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

[WebLurker]

Execution, used from an MCU POV of man of steel just does not work.

Never saw Man of Steel, but seems like it was generally considered mediocre, at best. Did see BvS and the rest, and they were not good at all, compared to the best of the MCU or on their own terms. So, my point still stands; you might like the intents of the Snyderverse better than the intents of the MCU, but the latter succeeded at what it was trying to be and that's what matters in the end.

Cartoons has more to with movies than you think. it is relevant because it is still some kind of adaption and it can be embarrassing if a cartoon is considered more intellectual stimulating with more respectable mature topics than movies, because you expect cartoons to be more watered down.

In other words, nothing at all.

Marvel 90s TAS is really a good example. it is embarrassing to watch what Thor has become in MCU films, when a 90s cartoon character like Morph was giving far more convincing treatment of a person that has depression, trauma and even bipolar disorder. however in TAS the writers from the beginning said, that they want to tell more adult stories, Disney has said Avengers films are more for ''kids''. so the differences will clearly factually show dealing with themes. Movies are supposed to more impressive in content than cartoons and when they are not, it weakens the reception of the movies.

So, how's that working for you?

If MCU movies cannot even push stories boundaries as 90s cartoon. what makes anyone think disney cartoon will?

Because some of the best cartoons of today are being made by Disney and other studios under their ownership, stuff that has higher levels of craftsmanship than the standards of the '80s and '90s.

this is why cartoon and movies are still kind of linked., because yous see, how they adapt the stories matters.

Seeing how the cartoons and the movies are being made by different production companies, that's not logical.

Wandavision that I saw which is live action was for the most part pretty weak in writing. Morph's mental issues in TAS was more cynical and scarier to watch because TAS from the onset, the writers said, comedy would not drive the 90s cartoon and most of the stories will be taken seriously and if you read some of the legit criticisms of wandavsion, the comedy aspect of the show was not necessary , MCU used that as a clutch to play down a character who clearly has seriously mental health issues. Looking to future means growing. this is the sole reason, any story that gets dumbed down will never age well.

Seeing how well the X-Men cartoon has aged, I don't exactly find you that convincing.

MODAK has nothing big to do with Marvel MCU though. Not like Deadpool or Spiderman. Not to mention Deadpool and Spiderman are well established main stream characters, that should mean they should be getting great cartoons like Batman and Hallie Quinn. That is not a fallacy.

And you're moving your goalposts. Again.

[Castle]

Never saw Man of Steel, but seems like it was generally considered mediocre, at best. Did see BvS and the rest, and they were not good at all, compared to the best of the MCU or on their own terms. So, my point still stands; you might like the intents of the Snyderverse better than the intents of the MCU, but the latter succeeded at what it was trying to be and that's what matters in the end.

To be precise no. Most people did not call it mediocre, apart from maybe the people who are so into the Marvel vs DC bias stuff . First of all, it is a well made film. the VFX alone and action scenes which seems to be the most popular thing here for some comic fans were much well done artistically than the MCU films. even the Snyder naysayers, will give him that. So it was not mediocre artistically. actually a film like Far from Home, Captain Marvel, Black Panther story and film objectively would be seen more as a mediocre film to man of steel because not only are the technical areas of black panther weak like the CGI or bland cinematography , the main story itseelf of the two characters, who are quite alike and share a kin were not giving much compelling story to fill as Clark and Zod.

So, how's that working for you?

Pretty good, since there are now more calls for comic films to start challenging itself again and move away from action driven narrative and humor all the time. Not to mention the good thing that even many X-MEN fans continue to show concerns about how Disney will tackle many xmen stories as they watch MCU stuff and since how limited it is. as I said, it was discussed on X books this week.

And I dont think you have done the best job making up false claims about the xmen universe to actual people who read comics that xmen was also light hearted and funny. I am not even sure anyone can write that on X books. lol, that would not even go well on the marvel forum. where even non xmen fans has said, they will rather not live in the xmen universe.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...X-Men-Universe

Seeing how well the X-Men cartoon has aged, I don't exactly find you that convincing.

If you want to know the real substance of a show, look back in 26 years and see all the things you now like even more now as adult.
lol at me reading that a show that treats mental illness and depression as the serious issue it is has aged but movies and tv show that turn it into a joke is in fashion. LOL.

And you're moving your goalposts. Again.

Not factually so in moving goal post. Modok is even less connected to anything mainstream marvel than their past Netflix Shows. You dont even hear anything about it. Batman and Harley Quinn are the Marvel exact equivalent of Spiderman and Deadpool, so they do deserve the same kind of high quality animations.

[Castle]

When did Disney say the Avengers films are more for kids?

Or is this another one of your very long list of false claims (i actually listed them out earlier, I'll probably add this one to it).

I honestly don't have problem with your hatred of the MCU, that's not an issue. The false claims within your arguments are hurting your own points. You keep making reference to the Raimi movies which I doubt you've even watched where you said that "Peter was in college".

You can just make up stuff and say people said so and so...that's just wrong.

Becuase Disney has said they make comic movies for kids in ways that I think is superficial. too bad I cannot scan it, but this has been said in a spiderman comic book. It's good you even asked this question, because Avengers and Man of steel are almost the same in plot. the only difference is Snyder wrote and directed Man of Steel with the right tone and stakes. Avengers is more of
funny light hearted . that style of avengers is what is done in a film driven most to appeal to kids.

Also I can give you a film style bonus. whenever you are watching a film, especially comic films and you notice how extremely colourful they are and too unrealistically it is, those kinds of films are more made for kids. This is a well known issue in comic book films as far back as Batman and Robin. not saying adult cannot enjoy that style, but they are not the main most important people they need in terms of life is making you grow up.

A kids movie will ...is tossing Loki aside as Hulk did and everyone laughs in cinema and making jokes when you are supposed to be saving people.

An adult movie, is Superman killing Zod on the spot, because that is how police officers or FBI agents act when someone is committing an act of terrorism. which is what Loki and Zod were doing in man of steel and avengers, but you don't really get that feeling in Avengers because only a kids movie will try and make what Loki is doing in the film, fun than very scary.

You can just make up stuff and say people said so and so...that's just wrong.

Also it is you who keep saying things that are wrong like Raimi Spiderman films have more humor than the Holland films. I am not the one that made up what Holland and Feige has said in the past. I just quote their own words and give my own fair opinions, usually factually backed up by other marvel films or tv shows from the past to explain why some of things you hear now, is way too superficial to believe.

Watching this clip. what Tom Holland said, about Homecoming and how Peter can not use his fist , makes zero sense.

[Kirby101]

Is it that hard to understand the meanings of objective and subjective?

[Thezmage]

Execution, used from an MCU POV of man of steel just does not work.

Yes, used from perspective of good and mature superhero movies with strong themes and good execution, none of Snyder's DCU films work.

Cartoons has more to with movies than you think. it is relevant because it is still some kind of adaption and it can be embarrassing if a cartoon is considered more intellectual stimulating with more respectable mature topics than movies, because you expect cartoons to be more watered down.

Yeah, it sure is embarrassing how all of that describes DC's cartoons vs their movies.

Marvel 90s TAS is really a good example. it is embarrassing to watch what Thor has become in MCU films, when a 90s cartoon character like Morph was giving far more convincing treatment of a person that has depression, trauma and even bipolar disorder. however in TAS the writers from the beginning said, that they want to tell more adult stories, Disney has said Avengers films are more for ''kids''. so the differences will clearly factually show dealing with themes. Movies are supposed to more impressive in content than cartoons and when they are not, it weakens the reception of the movies.

You're going to need to provide a source for that "kids" quote.

If MCU movies cannot even push stories boundaries as 90s cartoon. what makes anyone think disney cartoon will? this is why cartoon and movies are still kind of linked., because yous see, how they adapt the stories matters.

Right, if Snyder can't even get as mature as a 90s Batman cartoon, that's a sign he's just not capable of making very mature stories.

Wandavision that I saw which is live action was for the most part pretty weak in writing. Morph's mental issues in TAS was more cynical and scarier to watch because TAS from the onset, the writers said, comedy would not drive the 90s cartoon and most of the stories will be taken seriously and if you read some of the legit criticisms of wandavsion, the comedy aspect of the show was not necessary , MCU used that as a clutch to play down a character who clearly has seriously mental health issues. Looking to future means growing. this is the sole reason, any story that gets dumbed down will never age well.

If you thought Wanda's issues were played down when they were the focus of the show, then you didn't really watch it. And "crutch" or no crutch, the comedy didn't prevent the show from being so much darker and more mature than anything Snyder ever made was.

MODAK has nothing big to do with Marvel MCU though. Not like Deadpool or Spiderman. Not to mention Deadpool and Spiderman are well established main stream characters, that should mean they should be getting great cartoons like Batman and Hallie Quinn. That is not a fallacy.

Yeah, what does an Iron Man enemy have to do with the MCU anyways? It's not like Iron Man is big in the MCU or anything.

It got made because many DC and Snyder fans fought for it for 5 years after the disappointment of the Whdeon film. The release the Snyder Cut movement raged on for years until WB agreed.

To say it was desperation for streaming is laughable since it was the Joss Whedon 2016 film that was desperate. Desperate to be something Snyder never tended it to be. Avengers 3.

It "raged for years" ineffectively, only getting made once AT&T had a streaming service to advertise for.

[Thezmage]

Is it that hard to understand the meanings of objective and subjective?

If you're an Objectivist it really is.

[Rincewind]

Is it that hard to understand the meanings of objective and subjective?

For most, no. For some, I'm thinking it's never going to happen.

[Castle]

Yes, used from perspective of good and mature superhero movies with strong themes and good execution, none of Snyder's DCU films work.
.

As said by mostly? because it is more about Marvel vs DC to some than the actual events of the movie.

Yeah, it sure is embarrassing how all of that describes DC's cartoons vs their movies.

What DC movies? it is not Wonder Woman, Joker, Man of Steel or even Batman v Superman or the Snyder Cut or the Nolan movies.

. And "crutch" or no crutch, the comedy didn't prevent the show from being so much darker and more mature than anything Snyder ever made was.

Cybrog's sad story of depression and abandonment arc was more cut throat than Wanda in Wandavsion.

If you thought Wanda's issues were played down when they were the focus of the show, then you didn't really watch it

Actually it was played down. The story was also extremely very very thin and over stretched with little depth.

[Username taken]

Becuase Disney has said they make comic movies for kids in ways that I think is superficial. too bad I cannot scan it, but this has been said in a spiderman comic book. It's good you even asked this question, because Avengers and Man of steel are almost the same in plot. the only difference is Snyder wrote and directed Man of Steel with the right tone and stakes. Avengers is more of
funny light hearted . that style of avengers is what is done in a film driven most to appeal to kids.

Don't scan it, just point us to the article and we'll read it ourselves. Other than that, I'll just add to the claims not backed by anything.

Also I can give you a film style bonus. whenever you are watching a film, especially comic films and you notice how extremely colourful they are and too unrealistically it is, those kinds of films are more made for kids. This is a well known issue in comic book films as far back as Batman and Robin. not saying adult cannot enjoy that style, but they are not the main most important people they need in terms of life is making you grow up.

A kids movie will ...is tossing Loki aside as Hulk did and everyone laughs in cinema and making jokes when you are supposed to be saving people.

An adult movie, is Superman killing Zod on the spot, because that is how police officers or FBI agents act when someone is committing an act of terrorism. which is what Loki and Zod were doing in man of steel and avengers, but you don't really get that feeling in Avengers because only a kids movie will try and make what Loki is doing in the film, fun than very scary.

If that's how you feel, then that's fine. So far it's just your opinion, there's no problem with this. No need to try to convince anyone otherwise or use the word "factual" when it's not really based on anything beyond your opinion.

Also it is you who keep saying things that are wrong like Raimi Spiderman films have more humor than the Holland films. I am not the one that made up what Holland and Feige has said in the past. I just quote their own words and give my own fair opinions, usually factually backed up by other marvel films or tv shows from the past to explain why some of things you hear now, is way too superficial to believe.

Nope, I didn't say that Raimi's movies were funnier than Watt's movies, I said Raimi's Spider-man movies had a lot more humor than a lot of MCU movies. Anyone's that actually watched the movies won't really need to argue this.

Watching this clip. what Tom Holland said, about Homecoming and how Peter can not use his fist , makes zero sense.

Why doesn't it make sense? It's a directoral choice and if the movie came out good, then that's great.

[Castle]

Is it that hard to understand the meanings of objective and subjective?

James Cameron Avatar or Snyder's JL Cut is a better made film artistically than Endgame. That is objective.

Endgame is way better than Avatar and Snyder Cut because I am a huge Marvel fan and have watched their films faithfully and their characters speak to me. That is subjective.

Whoever said, this is hard? No one has.

[Username taken]

James Cameron Avatar or Snyder's JL Cut is a better made film artistically than Endgame. That is objective.

Endgame is way better than Avatar and Snyder Cut because I am a huge Marvel fan and have watched their films faithfully and their characters speak to me. That is subjective.

Whoever said, this is hard? No one has.

You need to understand the difference between objective and subjective.

If you're saying it's an objective fact, then you have to be able to prove said claim "objectively".

Since you're saying its objective, prove that JL and Avatar were better made than Endgame. Note, I am using your own words.

Without you being able to do that, then it's just subjective.

[Rincewind]

James Cameron Avatar or Snyder's JL Cut is a better made film artistically than Endgame. That is objective.

Endgame is way better than Avatar and Snyder Cut because I am a huge Marvel fan and have watched their films faithfully and their characters speak to me. That is subjective.

Whoever said, this is hard? No one has.

So you do not understand the difference between objective and subjective. Thank you for confirming this.

[green_garnish]

So you do not understand the difference between objective and subjective. Thank you for confirming this.

I gotta come to Castle's defense on this one. There are standards, conventions, techniques that can all be held up to any given movie to determine how well made it is. These are created primarily by the professionals themselves, in each discipline that goes into making films.

Saying that avatar and Snyder JL cut are better made films artistically than Endgame is an objective statement. It just happens to be objectively wrong (though it's a much closer game with Avatar than any Snyder film). It demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of the filmmaking process, but as long as someone is convinced that they do actually have this understanding, this discussion will never end.

[Castle]

You need to understand the difference between objective and subjective.

If you're saying it's an objective fact, then you have to be able to prove said claim "objectively".

Since you're saying its objective, prove that JL and Avatar were better made than Endgame. Note, I am using your own words.

Without you being able to do that, then it's just subjective.

Here is the best way to understand it. Everyone should go to film school and let the experts teach you how to make or write a film and what to do to make a good art even better. that is objective. Most of the comments here I give, I say it from that angle.

This is why when I objectivity said, The Dark Knight had far better VFX than Endgame or Black Panther because Nolan film style was more updated to the latest use of film camera and vfx technology that made the VFX of TDK look even more realistic than normal, compared to the video game standard CGI of MCU films, someone stated asking me if I was high or on drugs and got himself unnecessarily banned. he was been subjective about the VFX of TDK and Black Panther, while I was been objective.


Let me just prove it, since you asked for evidence. can anyone really explain objectively how MCU has better CGI than this movie?



I may give some phase 1 marvel films the benefit of the doubt but not any phase 3 marvel films like Endgame or Black Panther.

And also Snyder has even gone further than Nolan in making comic book visual films. The Snyder Cut is as well done as Lord of the Rings. So let everyone just think about.

[Dunkelzahn]

Is it that hard to understand the meanings of objective and subjective?

Apperantly yes.