Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I thought this was about a Flash Gordon movie, boy was i wrong

I liked the Watchmen movie, very close to the comic.

I agree that DC cannot get the movies right most of the time, for some reason,

While marvel seems to hit the campy seriousness balance correctly, the DC movie often go extremely Campy or too serious.

liked the characters in Suicide Squad, but the story made no sense.

I went into Watchmen knowing zero about the comic. I thought it was fine. Overall I don't have a problem with Snyder as a director, but I think he's a bad fit for DC, specifically Superman, because he drains all the hope out of Superman.

And, as far as DC's movies go, it's getting worse.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm pretty sure you're just gak posting in this thread Ahtman.

Nothing about Batman holds up in a court of law so using that as a basis for complaint is a bit specious. Pretty sure recognizing that basic element isn't gak posting.

I'm not sure Affleck stepping down as director for the Batman film is necessarily a bad thing, I don't know that he's anything special as a director and if this lets him focus entirely on the performance then I'm all for it.

I can't think of any other movies, regardless of genre, where the lead was set up to direct but passed it up/was replaced, so no idea if this is good or not?

One would hope that Mr Affleck doesn't have the sort of ego which would make this a problem.

EDIT - And one also hopes the new Director is savvy enough to listen to Mr Affleck's input....I mean, I don't like Affleck's Batman, but there's no point in being at loggerheads with your lead, no?

 Paradigm wrote:
I'm not sure Affleck stepping down as director for the Batman film is necessarily a bad thing, I don't know that he's anything special as a director and if this lets him focus entirely on the performance then I'm all for it.

Did you see The Town or Argo? Both were absolutely excellently directed films. He's a far better director than actor actually.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
I'm not sure Affleck stepping down as director for the Batman film is necessarily a bad thing, I don't know that he's anything special as a director and if this lets him focus entirely on the performance then I'm all for it.

Did you see The Town or Argo? Both were absolutely excellently directed films. He's a far better director than actor actually.

Yeah, but Live by Night is flopping at the box office, and critics haven't been kind either.

Honestly, it looks like the guy just took on too much and needs a break. Directing and starring in a film is no easy thing, and he just poured the last couple years of his life a film to see it tank. Meanwhile, during his press tour, he got pelted with Batman questions. Because, you know, some are saying that it's up to him and his Batman movie to 'save' the entire DCEU enterprise. And never mind that the Batman film is probably three times as complex as anything he's directed before.

So yeah. The guy has been hemming and hawing in the media for weeks, and reports keep circulating that neither he nor the studio were happy with the script. He's probably having Gigli flashbacks and is ready to step back and bring in an outside perspective. We may end up with a better film here. There's talk about Matt Reeves (of the recent Planet of the Apes films) directing, but that might just be media wishlisting.

 Ahtman wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm pretty sure you're just gak posting in this thread Ahtman.

Nothing about Batman holds up in a court of law so using that as a basis for complaint is a bit specious. Pretty sure recognizing that basic element isn't gak posting.

My favorite part is in The Dark Knight when Batman goes to China to kidnap a Chinese citizen, which would never hold up in a court of law.

1) a Prosecutor would find it nearly impossible to argue Batman wasn't an agent of the police. That big flash light on the roof is a overt statement that the two are in partnership, plus there's the co-operational stings, warranted search and seizure, and direct meetings between the District Attorney, Commissioner, and Batman. By working together Batman and the Police have to follow the same civil rights rules, which Batman basically ignores as a matter of course.

2) That makes the kidnapping of a Chinese citizen from China not only blatantly illegal but a very obvious diplomatic hydrogen bomb and guy as smart as Batman should know that XD

3) Said kidnapped Chinese citizen would be released immediately almost as a matter of course, which would basically be true of everyone Batman "arrested" because as an agent of the Police he's not aloud to beat people to a bloody pulp, or search and seize without a warrant. The court would not only have no choice but to release all the criminals he caught, but the Gotham Police Department would probably face so many lawsuits the entire city would go bankrupt.

4) You can apply this concept to virtually every costume super hero who isn't something like the Punisher, or otherwise also on the wrong side of the law which is really just pointing to the hypocritical nature of costumed superheros being defenders of "law and justice" because they're all on the wrong side of the law.

5) And that my friends is why a well done Batman movie with vintage Anarky could be a great superhero film!

Isn't apply logic and reason to Superhero films FUN?!

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm pretty sure you're just gak posting in this thread Ahtman.

Nothing about Batman holds up in a court of law so using that as a basis for complaint is a bit specious. Pretty sure recognizing that basic element isn't gak posting.

My favorite part is in The Dark Knight when Batman goes to China to kidnap a Chinese citizen, which would never hold up in a court of law.

1) a Prosecutor would find it nearly impossible to argue Batman wasn't an agent of the police. That big flash light on the roof is a overt statement that the two are in partnership, plus there's the co-operational stings, warranted search and seizure, and direct meetings between the District Attorney, Commissioner, and Batman. By working together Batman and the Police have to follow the same civil rights rules, which Batman basically ignores as a matter of course.

2) That makes the kidnapping of a Chinese citizen from China not only blatantly illegal but a very obvious diplomatic hydrogen bomb and guy as smart as Batman should know that XD

3) Said kidnapped Chinese citizen would be released immediately almost as a matter of course, which would basically be true of everyone Batman "arrested" because as an agent of the Police he's not aloud to beat people to a bloody pulp, or search and seize without a warrant. The court would not only have no choice but to release all the criminals he caught, but the Gotham Police Department would probably face so many lawsuits the entire city would go bankrupt.

4) You can apply this concept to virtually every costume super hero who isn't something like the Punisher, or otherwise also on the wrong side of the law which is really just pointing to the hypocritical nature of costumed superheros being defenders of "law and justice" because they're all on the wrong side of the law.

5) And that my friends is why a well done Batman movie with vintage Anarky could be a great superhero film!

Isn't apply logic and reason to Superhero films FUN?!

A real vigilante wouldn't bring him back but disappear him. Real death squads are just that, death squads.

 Frazzled wrote:


A real vigilante wouldn't bring him back but disappear him. Real death squads are just that, death squads.

The whole point was to get him to testify, or at least, give the mob the appearance that their money was about to vanish to put the squeeze on them.

Naughty Joker took him, though.

 kronk wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


A real vigilante wouldn't bring him back but disappear him. Real death squads are just that, death squads.

The whole point was to get him to testify, or at least, give the mob the appearance that their money was about to vanish to put the squeeze on them.

Naughty Joker took him, though.

Real Vs would have just wacked the mob guys. Look up Los Pepes as an example in their war against Escobar. Brutal brutal Mofos.

I'm just sad that this is the takeaway point from the post I made...

 Compel wrote:
I'm just sad that this is the takeaway point from the post I made...

Superman should have killed Batman was your point, I think?

 kronk wrote:

 Compel wrote:
I'm just sad that this is the takeaway point from the post I made...

Superman should have killed Batman was your point, I think?

He shoulda compressed him down into a diamond, mounted him in a ring, and given THAT to Lois.

 gorgon wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Compel wrote:
I'm just sad that this is the takeaway point from the post I made...

Superman should have killed Batman was your point, I think?

He shoulda compressed him down into a diamond, mounted him in a ring, and given THAT to Lois.

That is incredibly metal XD

Things continue to go swimmingly for the DCEU.

You would think it wouldn't be this difficult to make a story based on some of the most loved and mythologized characters but DC seems to have trouble with it while Marvel makes decent media based on niche characters like Dr. Strange and Luke Cage.

I'm not so sure how much of it is them struggling with the story and how much of it is more related to the other 'stuff' around the film.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you look at the extended version of Batman Versus Superman, I would quite happily argue that it is a perfectly good story. What lets it down is the other 'stuff' around it, editing the whole thing down, loopy Lex, all that sort of stuff.

But the premise, the themes, the narrative structure and generally related stuff is all, in my view, great stuff. The internet loves taking the mickey out of the "Martha? Why did you say that name?!" scene but it follows the themes of the story, it harkens back to the 'Checkov's gun' of the 'Martha' in the opening credits. You have a legitimately grief stricken, crazy, suicidal Batman with some form of even worse PTSD. Storywise, it all makes sense.

Even Suicide Squad, the story structure is fine (not great, but fine), it's the other 'stuff' around it that's the problem. - Apparently being given 6 weeks for the script, arguments in the studio about the tone.

Similarly, the problem with Batman, if there's going to be a problem with Batman, I don't think will be down to the story. It should be simple. Pick a villain (eg Deathstroke), pick a setting (Arkham Asylum). Boom, you have a story. Deathstroke, an elite assassin, is hired by persons unknown to take out an Arkham inmate before trial. Batman catches wind of this, must identify the inmate and must protect him... Or her...

Like the "Assault On Arkham" film, a jailbreak then happens and we're introduced to the DC film versions of a bunch of the rogues gallery.

SATIRE! New character Zak Snyder a 'mistake', confirm DC Comics

PLEASE!!!!!! Tell me this means Snyder is getting booted by DC!!

That I don't know...I've not found the 'grain of truth' news article behind the satire.

Doesn't mean it's not there of course.

If you ask me, it kinda seems like WB is trying to have its cake and eat it too with their directors. They're pursuing big names, but at a time when they're almost certainly trying to exercise more studio control under Johns in the Marvel-Feige fashion. But big names want to do things their way. Overall, Marvel's directors haven't really been an A-list bunch, and they aren't needed to be when they're generally cookie-cutter affairs down to the photography and music (Guardians being the outlier here).

Anyway, if WB really just needs crowdpleasing, fun superhero films, then maybe they just need workmanlike directors who are fine delivering that instead of striving for "the ultimate Batman movie", etc.

Regarding Snyder, I tend to immediately tune out anyone who starts on some kind of weird rant about him. He's obviously an extremely talented visual director, and Man of Steel was a good film. People -- well, geeks especially -- just tend to confuse 'a take on something I personally didn't like' with 'poor quality'. The guy only became the creative force behind the DCEU after Nolan turned it down and WB wasn't sure who else to turn to. And there's no question that he was under pressure to basically set up the entire DCEU in BvS. The studio asked for a lot. Don't get me wrong -- his execution was lacking, and I think some relatively minor changes to the film would have made a big difference.

Anyway, going forward I doubt Snyder does another DC film after JL, even if JL turns out to be a solid effort. Would anyone want to if they were in his shoes?

 gorgon wrote:


Regarding Snyder, I tend to immediately tune out anyone who starts on some kind of weird rant about him. He's obviously an extremely talented visual director, and Man of Steel was a good film. People -- well, geeks especially -- just tend to confuse 'a take on something I personally didn't like' with 'poor quality'. The guy only became the creative force behind the DCEU after Nolan turned it down and WB wasn't sure who else to turn to. And there's no question that he was under pressure to basically set up the entire DCEU in BvS. The studio asked for a lot. Don't get me wrong -- his execution was lacking, and I think some relatively minor changes to the film would have made a big difference.

Man of Steel was not a GOOD film. It was a barely acceptable film that poorly captured Superman; and the death of Pa Kent was dumb as gak. It's not a weird rant to say Snyder sucks. Your opinion vs mine; we're both subjective in what we like or hate. Let's let the critics decide. Oh wait...they did. MoS and Snyder suck.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Man of Steel was not a GOOD film.

This is incorrect.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
It was a barely acceptable film that poorly captured Superman

This is also incorrect.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
and the death of Pa Kent was dumb as gak.

This is also incorrect. I sense a pattern.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Your opinion vs mine; we're both subjective in what we like or hate.

Except you aren't presenting yours as subjective but you are proving gorgon's point.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Let's let the critics decide.

People always complain about critics unless they think they agree with them, it seems. Critics don't determine whether people like a film or not and they really never have.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
MoS and Snyder suck.

Again proving gorgon's point.

^Offers nothing to the conversation except telling me I'm wrong, and I'm wrong to agree with critics. Wonderful point...

And yes, if I SAY my thoughts are subjective, then they're subjective. I flat out call them subjective; if I say they are, then I shouldn't have to start every damn sentence with "I think" too. One or the other SHOULD be enough. Even for Snyder's white knights.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
^Offers nothing to the conversation except telling me I'm wrong, and I'm wrong to agree with critics. Wonderful point...

So you offered nothing initially but complain about the same thing? Interesting.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
And yes, if I SAY my thoughts are subjective, then they're subjective.

You can say it all you want but if you present it otherwise it doesn't really matter. Screaming it and being facetious about it doesn't change it either. You seem so blinded by your dislike (sort of like what gorgon was referring to) you don't even see that you aren't in the [reasonable criticism] box but the [incoherent goofiness] box.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Even for Snyder's white knights.

See what I mean?

I guess my feeling is that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but some opinions aren't worth the time to acknowledge, or aren't reasonable or reasoned opinions in the first place. Probably 90% of the criticism that I see individuals level at Snyder's DC movies are just reductive talking points full of hate and void of real meat or viewpoint. Often they're even lies or distortions -- 'Superman never smiles' 'Superman shows no remorse about killing Zod', etc.

I realize this just reflects the sorry state of discourse in our culture (just look at politics), but that doesn't make it less juvenile or less intellectually dishonest. We've all probably seen 100 films with worse casts, worse performances, worse dialogue, worse stories, worse effects, etc. than MoS. There are elements in the film that are controversial to some -- and I can acknowledge that even if I don't have issues with those elements -- but that doesn't go to the film's *quality* or to Snyder's skill as a *director*. It's not a *bad* movie. We're not talking about Plan 9 from Outer Space.

Now BvS has its issues, especially with the story. The extended version smoothes over some of them, although it probably creates one or two others (length, lack of action). As I said, I think Snyder deserves criticism for that. His name is on the 'label'. However, I think even Spielberg, Scorsese, etc. would have had a hard time knocking that one out of the park given everything the studio was trying to do with that film. See, there's LOTS of legit, meaty stuff to discuss and pick apart there, but people would rather focus on the wrong stuff and scream about "Martha" or Batman using guns.

TL;DR - People just scream at each other and don't consider their opinions or have real discussions anymore. Still, this is a discussion board, and if someone posts an opinion that seems lazy, I think we're allowed to challenge it. "Snyder is terrible," "Man of Steel sucks" etc. is lazy.

I find the criticisms that Man of Steel was a bad feel for failing to capture Superman to be kinda silly. He wasn't Superman yet. It was his origin story of how he became Superman.

Yes the Pa Kent stuff was pants on head stupid, but the rest was mostly fine.

Better soundtrack than film though. Zimmer knocked that one out of the park.

 Ahtman wrote:
So you offered nothing initially but complain about the same thing? Interesting.

Yeah but he wasn't a needling jerk about it. Remember what I said about gak posting? You continue to do it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah but he wasn't a needling jerk about it. Remember what I said about gak posting? You continue to do it.

Except I'm not and for some reason you seem to have no idea what gak posting is, which is kind of sad considering that you know better. Repeating the same wrong thing, like calling something gak posting when it clearly isn't, doesn't make it eventually right somehow it just means being wrong repeatedly. I feel like at some point you just gave up on contextualizing and reading, which bothers me since you are a pretty bright guy that usually did those things.

I don't understand the criticism of MoS:
*Excellent villains who have actual motivations other than twirling mustache bad guy ism. I found them very compelling.

*Undertone of sacrifice. Literally everyone in the movie is willing to sacrifice greatly for what they believe to be "good."

*Excellent writing: "I studied years honing my skills. Where did you learn yours...ON A FARM?!?" love it.

But thats ok, I find half of Marvel films basically unwatchable at this point. On the flip side I haven't seen SvsB and have no inclination to see Wonder Woman or whatever this year.

Also inversely Lego Bat Man rocks hard. Yea baby!!!*


*OK maybe I did growl at the waiter flirting with my daughter before the movie started.