http://io9.gizmodo.com/what-warner-bros-needs-to-do-to-save-the-dc-extended-u-1786059387
WB will continue to make poor decisions.
Luckily their marketing game is strong, but their quality control is crap.
The thing I find interesting is how Warner Bros forced their president and COO (Alan Horn) out, he became head of Walt Disney soon after, and since this happened Warner Bros has been producing crap while Disney has been unstoppable.
shareIm a huge dc fan but unfortunately you are saying the truth
shareBig problem = Snyder has no clue as a film maker. It's all about setting up different "purdy" shots and not about the overall movie, story or characters.
Another is the WB just doesn't care because they trust the moron dollar. Moron blindly loyal fans will pay to see anything and THEN defend it.
https://youtu.be/mpqvcf0cc1U
"Zack Snyder" adaptations of classic literature.
It hits really close to the mark.
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur.
The fact that you're quoting a laughably biased website like that is proof of your own desperation.
shareI've no idea about these supposed biases of the website... but the truth is still the truth and there should be no denying that Warner Brothers has meddled far too much in these films and can't be trusted to let creative make an actual good movie.
For goodness sake, even if you want to think that Suicide Squad somehow did turn into a good movie (by ignoring the many faults)... you can't honestly think that it's generally going to be a good idea to meddle so much that you're willing to have creative make a movie and then have someone else come in (because you liked the trailer they made for the movie) and completely edit the movie into something else entirely different than the vision that was had the entire time it was being filmed.
I've no idea about these supposed biases of the website
I guess the critics who rated this film rotten are biased too.
And the audiences who place this film at 67% and dropping.
They done great so far with the Zatanna casting.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BKBgkbNhrjp/?taken-by=teppiehunt
I'm not talking about critics, I'm talking about the users on that website who are constantly making overused jokes about the "DC Murderverse" (because they apparently don't know what the legal definition of murder is, nor do they realize that you can easily apply that argument to the MCU).
shareI'm not talking about critics, I'm talking about the users on that website who are constantly making overused jokes about the "DC Murderverse" (because they apparently don't know what the legal definition of murder is, nor do they realize that you can easily apply that argument to the MCU).
After the excessive destruction and tens of thousands dead in the first film of the universe (mainly due to Snyder's style over substance approach and thinking it would 'look' cool), the "Murderverse" jokes are appropriate.
Snyder shooting Jimmy in the head just because he didn't want to use the character encapsulates that.
According to Snyder, the official death toll in MoS was in the 5,000 range. I know that number seems pretty unrealistic, but considering that Civil War established that less than 300 people died from The Avengers, WS, and AoU put together…
Besides, collateral damage is hardly new in the world of superheroes. Even the universally beloved (somehow) DCAU had Superman punching Darkseid through buildings and vaporizing Parademons.
I don't recall any of the good guys killing Jimmy.
5000 is still an excessive amount of dead people for the first film where they haven't even made us care about these characters and their world.
Hence why the 'murder' aspect of this verse stands out.
The cartoon isn't very relevant, because it's a cartoon. Real-world logic is often ignored in the DCAU and it can get away with it.
There is some logic for the death count being that low in the MCU, because they actually went out of their way to show the super-powered heroes and SHIELD saving people.
Though amusingly, right after that... Superman basically killed that African. There's no way that man would have survived being thrown into the wall at that speed. Most popularYT reviewers had a field day with that one.
I call b.s. on this argument that real-world logic shouldn't apply to a cartoon, but should apply to a Sci-fi movie about aliens invading the Earth. Sorry, that argument doesn't work.
He actually didn't, at least not according to the dialogue in the film, or some people who have apparently slowed the scene down and said that he didn't actually tackle the general through the walls. Besides, you are the one trying to argue that real world logic doesn't apply when it suits your agenda.
The DCAU has also supposedly tried to be "grounded and gritty" with certain episodes and movies. Bottom line, the animated universe was no less realistic than the DCEU. Both franchises have featured all sorts of fantastical things, and the DCEU has even featured magic.
Also, I saw that scene with him and the African general. He didn't slam the guy through the concrete, he grabbed him and then went backwards through the concrete, at least according to some people who slowed it down on DVD or digital downloads. It wasn't filmed to stress Superman killing the guy, because the film pretty clearly presented the idea that Superman isn't a killer.
And no, "murderverse" isn't a justified nickname, because even if he did kill that guy, that wouldn't legally count as murder. If it did, the MCU can pretty much have that nickname applied to it as well.
Oh please, this isn't the Superman everyone knows.
Snyder went out of his way to butcher that idea. For goodness sake, our re-introduction to the character here has Jimmy Olsen getting shot in the head and then Superman killing a guy (with Lois Lane seemingly encouraging it)... just before Superman heads off to have an implied sex scene with Lois Lane. It was ridiculous. We get it, Mr. Snyder... you're like 13 years-old or something.
Again, he didn't kill the guy, at least not according to the dialogue in the film during that "sex scene" you're referring to. Also, I don't recall Superman being the one who killed Jimmy.
I'm not trying to defend Snyder as some genius filmmaker, but he's really no more juvenile than other people who have written for Superman in the past like Bruce Timm.
In regards to your complaint about the sex scene not being representative of the Superman "everyone knows", I do have to ask, since when have comic books not featured a lot of sex? I say this as an asexual person, but sex in superhero stories are nothing new. At the very least, they didn't jam a bunch of sexual innuendos in every single scene like in the DCAU.
These weren't just things that happened throughout the course of the film... that is literally how they chose to reintroduce the audience to the character of Superman in BvS. It was cringe-worthy, to say the least.
But... no one's ever accused Snyder of trying to be subtle...
And... yeah, he's capable of disarming the guy in multiple different ways because he's superman and DID kill the guy instead - if he didn't somehow kill the guy then it would have been a miracle (and I don't think there was any dialogue to suggest he didn't kill the guy and don't know where it would have fit in the film if there was).
But Lois Lane seems to nod to and let go of the guy to entice Superman to kill him... and he does because why not, I guess:
https://youtu.be/Myf2aWNEfow?t=174
But in the bathtub scene when he says he didn't kill "those men" when Lois brings up the hearings... he's not talking about the guy he sent through a wall and is talking about all the men that Lex had his people kill. Sure, he didn't kill those guys... but the guy threatening Lois after Lois seems to ask for the death... he killed that one!
And, by the way, why on Earth doe Lex get some plan to kill a bunch of people with bullets and bombs with an idea that Superman will be blamed... and then that actually works? What the crap?
And... yeah, he's capable of disarming the guy in multiple different ways because he's superman and DID kill the guy instead - if he didn't somehow kill the guy then it would have been a miracle (and I don't think there was any dialogue to suggest he didn't kill the guy and don't know where it would have fit in the film if there was)
And, by the way, why on Earth doe Lex get some plan to kill a bunch of people with bullets and bombs with an idea that Superman will be blamed... and then that actually works? What the crap?
The film has a scene where Superman clearly seems to be doing something that should kill a guy. If it WAS trying to insinuate that he didn't with some vague idea that he didn't kill ANYONE and that somehow includes the guy that the director chose to show a scene where it looked like he died then it was vague at best. There is no way that you should feel so certain about this when the images suggest a different story and you should at least concede that it's reasonable to interpret the idea of not killing "those men" to be all the people Lex's guys killed and not "that man" that Superman apparently killed.
I thought the theatrical release was bad enough... I'm not going to watch the extended cut, but sure... the plan was to blow them up and shoot them and then burn all the bodies because THAT somehow looks like something Superman would do? C'mon, man!
But let's pretend you're right about everything (which I don't think you are at all)... I don't think you can brush it off as a "comic book movie" and tell us you shouldn't take things seriously when it tries to present itself as a movie that SHOULD be taken seriously. And Superman flying at hundreds of miles per hour and driving a guy through multiple walls is going to turn that guy into bloody pool.
So you're saying that something that presents itself as a "comic book movie" shouldn't allow itself to be taken seriously? I don't follow your argument at all. I didn't even think BvS actually qualified as a good movie, but this argument that it can't allow itself to be taken seriously for being based on comic books is a stupid argument.
Also, blow them up? What are you talking about? When did that happen? Are you referring to the Senate explosion? Because that was a completely different situation. Them burning the bodies was obviously supposed to make it look like Superman used his heat vision on those people.
I don't follow your argument at all.
Also, blow them up? What are you talking about?
Them burning the bodies was obviously supposed to make it look like Superman used his heat vision on those people.
The most I recall is them blowing up a tank. I don't remember them specifically being shown bombing anyone in the field. There definitely weren't multiple people getting blown up.
The DCAU has also supposedly tried to be "grounded and gritty" with certain episodes and movies. Bottom line, the animated universe was no less realistic than the DCEU. Both franchises have featured all sorts of fantastical things, and the DCEU has even featured magic.
Also, I saw that scene with him and the African general. He didn't slam the guy through the concrete, he grabbed him and then went backwards through the concrete, at least according to some people who slowed it down on DVD or digital downloads. It wasn't filmed to stress Superman killing the guy, because the film pretty clearly presented the idea that Superman isn't a killer.
And no, "murderverse" isn't a justified nickname, because even if he did kill that guy, that wouldn't legally count as murder. If it did, the MCU can pretty much have that nickname applied to it as well.
LOL. You can't compare what works in a cartoon for a younger demographic to that of a live action film that is meant to be taken seriously by adults.
The mediums are too different.
If you need to slow down the scene on the DVD to supposedly see it, you know that's bad and lazy direction right there.
The film failed at it's presentation of Superman not being a killer. It basically failed at all it's Superman characterization. So much so that the studio is trying to 'course correct' again when they bring him back from the dead.
Also, the MCU characters are allowed to kill. It isn't out of character for them. Hence why no one brings it up. Even Cap, is a soldier.
Superman and Batman murdering goes against what the characters traditionally are and their codes. That's why it received so much backlash.
And Snyder only pushed the characters that far because it 'looked cool'
Also, the only Batman film where Batman didn't kill anyone was B&R.
Don't forget Snyder's comments about Batman getting raped in prison.
LOL. You're argument is still a load of *beep* Those cartoons were supposedly praised for being innovative and "adult", so that doesn't work. Both mediums were very unrealistic, but I guess that doesn't matter for someone who's so insecure that they have an Avatar of a character form a DC show crying. Of course, I'm sure you're still bitter about Agent Carter getting cancelled.
I don't know how many times this needs to be brought up, but "murder" doesn't apply to someone who's considered armed and dangerous.
And no, it is pout of character for any superhero who isn't Wolverine or the Punisher or Deadpool to just casually kill left and right. That's a universal rule in comics…
The fact that you have to mention Marvel proves your argument lacks merit and is running out of steam.
Cartoons can still be praised for what they are without being given the same parameters as the medium of live action.
Basic film-making 101 is what works in animation doesn't necessarily translate to a live action medium.
Batman and Superman have specific no-killing codes traditionally.
You mentioned Marvel in your very post I replied to. Don't dish what you can't take. And no, arguing that what works in animation doesn't always work in live-action is a lazy excuse. That's what people said about LotR and the superhero genre.
Actually in Superman's case, the no-kill rule has been very inconsistently applied over the years, hence the example I listed earlier about Superman flat-out vaporizing some Parademons in the DCAU.
And LOTR was heavily retooled for a live action medium. It also didn't attempt to be 'grounded' in gritty reality like the Nolan films, and how Snyder approached the character.
Point is, directly translating the DCAU into live action would be quite a joke. The right balance needs to be struck between being faithful to the source material and reinterpreting the material to work well in a live action medium for non-comicbook fans and general audiences.
Any director will tell you that.
The general audience associates 'no killing' with Superman though.
And because that was not honored in these films, it makes sense that it got so much backlash from viewers.
Heavily retooled? You're making it sound as though they got rid of all the wizards, dwarves, and little people with big feet. The DCAU certainly has tried to be grim n gritty before, especially with Mask of the Phantasm and Return of the Joker.
Even if we decide to accept the argument that he did kill the African general, people already threw around the "murderer" comments when he killed Zod, even though it was made pretty clear that he had no other choice, and that he wasn't exactly happy about doing it.
Both of those films still embraced the comicbook asthetic and comicbook logic.
The fact that Snyder even put Superman in that position where he had no choice but to brutally break Zod's neck is a complete misunderstanding of the character and a terrible idea.
Also, I saw that scene with him and the African general. He didn't slam the guy through the concrete, he grabbed him and then went backwards through the concrete, at least according to some people who slowed it down on DVD or digital downloads. It wasn't filmed to stress Superman killing the guy, because the film pretty clearly presented the idea that Superman isn't a killer.
Bumped.
shareThat looks too obscured for you to definitively make that argument.
shareThat looks too obscured for you to definitively make that argument.
I would hope you could see those, unless Superman just disappeared off the face of the planet in that scene...
shareI would hope you could see those, unless Superman just disappeared off the face of the planet in that scene...
That's what Peyton reads on Sunday morning.
There's so much truth in these links and this thread it's shocking Snyder is still working in the film industry. God, he's awful now. I say now because years ago I would have been excited to see him direct a JL film. I thought MoS was solid. But after Sucker Punch and BvS, it proves without something directing him from afar (like Nolan was in MoS), it's really too late to save the guy. He's incapable of making a good film.
Get the best Fitness and Health tips here: https://www.youtube.com/user/willmolinar
Snyder is a lapdog that WB can control.
That's why they keep going back to him.
He ain't Nolan.
It's why people like Mel Gibson and hollywood insiders are now publicly lashing out at the WB and not just privately any more.
share