Batman v Superman: The Fundamental Flaw
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- GET MY BOOK: amzn.to/3ymfQPV
Support Nerdwriter videos: / nerdwriter
Subscribe: bit.ly/SubNerdw...
Facebook: / the-nerdwriter-3141415...
Twitter: / theenerdwriter 
Развлечения
Развлечения
A conversation between Bobbie O'Steen and Sam O'Steen (editor of The Graduate & Chinatown):
B: You developed a saying around that time, to remind a director not to become too attached to a moment, or a scene.
S: “Movie first, scene second, moment third.” That is the order of importance for everything.
B: So everything has to be justified in terms of how it serves the movie, you can’t hold onto a scene - or moment - just because you like it.
S: Right.
+
This is exactly how directors cuts and special editions can fall apart sometimes. If the director is too focused on "fixing" a moment, they can't look at the big picture.
True legend
Yo man..Waiting for your next vid. Just watched everythong on your channel. Keep up the great work !!
Now I want to watch both The Graduate and Chinatown. All you typed out really intrigues me about the proper style of filming
This video is what negative film reviews should be; a well thought out description of how the film failed and how it could be better.
That comment above mine. Exactly.
It's hard to do. Really getting to the core of a movie's flaws takes more time and skill than most reviewers are capable of, and it's so much easier to just say "This part was really awesome, but the editing ruined the movie for me."
I've done the video essay thing a few times and it's much more difficult than talking in front of a camera for 5 minutes with minimal editing.
A critical (in this case video) essay is different than a film review, even a negative one, and they are allowed to be two different things. The negative reviews of BvS that I read and watched were quite nuanced.
+
Yes!!!!!!!!!!
The lack of establishing shots doesn't help either. Some directors like Ridley Scott has a talent for world building, while Zack Snyder has talents in cinematography and general visual design of film. Zack goes overboard and makes the film seem like a long trailer, failing to connect the scenes and establish the world. Zack Snyder is a very talented person, but maybe he should be a part of the film making crew, rather than a director. At least until he realizes his shortcomings and hires people to help in that regard.
Yup. I think he's absolutely brilliant. He does things that no other individual could. But he's very flawed as a director.
yep i left a comment saying the same thing in Mos and BvS you never really know where you are because there are so little establishing shots its kinda ridiculous that this guy got to make 3 big comic book movies in a row
strydom666 you are a fucking moron. You have no fucking clue what an establishing shot is.
Fundamentally he used those moments as guided imagery to harp on thematic relevance on a biblical proportion. i'm not saying i'm a fan nor does that excuse the product we got, but to paraphrase him he made a movie on the aesthetic of a comic book. I would say he rehashed some stories from the good book with some CS:GO skins to match the times and spun a wheel of fortune.
i think someone should just give him a good script.
"Disconnected" is a perfect word to sum up this movie.
@JoKing Care to explain?
Sidb wow. From a scale of one to ten how far up the mcus ass are you?
bigpimpdaddy69 people hate what they don’t understand
@@tomsiebert155 People who dislike the movie understand it fine. But personally, if there's something that irks me more than the movie, it's when people say that stupid line in defense of it.
Sometimes even that work when done right that is xD
Despite me really enjoying the film I agree with everything you say. Well done on being the first person I have seen to actually break this film down to a technical level to explain why they dont think it works compared to everyone else who say 'its bad because it sucks'
We did it several times and DC fans fucking annihilated us for it haha
There are many people who dislike this movie due to the many many more mistakes it has. Sure there are a few idiots who say "it's bad because it sucks". But for me the script was really clunky and unnatural, the pacing and editing was unseamlessly done (for example: barely any establishing shots) and but only a few characters had motivations (mostly only Batman). There are so many things to count, you can't just ignore them. If you like it then fine, but most people know why they don't like the movie and you can't just brand everyone who dislikes it as "haters".
Yeah we we're two critics who were super excited for it even after MoS and knowing that Snyder was directing it AND we could still see it was bad. We enjoyed it, but it was bad. People just couldn't seem to stomach that in our review and we copped major hate for it.
There's plenty of people explain how the story doesn't make sense in a sensible way. I think this just points out another major problem.
Breaking Banter Fellow Aussies! I watched your BvS spoiler review. I agree with your frustration with your thoughts on the marketing. I hate film marketing, after the second bvs trailer I told myself I would stop watching film trailers beyond perhaps 1 teaser or the first trailer of a film. I hate going in to a film and knowing whats coming. I also did a review on my other channel Blueprint Cinema, where we talked about the positive things because at the time we couldn't deal with how negative everyone was being. I don't think anything you said deserves to be 'annihilated by DC fans.' But what I meant by Nerdwriter's video is that it is very deep and thought out with a lot of time breaking it down, not just a discussion type review; an actual film analysis.
Damn firing a gun without loading is a perfect analogy. Keep making these kickass videos, so smart and entertaining.
Well, at least the Wonder Woman movie has a different director and different writers, so I retain a cautious optimism.
That said, I definitely agree that the problem with WB's movies isn't that they're not "fun" enough; the problem is that they're far more self-important than they've earned the right to be.
Snyder wrote WW.
Marq Vince
He worked on the story; he didn't actually do the screenplay.
Danny Malzahn
No; the term "self-important" is a synonym for "pretentious". The problem with Dawn of Justice is the same as with Man of Steel, and to a lesser extent, the Dark Knight Trilogy: They're all more concerned with making you think they're saying something than with actually saying something, or, for that matter, with consistent characterization, logical character motivations, coherent structure, or anything resembling competent screenwriting. What good ideas they have are exposited down your throat, and then immediately contradicted by the characters' actions.
Tl;dr: Dawn of Justice is just a badly written movie made worse by not having even a shred of self-awareness. That would be true no matter how "fun" it is. See also, Suicide Squad.
Danny Malzahn
I didn't provide evidence because it's a RUclips comment, not an essay, and I'm trying to keep things brief. Besides, I'm not really trying to convince anyone that DoJ is a bad movie; if you liked it, good for you. DoJ being bad isn't my argument, it's one of my premises. If you disagree with that, go have that debate somewhere else.
So basically you're allowed to voice Your opinion and STATE that WB's DC films are just self-entitled when it's barely just begun? A film universe that by this point has made it's OWN statement loud and clear that they're going for hyper-realism. So you see that right? REALISM. To a point at least. So you are not going to get Golly Gee Batman or Aww Schucks Superman that you, this guy and this gal, want.
That was 1930's-60's era quaint all-american values versions of these characters. Characters (like all DC's heavyweights) that are far more than just their stories/origins. They are GODS, among MEN. Dealing with the problems of MAN. Do you understand how frustrating we are as a race? We can be amazing, but we're terrible. To each other and to our own media -games, tv, movies, celebrities etc- (you could argue it's a self-perpetuating cycle of cannibalistic opinionated violence). I will concede that BvS Theatrical Cut felt much like Nerdwriter1 states, but when watching the Ultimate Edition you can't tell me that movie doesn't breathe, it's "moments" no longer feel as such. The music cues themselves (which is why I find it hilarious that he even used one in the video) are allowed to play from beginning to end. Giving you mood, tone, foreboding etc.. Giving atmosphere that was lacking before, regardless of one's BIASED opinions before hand. I.E. most people's problems, "THIS ISNT MY SUPERMAN." "THIS ISNT MY BATMAN."
When they should be asking, "Why?"
Why are my characters like this now? First of all, the only version of that character that BELONGS to you, is the one you first INTRODUCED to. You've never truly gained OWNERSHIP over that character. Their motives, what drives them, is all INTERPRETED by you OR the WRITER and their respective time periods that influenced it all. Why do we need these versions? Because I want to believe in such a fucked up place, the point of BvS btw, is that heroes of that 1930's-60's ilk CAN exist, but we have to get that point. Batman states, "Men are Cruel...Men are Good". Paraphrasing of course, but we may start at a dark place but that doesn't mean we can't crawl into the light. It doesn't mean we can't stand for more in a world that won't have it. That is DC in a nutshell.
If those same people are asking that, than in the end I guess it's just MY opinion, that if you're going to ask something of any media, you should expect it to ask the same of you back. I love Marvel but don't you dare tell me that any of their films has even attempted to tackle anything with the weight and gravitas that DC is Striving for. I say striving because at the end of the day, people can like or dislike what they want I just can't stand the idea that any story, or character for that matter, HAS to be a certain way or come across with SPECIFIC qualities.. that don't truly represent the character so much as the WRITER, or the ERA in which they were written. Hence, they are called ADAPTATIONS. Love your work Nerdwriter1 but I feel you could of tried a bit harder here and left a little more of your personal bias at the door.
It's always felt like a scene in a Zach Snyder film (and suicide squad by extension) are just trailers for the actual scenes. They showcase the "big moments" but never actually build up or earn them. Great essay.
Your comment makes no sense at all. How you earn a seen?
So pretencious.
@@marcelobertoni2967 You "earn" a scene by building to it, so it is more than image and has resonance in real character and story. The whole point of this video essay is that Snyder fails to "earn" his big moments because he fails to put them into compelling scenes.
@@ChrisMaxfieldActs the movie build those moments all the time.
Superman's rejection to the world. Batman abandoning his values for the "greatest mission" of human kind. We see progression and regression, and by the end a message of unity and hope.
"Batman abandoning his values"
What values? He's a violent thug from start to end of the movie.
Marcelo Bertoni people call this film pretentious. more specifically, pretentious people call this film pretentious. to me, that's proof that it is in fact not pretentious.
The fact that some people think the Martha thing was brilliant worries me very much
Ooh, scared little sheep can't handle the outside world.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you should be worried when other people do.
+Marq Vince 1-My nickname in school was black sheep, not scare little sheep
2-People like you, who invent things where there is none, are the ones who scare me, and there are lot of these in the OUTSIDE WORLD
+Caesar Augustus Well that's just disingenuous.
That was pretty dumb imo. It would have been better if in that moment Doomsday attacked the city so they were force to join forces to save the people.
TL;DR Zack Snyder could be a great photographer but not a great filmmaker.
Even then, a lot of the reason his movies look so good...is the cinematographer. Larry Fong (300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch and BvS)
+Elizabeth Comstock Pony !
Is he though? I'd argue that both Mad Max: Fury Road and the Revenant were very much style over substance movies.
nailed it! lol
I'd rather call him a good trailer director. Sometimes he produces exceptionally long trailers, called "movies".
This was the major problem of Man of Steel too, lack of humor was never what bothered me, it was that it was a two hour trailer.
"two hour trailer"
incidentally that's how I felt when I watched The Force Awakens.
That and the fact Snyder just gets out of control in the 3rd acts of his films. I honestly laughed when they kept stressing in BvS that the locations they fought in were clear: that just meant that Snyder could blow shit up with no consequences, and civilian consequences are what make climactic battles so compelling. Two people fighting has no stakes; two people fighting because one wants to hurt civilians and the other wants to protect them does.
I don't know. I'm probably wrong but I think Inception (my favorite movie) is 80% trailer paced and it works amazing. 300 also works. I think BvS don't have a fundamental problem, but several.
I had enjoyed Man of Steel quite a bit. There is a truth that constantly everything is presented bigger than it is. I think with the third act just being action I just stop caring and it doesn't actually look good enough to remain entertaining.
that's exactly what batman v superman felt like
This has literally taught me such an important lesson about film-making. thank you
If only Zack Snyder could see this. Or somebody should physically grab him by the scruff of his neck and shove in front of a screen and play this video for him, over and over again. Till he gets the fucking message.
I'm usually against this sort of thing, but get me a room with a chair and a screen and I'll find Snyder.
Like Batman found Mahtha
If only someone made that multi millionaire filmmaker sit through 6 minutes of subjective fluff!! We'd be better off!!!
He'd laugh at how pathetic this video is and how the idiot who made it didn't fucking pay attention. Shut the fuck up moron and go actually watch the movie and pay attention to what's happening. When will you idiots get the fucking message is the real question here.
+Auron1Roxas2 Seems like you need some Preparation H!
Zack just needs someone to answer to, or a partner at least to lasso him in. His vision has potential, and even though I generally enjoy Marvel films, what Zack is /trying/ to accomplish is a breath of fresh air. I want to see his vision of the DC universe succeeded. I want both companies to do better than they've been doing.
Warner Brothers doesn't do that to filmmakers.
He answers to Jeoff Johns now , who is akin to Kevin Feige at Marvel.
No they both answer to WB who owns DC. Geoff is just going to run DC Entertainment. He will make sure future movies and TV shows fully produced and writing the script for WW and the Ben Affleck Batman film.
Phillip Okoye Geoff Johns is co-writing the solo Batman film with Ben Affleck. But yeah, I see what you want to say.
"Batman could get raped in prison" - Zack Snyder
I dont understand what kinda vision he has
"The overused and unearned moment is DC's Greatest Foe" Just intellectually orgasmic
Pseudo intellectual
+Marq Vince Speak for yourself buddy. By all means though, keep doing what you're doing, we'll all have a laugh ;)
Ray Anders
Too bad I can't hear it though :/
Pseudo-intellectual meaning what, here?
Marq Vince Batman v Superman's intelligent, profound, oh, philosophical speeches in a nutshell. It delusions you into thinking the movie is about something deep, when it's not.
Nerdwriter1 I feel bad for DC not seeing your video...I mean really at 6:07 you said upbeat rock music batman jokes and Lightheartedness that's the exact thing they did in the Justice league....Once again it proved your theory that the tone isn't the problem....It's unearned moments....and Lack of actual scenes...
I think they actually created a new problem with the tone they tried to set in Justice League. DC has a strong identity, and that what the fans like, we don't want a light-hearted movie full of silly jokes a la Marvel....otherwise we would juste watch a Marvel movie, since that's their Cinematic Universe's Identity and they obviously do humor better. The attempted humor in JL was half assed and awkward, it didn't correspond the characters nor the universe (except for the Flash). It only added to the many problem this movie had.
I think Suicide Squad and Justice League blow just as hard as Batman v Superman. It's just 120 minutes of shit instead of 150 minutes.
Batman v superman was fine. It was spectacle over substance but how can you make a good superman movie? You cant. Just like you will never see a good avengers movie and cap america winter soldier is the best of the bunch among mediocrity. Instead of getting a mediocre movie with fantastic visuals and fight scenes,we got a complete garbage movie thats dumb, ugly and unfun. Im talking about justice league. This shit pissed me off so goddamn much. I think zack snyder was gonna make an epic trilogy. The injustice storyline on the big screen. Fucking hell....all thrown away because a bunch of marvel fanboys complained. There isnt a single scene in all of avengers thats as good as the batman v superman's batman saving martha kent scene. None. The fight scenes in avengers are garbage. The stories are laughable. The visual are mediocre. Let mediocre movies be at least a joy to watch. Nope. Justice league is your average marvel movie and yet people hated it. Marvep shit is the fortnite of movies. They are michael bay movies but lazy. Still they are a huge success. Fuck me i hate people. Masses would probably eat shit if it had the dumb marvel logo. And for what? Cheap,lazy, mediocre entertainment. Marvel became the big brother/kim Kardashian of this generation. I hate marvel. And now i hate dc too thanks to joss whedon. At least i get consolation on knowing that many people would agree that the whole marvel cinematic dumpster isnt even half as good as the dark knight movie. Thats hope.
@@kato093 holy crap bro its like youre in my head..i dont really hate marvel,i can enjoy their movies,but i know theyre not something special.at least bvs,in its own right,was and i loved the movie for it..Its sad were probably never get to experience something similar,a world too deep into marvel fangasm took it away from us,all we gonna get is cheap rehash batman and harley quin movies and i hate people for that aswell
BVS the ultimate earns its scenes ..I recommend Samual Otten's essays on BVS ..
So essentially the movie is more caught up in evoking a feeling from the visuals rather than evoking feelings through character connection?
Kale Vang forced character connections at that. most films tend to not give you a choice on how to feel about a character. Zack doesn't direct his films that way. he gives you a choice, and that's what filmmaking is supposed to be.
rocky047586 yeah it made us harder to connect with the characters rather
Essentially the film doesn't use the literacy of screenplays or movie-conventions to build up a good story. Its themes are too banal and one-sided and it flies all over the place with ideas that seem deep on the surface but meaningless because none of it sticks.
Nothing in the movie seems to be building towards a general theme before its cut off by a new subplot about something else entirely. It's a wildly unfocused movie in tone, genre and themes.
Sort of, it's more like it's trying to cash in on the culminated feelings of the audience, bring it all to a greater height ik a single point, without actually building up and culminating those feelings. So then the whole thing falls flat.
+rocky047856: Except that filmmaking isn't about letting the audience make decisions on how to feel, it's about giving the audience a reason to have those feelings in the first place. You can only care about making a choice if the film is successful at making you care about said choice in the first place. For an analogy, if I was in a relationship with a woman I might have to decide between staying with her, or leaving her. If I cared about that woman, the choice would be extremely difficult and profound; on the other hand if the woman was someone I didn't care for, any choice I make regarding her wouldn't mean a damn thing, requiring no heart-wrenching decisions on my part.
Snyder's scenes don't give you a reason to care about a character, therefore why should we even make a choice about how to feel about that character in the first place? A filmmaker or a storyteller is supposed to be able to make you feel about a character enough to care, whether it's because you want to see a character succeed, or you want to see them fail. A great storyteller of course is able to make characters that are deep enough that two people can feel very differently about the character and they would both be right, but that is reliant on the aforementioned point of us being made to care enough about the character in the first place.
man, you have completely verbalized what my beef with snyder is. the moment to moments connect the dots way he writes.
This video is so good that thrilled me a lot more than the movie itself.
YES.
you beat jay z, right?
funny, I've seen BvS like 10 times, but I thought about this too, and I admit to it.
that internet guy
if only i had that sort of stamina
That's because you're a fucking idiot.
"the overused and unearned moment" pretty much sums up my feeling of batman V Superman. I went to the theater three times to watch the movie. I love DC, and grew up a DC fan. Marvel being second because of the X-Men. BUT when I saw BVS I didn't know what I saw and couldn't capture how to describe it, so I saw it again. Still had the same feeling along with this emptiness about the film. Then the third time I went with a friend to see how he felt and maybe he could give me the right words. He thought it was ok, not great but ok. That didn't sum it up. This though, this sums it up. Good video!
Glad to see you find your answer!! How did you feel about the Ultimate Cut? It still suffers from the same problems but I felt Snyder tried in his own way to bring people into his universe..
That football scene Metropolis v Gotham for example.
Still I wish he would take advise from other seasoned directors. He has such a great vision.
@@shiskeyoffles I like the Snyder cut way more than the theatrical cut, but it's still has overused and unearned moments." Mainly on Superman's side of the storytelling. These live and die Snyder fans have to calm down because every director loves to learn how to make their vision better as long as the criticism makes sense. I think the line up is wrong, I think they should have done another superman and Batman movie to get them to the point we see in BVS.
look up Batman vs Superman Broken to the Core.
@@Dr.Beetlejuice110 whats sad is there was a planned Superman 2 without Snyder but they rushed out BVS with Snyder instead. And act like he planned everything..
@@TheYetixOUTx See I've always believed that at the end of the day, it was the execs at WB that decided that they want a Batman vs Superman movie before Justice League to catch up to Marvel. I don't excuse Snyder, because he is the director of BvS after all, but the rushing of the universe is down to WB.
I wish Zach Snyder would watch this
I wish you'd watch the ultimate edition
I saw it. It fixed minor plot holes but the film still suffers from a poorly written script and strange editing
+Nivan Sharma yep^
+Nivan Sharma strange editing? no
Nivan Sharma The script is not poor, not perfect but yea. and the editing is perfect in the ultimate edition. and nothing you listed in your comment was directly under Zack's control. he was given the script to turn into a movie and he is the director not the editor..... everyone is saying Zack sucks and that he shouldn't lead this new DC universe just because they saw the theatrical version... I think he is the perfect person to helm this
Zac Synder should make commercials, not movies. He's terrible.
My thoughts exactly. At best, he could be a cinematographer if kept on a short leash (or choke chain, your pick). At worst, maybe he could cut trailers or make 15 to 30 second commercials. But as a filmmaker, he just can't cut it if he doesn't know how to tell a story.
He started as a music video director...that's why his trailers are so deceptive...
wow, I'm betting you've never made a good movie in your life...telling a visionary with conflicted criticism to stop making movies. Please, no one cares about your puny worm opinions
Sri Harsha Wow! You can take your butt-hurt, cry baby ass and go fuck yourself!
He's a good director. This is what happens when producers force you to make a shitty script.
Wow. You just put it clearly in word what I have felt for a long time. Zack is trying to create visual masterpieces which is fine, but unconsciously at the cost of communicating the story. Great job explaining that.
This is why I think that Wes Anderson and his DOP are such masterminds, cause every single shot is its own moment, but is also a scene. Moments shouldn't replace scenes, but they can go hand in hand if you execute them right
I feel I learned more from your video than a whole day of lectures in film school.
Most film professors want you to think the way they do, not objectively
Joe Johnson So true.
I think this is one of the problems that affected The Hobbit, compering it with TLOTR.
Spot On.
This is so spot on I'm speechless. This is EXACTLY the problem with the Hobbit movies!
The Hobbit movies are summed up ny what bilbo said in Fellowship of the ring; it feels like butter scraped over too much bread :C
everything you guys said is true but what really fucked these films up for me as a huge LOTR and Hobbit fan was taking the filming from the most beautiful scenery of New Zealand to it's most boring green screen studios. same thing with the costume design! taking it from a realistic explorations of a fantasy world to a transformers-like CGI fuckfest. it just felt wrong. what Vaughn said might be an even better point, tho.
And don't forget the travesty of not using a single miniature--for shame, Peter Jackson!
I really hope people take this on board, because this is what our channel has been trying to make people understand about BvS since release and no one seems to want to listen.
because many people don't understand what makes a good movie
And thus cannot separate "liking" a movie, and a movie being "good".
+Breaking Banter exactly
It's too bad most people are tasteless and don't care. We're screwed. Hollywood makes shit, people lap it up and go for more.
Hey, love your guys channel. I have been subscribed to you guys for a while and haven't missed a video of yours since.
Anything will wear out if you overuse it. If you put too many jump scares, people will start laughing. If you try to awe them too many times, they will be bored. If you put to many get-to-know-me scenes, they will stop caring.
The winning recipe is balance and diversity. It always is.
WB should hire you to sit on Snyder's shoulder during shooting and editing, whispering little "No, no. Let it breathe; become" remarks into his ear.
I would hate to see a dumb down version of his.
Eh, all WB really needs to do is to stop trying to catch up to Marvel.
To stop being so desperate to create a "cinematic universe" and just focus on making ONE truly _great_ film.
i want this to me.
Paradox Acres Paradox Acres WB doesn't need to catch up to anyone there DCEU with these 3 films have already felt like a universes than MCU. Question for you? Where was hulk during winter solider or caps with thor 2 or thor when ironman 3 was happening i can go on n on. The reason why in the DCEU are coming together is because of this alien invasion THE MAN OF STEEL. The second film BVS we already gotten the trinity together with other heros out there, but since the marveltards and critics hate DCEU and worship the MARVEL D they make fun of wonder woman and batman for being in the film with no backstory but praise and love Spiderman and black panther in CIVIL WAR. Those character didnt have backstorys lol.
"Where was hulk during winter solider or caps with thor 2 or thor when ironman 3 was happening"
And where were heroes (especially batman and flash) during the attack of Midway City? :)
Good God, this is what I felt when I watched BvS! I felt like everything was overly dramatic/cinematic to the point of me (as an audience) not being able to feel connected to any of the characters. There is very little "character establishing moment" that puts emphasis on the character him/herself. Too much glaring/dramatic-sounding music, excessively dramatic shots, and somehow, I feel like even the dialogues do not make the characters relatable. I didn't see Man of Steel but from BvS, all I could see in Superman was an arrogant man who had too much pride in his powers without any sense of humility.
Superman was way more likeable in Man of Steel.
+Heysus Christo I kinda think that since Superman was raised by humans, at least he should have had some sense of human-like behavior that makes him relatable... but then again, maybe you are right. Maybe Nolan's Batman is relatable because its characters wreak havoc without superpowers
When I see a Marvel superhero movie it is very easy to relate to any of the superpowered individuals.
Especially thor and Loki, which while yielding god-like powers still are very relatable.
Maybe because Valhalla was well established, as well as the family dynamics between both characterss as their motivations. And their character growth from movie to movie also helps.
For example, Thor in the first movie was an extremely arrogant individual (much like Superman in the Snyderverse) but by the end of it he become more human and easier to emphatize with. Superman in the Snyderverse just continues being an arrogant douche.
''Superman was an arrogant man who had too much pride in his powers without any sense of humility.'' ???????? WHAT!? Where the hell did you get that idea!? Superman, or Clark Kent, who I saw in BvS was a troubled man carrying the world on his shoulders. World, that is at the same time either trying to pat him on the back or trying to stab him into back. He is not proud of his powers, he never has been, because having them made him different from those he grew up with and now that the whole world sees him as that different, he has hard time trying to see what is even the point being Superman when almost everyone(like you) is just going to shit on him because he is not human and are afraid what he could do with his powers.
+Arttu Lehmonen exactly. and he would have stayed as a human if zod didn't show up.
I think the dialogue falls flat too. The screenwriting is boring and often cliché at times. And I swear everytime a character makes one their inside jokes the camera stops for a few seconds so that the audience can pick up on it.
Well you'd need scenes for good dialogue right.
character development helps. scene development...well...development.
Nathan Trujillo
Depends on the movie.
I liked it in Guardians of the Galaxy, just felt out of place in Civil War.
It's boring because it doesn't make use of itself to set up the characters properly or to ground them in the fiction. It keeps "impressing" you with deep-sounding things. It has no subtlety.
Dialogue, Screenwriting, to list a few. Let's not forget the super weird Jesse Eisenberg Lex, which a good director would 'direct' to be better/different, or make a better casting decision. I mean, there's been so much Lex Luthor history, and that's the version we get?
Wtf was that jolly rancher moment, anyways? Improvised? Scripted? Who's crazy idea was that? We'll never know.
Suicide Squad has the same problem, except a little less awe inspiring and just more “oh that looks cool” with no payoff and without having earned anything.
Could you do a video on Hans Zimmer? A lot of the movies you feature had film scores composed by him and I think it would be cool to see you do a video on him
listen to this guy
I agree, I hope he sees your comment.
I agree, his music and scores really do hit home and I really want to see your take on him.
In the meantime, did you see the one he did on Howard Shore a few years ago? It's brilliant.
I would love that!
Make movies, man, I'll watch them (promise).
He made it already
Sadly analyzing film and creating it is two completely different things. Haven't you ever created something and been SO proud over it? Yeah. It's the same for any creator. The pride makes it hard to be objective on your own work
He's more like Joseph Campbell who was better than anyone at analyzing myth and meaning in stories but unable to successfully create an excellent one himself even though he tried.
No one would give a shit if this idiot made a movie.
+Auron1Roxas2 Eat a Snickers!
But the characters in this movie don't lack motivation, far from it.
- Bats wants to kill Supes because he sees him as an alien threat that might destroy the world. This is caused by his being angry and frustrated at how useless his 20 years of crimefighting have proven, eve leading to the death of Robin.
- Supes wants to arrest Batman because he sees him as a vigilante who breaks the law and Supes is self-righteous. He also is not very bright and easily manipulated by Luthor (granted, Bats also is in this movie, but you can chalk that to his anger and frustration blinding him)
- Luthor wants to kill Supes because he wants revenge at God for not protecting him from Daddy Luthor when he was a kid, and Supes is the closest thing to God he ever saw (I suspect he planned to get rid of the other metahumans in time, for the same reason)
- Lois motivation is doing her job as a reporter
- The Senator's motivation is having Superman accountable before the people and the government
Doomsday has no motivation, because it's a killing machine
Also, not a work of art, but the movie is essentially about a conflict between 3 men with deep family issues, especially Bats and Alex, but Supes is attached to his mother in a nearly childlike way, which makes it easy for Luthor to manipulate him. I grant the Martha thing was contrived (any normal person would have said "mom" instead of Martha, unless you say Supes was concerned about his secret identity), but the reason for Bats to stop was not the mere coincidence of names as, thanks to Martha Washington, Martha used to be a pretty common name. It's because it makes him realize Supes is a person, is morally and emotionally human, and not the mere alien monster Bats thought he was, and that the actual monster in that situation was Bats, as he was acting like those who took his mother from him and also took all the good things in his life from him, like the Joker.
Many of the moments you describe are indeed there for comic book fan service, as they almost literally reproduce panels and dialogue from Frank Miller's Dark Knight. I really had no issues with this movie. Somethings were silly? Sure! But you're right: Snyder's career is full of these moments. Just look at 300 and Sin City. He's always trying to make movies that look like comic books. Whether that's a problem, is another matter.
You make a good argument. But I don't feel as if the motivations of Batman and Superman really make sense Batman wants to kill Superman because he's a threat. But he'll happily murder just about anyone to achieve that goal and it just makes Batman not make a lot of sense and this is never really addressed
The problem is, why does Superman want to kill Batman? Ultimately we know that he actually doesn't because the red headed pipsqueak blackmailed him, but before when they first meet, we don't even understand why Superman wants to fight Batman.
+TCCWhitesmiths he only killed criminals
I'm literally so glad one person fucking actually understands the "Martha" Scene.
The real difference I find between this movie and most other superhero movies is that it refused to hold your hand.
The simple truth is, if you aren't a DC fan, you will probably not really understand 100% of the character's motivations, and I don't really care. Because Snyder is a DC fan and he made this for the rest of us.
+YourPalHDee I love both Marvel and Dc. But the movie sucked
I've been thinking about this video for the past few days because I revisited Scorsese's Casino and I think that movie is composed almost exclusively of moments. But that's not a problem, it's a great movie.
EVERYTHING in Casino is a montage sequence, not a scene (with the obvious exception my exaggeration allows). Everything is a compilation of short and fast shots, music, transition effects such as fades... And Scorsese even finds the right occasions to include symbolic images with no spacial context to make a point, to visually transmit a feeling not entirely related to the point of view through which the action is being told. When the shots last long enough, they're still very dynamic: Scorsese pans and tracks and turns the whole blocking into a oner, and such cases still don't feel as independent scenes because when they occur they come with a voice-over narration that is not self-contained in that particular moment, is a narration that precedes the moment and spills into the next.
I'm not saying everything in Casino is a moment because things happen too fast. My point is most of the times you couldn't put your finger on when a concrete, well-defined scene ended and another began because most situations evolve into the rest flowing through editing, not following the cause/effect logic most narrative fictions employ. And yes, you can follow and understand a linear story that evolves through time into the future, so it's not that radical. But the thing is, when you watch Casino, you can imagine a script was written but you can't picture how it read. It must've been so drastically altered, decomposed and fragmented in the editing room that those scenes from the script became moments in the movie (the way they go back and forth between two spaces at times to show how a situation A begins, a situation B develops and then how situation A ends instead of just showing situation A as a whole and then situation B, I feel very strongly comes from decisions made during post-production, not writing).
And I also think all these decisions were made to broadcast a single message that happens to be the same you express here: "BE AWED". The thing is, Casino uses that awe to show us how, behind that amazing surface, the lives of the vane and the corrupt are empty. That's why it's effective. And I think that's the problem with Snyder, actually, It's not moments, it's not the transmission of awesomeness... It's that, under that awesomeness, the connection the audience makes with Snyder's characters is as empty as the lives of the characters in Casino.
I think moments are not a defect by default. I think you can make very compelling movies with moments. I just don't see why you would choose to do that with Superman, portraying him as someone above us who doesn't really care about sharing joy with the people that reach out to him for help instead of showing him amongst us as a friend while he lends a hand. When he hovers over those people in the flooded neighborhood in BvS we can't even see his face, when the crowd extends their arms to touch him he doesn't even look them in the eyes. That's the thing, he's a Superman that feels miserable for having to be here and it's just pitiful to watch.
I didn't feel like that about Superman. The intention was portraying him as a God like figure who of course cares about people else why would he be there?
Nevertheless I'm interested with your analysis of Casino. So if montages are not the problem like mentioned in the video, what is the issue in your opinion?
@@shiskeyoffles The problem to him, and I agree, is that approach doesn't work for the kind of movie this is narratively. Structurally we're supposed to be really in touch with Superman because he dies at the end with this great sacrifice, that's supposed to fuel Bruce Wayne's desire to unite the Justice League. Bruce-another character we're supposed to feel a kinship towards as viewers. They are heroes, after all. In Casino, the theme of the movie is that these people are really shallow and don't see the big picture. They get caught up in the fakeness of their world and we're not supposed to root for any of them really.
Now, I could see an argument where in BvS we're also not supposed to root for either hero because they've lost their way or whatever. But the story doesn't support that really. I think it'd be a unique approach to keep these heroes at a distance instead of trying to make us attached to them, but the movie contradicts itself in trying to pull us into their arcs. You can't do both.
Lotta great points there. To your last one-I think it'd be unique to have a superhero movie where we're not supposed to feel too much empathy for them because they've both lost their way and gotten caught up in the "boys never share" idea of fighting each other. But the movie contradicts itself by having Superman sacrifice himself and expect us to care. The message of the movie is supposed to be (on paper, I think) that Superman was the better man and inspired humanity by the end. But we spend the whole movie at a distance from the characters because the movie is obsessed with itself instead of its characters. Again, that works in Casino because the film is saying something about vanity and greed. In a movie where we're supposed to be transformed by Superman's sacrifice it doesn't really work.
The Dark Knight did it so well.
The Dark Knight did about everything well. So what do you mean by "it".
U know... sex.
well, to be honest...Nolan's Batman movies kinda screwed up on the fight scenes (save for in "Rises". The 1st batman vs Bane fight was awesome).
And that's where our boy Snyder should have entered. Nolan is an EPIC director, but he insists on filming fight scenes because he hasn´t had no 2nd Unit by choice.
But Snyder is an excelent 2nd Unit director, but a poor Director.
Nolan's story + Snyder's fight scenes and iconic imagery = absolute fucking gold.
The Stark Knight Returns
He kinda screwed up in Batman Begins because it was his first movie with action.
The hand to hand isn't great in the Dark Knight but the rest of the action is. I have no problems with any of the direction of action in the Dark Knight Rises. Simply said Nolan has grown as an action director and I feel like Snyder may have becoming worse.
The Nolan films may not be a fanboy's cup of tea, but they elevated the comic book genre to heights higher than it had any right being. Begins is original character origins movie that introduced the gritty reboot concept you see today in Craig's Bond and Star Trek.... Dark Knight is simply one of the greatest movies ever made and the greatest Batman live action movie as of now. Rises is one of the greatest superhero movies and gives us something we've never seen before - the ending of a comic character (I say this coz comic characters aren't written to end)
I agree that this was a legitimate issue with the Theatrical release, but I believe Snyder's true ultimate cut fixes this main issue. Each of the awe-inspiring 'moments' has more weight because 30 crucial minutes of 'scenes' have been returned.
Nah, watched both and I couldn't tell a difference. I liked the movie myself, but I listen to arguments like this video here and I do agree. It had issues, lots of them.
I just watched the Ultimate Edition. Didn't see the theatrical version. The Ultimate Edition was tedious, plodding, and is a jumbled mess. It is trying to be a good movie, but alas, falls way short.
I would have to disagree. It makes the plots more coherent, but there still plots that aren't that interesting or really helping to explore the conflict between Batman and Superman.
Adding stuff to BvS couldn't fix it. No additions could fix Eisenberg's awful Luthor, the superfluous presence of Wonder Woman, the stiff fight scenes, or "Martha!". What BvS need was a lot of cuts and reshoots.
+CountBifford What?
There were no stuff fight scenes,
Presence of Wonder Woman? Nothing wrong with that.
And the Martha scene is you're personal problem.
As an audience member, I never connected with Batman's motivation. I love Nolan's interpretation and Batfleck was okay; but he never seem as intelligent in the l-a movies.
Interesting because I thought Batman's motivation was the only one that was clearly defined in the movie. Superman and his personal crap killed a few thousand people, he never helped out with the rebuilding effort, never apologized or took responsibility, and now he's acting like humanity's Jesus figure by intentionally acting more godly (slowly descending to the flooded rooftops, letting people bow down to him, etc). So yeah, in this version, fuck Superman cause he's a terrible person.
Commander_Ninja Motivated by the destruction to.....kill Superman? The leeway the film makers have is a HUGE turn off; Superman could've killed Bruce Wayne on several occasions even during the fight, I never felt Supes was in danger. So either Bruce rationalized he wouldn't (which means he not bad) or he's delusional and not very intelligent. IF Supes intentionally hovered above people to garner praise then he whack but I charged those scenes to directing style. ie, Rooftop flood scene could've actually been 1min slowed for drama. Not defending Supes, i hate every non animated SM movies.
Jairan78 I agree that Batman's logic was completely stupid. I was just explaining that I got his motivation. Everything that followed was a bunch of nonsense. Like... this dude just handled a ton of bullets like it was nothing AND he's saying "I just want to talk". Nah keep trying to murder him, Batman. Because everyone knows that Batman is all about cold blooded murder, right?
Commander_Ninja looks like both of you never paid any actual attention
Random Looks like you enjoy bad movies and pretend they're 2deep4you
I'm so pissed off that every score in the DCEU gives me chills. I love it how I can watch a video that's well crafted and uses this music because God knows that I can't get that from any movies in the franchise
Essentially, tell a story!
urmanascrewed Well, tell a good story. And Snyder and the other writer would have to start with basic rules of good storytelling, world building and character building. Which they did not.
DC EU - A series of unearned shortcuts to try and cash in on the emotional currency of nostalgia.
The DCEU is trying to be a bunch of paintings strung together to attempt to form something that they obviously weren't made for, that's the feeling I get anyway
damn, these guys should hire you to consult on their movies!
Telling is easier than doing.
he doesn't have to do anything other than what he just did in his video. Consulting just means helping from another relevant point of view to increase the quality. The work still lies at Zack & Co.
+Backspacer12 Why do so many people dislike BvS then? There must be a flaw. This guy is right.
+Backspacer12 No, that argument holds no water. Critics exist and their work is legitimate. Analysis is a useful endeavor.
The "if you can't do better than someone, you can't critique them" argument is probably the dumbest fall-back defense there is
I applaud you can critique your own student work. It takes a mature individual to admit that one's prior endeavors were less than successful.
I think most rational people hate their student work.
However, i'm fifteen, so what do i know.
Personally, I feel that "most rational people" do hate their previous/student work because they feel they can do better, and us as people are always striving to make things better. However, there is a difference between hating something and actually going in depth on why it was "less than successful". However, I'm only fifteen so what do I know.
that Man of Steel score though 👌
yes! movie stinks, but zimmer is always amazing
You mean Dragonheart 2.0? i kid but give it a listen for 6 veeery familiar notes.
Too bad he's done with super hero films.
The Wonder Woman theme was the best part of BvS.
That score was really the reason I went to see that movie. What a shame, too.
I feel as if Zach Snyder's compulsive use of color filters has always bothered me the most
I don't know when it truly started, but all color filters (the easily noticeable ones, anyway) have bothered me since _after_ seeing the Matrix. I was okay with it in that movie because it fit and seemed original at the time, but as soon as I started to notice it in others... it just bugs me now.
How is it compulsive?
Amen.
1. It's his cinematographer's job. Who is a friend of mine - Larry Fong.
2. He used ZERO filters. ZERO. It's all shot on film.
3. Stop listening to internet uninformed babble.
Lupe: Well, they made shooting on film look like digital with filters all over the place, then. So... good job?
It's always nice watching videos of someone who knows his shit.
I had such high hopes for this movie and while I absolutely love Henry Cavill as Superman he needs a better movie.
You can make dour and bleak Superhero films, no problem. I got annoyed when I heard they were reshooting Suicide Squad with the intention of inserting more light-hearted humour into the film (though it remains just a rumour), because for all we knew, going bleak and serious MIGHT have been David Ayer's vision. Maybe that tone was servicing a story we had yet to see play out and that was now getting stepped on. Fortunately we know it wasn't true but the point remains the same - it doesn't matter what tone you go for as long as it services the story. That's what's wrong with BvS, there just isn't a story, and the grim and gritty aesthetic is pursued more like some cheap device to make the material seem cool and mature. It also doesn't help that the filmmakers show no fidelity for those characters.
Ayer said that the reshoot was for action scences
The director of Suicide Squad completely debunked those rumors by the way.
BvS had no story? Looks like someone didn't actually watch the movie.
It didn't have a story just a bunch of random scenes lazily strung together.
Lord DJ Like how every movie is just a bunch of scenes stuck together?
so bat v sup was pretty much a feature length commercial film.
waaaaaaay
Complete with trailers to the future movies via email
Makes sense; Zach Snyder started out directing car commercials.
All directors start out doing things not movies
Would you do a follow up to this comparing say the dark knight to batman v superman to further prove how the issue is not with the dark tone
Connor Cooke I would also really appreciate this!
Besides Dark Knight had plenty of humor it just also took its storytelling and universe seriously. Great idea for a followup.
I mean you've pretty much made your point there.
This helped me finally realize something my film professor taught us about writing and why the way I write is well, terrible. Good stuff.
The fact that you declare Epic Storytelling as a "Fundamental Flaw" is problematic in itself. There's a lack of depth and insight in this analysis. You have to understand the difference between FRIENDS and The Odyssey, between Lethal Weapon and Troy, between Beverly Hills Cops and Othello; between Character driven storytelling and Epic Storytelling.
Is one better than the other? No. But they are different in the way they tell their stories and tbh Epic storytelling is more suitable for DC's heroes since they are gods who must be men while Marvel's superheroes are men with powers.
Could not agree more!
How is having scenes, not just moments, antithetical to "epic storytelling?" You never actually explained that.
drksideofthewal I never waded into those murky waters. His claims about so vague that they cannot be corroborated or debunked. Of course he was smart enough not to include scenes heavy on dialogue and emotion that propelled the story forwarding dramatic fashion. Of which there were several in BvS. But let's address your query specifically as a new subject:
Character driven scenes that delve deep into relationships are not the emphasis of "Epic Storytelling." The focus is on the grand sweeping themes of life and the spectacle of the story. In The Iliad by Homer there are no character moments between Achilles and Patroklos or witty banter to show how cool they were, but Achilles rushes into battle in a furious rage in response to Patrokolos' death on the battle field. The gore and savagery is described in great detail glorifying his violence. In today's World that would be seen as a plot hole and emphasis on a moment rather than a scene that develops the characters. But the Iliad is a epic tale, not a character driven tale. It's about hubris and vengeance - those epic mythological themes.
Audiences just expected something else and weren't open to adjusting their perspective.
What? So you're saying just because something is "epic", it doesn't have to have genuine, likable characters, or real character development? Hmm... I don't really believe that...
real character development like watching the Man clark has grown to be struggle with not being accepted by the world and eventually learning and realizing that he will never be fully accepted but that doesn't matter because you don't have to be fully accepted to do the right thing? The fact that Bruce spends months unwittingly being emotionally influenced into hating Clark by Luthor until he eventually is essentially taught that he was being manipulated but at this point its too late and all that has transpired and his part in it leads to Clarks death which makes him realize how lost he's been and how he has failed? or the fact that Lois, a pullitzer prize winning reporter spends an entire movie being a journalist and a girlfriend and somone who since Man of Steel leading into this film and to the end of it, grows into someone who understands that not all stories are worth chasing and that her own decisions as a journalist have consequences for others?
I'm sorry that a conflicted hero isn't likeable to you btw
Jesse Eisenberg's literally insane Lex Luthor also didn't help things.
Mutantcy1992 Exactly!
Mutantcy1992 he behaved like a meth addict.
God, that charity speech. I think that was the moment when shit started getting weird. Then I saw the Jolly Rancher scene and was like, did that just happen? Then the Martha scene happened, and I knew the movie couldn't be redeemed.
PlayerXIII Martha?!? Why did you say that name?!?
Whoa wait, our mom's have the same name? isokey superman, forget our fight from the first two hours of this movie. We frens now. Oh hey, is dat Wunder Women?
^literally the original storyboard
The biggest problem I found with BvS is that there is no theme. There's a plot, sure, but it means nothing.
Sure, a story needs plot, character motivation, goals, backstories etc. But it needs to mean something for us to feel involved.
The only theme behind BvS is "look how cool this explosion is"
You should make a video about how the WW movie did exactly this right, up until the last 30 minutes of it. The moment Diana says 'but it's what I'm going to do', climbs the ladder and advances in the 'No Man's Land' scene is as good as it is because it was earned.
"The overused and unearned 'Moments' is DC's greatest foe." Perfectly said. I hope DC and Warner Brothers sees this (and replaces Zack Snyder as director on future DCEU films).
Btw, how about doing a breakdown of how/why Civil War worked so well emotionally? Why are the vast majority of audiences members able to completely understand and generally agree with Cap's adamant defense of Bucky, despite Bucky's "crimes"? How much of that is thanks to the excellent emotional groundwork laid in CA: The Winter Soldier? (and how amazing is Sebastian Stan's Winter Soldier in CATWS? He had like EIGHT LINES in the whole film and yet, I left the theater having such a strong impression and understanding of his character. Crazeh!)
so much yes!!!
Not just that, but replace Charles Roven, the Producer as well. Roven let Snyder do whatever the hell he wanted and didn't let David Ayer didn't do his job in Suicide Squad. Ayer wanted the joker to be the to te main Villain but Ayer said "No, go for Enchantress" because, stupid reason, he didn't like Jared Leto. And I forgot to tell you that Warner Brothers gave David Ayer only 6 weeks to write a script. Clearly not enough time.
At that rate, we should replace Warner Bros too. Get Marvel Studios to craft the DCEU movies lol
I was more impressed by how 'Civil War' made me sympathize with Tony's decision to kill Bucky, despite the fact that Bucky is clearly innocent.
Thank you, the Justice league trailer came out and many people seemed to think that not being fun enough was the issue. It really isn't, it was just kind of a mess.
I am cautiously optomistic about that movie. Snyder was kicked off the main chair in favor of Affleck part of the way through shooting, and it's possible for him to fix the issues of moments. I do hope that we have a maximum of one montages in that movie, but I'm not going to be surprised if it goes to three or four.
All we can do is cross our fingers and sign the e-petition to get Snyder to go back to college.
Heysus Christo But will it make the popcorn taste better? Sometimes, the answer is yes. In BvS's case, the answer was no. I do hope that the JL movie does make me enjoy my treat more, but I am concerned about the current state of these movies. It doesn't need to be good, but I do need to be entertained. BvS didn't entertain.
None of what you said is true. Ben Affleck is just an executive producer to oversee how it is in relations to his Batman movie. No one is getting "kicked" in favor of someone else. Could Affleck have some sort of insight? Possibly. This is still very much Snyder's movie with a script written solely by Chris Terrio.
M Lee My bad. Apparently I was mis-interpreting the news. My expectations have just been lowered.
Ahh great analysis once again. I think that the obsession with moments also converts to great trailers for mediocre or bad movies. Just have a couple of awesome moments to put into the trailer and then the actual movie is a narrative mess.
I’ve never thought of it this way but your totally right! Nothing lands in this film because it doesn’t take the time to make the moments payoff to any other scenes we have seen. It’s just a bunch of moments we don’t care about.
The Ultimate Edition is better at building up the moments.
Basically it looks dope but has a crappy plot.
The EXECUTION of the plot is crappy. The plot is solid if done well.
Viwe Mbava civil war had basically the same plot and it did it very well.
but we understood the conflict and the characters
The exact problem with Sucker Punch.
^This whole video in all it's glory summed up in 1 simple phrase.
The ultimate cut fixes a lot the problems this video complaints about.
I've seen it. It doesn't.
It absolutely does not.
Actually, it does
the ultimate edition is a substantially bette movie
It fixes some of the issues but not all, i'd say the theatrical cut is a 4/10 and the ultimate cut is 6.5/10
I felt like this was a little bit of a problem with Star Wars VII as well.
Hot damn, you're right! Both these films felt entertaining yet empty at the same time.
Until now I didn't know why I felt VII had something wrong. This is exactly it. It has a lot of moments but not enough scenes. Even the prequels had scenes.
The prequels were nothing but scenes, with CGI cartoon battle set pieces spliced in. Talking, talking on couches, talking in hallways, shot reverse shot. Lucas went too far in the other direction, which is also a bad thing, but maybe that's why the prequels have stuck in peoples minds for so long.
What I also thought Lucas did right with the prequels was world-building. I mean, the Republic, the Senate, the creation of clones, the droids, and even pod racing, are all unique details Lucas added into the Star Wars universe. It's all complicated and unnecessary, but it gave Star Wars a bigger world than it seemed. Episode VII didn't really bring in anything but perhaps the new Stormtrooper uniforms, a different lightsaber design, and the money-making Kylo Ren helmet.
Completely disagree and this is from someone who thought Star Wars was just average.
I just watched the extended version for the first time today (after watching man of steel yesterday) and I know i'm pretty late but you're spot on, this is exactly how i felt. there were multiple "moments" where i said "wow that's stunning" but the film still didnt resonate with me, i didnt quite get to spend a lot of time with superman nor batman nor lex luthor because the movie jumps from one perspective to another and everything felt messy and disjointed.
I also dont need dc movies to be chippy and funny but the message that the movie is trying to convey should be delivered by the characters and we just dont get enough time to actually connect with any of them
JL is much stronger because of this, where it's apparent that Snyder made some concessions (whether they were forced by the studio or not) to restrain himself a bit. Ray Fisher stands out as Cyborg and Barry Allen has the setup for that great time traveling sequence in the climax of the film. Even Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot are allowed to just be their characters without the movie flexing in front of them constantly, which is what BvS is. And even Army of the Dead, which is not a good movie, but is more focused on its cast just being themselves in their roles. That's actually one of the more fun experiences in a Snyder flick for me, even though I was lucky enough to see that in the theater.
Wow, I found this really, really educating.
It was easy to follow, nicely narrated, well written, logical, and quite objective.
I don't speak very well English because I'm French, but I think that I understand the point of your video and I must disagree. Those "moments" which you are talking about are the main interest of this movie. Snyder brought to super-heroic movies, something new, something oniric and homeric. A vision that was totally absent from other productions of the same kind. His film is "clipesque" (in French). I don't know the translation for this word in english but I want to mean that his movies looks like video clips. I don't like 300 (I didn't like the comic-book in the first place, probably the only Frank Miller's comic that I do not appreciate) and Sucker Punch was really bad, with all the bad CGI bullshit. However, Watchmen was already really good.
But with BvS, his filmmaking makes sens like never before, because Snyder wants to iconize these heroes. He want to deify them, and take them seriously because super-heroes are a serious thing. It's a part of our culture. The super-heroes are icons, it's our mythology somewhere. This is why Snyder works a lot on the editing and the montage of his movies, and the composition of his photography (in BvS) is often clever.
I don't take this movie like a simple heroic movie. To me, it's nearly a peplum or a mythological movie.
I had this discussion with a friend who didn't like BvS and I explained to him that there is a true intention in BvS about our mythological need and our relation with the "Übermensch" concept. We need to be attached to a superior force.
We already can find theses interrogations in the DC comic-books. And I think that Snyder understands more than others producers (yes even Nolan) what is the nature of a DC comic-book.
And this is why all these "moments" are such importants in this movie, they iconize the characters. And the result is oniric in the moments of calm / peace and homeric in the action, which gives a fantastic movie, with a touch of darkness and serious. Like a good DC comic-book. The photography of BvS reminds me a lot the work of Alex Ross on "Kingdom Come".
For example, the moments when Superman appears in the sun to save people from the innondation. Or Batman, with his spear and his broken helmet, who looks like more a knight than a super-hero. All these moments is about mythology. David vs Goliath for example.
And seriously, taking the exemple of Josh Whedon to feed your argumentation, come on ! This guy is the cancer of super-heroes movies...
PS: sorry for the grammatical mistakes and conjugation stuff. It's pretty hard for me to explain my point of view in an another language. ^^
This is exactly what i tell people that say BvS sucks and that it was a mess, etc... Notice how nobody replys to you? Zack Snyder knows how to frame a shot, and the comic book genre movies is perfect for his style.
As a grammar tip for English specifically (only because you make the mistake multiple times)
_- "We can already find theses interrogations..."_ > The only error here is the extra "s" on the word "these".
_-"All these moments is..."_ > The error here is the word "is" in place of the word "are".
Rule of Thumb: When the *noun* (i.e. interrogations) is _plural_ or _singular_, the pronoun must follow suit (meaning, must also be _plural_ or _singular_ respectively). This is true for the verb "to be", or "is/are" in this case as well.
So, corrected, it would be "We can already find *these* interrogations..." and "All these moments *are*...".
DarkCyberElf (Mylon Requiem) Thank you for your tip. 👌
Jp Ropain You think the execution is poor (and it's your right, of course). But I disagree with that. When I watched BvS at the cinema, I got chills all along. It's a sign. I don't say this movie is perfect, or a masterpiece and that he has 0 flaw, but to me, it's surely a great blockbuster. And even if you think he is poorly executed, you at least admit that he has intentions. And it's already a great thing ! Because it's been awhile that a super-heroe movie brought something new, brought intentions in his filmmaking! All the Marvel Studios movies are copy / paste from each others (not sure about this sentence, I got carried away lol).
Carlos García Exactly !
5:57 - Oh... GOD. I just noticed the rebar crucifixes... I wouldn't be surprised if every station of the cross is hidden in BVS...
And your problem with crosses is?
There's nothing wrong with crosses, the problem is how obvious they are and how they lack subtlety and how Snyder keeps milking the Superman=Jesus imagery. The rebar crosses are the visual equivalent of the film going "LOOK GUYS, SUPERMAN IS LIEK JESUS BECAUSE HE DIED FOR US DO U GET IT?? GETT IT?? SYMBOLISM!!!"
its silly af
Snyder has no idea what to do with Superman, how to build his character. The cringeworthy Jesus symbolism is so lazy to a character who is supposed to be more science fiction-ish.
Weird how perception works. Because of the mentioned scenes, the pace and the overall negativity BvS is one of my favorites. I watched all MCU movies and loved them but BvS is what I expect from DC: Darkness. Marvell is brightness.
"The overused and unearned moment, is DC's greatest foe."
You said it buddy, you said it.
Excellent video. This definitely highlights one of the many problems I have with Zack Snyder as a filmmaker. Another issue I have with him is the emphasis he puts on violent scenes in his movies. A fellow RUclips member named kaptainkristian highlighted that particular problem with his latest essay on the adaptation of Watchmen from comic to film. I highly recommend you check that out.
I don't feel confident about the SDCC trailer for Justice League, even if they do give the film more levity. Because it doesn't fix the major problem the past DCU films have shown: Zack Snyder cannot tell a story unless it's an adaptation. And even adaptations like Watchmen feel hollow when compared to the source material.
He has his opinion and perspective, it just happened to resonate with you, I personally didn't come to similar conclusions of his.
Zack Snyder did not understood the Watchmen graphic novel, instead of portraying a trope of losers subverting the superhero arquetypes, he made them seem heroic, tormented and edgy and that isn't the point.
Zack Snyder's abylity to make violent stories look cool is in direct correlation to his lack of understanding about morality and character motivation.
Suicide Squad may not have been directed by him, but it was supervised by him and it has similar problems
Hopefully Geoff Johns is gonna fix the problems, since his cartoons had much more character and story build.
Sebastián Gómez Letelier I'm not sure I agree about "Watchmen". I enjoyed the film and was inspired by it to read the original for the first time. The book has more depth and complexity of course, but the film seems a fair representation of it. But possibly if you come to the film already having a familiarity with the book, that gives you a different perspective? (I'm talking here about the Director's Cut, by the way.)
It's still an entertaining and thought provoking movie. But those merits are literally present in the graphic novel, same as 300.
Adapting a visionary comic directly from the panels made Zack Snyder's fame and fortune, but there is more to this medium than pretty visuals and slow motion action scenes
I personally am not a fan of Zack Sniders style. I don't think he did a good job with 300 or the Watchmen. All of his stuff doesn't "run" well, and is over-dramatic. Overuse of fake looking scenes and slow-mo.
I like 'realism' more than I like overdramatic. Christophers Nolan did great job with his 3 batman films, and each one was more entertaining to me. Also, he lacks any ability to draw forth 'lightheartedness'.
And it's coz of Nolan's success with realism that inspired Snyder to follow suit with an alien in tights. Realism works best with Nolan's Batman coz it's not trying to be "accurate to the comics".....
He's such a bad director I hate him
300 was good fun. Different type of movie.
And it's very self-contained. It's hard to buy all the ''realistic'' and ''serious'' approach when the last 30 mins is pure CGI orgy with giant cave troll.
I think 300 is the only good movie he did, the campy, over the top testosrone situations, lol It fits pretty well. Like Watchmen, he simply copied every comic panel like they are literally the storyboard. But Watchmen had too many contemt, the movie is bloated. Now 300 had the right amount of content and iconic imagery. Not a great movie by any means, Snyder never did anything "great", but as entertainment goes, 300 is a cool movie.
Returning to this because the SC suffers greatly from this.
I disagree with so many people about how it's the same movie, just inflated.
Well also moments at the expensive of logic.
1.Batman the worlds greatest detective being suckered at every turn.
2.Lex's plan making no sense what so ever.
How did Lex's plan make no sense?
1. the flash, Wonder woman, cyborg, and aquaman can't kill superman. 2. Batman is not only the world's greatest detective, but also the world's greatest tactician with access to extremely advanced technology, so if anybody can kill superman, it's batman. Especially after Jason Todd's death, he's less reasonable and more angry, so he won't second guess himself like the other metahumans would 3. He was gonna take over the world with doomsday, duh. 4. He wanted to occupy both batman and superman at the same time by making them battle each other so Lex could complete his plan. 5. He blew up congress to make superman look bad and for revenge against the senator who denied his import license. 6. He initially tried to do it legally because he thought everyone would be on his side in the wake of the events of "Man of Steel"
***** Actually i forgot that wonder woman's sword actually can penetrate superman's skin, and i guess the flash COULD kill superman but it would be incredibly hard to do so, he'd either have to travel back in time or find out what vibrational frequency superman has and then stop his heart. Two things lex doesn't know he can do, as far as we know. Also,maybe he wanted superman to be distracted with batman so he wouldnt know lex was making doomsday until it was too late. Maybe the plan was to have superman kill batman and then get killed by doomsday. But you're right, the film doesn't give us any explanation. But I think it makes sense. I based what I said on the Lex character I observed, not what the movie said, since it actually doesn't say anything. It's open to interpretation. Nobody truly knows what Lex's plan really was since he doesn't explicitly say his plan. I was just saying sense can be made of what happened in the movie. And in the scene with congress, idk if its in the theatrical or ultimate edition,but the congresswoman looks at the jar of "Granny's peach tea" and realizes it's piss, alluding to the earlier scene when she says "give me a jar of piss and call it granny's peach tea, I still won't drink it." well Lex does get her to drink it, and kills her along with the rest of Congress. That screams revenge to me. and superman got a lot of bad press about the bombing so I dont see how what I said "made no sense". I'm just saying there's sometimes more to films than what actually happens in the movie, sometimes the audience has to draw its own conclusions.
Though I did like BvS, I do understand the issue of characters being portrayed as part of a bigger theme rather than them being characters themselves, and so I found this video really helpful. It's an idea I never thought of too much, yet I see how that could bother some people, as they except these characters, especially those with such presence and recognition like Batman and Superman, to be using to follow their struggle and not to be use as a plot device. Though this is true for certain films, I think it's worth disclosing that it's for certain films and especially certain characters. BvS is about following Batman's struggle with accepting Superman's humanity, Superman's struggle with demonstrating his humanity to the public, and Luthor's struggle with protecting himself from the mistakes of those with power, so it requires them to be portrayed as characters and not symbols or embodiments of ideals or opposing forces rather than people with aspirations, motives, and simply human...
...reactions and nature, but the film isn't necessarily about these other characters. The movie jobs it to make the story have meaning with its audience, and having those characters seem feasible as characters is enough, as that's what the story hinges on. Just wanted to point out that depending on the film, their characters can be portrayed to be a certain way or not, and not all need to feel as feasible as possible.
+ThatDopeChannel Exactly, that's what this video essay is getting across, that the film should always be focus more on the story rather than making something memorable. I'm just saying that it's definitely an issue with directors, but I just wanted to add that the idea that certain characters need to be invested in an equal degree in every film is not true, as the investment for different films can be focus on different aspects or more importantly specific set of characters rather than all of them.
Thank you, I watched it again last week and these were my thoughts!!! the "Grim Tone" was never the problem
I think it should be mentioned that no critic disliked Batman v Superman because it was too dark, or complex, or serious, or they wanted jokes and fun. They disliked it because it was a boring CGI explosion fest, because the writing was bad, and the characters were overgrown manchildren. Batman v Superman is a teenager's idea of what a mature movie must be like, and its rampant immaturity is plain to adult critics who have actually seen mature movies.
Violence and grim, miserable darkness doesn't make a mature movie, real people with real emotions and real problems makes a mature movie.
Actually, they didn't like the tone. And its largely because they think Richard Donner's 1978 Superman is actual Canon and an accurate portrayal of the character.
Negative. It was a version of the characters they didn't understand. Most complaints were about Batman killing or why is superman so sad. It's all in the story.
Explosion fest? How is it different than an avengers movies explosions? There was only explosions in the intro- which everyone loved. The capitol bombing- an hour in to the film later. Then the Doomsday scene. Not the batman v Superman fight. Not the Batman rescuing Martha scene. Explosion fest? I think not.
What makes the characters manchildren? Pleas explain this if you possibly can. I guarantee you it makes no sense. You heard someone else say it- you disliked the movie and now you say it too.
The problem is more so with Audience dick riding. People got something they liked with marvel and their short sightedness has them thing "oh, this is the way to do it. This is the way to make me happy as an audience member. DC should do it this way."
Not taking in to consideration that the two are different.
Well, you got what you wanted. Justice Leauge was everything complainers like you yearned for. That is you on screen.
Yikes people actually defend these terrible movies? (Im referring to posts right above mine)
yes, there are a lot of good things about Mos and BvS. Nerd Writer doesn't know what he's talking about. Plenty of filmmakers make films based on moments. Nerdwriter represents all the Hollywood gatekeepers who would of prevented tarantino and PT Anderson from having careers. His critiques are based on the old film 101 this is how you do it and never take any artistic liberties that give us new things. Plenty of direcortors work are predicated on moments.
In the words of Red Letter Media from their "Man of Steel" review, "This is a movie tailor-made to make trailers out of."
I believe that Zack Snyder's message in films isn't about being awed or crafting moments. I would argue that his films don't link with the plot but with more on a thematic level. On rewatching BvS, I noticed that the scenes build on the themes of the philosophy of Carl Jung and existentialism being intertwined deeply in the story. Zack Snyder takes a more meta approach when making films, everything in his film means something else, he likes to look at stories on a broader level. This can be seen in 300 when the story was about how stories, myths and archetypes inspire and influence us, immersion was the point and how we become a part of the story and we believe the world presented. The use of slow-mo represents the immersive outlook. With Watchmen being about our heroes degraded and deconstructed, how we find hope in a world with nothing to cherish, nothing to believe. Sucker Punch and Legend of the Guardians was more about stories and beliefs being meaningless, for the true meaning is inside us. The DCEU was supposed to be the anti- Snyderverse, as he planned to delve into stories confined within a world and with the characters. With this, he decides to add philosophical ideas, such as existentialism into his DCEU films. Zack's the kind of director that you either fully understand or you completely disregard. When one looks at the meaning underneath, his films are a lot more than just moments or style v ssubstance.
I'm a subscriber to the James Cameron school of thought that you almost NEVER use slo mo in an action scene. It looks cool but it robs the scene of it's impact. It's thwack, as I call it. There's a scene in avatar where Cameron uses slow motion to show that the lion clawing at Sully's backpack in an attempt at clawing him. Then sully slips out of said backpack. Narrowly escaping a mauling. This is the only time in Cameron's career where he uses slo mo. And this is the reason why I'm one of the only people I know who didn't like 300. A film shot entirely in slo mo.
My memory might be wrong but I remember many other slow motion in Avatar, specialy the final battle.
Thadeu Antonio Ferreira de Melo Oh. I've studied Cameron's films, shot for shot. He uses slo mo plenty to build suspense BEFORE the action breaks out (like when young John Connor first sees the Terminators). But the second the action starts, it's full speed ahead. That's why that small part stands out so much. It's not the only time he uses slo mo, action in Avatar. It's the first time he's done it in his career.
I agree. Slo-mo in the midst of action is incredibly shallow. It should really just be employed to facilitate story / emotional poignancy.
There's plenty of slow motion when the Home Tree falls.
Yep. After the action has stopped, for dramatic effect. Like I already (and Cameron) said. Christ people. Ya think I'm just pulling it out of my ass? If I didn't already hear Cameron say it dozens of times, I wouldn't embarrass myself just making shit up. I'm not the president elect, afterall 😊
We don't live life one moment at a time. Life is fluid, connected, and realistic. A movie that tries to connect these to it's audience will always be better.
The other problem is that movies like BvS and shows like Daredevil are trying to ride the "dark and gritty" Nolan wave, without understanding that those things aren't what made them great. It was because they were completely serious and addressed serious themes and issues, and every single component of every frame and audio byte is in service to that seriousness.
You're completely right. Comedy wont help DC (even though levity wont hurt), a good script and good director that wants to make a movie about characters and the issues they face in their grounded worlds will.
superman is nothing but moments and so are hero's in comics. he's powerful, you can't have a 2 hour superman movie and just have him use his powers at the end(superman returns) and you can't have him use it all the time(MoS and BvS) without complaining how it's not what you want it to be. It's a different style of filmmaking, doesn't make it flawed. my opinion is that the movie was a near perfect comic book movie. the pace of the scenes were like panels and pages.
But if it's not set into a comprehensive story, the moments are meaningless. It's like assembling a bunch of cool panels together with little cohesion beyond making sure that they make sense next to each other, but not necessarily as a whole. A good comic has great moments (that's why panels work so well for the medium) set into good stories. Otherwise it's just pretty art without a deeper emotional impact. It becomes eye candy with no story.
William Wood i disagree. There is a story, to all movies, including the tree of life. A movie with nothing but moments. Art is subjective.
If you replace what you said but with transformers
I liked the Tree of Life... art is subjective, but there are movies with more or less thought put into its structure. The Tree of Life had purpose to its lack of consistent narrative flow, as it was grasping at the idea of fluidity of everything on grand and small scales, the interconnection of all things, from the universe, to dinosaurs, to the coming of age of a small boy in a home with a distant and abusive father. It used disconnected moments to ironically spearhead its idea of interconnections between everything. Meanwhile, at its heart, Batman V Superman should have been a character piece about two superheroes that are both oppositional and complimentary, not just a rough framework to put in breathtaking scenes with little substance. Yes, it is a superhero action movie, so it should have awesome shots, but Christopher Nolan and Joss Whedon have both proven that a superhero movie can be visually stunning and intellectually compelling at the same time. I seriously doubt Zack Snyder put as much thought into BvS as Terrence Malick did into Tree of Life.
Please bear in mind that I have no idea about film making or scene structure (that's why I watch nerdwriter) but BVS's biggest problem for me that I was bored pretty much all the way through the film and disappointed by the way that scenes were handled (Martha being the obvious one). Nolan gave us TDK, we know that we can have genuine dark, serious and entertain 'superhero' films. Snider dropped the ball big time.
i completely agree, yet i loved the movie because of it. felt different, was different.
aaayyy lmao
LegendarySpartan117 yea
sup tho
+LegendarySpartan117 love your channel man
A very superficial point of view. Just turn off you brain and enjoy the visual noise, just like transformers.
+Edgar Sanchez (eD) that's very elitist of you to say that! If the guy liked a film you didn't, why is his opinion somehow invalidated? And what makes yours anymore valid?
Had a perfect opportunity to end with the line "is DC's greatest -foe- kryptonite"
Thank youu. I loved BvS despite its many flaws, and you just hit the nail on the head. Moments on moments on moments dilute the awesomeness of the occasional "moment". The justice league trailer was soo underwhelming to me and you said it perfectly. "Some Batman jokes and upbeat rock music won't fool me"
The fundamental flaw: hiring Zack Snyder.
you've been sucker punched!
Fundamental flaw: Zack Snyder
Wasnt Watchman quite cool, tho?
Watchman was Good, but the Watchman Comic is not good, is Era Defining, so anything with it is bound to be cool, BUT it could have been better, A LOT BETTER, Snyder is a good director, JUST A GOOD DIRECTOR, he is not outstanding.
+Zarathustra As if you need to think much watching a Zack Snyder movie
Someone give this guy a job with DC moviemaking.
He already admitted in this video that he wasn't a good filmmaker.
Pretty sure every filmmaker says that. It's in everyone's nature to doubt their work IMO
+Adam Jones There's still a huge difference between filmmakers who continually strive to get better and those who already gave up on their craft.
Someone give the guys on RUclips with background in film and storytelling making video essays like this jobs with DC
I disagree about the motivations part. I thought they were clear. And they revolve around faith, whether they are specific to one character or to the discussions that rise from their interactions (ex.: theodicy, individual action x state intervention, etc.).
Batman has lost his faith in the mission and the values he has set for himself. He is the good guy who didn’t stay good. He doesn’t see the point of fighting crime in Gotham anymore and needs a new sense of purpose. His resentment towards the aliens who killed so many people in their “quarrel” is directed at Superman, who is the only one left and pretty much becomes evil incarnated. Hence why he wants to kill him.
Clark is lost. He doesn’t want to be a higher power, he just wants to be a good guy. The Superman we know normally represents justice, hope, honesty, virtue and so on. But those things sound like fairy tales in today’s world. We are facing a huge crises of trust in institutions, people, society and even ourselves. It’s part of the reason why a lot people fear/resent the powerful: since nobody can really be trusted, everyone who has power over me is a potential threat. Clark certainly wants to believe - that’s why he tries so hard to stop Batman from branding criminal and continuing his “one man reign of terror” as we see with more details in the ultimate edition - but everything around him points the other way.
Lex rejects the idea of a higher power. He wants to “snatch god out of the sky” by proving Clark is neither powerful nor good enough and he temporarily succeeds. When the two of the talk at the helipad, he bring Superman down to his knees by showing he can’t save his mother without becoming a murderer. Ultimately, he loses when his plan to pin Clark and Bruce against each other backfired. He might be a genius, but he underestimated them.
And then you have Sen. Finch, who is pretty much the voice of reason and, just like in real life, is quickly silenced. She doesn’t waste her time on many of the questions that trouble the other three. To her, Superman is a reality that needs to be dealt with. Good or bad, god or man, she wants to define his place in this world through rational and democratic means. But listening to reason is out of style these days, so people prefer to be ignorant, impulsive and guided by the feelings.
Eventually both heroes are redeemed: Clark decides that, regardless of what everyone else thinks, he believes in goodness and justice, making the ultimate sacrifice for humanity. Bruce realizes that he has fallen from grace and is inspired by Clark to believe again. In that light, the two of them are not special because of their abilities/accomplishments - they stand out because, in a world of non-believers, they found something to put their faith on.
As for the poor use of locations, I agree that they were underutilized, but that didn’t stop me enjoying the movie. I was so caught up in characters (I really liked Alfred btw) that it wasn’t that big of a deal to me. Also, soundtracks and photography were spot on - a lot of the frames made me feel like I was visiting a museum. Dialogue could have been better, but the “moments”, as you call them, were connect well enough, specially in the director’s cut.
Overall this movie get way more hate than it deserves. If it hadn’t come out in a time when superhero movies were supposed to be just like amusement parks (nothing against amusement parks, sometimes you just want to be entertained) that focus mainly in external conflicts, it would have done a lot better.
You're on point. The Snyder Cut also deals a lot in faith, particularly on Bruce's part.
Shitty essay, try again later.
@@zhengyingli no. Shut up.
@@anantsharma7955 How am I wrong? Bruce Wayne explicitly states that he's operating on faith rather than reason in the Snyder Cut.
@@zhengyingli you shouldn’t waste you time on him. Someone who calls an essay shitty without stating his reasons (and then tells you to shut up because they don’t like what you said) is clearly not willing or capable of having a rational and civilized discussion. What is even the point of telling a random stranger online that they are wrong about something without saying why? It’s just a pathetic cry for attention.
BVS was an awesome movie! yes it had flaws but when someone says the characters didn't have motivations and it's only a montage of scenes, doesn't really understand the movie or didn't watch it properly.
Also when the guy talks about short scenes in the daily planet, what would you have them do? put in 30 minute scenes in the daily planet? or concentrate on the main story? this guy is like the critics who stated that MOS was missing the touch of old superman movies which showed superman saving cats out of trees.Did you just pay £10 or $15 to see superman save a cat out of a tree?
Oh I understood the movie perfectly, doesn't stop it from being incredibly stupid.
I think he did a good job framing this. He's not saying we need to stay in the Daily Planet for half the movie, but the scenes there aren't framed in a way to make it feel like a real place (rather than just a setting for exposition to happen). They say things important to the plot in hurried 20-60 second bits but spend 40 seconds elsewhere slowly watching Superman's cape flap in the wind. Then they chop out a bunch of important characterization scenes to keep the runtime under 3 hours.
Rather than have 70+ cool looking moments, he's saying it would be better to have a few awesome looking moments per movie and take your time on the rest of the movie crafting an organic setting to give those moments when the heroes are in danger or the people are dying more weight.
I think TDK is the last DC movie to do this well. When you see that guy getting murdered on video tape, or those people running scared from the Joker's terrorist attacks rioting it sets up the mob mentality that seems like something that could really happen. And when it comes down to one person having to be the one to flip the switch and blow up the other boat, the emotions that people go through when making that choice feels real too. Even though there's not a fight scene on those boats, there is still tension that engrosses you in the movie during that climax. If the people of Gotham were nothing but set dressing, that fight between Batman and the Joker would've lost a lot of meaning.
Hope that makes sense.
I think the criticism is that the movie focuses too much on being "awesome" to detriment of other aspects of the film, like storytelling--i.e. the movie is so full of "awesome epic moments" that there is no room to build up to those moments, so they feel unsupported and undeserved. The criticism of motivations is not that the characters have no motivation. It is that the motivations are contrived and inconsistent. Batman's whole motivation for
The criticism of the daily planet was not to say that these particular scenes were what brought the movie down, but rather it was an example of how the movie has little in the way of fully fleshed out scenes--scenes that would service the storytelling, characterization, and build up to those awesome moments. So, the suggestion is not that they should put in 30 minute scenes of the Planet (though it could be done in a way that improves the movie), but rather, the movie could have been a better film if these other fundamental aspects were given more attention.
I had fun watching this movie. Some of the sequences were a joy to experience. You mentioned it had flaws. If these weren't some of the flaws, which flaws stand out to you?
Made perfect sense, @D-man!
Or is not actually a big fan of graphic novels.. :)
(Has even not watched the movie thoroughly as he says that the longest scene takes place on the island where doomsday destroys everything.. whereas that fight take place on Gotham docks and not on the uninhabited island)
I really have noticed Zach Snyder's lack of establishment of character motivation or future plot elements. It's why I find his adaptations better: he's got source material he needs to follow. Otherwise, it feels like he disregards the importance of the build up of a plot or proper motivation in the events of a movie.
He needs direction. A better writer or source material to follow.
He's absolutely right. But 300 was a good movie, and it wasn't made of only "moments"... the locations were SO important, they're of major importance to the movie's plot, and they build up almost every single scene...I don't get your criticism of 300 in that way. Watchmen is full of "moments" but is a GREAT movie. I think what batman v superman lacks, more than scenes, is a goddamn script. The script was a MESS, nothing really made any sense.
What is the basic division of a script? In other words, if one wanted to refer to a particular location within a script, what would one generally say? For comparison, in a novel, one might say, "chapter 4, the third paragraph."
The real question is: Why are you asking me this?
Scripts are divided by acts or phases. If you wanted to find the location where the character decided to make an executive decision, you would find the turning point. Scripts have distinctive arcs called rising action and falling action.
I also enjoyed Watchmen and, to a lesser extent, 300, but I absolutely agree with his position here. I think Watchmen works because of how thoroughly it mimics the source in a page-to-screen kind of way, almost like a $200 million motion comic, and 300's reliance on 'moments' is supported by having such a simple plot and constant narration to carry you from start to finish. But I think both movies suffer from Nerdwriter's criticism in that both leave you somewhat emotionally detached, feeling like you're watching something instead of BEING somewhere. To me, anyway.
And you are both absolutely right about BvS's script, watching that movie is an exercise in suspension of disbelief like no other. Because the answer to every question you ask yourself is, "to get to the next shot."
Derek Didear What made 300 good was our emotional attachment with Leonidas. We got to see his back story when he was a kid and we spent alotta time with him, getting familiar with his character and disposition. Plus, Sparta was posed by an inconceivable threat of slavery and destruction.
That incites sympathy from the audience. Compare that to Snyder's eternally depressed superman.
This is the problem with Snyder. He makes his films look 'good' but that's about it. He chooses style over substance.
Varun I completely agree. Sometimes they end up well, but other times mot so much.
so you are saying that the only thing snyder has is "he make his film look good" just this ?!
"He understands the power of iconic images, but he also understands the people behind them." Christopher Nolan on Zack Snyder
Every movie has astyle
Yes. Snyder is so focused on the visual aspect of film making that he ignores basically everything else. Like Michael Bay, when all you focus on is the visual impact, you get a very impressive looking movie that struggles to do anything else.
Throwing in a quote from Nolan isn't an argument in itself, and Snyder's films do a great job of contradicting Nolan. Compare the Nolan's superhero movies to Snyder's and you'll see the difference between someone who understands how to make a great film, and someone who understands how to make cool pictures.
The style is like a comic book. That's why it was done.
Comic panels are all moments.
I agree. I'm simply commenting that Synder drew too much from the source. There were many times when I said, "oh, just like in Dark Knight Returns." I get it.
I really hate the Jesuschrist imaginery of Superman. It is so over the top under Snyder's lens
José Gregorio Zapata Well, Superman is like Jesus even in the comics
Do you just not like it under Snyder's lens or are you talking in general? Because Superman is purposely allegoric in relation to a God or Jesus in particular.
Through Snyder's lens, you see the imagery used so often that it becomes numbing. There's a comic, Kingdom Come, that deals with religious/mythological DC imagery in a far less pretentious manner, while still upholding a functional narrative with character arcs and motivations. Snyder has a tendency to overcompensate with these "moments", because there's no substance elsewhere
+Travis Gunn
Superman was created by two Jewish guys, he definitely was not intended to be allegoric to Jesus.
you dont read superman
I disagree with the problem of Batman v Superman. I think the problem is that the motivations and the way they change doesn't work (e.g. the pivotal scene of the movie where Batman stops his fight because Superman's mom is named Martha). This could be fixed without removing a single beautiful, epic moment. However, I really like Snyder's other works.
Exactly. The motivations are weak because the story wasn't the priority.
+M.Knight Shamwow what did you mean by necessity of film?
+M.Knight Shamwow can you name a few then?
This is a brilliant critique and I learned a lot about cinema from this. I'm actually a huge Snyder fan. I love his style and his approach to making movies. I can admire his work, even BvS, at the very least because it does feel like an artist makes it. It's not made cynically by a group of three piece suits in a boardroom somewhere trying to sell tickets to children. It does feel like it comes from the singular mind of one director. That being said, you hit it on the head. It's like his movies are constantly reminding you that they're movies. But that comes at the expense of connecting with the characters. For some films that are driven by its satire that can work: Watchmen and 300 are two of his best for this reason. They're built on the sense of humor of the film itself. BvS however, plays it straight with a complex story which requires the movie to serve its characters and narrative.
To be honest, I felt like the farmhouse scene in Age of Ultron was incredibly out of place and unnecessary.
I thought Batman v Superman was a great film, especially the Ultimate Edition. When I listened to your definition of scenes, I thought of a few scenes from the Ultimate Edition, where we get more character motivations and scenes of Clark Kent reporting. Every moment and every scene in BvS, regardless of its overall feeling of awe (or lack thereof) serves the story of the film. The AWE of Superman is meant to show how powerful he is. The AWE of the film as a whole is to the benefit of the atmosphere of the world that will be expanded through further DCEU films.
And don't give me any of that "a film should be able to stand alone" crap when you wouldn't be able to enjoy Age of Ultron without seeing any of the previous MCU films, no-one complains about that kind of stuff when it comes to film trilogies with an overarching story, so why can't the DCEU have Continuity Lock-Out like Star Wars or Harry Potter?
Nerdwriter's reviews and commentary are always on point, he is the reason I found my fave movie, Children of Men and Coherence.
WOW! What a annalysis and acurate perceptions of
the subtleties of a film. You're good!
I honestly love the movie, regardless of these points. The third act could have been better though, but WB did fuck up his plans for his movies.
Dude you completely nailed it. I have been struggling with myself with why does the film feel so heavy and boring, even though the cinematography is amazing, but I think you found it. Now I can sleep. Hope Zach Snyder sees this.