BvS The Tone Of This Movie.

[TheNextNolan22]

I had no problem following the action in MOS. The shaky cam was probably them trying to show just how fast and powerful the Kryptonians were in comparison to humans. They move so fast that it's hard to follow, I appreciated the touch.

Definitely. I thought it really worked in the final battle.

 

[shauner111]

The final battle was cool (minus the constant explosions as ive said in the past) but it did get a little too video gamey for my tastes. Call me old-fashioned but when i see a film, i dont want to see something that makes me feel like im watching a screening of some new video game.

I feel the same about the latest Spidey trailer: the Electro/Spider-Man fight.

Now what I really hated were the digital whip-zooms. Two or 3 times is enough, but every other scene?

I really hate that effect. It just makes a filmmaker look extremely amateur. He used it too much and therefore it wasn't "a cool effect" anymore.

 

[Denny67]

It's even more of an experience when it's actually filmed with Imax cameras. Having had the pleasure of The Dark Knight, the recent Mission Impossible and Dark Knight Rises, it's truly the greatest experience.

I think he's a very talented visual artist. He and Guillermo Del Toro make Michael Bay look ridiculous. But i dont think he's that great of a director. It also just comes down to personal preference. I think he goes overboard with CG and his usage of snap-zooms (as they like to call it) and constant lens flares lately give him this amateur feel. It's like he doesn't know who he wants to be: Joss Whedon, jump on the JJ Abrams fad, or be the zack who does his gimmicky slow-mo shots. He's experimenting and trying to find his voice. But i dont feel like he has ever delivered a truly great movie. Solid movies? Yes. Bad movies? Yes. But never fantastic.

He destroys Bay, but there's moments in his films that just look like a Michael Bay destruction/fight fest with just cleaner visuals.

Meh. It's one of my favorites in a line of comic book movies that i feel are for the most part bad or mediocre. It's by far my favorite Superman movie. But i wouldnt put it in my top 5.

Guillermo Del Toro is a genius. Nuff said there.

As to the rest. It depends on the film. 300 used heavy slow motion because it was very stylized and it's the look and feel he was going for. MoS took much more of a traditional action film route and although it didn't feel like it at times he did it using a single camera for the most part. That in and of itself was extremely impressive.

Due to the nature of the film it's going to be heavier on the CG. Especially since the action scenes were a big love letter to Bruce Timm and Dwayne McDuffie. He wanted that same epic scope, power, and scale the animated universe brought to life.

I think 300, Watchmen and MoS were all great films. Hell, 300 was groundbreaking. Nobody had ever seen anything like that before. That puts it is the sMe arena as The Matrix, Avatar, Star Wars, 2001 a Space Odyssey, Jaws, ect. So where you see someone that "doesn't know who he wants to be." I see a fearless and talented filmmaker who is always pushing himself and is totally a easy out of any comfort zone. A film maker who has been able use number of and in some cases invent visual styles of story telling to conform to the needs of the film rather than force the film to adapt to him.

IDK. Maybe it's because I have had access to people in the comics and film industry for a long time and talked a lot of film and TV over with a bunch of creators. What does that all mean? Nothing more than you and I differ on his body of work and as far as I'm concerned that's cool as a nice cube. I respect your opinion because as you accurately and astutely pointed out... art is 100% subjective. I just happen feel a little differently about his work and truly admire a lot of his efforts and the art they've produced. The simple fact that so many of us fans care enough comics and film to even take the time to seek like minded individuals out on the internet to have theses discussions makes me...

 

[Loki882]

The final battle was cool (minus the constant explosions as ive said in the past) but it did get a little too video gamey for my tastes. Call me old-fashioned but when i see a film, i dont want to see something that makes me feel like im watching a screening of some new video game.

I feel the same about the latest Spidey trailer: the Electro/Spider-Man fight.

I really hate that effect. It just makes a filmmaker look extremely amateur. He used it too much and therefore it wasn't "a cool effect" anymore.

Unfortunately, that's kind of a no-win scenario for the filmmakers. People have been wanting to see a proper Superman fight for decades. Well, the only way that you can have a proper Superman fight that really shows off his power is with a lot of CGI, and the same is true for Spider Man (especially if he's fighting a being made up of pure energy like Electro). This can make it "look like a videogame" for some people, but that's the only way to do it right.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

The final battle was cool (minus the constant explosions as ive said in the past) but it did get a little too video gamey for my tastes. Call me old-fashioned but when i see a film, i dont want to see something that makes me feel like im watching a screening of some new video game.

I feel the same about the latest Spidey trailer: the Electro/Spider-Man fight.

I really hate that effect. It just makes a filmmaker look extremely amateur. He used it too much and therefore it wasn't "a cool effect" anymore.

I think the intent was to make it look like someone was videoing it from a distance. I think that makes sense on earth (but not on Krypton, where you wouldn't have an amateur videographer taping it), and I think the use of compositing CG blurs into a physical pan makes the most amazing FX ever. I think they should do that more.

This is probably my favorite little moment visually. It's like how those superheroes would look if they actually existed. They'd be too fast for our eyes, just blurs in the distance. Though close-ups are important as well

 

[Superman Earth1]

I say keep the tone. No "lightening things up" or what I like to call Marvelizing. I've had quite enough fluffy CBMs to last a while.

That's not to say happy things can't happen at the appropriate times, but the movie should be dramatic overall. Dramatic doesn't mean grim, either. It just means things are taken seriously.

Agreed

 

[Denny67]

Agreed

Ditto. I like the more earnest and dramatic style DC brings in their films. The other way works for Marvel and that great. I enjoy having two very different story telling styles. Do I think it would be cool to see Marvel try their hand at something more dramatic? Sure. I'd love to see Thor: God of Thunder adapted right from the book. It's as serious as a heart attack and freak'n brilliant, but it'll never happen. On the same note, I don't want to see Batman or Superman as light hearted as Iron Man. Maybe Flash but the adaptations should keep in tune with their source material.

 

[PaulRom]

Definitely this. And by any chance, you are PaulRom from CBM?

Formerly, yes.

 

[TDK elbowstrike]

The World Engine in the end of MOS made for a pretty dire situation. I wonder if they will attempt to match that sense of desperation in the third act of this next movie and how that could be done.

They really amped up the global threat level in MOS. In Avengers, I was afraid for New York. In MOS, I was scared for Earth. Love both movies though.

 

[shauner111]

Guillermo Del Toro is a genius. Nuff said there.

As to the rest. It depends on the film. 300 used heavy slow motion because it was very stylized and it's the look and feel he was going for. MoS took much more of a traditional action film route and although it didn't feel like it at times he did it using a single camera for the most part. That in and of itself was extremely impressive.

Due to the nature of the film it's going to be heavier on the CG. Especially since the action scenes were a big love letter to Bruce Timm and Dwayne McDuffie. He wanted that same epic scope, power, and scale the animated universe brought to life.

I think 300, Watchmen and MoS were all great films. Hell, 300 was groundbreaking. Nobody had ever seen anything like that before. That puts it is the sMe arena as The Matrix, Avatar, Star Wars, 2001 a Space Odyssey, Jaws, ect. So where you see someone that "doesn't know who he wants to be." I see a fearless and talented filmmaker who is always pushing himself and is totally a easy out of any comfort zone. A film maker who has been able use number of and in some cases invent visual styles of story telling to conform to the needs of the film rather than force the film to adapt to him.

IDK. Maybe it's because I have had access to people in the comics and film industry for a long time and talked a lot of film and TV over with a bunch of creators. What does that all mean? Nothing more than you and I differ on his body of work and as far as I'm concerned that's cool as a nice cube. I respect your opinion because as you accurately and astutely pointed out... art is 100% subjective. I just happen feel a little differently about his work and truly admire a lot of his efforts and the art they've produced. The simple fact that so many of us fans care enough comics and film to even take the time to seek like minded individuals out on the internet to have theses discussions makes me...

Im aware of how impressive Snyder is, as well as Del Toro. But it has to do with the visuals. Im personally not a fan of Del Toro's movies because i just dont like the writing. I almost feel the same about Zack's movies. Pacific Rim to me was nothing more than a popcorn flick: style over substance. Cool & fun fighting between monsters and robots. But the characters had zero development. Sucker Punch was worse. Maybe those movies should not be viewed with a mindset of "OK im going to sit down and watch this for 2 hours but i better see some great writing, a fantastic story and some truly amazing performances." But that's what i look for when i see a film. Even if it's a summer blockbuster. Guillermo doesn't meet my needs as a fan. And most of the time Snyder doesn't either. Out of the 6 movies he's made, i've enjoyed 3. But i enjoy them less and less with each viewing.

It really comes down to me. Im not keen on too much CG. The latest Hobbit was a good example of using it well and still entertaining me throughout.

MOS is probably Snyders most mature work, but his filmmaking is still rough around the edges even if the CG/Post-Production work makes it look cool. You can make something look cool but i always ask "So what?"...what about the rest? If you stripped the computer graphics away from Zack, you dont really get a good filmmaker. That's how i measure the talent in this modern age. If you took the CG away from Nolan or Cuaron (etc, etc) you still have one hell of a fine filmmaker. To me Zack hasn't proven himself yet in film. Im not that impressed overall. But i am impressed with how he uses effects.

 

[EssayM]

The thing about shaky cam is, it works (somewhat) when we're supposed to be seeing it through a hand held video camera or something like that (e.g. many found-footage movies and mockumentaries and such). Even outside of those instances, it can work in small doses. The problem is that, particularly when it's used in an action scene, it comes off as a lazy shorthand for immediacy, like the director is behind the camera shouting "OMG THERE'S A BIG FIGHT HAPPENING AND ITS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW EVERYBODY LOOOOK!!!!!" Otherwise, there's no point in using documentary camerawork in a movie about freaking Superman.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah it just doesn't make any sense to use the shaky cam in this situation. The first Hunger Games is another example. At least when Nolan used it in Batman Begins it was done to serve a purpose. The thugs don't see him coming in the dark or how quick Batman is.

And this is why im saying Zack doesn't impress me as a film-maker outside of the cool effects. There are times when it's as if he's trying to keep up with the top level directors like "OK IVE SEEN THIS COOL TRICK USED BY OTHERS, SO ILL USE IT!" but when Zack uses it, it feels out of place. Like a kid who doesn't really understand the meaning of it but tries to do it to be cool. Or to look better. Example: The first time you see Costner. The focus/editing of him putting down his mug of coffee then a shot of the door closing, zoomed in on the door knob. Like why? LOL. It's just funny to me. Great filmmakers do these shots when it's symbolic, when there's meaning behind it, or even when they have a fetish (Tarantino/Refn are fetish filmmakers, focusing on shots that might turn them on). It just came off as "im trying to throw in an artsy shot here and here" but there's no relevance. Much like his superheroes constantly thrown through buildings 12 times instead of getting the point across in 2. "Less is more" is important. Zack tries too hard to keep up with the real pros, to make up for what he's accused of being...which is a style over substance director.

I know all that sounds harsh, but it's how i see things.

His real talent is that he's a people person and his energy spreads throughout the cast and crew. And what he does with visual effects. But that's icing on the cake type-stuff. Maybe the writer of Argo will help him raise the bar because the writers he's associated himself with aren't very good on their own.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

Because, you know, we need another discussion filled with Snyder *****ing.

 

[shauner111]

I like to call it constructive criticism. He has his strengths but has his weaknesses. We're allowed to point out both.

As for the tone, we've discussed it. And im sure more people will give their two cents.

 

[Jekecy]

I think he's a very talented visual artist. He and Guillermo Del Toro make Michael Bay look ridiculous.

I know I'll be in the minority of this, but I find Bay to be a superior action director over the both of them. I feel like I'm one of the few who really appreciate how much he utilizes real locations and seamlessly combines CGI, whilst still maintaining kinetic and dynamic camera movements. Whenever I watch his BTS clips, I'm always in awe over how much he's in control. Especially considering how a lot of his filming won't even have any real effect until post-production. He's practically shooting blind.

I feel like I could look back on the Transformers 10 years from now and still be damn impressed with their technical achievements. You compare the final MOS battle to any of the TF final battles, and there's a great disparity between their perceived photorealism. I'll say it ad nauseum, but the Metropolis climax looked like a very advanced next-gen video game simulation. And there's also the utilization of physical space. Bay is masterful here, largely because he was actually on location. When the Transformers are duking it out on the streets, they're occupying a very specific area. As they move along the city, you can feel and see the change in location. Compare that to MOS where every building started to look the same and everything went by so fast you just lost track of where they were at any given point. A bit careless on the director and vfx team.

Yeah it just doesn't make any sense to use the shaky cam in this situation. The first Hunger Games is another example. At least when Nolan used it in Batman Begins it was done to serve a purpose. The thugs don't see him coming in the dark or how quick Batman is.

And this is why im saying Zack doesn't impress me as a film-maker outside of the cool effects. There are times when it's as if he's trying to keep up with the top level directors like "OK IVE SEEN THIS COOL TRICK USED BY OTHERS, SO ILL USE IT!" but when Zack uses it, it feels out of place. Like a kid who doesn't really understand the meaning of it but tries to do it to be cool. Or to look better. Example: The first time you see Costner. The focus/editing of him putting down his mug of coffee then a shot of the door closing, zoomed in on the door knob. Like why? LOL. It's just funny to me. Great filmmakers do these shots when it's symbolic, when there's meaning behind it, or even when they have a fetish (Tarantino/Refn are fetish filmmakers, focusing on shots that might turn them on). It just came off as "im trying to throw in an artsy shot here and here" but there's no relevance. Much like his superheroes constantly thrown through buildings 12 times instead of getting the point across in 2. "Less is more" is important. Zack tries too hard to keep up with the real pros, to make up for what he's accused of being...which is a style over substance director.

I know all that sounds harsh, but it's how i see things.

His real talent is that he's a people person and his energy spreads throughout the cast and crew. And what he does with visual effects. But that's icing on the cake type-stuff. Maybe the writer of Argo will help him raise the bar because the writers he's associated himself with aren't very good on their own.

Roughly sums up criticism on Watchmen. The most succinct analogy I read was that the film was like watching a high school musician play Mozart. All the notes were there, and the symphonies were technically correct in execution, but the heart and soul was completely missing. It felt like an imitation, or going through the motions.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Say what you want about Bay, but a lot of windows being smashed and explosions/mayhem is done in-camera. I think there was more that could have been done in the Metropolis fight practically, but I don't know what it is.

 

[Loki882]

The thing about shaky cam is, it works (somewhat) when we're supposed to be seeing it through a hand held video camera or something like that (e.g. many found-footage movies and mockumentaries and such). Even outside of those instances, it can work in small doses. The problem is that, particularly when it's used in an action scene, it comes off as a lazy shorthand for immediacy, like the director is behind the camera shouting "OMG THERE'S A BIG FIGHT HAPPENING AND ITS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW EVERYBODY LOOOOK!!!!!" Otherwise, there's no point in using documentary camerawork in a movie about freaking Superman.

Yes, it does make sense. It's showing that these beings are moving so much faster and hitting so much harder than humans that it looks like a blur. It looks that way because that's how it WOULD look if these beings existed in real life. I got that right away. It has nothing to do with Snyder trying to draw attention to the fight, that argument makes no sense to me.

 

[the last son]

I'm not a Zack Snyder fan personally. I mean why is the movie so dark visually? Why is every thing a shade darker? Just film it normally.

 

[Loki882]

I'm not a Zack Snyder fan personally. I mean why is the movie so dark visually? Why is every thing a shade darker? Just film it normally.

What does "film it normally" even mean? The movie wasn't overly dark visually.

 

[the last son]

I mean why does the sky always look so grey?

 

[Loki882]

^ Say what you want about Bay, but a lot of windows being smashed and explosions/mayhem is done in-camera. I think there was more that could have been done in the Metropolis fight practically, but I don't know what it is.

Yeah, except that Bay's epileptic editing style makes it nearly impossible to tell what the heck is going on during his action scenes or which character is where doing what.

 

[Loki882]

I mean why does the sky always look so grey?

It doesn't always look grey, and sometimes the sky is simply grey.

 

[shauner111]

What does "film it normally" even mean? The movie wasn't overly dark visually.

Not all the time but yes it was darker.

^ Say what you want about Bay, but a lot of windows being smashed and explosions/mayhem is done in-camera. I think there was more that could have been done in the Metropolis fight practically, but I don't know what it is.

Yeah, it drives me nuts when directors get lazy and just do everything in post with effects.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah, except that Bay's epileptic editing style makes it nearly impossible to tell what the heck is going on during his action scenes or which character is where doing what.

For every good thing Bay does, he does 3 more things that make me facepalm. He could pack a 30 minute battle scene into one his Transformer movies and i probably won't be able to see a single thing that's happening.

 

[Batmannerism]

IMO, got to be about the same intensity as MOS, maybe a little more humour, but nothing forced. Also, I liked that Superman had to actually deal with Zod, permanently, and make the hard choice, rather than coming up with some convenient
(notice how no Marvel fans ***** about how Iron Man essentially massacred thousands of Chitauri - all those in the mothership and all those that dropped dead when it blew up- where were all those "Superman doesn't kill "- bastards then eh ?)

IN fact, people should feel better about MOS because Superman actually shows remorse for killing Zod, while the Avengers just go out for Shwarma.

Okay, rant over. This film has to be serious, I loved MOS, so I see BM / SM
having the same feel - especially those little quiet moments (like when Clark returns to his mom's house, after meeting Jor El) to balance out the action.

If Snyder just keeps on doing what he's doing, and gives Batman and any other Superheroes as much personality as Supes, it will all work out fine.