BvS: Dumb Capeshit or Genuinely Deep?

I feel like I'm being gaslighted by fans of BvS. IS it actually as deep as they say it is or is it just a bunch of contrarians who developed a cult around a mediocre superhero film?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=T0kmVEjPKKM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

as someone who liked the movie I feel like most people are trolling and going way overboard with all the symbolism. of course there is some fun symbolism in the movie but I actually like the movie because it just has a rather large scale and because I like the take on the characters. I really don't think that only watching the movie once and especially watching the theatrical version is really enough because that version really wasn't optimal. I also think that watching the movie at least twice made me appreciate it more which wasn't needed for MoS

If you are getting gaslit by the fans of a dumb movie, what does that say about you OP?

It's 90% a meme but there is a small vocal minority that claims it actually is genius.

Whether its blind fanboy loyalty or just plain shit taste is kind of a mystery.

Why did they make dceu kryptonians so fucking weak? Superman is barely above his dcau counterpart

I agree with you mostly but what's so bad about people genuinely believing that the movie is really deep? I don't agree with them but I like that some people are still able to have fun and enjoy a movie far more than I am able to. nowadays, everyone just hates on everything, it's actually nice to see some positive feelings when it comes to the medium of film

you wouldn't want Superman to be even near his comic counterpart though. It would be too uninteresting. Nevertheless, he is still pretty strong if you ask me. I always thought the TAS version had the best power level

Snyder has had the ambition, sadly, he doesn't have the skill to pull it off. Still, if you shoot for the moon and fail, you'll get more respect from me, than if you aim for the ground, and succeed.

When people call something "deep" or "complicated" while being very vague then it is normally very shallow and easy to understand. People don't want to admit they like things for shallow reasons like action scenes and want to seems smarter than they really are

B V S is a lot like NGE with this. Both their fanboys like to talk about how it's "2deep4u" symbolism, when in reality the director put it in because it looked cool or sounded complicated.

Hardee har

The problem isn't that people analyze, it's that if you criticize the movie Snyderfags will say "Uh you just didn't get the themes and symbolism" and it ruins all genuine discussion of the movie

It's ambitious nature and desire to be a thoughtful film was poorly executed into a befuddling mess of a film.

Zack's vision in his mind may have been beautiful, but in reality, it's just a bad dream to sleep-walk through. This is why the film's artistic nature (despite lacking any clear intelligence in the final result) is still worthy of observation and, most importantly, criticism.

literally this

>but what's so bad about people genuinely believing that the movie is really deep


I think that it's mostly the sense of superiority that they spout (literally saying that people who don't share the same view are dumber than them), and the fact that they made almost any capemovie discussion almost impossible, to not even mention the constant falseflaging. Many buyed the company war meme and have been pushing it (which in turn just made marvel fans retaliate and created an autistic cycle). Ah, also the delusion that anybody that criticizes Snyder is somehow paid for it.

I can forgive many things about the movie, including Bruce being more of an edgelord than even in Dark Knight Returns and the Martha scene, but I can't forgive Eisenberg's Luthor. It forever dooms the film

This to be honest, though I appreciated MoS much more upon a rewatch myself.

So we can have a movie ??? also keep in mind this superman is still fairly new. He hasn't mastered Freeze breath or X-ray vision yet

Fucking Batman beat Superman.

Yeah Lex was a little off. But apparently he's supposed to be Lex's son or so I heard

Anyone Who thinks MoS sucked can't be pleased by the dceu. It was a fantastic movie.

How would that be, his backstory is exactly Lex's from the comics.

It was alright, let's not get too dramatic here.

It's not deep so much as its defenders don't realize that when someone says
>why did they do this
they're actually asking
>what were they smoking to think this was a good idea
so the go
>you just didn't watch it or understand it

I think you are all conflating different aspects of the fandom and aren't exactly thinking critically.


As a fan of BvS and MoS, I think they are good movies and I enjoy them on multiple levels. I enjoy them on the level of spectal, as straightforward tales, and yes, even for the symbolism.


Some people go way way overboard with it and think its meant to be about Islam or some other bullshit. I do think Terrio and Snyder are trying to make statements on politics, news, the monomyth, and how our histories color our perceptions, but I dont think this discourse is necessary to enjoy the movies. Personally, I most enjoy the little things like pic related, where they use parallelisms to illustrate character arcs (and other things) without spoonfeeding it to you. I think its a lot better than what we get in most superhero movies and it reflects some of my favorite elements of my favorite comics.


But I do shit on some idiots like these guys who cant even understand that the movie was blatantly putting forth the idea that Batman killing is a BAD thing and very un-batman.

Or people like who are so pleb they think there is a "one true" version of Lex and cant even comperhend the idea of a new version that takes from the versions that came before it.

Or even people like who use broad, vague strawmen to make their arguments.


If you dont like the movie, thats fine. But idiots shit on the movie because they cant get out of the "not muh!" headspace or because the movie didnt go like how THEY would have done it, so I shit on them right back.

I agree with half of your post, which is more than usual for these threads.

woops, I meant spectical. Sorry about that.

I understood that they made Batman killing bad, dumbass, everyone does. The movie hammers it over your head constantly. It was just a fucking terrible idea. Of course you fall back to, "he just didn't understand it!"

Genuinely deep. Just turn your brain on.

>Or even people like (You) who use broad, vague strawmen to make their arguments.
You literally just did what I said you'd do two sentences up.
probably understands just fine they were saying it's a bad thing Batman has a murder boner. You're assuming he doesn't "get it" when he's just saying he thinks it's a dumb direction to go in.

Why is it a bad idea to show that Batman killing is bad?

>going way overboard with all the symbolism
I'd say the symbolism is about 80% accurate though considering how much Snyder has confirmed. He's pretty cool.

Nah bro. You meant "spectacle".

>murder boner

see you literally dont understand it. Its the opposite of that. He kills out of desperation and its meant to be a clear threshold he crosses once he does that. Its not portrayed as a good thing at all. Murder boner implies Batman wants to kill and that the movie is supporting that. When its doing the opposite.

Shit, I did. I'm so fucking tired. Thank you.

Yeah, I get that tho.
I call it a murder boner for fun.
But I know "fun" is a four letter word to you guys so since it triggers you I'll stop.

Well obviously he did understand it as shown here, but its even stupider that he thinks illustrating that Batman killing is a bad thing was a poor choice.

I thought BvS and MoS were loads of fun. I thought Iron Man and Mad Max were fun too. See, yet another strawman you throw up for lack of a real argument.

It was a bad idea to make him kill in the first place. Part of his insanity in the comics IS that he doesn't kill, it's what makes his interpretation completely different from every other dark anti-hero out there, and why Under the Red Hood was such a great run.

Batman murdering IS a line that he can't return from, we've had years and years of comics that talk about this. And that completely devalues him coming back at the end and suddenly being non lethal. It doesn't matter, he's already killed, he's failed his parents.

I don't think that, once again. I think it was a mistake to make him kill in the first place, Jesus.

>see you literally dont understand it. Its the opposite of that. He kills out of desperation
That may have been what they were going for but the most egregious case of it in this movie was fucking unnecessary in the narrative sense. It just exists so that Snyder could have his cool action sequence.
There's literally no point to him blowing up people in an attempt to get the kryptonite because he not only puts a tracker on the shipment (that he then tries to shoot off with rockets defeating the point of it in the first place) but he also steals it like a stealthy ninja (or, you know, like Batman) off camera ANYWAY.
So you're right. It wasn't Batman's murder boner. It was Zack's.

But every movie before BvS had him kill too. So do you think those movies are equally stupid?

It's not a strawman when you do what I say you were going to do before you even replied to me saying you'd do it. It's just you being predictable.

And this is exactly what I mean, you couldnt understand the most basic narrative logic.


He puts the tracker before he even starts attacking them... because he wants to be able to chase them down wherever they might go. He didnt plan on them escaping. But he is Batman so of course he had a back up plan in case they did. And they did.


Why is it stupid for Batman to be prepared?

Genre conventions made the context of his murders in the Burton movies different (oh but wait context doesn't matter does it) and with the Nolan movies people absolutely took umbrage with his murders through inaction.

Oh look, that autist showed up again.

Think about what you just said.
Why does he need to attack them at all?
Especially when the process of attacking them risks removing the contingency he'd just set up?
Which, again, wasn't even a contingency, because it was THE INITIAL PLAN AND THE ONE HE ACTUALLY FOLLOWS THROUGH ON.

eva is actually good though because it's more than just surface level symbolism that only seeks to serve its own narrative like a very flexible man sucking his own penis

I do think it was a poor choice in the Tim Burton film, yes.

I think it was a different circumstance and he didn't ever kill in the Nolan films, no, his villains made decisions that led to their own deaths and he chose not to always save them. It still didn't sit right and felt too convenient, yes. Even then the movies acknowledged these decisions and it affected the narrative. The entire point of Rises is that Batman is hated because of this, and it's actually shown rather than talked about like in BvS.

That's moving the goalposts though, those movies had far more redeeming qualities about portraying Bruce's character that saved those bad decisions. The Bruce in this film is so relentlessly dark and uninteresting it makes it hard to accept his redemption or his lighter character in subsequent films. It's like Snyder ripped his character straight from All Star Batman or The Dark Knight Strikes Again. That's why I said in general his character in BvS is edgy and just not good.

What? I'm referring to this idea you put forth that we hate fun. And I'll admit that guy did understand what the movie was going for but his argument for why he didnt like it is pretty weak

he is just saying that its okay in other movies because it is.

And for the record, no one in the Nolan's trilogy has a problem with him killing except for Bruce himself. And even then he does it very liberally. No one gives a shit when he blows up the monsetary full of monks and ninjas. No one gives a shit when he lets Ras die. No one gives a shit when he kills people in The Dark Knight Rises. The only time anyway gives a single shit is Bruce himself when he kills Dent. Thats it.

>he is just saying that its okay in other movies because it is.
You know for someone that keeps accusing people of strawmanning you're doing a really good job of it yourself seeing as how he says in that he DOESN'T think it's okay in other movies.

And you have a crappy memory. When Batman Begins first came out tons of people complained about Bruce not saving Ra's.

>and he didn't ever kill in the Nolan films

WHAT?

youtube.com/watch?v=T0kmVEjPKKM


You're crazy man.


>The Bruce in this film is so relentlessly dark and uninteresting it makes it hard to accept his redemption or his lighter character in subsequent films

Not for me. I found him very interesting--a Bruce Wayne that has been fully consumed by his crusade and with no family ties left to keep him held down. Like the Bruce we see at the beginning of Batman Beyond.

>. No one gives a shit when he blows up the monsetary full of monks and ninjas.
His hypocrisy there was so mainstream and apparent to literally everyone it made its way into cinema sins (and I think also Robot Chicken), and you think nobody had a problem with it?

What? He had no idea where they were taking the kryptonite. Why would he? He was trying to get it as fast as possible and had a contigency. He didnt know they would take it to lexcorp. Remember how he got the information on the shipment to begin with--from Lex's party. Information which we know Lex intentionally gave him. So of course he wouldnt give him the info on WHERE it was going.

This is a genuinely bad movie.

I feel sorry for anons that have wasted literal weeks of their lives defending this shit and making up depth that isn't there.

I don't like the portrayal of Batman or Superman. Batman killing seemed completely unnecessary to his arc and didn't need to be included in the movie. Superman being dark and grim is depressing rather then the tone of Superman in actual superman comics. The depressing "saving people sequence" where Superman wasn't allowed to smile and enjoy saving people was really jarring and depressing.

They tried to cram in death of Superman in with TDKR, which is way too much for just a 3 hour movie.


They changed Batman's origin, why did thomas wayne try to stop the robber instead of just get shot. That change is rather massive, because instead of Bruce seeing criminals as just chaotic, unpredictable, and needing to be stopped. It's more of a, engage with a criminal and suffer the consequences. It's just... another unnecessary change.


This movie honestly would have worked better if they turned it into Injustice. I don't think Snyder actually likes what these characters stand for so might as well have him destroy the characters in his own non-canon universe. Snyder has tainted the rest of the DCEU going forward forever with his shitty interpretations of characters.

Obviously I was referring to theses posts You know, the ones I was actually replying to? Its not my fault I cant keep track of whose who on an anonymous image board. What a shitty argument you have. Like why did you even think that was worth posting when I wasnt even responding to the post you linked to?

I meant nobody IN THE MOVIE. Come on, don't be THIS dumb.

I don't know I remember hearing it on youtube after Lex got so much bad reception.

Am I really ? Whenever someone said MoS sucked I was okay with it, but they never gave actual reasons. And their arguments consisted of Nitpicks and misunderstanding of it's message. Like a lot of people got ticked off my Supes destroying everything in the end, but they forget this is an origin story meaning Superman isn't who we know and love yet. And that he tried multiple times to get Zod out of the city, but that was pretty much impossible once he learnt how to fly.

But Superman wasnt dark or grim at all outside of his two encounters with Batman.

I think it tries to make points about the burden of heroism and how it would unfortunately work in the context of the real world. There are also themes of the toxicity of rage and vengeance and the nature of power.

Unfortunately, they are barely and hamfistedly explored in the context of a mediocre movie. Snyder is great at visuals and set-pieces, but struggles to explore characters in any but the broadest fashion, often missing the point. I have no ill will towards the guy, but he's just not really deep. I think if he was a DP instead of a director, he's be in the top 5 DPs working today. Its pretty unfortunate.

>What? He had no idea where they were taking the kryptonite Why would he?
Yes. That's why he puts a tracking device on it.
>He was trying to get it as fast as possible and had a contigency.
Which he then shoots a rocket at.
>He didnt know they would take it to lexcorp.
Remember how he got the information on the shipment to begin with--from Lex's party. Information which we know Lex intentionally gave him. So of course he wouldnt give him the info on WHERE it was going.
Which is why he puts a tracking device on it.

There's literally no reason for him to logically get into a fight with Lex's minions. There's a narrative reason; it gives Superman a reason to fly in and fight him for being too brutal. But as far as Bruce's actual plan of getting the kryptonite goes, there's no reason for him to have shot at those trucks. He could just follow them to where they're going, and steal the kryptinite once it was delivered. We know this, because that's literally what he does.

Why are people still letting bvs trolls get to them? The movie was dogshit and if you dont agree with that you have a problem, but its not mine. You would have to be some kind of stupid or live off of contrarianism to like this film. Its more likely, FAR more likely that anyone who says anything positive about the movie is baiting. You wont convince a stubborn autist anymore then youll convince a troll with all the lists and parapraphs in the world. I dont know why they arent a joke yet, we should be laughing at this flick, instead people who dont give a shit either way are laughing at those who get upset about it still.

I think we would all have more fun if we agreed to laugh at the movie and anyone who tries to bait with it.

>They changed Batman's origin, why did thomas wayne try to stop the robber instead of just get shot. That change is rather massive, because instead of Bruce seeing criminals as just chaotic, unpredictable, and needing to be stopped. It's more of a, engage with a criminal and suffer the consequences

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. I don't even like the movies, and you are reaching way way harder with this reading than any Snyderfag I've seen

Just another Example of Nitpicking to find reasons to hate dceu Superman

>You burned down my house and left me for dead.
Ra's had a problem with it too. So even when you try moving the goalposts you're still wrong.

Oh are we talking about the part where he was involved in the explosion of that court or whatever?

I don't associate Superman with mass destruction and death.

Why is it stupid? Because you disagree with it?

It was a unnecessary change and you know it.

Why isn't it stupid?

Read it in his voice

It's capeshit, it can't be deep.

Not him, but this makes the murder of the Waynes largely the father's fault, choosing to put the life of his family in danger AND doing the things that you are always told to not do during an assaul for obvious reasons...

>There's literally no reason for him to logically get into a fight with Lex's minions.
> He could just follow them to where they're going, and steal the kryptinite once it was delivered.

But it could have gone anywhere. They could have found the tracker. It could have gone on another boat, or been air lifted, or have been locked away inside the kryptonian space ship, or a million other things. The tracker was a contigency just incase he couldn't get it right then. And the reason he wants to get it so bad is because Lex has compounded yet another thing for Bruce to feel bad about and project onto Superman (Wally blowing himself up).


>We know this, because that's literally what he does.

Only because Lex lets him. If Lex's real end goal was to keep the kryptonite away from Batman he would have hidden it somewhere where he couldnt have gotten it. Hell, he probably would have found a way to trick or dismantle the tracker.

All of those are kills by either the villains stupid decisions or by accidents, something that the comics just choose not to acknowledge.

And that's not interesting because there's no context and no explanation of anything that made him the way he was. No one's asking for an origin, but they're asking for something beyond Bruce just being stupid and going grimdark because of Superman. And that's not even true, because if the upcoming movies are to be believed, both Barbara AND Dick are still around. Alfred is too!

There is no reason for Thomas to NOT try and protect his family.

The reason is that this got them killed and made his son a lunatic :^)

He's a genius, he should know you don't agitate or attack someone with a fucking firearm.

>being this pedantic
>thinking I moved the goal posts when you just couldnt follow the conversation correctly


You know if you read my post I say "And for the record, no one in the Nolan's trilogy has a problem with him killing except for Bruce himself. "


NO ONE IN THE NOLAN"S TRILOGY.


Outside of the typo, its fucking obvious im talking about IN universe. You are a retard.

"Don't be a hero"
"FUCK YOU I'MA BE A HERO"
"Fine I'll shoot you."
Every robbery ever.

Still doesn't explain why, if the tracker is an important back up plan, he shoots explosives at it.
What if the tracker gets destroyed AND they get away?

So because someone else blew up a senate building, somehow Superman is dark and grim? Despite his very first action after it happens being helping people?


>I don't associate Superman with mass destruction and death.


Well you should read more comics then. His origin revolves around mass destruction and death.

well put user

Yeah, but Snyder fags aren't too smart so they don't actually know how a genius would act.

...

But they didnt get destroyed. This is Batman we are talking about. He knows how to make his trackers resistant against his explosives or how to shoot his explosives so as to not disturb his trackers. I mean, really, this is like Batman 101 tier skills. I could see Jason or even Dick fucking up like that, but Batman and most of the people who he trains have the ability to mentally keep track of where their tracker is or to make/use trackers that are resistant to their own, in-house, explosives.

Ra's has a problem with it, no one else does because they obviously don't fucking know. Also, Gordon killed Ra's.

lost

Yes, when I watch Superman movies I want to be hit over the head with 9/11 allegories and terrorism imagery.

Superman is the perfect character to explore showing on screen death and destruction!

Lordy user, did Snyder fuck your mother and kick your dog or something?

Grow the fuck up.

>All of those are kills by either the villains stupid decisions or by accidents

Thats literally not true. You are either hallucinating are so far in denile you might as well be egyptian.


>they're asking for something beyond Bruce just being stupid and going grimdark because of Superman. And that's not even true, because if the upcoming movies are to be believed, both Barbara AND Dick are still around. Alfred is too!

What? How does them being around mean he has a family? So because they exist means they are actively in his life still? And its not just because of Superman. He actually starts killing because of Lex's machinations. He is Batman again for almost 2 years before he kills in the movie.

lel

He is a medical doctor, not a goddamn psychologist.

I'm honestly confused?
Have you ever actually read any superman comics outside of All-Star?

Honestly none of this is new.

Nah, Batman basically killed Ra's. If you want to get super technical he manslaughtered Ra's. But that isnt even the point. He kills plenty others. And No one else knowing about it isnt the point--they wrote the movie in a way where Batman kills a bunch of innocent monks and not even Bruce himself has a problem with it. He only gives a shit when he kills Dent. You are being so pedantic, after having your "goal post" point BTFO, at this point that I feel bad for you.

This is also the Batman that's so stupid he's fooled by a pair of glasses when even Lex Luthor isn't, so I don't have any faith in his capabilities at all.

Not true at all. Sorry you think this.

But thats true about EVERY incarnation of Batman. No version of Batman that I'm familiar with has been able to instantly see past the glasses. Hell, most versions of Lex can't see past it either. Read more comics.


Your point is honestly the worst point I've ever seen. I'm sorry you thought it was a good idea to post it.

You changed the argument to "b-but the other movies". That's the definition of a goalpost moving. Even then, I said I didn't quite like how convenient all the deaths were in Nolan movies. It still doesn't justify the lack of a clear explanation for Bruce's character in BvS and how easy and badly written his redemption was, as well as his code forever being broken. You're not arguing against my point against Bruce in BvS, you're trying to make me somehow admit that because the Nolan films sort of did it, it justifies Snyder doing it without context or examining writing, and it's predictably making you look like a dumbass.

>That's the definition of a goalpost moving.

No it isn't. You're retarded.

Are you trying to imply that all Superman comics are destruction porn?

What the fuck you mean "none of this is new." yeah no shit, the character is 80 years old. I'm saying that destruction porn, shouldn't be the main focal point of a Superman movie. Because that shit is only interesting to 12 year old boys who watch transformers.

While we are at it, doing the death of Superman in his 2nd fucking movie is also incredibly fucking stupid, for obvious reasons.

>But thats true about EVERY incarnation of Batman. No version of Batman that I'm familiar with has been able to instantly see past the glasses.
Then you're not familiar with enough versions. Batman figuring out Clark's secret identity has been a thing for 20+ years at least.
> Hell, most versions of Lex can't see past it either.
Yeah that's the weird thing actually. They switched those facets of the characters. Now Lex is the smart one that' able to deduce secret identities whereas Batman is the one that's so blinded by hatred that he doesn't even etnertain the idea that Superman has a civilian identity.
It just doesn't work going forward. But I'm sure you disagree
>Your point is honestly the worst point I've ever seen. I'm sorry you thought it was a good idea to post it.
Your earlier bait was better. If you're not even gonna try then we're done here.

Yes, it is. You didn't argue about how Batman killing in BvS was good, you shifted the argument to that it's okay because other movies also did it. That's not an argument, it doesn't matter what the other movies did.

...