Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Zack Snyder is a frustrating director who has never made a movie that I have ever fully connected with. But he also made a movie where Superman dies and there is literally a cross in the background and the movie came out on Good Friday. And that's great.

I expect the Snyder Cut to be a mess, but at least interesting.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Almost Blue posted:

I keep seeing people in this thread say the only Snyder movie they like is Dawn of the Dead, and for those who do believe that, I'm curious, what do you see in Dawn Of The Dead that you don't see in his other movies?
I mean that's not strictly true for me, but my big hangups with Snyder are:

1) While he can frame some really nice individual shots, his action is surprisingly wonky for me. It's a mix of it often being stiff, not just in slow motion, and the internal geography of the scene not always being clear.

2) I think that Snyder is intentionally shooting for this operatic style that is interesting, but I think he falls short. Part of it is that I don't think the scripts he works with always match. Like Man of Steel has these Tree of Life aspirations with Lois talking about tinkling and Clark being called a dick-splash. But I think beyond that, it can often be difficult to really connect with his characters.

Dawn of the Dead is a B-Movie, but it has an engaging cast and kinetic action that made it appeal to people in a way that his later work was often offputting.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Snowman_McK posted:

As another reason films are wasted on film twitter, the consensus is that they 'just tried to make him the joker' and I can't tell which character they misunderstood worse.
I mean there are really clear parallels in how the villains are used.

In The Dark Knight and BvS, both villains have pretty parallel plans of trapping the hero in a sort of gordian knot. Batman can't truly win because his victory institutionalizes his brand of authoritarian vigilantism in Gotham. Superman is offered the paradox that either he kills Batman and is thusly not truly good or Batman kills him and is thusly not powerful. Both heroes ultimately win over the villain by sacrificing themselves--Batman's reputation and Superman's life, winning by taking part in an action that the villain couldn't imagine someone doing.

Luthor is also redrafted from his traditional post 80s role as the King of Metropolis into not just a more subversive figure who is injecting himself into systems of power similar to the Joker with those who write him off facing dire consequences.

I don't mind Eisenberg Luthor, but I also don't think it really hits Evil(er) Mark Zuckerberg and it's a bit of a waste of the take.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Snowman_McK posted:

They took a vote and a majority of people were fine with the idea of the trigger being pulled.
The Joker's whole thing is when the chips are down, people will rip each other apart. The people on the boat obviously aren't perfect people But when it came down to it, when he had the remote in his hand, when he seconds away from blowing up, he couldn't do it.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


John Wick of Dogs posted:

I didn't like TDKR cause it seemed kind of explicitly Copaganda to me
I think that TDKR is more a suggestion of cops needing to be public servants. The film definitely has a lot of critiques of police and law enforcement throughout. The reason that there is this big presentation of the one cop dressing up in his nice police uniform is the idea that it's the ideal of the police. The end scene is this guy dressed like Chief O'Hara from Batman 66 facing off against military style tanks. I think there was the obvious unfortunate parallels with OWS at the time, but the moment is communicating the idea of the ideal of the police facing off against the grotesque militarization of the police. Literally one of the cops is a traffic cop.

There's an obvious critique that can be made because Nolan is offering that there is a platonic ideal of policing that is rooted in transparent voluntarily servitude and the films alludes the racial dynamics of policing. But I think dismissing it as copaganda is unfair.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Mar 5, 2021

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


It's kind of weird/interesting how Kirby's new Gods were about re-imagining Norse Gods in a modern sci/fi lens. The beginnings of what would lead to Darkseid and Co. were rooted in an idea for how to reboot his Marvel Thor characters. You can still see the connections, especially clearly with High Father with his clear connections to Odin. There is also some Judaism in there. That's the actual gimmick of New Gods. They're a Pantheon of Gods who are appropriating modern (1970s) superhero aesthetics. Of course the Norse influences also branch of into Tolkien which Snyder is pulling a lot from.

So, you basically have this character of Darskeid who is supposed to be an old mythical God figure reinterpreted as a modern supervillain and then in the Snyder Cut reinterpreted into a classical God-figure that you might feel at home in the Lord of the Rings. I mean I actually don't know if I like that, but it is interesting.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Roth posted:

Yeah, but he got made fun of on Twitter by people going "What the gently caress" at Black Widow calling herself a monster for not being able to have kids
He also makes Black Widow a team sex mommy in Age of Ultron just like he does with Wonder Woman in JL. Natasha is both the romantic interest of the Hulk in that film and also literally sings lullabies to him. The same Hero in the previously film who tries to kill Natasha and is weirdly framed as backhanding her. LIke go back to that Avengers first movie. The Hulk doesn't try to smash her. The Hulk takes his open hand up and is clearly about to just backslap her before Thor saves her. poo poo is bizarre.

I think there are a lot of critiques on gender to be made about Snyder's work, but the simple idea that Wonder Woman has joy in being a warrior just makes her such a better character.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


McCloud posted:

Challenging in the sense that the audiences preconceptions are challenged. Man of Steel famously features massive collateral damage due to the metropolis fight, and people reacted harshly to this because they are used to sanitized violence where no one but the bad guys get hurt.

The audience is fine with this

https://twitter.com/CBMshots/status/1351140908272594953?s=20

because "no one got hurt", but they freak the gently caress out over this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTxZl_ffcv0

because oh my gosh knocking villains through buildings has consequences who could have known!!

It's jarring and unsettling. That's an example of what i mean

Edit: That youtube link is proclick btw, it edits the metropolis segment from MoS and BvS together and it looks smooth af
I think there are a couple of issues with this post:

1) The GIF you're tweeting is completely out of context. In the complete scene, Superman's whole bravado, x1,000 thing entirely backfires on him. It's coming at the end of a series that has constantly portrayed the potential horror of Superman not holding back. Superman's ultimately not doing the right thing there. You're right that there is a bloodlessness to the violence, but you're comparing a scene where Superman is wrong for recklessly punching a monster through buildings and Man of Steel in which Superman's action aren't intended to be viewed as incorrect. It's part of a flaw in Superman's character rooted in the trauma from this scene when Darkseid murders one of Superman's friends, leaving Superman to impotently punch the ground.

2) Do you imagine that everyone who does not like Man of Steel hasn't seen like Se7en or Saving Private Ryan or Game of Thrones or Chinatown or Robocop or John Wick? Like you're right that it's challenging in that it challenges your expectations for Superman, but I think it's disingenuous to present people as not being able to get their mind around violence or flawed heroes.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Roth posted:

No it doesn't? The follow up to that scene is Darkseid having to bust out a weapon to nullify Superman on the spot. At no point does Superman have to reckon with the fact that he just killed a bunch of people by punching Darkseid through multiple buildings.
I mean I don't think the cartoon is implying Superman actually killed people, just more that he's being reckless and it's kind of scary. But in the context of how the show and broader universe's depiction of Darkseid's relationship with Superman, Superman just can't beat Darkseid by brute force. Superman is wrong to think he's going to win by out-strongmanning the embodiment of fascism.

Honestly, that episode the GIF is from is also just not that great and a bit of a mess. But Superman completely fails and Darkseid is defeated by Lex Luthor basically in a weird suicide-murder centered around their own mutual megalomania. Like yes, it's a cartoon that hand waves any potential deaths from the punch through the buildings, but painting it as a simplistic story where Superman is being super good and cool and only the bad guys hurt is complete disingenuous about the arc that occurs between those two characters and what actually happens in that scene.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Mar 16, 2021

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Roth posted:

The scene begins with a build up of the classic Superman theme, and heroic music as he explains that he's always held himself back and Darkseid is somebody he can really let loose on. I have a hard time buying it's being portrayed as scary.
They show people looking up scared as he's punched through a building therefore I think Superman is supposed to be a little bit scary. Like the scene is drawn out to initially be cool just like it feels initially cool in the other scene I posted when Superman actually physically beats Darkseid.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


McCloud posted:

Like other said, it's portrayed as a huge heroic moment for Superman, not one of horror or defeat, but the larger point I was making wasn't that their actions aren't justified, but that Snyderman and Timman acted in a very similar way, but one was viewed as shocking and "not true to the character" while the other was viewed as cool and badass. The animated version is way more sanitized than the former, that evokes feelings of 9/11, you absolutely feel people actually died in the MoS scene, unlike the animated one, and that's jarring.
Look I think you guys are being way too literal with that scene, so let's not focus on it. Why are people okay with Dan being murdered while Superman can just helplessly watch and punch a city? Why are people okay with Superman being turned into a mind controlled soldier where it is absolutely implied that he kills people, becomes a pariah, goes on a revenge mission in which he is incinerating hordes of Parademons, fighting Darkseid, absolutely being framed in a scary light when he is throwing Darkseid off of a tower, only to find that Darkseid is too good a dictator for Superman to punch his people's free?

quote:

Regarding your second point, that's kind of a weird take on my comment. Like, i don't think the idea of violent or flawed heroes is mindblowing to people, no. What I attempted to convey was that portraying Superman like that was jarring for people, because there are different expectations of the superhero genre, and especially the ultimate Paragon and Father of Superheroes, and quite possibly the most noble fictional character in the world aside from maybe Jesus, than a former assassin and action films in general.
I don't think im exaggerating when I say that people were angry about the collateral damage in MoS.
Well, I don't think that's how it came off in the OP, but fair enough. Regardless, I think what I'm getting to is that you absolutely can tell violent stories or stories where people die or even stories where the bad guys win with Superman. Kingdom Come used to be a fan favorite about Superman nearly going crazy and killing a bunch of people. All-Star Superman is literally about Superman dying and one of its most iconic moments is Superman making a mistake that stops him from saving his father. An old gem of 90s comics is the Superman Hitman issue where Superman talks about what it's like to not save a dying astronaut. The first Superman movie has Lois Lane horrifically die.

I think that when Superman came out there were a lot of very online people who tried to prove how Man of Steel is scientifically bad and that's wrong because Superman's a fictional character, but you can do whatever you want with it. As someone who doesn't love MoS, I think there are other reasons that I don't really care for the movie.

Like the answer to my question about the S:TAS stuff is that people just liked those stories.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Mar 16, 2021

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


I think a lot of criticism about Snyder is reverse engineered from 300 which I think rightfully deserves a lot of criticism.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Zaphod42 posted:

Maybe Snyder has cracked into that we need a new "model" between movie and tv show? :shrug:
It's funny/sad that what hosed up Justice League is trying to chase Marvel. But in the years after, Marvel has put out 3 hour+ superhero epics and is now starting to do these very miniseries that are in-between movie and TV shows.

Anyway, I've spent 15 years getting excited for Zack Snyder movies and being disappointed. But I want to believe!

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


abraham linksys posted:

people are mostly talking about what they like about this version more than Whedon's which is understandable, and now I'm trying to decide if my time is worthless enough to watch the Whedon cut. does seem like it'll breeze by in comparison, if nothing else. or hell maybe I should go rewatch Man of Steel and watch BvS for the first time to really complete the picture
I have not watched the Snyder Cut yet, but the Whedon Cut is a slog in the same way Age of Ultron is and OG Avengers for all its other flaws somehow isn't, regardless of runtime.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Hollisman, The Nightingale is the best movie of the last ten years and is great despite its aspect ratio. Do you really want to fight Jennifer Kent?

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Jimbot posted:

Honestly, I didn't even notice the aspect ratio because the film uses what it has perfectly. It's not like they shot it widescreen then cropped everything. Snyder framed each shot and the DP lite it for that aspect ratio.
I do wonder if that explains the Whedon reshoots that people are referring to where it's the same action but worse looking.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


abraham linksys posted:

I'm going in on the whedon cut for the first time and I gotta say this whole scene before the title card is an infinitely cooler and more economical opening than loving superman screaming for five minutes or whatever
Like on paper maybe, but the whole Batman scene is embarrassingly bad from the not-quite-the Burton films themes to the dialogue with Batman and the thief.

It might be the worst scene in a superhero movie and it's the sequel to a film where Lex Luthor constructs a very complex plan to pee in a woman's face before he murders her.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing everyone that Joss Whedon was woke

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Augus posted:

stuff like the Anti-Life Equation is so weird and cool conceptually and it's great seeing a movie where that isn't tossed aside for being "too comic booky" like Thanos wanting to marry Death.
The concept of the Anti-Life Equation is so cool:

--The idea that the opposite of life is not death but the loss of freewill
--When you think about what that means for Professional Nazi Hater Jack Kirby to make the ultimate expression of evil the notion of someone trying to eliminate all thoughts that are not their own, it's honestly a pretty eloquent summary of what evil is

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


2house2fly posted:

I wonder if the Anti-Life Equation could be a metaphor for capitalism
Not sure if you care about comic takes on anti-life, but YUP...



Kirby is able to illustrate how easily Fascism and Capitalism compliment each other in like four corny rear end comic panels. It's his magic.

I really would recommend reading Kirby's DC stuff. It's definitely of its time, but the guy had a definite sense of how weird the future was going to be. There is a Forever People issue where Darkseid has an amusement park in which he torments the heroes in bizarre death traps. But it's not like some Scooby Doo run down amusement park. It's just like Disney Land. There are people there, and the heroes are clearly displayed. But his amusement park traps people in their ignorance. They cannot see any of the horrors, only their own consumption. Darkseid freely walks around the park and nobody notices him except a kid who is pure of heart, but Darkseid laughs about it because the kid has no power and Darkseid is a dick. And that issue might be like the most concise parable for modern society I have ever read.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Mar 21, 2021

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Whedon's advice is basically a repackaged version of being willing to kill your darlings/babies which is pretty stock writing advice. The idea isn't that you dogmatically pick your favorite scene and get rid of it. The idea is that when developing a story, you can't hold the characters hostage to this moment that you need to happen. You might find during the process that this moment isn't where the story is supposed to go. You might also have a Crime and Punishment situation in which the actual story isn't the story you thought you were telling and end up following a completely different main character, throwing out like half a book that you wrote.

I don't really think that's Snyder's issue as a filmmaker or storyteller.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Honestly, I don't think Film-Darkseid and Film-Thanos look that much alike besides being big monster dudes. The OG Avengers movie sort of rips from Darkseid a bit because you get elements of anti-life with Loki's whole mind control and fascism trip. And you get some of that down to earth but terrifying god of evil is sitting on your couch swagger from MCU Thanos, but that's not really the vibe from Snyder's version.

Film-Thanos's whole deal is that he's just an abusive dad who came up with an insane reason to justify being a dick. Darkseid's kind of the Devil and the embodiment of evil itself, so you can see some overlap, but that's true of any supervillain.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Ammanas posted:

i liked the movie but the 'anti life equation' is a profoundly stupid phrase
The whole idea of Anti-Life is to give into despair, let go of freedom and choice. Darkseid's whole deal is eradicating any will besides his own. As stated, it has a lot to do with Kirby's experience as a Jew and hater of Nazis. But honestly, the idea of the ultimate fascist not just wanting to eradicate freewill, but looking for some mathematical proof that justifies his authority is very modern-intellectual darkweb Fascism to me. Once again, Kirby is ahead of his time.

The Anti-Life Equation is great as a concept. At the very least, the notion of anti-life being the loss of freewill and not death is a really eloquent idea.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


So, I watched the first half of it. Was thinking of watching the rest tonight, but my wife was actually having fun with it despite making fun of it. Like it's a two hour first act, but it's rarely not engaging.

It's definitely my favorite of his DC movies so far. But granted for me that's still a super low bar. I still can't really connect with his characters and the action just doesn't do it for me. There is definitely good shot composition within action scenes, but they always feel way to unreal for me. Some of that is absolutely on purpose, there has always been an un-cannyness to his work, but there's a lack of danger for me.

Things that I think are worth noting:

-- I think Snyder has a thing for presenting his superhero characters as neurologically atypical, and I really love that. The flashback to young Clark locking himself in the closet was a really clever and sweet moment of Man of Steel, and made perfect sense. I like that with Flash there isn't just a slowdown effect, but her really is taking the world in differently than other people.

-- I think the great football scene I was hearing about looks like a Gatorade commercial, but I think Cyborg is fantastic. Someone mentioned the idea of if Final Crisis was an inspiration for this. That particular comic ends with a character Nix Uaton--who is part of this cosmic race called the Monitors--becoming a sort of God of the Internet Age. Cyborg reminded me a lot of that. Final Crisis* is about Darkseid winning so I wouldn't be surprised if it's an influence. But more than that, I feel like this movie is most engaging when Cyborg's on screen. I think the ridiculousness of his his powers and how Snyder relies on broad tropes really clicked with me. I disagree so far with the idea that he's the protagonist, Batman literally is if he's not a particularly strong one. I feel like with his connection to the mother box and his powers, you really could have made Vic be the one who brings the team together.

-- There is a lot of black and white at the start of the film. You really get the idea of a world in mourning for Superman without having to be so literal, but you get the sense that this is a world losing hope. It's literally the age of darkness.

-- I like that Snyder is trying to play with the idea of what it means for there to be New Gods and am curious where it goes. It's interesting that Darkseid like the Kryptonians in Man of Steel are coded in.a way that makes them feel more ancient. I feel like between St. Paul Batman and Cyborg very much being the God of Post-Humanist society, there is something to the Justice League being the true New Gods, but we'll see. I didn't love the Age of Heroes scene personally though.

-- Writing is pretty clunky at times and there are some weird editing choices. Like there's weird moments like when Diana describes Aquaman as being a halfbreed because he can breathe on land, but Atlanteans can apparently all do that?

-- I can't deal with some of these music choices.

-- I can't gently caress with Ezra Miller

*Final Crisis is a comic event in which Superman kills Darkseid's ghost by singing at it and is also at one point forced to inscribe a tombstone for mankind with his heat vision by a space vampire. Like to be a dick, the Space Vampire gives Superman a tombstone and is like, "I'm killing all of humanity, write an inscription on this tombstone." And the last panel reveals Superman's inscription, "To Be Continued..." And it's great.

Darkseid becomes a ghost because Batman finds a gun with a God killing bullet and shoots him with it going like, "Like look man, I hate guns, but gently caress you." I feel like people who enjoy Snyder's stuff would dig it.

Anyway, excited to finish this insane movie.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


"Marthas..."

*Grabs Mjölnir*

"Assemble."

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


I don't have any issue with the aspect ratio on principle, but I feel like I have the narrative mixed up a bit. My understanding is that when Snyder filmed the movie both for IMax and general release which was presumably going to be in widescreen. So, Snyder shoots the movie for both, but as he is working tends to favor how things are looking in the Imax version. But most likely Snyder is shooting knowing must people will see the widescreen version. Then all the bullshit happens and years later, HBO is like, "Here is a shitton of money to produce what may or not be a niche product." Like obviously the movie is doing pretty well, but there was a chance that the movie was only going to appeal to a size-able but already invested group. Hence why it's four hours. So, Snyder asks if we can use the aspect ratio we're getting because it's what he ended up preferring. That's what happened right?

I ask because I think that people are interpreting it as this was always the vision of the film, how the movie was always intended to be seen, and that's not really the case. Obviously Snyder can do whatever he wants in post and this is his preference for this film which is very different than what he was planning to make four years ago. But I feel like it does matter if he shot this initially thinking most people were going to see widescreen because:

A) There are some people who are comparing with the 2017 shots and saying Whedon ruined shots. But that's not really true barring lovely color correction, right? In terms of composition, the shots that are being regarded as lesser are probably similar to what WB would have released in 2017 if they didn't screw over Snyder?

B) I think with that, there is some critique still worth having to the framing. An early example was of the Flash running to Superman while Wonder Woman is thrown off screen. The shot was deemed better because Wonder Woman is in frame, but I'm not sure I agree. Wonder Woman being on screen doesn't add much and confused the focal point for me. In the widescreen shot, Flash becomes the focal point. Wonder Woman is off screen, Superman's action is complete, and our eyes are drawn to him charging to Superman. In the full screen version you lose that sense of focus because Wonder Woman is still flying off screen making Superman's action incomplete while the Flash runs to him. You also get a lot of empty space on the bottom of the screen where no action is happening.

This isn't really a dis on Snyder, I can't imagine what it's like to plan scenes for two very different aspect ratios and I can see the moments where it benefits. Kevin Smith's comment about a lot of the movie feeling like a splash page is right on. But I don't know if the original version's aspect ratio was ruining the movie because I assume that it was always the plan to have a widescreen version. But I think it also means that while the current ratio is best, the fact the film was always being shot with different skews is probably going to mean that not every shot is going to be perfect one way or another unlike The Nightingale or The Lighthouse.

But this just my understanding and I am perfectly fine eating poo poo if I missed something.

teagone posted:

Two of the people I watched the film with last night said Barry saving Iris came across super creepy and it kinda bummed me out because I love that scene so much. Main complaint they had was why Barry was taking so long to save her, spending most of the time just staring at her lololol.
I think Barry moving her hair is indeed super creepy and hurts the charm. The hot dog gag distracted. Like there is a pay off to it, but in the moment the idea that Barry is just eating hotdogs from his pocket is dumb.

I do like the concept of a superhero meet cute. The big explosion in the end is funny. And to be clear, Snyder also understands the scene can read as creepy. That's why Iris is checking him out before the car accident. It kind of hangs a lantern on things because Iris is interested, but it is also weird how Iris is checking him out from like across the street. It's a thing that Snyder knows needs to happen, but it happens in an awkward or vestigial way. Like the truck driver is at fault, but Iris isn't able to brake sooner because she is so smitten about this guy across the street and in a store. And like I don't think that is bad conceptually in the sense of it being a Zack Snyder version of a meet cute. But it's staged in such an odd way.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Mar 21, 2021

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


McCloud posted:

You got those backwards. There's nothing normal about comic book Clark Kent. That's kind of the point, there's not a million Clark Kents running around, he's a person of singular purity, honesty and goodness who has an innate sense of The right thing.
I mean I do think what makes Lois Lane a longstanding and important character is that she basically is Superman without her powers. Her literal job is seeking truth and justice. I kind of wish Man of Steel went in deeper as her being the protagonist uncovering Clark because it's a good set up that indicates that about her as a character. But there are different takes on it. Superman Returns prominently does end with the idea that we don't need a Superman. All-Star Superman ends with the idea that Superman's powers are not inherently corrupting. When Lex has his powers, he's overwhelmed with how beautiful the world is.

I'm personally in favor that Clark's experience should shape him. It's not just that he had good parents. The beauty of Superman's origin is that his birth parents sent him to Earth with the crazy belief that a universe away there are good people who would take of their son and they were right. I think when we get the idea of Superman having extreme optimism for the good in others being fundamental for his character, that part's important.

All-Star is interesting because it really does go for Superman as less a Christlike figure and more of a trinity within himself:

The book is a lot about Superman as an inspirational figure and how he influences others, the holy spirit
Superman is represented as a literal God In the book, he literally creates our universe as a simulation to see what a world without him would be like
But what's interesting about his version of Clark is that he's not just the put upon nerd. There's a great moment with Clark and Lex where Clark just gets all mad about how lovely Lex Luthor is to his face. It's not so much that Clark isn't the real dude, but Clark is the Jesus figure. Superman the God needs to experience what it's like to be a frustrated and sometimes petty person.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Nroo posted:

The notion that the reason modern filmmakers adopt a 4:3 aspect ratio is just to give their movies a "sense of claustrophobia" is such horseshit.
I mean, that often is part of the reason.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


I do think widescreen has benefit over the more squared formats in general.

I think of it this way, a widescreen format is really great for vistas and panoramic views, but doesn't really lose out on more intimate shots because the sides of the screen can fade into your periphery. It's like how when you watch a play, you can focus in on one character and not get distracted by the stage.

I think the issue with that Flash/Superman better shot is that the shot is actually still being framed as a wide shot, but the difference now besides seeing Wonder Woman for a second is that you have all this just empty space below the heroes. And because it's empty space directly below the heroes, it doesn't blend into the periphery. I think someone said something about wider images being easier to take in, but I think the problem is the opposite. Our eyes are good at filtering out stuff on a horizontal plane but not a vertical.

Once again, you can still make good use of the more squared format, but I feel like people are kind of teetering on the side of there not actually being a difference between the formats. They both have drawbacks and selecting an aspect ratio is a choice. Of the two though, widescreen is the more versatile.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


I think there is a kind of feeling of listlessness in Snyder's movies. You get a lot of people who are not superheroes or superheroes in everything but costume (Lois, Alfred) kind of lead these put upon mediocre lives. Smallville is a really good example. It's not this idealistic smalltown anymore. It's a bit desolate, more big box stores.

I'm not sure if that ever worked for me in MoS and BvS, but it definitely shines in that one moment where Cyborg helps the lady. I think someone said something about it being an example of Cyborg not understanding institutional injustice, but I disagree. This lady isn't being hounded by the mob or attacked by killer clowns or in immediate danger. She's just this normal woman being slowly crushed by the world itself. You see it reflected in Cyborg's flashback when he hacks to help fix the girl's grades. He's saving someone from not active cruelty, but indifference.

SZ Justice League isn't a really good movie, but I feel like there is an amazing Cyborg movie in there. I really hope him and Fisher just work on their own thing.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Mar 22, 2021

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

This is what actually happened to small towns. If Snyder's most "realistic" movies - where he deliberately tries to introduce Real Life Stuff - have feelings of listlessness, what does that tell you?
I'm not really sure what you're fishing for here.

I wasn't listing it as a critique, just stating how Snyder deals with normal people in his stories. Saying he doesn't care about them is incorrect and is definitely not true in JL. In MoS and BvS, I don't think the motif necessarily develops into a coherent theme for me as much as it does with Cyborg's story.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Schwarzwald posted:

Honestly, that'd be a really good take.
Anti-life has legitimately always had a connection to consumerism at least in Kirby and Morrison's work.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

You said the movies seem listless and cited Smallville's de-evolution to an emptier big box parking lot. Also that Alfred and Lois seem to lead mediocre lives. So knowing what we know - that Snyder believes that heroes should be couched in a more realistic, less fantastic setting - what does it mean that Smallville has been economically damaged and that nobody "normal" seems happy with their lives? Is Snyder being dour and manufacturing a more dismal world, or...?
I don't think Lois and Alfred lead mediocre lives, I think they're basically on the same playingfield as Superman and Lois.

But yeah, I get it, small town America died. I'm not critiquing Snyder for showing people living listless lives. I am arguing that he definitely has a clear point of view for who the non-superheroes in his films are. It's silly to say he doesn't care about them. I don't know if he necessarily carries that point of view forward in a cohesive way, but I do really like that Cyborg scene.

Also, your posts are kind of condescending.

EDIT: Like if you have a bigger insight on what that motif means for BvS and MoS, just name it.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Mar 22, 2021

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

I am not digging on you specifically, but the attitude that the time you spent with the work is wasted because it won't lead to future cape poo poo is a bit unhealthy, imo.
The movie includes tons of things like Darkseid, Anti-Life, Martian Manhunter, the Knightmare future, that aren't fully explored in this film. It's admirable in a way that Snyder really stuck with an incredibly literal version of his dream cut as he would have made it in 2017 undeterred with hooks for sequels and everything. But it very much is a movie that is promising a sequel in a way that like Nolan's films or Man of Steel don't necessarily.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

The Star Wars extended universe stuff made an entire industry out of "the movies didn't follow up on this ancillary character, but we did!", it's very Fan Mindset.

Also all Kirby's Fourth World stuff exists, all the comics these are based on exist. If people want to follow up with all these characters they can read a Vox article or watch an IGN vid that explains who these characters are and where they are going/gone. Hell they could even read the comics, if they were so inclined!
Eh, the Star Wars example isn't great. Boba Fett, Wedge, and whoever all serve their roles in the film. People just want to see more of them.

An example would be like Monica Rambeau in Captain Marvel. Like yes, there might be intent or interest to expand on her character later on. But she serves her function for that story. Even stuff like the Joker card works thematically with Batman Begins. Yeah, it's a hook, but it's also a signal that Batman's real adventures have begun.

Stuff like the Knightmare epilogue or Martian Manhunter doesn't really service the story of this individual movie. You could argue that Darkseid functions as backstory for Steppenwolf, but Darkseid tends to overshadows Steppenwolf. Like you could imagine in this movie, the flashback actually not being of Darkseid at all. You could imagine it being Steppenwolf who invades Earth--yes, I know--but instead it's made very clear that the big bad you actually need to worry about is Darkseid.

That doesn't make the movie bad, but this movie in particular has a good amount of stuff that is more table dressing than plot.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Zaphod42 posted:

She's exceptionally evil, but I have ALWAYS hated her character design in comics and in animated incarnations.

The whole thing is just like "lol what if a cute old grandma was super evil wouldn't that be wacky?" comics are weird and try a lot of different things.

She does have a whole backstory yeah but its... eh.
The Apokolipian New Gods are kind of insidious in the comics. I think they're the most interesting when they aren't just pounding people into submission, but just providing the noose for mankind to hang itself, convincing people to give up their freedoms. I think Granny's design sort of leans into that. It's not just that she's an evil monster, but she's an evil monster who is going to make you dependent on her and even maybe think you love her. I think the design works.

I feel like the Snyder design is kind of a bummer although who knows if she was ever intended to be a character. I find it at least interesting that Snyder was going for a sense of the New Gods as a species, but Granny is a generic white lady. I feel like you could take the basic look of the Desaad, Darkseid, Steppenwolf and make a kind of weird cross between a muppet and a Miyazaki witch that would be dope.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


teagone posted:

I don't think continuity of costume design and general aesthetic is something the DC films are concerned with tbh. Aquaman is the follow up film to ZSJL, and look how different those films look from one another lol. I'm sure Ava DuVernay's New Gods film will be aesthetically wild.
Oh word, I did not know about this! That sounds great.

I am down with Seven Soldiers take of reincarnated New Gods, but if they're the for real Gods, I would really like to see Kirby's take where they're just a bunch of mismatched action figures, salesmen, and literal Nazis. I feel like Snyder's LotRish designs were uninspired and then further watered down by Whedon.

EDIT: The We Hate Movies Podcast made a really good point in their episode that if WB had just waited it out a little bit, they probably would be seeing the DCEU really lift off as the MCU hit its soft finale with Endgame.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Random questions and thoughts after sitting on the second half for a bit:

-- The Mother Boxes are alive, but passive? Like they can call out to preferred masters or tempt Cyborg like they do in the end, but they can't actually refuse to do anything?

-- Why didn't the Mother Boxes call out to Steppenwolf before Superman was a thing?

-- I feel like between the Nazis having the box and idea of it sitting in a warehouse for years, there is this clear idea that the Motherbox may have at least at one point been the Ark of the Covenant and I thinK Snyder should have gone more stupid with that. Snyder is at least using film language to draw connections between the boxes to Ark is really good film shorthand.

-- I think the question of the aspect ratio really needs to be reconsidered because I'm not sure it works consistently. I feel like you had people initially poo-pooing it on principle which is silly, but then you just had people parroting the same reasons for why it works. There are undoubtedly some places where it works, but I think especially during the last battle there are parts where Batman's face is like off screen.

I also think a lot of the end fight is horrible though.

-- The Knightmare portion of the Epilogue is very bad. My wife yelling, "WHAT." when the actual movie ended and there was still like twenty minutes left was great though.

-- As ridiculous as this four hour cut is in many ways, I think you can easily see a three hour cut working.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Mar 23, 2021

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Gatts posted:

There should be no complaint on 4 hour run time when people are eating up full season runs on Netflix and binge watching is a thing.

Neener neener so there
Yo.

I loving live for long rear end movies. The issue isn't that the movie is four hours. The issue is some of that time is dedicated to a bad fan film.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


The Notorious ZSB posted:

For that first one, they were asleep for millennia until his death yell woke them up. So if they'd been awakened before that he might have, but the Motherboxes were in hibernation until Superman's death. They didn't know he was there, but something about his death cry triggered them to start phoning home.
I thought there was exposition from Batman and Wonder Woman where they infer that the cry didn't wake up the boxes so much as signal to them that Earth was vulnerable? I thought that was the whole reason why it was important to bring Supes back, because the Boxes being afraid of him is evidence that he's a threat to them and Steppenwolf.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply