BvS The Official Zack Snyder Directs Everything Thread

[The Endless]

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.

MoS doesn't specifically show innocent civilians dying either. The difference between that and Avengers, besides tone, is that the Avengers are shown actively saving people, coming up with tactics to isolate the attack to one area etc.

Avengers also shows the aftermath. With people supporting them, being suspicious of them, flat out denying their existence with Stan Lee's cameo.

MoS cuts from Supes screaming in pain to a light hearted scene with the general, then back to Metropolis seemingly back to normal. Same with the Smallville fight. The town is devastated. But no reaction, no aftermath. The fact that Metropolis and Smallville don't get any characterisation of their own doesn't help. Why should i give a **** about some fictional CGI city that hasn't been given a life of it's own?

Compare it with Nolan's Gotham. A fictional city sure. But it's given a sense of life. It's a character of it's own. So when it's under attack we care about it.

 

[The Endless]

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.

TWS destruction and cgi fest finale gets a "free pass" over MoS's for a very simple reason.

People actually give a **** about the characters and story when the finale rolls around.

When the finale of MoS rolls around evidently people are just exhausted and don't care about the fancy CGI visuals beyond them looking cool. Because by that time they've lost interest in the important things (characters and story).

The pacing doesn't help. MoS is stuck in first gear for the first hour and a half. Then the final 30-40 minutes it shifts into 5th gear and goes mental. The shift is jarring for a lot of people.

 

[Masone]

MoS doesn't specifically show innocent civilians dying either. The difference between that and Avengers, besides tone, is that the Avengers are shown actively saving people, coming up with tactics to isolate the attack to one area etc.

Avengers also shows the aftermath. With people supporting them, being suspicious of them, flat out denying their existence with Stan Lee's cameo.

MoS cuts from Supes screaming in pain to a light hearted scene with the general, then back to Metropolis seemingly back to normal.

MOS most certainly shows innocent civilians dying. Speaking specifically about the end battle, a damn building collapsed on people. They showed that.

Then there's the implied and obvious deaths in the destruction, and Faora and Nam-Ek wrecking those soldiers.

 

[Masone]

TWS destruction and cgi fest finale gets a "free pass" over MoS's for a very simple reason.

People actually give a **** about the characters and story when the finale rolls around.

When the finale of MoS rolls around evidently people are just exhausted and don't care about the fancy CGI visuals beyond them looking cool. Because by that time they've lost interest in the important things (characters and story).

The pacing doesn't help. MoS is stuck in first gear for the first hour and a half. Then the final 30-40 minutes it shifts into 5th gear and goes mental. The shift is jarring for a lot of people.

I hate when people try to speak for a certain group and then act like that group is in the majority. Just speak for yourself.

Can we also stop pretending like a majority of people hated this film?

 

[The Endless]

Avengers had people engulfed in flames from explosions etc. But neither film specifically showed civilians dying. Military personnel sure, but not innocent civilians.

And you don't really need to show it.

People who think violence, death and darkness automatically = mature are incorrect. That kind of attitude gave us comics in the 90s.

 

[The Endless]

I hate when people try to speak for a certain group and then act like that group is in the majority. Just speak for yourself.

Can we also stop pretending like a majority of people hated this film?

I'm speaking for myself and obviously a lot of people feel that way, considering one of the main criticisms of MoS is the final 30 or so minutes.

Hate is a strong word. No one should HATE a film (unless it's Jack and Jill). But MoS has had mixed reactions at best.

 

[DA_Champion]

The first 90 minutes of MoS were not on fifth gear. They included the Krypton scenes (which could work as an independent 28 minute movie), the oil rig sequence, Lois and Clark versus the tentacled Sentinel, the tornado scene, the FBI running after Lois, and Lois and Clark escaping from the spaceship.

 

[Masone]

I'm speaking for myself and obviously a lot of people feel that way, considering one of the main criticisms of MoS is the final 30 or so minutes.

Hate is a strong word. No one should HATE a film (unless it's Jack and Jill). But MoS has had mixed reactions at best.

You're not speaking for just yourself.

TWS destruction and cgi fest finale gets a "free pass" over MoS's for a very simple reason.

People actually give a **** about the characters and story when the finale rolls around.

When the finale of MoS rolls around evidently people are just exhausted and don't care about the fancy CGI visuals beyond them looking cool. Because by that time they've lost interest in the important things (characters and story).

I can just as easily turn that around and say people felt the exact opposite of what you're saying. That's no way to argue. Just speak for yourself.

 

[Micromind]

TWS destruction and cgi fest finale gets a "free pass" over MoS's for a very simple reason.

People actually give a **** about the characters and story when the finale rolls around.

When the finale of MoS rolls around evidently people are just exhausted and don't care about the fancy CGI visuals beyond them looking cool. Because by that time they've lost interest in the important things (characters and story).

The pacing doesn't help. MoS is stuck in first gear for the first hour and a half. Then the final 30-40 minutes it shifts into 5th gear and goes mental. The shift is jarring for a lot of people.

MOS had been steadily building up to the finale battle, the movie did not suddenly shift gear (and tone), the Smallville battle scene did indicate what was to come during the movie's third act.

MOS is not exactly doing something new here either, it did follow Donner template to an extent and Battle in metropolis is shown for a fair amount of time in Superman 2 Donner Cut.

 

[Micromind]

People who think violence, death and darkness automatically = mature are incorrect. That kind of attitude gave us comics in the 90s.

I don't think that anyone here is implying that. By that token, Blade and Punisher movies are dealing with mature themes.

 

[The Endless]

You're not speaking for just yourself.



I can just as easily turn that around and say people felt the exact opposite of what you're saying. That's no way to argue. Just speak for yourself.

People as in, the vast majority of critics. People on the internet. My feelings match up with theres. So i'm speaking for myself but a lot of people also hold those views.

Look at a lot of the critics reviews. A lot of them complain about the finale.

Look at a lot of complaints from people on forums like this. Too much destruction, Superman didn't do enough to save people bla bla bla. Those criticisms might seem baseless and nit picky...

But why do people nit pick? It's because they've stopped caring about the things they SHOULD care about. Namely the characters and story. So their mind gets distracted with arbitrary things.

People say Snyder doesn't sugar coat things. He has realist views and all this. Yea, good point. But in MoS's case the ending is poorly done because we have a powerful scene of Superman vs Zod, half of Metropolis is destroyed, Supes kills Zod and screams in anguish... then it cuts to a light hearted scene with the General. Then it cuts to Clark joining the Daily Planet in a seemingly fine Metropolis. There is no pay off. There is no time for it to all sink in. And again, Metropolis and it's inhabitants has no character of it's own so why should i give a **** about it? It's the same as Michael Bay's CGI citys that get destroyed in his Transformer movies.

Look at Nolan's TDKT. His Gotham and it's inhabitants are well characterised. We care about Gotham when it's attacked. Why should i care about Metropolis or Smallville? Because the film maker says i should or assumes i should? That is not how it works.

 

[D.P.]

Lol.

 

[Masone]

People as in, the vast majority of critics. People on the internet. My feelings match up with theres. So i'm speaking for myself but a lot of people also hold those views.

Look at a lot of the critics reviews. A lot of them complain about the finale.

Look at a lot of complaints from people on forums like this. Too much destruction, Superman didn't do enough to save people bla bla bla. Those criticisms might seem baseless and nit picky...

But why do people nit pick? It's because they've stopped caring about the things they SHOULD care about. Namely the characters and story. So their mind gets distracted with arbitrary things.

People say Snyder doesn't sugar coat things. He has realist views and all this. Yea, good point. But in MoS's case the ending is poorly done because we have a powerful scene of Superman vs Zod, half of Metropolis is destroyed, Supes kills Zod and screams in anguish... then it cuts to a light hearted scene with the General. Then it cuts to Clark joining the Daily Planet in a seemingly fine Metropolis. There is no pay off. There is no time for it to all sink in. And again, Metropolis and it's inhabitants has no character of it's own so why should i give a **** about it? It's the same as Michael Bay's CGI citys that get destroyed in his Transformer movies.

Look at Nolan's TDKT. His Gotham and it's inhabitants are well characterised. We care about Gotham when it's attacked. Why should i care about Metropolis or Smallville? Because the film maker says i should or assumes i should? That is not how it works.

I disagree. I think the people cared for the characters, and the people look at Snyder like he made a great Superman movie. The people really loved this movie, just look at the positive reviews. They all loved it. It's because he was able to make a Superman movie with real emotion, every scene had real meaning, that's why an overwhelming amount of people liked it.

See how that works?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I disagree. I think the people cared for the characters, and the people look at Snyder like he made a great Superman movie. The people really loved this movie, just look at the positive reviews. They all loved it. It's because he was able to make a Superman movie with real emotion, every scene had real meaning, that's why an overwhelming amount of people liked it.

See how that works?

A selection bias could make every film look well praised. Man of Steel does have legitimate criticisms. But that's good, better to have ways to improve than give out the same mixed material twice.

 

[Micromind]

I hate when people try to speak for a certain group and then act like that group is in the majority. Just speak for yourself.

Can we also stop pretending like a majority of people hated this film?

Exactly.

And, there are numerous examples where the sequel did well, even if the earlier movie was a moderate success (not saying that MOS was a moderate success.)

Like for example - SkyFall did well despite Quantum of Solace's mixed reception, IM 3 did well despite IM 2's mixed reception and Captain America 2 is more successful than Cap America.

 

[The Endless]

I disagree. I think the people cared for the characters, and the people look at Snyder like he made a great Superman movie. The people really loved this movie, just look at the positive reviews. They all loved it. It's because he was able to make a Superman movie with real emotion, every scene had real meaning, that's why an overwhelming amount of people liked it.

See how that works?

An overwhelming amount of people didn't like it. It's mixed.

Man of Steel has flaws. I like the film but i'm not going to blind myself to it's flaws. I'm gonna point out what i think they are and why i think people share those views.

The main criticism of the film, even in positive reviews, is the final 30/40 minutes. And to me that's because it basically amounts to 2 indestructible cgi men who can't be hurt punching each other around a fictional cgi city that no one gives a **** about. That's what it comes down to, for me. Sure it's visually stunning. But great visuals don't mean nothing if it doesn't have a great story or characters you care about driving the visuals.

And that is a common complaint with Snyder. No one can seriously deny the guy has an eye for gorgeous visuals and striking action scenes. But he ain't the greatest story teller in the world.

 

[Masone]

A selection bias could make every film look well praised. Man of Steel does have legitimate criticisms. But that's good, better to have ways to improve than give out the same mixed material twice.

And the opposite is true, which is my point.

Legitimate is subjective, I haven't seen a single legitimate criticism, so I disagree.

The filmmakers shouldn't listen to fans, so I'd hope the negative nancys don't influence anything.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

And the opposite is true, which is my point.

Legitimate is subjective, I haven't seen a single legitimate criticism, so I disagree.

The filmmakers shouldn't listen to fans, so I'd hope the negative nancys don't influence anything.

You think Man of Steel is the peak of cinema?

Filmmakers shouldn't listen to anyone but themselves. But if no-one likes your film, you shouldn't just dismiss it with "art is subjective".

 

[Masone]

You think Man of Steel is the peak of cinema?

Filmmakers shouldn't listen to anyone but themselves. But if no-one likes your film, you shouldn't just dismiss it with "art is subjective".

And out comes the straw man. Peak of cinema, really? That's definitely what I just said.

I thought we were talking about MOS, and not a film that "no one likes"? Which film are you thinking of?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

And out comes the straw man. Peak of cinema, really? That's definitely what I just said.

If a film cannot have any legitimate criticisms what else could it be?

I thought we were talking about MOS, and not a film that "no one likes"? Which film are you thinking of?

When you said "filmmakers" I assumed you meant all filmmakers. There are many heavily reviled films, take your pick.

 

[Masone]

If a film cannot have any legitimate criticisms what else could it be?



When you said "filmmakers" I assumed you meant all filmmakers. There are many heavily reviled films, take your pick.

I said I haven't read any legit criticisms, not that there weren't any.

 

[bluerayer]

An overwhelming amount of people didn't like it. It's mixed.

Man of Steel has flaws. I like the film but i'm not going to blind myself to it's flaws. I'm gonna point out what i think they are and why i think people share those views.

The main criticism of the film, even in positive reviews, is the final 30/40 minutes. And to me that's because it basically amounts to 2 indestructible cgi men who can't be hurt punching each other around a fictional cgi city that no one gives a **** about. That's what it comes down to, for me. Sure it's visually stunning. But great visuals don't mean nothing if it doesn't have a great story or characters you care about driving the visuals.

And that is a common complaint with Snyder. No one can seriously deny the guy has an eye for gorgeous visuals and striking action scenes. But he ain't the greatest story teller in the world.

Zack just needs a good script and he's good to go.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

My point was not what you had read, my point was that they existed.

I have not read the Moby Dick, I do not doubt its existence.

 

[Masone]

My point was not what you had read, my point was that they existed.

I have not read the Moby Dick, I do not doubt its existence.

And my point was that it's all subjective. We're not talking about an objective fact that people are pointing out, we're talking about how one man may have criticisms that the next does not agree with and does not have.

It's all subjective. Moby Dick is a thing, an objective fact. A criticism is someone's opinion.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Okay then, we'll approach it this way, then:

I said there are legitimate criticisms.

Whether you agree with the ones you read, you agree there are some.

So, to solve this dilemma, write your own down then, and read them.


One criticism is an opinion, many opinions is a consensus.