Damn

damn...

Stop making this thread.

damn...

>Another autistic DCEU thread
Christmas has come early.

Doctor Pavel, I'm CIA

damn...

Perhaps the issue is that if our hero can do so much good, yet feel so emotionally and morally bogged down with the weight of all his actions and thoughts that it feels like an obligation and a chore... that it doesn't feel heroic at all?

Perhaps it comes down to the fact that while his actions speak of heroics, his character doesn't - and instead seems reluctant to save us?

Perhaps is that there's no real, tangible superman persona for us to hero worship? When he's doing these things, he doesn't characterise well. There's no sense of a heroic identity that Clark adopts - he simply does things. And Superman's heroism has seldom been about what he does, and has more often been about who he is. There's plenty as strong, as fast and as powerful - but nobody is Superman.

And that leaves an absence of a real hero, instead of a plot device in a cape.

>his character doesn't - and instead seems reluctant to save us?
That's a really poor reading. BvS makes it really clear that he doesn't feel comfortable with being defied, and in MoS he moves from place to place helping people incognito because he doesn't want what happens in BvS to happen- people's fear of a god driving them to commit atrocities.

>I feel uncomfortable being defied
>Better float above people acting austere some more. That'll convince them I'm an average joe.

One of my favorite Superman comics is the one where he just goes and has coffee with a cop. Too bad we'll never see that in the DCEU.

>>Better float above people acting austere some more.
That scene is played over talking heads debating how he feels about people's reaction to him.
He's clearly looking at the woman because she's reaching to the light as if he was Jesus.

And he's floating in light as if he were. He could come in low, but nope. Gotta perpetuate the thing that he's so opposed to.

>and thoughts that it feels like an obligation and a chore


The movie LITERALLY has superman talking with his mom about how being superman isnt a obligation

>One of my favorite Superman comics is the one where he just goes and has coffee with a cop. Too bad we'll never see that in the DCEU.


And that is retarded. Comfyfags are the worst.

And to add, i'm not some Snyder zeolot. I love when Supes is played lighter.
But I also like him played how the movies are unfolding.
I see the Supes you're talking about in the comics all the time. Not to mention the Reeves movies.

I'm totally on board for Snyder's ideas because I value ideas. Snyder is a man with strong opinions, and I like when a writer with a lot of personality takes on iconic characters. (meaning cape writer, used as an allegory. I know Snyder doesn't personally write the scripts.)

It's so obvious that he is stopped because he's unsure about what she is doing.
Obviously he saved her. The montage was about him being an unsanctioned good Samaritan.
That shot was illustrating how he feels uncomfortable with what people are projecting onto him.

People who only like one thing are the worst. Comfy is good, but "grimdark" is also good. Sup Forums has trouble with this concept.

>zeolot.
zealot*

His actions and his characterisation speak otherwise.

So why hasn't he established to the people that he's not a god, that he's a man? Where's the friendly charming persona for people to identify as a super guy instead of a Jesus analogue? Again, the writing is inconsistent here. He doesn't want people to commit atrocities in his name, yet he's literally just a symbol and a cape in the eyes of the public: superman has no identity. He's a force of nature. Of course he will be treated like a god. But not a hero.

>I'm not a Snyder zealot
>Proceeds to dickride

>Clark is uncomfortable with what people are projecting onto him!
>The fact that he does nothing to dissuade that and in fact encourages that behavior is irrelevant!

damn...

>So why hasn't he established to the people that he's not a god, that he's a man? Where's the friendly charming persona for people to identify as a super guy instead of a Jesus analogue? Again, the writing is inconsistent here.
?
Because he IS just a man.
You guys are really stupid. This is the part where you meme about 2deep, but i'm not saying that.
I'm not saying that the movie is exceptionally smart, i'm saying that you are stupid.

>>I'm not a Snyder zealot
>>Proceeds to dickride
So i'm not allowed to speak positively about Snyder?
What does "dickriding" mean to you?

Because the actions needed to make him look human fall under the definition of "comfy" and thus have no place in the DCEU.

Superman can't visit sick kids in the hospital (thus showing he's not a god that can heal the sick but just a guy that can offer encouragement) because that's too campy and lighthearted.
He can't hang out with fire fighters or EMTS or police (thus showing he considers himself on their level and not an austere force of nature that has no respect or regard for blue collar guys) because they'll just worship him anyway for reasons!
He can't actually try and feed starving nations and be rebuffed by their third world dictators because that'd mean taking an interest and actually trying to solve long term problems in a nuanced way rather than just saying wars will break out so he'd better not try at all. It's not what Snyder was going for and you just don't understand!

I don't get your issue.
Your problem is Superman's disposition?
He saves just as many people in the DCEU, but you think the approach is bad because he isn't comfortable in his role.

That's fine, but a lot of you guys seem to conflate "not muh" with "bad movie".

Fuck you, shithead, DCEU Superman's whole problem is a TOTAL lack of those "comfy" moments, which is the reason everyone hates and fears him. We don't need 100% comfy, but we need some of it or else Clark just comes off as icy and austere, which is out of character for Superman.

Dickriding is not actually addressing the argument and just repeating "I get what he was going for! It was a good idea!"

Clark is just a guy. He wants to be treated s just a guy. We're saying he acts in a way counter to that. "Not muh!" is not an argument against that. But it's all you've got so go ahead and keep using it.

Making an all powerfull character that is always whiny and butthurt by reasons caused that are his own fault is horrible writing and a good way to make people not like your MC.

They actualy TEACH you this on college.

...

gee it's almost like tone and context are important rather than superfluous details

damn...

I won't stop until you Sup Forumsmblrs accept how amazing it is.

>which is the reason everyone hates and fears him.
What are you even talking about, you idiot?
Many people are deifying him.

>Clark is just a guy. He wants to be treated s just a guy. We're saying he acts in a way counter to that.
But he doesn't. He just saves people and sees how they view him and doesn't like it. He's not secure in his place in the world and talks to his parents about it because he needs help.
He then DOES go to capitol hill when called.

Answer this question:

What is Superman doing publicly to disavow and discourage people from treating him as a god?

>He just saves people and sees how they view him and doesn't like it
What's he doing about it then?
You keep repeating "HE DOESN'T LIKE IT" but not how he's trying to STOP it.

Unlikable characters does not equal bad writing though.
Besides, Clark isn't unlikable at all. I was very sympathetic to him in BvS.

There's not way to stop it though.
If Jesus convened a press conference and said "i'm just a dude", religious people would still worship him because he's SUPERHUMAN.

You can't spell sympathetic without pathetic.
Nor is sympathetic synonymous with likable.
No, what makes it bad writing is the fact that a character puts no effort whatsoever in solving his problems.
What makes it a cancerous fandom is that when people point out that the character puts no effort into solving his problems, defenders just reiterate what the problem is.

Success doesn't matter. Attempt does.
I'd have thought Snyder fans of all people would understand that but I guess not.

*And he tries to solve HIS problem with what his place in life is.* He just doesn't try to stop religious people from worshipping him, which is a lost cause.

Maybe.

But you know what? I'd be able to take that Jesus more seriously and like them a lot more as a character than a passive Jesus who acts like a force of nature and a god and then expects people to not worship him.

The real probably with Clark in BvS is that he has no agency and no real character. He just does whatever the plot demands of him, and acts however the plot needs him to, like a robot.

This is nothing like a Jesus situation, the guy claimed and tried to convince people that he was God's chosen, not the opposite.


And NO other movie about super heroes had a problem with this. You insist that there is no other way, when this was actualy what they choose.

Why does Sup Forums keep coming here to defend these shit movies?

>The real probably with Clark in BvS is that he has no agency and no real character.
Clark is actively investigating Bats throughout the film though.
He character is very clearly delineated, especially in contrast to Bruce.

>comments upon superman
>has never read his old comics
While I don't blame you for not reading comics from the Pre-80s...to pass judgement upon how the character is written is a tad disingenuous . Now stop posting, its embarrassing

>You insist that there is no other way
No?
Why don't you jud

Because he IS just a dude you fucking moron. Is he supposed to hold a press conference or something? He doesn't want to be a celebrity.

*Why don't you judge a person's words and not set up strawmen?

You fucking moron. Have you never seen Life of Brian? Even if Clark said he wasn't a god people still wouldn't stop.

>BvS makes it really clear that he doesn't feel comfortable with being defied
The Matrix sequels of all things do it better.

This is pretty much what I was getting at.
As per Lois in MoS
>the only way to truly disappear would be to stop helping people entirely- and I sense that that's not an option for you.

He doesn't want attention, but he can't stop what he feels like he has to do.

But that is a real question. If you go to Sup Forums they have DCEU threads and they complain about how Sup Forums doesn't like their movies and that they don't like comics.
So I have to ask, why does Sup Forums keep shitting up this board?

>Is he supposed to hold a press conference or something? He doesn't want to be a celebrity.

>saying this about the guy that run around the world with Flash for charity

"Oh man, snaps! I want people to stop treating me as I was special, but I doooon't want to talk with them! I guess I should just do nothing ablooo bloo blooo

Eh, I don't agree. The do it in a more down to earth way, but they kind of underplay it and focus on mecha bullshit, endless car chases and ill advised blanket green tints too much.

>If you go to Sup Forums they have DCEU threads
But that means nothing.
I'm me. I'm not a boogeyman board.

>>saying this about the guy that run around the world with Flash for charity
DCEU Supes has never done this
>inb4 "exactly"
We both know you were trying to make a false equivalence.

You're a big guy

So...He's just a dude. He's not a hero. He's too weighed down with internal drama to appear as someone we would want to be if we had the power. Given the fact he has no identity beyond the costume and powers, there's no tangible characteristics you could pin him with to identify him as a hero.

Picture yourself as a citizen in the DCU. Superman simply is. He's around. He's there. He does stuff. He's spoken roughly 8 words to non-Lois humans in three years. In spite of his actions, it would be nearly impossible to idolise this man let alone trust him, because he's just this force of nature.

You scoff at the idea of him holding a press conference but that is exactly what he needs to do. I really hoped they'd let him have his moment to reassure the people and charm them, develop his Superman persona during the senate hearing - but no. Boom. He needs to address the people of earth to not only make his intentions clear, but his nature. Superman protects but he doesn't inspire. He saves but he doesn't give security.

A press conference or an interview with Lois would give the DCEU a superman that doesn't feel entirely so disconnected. Sure he's an alien, but he's been on earth long enough to LOVE humanity and celebrate us by showing the best of us.

Saving a family from a flood or an astronaut from a shuttle crash is all well and good, but that doesn't seem all that heroic when you're virtually mute, constantly looking depressed and don't actually engage with humanity.

>Saving a family from a flood or an astronaut from a shuttle crash is all well and good, but that doesn't seem all that heroic when you're virtually mute, constantly looking depressed and don't actually engage with humanity.
He doesn't want to be a celebrity though.
He wants to take responsibility for his gift by using it for good, but he doesn't want all the attention.
This is his struggle in the film. He starts wondering why he's doing what he's doing, and by the end of the film he realizes that he's doing it because he truly likes it.
>this is my world

DCEU Supes just isn't a super easygoing guy right now because he has a lot of hit on his plate.
Give him a few years to come back now that he's moved out from his insecurity over whether he was doing this out of obligation to his father, or because he really felt a love for these people.

He made his choice when he killed Doomsday.

>And NO other movie about super heroes had a problem with this

No other movie actually makes questions. Is a fact, if you were in the middle of an earthquake and superman exists you wouldnt pray to jesus or any god, you would scream at the sky hoping superman would save you. Superman would change the world, he wouldnt be just a famous firefighter. Snyder take isnt dark, isnt grim, it's just logical.

>he posted it again
absolute madman

god fucking damn...

>in MoS he moves from place to place helping people incognito because he doesn't want what happens in BvS to happen
I think you mean
>in MoS he moves from place to place in order to hide and only helps people when they're in trouble literally right in front of him

see
>>the only way to truly disappear would be to stop helping people entirely- and I sense that that's not an option for you.

The big mystery for me is why you guys misrepresent the movies so much.

Dislike the for what they are if you must, but don't lie about their contents.

>the only way to truly disappear would be to stop helping people entirely- and I sense that that's not an option for you.
how does go against what I said? was claiming that he moves from place to place helping people because he doesn't want what happened in BvS to happen and I pointed out that that wasn't the reason at all.

He didn't move from place to place in order to help people. He moved from place to place to run away/hide but he can't help helping people so he always has to move on.
>in MoS he moves from place to place in order to hide and only helps people when they're in trouble literally right in front of him
Is completely true. He's not going out looking for people to quietly help so people don't start worshiping him like he fears. He's trying to hide but also can't not help if he sees people in trouble.

If his true first priority was hiding, he would let events take their course. But he doesn't. He intervenes even though that means he has to uproot and start drifting again.

Which is exactly what I said.....

He WANTS to hide, but he can't help himself. He's not doing what claimed.

And to add
>was claiming that he moves from place to place helping people because he doesn't want what happened in BvS to happen and I pointed out that that wasn't the reason at all.
This is still correct, regardless of how proactively he's saving people while living as a drifter.
He trusts his father's wisdom that it would change the planet and that people would react strongly.
Jonathan is proven right by Luthor and Batman's actions.
However, Jonathan only said the world wasn't ready YET. He knew Clark was going to change the world but he was afraid of him becoming known before he was ready.

Jonathan died and Clark wasn't sure when the time was right.
He learns about his heritage and his other father helps him decide how to honor Jonathan.
This thread is continued in BvS when he makes peace with his father's memory and becomes his own man, righting wrongs because HE himself wants to, as opposed to "righting wrongs for a ghost".

>this is my world
This completes the father arc.

>He trusts his father's wisdom that it would change the planet and that people would react strongly.
Yes. But he also wasn't deliberately wandering around with the intention of secretly seeking people out to help like that user was claiming. He was trying to run away/hide because he believed his father's words, that the world wasn't read for him and that they'd reject him. So he hid, but he also couldn't help saving people. But he was absolutely NOT intentionally seeking people out to save in secret. If he was why would be be on a fishing boat in the middle of the ocean?

And clearly none of BvS was planned before MoS and by the end of MoS he had already made peace with his father's memory and become his own man.
>MARTHA saying Johnathon always knew
>flashback of Johnathon seeing him playing hero
>Welcome to the planet.
>Happy to be here.
Completed his fathers arc. He had excepted his role and his place in the world.

BvS fucking undid all of his development in MoS for the sole purpose of having some incredibly contrived "ideological" fight with Batman. Which is made EVEN worse by the fact that in the end they don't fight for ideological reasons at all.

>And clearly none of BvS was planned before MoS and by the end of MoS he had already made peace with his father's memory and become his own man.
>>MARTHA saying Johnathon always knew
>>flashback of Johnathon seeing him playing hero
>>Welcome to the planet.
>>Happy to be here.
>Completed his fathers arc. He had excepted his role and his place in the world.
>BvS fucking undid all of his development in MoS for the sole purpose of having some incredibly contrived "ideological" fight with Batman. Which is made EVEN worse by the fact that in the end they don't fight for ideological reasons at all.
No?
We never see Superman's ideological effect on the world at large in MoS, which was the big fear that Jonathan had.

If anything, MoS jumped the gun on the conclusion of that arc.
Terrio handled it better than Goyer.

>>this is my world
>This completes the father arc.
And then he comes back mind controlled and evil.

Bravo Snyder.

What does that have to do with Supes choices?
Mind control=not acting under your own will.

>We never see Superman's ideological effect on the world at large in MoS
That's a completely different argument. MoS was Clark's personal journey to accepting his place in the world, which he does by the end. It's all then immediately undone in BvS.

Plus we don't even actually see this supposed "ideological effect on the world at large" in BvS either. You people act like it was some SUPER DEEP exploration of what a super powered being means for humanity but the film never actually legitimately explores any of that.

All it does is give a few throw away lines, have a few people saying mean things while others say good things.....that's fucking it. The movie NEVER, not fucking once, legitimately explores this "ideological effect" you defenders claim it does.

>And then he comes back mind controlle
How dare Snyder do something that happens all the time in the comics.

>Snyderfags are already starting their defense of bringing Superman back as evil
I wonder how you'll defend the movie if the rumors about him actively choosing to side with Steppenwolf because he was shown some fake footage of Batman leaving Lois to die?
>I-it's actually super deep and makes total sense if you think about it
Can't wait.

>That's a completely different argument.
No. see
>We never see Superman's ideological effect on the world at large in MoS, which was the big fear that Jonathan had.
>Plus we don't even actually see this supposed "ideological effect on the world at large" in BvS either.
We do. Objectively, plainly, we do. It is discussed by the media in the film.
Your argument seems to be more, "I don't like thing therefore it didn't happen."

>The movie NEVER, not fucking once, legitimately explores this "ideological effect" you defenders claim it does.
Again, complete opinion based on dislike of execution. It does.
The whole movie revolves around ideology.
The talking heads montage is just a facet of the entire thing.
Bruce is a paranoid G.W. Bush esque 1% rhetoric using extremist and Luthor has been scarred by the events of his life into believing that power will always corrupt.


>SUPER DEEP
Why can these discussions never go with out an anti Snyder poster hiding behind a strawman?

What are you actually arguing here?
Your first post at me didn't even make a counter claim.
Clark being mind controlled doesn't have anything to do with his choices and decisions.

We're in for a ride, as always. Did you missed the times when they said it was ok of him to let Jimmy Olsen be killed because it was his fault for being a CIA agent and Supes shouldn't intervene in such a political situation? Good times

see
PLEASE read the actual chain of posts.
His mind control comment had nothing to do with my post about Clark's decisions.

Mind control is literally the opposite of being able to make decisions under your own will.

>Did you missed the times when they said it was ok of him to let Jimmy Olsen be killed because it was his fault for being a CIA agent

Every single CIA agent deserves any bad thing that happens to them. Fuck off jew.

Relax dude, i didn't say anything about brainwashing. Just saying, the post i replied to reminded me that whatever will happen in the movie some people will find a way to spin it as something with a deeper meaning to it, will interpret it as part of whatever "arc" they shitposted into existence

>deeper
Literally not one pro Snyder person in this thread has said this.
I see this more from anti Snyder people as a defensive strawman.

It's shit there too dude. Between Injustice and MoS/BvS the last thing Supes needs is more shit making him look weak willed.

>We do. Objectively, plainly, we do.
Name some specific instances of how this ideological effect on the world at large" was ACTUALLY explored in BvS? Not discussed for 2 seconds by a talking head. Where EXACTLY was it explored? What were some of the actual ramifications on the world? How exactly did the world change?

Asking a question or saying things like ""We're talking about a being whose very existence challenges our own sense of priority in the Universe." Does not actually explore the issues.

The fact that you DCEU defenders legitimately believe that the movie actually explored these themes is insane to me.

I mean, using your logic Civil War was an incredibly deep and profound exploration of unregulated heroes effects on the world. That movie spent WAY more time at least pretending to explore that issue than BvS did with it's supposed themes.

>was an incredibly deep and profound exploration
see
then see
>The whole movie revolves around ideology.
>The talking heads montage is just a facet of the entire thing.
>Bruce is a paranoid G.W. Bush esque 1% rhetoric using extremist and Luthor has been scarred by the events of his life into believing that power will always corrupt.

The entire crux of conflict is ideology.
YOU just don't like it.

No one gives a fuck about a stupid game

or the right of intervention, or how the law can be aplied to someone that is above punishment. etc

You're my least favorite user. You made that shitty flash thread you fucking faggot

It does talk about those things though.
That's why the senator is involved.
But as I said, that stuff is just part of the whole.

It explores the effects it has on characters.
Idealogical reactions to Superman are the heart of the conflict of the film.

>Movies are so broke for ideas on what to have Superman do, he has to save Lois for half the list
I mean fucking hell

>asks for SPECIFIC examples

>The whole movie totes revolves around ideology.
>The talking heads montage is just a facet of the entire thing and I could totes name tonnes more if I felt like it.
>Bruce is a paranoid G.W. Bush esque 1% rhetoric using extremist
Because he was being manipulated like chump, plus it doesn't actually explore these issues. Batman just says and does things that he says are because of the alien, but as I've said (and you clearly aren't grasping this) just saying something doesn't = exploring an issue or theme.
>Luthor has been scarred by the events of his life into believing that power will always corrupt.
Which doesn't actually explore the issues. Luthor says some rubbish about gods and that's it. How does what Luthor says or does ACTUALLY explore these issues? Saying "devils come from the sky" isn't actually exploring anything.
>The entire crux of conflict is ideology.
So specific.

If the movie explored these themes and issues and deeply as you claim then why is it so hard for you to find actual, specific, tangible examples?

>That's why the senator is involved.
Who says things vaguely related to the topic a couple of times. That doesn't = exploring the issues. Plus there's no resolution to her questions or story because she just fucking dies.
>It explores the effects it has on characters.
Name specifics.
>Idealogical reactions to Superman are the heart of the conflict of the film.
Name specifics.

There are 32 images there though.

>Instead of stopping the known criminal blowing up the streets of Gotham, he breaks his toy and tells him He better cut it out.

>>It explores the effects it has on characters.
>Name specifics.
>>Idealogical reactions to Superman are the heart of the conflict of the film.
>Name specifics.
The entire conflict of the film IS the exploration of ideological reactions to Superman from Lex and Bruce.

Ideoligical disagreements are the entire crux of the film.

THE CONFLICT IS IDEOLOGICAL

hell, see this gif
Supes disagrees with Batman's approach. Batman thinks Superman is a deadly menace and thinks that killing him will give his life meaning.
Lex thinks that power always corrupts, while resenting his powerlessness himself.
He needs to kill Superman to prove his ideology correct, even as he becomes more and more corrupt himself.

*The entire film is the result of a convergence of ideological differences to how Superman does things/what he could do.*

You'd be whining if he did something violent to Bats in that scene though.
Even if he took him to jail, somehow that would make Snyder "not get" Superman.

We're forgetting the bazooka-armed criminals he ignored to focus on Batman for 2 seconds

Movie literally would've stopped there if he gave a look or Batman told him they worked for Lex

>and deeply
Where did I say this?

Exploring a theme=/=deep.
Malick is deep. Civil War isn't deep. Both explore themes.

>repeatedly asks for actual specifics
>gets literally none

By repeating shit like
>it's the vibe of it
You just sound pathetic as fuck. But I suppose you'd have to be to actually not only legitimately think that BvS explores these topics but to actively defend it.

Explain to me how the driving force of the plot being characters reacting with each other based on idealogical differences isn't exploration of a theme.

Because stating your differences or what you believe isn't equal to exploring them. No one, not once, actually discusses these things in the movie. They just say "this is what I believe" that's not exploring anything.

The closest the film comes to actually exploring the issues is Alfred talking to Batman......that's literally it. That's literally the only time in the entire movie that characters even come close to actually exploring the themes that defenders claim is at the heart of the movie.

When did I say I have a shit about Superman acting not Superman or anything of the sort? I'm angry this guy that Superman seems so sure of is a violent psychopath he found GUNNING DOWN AND BLOWING UP THE STREETS OF GOTHAM, ACTIVELY KILLIG PEOPLE (criminals sure) and all he does is go "Stop that,NEXT time you go on a rampage I'll stop you." Because he REALLY seemed convinced. And if Supes can hear Lois falling from a building from across the city there's a damn good chance he heard him straight up threaten to kill him. (Okay probably not, but that's just a fun assumption)

Also, why would he even need to get violent? All Superman needs to do is grab his cape and drag his completely human ass to Gothams finest

Action is exploration too though.
It's literally a "what would happen if" scenario. It IS exploration. Pitting characters with ideological disagreements against each other and having their actions be the driving force of the plot IS exploration of a theme, plain and simple.

He knows that Batman his only recently become more violent though.
He talked to that old dude in the apartments
>There's a new kinda meaaannn in him

But even if he was, that's no excuse to just let him go after all of that. He doesn't even ask what was going on, so for all he knows he let a bunch of violent gangsters go free, or he thought he was protecting innocents (in which case, Batman murdered innocents and he let him go). No matter how you turn it, it's a really bad move. Hell, who knows, Batman might need actual help. He looked pretty unstable to me. Superman let a violent, mentally unstable man go because he once did good.

Stop defending these shit movies plz