|
There must be a lot of weird cognitive dissidence at the DC movie offices trying to ignore that the TV channel for tweens looking for j/o material does a better job telling stories than them.
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
Fire Barrel posted:I still think the DC movies are at least trying to more with the source material than the marvel movies which are mediocre action movies with poo poo villains and no stakes. Maybe Zack Snyder is trying to do something beyond his level, but I still think he's more ambitious. I can sort of see the criticism that they may be "grim dark," but I didn't really see Man of Steel as that. Rather, I thought it was trying to show what happens when you drop a super powered fight/comic book fight into the real world. I thought it was heavy handed and too long for its own good, but I could see what it was trying to do. Then again, I also find most of the aspects of superhero comics, both Marvel and DC, do to be annoying. Except "what if we considered the opposite reading!" is pretty well-tread ground across genres now. "What if Superman were kinda maybe the bad guy (but not really)" is just "what if the bad guy was really good??" but also lacking any commitment to the idea. In the end Superman is the good guy in these films, so instead of really saying something we get handed an unlikeable character and asked to follow them for 2 hours. If Snyder or anyone wanted a challenge, try making me or anyone to actually really care about Superman. He's the most iconic superhero in the world, but virtually nobody cares what he does. Nobody gets his conflict or his world, and the Superman idealism is seen as a joke now. People only seem to get superheroes if they're burdened with ridiculous pathos and are basically broken but invincible people, which seems like a weird thing and maybe could be pushed against? Instead of further burying him with "haha actually yeah he is lame AND being an all-american good guy is LAME and LAME LAME LAME" maybe they could try and understand him? Marvel took a guy in a dumb blue suit and a silly shield, and reinvigorated him to have some actual meaning in the context of our world. The American Idealist versus the American Neoliberal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
TheWeepingHorse posted:I actually really like of what Zach Snyder does, even if not all of his movies totally work. He has personality and vision. Man of Steel had a few okay ideas under the surface, but they were not developed well. I liked the general idea of Clark Kent being a pathological construction. I really liked the idea of Zod being...sort of right? At least, to the extent that his loyalty is to Krypton and nothing else. So then Superman is making a different sort of choice when he kills Zod: he is deciding that it is wrong to destroy Earth in order to save Krypton. His loyalties are his own. His moral compass is broader. He is creating his own identity, and defining his own responsibilities. Making "saving the earth" sound like some hard to reach moral choice is very dumb and makes your hero look like the dumbest D&D goon alive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Snyder wouldn't be able to come up with a shot this fun and cool in a million years.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
It's pretty funny that they decided to use Batman as a way to mask the fact that they were doing the Death of Superman, one of the worst stories in comic book history.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
I saw this movie and I regret it, it was bad on many levels. One dumb thing I missed while watching it: the whole "I thought she was with you" line- Batman/Bruce Wayne had already met WW and talked to her and knew she was like 100 years old by the time that fight happened. Why does Ma Kent tell Clark that "he doesn't owe people anything"? Like aside from being philosophically dumb and inconsistent with most people's understanding of Superman, she's just plain wrong. He owes people a lot- he was partly responsible for all the death and destruction that happened in MoS. What was the point of having Lois Lane follow up on that bullet fragment? We as an audience already knew Lex was evil and had some master plan, and Lex basically explains that plan unprompted to Superman when he actually shows up. Why/what authority does Holly Hunter have to keep Lex from his various plans w/ Zod's body and the spaceship? It seems pretty unlikely some chump junior senator would have the power to keep him from getting access under the premise that he was building a Superman-killing weapon. Seems like Lex could have just gone to the CIA or the Pentagon with the "kill Superman weapon" idea and they'd have given him free reign? In fact- what's the point of the Superman commission? What legislative or governmental goals are the hoping to achieve from it? When Wonder Woman is trying to "get back" the picture, does she not understand that it's a file on a computer and there are probably lots of copies? Is she an anachronism or not? Why does Superman need Batman's help to save his mom? None of the above are even in the top 5 of why this movie was terrible- just things I don't think I saw mentioned already.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
Movie could have been not bad, but so what I say. Time moves forward, I am on a river. We are all dust?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Frankenstyle posted:So is that peoples problem with MoS, that Superman kills people? It's not a great movie, but S-man is such a boring poo poo character. The closest thing to making him any sort of interesting was going with the whole "If you're a human atom bomb, you can't take a dump without a little collateral damage". Batman has plenty of angles to go with without making him a serial killer, and that's a stupid move for Snyder. But the only good story idea for Superman other than painting him as almost as dangerous as whatever problem he's fixing, would be just not making a Superman movie. I can't figure out a good Superman story. This must mean I'm smart and it's impossible. No other way to read this situation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Booblord Zagats posted:Imagine a Joker played by Charlie Day. One obsessed with the minutiae of circuses, psychology and
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Remember in the late 90s and early 00s when Marvel was looking at Captain America, an anachronistic do-gooder with no major personality traits aside from punching Nazis, and said "crap, there's just nothing we can do with this guy. Better make his a grim motherfucker with a machine gun. Really our best option"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Lt. Chips posted:Has anyone seen this answered anywhere? That entire subplot does not effect or connect to the main plot in any way. Lois learning about the connection between the mercs in Africa and Lex has no impact on the plot. What the hell was the point? On the one hand Lois is completely pointless to the plot of the movie. However in Snyder's mind the only thing that actually motivates Superman or makes him give a poo poo at all is banging her, so in a sense she's incredibly important. He's a feminist, you see.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:What I find funny about all the plot holes in BvS is that Nolan's Dark Knight movies had just as many. Well the other thing is that Nolan seems to have some idea of how to pace a story and how to cut between scenes and plot threads to there's a cohesive energy behind the whole thing. BvS is so poorly paced and edited in terms of linking the various sub-plots it's impossible to miss these problems. An interesting moment with Batman or Lex comes to a halt so we can jump to Lois Lane. Her scene has no energy or purpose, Amy Adams seems to have been caught off guard every time the camera is on her. Why is this scene here, I wonder. The movie is littered with incoherent scene changes. Perry White goes looking for Kent in the office and doesn't find him, White quips "What, did he run back to Kansas or something?" HARD CUT...to Lois Lane. Not to the obvious scene of Kent talking to his mom in Kansas. I can't even remember what leads in to WW looking at those videos of Flash and Aquaman. All I know is that as opposed to a little bit of epilogue it's jammed in right before our third act. It's weird and surprising and possibly a game-changer for how Batman might think about the world...nope too late he's got a big fight to go do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:What was so confusing about MoS? I think my first question was- why is Superman in this movie? What is he doing? edit: sorry I thought you were asking about BvS, nevermind
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:The funny thing is, a Superman wrestling with the responsibility of being the most powerful single being in existence and how to use that power would be interesting and a pretty good movie. The problem is that they never make that movie. Its not about someone wrestling with how to best do right, its about a guy being a loving blue prick. Agreed- while I don't think it's the only solution to 'how do you make a good Superman story', understanding that there can and should be an internal struggle in Superman is very powerful, and anyone who thinks the problem with Superman is that 'his powers are too good!' doesn't understand how stories work. Superman is powerful enough to be everywhere constantly righting wrongs- but in doing so that would make him a fascist. Superman could spend every moment of his life doing good, but is there an importance to being Clark Kent and connecting to humanity? Superman does spend all his time and energy trying to make the world just and fair, but he discovers even he cannot change humanity- does he fall in to despair? Those are all good questions that I'm sure have formed the backbone of really good Superman stories over the years- I feel comfortable guessing this because if I can figure those out story-lines and I'm a dummy. Also having Supes worry about these internal questions might actually give him some purpose in these movies? A reason for us to care when he's on screen? IDK. It'd maybe make him more compelling than the seemingly empty shell we have now that has Jesus imagery projected on to him while internally seeming to only care about banging Lois, getting terrible advice from his parents, and is unhappy with Batman for no reason.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:Wow... I got back from seeing this tonight and I feel like I need to say a lot of things but it's so difficult because this film feels so directionless compared to Man of Steel, a film I didn't love but I managed to still really like. Eisenberg himself was fine- I really don't have a problem with Zuckerberg-as-Lex in concept, and yeah the modern version of terrifying scientist and business mogul is basically a self-centered Silicon Valley dweeb. Works well. Sadly he was failed by the script, which puttered around on his exact motivation and also made him the architect of a Prequels Palpatine level absurdist grand plot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Also- could someone watch Kevin Smith's review of this and tell me how embarrassing it is?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
A GLISTENING HODOR posted:Fucken LMAO lol
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Will MoS/BvS/[possible JL movie if it's even made I guess?] hold the same weight of failure as the Star Wars Prequels in the minds of people?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:I dunno if I'd call Zack Synder a studio hack. He's pretty poo poo, but he has a very distinct style of his own that definitely doesn't feel like a safe middle of the road director that a studio might usually go with. I think that was DC's mistake, handing it off to someone with an auteur complex. But at the same time I'd like to know what WB/DC execs were telling Snyder before MoS and then before/during BvS. Did WB just put their hands up and say 'do whatever', or what ways did they actively contribute to this trainwreck? In a sense this isn't like the SW Prequels because there Lucas pretty much had total authority to do what he pleased. Here apparently the writers and Snyder managed to convince rooms full of powerful executives that making a Superman movie that was completely inaccessible to children was a great idea.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:well i mean it was a smashing success opening weekend Making it accessible for kids and targeting it towards kids are, like, different things.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:We're all sort of holding out hope that the R-rated extended cut will fix things, but my guess is that the biggest difference will just be a bit more blood and Wonder Woman actually punched in the face or something a few times. I have so much morbid curiosity about what's going to be in the R version. Isn't it an extra 30 minutes long? I mean there's basically no chance that 30 minutes will flesh out the story or give Superman some sort of purpose- if they had scenes like that they would have been in the actual movie. So what will it be? Superman banging Lois Lane? More bizarre references to future movies only huge DC fans will get?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
I actually just saw the Turkish Airlines commercial- and it frames Metropolis and the world better than Snyder did in +2 hours of BvS. Like, people look happy? I get the impression people like Superman without it being some creepy cult? Lex as part of the rebuilder of Metropolis seems to ground his character? Like how does a lovely airline commercial do that much better?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:What's this about? how could a tie in commercial possibly have that much in it It's a pretty short commercial, but it's framed as 'Turkish Airlines is now doing full service flights to Metropolis, newly rebuilt and as vibrant as ever!' The flyover/skyline shots make Metropolis look bright and impressive like you'd expect in a Superman movie. There's a brief Superman cameo as he flies over a group of people eating lunch outside and the look up with happy, non-insane smiles. Lex has a line or two, including one here he's sitting in First Class and has a goofy line about 'we can't wait to see you!' IDK, it just sets up the world in a much more coherent light than the movie does.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:holy projection, Batman Aside from Batman, what was anyone's motivation?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
So maybe someone remembers better than me- when exactly did Lex actually get in to the Kryptonian ship and start talking with the computer? I'm pretty sure it was after congress blew up and basically at the same time as Superman being alone in the Arctic and Batman doing his crossfit, but the middle of this movie is a huge jumble for me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Hahahahaha even China hates it This is glorious.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:He's just trying to stick up for Affleck, Kevin Smith is a g when it comes to his pals I mean that's fine, but I don't know that Smith in particular has to do it- very few people are actually complaining about AffleckMan at this point- he's usually pointed out as the highlight of the film in fact.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Pvt.Scott posted:I'm laughing at people waiting for an extended cut of BvS that will somehow fix things. A ruthless editor with that extra footage a a goal of a running time of no more than 105 minutes MIGHT be able to wizard a satisfying film from that garbage heap. Adding more poo poo is just making the problem worse. They lost the entire reel labeled 'Superman's motivations' for the theatrical release, but found it shortly thereafter.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:lol i just remembered that jimmy olsen had a film camera Hipster CIA agent
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
I feel like one of the more obvious conclusions to draw from watching Snyder's Superman is that he wishes he had made Watchmen and Superman is his Dr. Manhattan. Then you instantly remember Snyder already made Watchmen and it's that he has the kind of sophomoric mind that can't get past that story as being 'the best thing ever' and the end-all-be-all w/r/t superhero stories.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
I'm really confused how CD has escaped a mod purge and replacement by some FYAD posters for so long.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Disappointed SMG's first take didn't mention Zizek even once. 3/5, will wait for extended cut.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:'Superman Returns' was a sequel to Reeves' Superman and Superman II (but ignored III and IV) so it wasn't technically a hard reboot. Not that I realised it was supposed to be a sequel when I watched it ... A [dumb] thought that passed through my head last night as I was catching up with this thread and saw Joel Schumacher's Batmans mentioned- it's only pretty recent that all these concepts of 'reboots' and 'soft reboots' and so on have come in to common enough vernacular, and almost specifically in regards to our big nerdy genre films. It'd be interesting to think if those terms had been around in 1995, and how that would have shaped our thinking...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:thinks the wrestler Kane should be president Sounds good to me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
"God damnit Perry I won't write another article about how we should give social security to all these immigrants" *Perry smiles Jewishly* "this looks like a job for Superman..." (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
A GLISTENING HODOR posted:Italian Superman: Please! You gotta save Marie!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
The "must save Martha" thing didn't really bother me too much conceptually as a way to bring an end to the fight in theory- and Snyder's not off base on why it should work: having a mom that he loves does make Superman a human character (and not alien jesus!) and should give Batman pause about how to treat this previously inhuman machine of destruction. The problem though is that he flubbed it up. -First, the movie isn't really shot from Batman's perspective even though it clearly should have been. We as an audience already have access to Superman's internal world (as sparse as it is) so there's no change in state for us when the reveal happens. -Second, even if it were shot from Batman's view, nobody in the audience is unfamiliar with Superman's character. That Superman is a product of a good home and loves his parents and they love him is like a core trait of every Superman story. -So to try and compensate for that or something- and this is literally the only reason I can think of Snyder's decisions on Supes other than he's just trying to jam libertarianism or Dr. Manhattan in to a Superman costume- he tried to make Superman seem distant and threatening to us. The image of Superman we're seeing is more the image through Batman's eyes or Lex Luthor's eyes. But that doesn't change that the movie had the word Superman in the title, so instead of leaving me wondering who this mysterious alien was and what motivated him, I'm left to feel 'oh! Snyder doesn't get Superman!' -The setup is also weakened by a Batman who regularly kills as casually as this one. Did Bats forget that many of not all the criminals he was going after also had moms?? It'd make sense if we had seen the event that pushed him from the Batman most people know to this Batman, but we had to rush to BvS instead of setting up the characters first. -And so we get to the Martha scene and the audience is all over the place in comparison to where Snyder thinks we'd be. We're not suddenly dealing with the drama of new information, but Bats is. Instead we're trying to reconcile the weird way Superman had been portrayed up to that moment with the sudden need to see him as fragile. We're out of the moment trying to deal with tone and consistency. In a sense, the better setup for this was (unsurprisingly) done in the Batman animated series with the introduction of Mr. Freeze. Freeze is basically presented as a robot- unfeeling and inhuman. Batman should have no sympathy for him. But as the story unfolds Batman-and generally the audience since it wasn't like Mr. Freeze was well known to viewers at that point- discoveres his motivations, his lost love, and that creates a conflict for him. It creates a tension in the character and us that we can appreciate. Fidel Cuckstro fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Apr 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Prokhor Zakharov posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDsw86ATrQ0 Got through reading the title while a commercial played.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Prokhor Zakharov posted:somebody was asking if cineD was quoting zizek yet Always nice to be reminded that I'm on a website with insane people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
Zombie Boat posted:The guy who loves zizek also said the avengers are the villains of the marvel movies soooo Every thread in CD could probably be just one post where the OP says "it turns out the opposite reading is true!" and immediately closed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 05:18
|
|