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

[Monochron]

MoS was told from the point of either Jor-El or Kal-El so having the ship crashing is out of place.

By that logic the scenes told from Lois Lane's point of view are out of place.

 

[TeeKay]

No, my issue is with what the writer and director decided to have Clark/Lois say and do in that specific moment.

"They say it all goes down after the first kiss...I think it only counts if you're human" whilst having a make out session surrounded by destruction and dead bodies seemed out of place for a film that was taking itself so serious. That's where tone becomes very important. its what differentiates it from that moment where Pepper and Tony are making out at the end of IM2. The tone of that movie can let something like that slip away without anyone batting an eye. Still not saying IM2 is better but my point still stands. For the record I don't like IM2 but the situations are similar.

 

[MrsKent26]

That "...downhill after the first kiss" line was silly and morbidly timed.

However, I found myself very forgiving of it because the kiss itself was hot. After Routh/Bosworth's total lack of heat, I was very pleased to see at least one scene in which Lois and Clark were hot together.

 

[Marvin]

That "...downhill after the first kiss" line was silly and morbidly timed.

However, I found myself very forgiving of it because the kiss itself was hot. After Routh/Bosworth's total lack of heat, I was very pleased to see at least one scene in which Lois and Clark were hot together.

I'd used the term morbidly(no pun) timed had it happened directly after the neck snap. I can picture it now. She runs in he sees here, frown turns to a smile and so forth.

Given they both just survived another near death, and it was postponed from the prior superman catch lois near kiss only to be interrupted, I myself don't mind the survivors/saved the day kiss. It being superman doesn't change my requirements for what's acceptable form any other movie in which similar happens regardless of double talk about tone and such. Levity after duress in a movie that supposedly has no levity after duress I find welcome in this instance.
Could have been better sure. Fair enough.
The difference between something being horrible(see above), ok, and perfect.

As far as lines go I hear people talk about the pulitzer line. Didn't notice anything the first time then after hearing people had issues it with I paid attention the second time...do people here have a problem with it?

 

[MrsKent26]

I'd used the term morbidly(no pun) timed had it happened directly after the neck snap. I can picture it now. She runs in he sees here, frown turns to a smile and so forth.

Given they both just survived another near death, and it was postponed from the prior superman catch lois near kiss only to be interrupted, I myself don't mind the survivors/saved the day kiss. It being superman doesn't change my requirements for what's acceptable form any other movie in which similar happens regardless of double talk about tone and such. Levity after duress in a movie that supposedly has no levity after duress I find welcome in this instance.
Could have been better sure. Fair enough.
The difference between something being horrible(see above), ok, and perfect.

As far as lines go I hear people talk about the pulitzer line. Didn't notice anything the first time then after hearing people had issues it with I paid attention the second time...do people here have a problem with it?

I agree with your explanation of a "Thank God, we're alive!" kiss (totally valid and human), but a joke in the situation was a step too far and also, as already said, tonally incongruent.

Regarding the Pulitzer line...I didn't find it majorly offensive or anything, but was it mildly grating, as it seemed like the kind of obvious stuff a novice writer would use to symbolize pop-culture's Bio of Lois Lane.

 

[Marvin]

Regarding the Pulitzer line...I didn't find it majorly offensive or anything, but was it mildly grating, as it seemed like the kind of obvious stuff a novice writer would use to symbolize pop-culture's Bio of Lois Lane.

I was thinking that's what it could be.
The problem I have with the issue is the context.
Lois: "Run this story"
Perry: "No. It's odd and far fetched among other things, amateurish even"
Lois: proceeds to list her status, credibility and accomplishments in her aim to convince him

Any other context and I'd get the issue with a cheap excuse to get to a character exposition but the context is the crux of it. It's her argument if you will. Perhaps it would have been more clear for people if her argument succeeded who knows.

 

[MrsKent26]

^ The basic idea is sound, but the actual words written for her to use were too obvious and more in line with caricature than character. Actually, that was true for a few of Lois's lines.

 

[Marvin]

^ The basic idea is sound, but the actual words written for her to use were too obvious and more in line with caricature than character. Actually, that was true for a few of Lois's lines.

I'm not debating the issue, more curious what it is.
Seems however with each brush stroke a level of general issue is removed and a more personal subjective one pushed to the forefront. For example I suspect the next level after even that is contended would be, something to do with her inflections not being right...

Hopefully Terrio's on the script will lead more credence to things. I figure it already has for I have my suspicions that 'do you bleed, you will' line would have been shredded had it come from a certain someone. But neither here nor there. Speaking for myself I can see that same exchange happening in real life newsrooms and for me that's enough I guess.

 

[MrsKent26]

There's no more levels to it for me, lol.

But of course it has to do with personal preference, as do most things we discuss here. I'm hoping for some clever lines worthy of Lois in MOS.

Actually, I thought "Do you bleed?" was quite clever. It's a quintessential "other" slur and considering what batman's (and perhaps, the world's) standpoint regarding superman may be at that time...it's apt and very real (unfortunately). In short: I applaud their ability to "go there" with such a line, even if it's "realness" is masked in simple badassery and a mysteriously mechanized voice.

 

[rogbngp]

I'm really looking forward to seeing how much better the dialogue is in BvS. To me it wasn't godawful or anything in MoS but, yeah, it should have been better in quite a few places.

"Do you bleed," is interesting in a lot of ways because it really contrasts the characters. Superman is a guy who simply wants to uplift, inspire, rescue, help, protect, etc. Whereas Batman is out to severely punish the wicked by now in ways that have probably gone too far. Supes is a chill dude and Bats has become like violence incarnate. Sounds like anyway.

 

[titansupes]

I was thinking that's what it could be.
The problem I have with the issue is the context.
Lois: "Run this story"
Perry: "No. It's odd and far fetched among other things, amateurish even"
Lois: proceeds to list her status, credibility and accomplishments in her aim to convince him

Any other context and I'd get the issue with a cheap excuse to get to a character exposition but the context is the crux of it. It's her argument if you will. Perhaps it would have been more clear for people if her argument succeeded who knows.

I didn't mind that one. She's trying to convince her boss to write a really absurd story about a super-powered man and a spaceship, she knows she can't prove it, so she reminds him of her enormous accomplishment as a way of saying "come on, man, just go with me on this one".

I did not like, however, her "the only reason I'm here is because" then whatever she says to Hardy and Hamilton at the base. Last time I saw it I remember thinking it just came out of nowhere.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Can I ask a question? Well of course you all have no ability to stop me but...

Why is it that a single kiss lasting less than thirty seconds is a "make out session"?

Criticism is perfectly fine. No one will agree on things always... But why is the criticism so over the top so as to actually undermine a lot of the validity that may or may not be there?

A short kiss is a make out session. The destruction of however many BLOCKS of an East Coast city and the death of thousands becomes the annihilation of half or more of Metropolis and the death of millions. Zod uses heat vision to destroy one building during the one on one with the hero becomes Superman callously knocking down building after building, instead of what actually happened which is Superman getting thrown forcibly against his will through skyscrapers, all of which are standing after.

It's hard for myself and I think others to take a lot of criticism seriously when so much of it is either factually wrong (the actual things that happened as opposed to, well the things that didn't) or characterized in an over the top manner that doesn't say "sober analysis" but instead is the same ole same ole hyper-nerd rage nonsense. I also checked into the "skepticism" thread earlier and we get nice classy exchanges between adults calling the director names like "Simple Zack" (Really... A poster that goes on about his mastery of style in terms of fashion... Sorry dude, you might dress well but that just comes off as ugly and classless. But then my momma always said don't judge a book by it's cover). And calling him "brainless" among other things... Yeah you'll forgive me if there is a nice chunk of the criticism that will never hold water for me cuz a big chunk of fans online can't express themselves in any way other than in Internet extremity speech. When someone calls a super hero film "as dark as a Holocaust movie" and when pushed on how ****ing ridiculous that sounds proceeds to double down on that, well... The words silly and obtuse comes to mind.

What ever issues and flaws that MOS has are not in reality any different than the ones you would find in many of the so called "classics/fan favorite" super hero (or other wise) films of recent vintage, many of whom in my estimation get a pass on those flaws for various reasons, or at least the criticism thrown their way isn't as over the top as we've seen FOR THREE YEARS.

Which brings me to just get this off my chest... The temperature of the room these days among a lot of the Hype that is not looking forward to this film because of their own experience with MOS is one where they make like they are being put upon in these threads, to which I say... So sorry, so sad, but the previous two years weren't some how a cake walk for the fans that actually did like the film and enjoy it greatly. With the past twelve months or so, absolutely I will admit the fans of MOS have gotten more hyped and outspoken as more material has come out which pleases or at least interests them. But the previous 24 months before that? Yeah... Cry me a river "skeptics". Fans of MOS weathered that, and without the need for a like minded thread devoted exclusively to our view point (I forget if there was some kind of "positivity thread". I wouldn't doubt it's existence at all but... It's obvious that it just sank to the bottom and the debate in the main threads is where the action was. Which is where the main debating or conversation should be I think). No offense but linking back to the over the top nature of the species known as the fanboy/girl in their manner of expression... You reap what you sow. If the criticism had been more accurate first and foremost (getting the actual things that happened in the film correct) and less filled with hyperbolic ranting and explicit or implicit degrading of the opposite side's fandom, intelligence, taste or more back then, maybe as the time of this film's release came closer and the hype builds among the fans looking forward to it you wouldn't be as "persecuted" (ha) as you feel now? Just a thought.


Forgive me... Rant over.

 

[Ahasverus]

The kiss was godawful, the joke was godawful, the setup with only the Daily Planet employees being there on the ruins was awful, Jenny delivery was Awful, and "you're a monster Zod, I'm going to stop you" is the Most godawful line ever said, in the same vein of "I came back to stop you" in TDKR.

So glad that hack is gone.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

^Thanks for proving my point in spades.

 

[Slade W]

 

[BH/HHH]

I was just about to do that

 

[Ahasverus]

^Thanks for proving my point in spades.

It's easy to prove a bad point. You're advocating for no categorizing, and the you procceed to categorize the opposing side as fanboys diminishing their validity, also implying you absolutely know jow to discern good from bad criticism because you feel so. That's a terrible argument ridden with confirmation bias.

The writing on MoS was bad, get over it. There is a good movie in there, specially going by its ideas, but Goyer has zero tonal awareness.

 

[MrsKent26]

Perhaps it's time to reiterate the purpose of this thread: it's the constructive criticism thread for folks who have some support of the movie. It's not the same as the BvS skepticism thread.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

It's easy to prove a bad point. You're advocating for no categorizing, and the you procceed to categorize the opposing side as fanboys diminishing their validity, also implying you absolutely know jow to discern good from bad criticism because you feel so. That's a terrible argument ridden with confirmation bias.

The writing on MoS was bad, get over it. There is a good movie in there, specially going by its ideas, but Goyer has zero tonal awareness.

Sorry but... That's not what I wrote, and this, your post here, is doing EXACTLY what you claim I am doing. And I will cop to being able to talk about fanboys/girls as a card carrying member myself since 1979. The difference? I try to inject some self awareness into my opinion having gone through about every age of the comic book super hero being adapted in live action, excluding the golden age serials, Reeves/West shows first hand. But of more importance is that you prove again the over the top absolutes thrown around that is probably the opposite of sober criticism... Understandable given the emotional attachments we as fans have.

Oh... And... "Get over it"?

Ha. Oh, the obtuseness of silly people on the Internet. Again... Thanks for proving my point.

Zod bless you! Zod bless everyone in your life!

 

[BH/HHH]

Zod Bless You...

You're a legend Krypton INC

 

[rogbngp]

Sorry but... That's not what I wrote, and this, your post here, is doing EXACTLY what you claim I am doing. And I will cop to being able to talk about fanboys/girls as a card carrying member myself since 1979. The difference? I try to inject some self awareness into my opinion having gone through about every age of the comic book super hero being adapted in live action, excluding the golden age serials, Reeves/West shows first hand. But of more importance is that you prove again the over the top absolutes thrown around that is probably the opposite of sober criticism... Understandable given the emotional attachments we as fans have.

Oh... And... "Get over it"?

Ha. Oh, the obtuseness of silly people on the Internet. Again... Thanks for proving my point.

Zod bless you! Zod bless everyone in your life!

Lol, nice touch.

 

[rogbngp]

I think a lot of the acrimony the takes place between camps for MoS would diminish if some basic ground rules are respected. Here's something I wrote for what my friends in real life and I came up with to apply when we compare our experiences of various films:

I feel what ultimately satisfies us the most in appreciating these films is based in personal experience. Film appreciation is highly idiosyncratic and subjective. There are many reasons why I might enjoy even just a particular scene in a movie more than another, much less one film more than another. But those reasons ultimately reduce to my personality, history, and personal tastes. At the end of the day, the deepest reasons for why I find a film satisfying--or not--boils down to personal experience.

I can still enjoy some films a lot despite their flaws--and they are films that most other fans recoil from. I like these films for a number of various reasons of my own. But the main reason is that those films all surprised me in good ways and far surpassed the exceedingly low expectations I had going in. Also, I tend by nature to root for the underdog. So it's always a pleasure for me to discover a film that is maligned but yet I see much to commend it, despite its flaws. My personality tends to have me look for the best in something.

I think of films similar to the way I regard people and their personalities. Just because a person has flaws, shortcomings, or does things that occasionally bug me doesn't mean I think the person is "bad." Nor do I necessarily feel I must then haven nothing to do with the person. Anyway, all analogies break down at some point, but that is the basic attitude I choose to adopt--at least towards films that are a mix of success and failure.

This is not to say that there aren't objective things about these films that aren't poorly executed craft-wise, and deserve negative criticism. There definitely are. Even the haters and I can probably often arrive at much agreement about them. But the appreciation of those elements of a film... i.e., whether we find an element of a film satisfying or not, and the reasons why... is still ultimately personal and idiosyncratic.

So to summarize: again, I assert that a film is experienced as satisfying or not to a viewer for what are ultimately personal and idiosyncratic reasons. (And thank goodness. How boring it would be if we were always in perfect agreement.) We can discuss objective facts about a film. But the subjective experience of the film, and one’s overall appreciation of it, is processed through each viewer's unique personality structure, personal tastes, and personal life history.

For example, one viewer may feel more of a personal affinity for the classic comic book representation of Superman that is anchored in defining elements of comic book canon. Another person may get more pleasure from seeing Superman artistically developed through the medium of film as a more mythic character that transcends the comic book version. Both types of fans have a right to their own personal appreciations of the character. The point is that the foundations for these personal tastes are ultimately individual.

To develop the idea further: for me, a film succeeds in the most basic terms if:

1) I care what happens to the characters (they matter to me, their fate matters to me)
2) I become interested and engaged in the story itself and how it unfolds (it takes me on a journey, and I’m willing to go on it)
3) I appreciate the cinematic craft of storytelling, i.e., specifically through the medium of film.

The latter consists of cinematography, the screenplay and script, acting performances, pacing of the action, CGI (where applicable), etc., and how well the director orchestrates all the various elements of the film. We can offer objective evidence for these three criteria in our own appreciation of a film. But I assert again that the deepest reasons why one might appreciate a film as such ultimately varies individually, from person to person. I will add that I can often enjoy a film for the most part even when only one or two of these elements are mostly in place, and even without them succeeding brilliantly. (I tend to be pretty forgiving as a viewer.)

 

[Nemeres]

Better summed up than this silly jab likely made for mere fun, for me, the issue could not be. Kudos to Mark Waid for also bringing it up. Snyder "cares about the details" here no more than he does when ending the film by making Clark a DP journalist with 0.00 set-up, it's yet another instance of reaching for the low-hanging fruit, a habit of his. It's a weakness to underestimate an audience's ability to punch holes in your logic, which Man of Steel, if you notice, stands as a prime example of. The "downhill" line means nothing, it's bland and harmless.

 

[Marvin]

...and "you're a monster Zod, I'm going to stop you" is the Most godawful line ever said, in the same vein of "I came back to stop you" in TDKR.

So glad that hack is gone.

Asserting Goyer has 'zero' tonal awareness is the sort of hyperbole dude was talking about. If there is a substantive criticism in there it's lost to the eventual back and forth that would ensue. The 'fact' is the man has plenty, for it's demonstrated in the rest of the movie, unless you think the entire movie top to bottom demonstrates none, if you think a one's ability to accomplish a victorian era symphony comes down to messing up 4% of it. This is one of the problems with criticism these days. A few lines out of several hundred....
And subjective ones at that. Then there is the issue of Begins, the one batman movie he actually wrote(see original screenplay). Again demonstrates plenty enough.

I digress however for it's the bolded here that I feel is an interesting prospect as to the purposes of this thread.

A line, or lines like that in a comic book movie.
Curious how long exactly would it take me to find comic book panels in which these characters or characters like them utter lines like this or rather "in their same vein".
I imagine it's either not long or very, but they are there. My point being, this material isn't Mystic River, they are adapting stuff that is steeped in this, superman has been calling folks monsters for half a century, and proceeding to tell them he is going to stop them or they'll "never get away with it". They have the option of choosing to follow in the tradition(to their own peril) or rejecting it(apparently to their own peril). But seeing lines like that spoken in movies like this, is it really that big a deal.

Puzo is one of the greats, and even he seemingly acknowledge the difference in writes for dialogue in STM vs The Godfather.

I suppose the question is, how is this improved, rather does it even need to be once acknowledging that.

 

[Flint Marko]

Just because it works in a speech bubble in an old comic book doesn't mean it'll work on the big screen in the 21st century. Seems like that would go without saying.

Perhaps it's time to reiterate the purpose of this thread: it's the constructive criticism thread for folks who have some support of the movie. It's not the same as the BvS skepticism thread.

I'm not someone who has any support of MoS but truth be told I think I can reasonably put most of the movies problems on Goyer. I think the screenplay was uneven at best and thinly written at worst; whether it be the poor dialogue, the lack of characterization, or the failure to properly dramatize most anything, I think the blame falls squarely on the screenwriter.
The only criticism I can throw towards Snyder is that he doesn't have the storytelling instincts to elevate a script, he simply executes. Paired with the proper creative team around him to give the right push, specifically Terio and Affleck, I feel his chances of producing a more satisfying film are much higher this time around and I went from being a "skeptic" to now having some cautious optimism. That doomsday trailer helped lower my expectations a bit, but I'm still expecting a better movie than MoS and I think I'll largely be satisfied if I get that.