Had to check if you had posted on April 1st there

Haha... i can see how you'd think that... i know that this is not a conventional opinion...

But i really do think that Snider is doing something that other directors are either too cowardly or too constrained to do... he's trying to make art, while others are just delivering a product...

Whether one likes it or not Batman Vs. Superman is a lot more distinctive than the other comic-book/superhero films... The cinematography alone is enough to set it apart...

@Renovatio It seems like you saw only the first half of the movie (upto the destruction of the Capitol Building). The whole latter half of the movie was a mess.

I used to be a big fan of Jack Snyder. Watchmen is my favorite comic book movie adaptation. But, with each new movie he makes my respect for Snyder is dwindling.

Watchmen was good because it copied the source material to a T. While Snyder should be commended for the choice to follow the source material with such dedication, I realized that the impact and weight of the movie does not come Snyder's role in it. The brilliance of Watchmen is a testament to the original work of art that was the graphic novel.

While other comic book based movies are just that, comic book "based". They take bits and pieces from different books in the series. Watchmen is the only true comic book "adaptation".

Giant Squid

@The Midi-chlorian Count said:

Giant Squid

Aside from that.

That change wasn't even that big if you look at that grand scheme of it. Doesn't matter who the antagonist is as long as there is some antagonist to unite against. The antagonist is a symbol.

@Geff said:

Aside from that.

That change wasn't even that big if you look at that grand scheme of it.

That's an arguably acceptable sentiment but one that surely ironically runs counter to the assertion that the "impact and weight of the movie does not come Snyder's role in it"...

@Geff said:

@Renovatio It seems like you saw only the first half of the movie (upto the destruction of the Capitol Building). The whole latter half of the movie was a mess.

I agree it was a mess... Don't get me wrong, Batman Vs. Superman is a mediocre movie, but it is one that has an authorial voice, rather than the made-by-committee movies that are usually in that genre...

I definitely think the hate for this film is wildly exaggerated, but I think "better than the rest" is also going too far. Snyder did do some impressive things, which audiences and critics don't seem to take into account, but he did do some pretty dire things too.

It does have lofty aspirations above a lot of the bland, run of the mill comic book movies that tend to get a lot of praise (I will never ever understand the appeal of the Thor films). But the CGI OTT finale was woefully tiresome, Eisenberg's Lex Luther was a hammy annoyance from a completely different film and that "Our Mother's have the same name" bit a cringey joke.

I do like the whole comparing superheros to Gods angle, but the Superman/ Christ metaphor was not invented by Snyder. Brian Singer already did this in Superman Returns.

The film is a very mixed bag, which seems to be the case with every Snyder film, with Watchmen being his only gem. And he will never be regarded as a great filmmaker until he gets over his unusual obsession with CGI.

BvS is a film I was never bored with until the end. On the whole it's worth watching, but I can think of many comic book movies that are better: Nolan's and Burton's Batman films as you already mentioned. But also Watchmen, Sam Raimi's first two Spiderman films, X-Men 2, First Class and DOFP, Captain America: Winter Soldier and Civil War, Deadpool, the first two Superman fims, Kick Ass, Scott Pilgrim, Ghost World, Persepolis and Sin City amongst others.

Curiously, another film that does exactly the same thing as BvS with regards to artistic integrity is The Hulk. A film which also suffers from the same mixed bag effect. Though I do think The Hulk is the better of the two. So I do agree with what you're saying about art in comic book movies being dismissed in favour of mainstream blandness. I don't see why the first Avengers film is regarded as great while BvS is crap, as Avengers also has many flaws, but Avengers doesn't really do anything artistic.

I think a large part of the blame does lie with audiences not willing to try and understand the deeper scope. But it also lies with filmmakers for compromising that vision.

I agree with a lot of your criticisms of BatmanVSuperman failings, especially the over-reliance on CGI... I think his imagery would have been much stronger if it was less digital... Also, the action would have certainly had more impact and have been less tiresome...

The Ang Lee version of the Hulk? I feel that he definitely left his stamp on that, the humanism and sensitivity as well as the old-school comicbook aesthetic... good call... Sam Raimi's influence is also felt in his Spiderman movies to some extent, but I don't think he took it far enough; Maybe he was constrained...

While the X-men movies are better than the average comicbook movies, I feel that they kind of blend together and suffer from the tedium that afflicts most TV series... Even the themes get a bit tired... the repetition of allegories of discrimination, acceptance of "the other", etc... This detracts from the aesthetic and creative parts of it, which aren't particularly strong... If they're reaching for something it's more political than it is sensual... certainly not spiritual or transcendent... Still, better than generic blandness...

@JustinJackFlash said:

I think a large part of the blame does lie with audiences not willing to try and understand the deeper scope. But it also lies with filmmakers for compromising that vision.

Yeah... I feel that with big hollywood studios abandoning adult dramas and cutting the budgets of genre films for over a decade we now have a generation of audiences that don't appreciate the language of cinema... They're simply saturated with generic movies and aren't exposed to enough of the art to develop their palettes... They're able to criticise (and rightly so) the weak action of BatmanVsSuperman but they're blind to the aesthetic and spiritual aspects of the film... They can't taste it...

Many of the filmmakers who want to put their stamp on their work have retreated to the indie world, TV or simply work less frequently...

I think this could change, but only if the audience demands it... if it become commercially viable to have a larger film where these creative elements are appreciated...

It was great. But not as awesome as Superman (1978) and Superman II (1980)

@Renovatio said:

The Ang Lee version of the Hulk? I feel that he definitely left his stamp on that, the humanism and sensitivity as well as the old-school comicbook aesthetic... good call... Sam Raimi's influence is also felt in his Spiderman movies to some extent, but I don't think he took it far enough; Maybe he was constrained...

Yes, I really like The Hulk despite it's flaws. I think the amount of his style Sam Raimi put into Spiderman was exactly the right amount for the material. This was a film that showed people how comic book movies were supposed to be made after they'd been doing them so badly for so long. Batman and Robin, Judge Dredd, Spawn, etc. It's the film that, for better or worse, inspired the comic book wave we are currently in. It had a naive, innocence to it which reflected the 60's roots of the comic combined with Raimi's already cartoonish filmmaking style.

Yeah... I feel that with big hollywood studios abandoning adult dramas and cutting the budgets of genre films for over a decade we now have a generation of audiences that don't appreciate the language of cinema... They're simply saturated with generic movies and aren't exposed to enough of the art to develop their palettes... They're able to criticise (and rightly so) the weak action of BatmanVsSuperman but they're blind to the aesthetic and spiritual aspects of the film... They can't taste it...

I don't think it's so bad today. In fact I think it's quite good. We get blockbusters like Inception. Which we never would have got back in the 90s. And we do still get plenty of good smaller films. The bonus is we get good tv too. Yes, there are a lot of faults with both films and audiences. But you had many problems in the 90s too.

Many of today's blockbusters may be superhero flavoured, but the overall quality is a lot better than when I was younger. Back then the very best we got in blockbuster season were things like Independence Day. Fun, but pretty empty. And the bad films were many every single summer. Godzilla, Batman and Robin, Charlie's Angels, Lost in Space. Yes we had great indie cinema back then with Tarantino and the like. But we still get it today. People like Richard Linklater are still making the same type of films today as they were back then. I feel cinema is improving and will continue to improve. But in the future, just as in the present and past, there will always be bad points and people who say things used to be a lot better. There will always be things to celebrate and to condemn. While audiences were the same mixed bag back then as they are today.