The only reason people hate on this movie is entirely because of NOT MUH, prove me wrong

Which was fucking embarrassing to watch and Zach okayed it

>Jim's dead

Sounds like NOT MUH to me

Also editing, Louis' plot being retarded, Cavil's acting, Lex's characterization (not muh? Maybe), Wonder Woman and Superman never met, Batman makes a spear because...?, Lex and Batman have the same objective, Lex's plan makes no sense.

I hate how we have this thread every day and how it remains on page one every day.
What the fuck is wrong with you people arguing about the same movie over and over and over again?

Superman having a conversation with his dead dad in the arctic isn't a characterization problem, it's a problem with the story.

You forgot due to company wars and because it's popular to hate on it.

There's no legitimate reason to hate it.

Supermans super vision or super hearing not seeing the bomb.

I mentioned Jim being dead is not muh you fucking Neanderthal

>everyone's so stupid

>everyone but me

WE DO NOT NEED TWO OF THESE FUCKING THREADS AT ONCE.

why do people keep saying this? I understood his motivations fine. He flat out says "power cannot be innocent" and "you cannot be all good and all powerful" how is this difficult to get?

>pacing
>MARTHA
>brooding
>grandmas peach tea
All of these were good.

>they cut out the good scenes
The scenes they cut out were good, but that doesn't make it any worse of a movie. It just makes the UC even better. From 10 to 11.

It was well written.
Everyone with a brain understood it.
Yep. It's been proven to be a great film countless times.
Haters just won't give up and admit that it's a masterpiece. Every time, people who fight for truth have to push them back down.

There can never be enough shitposting bait threads.
Never.

Nope, there are plenty of people who like this movie. Just the 3 people who hate it are the stupid ones.

There will continue to be threads until everyone admits how good this movie is.

That's how the people in the movie felt too. It's intentional.

>Just the 3 people who hate it

Whatever you say shitposter-kun

See, I've always preferred boy scout Superman, because when he steps out of boy scout mode and goes ham on a villain, it's truly something to behold, and there's huge emotional depth behind it. Now that Superman is no longer a boy scout, he's as interesting and emotionally compelling as a blank sheet of paper.

Jar Jar Binks was also intentional

REMINDER THAT BVS DEFENDERS ARE THE NEW STAR WARS PREQUEL DEFENDERS

>baiting the prequel defenders to come in here too

Why not, get all of them in one thread.

dont say that, some one might come in here talking about trade politics

> I'm a special snowflake who can't understand why the majority of people say I'm wrong

You didn't explain his hate boner for superman at all user. Where was superman flying around with a banner saying" Im the greatest example of humanity should strive for" where was his purity in destroying his own race and having his people destroy a city

Prequels>TFA

oh no its too late!

they are both equally terrible for entirely different reasons

Nope.

>BUT AT LEAST THE PT WAS ORIGINALLLLLL

So was The Room.

Hey Zack, I get that you're a top tier edgelord who thinks murdering Jimmy Olsen for keks shows how adult and serious your Superman's world is, but you kinda forgot to tell the audience who the fuck he was before the credits.

Nope. BvS is actually good.

>Where was superman flying around with a banner saying" I'm the greatest example of humanity should strive for"
It's about what people believe not what Superman says.

It got cut from the theatrical release, it was in the Ultimate Edition though.

Well that makes evem less sense. Wasting a character has nothing to do with characterization.

How much does DC pay you to shill? It's over. Get the fuck over it. The movie was a trainwreck and it's direct was a hack working with a shit script. Move on with your life.

fun fact:
the more loudly and obviously people try to defend something, the more likely it is to actually be bad, this martyr-syndrome can be found in cultists, the often become most fanatical when their long-held beliefs are proven false

All depends on what you value.

If you value natural dialogue more than story, TFA is in your bag more. If you value story frame work and thematic conceptualization over dialogue, the prequels will be in your favor.

But neither have both.

i personally prefer TFA over PT

...

the Room was not original. It was literally a spanish soap opera acted by a Romanian mongoloid.

Prequels were a shakespearean space opera in a nearly literal sense.

>wasted oportunity to show how Bats finaly cracks his moral code
>wasted oporunity to show how beloved by everyone Supes sacrificed himself in fist-on-fist fight to death with horrible monster

And that's just most obvious. DCEU is definition of wasted potenital

and thats fine, but its faults are the one thing that the PT excels at and vice versa. they are like two half's of an excellent star wars trilogy so far.

WHAT DID I TELL YOU!

well there you go, a surefire way to crash BvS threads with no survivors

>nice trips

TFA was one of the few times I was okay with something just being a nostalgia bomb. I fully admit I cannot objectively critique it.

You're the shill here buddy. Worst of all is that you do it for free. Go ahead and cry that people actually enjoy good movies. You're got some issues that you need to work out. You get mad at people for going to restaurants and eating good food too?

>fun fact:
>the more loudly and obviously people try to attack something, the more likely it is to actually be good, this martyr-syndrome can be found in cultists, the often become most fanatical when their long-held beliefs are proven false

TFA doesn't really have a theme besides "Isn't it fun to watch Star Wars?"

it was genuinely enjoyable, just like star wars IV so i would say that star wars is in fact fun to watch

and the new millennium falcon for x-wing TMG is so boss

I didn't really enjoy it precisely because it was just like ANH

like, I could've just watched ANH instead

There's a definite theme about how the next generation handles being in the shadow of a titanic event. Everyone is in one way or another is obsessed with the past, from Rey being unable to let go of her parents to Hux being an Empire fanboy who wants to make it even bigger and more Empire-y then before to Kylo being a Vaderboo. The entire movie is about legacy, which is why I'm okay with it being a replica of ANH.

My theory is its actually about how hard it is to make a sequel to Star Wars and JJ having to deal with living in the shadow of Lucas no matter how good or bad the movie he makes is.

>They hate on it because it's poorly written, Zack

Yet terrio keeps getting off Scott free

ANH with modern special effects how is that bad?

since they got the nostlagia trip out of the way, they can get more original in VIII

the scriptwriter really doesn't have that much power over the final product, especially in such a closely-watched-by-executives film

HIS PSEUDO- PHILOSOPHICAL RAMBLING IS NOT A MOTIVATION

I really did not care for the CG, it looked pretty bad in a lot of places to be honest

Prequels AMBITIONS > TFA's AMBITIONS
ftfy

Yeah but the Puppets were great the whole time.

It wasn't good, get over it.

It had a few ideas I enjoyed and it looked good so it's not completely irredeemable the way something like, say, Suicide Squad or Man of Steel is but there's more about it that doesn't work than there is that does.

Most if its themes have been explored and, on that note, explored better in Watchmen and it failed to make any kind of meaningful statement on these themes. It lacked a strong antagonist and I can't for the life of me figure out what their reason was for turning Lex Luthor into a neurotic, stammering nerd caricature. He sure as hell wasn't ever threatening. I was kinda on board with the conflict between Batman and Superman because I could see why these character were at odds with each other but that was discarded in the last third to have them fight some bland, brainless monster I couldn't have given less of a shit about. Wonder Woman was there for no reason other than to demonstrate why you don't hire a model to do the work of an actress.

At the end of the day it's a movie about large men in silly costumes fighting either each other or a big monster and it fails to elevate that premise to anything that would be bigger than the sum of its parts. Snyder has a better eye for visuals than anyone else making these kinds of movies but that's irrelevant if the script isn't strong enough to carry them.

>prequel defender check
>BvS defenders check

will x-men3:last stand fans please step forward?

Don't you mean Matrix sequel fans?

them too

Nobody liked The Last Stand, but once Oranges: Tangerine came out it was no longer the series' low point.

batman made a spear because spears are one of the only weapons you cant throw with your super strength to kill dooms day without having to risk getting stabbed
oh wait

There's nothing wrong with those movies

not kryptonite bullets or arrows or something?

are there any other bad movies you want to defend? ghostbusters II perhaps?

you can't aruge that superman flying into doomsday with a spear isnt stupid then your full shill he could have easily thrown it

Replace anything DC related with original stuff and the movie would still be utter shit. The Script failed, the directing failed, the cinematography failed, the editing failed, the soundtrack failed, hell even some of the acting fell flat.
The only reason it sold any tickets was because of brand recognition, and that's also the only reason anyone can defend this disaster of a movie.

>he could have easily thrown it

Well no he couldn't because it was Kryptonite. He wouldn't have been able to throw it with enough force to pierce Doomsday. And if he didn't get the heart Doomsday would have just ripped it out

It's hard being more retarded than BvS user but you sure are trying

>the soundtrack failed,

No

>Not Muh, while reductionist, is a valid complaint.
If I go to a restaurant, and I order the chicken, and the waiter brings fish, it doesn't matter how """""""""""""""""good""""""""""""""""" the fish is. You will not sell me on the fish. Stop trying.

Yes.

>Haters just won't give up and admit that it's a masterpiece.

No, people like you just won't give up and admit that you're insincere contrarians who are just saying "BVS IS BETTER THAN SEX" to get a rise out of people who actually know about films and can tell you, in great detail, why BvS was not a good film unless you're a fan of incomprehensible CGI-reliant blockbusters.

Gee I dunno why would the guy that's trying to kill the Jesus figure, on the movie that released on Good Friday, make a lance of longinus to kill the Jesus stand in with.
Oh but wait, "he's a sun god". Those are sun god crosses all over his fucking grave.

Nothing of it was memorable, and it gave each scene a very oppressive feeling of "THIS IS A SCENE WITH X-EMOTION, YOU MUST FEEL THIS WAY" without making the viewer actually care about what happens on the screen.
The soundtrack was constantly at odds with what was actually happening.

>The soundtrack was constantly at odds with what was actually happening.

The only slightly inappropriate use of music I can think of was the WW theme for the JL ads

What if I just happen to genuinely like the movie, despite its flaws, yet every time I mention this in a discussion regarding the movie I immediately get attack because my opinion apparently is "objectively proven to be wrong" and/or I must be a shill? It's as if the sheer audacity of voicing a favorable opinion in regards to BvS is offensive to people.

apparently so is saying bad thing about it

cant win

You could but you just have to avoid threads that OP is in.

>What if i just happen to like the movie, despite its flaws

Well good for you

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

You ever stop and remember that there are tons of people who like the Star Wars I-III films? Even though theyre just fucking miserable movies? Youre like that, enjoying something thats just not very well made. I want you to think about that

>Its a really poorly made movie

It's got a hell of a lot more craft than Civil War that for sure. At least it looks like an actual movie and not some low rent, over lit, sitcom bullshit.

Are we still trying to pretend that this movie wasn't complete shit?

uh oh here come the company wars

>Its a really poorly made movie in the school of the transformers films
Michael Bay is a technically proficient filmmaker so not sure that "poorly made" is the right way to describe his faults.

Who gives a fuck about Civil War? We're talking about how poorly made BvS was, and how terrible the story was

some people need to trash other movies to validate their own

>That was a good take, Jesse. But in this next one I need you to meme even harder. I want you to take the concept of acting and diarrhea shit all over it. Every line you speak has to be looped into a 1-hour Youtube video by Baneposters, that's how much I want you to spazz out here. I want you to fuck this film and cum all over the audience's popcorn. I want the brothers Lumieré to retroactively regret having established the medium of film because of your performance. Think you can manage that?
>Sure, Zack.

You gotta throw someone else under the bus to make yourself feel better sometimes.

I'm just pointing out that "poorly made" doesn't actually mean anything besides "I didn't like it."

get out snyder

Actually thats outlandishly untrue and you should attempt a craft of some sort in your lifetime.

Did people get so triggered by EisenLuthor because they grew up imagining Clancy Brown voiced Luthor fucking them in their boipussies?

No, they expected above Troll 2 levels of acting from a multimillion dollar blockbuster.

So how is BvS poorly made then?

to be fair, clancy brown is beloved by all to this day, while jesse was skubtastic from day 1

>stupidity
>not muh
>memes

those are main reasons people dislike bvs

like the grandpas tea, what conceivable reason is there for that scene to be a strike against the movie? the petty vinidictive character does something petty and vindictive ? "wow this is dum!"

its lack of intelligence or film iq

Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion, asshole.

how is "you cant be all good and all powerful" but some people claim superman is, not a motivation? so then the philosophy of the darkside wasnt the motivation for The Emperor or Darth Vader in Star Wars? does Darkseid not have a motivation simply because its motivated by a personal philosophy?

>one overlap
>means the whole fanbase is like that

MCUcks are the worst

You probably know most of my answers to that. A lack of character motivation, lazy fight scenes, various plot holes that admittedly plague most superhero movies, MARTHA, the lack of BvS in general, the lazy kriptonite, character stupidity, most things involving Lois, etc etc etc and again and again and again like youve heard a million times.

I responded originally to you saying that the problems in the film didnt bother you, but that doesnt mean they dont cause for an objectively poorly made piece of work. No ones saying you cant enjoy it, but doesnt mean that you enjoying subpar work validates it.

>make a movie that takes heavy inspiration from two of the most iconic DC comics of all time
>NOT MUH isn't a valid complaint
ok

>he didnt understand the motivations
>he thinks the fight scenes were lazy

goddamn tasteless pleb

uh oh more company wars

>plebs
>a bad thing

You sure showed him

>this guy is all powerful and therefore can't be all good
>to combat him, I will make a being that is even more powerful
>I will in turn be even more powerful than he is

>objectively poorly made piece of work

Why are nerds obsessed with being objective? Your tastes aren't objective.

No but movie making, acting, plot devices, story lines, character movivation, and the odd rulings of ship slip life generators can be

At least it wasn't as bad as suicide squad.

>acting, plot devices, story lines, character motivation

Those aren't really things you can judge objectively. The character motivations made perfect sense to me for instance, but some people just can't understand it.

No, it was worse.

Characterization is just one of its many problem, the movie is horribly written

Those things can definitely can be judged objectively. Why don't you try to take a moment and explain the various characters motivations?

No, nothing's worse. Except maybe Dark World.

Many things are worse than Dark World. BvS for example. But Suicide Squad is not.

Clark is trying to do good while protecting those he loves, but he's also concerned that maybe the world doesn't have a place for him in it.

Bruce is terrified by a power far greater than him, he thinks that his life of fighting criminals is meaningless in the face of a world with beings like Superman. He projects his fears on Superman and resolves to destroy him.

Lex hates Superman because he is powerless in comparison to him. Superman is thought of as like a god, this infuriates Lex who wants to prove that Superman's benevolence is a lie. He hates God for letting him suffer at the hands of his father and projects this hate onto Superman.

It's not complicated, all of them are haunted by their parents' ghosts. Clark is afraid he can't live up to the future his father imagined for him, Bruce's parental trauma is well trod territory of course, and Lex can't stand to have anyone standing over him making him feel inferior like his father did.

Either we're going to have to agree to disagree, or I'm going to have to come over there and beat some sense into you.

Good luck finding me, I'm behind seven proxies.

You're free to like a flawed film. Have fun.

But instead of wondering whether what you like is "objectively" good or bad, ask yourself why the film "worked" for you. And don't just latch on to the tangible details like "the CGI was good" or "the Batsuit looked awesome". Dig deep - find a reason you liked the movie, ask why that reason made it work for you, and keep pasking "why" until you hit an emotionally true answer.

Chances are, even if you can't fully articulate why the film did or didn't work for you, you'll come closer to being able to do it by doing that legwork. And it beats being the kind of person who latches onto tangible details to explain why they like a crappy movie.

I mean, shit, I love SECRET OF NIMH - but I'm wlling to recognize how out-of-place the amulet (and the resulting Deus Ex Machina ending caused by the amulet) feels in the context of the wider story.

BvS was better than The Dark Knight.

Most critics aren't comics readers and most of them still didn't like it.

(you)

Because you don't just say "I like this movie", guys like you are always saying "I like it and you're wrong for disliking it."

Then you'll have to find me if you want vengeance.

It's legit retarded batman could beat superman

It's the truth. Go back and watch TDK, it's shit.

you're right op this would have been much better revived if it had nothing to o with any establish work before it

The critical reception is a lot like the one Excalibur (which influenced BvS) received on release. To quote Roger Ebert.

>"a record of the comings and goings of arbitrary, inconsistent, shadowy, figures who are not heroes but simply giants run amok. Still, it's wonderful to look at."

Excalibur's reputation has improved with time so hopefully BvS will too.

Except I don't do that.

youtube.com/watch?v=Atg-5Nqszxw

if you like BvS, its not because its superior, but because the exact same qualities that make it appalling to one demographic makes it appealing to another

nor does hating it make this movie mean that the movie is inferior, it just means that they simply are not captured by its specific mix of quality

I genuinely did not care much for TDK back when I watched it all those years ago. It's annoying when people think you're trolling just for having a different opinion.

I liked it a lot back in 2008, but rewatching it recently wasn't that keen on it.

>www.slantmagazine.com/house/article/trickster-heaven-twofaced-hell-the-dark-knight

People were really crazy about that movie, this guy got death threats for giving it a bad review.

>The fight itself was hyped for about an hour
>actual fight lasted 5-10 mins, wasn't even that satisfying

this, this is what annoyed me most

...

What? Didn't you want to see Batman and Superman punch each other in a dirty bathroom until one of 'em yells mommy?

Isn't that why you came here?
Or was it for that Ninja Turtle that shows up later with those slick Playstation 3 era graphics?
Or was it because of Wonder Woman, that brought her own hairmetal score everywhere she went but couldn't learn proper English in the 90+ years she's been learning the language?

Too bad. Welcome to Snyder's America.

It's Snyder's world, we just live in it.

whats the problem with hairmetal?

How lex knew about superman's plumber weakness?

Plumber weakness?

>he could have easily thrown it

>he throws it
>doesn't pierce Doomsday
Congrats, you just killed the earth with your retarded plan. Almost as bad as the guy who said "why didn't he throw Zod into the sun?"

at least if he throws it and it doesnt work, he will live after

imagine if he stabbed him and it didnt work

>people who actually know about films and can tell you, in great detail, why BvS was not a good film
Haven't seen any of those around here. Probably because people who know about films will say that it's good.

And yet you somehow think BVS holds up better? Eh.

If anything BVS holds up even worse to repeat viewings than The Dark Knight.

BvS has gotten better last few times I watched it.

>people who know about films will say that it's good

The RT score says otherwise.

It's just like MMA!

>critics know films

Try again.

Well, I mean the film writers have no reason to make the spear not pierce Doomsday if thrown assuming that's the direction they wanted to take the fight in really. We're dealing with fictional characters here after all.

The "RT Score" says that Ghostbusters (2016) was good because it sent a message to "brobabiez" and "goobergape".

You must really like turkish airlines.

This bait isn't even good.

Yes, critics know films. It's their job to know about things like characterization, pacing, story structure, and other less-tangible details that make films work. When a film doesn't work, it's not because of a tangible detail, but because something beneath the surface turned to mush and took the rest of the film with it.

GREEN LANTERN didn't suck because of the bad CGI. It sucked because of a shitty script, lackluster cinematography, and poor pacing; the CGI is just the thing people point to because it's a tangible detail - something everyone can see/hear and point out without thinking twice.

>Yes, critics know films. It's their job to know about things like characterization, pacing, story structure,
Yeah it's their job but they don't do it. Just look at the reviews.

I did.

What did they get wrong? Why are their opinions wrong and your opinions better than theirs, taking into account that most movie critics see more movies in a year than most people (possibly even you) see in a decade?

Also they gave Ghostbusters a high score, not gonna lie, pretty sure something's up, even if I didn't really like any of the DCEU movies.

youtube.com/watch?v=CSonz-GfgHs

But then he makes a monster that he believes can kill Superman, doesn't that mean he believes Supes could be all good?

Not to mention the Trinity vs. Doomsday fight, which wasn't even that good either. In fact, that one was actually pretty short and forgettable.

>Excalibur
>went from being a movie people didn't like to a movie barely remembered

Sounds about right for BvS.

Hey there, I'm Cerberus. After careful consideration, I've decided that this is a great movie. Now that we've settled that, you can stop creating threads.

>to a movie barely remembered
I'm willing to bet nobody on this site would be talking about it even now if not for Zack referencing it.

People WILL remember BvS though, as a cautionary tale, or something akin to Batman and Robin. Which is better, kind of?

at least batman and robin was so bad, its actually enjoyable

they also paid tribute to BTAS freeze, which is cool in its own way

In terms of storytelling, it's literally the most ham-fisted thing I've ever seen. Seriously, none of the Jesus moments in Man of Steel even come close.

>People WILL remember BvS though, as a cautionary tale, or something akin to Batman and Robin. Which is better, kind of?
Sadly it won't even get the title of capeshit blunder of the century since it had the bad luck of coming out after the Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Really can't beat the Iced Ham and his hockey warriors

Pacing is wildly all over the place.

The whole desert murder plot made no sense and depending on very specific things occurring.

The crux of the Martha reveal could have worked if actually killing someone was a big deal to Bruce instead of just something he does 10 times a week.

Fight scene was built up but was the worst fight next to everyone fighting Doomsday.

And GREEN LANTERN.

And X-MEN: THE LAST STAND.

Perhaps a far more realist prose for this thread would have been: The only reasons people like this movie is because of either blind brand loyalty/desperation or that they're so much of a subnormer that they can't wrap their minds around the idea that flashy aesthetics =/= good movie making.... Prove me wrong.

It just wasn't that good a movie. It doesn't capture anything that any demographic audience wants. There is no lightning in a bottle, no masterful storytelling or cinematography, just a movie that looks like it should be amazing, but quite bitterly isn't. All in all it's just superficial symbolism & shallow cinematography that is more concerned about looking cool than being an actual good story.

That and the fact that it's basically three movies smashed into one with little consideration of movie making potential utterly wasted by cramming them into one single middling effort is just further insult to injury. And unless you're so assblastedly naive as to think the vast majority of movie critics and general audiences are such comic book purists that trivial knee jerk reactions are the only reason people dislike this mess, then you're probably beyond any real help.

You're just another self-entitled millennial who can't accept that every single thing he likes isn't universally recognized as being objectively good.

like why superman would shoot people with a gun?

the Cred Forums demographic was captured, im sure they raked in all of 20 bucks out of this place

>That and the fact that it's basically three movies smashed into one with little consideration of movie making potential utterly wasted by cramming them into one single middling effort is just further insult to injury.

Describe the "three movies" you see in this one movie.

death of superman, plus dark knight rises, and lex luther

Man of Steel 2

Batman vs Superman

Death of Superman

I thought it was just boring. Lex Luther was the worst part but the best at tge same time.

First off, not muh is a perfectly good argument when you take a good and interesting character and turn him into a faggot

Second, you conveniently ignore all arguments regarding the horrible writing, pace ,skeleton acting etc.

Third, your only arguments for this movie are all based on conspiracy theories.

Tldr; fuck off

>The crux of the Martha reveal could have worked if actually killing someone was a big deal to Bruce instead of just something he does 10 times a week.

Almost the same with Superman who had about a hundred people in the nations capital turn into smouldering piles and seemed more annoyed the air smelled of burnt meat.

Lucky he loves his mom or she'd been fucked.

"the only reason people didnt like this movie about these established characters was because it poorly portrayed those established characters, creating a deconstructionist narrative without developing the proper constructive narrative first: they made a good film about evil superman and batman before a good film about good superman and batman"

yeah pretty much, not just that though

Listen
When all it takes to stop a fight is two people's mom sharing the last name you are further in camp the any Marvel film before you

well, a few people consider it good, anyways

Michael's a good director but he just doesn't give three shits about the robot sequels compared to his passion projects.

bays movies are popular amongst plebs and fellow directors

so he gets something right

>Fellow directors

It's actually producers. Bay wanted out of Transformers 3 and 4 but the producers kept stringing him back because of no immediate replacement that can guarantee a successful sell and that Bay has always had gangbuster box office paydays from the robot movies.

Plus Benghazi and PainGain were alright for what they were.

I hate on it because Jesse Eisenberg is an insult to the acting profession

I'm not saying he was good in BvS, but Eisenberg can actually act at times. He was good in The Social Network.

Why is "not muh" an invalid criticism again?

The direction for him to play as what we got as Lex jr was horrible.

Wasn't his fault he was too good at being an unbearable character.

Movies tend to deviate from the source material. The problem with the movie in terms of Not Muhs was because of how moody it is for Superman's scenes while Batman's well known "NO KILL" rule seemed to have been thrown out of the window with very little explanation in the theatrical cut.

Saying he's good in The Social Network is a meme, he was playing the same character in that movie he always does.

Tons of people who thought the movie was shit will site Batfleck as one of it's few graces, so, you know, shove it? I guess?
It's a hell of a strawman at this point.
Like fucking "MURTHA!"
I thought that was a good idea. It was executed horribly, but the core idea of having Lex use manipulative spam/harassing propaganda to manipulate Wayne into doing petty anti-superman stuff and then backfiring when the last letter he sent him was, "You let them die," and then Superman says, "You're letting him kill Martha." If it were done well that could've been very cool.
The whole movie has great ideas sprinkled about, but every one of them is executed without an ounce of tact or insight.

Michael Bay has never directed, or written, a good movie. I don't think he's ever been attached to a good product.

>I don't think he's ever been attached to a good product.
The Rock was good.

I hate it because it's a boring piece of shit

Okay, I'll give you The Rock.
One movie, in... IMDB says 96.
20 years, one good movie.

Benghazi was good. Island and Bad Boys was entertaining. He ruined the latter parts of Transformers and did Pearl Harbor but doesn't mean he's personally one of the worst, else he wouldn't have been successful in the long run.

The whole thing is unreasonable messy. I mean the plot it's dr. Frankinstein tried to create one single abomination from 4 different plots and, by some miracle, make it work in less than 6 hours.
Not even all the "m-muh symbolism" that you try to shove up everyone's throats, you edgy posmo contrarians, will be able to convince anyone that BvS was anything near as decent, because it's evident the director failed to convey the message correctly through the form of cinema. Throwing some random "symbolism" here and there doesn't make it any better, just even more pointless and pretentious.
It's just one big pile of unorganized shit that fails to present a plausible scenario for the premise of the movie to truly shine.
The acting of Batfleck was fine though. Probably the only good thing the film had along with that sweet action scene of batman saving Martha. That was fine too.

Success =|= Quality
-and I really hope you're not siting 13 hours as a good movie. I liked The Island conceptually, but it was not well shot. I was disappointed by it long before I new Bay had anything to do with it.

It was a good movie. I mean not as great as say American Sniper or others from its genre but it held up as something that entertains rather than bores and makes your eye roll like the college scenes for Transformers 2.

again, people that have this opinion didn't understood the film

The intent is irrelevant when the execution was so poor.

You can keep explaining the scene over and over again as though that somehow means the scene was well-handled, but it doesn't change the fact that the entire sequence is laughable. You don't get to say just because an idea exists that makes it good by default, the execution is important too.

I don't know why this is such a hard concept to udnerstand.

>calling CG from a movie "Playstation X graphics"
This shit triggers me.

Editing and pacing are my primary issues. Superman wasn't inspiring or stirring and Batman icing people was jarring, but those aspects seemed to fit the narrative and tone. It was a mediocre film user, happens all the time.

The only reason people watch movie adaptations of comics/books/whatever is because of "MUH"

This movie wouldn't have gotten made if it wasn't for people clamoring for "MUH BATMAN" and "MUH SUPERMAN" to be on the big screen.

Not satisfying their expectations of the characters is a legitimate complaint.

What about when Superman kisses someone to make them forget something, or flies around the world and makes it spin backward reversing time, or throws some kind of giant plastic bubble thing out of his S symbol to capture a bad guy, or literally splits into two people and fight?

Nigga you ain't saying nothing new, your movie was shit get over yourself

>throws some kind of giant plastic bubble thing out of his S
>literally splits into two people and fight
source?

Its astounding that we're still having these discussions (if you can call it that). But then again people do dwell on shitty movies and speak less of the good ones

He has zero range

Nah, it's just a boring movie.

Why not WW then

you can keep saying a scene is bad but it doesn't change the fact that everything prior and during the scene clearly conveys certain ideas about character

well obviously, but no one is willing to reach a middle ground on the movie, this thread is a bunch of meaningless value statements

the plastic S is in Superman 2 I think, and there was a brief stint in the comics where he became a being of pure energy (during which time he could split in two).

Even if you like Murderman (which could be either of them), generic and dark visual aesthetics, cave trolls, or a Lex Luthor that would've been a better Riddler, there's a laundry list of critical and technical errors on the fronts of writing, editing, and just production in general that are, objectively, handled very, very poorly.
It is a bad movie.
What makes it bad, and just how bad/tolerable you find those elements individually, are the only subjective factors on the matter.
I fucking hate this movie, but I can dig out a handful of good things or neat ideas. Good elements don't make a movie good, they mean it had the potential to be good. It doesn't matter how much I like the idea of a de-powered superman sacrificing himself after batman tells him he's not brave, or how cool I think the Batman v. Thugs fights were. It doesn't change the fact that characters are either telling you what they think and how they feel instead of emoting and acting, or drooping allegedly cryptic but actually meaningless one-liners and "clues," while the plot goes down a dozen roads at once; half of them don't actually wind back around to anything relevant, and the handful of good ideas that were buried in the drudgery that is the rest of this pig-trough of shlock are executed with all the tact and skill of a grade school drama class.

The road you want to take this down will inevitably reach Duchamp's fucking "Fountain"-tier of "what is art?"
That's a shitty fucking road to take when it comes to debating the quality of a product, and pretty broadly announces that there's no actual way to defend the piece and you're just defaulting to "everything is art, so I'm allowed to like whatever I want," so you don't have to validate your opinions with facts or analyze your tastes with criticisms.

>Wondy for NO FUCKING REASON
>Baby Lex is Eisenberg doing a Heath Ledger impression for NO FUCKING REASON
>Final boss fight turns into 300 for NO FUCKING REASON
>Bats looses all his toys and does nothing the entire boss fight for NO FUCKING REASON
>Supes plays dead at the end for NO FUCKING REASON

I didn't even mind all the "NOT MUH", and in fact, I enjoyed this movie well enough. Problem is that it's a sloppy pile of compromise and studio meddling It doesn't have any consistency or logic in how it all fits together in a larger sense.

I am actually looking forward to the Lego Batman movie more than the Justice League movie.

It conveys it clearly, just in a poorly done and hamfisted way.

big post of bullshit

even if we accept the inaccurate murder meme, it still wouldn't make it a bad movie

and how the fuck is the look and feel of the movie generic? and what does "dark visual aesthetics" even mean? the movie was nowhere near fucking nosferatu so that's complete bullshit

no, the list of technical errors isn't huge either

and what the fuck is a character supposed to do? fucking hell, the way you formulate the 'problem' shows that there's nothing the writing could have done to circumvent this 'criticism'

most if not all dialogue in the movie is justified by the characterization behind it and the scene it is said in. and the plot doesn't go "a dozen roads at once" either, and the roads it does take all tie up at specific points, this is absolutely undeniable, anything else is complete misinformation

and that spiel on the meaning of art is bullshit considering the vast majority of the criticisms are non reasons that wouldn't be valid for any movie

>>Baby Lex is Eisenberg doing a Heath Ledger impression for NO FUCKING REASON
so some mmms and spazzy movements are the same as tongue licking now? fucking hell

turns into 300? i don't remember 400 having scenes with two superpowered individuals fighting an even bigger and stronger monster

what the fuck is this bullshit, you can take any of these 'complaints' and put them next to anything

You're right.

>How to pleb 101

Liking flawed films is fine.

Going around like some kind of crazed evangelist, constantly shitposting about how people just didn't 'get' it because you're too insecure to just admit that you're forcing yourself to like a terrible film and you DESPERATELY need your favourite company to get some kind of inane victory...

...That is why we tell you to fuck off, and why we will continue to fuck off forevermore. Even if you're not one of the deluded contrarians, they make up such a huge proportion of this film's fanbase that nobody wants to talk about it because it ALWAYS ALWAYS attracts these fucking dense shitposters.

>i don't remember 400 having scenes with two superpowered individuals fighting an even bigger and stronger monster
I was talking about the visual style right down to the bad lighting and cheesy fake choreography. But if you want to be a literal larry, there were plenty of super human characters and "bigger and stronger monster's. That's pretty much all it is.

When what you like is used as shitposting fuel 90% of the time you'd better just suck it up and accept that people are going to assume you're a shitposter.

>tongue licking
Wut?

you said "final boss fight turns into 300
and your explanation doesn't make any more sense

and if you want to be a literal larry then we can just drop this whole discussion with acknowledging that superhuman battles have been done even before moving pictures

While he is wrong that it's not really heat legend, it's still a garbage choice to make lex autistic and embarrassing

you cannot take shitposting, then say, "this is the only representation of opinions that don't agree with mine" and claim victory
jesus, how is this not proof that you fall for obvious bait? you readily admit that there's shitposting, but say that that is all the arguments for the merit of the movie consist of

fucking i like the movie and i'm also tired of all the shitposting and even posting in general

we know the movie gets shitposted to death, because like all good bait, it still gets a bunch of replies

youtube.com/watch?v=MR3NuAtnG5w

>burring the point and doubling down on your retarded point
Oh, I see. this is one of bait posts isn't it.

Actually it clearly conveys Bruce already knew Clack's moms name way before that scene so it just makes it dumber

That's lip licking. What's tongue licking?

user had a brain flub, must be related to defending bvs obviously

hearing = Martha didn't scream
Bomb = Covered by led, explained in the Ultimate Edition.

27
7

I just thought it was dumb, blunt, and too serious.

I didn't want it to be like a Marvel movie. I just wanted it to be good.

I'm sorry, user. I like Superman and Batman, but I'm not enough of a comic book nerd to care whether the adaptation is faithful to the books and I usually don't let plot holes detract from my enjoyment of a flick. It's just not a very competent movie.

>looking forward to the Lego Batman movie more than the Justice League movie.
absolutely this