Are critics biased against Snyder?

Are critics biased against Uwe Ball?

user, don't search for new new Ghostbusters score.

pretty hard to do since the new new Ghostbusters movie isn't out until next summer

>I only browse Yea Forums
go to any comic or movie forum and you will see there is a bunch of Snyder fanatics defending his DCEU movies everyday.

He's like, Jesus man.

His fights are terrible and so are his casting choices.

Could Steven redeem Snyder?

Critics are biased against subtlety.

The audiences were biased too then if you go by the box office snydercuck

Laddercuck pls. I know your a dumb retard, but please don't be such a pleb

They are just shitty movies. Next year you had Logan so no biase against capeshit that attempst to be a bit more mature either.
>Everyone keeps forgetting Ayer
Top keki.

I just like to pretend the movie was more like that one scene where he learns to fly.

Critics are biased against bad movies user. So yes, you're goddamn right they're biased against Snyder.

Snyder has a of subliminal right wing messages in his films. So of course the WOKE film critics are going to loath whatever he does.

>Snyder has a of subliminal right wing messages
BvS had blatant "fuck drumpf" and other conservative groups message by portraying anti illegal immigration people in a bad light, you can clearly see what posters are those based from irl.

Attached: image32[1].jpg (1153x1011, 198K)

Man of Steel got scrutinized too much. People were actually surprised an alien invasion led to the destruction of a city. But nobody likes to point out that Metropolis was destroyed while Superman was fighting the world engine on the other side of the planet.

We had two long trailers promising a return to hopeful, uplifting Superman in the old style, that had people pumped, right at the kickoff of a wave of cape movie enthusiasm. People were ready to forgive WB for Returns' morose Superman.

What everyone got in theaters was pretentious, heavy-handed psuedo-morality, doubling-down on the morose shit, terrible pacing and flashbacks, and a movie that genuinely entertained for about 15 minutes but felt 3 hours long. Attendance collapsed after that first stellar weekend, and a film that seemed headed to a billion came nowhere close.

What's amazing is that Snyder was able to shake off this misfire and get an even more ambitious and expensive follow up, have THAT underperform badly, and get yet a THIRD swing before being yanked off of it.

Attached: Superman is super upset.jpg (784x350, 50K)

>Aquaman/WW/Shazam
READ THE FUCKING COMICS AND UNDERSTAND THE GOODDAM CHARACTER

>Snyder
>"search "what are the best superman/batman comics out there"
>dude Superman/Batman canon is the elseworld one LMAO

Attached: supermanrooftop[1].jpg (1000x1605, 365K)

>People were actually surprised an alien invasion led to the destruction of a city.
No one was surprised by the alien devastation.
People were stunned that he stood and let one of his parents die pointlessly, that he wasted a good chunk of his life and potential as a drifter, that he had to ask advice on whether saving the Earth was a good idea, and his seemingly casual disregard for the destruction that went on around him.

I compare MoS to Avengers 2. They're flawed movies but still had some good to them but got shit on way too much. I didn't like Superman being so serious as much as I didn't like how Whedon handled Ultron but I still had some enjoyment watching the films. People wanted a perfect Superman movie but it was obvious DC wanted to try something drastically different since Returns went the other way and turned out even worse. I'd rather criticize the other poor choices in the film such as the tornado scene rather than say "not my Superman."

I'd rather read any version of Shazam but Johns. But that's just me. I really, really do not like Johns' Shazam.

>it was obvious DC wanted to try something drastically different since Returns went the other way
Man of Steel and BvS are more similar to Superman Returns than any other Superman projects DC has put out, not counting Evil Superman Elseworlds.

The whole Pa Kent arc was flawed in that they went about it wrong. From the trailer people were mad because he said "maybe" but he was showing doubt as he weighed the lives of children with his own son's. He knew what would happen if the government found out about Clark. He didn't want his son to be taken away. Like most anons have said, having him get a heart attack or framing his death better would done a lot of good for how it played out. Snyder wanted to make a flawed Superman and had him drift about, kind of reminded me of Bruce doing the same in Batman Begins. And he didn't have a casual disregard for the destruction, he was fighting a group of hellbent invaders that had his power. Every time he took his eyes off Zod he got beat down, including the time he flew up into space.

Returns is almost certainly the opposite. The movie where Superman never throws a punch and infamously apes the Donner films right down to Lex's motivation.

Zacks biggest problem is that he pulls from elseworlds stories instead the main continuity.

I think they're biased against bad directors

no they're biased against fucking garbage

>samefagging

He thought he was good enough to make people forget about muh Donner for long enough to give his vision a chance, he was wrong.

It might have been okay, but it wasn't nearly good enough for that. Hubris.

It's another depressed, hesitant, uncharismatic Superman.
Throwing punches is the LEAST important aspect of the character, the CGI artists can handle that shit just fine.

Neither Routh nor Cavill pulled off the character(s) of Clark and Supes.
Cavill i blandly attractive, I'll give him that, he looks like Superman (at least in MoS). But he's a huge nothing as Clark Kent, and he has little charisma as Superman. Actors who've looked far less the part have done a lot more with the role.

I address this now because this discussion always devolves into vaguely homo Cavill-worship. He's a handsome guy who's not an asshole. Hollywood has busloads of them.

Attached: Clark Kent.jpg (500x527, 86K)

Oh and the irony of matching against Older Affleck, an "actor" who's spent his entire career being blandly attractive and boring in films you've otherwise enjoyed.
WB went wrong right away by going with attractive non-talent instead of engaging actors.
Don't even get me started on that mannekin Gadot with her practiced "expressions".

Attached: Affleck.jpg (2048x1358, 206K)

What right-wing messages?

At least returns got a couple of scenes where Superman acts like Superman

MoS got nothing, the only scene on DCEU where Superman act anything like the comics is one of Whedon reshoots at Justice League.

Chris Hemsworth, of all people, nails his superhero role better than most anyone in the DCEU, certainly the Big 3.
Mamoa comes out as the most popular DCEU character (rivaled only by Harley) because he is absolutely doing a Chris Hemsworth homage as Aquaman.
Everyone is eager to forget Batfleck and move on, no one looks forward to more Superman, and I have serious reservations about Gadot's ability to dramatically carry a movie without Pine talking over her. But wait, WB apparently thought of that too.

Attached: Batfleck3.jpg (852x479, 70K)

>We had two long trailers promising a return to hopeful, uplifting Superman in the old style, that had people pumped, right at the kickoff of a wave of cape movie enthusiasm. People were ready to forgive WB for Returns' morose Superman.

The trailers had a dreary color palette., more Clark and Pa telling him he's got to decide what man he's going to be, WHETHER GOOD OR BAD. How were people fooled?

>Jor-El : You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.

He's clearly describing Superman as a paragon of virtue that will inspire people to be better.

They basically threw the Kents under the bus in favor of God the Father Jor-El, when it's the Kents who Clark gets his morality from

Yeah, it's weird, in the comics his biological parents only want him to survive and be happy while his foster parents teach him to be a hero.

Snyder changed it for no fucking reason making his whole origin lose any logic.

Marvel:
>Let us take risks but be tentative and build slowly.
>Mediocre plots/villains are fine as long as we nail the main character and have jovial tone.
>Few missteps, let us course correct.
>Build up to team up.
>Success!
>Let us create riskier projects like GotG with different creative teams.
>Let us try more genre films in our universe, like a spy thriller.
>We now have a brand which = you will see an enjoyable popcorn flick.

DC:
>Marvel are picking up some steam now.
>*Endless talk about retroactively making Christian Bale Batman into a DC universe*
>Makes a Green Lantern movie with characters like Amanda Waller for potential build up of a universe and even have a midcredits scene.
>Movie is CGI mess and flop and wrong choice to start a universe.
>Scratch that, let us do a Superman film.
>Zack Synder gets people talking and that is what we need.
>Makes a completely polarising film that is still argued about to this day.
>Film is just so confusing in tone and what it is meant to be.
>Throw in Batman/Wonder Woman to the mix.
>Even more confusing mess.
>Make a Suicide Squad movie with about 16 different cuts (everywhere from more serious/edgy to more jovial).
>Suicide Squad pleases NO ONE.
>Wonder Woman is a passable blockbuster and lighter in tone (despite the bad colour palette).
>Try and course correct with Justice League 3/4 of the way through the movie.
>No real build up to it, it is just HERE.
>More awful CGI, bad villain but more importantly: characters are mostly shit and they can't pick a tone.
>Aquaman and Shazam are serviceable blockbusters and make enough money to not just start from scratch.
>Now we are getting a fucking bizarre slate of DC films.

Yes.
Also yes.

Attached: 1537302458772.jpg (1200x800, 176K)

Is it really the characters that really define a movie regardless of it's quality? Why did Captain Marvel made 1 billion in the box office and Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse flopped then?

Actually, how did Wonder Woman did the ''strong female character'' trope just fine? It amazes me how I enjoyed Wonder Woman despite being as forgettable as Captain Marvel

Attached: Load_Screen_Wonder_Woman.jpg (1920x1200, 345K)

>Is it really the characters that really define a movie regardless of it's quality?
Look at the Iron Man film. The plot is kinda forgettable and takes a backstep. But RDJ encapsulated the character for people. The sequels were similar. They made a heck of a lot of money. The tone + characters works well for them. DC have tried to copy the tone by making their latest films more fun.

>Why did Captain Marvel made 1 billion in the box office
Because they have built up a brand that people trust. So now even their more mediocre movies make money. Steady build up and slow course correction is better than constantly taking u-turns.

>It amazes me how I enjoyed Wonder Woman despite being as forgettable as Captain Marvel
Wonder Woman had a similar jovial theme to the "fish out of water" Thor stuff. Captain Marvel couldn't decide on a character. Is she an arrogant quip powerhouse? Is she a mystery box? Is she humble? Is she serious? Is she funny? They kinda threw everything in there.

because marvel established itself as a consistent ip at that point plus muh wahmen and sony had held down spider-man and fucked it in the spider-ass 3 times prior. as far as wonder woman goes, she didn't try to tear down the male forces in her movie in order to make herself look better and stronger. she held them in respect, especially chris pine. so when wonder woman does something cool, it doesn't come at the expense of what should be competent characters, unlike captain marvel which fucks nick fury's character and breaks a man's arm for a motorcycle like she's the fucking terminator.

Man of Steel is the second-worst Superman film ever made.

why are all the picket signs facing towards the camera instead of the white house?

who directed this schlock?

No. He fucking sucks and almost tanked DC completely

And still less enjoyable to watch than quest for peace

Because Diana and her supporting cast are likeable! Unlike Captain Marvel

>Man of Steel got scrutinized too much.
It didn't get scrutinized enough. The fact that people still defend that garbage is proof enough.

The film is a confusing mess of tone:
>What does Clark travelling the world mean if the montage is pathetic shit (destroying someone's lorry for sexually harassing a waiter) or meaningless CGI (saving the oil rig).
>How to you endear planet Earth to Superman if the first threat he faces is literally the evil version of himself (Zod etc)?
>What was the point of his parents when they were so confusing and vague about what they wanted for him? You don't owe people anything eh?
>Why do that dark and shitty washed out colour palette?
>Why bother making him a reporter at the end with no set up?
>Why have loads of short and choppy scenes?
>Why give Superman no charisma and make him a boring damp squib?
>CLARK BY A STAINED GLASS WINDOW. SYMBOLISM.

Who is Clark Kent? I don't know. We barely see him. Who is Superman? I dunno. It was a confusing mess. It was like seeing someone reluctantly sorta save the day at the end. I suppose I have to do it then? All the big lines "But in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal" were trailer bait with no meaning.

I am not salty that they decided to do a different take of Superman. I am salty that they mucked up the film. It was a CGI spectacle. At least when Marvel make a CGI spectacle mess, you have characters to root for and are invested.

Attached: images.jpg (347x145, 8K)

Even Teen Titans Go to the movies was fresh

>It was like seeing someone reluctantly sorta save the day at the end. I suppose I have to do it then?
This bothered me, it felt like the movie failed to give Superman a choice, Zod was going to kill him no matter what, he could try to fly away but not leave the solar system without dying. He had no choice at all, Earth being at risk was his fault yet he only did something when there was nowhere to run, he was fighting for his own life.

It felt like this Superman was not supposed to be a hero at all.

>It felt like this Superman was not supposed to be a hero at all.
Zack Snyder wanted to do a Superman in the "real world". Which could have been really interesting. Unfortunately, it does come across as him not wanting to be a hero at all.

He messed up the execution of his concept.

Are Snyderfags still a thing? It feels like they disappeared after Aquaman.

>Are Snyderfags still a thing? It feels like they disappeared after Aquaman.
They still exist.

>Using rotten tomatos

Yes, they hate him because they are jealous of his ability to compare anything to something in the bible.

Just like the Snyder Cut

Snyder is biased against quality filmmaking.

RT is fine. The issue is people think it is indicative of quality. Using sites to read reviews and seeing some kind of average is fine. Taking those reviews as irrefutable evidence of something is not.

I think the mark for rotten should be 50%. There's only a 15% difference between fresh and certified fresh right now. The whole grading system is messed up

>Todd Phillips can win a Golden Lion
>Zack Snyder only ever wins razzies
I'm sure Snyder was totally responsible for Joker though, as usual according to Snyderfags

The problem isn't he pulls from Elseworlds stories, the problem is he pulls only the surface elements from them and uses them in the worst way possible.

>Why did Captain Marvel made 1 billion in the box office and Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse flopped then?
Because even if an animated film is fantastic most adults see it as kiddie shit and it won't make as much money as regular blockbusters unless it relentlessly appeals to kids.