Reply to Topic
I've spent a lot of time trash talking Man of Steel in the BvS thread, but I've not really understood what it is people see in Snyder other than the occasional comment about "shutting off my brain to enjoy some action."
So, convince me why he's a decent filmmaker.
I think his films are soulless. The only character moment I've ever really bought in any of his films is the death of Rorschach in Watchmen but that's because it's a powerful moment in the comic. Despite that moment, Watchmen still felt flat. Ozimandias' moment of triumph didn't move me nor did his moment of doubt. I never cared for any of the characters.
This lack of caring about the characters in his films carries in to Man of Steel and 300. He seems far more interested in slow-motion filming and making things look cool than he does in crafting a strong story or characters with which the audience can empathize.
In the nit-picking, fanboy area, I also think he does a terrible job adapting both Watchmen and Superman.
In the original Watchmen comic Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons wanted to completely dissect the superhero genre. One of the ways they did this was by showing the true results of comic book style violence in a way that had hardly been seen prior to the release of Watchmen. When the "heroes" of the story fight villains, bones get broken and blood is spilled and people die. Up to that point in comics, if Batman punched the Joker the results were always unrealistically minimal. No blood, no broken jaw. Watchmen was shockingly realistic and stands even today as a milestone in comic book history.
I assumed prior to the release of the film that Snyder would use this adaptation to similarly deconstruct the superhero film genre. I thought the nipples on Ozymandias' costume was going to be one of the snide remarks toward the genre. Instead I got slow-motion violence that, despite being graphic, was shot in a manner to be "cool." IMO, this betrays the violence of the comics and misses the point of the original story. Watchmen wasn't supposed to be "cool" when it was originally published. The film mimics the story without understanding all the subtext of the source material.
You know what film does a great job of portraying realistic and visceral violence like the original Watchmen? The Dark Knight Rises. The first fight between Batman and Bane is violent without being over stylized. It's brutal and graphic and the results are real.
This is what I said about Man of Steel in the BvS thread:
Snyder not only makes style-over-substance films, but he also distorts or destroys the source material's intent. Superman in Man of Steel is a good guy for reasons not shown in the film. Watchmen is a 3+ hour long music video without any of the biting commentary of the original comics.
Someone explain to me why he is a good filmmaker.
So, convince me why he's a decent filmmaker.
I think his films are soulless. The only character moment I've ever really bought in any of his films is the death of Rorschach in Watchmen but that's because it's a powerful moment in the comic. Despite that moment, Watchmen still felt flat. Ozimandias' moment of triumph didn't move me nor did his moment of doubt. I never cared for any of the characters.
This lack of caring about the characters in his films carries in to Man of Steel and 300. He seems far more interested in slow-motion filming and making things look cool than he does in crafting a strong story or characters with which the audience can empathize.
In the nit-picking, fanboy area, I also think he does a terrible job adapting both Watchmen and Superman.
In the original Watchmen comic Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons wanted to completely dissect the superhero genre. One of the ways they did this was by showing the true results of comic book style violence in a way that had hardly been seen prior to the release of Watchmen. When the "heroes" of the story fight villains, bones get broken and blood is spilled and people die. Up to that point in comics, if Batman punched the Joker the results were always unrealistically minimal. No blood, no broken jaw. Watchmen was shockingly realistic and stands even today as a milestone in comic book history.
I assumed prior to the release of the film that Snyder would use this adaptation to similarly deconstruct the superhero film genre. I thought the nipples on Ozymandias' costume was going to be one of the snide remarks toward the genre. Instead I got slow-motion violence that, despite being graphic, was shot in a manner to be "cool." IMO, this betrays the violence of the comics and misses the point of the original story. Watchmen wasn't supposed to be "cool" when it was originally published. The film mimics the story without understanding all the subtext of the source material.
You know what film does a great job of portraying realistic and visceral violence like the original Watchmen? The Dark Knight Rises. The first fight between Batman and Bane is violent without being over stylized. It's brutal and graphic and the results are real.
This is what I said about Man of Steel in the BvS thread:
Superman in the comics, and in the Reeves film, learned his humanity and his heroic nature from Johnathan Kent. In Man of Steel Pa only teaches him to fear and mistrust humans. It's a betrayal of the original mythos that not only hurts the character but doesn't make sense in the context of the film. Why does Superman side with the humans when Zod shows up? Hasn't his father spent the entire film telling him humans are dangerous and not to be trusted?
Someone explain to me why he is a good filmmaker.
__________________
Ok yall, please try and convince me how the original George Romero Dawn Of The Dead is superior to Snyders DOTD. Dont anybody dare say the acting.