BvS The Official Zack Snyder Directs Everything Thread

[MrsKent26]

Someone get a goddamn ninja to break inside Snyder's office!

Can't you tell the Avengers to do it?

 

[D.P.]

How is Watchmen more famous than Man of Steel?

He deliberately changed the ending to MoS to make it less picture-perfect. He put a black spot in in Clark's soul at the end, such that he can defeat Zod but it comes with a cost. He has severed all of his ties to Krypton, including the loss of his baby carriage and access to his father, he has had to deal with death. Superman's "victory" comes at a cost, whereas victories in superhero movies are usually absolute and comprehensive.

The imagery in MoS also makes clear that if a fight like that ever happened a whole lot of people would die. In contrast, similar battles at the end of TA and CA:TWS mask that that people would die, because those directors wanted happy endings. In CA:TWS, Rogers is more concerned about Bucky than about helping the people under the Helicarrier debris. In the Avengers, the heroes go out for shawarma instead of helping people under the rubble, and in both cases audiences were not bothered, for the simple fact that the directors chose not to emphasize the casualties.

Yet another instance of mass destruction and death being "ok" in other CBMs, but unacceptable and damning when it comes to Snyder and Co.

Nobody ever addresses this though. It's easier to ignore it than to admit that your logic could actually be flawed.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Can't you tell the Avengers to do it?

It takes the entire team a lot of time to cover Whedon from head to toe with butter. Don't ask me why.

 

[MrsKent26]

It takes the entire team a lot of time to cover Whedon from head to toe with butter. Don't ask me why.

Oh lawd. They need to re-think their priorities. The lack of news is gonna end some folks.

 

[EssayM]

I can't speak for TWS yet, but TA did show civilians running from the debris and being directly attacked by the Chitauri, so they didn't totally sugarcoat it. I don't think it's necessary to show civilians dying en masse, especially in a Superman film.

 

[D.P.]

I can't speak for TWS yet, but TA did show civilians running from the debris and being directly attacked by the Chitauri, so they didn't totally sugarcoat it. I don't think it's necessary to show the civilians dying, especially in a Superman film.

The actual issue is not the death/destruction itself, but this talking point that has been repeated ad nauseam since MOS came out that the film didn't "properly deal with the aftermath" and glossed over it.

Well, neither did the beloved Avengers or TWS.

 

[EssayM]

The actual issue is not the death/destruction itself, but this talking point that has been repeated ad nauseam since MOS came out that the film didn't "properly deal with the aftermath" and glossed over it.

Well, neither did the beloved Avengers or TWS.

I don't know, the destruction in TA looked pretty damn harrowing to me.

 

[Jekecy]

Yet another instance of mass destruction and death being "ok" in other CBMs, but unacceptable and damning when it comes to Snyder and Co.

Death comes in a variety of forms in entertainment, they're not necessarily equal across all stories.

Avengers and TWS may be the same type of CBM as MOS, but the latter clearly tried to elevate its material to a higher standard. It stands to reason its more serious elements are held to a different degree of criticism.

Marvel has decidedly set the tone of their films, and it's well established their dramatic moments are mere window dressing. Comparatively WB has practically invited audiences and critics alike to treat their properties as something more than throwaway entertainment. If MOS were a tonally different movie I don't think people would've judged as harshly.

 

[MrsKent26]

I can't speak for TWS yet, but TA did show civilians running from the debris and being directly attacked by the Chitauri, so they didn't totally sugarcoat it. I don't think it's necessary to show the civilians dying, especially in a Superman film.

I prefer to see it. If I had my way, mos and BvsS wouldn't even be confined to PG13. I don't need things to be super gory, but showing a bit of mayhem makes the experience more visceral. I don't like the sugar coating at all. It makes it harder to feel the stakes.

 

[EssayM]

Death comes in a variety of forms in entertainment, they're not necessarily equal across all stories.

Avengers and TWS may be the same type of CBM as MOS, but the latter clearly tried to elevate its material to a higher standard. It stands to reason its more serious elements are held to a different degree of criticism.

Marvel has decidedly set the tone of their films, and it's well established their dramatic moments are mere window dressing. Comparatively WB has practically invited audiences and critics alike to treat their properties as something more than throwaway entertainment. If MOS were a tonally different movie I don't think people would've judged as harshly.

Agreed. MoS definitely seemed to be aiming much higher than the average MCU film.

 

[MrsKent26]

Agreed. MoS definitely seemed to be aiming much higher than the average MCU film.

Did you watch mos yet?

 

[DA_Champion]

The actual issue is not the death/destruction itself, but this talking point that has been repeated ad nauseam since MOS came out that the film didn't "properly deal with the aftermath" and glossed over it.

Well, neither did the beloved Avengers or TWS.

I don't think MoS really "dealt" with it either, but I assumed at the time that the consequences will be explored in the sequel. What MoS did was state clearly that there is a lot to be dealt with, without actually resolving it.

A few city blocks were destroyed, a great number of people were died or injured, there's going to be a government stimulus package to rebuild Metropolis, and it's like the first time in history that a Lex Luthor real estate scheme actually makes sense, since LuthorCorp might be bidding for the reconstruction contracts. Batman/Bruce Wayne is sure to come in to investigate.

The Kryptonian invasion left a lot of technology behind, maybe some biological virus can go around and cause a mutation, maybe Zod beamed a message to the rest of the Galaxy letting them know about Earth.

Snyder and Terrio can deal with it in the sequel if they want to, we'll see.

 

[InJustice]

I can't speak for TWS yet, but TA did show civilians running from the debris and being directly attacked by the Chitauri, so they didn't totally sugarcoat it. I don't think it's necessary to show civilians dying en masse, especially in a Superman film.

If you had actually bothered to watch Man of Steel, you would know that this is not the case. It's implied, but never explicitly stated.

 

[Jekecy]

I don't think MoS really "dealt" with it either, but I assumed at the time that the consequences will be explored in the sequel. What MoS did was state clearly that there is a lot to be dealt with, without actually resolving it.

It's a tough position particularly because these are all questions introduced at the tail-end of the film. There isn't room to extend the story.

If they're smart BvS will address all these questions. It's rare for a sequel to get an opportunity to directly respond to criticisms within the narrative itself. The ongoing talking points here wouldn't be out of place coming out of the mouth of Bruce, Luthor, or any other character in the film universe. That's a goldmine for any writer. You can literally talk to your audience without breaking the fourth wall.

It would be a few years, but it may very well retroactively elevate MOS' reception as a film.

 

[teagone]

I don't know, the destruction in TA looked pretty damn harrowing to me.

You don't see any human casualties in The Avengers. The film deliberately goes out of its way to not show any of the morbid elements of war (collateral damage/casualties, for example) in favor of making violence fun through more "palatable" superheroics. The Battle of New York set-piece has more similarities to Power Rangers fighting the Putty Patrol than it does to a real-world situation of a belligerent invasion by an overbearing threat in that regard. Man of Steel, in contrast, deals with the hard truths of mass destruction and collateral damage by showing the actual horrors of war, and has a hero who grieves from the dire situation present in the narrative. Audiences wanted a more action-oriented Superman movie, but I feel like most audiences weren't ready for the kind of tonality in Man of Steel that Snyder/Goyer chose. To me, personally, I feel like any criticism regarding the mass destruction and violence in Man of Steel that I've read is complete garbage fueled either by stubborn nostalgia or a negative predisposition to Snyder.

 

[D.P.]

Death comes in a variety of forms in entertainment, they're not necessarily equal across all stories.

Avengers and TWS may be the same type of CBM as MOS, but the latter clearly tried to elevate its material to a higher standard. It stands to reason its more serious elements are held to a different degree of criticism.

Marvel has decidedly set the tone of their films, and it's well established their dramatic moments are mere window dressing. Comparatively WB has practically invited audiences and critics alike to treat their properties as something more than throwaway entertainment. If MOS were a tonally different movie I don't think people would've judged as harshly.

That's the where the lines get blurred for me and that's also where I feel like people are constantly trying to justify a blantant double standard to fit into their existing opinion instead of saying "Hey, you know what, there is definitely some hypocrisy here and maybe I need to reevaluate my stance on this".

But you get people who will endlessly spin and twist the facts until they can paint a picture that looks the way they want it to. Not saying you're doing that, but I see that a lot here when discussing this topic.

Also, TWS definitely tried to delve into that same realm of seriousness that DC has already established and caught hell for.

• It was constantly touted as a "political spy thriller" first and a CBM second
  
• It featured social commentary on the gov't abusing it's power and paralleled the NSA scandal that's currently going on much like TDK
  
• Death on a large scale, terrorism/guerilla warfare on American soil, and gun violence (for a country who pretends to be so sensitive about inner-city and school shootings)

That's just one case of Marvel trying to have it's cake and eat it too all while getting a free pass from critics and fans because they just so happen to mix in a little light humor. Oh, and 'Murica.

 

[D.P.]

Snyder and Terrio can deal with it in the sequel if they want to, we'll see.

They will. Just to silence naysayers and bridge the events of MOS with BvS.

I'm sure someone will find fault in that as well.

 

[EssayM]

Did you watch mos yet?

Three of the biggest names in the CBM film reinventing the most popular superhero on the planet with indefinite amounts of money at their disposal, advertised with a trailer full of sweeping orchestral music and philosophical narration...no, I haven't seen it yet, but I'm pretty sure they weren't exactly going for Iron Man 2.

If you had actually bothered to watch Man of Steel, you would know that this is not the case. It's implied, but never explicitly stated.

I know that. I was speaking hypothetically, as I felt that was what other posters were asking for.

 

[EssayM]

You don't see any human casualties in The Avengers. The film deliberately goes out of its way to not show any of the morbid elements of war (collateral damage/casualties, for example) in favor of making violence fun through more "palatable" superheroics.

And what's wrong with that? You need to see people dying for it to be emotionally affecting? For a fun summer blockbuster, I thought some scenes in that battle were pretty intense. It wasn't just a bunch of buildings falling over.

 

[Invader34]

You don't see any human casualties in The Avengers. The film deliberately goes out of its way to not show any of the morbid elements of war (collateral damage/casualties, for example) in favor of making violence fun through more "palatable" superheroics. The Battle of New York set-piece has more similarities to Power Rangers fighting the Putty Patrol than it does to a real-world situation of a belligerent invasion by an overbearing threat in that regard. Man of Steel, in contrast, deals with the hard truths of mass destruction and collateral damage by showing the actual horrors of war, and has a hero who grieves from the dire situation present in the narrative. Audiences wanted a more action-oriented Superman movie, but I feel like most audiences weren't ready for the kind of tonality in Man of Steel that Snyder/Goyer chose. To me, personally, I feel like any criticism regarding the mass destruction and violence in Man of Steel that I've read is complete garbage fueled either by stubborn nostalgia or a negative predisposition to Snyder.

What are some examples of the "Horrors of war" that MOS shows and TA does not? From what I remember they both showed mass destruction without directly showing human casualties.

 

[MrsKent26]

Three of the biggest names in the CBM film reinventing the most popular superhero on the planet with indefinite amounts of money at their disposal, advertised with a trailer full of sweeping orchestral music and philosophical narration...no, I haven't seen it yet, but I'm pretty sure they weren't exactly going for Iron Man 2.

It's really odd to have a discussion about a movie you haven't seen. Yes, the trailers clearly showed ambition, but it still seems odd to discuss a movie based on the trailers and what others tell you.

 

[DA_Champion]

That's the where the lines get blurred for me and that's also where I feel like people are constantly trying to justify a blantant double standard to fit into their existing opinion instead of saying "Hey, you know what, there is definitely some hypocrisy here and maybe I need to reevaluate my stance on this".

But you get people who will endlessly spin and twist the facts until they can paint a picture that looks the way they want it to. Not saying you're doing that, but I see that a lot here when discussing this topic.

Also, TWS definitely tried to delve into that same realm of seriousness that DC has already established and caught hell for.

• It was constantly touted as a "political spy thriller" first and a CBM second
  
• It featured social commentary on the gov't abusing it's power and paralleled the NSA scandal that's currently going on much like TDK
  
• Death on a large scale, terrorism/guerilla warfare on American soil, and gun violence (for a country who pretends to be so sensitive about inner-city and school shootings)

That's just one case of Marvel trying to have it's cake and eat it too all while getting a free pass from critics and fans because they just so happen to mix in a little light humor. Oh, and 'Murica.

Cap 2 resolves all of these issues in a manner which exonerates the audience of guilt, and which maximises sugarcoating and flag-waving. What's the source of evil in the world in Cap 2? Hydra. That really strokes the audience's ego: nobody's offended. None of us are in the wrong, Hydra is responsible for all the problems.

This article does a great job of deconstructing Cap 2:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-america-the-winter-soldier-gets-very-wrong/

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Yet another instance of mass destruction and death being "ok" in other CBMs, but unacceptable and damning when it comes to Snyder and Co.

Nobody ever addresses this though. It's easier to ignore it than to admit that your logic could actually be flawed.

I think it's because Snyder's camp didn't try to sugarcoat what all takes place in MoS. Other films get away with murder (pun intended) because they take their violent scenes and turn them into feel-good moments. They use various techniques to lighten the mood, e.g., injecting wit and humor at just the right moments.

Sure, audiences are aware of what's happening, but their retention capabilities are being subtlety influenced by those factors intentionally designed to get them in a very comfortable place; and once they're thoroughly enjoying the ride, only the most jarring of sequences can upset that.

 

[Micromind]

Just because many people like fun filled, feel good movies doesn't mean that Snyder should feel any compulsion to make his movie like that.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Just because many people like fun filled, feel good movies doesn't mean that Snyder should feel any compulsion to make his movie like that.

And no one is suggesting that.