re: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice Tomato watch 29%

quote:

---

Yep. As I said, Snyder and Goyer don't understand the difference between story telling/character development and plot points. You know they just came up with a scene where Superman fricks up a truck, they move on, and never gave it another thought. They don't understand that one scene's tone should usually carry over into the next scene, or else it's just jarring and makes your audience confused as hell if they have any attention span.

---

Well that's where Snyder's skill comes into play. A Spielberg would have taken the truck, matched the drone to the truck by color or grill, used the same camera angle to film them, including from the perspective of the audience. He would map everything out to consciously tell the viewer.... "Remember that truck earlier when our hero was immature? He's better now, he gets it, he has changed... he doesn't react like that anymore...."

That's where the gap is with Snyder. That doesn't look as cool. That is boring, so destroy the drone, that's way funnier. But it does nothing for the character.

quote:

---

But why are BM and SM fighting each other?

---

One of the most common tropes in comics is heroes meeting, getting onto a disagreement leading up to a battle, then uniting against a common enemy. Like in The Avengers.

quote:

---

Superman Returns is a much better film than it will ever get credit for.

---

Superman Returns tonally/structually is a well-made film. It was well-paced and it had the right beats. It was just rather dull.

Casting choices aside (Bosworth and Kumar), Singer's biggest mistake was trying to make a rehash of the originals instead of doing his own thing.

But as far as making a competent film, Singer is 10x the filmmaker that Snyder is.

quote:

---

But as far as making a competent film, Singer is 10x the filmmaker that Snyder is.

---

Yeah, Singer has made some dull films before, but he's never made a bad one. Snyder doesn't give a shite about nah thyou not if it doesn't look cool and glosses over those scenes. Singer at least understands the very basics of actual filmmaking.

No way in hell could Snyder do "The Usual Suspects" or "Days of Future Past". I could just imagine him trying to write the time travel in that, and then just saying "frick it" at the end to where the movie would make no sense.

quote:

---

Superman Returns is a much better film than it will ever get credit for

---

it was terrible, but I somewhat agree. it found an emotional core to the character that was missing.

quote:

---

kind of don't understand why nobody looks at some of the stuff Superman does in those Donner movies and criticizes those things along with the Man of Steel things

---

Because Man of Steel came out a year ago and Christopher Reeve was already paralyzed before most posters here were potty trained and he made his Superman films before most of this board was born.

I'm going to reserve my opinion of the movie until after I see it but my mind constantly keeps coming back to the same thing....How would the world react if Superman were real in today's world?

I feel like this is the question Snyder reverts back to when he wants to give Superman the "late 1930's standing up for what's right" heart that so many people expect out of Superman.

Would the world just accept an alien with incredible abilities as world protector without some people questioning his intentions? The answer is no....not in today's world.

I like Snyder's Superman, because he isn't a boy scout, he's unsure of himself and he's trying to find out what it is to be at all times "the savior of the world".

Superman 1 and 2 were ok at best and IMO they certainly don't hold up. 3 and 4 shouldn't even be mentioned. Returns was a cheesy homage to an outdated character with no depth. I feel like Snyder is attempting to give depth, it could be wrong, but at least he isn't copy and pasting.

quote:

---

I understand how people can be pissed about the "tone" of Man of Steel because of the "tone" of the Donner Supermans. They were different. They were playful. Lighter. But I kind of don't understand why nobody looks at some of the stuff Superman does in those Donner movies and criticizes those things along with the Man of Steel things. Especially in Superman 2. He basically gives up his powers for the selfish reason of wanting to be in a relationship without the responsibilities of the world on his shoulders. He kills Zod. He goes back to the bar where that guy kicked his arse before and attacks him. I mean, why that movie is not looked at and criticized equally, I don't know. They were lighter and more fun and nostalgic, but lets be real here.

---

There's no need to put "tone" in quotes, as it answers your question. Donner's Superman is real-life cartoon while Snyder's movie is drenched in grime and grittiness. It's why the Coyote falling over the edge of a cliff and getting crushed by a boulder isn't horrifying. We're talking about a world in which time travel is possible by Superman flying around the world so fast he spins it backwards. And yes, he beats up the guy at the bar, he doesn't ruin the guy's life.

Look, I like having a more adult superhero. But if you're going to go that route, than actions have consequences in a way they didn't before. You can't bitch about how Donner treated Superman as a children's cartoon and then in the next breath, use that movie's decisions to justify your own. It would be like Batman using the Adam west version to justify Batman killing. It's a non-starter of an argument precisely because the original is meant to be taken seriously. This version of Superman asks to be taken seriously, so ethical questions matter.

Frank Miller did some great stuff for Batman and Daredevil not so much DC and Marvels expanded universe

Marvel is more about Stan, Bendis,Millar,Byrne etc...