It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Snydertards? Is that really necessary?
If you don’t like the movie then fine, but why feel the need to make childish remarks about people who have different opinions than you.
You mean the people who praise Snyder like he was some sort of divinity, will refuse to see any DC movie but the Snyderverse and gives death threats to James Gunn?
Yeah, like they respect everyone else too.
Oh please. I’m a fan of Snyder’s DC movies, and I haven’t done any of what you’ve mentioned. Neither have any of the other Snyder fans I’ve encountered on this forum. Does that make us “Snydertards?” On the contrary, they’ve all been generally lovely people I’ve talked to on this forum.
You’re just making a harsh generalization because people share different opinions than you, and your immediate response is to stoop down to their level. The whole universe is being rebooted already, move on from Snyder if you don’t like his films, and his fan base. For goodness sake, these are Superhero movies that we’re talking about; it’s not that deep.
I never said Snyder should have copied Donner. So I dunno where you got that suggestion. In fact, back in 2011 I was actually hoping Snyder would use John Byrne’s reboot as an inspiration for his cinematic reboot, finally bringing the modern interpretation of Superman to life.
The studio can be blamed for pushing for a cinematic universe, absolutely. But I don’t think it was the studio that dictated that Superman gets killed on his second appearance in a diminished part in BVS, and have an even further diminished role by JL as a consequence of killing off Superman. I also doubt Snyder was told to kill off important side characters like Dr. Hamilton, Jimmy Olsen and Mercy Graves so thoughtlessly. Those kinds of decisions are all on Snyder.
I doubt his films will age well. Maybe if they were marketed at the time as “Elseworlds” stories they wouldn’t have come off so egregious. But that doesn’t excuse Chris Terrio’s godawful writing either (and it’s even more baffling he somehow got the gig for THE RISE OF SKYWALKER after Snyder’s films).
I'm not saying every single Zack Snyder fan acts like that, it's just that the vast majority of them outside this forum are toxic, mostly on Reddit.
I was still surprised back in the day that Snyder wasn’t fired from JL after the second weekend of BvS dropped 69% from the first. That’s when WB should have put a halt on JL’s pre-production and tried to figure out how to salvage the mess Snyder got them into.
Honestly, if WB wanted to start a Cinematic Universe, I don’t think they should’ve hired Snyder. Much as I love his DC films, there was a huge miscommunication between what he wanted to do, and what WB wanted for DC on screen.
Exactly, Snyder and Affleck's portrayal of Batman was excellent, i'll give you that, but i think it would have worked better if he did a solo movie for him.
Also, yeah, what WB tried to do with the DCEU was basically a rushed version of the MCU, let me explain:
Man of Steel = Captain America: The First Avenger
Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice = Captain America: Civil War
Justice League = Avengers: Infinity War
It had no structure.
If i had to do a timeline slate for the first phase of a DC Cinematic Universe, i would have done it like this:
- Superman: Last Son
- Batman: Knight of Gotham
- Princess Diana: Wonder Woman
- Superman: ZOD
- Batman: Blague Meurtrière
- Hal Jordan: Green Lantern
- Batman and Superman: World's Finest
- Justice League
Yes I'm not a big fan of Snyder's films, but tonally his Batman did work and would have made a decent film on its own.
Jeez,yea,what’s with all the insults on this board lately? There were always a few trolls on this site but it’s gotten even worse lately.We’re all here to discuss film and we should respect each other’s opinions.
It’s fine if you don’t like Snyder but a lot of people do and many consider his DC movies to be great works of art.Calling his fans childish names is exactly that,childish.
This forum definetly needs more moderation.
Well, they are big blankets, honestly. But I'm happy to help them out. It really was nice to spend some time with my dad, and meet fellow fans of Superman. Hopefully, I'll be able to post some photos soon.
@TheSkyfallen06
Really, that isn't necessary, is it? I am a fan of Snyder's take on DC but I welcome others, including Gunn, too. "Snydertard", as @007ClassicBondFan pointed out, is not a term you should be using. You're focusing on a small and rather aggressive subset of Snyder's fans. Such people exist in all fan groups, I'm afraid, even inside Bond fandom. The majority of fans are just calm, regular folks.
Yeah, i think i have to apology, it's just that every Snyderverse fan i came across had very questionable behaving.
They always would go like:
"#FyouJamesGunn"
"#BringSnyderBack"
"#Gunnverseisamistake"
"#Cavillforever"
100%.
BVS is such a confused film, because Snyder wants it to be a quasi adaptation of Frank Miller’s THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, but also double as the infamous DEATH OF SUPERMAN story with Doomsday, and both crammed into what’s supposed to be a sequel to MOS while at the same time quadrupling as a prelude to JUSTICE LEAGUE, without giving any of the heroes their own solo films besides Wonder Woman.
James Gunn concerns me a bit with his large cast, but I can at least look to his previous four comic book films and realize that a lot of these announcements like Nathan Fillion is probably only going to amount to a passing cameo, because that’s what Gunn did with tons of characters. Michael Rosenbaum’s character from GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY was a major character who was part of the original team, but he only has like maybe three lines total across two films. I remember thinking Michael Rooker would have an important part in THE SUICIDE SQUAD given their work together, but then we saw what happened there haha.
I have faith Gunn will do a better job of balancing out the cast of characters, but we’ll see. WB should just step aside and let him do his thing before going back to panic mode.
Exactly. Snyder also missed the point of Batman and Superman fighting in The Dark Knight Returns. Batman was a loose cannon vigilante the government wanted eliminated, and Superman, as the dutiful symbol of authority, was tasked with the job. In the film the conflict is unconvincingly engineered as part of Luthor's labored attempt to frame Superman. Adding the death of Superman to the mix was a bad idea, especially since the Doomsday story was never good to begin with (the 1961 "Death of Superman" from Superman #149 is far superior).
Whether Gunn will get better results depends on whether the WB execs will give him creative leeway or, in a panic over DC's recent string of flops, crowd him and set a record for too many cooks.
I’m cautiously optimistic. But Gunn feels more like a natural choice for Superman than Burton, Singer and Snyder were.
And certainly Richard Lester, lol. I just really hope Zod is given a long break after the overuse of him in the DCEU.
If Gunn wanted, he could have directed Superman Returns and it would have been ten times greater than what Bryan Singer did.
Here goes. I don't think Superman The Movie is a flawless film; in fact, I'd say it has severe issues.
Allow me to explain. I treat STM as two films. The first one is about as good as any film can get. Seriously, everything from the start to Superman donning the suit for the first time is a perfect movie, perhaps even the very best superhero film ever made! I've rarely seen a film open with such amazing titles. No less than three times am I moved to tears: on Krypton when two loving parents say goodbye to their son, when Pa Kent dies, and when Kal-El is instructed by Jor-El in The Fortress Of Solitude. The magic is there! It's in the impressive sets, the great performances, and John Williams' hauntingly beautiful score. But more than that, the tone of that film is just perfect. It feels epic, mythical even. Everything works; nothing feels out of place. The pacing is right, and we are filled with warmth and joy.
Then, film two begins. We are suddenly in Metropolis. At first, things work just fine. A little comedy at the Daily Planet--sure, why not? Margot Kidder was pretty cute back then. I love the helicopter rescue scene and Williams keeps his part of the magic flowing, even during the "Can You Read My Mind" scene which I understand is not exactly everyone's favorite. But... (and it's a hard but), too much Otis is like too much salt in your soup: a little goes a long way but too much ruins it all. Hackman does a good job but he feels like such a small fish compared to Superman. His scheme? Land! Real estate. Boring. Worst of all, Luthor and his two clowns manage to steal two missiles from the army with a ruse that kids in a school playground could have come up with. Honestly? I'd say we deserve a whole lot better after the first half of STM. What I'm seeing is a whiplash-inducing tone shift. It's as if Nolan had replaced the second half of BB with two episodes of the Adam West television series. Both are good in their own right, but not conflated.
Worst of all: the climax. I like the conundrum: two missiles, can Superman stop them both? Interesting! Except that the big 'Deus ex Machina is, perhaps, the worst idea I've ever encountered in a Superman film. Let's examine the backward spinning of the Earth in more detail. First of all, that's not a convincing way to turn back time, but hey, I'll suspend my disbelief and roll with it. Yet, as soon as you introduce that trick, nothing in future films will ever come off as threatening anymore. Why didn't Superman just turn back time as soon as Zod and his gang had arrived at the White House? He could have ambushed them on the Moon. Why didn't he use the trick in Superman 3 or in The Quest For Peace? He'll do it again alright, at the end of the Donner Cut of Superman 2. The big question is why he didn't do it more often. Seems simple enough. Did he forget he had this skill? My point is that the possibility of time travel poses a big issue. It deprives an entire series of the chance to ever have us on the edge of our seats again. Star Trek suffered from the same oversight. Secondly, I know we're not supposed to jump into physics, but we do realize that Superman killed us all, right? You can't just flip the Earth's spin and expect us all to live. The G forces we'd have to endure are lethal! Lastly, I hate it most of all because it's just lazy. The screenwriters had come up with an interesting and bold challenge, yet found themselves trapped in it. Turning back time is too cheap a solution for my taste. Even in a film like this, it's asking too much of me. Since Superman is 'Super', boundaries are important. Limitations to his powers are important. He only has a few. Other Kryptonians are about as strong as he is. And there's Kryptonite, of course. Other than that, well, there is the fact that Supes can't be in two places at the same time. We can make him work hard thanks to that. But not if you allow him to turn back time. And yes, it only takes a few moments of the entire film... but it's an essential part of the film since it's Superman's solution for rescuing everyone. Also, why didn't he turn back time a bit further and keep Pa Kent from dying? I mean... he may even have found a way to rescue his parents from a dying Krypton. What I'm saying is this: Neo restarting Trinity's heart in The Matrix Reloaded is more plausible to me within the logic of that film than Superman turning back time.
Overall, I still love the movie, but it's far from the best DC / Superhero film in my opinion. And that's because that brilliant first half of the movie segued into some kind of "comedy show" that ends with a lazy resolution. If DAD went wrong halfway through the film, I'd say STM went "wronger". Much, much "wronger". And that's just too bad. Let me repeat: the first half of this film deserves pretty much every award you can give a film. It is excellent. The second half is, well, neither this nor that. Good, mixed with mediocre, and ending with bad.
We're still friends, though, aren't we? ;-)
So Superman turns back time, therefore interfering with human history, which Jor-El said was forbidden, and it was all for preventing Lois Lane’s death. THEN when you get to SUPERMAN II, there’s consequences! His turning back time has a ripple effect that causes the super villains to be freed, and Jor-El punishes Clark by taking away his powers partly because he used them irresponsibly!
I do think that’s what Donner and Mankiewicz might have done if they had the opportunity to finish II. It’s also partly why I don’t think the Donner cut of SUPERMAN II works because it’s still an incomplete version of a sequel to a film that had its ending changed.
Why do I have to keep explaining this to people? Am I the only one who read Superman comics in the late 60's???
Oh, I see; that's actually something I hadn't picked up yet!
It helps a little, but the issue of turning back time remains. Still, I stand corrected. Thanks, @chrisisall.
I agree, @MakeshiftPython!