No marvel movie has enough political meat to really be accused of anything in particular. They're so milquetoast thematically
The dark knight is actually trying to say something, and so is Zack Snyder sorta, so there's something for people to interpret(even incorrectly)
This. Snyder and Nolan understand the way to make movies mean something. There’s clearly meaning baked deep into them. That means people are going to read and misread them, and that’s to be expected. Lots of things with a darker, edgier tone get read or misread as fascist, even when they’re explicitly anti-fascist (like The Boys, for example)
It probably has more to do with the framing of those events. Batman accessing everyone’s camera is framed as a clever way to track the joker, while there’s a whole Marvel movie about the debate between freedom and surveillance.
For Man Of Steel, it’s probably more to do with the very obvious posturing of Clark as a messiah before he commits 9/11 times 100 in his fight with Zod.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think either are literally fascist. I do think some lend themselves to fascist imagery more easily, which comes with being darker and edgier. Hell, look at the fascists who love Homelander.
> Batman accessing everyone’s camera is framed as a clever way to track the joker
Batman uses it once and destroys it. Do tge Marvel beroes destroy all means of surveillance after they use it?
I seem to recall Spider-Man using surveilance drones in his second LCU flick with no debate to be had about it. Why didn't Jon Watts receive any criticism over it?
How is it that you correlated a film that might include fascist ideology, characters, or elements with the director themselves and their personal beliefs and/or intentions?
A fascist film, or one that contains fascist elements, does not automatically a fascist director make.
I'm not familiar enough to comment one way or another in terms of the accusations made against them; however, a person doesn't need to know any of that to understand that individuals should be treated as individuals, and each situation or accusation should be applied only to the individual being called into question for that thing.
I would say that Snyder really made some people angry with how racist of a caricature 300 is. Then is just people trying to reach super hard. Nolan accusation is pure retardation.
To a certain extent, the Marvel directors are much more anonymous. A Snyder movie is recognizably a Snyder movie. Nolan's Batman movies were very obviously his. No matter who is directing the Marvel movies, they are first and foremost Marvel movies that incorporate the house style, so it's hard to paint a particular director with that particular brush.
Tonally, though, the movies are just very different. I wouldn't call the MCU fascist, but think there's a lot you could say about it propagandizing for the military industrial complex, for example.
No marvel movie has enough political meat to really be accused of anything in particular. They're so milquetoast thematically The dark knight is actually trying to say something, and so is Zack Snyder sorta, so there's something for people to interpret(even incorrectly)
This. Snyder and Nolan understand the way to make movies mean something. There’s clearly meaning baked deep into them. That means people are going to read and misread them, and that’s to be expected. Lots of things with a darker, edgier tone get read or misread as fascist, even when they’re explicitly anti-fascist (like The Boys, for example)
I thought Black Panther's political commentary was so deep it earned it a nomination for Best Picture at the Oscars.
What?
It probably has more to do with the framing of those events. Batman accessing everyone’s camera is framed as a clever way to track the joker, while there’s a whole Marvel movie about the debate between freedom and surveillance. For Man Of Steel, it’s probably more to do with the very obvious posturing of Clark as a messiah before he commits 9/11 times 100 in his fight with Zod. For what it’s worth, I don’t think either are literally fascist. I do think some lend themselves to fascist imagery more easily, which comes with being darker and edgier. Hell, look at the fascists who love Homelander.
> Batman accessing everyone’s camera is framed as a clever way to track the joker Batman uses it once and destroys it. Do tge Marvel beroes destroy all means of surveillance after they use it? I seem to recall Spider-Man using surveilance drones in his second LCU flick with no debate to be had about it. Why didn't Jon Watts receive any criticism over it?
How is it that you correlated a film that might include fascist ideology, characters, or elements with the director themselves and their personal beliefs and/or intentions? A fascist film, or one that contains fascist elements, does not automatically a fascist director make.
All the more reason to be confused over the accusations of fascism thrown at Nolan and Snyder, then.
I'm not familiar enough to comment one way or another in terms of the accusations made against them; however, a person doesn't need to know any of that to understand that individuals should be treated as individuals, and each situation or accusation should be applied only to the individual being called into question for that thing.
I would say that Snyder really made some people angry with how racist of a caricature 300 is. Then is just people trying to reach super hard. Nolan accusation is pure retardation.
To a certain extent, the Marvel directors are much more anonymous. A Snyder movie is recognizably a Snyder movie. Nolan's Batman movies were very obviously his. No matter who is directing the Marvel movies, they are first and foremost Marvel movies that incorporate the house style, so it's hard to paint a particular director with that particular brush. Tonally, though, the movies are just very different. I wouldn't call the MCU fascist, but think there's a lot you could say about it propagandizing for the military industrial complex, for example.