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

[ssupes]

Like the responses to the tweets about HBO Max. Not even related, and the first thing you see is Snyder cut shit.

It's not entirely unrelated. From what I have read on the DC Cinematic reddit the plan is that the snyder cut can just be shown on HBO and it won't cost warner bros anything (not sure on the logic of this) and from there it can be a massive success and warner bros will see the error of their ways and welcome back zack so he can complete his vision which will be the greatest film anthology of all time which will make all the marvel fans jealous.

[Superbat]

Momoa's trolling game is strong.

https://ign.com/articles/2019/11/01/...eeds-to-see-it

He says the special effects are done, but when Justice League was released scenes shot by Snyder were leaked and they were unfinished.

[Steven Caldwell]

I would love to had seen a christopher reeves/michael keaton batman vs superman. Given me being a 90's child, those were my guys.

[JAK]

I would love to had seen a christopher reeves/michael keaton batman vs superman. Given me being a 90's child, those were my guys.

That would have been interesting to see how Donner/Salkinds and Burton would have melded their respective cinematic tones and themes. And I've often said that, if such a movie had been done, the DCEU BvS would have done JL numbers.

[Powerboy]

That would have been interesting to see how Donner/Salkinds and Burton would have melded their respective cinematic tones and themes. And I've often said that, if such a movie had been done, the DCEU BvS would have done JL numbers.

I suspect it would have been Superman Meets Batman, not Superman versus Batman.

[Osiris-Rex]

I suspect it would have been Superman Meets Batman, not Superman versus Batman.

Why not just call it World's Finest? Or if they were worried people might not know what that is, Batman and Superman: World's Finest.

[JAK]

I suspect it would have been Superman Meets Batman, not Superman versus Batman.

Why not just call it World's Finest? Or if they were worried people might not know what that is, Batman and Superman: World's Finest.

Oh, certainly it'd be "World's Finest". BvS was a reference to the DCEU movie, not to what the Reeve/Keaton one would have been - sorry for the confusion on that.


And Osiris: Superman/Batman: World's Finest. Just saying. lol

[Powerboy]

Why not just call it World's Finest? Or if they were worried people might not know what that is, Batman and Superman: World's Finest.

Might as well. The live action meeting of Supergirl and Batwoman had Supergirl predicting they would make the World's Finest team knowing a lot of fans would not get the reference. I also could not help but notice that, at no point did they fight each other or even act hostile towards each other. Maybe that was to juxtapose it to the live action Superman/ Batman first meeting.

[Osiris-Rex]

Might as well. The live action meeting of Supergirl and Batwoman had Supergirl predicting they would make the World's Finest team knowing a lot of fans would not get the reference. I also could not help but notice that, at no point did they fight each other or even act hostile towards each other. Maybe that was to juxtapose it to the live action Superman/ Batman first meeting.

Kara is nice to everyone that isn't posing a threat to innocent people. Kate had time to observe that. And Kara was the one that initiated the contact. Whilst with Batman and Superman, it seemed obvious to Bruce
that Superman was a cause of innocent people getting hurt and it was Bruce that initiated contact with Superman. And Superman in turn was responding to the hostile actions of Batman towards him. If Supergirl had
shown up and destroyed half of Gotham I'm not sure Batwoman would have felt as friendly towards Supergirl.

[marhawkman]

Kara is nice to everyone that isn't posing a threat to innocent people. Kate had time to observe that. And Kara was the one that initiated the contact. Whilst with Batman and Superman, it seemed obvious to Bruce that Superman was a cause of innocent people getting hurt and it was Bruce that initiated contact with Superman. And Superman in turn was responding to the hostile actions of Batman towards him. If Supergirl had shown up and destroyed half of Gotham I'm not sure Batwoman would have felt as friendly towards Supergirl.

But, is it actually Superman's fault? It feels more reasonable to say that if not for Superman ALL of Gotham would have been destroyed.

From a certain PoV Batman sounds like a spoiled child. "Wah! you only saved half of my town and not the whole thing! How dare you pretend to be a hero when you can't single handedly defeat an entire army of super-powered aliens without collateral damage!"

It's kinda ridiculous to expect ANYONE to be able to stop an army of Kryptonians from destroying things. It says a lot about Batman that he would heap that burden on Superman.

[Agent Z]

It's always funny to me how much the people who hate Snyder's Superman miss the fact that Batman's irrational hatred of Superman is supposed to be seen as irrational.

I remember on Cracked.com some poster suggested that the next movie should have Batman killing Superman because he was a menace. This was long before BvS was actually announced.

[Ascended]

It's always funny to me how much the people who hate Snyder's Superman miss the fact that Batman's irrational hatred of Superman is supposed to be seen as irrational.

I remember on Cracked.com some poster suggested that the next movie should have Batman killing Superman because he was a menace. This was long before BvS was actually announced.

Oh, Bruce is totally the villain in that story. He's just....the worst. I don't know how people can miss it, but public perception is a major thing and we all "know" that Batman is a hero.

[JAK]

It's always funny to me how much the people who hate Snyder's Superman miss the fact that Batman's irrational hatred of Superman is supposed to be seen as irrational.

I remember on Cracked.com some poster suggested that the next movie should have Batman killing Superman because he was a menace. This was long before BvS was actually announced.

Oh, Bruce is totally the villain in that story. He's just....the worst. I don't know how people can miss it, but public perception is a major thing and we all "know" that Batman is a hero.

It's not just that, though: his perspective and motivation is by far the most "fleshed-out" in the movie and the one we spend the most time with (certainly the theatrical cut), so the audience gravitates towards it and understands it, even if they know it's misguided. The resolution of his conflict (one way or the other) becomes the payoff (aka the end of the fight). Everything else, due to that, is just kinda there (narratively).

[manwhohaseverything]

It's not just that, though: his perspective and motivation is by far the most "fleshed-out" in the movie and the one we spend the most time with (certainly the theatrical cut), so the audience gravitates towards it and understands it, even if they know it's misguided. The resolution of his conflict (one way or the other) becomes the payoff (aka the end of the fight). Everything else, due to that, is just kinda there (narratively).

Sure, it is more like the joker's perspective. The movie focused more on bruce because it needed to. Bruce is the clear 'bad guy' of the story. Alfred rebukes him time and again. It is made clear when he becomes joe chill completely and tries to kill clark for something that he had minimum control over.

[JAK]

Sure, it is more like the joker's perspective. The movie focused more on bruce because it needed to. Bruce is the clear 'bad guy' of the story. Alfred rebukes him time and again. It is made clear when he becomes joe chill completely and tries to kill clark for something that he had minimum control over.

Yep. But just after that point (when he becomes Joe Chill, essentially, as you said), the conflict that the audience has most closely followed (one could call it the main conflict of the film) is resolved. But while Batman is presented as wrong, he's not really presented as crazy - it's shown early on why he came to that place and it's presented as more than understandable, so the audience doesn't break off from his motivations from a character perspective, even if they don't agree with his desired outcome. I wouldn't say they're "on his side"... but they're not "not on his side" either. If that makes any sense.

And I think that's by design: if the audience split from him completely, his "redemption" (quick as it was) wouldn't have any weight.