Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Snyder DC Trilogy.

  • 06-04-2022 9:28am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭


    Marvel v DC is a debate I would not be in a position to argue from a comic book point of view. But in Terms of movies over the last 10 years, the movies have given plenty of meat to discuss. I’ve been watching his trilogy again and everytime I can’t understand how there is so much hate towards them.

    Zack Snyder really is a director who divides opinion, like marmite . Probably most famous for the slow motion capture and can be accused of “style over substance”. In a weird way, style over substance is not actually a terrible thing for a comic book movie.

    One major issue people have with Snyders DC movies is that they are not like Marvel. People can say it’s not, but the evidence is there for the masses. Aquaman , Shazam and WW could both slot very comfortably into the marvel Universe and they were overwhelmingly succcessful and less expected to be then superman/Batman movies.

    But Snyders movies would be harder to squeeze into a marvel universe, they’d feel really out of place. This on its own does not mean “different is better”, but an accusation that cannot be labelled at Snyder is that he did a copy and paste of what marvel were offering.

    So why am I bringing it up? Because I enjoy both Marvel and DC (snyder) movies and can appreciate the qualities both bring. However I get drawn back to Snyder movies more frequently and to be frank I find it difficult to work out why I enjoy them so much more.

    The soundtracks are probably the easiest to assess. Zimmers scores are absolutely superb , haunting and epic. I think they outdo anything Marvel have offered and packs a punch , particularly watching on a big screen.

    Then there’s epic moments and memorable visuals. I happen to enjoy the destruction of places in MOS and BvS, dont know what all the fuss about that was (people complaining about too much destruction). Super humans destroying cities/towns is nothing new, look at superman 2 (which was so popular). The only reason New York wasn’t destroyed was prob down to limited technology to show it.

    The fight scenes between superman v kryptonaians/Batman/doomsday were excellently executed. One of my favourite moments was Batman watching Superman and Doomsday go at it, then you get superman and doomsday go at a laser off. Wonderful scenes, prob straight off a comicbook page.

    Lex really grew on me and his plan in the ultimate cut made so much more sense and gave him a far more sinister genius look that few marvel villains can match. I think overall the DC villains are far more sinister and “scary” then the marvel ones.

    Batmans fight scene while saving Martha was brutally beautiful. WWs entrance when doomsday is about to kill Batman is possibly the greatest entrance of a super hero of all time. It’s so hard to not see that scene and go “yes, sh*t just got real”.

    The JL Snyder cut was just epic. Have to say I was disappointed with some of the score. They should of used more from BvS. That said, it really did nicely round off the trilogy. Each movie added to the previous one. I loved how the sequels started by going back to the end of the previous one to link up.

    Also, the work Snyder did in trying to give Characters backstory’s and motives was really well done. It wasn’t all perfect but you could see what he was going for. I loved the new ending , it have every hero an actual role in defeating the villian. And the villain was equally more menacing.

    I think quite often people think box office tells a story on how objectively good a movie is but that’s not really true. Box office tells you how much a movie resonates with an audience and if it’s ticked certain boxes. Sole of the best movies ever made f**k all at the box office, equally the most financially successful movies aren’t necessarily the best.

    I also think people can be rigidly absolute in their stance on a movie. I have the capacity to change my mind on something for different reasons. I’ve done it on many movies, Snyder in particular (some Thomas Anderson ones) are movies I don’t always love when I first see them. I’m not sure it’s that they grow on me or I recalibrate what to expect.

    Movies are subjective so I do not speak in absolutes on this. I’m only posting it because I know I am not alone. It’s easy for people to waste more energy putting something down and let’s be honest in an Internet forum people just love to hate on things. I am disappointed we won’t get anymore Snyder movies in DC.

    Can I ask people do not use this to make this into a Snyder hate off. I accept the movies are not perfect, just wanted to see if others share my sentiments.



Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    The problem with the destruction in MoS is that Superman isn't doing anything to try and stop it which he does in Superman 2. I think a lot of people have problems with the characterisations of the leads, Snyder's Superman is broody and grim despite wearing a symbol for hope on his chest. His Batman is a bloodthirsty killing machine and his motivations for wanting to kill Superman are just really weak. They didn't cut and paste the MCU they tried to skip the hard work of establishing the characters.

    I agree there are elements and visuals I like, eg Bruce watching the fight in Metropolis but again the fact he watched and decided that Superman needed to die just goes to show how poorly characterized Superman is.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    In MOS, there was a world changing engine on either side of the world. While metropolis was being destroyed he was trying to stop the machine. If you think about it, most of the damage was done by that machine that superman stopped. I’d argue that the baddies in superman 2 effectively did the same damage to the city but the absence of the world engine made the difference.

    There’s only so many takes on Batman that can be done. Gritty, ground down Batman who saw superman as an existential threat was actually not that out there. Joker had killed robin (effectively his son/brother). The death of batmans parents is what led him to become the caped crusader, I don’t see why the death of another loved one might not of pushed him over the edge.

    In terms of character building , that can hardly be used as a reason to hold against Snyder. He did what he could and it was enough to understand the motives of the character. Sure In civil war “you killed my mom” was a plot device used to divide the avengers. Building up a backstory doesn’t change the use of this plot device. It was better handled then the “Martha” moment but the emotional impact to the characters were understandable.

    I think in alot of movies, the issues are seldom the individual things pointed out, it’s simply that people didn’t enjoy the movie. That’s ok, but then people pick out bits that they feel maybe explains it. I remember having arguments with people who talk about how stupid the characters in Prometheus and Alien covenant are. I watched alien and aliens and tried to apply the same arguments (even though I love both movies). You can find similar flaws with characters actions in these movies but the difference is that they are just better movies. The flawed characters decisions are ignorable because the movies are just too enjoyable.

    I think the slow mo stuff and visuals of Snyder movies nearly trigger distaste in some people who then build on it with other elements they didn’t enjoy. I still can’t fully explain why I generally enjoy the comicbook Snyder movies, I just know there are people who do like them and wanted to share.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    If I recall correctly in MoS Superman is actively throwing Zod into skyscrapers presumably full of people whereas in Superman 2 he is trying to fight them whilst not hurting innocents. I should point out as well that is a point specific to Superman, obviously there is a lot of destruction collateral in the Marvel movies but people took issue with MoS because of who it was.

    I've not read many Batman comics and I've read zero Batman comics featuring Superman but I think there was a line "If there is even a 1% chance he can go bad, we have to kill him" that was the gist anyway and it just doesn't stand up to any logic. Tbh a lot of the problems I have are down to the writing than the actual direction. We don't get to see Batman pushed over the edge we just have to assume he's there, it's nor particularly interesting to me nor well done and what brings him back, well it's been litigated before and it's just clumsy.


    I think when you're not enjoying a movie, you're not engrossed and you find yourself noticing things you probably wouldn't notice in a movie you did enjoy. Whether that's down to craft or individual taste is a much longer discussion. I've only ever seen the Snyder movies once but I'm not in any hurry to watch them again not did I see enough promise to justify the runtime of the other cuts. Like you said it's down to personal taste and there's no right or wrong.



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,194 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I have no issue with Batman being willing to kill and wanting to kill Superman. My issue is that it's not consistent. If Batman is willing to kill random henchmen transporting something Batman needs to kill Superman based on a 1% chance Superman might one day turn evil, then neither Joker nor Harley Quinn should still be alive. We saw the Robin suit which hints that Joker killed Robin (which Snyder revealed online to be Dick Grayson rather than Jason Todd). And Batman.... retired?

    Batman's no-kill policy in the comics comes from the idea that if he goes down that road, he won't be able to stop. Jason Todd when he returns from the dead is angry at Batman not for failing to save him, but for not avenging him; for not killing the Joker because he killed Jason Todd. Batman has to argue that he can't break his no-kill policy, to which Jason Todd feels like Batman never cared about him enough, because if he cared for him he would have killed Joker.

    In BvS, we have a Batman who kills random henchmen simply transporting a lump of rock they're just been ordered to. But Joker killed Dick Grayson, and Batman just retired and gave up. It doesn't make sense. The Batman we see in BvS would have never stopped hunting Joker down. He'll kill henchmen transporting a rock, but he won't kill the guy who literally murdered his adopted son.

    And to me it's part of the fundamental issue with Snyder's trilogy; fair enough he doesn't want to spend time on origin stories, but he's jumping into some of the biggest Batman/Superman/Justice League stories, smashing them together, and the intended effect just isn't earned. BvS features elements of The Dark Knight Returns, Death in the Family, Death of Superman and Injustice, while also featuring stories about Lex Luthor, Wonder Woman, Lois Lane (a story which went nowhere because it ended up having no effect on anything) and setting up Darkseid and the Justice League. The impact of Batman and Superman fighting is lessened because they haven't been friends and have no prior relationship. The impact of Superman's death is lessened because it's only his second film and everyone knew he was coming back in Justice League anyway. The impact of Robin's death is lessened because we never saw Robin. And overall the combination of everything was just insanely messy.

    I mostly enjoyed Man of Steel, but BvS was just a mess. ZSJL was good, but never would have made it to cinemas in that state (would have been cut to 3hours at most and would have been better for it). But reading what would have been his plans for future JL films.... I think they would have been a disaster.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Agreed, That’s exactly my point, if you are not invested in a movie (for whatever reason) you will pick out things that probably annoy you more then they should.

    Incidentally it was Zod throwing superman around metropolis more so then the other way around. I think the smallville destruction annoyed many, but I can’t understand why to be honest. When you have super beings fighting , particularly a superman coming up against probably stronger foes for the first Time in his life, it’s a bit weird to expect him to be more careful.Part of that comes down to our expectations I suppose.

    No back story for Batman is not an issue for me in the context of the movie. His motives are not that outlandish and we understand them even if they are not “earned” (that some people feel there needs to be). The whole Batman character ark was redemption, a person who had been beaten down by what life offered and had become , as Alfred put it , “cruel”. Bruce sees superman’s fights nearly destroy the city. It kills his employees. Then he has led Luther sowing seeds of doubt in everybody on superman’s motives or trustworthiness.


    “A 1% chance of total annihilation”. It’s actually a reasonable argument , would you support the destruction of all nuclear warheads even if it was just the USA (“our superman”) who had them? The chance of them being used is still considered relatively negligible but they could destroy us all. Oddly enough the mutual destruction logic can counter this whereby they can be a strong deterrent that can act to keep peace.

    Again, I don’t think that matters one bit if people took to the movie. But here we are… As I’ve said, I just really enjoy them and am disappointed we will either get gritty Batman in real world settings (didn’t really enjoy the new one) or marvel lite dc universe. Joker and dead pool will remain outliers and we will get the flash, ww, black Adam, Shazam, Aquaman and any other connected stuff as basically marvel with DC characters. That’s what the crowds want so you can see why it’s happening.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    I would agree with the Henchmen bit, that was excessive and there was no way Batman could be sure people werent being killed as he chased the Kryptonite.

    The Robin being killed was, in my interpretation, more a motive for why batman has come off the rails. There was no suggestion Batman had retired, just gone rogue/cruel really.

    In terms of the comic books and history of Batman, this would be something that does not prejudice my enjoyment of the movie. In short, ignorance is bliss as I am not familiar with the comics, so have no pre conceived idea of how Batman should be. I accepted hes a grizzled, despondent, imperfect Batman who has lost his way at the beginning of the movie and just go with it. This is where marvel had a huge advantage, iron man, Thor and CA do not have the same baggage a superman/Batman movie has to navigate.

    In terms of spending time on characters, I would of thought thats more the studios that is creating that problem then Snyder. You said it yourself, when Snyder had one story (MOS) with one major character you actually enjoyed what he did. He wasn't given several origin movies like Whedon was with Avengers, I do not see how people can blame Snyder for that.

    The reason BvS and JSSC are so long is actually to flesh out the stories and characters. Indeed alot of the extended portions of BvS is to clarify and flesh out Luther's role in manipulating Batman and Superman to fight. So again, I feel Snyder tried to work within the parameters that were set and its those parameters that limited what he could do with the characters. In terms of BvS, what I feel was "earned" was Batmans redemption, theres not an awful lot else one could do with 2 massive characters and one had no opportunity for a full backstory. Love or hate it, it was a take on batman we hadnt seen on screen to date.

    Post edited by Drumpot on


Advertisement