The Official Zack Snyder Thread

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by Astrodust

Sucker Punch has a lot going on but it's the film maker that needs to make the film accessible. Putting all those things in a blender does nothing otherwise every film would throw in zombies, orc, dragons robots like it was some magical concoction for success. I really feel some directors are better commercial film makers. They know that missing ingredient. Snyder wants the success but he doesn't want to sacrifice HIS film either.

You know, for anybody else this would be something to admire, not a criticism.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Originally Posted by Rust

So, Sucker Punch is really getting ****** reviews. That sucks, but granted, it does look like Snyder went overboard with this one. It really does look like a teenager was handed a camera and $100 mill check.
Sure, slamming Snyder with this after the reviews might be cheap, but I never liked the overall premise of Sucker Punch to begin with.

Anyways, would the negative reviews and possible poor B.O. outcome put a stick in the wheel for Superman or are they too far along in production?

How anyone is surprised Sucker Punch is getting **** reviews is beyond me. They must have seen different trailers than what I saw.

As for Superman, no it doesn't effect it whatsoever. If it did, they wouldn't have considered Snyder to begin with.

[Astrodust]

Originally Posted by JAK®

You know, for anybody else this would be something to admire, not a criticism.

I've said it before, that I would have no problem including a Snyder film in my collection if I had one. But I would do it if his films were more popular as well. The point is that certain films don't need to be that serious. Even though it's March, Sucker Punch feels like it's kicking off all those fun summer tentpole films. The point is when a studio gives you 100-200 million to make a film, they don't want you to just make your film. They want their film. Do I like Snyder films more than Bay's? Yes Is Snyder selfish? Yes. Is the studio selfish? Yes. Are we selfish? Yes.

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie

How anyone is surprised Sucker Punch is getting **** reviews is beyond me. They must have seen different trailers than what I saw.

Just like the people in the Sucker Punch thread giving their reviews... "Poor story, great visuals!"

Yeah, we get it, you're really smart...

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Puckenstein

Plus, it's less about reviews and more about the bottom line. I know a ton of people who plan to go see SP this weekend. As long as it does a decent amount at the BO, it doesn't really matter what the critics say.

Exactly.

SP wasn't meant to be a critically acclaimed Oscar contender. It's all about the premise, cute chicks, fun, visuals and action.

[Astrodust]

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie

How anyone is surprised Sucker Punch is getting **** reviews is beyond me. They must have seen different trailers than what I saw.

As for Superman, no it doesn't effect it whatsoever. If it did, they wouldn't have considered Snyder to begin with.

Trailers don't tell you how good a film is, whether it is fun, if someone will win an oscar, or how much it will make. And yes the success of a director's previous film can impact his next especially if he consistently under-performs. He just might not be a good commercial director. Not a bad director, just not one that brings in big box office dollars. And $=sequels.

[Octoberist]

Having not seen it yet, my problem with Sucker Punch is that, it feels like it's trying TOO hard. At least from the trailers.

[Timstuff]

^ Exactly. Sucker Punch is Zack Snyder unfiltered. Some people aren't going to like it, but it's the movie Zack Snyder wanted to make. The way he approaches adaptations has yielded some very good ones so far, and I'm sure Superman will be great too. I'm looking forward to Sucker Punch as well because I'm open to letting Snyder indulge me with his unrestrained crazy ideas. It's not like if you hate Sucker Punch you can accuse him of ruining some beloved franchise with it.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Astrodust

Trailers don't tell you how good a film is, whether it is fun, if someone will win an oscar, or how much it will make. And yes the success of a director's previous film can impact his next especially if he consistently under-performs. He just might not be a good commercial director. Not a bad director, just not one that brings in big box office dollars. And $=sequels.

That's strange because he totally looks more of a commercial director than an arthouse one.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Watchmen, Legend of the Guardians and Sucker Punch got made because of Snyder's 300 clout. But that's only good for so long and those flicks were expensive. We know the first two under-performed big time and the third doesn't look promising (It'll probably win the weekend but it's gonna have wobbly legs). Perfect timing for Superman to come into his career, I'd say.

I'd say there's more to the "My regular crew is too busy, so I've having to work with new people" claims than he puts on. Just a hunch.

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

That's strange because he totally looks more of a commercial director than an arthouse one.

Which is strange, because he totally is more of an arthouse director.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by JAK®

Which is strange, because he totally is more of an arthouse director.

You're joking, right? Snyder an arthouse director?

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie

Watchmen, Legend of the Guardians and Sucker Punch got made because of Snyder's 300 clout. But that's only good for so long and those flicks were expensive. We know the first two under-performed big time and the third doesn't look promising (It'll probably win the weekend but it's gonna have wobbly legs). Perfect timing for Superman to come into his career, I'd say.

I'd say there's more to the "My regular crew is too busy, so I've having to work with new people" claims than he puts on. Just a hunch.

Do you think it's Nolan, WB or Legendary pressuring him to work with a new crew?

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

You're joking, right? Snyder an arthouse director?

His methods are arthouse. He tells stories the way he wants to. His cinematography is idiosyncratic.

Unless, by 'arthouse', you meant 'movie that is good because it isn't mainstream', which is just pretentious.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by JAK®

His methods are arthouse. He tells stories the way he wants to. His cinematography is idiosyncratic.

His movies feels like Bay's but better. I bet Emmerich also tells storiesthe way he wants. Didn't know that was arthouse.

Originally Posted by JAK®

Unless, by 'arthouse', you meant 'movie that is good because it isn't mainstream', which is just pretentious.

No, it is just stupid. Please don't create those suggestions.

[Octoberist]

Zack is not arthouse -far from it- THOUGH he did work with Michel Gondry and Spike Jonze during his Propaganda Films days.

Arthouse (not to be confused with indie films in general) to me is a very specific term and Zack doesn't fit it. They tend to be abstract, cerebral, visceral, transgressive and not very traditional. Some cases they are designed to challenge you, and may not be designed to 'entertain'. David Lynch is an example.

Or Gasper Noe's 'Enter the Void'.

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

His movies feels like Bay's but better. I bet Emmerich also tells storiesthe way he wants. Didn't know that was arthouse.

Disagree, Bay just ignores story and replaces it with explosions. While Snyder is a visual director, the story is not ignored and he knows how to direct actors.

No, it is just stupid. Please don't create those suggestions.

From Wikipedia;

Film critics and film studies scholars typically define an "art film" using a "...canon of films and those formal qualities that mark them as different from mainstream Hollywood films"

Snyder's films are different from most Hollywood films. In terms of narrative, cinematography and approach.

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

Zack is not arthouse -far from it- THOUGH he did work with Michel Gondry and Spike Jonze during his Propaganda Films days.

Arthouse to me is a very specific term and Zack doesn't fit it. They tend to be abstract, cerebral, visceral, and not very traditional. David Lynch is an example.

Those describe Snyder to me. Maybe not cerebral, except in the case of Watchmen.

[Octoberist]

@Jak, buddy..

Zack's movies, like Tim Burton's, are very traditional narratively. This does not include visuals..I'm talking about throwing out the three-act script. 300, Dawn of the Dead, and I assume Sucker Punch have the traditional Joseph Campbell story arc.

I'm not too sure why we're having this conversation. Again, David Lynch and Gasper Noe are arthouse directors. Call what you want: pretentious, whatever. It doesn't matter b/c they're still talented in their own right. Just not for everyone.

[KRIM]

Originally Posted by JAK®

Snyder's films are different from most Hollywood films. In terms of narrative, cinematography and approach.

???

I'd also include non-adaptations as part of that criteria. Snyder is automatically excluded because of this.

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by KRIM

???

Watchmen constantly shifts through narrative techniques. See Dr. Manhattan's recollection of his life.

I'd also include non-adaptations as part of that criteria. Snyder is automatically excluded because of this.

Yeah, if I introduce criteria I can exclude everything from anything.

[Octoberist]

Again, arthouse is a very specific term for very specific directors. Coen Bros makes small indie films but they're not really arthouse.

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by JAK®

Watchmen constantly shifts through narrative techniques. See Dr. Manhattan's recollection of his life.


Yeah, if I introduce criteria I can exclude everything from anything.

But that is in the book. It's like saying Robert Rodriguez (again, mostly indie with mainstream style) is an arthouse director due to Sin City.

[KRIM]

Originally Posted by JAK®

Watchmen constantly shifts through narrative techniques. See Dr. Manhattan's recollection of his life.

Yeah, if I introduce criteria I can exclude everything from anything.

Adaptation. All of that was in the original story. If you can tell me various arthouse directors with an arsenal of adaptations under their belt, I will concede this point. But the fact remains this subgroup exists to differentiate artists that work outside a typical studio boundary. And that absolutely means creating projects which are of your own.

[Octoberist]

I don't even know if I should call Quentin Taratino arthouse either. It's a hard one to pinpoint on certain filmmakers.

I think the word you want to use Jak is 'auteur'.