Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 719

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    177

    Default Zack Snyder on his critics: "You're living in an f-ing dreamworld!"

    https://twitter.com/boomborks/status...73855402930176

    With Snyder definitely gone and possibly Henry Cavill's Superman likely gone as well, seems like it would be a good time to reflect on his Superman "trilogy" (more like 2 and a half movies).

    In this clip he seems to confirm the worst of what people have always thought about him. He's permanently in the Watchmen mindset (or his version of Watchmen, Alan Moore would disagree) and not in the Superman mindset. He seems dismissive of the idea that superhero movies should be escapist fantasy and that he always wanted to make deconstructive films (which is sort of silly when you haven't even properly constructed Superman yet).

    Thoughts? How will the Zack Snyder Superman era be seen in the future with this out there?

  2. #2
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    I saw his Watchmen movie which some people recently are trying to shill as a classic, and it's not close. Parts of it are good and so on, but it doesn't have any of the special stuff from the book. And again Snyder misunderstood the whole point of the Squid. It's too Pro-Rorschach.

    I don't see any defense or change in opinions of his DC movies. If we are talking doing a deconstruction, then Tim Burton's BATMAN RETURNS did that much better than Snyder did.

    He really didn't get Superman. I mean he basically made the sequel of Superman into a Batman reboot, and a pilot for JL. That's how little interest he had in Superman.

  3. #3
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    I saw his Watchmen movie which some people recently are trying to shill as a classic, and it's not close. Parts of it are good and so on, but it doesn't have any of the special stuff from the book. And again Snyder misunderstood the whole point of the Squid. It's too Pro-Rorschach.
    The way he shoots action in that is so telling. So much focus on the gratuitous gore and hyper-violence that was never in the book. His action scenes belong to different movies to his dialogue scenes and shows he didn't understand the comic. (as well as the positive depiction of Rorschach)

  4. #4
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EsotericFailures View Post
    The way he shoots action in that is so telling. So much focus on the gratuitous gore and hyper-violence that was never in the book. His action scenes belong to different movies to his dialogue scenes and shows he didn't understand the comic. (as well as the positive depiction of Rorschach)
    I read the comic and saw the film, and I saw the Ultimate Cut or whatever the hell. The problem is that he spends way too much time on the first chapter which introduces the characters. A three hour movie adapting 12 dense issues in theory shouldn't be hard, but Rorschach gets way too much screentime and attention. Not enough is given to others. And he shortchanges the supporting characters, especially Dr. Malcolm Long. I mean Rorschach's big backstory chapter is really about him and Malcolm Long and the impact it has on him. If you are not going to do that right, then you should remove that, since from a story perspective, Manhattan, Comedian, and Ozymandias' backstory is important but Rorschach's not so much. You need Manhattan's backstory to understand his powers and the importance of Adrian's tachyon scheme, and the general world, you need Comedian's backstory to get him being Laurie's Dad, and Adrian's backstory is important in explaining why he did what he did. I also think removing the Giant Squid was a mistake. Laugh what you want, the important thing is those panels with all those bodies and destruction. If you have a R Rating and aren't going to put on-screen the comics equivalent of the opening of Saving Private Ryan and make it a bloodless thing, then you sir have no guts and as such deserve no glory. And I think Adrian Veidt was miscast. He was too obviously evil and that accent was a bizarre choice. He's supposed to look and sound like a hero on the outside. Ideally you should have Christopher Reeve or you know Robert Redford (similar to Winter Soldier).

    There's stuff in Snyder's movies that's enjoyable. Like the fight scenes in Man of Steel, Wonder Woman in BVS in general, that Batman warehouse fight. I genuinely do like the Lois/Clark romance in his movies. That was something that was an improvement on the previous films which was in the Silver Age in its attitude to women. I really wish that Justice League ended with Lois/Clark getting married since we never got that before.

    And to me the problem with Snyder is his narcissism and hypocrisy. He keeps saying fans are too nostalgic for the Donner movies. Okay fine....why is that then that your movies only feature Zod and Luthor, the villains most associated with Donner's films. Why is it that the new villain you introduce, Doomsday, literally a clone of Zod created by Luthor? Why is Luthor still a cackling moron like Hackman and not the only human who is a Brainiac-level intellect? Luthor uses Kryptonian tech to make Doomsday rather than his own stuff, similar to Luthor in the Superman Returns movie. If he isn't Luthor the great genius and Mad Scientist of the comics and the DCAU, then you are still trapped in Donnerworld and have no ground to claim for yourself.

    I mean seriously, if you're going to do Superman again...no more luthor or zod. At least for two movies. Bring in Brainiac, Metallo, Mxyzsptlk, Bizarro, Parasite. We are living in the age of the talking racoon, you can actually bring in the fun stuff.

  5. #5
    Astonishing Member The Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,288

    Default

    Yikes. Really glad he's not running the DC movies anymore

  6. #6
    Death becomes you Osiris-Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Memphis
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    Still baffled why Brainiac has never appeared in a Superman movie. Sure Lex is Superman's greatest for but do we really need him in six Superman movies?

  7. #7
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Osiris-Rex View Post
    Still baffled why Brainiac has never appeared in a Superman movie. Sure Lex is Superman's greatest for but do we really need him in six Superman movies?
    The same reason why the X-Men movies had everyone in leather and made jokes about yellow spandex, and why Ra's Al Ghul is some title passed down through the ages and not someone who dips in lazarus pits.

    The idea of superhero movies especially with superpowered ones were effects, believability and so on. With Brainiac you have to sell an alien character, you have to do the shields, you have to do AI, and you have to do the Bottle City thing, or the more recent one where he downloads the data and destroys the original. Zod remember was a totally minor figure in comics but Richard Donner figured he could sell an alien if he is just like Superman so Evil Kryptonian it is.

    But the MCU have now changed the game by putting in all that bizarre stuff back in movies. People once said that Mxyzsptlk is too bizarre for movies but after Guardians of the Galaxy that excuse doesn't work. If you can make a talking racoon into a character we can believe in and take seriously as a personality, you can do an imp from the 5th dimension.

  8. #8
    Astonishing Member Stanlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    4,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EsotericFailures View Post
    https://twitter.com/boomborks/status...73855402930176

    With Snyder definitely gone and possibly Henry Cavill's Superman likely gone as well, seems like it would be a good time to reflect on his Superman "trilogy" (more like 2 and a half movies).

    In this clip he seems to confirm the worst of what people have always thought about him. He's permanently in the Watchmen mindset (or his version of Watchmen, Alan Moore would disagree) and not in the Superman mindset. He seems dismissive of the idea that superhero movies should be escapist fantasy and that he always wanted to make deconstructive films (which is sort of silly when you haven't even properly constructed Superman yet).

    Thoughts? How will the Zack Snyder Superman era be seen in the future with this out there?
    There were no surprises in that clip. He is to Superman what Grant Morrison is to WW: someone whose EXTREME dislike for the character shows through in the work/choices made.

    I can't imagine anyone finding the interview responses startling.

  9. #9
    My Face Is Up Here Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EsotericFailures View Post
    https://twitter.com/boomborks/status...73855402930176

    With Snyder definitely gone and possibly Henry Cavill's Superman likely gone as well, seems like it would be a good time to reflect on his Superman "trilogy" (more like 2 and a half movies).

    In this clip he seems to confirm the worst of what people have always thought about him. He's permanently in the Watchmen mindset (or his version of Watchmen, Alan Moore would disagree) and not in the Superman mindset. He seems dismissive of the idea that superhero movies should be escapist fantasy and that he always wanted to make deconstructive films (which is sort of silly when you haven't even properly constructed Superman yet).

    Thoughts? How will the Zack Snyder Superman era be seen in the future with this out there?
    Wow. This was started only a week ago, I just now saw it and yet it's already past page 11.

    I understand getting mad when you put tons of work into something and then people endlessly bash it. But he should have seen it coming and probably did. It's hard to believe he did not know this would be divisive. It likely also irritates him to see the WB and the DCEU trying desperately to move away from his style and from everything he established. It must irritate him even more to see that moving away from it has made the DCEU leap in popularity to the point they've had two movies leap to a respectable MCU level of popularity.

    Part of me wants to say: "Hey, there's some has-been crying and shouting insults at the door. But since his membership has been revoked, who cares?"

    The one bad part is the loss of Cavill. They don't want to reboot Superman but they want to ignore and distance themselves from MoS and BvS. Sadly, that seems to mean ignoring Superman. Ironically, there could still be a Justice League 2 but now it would hinge on the popularity of Wonder Woman and Aquaman and probably would not even include Superman or Batman since they don't want to upstage their most popular characters, WW and Aquaman. Now there's irony.

    I personally would be fine if they did a "Hulk" with Superman. "Hulk" was not part of the MCU but when they did "The Incredible Hulk" movie, they just did a fast origin and got on with it. They could do that with Superman. The problem is that MoS and BvS are part of the DCEU. But they have been relegated to the level of "The Incredible Hulk" movie as in, "Yes it happened and it's part of the setting but let's just move on and not dwell on it".
    Power with Girl is better.

  10. #10
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Snyder was just trying to make kent into existentialist, utilitarian and moral libertarians.i mean the whole "be their hero, be their monument, be their angel. Or be none of it. you don't owe this world a damn thing. You never did" speech. Basically, reflects that. "maybe, There is more at stake than just our lives. There is the lives everyone around us. When the world finds out what you can do. It's going to change everything.our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human " from pa kent also pushes that. It's pretty harsh utilitarian perspective.

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,010

    Default

    Clark jumping Zod for threatening his mother destroying a truck that belonged to a sexual harasser were one of many things in MoS criticized by Superman fans.

  12. #12
    Astonishing Member DochaDocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Well, Clark jumping Zod for threatening his mother destroying a truck that belonged to a sexual harasser were one of many things in MoS criticized by Superman fans.
    Guess I didn't see many comments about Clark's jumping Zod in Smallville (killing him, on the other hand...).

    As for the truck, I thought it was overkill, too. I mean, it's an actual crime to do what he did, two wrongs don't make a right, etc.

  13. #13
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DochaDocha View Post
    I think this goes back into how Superman and his supporting characters get held to a higher standard than other heroes. Hippolyta seems to be allowed some moral grey area, but the Kents are supposed to be like Uncle Ben, the gold standard for parental and moral guidance.
    It also helps that Hippolyta's actions aren't followed by Diana. I didn't mind Jonathan's attitude about Clark hiding his powers as much on Lois & Clark where Clark and Martha seemed to think it was a bit extreme. I had more issue when it was something Martha and Clark shared in Man of Steel. The Kents can have flaws, for me, but they need to be flaws that Clark recognizes in most cases as flaws. For example if we have to have Clark as athlete in high school addressed, I'd prefer it to be Pa rather than Clark enamored of the idea, and Clark rather than Pa who sees it as being an issue of misusing his abilities.

  14. #14
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Ok. I don't understand what better here is. People keep saying that. What should clark's parents do? If clark doesn't want to "save lives and be a superhero" intead wants to be writer or something. How is that wrong? Shouldn't he get to have choices like the rest of us. I mean, how many of us do anything of service to the world or society. But, we all get to have our lives.

    Ok. Clark saves the kid and his secret is out. Then what? Can anybody say it won't blow up in his face and kill more people than he saved in the bus. Mobs are stupid. We live in a world that has religious fanaticism. You don't know what effect a guy like clark walking the earth will have on those nut jobs. Some may even declare he is false prophet, satan or the anti christ. Some may even resort to unspeakable violence . On top of that, there will be governments trying to get their hands on the kid. Countries may even go to war for the kid. So, would saving the kids be worth it if the end result is more destructive.

    I am just asking people to be a little utilitarian. Even if you don't believe in that. Just try to view it from that perspective.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 10-01-2019 at 11:28 AM.

  15. #15
    Invincible Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    26,376

    Default

    The Kents “aren’t” utilitarian though. That’s the point of them, to instill in Clark a moral sense of responsibility that he needs to help people whatever may be the cost to himself. While Clark himself can fall short of that at times the Kents are supposed to at the very least teach him he can’t just ignore people who need his help.

    The DCEU Kents don’t do this at all. Pa teaches Clark to hate and fear his “otherness”. Ma teaches him that he doesn’t have any responsibility to help if he doesn’t want to. They repeatedly warn him away from pursuing heroics to the point Pa gets himself idiotically killed because he is so terrified of outing his son. You might say that’s more “realistic” but then where is Clark’s moral fiber coming from? The answer in MOS is his space dad Jor-El who is everything the Kents are not: Rebellious against unjust authority, courageous, and principled. He’s the clear source of Clark’s “Superman” desire. He is also unsurprisingly the most popular character in the film based on the people I’ve talked to. He’s what Superman should be but isn’t.
    Last edited by Vordan; 10-01-2019 at 12:21 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •