DCEU non-insane bandwagoning braindead normalnigger rate thread

meme

I liked BvS, Man of steel made me mad, and I haven't seen SKWAD yet.

What with the rediculous amount of negativity for DC films

Up until SS I was chalking it up to people not liking the tone of the films, but SS is like a better Marvel movie tonally, so now I'm just baffled.

I haven't seen SS yet, I am keen but based on your terrible taste, I guess I wont like it.

meme

Seriously? These movies are bad, like legitimately bad. Not that the marvel movies aren't bad either because they are, but the DC movies continually fail at what they set out to do and with exceptions of Batman and Superman are pretty poor when casting their characters.

The only positive I can glean out of this trio so far is that because Suicide Squad is so tonally different in presentation than the Snyder films means that Warner Bros is far more willing to let their directors be creative when compared to Disney. Their next hurdle however is getting directors that actually know how to do that well.

Shaitan, leave.
Shaitan, leave.

meme

I liked Man of Steel. It's not perfect; there are pacing issues, the Kryptonian designs were shitty, and Lois was miscast. But it's a decent superhero movie.

Haven't seen the other two.

Ah yes, I love seeing the Death of Superman, Batman vs Superman, Intro to Justice League, and Man of Steel 2 all smashed together in an underdeveloped mess rushed just to contend with Marvel. It's the perfect DC film!

I'm willing to admit it has a few good scenes and performances, but outside of that it's horrendous. I'll give it this - what's good about it is better than the good stuff in Man of Steel. Yet on the flipside, what's bad about it is far worse than anything Man of Steel had to offer.

wew lad

luckily shit taste is a curable condition

Well you better get yourself checked in right away.

Rather than respond with "meme", do you think you could actually explain your liking of these abominations?

I can only say that as a reader of DC for about 15 years, I think BvS is extremely faithful to the atmosphere of said comics.
Most people seem to be hung up on it not being 'fun', or various stages of not muh disease (>Batman kills, >Superman isn't chipper).

Those people don't seem to be able to comprehend that the reason the characters are acting this way is because of the story they are in, not because of some blanket misinterpretation of their characters.

Both why Batman is unhinged and why Supes is unhappy are both explained very clearly in the film.

...

meme

meme

meme

meme

meme

meme

meme

And I can say that as a reader for nearly as long that this film is a disgrace to those stories.

The takes on those characters are fine. I can buy the Affleck's Batman and his brutal turn - partially. I can buy the turmoil Superman is going through - partially. The biggest problem is the story they're in is so fucking rushed and underdeveloped that it doesn't give us time to appreciate these plot points, nor does it combine them. The issues Superman is dealing with are dropped as soon as the piss-jar shows up. Batman's development is hurried just to give us some Justice League previews and sneak in Wonder Woman cameos. Both of them seemed to be plucked out of their own stories and made to reluctantly fight each, and their stories are unceremoniously dropped.

Nearly everything else in the movie was a fucking joke. The motivations the two wanting to fight each other is barely given time - we're not seeing two ideologies clash, just two angry brooding men going at it because one of them had their mommy kidnapped. The contrived way they tried to shove in previews for Justice League were laughably pathetic. Wonder Woman is shoved into the first act, disappeared in the second act, and then came back in the final act just to help fight Doomsday with no real importance or presence. "Luthor" is a big joke that looks and sounds more like the Riddler or Joker than the greatest criminal mastermind on the planet and his plan is nonsensical and has its details glazed over. The scenes with Lois are pointless (Lex was behind it all? What a revelation!) and her only real use is to be saved by Superman. The Jesus imagery was obnoxious and came full circle with his death and hinted return. The Death of Superman was squeezed into the last few minutes and didn't give us any reason to care about the fight or his death.

0/10
bait harder

The ultimate cut fixes most of your complaints.
You should watch it. Not a shill, go pirate it.

Left out the part where Lois Lane fucked Bruce Wayne and Joker casually defeated Superman

MoS and BvS have fantastic casting, visuals, music etc and even a little bit of great writing (as in, some very memorable lines), but plotting and characterization is kind of a clusterfuck, even once you filter out the pointless "that's not how it is in the comics!" nerd rage.

Hey, look what came out yesterday that probably didn't cause OP starting this cancerous thread.

That only works when they creators don't care about the material. Zack Snyder does care despite what it seems he just has no talent and a warped perspective of the material.

Does the "ultimate cut" make the movie "not crap"?

Does it give more screen-time to the best actor in the film, the jar of piss?

I haven't seen it but there's a bit where Superman says he didn't kill the warlord, so that's an improvement.

An improvement, in that specific case, would be a bit where Superman saves Jimmy Olsen.

Whither or not the warlord lives or dies is completely inconsequential.

...

Do people unironically have some hangup about the piss thing?

good thing film is a visual medium then
plot is for plebs

Oh hey Zack, thanks for coming by.

Can you tell me the deep siginifigance of the jar of piss in your garbage film?

Is a metaphor for your career? In that you keep saying you make "good adaptation of comics", but what you produce is at the same level as bodily waste?

See, it's posts like this that make it seem like you have no argument.
No one is saying le jar of piss is deep, it's just that no one can explain why it's a negative.
But please, shitpost some more.

You're right.

I also want to point out that a supposedly dark and mature superhero movie failed at its' portrayal of the complicated situation in Africa with its' warlords while a Japanese kids' show could.

It was a callback to what the woman character said, dude are you seriously this was only the cherry on top of the shit sundae that was Eisenburg's Lex it was hardly the worst part of the film.

You really showed me.

I've seen it. While it does try to give Clark more reason to want to fight Batman, it pretty much just amounts to him learning more of what we already know - this Batman is a lunatic, ironically alluded to by fucking Perry when he complained about Clark's news about Batman. We're not really given much time to see how Batman and Superman clash in their ideologies. Even if you bought that, it's immediately undermined when Lex kidnaps MARTHA to force the fight to happen.

There really isn't much else that it fixes. We see more of the Lois subplot making it a bigger waste of time, Wonder Woman is just as absent in the movie, "Luthor" is just as bad, The Jesus shit is still there, etc, etc.

He may care but David Goyer sure as hell doesn't. Snyder also didn't care enough to get Goyer off the project.

Nigger, plot is how the film tells its story, how it uses its visuals, editing, and cinematography to actually portray things. BvS may just look nice but those visuals don't serve any good purpose.

My argument is that the jar of piss was stupid.

Now it's your argument to explain why giving an inordinate amount of screen-time, or even the very inclusion of a jar of piss, was not stupid.

Here's your moment, user. Defend the piss.

second reply meant for

...

David Goyer didn't write BvS. Chris Terrio did. Goyer just got a credit because he wrote an outline before they kicked him out.

Snyder couldn't be bothered to research anything as that might get in the way of his "highbrow" dialogue and constant need for reckless destruction.

retard alert

SS is the only decent DC movie outside the recent Batman shit. Justice League will probably be awful, and Wonder Woman's not looking too good, either.

i think it's a reasonable statement to say that zero seconds is the appropriate amount of screen time to give to a jar of urine.

Well, that at least explains why you liked watching 151 minutes of excrement.

You have weird ideas of how Hollywood works.

...

retard alert

Come on, user. The fucking reputation of Batman v Superman is on the line!

...

Really, the fucking piss jar is not worth arguing about. It's a pointless bit of payoff and that's really it. There's nothing to defend or vilify, it's just a fucking jar of piss - there's far worse things to actually look at. Like how the scene it was featured in just abruptly ends any of the development Superman had going for him.

...

That didn't add anything - we already saw him saving people while brooding, seeing some more of it isn't really necessary and just exists to show us "Superman is sad, people are skeptical of him" again. Nothing advances from there and it isn't really addressed again outside of the news saying "Superman isn't responsible".

I'll also add that the scene had the chance to actually address the skepticism around Superman, but it was just dropped to show us more of the same. That's the biggest problem with this film - it introduces a lot of potentially good ideas but doesn't go anywhere with them because it just has so much to fucking squeeze into the film, making it confused, messy and shallow. This could have been 3 or 4 separate films worth of plot but Warner decided instead to stuff them all together.

A think a big reason for that is because Zack Snyder doesn't believe Superman did anything wrong in Man Of Steel.

Daily reminder that Zod being there is what caused that.
Anti MoS fags would have you believe that Clark destroys population centers on the reg just for lulz.

I got an image for you.

Truthfully, Zod being there didn't cause that. Zack Snyder directing MOS caused that. The movie is fiction. It's nothing but the director's vision. If Snyder didn't want Metropolis wiped from the face of the Earth, he would've found a way for Superman to save it. But he didn't.

Having a climax filled with destruction porn trumps actual heroics in his book.

Do you really want to go through Man of Murder ordeal again? Has the 3 years of this not quelled your autism?

Bottom-line: Superman did nothing in the films to prevent the destruction. He didn't bother moving Zod out of the city (either have him follow him because of his lust for revenge or have him make it a point to kill the people of his adopted world like Superman essentially killed Krypton's future), was perfectly content with smashing him through the inhabited buildings and busy streets, and was just wholly inattentive until the last scene where he suddenly cares about the innocent bystanders Zod was going to fry.

Hell, BvS attempted a lot of damage control over that. Most of anything that had to do with Superman in BvS was addressing Superman being so irresponsible in that fight. One of the first thing he does to Doomsday in BvS is try to punch him into space. They make sure to note constantly in the climax that "this island is uninhabited" or "the work day is over and everyone is home". The filmmakers themselves are acknowledging "we fucked up there", why the hell are you still defending that?

The fuck kind of thread is this? All those films are absolute garbage except for Suicide Squad. It's not great but it's good and fun in a dumb way. Yes it has issue with some of the cuts and there's a feeling of lots of stuff cut out but it's not bad. Ultimately I enjoyed it. Like a poor man's GotG with more dumb comic booky fun.

Will Smith is pushed way too much though. Fuck Will Smith. Deadshot's a dumb character and I'm sick of him being pushed. Raceswapped or not.

wew

Yeah, I hate how Clark just laid waste to Metropolis out of nowhere because he was bored and ready to subjugate the planet.

Also, using DBZ as an example of good writing is laughable.

No, the filmmakers are putting icepacks on people's autism sores. I guarantee you WB likes MoS.

DANCE OFF BRO

Would you believe Superman somehow convincing Zod to go to an isolated location to fight? Zod didn't care if he killed people that's what he was there to do in the first place. Gif related Zod's a better fighter on a technique level so Superman couldn't do much at moving him on his own. The fight, barring this brief sequence was horrendous on a choreographer level though, same issue as most modern movie fights completely impersonal and no story telling moments throughout which is way so many people think Superman was responsible for the destruction

Two things these movies also have in common is a dumb villain. Ronan was pretty generic. So is Enchantress in this movie. Ronan would probably be more enjoyable if you compare the two.

What? Enchantress was great.
It was great to see magic so casually thrown into a cape movie, unlike Thor's

They liked it so much they tossed out it's producer and formed a new studio, DC Films, to fix the mess it made.

No, again, they like it fine. It's shit eating Star Wars 7 liking audiences that they have to pander to in order to break even that didn't like it.

She was okay. I would've like her more if she stayed in her first form.

The Iron Man/Hulk fight in Avengers 2 was everything people actually did want from the end fight on MoS. Clear concern for civilians, a break from the fight purely to rescue people, clear attempts to minimize the loss of life and Iron Man actually felt threatened during it. In the MoS fight they don't even look like they had a fight at the end.

It's honestly hard not to think large parts of Avengers 2 are direct, huge slams at MoS. Even the efforts to clear the city reflect that. It all stems from Zack Snyder not having, or at least not being able to convey, human empathy on film. There is little intended emotional impact, it's just fights that happen.

Now, the question is: will they bother with anymore solo Superman movies when they can just bring him out for the JL movies and focus on other characters? I honestly can see a future where he's treated like Black Widow (a guest or supporting character, but never the focus).

I would have believed Superman attempting to do it. The film could have gone either way - have Superman actually force the fight outside or have Zod insistent on staying in the city to endanger the lives of others - but at least show that Superman wants to protect the people. The inaction on Superman's part on top of how uninvolved the fight itself is and how the film was previously going on about how Superman is meant to be a great savior (both with Jor-El's speeches and the Jesus imagery) is why people rag on this Superman.

We get it, Disney makes shit films that people are gobbling up. That magically doesn't absolve this movie of its sins.

But Avengers 2 was a pathos free big bang theory episode stretched over two hours.

If you think AoU was better than MoS, you have serious brain problems.

It mostly does though. It has a couple minor script issues that in no way cripple the film as a whole.
That's it. Anything else is just the general public having reliably awful taste in media.

user, denial gets you nowhere.

Are you serious? That fight was also complete shit and pointless as well.

DC may have contrived tension but at least it has tension in it. Disney-Marvel has absolutely no tension with non-threatening villains who are all just smooth talkers but lack any threat in action. They're both shit on opposite sides of the spectrum either too dreary and up its' own ass or too devoid of proper conflict and too set in its' ways to actually be called a movie.

All MoS had was the occasional, in your face Jesus image. Even though he's closer to Moses. At least Avengers 2 had some likable characters.

Seriously, it's been years, right? Unless MoS got to you at the most vulnerable moment of your life, I can't imagine being this closed off to the obvious criticism. This isn't a case of "NO ONE UNDERSTANDS!" because we all tried to find more meaning in it, and it was lacking.

whatever you say bud

Neither of them are exeptional films, but Avengers 2: "let's kill a bunch of CGI chituari- i-i-i mean Ultron bots for an hour while sidestepping dramatic tension by making every character an obnoxious quip factory " is MUCH worse than MoS.

Naw, Zod was an idiot. I'm surprised Supes didn't snap his neck earlier, it was just "the fight is over now". His second in command actually seemed more of a threat, so once she was out of the movie it didn't seem like there was anything that could really stop Clark. Sure, Zod could kill thousands of people, but that didn't seem like anything Superman cared about, so it wasn't really a "threat".

Even if all the Marvel villains have been kinda weak, it doesn't make Zod a strong one. He COULD have been, sure. I long thought the whole DCCU thing would be a lot better if Zod was kept alive, and basically became Vegeta to Superman's Goku.

Why are you admitting that MoS isn't a very good film now?

Though I am happy that the Russo bros. have a better grasp of character based humor and it won't just be a quipfest when their Avengers movie comes along. Whedon did as good as he could do with Avengers 2, but those guys are just BETTER directors in every conceivable way.

Zod was a stronger, more believable villain than anyone in the MCU.

not exceptional=/=not good
u suck at arguing 2bqhw/u

Marvel is at least consistent. People know what they can expect from them.

Warner, on the otherhand, is desperate to replicate the Nolan Batman trilogy, rushing out director driven movies without any quality control. Unsurprisingly, this leads to big budget piles of garbage.

They should've formed DC Films on day one instead of waiting for Batman V Superman to bomb.

Inigo_Montoya.jpg

...

You got sumfink you wanna say?

That's because Disney has strict rules that prevent any creative that isn't Joss Whedon from creating a movie with their own creative input. Remember that they axed Edgar Wright for rocking the boat?

At least Warner is willing to let their creators create, for better or worse it is always a good idea to let your artists have free reign.

And besides the problem isn't trying to emulate Nolan. Everything wrong with MoS and BvS is all trademark Zack Snyder.

updated

But he was just a big dumb retard who was grown in a vat and told he was a general, despite no real show of competence. He coup ended in minutes, he wasn't smart enough to hide his agendas, and he flew the ship that had the ONLY THING that could save his entire species into battle and got it crashed. He'll try anything, but he was a complete failure of a man, and perhaps in that way, it's a mercy that he's dead and can't reflect on his mistakes.

And "stronger"? You mean, physically? Because he has the exact same power of Superman, sure. Who cares.

Yeah, but we're just waiting for the BETTER to happen. WB knows what kinda movies Snyder makes. Maybe they thought having Nolan around would iron out all his edgy, but the most it did was get him to stop that slowdown/speedup shit. And we saw how bad it was when WB makes the creative calls because that turd Green Lantern got released.

I think the better stuff is on the way, but we'll have to see. I even think JL will at least avoid some of the normal Snyder pitfalls, but we'll see if it can avoid them all.

I think the biggest problem in all of this, defenders of the movie think most of us WANTED MoS to be bad. We didn't. We wanted a good Superman movie, and it missed the mark by so much it angers us as fans. It's just not what most people wanted but at least it's not Superman Returns

...

Green Lantern>Thor

have shit taste

all me
not even ashamed

This is the ultimate shit taste thread on Holla Forums

The FOP and SU threads come awfully close.

I'm not saying you have to like the DCMU movies that have come out so far, but compared to Disney who have been making the same film over and over at this point and faffing about with Thanos I'm pretty confident in saying we will see more diversity in quality of DC movies due to the creative restrictions Disney has in house vs WB.

And hey Affleck's behind the solo Batman movie, and they're vetting George Miller to get on a project.

Granted DC need to recast some roles, tbh, namely Lex, Joker, and Wonder Woman.

Yeah. But they're not making the movies now, are they? Get Burton and Nic Cage on the phone, tell them they got Superman movies now. If you want to argue that Nolan and Burton Batman films are better than than other comic movies, that's a discussion. But saying MoS is better than a 5 or 6 out of 10 is not that discussion. Oh well, you can post as often as you like in your thread. I'll probably go for now. Even though even Ant-Man ended up a vastly better film than MoS, despite a last minute director change

I AM excited for what they will do in the future, and I will see Affleck's Batman movie. Hell, I'm probably seeing Suicide Squad tomorrow But I'd much rather get a bunch of good movies without a 'directors vision' overriding characters. Despite some obvious differences (like characters just feeling more natural in the Russo Bros. stuff than they do in Whedon's, for example) the characters feel consistent, and that's important. Inconsistent writing is what pushes people away from the actual books (both Civil War events being examples of characters pushed plot instead of plot pushed by characters). So I think that level of control they put on the movies to stay consistent is exactly why they are succeeding. If DC can achieve that after a few movies, I think we'll all be happy.

Ant Man looked like a tv episode composition wise.
Marvel makes tv specials, not movies.
They are commiting the cardinal sin of working in a visual medium.
SHIT VISUALS.

Civil War was fucking trash too! Ironman had no rhyme or reason for any of his motives other than to push the plot. Don't defend it just because it isn't trying to be BvS, it's still got it's own major issues on top of the ones all the Marvel movies have.

Good lord this thread is a piece of shit.

Saving it with a storytime

...

...

...

Quads to save the thread. Don't sage, niggas gotta see your shit.

...

STOP

...

...

No

...

ree.

...

...

...

...

That freedom in creativity made the Batman vs Superman movie into a huge clusterfuck of plot points competing for attention. Having creative freedom doesn't mean you know how to use it. Sometimes creators need restrictions to motivate them to work creatively around those barriers. While Marvel films tend to be derivative and have less potential to be truly great or inspired, they in-turn have less potential to be truly awful or confused like DC's films. Sometimes you can get a great film out of DC with the Dark Knight, but those end up looking like "lightning in a bottle" moments compared to the rest of what they shit out of their studio.

And yet BvS's shit color filters, visual clutter, and obnoxious lens flares get a free pass, right?

...

...

...

...

...

and we finally get to the point of this wretched thread. Some fucking retard fanboy is mad and is doing everything within his power to avoid admitting that DC films are currently garbage

Get your fucking console wars shit out of here right now, faggot.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

meme

Holy fuck OP, get a lobotomy. You're taste is retarded and you need a reset.

...

...

No, (You).

Wow, it's sure cuck/co/ in here.

...

...

Nigga, I hate both companies. DC is bad for forced tension and conflicts, Marvel has zero tension and are just remaking the same movies adding new plot points without resolving any of the previously addressed ones, fuck off.

I said 'for better or worse'. I don't like Snyder's movies at all, but the creative freedom he had is one all directors should be entitled to.

If anything, Snyder's proof that not all directors should be entitled to creative freedom

t. Jew

...

reminder
newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-the-seven-star-wars-films-reveal-about-george-lucas

You're fucking retarded.

"for better or worse"

The virtue of everyone having the freedom to create means a higher chance of the good being celebrated and the bad being forgotten.

No, i'm not.

Restrictions give artists a framework upon which to work against. It gives them challenges that keep their mind focused and on task. It creates an environment where they have to be creative to tell the story they want, often resulting in a better product. They are given freedom to create, but not so much freedom that they lose touch with reality.

Batman the Animated Series is a testament to this. They were bound by studio guidelines and they produced what is argued as the greatest Batman series of all time.

...

Of course, I admit I may have taken too hard line of a stance, and given certain circumstances some restrictions can help.

However when one studio is spreading the same restrictions across all their films to the point of being detrimental to the work.

But what also could be said of BtAs is having creators savvy enough to work around their restrictions and with the talents they have so that they wouldn't have to sacrifice their vision to adhere to studio execs.

Ultimately, what I should of said is I hate Snyder being on the DC films, but appreciate that the execs, while dumb enough to let him go wild, don't interfere too much compared to Disney's 'villain can be menacing but not a threat to hero'

What happened was Disney execs paid enough shills to AstroTurf that people think the AstroTurfing is reality.

I just saw Suicide Squad. Movie is not horrible, but it also isn't good. It's just very average and predictable. Most of focus is on Will Smith, Harley Quinn, Enchantress (who becomes the main villain) and Flag (U.S. Marine guy that is in charge of the squad adn in love with the girl possessed by Enchantress). There isn't all that much humor, audience in my theater lightly chuckled maybe 4 times total and jokes fall flat but are not cringy bad. "You jokers must be crazy!" line aside.

Harley and Boomerang are humor reliefs, Slipknot dies 5 minutes after being introduced, Diablo sacrifices himself towards the end, Katana is pure and barely in the film, British model that played Enchantress has better American accent than most British actresses, and it Ain't Me starts playing when Killer Croc is introduced. There are also 3 aircraft crashes, one of them with almost no survivors. And apparently Waller knows that Wayne is Batman.

Katana's there for a good chunk of the movie. She's just hardly ever focused in on.

...

Remember kids, never go full retard like these anons

baaaa baaaaa

TA TO BA

That's the thing, Zod wouldn't have cared if the fight moved away from a population center. He was just trying to kill Superman. Superman could easily have just "run away" for a few moments and then engage him in a rural area. The worst bit is that there wasn't a SINGLE moment where Supes tried to save random bystanders falling from a building or anything, which is literally the most iconic thing about Superman. He will ALWAYS take more of a beating during a fight just to save a person or two.

Edgar Wright left of his own accord. When he was originally attached to the project, he said that he wouldn't accept any corporate demanded rewrites. Unfortunately, he began the project before the MCU had really taken off. They said they wanted to do rewrites to make it fit into the MCU, and Wright immediately left the project.

In other words, Wright was one of those "Artistic VISION" hacks that refused to change even the little things.

I bet OP thinks the Nolan Batman trilogy is 10/10

While it's true that the masses are often incorrect about things, that doesn't mean they can never hold a general consensus that is correct as well. Man of Steel is incredibly flawed, perhaps not a terrible film, but pretty much every issue it has directly impacts the film in a negative way that can really hamper the experience.

Batman Vs. Superman is terrible in nearly every way.

Pretty much, he basically threw a fit when they wanted him to add that Avengers bit into the movie.

Superman in the movie is frustrated and angry about the media and congress persecution on his character due to the African massacre, which wasn't his fault, while Batman is terrorizing Gotham in US soil and nobody cares because Gotham being awful and Batman being bad isn't "news".
Eventually, thanks to the everything that happened and specially the capitol bombing Superman is worn down and start to actually believe the constructed narrative that his actions is harmful to the world, before realizing that in life there will always be unintended consequences to our actions and while that's awful to accept and deal we've to soldier on, and that our loved ones are key in helping with that.

This mirror Batman arc where he felt utterly powerless after the alien invasion, and that, coupled with his past failures, started to make he lose faith in his life mission. He started to see it as futile and detrimental, with him not being better or different than the very criminals he used to hunt. With that he started to see Superman in the same way, just another asshole playing hero and fucking things up, but in a much larger scale. This belief coupled with the media persecution of Superman constantly showing his fuck-ups reaffirmed Batman resolve of killing Superman in a suicide mission.

The movie deals a lot with the truth being twisted by politics and media to serve an ulterior movie, beginning with the African situation, and how most people will buy into it because if fits their beliefs, and how powerlessness and frustration lead into pointless fights, fights that ultimately serve the establishment.

So typing all that i don't understand how you guys might think that Superman and Batman clash don't combine with the bigger plot or that the plot is suddenly dropped.

It was more a commentary about the civil war in Syria. You know, the US arming the Rebels (with the help of Lexcorp) despite proclaiming neutrality in the conflict.

There was nothing to address.

The people were fine with Superman in the movie. He had a statue build in his homage for saving Metropolis and Earth. You can see people idolizing and respecting him throughout the movie.

It was the congress and the media that were against Superman. The congress for political reasons, because the US felt threatened by his existence, and the media because they sold what the government wanted and because Superman recent "fuck-ups" was news.

The point of the hearing was precisely that: a sham. Something built on lies to damage Superman's image. Superman not having a chance to speak his mind is a point on itself. Because in the movie nobody wanted to see his side, they just wanted to pile on him and sell their bullshit for various of reasons, none of them noble.

The movie showed both instances.

You do know there's a line in the movie where Zod said he was going to kill the humans to take something from Superman, right?

Go watch the goddamn movie.

As he should have done. It was unnecessary. It seems to me that most of the later films keeping banking on Avengers cameos and never really stand on their own.

Look Snyder, Schumacher, and Ayer are bad directors so it stands they make bad movies, but on the other hand Marvel is facing severe stagnation because their movies aren't different enough to make them unique except maybe GoG, or the first two Cap movies because they're "Not a superhero movie but a WWII/Spy movie with a superhero lead". With Wright they could have had Antman be a stand out and unique film but they couldn't compromise and ended up making Ironman again.

I agree BUT:

BsS:
The only problem I had with it was the Martha thing, Louis doing all that bullshit which stretches the movie (throwing the kryptonite spear away for no reason - as if throwing it into a pool of water deals with it) and most parts of the final battle, including Wonder Woman's ridiculously stupid theme song.
And yes, I liked Luthor. I thought he was hilarious. Stupid at times, yes, but the whole movie is.
But when it comes to Batman, I kinda wish Dark Knight had similar fight scenes to make it even better. Seriously, I think this is the best Batman. He was just menacing. But to be fair, it was heavily inspired by the Arkham game's fight scenes, so Dark Knight didn't have inspiration.

Man of Steel:
Amazing fight scenes which cape movies need more of. I liked how they tried (!) to handle the topic seriously, I hate the cheese of the old movies. Score is great. Overuse of zoom is friggin annoying. It looks cool once or twice, but ALL the time? Once you see it, you can't unsee it. What annoys me most in this movie is that everyone is an idiot, e.g. Superman's foster father (Darwin award?) and Zod's guys capturing Louis for NO reason. "LOL we need her here." Why? They don't.

Can I also make a point that they need to bring back the idea that Bruce is a master of disguise? I mean I got why he was at that fight club just the problem was it was Bruce Wayne, clearly going to the fight club, you just can't do that.

That's nice, but the movie did a pretty poor job of conveying all of that. Explaining everything that happened doesn't make watching BvS any easier.

God dammit. Fuck you, Abrams - you and Disney not only made a shitty Star Wars movie, its presence has reawoken these tasteless faggots that are going to poison any Star Wars media discussion for the next few years again. Just fuck my life.

And his negligent actions during the Kryptonian invasion, where he made little effort to protect people. That was pretty important.
I got that, but it was very hurried and mostly glanced at - especially in the theatrical cut (a short talk from Martha and seeing his ghost dad). It also made this Superman just seem to passive - he was so easily brought down by the lies of others and just as easily brought back up by some pep talks. We're never given much time to see that development and the resolution is made so quickly and shoved aside instantly just so he can fight Batman in the third act.
And that was some weak as fuck motivation, simply based on what the movie gives us. It makes several allusions to Batman's lack of faith but just like Superman's arc it's only briefly noted and not given much time for us to appreciate this backstory - it doesn't have to be hammered in, but at least give us time to enjoy it. The lack of development on top of those poor decisions just makes Batman seem like a huge dumbass for being so easily manipulated by the fucking media of all things, and makes him a pretty big hypocrite. Sure, a flawed Batman isn't necessarily a bad thing, but with this Batman he just seems wholly incompetent and not nearly really the product of years of fighting and failure that the movie only briefly hints at.
Superman's redemption arc is unceremoniously dropped in the third act because of Bruce's lust for revenge arc forcing him to fight - it doesn't address the public-image and motivation issues Superman is dealing with as his only real motivation there is to save his mommy. Then that entire arc is dropped because MARTHA - I get that it's supposed to remind Batman of the reason for his mission and make him realize the commonalities he has with Supes, but it's so contrived and hurried that it just comes off as insulting. But what's even more insulting is the shoved in Death of Superman bit at the very end - bringing back Superman's redemption arc just to resolve it with a premature sacrifice (combined with more Jesus shit) and making the resolution between Batman and Superman almost entirely pointless aside from some weak justification for forming the Justice League (on top of THE BELL HAS BEEN RUNG).

Yeah, which is why there were people defacing those statues and forming mobs around the Capitol Hill telling him to leave Earth.
Except that's literally not what happened - he was only cut off because of Luthor's bullshit plan. If none of them wanted to hear his side they wouldn't have had the fucking hearing in the first place. In the end it accomplished nothing in the eyes of the public - despite the knowledge that Superman wasn't responsible, many people are still skeptical about Superman. What the movie could have made of that scene is to actually have this even be the straw that breaks the camel's back in the eyes of the public - have them actually now dislike Superman.

It does neither. Superman never actually attempts to move the fight, nor do we see Zod being especially insistent on endangering individuals during that final fight except for the neck-snapping scene. They just fight and collateral happens.

There's nothing wrong with Superman being a polarizing figure in universe, people have the right to be afraid of somebody that could level their houses with an exhale.

I'm going to say it: There are good ideas inside of BvS but the problem is in the execution which is the most important part and why the movie is ultimately a failure.

Vid related is a time a movie got that concept right.

Just watched suicide squad. It was okay, at best. A 3 out of 5 stars. Amanda waller and enchantress were the only good parts in the movie. Will Smith was will smith. Joker couldn't stop talking about sex with harley. And there was potential for a good movie in the beginning and I was about to believe I was going to be surprised. But second half of movie just ended buttering up will smith. Movie was way to slow and I don't know why they tried to pull the "misunderstood savages" angle with the movie. Movie is a rental at best.

B vs S is the weakest of the 3, decent action films bu the editing in B vs S is just plain weird, tough you are right, It is very weird, the Suicide Squad movie, felt… like the most normal movie of them all.

Is OK Op I like stuff nobody else likes, like the Loud House and Twilight Sparkle's show.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it either, so long as it's impact and effects are actually given time to actually develop rather than being another plot thread in a frankenstein's monster of a cape film.

I agree that it has good ideas, but anyone can have good ideas - it isn't any indication of merit. Execution is what matters the most in any creative medium.

I just saw the movie. I thought MoS was not as bad as people said but still a lot of bad parts, BvS was only better in some aspects but overall weaker but this one felt better than those two despite having problems
Seems DC improve slowly with each movie.

...

He sacrificed himself times and times again, but he had little experience. The fight was more about ending Zod fast.

There were tons of set-up. TONS!
Batman constant nightmares about his parents death, the cave and the Metropolis attac, Batman taking medicines to function, the Batsuit having more armor, Batman thinking more and more about failing his parents and his mission being futile, Batman becoming more violent and so on.
Here's something you're not getting: Batman was fooled by the media because it feed into his own bias. The dude was falling heavily into depression and seeing the whole super-hero thing as futile. The media portraying Superman's actions as problematic fueled this belief. He wasn't so much manipulated as he was delusioned.

You think he simple fell for Lex's schemes, but it was more than that. It had much more to do with his own sense of purpose in life.

SUPERMAN CAME BACK BEFORE KNOWING HIS MOTHER WAS KIDNAPPED! Superman decided to come back to look out for Lois because he decided himself by his own that despite things being rough at least he had Lois, who he loved and had faith in him, and she'd help him get through this.

Did you miss the fact that Bruce had his father as a role model? That he felt bad about failing his parents, but mostly his mother? That throughout the movie he is only shown saving females? His nightmares with his mother? That when he was about to kill Superman the way Superman said "Martha" reminded him of his own father?

They had hearings because the senators wanted to control Superman and because the senator lady, the only one there with nobler goals, actually believed the lies Lex had constructed. When she learned the whole thing was built on lies she was angry about it and almost ready to call things off, but was pressured into continuing on.

Yes, he does. Superman punch Zod up and then Zod brings them down. Zod threatened to kill as much people as possible and escaped Superman several times.

Or you simple didn't payed attention.

how bad did they raped the comic?

YOUR MOM'S NAME IS MARTHA TOO?

WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME?

People keep defending these fucking shit awful DC movies by pointing to Marvel and going

Marvel's films shouldn't have any bearing on the discussion on DC's take on their cinematic universes, but if we must draw comparisons then at least we can comfortably say that at worst Marvel's films are at a bare minimum watchable.

They make sense, they progress from A to B, they're competently shot, the stories can be followed reliably etc.

These later films are incoherent, Man of Steel not withstanding, as it can be followed, it's just kind of poorly handled sloppy, rushed, devoid of any sense of levity, poorly apes source material while simultaneously having zero understanding of it, they're poorly shot, they're poorly cast, they're confusing, they're full of unnecessary filler and sequel baiting Even Marvel at it's worst knows to only dedicate a small amount of screen time to sequel shenanigans, looking at Ant Man as the prime example, it's a couple of scenes that fit fairly well into the overall story and get out of the way just as fast

Overall these recent films are just poorly made. I understand the appeal of seeing films that try to do something unique, and yes, Marvel's recent films are more corporate products than anything else, but goddamn man.

You can smear shit on a sandwich and boldly claim that it's unique high art, but don't be butthurt when I turn around and hit up Mcdonald's instead because their burgers aren't liable to make me vomit all over myself.

Kys and fuck off back to cuckchan as mentioned earlier

BECAUSE MY MOM'S NAME IS MARTHA IT'S LIKE SO WACKY HOW OUR MOMS HAVE THE SAME NAME :^)

I've only read the New 52 series. I liked this movie more than that.

THAT'S AMAZING, user! I HATED YOU AT FIRST, BUT KNOWING YOUR MOTHER HAS THE SAME NAME, I SEE NOW THAT YOU'RE AN OKAY GUY!

QUICK BOTH OF YOU, NOW HAVE THIS BIG STUPID FIGHT WITH A BIG STUPID MONSTER FOR NO REASON, BUT MAKE SURE YOU DON'T GET IN WONDERWOMAN'S WAY YOU SILLY BOYS BECAUSE IT'D BE LESS EMPOWERING TO WOMEN IF YOU DID!

SOUNDS GREAT! I'M SURE IF WE ALL WORK TOGETHER, NONE OF US WILL DIE FOR NO GOOD REASON!

Tell that to this faggot He's the first one who mentioned Marvel films claiming they're good because DC is bad and that they're intentionally trying to succeed where DC is failing. And that's what opened these gates.

But reread my post I've been saying they're both shit, for different reasons. DC movies are incoherent, tryhard pretentious, and poorly directed and Marvel movies are stale, bland, and boring.

Actually, I wrote that post this morning not to 'open these gates' but to point out a particular scene that did an city fight with a lot of destruction where choices made seemed to be done specifically not to have the fan reaction that MoS got. Are you saying there are no parallels, and that's it's not a valid way to express what I found completely lacking in MoS? Because typing that was a lot quicker than pointing out the laundry list of flaws make MoS a mess of a film, the final scenes being the icing on the mediocre cake.

I agree, actually. The DC movies have to stand on their own as movies and be respectful to the source material. Which is why I hope they are a lot more careful with the people they give creative control to, Zack Snyder is an awful fit for Superman and most of the DC characters. No one else is to blame for the decisions WB makes, they have to sink or swim on their own, and the success or failure of Marvel movies shouldn't be a factor in that at all.

I don't know why people hate that so much, it actually makes a fair amount of sense.

Bruce thinks Kal'El is talking about Martha Wayne, as in 'Save your own mother', so stops to hear him out, then realises he and Superman do in fact have similarities in their quest for justice and peace.

While not saving the movie, it's one of the most logical parts of the film.

YOU'RE RIGHT user IT ALL ADDS UP IT'S LIKE POTTERY DING DING DING DING DING

EXACTLY, AS LONG AS WE ALL HAVE MOTHERS NAMED MARTHA, WE CAN ALL GET ALONG!

gg shills

You mean that one time he himself to Zod.
Wow it's almost like it's fucking Batman.
You mean those poor attempts at alluding to Justice League? Great character development there.
You mean that one scene where he chugs down whiskey and painkillers? Alcohol and pain pills are hollywood's goto off-the-counter drug combo for troubled protagonists - it's cliched as fuck. And besides, did you see the training scene where he seemed to be perfectly fit?
Are you serious? This suit has far less armor than Nolan's suits and looks more like spandex/rubber, with only his cowl seemingly armored. Even the Burton suit seemed more like armor in comparison.
Are you watching a different movie? When the hell do we hear anything about Thomas Wayne? Hell, we hear more about Luthor Sr. than him. And only saving women? You mean that one and only time he saved people at the beginning of the film? And yeah, those nightmares about his Mother, all ONE of them where his Father was also there, or that one about both of their graves.
Where was it noted that Finch was the only one falling for Luthor? It was made pretty clear that Lex was the only pulling the strings behind it all and that the everyone in the government was being played, regardless of their intent - I'm fairly certain the people looking to control or deter Superman didn't want to die in that explosion.
Did you fucking watch the fight? This never happens. If anything Zod was the one who elevated the fight - he punched Superman up and took it to space briefly.

You seem to be reading too much intro this flick. Whatever good ideas it may or may not have had, it definitely failed to execute them well enough for people to appreciate them.

MoS sucked fucking dick
Haven't seen BvS, assuming it sucks as well
SS is an insult to the source material (as if the other two aren't kek) and I am angry that it exists

you're post was shit the first time m8

Once again you people imply that the general public has taste. And critics are the public btw. Any jackass who writes for huffpo is a "critic" these days.

Decrying that people have no taste does not address anything that user said. Get out of here with that weak sauce. Don't even fucking reply unless you have something more to say. If you simply can't deal with the opinions of other anons, it's not a discussion, it's just you having a sperg out.

reply

The average person may not have taste but it doesn't take a connoisseur to know that a piece of shit is a piece of shit. It also takes a special kind of person with shit taste to think the log of shit they're munching on is actually fine dining.

shit tastes p good
don't knock it till ya try it

Stay salty
And I say again, you don't have to defend shit movies just because you like dc.

...

All this thread proves is that at least one faggot will gladly swallow any shit shoved in his mouth so long as the shit has DC slapped on it
Just go back and watch the old superman movies if you want some good stuff, you fucking retard

Booty blasted
Anally annihilated
Shitter shattered
Rump rattled
Butthurt

...

Whole place is filled with these blabbering retards. And everyone keeps giving them attention.

gud post

Although it's shit i'm glad MoS exists because it shows you how not to do superman. But the guy the guy casted as superman was actually the right look and body type. Also I like that fella that plays zod I hope he keeps getting work.

but MoS was good

It's one dude if Holla Forums had ID's he might quiet down, nah just kidding he'd still be here shitting up threads with his asspain. He literally can't stop replying so it's kinda fun to rile him up. But it's kinda sad to see someone with such shit taste lurking around

What did he mean by this?

i can go all day pal

I think he meant that MoS was good.

You could back to reddit or join a dating site if you are truly lonely. Is there a gym in your town? Make some friends

...

Well anyway chum I gotta clean my house so im gonna go but I hope you get rid of your shit taste. Best of luck BvSfag

Kill yourself shill

good post

Not inexplicable at all. It's the same effect that occurs in video game journalism. People who exclaim RT is in the pocket of Disney or that reviewers are being 'paid off' are naive. There's no backroom deals or secret meetings between these people, just a simple beneficial equation.

Disney/Marvel makes the films and invites certain reviewers/journalists to watch early screenings of them. The reviewers then release glowing/favorable reviews and web coverage to ensure they are invited to the next advance screening. Both parties win. Disney gets the good hype and the loyal reviewers and fans, the reviewers get to see the movie early and get a bunch of hits on the review since it's before anybody else has posted one, and the fans just get to drown in the hype.

DC/WB just got in too late for this thing. The fandom and relationships between the creators and reviewers was already there. There's no money exchange, and the bribery at work may not even be a conscious one. There's no scheming involved, I don't think. These people are all just friends and they have no interest in entertaining a competitor. WB, meanwhile, goes about things in an ill-conceived manner by being too concerned with the idea of being a competitor. The very thought of starting a cinematic universe that could compete with Marvel's despite starting *years* behind was ludicrous.

In my opinion, DC/WB should move even further out into the respective film genres and drop this idea of a unified 'filmverse' and instead do what Marvel can't and hit a *variety* of tones and atmospheres in their movies. From a PG-rated Shazam movie, to an R-rated Batman film. They could go anywhere in the spectrum without treading on the other movies' tones since there would be no pressure for these characters to ever share the screen.

In fact, I'd wager in this way, they would become a competitor to Marvel simply because directorial and writer talent would be more drawn to the idea of being able to do their own thing with a project and not having to work within the framework of 'building a universe' or 'advancing an overall plot'. It would just be them, the character and whatever they wanted to do, the way a comic book movie should be.

Video Game 'journalists' do actually get paid off, though. A year of GamerGate should have taught you this

Perhaps some do, but the majority receive bribes only in the form of perks. Getting to go to those Spike TV parties, getting to sit down with the devs and play a game first, beta invites, free merchandise, etc. etc.

Neither of those things are going to happen. The latter SHOULD NOT happen.

But your reasoning is correct. WB would do better going where Marvel can't. That's been DC's strength, variety. Warner should adapt some Vertigo comics like Shade The Changing Man, barbarian epics like Warlord or Claw the Unconquered, or horror comics like House of Mystery. If they want something similar to capes, they have the goddamn DOOM PATROL. Think about that. They have a ready made team of strange heroes that could define themselves as something different from Marvel, but it's fucking ignored for rehashes of Batman and Superman.

Warner can go further than Marvel ever could, but they're fucking stuck on both replicating Marvel's success and chasing that TDK dragon. Madness.

They get lucrative promotional deals as well.

Yes, they get paid in kind (merch, early access, review copies) but they also get paid

You almost had me there.

Why can't we all just agree that Marvel and DC's current franchises BOTH SUCK?!? Because they do. Avengers is just as shitty Man of Steel. They are shitty in different ways, yes, but I can't believe this many people here can defend any superhero movie made since this "expanded universe" notion began.

If you're watching the Special Olympics, and it's a race between two retards with shit in their pants, are you going to say the retard running with his diarrhea running down his leg toward the finish-line is just as bad as the retard still at the start rolling around in their own feces?

Marvel and DC are those retards. Yes, they're retarded. Yes they're full of shit. No, they're never going to be in the actual Olympics, but one of those shitty retards clearly understands how to work his legs while the other is wallowing in shit.

It's here.

What happened to these guys?

wait, you didnt like it, user? why?

Because it's popular and I can't like popular things of course.

They have separate opinions than you do. Just because they like things you don't doesn't make them any different than they were before.

Mike is a JJ Fanboy so him liking TFA was basically a foregone conclusion, and he is basically top dog since Jay and Rich are both Betamax even at best, so no one really dissents his opinions even when they are SHIT.

It was the bare minimum of what it needed to be. Not good. Not bad. Just kind of nothing. And Daisy Ridley is a fucking awful actor.

She's a better rapper.

made it 21 seconds

Fuck you if you don't like my waifu.

Do we actually have CUTE posters here or are you memeing?

No. He is a Starfag and a Trekkie. His opinions regarding anything related to Star Trek and Star Wars should be taken with a grain of salt, because he will enjoy almost anything related to these franchises.

WB and DC are just ether terrified of risks or lack any original thought. They only tried to make their cinematic universe a thing after Marvel was successful with their own, all of their films try to emulate Nolan's, They still have that hack Goyer writing for them because he got lucky twice, and Snyder directing because he made a few decent movies based on comic books. Suicide Squad was given go ahead after GotG was successful, Justice League after Avengers shattered records, and Lobo film was put in developement after Deadpool did extremely well.

All they do is play catchup with Marvel and Fox. If DC would be smart, they would do something Fox and Marvel don't. Something like superhero movie parody with Booster Gold, weird science fiction film using Doom Patrol, conspiracy thriller or mystery with Question, gun porn and martial arts action movie with Secret Six and Deathstroke going against one another etc.

But he hates the prequels which are better than TFA. (Arguably).

Now, I don't want to defend DC/WB since I think the way they handled their cinematic universe is fucking pathetic, but I sincerely doubt that anyone would watch that apart from a few hardcore fans.

What I think they should do, aside from stopping to meddle with everything and just let the directors they hire direct their movies, is creating a smaller subset of their studios and let that one do smaller, more personal and lower-budgeted movies on unknown characters. Like Booster Gold.

Vertigo Films

Sign me up.

Yeah, because Constantine and Preacher were soooo good.

The Constantine movie wasn't bad at all. Haven't seen the shows you're referring to though.

People said the exact same thing about Deadpool, Guardians of the Galaxy, Kick-Ass, and Ant-Man. Yet all of them were successful. Films just have to be good and they will do well, maybe even very well if WB is not retarded with marketing.

Number of fans and how vocal they are has more effect on marketing than putting asses in the seats. If movie is bad, most fans won't see it. Just look what happened with Sony's The Amazing Spider-Man. Fanbase might even hurt the film if it looks bad - Ghostbusters and F4 are good examples of that.

It has been done in a way. There have been two Human Target shows, Preacher, Constantine TV series, Constantine film, V for Vendetta, and of course Watchmen adaptation. Y the Last Man and Sandman TV series/films have been stuck in the development hell for about a decade now. Only few of them were better than what DC does now.

Constantine was a decent film, and an amazing urban fantasy film, considering kid of bullshit that is considered good in that genre. Problem is, that is wasn't a faithful adaptation of Hellblazer. It had barely anything to do with the comics, and they even mispronounced Constantine's name (which should rhyme with line).

It would be hard to make a Doom Patrol movie as brazenly stupid as those are. Deadpool is at least self aware. The other three are shit beyond popcorn entertainment value.

You're talking about a company that completely missed why Iron Man was successful. They'll be playing catch up until the Superhero bubble bursts.

Too bad Vertigo's on life support.

SS was garbage and MoS was the only decent one of the bunch despite the unnecessary dark and gritty shit. Also the cast of SS did a terrible job except for maybe the chick who played Quinn. Also Jared Leto was hammy trash like always. The only thing that wasn't complete garbage was their introduction of magic which was better done than Marvel's attempts so far. But aside from that, this film was trash and it made no sense. Yeah, a bunch of fucking misfits with boomerangs, hammers and swords are gonna be able to stop another super alien from taking over the world in the future.

Fukken saved

see

Holla Forums-realism and grounding

It's staggering how badly Hollywood handles budgets.

Suicide Squad is set in a universe where super aliens annihilate major cities and are basically gods on earth.

Consider that the film's answer to this problem is to assemble a team of criminals who could not possibly handle such a threat, and realize such a premise is so comically stupid that the film should've been a comedy from the get go.

It sounds less like an actual plan to fight aliens and more like a convoluted execution method.

You're trying to hate the movie for no reason.

Did the government give Deadshot a magazine filled with krypotonite bullets or a canister of kryptonite gas? Was it established that El Diablo was holding back?

I ask because your response sounds like some kids arguing over who'd win in a fight between Batman and Spider-Man.

No, but Waller knows that Batman is Bruce Wayne and she could steal some K.

Yes.

You are really dumb.

I thought the biggest problem with SS was its scale, and the pacing suffered for it whenever the plot had stop to exposit information and focus on Deadshot or Quinn. Having the Suicide Squad's first mission be "save the world" instead of "deal with these terrorists overseas" just diminishes the concept of a black ops supervillain group and feels really silly in a post-BvS, pre-JL setting.

I found it funny and ridiculous how the pre-credits stinger has Waller begging Bruce Wayne for help covering up her mess in exchange for metahuman files

WB really does need to lower their expectations and budget accordingly. This race to make tentpole blockbuster films is a bigger threat to DC's brands than Marvel.

But that plot of Waller stealing kryptonite wasn't established in the film, which means you're making shit up. You're constructing a bullshit narrative that doesn't exist in the story itself because you're desperate to defend the film.

It's Man of Steel all over again. You're defending Suicide Squad with fucking fan-fiction.

What?
Here

you imply that the Suicide Squad couldn't handle Superman as your reason for the premise being shit.
I answered your hypothetical with one of my own.
Get fucked.

Great just what this thread needed Disney shills.

(What a waste)

pls watch movies b4 criticizing them ok

Actually that post is pro Lucas. I was attempting to parody a shill.
But Poe's law…

Not much of a rebuttal, movie superman still has super speed, strength, heat vision and the power of flight etc.
Deadshot and Diablo would still lose in multiple ways to Superman kryptonite bullets or not.

Nice goalposts fam.

Wew

lol
All that effort and BvS wil never not be good.

How am I moving the goalposts mr. DC shill?
I'm simply stating why Deadshot and Diablo along with the rest of SS wouldn't stand a chance against Superman.
Superman may not have freezing breath but could still punch them into the stratosphere or Kamehameha them with his heat vision.
How about you come up with an actual counter argument.

no

Jesus fucking christ anons. SS wasn't a good movie. There are multiple plot points to criticize. But to question whether a group who already have now killed a god like entity could kill another god like entity is retarded.

I see through the lies of the Jedi.

Wait someone is seriously arguing that SS can stand up against Superman?

I assumed it was a troll.

see

If nothing else I can't figure out why Superman was such a big deal in this universe, nice fella and everything but apparently not so far out of the ordinary after all

Oh noes, if he ever went rogue there'd be no one to stop him except the countless other individuals with similar abilities, better murder him

Don't worry about Enchantress though she's probably no threat

this is insane
you all are insane

There is no talk as if ss would survive the encounter. SS is a squad created to die for the mission, expendable. Whether you like it or not ss have successfully killed Enchantress in her strongest form who had back up. What anons need to stop doing is projecting themselves into Superman. Superman going "rogue" is nothing fucking new. What also happens is that supes gets so fucking smug in "rogue" form that killing is beneath him. So yeah, i wouldn't be surprised if a group goes kamikaze to kill supes.

Another problem with the DC movies right now is how hard they are in trying to make these characters relevant to modern times, which even if done well would insight rage from DCucks. But can you really expect modern Superman on the big screen telling you to buy war bonds so our boys can slap a jap

Like take the fact that the modern zeitgeist of an entrepreneur is now of a younger man who builds basketball courts inside of his main headquarters, it's nothing like the traditional Lex. But even then there would be a way to do that well instead of having Eisenburg twitch and stutter and vomit out his dialogue like he's kind severe anxiety all the time.

Or the Joker. Can't have a criminal, no matter how insane, dressed in a zoot suit and making jokes, actually jokes as he's carving people up I mean you actually can though, the fact that the character is insane basically removes any need for giving reason to these types of actions So instead make him a gangster and own a strip club and other things more befitting a traditional criminal does. Also make him legitimate cuckold fetishist HONKA HONKA

Lex Luthor needs charisma and smoothness come baaack, Clancy Brown. He can have some eccentricities, but his character should be one you can take seriously. Every other Lex outside the live action movies was a human paragon of both selfishness and achievement against Superman. It's what makes their conflict work.

This is probably going to honk some people off, but TDK's Joker was a pretty good take. His kind of humor is supposed to make normalfags laugh and then feel guilty about it Holla Forums's kind of humor, in other words. I've also heard it said once that what the Joker does isn't funny so often, but what he says will wreck your sides.

Nah, Heath's take was good. People only say he was bad to be contrarians and because too many faggots do bad impressions.

You don't have to consider it the best portrayal of the character but at the very least it was true to the spirit of the character.

I think that's part of their problem. Instead of relishing in what they are, they're constantly trying to be something they aren't. The "making characters relevant to modern times" feels like a last ditch play to seem as "adult" as possible.

The worst part of all this "relevancy" is that it has no commentary about the roles they've put both Luthor and The Joker in. Luthor doesn't reflect any of the real issues with modern social media entrepreneurs nor does The Joker isn't an example gangs in the United States. They're all surface, no substance.

This is an aspect I love about classic Luthor. He was a constant trainwreck, routinely destroying every chance at happiness to continue his petty feud against Superman.

He's a character I could easily see running a multi-billion dollar company into the ground for his vendetta.

What I like is that he can essentially be someone who strives to be the Übermensch and feels inadequate compared to Superman, or even views his presence and humanities reliance on him as a hindrance.

That was a really weird re-imagining of Coolio's character from Batman & Robin.

Heath Ledger's Joker was a good character, but also one of the least 'Joker-y' Joker's. He did one magic trick and otherwise was just a batshit insane criminal, probably a nihilist and anarchist who instead of snapping into depression went the complete other way. The clown motif was more of an after thought.

But everything he did paid homage to his character's stories. Hijacking media and killing people without being in the same room as them is from the very first Joker story, and his overarching plan to prove that his insane worldview is 'correct' and constantly changing his backstory are right out of the Killing Joke.

Nolan's Joker was a good criminal, but a bad Joker. Whether you like it or not, comic villains have a theme to them. Jokers was obviously killing and mayhem as a punchline to a joke he is building up. There was only 1 joke in that entire movie that Joker used and that's it. He's just another sociopath like we see from Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs. Great sociopaths but definitely not a Joker.

Now that you mention it, putting Luthor as some kind of Zuckerberg knockoff wasn't just a poor writing choice, but directly contrary to any prior depiction of Luthor at the most basic level. You see, entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg, moot, and even our own Brennan are behelden to people, interests, and/or governments. Lex Luthor is behelden to no one and no thing but himself and his obsession. In an issue of Swamp Thing, a major military-industrial corporation had to pay him millions for ten minutes' consultancy. Later, he took the American Presidency in a campaign paid out of his own coffers. In the DCAU, his PR was so good that nothing but an engineered confession could make charges stick. In the same universe, he played Project CADMUS like a fiddle and nearly achieved technological godhood. Even in the older movies, Lex Luthor relied only on his own people and resources, and shifted the world around to his agenda.

While his actions in BvS are in keeping with the selfishness of Luthor, the trappings and background are a horrendous mismatch and he might even be following Darkseid's agenda, seeing how bonkers he behaves. They dress him like a puppet, not a puppetmaster. Luthor is a Soros, or a Murdoch, or a Gates, half-in-the-shadows, half-not.

You're arguing that the only way to tell a joke is verbally though, also ignoring the fact that comedy is subjective. LEdger's Joker also makes a pun in that same scene and treats a Joker playing card as a business card, he also dresses in drag, has a double take with the explosion, and his 'how I get these scars' bit follows the rule of three. The last three examples being classic comedy staples, you just might not find them funny.

And I mean technically his is the only 'clown' joker since he's the only version wearing the make up, the comic and other versions only look like clowns due to their disfigurements.

The Joker, as a character, is an egotistical clown who laughs at his own jokes because he thinks he's clever. Most of his jokes are bad, but he laughs because he a self-centered jackass like that. He advertises his crimes because he believes that everyone else is too stupid to catch him and he loves the spot-light. He hates Batman because Batman humiliates him. These traits are staples of the character that have existed since the beginning, continuing long after they made him "insane".

This is why Ledger and Leto really don't click as The Joker. The characters that they play don't have the key elements that define the Joker as a character. His egotism, his vanity, they come up lacking in those regards. As a result, no matter how they look or what they reference, they don't really jive as "The Joker".

DCEU Lex Luthor Jr. wasn't Zuckerberg or m00t. Lexcorp in the movie was a stand-in for Google. Google right now is one of the most powerful and evil enterprise in the world.

The updating works. He wasn't even bonkers in the movie. He just thought too fast for his owns words, played the "wants to help the world" tech-wiz part and despised people.

Oh, I get that Google is evil, but BvS really didn't do anything with that to justify the update. Luthor really doesn't represent the idea of gigantic corporation that has access to the personal information of millions of people and actively sells it to advertisers and governments, that uses the billions of dollars it generates to fund projects to take over the world.

Luthor was nothing but shallow surface. His connotations to Google were less than cheap window dressing.

Can you maybe back this up with evidence from these films?

For Leto it makes sense because nothing he does jives with his performance. He tries to whore Harley out and when the other guy won't fuck her he shoots him. It's weird and makes no sense even for a crazy person.

Ledger on the other hand seems to enjoy the chaos he's causing matching your analysis of him, and has an endgame that he keeps to even when he's changing his mind on wanting to expose Batman or burning the mob's money.

The only thing they get though is the basketball court and candy in his building, and the twitching none of it services the film in anyway beyond surface level.

HOL UP

...

Which Ledger's Joker does
Which Ledger's Joker is
Again, which Ledger's Joker does
Debatable. I'd say he hates Batman because Batman never laughs (at anything The Joker does anyway).

...

This is my reaction to the thought of WB making a Doom Patrol movie.

He's supposed to be based on a Greek actor, not black. Also, white voice actor. Shoo, Uncle Holla Forums.

Agh, mixed what the company was supposed to be. Still, it doesn't fit, and this Luthor doesn't have the power not-Google should give him, nor does he use it as one would.
user, Luthor's other big focus is self-improvement and mastery. He's not some awkward and gawky geek with delusions of wit.

Doomsday. Also, deliberately attracting threats to Earth. Also, killing off Mercy and not making some kind of deniable plan to commit treason.

It also fascinates and excites him, though, which is also where we get the homoerotic stuff occasionally popping up.

I'm not sure how you can defend a joker that wears makeup. It's like defending a movie where batman guns criminals down.

You missed the "vain and egotistical" part. The Joker is a narcissist more than he is a sociopath.

This is where The Joker and Ledger's Joker diverge. Ledger's is more of sociopath, focusing more on his cause than himself. He lacks the need for grandiosity and attention (as indicated by his appearance) and acts impulsively. He acts more like a troll, who is amused by causing mischief, than The Joker, who is amused when he strokes his own ego.

Basically, Leger's Joker loves choas and subverting order, while The Joker loves himself.

The Joker is also obsessed with the "game" he has with Batman, kind of like The Flash and The Rogues, but neither of them play by any set of rules, at least not knowingly.

m8 what the fuck are you doing

This is a problem I have with businessman Luthor. They always think too small. Lex isn't a character that would be content merely making money or derive pleasure from simply being a terrible person. He needs more. He needs big dreams to match his vast genius.

JLU figured this out very quickly. Why waste time with earthly power when the universe, and godhood, awaits?

To be fair, he only really realized this once Amazo returned.

For

First thing Ledger's Joker does with the money he steals from the mob is get himself a nicer suit. Being a narcissist and vain go beyond just your appearance. Why are you arguing this point though? It's weird you seem to claim the Joker is a more shallow character than Ledger portrayed.

I don't really think TDKR is a good reference for The Joker, seeing as that Joker was locked in an asylum for years and was catatonic until Batman finally came back.

If you view it that way, his crimes in TDKR seem more desperate and pathetic.

He had no one to challenge him, so because of his narcissism he doesn't see the point of anything.

Yes, that's it exactly. The Joker is shallow and driven completely by petty motivations, with no real depth. That's what the Joker is as a character.

I'm glad you finally realize that, which means you should also realize that when Ledger's Joker moved away from those petty motivations, he ceased to be The Joker as he is known. He became a new, different character.

No I'm afraid I still don't follow you.

Are you saying the Joker as a character is shallow and has no intrinsic value beyond that. In which case then what's the point to having him stick around? Why would such a shallow character get the exclusive right to being Batman's nemesis? And honestly why would attempts at exploring his character deeper so bad? Especially since others already attempted to do so successfully before Nolan.

Nigger stop your bullshit right there and right now. Lex Luthor started out as a Bond villain-like mad scientist type and eventually got re-imagined as a CEO of his own company and retaining his evil genius angle. You might as well be bitching about how Superman stories are not about him sneezing the solar system out of place, or keeping his identity secret from the people around him, or punching out wife beaters.

Lex Luthor has changed yes, but his character hasn't.

Because he is entertaining. People found it fun to read stories and watch cartoons where Batman fights The Joker.

Jesus, you people have your heads so far up your asses that you've fucking forgot that Batman is fucking low-brow comic book entertainment.

It's time for you to leave, '66anon.

Is this nigger serious?

user, variety is the spice of life. I can enjoy a story where the Joker carves up the innocent and blows up hospitals and one where he's throwing pies and planting bombs that look like his face, or stealing a kid's report card just the same.

The only truly bad Jokers are the ones that are too focused on being 'THE Joker'. Leto got too into his head about trying to be like Ledger that he never got the Joker. Scott Snyder spends way too much time trying to make THE definitive Joker story he absolutely ruined the character. Mark Hamill on the other hand was warned expressly NOT to ape Nicholson and thus created his own interpretation, and the same is true of Ledger.

user, you didn't read that comic. Don't pretend that you did.

I am disgusted that you'd compare Heat Legend's joker to Mark Hamill's.

Well, whatever you want user. You're the one who called him a Legend.

Ok you got me

GODDAMNED SAMEFAGS!!!!

Didn't say jokes can be said verbally. I said that he is a person who's punchline
ends with killing, stealing or some form of mayhem. Joker tends to laugh at his own jokes, whether they are funny or not is subjective. But if you even notice, Nolan's joker rarely to never laughed. Other than his painted face, Nolan's joker took nearly every action he did with a straight face.

Thing is, assumptions are made on whether or not Nolan's joker enjoyed what he did. I can make a far stronger claim that joker did what he did just because he could. Why I make this point is because Nolan's joker never quite honestly had a look of joy from his actions. No memorable laugh or smile. Nearly every reaction image of Nolan's joker is just a straight face, doing some action of course, think about that for a sec.

Fuck it, Suicide Squad thread seems to have disappeared so I'll say it here.

The movie's not bad. Flawed, heavily; fucked by the studio and unnecessarily complicated (a lot of people I've talked to who saw the movie, not stupid people, completely failed to follow the plot—they don't get the Squad wasn't SUPPOSED to ever go after the Enchantress, their only mission was to rescue Waller, they CHOSE to do the heroic thing and fight the superbad.)

It's still more interesting than the generic paint-by-numbers milk-and-water Disney-Marvel has been producing for the last four years. WB lost its balls at the last minute and tried to turn the movie into a knockoff of Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy. But unlike Fantastic Four, the movie wasn't completely ruined–yes, there's some totally pointless scenes and blatant rewrites that fuck up the beginning and end, but the core of cool characters doing badass shit is still there. Margot Robbie and Will Smith are great—fuck, the movie managed to make JAI COURTNEY funny.

Good movie that sadly could have been great, but more worth your money than more of the same from Marvel.

What? You don't remember his laughs during the truck chase or when batman interrogated him?

You're overall statement is pretty accurate except the part about will smith. Will Smith in SS played as Will Smith.
No user, no. Also the inner desire scene was an obvious as fuck ego stroking for will smith.

Memorable user, memorable. He rarely laughs and when he does it's just a normal laugh.

The advance word was that SS had a much more linear, straightforward plot that BvS or even MoS. It does, but somehow they manage to have it make no sense anyway.

How do people not get it was batman realizing how far he's fallen?

bump