This will get its due someday

This will get its due someday.

Hell, Star Wars V met with lukewarm reaction upon release.

Other urls found in this thread:

filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2016/03/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice.html
youtube.com/watch?v=VlINHSnUx9k
youtube.com/watch?v=en8bh60K7m8
youtube.com/watch?v=jUORL-bvwA0
starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Luke_Skywalker
dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/1002-Summer-2010/Screening-Room-Zack-Snyder.aspx
youtube.com/watch?v=5oltd-Jsi2I
bloomberg.com/features/2016-zack-snyder-profile/
parabasis.typepad.com/blog/2013/12/as-you-may-have-heard-film-crit-hulk-released-an-e-book-this-week-titled-screenwriting-101-the-book-is-a-heavily-adapted.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nonlinear_narrative_films
twitter.com/MattZetaBaen/status/714593819220508672
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

This is why Cred Forums shit needs to go.

Probably. I genuinely enjoyed it.

I hope so, My favorite Capekino

Yeah, but Star Wars V is good

I literally couldn't care anymore. I don't even know why I'm responding to this. We've been having the same fucking conversations for six months. I think we should give it a rest, pal.

I don't think most people care anymore at this point. These threads keep popping up and are getting less and less replies.

?

But it has gotten it's due. Everyone knows it's the worst Superman movie, and the second worst Batman movie right after Batman and Robin.

We need some anti-Cred Forums images.

How dare you compare the genius that is Batman ad Robin to this crap.

>muh camp

Yeah, Batman and Robin had some great practical effects and a far better soundtrack.

I'm not even joking.

So Cred Forums shouldnt talk about Cred Forums because people like things you dont?

>Snyderfags are still this delusional

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

>goes down as one of the worst cape films of all time

yeah it will get it's due

Cred Forums shouldn't talk about Cred Forums because Cred Forums is neither comics nor cartoons

well I agree with that, but you arent ever gunna get it to stop unfortunately

>being this asspained that people like a movie you dont

Kek. Asspained that people don't like the movie you like.

I heard the extended cut is good.

no, I'm not negatively posting in threads celebrating a movie other people like

Kek. Sure, not in this obvious bait thread.

how is liking a movie, bait?

Kek. Never said it was.

Maybe I'll warm up to the idea of a Punisher in a Batsuit vs SuperhamfistedJesusreferenceman movie someday, but in the mean time, Wonder Wonder was easily the best thing about this fucking shitfest and I'm not even a WW or Gal Gadot fan. I really need to watch the extended version soon tho

Forgot to include this pic. I just can't get behind this movie

People love to bring that quote up, but then he made a Batman movie and didn't do that.

>Luthor left a jar of his piss on a senator's desk

Fuck this movie.

How did he get it there without her noticing? Piss stinks, Supes has super senses too. That must've been irritating.

That entire scene in Congress was pointless.

BLOWING UP CONGRESS was pointless. It was immediately hand waved away in the next scene.

I don't care, it just shows how much he knows nothing about the character and how little he respects the fans. Thinking you can make a beloved character like Batman "better" by ignoring his traditional no-killing rule and making him a mass murderer is just arrogant and pretentious

And don't even get me started on his version of Superman

but you said this was a bait thread, and this is a thread liking BvS. So by your logic, liking BvS = bait.

>he tells himself

Kek. Moving goalposts. Nice projection.

Try harder.

he never ever said he was making the character better. And saying that Nolan's movies werent as dark as people think they were is not saying that Batman would actually every get raped.


Also if you werent braindead, you would know that the whole point of BvS was that in the nolan, the schumaker, and the burton movies Batman has killed. And now that he is in a universe with Superman he cant anymore, he has to be better.

How did I move the goal posts? You said this was a bait thread. What about it is bait?

Kek. If that was the case then why'd he kill people in the warehouse after he found his redemption?

This was a PRIME example on how NOT to do a comic movie.

>Ding!...Bait thread.

of his own volition, he kills exactly one person in the warehouse, and its the KGBeast.

His redemption doesnt finish until he sees Superman sacrifice himself and he figures out that "men can still be good"

Kek. Clearly he's coaxing anons to reply to him, why else would he make this thread?

Try harder. 0/10

why do people keep trying to make BvS happen?

Also it was a homage to both The Dark Knight Returns (he kills the mutant in that in the exact same way) and to the fact that the last person Batman has canonically killed in the comics (post crisis) was KGBeast

Kek. If that's the case, why didn't he let KGBeast live?

Every thread wants people to reply to it, thats why they are started.

But beside that, the only reason this thread was made was to appreciate BvS

Well, after a few months, I'm ready to give it its due. It's not as shit as CW or SS. Still shit though.

But that scene in Cabin in the Woods was really well done.

Kek. Sure thing, buddy.

I literally just told you, because he hadn't gone back to his no kill rule yet. Its not until Superman sacrifices himself does he truly go back to it (as shown by how he doesnt brand Luthor)

>he never ever said he was making the character better.
Didn't need to say anything. He fucking did it in the movie

>Also if you werent braindead, you would know that the whole point of BvS was that in the nolan, the schumaker, and the burton movies Batman has killed
He didn't kill in Batman & Robin. Besides, why does any dumbass feel the need to point out that Batman has killed before in movies? Just because he did it before doesn't make it right

>And now that he is in a universe with Superman he cant anymore, he has to be better.
This is head canon. This is all the BvS defense task force shills can come up with. Made up shit that was never even implied in the movies. I was willing to have a reasonable conversation for once but you're just another Cred Forums retard who probably calls this movie "kino"

Kek. No it wasn't.

the difference is episode V is a great movie. this movie is shit.

But it was. How do you not know Batman killed KGBeast in the comics? He locked him up and let him starve to death

so you are OP then? you know why had made the thread?

Kek. He didn't kill Luthor cause he had a snotty nose.

>episode V is a great movie
Lol

Kek. Are you OP?

> He fucking did it in the movie
So he did make the character better? Okay

>He didn't kill in Batman & Robin
And he killed in the other schumaker movie so...

And again, his killing is never played as okay. Literally everyone says Batman has lost his way by killing (like he did under every other live action director) and by the end of the movie he goes back to the no kill rule, as shown by him not branding Luthor in jail.

Kek. Are you trying to start a meme or something?.

Kek.

The Empire Strikes back is not a good movie anymore?

god you people can be retarded

No, so thats why I take the words in the post at face value instead of implying a bunch of hidden meaning behind it

Kek. Not all memes are zany.

Kek. Of course you do, you're a Snyderfag.

>Star Wars V

Who calls it this? It's "The Empire Strikes Back".

so because I'm a snyderfag, I trust the OP does genuinely enjoy the movie?

Kek. Maybe? What are you talking about now?

You're not making any sense.

I think it'll get reappraised in the future, it's not a bad movie it's just fucking weird.

Totes. It even has The End is the Beginning is The End

THERE USED TO BE A GREYING TOWER ALONE BY THE SEA...

You were the one who said
>Kek. Of course you do, you're a Snyderfag.

in response to me saying

>I take the words in the post at face value instead of implying a bunch of hidden meaning behind it


this means that, according to you, because I'm a snyderfag, I take a post at face value instead of implying hidden meaning.

Yeah I love those great plastic ice effects that wobble around when you move them.

Truly kino of the highest order.

>nobody's motivation is established
>lex luthor is now mark zuckerberg with a pee fetish
>no establishing shots. ever.
>superman gets nothing to say and nothing to do
>the tone of superman's scenes is always miserable, even when he is saving people and everyone supposedly loves him even though all you see is protests
>shitty use of score
>pointless doomsday and wonder woman appearances
>lois lane has fucking nothing to do and her subplot about iraq terrorists is really dumb
>forced justice league cameos
>this movie just should have been man of steel 2 with lex and superman
>still a ridiculous amount of destruction, zack snyder didnt learn
>pretentious and pointless theology themes and dialogue

YEAH GREAT MOVIE user, I bet it's gonna be remembered as a classic like M Night Shymalan's The Happening, After earth, Lady in the Water, the Last Airbender and the like

The only reason I could find for it was so that he could do what he wanted on the alien ship without supervision.

It's a little too coincidental he kills everyone who's on to them right after they catch on.

>he doesnt understand anyone's motivations
>he fell for the no establishing shots meme

Kek. Sure, twisting words around will get you far haha.

It wasn't actually piss, bros. Just the label.

Superman flat out said he wasnt looking for any kind of danger, partly because, he fears, he didnt want to.

the point was the deny Superman the opportunity to talk to the world at large and to associate his character with danger/fear


what words did I twist?

What words did you twist?

Oliver Twist. kek.

if everybody fucking complains about something as basic as establishing shots they might be on to something
Tell me, what does Superman want to do? Why does Lex Luthor hate Superman? Why the fuck does Lex Luthor make a horrible uncontrollable monster to fight a horrible uncontrollable monster? The hell is Lois Lane doing dicking around?

No plot.
No central character.
No antagonist.
No defined purpose for side characters.
No threat.
No three acts.
No jokes.
No punchlines.
No explanations.
No internal references.
No catchphrases.
No political polemical voice.
No melodrama.
No lessons.
No beginning.
No end.
One of the best films ever made.

I´ll say this clear:
I never fucking care about capekino
I can´t stand marvel movies. Of course I can see why they are appealing for a lot of people, but what bothers me is that that exact people don´t suck cucks to other franchises like Fast & Furious, Transformers, or literally every fucking blockbuster movie with meh direction, shitty jokes an "fun" action.
Then this movie came out. The thing is, this movie is, despite his flaws, a much better movie. I won´t say is an amazing film, but it just WANTS to be good, it takes itself serious (i´m not talking about grittyness vs child fun, I mean serious like you pick actual directors and writers to get the thing done, not just jobbers executing what a bunch of jews wanted to sell)
So, IMO, one can like or dislike this movie, I won´t defend it because it´s not like the kind of cinema I like, but I can see how normies are hating the shit out of it because they don´t want to admit Marvel movies are crap. They are trendy, people hugged those movies, used them to show to the world how geek and comic book lovers they were, and then this 2 and half pretentious movie shoved in their face that their movies were full shit.
Of course is fine if you objetibly love Disney Marvel movie but, for a reasons, you don´t like the same type of movies, but let´s face it, Marvel is to cinema what Apple is to phones, what Pixar is to cgi animated films. That reconiseable brand that every fucking normie love to prove how cool they are, when they actually don´t know or give a shit about the damn Scarlet Witch or whatever.
Destroy me now, geeks.

That was funny though, such a petty "Fuck you" move on Luthor's part. Same goes for shooting Jimmy Olsen in the face, Snyder has a pretty subversive sense of humour about his subject matter.

You shouldn't lie to people as if this movie was good. This is the internet, after all.

its the new man of steel

>Tell me, what does Superman want to do?
He wants to do good, but he lives in a world where "the right thing" can be hard or even impossible to do. He also wants to protect those closest to him, which causes conflict with his duty to the world.
>Why does Lex Luthor hate Superman?
Because Superman represents the lie of a benevolent God, and a challenge to Luthor's earthly power. So Lex seeks to either disgrace of destroy him.
>Why the fuck does Lex Luthor make a horrible uncontrollable monster to fight a horrible uncontrollable monster?
Luthor doesn't care about Earth, seems like he'd burn to a cinder to prove he was right.
>The hell is Lois Lane doing dicking around?
She was trying to figure out who framed Superman for the Nairomi incident and stop the Capitol bombing.

I like BvS too but it will never be Episode V

I don't know anybody who complains about it except some cunts online that went to a couple of film courses.
It's one of the dumbest complaints ever. I didn't even like the movie but you could tell everything that was going on without establishing shots all the fucking time like in CW.
The confusing stuff was obscure shit that nobody who's not somewhat familiar with the comics would understand such as the nightmare and Flash apparitions, and those throwaway cameos of characters most people don't even know (specially the Cyborg one).
Yeah, it was a mess but not because of fucking establishing shots.

>if everybody fucking complains about something as basic as establishing shots they might be on to something

But not everyone is, in fact you are the only one to bring it up in this thread

>Tell me, what does Superman want to do? Why does Lex Luthor hate Superman? Why the fuck does Lex Luthor make a horrible uncontrollable monster to fight a horrible uncontrollable monster? The hell is Lois Lane doing dicking around?


Superman just wants to save people without being thought of as evil or as a god figure.


Lex hates Superman because, as he says, he doesn't believe that power can be innocent. Or to phrase it another way, that you cant be both all good and all powerful (literally both things are said by lex in the movie).


Lex makes Doomsday because he just wanted to prove that power couldnt be innocent/you can't be all good or all powerful. Lex basically thought that either Superman kills Batman, proving he is not all good, and then also kills Doomsday. Or Superman is killed by Batman or Doomsday, proving that Superman is not all powerful (and this is exactly what happens, so Lex kind of wins)


Lois Lane was doing her job or was acting to help her loved one. Depends which scene.

ehh episode V was overrated, i'll never understand ESB fanboys. it's not a bad movie it's just not a good one

>Tell me, what does Superman want to do?

Mindlessly save people with no consequences to what happens afterwards.

>Why does Lex Luthor hate Superman?

Because his daddy beat him and God didn't stop it. And if Superman is like God, then fuck him.

>Why the fuck does Lex Luthor make a horrible uncontrollable monster to fight a horrible uncontrollable monster?

Because offscreen he read the instruction manual for the wombship and discovered it could create life.

>The hell is Lois Lane doing dicking around?

Well she totally figured out the bullets used to massacre Africans that was blamed on Superman were uniquely manufactured by Lex Luthor's company, which should have immediately resulted in action or at least his removal from government access to Zodd's ship but fuck it.

But I'm not lying user. Why are do you think its impossible for people to genuinely like this movie?

I really liked it a lot and it seriously is underrated but it is nowhere as good as Star Wars V.

Hating on the best scene of the movie. The only one with some actual tension and buildup. Of course, Superman reaction fucks everything up just like it happens with any decent setup in a Snyder film but that was a good scene.

>Wonder Wonder was easily the best thing about this fucking shitfest and I'm not even a WW fan

That's understandable

Having establishing shots is basic fucking filmmaking. It might not be the biggest deal to you but it's pretty hilarious how a multi-million dollar movie misses like one of the first things you should learn in film school.

You seem to be implying Lex Luthor has two motivations that completely contradict eachother. Superman barely does anything in the movie so it's impossible to tell what his motivation is, Lois Lane is shit.

>Hating on the Empire Strikes Back

How's you autism, little guy?

>wonder woman checked her email and then fought a monster
>best part of the movie
I hate this movie but Batfleck was easily the best part

Why would Superman react to the jar? He never notices it, just the senator

>You seem to be implying Lex Luthor has two motivations that completely contradict eachother.
How do they contradict each other? He'd rather destroy the world than share it with Superman.
>Superman barely does anything in the movie so it's impossible to tell what his motivation is
He spells it out in that hotel balcony scene with Lois. Did you even watch the movie? People keep saying stuff like that "Lex never explains why he hates Superman" and "Why does Clark do what he does?" both character have scenes where they directly address this.
>Lois Lane is shit.
Well that's a matter of opinion.

>stop disliking what I like!
>having different taste is autism!

I swear to god, the people that hate BvS just cant let people have different opinions.

>Why would Superman react to the jar?
Because it's piss. If you have super senses you'd be reacting to the strong scent.

Neither can you, though.

>Marvel is to cinema what Apple is to phones, what Pixar is to cgi animated films. That reconiseable brand that every fucking normie love to prove how cool they are, when they actually don´t know or give a shit

You're being rather generous to apple and pixar, which are simply companies that manufacture a product.

>Destroy me now, geeks.

If we rated movies based on their intent and potential rather than actual results, then Star Wars the Phantom Menace should be considered the greatest film of all time.

BvS is a clunky overstuffed mess that's somewhat admirable for its aspirations, but railing against the Marvel Cinematic Universe for its sins when BvS commits almost all the same ones is deeply hypocritical.

But there are plenty of establishing shots son. It opens with an establishing shot of the funeral, the metropolis scene opens with an establishing shot of metropolis, the scene where they find the kryptonite has an establishing shot, so does the crashed kryptonian ship, and even Gotham does when we see Batman going to save the prostitutes.


In fact the only scenes that that I can think of that doesnt have establishing shots are the bit where Clark is climbing the mountain and then when we are in the Daily Planet.


Even the library gala has an establishing shot.

How? All I've done is try to correct misconceptions people have about the movie. Like when people say there was no motivations for the characters, when there plainly was.

you can hate the movie all you want, but dont spread lies man

But those aren't misconceptions. It's what they think of the movie. What you say is not objective fact.

>ehh episode V was overrated, i'll never understand ESB fanboys. it's not a bad movie it's just not a good one

It's one of the most popular films of all time.

You gonna say Gone With the Wind is overrated? You gonna say that about Citizen Kane or Spartacus?

In the year 2016 people still give a fuck about ESB, they still misquote the reveal of Darth Vader's parentage to Luke, they still remember Han Solo frozen in carbonite, Luke getting his hand chopped off, etc.

The fact that anybody gives a shit casts in as a solid gold amazing film.

no, they are misconceptions. When someone says they never explain Lex's motivation, when in fact he explains it many times, thats a misconception.

It wouldnt be an opinion if I said they never physically fight each other in Civil War, that would be objectively wrong.

I meant the reaction to the explosion.

Why is it bad that he is sad the explosion happened. I wouldnt be surprised if a high profile event was bombed, I'd be sad.

There are establishing shots, not just before every fucking single scene and you don't need them because you know where they are and what they're doing.
This establishing shot is not a complaint I've heard from anybody who saw the movie except a bunch of nitpicking cunts on the internet who wanna be the new Plinkett or something.
And I said this as somebody who didn't even like the movie, but establishing shots are not a problem.

He never explains other shit though. Why does he make Doomsday? How does he know how to make Doomsday?

Why are you bringing up Civil War?

>Like when people say there was no motivations for the characters, when there plainly was.

Regardless of your ability to decipher Lex Luthor's motivations, a lot of people watching the movie were left baffled by his behavior and Eisenberg's performance.

Superman comes across as morose and conveniently understated for much of the film.

Batman going homicidal is the kind of thing that's hard for audiences to follow when he's just been introduced.

But he does explain it, everything he does is to prove power can't be innocent aka no one can be all good or all powerful. He explains it to the senator, he explains it to superman on the rooftop.

The computer told him how to make Doomsday (remember that scene where he tells the AI to tell him everything it knows? And then the AI specifically warns him against genetically modifying Zod but he does it anyway?)


And I brought up Civil War as just an example to prove that you can be objectively wrong about something in a movie.

I really dont think it was hard for most people to follow, all the casual friends I saw it with understood it perfectly fine.


And Lex flat out says his motivation at least twice in the movie. Once to the Senator (whats the oldest lie in america, the power can be innocent) and on the roof with Clark.


When does Vader ever flat out explain his motivation in the Star Wars movies?

>When does Vader ever flat out explain his motivation in the Star Wars movies?

>The title crawl of Star Wars describes the Empire as evil.

>"You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor"

Done.

Lex's motivation is pretty clear, that's pretty much all he talks about. But yeah, the Doomsday crap was total bullshit. It's like they forced them to write a CGI monster for the epic finale and they didn't know what the fuck to do.

God I hope not. The movie is legitimately terrible and it genuinely worries me that it has so many defenders here on this board.

Well the six little boys sitting next to me in my theater were bored out of their minds.

The obese man to my right wept when Superman died, so there's that.

You can definitely tell which scenes are from the original Goyer script and which are from Terrio's

most of them are shitposting, but mind you Cred Forums is a refuge for freaks who don't know how to be critical of the media they consume

Stop replying to trolls.

>Hell, Star Wars V met with lukewarm reaction upon release.
>Comparing original trilogy to BvS
Didn't know I could get this angry, i could let it slide if you were bad mouthing the prequels, or the garbage sequel, hell even the ewoks, but this...this is a dark time in my life.

>genuinely worries me that it has so many defenders here on this board.
It's a movie dude. What terrible thing will happen if some people like it?

I did, the movie made slept of me in Turkey.

In the movie, oniric face man threw the cape down with bone troll

How ehen ginger women know Shelley monster made?

What about baronial? Didn't he die in Tough Metal Man?

Fink used a gun, right?

What about the garden?

Did earth rise on Earth?

His mind awake or body asleep? How did Sparky come?

i w4nt my dicky suk.

Africa.

Africa.

Africa.

I've neen beaning to fuck ouy in the garden.

THE garden?

MARCUS.

MARCUS ES EN HORTO!

What?

No, what the fuck?

ad
btdhb
dbg

Boris.

Sinne

Snikt Bubcanuck.

Eroom

Elbmessa Sregneva

Nosirrom

It isn't working.

MARCUS!

GARDEN.

Rehcsielf

Help

HELP

FUCKING HELP!

I'm sorry

We had it coming

A naked lady walks into a bar with a three foot salami in one arm and a poodle in the other, the barman says "I guess you wouldn't be needing a drink with that," and the naked lady says...

Oh.

I'm not sure.

What does she say?

If the poodle and salami ar both the same size, doesn't it mean there the same person?

I don't know, Marcus.

I just don't know.

Where did they all go? The cowboys.

The Gods?

Etisarap

Etinotpyrk.

Menny menny patal, Satana Satana.

Esuac tsuj on doog retaerg on

2/?

scabies.

bait.

fish.

school of fish.

tuna.

trout.

salmon.

no cod.

in the rain it'll pour on you. the rain of fihs

Rain... reign

King Fish... Aquaman.

Namor?

The Depths

Deep.

DEEP

DEEP
E
E
P

BRAVO SNYDER!

BRAVO VINCE

GILLIGAN

GAN

N

N for NOLAN

NOLAN

Interstellar travel. Space.

There's no fish in space.

Except for on Neptune

Neptune is in space

Neptune is also a god.

God in Space = Darkseid

DARKSEID IS

But also isn't.

Steppenwolf,

Step in wolf.

Wolfenstein?

Mastermen.

Black suit

SUPERMAN

SUPERMAN BECOMES A NAZI IN JUSTICE LEAGUE

FUCK! THE HYPERCRISIS IS REAL!!!!!!

The OT is massively overrated. Treating it like a sacred cow, as you are is fucking retarded.
That being said. BvS is a legitimately awful movie with problems that a film like Star Wars has absolutely none of.
>horrible editing which creates bad pacing (actually probably the strongest point of the OT is good editing and pacing)
>retarded character motivation
>terrible villains (another thing the OT has a real strength in)
>Batman shitstomping Superman in less than three minutes

It influences the comics and the Superman brand as a whole, like the Donner movies have been doing for the past 20 years or so.

I've seen lot of good theory about this film. This leads me to believe it's true failing is how opaque it is. It fails to connect with or engage it audience on an intellectual, emotional or action level.

I just felt board from the opening onward. Nothing on screen grabbed me until about 45 min in. The next time was maybe half an hour later. That's a very long stretch of film for audiences to slog through.

Another issue I noticed was that the lack of Batman and Superman, or any fantastical elements for most of the film really, made it feel like I could literally be watching any other film.

When you have to slog through such a long, dis-interesting movie it makes it hard to even enjoy the excellent effects or design work of the production team.

I don't think BvS will ever be that well regarded.

thanks for the inteligent feedback, seriously didn´t expect that!
yes, you are right, and my post may be a little hypocritical in that point, but then what is in your opinion the thing that makes some films resonate very well among critics and normies when they manufacture the same shit like Transformers? The SW is a pretty valid comparaison. Do you really see episode VI deserving that rates? It doesn´t even want to be a new film, the starting of a new narrative world, is just an auto-fellatio remake of IV (altought a lot of times less well executed, IMO)
Why people lower the bar so much ONLY in exact given ocasions?

>dis-interesting
Totally untrue.

You might be a pleb.

VI=VII, sorry

>or any fantastical elements for most of the film really
This is one of my biggest problems with it. Yeah, people say that even considering its tone, it could still be a good movie if it were written, directed, and paced better, and I suppose I do agree with that, but I also feel like a Superman movie should be fantastical as fuck. It's fucking Superman. There absolutely should be some craziness there.

To me, seeing that opening scene in Africa and having KGBeast as a minor antagonist just made the movie feel a little like, "Call of Duty: Superman Edition," which was most certainly NOT what I wanted out of a fucking Superman film.

Name call all you want but when you compare it to a film like Sicario, which BvS was similar in tone too, it doesn't hold up at all.

As someone who's seen both, Sicario's ending has worse tonal whiplash than BvS's.
I like the ending, but it turned into a revenge flick out of nowhere.
Del Toro's character was not maneuvered right throughout the film for that ending to be a good ending to the film.

Plus, Deakins is a meme cinematographer.

>Why do people lower the bar so much ONLY in exact given occasions?

Because they like Star Wars. Glowing magical swords are cool. Storm troopers are cool. It's fun.

BvS was a lot of things, but it really wasn't that much fun, which is something people link to entertainment.

People from Cred Forumsshouldn't come to Cred Forums with their shit taste from their shithole and should stick to spouting its memes here.

It's absolutely obvious when a Cred Forumsmrade makes a live action cape topic vs when somebody from Cred Forums comes here to make one

>BvS was a lot of things, but it really wasn't that much fun, which is something people link to entertainment.
Yeah, seriously.

God forbid that some of us want our superhero movies to be fun.

I mean, that's 'only' ultimately probably the whole point of the superhero genre.

All those things are true but it was definitely a lot more engaging than BvS.

Fun has nothing to do with quality though.

People seem to use 'amount of fun' as a measuring stick.

Eh, I respect your opinion, and I sort of agree.

I think Sicario had my blood pumping more, but BvS has more rewatch value.
To me anyway.

Half of VI is a great movie

The other half has Ewoks

>DCEUfags are the new prequel defenders
Your movies are objectively fucking bad. It's not that people didn't get them, they're not 2deep4u...they're just fucking shit. Which means they're NEVER going to suddenly become well liked by fans.

If the DCEU movies under Johns and without Snyder are well received then not only are they never going to suddenly become loved but they'll become even more hated.

All you can do is look deep inside yourself and admit that they're shit. Then you can move on.

Which I think is what a lot of people felt let down by. People go to see Transformers and other big name films for the unique spectacle.

I think this comes from Zach Snyder not really understanding suspension of disbelief. He said in an interview he felt it was silly seeing Bats and Supes talk on camera in costume for more than a few seconds. What he may not realise is that it's his job to make it believable and if he is unable then they really found the wrong person for the job.

And personally, I am a huge Superman in Space nerd so none of the movies have even come close to scratching that itch for me.

wow, you expose it in a devastating way. When I entered the cinema with BvS I expected an Avengers movie with less kid jokes but pretty much the same type of product. And after watching the movie, god, it was so fucking refreshing. Same with Deadpool, same with SS, Watchmen, The Incredibles... As I told you, I don´t really care about this genre, but why on earth are the public literally begging to all the studios to replicate the same exact formula? Isn´t this castrating the posibilities of the genre? Even Fox Marvel movies get trashed by normies for, literally, NOT BEING MADE BY MARVEL STUDIOS. god, they are literally 90% the same fucking product.

But they most definitely are NOT shit.

MoS and BvS anyway. SS was a mess.

>I am a huge Superman in Space nerd
well technically...

It's pretty fantastical, it's full of prophecies, dreams, and visions. To quote a review of the film.

>filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2016/03/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice.html
>BVS is best read as expressionism. It isn't bound by character development or sense. Rather, it's strung-together dream sequences, perverse emotions, and nightmare imagery. There are bleeding crypts and holy levitations; unabashed Christian imagery and infernal suggestions abound (one of the caged human traffickees refers to Batman as "a devil"). Desecration of corpses and resurrections? Yes, both. There is the murder of parents--the ghosts of them, too, haunting literally and figuratively at the periphery. BVS is itself deranged. Its consciousness is delusional and subject to hallucination.

>Fun has nothing to do with quality though.
>People seem to use 'amount of fun' as a measuring stick.

"Fun" is absolutely a metric by which people rate a film. Particularly certain genres associated with escapist fantasy and empowerment.

no.
I can see your point, I know what you are refering, but I think the accurate word is "action". Superhero movies can be anything, but always tend to be action-driven stories. They are large periods of cape comics not being lighthearted or fun. BvS isn´t one or the other, but it is definetly an action-driven film (even with all that pseudo-character-driven look) so it applies ok in what a superhero movie CAN be.

BUH ANYTHING MORE THAN FUN IS BEING TRYHARD
PRETENTIOUS

They choose to be blind, man.

The movie isn't even deep per se, it just requires you to use your brain a tiny little bit.

That's a nice shot but we want more fantastical elements. Needs more Braniac's ship, New Krypton, The Tyrant-Star vs The Sun Eater or any of that ilc.

I was talking about VII pal, sorry for the misspeling
(I don´t see VI as a good movie either)

>"Fun" is absolutely a metric by which people rate a film.
Yes they do.
The point here is that that is a sad state of affairs.

>Needs more Braniac's ship, New Krypton, The Tyrant-Star vs The Sun Eater or any of that ilc.

>what is the extended Krypton sequence
>what is Superman vs the world engine
>what is anything with Zod's ship looming over earth

>I think this comes from Zach Snyder not really understanding suspension of disbelief. He said in an interview he felt it was silly seeing Bats and Supes talk on camera in costume for more than a few seconds. What he may not realise is that it's his job to make it believable and if he is unable then they really found the wrong person for the job.
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, this sort of thing kinda comes with the whole territory. Zack Snyder is ashamed of the source material on a fundamental level, as well as simply not really understanding it. I don't think he really gets the purity or the innocent sense of wonder that comes with superheroes.

>And personally, I am a huge Superman in Space nerd so none of the movies have even come close to scratching that itch for me.
Man, I just want to see some classic Superman enemies on screen for once. I'm talking Brainiac, Bizarro, Mr. Mxyzptlk, maybe even Parasite and Metallo. Or even give me newer enemies like Livewire or Solaris, the Tyrant Sun. And I want a Superman movie that just has fun with it all.

Nice copypasta. My favorite bit is >mean serious like you pick actual directors and writers to get the thing done, not just jobbers executing what a bunch of jews wanted to sell
Snyder? That's an totally actual director. Forcing the movie out to win a rights dispute? That's so much less jew-y.
Shane Black? Not a real director. Johnston isn't either. Or Gunn. Or Wright. Or Favreau. Kenneth Branagh? Literally who?!

Please go "bravo whedon" again. I miss that.

>ashamed of the source material

>gives us the most comic book Supes scene ever
youtube.com/watch?v=VlINHSnUx9k

Those were all in MoS and only tacked on at the start of BvS. I liked MoS a lot more because they had these, yes.

None of these were as visually amazing as the things I listed could be, though.

That review wasn't even that positive but I give it credit for at least trying to engage with the ideas of the film.

>same with SS
How the fuck was SS refreshing in any sort of way when it was a fairly generic movie?

The problem with the whole "Lex wants to prove you can't be all powerful or all good" is that Man of Steel already established Superman was neither so it was an unnecessary thing to prove or even really bring up for the audience.

>(I don´t see VI as a good movie either)

The overall plot of RotJ is repetitive for everyone but Luke. Leia and Han remain very static characters for almost all the story. Poor Lando is stuck playing across Nien Nunb.

It doesn't really "show" but Lucas was clearly exhausted where to take things aside from Luke, Vader, and the Emperor.

youtube.com/watch?v=en8bh60K7m8

This scene is amazing though and justifies the whole movie.

FUCK he even jumps before he can fly!

Ashamed of the source material my ass.

>The point here is that that is a sad state of affairs.

Superman Returns did this too, you know. You didn't defend it there.

That is some low level fantasy. That's the kind of thing you would see in a cheap horror movie, not a massive World's Finest blockbuster.

And these elements were used very badly in the film as well. They just added to the disjointed feeling of the plot in the original version and contributed nothing of value in the extended cut.

And still none of that is what I wanted out of a Superman movie. "Nightmare imagery"? Really? Where's the fun?

It's like they decided to try to make the darkest possible interpretation of a traditional Superman as they possibly could. It just didn't jive with me at all.

yeah, this is what I wanted to point on when did capekino fanbase went full retard and started REEEEEEEEing everything that doesn´t aply as a MCU film? if movies like Spiderman 1, X-Men or The Dark Knight were released today what would be te reaction?
Why the fuck are people pushing for the same fucking treatment of literally any character? and people argued about Snyder pushing for a Nolanized Supes...

That was literally one of the only really good scenes in that whole movie and otherwise, Snyder has proven that he more or less kind of IS ashamed of the source material or doesn't truly get it in both of the DCEU movies he's made. This is the same man who decided that Superman HAD to kill Zod in order to establish his no-killing rule, which doesn't even make sense.

Superman Returns isn't a bad movie either.
Not anything exeptional, but the hate is overblown.

The plane scene is amazing.

>Where's the fun?
die

youtube.com/watch?v=jUORL-bvwA0

>hurrrr muh Zod killing
This is nothing new for Supes movies.

Hopefully we'll get something closer to All-Star and it will be glorious.

All Star on film, right here.

Doing the bare minimum for the biggest pay check of his life isn't really something to applaud him for.

>does something bad
>Zack the Hack!

>does something good
>Zack the Hack!

end your life

>die
Look. I get that "fun" is subjective, I get that "fun" won't automatically make a movie good.

But when you approach a Superman movie in such a way as to make it dead serious, without any charm or charisma, I reserve the right to question the approach.

Seriously doubt it on the grounds that Empire Strikes Back was not shit, while BvS clearly was.

copypasta? I wouldn´t made grammar mistakes every two words for writing in another language if I were copypasting, you moron. Not everyone needs other people to form its opinion.

You can argue about Snyder being an awful director, of course, but are you serious talking about directors in marvel movies? literally half of that list were dispatched from the studios, sometimes in the middle of the production. The other half quit after they executed their job and bitched about the experience.
Hell, even some of those directors stared their productions before Disney buying marvel.
And I´m not even talking about people like Patty Jenkins explicitly talking about prefering director-driven projects on WB.
Seriously, man, do your research before shitposting

What if I didn't like Superman killing Zod even there?

>All Star on film, right here.
Yeah, no.

Snyder needs to stop using quotes verbatim outside of their original context. It just doesn't work.

One scene an All Star does not make.

Sure, but you not liking the tone does not give you a leg to stand on for a case of it being a bad movie.

I would be really embarrassed if I could only speak in shit posts like you. I've seen toddlers use their words better. I would tell you to kill yourself back but you're clearly already dead inside.

>while BvS clearly was.
(not true, by the way)

>literally half of that list were dispatched from the studios, sometimes in the middle of the production.
Wright and who else.
Also I sincerely hope you didn't get used to that "director driven" style that WB used because it's gone now and you're gonna get more Skwad hack jobs.

What?

My point was that you see Zack make a good scene, and you immediately assume their were ulterior motives.
You WANT to hate the man.
It's irrational.

>Sure, but you not liking the tone does not give you a leg to stand on for a case of it being a bad movie.
What about the awful pacing? The awful writing? The bad directing? The less than stellar performances? The score, which I did not care for?

He can make good scenes, but he can't manage to string them together into a good movie

remember Patty Jenkings directing Thor 2?
me neither

>What about the awful pacing? The awful writing? The bad directing? The less than stellar performances? The score,
Were all good.
Seriously, rattling off aspects of film production and calling each one shit does not make it true.

Granted, Lex's plan is more cleary delineated in the Ultimate Cut, but I saw and and understood the movie in theaters.
Not too mention loving it.

The writing and the acting were absolutely not good

*clearly
*to

I rush when I get fired up.

whatever
get fucked nigger
I'm out.

This is more what I was looking for, an actual discussion.

I have no desire to hate Snyder. I was actually really worried when Sucker Punch bombed. I was terrified he was going to get pulled off MoS and that I wouldn't get another Superman film any time soon. I argued on Cred Forums that he could do a great job based on Watchmen when others doubted. I liked Man of Steel for the pretty good pastiche of origin stories it was.

It was his interviews that made me realise his heart wasn't in it for Superman. He clearly prefers Batman and darker stories.
What you call 'ulterior motives' I call real world context, which I think is something that needs to be taken into account when discussing anything. I've noticed that Cred Forums gets wrapped up in the fantasy worlds we all love so much when discussing 'why would character x do y!', prefer to find in universe answers instead of seeing the obvious: all our favourite things are made by people just as flawed as us.

don´t even argue, user. the movie is shit because people say so. reasons? because it´s shit.
my god.
try typing " "writing and pacing" batman v superman " on google. It´s amazing how people can repeat catchy phrases instead of giving proper opinions, and is also amazing how violent they react when you propose that the film is fine.

If not this then Man of Steel is going to get the 'Critics were too harsh on it when it was first released' treatment. Fuck Watchman is getting the 'It wasn't that bad' reaction now.

>try typing " "writing and pacing" batman v superman " on google. It´s amazing how people can repeat catchy phrases instead of giving proper opinions, and is also amazing how violent they react when you propose that the film is fine.

Being succinct is not a flaw.

BvS has a low rottentomatoes score, because as an aggregate, most critics did not like it.

I tried googling the defenses of the movie, and for some reason all I get is reddit. Why is that?

...

Man of Steel was divisive but it has it's merits.
BvS is widely hated.

Maybe parts of it, but the lois lane subplot is so god damn superflous and slows the movie down so much the movie is forever tarnished for including it.

The thing is, I don't see the DCEU as the definte versions of these characters. I would just read the comics for that.
I really enjoy Snyders' filmmaking style and I think MoS is great fun, but outside of a couple scenes it's not anything transcendent.

BvS on the other hand doubled down on audience alienation and felt almost like an experimental film with how context less a lot of the events happening were.

Watching felt like unraveling a Morrison comic.
BvS is really a work of art.

Because you think where information comes from is grounds to dismiss it?

>BvS is really a work of art.
Art should not be defined by its comprehensibility or lack thereof.

I thought it was. That's why people defending the DCEU keep going
>RT

>lukewarm
Yeah, it didn't get fucking railed the way BvS rightfully deserved to be.

Art can be defined any which way you want.
Eat my taint.

>art should be this not this
Boss_Nass_laughter.jpg

>rightfully deserved to be.
nah
saying it doesn't make it true

RT is merely an aggregate, asswipe.

>saying it doesn't make it true
Congratulations user, you know what an opinion is, shame you don't know what a good movie is.

>shame you don't know what a good movie is.
no u

All Snyderfags do is defend this movie. They never explain why it's any good, only why it isn't bad.

>They never explain why it's any good
We do. All the time.
You come back with some brain dead reply about 2deep4u not being an excuse, ignoring that that's not what was said at all.

Haven't you ever been in a BvS thread?

Nice job replying, faggot.

>We do. All the time.

You're not doing it right now.

Why would I?
It would be me wasting time.
You don't WANT to like the movie, as evidenced by your using the charged term "Snyderfags".

You're in it for the (You)'s, and the (you)'s alone.

I do want to like it though.

Ya'll just want to switch over to talking about what you liked about it for a bit?

I think Jeremy Irons is excellent in every scene he's in.

I thought the rooftop Lex/Superman scene was really powerful.

>BOY do we have problems up here!

I think my issue with the film's tone is that it's monotone. Need some variation all up in this.

Yeah, especially the look on Clark's face when Luthor sequels he wouldn't let them tell him where she is.

NO.

That's what's so wrong with the MCU. They are afraid of sticking to any tone but self conscious "bantz".

They can both have that problem: I wasn't overtly fond of Civil War ether.

Both studios have shown self awareness about this kind of thing so I'm optimistic, though.

I liked the punching scene when Bat's gauntlet gets flattened on Supes' face. I much needed moment of mirth.

People had to much feels invested in it even after it bombed.

Then when he backs up with his hand out.

>please don't hit me

>bombed
end the memes
for G-d's sake

>RT is merely an aggregate, asswipe.
Exactly. Which is why the butthurt about the low critical score and the idea that it's some massive Disney led conspiracy paints DCEU fans so poorly.

I still think Eisenberg could have been a good Luthor. That rooftop scene was actually pretty good. But when he takes it full sperg it's just awful

>Haven't you ever been in a BvS thread?
>SUN GOD
>YOU JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT
>WATCH THE MOVIE
>PRAISE SNYDER
>MARVELSHILL JUST WANTS QUIPS
Have you?

Eh, I really liked him.

The scene after the BVS fight when Clark says
>you've lost
and Lex says
>I don't know how to lose.

I think the movie get Lex more right than people say.

>I don't see the DCEU as the definte versions of these characters. I would just read the comics for that.

I understand this pov but the overdue big screen adaption of beloved capes is not the place for an experimental film. It's the place for a well honed storytelling and techniques to film a film that could only be done with these characters and their whole worlds at their fingertips.

You don't prototype in production.

The scene where Clark shows up without Bat's head is great, though.

>But when he takes it full sperg it's just awful
I've seen Zombieland, Social Network, both Now You See Mes, 30 Minutes or Less, both Rios, the list goes on..He's that same character in every movie. When he was announced as Lex, I kept asking "what should I watch to see him when he's not playing a stuttering awkward wimpy kid" and I never got an answer.

So I'm starting to think he's not acting and that's just Eisenberg being the Luigi to Michael Cera's Mario in real life.

I though his Social Network performance would have been a good Lex. It's probably why they made him a 'Mark Zuckerberg' type.

He's annoying when he's overdoing for most of the film but he plays well off Caville's cinder block towards the end.

Not it won't, its worse than Batman and Robin, I'm being serious, at least with B&R you can laugh your ass off at it, and makes for a good homage to the silly Silver Age Batman stories as well as the campy Adam West show. You cant do that with this movie, its tries to be too serious and begs to be called a great cape movie, but in the same breath it has obnoxious acting by the asshole antagonist and spends its time building up its faggot wannabe-Marvel universe instead of actually telling a good story. Just give me back my Batcards and Batbutts.

>its worse than Batman and Robin, I'm being serious
>I'm being serious

No you're not. That opinion is beyond unjustifiable.

I remember when they said Green Lantern would be the Star Wars of our generation.

Nobody said that. People did say that about GOTG though.

>I though his Social Network performance would have been a good Lex
Before the DCEU was even a thing, when I saw the social network I actually googled Zuckerberg to see if he was on the autism spectrum because of Eisenberg's performance.

So...I disagree. I think that TSN was the most Eisenberg he's ever been, actually, and that's not a good thing.

>Not it won't, its worse than Batman and Robin, I'm being serious

I hate BvS and think it's the blunder of the century but even I know that's not true.

Thank God the "Green Lantern isn't THAT bad you guys" people never gained any track here.

Green Lantern was ok. Not good per say, but it was fairly faithful to the comics.

Wonder Woman is cool in the end fight and all but it really feels like it should have been Supes who saves Bats from Doomsday's blast. It would have been that 'oh shit bro' moment the films needed.

I wonder if this was the original way they were going to do it but it was lost to one of the death by a thousand studio cuts Ayer talked about.

>Nobody said that
The people making it did.

Not that user but he's kind of right. People in the fandom, especially here, bonded over the cheesy shit like Mr Freeze constantly making ice puns.

Maybe it's just a matter of distance but that kind of fond "man I can't believe we survived that shit" isn't happening with the DCEU. It's just fight after fight after fight, every single day.

B&R we can joke about but with the DCEU it's like this sacred cow combined with cancer and it's just so serious for everyone involved that it can't even bear the weight of its expectations or stand up to the most gentle possible ribbing.

I guess GL just didn't have enough obvious and dumb symbolism in it.
Sinestro was the best part.

>both Now You See Mes
why would you ever subject yourself to that

>I wonder if this was the original way they were going to do it but it was lost to one of the death by a thousand studio cuts Ayer talked about.

Snyder pretty clearly got carte blanche to make whatever insane nonsense he wanted to. That was not a film closely watched by Warner execs.

What does a "fandom" have to do with the quality of a movie?

I don't form my opinions by committee, an neither should anyone else.

That's just PR user.

I like Woody Harrelson, Mark Ruffalo, Morgan Freeman, and heist movies.

you're misinterpreting

Batman and Robin has at least some vague value as MST3K fodder

BvS does not

????

That's because BvS is a very good movie, while B&R is the dark child of an elderly gay jew.

I like all of those things too then I saw the first one and it was terrible

>Superman saves Batman from the blast
>Batman saves Superman from being impaled after he stabs Doomsday

It's that easy to start the world finest relationship. "Killing" Superman was such a fucking mistake. People already say Superman is OP and now there's no tension because we know he can't be killed.

BvS is not a very good movie and is in fact quite a terrible movie, but not terrible in a funny way like B&R

>"Killing" Superman was such a fucking mistake.
Take it up with Dan Jurgens.

It's only slightly worse than Kickass 2 user

The theatrical version is (And that's the one that counts) but I enjoyed the ultimate cut

I disagree.

Here's the ting. You're right on paper but in practice? Things like audience participation and fandom can enhance the takeaway from a piece of media. It's part of a greater experience that affects how you feel about something. It's the reason concerts are worth going to. The live music might not compare to the recording in terms of audio quality, but it's more about the experience.

By itself, yeah, Batman and Robin is kind of shit. But the meta commentary about it raises it a couple of notches. Whereas the DCEU has the opposite effect.

And the idea that anyone, on either side of the DCEU divide, is "thinking for themselves" as this point is fucking laughable. It's all memes and groupthink and recycled arguments and defenses.

>closely watched by Warner execs
Are you kidding? Execs would love this movie. They probably thought it would get an academy nom and that they could rub it in Marvel's face how they had figured out how to make deep super-hero movies.

And don't be nieve, all large budget films have a lot of studio involvement. You think Snyder thought to himself, 'About 5 minutes in we need a commercial for the Subaru forester?'

im sure the little boys would be bored watching 2001 or Citizen Kane too. Their opinion in know way is an indicator of quality.

No, I'll take it up with Snyder because nobody forced him and Terrio to do Death of Superman in the second movie. Also why the fuck would I blame Jurgens for something the exes told him to do?

That was after 70 years, not 2 films, though

>lukewarm
>luke
>LUKE
>L U K E

>And the idea that anyone, on either side of the DCEU divide, is "thinking for themselves" as this point is fucking laughable.
Why?
I went to the theater and saw the movie. I loved it. I tell people I loved when it comes up.
It's that simple.

It's unironically worrying that you think liking or disliking this movie is choosing sides in some war.

Well...I did pirate both of them. I'd imagine that if I paid for a ticket I might've felt more strongly.

I didn't say I loved the movies either. I just thought the first one was an okay way to kill two hours and so the second one might as well be. (It wasn't as good as the first one, but the card trick stuff was pretty neat).

like how?

>Things like audience participation and fandom can enhance the takeaway from a piece of media

Have to agree with this. I probably wouldn't hate AoU as much as I do if I was sat between people who thought it was absolute dogshit when I saw it

I don't get it.

it was terrible when he did it too

The problem is that comic fans take this shit too seriously, which I oddly what they accused BvS of. Jimmy Olsen getting shot in the face after 10 minutes is hilarious, as is Luthor putting a jar of piss on a senator's desk. Alfred shit-talking Batman was funny, Lex being a silicon valley type objectivist sperg was awesome, Batman being a psycho is cool. Superman being some aloof demigod instead of a stand in for your dad is an interesting angle. But it's not "faithful" to the comics so nerds threw a fit. Chill out dudes.

>. I tell people I loved when it comes up.
Congratulations. You're interacting with the group.

Yeah, this is just going to stoke the "he's too OP!" whiners. On the flip side it might up what they do with him in the future. OP would be good against a Tyrant Star.

Superman killed Zod in Byrne's Man of Steel, if anything its more faithful to the source material.

Cred Forums is a hive of clinical autism.

There is almost know one here who is self aware enough to step out of an argument in the moment, and think from above it.

Like...Luke Skywalker?

>but not terrible in a funny way like B&R

I got plenty of laughs from all of the Batman action scenes.

That Batmobile chase was something straight out of MacGruber. Snyders' idea of "cool" is so hilariously adolescent that it can't helps but make me giggle every time he smashed one of those fight scenes in the middle of his self-important symbolism-heavy death march of seriousness.

It's like if yo randomly cut Commando's action scenes into the Bourne Identity.

Those aren't films that were marketed to the whole family, though.

Who?

>i'm too sophisticated to enjoy hotwheels

So?

The Ultimate Cut of BvS is fucking R rated.

It's not a kid's movie.

>And the idea that anyone, on either side of the DCEU divide, is "thinking for themselves" as this point is fucking laughable.

What the fuck is this console wars bullshit?

>who

Luke Skywalker was a Force-sensitive human male Jedi Master who was instrumental in defeating the Galactic Empire and the Sith during the Galactic Civil War. He was the son of the redeemed Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker and Senator Padmé Amidala, the grandson of Shmi Skywalker Lars, the grandson of both Ruwee Naberrie and Jobal Naberrie, the step-nephew of Owen and Beru Lars, the twin brother of Leia Organa and the uncle of Ben Solo. Skywalker and his sister were born on the asteroid Polis Massa, unbeknownst to their father, the recently christened Sith Lord Darth Vader. After his mother died in labor, Skywalker was separated from his sister and taken by Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi to the planet Tatooine to be raised by the Lars family, out of sight of the Galactic Empire.

Skywalker grew up unaware of his origins, but his life changed forever with his uncle's purchase of two droids—R2-D2 and C-3PO—carrying plans to the Imperial Death Star superweapon. After his aunt and uncle were killed by Imperial troops searching for the plans, Skywalker embarked on a journey to deliver the plans to the Rebel Alliance, receiving training in the ways of the Force from Kenobi, and meeting Han Solo and (unbeknownst to him) his sister, Princess Leia Organa, a member of the Rebellion. Though Kenobi was killed by Vader, Skywalker participated in the Battle of Yavin alongside the Rebels with guidance from Kenobi's spirit, and managed to destroy the Death Star.

Source?

What's your point?. The theatrical one that was marketed to families wasn't.

starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Luke_Skywalker

>i'm too sophisticated to enjoy hotwheels

More like you shouldn't put hotwheels in the middle of your grand kino art film.

>It's not a kid's movie.

Isn't that kind of an issue for a Superman movie?

>no children don't deserve Snyder's kinography how dare you imply a superhero movie can be for both kids and adults

>Christopher Nolan? Never heard of him

>add more footage to movie
>get R rating

It means that even the theater footage was tonally in line with an R movie (as in adding the new footage did not make it any darker. It was already R levels of dark, for better or worse), IE not for kids.

>there are going to be so many kids who grew up with this movie defending it in the future like we now have with the Star Wars Prequels

god help us

wait actually no thats gonna get zack snyder to start endlessly jacking off again

>Isn't that kind of an issue for a Superman movie?

Yes, very much so. If your Superman movie can't be seen by children then you're doing it wrong. That doesn't mean you can't give Superman some depth though. Just don't make it so grim

I want to watch it with my stepmom and stepbrother but he's like 13 and someone says FUCK in the extended cut and I imagine this film is already too hardcore after the Nolan trilogy.

You're kinda dumb.

No, it will burn comicbook movie hell right next to the Fantastic 4 reboot, X-men 3 and Spider-man: Homecoming.
If you are looking for some garbage tier advocates Twim Perfect is a gaggle of retarded fucking contrarians.
I just figured they'd have made one after jacking off all over Man of Murder and lo and behold they did make a video where they talk about how much they "love it".
Ideally they just do it as an asinine strategy to gain notoriety by going not just against public opinion but logical objective quality in regards to film making itself.

>Christopher Nolan? Never heard of him
Everytime with this shit.

Nolan openly admits that he works with his writers to actively over explain things with redundant exposition scenes.

He's so pleb enabling it hurts.
BvS did not hold your hand at all, and was a better film for it.

Hey look, just like your picture!

Eh, if anything Jesse Eisenberg's "interesting" performance as Lex Luthor will have the same effect in the future. His performance is as weird as Schwanzennegger's and as not-all there as Uma Thurma's, except he doesn't have quite as good puns and I cant jack-off to his feet either so who knows.

Not really. And even if that were true that would be an entirely other bad idea on their part.

is there a scene of Clark literally telling the audience that he is sad and why he is sad

BvS was just honest about its violence. Every other superhero movie just cuts around all the gore to make it bloodless and tame. Have you watched The Dark Knight lately? The violence is just a huge cop out. In the bank heist Joker shoots a guy with a machine gun and the guy just lies down like he's napping, no blood at all. Joker impales a guys head with a pencil, you don't actually see it happen though and again no blood. Joker has a knife in the mouth of the black crime boss and apparently cutting his cheek makes him drop silently dead without so much as a drop of blood. It's ridiculous.

isn't there, rather

You can't just have your characters announce how they feel. That makes me feel angry!

Not that user but you see how he said "using stuff out of their original context"? Zod dying was another example of that.
Byrne Clark didn't need to kill to establish his no kill code and he wasn't forced up against Zod on his first outing. It was a more experienced Superman, with his morals and rules already firmly established, who we'd followed for longer. Byrne Superman killing Zod carries a different meaning in light of that context. There's no "it was his first day, he had no other options, he didn't know any better, he didn't know the extent of his powers" arguments to be made in the Man of Steel comic, but that's almost all you see with regards to the movie.

If you wanna do a comic based on Byrne's Man of Steel, great. But remember that Byrne had Lana and Pete and Clark in college for a reason'. It had Clark's first actions as Superman being him saving a crashing space shuttle (which Returns used, essentially( for a reason. reasons that Snyder saw fit to skip over and instead crib off of Waid in an equally bastardized attempt for.

YES, YOU'RE RIGHT. Clark kills Zod in a bunch of different comics and stories, but the meanings are different in those because the surrounding framing is different. They inform different things about the character because of it. Don't just look at the action, look at the context and how it impacts the action to see why one is received well and the other poorly.

>Joker has a knife in the mouth of the black crime boss and apparently cutting his cheek makes him drop silently dead without so much as a drop of blood.
this one gets me

How the fuck did that kill him?

Yet people still don't get it for some reason. Lex, Bruce, and Clark all explain what they're feeling but people are still confused, I have no idea why.

So because MoS has different context, it's bad context?

hmmm

>What the fuck is this console wars bullshit?
Saying both sides of the argument are dumb iand parroting their buzzwords of choice s console wars? No bro, that's literally neutrality.

Because people are stupid.
It's only said so much because it's true.

>movies are bad because the filthy lower classes can follow them

>movies are only good if I can maintain an erection about how much better I am then everyone else for enjoying it

And Snyder's use of symbolism is worse then Nolan's dialogue. I'll take another ten hours of "big guy for you" lines before sitting through Snyder butchering Arthurian mythology in a vain attempt to impart his Doomsday fight with thematic depth again.

> Every other superhero movie just cuts around all the gore to make it bloodless and tame

Comic books themselves do this too, because the writers know that graphic violence isn't appropriate for every single story.

All if the violence in BvS just felt like the same kind of "THIS AINT YO DADDY'S SUPERHERO" crap I read in the 90's. Adding the blood doesn't make your violence more impactful by default.

If I shit in the toilet, that's fine That's what toilets are for. If I shit on your mom's tits, you might take umbrage. Context.

Doesn't remotely begin to address my point.

You had no point. You just assumed I went "DIFFERENT = BAD" and said "hmmmm" like a smarmy douche. You got a response in kind.

>no refutation

sasuga nigger

Yeah, it really makes the popped bones in Watchmen stick out during the fighting sequences.

>Comic books themselves do this too, because the writers know that graphic violence isn't appropriate for every single story.

Yeah and BvS did have graphic violence because it was appropriate to the story.

Yeah that's a good example, in an interview about Excalibur Snyder says

> "I guess when I come to a part in my movies where there's an opportunity for it to be gory, I say, 'Okay, let's film that.' It's not my aesthetic to use trickery to get around it. In Watchmen, I always felt the truth of being a superhero is that people frickin' get killed. And that's what Excalibur is. It's violent because that's what it was like."

>dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/1002-Summer-2010/Screening-Room-Zack-Snyder.aspx

And the best part is for someone that's so smart he "understands" Snyder and hates hand holding, you're another example of a person that needs every little thing explained to them. You couldn't even grasp a post that takes 30 seconds to read but you understood three hours of movie for the profund greatness it was?

Here's the handhold explain it to you version:
You snyderfags need to stop whinnig BYRNE DID IT ! DONNER DID IT TOO! like a little bitch, when in the enxt breath you're all to eager to go >NOT MUH SUPERMAN and remind everyone that this ISN'T Byrne Clark or Donner Clark. You don't get to have it both ways.

you know whenever Snyder talks about Watchmen it becomes clearer and clearer that he didn't actually read it

>You don't get to have it both ways.
But I do.

MoS is very much it's own entity, but at the same time there is precedent in earlier stories for him killing Zod.

He may have skimmed through the summary his assistant wrote about it though.

Then how did he make such a great adaptation?

It's an awful adaptation.

As its own thing I enjoy it.

youtube.com/watch?v=5oltd-Jsi2I

How does it show he didn't read it? People die in Watchmen.

Different precedent. Shooting a random guy on the street gets framed and charged differently than shooting a home invader. Same logic here.

>It's an awful adaptation.
>As its own thing I enjoy it.

An adaptation of something is by definition not that thing- ie "it's own thing".

Snyder captured the vibe of the comic.
I could care less about """"plot"""" details.
I feel the same aura from the comic and the movie.

You guys think too much. You gotta feel.

Pesonally I've always felt the problem with Watchmen (the movie) is that everyone comes off as too "cool".

>the truth of being a superhero is that people frickin' get killed

Sounds like he read it.

Snyder is of the church of cool. You hire him, you get cool.
Other than his quirks, it's the best Watchmen adaption that anyone could make.

Especially the Ultimate Cut.

>Snyder captured the vibe of the comic
No, he captured the superficial look of it, kind of, except not really.
>I feel the same aura
Shouldn't you be in a nice, padded cell?

>e captured the superficial look of it
>this maymay again

Moore is not as deep as you think he is.

Watchmen is not about cool violence.

I feel like Snyder is one of those guys who watched Pulp Fiction and thought it was just about badass violence and cool suits.

>Snyder is of the church of cool. You hire him, you get cool.
Okay, I'm just gonna ask now. Is there any way this conversation ends without some variation of "not muh" from you? Because if not I can just go to /d/ where shit makes sense.

>but it did

Nice argument.

probably not
best to quit while you're behind

>Moore is not as deep as you think he is.
That's kind of why it's so sad. The fact that Watchmen is Moore going "superheroes suck" as loud as he possibly can for a few hundred pages and the takeaway Snyder had was "look how cool these badasses are" doesn't reflect poorly on Moore, but on Snyder for missing something that was telegraphed that hard.

*sighs*
*raises paw*
Uh, Teach?
Snyder didn't miss anything.

It's a movie whose entire storyline is about the ramifications of a cataclysmic act of violence. Would be a pretty big cop out if there was none onscreen.

>violence equals blood

I cared more about Rachel getting blown into the next time zone in TDK then any of the violence in BvS.

And I didn't even care about Rachel that much. But Nolan at least knew how to kill her effectively.

That's not really the thing I'm talking about at all. BvS was about violence, so it didn't shy away from depicting it onscreen. Even the example you just gave cuts away from Rachel just as the explosion happens.

lol how is that the same logic? You say you dont like MoS or BvS, thats fine, me and the other user you were replying to do like it.

But before (aka the post that started this chain) someone was saying Snyder was ashamed/not faithful to the source material, when in fact everything that happened in MoS has precedent IN the source material.

> Even the example you just gave cuts away from Rachel just as the explosion happens.

And the cutting away mid-sentence makes it far more effective then a charred corpse would have.

This thread made me wonder how well Green Lantern weathered. Join me if you want to argue it.

I beg to differ. Look at Star Wars '77. Luke's aunt and uncle's charred corpses are poignant as fuck.

I'm talking about that scene as an example of all the ways The Dark Knight refused to actually depict violence. You can argue it was more effective but it's still of a piece with all the other bits of sleight of hand that was used to get around showing anything actually violent.

I'm not saying that showing the violence is always bad, I'm just rejecting the notion that showing the violence is better by default.

>lol how is that the same logic?
He killed a guy there! That means him killing a guy here is the same thing!
>How is that like saying killing someone in one in one situation means killing someone in another is different? How is that even related?
You're not even pretending to be serious now so fuck it.

Yeah, I agree.
It's a case by case thing.

>ignoring the most damning line

>But before (aka the post that started this chain) someone was saying Snyder was ashamed/not faithful to the source material, when in fact everything that happened in MoS has precedent IN the source material.

You are blown the fuck out.

he took stuff from the source material and changed the context or just outright rewrote it, i.e. didn't have respect for it

and he does this frequently, from the squid in Watchmen to Batman killing the guy in the M60 sequence

Yeah? And he's still not.
Faithful to the source material isn't "rip a page out of one book, a speech from another, a panel out of another, and throw them in a blender".
Pick one version. You want the gritty angsty reluctant Earth One Superman? FINE! DO that movie. But don't combine him with Birthright Jonathan and montages, and the speech from All Star. Pick ONE. Or at the very least be tonally and contextually consistent instead of all over the goddamn place.

wew lad. I can't believe that needs explaining.

>, i.e. didn't have respect for it
He makes a leap of logic!
...and he misses.

nice try

>he took stuff from the source material and changed the context or just outright rewrote it, i.e. didn't have respect for it

Sounds like every adaptation ever. Unless it's an exact one to one translation is it disrespecting the source?

But all those influences together resulted in a great movie.

You are complaining about nothing.

If Snyder had follow through on the precedent then BvS (or at least the Doomsday stuff) couldn't happen. Byrne Superman buries the (Alternate Dimension) Kryptonians on the moon specifically so that nobody can clone them or mess with their bodies. Compared to leaving Zod's cooling corpse there so that he can go trash satellites and smirk because Snyder was so tired after cumming at the neck snap to put any energy into the denoument.

>no it was good!
So you have no argument.

Moore wasn't the artist of Watchmen either.

People getting tossed around like they were bean bags when hit by normal humans sure is missing the point.

???

Having elements of different interpretations would only be bad if it didn't work.
It did work.

You are misinterpreting this post.

it's not like he changed these things because he felt they were irrelevant to the plot and he needed to make a 2 and a half hour movie out of a 500 page novel

he made these changes because a) he thought they made more sense than the original with little regard for any thematic reasons for the original choice (the squid) or b) he thought that was actually what happened in the comic because he flips through looking for neat scenes to adapt (Batman M60). And even then, he changed his own misinterpretation of the scene because he thought Batman blowing a guy up was cooler than Batman just shooting a guy

he changes things to make them "cooler," not to ease the transition from one medium to another

>because Snyder was so tired after cumming at the neck snap to put any energy into the denoument.

This is what gets me the most after MoS, the movie's ending is so rushed it feels like the last two minutes of a sitcom episode.

>so are we going to address the casualties, or Clark's feelings after killing Zod, or his relationship with Lois or

>nope shows over go home, here's your Clark Kent shot now get the fuck out of the theatre

>Metropolis was just destroyed
>But he's kind of cute, sir!

>sitcom episode.

Oh, hello!

>MAKE OUT
>WRY SMILE
>CLARK KENT
>INEXPLICABLE SYMBOLIC SHOT
>ROLL CREDITS, WE'RE DONE HERE

>he changes things to make them "cooler," not to ease the transition from one medium to another

So? Let go of your sacred cows.

>So?
I really don't know why I expected anything better

With the direction that they're heading in, it's very unlikely comic book movies will reach the same level of quality or artistic value as Oldboy did in Japan, which was a manga adaptation.

I'm not a pretentious fuckwit, I can enjoy a lot of superhero films and comics just fine. But don't shit on ice cream and call it a sundae just because it's brown.

I honestly don't understand why you think the squid is so important to Watchmen.

Aside from a good chunk of the book's narrative being dedicated to intricately foreshadowing it that is lost if it is removed, it's the culmination of Adrian's entire character arc as an opposite to Manhattan, as a plan it actually makes far more sense and would be far more effective at uniting the world, and most importantly it actually gives Comedian a decent reason to lose his mind and go talk to Moloch, setting off the plot

He added fucking slo mo to the tenement rescue scene.

Rewatch the scene with Ozzy, Rorschach and Niteowl, then reread that same part in the comic.

It is an absolutely terrible adaption of the source material.

That's just Hollywood style, though.

Hopefully, I genuinely love this movie

Totally agree. It pains me cause the emperor-luke stuff is like GOAT tier, but those ewoks mess up the whole thing.

>He didn't kill in Batman & Robin.

Doesn't he kill Bane?

I give it a year or two tops before people realize how great this movie is. Probably when JL comes out.

The movie version has all the same consequences and better narrative economy. Also since when is Ozymandias the opposite of Manhattan? If anything Rorschach and Ozymandias and the opposites.

They just cut his venom tubes, he's alive.

But it is implied that he lets Freeze kill Ivy.

It doesn't have the same consequences because these are nukes on multiple cities from a known American source, not some mysterious alien. On top of that the squid is repeatedly mentioned to cause psychic backwash in people, meaning that the residue of the attack remains embedded in the global psyche to a degree far greater than the bombings.

As for Manhattan:Ozy. Ozymandias styles himself after an Egyptian pharaoh, who believed themselves to be gods. He pushes himself to be as perfect as possible, to further his image of godhood. The greatest endeavor a god can take is creating life, and Ozymandias seeks to create life with the squid. His only creation, after years of work and hundreds of people killed, is a dead monster that kills millions and drives those who weren't killed mad.

Manhattan, on the other hand, became a god by accident. He does not style himself a god. He goes off to create life casually, as if it would take little effort.

Stop being a retard. Lex's issue is with the world's perception of Superman and how they worship him. Superman's world saving causing collateral damage in MoS on his first day on the job has nothing to do with what the movie is exploring in BvS.

>Stop being a retard.
You know that's impossible for DCEU haters. If it weren't, they'd like the movies.

>DCEU movies still get threads dedicated to them years after they're out
>Meanwhile Marvel movies barely get any threads couple of months of the relase

Feels good to be a DC fan.

>Ozymandias seeks to create life with the squid
I'm pretty sure the squid was never alive.

The depth (yes, there is depth) in the DCEU movies allows for much more discussion. Plus the Easter eggs and Snyder subtleties.

The absolute surest sign that something is good is that Cred Forums doesn't talk about it

it's a metaphor

>Snyder
>subtleties

Pick one.

People still make threads about Jean figuring out Bobby is, clearly that means it was the best comic moment of the year.

If I absolutely had to choose, it'd be Snyder. I love that guy.

Yeah that's why nobody talked about The Nutshack until it became a meme right? Must mean it's good.

>lukewarm

Well after Han put him in the Tauntaun, yeah

It's like a square rectangle thing
not everything Cred Forums doesn't talk about is good
but every good Cred Forums related thing, Cred Forums doesn't talk about

I'm not a hundred percent sure I worded that right

The difference between Empire and BvS is that Empire is a good film.

Pretty much, yeah.

After this board became infested by low effort trolls and autists, why would you?

Because unlike the trolls, we sincerely give a shit about things.

But really, talking about the things generally agreed upon to be awesome/great/whatever adjective you prefer ends up in a giant circlejerk about the awesomeness/greatness/whatever-ness of that thing. Why would we need to discuss that thing when we know why it's awesome and we've been over why it's awesome seventy times before?

It was. It only releases it's psychic mind wave on death, which is caused by the teleportation.

I was more getting at when things are new. You're all excited to talk about it and what you like but then there's a lot of people in the thread just screaming it's shit over and over.

Better to avoid that spam altogether.

That's true until you remember nobody on Cred Forums actually reads or watches anything.

>It did work.
Not an argument.
Never an argument.
Get an argument.

your denial has gone from amusing to just annoying

if anything the memory of how bad it was will only grow over time, heck, it already has

It was bad, but not as bad as people make it out to be. That effect will only amplify with time.

That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read

Its a really poorly made movie in the school of the transformers films, which made shitzillions of dollars. just because YOU like it, doesnt mean its good as an objective piece of media. The world is filled with people who like subpar work, it doesnt validate it as an objective with of craft

>Meanwhile Marvel movies barely get any threads couple of months of the relase
[citation needed]

Not only is this not really true on Cred Forums, but normies and most geeks out there are fucking crazy about Marvel movies, you fucking delusional moron.

Also this. You realize this board and this site in general does almost nothing but complain about everything right? We're a negative bunch of assholes.

>some good movies get a bad reception that means all movies with a bad reception are good
Dumbest reasoning.

Adaptations have always counted regardless of media, and comics adaptations (and cartoons) are pretty much the biggest movies right now.

Not even close to the retardest Snyder quote.
>There are several human skulls on a circular desk where Snyder works on his iMac. “I don’t know why,” he says. “I just like skulls.” Six axes lean against the nearby wall. “I just like axes,” he says innocently. “They are cool. I have axes at home that I cut wood with, but these are my special ones.”

>the extended cut has more talk about piss
Can't make that shit up.

>Why does Lex Luthor hate Superman?
Literal daddy issues.

>it just WANTS to be good, it takes itself serious
Like most student films.
>you pick actual directors and writers to get the thing done
The guy who made Sucker Punch and the guy who wrote the Blade movies?

Snyder never went to film school, he studied painting and design. Probably part of the reason he makes student film-tier mistakes up to this day.

Where's this from? I love Snyder. He's so adorable. "He says innocently." Ha!

I don't get why people think those kind of shots have intrinsic value. Typical student movie shot.

I feel like people who think this (the textbook definition of kino) is a good thing haven't watched a lot of non-blockbusters. Kino can be prententious and boring, and in the case of BvS, not really creative.

Why Cred Forums hates this movie?

I heard this is because people didn't understand what "grandma's peach tea" actually refers to. Yeah, the audience is stupid. Anyone paying attention to the movie should have immediately remembered it because it was such an unusual description. Such brilliance wasted on such fools.

MCUcks and shills.

>people hating on the word "fun"
Is this Cred Forums? You realize that blockbuster movies are meant to entertain their audience, right?
If you want deep messages and experimental narrative structure, this isn't the place for it, there are plenty of art films that do it much better than BvS.

it ruins the comic version for the sake of a justice league set up and adds in doomsday for no reason

it doesnt properly reflect when this fight is supposed to take place. while there are many batman vs superman fights its clearly taken from the dark knight version which is set in the not so distant future. the streets are riddled with crime and the joker breaks his own neck before the fight. batman does it out of spite nothing more. hes lost all faith in humanity and has no reason to fight superman

its not suppose to end just because superman says his moms name. it ends because batman thinks he proved a point and won

alternate name for the conflict is "the douche bag rises"

Morrison's comics are mostly narratively coherent though.

>If you want deep messages and experimental narrative structure, this isn't the place for it,
Why not?

>there are plenty of art films that do it much better than BvS.
Such as?

BvS is pretty creative for a superhero movie, and that reviewer didn't even like the movie that much.

I don't hate it. But I think the only reasons people have for liking it are rooted in tangible details like "BATMAN FOUGHT SUPERMAN" and "Batfleck was awesome in that warehouse scene" instead of less-tangible details like consistent characterization, pacing, story structure, editing, and cinematography.

I love FURY ROAD because despite the tangible detail of "two-hour car chase action film" (which is a really huge selling point), but there's so much more beneath the surface - the character arcs of Max and Nux, the feminist undertones, the "go back to Citadel" plot point that doubles as a metaphor on solving systemic problems by attacking them head-on instead of running - that makes the film work.

Batman and Robin had a great looking Gotham at least.

>I understand this pov but the overdue big screen adaption of beloved capes is not the place for an experimental film

This is the type of viewpoint that gives us boring movies.

Fuck, I want Marvel to give us a fucking western. Not a "space western", I mean an actual honest-to-God western, set in the Wild West, with actual superheroes.

Just so long as it's not another fuckin' JONAH HEX.

If you think Fury Road is some daring feminist statement you probably don't watch any films about women.

bloomberg.com/features/2016-zack-snyder-profile/

>I want Marvel to
Well, well, well. The truth comes out now, doesn't it?

I said it had "feminist undertones"; that's not the same thing as saying it's a "daring feminist statement".

Kinda like how saying "your mother is a crackwhore" is not the same thing as saying "your mother is a businesswoman".

Hey, if DC could do it (without it sucking ass), I'd be all for DC doing it.

My loyalty is not to Marvel or DC as brands. Fuck brand loyalty. Brands are not my friends. My loyalty is to movies that work - movies that don't suck - and I don't care what studio they come from.

>consistent characterization, pacing, story structure, editing, and cinematography.

You sound like someone who watches too much Redlettermedia.

It was already filmed before release. Do you mean test audiences?

Because art films do it better, because they're not limited by source material and executive meddling.
>Such as?
Wings of Desire.

Nah, I read a lot of books on writing and possibly a little too much BirthMoviesDeath (and Film Crit Hulk in particular). But hey, those things I listed are things that movies need to do - and do well! - to work as cohesive narratives (i.e., not suck).

Everyone was patting themselves on the back for liking a feminist movie when Fury Road came out. Be honest with yourself, it's an action movie, that's why you liked it.

>BvS is pretty creative for a superhero movie
Well yeah (although not more creative than most student films) but big budget adaptations aren't really the place to try to be creative at the expense of entertainment.

I said that I liked it because it's a two-hour car chase. But it's also got excellent pacing, spot-on story structure, and consistent characterization (Nux's character arc is arguably better than those of Max and Furiosa). There are also plenty of themes and undertones to the film that require multiple viewings and lots of "thinkin' time" to catch and reflect upon. I like FURY ROAD for both its tangible details and its less-than-tangible ones.

No, wanting experimentation in a blockbuster because you're too lazy to actually watch experimental films gives us boring pseudo-experimental movies that fail both at being experimental and at being entertaining, like BvS.

>BirthMoviesDeath
>Film Crit Hulk

Film Crit Hulk is fucking terrible. He treats his own half baked ideas of storytelling as immutable laws.

>parabasis.typepad.com/blog/2013/12/as-you-may-have-heard-film-crit-hulk-released-an-e-book-this-week-titled-screenwriting-101-the-book-is-a-heavily-adapted.html

He literally bullshitted an entire chapter about Shakespeare in his book because he knows his audience is too stupid to look it up.

>He treats his own half baked ideas of storytelling as immutable laws.

And that's why I read more than just FCH: to contrast his opinions with those of other film critics/film lovers/writers/etc. and triangulate my own positions.

If you can suggest some other critics worth reading, I'm all ears.

So a movie is terrible unless it's a cohesive narrative? That's a pretty narrow screenwriting 101 view of films.

I like Peter Labuza's writing a lot, also Bilge Ebiri, Ali Arikan, Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, Keith Uhlich, and a lot more whose names escape me.

It's not like BvS is actually daring in its storytelling either (dream sequences are hack writing 101).

>So a movie is terrible unless it's a cohesive narrative?

Well, generally, most films will be "standard" narratives; as such, a "good" film told with a "standard" narrative will have a cohesive narrative with consistent characterization and structure propping it up.

Like it or not, BvS was told with a "standard" narrative style.

It was. Ozy was into genetic engineering and shit. That's why he has Bubastis; a creature that also serves as foreshadowing.

It's also why Bubastis is just this kind of weird "why does he have a purple liger" non sequitor in the movie.

>Well, generally, most films will be "standard" narratives; as such, a "good" film told with a "standard" narrative will have a cohesive narrative with consistent characterization and structure propping it up.

That's sounds really limiting and honestly feels like you've just memorised a few phrases like"cohesive narrative" and "consistent characterization" that you use as cudgels.
>Like it or not, BvS was told with a "standard" narrative style.
So If a movie doesn't fit the pre-existing mold it's bad? What makes it a standard narrative? What does that even mean? What makes a movie cohesive and the characterisation consistent? How do you distinguish a failed Standard film from a successful experimental one?

To sum up my point here, have a pre-existing model of a "good" film which you compare a movie to in order to evaluate it is terrible and tedious criticism and part of the reason I hate Film Crit Hulk.

Probably contrarianism arising from Spider-Man calling it a really old movie in Civil War.

>So If a movie doesn't fit the pre-existing mold it's bad?
Yes.
>What makes it a standard narrative?
If I like it.
>What does that even mean?
Words put together to sound good.
>What makes a movie cohesive and the characterisation consistent?
If I like it.
>How do you distinguish a failed Standard film from a successful experimental one?
If I like it and other people like it then it's standard. If I like it and other people don't like it then it's experimental.

Not him, but you seem to think the reason people criticize BvS is because it's too daring and unconventional. It isn't, it's incoherent despite being pretty convened.
BvS is a failure at both being a "standard" movie (incoherent) and an experimental one (uncreative), imo.

>So If a movie doesn't fit the pre-existing mold it's bad?

No, it's different. Non-standard narratives seen in "arthouse"/"experimental" films can still work, but it's more about what such narratives are being used for than about their being cohesive.

>What makes it a standard narrative? What does that even mean?

It refers to a typical, "point A to point B", "three-act structure" narrative. The average Hollywood film runs on such a narrative. "Non-standard" narratives would be more "point A to point B by way of points Zeta, 1, and Purple Monkey Dishwasher" - in other words, narratives that don't have (easily) defined structures.

>What makes a movie cohesive and the characterisation consistent?

What makes the narrative of your favorite book or TV show cohesive? The same things that work there also work in movies - consistent characterization (characters acting and reacting according to their personalities, regardless of whether they change over the course of a story), solid story structure (see: the book STORY ENGINEERING; Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "but/therefore" advice), and verisimilitude (a narrative "feeling" real despite it being fiction). The first two tend to feed into the third, but other factors - setting, character buy-in, dialogue - help create the verisimilitude necessary to help you lose yourself in a narrative.

>How do you distinguish a failed Standard film from a successful experimental one?

A successful experimental film exists in the eye of the beholder. Someone might love the hell out of RUSSIAN ARK, but someone else might think it boring as fuck.

A failed "standard" film would be something like GREEN LANTERN - in other words, a film that doesn't work on multiple levels for a variety of reasons. It could be a wonky structure, a lack of consistent characterization, or the "veil" of verisimilitude being pierced by details both tangible and not. But a "standard narrative" film doesn't suck only because of tangible details.

>getting this defensive

>Linear narrative is the most common form of narration, where events are largely portrayed in a chronological order, i.e. telling the events in the order they occurred.
>Nonlinear narratives, disjointed narrative or disrupted narrative is a narrative technique, where events are portrayed, out of chronological order or in other ways where the narrative does not follow the direct causality pattern.

>Not him, but you seem to think the reason people criticize BvS is because it's too daring and unconventional

I'm not saying that, it just annoys me when people start stating all these rules about what a "good" movie does. Seems like a terrible way to watch movies. Also I don't think most blockbusters these days put a premium of coherency at all.

This guy hits it on the head I think.

>Nonlinear narratives, disjointed narrative or disrupted narrative is a narrative technique, where events are portrayed, out of chronological order or in other ways where the narrative does not follow the direct causality pattern.

To wit: PULP FICTION.

>Seems like a terrible way to watch movies.

We go to the movies to watch stories. If the story doesn't work, the film doesn't work. If the film doesn't work, we often place a value judgment on it ("it sucked").

Linear does not equal standard, plenty of blockbusters have non linear storytelling.
>It refers to a typical, "point A to point B", "three-act structure" narrative.
No one really agrees on what an act is when it comes to movies. And the idea of "Point A to Point B" is so abstract as to be useless. Also what makes you think my favourite book or tv series is cohesive? You're just parroting terms.

>We go to the movies to watch stories.
Debatable/
>If the story doesn't work, the film doesn't work.
Absolutely false, the story is often the least interesting thing about a movie.

!farts is high artor there should be no inherently subjective ds good n paper and that but in rule practice all it leads to such things are structure pretentiousness and a bunch of guy souns sniffing their own The idea that

Now, are you smarter for being able to understand that first paragraph (assuming you can)? Is it deeper? Does it have more meaning? Is it good? Because it as you say, stories "?to be coherency need don't good structure "

>what makes you think my favourite book or tv series is cohesive?

Well, it's entirely possible that you enjoy nothing but non-linear narratives - which is the term closer to what I was thinking of than "standard narrative" - but I find that doubtful.

>Debatable

If you're going to see a romantic comedy, I really doubt you're going to watch the high-octane action scenes. Movies are stories; whether their narratives are linear or even comprehensible is irrelevant.

>the story is often the least interesting thing about a movie

Nah, not really. Story provides context to what characters are doing. I talked about this on +4, but think about all the "story-less" lightsaber battle fan-films like "Kylo Ren: The Awakening" - they're cool to watch, sure, but they lack a story, a reason to give a shit about why the characters in those types of fan-films are fighting. Fight scenes aren't conflict, they're a means to solving a conflict. If there's no conflict, there's no reason to give a shit. And story is what shows us the conflict and creates the context necessary to care about characters.

You're living proof that a little bit of knowledge is worse than none at all.

Oh please. I'm living proof that my mother should've swallowed.

>Linear does not equal standard, plenty of blockbusters have non linear storytelling.
Okay. Name four, not counting any DCEU films.

Maybe if you were Donald Barthelme but you're no Donald Barthelme.
>If you're going to see a romantic comedy, I really doubt you're going to watch the high-octane action scenes.
Now you're talking about genre conventions not storytelling. And if your idea of non-narrative story telling is lightsaber fan films then I don't think you should present yourself as some kind of authority on film. Go back to reading Save The Cat.

Any film with a fucking flashback in it.

So name some.

>it just annoys me when people start stating all these rules about what a "good" movie does. Seems like a terrible way to watch movies.
It's kind of the only way to be somewhat objective: setting standards and seeing if they're reached. Otherwise you just adapt what you think is good to your emotions about the movie. Not that there's anything wrong with that but it doesn't make for very objective criticism.
>I don't think most blockbusters these days put a premium of coherency at all.
You're wrong.

>this strawman hits it on the head
Okay then.

>Maybe if you were Donald Barthelme but you're no Donald Barthelme.
And no matter how many times you guys insist he is Snyder is no Kubrick.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nonlinear_narrative_films

>Linear does not equal standard
No but "most common" does.
> plenty of blockbusters have non linear storytelling.
We can argue on the meaning of "plenty" but I don't see it.

>It's kind of the only way to be somewhat objective: setting standards and seeing if they're reached
You can't be objective.
>objective criticism.
No such thing.

Huh. According to this list BvS isn't a non-linear narrative. (also very few of these are blockbusters) So why are we even having this conversation?

Better to have complete anarchy than be on the losing side of an argument, eh? You wanna set fire to the drapes next?

>According to this list BvS isn't a non-linear narrative.
That's a very incomplete list, but no one said BvS was non-linear. Someone proffered "linear" as the definition of a standard narrative which I don't think is true.

Movies aren't math, why is everyone obsessed with objectivity and the "correct" structure of a narrative? There is no universal standard of good story structure, anyone who offers one is excluding countless works that don't fit the model.

There's only like 5 blockbusters in the last 15 years of that list, it's really not that common.
Have you noticed a very topical absence from that list?

Oh she swallowed alright.

That's why you set standards that you don't change all the time, as a tool to at least stay consistent in your subjectivity.

No, she didn't. Otherwise I wouldn't even be alive.

It was pointed out that BvS is a linear (worded as "standard") narrative earlier.
We're discussing this because of the premise that BvS is criticized for being narratively incoherent because it follows a non-linear (or experimental) narrative, aka is too experimental and smart for audiences.

My standard is that I don't care all that much about the "right" way to tell a story.

>Someone proffered "linear" as the definition of a standard narrative which I don't think is true.
What do you think is true then?
Linear is the most common, basic, or standard, way to tell a story.

I think it's hilarious how BvS being 3deep5u became a meme when people refuse to see what's right in front of them.
I mean, if is enough for you, but Lex going on and on about his motivation isn't, something might be a little bit off.

And believe it or not, I walked out of the theater heartbroken. Just because you like or dislike something doesn't mean you have to abandon your brain completely.

...No, they aren't.
Again nobody is saying "Things have to have this struture to be good". There are movies that have non standard structures that excel in other ways.

The problem is when you use this shit like a get out of jail free card. BvS isn't good OR bad because of its structure or lacktherof, but rather its structure, and more specifically how and WHY that structure is used and to what effect, is a contributing factor to its overall quality.

This isn't a zero sum game and going "there are no rules so BvS wins!" is childish.

Nobody said "correct", that's your thing.
Standard =/= correct.

So if a film with a linear narrative sucks, the underlying story structure - the "cause and effect" storytelling that all but defines linear narratives - has nothing to do with it?

And plenty of stories are told non linearly? Are they then always non standard? If so what criterion are they then to be judged by? I don't believe "standard narrative" is a useful term.

Of course you do, you're here defending the idea that there's nothing wrong with the way BvS was told.

too you when ?So being it' smart jesus for I post s melike this

They said that standard movies must meet a certain criteria to be considered good, so there is a correct way to be a standard movie according to them.
>So if a film with a linear narrative sucks, the underlying story structure - the "cause and effect" storytelling that all but defines linear narratives - has nothing to do with it?

It depends on the movie, a movie can have a perfectly good narrative and look like shit for example, or it can have a shit narrative and look gorgeous. If I've been trying to make a point it's that there's more than one way to make a good movie.

>And plenty of stories are told non linearly? Are they then always non standard?
Yes.
> If so what criterion are they then to be judged by?
Whether they do things in the standard way, aka linear storytelling.
>I don't believe "standard narrative" is a useful term.
You're getting way too hung up on the idea that standard is good. Nobody claimed that. Standard (in this context) is common.

>I think it's hilarious how BvS being 3deep5u became a meme when people refuse to see what's right in front of them.
I think that's because the vast majority of people making the 3deep5u argument are only doing it because WB told them to two weeks before the movie came out.

Lots of people understand it. Probably even the vast majority of people. It's just that because WB primed the pump in the way they did, it makes it easy to claim the usual "half in the bag" style rhetorical questioning that usually follows a movie is legitimate confusion or something.

When it's not. When most people go "why did Lex say this" they're not actually asking a question. They're saying "Lex saying this was fucking retarded." The only actual question is MAYBE "who was stupid enough to think this was a good idea"

>Of course you do, you're here defending the idea that there's nothing wrong with the way BvS was told.

How is my thinking there's no right way inconsistent with that?

So you just said non linear stories are "non standard" but they must be judged by whether they do things the standard way?

Not that user but it's pretty obvious that the logical conclusion to this is that there's no such thing as a bad movie. No rules right? No metrics? No objectivity?

So, with that in mind? The Adventures of Pluto Nash is better than BvS. So is Elektra. So is Pixels.

>a movie can have a perfectly good narrative and look like shit for example, or it can have a shit narrative and look gorgeous

A film with a good narrative will often work in spite of appearances (see: any film considered "good" that was made well before you were born), but a film with a horrible narrative cannot be saved by "looking pretty".

i haven't even seen BvS and i know it's garbage. How people can defend something by Snyder that isn't Watchmen is beyond me. His movies are fucking terrible.

Or THE ROOM. Or MANOS. Or PLAN 9.

>They said that standard movies must meet a certain criteria to be considered good, so there is a correct way to be a standard movie according to them.
Yes? That doesn't say what you think it says, that doesn't mean that non-standard narratives are necessarily bad. Look at the list posted earlier, it's full of good movies.
It means that a story with a linear narrative structure relies on, well linear plots and characterization to be a succesful story.

Or Troll 2. Don't forget that one either.

>This will get its due someday.
When the entire planet suffers brain damage.

Because you obviously think that BvS is one of the right ways to tell a story.

I don't think there's a right way, I just like that movie. My whole problem with the guys in this convo is that they assume what they like is "the right way"

No, they're judged by the metrics of non standard movies. Let me put it this way.
If you make me a hamburger, I'm going to go "Is this made of cow? How is the patty formed? Is there a bun?" because those are generally regarded as the "rules" of what makes a hamburger. If you instead serve me a pizza, and I go "but where's the bun" that's not fair to anybody, right? I'm judging thing X on the rules of Y. Now nobody is saying X or Y is good or bad. I like pizza, I like burgers, but the rules for one are different from the rules of others.
We judge product A by the rules of its standard.

I know I probably just lost you so I'll drop the metaphor. Non-linear stories have their own set of metrics. Their own set of rules. It's not that there are no rules, its that there are MULTIPLE SETS for MULTIPLE STORIES AND MEANS OF TELLING THEM.

And BvS? It doesn't get enough right in any particular category to be good example of anything. It's too arsty to be a good blockbuster, but not arsty enough to be a high concept art film. It's simultaneously "too smart" but you also need to just turn your brain off and enjoy it. It's all over the place, aiming for every mark, and in doing so, missing all of them.

Not what I meant, I misunderstood your question. You judge whether a film is standard or not by whether it does things in the standard way.

You judge non-standard storytelling with other criteria, of course, there's way more than story structure to the quality of a movie.

Plan 9 and Troll 2 are actually pretty funny though.

>I just like that movie.

$64K question: Why? And don't give me "the CGI was cool" or "the warehouse scene was the best Batman scene ever". Give me deeper reasons than that surface shit. Why do you think the narrative worked for you when it didn't work for so many other people?

>I don't think there's a right way,
You don't think there's only 1 right way, nobody else here claimed there was either.
>My whole problem with the guys in this convo is that they assume what they like is "the right way"
Nope.

Personally I think the surface shit is more defensible and I wish we could just go back to that. Snyder is like a living mobius strip.

>they assume what they like is "the right way"

Not really. Linear narratives are the "standard" - the most common way of telling stories - but they are not always "the right way", nor are they always "the best way". MEMENTO had a hell of a narrative, but if presented in straight-up linear order, it would've lost the impact it had by being told with its non-linear narrative. That film's narrative was told in a non-linear way to achieve a specific effect, and it worked because it achieved that effect.

>You judge whether a film is standard or not by whether it does things in the standard way.

And if it doesn't do things the standard way is it then bad or non standard? It comes down to taste, you're trying to objectify matters of taste.

>Non-linear stories have their own set of metrics. Their own set of rules. It's not that there are no rules

What are the rules of non linear storytelling then? That's such a huge category it's impossible to say, same with linear storytelling.

Why are you talking about Linear narratives? Is that what a standard movie is? So if you put in one flashback a movie gets to be judged by a whole different criteria?

>I think the surface shit is more defensible and I wish we could just go back to that.

That would mean we'd have to defend Michael Bay's TRANSFORMERS and TMNT movies on their tangible details alone, and that is just not going to happen.

I get it: You want to treat movies like when you were a child and you didn't care about anything but the tangible details. But you're not a kid any more; if you're going to talk about film, you can't talk about the tangible details alone without coming off as a fool.

You can't beat Fantf4stic, son.

This guy gets at it pretty well.

twitter.com/MattZetaBaen/status/714593819220508672

>So if you put in one flashback a movie gets to be judged by a whole different criteria?

Not really, no. Non-linear storytelling is a technique done for a specific effect. MEMENTO, for example, was presented in non-linear fashion to fuck with your head in a way that reflects the way that film's main character has his head fucked with by his amnesia. A linear narrative that has a flash is still a linear narrative; it just takes a brief detour into the past to provide some form of context or backstory that informs what happens in the present.

This is a pretty good piece on it.

>www.audienceseverywhere.net/zack-snyders-superman/

I didn't ask for the opinions of others. I asked for your opinions. I wanted you, in your own words, to tell me why you thought the film worked for you.

But since it appears that won't happen, I can just ignore you now.

Dude I'm just trying to pin you down to a definition of Standard.

Standard = Common. Linear narratives are the ones most commonly used in film, hence "standard".

>And if it doesn't do things the standard way is it then bad or non standard?
Depends, it's not as clear cut as that. To take the example of BvS it mostly tells a story in a linear way but then uses storytelling devices that mess with that linearity and the coherence thereof. And those aren't even good devices by non-linear storytelling standards.
If you take the example of Pulp Fiction the story itself is non-linear, not just bits of non-linearity dropped here and there.

>It comes down to taste, you're trying to objectify matters of taste.
I understand you think that, but I don't believe that's true. On the other hand you're trying to assess there's no objectivity because taste exist.
Age of Ultron was a mess in terms of storytelling, but I like it because I liked some charcter-focused scenes in it. In the same way plenty of people like BvS for some of its scenes but can still recognize it doesn't tell a very coherent story.

I liked the murky intrigue of the plot, and the grainy textured cinematography, the difficult moral quandaries Superman has to deal with, the deconstruction of his character to try find a way to fit him into a morally obtuse world, I liked fetishistic visuals of superheroic displays of power, I liked Batman on the edge of sanity, I liked the movie. What is so wrong with that?

>Why are you talking about Linear narratives? Is that what a standard movie is?
Yes, how many times are you going to ask that exact question?
> So if you put in one flashback a movie gets to be judged by a whole different criteria?
A flashback is not enough to make a story non-linear, no, except maybe if it's not made clear it's a flashback.

See, that's what the fuck I'm talking about. I may not agree with you, but I fucking respect you for getting past the tangible details and going deeper - and for putting it in your own terms, in a way that anyone can understand.

That's the kind of shit I'm talkin' about, son. Fuckin' A.

Ok let me put it this way. Is being linear the only thing that makes a movie standard? Can a movie be non linear and standard or linear and non standard?

When I used "standard", it was in reference to linear narratives, which are the most commonly used narratives in filmmaking, thus making them a "standard". Non-linear narratives are "deviations" from the norm/"standard" because they're not told in typical linear fashion.

>Is being linear the only thing that makes a movie standard?
In terms of storytelling, pretty much.
>Can a movie be non linear and standard or linear and non standard?
Stop asking the same question worded differently over and over.

Zack Snyder is the Rob Liefeld of filmmaking.

Accurate.

Holy shit, man.

There was no need to do that.

You apologize to Rob Liefeld right now.

>You apologize to Rob Liefeld right now!
ftfy

The fact you faggots try so hard says so much