Snyder's NOT a "visionary"

[Sawyer]

Ok, just to be sure that, at least, the majority of everyone is on the same page and is, in no way, buying into the relentless marketing bulls*** surrounding an otherwise awesome looking picture. Orson Welles was a visionary, George Lucas is a visionary, James Cameron is a visionary. Zack Snyder, however, is NOT!!!!!! He is a capable director, I'll give him that, but considering that this guy's entire film resume consists of one remake of an unnecessary zombie picture, that was originated by an actual visionary, George Romero, and two adaptations of graphic novels, there's nothing there to even hint at "visionary" material. Now, everything I've seen from Watchmen has been top shelf, no doubt, but until Snyder decides to tackle a story which is NOT a straight remake or adaptation of something else, then we'll talk about being impressed with his stuff.

-so sayeth the mastermind-

Correction: George Lucas WAS a visionary.

 

[scifiwolf]

I think the point of this thread is the gross missuse (sp?) of the term "visionary" and Zack Snyder happened to be the catalyst. However, since everyone seems to be targeting Snyder for the discussion, I'll go with it. I think he is pretty visionary, given the projects he's done. Sure, he's made pretty slavish adaptations, but it takes vision to slavishly transpose comics to film and preserve their styles. I get the feeling he's cutting his teeth, and, when he's ready, he'll present the film-going community with something all his own.

 

[Gamma Ray]

I agree, but who cares? As long as he makes good movies... Still waiting for one... Hoping Watchmen is good.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i suppose all this depends on the definition of visionary. i mean, technically, i guess a visionary is someone who has a vision then fulfills it....which would be most directors, including snyder. but, i suppose it'd be fair to expect a visionary's vision to be of exceptional quality. whether or not snyder still fulfills that is up to your personal opinion.

i dont think the fact that snyder has mainly worked with adapted material count against him. the majority of stanley kubrick films were adapted material, and i dont think anyone would discount his "visionary status".

regardless, all this visionary crap in regards to promoting watchmen is just a marketing ploy. nothing to get your panties in a twist over.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Visionary in the marketing terms of Watchmen I take to mean visually appealing, which in the case of 300 is true. It is visually appealing and Watchmen appears to be. I don't think they mean he's Speilberg, Kubrick, Hitchcock, etc. when they throw the term out there. That would be idiocy for a guy who's done few films. So, in the way they're marketing the movie, I guess it can be argued, but as far as what a visionary is supposed to really mean, no. Snyder is not.

I won't touch on Nolan as this is really Snyder's thread.

 

[daywalker2007]

Ok, just to be sure that, at least, the majority of everyone is on the same page and is, in no way, buying into the relentless marketing bulls*** surrounding an otherwise awesome looking picture. Orson Welles was a visionary, George Lucas is a visionary, James Cameron is a visionary. Zack Snyder, however, is NOT!!!!!! He is a capable director, I'll give him that, but considering that this guy's entire film resume consists of one remake of an unnecessary zombie picture, that was originated by an actual visionary, George Romero, and two adaptations of graphic novels, there's nothing there to even hint at "visionary" material. Now, everything I've seen from Watchmen has been top shelf, no doubt, but until Snyder decides to tackle a story which is NOT a straight remake or adaptation of something else, then we'll talk about being impressed with his stuff.

-so sayeth the mastermind-

I think you have a point.
indeed, he is not a visionary in the way Cameron or Romero or Lucas is.
But that's not to say he doesn't have a talent for giving good value for his movies.

I know what you mean about Dawn of the Dead. Danny Boyle had already done the running zombies two years earlier, yet people thought Synder had invented this new athetlic zombie style!

I suppose the only way we will find out if he is a visionary, is when he creates his own Star Wars or Terminator hit film from his own writing and talent.

As of now, Snyder has simply shown he is good at adapting source material pretty well, although the jury is still out on Watchmen.

 

[The Shape]

Ok, just to be sure that, at least, the majority of everyone is on the same page and is, in no way, buying into the relentless marketing bulls*** surrounding an otherwise awesome looking picture. Orson Welles was a visionary, George Lucas was a visionary, James Cameron is a visionary. Zack Snyder, however, is NOT!!!!!! He is a capable director, I'll give him that, but considering that this guy's entire film resume consists of one remake of an unnecessary zombie picture, that was originated by an actual visionary, George Romero, and two adaptations of graphic novels, there's nothing there to even hint at "visionary" material. Now, everything I've seen from Watchmen has been top shelf, no doubt, but until Snyder decides to tackle a story which is NOT a straight remake or adaptation of something else, then we'll talk about being impressed with his stuff.

-so sayeth the mastermind-

Corrected for accuracy.

 

[Sam Fisher]

I think he still is, in terms of pushing technolgy in films.

 

[The Shape]

I think he still is, in terms of pushing technolgy in films.

Since when does wanting everything to be CGI make someone a visionary?

 

[daywalker2007]

Snyder is definitely not a visionary, well not yet anyway, he has to prove himself.

Now Jim Cameron, now he is a visionary, who is personally investing in revolutionary 3d filming and new real life quality cgi.
That is a true visionary, someone willing to try something completely new and not be scared.

George Lucas Was a visionary up until the 3rd Indy movie. After that, he just wasted his time on 3 pointless star wars prequels with useless cgi that didn't really give us anything new.

I wish George Lucas spent some of his vast sums of money to make something brand new and incredible like Jim Cameron is doing.
After all, Lucas invested so much of his time and money in ILM and Lucasfilm, yet we barely see anything from the man himself on a new story.

At least others try something different.

In my opinion, number one is Jim Cameron, followed by Kubrick, and Spielberg and probably a Zemeckis.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Ok, just to be sure that, at least, the majority of everyone is on the same page and is, in no way, buying into the relentless marketing bulls*** surrounding an otherwise awesome looking picture. Orson Welles was a visionary, George Lucas is a visionary, James Cameron is a visionary. Zack Snyder, however, is NOT!!!!!! He is a capable director, I'll give him that, but considering that this guy's entire film resume consists of one remake of an unnecessary zombie picture, that was originated by an actual visionary, George Romero, and two adaptations of graphic novels, there's nothing there to even hint at "visionary" material. Now, everything I've seen from Watchmen has been top shelf, no doubt, but until Snyder decides to tackle a story which is NOT a straight remake or adaptation of something else, then we'll talk about being impressed with his stuff.

-so sayeth the mastermind-

I do agree with your sentiment that Snyder is not a visionary, but the man is still a pretty damn good director. Honestly, I say keep him as a director for things that are meant to be a direct adaptation of (like 300 and Watchmen) and keep him away from things that are meant to be an interpretation (like Batman and Superman).

I would love to see him direct a God of War film.

 

[Gilpesh]

i dont think the fact that snyder has mainly worked with adapted material count against him. the majority of stanley kubrick films were adapted material, and i dont think anyone would discount his "visionary status".

Kubrick did something different with his adapted material. Snyder turned Dawn of the Dead into a cheap 28 Days Later set in a mall and 300 was just Sin City with Spartans. Also, his changes to the 300 story didn't add to the movie and actually took away from the good job he did with adapting the parts he actually took from the comic.

So it's not the adapted material counting against him... it's the way he adapted it.

 

[Franklin Richards]

So David Lynch ISN'T a visionary because of what he did to Dune?

 

[Franklin Richards]

Double.

 

[Gilpesh]

So David Lynch ISN'T a visionary because of what he did to Dune?

How did David Lynch come into all this? And I liked Dune.

 

[Figs]

You know what? *F* this thread.
I am sick and tired of people just bashing for the same of being "unique and cool".
I am not the biggest Zack Snyder fan, but I liked his DOTD and loved 300, and Watchmen looks like it's going to be really good.
It's so unfair to compare him to Spielberg, Cameron and all those other choices. He's so young, and he's doing very well. What's it to you if people call him a visionary? Who are you to say otherwise?
Is anyone else doing exactly what he's doing? Did anyone else fight hard to make Watchmen, for example? Excuse me, I didn't see Spielberg or Cameron running to get the rights to make this movie.
You don't like people calling him a visionary? Grab a ****ing camera and start to do something then.
I swear, there's just no winning with some of you people. You have someone pouring his heart out to make a good movie about a good franchise, and in 3 seconds, you get all uppity in your "I love Spielberg, therefore I know all about good filmmaking" club, and bash every single detail, instead of being grateful that someone is taking the time and care to work on a project like this/
I can't believe the nerve of people bashing people like Snyder and Nolan (yeah, I've seen that as well), when we have so many useless "directors" filming crap.
The Snyders and Nolans and whomever else you care to mention are going to be the Spielbergs and Camerons of tomorrow, and they sure are working hard at it (like Spielberg and Cameron did in the past).
It's just that some of you people think that ignoring this fact somehow makes you look like a film connoisseur.
Seriously, I'd like some of you to put your money where your mouth is and start proving how Snyder and the rest of the good current directors are not visionary.
This is just contradicting to appear different.
Ugh, stuff like this makes me hate this place more every day.

Best post in this thread.

 

[Figs]

Kubrick did something different with his adapted material. Snyder turned Dawn of the Dead into a cheap 28 Days Later set in a mall and 300 was just Sin City with Spartans. Also, his changes to the 300 story didn't add to the movie and actually took away from the good job he did with adapting the parts he actually took from the comic.

So it's not the adapted material counting against him... it's the way he adapted it.

The original Dawn of the Dead(one of my fav horror films)was also set in a mall. Only thing he did really was made the zombies run because let's face it...now days, zombies walking slow as a snail aren't that scary or much of a threat. It worked back then because, well...back then it was something fesh and somewhat new.

You say 300 was just Sin City with Spartans? Well, first off the same guy created/wrote both of those stories.

Second, 300 had a different visual style altogether...even when comparing the graphic novels not just the film. I think your stretching abit on this one Gilpesh.

 

[Steelsheen]

as much as i respect Snyder for his current work so far, i have to agree that the title "visionary" is a little too premature. part of what makes someone a "visionary" is if this person has done something that hasnt been done before, or something uniquely different, something avant garde. stylistically 300 was different, but it was not unique. its very similar to film noir/ B&W style filmaking only Snyder bathed his in red. and he had the palette of Miller's comic to rely heavily on. the same goes with Watchmen. but i'm sure Snyder will get a chance to do something avant garde. if Watchmen will make decent box office (at the least), Snyder can take his sweet time and make an indy flick i bet he's itching to do.

as for Nolan, i believe he has already reached avant garde/ visionary status with Memento (his first major motion picture).

 

[Gilpesh]

The original Dawn of the Dead(one of my fav horror films)was also set in a mall. Only thing he did really was made the zombies run because let's face it...now days, zombies walking slow as a snail aren't that scary or much of a threat. It worked back then because, well...back then it was something fesh and somewhat new.

I know. But in saying that it was just "28 Days Later set in a mall," I was trying to preempt anyone saying that 28 Days Later wasn't set in a mall. And the zombies themselves aren't the whole story with the good zombie movies... it's the humans that have to deal with the zombies.

You know how great the original Dawn is... and Romero only used four characters for a majority of the movie to tell a great story. The remake (while entertaining) was just a combination of a mall and the runners from 28 Days Later with more characters (some even trucked in so they can up the cast numbers) just to die later. I also agree with Romero's thoughts on the remake in that it's a "video game."

You say 300 was just Sin City with Spartans? Well, first off the same guy created/wrote both of those stories.

I mean when people try and point to the green screen filming as him being original and 'visionary'... when it was just the same thing another director had done just the year before that. And yes, I know Miller wrote both of them.... I have the comics. t:

Second, 300 had a different visual style altogether...even when comparing the graphic novels not just the film. I think your stretching abit on this one Gilpesh.

The visual styles were close enough, especially when you look at the trailer and see the pushing the Persians off the cliff and it looks almost like one of those shots from Sin City where they did the completely black and white.

But I'm not saying that the content of both movies is the same. The way they were made is the same and yet some people bow down to Snyder for making comic panels come to life on screen like Sin City never existed. And that's what some people are giving Snyder credit for.... when Rodriguez had done it before.

 

[Spider-Fan]

How did David Lynch come into all this? And I liked Dune.

Lynch's Dune gets far too much hate. I rather liked it, and I'm a big fan of the book.

 

[Doctor Jones]

You know what? *F* this thread.
I am sick and tired of people just bashing for the same of being "unique and cool".
I am not the biggest Zack Snyder fan, but I liked his DOTD and loved 300, and Watchmen looks like it's going to be really good.
It's so unfair to compare him to Spielberg, Cameron and all those other choices. He's so young, and he's doing very well. What's it to you if people call him a visionary? Who are you to say otherwise?
Is anyone else doing exactly what he's doing? Did anyone else fight hard to make Watchmen, for example? Excuse me, I didn't see Spielberg or Cameron running to get the rights to make this movie.
You don't like people calling him a visionary? Grab a ****ing camera and start to do something then.
I swear, there's just no winning with some of you people. You have someone pouring his heart out to make a good movie about a good franchise, and in 3 seconds, you get all uppity in your "I love Spielberg, therefore I know all about good filmmaking" club, and bash every single detail, instead of being grateful that someone is taking the time and care to work on a project like this/
I can't believe the nerve of people bashing people like Snyder and Nolan (yeah, I've seen that as well), when we have so many useless "directors" filming crap.
The Snyders and Nolans and whomever else you care to mention are going to be the Spielbergs and Camerons of tomorrow, and they sure are working hard at it (like Spielberg and Cameron did in the past).
It's just that some of you people think that ignoring this fact somehow makes you look like a film connoisseur.
Seriously, I'd like some of you to put your money where your mouth is and start proving how Snyder and the rest of the good current directors are not visionary.
This is just contradicting to appear different.
Ugh, stuff like this makes me hate this place more every day.

You sir, win this entire useless thread.

 

[thejon93]

Ok, just to be sure that, at least, the majority of everyone is on the same page and is, in no way, buying into the relentless marketing bulls*** surrounding an otherwise awesome looking picture. Orson Welles was a visionary, George Lucas is a visionary, James Cameron is a visionary. Zack Snyder, however, is NOT!!!!!! He is a capable director, I'll give him that, but considering that this guy's entire film resume consists of one remake of an unnecessary zombie picture, that was originated by an actual visionary, George Romero, and two adaptations of graphic novels, there's nothing there to even hint at "visionary" material. Now, everything I've seen from Watchmen has been top shelf, no doubt, but until Snyder decides to tackle a story which is NOT a straight remake or adaptation of something else, then we'll talk about being impressed with his stuff.

-so sayeth the mastermind-

Dude, your opinion counts for something. But you should deeply consider this before making empty-handed threats. Every director in the industry has the right to call themselves: "visionaries". Hell, even Uwe Boll could call himself a visionary; may not be a great one, but he has the right. And so does Zack Snyder.

 

[Gilpesh]

Lynch's Dune gets far too much hate. I rather liked it, and I'm a big fan of the book.

At least we have the sci-fi mini-series as a very close to the book adaptation to go with the crazy out there that is David Lynch's version.

 

[Spider-Fan]

At least we have the sci-fi mini-series as a very close to the book adaptation to go with the crazy out there that is David Lynch's version.

Agreed. The mini is good for its accuracy, but Lynch's is good for its atmosphere (in style and in scenery...the movie looks beautiful).

 

[Gilpesh]

Although, block people doesn't hold up well.