BvS The Zack Snyder Validation Thread (big rant)

[Tv's Phil]

Seems like the validation thread and the skepticism thread might as well be the same.

Edit: Now I don't even see the skepticism thread so maybe it all works out.

 

[zryson]

Do you guys actually watch movies 100 times?

I've watched MoS 4 times, and for me that's exceptionally high.

I don't think it matters if a movie is boring when I watch it for the 11th time, there's a reason I never make it to 11.

There's only a few movies which I have watched hundreds of times; two were Superman movies (Superman The Movie and Superman II). The other two films were Star Wars A New Hope and Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back.

 

[Flint Marko]

The story we saw on screen is one where Clark never speaks in sentences longer than 4 or 5 words and barely says much at all, one where he's mostly reacting to what other people are doing/saying rather than being the source of agency himself. It's one where Jor-El tasks Clark with the mission of bringing back Krypton one day, but Clark ends up frying all the innocent embryos with heat vision. The whole codex plot point really doesn't make much sense at all, quite frankly, it's a less functional McGuffin than even the one in GoTG or in TDKR, and that's on Goyer.

Dead on, especially with that first part. It's fundamentally problematic and should have been addressed his first day on the job.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I think all Snyder needs is a great screenwriter. Snyder is good at making things come to life visually, and does has a strong grasp on action and often tries to go deeper with movies, but struggles because he is not that good writer, nor he hasn't had good writers work with most of his career. I have some hope for this movie just because it looks like Goyer got kicked off and Terrio is an Oscar-Winning screenwriter who WB seems to some faith in (since they want him for Justice League also instead of bringing Goyer back).

I know this is controversial, but I think he has only three flaws.

One, he doesn't really balance action with character. Characters do what's "cool" rather than what they would do based on what we know without them. EG. Silk Spectre and the daggers.

2. He lacks a sense of tact.

I think he should be subdued when depicting character, so that his work in depicting great events is better appreciated. And he arguably does the best job at depicting grandiosity in his field.

3. He lacks a sense of contextualization.

He basically hopes that the viewer will understand why characters act the way they do. Take Henry Cavill as Superman. He acts depressed and contemplative before donning Superman, and angry and fearful in response to the Kryptonian invasion.

He did a great job of acting, it's just that the character wasn't written in a way that allowed the dialog to speak for him.

All other criticisms are really signs of his directorial ability.

STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE...so you don't want a cool movie with a good style to it?
MEDIOCRE ACTING-I think the leads in all his movies are amazing.
Are the extras supposed to be amazing too?
TOO MUCH ACTION-So he can't do action movies within an action oriented genre?
NOT ENOUGH CHARACTER-He's brought to life more comic characters than any other director (Leonadis/Rorshach and the Watchmen/Superman) and you blame him for not having enough character scenes..which he includes in special edition DVDS?

Please avoid those four internet era criticisms. Because obviously, audiences think his movies are deep, well acted, and exciting (as evidenced by IMDB and Metacritic user scores, as well as box office and DVD/Bluray/streaming sales).

Go in deep to why you think his movies don't work.

If you can find valid reasons (no, Watchmen isn't as good as the book isn't one. How many other comic and movies are compared?) say them.

If you can't, don't complain that he used to do commercials. Every major director has a career path. Don't call him a hack just because you disagree with the choices he's made outside of his movies.

 

[jmc]

You're essentially telling people not to criticize certain aspects of his ability because you don't see them as weaknesses, as such no amount of breaking them down and pointing out said issues and people giving detailed point by point responses is going to be satisfactory enough for you, your mind is already made up.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

No. I just want people to complain with conviction.
It seems like a lot of his complaints can be applied to the superhero genre on film in general.

It's like people want him to be raised to higher standards so that he can be tripped up by not reaching them.

This is somewhat fair for something like Watchmen, in which the source material is a very significant and prestigious work. It isn't for 300, or Man of Steel for that matter.

Is Man of Steel any worse in character development in the current genre, which often focuses on building up a big fight, rather than making a deep statement or question about reality? Is Superman someone who is hurt more by action than other characters, like Captain America in First Avenger, for example?

 

[Jekecy]

STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE...so you don't want a cool movie with a good style to it?
MEDIOCRE ACTING-I think the leads in all his movies are amazing.
Are the extras supposed to be amazing too?
TOO MUCH ACTION-So he can't do action movies within an action oriented genre?
NOT ENOUGH CHARACTER-He's brought to life more comic characters than any other director (Leonadis/Rorshach and the Watchmen/Superman) and you blame him for not having enough character scenes..which he includes in special edition DVDS?

I'm going to get right down to the point here... are those seriously counter-arguments?

Because none of those address the original critique. You've just blatantly written 4 consecutive straw man arguments. I'm honestly baffled at that.

 

[jmc]

No, you don't want people arguing against things you think aren't weaknesses. There have been numerous examples of people going into great detail about the issues of Man of Steel and Zack Snyder in general in this forum as well as throughout the internet. I would recommend to you Film Critic Hulk's overly in depth analysis of the problems of Man of Steel that highlights not just that films weakness with character but also shines a light on the person handling the movie too.

http://badassdigest.com/2013/07/03/film-crit-hulk-man-of-steel/

 

[hafizbat]

I'm going to get right down to the point here... are those seriously counter-arguments?

Because none of those address the original critique. You've just blatantly written 4 consecutive straw man arguments. I'm honestly baffled at that.

Sounds like a strong case of blind love to me.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I know this is controversial, but I think he has only three flaws.

One, he doesn't really balance action with character. Characters do what's "cool" rather than what they would do based on what we know without them. EG. Silk Spectre and the daggers.

2. He lacks a sense of tact.

I think he should be subdued when depicting character, so that his work in depicting great events is better appreciated. And he arguably does the best job at depicting grandiosity in his field.

3. He lacks a sense of contextualization.

He basically hopes that the viewer will understand why characters act the way they do. Take Henry Cavill as Superman. He acts depressed and contemplative before donning Superman, and angry and fearful in response to the Kryptonian invasion.

He did a great job of acting, it's just that the character wasn't written in a way that allowed the dialog to speak for him.

All other criticisms are really signs of his directorial ability.

STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE...so you don't want a cool movie with a good style to it?
MEDIOCRE ACTING-I think the leads in all his movies are amazing.
Are the extras supposed to be amazing too?
TOO MUCH ACTION-So he can't do action movies within an action oriented genre?
NOT ENOUGH CHARACTER-He's brought to life more comic characters than any other director (Leonadis/Rorshach and the Watchmen/Superman) and you blame him for not having enough character scenes..which he includes in special edition DVDS?

Please avoid those four internet era criticisms. Because obviously, audiences think his movies are deep, well acted, and exciting (as evidenced by IMDB and Metacritic user scores, as well as box office and DVD/Bluray/streaming sales).

Go in deep to why you think his movies don't work.

If you can find valid reasons (no, Watchmen isn't as good as the book isn't one. How many other comic and movies are compared?) say them.

If you can't, don't complain that he used to do commercials. Every major director has a career path. Don't call him a hack just because you disagree with the choices he's made outside of his movies.

I can see what you're coming from with the "four internet era criticisms", but I don't think saying "just don't bring it up" is the right way to go about it. Just defend it and say why you don't think those are good reasons. I don't those criticisms are invalid.

With said, everything else is well said. I think Snyder's lack of subtlety as a director is one of his bigger problems also.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I'm going to get right down to the point here... are those seriously counter-arguments?

Because none of those address the original critique. You've just blatantly written 4 consecutive straw man arguments. I'm honestly baffled at that.

I don't like the words Style over Substance because I think that's what all the great directors would have been accused of had the internet existed. Creating a personal style is what most directors dream of having. Telling deep stories is more of a job for the writer.

I think his accusation of not being the best director of actors would be valid if not for the many directors who slide under the radar in the genre. Was anybody really great in Thor outside of Tom Hiddleston?

Too much action is a relative criticism, but I think it's all based on improper pacing. Avengers had about 4 little action sequences that lead into a 15+ minute one. Man of Steel had quite a bunch of little sequences that lead into a 7 minute final fight.

So there's that, but honestly, most of ya'll whining about that are ready to forgive Pacific Rim, which had really long monster vs robot action.

Not enough character. Again, I think it's the writers job to create character moments at a script level, but I do think that a director's job is to emphasize or decry a lack of those moments.

So I do think that the last one is close to true, but I also think Zack's movies have the most character outside of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies.

From 300 to MOS, it's all about the little moments. The bromance between Rorshach and Nite Owl, the conversations Clark has had with his mom. Little things like that tend to be glazed over when bashing Zack and his movies.

I do think Zack is rough around the edges. But I think he's the most sincere director in the genre, and the most artful one as well. When or if Terrio polishes those edges, he'll be lauded by the same people who claim to hate him.

 

[DA_Champion]

Action can get boring if it's repetitive or meaninless, ideally every scene should have some visual meaning of some sorts though none of MoS or the MCU films achieve that, they all have gratuitous action shots.

A good example of a good action shot is the 360 degree shot of Koba in DotPotA. It lets us know that the apes have fully assumed that territory and communicates that Koba is further off the deep end.

As an exercise, compare the superman-zod fight in MoS to tge Ripley-Queen fight in Aliens. Both are high powered second climaxes in contrast to most movies that only have one climax. Superman saves a family of four and Ripley saves a little girl. One is more interesting than the other, why?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ This, though good action also creates meaning and character (think of Indy dodging the rock). I think he doesn't see the value of action as characterization, because he thinks action alone is cool. I think he can learn to understand the importance of both, when implemented the right way in the writing.

 

[The Endless]

With the best action movies the action itself isn't the main point of the scene. Action should be driven by the characters or the story.

The tracking shot in Avengers. Yea it looks cool, but the really great part about it is seeing all these characters finally working in total harmony. The part with Thor and Hulk fighting next to each other, whilst earlier on in the film they are fighting against each other, in particular is a perfect example of this. Then it's capped off my a hilarious moment where Hulk punches Thor. But again, that moment is driven by character. We understand the perspective of Hulk there. He's basically saying "Nice job goldilocks but Hulk still strongest one there is!"

And the climax of Aliens has been mentioned. The Ripley vs Queen fight isn't just cool to look at, it's driven by the characters. It's basically two mothers against each other. Ripley killed the Queens "children" and the Queen (aliens in general) are responsible for Ripley losing her daughter.

The climax of Man of Steel where Kal and Zod are fighting... it's just two CGI characters punching each other around a CGI city. By that point i couldn't really care. The fight had no personality or character moments really. It looked ****ing awesome though.

 

[jmc]

I don't like the words Style over Substance because I think that's what all the great directors would have been accused of had the internet existed. Creating a personal style is what most directors dream of having. Telling deep stories is more of a job for the writer.

I think his accusation of not being the best director of actors would be valid if not for the many directors who slide under the radar in the genre. Was anybody really great in Thor outside of Tom Hiddleston?

Too much action is a relative criticism, but I think it's all based on improper pacing. Avengers had about 4 little action sequences that lead into a 15+ minute one. Man of Steel had quite a bunch of little sequences that lead into a 7 minute final fight.

So there's that, but honestly, most of ya'll whining about that are ready to forgive Pacific Rim, which had really long monster vs robot action.

Not enough character. Again, I think it's the writers job to create character moments at a script level, but I do think that a director's job is to emphasize or decry a lack of those moments.

So I do think that the last one is close to true, but I also think Zack's movies have the most character outside of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies.

From 300 to MOS, it's all about the little moments. The bromance between Rorshach and Nite Owl, the conversations Clark has had with his mom. Little things like that tend to be glazed over when bashing Zack and his movies.

I do think Zack is rough around the edges. But I think he's the most sincere director in the genre, and the most artful one as well. When or if Terrio polishes those edges, he'll be lauded by the same people who claim to hate him.

It's not Terrio job to polish the edges because ultimately he can't control how Snyder interprets his scripts or where he places the focus. Again, it all comes back to the ability of the director in the first place. It's not just up to the writer to right a good character, the director himself has to understand where the writer is coming from. If he is just shooting the script he's not actually understanding what's happening. Anyone of us can shoot a well written script, I mean that literally, but unless you understand why that script is good there's little to no chance of it reaching it's potential. The risk is there that a director who prefers to indulge will bypass the well written characters for the sake of the cool stuff, in other words the hard work isn't being put in, it's about getting to the good stuff and not about the build up to the good stuff.

 

[DarthDorranceBane]

With the best action movies the action itself isn't the main point of the scene. Action should be driven by the characters or the story.

The tracking shot in Avengers. Yea it looks cool, but the really great part about it is seeing all these characters finally working in total harmony. The part with Thor and Hulk fighting next to each other, whilst earlier on in the film they are fighting against each other, in particular is a perfect example of this. Then it's capped off my a hilarious moment where Hulk punches Thor. But again, that moment is driven by character. We understand the perspective of Hulk there. He's basically saying "Nice job goldilocks but Hulk still strongest one there is!"

And the climax of Aliens has been mentioned. The Ripley vs Queen fight isn't just cool to look at, it's driven by the characters. It's basically two mothers against each other. Ripley killed the Queens "children" and the Queen (aliens in general) are responsible for Ripley losing her daughter.

The climax of Man of Steel where Kal and Zod are fighting... it's just two CGI characters punching each other around a CGI city. By that point i couldn't really care. The fight had no personality or character moments really. It looked ****ing awesome though.

I may disagree on your views with TDKR (I'm not sure If I've mixed you up with other members), but this post I agree with.

And like I've previosly said (my post was buried with new replies and we moved to a new thread and I couldn't get back to it until now), WB still has no plan, maybe they have now but they don't have until after the release of MOS and they have seen audiences' reaction to it, and the sequels and the planned films, especially BVSDOJ (beavis *****e?) was just a reactionary plan to the response to MOS. Why I am saying that? Because you don't make Superman unheroic on his first outing, and I've seen some of the posts here saying that one of problem of MOS was he not endeared to the people before Zod attacks, and I agree with this.

 

[zryson]

Action can get boring if it's repetitive or meaninless, ideally every scene should have some visual meaning of some sorts though none of MoS or the MCU films achieve that, they all have gratuitous action shots.

I think that's why the action in MOS felt overlong and empty to many people, when reviewing the movie. That it relied too heavily upon spectacle at the expense of greater substance.

 

[Jekecy]

I don't like the words Style over Substance because I think that's what all the great directors would have been accused of had the internet existed. Creating a personal style is what most directors dream of having. Telling deep stories is more of a job for the writer.

That would a misrepresentation of the phrase/critique. Here's a quote from Steve Jobs in response to the persistent remarks he and Apple were only about making things pretty, and valued form over function:

“Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. People think it’s this veneer – that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’ That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.”

The same applies here. If you have a solid substance, chances are you're already implementing good style. They work in tandem. Snyder's criticism stems from lack of perceived value under the surface. For all the little moments in MOS which are intended to be thought-provoking or heartfelt, it is instantly undone by the rapid pacing or editing. Any remnants left over from that are almost completely obliterated once the third act kicks in. There's a sense Snyder was beholden to those quieter moments because of the script. As soon as he had the opportunity to go all out, he did. I can't fault the impression he was only going through the motions of the dramatic scenes, so he felt he could earn the right to do the bombastic climax.

I think his accusation of not being the best director of actors would be valid if not for the many directors who slide under the radar in the genre. Was anybody really great in Thor outside of Tom Hiddleston?

I can't help but only see finger-pointing as it has been called out before. "But XX did it too!" is all this sounds to me.

Too much action is a relative criticism, but I think it's all based on improper pacing. Avengers had about 4 little action sequences that lead into a 15+ minute one. Man of Steel had quite a bunch of little sequences that lead into a 7 minute final fight.

Same here.

So there's that, but honestly, most of ya'll whining about that are ready to forgive Pacific Rim, which had really long monster vs robot action.

Once more.

Not enough character. Again, I think it's the writers job to create character moments at a script level, but I do think that a director's job is to emphasize or decry a lack of those moments.

The script is but the foundation. It's an important piece, but not the defining one. I always like to bring up the Star Trek reboot. Absolutely mediocre script (and I immediately thought this as I was watching the film), but Abrams and the crew did a helluva job elevating the material with their presentation and charm. Those are things which you cannot simply write.

So I do think that the last one is close to true, but I also think Zack's movies have the most character outside of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies.

From 300 to MOS, it's all about the little moments. The bromance between Rorshach and Nite Owl, the conversations Clark has had with his mom. Little things like that tend to be glazed over when bashing Zack and his movies.

Tidbits only get glossed over when the other bits are too overwhelming to ignore. That's how perception of any art piece works. Every individual is different and their tastes won't always cater to the same ones of the person beside them. You know this.

Which comes back to my original questioning of all this deflecting to other creative people and works. If you have a valid means of invalidating unfair statements, there would be no need to go in these blameful tangents. I can tell you from someone looking in, it's reductive to your entire position by approaching it that way.

With the best action movies the action itself isn't the main point of the scene. Action should be driven by the characters or the story.

Sure, but there's something to be said of just sitting back and enjoying the choreography of action in and of itself. I would bring up The Raid films as prime examples of such sequences which wholly work without the help of either character or story.

Granted this is rare as not many directors today can create such visceral and exciting pieces of imagery. But it is to the point that it can work if your action is just that good. Michael Bay has been making millions off it, after all.

 

[LamboMan]

With the best action movies the action itself isn't the main point of the scene. Action should be driven by the characters or the story.

The tracking shot in Avengers. Yea it looks cool, but the really great part about it is seeing all these characters finally working in total harmony. The part with Thor and Hulk fighting next to each other, whilst earlier on in the film they are fighting against each other, in particular is a perfect example of this. Then it's capped off my a hilarious moment where Hulk punches Thor. But again, that moment is driven by character. We understand the perspective of Hulk there. He's basically saying "Nice job goldilocks but Hulk still strongest one there is!"

And the climax of Aliens has been mentioned. The Ripley vs Queen fight isn't just cool to look at, it's driven by the characters. It's basically two mothers against each other. Ripley killed the Queens "children" and the Queen (aliens in general) are responsible for Ripley losing her daughter.

The climax of Man of Steel where Kal and Zod are fighting... it's just two CGI characters punching each other around a CGI city. By that point i couldn't really care. The fight had no personality or character moments really. It looked ****ing awesome though.

Haven't logged in for a week but this just made me. Am i the only one who sees a blatant double standard here. The exact same thing could be said about the Avengers fight or the GTOG scenes, which were also nothing but 'cgi'. I love how people want to watch amazing things but act as if CGI is some kind of unnecessary addition or curse and that all these movies should be made with real effects. Also when people want to bash a film the default argument is there's too much CGI, what??

The entire IM series has been CGI characters punching each other btw.

And let me just say that MOS had it's flaws, for me it was just the handling of the end fight and the scenes after that, but the only thing I have a problem with is what's missing and not what's already there. The CGI in MOS is some of the best I've seen since Hulk in avengers.

And as easy as it was for you to see character in those movies you stated, equally easy it is for me to say that even MOS's fights had a lot of gravity or character depth and meaning behind them.

Here we see a man who has just found out about his heritage as an alien and the extent of his powers and decides by himself to sacrifice his life for a world that is not his and that he has never truly been a part of.

I can see the strength of character when he has to go up against multiples of his own people who he judges by their actions and not their origin and does not give up even after being overpowered not only by them but their technology. It's as good as a normal man fighting for what is right with his bare hands against a full army.

I can see a man becoming a Superman when he has to fight his own physical weakness and when his strength of will allows him to over come all odds and take down the World Engine.

I see a Superman who makes his decision to save Earth no matter how difficult it is for him since he is the only one with with the power to do so, him being the only one standing between the Earth and total annihilation of it and all its life.

I see a Superman willing to work with his adopted people, the ones he adopted and the ones who were trying to kill him earlier, all the while saving as many as he could. I saw him have not an ounce of hate towards any human who unknowingly attacked or feared him.

I see a hero, who is willing to sacrifice the only chance of him not being alone in the universe for the greater good of all people (the weak race of his adopted planet), people whom he could as easily have enslaved or destroyed as Zod could.

I see a man coming to terms with the reality of life, that some things must be done when there is no other option left, one must sacrifice their own psychological strength for the greater good. Superman had to stop Zod not because Zod was about to kill that family but because if he didn't, Zod would kill every last human on the planet after he killed Superman. Even here, Superman had no regard for his own life but he knew he was the only one who could stop Zod, only his hands and his actions could save humanity and there was no other way.


I hardly saw this much 'depth' in any character in either GOTG or Avengers. Not to start a Marvel Vs DC fight but that's how I saw it. It's easy for one to skim over the substance and say there is none. So maybe people should take another look before saying it was just another CGI fest.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Haven't logged in for a week but this just made me. Am i the only one who sees a blatant double standard here. The exact same thing could be said about the Avengers fight or the GTOG scenes, which were also nothing but 'cgi'. I love how people want to watch amazing things but act as if CGI is some kind of unnecessary addition or curse and that all these movies should be made with real effects. Also when people want to bash a film the default argument is there's too much CGI, what??

The entire IM series has been CGI characters punching each other btw.

And let me just say that MOS had it's flaws, for me it was just the handling of the end fight and the scenes after that, but the only thing I have a problem with is what's missing and not what's already there. The CGI in MOS is some of the best I've seen since Hulk in avengers.

And as easy as it was for you to see character in those movies you stated, equally easy it is for me to say that even MOS's fights had a lot of gravity or character depth and meaning behind them.

Here we see a man who has just found out about his heritage as an alien and the extent of his powers and decides by himself to sacrifice his life for a world that is not his and that he has never truly been a part of.

I can see the strength of character when he has to go up against multiples of his own people who he judges by their actions and not their origin and does not give up even after being overpowered not only by them but their technology. It's as good as a normal man fighting for what is right with his bare hands against a full army.

I can see a man becoming a Superman when he has to fight his own physical weakness and when his strength of will allows him to over come all odds and take down the World Engine.

I see a Superman who makes his decision to save Earth no matter how difficult it is for him since he is the only one with with the power to do so, him being the only one standing between the Earth and total annihilation of it and all its life.

I see a Superman willing to work with his adopted people, the ones he adopted and the ones who were trying to kill him earlier, all the while saving as many as he could. I saw him have not an ounce of hate towards any human who unknowingly attacked or feared him.

I see a hero, who is willing to sacrifice the only chance of him not being alone in the universe for the greater good of all people (the weak race of his adopted planet), people whom he could as easily have enslaved or destroyed as Zod could.

I see a man coming to terms with the reality of life, that some things must be done when there is no other option left, one must sacrifice their own psychological strength for the greater good. Superman had to stop Zod not because Zod was about to kill that family but because if he didn't, Zod would kill every last human on the planet after he killed Superman. Even here, Superman had no regard for his own life but he knew he was the only one who could stop Zod, only his hands and his actions could save humanity and there was no other way.


I hardly saw this much 'depth' in any character in either GOTG or Avengers. Not to start a Marvel Vs DC fight but that's how I saw it. It's easy for one to skim over the substance and say there is none. So maybe people should take another look before saying it was just another CGI fest.

 

[jmc]

Lets compare then the difference not between MoS and Marvel but MoS and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, because in all honesty MoS was trying to depict itself as this serious drama that is more analogous to the Apes film than what Marvel does. That movies is a textbook example of how you build emotional drama toward the finale, it's two characters who start out with a relationship that gradually deteriorates setting up a tense climax. The finale of that movie is so gripping because in the past 2 hours the lead character and villain have gone through these life changing events that alter who they were at the beginning of the film. MoS has nothing like that, what we don't see is a man with any decent relationships in the film, at least none that have a bearing on the final act of the movie. As such when there's not a decent relationship involved all you're left with is the hero fighting the villain in the end, it means there are no personal stakes for the hero at all. MoS backed itself into a corner when the tone of the film was chosen, if it was going to try and take itself seriously the creative team had to think about what that means from a story and character perspective. As such they were kind caught in the middle taking a page from Marvel's book but doing it in a tone that doesn't exactly suit that page. You can point fingers at Marvel as often does all you want but the big difference with them is they aren't trying to take themselves as seriously, for them it's more about characters and fun, McGuffins and unremarkable bad guys, as long as the characters are interesting and that the plot flows nicely it's a good time. There isn't much depth in Marvels films because frankly there doesn't need to be, it's not their goal to go deep into their characters. Compare MoS to the Nolan trilogy of films if you want to talk about depth and execution.

 

[hafizbat]

Lets compare then the difference not between MoS and Marvel but MoS and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, because in all honesty MoS was trying to depict itself as this serious drama that is more analogous to the Apes film than what Marvel does. That movies is a textbook example of how you build emotional drama toward the finale, it's two characters who start out with a relationship that gradually deteriorates setting up a tense climax. The finale of that movie is so gripping because in the past 2 hours the lead character and villain have gone through these life changing events that alter who they were at the beginning of the film. MoS has nothing like that, what we don't see is a man with any decent relationships in the film, at least none that have a bearing on the final act of the movie. As such when there's not a decent relationship involved all you're left with is the hero fighting the villain in the end, it means there are no personal stakes for the hero at all. MoS backed itself into a corner when the tone of the film was chosen, if it was going to try and take itself seriously the creative team had to think about what that means from a story and character perspective. As such they were kind caught in the middle taking a page from Marvel's book but doing it in a tone that doesn't exactly suit that page. You can point fingers at Marvel as often does all you want but the big difference with them is they aren't trying to take themselves as seriously, for them it's more about characters and fun, McGuffins and unremarkable bad guys, as long as the characters are interesting and that the plot flows nicely it's a good time. There isn't much depth in Marvels films because frankly there doesn't need to be, it's not their goal to go deep into their characters. Compare MoS to the Nolan trilogy of films if you want to talk about depth and execution.

Wonderfully said.

Here's a question for everyone- Do you want BvS to retain the same serious, deep tone they tried with MoS (and failed, imo) or would you rather see them take a more "fun" approach?

By fun I don't mean humorous or simple, but more focused on the characters than the deeper philosophical implications. I'm talking more Timmverse than Marvel.

 

[TeeKay]

Lets compare then the difference not between MoS and Marvel but MoS and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, because in all honesty MoS was trying to depict itself as this serious drama that is more analogous to the Apes film than what Marvel does. That movies is a textbook example of how you build emotional drama toward the finale, it's two characters who start out with a relationship that gradually deteriorates setting up a tense climax. The finale of that movie is so gripping because in the past 2 hours the lead character and villain have gone through these life changing events that alter who they were at the beginning of the film. MoS has nothing like that, what we don't see is a man with any decent relationships in the film, at least none that have a bearing on the final act of the movie. As such when there's not a decent relationship involved all you're left with is the hero fighting the villain in the end, it means there are no personal stakes for the hero at all. MoS backed itself into a corner when the tone of the film was chosen, if it was going to try and take itself seriously the creative team had to think about what that means from a story and character perspective. As such they were kind caught in the middle taking a page from Marvel's book but doing it in a tone that doesn't exactly suit that page. You can point fingers at Marvel as often does all you want but the big difference with them is they aren't trying to take themselves as seriously, for them it's more about characters and fun, McGuffins and unremarkable bad guys, as long as the characters are interesting and that the plot flows nicely it's a good time. There isn't much depth in Marvels films because frankly there doesn't need to be, it's not their goal to go deep into their characters. Compare MoS to the Nolan trilogy of films if you want to talk about depth and execution.

 

[TeeKay]

LamboMan, I think it was more of the execution of the fight scene itself more than anything. To me it just looked like a video game, too super powered aliens who can't be hurt just punching each other repeatedly with no emotional weight. It became repeatetive and exhausting to watch. Also that colour palate Snyder chose certainly didn't help either. Sure, I mean the extremis battle vs Iron legion in IM3 also looked like a video game to me. Difference is, it wasn't the focal point of the battle, Tony vs Killian was. While the CGI criticism is moot, I think it's more to do with the fight itself than the VFX imo.

It's easy to explain all these ideas presented in the film but it's not the same as conveying it in the film. All these ideas that you're are talking about were introduced and was all touched upon in the film but they were never given any time to play out.*The script didn't really convey any of this. All it comes down to is the script and execution. MoS so often says one thing and shows the contrary, it contradicted itself at times. The film also manages to jump away from important things as well (Something people give the Marvel films flak for but never seem to do for MOS). Supes grieves for Zod a few seconds before it becomes a romantic scene, and no one cares about Metropolis being destroyed (will get into that next).

The reason why many people criticize Man of Steel is because the hour-long mass destruction at the end and Superman's utter indifference to it is an egregious hypocrisy to the first hour and a half of endless sermonizing and lecturing and philosophizing about Clark's responsibility to the human race. It's not the destruction in itself that was my problem but it was the movie's cavalier disregard towards it extending and reflecting onto a character generally known for decency and heroism. If that's what was intended, there would be some merit to it. But so much of it was bungled in an almost absent-minded way that colors the rest of the movie (which had the potential to be something really good). That's what's directing my disdain towards it.

The Marvel films have never really tried to go deeper with their characters, plots etc. They never have to either. Their films are very self aware of what they are. MOS on the other hand was very pretentous at times. It tried to be something it was not. MOS was basically the Superman version of Batman Begins, only inferior. Goyer basically tried to 'Nolanize' Superman and it didn't work for me. Like JMC said, if you wanna compare films, don't compare MOS to the Marvel stuff, compare it to dramas like DOTPTA because that's what MOS was somewhat striving to be. Just my 2 cents.

 

[shiveringmelody]

Lets compare then the difference not between MoS and Marvel but MoS and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, because in all honesty MoS was trying to depict itself as this serious drama that is more analogous to the Apes film than what Marvel does. That movies is a textbook example of how you build emotional drama toward the finale, it's two characters who start out with a relationship that gradually deteriorates setting up a tense climax. The finale of that movie is so gripping because in the past 2 hours the lead character and villain have gone through these life changing events that alter who they were at the beginning of the film. MoS has nothing like that, what we don't see is a man with any decent relationships in the film, at least none that have a bearing on the final act of the movie. As such when there's not a decent relationship involved all you're left with is the hero fighting the villain in the end, it means there are no personal stakes for the hero at all. MoS backed itself into a corner when the tone of the film was chosen, if it was going to try and take itself seriously the creative team had to think about what that means from a story and character perspective. As such they were kind caught in the middle taking a page from Marvel's book but doing it in a tone that doesn't exactly suit that page. You can point fingers at Marvel as often does all you want but the big difference with them is they aren't trying to take themselves as seriously, for them it's more about characters and fun, McGuffins and unremarkable bad guys, as long as the characters are interesting and that the plot flows nicely it's a good time. There isn't much depth in Marvels films because frankly there doesn't need to be, it's not their goal to go deep into their characters. Compare MoS to the Nolan trilogy of films if you want to talk about depth and execution.

I felt for Zod to a degree since he basically has nothing to live for. He was created for the sole purpose of protecting his home of Kryton. It was what he was born for and now all hope of Krypton is gone. Kal-El wasn't born with any particular purpose and he has to make decisions from the very get go. Seeing him have to hold back as a kid or make a decision as such as saving a school bus of fellow classmates. The risk of putting himself out there and what that would entail not just for himself but his adopted family. Seeing the burden he has to carry of basically being a God to many. Not knowing if the people he can save would be trusting of him since is not from his planet. Not to sound too corny, he has to a take a leap of faith and Lois was the first there to catch him by dropping the story early on. I admit the script definitely could have been better polished, but overall I love the film. In the end, imo, it is all just a matter of opinion. What one person may not like another person may love and vice versa.