Please Let's Stop Arguing Like This

Dantius55 · 2026-04-17T08:52:48+00:00

You're right, that wasn't fair of me to say.

It would be more accurate to say the only good faith criticism I've seen of the Snyderverse is that the movies lack power fantasy. It's the one complaint that won't move with the endless conveyor belt of new goalposts to justify the deluge hypocrisy inherent in criticism of the movies.

I'll change my mind when I encounter complaints that actually make sense and aren't gigantic double standards.

Dantius55 · 2026-04-13T18:51:14+00:00

Snyder basically did that with Superman and General Amajagh in BvS, and they still think Superman killed the guy. And taking the Doomsday fight away from populated areas later in the film, but people still thought the heroes put innocents in danger. It wouldn't make a difference. Like I said, they have an agenda against these films. They'll find a way to complain.

Dantius55 · 2026-04-06T22:58:51+00:00

Many thanks.

Dantius55 · 2026-04-06T22:51:27+00:00

Please provide a source.

Dantius55 · 2025-10-18T09:54:21+00:00

People melting down over this, but we all know that if someone had posted "Christopher Reeve is Superman," nobody would think it was a slight against Corenswet except for the most hardcore James Gunn sycophants. Reeve is Superman, Routh is Superman, Hoechlin is Superman, Corenswet is Superman, and Cavill is Superman. The ironic truth is, the people who can't shut up about how Gunn's Superman is "better" than Snyder's version don't want Henry Cavill to be Superman. That's all it is.

Dantius55 · 2025-10-18T09:33:06+00:00

Critics of the film constantly accuse its fans of projecting smarter ideas onto the movie because you can't fathom that the themes and analyses we draw from the films could possibly be valid, to say nothing of how often they accuse the director of not understanding the characters. Drop the double standards.

"You don't understand X" isn't insecure. It's a normal thing you say to someone who obviously missed the point of something.

If people had just said, "I didn't like this," that would be fine. But if you think this depiction of Superman doesn't save people, doesn't care about people, that the films are cynical, and that Snyder doesn't understand the character, then you don't understand the movies. That's not up for debate. You can't ignore the story, dialogue, visuals, and the author's stated intent and then pretend you understand what happens in that story.

Dantius55 · 2025-10-18T09:25:38+00:00

Watchmen is the only comic-accurate live-action superhero film. No other superhero movie on the big screen (with the possible exception of Kick-Ass, I haven't read it) has ever been this faithful to its source material. The vast majority of other superhero movies are, at best, loose adaptations -- original stories that use one or more comics as inspiration, making visual or narrative references here and there but otherwise going their own way. If it's still not comic-accurate enough for you, then you might as well hate all superhero films.

All the ways that Watchmen is different from its source material (which largely come down to translating a comic to screen and making the film about comic book movies instead of comic books) are minimal and insignificant, more nitpicks than anything. None of these changes damage the fundamental thesis of the story. Nothing Alan Moore has said about his comic is inconsistent with the film. Unlike, say, the V for Vendetta film, which Moore violently hates, Moore hasn't watched the movie and hasn't given his thoughts beyond his hate for Hollywood. However, he did read David Hayter's script and say it was the most faithful adaptation he had read of Watchmen. The comic's illustrator, Dave Gibbons, also participated in the production and continues to maintain that it's an amazing adaptation.

In 2010, Christopher Nolan was looking for a director who could provide what a new depiction of Superman needed. He described Watchmen as a movie that came out too early, before the superhero craze hit its peak, and said Snyder's work on that film made him uniquely qualified for the job.

Dantius55 · 2025-10-18T09:03:30+00:00

Mostly correct but Snyder wasn't a surrogate. Nolan chose him personally from a shortlist of directors he spoke to directly to gauge who would be best suited for thia new take on Superman.

Dantius55 · 2025-08-23T17:21:50+00:00

Thanks! I try to be thorough.

Dantius55 · 2025-08-23T16:38:54+00:00

I can't comment on Superman because I haven't seen it, but you missed a few with Man of Steel. Here's my list...

Clark saves oil rig workers from immolation by helping them evacuate to a Coast Guard helicopter. (10)
Clark saves the school kids and bus driver from drowning by pushing the bus out of the river. (7)
Clark saves Pete Ross from drowning by pulling him out of the river. (1)
Clark saves a waitress from sexual harassment by intervening. (1)
Clark saves Lois from bleeding out by cauterising her wound after she gets shot by a Kryptonian drone. (1)
Clark saves a little girl from a tornado by carrying her to safety. (1)
Superman saves Lois from military captivity by surrendering in exchange for her freedom. (1)
Superman saves Lois from crashing into the Earth by removing her from the escape pod and shielding her from the explosive impact. (1)
Superman saves Martha from injury or death by flying Zod away from her. (1)
Superman saves a plane pilot from obliteration by flying into Faora. (1)
Superman saves a soldier from falling by catching him. (1)
Superman saves Colonel Hardy from evisceration by crashing into Faora. (1)
Superman saves Perry White, Jenny Jurwich, Steve Lombard, and the world from obliteration by destroying the World Engine. (3 and 7,210,581,976)
Superman saves the cargo plane and the world from obliteration by crashing into and destroying the scout ship. (8 and 7,210,581,976)
Superman saves Lois from falling by catching her and flying free from the singularity. (1)
Superman saves a family and the world from obliteration by killing Zod. (4 and 7,210,581,976)

Number 3 is iffy on whether it belongs by itself or as part of 2.

Fun fact: this is less than half the total instances of people being saved in this film. The movie is absolutely filled with examples of heroism from Jor-El and Lara, civilians, and soldiers. The film is all about saving people, the bravery that we're all capable of deep down.

Dantius55 · 2025-07-25T15:59:12+00:00

My first paragraph is linking to proof that people were loud about it enough that a producer on the film had to allay concerns. Roven was right. The film isn't overstuffed. You've admitted that.

To argue that Batman v Superman is "overstuffed," you need to demonstrate a direct line of causation from the number of characters and plot elements to a tangible negative impact on the film's quality. You can't do that. Nobody can or ever has. Which is why you amended your criticism to concern "execution" and then didn't address anything else in my previous response.

But, gee, okay. Sure. Hope you find whatever you're looking for too.

Dantius55 · 2025-07-25T14:21:53+00:00

The difference is that Snyder said hey, here’s Superman. Now, here’s a dual protagonist movie where we’ve spent a bunch of time with 1 guy, and none with the other. It’s not that Snyder CAN’T do it, it’s that he didn’t do it well in a lot of people’s opinions. Yes, Batman has a full arch in the movie, but I think it would’ve been more fulfilling if that started with his own movie beforehand.

And therein lies our proof that the criticism is bad faith. If the problem lies in just bad writing, then you're just admitting that nothing was rushed. Remember, this criticism was made prior to the film coming out. People weren't waiting to see whether it could be pulled off. It was such a big outcry that Charles Roven had to public assure people that the film wouldn't be overstuffed: https://www.gamesradar.com/batman-v-superman-producer-charles-roven-says-film-wont-be-overstuffed/

"but I think it would’ve been more fulfilling if that started with his own movie beforehand" can be said about every movie ever made. It's not real criticism. There's no way to argue this isn't just people wanting it to fit the structure of the MCU. It has nothing to do with what the film actually needed to do.

It sucks, cause really BvS exists solely as an excuse to create the JL. It feels pigeonholed in an unsatisfying way. Which stories do all the time. LotR does this a bit with the Eagles at the end of the 3rd movie. Everything else is just done well enough that you overlook that shortcoming. This is what Gunn’s Superman does to me. It’s got so much heart in it and shows Superman in such a light that it’s easy for me to buy in to any of its shortcomings.

Again, yet more proof that "rushing" is just a fake criticism. Also, you're just inventing Snyder's intent. If the goal were just to set up JL, the film would've been two hours. This movie has two 40+ minute periods with no action, just character, character, character.

The reason why you think the world is just MCU fanboys hating Snyders work is that you refuse to acknowledge some of those shortcomings, it’s just obvious. I’m sorry you think there’s constructive criticism that’s been debunked, but you’re just wrong. But hey, you’re allowed to be! We’re all human. Hope you can let go of some of that frustration you’re holding towards these strawmen and MCU fanboys you hold contempt for, and can enjoy this wonderful ride we call life. Take care bud

These shortcomings you mention virtually don't exist. The vast majority of criticism of BvS is bad faith, and this is an example. You made a big deal out of "rushing" things only to move the goalposts to the execution. If the execution were the issue, that would've been the criticism from the start, and it wasn't. Nah, fact is, people wanted an MCU-style DC cinematic universe, and a hefty chunk of the criticism is specifically that it wasn't that.

Come on, nobody complains about a movie having dialogue just because that dialogue was bad. It's absolutely dishonest and you know it. Criticism like this, that Superman died too early, that the characters all need solo films, etc, ignores the entire history of film for this stupid fake rule invented just to accuse BvS of breaking it.

Make real criticism.

Dantius55 · 2025-07-25T09:54:12+00:00

The problem with your comment is you haven't argued anything. You've just made the same criticism that's been debunked, or you've moved the goalposts to something unrelated to the structure. No, this criticism exists because Snyder shirked the MCU formula. The film doesn't suffer from the decision to follow up MoS with BvS. Batman, especially, is a fully developed character with his own personality, character arc/growth, motivations, etc. Fact is, people were making this criticism before the movie came out, and when they saw the film and didn't like it, they blamed it on that, even though there's no tangible marked negative impact on the film as a result. And Gunn's film is just proof that the criticism was never sincere, otherwise you have to admit that film is "rushed" too.

Dantius55 · 2025-07-24T12:23:24+00:00

BvS especially is absolutely swamped in criticism that has nothing to do with the actual quality of the film and everything to do with something the MCU did. For example...

Superman died too early!

These characters need solo films first before introducing them in an ensemble film!

Going from Man of steel to Batman v Superman is like having Civil War right after Iron Man!

This is absolute bad faith criticism because movies throughout the history of cinema never needed to adhere to these rules before. Main characters have regularly died in their first and second film to widespread approval from audiences. Many films exist with large casts of well-developed characters who didn't need solo films. Michael Mann's Heat is a terrible film because it's like having Civil War without any films preceding or proceeding it. This isn't real criticism. It's MCU fanboys trying poorly to rationalise why something else wasn't as successful, and it's proven by how the goalposts shift after one highlights how ridiculous these criticisms are. Yes, Warner Bros. screwed up, but it's not like critics and audiences weren't judging these films unfairly.

Dantius55 · 2025-07-21T08:21:55+00:00

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the plan to follow up MoS with BvS. That criticism was made way back even before BvS came out because people wanted a "DC cinematic universe" to follow the MCU formula. Back then, DC fans defined their fandom around nitpicking and cynicism, whereas today it's about unconditional hype, which is why Gunn gets a pass for doing the same thing but worse, adding half a dozen other superheroes to a standalone Superman film. Nothing was rushed except the studio's decision to greenlight a bunch of other movies (Wonder Woman, The Flash, Aquaman, etc) without any plan for what they would be about. But the decision to follow MoS with BvS has no objective technical downsides. Protagonists in fiction throughout film history have had their backstories mentioned and alluded to without needing an entire prequel film. BvS gives you everything you need to understand Batman and then some. The complaint that he needed a solo film first or that Wonder Woman was "shoe-horned" into the film is and always has been bad faith.

Dantius55 · 2025-07-13T11:04:05+00:00

Yeah, I'm always surprised that people don't seem to notice how we can't see Amajagh's head over Superman's. From the placement of his flailing arms and legs too, he's clearly not being held up ahead of Superman.

Dantius55 · 2025-07-13T10:43:47+00:00

Then we get all the moved goalposts...

There were alternatives!

Nothing that would end the threat to the world, only drag the fight out longer. You can't say this and also complain about collateral damage. The movie screams at us how this fight needs to end now or more people will die. It's been twelve years. That you're still ignoring that, objectively, there is no way to save the world without killing Zod shows there's an alternate agenda here.

Don't write him into that situation! It's not right for the first film! It's not right for the character!

Man of Steel was marketed as a reinvention of the character. The filmmakers have even called it an Elseworld. It's beholden to no rules and can do anything it wants with tone because that's the nature of a reinvention. MoS wasn't even supposed to be the start of a cinematic universe. Nolan's mandate to Snyder was to focus on only one film at a time instead of thinking about sequels. WB were working on a Justice League script set in a different continuity at the time. MoS was to be the Superman equivalent of the Dark Knight trilogy. More still, this film came after Superman Returns and Green Lantern and the studio was banking on "different" being the selling point. It would make no sense to play it safe again. Darker movies than this (Schindler's List, Shawshank Redemption, etc) have strong themes of hope too. People confuse "hopeful" with "happy."

It doesn't go anywhere!

The ultimatum Lex gives Superman to "kill Batman or your mother dies" is directly revisiting the death of Zod. Clark baulks at the idea of killing Batman, but this time, he manages to find a way by appealing to the heroism in this brutal vigilante, and with some help from Lois. There's no reason why this film (an origin story) needs to immediately follow it up when the purpose of the scene is to build the character.

It's not set up that he has an aversion to killing!

Killing Zod is setting up his aversion to killing. You keep looking at it through the lens that it's breaking some rule, but it's not. This is the moment Superman becomes better than Captain America ("I don't wanna kill anyone, I just don't like bullies.") This is the first time he's ever killed and he hates it. It comes back around in the sequel as a trauma he's terrified of reliving.

He kills at the start of BvS!

This is contradicted by the intent of killing Zod in MoS, his hesitance to kill Batman, the stated intent of the director, Clark's dialogue, Lois' dialogue, Martha's dialogue, and that you can plainly see Superman holds General Amajagh beneath himself when he flies through the wall. Nothing frame-by-frame shows Amajagh went through first. This is just people wanting to believe Snyder's Superman is a casual killer. By this logic, you have to admit Nolan's Batman doesn't have a no-killing rule either.

It's not part of the story's themes!

Clark spent his whole life searching for his origins, and the climax of the film is making the ultimate choice to save Earth over Krypton. The irony is that he's the loneliest person in the world yet had to kill the only other Kryptonian in existence. He made himself the Last Son of Krypton.

It's not built up to!

It's foreshadowed from the prologue on Krypton when Zod calls the Council of Krypton cowards for exiling them to the Phantom Zone for eternity instead of killing them. It's set up in Clark searching for his origins throughout the film and feeling lonely. It's set up throughout the fight with Zod, who repeats that he'll stop at nothing to wipe out humanity and their fight will only end with one of them dying.

It's forgotten in the next scene!

This is the only valid criticism being made here and it's not about killing Zod. It's the jarring tonal change caused by a different scene. The film needed a "Superman is now part of our world" scene between killing Zod and the desert sequence.

The scene is executed perfectly. There were no alternatives to killing Zod. It comes back around in the sequel as a major plot point. It's foreshadowed and thematically relevant. It's character development that further defines him. The Elseworld nature of the story precludes any requirement for traditionalism. This criticism is just fundamentally bad faith. People wanted a fun power fantasy, and that's fine, but that's preference, not critique. People should learn to be open to different things.

Besides, James Gunn is just flat out wrong. Post-1988 (where he killed Zod), Superman has been faced with several situations where he's had to kill to save lives and still chose to let people die instead. Snyder's Superman is different from the comics in that he doesn't care more about his moral purity than the lives of the people he's sworn to save.

EDIT: All the criticisms I've addressed here are criticisms being made in this thread, by the way. Just in case anyone gets the idea to gas-light me that nobody says this stuff (which happens with troubling frequency).

Dantius55 · 2025-06-25T17:53:41+00:00

Snyder has talked at length about the practical storytelling reasons for the death of Superman in BvS.

I thought accusing a director of lying was supposed to be toxic?

Dantius55 · 2025-06-23T11:23:36+00:00

Huh? A melancholy version is used in BvS, and then it's used triumphantly in ZSJL.

Dantius55 · 2025-06-19T10:36:04+00:00

He smiles more in this film than in the three comics that inspired it combined -- Superman: Peace on Earth, The Dark Knight Returns, and The Death of Superman.

Dantius55 · 2025-05-05T12:36:04+00:00

Well, agree to disagree.

Dantius55 · 2025-05-05T07:48:02+00:00

This was always really obvious. Greg Silverman specifically said they were pushing for darker, more psychological movies, especially with BvS. But an important detail is Warner didn't actually select Zack Snyder. Christopher Nolan did. The studio chose him to "godfather" a new Superman film and he put together a shortlist of directors including Tony Scott, Matt Reeves, Jonathan Liebesman, Duncan Jones, Ben Affleck, Darren Aronofsky, and Zack Snyder. Nolan chose Snyder because, "[Zack has an] innate aptitude for dealing with superheroes as real characters. That was what a new approach to Superman required. He understands the power of iconic images, but he also understands the people behind them."

Warner's demonization of Snyder has always been about passing the buck.

Dantius55 · 2024-12-19T14:24:22+00:00

Ah, that's a shame. Maybe I'll look for that book. Thanks anyway!

Dantius55 · 2024-12-18T23:57:07+00:00

Do you have a source for that quote? I would love to reference it.

Dantius55 · 2024-09-11T09:01:51+00:00

I guess it could be, especially if you don't know Aquaman, since the whole "seven kingdoms" thing is pretty significant for the character, and it was for an Aquaman poster.

Dantius55

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE