Because he retroactively ruined two good movies by making Spider Man 3.
At least BvS doesn't go back and retroactively ruin Man of Steel.
Batman v. Superman RT Thread: like standing ovations in rain
- Thread starter Jigorath
- Start date
- Status
At least BvS doesn't go back and retroactively ruin Man of Steel.
My dream is that one day Kevin Feige will say "fuck it" and hire Sam Raimi for one more Spider-Man movie.
Not that crowded but there are a lot of showings on various screens.
I kind of wish DC gave him a Superman movie.
At least he isn't Tony Stark.
Primethius
Banned
Superman has had two movies and all I get from them is that Snyder has no understanding of his character or his parents.
I ain't putting my hopes on the third movie to give us a Superman that shouldve been in the first one or at the least, the second one.
Ill probably be waiting for the real Superman to show up for a long ass time.
I ain't putting my hopes on the third movie to give us a Superman that shouldve been in the first one or at the least, the second one.
Ill probably be waiting for the real Superman to show up for a long ass time.
Jack Remington
Banned
But Iron Man 3 is a 1/10 movie.
Midnight Screenings - Dave and Sarah v Batman v Superman
Poor dave, dude is like he just got back from 'Nam
Are these people popular? Like they have a following? People want to watch their reviews?
I couldn't stomach more than a couple minutes of this, and you know I have a high tolerance since I liked BvS.
38 minutes for a review is more self-indulgent than Snyder. If you aren't Plinkett, or at least close to his level, keep it to 10 minutes or less.
He would actuallh fit very well with the MCU current movie style.
Report back when the standing ovation starts.
Primethius
Banned
Then BvS is in the negatives, easy.
Piku_Ringo
Banned
Oh well 2 out of 3 isn't bad, what's Snyder now 1 for 6 or something.
Also BvS doesn't need to since MoS does a good job on its own
You can't retroactively make a movie bad by making another movie.
Midnight Screenings - Dave and Sarah v Batman v Superman
Poor dave, dude is like he just got back from 'Nam
I've watched a few of their videos and found them to be pretty great. So far Sarah is basically narrating my thoughts. Dave is utterly shellshocked.
"I had low expectations, and this was goddamn awful....I don't even fucking know where to start." :lol
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Nothing. Me and my family really liked it though I would stop short on love.
PeterLegend
Member
I saw the movie this morning, it was pretty bad.
The plot feels rushed and forced just to introduce characters without fleshing them out. Also the scene transitions were rough, not smooth at all which is really jarring to the experience. The fight between Batman and Superman was maybe 5 minutes long? It didn't live up to the hype either.
I'd give it a 5/10.
The plot feels rushed and forced just to introduce characters without fleshing them out. Also the scene transitions were rough, not smooth at all which is really jarring to the experience. The fight between Batman and Superman was maybe 5 minutes long? It didn't live up to the hype either.
I'd give it a 5/10.
There you go :
Superman is such a complicated character that you need at least 3 movies before he starts to behave like the universally known Superman
lucebuce12
Member
The best scenes were actually already revealed in the trailers. I didn't want to believe it, but it's true. Man, this movie.
Most of Snyder's movies are standalone works so if they are bad then they are bad by themselves. BVS was really his work sequel work and IMO it's about on the same level as MoS. It's not like it makes you look MoS in a worse light.
It's hard to watch SM1/SM2 without thinking that it all leads up to and ends with SM3.
It's okay. I like Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, Batman & Robin, and The Room.
They're highly entertaining. But I wouldn't call them objectively GOOD films.\
Sort of how I feel playing Mass Effect after the ending of ME3.
DedalusJoyce
Member
You're really trying hard, aren't you. No body has problem with whatever "arc" you imagine Snyder has in mind for this Boreman. But the problem is most people simply do not like the way it is told. Yes, I'd like to see a hero struggle with the questions that Snyder supposedly wants to explore but they are not dramatized or communicated through the plot efficiently.
Spider-man 2 also explored questions about whether Peter should even continue being a hero, but thank God Raimi didn't think he needed 3 horrendously written films to get his ideas across.
You've been Snydered.
One moment I think captures Snyder perfectly is when Thomas and Martha try to unarm Joe Chill forcefully. I was like wtf.
I dig it.
This is wrong. Captain America's entire development as a character was right at the start of the first movie and ended within two minutes. In just this short scene Cap managed to be more Superman than any moment of any Snyder film, and this was before he got his powers.
Perhaps this is why most people don't really gel much into the first Captain America, because he never really had that much of a traditional character arc to begin with. His entire story in the first movie is more about how he's supposed to find a proper outlet for his goodness. In the second movie Cap really didn't develop much as a character either as right from the start he's objecting against SHIELD's new global suppression plan, but that is made even better with a great conspiracy driven story and some time displacement issues, where Cap still manages to retain his good persona from way back when.
The only time Cap ever showed signs to develop any more as a character than that initial scene was in Age of Ultron, when he realized that fighting at this point is really all he feels like he can offer the world.
And he has developed in both of those movies. He's had two different arcs, clumsy as they may have been in your opinion. I think the dissonance here is that enthusiasts just don't care about this. You want to see him as Superman, and that's perfectly fine, but the current approach isn't blasphemy. Look at the difference between me and you for example.
I've never read a comic, and I'm simply not as emotionally invested as you. I'm perfectly happy to see this all play out, and like the arc he's going through. A better director would do these themes more justice, but I can't always have Nolan. And I'm happy with that since I'd rather he spend his time with original work.
I'm referring to him using the words that "you can't save everyone". That's not something I assume Steve Rogers always knew. He learned that through his experiences in war, and I'm sure he loses a friend during the montage. There was no time to explore any of that because his development in that respect was rushed ahead to get him to where Marvel needed him. We see a good person, and then he's suddenly matured into the version we have now.
And you're absolutely right, this is one of the reasons why I don't like the first Captain America movie. In light of Avengers, which does a good introducing him anyway, and Winter Soldier, that movie is genuinely useless. I feel you don't even need to see it, and you really don't miss out on anything. Winter Soldier does a good enough job of instilling some depth in him with a few brief scenes that recall his past. The one in this hospital for example.
Jack Remington
Banned
I think it's the white and gold dress thing.
Some people, for whatever reason, see it as blue and black. You and I and other people who liked it just perceived the movie completely differently. I read some of the negative reviews and just can't relate to anything that is being said.
It's truly baffling.
It isn't all that baffling.
I can see how people could enjoy this in the same way they enjoy other popcorn movies.
And I can also see why it wouldn't be that entertaining of a film for people who might care more about the story or the characters.
Not to be insulting, but I'd probably enjoy the movie more if I switched my brain off. But it hard to do that as a fan of the source material. For me the film failed in being cohesive and true to the characters, and some others just won't care about that.
I usually don't agree with the "it ruins things retroactively" and I don't think Spidey does, but Mass Effect? You're goddamn right. I played ME1 7-8 times, I played ME2 three. I don't ever want to play it again, that is how much that universe is dead to me.
But the games were building to something from the start, and killed the entire universe by the end. Spiderman 3 for as bad as it was didn't do any of that.
I hope this isn't directed at me because I am not a huge comic fan especially not of Superman. Superman is probably not even in my top 10 favorite super heroes and so far these movies aren't really swaying me either.
People who have no investment in comics don't like this rendition of Superman either. The movies make out Superman to be as boring and dull as people who have not read comics perceive him to be.
I am honestly enjoying Captain America as a character more than Superman and I have always thought Cap was a gaudy, damn near parody of a super hero prior to his interpretations in the movies.
Steve is a good character. Tony was good in the first movie, but he's basically a caricature now after the way he's been handled after that. He just serves whatever purpose Marvel wants him to. It's just RDJ now, but I'm fine with that. It's not like we're getting another Iron Man movie, and you can't expect a lot of character work in the team ups.
Edit:
It's a general comment.
A lot of the time, the arguments tend to be, "Superman should be like this etc." Whereas to me, it's pretty clear he's headed to that point, but they're tackling other issues on the way there. And while it goes without saying others who may not read comics dislike this character, there are also plenty who do, so it's a bit of an empty statement to make. A lot of the grief I see online for him on this forum tends to compare him to the comics or what they feel his character should be.
Also, I don't find it surprising you like Steve Rogers more. I do too. He's probably one of the best characters we've had in a superhero movie.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
All of this. I've never read a comic book and this is a shitty Superman, going by about 90% Christopher Reeve movies and 10% cultural osmosis.
Jack Remington
Banned
On the contrary, my brain was going 100mph through the whole thing. I don't think I ever stopped analyzing it as a creative work.
I'm not some casual who thinks the Transformers films are good.
captainnapalm
Member
If Snyder is doing this thing where he's slowly creating the DC universe we know, leading up them more or less becoming what we understand them to be as the Justice League takes on its first real threat, I guess that would be interesting?
Perhaps the concept of a superhero doesn't even really properly exist in this universe yet. Sure Clark put on his father's duds, and he had to reveal himself to the world, but it's been a bumpy introduction to say the least. Batman was just some underground vigilante. Wonder Woman wasn't introduced yet. Not sure about all the other heroes and how established they are, haven't seen the film yet.
Maybe these guys all come together, save the world, and the world accepts the concept of having superheroes around. And Superman comes into his own. Batman slowly comes around and chills out a bit, etc.
Maybe there's a plan here.
Perhaps the concept of a superhero doesn't even really properly exist in this universe yet. Sure Clark put on his father's duds, and he had to reveal himself to the world, but it's been a bumpy introduction to say the least. Batman was just some underground vigilante. Wonder Woman wasn't introduced yet. Not sure about all the other heroes and how established they are, haven't seen the film yet.
Maybe these guys all come together, save the world, and the world accepts the concept of having superheroes around. And Superman comes into his own. Batman slowly comes around and chills out a bit, etc.
Maybe there's a plan here.
Hmm, well I don't understand that. It brings up themes that it doesn't resolve in a satisfying way. It tries hard to sound smart but still acts dumb.
As a creative work I thought it was seriously flawed. The editing is just awful for a lot of the film.
Major Gripex
Member
The biggest weakness the movie has is pacing and plotlines. But aside from that it, it's very fun and has beautiful visuals. And it's filled with fan services. The people I dragged out to see it with all really liked it. I had some problems, but I won't deny that the film is a good time.
Negan will make a kick ass Flashpoint Batman...
That's probably giving him too much credit.
On the plus side, I actually did enjoy that jar of piss moment in the movie. Holly Hunter sold that scene to the maximum. And it really rewarded you for paying attention to the dialogue between her and Lex previously.
I think the first 1 minute to the senate bombing was probably the strongest part of the movie followed by the BvS fight to the conclusion because at least stuff was happening. The 2nd act which was between the Senate bombing and the BvS fight was excruciatingly dull.
It's too late to fix the movie and I doubt the extended cut would do anything... but if I were to have made this movie again I would've made the following changes:
*Kept the opening 30 or so minutes as is with the climax being the Senate bombing. Extend the Senate hearing so that we could hear Superman's side of things.
*Cut down the 2nd act so that the climax of the 2nd act is actually the BvS fight. It develops perfectly from the Senate bombing where Batman gets pissed to him stealing the Kryptonite, doing the workout montage and Luthor playing Superman. Extend that fight up some more and then afterwards build up the relationship between Batman and Superman some more in the 3rd act.
*Remove all dream sequences and JL references.
*Have Batman and Superman team up to dismantle Luthor's plan and finishing off with the Batman fight to save Martha while Superman is confronting Luthor and Doomsday. Remove the whole sequence of Lois drowning in the water, should've just been Batman going back to retrieve it then have it so that Superman saves Batman, takes the Spear from him and do that sequence with the movies end.
*Remove some of the post Superman death stuff because it drags on for too long at the end. Put some of that in the after credits.
I think the first 1 minute to the senate bombing was probably the strongest part of the movie followed by the BvS fight to the conclusion because at least stuff was happening. The 2nd act which was between the Senate bombing and the BvS fight was excruciatingly dull.
It's too late to fix the movie and I doubt the extended cut would do anything... but if I were to have made this movie again I would've made the following changes:
*Kept the opening 30 or so minutes as is with the climax being the Senate bombing. Extend the Senate hearing so that we could hear Superman's side of things.
*Cut down the 2nd act so that the climax of the 2nd act is actually the BvS fight. It develops perfectly from the Senate bombing where Batman gets pissed to him stealing the Kryptonite, doing the workout montage and Luthor playing Superman. Extend that fight up some more and then afterwards build up the relationship between Batman and Superman some more in the 3rd act.
*Remove all dream sequences and JL references.
*Have Batman and Superman team up to dismantle Luthor's plan and finishing off with the Batman fight to save Martha while Superman is confronting Luthor and Doomsday. Remove the whole sequence of Lois drowning in the water, should've just been Batman going back to retrieve it then have it so that Superman saves Batman, takes the Spear from him and do that sequence with the movies end.
*Remove some of the post Superman death stuff because it drags on for too long at the end. Put some of that in the after credits.
Probably a much better movie now to be honest.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
I got bored and decided to use my phone to suck the life out of everything that I love.
I have. I do comics for a living partially because I grew up on stuff like Superman and Batman. It might be egotistical to say, but I do believe I "get" Superman, and I know immediately when someone else doesn't.
Zack Snyder doesn't understand Superman. He gave us a guy with the same name, flying around in the same pajamas, using the same powers... but that's not what makes Superman who he is. It's why you can't just stick Jason Todd in Batman's costume and he'd be the same guy; it's why Wally West is a different breed of Flash than Barry Allen. The people UNDER the costumes, behind the powers, are what make them interesting and are what makes them heroic.
I did not see Superman in these films, and I've heard the excuse "Man of Steel was about Clark learning to become Superman" so many times that I'm sick of it, but I waited. I waited patiently. I wanted to see what this "non-Superman" in Man of Steel would become and, here we are, years later... and there was no payoff, no big plan behind Man of Steel. If anything, they doubled down on the problems I had with Clark in the first movie and amplified my issues tenfold.
Someone else already showed a scene in Captain America: The First Avenger where, in two minutes, we realize what kind of a hero Steve Rogers is, what drives him, what motivates him, and why he deserves to be a hero. TWO MINUTES.
I have now sat through FIVE HOURS of Snyder's version of Superman and, in over five hours, I have not seen "Superman" develop from any of it.
So why, tell me, should I have to wait through THREE films to see if Snyder, after around 7 and a half hours, finally "gets" Superman? Even if, miraculously, he pulls it off and "Superman" returns in the next film as the great, heroic, inspirational and aspirational hero he's always been for nigh-on eight decades straight, why should we have to endure all the awful mess preceding it? If you can't get your message across clearly in over five hours, you're probably screwing up. It's like Final Fantasy XIII fans telling me that the game "gets good after around 30 hours". The hell?! Why should I put up with 30 hours of crap just to get a peak at hypothetical goodness?
ESPECIALLY when these very same ideas you claim Snyder is trying to do have already been done, and done better, in other stories and other films in a fraction of the time. There's no shortage of Superman stories that explore his place in the world and his journey for acceptance of the world and his role in it, so why should I put my faith in Snyder's version after he's habitually and constantly demonstrated an acute and fatal misunderstanding of the most iconic superhero of all time?
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Tells me all I need to know about you.
Man, that's 1 problem (of many) that I have with Snyder's take on the Superman mythos. The Kents just kinda really suck. Is it any wonder this Superman still hasn't really found his footing with that upbringing? Pensive, withdrawn, insular, and just overbearingly morose. That's supposed to be Batman. But Bruce is that way because his parents were murdered right in front of him and he lives in a really shit city with insane villains. So WTF is Clark's problem? Why did Snyder have to make the Kents cynical assholes, which we see has caused a lot of existential problems with Clark even after he's donned the suit and learned to fly. I also hate this take because people continue to fool themselves into believing that "complex" emotions thus means it's good and grown-up. It doesn't; or at least, Snyder has failed at making it good (because he's a horrible story-teller on his own) and has failed to make the character evolve.
Fuck these Kents and fuck this Superman. Cavill isn't the best thespian around, but Snyder is wasting his talents.
Jack Remington
Banned
Totally agree about the editing. Some of the worst I've seen.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
This is the most polarizing film ever,right? A good portion of people are seeing it for themselves and remarking about how much they enjoyed it. Another good portion are saying that Zack Snyder personally raped their childhood.
Just fascinating stuff that few people are coming out just saying "it was alright"
Just fascinating stuff that few people are coming out just saying "it was alright"
Right? Really looking forward to it when I see it tomorrow.
Honestly, this is giving me flashbacks to The Phantom Menace. A LOT of people saw it and came out of the theater praising it and getting upset with anyone who disagreed. Even most of the professional critics bought into the hype.
Only this time the critics weren't oversold on the hype and the internet age has made finding people who also disagree much easier and makes getting their voices heard much louder.
But I'm definitely reminded of The Phantom Menace from this film. So much hype riding on it, so many people who I've spoken to who don't "get" why it's bad or see any flaws, and also some people who can't acknowledge that some people really don't mind Jar-Jar Binks/Lex Luthor.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
It was a 5/10 for me. Lots of silly shit that I assume the directors cut might fix. Luthor tho? He'll remain a stain..
- Status