuuuuUhauhahahaHAHAHAAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAAH

Watchmen was a good adaption and if you complained about it (I haven't watched the other super hero movies he made) and don't like the other ones, you objectively deserve to get the bad films after watchmen, because it's fair if you're just going to shit on a good film he might as well just shit out bad films.

Except Marvel doesn't follow the comic heroes either. One of the complains for Homecoming's Peter Parker is that he isn't like the comics. He isn't responsible. He is literally Miles Morales but white.

Thor isn't a happy go lucky guy like in the movies. He is serious business.

Iron Man isn't a quipping retard in the comics, he is just an asshole that no one likes.

Yes, they do "fun" versions of them, not 1:1 iterations. DC also tried making fun versions of their heroes in Justice League, and from what I heard, it worked with Flash and Batman. People I know enjoyed them the most.

He's not an atheist, he's a Christian Scientist. Quit lying...it doesn't help your argument. All the same, there's a branch of atheists who believe that Christian tradition and belief are a critical part of western civilization and its success.

And not alt right, but you know that. I'm an individualist, same as Snyder...we're the biggest threat to Hillary and her minions. And let me assure you, things are going to get a lot more interesting for you in the near future, when net neutrality kicks in and the Hollywood scandals continue their spread into the media and political spheres.

There's worse allegations to come. Count on it.

>CBM can only work one way

Imagine being this much of a pleb. It's okay if you don't like that kind of stuff OP, it's a valid reason. But it doesn't make you subjective opinion a fact when there are others who do enjoy it. Movies don't have to work one way.

people complained about the "villain" being a shit actor. I have heard opinions that go so far as to claim he ruined the movie for them.

This. I'm not saying Snyder's a great director, but he at least makes his movies with a specific vision in mind, not a focus-tested product that ticks a series of boxes from the studio.

>net neutrality kicks in
We are already in a net neutral environment. I also seriously hope the rest of your post was ironic.

Maybe you should read posts before you reply then, I never complained about Watchmen, I just said you can't take what made Watchmen work and apply it to other superheroes on face value and expect it to work again.

>None of those followed the formula, they simply broke away from it in a way you enjoyed. They're as different as MoS, BvS and Watchmen, you just happen to not gel with the latter examples
It matters with Snyder because he isn't making any original movies to begin with. If you are going to break the formula, break it in a way that is reflected in the storyline. All the other movies with genre subversions worked because they could carry it narratively. There is nothing original about MoS's script that allows for genre-bending.

No one cares about your dumb philosophical scenes in Superhero movies.

People pick a Superhero movie from the theatre's catalog because they want to watch dudes beat each other up. No one gives a damn about their motivations.

With the thought of civilian casualties in mind as a second priority. How is that wrong when you're fighting something that could threaten the entire planet?

>healthy escapism
Nope.

Escapism is for babbys. If you want escapism go watch Harry Potter or something. I don't like Zack Snyder, DC, or Marvel, but the only thing I hate more than any of that bullshit is escapism. Real cinema makes you confront reality. And while Zack Snyder is failing spectacularly at everything he does, at least he's not pandering to you escapist faggots.

And Homecoming performed worse than they expected for a "Spider-Man finally in the MCU" movie. They were expecting 1b+, but instead they only got 150m~ more than the abomination that was Amazing Spider-Man 2, despite bringing the big guns (Captain America's cameo and Tony Stark as mentor figure).

>With the thought of civilian casualties in mind as a second priority.
No, the monster had already destroyed the part of the city where he was born. If he wanted to avoid casualties he should have stayed there where everyone is dead already instead of dragging him to a new place and expanding the destruction.

The "its empty" bit was just to reassure Wonder Woman they are on the same side, but his purpose was solely for the spear, if it wasn't empty Batman would have still dragged Doomsday there.

>or 'fun' versions of them

yeah that's what he said

You can hardly call Cap's 'appearance' in Homecoming a cameo.

Modern cinema is PLAGUED with fucking escapism. We don't need more escapism.

Yeah, but that's what I said. He literally disagreed that they were 1:1 versions and agreed they made 'fun' versions, like I said was the only alternative to 1:1 adaptations.

Try any other takes and you're destined to fail in the current audience climate, no matter the quality.

>implying Feige didn't intentionally sabotage the character's importance in the MCU to reduce his stock at Sony so Disney could buy him back at a later date for cheap when their studio finally collapses

we do though

we are living in Trumps America, Allah's Europe, Mass Immigration Latinamerica, Black Plague's Africa, Toiletless's India, and Nuclear's Korea.

We absolutely need all the escapism we can get.

Imagine spending this many words to be this wrong

Damn, when you say it like THAT, makes me want to go watch Avengers Infinity War (tm) right now.

Who cares what people pick?

"Kicks off" was the intended verbiage. Good riddance.

Disney's next on the docket, btw.

>any given movie
>what is Superman
>what is Nolanverse
>what is Burton's Batman
>what is Constantine
qys pleb

>Trumps America
>Allah's Europe

Pick one and only one, pussy.

Warner Bros does.

Warner Bros is a bunch of jews, what do they know about art

All movies are a form of escapism, safe for certain ultra-leftist directors like Haneke. You kino isn't above capeshit in that aspect.

>imagine living in timeline where people care about Guardians of Reddit much more than Superman and Batman
That's world you created, Zack. Good job, faggot.

Imagine wasting nearly a billion dollars and a few years to make MoS, BvS and JL.