Justice League **Spoilers from post 980 onward**

Drumpot

Slydice wrote: »

Usually I recommend the Ultimate Cut of BvS.

I think this is the cut of JL for that:
https://vimeo.com/276498216

BvS gets better and better on rewatch and the UC is brilliant.

When I See WW and worse still Aquaman and captain marvel doing so well I can’t get my head around what audiences want/appreciate cause it’s definitely not good movies.

pixelburp

He also said people need to "wake the f*ck up" over his version of Batman that straight-up murders people, saying:

Once you’ve lost your virginity to this f*cking movie and then you come and say to me something about like ‘my superhero wouldn’t do that.’ I’m like ‘Are you serious?’ I’m like down the f*cking road on that.

It’s a cool point of view to be like ‘my heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t f*cking lie to America. My heroes didn’t embezzle money from their corporations. My heroes didn’t commit any atrocities.’ That’s cool. But you’re living in a f*cking dream world.

Zack Synder does seem to passionately love pop culture, and comic-book properties in particular, but he also keeps taking all the wrong lessons and meanings from these stories, just appearing to be completely tone deaf in terms of character. I honestly don't think he knows how characters or human beings work. Or cares to know.

Penn

pixelburp wrote: »

He also said people need to "wake the f*ck up" over his version of Batman that straight-up murders people, saying:



Zack Synder does seem to passionately love pop culture, and comic-book properties in particular, but he also keeps taking all the wrong lessons and meanings from these stories, just appearing to be completely tone deaf in terms of character. I honestly don't think he knows how characters or human beings work. Or cares to know.

I think the issue is though that he accuses fans of "living in a f*cking dream world", while he lives in a f*cking nightmare world. He takes the darkest possible interpretation of the characters and focuses on that. Watchmen was a great fit for him. Superman was not.

He also seems to show disdain for the fans and what they want. People wanted Jimmy Olsen in MoS, so Snyder put him in BvS and killed him unceremoniously without even mentioning that he was Jimmy Olsen. People would have loved Robin/Nightwing to eventually show up in the DCU. Snyder instead shows that he was killed years ago (and confirmed years later it was Dick Grayson, not Jason Todd).

The more he goes on about what he was going to do with JL and the DCEU in general, the more I'm glad it never came to pass. I have no issues with a darker take on the films and characters than what the MCU does. But especially with BvS, Snyder went so dark as to not make the characters in any way likeable. He made it difficult to actually root for or care about either of the characters.

Penn

Also, I should note I personally didn't have an issue with Batman killing people. That in itself wasn't the issue. The Batman in the Nolan films killed people when he had to. Most of the MCU heroes have killed their enemies or random henchmen. Hell, Captain America was a soldier in WW2, he probably has a higher kill count than some of the MCU villains.

The issue was that the Joker killed Robin. The fact that Batman has no issue killing random henchmen who are simply transporting something on behalf of Luthor, in order to get the Kryptonite to kill Superman, based just on the 1% chance Superman might some day turn evil... yet he never killed The Joker as revenge for killing Robin?

The Joker killed Dick Grayson, who was supposed to be at the very least Batman's partner, never mind his adoptive son, and Batman seemingly gave up the hunt for The Joker and gave up being Batman for several years while the Joker was still out there, yet he decides to come back out of retirement, kills random henchmen so he can kill Superman in case Superman might turn evil ("If there's even a 1% chance then we have to take it as an absolute certainty")... It makes no sense. The version of Batman Snyder gave us in these films, he should have spent every day hunting down The Joker until he found him and killed him.

pixelburp

Penn wrote: »

I think the issue is though that he accuses fans of "living in a f*cking dream world", while he lives in a f*cking nightmare world. He takes the darkest possible interpretation of the characters and focuses on that. Watchmen was a great fit for him. Superman was not.

I vacillate wildly on whether I think Watchmen was a 'good' adaptation, but in terms of directors having a voice or a message behind the superficial, on average I believe Synder was a bad fit and was a crystallised summary of what Synder's key flaws as a filmmaker.

The adaptation was visually a near-perfect recreation of the original comic, and you can clearly see Synders love & passion for those original art panels. Yet scratching under the surface, it's not hard to find how Synder didn't 'get' the core ideas behind the comic - or as I suggested, chose to ignore them. The book didn't want us to like these characters, not as such & it cast a critical eye on just how dangerously messed up vigilantism could be; Synder however, fetishised the characters. He kept saying "these guys are messed up - but AREN'T THEY SO COOL! SLOW-MO SHOT!". Cool images of Dr. Manhatten splattering mobsters yet there was nothing behind it saying "this isn't normal behaviour"

RayCun

Penn wrote: »

Watchmen was a great fit for him.

Watchmen was a terrible movie, and a terrible version of the comics.

The pornography of violence is antithetical to the themes of the comics.

Penn

Sorry, not saying it was a good film (well, I liked a lot of it, didn't like some of it). Just it's a comic book/characters more suited to Snyder's own inclinations and views than the likes of Superman & Wonder Woman.

RayCun

Penn wrote: »

Sorry, not saying it was a good film (well, I liked a lot of it, didn't like some of it). Just it's a comic book/characters more suited to Snyder's own inclinations and views than the likes of Superman & Wonder Woman.

But it really isn't.

Snyder's whole thing is loving depictions of violence. Slow motion scenes with a weird colour scale of muscular people beating each other up.

That is completely not what Watchmen is about.

Snyder would be better off with The Dark Knight, or some early 90's GrimandGritty (TM) comics.

Penn

RayCun wrote: »

But it really isn't.

Snyder's whole thing is loving depictions of violence. Slow motion scenes with a weird colour scale of muscular people beating each other up.

That is completely not what Watchmen is about.

I agree, and those were some of the bits/changes I didn't like. But on the whole I enjoyed the film and there were large portions of it that I did like and which I didn't feel were antithetical to the comics.

Tazzimus

I just watched Watchmen for Rorschach, brilliant bit of casting there.

I have the extended version, which has black freighter spliced into it, quite strange.

Fysh

I think it was the Every Frame A Painting team who described him as a "moments"-fixated director. I think his problem is that, in the hierarchy of Film, Scene and Shot he gets it the exact wrong way round - I forget who coined the phrase but I've seen Soderbergh mention it in interviews. The idea is that, when editing a film, you have to consider the needs of the film first, then the scene, and then the shot. Whereas Snyder has long struck me as a director who spends too much time thinking about "How kewl is this?!?" type images, rather than any kind of narrative or theme.

My pet hate for how he failed to get what Watchmen was about is the shot of Hollis Mason's garage & flat that was faithfully recreated from the comic. In the comic it's an elegant way of using a world-building element (Dr Manhattan's creation of highly efficient batteries that allow electric cars to replace combustion engine cars sometime between the 50s and 60s) to comment on Mason's obsolescence in the face of changing times (and his replacement by the more technologically sophisticated Dan Dreiberg as Nite Owl II), by having Mason's sign include the line "Obsolete models a specialty!". Except that Snyder's decision to change the plot so that Manhattan is still working to solve "the energy crisis" (rather than having done so decades back) means that the wording here doesn't have the same resonance - Mason wouldn't have used "obsolete" on his sign, because combustion engine cars aren't obsolete yet - at best, you'd get something like "classic cars a specialty", which is significantly different.

Bringing things back around to how Snyder got into the DCEU, you have no further to look than the clowns who were running DC comics around 2011. Dan Didio, Geoff Johns and Jim Lee seem to have collectively decided that what DC comics needed was an embarassingly unsubtle grim n gritty reboot in fine 90s style, which they duly did with the New 52 relaunch (a classic DC comics ballsup where, in an effort to make things "more accessible to new readers" they contrive some farcical reason to partially reboot the universe. But in order to not alienate the hardcore collector fanbase whose money is what actually keeps DC's periodical arm going, they have to retain a bunch of previous continuity and, worse, find some convoluted way to graft this onto the relaunch. So what they actually get is something that's *still* bafflignly obtuse and convoluted for new readers, but also a mangled version of ehat existing readers want). It's this version that WB foolishly decides to look at when trying to catch up with Marvel for its movie universe, and what really puts the boot in is the use of Geoff Johns, a writer with a similar focus on "kewl moments first" writing and unnecessary gore to Snyder, as a Chief Creative Officer. At that point Snyder's presence makes perfect sense, and never mind that he's the directorial equivalent of a teenage boy who thinks Mortal Kombat is the best fighting game purely because it has tons of gore and the ability to murder your opponents in gruesome ways. That's the version of the DC comics universe that DC has for some reason chosen to offer audiences.

In the comics, it was less than 5 years before the "wild success" of the New 52 got papered over with another similarly clumsy (though this time, at least, driven by better motives) relaunch exercise. That doesn't seem to have trickled down to the films yet, but give it time...

spacecoyote

Fysh wrote: »

At that point Snyder's presence makes perfect sense, and never mind that he's the directorial equivalent of a teenage boy who thinks Mortal Kombat is the best fighting game purely because it has tons of gore and the ability to murder your opponents in gruesome ways.

A Mortal Kombat reboot might actually be perfect fodder for a Snyder movie. No real depth of history/story plus lots of opportunities for sweaty muscle-bound kewl moments!!!

Penn

Fysh wrote: »

At that point Snyder's presence makes perfect sense, and never mind that he's the directorial equivalent of a teenage boy who thinks Mortal Kombat is the best fighting game purely because it has tons of gore and the ability to murder your opponents in gruesome ways. That's the version of the DC comics universe that DC has for some reason chosen to offer audiences.

Can't remember who said it, possibly Kevin Smith, but after BvS they said it was like Zack Snyder had only read one comic book in his life and it was The Dark Knight Returns, and that's what he thought all comic books were like.

Drumpot

I thought watchmen was one of the greatest super hero movies of all time. The UC was even more epic but I suppose like BvS if you don’t like the shorter version the longer one will hardly change your mind.

There is always some underlying beauty to snyder movies that I enjoy, even his lesser quality stuff.

It’s great not to be shackled with the expectations of whatever it was the comics promised.

pixelburp

Drumpot wrote: »

I thought watchmen was one of the greatest super hero movies of all time. The UC was even more epic but I suppose like BvS if you don’t like the shorter version the longer one will hardly change your mind.

There is always some underlying beauty to schnyder movies that I enjoy, even his lesser quality stuff.

It’s great not to be shackled with the expectations of whatever it was the comics promised.

Ah I dunno about that: there's a difference between not being 'shackled', and just misinterpreting or misreading the original message from the comic. What Synder did was like adapting the Handmaids Tale and making Gilead some cool-looking, exciting place, or presenting those Handmaids outfits as awesome designs. Synder screwed too much with - or just didn't understand - the underlying tone and themes from the original comic, and ultimately what a story is about is as important as the plot or characters. Lose that and it becomes a lesser adaptation. It can survive a character or setting change, but IMO not a change to its themes or tone.

Watchmen the comic was about human failures and the dangers of vigilantism; Rorschach was not someone to admire, but fear and detest. Watchmen the movie had the iconography of the comic, but instead fetishised its characters and you could tell Synder loved Rorschach's unblinking psychopathy.

Drumpot

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah I dunno about that: there's a difference between not being 'shackled', and just misinterpreting or misreading the original message from the comic. What Synder did was like adapting the Handmaids Tale and making Gilead some cool-looking, exciting place, or presenting those Handmaids outfits as awesome designs. Synder screwed too much with - or just didn't understand - the underlying tone and themes from the original comic, and ultimately what a story is about is as important as the plot or characters. Lose that and it becomes a lesser adaptation. It can survive a character or setting change, but IMO not a change to its themes or tone.

Watchmen the comic was about human failures and the dangers of vigilantism; Rorschach was not someone to admire, but fear and detest. Watchmen the movie had the iconography of the comic, but instead fetishised its characters and you could tell Synder loved Rorschach's unblinking psychopathy.

I thought Human failures and the dangers of vigilantism was a clear message throughout. The comedian was a horribly savage “goody” and the main protagonist gave the appearance of good but killed millions to achieve peace. The entire world was depressingly dark with vigilantes no better or worse then the people who populated it. Super hero’s who are as flawed as the people they “protect”. I also though the message was about humans needing a common enemy to unit them, another major human flaw.

Nite owl was the only remotely balanced main character in the movie. I thought he was the most redeemable character but I don’t know what his original character was meant to be. Rorschach was sort of admirable but why do you think it HAS to be closer to the source material? Was the comedian made into a meaner character? Or maybe they thought it made the comedian a stronger character by not going OTT on Rorschach?

I had no expectations on characters therefore was able to enjoy what we got. I don’t really understand why I should care or make it a thing that the director changes aspects of the original material. Therefore I dont believe I’m shackled or in anyway prejudiced by it.

RayCun

Drumpot wrote: »

I thought Human failures and the dangers of vigilantism was a clear message throughout.

That was what the book was about, but the movie's message was
"Look at these cool guys in their spandex! Ooh, feel those bones crunch - wasn't that cool! Oh, this bit is so cool I have to show it to you in slow-motion! And now let's play some really cool music over the fight scene!"

Drumpot

RayCun wrote: »

That was what the book was about, but the movie's message was
"Look at these cool guys in their spandex! Ooh, feel those bones crunch - wasn't that cool! Oh, this bit is so cool I have to show it to you in slow-motion! And now let's play some really cool music over the fight scene!"

I didn’t read the comics but I still got that message. Perhspd it’s a case of people just not liking how Snyder makes movies or tells stories which is fine and a reasonable reason to not enjoy his movies. I just don’t agree with the reason given for why it was perceived to be not a good movie.

RayCun

Drumpot wrote: »

I didn’t read the comics but I still got that message. Perhspd it’s a case of people just not liking how Snyder makes movies or tells stories which is fine and a reasonable reason to not enjoy his movies.

His particular aesthetic is not a good match for certain themes.

Give him an anti-war script and he'll give you

Drumpot

RayCun wrote: »

His particular aesthetic is not a good match for certain themes.

Give him an anti-war script and he'll give you

:pac:

I think I am happy that , as I have gotten older, when it comes to movies, I am generally happy to just mostly enjoy them for what they are and what we get.

I still have a tendency to over think or over analyze other pastimes and I enjoy them less as a result. Just look at some of my posts in the Man united forum to see how much I get annoyed when things arent meeting my expectations. I feel its very similar here for some people when it comes to movies.

Tony EH

The writing was on the wall with Snyder right from the off. He took George Romero's classic...fundamentally misunderstood what it was about and made his "don't stop to think" version.

Romero's various commentaries on people's inability to function in abnormal situations despite having everything at their fingertips, the boredom that comes with ease, a general lack of communication and a rampant obsession with consumerism...in the hands of Zack Snyder became Usain Bolt zombies, montages, splosions and quick cut set pieces to fast music.

It couldn't have been more opposite to what Romero wanted to say.

Because Snyder just didn't get what was being said.

It was so kewl!

The White Wolf

Don't think I've ever seen a director as polarising as Snyder. It's extroardinary really. Christopher Nolan is the only other director in recent times that I've seen ignite such debate.

I don't think Snyder is all about the visuals and being cool anyway, if he was then we wouldn't have gotten the sprawling, convoluted mess that was the story in BvS. He's a director that seems to aim high at the very least, whether he hits the mark is a whole other story.

For better or worse I would have liked to have seen him close off his trilogy of DC films the way he wanted, because what we got in JL was something nobody wanted. It was actually an insult to all involved - fans, cast and directors.

Bacchus

The White Wolf wrote: »

Don't think I've ever seen a director as polarising as Snyder. It's extroardinary really. Christopher Nolan is the only other director in recent times that I've seen ignite such debate.

I don't think Snyder is all about the visuals and being cool anyway, if he was then we wouldn't have gotten the sprawling, convoluted mess that was the story in BvS. He's a director that seems to aim high at the very least, whether he hits the mark is a whole other story.

For better or worse I would have liked to have seen him close off his trilogy of DC films the way he wanted, because what we got in JL was something nobody wanted. It was actually an insult to all involved - fans, cast and directors.

It's exactly because he is all about the visuals and being cool that we got that convoluted mess. All he wants to do is have cool "moment" shots, and when there's not one of those on the screen, he's rushing to the next one.

Personally, I enjoy his visual style and I think he has a nice take on doing action. However, he makes dumb movies. It can work (300, Watchmen, Dawn of the Dead) but they're just visual feasts. When that's all you have, and you're working with properties that already have a strong fanbase then you're going end up with all the "he completely missed the point" arguments but it's true. Bringing him into the big-time with Superman and Batman just brought those failings into focus with a wider audience - your average punter is going to know SFA about Watchmen, or care about the consumerism theme of the original Dawn of the Dead.

Tony EH

The White Wolf wrote: »

Don't think I've ever seen a director as polarising as Snyder. It's extroardinary really. Christopher Nolan is the only other director in recent times that I've seen ignite such debate.

I don't think Snyder is all about the visuals and being cool anyway, if he was then we wouldn't have gotten the sprawling, convoluted mess that was the story in BvS. He's a director that seems to aim high at the very least, whether he hits the mark is a whole other story.

For better or worse I would have liked to have seen him close off his trilogy of DC films the way he wanted, because what we got in JL was something nobody wanted. It was actually an insult to all involved - fans, cast and directors.

I agree here.

Despite my misgivings about Snyder (and I don't really like him as a director), I actually liked 'Man of Steel' and 'Batman VS Superman'. They made sense to me. But, I think most audiences wanted to approach them like they were Marvel films, full of quippy dialogue and one liner emptiness.

They were never meant to be like that in the first place. They were supposed to be more "serious" affairs.

I've said it before, but I really liked confused Superman and grumpy middle-aged Batman. They make sense to me, in a way that the Marvel superheroes with their ill-toned funny remarks when everything is going to shit doesn't.

I like that Kal-El is unsure as to what his purpose on Earth is supposed to be. I like that humans are a bit of an enigma to him and the learning curve is very steep. I also like that Batman is jaded from decades of fighting his hopeless battle against the criminals of Gotham. A battle he is going to lose, no matter what he does and he's simply lost sight of where he is. Even Alfred gently admonishes him for his actions, which are all borne out of his frustration.

I'll probably never really understand why audiences were so down on 'Batman VS Superman', which admittedly has its issues, like all of these comicbook movies, but it wasn't the disaster that a lot of folk made it out to be.

Frankly, I'd take BVS over 90% of Marvel's output any day of the week.

The White Wolf

Bacchus wrote: »

It's exactly because he is all about the visuals and being cool that we got that convoluted mess. All he wants to do is have cool "moment" shots, and when there's not one of those on the screen, he's rushing to the next one.

If that was the case then he could do that in 90 minutes without going on about jars of piss and cover ups against Suoerman that go no where. BvS UE clocked in at what, 3 hours? He obviously fancies himself as an auteur and at least tries to add some weight to his films.

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

I agree here.

Despite my misgivings about Snyder (and I don't really like him as a director), I actually liked 'Man of Steel' and 'Batman VS Superman'. They made sense to me. But, I think most audiences wanted to approach them like they were Marvel films, full of quippy dialogue and one liner emptiness.

They were never meant to be like that in the first place. They were supposed to be more "serious" affairs.

Thing is, Superman is precisely the kind of characters where 'quippyness' works, and audiences / fans wanted their Boy Scout to be ... well, a Bot Scout. The current iteration of Superman (and Supergirl, at that) on CW's channel is a far more honest and authentic portrayal of the characters than Synder's.

I don't even like Superman, but Synder screwed the pooch as the Yanks say, and needlessly made Clark Kent this tedious Jesus metaphor and continued his obsession with the tortured, lonely god. You can tell a story about the pressure of being Superman without the grating, over-serious approach.

Batman too, was just plain wrong. A murdering, branding psychopath who went to war with Supes over the flimsiest of reasons.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Thing is, Superman is precisely the kind of characters where 'quippyness' works, and audiences / fans wanted their Boy Scout to be ... well, a Bot Scout. The current iteration of Superman (and Supergirl, at that) on CW's channel is a far more honest and authentic portrayal of the characters than Synder's.

I don't even like Superman, but Synder screwed the pooch as the Yanks say, and needlessly made Clark Kent this tedious Jesus metaphor and continued his obsession with the tortured, lonely god. You can tell a story about the pressure of being Superman without the grating, over-serious approach.

I've never seen Superman as a quippy character. I've always thought of him as a boring "American way" trope. Like this guy.




But he wears his knickers on the outside.

pixelburp wrote: »

Batman too, was just plain wrong. A murdering, branding psychopath who went to war with Supes over the flimsiest of reasons.

I always thought that Batman never killing ANYONE was kind of dumb really.

Sure, could BVS have been written better? Of course. But, show me a superhero movie that couldn't have.

In the end, I spose that I'm just not that invested in the characters. For me, the world of superheroes was largely just Batman and even then, I would have traded him for Judge Dredd every time.

'Warlord' and '2000 A.D.' were my comics growing up so Marvel and DC were kind "huh wa?" and limited to a very occasional experience.

The White Wolf

Snyder didn't know how to do Superman and I'm pretty sure he was on record pre MOS saying he was a character he found difficult to relate with and that Batman was his dream movie. That's where the problems began and ended.

Snyder is also on record talking about how the MOS sequel organically became Batman v Superman, because once they started to talk about Batman they couldn't reign themselves in. The "what if" factor ran away with their imagination unfortunately.

Drumpot

The White Wolf wrote: »

Snyder didn't know how to do Superman and I'm pretty sure he was on record pre MOS saying he was a character he found difficult to relate with and that Batman was his dream movie. That's where the problems began and ended.

Snyder is also on record talking about how the MOS sequel organically became Batman v Superman, because once they started to talk about Batman they couldn't reign themselves in. The "what if" factor ran away with their imagination unfortunately.

Superman is a very difficult character to bring to life in the way they did in the original movies in the late 70s. He’s too strong which makes it hard to have stories where he seems under anybthreat. I think the way special effects and the world in general has changed that Snyder did a good job of trying to make the character relevant today.

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

I've never seen Superman as a quippy character. I've always thought of him as a boring "American way" trope. Like this guy.



But he wears his knickers on the outside.

Maybe not 'quippy', but earnest, and in another parallel with Marvel (ie, Captain America), with American jingoism they've generally dialled back the 'Truth, Justice & the American way' rhetoric. So Superman is more just an earnest, optimistic kind of guy. Not dour, more a loveable dufous really, the ultimate 'honest country guy' schtick.

AFAIK more recent publications have actually leaned more into Superman as an immigration story than Synder's tedious 'lonely god' angle, which to me is a far more interesting and original angle to take on the Superman story. Clark Kent is the ultimate outsider in these stories and his drama is in his coming to terms with trying to live a 'normal' human life - but no in this tortured angsty fashion.