I meant "film's main focus ISN'T the same". That typo changes the entire meaning of the post.

Sorry about that.

It's a film that says nothing and is about nothing. It's about Superman being the center of the universe, whose worldview is the most important and correct one. It's wrapped in enough vague political posturing to make you think it's about something.

It's the very definition of objectivism.

But when has that sort of thing stopped anyone. I mean, doing that gets you 100k+ views, after all, and talking about how the new Superman film gets it right and is the most hopeful film to hope gets barely gets you anything.

He stole the opportunity that should have been theirs. They put in the work too, but they have good politics. They understand film, unlike him. I mean, just look at their essays.

Is that unfair to type? Sure is! Maybe assigning that sort of thing to strangers is a bad, uncouth thing to do.

One deserves critical analysis, the other doesn't. One needs to be assigned a political ideology and psychoanalyzed but the other doesn't.

Snyder is very open about his film school roots. I don't think it's a surprise that a bunch of failed filmmakers with youtube channels dislike him.

Where humanity in one film is treated wrong for not appreciating Superman's heroism whereas in the other they're just a bunch of gormless rubes for being easily persuaded from one position to another?

I dunno. It all just comes off as people hating one director over the other.

Makes you wonder why that is. Does screaming your motivations in clunky, terrible dialogue really that make much of a difference?

Is it easier to believe in one Superman over the other with their feelings?

Both feel down and browbeaten, being talked about like he isn't a person with feelings, but that he's a political entity automaton. But one is treated like someone with a messiah complex who is mad that no one appreciates his greatness while the other we feel bad for because we know he's right.

The story in Superman moves heaven and earth to prove that Superman doesn't need to change, how it's everyone else who is wrong and how he doesn't need to examine what constitutes heroism in a politically charged world.

It tries to do what BvS did, but far worse.

It's pretty interesting that it's just an established fact that Snyder's Superman is objectivist with no real examination of why that is, and how reading it from that angle holds up divorced from the usual Nebula crowd jerking each other off.

Compared to barely any 100k+ views of talking about the merits of the Superman movie or how Snyder got Superman wrong compared to the objectivist Gunn film.

Hate really does get you the views. Most of the hate for Gunn's film is from moron conservatives who don't belong in any fandom.

Oh yeah. I forgot about that video.

THANKS FOR REMINDING ME "FRIEND"!!!!

Uh-oh, what did they do now?

Oh, for sure! I threw those in there as a joke where folks have to put in qualifiers to avoid libel and all that sort of thing.

IN MY OPINION, he's lying con-man fascist, FOR ME PERSONALLY, he should lose everything and fade into obscurity.

If you want a film about hope and optimism then I suggest this film.

It has no less than ten billion percent more hope and optimism than the one that's supposed to be nothing but and it also has a far better protagonist.

Actually, it's far better at everything.

The most "written by nice guys for nice guys" show around. The amount of cruelty shown towards the sex worker was so off-putting.

I guess she deserved it, sleeping with all those jerks and not with the nice guy. Used goods too, not pure.

Really freaking gross, in a show with a lot of gross stuff.

Can confirm, we live in the age of "blockbuster slop".

You know who these characters are, what they're about, the premise of the movie and the challenges the characters will face.

People should not sit on this film - it's incredible.