BvS The Zack Snyder Validation Thread (big rant)

[hafizbat]

Well, his work is being discussed so I'd say it's fine. His work is what matters, after all. He seems like a great, down to Earth guy in person.

 

[Fallen Angel]

I watched again Watchmen the Ultimate Cut a couple of days ago man is that cut awesome.

 

[Zionite1]

Questio to Mos haters what wld u like 2 b done nw?nw dat d movies done and done and we cant go back in time?

 

[TeeKay]

Questio to Mos haters what wld u like 2 b done nw?nw dat d movies done and done and we cant go back in time?

 

[The Endless]

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...

That elevator scene is a nice nod to a scene in Three Days of the Condor, starring none other than Robert Redford, too. It had great tension and build up.

Plus the fight itself is a masterclass in choreographed chaos.

 

[Flint Marko]

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.

I'd argue the only reason we are still discussing it is because it's the first movie in the DCU, and the predecessor to the first on-screen meet up between Batman and Superman.

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.

You have stated here perfectly what I have been saying for years now.
Just because a movie is more serious and dour does not mean it is automatically superior to a film with a more light-hearted, humorous approach. That's why I think MoS failed; it took itself to seriously when it really did not have reason to. It was "dark" for the sake of dark, almost as if trying to replicate the success of Nolan's Batman films. They wanted Man of steel to be cut from the same cloth as TDKT, but that approach just does not work for Superman IMO.

 

[TeeKay]

That elevator scene is a nice nod to a scene in Three Days of the Condor, starring none other than Robert Redford, too. It had great tension and build up.

Plus the fight itself is a masterclass in choreographed chaos.

This. TWS had some of the best choreographed action scenes I've seen in CBMs.

 

[Zionite1]

Im a foward thinker.What wld u wany done now?

 

[TeeKay]

Im a foward thinker.What wld u wany done now?

There's nothing that can be done sure BUT this is a discussion forum where people are allowed to discuss with what went wrong or what was done right in the film. That doesn't make them haters, we're just expressing our opinions and backing them up with what the film presented. I don't think anyone came out and say the film outright sucked without giving any reasons as to why. If you don't like what's being discussed in here, then simple leave not throw around the word 'hater'.

 

[spiderral]

I'd argue the only reason we are still discussing it is because it's the first movie in the DCU, and the predecessor to the first on-screen meet up between Batman and Superman.


You have stated here perfectly what I have been saying for years now.
Just because a movie is more serious and dour does not mean it is automatically superior to a film with a more light-hearted, humorous approach. That's why I think MoS failed; it took itself to seriously when it really did not have reason to. It was "dark" for the sake of dark, almost as if trying to replicate the success of Nolan's Batman films. They wanted Man of steel to be cut from the same cloth as TDKT, but that approach just does not work for Superman IMO.

^^ This. The Amazing Spider-Man suffered from the same problem too, having a slightly darker tone because of the success with the TDK trilogy around the time but neither Superman nor Spider-Man are dark characters.
I just hope BvS manages a decent balance of light and dark for Superman and Batman, otherwise I'll have little faith in a JL movie being any good.

Thinking about it now, I think MoS should be classed as more of an "action" film than "superhero", just because of how detached from the "Superman" character it feels and because we had more action than any sort of character development.

 

[Zionite1]

There's nothing that can be done sure BUT this is a discussion forum where people are allowed to discuss with what went wrong or what was done right in the film. That doesn't make them haters, we're just expressing our opinions and backing them up with what the film presented. I don't think anyone came out and say the film outright sucked without giving any reasons as to why. If you don't like what's being discussed in here, then simple leave not throw around the word 'hater'.

I did not mean anything belitting by the term Mos haters.I simply neant those who hate mos.Theres nothing wrong with hatin a movie.I hate TDW for example
I jus think it wld be interesting to hear opinions on what snyder shld do in BVS insteqd of hearing MOS Slammin for the umpteenth time.Especially since this isntthe MOS complaint thread.

 

[TeeKay]

I did not mean anything belitting by the term Mos haters.I simply neant those who hate mos.Theres nothing wrong with hatin a movie.I hate TDW for example
I jus think it wld be interesting to hear opinions on what snyder shld do in BVS insteqd of hearing MOS Slammin for the umpteenth time.Especially since this isntthe MOS complaint thread.

Well MOS is a Zack Snyder film and it has everything to do with the thread and what's being discussed here. People are discussing the good and the bad things about the film. If you wanna hear about what Snyder should do in BvS, create a thread for it or go to the discussion thread.

 

[Zionite1]

Well MOS is a Zack Snyder film and it has everything to do with the thread and what's being discussed here. People are discussing the good and the bad things about the film. If you wanna hear about what Snyder should do in BvS, create a thread for it or go to the discussion thread.

Considering thus is the snyder thread itd be redundant to create another.I jus assumed everyone wld be tired of the MOS arguements and wld wekcome a change in topic.

So ill start by discusin i want snyder to do in BVS.One of the key things I want Snyder to do in BVS is to make ita Supernan movie featurin Batman

 

[DA_Champion]

^^ This. The Amazing Spider-Man suffered from the same problem too, having a slightly darker tone because of their success with the TDK trilogy around the time but neither Superman nor Spider-Man are dark characters.
I just hope BvS manages a decent balance of light and dark for Superman and Batman, otherwise I'll have little faith in a JL movie being any good.

Thinking about it now, I think MoS should be classed as more of an "action" film than "superhero", just because of how detached from the "Superman" character it feels and because we had more action than any sort of character development.

Zack Snyder said that it's an alien invasion movie with superman in it.

 

[The Endless]

The alien invasion aspect wasn't addressed that well though really. Apart from the scene with Zod's first message (which was fantastic, probably my favourite part of the film actually) the rest of it appears to be in a bubble.

For an alien invasion movie there isn't really any reaction from the world. Just the US military.

 

[matt47]

Questio to Mos haters what wld u like 2 b done nw?nw dat d movies done and done and we cant go back in time?

I'm sorry but fu***ng speak properly.

 

[sf2]

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.

batman, spidey and ironman have already make more money than the so-called most iconic superhero. it isn't a big deal if GotG did as well. GotG will make more than CA2 too (which was high-praised as one of the best marvel movies)

 

[The Endless]

I think it'll just fall short of TWS.

 

[sf2]

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.

must there be a reason for everything???
why he is a good guy?
why he is doing the bad stuffs??
don't you get tired when everything was explained and given a reason? (like how they do the villains background stories in the typical batman and spidey movies)

perhaps Zack could explain a little why he choose to be a good guy in BvS...

it was explained he was born as a guy person though.

 

[flickchick85]

batman, spidey and ironman have already make more money than the so-called most iconic superhero. it isn't a big deal if GotG did as well. GotG will make more than CA2 too (which was high-praised as one of the best marvel movies)

As is GotG, and they BOTH well-exceeded financial expectations due in no small part to those positive reviews and word-of-mouth. Is someone here gonna try to argue that MoS did the same?

I loved MoS because it finally gave me a non-Donnerverse cinematic Superman, who is slightly closer to the one I know from the more contemporary comics I've loved, and I think Henry Cavill is the perfect guy to carry the mantle for the new era. But I'm also willing to acknowledge that the movie itself had a lot of problems both in story and character, and was not a film that lived up to the hype generated by the trailers and top-notch cast, nor the bar that had recently been raised by DC's other A-lister franchise. And I'm convinced that if it had gotten the reception that WB had hoped for it (which apparently some people in here think it actually got) - if it had gotten people buzzing about the triumphant return of Superman the way they were about Bats after BB - we would be anticipating an actual Superman sequel right now, rather than the Superfriends mash-up this movie has become.

 

[Zionite1]

I'm sorry but fu***ng speak properly.

Any reason for the rudeness

 

[The Endless]

must there be a reason for everything???
why he is a good guy?
why he is doing the bad stuffs??
don't you get tired when everything was explained and given a reason? (like how they do the villains background stories in the typical batman and spidey movies)

perhaps Zack could explain a little why he choose to be a good guy in BvS...

it was explained he was born as a guy person though.

Because that is what we were promised in the lead up to the film. Why does a guy with all this power, with the power to enslave the planet if he so wishes... CHOOSE to be the hero instead? Why does the guy not give into temptation? Plus i think the dialogue in the trailer was "My father believed the world wasn't ready for me... what do you think?" (paraphrasing).

The film itself never really asked or answered thoses questions beyond shallow lip service. And it's a shame because they are very interesting questions.

 

[DA_Champion]

The alien invasion aspect wasn't addressed that well though really. Apart from the scene with Zod's first message (which was fantastic, probably my favourite part of the film actually) the rest of it appears to be in a bubble.

For an alien invasion movie there isn't really any reaction from the world. Just the US military.

What's wrong with showing the reaction from the military's perspective?

You can't show every perspective.

 

[sf2]

Because that is what we were promised in the lead up to the film. Why does a guy with all this power, with the power to enslave the planet if he so wishes... CHOOSE to be the hero instead? Why does the guy not give into temptation? Plus i think the dialogue in the trailer was "My father believed the world wasn't ready for me... what do you think?" (paraphrasing).

The film itself never really asked or answered thoses questions beyond shallow lip service. And it's a shame because they are very interesting questions.

I’m completely agreed that they didn’t give a clear answer to the question "My father believed the world wasn't ready for me... what do you think?" which could be so interesting and exciting to know about. The priceless reaction of the people in seeing the god-like figure... the awe, the fear or the hysterical... It is the most fundamental and rewarding aspect if you are making a superman movie. It is a must!!! But we see none!!! We didn’t see any public reaction at all!!! How could Zack Synder miss it!!!??? How come??? I have asked the question many times...

However, about the other question of yours, why a good guy wanna choose to be a good guy... do you really need a reason?
Like he is indirectly causing the death of his uncle/ father, or some wrongdoing during his youth, therefore he is doing all the good deems just to redeem him? Does it make it sound better?

 

[DA_Champion]

Because that is what we were promised in the lead up to the film. Why does a guy with all this power, with the power to enslave the planet if he so wishes... CHOOSE to be the hero instead? Why does the guy not give into temptation? Plus i think the dialogue in the trailer was "My father believed the world wasn't ready for me... what do you think?" (paraphrasing).

The film itself never really asked or answered thoses questions beyond shallow lip service. And it's a shame because they are very interesting questions.

Good thing I did my best to skip the previews.