TheFlamingCoco
Avenger
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 10,479
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 33
A letter to Zack Snyder.
I believe the superhero genre is going to end within this decade. Sure, there will be quite a few before one major flop or gradual loss of interest takes it away from the public consciousness in the theatrical realm. But the age of heroes and technology is fading fast. When it dies, it'll be because of one expensive bad film from DC, and overexposure from both Marvel Studios and other companies using the characters in a poor way. The better characters will go to tv, where they will be a better fit anyway (comics are just limitless tv shows, after all).
The most popular and meaningful movies in this genre will become classics. The rest will fade away, relics to be found only by dedicated film fans.
The best storytellers ALWAYS put the medium above the story. How the story is told, what language to use, what audience to communicate to, etc, etc.
Arguably, Japanese cinema tends to be ahead of American film in many ways, because the directors push the technology as well as questioning traditional storytelling.
The comic book titan genre (superheroes/robots/monsters) of the 2010s is essentially the Kaiju/giant Monster movies of the 1970s. Those movies entertained by creating simplistic myths, while pushing the limits of technology at the time. Many are forgotten, while the best are remembered and reevaluated within its place in foreign film history (Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla comes to mind).
So it is with any comic-scaled story. I don't think it will ever be thought of as a GREAT genre, but the best films in the genre will be heralded as movie classics. So, if history parallels itself, it will mysteriously disappear somewhere in the 2020s, only to be revived in small spurts by tribute directors decades later.
This isn't long. Not long at all. So vote to prolong the inevitable. Double Feature Superman/Batman and Captain America (more on that later).
The best directors tend to be divisive. They make bold decisions that divide critics and some audience members. But time is kind to them. But the critics don't make movies classics. The general audience members do. They watch movies not to think, but to feel. They are the ones buying home releases, and will get them for their kids to experience as well. Critics treat movies by how they read, not what they show. They are always dated, unless the break away from that circle of thought. Good movies create feeling, or tell stories. Most directors are just glorified writers, picking one and forgetting the other. Zack Snyder doesn't really do this. He knows that great movies create feeling from story.
And Zack Snyder has inspired more audience members to appreciate movies intrinsically than any other American director in recent history.
Think about it. The Avengers is valued by being two thirds classical storytelling with a Bay-scaled final act. It validates critics (who believe only silver age comics are valid, besides Batman and maybe The Punisher) and gives audiences a reason to NOT watch yet another Transformers movie, by adding a good story to a great movie experience. It's a Joss Whedon movie.
MOS doesn't do that. It questions itself. It takes itself seriously, and it comments on the bleakness of violence by showing its effect on other people. A lesser director would just not film reaction shots. It isn't "fun."
The people attached to the genre on film are angry at him for deconstructing a stale genre (but entertaining)
But the rest are fascinated to see what is in store.
Each significant Zack Snyder film has a cult following, or stirs heated discussions on what the genre should be. But no one can deny they have impact. They make people love him. They make people hate him. They are art. They don't tell you what to think, and when they have to, they use a strong visual to drive the point home.
It is true that Zack doesn't really have much screenwriting standards (his lesser works reveal this). But that's why he stays true to the original comic script..or lets dated Singeresque screenwriters who hold him back get booted without a second thought.
His movies get strong DVD sales.. http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-...-tv/2959117011/ref=zg_bs_nav_mov_3_2959099011
Even when they bomb. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sucker-punch-stays-atop-dvd-210895
They are on filmsites best movies in recent times. Of course, they are measured by financial gross a year..but why are Zack's movies remembered, when most are forgotten?
It isn't because he's perfect. He gets so caught up with the emotions of the adaptations that he forgets how superior books are as a literary medium. He could direct better written scripts, and audiences overlook the mastery of the medium in exchange for pointing out obvious story problems.
Style over substance is a lazy 21rst century Internet catchphrase for when the directing drowns out the subtleties of a great script. Old critics never used it, they used other words. Both are in the wrong, because they are complaining that the medium is transcending the text. More on that later. Another term that’s also used is hack. It is a derogatory phrase to shut out a successful directors whose technical gifts transcend storytelling. But what does that mean? I can only find one website that properly defines it. http://visionaryorhack.com/hacks/what-makes-a-hack-a-hack.
But that website also misses the point. A hack isn’t a generic storyteller. Generic storytellers are forgotten, rather than placed in a pillory. Hacks are unpopular auters with a signature style, and the ones who use the medium optimally will outlast even the “best” storytellers. These same internet fans bashing Watchmen are lauding Independence Day, for crying out loud!
For a good laugh, look at Ebert’s old review of Once Upon A Time In The West. He was clearly younger, and had the same genre biases that “objective" Internet critics don’t understand. It’s the same mentality that drives those young critics who don’t understand direction as much as a personal bias of literary stories.
Zack’s most successful work are when he’s a visual stylist of the stories that are solid scriptwise(DotD/300)..and get controversial experimenting with form in comic deconstruction (Watchmen/MOS).
His worst ones come from a lack of ambition, or experience. Both show that writing isn’t his strengths, but most directors aren’t writers or even original thinkers. They reinvent, rather than invent. But the ones who are the boldest and simultaneously poetic survive time itself. DotD Watchmen, 300, and possibly MOS are APPRECIATING as time goes by. The first three are pretty much accepted as classics, with a high fan appeal and IMDB score to boot. The most highly acclaimed directors in critical revisionist history don’t tell the best stories. They make the best movies, using non dialog scenes to captivate the general audience, rather than appeal to the misguided literary critics who think they like movies. Critics like strong general storytellers. They always miss great directors, unless the direction draws attention to the writing.
Chris Nolan is great, but he’s a director whose main strength is a plotter/writer. He’s a great creative MIND, but is afraid to showcase cinema intrinsically. It has to be plotted, and I think audiences are starting to grow tired of this brutal internal limitation of an amazingly unhinged mind. Intersteller will be different, though critics will be harsher on that flick* (more on that later).
Zack is the one who believes movies are valuable by the scenes they show, not the words that are expressed. Audiences want to see and feel. They are rewarded by his movies, not punished (like every other angry artist wants to do). Even when they disgust, they inspire conversation, or blind hate from people who don’t value movies as audiovisual art.
When the genre ends, he’ll be a notable director within this genre. I personally think he’ll be known as a master of cinema responsible for innovating the superhero genre, both in technicality and boldness of story, only growing in directorial quality (visual inventiveness), despite fluctuating screenplays. Sucker Punch may or may not become a classic, but there is nothing in America like it. As for his direction of actors, it’s around average..but so are most in this genre. I honestly think people raise the bar higher, just to watch him hit his legs on it. Zack will really have to stretch himself to counter the unfair standards that critics put against him, but when he does, he will win the genre. They will say “Dang, I was wrong.”
Zack, if you are reading this, try to bag the Russo brothers for Justice League (after DoJ). They love comics about as much as you do, and their quality of storytelling is only going to bring more people in. If you direct to their script, critics will blame them for a quality story. But it is fair this time, as writers are always the factor of literary storytelling. Terrio’s great as it is, but combined with the Russo’s passion and character optimized plotting, the possibilities are infinite.
You will gain some critical prestige only after DoJ by fans, but when that happens, critics will get softer on you and your body of work, based on audience reactions.
And when the genre ends, they will shut up.
But it shouldn’t have to be that long. Let JL shut them up.
Make JL an epic two parter. Use Mark Waid’s books as your backbone, specifically Kingdom Come and Tower of Babel.
Let the first movie, Kingdom Come, be a dream sequence by Bruce on Scarecrow’s fear toxin..while having it be Batman’s weakness for the overarching “Tower of Babel” storyline, revealed by flashback at the end of the movie. Show Frank Miller Batman threatening Superman for selling out, but reveal it to be Bruce Wayne’s worst fear (the fear of losing his friend). Show Superman “save” Batman through kindness..but have the Scarecrow laugh about Bruce’s own plans working. Then end the movie in a cliffhanger.
Critics would love it (the message is that the JLA are traditional heroes, and different ones are a nightmare), audiences would love it (neat moviemaking built on character driven storytelling, but with no shortages of plot) and comic fans would LIKE it (they are the most picky).
Instead of a threat of language being removed, make Doomsday the threat. It’s simpler, and scarier. And have Batman learn that because he cares about their identities, he needs to be the intellectual threat to Doomsday, who is getting smarter as Brainiac feeds him information (he is the one who steals the JLA initiation plans, based on Talia stealing Bruce’s passwords on the Batcomputer and leaking them to satellites. And yes, she’ll be scarier and strange..and without any aliases). Let Bruce have the JL draw out Doomsday by staging a fake civil war. It confuses Doomsday, and you can go to town, having the JL dwarf the entirity of TA against Doomsday. But Superman MUST defeat him. Let Superman killing Doomsday complete his arc, showing how he came to terms with this action. And let Batman sympathize, respecting his friend for doing what’s necessary.
So yes, for Justice League, I want an epic two parter based on the concepts of two great comic stories, which also parallel the most popular of the comic fantasies (your Watchmen, and Whedon’s Avengers). So yes, part Kingdom Come (movie one), Part Tower of Babel, the visuals of Injustice, with the last act being an homage to The Avengers (a simple concept with big plot twists, character and action), composing the entirety of the second one. It would be the superhero movie to end all superhero movies. You can create another classic before the genre fades.
The people who liked Watchmen will like part 1, and the people who liked the original Avengers will love part 2. And who doesn’t like Mark Waid?
I know you like this, because it’s simple, and brilliant, just as Batman being Superman’s antagonist to draw attention to Superman’s character will be.
After this, you can retire DC movies, knowing you gave the most epic DC experience anyone has given or might ever give.
The Superman character after the JL movies needs quiet storytelling, to show his relationships with the world at large. They need to be small, element movies. Your films are loud and unsubtle, but so are most comics and big movies, and are none the worse for it. So hire a great independent storyteller and produce the sequel MOS fans want, just as Nolan has hired you.
I won’t say that you’re the best. In some ways, the late Ebert (who was always ahead of his time regarding film criticism, even in his early days), already had.
“http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/watchmen-2009”
Movies are experiences. Dreams are passed on from generation to generatios.
Critics read movies. People watch them. And directors reward the watchers.
Your risks are controversial, but they are gonna pay off in time. From the epic storytelling of 300 on a shoestring blockbuster budget, to the dark grandiosity of Watchmen, to the haunting beauty of the only superhero movie from you not based on a comic book line, bringing to life Henry Cavill as The Man of Steel.
I hate critics. So punch a critic with great storytelling that shatters the safety of the comic genre, then further construct it from those shattered pieces. They won’t know how to respond, they hate you too much. Make another classic.
I know you can do it!
Sincerely-the better Internet
PS.*Critics are waiting to bash Chris Nolan without death threats.
If he's subtle with his ideas with Interstellar like all the great directors, he will get underrated and lose prestige, along with the movie itself.
Then you can encourage him, while validating his enterance into what will likely be his favorite genre. Nolan's got a great sci-fi mind. His influences helped the MOS script, even if Goyer had other ideas.
PPS. I'm glad he's gone. He's a third rate Bryan Singer to comic book adaptations. You're essentially a comic artist. Terrio will save your movie's story, and you're gonna save the superhero genre with this movie and sequels.
I believe the superhero genre is going to end within this decade. Sure, there will be quite a few before one major flop or gradual loss of interest takes it away from the public consciousness in the theatrical realm. But the age of heroes and technology is fading fast. When it dies, it'll be because of one expensive bad film from DC, and overexposure from both Marvel Studios and other companies using the characters in a poor way. The better characters will go to tv, where they will be a better fit anyway (comics are just limitless tv shows, after all).
The most popular and meaningful movies in this genre will become classics. The rest will fade away, relics to be found only by dedicated film fans.
The best storytellers ALWAYS put the medium above the story. How the story is told, what language to use, what audience to communicate to, etc, etc.
Arguably, Japanese cinema tends to be ahead of American film in many ways, because the directors push the technology as well as questioning traditional storytelling.
The comic book titan genre (superheroes/robots/monsters) of the 2010s is essentially the Kaiju/giant Monster movies of the 1970s. Those movies entertained by creating simplistic myths, while pushing the limits of technology at the time. Many are forgotten, while the best are remembered and reevaluated within its place in foreign film history (Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla comes to mind).
So it is with any comic-scaled story. I don't think it will ever be thought of as a GREAT genre, but the best films in the genre will be heralded as movie classics. So, if history parallels itself, it will mysteriously disappear somewhere in the 2020s, only to be revived in small spurts by tribute directors decades later.
This isn't long. Not long at all. So vote to prolong the inevitable. Double Feature Superman/Batman and Captain America (more on that later).
The best directors tend to be divisive. They make bold decisions that divide critics and some audience members. But time is kind to them. But the critics don't make movies classics. The general audience members do. They watch movies not to think, but to feel. They are the ones buying home releases, and will get them for their kids to experience as well. Critics treat movies by how they read, not what they show. They are always dated, unless the break away from that circle of thought. Good movies create feeling, or tell stories. Most directors are just glorified writers, picking one and forgetting the other. Zack Snyder doesn't really do this. He knows that great movies create feeling from story.
And Zack Snyder has inspired more audience members to appreciate movies intrinsically than any other American director in recent history.
Think about it. The Avengers is valued by being two thirds classical storytelling with a Bay-scaled final act. It validates critics (who believe only silver age comics are valid, besides Batman and maybe The Punisher) and gives audiences a reason to NOT watch yet another Transformers movie, by adding a good story to a great movie experience. It's a Joss Whedon movie.
MOS doesn't do that. It questions itself. It takes itself seriously, and it comments on the bleakness of violence by showing its effect on other people. A lesser director would just not film reaction shots. It isn't "fun."
The people attached to the genre on film are angry at him for deconstructing a stale genre (but entertaining)
But the rest are fascinated to see what is in store.
Each significant Zack Snyder film has a cult following, or stirs heated discussions on what the genre should be. But no one can deny they have impact. They make people love him. They make people hate him. They are art. They don't tell you what to think, and when they have to, they use a strong visual to drive the point home.
It is true that Zack doesn't really have much screenwriting standards (his lesser works reveal this). But that's why he stays true to the original comic script..or lets dated Singeresque screenwriters who hold him back get booted without a second thought.
His movies get strong DVD sales.. http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-...-tv/2959117011/ref=zg_bs_nav_mov_3_2959099011
Even when they bomb. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sucker-punch-stays-atop-dvd-210895
They are on filmsites best movies in recent times. Of course, they are measured by financial gross a year..but why are Zack's movies remembered, when most are forgotten?
It isn't because he's perfect. He gets so caught up with the emotions of the adaptations that he forgets how superior books are as a literary medium. He could direct better written scripts, and audiences overlook the mastery of the medium in exchange for pointing out obvious story problems.
Style over substance is a lazy 21rst century Internet catchphrase for when the directing drowns out the subtleties of a great script. Old critics never used it, they used other words. Both are in the wrong, because they are complaining that the medium is transcending the text. More on that later. Another term that’s also used is hack. It is a derogatory phrase to shut out a successful directors whose technical gifts transcend storytelling. But what does that mean? I can only find one website that properly defines it. http://visionaryorhack.com/hacks/what-makes-a-hack-a-hack.
But that website also misses the point. A hack isn’t a generic storyteller. Generic storytellers are forgotten, rather than placed in a pillory. Hacks are unpopular auters with a signature style, and the ones who use the medium optimally will outlast even the “best” storytellers. These same internet fans bashing Watchmen are lauding Independence Day, for crying out loud!
For a good laugh, look at Ebert’s old review of Once Upon A Time In The West. He was clearly younger, and had the same genre biases that “objective" Internet critics don’t understand. It’s the same mentality that drives those young critics who don’t understand direction as much as a personal bias of literary stories.
Zack’s most successful work are when he’s a visual stylist of the stories that are solid scriptwise(DotD/300)..and get controversial experimenting with form in comic deconstruction (Watchmen/MOS).
His worst ones come from a lack of ambition, or experience. Both show that writing isn’t his strengths, but most directors aren’t writers or even original thinkers. They reinvent, rather than invent. But the ones who are the boldest and simultaneously poetic survive time itself. DotD Watchmen, 300, and possibly MOS are APPRECIATING as time goes by. The first three are pretty much accepted as classics, with a high fan appeal and IMDB score to boot. The most highly acclaimed directors in critical revisionist history don’t tell the best stories. They make the best movies, using non dialog scenes to captivate the general audience, rather than appeal to the misguided literary critics who think they like movies. Critics like strong general storytellers. They always miss great directors, unless the direction draws attention to the writing.
Chris Nolan is great, but he’s a director whose main strength is a plotter/writer. He’s a great creative MIND, but is afraid to showcase cinema intrinsically. It has to be plotted, and I think audiences are starting to grow tired of this brutal internal limitation of an amazingly unhinged mind. Intersteller will be different, though critics will be harsher on that flick* (more on that later).
Zack is the one who believes movies are valuable by the scenes they show, not the words that are expressed. Audiences want to see and feel. They are rewarded by his movies, not punished (like every other angry artist wants to do). Even when they disgust, they inspire conversation, or blind hate from people who don’t value movies as audiovisual art.
When the genre ends, he’ll be a notable director within this genre. I personally think he’ll be known as a master of cinema responsible for innovating the superhero genre, both in technicality and boldness of story, only growing in directorial quality (visual inventiveness), despite fluctuating screenplays. Sucker Punch may or may not become a classic, but there is nothing in America like it. As for his direction of actors, it’s around average..but so are most in this genre. I honestly think people raise the bar higher, just to watch him hit his legs on it. Zack will really have to stretch himself to counter the unfair standards that critics put against him, but when he does, he will win the genre. They will say “Dang, I was wrong.”
Zack, if you are reading this, try to bag the Russo brothers for Justice League (after DoJ). They love comics about as much as you do, and their quality of storytelling is only going to bring more people in. If you direct to their script, critics will blame them for a quality story. But it is fair this time, as writers are always the factor of literary storytelling. Terrio’s great as it is, but combined with the Russo’s passion and character optimized plotting, the possibilities are infinite.
You will gain some critical prestige only after DoJ by fans, but when that happens, critics will get softer on you and your body of work, based on audience reactions.
And when the genre ends, they will shut up.
But it shouldn’t have to be that long. Let JL shut them up.
Make JL an epic two parter. Use Mark Waid’s books as your backbone, specifically Kingdom Come and Tower of Babel.
Let the first movie, Kingdom Come, be a dream sequence by Bruce on Scarecrow’s fear toxin..while having it be Batman’s weakness for the overarching “Tower of Babel” storyline, revealed by flashback at the end of the movie. Show Frank Miller Batman threatening Superman for selling out, but reveal it to be Bruce Wayne’s worst fear (the fear of losing his friend). Show Superman “save” Batman through kindness..but have the Scarecrow laugh about Bruce’s own plans working. Then end the movie in a cliffhanger.
Critics would love it (the message is that the JLA are traditional heroes, and different ones are a nightmare), audiences would love it (neat moviemaking built on character driven storytelling, but with no shortages of plot) and comic fans would LIKE it (they are the most picky).
Instead of a threat of language being removed, make Doomsday the threat. It’s simpler, and scarier. And have Batman learn that because he cares about their identities, he needs to be the intellectual threat to Doomsday, who is getting smarter as Brainiac feeds him information (he is the one who steals the JLA initiation plans, based on Talia stealing Bruce’s passwords on the Batcomputer and leaking them to satellites. And yes, she’ll be scarier and strange..and without any aliases). Let Bruce have the JL draw out Doomsday by staging a fake civil war. It confuses Doomsday, and you can go to town, having the JL dwarf the entirity of TA against Doomsday. But Superman MUST defeat him. Let Superman killing Doomsday complete his arc, showing how he came to terms with this action. And let Batman sympathize, respecting his friend for doing what’s necessary.
So yes, for Justice League, I want an epic two parter based on the concepts of two great comic stories, which also parallel the most popular of the comic fantasies (your Watchmen, and Whedon’s Avengers). So yes, part Kingdom Come (movie one), Part Tower of Babel, the visuals of Injustice, with the last act being an homage to The Avengers (a simple concept with big plot twists, character and action), composing the entirety of the second one. It would be the superhero movie to end all superhero movies. You can create another classic before the genre fades.
The people who liked Watchmen will like part 1, and the people who liked the original Avengers will love part 2. And who doesn’t like Mark Waid?
I know you like this, because it’s simple, and brilliant, just as Batman being Superman’s antagonist to draw attention to Superman’s character will be.
After this, you can retire DC movies, knowing you gave the most epic DC experience anyone has given or might ever give.
The Superman character after the JL movies needs quiet storytelling, to show his relationships with the world at large. They need to be small, element movies. Your films are loud and unsubtle, but so are most comics and big movies, and are none the worse for it. So hire a great independent storyteller and produce the sequel MOS fans want, just as Nolan has hired you.
I won’t say that you’re the best. In some ways, the late Ebert (who was always ahead of his time regarding film criticism, even in his early days), already had.
“http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/watchmen-2009”
Movies are experiences. Dreams are passed on from generation to generatios.
Critics read movies. People watch them. And directors reward the watchers.
Your risks are controversial, but they are gonna pay off in time. From the epic storytelling of 300 on a shoestring blockbuster budget, to the dark grandiosity of Watchmen, to the haunting beauty of the only superhero movie from you not based on a comic book line, bringing to life Henry Cavill as The Man of Steel.
I hate critics. So punch a critic with great storytelling that shatters the safety of the comic genre, then further construct it from those shattered pieces. They won’t know how to respond, they hate you too much. Make another classic.
I know you can do it!
Sincerely-the better Internet
PS.*Critics are waiting to bash Chris Nolan without death threats.
If he's subtle with his ideas with Interstellar like all the great directors, he will get underrated and lose prestige, along with the movie itself.
Then you can encourage him, while validating his enterance into what will likely be his favorite genre. Nolan's got a great sci-fi mind. His influences helped the MOS script, even if Goyer had other ideas.
PPS. I'm glad he's gone. He's a third rate Bryan Singer to comic book adaptations. You're essentially a comic artist. Terrio will save your movie's story, and you're gonna save the superhero genre with this movie and sequels.
