BvS The Zack Snyder Validation Thread (big rant)

[The Endless]

That's a moot point as the movie doesn't even ask why he wants to be a saviour. What the movie shows is that he's naturally empathetic. It's a starting condition. The Earth-portion of the movie opens with him helping the oil rig workers.

The movie should ask why because that is how we connect with the character and learn about him AS A PERSON, regardless of super powers. It shouldn't just assume we are gonna root for this guy and understand his viewpoints simply because he is the titular character.

Clark's struggle is to figure out how, not why, imo. It goes back to that talk with pa kent. How can he save people without ending up in a government lab?

What sort of question is that? He saves people anyway and he doesn't end up in a government lab. It's an uninteresting question that has an obvious answer. He can't physically be captured.

Jon Kent's role in this film is silly. He talks about wanting Clark to be a good person... but why wouldn't he be a good person? There is no conflict there anyway because the film doesn't give a reason WHY he is a good or bad person.

 

[The Endless]

Ok, then quit criticizing MoS on the basis that you enjoyed GoTG more

lol i'm not. I'm criticizing specific details of Man of Steel.

I brought up GotG because it will make more money than the most iconic superhero there ever was at the cinema. So something is obviously making this portrayal of Superman not as endearing to viewers as it should be. We are now talking about what those things possibly could be.

It's definitely not Henry Cavill himself. He's fantastic in the role. He has the looks, he has that warm personality. He SHOULD be endearing. But he's polarizing, at best. Why is that? It's because of the writing. It's because people can't easily connect or sympathize with this Superman because his feelings and goals and perspectives are not properly dramatized in the film. Simple as, really.

 

[DA_Champion]

The movie should ask why because that is how we connect with the character and learn about him AS A PERSON, regardless of super powers. It shouldn't just assume we are gonna root for this guy and understand his viewpoints simply because he is the titular character.



What sort of question is that? He saves people anyway and he doesn't end up in a government lab. It's an uninteresting question that has an obvious answer. He can't physically be captured.

Jon Kent's role in this film is silly. He talks about wanting Clark to be a good person... but why wouldn't he be a good person? There is no conflict there anyway because the film doesn't give a reason WHY he is a good or bad person.

You don't find it interesting indeed, you hated the movie.

Personally I was intrigued. Clark's eventual solution is the dual identity. He goes from being in an ineffective urban legend of a hero to being the saviour of Earth with an equilibrium at the end.

 

[The Endless]

I don't hate the movie. I don't hate any movie.

How he saves the Earth is simply a boring question i think. It's a question of technicalities. But why? Why he CHOOSES to be the Earth's saviour? That is a more interesting question because it actually gives us insight into more intangible things like Clark's psyche.

But that doesn't really happen. We are never shown why he is a good person. We are just show that he is a good person. Jon Kent is constantly like "I have to believe you'll be a good person and do something great with your life!" but why wouldn't he believe he is a good person? There is literally no conflict there. There is nothing there to make anyone think he wouldn't be anything other than a good person. And also, why is Jon saying "I have to believe you'll change the world and be a good person" when he's also telling Clark to keep his powers a secret and maybe let a bus load of kids die?

We never seen Clark grow up or develop as a person, really. Forget about his superpowers for a second. Just look at him as a person.

 

[DA_Champion]

It's a boring question to you. It's not objectively boring.

 

[The Endless]

It's like asking a chef how he makes this great dish. Sure it is interesting in a technical sense.

But asking him why he became a chef in the first place? There is the true insight into him as a person. I mean sure he could just say "because it's a job" haha. But then i'd guarantee you he won't be a truly great chef. The best chefs have passion and love for what they do.

And that is the question that should be asked of all heroes and villains. Why?

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I don't hate the movie. I don't hate any movie.

How he saves the Earth is simply a boring question i think. It's a question of technicalities. But why? Why he CHOOSES to be the Earth's saviour? That is a more interesting question because it actually gives us insight into more intangible things like Clark's psyche.

But that doesn't really happen. We are never shown why he is a good person. We are just show that he is a good person. Jon Kent is constantly like "I have to believe you'll be a good person and do something great with your life!" but why wouldn't he believe he is a good person? There is literally no conflict there. There is nothing there to make anyone think he wouldn't be anything other than a good person. And also, why is Jon saying "I have to believe you'll change the world and be a good person" when he's also telling Clark to keep his powers a secret and maybe let a bus load of kids die?

We never seen Clark grow up or develop as a person, really. Forget about his superpowers for a second. Just look at him as a person.

Given your questions and your mixed-up quotes, I think you might be forgetting the details of the movie, some of which answer your questions.

 

[jmc]

I think you're onto something here. When I was in the theatre watching MOS for the first time I noticed all of these things above as and when they happened and pointed them out to the people I went with. They may have noticed the Pete and Zod ones themselves, but the first and third points are very quick cuts.

Other than a few such scenes the rest of the more drawn out ones like the tornado, clark's flashbacks the fortress discovery, Jor-el exposition etc. were well detailed and anyone willing to spend a little energy and rub two brain cells together could easily assimilate the information as the scenes took place. I find the complaints about the shots not showing enough, or the dialogues not explaining enough to be baffling. Everything that needed to be shown and explained to bring the story across to the audience was there in the movie.

Have we become that comfortable or lazy that we need every last detail to be spoon fed to us and cannot use our reasoning to understand things by ourselves? Is it really that a movie that requires a little bit of thinking and that challenges one's normal notions of big action movies has to be taken as a threat to the average moviegoer's intelligence? Have the usual popcorn action flicks made us that complacent that we cannot accept anything different or i daresay 'better'?

There's a difference between a film that purposely leaves things open to the imagination and one that doesn't convey its message correctly. It's not about being spoon fed, it's about have the right information presented to us in the first place so we can see what the filmmaker is trying to say. What matters is that ideas are followed through when presented to us. If there's no clear exploration of themes all they are are ideas, just random darts being thrown being left for people to figure out. That's not a fun experience for most people because for the most part people want to be entertained they don't want to problem solve. They want clarity, that doesn't mean every detail being shown to them, it means a thematic path that is clear and understandable, one that knows where it's headed. Let's not make out MoS is this high class intellectual movie, it's fairly straight forward as movies go. The thing you have to take into consideration is that maybe people aren't 'getting it' because the film doesn't convey 'it' very well in the first place.

 

[DA_Champion]

Jmc,

Do you think that BvS has any hope at all of being good?

 

[LamboMan]

I'll have a look
Yes but he didn't make the decision himself. He had to go to a preacher and ask for his help to make the decision. This is the most indecisive Superman i've ever seen.

Well what was the point of bonding the Codex to him then? How does this effect Kal's ability to be a "bridge between two peoples"? What does that quote even mean? And he did come back as a "force ghost" to dump a load of exposition and tell him what to do.

Of course. But again, does Kal truly make that decision himself? What i see in the movie is very different. Like i said earlier, this is THE most indecisive Superman, maybe superhero, i've ever seen on the big screen.

I'm travelling and need to preserve the battery on my device so I'll keep this brief. If you go back and watch that scene in the church you will see that Clark makes his case and then makes his decision and then proceeds to walk out of the church, the preacher just reassures him with his own kind words. Clark just needed to tell someone about his predicament, as anyone in his situation would but had already made his decision quite clearly before he heard the preacher's words.

About the codex, Jor el was himself taking a leap of faith since he knew that even if there was the smallest chance to save krypton or continue its legacy he should take it. The outcome didn't matter only that fact that he made the effort since time was short.

And when I was talking about the 'force ghost' I was referring more to Reeve's superman whose Jor was basically an all controlling force who trapped him for so many years turning a boy into superman which I always found bizarre. There was absolutely no free will or decision making in that movie, MOS did a heck of a better job giving us a Supes whose actions were his own. He roamed the world searching for his legacy, he found it and he himself became Superman. Jor el's AI was as good as an interactive recording and had no control over Supes.

He was just a guide, Clark had to make the real effort by himself like he always had. This is a superhero with initiative not on who is indecisive.

 

[jmc]

Jmc,

Do you think that BvS has any hope at all of being good?

Never say never. What ever cool visuals that will inevitably come our way I'm still going to keep expectations truly in check.

 

[zryson]

Let's not make out MoS is this high class intellectual movie, it's fairly straight forward as movies go. The thing you have to take into consideration is that maybe people aren't 'getting it' because the film doesn't convey 'it' very well in the first place.

Well said jmc. Hopefully BvS will fare better.

 

[kguillou]

I will say, even as someone who loved MoS, they definitely could've done a much better job with us getting to know adult Clark. I kind of get the idea that Goyer was going for: making him this mysterious loner that acts as a guardian angel wherever he goes but I feel like they could've still done that and had us connect with him more. Scenes like when he defended the waitress at the bar from the bullies, I wanted to see more that: his relationship with the waitress, his relationship with the oil rig crew, Pete Ross, Lana Lang.... Heck, why is he even a drifter in the first place? They really don't take time to delve into that and for a 2hr and 20min film they definitely had the time to. In Batman Begins, watching Bruce's journey to becoming Batman is just as fascinating as watching him in the suit. They show him in exile, explain why he's in exile and then portray his what happened during his exile to shape him into becoming Batman. That's how this should have been.

 

[zryson]

I will say, even as someone who loved MoS, they definitely could've done a much better job with us getting to know adult Clark. I kind of get the idea that Goyer was going for: making him this mysterious loner that acts as a guardian angel wherever he goes but I feel like they could've still done that and had us connect with him more. Scenes like when he defended the waitress at the bar from the bullies, I wanted to see more that: his relationship with the waitress, his relationship with the oil rig crew, Pete Ross, Lana Lang.... Heck, why is he even a drifter in the first place? They really don't take time to delve into that and for a 2hr and 2min film they definitely had the time to. In Batman Begins, watching Bruce's journey to becoming Batman is just as fascinating as watching him in the suit. They show him in exile, explain why he's in exile and then portray his what happened during his exile to shape him into becoming Batman. That's how this should have been.

The main problem with MOS was that it was so vested in trying to present a modern take, that it ultimately presented a noisy jarring story with weak characterization.

 

[TeeKay]

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.

At least the Marvel films have self awareness. That's the most important thing here. If you're gonna defend a film, defend it on its own merits not drag another film into that was completely different to MOS and what it was trying to achieve.

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:

Then why is MOS a polorizing film? The film is very divided. There's really no middle ground, it's either you love it or hate it. It doesn't have the same reception as the films you've pointed out where the critical mass loved it. MOS failed to achieve what it set out to do, hence the reception is got. You can't really take the film seriously anymore when the director defends the 3rd act and destruction by insinuating that he wanted to turn Superman into a modern mythology and failing to do so.

 

[metaphysician]

Wait... I thought Box Office was out of bounds when discussing a film's merits or qualities?

No, see. Box office is only useless as a measure when *your* doing it. When the *other* guy is using it to support his position, its totally okay.

Just wait a while, I'm sure that if Batman vs Superman grosses highly, gross will once again be an accurate measure of quality.

 

[TeeKay]

The thing you have to take into consideration is that maybe people aren't 'getting it' because the film doesn't convey 'it' very well in the first place.

Well said. This is a perfect response for the people who say "how can you forgive The Avengers for making the same mistakes MoS makes?" argument. In context, they aren't the same mistakes (I'm talking about the 3rd act where death and destruction occurs).

 

[Wise]

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:

That scene was anything but dumb. In fact it featured one of the most ingenious foreshadowing nods in any comic book movie yet imho.

After his meeting with Pierce Cap steps onto the elevator, right before that there's a shot of the elevator arriving at the top floor at the Triskellion. In the background of the shot the Watergate Hotel can be seen sitting prominently.

The Russo's put that there as an almost subliminal hint that Pierce couldn't be trusted and that there was shady dealing going on.

As for agents not being able to subdue Rogers. Um they're called superpowers...

 

[Pickleweasel]

We werent shown why he would want to save the world? really? How about cuz his mom lives on it.....

 

[TeeKay]

^^That's one interpretation. The film never really alluded to that though.

 

[hafizbat]

There's a difference between a film that purposely leaves things open to the imagination and one that doesn't convey its message correctly. It's not about being spoon fed, it's about have the right information presented to us in the first place so we can see what the filmmaker is trying to say. What matters is that ideas are followed through when presented to us. If there's no clear exploration of themes all they are are ideas, just random darts being thrown being left for people to figure out. That's not a fun experience for most people because for the most part people want to be entertained they don't want to problem solve. They want clarity, that doesn't mean every detail being shown to them, it means a thematic path that is clear and understandable, one that knows where it's headed. Let's not make out MoS is this high class intellectual movie, it's fairly straight forward as movies go. The thing you have to take into consideration is that maybe people aren't 'getting it' because the film doesn't convey 'it' very well in the first place.

I detest the way some people here try to spin MoS as some misunderstood intellectual piece of work. It's anything but.

That scene was anything but dumb. In fact it featured one of the most ingenious foreshadowing nods in any comic book movie yet imho.

After his meeting with Pierce Cap steps onto the elevator, right before that there's a shot of the elevator arriving at the top floor at the Triskellion. In the background of the shot the Watergate Hotel can be seen sitting prominently.

The Russo's put that there as an almost subliminal hint that Pierce couldn't be trusted and that there was shady dealing going on.

As for agents not being able to subdue Rogers. Um they're called superpowers...

Wow, I never noticed that. Thanks for making an already spectacular scene even better. But shhh, don't say these things too loudly. Marvel can only make dumb, fun movies!

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Let's not make out MoS is this high class intellectual movie, it's fairly straight forward as movies go.

Apparently not straight forward enough for a lot of people.

 

[slumcat]

Its muddled and incoherent, that's not the same as intellectual.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I never said it's particularly intellectual. I just don't find it to be muddled or incoherent.

 

[scifiwolf]

Had to go back to Friday for the last time someone even mentioned Zack Snyder's name in this thread.