>"The only reason I’m not surprised by the resistance to Superman and Batman killing is that some people got brainwashed by a bunch of material that’s not consistent with true canon. And that’s fine. They’re on their own journey. They will learn the truth eventually."
https://comicbookmovie.com/justice-league/justice-league-director-zack-snyder-open-to-making-animated-sequels-believes-some-dc-fans-are-brainwashed-a210389
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
I honestly believe that Zack Snyder and all who enjoy his work should be beaten to death with rusty pipes. Also, this is just him coping.
He is a visual auteur. Someone like you couldn't ever possibly understand it
A visual auteur who's movies all suck ass should just stick to music videos. It's all he's good for.
He’s thins generations George Lucas, where he needs other artists to make his visions a reality but has achieved a success that allows him to get high in his own supply
Except he never had a good idea to begin with. George Lucas came up with both Star Wars and Indiana Jones. When left to his own devices, Snyder came up with Sucker Punch and Rebel Moon.
>visual auteur
Making everything look like garbage does not make you an "auteur".
Snyder's "visions" are awful and beyond repair.
Hard to disagree.
he has a point why do comic gays exclaim we need to follow a canon when the original works themselves barely do?
There are some things that are pretty fluid. Does Batman know who killed his parents? Was Superman an active super hero as a kid? But them not actively killing people has been a pretty consistent part of the “true” canon for almost a hundred years.
Except he kills in the Burton movies. And in the Schumacher movies. And in the Nolan, he tries not to, but not too hard.
And can you imagine how frustrated DC fans must have been this entire time knowing their favorite superheroes have and will never be represented in media the way they should and have always been?
The Burton/Schumacher movies are ironically closer to the comics in that they’re a cartoon world, like in the comics Batman can drop down from a rooftop on a hood’s neck and not kill him, like he can put dynamite on a big, fat indestructible guy, knock him down a tunnel, and not kill him. In the Nolan movies Batman doesn’t set out to kill people but if it happens while saving someone (saving Gordon’s kid from Dent, Talia dying while he’s trying to stop the nuke) it happens. The problem with what Snyder is saying is that he seems to think there’s a “true canon” (?) where Batman and Superman, of all fricking people, have no problem with killing. The frustrating thing about Snyder is that he talks with such an authority on these characters but has proven time and time again he just doesn’t get them. I really, really wish interviewers would stop asking Snyder about DC shit (and Nolan, for that matter) so we could finally just be over all this shit.
I just think it's funny when Nolan's Batman kills multiple goons then refuses to kill Joker in the same scene.
>Batman kill multiple goons
What?
>flips jokers truck
Superman killed multiple times in the last 50 years, though. The three kryptonians. Doomsday. Darkseid.
He one shot Doomsday in DOS, the movie so it’s not like comics where people haven’t read it,
I'm not sure what you mean. DoS was multiple issues and Superman needed multiple shots to kill Doomsday.
In the 2018 film. The movie doesn’t hide that he killed him, it’s right in your face. I don’t get why some anons on here say Superman doesn’t kill when one of his prominent movies does the opposite of that.
Hardly even his worst offence.
That was a monster much stronger than him he'd tried to handle non-lethally in multiple fashions but was just too strong. The League was down, Luthor had failed, and he had no strength left to continue the fight; the genuine only way to ensure the safety of innocent people was to go for the kill. It was a do or die moment that Superman didn't want, but had no choice in.
There have been very few moments like that in his history, and even when he's had to cross that line he regrets it, like in Whatever Happened where he permanently retires in penance for knowingly murdering Myxzptlk.
Batman should kill Joker for the same reasons.
Joker should never be a threat greater than Batman can stop and it's a failing of modern comics he's gotten so out of hand. A mass-murderer is not only less entertaining than a thieving comedian who primarily keeps his killing to other crooks, he fricks with the plausibility of the comics that keeps readers invested.
That’s not even a real criticism among normies. Joker is a grounded killer in the minds of the average people. Look at the newest film.
Who cares? We're talking about comic book Joker.
No one cares about comicbooks. Seethe and cope. Gunn doesn’t give a frick about them either.
Crazed bait doesn't win an argument, it just tells the other side you can't argue against them.
What’s there to argue? Zack’s movies are bad, but he’s right about one thing, DC fans are delusional. Capeshit comics are dead.
Even if you want to ignore comics and talk about movies, the most popular movie version of Joker is Ledger's and he's still a mass murderer and a terrorist. He killed innocent people, cops, public officials, blew up a hospital etc. He would have been executed IRL.
>no one cares about comics on Cinemaphile
You can do better than that, anon.
Most people talk about cartoons, not comics.
That story of Ledger had a beginning and an end, it’s not like capeshit comics where it’s an neverending story of insanity and bad writing.
Ledger's Joker only had an ending because Ledger died. He was supposed to be in TDKR.
And it never happened. So there was an end. And Nolan didn’t think he’ll come back for a 3rd, so there was still an end to the story.
The DKR novelization mentions that Joker was thrown into what was left of Arkham Asylum and left there, and nobody has ever come back since to see if he's still there or not.
>A novel
Lol
Lmao even
You’re the chronically online type?
>this man reads books!?
>he must be chronically online!
So he still kills, but only when necessary. That doesn’t change the fact that Superman has and will kill. And I think that’s based.
Your first statement is correct, but you need to note the implication on what he defines as necessary, i.e. when there is GENUINELY no other way to stop the absolute annihilation of humanity and he's exhausted all other means - and for someone like Superman that means he's tried more options than most people can imagine. It should be a once-in-a-lifetime moment for any Superman incarnation, if it happens at all.
Bro that was literally MoS. Zod wouldn't stop unless Superman killed him and he couldn't be contained.
Clark didn't try anything else when Zod started to zap that family.
I know that was the intent but it was put out in a very clumsy way, because after Clark saw him levelling entire cities and still be fricking around with "idk if I trust ppl", just a few minutes later he's supposed to have reached an impossible situation because Zod would kill 3 people?
It's clear what they were going for but they didn't earn it. A narrative work doesn't just have to make a point, it has to sell it to you and that's where Snyder fails every time, because he's a very clumsy and lousy narrator.
When you hear him talk, he's just a stuttering awkward dork that can't really get a point across without muddling everything up with stupid shit, and that's the way he makes movies too.
Prominent movie? That's a direct to DVD tier film at best.
Because just look at what you posted. An image of Superman in battle with an unstoppable monster where the villain died as a result of the battle. Doomsday was an unstoppable force where nothing else was working. Man of Steel basically had Superman execute an already defeated enemy because the director had some pointless family stand in the way of heat blasts which Superman could have stopped any number of ways. This is actually the same problem with some many people who b***h about Batman killing. There may be times when the hero has to take the lethal option. But once the villain is defeated the hero should never have to just execute the villain in cold blood.
He still killed someone.
Context is what matters
There is no context. He still killed someone.
You are a very stupid person pretending your points are smart. So it's no surprise you're supporting Snyder's work.
According to the quote, Snyder himself is the one who thinks a "true canon" should followed.
>we need
>says this when Snyder claims he is the one who follows canon (spoiler: he isn't)
Theseus ship.
Does it matter tho? Does he matter what he says? I think he's right, but does it matter? Cinemaphile doesn't listen to the words coming out of people's mouths and neither does the average person (which recently has become the same group unfortunately) they decide if someone is 'the good guy' or 'the bad guy' first, then decide if they should listen to them or not
Basically discourse went from
>Do you agree with Jim?
>What did he say?
>He said [thing] is good and [stuff] is bad
>Ah yes, I agree with that sentiment, so I agree with Jim
to being
>Do you agree with Jim
>Yes! What did he say this time?
>He said [thing] is good and [stuff] is bad
>Jim said that? I guess I now believe [thing] is good and [stuff] is bad too!
>guy who directed the first cinematic meeting between Superman and Batman has proven time and time again that he flat out does not get the characters and, years later, for some baffling reason continues to prove his ignorance
>Cinemaphile‘s already decided he’s the bad guy why discuss it???
Maybe if Zack said something that wasn’t literally just diarrhea of the mouth maybe he’d be looked at more favorably?
>Does it matter tho? Does he matter what he says?
He's someone who works with the material, has contact with the industry and produces live action films that shape the public idea of these characters. So yeah, if you care about these characters it matters.
> Cinemaphile doesn't listen to the words coming out of people's mouths and neither does the average person (which recently has become the same group unfortunately) they decide if someone is 'the good guy' or 'the bad guy' first, then decide if they should listen to them or not
Yes, but what he said is factually false.
Nothing he said ever mattered, not even to himself. He changes his tune every single time he opens his mouth, exposing himself as the shallow bullshiter with no real opinions and convictions whatsoever.
Yet somehow he stills getting money and headlines. There has to be some shit going on behinid the scenes to justify how he can pull it off over and over when he hasn't delivered on his promises for almost 20 years. Every movie he does is the movie to end all movies and then critics shit on them, nobody watches them and he still bullshits saying it was his plan all along and you should watch what comes next.
Does Zack also think people are brainwashed by well written scripts, dialogue, direction, and editing and that's why people hate his movies?
>Yeah like...like...*woah*...[insert batman prison rape story here]...
What do you think anon?
He thinks his movies tanked because of DC fans, when they're completely irrelevant for a Hollywood tentpole box office. I mean, just look at how much comics sell. His movies fail 'cause nobody likes them. He's been failing with critics and audiences since 300 but it's always someone else's fault.
No but he's aware that most versions of Batman since the 90s have been loose adaptations of the BTAS characterization, or copied elements from that version of the character, hell the Arkham games even have Batman's voice actor from BTAS reprise the role
This also why in CW's version of COIE, their Bruce Wayne retired after killing someone, because Batman's character's been defined by the ethics and mannerisms of the animated version for the past 25-30 years
It's annoying how these threads ignore this actual tidbit to just spew bot-fueled infighting
>most versions of Batman since the 90s have been loose adaptations of the BTAS characterization
Except for the Nolan trilogy but that's just nitpicking, right? I mean, it's not like those movies made billions of dollars and became the definitive takes on Batman for a generation.
Even Nolan had to dance around the "no-kill" rule by using manslaughter (Ra's Al Ghul) and negligence (Joker), the only actual time you could argue the rule is ignored is when he cuts off Bane's oxygen supply
We were talking about Batman takes shaped after the Animated Series take, not about the "no kill" rule which comes from before the cartoons. Do you honestly think the Nolan Batman was modeled after TAS?
Not entirely, but I said that elements from it are copied. You seem to have trouble reading past a single sentence.
The "No-kill" rule was created before the holocaust and should be retried by virtue of its creators being ignorant of the Holocaust
Why? Because by their own rule, Batman would claim the Nazis deserve rehabilitation instead of death for their war crimes
>random rant about nazis
What the frick are you on about? Did me pointing out Nolan's take has frick all to do with the cartoon made you lose your mind or something?
No, I merely pointed out the rule's inherent obsolescence
Go gaslight someone else into comitting a second Aurora
Weird thing it has gone on for over 70 years of comics then. That's kinda the opposite of obsolescence, wouldn't you say?
And again, what does it have to do with Nolan's movies not being based on TAS and being the most popular take on the character in the past 20 years?
It's only gone on for so long because there's been a chain created by reminding all the other creators of it. It's up to the writer brought in to decide if they want to continue that chain or break it.
There are those who break that chain, but their works are treated as standalone and mostly self-contained
Whatever the reason for it's longevity, it means it's not obsolete.
And it still has nothing to do with the point of Nolan's movies not being shaped after TAS
>it means it's not obsolete.
You can say the same thing about still using an original iPhone
It may not be obsolete to you, but to the rest of the masses its lost its meaning and cultural impact, the idea of "you're really letting someone who did something THAT bad walk away? That's not helping people, that's creating a cycle. In this case Bruce is creating that cycle to reaffirm that his own trauma is worse than those around him, that his own coping mechanisms are so sane and healthy that they should be used as models for others to live by
He doesn't let them "walk away", and just try and have Batman kill his enemies and see how relevant and trendy he becomes out of nowhere, unlike now where nobody likes him and thinks of him as an old timey, out of touch character.
Nothing you say relates in any way with how things work outside your head.
Don't tell the moron that BTAS itself takes heavy inspiration from Bronze Age Batman with Dennis O'Neil even being a writer for a couple of episodes.
gay is coping because he's getting clowned on.
>I had a buddy who tried getting me into ”normal” comic books, but I was all like, ”No one is having sex or killing each other. This isn’t really doing it for me.” I was a little broken, that way.
He already admitted he didn't like cape books back in 2008. Now he's trying to act like he's the only person that understands them.
>He already admitted he didn't like cape books back in 2008.
Based Zack.
>He already admitted he didn't like cape books back in 2008.
Irrelevant. 2008 was a long time ago. A zoomer that didn't know the alphabet or how to count back then could be almost done with college by now. The point is that you can learn a lot in 16 years.
This is Zack Snyder 16 years afterwards
This mans rise to fame and employment despite his glaring stupidity is endlessly fascinating.
It's really not. It's just nepotism. His wife is rich and funds his movies.
That wasn't always the case. He still had to survive getting his foot in the door, despite making nothing but dogshit for nearly two decades.
Anyway, 'endlessly fascinating' is probably a reach. But he does find new ways to be baffling stupid every few months.
I dunno who to compare him to, I find him really interesting, I feel like he has gotten even worse, I watched probably 30 minutes of army of the dead and it was not only laughably bad, but it was one of the worst looking bigger budget movies I've ever seen. I hope he gets to keep making movies
I don't get it as well, 2 modest sucessful box offices can't be enough to carry nearly 30 years of career like that, he never won an oscar, he never made one billion dollars he never quickstarted a sucessful cashcow franchise
Did someone ask Zack what the "true canon" is?
>Am I so out of touch? No, it's the fans who are wrong
If a women said something like this Cinemaphile would throw a fit
>"The only reason I’m not surprised by the resistance to Superman and Batman killing
is because they don't want them to kill, it's not how these characters have ever gone about shit if you actually had a deeper-than-surface-level understanding of these characters and their history in comics
>is that some people got brainwashed
homosexual
outsider
casual
>by a bunch of material that’s not consistent with true canon
the "true" cann as a DCgay would tell you is that Supes and Bats don't choose killing as an option for anything. in any version unless stated otherwise and you would fricking know this if you actually read a goddamn comic/engaged with the source material
>And that’s fine. They’re on their own journey. They will learn the truth eventually."
smug prick. no wonder your daughter killed herself.
if I come of as fricking mad is because I'm sick of pissants like Snyder telling a fat middle aged comic book reader that he knows better. these fricking hollywood auturd gays just don't care about the material they're working on as long as they can rape and twist it into what they want. they don't care, not Snyder, not Philips and not Gunn.
>Snyder's Batman kills people
>But he doesn't kill the Joker????
This honestly makes no sense and I'm not sure why I don't see it pointed out more.
It's always the same with that kinda people. They just build their over complicated, elaborate readings on stuff that fails on the most basic and fundamental levels and are baffled when you point out that shit to them.
It's the same with Man of Steel. What is supposed to be Clark's dilemma in the church? If he turns himself in and Zod doesn't keep his word, it's mankind's end. And if he doesn't turn himself in, it's mankind's end. The big difference would be that in the second scenario, Clark might be able to save his own ass because he's a Kryptonian, so it only makes him look like a selfish butthole willing to put even his loved ones at risk just to save his own ass from Zod.
That was actually the exact plot of the Superman 78 comic plot with Brainiac. Brainiac comes menaces earth says he'll leave earth alone if Superman surrenders himself to his bottle collection, Superman can't save everyone any other way so he agrees and then they find away when they have time to plan.
Sure, but at any point he actually hesitates to turn himself in because "he can't trust humans" like he does in the movie, therefore implying that he might as well just let them all fricking die?
No. He acts like Superman should.
Yeah why should a character who has lived an entirely normal life until that moment have a moment of uncertainty when making a giant decision that could have gigantic consequences.
He can have a moment of uncertainty, but you have to write it properly. As it is, it's "either I turn myself in and maybe everybody dies or I don't and then everybody dies for sure". It's just shit writing, as if they wrote that scene in a vacuum, without considering its implications in context.
You can have Superman having some sort of uncertainty to make him more human, but you've to properly come up with a scenario where it makes sense for him to do so and builds sympathy for him rather than making him look like a self-centered butthole. By that point, both us and him know his power set rather well so him not turning himself in when mankind (which includes his mother btw) is facing extinction. It isn't some sort of hostage situation, or even an international conflict. It's the end of the fricking world and he's in a church going "idk, I feel like I can't trust people". The priest should've told him "Oh, well. I guess you should let us all fricking die then".
And that's even without considering it's a superhero movie, about Superman no less. Not some gritty drama with an ambivalent anti-hero.
Batman plans for everything, including needing Joker’s help in the future where Superman rules the planet. Obviously
So, in Snyderverse, Lex was right?
Lex was quite literally wrong, Clark needed to be resurrected which fricked his brain, and then some extra fricking from Darkseid.
Also, Lex never really gave a shit, he only wanted to be above Superman.
> Clark needed to be resurrected which fricked his brain, and then some extra fricking from Darkseid.
This was in the movie? I have no recollection of his brain being fricked apart from the brief confusion after he resurrected
102% right.
Yeah that's what bothers me the most, he made Batman break all his morals and in the end he still fricking spared the damn clown and every other major villain
He managed to bring the worst of both worlds, the worst from Batman and Punisher into one single character
The ultimate truth is he probably didn't put any real thought into any of his scenes beyond how BADASS he thought it would look and then made up shit afterwards when called on it.
You're spot on, I couldn't agree more. Frick Snyder.
At least Burton was honest about not caring about the comics.
Yet somehow his movies were better than most of live-action capeshit.
>no wonder your daughter killed herself.
That wasn't very nice of you.
Snyder haters truly are the most vile, repulsive animals on this earth.
Why do politically obssesed schizos love this guy so much?
I gave his three DC films a chance and I felt they all fricking sucked, literally stopped watching the Snyder Cut JL movie because I thought it was just boring and trying way too hard to be serious.
The desperation for attention continues to be strong with Zack.
I mean Spider-Man killed more people than Batman and Superman combined if you are not including cosmic beings that were about to destroy the universe such as Imperiex and Darkseid.
By his logic Peter Parker should kill break hundreds of petty criminals necks with his bare hands.
Hes not wrong... the no-kill rule is an invisible barrier that was created by the company only so they can milk the villains for eternity. But for an isolated and limited interpretation (like a movie series) you dont have to follow that rule and give the characters a finite solution. Dont get me wrong, you dont have to turn Batman into the Punisher, but killing a villian should always be possible as a last effort to save the day.
you're not a super-hero if the best solution you can come up with is killing a dude, you're basically just a cop
Thor kills and he's a Superhero, so does some Green Lanterns.
>Thor kills and he's a Superhero
No. 'Superhero' is a term owned by Warner brothers.
>not consistent with canon
Isn't this the same guy who had a justice league sequel script that was fricking bonkers? I mean, Batman and Lois lane having a kid that makes Superman into Supercuck bonkers? Yes... please lecture us all about canon... frick sake
Based Zack dropping knowledge as usual.
"Arrogancy" though? Really?
I'm worried about him...
I bet that kinda bullshit talk is how he gets stupid people to still put money into his movies, though he's getting cornered. Once Netflix drop him, who's he gonna con next?
Netflix made the sequel.
It's a single movie that was split in two because not even stupid buttholes like Netfix thought it'd be a good idea to release a 4.5 hour long Star Wars ripoff.
Netflix also gave Adam Sandler a truckload of money to make some DTV looking gobshite. Their business model is a mystery.
>Netflix made the sequel.
NF also spent way more money THEN than they are even doing now, or will be doing going-forward, which is why they are making all these deals to bring in some of the DC films, even the films by this hack, and stuff like Sex And The City, even though that's been chopped up and been on cable and been repeatedly sold for home video for decades now.
As the other anon replied, the original contract was for two movies and the Hack was smart enough to already start filming, and unlike DISCO, NF doesn't need tax write-offs and has no real reason to burn something once money starts being spent. It gives them content and a library and subscribers are going to pay whether they have one less potential tax write-off or not.
NOW, if you see them let this hack make MORE movies, which you won't, then you have an actual valid point.
Technically and surprisingly, those stupid Sandler movies actually get enough eyeballs to make them worthwhile, plus they are mostly cheap. Sandler is actually not happy because he wants some legit movie roles so he can be taken seriously, even if it did nothing for Jim Carey, ultimately, and poor Carey can't even get fingerprinted in Hollywood now.
But otherwise, your points are valid.
Hack Cultist do, apparently, since they keep hyping this thread which should have died in the 3+ hours I was running errands, but here we are.
He should run for president.
Reading that quote with Donald Trump's voice makes a LOT of sense.
He should change his last name to Steinner because those are some Steinner maths.
Counterpoints: A high percentage of the people that watched it turned it the frick off. And a lot of people gave it a chance because it was 'free' with their account. They never would have gone to a theater for that turd.
They might, but BOY would they regret it
Reminder that Nolan shilled for this guy to take it from there after he was done with Batman, let that sink in.
Explains why Nolan made such mediocre Batman movies.
Wans't that because there was literally no one else wanting the job and he desperately wanted to no longer be seen as part of the capeshit holy trinity alongside Feige and Raimi.
From what I read they approached a lot of directors for Man of Steel but all the directors wanted to fine tune the script before rolling cameras but WB didn’t have that time because of the Shuster lawsuit. Zack Snyder was the only director willing to shoot the script as is.
I don't know, Snyder should say that the no-kill rule is his thing because it's his version of the character, because going against the "fans" of the character is a losing battle.
So is he going to explain what “true canon” is or…?
This does seem like cope, but the real question is why? What’s he trying to cope for?
>What’s he trying to cope for?
The fact that every project he's lead after leaving DC has only proven how much of a lame hack he's always been.
>They’re on their own journey.
The problem is that at no point do they actually reflect on that journey. They just merc dudes and have zero reaction to it. There isn't any "oh god what have I done moment." All his excuses for this are entirely off camera.
They hate him because he told them the truth
>They will learn the truth eventually.
does he personally know the real Batman and the real Superman?
Yeah. He raped both of them
Yes. We saw the movies.
Not clicking the link. Not reading the thread. Just here to say who cares.
Well thank god he's not making DC movies ever again then.
WB has been moronic enough with their handling of the brand that I wouldn't put it past them to have him back.
The brand is going to Gunn now. All over, not just movies.
why do people just believe everything some anon spits out?
>now
That's the key word. Watch them panic if Superman doesn't work as expected.
They should've done so after they kept him for JL.
They lost hundreds of millions in the last 4 flops in a row that if they hire him again the feds will probably start an investigation on their executives to know if they are using the company for money laundering or something
Outside of JL every movie Snyder made or was creatively involved in made money. Including first Aquaman and Wonder Woman movies.
I thought that was hilarious.
Wonder Woman 1: basically a brand new female director (no balls to let a man do it) in charge with Snyder's supervision. Movie looks good and does good.
Wonder Woman 2: Snyder is out. The theoretical talented new female director from the first movie has free reign. Movie is so very bad.
>Snyder's supervision
Why don't you go and read that article that just came out where Snyder expanded on his actual idea for the WW movie?
Cause fake news lol.
You know, I once wondered how it would be possible to shit upside down without getting smeared in shit.
Now any of those quickly going bankrupt reporters with an agenda would say that every day every week I shit upside down, and I want to make 5 movies about characters shitting upside down.
The truth is that I never tried it nor I planned to make media out of it. It just crossed my mind once how it would work physically. But nobody would click that, would they, normie?
>Outside of JL
You mean the big one that actually mattered.
>every movie Snyder made or was creatively involved in made money.
Gee, almost as if Snyder was coasting on brand goodwill alone, and things started flopping after he thoroughly poisoned that well.
One of the best controlled psyops and people are still falling for it.
Did he suck air between his teeth and cheeks before saying that? Or after?
It was both, wasn't it. What a weird fricker.
The writing was on the wall when he removed the squid from Watchmen. It's your own fault if you had any faith in him after that.
>"The reason that the squid got taken out of the movie was so there'd be more Rorschach and a little bit more Manhattan
An actual quote from the man himself.
But then he also said
>“The squid was not in the movie when I got the script, the squid was never in any draft that I saw [...] My point is only that there was this elegant solution to the squid problem that I kind of embraced. I’m a fan of the thing as much as anyone, I was saying what are we going to do about this before I even read the script.”
The man is just full of shit.
Sound quintessentially israeli.
Somebody originally produced the script with the "Alien" squid in it.
It's a movie with a 300' tall naked blue guy destroying Vietnam. A genetically engineered fake alien corpse is MORE plausible than that.
And removing the work on the Squid, one of the basic story pieces at the bottom, screws with the entire plot right down to the reveals at the end.
Even down to stupid shit that could've easily been written off such as Bubastis.
Now, I do agree that the squid might be a hard sell for a movie intended for a much more mainstream audience than the comic was and all that. The problem is that what they came up with makes absolutely no sense and doesn't work as an equivalent or an alternate take.
>Now, I do agree that the squid might be a hard sell for a movie intended for a much more mainstream audience
R-rated movies are not made for a mainstream audience. Even Passion was made for fever-intensity Christgays.
Not really.
Well, I said "more mainstream" in comparison to the original comics. Of course it wasn't aiming at the same audience target as Spider-Man.
>Even Passion was made for fever-intensity Christgays.
Loads of non-Christians went to see Passions, which is what pushed it from say the sub $200M (but almost $190M that Sound of Freedom made) to the $375M that Passion made.
The equivalent is that Christian's would not go see something like Brokeback Mountain or say The Color Purple/Thelma and Louise (if either released circa 2010-2020).
Hamada was an Executive Producer on Mamoaman. He wasn't on WW, but Cereal Lord and Jon Berg were. And they are essentially the original start of the Non-Hack Cult leadership that became Hamada and Safran, and is now Safran and Gunn. For the same reason, as Cereal Lord was also an EP on the Ayer Squad movie, you can't fully credit it to the Hack.
Only the three movies (plus the HBO Max bomb) can be fully and completely credited to the Hack. They have to share a few. And as the other anon pointed out, the chart cutely ignores The Joker.
>R-rated movies are not made for a mainstream audience.
Yes they are.
I hate this scene, it transforms a horrifying part of the comic into a comedy.
Snyder
>makes WB $150 million in 2 movies
Gunn
>loses $200 million in 1 movie
>
Just saying...
He made less in 2 movies starring Superman, along with Batman and Wonder Woman in one of them than either the Wonder Woman and fricking Aquaman solo films.
And you had to compare it to a COVID simultaneous digital release and rated R. Good stuff.
The numbers don't lie.
Yeah, so he made less money with Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman than James Wan did with Aquaman on his own.
And James Gunn lost more money in 1 film than ZS made in 2. Gunn truly is the savior of WB.
I don't care about Gunn either way, I just want Snyder and his fans to frick right off.
>Gunn
$200 million in 1 movie
Wait, what? Has a Gunn DC film come out yet? Its just been the holdovers from before he came on, I thought.
He made The Suicide Squad, but I don't believe that lost 2oo million.
Oh yeah. I forgot about that. That was a fun film. Not great, but decent popcorn fun.
TSS came out day 1 on HBO Max so it was instantly ripped.
No Way Home hadn't revived theaters yet.
Godzilla Vs Kong didn't have that problem.
>Reflecting on this release strategy in January 2022, Gunn acknowledged suggestions that it negatively impacted on the film's box office performance and said the approach was not ideal for the film. He added that the film was widely pirated following its streaming debut,[172] with a high quality version of the film appearing on piracy websites almost immediately after it was released on HBO Max.[173] Internet technology company Akamai reported, based on global unlicensed streaming and torrent data, that The Suicide Squad was the sixth most pirated film between January and September 2021.[174]
>The film's box office underperformance was generally attributed to its release during the COVID-19 pandemic, the fact that it was also available for streaming on HBO Max at the same time as its theatrical release, piracy allowed by the streaming release, the R-rating which limited younger audiences, the poor reception to the first Suicide Squad, and confusion from general audiences over its relationship to the first film caused by their similar titles.[180][185][189][190][191] Anthony D'Alessandro of Deadline Hollywood felt the HBO Max availability and feelings about the first film outweighed the impacts of the pandemic, and noted that other films had made significantly more money at the box office in recent weeks.[180] Writing for Forbes, Scott Mendelson felt that general audiences would not be compelled by Gunn's involvement and instead would see the film as a sequel without the main draws of the first film, such as Will Smith. Mendelson added that the film's $185 million budget was an "absurd amount to spend" on an R-rated film and was significantly more than what was spent on previous R-rated superhero films. He said the film required a "best-case-scenario box office" just to break even with that budget, and that did not turn out to be the case.[190]
>Mendelson added that the film's $185 million budget was an "absurd amount to spend" on an R-rated film and was significantly more than what was spent on previous R-rated superhero films.
this is basically the only part that isn't cope; basically Gunn wanted to make "villains say FRICK" the movie despite the good SS comics being PG-13 at best, and wasted the studio's money.
>wasted the studio's money.
Boo-hoo for WB. I for one I'm glad it was a hard R 'cause some of the best bits of the movie benefit from that, like the unnecessary killing of all those guerilla guys.
It might've not been a box office hit but it was a good movie. Snyder's films weren't either.
>, like the unnecessary killing of all those guerilla guys.
you can have a PG-3 movie with kills.
Yes, but what made it funny is how brutal it was.
>blaming it on covid
>spider-man
>fast and furious
>godzilla
>venom
Snyder's movies were about Batman and Superman, two of the biggest superheroes ever
Gunn's movie only had Harley and bunch of literally whos and it aired during covid era
It was the first time WW, Superman, and Batman were on screen together too.
Dawn of Kino should have made a billion at least, that's how bad it was.
Everytime this guy talks i understand a bit more on why his daughter killed herself
>Leaves out Joker and The Batman
Good one, pal
AquaCHADs stay winning
Only a brown person could make a picture like this.
WW84 and TSS were produced by Snyder too
But don't mention JL
Hot take: Zack Snyder is a terrible director and ALL of his flicks suck
I like sorta menacing Superman here.
He canonically executed some pocket universe Kryptonians and processed the guilt of that for some years.
Ironic.
He is supposed to be focused on his "Star Wars" and still can't get over DC. Maybe if he gave as much of a shit about his kids, he'd still have them all.
He's right. The original Batman and Superman had no fluffy moral codes.
another wiki expert
Very first Superman stated he doesn't kill people. He however also threatened to tear the heart out of a War Profiteer. So he's at least originally not above threatening bad actors.
"Original" Batman was basically Finger plagiarizing The Shadow, so he killed crooks plenty, however the period in which he was doing it was something less than a year, out of a near century of publication history of him not doing it, which started roughly when Robin hit the scene.
Honestly, that always struck me as a good IC reason for Batman to just not kill people. He doesn't want to kill people in front of a kid.
Schumacher's Batman gave a speech about killing for revenge and I think it's kind of foundational to one reason why Batman doesn't kill people, specifically his more murderous villains. He knows damn well he won't stop.
Schumacher's approach, as he said in the commentary, was that the villains could die but they'd have to do so by their own hand. The coin trick he pulls on Harvey that leads to his death is messed up from a certain point of view, but at the same time it's Harvey who chooses to look for his coin and falls to his death.
why does he keep farting out his stupid opinions? i never want to hear from this loser hack again
>Tim Burton Batman killed, but that’s fine
>Joel Schumacher Batman killed, but that’s fine
>Christopher Nolan Batman killed, but that’s fine
>Zach Snyder Batman killed?!? REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
In Burton's films at least he was consistent. He killed some goons but then he went and killed Joker without any hesitation as well.
In Nolan's films he'd kill as the result of an impossible choice, sometimes without intent to kill.
Batfleck murders in cold blood a bunch of nameless goons but he then spares Luthor, Harley, Joker and every single big baddie that was supposed to be around in that universe.
If even Tim Burton can make a more coherent movie than you, maybe it's time to go back to advertising.
So Batfleck killed people in the heat of the moment fighting, but didn’t cross the line at being a cold blooded serial killer murderer
>Batfleck killed people in the heat of the moment fighting
He drove the fricking Batmobile through a guy's face and he also branded people knowing damn well they were gonna be brutally murdered in prison. Meanwhile, Joker is alive and well in Arkham, and a bunch of other villains too.
He killed someone while they were attacking him. Branding was not him killing anyone himself. If you want to b***h about that then whine about Nolan’s Batman also indirectly getting plenty of people killed when he blew up league of shadows HQ, etc.
>He killed someone while they were attacking him
He was chasing them. Pointlessly 'cause he had put a tracker in them that actually almost fricks up when he unnecessarily shoved his Batmobile through the back of the truck when his plan was to let them get away all along so he could track them back to their destination.
>when his plan was to let them get away all
No it wasn’t. The tracker was there so that he could follow and intercept the truck in transit and hijack the Kryptonite. He failed to do that so he had to go wreck Lexcorp. Watch the movie.
If he was planning just to crash his car against the truck, then why throw the tracking device? Or the better question: why engage in a wild chase that will endanger people's lives and property when he already put a tracking device on them and could meet them at destination minimizing any unnecessarity death and destruction, when that's what eventually happened anyway?
Just because they wanted a cool car chase that ultimately serves no purpose 'cause if you just skipped it the movie loses nothing narratively and actually avoids a bunch of its issues such as both Superman and Batman acting like total self-centered c**ts.
>Pointlessly 'cause he had put a tracker in them that actually almost fricks up when he unnecessarily shoved his Batmobile through the back of the truck when his plan was to let them get away all along so he could track them back to their destination.
pointless or not, it'd feel wrong for Batman to just let henchmen go, doesn't it?
He's gonna catch up with them later because of the fricking tracking device. And if the option is letting them go or decapitate them, I'd expect Batman to choose to let them go.
So you're saying Batfleck was *never* in the heat of the moment fighting any named villains? Only ever just npc goons?
Oh no it’s another moron who completely missed the point of the movie
>the point of the movie
Which is...?
Batman is old and broke and has lost his way and is just a step away from being a bad guy until Superman saves and redeems him.
What does this semantically have to say about life?
It’s not semantics, the entire movie is Batman becoming almost a fullblown supervillain in his unhinged quest to kill Superman out of PTSD induced fear and paranoia. His excessive and sadistic use of violence is a sign of his increasingly out of character behaviour, all which are part of a larger character arc planned for the character.
Fanboys hate this because they just want a cartoon Batman who doesn’t have any character arcs. Same reason they b***h about Snyder’s Superman.
You can have a character arc without being a psychotic madman. Snyder gays like you always fall back to the same cheap defense. You say people don't want growth or an arc but you don't get that in the Snyder films either. You just get a bunch of lunacy that you try to spin around as a win because it goes against tradition. You think doing something different automatically makes it good because it's different and it doesn't.
>you don't get that in the Snyder films either.
There is a clear arc and growth. I’m sorry you’re too stupid or media illiterate to get it.
There is no such thing. And all you can homosexuals can do is scream FILTERED or try to say everyone else doesn't understand your shit film that doesn't have anything to understand.
So why didn't he went bad guy on Joker, since he still has that costume of dead Robin there? I guess through all those years of bitterness only regular henchmen were doing any crimes at Gotham and the bigwigs were very well behaved.
The point is well understood, it's anything but subtle. The thing is that it has to be supported by the plot around him. Everything that happens, does so just 'cause the writer needs to go from point A to point B and doesn't stand up to the most minimal scrutiny. Just as him having turning himself around due to Clark suddenly refer to his mother as "Martha" for no good reason. And then them going "I guess we're buddies now" after they were trying to kill each other just a few minutes earlier.
Who says he didn’t try? Joker survives all kinds of things, it’s part of his gimmick. People like you just want to whine and b***h about irrelevant things because not muh Batman.
>Who says he didn’t try?
I judge the movies by what they actually put on screen. All we see this Batman do is being unecessarily violent to people way below his level and have him make up his mind for the most bullshit reason just in time not to kill Luthor or any other big villains that could mean merch money in the future.
And Joker’s status is irrelevant to the narrative in BvS. But you still have to go b***hing about it because you’re buttmad about stupid shit that doesn’t matter in the actual story of the movie
It's not irrelevant because it's part of the context and world building. Proper writing has many layers, it's not just plot or themes. Good narrative works are the ones that present a coherent whole and not a bunch of loose ideas strung together by mere juxtaposition.
It is irrelevant. Whether or not Joker is dead by Batman’s hands does not matter one bit to the story in BvS. You’re just a obsessive fanboy. The story of BvS outlines Batman’s increased cruelty and violent tendencies, his loss of faith in his mission and it having had any lasting impact, and how he’s shifting his focus on Superman and how he’s essentially committing heroic suicide by taking him on and hopefully down because Batman has become so paranoid and afraid by what Superman represents in his mind that he thinks killing Superman saves the world and will give Batman’s life as a vigilante lasting meaning.
It’s a very clear storyline about Batman having lost his way and how he comes an inch away from turning into a murderer before he snaps out, realises he’s been in the wrong, manipulated by Luthor, and is deeply inspired to be better man and a hero who doesn’t give up by Superman’s selfless sacrifice. Batman is a misguided antagonist who gets a chance at redemption through Superman.
But all you do is go baaaaaawwwwww Batman can’t kill, baaaAaaaAaaawwwWwwwWwww not muh Batman
Snyder copied the story of Jesus and applied it to Superman....
And it gets undone when he realizes his and Supes' moms are named Martha.
>Whether or not Joker is dead by Batman’s hands does not matter one bit to the story in BvS
It matters for Bruce's character building and the coherence of his actions and decisions. In a piece of fiction, it's important that each character has its own agenda. If Bruce has gone borderline villain and is killing bad guys indiscriminately, how come he hasn't gone for the worst of the worst out there and is content to do so with some street level thugs?
Also, if he's didn't use to be this violent and has just gone off the rails, why don't we see his surroundings acting accordingly? People are just afraid of him as if he was always like that rather than outraged because of the change on his behaviour. We only get a reference to that in a dialogue with Alfred but see nothing on that on screen (so much for the show, don't tell poster boy).
The movie is a fricking incoherent mess. It's like they shot a first draft that didn't have all the background work to put it together yet, and apparently that's what they kinda did since it was being rewritten as they were shooting 'cause they just didn't know wtf they were doing. And it shows.
Because you’re so dumb you think if Batman ends up killing someone as a part of an arc where he’s eroding his own ethics and losing his grip he immediately has to turn into a cartoonish serial killer a la Dexter who hunts down supervillains.
That is not what’s happening, that is not Batman’s arc, you’re idiotically trying to insist x happens simply because your fanboy brain says it just has to because that’s the rationale from the comics.
>And Joker’s status is irrelevant to the narrative in BvS
Except for the fact that the movie goes out of its way to establish that he killed Dick and that despite Batman being willing and eager to kill henchmen, Joker gets a pass at least until the Knightmare future.
He doesn’t kill or brand Luthor because at that point Superman and his ultimate sacrifice has inspired Batman to mend his ways and try becoming a better person again, you stupid frick.
>and have him make up his mind for the most bullshit reason just in time not to kill Luthor or any other big villains that could mean merch money in the future
Yes, I addressed that. I know very well what Snyder, Goyer and Terrio were trying to say. But it's not what they actually said, and that's why the movie tanked both with audiences and critics.
Show, don't tell -> morons never get it for decades.
Overly padded with exposition stuff like Dragon Ball was right. The more you moron proof the exposition, the better the morons get it.
But what they show is not what they're trying to tell. That's why you get morons like you having to "explain" the movie at length because ultimately, none of that shit is up there on the screen. All you get is Clark referring to his mom as "Martha" for no reason whatsoever, just so Batman can go "oh, my mom's called Martha too. If he's got a mom, he must be nice!" Fricking stupid shit
Batman has completely dehumanised Superman and viewed him entirely as alien threat to the world, entirely removed any potential humanity from him in his feverish pursuit to kill him. Of course hearing his own mother’s name out of the blue makes him snap out of his murderous rage and want to know how Superman knows his mother’s name and what does he mean by it. And then he realises Superman is begging that even if he gets killed Batman should save Superman’s mother. A completely selfless wish to save someone else even when he’s about to be killed.
That completely destroys Batman’s entire inaccurate narrative about Superman he’s built in his head to justify his murder quest. It makes him step down, disorient him and make him go WTF am I doing. He’s been proven entirely wrong.
But of course this is 2deep4u because it requires media literacy and understanding human behaviour.
>the movie's too deep for you
Everyone got it. The problem was that it was so clumsily done.
>e-everyone got it
Cope harder. Time and time again people show they don’t get it and just b***h about stupid shit that shows they can’t understand anything beyond the most superficial reading of the story.
>C-cope harder
No everyone gets the film just fine. Must just don't need employ mental gymnastics or head cannoning to justify Snyder's poor storytelling ability. we all got it. You're not as smart or clever as you think you are.
Nobody in the middle of a murderous rampage would stop because of a name, and those mental gymnastics don't make it believable.
You're acting as if any of this is subtle. The problem is that it's not organic and doesn't sustain itself within the framework of the movie. It's just pretty much Snyder walking in front of the camera and telling you so 'cause he doesn't know how to narrate properly.
For instance, why would Clark say "save Martha"? When did he call his mother by her name, and why would he just say her first name to a stranger that doesn't even know her and wouldn't know what the hell he's talking about?
It would make more sense for him to say "save my mother" but of course, it wouldn't have the "gotcha" moment so instead of trying to come up with a setup where it would come out organically from the characters, the writer had to step in and force the character to say what the writer wants him to say and not what the character would say organically in that situation. That's shitty, unsophisticated writing that you'd expect from a 20 year old film student and not from supposed professionals. And the result is that a scene that should be the emotional pivotal point for one of the main characters becomes fricking laughable and ridiculous. Because narrative is not all about the "what" but the "how" as well, and Snyder and Co. definitely didn't know "how" to get to "what" they were trying to say so they just forced it in the dumbest, least subtle ways possible and that ultimately undermined the whole thing.
>For instance, why would Clark say "save Martha"?
Because nobody knows who his mom is and since he’s seen as an alien being nobody would know he means his adoptive human mother, you idiot.
Oh, but he would know who "Martha" is, right?
Not immediately, dumbass. Clark is struggling to talk and convey who he wants to be saved while Batman’s boot is on his throat, the Kryptonite is weakening him and he’s been badly beaten up.
So, on the one hand he's struggling to talk, weakened by the kryptonite and all beat up but on the other hand, he has the presence of mind of thinking that Batman wouldn't know who he referred to if he just said "my mother" because he might even think he's talking about his alien mother so instead he choses to say her first name 'cause that would go over better because who the frick knows why?
It's just a contrivance so the writer could pull that trick out of his ass. It makes no sense whatsoever and that's why instead of being the emotional, climactic moment it's supposed to be, it's just fricking laughable.
Just imagine if instead they would've had Lois telling Batman "if you kill him, you're killing Martha", for instance.
Yes, Superman even in weakened state is thinking about other people and how to save them. Very in character for him in that way.
Oh, so now he's *that* kinda Superman? Then he would find a better way to communicate with Batman than trying to play tough like when he stepped in during the chase, or engaging in the fight at that point.
Man, you really are bouncing all over the place in order to grasp at straws to find something else to complain about.
He believed Batman was some psycho who tortured criminals for fun. In his mind, there was no way this maniac would cooperate without roughing him up first.
And then just tell "Martha" to that psycho so he would go and rescue his mum.
No, I'm staying in one place saying this movie is just incoherent and inconsistent on its characterization. It's the people trying to justify it who have to bounce all over the place to do so, and end up contradicting themselves just like the movie does.
You haven’t established any incoherence or inconsistency, you just say it is because “wot about random thing” or “why x happen” and then refuse to accept anything that might actually address that.
He’s about to die. The best he could hope in that situation is that Batman finds and rescues his mom and then deals with Lex afterwards, since while Superman doesn’t like or approve Batman’s maniacal methods he is still meant to be some type of a “hero” vigilante who maybe still cares about innocent lives to save Martha when told she’s in danger.
You guys arguing back and forth over something that makes zero sense because Superman could’ve just found Martha himself without ever even talking to Batman. As soon as Luthor said “we kidnapped your mom lol” Superman could’ve just found her the same way he found Lois at the beginning of the movie, swooped in and saved her and had her back in Kansas before Luthor could say “so go fight Batman! (for some reason it was never really established why Luthor wants Batman to fight Superman, if it’s because Luthor thinks Batman could kill Superman ((?)) wouldn’t it make more sense to sic someone like Wonder Woman on him?)”
Yeah, of course. But even accepting all the previous bullshit, that scene also doesn't make any sense either. That whole movie is just and endless Russian doll of bullshit because when you start making up shit that doesn't make any sense, your only way out is to make up even more bullshit to pile on and cross your fingers people don't figure it out before the movie is over.
That's why that film only made any money when people went in blind, and then the word of mouth of what a shitshow was spread like wildfire.
Then why even threaten Luthor with the branding in the first place. If he's not going to do it anymore why try to scare him and then brand the wall next to him if he's grown beyond that?
Batman does something similarly stupid in Suicide Squad where he attacks Deadshot in front of his child...something extremely out of character and presumably happens after Superman died.
>...something extremely out of character
Not really. Definitely cases of Batman having to take down a villain in front of their kid. In comics and adaptations. Not like he was going to kill him.
Post 5.
>Then why even threaten Luthor with the branding in the first place.
Because changing your behaviour isn’t a switch. It takes effort and time. And it’s there as a visual cue to SHOW, NOT TELL that he’s now changed.
>And it’s there as a visual cue to SHOW, NOT TELL that he’s now changed
But he literally didn't change.
It looked like a clear switch when he decided to not kill Superman because he had a mother in danger. But no he went back to doing the same crap, killing mooks and branding crinimals.
>In Burton's films at least he was consistent. He killed some goons but then he went and killed Joker without any hesitation as well.
Doesn't he try to catch Joker? I think there's some context to every possible kill there.
Oh, now that you mention it, doesn't he fall because he pulls some sort of "trick" when Batman is trying to pull him up? It's been many years.
Acid flower or something? It's been a couple years for me and I forgot again but yeah, I think so.
it's been years, but i'm pretty sure joker dies falling from the get away chopper after batman connects his leg to a gargoyle, no acid flower or provocation involved. it always stuck out to me as pretty brutal
Yeah, that's how I remember it too but I after that other anon mentioned it, I also seem to remember some bit with him hanging and then doing the flower thing or some other trick and Batman lets him go. But as I said, it's been a while and I can't be arsed to check right now.
He openly says "I'm gonna kill you" when he confronts Joker.
I mean... didn't he just realize Joker murdered his parents? Reasonable thing to say.
George Lucas actually had WAY more hits though, maybe because of the people advising him.
(Or DESPITE, sometimes? Kathleen Kennedy has been around for longer than I realized. Probably just a pet for most of that time.)
In defense of Batfleck, which Snyder doesn't fricking deserve frick that guy, it's pretty vague as to what he was doing the whole time. Like when did he go full Nihilist? Did he quit between that time and only come back for Superman? How active were his murders of criminals because he's fine killing crooks in his way, but then in the beginning he's marking others for death instead of killing them there and then. Did he encounter Joker or Harley during his murder period because we only see them run into each other afterwards where it seems like he decided against killing in honor of Clark. But again this is Snyder so he'll actively take the worst choice and have Bruce actively hunt and murder criminals but not those ones for no real reason.
Tim Burton doesn't go on social media to try and defend his moronation.
Burton also made a movie people actually liked. It's amazing how much easier it is to excuse these kinds of weird takes on characters when they're in movies that are actually competently made.
Batgays complain about Burton and Nolan a lot. Those movies just had qualities that outweigh the issues.
It was bad when all of them did it.
Adam West Batman killed, even if it wasn't the intent. Remember the movie where he punches the rehydrated goons and they cease to exist?
There was also the episode where the two guys in the Sarcophagi wind up shooting each when Batman ducks.
At this point there are so many version of these characters that you're bound to find one that appeals to your headcanon. Batman has killed in comics and so has Superman. And it's not like people at Hollywood adapt shit faithfully, they just slap some recognizable name brand for their movie and do their own thing, so ultimately, it doesn't matter. This is pure cope because people never liked his shitty movies.
Faithfully doesn’t really mean anything when fanboys will praise something that changes plenty of stuff aa faithful but then turn and b***h when another movie did the same thing but now it’s suddenly bad because a fanboy didn’t like so now that kind of thing is not faithful anymore.
People generally like good things and dislike bad things without following autistic rules.
Always looks like he farts cigarettes
People are nitpicking his work because the movies are bad. Notice how Superman and Batman both killed in previous movies, but because they were good, no one gave a flying frick.
You don't even deserve a you. I just think it's hilarious you think your emperor is wearing clothes and everyone is just too dumb to see it.
Wait, I just realised something. Is Pattinson the only live-action Batman to not have killed anybody?
Did he ever do it?
He accidentally kills those goons in the movie when punching them makes them disintegrate due to the plot device machine the bad guys used to turn people into dust or whatever it was.
Ah, ok. Never saw the 66 movie.
I think at one point in the movie he fights rehydrated henchmen who were killed in one punch because of how they were re-hydrated and thus blooped out of existence with a punch. He ponders the fragility of life and moves on. More of an accidental kill though
>invoking "Not Muh" and "Dirty Casuals" at a professional level
I gotta admit, it's kinda based en gee el of him to use his remaining status just to talk like a fanboy.
Snyder needs to frick off
Can't wait for the same morons here whining about a clearly biased and cherry picked article to start clapping when Gunn's Superman to has a kill count in the dozens.
You realize that, according to every leak so far, there is no way that's happening?
I wish I lived in the Universe where Snyder got full creative control of DC for the entire run of films and shows. Like Kevin gaye but for DC
Superman 2 would've been amazing. Heck, the first Batman movie scheduled to be before Batman v Superman would've been amazing.
Snyder and Gunn can go skullfrick themselves.
I'm checking out of DC movies, games, everything from now until Gunn is gone.
I didn't like anything in Zack's DCEU movies except for Superman's fight scenes lol.
he's right in the sense fans should be more open to alternative interpretations of the characters
but the killing shit is a stupid hill to die on
its been pretty consistent for several generations that heroes don't kill
and it makes sense
Superman doesn't need to kill to stop his enemies
Batman not killing is the only thing thats stopping him from getting arrested
>fans should be more open to alternative interpretations of the characters
But they are. The movies just have to be good enough. Nolan's are very far away from comic book canon.
>But they are
Not they’re not. Fans will b***h about everything and then get BTFO when someone points out their hypocrisy and contradictory views or how they’re wrong because their narrow head canon doesn’t match actual source material.
I just want a good movie. I'm open to any interpertation of Superman as long as the content itself is good. I would've liked Man of Steel but the filmmaking and script was weird.
I'm probally the only anon here who had no idea Superman was called a "boyscout." Smallville, DCAU Superman in S2+, the animated movies...he never came off as one. I didn't know that was thing.
That's the shittiest take on Superman in my opinion, and the lamest criticism of Snyder's films.
All he needed to do is not go too far in the other direction and have him act like a self-centered "woe is me" insufferable c**t, and just make a good, coherent movie.
just retire already you talentless hack
The comicbooks are too moronic to adapt.
DC comics are so bad I'm glad most creators ignore them.
>"This comic/movie/game/show's canon is stupid. We're going to change fundamental aspects of it."
>"I don't like that."
>"Whoa, calm down, it's just a comic/movie/game/show."
>CW's version of COIE
First off, unironically have a nice day for bringing that garbage up or using it as an example to prove any kind of point.
Second, no you fricking moron. He retired because fighting Superman to the death fricked his health up. What really happened is that he became a serial killer killing his entire rogues gallery after taking his first life.
No (You) for you, have a nice day.
Why does the GOAT CHAD SNYDER always make the virgins on this board seethe?
>lifting obvious movie props
What a chad!
Post physique b***hbreasts
Can I use a body suit prop too?
>if the bar ain’t bendin you just pretendin
Gunn = skinny fat
Snyder = toned
you are a homosexual
Because he admits to not liking the established characters of the characters he was entrusted to adapt and the preceded to release lackluster movies in the brand?
Batman doesn't kill because in his mind if he does then he'll never stop and tbh, he probably wouldn't because Batman is fricking insane.
Hack Snyder doesn't understand the character and just wants to make his own.
He doesn't understand what canon is nor the comics he barely bases his fart huffing scripts on. Batman never kills in The Dark Knight Returns.
What is it about DC that attracts so many psychopaths?
Damn the anti-Snyder crowd really took an asswhooping in this thread
Go to bed Zack
This makes me wonder with all his talk of "Where's the violence? Where's the sex? Where's all the killing?" Do you think he would also glorify suicide had his daughter not died?
I really wanna know what causes someone to like Zack Snyder so much.
It's not like he makes emotionally resonant films that stick with you, is it just frat bros that wanna stick it to the nerds by liking a version of these characters that isn't silly or rooted in comic book logic?
Is it like sense of vicariousness to have an "alpha male" in charge of a nerd property and go against the studio bigwigs that wronged him?
They like his action scenes and try to justify the rest of his garbage decisions because he occassionally references religion or objectivism
Damn, this dude is desperate for attention after Rebel Moon flopped.
I don't even get how anyone can enjoy his action, a good 80 percent of it is just slo-mo shots. It's like being entertained by a screensaver.
Snyder fans are the most pretentious fricks ever who treat his films as being on the same level as actual masterpieces in cinema when they're mostly just capeshit and other kinds of slop with slightly better action scenes that mostly feel cobbled together from other movies.
Like Rebel Moon is literally just Seven Samurai with Star Wars/40K aesthetics and a fricking part that's just Gladiator for some reason.
I don't understand why he's so invested in this
>When the Gunnslop flops people will be crawlning back
This seems like a strawman. Are there people who legitimately hate his DC movies *only* because he made Batman and Superman kill?
Outside of the surprisingly sensible Justice League, I've hated all of his other movies because they're bad.
They're also all the same. Every movie in his entire oeuvre minus Man of Steel is a team-up movie. Does he think no one has noticed?
He committed the horrible mistake of making Superman emotionally distant from the audience and Batman a deranged hypocrite.
>Batman a deranged hypocrite.
To be fair, comics have been doing that for like two decades now
It is like captain hydra, certain stuff can't reach the layman.
homosexuals like this being in charge are why DC is frickin dead.
Zack's a moron, and he said moronic stuff.
No news here.
He doesn't work for them anymore, can he just frick off and become the next M Night or Ridley Scott already.
Big fricking deal. He's done making DC movies and there's a reason for that. His opinion on the matter isn't worth shit any more.
childhood is idolizing restraint
adulthood is realizing murder makes more sense
Zack Snyder's "real canon":
>less than a dozen comics from 1939 to 1940 where Batman brandishes a gun in a half-dozen panels and is okay with killing as a last resort
>Dark Knight Returns where Batman explicitly refuses to cross the line of killing the mutant leader, says guns are coward's weapons, and only debatably kills one (1) mutant who had a gun pointed at a baby's head
Snyderbros... I think I'm done with this moron.
The real canon is that Batman himself visited me in my bedroom last night and told me he loved killing.
>only told you he loved killing
Well at least he didn’t rape you like he did me when he snuck into my room
they are too busy fellating him and calling him a genius.
>DC fans are "brainwashed
Stopped reading here.
He is absolutely right.
>this thread, without even reading the responses
Why can't there be MULTIPLE canons running simultaneously?
Why can't the Snyderverse be a separate universe in the greater DC multiverse or megaverse?
Why can't the Gunnverse and Snyderverse co-exist at the same time with new projects for those verses being added?
Because while comics are allowed to have multiple continuity running simultaneously, movies must follow one strict canon always.
because movie-goers are dumber than comic nerds?
Comics are media that go full moron.
Would a Snyder movie that focused solely on the "Knightmare-verse" sequence be a good idea?
Always love seeing Batman wear a trenchcoat.
No because Snyder simpky can't make good films. He's moved on from DC and has made several totally origonal films not tied to other properties and yet they STILL suck.
What's the excuse there?
>Would a Snyder movie [...] be a good idea?
Never
What a dumb homosexual.
>Never made a good movie before JL
>Never made a good movie after JL
>His version of JL is only "good" as so far it wasn't the cut up and butchered mess Whedon edited
I know we can't be mean to him cause the whole dead daughter and WB fricking him over thing, but I will never get how he has any sort of fanbase.
I hate how Whedon shaped writing conventions for the worse, but even he was a far better writer/director who had actual decent stuff under their belt like Buffy and Firefly.
The thing is for as much as people want to say the studios messed with his project, the project itself was a studio one. He wasn't robbed of some dream passion project. Justice League was some major IP corporate money film. We was brought on, work for hire, to make a movie based on someone else's dime. There's a lot of directors and creators who got screwed out of their dream movie, he was not one of them any more than Edgar Wright was screwed out of his Ant Man. Sometimes the studio is right to tell you to shut up when it's their project.
I even liked Dollhouse when it was airing. Alpha was an amazing villain. It does feel like the hardest one to defend in hindsight though.
He wants to see Batman get raped.
Is it still rape if Joker gives him a reach-around?
I hope they sexually feed each other jolly ranchers.
Meanwhile James Gunn….
>implying any of these movies besides Superman are happening
Animated movies will continue to get made.
Simple Snyder can't make good movies. Just look at Moon Fart or whatever that stupid movie was.
Well folks it's over, guess we just got told by an expert.
Ignoring "muh canon", I don't understand how anyone could actually enjoy Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, or Snyder's Justice League. They are fricking miserable movies, full of misanthropic themes, with unlikable characters. Post-9/11 at its most extreme. We should be over that now, let's move on to something actually enjoyable.
homosexual thinks the JL is the Authority.
I'm glad more people are starting to realize that Snyder is just Michael Bay without the self awareness
>Literally a staple of Batman canon past his first run in the 30s
>"Brainwashed by material not consistent with true canon"
IS HE STUPID
It's possible but not likely he thinks only Barr Batman is "true canon."
I'd believe it.
What? The same Mike W. Barr who wrote Year Two, which specifically explains why Batman doesn't carry a gun and doesn't kill?
Zack Snyder wouldn't understand Batman if Bob Kane himself beat him with bags of money he stole from Bill Finger
If Batman wasn't following the no-kill rule then his rogues would appear only once or twice. Also it would undermine his and Superman's character as people who don't become monsters in their fight against monsters.