BvS The Zack Snyder Validation Thread (big rant)

[Rowsdower!]

I think some nolanites are annoyingly snobbish, and some Snyder fans are annoyingly overdefensive.

And the Donnerites are annoyingly self-important.

 

[zryson]

I think some nolanites are annoyingly snobbish, and some Snyder fans are annoyingly overdefensive.

The way I look at it people feel very protective of the films they like. But I also think these days many get overly angry and overdefensive too, lashing out when people dont agree with them. So I think you make some good points The Batman!

 

[hafizbat]

I'm a Batman fan. Different directors have different takes on him. Burton did his thing. Nolan did his thing. Even Shaumacher did his thing. And Snyder will do his.

I love some of the things I've seen, and I despise others. Burton and Nolan both did justice to the character, in completely different ways. And Snyder will get a fair chance from me to see what he does with the Dark Knight.

Point is, directors will come and go. There will be different takes and different creative decisions. I'll love some of them and dislike others. But I don't think there will ever be a "definitive" Batman on film. Burton nailed the gothic, mystical nature of Batman while Nolan gave us the gritty crime thrillers with a good dose of symbolism and legacy. I'm sure Snyder has something to offer that we have never seen before in his visuals. His Batman may be lacking in the things Nolan and Burton accomplished, but I'm sure he'll also show us things that haven't been done justice ever before, such as the costume, the fighting, etc.

Enjoy things you like from each different take, and don't worry too much about the stuff you disliked, because someone else will surely nail it someday. The only "definitive" version of Batman is the one you choose in your own head. I'd take Snyders visuals, Nolan's grittiness and symbolism, and Burton's Gothic, loony elements for my own perfect portrayal of Batman.

The character of Batman will endure, no matter who's directing or if you're a Burtonite, Nolanite, Snyderite, whatever.

 

[BatLobster]

The only "definitive" version of Batman is the one you choose in your own head.

Truth.

 

[The Batman]

And the Donnerites are annoyingly self-important.

Thank you for that irrelevant commentary.

The way I look at it people feel very protective of the films they like. But I also think these days many get overly angry and overdefensive too, lashing out when people dont agree with them. So I think you make some good points The Batman!

People always get angry and overdefensive when it comes to divisive films/creators, etc, its nothing new.

 

[TeeKay]

The simplest retort is that Snyder isn't as good a directors as some of his fans think, frankly it's just excuses to try and justify his haphazard and inconsistent story telling ability.

He's not a bad director. I've enjoyed some of his films but it was appalling to find out that so many people here were defending him. I like him, he has respect for the source material and he's genuinely passionate about what he does. Watchmen and DOTD were a pure joy to watch imo.

Alright, here's a critique, he lacks the ability to create a narrative that flows or understands the importance of editing in storytelling. He over indulges in scenes that aren't as important to the story and fails to develop scenes and characters that should be focused on. His main issue is he can do short bursts of excellent film making but can't sustain that over a 2 hour period. The guy can shoot film like no other, but that makes him more a great photographer not necessarily a great story teller. The issue I have with his fans is that there tends to be a lot of making excuses for his films weaknesses and his style as a director. It's the elevating to almost mythical levels that annoys me, because the reality if far from settled. To say Snyder is going to be a classic film maker is absurd, the reality is most if not all his film to date haven't been met with with any sort of glorious praise or been of any noteworthy remembrance. It's this bubble that's been created, more so than any director I can think of, Bay gets hounded for his childish directing, Spielberg gets criticised for not being the director he was 30 years ago, even Nolan's fans acknowledge his shortcomings in action and exposition, but for Snyder it's finger pointing at others, or saying nonsense like there's bias towards him or that criticism isn't valid unless you understand the subtitles of his work - complete crap and utter nonsense. That is pure fanboy speak.

Hit the nail on the head.

 

[Bathead]

What is an unfair characterization is when some fans of Snyder lash out at other people and label them haters because they dont think they same way they do. No person in entertainment is above criticism; and when you are dealing with the world of entertainment rejection/criticism is a part of life.

How is that any more of an insult than what you just said about Snyder defenders?
Besides, the number of defenders that have actually behaved that way )and I do admit there were some) are bvery few, quit acting like they're all guilty of that. That is the exaggeration.

 

[Bathead]

I agree, he sharply divides the audience (for those vested in watching movies he is involved with.)

That's not his fault, That's the fault of the (non) fans.

 

[Bathead]

The way I look at it people feel very protective of the films they like. But I also think these days many get overly angry and overdefensive too, lashing out when people dont agree with them. So I think you make some good points The Batman!

The same goes for the critics. Don't act like the critics are so innocent.

 

[zryson]

People always get angry and overdefensive when it comes to divisive films/creators, etc, its nothing new.

Well said The Batman! I completely agree with you and if anything I think when people lash out it says more about them and their way of thinking than often it does about the subject they are commenting upon.

 

[jmc]

See, but I honestly feel Nolan is nearly as divisive in his own way now. Even if it's just by sheer virtue of popularity with a loud vocal minority against him, and more and more people looking to knock him down a peg to show cause it's the hip thing to do. Or his own fans arguing over whether he's great or merely "good". One way or another Nolan's name seems to stir up arguments and debates.

Snyder is more wildly divisive in that some people see him as a visionary, others see him as a total hack, but there's a solid amount of middle ground there, I think. And a lot of that middle ground will be happy to embrace him if he makes an across-the-boards great film.

Anyway, I guess I was a bit hasty to make such a comparison and I feel like I should apologize for that. Snyder's critics haven't received death threats yet either .

To be honest the Nolan crowd were crazy at one stage too, but for different reasons. I think the thing is Nolan's actually been able to put his money where his mouth is, even taking into account my dislike of TDRK even the most vocal of detractors can't really argue that by in large his films haven't been critically well received across the board, not just with audiences and critics but within the industry itself. The debate about Nolan was about him being overrated. The debate really isn't about whether Snyder is overrated, it's about whether he's actually good enough in the first place. We are all allowed to have out opinions and the like about what we like but the facts in terms of critical reception, audience reception and box office returns for Snyder's movies clearly show someone who can probably be surmise as being inconsistent - and I think that is a totally valid observation and a debate worth having because ultimately this is the man tasked with bringing some of our favourite characters to life.

 

[The Endless]

I agree with JMC on a lot of points here, especially Snyder being over indulgent and maybe not mature enough as a film maker to show some restraint.

ALL great film makers are indulgent... but they also show maturity and restraint.

Sometimes i think Snyder is like "oh we have to have this in the movie! It'd be totally awesome!"

Yea... but does it work for the movie? Case in point the end of Man of Steel. They obviously wanted to end the film on a happy note with Clark joining the Daily Planet and showing Cavill's great smile.

Fine, that's totally cool. But it was actually completely unearned in the film. The connective tissue between that happy ending at the Daily Planet and Superman screaming in agony at having to execute Zod was... well, there wasn't any connective tissue! It was completely broken and tonally schizophrenic. It's poor story telling. Simple as that.

 

[DA_Champion]

Here's a redacted criticism of Snyder's direction in MoS that I posted in the "All Things" thread, which is by now no doubt 30, 40, or 50 pages behind the latest conversation.

*************

It is no doubt true that Snyder > Goyer, but nevertheless Snyder is not perfect, he shares the blame for some of the failings of MoS. Here are some:

1) He cut the scene where Pa and Ma Kent first meet baby Kal-El, since that scene was filmed we can assume it's in Goyer's script. For many people, that was the best part of the movie, the Kents, so cutting it removed some good.

2) A lot of the scene transitions were rapid and thus didn't let viewer register what happened. For example, it's hard to tell that the ship lands on the Kent barn because we only get 0.1 seconds to see it, it's not obvious what happens when Pete extends his hand in friendship after the bullying scene because the scene cuts rapidly (I only caught that on second viewing), and finally the Superman-Zod fight is hard to follow. The last one led to the fan complaint that "Superman destroyed Metropolis" even though he didn't, which means that people were not able to follow the action and that's on Snyder.

I would never have known that Clark was the one who helped Lois off the helicopter if not for the internet. The visuals make it hard to tell, that's not good.

3) It was Snyder's idea to have Superman kill Zod. That's fine, but then it's a problem that the double climax didn't work. Most double climaxes don't work, the only one I can think of is James Cameron's Aliens, where the fight against the Alien Queen is analogous to the Zod fight, only it actually works. Why does that fight work better?

Since this specific idea was due to Snyder, he deserves full credit/blame for the script parts specific to it.

 

[jmc]

Maturity is an interesting word to use. A good director knows when to hold back and when to let loose, it's a balancing act. Some directors can't strike the balance, they just want to get to the good stuff but the thing is you need a solid foundation before you can let loose. In all forms of art planning is essential, without a proper plan the finished work will never meet its full potential. I'm not talking about just a script being good, it's about understanding the script first and foremost.

 

[DA_Champion]

Maturity is an interesting word to use. A good director knows when to hold back and when to let loose, it's a balancing act. Some directors can't strike the balance, they just want to get to the good stuff but the thing is you need a solid foundation before you can let loose. In all forms of art planning is essential, without a proper plan the finished work will never meet its full potential. I'm not talking about just a script being good, it's about understanding the script first and foremost.

Could you point to a couple examples of MoS scenes that were underemphasised, and/or scenes that were overemphasised?

 

[jmc]

The Krypton sequence is the obvious example of lack of focus, there's just far too much time spent there with action sequences and giving us information that is more or less repeated some 30-40min later to Clark when he meets Jor-El. You can virtually remove the entirety of that sequence from the movie and you haven't lost a hell of a lot.

 

[DA_Champion]

The Krypton sequence is the obvious example of lack of focus, there's just far too much time spent there with action sequences and giving us information that is more or less repeated some 30-40min later to Clark when he meets Jor-El. You can virtually remove the entirety of that sequence from the movie and you haven't lost a hell of a lot.

Snyder being told that he makes awesome opening sequences may have gone to his head. Each of Dawn of the Dead, Watchmen, 300, start with a great opening sequence.

Your last sentence is challenging, I'm not sure if I agree or disagree.

 

[WBwins]

The Krypton sequence is the obvious example of lack of focus, there's just far too much time spent there with action sequences and giving us information that is more or less repeated some 30-40min later to Clark when he meets Jor-El. You can virtually remove the entirety of that sequence from the movie and you haven't lost a hell of a lot.

Completely agree with this.In fact its my number 1 on the list of MOS flaws.
That Sequence should either have been shortened or cut out to make time for Clarks Origin arc.As a result of this lack of Focus,Clark becoming Superman was rushed.

 

[DA_Champion]

Completely agree with this.In fact its my number 1 on the list of MOS flaws.
That Sequence should either have been shortened or cut out to make time for Clarks Origin arc.As a result of this lack of Focus,Clark becoming Superman was rushed.

Yes and no. The movie is 2 hours and 27 minutes and that sequence is 28 minutes, so even if you remove the Krypton sequence the movie has 1 hour and 59 minutes to tell the story of Clark. That's enough.

Further, though the Krypton sequence didn't further Clark's story, it did further Zod's story.

I can also point the origin scene in Star Trek, where the Narada destroys the Enterprise. We don't learn anything about James Tiberius Kirk in that scene, however it sets up the tone for the movie.

 

[WBwins]

Yes and no. The movie is 2 hours and 27 minutes and that sequence is 28 minutes, so even if you remove the Krypton sequence the movie has 1 hour and 59 minutes to tell the story of Clark. That's enough.

Further, though the Krypton sequence didn't further Clark's story, it did further Zod's story.

I can also point the origin scene in Star Trek, where the Narada destroys the Enterprise. We don't learn anything about James Tiberius Kirk in that scene, however it sets up the tone for the movie.

I mean specifically Clarks origin arc-That is how he found out his destiny and got the suit from Jorel.That particular arc was underwhelming in the movie not just due to the writing but becase enough time wasnt given it.

The Krypton sequence could have been shortened or cut.Sure thats shortchanging Zod but this is Clarks story and he takes priority.

 

[DA_Champion]

Zod's story is part of Clark's story. Zod is the foil to Clark, he is the product of a genetic breeding program and he can't adapt, he also represents the will of a dying Krypton. We need to understand Zod in order to appreciate Clark.

 

[STARMAN]

I felt the opening scene on Krypton was too long. I've always believed less is more when it comes to Krypton anyway. I love the ending even if it didn't fit the previous events or felt unearned by some.

 

[hafizbat]

I think MoS could have been truly great in the hands of a more capable director. MoS tried to be very self-important, and strove to be very ideological and have an impact. All the commentary with Pa Kent and how Superman's arrival would affect people's beliefs, the Krypton material speaking about the fall of a great civilization, Jor-El wanting Clark to be a "bridge between two races" etc etc. Someone like Nolan would have handled that much better. It's just not Snyder's forte.

Snyder's best movie was 300, imo. It was simple, it was flashy, and it was entertaining. It didn't attempt to speak about philosophical or political issues. MoS tried to be very ambitious and transcend the genre as the TDK trilogy did, and Snyder couldn't handle it.

 

[-Arya-]

I thought the opening Krypton sequence was great. My issue with MOS is the over indulgent third act and more specifically, the last fight with Zod. I get the rationale of wanting to show two God like beings fighting and it was good, but after the whole world engine scenario you start to feel a little numb.

I still enjoyed MOS a lot, but the last 30 minutes or so could have been handled better.

 

[The Endless]

The most frustrating thing about Man of Steel is that it does have some really amazing moments. Moments that i think only Snyder could achieve.

But that's it... a movie of moments (some fantastic, some not), not a complete story. Some parts of it feel like an extended montage in a way. Some scenes just don't have time to breathe.