Justice League Zack Snyder Directing Justice League - Part 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
DZ38cc3VMAA4kH9.jpg


lmao Zack is this close to snapping, and I'm here for it! :drl:

And dont @ on this, but this makes me happy because people say Zack lacks subtlety in his references and filmmaking, yet so many of his allusions and layers in his fillmmaking are often missed.
 
I really don’t care for the religious undertones and prefer them to be left out of the superhero genre altogether. I understand why they are seen as god like figures and treat it like some modern day bible scripture, but that completely turns me off when it comes to comic book films that aren’t directly tied to religion/god in general.

The guy likes to sneak things like this into his movies, it affects my opinion of the film on no level. Not like I’m gonna walk out of the theater saying “oh well I didn’t enjoy Batman blowing those dudes up, but hey the way they caught Superman on camera in that one scene where he resembled Jesus really just changed my whole opinion of the movie.”

I feel like we hear more about these hidden references/allegories more than praise of the actual plot of the films. Would be nice if we ever got more of the latter.
 
I feel like we hear more about these hidden references/allegories more than praise of the actual plot of the films. Would be nice if we ever got more of the latter.
Join the various forums dedicated to that.
After 2 years, it's mostly just this, snark, or debates on cbm.com2.0
 
I really don’t care for the religious undertones and prefer them to be left out of the superhero genre altogether. I understand why they are seen as god like figures and treat it like some modern day bible scripture, but that completely turns me off when it comes to comic book films that aren’t directly tied to religion/god in general.

The guy likes to sneak things like this into his movies, it affects my opinion of the film on no level. Not like I’m gonna walk out of the theater saying “oh well I didn’t enjoy Batman blowing those dudes up, but hey the way they caught Superman on camera in that one scene where he resembled Jesus really just changed my whole opinion of the movie.”

I feel like we hear more about these hidden references/allegories more than praise of the actual plot of the films. Would be nice if we ever got more of the latter.

It makes more sense to do it with the JL as they are representations of the gods. Even if you take the savior element out of it for Superman (which has been a part of his mythos for 40 years), you still have the resemblance of the Greek gods. I can understand someone not caring for it, but I think it adds a layer of larger than life-ness to these characters.
 
Of course the savior elements are gonna be there for Superman

I just don’t need hamfisted hit me over the head references such as the cross space Jesus... or clark being next to Jesus in that shot in the church from MOS..... or his body being lowered by Batman and Wonder Woman to resemble Jesus being lowered off the cross. It just all feels too jarring. Just find ways of not taking me out of the story instead of making me say “welp, that’s a clear as day jesus nod.”
 
For every piece of symbolism that was a little obvious (which many people still missed), there were 5 that were very easy to miss.

And no, that doesnt mean you have to like the film or that alone is what makes is great. That's not the point.
 
Holy ****ing s***!!!:

"THE SINGLE POINT AT WHICH everything we know and everything we question exists in one place; the ultimate crossroads in the journey of discovering the true meaning of "self"; the collision point of science and religion, tangible and ethereal, physical and philosophical.... the place where a question that may never truly have an answer can be embodied in a singular character-in many ways, that is the why of Superman. In my mind, the coolest part about the character of Kal-EI/Clark Kent is that his alien origins, combined with his Smallville upbringing, simultaneously make him entirely relatable and completely mysterious, This duality allows us to look at ourselves through the prism of Clark, embracing that which we understand and forcing us to acknowledge and accept that which we don’t yet comprehend. Although the challenges facing Clark may be much more interplanetary than our own, the reality is that those sometimes overwhelming difficulties we each struggle to reconcile as we grow-especially throughout our youth-often feel just as immense as being from another planet. Seventy-five years ago; Kandor and Kansas collided, giving birth to one of the most storied characters of all time-Superman-a single character who calls into question everything we believe. Whether it is the belief that we humans are the apex of an evolutionary process, the pinnacle of God’s creation, or anything else along the complex spectrum where science and theisms grapple for space, Superman challenges all of those ideas to their core. He forces us to look at ourselves as individuals, and mankind as a whole, through the filter of a being who looks very much like us but has the physical strength and abilities of a god. Yet, despite his corporeal strengths, he is not omniscient, and therefore must venture out into the world on his own journey of self-discovery. No more able to see the future than any of us, and in many ways much less aware of his past than most, he is, in essence, a lost god. A deity forced to walk the Earth alone, seeking his own personal truth while inadvertently calling into question the very truths… the rest of mankind cling to so tightly.
That was the challenge that I found most interesting when I decided to take on Man of steel. I was enthralled by the amazing opportunity to place this helplessly divine figure firmly in our imperfect world. It was a chance to tell the complicated story of a struggling savior, a reluctant messiah, in a modern way. An opportunity to carefully deconstruct the classic godlike character, who we have often perceived as aspirational but also distant and divine at times. Allowing the audience to walk alongside Clark during his formative years-matching stride with him as a child, a teen, and ultimately a young man-creates a bond that perseveres even as that man becomes mythological in stature. That initial kinship is what lets us as humans experience the transformative process of the character from an incredibly close proximity, ultimately helping us to both understand and relate to the evolution of Clark Kent into Superman. Making Man of Steel has been an amazing journey. As a filmmaker, I consider it an honor to have the opportunity to lovingly deconstruct and reassemble such a beloved character and rich imaginative world. I’m thrilled to have been to immerse myself in seventy-five years of legend and lore, and I am now excited to share with you my own journey in building upon the already mythological world of Superman."
——Zack Snyder

Zack Snyder's introduction for MOS art book.
 
Wow, that is beautiful. I'm off to get that book.
 
Yea, beautiful and it shows Zack is a really thoughtful person.
 
if/after we get the Snyder cut, I think it'd be great if we got a longer cut of BVS. There probably isn't enough for a 4 hour cut... Probably... But we all know it could have been longer. The scene where Lex gets his head shaved which was filmed in Imax originally had the guy shave his head with shaving cream and a razor. We get to see it in the Lex featurette for BvS. In the UE we just see him getting shaved with an eletric razor, then he's bald. I would buy the **** out of like.. a 3 hour and 35 minute cut of BvS
 
The more Zack Snyder talks, the more I'm convinced he has no idea who these characters are. This is the same guy who said that superheroes lose all credibility when they talk to each other in their superhero costumes. That's why there's no scene of Batman and Superman talking things out after their fight, because it would've been too silly for Snyder...
 
The more Zack Snyder talks, the more I'm convinced he has no idea who these characters are. This is the same guy who said that superheroes lose all credibility when they talk to each other in their superhero costumes. That's why there's no scene of Batman and Superman talking things out after their fight, because it would've been too silly for Snyder...

Can't say that I agree. Also, I believe what Snyder meant by the talking in costumes thing was that it's something that a film has to earn and is a delicate thing to pull off. Having superheroes talk in their costumes about superhero things, like quips or short exchanges about strategy can work, but for more intimate or personal conversations, it's distracting. Especially with Batman, whose cowl overs his face, costumes can act as a barrier to expression.
 
Can't say that I agree. Also, I believe what Snyder meant by the talking in costumes thing was that it's something that a film has to earn and is a delicate thing to pull off. Having superheroes talk in their costumes about superhero things, like quips or short exchanges about strategy can work, but for more intimate or personal conversations, it's distracting. Especially with Batman, whose cowl overs his face, costumes can act as a barrier to expression.

exactly... he meant that having them stand around "chatting" when not involved in an "adventure" is silly. Like Super Hero cafe... The "setting really matters.

The repartee in Justice League was "mostly" ok. Some silly dialogue of course, but the settings set the mood.

I think he mainly meant that he wouldn't want to see them just hanging around, picking up groceries, walking the dog in their superhero outfits.
 
exactly... he meant that having them stand around "chatting" when not involved in an "adventure" is silly. Like Super Hero cafe... The "setting really matters.

The repartee in Justice League was "mostly" ok. Some silly dialogue of course, but the settings set the mood.

I think he mainly meant that he wouldn't want to see them just hanging around, picking up groceries, walking the dog in their superhero outfits.

No he specifically meant after the fight, Batman and Superman talking things out would be too silly, so that's why they become friends so quick without even figuring out what just happened. Superman just lets Batman go save his mom, even though Batman tried killing him and Superman could've saved Martha in a second but he chose not too. Snyder even said he thought about having a "Heat" type scene with Batman and Superman talking about their opposing points of views but it was too silly.

Yet in the Justice League animated series and the Batman/Superman animated movie they talk things out all the time and it's completely fine because it's done well and the characters stay true to themselves.
 
No he specifically meant after the fight, Batman and Superman talking things out would be too silly, so that's why they become friends so quick without even figuring out what just happened. Superman just lets Batman go save his mom, even though Batman tried killing him and Superman could've saved Martha in a second but he chose not too. Snyder even said he thought about having a "Heat" type scene with Batman and Superman talking about their opposing points of views but it was too silly.

Yet in the Justice League animated series and the Batman/Superman animated movie they talk things out all the time and it's completely fine because it's done well and the characters stay true to themselves.

This wasn't in the context of the final fight and resolution. This was in regards to, as you touched on, setting up their dichotomy.
Snyder explicitly said this is what lead to the Bruce and Clark conversation at Luthor's place.

This was NOT a substitute for any discussion or exposition that would have come after their fight. If ANYTHING this would have been substituted in their INITIAL confrontation, during the Kryptonite chase scene.
Now, THAT scene was cut abruptly I thought.
 
No he specifically meant after the fight, Batman and Superman talking things out would be too silly, so that's why they become friends so quick without even figuring out what just happened. Superman just lets Batman go save his mom, even though Batman tried killing him and Superman could've saved Martha in a second but he chose not too. Snyder even said he thought about having a "Heat" type scene with Batman and Superman talking about their opposing points of views but it was too silly.

Yet in the Justice League animated series and the Batman/Superman animated movie they talk things out all the time and it's completely fine because it's done well and the characters stay true to themselves.
It most especially doesn’t hold when arguably one of the greatest scenes in the genre featured a Heat scene of its own; guy in a rubber batsuit talking about clashing ideologies with a face-painted clown in the middle of a police interrogation room. One half of the duo earning an Oscar, mind you.

It was a completely numbskull comment that I can’t defend, and that’s coming from a BvS supporter.
 
No he specifically meant after the fight, Batman and Superman talking things out would be too silly, so that's why they become friends so quick without even figuring out what just happened. Superman just lets Batman go save his mom, even though Batman tried killing him and Superman could've saved Martha in a second but he chose not too. Snyder even said he thought about having a "Heat" type scene with Batman and Superman talking about their opposing points of views but it was too silly.

Yet in the Justice League animated series and the Batman/Superman animated movie they talk things out all the time and it's completely fine because it's done well and the characters stay true to themselves.

I'd like to see the full context of your sources. My understanding was that Snyder is not firmly against superheroes talking to each other in costume, but that such interactions have to be earned. That's why the interactions between Clark and Bruce begin at the gala as civilians, evolves into the confrontation at the Port of Gotham, and ultimately arrives at the fight night and its resolution. I'm pretty sure the source of your information is an interview with Snyder in which he was asked why he had Clark and Bruce first talk to each other outside of their costumes at the fundraiser gala.

Superman didn't save Martha because Lex told Superman his goons were ordered to kill Martha on the spot if he tried. Superman went to Batman to get his help for that reason. Why would he fight Batman at all if he could just save his mother himself? Superman handles Lex at the scout ship because it's alien stuff that he is best equipped to handle. Batman handles Martha because Superman saving Martha would get her killed and saving people from criminals is kind of Batman's thing.
 
I'd like to see the full context of your sources. My understanding was that Snyder is not firmly against superheroes talking to each other in costume, but that such interactions have to be earned. That's why the interactions between Clark and Bruce begin at the gala as civilians, evolves into the confrontation at the Port of Gotham, and ultimately arrives at the fight night and its resolution. I'm pretty sure the source of your information is an interview with Snyder in which he was asked why he had Clark and Bruce first talk to each other outside of their costumes at the fundraiser gala.

Superman didn't save Martha because Lex told Superman his goons were ordered to kill Martha on the spot if he tried. Superman went to Batman to get his help for that reason. Why would he fight Batman at all if he could just save his mother himself? Superman handles Lex at the scout ship because it's alien stuff that he is best equipped to handle. Batman handles Martha because Superman saving Martha would get her killed and saving people from criminals is kind of Batman's thing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DC_Cinematic/comments/4ddyo6/zack_snyder_believes_superheroes_have_no/

That's the link to the interview he did with Empire Magazine. He starts talking about how Superheroes can't talk in their suits at 5:55 into the interview.
 
It most especially doesn’t hold when arguably one of the greatest scenes in the genre featured a Heat scene of its own; guy in a rubber batsuit talking about clashing ideologies with a face-painted clown in the middle of a police interrogation room. One half of the duo earning an Oscar, mind you.

It was a completely numbskull comment that I can’t defend, and that’s coming from a BvS supporter.

Thank you! Finally someone who gets it. I'm a BvS defender myself, but that comment by Snyder was one of the dumbest things he's said and that's saying a lot, considering how he said that Batman could get raped in his movie. Nolan knew what he was doing and that interrogation scene is still one of the greatest scenes in film history for a reason. Snyder is just so concerned with his visuals and a "deeper meaning" that he forgets to focus on the story and the narrative and the characters themselves
 
It most especially doesn’t hold when arguably one of the greatest scenes in the genre featured a Heat scene of its own; guy in a rubber batsuit talking about clashing ideologies with a face-painted clown in the middle of a police interrogation room. One half of the duo earning an Oscar, mind you.

It was a completely numbskull comment that I can’t defend, and that’s coming from a BvS supporter.

Yup, one day people will realize that most of the time Snyder just says and does things.

Now he put up a Mapplethorpe painting in the room to hamfist in the symbolism even more. But he couldn't get the basic story to work in 2.5 hours. This man's priorities are seriously out of whack.

Yesterday he explained why Bruce used a spear to hunt Superman instead of a more practical weapon. Because there's a painting of a guy stabbing Jesus with a spear.

So that's was Bruce's reasoning I guess.

"You know what'd be cool? If I were to off this clown with a spear, just like in that one painting"

Bruce literally banging some rando and popping pills with alcohol is not enough to show that he's in a dark place, we need a specific painting that symbolizes that this is a man having sex with randos and popping pills with alcohol.

Pretentiousness at it's finest.

Could WB possibly have gotten anyone less suited for the DCEU?

exactly... he meant that having them stand around "chatting" when not involved in an "adventure" is silly. Like Super Hero cafe... The "setting really matters.

The repartee in Justice League was "mostly" ok. Some silly dialogue of course, but the settings set the mood.

I think he mainly meant that he wouldn't want to see them just hanging around, picking up groceries, walking the dog in their superhero outfits.

If that's what he meant (It's not) then what kind of concern is that in the first place? When has this ever happened in superhero movies that take themselves seriously?
 
Curious... did he have those kinds of scenes in MOS/Watchmen? If so, and (as he stated) he tried different things and it didn't work, then shouldn't you give him the benefit of the doubt? Maybe not, I don't know. You also have to remember, that it's not only him that was a part of that decision. It looks like he had other peoples input and they couldn't find one that worked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,269
Messages
22,077,591
Members
45,877
Latest member
dude9876
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"