Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice movie review: sucker punch

Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

Batman v Superman Dawn of Justice red light

Like a movie from the world of Watchmen: cold, cruel, borderline incoherent in its testosterone-fueled rage, misogynist, paternalistic… fascist, even.
I’m “biast” (pro): didn’t hate Man of Steel

I’m “biast” (con): nothing

(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)

I really liked Man of Steel, Zack Snyder’s 2013 reboot of Superman: I liked how it gave him soul and tragedy and inner conflict like we had never quite seen before in the character. (At least onscreen. I cannot claim to have in-depth knowledge of the character’s long and varied history in print.) The son of Krypton we saw there didn’t enjoy the powers he possessed, and he hesitated to wield them. If it seemed as if he went overboard in the end, finally acquiescing to use his strength and abilities to fight Zod — laying waste to much of Metropolis in the process — it was at least understandable, from our perspective, why he did so: Zod had to be stopped, and whatever collateral damage was inflicted was nothing compared to what Zod would have done had he been left to rampage.

Of course it still would have been horrible to be in town on that day! So it would be understandable, too, if the people of Metropolis did not look on Superman with kindness, after Zod. Yet apparently most of them worship him, as Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice opens. There is a statue of Superman, many times larger than life, near a memorial wall upon which are inscribed the names of “The Heroes” of that terrible day… and it’s clear that those “heroes” are the innocents killed as skyscrapers toppled in the battle. Is this wishful-thinking valorization of poor schmoes who had the dumb luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time who died for nothing? Are the people of Metropolis and the rest of the planet fools to venerate Superman?

Such certainly seems to be the gist of things in BvS. For it presents us with a Batman — though at first only as his Bruce Wayne alter ego — who seethes with horror at Superman’s unstoppable destructive capabilities and holds the stupid proles who venerate him in contempt… a contempt that it is difficult to dismiss when we witness Superman kill almost unthinkingly, reflexively, and in no noble cause. Has everyone been duped by Superman? Has Superman been seduced by his own power? Such ideas could make for a truly provocative superhero story! (Though probably one that would have Superman purists up in arms.) But these are not, alas, questions that interest Zack Snyder (Sucker Punch, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole). Nor do the potentially intriguing questions, the serious stuff that has always underlain pulp comic-book stories, that Wayne’s objections to Superman initally raise: What is the nature of the relationship between humans and a godlike alien? How far can such an alien be trusted?

What is this movie, then? It doesn’t feel like a sequel to Man of Steel, with its emo ET Boy Scout. Damn if it doesn’t feel, completely unironically and unawares, like a movie from the world in which the superhero-cynical Watchmen was set (which Snyder also brought to the big screen): cold, cruel, borderline incoherent in its testosterone-fueled rage and paranoia, misogynist, paternalistic… fascist, even. And not in any way that feels right or good or even vaguely interesting. This is a movie that doesn’t seem to realize that one of its putative heroes, Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck: Gone Girl, Runner Runner), shares the same goal with its clear villain, Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg: American Ultra, Rio 2): to destroy Superman (Henry Cavill: The Man from U.N.C.L.E., The Cold Light of Day). Luthor actually suggests to Wayne that they team up on something, what with both of them being scientifically minded billionaire genuises… and though it’s plain that Luthor doesn’t realize that Wayne is Batman, that suggestion hangs over the rest of the movie: Why don’t they just team up? (Their traditional roles in the mythos, on different sides of the good/bad divide, is not a good enough reason why not, certainly not based on what we see here.)

And yet BvS cannot even commit to its brutal vision of Batman, who channels war criminal Dick Cheney — applying his appalling “one-percent doctrine” to Superman — and has apocalyptic nightmares about the Man of Steel. The thing that eventually brings Batman around to siding with Superman in an even bigger battle (one that — *sigh* — destroys some more of Metropolis) is the thing that finally made me guffaw out loud, and to give up on this movie when I had still been reserving the tiniest bit of hope that it might be salvaged. It is not the fact that respected and adventurous investigative journalist Lois Lane (Amy Adams: American Hustle, Her) exists in this movie solely to be a damsel in distress to be rescued by Superman, or that the most exciting bit of action that Diana Prince/Wonder Women (Gal Gadot: Triple 9, Furious 7) gets here involves downloading files that Bruce Wayne has emailed to her, but it is related to how women in this movie are nothing more than vectors that allow men to experience powerful emotion. Screenwriters Chris Terrio (Argo, Heights) and David S. Goyer (Man of Steel, The Dark Knight Rises) are to be derided for taking a coincidence in the backstories of Superman and Batman and turning it into the most risible example of damselling, and of women as supporting characters to men’s stories, that I think I have ever seen on the big screen. If this is what it takes to make superheroes reconsider their perspectives, then we have no superheroes.

So Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a movie that trashes the idea of heroes, which isn’t necessarily a bad idea. Except BvS doesn’t seem to realize that that is what it is doing, and it is very explicitly about setting up a new franchise of superhero movies. There is a deep cynicism here not only in the context of the story it is telling but also in how it thinks it can be edgy and gritty about superheroes by outright telling is we are fools to believe in them. In this case, I think any insult to the characters is outweighed by the insult to the audience. Should we love Batman and Superman, or not? Should we buy tickets to your next Justice League movie, Snyder, or not?

share and enjoy
             
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll measure. If you’re not a spammer or a troll, your comment will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately.
subscribe
notify of
316 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Matt Clayton
Matt Clayton
Mon, Mar 28, 2016 11:06pm

For me, there was a lot going on plot-wise that could confuse some people — which the 3-hour director’s cut may help or aggravate things. The editing was haphazard in places, especially the dream-within-a-dream sequences. What puzzles me is the anger some people harbor towards Snyder for his versions of these characters… some people still complain about how Snyder ‘butchered’ Superman into a killer! You and a few others get the moral ground MOS treaded, and BvS takes great pains to show Superman saving numerous people and taking his fights to (mostly) abandoned buildings.

It’s interesting to hear your perspective on it. You bring up aspects I never really thought about, such as the tantalizing ‘what if’ of Lex and Bruce initially teaming up (that was flirted with in the 1990s animated “Superman” series). I loved the Argo-esque exchanges between Holly Hunter and Lex, pity she didn’t have more to do.

I enjoyed this movie but totally get your complaints. This actually has me excited for Patty Jenkins’ “Wonder Woman” and Affleck’s solo “Batman” film. Justice League… well, we’ll see!

Bluejay
Bluejay
Mon, Mar 28, 2016 11:24pm

Spot-on review. I’d add that, apart from its thematic unpleasantness, it’s just incoherent on so many levels, and is undone by so, so many bad storytelling choices. As someone who really liked Man of Steel as well, and who was totally ready for this movie to answer its self-posed questions of accountability and power, I just couldn’t believe how astonishingly bad it was.

I was going to post an angry 12-point rant about some specific things that pissed me off about this film, but I don’t think I want to make myself that angry again. I’m sure most of those points are being made in abundance elsewhere.

Just one thing (SPOILERS): For a movie that revels in the destruction of so many buildings, stealing Superman’s epitaph from that of someone who CREATED so much beautiful architecture (Christopher Wren’s “If you seek his memorial, look around you”) is something I find absolutely HILARIOUS.

And one more: Yeah, I get that the monster is Doomsday. But if you don’t want to make a sucky Superman movie, maybe try not to remind people of the OTHER sucky Superman movie where Lex Luthor creates a lame creature out of Kryptonian genetic material that gets a boost from nuclear energy.

http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/1987-supermanIVthequestforpeace-4.jpg

Frank
Frank
reply to  Bluejay
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:07am

Amen brother! Spot on with the Superman IV reference there.

Rorshach Sridhar
Rorshach Sridhar
reply to  Bluejay
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 5:37am

You’re full of it. They specifically state that they’re fighting on an unpopulated island, so the destruction was harmless.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Rorshach Sridhar
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:23am

Christopher Wren wouldn’t have considered the destruction of so many buildings harmless:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Wren

Rorshach Sridhar
Rorshach Sridhar
reply to  Danielm80
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 7:18am

I’ll admit it, I laughed.

jgray84
jgray84
reply to  Danielm80
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 10:28pm

Oh, for goodness sake. It’s a superhero movie. Buildings suffer in Superhero movies, and comics, and Saturday morning cartoons. It’s more exciting and ably shows the power of the characters who’re slugging it out.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  jgray84
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 10:35pm

You get I5, and most of the bottom row. Mazel tov.

https://www.flickfilosopher.com/2015/02/film-review-comment-bingo.html

bronxbee
bronxbee
reply to  Danielm80
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 4:58pm

i don’t either. but we don’t need superman and batman to destroy great architecture; just greedy developers (not all of them, but i work in manhattan where a lot of interesting buildings are coming down).

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  bronxbee
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 5:29pm

Yeah, come to think of it, Superman’s more enjoyable films were the ones in which he DID battle a greedy real-estate developer. :-)

http://vixenvarsity.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/gene-hackman-lex-luthor.jpg

In the comics, Luthor also became President. That might be interesting to adapt to film; having the villain be a real-estate developer/businessman who wears a bad toupee and gets elected President seems pretty plausible and relevant these days.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Bluejay
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 9:51pm

Are you suggesting that Donald Trump is engaging in some sort of extended Lex Luthor cosplay?

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Mar 31, 2016 2:42am

Either that or DC Comics has just been extremely prescient.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Bluejay
Thu, Mar 31, 2016 3:44am

Lex Luthor is a genius. That’s one of his defining characteristics—even in the Gene Hackman incarnation.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, does things like this:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/donald-trump-galactically-deliberately-ignorant

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Danielm80
Thu, Mar 31, 2016 12:16pm

Sure, the comparison falls apart when you look closely enough. But that’s true when you compare Trump to anything: a conservative, a billionaire, a leader, a decent human being.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Bluejay
Thu, Mar 31, 2016 12:32pm

I think it’s sad that, when you turn Donald Trump into a cartoon character, it’s hard to tell the difference:

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/03/31/stephen-colbert-cartoon-donald-trump

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Rorshach Sridhar
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 9:32am

Some of the action spilled over the mainland.

destruction was harmless

A horrifying perspective. If it’s “destruction,” it’s probably not “harmless.”

Rorshach Sridhar
Rorshach Sridhar
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 3:37am

It it’s heroes fighting Doomsday and there’s no destruction, then it’s not a comic book fight.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Rorshach Sridhar
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 1:04pm

How am I “full of it” to point out that, for a guy who destroyed buildings, it’s funny and ironic that his epitaph is stolen from a guy who created them? You think I’m arguing about human casualties; I’m not. Read better.

Rorshach Sridhar
Rorshach Sridhar
reply to  Bluejay
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 3:37am

Complaining about every single piece of destruction. Smh

bronxbee
bronxbee
reply to  Rorshach Sridhar
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 4:57pm

why would an “unpopulated island” have so many lovely buildings?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  bronxbee
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 9:48pm

The big fight takes place primarily on a small undeveloped island in the harbor between Metropolis and Gotham… sort of like a Governors Island (though I know that one does have buildings). But some of it does still back into Metropolis.

DeanDouglas
DeanDouglas
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sun, May 01, 2016 6:49pm

Must have missed Anderson Cooper state very clearly that the work day was over and that part of Metropolis was largely vacated for the day.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  DeanDouglas
Sun, May 01, 2016 10:18pm

Largely. So, you know, a few dead people, who cares, right?

Rorshach Sridhar
Rorshach Sridhar
reply to  bronxbee
Thu, Mar 31, 2016 5:33am

Idk, why don’t you visit Syria.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Bluejay
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 9:31am

maybe try not to remind people of the OTHER sucky Superman movie

All I could think when we see the creature here is, Oh, they have a cave troll…

BraveGamgee
BraveGamgee
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 3:39pm

Gah, I thought the exact same thing! It just made me want to watch Lord of the Rings when I got home

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:07pm

All the superman movies are “sucky”. Superman sucks.

jgray84
jgray84
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 10:29pm

Well Doomsday was designed years before the Cave Troll, so…

nolife92
nolife92
reply to  Bluejay
Tue, Feb 28, 2017 10:44pm

the architecture irony is on purpose and there are even more ironies packaged in that reference. the first would be that the proper monument to man is nothing more or less than the ugly, superfluous cement and steel erections he keeps dropping everywhere.

nolife92
nolife92
reply to  nolife92
Tue, Feb 28, 2017 10:47pm

and that’s why it’s only selfish and vane for us to (like bruce wayne) get so pissy at a handful of eyesore climate change-inducing buildings getting knocked over in the beginning of the film by a flesh and blood human being who was trying to do no less than actually save the planet. even getting pissy about the handful of people inside of those buildings is just vanity. they sealed their own fates by choosing to occupy towers of babel. the planet itself is more important.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
Mon, Mar 28, 2016 11:33pm

Counterpoint: BvS is an enjoyable, if deeply flawed movie.

Pros: The series continues to be impeccably well cast (even Eisenberg, though you have to be able to identify all the various versions of Luthor he’s drawing from). The script does an excellent job of imbuing the fledgling DC cinematic universe with both a history and a future. The plot itself is pure comic book pulp.

Cons: the whole thing is overlong (largely due to a series of “Luthor tries to frame Superman” subplots that go nowhere), and really could stand to lighten up a bit. It definitely needed another pass, both at the script stage and in the editing room.

I had a good time, and smiled several times. But as with MoS, I’m not going to fault anyone who didn’t care for it. After all, I still shake my head that anyone got anything worthwhile out of Guardians of the Galaxy.

Frank
Frank
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:09am

You could teach these people freaking out that not everyone likes the film a thing or two about diplomacy. A well argued point, even if I don’t agree with every argument made.

Anonymous
Anonymous
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 3:40am
Pinkk
Pinkk
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 12:30am

If I recall the movie, they took the fight to an abandoned area of Metropolis, showing things had been learned from MoS. All other destruction before that was the villains doing.

Nice to see a critic who finally understands there wasn’t much choice on Clark’s side of things in MoS.

As for Lois part, wasn’t expecting much there. It wasn’t a Lois Lane movie. Didn’t expect much from WW’s part either and it was so small. Had a nice intro in the movie though, as WW. To bad it was spoiled by the trailers. :p

Not sure I agree with the 1 star rating but the movie needed some work. Better than Fantastic Four but not as good as MoS.

At least I was right and Ben made a good Batman :)

Rorshach Sridhar
Rorshach Sridhar
reply to  Pinkk
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 5:38am

They not only took the fight to an abandoned island but Superman tries to take Doomsday into outer space before the dumb army prematurely nukes him back.

Pinkk
Pinkk
reply to  Rorshach Sridhar
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 5:44am

Ever notice how it’s the government keeps screwing things up in EVERY superhero movie? :p

Rorshach Sridhar
Rorshach Sridhar
reply to  Pinkk
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 7:18am

Not really, they did help Supes successfully in Man of Steel.

Pinkk
Pinkk
reply to  Rorshach Sridhar
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 1:30pm

After they screwed things up. “We don’t trust you. Leave now. Be taken prisoner.”

Rorshach Sridhar
Rorshach Sridhar
reply to  Pinkk
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 3:38am

lol

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Pinkk
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 9:34am

It wasn’t a Lois Lane movie.

This is not an acceptable reason for her to be cardboard. It’s not a Lex Luthor movie, either, but he’s a more developed character than she is.

Pinkk
Pinkk
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 1:30pm

He’s the villain. If one was going to say that about Lois Lane, then why not say anything about Perry White? Martha Kent? Alfred didn’t get much development either.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Pinkk
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:19pm

Because Lois has ALWAYS been one of the main characters in Superman, to the point of having her own adventures where she rescues HIM. It’s not a “lone hero” story and never has been — don’t be fooled by the title! It’s been an ensemble cast from the start, and remaking it as a John Galt All Alone (only giving Lois less to do than Dagny Taggart!) is a travesty. And yes, people ARE complaining about the way that everyone else gets shortshrifted too. That’s part of why it’s so boring and meanspirited — eg the treatment of Jimmy Olsen!

Pinkk
Pinkk
reply to  LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 11:35pm

And if this was a Superman 2 movie. I’d see it. This was a Batman versus Superman: Let us get started with Justice League movie (which btw I’m not saying they should have done it the way they did it).
I’m curious where this time in the movie is, to give these smaller parts bigger parts is. I can see where they could have taken out parts of the movie and given those characters bigger parts (like all those dream sequences…and did we really need to see Bruce Wayne’s parents killed again…who btw, we didn’t get a lot of character development from them either) but if they thought the dream sequences where that important (I don’t think they were myself…and many I talk to said they found them confusing) what exactly was to be cut (other than the retrend on Batman’s origin :p)
Of course, they all could have had great character development and that was the 30mins they cut from the film :p

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Pinkk
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 12:02pm

You want me to get started on how awfully Martha Kent is treated in this movie? Cuz I will.

Perry and Alfred don’t get much development, either, it’s true… but men are well represented in this film. Women are not. *That’s* the problem with Lois here.

Pinkk
Pinkk
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 11:50pm

Still doesn’t make her anything but a supporting character in this film. In a MoS2, can totally see her in a more prominent role, but this is not that movie.
But the question now is, is it a matter of the supporting characters not getting enough development or just Lois because she’s a woman?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Pinkk
Thu, Mar 31, 2016 10:43am

But the problem is that women are almost always supporting characters, while the characters who go on journeys are men.

Pinkk
Pinkk
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 6:57am

You’re right. That happens a lot. What I disagree on, is the idea that because the gender of supporting character is opposite the main, and that supporting character didn’t get a lot of development, it should be a knock on the movie? o.O
The question I think should be, were the supporting characters in this movie in need of more development for this movie? As the movie was supposed to be about BvS (it was so lacking there) and their setup for Justice League (the DoJ), I would consider the supporting characters to be nothing more than that…supporting. So, if that was their place in the movie, why have it be a knock against the movie that a supporting character was just that? Because…one of them was a woman?
Movie had lots of flaws, I just don’t see that being a flaw in it. Especially since what you want to see (because you just don’t see it enough) would have dragged out a movie that dragged out a lot already and because as said, supporting characters are there to support, if they get more development, awesome, if it doesn’t drag down the movie.

Flynn Sullivan
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 10:33pm

“But the problem is that women are almost always supporting characters, while the characters who go on journeys are men.”
That’s kind of how the human race has worked since the dawn of time. Strip it down to the basics: men hunted, women stayed at home. The real problem is that people(generally arrogant males) tend to view women as less intelligent because of it instead of seeing them as the equally important roles that they are.
But that doesn’t mean that having women looking up to men in any scenario is instantly wrong.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 11:02pm

The real problem is that people(generally arrogant males) tend to view women as less intelligent because of it instead of seeing them as the equally important roles that they are.

One way to help change that would be to make more movies in which women are fully-developed characters with an active role to play, and not just in the film to support men’s stories. It’s a better solution than saying, “That’s the way it’s always been, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Mon, Apr 04, 2016 11:45am

Strip it down to the basics: men hunted, women stayed at home.

Hahahaha. No.

Flynn Sullivan
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Apr 05, 2016 12:16pm

Uh… kind of. Unless I read the wrong history books. What would you have written?

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Tue, Apr 05, 2016 1:04pm

Unless I read the wrong history books. What would you have written?

She hasn’t written any history books — I’m guessing same as you.

However, it’s possible you HAVE been reading the wrong books. Consensus among historians/anthropologists/archaeologists changes over time, with better data and bias awareness. Your thesis of “men hunted, women stayed home” is debatable to say the very least. You might want to do some more reading.

http://www.ajaonline.org/online-review-book/621

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic#Social_organization

http://discovermagazine.com/1998/apr/newwomenoftheice1430

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Bluejay
Wed, Apr 06, 2016 9:15am

There’s a reason why the best anti-MRA site on the Web is derisively called We Hunted the Mammoth.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Wed, Apr 06, 2016 9:14am

I’m not your history teacher. Try Google.

Flynn Sullivan
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Apr 11, 2016 10:52pm

Google won’t answer my question. What would YOU have written, if by chance you were a history teacher?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Tue, Apr 12, 2016 5:40pm

I would tell you to do your own homework.

Flynn Sullivan
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Apr 12, 2016 9:58pm

What, without a history book? But okay, I won’t be pedantic. I’m just grumbling because I’m sick to death of the gender war anyway. I like to read your reviews because you’re obviously an intelligent and experienced writer, but I dislike seeing you waste time nitpicking films for how they treat genders. I think about the characters and story. If a character is good, then it doesn’t matter if it’s a man or woman. If a character is bad, it still doesn’t matter if it’s a man or woman.
Girls don’t have male heroes, because they look up to men, they have male heroes, because they look up to the characters who just happen to be men in those particular cases. Same goes with boys. For example, in The Force Awakens, I found Rey to be by far the most relatable and fun character and I looked up to her.

“Shoving my worldview down your throat since 1997.” If it’s agressive, which it is(heck, even your description is mean-spirited), and it’s posted on the internet, which it is… then yeah, that just about sums up this website.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Wed, Apr 13, 2016 12:09am

Bluejay provided you with three different links which answer your question. Have you tried reading them?

…they have male heroes, because they look up to the characters who just happen to be men in those particular cases.

The characters don’t “just happen” to be men. They’re men because the film industry is run by men, and those men actively resist telling stories about women. They also consistently refuse to hire women.

Women make up 51% of the population, but only 22% of recent movies had female protagonists:

https://www.flickfilosopher.com/2016/04/where-are-the-women-only-22-of-2015s-movies-had-female-protagonists.html

It isn’t “nitpicking” to point that out. The movies people watch help them define what “normal” looks like. If people don’t see women in the workplace onscreen, they won’t expect to see them in real life. If the movies change, then real workplaces might start to change.

For years, movies hardly ever showed LGBT people, or they portrayed them as stereotypes and deviants. When the movies started to include better, more accurate portrayals, prejudice went down in the real world, and now gay marriage is legal.

It may not matter to you whether a character is a man or a women, but to some of us, it matters a whole lot.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Wed, Apr 13, 2016 9:51am

I’m very sorry that someone has tied you down, propped your eyes open à la *A Clockwork Orange,* and forced you to read my work. But it’s *that* person forcing my worldview down your throat, not me. I have absolutely no power to do anything remotely like that. That tagline is sarcastic.

I’m sick to death of the gender war

As a man, that is your privilege. As a woman, I live it every day. You can turn away and it will make no difference to you. I cannot.

If a character is good, then it doesn’t matter if it’s a man or woman.

Then why aren’t more of them women?

Flynn Sullivan
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Apr 14, 2016 9:46pm

“As a woman, I live it every day. You can turn away and it will make no difference to you. I cannot.” Not if you actively hunt for it, you can’t.
But I’ll leave this discussion well alone. I don’t know your life thus I can’t make any judgments beyond my own perception. To reuse a common phrase from film history: “I hope you find whatever it is you’re looking for.” I respect you for fighting for your viewpoint, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Thu, Apr 14, 2016 9:55pm

I can’t make any judgments beyond my own perception.

Dude, THAT’S THE KEY to beginning to understand your own male privilege, and beginning to be aware of all the stuff that it might blind you to. You have so much homework to do, but understanding the limitations of your perception (and being humble about it) is a start. Good luck.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Wed, Apr 20, 2016 9:43am

Not if you actively hunt for it, you can’t.

Oh, for the love of— I don’t have to “actively hunt for it.” It is in my face every day whether I want it there or not!

Flynn Sullivan
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Apr 20, 2016 11:11pm

Yeah, I take that one back. I just saw “London Has Fallen”(free ticket) and if that’s the stuff you watch every year, I’m sorry.
Just don’t forget to have a heart.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Thu, Apr 21, 2016 9:51am

Just don’t forget to have a heart.

Huh?

Flynn Sullivan
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Fri, Apr 22, 2016 5:32pm

Don’t diss people for immediately not seeing things from your POV. Like the “Jamming my world-view down your throat since 1997”. Imagine someone coming onto this site for the first time and seeing that. It doesn’t exactly scream professional. Don’t let cynicism overrun you.

bronxbee
bronxbee
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Fri, Apr 22, 2016 5:44pm

your sarcasm/wit meter is broken, isn’t it?

Flynn Sullivan
reply to  bronxbee
Sat, Apr 23, 2016 12:14am

Yours doesn’t seem to be particularly high to begin with.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Fri, Apr 22, 2016 8:51pm

Can you give another example of MaryAnn “diss[ing] people for immediately not seeing things from your POV”? I’m not sure I follow the point you’re trying to make.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Fri, Apr 22, 2016 9:20pm

Did you miss the part where MaryAnn told you that the “jamming my worldview” tagline was sarcastic? It’s a direct quote from a commenter who accused her of doing just that, and she just took it and had fun with it.

If you don’t understand exactly what’s going on, don’t assume that you do and then diss people for it.

Flynn Sullivan
reply to  Bluejay
Sat, Apr 23, 2016 12:11am

I’m completely aware that it’s sarcasm. So what? A bad joke is still bad.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Sat, Apr 23, 2016 2:44am

Because you’re treating it as if it’s NOT a joke. You say she’s dissing people for not having her POV, and you use THAT TAGLINE as an example, as if she were serious about it. If you know it’s a joke, why do you have a problem with it? Why use THAT as an example of her “not having a heart”? That’s a pretty flimsy argument you got there. Got any more convincing examples of her being heartless?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Sat, Apr 23, 2016 9:23am

Then your problem is with the people who literally believe that I am jamming anything down anyone’s throats. I am making fun of them. Just like I’m making fun of people who “accuse” me of being biased with the “biast” thing.

Anyone who doesn’t get these things probably isn’t going to enjoy my writing anyway. I have absolutely no interest in being all things for all readers.

Flynn Sullivan
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Sat, Apr 23, 2016 7:52pm

As I’ve said already, I understand that it’s sarcasm, but it’s still mean-spirited and spiteful and that will hit people faster than the reason behind the spite.
I enjoy your writing(despite our differences), but I came here before you had that hanging over your webpage like a stormy cloud.

BraveGamgee
BraveGamgee
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Sat, Apr 23, 2016 10:33pm

I’m trying to see the mean-spiritedness or spite of the tagline, and I honestly don’t see it. It just seems fun. The very idea of someone saying that they are jamming their world-view down your throat is hilarious to me, just ’cause… well… that’s not something anyone ever actually says. The idea is absurd. We usually say it in reference to other people: “So-and-so is jamming their worldview down my throat” not “I am jamming my worldview down your throat”

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Mon, Apr 25, 2016 4:26am

The site is called “FlickFilosopher.” People who are put off by sarcasm and intentional misspellings aren’t going to like the rest of the site, either. Think of the home page as an early warning system.

You seem to think MaryAnn’s reviews would be improved if she just got rid of the snarky comments and the feminist politics, but those aren’t minor quirks. They’re core parts of her personality. Many of her subscribers are here because we can’t find those things on other movie sites, and many of us don’t think feminism is a bad thing. If MaryAnn turned FlickFilosopher into a more generic, mainstream web page, she might gain a few readers, but she’d eliminate the entire point of the site.

bronxbee
bronxbee
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Mon, Apr 25, 2016 9:55pm

she’s had *lots* of different descriptions in the tag line. it all depends on the idiocy that week.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Flynn Sullivan
Sat, Apr 23, 2016 9:18am

Your concern trolling touches me deeply.

Lenina Crowne
Lenina Crowne
reply to  Pinkk
Thu, Mar 31, 2016 8:59am

If it’s not a Lois Lane movie then why is she in SO MANY scenes? I know I thought that the scene where Clark brings her flowers in the bathtub was the most endearing part of the film, and I think I would have been satisfied if her scenes amounted to that and a few comic relief scenes at the Daily Planet, but no, she’s all over this movie. If they’re going to insist upon putting her in scene after scene then they should at least use all that time to do something.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Lenina Crowne
Thu, Mar 31, 2016 10:46am

She does do something: she is a vector through which a man can be made to feel something. What else are women good for?

Pinkk
Pinkk
reply to  Lenina Crowne
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 6:59am

Because she’s a supporting character and it’d mean less if it was a stranger. I would argue they should have put more Superman (or even Clark Kent) in the Batman v /Superman/ movie. :p

Jonathan Rizo
Jonathan Rizo
reply to  Pinkk
Mon, Apr 04, 2016 5:02am

Agreed. They are doing a Wonder Woman movie so the whole we hate girls is bs not even marvel has done that so yeah. Dc is on point.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Jonathan Rizo
Mon, Apr 04, 2016 12:03pm

Let’s wait and see what the Wonder Woman movie looks like before we make any conclusions about who hates girls and who doesn’t. Plenty of movies about women are also hugely condescending and misogynist (see Snyder’s *Sucker Punch,* for just one). And we’re already hearing that the WW movie will feature a protagonist who is “innocent” and “naive”… which does not sound like a very positive depiction of a millennia-old goddess.

Jonathan Rizo
Jonathan Rizo
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Apr 06, 2016 1:03am

It’s a WW depiction and that applies to her love for Humans and all life, she has many others. I don’t even think Women are going to be the first to call out their Bs if they ruin her character. The comic book readers like me will be the first to trash the movie if they pull a damsel in distress or any other stupid cliche like they did with Lois which I’m still pissed about. That whole scene with the spear was so stupid.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Jonathan Rizo
Mon, Apr 04, 2016 12:03pm

You mean the movie where the Amazons are wearing tiny outfits and high heels?

http://screenrant.com/wonder-woman-movie-2017-images-amazons/

Even if the Wonder Woman movie turns out to be the greatest film of all time, and is considered a feminist triumph, it still won’t solve the many problems with this movie.

And if the Wonder Woman film is terrible, I’m sure you’ll be around to explain why the SJWs are making a big deal out of nothing.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Danielm80
Mon, Apr 04, 2016 12:06pm

where the Amazons are wearing tiny outfits and high heels?

Ugh! And the (female) costume designer is calling that look “appealing to women”! I’m pretty sure that is NOT who it will be primarily appealing to.

Jonathan Rizo
Jonathan Rizo
reply to  Danielm80
Wed, Apr 06, 2016 12:59am

HIgh heels? the F? It’s armor not tiny outfits, they are amazons not strippers. I didn’t have any problems with WW in the movie so don’t know the hell you talking about son.

bronxbee
bronxbee
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 5:03pm

and i hate to see Amy Adams brilliance wasted in a film. she is so amazing. i hope her current movies (in post production) will be as good for her as American Hustle and Big Eyes.

Just a guy
Just a guy
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 6:56pm

He’s not Lex Luthor.
He’s one of the most important villain in the DC Universe. So yes he’s a more developed character.

Lois Lane is just superman’s girlfriend. She has no origin story. No future story. What she did in the movie is actually a LOT more than she should’ve done.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Just a guy
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 7:33pm

You don’t know your Lois Lane history very well.

Besides, writers can make characters do whatever they want them to do. The decision not to develop Lois’s character is a CHOICE, one among many. And we can hold the filmmakers responsible for that.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Bluejay
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 10:32pm

I’ve been amazed to see how many people are saying, “But all the characters are cardboard!” and don’t see that as a flaw in the film.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Just a guy
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 9:54pm

Wow. You actually think there’s no story in having a relationship with an *alien*? You think there’s no story in being a journalist keeping one of the biggest secrets on the planet?

What a tiny world you live in.

Elwood72
Elwood72
reply to  Pinkk
Thu, Apr 07, 2016 8:52pm

While it “wasn’t a Lois Lane movie,” that doesn’t mean the part has to be thankless and relegated to a damsel in distress role. This movie evidently was supposed to have thriller elements to it, you’d think a place could be found for an investigative journalist. Compare the way the Netflix “Daredevil” uses Karen Page.

Pinkk
Pinkk
reply to  Elwood72
Fri, Apr 08, 2016 5:37am

That’s a 2 1/2 hour movie versus a 13 hour tv series. Daredevil is a bit more ensemble cast.

Josh Lerch
Josh Lerch
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 12:59am

Batman is finally the Dark Knight so that part of the movie works. Affleck does a good job of shutting up and letting Batman be Batman but he doesn’t bring anything special to the character. Superman is as boring as ever and losing his hair. The movie is incoherent and full of lazy writing: If women are there to be boring love story filler, victims, and male fantasy idols just keep them out of it. Lois Lane and her pretentious “I’m a JOURNALIST so I’m better than you” attitude is cliché and boring…no one buys into her and Superman’s “love” going back to the lame attempt at it in MoS. I can’t find any reason she’s in the movie except I guess they had to find enough screen time because…union contracts. But you do almost get to see her topless in the tub…so there’s that. The whole kidnapping/mother idea is a complete eye roller and waste of screen time….”Martha”….apparently the whole movie turns on that one name…again absolutely ridiculous. The way too young and waifish Wonder Girl kinda does ok, but they wreck her cool parts in the movie with the horrible way they obviously and clumsily force in her theme song like she’s a WWE Diva. Though not technically a woman the weenie cast as Lex Luthor is absurd…might as well drawn in SpongeBob Squarepants it would have looked and sounded just as good. The destruction is pointless, the Batman fight sequence to save Martha is the best in the movie, and the only thrill I got was when Wonder Waif had Doomsday lassoed up; at least one hero stayed focused on the important stuff at the climax. The ending was probably 2 movies too soon. Can’t do it again and now you have yet another mini reboot in a DC world that does nothing but reboot everything.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Josh Lerch
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 9:38am

But you do almost get to see her topless in the tub…so there’s that.

Really?

way too young and waifish Wonder Girl

She’s 30 years old and 5′ 10″. Hardly young and waifish.

Though not technically a woman

WTF?

Jurgan
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:14pm

Weak men are basically women, which of course is the worst thing to be.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 3:37am

There’s pretty much always a full Bigotry Bingo when dealing with Snyder-stans. It seems to be the only action movie to bring the Gamergaters out of their holes in any signiifcant number.

Tony Richards
Tony Richards
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:16am

Fascinating. It’s reviews like this that make reading your articles such a pleasure.

Paolo Neil Navata
Paolo Neil Navata
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 3:06am

I’m surprised I liked the movie. Not so much though. Maybe because I have low expectations. More of a fanboy of marvel or disney. Because Disney knows how to tell or show good stories. At least, Disney animation. They practically uses the same formula. And this more or less is also shown in the MCU.

Anyhow, I was hooked at the beginning of the BvS movie because of how they depicted Batman: That Bruce’s fear of bats, assuming that he was even afraid of bats in the first place, are not what caused his parents’ death. That the bat or bats “saved” him, hence the dream sequence where Bruce rises. That Bruce became vengeance, became the night, became Batman, just like in the animated series.

Also, there are many allegories in this movie. Either political or religious. So knowing all these would contribute to a better appreciation of what Zack was trying to do. Superman for example had to die. Not only was he battling Doomsday (an important comic book arc), but also because it was Good Friday (US release date). He needed to sacrifice himself not only to save the world, but to conquer the fear of men. Zack also admitted that he needed Superman dead so Batman can assemble the Justice League. Made sense to me.

The acts of Superman can also can also be an allegory to US unilateral intervention and nuclear or WMD capabilities, which non-allied countries fear or hate. The senate hearing can also be likened to a pontius pilate hearing. Batman beating up Superman like Roman centurions beating up Jesus. Remember how Batman carried Superman like a cross? The kryptonite spear would have delivered the final blow.

Anyways, I just saw it once. Will have to watch it again.

Biggs Darklighter
Biggs Darklighter
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 3:29am

pathetic review.

Jurgan
reply to  Biggs Darklighter
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 5:05am

Well argued, sir!

Rorshach Sridhar
Rorshach Sridhar
reply to  Jurgan
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 7:08am

He spoke the truth.

Jurgan
reply to  Rorshach Sridhar
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 5:59pm

Aggh, I’m hit! How can I possibly withstand such brilliant logic and stirring rhetoric?

Rorshach Sridhar
Rorshach Sridhar
reply to  Jurgan
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 3:36am

By admitting defeat my good man.

Jurgan
reply to  Rorshach Sridhar
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 3:41am

You’re adorable.

Rorshach Sridhar
Rorshach Sridhar
reply to  Jurgan
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 5:43am

Call me :)

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Jurgan
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 7:59am

I’ve noticed that both Logic and Grammar appear to be dump stats for Snyder-stans.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Biggs Darklighter
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 9:40am

Well, you sure told me! I am humbled by your counteranalysis of the film and my review. Truly, sir, yours is mind worth reckoning with.

LA Julian
LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 4:41am

It’s also extremely white as well as dudebroish — with minorities only as tokens held in contempt, faceless evil minions, or faceless grateful peasants — and as a result I had an epiphany today at work, thinking about who makes, and who likes, this sort of “serious” drivel:

The superhero and scifi and adventure story writers and directors who have NO hope, who create despairing dystopias in settings that are so full of “gritty grimdarkness” that they make WH40K look cheerful and breezy, in which any inkling of grounds for optimism must be trampled and spat on and set on fire and the ashes used for a latrine, all the way back to Frank Miller and Alan Moore?

All white straight men, mostly middle-class or even wealthier (or have ended up so if they didn’t start out there.) They’re the ones who see a world falling apart around them, who are terrified of the future and can’t imagine it as possibly being any better than the present, because they’re terrified of the present, too, and can only yearn for the imagined past in which they and people just like them were at the unquestioned top of the social pyramid, and then…everything changed.

And they can’t cope.

And that is the world they paint for us, and think we’re naive for saying no, wait, it HAS gotten better! Look around you — there’s LESS crime, less discrimination, less unquestioned unchallenged injustice, and we are getting better at fighting corruption every day! For us, there’s reason to hope, even as there is reason to fear backsliding.

And yet we, who remember too well when we were told that we could never be anything else than what we were born, and to hide if we were born other than straight, we can SEE it because we’re experiencing it, we’re told that WE are the naive ones because we also see cooperation in action all around us, instead of passive sheep waiting for the straight white dudebro to save us from disaster, or dog-eat-dog viciousness in the midst of it, no matter how dreadful things are in the world, and always have been.

And I don’t see any way to convince men who feel that any improvement in prospects for anyone else is taking away from their rights and safety, just because they now have a bit more competition, that that doesn’t mean their world is literally ending — thus Trump, and all that obliviously-unselfaware xenophobic demagogue ilk around the world. (See also the Bundy Standoff in the Western USA…)

And this radical patriarchal mindset explains why there cannot be any ensemble as there is in all the comics and previous film adaptations, even before MoS:DoJ killed off Jimmy Olsen after turning him into a CIA goon who manipulated Lois!

Snyder has recently admitted to being an Ayn Rand fan who aspires to remake The Fountainhead, so what we’ve got is Objectivist Superman and Objectivist Batman fighting against the Unworthy in a World of Cardboard — he even put Superman catching the bomb in the pose of the famous Rockefeller Center Atlas in NYC! Who is John Galt? Clark and Bruce, battling for the heavyweight title!

Nobody else exists, except in relation to the male antagonists — the two manly men, and the sneering, contemptuous “intellectual” foe. How can Superman be buoyed and steadied in his heroism by the admiration of humanity, when Objectivist dogma regards ordinary humans as nothing but a mass of “takers”? How can Batman find any validation in saving Gotham, when etc etc? The only way their existence can have any meaning is through each other’s recognition, and even Lex’s envy is more important than any woman’s, in their interactions.

Jurgan
reply to  LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 5:10am

Interesting take. It reminds me of Lovecraft, who wrote in the 20’s just as the old European empires were starting to crumble. His fear that the “lesser races” were gaining power fit right in with his existential dread of careless, destructive gods and the meaninglessness of existence. The racism and the grim outlook on the world were inseparable.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Jurgan
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 5:20am

Yes…and incidentally, both Lovecraftian horrors and superheroes-as-modern-myths were done right, purged of their reactionary status-quotidian baggage and recast to serve as a better axe (yet still the axe of our fathers…) for a freer, gentler age of evolving sentient apes, by the late Sir Terry Pratchett.

And even earlier, The Forbidden Planet reworked Lovecraft’s nightmares of the Old Ones from the stars into a similarly humanist parable, recasting “Alas Babylon” into the far future where spacemen discover the non-Euclidean city-state where technocrats who believed themselves civilized brought themselves down by creating energy-shoggoths that consumed them — are the “monsters from the id” Atomic Power, invented to provide us with cheap energy but instantly conceived of as a weapon, even before it left the drawing board and became a reality? or are they the fear and rage and hatred of a society that believes its left its ancestral bloodlust far in the benighted past?

Yes, of course, yes — and those strangely-shaped architects of that ancient futuristic city were just folks, like us: Look on our works, ye mighty, and despair…or else, learn from history, and do NOT repeat it!

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 9:41am

Nicely said!

Snyder has recently admitted to being an Ayn Rand fan

I’m always astonished when anyone over the age of 14 admits this without apparent embarrassment.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:30pm

And it came after a number of people had been saying, only half-jokingly, that MoS only made sense if it was “Objectivist Superman” especially after the BvS:DoJ trailer with Ma Kent reinforcing Pa Kent’s nihilistic selfishness telling him “You don’t owe the world anything!” which caused such dismay…

He doesn’t seem to have the common sense of a gnat when it comes to PR, but that seems to be par for entitled dudebro directors beloved of laddish fanboys (see also Max Landis, Josh Trank, Alex Proyas) and how he gloated about killing off Jimmy Olsen as a redshirt because he didn’t know what to do with him, then about killing off Clark himself for much the same reason and “faking out” the viewers because nobody would believe he’d kill him in the first JLA movie — even though the only reason nobody thought he’d do it, was because it wouldn’t make any sense to do the late-series Death of Superman story at the beginning of an already-rushed arc…

Nathan
Nathan
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 2:23pm

I just shrug… and begin to take them less seriously.

Earth
Earth
reply to  LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 12:21pm

Just a minor point. Alan Moore’s dystopian fiction has always had an element of hope informing the narrative. I know both wrote exceptional stories for DC but I really don’t think Frank Miller and Moore are comparable.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Earth
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:23pm

Have you seen Moore’s recent work? The Cthulhu mythos based stuff? Damn-all hope there. And not much hope at all in any of his other stuff, at least from an outsider’s perspective — he’s as much WHORES WHORES WHORES as Frank, only smarmier. Not to mention the way he is responsible for Killing Joke’s sexualized depowering of Barbara AND refuses to take personal responsibility for it, or ANY of his mistakes — it’s always the fault of his editors for not stopping him…

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:43pm

Not to mention the way he is responsible for Killing Joke’s sexualized depowering of Barbara

The good news is that Babs Tarr and the current Batgirl team have turned it into a falsely implanted memory (while, unfortunately, maintaining deniability to placate the misogynist subset of fandom).

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Bluejay
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:45pm

Yes, I’m glad they’re finally addressing it as something really messed up and Batgirl is a good inspiring series — but on the other hand, undoing Oracle as the fixfic solution is also a disappointment. There isn’t really any perfect way to patch that fault line…

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:48pm

I wonder if they could write in a different reason that Barbara got paralyzed, which Fugue replaced with the Joker memory for nefarious reasons. That way you can still have Barbara heroically overcoming the trauma without having to deal with Moore’s misogyny.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Bluejay
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 3:01pm

That’s a brilliant idea! Not as though they haven’t done bigger & bolder retcons! (I’m expecting Snyder to do the Lian Harper thing in JL myself…)

IntrepidNormal
IntrepidNormal
reply to  Bluejay
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 5:31am

But there’s also the problem of retconning a beloved disabled character’s disability.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  IntrepidNormal
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 12:52pm

Sure. See my comment here.

Earth
Earth
reply to  LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:47pm

Um…it’s the Cthulhu mythos…Lovecraft is all about hopelessness and despair.

Sigh. You know, not everyone on the internet is on the attack. I actually agreed with just about everything in your previous post. But I can see you’ve already made up your mind about Moore’s work so there’s no point discussing this further.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Earth
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 7:50am

There is a despairing worldview, and there is sexually torturing characters and doing so in male-gazey nihilistic ways, and then saying “Yeah that was fucked up and they shouldn’t have let me do it” while still pretending to be a feminist — Terry Pratchett also wrote Cthulhu Mythos fanfic, you do know that, right? And it was the most optimistic, humanist, egalitarian fantasy explicitly taking down the nihilism of Moore (Guards! Guards! is his remake of Watchmen, Night Watch is his retort to The Killing Joke.) So no, you don’t know what you’re talking about, because you’re stanning too hard.

Earth
Earth
reply to  LA Julian
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 8:19am

You’re right. I’m “stanning” because I dare to state an opinion different to yours. Yet you’re the one obsessived with bitching about Moore and have clearly put a lot of thought into your hatred, to the point that you’ve found comparisons between his work and another’s. But please, continue to throw hissy fits every time a writer doesn’t match your sensitivities.

What a strange little person you must be. Get over yourself.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Earth
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 8:22am

You need to learn how to tone down your own ranting if you want to come across as the cool, condescending & superior type, instead of an inarticulate sexist troll. Get some perspective & objectivity and stop doing a Donald Duck/Yosemite Sam/Donald Trump impersonation. (How’s that for comparisons? I guess you’re going to go around shutting down everyone who compares Marvel and DC, too, right?)

Earth
Earth
reply to  LA Julian
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 8:41am

Your argument is that Moore is as sexist as Frank Miller because two women in his stories are put through sexually traumatic experiences (well, one of them, but I guess nudity counts as “sexual” in your world). The fact that there are naked men in both books is irrelevant of course. Doesn’t matter that the characters are well-written, either. The fact that both are naked=sexualised. Nice of you removing Pratchett’s agency as a writer by the way, comparing his work as if it were a response to another. Figure out the difference between pastiche and parody and then maybe we might have a conversation worth discussing. You know, there’s a scene in Thud where Pratchett has two women in a sewer completely naked and covered in mud. By your logic he’s a sexist too.

I would bring up the fact that I actually find Moore’s work darkly humorous but I worry you might start crying, shocked at the idea that someone could find the idea of a woman raped by a giant swamp thing amusing.

EDIT: And there it is. A Donald Trump comparison. Do you shut down all debates this way?

Earth
Earth
reply to  LA Julian
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 9:38am

So…I say Alan Moore isn’t sexist, and your conclusion is that I’m a sexist Trump supporter.

I come across as the “cool, condescending & superior type”? Neat. You can shower me with compliments all day but I have stuff to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbuPaCgdO50

Nathan
Nathan
reply to  LA Julian
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 2:22pm

Naw Allen’s more like FEMALE PLOT DEVICES FEMALE PLOT DEVICES.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Nathan
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 7:51am

Who all happen to be prostitutes. The Wachowskis improved significantly on V by making the heroine a media professional.

Tonio Kruger
reply to  LA Julian
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 7:12pm

SPOILERS for V for Vendetta:

Actually, if my memory of the original V for Vendetta is correct, Evie was originally an orphaned factory worker who only turned to prostitution out of economic desperation — and because she saw some of her co-workers doing it. And it was her first attempt at prostitution, ironically, that got her in trouble with the local police — which, in turn, caused “V” to intervene in her case.

If you wish to argue that that still makes her a prostitute, then okay. But you can just as easily see her as an orphan, as a factory worker or as a woman who had the bad luck to be in the wrong place in the wrong time. And it’s not necessarily misogynistic to view her that way.

For that matter, it should be noted that many of the female characters in the Alan Moore comic book universe are not prostitutes.

Miracleman/s Liz Moran is a commercial artist, Swamp Thing‘s Abby Arcane is a nurse who spends most of the Moore run working with mentally ill children, Top Ten‘s Toybox (and indeed, most of the female characters in Top Ten) is a cop, Promethea‘s Sophie is a student…

Granted, there are obvious exceptions, and I’ll be the first to admit that I find some of Moore’s most recent work to be at best as exasperating as the average Zack Sydner movie. But then I choose to judge Moore by his best work, not his worst.

And I still have a soft spot for him based on the fact that he chose to not only give Sophie a Puerto Rican mentor but to make Sophie half-Hispanic as well. But then I’m half-Hispanic as well so I’m obviously biast — though I do find it ironic that an English comic book writer had less trouble including a fictional person of my ethnic background into his world than some American comic book writers I could mention.

Anthony
Anthony
reply to  LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 12:21pm

So what if they’re white? I know contempt for the paler-skinned members of the Caucasoid category of humankind is fashionable in our fanatically-politically-correct culture, but the main characters _are_ white. Your interpretation smacks of the easily-triggered SJWs who think they know everything after three of four undergraduate courses at university. The world is not as great as you think it is. Crime is out of control, corruption is rampant, discrimination is everywhere. In fact, the preemptive anti-white rants people like you launch over every single thing is as discriminatory as anything in this world. Cities and their suburbs are divided amid the inevitable suspicion and hostility resulting from increased “diversity”. The more multicultural a society, the more divided it becomes. The high school I went to here in Australia was mainly Asian – Chinese, Koreans, Indians, Sri Lankans, Arabs and Vietnamese with some Slavs and a handful of Anglo-Celtic Australians. There was no assimilation anywhere. The different races stayed amid themselves. Like in prison. No happy-happy-hand-holding-smiley-faces. Division. Suspicion. Hostility. I disagree that this movie was a cynical, minority-hating longing for a less-diverse age. You are reading your interpretation into it – eisegesis, the enemy of good hermeneutics. Call me a xenophobe if you want, hurl all the buzzwords you want at me. I’m not those things – but you will certainly read what you want into my comment. Who will question you in this relativistic, pluralistic postmodern age? But I still think you’re wrong.

Jurgan
reply to  Anthony
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 5:54pm

I kind of feel sorry for you.

Nathan
Nathan
reply to  Jurgan
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 2:19pm

Yeah, must be hard to say anything when you have to be screaming all the time. He could have just said, I relate to white people because I’m white and dislike being shamed for it. Much more concise. Still wrong though.

Anthony
Anthony
reply to  Jurgan
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 8:18pm

That makes one.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 4:10pm

A number of recent super-hero stories have been suggesting that the heroes are important, in part, because they inspire us to help each other. A major trope of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man movies was the scene in which civilians rescue Peter Parker, and the idea also showed up in last week’s Batman #50 and last night’s episode of Supergirl.

I like the trope, because it makes sense within the story but also comments on readers’ relationship with the comics. I wish Zack Snyder had tried it out in this movie.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Danielm80
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 4:23pm

Snyder makes a lame halfhearted gesture towards that in the end: Bruce Wayne mumbles something about “people are still good” and then you have Superman’s funeral with Christopher Wren’s epitaph — the point apparently being that his memorial isn’t in stone, it’s in the people he’s inspired. Except the film never shows us any civilians inspired to do anything, so the sentiment is unearned.

I think “unearned” is actually the key adjective for this movie. It wants us to think profound thoughts about our relationship with superheroes, but it doesn’t earn it. It wants us to be invested in the big BvS fight, but it doesn’t earn it. It wants us to feel sad about Superman dying, but it doesn’t earn it. It takes all these shortcuts, makes assumptions about what the audience knows, and doesn’t do the work. The movie itself is a big shortcut to an Avengers-style franchise, without having done all of the groundwork of establishing well-fleshed-out heroes in previous films.

Nathan
Nathan
reply to  LA Julian
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 2:16pm

Well the Super Friends are all pretty “white-bread” but I get what you’re saying.

Matt
Matt
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:01am

Evidently, this woman doesn’t like men.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Matt
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 9:42am

Oh, do tell. Go on, I await your psychological analysis of me based on a movie review.

OdeToViceroy
OdeToViceroy
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 7:51pm

This isn’t in regard to his comment, but I found your comments on Wonder Woman completely unfair. *Spoilers* Her part is one of the best parts of the movie, which got me, and the crowd I was with, pretty pumped up. When she jumps in, cue the music, she completely upstages Superman in that fight. She’s having fun, tangling with DD better than Superman. She actually does a way better job against DD than Superman does, because Superman is visibly shaken every time DD hits him, while WW is just havin a ball.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Matt
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:20pm

Evidently, you have no reading comprehension.

zhoayu
zhoayu
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:23am

” I cannot claim to have in-depth knowledge of the character’s long and varied history in print.)” why didn’t you do research than. The movie was very accurate theme wise to the comics this movie was based off of.

” when we witness Superman kill almost unthinkingly, reflexively, and in no noble cause.” He doesn’t kill anyone besides in the nightmare sequence.

” It doesn’t feel like a sequel to Man of Steel, with its emo ET Boy Scout.” Not many people would be feeling to great if someone was setting up situations that make it look like your mass murderer. I feel like you missed some key points to the movie that would have made superman a bit emotional.

“BvS cannot even commit to its brutal vision of Batman” you mean the vision of the 1986 comics The Dark Knight Returns.

“even bigger battle (one that — *sigh* — destroys some more of Metropolis)” Dont even know why this is a complaint. 1 building and the top of lexcorp were damaged. The rest was at an abandoned port in gotham and on an uninhabited island.

” Lois Lane exists in this movie solely to be a damsel in distress” And to expose the truth that superman isn’t a murderer and is being set up by someone.

” the most exciting bit of action that Diana Prince/Wonder Women gets here involves downloading files that Bruce Wayne has emailed to her” Maybe you missed her fight scene?

I disagree with basically your whole 3rd paragraph. Those are all questions asked. As stated by Batman more generally, that if there’s even a chance Superman might consider killing everyone than he could.

“cold, cruel, borderline incoherent in its testosterone-fueled rage and paranoia, misogynist, paternalistic… fascist, even”. I don’t agree with all of the adjectives here but, just like Watchmen, these are all themes in the comics this movie is based off of.

Please, do some research about the characters. The Death of Superman, and The Dark Knight Returns are not happy-go-lucky comics.This whole review seems like a bashing for this movie being something it’s not supposed to be.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  zhoayu
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:58am

She’s not reviewing the comics. She’s reviewing the movie. If people need to read 75 years’ worth of comics (or even a few series from the ’80s and ’90s) to understand the film, then Zack Snyder hasn’t told the story very clearly.

Some of the comics you mentioned, like The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen, ask interesting questions about super-heroes: Can someone with that much power be trusted to use it responsibly? Is vigilante justice different from real justice? The comics made genuine efforts to address those questions. MaryAnn is saying that the movie brings up those sorts of questions without providing any interesting—or even coherent—answers. Maybe she would have enjoyed those comics more than she liked the movie.

zhoayu
zhoayu
reply to  Danielm80
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 7:15am

It’s hardly a valid critique if you don’t take the source material into consideration. It’s 2 stories. If you don’t think you need to be at all familiar with the source stories than a valid critique for Titanic is that they were on a boat, or that in The Heart of the Sea they shouldn’t have used a giant whale.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  zhoayu
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 7:27am

She’s not criticizing the movie for being about super-heroes, or even for being bleak. She’s criticizing it for being pointless and incoherent.

zhoayu
zhoayu
reply to  Danielm80
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 7:36am

She did criticize it for being bleak “cold, cruel, borderline incoherent in its testosterone-fueled rage and paranoia, misogynist, paternalistic… fascist”. I don’t know what you mean by saying the movie is pointless. Incoherent is also not true (maybe open to opinion) as it really made perfect sense in the order it was told. For example my first post the author does not know why Bruce and Lex don’t team up when the scene right before there he explains that he suspects Lex is up to no good and goes to the party to steal info from him. I’m not sure what you thought was incoherent about it as nothing happened without being explained.

I will say this about being incoherent though. There was no reason for Lois to go back into the water and retrieve the spear. So there is that.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  zhoayu
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 7:57am

A movie should stand alone as a self-contained entity that is enriched by, not explained by, extraneous data.

And certainly not contradicted radically by — don’t try to pull the gnostic on us, you’re not the One True Fanboy here!

(If your story requires people to wait for the extended version with all the explanatory outtakes that you left out so you could put more noisy, pointless action scenes in, you also fail as a director/editor/writer of filmed drama.)

zhoayu
zhoayu
reply to  LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 8:55am

“A movie should stand alone as a self-contained entity that is enriched by, not explained by, extraneous data.”- This is true but this movie makes complete sense without knowledge of any outside material (besides watching MoS which is obvious) so I’m not sure why you mention this here. I made 2 points about knowing the source material 1) Why is she critiquing this movie with no knowledge of the original stories (which she admits in the first paragraph) and 2) that the themes of this movie are rather dark/bleak which is true to the source material. Where I say once again the source is not a happy-go-lucky story why should the movie be. So I think my point stands, this is a negative review because the author thinks it was supposed to be a movie it’s not trying to be.

“(If your story requires people to wait for the extended version with all
the explanatory outtakes that you left out so you could put more noisy,
pointless action scenes in, you also fail as a director/editor/writer
of filmed drama.)” -The movie was definitely not perfect, and only 1 deleted scene has been released. And I’ll admit that scene had a place in this movie when at least one other scene did not. I have not seen all of the deleted scenes but I have seen this movie and at no point did I think story was taken out in exchange for action.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  zhoayu
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 9:58am

this movie makes complete sense without knowledge of any outside material

No, it doesn’t.

this is a negative review because the author thinks it was supposed to be a movie it’s not trying to be.

And what do sort of movie do you think I think this movie should be?

gRammarnazi
gRammarnazi
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 9:10pm

Why is it a problem that it doesn’t make sense for non comic book readers? So DC should cater for casual fans rather than the people who actually know anything about the characters?

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  gRammarnazi
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 9:40pm

It would make life much simpler for the distributor if the movie were aimed only at die-hard fans. They could schedule all the screenings at large comic conventions and not have to deal with theatre chains.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  gRammarnazi
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 10:07pm

It’s a mainstream, multimillion-dollar movie that’s being marketed all over the world. Does everyone have to do their homework and read all the comic source material? Did you have to read all the Iron Man comics in order to appreciate the Iron Man movies? These films should have stories and characters that are understandable by themselves.

Jurgan
reply to  gRammarnazi
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 3:47am

A popular comic’s sales are measured in the thousands. A major movie release where only a few thousand people see it is a terrible flop. If you want to make a movie with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars and you want it to be profitable, you can’t hear it solely towards regular comic’s readers. Now, the direct to DVD animation market is a different story. DC has done pretty well marketing those movies to fans, but they don’t have a budget anywhere near BvS: DoJ.

Jurgan
reply to  gRammarnazi
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 3:48am

Also, there are many different versions of the characters. Many people know some about them from previous movies and shows.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  gRammarnazi
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 12:08pm

A smart movie would work on levels that would satisfy both casual fans and diehards. And yeah, but sorry, a $250 million movie is not going to be targeted only to the most devoted of comics readers.

Jim Mann
Jim Mann
reply to  gRammarnazi
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 8:50pm

Yes, they should. The Harry Potter movies make sense even if you haven’t read the books. So do the Lord of the Rings films. So do most of the Marvel films. (I’d bet that the vast majority of people who saw Guardians of the Galaxy never read the comic, and that many didn’t even know it was a comic.)

gRammarnazi
gRammarnazi
reply to  Jim Mann
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 8:54pm

That because those are direct adaptations. And the Marvel movies have such little plot that it would be impossible to get lost.

Jim Mann
Jim Mann
reply to  zhoayu
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 1:20pm

First off, I didn’t find the movie as bad as MaryAnn did. I didn’t think it was GOOD, but it wasn’t completely awful. (And it probably could have been good if someone other than Zack Snyder were directing it.)

But there were lots of things, big and small, that didn’t make sense in the film. The characters behaved in nonsensical ways at times. (What was Luthor really trying to do? If he was creating Doomsday, why go through the elaborate nonsense of tricking Batman into fighting Superman?) And Luthor has digital copies of photos of Wonder Woman and other super humans, so Wonder Woman steels a drive to get her picture back. (Nobody in Metropolis makes more than one copy of a digital photo?) Many people think Superman caused a lot of people to die when rescuing Lois from terrorists, even thought that makes no sense and Lois herself can explain what Superman did.

It was a frustrating movie.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Jim Mann
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 1:32pm

– Spoilers – Yeah, it all falls apart the more you think about it. If Luthor had Kryptonite RIGHT THERE (he has a whole big rock of it at one point, and he uses Kryptonite fragments to slice off Zod’s fingertips), then instead of creating Doomsday why not just make… Kryptonite bullets?

And Wonder Woman’s quest to retrieve the photo from 1911 is nonsensical. If, as she says, she abandoned this world a hundred years ago, why should she care AT ALL that there’s an old photo of her floating around? How exactly does that hurt her, in any way? We’re just meant to assume “secret identities” are somehow important in this story, when they’re clearly not. Everyone knows who everyone else is!

And on and on and on. Just godawful storytelling all around.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Bluejay
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 8:48pm

Ugh, I really don’t want to be that guy, don’t make me be that guy, Bluejay…. *sigh* Fridge logic time:

Luthor only has the big rock for (presumably) a few hours before Bruce steals it. Bruce appears to use nearly all of that rock in making three kryptonite gas grenades, which seem only capable of slowing Clark down. If Luthor’s tiny sample were enough, why would he need the big rock?

I’m cheating here a little, but even from just the movie, one can interpret that Diana would like to stay (relatively) anonymous and retired. Bruce and Clark absolutely keep their identities secret. Lex figures out Clark’s (through METHODS, but it really shouldn’t take much), but I don’t think he knows Bruce’s.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  zhoayu
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:32pm

The “source material” is 70+ years worth of stories, not The Angsty Nineties only.

That’s why Zootopia is a better Justice League movie, let alone a better superhero movie, than anything Snyder will ever be able to slap together.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  zhoayu
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 9:56am

It’s hardly a valid critique if you don’t take the source material into consideration.

Of course it’s a valid critique. Also, this is not based on any comics in particular. It’s an original script.

a valid critique for Titanic is that they were on a boat

You do realize that the sinking of the Titanic is a real historical event, right? And yet, if someone riffed on it and made, say, a film about a spaceship disabled in space, it *would* be a valid critique to comment on how and how well such a change contributed to making the story interesting and new.

zhoayu
zhoayu
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 10:09am

1)what didn’t make sense? I can’t answer this without details.

2) You don’t say what kind of movie you wanted it to be, but you say what kind of movie you didn’t want it to be which is “cold, cruel, borderline incoherent in its testosterone-fueled rage and paranoia, misogynist, paternalistic… fascist, even”

3) Overall yes its an original script. A script written with heavy influence from The Dark Knight Returns and The Death of Superman

4) I do realize it was a real event, just as well as you realize that this movie was based on already written comics. My reference was exaggerated for an example.

zhoayu
zhoayu
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 11:27am

taking ideas from more than one one story doesn’t make it 100% original. And explain why this review is valid, you say you have no knowledge of the printed stories the movie is based off of, or even any of the printed stories involving these characters. How would someone like yourself know what this movie should be about?

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  zhoayu
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:43pm

The way you defenders are always appealing to the Miller comics to make sense of it, shows that not even you think it makes sense by itself! You can’t have it both ways!

Jurgan
reply to  zhoayu
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:28pm

She watched the movie and she didn’t enjoy it. It’s her personal opinion that it’s a bad movie, just as it’s your opinion that it’s a good movie. She’s not pretending to speak for everyone, just saying that as someone who doesn’t know much about the comics it didn’t work for her. Meaning, if you do know a lot about the comics, you might have a very different opinion.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  zhoayu
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 12:12pm

explain why this review is valid

Explain how you think a $250 million is supposed to work as a business decision if only those who are steeped in the 70-plus-year histories of every character on the screen can understand it.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  zhoayu
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 9:52am

why didn’t you do research than.

Because movies have to stand on their own.

He doesn’t kill anyone besides in the nightmare sequence.

He kills in the desert, and it’s almost a joke, a “clever” way to save Lois.

you might have missed the scene with Bruce and Alfred

I did not miss that at all. In what way does that scene constitute “teaming up”? We later learn that Bruce *knows* it’s kryptonite, not a bomb that Luthor is smuggling into the city. Bruce is up to *precisely* the same “no good” that Luthor is… and Bruce knows it.

you mean the vision of the 1986 comics The Dark Knight Returns.

No, I mean the vision that is almost here in the film. If Zack Snyder intends his story to end in a 30-year-old comic book, he should have put a card up at the end of the film reading “If you are unhappy with how Batman is depicted here, please see the 1986 comic The Dark Knight Returns.”

Dont even know why this is a complaint. 1 building and the top of lexcorp were damaged.

Because this sort of thing is exactly what Bruce Wayne’s beef with Superman is all about! And if he learned *anything* at all as a result of this — that now he finds himself in a situation like the one Superman was in at the end of MoS — there is no indication of it.

Maybe you missed her fight scene?

Maybe you missed the sarcasm of my comment about her downloading files. That *is* more exciting than the fight scene, which is an incoherent mess.

I disagree with basically your whole 3rd paragraph. Those are all questions asked.

Yes, they *are* asked. As I indicated. And then they are all tossed away and never considered again.

these are all themes in the comics this movie is based off of.

But this movie isn’t *about* those themes, as Snyder’s Watchmen was. It just *is* them.

You don’t have to like the movie

Very generous of you.

Please, do some research about the characters.

Please, maybe read some of my other reviews of movies featuring these characters. I get them. And even if I didn’t, this movie has to stand on its own, and in complement to MoS. It doesn’t.

zhoayu
zhoayu
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 10:20am

“why didn’t you do research than. Because movies have to stand on their own.” -This movie does not need any outside reference to understand.

“He doesn’t kill anyone besides in the nightmare sequence. He kills in the desert, and it’s almost a joke, a “clever” way to save Lois.” – He says in the very next scene after the desert sequence (the bath scene) that he did not kill anyone, the only ones killed were from lex corp employees to frame Superman.

3) Is a long quote so I wont copy pasta. But Bruce obviously does not completely know what Lex is up to. We see that he is passionate about the situation with Superman, giving reason for him to be overly cautious.

Adrijana Radosevic
Adrijana Radosevic
reply to  zhoayu
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 3:52pm

I’m sorry but this movie definitely relies HEAVILY on the “everyone’s read the comics” instead of actual storytelling.
As a person who isnt into dc universe, after seeing the movie I had to go online to find out:

#who xena the warrior princess really is (if wonder woman is ever mentioned,I mustve blinked)

#lex is actually the son of lex luthor,not lex luthor himself.which really makes no sense either, if superman just started out how can his arch nemesis already have an heir? Obviously here luthor we remember from the old movies never exists.

#what the hell was the cave troll in the end. I still only know it’s supposedly called Doomsday, I still dont understand is it just a Superzod, or a different creature, nor why DID it choose to attack the heroes… Actually I’ve no idea why luthor created it (except hey, the guy’s crazy, he doesn’t need a reason) nor what it’s motivations were to act the way it acted.

# that the metahumans aren’t other superman’s brothers and sisters being sent to earth from krypton. I dunno, while I was watching that only made sense. I also dont get why didnt luthor try to contact and hire them.

# that batman’s suit gives him extra strength. In the movie this is never addressed so his physical feats look laughably surreal.

Etc, I mean there’s more but I dont feel like listing anymore. I think this movie shoukdve been fair to warn us regular movie goers to not bother if we havent been reading dc comics.

And I see that as a huge fault. I havent been reading Marvel but I follow their movies just fine. I saw harry potter movies before I read the books and I didnt feel lost watching the movies. I am a big lotr fan but I nevrr heard anyone complain that they didnthear a key character’s name or understad their motivations in lotr movies. So thats my biggest complaint, as far as visualizing comics in a motion picture media this thing goes a long way, but as a story, it’s…non existant.

Hugo 'DenPapa' Strange
Hugo 'DenPapa' Strange
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:51pm

“He kills in the desert, and it’s almost a joke, a “clever” way to save Lois.”

No he doesn’t. It was confirmed by Clark himself during the bathtub scene, that he didn’t kill anyone.

Why am I not surprised you gave the film a 1*, when you’re too simple to follow even the simplest of plot points.

Tonio Kruger
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:57am

I’m not quite sure why there’s so little sympathy in this forum for those critics of Snyder’s Man of Steel who argued that Superman should not kill.

Especially among those people who are old enough to remember this link:

https://www.flickfilosopher.com/2013/03/punched-in-the-gut-and-launched-into-space-is-the-new-women-in-refrigerators.html

After the criticism that has been directed at American pop culture over the years, should we not be happy that so many people prefer that their version of the ideal American superhero not be a murderer?

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 7:20am

There are two different arguments that could be made here:

(1.) Superman should never kill anyone.

(2.) If Superman is going to kill someone (which is out-of-character), the story needs to be really compelling and thought-provoking.

No matter which argument you make, Zack Snyder has found a way to disappoint you.

Nathan
Nathan
reply to  Danielm80
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:28pm

In other words, if you must break the yoke of the character at least make an omelet of it. Don’t just half-bake it and let it cool into a rubbery disappointment of cliches and melodrama.

Jurgan
reply to  Danielm80
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:11pm

I haven’t seen MoS, but from what I heard, there’s a problem even without considering Superman’s mythic status. Within the context of the movie, why does Superman consider killing a big deal? Why is this his “one rule” that he won’t break? His adoptive father certainly didn’t teach him a respect for life, as he said it might be okay to let a bus full of children die to protect his secret identity. So if we haven’t established that he has a vow against killing, then there’s no drama when he’s forced to confront the consequences of that vow. The best use of this trope ever was the anime Trigun, where Vash very clearly was taught that killing was always wrong and was ultimately forced to kill someone anyway. That had weight. MoS, from what I’ve heard, simply assumes we know Superman is opposed to killing but doesn’t justify it.

Again, I haven’t seen MoS, so it could be that it works better than I’m imagining, but I doubt it.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Jurgan
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 7:11pm

Jurgan: In the context of Man of Steel, Superman forms his moral code against killing after he kills Zod and experiences its moral cost. More here.

bronxbee
bronxbee
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 5:18pm

i did like some of MoS but eventually, the violence and destruction and killing of Zod (oh, stop! everyone knows this by now) really disturbed me. i’m a new yorker. violent destruction, even in defense of the city (i.e., the Avengers) causes me anxiety and upset by the seeming casual reaction to it. (although, it was dealt with in Iron Man 3 by Tony at least). also, the “fight” or “battle” scenes go on *far* too long, losing any urgency the movie might have built up. i know i won’t be going to see BvS, but it’s my general weariness with this type of movie.

Lenina Crowne
Lenina Crowne
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 7:36am

Lex Luthor was so terrible, his acting was like that one guy at (forgive the tautology) a really shitty improv show, you know, that guy who has only one funny voice that he can do, and he tries to come up with a comic character by haphazardly throwing quirks together.

Also, what was his motivation? What was he trying to accomplish and why?

I think my biggest problem with this movie was that it had all this stuff that it needed to get out of the way (setting up Justice League, etc.) and they were clearly so pressed for time that they had to rush the editing such that the whole movie was really confusing, and yet it kept wasting time with all these pointless nested dream sequences, the whole Senate thing that ended up going nowhere at all, the plot about the Russians and the White Portuguese, and basically every scene with Lois Lane in it.

Also, Granny’s Peach Tea. WTF.

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  Lenina Crowne
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:03pm

Jess is a terrible actor. Much like Seth Rogen, it’s the same character over and over.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  TheSeeker
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:36pm

Villains should be fun and interesting and entertaining! That’s why we like seeing our heroes go up against them — especially if they have some good points and are not cardboard villains. But Snyder’s an Objectivist, and villains in Ayn Rand novels are just weak, yet overpowered, snivelling parasites. Objectivist Luthor stinks like a rotten egg, because Snyder can’t show John Galt as the villain of the stories the way he is (although even Lex often is written with more altruism than John Galt and Howard Roark!)

Tonio Kruger
reply to  LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:53pm

Given the way you keep bringing up Ayn Rand themes, you might want to check out the Brad Bird movie Tomorrowland if you haven’t already seen it. If nothing else, it contains the best cinematic argument against the whole Atlas Shrugged theme that I have ever seen in a movie. IMHO, of course.

And if nothing else, it’s more entertaining than anything I’ve seen thus far from Zack Snyder.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 8:16am

Did you see that Snyder is trying to make a Fountainhead movie? I really wish he’d just done that, and not pissed all over the comic books.

Tonio Kruger
reply to  LA Julian
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 7:21pm

After the “success” of the Atlas Shrugged movies, I’m surprised he even bothered.

Earth
Earth
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 12:23pm

Sigh, it always depresses me to think that the Watchmen movie was directed by Zack Snyder. It’s akin to a fascist directing a film adaptation of 1984.

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  Earth
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:12pm

Watchmen was a great movie.

Earth
Earth
reply to  TheSeeker
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:41pm

It’s pornography.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Earth
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 8:50pm

I try not to judge other people’s kinks, but…

Earth
Earth
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 9:00pm

Pornographic as in self-indulgent. The way it’s filmed, it cares far more about style than any kind of substance.

Nathan
Nathan
reply to  Earth
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 2:13pm

Not because of multi-dimensional blue dongs of unlimited expansion?

Earth
Earth
reply to  Nathan
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 2:17pm

I thought the blue dong was notorious for being small?

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  Earth
Wed, Jun 15, 2016 2:35am

Yea, if you’re a prude.

Anthony
Anthony
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 12:29pm

Stop complaining of the “paternalistic” focus of a film called “BATMAN V SUPERMAN”. The title tells all. It is a movie about two MALE superheroes. There, I said it. i said the M word. Your problem with “damselling” is silly, as the only female character who does not “need saving” is Wonder Woman, who ticks all the boxes on the feminist list – except for being the lead in a movie that is not actually exclusively hers, but which you seem to demand anyway. But I’m wasting words. Anyone who calls a film like this “fascist” clearly needs their head examined. Your asinine perspective, drenched in bigoted political correctness is as laughable as the bigots you despise.

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  Anthony
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:05pm

Feminists… find any reason to complain, even if it’s about a fictional character in a comic book film!
This whole pc movement is garbage. Maybe they should have turned wonder woman into a trannie and given her woman of the year award.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  TheSeeker
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:41pm

Go back under your bridge, troll, and stop trying to halt the trains of progress by shouting “stop!” — it won’t end well for you.

Hugo 'DenPapa' Strange
Hugo 'DenPapa' Strange
reply to  LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:46pm

I understand why you’re lonely in real life.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Hugo 'DenPapa' Strange
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 3:02am

Oh, you pitiful fool. Projection’s a hell of a drug!

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  LA Julian
Wed, Jun 15, 2016 2:36am

Lol

Jurgan
reply to  TheSeeker
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:03pm

You know Maryann loved the Nolan Batman films, right? Those had very few female characters of note (a bit more in the third one), but she praised them. So the idea that she will automatically complain about any comicbook movie on feminist grounds is false.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Anthony
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:40pm

I guess you have never read any of the old Superman comics, or know that Lois frequently headlined in the Golden and Silver age stories, or watched any of the TV shows then!

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:19pm

If you are talking to me, no , I wouldn’t waste any time reading superman comics when there are dozens of better characters out there. Superman is honestly one of the most boring, lame characters ever.

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  TheSeeker
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:30pm

Batman is cool, though.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Anthony
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 12:15pm

Wonder Woman, who ticks all the boxes on the feminist list

Dammnit! Someone leaked our secret list!

And no, she doesn’t.

Anthony
Anthony
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 8:13pm

Well, Superman doesn’t tick all the boxes of the masculinist list, but I won’t lose sleep over it. Why can’t stories be stories without every branch of humanity scrutinizing them to ensure their group(s) is/are 1. Represented 2. Represented exactly as they require or they will declare total war upon it?

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Anthony
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 8:45pm

1. Represented

So if men were the lead protagonists in only 12% of films, you would be totally okay with it. Right?

2. Represented exactly as they require

What, exactly, do you think is “required”?

If women were represented as abundantly and with as much variety as men, there wouldn’t be as many complaints about what the woman “represents,” because there would be many kinds of women in any given film.

bronxbee
bronxbee
reply to  Bluejay
Thu, Mar 31, 2016 12:50am

51% of the actors “represented” in a movie would be women.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  bronxbee
Thu, Mar 31, 2016 10:45am

More than that, 51 percent of movies should have female protagonists.

Anthony
Anthony
reply to  Bluejay
Thu, Mar 31, 2016 9:53pm

Don’t attack my views simply because they don’t align with yours. I’m not the one running the hundreds of film studios worldwide. I’m not the one who made the world the way it is. Blame the marketers and producers, the writers and directors who are the ones behind it all. They are simply doing what they can to make money – that’s all. It’s a business. And it’s working for them.
To cite percentages (without a source, mind you) that highlight the disproportions in representation of male and female protagonists is silly. It is silly because what can you expect, seeing that cinema and motion pictures were invented by men? The directors were mostly all men, and still are. The scripts were mostly written by men. The adapted screenplays were based on books and plays mostly be men.
However, if you look at film history post 1970 you see films becoming more and more feminine and feminist.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Anthony
Thu, Mar 31, 2016 11:01pm

Don’t attack my views simply because they don’t align with yours.

Ooh, any kind of pushback is an “attack,” eh? What about you ATTACKING the reviewer’s opinion just because it’s not the same as yours? YOU’RE the one who called her perspective “asinine” and “bigoted political correctness.” THAT’S not an attack? At least I haven’t called YOU asinine, not yet anyway. This, my friend, is what you call a “discussion.” An “argument,” even. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

Blame the marketers and producers, the writers and directors

And who says we don’t? Who says I’m holding YOU personally responsible for the state of affairs? Get over your ego. However, you ARE arguing that representation in films is just fine. I disagree, and so I am expressing it. Don’t like it that I’m challenging your opinion? Tough. Cry me a fucking river.

They are simply doing what they can to make money – that’s all. It’s a business.

Then they’re making stupid decisions if they’re constantly failing to represent women fairly, because they’re ignoring a paying audience that shows up in HUGE numbers when women have leading roles onscreen (Hunger Games, Frozen, Gravity, Spy, etc, just recently). Putting more women onscreen draws in audiences, and makes just as much business sense, if not more, than focusing on the teenage boy crowd.

To cite percentages (without a source, mind you) that highlight the disproportions in representation of male and female protagonists is silly.

You’re right, I should have included a source. Here it is. And in another comment, you argued that because the US is 72% white and 12% black, that proportion should be reflected in film representation. So BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, since the US is 51% female and 49% male, that should ALSO be reflected in film.

You’re right that men and their stories have been dominant in the film industry (although women were VERY present both in front of and behind the camera in film’s early years). However, YOU seem to be okay with the status quo, with your “what can you expect” argument. The point is, yes, this IS what we can expect when the industry is very male-heavy, AND it’s a problem that needs to be called out. We are missing out on a lot of non-white, non-male perspectives.

Anthony
Anthony
reply to  Bluejay
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 5:43am

My ‘attack’ was justified because this review _is_ saturated in the tired, unfair and idiotic PC, SJW garbage they inject in student’s minds these days. The reviewer is not an idiot, just another minion of the system’s flawed, revisionist philosophy. It was not a personal opinion that I opposed, but that if the education system entire. There are times for cool and collected discussion and times when something seems so outrageous (PC culture) it has to be, or at least deserves a challenge.
As for my ‘logic’ – women are represented in at least half of all films. What on earth are you on about? Pretty much every movie ever made has the female sex in a prominent role. Some movies like Cukor’s ‘The Women’ (1939) have only women and no men in them at all. If they are not represented they way our society requires, that’s due to the thousands of years of paternalism being ingrained in the collective cultural consciousness. And this has been changing since the 1960s. It would have changed much earlier had WW2 never happened, as nothing makes people more right wing and conservative than war. In short, we are not missing out on nonwhite perspectives, because foreign movies are more available than ever. Minorities in the USA will get more exposure in the future because they will be, if lumped together against the declining white populace, the majority of the population one day. And all the things we’re bickering about will seem as senseless as a moron like me having a duckling for his profile pic.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Anthony
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 1:07pm

Pretty much every movie ever made has the female sex in a prominent role.

Excuse me while I go to my surgeon to repair the ribs I cracked from laughing too hard. Who’s got the “revisionist” views now?

Some movies like Cukor’s ‘The Women’ (1939) have only women and no men in them at all.

For real? The Women? Well then, I guess all Republicans are awesome forever and ever, because Abraham Lincoln.

In short, we are not missing out on nonwhite perspectives, because foreign movies are more available than ever.

Ah, here we go. You think anyone who is nonwhite is “foreign.” No need to have more Asian Americans or Latinos or black people in American films, because people can always rent films from Hong Kong and Mexico and Nigeria. Totally the same thing, right?

I don’t know why this shit superhero movie brings out all the morons. Hey, your word, not mine.

Anthony
Anthony
reply to  Bluejay
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 5:50pm

You come across as a genuinely bitter, horrible person. Your reply makes zero sense and is devoid of any meaningful content, and you seem to think repeating sentences of mine and including your own misguided and flawed interpretation of them somehow demolishes them, leading me to suspect you are simply trolling. Or fifteen years old. Have a nice life.
P.S. If you have a problem with America’s film industry, how about you do something about it instead of lashing out at random people like moi?

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Anthony
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 8:53pm

Your reply makes zero sense and is devoid of any meaningful content

Bless your heart. Run along now.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Anthony
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 9:59pm

You’re not a random person, and no one is “lashing out” at you. You came here and made ignorant comments about movies, the industry, and America — you should expect some pushback.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Anthony
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 9:52pm

just another minion of the system’s flawed, revisionist philosophy

Drats! Foiled again.

Tonio Kruger
reply to  Anthony
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 7:27pm

Omnes mundum facimus. (We all make the world.)
–Matt Ruff, Bad Monkeys

“Hi,” I said. “Omnes mundum facimus.”

“That’s all right. I don’t need the magic phrase. But as long as we’re on the subject, have you worked it out yet?”

–Matt Ruff, Bad Monkeys

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 7:53pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2016/04/01/everything-is-fine-and-the-world-is-not-ending/

No major candidate has responded, “I didn’t start it!” as an actual answer on national television.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Anthony
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 9:44pm

The directors were mostly all men, and still are. The scripts were mostly written by men.

You clearly know nothing about the history of cinema.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Anthony
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 9:59pm

Why can’t women be represented onscreen in the same depth and variety that men are? Why can’t nonwhite people be represented onscreen in the same depth and variety that white people are?

You think a film review constitutes “total war”? Ha.

Anthony
Anthony
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Mar 31, 2016 9:38pm

‘Ha’ to you too. Women are represented onscreen with depth and variety. Don’t go demanding absolute perfection in various representative demands within mindless, adolescent, popcorn flicks like superhero movies. Nonwhite people ARE represented onscreen with the same “depth and variety” (sigh) as white persons. America is not the only nation that makes movies, you know. The film industry for many, many ‘nonwhite’ countries is over a century old, and they’ve been representing their respective demographics and all their “depth and variety” (sigh) for the entire length of that time. As for the USA , it is 72% white, 12% black – don’t be catastrophically shocked if this difference somehow seeps into film.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 8:17am

Glass-jawed bruisers, all of these MRA Snyder-stans…

Owen1120
Owen1120
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 12:42pm

On the bright side, we have what looks to be a much better batman movie arriving soon.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ndSMLTwvlis

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  Owen1120
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:01pm

If you’re 7 years old and like movies with toys.

Owen1120
Owen1120
reply to  TheSeeker
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:38pm

Have you seen or heard of the first one?

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Owen1120
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:39pm

No, they never come out of their basements except to watch gritty grimdark R-rated movies.

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  LA Julian
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:22pm

I’m an adult with a job and life. I don’t watch lego movies aimed at children. Lol. What’s your excuse?

Jurgan
reply to  TheSeeker
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:30pm

They’re fun?

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  Jurgan
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:32pm

I suppose.

Owen1120
Owen1120
reply to  TheSeeker
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 10:22pm

It was written/directed by Lord and Miller and then got a 96 on Rotten Tomatoes. That’s why I watched it.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  TheSeeker
Fri, Apr 01, 2016 8:18am

As C.S. Lewis said, only immature fools are ashamed of liking (or being caught enjoying!) children’s books.

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  LA Julian
Wed, Jun 15, 2016 2:33am

Nice.

Nathan
Nathan
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 1:12pm

Well, the plot is loosely based on a Frank Miller series of comics so that explains the cynicism.

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Nathan
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:38pm

Except people have posted panels showing that Miller’s Dark Knight is a Paragon in a sunny park, compared to this! It’s really bad, when Frank Miller’s version comes off as Pratchettian humanism, by comparison!

Nathan
Nathan
reply to  LA Julian
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 1:38am

Well at least I can follow Miller’s plots without having to squint.

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 1:53pm

Feminism, how you find any reason too complain.

Nathan
Nathan
reply to  TheSeeker
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:30pm

*To

LA Julian
LA Julian
reply to  Nathan
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:37pm

What did I say? Snyder-stans’ dump stats are Logic & Grammar!

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  Nathan
Wed, Jun 15, 2016 2:37am

Too to toooo, whatever

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  TheSeeker
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:30pm

No, only good reasons.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  TheSeeker
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 12:16pm

Ironic.

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:15pm

This is easily one of the most biased reviews I have read regarding this film. Congratulations.

Jurgan
reply to  TheSeeker
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:05pm

Even though the bias meter explicitly states she like Man of Steel? “Bias” seems to have become just another word for “disagrees with me.” Like “I can’t imagine someone honestly reaching a different conclusion than me, so they must be biased.”

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  Jurgan
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:35pm

Are we reading the same review? I’ve never read any of this womans reviews before so I can’t comment about her views. Only what I have read on this bvs review. The whole damsel is distress is nothing new, the only people who complain about something like that are feminists.

Jurgan
reply to  TheSeeker
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 6:38pm

Congratulations, you figured out Maryann’s secret: She’s a feminist! Way to go, Columbo.

bronxbee
bronxbee
reply to  TheSeeker
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 5:26pm

my goodness! how can you criticize one review when you haven’t read her entire body of work? you obviously are coming in from a state of ignorance. you need to go back and read thousands of reviews from 19 years of work, otherwise you can’t discuss anything.

MarkyD
reply to  TheSeeker
Thu, Mar 31, 2016 3:21pm

Well then, I’m a feminist too, as I can’t stand the overused damsel in distress trope. Drives me nuts.
You say feminist as if it’s a bad word. I’m proud to be one.

TheSeeker
TheSeeker
reply to  MarkyD
Wed, Jun 15, 2016 2:35am

It is not a bad word, it’s stigmatized by dumbass feminists who have taken things too far. I really liked the whole piss for feminism movement, it shows how stupid and easily manipulated they are.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  TheSeeker
Wed, Mar 30, 2016 12:16pm

Thank you!

expelliamus
expelliamus
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:29pm

Misogynistic? fuck offf

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  expelliamus
Tue, Mar 29, 2016 2:31pm

A stunning counterargument.

Nathan
Nathan
reply to