Zack Snyder Explains Why DC Movies Can't Be Like Marvel Movies

[Castle]

[QUOTE]

Umm, Black Panther?

There was nothing controversial about Black Panther. lol. Also Disney does not make controversial movies, the only thing controversial about Black Panther was the CGI and that was not even really controversial but was standard criticism of any film that does not have good CGI.

Like how the X-Men movies were through Fox?

No and this is why James Mangold, Rob Liefeld and Ryan Reynolds all would have preferred for Fox not to have sold to Disney, an opinion they all shared in interviews before the fox/disney deal was sealed and also many other marvel comic fans who wanted marvel films to be more spread out.

Gotta agree on that. The blade to the head was just needlessly bloody.

But Snyder doesn't understand the concept of 'Less is more'.

As this thread was out before the Snyder Cut was released, It is fair to say Snyder not understanding that less is more can be debunked.

Snyder seems to be having a good year with the Snyder Cut and Army of the Dead, a lot of present comic book directors would wish they were him right now.... in his shoes, love or hate him at least he is taking control of everything that should be in the control of a director and this is why he will continue to gain respect as a credible film maker.

[The Cool Thatguy]

As this thread was out before the Snyder Cut was released, It is fair to say Snyder not understanding that less is more can be debunked.

Snyder seems to be having a good year with the Snyder Cut and Army of the Dead, a lot of present comic book directors would wish they were him right now.... in his shoes, love or hate him at least he is taking control of everything that should be in the control of a director and this is why he will continue to gain respect as a credible film maker.

Explain to me how a four hour release demonstrates a grasp of 'Less is more'?

Also, Army of the Dead was just terrible.

[Castle]

Explain to me how a four hour release demonstrates a grasp of 'Less is more'?

Because it gives the story a chance to breathe and the characters arcs to do more without feeling the need to jump into an action scene.

Also, Army of the Dead was just terrible.

Not by a Marvel vs DC standard that is carried over to movies not about marvel or DC.

In 2021 I would rather want to be in Zack Snyder shoes than the Russo brothers shoes.

[Metro]

Because it gives the story a chance to breathe and the characters arcs to do more without feeling the need to jump into an action scene.

That would mean something if the characters were well written or interesting to follow.
But they aren't.

Not by a Marvel vs DC standard that is carried over to movies not about marvel or DC.

Judging by the reviews it got, Army of the Dead is bad by a general standard

[The Cool Thatguy]

Because it gives the story a chance to breathe and the characters arcs to do more without feeling the need to jump into an action scene.

Only because it's presented in a format that never would have made it into theaters. So no, that's not evidence of his understanding 'less is more', thanks.

In 2021 I would rather want to be in Zack Snyder shoes than the Russo brothers shoes.

lol

Army of the Dead and his Justice League dump don't hold a candle to Infinity War or Endgame, in terms of profit, reception or cultural impact.

[Username taken]

Only because it's presented in a format that never would have made it into theaters. So no, that's not evidence of his understanding 'less is more', thanks.



lol

Army of the Dead and his Justice League dump don't hold a candle to Infinity War or Endgame, in terms of profit, reception or cultural impact.

Yeah, even bringing it to Netflix I believe that Extraction is still the most viewed movie on the platform ever.

It was produced by the Russos brothers.

[chicago_bastard]

No comic film is 100% faithful to the book, What many comic fans takes the most issue with, is when a director, writer or studio drastically changes the tone or completely ignores the message of the comics.

Which is exactly what Snyder's Watchmen did.

[WebLurker]

There was nothing controversial about Black Panther. lol. Also Disney does not make controversial movies, the only thing controversial about Black Panther was the CGI and that was not even really controversial but was standard criticism of any film that does not have good CGI.

There shouldn't have been, but seeing how there were certain pockets of online demographics seething that Marvel Studios was making a movie starring a black man (a preliminary step to white genocide or some other crap, if I recall correctly), it didn't exactly pass unscathed. Heck, seeing how unapologetic it was in centering itself from the perspective of black characters, esp. in regards to racial inequality, I'm honestly surprised that it wasn't more controversial.

All that said, I would concede that if one wants to argue that it was less controversial in its reception and more important in what it said and that it pushed the envelope further in terms of what kind of stories can be told in the superhero genre, that would be fair.

Also, wouldn't be so sure about Disney not making controversial movies. Look up the histories of Song of the South, The Black Cauldron, and Aladdin, and Pocahontas sometime. Even ignoring controversy over "moral issues, Fantasia and Alice in Wonderland were initially panned for being disrespectful to the source material one way or another.

No and this is why James Mangold, Rob Liefeld and Ryan Reynolds all would have preferred for Fox not to have sold to Disney, an opinion they all shared in interviews before the fox/disney deal was sealed and also many other marvel comic fans who wanted marvel films to be more spread out.

Look, let's get real here; none of the big name superhero movies are true auteur works or anything. Fox just happened to think that the profit was in stuff that appealed to you more.

[Castle]

There shouldn't have been, but seeing how there were certain pockets of online demographics seething that Marvel Studios was making a movie starring a black man (a preliminary step to white genocide or some other crap, if I recall correctly), it didn't exactly pass unscathed. Heck, seeing how unapologetic it was in centering itself from the perspective of black characters, esp. in regards to racial inequality, I'm honestly surprised that it wasn't more controversial.
.

Wesley Snipes and Will Smith already played black superheroes. Black Panther is not the first comic film with a black leading man.
Also I think the other poster misspoke when he said controversial themes. I think he should have said gritter more mature themes

Look, let's get real here; none of the big name superhero movies are true auteur works or anything. .

AUTEUR DEFINITION

“An auteur is a filmmaker whose individual style and complete control over all elements of production give a film its personal and unique stamp.” Creating meaning that only he can, using the tools of filmmaking, through the lens of his mind and personality.
https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/auteur-theory/

In other words, Auteur just means what many of us have said here many times. When filmmakers have complete creative control of the entire film. Kevin Feige and Disney are the ones who have the real power and decides the outcome of Marvel films not the film makers. it is only fair to say Marvel films are not auteurs.

The Snyder Cut is the best recent example of an Auteur comic film while the Joss Whedon 2016 film is not. Although you can go back 22 years ago with Bryan Singer's X-Men films and Guillermo del Toro's Blade or Chris Nolan's Batman to define auteur superhero films.


Auteur movies are some of the easiest kind of films to make. Even easier than cooperate factory movies.

[Kirby101]

Sounds like James Gunn is an Auteur.

[Dark Soul # 7]

Sounds like James Gunn is an Auteur.

Same with Taika Waititi.

[The Cool Thatguy]

I've seen more variety in tone and emphasize in the MCU movies than I've seen from Snyder/DCU, honestly.

[CosmiComic]

Does a movie need to be made by an auteur to be good?

[Castle]

Same with Taika Waititi.

Sounds like James Gunn is an Auteur.

I don't think they are. I am sorry to say this to some fans but they wont qualify as auteur because Gunn and Waititi are not the people that decided Thor 3 and GOTG should be comedy when their source material are not so. Disney decided that because Disney mostly makes fun and light-hearted films and they got directors that will go along with like Gunn and Waititi.

The only directors that has some claim of been called Autuers in the MCU are the directors that were involved in their phase 1 films Kenneth Branagh and Jon Favreau. Although this may still be limited because they had to work within the reigns of Feige's plans to build up to the first Avengers film.

I don't think some really know what autuer deeply means, Bryan Singer is one of the best examples for a comic book director who is autuer. Almost through out his xmen films he hated superhero costumes and even though some fans begged him to even have some slight kind of costumes , he refused.


Singer's love of leather in black is an infamous joke in comic films . When Mathew Vaughn did First Class, Vaughn gave some fans the olive branch of costumes but when Singer returned in DOFP, he got rid of the costumes again to many fans annoyance.

That is what an auteur director is, they 99% call the shot of everything about the film and can even overrule a lot of things about an earlier film, let see what will happen in Disney studios if a director says he does not want his characters wearing costumes.

Disney cannot allow that because if you get rid of the costumes you hurt the sales of toys because the toy action figures are wearing the costumes from the films, not to mention take away some of the vibrant colourful tone of their films that is a must for them.

So for this reason, no director in the MCU can be against costumes as Bryan Singer was and still be allowed to direct 3.8 out of 4 films, since He will not have that type of creative control under Marvel Studios Disney.

[Metro]

You lose an amazing amount of credibility when you're saying people like Taika Waititi and James Gunn weren't the people who decided their movies should be humorous, it's almost like you don't know any of their work at all.