Should DC/WB just give up on making comic-book movies?

[Degobunny]

No objections.

Hmm...I remember you objecting to her previously. It must have been when I suggested her as Wonder Woman. I glad we agree about her being Zatanna though. I remeber the party scenes at the beginning of hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, Zooey's character had a tuxedo on for some reason. She totally looked like Zatanna with her dark bangs and blue eyes.

[Backward Galaxy]

Hmm...I remember you objecting to her previously. It must have been when I suggested her as Wonder Woman. I glad we agree about her being Zatanna though. I remeber the party scenes at the beginning of hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, Zooey's character had a tuxedo on for some reason. She totally looked like Zatanna with her dark bangs and blue eyes.

She's not an imposing figure, so I would have objected to her as Wonder Woman. Zatanna's a different character, and she fits her nicely, I think.

[BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow]

He basically called anyone who liked Man of Steel stupid. But then again me and all those who liked the film are stupid so maybe I'm getting confused.

I read it as people who want to see stupid action movies. Not stupid people.

I believe newbaggy was commenting on how Snyder thinks the movie is something more than that. And that's how I feel too. MoS is like a preachy Michael Bay movie that thinks it's more clever and intelligent than it actually is. Newbaggy also brought up the fact it's the opposite of Nolan's films (or at least TDK) which were seemingly like art masquerading as a Hollywood blockbuster.

[Backward Galaxy]

I've been a huge detractor of MoS, but I honestly believe Snyder and Goyer think they made an intelligent movie. I don't think they set out to make a crapbuster.

[newbaggy]

I read it as people who want to see stupid action movies. Not stupid people.

I believe newbaggy was commenting on how Snyder thinks the movie is something more than that. And that's how I feel too. MoS is like a preachy Michael Bay movie that thinks it's more clever and intelligent than it actually is. Newbaggy also brought up the fact it's the opposite of Nolan's films (or at least TDK) which were seemingly like art masquerading as a Hollywood blockbuster.

Just to clarify, I'm not calling that people who watch stupid action films stupid. All sorts of people watch stupid action films - and watch bad soap operas and listen to cheesy pop songs. It's hardly a crime - or if it is, then I'm as guilty as anybody else. I will still argue that smart action films are better than stupid ones, e.g. better to watch Die Hard yet again than subject yourself to A Good Day to Die Hard, but that is as much a matter of taste as it is of quality.

People have argued that criticism of the amount of - and emphasis on - fighting and destruction in Man of Steel was unfair because it was an action movie. I might not agree with the argument, but I would agree that Man of Steel is an action movie. Maybe not a very good one, but I could accept the point. My previous post was triggerred by the suggestion that Man of Steel has been unfairly criticised because Goyer and Snyder did not take a safe, creatively conservative approach. The contention was that they tried to make something that would be interesting and memorable, rather than more easily accepted - and easily forgotten - and they and the movie were unjustly treated by part of the audience as a result.

Snyder (and Goyer) can talk a good game in interviews - and may be seen as great creative talents as a result. However, I am more interested in how the movies they make turn out. Snyder might talk about preferring movies that have not been made safe and palatable by a Hollywood committee, but it does not mean that Man of Steel was the type of challenging movie that he claims to prefer. If Snyder and Goyer had taken real creative risks, only to be criticised because they refused to play safe, then the complaint that they (and the movie) had been unfairly treated might have had some validity. However, when Man of Steel appears to be the epitome of the risk-averse, by the numbers, Hollywood blockbuster, the grounds for the complaint do not exist.

[newbaggy]

I've been a huge detractor of MoS, but I honestly believe Snyder and Goyer think they made an intelligent movie. I don't think they set out to make a crapbuster.

I don't think that they - or anyone else involved - set out to make a bad movie. My view is that Snyder and Goyer lacked sufficient talent to make a good one. I can only imagine that they come over as wonderfully convincing in meetings, particularly for comic-book movies (Goyer as a comics writer, Snyder as a fanboy) and it gets them the jobs.

[Backward Galaxy]

I don't think that they - or anyone else involved - set out to make a bad movie. My view is that Snyder and Goyer lacked sufficient talent to make a good one. I can only imagine that they come over as wonderfully convincing in meetings, particularly for comic-book movies (Goyer as a comics writer, Snyder as a fanboy) and it gets them the jobs.

I don't think ANYONE sets out to knowingly make a bad movie. But I think that directors, writers, and actors are often more aware of the role they play than not. I think, for instance, directors are aware of the fact that there are movies to be made that will get them paid by big studios. I think those directors know when they are making a movie to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Perhaps they aren't intentionally making a bad movie, and want the movie to be as great as it can be, but they are making a particular kind of movie aimed at a particular audience for a specific reason and that reason isn't "artistic integrity". So, when I say "I don't think they set out to make a crapbuster", I'm not just saying that they weren't trying to make a bad movie. I'm saying that they weren't trying to make a particular kind of movie, if that makes sense.

I think Goyer and Snyder tried and failed, and perhaps don't even realize that they failed. In particular, I don't think Snyder "gets it" at all, but I happen to have a much higher opinion of his visuals than you. Also, as a wannabe writer myself, I am always more inclined to give credit to writers when something succeeds and harp on them when something fails. This is why I am particularly critical of Goyer in this case.

[DA_Champion]

When Snyder was hired the script was locked and could not be changed solely at the discretion of Snyder, so it is incorrect to blame Snyder for script issues.

We know that he changed the ending but we also know that he had to get both Nolan and Goyer to agree to that change.

[DA_Champion]

Just to clarify, I'm not calling that people who watch stupid action films stupid. All sorts of people watch stupid action films - and watch bad soap operas and listen to cheesy pop songs. It's hardly a crime - or if it is, then I'm as guilty as anybody else. I will still argue that smart action films are better than stupid ones, e.g. better to watch Die Hard yet again than subject yourself to A Good Day to Die Hard, but that is as much a matter of taste as it is of quality.

People have argued that criticism of the amount of - and emphasis on - fighting and destruction in Man of Steel was unfair because it was an action movie. I might not agree with the argument, but I would agree that Man of Steel is an action movie. Maybe not a very good one, but I could accept the point. My previous post was triggerred by the suggestion that Man of Steel has been unfairly criticised because Goyer and Snyder did not take a safe, creatively conservative approach. The contention was that they tried to make something that would be interesting and memorable, rather than more easily accepted - and easily forgotten - and they and the movie were unjustly treated by part of the audience as a result.

Snyder (and Goyer) can talk a good game in interviews - and may be seen as great creative talents as a result. However, I am more interested in how the movies they make turn out. Snyder might talk about preferring movies that have not been made safe and palatable by a Hollywood committee, but it does not mean that Man of Steel was the type of challenging movie that he claims to prefer. If Snyder and Goyer had taken real creative risks, only to be criticised because they refused to play safe, then the complaint that they (and the movie) had been unfairly treated might have had some validity. However, when Man of Steel appears to be the epitome of the risk-averse, by the numbers, Hollywood blockbuster, the grounds for the complaint do not exist.

You maintain your arrogance even after it has been explained to you why it is problematic.

I have much more respect for those who simply dislike all popcorn blockbusters. I find them more consistent and thus more honest. Here, hou are assigning depth to movies you like, such as skyfall and sherlock holmes, and denying to those you dislike. That is crass, first of all, and second of all it is an analysis completely lacking in diagnostic and explanatory power. Taking your posts as gospel would suggest that IQ is the sole determinant of whether one individual likes a movie or not. There are in fact other factors by which human beings can be distinguished from one another.

I'm not going to go over which factors of MoS made a lot of people like it. You have made up your mind: It is a stupid action movie, and it has zero artistic value. This analysis may make you feel good, bit ultimately it explains nothing and is thus of no value.

By the way, the reason Snyder and Goyer get hired is probably due to their successful track record. Snyder's movies have now grossed 1600 billion on total budgets of 600 billion.