The Official Zack Snyder Thread

[Rust]

Story crafted by Nolan and Goyer.

Directed by Snyder with possible assistance from Nolan.

What could go wrong?

Just rejoice and hail what could be the superhero-movie to end superhero-movies.

[Project862006]

Originally Posted by kedrell

Watchmen had some good performances and some god-awful ones. IMO, they pretty much cancel each other out. Basically if the actor was talented, he/she gave a good performance and the converse was also true. Snyder's not someone like the Coen Bros. or David Fincher who can get a good performance out of even bad/mediocre actors. So casting in this is going to be even more critical due to that shortcoming of his.

the only bad ones were malin and carla and carla was worse than malin

JEH
Crudup
JDM
PW
MG

all gave good performances

[kedrell]

300 got plenty of gay jokes. Where have you been?

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by Rust

What could go wrong?

I shouldn't have to remind you of the Singerman Returns debacle. Everyone assumed there was no way he'd screw it up but he did.

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by Project862006

the only bad ones were malin and carla and carla was worse than malin

JEH
Crudup
JDM
PW
MG
all gave good performances

I thought PW & MG were pretty bad as well, especially MG. So half & half as I said.

[Astrodust]

Originally Posted by Spider-Fan

I don't like this choice. Snyder is good with visuals, but his obsession with slow-mo is annoying. Plus, his films are weak from a story and character stand point. As much as I like 300, the entire movie is basically Spartans are awesome...not much more development than that. Watchmen sucked.

Superman needs someone better with story and plot to get over the terrible story elements from SR. Sadly, I don't think Snyder can do it. It is going to be a mediocre film, and that is not what a new Superman movie has to be. Of all the heroes out there, Superman NEEDS a good movie. Not a decent one.

I thought 300 was intended to be mostly stylistic. I don't think all films need to focus on the narrative really though I thought it was there. But from my memory 300 was like someone narrating their dream.

[Project862006]

Singer is a great director tho anyone else wish he did more drama movies like the usual suspects

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

I shouldn't have to remind you of the Singerman Returns debacle. Everyone assumed there was no way he'd screw it up but he did.

QFTMFT! Singer was untouchable after X2.

[Spider-Fan]

Originally Posted by JAK®

And what did he change?

In changing the ending, he changed what Watchmen is. Watchmen is a story grounded in Cold War issues, not just takes place in the Cold War. This is why the alien threat idea was used. By creating an invading race, the super powers came together as one against a common threat of invasion. In the film, making Manhattan the underlying threat takes it from being man vs invasion and changes it into man vs God. Watchmen was NOT about man fighting God or omnission. It was about the arms race. Also, he slanted the ending and made a clear message to the audience that Ozy is wrong by having Nite Owl go crazy on him. Watchmen took no sides for a reason. He dumbed it down that way.

So yes, he changed what it is about.

I agree with this. But Snyder won't be adapting a specific story for Superman, and he won't be trying to fit stuff in.

There is no evidence to say he won't overstuff it either.

Because of Watchmen? Snyder is very stylish, but he does not lack substance. I maintain that most people don't see the substance because they won't let themselves get past the style.

It's not that they have no substance, it is that they are weak on it.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

2011 the way I'm looking forward to it (in film of course):

TF3 (what? we'll all be watching it)

you must be joking

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by kedrell

Watchmen had some good performances and some god-awful ones. IMO, they pretty much cancel each other out. Basically if the actor was talented, he/she gave a good performance and the converse was also true. Snyder's not someone like the Coen Bros. or David Fincher who can get a good performance out of even bad/mediocre actors. So casting in this is going to be even more critical due to that shortcoming of his.

I'm trying to think of those god-awful performances. People say Malin Ackerman was bad, and she did mess up some lines (like the shadows in the fog speech) but she made up for it with body language. Carla Gugino hammed up her performance of Silk Spectre I, but it fit with Snyder's interpretation of the character (a washed-up star from the golden age of Hollywood).

If you're just going to say "well they were good actors anyway" then how do we decide if a director has any contribution to any actor's performance? I say that if so many of the actors did such a good performance when they could easily have phoned it in, then Snyder is responsible.

[Project862006]

SF his changed ending made it better than the book imo and i am not alone

but i say we stop watchmen talk i love it my favorite film of 09 better than TDK but some peope hate it

this convo would not end lol

[Lightning54SC]

i couldnt be happier with the WB, DC, Nolan and for Snyder, we're gonna get an epic movie... just watch !!!!!

[kedrell]

I'm quite sad that Matt Reeves didn't get it. He can do bombastic action AND character driven stuff.

[Spider-Fan]

Originally Posted by Project862006

SF his changed ending made it better than the book

100% disagree. Watchmen was a story that had the viewer look at their own values. Not have them spelled out for you.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by kedrell

QFTMFT! Singer was untouchable after X2.

singer doesn't 'get' superman and to be fair few creaters do.
I've been reading superman for years and there are only a handful of superman stories that get to the heart of the character.

all star superman - the best superman story I have ever read
superman for all seasons
superman; for the man who has everything
superman; whatever happened to the man of tomorrow?
JL/JLU
superman the movie
superman 2

for me are the best incarnatons of superman and we're talking over a span of 30 YEARS

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by Gianakin_

Not all.

Come on, not even to see if it's as bad as the last one? Just for ****s and giggles?

Originally Posted by JAK®

Watchmen didn't have good performances? Billy Crudup wasn't brilliant as Dr. Manhattan? Jeffrey Dean Morgan didn't inhabit the role of The Comedian? Jackie Earle Hayley wasn't a perfect Rorschach? Patrick Wilson wasn't engaging as Nite-Owl?

Did we even watch the same film?

Proves how NO ONE watches the same movie, ever. Hell, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that every time I'm rewatching a movie, it's a new one. Interpretation right?

[QUOTE=Spider-Fan;19009555]I have a lot of problems with how Snyder approached Watchmen, as well as its pacing issues.

Y'know I really didn't mind the pacing in the film - it's as fragmented as the story is. In fact, the sharp movements reminded me of the grid-like panels anyway. But that's me going on over-drive. The pacing felt fine and balanced, the Bob Dylan songs actually made things smoother. There wasn't ever a weak moment on screen. I had a few issues with V For Vendetta's pacing, and even with the pacing of Alexander and Troy put together. All of Snyder's films feel fast-paced, even 300. No harm there.

Though I think JAK is asking you the right questions.

Originally Posted by Project862006

spider fan we wont agree on watchmen at all lol

watchmen i better than TDK for me and my favorite film of 2009

we wont ever agree lol

the acting in watchmen is top notch

I AGREE

[sdc10]

Originally Posted by Project862006

SF his changed ending made it better than the book imo and i am not alone

but i say we stop watchmen talk i love it my favorite film of 09 better than TDK but some peope hate it

this convo would not end lol

His ending made no sense, the one in the book provided a much better explanation for everything that happened afterwards.

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by JAK®

I'm trying to think of those god-awful performances. People say Malin Ackerman was bad, and she did mess up some lines (like the shadows in the fog speech) but she made up for it with body language. Carla Gugino hammed up her performance of Silk Spectre I, but it fit with Snyder's interpretation of the character (a washed-up star from the golden age of Hollywood).

If you're just going to say "well they were good actors anyway" then how do we decide if a director has any contribution to any actor's performance? I say that if so many of the actors did such a good performance when they could easily have phoned it in, then Snyder is responsible.

Because there are plenty of cases in films where an actor just seems to give a really good performance and no one expected that. Then they do something else and it's back to Ugh!-ville again. In those cases, I'd say it was the director getting a good performance out of the actor due to the director's own talent, rather than the actor's. That's why there are some directors that actors are just dying to work with, because they can make them look better. Snyder's not one of those directors.

[Lightning54SC]

everyone just STFU, seriously its a done deal, get over it or be happy... now lets all move on to the cast of the movie

[Alientraveller]

Originally Posted by romeogbs19

Great point. I for one hope they are inspired greatly by Superman For All Seasons; that book is truly one of the greatest Superman books of the last decade. The Man of Steel was also a solid run by Byrne and I wouldn't mind seeing some of that in the film as well, but when it comes to heart -- to expressing why Superman is who is and what makes him so special -- well, few have gotten it as right as Loeb/Sale in For All Seasons.

True, but those weren't within the last decade. Birthright, Secret Origin and the New Krypton series are all within the last decade and place heavy emphasis on Superman the Kryptonian.

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by Spider-Fan

In changing the ending, he changed what Watchmen is. Watchmen is a story grounded in Cold War issues, not just takes place in the Cold War. This is why the alien threat idea was used. By creating an invading race, the super powers came together as one against a common threat of invasion. In the film, making Manhattan the underlying threat takes it from being man vs invasion and changes it into man vs God. Watchmen was NOT about man fighting God or omnission. It was about the arms race.

Okay, so he added the concept of man fighting God, but he merely expanded on the already present subplot of Manhattan as a weapon. The theme was 'God is on our side'. But instead of aliens, he changed it to God turning against humanity. It was still about the Cold War. The solution presented by Ozymandias was the idea of a greater threat causing humanity to unite. Manhattan fit that role. In fact, it's MORE about the Cold War because it's an allegory on how nuclear weapons will backfire on humanity.

Also, he slanted the ending and made a clear message to the audience that Ozy is wrong by having Nite Owl go crazy on him. Watchmen took no sides for a reason. He dumbed it down that way.

So yes, he changed what it is about.

I'd say that was more about Nite-Owl having a more natural reaction to seeing his best friend die. And it's arguable whether Ozymandias' plan is supposed to be neutral. In the end, he killed millions of people.

There is no evidence to say he won't overstuff it either.

Well, he won't be trying to condense a 12 issue comic book into 3 hours. He'll be adapting a script.

It's not that they have no substance, it is that they are weak on it.

I just think people miss it because it's more subtle than the visuals lead you to believe.

[Nave 'Torment']

How did the changed ending effect the thematic elements on the story at all? The world is now fearful of Doc Manhattan - he is watching, they will stay scared. The crisis of mutually assured destruction is replaced by a greater, nearly omnipotent and uncontrollable living entity and the world feels that it is now at that entity's whims.

Hell, if Snyder brings even a small bit of thematic resonance from his experience in The Watchmen this will be a greater Superman film then anything else seen in recent years. I for one am glad that they're bringing a director who's into the Modern Age of comics but is not afraid to tackle fantastical aspects in his long tales.

Curious though - both INCEPTION and SUCKER PUNCH deals with hyper-real 'dreamscapes'. Think there's a connection with that as to why Nolan agreed to hire Snyder? Maybe the two think alike?

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by Spider-Fan

100% disagree. Watchmen was a story that had the viewer look at their own values. Not have them spelled out for you.

You know, Alan Moore isn't as subtle as most people say. I mean, how many stories has he written where someone gets raped?

He was horrified when he found out people saw Rorschach as a hero, because he intended him to be seen as a disgusting person, nothing more.

[gdw]

So, just watched the trailer for Sucker Punch, and, although it looks like it will be fun, it gives me no more hope for Superman.

Going with Snyder just seems SO MUCH the opposite of what they did going with Nolan.

Perhaps Nolan had some influence and wants Superman to be as far from his Batman that there's no way they can possibly say they are in the same universe.