Zach Snyder

Dude, Bill Maher is kind of a d-bag. He doesn't speak for me. I just find it offensive to use "gay" to mean stupid because my little sister was bullied mercilessly (almost to the point of suicide) in school over her sexual orientation. I am so sick of people pretending like it's so rebellious to not care if you hurt other people.. I care a LOT. People have feelings. It's not that hard to, I dunno, be nice.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Fair enough, though it's pretty ironic to use slurs yourself against someone you don't like while trying to make a case against it at the same time.

I'm very sorry to hear about your sister.

Problem here is that using slang is not the same as actual bullying (and the bullying itself is the problem much moreso than any 'words' used) - and there's no evidence that using slang words creates a "butterfly effect" leading to actual bullyings, stonings, etc - it's just the current trendy PC fad to claim so, because people just love to be outraged at something, and religious outrage isn't a la mode anymore.

If you aren't mentally able to distinguish the difference between using a slang word on a message board in a non-literal context, and someone yelling "God hates F@gs" at a homosexual, then that's really on you though.

That black/white mentality has eerie similarities to someone who can't distinguish between playing a violent video game and going on an actual shooting spree.

Being "nice" in the sense that you're saying isn't a desirable thing - since what you're advocating goes beyond being 'nice' in the basic moral sense, and ventures into the territory of being obsequious or a doormat who bends over backwards out of fear of offending someone or not being liked (even when the offended person is actually being hypersensitive).

I've met actual gay people who'd use words like f@ggot in a joking context, and think you're the one just overreacting - if you think they're "traitors" to the PC cause like Bill Maher, then c'este la vie I guess.

Being worry free and having an edgy sense of humor is way better and more likable to people in the long run than being a milquetoast who stresses every minute over whether or not people are offended - it's better for testosterone too (and no this isn't an exaggeration) - the only way to avoid offending anyone ever would be for everyone to make like Robinson Crusoe and just live it out on a deserted Island completely away from civilization, so no can do bro.

If you're offended by it then you're free to ignore it, but if you think that loudly venting your dislike for it, or bringing up what happened to your sister to make what was said seem worse is going to win people to your view, then you're incorrect sir.

Fine, whatever, I'm done.

No I surrender, I insist

Dude, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You come in here looking for arguments, and you shout down anyone who dares say anything, and it just sort of sucks the fun out of being here. I could give a crap about "political correctness," I don't think it makes me a doormat to treat others with respect, it's just common decency. But whatever. I just don't give a damn anymore.

I was looking for an argument by replying to your rant? Wow...

Well since you replied to me again - truth is statements which aren't directed at someone aren't treating anyone with a "lack of respect" or violating common decency - PC isn't "common decency", well outside of maybe a Union of Jewish Transgender Feminist Vegan Communists for Choice rally at Berkley U or something. You're just choosing not to mentally distinguish between a sarcastic statement made in 3rd person and an actual bullying incident that happened to your loved one. If you were somewhat consistent I wouldn't be saying you're "PC"; but the fact that you picked out the particular slang word 'gay' while using 'mean' words like D-bag yourself gives me that impression.

Not that I expect to convince you to change your uppity view or anything, but that's a fact. You felt the need to loudly vent how angry you were at a post which wasn't directed at you or anyone, so you can hear my rebuttal

Well first off the acting.

Second the soundtrack. Done by Goblin (who also made the excellent Suspiria soundtrack), is completely out of left field what you would expect from a zombie flick.



this track is so good

Romero's is so unique and playful. It has a lot more fun with the scenario and is just an overall bigger production. In the original there are only about four main characters and you actually come to care about them and root for them to make it. Snyder's has an overload of meaningless characters who are practically zombies already. His version is conventional in every sense, no creativity at all aside from the fast moving zombies which you mentioned.

__________________

No. This track is so good!

90s Ace, some people joined this site to talk about a common interest. You have admitted multiple times you are only here to argue, I think the fact that you revived threads that hadn't been responded to in 2-5 days just to say something contrary shows that you are only here to annoy people.

Serious question. How many times have you read something from him about movies? Other than the odd James Bond or Godfather bit.

Yikes, not again.

Anyway, this is how I rank the Snyder films I've seen...

Watchmen -

Dawn of the Dead -

Man of Steel -

300 -

Watchmen gets my pick for the top film of his because it's a colourful and fairly decent attempt at boiling down a great comic into a passable enough blockbuster, though it is mitigated quite a bit by Snyder's style-over-substance approach to a work that definitely balanced the two a lot better. Dawn of the Dead at least tried to offer a different spin on its premise, and though it didn't exactly invent "fast zombies" (discount 28 Days Later... due to them technically not being zombies all you want, it's still more or less indistinguishable) or come up with solid enough subject matter to fill out its plotline, it's still a surprisingly watchable piece of film. As others have pointed out, Man of Steel had to make massive divergences from Superman's back-story for no good reason other than maybe to make for some sort of dark and edgy take on one of the lightest and softest heroes ever made, but at least the production design and effects work was good (even if you can nitpick the action in the whole last hour of the film). 300...don't get me started.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Far as I can tell he showed up in this thread just to cherry pick a post that I made (which was about the movie) - so sounds like you're either blind or just being intentionally dishonest here

Again, do we all know humans are not to be trusted and that they can do some nasty stuff to each other? Yes we do. Are we going to help mass murderers because of it? No, we won't. Did you become mass murderer after your parents told you not to talk to strangers? Just cut the crap (sorry for expression), other people who dislike the movie at least make a difference between nonsense and a real argument.

Now, I won't talk about 300 anymore, as its obvious after God knows how many posts you still don't understand what action movie of that kind is and I'm tired of explaining. Btw, I thought speeches were awesome.

For everyone who was not part of BvS discussion just to make one thing clear, I never said Snyder is this epic/awesome director , but he is not as bad as some want him to be.

__________________
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”

Wow, I don't want to know what those guys were smoking

I agree with you on 300 and Man of Steel. Dawn of The Dead and Watchmen both get 4 stars from me.

I much prefer the original Dawn of the Dead to the remake. Now again I say I love both of them. In fact I saw the remake first. But the original is too good to ignore. The soundtrack was mentioned before and it is excellent. Both films are great "boots on the ground" experiences of the zombie apocalypse that I love, but with the original you get a better feel for the break down of society. In the remake you see one city burn, and you get some footage from the other parts of the world, but I like how the remake did it more. Start at a TV station, see everything go to hell, cut to Peter and Roger as they do a raid, see that go to hell, and then watch our heroes get the hell out of Philadelphia.

Also the practical effects for the gore done by Tom Savini are the best. The man was a master at his craft. And while it was cool to see some practical effects in the remake as an tip of the hat to the original, Tom is still the man. Top it off Snyder makes a great action horror movie, but Romero uses his movie for some social commentary, Admittedly social commentary I do not buy into much (I am a capitalist after all), but his ability to do so and still make the movie awesome should be commended. Finally the remake is more of an action horror movie, while the original is just plain horror with a few action sequences.

Again, I love both, but you are not going to outdo Romero in my eyes.

How I rank them:

Original Dawn of the Dead

Remake

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

I wish Watchmen was less true to the source material. I said this already, but I wanted to see Watchmen the film do to comic book films what Watchmen the comic did to comics. Instead it just mimicked the comics without really understanding or capturing the depth of the original text.

No. Not in the least. Cameron is a heavy-handed director and he isn't a director who works in deep symbolism or anything like that, but he is and always was miles above Snyder. I've seen The Abyss more times than I can count and I still get choked up in the CPR scene. The emotion on display in that film, while occasionally heavy-handed, is palpable. It's cheesy as hell, but it actually works. I've never gotten anything close to that with a Snyder film.

I haven't seen the original in a while, but at least Romero understands what a metaphor is. I'd say that alone makes the original better than the remake.

I don't mass murder people because I'm not an alien who's had to live in fear and isolation my entire life. Again, it's not about what I feel or how I behave. It's about the story presented within the film. We can only extrapolate from Snyder's and Goyer's film what information they give to us. Literally every scene with Pa Kent is him telling Superman to hide his powers, even at the expense of his own life. Later in the film Superman is arrested and Pa Kent's words have been confirmed. Humans are jerks to Superman and people like him come along and offer him a chance to fit in and be trusted and instead he sides with the people who don't trust him and follow him around with drones and arrest him. Where did he learn compassion? From Ma Kent? If so, we didn't get those scenes in the film. All the scenes of him as a kid have him isolated.

I know there are some people who keep repeating the mantra of "this isn't Reeves Superman," but at least Pa Kent in that film teaches his son how to be a good man.

__________________

No. It just cant sustain in rewatchability like Snyders DOTD. Snyder was competent enough to make it superior in most every way with the technology available today. Both are masterpieces for their time.

Ah yes this reminds me. Zack Snyder always picks the stupidest music for his movies too.

It is a surprisingly rewatchable film.

From the OP
You think there is an empathy gap because how the character moments are shot and executed or there is something wrong with his approach towards the characters?