• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Thursday Aug 14, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST. This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Justice League Zack Snyder Directing Justice League - Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Snyder still came up with a story outline that was never suited for all the characters. The mandate may have been 'add Batman' but Synder still chose a direction that wasnt in the best interests of the characters.

You're missing the point. He is the director, its his vision for the most part, so ofcourse he is responsible for any success or failure.

The point is the blame shouldnt lie solely on him, because even his actions were severely mandated. I think Zack did a great job considering all the mandates he had. I do blame WB for choosing Zack as a director if their intention was 4 quadrant huge success like The Avengers. I dont blame Geoff Johns and Berg for having the 2hr mandate. I do blame them for making the wrong decisions during JL post.

The point of the article being, its unfair to blame it all on one person. That's scapegoating, and doesnt solve anything.
 
You're missing the point. He is the director, its his vision for the most part, so ofcourse he is responsible for any success or failure.

The point is the blame shouldnt lie solely on him, because even his actions were severely mandated. I think Zack did a great job considering all the mandates he had. I do blame WB for choosing Zack as a director if their intention was 4 quadrant huge success like The Avengers. I dont blame Geoff Johns and Berg for having the 2hr mandate. I do blame them for making the wrong decisions during JL post.

The point of the article being, its unfair to blame it all on one person. That's scapegoating, and doesnt solve anything.

I think everyone now collectively agrees Snyder is not solely at fault, which makes the article even more pointless.
 
Snyder still came up with a story outline that was never suited for all the characters. The mandate may have been 'add Batman' but Synder still chose a direction that wasnt in the best interests of the characters.

If I remember correctly Snyder himself wanted Batman to be in the sequel rather than a mandate by WB.
You're absolutely right about Snyder creating a very inhospitable environment for these iconic characters and I think he was given a hell of a lot of control especially for someone who made nothing but flops and disappointments since 300. For god's sake he wanted superman to snap zod's neck (wasn't in the original script by Goyer) and WB said ok!
With all that being said I still content that the root of all evil is the higher ups at WB who hired Snyder and kept giving chance after chance despite the writing being on the wall that things just weren't working.
 
You're missing the point. He is the director, its his vision for the most part, so ofcourse he is responsible for any success or failure.

The point is the blame shouldnt lie solely on him, because even his actions were severely mandated. I think Zack did a great job considering all the mandates he had. I do blame WB for choosing Zack as a director if their intention was 4 quadrant huge success like The Avengers. I dont blame Geoff Johns and Berg for having the 2hr mandate. I do blame them for making the wrong decisions during JL post.

The point of the article being, its unfair to blame it all on one person. That's scapegoating, and doesnt solve anything.

Like JMC said, I don't see anyone blaming only Snyder. Everyone is fully aware that massive tentpole blockbuster films have more than one person to blame for their success or failure. There's no need to publish an article detailing who else was involved at what level. However Snyder is undeniably the main person to blame for BvS, which is undeniably the main reason why we are all here today discussing JL's failure. I'm sure Hughes would dance around that fact but we all know it to be true, and I find it a little disingenuous for him to publish an article that is defending Snyder against arguments that no one is making.
 
DQnJliSW0AEwpQa.jpg
 
I can 100% guarantee that Zacks cut would have been a confusing mess.
 
If a movie turns out to be bad, you will blame the director but if the movie turns out to be decent you will credit other people but not the director ?

That doesn't makes sense.
 
When other people/parties are involved to make the movie a success, how can you give all the credit to the director?
 
300 = Producers stepping in to make sure it's not a mess
Watchmen = literally an adaption of a graphic novel, how could one mess this up.
MOS = Nolan

Even more accurate:

300 = An adaption of a pre-existing story that Snyder held to the letter (except to add rape)

Watchmen = An adaption of a pre-existing story that Snyder held to the letter (except to change the monster at the end)

Man of Steel = a pre-existing story formed by Nolan and Goyer

I haven't seen the owl movie but it appears that the movies with the strongest Snyder-influences are Sucker Punch and BvS.
 
Last edited:
If a movie turns out to be bad, you will blame the director but if the movie turns out to be decent you will credit other people but not the director ?

That doesn't makes sense.

Yeah it doesnt. Its literally "Blame him if its bad, but dont praise him if its good". Its pre-conceived notions, and incredibly convenient.

MOS, Watchmen, 300, DOTD, Guardians are not confusing movies. They are all coherent. Even BvS UC is pretty straightforward apart from one scene(Knightmare). Only SP is one ZS film that is "confusing".

When other people/parties are involved to make the movie a success, how can you give all the credit to the director?

Thats fine. If you say its a collaborative effort when its a success, the same goes if its "confusing" right? :huh:

300 = Producers stepping in to make sure it's not a mess
Watchmen = literally an adaption of a graphic novel, how could one mess this up.
MOS = Nolan

300 : We dont know if the producers reigned him in. As far as Snyder said, WB gave him a lot of freedom for that one after DOTD's success.

Watchmen : Many adaptations of graphic novels and novels have been failures. Great filmmakers like Terry Gilliam's and others had called the movie "unfilmable". It had been in development hell for years, before Snyder took it on. Other filmmakers had deemed it was impossible to make it a movie while staying true to the comic. Snyder did that.

MOS : Nolan was busy with TDKR when Snyder was filming MOS. Snyder said all Nolan did during MOS was protect Snyder from the execs. Makes sense. Only film apart from WW in the DCEU that was not meddled with by the execs. From 4.30 onwards.

[YT]lfFHl_6Av5c[/YT]
 
Last edited:
Even more accurate:

300 = An adaption of a pre-existing story that Snyder held to the letter (except to add rape)

Watchmen = An adaption of a pre-existing story that Snyder held to the letter (except to change the monster at the end)

Man of Steel = a pre-existing story formed by Nolan and Goyer

I haven't seen the owl movie but it appears that the movies with the strongest Snyder-influences are Sucker Punch and BvS.

...that he decided to change for the worse.
 
The decisions made with the 3rd act of MOS had negative repercussions affecting future films.
 
...that he decided to change for the worse.

I'd like to hear a DCEU-apologist explain why Snyder made that one big change.

Why did Snyder have Superman kill Zod? I honestly would like to know how a DCEU fan would answer that question.
 
I'd like to hear a DCEU-apologist explain why Snyder made that one big change.

Why did Snyder have Superman kill Zod? I honestly would like to know how a DCEU fan would answer that question.
Because Supes has to experience the pain of manslaughter before developing a no-kill code. You know...the "why" of it all.

Unlike us humans who just know from the onset it's effed up. :o
 
at least that's what Snyder said but BvS didn't explored that in any way.
we don't even know he had a no-kill code in BvS.
 
The "no-kill code" has had zero impact on any Superman story that Snyder has told so that isn't it.

There is an answer to that question, and it's a simple one: "because this isn't your daddy's Superman".

That's it. That's the only reason why Snyder made that choice. There was no story or thematic purpose to it. It didn't inform Clark's character or change his outlook on anything. It was done because it'd be "kewl", and nothing else.
 
lol, scaling back to MoS on the exact same thing no less.
 
I think Zack did a great job considering all the mandates he had.
But all directors have to deal with notes and mandates. More money means less control due to execs wanting to ensure that they are getting their money's worth.
 
I'd like to hear a DCEU-apologist explain why Snyder made that one big change.

Why did Snyder have Superman kill Zod? I honestly would like to know how a DCEU fan would answer that question.

Because it touched on one of the main themes of the movie that Zack wanted to tell when it came to Superman and what he means to the world. One of the main messages in Man of Steel was the ability to make a choice and the positive and negative reactions that come with it. It was Clark's choice to find out what his reason was. It was his choice to become Superman and turn himself in to Zod. The positive choices were that of becoming Superman. The negative choice's show that there are consequence's to every action and this pertains to Superman as well. Killing Zod grounded and humanized him in every way but at the same time, made the world in turn fear him, thus, suffer the consequence's of what certain circumstances can create by making choices that are somewhat out of your control. Even for Superman, sometimes the tough choices need to be made. It's all in ones response that makes the difference. Superman decided to move on and continue to help in the face of adversity while a world around him wanted him gone or to not act. It was simply placing Superman in a real world setting to where people can relate. If you were in the same position, what is right or wrong. What do you do and are you prepared for what comes next? That's life. Even for Superman.
 
Narratively speaking, Superman having to kill Zod does fit with Superman's character journey in the film.

But having Superman violently snapping his enemy's neck just isn't a good idea. If the movie was going to start with Clark in a depressing place, it shouldn't have climaxed in a depressing place as well with that harrowing yell.

giphy.webp


At least we got this hilarious gif out of it.
 
Last edited:
It was simply placing Superman in a real world setting to where people can relate.
Except it's not real life, it's Superman, who doesn't kill.

If you can't find a way to write him a believable way out of the situation, then write a different situation, or don't write for that character.
 
Except it's not real life

it's Superman

Is what I just read real life? Is this place real life? Lmao. None of this is real life, bro. These are fictional characters. Nobody died in the filming of Man of Steel. The audience does this weird thing called suspension of belief so if the actions support what the story set up, as one poster above detailed, then the audience can buy such a thing.

And Superman has killed in the comics. Multiple times. I'd go on but my bat has too many chunks takin' out of it by beating the dead horse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,960
Messages
22,042,931
Members
45,842
Latest member
JoeSoap
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"