Gives up his powers to be with a woman

>gives up his powers to be with a woman
>kills Zod
Fuck Zack Snyder.

Oh wait...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mA5d66AnT7s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Anyone care to defend their double standards?

Fuck off. You couldn't just post in an existing movie argument or wait for one to show up? A thread died for this.

>first snyderfags call everyone who points out MoS' problems as Donnerfags
>now Snyder is just following Donner's model
Yeah, fuck off.

????
Do you deny that
>gives up his powers to be with a woman
>kills Zod
these things happened in Donner's (or Lester's) movie?

Yes, MoS took the familiar elements of the iconic Superman II and "modernized" them.

Wonder Woman was also set in the past to mirror the first season of the TV show being set in WWII.

Also both Aang Lee's Hulk and The Incredible Hulk borrowed a lot from the 70's TV show.

When you're dealing with characters that have had really iconic versions that most of the public are familiar with, it's a good idea to mirror a lot of those elements. It's the exact same as in all the recent nostalgia bait movies: Transformers, TMNT, Ghostbusters, Terminator, Power Rangers, Star Wars, and so on. It's more of the "I remember that thing, I clapped when I saw it!" shit.

>>kills Zod
That didn't actually happen.
Watch the uncut version.

You know what did happen though? Superman apologized for letting people down and fixed the destroyed buildings.

>That didn't actually happen.
uh

.

...

>That John Williams music start playing
>crushes his hand
>grins
>throws him to the side of a mountain before letting him slip down to his death
He'll be fine

>>grins
This is the worst part desu.
At least DCEU Supes was distraught, not gleeful.

>kills Zod
But that didn't happen. youtube.com/watch?v=mA5d66AnT7s

But it did.
see
There are multiple cuts of the film.

He didn't kill Zod though; the depowered Kryptonians were arrested alongside Luthor. You can see them in the background when Lex is talking to Clark at the end.

see
>There are multiple cuts of the film.

This.
There's the weird Lester Cut,
The Donner Cut,
A couple of different television cuts,
and scenes like this with the Kryptonians being led off.
Some cuts make it seem like Superman blows up the Fortress of Solitude with Luthor still inside it (with his heat vision)
The original Donner cut has him time-reversing the Criminals back into the Phantom Zone.

Superman II's final act is a horrible jigsaw mess of pissed off Director vs meddling Studio.

Snyderfags need to go back to fellating John Byrne's awful shit.

But that was just Byrne throwing a shitfit for being taken off Superman.

>There are multiple cuts of the film.
You mean exactly like BvS? I don't understand why you Snyderfags constantly say stuff like Zod and his people surviving in Superman II doesn't count because it wasn't in the main version yet only the UE of BvS counts.

Donner filmed them being dropped into the mist, Donner filmed them being led away by the authorities.
Lester is the one who came in and cut it to pieces, and added shit like Superman's mind-erasing kiss to replace Donner's time-reverse ending.

Before it was butchered up, Superman and Lois kick them down a chute, they are arrested, Superman blows up the Fortress of Solitude (for no raisin) then time reverses to fix all the carnage caused by the criminals, who are last seen floating off in the space-mirror.

So what you Snyderfags are really doing is comparing Zack Snyder's version with Charles Lester's. Lester is also the guy who directed Superman III.

So if you are saying Man of Steel is comparable in quality to Superman III, I find I cannot readily disagree with you.

>Lester is the one who came in and cut it to pieces, and added shit like Superman's mind-erasing kiss to replace Donner's time-reverse ending.
AND YET THAT WAS THE VERSION KNOWN AND LOVED FOR DECADES

WERE WAS THE "MAN OF MURDER" WHINING THEN?

Because that's a false equivelance?
Both cuts of BvS are from the same director, unlike Superman 2.

Now shoo.

*Richard. I don't know why I keep saying Charles.
>WERE WAS THE "MAN OF MURDER" WHINING THEN?

Honestly the idea that Clark married and fucked Lois, and then completely erased her memory of events (while keeping his own) because she was having panic-attacks at not getting constant Superman dickings was the controversial part.

Also, Superman II isn't nearly as beloved as Superman the Movie: for reasons of having a butchered final act.

C.R. is just so damn charismatic as Supes the he just comes out of a screwed up picture with his popularity intact (see: Iron Man 2).

I still don't get why editorial allowed that to see print.

>Also, Superman II isn't nearly as beloved as Superman the Movie
(not true, by the way)

The original intent was that they survived and that outcome appears in more versions than doesn't; even most of the versions where we don't see that they survived don't rule out the idea that they did.

It's not a case where the original director shot a scene and said "Naw, that doesn't work" or where there's contradictory information in a later work.

I'd love to see the metric you use to come up with this. Or is it just ass-pull opinion?

Before you start busily digging a stupid-hole, I'll mention that I saw both films in their original theatrical release.

>I'd love to see the metric you use to come up with this.
Touche, my friend.

You're right. The one where they die is from Lester, the guy who the studio put in. They live in the original directors version.

That just makes you Snyderfags trying to say he killed them even stupider.

>and that outcome appears in more versions than doesn't
The most famous and well known version shows Supes chucking Zod into a bottomless pit.

Cuz by my metrics, Superman was considerably more popular than Superman II, with both of them faring much better than Man of Steel, while being in drastically less theaters.

see
What are you trying to say?
That's like saying Batman Begins isn't as well liked as TDKR.

There was the imication that he let zod die but there were scenes cut from the film showing zod and co. And lex being arrested outside the fortress.

So, superman didnt kill zod.

You think Begins is as widely appreciated as Heat Legend's magnum opus?
Your mistake is projecting your opinion on millions of people.

Superman the Movie sold 50% more tickets than Superman II. It was objectively better recieved as a film. Superman the Movie ran at #1 or #2 for a month and a half.

>So, superman didnt kill zod.
He did. In the most widely seen version of the film, he did.

>as Heat Legend's magnum opus?
tdk*R* you idiot.

>It was objectively better recieved as a film.
Objectively?
Source?

We're willing to accept that Zack Snyder is Richard Lester-tier.
You've won.

>We're willing to accept that Zack Snyder is Richard Lester-tier.
>You've won.
see
>AND YET THAT WAS THE VERSION KNOWN AND LOVED FOR DECADES

Richard Lester tier doesn't seem to carry the implication you think it does.

>Objectively?
>Source?
Literally by selling 50% more tickets

So The Avengers is better than Iron Man 1?

Well more people have seen the theatrical version of BvS so that means thats the one that counts then right?

Richard Lester made 10% of Superman II, the creepy confusing part.
Then went on to create Superman III, with Mexican-equivalent Luthor because Hackman said "fuck Richard Lester". Then Lester went back to making Musketeer films to everyone's general relief.

I know exactly what implication it carries.

I don't think you do, because you implied here
That Lester's version of Superman 2 wasn't good, when audiences disagree.

Superman the movie has a higher critical average rating (8/10) than Superman II
Superman the movie has a higher audience rating than Superman II
Superman the movie stayed atop the box office longer and made much higher box office, in almost half as many theaters.

Really what metric would satisfy your crippling autism? None, I am guessing.

Sure. The theatrical cut is great, it just doesn't satisfy the autists who need to see Supes saving people every five seconds as opposed to every ten.

Again, "Lester's Version" is 90% what Donner created, with a different resolution that Lester filmed to change the ending. What part of that do you not understand?

>Superman the movie has a higher critical average rating (8/10) than Superman II
>Superman the movie has a higher audience rating than Superman II
>Superman the movie stayed atop the box office longer and made much higher box office, in almost half as many theaters.
None of these are objective measurements of quality though.

Do you know how relatively small a pool those first two groups are?

Also
>critics

Who are those cops and how did they get to the north poll?

The part where you implied that people think that the Lester cut of Supes 2 isn't good.

>None of these are objective measurements of quality though.
You really don't understand what the term "objective" actually means, do you?

Please enlighten us as to what you consider an objective metric between the two films.
It should be entertaining.

>You really don't understand what the term "objective" actually means, do you?
Audience scores and critics scores are collections of SUBJECTIVE opinions, dingus.

That's what you get when you have an actual charismatic character on screen, it's easier to forgive the faults.

>Superman movies
>ever making a lick of sense.
New to the genre?

That makes zero sense. a fault is a fault is a fault.

>>gives up his powers to be with a woman
It not just a woman. It's fucking Lois "10/10" Lane

>The theatrical cut is great
>unironically calls other people autists
wew boy. you sure are a special one, even amongst DCEUfags.

We're talking about "how well they were received", not "which film was the best".

Polling of critical and audience reception are absolutely the only reasonable metric. You are literally countering with "I don't agree", which doesn't budge the meter very much.

See the problem is, you are trying to win an argument I'm not making.

>you are trying to win an argument I'm not making
But an opinion is not an argument, so you must be admitting that you have no argument.

>"10/10" Lane
I think you posted the wrong picture user.

Since you are "turtling" into pedantic stupidity, I'll accept that as a sign that you no longer can continue.

At least you tried.

?
You're trying to disengage because you can't refute what i'm saying.
Please try to tell me what support for your argument you actually have.

You're confused, and trying to win a debate no one was actually having.
You really need to page up and re-read the discussion, or better yet just quit.

>You're confused, and trying to win a debate no one was actually having.
Now you're repeating yourself.
Come on, this isn't my first rodeo.
Re-engage or fuck off, but don't try to escape by falsely positioning yourself as the arbiter of correctness.

This is the weirdest thread, most of it is one guy bumpfagging with himself

Which one represented Lois the best Sup Forums?

Kidder is the only one that even faintly gives the impression of being a big-city reporter.

Yeah but she's a bad actress.

The others just look like someone's secretary, or a hot chick the Director gave the role to so he could get in her pants.

>Lois Lane
>Written a part that requires acting talent

It's like debating who portrayed April O'Neil better.

Kidder is sometimes noticeably bad though. Almost Carrie Fisher in Star Wars 7 tier at times.

I read that as "gives up his powers to be a woman"

It's a terribly written role.
But she inhabits the character and actually makes something with it. Whoever that bitch was as Lois in MoS/BvS will be forgotten in a year. No wait I've already forgotten her.

>Whoever that bitch was as Lois in MoS/BvS will be forgotten in a year.
She's a big name outside of the DCEU so she won't be forgotten in a year, sorry.

Familiarity sells. It's what disney does. They sell you a fairytale you've heard your whole life. If people know surface level imagery or concepts, they expect them to be there in stories. Doesn't matter what a rich history the character has, you have to give audiences what they want.

Now let's see
Here you literally ask for a source that it was objectively better received as a film. "Better received" means the audiences liked it more.
Here's some cold hard facts about audience reaction to Superman I versus Superman II. Objectively, Superman I has a higher average rating and higher box office earnings, therefore objectively Superman I was better received than Superman II. I'm sorry you're a autistic NEET who don't know what words mean, but that's no reason to be retarded

>Here you literally ask for a source that it was objectively better received as a film. "Better received" means the audiences liked it more.

>what is context?
Look at the post I replies to there. He said that BO numbers proved a "better reception".

>Audience scores and critics scores are collections of SUBJECTIVE opinions, dingus.
You said this gem too. Don't revise what you said. Objective proof that a film was better received than another is audience opinion that they preferred one film over the other.

>>Audience scores and critics scores are collections of SUBJECTIVE opinions, dingus.
This is true.

This thread is about double standards in opinions, not audience reception.

>This thread is about double standards in opinions, not audience reception.
So basically now you're trying to dodge the fact you started this dumbass argument in the first place? Yes, this thread is about that. The argument you started was asking for proof that Superman I had OBJECTIVELY better reception than Superman II. Which was proven. At which point you started to say some stupid shit about subjectivity when the whole argument was about audience reception.

>to dodge the fact you started this dumbass argument in the first place?
I started the entire thread you gunga.

Listen, I'm the user he was arguing with, and I tapped out when I realized he was in Full Retard mode.
Quit wasting your life, he's never going to relent.

As he said. he's "not new to this rodeo". Or as Twain put it "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

>Donner Clark spends over 10 years being brainwashed into becoming Superman
>Snyder Clark spends over 10 years being a miserable drifter because Earth Dad was a dumb asshole, then he immediately becomes Superman when Space Dad tells him to
I don't know which is worse, but I hate them both.

I have an IQ of 106 tho.

>Posting your anonymous, unprovable IQ to win an argument.

I think we are done here

The jokes is that 106 is low as fuck you fool.