|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 13, 2021 1:51:16 GMT
I still maintain that when taken on its own, Man of Steel works perfectly fine as the beginning of a new DC Universe. It has some differences from what people would expect from a Superman story, but it’s still a superhero story. It also ends on a fairly uplifting note, so it’s not that grim and gritty. The last shot of the movie is even Clark Kent smiling at The Daily Planet.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 13, 2021 2:38:21 GMT
I agree.
|
|
gromel
Sophomore
@gromel
Posts: 279
Likes: 119
|
Post by gromel on Feb 14, 2021 7:11:53 GMT
Perhaps a Superman series but keep non-Superman characters out. Already too controversial and lost many in the audience, so better to stick with it and develop this Superman into someone who can win them back. It probably would have been easier if you don't bring Batman in to fight him because everyone would be rooting for the underdog... then Batman got all divisive too.
Plus at this point in history the MCU had several years of a head start. There's no undoing that. Perhaps it would have been better to just stick to solo multi-movie stories.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 14, 2021 18:21:54 GMT
Perhaps a Superman series but keep non-Superman characters out. Already too controversial and lost many in the audience, so better to stick with it and develop this Superman into someone who can win them back. It probably would have been easier if you don't bring Batman in to fight him because everyone would be rooting for the underdog... then Batman got all divisive too. Plus at this point in history the MCU had several years of a head start. There's no undoing that. Perhaps it would have been better to just stick to solo multi-movie stories. I think a big crossover movie could had done as well as a bunch of solo ventures if the writing was good enough. But apparently Oscar-winner Chris Terrio wasn't up to the challenge.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 16, 2021 21:26:28 GMT
I thought MoS was a fine foundation for a solo Superman and the sequels muddled things by repurposing it as a cinematic universe? Of course, MoS is probably a great foundation for everything: solo, universe, multiverse, world peace, free blowjobs, etc.
We don't really have a lot of successful cinematic universes to go on, but to use the obvious comparison: the MCU started with a well liked movie and an especially well liked character at its center. Every subsequent film in the universe has mostly followed its "style".
MoS started with a divisive film and an even more divisive portrayal of its lead. As much as you absolve MoS and scapegoat BvS, BvS was largely damage control FOR MoS. The whole movie is Superman on trial for his actions in MoS (verdict: guilty, sentence: death). At the same time, BvS couldn't help but follow its style for the same reason Ant-Man followed Iron Man's: it's ONE cinematic universe. If you start with a washed out, gritty and broody movie, you've set the tone. If MoS was immediately followed with Shazam!, it'd be pretty weird, even if Clark smiled once.
So yeah, I don't think I concur. The DCEU was pretty fucked from the jump.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 16, 2021 21:33:09 GMT
I thought MoS was a fine foundation for a solo Superman and the sequels muddled things by repurposing it as a cinematic universe? Of course, MoS is probably a great foundation for everything: solo, universe, multiverse, world peace, free blowjobs, etc. We don't really have a lot of successful cinematic universes to go on, but to use the obvious comparison: the MCU started with a well liked movie and an especially well liked character at its center. Every subsequent film in the universe has mostly followed its "style". MoS started with a divisive film and an even more divisive portrayal of its lead. As much as you absolve MoS and scapegoat BvS, BvS was largely damage control FOR MoS. The whole movie is Superman on trial for his actions in MoS (verdict: guilty, sentence: death). At the same time, BvS couldn't help but follow its style for the same reason Ant-Man followed Iron Man's: it's ONE cinematic universe. If you start with a washed out, gritty and broody movie, you've set the tone. If MoS was immediately followed with Shazam!, it'd be pretty weird, even if Clark smiled once. So yeah, I don't think I concur. The DCEU was pretty fucked from the jump. The only instance of BvS coming across as damage control is when they make a point of mentioning that the city is uninhabited during the fight with Doomsday. Even the whole thing about Superman being on trial isn’t technically related to the destruction in MoS. It’s because of the Africa incident that happens at the start. The battle against Zod does factor into why Batman doesn’t trust Superman, but that’s just to set up his motivations Also, what are you getting at with your first paragraph? Snyder had already planned on including Batman in the sequel to MoS before it was released. I never suggested otherwise. BvS was very much Zack Snyder’s idea. It was a passion project for him.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 16, 2021 21:42:22 GMT
I thought MoS was a fine foundation for a solo Superman and the sequels muddled things by repurposing it as a cinematic universe? Of course, MoS is probably a great foundation for everything: solo, universe, multiverse, world peace, free blowjobs, etc. We don't really have a lot of successful cinematic universes to go on, but to use the obvious comparison: the MCU started with a well liked movie and an especially well liked character at its center. Every subsequent film in the universe has mostly followed its "style". MoS started with a divisive film and an even more divisive portrayal of its lead. As much as you absolve MoS and scapegoat BvS, BvS was largely damage control FOR MoS. The whole movie is Superman on trial for his actions in MoS (verdict: guilty, sentence: death). At the same time, BvS couldn't help but follow its style for the same reason Ant-Man followed Iron Man's: it's ONE cinematic universe. If you start with a washed out, gritty and broody movie, you've set the tone. If MoS was immediately followed with Shazam!, it'd be pretty weird, even if Clark smiled once. So yeah, I don't think I concur. The DCEU was pretty fucked from the jump. The only instance of BvS coming across as damage control is when they make a point of mentioning that the city is uninhabited during the fight with Doomsday. Even the whole thing about Superman being on trial isn’t technically related to the destruction in MoS. It’s because of the Africa incident that happens at the start. The battle against Zod does factor into why Batman doesn’t trust Superman, but that’s just to set up his motivations It's a movie called "Batman V Superman", so why Batman is V-ing Superman in the first place is pretty significant, and it's a point that was completely glossed over at the end of MoS: the destruction, civilian casualties, and lack of fucks given by anyone. Killing Zod also leads directly to Doomsday and Superman's death. And if you don't think the plot revolved around the world distrusting and questioning Superman as a direct reaction to MoS's reception....ooookay.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 16, 2021 21:48:28 GMT
The only instance of BvS coming across as damage control is when they make a point of mentioning that the city is uninhabited during the fight with Doomsday. Even the whole thing about Superman being on trial isn’t technically related to the destruction in MoS. It’s because of the Africa incident that happens at the start. The battle against Zod does factor into why Batman doesn’t trust Superman, but that’s just to set up his motivations It's a movie called "Batman V Superman", so why Batman is V-ing Superman in the first place is pretty significant, and it's a point that was completely glossed over at the end of MoS: the destruction, civilian casualties, and lack of fucks given by anyone. Killing Zod also leads directly to Doomsday and Superman's death. And if you don't think the plot revolved around the world distrusting and questioning Superman as a direct reaction to MoS's reception....ooookay. I’d hardly call a sequel following up on the events of its predecessor “damage control.” Snyder already planned on having Batman fight Superman in the sequel before MoS was released. BvS wasn’t something he did because he was trying to appease the people who didn’t like MoS. It was something he already had planned before he saw the response to MoS. Even your cheeky remark at the beginning of your initial post acknowledged this...
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 16, 2021 21:56:24 GMT
It's a movie called "Batman V Superman", so why Batman is V-ing Superman in the first place is pretty significant, and it's a point that was completely glossed over at the end of MoS: the destruction, civilian casualties, and lack of fucks given by anyone. Killing Zod also leads directly to Doomsday and Superman's death. And if you don't think the plot revolved around the world distrusting and questioning Superman as a direct reaction to MoS's reception....ooookay. I’d hardly call a sequel following up on the events of its predecessor “damage control.” Snyder already planned on having Batman fight Superman in the sequel before MoS was released. BvS wasn’t something he did because he was trying to appease the people who didn’t like MoS. It was something he already had planned before he saw the response to MoS. Even your cheeky remark at the beginning of your initial post acknowledged this... No one cared in-universe about the leveling of Metropolis until the opening scene of BvS, which was separated by three years of people in real life complaining about the leveling of Metropolis. As you love to point out, MoS ends with everyone smiling. Hardly an acknowledgement to the mass death and destruction.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 16, 2021 22:03:16 GMT
I’d hardly call a sequel following up on the events of its predecessor “damage control.” Snyder already planned on having Batman fight Superman in the sequel before MoS was released. BvS wasn’t something he did because he was trying to appease the people who didn’t like MoS. It was something he already had planned before he saw the response to MoS. Even your cheeky remark at the beginning of your initial post acknowledged this... No one cared in-universe about the leveling of Metropolis until the opening scene of BvS, which was separated by three years of people in real life complaining about the leveling of Metropolis. As you love to point out, MoS ends with everyone smiling. Hardly an acknowledgement to the mass death and destruction. MoS never focused on the in-universe response to the destruction in Metroplis. The next scene after that is Superman talking to Swanwick, and then after that, we see that Clark has now joined The Daily Planet. Even then, the aforementioned scene with Swanwick already establishes that the U.S. government doesn’t necessarily trust Superman, which sets up the conflict in BvS. The DCEU didn’t officially go into damage control mode until after BvS was released. Prior to that, Zack Snyder seemed to have almost full creative control when it came to these movies. For better or worse, BvS is a movie that seems pretty sure of itself, outside of a couple of mentions of the city being abandoned while the heroes are fighting Doomsday.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 16, 2021 22:23:44 GMT
No one cared in-universe about the leveling of Metropolis until the opening scene of BvS, which was separated by three years of people in real life complaining about the leveling of Metropolis. As you love to point out, MoS ends with everyone smiling. Hardly an acknowledgement to the mass death and destruction. MoS never focused on the in-universe response to the destruction in Metroplis. The next scene after that is Superman talking to Swanwick, and then after that, we see that Clark has now joined The Daily Planet. Even then, the aforementioned scene with Swanwick already establishes that the U.S. government doesn’t necessarily trust Superman, which sets up the conflict in BvS. The DCEU didn’t officially go into damage control mode until after BvS was released. Prior to that, Zack Snyder seemed to have almost full creative control when it came to these movies. For better or worse, BvS is a movie that seems pretty sure of itself, outside of a couple of mentions of the city being abandoned while the heroes are fighting Doomsday. If 38 9/11s happened on one day, it'd be pretty hard to ignore whether you're off smiling at the Daily Planet or shooting the shit with Martian Manhunter. We can focus on Doug Stamper having free tickets to a basketball game with Jenny Not-Olsen but we can't say "hey, kinda fucked up 500,000 people died the other day, huh?" Clark and Lois literally made out on top of their charred corpses!!!! Yeah, the government put one token drone on him through pure alien xenophobia, but pretty much took his word for it when he said "nah, I'm cool, I was raised in Kansas". The lady with MM then says "he's kinda hot" ... Not "hey, are we just gonna let Osama there go with zero supervision?" Because no one gave a shit about Metropolis. Metropolis got leveled because it looked cool and you're more delusional than any of the Snyder fanboys you claim to separate yourself from if you think it'd even be brought up again, let alone a major plot point in BvS, if not for the extremely negative reception to it. The portrayal of it at the end of MoS and beginning of BvS are night and day. Come on now.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 16, 2021 22:55:41 GMT
MoS never focused on the in-universe response to the destruction in Metroplis. The next scene after that is Superman talking to Swanwick, and then after that, we see that Clark has now joined The Daily Planet. Even then, the aforementioned scene with Swanwick already establishes that the U.S. government doesn’t necessarily trust Superman, which sets up the conflict in BvS. The DCEU didn’t officially go into damage control mode until after BvS was released. Prior to that, Zack Snyder seemed to have almost full creative control when it came to these movies. For better or worse, BvS is a movie that seems pretty sure of itself, outside of a couple of mentions of the city being abandoned while the heroes are fighting Doomsday. If 38 9/11s happened on one day, it'd be pretty hard to ignore whether you're off smiling at the Daily Planet or shooting the shit with Martian Manhunter. We can focus on Doug Stamper having free tickets to a basketball game with Jenny Not-Olsen but we can't say "hey, kinda fucked up 500,000 people died the other day, huh?" Clark and Lois literally made out on top of their charred corpses!!!! Yeah, the government put one token drone on him through pure alien xenophobia, but pretty much took his word for it when he said "nah, I'm cool, I was raised in Kansas". The lady with MM then says "he's kinda hot" ... Not "hey, are we just gonna let Osama there go with zero supervision?" Because no one gave a shit about Metropolis. Metropolis got leveled because it looked cool and you're more delusional than any of the Snyder fanboys you claim to separate yourself from if you think it'd even be brought up again, let alone a major plot point in BvS, if not for the extremely negative reception to it. The portrayal of it at the end of MoS and beginning of BvS are night and day. Come on now. For the record, Snyder said that around 5,000 people died, not 500,000. It’s unrealistic that the numbers would be that low, but if Civil War was allowed to claim that less than a hundred people died in the first Avengers movie, I’m willing to give that a pass. And just because MoS itself doesn’t address the world’s response to the destruction, doesn’t mean the sequel was never going to bring it up. If I recall, either Snyder or Goyer even mentioned back when the movie first came out that the sequel would address the destruction. Again, Snyder already planned on having Batman fight Superman before MoS was released. You think he was originally going to have Batman fight Superman for no reason at all, until people complained about MoS? Also, what is it with you and the personal insults? Do you have some personal beef with me? All I said was that I personally think MoS could’ve worked as the beginning of a DC movieverse. Does that seriously offend you? Why does that make me a delusional Zack Snyder fan? You’re obviously welcome to disagree, and I certainly never claimed that MoS was a flawless beginning. I’m simply saying that I think there was something to work with.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 17, 2021 0:08:41 GMT
If 38 9/11s happened on one day, it'd be pretty hard to ignore whether you're off smiling at the Daily Planet or shooting the shit with Martian Manhunter. We can focus on Doug Stamper having free tickets to a basketball game with Jenny Not-Olsen but we can't say "hey, kinda fucked up 500,000 people died the other day, huh?" Clark and Lois literally made out on top of their charred corpses!!!! Yeah, the government put one token drone on him through pure alien xenophobia, but pretty much took his word for it when he said "nah, I'm cool, I was raised in Kansas". The lady with MM then says "he's kinda hot" ... Not "hey, are we just gonna let Osama there go with zero supervision?" Because no one gave a shit about Metropolis. Metropolis got leveled because it looked cool and you're more delusional than any of the Snyder fanboys you claim to separate yourself from if you think it'd even be brought up again, let alone a major plot point in BvS, if not for the extremely negative reception to it. The portrayal of it at the end of MoS and beginning of BvS are night and day. Come on now. For the record, Snyder said that around 5,000 people died, not 500,000. It’s unrealistic that the numbers would be that low, but if Civil War was allowed to claim that less than a hundred people died in the first Avengers movie, I’m willing to give that a pass. And just because MoS itself doesn’t address the world’s response to the destruction, doesn’t mean the sequel was never going to bring it up. If I recall, either Snyder or Goyer even mentioned back when the movie first came out that the sequel would address the destruction. Again, Snyder already planned on having Batman fight Superman before MoS was released. You think he was originally going to have Batman fight Superman for no reason at all, until people complained about MoS? Also, what is it with you and the personal insults? Do you have some personal beef with me? All I said was that I personally think MoS could’ve worked as the beginning of a DC movieverse. Does that seriously offend you? Why does that make me a delusional Zack Snyder fan? You’re obviously welcome to disagree, and I certainly never claimed that MoS was a flawless beginning. I’m simply saying that I think there was something to work with. I have beef with anyone who's disengenuous in their intentions, and I'm finding it increasingly hard to take your arguments in good faith when you combat literally anything I level at the guy. I say he looks up, you say he looks down. I say he's a cat person, you say he's a dog person. Last I checked, you weren't even that hot on BvS, but here you are taking a bullet over my *audacity* at saying it addressed the destruction of MoS because of fan reaction (and no, Snyder saying they'd address the destruction upon release of MoS is not a strong defense because the release was the height of said negative reaction). You're also starting to contradict yourself: you just said a few posts ago that Batman and Superman had other "beef" besides the destruction of Metropolis, but now you're saying the fact that Batman was designated to fight Superman at all is proof BvS would address Metropolis regardless? Contradictory, and also just not a good argument in general. Not only do they have other problems with each other in the movie (Batman branding people, Superman being an alien), but the comic Zack was homaging had nothing to do with Superman destroying a city. They could have fought over anything. Other questionable arguments: twisting my criticism of your defensiveness on this one point into me attacking you for thinking MoS could work as the start of movieverse, which we haven't talked about for a good minute in favor of nitpicking what I said about BvS' damage control. Any thoughts on the other things I said, like subsequent films to MoS being pigeonholed into aping its style and tone? No?
|
|
|
Post by TutuAnimationPrincess on Feb 17, 2021 0:30:21 GMT
I think Man of Steel was too much for a first film in a Superman franchise. I think it would have been fine as a second or third. Granted, I've never felt that Superman had to be totally dissected or deconstructed to be good and interesting. Man of Steel was ok for what it was but it needed a more innocent and inspiring first film first.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 17, 2021 0:52:34 GMT
For the record, Snyder said that around 5,000 people died, not 500,000. It’s unrealistic that the numbers would be that low, but if Civil War was allowed to claim that less than a hundred people died in the first Avengers movie, I’m willing to give that a pass. And just because MoS itself doesn’t address the world’s response to the destruction, doesn’t mean the sequel was never going to bring it up. If I recall, either Snyder or Goyer even mentioned back when the movie first came out that the sequel would address the destruction. Again, Snyder already planned on having Batman fight Superman before MoS was released. You think he was originally going to have Batman fight Superman for no reason at all, until people complained about MoS? Also, what is it with you and the personal insults? Do you have some personal beef with me? All I said was that I personally think MoS could’ve worked as the beginning of a DC movieverse. Does that seriously offend you? Why does that make me a delusional Zack Snyder fan? You’re obviously welcome to disagree, and I certainly never claimed that MoS was a flawless beginning. I’m simply saying that I think there was something to work with. I have beef with anyone who's disengenuous in their intentions, and I'm finding it increasingly hard to take your arguments in good faith when you combat literally anything I level at the guy. I say he looks up, you say he looks down. I say he's a cat person, you say he's a dog person. Last I checked, you weren't even that hot on BvS, but here you are taking a bullet over my *audacity* at saying it addressed the destruction of MoS because of fan reaction (and no, Snyder saying they'd address the destruction upon release of MoS is not a strong defense because the release was the height of said negative reaction). You're also starting to contradict yourself: you just said a few posts ago that Batman and Superman had other "beef" besides the destruction of Metropolis, but now you're saying the fact that Batman was designated to fight Superman at all is proof BvS would address Metropolis regardless? Contradictory, and also just not a good argument in general. Not only do they have other problems with each other in the movie (Batman branding people, Superman being an alien), but the comic Zack was homaging had nothing to do with Superman destroying a city. They could have fought over anything. Other questionable arguments: twisting my criticism of your defensiveness on this one point into me attacking you for thinking MoS could work as the start of movieverse, which we haven't talked about for a good minute in favor of nitpicking what I said about BvS' damage control. Any thoughts on the other things I said, like subsequent films to MoS being pigeonholed into aping its style and tone? No? I don’t “combat” everything you say about the guy. I’ve taken issue with you making personal judgments about the guy, like that time you claimed that he hates gay people, but I don’t care what you think of his films. I’m fine with people saying that Zack Snyder is a bad filmmaker. I just draw the line at when people try to psychoanalyze his character just because they hate his movies. As for why I’m “combatting” your claim about BvS being “damage control”, that’s because you have no proof of that whatsoever. You’re claiming that the plot of BvS would’ve been entirely different if it hadn’t been for the response to MoS, which you have provided zero evidence for. You don’t know anything about me, so please stop trying to pretend that you can tell if I’m being “disingenuous.” Also, when did I say that Batman had other beefs with Superman besides the destruction of Metropolis? I said that the impetus for the court hearings in BvS were over the incident in Africa. I never said that Batman was mad at Superman for reasons other than the Metropolis fight. You call me disingenuous? You’re literally putting words in my mouth in order to suit your argument.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 17, 2021 20:20:57 GMT
I have beef with anyone who's disengenuous in their intentions, and I'm finding it increasingly hard to take your arguments in good faith when you combat literally anything I level at the guy. I say he looks up, you say he looks down. I say he's a cat person, you say he's a dog person. Last I checked, you weren't even that hot on BvS, but here you are taking a bullet over my *audacity* at saying it addressed the destruction of MoS because of fan reaction (and no, Snyder saying they'd address the destruction upon release of MoS is not a strong defense because the release was the height of said negative reaction). You're also starting to contradict yourself: you just said a few posts ago that Batman and Superman had other "beef" besides the destruction of Metropolis, but now you're saying the fact that Batman was designated to fight Superman at all is proof BvS would address Metropolis regardless? Contradictory, and also just not a good argument in general. Not only do they have other problems with each other in the movie (Batman branding people, Superman being an alien), but the comic Zack was homaging had nothing to do with Superman destroying a city. They could have fought over anything. Other questionable arguments: twisting my criticism of your defensiveness on this one point into me attacking you for thinking MoS could work as the start of movieverse, which we haven't talked about for a good minute in favor of nitpicking what I said about BvS' damage control. Any thoughts on the other things I said, like subsequent films to MoS being pigeonholed into aping its style and tone? No? I don’t “combat” everything you say about the guy. I’ve taken issue with you making personal judgments about the guy, like that time you claimed that he hates gay people, but I don’t care what you think of his films. I’m fine with people saying that Zack Snyder is a bad filmmaker. I just draw the line at when people try to psychoanalyze his character just because they hate his movies. As for why I’m “combatting” your claim about BvS being “damage control”, that’s because you have no proof of that whatsoever. You’re claiming that the plot of BvS would’ve been entirely different if it hadn’t been for the response to MoS, which you have provided zero evidence for. You don’t know anything about me, so please stop trying to pretend that you can tell if I’m being “disingenuous.” Also, when did I say that Batman had other beefs with Superman besides the destruction of Metropolis? I said that the impetus for the court hearings in BvS were over the incident in Africa. I never said that Batman was mad at Superman for reasons other than the Metropolis fight. You call me disingenuous? You’re literally putting words in my mouth in order to suit your argument.
A filmmaker's character is part of their films, genius. You don't think we can piece together Oliver Stone's views from his movies? I'm sorry if you as a liberal can't morally justify to yourself liking a filmography jampacked with homophobia and Randian objectivism so you enter denial mode, but it's in plain view hardly needing of psychoanalysis. Go watch Curio's video if you want an LGBT perspective. At least the gay joke-making mellowmoviefan or whatever his name is knows what it is he likes. I've provided example after example of how it was glossed over at the end of MoS. You ignore them. If Superman and Lois are making out on top of the ashy remains of what was Metropolis, please tell me how that's treating what happened with any consideration whatsoever? You think anyone was standing around smiling and trying to get a date for a basketball game at The Hiroshima Times on August 9th 1945? "The battle against Zod does factor into why Batman doesn’t trust Superman, but that’s just to set up his motivations" - "factor in" and "set up" both imply that Metropolis is not the one and only reason he's fighting Superman. But let's just ignore what words mean and act like you've been saying Batman fought Superman purely for Metropolis the whole time, because that's hilarious. Did you even watch BvS? There was like 6 hours of movie before their fight delicately setting up additional reasons for their conflict. Not to mention, again, the primary influence for BvS had nothing to do with Superman destroying a city. So "Snyder planned to bring in Batman" is a completely meaningless argument in every possible way. Note I tried to pivot this conversation back on topic for you in the last reply and you ignored it. So if I come off as especially beef-y here, you know why you disingenuous Snyder-stanning simp you.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 17, 2021 21:34:06 GMT
I don’t “combat” everything you say about the guy. I’ve taken issue with you making personal judgments about the guy, like that time you claimed that he hates gay people, but I don’t care what you think of his films. I’m fine with people saying that Zack Snyder is a bad filmmaker. I just draw the line at when people try to psychoanalyze his character just because they hate his movies. As for why I’m “combatting” your claim about BvS being “damage control”, that’s because you have no proof of that whatsoever. You’re claiming that the plot of BvS would’ve been entirely different if it hadn’t been for the response to MoS, which you have provided zero evidence for. You don’t know anything about me, so please stop trying to pretend that you can tell if I’m being “disingenuous.” Also, when did I say that Batman had other beefs with Superman besides the destruction of Metropolis? I said that the impetus for the court hearings in BvS were over the incident in Africa. I never said that Batman was mad at Superman for reasons other than the Metropolis fight. You call me disingenuous? You’re literally putting words in my mouth in order to suit your argument.
A filmmaker's character is part of their films, genius. You don't think we can piece together Oliver Stone's views from his movies? I'm sorry if you as a liberal can't morally justify to yourself liking a filmography jampacked with homophobia and Randian objectivism so you enter denial mode, but it's in plain view hardly needing of psychoanalysis. Go watch Curio's video if you want an LGBT perspective. At least the gay joke-making mellowmoviefan or whatever his name is knows what it is he likes. I've provided example after example of how it was glossed over at the end of MoS. You ignore them. If Superman and Lois are making out on top of the ashy remains of what was Metropolis, please tell me how that's treating what happened with any consideration whatsoever? You think anyone was standing around smiling and trying to get a date for a basketball game at The Hiroshima Times on August 9th 1945? "The battle against Zod does factor into why Batman doesn’t trust Superman, but that’s just to set up his motivations" - "factor in" and "set up" both imply that Metropolis is not the one and only reason he's fighting Superman. But let's just ignore what words mean and act like you've been saying Batman fought Superman purely for Metropolis the whole time, because that's hilarious. Did you even watch BvS? There was like 6 hours of movie before their fight delicately setting up additional reasons for their conflict. Not to mention, again, the primary influence for BvS had nothing to do with Superman destroying a city. So "Snyder planned to bring in Batman" is a completely meaningless argument in every possible way. Note I tried to pivot this conversation back on topic for you in the last reply and you ignored it. So if I come off as especially beef-y here, you know why you disingenuous Snyder-stanning simp you. I don’t like Snyder’s filmography, genius. I didn’t care for 300, I didn’t think he did the best job with Watchmen, and I haven’t even bothered watching Sucker Punch or that owl movie. Way to once again insist you know more about me than you do. If you want to assume Snyder is a bigot just because you personally take offense to the stuff in his films, that’s your problem. Snyder is not even a conservative, and he actually did criticize Ayn Rand as a person to an extent, but whatever. I could just as easily claim that Arian Johnson supports sexual assault for having Rose smooch Finn without his consent, but that would make me an asshole... Superman and Lois making out in MoS wasn’t supposed to be an indication that everything was fine at that moment. I actually do think the scene was awkward in the movie, but the implication of the scene is not that they’re making out on the corpses of a bunch of people. It’s supposed to be an obligatory superhero romance moment. Once again, you still provided no evidence to support your head canon that it wasn’t going to be addressed in the sequel. Also, you think just because I said “factor in”, that means I was trying to suggest that Batman’s motivations didn’t revolve around him being mad about Metropolis. Fine, I used a poor choice of words. Happy? One more thing, you are aware that in your initial post in this thread, you made a snarky comment that implied that I’m a Snyder fanboy, right? You accuse me of “combatting” everything you say about Snyder, but I can’t even bring up a film that Zack Snyder happened to make without you getting on my ass and calling me a fanboy.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 18, 2021 11:03:46 GMT
A filmmaker's character is part of their films, genius. You don't think we can piece together Oliver Stone's views from his movies? I'm sorry if you as a liberal can't morally justify to yourself liking a filmography jampacked with homophobia and Randian objectivism so you enter denial mode, but it's in plain view hardly needing of psychoanalysis. Go watch Curio's video if you want an LGBT perspective. At least the gay joke-making mellowmoviefan or whatever his name is knows what it is he likes. I've provided example after example of how it was glossed over at the end of MoS. You ignore them. If Superman and Lois are making out on top of the ashy remains of what was Metropolis, please tell me how that's treating what happened with any consideration whatsoever? You think anyone was standing around smiling and trying to get a date for a basketball game at The Hiroshima Times on August 9th 1945? "The battle against Zod does factor into why Batman doesn’t trust Superman, but that’s just to set up his motivations" - "factor in" and "set up" both imply that Metropolis is not the one and only reason he's fighting Superman. But let's just ignore what words mean and act like you've been saying Batman fought Superman purely for Metropolis the whole time, because that's hilarious. Did you even watch BvS? There was like 6 hours of movie before their fight delicately setting up additional reasons for their conflict. Not to mention, again, the primary influence for BvS had nothing to do with Superman destroying a city. So "Snyder planned to bring in Batman" is a completely meaningless argument in every possible way. Note I tried to pivot this conversation back on topic for you in the last reply and you ignored it. So if I come off as especially beef-y here, you know why you disingenuous Snyder-stanning simp you. I don’t like Snyder’s filmography, genius. I didn’t care for 300, I didn’t think he did the best job with Watchmen, and I haven’t even bothered watching Sucker Punch or that owl movie. Way to once again insist you know more about me than you do. If you want to assume Snyder is a bigot just because you personally take offense to the stuff in his films, that’s your problem. Snyder is not even a conservative, and he actually did criticize Ayn Rand as a person to an extent, but whatever. I could just as easily claim that Arian Johnson supports sexual assault for having Rose smooch Finn without his consent, but that would make me an asshole... Superman and Lois making out in MoS wasn’t supposed to be an indication that everything was fine at that moment. I actually do think the scene was awkward in the movie, but the implication of the scene is not that they’re making out on the corpses of a bunch of people. It’s supposed to be an obligatory superhero romance moment. Once again, you still provided no evidence to support your head canon that it wasn’t going to be addressed in the sequel. Also, you think just because I said “factor in”, that means I was trying to suggest that Batman’s motivations didn’t revolve around him being mad about Metropolis. Fine, I used a poor choice of words. Happy? One more thing, you are aware that in your initial post in this thread, you made a snarky comment that implied that I’m a Snyder fanboy, right? You accuse me of “combatting” everything you say about Snyder, but I can’t even bring up a film that Zack Snyder happened to make without you getting on my ass and calling me a fanboy. You know what, I think I have been unfair and would like to formally apologize. I don't know you and I especially don't know Zack Snyder, I don't know what goes on inside either of your heads, and it is presumptive of me to act like I do based solely on your actions, behaviors, attitudes, or statements. With heavy heart and humbled humility, I hope you can find it within yourself to forgive me for the way I've acted in this thread as well as in our past encounters. I'm just kidding you. Not seeing his owl movie doesn't make you not a fanboy any more than Snyder endorsing Biden makes his movies not homophobic. Case in point: I haven't seen "Arian Johnson's" The Brothers Bloom, either. If I want to assume Snyder has issues with gay people just because his movies repeatedly demonstrate issues with gay people, that's my problem...? Do you have any idea just how inane that sounds? This blatant denial of a political bent also came up with Nolan, and I wasn't even dogging him. Clearly you have trouble sleeping if your directing heroes don't share the exact same beliefs as you.
The makeout being an "obligatory superhero romance moment" is my point. The whole third act is an "obligatory superhero *blank* moment", including the fight which is just supposed to look cool like any other climatic superhero fight, implying it wasn't supposed to be as big a deal as the audience made it. There's a clear contrast in tone with it and the opening of BvS, but you want me to think nothing of the fact that this tonal shift happened in light of mass controversy? It's just a whacky coincidence that everyone in Metropolis went from smiling obliviously to troubled by the carnage after the audience did? Sure.
My initial snarky comment was merely implying you were a MoS fanboy - you do seem quite taken with it - but the more this conversation has gone on the more you seem to just admire this guy's whole existence. I don't think even Zack Snyder is as defensive of Zack Snyder.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 18, 2021 11:28:12 GMT
I don’t like Snyder’s filmography, genius. I didn’t care for 300, I didn’t think he did the best job with Watchmen, and I haven’t even bothered watching Sucker Punch or that owl movie. Way to once again insist you know more about me than you do. If you want to assume Snyder is a bigot just because you personally take offense to the stuff in his films, that’s your problem. Snyder is not even a conservative, and he actually did criticize Ayn Rand as a person to an extent, but whatever. I could just as easily claim that Arian Johnson supports sexual assault for having Rose smooch Finn without his consent, but that would make me an asshole... Superman and Lois making out in MoS wasn’t supposed to be an indication that everything was fine at that moment. I actually do think the scene was awkward in the movie, but the implication of the scene is not that they’re making out on the corpses of a bunch of people. It’s supposed to be an obligatory superhero romance moment. Once again, you still provided no evidence to support your head canon that it wasn’t going to be addressed in the sequel. Also, you think just because I said “factor in”, that means I was trying to suggest that Batman’s motivations didn’t revolve around him being mad about Metropolis. Fine, I used a poor choice of words. Happy? One more thing, you are aware that in your initial post in this thread, you made a snarky comment that implied that I’m a Snyder fanboy, right? You accuse me of “combatting” everything you say about Snyder, but I can’t even bring up a film that Zack Snyder happened to make without you getting on my ass and calling me a fanboy. You know what, I think I have been unfair and would like to formally apologize. I don't know you and I especially don't know Zack Snyder, I don't know what goes on inside either of your heads, and it is presumptive of me to act like I do based solely on your actions, behaviors, attitudes, or statements. With heavy heart and humbled humility, I hope you can find it within yourself to forgive me for the way I've acted in this thread as well as in our past encounters. I'm just kidding you. Not seeing his owl movie doesn't make you not a fanboy any more than Snyder endorsing Biden makes his movies not homophobic. Case in point: I haven't seen "Arian Johnson's" The Brothers Bloom, either. If I want to assume Snyder has issues with gay people just because his movies repeatedly demonstrate issues with gay people, that's my problem...? Do you have any idea just how inane that sounds? This blatant denial of a political bent also came up with Nolan, and I wasn't even dogging him. Clearly you have trouble sleeping if your directing heroes don't share the exact same beliefs as you.
The makeout being an "obligatory superhero romance moment" is my point. The whole third act is an "obligatory superhero *blank* moment", including the fight which is just supposed to look cool like any other climatic superhero fight, implying it wasn't supposed to be as big a deal as the audience made it. There's a clear contrast in tone with it and the opening of BvS, but you want me to think nothing of the fact that this tonal shift happened in light of mass controversy? It's just a whacky coincidence that everyone in Metropolis went from smiling obliviously to troubled by the carnage after the audience did? Sure.
My initial snarky comment was merely implying you were a MoS fanboy - you do seem quite taken with it - but the more this conversation has gone on the more you seem to just admire this guy's whole existence. I don't think even Zack Snyder is as defensive of Zack Snyder. MoS isn’t even anywhere near one of my favorite superhero movies, but sure, keep telling yourself that I’m a fanboy. I actually have a list of problems with the movie, including, but not limited to: - The non-linear flashback structure
- The use of shaky cam and zoom-ins
- Pa Kent’s apparent inconsistency
- The way Pa Kent’s death was handled
- The aforementioned obligatory romance
- The excessive product placement
- The fact that the movie jumps from Superman being devastated over killing Zod to him having a conversation with Swanwick
I genuinely don’t care about people saying that Zack Snyder is a bad filmmaker. I don’t even consider him a particularly good filmmaker. I think giving him the keys to the entire DC movieverse was a mistake. I don’t even think his movies are particularly good visually, and I certainly can’t say they’re well written. I just think dogging on the guy personally is going too far, yet people like you and the Breadtubers can’t seem to resist doing it. Like that time Lindsay Ellis made a tasteless joke about Snyder hating his dead mother, and then played the victim when people called her out on it.
Once more, I really do not care when people say his movies are bad. Just don’t attack the guy personally, or try to assume you understand how his mind functions. By all accounts, Zack Snyder seems to be a pretty easygoing guy, and basically all the actors who have talked about working with him (including the openly queer Ezra Miller and Tig Notaro) have had nothing but nice things to say about him. If not being a fan of ragging on someone who doesn’t seem to deserve it makes me a “fanboy” in your eyes, then I’m convinced that you’re probably an asshole who doesn’t give two shits about common decency.
Arguing with you is extremely tedious and repetitive in general. You come across as a very snarky, condescending, and self-righteous individual. Maybe that’s not how you are in real life, but that’s how you come across on here. All you ever seem to do is be cheeky and confrontational. I didn’t even make this thread to talk about how “great” I think MoS and Zack Snyder are, but you still went ahead and insisted that’s what I was doing in your typical style. Maybe it would be best if you just put me on ignore?
Also, I was typing on a phone earlier, hence the “Arian Johnson” typo. I was without power for the past couple of days.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 18, 2021 20:25:08 GMT
You know what, I think I have been unfair and would like to formally apologize. I don't know you and I especially don't know Zack Snyder, I don't know what goes on inside either of your heads, and it is presumptive of me to act like I do based solely on your actions, behaviors, attitudes, or statements. With heavy heart and humbled humility, I hope you can find it within yourself to forgive me for the way I've acted in this thread as well as in our past encounters. I'm just kidding you. Not seeing his owl movie doesn't make you not a fanboy any more than Snyder endorsing Biden makes his movies not homophobic. Case in point: I haven't seen "Arian Johnson's" The Brothers Bloom, either. If I want to assume Snyder has issues with gay people just because his movies repeatedly demonstrate issues with gay people, that's my problem...? Do you have any idea just how inane that sounds? This blatant denial of a political bent also came up with Nolan, and I wasn't even dogging him. Clearly you have trouble sleeping if your directing heroes don't share the exact same beliefs as you.
The makeout being an "obligatory superhero romance moment" is my point. The whole third act is an "obligatory superhero *blank* moment", including the fight which is just supposed to look cool like any other climatic superhero fight, implying it wasn't supposed to be as big a deal as the audience made it. There's a clear contrast in tone with it and the opening of BvS, but you want me to think nothing of the fact that this tonal shift happened in light of mass controversy? It's just a whacky coincidence that everyone in Metropolis went from smiling obliviously to troubled by the carnage after the audience did? Sure.
My initial snarky comment was merely implying you were a MoS fanboy - you do seem quite taken with it - but the more this conversation has gone on the more you seem to just admire this guy's whole existence. I don't think even Zack Snyder is as defensive of Zack Snyder. MoS isn’t even anywhere near one of my favorite superhero movies, but sure, keep telling yourself that I’m a fanboy. I actually have a list of problems with the movie, including, but not limited to: - The non-linear flashback structure
- The use of shaky cam and zoom-ins
- Pa Kent’s apparent inconsistency
- The way Pa Kent’s death was handled
- The aforementioned obligatory romance
- The excessive product placement
- The fact that the movie jumps from Superman being devastated over killing Zod to him having a conversation with Swanwick
I genuinely don’t care about people saying that Zack Snyder is a bad filmmaker. I don’t even consider him a particularly good filmmaker. I think giving him the keys to the entire DC movieverse was a mistake. I don’t even think his movies are particularly good visually, and I certainly can’t say they’re well written. I just think dogging on the guy personally is going too far, yet people like you and the Breadtubers can’t seem to resist doing it. Like that time Lindsay Ellis made a tasteless joke about Snyder hating his dead mother, and then played the victim when people called her out on it.
Once more, I really do not care when people say his movies are bad. Just don’t attack the guy personally, or try to assume you understand how his mind functions. By all accounts, Zack Snyder seems to be a pretty easygoing guy, and basically all the actors who have talked about working with him (including the openly queer Ezra Miller and Tig Notaro) have had nothing but nice things to say about him. If not being a fan of ragging on someone who doesn’t seem to deserve it makes me a “fanboy” in your eyes, then I’m convinced that you’re probably an asshole who doesn’t give two shits about common decency.
Arguing with you is extremely tedious and repetitive in general. You come across as a very snarky, condescending, and self-righteous individual. Maybe that’s not how you are in real life, but that’s how you come across on here. All you ever seem to do is be cheeky and confrontational. I didn’t even make this thread to talk about how “great” I think MoS and Zack Snyder are, but you still went ahead and insisted that’s what I was doing in your typical style. Maybe it would be best if you just put me on ignore?
Also, I was typing on a phone earlier, hence the “Arian Johnson” typo. I was without power for the past couple of days.
It's not really "going after the guy personally" to notice and call out something he projects in his films. I never said he wasn't "easygoing", nor anything about his mom whom I don't know from Eve. I'm talking about *what he puts in his films*, which is an entirely fair target. If a guy carves a swatstika into 4 of his paintings, it might be fair to ask "is he a Nazi?" If he says he wants to adapt Mein Kampf, likewise. If a Jew sees the paintings and calls them anti-semitic, is that Jew an "asshole"? I mean, the painter has 1-2 Jewish friends, and "I can't be racist because I have a ____ friend" is a flawless argument, but still, 4 swatstikas might send a message one might not like, and is it wrong to mention it in the critique of the paintings? And if you disagree to all of that, would you still go around calling people "asshole" if they said, say, Bong Joon Ho seems to care about poor people and class struggles based on his movies and they *liked* that? I mean, they're still getting "personal", but in this case it's positive. As I said previously, not only did I comment extensively on your topic in my initial post, I then tried to steer it back to the topic and you ignored both to argue with ME about a minor Snyder point, so you can get off of your cross about "why you made the thread". We could have been talking about a MoS universe this whole time. Likewise, I can be snarky, but at least I'm not insidious about it. You think coming into the middle of a debate to post a one-sided video against me and then saying "I didn't mean nuthin" is sneaky? If I came into this thread and posted a video called "Anyone Who Thinks MoS could Make A Good Foundation For a DC Universe Is A Moron and They Smell Bad" and then I said "I was just posting it, it's not necessarily what I think", how much of a two-faced coward would I have to be?
|
|