Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 13, 2016 11:44:23 GMT -5
When it comes to DC comics movies Snyder is this eras Joel Schumacher: Style over substance, more interested in cgi landscapes and unrealistic worlds, fascination with the exaggerated male form, over the top villians, almost fetishistic costuming, garish use of cgi, cartoonish action with little consideration for real world consequences, tonal flaws, thin on story and character etc. Both were brought in by WB to right the ship because they'd do it their way. Both made first films that were the better received of their two and made a bigger profit. They doubled down and over indulged in certain things from the first film that really ruined the second film. BvS is no B&R level of disaster but you can see the same line of thinking that hurt both.
The differences are Schumacher could make a broader variety of films that were good, his batman movies had cohesive competently put together stories, and his batman movies were more kid friendly. But Snyder still falls into so many of the same traps Schumacher did just at the other end of the spectrum in some ways. It's hard to picture Snyder knowing what the heck to do with a movie like Falling Down or Lost Boys or Time To Kill. Looking at Schumachers darker films I think he had it in him to make better Batman films but like Snyder his view of the material was way off the mark.
Turning Batman into some dayglow defender is a tough nut to crack. Much like turning Superman into a grim guardian is equally hard to pull off.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 13, 2016 14:10:28 GMT -5
Most of the old members like or loved it which surprised me. Thought I'd be the one defending it and most of them would hate it. Good for them though, if they enjoyed it that's all that counts in the end. At least Affleck's officially getting his solo Batman film. That has fantastic potential I have no problems at all with people who have giantly different opinions on a movie than me- One of my best friends is the complete opposite of me when discussing films, and he'll make some interesting points that get me to take a second look, but that's because of the way that he expresses his thoughts on a film- it's never attacking or belittling while having one's own opinion. At its best, that's what I like about the forum. Provoking thought outside the box- Being able to have completely differing feelings and ideas about a movie, not ganging up or trying to undermine another person's judgement. As long as a post goes in the spirit of that, it's enjoyable to discuss and reply- even if I don't agree (or vice-versa).
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 13, 2016 14:16:00 GMT -5
When it comes to DC comics movies Snyder is this eras Joel Schumacher: Style over substance, more interested in cgi landscapes and unrealistic worlds, fascination with the exaggerated male form, over the top villians, almost fetishistic costuming, garish use of cgi, cartoonish action with little consideration for real world consequences, tonal flaws, thin on story and character etc. Both were brought in by WB to right the ship because they'd do it their way. Both made first films that were the better received of their two and made a bigger profit. They doubled down and over indulged in certain things from the first film that really ruined the second film. BvS is no B&R level of disaster but you can see the same line of thinking that hurt both. The differences are Schumacher could make a broader variety of films that were good, his batman movies had cohesive competently put together stories, and his batman movies were more kid friendly. But Snyder still falls into so many of the same traps Schumacher did just at the other end of the spectrum in some ways. It's hard to picture Snyder knowing what the heck to do with a movie like Falling Down or Lost Boys or Time To Kill. Looking at Schumachers darker films I think he had it in him to make better Batman films but like Snyder his view of the material was way off the mark. Turning Batman into some dayglow defender is a tough nut to crack. Much like turning Superman into a grim guardian is equally hard to pull off. It's a good point. What's sad/scary is when there's genuine passion (and I do think Snyder actually does have passion for comics, otherwise he wouldn't have gone to bat for the least commercial property ever in bringing Watchmen to the movies)- but big incompetence in certain areas that he/she can't see or acknowledge (and maybe even if he/she did, doesn't meant that they'd know how to fix it). My issue with much of Snyder's work are the dramatic scenes that aren't quite believable or don't reach that level of believability because of either the performance or the script, or both. Good example is the difference between Daredevil Season 1 and 2- To me, #1 was pitch perfect.... season 2 fell flat over and over again because of scripts that had a nice blueprint, but scene after scene many of the episodes felt like forced conflicts that weren't credible (or the scripts didn't make them credible enough to me). With BvS, I thought the dramatic scenes for the most part were fine- (even if I still cringe at Jimmy and Jenny Olsen's bits)- though I'm of course hoping the extended is better.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 13, 2016 15:25:36 GMT -5
When it comes to DC comics movies Snyder is this eras Joel Schumacher: Style over substance, more interested in cgi landscapes and unrealistic worlds, fascination with the exaggerated male form, over the top villians, almost fetishistic costuming, garish use of cgi, cartoonish action with little consideration for real world consequences, tonal flaws, thin on story and character etc. Both were brought in by WB to right the ship because they'd do it their way. Both made first films that were the better received of their two and made a bigger profit. They doubled down and over indulged in certain things from the first film that really ruined the second film. BvS is no B&R level of disaster but you can see the same line of thinking that hurt both. The differences are Schumacher could make a broader variety of films that were good, his batman movies had cohesive competently put together stories, and his batman movies were more kid friendly. But Snyder still falls into so many of the same traps Schumacher did just at the other end of the spectrum in some ways. It's hard to picture Snyder knowing what the heck to do with a movie like Falling Down or Lost Boys or Time To Kill. Looking at Schumachers darker films I think he had it in him to make better Batman films but like Snyder his view of the material was way off the mark. Turning Batman into some dayglow defender is a tough nut to crack. Much like turning Superman into a grim guardian is equally hard to pull off. It's a good point. What's sad/scary is when there's genuine passion (and I do think Snyder actually does have passion for comics, otherwise he wouldn't have gone to bat for the least commercial property ever in bringing Watchmen to the movies)- but big incompetence in certain areas that he/she can't see or acknowledge (and maybe even if he/she did, doesn't meant that they'd know how to fix it). My issue with much of Snyder's work are the dramatic scenes that aren't quite believable or don't reach that level of believability because of either the performance or the script, or both. Good example is the difference between Daredevil Season 1 and 2- To me, #1 was pitch perfect.... season 2 fell flat over and over again because of scripts that had a nice blueprint, but scene after scene many of the episodes felt like forced conflicts that weren't credible (or the scripts didn't make them credible enough to me). With BvS, I thought the dramatic scenes for the most part were fine- (even if I still cringe at Jimmy and Jenny Olsen's bits)- though I'm of course hoping the extended is better. Oh yeah I think he's a fan. Much like Schumacher was a fan. But I question both their judgement. With Schumacher I questioned his approach and his bar for quality writing and story with this material. Same with Snyder. Snyders not a Lester who looks down his nose at comic books as a joke but he does take the most superficial things from comic books and makes them top priority. I think you nailed the issue though, CAM. I genuinly don't think Snyder SEES the issues or his own faults as a filmmaker (or he doesn't care to). It's like he grudgingly put in the dialogue about that part of the city being empty at the end of BVS. But...the massive destruction and death wasn't the problem with the ending of MOS. Snyder either can't or won't see that and deflects it by acting like it was. Trying to use the Force Awakens scenes of destruction as proof of some double standard was just idiotic. I think Snyder just wanted to do the huge cool destructive action scenes and dealt with the logistics of it all as an afterthought. That's how we got the hollow video game destruction at the end of MOS. The thing that bugs me about Jimmy is Snyder said he had no room for Jimmy. Ok I get that. I understand that. I'm ok with that. Then don't use him. But he does have room for that Jenny Jurwitch character? Huh? Doesn't make any sense. Just give Jimmy Jenny's role or don't use him! Problem solved. I think Jimmy is just one of those aspects of the Superman canon that Snyder doesn't like. That's the only way the characters treatment makes sense. As for Daredevil I think the change in show runners might be responsible for the lesser season 2.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Apr 13, 2016 15:30:29 GMT -5
Jenny was an important character in MoS.
Who else could have announced it was coming in on the RSS feeds?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 13, 2016 15:33:17 GMT -5
Lol.
For some reason she's back in BvS too. I would have rather had Lombard back. At least he contributed to the movie beyond being a plot device.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 13, 2016 17:59:35 GMT -5
Lol. For some reason she's back in BvS too. I would have rather had Lombard back. At least he contributed to the movie beyond being a plot device. Lombard seemed miscast in MOS... until Snyder pointed out it was one of his buddies, so he cast him. (Ugh)
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 13, 2016 18:26:48 GMT -5
He wasn't miscast. Snyder just didn't know how to direct him and the script was useless. He was one of the best things in Snyders Dawn of the Dead and if he'd played it like that he would have been perfect.
|
|
|
Post by doomsday1 on Apr 14, 2016 7:21:10 GMT -5
MoS isn't anything like STM
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,768
|
Post by atp on Apr 14, 2016 8:37:11 GMT -5
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 14, 2016 10:05:59 GMT -5
MoS isn't anything like STM I think I get what ATP is saying. You're right that tonally it isn't anything like STM but when you get right down to it MOS is basically a remake of STM and SII with a Dark Knight paintjob and Batman Begins story structure. Not so much because it's an origin but because it uses so many of the same elements STM and SII did when it didn't have to. The death of Jonathan Kent when Clark is about 15 or 16 (which isn't an absolute in every continuity), the use of the S as a symbol for something else (an idea Brando came up with), certain bits of dialogue from STM being reworked, the choice of Zod as the villian along with Faora and Namek (I get using Kryptonians since it makes it easier to explain it all but using those three specifically is a direct callback to STM and SII), Clark putting his costume on in a Kryptonian environment for the first time instead of his mom making it for him (in STM it's a little ambiguous but I lean towards Jor-el giving it to him), making his debut as a hero around 30 (the Jesus metaphor continues from STM), Jor-El existing as a continually functioning AI instead of a recorded message from Clarks ship, the scene with the trucker in the diner from SII and Clark getting payback being sort of reused in MOS, metropolis being ground zero for the fight between Kryptonians, etc etc. There's more. All Supermans origin stories are similar but there's a lot of little things from MOS that make it look like he just followed the outline of Donners two films but just moved some scenes around to make them flashbacks. The use of Zod and the hate continuing on from Jor El is the most darning thing. Out of all the Kryptonian criminals they coukd have used (STAS made it Jax-Ur with some Zod elements) they picked Zod. They picked Zod because Superman I and II made hm more famous. When most people think of Zod they don't think of the comics they think of Donners films. Singer did the same thing with SR. different story but the structure and elements of it are the same. It seems like we are seeing that a lot with this generation of filmmakers. Singers even done it with X-Men. X2 is a great film but it seems like it copies a lot from Star Trek 2s story structure. JJ Abrams did it again with Into Darkness. Raimis Spider-man films follow the series of events from the first three Superman films very closely. Movies have been doing this forever but it seems like now it's done far less creatively.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 14, 2016 10:43:52 GMT -5
It's a good point. What's sad/scary is when there's genuine passion (and I do think Snyder actually does have passion for comics, otherwise he wouldn't have gone to bat for the least commercial property ever in bringing Watchmen to the movies)- but big incompetence in certain areas that he/she can't see or acknowledge (and maybe even if he/she did, doesn't meant that they'd know how to fix it). My issue with much of Snyder's work are the dramatic scenes that aren't quite believable or don't reach that level of believability because of either the performance or the script, or both. Good example is the difference between Daredevil Season 1 and 2- To me, #1 was pitch perfect.... season 2 fell flat over and over again because of scripts that had a nice blueprint, but scene after scene many of the episodes felt like forced conflicts that weren't credible (or the scripts didn't make them credible enough to me). With BvS, I thought the dramatic scenes for the most part were fine- (even if I still cringe at Jimmy and Jenny Olsen's bits)- though I'm of course hoping the extended is better. Oh yeah I think he's a fan. Much like Schumacher was a fan. But I question both their judgement. With Schumacher I questioned his approach and his bar for quality writing and story with this material. Same with Snyder. Snyders not a Lester who looks down his nose at comic books as a joke but he does take the most superficial things from comic books and makes them top priority. I think you nailed the issue though, CAM. I genuinly don't think Snyder SEES the issues or his own faults as a filmmaker (or he doesn't care to). It's like he grudgingly put in the dialogue about that part of the city being empty at the end of BVS. But...the massive destruction and death wasn't the problem with the ending of MOS. Snyder either can't or won't see that and deflects it by acting like it was. Trying to use the Force Awakens scenes of destruction as proof of some double standard was just idiotic. I think Snyder just wanted to do the huge cool destructive action scenes and dealt with the logistics of it all as an afterthought. That's how we got the hollow video game destruction at the end of MOS. The thing that bugs me about Jimmy is Snyder said he had no room for Jimmy. Ok I get that. I understand that. I'm ok with that. Then don't use him. But he does have room for that Jenny Jurwitch character? Huh? Doesn't make any sense. Just give Jimmy Jenny's role or don't use him! Problem solved. I think Jimmy is just one of those aspects of the Superman canon that Snyder doesn't like. That's the only way the characters treatment makes sense. As for Daredevil I think the change in show runners might be responsible for the lesser season 2. Perhaps - much like the casting of Lombard= the actress playing Jenny is also a friend and needed work? Grrr...
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 14, 2016 10:47:46 GMT -5
She was just worthless though. The character. A plot device in MOS and a glorified extra in BvS.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 14, 2016 10:54:23 GMT -5
She was just worthless though. The character. A plot device in MOS and a glorified extra in BvS. Agreed. I imagine Snyder thought the audience was supposed to connect to her, but I can't find anyone raving about her character.
|
|
|
Post by doomsday1 on Apr 15, 2016 9:53:52 GMT -5
Yeah both STM and MOS go over the origins and the usual stuff again but they don't share any real similarities outwith that.
One's about a warm charming alien who reveals himself to the adulation of everyone where he then foils Luthor in a land development scheme. The other is about the idea that the alien wouldn't be accepted and viewed as a threat and the films about his emotional battle with this all the while attempting to defeat the surviving kryptonians who were locked in the phantom zone. Yeah they touch on a lone of the same things and feature the same characters because they're Superman films, but that's where it ends.
By the way I enjoyed MOS a lot more than BvS, purely on the basis it's a more focussed story and at least you get a couple of cool 'classic Superman' moments. Doubling down in the mopey man crap in BvS just made it much harder to enjoy for me. If I wasn't a huge Superman fan I think I'd have really liked BvS much more.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 15, 2016 11:21:54 GMT -5
Just because it's remaking those movies doesn't mean they can't add something new. Thats like saying the new Robocop isn't a remake because they approach the character differently or that the new Total Recall isn't a remake because Cohagens goals are different. I agree that you're right in saying tonally they are very different. But STM/SII and MOS cover the origin in specific ways that no other versions did. There's no Zod in Superman the animated series or Lois & Clark or TAOS origins. Jonathan Kent doesn't die in L&C or STAS. Most versions don't begin with Zod and the members of his coup attempt being sentenced to the phantom zone (whose entrance is once again represented by a basic shaped device floating in space and not a projector like the comics). There's a bunch of stuff like that. Faora IS Ursa. Ursa was based on comic book Faora right down the the martial arts they had actresses do in the screen tests and the hatred of men. The conflict of Superman following his Kryptonian father or his human father (something STM really pushed first). It's obvious Goyer and Snyder took the basic story we saw more from STM and SII instead of the comics. They just added comic elements. But so much of the framework is Donners films just swapped around with Batman Begins style flashbacks. MOST comic book movies owe their structure to STM. it's not like it's a new thing or that Snyder was the first to do it. Lois & Clarks pilot also covers Supermans origins but that's an example of where you can't call it a remake because unlike MOS it's structured in a way that IS very different. Here's another one: in John Byrnes MOS mini series (which every adaptation after followed to some degree) Jor El isnt some interactive artificial intelligence. He's a recording. Snyders movie took that from Donners. Then there's Crowes "they will join you in the sun" speech vs Brando's "they only lack the light to show the way". The wording is from Mark Waids own Birthright story I think I but it's obvious that both were inspired by Brando's words. Waids said how much of a huge influence Donners Superman was on his Superman. If it was a couple of things you could just call it homages but the structure and series of events in Supermans life is rehashed from Donners movies. Some of it is just cut up and put in different spots trying to ape Batman Begins. What you're talking about is the focus. That's changed. Snyder focuses much more on Clark as an outsider and something that could be feared. But that doesn't mean it's not a remake. There's more than enough evidence there that if they wanted to call it a remake they could. Donner and Snyder covered so much of the same specific ground that most other versions don't. Goyers never been the most original guy. You watch or read enough of his stuff and you'll figure out exactly how he does things. I love Blade but it's obvious that movie owes a lot to things like Vampire Hunter D and The Crow. Anyone thinking he crafted MOS story from reading a few comics is giving him far to much credit. He didn't even follow Zods uprising from the comics. It's pure Donner. I've always felt that if Snyder and Goyer wanted to present their own take on Supermans origin they should have really tackled stuff that hadn't been done before. STAS was smart to use brainiac and Jax ur as the main enemies from krypton so it could build its own identity. Taking inspiration from Geoff Johns revised Brainiac would have been a great way to kick off a new superman film. Sub brainiac and his ship invading earth for Zod and his ship invading earth.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 15, 2016 11:54:12 GMT -5
Doomsday, I think you're right on BvS on your first instincts. If anything being a fan makes some things easier to get into. A non fan is going to have no idea what's going on when Flash jumps through a timehole looking like a future hobo babbling on about being right about him.
The movie fails in assuming everyone knows about certain things. Wonder Woman almost gets away with it because she's SO recognizable but the story doesn't even try to explain just what the he|| she is or how she can do what she can do. Any other film would get torn apart for such lazy storytelling.
MOS does indeed work better as a FILM because it has its priorities in order. The Easter eggs and fan service don't detract from or stop the main story. The average person won't even notice but the fans do. Bruce Wayne's sattelite in MOS is a great example. In BvS whole parts of the movie are written and presented in a way that you have to be a fan just to figure out what's going on. Is someone's 80 year old grandma gonna know why some woman is looking at YouTube videos of Cyborg and Aquaman?
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 15, 2016 19:32:10 GMT -5
Doomsday, I think you're right on BvS on your first instincts. If anything being a fan makes some things easier to get into. A non fan is going to have no idea what's going on when Flash jumps through a timehole looking like a future hobo babbling on about being right about him. The movie fails in assuming everyone knows about certain things. Wonder Woman almost gets away with it because she's SO recognizable but the story doesn't even try to explain just what the he|| she is or how she can do what she can do. Any other film would get torn apart for such lazy storytelling. MOS does indeed work better as a FILM because it has its priorities in order. The Easter eggs and fan service don't detract from or stop the main story. The average person won't even notice but the fans do. Bruce Wayne's sattelite in MOS is a great example. In BvS whole parts of the movie are written and presented in a way that you have to be a fan just to figure out what's going on. Is someone's 80 year old grandma gonna know why some woman is looking at YouTube videos of Cyborg and Aquaman? I felt some of that with "A Force Awakens"- which irritated me because the original Star Wars film (prior to even putting on the 'Episode 4' tag) was done in a way that knew there was no guarantee of a sequel at the time. On the other hand, I was so annoyed with Snyder spelling out so much in Watchmen and MOS, that I actually was okay with a bit of ambiguity from him this time around, even if it was maybe a little too ambiguous for the non-comic fan.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Apr 17, 2016 5:22:01 GMT -5
Jenny was an important character in MoS. Who else could have announced it was coming in on the RSS feeds? lol .....and screaming like poop when she was trapped in the rubble.....which in itself was ok. But because we had had so little exposition of the character up until that point......we never cared for her predicament. If I am not mistaken her only 2 lines prior to be being trapped were:" you gotta see this....it's all over the news" and "It's on the feeds..and my phone too". Proof that Snyder/Goyer(and maybe Nolan too) are clueless in how to build something up before knocking it down. Snyder just knocks stuff down and thinks because it looks cool it is "Awesome"!
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 17, 2016 18:15:11 GMT -5
Jenny was an important character in MoS. Who else could have announced it was coming in on the RSS feeds? lol .....and screaming like poop when she was trapped in the rubble.....which in itself was ok. But because we had had so little exposition of the character up until that point......we never cared for her predicament. If I am not mistaken her only 2 lines prior to be being trapped were:" you gotta see this....it's all over the news" and "It's on the feeds..and my phone too". Proof that Snyder/Goyer(and maybe Nolan too) are clueless in how to build something up before knocking it down. Snyder just knocks stuff down and thinks because it looks cool it is "Awesome"! Nolan has better performances and more hits, so I think that gets him the 'get out of critical jail' card for a long time, versus Snyder... though there have been films of his that felt cold and impersonal (looking at the well-received, but I wasn't crazy about "The Prestige") Snyder gets irritation from me, because he had access and the power to do GREAT things with comic material and much freedom and giant budgets (from what we can tell)- and seems to make the same types of mistakes, to different degrees. At the same time, maybe I'm getting used to him or have lowered the bar enough that I enjoyed BvS despite some flaws I'm not at all crazy about. Jenny builds irritation (I think) among fans because she's a forced replacement for Jimmy Olsen, for no apparent reason that we can see. Changing Starbuck's character from a guy to a gal ended up with a very interesting (and different) character on her own in Ronald Moore's Battlestar Galactica remake. Jenny, not so much.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 19, 2016 12:25:10 GMT -5
Great article on CHUD. www.chud.com/172170/dcs-subpar-heroes-zackman-v-superman/Guy makes some errors but points out some key flaws in BvS storytelling. He's dead on about Watchmen. Zack misses the point of so many of these big comic book scenes he's trying to put on film. Giving Laurie Johns final line in Watchmen was a royal wtf moment for me. Doomsday, I think you're right on BvS on your first instincts. If anything being a fan makes some things easier to get into. A non fan is going to have no idea what's going on when Flash jumps through a timehole looking like a future hobo babbling on about being right about him. The movie fails in assuming everyone knows about certain things. Wonder Woman almost gets away with it because she's SO recognizable but the story doesn't even try to explain just what the he|| she is or how she can do what she can do. Any other film would get torn apart for such lazy storytelling. MOS does indeed work better as a FILM because it has its priorities in order. The Easter eggs and fan service don't detract from or stop the main story. The average person won't even notice but the fans do. Bruce Wayne's sattelite in MOS is a great example. In BvS whole parts of the movie are written and presented in a way that you have to be a fan just to figure out what's going on. Is someone's 80 year old grandma gonna know why some woman is looking at YouTube videos of Cyborg and Aquaman? I felt some of that with "A Force Awakens"- which irritated me because the original Star Wars film (prior to even putting on the 'Episode 4' tag) was done in a way that knew there was no guarantee of a sequel at the time. On the other hand, I was so annoyed with Snyder spelling out so much in Watchmen and MOS, that I actually was okay with a bit of ambiguity from him this time around, even if it was maybe a little too ambiguous for the non-comic fan. I think TFA stands on its own fairly well but not as well as ANH. It leaves a lot of questions open that a sequel has to answer. I felt satisfied but it's a question all films must face if they're obviously pushing a franchise. You make a good point though. I felt iron man was a great kickoff that could stand on its own but left a lot of room for sequels.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 19, 2016 12:34:47 GMT -5
Jenny was an important character in MoS. Who else could have announced it was coming in on the RSS feeds? lol .....and screaming like poop when she was trapped in the rubble.....which in itself was ok. But because we had had so little exposition of the character up until that point......we never cared for her predicament. If I am not mistaken her only 2 lines prior to be being trapped were:" you gotta see this....it's all over the news" and "It's on the feeds..and my phone too". Proof that Snyder/Goyer(and maybe Nolan too) are clueless in how to build something up before knocking it down. Snyder just knocks stuff down and thinks because it looks cool it is "Awesome"! Contrast that with Jimmy needing saving when the dam burst in STM. Jimmy is a character we got to like before he was put in peril. He wasn't a jerk and had some funny moments. Lombard risked his life for Jenny and she still came off like a stuck up c*nt. That scene seemed to really be more of a character building moment for Perry White but still all the tension was let out because we knew all three wouldn't die and we didn't care about some token female in trouble. McClure even did more with his couple of lines in BTTF than most of Snyders supporting actors do. I think Nolan occasionally plays devils advocate to Snyder just to keep getting his own projects at WB greenlit. I don't think he's really offering much real input or quality control. Sure he gives advice but at the end of it he's going to let Zack do what he wants. It stinks. If Nolan were more involved and pushing for better quality I think these films would really benefit.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 19, 2016 15:02:46 GMT -5
lol .....and screaming like poop when she was trapped in the rubble.....which in itself was ok. But because we had had so little exposition of the character up until that point......we never cared for her predicament. If I am not mistaken her only 2 lines prior to be being trapped were:" you gotta see this....it's all over the news" and "It's on the feeds..and my phone too". Proof that Snyder/Goyer(and maybe Nolan too) are clueless in how to build something up before knocking it down. Snyder just knocks stuff down and thinks because it looks cool it is "Awesome"! Contrast that with Jimmy needing saving when the dam burst in STM. Jimmy is a character we got to like before he was put in peril. He wasn't a jerk and had some funny moments. Lombard risked his life for Jenny and she still came off like a stuck up c*nt. That scene seemed to really be more of a character building moment for Perry White but still all the tension was let out because we knew all three wouldn't die and we didn't care about some token female in trouble. McClure even did more with his couple of lines in BTTF than most of Snyders supporting actors do. I think Nolan occasionally plays devils advocate to Snyder just to keep getting his own projects at WB greenlit. I don't think he's really offering much real input or quality control. Sure he gives advice but at the end of it he's going to let Zack do what he wants. It stinks. If Nolan were more involved and pushing for better quality I think these films would really benefit. Snyder/Goyer and the Supergirl show runners don't get that Jimmy is the heart of the Daily Planet 'family'. Lois is the feisty older sister, Perry the tough on the surface dad figure, and Jimmy is the innocent eager but slightly dopey younger brother. It's an underrated ensemble that gives Superman his adult 'family' dynamic. When that dynamic is changed, the joy is gone from the Daily Planet. Raimi seemed to understand that with Spderman's "work" family at the Bugle. Removing it and /or changing it takes out a lot of the humanity from the story.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 19, 2016 15:33:23 GMT -5
Does that make Cat Grant the self absorbed slutty Kelly Bundy-ish oldest daughter?
I think you've laid it out well. I always thought of Jimmy as a little brother type for Clark and Lois. I don't mind Jimmy maturing but I think the Jimmy in Supergirl is JINO. There's nothing of the core character there except for being Supermans friend. I just don't see the younger Jimmy maturing into the guy we see on tv now. Would have been better if Brooks was Ron Troupe working for Cat now and the guy playing Winn was Jimmy. They were too wrapped up in the Berlanti formula. They wanted the geeky guy and Jimmy as the love interest and tie to Superman to be seperate. But the geeky guy is never the main love interest unless the genders are flipped. Felicity is the tech head on Arrow and the love interest while Cisco never gets the girl on Flash (just like Winn).
Jimmy is becoming sort of like Robin in live action. We haven't seen anything close to the classic Robin in live action for almost 20 years and with the exception of Superman Returns and the Smallville finale we haven't seen the classic Jimmy since the first season of Lois & Clark. I liked Justin Whalin a lot but they were obviously trying to remake Jimmy as a little bit more of a teen heart throb after firing Landes and casting Whalin.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,848
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 20, 2016 18:07:17 GMT -5
Dahahaha!
|
|