Why don't critics appreciate the Snyderverse?
Other urls found in this thread:
Did it stop their depression by pushing them over the edge?
Y'know, like they did for his daughter.
Snyder's interpretation of superman is objectively wrong. This is massively compounded by WB forcing him to include a ton of DCEU setup in BvS. Literally everything with Wonder Woman, Diana and Bruce playing spy games over Luthor's data, the clips of the League, all of that were things he was forced to include, and all the "deleted" scenes that filled the plot holes were sacrificed to make room. But then WB compounded the problem by forcing Justice League into a time limit, and then Snyder left the project and a new, very different director was brought in. Had Snyder been allowed to retain control of all three movies who know how it would have turned out, frankly it's a miracle JL is as good as it is.
Anyone who says MOS gave them hope was probably a very morose and cynical individual to begin with.
Snyder wanted a "realistic" Superman.
Yes, if Superman really existed, humanity would probably be xenophobic as fuck and wouldn't accept him as a "beacon of light" or whatever the fuck but that makes for a bad Superman movie.
BvS tries to rectify that by having Superman sacrifice himself and now humanity loves him.
Then in Justice League we find out the world has gone to hell with absence of Superman despite no one really liking him when he was alive.
>despite no one really liking him when he was alive
Not really, the media in BvS talked some shit and some people showed up at his hearing, but every time it showed him helping people they were happy to see him.
Because they aren't very good movies. It's not about how dark they are, it's not about how it represents and adapts it's characters. They really just aren't very well made movies from top to bottom.
If I kill myself, it's a mortal sin and I'll go to hell.
Satan will probably make me watch Sucker Punch, Watchmen, and Man of Steel on a loop.
I want to LIVE!!!!
Come on now, you know how deeply ingrained the tribalism is around DC and Marble shit, it's just that Disney owns new fanbases they purchased with franchises like Star Wars and Marvel etc. If you read around it's obvious Disney/Marvel/SW fanbase actively hates mocks and shits on anything that isn't Mouse approved. Do you really think there's any version of Supes that most Disney fans would ever like? Fat chance.
Because they're not all edgy 15 yea olds.
Why should they appreciate Snyder's films? They're overwrought attempts to be EPIC and DEEP and the exact opposite of the "lighter" MCU, but they all end up being jumbled messes because of executive meddling, Snyder's own misunderstanding of the characters and properties he was working with, and the myriad flaws of storytelling and filmmaking present in his DCEU films.
You are free to like MoS, BvS, Suicide Squad, and Justice League regardless of what other people say. Shit, we all have a movie or two that we enjoy despite their not being all that good. But don't act like critics should lower their standards because you refuse to raise yours.
Just because I like Marvel films more often than I dislike them does not mean I approve of Disney's corporate greed vis-á-vis its gobbling up of Marvel, Star Wars, etc. and its continued efforts to tighten copyright laws such that the earliest Mickey Mouse shorts - and thus the character of Mickey Mouse himself - will never fall into the public domain.
>Do you really think there's any version of Supes that most Disney fans would ever like?
Yeah - one that isn't a brooding blue-suited Billy Bitchcakes.
Yeah... Christopher Reeve in Donner's Superman I and II (OK... even III). Smallville. Lois and Clark. The Superman Animated Series.
It all started to go wrong when they made him a creepy stalker in Superman Returns, but they could have recovered.
When even the guy playing Superman in MoS, BvS, and JL says "Thank God, Joss Whedon is here... finally someone who understands something about the character," you know you're fucked.
I know a lot of Marvel fans who love DC characters too... myself among them. I just think Snyder is wrong for anything concerning the DCEU except maybe Batman solo movies... they could have gone dark with Suicide Squad and it would have fit too, but they tried to remake it into GotG on Earth.
Are they happy about his existence or happy to not be in a burning building
>Yeah... Christopher Reeve in Donner's Superman I and II (OK... even III). Smallville. Lois and Clark. The Superman Animated Series.
You forgot one.
youtube.com
I'd like this Superman too.
>continued efforts to tighten copyright laws such that the earliest Mickey Mouse shorts - and thus the character of Mickey Mouse himself - will never fall into the public domain.
To be fair, WB and DC benefit from that. The Copyright Act of 1831 gave you 28 years, plus one extension of 14 years. Without Disney constantly lobbying to have this upped to keep Steamboat Willie out of the public domain, Superman would also be free game.
Yeah, but Disney was the company that fought the hardest for Sonny Bono's bill that extended copyright terms - and for the reason I already mentioned - hence the nickname of "The Mickey Mouse Bill" that got attached to it.
>Yes, if Superman really existed, humanity would probably be xenophobic as fuck and wouldn't accept him as a "beacon of light" or whatever the fuck but that makes for a bad Superman movie
It's not that the idea wouldn't make a good Superman movie. It just wasn't done very well in the DCEU. Instead of doing the reasonable thing and proving that he can be trusted through his actions, Superman just mopes and dopes, ensuring that he's just going to be even more disconnected from the people. The whole idea of inspiring hope doesn't work if Superman doesn't establish himself as someone to be trusted instead of a silent alien whose motives no one is entirely sure of.
>Why don't critics appreciate the Snyderverse?
Might be because they're bad movies
Asking they establish SUperman's street cred? That's spoonfeeding! Actions speak louder than words! But not those actions, just the ones I compile into an infograph and meme!
Colder than Mr. Freezes Balls
Just listing a few examples, there are plenty more great depictions of Superman (even the old radio shows and B&W serials). Funny how the Snyder-fans seem to assume anyone who doesn't like what Zack has done to Superman is a mindless Marvel Zombie dancing to Mickey's tune.
Most Marvel fans I know wish DC was making better movies. Wonder Woman was great and definitely a step in the right direction, even though I wouldn't have cast Gal Gadot to be honest.
Competition is healthy... there's nothing like a basketball game decided by 1 point in overtime, with both teams having good reason to walk off the court with their heads held high, a spring in their step, and a "we'll do even better next time" attitude.
Watching the Olympic Dream team play their hardest against a bunch of kindergartners would just be sad, pathetic, and demeaning for everyone involved.
Yeah and all the DChads who killed themselves over his awfully bad movies aren't here to put their two cents in.
It's time to admit that a randian philosophy is simply incompatible with a genre that predicates itself on the notion that helping those less capable than yourself for no reward is inherently good.
>it's been over 4 years
>4 fucking years
>Sup Forums is still butthurt about "NOT MUH SUPERMAN"
Holy shit you guys. Holy shit.
Memes aside, you're only making Marvel fags look bad with this shit, it's obvious you hate DC just as easy to assume you're a mousefagoot.
The problem isn't the world hating Superman, it's that the Superman in these movies is undefined as a character. We're just told things about him, and that's it. Even if you think other versions of Superman are boring, they are atleast well defined as characters. and that's the most important thing.
The irony.
sucker punch may suck
but MoS and watchmen are kino
>Watching the Olympic Dream team play their hardest against a bunch of kindergartners would just be sad, pathetic, and demeaning for everyone involved.
I dunno. After Justice League it's more like watching the Globetrotters play the Nationals, complete with a small handful of people complaining that the Nationals have better fundamentals.
If you wanted to be taken seriously you'd stop using that word. It's like cuck, it just outs you as shitposting.
Have you seen the disparity between the critical reception of Snyder's films to the audience reception? It's painfully obvious there are those out there to get DC live action films.
Because they are poorly made films.
>It's been over 4 years
>4 fucking years
>Snyderfags still think Snyder is anything, but a hack
Holy shit you guys. Holy shit
If I really wanted to be taken seriously, I wouldn't be posting anonymously on some Laotian stamp-collecting board. Maybe learn to lighten up, yeah?
I've seen Snyder's films being given 10/10 scores 2+ weeks before they're even out in theaters, so that causes me to not trust the audience scores.
If you wanted things to lighten up you wouldn't be defending Snyder:^)
Or maybe it's because I know the difference between fun and quips that try too hard.
There's no disparity. People find these movies disappointing, which is why word of mouth is murdering JL. Audience scores are always hyper-inflated because the vast majority of people who vote in them are hardcore fans who have a vested interest in polishing these turd movies - the average viewer doesn't care enough to go on metacritic or whatever and vote.
Take a look at any audience score and it will almost always be 25-30% higher than the critical score. Especially for shit movies.
Also, WW's reception disproved any theory of conspiracy level bias among critics. Go cry in a corner Snyderfag.
because it sucks
Or maybe you just have shit taste.
I've seen critics give 0/10 on movies that to me are 7/10, how the fuck can you trust critics anyway?
Critics are like wine tasters, they just like to RP as someone who knows what the fuck they are talking about.
Timing. Like I said, if the movie is getting 10/10 scores "Great movie! Based Snyder!" reviews before it's even out (which was the case with BvS, for example) then I sure as fuck can't trust them. At least critics have to explain why they like or hate it and I can follow the resoning, and again, it's not until after the thing is out.
To be specific, is Inception unironically 0/10? Fuck off, will never trust any fucking critic
In that case why trust any reviews at all? Sounds like cognative dissonance to me.
Actually there is when you compare DC to Marvel films that is. The flipside to what you say about audience scores is that critics have agendas of their own too WW being the perfect example of that.
>Or maybe it's because I know the difference between fun and quips that try too hard.
Yeah... fuck Disney. They should stop doing what works and make art films with $300 million dollar budgets.
I'm sure their shareholders must be tired of them making so much damn money.
>a small handful of people complaining that the Nationals have better fundamentals
Have you seen the reception for Wonder Woman?
It’s not DC films, just Snyder’s crap
I don't give a shit.
I have objectively more fun watching Snyder DC movies than I do watching WW movies or Marvel normie trash.
see
Have fun with what you got then....
That's so sweet. I didn't know the short bus stopped at movie theaters. Do they make you have a chaperone?
Jesus Christ, I think you just redefined what savage is.
Don't cut yourself on that edge user
>critics have agendas of their own
The overwhelming majority of film critics do not care about the pissant DC/Marvel company war or the fans that push it because they see this shit as part of their personal identity (a baffling yet intriguing occurence in its own right). Critics who trashed Snyder's DC films did so because they thought the films sucked.
Critics see a shitload more movies in a year than the average person does. Critics are thus much more knowledgable and experienced in regards to picking out and picking apart flaws in films. And I'm not talking pissbaby CinemaSins bullshit - any ass with a microphone and a shitload of time on their hands can do that. I'm talking about legit, in-depth explorations of films both good (e.g., MovieBob's "Really That Good" series) and bad (e.g., the Red Letter Media dissections of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy). Critics have standards much higher than the average person because they see so much of both the good and the bad that they're better able to tell the two apart - and tell when a film is just forgettable mediocrity. Notice how the lowest RT scores on Marvel films coincide with the Marvel films that are the most mediocre and forgettable (e.g., the first two Thor movies).
Critics do not have an agenda based on "company wars". Critics have an agenda based on "is this movie any good". Maybe they are biased for or against certain actors or directors, sure; everybody has those kinds of biases. But if you really think film critics are "out to destroy DC", you're going to have to give me a better reason than "Disney paid them off" because Disney doesn't need to pay critics off.
Disney knows better than to interrupt the enemy when the enemy is shooting themselves in the foot, the leg, and the dick.
>Critics can't be bribed
yeah OK
Yeah no. Repeating doesn’t make it true
Dark world was RT 66 cause it wasn’t very good.
Wonder Woman was a little overrated at 92 but was an entertaining movie
BvS was panned because it was miserably disappointing
It’s not agendas
I for one hope for good dc movies sans Zack.
>Sounds like cognative dissonance to me.
One side gives reasons.
The other just throws out condescending insults and "you just didn't understand it"
I can decide if I agree with the reasons of the former, the latter doesn't even want a dialogue, they just want to meme.
That's not cognitive dissonance.
Whatvare the chances of Zack ever finding work again? Cam he possibly make a career comeback after all the money his creative choices cost WB?
Never say "they couldn't". I said "Disney has no reason to bribe them because WB is already shooting itself in the dick".
So you're saying you trust all critic reviews from all sites? Still dumb.
Idiot that’s not what he said
He said they ARENT being bribed
Cause they don’t need to be
Well, Mel Gibson found work again after he outed himself as an insane racist fuckhead, so...
More $$$ is reason enough.
This. Whats the point of sending an arsonist to a smouldering, charred wreckage?
I was responding to the question of critical reception asshat, lrn2readingcomprehension
not on that scale, not without leaving a paper trail, not without at least one person presenting concrete evidence of it to the public. Like what are you picturing, Disney sending a guy in a suit and sunglasses with a briefcase full of cash to every individual newspaper and youtube film critic in the country? Because that's what it would take to keep there from being a noticeable disprepancy between smaller and larger critics.
>he for sure knows critics weren't biased or bribed when writing their reviews for DCEU
Nope
>Why don't critics appreciate the Snyderverse
people fear what they don't understand.
See, that shit right there. Can you actually have a discussion without resorting to hyperbole? Of course I don't trust every review ever. Nobody fucking does that. But if 20 different critics say "Hey this movie has shit pacing" and then a bunch of fans go "This movie is 'kino' and if you disagree you're a retard" that's a pretty good indicator.
>Snyder's interpretation of superman is objectively wrong
I disagree
>he can't read
So you ARE saying you trust all critical reviews, just not audience ones.
Ehhh, okay but did he cost a studio literal millions? Because Zack did such a bad job on his original JL they had to spend millions of dollars and hours fixing his shit
Critics live off clicks. Which means being mainstream and jumping on bandgwagons ins their thing. Hating on dc is a meme now.
>you know for sure they are being bribed
Whatever pal
I bet you played Shadow the Hedgehog so many times that the disk is just a melted plastic goo inside the console's disk drive.
>Not on that scale
ahahaha we're done here my niave friend go ahead I'll let you have the final word.
>biased
Some critics may have a bias against the DCEU, sure - but that comes from entries in the DCEU being shit, not from the fact that the films are based on DC characters. Film critics care more about movies being good than about what source material they're based on or what franchise they're a part of.
>proving that he can be trusted through his actions
Like giving himself up to the alien invaders in an attempt to save earth? Or like he did nothing but constantly save people? But I guess that doesn't count because it's not cozy huh user?
Except I didnt type that.
>People find these movies disappointing,
Some people have opinions but other people say they liked and enjoy it. There's no true consensus here, only a group of people who keep insisting there is.
>Hating on dc is a meme now.
So is Pepe the Frog, but I don't see film critics lining up to feature that creature in their reviews.
Reminder for everyone that keeps thinking that the DCEU is getting bribed reviews, WW happened, Lego Batman happened, fucking NolanBats happened and critics were positives with these movies.
It's not the critics' fault that Snyder is a hack and WB has fucked up beyond salvation.
>.wordpress.com
no thanks
>that's a pretty good indicator.
That people enjoyed the movie
>Mel
>not a prophet for our modern era
heathens out
Pretty good, he'll be tapped again for more DC movies due to his wife
If the only thing you can say in a movie's defense is a stale Sup Forums meme or to insult the person you're talking to then it's probably shit and you're probably a shitposter
>There's no true consensus here
Oh but there is both a critical and financial one.
Neither means these movies are bad.
If that was the case then why are the Raimi Spiderman films critically praised?
>Neither means these movies are bad.
The chances are high that they are, though. A film can be vindicated by history/cable/DVD - look at "Shawshank Redemption" - but it does not happen nearly as often as you might think.
But it does mean the movie didn't work and was a terrible investment and the money spent on it should probably have been used elsewhere.
typical marvelshit, they're full of quips and low brow humor. There's no sense of art or greater meaning in them
>if the only thing you can say about the movie is that you enjoy a movie then you're shitposting.
See this is why DCEU fans are so defensive.
There's an entire subgenre that says otherwise.
>There's no sense of art or greater meaning in them
Well it's not like he can play anything else, the disk drive's clogged with goo
>There's no sense of art or greater meaning in them
Just because a filmmaker or a studio says "this film is DEEP" does not make that film legitimately deep - or good, for that matter. Neither does your attempts to will a movie into having a deeper meaning that somehow justifies the film being shit on nearly every level.
And FYI, a lot of films you like probably don't have "super deep" meanings. Those films do not suck because they are "shallow". The original Indiana Jones trilogy were great films and they were "mere" pulp adventure movies.
>they're full of quips and low brow humor.
Yeah how dare a comic book movie be fun in anyway. Also making things dark and using freshmen level symbolism does not equal art or greater meaning it equals bad film making even by college standards.