Snyder's NOT a "visionary"

[Johnny Drama]

What exactly defines a "visionary director"?
is there, like, a rating system?

 

[Doctor Jones]

I think the marketing team means by "Visoionary" means 300 and the style of it. How it looked and felt like compared to other films it was different. Hence the term for the film. Plus, it's a marketing hook.

 

[Gilpesh]

The style of 300? You mean the ripped from the comic style of Sin City?

 

[Doctor Jones]

Well, Miller did do both. I would hardly call that ripped. Plus, what's wrong with taking it in a new direction? It fits more of the style of the comic.

 

[The Chris]

So this complaint has reached these circles now huh? the rottentomatoes folk have been going nuts on this. It's a marketing tool that he himself looked embarrassed about when asked about it, so lets please get over this.

If this was Brett Ratner I'd understand the complaints, but Snyder's made two pretty good movies so far where I give him big credit for making them work. I mean to do a Dawn Of The Dead remake and have it not suck, then adapt a Frank Miller Graphic Novel, and then to adapt THE graphic novel. Dude's got guts, he's got talent. So really, the dudes say he's visionary, you disagree, that's cool, but you don't need to get all mad over it. If it helps Watchmen get more cash, then all power to it.

 

[DACrowe]

I dont think Snyder is a visionary either, but really, how many are there anyway?

Ridley Scott
Spielberg
Cameron
Lucas(not anymore)
Fincher(maybe)

Is there anyone else?

John Ford
James Whale
Howard Hawks
Orson Wells
Frank Capra
Billy Wilder
Akira Kurosawa
John Houston
Alfred Hitchcock
Elia Kazan
David Lean
Robert Wise
Francois Truffaut
Igmar Bergman
Stanley Kubrick
Sidney Lumet
Sergio Leone
Francis Ford Coppola
Martin Scorsese
George Hill
Oliver Stone
Tim Burton
Quentin Traninto
The Coen Brothers
Clint Eastwood

Yes, off the top of my head there are a few more. But I'm sure there are many I'm forgetting.

 

[Nivek]

Hell, if I had a comic property, I would want Zack to make an Adoption of it. I personally think he should do Green Lantern. I think he's the guy to translate that kind of power ensemble cast of moderate unknowns to pull of an original property.

 

[Gilpesh]

Well, Miller did do both. I would hardly call that ripped. Plus, what's wrong with taking it in a new direction? It fits more of the style of the comic.

It wasn't much of a new direction is what I am saying... it is pretty much (production-wise and somewhat style-wise) Sin City with Spartans. And that Sin City is the only reason 300 was made... even though Snyder was trying before Dawn of the Dead to do it. You'd think if he was half a visionary that Rodriguez has shown that he could be if he tried... he'd figure out a way. I mean, El Mariachi was made for no money and it was good.

Hell, if I had a comic property, I would want Zack to make an Adoption of it. I personally think he should do Green Lantern. I think he's the guy to translate that kind of power ensemble cast of moderate unknowns to pull of an original property.

And I personally think that Snyder should never do another comic adaptation and go on to more original ideas that he came up with... so he can just sink or swim without the comic fanboys holding him up.

 

[Octoberist]

Hell, if I had a comic property, I would want Zack to make an Adoption of it. I personally think he should do Green Lantern. I think he's the guy to translate that kind of power ensemble cast of moderate unknowns to pull of an original property.

Yeah, i trust him well enough if Watchmen is the real deal.

I've always believe that a 'visionary' director is a person who must have longevity in the business and at least two DEFINING MOVIES ON THEIR RESUME:

1. His first big break MOVIE: It could be a smaller budget movie that gets a lot of attention.: Chris Nolan's Memento. Martin Scorese's Mean Streets. Guy Ritchie's Lock Stock. Wes Anderson's Bottle Rocket.

The 'first break' should be a passion project, or an original piece. Sometimes, you get the 'PRECURSOR' to the First Break where the director is sucessful with someone else's work that would jumpstart their career. For example: Tim Burton's Pee Wee Herman.
2. His first "IT" MOVIE: The movie that kinda defines your career. Where people will bring up in film school and is accessible to a big audience. Usually it's the director's 2nd or 3rd movie: David Fincher's Fight Club. Q. Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. Tim Burton's Ed Wood. Terry Giliam's Brazil.

If there's a third category, it should be a movie in which the director tries to do something new (comedy, drama, action). I cant think of any at the moment.

 

[The Guard]

I don't know why people care so much about what a poster says, but...

To me, a visionary director is someone who takes film to a new level, who does something no one else has done before.

Wells and Hitchcock are obvious.

Sergio Leone...okay.

Stanley Kubrick was visionary for the way he explored concepts visually, and he made filmmakers take a look at exactly how they were telling stories, period.

Steven Spielberg found a way to bring "heart" and "fantasy" to film in a manner that had previously not existed. It's so popular it's been copied ad nauseum in modern movies.

Chris Nolan has made some good films, but what has he done that's exceedingly brilliant, tell a story backwards? He didn't exactly invent non linear film, after all. I don't know that I'd count Scorsese as "visionary", either, he's just really, really good at what he does.

Snyder has pioneered a sort of "heightened reality" on film. Not in the sense that Guiellermo Del Toro has...it's something more than fantasy. I'm not familiar enough with film to say whether that's been done somewhere else. You won't find too many other movies out there that look or feel like 300 and WATCHMEN. But you could say the same of Tim Burton, like Terry Gilliam before him. Is Tim Burton a visionary?

In the end, who really cares, as long as their movies are good?

 

[terry78]

There is a difference between being a visionary and just being a straight nutjob who comes off as an eccentric that causes more problems with the project than need be. You know who they are.

 

[Max J Power]

The style of 300? You mean the ripped from the comic style of Sin City?

I must say I was pretty disappointed when everybody I knew went nuts over "300"'s style and largely ignored "Sin City," which was better in every aspect. Snyder's a solid director (although he apparently couldn't direct anyone in "300" to a good performance), but Rodriguez is way better.

If there's a third category, it should be a movie in which the director tries to do something new (comedy, drama, action). I cant think of any at the moment.

Maybe Tarantino's "Kill Bill" or Fincher's "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button."

 

[The Guard]

Apparently the guy who helped direct "9" is also now a "visionary director".

It's begun.

 

[Gilpesh]

Apparently the guy who helped direct "9" is also now a "visionary director".

It's begun.

:facepalm

F--k. It's the new "... of the Century" or "Best .... of the year".

 

[Fenrir]

Chris Nolan has made some good films, but what has he done that's exceedingly brilliant, tell a story backwards? He didn't exactly invent non linear film, after all.

Which shows you pretty much missed the entire point of the choice of non-linear editing in Nolan's films like Memento and The Prestige. In these two films, the structure has a deep and sound basis in the story itself rather than just being a cool narrative choice. First of all, Memento is only half backwards. The film starts at the end. The other half of the film interspersed with the black and white sequences are linear in their progression. The film ends smack drab in the middle of the story, where the linear and non-linear plot threads intersect.

Now let me just get straight out and say it: anyone who thinks that Memento and The Prestige's non-linear structures are nothing but gimmicks are complete dumbasses. Yes, absolute IDIOTS. Because like I said earlier, it has an actual purpose with a sound basis in the story. The editing in Memento is designed to literally put the audience in Leonard's shoes. It's a stroke of pure genius because a filmmaker really couldn't have found a better way to get the audience to empathize with the protagonist (or at least, his condition).

Likewise, in The Prestige, all three acts of the film were staged just like the three acts of a magic trick. And the constant overlapping of timelines is used as a tool of misdirection.

What Nolan did with Memento and The Prestige is what I'd call exceedingly brilliant. Because he's integrated the unusual structure so strongly and effortlessly with the plot that the story simply cannot be told any other way without being massively compromised of its impact.

 

[Fenrir]

Also, I find it really annoying that its suddenly become hip and cool to talk down about Chris Nolan's achievements now that he has become a "populist director" just because he has made two Batman films and a billion dollar blockbuster. It's such a childish, juvenile attitude. I mean, go through the web archives circa 2004 or earlier to see the kind of superlative praises these 'connoisseurs' of cinema showered at Christopher Nolan before he was signed to direct Batman Begins. It is downright laughable how their tone changed from "Revolutionary!" back then to "meh, nothing special". Ah, the stuck up hypocrisy of the self-proclaimed elite in trying to set themselves apart from the likes of us lowly common folk never ceases to amaze me.

 

[The Guard]

I'm not talking down Chris Nolan's achievements. He's made some very good films, and I quite enjoy them, but I don't consider him a visionary director simply because he's managed to weave structure and story together.

I am aware of what MEMENTO is and how its structured. It's neat, but it is not, in my mind, a brilliant concept. It's a bit different from most movies, to be sure. But it's been done before, albeit not as often as it's done now that everyone suddenly decided that was a "brilliant" technique.

Yes, Chris Nolan used overlapping timelines as misdirection in THE PRESTIGE. Know what else he used as misdirection?

Misdirection.

That is, while the script is fairly clever about the "changes" between Bordens, and the sense that the whole of Borden's story is a "magic trick", the writers don't ever even introduce the "twist" element on any real or honest level until it was ready to be revealed. Oh, that guy's Borden's brother? Oh. And here I thought he was Borden's assistant because that's what he had been presented as.

Boy, Nolan sured fooled us.

 

[Figs]

Yes, Chris Nolan used overlapping timelines as misdirection in THE PRESTIGE. Know what else he used as misdirection?

Misdirection.

That is, while the script is fairly clever about the "changes" between Bordens, and the sense that the whole of Borden's story is a "magic trick", the writers don't ever even introduce the "twist" element on any real or honest level until it was ready to be revealed. Oh, that guy's Borden's brother? Oh. And here I thought he was Borden's assistant because that's what he had been presented as.

Boy, Nolan sured fooled us.

I hear the same kind of complaints/reasons about The Usual Suspects.

Do people really *****/cry or get disappointed when the Director or Writer of a film doesn't allow them the opportunity to "figure it out(AKA: Guessing...that's what it usually is anyways )before the film is over or near the end?

Does it really give you a sense of acomplishment or is it for bragging rights?

What exactly is so bad about a film giving you a surprise or twist at the end? I could understand if it got real old because every Director started to do it, but only a few every now and then do this.

 

[Heretic]

Many people in the course of life are lies. Their very presentation is a sham. There is no need for a movie to clue in on whos being misrepresented and who isnt...until needed. There are instances where this is done very, very poorly (for a horrific example, view Bret Michaels Letter From Death Row...in fact...dont view it). Memento and Prestige do it well, so quit complaining.

 

[Figs]

Many people in the course of life are lies. Their very presentation is a sham. There is no need for a movie to clue in on whos being misrepresented and who isnt...until needed. There are instances where this is done very, very poorly (for a horrific example, view Bret Michaels Letter From Death Row...in fact...dont view it). Memento and Prestige do it well, so quit complaining.

This was in response to The Guard or myself?

 

[Heretic]

The Guard

Im just saying, you dont have to reveal all of the info about a character to the audience.

 

[The Guard]

I'm not complaining or crying about it. I'm saying it may be clever, and it's done well, but it's not brilliant. ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE, can base a story around a "reveal", and then just "not reveal" the twist until the end. The better structured and executed story twists are the ones that provide audiences with some clues to the twist before the reveal.

 

[Kurosawa]

300 is the most overrated movie in history. Heck, Watchmen is the most overrated comic in history.

Watchmen or DKR, yes.

That said I do plan to go see Watchmen. But I find 300 lame. People talk about it like it's f'n Spartacus or something.

 

[Fenrir]

I'm not talking down Chris Nolan's achievements. He's made some very good films, and I quite enjoy them, but I don't consider him a visionary director simply because he's managed to weave structure and story together.

I am aware of what MEMENTO is and how its structured. It's neat, but it is not, in my mind, a brilliant concept. It's a bit different from most movies, to be sure. But it's been done before, albeit not as often as it's done now that everyone suddenly decided that was a "brilliant" technique.

Care to mention a few films that had a structure like Memento? Because I find your response contradictory in the sense that you say Memento's structure is different yet at the same time maintain that it's been done before. So which one is it?

Yes, Chris Nolan used overlapping timelines as misdirection in THE PRESTIGE. Know what else he used as misdirection?

Misdirection.

That is, while the script is fairly clever about the "changes" between Bordens, and the sense that the whole of Borden's story is a "magic trick", the writers don't ever even introduce the "twist" element on any real or honest level until it was ready to be revealed.

Then you simply weren't paying attention. Angier's twist was obvious the very first time Tesla tested his machine on the hats and the cat. And the Chinaman's "trick" alongwith Cutter beating it into the audiences head that Borden uses a double, Borden's trick was completely laid bare just like Angier's. You dismiss the explanations the film gives you throughout (and repeatedly at that) because like Angier we were all expecting some crazy humongous and utterly remarkable feat behind The Transported Man of both illusionists, instead of settling for the obvious. "You want to be fooled".

Oh, that guy's Borden's brother? Oh. And here I thought he was Borden's assistant because that's what he had been presented as.

Boy, Nolan sured fooled us.

If you were fooled or were thinking that Nolan was even trying to fool the audience, then I feel sorry for you. The scene where the imprisoned Borden says "I'm sorry about Sarah" was a dead giveaway. The entire third act is filled to the brim with clear revelations to the audience about both magicians. The final "reveal" was simply reaffirming those suspicions. That's what magic is all about. The magicians don't deceive the audience. They do the whole act right in front of their eyes. What they actually do is simply redirect the audience's focus away from where it should be. And that's what Nolan did.

 

[Fenrir]

I'm not complaining or crying about it. I'm saying it may be clever, and it's done well, but it's not brilliant. ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE, can base a story around a "reveal", and then just "not reveal" the twist until the end. The better structured and executed story twists are the ones that provide audiences with some clues to the twist before the reveal.

That's exactly what The Prestige did! Weren't you paying attention? And it not only just gave clues, but almost flat out gave away the entire reveal at times. Cutter was damn right. "You are not really looking"