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

[Thezmage]

LOL..Bay and Snyder are two sides of the same coin.

Unlike Bay, Snyder has done VERY little original work (apart from Sucker Punch and that Owl movie, all his films have been adaptations and remakes).

The owl movie was an adaptation

[Username taken]

The owl movie was an adaptation

Wow..so I stand corrected.

This means that Snyder has directed just ONE (1) original project.

Jeez!

[Thezmage]

Wow..so I stand corrected.

This means that Snyder has directed just ONE (1) original project.

Jeez!

Yep
https://www.goodreads.com/series/404...ns-of-ga-hoole

[Alan2099]

Snyder, for all his talk about vision and breath taking spectacle... he's just not good. At all.

He can make some good looking still images, but things in motion... no. He can't make cuts between scenes feel organic. His story flow is terrible. He can't handle characterization at all.

He treats every moment like the second coming of Jesus who's just pulled Excalibur out of the stone. Everything is epic, which means there's no down time. No change to see the real world or establish a "normal" in the universe, and because of this all his "epic" moments fall flat. When you're telling a story, you have to build to the climax. You can't have every moment of the film be the climax. That's not even basic storytelling. That's basic logic.

Even Michael bay understands that you have to have calm moments before you start blowing things up or nobody is going to care.

[tyusmax]

Snyder, for all his talk about vision and breath taking spectacle... he's just not good. At all.

He can make some good looking still images, but things in motion... no. He can't make cuts between scenes feel organic. His story flow is terrible. He can't handle characterization at all.

He treats every moment like the second coming of Jesus who's just pulled Excalibur out of the stone. Everything is epic, which means there's no down time. No change to see the real world or establish a "normal" in the universe, and because of this all his "epic" moments fall flat. When you're telling a story, you have to build to the climax. You can't have every moment of the film be the climax. That's not even basic storytelling. That's basic logic.

Even Michael bay understands that you have to have calm moments before you start blowing things up or nobody is going to care.

I disagree.

I thought the characterization for Cyborg was great.
I also thought characterization for Batman was great as well, even though a lot of people didn't like the character they created. I really liked the battle-worn, jaded older Batman that regained his faith through Superman. I just wish we could have seen some of the backstory that made him that way as well (hoping the Batfleck vs. Deathstroke miniseries will be made at some point and go into this).
Wonder Woman was well done, and Flash was fun.

Also, the first 2 hours plus of ZSJL was slow burn build-up to an epic ending.
To the point that some people said they thought the first half the movie was too slow, though I was fine with it obviously.

[Castle]

1/2



Look, I'm a writer by trade (if not by formal employment at this time). I know that word choice, subtle nuances between synonyms, and all that are important when spilling ink on anything. Since you don't me, I'll also go on record that I don't write stuff I don't believe in. So, no, I don't know that you're not saying lies. However, I do know for an absolute fact that I think your biases cloud your conclusions and that your appeals to craftsmanship and technique to prove your position are not only unconvincing, but suggest that you don't really understand the subject.
.

I know about many writing schools, went to one and have gone to seminars and in those schools, they dont tell us what you tell me that I know for a fact Billy Wilder who is the greatest writer in film with 7 Oscars to his name, all wins for his writing talents in film have never said. that in writing, generic derivate story telling is the best way to write a script, not taking into account that with kids, although their brains have not be developed well enough at a young age, still have what is called a subconscious intellect , this is the reason many 1990s marvel cartoons like X-Men TAS worked so well, cartoons that have far more impressive writings than IW/Endgame and a film that always relies more on action and cgi because the studio feels, this is the main draw to sell a movie and not having a good screenplay that is suppose to matter even if the movie had no action and cgi is the best way to write.

Please I would honestly like to know what creative writing school told you this? I am willing to check their syllabus to see if all these things you have told me made the list. also tell me the lectutuer who gave such lectures, I will go and listen to his writing class on YouTube to get confirmation of what you said.

My evidence about Bob Iger was far from crap, LOL. It was not about diversity, it was about marvel having too much adult oriented stories. that has nothing to do with diversity. diversity mean diversity. diversity does not mean, Spiderman telling Deadpool in a comic book that comic movies are for kids because Iger said so. LMAO.

The CBR article is not speculation, the fact is that the first 2 Thor movies were not comedies, as for whether it could be an interesting topic as such, no. Also in writing, every sign of creative writing shows, you dont take what is seen as a very original dark tale like Ragnarok and dumb it down to silly comedy. creative writing points that the only way, a comedy would work in that scenario, would have been as a dark satire film like Get Out or Vice. not Disney fluff light heated comedy. this is what they teach us in writing class. Also this is what many stand up comedians for a fact like Kevin Hart and Dave Chapplle have said and done when they do stand up. this men where one of the first people to expose R Kelly and Bill Cosby as rapists, which is obviously a mature topic but they used dark satire comedy to do so. people laughed sure, but they got the message.

Mickey Rouke's story was part of the main plot. LOL. You cannot separate both. his character was meant to be the main antagonist to tony stark, if you hurt the character by cropping a lot of his stuff out, you hurt the overall him. it's a chain of events that bleeds into everything. additionally from a critique point, iron man 2 should should be worse than X-Men Origins, Batman v Superman and amazing spiderman, because the movie does not function as a movie om its own but more as a set up. the film making choices are poor not to even mention, the movie have no strong performances.

As for Tony getting fleshed out? what standard are we talking? because we are very much aware, once Marvel saw Iron man movies were making money even if his comics were not reflecting that, they decided to scale back on tony's character. it is not an honest flaw that RDJ best part remained the first film from then on, he was just RDJ, because the sequels did not want to do anything beyond the first film. which is still the best film and to say something is the best film, the writing must reflect that by at least 70%

Comparing BvS and GOTG is laughable, because if memory applies, GOTG 2 , many other MCU fans have called this one of the most kid friendly movies. I am sure, few will grasp to find hidden meaning behind the film but this is not what adult friendly movies are meant to do. BvS on the otherhand was seen as too mature. this was the reason the movie got backlash, because their were complaints that the film was too dark or superman was handled to realistically, or Bruce overrated or the politics took up too much time . and the tone was taken far too seriously, all these were comparison against only MCU films. additionally dont forget both films are the extension of IW/Endgame and Snyder Cut and again IW/Endgame does not even have close to the maturity of the Snyder Cut and the best part is that some critics that hated on BvS have finally admitted that in 2021.

To be perfectly candid, I have to agree with the other poster that Snyder has more in common with Michael Bay -- distinctive style, emphasis on visuals, and total confidence in how they do stuff (although I think that Bay edges him out in terms of quality of visuals, sometimes choppy editing be damned). Maybe that's okay, maybe not, but I really feel the opinion that Snyder is a top-tier filmmaker who's pushing the envelope in terms of the craft just doesn't cut it.

A reverse psychology. while the objective thought has shown Michael Bay movies are more like the Avengers, some have taken it on themselves to say, Bay movies are like DC films so let me break it down to show this is a film technical false.

Avengers movies are deigned to be fun. So are Michael Bay movies. they are the pure definition of action fun summer blockbusters. You cannot take Avengers and Transformers seriously. Snyder movies are more broody, dark and taken very seriously.

Avengers and Transformers are not designed to have much realism. Snyder's films are a a lot more grounded and self aware. this is why some did not get his Superman because Snyder left out the romanticism of Reeves Superman.

Lastly, Snyder movies are more distinctive in the technical aspect. there are no other films that look like a Snyder film. Avengers and Transformers uses the same kind of bright coloured cinematography not to mention kind of sound mixing. this is their reason their movies are very loud and they have a fast paced rock and roll sort of vibe. the same formula Whedon tried to in his JL film by using the Beatles come to together because he wanted JL to be the next Avengers. Snyder is more somber , grim and slow paced.

This is a Bay film.



Avengers 5, yes. Justice League part 2? I am going with No. Snyder's action's scenes and visual style are factually not like this but I know for sure, that Avengers movies are. look at the background. the white green screen thing going on? This is not Snyder's style. it is MCU style.

[CosmiComic]

I disagree.

I thought the characterization for Cyborg was great.
I also thought characterization for Batman was great as well, even though a lot of people didn't like the character they created. I really liked the battle-worn, jaded older Batman that regained his faith through Superman. I just wish we could have seen some of the backstory that made him that way as well (hoping the Batfleck vs. Deathstroke miniseries will be made at some point and go into this).
Wonder Woman was well done, and Flash was fun.

Also, the first 2 hours plus of ZSJL was slow burn build-up to an epic ending.
To the point that some people said they thought the first half the movie was too slow, though I was fine with it obviously.

Cyborg's story was competent but a little lacking IMO. I knew he'd reconcile with his dad anyway. I wanted to see him do more "Cyborg-y" stuff. Batman and Wonder Woman barely seemed to have any energy in this movie. Saying "Kal-El, no" like you're choosing what movie to watch at night isn't epic. Flash's humor didn't really land and he didn't have much character progression like he did in the Whedon Cut.

I wouldn't have minded the first 2 hours if the characters had more life to them (literally in Superman's case). But the unnecessary slo-mo, lack of color and Amazonian chanting really dragged it for me.

[CliffHanger2]

Cyborg's story was competent but a little lacking IMO. I knew he'd reconcile with his dad anyway. I wanted to see him do more "Cyborg-y" stuff. Batman and Wonder Woman barely seemed to have any energy in this movie. Saying "Kal-El, no" like you're choosing what movie to watch at night isn't epic. Flash's humor didn't really land and he didn't have much character progression like he did in the Whedon Cut.

I wouldn't have minded the first 2 hours if the characters had more life to them (literally in Superman's case). But the unnecessary slo-mo, lack of color and Amazonian chanting really dragged it for me.

Cyborg's character arc was lacking in what way? In terms of Cyborg-y stuff, I think his power use was pretty varied and well done. More so than even in the comics.

[CosmiComic]

Cyborg's character arc was lacking in what way? In terms of Cyborg-y stuff, I think his power use was pretty varied and well done.

We saw him have a poor relationship with his father, and that's interesting, but I feel that was mostly it. With his powers and connection to the Mother Box, I was expecting him to do more with technology. All we really saw was him help that woman at the ATM. Good, but only a little.

[CliffHanger2]

We saw him have a poor relationship with his father, and that's interesting, but I feel that was mostly it. With his powers and connection to the Mother Box, I was expecting him to do more with technology. All we really saw was him help that woman at the ATM. Good, but only a little.

I think it was a little more complicated than just a poor relationship with his father. His story was tragic but he went from focusing on what he had lost to valuing to what he gained from what his Father did. Seeing his higher purpose than what he may have been as a normal person. And Fisher brought a depth to the role not commonly seen. It's hard to think of a cbm char that got better development in a single movie. I don't think they could have done much more with his powers in an ensemble movie. Maybe he could have transformed his armor to be more human looking but that's about it.

[CosmiComic]

I think it was a little more complicated than just a poor relationship with his father. His story was tragic but he went from focusing on what he had lost to valuing to what he gained from what his Father did. Seeing his higher purpose than what he may have been as a normal person. And Fisher brought a depth to the role not commonly seen. It's hard to think of a cbm char that got better development in a single movie. I don't think they could have done much more with his powers in an ensemble movie. Maybe he could have transformed his armor to be more human looking but that's about it.

They could've had more room had they not shoved Aquaman's and Flash's origins into the movie as well. I thought Fisher did a good job, but I wasn't necessarily wowed by what he got to do.

[CliffHanger2]

They could've had more room had they not shoved Aquaman's and Flash's origins into the movie as well. I thought Fisher did a good job, but I wasn't necessarily wowed by what he got to do.

Aqua Man's origin? I thought that was in the Aqua Man movie lol. Flash too, What part is that? Maybe I gotta rewatch. It is a long movie maybe I missed those.

[SiegePerilous02]

Aqua Man's origin? I thought that was in the Aqua Man movie lol. Flash too, What part is that? Maybe I gotta rewatch. It is a long movie maybe I missed those.

This was meant to be everyone's introductions to Aquaman and the Flash though. Their origins are alluded to, if not outright shown like Cyborg's, but the film needs to spend time on them in order for us to get to know them better and become attached. I think it did an ok job for all of them considering it was all stuffed in one movie that had to cover a lot of ground, but I don't think any of the characters were terribly complex or giving a lot of meaty material for the actors to perform. Even Bruce, Diana and Clark, who each appeared in at least one of the previous two Snyder films, are all kind of thin and coasting along on the fact that they are three huge superhero icons the audience has a built in attachment to already from previous versions.,

[WebLurker]

I know about many writing schools, went to one and have gone to seminars and in those schools, they dont tell us what you tell me that I know for a fact Billy Wilder who is the greatest writer in film with 7 Oscars to his name, all wins for his writing talents in film have never said. that in writing, generic derivate story telling is the best way to write a script, not taking into account that with kids, although their brains have not be developed well enough at a young age, still have what is called a subconscious intellect , this is the reason many 1990s marvel cartoons like X-Men TAS worked so well, cartoons that have far more impressive writings than IW/Endgame and a film that always relies more on action and cgi because the studio feels, this is the main draw to sell a movie and not having a good screenplay that is suppose to matter even if the movie had no action and cgi is the best way to write.

Please I would honestly like to know what creative writing school told you this? I am willing to check their syllabus to see if all these things you have told me made the list. also tell me the lectutuer who gave such lectures, I will go and listen to his writing class on YouTube to get confirmation of what you said.

(Also, what the heck has any of that got to do with the actual points that I'm specific in my word choices and stand by what I've written?)

My evidence about Bob Iger was far from crap, LOL. It was not about diversity, it was about marvel having too much adult oriented stories. that has nothing to do with diversity. diversity mean diversity. diversity does not mean, Spiderman telling Deadpool in a comic book that comic movies are for kids because Iger said so. LMAO.

What part of Iger disagreeing that Marvel was too adult for Disney can you not comprehend?

The CBR article is not speculation, the fact is that the first 2 Thor movies were not comedies, as for whether it could be an interesting topic as such, no.

Repeating your hypothesis is not a valid counterargument.

Also in writing, every sign of creative writing shows, you dont take what is seen as a very original dark tale like Ragnarok and dumb it down to silly comedy. creative writing points that the only way, a comedy would work in that scenario, would have been as a dark satire film like Get Out or Vice. not Disney fluff light heated comedy. this is what they teach us in writing class. Also this is what many stand up comedians for a fact like Kevin Hart and Dave Chapplle have said and done when they do stand up. this men where one of the first people to expose R Kelly and Bill Cosby as rapists, which is obviously a mature topic but they used dark satire comedy to do so. people laughed sure, but they got the message.

That's not how the Force works.

Mickey Rouke's story was part of the main plot. LOL. You cannot separate both. his character was meant to be the main antagonist to tony stark, if you hurt the character by cropping a lot of his stuff out, you hurt the overall him. it's a chain of events that bleeds into everything.

Once again, Rouke said nothing about the depiction of Howard Stark and, as pointed out before, a movie can have elements that work and others that don't (and, to repeat myself, even if one could prove that this one film did not do Howard Stark justice, that does not prove that the other films to touch on it did the same bad job).

additionally from a critique point, iron man 2 should should be worse than X-Men Origins, Batman v Superman and amazing spiderman, because the movie does not function as a movie om its own but more as a set up. the film making choices are poor not to even mention, the movie have no strong performances.

Frankly, I think the acting is the primary saving grace for Iron Man 2. Think I kinda liked Origins: Wolverine more (although I don't think I can say it's "good"). For ASM, if we're talking the original movie, I just find that one bland and boring. The second one is a mess of the film where the storylines do not fit together and it gets lost in Sony's wishes to make a cinematic universe, without the performances to pull things through. BvS is a trainwreck of a story with no coherent theme. Iron Man 2 is easily better (although being better then BvS is a pretty low bar in general).

As for Tony getting fleshed out? what standard are we talking? because we are very much aware, once Marvel saw Iron man movies were making money even if his comics were not reflecting that, they decided to scale back on tony's character. it is not an honest flaw that RDJ best part remained the first film from then on, he was just RDJ, because the sequels did not want to do anything beyond the first film. which is still the best film and to say something is the best film, the writing must reflect that by at least 70%

Compare Age of Ultron and Civil War, if you want to the easy comparison r.e. Iron Man's character development.

Comparing BvS and GOTG is laughable, because if memory applies, GOTG 2 , many other MCU fans have called this one of the most kid friendly movies.

Wonder who said that? A parent literally murdering his kids (as in we see the pile of their bones) and his lover, dealing with trauma, scars from childhood abuse, complex family dynamics (toxic or otherwise). That's not kiddie stuff. (And if you're going to tell me that that's childish compared to edgelord Batbrands and Jesse Eisenberg feeding people Jolly Ranchers, I've got nothing.)

I am sure, few will grasp to find hidden meaning behind the film but this is not what adult friendly movies are meant to do.

You really have no respect for the writing craft, do you? (Show, don't tell.)

BvS on the otherhand was seen as too mature. this was the reason the movie got backlash, because their were complaints that the film was too dark or superman was handled to realistically, or Bruce overrated or the politics took up too much time . and the tone was taken far too seriously, all these were comparison against only MCU films.

And yet Logan and Joker, two serious drama comic book films, were well received despite having the darker tones of Snyder. Maybe people are okay with non-"fun" comic book movies and rejects BvS because it was a badly-made movie in and of itself? (Even the Snyder Cut got a better reception.)

additionally dont forget both films are the extension of IW/Endgame and Snyder Cut and again IW/Endgame does not even have close to the maturity of the Snyder Cut and the best part is that some critics that hated on BvS have finally admitted that in 2021.

I feel like we don't agree on what "mature" means.

A reverse psychology. while the objective thought has shown Michael Bay movies are more like the Avengers, some have taken it on themselves to say, Bay movies are like DC films so let me break it down to show this is a film technical false.

Avengers movies are deigned to be fun. So are Michael Bay movies. they are the pure definition of action fun summer blockbusters. You cannot take Avengers and Transformers seriously. Snyder movies are more broody, dark and taken very seriously.

Avengers and Transformers are not designed to have much realism. Snyder's films are a a lot more grounded and self aware. this is why some did not get his Superman because Snyder left out the romanticism of Reeves Superman.

Lastly, Snyder movies are more distinctive in the technical aspect. there are no other films that look like a Snyder film. Avengers and Transformers uses the same kind of bright coloured cinematography not to mention kind of sound mixing. this is their reason their movies are very loud and they have a fast paced rock and roll sort of vibe. the same formula Whedon tried to in his JL film by using the Beatles come to together because he wanted JL to be the next Avengers. Snyder is more somber , grim and slow paced.

This is Bay film.

Avengers 5, yes. Justice League part 2? I am going with No. Snyder's action's scenes and visual style are factually not like this but I know for sure, that Avengers movies are. look at the background. the white green screen thing going on? This is not Snyder's style. it is MCU style.

Thank you for missing the point; Snyder and Bay are not identical (as noted, Bay loves bright unrealistic colors while Snyder uses drab, colorlessness; Bay doesn't really take his stuff too seriously, Snyder takes everything seriously). However, they are of the same cloth in that the visual styles are their calling card in terms of where their strengths lie and that the end result is that they are style over substance in their filmmaking (granted, Bay seems okay with that, while Snyder demands to be taken seriously, not matter how much he indulges in his inner edgelord).

Also have to say that it's pretty funny that, for being a wackier film and being nearly a decade older, Bay's effects still look more realistic than Snyder's DC CGI fests.

[CosmiComic]

Aqua Man's origin? I thought that was in the Aqua Man movie lol. Flash too, What part is that? Maybe I gotta rewatch. It is a long movie maybe I missed those.

They spent time showing part of Aquaman's story with Atlantis and his mother, and Flash's story with his father. Not origins, per se, but "elaboration" on who they are. Which would be fine for me if it was better integrated into the movie.

This was meant to be everyone's introductions to Aquaman and the Flash though. Their origins are alluded to, if not outright shown like Cyborg's, but the film needs to spend time on them in order for us to get to know them better and become attached. I think it did an ok job for all of them considering it was all stuffed in one movie that had to cover a lot of ground, but I don't think any of the characters were terribly complex or giving a lot of meaty material for the actors to perform. Even Bruce, Diana and Clark, who each appeared in at least one of the previous two Snyder films, are all kind of thin and coasting along on the fact that they are three huge superhero icons the audience has a built in attachment to already from previous versions.,

I realize we need to get to know them, but we could've gotten to better do so had WB not put out JL before their solo movies. Then again, Superman had two movies and we barely knew him. My point is, though, the introductions of Aquaman and Flash didn't factor as much into the actual plot as Cyborg's did. Had they already had their origin movies beforehand, we could've gotten more scenes with Cyborg, because this is effectively his origin movie