Poll: Zach Snyder is great and his superhero films are the best of recent years. What do you reckon?

Ravinoff

Senior Member
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
306
19
23
Country
Canada
Okay, I haven't seen many of his, but...meh. Watchmen had a brilliant intro/opening credits sequence, but that's about all I remember.

On the other hand, his 2004 remake of Dawn Of The Dead is one of the very best zombie movies of all time.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
madwarper said:
Statistically speaking... Someone was bound to like it.

With exception to 3/4th of Wonder Woman, the DCEU has been one hot mess after another. And, Justice League is no exception.
I thought I was in an alternate dimension for a moment there. One in which Snyder wasn't a hack.

Watchmen and 300 didn't suck because all he had to do was turn Frank Miller's brilliant work into something on-screen. Considering Frank Miller's talent, Snyder couldn't screw it up too badly. As soon as he had to come up with something himself however, we got MoS and BvS. They were good looking, but terrible films. Between WB making such a hash of launching a Cinematic Universe and Snyder making such bad films it really does make more sense for them to abandon that continuity, not least because the headliners, Cavill and Afflek have left the franchise.
 

Belaam

New member
Nov 27, 2009
617
0
0
Buffoon1980 said:
Apparently this is not a common viewpoint. In fact I know no one personally who agrees with me. But there's got to be someone out there who has a distinct preference for what Snyder's done, surely?
Yeah, sorry. I don't think the DCEU movies are quite as bad as billed, but I definitely don't think they are good. In large part because I'm not sure who the audience is. If it was for purists, it's weird that they went with atypical batman and superman philosophies. If it's for kids, it's weird that they went dark and gritty. Structurally, they were a mess. I don't know if that was studio meddling, Synder being terrible, the chaos of trying to make an ensemble film without the solo movies, or a mix of all three.

Watchman was fine, but it's also (give or take the end) pretty close to a scene for scene recreation, so I'm not sure how much credit one can give Snyder. And frankly, Watchmen needs shiny happy superhero movies to exist, else it has nothing to deconstruct. Watchmen in a vacuum would not be good.
 

Buffoon1980

New member
Mar 9, 2013
136
0
0
Belaam said:
In large part because I'm not sure who the audience is. If it was for purists, it's weird that they went with atypical batman and superman philosophies. If it's for kids, it's weird that they went dark and gritty.
I can see what you mean by that. Maybe this is part of the reason I personally like them, as I'm neither a purist nor a kid? Certainly I like the atypical philosophies, and I don't mind the darkness.

Anyway, thanks for the comments, folks. One question, though, where the hell is the poll I included? I can't see it; can anyone else?
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,472
894
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Buffoon1980 said:
One question, though, where the hell is the poll I included? I can't see it; can anyone else?
Polls haven't been showing for ages.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,792
3,945
118
When comparing like-for-like - such as comic book Hollywood blockbuster against comic book Hollywood blockbuster - I would suggest critic aggregate marks and box office receipts are as eloquent as anything to decide what's generally superior. In which case I feel Snyder is not coming off very well at all.

I look back at Snyder's output, and all I can think is "okay". I've liked some of those films, such as Watchmen. But isn't Watchmen at least 50% good because it's based on a superb comic? Does Snyder really deserve that much credit for being wise enough not to screw with solid source material, then overseeing art, acting and action sequences that literally dozens and dozens of other directors out there can also accomplish?

I don't hate Snyder, he's clearly competent, and I'm happy for him to continue making movies (whereas I would dearly like the execrable Michael Bay to stop diverting studio budgets from better directors), some of which I will undoubtedly enjoy. I can think of plenty of directors where the words of "a new [insert name here] movie" incites attention: people with unique style, special vision and flair such that even when they misfire will tend to produce something interesting. Zach Snyder is not one. He just seems to me any one of a load of interchangeably adequate directors who usually get the job done in regulation fashion.
 
Oct 22, 2011
1,223
0
0
I like Watchmen. I think 300 was alright for what it was. I didn't care for other movies, though i haven't watched BvS yet.
Generally, i think Snyder works as long as he sticks to the source material, cause his own ideas often aren't that great. And yes, while i also think replacing psycho squid(that even sounds ridiculous) with "manhattan" bombs was a neat idea, i don't know who deserves more credit here: the director, Zack Snyder, or the screenwriter David "Snake" Hayter?

Chimpzy said:
X-Men
X-Men 2
X-Men: Last Stand
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
The Wolverine
Logan
X-Men: First Class
X-Men: Days Of Future Past
X-Men: Age Of Apocalypse
Deadpool
Deadpool 2

11 movies of which 5 (45%) meet our base cut-off point.
Wow, our preferences when it comes to X-men movies are exactly the same. I think First Class and DofP deserve more recognition in this Golden Era of comic book adaptations. And Logan alone, made Fox earn a big trust in my book.
 
Oct 22, 2011
1,223
0
0
Sorry, but just need to correct this:
trunkage said:
Here is my interpretation. Manhattan was called out by Reagan, that not only did he betray the US but humanity. Reagan very much supported the act that got rid of superheroes. 'Manhattan's' actions was the last straw. He used this as an out, although I think him being a symbol was lessened in the movie.
In Watchmen timeline, Nixon, not Reagan was POTUS at the time. Serving his 3rd term.
KingsGambit said:
Watchmen and 300 didn't suck because all he had to do was turn Frank Miller's brilliant work into something on-screen. Considering Frank Miller's talent, Snyder couldn't screw it up too badly.
Watchmen was written by Alan Moore, not Frank Miller.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Agema said:
I can think of plenty of directors where the words of "a new [insert name here] movie" incites attention: people with unique style, special vision and flair such that even when they misfire will tend to produce something interesting. Zach Snyder is not one. He just seems to me any one of a load of interchangeably adequate directors who usually get the job done in regulation fashion.
I disagree with this assertion of Snyder. All his movies have had a very strong aesthetic that's been consistent in all his work. His works are dark (as in lacking light), with sharp contrasts between dark and lit areas and have muted colors, with some very stylistic framing of his action sequences. That's not to necessarily say he produces anything interesting, but he certainly has his own aesthetic style that marks a movie as distinctly Snyder. In fact, a common criticism of his DCMU work has been that his visual style simply doesn't work very well with the heroes he's working with, Superman in particular.

Watchmen is probably his best work, and not only because he adequately translated Moore's work to the silver screen. Watchmen was also a comic book that really worked with Snyder's visuals, since the entire thing is meant to be bleak, gritty and grim. Similarly, as much as I don't like 300, I feel that Snyder's visuals are a good fit for the movie, as they sell the idea that this is the story of some guy telling a grim story about impossibly brave heroes (the way the Spartans pop with color, comparatively, really works to make them seem heroic). I've got no interest in Snyder's work and won't go out of my way to see it, but it isn't hard to see his distinct style.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,234
1,289
118
Gethsemani said:
Watchmen was also a comic book that really worked with Snyder's visuals, since the entire thing is meant to be bleak, gritty and grim.
I'm going to have to disagree with that. At first glance the visuals are copied perfectly, but Snyder made everything too "cool" and "awesome", when that's not what Watchmen was going for aesthetically. The comic kind of revels in its straight forward, silly costumed hero look. Night Owl looks goofy in his cloak, and Silk Spectre doesn't have form fitting latex but frilly, see-through nylon; It's all almost kind of party store looking. Not that I can explain what the exact point of it was, but did seem to actively try and avoid looking slick and cool, which is precisely what Snyder turned it into.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
I'm going to have to disagree with that. At first glance the visuals are copied perfectly, but Snyder made everything too "cool" and "awesome", when that's not what Watchmen was going for aesthetically. The comic kind of revels in its straight forward, silly costumed hero look. Night Owl looks goofy in his cloak, and Silk Spectre doesn't have form fitting latex but frilly, see-through nylon; It's all almost kind of party store looking. Not that I can explain what the exact point of it was, but did seem to actively try and avoid looking slick and cool, which is precisely what Snyder turned it into.
Oh, I am not saying that he made a perfect translation or anything, nor that he didn't do some missteps. Just that considering the topic and plot of Watchmen, Snyder's dark visuals actually do the source material justice.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,234
1,289
118
Gethsemani said:
Casual Shinji said:
I'm going to have to disagree with that. At first glance the visuals are copied perfectly, but Snyder made everything too "cool" and "awesome", when that's not what Watchmen was going for aesthetically. The comic kind of revels in its straight forward, silly costumed hero look. Night Owl looks goofy in his cloak, and Silk Spectre doesn't have form fitting latex but frilly, see-through nylon; It's all almost kind of party store looking. Not that I can explain what the exact point of it was, but did seem to actively try and avoid looking slick and cool, which is precisely what Snyder turned it into.
Oh, I am not saying that he made a perfect translation or anything, nor that he didn't do some missteps. Just that considering the topic and plot of Watchmen, Snyder's dark visuals actually do the source material justice.
Again though, he's laying it on too thick. The comic was dark, but it didn't go out of its way. It didn't show arms getting broken in half with blood spurting out the snapped bone, or heads getting chopped with meat cleavers. The comic is very mater of fact in its depiction of violence and sex and doesn't glorify it, while Snyder does the complete opposite and lingers on it in slow motion. The fact that it's trying so hard to look cool and dark actually works against the visual look of the source material.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Synder's movies would have been awesome in the 90s. Now they feel like 90s movies, but without the excuse of being from the 90s.

They're not quite camp enough to be glorious and they're not entertaining enough to be "so bad, it's good."
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,792
3,945
118
Gethsemani said:
I disagree with this assertion of Snyder. All his movies have had a very strong aesthetic that's been consistent in all his work. His works are dark (as in lacking light), with sharp contrasts between dark and lit areas and have muted colors, with some very stylistic framing of his action sequences. That's not to necessarily say he produces anything interesting, but he certainly has his own aesthetic style that marks a movie as distinctly Snyder.
I don't disagree that Snyder has an aesthetic: most directors do. But it isn't an interesting one.

It's not an artistic flair for cinematography and visuals that Ridley Scott or Christopher Nolan have. It's not the offbeat imagination of Cronenberg or Lynch. It's not the versatility and keen insight into audience pleasure of Spielberg or the the intellectual curiosity and thoughtfulness of Kubrick, or even the action sequence brio of Michael Bay (spit). So what is Snyder bringing to the table except his style of visuals? As far as I can see, nothing special at all.
 

Chewster

It's yer man Chewy here!
Apr 24, 2008
1,050
0
0
He, like many operating today, would make a better cinematographer than director. He's certainly not the worst but I don't see much to rave about either. C'est la vie.

That said, his films are fine. They're...I dunno, superhero films that are adequate. Maybe it's just me but the older I get, the less attached I get to the pop culture of my youth.

Like, what adult actually cares if Superman blows aside from that weirdo Devin Faraci? Just go and enjoy it for what it is. Or don't and save yourself twelve bucks.
 

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
3,519
1,533
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Chewster said:
Maybe it's just me but the older I get, the less attached I get to the pop culture of my youth.
It?s not just you; I?m exactly this, completely ?meh? on superhero movies and a lot of the things that dominated my youth? then Venom came out and I was 10 years old again for 2 hours. Felt good.
 

Chewster

It's yer man Chewy here!
Apr 24, 2008
1,050
0
0
Xprimentyl said:
Chewster said:
Maybe it's just me but the older I get, the less attached I get to the pop culture of my youth.
It's not just you; I'm exactly this, completely 'meh' on superhero movies and a lot of the things that dominated my youth? then Venom came out and I was 10 years old again for 2 hours. Felt good.
I mean, yeah. Pretty sure I've seen every MCU film. Some several times. And I still probably couldn't tell you any of what happened in them. They're all just...I don't know, whatever. They exist and they entertain and that's about all that can be said. So I don't really get why people are so annoyed or like, personally offended when something like Man of Steel isn't the Best Film Evar!!! If I wanted something deep and well thought out, I'd go watch some Tarkovsky or whatever, ya feel me?

That said, I too enjoyed Venom. I don't get all the hate. It was funny and a bit dark and Tom Hardy is a decent actor. What more do people want?

Thor 3 was pretty good too, largely because of the humour and Jeff Goldblum since he's such a delightful man. But the rest are just noise IMHO. Entertaining, beautiful noise but noise nonetheless.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
MrCalavera said:
Watchmen was written by Alan Moore, not Frank Miller.
Oop, good catch. I did write that. I think I was just summarising the point that he had seminal classic graphic novels and had only to frame the image on the page with a camera lens. He didn't write the story, didn't create the visuals, he translated something great into something good. With MoS, BvS and JL, that was him, and it was bad. I can't explain Suicide Squad, I'm shan't waste words trying.

On the subject of graphic novel films, I don't even know who directed V for Vendetta, but that one was a triumph of a film, spectacular throughout.
 

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
3,519
1,533
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Chewster said:
Xprimentyl said:
Chewster said:
Maybe it's just me but the older I get, the less attached I get to the pop culture of my youth.
It's not just you; I'm exactly this, completely 'meh' on superhero movies and a lot of the things that dominated my youth? then Venom came out and I was 10 years old again for 2 hours. Felt good.
I mean, yeah. Pretty sure I've seen every MCU film. Some several times. And I still probably couldn't tell you any of what happened in them. They're all just...I don't know, whatever. They exist and they entertain and that's about all that can be said. So I don't really get why people are so annoyed or like, personally offended when something like Man of Steel isn't the Best Film Evar!!! If I wanted something deep and well thought out, I'd go watch some Tarkovsky or whatever, ya feel me?

That said, I too enjoyed Venom. I don't get all the hate. It was funny and a bit dark and Tom Hardy is a decent actor. What more do people want?

Thor 3 was pretty good too, largely because of the humour and Jeff Goldblum since he's such a delightful man. But the rest are just noise IMHO. Entertaining, beautiful noise but noise nonetheless.
Exactly. I feel too old to nitpick the finer cinematic nuances of films about superheroes; rent?s due on the first and my back hurts. I tend to not notice (or care when I do) the myriad imperfect minutiae in movies about imaginary people flying around in tights and shooting lasers from their eyeballs, but I paid the same $8 as everyone else and I got what I expected sooo? lighten up, maybe? Or don?t stop by McDonalds if you?re craving a kobe beef steak?

But unlike you, I have not seen all the movies in the MCU, but for the exact reason you stated: the interconnected and samey-ness of them all is just this overwhelming mass of ?MEH? that I?ve no interest in exploring in its entirety. Not that I?m opposed to seeing them, mind you, just not compelled to flesh out the checklist; seen one, seen them all sort of thing, but those that I have seen, for all their alikeness, have been entertaining and met my expectations of superhero movies. What more do people want, indeed.