BvS The Zack Snyder Validation Thread (big rant)

[Diabo]

You were talking about entertaining the masses though. Those figures hardly speak of the masses and not only that most of those films wouldn't have made any profit based on those figures, maybe even MoS depending on how much money went into advertising. And lets be honest, MoS inflates that average a bit.

You´re just speculating. I´m pointing out numbers. I´m pretty sure that if he didn´t have a positive financial track, studios wouldn´t be offering him movies after movies. So he must be doing a good job. Just deal with it. You don´t like him, that´s fine. But don´t act like the guy doesn´t know what he is doing. You have no factual evidence to back up such claim.

 

[D.P.]

I'll just add this in an attempt to calm things down a bit. Us folks who lean DC have an emotional attachment to the current film series. The simple fact fans are polarised with regards to MoS more or less indicates to me that the series is off to the worst possible start and that the creative team in place hasn't done a good enough job in doing justice to the characters involved. The shear fact we just continuously argue amongst ourselves speaks volumes to that no matter which side of the fence you sit. Every fan wanted to believe in MoS and the team behind it, there was no hate campaign towards this film because many wanted to believe that the film would live up to its potential. But for many of us it didn't do enough of what it promised, in some cases it didn't even do the fundamentals of movie making right. It gets heated because frankly many fans can't see the film others see, and it sucks, and sometimes things get said that are completely out of line in defence of either position (and I'll be the first to put my hand up for doing that every now and then). Whether you are for or against the people involved the fact is we have a creative team that's too divisive and that is not what a character like Superman should have driving him. The argument isn't so much whether Snyder is a good director, but rather whether it's good for the character to have someone so divisive controlling him.

That's fine, but let the people who are in support of the creative team behind these films do exactly that. I don't want to say that you're purposely being anti, but that's how it comes across.

The lines have been drawn in the sand already. You aren't converting anybody, or changing anyone's mind on the matter.

 

[jmc]

It's true that the numbers may be inaccurate but that is the case for all Hollywood movies, so I'm going to go by the standard rule that a movie should double its cost to be profitable, in which case 4 of his 6 movies are profitable. The other 2 lost money but not a huge amount. If you remove MoS, the total cost of his films is 405 million, with a gross of 1.013 billion.

Whatever metric we have to evaluate him as an entertainer that I'm aware of he does well in the entertainment department: IMDB scores, RT audience scores, DVD/Blu Ray sales, Box office, etc. Not great, but well.

Are you aware of some other metric by which Snyder's performance as a popular entertainer is subpar?

It's generally 2 and a half times but regardless if you're talking about appealing to the masses those figure are not an indication of mass audiences at all, in fact those audiences are tiny by today's standards. So it's hard for me to see how someone can say he knows how to entertain the masses when the evidence shows there hasn't been this swell of people paying to see his films in the first place, at least in the box office run in theatres. And sites like IMDB and RT are a decent place to garner a reaction, but it's also generally no different from this forum where it's full of diehard film nerds.

 

[LamboMan]

The story is the blueprint though. It's the most important part. He doesn't need to be able to generate the whole thing but he needs to be able to contribute significantly and to refine and to understand. If he's dependent on a great screenplay without the ability to fix it himself then that's a problem.

Sucker Punch, there's also the excuse that he was forced to cut 20 minutes. OK. But either way, the action scenes were beautiful but kind of boring. They were dream sequences and it wasn't clear how they were metaphors for what was going on in the more interesting brothel world, what are the stakes of those scenes? What's the symbolism?

That's a major issue with action scenes in that a lot of them, with other movies like Guardians of the Galaxy and The Winter Soldier as well, are simply there to look cool, they have no actual meaning. Ideally every shot should have some meaning.

Within the Nolan Batman trilogy, the action scenes have tremendous tension in spite of the occasional editing error, because the stakes are high.

I think he did a great job with translating Watchmen to the big screen while changing the ending just enough to make it so much more eloquent.

About SP, well I think it is one of those rare movies that is not afraid to talk about real world problems and in this case it tackles the way women are still treated in this world as of today, along with child abuse, corruption, power abuse etc. I feel that only when such issues are brought to the forefront and not kept in the dark and only if we accept them for what they truly are, can we set about beginning to change things for the better.

About the whole 'sexualisation/objectification' argument I'd like to say that unlike so many movies out there that use women purely for selling value according to the 'sex sells' mantra none of the scenes in SP except maybe the dance sequence from the extended edition are shot with that intent. Just because Snyder chose to talk about specific female related themes in an adult, grimy, grungy and fantasy setting doesn't mean that it was a '13 year old's fantasy' as some have stated earlier. Snyder makes us face the dark realities and we don't like them and write them off as unimportant.

The way Scarlett Johansson was posed on the posters for TA and CATWS, shows more obvious objectification what with all her assets being enhanced and emphasized. Heck, SP didn't even have a real sex scene, unlike the hundreds in the TV show GOT. Let's not have double standards here.

The whole collecting 5 objects thing was actually influenced by a psychological theory called the Kübler-Ross grief cycle. Here's the article, it's a very interesting read >> LINK
Also this >> http://worddoodling.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/why-sucker-punch-is-smarter-than-you-think/

In the end it's up to you how you want to see the film.

About the action scenes, I can agree with you partially since I personally found only BB to deliver completely, with TDK great in terms of villains and story but lacking in physical quality (which I can say is a given considering the Joker's more psychological threat) and TDKR just lost any visceral quality to it completely with horrible fights and action.

 

[Diabo]

It's generally 2 and a half times but regardless if you're talking about appealing to the masses those figure are not an indication of mass audiences at all, in fact those audiences are tiny by today's standards. So it's hard for me to see how someone can say he knows how to entertain the masses when the evidence shows there hasn't been this swell of people paying to see his films in the first place, at least in the box office run in theatres. And sites like IMDB and RT are a decent place to garner a reaction, but it's also generally no different from this forum where it's full of diehard film nerds.

Who is talking about the masses? I´m simply stating that most of the people who actually watched his movies enjoyed them. You can only entertain those who watch your movies, and having many people watching your movie doesn´t mean you actually entertained those people. Many movies make a lot of money and have very negative responses. It´s not like box office equals to satisfaction.

 

[jmc]

I wasn't actually replying to you.

 

[DA_Champion]

It's generally 2 and a half times but regardless if you're talking about appealing to the masses those figure are not an indication of mass audiences at all, in fact those audiences are tiny by today's standards. So it's hard for me to see how someone can say he knows how to entertain the masses when the evidence shows there hasn't been this swell of people paying to see his films in the first place, at least in the box office run in theatres. And sites like IMDB and RT are a decent place to garner a reaction, but it's also generally no different from this forum where it's full of diehard film nerds.

I admit that these metrics are imperfect and full of certainty, but they're the best I'm aware of for which the information is available, and his performance with those is not great but good. So given this information, the most likely conclusion for me is that Snyder's an effective entertainer.

 

[DA_Champion]

I think he did a great job with translating Watchmen to the big screen while changing the ending just enough to make it so much more eloquent.

About SP, well I think it is one of those rare movies that is not afraid to talk about real world problems and in this case it tackles the way women are still treated in this world as of today, along with child abuse, corruption, power abuse etc. I feel that only when such issues are brought to the forefront and not kept in the dark and only if we accept them for what they truly are, can we set about beginning to change things for the better.

About the whole 'sexualisation/objectification' argument I'd like to say that unlike so many movies out there that use women purely for selling value according to the 'sex sells' mantra none of the scenes in SP except maybe the dance sequence from the extended edition are shot with that intent. Just because Snyder chose to talk about specific female related themes in an adult, grimy, grungy and fantasy setting doesn't mean that it was a '13 year old's fantasy' as some have stated earlier. Snyder makes us face the dark realities and we don't like them and write them off as unimportant.

The way Scarlett Johansson was posed on the posters for TA and CATWS, shows more obvious objectification what with all her assets being enhanced and emphasized. Heck, SP didn't even have a real sex scene, unlike the hundreds in the TV show GOT. Let's not have double standards here.

The whole collecting 5 objects thing was actually influenced by a psychological theory called the Kübler-Ross grief cycle. Here's the article, it's a very interesting read >> LINK
Also this >> http://worddoodling.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/why-sucker-punch-is-smarter-than-you-think/

In the end it's up to you how you want to see the film.

About the action scenes, I can agree with you partially since I personally found only BB to deliver completely, with TDK great in terms of villains and story but lacking in physical quality (which I can say is a given considering the Joker's more psychological threat) and TDKR just lost any visceral quality to it completely with horrible fights and action.

I'm aware of the defences of Sucker Punch and I'm not a hater personally.

However, given that Snyder got an 80 million dollar budget and not an $800,000 budget, it was a professional responsibility of his to entertain and to garner some positive reviews, which he did not. People did not get the movie, a lot of intelligent people did not get the movie, and a lot of people got the movie and did not like it. Something went wrong and in this case it's largely on Snyder.

 

[D.P.]

Well, Sucker Punch is one film. One.

How long will that be held over his head?

 

[LamboMan]

I'm aware of the defences of Sucker Punch and I'm not a hater personally.

However, given that Snyder got an 80 million dollar budget and not an $800,000 budget, it was a professional responsibility of his to entertain and to garner some positive reviews, which he did not. People did not get the movie, a lot of intelligent people did not get the movie, and a lot of people got the movie and did not like it. Something went wrong and in this case it's largely on Snyder.

Well all i can say is that there have been many movies that have been critical or financial failures and then turned out to have cult followings within the next decade or two of their release. Maybe it was ahead of its time and wasn't meant for the GA today.

 

[DA_Champion]

Well, Sucker Punch is one film. One.

How long will that be held over his head?

In a Zack Snyder thread all six of his films are fair game.

 

[D.P.]

If that's the case we should still be harping on Daredevil in the Ben Affleck is Batman thread...

 

[TheNextNolan22]

And Pearl Harbor.

 

[DA_Champion]

Well all i can say is that there have been many movies that have been critical or financial failures and then turned out to have cult followings within the next decade or two of their release. Maybe it was ahead of its time and wasn't meant for the GA today.

I doubt that Sucker Punch will turn into Starship Troopers.

I just looked up its DVD sales, they're awful. People didn't get it and thus it's an interesting failure worthy of discussion beyond "the masses are dumb".

People also failed to appreciate Joss Whedon's Dollhouse, doesn't mean it's ****, but the failure is worth discussing. You can be sure that the creators intend for these movies to be well-liked, they want them to be liked, so if they're not then something went wrong.

 

[DA_Champion]

If that's the case we should still be harping on Daredevil in the Ben Affleck is Batman thread...

The guy who directed Daredevil?
His directing career is going doing well:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0425756/

And Pearl Harbor.

People still harp on Pearl Harbour.

 

[D.P.]

The guy who directed Daredevil?
His directing career is going doing well:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0425756/


People still harp on Pearl Harbour.

If that is supposed to be some kind of parallel to Snyder, him and that guy are not even in the same league. The comparison is weird considering Snyder continued to get high profile gigs after Sucker Punch.

I haven't seen anyone reference Pearl Harbor as a slight to Ben on here. Especially not recently. The fixation was mainly Daredevil. Kind of like the fixation with Sucker Punch.

 

[Flint Marko]

If that is supposed to be some kind of parallel to Snyder, him and that guy are not even in the same league. The comparison is weird considering Snyder continued to get high profile gigs after Sucker Punch.

I haven't seen anyone reference Pearl Harbor as a slight to Ben on here. Especially not recently. The fixation was mainly Daredevil. Kind of like the fixation with Sucker Punch.

Ben Affleck did not direct Pearl Harbor. As far as I know he only acted in it and had no creative control in the film. Why would that be held against him? I apologize if I'm coming into this discussion without understanding the context but I read this and it puzzled me.
Snyder has displayed undeniably dubious results in his creative decisions in films he is in charge of. Even if you support him you surely can understand why people have their problems with him.

 

[DA_Champion]

Ben Affleck did not direct Pearl Harbor. As far as I know he only acted in it and had no creative control in the film. Why would that be held against him? I apologize if I'm coming into this discussion without understanding the context but I read this and it puzzled me.
Snyder has displayed undeniably dubious results in his creative decisions in films he is in charge of. Even if you support him you surely can understand why people have their problems with him.

I misunderstood, I thought that Pearl Harbour was brought up as an analogue to Bay's career, not to Affleck's career.

 

[D.P.]

Ben Affleck did not direct Pearl Harbor. As far as I know he only acted in it and had no creative control in the film. Why would that be held against him? I apologize if I'm coming into this discussion without understanding the context but I read this and it puzzled me.
Snyder has displayed undeniably dubious results in his creative decisions in films he is in charge of. Even if you support him you surely can understand why people have their problems with him.

Are we going to get into the semantics of Ben acting and not directing/Snyder being a director therefore it's different etc?

I was clearly drawing parallels between the way that Snyder will never be able to live down Sucker Punch and how Ben is still catching hell for Daredevil, despite both of those movies being things of the past. I in no way was comparing levels of responsiblity/blame for how bad the movies turned out.

If you want to be super technical and pendantic about it, an actor is just as guilty of choosing poor roles as a director is of making poor choices when it comes to filmmaking. You can't deny the agency of one and then demonize the other just because it fits your narrative.

I'm sure they've both learned from those missteps in their career. It's part of being human.

The bolded part is subjective. You rattled that off so confidently as if it was a pure fact. I've noticed that with people who aren't fans of Snyder.

"Clearly you must see why he's a terrible filmmaker..."

Um, no. I don't. I've enjoyed his work thoroughly sans Sucker Punch. So have countless others. He wouldn't have a job if they didn't.

Which is the exact reason why I feel that his detractors are an extremely vocal minority. You don't give one of the most prestigious jobs in all of Hollywood to the man you guys are describing. The version of Snyder that you all of been peddling would have been blacklisted by now. Yet, he's directing BvS and JL. Two enormous movies.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

Pretty much every Snyder movie has been considered underwhelming by a significant number of critics slash viewers. Except Dawn of the Dead (better than people expected, for obvious reasons)and maybe 300 (If you loved the gn you probably loved the movie. See: Sin City). The reasons for this are quite straightforward. "Getting" him isn't the issue. If you accept these facts as reality, a reasonable respectful discussion can ensue.

 

[Flint Marko]

Are we going to get into the semantics of Ben acting and not directing/Snyder being a director therefore it's different etc?

It is relevant as Snyder both wrote and directed Sucker Punch. It was his creative vision, and it was ultimately pretty lackluster.
Affleck, however, merely signed on to star in Daredevil (which the directors cut, by the way, was not terrible; studio meddling was that film's ultimate downfall). There's a significant difference there.

If you want to be super technical and pendantic about it, an actor is just as guilty of choosing poor roles as a director is of making poor choices when it comes to filmmaking. You can't deny the agency of one and then demonize the other just because it fits your narrative.

Once again, not true. Kind of an odd/potentially inappropriate analogy here, but if someone driving a vehicle has a horrible accident should the passengers be blamed for getting into the car with him? Or should the driver be held accountable since he was the one steering the car, commandeering the overall direction?
I understand it is an imperfect analogy for a multitude of reasons but my point still stands. Maybe I'm missing your overall point and I apologize if that is correct, but I'm of the opinion that a director/screenwriter is way more responsible for a films ultimate failure than an actor.

I'm sure they've both learned from those missteps in their career. It's part of being human.

Affleck has gone on to direct The Town and Argo, two pretty solid films which ultimately won him Academy Awards. Zack Snyder has made Man of Steel, a movie that divided both fans and critics, and wrote and produced the mediocre 300 sequel.
Once again, the comparison falls apart pretty quickly

The bolded part is subjective. You rattled that off so confidently as if it was a pure fact. I've noticed that with people who aren't fans of Snyder.

"Clearly you must see why he's a terrible filmmaker..."

Um, no. I don't. I've enjoyed his work thoroughly sans Sucker Punch. So have countless others. He wouldn't have a job if they didn't.

Which is the exact reason why I feel that his detractors are an extremely vocal minority. You don't give one of the most prestigious jobs in all of Hollywood to the man you guys are describing. The version of Snyder that you all of been peddling would have been blacklisted by now. Yet, he's directing BvS and JL. Two enormous movies.

You're citing him getting these directorial duties as some sort of sign that he's a very credible film maker. Yet you understand that we are talking about the same people who cranked out the Green Lantern and Jonah Hex? I'm not going to sit here and pretend that WB or Snyder has no idea what they are doing, or even that I know better than him or those in charge of these sort of things. All I'm saying is that he is not a fantastic film maker by any means and that by many measurable standards, he has a pretty dubious track record. He isn't some misunderstood genius by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[DA_Champion]

I read the reviews of SP posted earlier:

http://worddoodling.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/why-sucker-punch-is-smarter-than-you-think/

and

http://www.busygamernews.com/2011/04/if_you_dont_like_sucker_punch.html

Mostly good content, interesting content, except this part was confusing:

And here's the real key to the whole thing. The talismans Babydoll collects to attain her freedom each symbolize a stage in the Kübler-Ross grief cycle:

Denial (Map)
Anger (Fire)
Bargaining (Knife)
Depression (Key)
Acceptance ("mystery item")

The Wise Man (played by Scott Glenn) lays it all out: "You will need 5 items for this journey... The fifth thing is a mystery, it is the reason, it is the goal. It will be a deep sacrifice and a perfect victory. Only you can find it, and if you do, it will set you free."

I'd have to rematch the movie, but when it's written that way it's not convincing nor compelling.

 

[LamboMan]

He isn't some misunderstood genius by any stretch of the imagination.

Don't want to start an argument, just making an observation. Have you considered that he IS the misunderstood genius that so many actually do claim he is, while you and others are the ones who have misunderstood him? Kind of paradoxical ain't it?

By stating that term one negates their own opinion by putting themselves at the wrong end of the term, becoming those who are doing the misunderstanding thereby confirming that he is a genius.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

Mind blown, bruh.

 

[Flint Marko]

Don't want to start an argument, just making an observation. Have you considered that he IS the misunderstood genius that so many actually do claim he is, while you and others are the ones who have misunderstood him? Kind of paradoxical ain't it?

By stating that term one negates their own opinion by putting themselves at the wrong end of the term, becoming those who are doing the misunderstanding thereby confirming that he is a genius.

I don't think you're trying to start an argument. Truthfully I think no one here is, as we are all adults discussing movies in a genre we like. We should be free to say what we feel and discuss things like this.
That being said, I think we live in a day and age where the "misunderstood genius" is pretty much behind us. The likes of Emily Dickinson and Van Gogh are all but gone, as we live in a time where information and art is so readily available to consume that, in my opinion, no one is going to go undiscovered or unfairly unappreciated for very long. Several people might disagree with me, but that's how I feel on the matter.
In my own personal opinion Snyder is a "sexy, sleek" film maker, and his movies are extremely visually appealing. But he gets so caught up in the aesthetics that he forgets that the story itself should come first. That is why I say he is a lackluster film maker, and he has not improved from that so far (here's to hoping he will). Clearly I'm not alone in this matter.