Are we allowed to criticise him?

Are we allowed to criticise him?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=pulG7Z9Q9uU
m.youtube.com/watch?v=SH11CXi61U8
independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/enjoyment-of-trash-films-linked-to-high-intelligence-study-finds-a7171436.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

no it's considered rape to talk about anything to anyone ever

If you can find something to criticize

no director should be protected from criticism.
I hated 300 but I unironically loved BvS

The DCEU fuckup isn't his fault. He does an incredible job directing movies.

manlet can't make kino worth a shit

Yes but whatever criticism you throw at him will be analyzed to the same degree as his kinoes. So you better be able to back up your points, tater tots.

>Literally more than 10 anti-JL threads on Sup Forums at this moment
>Hurrr durr why am no allowed to criticize him

no, the circlejerk going on Sup Forums is too strong

No, he’s untouchable like Trump

No.

For example?

nNNoooOOO000!!!

there is no halo in the first you fucking pseud

If you can you can.

Memes are not criticism though.

My main problem with Snyder is that if he really wants to be taken seriously, to tell "deep" stories about the human condition and the state of today's society, why doesn't he then make actual serious films?
Why capeshit? Instead of writing a script with actual characters and situations (or just picking a good script) he routinely picks spandex wearing teen comic book franchises. Why?

To reach the maximum number of people and disseminate it through pop culture as widely as possible, would be my guess.

Unfortunately for him he pissed away an amazing opportunity to basically reprogram western culture when he made not one, not two but three S_U_P_E_R_M_A_N movies and fucked it up each time.

>why doesn't he then make actual serious films?
>amazing opportunity to basically reprogram western culture
He's a fraud

Sure there is. It's the hoop he's no-netting the ball through. It's far off, but he believes he can use the "ball" to reach it. Care to guess what the ball represents? Snyder showed him holding another one in the same scene just in case the point wasn't clear enough.

Nobody watches anything other than capeshit my man

Here's another "globe," the spherical coffee pot that Martha Kent drops as the bomb goes off at the Senate hearing. Lex has shattered the paradigm, shaken the world's view of the Superman. Those willing to buy half-truths and media spin react predictably with more demonstrations, violence, and riots. The media, eager to report the controversy over the facts, starts implicating Superman as culpable by virtue of inaction.

Many in the world, including Bruce Wayne, are now convinced that regardless of whether Superman's intentions are benevolent or not, he is a threat by simple virtue of being a focal point for extremist behavior.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=pulG7Z9Q9uU

m.youtube.com/watch?v=SH11CXi61U8

As Lex returns to LexCorp to see that Bruce has indeed taken the bait, we see another deformed globe. This is Luthor's chance to reshape the world as he sees fit, his opportunity to turn Superman into a murderer and himself into the saintly saviour of mankind.

The movie sucks, get over it

>WAAAAAH STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE

Fucking infant.

BvS was bad
BvLL featuring Superman (The Extended Edition) was not.

...

Snyder's obnoxious overuse of direct visual symbolism ironically makes his flicks even more simple and finite because there is a singular universal answer to every shot and once you "get" it there is literally nothing else to it, no point in watching ever again. And it fucking eviscerates emotional connection beyond "hey I solved the puzzle."
That’s why Snyder films are so fucking simple and faux "2deep4u"

The visuals are part of the story. It goes beyond just what is being conveyed to us through the visuals. The perceptions of the people within their world are actually powering things. The Batman is something more than just a guy in a suit because people collectively believe him to be. That's just from one angle.

From a completely different angle, the imagery surrounding Superman is a visual metaphor for what Superman is - an ordinary guy whose nature and environment conspire to make him seem god-like to us.

What was it you were saying about one angle again?

He didn’t say ‘one angle’. He said exactly what you just expressed, just pointed out how juvenile that is.

He said once you figure out one thing, there's nothing else there. I pointed out that it conveys different meaning depending on which angle you approach it from. That is, by definition, multiple meanings.

>Sure there is. It's the hoop he's no-netting the ball through. It's far off, but he believes he can use the "ball" to reach it. Care to guess what the ball represents? Snyder showed him holding another one in the same scene just in case the point wasn't clear enough.
you are reaching

this is triangle illuminati meme status

Tell me a "different angle" of your globe imagery. Tell me the different angle of the obvious halo visual biblical references. Tell me the different angle of DUDE SUPERMAN = JESUS LMAO

>DUDE SUPERMAN=JESUS LMAO

That's the point, dumbass. He's not. That's partially just the result of who he is, partially what his world is trying to turn him into. Lex even mentions three other gods the imagery associates him with over the course of both films.

I guess it's all just so beneath you, considering you've never once mentioned any aspect of this beyond what only a complete fucking moron would fail to notice. You are the veritable definition of a butthurt pseud who can't stand being revealed to not be the smartest kid in the room.

>Are we allowed to criticise him?

Not if you cannot spell. And the main problem there is the "him". This is actually the main problem with many complaints in general these days. Why "him" why not "his movie"?

Criticizing "him" seems entirely too personal and based on nothing more than subjective opinion based on mostly assumption. Criticizing his work is much more objective and focuses on Sup Forums material rather than /lbgt/ material.

>Why "him" why not "his movie"?
because his movie will be falsely attributed to Whedon if it flops and will be attributed to him if it succeeds meaning people will avoid criticising HIM because for these capeshitters he is some godly director that can do no wrong

The kind of things pointed out in this thread would garner nothing but praise were it associated with any other director.

Again, why "him"? You quickly began shitting on other people as well. Why can't you speak about films? Why must it be about the person who made it? And that doesn't mean you don't criticize Snyder's films but if you reasoning for a film or director being bad is that previous films by the director have been bad you really haven't made a point at all. And if your point is that a film or director is bad because their respective fans are overzealous you have made even less of a point.

Can you tell me why you disliked a particular Snyder movie? Any one really, just include some reasoning.

Everything aside he seems like a really nice person and i wish him all the best

You didn’t answer a single question I asked, saying that a character mentions three other gods is hardly a "different angle"

>The kind of things pointed out in this thread would garner nothing but praise were it associated with any other director.
a film student could this shit it's the most basic intellectual symbolism, DUDE I PUT A HALO ON A HEAD THROUGHOUT THE MOVIE

The point is his films as a whole are shit, the foundations are terrible and things which should be the climax and points of tension in the movie fall flat. This symbolism would be good had the movie been good, it would've been added depth but theres nothing to stand on here.

>Can you tell me why you disliked a particular Snyder movie? Any one really, just include some reasoning.
man of steel was his only good movie desu i dont know why you care so much zack

>spelling criticise with a edgelord Z is the right way
Fuck off Amerifat the fats gone to your brain

You say his goal is to reach the maximum number of people but most fans claim he makes films that are too smart for the general audience. The so called deep themes in his films are so vague it looks like his fans are reaching with every are argument.

So which is it?

I was almost willing to believe you until the coffee pot. It's generic trope to showcase shock in goddamn hundreds of films.

Considering your entire non-argument consists of "DUDE SUPERMAN=JESUS LMAO" and one particular aspect of the storytelling that was conveyed with such subtlety that you never even noticed it, yeah, I'd say I've given your non-argument all due consideration.

If he's Jesus, he's not Apollo. If he's Apollo, he's not Horus. If he's Horus, then he's not Jehovah. The point? He's all of these in the eyes of mankind. And none of them.

Yep this is retarded, is Snyder so dumb he can't make creative symbolism and expects the audience to take the everyday occurrences and common occurrences with deep symbolism.

What even is the point of doing that? This isn't visual storytelling.

The women in BvS, all the principals at least, all represent various aspects of the world. Even Senator Finch is frequently framed with globes and spheres in the mise en scéne.

>i dont know why you care so much zack
I don't. I'm more concerned with the rampant useless shitposting. The irony in your post is that you're the one focusing on him personally while I'm trying to turn the discussion to one of films.

...

>conveyed with such subtlety that you never even noticed it, yeah, I'd say I've given your non-argument all due consideration.
yes because spray painting false god on his monument is so subtle and lex spitting out philiosophy 101

>The brainlets in this thread

Notice those other Gods are Sun Gods, like Jesus and superman.


Also lex hate speech about Gods enforces the idea that he thinks of himself as Prometheus just like Victor Frankenstein.

Quick questions.

1) Why should we care what the greatest quality of knighthood is?
2) How does it relate to the story?
3) Why does Zack Snyder require us to know some random film in order to get the message?
4) Why should we accept truth to be the greatest quality of knighthood, since a good part of being a superhero especially in case of Batman is using lies or at the very least hiding the truth.

You're the one going on diatribes because you can't handle that others dislike the movie you fucking idiot

>Victor Frankenstein.
brainlet understood the resurrection of zod and creation of doomsday

bravo darling

>Quick questions.
>1) Why should we care what the greatest quality of knighthood is?
Because the film is very much about the importance of facing your truths. Clark faces his. Bruce faces his. Lex doesn't.

>2) How does it relate to the story?
See above.

>3) Why does Zack Snyder require us to know some random film in order to get the message?
He doesn't.

>4) Why should we accept truth to be the greatest quality of knighthood, since a good part of being a superhero especially in case of Batman is using lies or at the very least hiding the truth.
Because using deception and illusion as part of your array of weaponry is an entirely different thing than living within a beautiful lie.

I know right, Lex did everything short of screaming "It's alive, It's alive".

Am I? From the looks of it, I was just pointing out things that guys like you quite obviously missed, and am now watching the predictable response to it.

I know this is an assumption but I'm guessing you liked Logan. All of this, albeit making different points with a different older film, is stuff that was warmly regarded in reviews for that movie. And yet in that movie none of it was as subtle.

But yet when someone points a subtlety out, like the moby dick allusions or the King Arthur allusions, they're berated for saying "Superman = Jesus was subtle" when nobody has ever said that.

There cannot be people who actually believe this.

>Because the film is very much about the importance of facing your truths. Clark faces his. Bruce faces his. Lex doesn't.
>Because using deception and illusion as part of your array of weaponry is an entirely different thing than living within a beautiful lie.

Same argument. "The greatest quality of knighthood' as said in Excalibur isn't about facing your personal truths. So they're entirely different things the same way you using lies as a weapon/Living a beautiful lie is different

>He doesn't
Then why did you bring up Excalibur.

What makes you think I liked Logan for symbolisms? I am not knowledgeable in old westerns but even still I cringed at Shane reference because it was so hamfisted. If there were subtle references I might have missed them as well.

But despite all that I enjoyed Logan because Logan didn't require you to get any of the references to get the main themes of the story or the very human struggles if these characters.

When someone asks what I liked about Logan I won't go on about how deep or smart the symbolisms were(because I probably didn't get most of them) but how I liked the performances, the way the film made me care and root or these characters, the action and the music etc....

Because the thing about a good film is that you will enjoy the movie regardless of whether you understand the symbolism or not because they're only there the enhance the experience.

Most of all I don't feel the need to prove my intelligence by "getting the references an symbolisms" because I know that's phenomenally dumb way to gauge someone's intelligence.

When Merlin says that, he's talking about the poison eating away at the unity of the Round Table - the truth of Lancelot's and Guinevere's affair. It is the truth that must be faced. None of them are. None of the people who matter at any rate. Their refusal to acknowledge it is what creates the schism that Morgan's exploits.

>Then why did you bring up Excalibur.
Oh, no reason.

Absolutely. Zack Snyder is a known misogynist and homophobe which is easily discerned from all of his horrible movies with terrible female characters, gay pedophiles and racist stereotypes.

>Oh, no reason.

I thought you said you didn't need to see Excalibur to get the symbolism.

Or did you forget why we were talking about Excalibur in the first place.

>the truth of Lancelot's and Guinevere's affair

Yes that's why I said they weren't the same. Clark's and Bruce's were much more personal in nature than What happens in Excalibur.

>Most of all I don't feel the need to prove my intelligence by "getting the references an symbolisms" because I know that's phenomenally dumb way to gauge someone's intelligence.

independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/enjoyment-of-trash-films-linked-to-high-intelligence-study-finds-a7171436.html

In fact research shows that it's the opposite of what a lot filmfags say.

...

I said you didn't have to see it to get it. All three principals start their scenes with lies told either explicitly or implicitly.

Lex is lying about his motivations and concealing truth. Lex is obsessed with power.

Bruce is lying about his reasons for chasing down the White Portuguese and his reasons for pursuing a vendetta against Superman, lying both to Alfred and himself. Bruce is obsessed with vengeance.

Clark is lying about not caring about what people are thinking and saying. He's ducking accountability and truth by not taking part in the Senate hearings. Clark is obsessed with guilt.

Two face their truths and prove themselves true heroes or "knights." One refuses and falls. The only part of that you need Excalibur to get is the part about knighthood.

As far as personal truths go, it doesn't get much more personal than an affair and the reasons behind it.

I'm not going to see the shitty sequel no matter how much you try to pretend these are good

The article you posted is referring to "so-bad-it's-good" movies like The Room, which I'm sure the majority of Sup Forums - filmfags or not - highly enjoy. In any case, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Why did Sergio Leone make Westerns, another genre considered low-brow, especially back then? Because he felt that there was something to the iconography and what it represented that was very universal and could be used to communicate something meaningful.

Westerns. Detective movies (Film Noir). Science-Fiction. Gangster Movies. They all started as pulp and yet noone would claim that there is no merit to movies like The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Chinatown, Solaris or The Godfather.

I was just replying to the specific point the user raised. The actual study isn't about so bad it's good films. Just low budget trash flick.

>Westerns. Detective movies (Film Noir). Science-Fiction. Gangster Movies. They all started as pulp and yet noone would claim that there is no merit to movies like The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Chinatown, Solaris or The Godfather.

Poor comparison. There's very good reasons why capeshit isn't or ever will be as innovative as westerns.

Give one.

First reason Economics.

Westerns didn't need expensive CGI, multimillion dollar marketing , Highly paid stars. One of the best things about them is that they could be made on a shoe string budget by an independent filmmaker.

Superhero films will always be an expensive studio affair, the lowest they could go so far was 54 million and a rich actor had to partly finance it.(deadpool)

And with any expensive product and major corps the main aim is to reduce the risk of a flop as much as possible.

Which gets us to the second point. The expensive nature of these films favour Formula over innovation.

Why do you think everybody including DC are trying to replicate the MCU formula? More importantly why did you think the MCU itself became so formulaic? It's because superhero films expensive nature doesn't allow filmmakers to innovate but rather forces studios to find the right formula.

Third point. CBMs are very brand oriented. People don't go to see a superhero film but rather a Batman film, or a superman film each come with certain restrictions.

The biggest risk that someone could make is having a character kill. Even Snyder always markets his films as being true to the source material.

The point is there's not a lot you could do with Batman after a particular point. Now this can be avoided with lesser known characters like GOTG but when those characters become know for a particular schtick in one film that's all that is expected in their future films(i.e irreverent comedy)

With westerns that isn't the case. You get to see a western not a particular popular characters movie.

There's more but am just too lazy to type of out.

None of this makes your point, it just elaborates why you think this. Half of it is just musing and not really based in fact.

Westerns and historic epics used to be the two biggest budget endeavors in Hollywood.

Chads get criticized all the time. They just ignore it.

And then there's . . .

And there's . . .

To be fair there have been more than a few faces in literature who have unironically said stupid shit like this. I'm sure he has artsy friends and colleagues that looked at him as a fool to take on a MCU movie simply because there's no "artistic value."

It has to, particularly for directors in the MCU, be difficult to be told how the process was and how difficult it must be to have to stay low brow when they don't feel it's a bad thing.

It's almost as if people think genre fiction needs to cease existing unless it's a stoic, completely "realistic" portrayal or story.

As someone who bemoaned the trailers and even the casting of the dindu as Valk I was so pleasantly surprised by Ragnarok. The shit honestly and competently entertained me and I think the only "criticism" it gets it from the "I'm so done with CBMs and Marvel and their formula"

Yes, but make sure you know the difference between an objective and subjective criticism.

>because, y'know, Space Vikings aren't cool anymore.
It's a good thing Thor and Loki aren't presented as space vikings then

People like you fucking amaze me. Kubrick has the "government" literally spoon-feed Malcolm McDowell, and he's hailed as some groundbreaking genius(which he was). Meanwhile, you refuse to even acknowledge that you *might* have been wrong about Snyder.

Oh, by the way, here's Lex feeding the Senator he just roped into his narrative of paranoia and xenophobia a red lozenge. Just more meaningless coincidence!

I think he butchered every character he touched. I didn't pay to see Space Conan reduced to a punchline. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum. In fact, I didn't pay at all. If Disney has no more respect for their IP's fans than that, they'll get no further money from me.

My point was this.

>There's very good reasons why capeshit isn't or ever will be as innovative as westerns.

And everything I've said is related to it. As for them being "Just musings" the fact that the most successful superhero franchise is formulaic and the fact that the almost every franchise is trying to ape it gives it more than enough credence.

Or is it that you have zero counter arguments ? Just try to argue the first point. Can any marvel or DC film be made by an independent filmmaker on shoestring budget? Where said filmmaker can have complete creative control where he do anything he desires?

Doesn't change the fact that westerns in general are cheap as fuck to make. Yes there were expensive westerns but that was not the rule. A western can quite easily be made on shoe string budget the same cannot be said for CBMs.

CBMs absolutely can be made on shoestring budgets. They can arguably be made *better* on smaller budgets, at least on occasion. It would force them to focus on story instead of spectacle.

Even though it was never even a comic book, Unbreakable is one of the best CMBs anyone has ever made.

He is white, male, and most likely straight, so yes.

>Oh, by the way, here's Lex feeding the Senator he just roped into his narrative of paranoia and xenophobia a red lozenge. Just more meaningless coincidence!
Now you're getting it, now tell me how genius the martha line was? it was genius wasn't it? I'll wait for your triangle illumati 3 sides style explanation

>I didn't pay at all
So I'm assuming you watched it for free? Or didn't actually watch it.

Either way why would they cater their movies towards someone who doesn't spend money? Do you even spend money on floppies of any kind? Have you spent money on any form of entertainment?

>There's very good reasons why capeshit isn't or ever will be as innovative as westerns.
And my point was that you didn't make that point. You just said it and then said some other shit that didn't prove it.

A formula is an innovation.

As for "Can any marvel or DC film be made by an independent filmmaker on shoestring budge". Can any action movie? You absolutely COULD make a wolverine movie with very little money. He does melee combat and you could have him offing mooks in a noir, street level story.

They choose to focus on bombastic heroes for bombastic action-based, set-piece full movies.

Again, you're making claims with no proof or really any specific reasoning. Nothing you've said has anything to do with "innovation". I'm not even disagreeing that the western was influential. Just saying you haven't "proven" that as a base statement let alone in comparison to Capeflicks as a genre.

Westerns being innovative doesn't mean CBMs haven't had innovations. You finding no merit in CBMs doesn't mean they're meritless.

Whoever liked BvS and MoS,

Are you even excited for JL now? They butchered Snyders vision, it's getting horrible reviews

>Whoever liked BvS and MoS,
Checking in, I guess.

Why wouldn't I be? They gave both of those tepid to bad reviews. Are you operating under the assumption that someone who liked MoS or BvS didn't like wonder woman or it
s success as well?

I mean, basically every complaint about JL is CGI, runtime, and pacing.

Also, whedon apparently made Bruce a quipster. Him being a darker crueler character is my favourite part of BvS.

Do you guys actually like him or is it just a meme? His aesthetics suck

>CGI complaints
Literally don't care. That shit is a choice people make to be annoyed by. Almost any movie can be nit-picked for the cgi.

>runtime and pacing complaints
again, they complained about the two movies you mentioned for the same reasons.

>bruce being a quipster
I can't take someone else's opinion of that seriously if I don't know their tastes from other movies.

Above all the fact that you dodged the wonder woman question pretty much tells me you're false flagging. The narrative of "Snyder fans hating Wondy" or even "hating the MCU" is absolute bullshit.

So again, why wouldn't I be excited? The complaints seem to be the same from the people who disliked the movies I enjoyed. Seems to me that's confirmation of something to be hopeful about.

Tell me, user, did you like wonder woman?

Oh, you'll just love this. There's a distinct possibility that he never even said "Martha." He only says it in Bruce's presence, Bruce freaks out, Clark looks at him like he's nuts(which, admittedly, he is), and it's Bruce repeating the name that Lois hears.

At the end of that same scene, Clark says, "I have to go. My mother needs me," and Bruce replies, "I'll make you a promise - Martha won't die tonight." Clark looks away, either conflicted or confused, then agrees.

Bruce was sabotaging his own plan the whole movie. Here's the couple of criticisms and "plot holes" critics point out:

>Why make a spear instead of a bullet?
>Why leave the spear in a specific location instead of entering the fight with it?

Because Bruce has an issue with cold-blooded, up-close-and-personal killing. He can't kill an opponent that's at his mercy. Hence him branding guys he considers worthy of death. It lets him pass a judgement on them, then turn a blind eye to their fate, takes it out of his hands in other words. He *can* kill, mind you, but only in a way he can justify to himself as self-defense and even then only with a buffer. The only exception to this is in his own vision of the future in a setting where he is now legitimately waging a desperate war.

So Bruce sabotages his own vendetta. Why? Because he knows he's letting his obsession consume him. He's let it zero in on a guy who's "one of the angels," so to speak. So he chooses a spear in lieu of a bullet, then arranges the killing ground in such a way that he'd only get to use his "god-killer" against a foe already at his mercy. Against all odds, he actually gets his chance to use it, but when crunch time comes, he finds a reason to balk. Was it coincidence or did he just hear precisely what he wanted to hear, needed to hear, to hear to stop himself?

Time will tell. If Clark comes back thinking Bruce is a psychic or had discovered his identity, you'll have your answer.

Liked them. I'm very excited. Nervous, but excited.

I liked wonder woman, saw it once in theatres and never thought about it again. I just thought it was forgettable but fun.

Nothing stuck with me the way BvS and MoS did and I'm worried that JL will just be a worse WW.

>Either way why would they cater their movies towards someone who doesn't spend money? Do you even spend money on floppies of any kind? Have you spent money on any form of entertainment?

I saw every last movie in the MCU in theaters on their opening weekend from Iron Man up through Homecoming. Making Peter Parker a Tony Stark fanboy was a bridge too far for me. Never again.

Pic related.