Despite MOS and BVS bein

Despite MOS and BVS bein
Hshit, I can see what Snyder was trying to go for. These films are pretty much about Superman as a charachter and what he represents being put on trial in the 21st century.

In this age, people would be paranoid about Superman as a powerful figure from beyond the stars. What Clark is trying to be doesn't work because people don't want to believe in those things.

It's just too bad that Zack Snyder couldn't get his shit straight and be and produce them in a competent manner.

BvS was shit. Man of Steel is pretty decent though, much better than that overrated trash Wonder Woman

And by Zack Snyder you mean David Goyer.

>MOS and BVS bein Hshit
>BvS was shit.

They weren’t though.

You can put Superman into a world where people don't believe his altruistic nature and are paranoid that he has ulterior motives. Just don't make Superman a dick, too. Or Jonathan and Martha Kent.

But I think that a lot of Goyer's shit was carried over into BVS and probably the original cut of JL by Snyder. Watching BVS interviews, you could tell that he was trying to be this deep thinking guy whwn in reality that wasn't something he could be. The concepts in BVS such as superman existing nowadays would have worked in the hands of someone who could have put more thought into it.
Watner brothers backed the wrong horse

I think that was the point of OP's comments. The stuff in the movie would have worked had Superman still been the superman we know and love from the comics

I'd say it's more about Superman as a concept than as a character, and that usually makes for hamfisted commentary rather than good story.
Pretty sure the "people these days are too cynical for Superman" has been done to death too, notably Kingdom Come comes to mind.

>Just don't make Superman a dick, too.
There wasn't a single moment in ether film that he was a dick except when he smashed the truck.
>Or Jonathan and Martha Kent.
Believing that the needs of the many out way the needs of the few isn't dick-ish.

>Pretty sure the "people these days are too cynical for Superman" has been done to death too
Not in movies.

>These films are pretty much about Superman as a charachter and what he represents being put on trial in the 21st century.
If only they actually let him be on trial.

MoS had the right foundation and BvS could have expanded on it to be properly handled but nah, piss jar explosions

Fucking this. Superman didn't even utter a single word in that fucking courtroom. That would have been a major pillar of the movie but we didn't get that because we needed random pointless scenes

That doesn't make it an interesting idea when it came off as hamfisted and tone-deaf in comics form already. And as been said the execution didn't save it.

>out way
>these are the people who think others don't like those movies because they're not smart enough

>Superman as a character
Really? Because eh felt more of a plot device than an actual character. Snyder is a hack

Wonder Woman is overrated but still far better than man of steel.

Name ONE Snyder movie with a good script and good directing

Again, that was the idea they were going for but they didn't mold him enough as a charachter to have that privilege

Shitting on MOS and BVS is fucking pedestrian opinion

Man of Steel has better visuals, soundtrack, main character and villain

Jump off the Anti-Snyder bandwagon

>I can see what Snyder was trying to go for
i can see what "the room" was aiming for, but that doesnt make it any more relevant
authors intent is fairly meaningless

Yes dismiss the the proven facts I stated because I accidentally hit the space bar.
People still to this fucking day say they only stopped fighting because their mothers have the same name, Marvel has published at least 3 satires of that.
Normies factually are not smart enough to get that scene.

And no I am not some fucking retard that thinks these films are flawless masterpieces, they have problems (bvs far more then mos), the problem is, the things people focus on aren't fucking valid if you pay attention or contextualize them.
> Saying still to this day that Superman destroyed the city when only a single freaking skyscraper fell in Metropolis during his fighting in it and he did zero structural damage to that one.
> Bitching about religious stuff in Mos when it's only 1 scene (church), 1 shot (cross pose in space), 1 line of dialogue (33 years old) that makes for less then 2 minutes of a 140 minute movie.

I get what Snyder was trying to do, except that he forgot about making Clark into an actual character. Clark doesn't really make decisions on his own; he's constantly reacting to events (bus crash, Kryptonian invasion) or other people (Pa Kent, Jor-El, Zod, etc), but Clark isn't dynamic as a character. Snyder deliberately made his Superman someone incapable of making a decision in an attempt to offset his immense power, but it doesn't create an interesting character. Hell, he only becomes Superman at the behest of Jor-El who told him that his true purpose *is* to be a savior. And then Clark flies because he needed that kind of validation in his life, but Clark doesn't choose to be Superman.

But Man of Steel doesn't work mainly because for all of the paranoia surrounding Superman, we never see him truly interact with people that aren't his family. There's a deleted scene in BvS with a paramedic after the Capital bombing, but that's about it. For a study in how normal people would view Superman, there's little to no interaction between the two, so it's all informed and never actively shown.

It's not about how much time it took up, it's about how poorly it was handled. That shot in the church really took me out of the movie

If you judge Superhero films by anything but the quality of the fight scenes you're doing it wrong.

can agree with 2 of these, WW was better overall though imo

>they messed it up so bad that even with how little time they took they still ended dominating any conversation
it takes a special genius to let a single scene like that overshadow everything else

movie's got a bunch more problems, the religious stuff is just fun to make fun of

Even if "normies factually are not smart enough to get that scene" there's plenty of legitimate complaints about the movie that are still common. The script is all over the place, Superman has disappointingly little development, the conflict that the movie builds up between Batman and Superman is entirely swept aside and unresolved, Eisenberg is hamming it up way too hard, etc.

I would be paranoid too if some random guy crushed my rig just to vent. the problem is that I don't want to see superman being a petty motherfucker for "laughs"

if only they could just do what christopher reeves did, but with a bigger budget and less camp

> Superman has disappointingly little development

what? The whole movie focuses on him wrestling over whether his presence is causing more bad than good, what else does he need to really develope? The movie is about the world's reaction to Superman--Superman already decided to fight for humanity in MoS.

> the conflict that the movie builds up between Batman and Superman is entirely swept aside and unresolved

Its pretty resolvedl. Batman learns that Superman is basically just a dude underneath all those powers and to not blame himself and Superman for his failures. They both learn to not be paranoid that the other will become judge, jury, and executioner.


>Eisenberg is hamming it up

and Spacey & Hackmen didn't?

How do you idiots get THAT as the message?

The ideas it puts forh about Superman are just that he is a regular ass dude with superpowers who chooses every day to try and make the world better. Thats it.

MoS is about him making that choice and commiting to it, initially by giving himself up to Zod so that no humans will be hurt.


BvS is about the world reacting to him doing this. Some people love him. Some people think he is a god. Some people think he is picking and choosing who he saves and has an agenda. Some people think he could snap at any moment and become a fascist dictator. Even Supermam begins to doubt, thinking that his very presence is causing more harm than good.

But in the end he proves to everyone that he is just a guy with amazing gifts, but still just a regular mortal, that was trying to make the world better.

They weren't dicks though.

>In this age, people would be paranoid about Superman as a powerful figure from beyond the stars.
Yeah but why do we need what WOULD happen? I have reality for that.

Yeah, but why?
Why is Superman a nice dude that just wants to help people?
The movies focus on people reacting to Superman rather than exploring what makes Superman who he is. And that's a fair way to go. But it also means the idea that he's a plot device has some validity. You can tell a similar story to BvS just by having the aliens float above a city doing absolutely nothing. In fact I'm sure that's been done.

What are you talking about? All Clark does is make decisions. Reacting is a fucking decision. He decides to listen to destroy that guys truck, which was the wrong thing to do, forcing him to move on to the next job. He chooses to save the people in the oil rig which was the right thing to do, forcing him to move on to the next thing. He chooses to find out where he came from (instead of in the Reeves movie where he is basically given the mission by a crystal) and he chooses to be Superman. He chooses to give himself over to Zod so humans won't be hurt. He chooses humanity over krypton when he decides to fight back against Zod. He chooses to put his life in risk multiple times to save earth. He chooses to kill Zod because Zod said he woould kill every human if he didn't (he faces the consequences of this decision in BvS in the form of Doomsday, and again chooses to put his life in danger, leading to his death). The entire trial in BvS is about his choosing to save Lois leading to a suicide bombing in the senate. I could go on.


> we never see him truly interact with people that aren't his family

What? In BvS, he interviews/talks to multiple people when tracking down information on Batman, he talks to Bruce Wayne/Batman, he talks to Wonder Woman, he talks to Lex Luthor, he argues with Perry, etc.

In MoS he has multiple interactions with Lois, various army personel he saves and the general, he interacts with the people on the boat he works on, he is helped by Pete Ross, he flirts with the waitress, he asks the priest for guidance, and thats just off the top of my head.


It's like you are being willfully ignorant.

Wonder Woman had some of the worst action scenes in a cape movie.

>she needs weapon or she fight like a Superman that can't fly
>Okay, Greeks use swords and shields
>But it's a PG-13 movie, we can't have her cut anyone, maybe no sword...
>No, then she's Captain America!
>Okay, we'll have to shoot every action sequence so you never see her really hit anyone...

Yeas, such a good movie.

>Why is Superman a nice dude that just wants to help people?


Because he chooses to be. People who need somekind of motivating story or inciting reason for Superman to do good don't understand Superman. Superman is the most powerful person on the planet at any given time in the DC-universre and every second of every day he chooses to do good because its the right thing to do.
>The movies focus on people reacting to Superman rather than exploring what makes Superman who he is.

MoS is like entirely focused around Clark Kent/Superman, you're crazy to put this assertion forth.

And for BvS--not really? It uses people reacting to Superman as a way of exploring what makes Superman who he is. Most of the movie is focused on Superman and his actions/choices in the light of how the world is reacting to him, or focuses on Batman and Lex as foils to Superman and do the same thing.

see
thats not what its about

>It's not about how much time it took up
Yes it is because it's utterly beyond irrelevant to the overall quality of the film.
>Superman has disappointingly little development
Disagree.
>the conflict that the movie builds up between Batman and Superman is entirely swept aside and unresolved
False, the revelation that Superman isn't a cold alien god that will become a tyrant at any moment resolves Batman's problems with Superman.
And Clark's problem with Bruce will be moot by Batman finding redemption and a way back to his former idealistic self.

>Why is Superman a nice dude that just wants to help people?
Because his parents taught him human life has inherent value even if they saw things in the bigger picture more then normal versions of them.
Hence him knowing it was morally right to help the bus.
Hence him still arguing with his dad about such right up to the tornado scene.

Dubs don't lie

>Normies factually are not smart enough to get that scene.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Batman v Superman. The drama is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of continental philosophy most of the scenes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Batman's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these scenes, to realize that they're not just comic book fluff- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Batman v Superman truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the depths found in the existential “Martha” dialogue, which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Zack Snyder's genius unfolds itself on the silver screen. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Batman v Superman tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

what shitty copy pasta

>It's like you are being willfully ignorant.

Nah, man. BvS was simply garbage. This "debate" is long-settled. It's worthless trash, and the only people event attempting to defend it are mindless fanboys such as yourself.

The movie fails fundamentally as a movie, being an incoherent mess, and as a Superman story, giving us Sad JesusMan instead of the Supes we all know and love.

That's why the films were so despised by all good and rational people.

WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME

>Because his parents taught him human life has inherent value

You mean the BvS versions of his parents who told him to let people die?

They told him to let people die.

No they didn't. If you think that's what the "maybe" line means then you need help.

see

>How do you idiots get THAT as the message?

That message is the one most people got. You seem to be aware of this. It was in the critical reviews and audience responses, how the movie is so often described as depressing, hopeless, not the true Superman, etc.

If the whole world is saying they see a film one way, and you see it another, it might be worth considering that, instead of the IDIOT MASSES missing the TRUTH, you're the one who's not paying attention or are just rationalizing all of the problems everyone else is seeing.

They very much did.

I only need help understanding how anyone could not get it's Jonathan telling Clark to let people die, which is the start of why SnyderSupes is such shit.

Not really? Most people who responded to OP said a variation of "oh is that whats it about? then in that case..." and most critics didnt like that it had a depressing tone--not that they somehow thought the message was that the world is too cynical for Superman. You seem confused.

I can't be confused, because I disliked BvS. The only confusion is in people claiming to have liked it when that's not possible.

Nah they didnt. Johnathan Kent just wanted Clark to think about the larger picture, for him to know that because of his powers, every choice he makes could have a huge impact on the world. The point is that Clark had to decide whether he should have saved them.

The fact that your project your weird meaning onto the scene says a lot about your own way of thinking and your subconcious.

The fact that you think saving people is a "weird meaning" says all we need to know about you.

The only answer to "What was I supposed to do? Just let them die?" is, from a good person, "never". Jonathan Kent should and would never tell Clark to let people die, especially not in some creepy utilitarian calculus.

You and Snyder share this twisted worldview where you can't understand people doing good or helping others. It's both sad and confusing.

no? I think the weird meaning is that you think "maybe" means "let kids die"

You can't even follow what I'm saying, jesus christ.

You are the one projecting that meaning onto it. Pa Kent doesnt need to answer it that way because Clark already made his choice, he knows his son is good. What Clark needs to be aware of is the possible consequences of his actions, thats hwy the very next thing he does is show him his alien origins.

The question was whether Clark should have let kids die. The answer was "maybe". Spin that all you want, it's Pa Kent telling Clark to let kids die.

Despite how much Snyder wants it, Superman isn't Jesus or a god. He's a man, and a good man. He's a good man because he had good parents who taught him well, not creepy utilitarians who want him to maybe let children die for the greater good. Superman would never give up on anyone or let anyone die if it's in his power to help them.

I'm not sure how you can take such a simple, direct statement and twist it so badly. Clark's question was very direct, and so was the answer.

a big issue is snyder overvaluing metacontext

with soup, he's going for a hero's journey kind of thing. specifically the descent into the underworld part of milton's template.

He sees all the previous Superman films as already fulfilling the role of the 'call to action' and 'hero's first triumph' parts of the narrative, that is, he thinks that because the audience has already seen noblebright superman he can start at the grimdarkeningeven though MoS starts at Clark's origin story, Snyder still mentally attributes to him the deeds of 80's and 90's cinematic superman. because they exist snyder thinks he doesn't have to first depict the grace part before delving into superman's fall from grace.

MoS+BvS work as an essay more than they do as a movie,

A blatantly obvious issue with about snyder regarding what you said is that Snyder seems more interested in crafting superman as a christ figure as opposed to what he actually is: a good man doing good things because it's the right thing to do.
In a majority if superman adaptions, jor-el sends vlark to earth just so his son can survive, not play a jesus role. Having Clark be in a jesus-like position robs him of any agency regarding why he chooses to do good

You're about to get one autist saying that Man of Steel only has two Jesus parallels because they only look at the visuals and not the age.action parallels.

>MoS+BvS work as an essay more than they do as a movie,
Snyder never actually sees Superman more than just a guy with powers. This was why when he was asked about Aquaman, all he focus on is "his trident can pierce Superman's skin!!!!"

Snyder never was interested in Clark Kent. The Good Man. Snyder just want the goldly powers. it is all powerlevels in his head.

MOS was supposedly a concept that Chris Nolan and David Goyer came up with, which causes me to wonder if Nolan would keep the depressing tone if he had directed the movie

Snyder seems like that faggot you'd find at your local comic store who'd endlessly talk about how powerful comic charachters are as though it was fucking DragonBall Z, with charachter x can kick the ass of charachter Y

>The ideas it puts forh about Superman are just that he is a regular ass dude with superpowers who chooses every day to try and make the world better.
I've never met a "regular ass dude" who spends so much time frowning silently and intently, and I've frequented suicidal goth teenagers back in my day.

A movie about how people perceive Superman is a stupid boring-ass idea. That's not a Superman movie, that's a an attempt at being meta and making a commentary about the real world and how we perceive power/heroes, and that fucking sucks, especially when most of the people in the movie ARE cynical towards him. Yeah there are people who perceive him to be good, but they're nameless TV talking heads, faceless crowds, his mommy and his girlfriend. Meanwhile you've got like 4 fucking characters essential to the plot in BvS alone (Lex, Bats, Governor McBlondie and Wheels) who are pretty much convinced he's the fucking antichrist, 3 of which are not even portrayed as villains. Fuck even his parents aren't hopeful about how it's going to turn out. The fucking Kents don't inspire hope.

there ya go again with maybe = let them die. You're crazy.

>he thinks Snyder thinks Superman is god

dude you misunderstood the most bsaic themes of his movies, they are all about how he is just a normal dude with powers. See

You're so retarded

how do you guys get these crazy intertpetations? How are you so dumb you dont see that Clark is constantly fufilling calls to action and fills a greater one in doning the suit of his family and turning himself over to Zod.


The levels of stupidy in your posts is dangerously high.

Pretty spot on.

You're absolutely bonkers if you think the senator was against Superman. And Batman learned he was wrong. Its like you are trying to misrepresent the movie on purpose.


And his parents are pretty hopeful? the ghost of pa kent tells him to keep on trying to do good even if he thinks he created negativie consequences from his past attempts.

>uses no actual evidence from the movie to support this interpetation
>hurr durr it doesnt have a call to action or hero's first triumph because I say so


wow

>Snyderfags resulting to insulting everyone before the thread even made it to post 100
wew

are you tone deaf?

>He sees all the previous Superman films as already fulfilling the role of the 'call to action' and 'hero's first triumph' parts of the narrative, that is, he thinks that because the audience has already seen noblebright superman he can start at the grimdarkeningeven though MoS starts at Clark's origin story, Snyder still mentally attributes to him the deeds of 80's and 90's cinematic superman. because they exist snyder thinks he doesn't have to first depict the grace part before delving into superman's fall from grace.
Ahahahahah, of all the laughable attempts to discredit snyder, this one takes the fucking cake. And the fact that people agree with you is even funnier.

I agree with you that people overblow supermans actions in the movie (it even shows how much he struggles with the choice of killing Zodd, who forces him into it) but they absolutely ruined Pa Kent.

>doesn't have an argument so he cries about being insulted on an anonymous image board

so you got nothing to actually say to defend your point? Just going to say "I DONT HAVE TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING!"


I actually pointed to a call to action.


Also the whole argument relies on "well I say Snyder is trying to do X and this is how he fails" without any proof of that being Snyder's goal.

nah, he risked his life to save a dog, showing clark by example the importance of all life. Just because he wanted Clark to be aware of the impact of his decisions doesn't make him ruined. Hell, if you take the BvS mountain top scene to be a memory Clark has of Pa (or at least a story Pa told him before) then he even told Clark to keep trying to do good even if it sometimes has negative consequences.

>You're absolutely bonkers if you think the senator was against Superman.
She's certainly at the very least skeptical about him.
>And Batman learned he was wrong.
...for stupid reasons, and that still doesn't contradict the fact that he originally perceived him negatively. I'm not saying disliking Superman is portrayed as correct or rational in this movie, I'm saying it by and large portrays people essential to the plot as having negative reactions towards Superman.
Now if only everyone else's mom's name was Martha...
>inb4 hurr you don't get that scene
Learn to take a joke.

I'm sorry, I honestly don't remember much about the Ghost Pa scene, I think it gave me an aneurysm.

>nah, he risked his life to save a dog, showing clark by example the importance of all life.
Nah, he went out to die because Joseoph s a footnote once Jesus hits adulthood.

>skeptical=hating him
>he thinks its stupid to suddenly have the detatched alien god figure in your head humanized

well I officialy don't care about anything you have to say

It technically has those, it just doesn't feel that way because they're not framed positively.
What the fuck is his first triumph, killing Zod? The man is fucking crying on the floor, that doesn't look like a triumph to me.
His first call to action would have been the drowning bus... except he's sort of told he made a mistake by answering it.

They're punishing him for doing what a hero does when he's usually rewarded for it, that's more like a fall from grace than a rise to it.

>nah he didnt actually save a dog because I said so

>doesn't have an argument so just says everyone who disagrees with his flimsy as fuck interpretation is retarded, even when they've presented arguments

Who the fuck cares about discrediting him? People are just trying to find reasons why these movies felt off.
The world doesn't revolove around your reputation, Zack.

he isn't told its a mistake, at all. Its crazy how people equate the word "maybe" with "nah you should have let them die" immediately after answering he shows him he is an alien and hugs him telling him he is his son. He makes him aware of the full situation and then immediately follows up with positive re-enforcement.


also the first triumph isn't super important to most versions of the monomyth, idk why you zeroed in on that one particular version. Google monomyth and none of the image macro versions include that, not even the wikipedia article includes it as a step. But if you need it so badly, its him saving the people from the oil rig.


now are you doen with your pseudointellecutalism?

>using examples from the movie=no argument

okay bud

>>skeptical=hating him
I never used the word "hate" and "antichrist" was obviously used for hyperbole.
>he thinks its stupid to suddenly have the detatched alien god figure in your head humanized
As a matter of fact I do. The fact that he's humanized doesn't make him less of a threat in any way, and the way he was humanized was stupid as fuck.
>well I officialy don't care about anything you have to say
Yeah I'm sure you're in this thread to talk with your fellow kinoisseurs and are totally open to criticism usually, you're just making an exception this time.

the call to action is Zod invading. Why would you think its the bus? Just because its him saving people?

>using hyperbole to lump Lex and the Senator in the same camp

why would you do that, it makes your argument look week and silly.

>The fact that he's humanized doesn't make him less of a threat in any way,

Yes it does when Batman's expectations of him becoming a despot rely on him thinking of Superman as a detatched alien with super powers.

>he way he was humanized was stupid as fuck

Not really, Batman observes Superman's attatchmets to humanity first hand.

weak*

>he isn't told its a mistake, at all.
>at all
>at all
>at all
Jesus fuck buddy you're free to headcanon as much as you want but the movie clearly shows Pa at least instilling doubt in Clark whether it was the right choice. "Maybe" as in doubt.
Fucking hell.

>it totally has a first triumph
>oh yeah is it this super downer moment?
>w-well it's not like it matters

>pseudointellecutalism
That's really not what that word means.

>gets nitpicky with "I didn't use the word hate" but then immediately goes to "anti christ was obviously a hyperbole"

Make up your fucking mind. You don't get to be pedantic one second and then be like HURR DURR IT WAS OBV A HYPERBOLE the next.

>it only counts when I do it
Okay bud.

>being made aware of the potential consequences of exposing your powers and then immediately loved and hugged = instilling doubt


okay buddy, whatever you need to tell yourself to prove yourself right. I've never felt like something I've done was wrong if my father hugs me for doing it.

>why would you do that, it makes your argument look week and silly.
Because I'm under no obligation to change the rules of internet arguing to satisfy you, faggotron. I'm not making a thesis here, I'm making broad points that are easy enough to understand if you're not being a nitpicker for the sake of it.
>Yes it does when Batman's expectations of him becoming a despot rely on him thinking of Superman as a detatched alien with super powers.
Too bad he's really mostly bothered with the superpowered parts, like most of the rest of Supes' detractors.
>Batman observes Superman's attatchmets to humanity first hand.
Oh yeah, if I see an alien calling his mother by her first name I'll be thinking "this guy is totally human and not a robot pretending to be human at all".

>nitpicks when someone uses the word hate in reply to his argument
> if you're not being a nitpicker for the sake of it.

KEK