I may have paraphrased a quote from Tom Lehrer somewhere in here.

§ February 15th, 2021 § Filed under movie reviews § 21 Comments

So I was talking with a customer the other day about the repeated success of the Marvel movies versus the seeming uphill battle for DC’s films, and I noted that one of the major differences is “likability.” In that the characters in Marvel movies are all likeable and understandable, whereas, as least in the Superman films, where it’s perhaps the most unforgivable, we get a Superman that isn’t, really.

Nor Batman, for that matter, but we’re kind of used to a Batman who’s all grumbly and dour and that’s just Batman’s thing. But putting a grumpy Superman in an already downbeat movie with a grumpy Batman doesn’t really help matters really. Meanwhile, here’s Marvel with a bunch of quippy, funny, upbeat-even-when-they’re downbeat heroes who just seem like generally normal, relatable guys ‘n’ gals, even the space raccoon and the fella what turns into a big green behemoth.

And thus there goes Marvel, spending years introducing us to all these folks and getting us to like them, building with each successive film a shared universe in a way that the general non-comic reading audience would get, until finally we get The Avengers, a film with essentially, what, a half-dozen prologues that got everyone hyped to see Iron Man fight Thor or whathaveyou.

Then Warner Brothers sees how many literal billions of dollars these Marvel movies are making and decides they need to get their own billions-of-dollars shared superhero universe franchise going. Only, you know, without the long lead-up Marvel had. You got a court-ordered Superman movie, a sequel that also squeezed in Batman and Wonder Woman, and then BOOM, Justice League, which introduced a few new-to-cinema superheroes and set up plot lines for future films. Plot lines that have since been ignored because the Justice League film underperformed, the Batman and Superman actors departed their roles, and follow-up DC films seem to have eschewed the overt “shared universe” concept. (More on that in a moment, save those angry emails.)

Now just as a reminder, I generally like Man of Steel, Batman V. Superman, and Justice League. Unlike the general response from most folks I respect, I think these films do have some positive qualities, which, admittedly, “a cheerful demeanor” is not among them. And while I do mostly appreciate these movies, I can also appreciate that many did not, that the tone was too dark, too “off” from what we were looking for in a superhero movie. Particularly a superhero movie starring Superman.

I have said that Justice League seemed closer to what people wanted from a DC movie. I mean, it was still a Zack Snyder film, like MoS and BvS before it, but…things were a little peppier somehow, lighter and funnier, at least in part…more crazy action and adventure, some snappier dialogue. How much of this was courtesy fill-in director Joss Whedon (I know, I know, back to him in a minute) who stepped in when Snyder had to leave the project, I’m not sure. But I did think at the time it was an enjoyable, if certainly not perfect, film that maybe suffered from the reputation of its predecessors. And sure, suffered from its own flaws, I ain’t arguing.

And while it still feels like DC playing catch up with Marvel, perhaps introducing those new characters in one film and spinning them off into their own projects wasn’t a bad idea. Plus, the new characters were fun to see, and brought some energy to the film…particularly Jason Momoa’s boisterous Aquaman, owing more than a little to the animated version from the Batman: Brave and the Bold TV show. Ezra Miller’s Flash, despite his major showpiece in the film being preceded, and outshone, by Quicksilver in the X-Men movies, was a good addition, and Ray Fisher’s Cyborg was…well, it’s hard to really talk about his role in the film given what we know now.

In fact, the major problems I now have with Justice League stem from issues outside the film’s story itself. When I see Cyborg, I think about the reported mistreatment that actor underwent. When I see the Flash, I remember this unpleasant story. And then there’s Joss Whedon himself, the focus of Fisher’s complaints and undergoing some of his own reckoning at the moment. I realize everyone’s innocent ’til proven guilty, but it seems like there’s quite a bit of fire beneath that smoke.

Ultimately, this makes the original release version of Justice League difficult to revisit, which maybe this new, expanded version by Snyder, debuting soon on HBO Max, can rectify. Look, there’s more important stuff at stake here beyond “being able to watch a movie with a clear conscience” but it would be nice to have a cut of the film that hopefully expunges most of Whedon’s influence. I realize this maybe removes whatever lightness may have existed in the story, and that from all appearances this may be the most Zack Snyder-est of Zack Snyder superhero movies…but at least it’ll be all, or at least mostly, his.

That doesn’t solve Miller’s issues, or repair Fisher’s mistreatment, I understand.

With any luck this Justice League 2.0 will get all that moodiness ‘n’ such out of the DC Movies’ system. Going back to the main stream of tonight’s symposium, I’m hoping for more movies with “likeable” characters from DC. Not that there can’t be any drama or tragedy, but at least let there be some balance, some reminder of why these heroes are heroes. Other DC movies outside Snyder’s vision seem to approach that. The first Wonder Woman is a joy, retaining a light heart even amongst the setting of one of the worst military conflicts. Shazam is relentlessly happy, despite getting his name wrong*, and Aquaman, despite being one of the most by-the-numbers films I’ve ever seen, is entirely carried by Momoa’s exuberant charm. Even the oddly divisive Wonder Woman 1984 is inarguably an upbeat film, when all is said and done. Birds of Prey turned out to be a good showcase for Harley Quinn, one of the two characters (other than Deadshot) to really shine in the otherwise half-baked Suicide Squad.

Harder to say what’s going on with the new movies coming, like the seemingly forever-in-production Flash film. Supposedly it’ll be exploring DC’s Multiverse, so again it’ll be following in Marvel’s footsteps of Into the Spider-Verse, or at least tied with Marvel, depending on when the equally multiversal Dr. Strange sequel comes out. But it’s going to have Michael Keaton returning at Batman, and look, that’s gotta be worth some points there.

Well, I guess it’s not so hard to see where Robert Pattison’s The Batman, which looks like it’ll be as much of a laugh riot as the Caped Crusader’s recent cinematic appearances. Looks like it might be good, but…yeah. Hey, remember back in the ’80s when everyone was panicked that the next Batman movie would be funny and then the comic book industry would be ruined forever and all fans would have to wear hairshirts and flagellate themselves with their leather floggers? Wasn’t that something?

Oh, and the next Suicide Squad, under the guidance of Guardians of the Galaxy‘s James Gunn…well, that has to be a delight, don’t you think?

And maybe someday we’ll get a new Superman movie. With a happy Superman that acknowledges the tragic beginnings of his existence but in a story that finds a balance between these two sides. I wonder how audiences would respond to that. Oh wait, we do kind of know.

Again, I like the Snyder superhero films. Honestly. And I am curious as to what this revised Justice League will be like. But…I can use a change of pace.
 
 
 

* I’m going to die on this stupid “Captain Marvel” hill. I can’t help it. We’re all fanboys about something.

21 Responses to “I may have paraphrased a quote from Tom Lehrer somewhere in here.”

  • Dave says:

    The Marvel movies are more light-hearted, but they’re also all exactly the same; slight variations in the plots, but the same overall arcs and beats. I give Feige credit for cracking the code, but if I’ve seen one, I’ve seen them all.

    The two best superhero movies ever made — “Superman” and “The Rocketeer” — found that perfect balance of genuine drama and sense of wonder that almost no one has captured since in live action. Show me better scenes in any movie since than Superman catching Lois and the helicopter or Cliff Secord being caught in the spotlight at the Griffith Observatory (okay, maybe Clark crushing Zod’s hand, but that’s it).

    I’ve long wished Warners would turn the live-action keys over to Dini, Timm, Burnett, and Brad Bird, but also know it’s a pipe dream.

  • Mikester says:

    Dave – Good points, and I’ll try to address them in my next post.

  • Daniel says:

    I touched on this in your Twitter feed, but it’s difficult to present a coherent point of view with Twitter’s character limits, so I’ll try to be more nuanced here.

    The problem I have with your post isn’t that you like Marvel’s films better than DC’s films. People’s preferences are their own and that’s fine. My problem is that you’re assuming that your own biases are representative of everyone else’s and that’s simply not the case.

    First, to get it out of the way: I like the MCU films just fine (except for Ragnarok which I think is an incompetently made film). But like Dave said above, they are essentially all the same film following the same formula with the same glib tone. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it does illustrate Martin Scorsese’s point about these films being more like theme park rides than like traditional cinema. Again, that’s not a bad thing per se, but it does mean that I walk into every MCU movie knowing in advance what all the beats are going to be, so the films have zero emotional resonance with me. They’re like episodes of a long-running TV series in which each episode is predictable and indistinguishable from every other episode. They’re comfortable but ultimately forgettable.

    Coming around to DC, I unabashedly love Man of Steel and BvS. Unlike the factory system of the MCU in which each film is indistinguishable from the one before it, and where all authorial voice is scrubbed clean before the films are released, MoS and BvS are unmistakably the singular vision of one person. They have a clear point of view, style, ambition, and emotional core that the MCU films do not (and, again, just to be clear, I like the MCU films, but one can also like McDonald’s while acknowledging that it’s not fine dining).

    MoS and BvS also, unlike their MCU counterparts, have clearly defined themes that they are addressing. MoS and BvS are unabashedly political films about the rejection of “the other.” They fully lean into the Superman-as-Jesus concept and literally build the narrative structure of Snyder’s trilogy around the life cycle of the Jesus character:

    MoS is birth

    BvS is death

    JL is resurrection

    So when you complain, like you did in your Twitter posts, about Superman dying too soon in the DCEU, I respectfully argue that you’re missing the point entirely. He died exactly when he needed to from a narrative perspective. Otherwise it’s like arguing that the Gospels would have been more effective if Jesus had lived to his late 50s instead of dying at 33, and that there should have been 15 or 20 more testaments in the bible instead of ending after just two.

    I also think you’re missing the point when you keep bringing up “likability” as a metric of these films’ creative success. As I said before, the Snyder DC films are political stories about “the other.” They are a reflection of the times they were created in, and a mirror of the audience that is seeing them. Like it or not, our society is bigoted and xenophobic. Full stop. And if a character like Superman suddenly appeared in our world today, people would react *exactly* as they did in MoS and BvS. To further drive home the parallel of the Superman-as-Jesus story, the public in BvS that rejects and persecutes Superman is the same as the Roman public that rejects and persecutes Jesus in the Gospels (and just to be clear, I’m not a religious person. I’m referring to the Gospels as literature). Again, Snyder is holding up a mirror to his audience and showing our collective hypocrisy. Showing that, despite how we as a people wrap ourselves in sanctimonious and moralizing religious tropes, we are no different than the Romans who rejected Jesus as being different from them. He’s showing that we don’t deserve Superman. And I think that this, more than anything, is what people don’t like about Snyder’s DC films: His films show us who we are as a society and it’s not a pretty reflection, and people simply don’t like seeing that honest truth reflected back at them.

    And yet–AND YET–his Superman saves us anyway. He’s such a clearly defined and unmistakable heroic figure that he *literally* makes the ultimate sacrifice to save a population that rejects him. If that’s not heroic then I don’t know what is. So when people criticize Snyder’s Superman for not being heroic, I honestly don’t know what they’re talking about. When Superman died in BvS, I cried. I cry every time I see that film (and I’ve seen it at least a dozen times) because the character, despite constant and undeserved persecution, never, ever wavers in his commitment to his adopted people, even though they didn’t deserve it. And that, to me, is a deeply emotional experience.

    People also complain about Snyder’s Batman being too angsty and more like a villain than a hero. But again, in order to properly evaluate this Batman, one has to acknowledge that Snyder is telling a Superman-as-Jesus story. And in the Jesus story there has to be a Judas, and in BvS, Batman is Judas. When you view it this way, all of Batman’s actions make sense because Superman-as-Jesus needs a betrayer in order for his sacrifice to work narratively. In fact, all of the other characters’ actions in MoS and BvS make sense when one realizes who their Biblical analogues are:

    Jor-El: God

    Jonathan and Martha: Joseph and Mary

    Zod: Herod

    Batman in BvS: Judas

    Batman in JL: Paul

    Luthor: Pontius Pilate

    Justice League: the Apostles

    (In the above analogues, Batman transforms from Judas in BvS into Paul in JL, e.g., the person who travels about celebrating the story of Jesus. In JL, Batman honors Superman’s sacrifice and acknowledges his role in it. He creates the Justice League as a way of demonstrating that honor.)

    So, again, when you harp on the likability or lack thereof of the Snyder DC characters, you’re literally missing the point. It’s like criticizing The Godfather because it isn’t funny enough. That wasn’t the intention. The intention for the characters in these films isn’t for them to be likable or not likable. The intention is for them to react in a believable way to the narrative stimuli that each character experiences. In Batman’s case, he becomes Superman’s Judas because of the trauma he experiences when he witnesses the Kryptonian attack on Metropolis. That experience reveals his own impotence at being unable to protect the people he swore to protect. This trauma transforms him. In that sense, when Bruce Wayne witnesses the DCEU’s equivalent of 9/11, he becomes Dick Cheney (e.g., fear catalyzed into hatred) as foil to Superman’s Barack Obama (e.g., the other who tries to do good for a people who reject him). And before people try to say that Batman wouldn’t react that way, it’s important to remember that Batman is literally defined by the fear and trauma of losing his parents. He’s never been a well-adjusted person. He’s always been defined by reacting in extreme ways to trauma.

    All of this is a very long-winded way of saying that there is much more beneath the surface (emotionally, thematically, structurally) of Snyder’s DC films than some people are willing to acknowledge. That doesn’t mean that one has to *like* these films or like what Snyder has done with them. But to suggest that they are poorly made or superficial or deficient in some way is just disingenuous (or willfully ignorant of what is actually on the screen). And so even if one does not like these films, it shouldn’t come as a surprise when a very large population of us do like them, and like them passionately.

    And finally, when you end your post with the comment “I could use a change of pace,” let’s put these Snyder films in context. MoS, BvS, and the director’s cut of JL are three movies totaling less than 10 hours run time in a media landscape of literally thousands of hours of super-hero movies, TV series, and animation. So it’s not a lot to ask that Snyder let his story play out to its conclusion. And at the end of the day, that’s what has driven the Release the Snyder Cut more than anything: The fact that, despite there being literally thousands of hours of other super-hero filmed content that is exactly what they want, the Snyder haters were unable to live and let live. Rather than acknowledging that not everything has to be for everyone, the Snyder haters sought to smother and bury his story before it could reach its conclusion. And to me, that’s just inherently selfish and unforgivable.

  • Turan, Emissary of the Fly World says:

    I would argue that the fundamental problem with Snyder’s movies is not, exactly, that they are too dark and grim. The problem is that Snyder is, as he has often made clear, a devout follower of Ayn Rand. He is simply unable to understand the concept of a selfless and altruistic hero–which is a big problem for these movies, because that is what Superman and Batman are supposed to be. So, the Snyder view is that Batman is motivated by literally nothing more than the desire to hurt or kill criminals, while what Superman wants is for the world to recognize his superiority to everyone else. Any help they provide to people is merely an unintentional by-product of these desires.

  • Turan, Emissary of the Fly World says:

    Daniel: The creators of Superman were Jewish. Declaring their creation to be a stand-in for Jesus seems to me, at best, disrespectful to them.

    I note that this is why I have absolutely no sympathy for Tony Isabella when he continues his endless whining about Jim Shooter undoing Isabella’s attempt to introduce Jesus as a part of the Marvel Universe. Isabella always presents this as a matter of Marvel choosing evil over good–Satan is allowed to appear, but not the other side. What he seems incapable of grasping was that he was trying to turn the Marvel Universe–largely the creation of Stanley Lieber and Jacob Kurtzberg–into a specifically Christian world. That, I again note, was at the very least disrespectful.

  • Turan, Emissary of the Fly World says:

    I will throw in that explicitly Christian stories are also wrong for Batman, also the creation of two Jews (or, rather, the creation of one, Milton Finger, working from the notion of another, Robert Kahn, that maybe a series could be built around a guy who dressed like a bat).

  • Turan, Emissary of the Fly World says:

    One more bit (I really need to think a little more before hitting the “submit” button): Daniel, when people want to compare Superman to a figure in the Bible, they usually pick Moses. If Jerry Siegel really had such a comparison in mind, that seems a likelier one than Jesus.

  • JohnJ says:

    The only thing I’m sure of about “Zach Snyder’s Justice League” is that I’m never gonna be able to get through 4 hours of it. I wonder if he’ll bring back Jonathan Kent to tell Superman to let somebody die. Ha, ha, Jonathan! The only one he let die was you!

  • Daniel says:

    “The problem is that Snyder is, as he has often made clear, a devout follower of Ayn Rand.”

    I’d really like it if someone could provide a quote from Snyder that expresses his support for Rand. He was once slated to do a remake of The Fountainhead, but that in and of itself does not make him a Rand acolyte any more than making The Godfather made Francis Ford Coppola a supporter of organized crime.

  • Cassandra Miller says:

    Turan–thank you. The only reason Superman the Movie (best Superman film) was able to get away with it was because they didn’t belabor the “savior” thing, it was just one line from Brando. Then it was left alone.

    I kind of liked MoS as a movie, hated it as a Superman movie. And, yes, I feel like it shows that Snyder doesn’t understand the fundamental core of Superman–his optimism. That optimism should absolutely be challenged (that’s good storytelling!), but to have a Superman without it entirely…There were just so many off beats in the film. Everyone talks about things like “Jonathan Kent tells him to let people die” thing constantly, but the “he *lets* Jonathan Kent die” was the worst one. The whole storytelling angle of Kent’s death has always been to show the limits of Clark’s power. “All my power, and I couldn’t save him.” To have him stand by and watch as his father dies…is basically the worst choice for a Superman film.

    Basically, Snyder didn’t want someone who could be selfless, or kind, or happy, apparently. I mean, there’s nothing wrong with making a movie about a hero like that, but that’s the antithesis of Superman’s character. (And the “Martha” thing in BvS is so rightly mocked. It’s clearly an “I can’t think of a beat to move this along–wait! That’s it!” kind of writing moment.)

    Snyder’s a good director, with very heavy stylized choices, some of which outweigh the movies he makes. He’s not a good Superman director.

    There’s a lot more I could say, but this is already too long. Yes, the Marvel movies are formulaic. But they’re also a lot more enjoyable, and they have heroes that actually feel like their comic counterparts. Snyder’s movies feel like what an edgy teen who’s never really read comics *wants* the characters to be,

  • Daniel says:

    “The creators of Superman were Jewish. Declaring their creation to be a stand-in for Jesus seems to me, at best, disrespectful to them.”

    Turan, you do realize that this is not a new concept, right? A quick Google search of “Superman as Jesus” returns 18.5 million results. Richard Donner acknowledges the concept going back to his first film in 1978. Bryan Singer (who is Jewish himself) was pretty explicit in his use of that analogy as well in Superman Returns in 2006. Zack Snyder’s innovation was going all-in on the idea and using it as not just a metaphor but the entire underlying narrative and thematic structure for his trilogy.

    But if we’re going to argue that the wishes of the character’s creators are paramount above all else when evaluating the success or failure of any interpretation or adaptation, then I’m guessing that almost nothing that DC or its corporate parent has done with the character since the 1950s would pass muster. I’m not arguing that that’s a good or bad thing, but if that’s your position (as you seem to be arguing) then it should be applied equally and not selectively (so as to assuage your own biases).

  • Daniel says:

    “The only thing I’m sure of about “Zach Snyder’s Justice League” is that I’m never gonna be able to get through 4 hours of it.”

    JohnJ, I hear a lot of people complain about the length of the film. But when you look at it objectively, Snyder will have told his story of the DC universe in three films at just under 10 hours. The MCU, by comparison, took 25 films (I think) and over 55 hours to tell the story their Infinity Saga. I would argue that Snyder’s approach is much tighter and much more efficient.

    At the end of the day, though, no one is being forced to watch it. That’s my main frustration with the criticism leveled at Snyder’s DC films: if people don’t like his work, they don’t have to watch his films. I personally thought that the Marvel Netflix shows were pretty mediocre. But others seemed to like them, so rather than complain about them, I simply stopped watching and moved on to something else. Snyder detractors seem inherently unable to do that. Not everything has to be for everyone.

  • Mikester says:

    I’ll probably have extended responses to everyone come Wednesday, depending on personal time stuff, but I at least want to chime in on the “Superman as Jesus” thing. While realizing and respecting that Superman’s creators were Jewish…once art is out there, it’s open to interpretation. “Superman as Moses” may be more apt, but “Superman as Jesus” is equally as valid, even if not the creators’ intent.

    To extend it to my main topic, Snyder’s interpretation is just as valid as anyone else’s. It may not be to everyone’s taste (and even I, as someone who generally likes these movies as I repeatedly say, am not always 100% on board) but it’s certainly a specific and mostly self-consistent vision of the character.

  • Thom H. says:

    The problem with grim n’ gritty is there’s nowhere to go once you’ve gone all the way down. In terms of Zach Snyder’s DCU films, the actors aren’t given access to the range they need to convincingly portray relatively happy people who are then negatively affected and ultimately changed by external events. Every scene is weighed down by the same serious tone, so who cares what’s happening? The entire world is dour and grey all the time.

    And speaking of color, the same is true for set design and lighting. If all of your outdoor scenes look like they’re shot during an impending thunderstorm, then there’s no contrast when you move indoors to a bunker or the Batcave. If every scene is some variation on bluish-grey and flesh tones, then how do you convey horrific events that drain the world of color? You can’t because you’ve been doing it all along.

    There might actually be a feature film’s worth of material in taking a happy, colorful Superman and putting him through the wringer until he’s pushed to take a life or sacrifice his own life. That might actually be interesting. But if you start off with a sour upbringing in Kansas where even the corn fields are grey, then you’re not going to convince anyone that things have changed over the course of your 2-, 3-, or 4-hour long movie.

  • Snark Shark says:

    Daniel: “They’re like episodes of a long-running TV series in which each episode is predictable and indistinguishable from every other episode. They’re comfortable but ultimately forgettable.”

    AH! Three’s Company.

    Turan: “I would argue that the fundamental problem with Snyder’s movies is not, exactly, that they are too dark and grim. The problem is that Snyder is, as he has often made clear, a devout follower of Ayn Rand.”

    AH JESUS, HE’S ONE-A THEM!

    “Tony Isabella when he continues his endless whining about Jim Shooter undoing Isabella’s attempt to introduce Jesus as a part of the Marvel Universe.”

    Didn’t know about that one! Woulda been pretty odd.

    I never read Superman as an analogue to Jesus. Now, Warlock, by Jim Starlin, THAT one has Jesus overtones ALL OVER THE PLACE.

  • JohnJ says:

    Here’s another theory for why Snyder is making his Justice League so long. At 4 hours it might be too long for Rifftrax to tear into it. If it had been 4 1-hour episodes they might have tried.
    Seriously, if you’ve never watched Batman v Superman with the Rifftrax round-table commentary, you’ve missed the best way to experience that movie.

  • Mike Loughlin says:

    I’ve heard the complaint that “all Marvel movies are the same” before. I’m not going to argue that, but there’s a sameness to most popular entertainment in the same genre or oeuvre. I like blues, for example, but I’m not saying there isn’t a great deal of sameness in the music. John Lee Hooker and Buddy Guy don’t sound the same, but they’re clearly working from the same foundation and structure.

    Having mostly one guy (Kevin Feige) oversee the product, one team (the Russo Bros.) direct many of the entries in the series, and AFAIK a limited number of groups of special effects artists and/or action choreographers is going to shave off the differences in the final movies.

    That said, Marvel sameness has definitely caught on with the public more than Snyder’s brand of super-hero. Daniel, you noted many possible themes and interpretations of Snyder’s DCU work that I had never considered because I didn’t enjoy the movies. I like darker stuff, just not the way Snyder presented it. Frankly, the dialogue & characterizations in BvS & JL were, in my opinion, mostly bad (Hell, I didn’t like a lot of the dialogue & character work in the superior Nolan Dark Knight movies either). Plenty of JLA comics and episodes of JLU were dark while still being entertaining. I’m not saying dialogue & characterizations in Marvel movies are always great, but I’ll take snarky & zippy over what Snyder & co. came up with. I probably won’t watch the Snyder cut, although I hope the people who do so enjoy it.

  • Robcat says:

    1- The best Superman film was Superman II: The Donner Cut. I will die on that hill.

    2- Mike- you beat me to it. Once art is out there… on top of that, one argument about art is the art is co-created by the artist and the viewer. This is why I can be appalled by writer, director, an actor, and still appreciate their art. (Would I hire them? No, but that’s a different issue.) So yeah, you see Superman as Jesus, or your dad, go for it. Art includes what you bring to it. That’s why a female Jesus hanging on a cross brings such fire. It’s how people interpret it with their own experience. It’s only a carved piece of wood, but what it represents to people…

    3- My problem with Snyder’s Superman is I find hope lacking. Superman doesn’t kill. Realistic? Maybe not, but to me he’s a symbol of what I wish was true. I don’t always like what my priest says. All that pacifism isn’t realistic, but I am sure glad they’re saying it.

    And I would argue Batman can’t kill (or you’d have the Punisher). He’s a revenge fantasy where we get revenge but don’t go to jail after we gat it.

    Having said that, I believe in hiring a director with a vision (who loves comics) and let them be! We all know what we’re gonna get with a James Gunn Suicide Squad. (I’m looking forward to it.) Josh Trank should have been allowed to make his vision of Fantastic Four. We all knew what we were gonna get with a Snyder Superman/Batman/JLA film. Let the man make it. (Yes, this means you’ll get Richard Lester’s Superman II with superpowers coming out of a pointed finger. Still…)

    And don’t hate me for being inconsistent but Affleck is my favorite Batman. I’m looking forward to Keaton coming back, but yeah. Batfleck was the man. I can’t wait to see what Snyder does with him in JL.

    4- Did I mention Superman II: The Donner Cut?

  • […] universe, throwing in everything in his bag of tricks for this four hour brouhaha. (I like the comment left that it was specifically made four hours long to avoid getting Rifftraxed.) Still looking forward […]

  • JohnJ says:

    I had the opportunity yesterday, Tuesday, on a live discussion thing with the Rifftrax guys, to ask them about the 4-hours of Justice League and you could hear audible groans. So I don’t think they will be touching the new version with a 10-foot pole. Mike Nelson had to be reminded by the other guys that they had riffed Batman v Superman.
    Which reminds me, when I first saw that in the theater, the audible groans were coming from me in the opening moments, when once again Batman’s origin was dredged up. When the only audible word was “Martha” there should have been flashing signs popping up saying PLOT POINT!

  • […] to try to keep this, the third installment of “Zack Snyder: Friend or Foe?” (parts the first and second) reasonably short, instead of throwing my usual Wall o’Text at you. But, um, […]

  • Leave a Reply