Saves Lex from Doomsday's punch even after what Lex did to him and his loved ones

>saves Lex from Doomsday's punch even after what Lex did to him and his loved ones

This IS Superman.

nah man Superman should've let Doomsdays knock that Granny piss guzzling fag.

bump

Never before has the bar been set lower

How is that even remotely low?
Most people would not save someone that just tried to kill two of their closest loved ones.

Welcome to the word salad argument style of Snyder white knights.

>maybe if I state the obvious and sound condescending people will think my opinion is better then theirs

>he talked about logic and did science things sometimes

This really IS Spock.

Witness the blind obnoxious hatred from the RT peanut gallery!

You had a point? He won't see it and simply attack you rather than engage in a discussion.

Good thing he said "fist and abominations" in a way no actual speaking person ever would specifically just to set up this scene.

but.... its Superman. and its a Superman and Batman movie. the better question is why WOULDN'T Superman save somebody. this wouldn't even be a question in the Reeves films. that's why the bar is set low, because this obvious statement even has to be said. which leads me to believe this is probably a bait thread, which in that case, a year later, wow. lol. People really gotta come up with new material here. Kinda sad honestly, guys.

>Welcome to the word salad argument style of Snyder white knights.
I swear i'm not trying to be confrontational, but I just don't understand how what I said it a "low bar".
I picked that instance not because it was the only one I could find, but because I think it shows very well what kind of man DCEU Supes is, a I think that is a much better man than people here give him credit for.

what? RT peanut gallery? engage in discussion? see? this is a word salad and condescending, proving my point. all I did was respond to someone who obviously agrees with me and you're accusing ME of not engaging in discussion, even though I never even made an attempt to start or continue one. like okay, bud, the rules of Sup Forums's ridiculousness change at your convenience whenever I challenge your opinion and you get triggered.

I know you don't understand.
I'm just not sure how to explain it any more clearly than I already have. I've been saying say "tone matters" for years and it's still not cutting through the bullshit and being heard so I see no reason not to join the others in assuming these threads are just contrarian shitposting.

>she runs the Suicide Squad and doesn't take shit from anybody

It really IS Amanda Waller.

>so I see no reason not to join the others in assuming these threads are just contrarian shitposting.
Why don't you see a reason?
I'm obviously being sincere.

There's something off about that panel, and it's not that Waller's thin. It's either her head or her neck.

>I know you don't understand.
p rude & condescending 2bh
bad show good chap

There's a lot of things wrong about it. Most notably the size discrepancy and lack of detail on those guns.
What the hell is wrong with this artist that they would half-ass the focal point of a drawing?

That's what a shitposter would say though.

Maybe so, maybe because they know that it's a hot button issue. Nevertheless, i'm being totally sincere.
It'd be nice if sincerity was assumed more. Cynical times.

So uhhh, what was Lex's plan for Doomsday if Superman didn't show up?
He was already activating him and shit.

He didn't press the button thingy until Bats foiled his plan over the radio IRRC.
Doomsday was Lex's nuclear option.

>It'd be nice if sincerity was assumed more. Cynical times.
Irony's high in this thread.

Either that or I am just assuming he could have aborted Doomsday by cutting off power or talking to the ship.
Can't remember if he pressed a button or not.

He would have done something incredibly smart that would initial work but then at the last minute fail to work, at which point Superman would have shown up and saved the day, all while Lex ranted about how he ruined everything.

>how what I said it a "low bar".
It's not, people are just quick to defend their knee-jerk reactions to Snyderman because the more people talk about how good the movie was, the more they realize their objections are composed mostly of "not muh." They also hate the implication that MoS and BvS were too deep for them. And when you point it out, they start naming flaws in the movie that only a film school douchebag even cares about. To this day I have no idea what cinematography means, and I don't care.

And now they're going to call me an enabler or some such, because people like me liking these movies encourages the studios to keep making them.

This smells like bait. I like BvS a lot, but this post is fishy.

Doomsday was Lex's anti-Darkseid weapon beta test.

with all the hate BvS gets. be honest, many times have you watched it?

I've seen it 8 times I think.
7 times for the Ultimate Cut.

It's not bait, I liked both films, and 99% of the things I've seen people complain about, even here, are either a result of not paying attention to the movie, film school nit-picking douchebaggery, or not being aware just how much JL setup was forced in and how many important story elements were left out. Also, BvS wasn't made for normies, it was made for fans, but "fans" here missed that. DDo you think the average movie patron knows what the omega symbol means in DC? What a parademon is? A motherbox? That the Flash's time travel causes time booms like the one that gave Batman that vision of a possible future? No, that's there for US, but people here are so "not muh" they missed it.

is this bait? i dont think ive even watched the dark knight that many times. and that's my favorite/most watched movie.

>it was made for fans, but "fans" here missed that. DDo you think the average movie patron knows what the omega symbol means in DC? What a parademon is? A motherbox? That the Flash's time travel causes time booms like the one that gave Batman that vision of a possible future?
I do think it's strange that i've seen it posted here that these elements were confusing.
I don't agree at all, but I could see calling them out of place.
But confusing? I think comic readers should pick up on this stuff easy.

Honestly I absolutely refused to watch it after MoS.

Then Wonder Woman came out and I immediately downloaded the Ultimate Cut.

I liked it, even watched it twice. SAVE MARTHA wasn't even bad, it just needed proper context.

Not bait.
I've probably seen TDK 10-15 times.
I've watched BvS so much because when I watch it I try to understand the vehement hatred for it and it turns into a whole exercise for me.

>it just needed proper context.
Like?
IMO a journalist would know that names humanize more than titles.

hey now. talk ALL the shit you want about BvS and suicide squad.
just leave man of steel out of it.

Exactly, anyone who's even passingly familiar with Superman comics would pick up on that stuff, instantly, in the theater, the very first time they saw the movie. I did, and I am not that clever.
Flashpoint was a major event with an animated adaptation, NO ONE on Sup Forums has any excuse to not at least be familiar with the basics of the plot, but after BvS was released there were a dozen treads a day about Flash's scene in the batcave. Why?

Not
Muh

That's why. Even the fucking Nostalgia Critic guy managed to review Man of Steel without comparing it to the Donner movies, but people here? Nope, they're apparently dumber than him, even though every time he's brought up they say he's shit.

The problem is you guys think saying "why did they do this" is critics expressing confusion. It's not. The question said critics are posing is less "what did this mean" and more "what idiot thought this was a good idea to do in this way".

I'm not talking about film critics, I'm talking about people who post here.

I want Tyler Hoechlin's more optimistic, genial Superman with Henry Cavill's physique.

So am I.
Not all critics are professional. I think the movie's wholly dissappointing, completely squanders the charisma of its actors, and is on the whole, up its own ass. That is a criticism. Therefore, I am a critic.

See, that's one of the few actually valid complaints, the way they were told to portray characters that goes against 76 years of established history.

Up it's own ass how? Because if it's the Jesus thing, yeah that was overdone.

>Also, BvS wasn't made for normies, it was made for fans, but "fans" here missed that

No conglomerate that wants to make almost 2 billion annually from their theatrical releases is going to spend $300-400M to make, promote, release and distribute a movie for 'fans.' Don't be such an idiot. Comic book sales are in the hundred of thousands for the very best selling titles, and that's not even ten titles achieving these sales a month, out of say 50+ every week.

Why are people still arguing over that shitty movie?
It was crap, so was SS, get over it. Lego Batman, Wonder Woman were great, and Whedon's Justice League will be good because he invented the whole 'bombastic superhero team movie' thing. DCEU gotten the break it needed and we can all admit BvS was utter shit made by a manchild without basic understanding of storytelling.

Can we please move on from tv "capekino" shitposting? Jesus fuck.

Up its own ass with the dialogue mostly. Too many scenes are just talking heads giving soliloquies of empty philosophy that's not even that well written.

But if I say that I get 20 posts telling me how dumb I am for not understanding lines like "what falls is fallen".
I get the intent just fine; I just think it sounds dumb. But that's not allowed because this shitfest just has to be an unsung masterpiece with no valid criticisms to be levied against it.

At the end of the day it didn't matter how many thesaurus Goyer and Terrio threw at the script, I don't buy into the characters or their conflict. It was just boring.

But BvS *and* WW are good.
It's not an either-or situation.

So you want a Superman who acts as a one man cheering squad for Supergirl?

Better than a Superman that acts as a cheering squad for ritual suicide.

I see.
That's unfortunate. I thought the movie was actually a nice change from most cape movies. It was a bit meatier and It's the type of thing that lends itself more to rewatches for me, like a Morrison comic.

And yet there were parademons, time booms, and Darkeid refferences. That's for average people?

Fair enough, that's Nolan getting his shit-stained hands all over things, studios are loathe to break form a formula that's proven to make money, they don't get that you can't remake Dark Knight with a Superman wrapping.

I feel that WW was overrated. Not bad, still good, but not fantastic. A 6/10, maybe. But yes, everything else so far has been fucking dogshit.

I don't have a lot of hope for JL, but I'm welcome to being surprised.

>But yes, everything else so far has been fucking dogshit.
I disagree.

I don't know that I agree that it was meatier or denser. Longer certainly but the actual level of depth is still pretty low. It's just obfuscated with heady speeches and dime store philosophy.

But then I'm not generally a fan of stories where the conflict only exists because people aren't allowed to talk to each other like actual people.

What is good about BvS? There's quite a bit of fanservice, but fanservice won't salvage a bad story.
You think its good because you're a fan, so the fact that absolutely NOONE has any characterization is not a problem to you - after all, you do know what Lex Luthor, Batman, Superman are like, so in our heads we substitute lack of characterization with our 'iconic' idea of the character. Of course, this approach works in comics, in a previously established universe - but we don't see any of that in DCEU which is a NEW universe, and none of the previous characterization applies.

In fact, that's why so many fans vehemently claim Batman doesn't kill in BvS, even though he obviously kills several people - because with no characterization, we're forced to substitute our own, so we substitute "iconic" Batman who doesn't kill, even though DCEU Batman pretty blatantly is fine with killing. Movie makes us GUESS what this Batman is like.

That's of course a prime example of flaws of the movie - I'm using Batman as an example here, because Batman who's fine with killing is perfectly a fine character idea - Tim Burton made two great movies about such Batman - but we need an character exploration of how such a person came to be, what drives them, why they do that - did Batman always kill? Did he start killing after Robin died? We will never know.
But hey, have a scene of Batman driving Batmobile through a truck!

BvS is bunch of flashy, special effects bombastic bullshit that doesn't actually work as a continuous story that has a plot and subplots - things just come in and out of the focus at random. Storywise, it's an incoherent mess.
And even spectacle wise, it doesn't really deliver it's entire promise - there are movies like Mad Max: Fury Road that are basically one giant prolonged action scene - and I'm supposed to believe Snyder was only able to cram like 5 minutes of Batman fighting Superman in a movie ABOUT Batman fighting Superman? Fuck off.

I mean, the interesting thing is that WW has like 70% average rating, most people think it's a solid movie. Rotten Tomato score checks how many people gave it a positive review - so it checks how 'solid' movie is, not how good it is.

So "92% of critics gave it 7/10' is a basic interpretation of its RT score.

>What is good about BvS?

- Good, complex story
- Explores superheroism more maturely than other capeshit flicks
- Plenty of heavy character development
- Nice subtle supporting cast performances
- Overall good superhero action, with actual gravitas behind it
- Mostly sets up stuff for future movies in a clever world building way without having to resort to a fifteen second after credits sequence.

Etc.

>where the conflict only exists because people aren't allowed to talk to each other like actual people.
I mean, this describes everyone who wants to hurt Bucky in Civil War.
They all either know or can be told that he was brainwashed.

This is pasta but i'll just head this off here because we are too different to agree on anything.
Small example- I thought Eisenberg's performance was excellent. I'm sure you thought it was shit.

So we'd both stay entrenched in our opinions.

Neck, as well as what said. her neck doesn't have nearly enough definition on the right side.

Okay, I'm gonna ask - what makes story good? What it's about? I'm not asking about what happens IN the story. I'm asking about themes and meanings and message and anything. Fucking Indiana Jones and Mad Max have some, so surely your great BvS has one.

You say it 'explores superheroism more maturely than other capeshit flicks' - how the fuck does it do that? Do we ever see effect of superheroes on people's everyday life in more than a passing? Do we see examination of psyche of a superhero?

Or are you just saying that it's a 'mature exploration' because Batman brands people with hot iron.

>Mostly set up stuff for future movies
That's not a pro, user. You're fucking insane if you think it is. Setting up future stuff should NEVER get in the way of actual story.
>Heavy character development
For who? Lex is a terrible character with no personality other than "he's insane", we learn very little about Batman and he barely changes other than magical Martha switch, Wonder Woman is for like two scenes. Superman has some, but then he dies in a pointless sacrifice.

That guy wasn't the guy your qeustion was directed at.
this was my response

Eisenberg's performance couldn't have been good because he had nothing to perform - Lex has NO PERSONALITY. No motive, no logic behind his action, no backstory, no ideology, NOTHING. Eisenberg tries to salvage that by inventing a character that writer FORGOT TO ACTUALLY WRITE.

You can't just say "opinions" on a bad fucking movie. It's a bad movie. You're allowed to enjoy it, but it's fundamentally flawed in its storytelling , writing and editing.

At least then we can have a discussion as to whether or not you still bear culpability if brainwashed.

With BvS the big resolution gets glossed over. "Superman won't go bad because he just won't. The problem never existed and never will!". Bruce has to actively not give a shit about tracking down the guy he wants to kill because otherwise he finds out about the whole secret identity thing that's instrumental to his understanding of Superman within the first ten minutes of movie.And I'm supposed to believe that this mature and smarter movie with tons of gravitas stars a character that is that obsessed, but not so much that he's willing to do a facial recognition scan on his target or anything like that.

we all know the authors intent
too bad the delivery sucks

>inb4 its ambitious
suck it, everything sounds better in your head, all concepts are good in theory, all that matters is the execution and it sucks
>but i disagree
and you are allowed to, you are allwoed to like this film, but claiming that everyone is wrong and you are right when consensus says otherwise is a whole other ball game

>You can't just say "opinions" on a bad fucking movie. It's a bad movie. You're allowed to enjoy it, but it's fundamentally flawed in its storytelling , writing and editing.
But I can, but because it's not a bad movie.
Lex does have a backstory. His father didn't love him and only used him as a business tool.
His father also beat him.
This feeds directly into why he hates Superman. He's so scarred by his childhood that he doesn't believe that it's possible for an authority figure to be benign.

Your mistake is in thinking this was accidental.
Lex finds out both of their identities.
Bruce doesn't care who Superman is. He just sees him as something that can give his life meaning.

>consensus
I don't get this argument. A large collection of opinions are still just opinions.

>too bad the delivery sucks
What about the delivery OF THE SPECIFIC MOMENT described in the OP is poorly done?

>Your mistake is in thinking this was accidental.
Show me where I think that's accidental.
>Bruce doesn't care who Superman is.
I know. And I'm saying that's stupid. Bruce's stated reason for going after Superman is never truly addressed and the fan interpretations that make his arc and conflict work all hinge on contrivances that I don't buy.

>If Superman goes bad we're all fucked so I need to stop him now
doesn't work because there's no actual answer to this than "he won't. don't worry about it"
>He only sees Superman as an unknowable alien
doesn't work because he never actually bothers looking. All the other supporting characters look and find out because it's not even a well hidden secret. Especially when Lex does the same in the same amount of time.
>He's angry over all the people that died in the invasion
Yet he had a day beforehand to close down his offices and fucking doesn't
>He wants to commit suicide by Superman or give his life meaning because he's old and tired
And? What comes out of that? He gets a new lease on life why? Because Clark dies I guess?

I don't agree with any of that or think it's particularly interesting but at no point did I ever claim it was accidental. I'd be more forgiving of it if it were.

>>He wants to commit suicide by Superman or give his life meaning because he's old and tired
>And? What comes out of that? He gets a new lease on life why? Because Clark dies I guess?
Because in his mind his legacy would be saving the world from a dangerous threat.
Notice the Bush-era 1% rhetoric.

>I'd be more forgiving of it if it were.
doubt it desu

Look.

There are SOME scenes in the movie where Clark acts like Clark.

And there are OTHER scenes in the movie where he doesn't.

You and your ilk only choose to look at the half of the evidence that favors you while ignoring the other half.

is there even a 1% chance of the flash, wonder woman, aquaman, or cyborg destroying the earth?

I want happy, friendly Superman back

>You and your ilk only choose to look at the half of the evidence that favors you while ignoring the other half.
Touche.
And this is exactly the issue.
The people who go on about "nothing like Superman" ignore that other half.

And believe it or not, I was on the fence about MoS when I first saw it.
But after I saw all the reductionist partisan bullshit from Mark Waid tier babbies, I decided that I was going to champion the (plentiful) instances of Clark behaving like comic Supes.

get superman I and II
and watch STAS and JL/U

>Because in his mind his legacy would be saving the world from a dangerous threat.
>Notice the Bush-era 1% rhetoric.
Yeah I did. And that's why I said that's unresolved and swept under the rug. There's still a 1% chance that Superman could go bad. In fact, I'd argue the odds went up to at least 10%; this movie proves you can get this Superman to dance to your tune if you threaten his girlfriend or mother. We even get a flash forward that shows that when they're gone all bets are off and humanity is fucked. What exactly was done to address this plot point beyond going "he sacrificed himself *this* time!"

That doesn't mean all hypothetical are null and void! Bruce's argument still has a point! That's why people keep trying to say that was never the real issue at hand.

>Bruce's argument still has a point!
But it never had a point. That was the point.
Bush is an idiot.

If they wanted to show Bruce not having a point they did a piss poor job of it because, like I said, we not only get the bad future where it does happen, but proof the invincible alien god can be manipulated.

Why is that not a scary thought? "Because it just isn't! He saved seven billion!" is shallow as fuck. And that's the real crime. For all the people talking about how this is so much deeper and more nuanced at the end of the day it's still "We can trust Clark because he's a good boy he dindu nuffin! You can totes trust him!"
Actually have the balls to follow through on the premise if you're gonna ask the tough questions of what it'd mean to have a flawed fuck up of a human flying around with that much power.

To Batman Superman is an alien being who could not have a normal life once he started flying around in blue tights. The "what if he goes bad" rhetoric is just an excuse to give him a justification to kill Superman, because he doesn't see a man, he sees an unknown extraterrestrial being playing God with humanity who could easily one day decide to destroy the planet.

Once Bruce realizes Superman is a man who wants to defend defenseless people, like his human mother, it shatters his entire biased and very narrow perception of Superman. He seems himself in Superman, only Superman never broke like he did, never grew cynical in the face of the world turning on him. Even when he was about to die by Batman's hand, Superman only cared about saving his mother and begged his killer to save her. THAT is what inspires Batman to become a better hero, because where he fell, Superman never did.

>they did a piss poor job of it because
I thought they did great. I really don't see where you are coming from with any of this stuff.
The 1% rhetoric being indicative of ignorant paranoia was very clear to me.

It almost sounds like disagree politically or something.

bingo
Couldn't have said it better. I don't have the patience after a whole year of these people.

Is there even a 1% chance that anyone posting on this board isn't an autistic NEET faggot?

i think its closer to 90%
the last 10% is regular NEET

>To Batman Superman is an alien being who could not have a normal life once he started flying around in blue tights.
You're just restating this again. I get it He thinks Clark is just an alien. He doesn't bother looking. It's stupid that he doesn't. Especially when he should know from Zod's broadcast if nothing else that Superman was hiding among humans for years. The movie asks me to believe in a conflict that is predicated on at least one party intentionally being stupid and ignorant and never bothering with stuff like known contacts or even just "where does he go when he's not seen".

Repeating that the fact that he was willfully ignorant ad nauseum does not justify it to me.

>But after I saw all the reductionist partisan bullshit from Mark Waid tier babbies, I decided that I was going to champion the (plentiful) instances of Clark behaving like comic Supes.

So you saw people being retards and decided to also be a retard out of spite.

>He just sees an alien he doesn't see a man!
Bruce has no problem killing men, because of that same cynicism. Men are still flawed. Men can still go bad. Men can still decide to destroy things, and Superman's level of power persists even if he's still a man, so he can still destroy the planet. Superman can still grow cynical in the face of the world turning on him; he just didn't this time (and even then largely due to plot contrivance). The problem and argument still exist, they just got postponed to another day. There is nothing saying Superman can't still fall and that we'd all be fucked when it happens beyond blind faith. And if we're going to have these character interactions be predicated on ultimately childishly naivety why not just go whole hog with it and do the Silver Age take present in the zeitgeist?

It's a clear character flaw in Batman that explains his irrational hatred for Superman. He isn't thinking rationally. That is the fucking point. Complaining it's stupid means you refuse to accept Batman to be capable of being fallible.

>this wouldn't even be a question in the Reeves films.

Superman literally gives up saving people and depowers himself to live with lois in the Reeves films. What are you talking about?

If you follow his logic he should also kill himself because he's become a menace. His whole "b-but what if" point is insane bs excuse for his grudge and projected fear of Superman.

>If you follow his logic he should also kill himself because he's become a menace
Yes.
That's part of why I said I found it too hard to give a shit about the conflict. I kind of think the universe would be better off without either of them. It's just assholes all the way down.

>It's just assholes all the way down.

Welcome to the world of self-appointed vigilantism.

You just dont watch a lot of movies.
Ive probably saw each starwars 50+ times and lotr extended saga 30+ times.

>And there are OTHER scenes in the movie where he doesn't.
Such as?

I prefer to think of it as bringing balance to the force.

Conflict based on myopia is just shallow. Being condescending and insisting that's the point doesn't make it deeper. Stupid characters make for stupid conflict. The movie stops being about them having differing ideologies or even personalities and instead transforms into a boring slog of a countdown to the inevitable moment when Bruce pulls his head out of his ass. It would've been much more interesting to have them actually contrast while firing on all cylinders instead of having to dumb one (arguably both) of them down just for the sake of empty posturing.

>t would've been much more interesting to have them actually contrast while firing on all cylinders
See, this is just you disliking the approach.
It does not make that approach bad though. In concept OR execution.

the movie is shit

this

Bad opinion, honestly. Not the one I would choose in your place.

Yes, but him personally disliking the approach doesn't mean it doesn't have objective flaws.

We can play this game all day.

The problem is that something in that film resonated with you on a deeper level (Either intentionally or not) and that's perfectly fine. The Wrinkle in Time movie Adaptation still makes me cry for reason. (I still don't know why, that movie is terrible)


The problem is that you've used this resonation as a means to not only overlook this movie's significant flaws, but you've also taken it upon yourself to attack it's detractors instead of enjoying it for yourself and just be obnoxious with your opinions.

This cannot continue. Make peace with this movies flaws and just fucking move on.