|
Phylodox posted:Pa Kent and his characterization are an enormous flaw. Yes, it's obvious what Snyder was trying to say with him; he's a loving father who's protective of his son and so tries to hide him from the world but in the end he teaches Clark through example with his ultimate sacrifice. But this is executed poorly. The audience comes away with the impression that Jonathan Kent is a callous, cowardly man. This is not because the audience is ignorant. How ideas are presented is as important as what those ideas are. Something as simple as Jonathan's first word being "Maybe" after Clark asks him if he should have let those kids die completely sabotages his characterization. That's terrible. Silence would have been better. It left the audience horrified, and nothing that came after mattered. Again, you can't blame the audience for that. That's why things like pacing and tone are so important. A parent trying to protect their kid is not a flaw. Further, we know from Ma Kent that he knew Clark was gonna do his thing. That "maybe," is pa compromising his own morality And finally, it's always been ridiculous a farmer in the dust bowl was happy, and now farmers are living off subsidy so it's even less in character for a farmer. Again, it may not be your pa Kent, but he serves Superman in the same way. They just don't have them say it straight into the camera. But not everyone can be Nolan. bushisms.txt fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Feb 15, 2021 |
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
Phylodox posted:Pa Kent and his characterization are an enormous flaw. Yes, it's obvious what Snyder was trying to say with him; he's a loving father who's protective of his son and so tries to hide him from the world but in the end he teaches Clark through example with his ultimate sacrifice. But this is executed poorly. The audience comes away with the impression that Jonathan Kent is a callous, cowardly man. This is not because the audience is ignorant. How ideas are presented is as important as what those ideas are. Something as simple as Jonathan's first word being "Maybe" after Clark asks him if he should have let those kids die completely sabotages his characterization. That's terrible. Silence would have been better. It left the audience horrified, and nothing that came after mattered. Again, you can't blame the audience for that. That's why things like pacing and tone are so important. Wait so is it obvious what Snyder is saying and what his characterization is, or is it not? The audience comes away with a different impression despite it being obvious, so it wasn't obvious enough?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
according to the film those skyscrapers had only dozens of people inside them at most
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:Wait so is it obvious what Snyder is saying and what his characterization is, or is it not? The audience comes away with a different impression despite it being obvious, so it wasn't obvious enough? Jonathan Kent is subject to interpretation. Different aspects of the character leave different impressions upon viewers based upon the experiences they bring with them to the movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
Can we please not do the whole "No but everyone in the audience happened to agree with me" bit? Speak for yourself, not people you imagine agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:according to the film those skyscrapers had only dozens of people inside them at most This is what I don't get, the impetus for civil war is made up whole cloth for the film, and yet it's not considered a flaw. Folks need to come to a consensus on the meaning of the word.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
I think that whether you like the movies or don't it's pretty obvious that Snyder Talk is a poisoned well at this point and anybody that drinks from it turns into a raging idiot. I'll be glad when this is released and there's some actual discussion from those that watch it and then we can put it to bed for good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
Roth posted:Can we please not do the whole "No but everyone in the audience happened to agree with me" bit? Speak for yourself, not people you imagine agree with you. Nah those are numbers that exist and are viewable on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:31
|
|
|
X-O posted:I think that whether you like the movies or don't it's pretty obvious that Snyder Talk is a poisoned well at this point and anybody that drinks from it turns into a raging idiot. I'll be glad when this is released and there's some actual discussion from those that watch it and then we can put it to bed for good. We're getting hot takes on these movies until the end of time. Strap in friend. Aphrodite posted:Nah those are numbers that exist and are viewable on the internet. That so?   Man of Steel was divisive, not universally hated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
Roth posted:We're getting hot takes on these movies until the end of time. Strap in friend. No, we're not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
Why isn't there a Snydertalk containment cell? The last two pages have been people trying to engage with someone who disagrees that Man of Steel has any flaws whatsoever for (New) God's sake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
Tbh it never once struck me as pa kent teaching clark a lesson about sacrifice by telling his invincible kid who can fly at super speed not to rescue him, it just seemed to be a really stupid moment
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:Why isn't there a Snydertalk containment cell? There is friend
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:41
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:Why isn't there a Snydertalk containment cell? There’s 2 now!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
site posted:Tbh it never once struck me as pa kent teaching clark a lesson about sacrifice by telling his invincible kid who can fly at super speed not to rescue him, it just seemed to be a really stupid moment Jonathan Kent believed that keeping the Clark's secret was more important than his own life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
Sounds like a real bonehead move.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
 Aggregate movie reviews are useless. BotFA is to me a pretty bad film and gets roughly the same reviews of MoS which is honest to God my favorite superhero movie and my favorite Superman movie by far. quote:CRITICS CONSENSUS quote:CRITICS CONSENSUS That's fuckin bizarre to me. I hear a lot of the things people don't like about MoS but "generic blockbuster" sure isn't one of them. These are two very similarly reviewed films overall by both critics and audiences but they couldn't be further apart in my film viewing experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Jonathan Kent believed that keeping the Clark's secret was more important than his own life. Yes and between that and the bus thing he comes off as an huge rear end in a top hat because of it
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:
All this means is that you have your own individual feelings about certain films, like everyone else in the world does. Criticism isn't about trying to find an objective answer to the quality or lack thereof of a film. It's just a form of discussing the film. Though, yes, aggregators can obscure that fact.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:
It's useless as a measure of quality, but if you want to argue that an audience does or does not have a universal opinion on something it's as decent a piece of evidence you're going to get.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Jonathan Kent believed that keeping the Clark's secret was more important than his own life. Yeah, Pa Kent's whole deal is being torn between the ideas that: A) Clark is clearly going to be a huge deal to the world, and it's only a matter of time until that happens and B) That Clark is his adopted son, and he wants to keep him safe from the inevitable backlash to being exposed as an alien with godlike powers. He does not have an answer when obvious contradictions rise up like "Should I have let all those kids drown just to keep my secret safe?" His response is a non-committal "Maybe" after having to stop and think about it for a few seconds. The scene concludes with a heartfelt "You are my son." I think it stands in contrast to Jor-El, who feels like he has nothing but definitive answers and sees his son as a great destiny that must be achieved. Pa Kent's number one priority is being a father first, not the architect of the greatest superhero to ever exist. A flawed parent, to be sure, but one who's trying his best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
site posted:Yes and between that and the bus thing he comes off as an huge rear end in a top hat because of it It seems to me that there is a meaningful connection between Jonathan putting himself in danger to save a dog and sacrificing his life to try to keep the world from being disturbed by the existence of an alien, and then later Clark putting himself in danger to save the earth and being willing to sacrifice his life in order to keep the world from being colonized by an alien. I like that this connection is in the movie, even if it means that this depiction of of Jonathan Kent is unsuited to perform his traditional schtick of saying something wise and folksy that cuts right to the heart of some dilemma Clark is feeling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
I love that in the sequel Clark has kind of a reverse fortress of solitude where he climbs this remote mountain to commune with his dead human dad instead of Jor-El. And I love that the movie doesn't explain it, you can just believe whatever you want. He's having a theoretical conversation in his head, he's actually talking to a real ghost because the film is set partially during the day of the dead, hallucinating, whatever. But I really love the scene.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
...Is this a good or bad time to plug my Pa Kent video essay? I mean, it's just so on-topic.McCloud posted:The 214 cut was mostly done by almost any metric. The editing and previz was done, vxf ranged from completely done in some scenes to partially or not at all in others. That's a big difference from "oh it's just a workprint" or "it's a rough cut" or "it's not a workable cut" that was being (erroneously) reported at the time. Fans knew it wasn't entirely done, and campaigned for it to be released anyway because they didn't care. This whole "oh it wasn't 100% done, therefore we were right in that there never was a snyder cut" nonsense is what's disingenuous because that is not at all what was meant back then when they were writing articles saying there was no Snyder cut. It's hiding behind semantics. We don't actually know how finished, or unfinished, the 214 cut was. All the information we all had was Snyder posting grandly misleading messages like "Of course it exists," pictures of film reels, still images and behind-the-scenes screenshots, and Vero essays about big time travel storylines and how much Jesus there was in BvS. Conspicuously missing from this deluge of insider info was any moving, audible clips whatsoever from a watchable scene...'cuz, whoops, that's the sort of content that would've required actual production on a film in order to showcase. Like, y'all keep saying Snyder didn't trick you, but I don't really know what else to call this, even if it's just a willingness to play along with his false advertising 'cuz it was fun for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:I love that in the sequel Clark has kind of a reverse fortress of solitude where he climbs this remote mountain to commune with his dead human dad instead of Jor-El. And I love that the movie doesn't explain it, you can just believe whatever you want. He's having a theoretical conversation in his head, he's actually talking to a real ghost because the film is set partially during the day of the dead, hallucinating, whatever. But I really love the scene. Snyder was just outdoing Raimi. While Spider-Man has a heaven car, Superman has a heaven mountain. Checkmate Raimulres
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:I love that in the sequel Clark has kind of a reverse fortress of solitude where he climbs this remote mountain to commune with his dead human dad instead of Jor-El. And I love that the movie doesn't explain it, you can just believe whatever you want. He's having a theoretical conversation in his head, he's actually talking to a real ghost because the film is set partially during the day of the dead, hallucinating, whatever. But I really love the scene. Alright hold the loving phone. Who's take is this one? Because it's hilarious and now the only way I shall think of this scene.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:
No, that's the kind of content he doesn't legally own and can't post without repercussions. And we know for a fact those clips existed because the movie is fuckin 4 hours long and they didn't film 2 hours of new footage. The fx director has literally said Snyder invited him to his home months before WB met Snyder about it, and showed him the cut, explaining incomplete scenes, and getting an idea of what fx work and costs would be required to finish it, which he used to pitch to the WB executives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
Escobarbarian posted:I don’t think I’ve seen anyone call you an idiot for liking a movie bushisms Could have fooled me with the smug-rear end tone this thread takes whenever anyone defends Snyder’s movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:Alright hold the loving phone. Who's take is this one? Because it's hilarious and now the only way I shall think of this scene. Just an idea I had. If you take it that religion in these movies are real the idea that you could commune with the dead isn't far fetched. The film is pretty spiritual. I don't think that rescue scene was set during the day of the dead for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:13
|
|
|
Equeen posted:Could have fooled me with the smug-rear end tone this thread takes whenever anyone defends Snyder’s movies. I got to be honest, I feel this thread is far nicer to people who like Snyder films than the Snyderdome is to people who don't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
Man, I hope the Snyder cut shows us more of Superman's journeys in the Mexican afterlife
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:16
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:Just an idea I had. If you take it that religion in these movies are real the idea that you could commune with the dead isn't far fetched. The film is pretty spiritual. I don't think that rescue scene was set during the day of the dead for no reason. Do the Snyder Superman films profess that religious ideas are true? I think I missed that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:21
|
|
|
Well in Dawn of the Dead god punishes gays and muslims by making zombies so
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:The fx director has literally said Snyder invited him to his home months before WB met Snyder about it, and showed him the cut, explaining incomplete scenes, and getting an idea of what fx work and costs would be required to finish it, which he used to pitch to the WB executives. Film needed a lot of work Before it was done -ancient Haiku, author eaten by horses
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
No I'm saying if YOU take it that religion is real. But the movies do have a lot of religious references, themes, and imagery apart from Gethsemane and crucifix posing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Well in Dawn of the Dead god punishes gays and muslims by making zombies so That is such a dishonest attack. I was shocked at Fish just stating this as fact I'm a video with zero supporting evidence, and a lot of muslims responding to her saying "absolutely not".
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:It seems to me that there is a meaningful connection between Jonathan putting himself in danger to save a dog and sacrificing his life to try to keep the world from being disturbed by the existence of an alien, and then later Clark putting himself in danger to save the earth and being willing to sacrifice his life in order to keep the world from being colonized by an alien. I like that this connection is in the movie, even if it means that this depiction of of Jonathan Kent is unsuited to perform his traditional schtick of saying something wise and folksy that cuts right to the heart of some dilemma Clark is feeling. Well I'm glad you got something out of it because that doesn't play for me at all Roth posted:Yeah, Pa Kent's whole deal is being torn between the ideas that: A) Clark is clearly going to be a huge deal to the world, and it's only a matter of time until that happens and B) That Clark is his adopted son, and he wants to keep him safe from the inevitable backlash to being exposed as an alien with godlike powers. perhaps I was unclear. I understood the motivation he just comes off as an rear end in a top hat because of that motivation and I dislike it site fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Feb 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:Just an idea I had. If you take it that religion in these movies are real the idea that you could commune with the dead isn't far fetched. The film is pretty spiritual. I don't think that rescue scene was set during the day of the dead for no reason. I think it was supposed to be a callback to the hallucination scene in Man of Steel where Superman is slowly sinking into a sea of human skulls, and so in the Day of the Dead scene he's surrounded by people in skull makeup and looks awkward, conflicted and maybe even a little traumatized because of that. It looks cool and refers back to the concrete symbolism of the first scene in an ambiguous way so... okay, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:I was shocked at Fish just stating this as fact I'm a video with zero supporting evidence, and a lot of muslims responding to her saying "absolutely not". Ok so no film analysis is fact. None. Unless you are just stating objective technical details like "this film is 24fps" or whatever. Nor would, I imagine, Fish or any person doing readings of films claim theirs to be fact. The reason why critics (print or paper or youtube whatever) don't introduce each point they make with "in my opinion" is because it's unnecessary, and a fault of style probably as well. The fact it's opinion is implied by the fact that it's an opinion piece. You clearly do not agree with her analysis but she's not stating it as fact as opposed to stating her analysis, which by definition, is her opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:Ah yes a cowardly Man that walks into a tornado and waves off the one being who might have been able to help him. Nothing you’ve said actually negates what I said. Those are facts that are presented in the film, yeah. But how they’re presented leads to different people taking different things away from the movie. And that’s valid. It’s something people have been discussing since the movie came out. You seem kind of like you’re just dismissing interpretation as ignorance, though, and belittling anyone who doesn’t agree with you. That’s not so valid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2021 00:38
|
|
