I find it interesting how several people just unequivocally dislike the Snyderverse, even when just about all aspects are done really well.

Then again, I don't understand how people can like a movie like Captain Marvel.

To each their own I suppose.

Watched this over the last couple of days. What was WB thinking with the Whedon cut? There is a pretty decent 2.5 to 2.75hr movie in this 4 hour directors cut.

Significant improvement over the theatrical cut.

C@LAg said:

---

Sex Panther said:

---

Great post... agree completely. Horrible, horrible movie. But rooting for Snyder and I know there is a lot of talent in him.

---

have you seen Sucker Punch?

worst. movie.
ever.

But I LOVE his Watchmen, even with its flaws. I think it is as good an adaption as we are likely to ever get without it being a miniseries. And I do not mind that a lot of the story's subtlety was lost; i just love that movie so much.

300 is a guilty pleasure.

---

Same. Save for Malin Akerman's Silk Spectre, I absolutely love Snyder's Watchmen, especially his director's cut. I think it's a legit great movie, one adapted from the source material about as faithfully as we could hoped for, with necessary changes where needed. I remember 300 being a lot of fun as well, though I haven't seen it in a decade or so.

And I echo both Max Power's and SP's sentiments about what Snyder went through with his daughter. I can't imagine trying to work in the wake of something like that, and I don't mean to sh*t on Snyder as a person at all. I really do like him, as he seems like a genuinely great and earnest guy, trying to do his best, who I've heard nothing but good things about. I think he has talent for sure, and I have no doubt he's capable of greatness in the future. I'm absolutely rooting for him.

I just really, really dislike his brutal, uber-dark-and-gritty take on these superheroes, in particular. I don't think he gets Superman at all (for one, he's Moses, *not* Christ), his themes comes across more as dime store musings and dorm room philosophies that aren't nearly as interesting or compelling in-context as he thinks they are, his cinematography is way too dark and muddy, and his musical choices are just straight up bad/on-the-nose (I'm talking actual song choices, not the score). There's no subtlety, nothing truly smart, nothing particularly clever, and nothing thought-provoking in any of his DCEU movies. I will say that I like the Snyder/Affleck version of Batman, and in a solo movie, Snyder could have potentially done a great job with that iteration of the character; a bulky, grizzled, punishing version of Batman in a somewhat heightened Gotham. I wish the stars would have aligned for that movie as our lead-in to this world, and that someone else could have taken on Superman, but with a bit of Snyder's supervision.

Anyway, considering the circumstance, I'm genuinely glad Snyder got to finish his version of the movie. I'm happy for him, and despite my dislike of the movie itself, I'm glad it exists. If only so all parties involved - filmmaker and audience alike - can finally move on.

"Just about all aspects of the Snyderverse are done really well"? I don't really see how you can say that given the commercial and critical response to his first two films. (You're entitled to your opinion, of course.)

Personally I feel the opposite to be true, for BvS in particular. To me there's not much in it that was done well enough to move the needle at all - the action, the story, the characters, etc. To me it's just so self-important and even boring, which is maybe the worst reaction to have from a comic book film.

Not trying to beat a dead horse or be a **** or derail the thread, that comment just jumped out at me. I'd be curious to read a positive review from someone who didn't already like MoS or BvS or have a prior attachment to these characters.

TCTTS said:

---

I will say that I like the Snyder/Affleck version of Batman, and in a solo movie, Snyder could have potentially done a great job with that iteration of the character; a bulky, grizzled, punishing version of Batman in a somewhat heightened Gotham. I wish the stars would have aligned for that movie as our lead-in to this world, and that someone else could have taken on Superman, but with a bit of Snyder's supervision.

---

The Affleck Batman in the first half of BvS is a great incarnation of what an older Batman could become - bitter, rageful, not just stopping criminals or scaring them, but leaving physical marks on them. His response to Clark Kent at Luthor's party of his bad history with freaks dressed like clowns is a great line and rings true of what a guy like Bruce would think about a guy like Superman - if this guy goes nuts, we're all effed. It's been said a million times before, but when he saves Martha, that fight scene is fantastic.Given that Affleck was revealed to be struggling with alcoholism shortly thereafter and then got divorced, I'd do as far to speculate as it being a role where he really harnessed his real-life struggles to make that character so much more than it would have been with someone else. Not in the same ballpark as Downey Jr. with Ironman, but at least the same atmosphere.

Capitol Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

the superhero movies that have achieved a genuine sweeping transcendence can just about be counted on one hand: "The Dark Knight," "Spider-Man 2," "Black Panther," a few others.

---

I really liked BP, but not sure it needs to be in the "best of all time" super hero movies list, per say. I'd put Captain America: Winter Soldier in there, the Avengers (2012), Iron Man and Infinity War as well. Maybe GOTG and both MCU Spideys. The Dark Knight might be the best super hero movie ever. BP was definitely in my top 10 for the super hero and MCU list not doubt.

I was disappointed that the first JL was not very good. Had high hopes. Looking very forward to watching it this weekend once I get some time.

---

Let's be honest. We all know why Black Panther was mentioned. For gods sake - it was nominated for an Oscar for movie of the year and for the same reason we all know.

Anyway - stoked to watch this

TCTTS said:

---

---

I'm just being cynical with this comment, but I also laughed at this when Wonder Woman told that girl she could be anything she wanted to be.

No, little girl, you literally can't be Wonder Woman nor anything you want to be. So, you were just lied to by Wonder Woman immediately after WW just annihilated a guy by exploding his head against the wall.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

I mean, that's a very long list.

But I really enjoy the production design going back to MoS. The casting has been really good with few exceptions. The scores have been good. (MoS in particular obviously.)

Having characters who are not always heroic. They make mistakes and sometimes do some questionable things. (Like killing Zod.)

Having a more epic and somber tone. And yes, gritty and dark.

It's not Marvel, and that's a good thing. I think both of them do what they do really well. It's something weird that there aren't more people like me who genuinely love both universes.

---

I never thought killing Zod was a questionable act. He needed to die otherwise he was going to genocide the planet. Kal-el had some personal turmoil because his idealistic standards were found to be incompatible with a catastrophic reality.

And then he made the right choice. Zod was Galactic Hitler. Kill his ass.

At the very least, I think we can all agree that Snyder gave us one of the greatest teaser trailers of all time...

TCTTS said:

---

So, the plot of Justice League essentially boils down to...

Find and protect the Earth-destroying MacGuffin before Darkseid does.

... and takes FOUR HOURS to set up a sequel that essentially boils down to...

Find and protect the Earth-destroying MacGuffin before Darkseid does?

Which I'm sure would have been just as long and dumb and empty and dark and gritty as this one.

Seriously, though... WTF?

They're just going to randomly introduce "Anti-Life" (???) before all the Mother Boxes are even assembled? Not that it matters, because I had no idea what was even going on in the climax... Cyborg "logged in" to the Unity or something? And then the Flash turned back time somehow (who knew all it took to break Einstein's theory of special relativity was to simply want to hard enough?). And then because Cyborg *has friends* now he was able to destroy the most powerful technology in the universe? Except, of course, for the *other* most-powerful-force in the universe MacGuffin they had already introduced for the next movie?

Ugh.

What a bloated, sometimes-beautiful, mostly-ugly, muddled mess.

All I know is that I'm so freaking sick of big, growling, ogre villains that all sound the same and all look like dried turds molded to humanoid form that all want to rule the universe because... reasons... with the help of their mindless henchmen army of identical alien slapd*cks.

I would say thank God the Snyder-verse is finally over, but we apparently still have to endure the vomit residue of this franchise with The Flash and yet another Wonder Woman and a second Aquaman and God knows what else. I guess The Flash, at least, has a chance to be decent, and The Suicide Squad will no doubt rock, but I just want to cleanse everything else about the DCEU from my brain and my system.

Give me The Batman.

Give me whatever Ta-Nehisi Coates' new Superman iteration is going to be.

Give me the next phase of the MCU.

But please, let the Von Dutch of superhero franchises finally go the way of Fox's X-Men and let's once and for all move on from this nausea-inducing crap...

---

I stopp d reading when you brought up relativity. Did you have that same gripe when tony figured out time travel in endgame? Is so then carry on. Otherwise....it's a ****ing comic book movie

I'm half-joking. Chill. It's not that he can time travel. I have no problem with him or anyone in Endgame traveling through time. I just found it hilarious that the key to time travel, in this instance, was simply wanting to really, really hard. At least Endgame put in the effort to explain how it works, set the ground rules, etc, and went through the motions of Tony actually doing the work prior. They earned the ability. Here, there was zero mention or setup or explanation, and then he just concentrated *really* hard this time - after Bruce telling him twice prior that he was going to have to run faster than he'd ever run for two previous missions. I'm not complaining about the science. I'm complaining about the terrible setup and execution. There's a difference.

The cop that Lois brings a coffee to was the original Jimmy Olsen from Superman 78.

They clearly set it up when they brought back Superman.

In Endgame, Tony literally spends what seems like a few hours one night and somehow figures out time travel without further explanation.

Let's not pretend one is good and the other is ridiculous.

In fact, travelling faster than the speed of light (which yes, is impossible) actually would mess with time, whereas whatever Tony did is literally just handwaved away. We see a 3D projection of something that somehow passes for an explanation.

Your obvious DC hate boner and Marvel bias is showing with that one.

TCTTS said:

---

How did they set it up when they brought back Superman? Legit curious.

---

He started too late and the cube touched the water, so he sped up and reversed time to get to it.