The Snyder Cut

[Trafalgar]

Is anyone really excited about the release of Snyder Cut of the Justice League in March? I am interested but only in the same way I am interested in bonus features on a DVD. It's cool but I am not going to go out of my way to see it.

[Tvtyrant]

Is anyone really excited about the release of Snyder Cut of the Justice League in March? I am interested but only in the same way I am interested in bonus features on a DVD. It's cool but I am not going to go out of my way to see it.

I'm pretty excited about it. I'm a fairly substantial Snyder fan and a big DC fan, so I'll almost certainly enjoy it. Will it be a good movie? Probably not.

[Trafalgar]

I'm pretty excited about it. I'm a fairly substantial Snyder fan and a big DC fan, so I'll almost certainly enjoy it. Will it be a good movie? Probably not.

I really enjoyed 300 and Watchmen, especially the directors cut of Watchmen. I like Man of Steel although it had some issues. Batman v Superman had some really good parts and some really bad parts (Jesse Eisenberg). I have friend who blames Josh Whedon for Justice League but I think it was a mess before Whedon got there.

As a director, I feel like Snyder had a really strong opening but has been repeating himself and the quality of his movies have been going down hill.

[Imbalance]

Very excited, though not nearly excited enough to entertain the thought of subscribing to HBO.

[Sapphire Guard]

I am excited to see it... but I don't have HBO Max.

I enjoyed the DCEU and think it's gone downhill since he left (Haven't seen the new wonderwoman because theatres are closed here.

On Justice League, looking at the trailers I think it's fairly clear that the process changed midstream, with the execs exploiting the death of Zack's daughter to fire him. The fact that he came back at all means that he wanted to make a different movie.

[Palanan]

Not excited. I’m not really a fan of any of the recent DC movies, and a different cut of Justice League probably wouldn’t address most of the issues that I disliked about that movie.

So unless the Snyder Cut ends up on USA at some point, not likely to see it. I loved the Justice League comics back in the day (Giffen & DeMatteis era) but the current movies just…don’t work for me.

[Dire_Flumph]

I'm curious rather than excited, but my expectations aren't terribly high. I thought the original version of Justice League was watchable, but lacking in story, character and spectacle. Since this originally came out we've had Infinity War and Endgame, which showed how to do this kind of thing right.

[Zevox]

I'm baffled that it's something that anyone wants to see, personally. His other DC movies have a terrible reputation, and the impression I have is that DC's films only started to improve when he stopped having anything to do with them (Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam), so it sounds like something that can only go badly. Obviously I don't intend to see it, though I look forward to hearing the likely stories about what a train wreck it is.

[Keltest]

I'm baffled that it's something that anyone wants to see, personally. His other DC movies have a terrible reputation, and the impression I have is that DC's films only started to improve when he stopped having anything to do with them (Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam), so it sounds like something that can only go badly. Obviously I don't intend to see it, though I look forward to hearing the likely stories about what a train wreck it is.

Ditto. I struggle to believe that it was the cuts that made JL not a good movie rather than literally anything else.

[Tvtyrant]

I'm baffled that it's something that anyone wants to see, personally. His other DC movies have a terrible reputation, and the impression I have is that DC's films only started to improve when he stopped having anything to do with them (Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam), so it sounds like something that can only go badly. Obviously I don't intend to see it, though I look forward to hearing the likely stories about what a train wreck it is.

Depends on what you like? The consensus on these boards is thor ragnarok and Star Wars: The Last Jedi were great and I didn't enjoy either of those. I also liked Batman V Superman which this board mostly disliked.

[Peelee]

Depends on what you like? The consensus on these boards is thor ragnarok and Star Wars: The Last Jedi were great and I didn't enjoy either of those. I also liked Batman V Superman which this board mostly disliked.

I have not seen any consensus either way on TLJ. Here, at least. Many enjoyed it and many didn't, but not enough either way for a consensus.

[Dire_Flumph]

I have not seen any consensus either way on TLJ. Here, at least. Many enjoyed it and many didn't, but not enough either way for a consensus.

I both enjoyed and didn't enjoy Last Jedi so I'm not surprised at that. ;)

[Peelee]

I both enjoyed and didn't enjoy Last Jedi so I'm not surprised at that. ;)

I declare you consensus!

[Trafalgar]

Is it just me or does it seem like every movie thread degenerates into a Star Wars: The Last Jedi discussion? I am surprised someone hasn't said Star Wars: The Last Jedi as a favorite Samurai/Western movie on those threads.

[Fyraltari]

Is it just me or does it seem like every movie thread degenerates into a Star Wars: The Last Jedi discussion? I am surprised someone hasn't said Star Wars: The Last Jedi as a favorite Samurai/Western movie on those threads.

Every thread here eventually degenerates into a Star Wars thread. Every Star Wars thread here eventually degenerates into a Last Jedi thread.

[Trafalgar]

Every thread here eventually degenerates into a Star Wars thread. Every Star Wars thread here eventually degenerates into a Last Jedi thread.

So The Last Jedi is the black hole of giantitip.com? We are all slowly sucked towards it no matter what we do.

[Tvtyrant]

So The Last Jedi is the black hole of giantitip.com? We are all slowly sucked towards it no matter what we do.

You can always just move along and it will go away.

Anyway, I think my point still stands. Tastes vary, a minority of people like the DC movies. They remind me of comics when I was a child, it is very nostalgic.

[Trafalgar]

You can always just move along and it will go away.

I don't know. It's like bringing up alignment in an RPG thread. Sometimes it derails everything.

Back to the original topic.

Zach Snyder is really good at action scenes. I think the reason I liked 300 and Watchmen is that he was adapting popular graphic novels into film. He made some changes but he pretty much kept the plot, dialogue, and characters the same. In both movies, you can watch it with the graphic novel open in your lap and match a scene to a page in the book.

With Man of Steel, Batman V Superman, and Justice League, he had no graphic novel to follow. In all three movies there are problems with character development, character motivation, and even character design to follow. And he or the writers made some odd choices. But in Man of Steel and Batman V Superman some of the action scenes are visually amazing.

But Justice League had all sorts of problems. And I think you can't blame Whedon for all of them. A fundamental issue for me is the relative power levels between Steppenwolf and Superman. The rest of the League feels superfluous after Superman comes back.

My prediction is that there will be some stunning new scenes but he will be unable to fix some of the fundamental issues with the story.

[Lemmy]

Well... BvS was pretty bad... One of the worst Superhero movies I've seen in the last decade. Some of its scenes weren't just boring, but downnright irritating (namely... Every scene with Lex Luthor present).
I'm glad actual fans of the movie are getting it, but I don't see how adding extra scenes will accomplish anything other than making the movie an even longer trainwreck.

[Rynjin]

Put me in the camp of "Why is anyone excited to see a 4 hour recut of a movie that sucked ass"?

People do realize that scenes are generally cut FOR A REASON, right? To prevent movies from becoming such bloated, unwieldy messes as this is almost certainly going to be.

The Irishman doesn't even hit 4 hours, and even at his best Snyder is no Scorcese. And I thought even that movie overstayed its welcome by about 20-30 minutes anyway.

[Cikomyr2]

So I am not really awaiting the Snyder cut. I find Snyder's take on the Characters to be dark, gloomy, dreary. But it totally is consistent with Snyder's skill as an artist, where his best works are those of rugged awesome individuals who have to go against the world to save it. Sometimes, that artistic sensibility works great, like when he did Watchmen.

And it's telling that Snyder outright said he did not even liked the superhero genre until he read Watchmen. What he took out of the genre was the main deconstructive work of the past 50 years on the topic, so it's hardly surprising the man wrecks the feel of superhero movie and make instead super heavy moody pieces.

Hence why I think the Snyder cut shouldn't be named "The Justice League: The Snyder Cut".

They should name it "The Justice Lords"

[Clertar]

Well... BvS was pretty bad...

At least he didn't do this :smalleek:

https://i.redd.it/55kqc3m9u8p21.jpg


I think that the Snyder cut is ultimately a lose-lose situation. If it's bad, it was not just a waste of time and money, but a further erosion of the alreaday damaged DCEU property. And it will just remind people that when DC tried to do their Avengers 2012 it was so bad and fans protested so much that they had to release a modified version to appease people.

But let's say it's actually a really good movie. Then it will be a clash with the current direction of the DCEU, which is betting hard on a very loosely interconnected Elseworlds-style approach, the total opposite of the MCU approach (there is one Batman universe in the Snyder movies, but a different one in the Joker movie, yet another one on the upcoming The Batman, and the Bargirl movie will also be disconnected from these). So if the Snyder cut is really successful it will make a mess, people will want to keep going with these characters and their world MCU style... but will instead get DCEU movies that have nothing to do with that in the following years, until Warner can course correct once again.

[Murk]

I'm interested in this from an... artistic point of view?

It won't be a movie I'll enjoy, but I'm looking forward to seeing the the whole storyline wrapped up with a consistent tone and message.
I think the most jarring aspect of the original movie was how it just didn't fit with the movies before (mostly Man of Steel, BvS), or even with itself. Snyder had quite a distinct style and way of telling the story in the other movies (and the parts of Justice League that were his), and the majority of Justice League just didn't fit.

I don't like Snyder's distinct style (having a sad, greytone Superman is probably the worst misinterpretation of the character possible), so I won't enjoy his Justice League either. But at least it will be consistent, and I'm looking forward to seeing what it's like.

[GloatingSwine]

So I am not really awaiting the Snyder cut. I find Snyder's take on the Characters to be dark, gloomy, dreary. But it totally is consistent with Snyder's skill as an artist, where his best works are those of rugged awesome individuals who have to go against the world to save it. Sometimes, that artistic sensibility works great, like when he did Watchmen.

And it's telling that Snyder outright said he did not even liked the superhero genre until he read Watchmen. What he took out of the genre was the main deconstructive work of the past 50 years on the topic, so it's hardly surprising the man wrecks the feel of superhero movie and make instead super heavy moody pieces.

Hence why I think the Snyder cut shouldn't be named "The Justice League: The Snyder Cut".

They should name it "The Justice Lords"

If your only experience of a thing is a deconstruction of it, you won't understand why the deconstruction is doing the things it does, and the most you'll get out of it is "yeah, take that, genre I don't understand!"

And that's pretty much Snyder all over. He doesn't understand things, he just sees their surface elements and assumes they are the whole of the thing. He read Watchmen and all he got out of it was "yeah, dark and violence and sex! woo!". Without picking up the moral philosophy of the work (chapter 9 is literally a dialogue between nihilism and the meaning inherent in the search for meaning, with the latter winning out) or self-criticism of the characters being represented (The sex isn't to show that these are cool people who ****, it's to show that Dan Dreiberg is a sad weirdo who can't have normal human relationships outside the context of dressing up and beating people up).

Also the violence. Watchmen is very unique in its presentation of violence in a comic. There are no motion lines. We're never seeing the act of violence in Watchmen, we're only seeing the consequence. We're seeing the hurt, not the hit.

Snyder didn't get that, because he doesn't look deeply and think. So his version of Watchmen is the exact opposite, where the acts of violence are fetishised not criticised.

[Imbalance]

I can't speak for anyone else - I just want more Darkseid.

I'd also like it that, if this cut does do well, they get to remake the steaming pile that was CW's Crisis event.

[Aedilred]

I've seen all of Snyder's films made from his debut to 2017, except for Legends of the Guardians, and the more time passes the more I think he's a hopeless hack.

Dawn of the Dead was an inferior remake.

300 was a faithful adaptation of a comic book which had a moderately interesting style and otherwise had very few merits. I can overlook the more problematic elements as being imported from the comic but if you're going to use that as an excuse you can't give it credit for any of the "good" stuff it lifted from the comic either. So it gets some points for style and that's it really.

Watchmen, at the time, felt like a decent stab at a comic-book movie. But that was 2009 and the landscape was very different. Comic book movies were more miss than hit and one that wasn't appalling was a pleasant surprise. In retrospect, we can see that the corner was turned in 2008 with Iron Man and The Dark Knight but at the time that wasn't yet a trend. So at the time, it looked flawed, but decent enough. Ten years on, after all that Marvel have done, it looks a lot worse.

But most of all, I think this is the best example of Snyder's ability to make a film which is superficially a very faithful adaptation while also completely missing the point. The lavishly slo-mo superhuman fight scenes are gratifying to the lizard brain but on analysis only serve to underscore the extent to which the film is wide of the mark the comic book had drawn.

Man of Steel, Dawn of Justice and Justice League all have similar issues which are well-known and I won't dwell on them.

But the film that made up my mind was Sucker Punch. That's the film where Snyder has had most creative freedom; more than any of his other films it's his baby. And what he gives us is a (rather derivative) style over a substance that manages to be so gratuitously unpleasant it's hard to know whether to be more offended by the content or by the way it's sidelined in favour of pure fantasy action sequences, one of those movies that manages to have very little plot while at the same time still being difficult to follow, and worst of all, really quite boring.

It's the work of someone who is at best creatively bankrupt. At worst, it suggests that his creative impulses are rooted in something rather unhealthy and I don't really want to see any more of it.

His response to the criticism isn't encouraging either. The claim that critics disliked it principally because of the female protagonist suggests a blithe ignorance of the very real problems that people were raising with the film, including most prominently that the film was a gratuitously exploitative adolescent male fantasy: the idea that the criticism is rooted in misogyny requires a degree of doublethink or self-delusion really quite remarkable.


The idea therefore that there's a "Snyder cut" of, really, any of his other movies that will somehow redeem them seems vanishingly unlikely. Or to put it another way, as someone alluded to in the thread above, the problems with a film that a Snyder cut is likely to fix aren't the problems that need fixing.

[LaZodiac]

It says a lot that in a list of all his movies, ignoring the one yo didn't see, Sucker Punch wasn't listed. Really tells you all that needs to be said about that one.

EDIT: Or I missed it because I'm tired. Oops.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Aedilred
I can overlook the more problematic elements as being imported from the comic….

Which elements do you mean?

I’ve only seen snippets of the movie, which were such grotesque distortions of the actual history that I had no interest in watching more. Is that what you’re referring to, or something else?

[Kitten Champion]

I watched Snyder's Watchmen well before I had any real awareness of Alan Moore's comics or the wider context in which Watchmen was penned both in terms of the sociopolitical/cultural time period it was written and within the history of its medium.

After reading Watchmen and critical analysis thereof, as well as arguments for how Snyder's changes were inimical to the spirit of the work, the big question that comes to my mind was -- were it not an adaptation of a widely popular work people loved and respected, would this movie stand on its own merits? Personally, I think it would largely be forgotten. Outside of being in the peculiar oeuvre of Zack Snyder, I guess.

Being a deconstruction of comics from over twenty years before is pretty muddled when you're doing it in the late 00's and in an entirely different medium. Especially as comics themselves did that ad nauseam to the point that having narratives which weren't hugely depressing or on-the-nose political statements were refreshing.

Then there's Moore's deeper themes and concepts, which are written around in the movie. This exemplified most by Snyder's depiction of Rorschach, who's cool violence dude with the neat costume that gets to say the one-liners rather than an emotionally crippled violent psychopath with unhinged sociopolitical views.

Which then creates the broader issue, you're basing this on a work which broadly desires to alienate you from its characters for the purpose of you the reader questioning the motivation of someone who'd do this kind of vigilante violence and the kind of society this approach to justice could lead to. With the movie though, it just feels like Snyder is chomping at the bit to bring edge-lord morally suspect Punisher-esque characters to life with fast-paced visceral action scenes.

So what is there? I don't know. Some nice images and moments lifted from the comics, but lacking in the gravitas to make them feel particularly meaningful.

I like the opening credits. Those are cool.


Which elements do you mean?

I’ve only seen snippets of the movie, which were such grotesque distortions of the actual history that I had no interest in watching more. Is that what you’re referring to, or something else?

The simplistic adulation of Spartan society and harsh - and somewhat literal - demonization of the Persians is pretty huge and obvious in 300, and kind of nauseating if you think about it beyond "cool violent people doing cool violence". Especially within the context of Frank Miller's broader work.

[Willie the Duck]

The Irishman doesn't even hit 4 hours, and even at his best Snyder is no Scorcese. And I thought even that movie overstayed its welcome by about 20-30 minutes anyway.
Forget Scorsese, I think that even at his best Snyder is no Snyder (the person people were hoping he'd be when he first hit the scene).



And that's pretty much Snyder all over. He doesn't understand things, he just sees their surface elements and assumes they are the whole of the thing.
...
Snyder didn't get that, because he doesn't look deeply and think. So his version of Watchmen is the exact opposite, where the acts of violence are fetishised not criticised.

I don't want to assume that. In part (1) because every discussion I run into about his work ends up having no few of his fans trying to explain to others that if they do not like his work, it is because they 'don't get it,' which is thoroughly not true and the assumption is annoying, so I want to extend the same deference to Snyder himself. Also in part (2) because he'd have had to do literally zero research before starting the Watchman movie to have not gotten the parts that he didn't cover. I think he darn well knew what the original was, and simply didn't care. Not unlike Paul Verhoeven taking the title and some character names from Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers and making an almost unrelated movie (no comment on quality of either, just that they are very different), I think Snyder grabbed the basic skeleton of Watchman -- something he probably really did like growing up, before realizing that it was basically a thumb in the eye of everything he believed in (at least if wanting to make a Atlas Shrugged/Fountainhead movie is actual indication that he's a die-hard objectivist) -- and decided to make something completely different with the bones. As it stands, the Watchman movie is a valid, if not particularly impressive, exploration of us as a culture of cults of personality and media manipulation. The scene with Veidt standing and watching the banks of television monitors showcasing how his power over the public makes him as influential as a nigh-omnipotent naked blue nuclear space god as a powerful message, just really unimpressive compared to the subtlety of Moore's original.


His response to the criticism isn't encouraging either. The claim that critics disliked it principally because of the female protagonist suggests a blithe ignorance of the very real problems that people were raising with the film, including most prominently that the film was a gratuitously exploitative adolescent male fantasy: the idea that the criticism is rooted in misogyny requires a degree of doublethink or self-delusion really quite remarkable.

This is the one where the 'you clearly just don't get it' accusations flew the most, which is the most insane. It's not clear how someone would think that others missed the paper-thin veneer of proto-female empowerment messaging dolloped onto the movie. At the same time, it's hard to imagine someone not getting how it completely fails to land amidst the gratuitously... just the gratuitousness of everything onscreen. So it's not that we (who weren't impressed with the movie) didn't get it, we got it fine, we just thought it failed (hard). There's also a 'twist' near the end of the film that sort of changes who the supposed protagonist of the film is that... changes nothing about the messaging, meaning, or ideas (not) explored therein.

Anyways, the Snyder cut -- I am all for it. Regardless of whether Snyder's vision is actually any good, the original had Joss's fingerprints all over it. If this give Snyder's fans the closure they want-...; If this lets Snyder tell the story he wanted to tell-... more power to 'em. Honestly, I am so burned out on superhero movies right now that the best superhero movie ever made would have an uphill battle to really grab me. OTOH, that leaves me in a perfect position to judge whether this version will be better than the theatrical release -- all it has to do is be a c+ to that one's c.

[Lemmy]

Snyder is great at making stylish visuals... And nothing else.

The only movie he made that I consider good is 300, because it's a cool action flick with little to no plot... And he has a simple, short source of inspiration to draw from.

Watchmen is... Not bad. But it's not very good either, and is poorly paced. Even with a runtime long as its has, the movie still feels rushed and incomplete. It's what happens when he tries to adapt a story much longer and much more complex than "Bad guys are coming! Let's stab them!"

Everything else he made ranges from mediocre to awful, with some cool scenes and visuals here and there.

Suckerpunch is a perfect example... Has some great action scenes, but feels like a waste of time.

I feel sorry for him for the reason why he left the DCEU... But honestly... Him leaving was the best thing that happened to the franchise.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kitten Champion
The simplistic adulation of Spartan society and harsh - and somewhat literal - demonization of the Persians is pretty huge and obvious in 300….

This was overwhelmingly evident in the few minutes that I watched, and the main reason I didn’t watch any more.

Hollywood typically distorts the ancient world into cartoonish caricature as a matter of course, but this is warping on an entirely different level.


Originally Posted by Aedilred
But the film that made up my mind was Sucker Punch.

I remember how thoroughly ludicrous this looked when it first came out. Just watched the trailer again and it’s far worse than I’d remembered.

Seems pretty clear the movie was made for teenage boys, especially given the, ah, camera angle during one of the samurai fight scenes. And the line about retrieving five items makes the rest of it seem like a long string of flashy-but-empty action sequences straight from a video game.

There are apparently women who enjoy the movie, more or less as a guilty pleasure, so it’s possible to take something from it. But rewatching that trailer just makes me glad I didn’t see this in the theater, or anywhere else.


Originally Posted by Aedilred
The idea therefore that there's a "Snyder cut" of, really, any of his other movies that will somehow redeem them seems vanishingly unlikely.

Apparently there’s a "Snyder cut" of Sucker Punch. No word on whether that somehow redeems it.

[Trafalgar]

The simplistic adulation of Spartan society and harsh - and somewhat literal - demonization of the Persians is pretty huge and obvious in 300, and kind of nauseating if you think about it beyond "cool violent people doing cool violence". Especially within the context of Frank Miller's broader work.

What I thought was weird is that they kept Frank Miller's homophobic dialogue. I mean, did Frank Miller or Zach Snyder actually read up on Spartan society before writing/directing 300?

[Rynjin]

What I thought was weird is that they kept Frank Miller's homophobic dialogue. I mean, did Frank Miller or Zach Snyder actually read up on Spartan society before writing/directing 300?

...Gonna go with "lolno". Frank Miller went on to write Holy Terror, remember?

[warty goblin]

What I thought was weird is that they kept Frank Miller's homophobic dialogue. I mean, did Frank Miller or Zach Snyder actually read up on Spartan society before writing/directing 300?

Given that there's a solid argument that Sparta is the worst society humans have ever devised, I'm going with "no". Or they did and decided to ignore it, it really makes no odds.

(Its also necessary to point out that the Spartites were hardly unstoppable super soldiers. They were better than average at the classical style of Greek phalanx, but even in that context were hardly undefeated, and one could argue that in terms of actual fighting ability they were solidly second fiddle to Thebes. )

Edit: on the actual topic my interest is minimal. Justice League was aggressively mediocre, I don't see how adding another two hours of it will in any way help. At the end of the day it's still a movie about a bunch of people in funny costumes with goofy usernames who have to beat up another funny costume dude with a really silly name so he doesn't do a bad thing with a glowy doodad. This is not exactly an underrepresented genre in anno dominae 2021, there are plenty of high quality versions of the formula already available. And at some point the well of actually interesting and meaningful ideas that can be explored in this context is pretty much played out.

[Aedilred]

Given that there's a solid argument that Sparta is the worst society humans have ever devised, I'm going with "no". Or they did and decided to ignore it, it really makes no odds.

(Its also necessary to point out that the Spartites were hardly unstoppable super soldiers. They were better than average at the classical style of Greek phalanx, but even in that context were hardly undefeated, and one could argue that in terms of actual fighting ability they were solidly second fiddle to Thebes. )
To be fair, the idea that Spartans were badasses, the pinnacle of ancient warfare, is so solidly ingrained in traditional western history and consequently in pop culture, and the countervailing suggestion that actually they were pretty mediocre so revisionist, that I'm not going to blame a comic book or a film for getting that one wrong. You could read a lot about Spartan history without reaching the conclusion that they were anything other than the greatest warriors of the ancient era. That blog post by Bret Devereux hadn't been written yet.

Even the Greeks fighting the Spartans, who really should have known better, rated them very highly for a long time and even after Sparta had finally been put in its place by Thebes that was put down to Spartan decline rather than that it had never actually been all that.

I felt that even at the time when I was watching it. Obviously large swathes of the film were wrong, or improbable, or pure fantasy. But this is also a battle that has been mythologised since the moment it ended, and viewed through that lens, some of the preposterousness becomes a feature as much as a bug, and I found I was quite happy to turn that part of my brain off.

There may be a time when the world is ready for a revisionist movie about Sparta, but 300 was never going to be that, and I think it's unfair to blame it for not being. I've never been convinced that "instead of this movie they had made a completely different movie" (or by extension "the cinematic and pop cultural context which informs this movie should be different so that the movie I want them to have made could have been made" are valid criticisms of films as they exist.

For another example of the sort of thing I mean, see any show or film featuring gladiators. It's now pretty conclusively established that "thumbs up = live/thumbs down = die" is not how it worked, and it may well have been the reverse. But that visual image is so ingrained that it's probably beyond the ability of any film now to challenge it and any that tries is just going to confuse its audience. I will notice when they get it "wrong", but I'm not going to hold it against them. Print the legend, and so on.

Which is not to excuse some of the portrayals of the Persians: there's a lot to take issue with there. To the extent that that was imported from the comic, I might purse my lips at Snyder but to be honest I think he's so incapable of engaging with anything on a deeper level than the visual and superficial that I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't notice, and in any case it's always difficult to know how closely an adaptation should cleave to the original. Where that's a problem, Snyder isn't blameless, but most of the blame should probably rest with Miller.


Which elements do you mean?

I’ve only seen snippets of the movie, which were such grotesque distortions of the actual history that I had no interest in watching more. Is that what you’re referring to, or something else?

For want of going into detail, yes.

[Morty]

I have no horse in this race, because I have not seen this movie and don't intend to, but I certainly share the bafflement that this exists and that people have apparently been clamoring for it. Does anyone seriously think a longer version of what sounds like a pretty mediocre movie is going to be amazing?

[Cikomyr2]

Snyder has a lot of talent for certain aspect of directorial work. Top tier talent for certain things. And these things lend themselves more to certain style of stories than others.

Telling you guys. A pseudo-fascism worship of the Supermen and the Betters of Humanity cut would be perfectly suited. Hence the Justice Lords.

Strangely, I Think Snyder would be *the* best director to tell the story of the Justice Lords. As long as he doesn't know the Justice Lords end up being bad guys.

[Talakeal]

Zack Snyder is probably my favorite director, I don’t think he has ever done a movie that wasn’t great. 300 and Man of Steel are probably the weakest and Watchmen and Sucker Punch probably the strongest.

I would say Sucker Punch is solidly my sixth favorite film of all time.


I am mostly ambivalent toward Justice League. It will probably be about the same as the original and only good as riff fodder, but I am still holding out hope for something good.


So it's not that we (who weren't impressed with the movie) didn't get it, we got it fine, we just thought it failed (hard). There's also a 'twist' near the end of the film that sort of changes who the supposed protagonist of the film is that... changes nothing about the messaging, meaning, or ideas (not) explored therein.

I am really curious here as to what the “it” was that you got.

Because yeah, a lot of people seem certain that they know what Snyder was going for, but they never seem to agree on it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Talakeal
I would say Sucker Punch is solidly my sixth favorite film of all time.

Why in particular?

[Dienekes]

To be fair, the idea that Spartans were badasses, the pinnacle of ancient warfare, is so solidly ingrained in traditional western history and consequently in pop culture, and the countervailing suggestion that actually they were pretty mediocre so revisionist, that I'm not going to blame a comic book or a film for getting that one wrong. You could read a lot about Spartan history without reaching the conclusion that they were anything other than the greatest warriors of the ancient era. That blog post by Bret Devereux hadn't been written yet.

Even the Greeks fighting the Spartans, who really should have known better, rated them very highly for a long time and even after Sparta had finally been put in its place by Thebes that was put down to Spartan decline rather than that it had never actually been all that.

I suppose it is worth pointing out that even among historians the view of Sparta is being debated. While everyone is pretty much in agreement that Sparta emphasized their own prowess as a spot of myth making, how much they exaggerate is kinda going back and forth. And while Devereux’s blog post is great for getting the idea that Sparta wasn’t a culture of elite super soldiers out into the forefront. He does kinda cherry pick evidence on what he decides to include in his blog. Skipping over a lot of battles Sparta wins in his rundown of their great battles. Missing Hodkinson’s excellent research on Messenia which points toward it not being as bad as Sparta’s enemies portrayed (while still being very bad mind you. Sparta was not the good guys of history. I don’t think any of the Greeks were).

Edit: I guess I should talk about Snyder.

I find the older I get the less I like him. Or more I find his flaws more egregious. The opening scene of Watchmen is brilliant. The rest of the movie feels like he’s stripped out all the subtlety and somehow missed the point while changing very little of the major action.

300s an overglorified look at a pretty horrific culture. But there are these little nods to Snyder’s opinions that were definitely not held by the Spartans and weren’t even in the comic that are pretty bad.

MoS is alright all things considered, it wasn’t great. It made decisions I don’t agree with. But whatever. BvS I thought was terrible. Somehow getting a Randian Superman facing off against a Randian Batman and a Randian Lex Luthor which that one at least should work if he wasn’t doing a weird Joker-ish take on the character.

The only time watching his movies I think I’m watching Superman was the end of TJL where he’s joking with the rest of the team while working together. That was it. And that scene was so clearly written by Whedon it isn’t even funny. And the scene wasn’t funny. But it at least had Superman in it.

[Tyrant]

Which is not to excuse some of the portrayals of the Persians: there's a lot to take issue with there. To the extent that that was imported from the comic, I might purse my lips at Snyder but to be honest I think he's so incapable of engaging with anything on a deeper level than the visual and superficial that I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't notice, and in any case it's always difficult to know how closely an adaptation should cleave to the original. Where that's a problem, Snyder isn't blameless, but most of the blame should probably rest with Miller.
I've only watched the movie and not read the book, but isn't the whole thing Dilios telling a story meant to rally the troops? And as such should be assumed to be full of embellishment/distortions/lies? Would it not stand to reason that he will portray the Persians in an extremely negative light while also playing up their ferocity to make the Spartans sound that much greater for being able to resist them so long?

As for the larger topic, I actually like Watchmen (preferably the extended cut). In my list of favorite comic book movies I rank it fairly high. Yes, it does miss some of the context of the book. I think that is inevitable. But, if one of the biggest arguments* against it is that the book is better and the book in question is considered one of the best books in the genre (or medium in this case I suppose), I'm not so sure that is a huge black mark. I also like the remake of Dawn of the Dead. Not a big fan of Sucker Punch though. I'll check out the reworking of Justice League. It wasn't the worst DCEU entry (flip a coin on BvS or Suicide Squad) so maybe this will improve it.

*I know there are other arguments, just somewhat addressing this one.

[Sapphire Guard]

Historians are historians. They debate everything.

Watchmen is as good as an unfilmable story like Watchmen can be as a film. The one liners are lifted straight from the comics.

300 is exactly what it says on the tin, you know what you're getting going in.

MoS and BVS are good films, and JL may or may not be. But I still want to see it, because what we got was Joss Whedon spray painting over someone else's work.

[Peelee]

I have no horse in this race, because I have not seen this movie and don't intend to, but I certainly share the bafflement that this exists and that people have apparently been clamoring for it. Does anyone seriously think a longer version of what sounds like a pretty mediocre movie is going to be amazing?

This could have been written by me verbatim.

[Zevox]

Snyder has a lot of talent for certain aspect of directorial work. Top tier talent for certain things. And these things lend themselves more to certain style of stories than others.

Telling you guys. A pseudo-fascism worship of the Supermen and the Betters of Humanity cut would be perfectly suited. Hence the Justice Lords.

Strangely, I Think Snyder would be *the* best director to tell the story of the Justice Lords. As long as he doesn't know the Justice Lords end up being bad guys.
You know, I was going to question you on that, but then it dawned on me that you mean that it would be their story before they stumble upon the main Justice League's universe, not the specific story of A Better World. Which... maybe. Though the thing there is that the Justice Lords are still supposed to have some actual good in them even after everything they do, and if what I've heard of Snyder's Batman in particular is true, I'd have my doubts about if he'd capture that. Especially given what the Justice Lords Batman ends up doing.

[Talakeal]

Why in particular?

All female main cast.
Sword-fighting.
Dragons.
Mixes elements of high fantasy and psychological horror, my two favorite genres.
Characters are allowed to be simultaneously girly and powerful.
Ambiguous story that often operates on dream logic.
Amazing soundtrack.
Themes of martyrdom, redemption, and rebellion.
Tragic story that emphasizes friendship and sisterhood instead of traditional romance.

[quinron]

Snyder is great at making stylish visuals... And nothing else.

The only movie he made that I consider good is 300, because it's a cool action flick with little to no plot... And he a simple, short source of inspiration to draw from.

Watchmen is... Not bad. But it's not very good either, and is poorly paced. Even with a runtime long as its has, the movie still feels rushed and incomplete. It's what happens when he tries to adapt a story much longer and much more complex than "Bad guys are coming! Let's stab them!"

Everything else he made ranges from mediocre to awful, with some cool scenes and visuals here and there.

Suckerpunch is a perfect example... Has some great action scenes, but feels like a waste of time.

I feel sorry for him for the reason why he left the DCEU... But honestly... Him leaving was the best thing that happened to the franchise.

I had the same experience with Sucker Punch that I had with Avatar: the first time I watched it I thought it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen, and by the third time I turned it off halfway through because I was so bored.

Sucker Punch seems to have been the film Snyder had the most control over to that point. It's also under two hours. I can't possibly imagine what a three-and-a-half-hour version of Zack Snyder's unmitigated vision would be like, but I am certain I wouldn't be bothered to find out.

[Talakeal]

I had the same experience with Sucker Punch that I had with Avatar: the first time I watched it I thought it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen, and by the third time I turned it off halfway through because I was so bored.

Sucker Punch seems to have been the film Snyder had the most control over to that point. It's also under two hours. I can't possibly imagine what a three-and-a-half-hour version of Zack Snyder's unmitigated vision would be like, but I am certain I wouldn't be bothered to find out.

I really like long movies, and I really like Sucker-punch.

That being said, the Sucker-punch extended edition is terrible.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Talakeal
That being said, the Sucker-punch extended edition is terrible.

Interesting. Given how much you like the theatrical version, what don't you like about the extended edition?

[Rynjin]

Interesting. Given how much you like the theatrical version, what don't you like about the extended edition?

Given that everything I've seen of it seems to be an unabashedly shallow action movie, kind of the entire reason they're entertaining is that they're short and, well, punchy.

Making a 3+ hour version of a schlock action flick is like deciding what that rollercoaster REALLY needs is about 10 minutes of slow, stately movement at roughly ground level to really POP.

[warty goblin]

To be fair, the idea that Spartans were badasses, the pinnacle of ancient warfare, is so solidly ingrained in traditional western history and consequently in pop culture, and the countervailing suggestion that actually they were pretty mediocre so revisionist, that I'm not going to blame a comic book or a film for getting that one wrong. You could read a lot about Spartan history without reaching the conclusion that they were anything other than the greatest warriors of the ancient era. That blog post by Bret Devereux hadn't been written yet.

Even the Greeks fighting the Spartans, who really should have known better, rated them very highly for a long time and even after Sparta had finally been put in its place by Thebes that was put down to Spartan decline rather than that it had never actually been all that.

I felt that even at the time when I was watching it. Obviously large swathes of the film were wrong, or improbable, or pure fantasy. But this is also a battle that has been mythologised since the moment it ended, and viewed through that lens, some of the preposterousness becomes a feature as much as a bug, and I found I was quite happy to turn that part of my brain off.

There may be a time when the world is ready for a revisionist movie about Sparta, but 300 was never going to be that, and I think it's unfair to blame it for not being. I've never been convinced that "instead of this movie they had made a completely different movie" (or by extension "the cinematic and pop cultural context which informs this movie should be different so that the movie I want them to have made could have been made" are valid criticisms of films as they exist.

For another example of the sort of thing I mean, see any show or film featuring gladiators. It's now pretty conclusively established that "thumbs up = live/thumbs down = die" is not how it worked, and it may well have been the reverse. But that visual image is so ingrained that it's probably beyond the ability of any film now to challenge it and any that tries is just going to confuse its audience. I will notice when they get it "wrong", but I'm not going to hold it against them. Print the legend, and so on.

Which is not to excuse some of the portrayals of the Persians: there's a lot to take issue with there. To the extent that that was imported from the comic, I might purse my lips at Snyder but to be honest I think he's so incapable of engaging with anything on a deeper level than the visual and superficial that I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't notice, and in any case it's always difficult to know how closely an adaptation should cleave to the original. Where that's a problem, Snyder isn't blameless, but most of the blame should probably rest with Miller.


To be clear, my comment was intended less as a dig at 300 in particular, and more as a general disclaimer about Sparta. I really don't expect accurate history from movies, still less the ones where dudes in leather thongs fight war rhinos. I didn't really enjoy 300 all that much; I thought it had one really excellent action scene (the first one) and everything after that just kept getting more dumb and less interesting, but I don't think they should have somehow made a completely different film or anything. It's a mediocre action movie with a really distinctive visual style, some iffy political implications, and a very tenuous relationship to reality.

Although one thing I do have to give Snyder, I've enjoyed the style of his action scenes in Justice League (and assorted other DCU movies that crib it) way, way more than most of the Marvel action scenes. If the premise is that these are superpowered dudes, really sell that to me with every single frame, camera move and edit. I wanna feel that this is the most intense, epic thing ever. Marvel fight scenes to me generally have the intensity of the midwestern idea of 'hot sauce.' Careful analysis indicates there is some heat there, but it ain't gonna set you back on your heels.


I've only watched the movie and not read the book, but isn't the whole thing Dilios telling a story meant to rally the troops? And as such should be assumed to be full of embellishment/distortions/lies? Would it not stand to reason that he will portray the Persians in an extremely negative light while also playing up their ferocity to make the Spartans sound that much greater for being able to resist them so long?


Where that argument falls apart for me is that it's basically an unreliable narrator argument, and there's absolutely no evidence that the narrator is unreliable. The only thing it really rests on is that there's a frame narrative, so the dude telling the story could be embellishing it

[Tyrant]

Where that argument falls apart for me is that it's basically an unreliable narrator argument, and there's absolutely no evidence that the narrator is unreliable. The only thing it really rests on is that there's a frame narrative, so the dude telling the story could be embellishing it
Didn't he have to literally make up the ending since he wasn't around to see it? And if a storyteller makes up one part of the story out of thin air to make it sound good, why not the rest?

[warty goblin]

Didn't he have to literally make up the ending since he wasn't around to see it? And if a storyteller makes up one part of the story out of thin air to make it sound good, why not the rest?

Sure he made up the ending, but it isn't like the film does any work to make him seem like an unreliable narrator. And why would he go making up a lot of the weirder stuff in the movie? "Don't worry men, they have giant monster elephants! Also all our allies are completely worthless and will leave us to die!" isn't exactly a moral booster.

To me at least, if a film (or anything else) is going to play the unreliable narrator card, it needs to do at least some work to justify that. The default assumption is that we can believe what people in a movie tell us, particularly when the cinematography and everything else also agrees with them. Whatshisface the narrator was there for the really out there stuff like the monster elephants and so on, so it's not even doing something subtle like suggesting the more fantasy elements are being made up ex post facto because he doesn't know what happens and needs to make up something good. So I get the argument, he's telling a story and he could be lying. But within the movie's universe, there's absolutely no reason to think he is, at least to me.

[Talakeal]

Interesting. Given how much you like the theatrical version, what don't you like about the extended edition?

Let me clarify, its terrible in comparison. I am sure that if I saw the extended edition in a vacuum, I am sure I would still really like it, just not as much as I like the theatrical version.

I would need to watch them again back to back to remember exactly what is difference, its been a few years, but what sticks out strongly in my mind is the new musical number in the first act which is, while not bad, isn't nearly as good in either the visual or audio departments as the rest of the movie, and really deflates a lot of it. The bigger offender is the new scene at the end where Don Draper explains the symbolism over and over again until all subtlety is gone.

Apparently this was because Snyder didn't want anyone to accuse the scene of being a rape scene, so he went in the opposite direction, trying to justify consent in painful detail. But in a movie that is all about mystery and symbolism and surreal dream logic, having a long drawn out exposition right at the climax kills everything.



Given that everything I've seen of it seems to be an unabashedly shallow action movie, kind of the entire reason they're entertaining is that they're short and, well, punchy.

Making a 3+ hour version of a schlock action flick is like deciding what that rollercoaster REALLY needs is about 10 minutes of slow, stately movement at roughly ground level to really POP.

"Schlock" is pretty subjective and circular. While the movie is certainly part action flick, and imo the best one ever made, that really isn't all there is to it. I am pretty sure Snyder intended to make an art film here, of course whether or not he succeeded is up for debate.

[Psyren]

I'm baffled that it's something that anyone wants to see, personally. His other DC movies have a terrible reputation, and the impression I have is that DC's films only started to improve when he stopped having anything to do with them (Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam), so it sounds like something that can only go badly. Obviously I don't intend to see it, though I look forward to hearing the likely stories about what a train wreck it is.

This. But I can harbor a general appreciation for the fact that the internet is able to get more things greenlit that wouldn't have otherwise seen the light of day than before. (See also the Sonic the Hedgehog rework, rehiring James Gunn etc.)

I'm curious where it goes from here too. The absolute best case scenario for proponents is that it does better than the original, but then that either convinces DC to (a) pick up where they left off with rickety DCEU convergence instead of continuing the good momentum they had going, blunted by WW84, of focusing on good solo movies before trying that again... and/or (b) they decide what really helped this one succeed was Darkseid, which I can only see turning into Thanos 2.0 and being generally mediocre as a result.

Meanwhile the worst case is that it sucks, DC says "see, this is why we shouldn't listen to social media" and in a year or two it becomes a curiosity that nobody remembers. Where is the win here?

[Tyrant]

Sure he made up the ending, but it isn't like the film does any work to make him seem like an unreliable narrator. And why would he go making up a lot of the weirder stuff in the movie? "Don't worry men, they have giant monster elephants! Also all our allies are completely worthless and will leave us to die!" isn't exactly a moral booster.
"The enemy is a hoard of weirdos and rampaging monsters that lesser men ran from, but our brave king and 300 men fought them for days and killed a whole lot of them. Now we, the whole army, can crush them. For those who die, it will be a glorious death." That sounds a lot better than "Well, we picked a strategically sound position that allowed us to kill a whole lot of Persians, but ultimately they remembered they could climb and our guys got turned into Swiss cheese after their arrows blotted out the sun. But even though they still wildly outnumber us and now we're going to fight on open ground, we've got this." You have to make the enemy sound strong so your losses so far are understandable, but also beatable so you can inspire courage and valor.

To me at least, if a film (or anything else) is going to play the unreliable narrator card, it needs to do at least some work to justify that. The default assumption is that we can believe what people in a movie tell us, particularly when the cinematography and everything else also agrees with them. Whatshisface the narrator was there for the really out there stuff like the monster elephants and so on, so it's not even doing something subtle like suggesting the more fantasy elements are being made up ex post facto because he doesn't know what happens and needs to make up something good. So I get the argument, he's telling a story and he could be lying. But within the movie's universe, there's absolutely no reason to think he is, at least to me.
I don't think you can take it as an unreliable narrator in the sense that he is lying to us. The movie clearly shows he is telling a story to get the troops ready for battle and we know he had to have made up the end. He's (potentially) being an unreliable narrator to the Spartan army, not to us. We aren't his audience. The movie is telling us he is telling someone else a story, and in that respect the movie is being honest with us. He is akin to Peter Faulk in The Princess Bride. Fred Savage is the one being told a story, not us. That movie uses the set up of him obviously telling a story from a book, this one shows Dilios trying to rally the troops where I feel it is safe to assume he will embellish. I guess what I am saying is that, to me, the fact he is trying to rally the troops and get them ready for battle is enough to assume he isn't being honest about events and is trying to paint them in such a way that he believes will achieve the desired effect. This scenario, to me, is the equivalent of seeing someone read from a storybook. It tells me what I am hearing is likely fictional. I accept that I could be wrong though.

[Clertar]

This. But I can harbor a general appreciation for the fact that the internet is able to get more things greenlit that wouldn't have otherwise seen the light of day than before. (See also the Sonic the Hedgehog rework, rehiring James Gunn etc.)


It can also backfire, like getting Trevorrow's Duel of the Fates cancelled and bringing back Abrams for Rise of Skywalker after the backlash and outrage against The Last Jedi.

[Peelee]

It can also backfire, like getting Trevorrow's Duel of the Fates cancelled

Having seen the Jurassic World series, I am not so certain that was "backfiring".

[Imbalance]

I have no horse in this race, because I have not seen this movie and don't intend to, but I certainly share the bafflement that this exists and that people have apparently been clamoring for it. Does anyone seriously think a longer version of what sounds like a pretty mediocre movie is going to be amazing?

Not amazing, probably not even better. What I'm looking for is "more complete."

[Gallowglass]

I have no horse in this race, because I have not seen this movie and don't intend to, but I certainly share the bafflement that this exists and that people have apparently been clamoring for it. Does anyone seriously think a longer version of what sounds like a pretty mediocre movie is going to be amazing?

You are living in a forum that seems to be composed of 99% people who hate Zack Snyder and hated Justice League (yet still feel compelled to take time to post in a thread that's about both of them for some odd reason). This isn't indicative of the overall feelings in the community of people who "have a horse" in it

There is a massive lot of "horse-havers" who are interested in this for several reasons:

not inclusively:

They love Comic Book Movies, didn't like Justice League and hope this will be better
They love Justice League, didn't like the movie and hope this will be better.
They hate Joss Weedon (always or just now)
They love Zack Snyder
They hated Justice league, but since then were enamored with Wonder Woman and Aquaman and hope this will be better
They have HBOMax subscriptions and are just happy to actually get some content

[Lemmy]

I wonder how good an action movie could be if it had Snyder direct the combat/action scenes, but had a competent writer/director for story progression and character development.

Sure... There'd probably be a few stylistic clashes, but it'd still end up better than going full Snyder or full .

I think 300 makes it pretty clear that the narrator is indeed unreliable. Not only he's trying to inspire troops, he tells stories about events he didn't witness and had no way of knowing and everything (including the narration itself) is over-the-top and clearly overly dramatic.

Hell! The whole reason the narrator was told to go back was precisely because he was such a great story-teller. Exaggerating your valor and virtues while dehumanizing your opponent is a tactic almost as old as human conflict itself.

Sure, the movie doesn't explicitly say [i]"Oi, that's just... Like... Your opinion, man...", but it isn't exactly subtle about the narrator's (lack of) reliability

[Psyren]

It can also backfire, like getting Trevorrow's Duel of the Fates cancelled and bringing back Abrams for Rise of Skywalker after the backlash and outrage against The Last Jedi.

I don't know that the original plan of every film having a different director for each installment would have been any better. Really it should have been one creative vision from start to finish. So I can't really blame the internet for the controversy when it was the studio mandate (and over-correction from that mandate) that doomed the trilogy before it began.

[Fyraltari]

I don't know that the original plan of every film having a different director for each installment would have been any better.
That wouldn't have been a problem if there had been an overarching story planned from the start.

[Psyren]

That wouldn't have been a problem if there had been an overarching story planned from the start.

...Which relies on a single creative vision, as I stated, yes.

As an example - the MCU had myriad directors, but the overall direction and constraints they worked within were set by Kevin Feige.

This is not to say you need every detail planned out in advance - the MCU definitely didn't! - but they knew which of the mulitple seeds they planted could either be nurtured or discarded, depending on what resonated with audiences and what didn't, and still keep that overarching story intact. For example, establishing the Quantum Realm and its effect on time was necessary, but something like Odin's Vault and its contents wasn't, and ended up being largely tossed.

[Fyraltari]

...Which relies on a single creative vision, as I stated, yes.



Not necessarily, the executives at Disney could have decided early on which three directors they wanted for each of the three movies then had all three sit together to work out the outline of the general story and then each of them could have done what they wanted with their movie as long as they respected the outline.

[Jan Mattys]

I have no horse in this race, because I have not seen this movie and don't intend to, but I certainly share the bafflement that this exists and that people have apparently been clamoring for it. Does anyone seriously think a longer version of what sounds like a pretty mediocre movie is going to be amazing?

This could have been written by me verbatim.

It's a coincidence, but I just replied to you in the "Favourite Western movie" thread citing Sergio Leone, and tangentially his non-western movie "Once upon a time in America" as well. If you google it, you can see how the American cut was a commercial and critical flop, while the European cut is often regarded as one of the best movies ever made.
So a different cut making all the difference? I guess it's rare, but it happens.

[Dienekes]

It's a coincidence, but I just replied to you in the "Favourite Western movie" thread citing Sergio Leone, and tangentially his non-western movie "Once upon a time in America" as well. If you google it, you can see how the American cut was a commercial and critical flop, while the European cut is often regarded as one of the best movies ever made.
So a different cut making all the difference? I guess it's rare, but it happens.

Kingdom of Heaven also might count. A thoroughly labored mess of a movie on initial release with the director's cut adding back in the end of one of the principle character's arc, and more details as to why everyone's behaving as they do.

But the difference here to JL is, Ridley Scott was trying to send a message and show mock tangled web of politics to explore that message* that were cut for time. Which made the movie without it feel a bloated confusing mess.

JL doesn't really try to explore heady topics nor does it really have a particularly complicated plot. It was just a mess of bashing together a group of famous comicbook events.

*Even if the message and politics of the movie are not much related to the actual period displayed. But that's here nor there.

[Tyndmyr]

Depends on what you like? The consensus on these boards is thor ragnarok and Star Wars: The Last Jedi were great and I didn't enjoy either of those. I also liked Batman V Superman which this board mostly disliked.

Dunno. Most of us enjoy Ragnarok, but we of course concede that it's very different in style from the first two Thor films. I can certainly see that as jarring to a fan of the earlier films.

And I personally wasn't a big fan of TLJ. The whole new trilogy is a disjointed mess. Yeah, maybe a lot of that is on the first two films for bungling all the setup, but if you're gonna bring back Palpatine, I feel like maybe you should at least do that in a movie, not in Fortnite.

Justice League is...not great. The bad guy is generic, the plot is kind of not amazing, and there's waaaay too much waiting for Superman. None of those problems are likely to be solved by the inclusion of more material. Yeah, maybe some of that might be appreciated by hardcore DC fans, but it's niche at best. I don't see it significantly altering the film's quality.

It's possible I may see it anyways. There's a severe lack of movies coming out at present.

Snyder is the master of the mini-movie in a single scene. Watchman uses this repeatedly, Sucker Punch uses it initially, and even the otherwise terrible BvS uses it well to very briefly go over Bruce's origin story. Good thing, too, because none of us need another long explanation of how he became batman. It's the long form where he drags.

So, a supersized film is, uh, not promising. It just doesn't play to the thing he's good at. It'd be like going to see a Tarantino film with no dialogue.

[Clertar]

So, a supersized film is, uh, not promising. It just doesn't play to the thing he's good at. It'd be like going to see a Tarantino film with no dialogue.

I'm quite on the fence on this one. I don't usually watch director's cuts or extended cuts of films that I didn't like to begin with. I would probably prefer to invest that movie time into rewatching The Deluge, for example :smallbiggrin:

I guess I'll wait for the reaction. There will Youtube movie critic videos at some point going over the modifications in 1/10 of the duration anyways.

[Aedilred]

On 300: I accept that Dilios is intended as an unreliable narrator but that only goes so far. Film is a visual medium and what's being shown on screen matters. What 300 gives us is an hour and a half of non-white-stereotype greatest hits being roundly thrashed by manly white men, and that's without getting into the stuff to do with sexuality and (arguably) ableism; that's what we see, that's what's memorable, that's what's on all the posters, that's the message people take away from it.

Yes, the Dilios narration benefits from "othering" the Persians and that makes sense in that context. But the driving narrative of the film isn't pumping up the troops for Plataea: that's a framing device for the Thermopylae story. The narration is never questioned, even when it appears preposterous. And even taking the unreliable narration as read, you still have to ask the Doylian question as to why it was decided to tell the story in that way in the first place.

So I don't think unreliable narration gets it off the hook: arguably, it's a fig leaf to justify what could otherwise have been one of the most racist mainstream films of the 21st century.

Now, I will admit that when I first saw it, I too went "oh well this isn't really a true story; it's been mythologised since the battle was fought" (ignoring that it was promoted as at least mostly a true story) and also excused it with the unreliable narrator angle, and thought the contemporary complaints about racism were overdoing it. But that was 2007 and what was easy to ignore then isn't so easy to ignore now in hindsight. I think I was also guilty of not wanting to examine it too closely because I just didn't want to think about it. When I came to rewatch the movie a few years later, I found it problematic.

Arguably, Snyder's superficiality counts in his favour there. In Watchmen, he did a pretty decent job of faithfully transposing page to screen in a visual sense, indeed, revelling in the imagery and building on it, while ignoring the subtext and thereby missing the point. I can therefore entirely believe that he did the same with 300, making the Persians as monstrous and weird, and the Spartans as Mighty Whitey, as he could, without ever realising that was what he was doing. Questions still have to be asked, but principally of Miller (who produced the film as well as the comic).

But if I let Snyder off the hook for that, I can't really give him any credit for the stuff he did well either, and basically have to discard his directorial contribution altogether. So from a CV perspective, if I take that view, 300 basically doesn't count, and since I would, despite all the above, say it was his second-best film, that doesn't say a lot for his actual ability.


It's a coincidence, but I just replied to you in the "Favourite Western movie" thread citing Sergio Leone, and tangentially his non-western movie "Once upon a time in America" as well. If you google it, you can see how the American cut was a commercial and critical flop, while the European cut is often regarded as one of the best movies ever made.
So a different cut making all the difference? I guess it's rare, but it happens.

There are a few examples around. The most famous one is probably Blade Runner, where the theatrical cut is hated and the director's cut adored. There's also Star Wars: the original (unreleased) cut was panned by almost everyone who saw it, and Lucas re-edited it extensively before release - it went on to do ok.

[Psyren]

Not necessarily, the executives at Disney could have decided early on which three directors they wanted for each of the three movies then had all three sit together to work out the outline of the general story and then each of them could have done what they wanted with their movie as long as they respected the outline.

Yeah, I don't see that working any better, sorry.

[Lord Raziere]

I have no horse in this race, because I have not seen this movie and don't intend to, but I certainly share the bafflement that this exists and that people have apparently been clamoring for it. Does anyone seriously think a longer version of what sounds like a pretty mediocre movie is going to be amazing?

Nonsense, I'm sure when it comes out it will slay the jabberwocky, save narnia and find a pot of a gold at the end of the rainbow.

Ditto for me, this whole "Snyder cut" thing really sounds fairy tale-ish to me.

[Clertar]

There are a few examples around. The most famous one is probably Blade Runner, where the theatrical cut is hated and the director's cut adored. There's also Star Wars: the original (unreleased) cut was panned by almost everyone who saw it, and Lucas re-edited it extensively before release - it went on to do ok.

I'm not sure if that would count as an example of that, or of the opposite: the original festival release of Outlaw King was quite panned, and the director himself saw how flawed it was. He trimmed a lot of runtime for the Netflix release, and that one was considered a very good movie.

[Peelee]

if you're gonna bring back Palpatine, I feel like maybe you should at least do that in a movie, not in Fortnite.

This is why you don't work in Hollywood. :smalltongue:

[Tyndmyr]

This is why you don't work in Hollywood. :smalltongue:

And if Fortnite is a requirement, I never will! :smallcool:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr
And if Fortnite is a requirement, I never will!

Could someone please explain the Fortnite joke? I don't play a lot of video games.

[Lord Raziere]

Could someone please explain the Fortnite joke? I don't play a lot of video games.

Apparently for some reason they put Palpatine into Fortnite as a promotional/advertisement stunt. To this day, no one knows why.

[Dragonus45]

All I'll say is that there is a part of my brain that is very satisfied to see Snyder getting a chance to finish something he started more on his own terms. Especially after the situation that lead to him leaving in the first place. I don't particularly expect what comes out the other end here to be good though. Fascinating? Probably, most of his work is kind of fascinating even, or especially, when it's bad.

[Sapphire Guard]

Not sure why people are so resistant to this. The worst that can happen is it's not a great film.

[Peelee]

And if Fortnite is a requirement, I never will! :smallcool:
Id like to move away from making it a requirement. Tyndmyr for President of Hollywood, I say!

Could someone please explain the Fortnite joke? I don't play a lot of video games.
The opening crawl of TROS talked about how Palpatine returned. I legit thought I had missed something in the previous movies in the trilogy upon reading that, despite how often I watched them. Apparently, the news was first broken in a Star Wars event of Fortnite, during which you could hear the galaxy-wide magic broadcast of Palpatine claiming he was back and would doom everything, revealing everything for no reason despite his entire life dedicated to hiding in secrecy until he was ready to pull the trigger.

It was, in every possible sense, a ****ing horrible idea.

Not sure why people are so resistant to this. The worst that can happen is it's not a great film.

Speaking solely for myself, I'm not resistant, I'm just... Well, I kind of understand why people watch NASCAR now.

[Tyndmyr]

Thank you, thank you, I promise that my reign will be brutal and merciless!


Could someone please explain the Fortnite joke? I don't play a lot of video games.

Sadly, not a joke.

They literally decided to, instead of explaining the arrival of Palpatine in the videos, to do it in Fortnite.

Which most of us didn't know about at all, because there's no particular reason a Star Wars fan would be plugged into Fortnite. So, mostly there was a bunch of people going "huh?"

I am morbidly curious about what the overarching strategy was for that trilogy. I mean, sure "none" is a valid answer, but there had to be meetings and stuff. How exactly did these decisions happen?

[warty goblin]

I am morbidly curious about what the overarching strategy was for that trilogy. I mean, sure "none" is a valid answer, but there had to be meetings and stuff. How exactly did these decisions happen?

As meeting time approaches 8 hours, the probability of the poor souls trapped within said meeting making any decision just to get the meeting to end approaches 1. It may well be that the guiding strategy was "Sure Bob's idea is so mind-crackingly dumb just hearing it made me forget my street address and my mother in law's name, but if I agree with it, I can try to find out where I live and then order pizza."

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr
They literally decided to, instead of explaining the arrival of Palpatine in the videos, to do it in Fortnite.

Which most of us didn't know about at all, because there's no particular reason a Star Wars fan would be plugged into Fortnite. So, mostly there was a bunch of people going "huh?"

Now that was a bizarre marketing decision. Because when I first saw the title crawl, I was thinking "what?" and wondering where that came from.

At least I wasn't alone in my confusion. But now I'm baffled who could've possibly thought that was a good idea.

[Sapphire Guard]

If there had been a firm plan, it would have got wrecked when Carrie died anyway.

[Peelee]

If there had been a firm plan, it would have got wrecked when Carrie died anyway.

Not necessarily. In TLJ, I thought they were killing off Leia before she just came back. They could have legit killed her off with a firm plan and different plots. Or had different schedules and had all her filming done. The first is more likely, but there are definite possibilities. And could have always recast,thouhh that would probably have been met with some pushback.

[Mordar]

There are a few examples around. The most famous one is probably Blade Runner, where the theatrical cut is hated and the director's cut adored. There's also Star Wars: the original (unreleased) cut was panned by almost everyone who saw it, and Lucas re-edited it extensively before release - it went on to do ok.

But...isn't that more like the "Not-Director's Cut"? Because Hirsch?

Random comments on other elements from the thread:

Liked watching Sucker Punch the way I did...saw several independent segments of it at different times without seeing the whole film. Thus I made my own story stitching the dream sequences together.

Totally missed the boat on 300. Watchmen was overhyped from the very beginning of the print run, much less the movie...

Virtually all of my interest in DC movies has waned - liked WW a lot, but WW84 was a gigantic step backwards. The only MCU movie I don't like better than all of the DC movies (other than WW) is GotG 2. And maybe GotG.

I think the new SW trilogy could have worked fine with three directors, and even three directors coming together to decide on their shared story...but it would take the right temperament, and I don't know who has that any more.

- M

[Psyren]

Well apparently the Rian Johnson trilogy isn't dead (https://www.ign.com/articles/star-wars-rian-johnson-trilogy-reportedly-still-in-the-works), so we may yet see whether a unified creative vision can do a better job with SW than the scattershot approach did. I firmly believe the answer to that is yes, but only time will tell.

Regarding Snyder, I actually liked Sucker Punch. But I maintain that his problem is that doubling down on Nolan's edgy approach to the DC universe at the expense of their more idealistic beats is a mistake. I absolutely detested Man of Steel, and I fail to see how more of that with an infusion of Joker is going to improve anything, but it feels like ths studio is hell-bent on being tonally different from Marvel no matter the cost to its characters. His insistence on forcing black-suit Superman onto the big screen (https://www.cbr.com/zack-snyder-expains-superman-black-suit-reason/) is a microcosm of that misalignment, at least to me.

In my view, Vision makes a much better Superman than anything the DCEU has put out lately.

[Peelee]

Well apparently the Rian Johnson trilogy isn't dead (https://www.ign.com/articles/star-wars-rian-johnson-trilogy-reportedly-still-in-the-works), so we may yet see whether a unified creative vision can do a better job with SW than the scattershot approach did. I firmly believe the answer to that is yes, but only time will tell.

After Knives Out I'm definitely interested.

[Fyraltari]

Well apparently the Rian Johnson trilogy isn't dead (https://www.ign.com/articles/star-wars-rian-johnson-trilogy-reportedly-still-in-the-works), so we may yet see whether a unified creative vision can do a better job with SW than the scattershot approach did. I firmly believe the answer to that is yes, but only time will tell.


After Knives Out I'm definitely interested.
Count me in. I still think thay one of the main flaws of the ST was that it erased the achievements of the OT and that it wouldn't have been as bad if it had involved completely different characters, so I'm interested to see what Johnson can do when he's in SW's terra incognita

Also, I gotta remember to watch Knives Out at some point.

[Dire_Flumph]

To be fair, I've nothing but sympathy given his job was "write the middle portion to a story featuring beloved characters with a rabid fanbase. You have no input into the beginning or ending."

Somewhat back on track, I got a good laugh this morning out of the realization that a red-banded, gory trailer for a Mortal Kombat movie looked less gloomy and more fun than a superhero flick starring the Justice League.

[Rodin]

After Knives Out I'm definitely interested.

Knives Out demonstrates why Johnson was a poor choice for the middle film in a trilogy where he didn't have creative control of either end. He likes playing with character archetypes and breaking them down. The "brilliant detective" that misses the blindingly obvious, the "Chosen One" who is actually nothing of the kind. Doing so when the prior and following movies did not support it resulted in...well...TLJ. In this Johnson is very similar to Snyder - he had a vision of the characters and forced it into a franchise that didn't support that vision.

Johnson could have worked for a deconstructive take on Star Wars but not as part of the main trilogy. He would have been better served helming a self contained movie like Rogue One. A trilogy set in a distant corner of the galaxy that he controls start to finish is much more his speed.

On Carrie Fisher - literally all they had to do was remove the scene where Leia saves herself. Leia was killed by her son, the end. Slightly anti-climactic for such a venerable character but audiences would have understood given the circumstances.

As for Snyder, he needs to get out of the superhero genre. If he were to focus on doing something original or which was already dark and gritty he would draw much less flak. There's obviously an audience for his directorial style. He should go and create something his fans like instead of irritating everyone by dumping on Superman.

[Psyren]

Somewhat back on track, I got a good laugh this morning out of the realization that a red-banded, gory trailer for a Mortal Kombat movie looked less gloomy and more fun than a superhero flick starring the Justice League.

YES!!!! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin::smallbiggrin:

Although I will never, ever understand Hollywood's insistence on saying "You know what this beloved video game property with a vibrant cast of characters needs? A gormless new person (preferably white!) to serve as the audience POV protagonist!"

Put another way - who the blank is Cole and why are they adding a new Chosen One to MK? Didn't they learn their lesson from Deception?

[Psyren]

Somewhat back on track, I got a good laugh this morning out of the realization that a red-banded, gory trailer for a Mortal Kombat movie looked less gloomy and more fun than a superhero flick starring the Justice League.

YES!!!! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin::smallbiggrin:

Although I will never, ever understand Hollywood's insistence on saying "You know what this beloved video game property with a vibrant cast of characters needs? A gormless new person (preferably white!) to serve as the audience POV protagonist!"

Put another way - who the blank is Cole (Kole?) and why are they adding a new Chosen One to MK? Didn't they learn their lesson from Deception?



On Carrie Fisher - literally all they had to do was remove the scene where Leia saves herself. Leia was killed by her son, the end. Slightly anti-climactic for such a venerable character but audiences would have understood given the circumstances.


I saw literally no problem with her being the one to finish Rey's Force training and dying shortly afterward. Using the Force to save herself was a badass moment, period. My entire theater gasped.



As for Snyder, he needs to get out of the superhero genre. If he were to focus on doing something original or which was already dark and gritty he would draw much less flak. There's obviously an audience for his directorial style. He should go and create something his fans like instead of irritating everyone by dumping on Superman.

Or hell, give him gritty superheroes to work with. I could see a Spawn reboot being worth something. Or put him behind Supreme Power or something.

Or if it absolutely has to be Superman, Injustice is almost certainly going to be a movie one day. I can't fathom why it sells, but it does.

[Dragonus45]

After Knives Out I'm definitely interested.

He is without a doubt one of my favorite directors alive, but I still don't think I like him mucking about in start wars with a mainline series. I rather like my sweeping narratives about good/evil and the like and am not on board with the depth of deconstructionist take on the whole setting. Give him like, Rogue One 2 or something.



Or hell, give him gritty superheroes to work with. I could see a Spawn reboot being worth something. Or put him behind Supreme Power or something.

Or if it absolutely has to be Superman, Injustice is almost certainly going to be a movie one day. I can't fathom why it sells, but it does.

Oh absolutely, there are certainly super hero properties that would fit the tone he wants to land on. Heck, given his personal philosophical leanings I could see him doing well if you threw Question, Blue Beatle, and so one from the old Charlton Comics at him as it's own self small budget series.

[Peelee]

Also, I gotta remember to watch Knives Out at some point.

You will want the full donut trilogy after watching it. And you will understand that joke.

[Mordar]

Well apparently the Rian Johnson trilogy isn't dead (https://www.ign.com/articles/star-wars-rian-johnson-trilogy-reportedly-still-in-the-works), so we may yet see whether a unified creative vision can do a better job with SW than the scattershot approach did. I firmly believe the answer to that is yes, but only time will tell.

This will not prove/disprove your hypothesis...I believe the null should certainly be rejected, but I would not count on Johnson for a quality data point.


After Knives Out I'm definitely interested.

I liked about 95% of Knives Out...and had I *not* seen the trailers, it probably would have been like 99%.


Knives Out demonstrates why Johnson was a poor choice for the middle film in a trilogy where he didn't have creative control of either end. He likes playing with character archetypes and breaking them down. The "brilliant detective" that misses the blindingly obvious, the "Chosen One" who is actually nothing of the kind. Doing so when the prior and following movies did not support it resulted in...well...TLJ. In this Johnson is very similar to Snyder - he had a vision of the characters and forced it into a franchise that didn't support that vision.

Johnson could have worked for a deconstructive take on Star Wars but not as part of the main trilogy. He would have been better served helming a self contained movie like Rogue One. A trilogy set in a distant corner of the galaxy that he controls start to finish is much more his speed.

He wasn't a good choice at all, in my opinion. His overwhelming desire to subvert/deconstruct popular things to earn cheap pops needs to remain outside of an established universe...or at least one he did not create. Got a clever message you want to share? You've got the credit and bankability now...do it in your own world and your own way.

Back on topic: Is Snyder a victim of "Dark DC" or is he a victimizer?

- M

[warty goblin]

I've never really seen Last Jedi as deconstructionist in any meaningful way. Really it's just straight Star Wars, rebels good, Empire bad, Jedi do Jedi stuff to save the day. I suppose it's a little subversive that Rey and Kylo have their special bondy-bondy moment and Kylo isn't immediately redeemed...but pretty much the same thing happened with Luke and Vader in Empire. And Luke refuses to train Rey before training Rey, sorta just like Yoda and Luke in Empire. And everybody else runs around doing a bunch of stuff before getting betrayed and in way over their heads... just like in Empire. I suppose "tertiary character actually for real sells the heroes out, no backsies" is like kinda a subversion, but only if your expectation is that literally everyone the heroes meet immediately drops all existing priorities on the spot to help them... which has never been the case in the first place.

It's just a less good version of Empire with a couple plot dead ends and a timeline that explicitly makes no sense. I guess we get a grand total of like 15 seconds of outright subversion when they talk about arms dealers making bank off of Ye Eternal Star War, but this goes nowhere, means nothing, and impacts the characters not at all.

[Fyraltari]

Johnson could have worked for a deconstructive take on Star Wars but not as part of the main trilogy. He would have been better served helming a self contained movie like Rogue One. A trilogy set in a distant corner of the galaxy that he controls start to finish is much more his speed.
In other words "why KOTOR II isn't as divisive as TLJ".



You will want the full donut trilogy after watching it. And you will understand that joke.
*Note to self: watch the cornetto trilogy.*

[Trafalgar]

From earlier in this thread:


Is it just me or does it seem like every movie thread degenerates into a Star Wars: The Last Jedi discussion? I am surprised someone hasn't said Star Wars: The Last Jedi as a favorite Samurai/Western movie on those threads.


Every thread here eventually degenerates into a Star Wars thread. Every Star Wars thread here eventually degenerates into a Last Jedi thread.


So The Last Jedi is the black hole of giantitip.com? We are all slowly sucked towards it no matter what we do.

And we are sucked into the black hole again!

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Trafalgar
And we are sucked into the black hole again!

It's a high parabolic orbit, just like those stars orbiting the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/videos/ghezGC_comp3-18_H264_864_VP8.webm).

[Lord Vukodlak]

So back to the main subject, no. The expectations of this film are to some how turn it into Infinity War. So if I have no expectations no excitement I might actually be able to enjoy it.

Back to SW, When George Lucas wrote the original trilogy he didn’t really know where he was going but was very good at looking back and seeing what the old film could lead to.
He didn’t come up with the reveal that Vader was really Anakin Skywalker until he was writing Empire.

The problem with the writing of the prequel trilogy was he knew where it was going so he had to write a path to get there.

The problem with the sequel trilogy was they had no idea where they were going and there was no looking back to see what they could build from the road already had.

[tomandtish]

To sum up my opinion simply: Snyder has one basic style that he uses regardless of whether it's appropriate or not. If you like the style, you'll enjoy his movies. If you don't, you won't.

I'm not a fan, and it's hard for me to see how adding two hours to a mediocre movie is going to improve it. But as someone said previously (don't remember if it was this thread or another), there's no way anyone is going to greenlight a 4 hour superhero movie, so don't do it that way from the beginning.

[Zevox]

YES!!!! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin::smallbiggrin:

Although I will never, ever understand Hollywood's insistence on saying "You know what this beloved video game property with a vibrant cast of characters needs? A gormless new person (preferably white!) to serve as the audience POV protagonist!"

Put another way - who the blank is Cole (Kole?) and why are they adding a new Chosen One to MK? Didn't they learn their lesson from Deception?
Wait, they're making up a new generic white dude protagonist for that Mortal Kombat movie? Did Mortal Kombat somehow not have enough potential main protagonists to choose from? Because I'm not even a big MK fan (hence why I haven't watched the trailers for that film to know this), but I can name ten good options just off the top of my head. One of them's even a white dude, Johnny Cage.

...and yeah, quick internet search, and it does look like this Cole guy is new to the film, not some obscure pull from one of the less popular games. Wow.

[Kitten Champion]

Clearly the Mortal Kombat movie was crying out for Shujinko as its protagonist.

Still, the threat of a 4 hour Zack Snyder film would be enough to break me, in lieu of actual torture.

[Tyrant]

Oh absolutely, there are certainly super hero properties that would fit the tone he wants to land on. Heck, given his personal philosophical leanings I could see him doing well if you threw Question, Blue Beatle, and so one from the old Charlton Comics at him as it's own self small budget series.
Didn't they already do something like that and call it Watchmen?

[Lord Raziere]

Didn't they already do something like that and call it Watchmen?

Wasn't Watchmen itself just that in comic book form?

[Dienekes]

Wasn't Watchmen itself just that in comic book form?

Eh, kinda. Watchmen the comic has clear parallels to their characters. But analyzes and ultimately rejects most the philosophies espoused by the old Charlton Comic characters, especially Ditko's Question and Boyette's Peacemaker.

Then Snyder made his movie and seemed to miss that Rorschach wasn't the hero and while Comedian had an intelligence to him, nothing he did was actually cool or admirable.

Letting him make a movie where Question can be in the right without him missing the subtext of the story may actually work.

[Dragonus45]

You know, I think it’s worth giving him the credit to say he probably did get who Rorschach was but just wanted to interpret the character differently rather then just assuming he “didn’t get it”

[AvatarVecna]

My general impression of the original movie is that it was trying to be Avengers 1 despite having two movies of build-up (both with a heavy focus on Superman), and having to cram that build-up into Justice League. If Wonder Woman had happened before JL, if Aquaman had happened before JL, there'd be less need to have the "im putting together a team" scenes in this movie as opposed to in those ones. Flash and Cyborg have little enough pre-existing heroics that introducing them in Justice League could work well enough, but when this is the first time we've seen three of the six members, and the first time Wonder Woman's gotten real character development as opposed to cameos, and it's still building up Batman's characterization more than a little bit, and we've gotta work in a resurrection mechanic for bringing superman back to life because they killed him in the second movie...

...it's just too much to cram into one film. They tried to get too much done too quickly. Half the reason the MCU works is because it's a story told across 22 movies. It doesn't speak well of Justice League that it would literally be a better movie if it had come out after Wonder Woman and Aquaman, but that's the context it lives within.

Suicide Squad had the same problem but worse, and also other problems: if there'd been a series of movies that have already occurred (especially a Batman movie), we could've had establishing scenes for Joker, Harley, Deadshot, and Captain Boomerang. Granted, there's other problems that movie had that wouldn't be solved by this, but at least then you wouldn't be more or less entirely dependent on comic knowledge to have an idea of what, say, Killer Croc's deal is. If he'd had characterization as a small cameo in a batman movie or something, maybe he would've been allowed to have character at all. Maybe they could've had a supervillain issue to solve that was actually on their threat-level. Maybe...maybe lots of things.

EDIT:


To sum up my opinion simply: Snyder has one basic style that he uses regardless of whether it's appropriate or not. If you like the style, you'll enjoy his movies. If you don't, you won't.

I'm not a fan, and it's hard for me to see how adding two hours to a mediocre movie is going to improve it. But as someone said previously (don't remember if it was this thread or another), there's no way anyone is going to greenlight a 4 hour superhero movie, so don't do it that way from the beginning.

This. Snyder is really really good at taking a cool image in his head and making it happen on the big screen. He's...okayish to bad at connection cool scenes together. This works in 300 because that movie is basically all cool scenes and very minimal filler and that's the whole style of it so who cares. But other movies suffer from having the connective-tissue neglected, including Justice League.

[GloatingSwine]

You know, I think it’s worth giving him the credit to say he probably did get who Rorschach was but just wanted to interpret the character differently rather then just assuming he “didn’t get it”

If you read what Snyder himself says about his Watchmen film, you will understand that he thinks that he is faithfully reproducing the comic.

Which, given how his movie is so obviously thematically opposite to the comic in so many ways, really does mean that we have to assume that Snyder's "faithful reproduction" was of a version of Watchmen that only existed in his head, and which was built from only the surface aesthetic of the comic without examining what the comic was saying about what it showed.


”You should be less sexy and less violent,” I say, ”But that’s Watchmen.”

source (https://ew.com/article/2008/07/17/watchmen-chat-director-zack-snyder/)

As I pointed out upthread. Watchmen isn't sexy. There's sex in it, but it's not sexy. It's actually quite sad and pathetic, it's there to show what's wrong with these people and how they fail to make normal human connections. And the violence is, because of the way the comic depicts it (or rather doesn't, remember, only the instant after the violence is shown never the act), not there to show violence but to show harm and hurt.

Snyder tells us what he thinks Watchmen is about, and he's wrong. He didn't get it. His own words demonstrate that. He constructed a version of it in his head that ignored quite a lot of the actual work because he only looks at the surfaces, not the meanings.

[Peelee]

My general impression of the original movie is that it was trying to be Avengers 1

Massively overhyped mediocrity? HEYO!

Please do not kill me for this.

[GloatingSwine]

Have you ever actually listened to the dialogue in Avengers 1 and tried to use it to follow the plot?

It's 90% nonsensical Whedonism where the characters are mostly talking at air rather than talking to each other like actual people might.

[Keltest]

Have you ever actually listened to the dialogue in Avengers 1 and tried to use it to follow the plot?

It's 90% nonsensical Whedonism where the characters are mostly talking at air rather than talking to each other like actual people might.

Having been in a room with several smart-mouthed people who are generally not terribly interested in cooperating with each other, i can confirm that is actually about what it would sound like.

[LaZodiac]

Have you ever actually listened to the dialogue in Avengers 1 and tried to use it to follow the plot?

It's 90% nonsensical Whedonism where the characters are mostly talking at air rather than talking to each other like actual people might.

Not that I'm even remotely enthused about jumping to even a light defense of a work that unfortunately was done by a very bad person, but that's literally every movie. It's a visual medium, not a radio play.

[Peelee]

Not that I'm even remotely enthused about jumping to even a light defense of a work that unfortunately was done by a very bad person, but that's literally every movie. It's a visual medium, not a radio play.

Movable cameras mean most movies have people talk directly at each other without needing to orient their bodies towards the audience, if that's what you mean. But i do not think that's what GloatingSwine meant.

[Tyrant]

Wasn't Watchmen itself just that in comic book form?
That was more or less what I was going for. The way I understand it, Alan Moore went to DC with an idea for the (at that point, newly acquired) Charlton characters. They loved the idea, but realized it would utterly ruin the characters for any future use so they told him to go ahead with the story but create new characters. Those ended up being based on the Charlton characters. I'll leave it to others more knowledgeable on the topic than myself to debate how close Moore came to replicating them and if he meant to 100%.

Basically I was trying to make a joke based on the history of the comic. Apparently I shouldn't quit my day job.

Edit to add: As far as Snyder and Rorschach, I've always taken the hero worship as a sign of the leanings of the audience. Using just the movie, you can make a very clear case that Rorschach is mentally unhinged and should not be considered a hero. A somewhat effective vigilante who gives some criminals what they deserve? Maybe, I guess. Delivering what the audience feels is satisfying justice to murderers (and worse)? Sure. A hero? Not even close. That the audience sees him that way is on the audience. They shouldn't leave that movie feeling like anyone was a hero. I feel like Snyder left more than enough in the movie to make that point clear.

The majority of the audience doesn't realize it's a deconstruction and not a straight super hero movie, so they feel like there should be a hero and they jump to one of the only choices that kinda fits. Rorschach has lots of monologue moments, he's like Batman but actually solves problems instead of waiting for them to kill again, etc. Who else are they going to gravitate towards? Dan? He's too wishy washy. Dr. Manhattan? The unknowable, inhuman god? Ozymandias? Maybe, he does take a more proactive role and tries to solve what he sees as the problem, but does so by killing millions of people. People don't like to admit they were wrong, or tricked. So, they think up to most of the way through the movie that they are watching a regular superhero movie and thus someone must be the hero, and they choose Rorschach. They don't back down from this because it would require introspection and that isn't what the masses look for in movies. I don't really blame Snyder for the failings of the audience. Perhaps he can be blamed for not anticipating said failings though. I do blame him for leaving out the squid.

[LaZodiac]

Movable cameras mean most movies have people talk directly at each other without needing to orient their bodies towards the audience, if that's what you mean. But i do not think that's what GloatingSwine meant.

What I'm saying is that if you remove all the visuals of a movie and only rely on dialogue you're not going to know what is happening. That's not a uniquely Avengers 1 thing.

[Peelee]

What I'm saying is that if you remove all the visuals of a movie and only rely on dialogue you're not going to know what is happening. That's not a uniquely Avengers 1 thing.

Ah, that makes more sense, but I also disagree with that. Most movies require dialogue for the vast majority of the plot and to explain what would happen, and the visuals are just quick and dirty exposition. Off the top of my head you could play The Blues Brothers with the monitor turned off and understand the vast majority of the plot and what is happening. Even with Jaws, the dialogue and the visuals pull equal weight. I don't remember much of Avengers 1 so I can't soak to how accurate the statement was, but expository and plot-advancing dialogue to other characters is a pretty major and vital part of filmmaking. So much so that it's very noticeable and commented on when it is absent.

[LaZodiac]

Ah, that makes more sense, but I also disagree with that. Most movies require dialogue for the vast majority of the plot and to explain what would happen, and the visuals are just quick and dirty exposition. Off the top of my head you could play The Blues Brothers with the monitor turned off and understand the vast majority of the plot and what is happening. Even with Jaws, the dialogue and the visuals pull equal weight. I don't remember much of Avengers 1 so I can't soak to how accurate the statement was, but expository and plot-advancing dialogue to other characters is a pretty major and vital part of filmmaking. So much so that it's very noticeable and commented on when it is absent.

Eh, that's fair. I would argue that to some degree, but I haven't seen Blues Brothers or Jaws. It'd still be far harder to follow those films without the visuals though.

In the case of Avengers and so on, it probably does lean more heavily on showing the story with visuals, and that might make it very hard to follow JUST from dialogue... but I don't think that is unique, and I don't think it'd be impossible.

[Dragonus45]

Ah, that makes more sense, but I also disagree with that. Most movies require dialogue for the vast majority of the plot and to explain what would happen, and the visuals are just quick and dirty exposition. Off the top of my head you could play The Blues Brothers with the monitor turned off and understand the vast majority of the plot and what is happening. Even with Jaws, the dialogue and the visuals pull equal weight. I don't remember much of Avengers 1 so I can't soak to how accurate the statement was, but expository and plot-advancing dialogue to other characters is a pretty major and vital part of filmmaking. So much so that it's very noticeable and commented on when it is absent.

Context is everything though, and Avengers 1 exists in the context of it being less a "movie" and more of a two hour long celebration that the whole Marvel Experiment was working. It neither needs nor wants to have a bunch of expository dialogue for it's plot. The dialogue is exactly what it needed to be, characters frenetically bouncing off one another and establishing their dynamic so that when the big scene comes at the end with them in the circle your brain starts producing the feel good goo and then the punching starts. Whedon knew what his job was on that set and no matter how much people want to whinge about how he handles character dialogue there was a real reason who he was on most everyone's short list for handling ensemble pieces before the latest news broke on him.


Eh, that's fair. I would argue that to some degree, but I haven't seen Blues Brothers or Jaws. It'd still be far harder to follow those films without the visuals though.

In the case of Avengers and so on, it probably does lean more heavily on showing the story with visuals, and that might make it very hard to follow JUST from dialogue... but I don't think that is unique, and I don't think it'd be impossible.

Hard agree here, film as a visual medium have a very wide range of avenues to tell a story and saying that leaning harder into the visual aspects that make it unique from something like a book or a play is not an automatic indicator of quality. Sure Avengers isn't Blues Brothers, but it also doesn't want to be.

[GloatingSwine]

Having been in a room with several smart-mouthed people who are generally not terribly interested in cooperating with each other, i can confirm that is actually about what it would sound like.

Trouble is, only one of the actual characters present should have been written like that.


What I'm saying is that if you remove all the visuals of a movie and only rely on dialogue you're not going to know what is happening. That's not a uniquely Avengers 1 thing.

In most movies you're going to have a lot better idea than you would with Avengers. In most movies you will have characters talk to each other about events which are currently affecting them. In Avengers hardly any characters actually talk to each other. They're talking in the presence of each other, but they're very rarely actually having a conversation about a subject, they're making Whedonisms.

The point of the dialogue isn't to establish disparate characters, everyone's a snarky quipper, it isn't to advance the plot because hardly any of it does that, it's to generate quotable lines.

[Keltest]

Trouble is, only one of the actual characters present should have been written like that.



In most movies you're going to have a lot better idea than you would with Avengers. In most movies you will have characters talk to each other about events which are currently affecting them. In Avengers hardly any characters actually talk to each other. They're talking in the presence of each other, but they're very rarely actually having a conversation about a subject, they're making Whedonisms.

The point of the dialogue isn't to establish disparate characters, everyone's a snarky quipper, it isn't to advance the plot because hardly any of it does that, it's to generate quotable lines.

I think youre overstating things here. The most chaotic and difficult to follow dialogues are the ones where the soon-to-be Avengers are actively fighting and arguing with each other. They arent trying to have a conversation, they are in character trying to score points and one-up each other, so having a lot of snappy one liners with very little being communicated is exactly the point.

[Fyraltari]

Ah, that makes more sense, but I also disagree with that. Most movies require dialogue for the vast majority of the plot and to explain what would happen, and the visuals are just quick and dirty exposition.

Do you want to be murdered by cinephiles? Because that's how you get murdered by cinephiles.

Cinema is first and foremost a visual medium, ignoring the fact that physical acting is very different from voice acting, camerawork, framing, lighting, the choice of cuts are the vocabulary of cinema and knowing how to use them is the core of the seventh art. A dutch angle creates unease, a long single shot following a character means confidence, a shot from below makes a chatacter seem poweful and threatening while being filmed by afar (and therefore occupying little of the frame) makes them seem powerless, dull colours show sadness and so on..

Hell Blues Brothers is a very strange example given how much of the humour is visual.

[Tyndmyr]

Using just the movie, you can make a very clear case that Rorschach is mentally unhinged and should not be considered a hero. A somewhat effective vigilante who gives some criminals what they deserve? Maybe, I guess. Delivering what the audience feels is satisfying justice to murderers (and worse)? Sure. A hero? Not even close. That the audience sees him that way is on the audience. They shouldn't leave that movie feeling like anyone was a hero. I feel like Snyder left more than enough in the movie to make that point clear.

Rorschach absolutely is a hero. Sacrificing for the benefit of others is the core of what heroism is, and he has that in spades. Yeah, he's a flawed, broken man, but one that is still a truer image of a hero than, say, Batman ever could be.

Watchman is almost a reconstruction in this light...showing us what a hero would actually look like.

I'm not sure that Snyder wholly got the comics, but some of the things are justifiable. Never showing any of the action is already unusual for a graphic novel, but for a movie? Show, don't tell is a thing. That's be a really hard thing to justify. Likewise, I can totally understand why they stuck with the more thematically consistent ending rather than giant alien telepathic squid.

The latter's more *interesting* and works better as an external threat, but without setup, it would feel jarring in a film. I'm not sure that Watchmen could be made into a significantly better film. The TV show attempt at an adaptation/sequel was certainly just awful.

I do think that Justice League was an attempt to copy Avengers, but I don't think Suicide Squad was. Suicide Squad was an attempt to copy Guardians of the Galaxy. Everything down to the colors and music choices reflect that. Neither actually managed to be good clones, of course, but I see what they were after.

[Peelee]

Context is everything though, and Avengers 1 exists in the context of it being less a "movie" and more of a two hour long celebration that the whole Marvel Experiment was working.

That might be why it failed spectacularly for me. I just wanted a movie.

[Tyrant]

Rorschach absolutely is a hero. Sacrificing for the benefit of others is the core of what heroism is, and he has that in spades. Yeah, he's a flawed, broken man, but one that is still a truer image of a hero than, say, Batman ever could be.

Watchman is almost a reconstruction in this light...showing us what a hero would actually look like.
I probably should have qualified that with comic book hero or something similar. Based on expectations from the genre, I think it's hard to call Rorschach a hero. Primarily because he kills people (even if it could be argued a number of them have earned it), but also some of his outlook. Conversely, the fact he feels how feels about basically everyone and he still tries to fight crime is heroic in a sense. I do agree that he is closer to what we would ever see in real life if someone were to take the plunge and try to be like these people. I think part of the issue is that unlike Batman, we have no indication (that I can recall) that the criminals are getting off easy and being put into an easily escapable asylum or prison. And there was at least one guy from Dan's anecdote that probably didn't justify being thrown down an elevator shaft. Also, I think his final moment was as much about putting him out of his misery as it was him standing up for his principals. He was confronted with something that was so far beyond his ability to even try to fix and he knew he couldn't do anything about it, while being betrayed by basically the only people he even kind of respected. He wanted to die at that point. I can see the argument for people viewing him heroically. The core of my argument is that that is not unique to the movie and trying to say the movie created that view isn't really fair to the movie. You can only control so much of the audience reaction. For example, there are people who seem to genuinely believe The Empire (of Star Wars fame) did nothing wrong. I am quite sure that was not Lucas' intent.

I'm not sure that Snyder wholly got the comics, but some of the things are justifiable. Never showing any of the action is already unusual for a graphic novel, but for a movie? Show, don't tell is a thing. That's be a really hard thing to justify. Likewise, I can totally understand why they stuck with the more thematically consistent ending rather than giant alien telepathic squid.

The latter's more *interesting* and works better as an external threat, but without setup, it would feel jarring in a film. I'm not sure that Watchmen could be made into a significantly better film. The TV show attempt at an adaptation/sequel was certainly just awful.
The squid line was mostly a joke. Would I have preferred the squid, absolutely. However, I realize it would require more movie to set up. Possibly 15-20 minutes of more movie, attached to an already fairly long movie. I understand why they didn't go with it. What I don't understand is the change they made. With the squid, there was the chance everything would still go to hell and kickstart the nuclear apocalypse. With this change, having Manhattan, who to the best everyone understands is a US asset, vaporize several cities and not start with New York, should have lead to a Soviet attack almost immediately. If they were going to change it, hit New York first to show everyone else that Manhattan had gone rogue. Then go down the list to make everyone else realize they are in this together.

I was also not a huge fan of the HBO series. I thought it was okay at it's best. I felt a lot of it was non-sensical. It really felt like someone wanted to take a current issue and shoehorn it into a series that wasn't about that making me wonder why they didn't just make a new series. As far as sequels go, I thought Doomsday Clock was better. I will give the show credit for using the squid though. Although, the fact it was meant as a sequel to the book and not the movie is bizarre.

[Peelee]

Do you want to be murdered by cinephiles? Because that's how you get murdered by cinephiles.

Cinema is first and foremost a visual medium, ignoring the fact that physical acting is very different from voice acting, camerawork, framing, lighting, the choice of cuts are the vocabulary of cinema and knowing how to use them is the core of the seventh art. A dutch angle creates unease, a long single shot following a character means confidence, a shot from below makes a chatacter seem poweful and threatening while being filmed by afar (and therefore occupying little of the frame) makes them seem powerless, dull colours show sadness and so on..

Hell Blues Brothers is a very strange example given how much of the humour is visual.

I can't help but notice a definite lack of the word "plot" in there, which is the only aspect of filmmaking I was talking about in reference to dialogue. I agree with you on all that, but it's not relevant to the point I was making.

[Gallowglass]

Rorschach absolutely is a hero....

I'm not sure that Snyder wholly got the comics,

I'm not sure YOU wholly got the comics.

Coming straight from Alan Moore's mouth, his intent was NOT to portray Rorscharch as a hero, but as a fascistic madman who thinks he is a hero but absolutely isn't.

While there is a large quorum of fans and readers who missed the point (myself included, when I read it as a teenager and emphasized with Rorsharch who I saw as an isolated loner who isn't understood by anyone and has strong convictions, which defined me at that age), that was the point of the author in the work.


edit: and before the inevitable "citation needed" from people who can't be bothered to google for themselves

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10065626-i-wanted-to-kind-of-make-this-like-yeah-this

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not sure YOU wholly got the comics.

Coming straight from Alan Moore's mouth, his intent was NOT to portray Rorscharch as a hero, but as a fascistic madman who thinks he is a hero but absolutely isn't.


Eh, my ethics vary slightly from Moore's, I'm sure. Dude's a little focused on the whole anarchy thing. He probably did intend for V to be heroic in V for Vendetta, but the guy's probably no less broken than Rorschach.

There is a great difference between understanding and agreement.

[Dragonus45]

Yea, that pretty much. I appreciate that Watchmen is a work of pure unadulterated genius and art beyond anything I’ll ever even pretend to make, a true piece of balanced beauty that actually makes me get genuinely upset every time I hear someone wants to muck about and touch its plot in pretty much any way. But. That doesn’t mean I have to actually agree with the core premise of super heroism as inherently authoritarian and wrong headed. Nor do I have to agree with his idea that Rorschach should be considered to have zero redeeming quality just because he personally viewed him that way. I don’t particularly disagree with him myself but I do see why some people look at him and see a degree of nobility in his desperate attempts to fix the world and make it a better place despite his deep personal brokenness.

[Fyraltari]

I can't help but notice a definite lack of the word "plot" in there, which is the only aspect of filmmaking I was talking about in reference to dialogue. I agree with you on all that, but it's not relevant to the point I was making.
Silent films have plots too.

[Friv]

The whole thing about Rorschach is that all of his heroic moments come when he repudiates his own philosophy and does something humane instead. Backing down from attacking his landlady because her children are present. His horror at Ozymandius's plan, a plan that actually supports his claimed motivations. Sparing Moloch.

Rorshach is a broken monster, and occasionally the traumatized human underneath is able to shine through.


Anyway, on topic: Zak Snyder is a really great cinematographer and an absolutely terrible director. I'm vaguely curious about this Justice League four-hour trainwreck, but I'm not watching it unless someone with a subscription is really invested and also the pandemic is over so I can be at their house. The chances of it being good are somewhere between slim and none.

The biggest worry for the "worst thing that could happen", incidentally, is that it will be pretty bad, but just good enough for the hordes of fans already calling to Release The Ayer Cut try to drag the DCEU back into the Snyder Swamp it just escaped from, cancelling every movie that might be fun in favour of more dour pronouncements.

[Gallowglass]

Hey I have no problem with you* having your own viewpoint of a piece of art and deriving your own message from it that differs from authorial intent. I'd go so far as to say that's a powerful and necessary function of art.

I do have a problem when someone else differs from your personal viewpoint and you say "I don't think -they- understand [the true meaning of] the piece of art" implying that you do or your viewpoint is the "correct" viewpoint.

*you in the indirect narrative sense, not you personally


My personal viewpoint of Rorsharch has evolved as I've grown older and changed. Currently, I don't see anything "noble" about him at all. He doesn't go out and fight crime and beat up criminals because he wants to help others or save humanity or protect people. Those are his excuses, but in reality, he does it because of mommy issues and a sense of satisfaction and power it gives him. The only way he feels any power over life, by hurting others. He wants to bully as he was bullied. This is why beating a jaywalker to death is the same to him as beating a rapist to death. Just an excuse so he doesn't have to recognize his behavior.

I know your viewpoint of him is different than that. But I would argue that my viewpoint, while not more VALID than yours, is closer to the message the author was trying to convey than yours.

[Peelee]

Silent films have plots too.

True. Not very in-depth plots, and many still used dialogue via text shown on-screen, and I never said it was impossible for a movie to be completely absent dialogue and still have a plot. But true.

[Mordar]

Coming straight from Alan Moore's mouth, his intent was NOT to portray Rorscharch as a hero, but as a fascistic madman who thinks he is a hero but absolutely isn't.

While there is a large quorum of fans and readers who missed the point (myself included, when I read it as a teenager and emphasized with Rorsharch who I saw as an isolated loner who isn't understood by anyone and has strong convictions, which defined me at that age), that was the point of the author in the work.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10065626-i-wanted-to-kind-of-make-this-like-yeah-this

I think that snippet reveals more about Moore's character than it does about his characters.

Of course, I think Watchmen gets too much credit.

- M

[Tvtyrant]

Hey I have no problem with you* having your own viewpoint of a piece of art and deriving your own message from it that differs from authorial intent. I'd go so far as to say that's a powerful and necessary function of art.

I do have a problem when someone else differs from your personal viewpoint and you say "I don't think -they- understand [the true meaning of] the piece of art" implying that you do or your viewpoint is the "correct" viewpoint.

*you in the indirect narrative sense, not you personally


My personal viewpoint of Rorsharch has evolved as I've grown older and changed. Currently, I don't see anything "noble" about him at all. He doesn't go out and fight crime and beat up criminals because he wants to help others or save humanity or protect people. Those are his excuses, but in reality, he does it because of mommy issues and a sense of satisfaction and power it gives him. The only way he feels any power over life, by hurting others. He wants to bully as he was bullied. This is why beating a jaywalker to death is the same to him as beating a rapist to death. Just an excuse so he doesn't have to recognize his behavior.

I know your viewpoint of him is different than that. But I would argue that my viewpoint, while not more VALID than yours, is closer to the message the author was trying to convey than yours.

That is the innate issue with every character in Watchmen: Is why you do things the defining nature or what you do?

Rorschach is aware of the issue, he calls his therapist out for it. So is Owlman and everyone else, whether it serves a kink or because of an overbearing Mom everyone is doing things for bad reasons. Veidt does the bad thing for supposedly good reasons, and then the reader is asked whether he or Rorschach is right. The book is an open question in my reading of it, suggesting no one does anything for pure motives.

[Tyndmyr]

The whole thing about Rorschach is that all of his heroic moments come when he repudiates his own philosophy and does something humane instead. Backing down from attacking his landlady because her children are present. His horror at Ozymandius's plan, a plan that actually supports his claimed motivations. Sparing Moloch.

Rorshach is a broken monster, and occasionally the traumatized human underneath is able to shine through.

Well, that's why he's ultimately a hero and Ozymandius is a villain. Ozy spouts some really high minded philosophy, but what he actually does is monstrous. Rorshach is far less idealistic, but he endlessly attempts to do the right thing. He might say, think, and believe all sorts of oddball stuff, but when choosing between doing evil and good, he'll try for the latter.

In a world where everyone is flawed, it's the person who fights to overcome their flaws and help others who is heroic. Ultimately, that's what he's doing. Fighting against the evils in the world that hurt him, to stop them from hurting others. This motivation is literally identical to Batman's. He just doesn't have infinite money, a company, insane tech, or any of the other advantages Batman does.

If you prefer, you can contrast him against the Comedian, whose philosophy is more in line with his deeds...but both are generally pretty cold and harsh. I don't think many would consider the Comedian a hero.


The biggest worry for the "worst thing that could happen", incidentally, is that it will be pretty bad, but just good enough for the hordes of fans already calling to Release The Ayer Cut try to drag the DCEU back into the Snyder Swamp it just escaped from, cancelling every movie that might be fun in favour of more dour pronouncements.

That does sound truly awful, and it might happen. After all, those people who like that style might well like more of it.

If it happens, though, the DC films will likely continue to struggle to be loved by a broader audience. Say what you will about the MCU, it has managed to be enjoyed by an immense amount of people, even with its imperfections. DC hasn't ever entirely gotten there, even if occasional films do show promise(the original WW was a fun watch, for instance).

[Dragonus45]

I think that snippet reveals more about Moore's character than it does about his characters.

Of course, I think Watchmen gets too much credit.

- M

Yeaaaaaaaa, I disagree there cus I think watchmen gets the credit it deserves, but oh boy do I get more and more unhappy with with Alan Moore as a person the more I learn about him.

[Rodin]

Well, that's why he's ultimately a hero and Ozymandius is a villain. Ozy spouts some really high minded philosophy, but what he actually does is monstrous. Rorshach is far less idealistic, but he endlessly attempts to do the right thing. He might say, think, and believe all sorts of oddball stuff, but when choosing between doing evil and good, he'll try for the latter.

And what if Veidt was right? What if nuclear war truly was inevitable in the alternate history of Watchmen? If Veidt killed millions to save billions, is he still a villain? Is what he did "evil" if it saves the world from nuclear annihilation? If Veidt sees a monstrous way to save the world and doesn't do anything, how does that play into the "with great power comes great responsibility" mantra that so many superheroes live their lives by? Do the ends justify means?

That's what Dr. Manhattan addresses at the end. There was no right answer, and there is no happily ever after. Veidt's motives were good, but whether he got good results we will never know. Maybe it was unnecessary and the world would have stepped back from the nuclear brink like in our world. Maybe Veidt saved humanity, only to doom it by creating an even worse situation when the truth inevitably came out.

That's what I like most about Watchmen. Everybody believes they are doing the right thing, and it's not at all clear that they are. Maybe the villain was right, maybe he wasn't. It's all up to the reader. That's why the book has had such lasting power. It's thought provoking in a way that popcorn superhero movies rarely are.

I enjoyed the movie when I saw it, but I think it's telling that I've never watched it since while I have re-read the comic at least twice since the movie came out. I'm glad it exists, and I think Snyder did relatively well by it given that it was one of the legendary "unfilmables". But nothing can beat the original.

[Tyndmyr]

Dunno, I think that the question of "does the end justify the evil" is pretty conclusively answered by "nothing ever ends."

Without an end, you just have evil.

[Fyraltari]

Dunno, I think that the question of "does the end justify the evil" is pretty conclusively answered by "nothing ever ends."

I would say that the proverbial five and one people tied to a train's tracks are of the opinion that something really important is about to end.

[Dienekes]

Ah, that makes more sense, but I also disagree with that. Most movies require dialogue for the vast majority of the plot and to explain what would happen, and the visuals are just quick and dirty exposition. Off the top of my head you could play The Blues Brothers with the monitor turned off and understand the vast majority of the plot and what is happening. Even with Jaws, the dialogue and the visuals pull equal weight. I don't remember much of Avengers 1 so I can't soak to how accurate the statement was, but expository and plot-advancing dialogue to other characters is a pretty major and vital part of filmmaking. So much so that it's very noticeable and commented on when it is absent.

Eh. I’m pretty sure if you remove the visuals Mad Max Fury Road becomes incomprehensible at several points. And that was the best action movie I’d seen in awhile. Blew the SWTFA out of the water and that movie basically just had people spouting their emotions and motivations all over the place.


Rorschach absolutely is a hero. Sacrificing for the benefit of others is the core of what heroism is, and he has that in spades. Yeah, he's a flawed, broken man, but one that is still a truer image of a hero than, say, Batman ever could be.

Out of curiosity who do you think Rorschach is sacrificing for?

Because I remember a man that held the idea that someone was gay as a reason to have doubt about him. I remember a guy whose opening monologue he states his desire to condemn not just the murderers but those who live in the gutter (poor people), prostitutes, and politicians.

I can’t think of a time he actually helps anyone in the whole comic. He’s just raging and murdering. That was kind of the point. Even the heroes who do unequivocally help people (Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II rescue people in a fire) do it so Nite Owl can feel like a man and have sex.

The only characters who do help people or try to save people at personal risk for seemingly no alternative motives all get killed when Veidt’s plan hits NY.

[Tvtyrant]

Eh. I’m pretty sure if you remove the visuals Mad Max Fury Road becomes incomprehensible at several points. And that was the best action movie I’d seen in awhile. Blew the SWTFA out of the water and that movie basically just had people spouting their emotions and motivations all over the place.

Also the New Bladerunner has some long moments of people staring into the distance and thinking, which I thought was nice.

I will admit that Star Trek at its best is a radio play though.


Dunno, I think that the question of "does the end justify the evil" is pretty conclusively answered by "nothing ever ends."

Without an end, you just have evil.

The End is coming though, for everyone. Life is just a giant series of efforts to hit continue, Veidt's plan might not work in the long run but neither does eating permanently put off starvation.

[Gallowglass]

Well, that's why he's ultimately a hero and Ozymandius is a villain. Ozy spouts some really high minded philosophy, but what he actually does is monstrous. Rorshach is far less idealistic, but he endlessly attempts to do the right thing. He might say, think, and believe all sorts of oddball stuff, but when choosing between doing evil and good, he'll try for the latter.

You, as a reader, are making a fairly large assumption. You assume that Ozymandius is wrong. Or at least has a large chance of being wrong. That the world isn't 5 minutes from midnight and about to be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust that will kill everyone and that his plan isn't the only thing that can stop it, at a cost of a few million instead.

Everything in the actual narrative contradicts your assumption. Every single character, every single clue signifies that Ozymandius is right. That included the omnipotent voice of Dr. Manhattan who *knows* the truth of it.

If you accept that without Ozymandius' action, there is a 100% chance everyone dies. that Ozymandius' action is the ONLY thing that prevents it, that Ozymandius used his incredible brain to try and find other solutions before having to go with the only one that would work despite the abhorrent cost, and that, by Dr. Manhattan's omiscient word, he was right and it did, then Ozymandius is the ONLY hero in that story. He literally sacrificed his own SOUL in order to save as many as he could.

By your own definition of hero, he is the hero, not the monster.

But you cling to the belief that he was wrong, that the world was not going to end, that his action was not the only action that could prevent it and that every voice, every clue, and even the omniscient voice of the man who literally knew how it was going to go were wrong.

You call his words and choice "some high minded philosophy" when the narrative makes abundantly clear, his enormous brain had psychohistoried out the future and he worked to change the inevitable.

What he did was monstrous.It was a monstrous choice, but he literally thought through every other possibility first, looking for any other thing he could to to save everyone. This was it. The narrative is clear that his choice was the only way to stop the holocaust. And the narrative goes to the effort of introducing a voice in Dr. Manhattan who is stated to be a RELIABLE narrator of the truth and he confirms it.

I mean, would you consider it to be heroic if you had the ability to save as much of the world as you could, the skills and resources to do it, but chose not to?

Adrian is living the actual Trolley problem in real life here. He has a lever. he pulls it and a million people die. He doesn't pull it, seven billion people die. You think he doesn't wish he didn't have the lever?

But what you are missing is that you think he has a different choice. Pull the leverl and a million people die. Or don't pull the lever and MAYBE seven billion people die.

The Maybe isn't there in the narrative. It's removed through great effort by the author in multiple ways.



as far as Rorscharch goes, if you actually believe he is "endlessly trying to to the right thing" then your understanding of the narrative is so far outside mine, i don't see a way for us to communicate about it.

Rorscharch doesn't try to do the right thing. Ever. He tells himself he is, sure. But he's not doing it to help others, to save others, to fix anything. He's just causing pain because pain was done to him.

Which is why, again, he's as happy to beat a jaywalker to death as he is a rapist or murderer.

[GloatingSwine]

Everything in the actual narrative contradicts your assumption. Every single character, every single clue signifies that Ozymandius is right. That included the omnipotent voice of Dr. Manhattan who *knows* the truth of it.

Read the Tales of the Black Freighter again, and apply it to the plot...

[Peelee]

Eh. I’m pretty sure if you remove the visuals Mad Max Fury Road becomes incomprehensible at several points. And that was the best action movie I’d seen in awhile. Blew the SWTFA out of the water and that movie basically just had people spouting their emotions and motivations all over the place.

I agree, Fury Road was very light on plot.

And regardless, I never said dialogue is the only way to help deliver, further, and expose the plot. Nor did I ever say that all dialogue heavy movies will be better than non-dialogue heavy movies. You can pull out example after example but you're not going to have a "gotcha!" moment here, anymore than a scientific study that concludes "blue is the most popular color" will have a "gotcha!" moment when Fred says "well I like brown!"

[Dienekes]

You, as a reader, are making a fairly large assumption. You assume that Ozymandius is wrong. Or at least has a large chance of being wrong. That the world isn't 5 minutes from midnight and about to be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust that will kill everyone and that his plan isn't the only thing that can stop it, at a cost of a few million instead.

Everything in the actual narrative contradicts your assumption. Every single character, every single clue signifies that Ozymandius is right. That included the omnipotent voice of Dr. Manhattan who *knows* the truth of it.



Read the Tales of the Black Freighter again, and apply it to the plot...

Yeah just gonna reiterate what GloatingSwine is saying here. Watchman was written and released in a very specific time. Where a lot of things were happening that cannot get into on this board. But importantly, the Doomsday Clock was rolling back. The situation that was happening at the time that the clock was marking was winding down. While the situation the clock was marking hadn’t disappeared yet, it was getting pretty clear that nuclear Holocaust wasn’t likely to happen. And readers would know this. It doesn’t seem to be ending in the doom of the world.

That should color everyone’s reading of the story. That the analysis of the Soviets given within the story is wrong. It’s just wrong and people would know it was wrong. But because Moore is a pretty talented guy who realizes that some might not get that meta text, he added the Black Freighter. A story about a man who damns himself to stop a tragedy that... wasn’t happening.

And the story starts with a few soft parallels what Rorschach is going through on a smaller beat by beat basis. But at the end, so the reader knows who the story is referring to. Veidt starts to say in his dreams he sees the black frei-

Ugh, the writing is just so good.

But yes. We the reader are most certainly supposed to have doubts about Veidt and his plan.

[Friv]

Well, that's why he's ultimately a hero and Ozymandius is a villain. Ozy spouts some really high minded philosophy, but what he actually does is monstrous. Rorshach is far less idealistic, but he endlessly attempts to do the right thing. He might say, think, and believe all sorts of oddball stuff, but when choosing between doing evil and good, he'll try for the latter.

I think we're not as far apart as it might appear, but I do think that this is backwards. (Not the Ozy part, I agree with you there.) Rorschach isn't endlessly attempting to do the right thing. He's endlessly attempting to do the wrong thing, and to convince himself that it is actually right.

That's what I mean when I say that all of his good moments are backsliding. Rorschach does good when he fails to adhere to his attempted morality. When he holds to it, he is not. The irony of Rorschach is that there is a good person buried under the pain and the hate, but it's the pain and the hate that he strives for, not the forgiveness or compassion, in the mistaken belief that pain and rigid determination is what is needed for good to triumph.


If you prefer, you can contrast him against the Comedian, whose philosophy is more in line with his deeds...but both are generally pretty cold and harsh. I don't think many would consider the Comedian a hero.

I definitely agree with you that Rorschach is a better person than the Comedian; for all that every part of his approach is horrifically wrong, he at least wants to make the world better.

[GloatingSwine]

Rorschach doesn't care if good prospers, he just wants to see evil punished.

[Sapphire Guard]

The thing about Watchmen is, large parts of it are deliberately ambiguous.
We're left not knowing if Veidt's plan would have worked, or if Rorchach's journal would be published, or if Dr. Manhattan was correct. We don't know what Rorschach was thinking when he took off his mask that time.

Ultimately, in the real world, there was no nuclear annihilation, but that thing about that is, at the time of writing, Alan Moore didn't know that either, because he was writing in a time before the Soviets fell.

Is Veidt wrong, or was Alan Moore wrong about the future?

As far as I understand, nobody is completely right, nobody is completely wrong, and the reader is left to draw their own conclusions. That's why it's such a classic.

Rorshach did honestly try to bring Blaire Roche home safe. He also interrupts an attempted rape at one point.

I'm not sure what Snyder's big misunderstanding is either. What did he do that was so unfitting?

[Tyrant]

Yeah just gonna reiterate what GloatingSwine is saying here. Watchman was written and released in a very specific time. Where a lot of things were happening that cannot get into on this board. But importantly, the Doomsday Clock was rolling back. The situation that was happening at the time that the clock was marking was winding down. While the situation the clock was marking hadn’t disappeared yet, it was getting pretty clear that nuclear Holocaust wasn’t likely to happen. And readers would know this. It doesn’t seem to be ending in the doom of the world.

That should color everyone’s reading of the story. That the analysis of the Soviets given within the story is wrong. It’s just wrong and people would know it was wrong. But because Moore is a pretty talented guy who realizes that some might not get that meta text, he added the Black Freighter. A story about a man who damns himself to stop a tragedy that... wasn’t happening.

And the story starts with a few soft parallels what Rorschach is going through on a smaller beat by beat basis. But at the end, so the reader knows who the story is referring to. Veidt starts to say in his dreams he sees the black frei-
I think there are a few very critical differences to their world and ours and they are enough that I question if it is safe to assume events would have had a similar trajectory. Dr. Manhattan's existence creates a chain reaction. America doesn't lose Vietnam, making it still feel invincible. Nixon is still president, so policy would be different (a leader who is undefeated as opposed to one who is intentionally engaging in brinksmanship to bankrupt his opponent). Russia has a much larger stockpile of nuclear weapons and is dealing with an opponent that has not been dealt a defeat that dealt a blow to it's national psyche. Once Manhattan is gone, the two sides only have a few options. Either Russia presses it's newfound, overwhelming advantage, which likely leads to nuclear doom. Or the U.S. hits first thinking the Russians will do that, leading to nuclear doom. Ozymandias realized Manhattan was the destabilizing factor. He also had every reason to believe he would eventually leave Earth. To him, it was better to control those events than leave them to chance and hope everything worked out.

I admit it's been quite a while since I read it, but I believe the nuclear war was only one possible bad outcome he was trying to avoid. I thought he also mentioned the possibility that there would be no nuclear war and instead one or both powers would suffer economic collapse having spent ungodly amounts of resources to prepare for war with each other. The resulting collapse would also be tremendously destructive. To him, this was the path of least death and destruction (though it did come with the possibility that it would be the catalyst for Armageddon). It's debatable if his course of action was correct (I feel most people would say no) and it's possible that he was wrong (he was only human). But I don't think you can use the real world resolution to that conflict as any kind of proof of how it would've gone in the book. There were too many critical differences to make me think it likely.

Ugh, the writing is just so good.

But yes. We the reader are most certainly supposed to have doubts about Veidt and his plan.
I do agree with this however. While I can understand Veidt's point and I do believe he is right in the two main probably outcomes, I do have to wonder if what he did was the only way.

Hopefully that breakdown of the differences is broad enough to not be an issue on here. Not trying to debate the politics of any of it, just noting the differences.

[Aedilred]

I agree, Fury Road was very light on plot.

And regardless, I never said dialogue is the only way to help deliver, further, and expose the plot. Nor did I ever say that all dialogue heavy movies will be better than non-dialogue heavy movies. You can pull out example after example but you're not going to have a "gotcha!" moment here, anymore than a scientific study that concludes "blue is the most popular color" will have a "gotcha!" moment when Fred says "well I like brown!"

I think the point is that "you can't follow the plot from dialogue alone" isn't a valid criticism when it comes to film, because it's an audiovisual medium. Indeed, I'd say that a film where you can follow what's going on purely from listening to dialogue is doing something wrong, because it's ignoring at least half of the communicative options at its dispoal. At that point it's not a film, it's an illustrated radio play.

You can criticise the plot in Avengers as hard to follow but only if you're taking into account the whole picture - and that's not a criticism I've ever heard of it. Saying that you can't follow it from dialogue alone is setting an unfair goal that the film isn't even - and, imo, should'nt be - aiming for and then blaming it for falling short.

You can also criticise the dialogue as arch and unrealistic, and that's fair up to a point. I would argue that comedic writing doesn't have to further the plot with every line and given that Avengers is aiming to entertain rather than to tell a deep story, this is to be expected. It does depend on whether you find the Whedon style funny or entertaining, of course. I do, for the most part, but if you don't, then, yeah, you're going to have a tough time of it.

[Kitten Champion]

I would also argue that comic book dialogue is also arch and unrealistic.

I think Bob Chipman's Really That Good (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSAp-QCHj_A&ab_channel=moviebob) is the best argument in favour of why Avengers isn't overrated.

[Saintheart]

I think there are a few very critical differences to their world and ours and they are enough that I question if it is safe to assume events would have had a similar trajectory. Dr. Manhattan's existence creates a chain reaction. America doesn't lose Vietnam, making it still feel invincible. Nixon is still president, so policy would be different (a leader who is undefeated as opposed to one who is intentionally engaging in brinksmanship to bankrupt his opponent). Russia has a much larger stockpile of nuclear weapons and is dealing with an opponent that has not been dealt a defeat that dealt a blow to it's national psyche. Once Manhattan is gone, the two sides only have a few options. Either Russia presses it's newfound, overwhelming advantage, which likely leads to nuclear doom. Or the U.S. hits first thinking the Russians will do that, leading to nuclear doom. Ozymandias realized Manhattan was the destabilizing factor. He also had every reason to believe he would eventually leave Earth. To him, it was better to control those events than leave them to chance and hope everything worked out.

I admit it's been quite a while since I read it, but I believe the nuclear war was only one possible bad outcome he was trying to avoid. I thought he also mentioned the possibility that there would be no nuclear war and instead one or both powers would suffer economic collapse having spent ungodly amounts of resources to prepare for war with each other. The resulting collapse would also be tremendously destructive. To him, this was the path of least death and destruction (though it did come with the possibility that it would be the catalyst for Armageddon). It's debatable if his course of action was correct (I feel most people would say no) and it's possible that he was wrong (he was only human). But I don't think you can use the real world resolution to that conflict as any kind of proof of how it would've gone in the book. There were too many critical differences to make me think it likely.

Pretty much the whole point of placing it in an alternate timeline is meant to allow the author to confine down the possible outcomes and serve up the moral problem without having annoying bits of reality get in the way.

Let's first remember that maybe the overarching theme of Watchmen is really about the sort of personality that becomes and then stays as a superhero. The simplest deviation from reality's timeline is that (a) there were superheroes at all and (b) Dr Manhattan existed. I find Moore's projection via this alternate timeline that America would have gone to the dogs even if it had won the Vietnam War is meant to be a rebuke to those who still think bombing Hanoi or introducing nukes into the picture would have made a long-term difference. Indeed that is the dominant theme, or story beat, or iconography, that is laid on thick in the final pages of Watchmen: it doesn't actually make a long-term difference.

This theme is deliberately drawn out and clearly for the reader with Ozymandias and Manhattan's last conversation. Remembering Manhattan can see the future again, Veidt asks him: "Was what I did right, John? In the end?" Manhattan's reply, before he disappears to a lifeless universe to create some, is "'In the end?' Nothing ever ends, Adrian." And then he disappears, leaving Veidt - and the audience - with the distinct feeling that the dreadful solution Ozymandias employed was not, in fact, a concrete ending to humanity's problems. This is laid on even harder in the final page or so of the novel: the images are all those of hopeful rebuilding; there are Veidt posters all around, and life seems to be getting back to normal if not better along the precise track that Adrian put in place: once you have a common (and entirely imagined) enemy, humanity works together. And then the final images in the newspaper office, with the editor complaining that everything seems to be going right and therefore there's nothing to report on: with Rorschach's journal setting out how humanity has been duped on the top of the intray. Are his ramblings published, does Veidt's scheme go to bits? It's left to the bumbling copy boy of the paper to decide whether the journal is published, and, in the end -- haha -- left to the audience quite literally: "I leave it to you."

Indeed one might say the selection of Veidt of the name Ozymandias as his identity serves that theme. Ozymandias was basically Rameses II, which I always found a bit of an odd selection for a name since Veidt in the book is more overtly a "What Would Alexander The Great Do?" type right down to the mythical golden locks. The pick of Ozymandias to my mind makes more sense when you bear in mind Percy Bysse Shelley's poem of the same name:


I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

Some say the poem's about the decline of rulers, but I regard it far more as a statement of ultimate futility: no matter how great the works, the sands of time wear them away. Unlike a comic book, there is no last page that preserves the state of affairs forever. Nothing, it seems, ever ends.

[Dragonus45]

I would also argue that comic book dialogue is also arch and unrealistic.

I think Bob Chipman's Really That Good (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSAp-QCHj_A&ab_channel=moviebob) is the best argument in favour of why Avengers isn't overrated.

He did and his analysis very solid, and his really that good series is him at his least insufferable.

[Cikomyr2]

He did and his analysis very solid, and his really that good series is him at his least insufferable.

Well that was just gratuitous...

[Peelee]

I think the point is that "you can't follow the plot from dialogue alone" isn't a valid criticism when it comes to film, because it's an audiovisual medium. Indeed, I'd say that a film where you can follow what's going on purely from listening to dialogue is doing something wrong, because it's ignoring at least half of the communicative options at its dispoal. At that point it's not a film, it's an illustrated radio play.

You can criticise the plot in Avengers as hard to follow but only if you're taking into account the whole picture - and that's not a criticism I've ever heard of it. Saying that you can't follow it from dialogue alone is setting an unfair goal that the film isn't even - and, imo, should'nt be - aiming for and then blaming it for falling short.

You can also criticise the dialogue as arch and unrealistic, and that's fair up to a point. I would argue that comedic writing doesn't have to further the plot with every line and given that Avengers is aiming to entertain rather than to tell a deep story, this is to be expected. It does depend on whether you find the Whedon style funny or entertaining, of course. I do, for the most part, but if you don't, then, yeah, you're going to have a tough time of it.
That's a good argument, but I'm confused as to why it's being made at me; not only did I not make that criticism to start with, but I also very explicitly bowed out of talking about dialogue and plot as it relates to Avengers:
I don't remember much of Avengers 1 so I can't speak to how accurate the statement was

[Dire_Flumph]

That's a good argument, but I'm confused as to why it's being made at me; not only did I not make that criticism to start with, but I also very explicitly bowed out of talking about dialogue and plot as it relates to Avengers:

Because if we can't protect the dialogue in the Avengers, you can be darned sure we'll avenge it!

[Aedilred]

That's a good argument, but I'm confused as to why it's being made at me; not only did I not make that criticism to start with, but I also very explicitly bowed out of talking about dialogue and plot as it relates to Avengers:

Because... shut up!

For some reason I thought it had been you making that argument. I suggest you take your revenge on GloatingSwine.

[GloatingSwine]

Sadly, you'll never be able to convince me that the dialogue in Avengers 1 ever satisfies a goal other than making Joss Whedon feel smug for having written it.

Like someone brought up Fury Road, a movie so light on dialogue it didn't even have a script, but every line of dialogue in that movie does work. It tells you about relationships between characters, what they believe about the world and their emotional state.

Most of the dialogue in Avengers does nothing except "be quotable".

[Peelee]

Because... shut up!
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!

Most of the dialogue in Avengers does nothing except "be quotable".

I would argue it doesn't achieve that, based solely on the fact that I can't remember a single line from that movie.

Anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence.

[Fyraltari]

Because if we can't protect the dialogue in the Avengers, you can be darned sure we'll avenge it!
Still a better reason to be called "The Avengers" than the actual reason (https://youtu.be/Svl_4EsjG8A?t=1523) they're called that.

You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!


I would argue it doesn't achieve that, based solely on the fact that I can't remember a single line from that movie.

Anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence.
Well, I never watched that movie and I know the line Dire_Flumph quoted as well as "I have an army- We have a Hulk", "I AM A GOD! -Puny god" and "Not a great plan." So I'd say the goal of being quotable has been somewhat successful.

[Cikomyr2]

Sadly, you'll never be able to convince me that the dialogue in Avengers 1 ever satisfies a goal other than making Joss Whedon feel smug for having written it.

Like someone brought up Fury Road, a movie so light on dialogue it didn't even have a script, but every line of dialogue in that movie does work. It tells you about relationships between characters, what they believe about the world and their emotional state.

Most of the dialogue in Avengers does nothing except "be quotable".

The dialogue in the Avengers is either very straight plot advancement or character-based interaction meant to entertain us.

It's not about the prose, but how it sets the rhythm of the movie. And it does that superbly.

[Tyrant]

I'm going to preface this with two comments: 1) It has been quite a while since I read the book and 2) I might be missing part of your point.


Pretty much the whole point of placing it in an alternate timeline is meant to allow the author to confine down the possible outcomes and serve up the moral problem without having annoying bits of reality get in the way.
Yeah, that is generally the point. My point was that with it being an alternate reality with notable differences that you can't look to reality to say the conflict would end the same way. Especially since the book was written before the end of the Cold War.

Let's first remember that maybe the overarching theme of Watchmen is really about the sort of personality that becomes and then stays as a superhero. The simplest deviation from reality's timeline is that (a) there were superheroes at all and (b) Dr Manhattan existed. I find Moore's projection via this alternate timeline that America would have gone to the dogs even if it had won the Vietnam War is meant to be a rebuke to those who still think bombing Hanoi or introducing nukes into the picture would have made a long-term difference. Indeed that is the dominant theme, or story beat, or iconography, that is laid on thick in the final pages of Watchmen: it doesn't actually make a long-term difference.
I agree that the main theme is about the types of people who willingly take up and keep the mantle of super hero. I don't believe the victory in Vietnam ultimately made no difference. Just Nixon still being president the entire time would be enough to cause drastic changes. Or Vietnam becoming the 51st state. Is the public perception of war the same? Were there numerous movies made to drive home the horrors of war in the jungle, or were there instead movies that glorify it like several films about WWII? But, even if there is evidence of some of the same type of decline (not sure there is), the most important difference is the US showed the rest of the world that they had a living god and weren't afraid to use it. The entire Soviet mindset of how to deal with the US would have to be radically altered (hence the notably larger number of nuclear weapons) to take that into account. Could things end the same way? Yes, they could. How likely is it though? In my opinion, not very.

This theme is deliberately drawn out and clearly for the reader with Ozymandias and Manhattan's last conversation. Remembering Manhattan can see the future again, Veidt asks him: "Was what I did right, John? In the end?" Manhattan's reply, before he disappears to a lifeless universe to create some, is "'In the end?' Nothing ever ends, Adrian." And then he disappears, leaving Veidt - and the audience - with the distinct feeling that the dreadful solution Ozymandias employed was not, in fact, a concrete ending to humanity's problems. This is laid on even harder in the final page or so of the novel: the images are all those of hopeful rebuilding; there are Veidt posters all around, and life seems to be getting back to normal if not better along the precise track that Adrian put in place: once you have a common (and entirely imagined) enemy, humanity works together. And then the final images in the newspaper office, with the editor complaining that everything seems to be going right and therefore there's nothing to report on: with Rorschach's journal setting out how humanity has been duped on the top of the intray. Are his ramblings published, does Veidt's scheme go to bits? It's left to the bumbling copy boy of the paper to decide whether the journal is published, and, in the end -- haha -- left to the audience quite literally: "I leave it to you."

Indeed one might say the selection of Veidt of the name Ozymandias as his identity serves that theme. Ozymandias was basically Rameses II, which I always found a bit of an odd selection for a name since Veidt in the book is more overtly a "What Would Alexander The Great Do?" type right down to the mythical golden locks. The pick of Ozymandias to my mind makes more sense when you bear in mind Percy Bysse Shelley's poem of the same name:


I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

Some say the poem's about the decline of rulers, but I regard it far more as a statement of ultimate futility: no matter how great the works, the sands of time wear them away. Unlike a comic book, there is no last page that preserves the state of affairs forever. Nothing, it seems, ever ends.
I agree that there are several elements of the ending that make us question if his plan actually worked. I believe that is the point. I concede that he could be wrong about the plan. I don't think he's wrong about the threat. And to that point, I feel it is pointless to say the Cold War ended one way in reality so it would've likely ended that way in a reality with Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.

[Psyren]

This will not prove/disprove your hypothesis...I believe the null should certainly be rejected, but I would not count on Johnson for a quality data point.

I made no hypothesis, i only expressed belief/hope.


To sum up my opinion simply: Snyder has one basic style that he uses regardless of whether it's appropriate or not. If you like the style, you'll enjoy his movies. If you don't, you won't.

I don't think it's that simple. As I mentioned above, I did like his edgy style for Sucker Punch - and even 300 to an extent. I just don't think dark and gritty is a very good fit for a set of heroes whose chief trait happens to be their idealism. I'd feel the same way about Nolan - I liked the Dark Knight Trilogy quite a lot (well, the first two anyway), but I wouldn't want him making Justice League either.

In other words, I don't have to dislike his style to believe that it's a poor fit for this property.


Wait, they're making up a new generic white dude protagonist for that Mortal Kombat movie? Did Mortal Kombat somehow not have enough potential main protagonists to choose from? Because I'm not even a big MK fan (hence why I haven't watched the trailers for that film to know this), but I can name ten good options just off the top of my head. One of them's even a white dude, Johnny Cage.

...and yeah, quick internet search, and it does look like this Cole guy is new to the film, not some obscure pull from one of the less popular games. Wow.

Well, I did a bit more digging and to be fairer to them, his actor (Lewis Tan) is Chinese-British. Furthermore, the current rumor is that Cole will be revealed to be Kuai Liang, aka Sub-Zero The Younger, and that all the birthmark/new-chosen-one stuff is a bit of amnesiac misdirect. If that's the case, he is one of the more logical choices for "chosen one" after Liu Kang and Johnny Cage, and would also let them do the Cyber Lin Kuei plot more justice than most prior attempts have, so I'd let it slide.

(...I should probably make a separate thread to talk MK stuff)

[Tyndmyr]

Out of curiosity who do you think Rorschach is sacrificing for?

Others. A vague sense of society, but most often in practice the defenseless.


Because I remember a man that held the idea that someone was gay as a reason to have doubt about him. I remember a guy whose opening monologue he states his desire to condemn not just the murderers but those who live in the gutter (poor people), prostitutes, and politicians.

Yes. His ideal for society is warped. Condemnation is different than action, though. Those he acts against are pretty universally deserving by any standards.

That said, he does not condemn the poor, and condemning the politicians in the world of Watchmen is...honestly fair. It's a bleak world and we see them straight up murdering pacifistic students in a much more brutal version of Kent State.


I can’t think of a time he actually helps anyone in the whole comic. He’s just raging and murdering. That was kind of the point. Even the heroes who do unequivocally help people (Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II rescue people in a fire) do it so Nite Owl can feel like a man and have sex.

Sure they do. They all have personal motivations. Doesn't matter, those folks still got to not burn. And yeah, Rorschach is absolutely raging over the injustices done to him, and punching out those who do injustices to others.

But Batman literally does the same, and people accept Batman as heroic.

Why? Is it the money, the style, the nice words said? At the end of the day, both are punching crooks in the streets.


You, as a reader, are making a fairly large assumption. You assume that Ozymandius is wrong. Or at least has a large chance of being wrong. That the world isn't 5 minutes from midnight and about to be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust that will kill everyone and that his plan isn't the only thing that can stop it, at a cost of a few million instead.

The world as depicted most definitely has problems. However, Oxymandius is...arrogant. I accept that *he* believes that what he is doing is right, but he is most certainly monstrous. His belief in genocide caused him to literally kill millions.

Using evil to justify evil causes...more evil. This premise is repeated over and over in both the film and comic.

There is a fundamental difference between targeting innocents and not. Veidt's actions were not merely retaliatory, but instead targeted those who had done nothing wrong.

And in the end, it's strongly hinted at that it won't work. Manhattan refuses to give him the validation he seeks, and the journal showing up in the slush pile indicates that the secret is leaking out. That's a problem with basing a plan on deception, after all.

You should absolutely not have faith that Veidt is 100% correct. No person in the comic/film is 100% correct, really. Even Manhattan, for all his power, is extremely flawed. Their characters are amazingly strong and consistent, but nobody is intended as a model of perfection to the viewer. It's sort of the inverse of the usual DC model of approaching superheros.

[Rodin]

But Batman literally does the same, and people accept Batman as heroic.

Why? Is it the money, the style, the nice words said? At the end of the day, both are punching crooks in the streets.


No, Batman punches crooks in the street. Rorschach murders crooks in the street, quite often in cold blood. He sets up Saw-style traps (chop your arm off before the house burns down) and watches with no emotion. He was planning on taking revenge on a defenseless unarmed woman until he saw her kids and had a change of heart.

There's an argument that people like Batman because he's sanitized. We don't typically see him inflicting extreme bodily harm on people, especially not in gory detail. This is even more true at the movies, where the most extreme Batman we've ever seen is the Batman vs. Superman version. And people hated that version.

I would still argue that Rorschach is far worse. He murders criminals with a religious fervor, without any off the self doubt we see from Batman. He has zero problem with murdering police trying to arrest him. He utters Bond* one-liners when he disposes of criminals.

And it's not like Rorschach has no choice in the matter. He used to be a Batman style superhero. He punched crooks in the streets with Nite Owl and then left them tied up for the cops to deal with. He just...snapped one day. And on that day he ceased to be a hero and became something much darker.


*Bond is a whole different matter - there you CAN make a very persuasive argument that Bond gets away with horrific behaviour because he's "cool".

[Tyndmyr]

Fair enough with regards to Batman, most incarnations do have him with a no killing rule. Punisher, perhaps. He most definitely straight up kills criminals.

In any case, people certainly do make fun of Arkham's revolving door, and that motif is perhaps why Rorschach's portrayal is as it is. Either you embrace the game of cops and robbers and play by the rules, making little difference and hanging up your hat when told to(closer to either Night Owl), or you end up on a fairly dark and violent path.

It's most definitely a darker, more realistic portrayal, particularly compared to the high fantasy of James Bond, but I don't think that precludes heroism. It just changes what a hero looks like.

On the subject of that Snyder aesthetic, I actually wouldn't mind seeing him do Snow Crash. That is, like Watchman, probably nigh unfilmable, but if it can be done...Snyder's aesthetic would probably work for it.

[Psyren]

Eh, Batman might not kill, but they certainly do gloss over (and want you to gloss over) all the concussions, fractures, dislocations, psychological trauma etc that likely result from his nightly excursions too.

I get it, people reading a Batman comic or watching a Batman movie aren't really supposed to be thinking of stuff like that, but when his biggest budget properties (like the latest Robert Pattinson vehicle) keep putting that aspect of the character front and center, I can see how it becomes difficult not to. He doesn't exactly seem reluctant or restrained in that trailer.

As for Rorschach, he's much worse in a capacity for violence sense it's true. But at the same time, it's not like he has billions of inherited dollars laying around to try addressing a gang violence problem any other way either. That it's even a question which one might be doing a worse job overall is not exactly a point in Bruce's favor.

[Fyraltari]

Eh, Batman might not kill, but they certainly do gloss over (and want you to gloss over) all the concussions, fractures, dislocations, psychological trauma etc that likely result from his nightly excursions too.

I mean, if the universe bends itself so that the villains can escape custody twice a week it's only fair that it bends itself so that Batman beat them unconscious without lasting consequences.

[Cazero]

This is even more true at the movies, where the most extreme Batman we've ever seen is the Batman vs. Superman version.Burton Batman dumped a clown tied to a bomb in a sewer and burned a firespitter alive.

[Dire_Flumph]

Burton Batman dumped a clown tied to a bomb in a sewer and burned a firespitter alive.

It's absolutely amazing how much everyone seems to forget the body count that Batman racked up. Lowballing the first movie alone puts the kill count in the teens at least.

Back on track, there's an interesting article about the Snyder cut (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/02/the-true-story-of-justice-league-snyder-cut) on Vanity Fair today. It's not giving me a lot of hope this version will be much better, but it was an interesting read.


“The intention was that Bruce fell in love with Lois and then realized that the only way to save the world was to bring Superman back to life,” says Snyder. “So he had this insane conflict, because Lois, of course, was still in love with Superman. We had this beautiful speech where [Bruce] said to Alfred: ‘I never had a life outside the cave. I never imagined a world for me beyond this. But this woman makes me think that if I can get this group of gods together, then my job is done. I can quit. I can stop.’ And of course that doesn’t work out for him.”

*sigh*

Edit: cleanup.

[Trafalgar]

Back on track, there's an interesting article about the Snyder cut (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/02/the-true-story-of-justice-league-snyder-cut) on Vanity Fair today. It's not giving me a lot of hope this version will be much better, but it was an interesting read.



That's a pretty heart wrenching article in places. I thought the use of "Hallelujah" in the trailer back in November was weird but now it makes more sense. Quote from the last paragraph:
"The movie closes with Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah,” performed by Allison Crowe, a friend who also sang it at Autumn’s funeral. It was Autumn’s favorite song."



One complaint about Man of Steel that I thought was valid, was some of the Jesus imagery around Superman. In this article, we see Jared Leto's Joker in a crown of thorns. I hope that's just Snyder trolling the critics.

[Dragonus45]

Ohhhhh, there is a line from there that really sums up my interest in the Snyder cut perfectly.



“I would rather watch one person’s chaos than a committee’s snooze-fest.”

[Willie the Duck]

Burton Batman dumped a clown tied to a bomb in a sewer and burned a firespitter alive.

It's absolutely amazing how much everyone seems to forget the body count that Batman racked up. Lowballing the first movie alone puts the kill count in the teens at least.

As I recall, although movie #1 generally had rave reviews, a lot of the complaints about it were how much it deviated from the no guns/no killing rules.

[Imbalance]

Just glancing through, but I'm glad that both the Black Freighter and Batman's brutality have been brought up, and the only thing I'll add to that (at the risk of sounding Joker) is that even apart from the films there are ample victims of Batman's "justice" who, though they may live to face a jury of their peers, will suffer far more than inevitable death. Consider how many underprivileged young men who only turned to a life of crime for survival, may have only been guilty of a handful of misdemeanors in the employ of the only bosses that would hire them to simply defend against the violence that Batman brings, and now may never walk again or must eat all of their meals through a straw the rest of their lives.

I'm not saying Rorschach is a better guy, but a swift death at the bottom of an elevator shaft may be a preferable fate. Also, remember that Ozy deliberately gave people cancer in order to deceive the world against Manhattan, and took the one redeemed villain of the story under his wing to help spread that disease. It's not just the horrific numbers that will result from his plan, but when you take the early steps into account, there is nothing about him or his results to vindicate his methods. He's no savior - Veidt is the worst kind of monster and the ultimate villain that has the story beg "who watches the Watchmen?"

[Keltest]

Just glancing through, but I'm glad that both the Black Freighter and Batman's brutality have been brought up, and the only thing I'll add to that (at the risk of sounding Joker) is that even apart from the films there are ample victims of Batman's "justice" who, though they may live to face a jury of their peers, will suffer far more than inevitable death. Consider how many underprivileged young men who only turned to a life of crime for survival, may have only been guilty of a handful of misdemeanors in the employ of the only bosses that would hire them to simply defend against the violence that Batman brings, and now may never walk again or must eat all of their meals through a straw the rest of their lives.

I'm not saying Rorschach is a better guy, but a swift death at the bottom of an elevator shaft may be a preferable fate. Also, remember that Ozy deliberately gave people cancer in order to deceive the world against Manhattan, and took the one redeemed villain of the story under his wing to help spread that disease. It's not just the horrific numbers that will result from his plan, but when you take the early steps into account, there is nothing about him or his results to vindicate his methods. He's no savior - Veidt is the worst kind of monster and the ultimate villain that has the story beg "who watches the Watchmen?"

At least in the comics, Bruce Wayne goes out of his way to try and give the generic henchmen, who are largely desperate and short on options rather than evil, legitimate jobs and wages to keep them out of crime. We just dont see much of it because the story of Steve the Accountant is not terribly exciting even if he is a former thief.

[Dienekes]

Others. A vague sense of society, but most often in practice the defenseless.



Yes. His ideal for society is warped. Condemnation is different than action, though. Those he acts against are pretty universally deserving by any standards.

That said, he does not condemn the poor, and condemning the politicians in the world of Watchmen is...honestly fair. It's a bleak world and we see them straight up murdering pacifistic students in a much more brutal version of Kent State.



Sure they do. They all have personal motivations. Doesn't matter, those folks still got to not burn. And yeah, Rorschach is absolutely raging over the injustices done to him, and punching out those who do injustices to others.

But Batman literally does the same, and people accept Batman as heroic.

Why? Is it the money, the style, the nice words said? At the end of the day, both are punching crooks in the streets.

Rorschach killed a man who was just trying to get beat up. Regularly goes to places where people don't appear to be doing anything and breaks random people's fingers until someone talks. And was going to attack some random woman for lying about him until he felt pity about her kids.

Now Batman has both a boon and a problem in that he's been around so long that there are multiple versions of him. Some of which really are not heroic. Some are too cartoony to even place on a morality scale. But some are. Since like the 80s Bruce has been focused more on helping society, while still being a big bag of personal flaws. He's established soup kitchens, he's opened up numerous charities to lower crime in Gotham and created jobs for ex-cons so people can get themselves out of a life of crime. There's even been more emphasis on him dealing with the structural issues of the heads of companies forcing others to start a life of crime, or the elites of society keeping people oppressed. Usually this ends up devolving down to big action scenes against colorfully costumed baddies. It is still an action comic book.

It's really only when he's actively attempting to face off against super villains and those who are using deadly force that he really goes in ass kicking. And has talked down those villains he thinks he can. At least -as I said- in some versions of a character that's been around for 80 years.

But yeah, if you take a look at that span of time and take everything he's done that now seems pretty horrific. You could definitely make a case Batman isn't a hero. Times and morals change.

[Peelee]

As I recall, although movie #1 generally had rave reviews, a lot of the complaints about it were how much it deviated from the no guns/no killing rules.

"Any anyone who knows me knows i would never read a comic book!" - Tim Burton - Kevin Smith

I never got why that movie had rave reviews. It wasn't bad, but it wasnt great. At this point I figure it was one of the first superhero movies that wasn't a complete stinker.

But then I'm not a big fan of Burton in general.

[Imbalance]

At least in the comics, Bruce Wayne goes out of his way to try and give the generic henchmen, who are largely desperate and short on options rather than evil, legitimate jobs and wages to keep them out of crime. We just dont see much of it because the story of Steve the Accountant is not terribly exciting even if he is a former thief.


Rorschach killed a man who was just trying to get beat up. Regularly goes to places where people don't appear to be doing anything and breaks random people's fingers until someone talks. And was going to attack some random woman for lying about him until he felt pity about her kids.

Now Batman has both a boon and a problem in that he's been around so long that there are multiple versions of him. Some of which really are not heroic. Some are too cartoony to even place on a morality scale. But some are. Since like the 80s Bruce has been focused more on helping society, while still being a big bag of personal flaws. He's established soup kitchens, he's opened up numerous charities to lower crime in Gotham and created jobs for ex-cons so people can get themselves out of a life of crime. There's even been more emphasis on him dealing with the structural issues of the heads of companies forcing others to start a life of crime, or the elites of society keeping people oppressed. Usually this ends up devolving down to big action scenes against colorfully costumed baddies. It is still an action comic book.

It's really only when he's actively attempting to face off against super villains and those who are using deadly force that he really goes in ass kicking. And has talked down those villains he thinks he can. At least -as I said- in some versions of a character that's been around for 80 years.

But yeah, if you take a look at that span of time and take everything he's done that now seems pretty horrific. You could definitely make a case Batman isn't a hero. Times and morals change.

Right you are, because as the fan base came to understand that a better way to combat the "cowardly and superstitious lot" is through education and empowerment, so did Bruce Wayne, perhaps as a direct result of Moore's perspectives enlightening said readers and his contemporaries in the industry. But they still have to sell books. Batman's mythos is redemptive in large part because his story can be corrected in the current consciousness, whereas Rorschach's is finite and brief enough to wholly analyze yet remains open to interpretation and judgement. In that same timeframe, though, 100,000 Rorschachs would not have been as deadly as one Ozymandias.


"Any anyone who knows me knows i would never read a comic book!" - Tim Burton - Kevin Smith

I never got why that movie had rave reviews. It wasn't bad, but it wasnt great. At this point I figure it was one of the first superhero movies that wasn't a complete stinker.

But then I'm not a big fan of Burton in general.

I mostly love that movie for the car.

[Dire_Flumph]

As I recall, although movie #1 generally had rave reviews, a lot of the complaints about it were how much it deviated from the no guns/no killing rules.

I have different recollections, I remember at the time it was given raves for taking Batman out of the sillier Adam West/Superfriends mold into something more "mature". I don't remember people getting hung up on the "no killing, no guns" thing until after Batman:TAS became more popular.

But then, this was the 80's, where the action movie revolved around mowing down bad guys with a bad pun afterwards.

Edit: Personally, I wasn't a fan of any of the Batman incarnations in TV/film until TAS sold me on the character.

[Friv]

Consider how many underprivileged young men who only turned to a life of crime for survival, may have only been guilty of a handful of misdemeanors in the employ of the only bosses that would hire them to simply defend against the violence that Batman brings, and now may never walk again or must eat all of their meals through a straw the rest of their lives.

Zero, across nearly every incarnation.

Batman is an action hero, and even in movies like the Burtonverse he plays by action hero rules. When he punches someone, they're fine a couple days later. You can say that's because he's such a great martial artist that he knows how to subdue people without long-term damage, or you can shrug and say it's for the same reason that John McClane can swing through a glass window without immediately bleeding out and walk across glass barefoot and only suffer about as much as I would walking across sharp gravel, but that's how the rules work.

[Clertar]

Zero, across nearly every incarnation.

Batman is an action hero, and even in movies like the Burtonverse he plays by action hero rules. When he punches someone, they're fine a couple days later. You can say that's because he's such a great martial artist that he knows how to subdue people without long-term damage, or you can shrug and say it's for the same reason that John McClane can swing through a glass window without immediately bleeding out and walk across glass barefoot and only suffer about as much as I would walking across sharp gravel, but that's how the rules work.

So the complaint about plot contrivance is voided because of plot contrivance. It's an argumental pincer! :smallbiggrin:

[warty goblin]

So the complaint about plot contrivance is voided because of plot contrivance. It's an argumental pincer! :smallbiggrin:

At some point it seems to me that the solution to the complaint "fictional thing contains unreal elements" is to read nonfiction. There's plenty of fascinating stuff in history that's as true to reality as the human brain can achieve, its just less fun. Or the fun is a lot more work than stories about dudes with nocturnal mammal fetishes punching other dudes.

[Fyraltari]

At some point it seems to me that the solution to the complaint "fictional thing contains unreal elements" is to read nonfiction. There's plenty of fascinating stuff in history that's as true to reality as the human brain can achieve, its just less fun. Or the fun is a lot more work than stories about dudes with nocturnal mammal fetishes punching other dudes.

Nonfiction has way more plot contrivances than fiction, though.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Consider how many underprivileged young men who only turned to a life of crime for survival, may have only been guilty of a handful of misdemeanors in the employ of the only bosses that would hire them to simply defend against the violence that Batman brings, and now may never walk again or must eat all of their meals through a straw the rest of their lives.
Those kind of people don’t fight when Batman shows up they run or fall down after the slightest tap. The guys who crumble in one much might not be knocked out they just don’t want to fight Batman. I recall one hilarious instance where a thug actually spotted Batman sneaking in, lied about seeing him then quickly left.

And if the Henchmen really had to worry about being beaten so badly they’d be permanently crippled. Joker, Scarecrow and numerous other villains would be in the same boat.

[Mordar]

"Any anyone who knows me knows i would never read a comic book!" - Tim Burton - Kevin Smith

I never got why that movie had rave reviews. It wasn't bad, but it wasnt great. At this point I figure it was one of the first superhero movies that wasn't a complete stinker.

But then I'm not a big fan of Burton in general.

As mentioned a bit further downstream, it was a non-camp, blockbuster with a fantastic new visual style in an era where there were still tons of low-budget action movies. It stood heads and shoulders above what had been previously done in the sub-genre in terms of production values, "serious" approach to the subject matter (and making it not a kiddie movie), with a lot of Rule of Cool.

Don't forget, it also had a great transitional Joker.

I didn't love the hype when it came out, but came to really appreciate the movie.

- M

[Imbalance]

Zero, across nearly every incarnation.

Batman is an action hero, and even in movies like the Burtonverse he plays by action hero rules. When he punches someone, they're fine a couple days later. You can say that's because he's such a great martial artist that he knows how to subdue people without long-term damage, or you can shrug and say it's for the same reason that John McClane can swing through a glass window without immediately bleeding out and walk across glass barefoot and only suffer about as much as I would walking across sharp gravel, but that's how the rules work.


Those kind of people don’t fight when Batman shows up they run or fall down after the slightest tap. The guys who crumble in one much might not be knocked out they just don’t want to fight Batman. I recall one hilarious instance where a thug actually spotted Batman sneaking in, lied about seeing him then quickly left.

So, we see two vigilantes doing basically the same thing with drastically different results. Could we suppose that somebody's mythos may be omissive or less than truthful about the after-action report? It might be easy to say the rules vary by author, because it's true enough, but it's also obvious that one character is a reflection of the other (or, at least, the superhero template) in what might as well be the same world but viewed through a different lense. We're giving one a pass due to not being directly shown the downstream effects of his actions, while the other's actions are downplayed to highlight those grim outcomes and it shines the light of implication back into the mirror and onto the source.


And if the Henchmen really had to worry about being beaten so badly they’d be permanently crippled. Joker, Scarecrow and numerous other villains would be in the same boat.

So should Batman. Writers have occasionally touched on it. Kingdom Come is a favorite example of mine where Bruce needs a full body brace just to ambulate.

[Psyren]

Those kind of people don’t fight when Batman shows up they run or fall down after the slightest tap.

"slightest tap" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FZ-pPFAjYY#t=1m34s)



So should Batman. Writers have occasionally touched on it. Kingdom Come is a favorite example of mine where Bruce needs a full body brace just to ambulate.

Oh no, how will the billionaire cope?


At some point it seems to me that the solution to the complaint "fictional thing contains unreal elements" is to read nonfiction. There's plenty of fascinating stuff in history that's as true to reality as the human brain can achieve, its just less fun. Or the fun is a lot more work than stories about dudes with nocturnal mammal fetishes punching other dudes.

I mean, not all fiction centers around plutocrats patrolling the streets at night handing out fractures instead of.... doing literally anything else, but okay :smalltongue:

Put another way - I can (and do) just read better fiction, that doesn't try to gloss over these jarring discrepancies as though they're nothing.

[Dienekes]

I mean, not all fiction centers around plutocrats patrolling the streets at night handing out fractures instead of.... doing literally anything else, but okay :smalltongue:

Put another way - I can (and do) just read better fiction, that doesn't try to gloss over these jarring discrepancies as though they're nothing.

Respectfully Psyren,* you're a fan of both Mass Effect and Dragon Age. One is about an elite group of essentially spies and assassins that kill for the government without any real oversight. And DA2 is literally about a plutocrat patrolling the street handing out well not fractures admittedly, because you just kill everyone you come in contact with.

*And I mean this literally, as in I respect you but think you’re overreaching a bit here, not as a sarcastic way to politely tell someone to **** off.

[Psyren]

Respectfully Psyren,* you're a fan of both Mass Effect and Dragon Age. One is about an elite group of essentially spies and assassins that kill for the government without any real oversight. And DA2 is literally about a plutocrat patrolling the street handing out well not fractures admittedly, because you just kill everyone you come in contact with.

I bolded the oxymoron in your statement. By contrast, and as the meme goes, Batman has no jurisdiction.

As for DA2, where did I claim Hawke is any better? (Though I'll point out that most of the quests that send you out onto the street are for specific purposes where you get attacked, not general unending quests for vengeance/violence.)

[Lord Raziere]

I bolded the oxymoron in your statement. By contrast, and as the meme goes, Batman has no jurisdiction.


Thats....not an oxymoron at all. Just because one receives orders from the government to do something doesn't you have oversight to make sure your actions are the correct actions. just because say.....a knight answers to and is empowered by the king to wander throughout the land killing anyone who they think is against the king doesn't necessarily mean they have the oversight of the king, as the king is busy doing other stuff and can't be with them when doing their thing.

[Peelee]

Don't forget, it also had a great transitional Joker.

Eh, while I love Jack Nicholson, the older I get the more I don't really think he did a good Joker.

[Psyren]

Thats....not an oxymoron at all. Just because one receives orders from the government to do something doesn't you have oversight to make sure your actions are the correct actions. just because say.....a knight answers to and is empowered by the king to wander throughout the land killing anyone who they think is against the king doesn't necessarily mean they have the oversight of the king, as the king is busy doing other stuff and can't be with them when doing their thing.

That is a form of oversight, because Spectres do answer and report in to the council (who can remove their authority, as they did to Saren.) It's LIMITED oversight, but it's still oversight.

[Dienekes]

I bolded the oxymoron in your statement. By contrast, and as the meme goes, Batman has no jurisdiction.

Having a theoretical boss is not the same thing as oversight. Especially not on a socio-political level. Spectres go where they please, even to territory that is not under Council jurisdiction, doing whatever they want. And so long as they send reports back to the Council they're fine. There appears to be no means of overseeing the actions of these Spectres. No verification method of if what they're saying is even true. We see a trial of a Spectre the very first game and it comes down to just taking them at their word.

That's not oversight, that's plausible deniability on the part of the Council.



As for DA2, where did I claim Hawke is any better? (Though I'll point out that most of the quests that send you out onto the street are for specific purposes where you get attacked, not general unending quests for vengeance/violence.)

But you do play and enjoy story driven games that gloss over the same problematic issues as Batman has. Hell, DA is even worse in how little it gets into the absolute ****-fest that comes from having any wealth at all in a pseudo-medieval world.

And I could also point out most of Batman's adventures are to save people/the city/the world. Solve a specific crime. Or disrupt criminal organizations that were in control of the cities justice systems.

But I think I'm a bit confused. Is the problematic part of Batman that he is not 100% altruistic in his motivation? Because I would disagree that's really an issue there. It just means he's not a perfect paragon of goodness. Or is it that a rich boy is beating up members of the lower class? Which I agree is a problematic read of the character. Though one that in my opinion is pretty reductive to the point of meaninglessness.

[Cazero]

Eh, while I love Jack Nicholson, the older I get the more I don't really think he did a good Joker.
I thing that's the writing. It oscillates between Joker (the loooooooong handgun) and goth serial killer (fascinating war pictures of corpses), and the Joker is kinda the opposite of goth.

[Psyren]

We see a trial of a Spectre the very first game and it comes down to just taking them at their word.

Saren was innocent until proven guilty (like most defendants in a trial), and there was no evidence to convict him at first. You'll recall that very same trial DID end in his conviction a few quests later, once said evidence was obtained and presented - thanks to Tali - and most of the rest of the game was spent tracking him down to serve the Council's verdict. If you're going to bring up games I've played to try and make a point, don't you think you should remember what happens in them?



But you do play and enjoy story driven games that gloss over the same problematic issues as Batman has. Hell, DA is even worse in how little it gets into the absolute ****-fest that comes from having any wealth at all in a pseudo-medieval world.

And? Thedas makes no pretense that any of its protagonists are paragons of heroism the way the Justice League do. There is no analogue for Superman, and if there were, Kirkwall et al. would never get to the state they are. And Hawke is a very, very poor parallel for Batman, having nowhere near his resources or connections. "I found a windfall in the Deep Roads and used it to move into my family's dilapidated estate in the good part of town" is hardly "global megacorporation" money, nor is it "commandeer every cell phone in the city" money, and certainly not "private space station" money, etc.



But I think I'm a bit confused. Is the problematic part of Batman that he is not 100% altruistic in his motivation? Because I would disagree that's really an issue there. It just means he's not a perfect paragon of goodness. Or is it that a rich boy is beating up members of the lower class? Which I agree is a problematic read of the character. Though one that in my opinion is pretty reductive to the point of meaninglessness.

There is a lot of daylight between "100% altruistic" and "the best way I, the (second?) richest man on the entire planet, can think of to address crime in my city is to prowl its alleys at night personally beating up people far less advantaged than myself." I don't care that Batman isn't perfect, I care that the DCEU has yet to find a reasonable way to address the incongruity between his means and his actions that doesn't leave him coming off as a sociopath that we're supposed to somehow still be rooting for.

[Sapphire Guard]

I feel like there's a misconception that Batman's every day is like the Arkham games. He is not going around beating people randomly, the people being fought are overwhelmingly either mass murderers or people comfortable running security for mass murderers, quite often having taken hostages.

There are also many references to the work the Wayne foundation is doing, but when there's an active hostage situation, throwing money at the problem isn't going to do much.

Meanwhile, Shepard can be responsible for the extinction of entire species.

[Peelee]

I thing that's the writing.

Oh it's definitely the writing. Maybe also the directing. Like I said, I'm not a big Burton fan outside of a couple of movies. Don't really like his style.

[Dienekes]

Saren was innocent until proven guilty (like most defendants in a trial), and there was no evidence to convict him at first. You'll recall that very same trial DID end in his conviction a few quests later, once said evidence was obtained and presented - thanks to Tali - and most of the rest of the game was spent tracking him down to serve the Council's verdict. If you're going to bring up games I've played to try and make a point, don't you think you should remember what happens in them?


I do. Here's what happens. Your government agency brings up a charge against Saren. The Council starts a trial. An eye-witness dock worker's testimony is read about. They don't even bring the guy in for the trial. And then the Council discards it. Shepard -another eye-witness- comes in with support of those charges and is again ignored. There appears to be no organized verification process on the discrepancy between the various reports. And importantly no outside agencies overlooking the process. The Spectres are an arm of the Council. The Council then determines the guilt of the Spectres. They are in essence the same organization. And we know not to let the same organization overlook themselves. For the exact reason of Saren's trial.

When the group of police administrators are the only ones who get to determine if one of their officers is innocent or guilty they will find the officer innocent. Which is why a system with actual oversight doesn't do that. There is an outside judiciary to determine overreach and numerous civilian oversight bodies. The Spectres don't have any of that. Which is what I mean by not having oversight.





There is a lot of daylight between "100% altruistic" and "the best way I, the (second?) richest man on the entire planet, can think of to address crime in my city is to prowl its alleys at night personally beating up people far less advantaged than myself." I don't care that Batman isn't perfect, I care that the DCEU has yet to find a reasonable way to address the incongruity between his means and his actions that doesn't leave him coming off as a sociopath that we're supposed to somehow still be rooting for.

But again... as has been said a few times up thread. It's not, though. And hasn't been the only thing he's been doing since the late 80s-early 90s. He's funded clean politicians with progressive stances on welfare. He's corporation completely runs numerous charity groups to get people off the streets. He's investigated and taken down both big businesses that have used their wealth illegal to suppress people and force them into a life of crime and political elites that used back alley deals to keep Gotham running as it has. Broke up the corruption within Gotham PD. Investigated the abuses within both Blackgate and Arkham. And of course, Wayne Industries and his various charities hire ex-cons to give them a chance at a normal life after serving their sentence.

The writers on the character have been doing quite a lot over the last few decades to point out what structural changes Bruce is making to minimize crime.

[Psyren]

Your "eyewitness testimony", wasn't. Shepard didn't see Saren kill anyone (the cutscene of what happens before Shepard arrives on the scene is for our benefit as the player, not in-character) - he/she saw Nihlus' body and a whole lot of geth. That's not enough to convict anyone of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The intact recording taken directly from the Heretic unit however, was - and the Council exercised their oversight by stripping Saren of his role.

"You claim to not like Batman, yet you like Bioware protagonists, how curious!" is not the hot take you think it is.

I'm not going anywhere near the police stuff, not on this forum.



But again... as has been said a few times up thread. It's not, though. And hasn't been the only thing he's been doing since the late 80s-early 90s. He's funded clean politicians with progressive stances on welfare. He's corporation completely runs numerous charity groups to get people off the streets. He's investigated and taken down both big businesses that have used their wealth illegal to suppress people and force them into a life of crime and political elites that used back alley deals to keep Gotham running as it has. Broke up the corruption within Gotham PD. Investigated the abuses within both Blackgate and Arkham. And of course, Wayne Industries and his various charities hire ex-cons to give them a chance at a normal life after serving their sentence.

The writers on the character have been doing quite a lot over the last few decades to point out what structural changes Bruce is making to minimize crime.

Carefully tuned so that none of it is enough to keep him from donning tights and beating up people far less advantaged than himself. It's weak and offscreen/off-panel lip service, nothing more.

And to get this whole tangent back on topic, film portrayals of Batman by the likes of Snyder and Nolan don't even care about doing those bare minimum things you claim other writers are doing. How can I then feel confident in their ability to handle even more idealistic heroes? The answer is simply, I don't.

[Mordar]

Eh, while I love Jack Nicholson, the older I get the more I don't really think he did a good Joker.

I was focused on the "transitional" part. Moving away from Cesar Romero who really was a "Clown Prince of Crime", the campiest of the camp villains in the campiest of camp superhero shows. He brought forth the sociopathically alien nature of the Joker while still having to wear the gaudy costume. He managed to oscillate between comedically insane and frighteningly insane. The only thing he didn't show, I thought, was the genius nature of the character.


I thing that's the writing. It oscillates between Joker (the loooooooong handgun) and goth serial killer (fascinating war pictures of corpses), and the Joker is kinda the opposite of goth.

I really disagree. No elements of the performance felt goth poser to me. It was fascination with other people's pain and suffering that was driving him, not a sense of ennui and a desire to be perceived as edgy. And certainly not any affection for Euro-rock, Robert Smith (whenever I say his name I think of South Park and that makes me sad) or disaffected youth.

- M

[Willie the Duck]

"Any anyone who knows me knows i would never read a comic book!" - Tim Burton - Kevin Smith

I never got why that movie had rave reviews. It wasn't bad, but it wasnt great. At this point I figure it was one of the first superhero movies that wasn't a complete stinker.

But then I'm not a big fan of Burton in general.


I have different recollections, I remember at the time it was given raves for taking Batman out of the sillier Adam West/Superfriends mold into something more "mature". I don't remember people getting hung up on the "no killing, no guns" thing until after Batman:TAS became more popular.

But then, this was the 80's, where the action movie revolved around mowing down bad guys with a bad pun afterwards.

Edit: Personally, I wasn't a fan of any of the Batman incarnations in TV/film until TAS sold me on the character.

It may be that you are right, DF, and the condemnatory analysis came long after the fact. I agree, the 80s was a time when action heroes demolishing 'bad guys' was rather accepted (perhaps one of the reasons why many people missed/disagreed with Moore's point in Watchmen). I tend to think that Burton made a very passable superhero movie, and a very bad Batman movie. There are some incarnations of Batman where he effectively is Rorschach. There are some where he is the idealized guy whose punches never permanently harm. There are some versions which are Adam West/whomever voiced the Superfriends version mugging and posing and basically winking at the audience.

I think that is part of the point (although honestly I've lost what point most people are trying to make). I seem to recall one of the questions that spawned this was whether Batman 'gets away' with his behavior because he's pretty. To that, I think it's relevant that Batman gets away with his behavior when his behavior isn't similar to Rorschach's, and when he does act like Rorschach, it is usually noticed and commented on as a deviation/subversion/etc.


So the complaint about plot contrivance is voided because of plot contrivance. It's an argumental pincer! :smallbiggrin:
I'm honestly not sure that the plot contrivance issue was the point to which this was addressed.


So, we see two vigilantes doing basically the same thing with drastically different results. Could we suppose that somebody's mythos may be omissive or less than truthful about the after-action report? It might be easy to say the rules vary by author, because it's true enough, but it's also obvious that one character is a reflection of the other (or, at least, the superhero template) in what might as well be the same world but viewed through a different lense. We're giving one a pass due to not being directly shown the downstream effects of his actions, while the other's actions are downplayed to highlight those grim outcomes and it shines the light of implication back into the mirror and onto the source.
I mean, if we want to. I've always interpreted that when one comic has different results of vigilantism or something similar (say, realistic or cinematic explosion physics), it is because the world is working differently, not because someone is lying about what happened. In idealized DC comics, Superman and Batman really do get to save the day with the bad guys never winning or the hostages getting killed in the crossfire or the not-that-evil mook suffers lifelong injuries from the beating, and in gritty DC or in Watchmen, that doesn't happen.

[Dienekes]

"You claim to not like Batman, yet you like Bioware protagonists, how curious!" is not the hot take you think it is.

It's not really meant to be a hot take so much as indicating that problematic elements in action protagonists are more universal than your initial comment seemed to indicate. As long as you have the world being saved by a single character who's main interaction with opposition is violence in some way there's going to be problems. And hey I enjoy them too, but there are a lot of pretty crazy problems in those games that are not really addressed at all. Preferring to handle easier to express issues like the Genophage or Geth because focusing on those issues still leave wiggle room for Shepard being a cowboy and flying off to distant planets to kill things with no real repercussions outside some character drama.

It's very fun, but it is problematic.


I'm not going anywhere near the police stuff, not on this forum.

Fair enough.





Carefully tuned so that none of it is enough to keep him from donning tights and beating up people far less advantaged than himself. It's weak and offscreen/off-panel lip service, nothing more.

And to get this whole tangent back on topic, film portrayals of Batman by the likes of Snyder and Nolan don't even care about doing those bare minimum things you claim other writers are doing. How can I then feel confident in their ability to handle even more idealistic heroes? The answer is simply, I don't.

It is an action-adventure story. There's always going to be something that brings the plot back to action and adventure. Same way the amazing Black Panther movie was able to discuss a quite interesting take on isolationism, imperialism, and some other things that we will need to dance around on the board. But in the end the format calls for a big punch 'em up between two guys in cat suits.

Batman has had multiple year storylines focusing on him trying to clean up Gotham through targeting those in power. There is still of course action-adventure thrown in as well to keep the readers coming. That those stories don't make it into the movies in favor of getting Bruce taking sadistic pleasure in beating people up is admittedly disappointing. And I agree with you that Snyder and probably Nolan as well are not going to be the ones to bring that development into the movies.

[Psyren]

It's very fun, but it is problematic.
...
It is an action-adventure story. There's always going to be something that brings the plot back to action and adventure. Same way the amazing Black Panther movie was able to discuss a quite interesting take on isolationism, imperialism, and some other things that we will need to dance around on the board. But in the end the format calls for a big punch 'em up between two guys in cat suits.
...
Batman has had multiple year storylines focusing on him trying to clean up Gotham through targeting those in power. There is still of course action-adventure thrown in as well to keep the readers coming. That those stories don't make it into the movies in favor of getting Bruce taking sadistic pleasure in beating people up is admittedly disappointing. And I agree with you that Snyder and probably Nolan as well are not going to be the ones to bring that development into the movies.

I'm glad we agree on his movies - and for the record, I'm not against action, I'm against punching down. You brought up Black Panther, and I think that's a great illustration of how Marvel does this better than DC (in the movies anyway):

T'Challa doesn't patrol the alleys of Wakanda looking for arms to break, nor are his opponents societally disadvantaged, mentally ill, or both. The movies themselves hang a lampshade on how ineffectual Batman's crusade ultimately is, wih lines like Perry White's snark from BvS. "'Crime Wave in Gotham'! Other breaking news: 'Water, wet'!"

T'Challa isn't perfect either, but Wakanda's problems tend to be much larger in scale than things like mobsters - and thus far more often, his fights take him outside it, facing villains and obstacles that are more credibly on his level.

As for Batman in other media, I don't see how those more nuanced stories you claim exist could ever make it to the big screen. A Batman who ceases to patrol the streets and beat up gangsters isn't really Batman anymore. And that's, for me, the fundamental flaw in the character's premise; DC insists on trying to cram all these dissonant aspects into one person for brand recognition/marketing purposes, that make the premise weaker overall. Bruce Wayne needs Tony Stark's wealth and connections, Matt Murdock's vigilantism and rigid morals, T'Challa's use of symbolism and technology to cause fear etc., yet with all of those he doesn't make a dent in the status quo. At least for the MCU, Marvel showed that it's a lot easier to make this work if you just keep those as separate characters. I don't have a solution for DC, but I don't think what they're currently doing is working - hence the constant reboots.

[Lord Raziere]

As for Batman in other media, I don't see how those more nuanced stories you claim exist could ever make it to the big screen. A Batman who ceases to patrol the streets and beat up gangsters isn't really Batman anymore. And that's, for me, the fundamental flaw in the character's premise; DC insists on trying to cram all these dissonant aspects into one person for brand recognition/marketing purposes, that make the premise weaker overall. Bruce Wayne needs Tony Stark's wealth and connections, Matt Murdock's vigilantism and rigid morals, T'Challa's use of symbolism and technology to cause fear etc., yet with all of those he doesn't make a dent in the status quo. At least for the MCU, Marvel showed that it's a lot easier to make this work if you just keep those as separate characters. I don't have a solution for DC, but I don't think what they're currently doing is working - hence the constant reboots.

You have it backwards: they constantly reboot it, because its working.

for whatever reason, Batman despite people on the internet constantly claiming he is a problematic rich person punching down, he still sells and is seen as a near-superman level paragon of justice by his fans. The stories that they're used to are the ones in Gotham, defeating the same rogues gallery. So thats what they write. a change in status quo means you have to come up with new stories, and established corporations consider new stories risky and unreliable, because you don't know if they are going to be a hit or not. they're not the people that make stories that work, they're the people that find stories that are already working and keep them consistent.

[Mordar]

Carefully tuned so that none of it is enough to keep him from donning tights and beating up people far less advantaged than himself. It's weak and offscreen/off-panel lip service, nothing more.

And to get this whole tangent back on topic, film portrayals of Batman by the likes of Snyder and Nolan don't even care about doing those bare minimum things you claim other writers are doing. How can I then feel confident in their ability to handle even more idealistic heroes? The answer is simply, I don't.

I know that is reduction for effect, but I seem to miss the segments of the movies where Batman kicks the crap out of random people experiencing homelessness (and construction workers, doctors, research physicists, deli clerks, perfume spritzers and magazine publishers), people of the non-locally-dominant race/ethnicity/religion/origin, and...well...just about anyone that isn't a Saudi prince, founder of a private multinational conglomerate, or someone with actual super-powers. After all, who short of Lex Luthor, Superman or King T'Challa could be considered less advantaged than Bruce Wayne?


I'm glad we agree on his movies - and for the record, I'm not against action, I'm against punching down. You brought up Black Panther, and I think that's a great illustration of how Marvel does this better than DC (in the movies anyway):

T'Challa isn't perfect either, but Wakanda's problems tend to be much larger in scale than things like mobsters - and thus far more often, his fights take him outside it, facing villains and obstacles that are more credibly on his level.

As for Batman in other media, I don't see how those more nuanced stories you claim exist could ever make it to the big screen. A Batman who ceases to patrol the streets and beat up gangsters isn't really Batman anymore. And that's, for me, the fundamental flaw in the character's premise; DC insists on trying to cram all these dissonant aspects into one person for brand recognition/marketing purposes, that make the premise weaker overall. Bruce Wayne needs Tony Stark's wealth and connections, Matt Murdock's vigilantism and rigid morals, T'Challa's use of symbolism and technology to cause fear etc., yet with all of those he doesn't make a dent in the status quo. At least for the MCU, Marvel showed that it's a lot easier to make this work if you just keep those as separate characters. I don't have a solution for DC, but I don't think what they're currently doing is working - hence the constant reboots.

Along the same lines, I didn't see those kidnappers as having royal bloodlines, limitless wealth, ultra-advanced technology, or a sciency-magic herb that gave them super-human speed, strength and endurance. He clearly shouldn't have beat the crap out of them just because he wanted his sorta-girlfriend to come to his high (Wakandan) society party. Even the fight with M'Baku was punching down. I know you said T'Challa isn't perfect...but for every Batman beatdown handed out to an unfortunate who made some volume of really bad decisions you can find a Black Panther (or Daredevil, or Iron Man) fight that shows the same, at least within shared relative time periods.

I don't think DC isn't trying to cram the traits you mention in to one character...they were there all along, Tony Stark, Matt Murdock, T'Challa are all children of Bruce Wayne's legacy. Sure, many audiences need more nuance now than they did 70 years ago, and the deconstructors have had a confounding impact, but the "base" character doesn't seem to have strayed too far from some of those defining traits. Of course, if you just mean the DC movies (which I think is probably the case)...well, cramming is kind of what those have been all about.

My opinion on what DC should do with the films is primarily stop trying to be Marvel. Stop chasing big names to be the key roles (they seem to have gotten better there), and tell the DC stories. Save the dark-and-gritty and do the uplifting, non-flawed superhero thing. Superman is a paragon boyscout. Batman never stops trying to make Gotham better. Aquaman isn't a disaffected party boy. Wonder Woman doesn't give up her powers to misuse some poor schmuck's body. Green Lantern doesn't have a crisis of will. You get the idea...screw the modern fanboy and go for the heart of the characters that appeals to the young and the old.

- M

[Psyren]

You have it backwards: they constantly reboot it, because its working.

Fantastic Four finds this logic interesting :smallamused:

I don't deny that the property as a whole has enduring qualities (I absolutely love Harley Quinn's show for instance, and I did enjoy Dark Knight - though more for the Joker than Bats himself), but at the same time, I only see the concerns with the character's premise continuing to grow. And whatever success it had, "make it more like Batman" has almost certainly been one of the DCEU's larger stumbling blocks, one that Snyder looks set to double down on with this darker cut of JL.


I know that is reduction for effect, but I seem to miss the segments of the movies where Batman kicks the crap out of random people experiencing homelessness (and construction workers, doctors, research physicists, deli clerks, perfume spritzers and magazine publishers), people of the non-locally-dominant race/ethnicity/religion/origin, and...well...just about anyone that isn't a Saudi prince, founder of a private multinational conglomerate, or someone with actual super-powers. After all, who short of Lex Luthor, Superman or King T'Challa could be considered less advantaged than Bruce Wayne?

You missed all the henchmen? They don't sprout from the ether you know...


Along the same lines, I didn't see those kidnappers as having royal bloodlines, limitless wealth, ultra-advanced technology, or a sciency-magic herb that gave them super-human speed, strength and endurance. He clearly shouldn't have beat the crap out of them just because he wanted his sorta-girlfriend to come to his high (Wakandan) society party.

Uh... "kidnappers?" Do you mean the multinational human trafficking ring that Nakia was infiltrating? :smallconfused:


I don't think DC isn't trying to cram the traits you mention in to one character...they were there all along, Tony Stark, Matt Murdock, T'Challa are all children of Bruce Wayne's legacy. Sure, many audiences need more nuance now than they did 70 years ago, and the deconstructors have had a confounding impact, but the "base" character doesn't seem to have strayed too far from some of those defining traits. Of course, if you just mean the DC movies (which I think is probably the case)...well, cramming is kind of what those have been all about.

My opinion on what DC should do with the films is primarily stop trying to be Marvel. Stop chasing big names to be the key roles (they seem to have gotten better there), and tell the DC stories. Save the dark-and-gritty and do the uplifting, non-flawed superhero thing. Superman is a paragon boyscout. Batman never stops trying to make Gotham better. Aquaman isn't a disaffected party boy. Wonder Woman doesn't give up her powers to misuse some poor schmuck's body. Green Lantern doesn't have a crisis of will. You get the idea...screw the modern fanboy and go for the heart of the characters that appeals to the young and the old.

Some of it was there all along but there has definitely been, let's call it drift.
Bruce was always wealthy, but when they needed him to regularly hang out/do battle with alien gods and magic-users, they inflated his wealth to "I-fund-the-entire-League-and-provide-them-a-private-space-station" wealthy - i.e. the kind of money that should make a much bigger difference in a single city than it is ever shown to, if he cares as much as he says he does. Bruce was always very smart, but they needed to justify him hanging out with the groups mentioned above, so it became "I-have-detailed-files-that-will-let-me-1v1-any-of-those-aforementioned-alien-gods-with-some-prep-time." Put those together, and I'd expect a more permanent solution for gangsters in assorted makeup than punching them.

As for the movies, I agree with most of what you say - but trying to be the Avengers isn't their only problem, just the one most tied to Snyder's task of executing here. (Certainly Wonder Woman's stumble wasn't tied to trying to be Marvel, I can't recall any Marvel movies that made that particular misstep.)

[Peelee]

Fantastic Four finds this logic interesting :smallamused:

I didn't know that Spider-Man was such a big cinematic thematic failure. :smalltongue:

[Sapphire Guard]

Do you have specific henchmen in mind, Psyren?

As an example, let's look at BVS.

There are three henchmen fights.

First one? Against some kind of human trafficking gang that is keeping women in cages.

Second? Anatoly's crew, which has massacred an African village among other things.

Third? The same crew, who have kidnapped an innocent woman and have orders to incinerate her alive after a certain time.

So who are these innocent henchmen?



T'Challa has no excuse to do anything personally at all. He spends time fighting people with guns to which his suit is completely invulnerable unless he deliberately chooses to handicap himself, and he could easily improve the fortunes of Africa by doing more to help Wakanda's neighbours, but he doesn't. The outreach centre he makes is in Oakland, California instead of anywhere closer to home. It's all of Batman's problems but worse.

Marvel New York is also much worse than Gotham, despite people like Stark, Reed Richards, Danny Rand etc all being locals. Punisher's been killing people since the seventies, but somehow never runs out of criminals.

[Psyren]

I didn't know that Spider-Man was such a big cinematic thematic failure. :smalltongue:

I suppose it depends on how you define "failure" :smallsmile: SM3 and ASM did make money, but those leaked e-mails from Sony, followed by the deal with the House of Mouse for Tom Holland, certainly show that they were upset.


Do you have specific henchmen in mind, Psyren?

As an example, let's look at BVS.

There are three henchmen fights.

First one? Against some kind of human trafficking gang that is keeping women in cages.

Second? Anatoly's crew, which has massacred an African village among other things.

Third? The same crew, who have kidnapped an innocent woman and have orders to incinerate her alive after a certain time.

So who are these innocent henchmen?




I don't recall ever saying "innocent" - and is BvS, the version of Batman that uses a gun and kills people, really the one you want to be reaching for here?



Marvel New York is also much worse than Gotham, despite people like Stark, Reed Richards, Danny Rand etc all being locals. Punisher's been killing people since the seventies, but somehow never runs out of criminals.

Punisher isn't a billionaire, and Stark is dealing with cosmic threats rather than patrolling the streets. I'll give you Danny Rand though, he's pretty crap.

[Tyrant]

T'Challa has no excuse to do anything personally at all. He spends time fighting people with guns to which his suit is completely invulnerable unless he deliberately chooses to handicap himself, and he could easily improve the fortunes of Africa by doing more to help Wakanda's neighbours, but he doesn't. The outreach centre he makes is in Oakland, California instead of anywhere closer to home. It's all of Batman's problems but worse.

Marvel New York is also much worse than Gotham, despite people like Stark, Reed Richards, Danny Rand etc all being locals. Punisher's been killing people since the seventies, but somehow never runs out of criminals.
I don't read Punisher and I don't disagree with your larger point, but I am under the impression that Castle just kind of goes where the egregious crime rates take him.

[Cikomyr2]

Wait. Is anyone here saying the Punisher is presented as anything but problematic?

[Peelee]

I suppose it depends on how you define "failure" :smallsmile:

I'm just noting a franchise that fairly famously had a large number of reboots in the last 20 years or so, since Fantastic Four was brought up. :smallwink:

[Lurkmoar]

Wait. Is anyone here saying the Punisher is presented as anything but problematic?

He's a heavily damaged individual that uses lethal force to solve problems that are societal at core. He's a Villain or Anti-villain at best when he guest stars in other books. When he's the focus, he almost always is presented as an Anti-hero though.

Judging by all the Punisher skulls with the 'thin blue line' flag plastered on them I've see, yeah, I'd say some folks have missed the point.

Re: Synder Cut. Don't really have a dog in the race, but if it makes some people happy, great. Squeaky wheels tend to get the grease.

[Rynjin]

I
Punisher isn't a billionaire, and Stark is dealing with cosmic threats rather than patrolling the streets. I'll give you Danny Rand though, he's pretty crap.

Danny's the only one it's really justified for though. In most stories he doesn't even HAVE his money; his friend, or Namor, or some other rando is in control of the company.

When he does have access, he tries to go a bit bigger picture, like the 90s Heroes for Hire series (though even there IIRC the Human Torch...not that one...is in charge of the company).

Then half the time he's not even in New York anyway. He has K'un L'un **** to deal with, unless it's been invaded or blown up or whatever the hell the writers decide to do with it that month.

It's not like Reed Richards, who could solve the whole world's problems in 10 minutes if he gave half a ****. Danny Rand is just a well meaning guy with a glowy fist and lots of friends.

[Tyndmyr]

Rorschach killed a man who was just trying to get beat up. Regularly goes to places where people don't appear to be doing anything and breaks random people's fingers until someone talks. And was going to attack some random woman for lying about him until he felt pity about her kids.

The breaking fingers until people talk was certainly brutal, but they were criminal sorts. He was working his way through the underworld. Honestly, that's not all that different from many Batman plots. Beat up henchmen until they lead you to the guy in charge. The framing is different, of course. Batman doesn't focus on the brutality of it all, while Watchman does.

But it's hard to argue that Batman isn't actually brutal, or wouldn't be in any manner of realistic sense. Ultimately, most superheros tend to solve problems with violence, often extreme violence, on a regular basis.

Watchmen is that, just with the camera focusing on the aftermath instead of cutting away.

Now, I don't mind Batman as a character, and enjoyed perhaps 2.5 movies out of the Dark Night trilogy. However, he's definitely on the darker side of things, and the more realistic the take on him, the more the darkness comes into focus.

I don't really mind DC doing that for Batman, but they do seem to do it way too often. Dark edgy superman was an odd choice. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it's usually more alternate universe or a what if, not the mainstream character. The dark and edgy WITH the hero worship becomes just downright odd.

I have trouble with the idea that people idolize Clark as a literal god for acting in a pretty similar way to Bruce, who is mostly condemned as evil by...Gotham, which is pretty rough off.

[Cikomyr2]

The breaking fingers until people talk was certainly brutal, but they were criminal sorts. He was working his way through the underworld. Honestly, that's not all that different from many Batman plots. Beat up henchmen until they lead you to the guy in charge. The framing is different, of course. Batman doesn't focus on the brutality of it all, while Watchman does.



First of all, saying it's acceptable or break people finger because "they were criminals" is really disgusting

Second, isn't what people are saying is that Batman is actually not that good of a person seeing his methods? So justifying Rorschach's action by comparing them to Batman only lowers Batman, it does not raise Rorschach

[Tyndmyr]

First of all, saying it's acceptable or break people finger because "they were criminals" is really disgusting

Second, isn't what people are saying is that Batman is actually not that good of a person seeing his methods? So justifying Rorschach's action by comparing them to Batman only lowers Batman, it does not raise Rorschach

Batman would generally be described as a hero, yes? Walk up to any average person, ask them if Batman is a superhero, and they'll look at you and say "Sir, I guess so, but this is a Wendy's."

The superhero genre is pretty much founded on justifying violence by having "good" people inflict it on criminals.

[Psyren]

Batman would generally be described as a hero, yes? Walk up to any average person, ask them if Batman is a superhero, and they'll look at you and say "Sir, I guess so, but this is a Wendy's."

The superhero genre is pretty much founded on justifying violence by having "good" people inflict it on criminals.

Cikomyr didn't say Batman wasn't a superhero, just that extreme violence shouldn't be considered acceptable just because the targets are criminals. That goes for Batman just as much as it does for Punisher (who incidentally, I would bet the "average person" would also label a superhero.)

And yes, the superhero genre was indeed founded on a glossing over of the concept of excessive force, but a lot of the genre is slowly moving away from that. Judging by two upcoming film releases that will feature him, Batman isn't - but I view that as a point against his modern big screen portrayals, rather than the genre as a whole.

[Tyndmyr]

I'd disagree we're moving away from it.

Consider, for instance, the Deadpool series. They're overtly advertising Deadpool three as more violent and R rated than the previous two.

Endgame had one of the big Marvel heroes straight execute someone in cold blood. Yeah, he deserved it, but still.

DC is going for, uh, Suicide Squad 2. Not sure that's a good decision, but I'm pretty sure that's gonna be less that perfect virtue on the part of all those shown.

Heck, Kickass vs Hitgirl has been announced, and I thought that franchise was dead in a frenzy of insane violence.

Last but not least, we have The Boys out there pushin' pretty much every limit known to superheros.

[Mordar]

The breaking fingers until people talk was certainly brutal, but they were criminal sorts. He was working his way through the underworld. Honestly, that's not all that different from many Batman plots. Beat up henchmen until they lead you to the guy in charge. The framing is different, of course. Batman doesn't focus on the brutality of it all, while Watchman does.

But it's hard to argue that Batman isn't actually brutal, or wouldn't be in any manner of realistic sense. Ultimately, most superheros tend to solve problems with violence, often extreme violence, on a regular basis.
[SNIP]
I don't really mind DC doing that for Batman, but they do seem to do it way too often. Dark edgy superman was an odd choice. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it's usually more alternate universe or a what if, not the mainstream character. The dark and edgy WITH the hero worship becomes just downright odd.

There is a world of difference between knocking someone around in a fight (even if it is a fight person A picked with person B...but it is person BW/BM finishing it with person A) and torture. Winning the fight can reasonably require brutal methods, but once the opponent is no longer a threat (to person BW/BM or person B) then it is a different story. As I'll mention below, I think Batman may benefit from the "power perceived" dogma, to limit some of the actual physical torture.

ASIDE: Dark Edgy Superman (tm) isn't an odd choice. It is a terrible choice in any instance *not* specifically meant to show how lucky the world is that Jonathan and Martha Kent (from not-Man of Steel) were the folks that found little Kal-el instead of almost anyone else anywhere. Being from Krypton gave Kal-El/Clark his super powers. Jonathan and Martha are who made him a superhero.


Cikomyr didn't say Batman wasn't a superhero, just that extreme violence shouldn't be considered acceptable just because the targets are criminals. That goes for Batman just as much as it does for Punisher (who incidentally, I would bet the "average person" would also label a superhero.)

And yes, the superhero genre was indeed founded on a glossing over of the concept of excessive force, but a lot of the genre is slowly moving away from that. Judging by two upcoming film releases that will feature him, Batman isn't - but I view that as a point against his modern big screen portrayals, rather than the genre as a whole.

I think there are at least a couple orders of magnitude difference in extreme between Batman and Frank Castle/Punisher. Specifically, I think that Batman has taken advantage of his iconography and reputation to minimize what he really has to do to get where he needs to get...the whole reason he selected the bat as his "brand" was to strike fear. Combine that fear with years of taking down nameless henchmen and big named bad guys and every would-be tough guy knows deep down they're in for it if they cross him.

Nigel Powers : Do you know who I am?

Henchman Sailor : [nods]

Nigel Powers : Have you got any idea how many anonymous henchmen I've killed over the years?

Henchman Sailor : [nods again]

Nigel Powers : I mean, look at you. You don't even have a name tag. You've got no chance. Why don't you just fall down?

[henchman falls down]

That saves him from having to torture to get information. It also saves him from having to inflict (or risk receiving) the amount of damage that might be required for The Night Avenger! to stop the Mugger from stealing $1.72 from Innocent Citizen Jane.

The question becomes, though, how much force is excessive? Obviously the situation dictates the answer, as does personal philosophy.

Thug attacks shopkeeper/pedestrian/grandma...any force at all? Enough force to make him run away? To render him incapacitated/restrained? To break him so he can never do it again? To kill him?

Probably easy to get a majority response on the ends, but the three in the middle differentiate the tiers of temporary hero/fulltime heroes/anti-heroes.

Punisher and Rorschach seem to lie on the end...sometimes answer 4 but often 5. Sadly (to me), Wolverine, Punisher, Deadpool and a few others became popular because they were so "edgy" and that seems to persist. Still, superhero books went 50ish years without that, and could probably do so again.


I'd disagree we're moving away from it.

Consider, for instance, the Deadpool series. They're overtly advertising Deadpool three as more violent and R rated than the previous two.

Endgame had one of the big Marvel heroes straight execute someone in cold blood. Yeah, he deserved it, but still.

DC is going for, uh, Suicide Squad 2. Not sure that's a good decision, but I'm pretty sure that's gonna be less that perfect virtue on the part of all those shown.

Heck, Kickass vs Hitgirl has been announced, and I thought that franchise was dead in a frenzy of insane violence.

Last but not least, we have The Boys out there pushin' pretty much every limit known to superheros.

One of those started as a villain, one is a team of villains, and the other two are meant to be "deconstructiony". Deadpool is the Tom and Jerry/Roadrunner version of a comic book, dressed up as a superhero/villain. Thor is a longer discussion that belongs here (too late!). Suicide Squad was a clever idea latched on to because DC wants to be the dark and gritty comic book movie studio, and Kickass and The Boys are all running around screaming "Look at how clever and edgy we are! Look at us look at us look at us!" So, while your examples are all clearly true, I don't think this disprove the spirit of Psyren's comments.

- M

[Friv]

There is a lot of daylight between "100% altruistic" and "the best way I, the (second?) richest man on the entire planet, can think of to address crime in my city is to prowl its alleys at night personally beating up people far less advantaged than myself." I don't care that Batman isn't perfect, I care that the DCEU has yet to find a reasonable way to address the incongruity between his means and his actions that doesn't leave him coming off as a sociopath that we're supposed to somehow still be rooting for.

I think you've hit on the primary problem here, and it's not whether Batman is punching people.

For most of his comics career, Bruce Wayne wasn't even the richest person in Gotham City. He was a local millionaire who owned one home and had one servant, influential enough to show up at the local high society parties and run one of the larger corporations based entirely in a single city, but not rich enough to meaningfully alter national politics or even solve a single major issue alone. He had a ton of gadgets, but we weren't supposed to look too closely at how much money you need to make those, in the same way that we weren't supposed to look too closely at how many gadgets the Fantastic Four had despite not even owning their own offices.

Over time, though, Batman's wealth metastasized. Wayne Industries became Wayne Enterprises. It had branch offices in other towns. Then it had branch offices in other countries. Then Batman was single-handed funding the Justice League's space station and satellite networks, and in direct competition with Lex Luthor for the world's foremost billionaire.

This is the moment when Batman falls apart, because the entire premise of Batman is that he has power to influence the system from within, but not to fix it, so he seeks out ways to fix the system from the outside. If he's one of the most powerful people around, he needs to either win or lose, but he can't do that.

Presumably, this is why they've taken most of Batman's money away in the current comics and removed his control of Wayne Enterprises.

[Tyndmyr]

There is a world of difference between knocking someone around in a fight (even if it is a fight person A picked with person B...but it is person BW/BM finishing it with person A) and torture. Winning the fight can reasonably require brutal methods, but once the opponent is no longer a threat (to person BW/BM or person B) then it is a different story. As I'll mention below, I think Batman may benefit from the "power perceived" dogma, to limit some of the actual physical torture.

Torture certainly is particularly awful. It is, however, used by heroes. Batman's certainly not above threatening people, or even killing them in some instances. He literally branded people in BvS. That's definitely way past the line of torture, and probably worse than a broken finger.

Why, even Spidey, a much warmer, friendlier hero in general, has been depicted as threatening crooks for information. The ol' holding them over an edge, maybe letting them drop a little...

Undoubtably an unheroic act, one justified to the audience by who has been framed as good and bad.

As a deconstruction, Watchman illustrates that.


ASIDE: Dark Edgy Superman (tm) isn't an odd choice. It is a terrible choice in any instance *not* specifically meant to show how lucky the world is that Jonathan and Martha Kent (from not-Man of Steel) were the folks that found little Kal-el instead of almost anyone else anywhere. Being from Krypton gave Kal-El/Clark his super powers. Jonathan and Martha are who made him a superhero.

I think we are in agreement here. I should have clarified that making a dark edgy superman be the default option for the DCU was an odd choice. Comics such as Red Son are great, and do what they set out to do quite well, but if you want the world to love Superman, think him good, and have the whole traditional Justice League, dark and edgy just doesn't fit.


I think there are at least a couple orders of magnitude difference in extreme between Batman and Frank Castle/Punisher. Specifically, I think that Batman has taken advantage of his iconography and reputation to minimize what he really has to do to get where he needs to get...the whole reason he selected the bat as his "brand" was to strike fear. Combine that fear with years of taking down nameless henchmen and big named bad guys and every would-be tough guy knows deep down they're in for it if they cross him.

Punisher tends to kill more routinely. It's his schtick, sure.

But that fear only makes sense if running into Batman is genuinely bad. Would people truly fear him if it was known that he'd take care not to harm you, you'd go in Arkham, and be out before the end of the week?

Probably not. They fear, at a minimum, getting beat up. In some representations, Batman tortures, interrogates or kills. That causes fear, definitely.

Given that we're primarily talking about the DCU here, and the DCU Batman does all of these, it's really hard to say that he's just startling people a bit or something.

And of course, Frank Castle has pretty much nothing but military training, he's no billionare. Same, same for Rorschach. The guy literally needs to borrow a can of beans. Batman has far more options than either of them, and yet he's still beating crooks in alleys.


So, while your examples are all clearly true, I don't think this disprove the spirit of Psyren's comments.

- M

I don't think you can fairly toss out an example for being 'deconstructiony' when Watchmen is also a pretty obvious deconstruction. It's as apples to apples a comparison as can be.

And if we're claiming that modern media doesn't accept good heroes beating criminals, that's difficult to square with a great many of current releases. It apparently is accepted.

Now, I like some of the more cosmic level stuff, when it's done well, but street tier heros punching out criminals is a genre staple regardless of era.

[Sapphire Guard]

Garth Ennis writes like Garth Ennis. That doesn't indicate much.



I don't recall ever saying "innocent" - and is BvS, the version of Batman that uses a gun and kills people, really the one you want to be reaching for here?

That's my point... He's one of the more extreme versions of Batman, but the people he's beating are a hardened mercenary crew who have taken hostages, not particularly disadvantaged people.

Stark deals with Cosmic threats as part of the Avengers, like Batman does with the League. Many of his villains are just criminals with cheap knockoff tech.

I guess what I'm wondering is why this standard applies uniquely to Batman, and not all the other superheroes doing the same thing or worse. Why haven't the multiple native billionaires in the MCU fixed New York yet?

[Mordar]

And of course, Frank Castle has pretty much nothing but military training, he's no billionare. Same, same for Rorschach. The guy literally needs to borrow a can of beans. Batman has far more options than either of them, and yet he's still beating crooks in alleys.

Quibbles here...Frank Castle started with just military training, and then monetized his criminal-killing hobby into a lucrative cash stream that allows for an awful lot of high-tech weaponry and non-shooty equipment (depending, of course, on the version you're watching).

Batman isn't beating crooks in alleys as a way to lash out at society, or killing them to erase the pain of his family being murdered (even though his were...). He's doing it because that is where the crime is, and all of the social investment that he may or may not be doing in the guise of Bruce Wayne isn't going to stop that mugging/rape/murder/robbery that is happening right that second. Calling the police from his Batphone isn't going to stop it either, it'll just increase the chance of the perpetrator being caught. Presenting himself as an alternate target or forcing the attacker to flee/disabling the attacker are the only choices that will stop it. We can easily disagree on which is the right choice there (allow them to flee and potentially continue their behavior or disable them and hope the system rehabilitates them or otherwise eliminates the risk), but I think we're looking at three very different character motivations, intents and methods that happen to share trappings.


I don't think you can fairly toss out an example for being 'deconstructiony' when Watchmen is also a pretty obvious deconstruction. It's as apples to apples a comparison as can be.

And if we're claiming that modern media doesn't accept good heroes beating criminals, that's difficult to square with a great many of current releases. It apparently is accepted.

Now, I like some of the more cosmic level stuff, when it's done well, but street tier heros punching out criminals is a genre staple regardless of era.

True, I don't think I was as clear as I meant to be (plus I might just be wrong). My key assumption/basis is that Batman beating up RandoMook in the commission of a crime is widely accepted, but EdgeHero smashing RandoMook's head in with a lead pipe during his burglary of the jewelry store is only accepted by a niche audience.

The success (and potentially cultural impact) of Watchmen (movie and series), The Boys, Kickass (and any/all potential sequels) and Suicide Squad is dwarfed by that of the Standard Hero Fare (primarily MCU, but also WW etc). It is difficult for me to separate the movies from all of the other property that goes along with them...cartoons, toys, games, etc. The full weight of that impact for me is that the brutal depictions have niche acceptance, the "standard fare" has broad acceptance.

Deadpool is clearly the glaring exception. I recognize that as a significant fly in my ointment and am unsure how to entirely absorb that. I'm mostly holding to the Saturday Morning Cartoon thing in live action. The brutality of the violence in one Tom and Jerry episode, or one Roadrunner episode (note, totally self inflicted via bad intentions), far exceeds that of a standard (non-deconstructy) superhero movie.

- M

[Psyren]

I think you've hit on the primary problem here, and it's not whether Batman is punching people.

For most of his comics career, Bruce Wayne wasn't even the richest person in Gotham City. He was a local millionaire who owned one home and had one servant, influential enough to show up at the local high society parties and run one of the larger corporations based entirely in a single city, but not rich enough to meaningfully alter national politics or even solve a single major issue alone. He had a ton of gadgets, but we weren't supposed to look too closely at how much money you need to make those, in the same way that we weren't supposed to look too closely at how many gadgets the Fantastic Four had despite not even owning their own offices.

Over time, though, Batman's wealth metastasized. Wayne Industries became Wayne Enterprises. It had branch offices in other towns. Then it had branch offices in other countries. Then Batman was single-handed funding the Justice League's space station and satellite networks, and in direct competition with Lex Luthor for the world's foremost billionaire.

This is the moment when Batman falls apart, because the entire premise of Batman is that he has power to influence the system from within, but not to fix it, so he seeks out ways to fix the system from the outside. If he's one of the most powerful people around, he needs to either win or lose, but he can't do that.

Presumably, this is why they've taken most of Batman's money away in the current comics and removed his control of Wayne Enterprises.

Yes. This. Exactly this.


I'd disagree we're moving away from it.

Consider, for instance, the Deadpool series. They're overtly advertising Deadpool three as more violent and R rated than the previous two.

Endgame had one of the big Marvel heroes straight execute someone in cold blood. Yeah, he deserved it, but still.

DC is going for, uh, Suicide Squad 2. Not sure that's a good decision, but I'm pretty sure that's gonna be less that perfect virtue on the part of all those shown.

Heck, Kickass vs Hitgirl has been announced, and I thought that franchise was dead in a frenzy of insane violence.

Last but not least, we have The Boys out there pushin' pretty much every limit known to superheros.

...You do know what a genre deconstruction is, don't you? Because no less than 4 of your 5 examples qualify.

Your fifth, Endgame, first of all is not an example of punching down (It's not really possible to "punch down" at Thanos, any more than it would be to "punch down" at Darkseid or Galactus) - and second, is also a deconstruction, just a different kind. The Big Bad is effortlessly vanquished in the first act, and doing so, even killing him, actually solves nothing, the heroes are still defeated.



The question becomes, though, how much force is excessive? Obviously the situation dictates the answer, as does personal philosophy.

Thug attacks shopkeeper/pedestrian/grandma...any force at all? Enough force to make him run away? To render him incapacitated/restrained? To break him so he can never do it again? To kill him?


Let's use Spiderman Homecoming as an example.

Spiderman beats up criminals in that movie. The criminals he's up against have high-tech gadgets and weapons, but they're not out to, say, conquer the city, or foment anarchy by trapping all law enforcement in the sewer, or start wars and destabilize the world, or destroy half of all life in the universe etc. They're just down on their luck and trying to make a buck using criminal means. The villain is even somewhat sympathetic. He and his gang can't be allowed to keep that technology, and certainly can't be allowed to distribute it far and wide, so stopping them is essential, but they aren't going out of their way to murder innocent people.

Almost nobody dies in Spiderman Homecoming. (Vulture kills the Shocker - well, a Shocker - for threatening his wife, but that's it.) Spiderman incapacitates various goons, but they don't show him snapping/dislocating limbs - and if he did, he would almost certainly be horrified by it. Keep in mind that Spiderman is easily strong enough to cripple, maim, and even kill the unpowered people he fights.

Instead, he knocks crooks out and webs them up for the cops. And of course, if an innocent is about to get hurt, like the shopkeeper across the street from the ATM brawl, Spiderman will prioritize going to help that person even if it means the crooks get away.

It's very, very hard for me to imagine the Nolan, Snyder, or this latest Reeves portrayal of Batman doing this. Quite frankly, even the Burton Batman might be a stretch, but definitely not the first three. And it's sad, because I know those more positive takes on the character are out there, but it doesn't seem that any of the films have an interest in exploring them. But it's hard for me to blame them either, because again, the incongruity set up by the character's premise makes that difficult.



Why, even Spidey, a much warmer, friendlier hero in general, has been depicted as threatening crooks for information. The ol' holding them over an edge, maybe letting them drop a little...


And that version of Spiderman is wrong. It's exactly why Andrew Garfield is the worst version I've seen, and why Tom Holland got it so right. (TH isn't perfect - there's still a little too much Iron Spider in there for my tastes - but the heroism and restraint are spot-on.)

[Peelee]

I'm reminded of that SMBC comic where Superman wonders who to punch.

[Psyren]

I'm reminded of that SMBC comic where Superman wonders who to punch.

You mean this one? (https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-09-26) :smallbiggrin:

*avoids answering Supes' query*

[Fyraltari]

I'm reminded of that SMBC comic where Superman wonders who to punch.

Not of batocrat?

EDIT: removed the link because maybe politics?

[Sapphire Guard]

Spidey has webbing, he has no excuse to punch people at all.

[Lurkmoar]

Spidey has webbing, he has no excuse to punch people at all.

It isn't an inexhaustible supply.

[Peelee]

Not of batocrat?

EDIT: removed the link because maybe politics?

Oh man, I forgot about Batocrat. I normally pride myself on my expansive SMBC knowledge, I feel shamed.

But yeah, there's a percent of SMBCs I don't link to just so I won't have to even think about forum rules over.

[Tyndmyr]

I guess what I'm wondering is why this standard applies uniquely to Batman, and not all the other superheroes doing the same thing or worse. Why haven't the multiple native billionaires in the MCU fixed New York yet?

It's not entirely unique. Reed Richards is Useless is a trope, after all. I think in both his case and Batmans, it's because the gap between capability and results is so great. It isn't hard to believe that Daredevil, for instance, is a capable lawyer and criminal-puncher, but that more crooks are out there. His capabilities are certainly good, but they're not so overwhelming as to threaten one's disbelief when considering a city of that size.

It's harder to justify that a person can greatly affect the whole universe or whatever, but can't fix one city.

If you're looking at a very oldschool Batman, where he's not so rich and connected and perhaps more of a detective, there's not much of a problem, but the DCU Batman has drifted far from that.


Quibbles here...Frank Castle started with just military training, and then monetized his criminal-killing hobby into a lucrative cash stream that allows for an awful lot of high-tech weaponry and non-shooty equipment (depending, of course, on the version you're watching).

That's fair. His weapon budget cannot be that small. That said, he's definitely still in the poorhouse compared to Bruce. Almost everyone is. While we may see Castle casually use thousands of dollars of gear, we routinely see Wayne treating millions or billions as chump change.


Batman isn't beating crooks in alleys as a way to lash out at society, or killing them to erase the pain of his family being murdered (even though his were...).

A lot of renditions have his motivation stemming from his family's death. It's a pretty standard part of the character.


Deadpool is clearly the glaring exception. I recognize that as a significant fly in my ointment and am unsure how to entirely absorb that. I'm mostly holding to the Saturday Morning Cartoon thing in live action.

Wolverine is also a fairly popular character who is notable for being violent.

I think the Saturday Morning Cartoon thing was an artifact of a certain era, as was the Comics Code, and those are largely past. We see occasional echos of them, but they hold relatively little sway today, and what they have is weakening.

Sure, the ol' tom and jerry cartoons had violence, sort of...but violence without consequence. TNT goes off in the hand, you have some black powder on your face and a shocked look for a second, then everything goes back to normal. I think that's very different from the kind of violence we see in superhero media today.

At a certain point, it's not just deconstruction, it's a genre change, and I think it's reasonable to say that the modern day has kept the violence, but generally shows more of the results of it.

[Dire_Flumph]

And that version of Spiderman is wrong. It's exactly why Andrew Garfield is the worst version I've seen, and why Tom Holland got it so right. (TH isn't perfect - there's still a little too much Iron Spider in there for my tastes - but the heroism and restraint are spot-on.)

I love TH Spider-Man, but the one thing that bugs me so much is that his suit has an "instant kill" mode that impales anything in his immediate area with metal spikes.

I mean, I can't really argue he was wrong to use it when he did, but even in a scene where the Falcon is impaling guys with his wings and Ant-Man is stepping on people that still really feels wrong.

[Psyren]

IANAM, but I didn't see anything overtly problematic about Batocrat. And yes, that's another good summation of the sort of Fridge Logic that's appearing around Batman's premise.

"Food and a room, Robin!"


It's not entirely unique. Reed Richards is Useless is a trope, after all. I think in both his case and Batmans, it's because the gap between capability and results is so great. It isn't hard to believe that Daredevil, for instance, is a capable lawyer and criminal-puncher, but that more crooks are out there. His capabilities are certainly good, but they're not so overwhelming as to threaten one's disbelief when considering a city of that size.

It's harder to justify that a person can greatly affect the whole universe or whatever, but can't fix one city.

It's very easy to justify actually; Reed's focus on cosmic problems means he just doesn't have time for street crime. It's like expecting Doctor Strange to patrol the streets, he's got much bigger fish to fry.

What makes it hard to justify in Batman's case, is that he is very clearly expending time and resources on municipal problems. Like, if you have time to beat up crooks in an alley, clearly your time is not occupied with what's happening in space. The problem is that Batman's rogue's gallery is too iconic/marketable to set aside, which also explains Arkham's revolving door.


I love TH Spider-Man, but the one thing that bugs me so much is that his suit has an "instant kill" mode that impales anything in his immediate area with metal spikes.

I mean, I can't even argue he was wrong to use it when he did, but even in a scene where the Falcon is impaling guys with his wings and Ant-Man is stepping on people that still really feels wrong.

Well it makes perfect sense when you consider that Tony "No Kill Like Overkill" Stark designed the thing and Peter had no idea it was there. Keep in mind this is the guy who designed fleets of kill-drones for peacekeeping, TWICE, after becoming a superhero.

And yeah, he used it on the Children of Thanos, but that was very clearly a life or death fight.
I don't think his latest suit (the one Peter designed himself near the end of FFH) has it.

Really though, the only purpose behind Stark designing the suits in the first place was so they'd have an in-universe explanation for what the comics have been doing with Spidey since the very beginning - having expressive eyes.

[Dire_Flumph]

It's very easy to justify actually; Reed's focus on cosmic problems means he just doesn't have time for street crime. It's like expecting Doctor Strange to patrol the streets, he's got much bigger fish to fry.

The Reed Richards is Useless trope is more about how the world remains the same around super-inventors that use one-off inventions to stop a bad guy that could revolutionize the medical, manufacturing, or food production industries. Less about Reed personally saving the world as passing blueprints to assistants to see if the matter re-arranger could maybe feed the 3rd world. The Villainous side is Cut Lex Luthor a Check, where a villain could build a freeze gun that rewrites the laws of thermodynamics and instead of heading to the patent office they rob a bank with it. Thought experiments to mull over how superheroes could change the world in other ways.


Well it makes perfect sense when you consider that Tony "No Kill Like Overkill" Stark designed the thing and Peter had no idea it was there. Keep in mind this is the guy who designed fleets of kill-drones for peacekeeping, TWICE, after becoming a superhero.

And yeah, he used it on the Children of Thanos, but that was very clearly a life or death fight.
I don't think his latest suit (the one Peter designed himself near the end of FFH) has it.

Peter certainly knew it was there by Endgame, he activated it rather than the suit doing it on its own. And given the situation, I won't argue it wasn't appropriate force, and I can see Tony putting it in the suit, these guys weren't robbing a convenience store, they had previously wiped out half the universe.

It just bugs me. It's like....seeing the Zack Snyder take on Super-Grover for lack of a better way to phrase it.


Really though, the only purpose behind Stark designing the suits in the first place was so they'd have an in-universe explanation for what the comics have been doing with Spidey since the very beginning - having expressive eyes.

And Amen to that. It gets tough to re-watch the first Toby Maguire Spider-Man and have scenes where two people in static masks are throwing dialogue at each other. That movie did a lot of groundwork for what works and what doesn't adapting comics to screen.

[Peelee]

IANAM, but I didn't see anything overtly problematic about Batocrat.

My thought process when bringing up some of the more pointed SMBC comics:

"I could a.) debate with myself over whether this crosses any lines or not and post a link, or 2.) turn my brain off and describe it such that anyone googling could find it immediately and not have to worry about any potential reports."

Option 2 is just way easier.

[Kitten Champion]

That's fair. His weapon budget cannot be that small. That said, he's definitely still in the poorhouse compared to Bruce. Almost everyone is. While we may see Castle casually use thousands of dollars of gear, we routinely see Wayne treating millions or billions as chump change.


Doesn't the Punisher just steal money from the people he kills to afford his weapons and tech on the black market? He could easily have millions from drug ops, money laundering, etc. That doesn't mean he can spend any of it legitimately.

Which, to my knowledge, isn't that different from how police handle seized money. It goes into their organization to be used in various ways.

[Clertar]

Doesn't the Punisher just steal money from the people he kills to afford his weapons and tech on the black market? He could easily have millions from drug ops, money laundering, etc. That doesn't mean he can spend any of it legitimately.

Which, to my knowledge, isn't that different from how police handle seized money. It goes into their organization to be used in various ways.

Still not a lot of money considering that this is his only source of income, and the cost of self-funding all his operations. Bruce Wayne earns a salary as CEO (or president, or shareholder) of Wayne Enterprises, plus he is Bill Gates level rich in terms of his estate.

[Mordar]

A lot of renditions have his motivation stemming from his family's death. It's a pretty standard part of the character.

While the seminal events for Bruce Wayne and Frank Castle are very similar, their motivations for what they do because of those events are very different. Bruce becomes Batman to stop criminal actions and save other little Bruce's from losing their parents. Frank becomes Punisher to kill people who do bad things to try and purge his rage/guilt/sorrow (certainly in the early run, they've tried to add more layers (like an onion!) to him over time).

Batman punches to protect innocents. Punisher shoots to punish criminals. Rorschach beats people to try to punish society for him being on the bottom rung.



Wolverine is also a fairly popular character who is notable for being violent.

Yup, I mentioned him early on. He is the sun source without whom Punisher and Deadpool don't get their own books.

- M

[Psyren]

@Peelee: duly noted :smallsmile:


The Reed Richards is Useless trope is more about how the world remains the same around super-inventors that use one-off inventions to stop a bad guy that could revolutionize the medical, manufacturing, or food production industries. Less about Reed personally saving the world as passing blueprints to assistants to see if the matter re-arranger could maybe feed the 3rd world. The Villainous side is Cut Lex Luthor a Check, where a villain could build a freeze gun that rewrites the laws of thermodynamics and instead of heading to the patent office they rob a bank with it. Thought experiments to mull over how superheroes could change the world in other ways.

Oh I totally agree with the Reed Richards is Useless trope. My point was more aimed at the question "why aren't Reed or Tony being judged for not having solved crime in New York with their riches and smarts, while Batman is?" But to me that's the wrong question - I'm not judging any of them for not having solved crime. Rather, I'm judging Batman for the specific methods he DOES use to try and address it. With Reed and Tony, you have at least the excuse that New York street crime and mobster crime are problems that are well below their attention, better left to heroes like Daredevil and Spiderman - but the same can't be said of Batman, who has made tackling municipal crime his stated mission. With him, the gap between his methods and the effectiveness of his results is thrown into much starker relief.



Peter certainly knew it was there by Endgame, he activated it rather than the suit doing it on its own. And given the situation, I won't argue it wasn't appropriate force, and I can see Tony putting it in the suit, these guys weren't robbing a convenience store, they had previously wiped out half the universe.

It just bugs me. It's like....seeing the Zack Snyder take on Super-Grover for lack of a better way to phrase it.

I saw it more as one-off gag in HC that became a brick joke/callback in EG. Besides, I can forgive Peter for being a little out of character in one climactic battle given that Thanos already killed him once.



And Amen to that. It gets tough to re-watch the first Toby Maguire Spider-Man and have scenes where two people in static masks are throwing dialogue at each other. That movie did a lot of groundwork for what works and what doesn't adapting comics to screen.

Agreed - I'm not judging Raimi, he did the best he could with the time period.

Also I didn't highlight the other comicbook benefit to Spidey's Stark suit - in Spiderman comics, he's constantly riffing in his head, cracking wise or being nervous. In a comic that's easy to do with thought bubbles, narrator asides and the like. In the movies prior to Homecoming though, the way they tried to get this across was just having him talk to himself, which made Andrew Garfield's spidey just come off as kind of crazy. Stark designing his suit allowed him to get Karen to talk to instead, giving them a way to incorporate that aspect of the character without having Peter be a weirdo. (Well, more of a weirdo.) This lets you get compelling scenes where Spidey is alone, like being trapped in the warehouse, and still have him feel like Spidey - unlike, say, Andrew Garfield's giant Pepe Silvia wall of bonkers around his missing parents.

[Tyndmyr]

Doesn't the Punisher just steal money from the people he kills to afford his weapons and tech on the black market? He could easily have millions from drug ops, money laundering, etc. That doesn't mean he can spend any of it legitimately.

Which, to my knowledge, isn't that different from how police handle seized money. It goes into their organization to be used in various ways.

Him directly stealing weapons have been mentioned a few times, but I'm honestly not a big enough Punisher fan to know his economic breakdown in more detail. I mostly just read them in crossover events.

Still, he's comfortably far above Rorschach, and far below Bruce Wayne. It's at least reasonable enough that I'm not surprised that he's not funding orphanages. Dropping off a bloody sack of weapons or something doesn't seem like something most charities would want.

[crowhaven]

Very excited for this though I'm more excited for the Batman

[Sapphire Guard]

I don't really buy that Stark is so different, he deals with Cosmic threats as part of the Avengers, but he spends plenty of time dealing with ordinary criminals with knockoff tech.

Money is not enough alone, it's not like places with lots of money are automatically cured of corruption.

Spidey uses enough webbing swinging through the streets that I don't think his webbing is so limited. There's no reason he should ever need to punch or kick any mere mortal. His beating of criminals requires all the same assumptions as Bats (more, because superhuman strength).

[Keltest]

I don't really buy that Stark is so different, he deals with Cosmic threats as part of the Avengers, but he spends plenty of time dealing with ordinary criminals with knockoff tech.

Money is not enough alone, it's not like places with lots of money are automatically cured of corruption.

Spidey uses enough webbing swinging through the streets that I don't think his webbing is so limited. There's no reason he should ever need to punch or kick any mere mortal. His beating of criminals requires all the same assumptions as Bats (more, because superhuman strength).

Spidey has a finite amount of webbing he can carry on his person. In the MCU at least it isnt an innate thing he can do, he does use ammo cartridges.

As for Iron Man, i dont think anybody with his stolen tech can really be considered a street level criminal. Youre looking at terrorist organizations, rogue nations and supervillains like Vulture.

[Sapphire Guard]

Sure, but considering how much he uses just moving around the city, I'm not buying that he doesn't have enough to disable attackers instead of punching them. If Bats cripples criminals down on their luck for life offscreen, so does Spiderman.

[warty goblin]

Spidey has a finite amount of webbing he can carry on his person. In the MCU at least it isnt an innate thing he can do, he does use ammo cartridges.

As for Iron Man, i dont think anybody with his stolen tech can really be considered a street level criminal. Youre looking at terrorist organizations, rogue nations and supervillains like Vulture.

So this is sort of interesting. If Spiderman uses silk ammo cartridges, he could easily distribute them to every other Avenger. Even if they can't do the webswinging thing, it's still clearly extremely useful for restraining people, low-bulk, light, and seems to be able to be set up to be just point and shoot. So why doesn't he?

Doylest answer: because webslinging is Spiderman's thing, and if you actually disseminated technology in a remotely sensible way (even within the organization) you'd end up with some sort of conventional sci-fi thing with the world's shoddiest worldbuilding. The thing that moves merchandise are distinct, easy to latch on to characters with unique gimmicks, so these niches need to be protected at all costs. Superheroes only work if the focus is only on the heroes, so they need to remain distinct in order to be focused on. Watsonian answer, I donno, copyright infringement?

Although honestly, given just how many plots revolve around keeping various pieces of hero-originated technology out of the hands of literally anyone else, there's a solid argument to be made that the greatest threat to the Avengers is IP infringement. They really are Disney!

[Divayth Fyr]

Spidey has a finite amount of webbing he can carry on his person. In the MCU at least it isnt an innate thing he can do, he does use ammo cartridges.
I don't think individual cartridges were so big that carrying a bunch of spares would be an issue. So webbing everyone should be an option.

[Keltest]

I don't think individual cartridges were so big that carrying a bunch of spares would be an issue. So webbing everyone should be an option.

I mean, he webs regular people. Its just its not indestructible, so supervillains get out or otherwise break it.