Why Do People Enjoy the Zack Snyder Movies?

General Discussion Movies & TV
164

@DeSade-acolyte I think the quote below sums up Zack Snyder’s view on superheroes and Batman in particular. He can’t imagine a superhero who is selfless or is striving to do the right thing. All his DCEU movies are kind of hopeless.

“Someone says to me like, ‘Oh! Batman killed a guy!’ I’m like, ‘■■■■, really?’ I’m like, ‘Wake the ■■■■ up!’ That’s what I’m saying about once you’ve lost your virginity to this ■■■■■■■ movie and then you come and say to me something about like, ‘Oh, my superhero wouldn’t do that,’ I’m like, ‘Are you serious? I’m like down the ■■■■■■■ road on that.’ You know what I mean?”

2 Likes
165

@TravisMorgan his tirade only cemented my view of films.

3 Likes
166

@DeSade-acolyte I’m not a philosopher, but he seems to have taken Ayn Rand a little too much to heart. I got mine. I’m only out for myself. Of course I would use my powers to benefit myself and no one else. I have no debt to humanity or my fellow man.

1 Like
167

All of those questions are answered in this scene:

3 Likes
168

This is so much the answer to the DC movies, totally agree. This is why largely the DC movies suck. But I think this only has little to do with Snyder

1 Like
169

I see it like this. The movie assumes patriarchy is to blame for all of woman’s woes. I identify patriarchy with men, it’s not a faceless conspiracy. Every turn the movie takes it has to mention that men have power and can do things women cannot with a certain legitimacy. The movie is a fantasy about usurping power from men and then using it on them and saying how do you like it.

Sure, anyone can interpret that the movie isn’t misandrist, but because a large population of people can identify the misandry, the misandry must therefore exist–unless the people are lying.

It isn’t an argument as much as I mean it is what it is. The idea here does not rely on “who is correct.” If it can be perceived and logically interpretted, something must therefore be giving off that impression. Majority doesn’t dictate truth, what does is substantiating evidence. What is at debate is in itself controversial, the dissenting opinion becomes a representation of possibility. Simply because the controversy exists means the controversy exists. If I can read hate into something logically, without stretching human sensesical interpretation to the point of ridiculousness, ultimately that hate must exist.

170

There is a long history in film of “Sticking it to the man”. While not the earliest example Brando’s “The Wild Ones” can be viewed as such a film. Given the way the US military (based on documented polices) was towards women in combat within the time period of the majority of the film, one can just as easily argue thematic CM was a “Sticking it to the man” type movie.

What is controversy if not a difference in opinion. Such is the case with the controversy surrounding Snyder’s films. Arguments can be made by both sides. It does not make an individuals opinion any more or less valid for that individual.

Now, if you want to do a film and/or script analysis (of CM, any of Snyder’s 2.5 trilogy, or any other film) applying long held academic standards for such analysis. That can be done with film shot by shot, beat by beat, line by line. That is both an iterative and recursive and quite a time consuming process.

However, that seems outside the scope of and would bog down forum threads. We could continue that over DM.

Now to make sure this thread stays in course,
IMO, Snyder’s movies are utter garbage. His characters are weak. Ben Affleck was the worst Batman ever, in any medium, including the early 40’s serials.

Carry on…

4 Likes
171

Aww I love Ben as the bat. It’s too bad the writing was bad.

172

@DeSade-acolyte How goes it, friend? I know you know we disagree on the Snyder movies, but I respect your opinion. It’s just…your first few paragraphs had me shaking my head in agreement…and then you end it with that last one, which gave me a good chuckle. Hope all is well :slightly_smiling_face:.

2 Likes
173

I think how batman got to the point of branding people was something always intended to be explained in the Batman solo films and most likely still is.

Remember seeing that Robin suit or monument in the Bat-Cave with joker’s spray-painted HA HA HA etc.

Clearly Batman has went thru a lot as has been done in the comic books & animated shows/movies. Batman held a gun :gun: in the first episode of Batman Beyond which is why he never became Batman again.

Remember Superman going against another universe’s superman who does lobotomy with his heat vision. I think it was the Justice League Unlimited series or maybe one of the movies.

I’m sure the explanation is for the solo movie, because ita probably a 2 hour journey to show how he got to that point. So probably the last Batman solo 3D movie. We will probably get at least 10 of these Live-Action 3D movies. And hopefully some post Justice League movies like Dark Knight Metals.

I’m just glad previous Batman movies has forced this 3D reboot to do a lot of stories & plots in 1 movie per movie. That’s why I love the Charmed reboot and a bunch of Japanese Anime.

1 Like
174

As I said above, BvS explains how he got to that point. The guy he brands at the beginning of the film is the first guy that he ever branded. Hence Alfred asking, “New rules?” Alfred then figures out that Batman is becoming more violent in response to his feelings of powerlessness in the face of the Man of Steel incident, which was recreated at the beginning of BvS. Notably, Bruce began branding people immediately after learning about a piece of kryptonite that was discovered and was now being transported on the White Portuguese.

5 Likes
175

If I recall it was the Justice Lords version of Superman that lobotimized Doomsdaycand all the Arkham inmates.

2 Likes
176

The best part was that Superman lobotomized Scarface, but not the Ventriloquist. :grinning:

2 Likes
177

@AlexanderKnox
Your point is exactly what I mean about the psychological basis of a character built on sand.

If this behavior change is coming from some deep seated fear of Superman. It reeks of nazi’s tattooing Jews in concentration camps. Batman is afraid of Superman and becomes a fascist? Judge, Jury, and execution of punishment completely outside of any element of due process. Would Martha (and Thomas) approve of that mission? If, as is historically canon, that his mission is to honor his mother and father. This branding behavior is off mission. So that must mean his premise for his original mission is based on something else. A psychological grounding never explored or supported in the character. Either that or his Superman fear has flipped him into being a total psychopath with delusions of grandeur and the belief that he will control the city thru fascist means, because he has the power to do so.

Batman has now become Sinestro. the behavior is that of Sinestro when he first goes rouge from the GLs. Does the film give the fundamental psychological support for such a historically non-canonical vision of that character? I’d say the answer is no. I can see doing an Elseworld where Batman’s mission is driven entirely by a different motivation than honoring his parents, but that requires a large amount of origin change. Which I could acknowledge as a valid choice if the foundation was laid. It has always felt like Snyder said “this is Batman, and I’m not telling you why he is this way, but just trust me.” I don’t fall into that school of thought. I don’t trust directors or actors, or designers. Their responsibility, as far as I am concerned, is to demonstrate that their vision is indeed valid through the work. In my view both Snyder & Affleck both fell far short of the mark in doing so. Again, my opinion, but I do think there is evidence, through the film itself, and where it is lacking in doing this character building.

2 Likes
178

It does seem to me that Snyder’s point of view is that his version of the characters act as Justice Lords.
I also hypothesize that his JL (Snyder cut) would have kept the same Justice Lords vein. In rewatching JL a few times now and applying observation, analysis & deduction, I can see, especially based on palette, the Snyder scenes and the reshot Wheaton scenes. This mashup in scenes and character structure is one reason JL gets “cuter” for me every time I rewatch it. I find it such a a bad “B” movie, it becomes enjoyable when viewed with that context. It’s not “Plan 9 from Outer Space” bad, but I’d put it along “The Crimson Executioner” and “Hell’s Angels on Wheels” in its “B” movie status”

2 Likes
179

Welcome to 21st century America, where once-good people suddenly support a police state.

Also, the canonical Batman created Brother Eye, so…

2 Likes
180

So tempting but so not going straight down that tirade of a rabbit hole. :smiley:

1 Like
181

I find Snyder’s version of Superman & Wonder Woman selfless, including his version of Aquaman who helped human people in need, which is the only way Bruce was able to find him and get a hold of him.

The Flash was afraid and Batman has gone thru all sorts of stuff with villains such as Joker.

Snyder just did Live-Action versions of these Superheroes. His Superman from Man of Steel would risk his life for his bully, let alone the rest of mankind, despite knowing he’s not one of us, he still save those innocent people from he’s own fellow Kryptonian. And he cried like a baby because that was the only time he ever taken a life.

1 Like
182

Batman’s mission is avenging his parents.

That’s what writers do when they make a character, that character never starts as a blank slate. The problem is that the character Batman has precedence so contrary to what Snyder actually presents.

Certainly I would say Snyder does although shabbily justify why his Batman is so angry, he lost his kid partner to a violent criminal. Batman had lost faith in his way of justice, in letting bad guys live they just eternally do the same crimes.

The core problem of the movie is why Batman and Superman come into conflict at all, and why Batman and Superman don’t just talk it out considering one is a genius, and the other is emotionally genius and simultaneously very communicative.

An actor will always fall short if the script does.

Batman branding people can make sense, but is it really Batman at that point? The integral change to the character means on some level the writer has to justify the new canon to the hardcore Batfans.

I don’t think Batman’s behavior has anything to do with Superman. Batman wants to eliminate evil, Superman can do what Batman wants, but even better . The movie makes a false leap by having Superman try to stop Batman, and Batman preparing for a battle he could otherwise entirely bypass. Batman has a huge ego to think he can overcome Superman, and I think that in itself is typically canonical, but Batman shows a huge lack of intelligence in not trying to subvert the fight. Batman is always a genius, yet here he’s not.

Superman fights Bruce because Lex has his mother, blackmail. Bruce fights Superman because…no reason, he doesn’t have to. They are not even at irreconcilable odds yet still the fight happens: as proven by Man of Steel even Superman can understand sometimes murder is necessary for permanent, greater good.

Ultimately the movie just doesn’t make sense because it contradicts itself plot point by plot point, makes iconic characters into things they are not, and doesn’t let characters act naturally. People tend to talk first then throw fists.

1 Like
183

The dawn of the dead remake was…just not good. My girlfriend tortures me with it every so often. She’ll be excited to know I found the other person who likes it