Amph Here's Some Money, Go See A Swap Thing: DCU/Elseworlds Discussion

He "only produced" 10 Cloverfield Lane and he still tacked on that awful ending sequence.

 

I’m not a huge fan of JJ Abrams, but I also haven’t enjoyed a lot of the recent DC films, to the point where I have not even bothered to watch many of the newest ones, so I’m ready/curious for a reboot.

And hey maybe Coates will deliver a decent story, I like a lot of what I have read of his

 

so yeah DC is between great and meh, with Snyder and removing Cavill as superman.

 

I think Flashpoint is definitely opening up multiverse to the general public so we can have Abrams Superman and DCEU Superman if Cavill ever decides to finally show up in a Shazam movie.

 

https://film.avclub.com/zack-snyders-justice-league-ends-on-massive-cliffhange-1846373611

 

I still haven't watched WW, JL, Shazam, or Birds of Prey because of how awful Man of Steel and BvS was (throw Suicide Squad in there too). Henry Cavill is a great choice for Superman and has been completely wasted. I will be glad when Snyder is completely gone.

 

SO Zack Snyder wants have his sequel so mutch.

 

So, turns out he used actual art to make this...

 

Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not, but to an extent, I actually agree. I think the whole “hero’s journey” thing has been blown way out of proportion and people treat it as a hard formula instead of a tool to be bent and shaped in any which way. And I think it’s because of this why a lot of stuff seems so generic now.

 

Too bad, re the Superman reboot. MOS was an intelligent, interesting exploration of Superman in a more modern, sophisticated context, and BvS followed that up with an interesting clash between two heroes with very different motivations, experiences, and outlooks. Cavill, for me, is excellent, and I like the Snyder take on the character. But to be realistic, if the Snyder-cut JL lives up to its promise, I'll at least have gotten three outings with that cast of characters and that tone, which isn't bad.

For me, the issue with the reboot, apart from Cavill being removed, and a restart, isn't JJ - for me he is hit or miss - but rather Coates. At my most generous I found him an entirely forgettable mediocre comic book writer, and often worse, and I find his views on 9/11 (and much else) loathsome, so...it's a pass. Hey, to each his or her own, but I have no interest in his take on Superman.

 

I'm joking in the sense that trying to attribute a complex system that comes from the interaction of a lot of market forces and trends to one magical problem child is, of course, kind of ridiculous, but also not joking in the sense that I really can't stand the outsized impact of Campbell on screenwriting and I think we're all worse for his largely discredited one-size-fits-all reductionist view of mythology becoming such a big crutch.

 

I honestly don’t see the appeal in Synder’s work and why everyone is clamouring for his cut of Justice League. It’s like trading a terrible film for probably a slightly less terrible film. His hack approach isn’t even fun like a tribute act to Spielberg is fun (JJ Abrams). It’s bleak, dark and depressing just like any of Ayn Rand’s books which he apparently loves so much, not to mention narratively inconsistent, punctuated by action scenes which carry no emotional weight. Why people want this man, of all filmmakers, to make a film about Superman is beyond me.

 

What I don't understand is why those who don't care for Snyder's work - we all have different tastes - get so irritated that others DO like it.

I understand one form of that argument. For example, we are only going to get so many Star Wars movies, so when they decide to give one to a particular director, that means the odds of some OTHER director getting one is reduced. So if you can't stand Rian Johnson's work (just to grab a random name...ahem) and you hear he has been chosen to do another SW film, or a SW series, I can certainly understand you being unhappy about that. For one, you probably won't like what he turns out, and two, it means some other director won't be getting that shot. It isn't that RJ is getting the project, it means some other director won't.

However, with Snyder, it's as if the people who don't like his stuff are furious that others DO like his stuff. It's not just that they don't like his movies, they are angry that other people DO like them. The release of his cut of JL doesn't erase/remove the other cut (and frankly, I have never heard anyone passionately defend that other cut). If you hate Snyder's DC movies, ignore JL. Don't watch it. No harm no foul. But the fact that some others ARE going to enjoy it? Why care?

Beyond that, I have to say that there is reason to be supportive of the Snyder cut even if you can't stand Snyder's work. It is one of the very few examples in a long time of a company listening to a passionate fan base and taking their interests into account. It's a glimmer of hope that maybe...MAYBE... there is reason to think that instead of companies sneering at disappointed fan bases, they might be willing to listen a bit. To me, that is a good thing, regardless of whether Snyder is to your taste.

 

I’m not irritated so much as I’m confounded. I can understand some directors and their passionate fanbase, even if I don’t personally like their work. Typically I can see the appeal in it. But I don’t understand it with Synder’s films - they are dark and bleak and mean.

 

It's because the specific assignments he keeps getting are some of the most well-known characters in 20th century pop culture. That's it, that's the reason. If he was just making a bunch of weird original stuff like Sucker Punch nobody would care outside of a generalized attitude of "why does this guy keep getting work?" that could apply to a fair number of working directors. I know I wouldn't.

And, frankly, vocal portions of his fanbase are consistently very, very toxic online and he at best tries to ignore it and at worst goes out of his way to praise them for their passion or whatever. This isn't necessarily something he could fix, being largely the product of decades of brand loyalty conditioning, but it is absolutely coloring the usual tone of the (sigh) discourse around his films. Rewriting the script so that it's mean old Snyder haters prompted by nothing getting bent out of shape is somewhat disingenuous.

 

I don't buy that the Snyder fanbase is any more toxic than any of the other fanbases. Unfortunately, that subject is a minefield that can quickly get one into trouble, even trying to discuss the issue. I think it is pretty obvious that the internet in general brings out the worst in some people -- no kidding, right? The question is, how representative are those people of any particular group? At various times, I have heard Star Wars fans described as toxic, (we've had PLENTY of talk along those lines here, regarding reactions to Rey, Holdo, Rose, etc) , comic book fans described as toxic, and on and on and on. Maybe it's justified, maybe it's not, but it is definitely a very USEFUL accusation, if you can make it stick, because you can then tar a large group with one brush and not have to deal with their arguments.

I remember a similar discussion, on a somewhat safer topic, some time back, regarding sports fans. How many drunken, abusive, or violent idiots does it take, out of a stadium of 20,000, or 30,000, or 50,000, before it is fair to brand "fans of Team X" as "toxic". One hand, saying "It's not most fans!", while true, isn;t really a defense. I would hope that in a stadium of 50,000 people MOST wouldn't punch you, throw a beer on you, curse you out, curse your kids out, threaten you, etc. On the other hand, when does it become fair to brand a "fan base" as toxic, in general? How do you objectively discern between "normal background quota of jerks" and "way out of the norm percentage of jerks"?

Not going to run it into the ground; I pretty much had my say above. I understand why some might not care for Snyder's work, but I don't get why so many of them seem irritated that someone else DOES like his work.

 

You turned my argument into a broad brushstroke specifically to argue I can’t use broad brushstrokes before turning around and making an argument with a broad brushstroke. My anecdotal observations are invalid but your anecdotal observations are valid, because I used the word “toxic” and you used the word “irritated.” Why should anyone be overly concerned about explaining or countering your assessment of the state of Snyder’s fan base or his critics given this rhetorical maze you’ve concocted? You want it to be the case, so it is the case.

 

I have only seen Man Of Steel but it irritated the hell out of me, yeah. So much so that I really don't want to see the rest.
And it irritates me that others do like it, especailly when it's many. It's always disappointing whenever popular opinion turns out to lack taste.

 

Watching Man of Steel in the theater was a deeply unpleasant, downright unsettling experience. I had certainly seen objectively worse films--Blues Brothers 2000, for instance--but this was one of very few instances where I was disturbed by material that was not remotely intended as such. It was oppressively immoral; what little I could glean from all the devastation was that Snyder is not quite right in the head. Think about this for a moment: His reinterpretation of Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder's magical, lyrical first date amid the clouds was a first kiss atop a Hiroshima cataclysm. That's Zach Snyder's conceit of romanticism!

Like I said: This guy is seriously off.

 

Well, let’s be honest, there are bad films, there are bad films, and then there are crimes against humanity.

 

Wow. Now we're going to start talking about personal taste. Let's stay off the pedestals and stop acting like hating a flick gives you some sort of superiority over those who liked it.

 

Have you read Kotaku's whole article about Uwe Boll and Postal in particular this week? It's pretty good!

 

Ooh. Blues Brothers 2000 is on Netflix.
I should give it a watch. John Goodman is a good addition. Should be fun.