BvS The Zack Snyder Validation Thread (big rant)

[DA_Champion]

Agreed.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

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.

Wow. This was beautiful.

 

[DA_Champion]

No doubt Apes is better than MoS.

I would take either of the two Apes movies or the two Hunger Games films over any adjacent pair of CBMs quite frankly. Better screenplays, better directing, more depth. In particular, the first Hunger Games is good comparison to MoS since they're both "Jesus against Rome" allegories ... and the comparison is not favourable to MoS.

Between Thor 2, TWS, TASM 2, DoFP, and GoTG the CBM genre feel like it's stagnating, it was all same old same old. MoS tried to do better, but failed. I would like to see them try again however, hopefully Snyder will have progressed as a filmmaker, and will benefit from the superior screenwriter.

 

[kguillou]

Yeah but you know what? MoS has done what few CBM movies these days are able to do and thats leave a lasting impression that is sparking passionate discussion even more than a year later. In that sense MoS stands out from most CBMs. It took big risks and did things most Marvel films wouldnt dare to do and as witbost risky decisions it divided people. I dont think this happened when Superman Returns came out which is why no one talked about it after its release. I really commend this movie for taking people out of their comfort zones and sparking a discussion on not only Superman but DC films as a whole. Love it or hate it you gotta admit thats a significant achievement.

 

[DA_Champion]

Yeah but you know what? MoS has done what few CBM movies these days are able to do and thats leave a lasting impression that is sparking passionate discussion even more than a year later. In that sense MoS stands out from most CBMs. It took big risks and did things most Marvel films wouldnt dare to do and as witbost risky decisions it divided people. I dont think this happened when Superman Returns came out which is why no one talked about it after its release. I really commend this movie for taking people out of their comfort zones and sparking a discussion on not only Superman but DC films as a whole. Love it or hate it you gotta admit thats a significant achievement.

That is absolutely true, MoS stimulated discussion.

I'm not sure how much that's worth?

 

[hafizbat]

Yeah but you know what? MoS has done what few CBM movies these days are able to do and thats leave a lasting impression that is sparking passionate discussion even more than a year later. In that sense MoS stands out from most CBMs. It took big risks and did things most Marvel films wouldnt dare to do and as witbost risky decisions it divided people. I dont think this happened when Superman Returns came out which is why no one talked about it after its release. I really commend this movie for taking people out of their comfort zones and sparking a discussion on not only Superman but DC films as a whole. Love it or hate it you gotta admit thats a significant achievement.

Controversy doesn't equate to success. Sure there's lots of discussion about MoS, but it's mostly about how bad it was...

The Marvel films don't generate as much discussion because most fans are perfectly satisfied with them.

 

[Deserana]

The Marvel films alone may not equate to much discussion but the world they created has pretty much dominated the geek world for the last few years.

 

[hafizbat]

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.

First off, the complaint is not about the CGI, but rather the excessive use of it in favor of character moments, of which Avengers and GotG had plenty. MoS did not.

Your points about what you "saw" in MoS are passionate no doubt, but most of it seems to be what you made of it, rather than what was actually shown. Kudos to you for finding so much meaning in the final rumble, but ostensibly the majority of viewers did not see it that way. That's completely on Snyder and Goyer, not the viewers. This is an entertainment business, and most people do not choose to look so deeply into it and find as much depth and meaning as you did. The responsibility to present all the things you mentioned in a clear, lucid way belonged solely to Snyder, and he didn't do a good job.

To most people, including myself, it was just as The Endless stated~ Two CGI characters mindlessly going at each other. The Avengers and GotG are far better received not because of some double standard, but because they achieved their goals and endeared their characters to the audience in ways that MoS simply failed to do.

 

[Mikelus]

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.

Yeah, lets not compare to Marvel, they're just mediocre, fun dumb movies for the most part, including your favorite, TWS. The elevator scene was stupid, all those Hydra agents uncapable of neutralizing Cap, how conveniently incompetent. And of course, they could not eliminate Nick Fury despite infiltrating SHIELD, pretty bad for such a "powerful and dangerous" organization. This is bad and lazy writing because Marvel doesn't want to kill off a major character, that's why Coulson didn't stay dead, and Agents of Shield is... just more mediocrity.

The last two Apes films are better than any Marvel movie so far and only some cbm like DOFP, Batman Begins, TDK, MOS... are near that quality for taking the material to another level IMO.

And despite all its flaws, most people love MOS, here are the facts:

Man Of Steel gets an A- CinemaScore (rating by the general public)

MOS Best Movie of 2013 in ScreenCrush’s 2nd Annual Fan Choice Awards: http://screencrush.com/man-of-steel-best-movie-2013-screencrush-awards/

MOS voted favorite Superman film: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/06/17/whats-your-favorite-superman-movie

Best summer movie: http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie...movie-poll-man-steel-saves-day-222445002.html

Among the best four superhero movies according to AMC poll:

1) Avengers: 12,722
2) The Dark Knight: 10,105
3) Man of Steel: 6,365
4) Iron Man: 3,748
https://www.amctheatres.com/movie-n...-four-for-the-best-comic-book-superhero-movie

Man of Steel beats Iron Man 3 in DVD and Blu-ray sales

Perhaps most significantly, 'Man of Steel' was placed as the third highest-selling Blu-ray of the year (behind 'Despicable Me 2' and 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey') selling nearly twice the number of units that 'Iron Man 3' managed to shift.

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/man-steel-beats-iron-man-3-dvd-blu-102900205.html

 

[hafizbat]

Yeah, lets not compare to Marvel, they're just mediocre, fun dumb movies for the most part, including your favorite, TWS. The elevator scene was stupid, all those Hydra agents uncapable of neutralizing Cap, how conveniently incompetent. And of course, they could not eliminate Nick Fury despite infiltrating SHIELD, pretty bad for such a "powerful and dangerous" organization. This is bad and lazy writing because Marvel doesn't want to kill off a major character, that's why Coulson didn't stay dead, and Agents of Shield is... just more mediocrity.

The last two Apes films are better than any Marvel movie so far and only some cbm like DOFP, Batman Begins, TDK, MOS... are near that quality for taking the material to another level IMO.

And despite all its flaws, most people love MOS, here are the facts:

A word of advice...if you want people to take your words seriously, don't start your post with a fanboy rage rant against the opposition.

 

[DA_Champion]

Controversy doesn't equate to success. Sure there's lots of discussion about MoS, but it's mostly about how bad it was...

The Marvel films don't generate as much discussion because most fans are perfectly satisfied with them.

Not quite correct. ASM2 and Green Lantern don't generate this level of discussion. Spider Man is a more belived character than Superman and nobody cares if you diss ASM 1 & 2.

The difference with MoS is that a number of people, intelligent people, did in fact love it. It appealed to different areas.

The closest analogue is Prometheus.

 

[flickchick85]

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 enjoyed MoS but I agree with this. As far as what it achieves, it should not be compared to Marvel because they are trying to achieve very different things. With their films this year, Marvel succeeded brilliantly at everything they were going for (imo), while MoS...didn't quite. And I think Apes is a great example of a film that did achieve a lot of the depth and emotion MoS was going for.

 

[hafizbat]

Not quite correct. ASM2 and Green Lantern don't generate this level of discussion. Spider Man is a more belived character than Superman and nobody cares if you diss ASM 1 & 2.

The difference with MoS is that a number of people, intelligent people, did in fact love it. It appealed to different areas.

The closest analogue is Prometheus.

True, but there are many factors that could possibly explain the MoS reaction.

1) Superman is a much, much bigger icon than Green Lantern. Quite frankly, I doubt anyone really cared about GL. But Superman is likely the most iconic Superhero ever.

2) Now, Spider-Man actually is as big as Superman, but a possible reason for TASM2's dismissal is the fact that we've already gotten very good Spider-Man movies in Raimi's first two movies. When you compare it to the originals, the new movies do not hold up at all, which usually stunts debate and discussion. They are clearly better.

3) MoS is a unique case where another Superman reboot/continuation happened with Superman Returns. That film was also met with mixed reactions, but the fact that it got better reception from the critics makes for a lengthy, unending discussion. Two reboots less than 7 years apart, combined with the fact that MoS was seen as a continuation of Nolan's trilogy (even though it isn't), leads to much debate and controversy.

MoS is not on the level of TASM2 or Green Lantern, but it's not that much better either. It's a much more complex, interesting case though. Lastly, I'd like to add that another reason MoS is still talked about so passionately is because it is the cornerstone of WB/DC's entire cinematic universe. BvS, Justice League, etc are all connected to MoS, which obviously leads to heated debates about the future.

Green Lantern and TASM2 were pretty much one-and-done. Also, not sure what you're getting at with the "intelligent" thing, but I don't agree with the notion that anyone who liked TASM2 or GL is unintelligent, if that's what you were trying to say.

 

[Mikelus]

I enjoyed MoS but I agree with this. As far as what it achieves, it should not be compared to Marvel because they are trying to achieve very different things. With their films this year, Marvel succeeded brilliantly at everything they were going for (imo), while MoS...didn't quite. And I think Apes is a great example of a film that did achieve a lot of the depth and emotion MoS was going for.

But the thing is, MOS did succeed, the numbers that I posted show that, is only a minority that were not satisfied. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes got the same Cinemascore (A-) and has an inferior BO so far ($509,484,803 Worldwide).

 

[hafizbat]

But the thing is, MOS did succeed, the numbers that I posted show that, is only a minority that were not satisfied. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes got the same Cinemascore (A-) and has an inferior BO so far ($509,484,803 Worldwide).

Amount of money made is not evidence of a movie's quality...Garbage like Transformers can make a billion, while great movies like Edge of Tomorrow can flop at the box office.

MoS had a lot of CGI action and was released in the summer. Easy money.

 

[Deserana]

MoS succeeded in exactly what it needed to do. Brought an updated version of a beloved character in a world that sets up more stories/a universe with the majority AT LEAST lukewarm toward it with a decent box office return.

 

[Mikelus]

MoS succeeded in exactly what it needed to do. Brought an updated version of a beloved character in a world that sets up more stories/a universe with the majority AT LEAST lukewarm toward it with a decent box office return.

Not lukewarm at all, the public and fans have spoken:

Favorite Superman film: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/06/17/whats-your-favorite-superman-movie

Best summer movie: http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie...movie-poll-man-steel-saves-day-222445002.html

AMC poll:

1) Avengers: 12,722
2) The Dark Knight: 10,105
3) Man of Steel: 6,365
4) Iron Man: 3,748
https://www.amctheatres.com/movie-n...-four-for-the-best-comic-book-superhero-movie

'Man of Steel' was placed as the third highest-selling Blu-ray of the year (behind 'Despicable Me 2' and 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey'):

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/man-steel-beats-iron-man-3-dvd-blu-102900205.html

And the minority that didn't like it, loves to complain about it! t:

 

[slumcat]

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 would argue those have don't depth either. Seriousness doesn't equate depth, neither does humor equate to less piercing. That's an enormous trap that many CBM fans and indeed DC have fallen in.

MOS by all accounts is an absolutely ludicrous movie, badly written and weirdly shot. But it seems even more so because it treats everything with such gravity and with such solemnity. Same with TDKR, a joke of a film which seems even more of a joke because of how seriously it takes itself.

Even most great films did not take themselves as seriously as DC does. There is some really misguided feeling there (and in modern cinema) that seriousness means quality.

Look at Toy Story 3, as light-hearted a movie as you could want but in the end it is absolutely devastating. For a light-hearted movie I certainly wept a lot, at multiple points, and the ideas it was able to convey and the feeling of melancholy it was able to muster was sublime and profound. And yet it had an amusing tone throughout.

But of course we are talking Pixar here who have taken story-telling to just another level. All this is to only say that seriousness is not equal to quality of profundity. I cared much more about the characters in CA:TWS and TA than in MOS or TDKR. In the first two there was a connection with the character, they were real people, they goofed up, they were silly sometimes, but they were also courageous and heroic. I cared. In MOS and TDKR, it was just silly, the characters were absolutely undefined, they were all poker-faced mouthing some hokum, and the stakes felt all the more lower because I couldn't give a **** about a single character.

 

[I am Batman]

But the thing is, MOS did succeed, the numbers that I posted show that, is only a minority that were not satisfied. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes got the same Cinemascore (A-) and has an inferior BO so far ($509,484,803 Worldwide).

Don't use cinemascore to grade the quality of a movie. A quote by Harold Mintz, one of the guys who runs cinemascore: "Opening night audiences are already sold on the movie, or what they think the movie is," he said, "so in a very real way, it's a test of whether the marketing is in synch with the film and its target audience. The grades say whether the film delivered what the marketing promised."

 

[I am Batman]

Amount of money made is not evidence of a movie's quality...Garbage like Transformers can make a billion, while great movies like Edge of Tomorrow can flop at the box office.

MoS had a lot of CGI action and was released in the summer. Easy money.

I cannot for the life of me understand why that argument still lives in this day and age. Unequivical schlock comes out every summer to prove that money does not equal quality.

 

[jmc]

It does seem strange that argument is still being used despite countless examples of bad films making lots of money. Seriously. If a film is marketed right even the crappiest movie can make half a billion dollars. There's no point even trying to counter argue that anymore.

 

[hafizbat]

Yeah, it's quite a ridiculous way to defend a movie you loved.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 made more money than Man of Steel. As did the latest Transformers. That alone should deter anyone from ever defending MoS by citing how much money it made

 

[DA_Champion]

Amount of money made is not evidence of a movie's quality...

These movies are made first and foremost with the intention of making money. There's not that much passion going into them. Goyer had some passion but I'm pretty sure he's kind of dim. The MCU movies are heavily redacted to adhere to strict formulas in order to maximise profit, at which they're successful.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is different. The director who took on the project saw the first screenplay (which was no doubt decent) and felt that it wasn't the story he wanted to tell, so he told a different story also adequate but one he cared about, and it shone.

So given that money is the goal, I think that box office is the highest assessor of the quality of these movies if we are to judge them on their own terms.

Beyond that, I think that indicators like the second and third week drops, and DVD sales, are better assessors of quality as is often implicitly defined on this site.

Garbage like Transformers can make a billion, while great movies like Edge of Tomorrow can flop at the box office.

Transformers, Twilight, and The Avengers all make money for the same reason, effective marketing campaigns, known brand-names, and they succeed in entertaining a large number of people. TF may be garbage to you but keep in mind TA is garbage to a lot of other people.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Umm... Geez... I take it that a film's BO is germane to how much the audience actually liked the film, which is not about the film's "quality", ya know? I crap on the TF films as much as the next guy, but... people MUST like them, since they made enough to perpetuate not one, not two, but three sequels. Again... that's not comment on it's "quality". If you say "MOS was not popular with the audience" and someone points to the BO and Blu Ray sales, then... how is that not valid?

 

[DA_Champion]

Umm... Geez... I take it that a film's BO is germane to how much the audience actually liked the film, which is not about the film's "quality", ya know? I crap on the TF films as much as the next guy, but... people MUST like them, since they made enough to perpetuate not one, not two, but three sequels. Again... that's not comment on it's "quality". If you say "MOS was not popular with the audience" and someone points to the BO and Blu Ray sales, then... how is that not valid?

If the goal is to get a lot of people to like the movie, which I think it was, then MoS is successful.