Justice League Zack Snyder Directing Justice League - Part 6

[misslane38]

After a few exchanges, it's clear this discussion is less about Snyder and more about a stale BvS whinefest. Accordingly, I suggest moving this conversation to the BvS thread.

 

[heatvision38]

ummm, I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to be in this thread unless we want to praise Snyder as some sort of master filmmaker.. A master filmmaker who failed so badly that he almost killed the DCEU in its infancy, but, y'know, somehow still good..

Ah, sarcasm as rhetoric.

Because if people have a different viewpoint than yours, that somehow means you are being marginalized... which is what you are indirectly accusing others of doing, the very same thing you are doing.

It's as if some people think that because there are those that defend their viewpoints that it somehow means there isn't room for dialogue. Don't mistake discussion or debate for anything personal or oppressive.

 

[heatvision38]

I'm so confused, guys. What are we talking about here? Superman never flies to Gotham the night of "Fight Night" because he's been told Martha will die if Superman flies to her. While Superman is talking to Lex at the scout ship, Batman reveals Martha is safe when he speaks to Lex via the comms. Superman doesn't reunite with Batman until much later because Doomsday is released, and Superman must battle him. He pursues him to space where he is nearly killed by a nuclear bomb blast. It takes him a while to return to the place where Batman and Wonder Woman are fighting Doomsday because he's recovering in space.

It's more about the time in which things happen: Batman goes to where Martha is, takes on all of his men, gets Martha to safety, and doesn't leave until the police are there, and Superman doesn't get to the scout ship, which he's flying at at full speed until after all that happens despite it being a hop, skip, and a jump for Superman. It does play strangely for me, unless you had Superman waiting until he got confirmation from Batman that Martha was saved before he flew into the scout ship. Not too big a deal though since we see these kinds of conveniences in many movies like in Civil War (which some call a masterpiece) where Iron Man gets to Siberia only moments after Cap and Bucky despite the latter leaving for Siberia many hours before Iron Man did. Don't see people complaining about that.

 

[heatvision38]

Batman didn't slaughter anyone en masse, and DOS isn't worthy of its own movie. It's a slugfest with a mute and nonsentient being. As for the complaint that Snyder killed Superman for poor reasons like not knowing what to do with him, I disagree. He did it because Superman's absence would emphasize why he's needed, making the league harder to form and showing how he helps turn the tide.

I sometimes wonder if these story elements (used from Dark Knight Returns, DOS, etc) weren't directly tied to stories in the books, would people care? If there was never a DOS story, would anyone be complaining that they did what they did? Or if they chose never to use the DOS story line in the movies, would anyone complain? But as soon as you use elements of it, it all of a sudden has to conform to a specific version of that story? That's strange to me.

Civil War only had elements of the comics. Batman Begins only had elements of Batman Year One. The Dark Knight only had elements of the Long Halloween and a few other stories. It shouldn't be about whether a story should have been told but how they did it. If one doesn't like how it was done, that's fine, but this idea, "They used the DOS story line too early" doesn't make sense to me. Says who? This is the story they chose to tell.

 

[misslane38]

It's more about the time in which things happen: Batman goes to where Martha is, takes on all of his men, gets Martha to safety, and doesn't leave until the police are there, and Superman doesn't get to the scout ship, which he's flying at at full speed until after all that happens despite it being a hop, skip, and a jump for Superman. It does play strangely for me, unless you had Superman waiting until he got confirmation from Batman that Martha was saved before he flew into the scout ship. Not too big a deal though since we see these kinds of conveniences in many movies like in Civil War (which some call a masterpiece) where Iron Man gets to Siberia only moments after Cap and Bucky despite the latter leaving for Siberia many hours before Iron Man did. Don't see people complaining about that.

Thanks for the explanation! I see what you mean and agree that it's a minor and benign issue in the grand scheme of things.

 

[markjoedelonge]

It's more about the time in which things happen: Batman goes to where Martha is, takes on all of his men, gets Martha to safety, and doesn't leave until the police are there, and Superman doesn't get to the scout ship, which he's flying at at full speed until after all that happens despite it being a hop, skip, and a jump for Superman. It does play strangely for me, unless you had Superman waiting until he got confirmation from Batman that Martha was saved before he flew into the scout ship. Not too big a deal though since we see these kinds of conveniences in many movies like in Civil War (which some call a masterpiece) where Iron Man gets to Siberia only moments after Cap and Bucky despite the latter leaving for Siberia many hours before Iron Man did. Don't see people complaining about that.

Maybe Superman doesn't immediately land in front of Luthor in case Luthor orders Martha to be killed? Like you said, he was probably giving Batman enough time to make sure Martha was safe before he felt comfortable confronting Luthor.

 

[Superchan]

Yes! Other than ANYTHING to do with Lex Luthor (WHO WAS SO FRIGGIN AWFUL IT MAKES ME WANT TO MURDER SOMEONE!), and Batman slaughtering people en masse, the stupid death of Superman was what pissed me off the most. The death of Superman comic story was certainly not Shakespeare but it was definitely worthy of it's own movie. Tacking it on like he did was just awful.

Yup, that's one of the many reasons why JL was a box office flop, Snyder created a rotten foundation on which JL was supposed to stand. Superman and Batman are the pillars of the DC universe so it's paramount to get them both right before attempting to build a whole universe around them. Sadly good 'ol Zack was too busy laying his ester eggs to understand that concept and ended up giving us a mopey, emo superman and a psychotic batman all the while trying to fit 2 massive stories (DOS and TDKR) into one movie and making the whole thing cohesive.
Regarding the DOS, I personally don't like that story at all. Sure it was fun when it came out and it introduced some cool new characters but any time you kill a character only to bring it back to life cheapens the whole thing, at least for me, so at the end of the day the DOS is nothing but a gimmicky story done to boost sales, only the media took it way too seriously and the whole thing took a life of it's own.

 

[misslane38]

Maybe Superman doesn't immediately land in front of Luthor in case Luthor orders Martha to be killed? Like you said, he was probably giving Batman enough time to make sure Martha was safe before he felt comfortable confronting Luthor.

Superman was also behaving sluggishly post-kryptonite exposure. Even the cut on his face hadn't healed. Maybe he waited to confront Luthor when he was feeling stronger. Maybe it just slowed him down somewhat. I don't think it's a full explanation (even a slow Superman is a fast Superman, you know?), but it kind of works. A little.

 

[misslane38]

Yup, that's one of the many reasons why JL was a box office flop, Snyder created a rotten foundation on which JL was supposed to stand. Superman and Batman are the pillars of the DC universe so it's paramount to get them both right before attempting to build a whole universe around them. Sadly good 'ol Zack was too busy laying his ester eggs to understand that concept and ended up giving us a mopey, emo superman and a psychotic batman all the while trying to fit 2 massive stories (DOS and TDKR) into one movie and making the whole thing cohesive.

Snyder didn't fit two massive stories into his film. He featured elements of those stories in his films. Massive difference. His BvS also left Superman and Batman in a good place. Superman endured the nightmares Luthor created and ultimately sacrificed his life to create a better world. Batman emerged out of his PTSD to see promises as worth something, men as still good, and himself as redeemable. Snyder took some elements of those aforementioned mediocre to awful stories to deconstruct them and then reconstruct them, so that both Batman and Superman could be reborn.

 

[souperman]

It's a huge plot hole for me.

It's not really a plot hole. It is an editing issue. I'll admit it could have been clearer but the idea is that the two scenes are happening simultaneously.

Sure Superman could have used his super speed and "froze" time...but if he did that all the time there really would be no need for any other superheros.

I love the scene in Megamind where Metroman flys off and has an entire life in the blink of an eye...


Superman could check everywhere for Martha, take all the weapons away from bad guys, have lunch in Paris, pull the plug on Doomsday before he is charged up, shaved Lex's head and pantsed Batman before he said Martha wont...

But again, that would negate the need for other superheros.

Snyder does understand and gave us a Superman that is not 100% super yet. He is not all wise and smart and has vulnerabilities which logically allow things to happen. He makes choices that may not work as expected.

For the follow thru story to JL, since this is not an unlimited series and had a limited number of films to show all the "cool" stuff, they chose to combine stories of Doomsday and the BvS conflict because each one would normally require a movie of their own. We would never have seen these things on screen if they had not done it this way.

Could always have been different of course and everyone ha their own preferences and desires to see. Look at the latest Star Wars movie.. polarizing as well. Maybe this is the issue with stories that have an expected outcome.

 

[Aurakles]

For those who don't like BVS, I don't think you can blame the easter eggs and little extra touches. I don't believe they based the plot around getting horses in a few places and a Maplethorpe painting.

Snyder, Terrio and Goyer will have decided on the story, and the takes on the characters and the dramatic themes first, the little flourishes would have been added on after.

The film makers worked out what they wanted the film to be, then added these details at the end, without them the film would have been essentially the same. Unless your only problem with the film was that Batman used a spear, or the way Supermans body was lowered, you would have disliked the film anyway.

I also struggle to believe that they didn't take the time to get the story right because they were fixated on easter eggs. This was the story they wanted to tell, they didn't rush working out the characters and the plot so that the rest of time could be focused on set dressing. You might not like the story, but this wasn't a Suicide Squad scenario where the script was rushed through.

If they didn't add these details you wouldn't have gotten a completely different film, and I don't think there are many people who would have been swung either to liking or disliking the film based on what was on something sitting on Luthors desk.

I understand that a lot of people didn't like the film, but is this really the reason why?

The last two years of online debate seems to have gotten some people into the mindsets that either "everything about it is terrible" or "everything about it is genius". This debate feels like a symptom of that, people are so entrenched in the mindset of trying to prove their side of the debate is right that they lose objectivity.

 

[Micromind]

Yeah, Ben Affleck read the BvS script, he was also a producer on that, his has good understanding with Terrio, if he was of the opinion that the script of BvS sucked, then he should have said that, on the contrary, he liked the take on Batman.

So, Zack Snyder, Chris Terrio, Ben Affleck all were OK with the script, to say nothing about people like Charles Roven and Geoff Johns and Kevin Tsujihara.

And now we see posters blaming just Snyder for the story, I mean were they really that afraid to say anything against Snyder ? What didn't they speak-up then ?

 

[gdw]

For me hunting makes one a hunter, not the use of a spear.

I want things to make sense in the world they're trying to sell us. The gas was a nice touch but this is definitely a Batman who would also make Kryptonite tipped hollow points and once the gas knocked Superman down would unload on him with an (automatic) rifle.

He also hunts Gothams criminals, but he has no problem using machine guns there.

This is the Batman they've given us, a Batman who is so convinced that Superman is a threat that needs to be dealt with ASAP. A Batman who has spent months preparing to take this guy down. He's not gonna make a spear on a whim like that.

You're neglecting the fact that part of the thesis of the film's portrayal of Bruce is that he's lost, and blinded by his rage. He's making this personal, and trying to rationalize his irrational actions.

It makes perfect sense with the Bruce they're trying to sell us, that he would do this, when he's making this all about himself. This isn't just another random thug he's gunning down in the street, this is, in his rationalization, 'the most important thing he'll ever do.'

He's making it about himself, making it personal, and so he's dragging it out, and not completely rational.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

Snyder likes spears, axes and halberds. He likes that one painting with the spearguy piercing Jesus. Before you tell me that Bruce has lost his way and that that's why he uses a spear instead of something more practical remember the following.

It is implied in BvS that Jason Todd's weapon of choice was a halberd. Imagine, Robin wielding a halberd on the streets of Gotham. This will have been prior to Todd's death and consequently Bruce's fall. And yet Bruce sanctioned the use of such a weapon for Robin. There was no need to display Todd's costume with the weapon but there it is. We had to be made aware that Todd was such a badass that he fought with a halberd.

Snyder does these things because that's his aesthetic. He likes them and that's fine but people should admit this instead of coming up with all these theories to make whatever Snyder came up with work in a narrative sense.

I'm sure Snyder and a lot of people can come up with some reason or another for why Todd had a weapon like that but you've just lost me and more than half the audience at that point I believe. Bruce had a spear because Todd had a halberd and if Batgirl were in it she would probably have an axe.

 

[misslane38]

Snyder likes spears, axes and halberds. He likes that one painting with the spearguy piercing Jesus. Before you tell me that Bruce has lost his way and that that's why he uses a spear instead of something more practical remember the following.

Snyder also likes to use guns in his films. He didn't choose a spear because he likes them. He chose it because it fit the film's themes and Batman's characterization.

It is implied in BvS that Jason Todd's weapon of choice was a halberd. Imagine, Robin wielding a halberd on the streets of Gotham. This will have been prior to Todd's death and consequently Bruce's fall. And yet Bruce sanctioned the use of such a weapon for Robin. There was no need to display Todd's costume with the weapon but there it is. We had to be made aware that Todd was such a badass that he fought with a halberd.

Snyder does these things because that's his aesthetic. He likes them and that's fine but people should admit this instead of coming up with all these theories to make whatever Snyder came up with work in a narrative sense.

I'm sure Snyder and a lot of people can come up with some reason or another for why Todd had a weapon like that but you've just lost me and more than half the audience at that point I believe. Bruce had a spear because Todd had a halberd and if Batgirl were in it she would probably have an axe.

Come on. I can get some people getting upset about Jason Todd's weapon, but claiming its inclusion makes the film "lose more than half the audience" is ridiculously hyperbolic. Also, although I am very unfamiliar with Jason Todd, I have a hunch that he's not exactly been known to be averse to lethal weaponry or killing. Moreover, Bruce obviously keeps displays of things to remind him of his past -- the good and the bad -- and in JL he has his suit from fighting Superman on display. My hunch is that the Robin suit not only is a reminder of Robin's death, but also potentially of some darkness, not too unlike Bruce's, that caused a schism with Bruce and precipitated his death. Bruce does allude to a general feeling that good guys are turning bad, not keeping their promises. It works fine for me.

 

[Rwtakawalter]

Has Zack Snyder ever said anything coherent or anything that makes sense? This is a serious question, cause every interview I've seen of his, he can't seem to formulate his thoughts or get his point across and he rambles on and on and can't focus on one thing. And he justifies all of his decisions by saying "Wouldn't it be cool if..."

Making Lex a clown, making Batman kill by proxy, making Superman die to push him out of the way, not having Batman and Superman talk in their suits, killing Jimmy Olsen off cause it's funny, etc. Dumb decisions after dumb decisions throughout. He was even asked about the Knightmare scene well after BvS came out and he wouldn't even explain it! Why have something in your movie that you're not going to explain!

Snyder just does things to be "cool" and have "cool" moments without any depth, purpose or meaning to the story or characters. He's essentially a better and more stylized Michael Bay. I know I'm going to trigger a lot of Snyder fanboys, but just take this all in with an open mind.

 

[misslane38]

Has Zack Snyder ever said anything coherent or anything that makes sense? This is a serious question, cause every interview I've seen of his, he can't seem to formulate his thoughts or get his point across and he rambles on and on and can't focus on one thing. And he justifies all of his decisions by saying "Wouldn't it be cool if..."

It seems you haven't explored all of his interviews, then. You most certainly seemed to have missed a vast majority of his written discussions of his films, which you can typically find as the introductions of art of the film books.

Making Lex a clown, making Batman kill by proxy, making Superman die to push him out of the way, not having Batman and Superman talk in their suits, killing Jimmy Olsen off cause it's funny, etc. Dumb decisions after dumb decisions throughout. He was even asked about the Knightmare scene well after BvS came out and he wouldn't even explain it! Why have something in your movie that you're not going to explain!

Snyder's Lex Luthor is no different than mad scientist Luthor from the Silver Age or Mark Waid's Luthor in Birthright. Batman has been killing by proxy for decades now (see: Burton and Nolan). Superman and Batman did talk in the suits in BvS, and they talked in their suits in JL. Snyder made a judgment call about how he wanted their first philosophical debate to go down and decided it was more effective and interesting to have it take place while both were "disguised." He didn't kill Jimmy Olsen because he thought it would be fun. He thought it would be fun to kill a fake Jimmy Olsen because the reveal that he was a CIA agent using a pseudonym would provoke a bigger shock in the audience when the twist happened. Snyder wouldn't explain the Knightmare because he likes the fact that people discuss and speculate. He wanted people to think about it, especially in the lead up to JL. It was supposed to be part of an extended two-part JL arc at one point, so giving everything away wouldn't have been prudent.

Snyder just does things to be "cool" and have "cool" moments without any depth, purpose or meaning to the story or characters. He's essentially a better and more stylized Michael Bay. I know I'm going to trigger a lot of Snyder fanboys, but just take this all in with an open mind.

Dude, the only one acting triggered here is you. It's been over two years since BvS was released. It wasn't a runaway box office success, it bombed on RT, and it won Razzies. It is still regularly used as a media whipping post. Snyder posted a few things about symbolism in his films, and you're here basically having a multiple day temper tantrum. Maybe you should just print out a photo of Zack Snyder's face and use it for target practice or darts. It would get the same point across without affecting anyone else.

 

[idiot09]

Zack has dyslexia. That's why he sometimes has trouble getting across somethings in interviews etc.

 

[Limonade]

Snyder didn't fit two massive stories into his film. He featured elements of those stories in his films. Massive difference. His BvS also left Superman and Batman in a good place. Superman endured the nightmares Luthor created and ultimately sacrificed his life to create a better world. Batman emerged out of his PTSD to see promises as worth something, men as still good, and himself as redeemable. Snyder took some elements of those aforementioned mediocre to awful stories to deconstruct them and then reconstruct them, so that both Batman and Superman could be reborn.

I don't think BvS left Superman and Batman at all in a satisfactory position. Definitely not for a superhero film for two of the studio's flagship superheroes. It set up all these dark and surreal pieces only to then for WB to not follow up on any of it in their subsequent films. We could assume the blowback and the backlash to the film was received loud and clear to the studio.

And a logical conclusion would be that--that's partly due to the performance of Snyder's BvS. Otherwise, why couldn't WB just let Snyder finish his "magnum opus"?

I agree with Ultra Nolanite.

And will go as far as saying that Snyder's aesthetic only goes as far as the movie itself which leaves a lot to be desired.

Does Snyder's visual shots leave interesting easter eggs for Snyder fans to chew? Yes.

Does it change the plot or pace of the actual movie? No. It's still terrible--no matter how you try to spin it.

And that may not be Snyder's fault... it could very well be lain at the feet of the editor or producers or executives or whathaveyou...

 

[Black Narcissus]

I'm talking about after the title fight when superman flies to lex. It takes him forever considering the fact that he flies faster than sound and it's only across the bay. Same problem happened in JL with the flash at the end battle.

So which PBU are you, friend?

 

[misslane38]

I don't think BvS left Superman and Batman at all in a satisfactory position. Definitely not for a superhero film for two of the studio's flagship superheroes. It set up all these dark and surreal pieces only to then for WB to not follow up on any of it in their subsequent films. We could assume the blowback and the backlash to the film was received loud and clear to the studio.

I disagree. They both confronted existential and identity crises to emerge embracing their roles and hope with Superman having earned the trust of the public. We can't judge JL, because we didn't get to see the BvS storytellers finish their story and their vision. Nonetheless, after Bruce refused to brand Luthor in prison at the end of BvS, as a very obvious follow up to the branding and brutality issue set up at the start of the film, Bruce's desire to keep his promises to Superman and cooperate with others were on display fully in JL. Meanwhile, Superman was presented as someone who had earned the respect of the public in Suicide Squad ("shared our values") and had, like he did before he died, maintained his faith in humanity and his mission ("this is my world").

I agree with Ultra Nolanite.

Good for you.

Does Snyder's visual shots leave interesting easter eggs for Snyder fans to chew? Yes.

Does it change the plot or pace of the actual movie? No. It's still terrible--no matter how you try to spin it.

Easter Eggs aren't meant to affect plot or pacing. They add layers to the themes, mood, and characters. The green light in The Great Gatsby doesn't affect the plot, but it is a symbolic representation of Gatsby's futile search for the American dream and Daisy. The quote at the end of The Dark Knight Rises from A Tale of Two Cities doesn't affect the plot, but it's an allusion that adds something special to the narrative. These things are subtext, so they don't impact things like plot and pace by design. If they do nothing for you, that's on you.

 

[Limonade]

I disagree. They both confronted existential and identity crises to emerge embracing their roles and hope with Superman having earned the trust of the public. We can't judge JL, because we didn't get to see the BvS storytellers finish their story and their vision. Nonetheless, after Bruce refused to brand Luthor in prison at the end of BvS, as a very obvious follow up to the branding and brutality issue set up at the start of the film, Bruce's desire to keep his promises to Superman and cooperate with others were on display fully in JL. Meanwhile, Superman was presented as someone who had earned the respect of the public in Suicide Squad ("shared our values") and had, like he did before he died, maintained his faith in humanity and his mission ("this is my world").



Good for you.



Easter Eggs aren't meant to affect plot or pacing. They add layers to the themes, mood, and characters. The green light in The Great Gatsby doesn't affect the plot, but it is a symbolic representation of Gatsby's futile search for the American dream and Daisy. The quote at the end of The Dark Knight Rises from A Tale of Two Cities doesn't affect the plot, but it's an allusion that adds something special to the narrative. These things are subtext, so they don't impact things like plot and pace by design. If they do nothing for you, that's on you.

But at this point, misslane. We're talking and arguing about two different things. We'll never see eye-eye that way. I'll be talking from a commercial perspective and you're constantly on that artistic perspective. And when I talk about the DCEU in the broad sense and you go into a very small spotlight on BvS. I assume the only reason is that--I'm right (if we argued on equal footing)... and you're just simply pointing out an area (that bear no resemblance to the point I was making) where you are right as well.

The films WB produced after BvS will never support your vision of what that movie meant to you. BvS will forever be an incomplete story. One where Superman is dead and Batman is left carrying the guilt in the end. That truly is a travesty on any fan, but then you can't turn it around and say... "the Justice League movie kept--yada, yada, yada." Because we can't judge JL, as you said.

I take commercial products as a whole. Yet, BvS to me, seemed to be enjoyed better--here in the Hype--when dissecting scenes but not seen as a whole film.

 

[misslane38]

But at this point, misslane. We're talking and arguing about two different things. We'll never see eye-eye that way. I'll be talking from a commercial perspective and you're constantly on that artistic perspective. And when I talk about the DCEU in the broad sense and you go into a very small spotlight on a specific movie. I assume the only reason is that--I'm right... and your just point out an area where you are right as well.

Wow, you must be dizzy from all this spinning. Your original point wasn't exclusively about commerce (e.g. "It set up all these dark and surreal pieces only to then for WB to not follow up on any of it in their subsequent films"). You were talking about the narrative follow up of character arcs. I provided direct citations from the films (BvS's ending, Suicide Squad, Justice League) to support my analysis.

The film WB produced after BvS will never support your vision of what that movie meant to you. BvS will forever be an incomplete story. One where Superman is dead and Batman is left carrying the guilt in the end. But then you can't turn it around and say... "the Justice League movie kept--yada, yada, yada." Because we can't judge JL.

I didn't just mention Justice League, though. I cited BvS and SS too. Justice League has a combination of approaches from different storytellers. I can judge the parts that I know were Snyder's and from what I know of Snyder's intentions. Still, it has to be acknowledged that the narrative process was interfered with after the fact. Meaning, you can't criticize BvS and Snyder for its storytelling when, during its original crafting, it was thought that JL would expand on certain things. As for the commercial angle, BvS wasn't a total flop, and JL was affected by its own bad press from reshoots and it just being a poor film that alienated even the existing DCEU fans.

I take commercial products as a whole. Yet, BvS to me, seemed to be enjoyed better--here in the Hype--when dissecting scenes but not seen as a whole film.

So what? You were complaining about the Easter Eggs that are totally irrelevant to all of this. They're just something extra to enjoy or not enjoy as anyone so chooses. They don't affect plot or pace, and no one is saying that their existence means the film should be liked more or should have made more money. Let me put it this way. Snyder and his fans have been having fun discussing things they love and are interested in. It's like he's a professor who offered a course on a subject and interested students are registering and attending his lectures. People like you are like people who major in other subjects or elected not to take the course for whatever reason, yet you can't help interrupting our discussions to piss in people's cornflakes. You, and others like you, are turning their little hobby into something that's it's not just to beat the dead horse of your dislike for these films. It's petty.

 

[Limonade]

Wow, you must be dizzy from all this spinning. Your original point wasn't exclusively about commerce (e.g. "It set up all these dark and surreal pieces only to then for WB to not follow up on any of it in their subsequent films"). You were talking about the narrative follow up of character arcs. I provided direct citations from the films (BvS's ending, Suicide Squad, Justice League) to support my analysis.



I didn't just mention Justice League, though. I cited BvS and SS too. Justice League has a combination of approaches from different storytellers. I can judge the parts that I know were Snyder's and from what I know of Snyder's intentions. Still, it has to be acknowledged that the narrative process was interfered with after the fact. Meaning, you can't criticize BvS and Snyder for its storytelling when, during its original crafting, it was thought that JL would expand on certain things. As for the commercial angle, BvS wasn't a total flop, and JL was affected by its own bad press from reshoots and it just being a poor film that alienated even the existing DCEU fans.



So what? You were complaining about the Easter Eggs that are totally irrelevant to all of this. They're just something extra to enjoy or not enjoy as anyone so chooses. They don't affect plot or pace, and no one is saying that their existence means the film should be liked more or should have made more money. Let me put it this way. Snyder and his fans have been having fun discussing things they love and are interested in. It's like he's a professor who offered a course on a subject and interested students are registering and attending his lectures. People like you are like people who major in other subjects or elected not to take the course for whatever reason, yet you can't help interrupting our discussions to piss in people's cornflakes. You, and others like you, are turning their little hobby into something that's it's not just to beat the dead horse of your dislike for these films. It's petty.

It's only spinny when talking to you.

You analyze and respond each post as you would with the material in BvS anyhow, through sections and making sure every point is addressed. So I'm use to it.

You may take the response as pissing on people's cornflakes... or it can be a reality check. That again... not everyone shares the same views... there are certain aesthetic that Snyder employs to great or disastrous effect.

Again you claim that BvS left Superman and Batman in a good place. That's a bold claim. I countered. Then you went off and set up disclaimers as we can't judge JL. Fine. I followed your rabbit hole and now you're trying to turn it around again? Please. I've read enough about your posts to know how this plays out.

And lastly, my point wasn't exclusively about commerce... but I made use of it as evidence to how your claims just isn't supported with reality. Within the content of BvS, I'm sure you can spin it to suit your argument.

 

[misslane38]

It's only spinny when talking to you.

You analyze and respond each post as you would with the material in BvS anyhow, through sections and making sure every point is addressed. So I'm use to it.

You may take the response as pissing on people's cornflakes... or it can be a reality check. That again... not everyone shares the same views... there are certain aesthetic that Snyder employs to great or disastrous effect.

Again you claim that BvS left Superman and Batman in a good place. That's a bold claim. I countered. Then you went off and set up disclaimers as we can't judge JL. Fine. I followed your rabbit hole and now you're trying to turn it around again? Please. I've read enough about your posts to know how this plays out.

And lastly, my point wasn't exclusively about commerce... but I made use of it as evidence to how your claims just isn't supported with reality. Within the content of BvS, I'm sure you can spin it to suit your argument.

Reality check? Easter Eggs will never affect plot or pace, like you claimed, and the need to use these new little tidbits to rehash old BvS criticisms and state obvious facts, like the film performed below expectations and affected what came after, is so transparently petty. Those Easter Eggs, Snyder including them and fans enjoying discussing them, doesn't say anything about the film's quality or its commercial performance. So using them, as some are, to point fingers at Snyder -- as if he the Easter Eggs or Snyder's writing style on social media correlate with the film's overall performance -- is perplexing and pathetic. The movie didn't do well with critics or at the box office. I'm not going to debate that, because it's just a fact.

What I was addressing with Superchan was this idea that Snyder was so busy incorporating easter eggs that he screwed up his movie ("Sadly good 'ol Zack was too busy laying his ester eggs to understand..."). So, let me repeat: reminding fans who are enjoying themselves that something didn't make money isn't going to shut them up or make them believe they shouldn't like what they like. Financial success doesn't always correlate with quality or good storytelling. You'd think those who disliked the movie would move on, but they can't even tolerate a minor and well-meaning discussion of easter eggs to occur -- over two years since the film's release no less -- without airing old and irrelevant grievances. Why? What is so threatening about easter eggs and about the niche group of DCEU and Snyder fans enjoying themselves?