I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
That's just how Lex rationalizes it to himself.
Yeah, that is just a cop out excuse. No one is going to get complacent if superman is around to save a 747 from falling out of the sky. The people being saved had nothing to do with their situation, the liner is still getting sued if there was negligence/fault. If it was a super villain that caused it, they had no chance to deal with the issue themselves anyway.
To be fair, Lex's stated problems are more big picture than that. It's more that, no matter how much humanity may achieve, it will always be secondary to what Superman can do. The human race could decide to devote their entire energies to reaching the stars, launching a ship into the ether that represented the pinnacle of human achievement.
And when it arrived, Superman would be standing on the ground to make sure they made it okay. After they landed, he'd wave and be back home for lunch.
All of which does genuinely tick Lex off.
Which is why he got a random guy who is a totally normal human with no super powers at all to completely dominate Supes just through drive and intelligence.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
That's just how Lex rationalizes it to himself.
Yeah, that is just a cop out excuse. No one is going to get complacent if superman is around to save a 747 from falling out of the sky. The people being saved had nothing to do with their situation, the liner is still getting sued if there was negligence/fault. If it was a super villain that caused it, they had no chance to deal with the issue themselves anyway.
To be fair, Lex's stated problems are more big picture than that. It's more that, no matter how much humanity may achieve, it will always be secondary to what Superman can do. The human race could decide to devote their entire energies to reaching the stars, launching a ship into the ether that represented the pinnacle of human achievement.
And when it arrived, Superman would be standing on the ground to make sure they made it okay. After they landed, he'd wave and be back home for lunch.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
That's just how Lex rationalizes it to himself.
Yeah, that is just a cop out excuse. No one is going to get complacent if superman is around to save a 747 from falling out of the sky. The people being saved had nothing to do with their situation, the liner is still getting sued if there was negligence/fault. If it was a super villain that caused it, they had no chance to deal with the issue themselves anyway.
To be fair, Lex's stated problems are more big picture than that. It's more that, no matter how much humanity may achieve, it will always be secondary to what Superman can do. The human race could decide to devote their entire energies to reaching the stars, launching a ship into the ether that represented the pinnacle of human achievement.
And when it arrived, Superman would be standing on the ground to make sure they made it okay. After they landed, he'd wave and be back home for lunch.
All of which does genuinely tick Lex off.
Yeah, still a cop-out. Do you really think the first humans to travel to Mars would care that superman was waiting there, in case something went wrong? "Oh no, now we can't needlessly die in space, with absolutely zero chance of rescue."
The whole argument kind of falls down in any of the comics-verses, because they know there is other life out there, accomplishing more than they are. Nothing any human does matters in that sense.
re:Snyder
Yeah, he is an idiot. The factory owners would still be liable for the destruction to the facility, and any injuries/trauma sustained by their workers. Just because superman shows up and stops the fire/saves people, doesn't mean the building wasn't irrevocably damaged. They are now also going to lose a ton of money due to not being able to produce any new goods while the factory is fixed/a new one is found/setup.
No insurance company is going to go, "Oh you didn't get fire extuingisher systems because you wanted superman to do it? Sure I will just go ahead and give you your check for $cashmonez$".
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
That's just how Lex rationalizes it to himself.
Yeah, that is just a cop out excuse. No one is going to get complacent if superman is around to save a 747 from falling out of the sky. The people being saved had nothing to do with their situation, the liner is still getting sued if there was negligence/fault. If it was a super villain that caused it, they had no chance to deal with the issue themselves anyway.
To be fair, Lex's stated problems are more big picture than that. It's more that, no matter how much humanity may achieve, it will always be secondary to what Superman can do. The human race could decide to devote their entire energies to reaching the stars, launching a ship into the ether that represented the pinnacle of human achievement.
And when it arrived, Superman would be standing on the ground to make sure they made it okay. After they landed, he'd wave and be back home for lunch.
All of which does genuinely tick Lex off.
Yeah, still a cop-out. Do you really think the first humans to travel to Mars would care that superman was waiting there, in case something went wrong? "Oh no, now we can't needlessly die in space, with absolutely zero chance of rescue."
The whole argument kind of falls down in any of the comics-verses, because they know there is other life out there, accomplishing more than they are. Nothing any human does matters in that sense.
re:Snyder
Yeah, he is an idiot. The factory owners would still be liable for the destruction to the facility, and any injuries/trauma sustained by their workers. Just because superman shows up and stops the fire/saves people, doesn't mean the building wasn't irrevocably damaged. They are now also going to lose a ton of money due to not being able to produce any new goods while the factory is fixed/a new one is found/setup.
No insurance company is going to go, "Oh you didn't get fire extuingisher systems because you wanted superman to do it? Sure I will just go ahead and give you your check for $cashmonez$".
He's wrong because Superman is who he is. If Superman was Justice Lord Superman who decided to put the training wheels on humanity forever, he would be right.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
That's just how Lex rationalizes it to himself.
Yeah, that is just a cop out excuse. No one is going to get complacent if superman is around to save a 747 from falling out of the sky. The people being saved had nothing to do with their situation, the liner is still getting sued if there was negligence/fault. If it was a super villain that caused it, they had no chance to deal with the issue themselves anyway.
To be fair, Lex's stated problems are more big picture than that. It's more that, no matter how much humanity may achieve, it will always be secondary to what Superman can do. The human race could decide to devote their entire energies to reaching the stars, launching a ship into the ether that represented the pinnacle of human achievement.
And when it arrived, Superman would be standing on the ground to make sure they made it okay. After they landed, he'd wave and be back home for lunch.
All of which does genuinely tick Lex off.
Yeah, still a cop-out. Do you really think the first humans to travel to Mars would care that superman was waiting there, in case something went wrong? "Oh no, now we can't needlessly die in space, with absolutely zero chance of rescue."
The whole argument kind of falls down in any of the comics-verses, because they know there is other life out there, accomplishing more than they are. Nothing any human does matters in that sense.
re:Snyder
Yeah, he is an idiot. The factory owners would still be liable for the destruction to the facility, and any injuries/trauma sustained by their workers. Just because superman shows up and stops the fire/saves people, doesn't mean the building wasn't irrevocably damaged. They are now also going to lose a ton of money due to not being able to produce any new goods while the factory is fixed/a new one is found/setup.
No insurance company is going to go, "Oh you didn't get fire extuingisher systems because you wanted superman to do it? Sure I will just go ahead and give you your check for $cashmonez$".
He's wrong because Superman is who he is. If Superman was Justice Lord Superman who decided to put the training wheels on humanity forever, he would be right.
Which is Luthor's biggest flaw. He is mentally incapable of understanding that Superman is nothing like himself. Luthor expects Superman to do nothing but look down on and pity humanity because it's what Luthor would do if he had godlike power.
Well that and Luthor envies Superman. And Superman keeps shutting down Luthor's plans.
All that stuff about Luthor wanting Superman gone so humanity can grow without Superman showing them up is just rationalization. At best, Luthor might believe what he's saying, but he forgets to mention that the hidden addendum to the "Let humanity grow to their ultimate potential" is "with Lex Luthor leading the way." most of the time.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
That's just how Lex rationalizes it to himself.
Yeah, that is just a cop out excuse. No one is going to get complacent if superman is around to save a 747 from falling out of the sky. The people being saved had nothing to do with their situation, the liner is still getting sued if there was negligence/fault. If it was a super villain that caused it, they had no chance to deal with the issue themselves anyway.
To be fair, Lex's stated problems are more big picture than that. It's more that, no matter how much humanity may achieve, it will always be secondary to what Superman can do. The human race could decide to devote their entire energies to reaching the stars, launching a ship into the ether that represented the pinnacle of human achievement.
And when it arrived, Superman would be standing on the ground to make sure they made it okay. After they landed, he'd wave and be back home for lunch.
All of which does genuinely tick Lex off.
Yeah, still a cop-out. Do you really think the first humans to travel to Mars would care that superman was waiting there, in case something went wrong? "Oh no, now we can't needlessly die in space, with absolutely zero chance of rescue."
The whole argument kind of falls down in any of the comics-verses, because they know there is other life out there, accomplishing more than they are. Nothing any human does matters in that sense.
re:Snyder
Yeah, he is an idiot. The factory owners would still be liable for the destruction to the facility, and any injuries/trauma sustained by their workers. Just because superman shows up and stops the fire/saves people, doesn't mean the building wasn't irrevocably damaged. They are now also going to lose a ton of money due to not being able to produce any new goods while the factory is fixed/a new one is found/setup.
No insurance company is going to go, "Oh you didn't get fire extuingisher systems because you wanted superman to do it? Sure I will just go ahead and give you your check for $cashmonez$".
Also, in the DC universe, isn't all sorts of CRAZY SPACE SHIT happening all the time? Starfire is from space too, at least. So is Martian Manhunter. Booster Gold is from the future. Flash can run into the future.
Snyder's more asking about God than he is about Superman. If GOD is all-powerful and benevolent, why doesn't he stop the factory from collapsing on the workers? If GOD blesses all human endeavours, then have we really achieved anything by reaching the moon? Etc.
I'm honestly wondering how the hell Zack snyder wound up doing MoS in the first place; He's a thrid rate director who has coasted his way through life primarily by addapting other people's works for new movies. He doesn't appear to have any understanding of the character beyond what his physical capabilities are, he doesn't appear to understand super hero's at a morale, thematic or symbolic level and by all accounts he seems to hate superman.
So how the hell did he wind up in a position where he not only was greenlighted for making this but put into a Kevin Feige level of authority over the future cimeatic universe?
I'm honestly wondering how the hell Zack snyder wound up doing MoS in the first place; He's a thrid rate director who has coasted his way through life primarily by addapting other people's works for new movies. He doesn't appear to have any understanding of the character beyond what his physical capabilities are, he doesn't appear to understand super hero's at a morale, thematic or symbolic level and by all accounts he seems to hate superman.
So how the hell did he wind up in a position where he not only was greenlighted for making this but put into a Kevin Feige level of authority over the future cimeatic universe?
"Suckerpunch and 300 look really cool! I want Superman's new movie to be really cool!"
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Jeedan, you're position that the Kents aren't subtley objectivist is gallant and I could perhaps even buy into the idea that this was just catastrophically bad writing, but in the very next movie we have Martha rattling off about how clark doesn't owe anyone anything.
This really is a case of if it quacks like a duck...
I'd wonder what the hell a duck is doing here and then watch the movie about a guy with superpowers who DOESN'T owe anyone anything, but does the right thing and saves people?
He does the right thing out of obligation rather than because he wants to. The movies haven't shown him ever being happy as super-hero. He hates it, or at minimum loathes doing it. The times where we do seem happier about is when people are going to die.
Like fighting Zod, or rescuing Lois from the general.
He fights against their influence, yet it burdens him tremendously like an enormous weight. Nor does he truly argue with his parents about subjects like this or anyone really. Contrast him with Benoist's Supergirl. It's night and day.
Doing the right thing "purely out of obligation, not because you want to" (assuming thats whats going on) is deeply anti-objectivist. Thats the kind of Kantian notion of duty that objectivists are directly opposed to. An objectivist says that helping people is cool only if the person doing the helping enjoys it for their own reasons.
I didn't say Superman was an Objectivist, it's Snyder's influence by Objectivism that effects how this is a poor portrayal of being a super-hero that's the issue. He is better at this than his parents, but that bad influence creeps into even his best qualities and makes him a worse person for it. Obligation is probably the wrong word for why this Superman does it, I don't know why he does it what I do know is from what little we've seen him discuss issues like this (This Superman isn't a talker so I find it harder to get into his head) he views it as a burden. Where the obligation comes in it feels like it's on the writer's behalf, as if someone told them "Oh shit, it's Superman. I need to make him be a super-hero" then cavill's Supes does it because he's ordered to off-screen. "Yeah, yeah - I know. I'm Superman. I can't wait until this is over so I can make out with Lois Lane over corpses."
But again, that's just treating objectivism as meaning 'bad stuff '. It's not supported by the film so it's just speculation about the directors hidden corrupt desires.
Well yes, I was't going to attribute any good stuff to Objectivism. The reason I'm attributing its influence was due to his parents terrible lessons about Clark being humble or about helping people with his powers. Both are guilty of trying to stifle those instincts in him, and they came too close to snuffing them out. I never denied I was speculating about Snyder's political ideology, either way he has an awful grasp of Superman. His Batman, while misguided, is much better on a lot of levels. He's really suited to directing Batman films than Superman films.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Which isn't a new subject for Superman, many writers in the comics and other media have tackled this before Snyder and did a better job with it.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
That's just how Lex rationalizes it to himself.
Yeah, that is just a cop out excuse. No one is going to get complacent if superman is around to save a 747 from falling out of the sky. The people being saved had nothing to do with their situation, the liner is still getting sued if there was negligence/fault. If it was a super villain that caused it, they had no chance to deal with the issue themselves anyway.
To be fair, Lex's stated problems are more big picture than that. It's more that, no matter how much humanity may achieve, it will always be secondary to what Superman can do. The human race could decide to devote their entire energies to reaching the stars, launching a ship into the ether that represented the pinnacle of human achievement.
And when it arrived, Superman would be standing on the ground to make sure they made it okay. After they landed, he'd wave and be back home for lunch.
All of which does genuinely tick Lex off.
Yeah, still a cop-out. Do you really think the first humans to travel to Mars would care that superman was waiting there, in case something went wrong? "Oh no, now we can't needlessly die in space, with absolutely zero chance of rescue."
The whole argument kind of falls down in any of the comics-verses, because they know there is other life out there, accomplishing more than they are. Nothing any human does matters in that sense.
re:Snyder
Yeah, he is an idiot. The factory owners would still be liable for the destruction to the facility, and any injuries/trauma sustained by their workers. Just because superman shows up and stops the fire/saves people, doesn't mean the building wasn't irrevocably damaged. They are now also going to lose a ton of money due to not being able to produce any new goods while the factory is fixed/a new one is found/setup.
No insurance company is going to go, "Oh you didn't get fire extuingisher systems because you wanted superman to do it? Sure I will just go ahead and give you your check for $cashmonez$".
He's wrong because Superman is who he is. If Superman was Justice Lord Superman who decided to put the training wheels on humanity forever, he would be right.
Which is Luthor's biggest flaw. He is mentally incapable of understanding that Superman is nothing like himself. Luthor expects Superman to do nothing but look down on and pity humanity because it's what Luthor would do if he had godlike power.
Well that and Luthor envies Superman. And Superman keeps shutting down Luthor's plans.
All that stuff about Luthor wanting Superman gone so humanity can grow without Superman showing them up is just rationalization. At best, Luthor might believe what he's saying, but he forgets to mention that the hidden addendum to the "Let humanity grow to their ultimate potential" is "with Lex Luthor leading the way." most of the time.
Lex envies Superman's power and influence, not what he does with them. He'd be an absolute monster with those abilities. Also, Superman keeps fucking up his illegal super-villainous schemes for dominating the world. Which has got to sting.
I'm honestly wondering how the hell Zack snyder wound up doing MoS in the first place; He's a thrid rate director who has coasted his way through life primarily by addapting other people's works for new movies. He doesn't appear to have any understanding of the character beyond what his physical capabilities are, he doesn't appear to understand super hero's at a morale, thematic or symbolic level and by all accounts he seems to hate superman.
So how the hell did he wind up in a position where he not only was greenlighted for making this but put into a Kevin Feige level of authority over the future cimeatic universe?
"Suckerpunch and 300 look really cool! I want Superman's new movie to be really cool!"
Suckerpunch is interesting because of how it reveals a bellcurve effect on viewers intelligence.
Stupid people watch it and spend the movie monumentally bored because vast swathes of it have nothing to do with girls in fetishwear fighting steampunk nazis, orcs, or robots.
A segment of people of average intelligence go full hipster and pretend that the movie is all kinds of subtle symbolism for everything from rape to how film makers are treated in hollywood.
People who actually understand film generally agree with the stupid people that the movie is a boring mess interspersed with virtually meaningless fights and craptacular cinematography.
This is not the kind of film maker you put in charge of a major franchise.
You do realize the kind of people who fall into that last group are the ones in charge of putting Snyder in charge, right?
I've heard one of those people was Chris Nolan, who recommended him. On paper I can see why he did it, it's when Snyder actually got hold of Superman that everything went pear shaped. Also, Goyer and him got on really, really well.
You do realize the kind of people who fall into that last group are the ones in charge of putting Snyder in charge, right?
Nah, it's pretty much the middle group. People who understand film as an artistic medium wouldn't have considered putting Snyder in charge of an ongoing shared universe considering how his filmography is mostly dismal/depressing schlock.
I'm honestly wondering how the hell Zack snyder wound up doing MoS in the first place; He's a thrid rate director who has coasted his way through life primarily by addapting other people's works for new movies. He doesn't appear to have any understanding of the character beyond what his physical capabilities are, he doesn't appear to understand super hero's at a morale, thematic or symbolic level and by all accounts he seems to hate superman.
So how the hell did he wind up in a position where he not only was greenlighted for making this but put into a Kevin Feige level of authority over the future cimeatic universe?
"Suckerpunch and 300 look really cool! I want Superman's new movie to be really cool!"
Suckerpunch is interesting because of how it reveals a bellcurve effect on viewers intelligence.
Stupid people watch it and spend the movie monumentally bored because vast swathes of it have nothing to do with girls in fetishwear fighting steampunk nazis, orcs, or robots.
A segment of people of average intelligence go full hipster and pretend that the movie is all kinds of subtle symbolism for everything from rape to how film makers are treated in hollywood.
People who actually understand film generally agree with the stupid people that the movie is a boring mess interspersed with virtually meaningless fights and craptacular cinematography.
This is not the kind of film maker you put in charge of a major franchise.
You are aware that rape is an actual plot element in the film right? It has subtle symbolism of rape in the same way that say Jaws has hidden symbolism of boats.
Also 'what are the movies themes' is a separate question from 'is it good '.
You're asserting yourself as someone who 'actually understands film ' but not actually saying anything about the movie beyond that you didn't like it and also have above average intelligence(?)
suckerpunch is guilty of thinking that its message is much more clever than it actually is (in this, it is the quintessential snyder film)
also I think the message of 'actresses are essentially forced into sexwork as opposed to intellectual roles' is undermined by how much fun everybody seems to be having in the action sequences
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I'm honestly wondering how the hell Zack snyder wound up doing MoS in the first place; He's a thrid rate director who has coasted his way through life primarily by addapting other people's works for new movies. He doesn't appear to have any understanding of the character beyond what his physical capabilities are, he doesn't appear to understand super hero's at a morale, thematic or symbolic level and by all accounts he seems to hate superman.
So how the hell did he wind up in a position where he not only was greenlighted for making this but put into a Kevin Feige level of authority over the future cimeatic universe?
"Suckerpunch and 300 look really cool! I want Superman's new movie to be really cool!"
Suckerpunch is interesting because of how it reveals a bellcurve effect on viewers intelligence.
Stupid people watch it and spend the movie monumentally bored because vast swathes of it have nothing to do with girls in fetishwear fighting steampunk nazis, orcs, or robots.
A segment of people of average intelligence go full hipster and pretend that the movie is all kinds of subtle symbolism for everything from rape to how film makers are treated in hollywood.
People who actually understand film generally agree with the stupid people that the movie is a boring mess interspersed with virtually meaningless fights and craptacular cinematography.
This is not the kind of film maker you put in charge of a major franchise.
You are aware that rape is an actual plot element in the film right? It has subtle symbolism of rape in the same way that say Jaws has hidden symbolism of boats.
Also 'what are the movies themes' is a separate question from 'is it good '.
You're asserting yourself as someone who 'actually understands film ' but not actually saying anything about the movie beyond that you didn't like it and also have above average intelligence(?)
I certainly agree that rape's in there, but it's done in this ridiculous way that is neither subtle nor particularly compelling due in no small part to how shallow all of the characters are.
Further, the film makes the most absurdly blatent use of color I have ever seen; the Wizard of Oz with it's transition from black and white kansas to colored Oz is about as subtle. The reason this irritates me is because (thanks to 2 years of film school) I know enough about color temperature to know that it's intended to help set the emotional tone regarding a given scene, and with suckerpunch he might as well just show up on screen and yell directly at the viewer "BE SAD NOW!".
This is amongst the most basic components of film.
Would you like to pick my brain some more about this or are you willing to concede that I might actually know something about film making?
suckerpunch is guilty of thinking that it's message is much more clever than it actually is (in this, it is the quintessential snyder film)
also I think the message of 'actresses are essentially forced into sexwork as opposed to intellectual roles' is undermined by how much fun everybody seems to be having in the action sequences
How a movie screws up hot women fighting giant robot samurai I don't know.
+10
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
suckerpunch is guilty of thinking that it's message is much more clever than it actually is (in this, it is the quintessential snyder film)
also I think the message of 'actresses are essentially forced into sexwork as opposed to intellectual roles' is undermined by how much fun everybody seems to be having in the action sequences
How a movie screws up hot women fighting giant robot samurai I don't know.
easy
by saying "objectifying women is wrong but also totally awesome"
suckerpunch is guilty of thinking that it's message is much more clever than it actually is (in this, it is the quintessential snyder film)
also I think the message of 'actresses are essentially forced into sexwork as opposed to intellectual roles' is undermined by how much fun everybody seems to be having in the action sequences
How a movie screws up hot women fighting giant robot samurai I don't know.
easy
by saying "objectifying women is wrong but also totally awesome"
Otherwise known as 'Do not enjoy this awesome thing!'
I remember when I saw the trailer for Suckerpunch and thought it looked pretty neat. Some kind of bizarre pseudo-historical ass kicking movie with some nice cheesecake to boot.
Still not sure why I never really bothered to see it. But I am sure of how grateful I am that I haven't.
I'm honestly wondering how the hell Zack snyder wound up doing MoS in the first place; He's a thrid rate director who has coasted his way through life primarily by addapting other people's works for new movies. He doesn't appear to have any understanding of the character beyond what his physical capabilities are, he doesn't appear to understand super hero's at a morale, thematic or symbolic level and by all accounts he seems to hate superman.
So how the hell did he wind up in a position where he not only was greenlighted for making this but put into a Kevin Feige level of authority over the future cimeatic universe?
"Suckerpunch and 300 look really cool! I want Superman's new movie to be really cool!"
Suckerpunch is interesting because of how it reveals a bellcurve effect on viewers intelligence.
Stupid people watch it and spend the movie monumentally bored because vast swathes of it have nothing to do with girls in fetishwear fighting steampunk nazis, orcs, or robots.
A segment of people of average intelligence go full hipster and pretend that the movie is all kinds of subtle symbolism for everything from rape to how film makers are treated in hollywood.
People who actually understand film generally agree with the stupid people that the movie is a boring mess interspersed with virtually meaningless fights and craptacular cinematography.
This is not the kind of film maker you put in charge of a major franchise.
You are aware that rape is an actual plot element in the film right? It has subtle symbolism of rape in the same way that say Jaws has hidden symbolism of boats.
Also 'what are the movies themes' is a separate question from 'is it good '.
You're asserting yourself as someone who 'actually understands film ' but not actually saying anything about the movie beyond that you didn't like it and also have above average intelligence(?)
I certainly agree that rape's in there, but it's done in this ridiculous way that is neither subtle nor particularly compelling due in no small part to how shallow all of the characters are.
As I said before, whether or not it's good is a separate question from whether it has themes.
You asserted that anyone who saw themes of rape in the movie must be 'pretending ' in order to be 'hipster '. I pointed out that it's fairly easy to see themes of rape in the film, since it's something that literally was depicted.
Further, the film makes the most absurdly blatent use of color I have ever seen; the Wizard of Oz with it's transition from black and white kansas to colored Oz is about as subtle. The reason this irritates me is because (thanks to 2 years of film school) I know enough about color temperature to know that it's intended to help set the emotional tone regarding a given scene, and with suckerpunch he might as well just show up on screen and yell directly at the viewer "BE SAD NOW!".
Yes, it's unsubtle.
Would you like to pick my brain some more about this or are you willing to concede that I might actually know something about film making?
My issue isn't whether or not you know something about film, I would hope you do and are willing to share as much insight as possible. It's with the assertion that anyone who disagrees with your opinion clearly doesent.
I remember thinking that the point of suckerpunch was that it was going to be a fantasy film about a group of women trying to escape through a series of alternate realities, tapping into their inner strength to become a collection of badasses as they tried to run as far away from the brothel as they could.
Instead all the fight scenes were effectively meaningless and there is no actual female empowerment because LOL DELUSION!1!!
My issue isn't whether or not you know something about film, I would hope you do and are willing to share as much insight as possible. It's with the assertion that anyone who disagrees with your opinion clearly doesent.
My point regarding the bell curve is that suckerpunch is the kind of film which is made with the intention of appearing to be deep and meaningfull and symbolic in order to sucker people into thinking that it is deep and nuanced when the truth is that it's really just a shoddy film slapped together with intention of appearing deep as opposed to actually having depth.
But in the interest of showing some humility, I'll admit that stating any sort of objective fact beyond the technical regarding any artistic medium's (and especially one as complex as film) relative quality is inherently ridiculous.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
All of Snyder's film aspire to a depth he isn't able to articulate, which he either mistakes for gloomy imagery or uses it in trying to hide his weakness as a storyteller.
The old adage about practicing law goes, "if you have the fact, pound the facts; if you have the law, pound the law; if you have neither, pound the table."
Snyder does his take on the cinematic version of this, "if you can tell a good story, tell one; if you can create engaging characters, create them; if you can do neither, at least be loud and pretentious."
Before Snyder was their pick for Justice League, it was in the hands of George Miller. Since he's still working for WB, maybe they should see if he's still interested.
+2
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Before Snyder was their pick for Justice League, it was in the hands of George Miller. Since he's still working for WB, maybe they should see if he's still interested.
Yeah, I gotta wonder how hard they're kicking themselves after that
though the micromanaging of Miller's Justice Leage ensured we weren't going to get anything too awesome. The whole cast was a bunch of teeny-boppers, if I recall. No one over twenty-five.
All of Snyder's film aspire to a depth he isn't able to articulate, which he either mistakes for gloomy imagery or uses it in trying to hide his weakness as a storyteller.
The old adage about practicing law goes, "if you have the fact, pound the facts; if you have the law, pound the law; if you have neither, pound the table."
Snyder does his take on the cinematic version of this, "if you can tell a good story, tell one; if you can create engaging characters, create them; if you can do neither, at least be loud and pretentious."
Which, going back to what I said earlier, is what baffles me about the decision to hand him the keys to the kingdom. Like, are you telling me that they couldn't have shopped around for a director like Spielberg or the Guru's in the animation department to do this? You had to run with a guy who's filmography is about as upbeat and exciting as room temperature oatmeal?
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Peter Berg would be a dependable director.
I don't think they can get Matthew Vaughn because he has a Fox deal (and is making Kingsman 2 now), I was thinking if Danny Boyle could be able to do something with Super Heroes but that might be as much of a risk as getting Del Torro onboard. Or just go Jon Turtletaub with Affleck writing the script.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
All of Snyder's film aspire to a depth he isn't able to articulate, which he either mistakes for gloomy imagery or uses it in trying to hide his weakness as a storyteller.
The old adage about practicing law goes, "if you have the fact, pound the facts; if you have the law, pound the law; if you have neither, pound the table."
Snyder does his take on the cinematic version of this, "if you can tell a good story, tell one; if you can create engaging characters, create them; if you can do neither, at least be loud and pretentious."
Which, going back to what I said earlier, is what baffles me about the decision to hand him the keys to the kingdom. Like, are you telling me that they couldn't have shopped around for a director like Spielberg or the Guru's in the animation department to do this? You had to run with a guy who's filmography is about as upbeat and exciting as room temperature oatmeal?
Getting tentpole work in Hollywood seems to have an alarming correlation with prior success and little else
All of Snyder's film aspire to a depth he isn't able to articulate, which he either mistakes for gloomy imagery or uses it in trying to hide his weakness as a storyteller.
The old adage about practicing law goes, "if you have the fact, pound the facts; if you have the law, pound the law; if you have neither, pound the table."
Snyder does his take on the cinematic version of this, "if you can tell a good story, tell one; if you can create engaging characters, create them; if you can do neither, at least be loud and pretentious."
Which, going back to what I said earlier, is what baffles me about the decision to hand him the keys to the kingdom. Like, are you telling me that they couldn't have shopped around for a director like Spielberg or the Guru's in the animation department to do this? You had to run with a guy who's filmography is about as upbeat and exciting as room temperature oatmeal?
All of Snyder's film aspire to a depth he isn't able to articulate, which he either mistakes for gloomy imagery or uses it in trying to hide his weakness as a storyteller.
The old adage about practicing law goes, "if you have the fact, pound the facts; if you have the law, pound the law; if you have neither, pound the table."
Snyder does his take on the cinematic version of this, "if you can tell a good story, tell one; if you can create engaging characters, create them; if you can do neither, at least be loud and pretentious."
Which, going back to what I said earlier, is what baffles me about the decision to hand him the keys to the kingdom. Like, are you telling me that they couldn't have shopped around for a director like Spielberg or the Guru's in the animation department to do this? You had to run with a guy who's filmography is about as upbeat and exciting as room temperature oatmeal?
He's made in clear in his career he find certain IP's beneath him, and many are genres. Transformers, for instance. Perfect Spielberg material, yet he hands it off to Michael Bay and doesn't give a shit what he does with it as long as it rakes in the big bucks. He let Jurassic Park's IP go to pieces when he left the original, too - and his company still controls it. I don't think we're going to get Spielberg anywhere near to direct a super-hero film in our life time.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
That's just how Lex rationalizes it to himself.
Yeah, that is just a cop out excuse. No one is going to get complacent if superman is around to save a 747 from falling out of the sky. The people being saved had nothing to do with their situation, the liner is still getting sued if their was negligence/fault. If it was a super villain that caused it, they had no chance to deal with the issue themselves anyway.
Snyder really agrees with Lex Luthor.
“There’s a fun conversation — we filmed it, it’s not in the cut — but there’s a conversation when [Superman] saves the girl from the garment factory, we had a line where a guy goes, but now all the garment factory owners, they’re not concerned with safety because they just figure Superman will show up to save them if the building catches on fire,” the director says. “It’s sort of a catch-22 to being the ex machina, being the hand of God: the hand of God can’t be everywhere the same time. You’re headed for a fall.”
Which doesn't make a ton of sense because Snyder points out why Superman wouldn't necessarily make people complacent. Superman can't be everywhere at once and a lot of those disasters will kill people before Superman knows anything about them.
Fun!
That's the dumbest logic ever. That would be like if someone survived a car crash because they wore seatbelts and decided that they don't ever have to worry about car crashes any more because of seatbelts. So we shouldn't put seatbelts in cars because it makes people complacent and drive more dangerously since they think seatbelts will save their lives.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
That's just how Lex rationalizes it to himself.
Yeah, that is just a cop out excuse. No one is going to get complacent if superman is around to save a 747 from falling out of the sky. The people being saved had nothing to do with their situation, the liner is still getting sued if their was negligence/fault. If it was a super villain that caused it, they had no chance to deal with the issue themselves anyway.
Snyder really agrees with Lex Luthor.
“There’s a fun conversation — we filmed it, it’s not in the cut — but there’s a conversation when [Superman] saves the girl from the garment factory, we had a line where a guy goes, but now all the garment factory owners, they’re not concerned with safety because they just figure Superman will show up to save them if the building catches on fire,” the director says. “It’s sort of a catch-22 to being the ex machina, being the hand of God: the hand of God can’t be everywhere the same time. You’re headed for a fall.”
Which doesn't make a ton of sense because Snyder points out why Superman wouldn't necessarily make people complacent. Superman can't be everywhere at once and a lot of those disasters will kill people before Superman knows anything about them.
Fun!
That's the dumbest logic ever. That would be like if someone survived a car crash because they wore seatbelts and decided that they don't ever have to worry about car crashes any more because of seatbelts. So we shouldn't put seatbelts in cars because it makes people complacent and drive more dangerously since they think seatbelts will save their lives.
Actually, the logic makes perfect sense of you remember that Snyder is an objectivist and you replace "Superman" with "government."
In the sense that many libertarians believe that mandatory seat belts and air bags are bad.
One of the heroes of Atlas shrug throws a government official down the stairs for offering him a loan because it offends his sense of manhood.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
That's just how Lex rationalizes it to himself.
Yeah, that is just a cop out excuse. No one is going to get complacent if superman is around to save a 747 from falling out of the sky. The people being saved had nothing to do with their situation, the liner is still getting sued if their was negligence/fault. If it was a super villain that caused it, they had no chance to deal with the issue themselves anyway.
Snyder really agrees with Lex Luthor.
“There’s a fun conversation — we filmed it, it’s not in the cut — but there’s a conversation when [Superman] saves the girl from the garment factory, we had a line where a guy goes, but now all the garment factory owners, they’re not concerned with safety because they just figure Superman will show up to save them if the building catches on fire,” the director says. “It’s sort of a catch-22 to being the ex machina, being the hand of God: the hand of God can’t be everywhere the same time. You’re headed for a fall.”
Which doesn't make a ton of sense because Snyder points out why Superman wouldn't necessarily make people complacent. Superman can't be everywhere at once and a lot of those disasters will kill people before Superman knows anything about them.
Fun!
That's the dumbest logic ever. That would be like if someone survived a car crash because they wore seatbelts and decided that they don't ever have to worry about car crashes any more because of seatbelts. So we shouldn't put seatbelts in cars because it makes people complacent and drive more dangerously since they think seatbelts will save their lives.
Funnily enough, there was a study in 1994 that showed that people with seatbelts on tend to drive faster and more agressively than people without them.
I think Snyders Objectivism is the core reason why BvS suck. In order to understand Heroes you have to understand Altruism, but Altruism is anthema to an Objectivist.
Like the fact that Superman saves people for reasons beyond the fact that it makes him admired and worshiped.
The Fact that Batman fights crime beyond the idea that he is taking vengeance for his parents.
That they are heroes for more then just personal gain and satisfaction.
Example: The fact that when Superman saves the girl from the fire, it spends more time on him being surrounded be adoring crowds then it does on the girl herself(who we never get a good look at).
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Posts
Team Fortress 2 Backpack: Someone you love
Which is why he got a random guy who is a totally normal human with no super powers at all to completely dominate Supes just through drive and intelligence.
...and that's a whole movie plot right there.
Team Fortress 2 Backpack: Someone you love
Yeah, still a cop-out. Do you really think the first humans to travel to Mars would care that superman was waiting there, in case something went wrong? "Oh no, now we can't needlessly die in space, with absolutely zero chance of rescue."
The whole argument kind of falls down in any of the comics-verses, because they know there is other life out there, accomplishing more than they are. Nothing any human does matters in that sense.
re:Snyder
Yeah, he is an idiot. The factory owners would still be liable for the destruction to the facility, and any injuries/trauma sustained by their workers. Just because superman shows up and stops the fire/saves people, doesn't mean the building wasn't irrevocably damaged. They are now also going to lose a ton of money due to not being able to produce any new goods while the factory is fixed/a new one is found/setup.
No insurance company is going to go, "Oh you didn't get fire extuingisher systems because you wanted superman to do it? Sure I will just go ahead and give you your check for $cashmonez$".
He's wrong because Superman is who he is. If Superman was Justice Lord Superman who decided to put the training wheels on humanity forever, he would be right.
Which is Luthor's biggest flaw. He is mentally incapable of understanding that Superman is nothing like himself. Luthor expects Superman to do nothing but look down on and pity humanity because it's what Luthor would do if he had godlike power.
Well that and Luthor envies Superman. And Superman keeps shutting down Luthor's plans.
All that stuff about Luthor wanting Superman gone so humanity can grow without Superman showing them up is just rationalization. At best, Luthor might believe what he's saying, but he forgets to mention that the hidden addendum to the "Let humanity grow to their ultimate potential" is "with Lex Luthor leading the way." most of the time.
Also, in the DC universe, isn't all sorts of CRAZY SPACE SHIT happening all the time? Starfire is from space too, at least. So is Martian Manhunter. Booster Gold is from the future. Flash can run into the future.
Snyder's more asking about God than he is about Superman. If GOD is all-powerful and benevolent, why doesn't he stop the factory from collapsing on the workers? If GOD blesses all human endeavours, then have we really achieved anything by reaching the moon? Etc.
So how the hell did he wind up in a position where he not only was greenlighted for making this but put into a Kevin Feige level of authority over the future cimeatic universe?
"Suckerpunch and 300 look really cool! I want Superman's new movie to be really cool!"
No, the only comic person involved was Geoff Johns, and his "power" is supposed to be very weak in that branch. Berlanti was directly involved too.
Well yes, I was't going to attribute any good stuff to Objectivism. The reason I'm attributing its influence was due to his parents terrible lessons about Clark being humble or about helping people with his powers. Both are guilty of trying to stifle those instincts in him, and they came too close to snuffing them out. I never denied I was speculating about Snyder's political ideology, either way he has an awful grasp of Superman. His Batman, while misguided, is much better on a lot of levels. He's really suited to directing Batman films than Superman films.
Which isn't a new subject for Superman, many writers in the comics and other media have tackled this before Snyder and did a better job with it.
True.
Lex envies Superman's power and influence, not what he does with them. He'd be an absolute monster with those abilities. Also, Superman keeps fucking up his illegal super-villainous schemes for dominating the world. Which has got to sting.
Suckerpunch is interesting because of how it reveals a bellcurve effect on viewers intelligence.
Stupid people watch it and spend the movie monumentally bored because vast swathes of it have nothing to do with girls in fetishwear fighting steampunk nazis, orcs, or robots.
A segment of people of average intelligence go full hipster and pretend that the movie is all kinds of subtle symbolism for everything from rape to how film makers are treated in hollywood.
People who actually understand film generally agree with the stupid people that the movie is a boring mess interspersed with virtually meaningless fights and craptacular cinematography.
This is not the kind of film maker you put in charge of a major franchise.
You know how John Galt spends 3 hours on a "greed is good" speech that could have been summed up in a few minutes in the hands of a better writer?
Same idea.
I've heard one of those people was Chris Nolan, who recommended him. On paper I can see why he did it, it's when Snyder actually got hold of Superman that everything went pear shaped. Also, Goyer and him got on really, really well.
Nah, it's pretty much the middle group. People who understand film as an artistic medium wouldn't have considered putting Snyder in charge of an ongoing shared universe considering how his filmography is mostly dismal/depressing schlock.
You are aware that rape is an actual plot element in the film right? It has subtle symbolism of rape in the same way that say Jaws has hidden symbolism of boats.
Also 'what are the movies themes' is a separate question from 'is it good '.
You're asserting yourself as someone who 'actually understands film ' but not actually saying anything about the movie beyond that you didn't like it and also have above average intelligence(?)
also I think the message of 'actresses are essentially forced into sexwork as opposed to intellectual roles' is undermined by how much fun everybody seems to be having in the action sequences
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I certainly agree that rape's in there, but it's done in this ridiculous way that is neither subtle nor particularly compelling due in no small part to how shallow all of the characters are.
Further, the film makes the most absurdly blatent use of color I have ever seen; the Wizard of Oz with it's transition from black and white kansas to colored Oz is about as subtle. The reason this irritates me is because (thanks to 2 years of film school) I know enough about color temperature to know that it's intended to help set the emotional tone regarding a given scene, and with suckerpunch he might as well just show up on screen and yell directly at the viewer "BE SAD NOW!".
This is amongst the most basic components of film.
Would you like to pick my brain some more about this or are you willing to concede that I might actually know something about film making?
How a movie screws up hot women fighting giant robot samurai I don't know.
easy
by saying "objectifying women is wrong but also totally awesome"
Otherwise known as 'Do not enjoy this awesome thing!'
I remember when I saw the trailer for Suckerpunch and thought it looked pretty neat. Some kind of bizarre pseudo-historical ass kicking movie with some nice cheesecake to boot.
Still not sure why I never really bothered to see it. But I am sure of how grateful I am that I haven't.
As I said before, whether or not it's good is a separate question from whether it has themes.
You asserted that anyone who saw themes of rape in the movie must be 'pretending ' in order to be 'hipster '. I pointed out that it's fairly easy to see themes of rape in the film, since it's something that literally was depicted.
Yes, it's unsubtle.
My issue isn't whether or not you know something about film, I would hope you do and are willing to share as much insight as possible. It's with the assertion that anyone who disagrees with your opinion clearly doesent.
Instead all the fight scenes were effectively meaningless and there is no actual female empowerment because LOL DELUSION!1!!
My point regarding the bell curve is that suckerpunch is the kind of film which is made with the intention of appearing to be deep and meaningfull and symbolic in order to sucker people into thinking that it is deep and nuanced when the truth is that it's really just a shoddy film slapped together with intention of appearing deep as opposed to actually having depth.
But in the interest of showing some humility, I'll admit that stating any sort of objective fact beyond the technical regarding any artistic medium's (and especially one as complex as film) relative quality is inherently ridiculous.
The old adage about practicing law goes, "if you have the fact, pound the facts; if you have the law, pound the law; if you have neither, pound the table."
Snyder does his take on the cinematic version of this, "if you can tell a good story, tell one; if you can create engaging characters, create them; if you can do neither, at least be loud and pretentious."
Yeah, I gotta wonder how hard they're kicking themselves after that
though the micromanaging of Miller's Justice Leage ensured we weren't going to get anything too awesome. The whole cast was a bunch of teeny-boppers, if I recall. No one over twenty-five.
Which, going back to what I said earlier, is what baffles me about the decision to hand him the keys to the kingdom. Like, are you telling me that they couldn't have shopped around for a director like Spielberg or the Guru's in the animation department to do this? You had to run with a guy who's filmography is about as upbeat and exciting as room temperature oatmeal?
I don't think they can get Matthew Vaughn because he has a Fox deal (and is making Kingsman 2 now), I was thinking if Danny Boyle could be able to do something with Super Heroes but that might be as much of a risk as getting Del Torro onboard. Or just go Jon Turtletaub with Affleck writing the script.
Getting tentpole work in Hollywood seems to have an alarming correlation with prior success and little else
see: Colin Trevorrow and Star Wars
With the exception of Fury Road, Warner Brothers doesn't seem to be making a lot of good choices when it comes to their film division. Comics division either, for that matter. TV is the only one that seems to have a solid track record.
He's made in clear in his career he find certain IP's beneath him, and many are genres. Transformers, for instance. Perfect Spielberg material, yet he hands it off to Michael Bay and doesn't give a shit what he does with it as long as it rakes in the big bucks. He let Jurassic Park's IP go to pieces when he left the original, too - and his company still controls it. I don't think we're going to get Spielberg anywhere near to direct a super-hero film in our life time.
That's the dumbest logic ever. That would be like if someone survived a car crash because they wore seatbelts and decided that they don't ever have to worry about car crashes any more because of seatbelts. So we shouldn't put seatbelts in cars because it makes people complacent and drive more dangerously since they think seatbelts will save their lives.
It gets better but never gets great. To do Constantine right you need the character to have a hard edge that you can never get on network TV.
Well, except for Hannibal, but that show will always be the best and most inexplicable thing NBC has done this century.
Actually, the logic makes perfect sense of you remember that Snyder is an objectivist and you replace "Superman" with "government."
In the sense that many libertarians believe that mandatory seat belts and air bags are bad.
One of the heroes of Atlas shrug throws a government official down the stairs for offering him a loan because it offends his sense of manhood.
Like the fact that Superman saves people for reasons beyond the fact that it makes him admired and worshiped.
The Fact that Batman fights crime beyond the idea that he is taking vengeance for his parents.
That they are heroes for more then just personal gain and satisfaction.
Example: The fact that when Superman saves the girl from the fire, it spends more time on him being surrounded be adoring crowds then it does on the girl herself(who we never get a good look at).