MY BOOK OF ESSAYS IS OUT NOW! AMAZON: amzn.to/3dk14yu EVERYWHERE ELSE: bit.ly/3qJEbHT . Get 10% any purchase here: squarespace.com/nerdwriter HELP ME MAKE MORE VIDEOS: / nerdwriter
A conversation between Bobbie O'Steen and Sam O'Steen (editor of The Graduate & Chinatown): B: You developed a saying around that time, to remind a director not to become too attached to a moment, or a scene. S: “Movie first, scene second, moment third.” That is the order of importance for everything. B: So everything has to be justified in terms of how it serves the movie, you can’t hold onto a scene - or moment - just because you like it. S: Right.
This is exactly how directors cuts and special editions can fall apart sometimes. If the director is too focused on "fixing" a moment, they can't look at the big picture.
It's hard to do. Really getting to the core of a movie's flaws takes more time and skill than most reviewers are capable of, and it's so much easier to just say "This part was really awesome, but the editing ruined the movie for me." I've done the video essay thing a few times and it's much more difficult than talking in front of a camera for 5 minutes with minimal editing.
A critical (in this case video) essay is different than a film review, even a negative one, and they are allowed to be two different things. The negative reviews of BvS that I read and watched were quite nuanced.
@@tomsiebert155 People who dislike the movie understand it fine. But personally, if there's something that irks me more than the movie, it's when people say that stupid line in defense of it.
The lack of establishing shots doesn't help either. Some directors like Ridley Scott has a talent for world building, while Zack Snyder has talents in cinematography and general visual design of film. Zack goes overboard and makes the film seem like a long trailer, failing to connect the scenes and establish the world. Zack Snyder is a very talented person, but maybe he should be a part of the film making crew, rather than a director. At least until he realizes his shortcomings and hires people to help in that regard.
yep i left a comment saying the same thing in Mos and BvS you never really know where you are because there are so little establishing shots its kinda ridiculous that this guy got to make 3 big comic book movies in a row
Fundamentally he used those moments as guided imagery to harp on thematic relevance on a biblical proportion. i'm not saying i'm a fan nor does that excuse the product we got, but to paraphrase him he made a movie on the aesthetic of a comic book. I would say he rehashed some stories from the good book with some CS:GO skins to match the times and spun a wheel of fortune.
It's always felt like a scene in a Zach Snyder film (and suicide squad by extension) are just trailers for the actual scenes. They showcase the "big moments" but never actually build up or earn them. Great essay.
@@marcelobertoni2967 You "earn" a scene by building to it, so it is more than image and has resonance in real character and story. The whole point of this video essay is that Snyder fails to "earn" his big moments because he fails to put them into compelling scenes.
@@ChrisMaxfieldActs the movie build those moments all the time. Superman's rejection to the world. Batman abandoning his values for the "greatest mission" of human kind. We see progression and regression, and by the end a message of unity and hope.
Marcelo Bertoni people call this film pretentious. more specifically, pretentious people call this film pretentious. to me, that's proof that it is in fact not pretentious.
Nerdwriter1 I feel bad for DC not seeing your video...I mean really at 6:07 you said upbeat rock music batman jokes and Lightheartedness that's the exact thing they did in the Justice league....Once again it proved your theory that the tone isn't the problem....It's unearned moments....and Lack of actual scenes...
I think they actually created a new problem with the tone they tried to set in Justice League. DC has a strong identity, and that what the fans like, we don't want a light-hearted movie full of silly jokes a la Marvel....otherwise we would juste watch a Marvel movie, since that's their Cinematic Universe's Identity and they obviously do humor better. The attempted humor in JL was half assed and awkward, it didn't correspond the characters nor the universe (except for the Flash). It only added to the many problem this movie had.
Batman v superman was fine. It was spectacle over substance but how can you make a good superman movie? You cant. Just like you will never see a good avengers movie and cap america winter soldier is the best of the bunch among mediocrity. Instead of getting a mediocre movie with fantastic visuals and fight scenes,we got a complete garbage movie thats dumb, ugly and unfun. Im talking about justice league. This shit pissed me off so goddamn much. I think zack snyder was gonna make an epic trilogy. The injustice storyline on the big screen. Fucking hell....all thrown away because a bunch of marvel fanboys complained. There isnt a single scene in all of avengers thats as good as the batman v superman's batman saving martha kent scene. None. The fight scenes in avengers are garbage. The stories are laughable. The visual are mediocre. Let mediocre movies be at least a joy to watch. Nope. Justice league is your average marvel movie and yet people hated it. Marvep shit is the fortnite of movies. They are michael bay movies but lazy. Still they are a huge success. Fuck me i hate people. Masses would probably eat shit if it had the dumb marvel logo. And for what? Cheap,lazy, mediocre entertainment. Marvel became the big brother/kim Kardashian of this generation. I hate marvel. And now i hate dc too thanks to joss whedon. At least i get consolation on knowing that many people would agree that the whole marvel cinematic dumpster isnt even half as good as the dark knight movie. Thats hope.
@@kato093 holy crap bro its like youre in my head..i dont really hate marvel,i can enjoy their movies,but i know theyre not something special.at least bvs,in its own right,was and i loved the movie for it..Its sad were probably never get to experience something similar,a world too deep into marvel fangasm took it away from us,all we gonna get is cheap rehash batman and harley quin movies and i hate people for that aswell
+Marq Vince 1-My nickname in school was black sheep, not scare little sheep 2-People like you, who invent things where there is none, are the ones who scare me, and there are lot of these in the OUTSIDE WORLD
Despite me really enjoying the film I agree with everything you say. Well done on being the first person I have seen to actually break this film down to a technical level to explain why they dont think it works compared to everyone else who say 'its bad because it sucks'
There are many people who dislike this movie due to the many many more mistakes it has. Sure there are a few idiots who say "it's bad because it sucks". But for me the script was really clunky and unnatural, the pacing and editing was unseamlessly done (for example: barely any establishing shots) and but only a few characters had motivations (mostly only Batman). There are so many things to count, you can't just ignore them. If you like it then fine, but most people know why they don't like the movie and you can't just brand everyone who dislikes it as "haters".
Yeah we we're two critics who were super excited for it even after MoS and knowing that Snyder was directing it AND we could still see it was bad. We enjoyed it, but it was bad. People just couldn't seem to stomach that in our review and we copped major hate for it.
Breaking Banter Fellow Aussies! I watched your BvS spoiler review. I agree with your frustration with your thoughts on the marketing. I hate film marketing, after the second bvs trailer I told myself I would stop watching film trailers beyond perhaps 1 teaser or the first trailer of a film. I hate going in to a film and knowing whats coming. I also did a review on my other channel Blueprint Cinema, where we talked about the positive things because at the time we couldn't deal with how negative everyone was being. I don't think anything you said deserves to be 'annihilated by DC fans.' But what I meant by Nerdwriter's video is that it is very deep and thought out with a lot of time breaking it down, not just a discussion type review; an actual film analysis.
This is why I think that Wes Anderson and his DOP are such masterminds, cause every single shot is its own moment, but is also a scene. Moments shouldn't replace scenes, but they can go hand in hand if you execute them right
Anything will wear out if you overuse it. If you put too many jump scares, people will start laughing. If you try to awe them too many times, they will be bored. If you put to many get-to-know-me scenes, they will stop caring. The winning recipe is balance and diversity. It always is.
That and the fact Snyder just gets out of control in the 3rd acts of his films. I honestly laughed when they kept stressing in BvS that the locations they fought in were clear: that just meant that Snyder could blow shit up with no consequences, and civilian consequences are what make climactic battles so compelling. Two people fighting has no stakes; two people fighting because one wants to hurt civilians and the other wants to protect them does.
I don't know. I'm probably wrong but I think Inception (my favorite movie) is 80% trailer paced and it works amazing. 300 also works. I think BvS don't have a fundamental problem, but several.
I had enjoyed Man of Steel quite a bit. There is a truth that constantly everything is presented bigger than it is. I think with the third act just being action I just stop caring and it doesn't actually look good enough to remain entertaining.
Well, at least the Wonder Woman movie has a different director and different writers, so I retain a cautious optimism. That said, I definitely agree that the problem with WB's movies isn't that they're not "fun" enough; the problem is that they're far more self-important than they've earned the right to be.
Danny Malzahn No; the term "self-important" is a synonym for "pretentious". The problem with Dawn of Justice is the same as with Man of Steel, and to a lesser extent, the Dark Knight Trilogy: They're all more concerned with making you think they're saying something than with actually saying something, or, for that matter, with consistent characterization, logical character motivations, coherent structure, or anything resembling competent screenwriting. What good ideas they have are exposited down your throat, and then immediately contradicted by the characters' actions. Tl;dr: Dawn of Justice is just a badly written movie made worse by not having even a shred of self-awareness. That would be true no matter how "fun" it is. See also, Suicide Squad.
Danny Malzahn I didn't provide evidence because it's a RU-vid comment, not an essay, and I'm trying to keep things brief. Besides, I'm not really trying to convince anyone that DoJ is a bad movie; if you liked it, good for you. DoJ being bad isn't my argument, it's one of my premises. If you disagree with that, go have that debate somewhere else.
So basically you're allowed to voice Your opinion and STATE that WB's DC films are just self-entitled when it's barely just begun? A film universe that by this point has made it's OWN statement loud and clear that they're going for hyper-realism. So you see that right? REALISM. To a point at least. So you are not going to get Golly Gee Batman or Aww Schucks Superman that you, this guy and this gal, want. That was 1930's-60's era quaint all-american values versions of these characters. Characters (like all DC's heavyweights) that are far more than just their stories/origins. They are GODS, among MEN. Dealing with the problems of MAN. Do you understand how frustrating we are as a race? We can be amazing, but we're terrible. To each other and to our own media -games, tv, movies, celebrities etc- (you could argue it's a self-perpetuating cycle of cannibalistic opinionated violence). I will concede that BvS Theatrical Cut felt much like Nerdwriter1 states, but when watching the Ultimate Edition you can't tell me that movie doesn't breathe, it's "moments" no longer feel as such. The music cues themselves (which is why I find it hilarious that he even used one in the video) are allowed to play from beginning to end. Giving you mood, tone, foreboding etc.. Giving atmosphere that was lacking before, regardless of one's BIASED opinions before hand. I.E. most people's problems, "THIS ISNT MY SUPERMAN." "THIS ISNT MY BATMAN." When they should be asking, "Why?" Why are my characters like this now? First of all, the only version of that character that BELONGS to you, is the one you first INTRODUCED to. You've never truly gained OWNERSHIP over that character. Their motives, what drives them, is all INTERPRETED by you OR the WRITER and their respective time periods that influenced it all. Why do we need these versions? Because I want to believe in such a fucked up place, the point of BvS btw, is that heroes of that 1930's-60's ilk CAN exist, but we have to get that point. Batman states, "Men are Cruel...Men are Good". Paraphrasing of course, but we may start at a dark place but that doesn't mean we can't crawl into the light. It doesn't mean we can't stand for more in a world that won't have it. That is DC in a nutshell. If those same people are asking that, than in the end I guess it's just MY opinion, that if you're going to ask something of any media, you should expect it to ask the same of you back. I love Marvel but don't you dare tell me that any of their films has even attempted to tackle anything with the weight and gravitas that DC is Striving for. I say striving because at the end of the day, people can like or dislike what they want I just can't stand the idea that any story, or character for that matter, HAS to be a certain way or come across with SPECIFIC qualities.. that don't truly represent the character so much as the WRITER, or the ERA in which they were written. Hence, they are called ADAPTATIONS. Love your work Nerdwriter1 but I feel you could of tried a bit harder here and left a little more of your personal bias at the door.
"the overused and unearned moment" pretty much sums up my feeling of batman V Superman. I went to the theater three times to watch the movie. I love DC, and grew up a DC fan. Marvel being second because of the X-Men. BUT when I saw BVS I didn't know what I saw and couldn't capture how to describe it, so I saw it again. Still had the same feeling along with this emptiness about the film. Then the third time I went with a friend to see how he felt and maybe he could give me the right words. He thought it was ok, not great but ok. That didn't sum it up. This though, this sums it up. Good video!
Glad to see you find your answer!! How did you feel about the Ultimate Cut? It still suffers from the same problems but I felt Snyder tried in his own way to bring people into his universe.. That football scene Metropolis v Gotham for example. Still I wish he would take advise from other seasoned directors. He has such a great vision.
@@shiskeyoffles I like the Snyder cut way more than the theatrical cut, but it's still has overused and unearned moments." Mainly on Superman's side of the storytelling. These live and die Snyder fans have to calm down because every director loves to learn how to make their vision better as long as the criticism makes sense. I think the line up is wrong, I think they should have done another superman and Batman movie to get them to the point we see in BVS.
@@Dr.Beetlejuice110 whats sad is there was a planned Superman 2 without Snyder but they rushed out BVS with Snyder instead. And act like he planned everything..
@@TheYetixOUTx See I've always believed that at the end of the day, it was the execs at WB that decided that they want a Batman vs Superman movie before Justice League to catch up to Marvel. I don't excuse Snyder, because he is the director of BvS after all, but the rushing of the universe is down to WB.
I've been thinking about this video for the past few days because I revisited Scorsese's Casino and I think that movie is composed almost exclusively of moments. But that's not a problem, it's a great movie. EVERYTHING in Casino is a montage sequence, not a scene (with the obvious exception my exaggeration allows). Everything is a compilation of short and fast shots, music, transition effects such as fades... And Scorsese even finds the right occasions to include symbolic images with no spacial context to make a point, to visually transmit a feeling not entirely related to the point of view through which the action is being told. When the shots last long enough, they're still very dynamic: Scorsese pans and tracks and turns the whole blocking into a oner, and such cases still don't feel as independent scenes because when they occur they come with a voice-over narration that is not self-contained in that particular moment, is a narration that precedes the moment and spills into the next. I'm not saying everything in Casino is a moment because things happen too fast. My point is most of the times you couldn't put your finger on when a concrete, well-defined scene ended and another began because most situations evolve into the rest flowing through editing, not following the cause/effect logic most narrative fictions employ. And yes, you can follow and understand a linear story that evolves through time into the future, so it's not that radical. But the thing is, when you watch Casino, you can imagine a script was written but you can't picture how it read. It must've been so drastically altered, decomposed and fragmented in the editing room that those scenes from the script became moments in the movie (the way they go back and forth between two spaces at times to show how a situation A begins, a situation B develops and then how situation A ends instead of just showing situation A as a whole and then situation B, I feel very strongly comes from decisions made during post-production, not writing). And I also think all these decisions were made to broadcast a single message that happens to be the same you express here: "BE AWED". The thing is, Casino uses that awe to show us how, behind that amazing surface, the lives of the vane and the corrupt are empty. That's why it's effective. And I think that's the problem with Snyder, actually, It's not moments, it's not the transmission of awesomeness... It's that, under that awesomeness, the connection the audience makes with Snyder's characters is as empty as the lives of the characters in Casino. I think moments are not a defect by default. I think you can make very compelling movies with moments. I just don't see why you would choose to do that with Superman, portraying him as someone above us who doesn't really care about sharing joy with the people that reach out to him for help instead of showing him amongst us as a friend while he lends a hand. When he hovers over those people in the flooded neighborhood in BvS we can't even see his face, when the crowd extends their arms to touch him he doesn't even look them in the eyes. That's the thing, he's a Superman that feels miserable for having to be here and it's just pitiful to watch.
Marq Vince Batman v Superman's intelligent, profound, oh, philosophical speeches in a nutshell. It delusions you into thinking the movie is about something deep, when it's not.
Nivan Sharma The script is not poor, not perfect but yea. and the editing is perfect in the ultimate edition. and nothing you listed in your comment was directly under Zack's control. he was given the script to turn into a movie and he is the director not the editor..... everyone is saying Zack sucks and that he shouldn't lead this new DC universe just because they saw the theatrical version... I think he is the perfect person to helm this
Suicide Squad has the same problem, except a little less awe inspiring and just more “oh that looks cool” with no payoff and without having earned anything.
I'm so pissed off that every score in the DCEU gives me chills. I love it how I can watch a video that's well crafted and uses this music because God knows that I can't get that from any movies in the franchise
If only Zack Snyder could see this. Or somebody should physically grab him by the scruff of his neck and shove in front of a screen and play this video for him, over and over again. Till he gets the fucking message.
He'd laugh at how pathetic this video is and how the idiot who made it didn't fucking pay attention. Shut the fuck up moron and go actually watch the movie and pay attention to what's happening. When will you idiots get the fucking message is the real question here.
Zack just needs someone to answer to, or a partner at least to lasso him in. His vision has potential, and even though I generally enjoy Marvel films, what Zack is /trying/ to accomplish is a breath of fresh air. I want to see his vision of the DC universe succeeded. I want both companies to do better than they've been doing.
No they both answer to WB who owns DC. Geoff is just going to run DC Entertainment. He will make sure future movies and TV shows fully produced and writing the script for WW and the Ben Affleck Batman film.
Kale Vang forced character connections at that. most films tend to not give you a choice on how to feel about a character. Zack doesn't direct his films that way. he gives you a choice, and that's what filmmaking is supposed to be.
Essentially the film doesn't use the literacy of screenplays or movie-conventions to build up a good story. Its themes are too banal and one-sided and it flies all over the place with ideas that seem deep on the surface but meaningless because none of it sticks. Nothing in the movie seems to be building towards a general theme before its cut off by a new subplot about something else entirely. It's a wildly unfocused movie in tone, genre and themes.
Sort of, it's more like it's trying to cash in on the culminated feelings of the audience, bring it all to a greater height ik a single point, without actually building up and culminating those feelings. So then the whole thing falls flat.
+rocky047856: Except that filmmaking isn't about letting the audience make decisions on how to feel, it's about giving the audience a reason to have those feelings in the first place. You can only care about making a choice if the film is successful at making you care about said choice in the first place. For an analogy, if I was in a relationship with a woman I might have to decide between staying with her, or leaving her. If I cared about that woman, the choice would be extremely difficult and profound; on the other hand if the woman was someone I didn't care for, any choice I make regarding her wouldn't mean a damn thing, requiring no heart-wrenching decisions on my part. Snyder's scenes don't give you a reason to care about a character, therefore why should we even make a choice about how to feel about that character in the first place? A filmmaker or a storyteller is supposed to be able to make you feel about a character enough to care, whether it's because you want to see a character succeed, or you want to see them fail. A great storyteller of course is able to make characters that are deep enough that two people can feel very differently about the character and they would both be right, but that is reliant on the aforementioned point of us being made to care enough about the character in the first place.
You should make a video about how the WW movie did exactly this right, up until the last 30 minutes of it. The moment Diana says 'but it's what I'm going to do', climbs the ladder and advances in the 'No Man's Land' scene is as good as it is because it was earned.
Eh, all WB really needs to do is to stop trying to catch up to Marvel. To stop being so desperate to create a "cinematic universe" and just focus on making ONE truly _great_ film.
Paradox Acres Paradox Acres WB doesn't need to catch up to anyone there DCEU with these 3 films have already felt like a universes than MCU. Question for you? Where was hulk during winter solider or caps with thor 2 or thor when ironman 3 was happening i can go on n on. The reason why in the DCEU are coming together is because of this alien invasion THE MAN OF STEEL. The second film BVS we already gotten the trinity together with other heros out there, but since the marveltards and critics hate DCEU and worship the MARVEL D they make fun of wonder woman and batman for being in the film with no backstory but praise and love Spiderman and black panther in CIVIL WAR. Those character didnt have backstorys lol.
"Where was hulk during winter solider or caps with thor 2 or thor when ironman 3 was happening" And where were heroes (especially batman and flash) during the attack of Midway City? :)
Weird how perception works. Because of the mentioned scenes, the pace and the overall negativity BvS is one of my favorites. I watched all MCU movies and loved them but BvS is what I expect from DC: Darkness. Marvell is brightness.
I’ve never thought of it this way but your totally right! Nothing lands in this film because it doesn’t take the time to make the moments payoff to any other scenes we have seen. It’s just a bunch of moments we don’t care about.
everything you guys said is true but what really fucked these films up for me as a huge LOTR and Hobbit fan was taking the filming from the most beautiful scenery of New Zealand to it's most boring green screen studios. same thing with the costume design! taking it from a realistic explorations of a fantasy world to a transformers-like CGI fuckfest. it just felt wrong. what Vaughn said might be an even better point, tho.
Please never stop. I love revisiting your older content, your new content, just anything you do. Love the style and the way you describe things accurately. Keep it up :)
I just watched the extended version for the first time today (after watching man of steel yesterday) and I know i'm pretty late but you're spot on, this is exactly how i felt. there were multiple "moments" where i said "wow that's stunning" but the film still didnt resonate with me, i didnt quite get to spend a lot of time with superman nor batman nor lex luthor because the movie jumps from one perspective to another and everything felt messy and disjointed. I also dont need dc movies to be chippy and funny but the message that the movie is trying to convey should be delivered by the characters and we just dont get enough time to actually connect with any of them
JL is much stronger because of this, where it's apparent that Snyder made some concessions (whether they were forced by the studio or not) to restrain himself a bit. Ray Fisher stands out as Cyborg and Barry Allen has the setup for that great time traveling sequence in the climax of the film. Even Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot are allowed to just be their characters without the movie flexing in front of them constantly, which is what BvS is. And even Army of the Dead, which is not a good movie, but is more focused on its cast just being themselves in their roles. That's actually one of the more fun experiences in a Snyder flick for me, even though I was lucky enough to see that in the theater.
Could you do a video on Hans Zimmer? A lot of the movies you feature had film scores composed by him and I think it would be cool to see you do a video on him
Wow. You just put it clearly in word what I have felt for a long time. Zack is trying to create visual masterpieces which is fine, but unconsciously at the cost of communicating the story. Great job explaining that.
We don't live life one moment at a time. Life is fluid, connected, and realistic. A movie that tries to connect these to it's audience will always be better.
this is just awesome! I love your videos NerdWriter. And also, I love how it ended with the orchestra soundtrack. So satisfying. Well crafted...big ups
Good God, this is what I felt when I watched BvS! I felt like everything was overly dramatic/cinematic to the point of me (as an audience) not being able to feel connected to any of the characters. There is very little "character establishing moment" that puts emphasis on the character him/herself. Too much glaring/dramatic-sounding music, excessively dramatic shots, and somehow, I feel like even the dialogues do not make the characters relatable. I didn't see Man of Steel but from BvS, all I could see in Superman was an arrogant man who had too much pride in his powers without any sense of humility.
+Heysus Christo I kinda think that since Superman was raised by humans, at least he should have had some sense of human-like behavior that makes him relatable... but then again, maybe you are right. Maybe Nolan's Batman is relatable because its characters wreak havoc without superpowers
When I see a Marvel superhero movie it is very easy to relate to any of the superpowered individuals. Especially thor and Loki, which while yielding god-like powers still are very relatable. Maybe because Valhalla was well established, as well as the family dynamics between both characterss as their motivations. And their character growth from movie to movie also helps. For example, Thor in the first movie was an extremely arrogant individual (much like Superman in the Snyderverse) but by the end of it he become more human and easier to emphatize with. Superman in the Snyderverse just continues being an arrogant douche.
''Superman was an arrogant man who had too much pride in his powers without any sense of humility.'' ???????? WHAT!? Where the hell did you get that idea!? Superman, or Clark Kent, who I saw in BvS was a troubled man carrying the world on his shoulders. World, that is at the same time either trying to pat him on the back or trying to stab him into back. He is not proud of his powers, he never has been, because having them made him different from those he grew up with and now that the whole world sees him as that different, he has hard time trying to see what is even the point being Superman when almost everyone(like you) is just going to shit on him because he is not human and are afraid what he could do with his powers.
I really hope people take this on board, because this is what our channel has been trying to make people understand about BvS since release and no one seems to want to listen.
My thoughts exactly. At best, he could be a cinematographer if kept on a short leash (or choke chain, your pick). At worst, maybe he could cut trailers or make 15 to 30 second commercials. But as a filmmaker, he just can't cut it if he doesn't know how to tell a story.
wow, I'm betting you've never made a good movie in your life...telling a visionary with conflicted criticism to stop making movies. Please, no one cares about your puny worm opinions
Great summary. And I appreciate your ability to look at your past errors and learn from them, and help us all learn from them. This is a wonderful series. Thank you.
But the characters in this movie don't lack motivation, far from it. - Bats wants to kill Supes because he sees him as an alien threat that might destroy the world. This is caused by his being angry and frustrated at how useless his 20 years of crimefighting have proven, eve leading to the death of Robin. - Supes wants to arrest Batman because he sees him as a vigilante who breaks the law and Supes is self-righteous. He also is not very bright and easily manipulated by Luthor (granted, Bats also is in this movie, but you can chalk that to his anger and frustration blinding him) - Luthor wants to kill Supes because he wants revenge at God for not protecting him from Daddy Luthor when he was a kid, and Supes is the closest thing to God he ever saw (I suspect he planned to get rid of the other metahumans in time, for the same reason) - Lois motivation is doing her job as a reporter - The Senator's motivation is having Superman accountable before the people and the government Doomsday has no motivation, because it's a killing machine Also, not a work of art, but the movie is essentially about a conflict between 3 men with deep family issues, especially Bats and Alex, but Supes is attached to his mother in a nearly childlike way, which makes it easy for Luthor to manipulate him. I grant the Martha thing was contrived (any normal person would have said "mom" instead of Martha, unless you say Supes was concerned about his secret identity), but the reason for Bats to stop was not the mere coincidence of names as, thanks to Martha Washington, Martha used to be a pretty common name. It's because it makes him realize Supes is a person, is morally and emotionally human, and not the mere alien monster Bats thought he was, and that the actual monster in that situation was Bats, as he was acting like those who took his mother from him and also took all the good things in his life from him, like the Joker. Many of the moments you describe are indeed there for comic book fan service, as they almost literally reproduce panels and dialogue from Frank Miller's Dark Knight. I really had no issues with this movie. Somethings were silly? Sure! But you're right: Snyder's career is full of these moments. Just look at 300 and Sin City. He's always trying to make movies that look like comic books. Whether that's a problem, is another matter.
You make a good argument. But I don't feel as if the motivations of Batman and Superman really make sense Batman wants to kill Superman because he's a threat. But he'll happily murder just about anyone to achieve that goal and it just makes Batman not make a lot of sense and this is never really addressed
The problem is, why does Superman want to kill Batman? Ultimately we know that he actually doesn't because the red headed pipsqueak blackmailed him, but before when they first meet, we don't even understand why Superman wants to fight Batman.
I'm literally so glad one person fucking actually understands the "Martha" Scene. The real difference I find between this movie and most other superhero movies is that it refused to hold your hand. The simple truth is, if you aren't a DC fan, you will probably not really understand 100% of the character's motivations, and I don't really care. Because Snyder is a DC fan and he made this for the rest of us.
I think the dialogue falls flat too. The screenwriting is boring and often cliché at times. And I swear everytime a character makes one their inside jokes the camera stops for a few seconds so that the audience can pick up on it.
It's boring because it doesn't make use of itself to set up the characters properly or to ground them in the fiction. It keeps "impressing" you with deep-sounding things. It has no subtlety.
Dialogue, Screenwriting, to list a few. Let's not forget the super weird Jesse Eisenberg Lex, which a good director would 'direct' to be better/different, or make a better casting decision. I mean, there's been so much Lex Luthor history, and that's the version we get? Wtf was that jolly rancher moment, anyways? Improvised? Scripted? Who's crazy idea was that? We'll never know.
I agree that this was a legitimate issue with the Theatrical release, but I believe Snyder's true ultimate cut fixes this main issue. Each of the awe-inspiring 'moments' has more weight because 30 crucial minutes of 'scenes' have been returned.
Nah, watched both and I couldn't tell a difference. I liked the movie myself, but I listen to arguments like this video here and I do agree. It had issues, lots of them.
I just watched the Ultimate Edition. Didn't see the theatrical version. The Ultimate Edition was tedious, plodding, and is a jumbled mess. It is trying to be a good movie, but alas, falls way short.
I would have to disagree. It makes the plots more coherent, but there still plots that aren't that interesting or really helping to explore the conflict between Batman and Superman.
Adding stuff to BvS couldn't fix it. No additions could fix Eisenberg's awful Luthor, the superfluous presence of Wonder Woman, the stiff fight scenes, or "Martha!". What BvS need was a lot of cuts and reshoots.
+CountBifford What? There were no stuff fight scenes, Presence of Wonder Woman? Nothing wrong with that. And the Martha scene is you're personal problem.
Sadly analyzing film and creating it is two completely different things. Haven't you ever created something and been SO proud over it? Yeah. It's the same for any creator. The pride makes it hard to be objective on your own work
He's more like Joseph Campbell who was better than anyone at analyzing myth and meaning in stories but unable to successfully create an excellent one himself even though he tried.
Man, the music is so good though. It goes so well with your "moment" montage! Thank you Hans Zimmer :) (And thank you Nerdwriter1 for the fantastically edited and enormously thoughtful videos.
well, to be honest...Nolan's Batman movies kinda screwed up on the fight scenes (save for in "Rises". The 1st batman vs Bane fight was awesome). And that's where our boy Snyder should have entered. Nolan is an EPIC director, but he insists on filming fight scenes because he hasn´t had no 2nd Unit by choice. But Snyder is an excelent 2nd Unit director, but a poor Director. Nolan's story + Snyder's fight scenes and iconic imagery = absolute fucking gold.
The Stark Knight Returns He kinda screwed up in Batman Begins because it was his first movie with action. The hand to hand isn't great in the Dark Knight but the rest of the action is. I have no problems with any of the direction of action in the Dark Knight Rises. Simply said Nolan has grown as an action director and I feel like Snyder may have becoming worse.
The Nolan films may not be a fanboy's cup of tea, but they elevated the comic book genre to heights higher than it had any right being. Begins is original character origins movie that introduced the gritty reboot concept you see today in Craig's Bond and Star Trek.... Dark Knight is simply one of the greatest movies ever made and the greatest Batman live action movie as of now. Rises is one of the greatest superhero movies and gives us something we've never seen before - the ending of a comic character (I say this coz comic characters aren't written to end)
Ive only just stumbled upon your channel tonight, only watched two videos so far, and my oh my im already hooked! Love the content in your Understanding art (Case Studies) ill definitely be watching all your videos in due time!
Holy shit! I love your channel! I just stumbled on it. Totally up my alley. Thanks so much for your analysis of film, it's gonna keep me busy for quite awhile. 😊
urmanascrewed Well, tell a good story. And Snyder and the other writer would have to start with basic rules of good storytelling, world building and character building. Which they did not.
The DCEU is trying to be a bunch of paintings strung together to attempt to form something that they obviously weren't made for, that's the feeling I get anyway
Personally, I feel that "most rational people" do hate their previous/student work because they feel they can do better, and us as people are always striving to make things better. However, there is a difference between hating something and actually going in depth on why it was "less than successful". However, I'm only fifteen so what do I know.
Finally some genuine criticism. I adored this movie and never really got the hate for it , but with my first watch this was my issue with the movie as well. I never really felt like I was in Gotham or Metropolis or their own small areas like Daily planet , bat cave , all of which are essential locations in the story of these two superheroes .There was a feeling of moving from one set to another . However I still found the movie to be a big and pleasant change from the monotonous superhero movie formula that had been developing for a few years. I had issues with the movie but not with the scenes that were being ridiculed like Martha . Good genuine video and criticism none the less .
That's exactly how I feel about it too. The fact it's made by a director and not a boring studio committee is enough for me to appreciate and admire it, even if it's clearly flawed on a basic level of getting me dissolved into the story alongside the characters. It has some shots that still to this day, if I see it on a big screen, make me transfixed. But a full-length motion picture requires a lot more than that.
he doesn't have to do anything other than what he just did in his video. Consulting just means helping from another relevant point of view to increase the quality. The work still lies at Zack & Co.
You can make dour and bleak Superhero films, no problem. I got annoyed when I heard they were reshooting Suicide Squad with the intention of inserting more light-hearted humour into the film (though it remains just a rumour), because for all we knew, going bleak and serious MIGHT have been David Ayer's vision. Maybe that tone was servicing a story we had yet to see play out and that was now getting stepped on. Fortunately we know it wasn't true but the point remains the same - it doesn't matter what tone you go for as long as it services the story. That's what's wrong with BvS, there just isn't a story, and the grim and gritty aesthetic is pursued more like some cheap device to make the material seem cool and mature. It also doesn't help that the filmmakers show no fidelity for those characters.
I enjoyed this greatly and look forward to digging into the rest! It's interesting to note a tension between the original comics and the films- Comics by nature are built from frozen moments placed in relation to each other to evoke scenes and actions within scenes, with the reader filling in the gaps between. Many of these directors look too hard at each individual panel trying to rationalise that enclosed space as a shot on screen without understanding the work inside and between those boxes that goes on to make panels work together. Working in kid's books and comics we're starting to see similar trends being reverse engineered from cinema and games where books like notes from the shadowed city and the thousand nights of hero rely too heavily on the nebulous nature of the evocation effect rather than really digging into and fleshing out elements of concept and narrative. An editor I know went so far as to call it the dark souls effect, where creators expect their audience to conflate well illustrated but vague narrative minimalism with something profound.
I've gotta thank you for this video, because it's really helped me understand films a lot better, and it's helped me write more effectively. I'm almost completely unqualified, but I write comic book scripts for artists now, and being more aware of what makes a good scene has helped me make things people can get lost in; things that make them truly want to see what comes next. Thanks for making these.
As an audience member, I never connected with Batman's motivation. I love Nolan's interpretation and Batfleck was okay; but he never seem as intelligent in the l-a movies.
Interesting because I thought Batman's motivation was the only one that was clearly defined in the movie. Superman and his personal crap killed a few thousand people, he never helped out with the rebuilding effort, never apologized or took responsibility, and now he's acting like humanity's Jesus figure by intentionally acting more godly (slowly descending to the flooded rooftops, letting people bow down to him, etc). So yeah, in this version, fuck Superman cause he's a terrible person.
Commander_Ninja Motivated by the destruction to.....kill Superman? The leeway the film makers have is a HUGE turn off; Superman could've killed Bruce Wayne on several occasions even during the fight, I never felt Supes was in danger. So either Bruce rationalized he wouldn't (which means he not bad) or he's delusional and not very intelligent. IF Supes intentionally hovered above people to garner praise then he whack but I charged those scenes to directing style. ie, Rooftop flood scene could've actually been 1min slowed for drama. Not defending Supes, i hate every non animated SM movies.
Jairan78 I agree that Batman's logic was completely stupid. I was just explaining that I got his motivation. Everything that followed was a bunch of nonsense. Like... this dude just handled a ton of bullets like it was nothing AND he's saying "I just want to talk". Nah keep trying to murder him, Batman. Because everyone knows that Batman is all about cold blooded murder, right?
I don't know when it truly started, but all color filters (the easily noticeable ones, anyway) have bothered me since _after_ seeing the Matrix. I was okay with it in that movie because it fit and seemed original at the time, but as soon as I started to notice it in others... it just bugs me now.
1. It's his cinematographer's job. Who is a friend of mine - Larry Fong. 2. He used ZERO filters. ZERO. It's all shot on film. 3. Stop listening to internet uninformed babble.
this is just my very thought of the movie put in words. Nerdwriter1, you make awesome contents. Your editing is so on-point as well. I'm so glad that I found your channel.
Thank you, the Justice league trailer came out and many people seemed to think that not being fun enough was the issue. It really isn't, it was just kind of a mess.
I am cautiously optomistic about that movie. Snyder was kicked off the main chair in favor of Affleck part of the way through shooting, and it's possible for him to fix the issues of moments. I do hope that we have a maximum of one montages in that movie, but I'm not going to be surprised if it goes to three or four. All we can do is cross our fingers and sign the e-petition to get Snyder to go back to college.
Heysus Christo But will it make the popcorn taste better? Sometimes, the answer is yes. In BvS's case, the answer was no. I do hope that the JL movie does make me enjoy my treat more, but I am concerned about the current state of these movies. It doesn't need to be good, but I do need to be entertained. BvS didn't entertain.
None of what you said is true. Ben Affleck is just an executive producer to oversee how it is in relations to his Batman movie. No one is getting "kicked" in favor of someone else. Could Affleck have some sort of insight? Possibly. This is still very much Snyder's movie with a script written solely by Chris Terrio.
I'm loving these videos. I'm a big movie fan but wouldn't say I'm a "film buff" so it's really interesting having in depth discussions about why I liked, or didn't like, certain things explained to me so succinctly using movie industry terminology. Things that you as a moviegoer understand, but couldn't explain WHY you understand them. Great series, keep up the good work!
The fact that you declare Epic Storytelling as a "Fundamental Flaw" is problematic in itself. There's a lack of depth and insight in this analysis. You have to understand the difference between FRIENDS and The Odyssey, between Lethal Weapon and Troy, between Beverly Hills Cops and Othello; between Character driven storytelling and Epic Storytelling. Is one better than the other? No. But they are different in the way they tell their stories and tbh Epic storytelling is more suitable for DC's heroes since they are gods who must be men while Marvel's superheroes are men with powers.
drksideofthewal I never waded into those murky waters. His claims about so vague that they cannot be corroborated or debunked. Of course he was smart enough not to include scenes heavy on dialogue and emotion that propelled the story forwarding dramatic fashion. Of which there were several in BvS. But let's address your query specifically as a new subject: Character driven scenes that delve deep into relationships are not the emphasis of "Epic Storytelling." The focus is on the grand sweeping themes of life and the spectacle of the story. In The Iliad by Homer there are no character moments between Achilles and Patroklos or witty banter to show how cool they were, but Achilles rushes into battle in a furious rage in response to Patrokolos' death on the battle field. The gore and savagery is described in great detail glorifying his violence. In today's World that would be seen as a plot hole and emphasis on a moment rather than a scene that develops the characters. But the Iliad is a epic tale, not a character driven tale. It's about hubris and vengeance - those epic mythological themes. Audiences just expected something else and weren't open to adjusting their perspective.
What? So you're saying just because something is "epic", it doesn't have to have genuine, likable characters, or real character development? Hmm... I don't really believe that...
real character development like watching the Man clark has grown to be struggle with not being accepted by the world and eventually learning and realizing that he will never be fully accepted but that doesn't matter because you don't have to be fully accepted to do the right thing? The fact that Bruce spends months unwittingly being emotionally influenced into hating Clark by Luthor until he eventually is essentially taught that he was being manipulated but at this point its too late and all that has transpired and his part in it leads to Clarks death which makes him realize how lost he's been and how he has failed? or the fact that Lois, a pullitzer prize winning reporter spends an entire movie being a journalist and a girlfriend and somone who since Man of Steel leading into this film and to the end of it, grows into someone who understands that not all stories are worth chasing and that her own decisions as a journalist have consequences for others? I'm sorry that a conflicted hero isn't likeable to you btw
Until now I didn't know why I felt VII had something wrong. This is exactly it. It has a lot of moments but not enough scenes. Even the prequels had scenes.
The prequels were nothing but scenes, with CGI cartoon battle set pieces spliced in. Talking, talking on couches, talking in hallways, shot reverse shot. Lucas went too far in the other direction, which is also a bad thing, but maybe that's why the prequels have stuck in peoples minds for so long.
What I also thought Lucas did right with the prequels was world-building. I mean, the Republic, the Senate, the creation of clones, the droids, and even pod racing, are all unique details Lucas added into the Star Wars universe. It's all complicated and unnecessary, but it gave Star Wars a bigger world than it seemed. Episode VII didn't really bring in anything but perhaps the new Stormtrooper uniforms, a different lightsaber design, and the money-making Kylo Ren helmet.
There's nothing wrong with crosses, the problem is how obvious they are and how they lack subtlety and how Snyder keeps milking the Superman=Jesus imagery. The rebar crosses are the visual equivalent of the film going "LOOK GUYS, SUPERMAN IS LIEK JESUS BECAUSE HE DIED FOR US DO U GET IT?? GETT IT?? SYMBOLISM!!!"
Snyder has no idea what to do with Superman, how to build his character. The cringeworthy Jesus symbolism is so lazy to a character who is supposed to be more science fiction-ish.
I don't speak very well English because I'm French, but I think that I understand the point of your video and I must disagree. Those "moments" which you are talking about are the main interest of this movie. Snyder brought to super-heroic movies, something new, something oniric and homeric. A vision that was totally absent from other productions of the same kind. His film is "clipesque" (in French). I don't know the translation for this word in english but I want to mean that his movies looks like video clips. I don't like 300 (I didn't like the comic-book in the first place, probably the only Frank Miller's comic that I do not appreciate) and Sucker Punch was really bad, with all the bad CGI bullshit. However, Watchmen was already really good. But with BvS, his filmmaking makes sens like never before, because Snyder wants to iconize these heroes. He want to deify them, and take them seriously because super-heroes are a serious thing. It's a part of our culture. The super-heroes are icons, it's our mythology somewhere. This is why Snyder works a lot on the editing and the montage of his movies, and the composition of his photography (in BvS) is often clever. I don't take this movie like a simple heroic movie. To me, it's nearly a peplum or a mythological movie. I had this discussion with a friend who didn't like BvS and I explained to him that there is a true intention in BvS about our mythological need and our relation with the "Übermensch" concept. We need to be attached to a superior force. We already can find theses interrogations in the DC comic-books. And I think that Snyder understands more than others producers (yes even Nolan) what is the nature of a DC comic-book. And this is why all these "moments" are such importants in this movie, they iconize the characters. And the result is oniric in the moments of calm / peace and homeric in the action, which gives a fantastic movie, with a touch of darkness and serious. Like a good DC comic-book. The photography of BvS reminds me a lot the work of Alex Ross on "Kingdom Come". For example, the moments when Superman appears in the sun to save people from the innondation. Or Batman, with his spear and his broken helmet, who looks like more a knight than a super-hero. All these moments is about mythology. David vs Goliath for example. And seriously, taking the exemple of Josh Whedon to feed your argumentation, come on ! This guy is the cancer of super-heroes movies... PS: sorry for the grammatical mistakes and conjugation stuff. It's pretty hard for me to explain my point of view in an another language. ^^
This is exactly what i tell people that say BvS sucks and that it was a mess, etc... Notice how nobody replys to you? Zack Snyder knows how to frame a shot, and the comic book genre movies is perfect for his style.
As a grammar tip for English specifically (only because you make the mistake multiple times) _- "We can already find theses interrogations..."_ > The only error here is the extra "s" on the word "these". _-"All these moments is..."_ > The error here is the word "is" in place of the word "are". Rule of Thumb: When the *noun* (i.e. interrogations) is _plural_ or _singular_, the pronoun must follow suit (meaning, must also be _plural_ or _singular_ respectively). This is true for the verb "to be", or "is/are" in this case as well. So, corrected, it would be "We can already find *these* interrogations..." and "All these moments *are*...".
Jp Ropain You think the execution is poor (and it's your right, of course). But I disagree with that. When I watched BvS at the cinema, I got chills all along. It's a sign. I don't say this movie is perfect, or a masterpiece and that he has 0 flaw, but to me, it's surely a great blockbuster. And even if you think he is poorly executed, you at least admit that he has intentions. And it's already a great thing ! Because it's been awhile that a super-heroe movie brought something new, brought intentions in his filmmaking! All the Marvel Studios movies are copy / paste from each others (not sure about this sentence, I got carried away lol).
The biggest problem I found with BvS is that there is no theme. There's a plot, sure, but it means nothing. Sure, a story needs plot, character motivation, goals, backstories etc. But it needs to mean something for us to feel involved. The only theme behind BvS is "look how cool this explosion is"
Woah, You definitely made a really strong point. After watching your video, I'm intrigued to watch the movie again and try to find out more about the "moments". Good research!
"The overused and unearned 'Moments' is DC's greatest foe." Perfectly said. I hope DC and Warner Brothers sees this (and replaces Zack Snyder as director on future DCEU films).
Btw, how about doing a breakdown of how/why Civil War worked so well emotionally? Why are the vast majority of audiences members able to completely understand and generally agree with Cap's adamant defense of Bucky, despite Bucky's "crimes"? How much of that is thanks to the excellent emotional groundwork laid in CA: The Winter Soldier? (and how amazing is Sebastian Stan's Winter Soldier in CATWS? He had like EIGHT LINES in the whole film and yet, I left the theater having such a strong impression and understanding of his character. Crazeh!)
Not just that, but replace Charles Roven, the Producer as well. Roven let Snyder do whatever the hell he wanted and didn't let David Ayer didn't do his job in Suicide Squad. Ayer wanted the joker to be the to te main Villain but Ayer said "No, go for Enchantress" because, stupid reason, he didn't like Jared Leto. And I forgot to tell you that Warner Brothers gave David Ayer only 6 weeks to write a script. Clearly not enough time.
Excellent video. This definitely highlights one of the many problems I have with Zack Snyder as a filmmaker. Another issue I have with him is the emphasis he puts on violent scenes in his movies. A fellow RU-vid member named kaptainkristian highlighted that particular problem with his latest essay on the adaptation of Watchmen from comic to film. I highly recommend you check that out. I don't feel confident about the SDCC trailer for Justice League, even if they do give the film more levity. Because it doesn't fix the major problem the past DCU films have shown: Zack Snyder cannot tell a story unless it's an adaptation. And even adaptations like Watchmen feel hollow when compared to the source material.
Zack Snyder did not understood the Watchmen graphic novel, instead of portraying a trope of losers subverting the superhero arquetypes, he made them seem heroic, tormented and edgy and that isn't the point. Zack Snyder's abylity to make violent stories look cool is in direct correlation to his lack of understanding about morality and character motivation. Suicide Squad may not have been directed by him, but it was supervised by him and it has similar problems
Sebastián Gómez Letelier I'm not sure I agree about "Watchmen". I enjoyed the film and was inspired by it to read the original for the first time. The book has more depth and complexity of course, but the film seems a fair representation of it. But possibly if you come to the film already having a familiarity with the book, that gives you a different perspective? (I'm talking here about the Director's Cut, by the way.)
It's still an entertaining and thought provoking movie. But those merits are literally present in the graphic novel, same as 300. Adapting a visionary comic directly from the panels made Zack Snyder's fame and fortune, but there is more to this medium than pretty visuals and slow motion action scenes
wow since this is one of my fav movies for the feels it gives cuz of these "moments" i was going to hate you prematurely but everything you said makes sense and tho this doesnt change my love for the film it definitely points out the flaws i cannot deny. very nice vid
God, that charity speech. I think that was the moment when shit started getting weird. Then I saw the Jolly Rancher scene and was like, did that just happen? Then the Martha scene happened, and I knew the movie couldn't be redeemed.
Whoa wait, our mom's have the same name? isokey superman, forget our fight from the first two hours of this movie. We frens now. Oh hey, is dat Wunder Women? ^literally the original storyboard
Bravo! Well done and well thought out! I can honestly say this is the most satisfying review/critique of BvS I've seen, and ooh I have watched quite a few.
Ahh great analysis once again. I think that the obsession with moments also converts to great trailers for mediocre or bad movies. Just have a couple of awesome moments to put into the trailer and then the actual movie is a narrative mess.
I'm really glad to have found this channel. Your thoughts and insights are really enjoyable to listen to, and it reminds me of my own love of cinema. Bravo, good sir!
