Zack Snyder's JUSTICE LEAGUE on HBOmax in 2021!

[CosmiComic]

Is it good from a film-making perspective only though? None of the shots were framed like a Renaissance Painting (except for the slo-mo Last Stand Of The Valkyries scene, I guess), and none of the male characters once collapsed to their knees screaming with rage. Also, even though Thor's dad died, it was not a serious and mature film like a Scorcese film because in other scenes there were jokes, which are not serious and mature.

I don't get how having jokes aren't mature.

I felt that the jokes overwhelmed the movie.
I did not care one bit about all the Asgardians being slaughtered or leaving on a refugee boat. I was just waiting for the next joke.

And for a movie titled Ragnarok, that left me kinda sad.

I really liked the movie but some of the humor was placed in the wrong place.

[sunofdarkchild]

Eh, I felt that the serious moments had no weight whatsoever. I felt absolutely nothing when Odin died or Asgard was destroyed. Yondu's death was a zillion times more impactful than anything in Ragnorock. Jokes aren't bad. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 was just as much of a comedy and still managed to have good emotional moments, and even the Dark Knight cracked plenty of jokes despite its dark tone. And the director can definitely handle emotional moments as Jojo Rabbit shows. Ragnorock just didn't balance the jokes and serious moments well to the point where the serious moments could be removed entirely and nothing would be lost from the film. Odin dying and Asgard being destroyed are more plot points than they are meaningful or impactful moments.

[C_Miller]

Because it is comic books. no one took it seriously in the first place. Ultra serious comic books movies are very important to the genre because they represent the genre development as a more serious art form from just harmless kids entertainment done to sell toys. there was a reason Chris Claremont, Alan Moore and Frank Miller all became superstar writers in the 70s and 80s.

This is a really depressing take that feels like it comes from a place of lack of self-confidence. I love comics, but I don't need to get worked up because some people don't see comics as a "serious art form." I don't care what people see comic books as. It doesn't affect my life and honestly, I am far more interested in the work of Jack Kirby, Roy Thomas, or Mike Allred for a modern example than the try hard "We Demand to be Taken Seriously!!!1!" work of Frank Miller and the ilk. I see the value in the latter and I enjoy some of it, but I don't understand why you're coming here trying to make it seem like one direction is inherently better than the other.

None of these movies are Taxi Driver or 2001: A Space Odyssey or Seven Samurai or The 400 Blows. Why are you trying so hard to defend the honor of a movie that frankly is not really all that different than any of the other movies?

[CosmiComic]

Do people still say 2001: A Space Odyssey is a great movie? It has great visuals but it's not good with characterization or even storyline outside of HAL

[Thezmage]

He or DC was forced to copy marvel style, WB even had to get Joss whedon himself. additionally who is the judge and jury to say for a fact his movies were not good post 2012? the unprofessional critics? anytime I hear Snyder movies are bad, they are always people who say marvel films are the best and this is what critics did, let's go back to 2016, all the critics who were praising civil war, were using BvS as the bashing head. it was ridiculous and very unprofessional. This is where I commend Grace Randolph because she was one of the few who called this out.

So your evidence is that they compared a good movie to a bad movie with a similar plot and this is now "unprofessional?" And now he was "forced to copy marvel style" by dumbing down Batman V Superman?

As for "who is the judge and jury to say for a fact his movies were not good post 2012," you were. You said that dumbed down movies are inherently bad, and his movies were very dumbed down. Both before and after 2012

I dont see any of those themes with thor, I think I even see that less when some were trying to argue black panther dealt deeply with colonialism when it is barely in the film. There seem to be a pattern of overexaggerating themes in marvel that are barely there.

thor been a superficial light hearted action comedy movies hurts any real take on dealing with themes because it is just had to take seriously or give the themes room to breathe, comparing that now with Sndyer, snyder was slammed for taken things too seriously. maybe what critics should do is accept both.

So because the themes aren't as "bash you over head" obvious they aren't there? I thought dumbed down movies were bad, now you're saying that movies have to be dumbed down so that their point comes across?

The villain of Ragnarok was LITERALLY the sins of their empire coming back to haunt them. There isn't ambiguity in this.

[C_Miller]

Do people still say 2001: A Space Odyssey is a great movie? It has great visuals but it's not good with characterization or even storyline outside of HAL

Can't speak for other people, but it's one of my all time favorites.

[SiegePerilous02]

Honestly, the work of Alan Moore, Frank Miller and Claremont seems more sophisticated relative to their medium than Snyder does with film. I wouldn't compare his work to theirs. Just because they were very good at it doesn't mean there is less value to other creators like Jack Kirby, William Marston, Roy Thomas, Siegel and Shuster, etc. who were able to inject levels of sophistication into their work relative to the time period they were writing in while still being aimed at younger audiences.

Claremont's writing has become dated in several ways, but at his best he was able to create more distinct layered characters than anything Snyder has managed in his films. If anything, some of the praise for this one seems to come from toning down the pretentiousness of BvS a bit.

Do people still say 2001: A Space Odyssey is a great movie? It has great visuals but it's not good with characterization or even storyline outside of HAL

Yes, as far as I'm aware. It is mostly a visual experience, but as film is a visual medium it can convey ideas through visuals and have sophistication in ways that don't rely just on conventional character arcs or straight forward storylines.

Anyway, I don't think some high art cinema is ever going to come out of studio driven superhero movies that also slap the characters on lunch boxes. They are CGI laden action fests. Let's be honest about what we're dealing with here, it's ok to like that stuff and they can be very well done relative to the genre of entertainment they are in. But none of these are ending up in the Criterion Collection for a reason

[CosmiComic]

Honestly, the work of Alan Moore, Frank Miller and Claremont seems more sophisticated relative to their medium than Snyder does with film. I wouldn't compare his work to theirs. Just because they were very good at it doesn't mean there is less value to other creators like Jack Kirby, William Marston, Roy Thomas, Siegel and Shuster, etc. who were able to inject levels of sophistication into their work relative to the time period they were writing in while still being aimed at younger audiences.

Claremont's writing has become dated in several ways, but at his best he was able to create more distinct layered characters than anything Snyder has managed in his films. If anything, some of the praise for this one seems to come from toning down the pretentiousness of BvS a bit.



Yes, as far as I'm aware. It is mostly a visual experience, but as film is a visual medium it can convey ideas through visuals and have sophistication in ways that don't rely just on conventional character arcs or straight forward storylines.

Anyway, I don't think some high art cinema is ever going to come out of studio driven superhero movies that also slap the characters on lunch boxes. They are CGI laden action fests. Let's be honest about what we're dealing with here, it's ok to like that stuff and they can be very well done relative to the genre of entertainment they are in. But none of these are ending up in the Criterion Collection for a reason

I guess I don't think 2001 is as great as everyone says. But then again I think Kubrick isn't great at emotions at all.

I don't think corporations will produce superhero movies which are high art. That being said, those movies should still strive to be as good as possible. They are based on comics which many artists did put plenty of artistic effort into. It just gets watered down by studio politics

I do think sometimes movies considered high art are more celebrated for their influence than for actually being good themselves.

[Kirby101]

2001 is still high on the list of 100 greatest movies ever. And deserves to be there.

[CosmiComic]

2001 is still high on the list of 100 greatest movies ever. And deserves to be there.

I guess so. Although that might be a discussion for another day

[Kirby101]

I guess so. Although that might be a discussion for another day

The question was, is it still regarded as a great film. Yes it is. Doesn't mean you need to like it. For me, one of my favorite movies of all time.

[CosmiComic]

The question was, is it still regarded as a great film. Yes it is. Doesn't mean you need to like it. For me, one of my favorite movies of all time.

Oh, I was just questioning whether it's as great as everyone says. I didn't make that clear. I still like it.

[Username taken]

Oh, I was just questioning whether it's as great as everyone says. I didn't make that clear. I still like it.

I watched 2001 and I was absolutely bored to tears.

But like I said before, it doesn't change the fact that the movie is an absolute technical marvel and was revolutionary in its storytelling. And I can understand the complexity of the narrative but the movie just isn't for me.

The movie is still regarded as one of the best ever, but it's not a movie I like.

[CosmiComic]

I watched 2001 and I was absolutely bored to tears.

But like I said before, it doesn't change the fact that the movie is an absolute technical marvel and was revolutionary in its storytelling. And I can understand the complexity of the narrative but the movie just isn't for me.

The movie is still regarded as one of the best ever, but it's not a movie I like.

I agree it's technically very well made, and I enjoyed it. I just feel technical guys like Kubrick struggle with basic human emotions. The characters in his movies aren't relatable or human, except ironically HAL. So I feel that prevents a lot of his movies being truly great.

[Rincewind]

I agree it's technically very well made, and I enjoyed it. I just feel technical guys like Kubrick struggle with basic human emotions. The characters in his movies aren't relatable or human, except ironically HAL. So I feel that prevents a lot of his movies being truly great.

I totally understand that. But I'd like to point out that Kubrick set out to make an adult science fiction movie that explored Mankind's place in the universe that would invoke a sense of awe and wonder. He also collaborated with Arthur C Clarke, a renowned sci fi writer who was more interested in doing big ideas over smaller human stories. The end result is a critically acclaimed movie with stunning visuals that hold up over 50 years later. Kubrick made the exact movie he wanted which is regarded as a masterpiece.

Also it looks pretty if you watch it stoned.