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

[Castle]

It's more then just he does something different then the MCU's less serious style. Think about it, the directors of the Dark Knight trilogy, Logan, and Joker are (for the most part) well regarded as having made good dramatic movies based on this kind of source material, yet Snyder is not, despite shooting for that same target. All the fatal problems with the Snyderverse have nothing to do with not being colorful enough, taking too many liberties with the source material, or having a sense of humor, but with sloppy writing and bad editing.

.

Snyder is actually well regarded once you remove the people who dont like his films because they are not like marvel films. To think this was the main catalyst of the almost destruction of the DC Snyderverse was ludicrous

"It's been working in the style that I'm used to. Just like with all my mates back home. Improvising and being very loose. I think everyone who goes into this system is scared that it's just going to be very rigid and they're not going to be able to be creative or that the studio is going to control you. But Marvel has been amazing to me. They kind of let me do whatever I want.

"There was a day when Mark Ruffalo came up to me and goes, 'How come we haven't been fired yet? Why are they letting us do this? This is so weird. It's like making a weird, student, indie film where we're making it up as we go along.' That's a credit to Marvel and those guys. They were very supportive of how we wanted to make the film."

quoting a director on a film that he agreed knowing How the studio wants it makes no sense. the bottom line is Thor 3 became the successor of GOTG movies and these are the most disney movies marvel has, so far from the comics.

If James Mangold had pitched Logan to Marvel, they would have thrown his script out. Singer first xmen movie would never have gone into pre-production if disney has xmen from the start. If Nolan decides he would love to make a daredevil film in the future, Disney would not give him a chance, Sam Raimi Spiderman 2002 movie would have been very different both in VFX and Story because MCU would never allow Peter to be in University by the 2nd act and will fire any James Cameron input on how he wants to use VFX in the movie. Please there is a line between a director agreeing to work within the formula of a studio and the opposite of this.

I wonder why the thor director did not just pitch the source material of the comics, Imagine if bryan singer had pitched the idea that DOFP should be a colourful lightheaded comedy and then given an interview on how fox and the actors were so proud of the movie's style and tone. it will be ridiculous beyond belief in that content.

How as Iron Man 3 bad? In any event, those movies are esp. notable for bearing the hallmarks of the directors in question. However much executive meddling IM3 may have had, it's still clearly a Shane Black-directed film. You can look at the original Avengers, MCU Spider-Man or Guardians movies if you want to see that the idea that Marvel Studios forces a house style on everything is just a myth. (Also, see above in regards to being straight from the horse's mouth.)

I think I have had this said before on the snyder cut thread, but again it shows the main people who dont like Snyder movies are usually hardcore MCU fans. calling snyder a bad filmmaker but saying iron man 3 is not a bad film is contradictory.

Iron Man 3 was more annoying to fans than Man of Steel in 2013.

And yet the Avengers is remembered for doing the third act well and the others not so much (Man of Steel was blasted for being mind-numbing violence porn, as I recall).

Avengers was more violent porn if you want to use that word, the third act of avengers was not remembered for anything that we see as a good thing now. since people just go hard on any movie that has this 3rd cgi act battle.

You are contradicting yourself by saying man of steel is destruction porn and avengers is not. avengers did more damage than man of steel.

Course the hardcore fans rarely, if ever have that kind of power (they're not big enough to have that kind of influence). Still, it is interesting that AT&T's explanation was "the fans demanded it" despite it being common sense that the Snyder Cut cult is too small a demographic to make it a worthwhile investment.

Small investment for a 30-50 million dollar movie to go on HBO? I dont think so.

WB did not treat Snyder badly. Where's this coming from?

He was quietly removed from the projects. Also look at how many people admire Snyder as a director. it is rare that that admiration is found for directors who have done marvel movies on that narrative alone.

[Castle]

Jon Favreau and Guillermo Del Toro might disagree.

In content of their marvel films. marvel does hire some talented directors, the issue is we don't just see their talent shine bright in the marvel films. this is likely why marvel is very famous of creative differences between directors and studios.

Maybe WB gave too much power to Snyder ''the director'' but he was in a better place than marvel directors. If I was a director, I would not want a person like Kevin Feige with his shallow conception of comic books to boss me around on directing a comic book movie.

[WebLurker]

Snyder is actually well regarded once you remove the people who dont like his films because they are not like marvel films.

Seem to recall he's had a lot of mixed-reception movies. Kinda got the impression that he was seen as Nolan-lite, but that's just me guessing.

To think this was the main catalyst of the almost destruction of the DC Snyderverse was ludicrous

I do think Snyder was one of the mistakes that doomed the original incarnation of the DCE, but I think it was a mix of factors, including WB wanting to catch up to the MCU by making the big crossover movies without the planning and setup that made the MCU a success. In the case of Snyder, we can debate whether his nihilistic, dark vision of the DC Universe was the right choice in and of itself (esp. for Superman), but I think what doomed the Snyderverse in terms of being the future of the DCEU was the poor planning combined with Snyder's failure to execute his dark, nihilistic version of things in terms of coherent theme, writing in a way that made sense and made the movies work as complete films. I mean, whole swaths of BvS are just setting up sequels that will never come because WB changed course with what they had in mind for the DCEU, something that could've been easily avoided with better editing, direction and preplanning.

quoting a director on a film that he agreed knowing How the studio wants it makes no sense.

What part of "he was given creative freedom to do what he wanted and made the movie his way" makes no sense? You're basically saying that he's lying because what? He made a movie with an emphasis on humor over drama? That doesn't make any sense.

the bottom line is Thor 3 became the successor of GOTG movies and these are the most disney movies marvel has, so far from the comics.

Maybe, but, frankly, they're pretty well-made movies of their type. We can have room for both drama, comedy, and light-hearted adventure in the genre.

If James Mangold had pitched Logan to Marvel, they would have thrown his script out. Singer first xmen movie would never have gone into pre-production if disney has xmen from the start. If Nolan decides he would love to make a daredevil film in the future, Disney would not give him a chance, Sam Raimi Spiderman 2002 movie would have been very different both in VFX and Story because MCU would never allow Peter to be in University by the 2nd act and will fire any James Cameron input on how he wants to use VFX in the movie.

A whole lotta baseless speculation and for what?

Please there is a line between a director agreeing to work within the formula of a studio and the opposite of this.

You're the one accusing a man of lying for no other reason than his testimony disproves the bias you want to confirm.

I wonder why the thor director did not just pitch the source material of the comics...

Crazy guess, but, since he said he was filming the movie in the style he liked to work with, because he wanted to take creative license with the source material? (I mean, most comic book movies aren't faithful adaptations of the stories, but take the characters and ideas and make something new inspired by it.)

Imagine if bryan singer had pitched the idea that DOFP should be a colourful lightheaded comedy and then given an interview on how fox and the actors were so proud of the movie's style and tone. it will be ridiculous beyond belief in that content.

Are we assuming in this hypothetical, that Singer had made a good version of this take? (Also, have to say that you seem to be forgetting that Days of Future Past was not afraid to have fun.)

I think I have had this said before on the snyder cut thread, but again it shows the main people who dont like Snyder movies are usually hardcore MCU fans.

Depends. I've seen some well-thought out arguments for Snyder being a mediocrity once you get past the slick visuals. I've seen some that argue he's a good filmmaker who's DC work just happened to be his poorest. Personally, like I said, I don't think he's in the league of Steven Spielberg (esp. in the terms of cinematography and eliciting emotion) or George Lucas (the master of special effects and visuals) and he's kind of a poor man's Christopher Nolan in terms of intents and executions. So, yeah, I think he's hella overrated, but mileage may vary.

calling snyder a bad filmmaker but saying iron man 3 is not a bad film is contradictory.

No, whether Snyder is a good or bad filmmaker has nothing to do with whether Iron Man 3 was good or bad. I could see a case that it's a better movie then BvS, but that is kind of a low bar.

Iron Man 3 was more annoying to fans than Man of Steel in 2013.

How do we know that?

Avengers was more violent porn if you want to use that word, the third act of avengers was not remembered for anything that we see as a good thing now. since people just go hard on any movie that has this 3rd cgi act battle.

In your opinion.

You are contradicting yourself by saying man of steel is destruction porn and avengers is not. avengers did more damage than man of steel.

Avengers had a better-written final act that told a coherent story. Execution always trumps intent, which is why Avengers has a better reputation then Man of Steel.

(Funny really, but each of the Avengers is about something, has a common theme or through line that it explores, something the Snyderverse movies do. So, in essence, those silly, colorful popcorn movies are more mature and thought-provoking then a batch of movies that wanted to be the next Dark Knight. Weird world, huh?)

Small investment for a 30-50 million dollar movie to go on HBO? I dont think so.

To quote the armored Avenger, not a good plan (at least, from where I'm sitting).

He was quietly removed from the projects.

Where's the mistreatment?

Also look at how many people admire Snyder as a director. it is rare that that admiration is found for directors who have done marvel movies on that narrative alone.

Marvel Studios isn't exactly hurting for attracting big name talent on both sides of the camera, but what does Snyder's alleged reputation have to do with the quality of the MCU movies or Snyder's own work. Spielberg hasn't worked for Marvel Studios and we don't judge his talent in relation to that?

[Midvillian1322]

In content of their marvel films. marvel does hire some talented directors, the issue is we don't just see their talent shine bright in the marvel films. this is likely why marvel is very famous of creative differences between directors and studios.

Maybe WB gave too much power to Snyder ''the director'' but he was in a better place than marvel directors. If I was a director, I would not want a person like Kevin Feige with his shallow conception of comic books to boss me around on directing a comic book movie.

Lol what's this long history of problems with directors? 23 films and all we got it Edgar wright,Derrickson, and Patty Jenkins who have had issues. And Jenkins did an interview recently she had a great experience with Marvrl Studios. She said Thor 2 had a bad script and she didn't wanna risk her career on that script. So she walked away amicably. WBs has had more issues with just one film in The Flash. Not to mention how they chopped up Snyder and Ayers films. Or Forced Jenkins to add that heavily criticized ending in Wonder Woman. In just a handful of Star Wars films lucadfilms has had more issue between directors and the studio. Marvel studios has a great track record with directors.

As far as the directors not shining. That's is 100% your opinion and not factual In any way.

Edit forgot about Joss Whedon. Since Jenkins didn't have a bad experience just replace her with Whedon since he said the studio gave him some trouble with AoU. But since getting rid of Perlmutter it's just been Derrickson. And Sam Raimi stepped in quickly. Reports suggest Derrickson wanted the release date pushed back so he had more time. Marvel refused so he stepped down.

[Alan2099]

If James Mangold had pitched Logan to Marvel, they would have thrown his script out. Singer first xmen movie would never have gone into pre-production if disney has xmen from the start. If Nolan decides he would love to make a daredevil film in the future, Disney would not give him a chance, Sam Raimi Spiderman 2002 movie would have been very different both in VFX and Story because MCU would never allow Peter to be in University by the 2nd act and will fire any James Cameron input on how he wants to use VFX in the movie.

There's a lot of hypothetical about what you think might have happened. None of that actually happened though. However if you WANT to look for a guy that was taken off his project because the studio didn't think it would work or be any good then don't look at the Marvel side. Look at Snyder.

[Gaastra]

I think I have had this said before on the snyder cut thread, but again it shows the main people who dont like Snyder movies are usually hardcore MCU fans. calling snyder a bad filmmaker but saying iron man 3 is not a bad film is contradictory.

Iron Man 3 was more annoying to fans than Man of Steel in 2013.

The "it's mcu fans" is bull. I know many "hardcore" dc fans who some don't care for marvel films at all and they hated synders films. I also know "non comic geek" fans that know zip about comics and they hated synders dc films also! My sister called man of steel the worst superman film ever when we went to theatres to see it and she never read a comic in her life. Her kids watched bvs on tv and afterwords she asked if we could watch a REAL superhero movie next!

She did like wonder woman, aquaman, shazam and the dark knight films by the way! She HATED man of steel and bvs!

My mom who watched all of batman and robin and catwoman turned bvs off after a hour! She hated it! She loved aquaman and the other dcu films but hated man of steel and bvs. She is not a comic fan at all!

It's not just "marvel fans". Half the people who saw these films hated them. Comic fan or not.

[lowfyr]

Snyder is actually well regarded once you remove the people who dont like his films because they are not like marvel films. To think this was the main catalyst of the almost destruction of the DC Snyderverse was ludicrous


quoting a director on a film that he agreed knowing How the studio wants it makes no sense. the bottom line is Thor 3 became the successor of GOTG movies and these are the most disney movies marvel has, so far from the comics.

If James Mangold had pitched Logan to Marvel, they would have thrown his script out. Singer first xmen movie would never have gone into pre-production if disney has xmen from the start. If Nolan decides he would love to make a daredevil film in the future, Disney would not give him a chance, Sam Raimi Spiderman 2002 movie would have been very different both in VFX and Story because MCU would never allow Peter to be in University by the 2nd act and will fire any James Cameron input on how he wants to use VFX in the movie. Please there is a line between a director agreeing to work within the formula of a studio and the opposite of this.

I wonder why the thor director did not just pitch the source material of the comics, Imagine if bryan singer had pitched the idea that DOFP should be a colourful lightheaded comedy and then given an interview on how fox and the actors were so proud of the movie's style and tone. it will be ridiculous beyond belief in that content.


I think I have had this said before on the snyder cut thread, but again it shows the main people who dont like Snyder movies are usually hardcore MCU fans. calling snyder a bad filmmaker but saying iron man 3 is not a bad film is contradictory.

Iron Man 3 was more annoying to fans than Man of Steel in 2013.



Avengers was more violent porn if you want to use that word, the third act of avengers was not remembered for anything that we see as a good thing now. since people just go hard on any movie that has this 3rd cgi act battle.

Up to the usual speculation, twisting stuff around and selling your opinons as fact I see. Not to forget being in a glasshouse throwing stones. But I think the last one is more a case of you assuming other people are like you.

But the most funny thing is you trying to sell the first X-Men movie as something special or a higher standard than the MCU movies. The usual Castle bias at it once again."I like it so it has to be special or mature or whatever"

[Castle]

Seem to recall he's had a lot of mixed-reception movies. Kinda got the impression that he was seen as Nolan-lite, but that's just me guessing.



I do think Snyder was one of the mistakes that doomed the original incarnation of the DCE, but I think it was a mix of factors, including WB wanting to catch up to the MCU by making the big crossover movies without the planning and setup that made the MCU a success. In the case of Snyder, we can debate whether his nihilistic, dark vision of the DC Universe was the right choice in and of itself (esp. for Superman), but I think what doomed the Snyderverse in terms of being the future of the DCEU was the poor planning combined with Snyder's failure to execute his dark, nihilistic version of things in terms of coherent theme, writing in a way that made sense and made the movies work as complete films. I mean, whole swaths of BvS are just setting up sequels that will never come because WB changed course with what they had in mind for the DCEU, something that could've been easily avoided with better editing, direction and preplanning.?

Snyder was not Nolan-Light, he was a bit heavier than Nolan. Again you are saying this all from a Marvel POV. That hits a wall because Snyder never gave a darm about how marvel made their movies and how their fans saw them in context with DC

What part of "he was given creative freedom to do what he wanted and made the movie his way" makes no sense? You're basically saying that he's lying because what? He made a movie with an emphasis on humor over drama? That doesn't make any sense.

The source material of Thor is not lying. The marvel formula of turning mostly all their movies to light colourful action driven comedy is not a lie either. Watti had to work in those boundaries as a director.

Are we assuming in this hypothetical, that Singer had made a good version of this take? (Also, have to say that you seem to be forgetting that Days of Future Past was not afraid to have fun.)

All comic movie have their fun moments, but DOFP is a movie disney would never had made. Singer first film only looks better than usual after 20 years because comic films are worse off now. If Marvel had not been making unnecessary light fluffy generic superficial kid friendly films, X1 would have been forgotten in 2020 and not be worth any throw back.

In your opinion.

it is not my opinion. the third act of Avengers had more destruction. Loki brought a full on super powered army in thousands to tear down new york city in the final act, 6 avengers fighting them was doing more damage. that was a bigger damage than only 2 beings fighting in man of steel. the only people who had human powers in avengers were Hawk and Widow. other heros are super powered, Thor and Hulk alone are in the same power feat as superman and zod. did you see when Hulk was smashing buildings?




Avengers 1 is the movie that started the issue of grown men in tights wrecking cities, I don't think credible directors like James Cameron or John Landis just lied about this stuff in Avengers films when they called it out.

To quote the armored Avenger, not a good plan (at least, from where I'm sitting).

Armored Avenger? An Avenger fan that does not like anything about the Snyder cut? maybe this is just to insecure for my taste. HBO Max are throwing good money (30-50m )on a movie. that is the truth we know.

Marvel Studios isn't exactly hurting for attracting big name talent on both sides of the camera,

The more reason directors of the likes of James Mangold, James Cameron, Chris Nolan, Zack Snyder would never bow down to anything Feige saw as law

but what does Snyder's alleged reputation have to do with the quality of the MCU movies or Snyder's own work. Spielberg hasn't worked for Marvel Studios and we don't judge his talent in relation to that?

Because most of the Snyder's naysayer are people who believe marvel movies are the gold standard when they are not. Spielberg movies are not what MCU sees as a competitor.

[Castle]

There's a lot of hypothetical about what you think might have happened. None of that actually happened though. However if you WANT to look for a guy that was taken off his project because the studio didn't think it would work or be any good then don't look at the Marvel side. Look at Snyder.

I doubt it is hyptotehtical. Marvel has some rules of how their movies are made. those rules tend to not mesh with comic films made outside of the MCU.
Everyone knew for sure that when MCU got spiderman, Disney stressed a lot on the wronged kid approach right down to how he can fight in action scenes. Holland gave many interviews on the importance to make spiderman enduring to ''kids'' and that means, a university spiderman is not relatable from a disney pov, please have you seen any disney tv show that is set in university? which is strange because 90s spiderman animation is set in a newyork university where Felicia Harvey and Peter Attend.

Lol what's this long history of problems with directors? 23 films and all we got it Edgar wright,Derrickson, and Patty Jenkins who have had issues. And Jenkins did an interview recently she had a great experience with Marvrl Studios. She said Thor 2 had a bad script and she didn't wanna risk her career on that script. So she walked away amicably. WBs has had more issues with just one film in The Flash. Not to mention how they chopped up Snyder and Ayers films. Or Forced Jenkins to add that heavily criticized ending in Wonder Woman. In just a handful of Star Wars films lucadfilms has had more issue between directors and the studio. Marvel studios has a great track record with directors.

As far as the directors not shining. That's is 100% your opinion and not factual In any way.

Edit forgot about Joss Whedon. Since Jenkins didn't have a bad experience just replace her with Whedon since he said the studio gave him some trouble with AoU. But since getting rid of Perlmutter it's just been Derrickson. And Sam Raimi stepped in quickly. Reports suggest Derrickson wanted the release date pushed back so he had more time. Marvel refused so he stepped down.

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a3...red-explained/

https://whatculture.com/film/8-filmm...marvel-studios

https://screenrant.com/marvel-thor-2...nkins-branagh/


Those who say Snyder is a bad story teller but admits he knows how to do VFX, Action scenes and cinematography, very high chance that even that undoubted talent of Snyder would not be wanted by marvel for shallow reasons, in other words, we cant sell toys with that.

[The Cool Thatguy]

it is not my opinion. the third act of Avengers had more destruction. Loki brought a full on super powered army in thousands to tear down new york city in the final act, 6 avengers fighting them was doing more damage. that was a bigger damage than only 2 beings fighting in man of steel. the only people who had human powers in avengers were Hawk and Widow. other heros are super powered, Thor and Hulk alone are in the same power feat as superman and zod. did you see when Hulk was smashing buildings?

The difference between the Avengers and Man of Steel is that the team made a point to mitigate the damage being done by the aliens while handling the threat. As we see from Cap's orders, they try to keep the threat contained while working to stop it

Man of Steel was just a CGI bash fest. And while true, Superman is just one guy, he certainly didn't seem to heroic smashing Zod into every freakin' building.

[Castle]

The difference between the Avengers and Man of Steel is that the team made a point to mitigate the damage being done by the aliens while handling the threat. As we see from Cap's orders, they try to keep the threat contained while working to stop it

Man of Steel was just a CGI bash fest. And while true, Superman is just one guy, he certainly didn't seem to heroic smashing Zod into every freakin' building.

The story ploy is different. avengers had 6 of them, the more members the more you can strategise, superman is just 1 hero. although the story ploy is different, the 3rd act is still the same topic of superhero movies with final act that is all about just cgi. despite anyone POV on how to judge both, man of steel would be favoured more because if you are going to destroy an entire city, you better show stakes and make people afraid. avengers could not do this thanks to the tone of the movie but its fun.

Also Zod had no armies, Loki's Chitauri of cybernetic alien race must have done more damage to newyork city than Zod ever did to Metropolis.

[Gaastra]

more because if you are going to destroy an entire city, you better show stakes and make people afraid

That's what backfired on synder. He kept showing all the deaths! Superman 2 fought zod in the city also but no backlash. Superman 2 didn't show people getting killed every second. (they did have deaths but ironic they were outside the city!) It's why avengers 2 had the "save everyone in the city" ending it had due to the backlash of man of steel.

If synder had not showed it so much people may not have even cared.

Also still think one scene of superman trying to lure zod out of the city only to fail and gets knocked back into the city would have helped things more.

[The Cool Thatguy]

The story ploy is different. avengers had 6 of them, the more members the more you can strategise, superman is just 1 hero. although the story ploy is different, the 3rd act is still the same topic of superhero movies with final act that is all about just cgi. despite anyone POV on how to judge both, man of steel would be favoured more because if you are going to destroy an entire city, you better show stakes and make people afraid. avengers could not do this thanks to the tone of the movie but its fun.

Also Zod had no armies, Loki's Chitauri of cybernetic alien race must have done more damage to newyork city than Zod ever did to Metropolis.

Zod had no armies...besides his minions with Superman's exact powers. And the devastation caused by that terra forming thing.

So yeah, I think New York was left in better shape, all things considered.

And frankly, it didn't seem as if Superman gave a damn about all the damage being done, until it came time to snap Zod's neck. In contrast, from start to finish, the Avengers tried to mitigate the harm down.

Avengers felt like a battle. Man of Steel felt like disaster porn

[green_garnish]

Also still think one scene of superman trying to lure zod out of the city only to fail and gets knocked back into the city would have helped things more.

I thought there was a scene of Superman trying to take the fight to outer space and Zod pulled him back? Could be wrong about that.

Not that I disagree with the larger point. Avengers always made efforts to save citizens. Superman made one effort, I think. I remember an old youtube video where somebody was trying to refute the argument of "How many people did Superman save" and he came up with a larger number than Superman II. Totally missing the point that it wasn't how many he saved, it was how many he failed to save. Superman II: 0. Man of Steel: Lots more.

[WebLurker]

Snyder was not Nolan-Light, he was a bit heavier than Nolan. Again you are saying this all from a Marvel POV. That hits a wall because Snyder never gave a darm about how marvel made their movies and how their fans saw them in context with DC

The MCU is irrelevant to how Snyder's work compares to Nolan's. It was the best analogy I could think of, given Snyder's instance that he makes superhero movies for adults. Whether he succeeded or failed, would it be fair to say that he essentially wanted to make the Superman version of The Dark Knight?

The source material of Thor is not lying. The marvel formula of turning mostly all their movies to light colourful action driven comedy is not a lie either. Watti had to work in those boundaries as a director.

Which he said was his style anyways (the man made Jojo Rabbit, after all), so that disproves the notion that Marvel stifles their directors' voices. And, yes, the "Marvel formula" is a lie that we need to rest. That's was settled a long time ago. What's even the point of this line of inquiry?

All comic movie have their fun moments, but DOFP is a movie disney would never had made. Singer first film only looks better than usual after 20 years because comic films are worse off now. If Marvel had not been making unnecessary light fluffy generic superficial kid friendly films, X1 would have been forgotten in 2020 and not be worth any throw back.

You're the only person I know arguing that X1 has aged will, over being setup for better things, in its series or otherwise. Frankly, X2 or Logan would be better examples of more serious movies remaining relevant in the here and now.

it is not my opinion. the third act of Avengers had more destruction. Loki brought a full on super powered army in thousands to tear down new york city in the final act, 6 avengers fighting them was doing more damage. that was a bigger damage than only 2 beings fighting in man of steel. the only people who had human powers in avengers were Hawk and Widow. other heros are super powered, Thor and Hulk alone are in the same power feat as superman and zod. did you see when Hulk was smashing buildings?

Avengers 1 is the movie that started the issue of grown men in tights wrecking cities, I don't think credible directors like James Cameron or John Landis just lied about this stuff in Avengers films when they called it out.

As others have addressed, Avengers did it better.

Armored Avenger?

It was a joke. Point, I don't see the logic of the Snyder Cut from a business standpoint.

An Avenger fan that does not like anything about the Snyder cut? maybe this is just to insecure for my taste.

Projecting isn't going to win you your case.

HBO Max are throwing good money (30-50m )on a movie. that is the truth we know.

And I question if that's a good idea. Right or wrong, it is a fair question.

The more reason directors of the likes of James Mangold, James Cameron, Chris Nolan, Zack Snyder would never bow down to anything Feige saw as law

Quite a lot of speculation there.

Because most of the Snyder's naysayer are people who believe marvel movies are the gold standard when they are not. Spielberg movies are not what MCU sees as a competitor.

Where do you get your ideas?