|
DC work. I really liked Watchmen, and to a lesser extent 300.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:DC work. I really liked Watchmen, and to a lesser extent 300. Man of Steel only suffers from some odd editing, and rides entirely on how much you care about Superman killing his enemies or not. As far as what Snyder brought to the film, the directing, it's all top notch work with the actors bringing their A game across the board. You may not like the content of what he's directing, but his style is on full display and very strong. He shows exactly how horrifying two Kryptonians fighting would, and should, be. The big complaints about the movie, such as the fabled What if Man Of Steel Was In Color, are hugely exaggerated at this point and not actually true. That specific video is purposely pitched down to make the film look more washed out than it was, when the real movie is quite vibrant and colorful, especially the reds on Superman. BvS is a flawed story either way you go, but it is a gorgeous movie. Again, Snyder's actual skills shine through quite nicely with a great blend of color and shadow and some excellent cinematography. This is even more You Have To Be Okay With What They're Doing than Man of Steel, but if you are then it's a great ride. A lot of the worst aspects of the film, including the worst part of the movie in the little preview for the other DC heroes, comes directly from the studio. The story is flawed, there is no question- the theatrical cut leaves out too much Superman human stuff, the unrated cut hand holds too much and tries to assure you every step of the way. But the visuals are on point from frame one, from the destruction of Wayne Towers to the death of Superman. For Snyder's actual job, he does an excellent role. Especially the big action scene with Batman saving Martha. That whole sequence is untouchable. Justice League is a mess of the Studio's making and of some one else taking over for Snyder and reshooting a bunch of stuff to cut into his work. So it's hard to judge what he did right and what he did wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:Is there some concise effortpost detailing what makes any of the Snyder films good?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
So it's mostly visual? I'll concede the opening visuals of the Zodd fight from the ground was one of the few things I liked about BvS. Batman's (and almost every other character's) subsequent motivation, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:I think he's shirtless when they submerge him in the goo in the kryptonian ship before resurrecting him but I might be remembering wrong My friends were laughing that of course being resurrected had to blow most of his clothes off leaving him with only pants, Hulk-style, but I thought it would have been amazing to see him fight the League all prim and proper still in his black tie burial suit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:So it's mostly visual? I'll concede the opening visuals of the Zodd fight from the ground was one of the few things I liked about BvS. That post isn't an exhaustive account of why they're good but it's the best place to start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
The score and audio sound work, and how they interplay is excellent as well. I loved it when in MoS I realized that all movie long, Zod's theme had been gradually deepening until it became the sound of the World Engine. Superman's first flight is just a masterclass in all aspects.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:So it's mostly visual? The key is to not treat the visuals as somehow independent from or inconsequential to the story. Snyder's films are criticized for putting spectacle ahead of story development, but spectacle is just the medium for conveying the story. Contemporary films in this genre do not actually eschew visuals for the sake of better writing - the writing is merely more conventional, and their mediocre visual execution is a consequence of this. Spectacle does not come out of thin air, it's the concrete representation of abstract story concepts. So when Snyder and the screenwriters he works with decide that they do not want to tell a conventional power fantasy - that Clark will not be portrayed as omnipotent or infallible, that the consequences of power as opposed to the superficial demonstration of power is thematically crucial - the spectacle follows from this. In Man of Steel, it is not enough for the character to be 'flawed,' but otherwise defeating a bad guy and restoring the natural order of the status quo. Snyder portrays humanity's introduction to the Superman as apocalyptic, from which there is no going back even once the story's antagonist has been dispatched. Man of Steel is not about a 'normal person' who just happens to have magic powers/technology that consequently renders them infallible and the perfect host of identification by the spectator. Snyder portrays Clark as a guy who has never had the privilege of a normal life, and whose powers the camera itself is often struggling to keep up with. Snyder takes for granted that Clark is a good person because he risks his life to save the Earth, but nonetheless stresses to the spectator that he is, indeed, superhuman, that precisely his ability to save the Earth places him beyond human comprehension and convenient identification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:the sound of the World Engine Speaking of, it was great how they used it for Bruce in BvS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:So it's mostly visual? I'll concede the opening visuals of the Zodd fight from the ground was one of the few things I liked about BvS. The story of MoS and BvS are subjective. Either you gel with the different take or you don't. Some liked what was being done with MoS but didn't like, say, Lex Luthor. The visuals are not subjective which is why I focused on those because those, and the acting, are what fall on Snyder's shoulders. Snyder objectively is a good director who makes good looking movies. There is very little if nothing to criticize as far as the man goes as a director. You start talking about motivations, you venture into Snyder the writer, at which point you have to consider who his co-writer was and what the studio made him change and all kinds of fun poo poo that happens to scripts when they get translated to film. And it is a far more subjective thing. I adore what they did to Lex and Superman, for instance. Lex is perfectly updated to fit the current era- a more dominating lead actor would be wasted in the role because it is so perfectly made for such a small insecure man that Jesse brought to life. Dominating deep voiced Lex was a product of the 80s and should remain in stories inspired and set in that era. Modern Lex falls in the Zuckerberg style and they nailed it. Now if you don't like that, no problem there but you aren't going to like what they do. Same with Batman. It's subjective, a product of whims and personal preference. At which point, you just gotta do right by you. I like it, you do not, oh well. Snyder puts a lot of heart and soul into everything he directs, fills every single scene with something worth discussing and talking about. His direction is the entire reason why the World Engine is tolerable in MoS. Now, while Snyder's direction is objectively good, that doesn't mean you have to like it either. Deadwood is an objectively good western, that does not mean that I like it. I quite don't, in fact, because Deadwood is just not a lot of fun. That's another level entirely, your subjective taste over something that is objectively true. I can explain why something is objectively correct all day but that won't matter if you subjectively dislike it for reasons not related to the technical strengths. Like, here's a real truth for you- Whedon is a competent director. Almost anything, almost, released now by a major studio will be Competent. There is nothing OBJECTIVELY wrong with, say, Avengers. (AoU is another matter but that's a whole other thing) You may not like that it's a lot more flat and 'tv-like' than other directors, but that's about it. I think Snyder is a better director than Whedon because Snyder has a style I like far, far more, and he tends to explore ideas and themes I much prefer, but that is all up to personal taste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
I think it's a meme or something, like the prequels
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
could someone quickly explain music to me because I don’t get the appeal and also I’m not familiar with the concept of music thanks [briefly listens to music] humm so it’s mostly audio
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:could someone quickly explain music to me because I don’t get the appeal and also I’m not familiar with the concept of music thanks Burkion's post above yours was a much more satisfying answer. I can appreciate the praise about the slightly more objective elements more than I can, for example, get my head around why anyone would enjoy what I consider Eisenberg's almost offensively terrible performance as Luthor. Thank you. Sorry about the crack at you. That was out of line, especially because your posts are my favorite in this forum. Xander B Coolridge fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:So it's mostly visual? I'll concede the opening visuals of the Zodd fight from the ground was one of the few things I liked about BvS. What is Batman's motivation in BvS?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:What is Batman's motivation in BvS? Good question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:Good question. So you're not actually interested in discussing the movie?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:Good question. I don’t see how this squares with saying you liked the intro to BVS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:So you're not actually interested in discussing the movie? No! I asked a question and got an answer that satisfied me. Not willing to derail the thread in a debate about a movie that I didn't like. I haven't seen the movie since it came out, but I thought his motivation was weak and can honestly barely remember it. Something about how he was angry at Superman for collateral damage, despite causing lots of it while he was mowing down foods in his Batmobile. DeimosRising posted:I don’t see how this squares with saying you liked the intro to BVS. Visual. I suppose I now have a awareness that my issues with the movie are the story, writing, and acting, not necessarily the direction. I'm willing to accept that. Xander B Coolridge fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Bruce is not motivated by the 'collateral damage' Clark causes. His introduction to Superman is as a cost in human lives. There was a whole opening (which I'm glad you got something out of, even if you didn't care for the film) where he rushed to the building he owned trying to make sure everybody got out, stumbling through the wreckage and helping a crippled bodyguard, saving a lost little girl about to be crushed by a steel beam, then looking up with her in sorrow as he realizes her mother died in the building collapse. He then embraces the grieving child as he looks up scornfully into the sky as it's raining fire. Obviously, Bruce is having a bad time of this. Remember, he's also an orphan, so his specific introduction to Superman as being someone who, merely by existing, has orphaned this innocent girl, is very evocative. The visuals are good, yes, but the visuals are merely an exceptional expression of what's already been very well-developed on the story level. "That son of a bitch brought the war to us, two years ago. Jesus, Alfred, count the dead. Thousands of people. What's next? Millions? He has the power to wipe out the entire human race, and if we believe there is even a one-percent chance he is our enemy then we have to take it as an absolute certainty! And we have to destroy him." "But he is not our enemy." "Not today. Twenty years in Gotham, Alfred. We've seen what promises are worth. How many good guys are left? How many stayed that way? ... Fourteen hours." This is why people like Beavis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:I thought the 9/11 imagery was powerful and thought it was kinda neat to see the same scene play out from different angles. I’m just saying, that’s his motivation. 9/11 broke his brain. He was at ground zero and now he fucken hates Muslims
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:What is Batman's motivation in BvS? Snyder's movies are actually about 'superheros' as opposed to 'assholes with super powers'. They're some of the few super hero films that actually have any sort of ethical rigor. Well it's been a while so correct me if I'm mistaken but Batman in BvS constantly relieves the death of his parents. Believing his father to be impotent and imagining his mother as a vengeful demoness, he embraces a reactionary power fantasy where he inflicts violence on 'criminals' like the one who killed his parents (but is indifferent to criminals like Luthor) and is without regard to how his actions fit into any sort of broader social context. Superman is threatening because he is imagined by Batman as enacting a similar violent power fantasy, but more successfully given his actual superpowers. This changes when he hears Superman say, 'Martha', which also were the dying words of his father. He then re-imagines Superman as ultimately a helpless victim of 'criminals' (the way he had come to view himself). In the end he embraces Superman's idea that his role as a superhero should not be as a personal power fantasy but as a symbol. He certainly isn't a symbol of hope so of what exactly is left ambiguous. Sinding Johansson fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:No! I asked a question and got an answer that satisfied me. Not willing to derail the thread in a debate about a movie that I didn't like. Saying that the things you dislike about the movie are subjective is a non-answer, so I guess you did get what you were looking for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:I’m just saying, that’s his motivation. 9/11 broke his brain. He was at ground zero and now he fucken hates Muslims Snyder's Superman is an immigrant story, so this reading checks out. gently caress man, MoS and BvS are too good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:I’m just saying, that’s his motivation. 9/11 broke his brain. He was at ground zero and now he fucken hates Muslims I also didn’t get the anger at Martha Kent’s line to Clark about how he didn’t owe the world anything before he went off to fight Zod. To me that line makes his decision to make a leap of faith and help humanity all that more powerful and is exactly what Superman is about. He helps us because, despite the crappy way he has been treated by people (bullied at school, having a beer poured in his head while military servicemen looked on and laughed) he decided to help because it was the right thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Now that it's been brought up, I really disliked how the movie totally ignored the hypocrisy of both Batman's and Superman's criticisms of each other. I'm sure you don't see it that way, or feel that it was treated with appropriate subtlety or something. I couldn't disagree more. There's probably some line of dialog or other that you feel addresses this criticism and I'm willing to listen to it for insight's sake, but at the end of the day I thought it was handled badly. Edit: and for the record, there were several things about all three movies that I liked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:Now that it's been brought up, I really disliked how the movie totally ignored the hypocrisy of both Batman's and Superman's criticisms of each other. Can you dig into this a bit? What did you see as their specific hypocrisies?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Can you dig into this a bit? What did you see as their specific hypocrisies? He already disagrees with your imaginary response.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Sure. If I recall, Superman's issue with Batman was that he was a vigilante operating outside the law. Could have been a bit more nuanced than that, but that was the heart of it I believe. Is that not hypocrisy, considering his actions in both BvS and MoS? And I already mentioned the scene of Bruce wreaking havoc in his Batmobile. Bullets flying in every direction, cars exploding, etc. Just seemed particularly hypocritical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
teagone posted:Snyder's Superman is an immigrant story, so this reading checks out. gently caress man, MoS and BvS are too good. There’s a lot more going on than that too but the references to DKR create a cool intertextuality with Holy Terror! and Frank Miller’s political writings in general, which is clearly a subject of interest for our man Zack
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Superman willingly submits himself to the authorities in both MoS and BvS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Superman willingly submits himself to the authorities in both MoS and BvS. He also doesn’t stop any street crime, he just provides aid in natural and man made disasters and fights the invincible aliens no one else can fight. He’s not a vigilante, to the extent that he doesn’t even go after the prime movers in the disasters he averts. He’s not at that dangling slumlords out windows level yet
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:Sure. If I recall, Superman's issue with Batman was that he was a vigilante operating outside the law. Could have been a bit more nuanced than that, but that was the heart of it I believe. Superman isn't a vigilante at all. He takes on the Kryptonians, Doomsday (both with the tacit approval of the military), the African warlord (strictly to protect his girlfriend), Luthor and Batman (both of whom he just gently chastises) Sinding Johansson fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Xander B Coolridge posted:Sure. If I recall, Superman's issue with Batman was that he was a vigilante operating outside the law. Could have been a bit more nuanced than that, but that was the heart of it I believe. Nothing Superman does in Man of Steel is vigilantism. He's continuously acting to defend himself or others against loss of life, which is explicitly not self-appointed law enforcement. Similarly, in BvS, the first time he engages in what I'd see as credibly vigilantism is when he stops Batman, and he struggles for much of the movie with whether he's willing to go there. I don't think that counts as the movie ignoring that. Batman is precisely the opposite: his defense is precisely that he's a vigilante, a sort of super-cop who does what the police can't do, but always in service of the same goals as the police. His decision to kill Superman is the first time he steps away from this. He and Alfred have a couple conversations about this, about this step from enforcing the rules to acting unilaterally to reshape the world (to create one with Superman). So, again, not ignored.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Superman willingly submits himself to the authorities in both MoS and BvS. The more interesting question is why he considers them 'authorities', since he's an omnipotent alien. He could declare diplomatic immunity
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Don't think you can be a diplomat of a place that doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:The more interesting question is why he considers them 'authorities', since he's an omnipotent alien. He could declare diplomatic immunity He explicitly considers himself an American and Kansan. This is a choice he makes, influenced by his upbringing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
I've always wondered, do you guys think Batman got lethal only after the Zod attack or do you think he was always lethal? Would a lethal Batman have no quarrel with Jason Todd?
SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
^ He was probably non-lethal, began to slip on those virtues when Robin was killed (or stopped completely for a time to mimic this being the status quo as The Dark Knight Returns opens), and the Day The World Met The Superman pushed him all the way over the edge - Alfred even calls him out on it, and all Bruce can say is "we always were 'criminals'."got any sevens posted:The more interesting question is why he considers them 'authorities', since he's an omnipotent alien. He could declare diplomatic immunity He considers himself a normal American as an adopted immigrant, even once he discovers his actual lineage. "I'm from Kansas, General. I'm about as American as it gets." The Cameo fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Don't think you can be a diplomat of a place that doesn't exist. He's from Finland?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I've always wondered, do you guys think he got lethal only after the Zod attack or do you think he was always lethal? Would a lethal Batman have no quarrel with Jason Todd? He would have a problem with Jason Todd, because Jason Todd is not him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 02:50
|
|
