You have 10 seconds to explain why this movie is suppsoed to be good without bringing up Marvel

You've just got marvel on the brain. Counterparts in the genre can mean suicide squad, man of steel, or even Chronicle. There are other super hero I.Ps other than Marvel. And how can you observe something without comparisons or looking at trends?

Batman v. Superman is a tragedy in every sense of the word. The characters are doomed from the start. They are doomed in their lives, their ideologies, and their relationships.

Superman is supposed to be a paragon for the planet on which he now lives and will stop at nothing to protect it. Batman is a violent vigilante who will stop at nothing to protect the world he lives in.

youtube.com/watch?v=9RynVyFzcis
This is why

>You've just got marvel on the brain. Counterparts in the genre can mean suicide squad, man of steel, or even Chronicle. There are other super hero I.Ps other than Marvel.

Smoke and mirrors used for making this movie look good by comparing it to trashtalked others. If it is the "kinematic masterpiece of the century" it should have merits that stand on each own

>And how can you observe something without comparisons or looking at trends?

By observing, judging and making an opinion about something instead of looking at other things

>Batman v. Superman is a tragedy in every sense of the word. The characters are doomed from the start. They are doomed in their lives, their ideologies, and their relationships.

Explain how any of this is explicitly brought up in the movie and not just you reading them into it and bringing up buzzwords

I get ya. Comparison helps though. It's a rocky ass film with downfalls but when it's good its great. Batman's scenes were spot on and the action scenes were great.

I found it hard to make the action out in the final fight in IMAX but the blu ray rectified that. Just think it was too busy with the 3d

No point in arguing with a Marvel shill.
I can list more than 100 arguments why the movie is a masterpiece and u still going to turn a blind eye to all of them because you are biased.

It's the darkest of the series.

I'm a comic fan and I understood everything the movie was trying to flesh out. It was fun and I enjoyed it and that's all that matters to me. There were no "plot holes" to me and honestly I couldn't care less that some autist thinks it's bad
Looking forward to the batman movie

I dont really understand this marvel vs DC rivalry.
Personally, I dont care about neither franchise, but if I was a fanboy, I would critizise the current DC movies, in hope that they would improve, instead of beeing in denial and pretending they are better than Marvel Cinematic Universe

>I can list more than 100 arguments why the movie is a masterpiece and u still going to turn a blind eye to all of them because you are biased.

Nothing's stopping you from bringing them up. Also you are every bit as biased turning a blind eye on every one of it's and it's companies failures so don't try and get high and mighty on me

I don't know why but it felt so real. Like than people in the Martha's dinnery watched TV with Senate's hearing it was very immersive. BvS manage to perfectly represent how people would react on Superman, if he was real.

They are better though, atleast to me they are being a DC Fan and all. I will admit suicide squad was a fucking train wreck with the editing. Even then I still enjoyed it

That's easy.

You see, Marvel...

fuck.

Also you brought up Marvel when I simply asked you to explain your opinion instead of making unvalidated claims

Suicide Squad had at least some potential and some genuinly funny moments
Man of Steel and BvS however, took themselves too seriously and pretended to be deeper than they are

Because M... uhh, FOX is dumb and you're dumb because you like Fox flicks and quips but Batman v Superman is pretty cool guy eh, kills mountain trolls and doesn't afraid of anything, and that's why you're so dumb and that's why it was the best summer holiday ever.
See, I didn't mention Marvel even once.

Not sure if shitposting but i kind of agree.

The movie itself is a big load of meh but i did feel that the whole discussion regarding Superman was very attached to what would happen in real life.

I know with 100% certainty you do not understand everything either movie has to offer.

It's kino.
Pure ķīņőğřãphįə

Why is that a problem though.

a movie can get away with a lot of shit when its fun and doesn't take itself too seriously
However, if you are all serious and act as if your movie was a big piece of art, you just appear prententious and the audience in general is far less forgiving

It's amazing how virtually every argument for why this film is good depends on secret meaning, or symbolism, or references when this would generally be a terrible reason to place most of the focus a film, especially a blockbuster. It also begs the question of why Snyder would have put so much effort to insert these details if the narrative on the surface level is not only shallow, but poorly made.

Ok that's fair but I disagree. What are some examples you'd say seemed pretentious? I can see saying any lex Luthor scene

What do you want me to do? Explain you'rebeing vague.

its better than marvel movies

Even as a DC fanboy I thought this movie was shit. Snyder doesn't understand any of the characters

Not muh Batman (too much of a mass murderer)
Not muh Superman (too emo)
Not muh Doomsday (too Michael Bay Ninja Turles with Zod's DNA)
Not muh Lex Luthor (not even sure where to begin with this one)
Not muh KGBeast (just a regular terrorist, how boring)
Not muh Lois Lane (LL isn't supposed to be a fucking 40 something plain Jane)
Not muh Jimmy Olsen (seriously wtf)
Not muh Flash (again, wtf)
Not muh Aquaman (90s edgy Aquaman a shit)

Cyborg, Alfred and Woman Woman were good tho

Apart from everything concerning Lex Luthor, all religious methaphors, those spectacular shots that come without any build up (pic related), all those philosophical debates

But that's what WOULD happen if such a being ever appeared on earth.

the points I made have nothing to do with the content of the story, they are about how the story is told.
You could tell the same story without religious metaphors, philosophical debates or whammy shots

>b-b-but muh super deep comic book deconstruction

Who cares. It's not the 80s anymore. We get it, if super heroes were real, people would flip their shit. We've had both Kick Ass movie, arguably the whole Nolan trilogy, Man of Steel, Civil War, Watchmen and probably others I'm forgetting to prove this point. It doesn't mean you have to go full "Golden Age silliness" but the grimdark approach to comic book movies is getting old. Some characters just work better with a lighter angle, Superman being the best example

The idea of a Superman is actually scary as hell if you think about it. The realistic approach to it would've been interesting if they gave Superman any character while the world reacted to him as a possible threat. Like doctor Manhattan did.

this
the man of steel superman is pretty much the antithesis of what superman is supposed to be
it was so incredibly petty when he fucked up that one dudes truck

Tell that to Zod's snapped neck.

you're a faggot and here's why

>Not muh Batman (too much of a mass murderer)
that's the point, after superman's death he understands he was the bad guy and will stop killing
>Not muh Superman (too emo)
if by emo you mean realistic then ok i guess ?
>Not muh Lex Luthor (not even sure where to begin with this one)
well there's a lot to discuss but he wasn't a BAD character
>Not muh Lois Lane (LL isn't supposed to be a fucking 40 something plain Jane)
this is irrelevant
>Not muh Flash (again, wtf)
explain faggot
>Not muh Aquaman (90s edgy Aquaman a shit)
you are 100% retarded

>Not muh KGBeast (just a regular terrorist, how boring)
you see, i knew you were a faggot, but Mulvey's beast was great and Beast has always been a terrorist so now i know you are both a faggot and a idiot

You autistic fuck

100 reasons...
are 50 of them, "uhhh, wonder woman, she, she real good. People clap. I clap, u clap. I like."?

this

Objectively:
>It's fantastically directed, nicely acted, and produced
>Special effects are great
>Fantastic fight scenes
>Pacing has a fuckton of issues but there's a solid setpiece structure
>Characters are well written but they aren't clear in their intentions/motivation , so it can lead to confusion, even if you can simply infer most of your questions.

Subjectively:
>It's a nice take on Superman, putting the ultimate symbol of hope and good intentions on the post-9/11 age of fear and corruption. Building a nice little arc where the symbol of hope himself starts to lose hope, but manages to bring it back to the world in his sacrifice.
>Nice take on Batman, as the hard-boiled detective is so deep in this world of fear he broke his main rule and is now murdering people. He has lost all hope. But Superman brings that back to him.
>Hype fucking fight scenes

Snyder just needed a better script editor, the great ideas were all there.

It panders to my cinematically illiterate sensibilities

Cinematography, soundtrack, energy

I dont get into the comic book nerd rivalry, movie was way overrated. Almost fell asleep during parts of it, finally picked up towards the end

>Objectively
>It's fantastically directed, nicely acted, and produced

In detail and with examples please since you're being "objective"

>Special effects are great

In detail and with examples please since you're being "objective"

>Fantastic fight scenes

In detail and with examples please since you're being "objective"

>Pacing has a fuckton of issues but there's a solid setpiece structure

In detail and with examples please since you're being "objective"

>Characters are well written but they aren't clear in their intentions/motivation , so it can lead to confusion, even if you can simply infer most of your questions.

In detail and with examples please since you're being "objective"

Saying this movie is good is a meme

>why this movie is suppsoed to be good
It feels comfy.
>in b4 muh plot holes, muh bad casting for Lex, muh skelyton Jooish Wonderwoman, muh fat batfleck, muh mummy martha
It's escapist fantasy based on a children's comic book. If you expect it to be something that it is not, you will only disappoint yourself.

Stunning visuals and OST.

Daring allegorical use of the characters.

Wonderfully smart villain.

Beautiful homages to the source material.

Creative use of symbolism to illustrate 1)what it would be like to be Superman, 2)how his presence is changing the world, 3) the dichotomy between perception and reality, and 4) social commentary on comics history and how "gritty realism" is the death of the comics hero as myth.

is this a contrarian thread? it was a shitty movie what the hell are you even talking about

Dead on.

See

I thin Snyder is one of the most talent-less hacks in the industry, and I truly can not stand anything this guy fucking touches.. that said.. This movie was alright. It's under-rated compared to popular opinion in my view. Which is odd because his other movies which are well received I thought were utterly over rated shitfests of hype.

Superman brought hope to Batman while he was losing his humanity

...

>for children
Deals with Superheroes being responsible for civilian deaths, heroes shredding criminals with bullets and exploding them, necks being snapped, Superman cutting people in half with laser vision, is dark and depressing as fuck, has the words "child molester", underground bloody brawls, human trafficking, jars of piss and it's plot doesn't make any sense. If it was for children, why was there an R-rated cut?
>comfy
If you're delusional

Bear Grylls is a big fan of Granny's peach tea or whatever it's called.

Intelligent socio-political allegories

Stellar staging, cinematography and score

The first film to give meaning to what it means to be a super hero

Etc etc.

It's for edgy teenagers. I have a 14 yo cousin who unironically thinks DC is "dark, mature and for adults, unlike those childish marvel movies" and he used to love those "childish movies" less than a year ago.

ITT: everyone throws big lofty buzzwords around but noone can be arsed to elaborate on any of them

...

Pick anything that's been cited. I'll give you my honest take on it.

You dumb fuck

I didnt like the movie but the political debate scene was really nice lad

Just show him of the average "DC" capeshit supporter that frequents this board
heres one twitter.com/Joel9Vieira/media

Fanboys do not own the franchises of Batman and Superman movies, so director Zack Snyder went against the mob and dared to raise the genre to a level of adult sophistication in 2013’s Man of Steel, the most emotionally powerful superhero movie ever made. (Fanboys hated it.) Snyder’s sequel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice adds politics, bringing to the fantasy some contemporary, real-world concerns. This is not conventional comic-book allegory; rather, Snyder uses the figures of Batman (Ben Affleck) and Superman (Henry Cavill) walloping each other to give visible substance to social and moral issues, much as Greek tragedy does. He takes the wildest, Bizarro World fiction — of two superheroes turned super foes — and uses the premise to explicate our current dilemmas concerning power, principles, and divinity. It helps that Snyder is also visionary, inclined to extravagant spectacle and gifted with a signature erotic touch. An early montage equates violence, wealth, loss, and grief through symbolic images of bullets, pearls, blood, and tears. It is witnessed by the young Bruce Wayne, a paranoid orphaned millionaire who misconstrues Superman’s involvement in the previous film’s battle that devastated Metropolis (and traumatized nearby Gotham City), and so he vows a vigilante’s revenge. With its legal-brief title, Batman v Superman reflects the confusion that pits secularists against believers, and the partisanship that inhibits national alliance. This tension is so visually amped up that the opposition of Batman to Superman feels revelatory: Man versus the god in Man. Snyder’s opening sequences interweave the origin stories of these mythic heroes and their alter egos. What has become overly familiar through years of repetition acquires new dynamism — and new understanding — that particularizes and personalizes each wounded man’s suffering.

Not only are these time-shifts audacious (movie marquees announce the 1940 The Mark of Zorro and the 1981 Excalibur — implying the evolution of history), but so is Snyder’s proposition about the nature of heroism and vengeance: Both stem from the way individuals react to and comprehend their experiences. Snyder’s thrillingly intelligent use of interior conflict and political antagonism vastly outclasses Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy: Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises — all noxious — which were bellwethers of our culture’s decline.
Fanboys prefer the Nolan films for their “darkness,” which emphasized the sophomoric, pseudo-tragic elements of the Batman graphic novels. But Snyder’s more adult treatment finds the material’s emotional core. This displeases the fanboy/hipster whose adolescent embarrassment about feelings was exploited through Nolan’s emotionless violence and post–9/11 nihilism. Snyder counters that cultural crisis and (through the script by Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer) visualizes the millennial moral struggle as pop myth. His essential subject is mankind’s struggle to discover compassion as well as common obligation — or dare I use the non-political term: brotherhood? The pain of post–9/11 as reflected in Nolan’s Batman films was a paradigm shift. But fantasy cannot conscientiously be enjoyed Nolan’s way, without any sense of social, historical, or moral consequence. Snyder manipulates this new paradigm so that mankind’s sense of mortality is embodied by Batman, Superman, and their arch-nemesis, Lex Luthor. (All three characterization performances are, well, perfect.) When Superman’s motives are questioned, the skepticism and vilification create an antagonism between him and Batman that Snyder lays out as an ideological conflict and that Luthor exacerbates.

Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg, who played Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network and thus personifies the craven millennium) cynically whines about “The oldest lie in America: that power can be innocent.” He even threatens a senator (Holly Hunter) who heads an investigation into Superman’s guilt. Luthor’s obsession with Superman (“He answers to no one. Not even, I think, to God”) reveals envy that is unmistakably demonic; a development that coheres with Snyder’s spiritual-social vision of post–9/11 grief and desire for salvation. He creates the year’s first great movie image by examining Superman’s “divinity” when he is surrounded by Day of the Dead multitudes. The image echoes our current desperation regarding “populism” — and that’s truly audacious.
Among today’s outstanding American filmmakers, Snyder has an eccentric interest in the spiritual expression of his characters’ conflicts. From the erotic antiquity saga 300 to the anthropomorphic fable Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole, Snyder demonstrates a caricaturist’s knack for elaborating Good vs. Evil. It takes just such dreamlike moral clarity to reprove the Nolan trilogy’s chaos. Look at Snyder’s second high point: Batman’s nightmare of battling Superman plus his own enigmatic demons imagined as Stymphalian wasps. The scene spins agonizingly slowly (though not in slow motion), becoming ever more hallucinatory. It fuses comic-book imagery to the oldest Western myths.

I was actually excited for Supes being on trial, I was like," Hey, maybe ... maybe this'll get good" but then it was just an excuse for a jar of piss and Steven Hawking to blow everyone up.
WHAT?
I'm actually super impressed with how epically Hack Snyder fucked that up, I couldn't have messed up that bad if I tried.

Are DCucks too stupid to realize Armond just likes to take the piss out of people?

You are right. It's one of those movies that could have been great, but somewhere along the lines people forgot to write a good script with a story that makes sense. Then the whole thing collapsed.

That's some tasty pasta boy

Snyder only makes kino

...

This, I wanted Superman to defend himself and say something inspirational/motivational, get people to trust him.. but then Snyder happened

>that's the point, after superman's death he understands he was the bad guy and will stop killing
Headcannon

>if by emo you mean realistic then ok i guess ?
It's just not Superman

Name calling without any reasoning or explanation just shows you have no real argument. Zack Snyder pls go

Because it's literal capekino

this

>it's a "he's never read a superman comic" post

There is no such thing as an average fan. You have thinking people who enjoyed this film and you have immature trolling fucks like who ignore all invitations to polite, reasoned discourse.

Choose which side you want to take as representative of your mentality. Choose wisely.

>wants people to elaborate and explain
>immature trolling fucks like (You) who ignore all invitations to polite, reasoned discourse.

DCucks are human garbage

>mentality
Which one is against yours, Cred Forums?

>unintentional irony: the post.
You're so utterly lacking in so much as the pretense of self-awareness, it's doubtful Buddhist monks could even see you.

Oh, so it's time for a false dichotomy, is it?

Notice how offered a legitimate conversation and went wholly ignored? Yeah, go fuck yourself.

>archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/filename/image/image/yVhhVZbd-gZCPtrPopTkgQ/
Again which one is against yours, Cred Forums

It takes two-dimensional childrens' cartoon characters and lends them some depth and sophistication

It does so with appropriate subtext, respecting the audience enough not to demean them with overt, in-your-face dialogue exposition of character development

It doesn't put its story through a PG-13 filter - people make mistakes, people get hurt, damage is done, actions have consequences. The events of the film are more engrossing because the potentiality of repercussions give them a very profound sense of individual significance. This is aided by a very strong sense of continuity with its predecessor.

I guess.

If your ambiguously worded question is asking which post is mine, none of them. If you're implying that the only people who like this movie and the franchise to which it belongs are Cred Forums console war baby tourists, I own a PS3 that's largely collected dust for over two years and the only boards I frequent are /sci/, /lit/, and Cred Forums.

I couldn't because it's not a good movie, and I believe anybody seriously saying the opposite are delusional. It's got some ambition, but the execution is very underwhelming and downright bad at some points.
I just think it's better in comparison to some other bad movies that came out this year.

lesser evil tbqhwyfamalams

Memes and trolling.

No one really thinks it's good.

>no ghostbusters option

w-w-whuuuh?

The fix is in, son. A movie that actively baited and belittled its own fan base, shat upon the spirit of the originals, and thought that slapstick and body humor were adequate substitutes for subtle irony and jarring dichotomy is more acceptable than a comic book movie that is more comic book than some comic books.

This may not be the world we chose, but it's very much the world we're in.

>Headcannon
Did you miss his speech at the end or did you fall asleep?

It's fucking Ben Affleck playing Batman kicking Superman's ass with the entire movie having a dark tone and serious themes. Plus it sets up for both Suicide Squad and Justice League. Wonder Woman too I guess but I wouldn't say that's a good reason unless you like both Wonder Woman and Gal Gadot.

Another guy here, but you're arguing with a mental midget that doesn't know the difference between "cannon" and "canon."