BvS Constructive Criticism of BvS, MoS, and Zack Snyder's Directorial Style

[rogbngp]

@BatLobsterRises, That's not really how I read Coco on Snyder, FWIW. Just like we all have favorite fiction authors, musicians, painters, actors, etc., there are certain filmmakers that strike a chord with us. I hear Coco as coming more from a place of why he personally feels an affinity for Snyder's art.

 

[Jaxon]

As a casual filmgoer, Watchmen is a 3.5 star movie.

As a PROSPECTIVE DIRECTOR, Watchmen is AMAZING. I can EASILY see know why Ebert chose to give it the full four (and now I think I will, too). It's deep, cinematically expressive, dramatic, artistic, haunting, beautiful and ultimately more redemptive than even the graphic novel. And JEH gives a performance for the ages. It was an easy buy

If BvS is 50 percent as good as Watchmen, we're in for a modern classic.

Nolan told Snyder that he made that movie too early, and that if he had made it now it'd be revered.

People don't click with the depth in that movie. I think the source material is just too layered for the GA.

 

[DA_Champion]

I posted this in the Watchmen vs V for Vendetta thread in the misc comics forums. IMO, Watchmen >> V for Vendetta.

*********************************************

I hadn't read either comic before watching the movies.

V for Vendetta, I was watching it and it was clear that they were making a heavy-handed criticism of George W. Bush. It was so simplistic (I'm on the far-left btw) that I was offended. I looked it up online after watching the movie and found out Alan Moore had the same opinion I did, he said they made his comic into an "American Liberal fantasy".

Watchmen, I took it on its own, without reference to the comic I had not read. I liked that it was slow and philosophically deep. It had a huge amount of courage, for example it showed the superheroes committing war crimes in Vietnam, you don't expect that from an American movie, contemporary Hollywood movies mostly show Americans as being the victims of the Vietnam war. For example in Bryan Singer's Days of Future Past, Vietnam is presented as a war that victimized Americans, and nothing else.

In later years I found out that Paul Greengrass was a competitor to Zack Snyder. He wanted to do to Watchmen what was done to V for Vendetta: to make it about George W. Bush. I'm glad he didn't get the job.

I now realize that this is another avenue in which Snyder is distinct from other blockbuster directors: he actually likes and is interested in history. He's made 300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch takes place in the 1960s (and other periods), and so on. His first instinct is not to be completely ignorant of the past and to study the present in isolation of any historical context.

 

[titansupes]

@BatLobsterRises, That's not really how I read Coco on Snyder, FWIW. Just like we all have favorite fiction authors, musicians, painters, actors, etc., there are certain filmmakers that strike a chord with us. I hear Coco as coming more from a place of why he personally feels an affinity for Snyder's art.

Yeah, but let's do all that without trying to pull some silly "I'm in film school and therefore know ALL" thing with every post...

 

[Jekecy]

In later years I found out that Paul Greengrass was a competitor to Zack Snyder. He wanted to do to Watchmen what was done to V for Vendetta: to make it about George W. Bush. I'm glad he didn't get the job.

Booo.

I appreciate what Zack gave, but it made me lament for what could've been in a filmmaker's hands like Greengrass. The man is immensely talented and in spite of modernizing, I truly think it would be been to CBMs as to what the original did for comic books.

It's a purely 80s story and of its time. Ironically I think the honest way to have done good by the creator's vision is not to emulate, but to take the themes and characters it provided to commentate on the landscape of film and genre pictures as it stood today and for years to come. Otherwise there really was no point of doing a Watchmen movie if you had nothing to add to the conversation.

 

[DA_Champion]

Booo.

I appreciate what Zack gave, but it made me lament for what could've been in a filmmaker's hands like Greengrass. The man is immensely talented and in spite of modernizing, I truly think it would be been to CBMs as to what the original did for comic books.

It's a purely 80s story and of its time. Ironically I think the honest way to have done good by the creator's vision is not to emulate, but to take the themes and characters it provided to commentate on the landscape of film and genre pictures as it stood today and for years to come. Otherwise there really was no point of doing a Watchmen movie if you had nothing to add to the conversation.

There's no need to "add" to the conversation when the material being adapted is already excellent. Sometimes it is legitimate to adapt excellence and to portray excellence. If people can't appreciate a story not set in the present day then that is their failing.

You're also showing a disappointing lack of appreciation for history. You are advocating for the ignorance of history, saying that a story of the 1980s is purely a story of the 1980s and cannot have relevance to other periods, completely negating the possibility that accurate and respectful depictions can lead to genuine knowledge of humanity.

The fact is that history has patterns, mistakes are often repeated, and sometimes events that happen are not random as suggested by CNN/FoxNews, but are actually unexpected aftershocks of previous strategies and games. It is good to be aware of the past, those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. In practice, those who know nothing of the past are typically those with the least substantive things to say about the present.

 

[Jekecy]

There's no need to "add" to the conversation when the material being adapted is already excellent. Sometimes it is legitimate to adapt excellence and to portray excellence. If people can't appreciate a story not set in the present day then that is their failing.

I don't disagree, but I felt the production boiled over into 'slavish adaptation, bordering on translation' territory. As a reader who's already read the book dozens of times over, and a film fan who values fresh cinematic storytelling, the film version did very little for me other than appreciating the art direction breathing life into Gibbons' penciling.

You're also showing a disappointing lack of appreciation for history. You are advocating for the ignorance of history, saying that a story of the 1980s is purely a story of the 1980s and cannot have relevance to other periods, completely negating the possibility that accurate and respectful depictions can lead to genuine knowledge of humanity.

The fact is that history has patterns, mistakes are often repeated, and sometimes events that happen are not random as suggested by CNN/FoxNews, but are actually unexpected aftershocks of previous strategies and games. It is good to be aware of the past, those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. In practice, those who know nothing of the past are typically those with the least substantive things to say about the present.

This took to a swift turn into lecturing. Well aware of the importance in acknowledging history and its lessons. But that has nothing to do with what I said.

Watchmen literally is an 80s story, making several revisions to actual real life events and intertwining them with the main arc. That is not to say it has no thematic relevance outside its period, but the densely layered presentation is very much exclusively an 80s experience. Take away the merits of it being a remarkable piece of literature and you find that it has little impact in today's realm of comic books. The genre has exploded since then. For a reader heavily ingrained with comic book culture today, it is one of those essential reads based on its timeless quality and because it's a direct bloodline to the type of bold direction first introduced by Watchmen. It will never have the revolutionary impact like it did with those who first read it off the stands. It's no surprise Zack's version didn't find any real grounding as a result; the commentary was decades outdated and many perceived it as an inferior presentation of a story already masterfully told.

I would reread what you've written, because you've ironically just laid out the opposing argument for why Watchmen can't exist as a post-80s narrative. If you're a fan of superheroes, then you know they've changed with the times. The more successful ones resonate precisely because they haven't boxed themselves into a particular period, but rather have reconstructed for a new time the spiritual elements which make up the core of the property that have been beloved.

Moore's story is a deconstruction of the genre as it existed in the 80s. In my humble opinion, the only honest means of honoring the Watchmen brand (in a manner of adapting it for film specifically) is to deconstruct today's culture, using the same characters and plot threads to present your own version how Moore and Gibbons' vision would've existed in a modern context. Perhaps you can tell me how attempting to reignite the story's relevance for a new time is betraying or ignoring its existence? Or do you truly believe Watchmen has no place other than the 1980s?

 

[DA_Champion]

I don't disagree, but I felt the production boiled over into 'slavish adaptation, bordering on translation' territory. As a reader who's already read the book dozens of times over, and a film fan who values fresh cinematic storytelling, the film version did very little for me other than appreciating the art direction breathing life into Gibbons' penciling.

This took to a swift turn into lecturing. Well aware of the importance in acknowledging history and its lessons. But that has nothing to do with what I said.

Watchmen literally is an 80s story, making several revisions to actual real life events and intertwining them with the main arc. That is not to say it has no thematic relevance outside its period, but the densely layered presentation is very much exclusively an 80s experience. Take away the merits of it being a remarkable piece of literature and you find that it has little impact in today's realm of comic books. The genre has exploded since then. For a reader heavily ingrained with comic book culture today, it is one of those essential reads based on its timeless quality and because it's a direct bloodline to the type of bold direction first introduced by Watchmen. It will never have the revolutionary impact like it did with those who first read it off the stands. It's no surprise Zack's version didn't find any real grounding as a result; the commentary was decades outdated and many perceived it as an inferior presentation of a story already masterfully told.

I would reread what you've written, because you've ironically just laid out the opposing argument for why Watchmen can't exist as a post-80s narrative. If you're a fan of superheroes, then you know they've changed with the times. The more successful ones resonate precisely because they haven't boxed themselves into a particular period, but rather have reconstructed for a new time the spiritual elements which make up the core of the property that have been beloved.

Moore's story is a deconstruction of the genre as it existed in the 80s. In my humble opinion, the only honest means of honoring the Watchmen brand (in a manner of adapting it for film specifically) is to deconstruct today's culture, using the same characters and plot threads to present your own version how Moore and Gibbons' vision would've existed in a modern context. Perhaps you can tell me how attempting to reignite the story's relevance for a new time is betraying or ignoring its existence? Or do you truly believe Watchmen has no place other than the 1980s?

We have an example of a Moore 1980s adaptation that was adapted to the modern tastes: V for Vendetta. I found it to be a loathsome and sophomoric film, it was so obsessed with critiquing Bush (whom I did not like) and only aware of the modern period that it ended up with little of substance to say. It also lost the original intent.

I think that creatives who want to deconstruct today's comic book movies, and we'll eventually have deconstructions, are welcome to do so. I'm looking forward to it. For that they should create new properties rather than adapting old properties "in name only". I think Hancock actually was a good example, it's a movie about the limitations of power, and how power can be limited by being in the presence of other power. There will eventually be other comic book movies that deconstruct the genre, and I'm looking forward to them.

Why are you constantly italicizing "today"? Is today the only thing that matters? Does Watchmen lose relevance because it's an 1980s story? Perhaps we should stop reading the Watchmen comic, and replace it with a modernized version discussing President Donald Trump rather than President Richard Nixon?

Your point seems to be that Watchmen is a bad movie because it's got a 1980s focus. I comprehensively reject that point from beginning to end. I have zero objections to period pieces that embrace their period and make no attempt to appease and entertain though with historical myopia, in fact I appreciate them. While responding to you I'm actually taking a break from watching a world war II documentary. You can also find in my posting archives that one of my most consistent criticisms of Days of Future Past is that it is a garbage period piece.

 

[Jekecy]

We have an example of a Moore 1980s adaptation that was adapted to the modern tastes: V for Vendetta. I found it to be a loathsome and sophomoric film, it was so obsessed with critiquing Bush (whom I did not like) and only aware of the modern period that it ended up with little of substance to say.

That merely critiques a singular execution of a concept. There's no reason to believe other projects with a similar directive would end up the same.

I think that creatives who want to deconstruct today's comic book movies, and we'll eventually have deconstructions, are welcome to do so. I'm looking forward to it. For that they should create new properties rather than adapting old properties "in name only". I think Hancock actually was a good example, it's a movie about the limitations of power, and how power can be limited by being in the presence of other power. There will eventually be other comic book movies that deconstruct the genre, and I'm looking forward to them.

Nothing wrong with using original properties to do that, and I too welcome them. But I wouldn't begrudge writers wanting to use Watchmen as a vessel all the same. Not any more than I would begrudge someone wanting to write and re-imagine Superman when they very well could just go off and create something original.

All it says (if they're genuine) is there are uniquely exclusive elements within that property they'd like to play around with. And it may be better served to work within that playground than starting off from scratch. There are pro's and con's to either method.

If every single writer with an original/fresh idea only wanted to work on original IPs, most comic book properties would've died off years ago. What keeps these brands alive is precisely because of visionaries who sustain the relevance of these characters past their established period. Only way to do that is push boundaries and throw out some of the conventions.

Why are you constantly italicizing "today"? Is today the only thing that matters?

No, only to emphasize the fact a Watchmen adaptation can reach similar heights of its debut for today's audiences. Decry it as heresy, but there's no other way for it to "speak" to new viewers like it did when it first arrived.

Does Watchmen lose relevance because it's an 1980s story?

Great stories are always "relevant" if only to appreciate the storytelling. Part of my argument is the power of the original story resonated because of what it had to say for its period. And in response that, yes it absolutely has lost a lot of that impact in today's climate. Today's readers don't pick up Watchmen for the first time because it is revolutionary. They picked it up because it was and it shaped the industry as it is today.

Perhaps we should stop reading the Watchmen comic, and replace it with a modernized version discussing President Donald Trump rather than President Richard Nixon?

There's no such thing as replacing a literary piece of work. Does a remake wipe the existence of the original? Are you seriously advocating the obstruction of artists and writers to create because it doesn't suit your tastes? I really don't care if they make millions of Watchmen off-shots or remakes. As with anything in this world, I'll pay attention to the ones which get great reception and judge for myself what's good.

Your point seems to be that Watchmen is a bad movie because it's got a 1980s focus. I comprehensively reject that point from beginning to end.

Never said it was a bad movie, but I do blame some of its failures on the combination of it being too slavish to the source material (yes, that's a thing) and as a result it was too disconnected for a mass modern audience to appreciate and put on a pedestal.

I have zero objections to period pieces that embrace their period

I don't either. Don't mistake me as the type who consistently vies for modernizing everything. I do see myself fully content with an 80s period Watchmen film, just not the one we got unfortunately. It may explain why I've felt so strongly for an opposite direction.

 

[DA_Champion]

I'm sorry, I don't have the energy to respond to your entire post now.

That merely critiques a singular execution of a concept. There's no reason to believe other projects with a similar directive would end up the same.

That story was written with fascism in mind. They tried so hard to adapt it to George W. Bush that they lost what made it work in the first place, without being able to make it work in the modern context since the original elements were specific to the period in which they were made.

There's not a lot of cases of Hollywood adapting old stories and modernizing them successfully. There are some exceptions, for example Shakespeare adaptions are often in a modern setting, but that's because Shakespeare is a huge genre onto itself which allows for hundreds of experiments.

I don't think Hollywood should rewrite and remake The Godfather to make it about Mexican gangs. I'd prefer if they developed their stories on the Mexican gangs from scratch, like Sicario for example.

 

[Jekecy]

That story was written with fascism in mind. They tried so hard to adapt it to George W. Bush that they lost what made it work in the first place, without being able to make it work in the modern context since the original elements were specific to the period in which they were made.

There's not a lot of cases of Hollywood adapting old stories and modernizing them successfully. There are some exceptions, for example Shakespeare adaptions are often in a modern setting, but that's because Shakespeare is a huge genre onto itself which allows for hundreds of experiments.

"Not a lot" should never be the be-all prevention of trying anyway. If an artist believes in their vision, despite the cries of fans, they should be allowed an attempt. Remember Zack's film doesn't exist if it allowed doubt and troubles to influence decisions in going through with the adaptation.

I don't think Hollywood should rewrite and remake The Godfather to make it about Mexican gangs. I'd prefer if they developed their stories on the Mexican gangs from scratch, like Sicario for example.

That's all well and fine, but again Godfather still exists whether those other films are made or not.

This is actually a lose-lose, because you potentially lose an audience that might have noticed the original due to the existence of the remake, and you may very well miss out on a great remake altogether.

I always bring up 'Magnificent Seven', 'Scarface', 'The Fly', 'Ocean's Eleven', and 'The Departed' as prime examples of films just as good (if not better) than the originals who were already classic themselves.

 

[BatLobster]

@BatLobsterRises, That's not really how I read Coco on Snyder, FWIW. Just like we all have favorite fiction authors, musicians, painters, actors, etc., there are certain filmmakers that strike a chord with us. I hear Coco as coming more from a place of why he personally feels an affinity for Snyder's art.

I know he means well. Coco's a good guy, and it's great that he's passionate about filmmaking. I just wanted to let him know how that kind of talk can start to come off to others when it's done over and over, and that he's far from the only person on the Hype to study film. I know plenty of industry professionals that aren't big Snyder fans, so any kind of assertion that "understanding cinema" leads to a greater appreciation of Snyder's work is a false equivalence. Even if that's not what he was intentionally trying to imply, I still wanted to nip that in the bud.

 

[Decepticonus]

I'm sorry, I don't have the energy to respond to your entire post now.


That story was written with fascism in mind. .

Hardly, written more with what they think is fascism but really just a conservative regime in mind that they over-exaggerate.

 

[rogbngp]

Here's a fun video of the Collider gang (Schnepp, Campea, Harloff, and Ellis) watching and commenting on MoS:

[YT]euC94jVXb-c[/YT]

 

[rogbngp]

I just watched MoS again tonight, for I think the fourth or fifth time. And it just keeps getting better for me each time I watch it. My wife watched it with me, first time viewing it for her. So that was actually a lot of fun. She seemed genuinely enthralled, and enjoyed it.

A few things stood out this time. First my wife asked, very reasonably, why didn't Jor and Lara El leave the planet along with Kal? The best answer I could give was that it has to be consistent with the comic book mythology. Think of it as being central to the myth, like Moses being put on the river in a raft made of reeds, I offered. But when using a more realistic approach to the subject matter, it is a fair question to ask.

Another thing is that in Jonathan Kent's death scene his motivation to rescue the dog is weak. Jonathan didn't need Clark to save him. He should obviously have turned back! I mean, I can understand anyone's love for a pet, but... wow. Otherwise, I think his refusal to be rescued works. He is teaching Clark a final lesson about some principles transcending the value of any one individual life, i.e., that some things are important enough to sacrifice one's life for. It didn't quite sink in until this viewing just how profound an impact that appears to have had on Clark's psyche. Clark remaining underground as a super-powered being is a way of honoring his father's sacrifice. If it meant enough for his father to give his life to wait until Clark was ready to show who he truly is to the world, then Clark should honor that by respecting his wisdom. And we see very vividly in MOS (and will see also in BvS) just how nearly prophetic his father was.

I was also struck by the color palette not appearing as desaturated or blue/gray-filtered as I recall it from past viewings. It actually did not feel oppressively blue/gray at all to me. Not sure what to make of that.

I really do not understand criticisms about the pacing for this film. To me it is very tightly stitched together, and the rhythm never seems to lag for me or feel rushed at all. I actually think it is wonderfully paced.

The dialogue could have been written just a little better here and there. It may suffer from too much economy of language at times. It feels stilted and just slightly unnatural every so often. But oddly enough it works in the context of a CBM. (Like it's fine that they speak in encapsulated "bubbles.") But really the dialogue is still pretty good overall. The story is very coherently told.

The sequence of events beginning with Superman and Lois boarding Zod's ship through to Superman crashing the scout ship (the one that was Superman's that Zod pirated from the arctic) can get a little confusing if one isn't paying close attention. I felt compelled to clarify a couple things to my wife as we were watching it. For me they did not come clearly into focus until the second or third viewing. (And I'm sure they can be gotten on the first viewing for some, but I know I did not put it all together in a crystal clear way the first time I watched the film.)

But anyway, I continue to be impressed by how much more I enjoy MoS each time I view it. What a gem this film is. And it becomes all the more valuable now with BvS to put it into even stronger context within a trilogy of films that will conclude with JL Part 1.

 

[Jaxon]

A few things stood out this time. First my wife asked, very reasonably, why didn't Jor and Lara El leave the planet along with Kal?

Kal: "Why didn't you come with me?"
Jor-El: "Your mother and I were both a failing of our world as much as Zod was."

It was pretty well established that Jor-El was trying to work with the Kryptonian rulers to save Krypton via the codex and they had a back up plan to send Kal away if needed. But if they left without the codex what's the point.

Another thing is that in Jonathan Kent's death scene his motivation to rescue the dog is weak. Jonathan didn't need Clark to save him. He should obviously have turned back!

My gf would rather throw me under a bus than her dogs.
In that scene you have to remember Clark is 17, and the last thing he said to Pa Kent was "You're not my father." And Clark tells Lois straight after. "I let my father die because I trusted him." I don't get people not liking this scene it is so emotional. Freaking heartless people around this world.

I was also struck by the color palette not appearing as desaturated or blue/gray-filtered as I recall it from past viewings. It actually did not feel oppressively blue/gray at all to me. Not sure what to make of that.

Agree, don't get it either. The whole movie takes place during day time.

I really do not understand criticisms about the pacing for this film. To me it is very tightly stitched together, and the rhythm never seems to lag for me or feel rushed at all. I actually think it is wonderfully paced.

For some reason I think people didn't like the flash backs, but that was so much a better way to enhance the real time scenes and not tell another linear boring origin story.

The sequence of events beginning with Superman and Lois boarding Zod's ship through to Superman crashing the scout ship (the one that was Superman's that Zod pirated from the arctic) can get a little confusing if one isn't paying close attention.

People are stupid, that's my only answer to how anyone doesn't understand the action pieces.

 

[rogbngp]

It was pretty well established that Jor-El was trying to work with the Kryptonian rulers to save Krypton via the codex and they had a back up plan to send Kal away if needed. But if they left without the codex what's the point.

IIRC correctly Jor-El even specifically addresses why he and Lara must stay behind to die on the planet, and its something to the effect that they are part of the doomed structure of Kryptonian civilization (and maybe its genetics). Maybe we can infer from that that if he and Lara were to accompany Kal to his new world, that would in some way compromise whatever genetics plan he has in mind with Kal/the Codex?

But it raises a similar valid 'plothole' question of why Kryptonian civilization inexplicably abandoned its space exploration and colonization program. Why? Why not get off of a dying planet?

I understand the metaphor of the tendency for power to corrupt our souls: i.e., of people with power becoming selfish, controlling, and possessive with it, and deluded by it, blinded and in denial about that very fact, and the self-destructiveness of all that, etc. You could look at the harvesting of the Kryptonian core as similar to the way that we today greedily and mindlessly harvest the earth's natural resources with little regard to the consequences (btw, in the film and especially in its concept art you see the surface of the planet heavily strip mined). But if things get bad enough, that uber-developed Kryptonian survival instinct should have kicked in there to get them off the planet!

It could be that all of the selective genetic engineering that the Kryptonians had been using was actually resulting in an unintended negative consequence of creation of a gene (an unintended mutation) that makes them behave blindly and self-destructively. That would work for me, actually. Jor-El sees it, but its too late to do anything about it as far as the existing Kryptonian civilization is concerned. He knows they are doomed. But he has the plan B with the Codex, Kal, and sending both to earth.

As we know, the Kryptonian civilization is genetically engineered to uphold a caste system. I wonder if the Codex itself will be modified by Kal exercising individual choice. The Codex is now somehow mysteriously bonded into Kal's cell structure. Maybe Jor-El's plan from the getgo is to have the Kryptonian DNA reservoir get modified by Kal's, as he goes through the trial-and-error process of exercising more choice? Just thinking out-loud.

But more concretely, if the Kryptonians showed good sense about finding another world, or if Jor and Lara were to make the journey with Kal, then we really don't have the same myth. Here Snyder was going to make sure that the film stayed true to the source material, i.e., for something so essential.

I think we could probably make a similar criticism for Moses' mother setting her infant son adrift on the Nile. There may have been more sensible choices to be made there 'in real life'. But then we wouldn't have the myth. So I can live with it as a plot device. But I found it intriguing that it is one of the first thoughts that occurred to my wife. As a Superman fan since childhood it's been drilled into my head that that is just how the story goes, lol. Anyhoo, it's a plot device but that's fine.

My gf would rather throw me under a bus than her dogs. In that scene you have to remember Clark is 17, and the last thing he said to Pa Kent was "You're not my father." And Clark tells Lois straight after. "I let my father die because I trusted him." I don't get people not liking this scene it is so emotional. Freaking heartless people around this world.

Actually, for this viewing I noticed that Clark says "Dad, I..." right as Jonathan alerts them to the upcoming storm and they pull over. So just after Clark says "you're not my father" he again calls him dad, which is sweet. And it sounds like he is about to apologize as well.

About Jonathan going back to get the dog... when there is a F4 or 5 tornado approaching literally within yards, my first thought it is perhaps not the best plot device that they could have come up with. (I'm okay with the symbolism of Jonathan dying in the tornado, as I mentioned.)

But in reflecting on it more, this movie is very much about the American cultural ideal/archetype of the power of freedom of individual choice and self-definition. This is a Superman who imo breaks free from the past mold of the character (i.e., a mold that is externally imposed onto the character by American culture circa 1939 - mid 60s) to decide who he is going to be for himself and the world here and now. And Jonathan's death scene actually demonstrates that when we exercise independent judgment we also will sometimes err! Sorry to all devoted pet lovers out there, but Jonathan's life is more important than the dog's. Period. I think it is fair to say that it is without question more important to Martha and Clark. And if one is making the best possible decision, choosing to save his own life over that of the dog is the best one for his loved ones. But when we exercise the power of choice sometimes we won't always make the best call, and we must live with the consequences. So I think that can be intelligibly read into the scene as part of that final moral/ethical lesson that Jonathan imparts to Clark.

For some reason I think people didn't like the flash backs, but that was so much a better way to enhance the real time scenes and not tell another linear boring origin story.

Yeah, it's not really "pacing" that isn't sitting right with them then, I don't think. The movie proceeds along at a nice even rhythm. Like if it were a beat that steadily drives a song, the use of time isn't all herky-jerky in terms of the changing time signatures, or an unsteady beat, or something. Those viewers are disconcerted by the narrative structure then, and how it shifts between different time periods.

I loved that, myself. I mean, I do respect 'to each their own'--and that some dislike it. But there are enough people that enjoy that kind of narrative structure in this film to assert that it is not poorly executed but simply a matter of taste.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

I get the space flight dilemma. Look at the ****ing size of Krypton. It's the size of Jupiter and it isn't made up of mostly gases. The gravity on that planet must be insanely high in comparison to our own. It's part of the reason why Kryptonians are so strong/can fly. Even with Kryptonian technology it must have been incredibly taxing logistically speaking to even get something into space. A colonization/exploration effort would have to be damn near unamious and with the brief window of insight we're given into their politics I don't see it happening.

 

[HKpowerup]

While for me the things like acting, directing & screenplay are among the most important factors in making a good movie, I am particularly interested in seeing the visuals in BvS. I quite liked the colour palette Snyder went with in MoS which came off as looking very natural to me.

I absolutely loved the little details when the Kryptonians fought, like the shockwaves and distortions when they were punching each other. It’s little visuals details like that I do not think people really appreciate in MoS, and that level of detail isn’t something you see in the fight scenes in the MCU. That in itself is also an example of talented filming, right up there with bringing out good performances from actors, pacing, directing scenes, etc.

 

[Marvin]

I get the space flight dilemma. Look at the ****ing size of Krypton. It's the size of Jupiter and it isn't made up of mostly gases. The gravity on that planet must be insanely high in comparison to our own. It's part of the reason why Kryptonians are so strong/can fly. Even with Kryptonian technology it must have been incredibly taxing logistically speaking to even get something into space. A colonization/exploration effort would have to be damn near unamious and with the brief window of insight we're given into their politics I don't see it happening.

this gravity is the reason they can fly thing never works for me. Even on the moon, even on a tiny asteroid, we wouldn't then be able to fly simply due to the gravity thing. There is something else at work. Even in the vacuum of space we wouldn't then be able...

I like the theory that due to the immense 'gravity' kryptonians have developed vestigal organs that would allow for gravity dampening. Like how early humans probably had tails for stuff, then due to the evolving world, things became less necessary(we have jackets and glasses now so evolution can chill). Anyhow this organ(like our glands) produces graviton particles that allow for certain things. If he's messing with gravity that then even the speed could be a form of time displacement bubble of sorts. All amplified under the sun on top of the dense skin the rest of the powers.
That's something I'd be more ready to accept then the often...'just gravity'.

Anyhow, all this talk of watchmen, there might be some people interested in this video. For better or worse.
[YT]EaWj2mZsIX0[/YT]

 

[rogbngp]

this gravity is the reason they can fly thing never works for me. Even on the moon, even on a tiny asteroid, we wouldn't then be able to fly simply due to the gravity thing. There is something else at work. Even in the vacuum of space we wouldn't then be able...

I like the theory that due to the immense 'gravity' kryptonians have developed vestigal organs that would allow for gravity dampening. Like how early humans probably had tails for stuff, then due to the evolving world, things became less necessary(we have jackets and glasses now so evolution can chill). Anyhow this organ(like our glands) produces graviton particles that allow for certain things. If he's messing with gravity that then even the speed could be a form of time displacement bubble of sorts. All amplified under the sun on top of the dense skin the rest of the powers.
That's something I'd be more ready to accept then the often...'just gravity'.

Anyhow, all this talk of watchmen, there might be some people interested in this video. For better or worse.
[YT]EaWj2mZsIX0[/YT]

Yeah, in order for Kryptonians to defy gravity there has to be some sort of immediate genetic mutation taking place within their DNA that activates a physical mechanism of some sort to allow them fly and hover.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

A few things stood out this time. First my wife asked, very reasonably, why didn't Jor and Lara El leave the planet along with Kal? The best answer I could give was that it has to be consistent with the comic book mythology. Think of it as being central to the myth, like Moses being put on the river in a raft made of reeds, I offered. But when using a more realistic approach to the subject matter, it is a fair question to ask.

Ask yourself what the difference was between Kal El and his parents? They were bred for a specific purpose. He was not. He was a natural birth and was not predisposed to being a scientist or any other function from Krypton. He also had no bias dictated on him from years of living in the Kryptonian society. Since he was free of those burdens, Jor El and Lara sent him off in the hope that Krypton would flourish without the restraints that doomed them.

Another thing is that in Jonathan Kent's death scene his motivation to rescue the dog is weak. Jonathan didn't need Clark to save him. He should obviously have turned back! I mean, I can understand anyone's love for a pet, but... wow. Otherwise, I think his refusal to be rescued works. He is teaching Clark a final lesson about some principles transcending the value of any one individual life, i.e., that some things are important enough to sacrifice one's life for. It didn't quite sink in until this viewing just how profound an impact that appears to have had on Clark's psyche. Clark remaining underground as a super-powered being is a way of honoring his father's sacrifice. If it meant enough for his father to give his life to wait until Clark was ready to show who he truly is to the world, then Clark should honor that by respecting his wisdom. And we see very vividly in MOS (and will see also in BvS) just how nearly prophetic his father was.

Snyder made a bad choice in using Cavill in this scene. Most saw him as a man. He was supposed to be 17. They should have used to young teenage version of Clark in this scene. They should have shot the young Clark scenes early in the filming process and then came back to him a year older for the tornado scene. I think seeing that young man standing there helpless would have gone a long way in improving that scene for those that didn't like it. As for the dog, many dog owners see their dog as a family member. Would they leave Clark's sister in that truck?

I was also struck by the color palette not appearing as desaturated or blue/gray-filtered as I recall it from past viewings. It actually did not feel oppressively blue/gray at all to me. Not sure what to make of that.

I really think this criticism comes from Nolan's involvement. It's true the satuation is a Snyder style, but the film was dosed in "dark and brooding Nolan style" from the start. No one could get away from the Superman gets the Dark Knight treatment rhetoric and the saturated colors helped cement these opinions. Superman's suit wasn't very bright. That's really where it comes from IMO. Notice they lightened the suit this time.

I really do not understand criticisms about the pacing for this film. To me it is very tightly stitched together, and the rhythm never seems to lag for me or feel rushed at all. I actually think it is wonderfully paced.

The initial cut to adult Clark and the non-linear Nolan style helped this. People often miss that this story would have been slower had there not been an alien invasion. All of the slower first half of the film was necessary to establish the chaos Zod brought. The entire second half of the movie took place in like 2 days. The speed of the film picked up with the threat which was a style choice by Snyder.

The dialogue could have been written just a little better here and there. It may suffer from too much economy of language at times. It feels stilted and just slightly unnatural every so often. But oddly enough it works in the context of a CBM. (Like it's fine that they speak in encapsulated "bubbles.") But really the dialogue is still pretty good overall. The story is very coherently told.

The dialog had a few cringe worth moments. But what comic book movie doesn't?

The sequence of events beginning with Superman and Lois boarding Zod's ship through to Superman crashing the scout ship (the one that was Superman's that Zod pirated from the arctic) can get a little confusing if one isn't paying close attention. I felt compelled to clarify a couple things to my wife as we were watching it. For me they did not come clearly into focus until the second or third viewing. (And I'm sure they can be gotten on the first viewing for some, but I know I did not put it all together in a crystal clear way the first time I watched the film.)

Everything is there for people to understand. They just have to want to understand it. Lois said they did something to her and she told them what she knew. You immediately cut to the Kent Farm. I understand why the choice to cut more of Lois' scene from the Black Zero was done. It was explained within the story.

But anyway, I continue to be impressed by how much more I enjoy MoS each time I view it. What a gem this film is. And it becomes all the more valuable now with BvS to put it into even stronger context within a trilogy of films that will conclude with JL Part 1.

Indeed. This wasn't the Superman story we wanted, it's the Superman story we needed.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

this gravity is the reason they can fly thing never works for me. Even on the moon, even on a tiny asteroid, we wouldn't then be able to fly simply due to the gravity thing. There is something else at work. Even in the vacuum of space we wouldn't then be able...

I like the theory that due to the immense 'gravity' kryptonians have developed vestigal organs that would allow for gravity dampening. Like how early humans probably had tails for stuff, then due to the evolving world, things became less necessary(we have jackets and glasses now so evolution can chill). Anyhow this organ(like our glands) produces graviton particles that allow for certain things. If he's messing with gravity that then even the speed could be a form of time displacement bubble of sorts. All amplified under the sun on top of the dense skin the rest of the powers.
That's something I'd be more ready to accept then the often...'just gravity'.

Anyhow, all this talk of watchmen, there might be some people interested in this video. For better or worse.
[YT]EaWj2mZsIX0[/YT]

I didn't say 'just gravity' though. I said 'partly gravity'. The amount of radiation he soaks up from our yellow sun is the other part. His powers can partly be explained as Supes consciously/voluntarily emitting excess solar radiation. Gotta remember that Kryptonian skin evolved to soak in as much radiation of their much weaker red star as possible. If not those ****ers would probably freeze to death at night or something.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

I didn't say 'just gravity' though. I said 'partly gravity'. The amount of radiation he soaks up from our yellow sun is the other part. His powers can partly be explained as Supes consciously/voluntarily emitting excess solar radiation. Gotta remember that Kryptonian skin evolved to soak in as much radiation of their much weaker red star as possible. If not those ****ers would probably freeze to death at night or something.

Yeah, the cocoon his radiation emits is like a force field. It's what gives him his invulnerability. It's one problem I had with MoS when he was pushed aside on the boat and then younger when the bully pushed him to the ground. Shouldn't happen. But ... that cocoon allows him to manipulate the gravity and atmosphere which is also how he gets propulsion in space.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

Yeah, the cocoon his radiation emits is like a force field. It's what gives him his invulnerability. It's one problem I had with MoS when he was pushed aside on the boat and then younger when the bully pushed him to the ground. Shouldn't happen. But ... that cocoon allows him to manipulate the gravity and atmosphere which is also how he gets propulsion in space.

A "cocoon" is a weird yet apt way to put it. The way I look at it is that on our Earth he's like a miniature sun only caveat being that he can consciously manipulate his personal gravitational field.