BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - - - - - - Part 307

[DyeLorean]

Is not that. You're right, not every superhero movie needs to be a particular thing, but at the very least they need to translate the characters well. That's basic stuff. Marvel's success is very much related in treating their characters with respect, without violating what made them interesting in the comics in the first place.
The main problem with Snyder version of DC is that it just doesn't translate well both Batman and, specially, Superman. I really don't mind the movies (MoS is still my favorite of his DC movies) but the whole universe is constructed on unstable foundations and that is why, I believe, didn't go well with audiences in general. There was nothing hopeful about Clark Kent/Superman. There wasn't any charm. And Cavill wasn't the problem (he could be the best Superman under the right guidance), but the writing and the decision to be different from Marvel. It might sound good on paper, but you can't fight the source material.

 

[Da-Scribe]

They're fictional characters in a non-canonical adaptation. Fidelity isn't a necessary component. It's fair to say you didn't like it because it's not like the comics, but saying it's bad because it's not like the comics is different and completely unfair imo. You're not judging the film on its own merits.

Plus it's just ridiculous to expect that when the cast and crew keep telling you that's not what you're going to get. It's like if McDonald's launched a health food chain of restaurants and folks got mad they weren't serving McDoubles.

 

[DyeLorean]

They're fictional characters in a non-canonical adaptation. Fidelity isn't a necessary component. It's fair to say you didn't like it because it's not like the comics, but saying it's bad because it's not like the comics is different and completely unfair imo. You're not judging the film on its own merits.

Plus it's just ridiculous to expect that when the cast and crew keep telling you that's not what you're going to get. It's like if McDonald's launched a health food chain of restaurants and folks got mad they weren't serving McDoubles.

No, I agree that is one thing to not like something and another to say it was "bad" just because it didn't align with your own taste. I get that. But even though they're fictional characters, they are bound by certain characteristics that make them who they are. I'm not against different approaches and tones and styles. But I think if this is the first time in cinematic history where your biggest DC heroes are reunited, it feels like a wasted opportunity to not make them who they traditionally are. Both Superman and Batman feel like veteran, damaged and tired heroes that are suited better for another story, for another time. That's what I didn't like.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I think if you're a filmmaker and you get the chance to direct one of these properties, you should just make the movie you want to make. No guarantee you'll get another shot at it.

 

[DyeLorean]

Oh I'm sure Zack Snyder made exactly the movie he wanted to make.

 

[The Joker]

Not every superhero movie needs to be a Marvel MCU fun fest. People just WONT GET THIS TO SAVE THEIR LIVES.

The TDK trilogy, Logan etc say hello. People don't need superhero movies to be light hearted fun fests in order to love them. That's a baloney excuse some Snyder fans tell themselves.

 

[SgtRob]

I give Snyder credit for trying something different. But it seems most ppl didn't embrace it.

For those who happened to like it, pls stop calling the rest of us stoopid. Makes you sound ridiculous. Haha

 

[flickchick85]

I think if you're a filmmaker and you get the chance to direct one of these properties, you should just make the movie you want to make. No guarantee you'll get another shot at it.

I feel like when you take on one of these multi-billion dollar properties, you are taking on an extra responsibility to be a steward of the brand and do what’s best for it. Just “making the movies you want to make” is fine when you’re telling your own stories with your own characters. But there’s an added responsibility to be mindful of the fact that these are characters that don’t belong to you, who’ve been beloved by millions for decades for certain reasons and to do your best to honor those reasons and not damage the brand. Ignoring all of that and ****ing away the brand just because you have the opportunity is a selfish d***** move, IMO.

That said, I don’t think that’s what Snyder did. I think he genuinely thought DC fans would love his vision at first. It’s the way he responded to the resulting criticism that I then took issue with.

 

[flickchick85]

For those who happened to like it, pls stop calling the rest of us stoopid. Makes you sound ridiculous.

I did see someone call anyone who doesn’t love Snyder’s films to be “intellectually lazy” and “have bad taste,” on the previous page, and just FYI folks, that kind of talk will not be tolerated here, from either side.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I feel like when you take on one of these multi-billion dollar properties, you are taking on an extra responsibility to be a steward of the brand and do what’s best for it. Just “making the movies you want to make” is fine when you’re telling your own stories with your own characters. But there’s an added responsibility to be mindful of the fact that these are characters that don’t belong to you, who’ve been beloved by millions for decades for certain reasons and to do your best to honor those reasons and not damage the brand. Ignoring all of that and ****ing away the brand just because you have the opportunity is a selfish d***** move, IMO.

That said, I don’t think that’s what Snyder did. I think he genuinely thought DC fans would love his vision at first. It’s the way he responded to the resulting criticism that I then took issue with.

Eh, I get it but I'm just not of the same mindset. I want to see more auteurship in the genre, but that doesn't come without creative freedom and singular visions. I want to see struggles beyond just hero vs villain. Say what you will about BvS execution, but Snyder at least tried to inject the battle for one's own soul into the genre. Because of that, it's easy for me to ignore its supposed lack of fidelity. Plus I feel it was like 3 years too early in how it reflected a Trump-led USA. It's not a perfect film, but there was a heartfelt effort to say something about the world and I feel about Snyder himself even, so I can't help but dig that.

Also, keep in mind Snyder was getting death threats and became the go-to punching bag for critics, bloggers, and regular fanboys alike. It got so bad folks here and across the internet felt the need to apologize after his daughter passed. You spend years devoting your life to something you believe in and people respond with unchecked vitriol, it's gonna take a toll. All things considered, I think he handled everything better than most of us would in that situation. If yall did that to me, I'd hack the Hype and replace all of your avies with pictures of me. Every sig would be one of my quotes and your bios would serve as tributes to yours truly.

 

[flickchick85]

Eh, I get it but I'm just not of the same mindset. I want to see more auteurship in the genre, but that doesn't come without creative freedom and singular visions. I want to see struggles beyond just hero vs villain. Say what you will about BvS execution, but Snyder at least tried to inject the battle for one's own soul into the genre. Because of that, it's easy for me to ignore its supposed lack of fidelity. Plus I feel it was like 3 years too early in how it reflected a Trump-led USA. It's not a perfect film, but there was a heartfelt effort to say something about the world and I feel about Snyder himself even, so I can't help but dig that.

Also, keep in mind Snyder was getting death threats and became the go-to punching bag for critics, bloggers, and regular fanboys alike. It got so bad folks here and across the internet felt the need to apologize after his daughter passed. You spend years devoting your life to something you believe in and people respond with unchecked vitriol, it's gonna take a toll. All things considered, I think he handled everything better than most of us would in that situation. If yall did that to me, I'd hack the Hype and replace all of your avies with pictures of me. Every sig would be one of my quotes and your bios would serve as tributes to yours truly.

There's a vast gulf between injecting autership into the genre and "do whatever you want." You can actually execute a unique vision AND honor the characters and what they stand for. It's entirely possible to do both. Taika Waititi is a great example, imo. For anyone who's seen his other work, whether you like it or not, Ragnarok was 100% a Waititi film, but he also gave people a Thor they could love, and did right by the brand. Chris Nolan did the same. Just...respect the characters, that's all we ask. Millions of people have tattoos of these guys on their bodies, ffs. Don't make 'em regret that. They may be fictional characters, but they MEAN something to a lot of people. Respect that, and you're good.

And there's nothing wrong with expressing your dislike for a person's work. No need to guilt people over that. It's not personal. Obviously, the people who sent death threats are another breed (many of whom are also Snyder FANS, I should point out), but people here felt bad about Zack's daughter because they're decent human beings and that's the natural reaction to something so tragic, and that's certainly not the time you want to be critical of someone's work. But it doesn't mean they should take back the criticism, or that it was remotely wrong in the first place. Creatively, Zack made his bed. He invited the criticism, both with his films, and with his reactions to the criticism, when he doubled down on everything critics and audiences hated on the next go-round. He could have accepted it with grace, but no, he chose to blame the audience.

 

[Travesty]

Where did he blame the audience?

 

[flickchick85]

Where did he blame the audience?

"Wake the **** up. Once you’ve lost your virginity to this f***ing 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***ing road on that. It’s a cool point of view to be like ‘my heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t f***ing 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***ing dream world."

Also, in a previous interview:

"They were taking it personally that I was trying to grow up their character."

That's textbook audience blaming.

 

[Da-Scribe]

There's a vast gulf between injecting autership into the genre and "do whatever you want." You can actually execute a unique vision AND honor the characters and what they stand for. It's entirely possible to do both. Taika Waititi is a great example, imo. For anyone who's seen his other work, whether you like it or not, Ragnarok was 100% a Waititi film, but he also gave people a Thor they could love, and did right by the brand. Just...respect the characters, that's all we ask. Millions of people have tattoos of these guys on their bodies, ffs. Don't make 'em regret that. They may be fictional characters, but they MEAN something to a lot of people. Respect that, and you're good.

And there's nothing wrong with expressing your dislike for a person's work. No need to guilt people over that. It's not personal. Obviously, the people who sent death threats are another breed (many of whom are also Snyder FANS, I should point out), but people here felt bad about Zack's daughter because they're decent human beings, and that's not the time you want to be critical of someone's work. But it doesn't mean they should take back the criticism, or that it was remotely wrong.

I love Taika and Ragnarok, but there's nothing truly special about it beyond finally making Thor memorable. Does it feel like a Taika film? Sure. But it also feels precisely like a Marvel film. It's still just people punching each other. The visuals and quirky humor are great, but they just felt like natural progressions of what was seen in GotG and Ant-Man respectively. His style just worked perfectly for what they were doing. And that's great! Like I said, I enjoy the hell outta the movie. But there's room for that and alternative takes imo. It's not disrespecting the characters to present them differently and perhaps a person's fandom is too fragile if disliking one version among many would make them regret a tattoo. I'm not saying you can't be unique while honoring classical interpretations, I just don't think the latter is a prerequisite. At any rate, I don't feel the Snyder moved that far from tradition anyway. No further than any other filmmaker has at least.

And I'm not talking about expressing dislike for his work. I'm talking about the various potshots taken at Snyder. Like he got criticized here for dressing nicely and working out with his cast lol. Bruce Campbell just dumped all over BvS and his criticism wasn't even relevant to the actual plot of the film. There are plenty of people who have valid issues with the film and with Snyder, but there are also a lot of folks who just don't like him as a person and didn't actually pay attention to obvious details in his flicks. You can be critical without crossing a line that I think has been very obviously crossed time and time again. Like I said, there's a reason people apologized for things they said about Snyder after his loss.

 

[flickchick85]

I love Taika and Ragnarok, but there's nothing truly special about it beyond finally making Thor memorable. Does it feel like a Taika film? Sure. But it also feels precisely like a Marvel film. It's still just people punching each other. The visuals and quirky humor are great, but they just felt like natural progressions of what was seen in GotG and Ant-Man respectively. His style just worked perfectly for what they were doing. And that's great! Like I said, I enjoy the hell outta the movie. But there's room for that and alternative takes imo. It's not disrespecting the characters to present them differently and perhaps a person's fandom is too fragile if disliking one version among many would make them regret a tattoo. I'm not saying you can't be unique while honoring classical interpretations, I just don't think the latter is a prerequisite. At any rate, I don't feel the Snyder moved that far from tradition anyway. No further than any other filmmaker has at least.

And I'm not talking about expressing dislike for his work. I'm talking about the various potshots taken at Snyder. Like he got criticized here for dressing nicely and working out with his cast lol. Bruce Campbell just dumped all over BvS and his criticism wasn't even relevant to the actual plot of the film. There are plenty of people who have valid issues with the film and with Snyder, but there are also a lot of folks who just don't like him as a person and didn't actually pay attention to obvious details in his flicks. You can be critical without crossing a line that I think has been very obviously crossed time and time again. Like I said, there's a reason people apologized for things they said about Snyder after his loss.

Bruce Campbell was just being Bruce Campbell, lol. No reason to take anything he says seriously. And look, Snyder doesn't exactly...express himself well in interviews. I'm sure there are some unnecessarily petty people out there taking personal potshots because of his work, but some of it might just be the typical potshots taken at celebrities when they don't paint the best picture of themselves in real life. Some of his quotes are rather inflammatory and elicit inflammatory reactions from people as a result. That's celebrity culture for ya. He's in the same industry game as everyone else, and brings a lot of it onto himself (obviously not the more extreme stuff). Is it right? No, but it is what it is.

And hey, I'm not against re-imagining either, just don't betray the characters. It's the one simple rule you shouldn't break when you've got hundreds of millions of dollars of someone else's money on the line, working with characters loved by millions. Logan was great and well-received, and totally different from what came before. As was the Nolan trilogy. Respecting the characters shouldn't be an unreasonable expectation, even for "auteurs."

 

[2kt09]

Plus I feel it was like 3 years too early in how it reflected a Trump-led USA. It's not a perfect film, but there was a heartfelt effort to say something about the world and I feel about Snyder himself even, so I can't help but dig that.

I don't know if that necessarily was Snyder because MoS had so little of that. BvS came out at the absolute perfect political zeitgeist. Two sides of the spectrum clashing over staunch suppositions while atrocities are being committed. Blame the government. Blame the media. Blame each other. Blame the orchestrator behind the curtain. If that came out in its original date, it'd be prophetic. If anything's 3 years too early, maybe the "Russian influence", but then that Russian was apparently given the keys by some homegrown tech mogul.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Like I said, I don't see it as disrespect to reimagine core details. I love the gahdamn Batman. But is it really that heroic for a rich white dude to use money embezzled from his company to patrol a low-income area at night in disguise and pummel its citizens? He's an entitled dbag from that perspective, so it's not unreasonable to me to explore a story that fleshes that out and depicts him as more of a villain.

Hell, Black Panther was my **** but if I found out Wakanda was real and a guy like T'Challa existed, there's no way I wouldn't relate more to Killmonger even if I didn't agree with all his methods. Especially if he just showed up in my city throwing money around. Like your rec center ain't gonna solve these systemic issues homie. Fully fleshing that out would make BP a lot less likable and would no doubt be boring for a lot of folks, but it'd be an interesting story to me. But as we've learned, no one wants to see a hero struggle to affect change and be rejected by the public in his second major outing lol.

I don't know if that necessarily was Snyder because MoS had so little of that. BvS came out at the absolute perfect political zeitgeist. Two sides of the spectrum clashing over staunch suppositions while atrocities are being committed. Blame the government. Blame the media. Blame each other. Blame the orchestrator behind the curtain. If that came out in its original date, it'd be prophetic. If anything's 3 years too early, maybe the "Russian influence", but then that Russian was apparently given the keys by some homegrown tech mogul.

I would say that we now have a better understanding of the alt-right (Lex), incels (Bruce) and the conservative mobilization against immigrants (Supes and the others metas) than we did back in 2016. I also think we better understand how someone so publicly unstable as Lex can still command a great deal of support and power. The movie feels more like a cautionary tale to me nowadays, rather than just a sad superhero flick lol.

 

[Travesty]

"Wake the **** up. Once you’ve lost your virginity to this f***ing 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***ing road on that. It’s a cool point of view to be like ‘my heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t f***ing 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***ing dream world."

Also, in a previous interview:

"They were taking it personally that I was trying to grow up their character."

That's textbook audience blaming.

Ummmm, that quote wasn't about MOS, BvS or JL, it was about Watchmen. I think you need to watch or read the entire thing. The entire Q&A that you cherry picked that quote from, was from a Watchmen screening. And he's not blaming anybody, he's merely explaining why he made those decisions, but there is no blame. Now, you may not agree with him(and that's fine), but he's not blaming anybody, he just answered a question about Watchmen at a Q&A.

Here, I'll copy/paste that part of the interview. It's over an hour long, and you're really distorting his words for....whatever reasons?


-(Question) You were talking about Watchmen being a comic book movie you wouldn’t see any more. It definitely wasn’t part of the norm as a comic book movie. If it wasn’t Watchmen, what kind of other graphic novel do you think it could’ve been, in terms of what Watchmen was for comic book movies?


-(Answer) Basically my point is that a movie like Watchmen, ten years ago was addressing the genre of superhero movies. In the ten years since Watchmen came out – who knew how far we’d go with this superhero idea, how superheroes have inundated the culture of cinema as they have – and I’m part of the problem.


But my point is when you watch this movie now, knowing what we know now – in a lot of ways, [Watchmen] should be made now.


But the cool part about Watchmen is that you couldn’t make that movie now. So it’s in a weird way, a crazy time capsule. We made a movie for now, ten years ago, in reference to deconstruct the way cinema has evolved.


People talk about however I have influenced, whatever I have done with Superman and Batman, up until now -- people have criticized me for a lot of the ways I’ve interpreted those characters

But if you’ve seen Watchmen, if you know I made that movie. It’s very difficult to then say – well, why would he do A? Why would he do B? But if you’ve seen this movie(Watchmen), you know why.

You know that saying where once you know the rules, then you can break them? Watchmen is like – that’s the rules. You can’t go backwards. It’s very difficult to go backwards from this movie, to a point in time. [Watchmen] is the end of innocence for superheroes. Superheroes are raping each other for God’s sake, they’re murdering millions of people to create world peace.

So when someone says to me, “oh, Batman killed a guy,” I’m like – pffft. Like, wake the **** up. I guess that’s what I’m saying. Once you’ve lost your virginity to [Watchmen], and then you come and say to me, like, my superhero wouldn’t do that, I’m like are you serious? I’m like down the ****ing road.

I’m 100% fine – it’s a cool point of view to say my heroes are still innocent, my heroes didn’t lie to America, my heroes didn’t embezzle money, my heroes didn’t commit any atrocities. That’s cool but you’re living in a ****ing dream world.

Mythologically speaking – I’m 100% fine – and I love more than anything Superman and Batman. But in the same way Alan Moore was fed up with “ok, no, they do this”. Clearly this is a response. Watchmen talks about comic books in the same way that this movie talks about comic book movies. But it talks about comic books at their most broken, so he was addressing that.

 

[flickchick85]

Ummmm, that quote wasn't about MOS, BvS or JL, it was about Watchmen. I think you need to watch or read the entire thing. The entire Q&A that you cherry picked that quote from, was from a Watchmen screening. And he's not blaming anybody, he's merely explaining why he made those decisions, but there is no blame. Now, you may not agree with him(and that's fine), but he's not blaming anybody, he just answered a question about Watchmen at a Q&A.

Here, I'll copy/paste that part of the interview. It's over an hour long, and you're really distorting his words for....whatever reasons?


-(Question) You were talking about Watchmen being a comic book movie you wouldn’t see any more. It definitely wasn’t part of the norm as a comic book movie. If it wasn’t Watchmen, what kind of other graphic novel do you think it could’ve been, in terms of what Watchmen was for comic book movies?


-(Answer) Basically my point is that a movie like Watchmen, ten years ago was addressing the genre of superhero movies. In the ten years since Watchmen came out – who knew how far we’d go with this superhero idea, how superheroes have inundated the culture of cinema as they have – and I’m part of the problem.


But my point is when you watch this movie now, knowing what we know now – in a lot of ways, [Watchmen] should be made now.


But the cool part about Watchmen is that you couldn’t make that movie now. So it’s in a weird way, a crazy time capsule. We made a movie for now, ten years ago, in reference to deconstruct the way cinema has evolved.


People talk about however I have influenced, whatever I have done with Superman and Batman, up until now -- people have criticized me for a lot of the ways I’ve interpreted those characters

But if you’ve seen Watchmen, if you know I made that movie. It’s very difficult to then say – well, why would he do A? Why would he do B? But if you’ve seen this movie(Watchmen), you know why.

You know that saying where once you know the rules, then you can break them? Watchmen is like – that’s the rules. You can’t go backwards. It’s very difficult to go backwards from this movie, to a point in time. [Watchmen] is the end of innocence for superheroes. Superheroes are raping each other for God’s sake, they’re murdering millions of people to create world peace.

I’m 100% fine – it’s a cool point of view to say my heroes are still innocent, my heroes didn’t lie to America, my heroes didn’t embezzle money, my heroes didn’t commit any atrocities. That’s cool but you’re living in a ****ing dream world.

Mythologically speaking – I’m 100% fine – and I love more than anything Superman and Batman. But in the same way Alan Moore was fed up with “ok, no, they do this”. Clearly this is a response. Watchmen talks about comic books in the same way that this movie talks about comic book movies. But it talks about comic books at their most broken, so he was addressing that.

I'd never seen the full interview, only the excerpts in articles about it, but even so, while the interview was about Watchmen, he's still obviously referencing people's reactions to his Batman and Superman. So I stand by what I said. He's still blaming the audience for their criticism.

 

[Travesty]

lol, but he's not. He's talking about the heroes of Watchmen, and how they're deconstructed.

 

[The Joker]

I'd never seen the full interview, only the excerpts in articles about it, but even so, while the interview was about Watchmen, he's still obviously referencing people's reactions to his Batman and Superman. So I stand by what I said. He's still blaming the audience for their criticism.

The other quote you mentioned about people not liking that he tried to "grow up their character" is definitely in reference to MOS;

Zack Snyder Says He Tried to "Grow Up" Superman In "Man of Steel"

 

[flickchick85]

Like I said, I don't see it as disrespect to reimagine core details. I love the gahdamn Batman. But is it really that heroic for a rich white dude to use money embezzled from his company to patrol a low-income area at night in disguise and pummel its citizens? He's an entitled dbag from that perspective, so it's not unreasonable to me to explore a story that fleshes that out and depicts him as more of a villain.

Hell, Black Panther was my **** but if I found out Wakanda was real and a guy like T'Challa existed, there's no way I wouldn't relate more to Killmonger even if I didn't agree with all his methods. Especially if he just showed up in my city throwing money around. Like your rec center ain't gonna solve these systemic issues homie. Fully fleshing that out would make BP a lot less likable and would no doubt be boring for a lot of folks, but it'd be an interesting story to me. But as we've learned, no one wants to see a hero struggle to affect change and be rejected by the public in his second major outing lol.

And that's all well and good, but like you said, most people don't wanna see that from their flagship heroes, - the ones that have been the symbols of inspiration for 80 years. Superheroes were created for the opposite reasons. Superman was created during the Great Depression, during the rise of Hitler - In the darkest times (like now), that's when we need their brand of escapism the most. We don't need him to fall victim to the same cynicism that's plaguing the rest of the world. His whole point of existing is that he's the guy who doesn't.

Someone who doesn't get that shouldn't be handed the keys to the kingdom in the first place, imo.

 

[flickchick85]

lol, but he's not. He's talking about the heroes of Watchmen, and how they're deconstructed.

And yet, he is.

 

[2kt09]

I would say that we now have a better understanding of the alt-right (Lex), incels (Bruce) and the conservative mobilization against immigrants (Supes and the others metas) than we did back in 2016. I also think we better understand how someone so publicly unstable as Lex can still command a great deal of support and power. The movie feels more like a cautionary tale to me nowadays, rather than just a sad superhero flick lol.

Idk about alt-right. This captured the extremes to a tee and both Batman & Superman are the representative poles. Surprised it has taken this long for any adaptation to make Bruce a bleeding conservative. We almost wish it's as easy as the real-life bizarre mannered Mark Zuckerberg being ousted as the villain. If it's a cautionary tale, it's one for everybody who bases things off of as little info as possible, but that's human nature especially when the world around you dictates how you should think or if there's a personal stake to maintain.

I've only seen this twice or thrice, but it'd be a good precursive watch to Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.

 

[Travesty]

And yet, he is.

I honestly don't see how, when you have the entire thing in full. Unless you're still cherry picking little quotes, to fit your narrative, you're not making much sense here.

Bizarre.