This man gets it

yep. agree wholeheartedly. very Nietzchean and I appreciate that. I believe it’s why his films always age better, asks deep existential questions. also grounding many of the films with the relationship with parents is another timeless theme most people can relate to. it has more heart and weight.

Funny thing is I remember bringing this up a while back and some posters were saying if he was exploring Supes like Dr M he shouldn’t have made Superman films at all and that baffled me since the philosophy underpinning Superman is much more interesting to explore than the boy scout Supes we’ve been accustomed to. although I know he was working to that point eventually.

nneed grey edition now

my g

The way people went from Superman is boring overpowered Boy Scout to that’s not my Supes and Snyder doesn’t understand Supes when seeing his alternative take on the character in MoS will never not be ironic.

Snyder turning Cyborg into a god needs to be talked about more.

facts. I've heard people complain about MoS third act for that reason too many times lol

If you have the time maybe throw on Watchmen: Directors Cut before those.

nigga there's a director's cut for Watchmen??

You haven’t heard about it?

There’s a Directors Cut AND an Ultimate Cut

They killed me on KTT1 for pointing this out lmao

nah WTF lmaoooooo which one you recommend

I’ve only seen the Directors Cut but the Ultimate Cut is that + the Tales of the Black Freighter animated film spliced in. Replicates the structure of the comic much more

Directors Cut is great tho

It’s just weird when they don’t a***yse Snyder’s take on Supes within that framework. Like it’s fine to disagree with his interpretation but it’s weird to constantly hold him to the previous representations when that’s not what Snyder was going for, at least during these films.

I imagine it would’ve been much easier to have characters with a blank slate to write for like Marvel did with most of their characters. At least the critics would have to engage with it a bit more substantively rather than using old representations as a crutch.

can we petition to get the director’s cut released on 4k. Legit don’t want to cop the ultimate edition and the bluray hasn’t aged well.

Yeah and the Ultimate Cut. Directors Cut is the best one but Ultimate is worth a watch sometime for curiosity. It includes an animated short broken up into it but it doesn’t really work as a film in the same way as the Directors Cut.

Walk me through exactly how he deconstructs these characters please. I see how Moore does but I don't see it here.

I didn’t say he deconstructed them in Justice League. I said he did in Man of Steel and BvS. JL is where he builds them back up.

WB were so shook of the MCU, they wanted their movies to be exactly like the MCU..

But what they failed to realize is, what made the MCU successful isnt the "silly humor", but the fact that its a very well structured franchise with people that actually care about their characters behind it.

WB just wanted fast money

Maybe superman (can't remember s*** about Aquaman or wonder woman) but bvs batman seemed pretty straightforward. Would still like to hear your explanation.

“BvS opens in auto-critique of it's predecessor's finale before shifting into a relentless mode of construction, creating a sense of a modern-day "palace intrigue," something mitigated by Snyder re-applying the magnificent world building of Man of Steel to, essentially, the world as-it-is, in BVS. The lure of the film lies here: through this maneuver which basically places comic-book characters into a kind of simulacra of reality (the opposite of the Nolan approach, actually, which is to create a comic book simulacra of normality) which naturally ends up identifying the weaker planks of a socio-political system - something only pointed towards in Man of Steel (the simultaneously poetic and ironic imagery of Superman turning himself in, walking down halls in handcuffs) but expanded upon here in ways to an extent that I could have never expected. It's also perhaps a reason why this was so viscerally reacted against back in 2016, this idea of placing the seemingly transcendentally superhuman within such a dour reality. Unlike its predecessor, the film takes place entirely in "the world as it is" - a vast political theatre so outmoded, with planks so obvious, that it can so easily be manipulated by a corporate figure. In fact, even if Lex didn't actually win in the end, it would still be a complete deux-ex machina, because superheroes don't actually exist. Nearly the entire film - literally until Batman nearly kills Superman - takes place within Lex's theatre of normality. It's no surprise then that BVS can get to the heart of this alienation.

Batman himself is the vision of the world as it is, Superman is the vision of the world as it could be - even as heroes find themselves at last. People mocked the finale initially - even with its remarkable visual beauty - as being like Snyder crashing action figures together. But that's essentially what it is, with superheroes at last in this film taking their rightful place. We at last see the iconography, the statues, the toys, in action - the climax becomes a beautiful play of figurines, and one can see how much a deconstruction is necessary in order to understand why we create these superhuman, mythological figures in the first place. So as such, it's actually quite moving to see Superman's eventual death, because it reflects a world so horrible that martyr's are still necessary, even with the toys you played with as a child.” - Neil Bahadur

I think he delved into it much better then I ever could.

For the full review
letterboxd.com/neilbahadur/film/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice/4

Wait what happened