Which do you prefer Zack Snyder’s Justice League or Infinity War-Endgame?

[lowfyr]

I'm not sure why Snyder thinks heroes wantonly killing is ok. I didn't even like it when Hawkeye did it in Endgame

I think for Snyder a hero has to be like Rohrschach. Even if he did never understand that Moore did not mean that Rohrschach is a good example for being a hero.
He would take the most positive hero and make him "dark and gritty". Reminds me of comics in the early 90s

[lowfyr]

Wonder what I have said that counts as trolling? lol

I really hope the mods see this and does something about this. People discuss logical film making and the art of movies getting called trolls for doing just that should not be the case here since it hurts a thread credibility.



it is not fair or right that a fan of a series will tell another fan of another series that their movies don't have any emotions. as I said on the avatar box office record thread, this is the sole reason I don't do fan battles pov, instead I try to draw out as much art and craft objectively went into both series.

Also given better performances is not really true either because the film style of Avatar was mostly motion caption, Motion Capture is maybe even more difficult than voice acting and we know how many actors have said voice work is even harder than just acting on screen,


There is a difference. Avatar was all in James Cameron's mind. It’s a one man ship where he is the captain, crew member and first officer. if Avatar or Titanic had sunk, it was all on him. I don't feel the Russos had any of that pressure since the Russos just model and window dressed IW/Endgame for Dinsey. What James Cameron did with Avatar is how Snyder made The Snyder Cut. yes, there is a difference.

"People discuss logical film making and the art of movies getting called trolls for doing just that should not be the case here since it hurts a thread credibility."
Oh the irony

[Dark Soul # 7]

And that's before we get into what Snyder's movies tend to say. To call his worldview nihilistic would be fair, if somewhat melodramatic. He clings to toxic, outdated ideas of what defines heroism, preferring his heroes to be soulless if not gleeful killing machines for reasons that his films never bother to justify or explore in any meaningful way. Why does Wonder Woman decapitate an utterly defeated and broken Steppenwolf, as he's literally being thrown off the planet via a portal? Because real heroes murder their defeated enemies in slow mo, that's why! There's not even lip service given to any idea that killing Steppenwolf may have been necessary. It sure didn't appear to be. Superman kicked his ass like a 6th grader slumming it in Kindergarten. But mercy is utterly foreign to Snyder's heroes, because it's utterly foreign to Snyder. Being a hero in a Snyder movie means either killing, without remorse or mercy, or dying "heroically" in some kind of grandiose sacrificial gesture.

I can at least kinda get why they had to kill Steppenwolf. He's a genocidal monster whose plan they barely stopped so leaving him around to possibly return and finish the job is an option I can understand them not wanting to leave on the table. Doing it in a gratuitious Mortal Kombat style Fatality was quite excessive though, and it would've been way cooler to debut Darkseid's Omega Beams by having him erase Steppenwolf as he's flying towards the portal.

There is however another scene in the movie that perfectly captures your point. In Wonder Woman's first scene we get her confrontation with the terrorists, one of the scenes that's really cool overall in both versions of the film. in Snyder's though we get no male gazing butt shots and just more of the cool action. Towards the end of the scene Wonder Woman gets rid of the bomb by jumping through the roof, busting a hole through which is ok since the bomb was going to destroy a few city blocks and she had to get it as far away as possible. Then she comes back and blocks the terrorist leader's machine gun fire with her bracelets. So far so good, it's a very cool little action set piece. Then the terrorist re-loads at which point I'm thinking "Dumbass, now she'll just zip up to you and punch you out." WW does not do this, instead he's allowed to reload and gets another chance at firing the guns at the hostages so I'm thinking "Ok, so she'll zip over while blocking the bullets and then punch him out, that's a bit unnecessary but it'll look cool." But nope, instead she slams her bracelets together and obliterates the guy with the resulting magic shockwave and causes some serious and completely pointless property damage. It's a show of extremely over-excessive force that still bugs me since there were much simpler option available.

[The Cool Thatguy]

I can at least kinda get why they had to kill Steppenwolf. He's a genocidal monster whose plan they barely stopped so leaving him around to possibly return and finish the job is an option I can understand them not wanting to leave on the table. Doing it in a gratuitious Mortal Kombat style Fatality was quite excessive though, and it would've been way cooler to debut Darkseid's Omega Beams by having him erase Steppenwolf as he's flying towards the portal.

There is however another scene in the movie that perfectly captures your point. In Wonder Woman's first scene we get her confrontation with the terrorists, one of the scenes that's really cool overall in both versions of the film. in Snyder's though we get no male gazing butt shots and just more of the cool action. Towards the end of the scene Wonder Woman gets rid of the bomb by jumping through the roof, busting a hole through which is ok since the bomb was going to destroy a few city blocks and she had to get it as far away as possible. Then she comes back and blocks the terrorist leader's machine gun fire with her bracelets. So far so good, it's a very cool little action set piece. Then the terrorist re-loads at which point I'm thinking "Dumbass, now she'll just zip up to you and punch you out." WW does not do this, instead he's allowed to reload and gets another chance at firing the guns at the hostages so I'm thinking "Ok, so she'll zip over while blocking the bullets and then punch him out, that's a bit unnecessary but it'll look cool." But nope, instead she slams her bracelets together and obliterates the guy with the resulting magic shockwave and causes some serious and completely pointless property damage. It's a show of extremely over-excessive force that still bugs me since there were much simpler option available.

Heh, here we go again

[Agent Z]

Surely, you knew the answer to this thread?

[CosmiComic]

"Everyone says that about [Christopher Nolan’s] Batman Begins. 'Batman’s dark.' I’m like, okay, 'No, Batman’s cool.' He gets to go to a Tibetan monastery and be trained by ninjas. Okay? I want to do that. But he doesn’t, like, get raped in prison. That could happen in my movie. If you want to talk about dark, that’s how that would go." - Zack Snyder, 2019

"Oh like, ‘Batman killed a guy [in Batman v Superman’. I’m like, ‘Really? Wake the fuck up.' So I guess that’s what I’m saying about, once you’ve lost your virginity to this fucking movie and then you come and say to me something like, ‘My superhero wouldn’t do that’, I’m like, ‘Are you serious?’ I’m like down the fucking road on that. You know what I mean? It’s a cool point. Look, I’m 100% fine with it. It’s a cool point of view to be like, ‘My heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t lie to America. My heroes didn’t embezzle money. My heroes didn’t commit any atrocities.’ I’m like, ‘That’s cool but you’re living in a fucking dreamworld.'" - Zack Snyder, 2019

But what's the point of heroes being abused and/or violent? Unless he's trying to criticize that kind of activity, why do heroes need to descend to that?

I think for Snyder a hero has to be like Rohrschach. Even if he did never understand that Moore did not mean that Rohrschach is a good example for being a hero.
He would take the most positive hero and make him "dark and gritty". Reminds me of comics in the early 90s

Yeah, Rohrschach is not one to be emulated. IMO the problem with dark and gritty heroes is their black-and-white thinking. It's always "I'm right, they're wrong, they die!" rather than thinking about the wider consequences of things

[Dark Soul # 7]

Heh, here we go again

I'm actually more ok with the destruction in Man of Steel than I am with this particular scene.

In MoS Superman is still fairly unexperienced with his powers and especially in fighting somebody as strong as him, and as hellbent on revenge as Zod. With that situation and their sheer strength it's no wonder that so much was destroyed. And since Zod is as strong as Superman there's no real prison on earth that can hold him, so killing him is a last ditch and desperate course because the unexperienced Superman couldn't see any other option. The presentation of this is a bit clunky, but there's a reason behind it.

WW was fighting a regular dude and absolutely didn't need to blast him to ash and open up several large holes in the wall with her god wave. Just punch him and be done with it so he can stand trial.

[CosmiComic]

I'm actually more ok with the destruction in Man of Steel than I am with this particular scene.

In MoS Superman is still fairly unexperienced with his powers and especially in fighting somebody as strong as him, and as hellbent on revenge as Zod. With that situation and their sheer strength it's no wonder that so much was destroyed. And since Zod is as strong as Superman there's no real prison on earth that can hold him, so killing him is a last ditch and desperate course because the unexperienced Superman couldn't see any other option. The presentation of this is a bit clunky, but there's a reason behind it.

WW was fighting a regular dude and absolutely didn't need to blast him to ash and open up several large holes in the wall with her god wave. Just punch him and be done with it so he can stand trial.

Yeah. I'm really not a fan of heroes just brutally killing their enemies, especially nowadays. WW had no reason to annihilate Roose Bolton

[Username taken]

This is probably one of the more lopsided polls in CBR.

[Castle]

Maybe, just maybe, you have good movie fans.

believe me this will be easier , However as you once said to me X-Men should have more films like captain marvel and I once had to unnecessary explain why good directors of movies -James Cameron or Christopher Nolan would have a hard time working with Kevin Fiege, forgive me if I am not into the good movies fans approach from your pov.

I shouldn't even bother. I really shouldn't.

You want us to praise your lord and master Snyder because he has such an original and compelling vision, but your evidence of that vision is that he's straight up lifted his entire visual construction from a far superior filmmaker? I knew you were a troll Castle, but come on.


.

LOL. Snyder is not my lord and master, Please I barely know the guy. Additionally, the scene is not a rip off. When a group of directors use some of the same style in a very similar genre with similar plots, you do end up with roughly the same thing. Saying JL is a rip off of LOTR is like saying Buffy or Harry Potter are ripping off each other because the two heroes once had to slay giant snakes.

Also, Snyder seems to have come a long way as a director, I think he is slightly now above Peter Jackson now. I am judging this based on Peter’s disappointing turn on The Hobbit Prequel Trilogy.

Additionally, stop calling me a troll. People need to stop calling others trolls simply because they dont like they film making opinions, which is very logical . It's so funny what counts as trolling this days. apparently saying Black Panther has no David Duke Villains, or MCU were never going to do r rated films in the future like The Snyder Cut or explaining why practical effects is superior to CGI is now called trolling.

Snyder would make a fine cinematographer. He has an eye for striking visuals, for composition onscreen. That's been true of all his films, even pre-DC. But he's not a good storyteller. He struggles to link his supposedly "epic" and dramatic shots with with plots, dialogue, or emotion that will resonate with his audiences. Which leaves much of his work a striking series of visuals in search of some kind of meaning. He wants the final shot of JL:SC to be this triumphal, utterly iconic expression of mythology, but because he's utterly failed to imbue his characters with emotion and motivation that the audience can connect to, it just sits there. It looks cool, but it doesn't SAY anything.

The Cut had some of the best story telling for this sort of movies. the 6 part split was the best decision he made. going forward, I think DC is going to be doing more of this. Story telling has never been Avengers films strength. Avengers always functioned more of the awe of crossovers than great story telling. however because that awe crossover factor has faded, Snyder could not really tap into that anymore. he really had to try harder than the Russos to create a story with the cut and he succeeded. There is just no need or hype for Justice League to assemble anymore because it has already gotten boring with Avengers by Endgame. this was a good thing because it gave Snyder a chance to move beyond what can now be seen now as a gimmick.

And that's before we get into what Snyder's movies tend to say. To call his worldview nihilistic would be fair, if somewhat melodramatic. He clings to toxic, outdated ideas of what defines heroism, preferring his heroes to be soulless if not gleeful killing machines for reasons that his films never bother to justify .

This theory only works in defence to action -comedy movies. to say his worldview is nihilistic is strange when marvel comics even has far more cynicism than Snyder does.

I wonder how you can come to the conclusion his ideas are outdated? when the reality is the world will react to superman the way Snyder descripted it in man of steel, the world would never treat threats like Loki, Ultron or Thanos as a joke. if anything is outdated or was never in style is treating high threat levels with jokes or over romanticising people with god like powers living among humans and expecting things to stay normal and fun

And, just as a purely personal note, there is NO WAY you will ever convince me that Zach Snyder doesn't agree with Lex Luthor. Everything his films have to say about Superman is that Luthor was utterly correct about the alien: his every shot composted to emphasize Clark's disconnect from humanity, his lordly and otherworldy presence. Zach Snyder doesn't respect or love Superman. Zach Snyder is TERRIFIED of Superman. But he also wants to worship Superman. He's the Space Daddy to right all our wrongs and use his amazing powers, so far beyond any mortal man or woman, to show us the way. I've said it before on these forums, Zach Snyder's Superman is special because he's an alien. Everything about him that is Kryptonian is what we're supposed to respect and enjoy, and everything human is outright portrayed as either holding him back or actively working against him. This Superman didn't become a hero because of his humanity, he became one IN SPITE of his humanity. And while that's certainly as valid a take as any other on the Man of Steel, I find it utterly backwards and can't identify with it

Except, that is not how Snyder showed things in the film. in BvS, Lex Luthor hates Superman, the world sees him as controversial and by the end of the film when Superman dies, they see him now more as a hero.

At this point, does it matter objectively and to the future of the comic movies that a person who prefers Action-Comedy Comic books movies would find Man of steel backwards? it does not matter, since DC WB would not be caring too much about it anymore. I am sure they will keep Snyder in some limited capacity after the success and vindication of the Snyder Cut.

[Celgress]

Avengers Infinity War-Endgame is my preferred movie of the two.

[Master Planner]

I shouldn't even bother. I really shouldn't.

You want us to praise your lord and master Snyder because he has such an original and compelling vision, but your evidence of that vision is that he's straight up lifted his entire visual construction from a far superior filmmaker? I knew you were a troll Castle, but come on.

Snyder would make a fine cinematographer. He has an eye for striking visuals, for composition onscreen. That's been true of all his films, even pre-DC. But he's not a good storyteller. He struggles to link his supposedly "epic" and dramatic shots with with plots, dialogue, or emotion that will resonate with his audiences. Which leaves much of his work a striking series of visuals in search of some kind of meaning. He wants the final shot of JL:SC to be this triumphal, utterly iconic expression of mythology, but because he's utterly failed to imbue his characters with emotion and motivation that the audience can connect to, it just sits there. It looks cool, but it doesn't SAY anything.

And that's before we get into what Snyder's movies tend to say. To call his worldview nihilistic would be fair, if somewhat melodramatic. He clings to toxic, outdated ideas of what defines heroism, preferring his heroes to be soulless if not gleeful killing machines for reasons that his films never bother to justify or explore in any meaningful way. Why does Wonder Woman decapitate an utterly defeated and broken Steppenwolf, as he's literally being thrown off the planet via a portal? Because real heroes murder their defeated enemies in slow mo, that's why! There's not even lip service given to any idea that killing Steppenwolf may have been necessary. It sure didn't appear to be. Superman kicked his ass like a 6th grader slumming it in Kindergarten. But mercy is utterly foreign to Snyder's heroes, because it's utterly foreign to Snyder. Being a hero in a Snyder movie means either killing, without remorse or mercy, or dying "heroically" in some kind of grandiose sacrificial gesture.

And, just as a purely personal note, there is NO WAY you will ever convince me that Zach Snyder doesn't agree with Lex Luthor. Everything his films have to say about Superman is that Luthor was utterly correct about the alien: his every shot composted to emphasize Clark's disconnect from humanity, his lordly and otherworldy presence. Zach Snyder doesn't respect or love Superman. Zach Snyder is TERRIFIED of Superman. But he also wants to worship Superman. He's the Space Daddy to right all our wrongs and use his amazing powers, so far beyond any mortal man or woman, to show us the way. I've said it before on these forums, Zach Snyder's Superman is special because he's an alien. Everything about him that is Kryptonian is what we're supposed to respect and enjoy, and everything human is outright portrayed as either holding him back or actively working against him. This Superman didn't become a hero because of his humanity, he became one IN SPITE of his humanity. And while that's certainly as valid a take as any other on the Man of Steel, I find it utterly backwards and can't identify with it.

Snyder has many, many flaws about his vision and representation and he really has a very wrong idea about the characters, but he can give that epic and grand feeling in his movies. Characterisation of the big duo was hit or miss, Luthor had so many potentials etc, but he gave us a spectacle that really captures the mythical status of those characters. Avengers(2012), while the first viewing spoke to my inner fanboy, repeated viewing doesn't complement the movie and while Age of Ultron corrects some of these flaws, it was Infinity War that gave me that great sensation and didn't lose its appeal, after numerous viewings. Endgame is a great closure to ten years of planning, but it's quite weaker as a film, in comparison to IW.

My rate would be Infinity War>JL:Snyder Cut>Avengers: Age of Ultron> Avengers>Justice League:Wheadon's version.

[CosmiComic]

Snyder has many, many flaws about his vision and representation and he really has a very wrong idea about the characters, but he can give that epic and grand feeling in his movies. Characterisation of the big duo was hit or miss, Luthor had so many potentials etc, but he gave us a spectacle that really captures the mythical status of those characters. Avengers(2012), while the first viewing spoke to my inner fanboy, repeated viewing doesn't complement the movie and while Age of Ultron corrects some of these flaws, it was Infinity War that gave me that great sensation and didn't lose its appeal, after numerous viewings. Endgame is a great closure to ten years of planning, but it's quite weaker as a film, in comparison to IW.

My rate would be Infinity War>JL:Snyder Cut>Avengers: Age of Ultron> Avengers>Justice League:Wheadon's version.

Interesting. I'd still put Avengers above either version of JL. IMO the characterizations of the heroes in Avengers was far better integrated than that in either JL

[SiegePerilous02]

"Oh like, ‘Batman killed a guy [in Batman v Superman’. I’m like, ‘Really? Wake the fuck up.' So I guess that’s what I’m saying about, once you’ve lost your virginity to this fucking movie and then you come and say to me something like, ‘My superhero wouldn’t do that’, I’m like, ‘Are you serious?’ I’m like down the fucking road on that. You know what I mean? It’s a cool point. Look, I’m 100% fine with it. It’s a cool point of view to be like, ‘My heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t lie to America. My heroes didn’t embezzle money. My heroes didn’t commit any atrocities.’ I’m like, ‘That’s cool but you’re living in a fucking dreamworld.'" - Zack Snyder, 2019

This argument that fans of traditional superheroes need to wake up from a dream world and can't tell the difference between reality and fiction always seems to make pretty big assumptions about the audience. And is frankly kind of insulting.

Yeah we know Batman's campaign would realistically either result in his death in a couple weeks, or a LOT more serious injuries and deaths to the people he was fighting. But...he's not real, and an actual child could tell you that. It also means fans may expect something from Batman, but that assumes they only consume Batman or superhero media and not other genres where expectations are different. That's why different genres and characters exist in the first place.

I'm actually more ok with the destruction in Man of Steel than I am with this particular scene.

In MoS Superman is still fairly unexperienced with his powers and especially in fighting somebody as strong as him, and as hellbent on revenge as Zod. With that situation and their sheer strength it's no wonder that so much was destroyed. And since Zod is as strong as Superman there's no real prison on earth that can hold him, so killing him is a last ditch and desperate course because the unexperienced Superman couldn't see any other option. The presentation of this is a bit clunky, but there's a reason behind it.

WW was fighting a regular dude and absolutely didn't need to blast him to ash and open up several large holes in the wall with her god wave. Just punch him and be done with it so he can stand trial.

I remember the conversation pre-BvS release was that they were going to build up Clark's character to be more experienced so he wouldn't need to kill and have better control over property damage. He'd learn from the experience of MOS. The killing of Zod was justifiable and even if the execution for the whole fight was excessive. But while we get lip service to him fighting Doomsday in an abandoned section of the city, he kills/helps kill the villain two more times across the trilogy and WW blows up a dude and part of the building and doesn't give a shit lol. I guess hardly any lessons learned?

[CosmiComic]

Honestly even in the real world Batman wouldn't have to kill anyone. And the general sentiment seems to be moving against brutality towards criminals. Idk why Snyder assumes Batman murdering criminals is more realistic.

Superman didn't seem to learn much of anything because we barely saw how he feels throughout the last two movies