Justice League official "Zack Snyder" cut on HBO Max

I mean, he can do it in a "free speech" sense, but he's basically making a promise to his audience and then not fulfilling it. There's a reason his movies get mostly shitty reviews -- they don't fulfill the implicit promises they make when they employ certain cinematic tropes, and that means that he creates expectations in his audience that he refuses to fulfill, which leaves a majority of the audience with a feeling of emptiness and frustration. That's not the mark of a good artist, that's the mark of a guy who doesn't know what he's doing or how to create a story that functions properly.

 

Apart from skirting with the implication that anyone who likes his films is somehow suffering from a defect in reasoning skills, you are making assertions of fact that are actually opinions.

In any case, I long ago stopped treating every movie I watched as an assignment for a film studies class (like 30 some odd years ago) and decided to, you know, treat them as entertainment. Did I like it? Yes? Great. Perhaps I'll watch it again. Did I not like it? Oh well. Better luck next time.

I do examine films with an eye beyond mere entertainment--in the classes I teach where films are an important part of the syllabus (though I focus on their relationship to the historical events they depict--I teach history, not film studies). As a result, in order to avoid turning every film viewing into an academic exercise, I deliberately take movies not relevant to my classes as entertainment. I have neither the energy nor the time to invest in making every one of them an object of study (I did it far more often in my 20s than now, in my 50s). But all along, I've watched movies with the attitude of my favourite film critic, Roger Ebert. He never judged an action buddy comedy against an Ingmar Bergman drama, or something similar (as far too many critics I had to read for my MA project on cinematic portrayals of history did). So Snyder didn't "refuse to fulfill" expectations (he wasn't/isn't under any obligation to do anything of the sort). He made a movie you found wanting. I, on the other hand, was quite satisfied (in part because he challenged my expectations, rather than "fulfill" them). I regularly re-watch Man of Steel (more so than any other superhero movie--and I have several dozen on my shelves) and enjoy it more each time. But hey, I guess I don't know what I'm doing either.

 

@Ovation , I never claimed you "didn't know what you're doing" or "suffered a defect of reasoning." But here's the thing: I didn't "treat Batman v. Superman as an assignment for a film studies class." I just asked for it to have a point if it's going to go to the effort of using deconstructionism on an icon. But if you just go digging for the sake of digging... all you've given me is a bunch of dirt.

And neither am I! I'm not expecting Batman v. Superman to be The Seventh Seal. You know what I'm comparing Batman v. Superman too most of the time? Films like The Dark Knight or The Last Jedi -- films of very similar genres and target audience.

You say he "challenged our expectations" -- but what challenge did he issue? Rian Johnson challenged expectations in The Last Jedi because he challenged the moral decency of the Jedi in the face of the First Order and this lent itself to a political subtext in the context of American politics circa 2017. The Dark Knight challenges its audience to ask itself if Batman's actions support or undermine the social compact. But what challenges are Man of Steel or Batman v. Superman issuing to audience expectations?

The only challenge you've summarized here is challenging the idea that set-ups deserve pay-offs in story structure.

 

Snyder's comic movies get judged harshly because he's clearly trying to make something "deeper" than a typical superhero action flick. At least he believes that in his mind. In that regard they frankly fail for me. He's the guy working at Burger King who thinks that stuff he makes is worthy of a 3 star Michelin rating.

 

The alleged "average person on the street" has been exposed to many different versions of Superman, based on their generation, interest (or lack of interest) in comic books or adaptations. Some only know the character as a product of licensing and nothing more, but that's not the argument you--and a few other I Hate Snyder members are making. The I.H.S. crew would not trip over their own arguments in this thread if they did not think that the Weisinger/Plastino/Swan version (and by association, George Reeves) was the "right" or "iconic" (one of the most overused / misused words of this century) version, when it was most certainly not the way the creators intended in the early years of Superman and Action Comics.

Then you are referring to random titles, which is different than your "iconic" argument--which is always born of a perception that "iconic" means some older and/or long-lived interpretation of the character, as if that was the original way he was meant to be. Again, that is patently false.

...and those who believe in the false notion of a "version that most people think of" conveniently forget that DC actively worked to scrub that version starting in the late 1960s. They also conveniently forget that when Superman Returns hit theatres, few were wanting to see a return to the Donner version in the 21st century, as its time (and tone) had passed, hence the reason no one was begging for more Routh and/or sequels to that film. They must ignore those major points in the character's history in order to sell the dead-on-arrival argument that "everyone" (or nearly "everyone") is itching to see the Weisinger/Plastino/Swan (or "daddy" / camp counselor George Reeves and/or the Super Friends interpretation) Superman, when it is clear that is not the case.

The I Hate Snyder crew tap-shuffle-taps by that ranking with horse blinders firmly in place. Seeing that would get in the way.

Solid reasoning.

...and to a real life audience who lives in the real world, the Snyder version of a super-powered alien and the reaction many would have to its existence among mankind is the right interpretation for this time. As I pointed out before, the reaction/motives of Dawn of Justice's Luthor were a perfect commentary on his fears / militant atheism grafted on an alien, which bookended many of Clark's own father's concerns in the previous film. There's no true development in any superhero film of today, if a character is some pseudo-God/Daddy loved by all. There's no substance to a character of that kind, and he would not be able to relate to anyone else if he was that God/Daddy some seem to want him to be.

Snyder's Superman/Clark had to adapt to humans and sail the rough waters of a world where part of the population does not care if he stops a plane from crashing, because he is seen for what he is: a superpowered alien with no natural ideological or (more importantly) blood connection (or species heritage) to humans. In his early career, he has not earned that trust with everyone. That is the way a real world would perceive a Superman, which is why his treatment in MoS and BvS was so spot-on. Finally, he felt as if he could be "real" in a film that appears to mirror our own world, instead of the hopelessly silly versions that is not only stale and unrealistic (as much as a fantasy character can be), but that kind of character is not even relatable to other superheroes, and in any attempt to build a superhero franchise, that would be a serious problem. Thankfully, Snyder's DCEU steered clear of that, giving audiences a Superman that was not perfect, had much to learn, and understood that he alone is not all things to all people.

Oh, that fact is habitually ignored by a certain group.

 

OK, but there is still a specific iconic version that has permeated pop culture, that is first thing to comes to mind for the most people. This the version that you see parodies of, ore refences to in other movies and shows.

Again, the early version does not matter since it was a very different version than what the character has been for the majority of his existence. Most of the people who going to be going to the movies are probably not familiar with the early issues of the comics, and are probably not going to be going to the movie looking for that version.

They're not random stories, they're the Superman related things I've read, and while they each feature slight differences due to their writers idiosyncrasies, but most of the iconic elements that people expect when reading a Superman story are there.

Like I said before, that's probably a more extreme version of what I'm talking about, but there are certain elements of the character people go into a movie expecting to see, and a lot felt that those elements are not present in Snyder's version.

And the real world can just fuck off, if I want the real world I can watch the news. When I go to a superhero movie, I'm going to have fun watching larger than life heroes punch bad guys in the face, not to see the real world.
All of the stuff you keep saying wouldn't work with Superman, is exactly what we got with Captain America, and it worked perfectly, and most people seemed to really enjoy what the movies did with him.

 

There is not a word here I disagree with.

 

And that makes for a lovely premise, but that is not a fully-developed theme. Set-ups need pay-offs. To what artistic end does Snyder depict the world distrusting Superman? What does this set-up reveal about the world and about Superman?

Complaining about Superman being "hopelessly silly" makes about as much sense as complaining that there's no grim and gritty version of the Care Bears. Superman is at his core a story for children; being silly is a feature, not a bug; if you're going to go deconstructionist on a children's character, what deeper truth about that character or the audience's relationship to the character are you expressing by doing so?

I think if you actually listen to Chipman's Really That Bad series on Batman v. Superman, you find that the length is justified. He has a serious analysis of Batman v. Superman to make, he goes to great pains to express empathy for Snyder in the wake of his family tragedy, and he outlines why Batman v. Superman fails to function as a narrative, he outlines why it fails as a deconstructionist text, he outlines why Batman v. Superman is incoherent in how much of the paratext and extra-textual history of the characters it assumes the audience is familiar with and contextualizing from scene to scene, and then he outlines how Batman v. Superman could have worked better (a short version being: Get rid of Lex Luthor, give Bruce Wayne Lex's role in the narrative, and do the entire movie from Bruce's point of view).

 

This probably took more than four hours to write, but, thankfully, it takes far less time to read. (I don’t wholeheartedly endorse everything in the article but it makes enough points with which I concur to save me the trouble of reinventing the wheel). I’d also point out I prefer the extended cut of BvS but it was not available when this article was written.

https://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-best-story-movie/

 

If you need a 4 hour video to explain why something is bad, perhaps it really isn't that bad?

 

Sadly, your link is broke. Here 'tis:

https://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-best-story-movie/

Also sadly, the article's opening thesis is rank bullshit, and a total non-starter:

In my estimation, an inability to relate to a traditional Clark/Superman, without piling on Snyder's grimdark faux-"realistic" posturings, is a failure of imagination on the part of the viewer, and in no way the fault of the character.

 

And again, both the Shazam Captain Marvel and Captain America were seen as "sillier" characters...yet that didn't stop them from becoming very well done in movies.

 

I fixed the link. Thanks.

That you cannot imagine the character might not be relatable to some viewers (readers) in no way means that they are “failures” (and what an arrogant position to take). And if you didn’t bother to read the other points before dismissing all of them, then your opinion of the article is meaningless. One does not have to accept the opening argument to “hear out” the rest. (If I did that to my students the failure rate in my classes would be 80%.)

Clearly this isn’t school and no one is required to do anything with material presented online anonymously. In any case, I don’t endorse the whole thing (particularly the point to which you object) but the article is hardly limited to that one point (I’d argue it’s tangential at best). However, I mostly posted it because sci seems to refuse to accept that not all movie viewings are cinema studies assignments, so I offered some commentary he can gleefully dismiss (rather than spend hours writing it myself—he can search my old posts if he’s really that curious—I’m not interested in that level of effort at the moment).

 

^ Wow, okay. I'd think it obvious that asserting rhetorically that a theoretical viewer suffers a failure of imagination on a particular point of contention is not the same as calling anyone a "failure," but whatevs.

I disagree, however, that the "traditional Superman is not relatable" argument is tangential. As presented, it's the article's thesis statement, the premise on which hangs everything that follows -- i.e., Snyder's genius in "fixing" this fundamental flaw of the character.

The rest of the article, while well-written, proceeds from the familiar argument that there's something inherently valuable in imposing "realism" (always defined as the bleakest and most cynical possible picture of life) on a figure of transcendent fantasy, an argument that doesn't improve with repetition.

 

Clark is boring in both the so-called 'traditional' depiction and the Snyder films. He's kept very inoffensive as a personality and as an actor. Like, his big mission in BvS is to...expose the Batman? Some small-tine vigilante? Why isn't he off exposing the crimes of the wealthy, their cop goons or the bought politicians? Why is Batman even worth his time?

Bruce being an asshole and trying to kill Superman makes sense because he is mentally ill. Clark even giving a shit until their final confrontation doesn't.

 

This is sadly in line with how Clark Kent was portrayed in the comics until around the 1970s, a shapeless blob of a man with barely anything there to the point you'd wonder why anyone would want to be friends with him.

 

People always opine about 'modernization' being the end of the world but, like, what else do you call it when your character is written to be highly inoffensive, which is inevitably just "doesn't upset cishet white people" or "doesn't upset corporate donors". We know of Golden Age depictions of Superman fighting the system--exposing corruption in capitalists and politicians--so why not translate that into real world modern contexts? Have Superman fighting against real world problems? The military industrial complex, the war economy, the lack of free at point-of-service healthcare, the lack of education, police abolition and more? Actually protecting marginalized peoples and fighting to put eyeballs on them and their struggles?

Realistically-speaking, if Superman was real he'd use social media to spread ideas. Look at what Tik Tok, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and other platforms at being used by Lefties and youth to spread ideas are accomplishing. If a guy with superhuman powers--something that draws a lot of eyes--had social media their ability to urge people to action would be a million-fold greater.

 

It is as clear as day in MoS, where adult Clark;s solo journey has him running from any location where he's close to being discovered--echoing the dangers predicted by his adoptive father. Dawn of Justice is largely about Superman being seen as a menace not only by Luthor, but by Batman and Congress based on (in part) the destruction and death caused by his battle with the Kryptonians--that is the heart of the film, which Snyder so perfectly set up one film earlier. The people are not universally celebrating him as in earlier adaptations, because they see him for what he is--a super-powered, unstoppable alien with no blood allegiance to mankind.

Wrong. Superman was created as a Depression-era character who--in many of his early years comics--often used his power to play a hard judge and jury to those who were committing crime, and not in the infantile, slap-on-the-wrist manner that later plagued the character in the Weisinger/Plastino/Swan comics and ridiculous adaptations such as the George Reeves TV series and the Super Friends cartoon franchise.
Early Superman represented a period of American history where vigilante justice was not completely condemned, but seen as necessary--welcome when crime (whether on the personal, local level, or in government) appeared to have the edge over the innocent. The public responded positively to innumerable characters cut from the vigilante mold, the reason why early Superman mirrored many a real world feeling--taking delight in criminals being brutalized or dying--a behavior one would associate with Batman or Golden Age Captain America, but Superman shared that view of criminals. It was that version who became a breakout hit / revolution in publishing. Contrary to another member I will leave nameless, Superman of this period was not (to paraphrase) some embryonic, shapeless character in the hands of those who did not know what to do with him. No, his identity and methods were the result of conscious creative decisions, and that did not include the Daddy / camp counselor some have conned themselves into thinking was the creators' intent all along..

Its the result of obsession--excess. Going overboard to condemn a film clearly not understood by the host of the video. This is a trait common to those who had Wesinger/Swan/Plastino-colored glasses bolted to their eyes before seeing one minute of the film(s) in question. When the expectation of Daddy/camp counselor Superman was not met, their perceptions were rattled, failing to realize the time for the worst of Superman's comics, George Reeves, the Super Friends, etc., had passed and was rejected. Similarly, the Donner tribute sequel Superman Returns did not generate a groundswell of anyone wanting to see more Donner-esque tributes. They are not the Superman audiences desire.

 

No, you alone are saying that--which is not representative of all perceptions or experiences with a character. Moreover, if the version you cling to was so "iconic," DC would not have actively worked to change him in the late 60s. They changed hm because he was a ridiculous camp counselor not fitting with the interests / tastes of the readers, and was not at all a fit to stand next to other DC heroes---particularly Silver Age creations.

Beyond nonsensical. The early years version always matters--it is the version of Superman who created an explosive, influential revolution in heroic fiction & publishing in general, and so quite obviously, that version was a stellar success.

.

They are still random, and not at all foundational of the numerous stories what made the character--and a success to millions of readers.

Again, you are saying that. You look for Daddy/camp counselor yet the last time that version was on screen (Routh), no one was impressed, or even wanted a return to that characterization, hence the reason there was never going to be a second act for that kind of Superman.

Such a wild, reactionary statement. If you want kids' bedtime stories as you are tucked in, go read The Berenstain Bears. No one said Superman was going be that for you, and whether you're able to handle it or not, the rest of mankind lives in the real world, and do like to see fantasy have some of that real world and/or serious issues. It is the very reason why of all MCU films, Captain America - The Winter Soldier was so widely celebrated, and continues to be held in the highest regard; despite the fantasy element of Project Insight, the underlying message about government (known and shadow) plotting against citizens, brutality, brainwashing and questioning the concept of liberty--all real world concerns--resonated with audiences in deeper ways no Power Rangers-esque explosions / energy blasts of the other MCU films could. Superhero films and TV are not locked into your idea of goofy, light productions, otherwise The Winter Soldier, great Marvel TV series such as The Punisher, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, etc, would not have been greenlit. Clearly, superhero productions that reflect some of the real world were not only welcome, but in no surprise, were the best productions to come out of the Disney/Marvel franchise.

Failing to acknowledge that is pointless at best, self-deceiving at worst.


.

Obviously.

Well said.