Official Justice League Movie - Page 93

~~Leo656~~ · 03-15-2021, 04:36 PM

I'm sure Pattinson's Batman movie won't be "a bad movie" but I'm neither interested in him as an actor nor in seeing some of the drastic "reinterpretations" of characters like The Riddler.

It's not gonna be "my kind of movie" and therefore I'm not excited to or looking forward to it. I confess that I do have big problems with the fact that the project only exists because they decided to throw out something else that would have been great, but I won't go so far as to say it will be a "bad movie", unless it is which I doubt. Just like I don't think most of the MCU movies are "bad movies", they're just not what I like to see. They're very good at doing what they try to do, which is pretty much the opposite of what the DC movies initially tried to do.

The difference is in the specific type of critical approach a person takes. There's generally only Two Types of negative opinion:

- "This is Bad, therefore I don't like it."

And it's similarly-dressed, but completely independent sibling:

- "I don't like this, therefore it is Bad."

Criticism of the DC movies has always, 99.999% of the time been the latter, and that's a type of "criticism" I simply can't get behind. People didn't like the tone, the color palette, the overall storyline? That's fine, that's allowed. But to say that any of Snyder's DC films were "bad" because of an individual's subjective taste in how he decided to make them... that's questionable. Because they're not "bad movies". They are exceptionally well-crafted to anyone who decides to take them objectively. As I've said, I don't think the MCU movies are "bad movies" either, they're exceptionally well-made, they're just "bad" at giving me the experience I want from a super-hero movie, which is something that the Snyder films provide: Scope, stakes, and gravitas. So while I might not deign to ever watch them, or Pattinson's Batman movie, for my own personal reasons I won't condescend as others have to say that such-and-such is "bad". I've seen enough "bad movies" to know one when I see one, and "This isn't what I wanted" is NOT the same as "This is Bad". So very, very much about what people say is "bad" about those movies simply isn't; it's just not to their tastes, or my favorite, "Here's what *I* would have done..." or "What super-hero movies SHOULD be like is This..."

I wish more people truly understood the difference between those types of "criticism" before they speak. As you said, those who have issues with Snyder's DC movies do generally suck at explaining themselves. I do strongly feel that most of the "criticism" even when it's sincere and thought-out is simply garbage, though. Those movies are held under a totally different microscope than most, for no good reason. Just for fun I like to try and apply some of the same critiques to stuff like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and as expected those same exact criticisms COULD be made in all seriousness towards that trilogy of films but simply are not. It's kinda funny how that works. It's almost like when people look for stuff to bitch about, or expect not to like something, they find stuff to complain about. "Shocking".

You're definitely wrong about people not having preconceived notions about Snyder even before MoS, though. Go back to "Watchmen"; there's never been any middle ground on that one, it's either one of the Top 3 or Bottom 3 comic book movies of all time depending on who you are. Like everything else he's done, a person either really likes or really HATES that movie, and thus when it was announced that he was going to be steering the DC ship beginning with MoS people definitely had opinions. Just today for example, I saw a few comments in various places that were some variant of, "How do I know the Snyder Cut is trash? Because I saw 'Watchmen'." Those lines in the sand were drawn a long, long time ago, and absolutely nobody who picked a side Then is gonna change their opinion Now, no matter what happens.

*Galactus* · 03-15-2021, 07:56 PM

I've long been of the belief that the criticism of the DCEU that it's "too dark" is largely a short hand for a lot of other related issues. Man of Steel came out in 2013 off the back of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy which took a darker and more 'realistic' approach to Batman and was hugely popular. Even with Marvel in it's ascendancy the early movies like Iron Man were not devoid of mature content and themes, Thor: The Dark World was stylistically dark and Age of Ultron was (erroneously) being hyped up as a darker movie so it's not like the casual audience was against dark comic book movies.

It's the way that Snyder did dark that didn't really resonate with people. His DCEU movies give off the vibe of wallowing in their own sense of self importance unlike those other brainless superhero these have something to say. Well...one of them did and frankly it didn't say it particularly well. Themes in Batman v Superman like if Superman was real a lot of people wouldn't trust him and would even fear him is hardly groundbreaking and is treated as if it is. Once you see through that all you're left with is the darkness and shock factor stuff.

Who knows maybe Snyder's Justice League would have redeemed all this but given everything I've hard about his version I doubt it and this reworked version he's done for HBO doesn't instill me with a lot of confidence either.

While Snyder has made some poor creative decisions with these movies I largely think the blame lies with WB. Maybe don't hand the keys to their entire stable of characters from the dominant genre in global fiction to someone so divisive and definitively don't double down on him when the reception to his first movie was equally as divisive.

~~Leo656~~ · 03-15-2021, 08:23 PM

But again, a lot of that is subjective.

I jumped into DC as a fan of the comics when I was naught but 3 years old. I got heavily invested right after "Crisis" and was heavily entrenched in their comics from then through around 2010. Obviously I liked and enjoyed some of the movies and cartoons and TV shows that came out based on those characters, but they were still always lacking. For better or worse, the DCU of '86 and beyond is and has been a 'dark, R-Rated universe that takes itself Very, Very Seriously." And I GET that not everybody likes that, and that's why there are cartoon shows and animated movies and yes, even other live-action films that can scratch their particular "itch" for something that resembles the comics but without as much "weight".

But none of those things ever gave me the DCU that I recognized from the comics, and these movies do. They "feel" like reading Crisis, or Infinite Crisis, or Final Crisis, or any of a dozen other storylines felt. They really feel like watching a living, breathing comic book in live action, with the exact same feeling of verisimilitude and "This Is All Really Happening" without winking at the audience. In the comics I've read and prefer, there's little if any breaking the 4th wall to remind the audience that "This is all just silly capesh*t not to be taken seriously." When Darkseid invades, for example, it's The End Of Days and is treated in-story as such. It's not a laughing matter, nor should it be.

And I just don't get why some people can't wrap their head around the fact that a movie, or series of films, would dare to TRY and treat the material with the exact same gravity as the comic book stories that inspired them. Because that's all the guy was ever trying to do. There are storyline liberties taken here and there but it's only these specific films, along with "Batman Begins", that actually FEEL like DC comics, to me. They are the very epitome of "spiritually faithful". And I don't get why some things or concepts are "awesome" when they happen on the printed page but "too dark/too serious" when played in live action. I'll never get it. I'm not sure I want to "get it".

I mean, sure, there's the entire other argument that "These things cost billions of dollars, therefore they need to make billions of dollars, and most people don't read comics anyway so who gives a sh*t what they think, what we need are populist blockbusters and if you're not trying to please Everyone you're failing by default." But that's a whole other conversation AND I'll maintain that in a world where we already have a ton of Those Kind Of Movies that we should be allowed to have other types as well.

I'm not exaggerating one bit when I say that as a lifelong reader of DC comics, Watchmen, MoS, BvS and (very likely) Zack's Justice League are exactly the kind of comic book movies I always wanted to see but was sure I'd never get: Ones that marry "realism" (insofar as tone and stakes) with the absolutely fantastic and "unreal" with no apology. For as good as Nolan's Batman movies were, for example, they almost "apologized" for all the more outlandish bits of the mythos; they went a little "TOO Real" at the expense of a lot of things they could have maybe done. Stuff like Burton's Batman movies wallowed in the "weird" to the point where the characters were cartoonish, and the less said about Schumacher's take, the better. It always felt like comic book movies were either going to be a complete cartoon OR completely grounded.

So regardless of how anyone else feels, I will always be grateful that someone, FINALLY, made an attempt to just Do It Like The Books and make no apologies for it. It was a noble effort.

Whether "everyone" liked it, wanted it, or thinks it was "correct"... Well, Whatever.

~~AquaParade~~ · 03-16-2021, 12:51 PM

I watched BvS again last night for the first time in a couple years. I still enjoy it, but my feelings are always mixed.
There is something so oppressive about these movies and I don't think it comes from the darkness of the storyline, but the coldness and un-likeability of so many characters.

When it comes to Batman, Superman, WW, and Alfred, I am pretty much sold. I can get into these versions of the characters well enough, especially visually.

Nearly everyone else is hard to be around. Lex, the Senator, the Martian Manhunter dude, the man who blows up the courthouse, etc. I find nearly all the side-characters unbearable.
I think for most of them it comes down to the script - so much of the dialogue really does feel self-important, pretentious, or unnatural. It's not clever, captivating dialogue like Tarantino does it. It's more like someone taking five minutes to send every text back so they can come up with something that sounds really deep, but it just sounds like they are trying too hard.
Here's just a few examples off the top of my head that sound dorky or unnatural in the given situation to me:

"With balls like that, you belong in here." (Martian Manhunter says to Lois when she questions him in the men's bathroom. Why the hell would MM say something like that? It makes me wince no matter who says it though.)

"I grew up on a farm - I know how to 'wrassle' a pig." (Nothing inherently wrong with this, but I find it cringe. Maybe it's the delivery or the fact that Senator has annoyed me too much by this point in the film)

"I can't even take a piss standing up" (man in wheelchair to senator when describing why he hates Superman. Could be delivery here too. It's just...too much.)

With Lex, my issues lean more towards the choices Eisenberg is making. His dialect and the way he adds a "hmm" or "ah" every sentence is so goofy. I respect that he is trying to give us a lively, fun character to watch on-screen, but the execution is awful. Then there is the granny's peach tee thing, which I just find...goofy and dumb. It's too much.

So yeah, it makes the movie a bit of a slog to get through. But every time that XL junkie score kicks in over a Superman montage or Batman action scene, I'm glued to the screen like a five year old on Saturday morning.

*CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy* · 03-16-2021, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AquaParade

With Lex, my issues lean more towards the choices Eisenberg is making. His dialect and the way he adds a "hmm" or "ah" every sentence is so goofy. I respect that he is trying to give us a lively, fun character to watch on-screen, but the execution is awful. Then there is the granny's peach tee thing, which I just find...goofy and dumb. It's too much.

If anybody else had been playing Lex, my enjoyment of the film would be almost at 100% (minus a nitpick here or a "Martha" there).

Jesse Eisenberg was atrocious. Jim Carrey as the Riddler levels of atrocious. Just the fucking worst.

The only scene he's remotely interesting or threatening in is confronting Superman on top of the building with pictures of Martha Kent. The tics and zany bull$hit are gone, and it's just a cold ruthless villain who hates Superman and is going to destroy him through the only vulnerability he could find.

*Galactus* · 03-16-2021, 06:31 PM

I restate the argument that the public's problems with Snyder's DC movies are not that they are dark. At the time of Man of Steel's release 'dark' and 'realistic' superhero movies were still the in thing especially after the Dark Knight trilogy.

Now dark and realistic work well for a character like Batman as conceptually he is a darker character and without powers it's easy to portray him as realistic. It's a harder sell for Superman but that's why they got Christopher Nolan to be executive producer to give it some credibility in this regard.

It's hard to put into words why it didn't work other than perhaps Peter Griffin summed it up; it insists upon itself. A good example of this is how his DC movies really hammers the parallels between Superman and Jesus (something I've always thought was overstated) but my god does Snyder want us to know Superman represents Christ. These things are best when done with a degree of subtlety but I almost expected his monument to say "Kal-El died for our sins".

How the Jesus parallels would have worked long term is were it would have broken down. After all Jesus was sent to Earth by his father, he preached peace and love but was met with distrust and fear. He was killed for our sins but was resurrected...and was brainwashed to be evil by space Nixon to attack humanity. Doesn't quite work, does it? And that's before taking into consideration Snyder's other plans for the character.

I also don't think the tone really fitted the DC heroes other than Batman. You're obviously a bigger DC fan that me but I've been reading DC for a longtime too and frankly even after their universe got Marvel-ized after Crisis on the Infinite Earths (and that's totally what they did) they are rarely portrayed as dreary as Snyder portrayed them. I don't really recognise them and their world and there are bigger fans than I that clearly feel the same way. If you're going to mess with not just the continuity but the spirit of these characters you need good reasons and everything I've seen about these movies and everything we know Snyder planned never seemed good enough reasons for it.

*CyberCubed* · 03-16-2021, 06:34 PM

It has a 77% on rotten. Really surprised it's gotten mostly positive reviews, Joss Whedon really must have screwed this up when he cut it down.

~~AquaParade~~ · 03-16-2021, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

It has a 77% on rotten. Really surprised it's gotten mostly positive reviews, Joss Whedon really must have screwed this up when he cut it down.

I'm shocked. I've truly enjoyed his movies, but I didn't expect everyone else to like this one so much. Especially after all the ******** his movies have been through. You don't really see anyone hardcore crapping on this film the way they do his others. At least not yet.

I still don't want to get my hopes up, because I haven't expected this to be my favorite film of the trilogy, but if it is, what a pleasant surprise that'll be.

*sdp* · 03-16-2021, 08:40 PM

I think whedon is going to get a lot of hate for a lot of stuff that likely wasn't his fault but Warner Media's. They likely told him "use some of the footage because we can't restart from scratch, take the basic premise/plot/scenes and make a new movie with this budget and turn it in before the due date for a movie that is more "fun" like those Marvel movies, add some jokes and light heartedness."

*TigerClaw* · 03-16-2021, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdp

I think whedon is going to get a lot of hate for a lot of stuff that likely wasn't his fault but Warner Media's. They likely told him "use some of the footage because we can't restart from scratch, take the basic premise/plot/scenes and make a new movie with this budget and turn it in before the due date for a movie that is more "fun" like those Marvel movies, add some jokes and light heartedness."

Its interesting because Warner Bros was always known as the studio that is director friendly. They allow the directors to do whatever they want with any of there IPs. But the fact they had issue with the DC movies is pretty bizarre. This is like the 2nd time they let Zack Snyder re-edit a movie. Years ago he did the Ultimate Edition of Batman v Superman which turned out to be a better version then the theatrical version, and now this.

*Galactus* · 03-16-2021, 09:14 PM

Most of the positive reviews I've read are hardly glowing. The general consensus is it's better than the theatrical version and praise for Snyder being able to fully realise his "vision".

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdp

I think whedon is going to get a lot of hate for a lot of stuff that likely wasn't his fault but Warner Media's. They likely told him "use some of the footage because we can't restart from scratch, take the basic premise/plot/scenes and make a new movie with this budget and turn it in before the due date for a movie that is more "fun" like those Marvel movies, add some jokes and light heartedness."

It was never going to be good under those circumstances but he as a creator is too far removed from Snyder to ever have it mesh even remotely well. Of course Snyder's style is very unique I'm not sure there is any director that could have done that even if they wanted to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

Its interesting because Warner Bros was always known as the studio that is director friendly. They allow the directors to do whatever they want with any of there IPs. But the fact they had issue with the DC movies is pretty bizarre. This is like the 2nd time they let Zack Snyder re-edit a movie.

It's not really that bizarre. The DCEU was supposed to be a slam dunk, these are some of the biggest and most beloved characters in modern fiction yet Snyder's first attempt was largely met with mixed feelings from everyone and Batman v Superman, a movie generations had been waiting for was roundly hated. Something had to be do had to done. There is zero way Snyder's Justice League would have been received well.

~~Leo656~~ · 03-16-2021, 10:09 PM

- The flipside to "Few of the positive reviews are gushing" is that only about two of the "Negative" reviews are all that negative, either. Since there are only a comparative few of the negative reviews, I decided to read through them just to see what the main problem they seem to have is, and only two of them fully trash the movie. The rest all just keep saying "It's long, it's long, it's sooooo long you guys, and did we mention that it's really long?" So okay, it's long. We've had many, many months to get used to that idea. The few who do flat-out say that it's bad also hated all of Snyder's other movies, so no shock there at all.

So the near-unanimous consensus from both sides is, "It's definitely better than the theatrical cut, but How Much Better depends greatly on your opinion of Snyder's movies in general. If you like those, you'll like this, and if you hate those, you'll hate this, because this is the Zack Snyder-iest thing that Zack Snyder ever Zack Snyder'ed." Color me shocked, great job for saying things we already knew or could have guessed.

- Given what every other script or draft of any version of "Batman V Superman" or "Superman Vs. Batman" or "Pick Your Title" that's ever been developed read like, you may find it hard to believe but there's very little chance - based on what people say they wanted from That Movie - that ANY version of THAT would ever have been well-received by mainstream audiences, either. WB, for whatever reason, has ALWAYS had designs on that movie being a "grimdark slog" with a lot of manufactured angst between the title characters, and a "Title Fight" that happens (and then gets immediately resolved) for rather thin reasons.

Stuff like divorced Clark dealing with the fact that Lois doesn't love him anymore... Bruce getting married and then his wife getting murdered by the Joker on their wedding night... Lex having brought the Joker back from the dead through cloning (just so Burton's Batman movie could somehow be "canon" with this)... Bruce's "wife" having been an actress or plant sent by the Joker and/or Lex as part of the ruse... Batman spending the entire movie trying to kill the Joker, and Superman and him having to fight to near-death because "You're BETTER than that, Bruce!", and their fight stopping for a reason even more paper-thin than "Martha" ever could be - Bruce discovers his "wife" was a plant, and the whole thing was a giant gag to make Batman break his "One Rule", so Superman and Batman team up to go beat up Joker and Luthor - those were ALL ideas that made it very far along into various drafts for the BvS or SvB movie.

And let's be honest... ALL of that would have been f*cking terrible. People might have some issues with Snyder's version of the movie we got, but trust me when I say that what we got was absolutely the best version of a Superman/Batman "fight-then-team-up" movie that WB was ever capable of producing. I know some people were hellbent on That Movie being some kind of upbeat, inspiring, "trumpets-sound-and-angels-sing" World's Finest movie, but for whatever reason WB has never, ever wanted to make the movie that way. It was always going to be very similar in tone and execution to what we actually got.

Even if someone else had directed it, it was always gonna be "dark" and "gloomy" and "divisive" and not very well-received. Because 1. WB - for their own reasons - insisted from inception back in 2001 or whatever that it needed to be a "darker movie", and 2. There is never and will never be a "good reason" for a giant Superman/Batman fistfight anyway, and anything that would manipulate events towards such a thing would inevitably feel... well... manipulative.

I genuinely feel like WB, ultimately, has (or had) a fundamental insistence that their movies skew "darker" and "more serious" (not just their super-hero stuff, just their output in general), and they initially hired Snyder because they felt like his sensibilities were strongly in line with theirs... and that relationship only soured when the movies didn't make enough money. Remember that the 3-hour cut of BvS reportedly got a "standing ovation" from WB execs before it was chopped down and released to theaters. I don't think he would have gotten the keys to the kingdom and been allowed to generate so much material before WB abruptly got cold feet, if the people Up Top weren't 100% behind him at some point. I think WB always seriously thought that his approach was gonna work and the audience was going to come around, and I think they were seriously shocked when that didn't happen and didn't have any idea how to "correct" because they didn't know what they'd misread about the audience in the first place.

My point is, I feel bad that Zack gets a lot of blame for things that are less about him and more about how WB chooses to make movies.

- The critics' score apparently went up and then down again but is still hovering around 76%. I am gonna laugh for a week if somehow this ends up being Zack's best-reviewed DC movie. Considering how low the scores for MoS and Watchmen are, I think it actually has a better-than-decent chance. That's hilarious, considering this thing was supposed to be 1. Non-existent, and 2. A "complete disaster".

~~AquaParade~~ · 03-16-2021, 10:28 PM

I hesitate to get too anecdotal, but actually, yeah, some of the reviews really are gushing.

Now, you have to separate out all the Snyder enthusiasts who literally made this happen, because they are, in all fairness, biased as ****. They have a right to be.

But even then, you can find a healthy amount of glowing reviews. I'll try to share some if I get a chance.

~~Leo656~~ · 03-16-2021, 10:48 PM

I'll admit that I honestly didn't read too many positive reviews because I assume that they're people who were already "sold" on this project a while ago - and also, not for nothing, but there are too many positive reviews and it was quicker for me to read the "negative" ones. I do see some 9 out of 10, 4 out of 5 scores but I didn't read the actual reviews of those.

I generally don't put a lot of stock in critical reviews anyway but I do like to read them. But every movie gets a lot of hyperbole from either end.

For example, there's like two seriously negative reviews in the whole bunch, and in places that decided years ago that this thing was "trash", they deliberately ignore everything except the EW review and hold that up as gospel. "It's even worse than we knew it would be!"

Meanwhile, as I said, I took the time to actually read the full reviews and very few of the "negative" reviews even ARE all that negative in the first place. They just harp on the length and the self-seriousness of it all. Some of them seem even just a shade away from an actual endorsement, and are only cited as "Rotten" because of a specific blurb here or there, which is strange.

It definitely seems stuffed and self-indulgent... but both the Positive and Negative reviews are correct in that people like myself wouldn't have it any other way. It seems like exactly the movie I always wanted, while at the same time being a bit "too much" for a lot of people. Which I completely understand, and thoroughly don't care about.

It's nice that some other people apparently feel the same way, but I don't think those 9/10 scores ultimately mean much in the larger picture. I think the truth is, it's definitely better than the theatrical cut (How could it NOT be?!) but only people like me are bound to actually love it. Everyone else will most likely feel "grudging tolerance with a smidge of admiration", but not full-blown adoration.

*Andrew NDB* · 03-16-2021, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Yet, I don't think there was any bias against Snyder's films until the Justice League drama went down. Many people simply didn't like BvS or Man of Steel, and sucked at describing why.

The wheels didn't really come off until partially with BvS. Wantonly murderous Batman, Zuckerberg Lex, and a "Dark Knight Returns" and "Death of Superman" (and really? his death, now? in technically what is his first movie AS Superman?) one-two punch in the DCEU's first inning... if it had only been a couple of these things, maybe the movie would have been OK (like with MoS I really hate how Pa Kent died, not because "it isn't what I wanted to see!" but because it doesn't make any sense and is stupid... Superman not saving anybody at all in the finale, same thing -- my point is, just these two things alone didn't kill what was otherwise a pretty great Superman movie to me)... but all lumped together? Man. That's a lot of "ick." I'm not saying I wasn't open to "Justice League" somehow redeeming BvS retroactively, but it's hard to disagree with a lot of the flak BvS got.

~~Leo656~~ · 03-16-2021, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Superman not saving anybody at all in the finale, same thing

Somebody on YouTube banged the nail pretty hard on this particular bit of Bad Criticism with regard to both MoS and BvS.

No, he didn't continually drop everything to catch This Guy from falling or drag That Guy out of a burning building... of course not, because he was rightly focused on the Immediate Threat of the moment. We didn't see individual scenes of him saving individual people because he was too busy saving EVERYONE on a macro level.

It would honestly have been pretty stupid to have those scenes in there during the climax of either film, with the villain of either on an indiscriminate Murder Rampage. Like if he stops fighting Zod to save One Person, Zod could have and would have easily killed another hundred people in the time it takes to save one. "Oh, gosh, there's a falling guy! I better go catch him! I'm sure it'll be fine if I take my eyes off of Zod just for a moment, and... ahhhhh DAMMIT he just knocked over a building with a thousand people inside, killing everybody all at once. Guess I dropped the f*cking ball on THAT one." Like come ON. "Think, McFly, THINK!"

I get what people are traditionally predisposed to seeing during what they think a "Superman Movie" should be, but some things don't make any logical sense. The idea that "he didn't save anybody" is a big ball of nothing. He saved Everyone, literally the entire world. It's nonsense. We don't NEED the "cat in the tree" stuff happening at the same time the indestructible aliens with laser eyes are murdering everyone.

*Andrew NDB* · 03-17-2021, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

Like if he stops fighting Zod to save One Person, Zod could have and would have easily killed another hundred people in the time it takes to save one. "Oh, gosh, there's a falling guy! I better go catch him! I'm sure it'll be fine if I take my eyes off of Zod just for a moment, and... ahhhhh DAMMIT he just knocked over a building with a thousand people inside, killing everybody

Maybe not, but even something small probably would have sufficed. And if not during the battle itself... perhaps a few quick cuts or a montage of him helping people out of the rubble in its aftermath... you know... before he starts making out with Lois on top of all of the bodies.

~~Leo656~~ · 03-17-2021, 06:39 AM

People would still just move the goalposts back like they always do. How do I know this? Welllll...

- "Superman Returns" purposely had lots of "rescue" shots - one of them an entire massive sequence (the plane) and they still had him rescuing people during the Metropolis scene at the end, like the guy he caught and the guys in the tunnel - and people swore the movie sucked because they decided to arbitrarily harp on OTHER things they wanted to nitpick.

- More specific to Snyder's Superman, BvS purposely added in more scenes of him rescuing people than were in MoS - granted, one of the key ones (the Capitol building) was cut from the theatrical release because WB is run by drunken chimps - and people still just said 1. "Not enough" and 2. "I don't like the way it was framed/shot." Like sure, count me in as someone who would have loved for the Hero Montage scene of him rescuing people while the talking heads on TV argued about whether or not he should be "allowed to help people" to be much longer, because it's one of my favorite scenes in the film, and more of that could only have been a good thing. At the same time, people crying about the shot of him hovering over the flood victims because "*I* would have shot it so that he actually zips around saving everyone like Mighty Mouse or whatever" was some serious nitpicky sh*t. Like of COURSE he's going to save them, he's not there to f*cking gloat.

The point of the entire montage - and that shot, along with the Day of the Dead one with the little girl - was to illustrate how Humanity sees him as this aloof, godlike figure whereas he himself is "just a guy trying to do the right thing" - the pundit's commentary here being a little bit on the nose, but also completely necessary as we've seen by just how many people completely missed the point of the scene. "I would have shot it differently" would have undercut the point of the montage, and to a smaller degree the entire film. However, would it have hurt to have that montage include MORE rescue scenes? Sure, absolutely add more, as long as they fit in context. But it's already a long movie.

But see, that's the thing. People said "We want more Superman rescues", BvS gave them that but "Not the way *I* would have done it!" and so they still bitched. They purposely staged the Doomsday fight in an "abandoned" location so that the heroes didn't have to worry about anything BUT Fighting The Bad Guy, to try and circumvent some of those complaints preemptively, but of course, people still complained because that's what people do. They move goalposts and complain when nobody can score what they think is a Goal.

Here's what happens: Nobody honestly gives a sh*t about Superman until a movie comes out, and THEN everybody's an "expert" (either on the character or making movies in general) and knows how to make the movie, "what they should have done instead", etc.

Your takes are different than most, you've legitimately studied filmmaking so while I often think you get too hung up on minutiae and technicalities and in turn form what I guess would be called a more "clinical" opinion, it at least carries some weight and I can respect that even when I disagree. Other people, though? Pure ignorance.

As I've said elsewhere, when you ask people who "self-identify" as Superman Fans what an "acceptable" movie would be in their eyes, they tell you: The Donner movie redux with better SFX, complete with Williams score. Cats in trees and rah-rah speeches about Truth, Justice, Mom and Apple Pie. Anything else "misunderstands the character" and they'll puke on it. They SAY this, you don't have to infer it. They're stuck in this mental box where the only version of Superman they'll accept on film is the one they saw when they were five years old, and it's why making movies with the character NOW is so incredibly difficult.

No matter WHAT you give them, if it's not Exactly That, then those people will just keep moving those goalposts back and tell you "You misunderstand the character." I've been told more times in the last 10+ years that I "misunderstand/don't like the character" by people who have never even read a comic book in their entire lives that it turns my stomach. BUT, that's the way it goes.

People act like "All they needed to do to make a better-received Superman movie is THIS..." And I'm saying, No, it's a LOT more complicated than that. You don't know these people the way I do. You have no idea how stunted and myopic they are with regards to what Is and Isn't "acceptable". Making a "good" or even just "praised and accepted" Superman movie is a lot more complicated than anyone thinks it is. It's NOT just "Well if we added more of This" or "If this scene was like This" or "What if we cast This Guy as Lex instead of That Guy?"

It will ALWAYS be something else. You're talking about trying to please a group of individuals who will never accept anything other than Exactly What They Want, and "what they want" is a broken and outdated model. That's what it comes down to.

*ZariusTwo* · 03-17-2021, 07:22 AM

Well the whole thing leaked. A few Youtube channels are even livestreaming their copies

Just reached the end of Part Four myself, a few thoughts

Spoiler:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galactus

Most of the positive reviews I've read are hardly glowing. The general consensus is it's better than the theatrical version and praise for Snyder being able to fully realise his "vision".

Variety's praise says it all, they believe it does in four hours what the MCU couldn't achieve until they were nine movies in at their peak.

Take the L Mouseketeers.

~~Leo656~~ · 03-17-2021, 07:28 AM

You knew that sh*t was gonna happen. Sigh.

I have other things to do today, and apparently we already have HBO Max so I have no interest nor inclination in being a thief.

Since we don't have to go to the gym or anywhere tomorrow, my wife and I are planning to do a back-to-back marathon of MoS, BvS, and ZSJL all day long. We were originally going to do that way back in the day, but then the theatrical cut of JL had nothing at all to do with MoS and BvS so we never bothered, as the complete tonal and storytelling disconnect would have been too jarring.

As quite possibly the last movie I'll ever have any reason to be excited for, it stands to be quite an experience. Very much looking forward to it.

Also, even the negative reviews have been absolutely raving about Cyborg's role, so I can't wait to see all of that stuff.

03-15-2021, 07:56 PM	#1842
Galactus Foot Elite Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,009	I've long been of the belief that the criticism of the DCEU that it's "too dark" is largely a short hand for a lot of other related issues. Man of Steel came out in 2013 off the back of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy which took a darker and more 'realistic' approach to Batman and was hugely popular. Even with Marvel in it's ascendancy the early movies like Iron Man were not devoid of mature content and themes, Thor: The Dark World was stylistically dark and Age of Ultron was (erroneously) being hyped up as a darker movie so it's not like the casual audience was against dark comic book movies. It's the way that Snyder did dark that didn't really resonate with people. His DCEU movies give off the vibe of wallowing in their own sense of self importance unlike those other brainless superhero these have something to say. Well...one of them did and frankly it didn't say it particularly well. Themes in Batman v Superman like if Superman was real a lot of people wouldn't trust him and would even fear him is hardly groundbreaking and is treated as if it is. Once you see through that all you're left with is the darkness and shock factor stuff. Who knows maybe Snyder's Justice League would have redeemed all this but given everything I've hard about his version I doubt it and this reworked version he's done for HBO doesn't instill me with a lot of confidence either. While Snyder has made some poor creative decisions with these movies I largely think the blame lies with WB. Maybe don't hand the keys to their entire stable of characters from the dominant genre in global fiction to someone so divisive and definitively don't double down on him when the reception to his first movie was equally as divisive. Last edited by Galactus; 03-15-2021 at 08:15 PM.

03-16-2021, 12:51 PM	#1844
~~AquaParade~~ Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 8,450	I watched BvS again last night for the first time in a couple years. I still enjoy it, but my feelings are always mixed. There is something so oppressive about these movies and I don't think it comes from the darkness of the storyline, but the coldness and un-likeability of so many characters. When it comes to Batman, Superman, WW, and Alfred, I am pretty much sold. I can get into these versions of the characters well enough, especially visually. Nearly everyone else is hard to be around. Lex, the Senator, the Martian Manhunter dude, the man who blows up the courthouse, etc. I find nearly all the side-characters unbearable. I think for most of them it comes down to the script - so much of the dialogue really does feel self-important, pretentious, or unnatural. It's not clever, captivating dialogue like Tarantino does it. It's more like someone taking five minutes to send every text back so they can come up with something that sounds really deep, but it just sounds like they are trying too hard. Here's just a few examples off the top of my head that sound dorky or unnatural in the given situation to me: "With balls like that, you belong in here." (Martian Manhunter says to Lois when she questions him in the men's bathroom. Why the hell would MM say something like that? It makes me wince no matter who says it though.) "I grew up on a farm - I know how to 'wrassle' a pig." (Nothing inherently wrong with this, but I find it cringe. Maybe it's the delivery or the fact that Senator has annoyed me too much by this point in the film) "I can't even take a piss standing up" (man in wheelchair to senator when describing why he hates Superman. Could be delivery here too. It's just...too much.) With Lex, my issues lean more towards the choices Eisenberg is making. His dialect and the way he adds a "hmm" or "ah" every sentence is so goofy. I respect that he is trying to give us a lively, fun character to watch on-screen, but the execution is awful. Then there is the granny's peach tee thing, which I just find...goofy and dumb. It's too much. So yeah, it makes the movie a bit of a slog to get through. But every time that XL junkie score kicks in over a Superman montage or Batman action scene, I'm glued to the screen like a five year old on Saturday morning. Last edited by AquaParade; 03-16-2021 at 01:03 PM.

03-16-2021, 08:40 PM	#1849
sdp Detoxed Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Tokio, Italy Posts: 11,222	I think whedon is going to get a lot of hate for a lot of stuff that likely wasn't his fault but Warner Media's. They likely told him "use some of the footage because we can't restart from scratch, take the basic premise/plot/scenes and make a new movie with this budget and turn it in before the due date for a movie that is more "fun" like those Marvel movies, add some jokes and light heartedness." __________________ *Trapt* *urself Page MiscRave!!!* Click to join The Drome Discord server

03-15-2021, 04:36 PM	#1841
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	I'm sure Pattinson's Batman movie won't be "a bad movie" but I'm neither interested in him as an actor nor in seeing some of the drastic "reinterpretations" of characters like The Riddler. It's not gonna be "my kind of movie" and therefore I'm not excited to or looking forward to it. I confess that I do have big problems with the fact that the project only exists because they decided to throw out something else that would have been great, but I won't go so far as to say it will be a "bad movie", unless it is which I doubt. Just like I don't think most of the MCU movies are "bad movies", they're just not what I like to see. They're very good at doing what they try to do, which is pretty much the opposite of what the DC movies initially tried to do. The difference is in the specific type of critical approach a person takes. There's generally only Two Types of negative opinion: - "This is Bad, therefore I don't like it." And it's similarly-dressed, but completely independent sibling: - "I don't like this, therefore it is Bad." Criticism of the DC movies has always, 99.999% of the time been the latter, and that's a type of "criticism" I simply can't get behind. People didn't like the tone, the color palette, the overall storyline? That's fine, that's allowed. But to say that any of Snyder's DC films were "bad" because of an individual's subjective taste in how he decided to make them... that's questionable. Because they're not "bad movies". They are exceptionally well-crafted to anyone who decides to take them objectively. As I've said, I don't think the MCU movies are "bad movies" either, they're exceptionally well-made, they're just "bad" at giving me the experience I want from a super-hero movie, which is something that the Snyder films provide: Scope, stakes, and gravitas. So while I might not deign to ever watch them, or Pattinson's Batman movie, for my own personal reasons I won't condescend as others have to say that such-and-such is "bad". I've seen enough "bad movies" to know one when I see one, and "This isn't what I wanted" is NOT the same as "This is Bad". So very, very much about what people say is "bad" about those movies simply isn't; it's just not to their tastes, or my favorite, "Here's what I would have done..." or "What super-hero movies SHOULD be like is This..." I wish more people truly understood the difference between those types of "criticism" before they speak. As you said, those who have issues with Snyder's DC movies do generally suck at explaining themselves. I do strongly feel that most of the "criticism" even when it's sincere and thought-out is simply garbage, though. Those movies are held under a totally different microscope than most, for no good reason. Just for fun I like to try and apply some of the same critiques to stuff like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and as expected those same exact criticisms COULD be made in all seriousness towards that trilogy of films but simply are not. It's kinda funny how that works. It's almost like when people look for stuff to bitch about, or expect not to like something, they find stuff to complain about. "Shocking". You're definitely wrong about people not having preconceived notions about Snyder even before MoS, though. Go back to "Watchmen"; there's never been any middle ground on that one, it's either one of the Top 3 or Bottom 3 comic book movies of all time depending on who you are. Like everything else he's done, a person either really likes or really HATES that movie, and thus when it was announced that he was going to be steering the DC ship beginning with MoS people definitely had opinions. Just today for example, I saw a few comments in various places that were some variant of, "How do I know the Snyder Cut is trash? Because I saw 'Watchmen'." Those lines in the sand were drawn a long, long time ago, and absolutely nobody who picked a side Then is gonna change their opinion Now, no matter what happens.

03-15-2021, 08:23 PM	#1843
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	But again, a lot of that is subjective. I jumped into DC as a fan of the comics when I was naught but 3 years old. I got heavily invested right after "Crisis" and was heavily entrenched in their comics from then through around 2010. Obviously I liked and enjoyed some of the movies and cartoons and TV shows that came out based on those characters, but they were still always lacking. For better or worse, the DCU of '86 and beyond is and has been a 'dark, R-Rated universe that takes itself Very, Very Seriously." And I GET that not everybody likes that, and that's why there are cartoon shows and animated movies and yes, even other live-action films that can scratch their particular "itch" for something that resembles the comics but without as much "weight". But none of those things ever gave me the DCU that I recognized from the comics, and these movies do. They "feel" like reading Crisis, or Infinite Crisis, or Final Crisis, or any of a dozen other storylines felt. They really feel like watching a living, breathing comic book in live action, with the exact same feeling of verisimilitude and "This Is All Really Happening" without winking at the audience. In the comics I've read and prefer, there's little if any breaking the 4th wall to remind the audience that "This is all just silly capesht not to be taken seriously." When Darkseid invades, for example, it's The End Of Days and is treated in-story as such. It's not a laughing matter, nor should it be. And I just don't get why some people can't wrap their head around the fact that a movie, or series of films, would dare to TRY and treat the material with the exact same gravity as the comic book stories that inspired them. Because that's all the guy was ever trying to do. There are storyline liberties taken here and there but it's only these* specific films, along with "Batman Begins", that actually FEEL like DC comics, to me. They are the very epitome of "spiritually faithful". And I don't get why some things or concepts are "awesome" when they happen on the printed page but "too dark/too serious" when played in live action. I'll never get it. I'm not sure I want to "get it". I mean, sure, there's the entire other argument that "These things cost billions of dollars, therefore they need to make billions of dollars, and most people don't read comics anyway so who gives a sh*t what they think, what we need are populist blockbusters and if you're not trying to please Everyone you're failing by default." But that's a whole other conversation AND I'll maintain that in a world where we already have a ton of Those Kind Of Movies that we should be allowed to have other types as well. I'm not exaggerating one bit when I say that as a lifelong reader of DC comics, Watchmen, MoS, BvS and (very likely) Zack's Justice League are exactly the kind of comic book movies I always wanted to see but was sure I'd never get: Ones that marry "realism" (insofar as tone and stakes) with the absolutely fantastic and "unreal" with no apology. For as good as Nolan's Batman movies were, for example, they almost "apologized" for all the more outlandish bits of the mythos; they went a little "TOO Real" at the expense of a lot of things they could have maybe done. Stuff like Burton's Batman movies wallowed in the "weird" to the point where the characters were cartoonish, and the less said about Schumacher's take, the better. It always felt like comic book movies were either going to be a complete cartoon OR completely grounded. So regardless of how anyone else feels, I will always be grateful that someone, FINALLY, made an attempt to just Do It Like The Books and make no apologies for it. It was a noble effort. Whether "everyone" liked it, wanted it, or thinks it was "correct"... Well, Whatever.

03-16-2021, 06:31 PM	#1846
Galactus Foot Elite Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,009	I restate the argument that the public's problems with Snyder's DC movies are not that they are dark. At the time of Man of Steel's release 'dark' and 'realistic' superhero movies were still the in thing especially after the Dark Knight trilogy. Now dark and realistic work well for a character like Batman as conceptually he is a darker character and without powers it's easy to portray him as realistic. It's a harder sell for Superman but that's why they got Christopher Nolan to be executive producer to give it some credibility in this regard. It's hard to put into words why it didn't work other than perhaps Peter Griffin summed it up; it insists upon itself. A good example of this is how his DC movies really hammers the parallels between Superman and Jesus (something I've always thought was overstated) but my god does Snyder want us to know Superman represents Christ. These things are best when done with a degree of subtlety but I almost expected his monument to say "Kal-El died for our sins". How the Jesus parallels would have worked long term is were it would have broken down. After all Jesus was sent to Earth by his father, he preached peace and love but was met with distrust and fear. He was killed for our sins but was resurrected...and was brainwashed to be evil by space Nixon to attack humanity. Doesn't quite work, does it? And that's before taking into consideration Snyder's other plans for the character. I also don't think the tone really fitted the DC heroes other than Batman. You're obviously a bigger DC fan that me but I've been reading DC for a longtime too and frankly even after their universe got Marvel-ized after Crisis on the Infinite Earths (and that's totally what they did) they are rarely portrayed as dreary as Snyder portrayed them. I don't really recognise them and their world and there are bigger fans than I that clearly feel the same way. If you're going to mess with not just the continuity but the spirit of these characters you need good reasons and everything I've seen about these movies and everything we know Snyder planned never seemed good enough reasons for it.

03-16-2021, 06:34 PM	#1847
CyberCubed Overlord Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 43,881	It has a 77% on rotten. Really surprised it's gotten mostly positive reviews, Joss Whedon really must have screwed this up when he cut it down.

03-16-2021, 10:09 PM	#1852
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	- The flipside to "Few of the positive reviews are gushing" is that only about two of the "Negative" reviews are all that negative, either. Since there are only a comparative few of the negative reviews, I decided to read through them just to see what the main problem they seem to have is, and only two of them fully trash the movie. The rest all just keep saying "It's long, it's long, it's sooooo long you guys, and did we mention that it's really long?" So okay, it's long. We've had many, many months to get used to that idea. The few who do flat-out say that it's bad also hated all of Snyder's other movies, so no shock there at all. So the near-unanimous consensus from both sides is, "It's definitely better than the theatrical cut, but How Much Better depends greatly on your opinion of Snyder's movies in general. If you like those, you'll like this, and if you hate those, you'll hate this, because this is the Zack Snyder-iest thing that Zack Snyder ever Zack Snyder'ed." Color me shocked, great job for saying things we already knew or could have guessed. - Given what every other script or draft of any version of "Batman V Superman" or "Superman Vs. Batman" or "Pick Your Title" that's ever been developed read like, you may find it hard to believe but there's very little chance - based on what people say they wanted from That Movie - that ANY version of THAT would ever have been well-received by mainstream audiences, either. WB, for whatever reason, has ALWAYS had designs on that movie being a "grimdark slog" with a lot of manufactured angst between the title characters, and a "Title Fight" that happens (and then gets immediately resolved) for rather thin reasons. Stuff like divorced Clark dealing with the fact that Lois doesn't love him anymore... Bruce getting married and then his wife getting murdered by the Joker on their wedding night... Lex having brought the Joker back from the dead through cloning (just so Burton's Batman movie could somehow be "canon" with this)... Bruce's "wife" having been an actress or plant sent by the Joker and/or Lex as part of the ruse... Batman spending the entire movie trying to kill the Joker, and Superman and him having to fight to near-death because "You're BETTER than that, Bruce!", and their fight stopping for a reason even more paper-thin than "Martha" ever could be - Bruce discovers his "wife" was a plant, and the whole thing was a giant gag to make Batman break his "One Rule", so Superman and Batman team up to go beat up Joker and Luthor - those were ALL ideas that made it very far along into various drafts for the BvS or SvB movie. And let's be honest... ALL of that would have been fcking terrible. People might have some issues with Snyder's version of the movie we got, but trust me when I say that what we got was absolutely the best* version of a Superman/Batman "fight-then-team-up" movie that WB was ever capable of producing. I know some people were hellbent on That Movie being some kind of upbeat, inspiring, "trumpets-sound-and-angels-sing" World's Finest movie, but for whatever reason WB has never, ever wanted to make the movie that way. It was always going to be very similar in tone and execution to what we actually got. Even if someone else had directed it, it was always gonna be "dark" and "gloomy" and "divisive" and not very well-received. Because 1. WB - for their own reasons - insisted from inception back in 2001 or whatever that it needed to be a "darker movie", and 2. There is never and will never be a "good reason" for a giant Superman/Batman fistfight anyway, and anything that would manipulate events towards such a thing would inevitably feel... well... manipulative. I genuinely feel like WB, ultimately, has (or had) a fundamental insistence that their movies skew "darker" and "more serious" (not just their super-hero stuff, just their output in general), and they initially hired Snyder because they felt like his sensibilities were strongly in line with theirs... and that relationship only soured when the movies didn't make enough money. Remember that the 3-hour cut of BvS reportedly got a "standing ovation" from WB execs before it was chopped down and released to theaters. I don't think he would have gotten the keys to the kingdom and been allowed to generate so much material before WB abruptly got cold feet, if the people Up Top weren't 100% behind him at some point. I think WB always seriously thought that his approach was gonna work and the audience was going to come around, and I think they were seriously shocked when that didn't happen and didn't have any idea how to "correct" because they didn't know what they'd misread about the audience in the first place. My point is, I feel bad that Zack gets a lot of blame for things that are less about him and more about how WB chooses to make movies. - The critics' score apparently went up and then down again but is still hovering around 76%. I am gonna laugh for a week if somehow this ends up being Zack's best-reviewed DC movie. Considering how low the scores for MoS and Watchmen are, I think it actually has a better-than-decent chance. That's hilarious, considering this thing was supposed to be 1. Non-existent, and 2. A "complete disaster".

03-16-2021, 10:28 PM	#1853
~~AquaParade~~ Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 8,450	I hesitate to get too anecdotal, but actually, yeah, some of the reviews really are gushing. Now, you have to separate out all the Snyder enthusiasts who literally made this happen, because they are, in all fairness, biased as ****. They have a right to be. But even then, you can find a healthy amount of glowing reviews. I'll try to share some if I get a chance.

03-16-2021, 10:48 PM	#1854
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	I'll admit that I honestly didn't read too many positive reviews because I assume that they're people who were already "sold" on this project a while ago - and also, not for nothing, but there are too many positive reviews and it was quicker for me to read the "negative" ones. I do see some 9 out of 10, 4 out of 5 scores but I didn't read the actual reviews of those. I generally don't put a lot of stock in critical reviews anyway but I do like to read them. But every movie gets a lot of hyperbole from either end. For example, there's like two seriously negative reviews in the whole bunch, and in places that decided years ago that this thing was "trash", they deliberately ignore everything except the EW review and hold that up as gospel. "It's even worse than we knew it would be!" Meanwhile, as I said, I took the time to actually read the full reviews and very few of the "negative" reviews even ARE all that negative in the first place. They just harp on the length and the self-seriousness of it all. Some of them seem even just a shade away from an actual endorsement, and are only cited as "Rotten" because of a specific blurb here or there, which is strange. It definitely seems stuffed and self-indulgent... but both the Positive and Negative reviews are correct in that people like myself wouldn't have it any other way. It seems like exactly the movie I always wanted, while at the same time being a bit "too much" for a lot of people. Which I completely understand, and thoroughly don't care about. It's nice that some other people apparently feel the same way, but I don't think those 9/10 scores ultimately mean much in the larger picture. I think the truth is, it's definitely better than the theatrical cut (How could it NOT be?!) but only people like me are bound to actually love it. Everyone else will most likely feel "grudging tolerance with a smidge of admiration", but not full-blown adoration.

03-17-2021, 06:39 AM	#1858
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	People would still just move the goalposts back like they always do. How do I know this? Welllll... - "Superman Returns" purposely had lots of "rescue" shots - one of them an entire massive sequence (the plane) and they still had him rescuing people during the Metropolis scene at the end, like the guy he caught and the guys in the tunnel - and people swore the movie sucked because they decided to arbitrarily harp on OTHER things they wanted to nitpick. - More specific to Snyder's Superman, BvS purposely added in more scenes of him rescuing people than were in MoS - granted, one of the key ones (the Capitol building) was cut from the theatrical release because WB is run by drunken chimps - and people still just said 1. "Not enough" and 2. "I don't like the way it was framed/shot." Like sure, count me in as someone who would have loved for the Hero Montage scene of him rescuing people while the talking heads on TV argued about whether or not he should be "allowed to help people" to be much longer, because it's one of my favorite scenes in the film, and more of that could only have been a good thing. At the same time, people crying about the shot of him hovering over the flood victims because "I would have shot it so that he actually zips around saving everyone like Mighty Mouse or whatever" was some serious nitpicky sht. Like of COURSE he's going to save them, he's not there to fcking gloat. The point of the entire montage - and that shot, along with the Day of the Dead one with the little girl - was to illustrate how Humanity sees him as this aloof, godlike figure whereas he himself is "just a guy trying to do the right thing" - the pundit's commentary here being a little bit on the nose, but also completely necessary as we've seen by just how many people completely missed the point of the scene. "I would have shot it differently" would have undercut the point of the montage, and to a smaller degree the entire film. However, would it have hurt to have that montage include MORE rescue scenes? Sure, absolutely add more, as long as they fit in context. But it's already a long movie. But see, that's the thing. People said "We want more Superman rescues", BvS gave them that but "Not the way I would have done it!" and so they still bitched. They purposely staged the Doomsday fight in an "abandoned" location so that the heroes didn't have to worry about anything BUT Fighting The Bad Guy, to try and circumvent some of those complaints preemptively, but of course, people still complained because that's what people do. They move goalposts and complain when nobody can score what they think is a Goal. Here's what happens: Nobody honestly gives a sht about Superman until a movie comes out, and THEN everybody's an "expert" (either on the character or making movies in general) and knows how to make the movie, "what they should have done instead", etc. Your takes are different than most, you've legitimately studied filmmaking so while I often think you get too hung up on minutiae and technicalities and in turn form what I guess would be called a more "clinical" opinion, it at least carries some weight and I can respect that even when I disagree. Other people, though? Pure ignorance. As I've said elsewhere, when you ask people who "self-identify" as Superman Fans what an "acceptable" movie would be in their eyes, they tell you: The Donner movie redux with better SFX, complete with Williams score. Cats in trees and rah-rah speeches about Truth, Justice, Mom and Apple Pie. Anything else "misunderstands the character" and they'll puke on it. They SAY this, you don't have to infer it. They're stuck in this mental box where the only version of Superman they'll accept on film is the one they saw when they were five years old, and it's why making movies with the character NOW is so incredibly difficult. No matter WHAT you give them, if it's not Exactly That, then those people will just keep moving those goalposts back and tell you "You misunderstand the character." I've been told more times in the last 10+ years that I "misunderstand/don't like the character" by people who have never even read a comic book in their entire lives* that it turns my stomach. BUT, that's the way it goes. People act like "All they needed to do to make a better-received Superman movie is THIS..." And I'm saying, No, it's a LOT more complicated than that. You don't know these people the way I do. You have no idea how stunted and myopic they are with regards to what Is and Isn't "acceptable". Making a "good" or even just "praised and accepted" Superman movie is a lot more complicated than anyone thinks it is. It's NOT just "Well if we added more of This" or "If this scene was like This" or "What if we cast This Guy as Lex instead of That Guy?" It will ALWAYS be something else. You're talking about trying to please a group of individuals who will never accept anything other than Exactly What They Want, and "what they want" is a broken and outdated model. That's what it comes down to.

03-17-2021, 07:28 AM	#1860
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	You knew that sh*t was gonna happen. Sigh. I have other things to do today, and apparently we already have HBO Max so I have no interest nor inclination in being a thief. Since we don't have to go to the gym or anywhere tomorrow, my wife and I are planning to do a back-to-back marathon of MoS, BvS, and ZSJL all day long. We were originally going to do that way back in the day, but then the theatrical cut of JL had nothing at all to do with MoS and BvS so we never bothered, as the complete tonal and storytelling disconnect would have been too jarring. As quite possibly the last movie I'll ever have any reason to be excited for, it stands to be quite an experience. Very much looking forward to it. Also, even the negative reviews have been absolutely raving about Cyborg's role, so I can't wait to see all of that stuff.