BvS The Official Zack Snyder Directs Everything Thread

[Boom]

can't disagree more... Sucker Punch was pretty awesome, and frankly the "story" was pretty darn good too.
have to agree with the interviewer, most folks who don't like sucker punch just don't get it and didn't see the story there.

I'll speak for myself when I say that Sucker Punch was one of the worst cinematic experiences of my life. Horrible story, horrible acting, and just complete sensory bewilderment. It was two hours of my life I will never get back, and I have to go to my grave knowing that.

 

[Lord]

can't disagree more... Sucker Punch was pretty awesome, and frankly the "story" was pretty darn good too.
have to agree with the interviewer, most folks who don't like sucker punch just don't get it and didn't see the story there.

Oh, people did get it, it was just very poorly done. Look around and you'll see plenty of films with similar structure that are vastly better handled.

 

[bluerayer]

I will defend all of Snyder's works except Sucker Punch. The action scenes were the only redeeming factor. Sucker Punch was an attempt at making a statement towards sexist geek culture, but Zack chose to indulge the very people he was critiquing. It was poorly done.

Yeah, i have heard that too about Sucker Punch. I'll check it out if it's on Tv sometime.

 

[MrsKent26]

Yeah, i have heard that too about Sucker Punch. I'll check it out if it's on Tv sometime.

The action scenes are actually very creative and well-choreographed. If you're just watching for those, you'll enjoy it. Just ignore the rest, lol.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Sucker Punch (and a few offensive scenes in 300) were the only things Zack has done that I didn't like. People can b**ch 'til the cows come home about all the things Man of Steel got "wrong" but IMO Snyder is right on the money when he says that most of the people who were so bothered by it were clinging to the mental image they have of Superman created by the Donner film. The majority of stuff in MOS (except maybe letting Pa Kent die) is pretty much all stuff I've seen Superman do in the comics. The oh-so-controversial battle scene was pretty much Superman: Doomsday on the big screen (Oh, and--SPOILER ALERT --that story also ends with Superman killing his enemy).

 

[EssayM]

can't disagree more... Sucker Punch was pretty awesome, and frankly the "story" was pretty darn good too.
have to agree with the interviewer, most folks who don't like sucker punch just don't get it and didn't see the story there.

Good for you, but I think you're kind of in the minority on that.

 

[bluerayer]

The action scenes are actually very creative and well-choreographed. If you're just watching for those, you'll enjoy it. Just ignore the rest, lol.

How's the acting? The complaints i have heard focused on the story.

 

[Rowsdower!]

The action scenes are actually very creative and well-choreographed. If you're just watching for those, you'll enjoy it. Just ignore the rest, lol.

Yeah, I would agree with that. It's the "real world" story where that movie fails, miserably. Oscar Isaac does what he can in the villain role, but it isn't enough to save it.

 

[Rowsdower!]

How's the acting? The complaints i have heard focused on the story.

I actually thought the acting was fine for what it was but it's hard to deliver a good performance with dialogue that bad. And I'm definitely one of those dialogue snobs who throws out the term "cringeworthy" every five minutes... but I can't defend the dialogue in Sucker Punch. It's just... awful. I remember at the end of the movie, one character gives an "epic" eyeroll-inducing voiceover and some guy sitting two rows in front of me at the theater shouted "F*** YOU!" at the screen.

 

[Lord]

Sucker Punch (and a few offensive scenes in 300) were the only things Zack has done that I didn't like. People can b**ch 'til the cows come home about all the things Man of Steel got "wrong" but IMO Snyder is right on the money when he says that most of the people who were so bothered by it were clinging to the mental image they have of Superman created by the Donner film. The majority of stuff in MOS (except maybe letting Pa Kent die) is pretty much all stuff I've seen Superman do in the comics. The oh-so-controversial battle scene was pretty much Superman: Doomsday on the big screen (Oh, and--SPOILER ALERT --that story also ends with Superman killing his enemy).

And i have to completelly disagree with that, half the critics i saw weren't Superman fans, i myself was never a fan of Donner's Superman films, allways prefered the more Golden Age type of stuff or Gran Morrison's run. Look at even Nostalgia Chick, who had to state right in the beginning that she cared nothing for Superman or how he was represented on screen when criticising Man of Steel, not being what people were expecting from Superman is far from being its main problem. Hell, i'm tired of those that didn't think MoS was good being labeled as Donner fanboys.

 

[bluerayer]

I really like Dawn Of The Dead, as far as remakes go i rank it up there with Carpenters The Thing and Cronenbergs The Fly. I was pleasantly surprised by Dawn, since i really liked the Romero original i was ready to hate the remake. But i didn't. Watchmen is my favourite Snyder movie though.

 

[MrsKent26]

How's the acting? The complaints i have heard focused on the story.

It's decent. Not bad, but not great either. The writing and the whole "critique of sexist ideas while pandering to those who have such ideas" is the issue. Zack tried to go deeper with this movie, but failed. It just comes off as hot chicks fighting robots in school girl outfits.

 

[bluerayer]

It's decent. Not bad, but not great either. The writing and the whole "critique of sexist ideas while pandering to those who have such ideas" is the issue. Zack tried to go deeper with this movie, but failed. It just comes off as hot chicks fighting robots in school girl outfits.

Yeah, that's not really my bag. Maybe if i was a teenager. Still, i'll check it out, if it's on tv.

 

[Lord]

What makes me rate Dawn of the Dead a bit less is the Zombie baby, loved everything in the film except that.

 

[Rowsdower!]

And i have to completelly disagree with that, half the critics i saw weren't Superman fans, i myself was never a fan of Donner's Superman films, allways prefered the more Golden Age type of stuff or Gran Morrison's run. Look at even Nostalgia Chick, not being what people were expecting from Superman is far from being its main problem.

Well, I don't take Nostalgia Chick's opinion on this as anything of value; she thought Thor: The Dark World was great and I personally thought it was one of the worst movies of 2013, and by far the worst effort by Marvel Studios in terms of story, acting by everyone other than Hiddleston and Hemsworth, and direction.

Anyway, I read plenty of critics reviews where they reference the Donner film and claim MOS pales in comparison and all that... it may not be every critic but there certainly were a number of them and I've heard it from fans too. So while it may not be everyone, I certainly believe it's a large number of the film's detractors.

 

[MrsKent26]

There does seem to be a decent amount of people that expected MOS to be more Donner-like. Some of them don't even seem to realize that what they want are things that Donner started and that people seem to think Superman MUST be.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah. I think it's just because a lot of them grew up on that version and even if they also read comic books and watched cartoons, they still viewed Superman through the lens that Donner created. And that's not necessarily a bad thing; Reeve's performance was iconic and Donner got most of it right (although I'll always maintain he got Luthor wrong... even the 1970s version of the character) but unfortunately, I think it created a mindset for certain fans that Superman could never stray too far from this idea they had of him. And even when he did step out of that comfort zone in the comics (which is more often than people think) they could just write it off as a bad issue or whatever. It's a lot harder to ignore in a movie.

 

[EssayM]

Sucker Punch (and a few offensive scenes in 300) were the only things Zack has done that I didn't like. People can b**ch 'til the cows come home about all the things Man of Steel got "wrong" but IMO Snyder is right on the money when he says that most of the people who were so bothered by it were clinging to the mental image they have of Superman created by the Donner film. The majority of stuff in MOS (except maybe letting Pa Kent die) is pretty much all stuff I've seen Superman do in the comics. The oh-so-controversial battle scene was pretty much Superman: Doomsday on the big screen (Oh, and--SPOILER ALERT --that story also ends with Superman killing his enemy).

I've heard this argument before, and I think it's kind of a lame defense. The Donner films were enormously popular and shaped many people's image of Superman, even non-comic book readers. You can't just tell people to forget about everything they've ever known about the most famous superhero on the planet, just so you can screw around with the mythos to your liking. And if you ARE going to do that, your film had better be the most awe-inspiring masterpiece anyone has ever seen...which MOS, from what I've heard (it's on my watch list), very much wasn't. Even the people who liked it seem to stop at "It was better than Superman Returns", which is a pretty low bar.

There is literally no way, at this point in time, for a Superman movie to "stand on its own".

And just for the heck of it:

1. Just because something "happened in the comics" a few times doesn't automatically make it canon, or obligate you to put it on screen. Otherwise, why the hell isn't Bat-Mite in the Dark Knight movies?

2. Doomsday? Really?! That's probably the worst comparison you could have come up with.

 

[Lord]

There are those that use Donner's classic to compare due to both being Superman movies and that one being the most known one, but most of the time i don't see the criticism being badly explained, even if this wasn't a Superman adaptation i'm quite sure it wouldn't bee all that well regarded.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I've heard this argument before, and I think it's kind of a lame defense. The Donner films were enormously popular and shaped many people's image of Superman, even non-comic book readers. You can't just tell people to forget about everything they've ever known about the most famous superhero on the planet, just so you can screw around with the mythos to your liking. And if you ARE going to do that, your film had better be the most awe-inspiring masterpiece anyone has ever seen...which MOS, from what I've heard (it's on my watch list), very much wasn't. Even the people who liked it seem to stop at "It was better than Superman Returns", which is a pretty low bar.

There is literally no way, at this point in time, for a Superman movie to "stand on its own".

And just for the heck of it:

1. Just because something "happened in the comics" a few times doesn't automatically make it canon, or obligate you to put it on screen. Otherwise, why the hell isn't Bat-Mite in the Dark Knight movies?

2. Doomsday? Really?! That's probably the worst comparison you could have come up with.

Wow. Okay. Maybe you should actually WATCH THE MOVIE before you condemn everything I say. Just a thought. And I never said people had to "forget" about the Donner film. I certainly didn't. Christopher Reeve's Superman, like I said before, is iconic and I will always love that film. Hell, I grew up on it. But I also grew up reading a lot of Superman comics and the Superman in many of those stories was very different from the Reeve version. Yet (usually) it still felt like Superman to me.

1. Obviously not everything in the comics belongs in a movie. I never said that. However, when a comic book movie does use something from a comic book because it fits in with the story the film is trying to tell, I'm not sure how that's a bad thing.

2. It was just the most obvious example I could think of. The time in my life when I read the most comic books was in the early 90s. And even if you hate that era of Superman, the Dan Jurgens art is still the sh**.

 

[MrsKent26]

I've heard this argument before, and I think it's kind of a lame defense. The Donner films were enormously popular and shaped many people's image of Superman, even non-comic book readers. You can't just tell people to forget about everything they've ever known about the most famous superhero on the planet, just so you can screw around with the mythos to your liking. And if you ARE going to do that, your film had better be the most awe-inspiring masterpiece anyone has ever seen...which MOS, from what I've heard (it's on my watch list), very much wasn't. Even the people who liked it seem to stop at "It was better than Superman Returns", which is a pretty low bar.

There is literally no way, at this point in time, for a Superman movie to "stand on its own".

And just for the heck of it:

1. Just because something "happened in the comics" a few times doesn't automatically make it canon, or obligate you to put it on screen. Otherwise, why the hell isn't Bat-Mite in the Dark Knight movies?

2. Doomsday? Really?! That's probably the worst comparison you could have come up with.

What defines "screw around with the mythos?"

You do know that some things that happened in the Reeve movies also happened in MOS. And yet...people don't complain nearly as much about such things in the Reeve movies. Having a preference is one thing, but judging two similar things on a different scale is quite another. It's not about forgetting the Donner movies, it's about acknowledging that they are not the Superman gospel and that other interpretations are valid too. If people are going to use the Donner films as some barometer for what is a "proper" superman effort, then they should in theory lighten up about the Zod killing because it happened back then too. This would fit with that whole "Donner supes is the real supes" logic and yet it doesn't happen because the movies are judged differently for the same things. What is considered "screwing with the mythos" for MOS is not considered the same for other works.

And you might want to see MOS if you're going to discuss things directly related to it.

 

[manofsteel4life]

It's mindboggling to me how people argue and try to come in here claim a movie isn't this or that based off of other people who have seen it....

 

[InJustice]

I've heard this argument before, and I think it's kind of a lame defense. The Donner films were enormously popular and shaped many people's image of Superman, even non-comic book readers. You can't just tell people to forget about everything they've ever known about the most famous superhero on the planet, just so you can screw around with the mythos to your liking. And if you ARE going to do that, your film had better be the most awe-inspiring masterpiece anyone has ever seen...which MOS, from what I've heard (it's on my watch list), very much wasn't. Even the people who liked it seem to stop at "It was better than Superman Returns", which is a pretty low bar.

There is literally no way, at this point in time, for a Superman movie to "stand on its own".

And just for the heck of it:

1. Just because something "happened in the comics" a few times doesn't automatically make it canon, or obligate you to put it on screen. Otherwise, why the hell isn't Bat-Mite in the Dark Knight movies?

2. Doomsday? Really?! That's probably the worst comparison you could have come up with.

Except your defense is even lamer. You're pretty much implying that you have to pander to people whose Superman is Donner's interpretation (yet, that idea failed with Superman Returns). Also, what is "screwing with the mythos?" In that case, why even bother having creative freedom with Superman if your audience is just going to be continually awestruck by Donner's Superman. Rowsdower isn't saying that people should forget the Donner movies, rather, you have to realize that there are more than one interpretations. You don't have to like it, but you have to be aware that such a thing exists.

Instead of "hearing from others" about how Man of Steel was. Why don't you watch the film and create your own opinion? You come across as a sheep for eating up people's opinions and accepting them as if it's the truth. Why do you even bother arguing when you clearly have not watched the film? You just lost credibility.

 

[The Batman]

...I don't know how surprised I should be that Snyder actually busted out the "You guys just like Donner Superman too much!" argument.


You'd figure that Superman Returns' disappointing BO would put that notion to rest, but nope....

 

[InJustice]

...I don't know how surprised I should be that Snyder actually busted out the "You guys just like Donner Superman too much!" argument.


You'd figure that Superman Returns' disappointing BO would put that notion to rest, but nope....

Honestly, if you tell me...Superman fans do not know what they want. After Superman Returns failure, we hear "wtf man, it was time for a reboot, the Donner films were good for what they accomplished." Then MOS happened, and then some people were like "ehhhh the movie wasn't great" (which is fine), then others were like "wtf man, I was expecting Superman's characterization to be like Donner's Superman."

Truly damned if you do, damned if you don't.