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

[TeeKay]

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.

You have no idea how hard that video made me laugh.

 

[Slade W]

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.

That video .

 

[rogbngp]

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.



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.

I enjoyed this post a lot, Marko. Don't agree with all of it, but can agree with much of the basic gist.

In terms of elevating the script, I have a way of understanding what I believe MoS is trying to accomplish conceptually that makes the execution actually seem brilliant to me (overall--although by no means perfectly either). But I realize that others do not agree with those premises that I see for the film. Nothing I can do about that. *shrug*

Three things in defense of the choice to show Doomsday and the trinity united money shot:

1) The casual viewer GA is probably wondering why would these two superheroes be fighting? This trailer cues them in that whatever the reason for their conflict, it will get resolved and they will team up. While the main focus is on the conflict between Bats and Supes, it is actually very importantly also about the formation of the core trinity to the JL--it's setting up at least 9 other films for the DCEU in that regard! I as a DCEU fan want to see something about that!

2) When test screened for focus groups (I will assume they did that), my guess is that Wonder Woman was extremely tracking well with women. By all accounts I have heard when the trailer was screened in the theater for TFA, audible gasps of excitement came at Wondy's reveal, and mostly from... women! Males are tracking in the ionopshere for BvS--they are money in the bank. Women are tracking respectably, but I believe that's the softer target audience that the trailer is aimed at.

3) My guess is that Doomsday is a newly created creature in the scene we're shown. If so, we should expect him to rapidly evolve as he does in the Death of Superman comic book. So by the final battle with him we will see him in all his glory as a mature monster.

 

[titansupes]

2) When test screened for focus groups Wonder Woman was extremely tracking well with women. By all accounts I have heard when the trailer was screened in the theater for TFA, audible gasps of excitement came at Wondy's reveal, and mostly from... women! Males are tracking in the ionopshere for BvS--they are money in the bank. Women are tracking respectably, but that's the softer target audience that the trailer is aimed at

Saw TFA twice, with two sold out and very different crowds (midnight screening fanboys for one, families for the other) and it happened both times. Freaking warmed my heart.

 

[rogbngp]

Saw TFA twice, with two sold out and very different crowds (midnight screening fanboys for one, families for the other) and it happened both times. Freaking warmed my heart.

Yeah, at my veiwing of TFA too, lol! Like audible gasps, oohs and ahhs. I mean real spontaneous chills reaction stuff. And they were from women. Pretty darned cool.

Edit: Oh, also--at the theater I was at they ran a lot of trailers including for Civil War, X-Men: Apocalypse, Independence Day 2, Star Trek Beyond, Jungle Book, and Tarzan. Only two films got audible reactions:

1) Kung Fu Panda (one person chortled at a pee joke), and

2) BvS from several pockets throughout the auditorium as described at the Wondy reveal.

 

[Flint Marko]

I enjoyed this post a lot, Marko. Don't agree with all of it, but can agree with much of the basic gist.

In terms of elevating the script, I have a way of understanding what I believe MoS is trying to accomplish conceptually that makes the execution actually seem brilliant to me (overall--although by no means perfectly either). But I realize that others do not agree with those premises that I see for the film. Nothing I can do about that. *shrug*

We can disagree, but still respect each other's viewpoint.

Three things in defense of the choice to show Doomsday and the trinity united money shot:

1) The casual viewer GA is probably wondering why would these two superheroes be fighting? This trailer cues them in that whatever the reason for their conflict, it will get resolved and they will team up. While the main focus is on the conflict between Bats and Supes, it is actually very importantly also about the formation of the core trinity to the JL--it's setting up at least 9 other films for the DCEU in that regard! I as a DCEU fan want to see something about that!

This is a fair point. My brother doesn't know anything about superheroes and the first thing he asked me after seeing the first trailer or two was, "why are they fighting?" So I do understand the instinct to key audiences in on this, but I also think that Lex Luthor's presence could have been enough to show your casual viewer that there are forces at work beyond Batman and Superman that would cause them to unite later.

2) When test screened for focus groups (I will assume they did that), my guess is that Wonder Woman was extremely tracking well with women. By all accounts I have heard when the trailer was screened in the theater for TFA, audible gasps of excitement came at Wondy's reveal, and mostly from... women! Males are tracking in the ionopshere for BvS--they are money in the bank. Women are tracking respectably, but I believe that's the softer target audience that the trailer is aimed at.

You're exactly right here. Every time I've seen a trailer for BvS in theaters (which has been two or three times at this point) the audience lights up when Wonder Woman appears on screen. She's going to be a huge selling point for the movie and if the pre-release hype is to be believed, she steals the show.

3) My guess is that Doomsday is a newly created creature in the scene we're shown. If so, we should expect him to rapidly evolve as he does in the Death of Superman comic book. So by the final battle with him we will see him in all his glory as a mature monster.

It certainly does seem like that shot in the trailer is his first time seeing the titular heroes. But if I had a dollar for every time I heard "this isn't his final form, they'll have the classic costume by the end of the movie", I'd be sitting pretty. So I'm not going to say anything either way yet, although if I had to guess I'd say you're correct.
The larger problem I had with it was that it was just a tad too much - I personally would have preferred not to see Doomsday because as I mentioned earlier, Lex Luthor's presence and what Eisenberg does in the trailer is enough to key me in on something larger going on behind the scenes. Seeing it play out as it did in the trailer kind of took the air of mystery out a bit.
But it isn't a huge deal either way, I don't think that trailer was awful but it was certainly the weakest one in an otherwise great marketing campaign.

 

[Batsfan1]

you! everyone in your life!

That's fairly unnecessary and pointless and insulting to God. There was no reason for this. It isn't genuine. It's just a way to have a negative attitude. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

 

[The Shape]

That's fairly unnecessary and pointless and insulting to God. There was no reason for this. It isn't genuine. It's just a way to have a negative attitude. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

I'm sure by now you realize you can put your "God bless you" stuff in a permanent signature rather than typing it into every single post. Why not do that?

 

[BH/HHH]

It's annoying, it reminds me of when people say things like "you look like ****, no offence".

It's like I'll say what I want about you but aslong as I say god bless you it's alright. Yeah whatever.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

This thread is quickly devolving into another skepticism thread.

 

[Verick808]

It's annoying, it reminds me of when people say things like "you look like ****, no offence".

It's like I'll say what I want about you but aslong as I say god bless you it's alright. Yeah whatever.

I absolutely hate it when people say "No offense, but..." It is always followed by something offensive. I always just want to tell them not to say anything then.

 

[king666]

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.

This video is hilarious.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

That's fairly unnecessary and pointless and insulting to God. There was no reason for this. It isn't genuine. It's just a way to have a negative attitude. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

Rao bless you! Rao bless everyone in your life!

 

[BlueLanternKal]

Rao bless you! Rao bless everyone in your life!

Cold-bloooooded
/ Rick James

 

[BH/HHH]

I absolutely hate it when people say "No offense, but..." It is always followed by something offensive. I always just want to tell them not to say anything then.

Yeah it's just bollocks, don't try and make it OK to offend someone.

Rao bless you! Rao bless everyone in your life!

 

[The Guard]

Now there's a problem with the "monster" line Superman says to Zod? Really?

What's next, complaining if Batman says "I'm Batman"?

Someone mentioned the hyperbole in the criticism. It is kind of annoying. Easy to debate, though. Really easy.

"He did this".

"No...no he didn't. Here's why".

 

[Marvin]

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.

Yea I imagine the producers probably had this very same discussion about stuff for superman working in the 'old' tradition that needed to be made modern even and inspite of wish fulfilment character needing modernization. I remember Sndyer making this very point about the underwear among other things(not glasses surprisingly). Just because things work in one place vs 21st century, seems we agree on something.
Still, the point wasn’t about if a line worked or not, I’ve chosen to leave those discussions to keener minds apparently. My point was about when something is (beyond)subjective like if lines work, why a capable writer it’s plainly defendable in this circumstance. That of when a capable writer would choose to have a character literally spin the world backwards and change the ending of the movie, instead of me talking about if it works or not, rather why something so jacked is defendable given the material(in which he not only does the same sort but the same sort is accepted and celebrated), why it wouldn’t be defendable in Puzo’s Godfather movies. The same why a capable writer crafting a romantic comedy would be defendable in bolstering the words of the male lead with ‘fairy tale’ dialogue often associated with prince charming when the title of his piece is “SnowWhite and the 7 Dwarfs a fairy tale remake..literally”. The debates as to if each line works in the 21st century left to keener minds for the point would be why the writer is defendable in doing as described. Why fun/silly stuff like ‘one shall rise, one shall fall’ was put in a live action film and people cheered.
Also, I’m not talking about old comics. Superman calls lex all sorts of epithets of this sort before explaining that he’s going to stop him in modern comics/stuff, I imagine he even did it in the Donner movie as well, but that ‘goes without saying’.

 

[Marvin]

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.

The age old debate as to whether a director is under estimating the audience or the audience needs to be treated with care. It often ends in some form of ironic commentary I find.
You are suggesting there is no strong logic in clark ending up at the DP for there is no 'setup' if I understand? I'd argue the setup ironically resides in the logic itself and it requires a bit of work by the thinking audience. Firstly you hear Clark himself answer the question of the why at the end of the movie but before the DP scene. Why choose a Newsroom being the question, his answer: where else would a first responder such as he is, best spend his day, where he can keep his ear to the ground and such, I suppose he could have chosen a fire station or a hot dog stand...His choice to work here needs no setup for you are presented with the urgency and logic instead of some scene prior mentioning his proclivaties towards journalism, if the logic and urgency are removed then I’d look for setup or something outside of utter randomness. This is similar to why Bruce Wayne ends up at a Ninja academy without any set up as to his interest in being a ninja prior to the fact. He has the urgency and he meets someone from there. Speaking of, the second reason being you, the intelligent audience are also made aware that the women he loves and one of his closest connections works at this place, and perhaps that’s why he chooses it, it’s certainly why he chooses it over the other news places. As for the issue of setup I have to ask, how much setup were you the audience given prior to Clark arriving at the DP in the original movie? More or less than in Snyders low hanging fruit, more or somehow less than 0.00 units? Haven’t seen it in a while but doesn’t he just show up? Seems like selective issue if you ask me. And unlike the former the latter doesn't present any of the logic in it's narrative. Poking holes in logic doesn’t look like what you are presenting here imo. Poking holes often(not always) needs a clash of sense. Like why Superman would leave a planet he’s set to defend for half a decade, stuff like that.
Is this me saying it’s perfect or couldn’t have been better certainly not, but the argument presented(just now) confronts the opposite extreme of lack of logic. I fear this is actually the biggest issue the DCEU faces going forward, things that are given ‘passes’ everywhere else(even internally)…the buck stop here so I encourage perfection. Selective outrage.

Speaking of, toss that soundscape over the two shawarma scenes and see selective outrage given form.

 

[MrsKent26]

Yea I imagine the producers probably had this very same discussion about stuff for superman working in the 'old' tradition that needed to be made modern even and inspite of wish fulfilment character needing modernization. I remember Sndyer making this very point about the underwear among other things(not glasses surprisingly). Just because things work in one place vs 21st century, seems we agree on something.
Still, the point wasn’t about if a line worked or not, I’ve chosen to leave those discussions to keener minds apparently. My point was about when something is (beyond)subjective like if lines work, why a capable writer it’s plainly defendable in this circumstance. That of when a capable writer would choose to have a character literally spin the world backwards and change the ending of the movie, instead of me talking about if it works or not, rather why something so jacked is defendable given the material(in which he not only does the same sort but the same sort is accepted and celebrated), why it wouldn’t be defendable in Puzo’s Godfather movies. The same why a capable writer crafting a romantic comedy would be defendable in bolstering the words of the male lead with ‘fairy tale’ dialogue often associated with prince charming when the title of his piece is “SnowWhite and the 7 Dwarfs a fairy tale remake..literally”. The debates as to if each line works in the 21st century left to keener minds for the point would be why the writer is defendable in doing as described. Why fun/silly stuff like ‘one shall rise, one shall fall’ was put in a live action film and people cheered.
Also, I’m not talking about old comics. Superman calls lex all sorts of epithets of this sort before explaining that he’s going to stop him in modern comics/stuff, I imagine he even did it in the Donner movie as well, but that ‘goes without saying’.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that if a certain type of writing is ok in one film, it's ok in any film (if that is indeed what you're saying). Films have different contexts (in both time and audience), tone, and intents and can't possibly held to the same standard.

I can see comparing very similar types of writing in similar films (maybe even by the same writer), such as the "I'm going to stop you" uttered to both Zod and Bane by their corresponding heroes. As far as I know, they're both condemned. TDKR gets a bit more slack because it's the final installment of a series which features some examples of writing widely considered excellent.

 

[Marvin]

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that if a certain type of writing is ok in one film, it's ok in any film (if that is indeed what you're saying). Films have different contexts (in both time and audience), tone, and intents and can't possibly held to the same standard.

curious but what exactly makes you think that's my meaning?
context will help.

 

[MrsKent26]

That's what I got from it, but I admit I was unsure.

What did I get wrong?

 

[Marvin]

That's what I got from it, but I admit I was unsure.

What did I get wrong?

I'm just not sure what you are saying in relation to my point is all. Figured I'd get some clarity before responding. Anyhow I'm not saying "what's ok in one film is ok in another or all films". I'm saying if you are going to make a movie literally based on a fairy tale it's within reason that you would have dialogue in there lifted from said fairy tails. In tone or even in verbatim.

As far as condemned, I know a some people on the internet don't like the lines. Can't really speak for the entirety of the GA to be honest, especially when half the demo is kids that currently watch these shows on the cartoon network...
Still, I never compared it to TDKR, rather to superman stuff, movies in particular.

 

[MrsKent26]

I'm just not sure what you are saying in relation to my point is all. Figured I'd get some clarity before responding. Anyhow I'm not saying "what's ok in one film is ok in another or all films". I'm saying if you are going to make a movie literally based on a fairy tale it's within reason that you would have dialogue in there lifted from said fairy tails. In tone or even in verbatim.

As far as condemned, I know a some people on the internet don't like the lines. Can't really speak for the entirety of the GA to be honest, especially when half the demo is kids that currently watch these shows on the cartoon network...
Still, I never compared it to TDKR, rather to superman stuff, movies in particular.

Ah, I see. I thought we're saying that it if a certain type of dialogue (like the "I'm gonna stop you" stuff) is ok, in say TDKR (there was a nearly identical line in there), it shouldn't be an issue in MOS. But anyways...on to your actual point. I appreciate the clarification.

I realize this is all personal preference, but I still find the idea dicey. I think each medium requires a different type of writing (although each can inspire the other). Sometimes you can read a thing, but when you say it aloud...it doesn't sound right. Or...more importantly, in the case of MOS, it doesn't sound interesting/engaging/natural, but instead sounds like filler.

But that's me. I'm sure many kids, and probably a decent chunk of adults, don't care about clunky lines. And to be honest, I wouldn't care either if clunky lines weren't as prevalent as they were in MOS.

I should also point out that there were some lines I liked in MOS; I just wish there were more of them.

 

[Batsfan1]

It's annoying, it reminds me of when people say things like "you look like ****, no offence".

It's like I'll say what I want about you but aslong as I say god bless you it's alright. Yeah whatever.

I haven't insulted anyone. That's one of the reasons why I type it into my post, so I won't.

I'm sure by now you realize you can put your "God bless you" stuff in a permanent signature rather than typing it into every single post. Why not do that?

It goes against part of the reason I do it. I do it to so I can remind myself to not insult God by insulting people in the same post. It's also part olive branch, for those who accept it. I used to be pretty awful of a person. God makes it so I'm not. In heart and in word.

Rao bless you! Rao bless everyone in your life!

This is unnecessary, insulting and insincere. This is all done because you want to make a jab for some reason, when I didn't do anything to you. That can't and won't bless anyone.

Cold-bloooooded
/ Rick James

I don't know why mocking God and someone is funny. Have a very great day all of you!

God bless you all! God bless your families and everyone else in your lives! God bless everyone!

 

[Tra-El]

I'm getting my mind and eyes "Snyder ready" if you will. Threw in Watchmen (The Directors Cut) last night and was floored so today, in goes Sucker Punch (never seen it), so...wish me luck lol.