Justice League official "Zack Snyder" cut on HBO Max

[TREK_GOD_1]

It literally opens with a montage showing Muslims at prayer being linked to the outbreak of the zombie plague.

Oh, for-- That is not "Islamophobia" / "Iranophobia" by any stretch of the imagination. The montage shows individuals and large gatherings around the world, eventually showing the chaos to illustrate (what was apparent to everyone else seeing that film) the mass numbers of people on earth who would eventually be transformed into the living dead.

 

[urbandefault]

At first they thought up all these weird ideas like a Superman that doesn't fly etc etc.

In Look, Up in the Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman, Jon Peters admitted that the Superman franchise was problematic for him, stating: "The elements that I was focusing on were away from the heart, it was more leaning towards 'Star Wars' in a sense, you know. I didn't realize the human part of it, I didn't have that."

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

So they tried to ape the original movies (Superman Returns)

When that failed to make it big they mixed some of their other ideas to make "Man of Steel"

So yeah. They have no idea of a direction for Superman

They should have let Kevin Smith do it.

 

[The Realist]

The fundamental fallacy is the notion that we're just too sophisticated and cynical these days for a traditional Superman. It's a silly and perversely self-congratulatory idea, but Hollywood seems fixated on it.

The world was pretty damn cynical in 1978, after a decade-plus of assassinations, war, civil and social upheaval, Nixon and Watergate.

Superman confronted that cynicism head-on, without bowing to it. The movie acknowledged the national mood, then rejected it with grace and humor.

Watch the classic interview scene between Superman and Lois. She falls in love with him, right then and there, because of the way he cuts through her studied cynicism with complete guilelessness. "I'm sure you don't really mean that, Lois." That's why audiences fell in love with Superman, too.

We're not so different today as we like to think. We just need filmmakers with the vision to recognize that, and the courage to act on it.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Superman can disrupt bad weather by clapping his hands.

The economy loses billions every time a hurricane blows through, and poor people die as well, so what happens when Clark is off planet, and why would the governments and billionaires of the world allow the earth to become unprotected?

 

[Ovation]

The fundamental fallacy is the notion that we're just too sophisticated and cynical these days for a traditional Superman.

I agree. There is no reason why a "traditional Superman" could not be the core of a film, and a successful one. But my objection to the negativity thrown at Snyder's version has never been "you (general you) are wrong not to like his version" or "you're wrong for preferring a "traditional Superman". It has been, and remains, a firm rejection of the idea that a non-"traditional Superman" is, in and of itself, an illegitimate film project. There is no "should". There is "X's vision" and let the chips fall where they may.

In 1978, the makers of Superman: The Movie made the choice to present filmgoers with a traditional version of Superman as a tonic to the post-Watergate malaise of the era (an American centric motive, to be sure, but it was an American project). Totally valid choice. A wonderful choice. One I enjoyed immensely at the time and still enjoy today. But if they had chosen a less traditional approach, it would have been equally legitimate. Equally successful? No way to tell. But if Richard Donner had wanted to explore different themes than the ones he did explore, more power to him.

When Snyder (and his team) laid out their version of Superman, they asked questions that were perfectly valid to ask. How would the world react to a superpowered alien in the present? How might he have turned out if he was raised by decent people, though not the paragons of virtue of tradition? How would he cope with an extinction-level threat on what was essentially his first day on the job as an out in the open costumed hero? Whether one appreciates the answers Snyder offered to these questions does not make the questions and themes illegitimate and unworthy of exploration. Moreover, a non-traditional version of Superman (measured against all the "traditional Superman" expectations expressed by many) is an unavoidable result. One does not have to like the result. But I cannot abide the idea that the only way to do a Superman film is in the mould of "The Way Things Oughtta Be". Just as I can enjoy Adam West and Christian Bale as two radically different Batman portrayals, I can make room for Christopher Reeve and Henry Cavill (I'll leave the debate about how radically different (or not) Reeve and Cavill are for another time). At the very least, even if one does not enjoy both versions, there is room to allow for an attempt that differs from tradition.

 

[Sci]

Oh, for-- That is not "Islamophobia" / "Iranophobia" by any stretch of the imagination. The montage shows individuals and large gatherings around the world, eventually showing the chaos to illustrate (what was apparent to everyone else seeing that film) the mass numbers of people on earth who would eventually be transformed into the living dead.

Hogwash.

The damn thing opens with Muslims praying, then two shots that establish the start of the zombie plague, before showing any scenes of large gatherings around the world. The cinematic language is clear in linking Muslims at prayer to the origins of the zombies.

 

[Guy Gardener]

My theory is that Zombies are Angels.

Closing down the planet for God.

Moreso, Adam and Eve were Zombies before they ate the apple.

 

[The Realist]

I agree. There is no reason why a "traditional Superman" could not be the core of a film, and a successful one. But my objection to the negativity thrown at Snyder's version has never been "you (general you) are wrong not to like his version" or "you're wrong for preferring a "traditional Superman". It has been, and remains, a firm rejection of the idea that a non-"traditional Superman" is, in and of itself, an illegitimate film project. There is no "should". There is "X's vision" and let the chips fall where they may.

In 1978, the makers of Superman: The Movie made the choice to present filmgoers with a traditional version of Superman as a tonic to the post-Watergate malaise of the era (an American centric motive, to be sure, but it was an American project). Totally valid choice. A wonderful choice. One I enjoyed immensely at the time and still enjoy today. But if they had chosen a less traditional approach, it would have been equally legitimate. Equally successful? No way to tell. But if Richard Donner had wanted to explore different themes than the ones he did explore, more power to him.

When Snyder (and his team) laid out their version of Superman, they asked questions that were perfectly valid to ask. How would the world react to a superpowered alien in the present? How might he have turned out if he was raised by decent people, though not the paragons of virtue of tradition? How would he cope with an extinction-level threat on what was essentially his first day on the job as an out in the open costumed hero? Whether one appreciates the answers Snyder offered to these questions does not make the questions and themes illegitimate and unworthy of exploration. Moreover, a non-traditional version of Superman (measured against all the "traditional Superman" expectations expressed by many) is an unavoidable result. One does not have to like the result. But I cannot abide the idea that the only way to do a Superman film is in the mould of "The Way Things Oughtta Be". Just as I can enjoy Adam West and Christian Bale as two radically different Batman portrayals, I can make room for Christopher Reeve and Henry Cavill (I'll leave the debate about how radically different (or not) Reeve and Cavill are for another time). At the very least, even if one does not enjoy both versions, there is room to allow for an attempt that differs from tradition.

I don't really think about it in terms of "legitimacy." I'm honestly not that intellectual about it. Superman is a character that's important to me, and I have an emotional investment in him and how he's portrayed. So I can't (and don't even really care to) approach Snyderman as you advocate, with a kind of chin-stroking detachment that says, "Hmmm, veddy interesting, certainly a valid albeit non-traditional approach." Instead, I ask simply, "Did this capture the character I love?" And my heart, more than my head, is where I find the answer.

 

[The Realist]

A related, errant thought: Modern movies seem never to want to show us heroes in full flower, at the height of their powers. In the Daniel Craig Bond movies, we get two origin stories, then skip directly to "old and burned out" in Skyfall. Ditto the Abramsverse Trek movies -- basically two origin films, then jump straight to a Kirk who's been in space too long and is weary of command. And in the Snyder DCEU films, it's implied Superman became a beloved hero in between MoS and BvS, but we only get to see him when everything sucks.

It hasn't always been this way. Older incarnations of Bond, Kirk, and Supes were cocks of their walks, kings of their hills, masters of their domains. Each in their own way, they were aspirational figures, icons, idealized, larger than life.

What did we lose culturally, when and why, that we no longer want that (or, at least, filmmakers think we don't)?

 

[Jayson1]

It literally opens with a montage showing Muslims at prayer being linked to the outbreak of the zombie plague.

That's not why that is there. The montage is to show how the world is falling into chaos and how people would respond and if the world is ending your going to have a whole a lot of praying going on while also showing how it is impacting people all over the world. You even have the Preacher talking about the end times played by Ken Foree.

Jason

 

[Soong-type Android]

A related, errant thought: Modern movies seem never to want to show us heroes in full flower, at the height of their powers. In the Daniel Craig Bond movies, we get two origin stories, then skip directly to "old and burned out" in Skyfall. Ditto the Abramsverse Trek movies -- basically two origin films, then jump straight to a Kirk who's been in space too long and is weary of command. And in the Snyder DCEU films, it's implied Superman became a beloved hero in between MoS and BvS, but we only get to see him when everything sucks.

A great point actually. The last time we saw such a Bond movie was with Pierce Brosnan and the invisible car with that awful Madonna song and the new movie No Time to Die will portray a retired Bond and someone else now having the 007 code name. At least the next Batman movie doesn't look like it'll be yet another origin story, although will be about a Batman early in his career.

 

[Ovation]

Older incarnations of Bond, Kirk, and Supes were cocks of their walks, kings of their hills, masters of their domains. Each in their own way, they were aspirational figures, icons, idealized, larger than life.

I’m going to hazard some hypotheses (with no evidence or even a particular favourite):

• A fear, conscious or otherwise, of glorifying masculinity in the absence of significant flaws to offset the apparent celebratory nature of the character.
  
• A belief the “older versions” lacked subtlety and/or sophistication.
  
• A desire to “break the mould” in the face of numerous instances of the more “traditional” versions. To put one’s own stamp on the character.
  
• A reflection of a general lack of confidence in the legitimacy of “aspirational figures, icons, idealized, larger than life“ characters.
  
• An increasing distance between the eras of the “traditional versions” and the current crop of filmmakers who feel less attached to the older versions than many fans who grew up with the earlier versions contemporaneously.

And I’m sure there are many more.

 

[The Realist]

I’m going to hazard some hypotheses (with no evidence or even a particular favourite):

• A fear, conscious or otherwise, of glorifying masculinity in the absence of significant flaws to offset the apparent celebratory nature of the character.
  
• A belief the “older versions” lacked subtlety and/or sophistication.
  
• A desire to “break the mould” in the face of numerous instances of the more “traditional” versions. To put one’s own stamp on the character.
  
• A reflection of a general lack of confidence in the legitimacy of “aspirational figures, icons, idealized, larger than life“ characters.
  
• An increasing distance between the eras of the “traditional versions” and the current crop of filmmakers who feel less attached to the older versions than many fans who grew up with the earlier versions contemporaneously.

And I’m sure there are many more.

Some thoughtful points there (especially the first).

Can I say that I still don't like the trend? That I'd rather see "The Doomsday Machine" than Star Trek Beyond, From Russia with Love than Skyfall, Superman '78 than BvS?

Possibly I'm just old, and/or tragically lacking in sophistication.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

It would be interesting though, if this movie were popular enough to rejuvenate hopes for a second Justice League movie--which I am sure Snyder fans will call for anyway.

Well here is hoping becuase I want my Legion of Doom movie god damn it!

 

[theenglish]

In terms of Star Trek movies the only time we saw the characters in their prime on the big screen was the first two or three TNG movies.

 

[Gaith]

A related, errant thought: Modern movies seem never to want to show us heroes in full flower, at the height of their powers. In the Daniel Craig Bond movies, we get two origin stories, then skip directly to "old and burned out" in Skyfall. Ditto the Abramsverse Trek movies -- basically two origin films, then jump straight to a Kirk who's been in space too long and is weary of command. And in the Snyder DCEU films, it's implied Superman became a beloved hero in between MoS and BvS, but we only get to see him when everything sucks.

Hear, hear! This is one reason I love Thor: The Dark World - it's an unapologetic, dorky as hell, Thor-in-his-prime flick. I enjoy the origin movie Thor okay, and also love the deconstructionist Thor trilogy Ragnarok/Infinity War/Endgame, but I for one am glad we got the straight-up Thor adventure The Dark World, too. Also: that score!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[JD]

I agree. There is no reason why a "traditional Superman" could not be the core of a film, and a successful one. But my objection to the negativity thrown at Snyder's version has never been "you (general you) are wrong not to like his version" or "you're wrong for preferring a "traditional Superman". It has been, and remains, a firm rejection of the idea that a non-"traditional Superman" is, in and of itself, an illegitimate film project. There is no "should". There is "X's vision" and let the chips fall where they may.

In 1978, the makers of Superman: The Movie made the choice to present filmgoers with a traditional version of Superman as a tonic to the post-Watergate malaise of the era (an American centric motive, to be sure, but it was an American project). Totally valid choice. A wonderful choice. One I enjoyed immensely at the time and still enjoy today. But if they had chosen a less traditional approach, it would have been equally legitimate. Equally successful? No way to tell. But if Richard Donner had wanted to explore different themes than the ones he did explore, more power to him.

When Snyder (and his team) laid out their version of Superman, they asked questions that were perfectly valid to ask. How would the world react to a superpowered alien in the present? How might he have turned out if he was raised by decent people, though not the paragons of virtue of tradition? How would he cope with an extinction-level threat on what was essentially his first day on the job as an out in the open costumed hero? Whether one appreciates the answers Snyder offered to these questions does not make the questions and themes illegitimate and unworthy of exploration. Moreover, a non-traditional version of Superman (measured against all the "traditional Superman" expectations expressed by many) is an unavoidable result. One does not have to like the result. But I cannot abide the idea that the only way to do a Superman film is in the mould of "The Way Things Oughtta Be". Just as I can enjoy Adam West and Christian Bale as two radically different Batman portrayals, I can make room for Christopher Reeve and Henry Cavill (I'll leave the debate about how radically different (or not) Reeve and Cavill are for another time). At the very least, even if one does not enjoy both versions, there is room to allow for an attempt that differs from tradition.

I don't think there's anything wrong with doing a different take on Superman, but the thing I didn't like with the DCEU is that the alternative version of Superman is their core version of Superman. I would have preferred to see a more traditional version as the core Superman in the shared universe, with any alternative takes off by itself somewhere else.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Also: that score!

I remember leaving the theatre being so very disappointed in the score, as the first Thor movie still has my favourite MCU score to date and the 2nd movie was jarringly different, and not for the better.

 

[Skywalker]

I loved Patrick Doyle's score for the first movie (and how Mark Mothersbaugh incorporated some of the themes into his score for Ragnarok) but The Dark World had some good bits, notably the main theme and this one:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

(Which Mothersbaugh also referenced in Ragnarok.)

 

[theenglish]

I do agree with the "hero in his/her prime" thing. A similar trope that has been over used is depowering the hero to give them a handicap. "The Winter Soldier", "Civil War", "Black Panther" --all great films and stories but all relied on this.