Support NeoGAF

[Pizza]

If Barry is just figuring the speed force out in this movie, I REEEEEEALLY hope they don't just use flashpoint as a reboot. Realizing he can run through time, absolutely blowing it and needing to get back would make for such a fucking cool film. Especially if Bruce hastily convinces him to get back to the past to tell himself to kill superman after he heel-turns.

Eeeeespecially if they keep the part where he tells Bruce too early. Seeing that scene from the flash's pov in the beginning of the movie before he gets thrown into a worse timeline would be rad as hell.

I'm pretty sure Alfred is talking to superman in that scene in question. Hopefully superman explodes back to life, Batman contacts him, and superman turns him down. That'd transition nicely into Aquaman turning on the rest of the league which would coincided with the "leaked trailer" writeup from a few weeks back and the black suit superman teaser from like a year ago.

 

[BLOODED_hands]

I like the idea of Batman being a mentor to Barry, but I don't know what he would do to help him with his powers.



As long as he isn't mopey and stupid like he is in the TV Show, I'm up for whatever. Flash is supposed to be a bit more fun and light hearted than some of the other characters. I'm cautiously optimistic of what we've seen so far.

For Justice League, we might just see Batman tell him to get faster lol. You right and I wouldn't expect Batman to know much about Superspeed. Barry learning more about his powers should be in his solo film, but from their future films I now doubt we will even see Barry's mentor.

Batman's just going to tell him to learn to use his Speed more. Barry is fast, Batman will teach him how to throw better punches = Superspeed punches. There's probably going to be multiple scenes where Bruce tests Barry's reaction speed, and dodging capabilities.

 

[RS4-]

That's actually not a bad trailer, sneak peek, whatever.

Still watching day 1.

 

[Veelk]

I think you need to watch those films again. Cause those scenes were there.

Would you call Nolan's Batman one of the best fighters in the world?

 

[Kelsdesu]

Would you call Nolan's Batman one of the best fighters in the world?

Keysi is the worst thing to happen to action films.

 

[broncobuster]

That's actually not a bad trailer, sneak peek, whatever.

Still watching day 1.

It'll be a trailer when they edit it to be shorter, but I wonder what they cut to save a minute or so. Probably the Saitama tease at the end. Maybe the Wonder Woman intro.

 

[Schnozberry]

I'm pretty sure Alfred is talking to superman in that scene in question. Hopefully superman explodes back to life, Batman contacts him, and superman turns him down. That'd transition nicely into Aquaman turning on the rest of the league which would coincided with the "leaked trailer" writeup from a few weeks back and the black suit superman teaser from like a year ago.

Why would Superman turn him down? The third act of Justice League is setup perfectly for him to return and turn the tide of the conflict. Superman defeating Steppenwolf along with the rest of the League will draw the attention of Darkseid, the Lantern Corps, Brainiac, etc. It's essential for the future of the film universe.

Blacksuit Superman and an Aquaman betrayal reeks of fanfiction. They need Superman to do some serious hero shit to earn back some goodwill after being highly criticized for his portrayal in the previous films.

 

[thehypocrite]

Would you call Nolan's Batman one of the best fighters in the world?

In the movies? He was definitely set up as one.

 

[Veelk]

In the movies? He was definitely set up as one.

Yeah. But would you call him one?

 

[Pizza]

Why would Superman turn him down? The third act of Justice League is setup perfectly for him to return and turn the tide of the conflict. Superman defeating Steppenwolf along with the rest of the League will draw the attention of Darkseid, the Lantern Corps, Brainiac, etc. It's essential for the future of the film universe.

Blacksuit Superman and an Aquaman betrayal reeks of fanfiction. They need Superman to do some serious hero shit to earn back some goodwill after being highly criticized for his portrayal in the previous films.

I'd rather Snyder just tell the story he wants to tell, for better or worse. BvS leaned hard into some Injustice-ish territory and, as the movie's progress, we just happen to slowly be building the cast of that story.

I'd rather see WB triple down and crest a REALLY REALLY good bad superman story instead of ditching the world building they've done so far in favor of pleasing people who want to see captain america + goku punch and quip for two hours.

The MCU is an action movie watered-down version of actual marvel comics. The DCCU is a weird watchmenverse. They don't have to be the same thing. Superman isn't even getting a movie for awhile. It makes MORE sense, imo, given the underlying plot threads of BvS, MoS, and WW for supes to heel turn into the antagonist for the next arc of films until JL2. They could do it in a different film, but it'd be a good way to payoff the Superman cockteasing. Also having Superman show up as a 1 dimension happy god in the middle of a film that just... isn't that would be weird.

In the D.C. Movies, you can't be all powerful and all good. Superman is building towards a breaking point. He obviously puts his waifu first. I think moviegoers would dig seeing the joker everyone loves to hate impaled on superman's arm.

 

[thehypocrite]

Yeah. But would you call him one?

Yes.

 

[NoRéN]

Im so excited for this damn movie!!!

That little green reflection on Alfred's glasses has me so hyped!

 

[Veelk]

Yes.

Okay. So, if you were talking to someone who said they found the idea of Nolan's Batman being a good fighter from the fight choreography from TDK and TDKR unconvincing, you're defense would also be

"The movie literally has him fight and win against other guys. They outnumber and often even outgun him, yet he wins, so he must be awesome. Watch:

See? This scene happened. Therefore, Batman is an amazing fighter."?

To use other examples, you'd also have to argue that Attack of the Clones gives us a very deep and involving love story. After all, Attack of the Clones gives us all those romance scenes, like how Anakin sharing his feelings on sand with Padme.

Or to use the Holy Grail, you have The Room. On paper, you have the psychological unraveling of an innocent guy. That's the content of the movie we are given, after all. That happened. But if someone said they found this to be an unconvincing depiction of anguish, are they wrong as well just because that is what the contents of the scene are?

 

[G-Fex]

I'll be down with Supergirl over Superman.

As someone who doesn't even like the Supergirl tv show

 

[thehypocrite]

Okay. So, if you were talking to someone who said they found the idea of Nolan's Batman being a good fighter from the fight choreography from TDK and TDKR unconvincing, you're defense would also be

"The movie literally has him fight and win against other guys. Watch:

See? This scene happened. Therefore, Batman is an amazing fighter."?

The fight choreography and his in universe status as a fighter have no relation. Your point may be that it's hard to accept if the execution was poor. However, in here, even though some have morphed their arguments to claim the execution was deficient, their original point was about the existence of the claimed effect by Superman and his actions. This point has been proven wrong. Now, I can't account for the way people interact with the films, their expectations, and what not. What's in the film is sufficient for me and others that have also disagreed with the evolved argument of deficient execution felt by some in regards to the theme and have provided specific examples that support this assertion. Others have provided their feelings.

Also, we can talk about it without resorting to false equivalences.

Edit: not going to down the rabbit hole of those other films. We can speak about the ones related to the DCEU just fine.

 

[Veelk]

The fight choreography and his in universe status as a fighter have no relation. Your point may be that it's hard to accept if the execution was poor. However, in here, even though some have morphed their arguments to claim the execution was deficient, their original point was about the existence of the claimed effect by Superman and his actions. This point has been proven wrong. Now, I can't account for the way people interact with the films, their expectations, and what not. What's in the film is sufficient for me and others that have also disagreed with the evolved argument of deficient execution felt by some in regards to the theme and have provided specific examples that support this assertion. Others have provided their feelings.

Also, we can talk about it without resorting to false equivalences.

The relation of the fight choreography and his diegetic status as a fighter have the relation of whether the story Nolan is telling is convincing. There is a whole trope about this sort of thing. It's not just an execution thing, it's about whether what the film is trying to tell is is being told in a believable manner.

To talk about the original point, it seems more that it was fueled by your misunderstanding in taking "Show, don't tell" to a literal extreme when it's actually about something not being executed well enough to be convincing. This is something Bobby Roberts went over in detail before. Which is why your "but it happened!" retorts fall flat. It's not about whether a thing happened. We know it happened. It just didn't happen convincingly.

To the end of BvS, that's the problem people have with calling Superman a hero that represented goodness. Yeah, you can point to things that concretely prove that some people did liked him and were sad when he died, but there are too many poorly executed moments, the funeral scene being one of them, going against that notion to make it convincing.

 

[Soapbox Killer]

Ok he's clearly talking to Superman I was wrong. The subtle nod Alfred makes when he say "hope" sells it to me on my 2nd watch.

Also do we assume that Darksied is talking and not Steppenwolf?

 

[thehypocrite]

The relation of the fight choreography and his diegetic status as a fighter have the relation of whether the story Nolan is telling is convincing. There is a whole trope about this sort of thing. It's not just an execution thing, it's about whether what the film is trying to tell is is being told in a believable manner.

To talk about the original point, it seems more that it was fueled by your misunderstanding in taking "Show, don't tell" to a literal extreme when it's actually about something not being executed well enough to be convincing. This is something Bobby Roberts went over in detail before. Which is why your "but it happened!" retorts fall flat. It's not about whether a thing happened. We know it happened. It just didn't happen convincingly.

For you. As I said. You bring your feeling, we provided multiple instances that showed Bobby and others claims to be wrong. We can disagree about that, but your feelings don't construct an objective reality for others. I disagree with what he feels. That's all. It was way more than sufficient and believable for me and others. Reason why we have a difference of opinion on the matter.


Edit: You seem to be fixated on the funeral and the end of BvS when there are multiple moments that show the hope that he represented for the world. Maybe you should go for a rewatch instead of relying on memory.

 

[Veelk]

For you. As I said. You bring your feeling, we provided multiple instances that showed Bobby and others claims to be wrong. We can disagree about that, but your feelings don't construct an objective reality for others. I disagree with what he feels. That's all. I was way more than sufficient and believable for me and others. Reason why we have a difference of opinion on the matter.

Back up.

At what point did you think that there was an objective side to conviction?

How and why someone is convinced by someone is inherently subjective.

No one was making any kind of objective claim when they say they found the line unconvincing and no one thought they needed to specify that it was an opinion because it seemed obvious that this is an opinion oriented thing.

Jesus, if this was all about you not understanding that an obviously subjective judgement was subjective....

Edit: You seem to be fixated on the funeral and the end of BvS when there are multiple moments that show the hope that he represented for the world. Maybe you should go for a rewatch instead of relying on memory.

I remember the movie fine. It's wholly unconvincing, not just the funeral scene.

But since you seem convinced you remember the film so well, let me ask you this: If Superman represented hope for people....hope in what, precisely? Hope in not dying to random accidents and terrorists?

 

[FIREKNIGHT2029]

You guys don't need to make it too difficult and overthink this. The way Alfred says "hope" makes it obvious he's talking to Superman.

Also we get this on the screen immediately after he says "now let's hope you're not too late"

It's Superman.

 

[thehypocrite]

Back up.

At what point did you think that there was an objective side to conviction?

How and why someone is convinced by someone is inherently subjective.

No one was making any kind of objective claim when they say they found the line unconvincing and no one thought they needed to specify that it was an opinion because it seemed obvious that this is an opinion oriented thing.

Jesus, if this was all about you not understanding that an obviously subjective judgement was subjective....



I remember the movie fine. It's wholly unconvincing.

But since you seem convinced you remember the film so well, let me ask you this: If Superman represented hope for people....hope in what, precisely? Hope in not dying to random accidents and terrorists?

They said it was false, also a lie. Which is obviously wrong. Lol. Your question is ridiculous.

 

[Veelk]

The said it was false, also a lie. Which it's obviously wrong. Lol. Your question is ridiculous.

You've straight up misread the posts then. Multiple people, but especially bobby, have painstakenly and repeatedly explained what they precisely meant by their comments and how it doesn't have anything to do with those things literally not occurring.

As for the question, since you can't answer it, I'm just gonna make my point: One reason that it falls so flat is because it likes to use buzz words like "Beacon of Hope" without actually making it mean anything.

Superman, as a public figure, never explicitly stood for anything to the world at large. Going by the events shown in the movie alone, he was just a superpowered being that came in and saved people from danger. He never explained his motives or goals to anyone (he tried to, but got blown up in the senate) and then died. The only people who had any inkling of what drove him is Lois and Martha, but even then we don't actually see those scenes ourselves.

As such, whatever hope Superman represented was entirely a projection that individual people, both in the movie and the audience, project onto him, rather than anything he is said to stand for himself. Meaning he doesn't actually represent hope for anything at all. By being silent, he's just a blank space that anyone can rorschach whatever beliefs they want to on him, since the only solid thing you can extrapolate from him is that he doesn't want people to die. And THAT is why that line in particular falls so flat.

 

[thehypocrite]

You've straight up misread the posts then. Multiple people, but especially bobby, have painstakenly and repeatedly explained what they precisely meant by their comments and how it doesn't have anything to do with those things literally not occurring.

As for the question, since you can't answer it, I'm just gonna make my point: One reason that it falls so flat is because it likes to use buzz words like "Beacon of Hope" without actually making it mean anything.

Superman, as a public figure, never explicitly stood for anything to the world at large. Going by the events shown in the movie alone, he was just a superpowered being that came in and saved people from danger. He never explained his motives or goals to anyone (he tried to, but got blown up in the senate) and then died. The only people who had any inkling of what drove him is Lois and Martha, but even then we don't actually see those scenes ourselves.

As such, whatever hope Superman represented was entirely a projection that individual people, both in the movie and the audience, project onto him, rather than anything he is said to stand for himself. Meaning he doesn't actually represent hope for anything at all. By being silent, he's just a blank space that anyone can rorschach whatever beliefs they want to on him, since the only solid thing you can extrapolate from him is that he doesn't want people to die. And THAT is why that line in particular falls so flat.

I already explained the way he did that in my prior posts in the thread. Are you sure you are not projecting when you claim I misread those posts?

 

[IconGrist]

Oh are we at the point in the thread where Veelk is on the wrong side of an argument and is trying to change the focus of the argument to one he's better positioned in?

 

[Veelk]

I already explained the way he did that in my prior posts in the thread. Are you sure you are not projecting when you claim I misread those posts?

Yes, I'm sure. You're mistaken.

Oh are we at the point in the thread where Veelk is on the wrong side of an argument and is trying to change the focus of the argument to one he's better positioned in?

Can you elaborate? I'm only changing the focus insofar that I think thehypocrite has a fundamental misunderstanding of what people meant by 'show, don't tell', and that his insistence that he doesn't is the reason there is disagreement.

 

[FinaruDensetsu]

This looks way better than Avengers to me. Hyped!

 

[IconGrist]

In talking about how an audience perceives Superman versus the other characters in the movie. If the movie fails to convince you that Superman was heroic and inspired hope there's several fingers you can point. The writer, the director, the editor, the producer, the studio, etc, etc... However if the other characters in the movie are written to feel he was then that's what he was.

Looking at your TDKR example of that shoddy looking fight scene. To us it looks sloppy but in-universe Batman was being Batman. Effortlessly taking out some no name thugs.

A viewer has every right to choose whether or not they believe what other characters are feeling and if it goes against what is being presented the viewer has a choice to make. Either accept it, however unbelievable it may seem, or walk away and hope it's done better at another time.

For MoS and BvS there were several instances and conversations about Superman's heroism and the affect he was having on the general public. If that wasn't enough for you that's okay, but it doesn't change how the characters were written to feel.

So when Batman says "Superman was a beacon, yadda, yadda..." he's talking to characters who are feeling that and not exactly to you the viewer. It's awesome when you agree because it gives some weight and power to the scene but it doesn't always work out that way.

Have a conversation about it. Absolutely. But getting into a pissing contest about it goes nowhere because you can't tell someone what they are supposed to feel. I'm not really saying that to you specifically, Veelk, as it applies to both sides.

 

[thehypocrite]

Yes, I'm sure. You're mistaken.



Can you elaborate? I'm only changing the focus insofar that I think thehypocrite has a fundamental misunderstanding of what people meant by 'show, don't tell', and that his insistence that he doesn't is the reason there is disagreement.

Ok. I would quote those post but I rather continue watching my LOTGH marathon. Enjoy your Sunday Veelk. You are still cool.

 

[Veelk]

In talking about how an audience perceives Superman versus the other characters in the movie. If the movie fails to convince you that Superman was heroic and inspired hope there's several fingers you can point. The writer, the director, the editor, the producer, the studio, etc, etc... However if the other characters in the movie are written to feel he was then that's what he was.

Looking at your TDKR example of that shoddy looking fight scene. To us it looks sloppy but in-universe Batman was being Batman. Effortlessly taking out some no name thugs.

A viewer has every right to choose whether or not they believe what other characters are feeling and if it goes against what is being presented the viewer has a choice to make. Either accept it, however unbelievable it may seem, or walk away and hope it's done better at another time.

For MoS and BvS there were several instances and conversations about Superman's heroism and the affect he was having on the general public. If that wasn't enough for you that's okay, but it doesn't change how the characters were written to feel.

So when Batman says "Superman was a beacon, yadda, yadda..." he's talking to characters who are feeling that and not exactly to you the viewer. It's awesome when you agree because it gives some weight and power to the scene but it doesn't always work out that way.

Have a conversation about it. Absolutely. But getting into a pissing contest about it goes nowhere because you can't tell someone what they are supposed to feel. I'm not really saying that to you specifically, Veelk, as it applies to both sides.

I completely 100% agree with this entire assertion and, as far as I can tell, held this as my position since Post 1.

My first posts were setting up the TDKR example, but I explain my position fully for the first time here.

I never disputed that the characters in the film are infact reacting to Superman the way they say they are. I'm just saying that it's not believable. That's why I use the word "convincing" like I do. The debate I am having with thehypocrite is that he doesn't seem to care that the "Show don't tell" complaint is about the audience being convinced of something, rather than whether something actually happened. And that's still what I consider the root of the disagreement.

So, perhaps we aren't yet at the part where Veelk moves goalposts?

 

[IconGrist]

So, would you that perhaps we aren't yet at the part where Veelk moves goalposts?

That's just me giving you shit. I admittedly haven't read the entire back and forth, lol.

 

[Takamura-San]

Give the sound, force, and presence it is obvious that the person in front of alfred is Shrek.

 

[javac]

Give the sound, force, and presence it is obvious that the person in front of alfred is Shrek.

The original green lantern.

 

[Snaku]

In the D.C. Movies, you can't be all powerful and all good. Superman is building towards a breaking point.

Um, no that's the point Lex was trying to make, and Supes proved him wrong. He sacrificed his life to protect humanity. And with the resurrection of Superman in JL, it proves he is all powerful, and all good.

 

[thehypocrite]

I completely 100% agree with this entire assertion and, as far as I can tell, held this as my position since Post 1.

My first posts were setting up the TDKR example, but I explain my position fully for the first time here.

I never disputed that the characters in the film are infact reacting to Superman the way they say they are. I'm just saying that it's not believable. That's why I use the word "convincing" like I do. The debate I am having with thehypocrite is that he doesn't seem to care that the "Show don't tell" complaint is about the audience being convinced of something, rather than whether something actually happened. And that's still what I consider the root of the disagreement.

So, perhaps we aren't yet at the part where Veelk moves goalposts?

But, I was a member of the audience and I was convinced. It's almost as if we disagree in regards to how people felt about it. His complain is hollow cause him and you can only present feelings to support your position. In universe is wholly consistent regardless if you feel it is or not.

 

[PanSexual_Peacock]

For a 4 minute trailer that was surprisingly not spoiler heavy.

Looks like fun.

 

[iBeleaf]

That Aquaman scene was amazing.

I hope cyborg does not talk like a robot tho (no pun intended)

 

[elrechazado]

That Aquaman scene was amazing.

I hope cyborg does not talk like a robot tho (no pun intended)

He talks in the trailers though, and not like a robot at all?

 

[Bobby Roberts]

But, I was a member of the audience and I was convinced. It's almost as if we disagree in regards to how people felt about it. His complain is hollow cause him and you can only present feelings to support your position

My position is entirely about my feelings, hypocrite. My position is that I feel the film didn't earn the status quo of their fictional universe that they're claiming. That's my position. It's keyed specifically to my opinion as to the execution of the preceding two films. Of course I'm going to present my feelings, and then explain how I arrived at those feelings, to support them. The position is that I don't feel what Batman said was actually earned by the film preceding it. At all.

You're attempting to argue that I'm incorrect to feel that way because Batman said it happened, and the previous film showed that it happened, so it must be true.

I'm not arguing that it's not present. I'm arguing that the presence of it is hollow and empty and doesn't work, and the fact it didn't work for me makes his statement play so ridiculously that it became a joke.

How/why do we keep ending up here, man? How is this so fundamentally misunderstood by you? You're flat-out refusing to acknowledge this whole thing is based on my opinion, and my opinion isn't "wrong" because Batman says so. Because Batman is a fictional character whose words are placed in his mouth by someone outside that universe, and presented in a fictional universe that I don't feel did the proper work to have emotionally affected me to the point where his words resonate in any effective way.

So yes, my argument is based on my feelings. I explain why I have those feelings. Those feelings aren't "wrong" because you liked something in the film. It just means the movie worked for you where it didn't for me. You're not wrong for liking it more than I did. And I'm not wrong for suggesting that line was laughable given my opinion on the quality of the films and characterization that preceded it.

 

[iBeleaf]

He talks in the trailers though, and not like a robot at all?

Dont mean exactly like a robot. but in terms of emotion

 

[Veelk]

But, I was a member of the audience and I was convinced. It's almost as if we disagree in regards to how people felt about it. His complain is hollow cause him and you can only present feelings to support your position. In universe is wholly consistent regardless if you feel it is or not.

Mostly what Bobby Roberts said. You have fundamentally misunderstood the argument and refuse to accept any clarifications on the matter.

No one is stating that the universe is inconsistent. We're saying it's not convincing. And that is a subjective and feelings based position. You are free to feel differently, but that doesn't make the argument weak, especially when you are in the minority of feeling that way.

I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally, but you are employing the strawman fallacy hard. You keep attacking the argument of "Superman isn't inspirational in the universe he's in" with "But it happened". That is a valid counter argument to that argument and it'd all be fine except no one is putting forth that argument.

 

[thehypocrite]

My position is entirely about my feelings, hypocrite. My position is that I feel the film didn't earn the status quo of their fictional universe that they're claiming. That's my position. It's keyed specifically to my opinion as to the execution of the preceding two films. Of course I'm going to present my feelings, and then explain how I arrived at those feelings, to support them. The position is that I don't feel what Batman said was actually earned by the film preceding it. At all.

You're attempting to argue that I'm incorrect to feel that way because Batman said it happened, and the previous film showed that it happened, so it must be true.

I'm not arguing that it's not present. I'm arguing that the presence of it is hollow and empty and doesn't work, and the fact it didn't work for me makes his statement play so ridiculously that it became a joke.

How/why do we keep ending up here, man? How is this so fundamentally misunderstood by you? You're flat-out refusing to acknowledge this whole thing is based on my opinion, and my opinion isn't "wrong" because Batman says so. Because Batman is a fictional character whose words are placed in his mouth by someone outside that universe, and presented in a fictional universe that I don't feel did the proper work to have emotionally affected me to the point where his words resonate in any effective way.

So yes, my argument is based on my feelings. I explain why I have those feelings. Those feelings aren't "wrong" because you liked something in the film. It just means the movie worked for you where it didn't for me. You're not wrong for liking it more than I did. And I'm not wrong for suggesting that line was laughable given my opinion on the quality of the films and characterization that preceded it.

I'm not refusing to acknowledge that's based on opinion. I just consider your opinion is wrong and unsupported by the prior films being alluded in the line regardless if they worked for you or not.

You are free to feel however you feel, no matter how wrong you may be in having them.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I just consider your opinion is wrong

Oh, okay.

 

[Lokimaru]

Back up.

At what point did you think that there was an objective side to conviction?

How and why someone is convinced by someone is inherently subjective.

No one was making any kind of objective claim when they say they found the line unconvincing and no one thought they needed to specify that it was an opinion because it seemed obvious that this is an opinion oriented thing.

Jesus, if this was all about you not understanding that an obviously subjective judgement was subjective....



I remember the movie fine. It's wholly unconvincing, not just the funeral scene.

But since you seem convinced you remember the film so well, let me ask you this: If Superman represented hope for people....hope in what, precisely? Hope in not dying to random accidents and terrorists?

Have you watched the Extended Cut yet? I know a lot of people on here refuse to watch it.

 

[Megawarrior]

Aquaman is fine as hell....damn....😩

 

[Vyer]

Bats' "Superman was a beacon to the world" line is this series' "only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise."


ultimately it isn't that important

 

[Veelk]

Have you watched the Extended Cut yet? I know a lot of people on here refuse to watch it.

Yeah, I have. It helped Clark's character arc a tad, but it's mostly the same thing, just more of it.

Bats' "Superman was a beacon to the world" line is this series' "only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise."


ultimately it isn't that important

I mean, yeah, you're right there. Still, one is talking about the faceless goon squad that the main characters have to face, other is talking about what is supposed to be the focal point character of not just a movie, but the face of the entire DC cinematic universe. It feels kind of important, even if it's not.

I just disagree. I present clear examples that support the reasons why I disagree, you present your feelings. Yeah, maybe it's me that wrong not your feelings that are contradicted by the actual films being discussed.

No, you're disagreeing to an argument no one is...

Look, no one is...

You don't seem to be able to understand that....

Fuck it. Whatever. You do you.

 

[thehypocrite]

Mostly what Bobby Roberts said. You have fundamentally misunderstood the argument and refuse to accept any clarifications on the matter.

No one is stating that the universe is inconsistent. We're saying it's not convincing. And that is a subjective and feelings based position. You are free to feel differently, but that doesn't make the argument weak, especially when you are in the minority of feeling that way.

I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally, but you are employing the strawman fallacy hard. You keep attacking the argument of "Superman isn't inspirational in the universe he's in" with "But it happened". That is a valid counter argument to that argument and it'd all be fine except no one is putting forth that argument.

I just disagree. I present clear examples that support the reasons why I disagree, you present your feelings. Yeah, maybe it's me that wrong not your feelings that are contradicted by the actual films being discussed.

 

[MisterHero]

Bats' "Superman was a beacon to the world" line is this series' "only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise."


ultimately it isn't that important

It takes a few seconds to express the sentiment, maybe there will be time in the movie to back that statement up. Like if civilians were inspired to be nicer to each other. Maybe the President had a change of heart after nuking him. Maybe his actions called the Amazons/Atlanteans to re-emerge in the world.

BvS dedicated tons of time to Superman being a controversy, I don't see why they can't do the same this time as an ultimately altruistic figure.

 

[Emulated Hype]

You guys are still arguing over a throw-away Snyderism?

They're throwing Supes a posthumous platitude here and there to get things out of the way. They have 3 new major characters that are debuting, I doubt the film is going to linger on Clark's death for much of the runtime. The martyrism is just Zack's leftover baggage from Man of Steel that we have to deal with.

 

[Vyer]

Yeah, I have. It helped Clark's character arc a tad, but it's mostly the same thing, just more of it.



I mean, yeah, you're right there. Still, one is talking about the faceless goon squad that the main characters have to face, other is talking about what is supposed to be the focal point character of not just a movie, but the face of the entire DC cinematic universe. It feels kind of important, even if it's not.

not anymore, baby!