Snyder made 300 and Watchmen best Comic Book adapted movies I have ever watched.Kenbo Slice said:
And I read the Watchmen comic book first.
Cap 3 passes BvS box office
- Thread starter MatParker116
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And I read the Watchmen comic book first.
Yeah, so this didn't at all devolve into the "Marvel Sucks" - "DC Sucks" bs that we knew it would. /s Oh well. Congrats to Civil War, and goodbye to X-Men 6, and good luck to Suicide Squad. Just because we like one franchise doesn't mean we're required to hate the other.
Looks at thread...
...okay, I have to ask this, is Zach Snyder to the 2010s what George Lucas was to the 90s and 2000s? As in, an individual makes works that are considered bad, to the extent that that attitude overshadows their previous movies, and their early movies are all but forgotten? As in:
-George Lucas: Directed American Grafitti and THX-1138 (both rarely, if ever discussed these days), directed A New Hope and contributed to the other films (all lauded), then went on to direct the prequels (hyperbole aside, generally regarded to not match the OT), reaches the point where his association with the previous Star Wars films is frowned upon (e.g. backlash against Return of the Jedi).
-Zach Snyder: Directed Dawn of the Dead and Legend of the Guardians (both rarely, if ever discussed these days), went on to direct 300 and Watchmen (both reasonably well received), then directed Sucker Punch, Man of Steel, and Batman v Superman (reaction ranging from negative to mixed), has reached the point of people declaring that his films were always bad.
The comparison isn't perfect - I've left out Lucas's special editions for instance, but, yeah. There's a saying that "you're only as good as your latest work." It also helps that I've seen more of Lucas's directorial works (Four Star Wars films he directed, plus the other two), than Snyder (MoS, BvS, some of DotD), but, yeah. Just wondering.
...okay, I have to ask this, is Zach Snyder to the 2010s what George Lucas was to the 90s and 2000s? As in, an individual makes works that are considered bad, to the extent that that attitude overshadows their previous movies, and their early movies are all but forgotten? As in:
-George Lucas: Directed American Grafitti and THX-1138 (both rarely, if ever discussed these days), directed A New Hope and contributed to the other films (all lauded), then went on to direct the prequels (hyperbole aside, generally regarded to not match the OT), reaches the point where his association with the previous Star Wars films is frowned upon (e.g. backlash against Return of the Jedi).
-Zach Snyder: Directed Dawn of the Dead and Legend of the Guardians (both rarely, if ever discussed these days), went on to direct 300 and Watchmen (both reasonably well received), then directed Sucker Punch, Man of Steel, and Batman v Superman (reaction ranging from negative to mixed), has reached the point of people declaring that his films were always bad.
The comparison isn't perfect - I've left out Lucas's special editions for instance, but, yeah. There's a saying that "you're only as good as your latest work." It also helps that I've seen more of Lucas's directorial works (Four Star Wars films he directed, plus the other two), than Snyder (MoS, BvS, some of DotD), but, yeah. Just wondering.
Well, that being said (and I'm a multi-publication fan not just DC or Marvel) the existence of bad comics does not have any bearing on whether a movie is well made or not. BvS sadly is a trainwreck in both composition and framework. Poor editing, the overuse of the dark filter and some pacing issues as well as shoehorning of characters that otherwise didn't make the movie better severely detracted from the film.Samtemdo8 said:
In this discussion of Civil War being a better movie (regardless of whether or not it was a cinematic masterpiece) the fact that yes there are shitty comic stories out there has no place in the discussion. Bringing it up does nothing except distract from the issue at hand.
I'd love to say BvS was good, but being a fan of cinema in general tells me I can't in good conscience say it was. As much as I love the DC comics, WB/DC has shat the bed multiple times with cinematic failures, as FOX and Sony have as well. Disney/Marvel has had a much better track record overall. Not every piece has been great, mind you but none of them have made me as disappointed as Man of Steel and BvS have. I'm hoping Suicide Squad will be better and I'm fairly certain that the Batman movie directed by Affleck will be a sorely needed hand up out of the pit Snyder and crew have dug.
I'd agree that the action sequences were well done and there are many parts of both MoS and BvS that were good but both movies are framed and sequenced so poorly that it hurts the overall quality.
DC has done much better with their CWverse properties and Gotham, its quite stupid that the larger budget properties are so mishandled. Flash, Arrow, Legends of Tomorrow are three absolutely stellar shows. It just feels like what makes those shows great is that they treat the source materials with respect whereas Snyder has tried to square peg/round hole his vision of DC properties. It just doesn't fit.
So please explain to me how the existence of crap comics features into this discussion?
I think what it may be, though I've honestly not given too much thought to the career of either men, is that in their later works they are given much more freedom to do whatever they want, and thus their bad tendencies are not being kept in check by anyone and they began to overshadow the good things that they do. Once this has become their reputation, when someone aware of that reputation goes back and watches those earlier works they can't help but find those same bad tendencies, even though they are much less obvious in those.Hawki said:
I think the one big difference is that Snyder still has a chance to turn it around. George Lucas got to much greater heights, but fell much much further. Sure Snyder doesn't have A New Hope, but he also doesn't have Howard the Duck. Plus he's much younger and still in the game. I'm not saying that he will turn it around, or even that he can, but for the sake of DC movies, I really hope he does.
I think its well earned, considering that this movie wasn't just a collection of superheros going at it. Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr have done well since the first avengers of making a tense, conflicting relationship. And they're pretty good at convincing the audience of how serious their disagreements and different points of views are. I also found Spiderman to be a pretty hilarious addition to the cast. Movie goers were laughing at the numerous instances of humor relating to Spiderman, And Spidy fought a good battle, showing off why he was able to beat numerous Marvel superheros. So overall, nice one on Marvel for what is the 3rd person to play Spiderman in the last decade.
Its pretty difficult to make a movie where there are numerous stars that need their fair share of screen time, to bond with the audience. Its much easier to do in a 10-50 hour video game, than a movie that's under 3 hours. Sure recent Marvel movies aren't going to win many Oscars and Grammys. But movies are for the entertainment of fans. And not a questionable body of voters that don't watch many of the nominated movies.
Its pretty difficult to make a movie where there are numerous stars that need their fair share of screen time, to bond with the audience. Its much easier to do in a 10-50 hour video game, than a movie that's under 3 hours. Sure recent Marvel movies aren't going to win many Oscars and Grammys. But movies are for the entertainment of fans. And not a questionable body of voters that don't watch many of the nominated movies.
As I say every time this little conflict comes up:
The lesson to be learned from the Marvel movies is "Be yourself."
The lesson to be learned from the DC movies is "Don't be that asshole you were in the late '80s early '90s, nobody likes that guy."
The lesson to be learned from the Marvel movies is "Be yourself."
The lesson to be learned from the DC movies is "Don't be that asshole you were in the late '80s early '90s, nobody likes that guy."
Why the unesscary jab at Zack Snyder?
The studio wanted a fucking movie that would set up an entire universe, it was a nearly impossible task, it's a credit to him that it was as good as it was.
The studio wanted a fucking movie that would set up an entire universe, it was a nearly impossible task, it's a credit to him that it was as good as it was.
Really? I mean, I expected it to outdo BVS in performance from about the time DC moved the release date.MatParker116 said:
I guess all it takes to outdo BVS is to simply not be awful.Samtemdo8 said:
I'm not sure I'm the right person to comment here. But while I was in love with Lucas' works prior to the Prequels, I don't think there's ever been a Snyder movie I have liked except maybe despite him.Hawki said:
But when I'm looking at superhero movie and think "man, this spectacle's too shallow," something should ring as alarm bells there.
Sorry if this is an unwlecome intrusion, ubt I just wanted to say something based on that.Imperioratorex Caprae said:
Marvel fans should want a better BVS, because bad superhero movies will dilute the market and make even the MCU a harder sell.
DC fans should want a better BVS, because...well, why settle for shit?
Really, anyone who likes comics and hopes to see comic adaptations on the big screen should want a better BVS.
I mean, I get that tribalism is a thing, and people who are specifically DC fans had everything riding on this movie not being shit and Marvel fans kinda want to spike the ball. I'm not even saying I'm impartial. Most of my faves are Marvel. Doesn't mean I don't like DC, or never buy their comics, but I prefer Marvel. I'm happy that the guys I grew up with are getting solid movies. And really hyped that Spider-Man might actually get a movie I truly love. But, I mean, I've watched Linkara, Steve Shives, and Angry Joe all say things to the effect of wishing DC characters got the Marvel treatment. All of them grossly favour DC in one way or another (be it brand or character loyalty). And when Angry Joe can't defend a Superman movie...you dun screwed up.
And I find this more understandable. When I was growing up, DC had the only movies that were remotely good, and even then some of them were kinda crappy. And then DC got the awesome Batman TAS, and started the DCAU. And I mean, I was legally an adult when some of those came out, but they were awesome cartoons and I wanted a good Spider-Man cartoon like that. I wanted to see the Marvel guys I grew up with get that kind of treatment, and it took me until 2008 to really get it (Spectacular Spider-Man is one of the best comic cartoons ever, IMO).
Honestly, people should just be demanding better, no matter who they're fans of. I'm neither the biggest Batman nor Superman fan, but I would have LOVED to have seen good movies with them in a shared universe.
And honestly, I want to see something different as well as good. Now that Suicide Squad has been reshot to add jokes (or whatever, I don't really care) and Civil War is whooping DoJ, I';m kind of expecting DC to rehash Marvel's formula, and really, that's Marvel's job. If we get something different, we might see Marvel actually have to try. But right now, it's their game to lose and they can basically coast to the finish line, whenever they decide that is.
But that part? It's not Marvel cheerleading. It's subject to change, too. DC once dominated both the big screen and the small one. They could do it again.
I think the universal hate Snyder is getting stems from his not handling the characters well, coupled with an interview he did 7 years ago for Watchmen coming back to bit him in the ass when everyone remembered it happened since he openly stated he hated characters like Batman and Superman.DudeistBelieve said:
Personally I blame Goyer for being a hack writer, but Snyder has never been good at making movies from a storytelling perspective. He makes a nice looking movie, but that's about it. The story is always the weakest part of what he's doing, and given how BvS needed to have a great story to make what it was doing work it's no wonder the movie was a critical failure and financially underperformed.
Now that you mention it, yea, this makes a lot of sense. All Snyder needs to do now is try to make crappy special editions of his better movies.Hawki said:
I absolutely agree. I'm a huge comic fan in general and anytime a flop or generally poorly made comic-to-movie adaptation happens (Fan4tastic, Green Lantern, Ghost Rider 2, etc.) we all lose out. I have stated on many occasions that despite the flaws in MoS and BvS I still like the story involved and don't actually have a problem with this version of Superman. What bothers me is the poor quality of framework, editing, and composition. The stories contained would work so much better if they were properly told.Something Amyss said:
There've been failures on many sides of the field. Its just that right now the MCU films even at their worst have been at least put together well enough that it doesn't hurt the overall story each film is trying to tell. That doesn't make the weaker films better storywise but it does put them ahead of DC's current shared universe films.
Marvel could easily harm their products by way of being too confident and there are signs of it. Age of Ultron is a prime example of the studios being way too overbearing on the production, if we can buy Joss Whedon's comments on why he's done with Marvel/Disney.
In all the superhero movie arenas, the enemy of the films is, has, and always will be the higher ups in the various studios getting in the way of the directors/writers. The reason Deadpool worked was because the crew put love of the source material into it and the studio (FOX) didn't interfere. Not because they were taking a risk but I believe they just didn't feel Deadpool was worth the effort. Guardians of the Galaxy turned out great largely because of James Gunn. The difference there I believe is that Marvel/Disney was willing to take the risk (different side of the coin) on a property easily considered relatively obscure. It turned out the way it did because Gunn was awesome AND because the studio didn't bother to interfere.
The lessons that ALL these studios should take is, IMHO, keep your damn hands off the production and let it succeed (or fail) on the merits of the people putting it together and let people who actually respect and love the source material work on the films.
I don't honestly believe Zack Snyder loves the comics and it shows in the way he has filmed the DCCU flicks so far.
I love comics. I have for nearly 30 years and I want to see the genre grow and be filled with lovingly crafted films. They don't have to be perfectly in sync with the source, but there needs to be respect given there. And as I keep reiterating, please put these films together competently. If you want to make grimdark, thats fine. Gotham (TV Series) is a perfect example of doing grimdark without the overuse of the dark filter. Its well made storytelling, and yes its fairly bleak in color composition but its still brightly filmed. You can absolutely make a dark story without toning the lighting down. I actually feel that dark filter is a poor director's corner cutting move because he/she has no clue how to make a truly dark movie without it.
Glad to hear Civil War is doing so well. It's easily my favorite MCU film, just ahead of Avengers and Iron Man.
I hope Ragnarok turns out better than past Thor films. The news that Jane wont be showing up has raised my hopes.
I hope Ragnarok turns out better than past Thor films. The news that Jane wont be showing up has raised my hopes.
Same here bro (I refuse to give them my cash to go see SvB nor do I have zero interest on watching it when it come onto Netflick etc). High five for making this happened in a way (no idea how many people did the same thing we did).DrownedAmmet said:
Had no intention of watching it after struggling through half of Man of Steel. The reason I prefer Marvel movies is that when they do get serious, it has a lot more weight to it because we're used to seeing them joking and quipping and having a good time. If we didn't see Iron Man and Captain America work well with each other, it wouldn't mean anything when they finally do end up fighting each other.twistedmic said:
If everything is all grimdark gray and serious from the start, how am I supposed to care when things get seriouser
Yeah, but there is a qippy threshold. I find Age of Utltron to be lacking in any tension because the characters wont stop joking about their situation.DrownedAmmet said:
Are you going to make your next thread "Sun rises in the morning"?
In all seriousness, I don't think this was a surprise to anyone. BvS might have managed to be a mega hit had it just been average. The pull of Superman and Batman might have been enough to absolutely crush box office even if the movie was just meh. But BvS was such a mess, so inconsistent, poorly told, choppy, overcrowded and downright atrocious in some aspects, that after the initial buzz of the release it was doomed to lose to Civil War.
In all seriousness, I don't think this was a surprise to anyone. BvS might have managed to be a mega hit had it just been average. The pull of Superman and Batman might have been enough to absolutely crush box office even if the movie was just meh. But BvS was such a mess, so inconsistent, poorly told, choppy, overcrowded and downright atrocious in some aspects, that after the initial buzz of the release it was doomed to lose to Civil War.
I'll echo that sentiment just to reiterate how much I hated what they did to Ultron in the movie. IMO one of the coolest, most menacing Marvel villains, and one who should have been a perfect opposite to Loki's dramatic grandstanding and petulant bitching to boot, was turned into Quip-o-tron 2015, and was about as threatening as a villain as Dave Chappelle doing a stand-up gig. Eugh.SirSullymore said: