|
Post by Larcen26 on Oct 4, 2018 18:15:47 GMT
My bottom line on all of this is as follows...
A mistake was made in giving Zack Snyder total control over the DCEU. He is an excellent visual sylist, but wouldn't know an emotional or resonant story beat if smacked him in the face. IMO They made that mistake based on several points:
I have literally no idea what you are basing this on. Just take Watchmen; this is one of the most emotionally resonant CBMs ever made, I just point out:
- Dr Manhattans guilt and leaving-scene - Rohrschachs entire arc - ending in him sacrificing himself for his believes (one of the most devastating scenes, in the film you see NiteOwl's pain & loss reflect it, in the comic Owl had sex in the backjard after the NY-squid massacre shock) - NiteOwl and Specre re-dicovering/feeling themselves and escaping depression by saving people again (a theme reused by Incredibles well too).
The same applies to others of Snyder's films (as far as I have seen them). I could relate more to his Superman than the ones before as he had a proper character arc - a troubled young man trying to find his identidy, until he does in the end. Even the horror film Dawn of the Dead eliciting many emotions and sentiments.
That's a nonsensical statement. With his technical, mise en scene & cinematography skills Snyder evidently is more comparable to Bay (exceeding him significantly IMO). In his themes and emotional beats Snyder is more like Spielberg without ever being over-sentimental or any forced tear jerking.
In the end Snyder's a director of his own having developed his own style (unlike the broad mass of directors), as such he is standing somewhere between Bay and Spielberg IMO.
All of the emotional scenes you list from Watchmen are taken almost moment for moment from the Comic book, so little to none of it had to do with Snyder. And the one change they made, making Nite Owl see what happened to Rorschach, is far less emotionally resonant and far less complex than the loneliness and misdirected frustration of the events in the comic. It chooses melodrama over complexity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2018 18:54:27 GMT
Bale's Batman should've been incorporated into a DC cinematic universe. The other movies should've had their own complementary tones/styles rather than attempting to replicate Nolan's. Note: Winter Soldier is a very different movie than Ant Man, yet the team up movies still work.
TDK trilogy is not to blame for anything. And for the record, I'd take a great Batman trilogy over a great shared universe any day! And I'm glad we got it.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 5, 2018 14:22:51 GMT
I have literally no idea what you are basing this on. Just take Watchmen; this is one of the most emotionally resonant CBMs ever made, I just point out:
- Dr Manhattans guilt and leaving-scene - Rohrschachs entire arc - ending in him sacrificing himself for his believes (one of the most devastating scenes, in the film you see NiteOwl's pain & loss reflect it, in the comic Owl had sex in the backjard after the NY-squid massacre shock) - NiteOwl and Specre re-dicovering/feeling themselves and escaping depression by saving people again (a theme reused by Incredibles well too).
The same applies to others of Snyder's films (as far as I have seen them). I could relate more to his Superman than the ones before as he had a proper character arc - a troubled young man trying to find his identidy, until he does in the end. Even the horror film Dawn of the Dead eliciting many emotions and sentiments.
That's a nonsensical statement. With his technical, mise en scene & cinematography skills Snyder evidently is more comparable to Bay (exceeding him significantly IMO). In his themes and emotional beats Snyder is more like Spielberg without ever being over-sentimental or any forced tear jerking.
In the end Snyder's a director of his own having developed his own style (unlike the broad mass of directors), as such he is standing somewhere between Bay and Spielberg IMO.
All of the emotional scenes you list from Watchmen are taken almost moment for moment from the Comic book, so little to none of it had to do with Snyder. ok, you guys should really look up what a director is, or any discussion becomes futile at this point.
It's a nonsensical argument you make: A director does not write the source material; he does not even write the script. He does not draw the story boards after which he shoots either.
No. The director translates the script into a film by directing the actors, composers, cameramen and technical struff to perform in a resonant way according to his personal vision. Just like a conductor conducts the orchester but does not play every instrument or writes the score. It's not that difficult to understand.
Snyder did a brilliant job with Watchmen by harmonizing sound, music and picture into a artistic tone-poem, beginning with the beautiful, artistic intro sequence, one of the best in film history.
Nonsense, and utterly beside the point.
- They changes the silly alien-squid-falls-onto-NY into an atomic bombardment scenario, thus saving the story from becoming preposterous and absurd.
- They changed the couple from having sex in teh aftermath of the massacre to discussing the underlying moral themes and reacting to their friends murder.
They improved the storytelling in this point and many, many more (eg toning down the homophobia and the stupid dialogue especially of the female characters, eg thr women's getting shot in the fake assassination attempt).
What you call complex might be more revealing than you may have intended.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 5, 2018 14:44:08 GMT
I haven’t yet watched the video, but the question is interesting, and it doesn’t necessitate disliking The Dark Knight (which surprisingly I developed a taste for the last time I watched it).
I think Man of Steel was inspired by The Dark Knight, to its detriment, because Superman as a character and as a mythos is nothing like Batman. It’s possible to go dark with Bats because the darkness is built into the character (despite Adam West and Joel Schumacher). Nolan’s greatest achievement was making Batman the most realistic the character could be—not by bogging down the story in doom and gloom but by making us connect with ridiculous characters on a serious level.
Supes isn’t this way ipso facto. There is a lightness and a hope, an innate goodness, that almost makes for an anti-Batman. It’s no surprise that the majority of Batman stories focus on his villains, and it’s no surprise that the majority of Superman stories focus on Superman. (Who’s a memorable Superman baddie other than Luthor? Zod has never seemed to catch on with the public despite starring in two big-budget film adaptations. Does anyone know Brainiac? Who’s left? The Parasite? Bizarro? Mr. Mixil—whatever his name is? [I’m trying to remember the cartoon.])
But Man of Steel follows the Nolan formula to the letter, right up to all the extensive flashbacks-within-flashbacks. It’s The Dark Tights, and it can’t be.
Where I differ, though, is that I don’t find Batman v Superman to have been all that much inspired by TDK. Its Batman is more comic-book-y (somewhat disguised by Affleck’s performance); it’s pitched halfway between opera and horror film. It’s a moody, fascinating film, so flawed but so original and intriguing. I truly find it closer in mood, tone, and imagery to Bram Stoker’s Dracula than to The Dark Knight.
Whereas Wonder Woman and Justice League jettison the Dark Knight mood completely—they’re Marvel movies, a good one and a bad one respectively.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Oct 5, 2018 15:01:02 GMT
All of the emotional scenes you list from Watchmen are taken almost moment for moment from the Comic book, so little to none of it had to do with Snyder. ok, you guys should really look up what a director is, or any discussion becomes futile at this point.
It's a nonsensical argument you make: A director does not write the source material; he does not even write the script. He does not draw the story boards after which he shoots either.
No. The director translates the script into a film by directing the actors, composers, cameramen and technical struff to perform in a resonant way according to his personal vision. Just like a conductor conducts the orchester but does not play every instrument or writes the score. It's not that difficult to understand.
Snyder did a brilliant job with Watchmen by harmonizing sound, music and picture into a artistic tone-poem, beginning with the beautiful, artistic intro sequence, one of the best in film history.
Nonsense, and utterly beside the point.
- They changes the silly alien-squid-falls-onto-NY into an atomic bombardment scenario, thus saving the story from becoming preposterous and absurd.
- They changed the couple from having sex in the aftermath of the massacre to discussing the underlying moral themes and reacting to their friends murder.
They improved the storytelling in this point and many, many more (eg toning down the homophobia and the stupid dialogue especially of the female characters, eg thr women's getting shot in the fake assassination attempt).
What you call complex might be more revealing than you may have intended. First off, no argument in any way, shape or form about the opening credits sequences. Snyder does those better than anyone in history. Watchmen is masterful. Sucker Punch is a work of art. (unfortunately it's the only watchable part of Sucker Punch) But that is my argument about Snyder, he is a brilliant, near flawless short form storyteller who can't create a long form narrative that connects those moments effectively. Secondly...You clearly like the Watchmen film a whole lot more than the comic, and that's fine. I find the comic to be far superior in nearly every way, though I still enjoy the film. So we are coming at this from entirely different viewpoints, so we will likely never agree...but here are my points. I 100% disagree that the film ending is better, especially the squid...because the plan only works if the world thinks it's under a threat that is truly from a "Third party". Manhattan, in the eyes of the world, is American. After a brief moment of mourning, the rest of the world would blame the US and things would be worse off. The Alien invasion creates a mutual enemy that gives all parties a reason to unify. That's why Rorschach's diary is such a bombshell in the Comic, but is an afterthought in the movie. In the movie, the diary would just point another finger at the US, and not much would change. In the comic, the plan works perfectly and if Rorschach's Diary had never been mailed, there would likely have been decades, if not centuries of some sort of peace in the world. But once the Diary comes out, everything falls apart again because an American killed millions. Does the squid look silly? Unfortunately yes. But it is ten times better of an ending thematically and emotionally. And two people who choose to have sex in the aftermath of such tragedy are far more broken and compelling than two people who have a heartfelt discussion of morality. And that is one of the major themes of the story...that anyone who chooses the vigilante lifestyle is ultimately deeply, deeply broken. Of course the homophobia and stereotypes are scaled back in this, and that's fine, it is treated very controversially throughout...though I would argue that including the homosexual subplot is a lot more empowering and interesting than the tiny hint we got in the film.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 5, 2018 15:09:48 GMT
ok, you guys should really look up what a director is, or any discussion becomes futile at this point.
It's a nonsensical argument you make: A director does not write the source material; he does not even write the script. He does not draw the story boards after which he shoots either.
No. The director translates the script into a film by directing the actors, composers, cameramen and technical struff to perform in a resonant way according to his personal vision. Just like a conductor conducts the orchester but does not play every instrument or writes the score. It's not that difficult to understand.
Snyder did a brilliant job with Watchmen by harmonizing sound, music and picture into a artistic tone-poem, beginning with the beautiful, artistic intro sequence, one of the best in film history.
Nonsense, and utterly beside the point.
- They changes the silly alien-squid-falls-onto-NY into an atomic bombardment scenario, thus saving the story from becoming preposterous and absurd.
- They changed the couple from having sex in the aftermath of the massacre to discussing the underlying moral themes and reacting to their friends murder.
They improved the storytelling in this point and many, many more (eg toning down the homophobia and the stupid dialogue especially of the female characters, eg thr women's getting shot in the fake assassination attempt).
What you call complex might be more revealing than you may have intended. First off, no argument in any way, shape or form about the opening credits sequences. Snyder does those better than anyone in history. Watchmen is masterful. Sucker Punch is a work of art. (unfortunately it's the only watchable part of Sucker Punch) But that is my argument about Snyder, he is a brilliant, near flawless short form storyteller who can't create a long form narrative that connects those moments effectively. Secondly...You clearly like the Watchmen film a whole lot more than the comic, and that's fine. I find the comic to be far superior in nearly every way, though I still enjoy the film. So we are coming at this from entirely different viewpoints, so we will likely never agree...but here are my points. I 100% disagree that the film ending is better, especially the squid...because the plan only works if the world thinks it's under a threat that is truly from a "Third party". Manhattan, in the eyes of the world, is American. After a brief moment of mourning, the rest of the world would blame the US and things would be worse off. The Alien invasion creates a mutual enemy that gives all parties a reason to unify. That's why Rorschach's diary is such a bombshell in the Comic, but is an afterthought in the movie. In the movie, the diary would just point another finger at the US, and not much would change. In the comic, the plan works perfectly and if Rorschach's Diary had never been mailed, there would likely have been decades, if not centuries of some sort of peace in the world. But once the Diary comes out, everything falls apart again because an American killed millions. Does the squid look silly? Unfortunately yes. But it is ten times better of an ending thematically and emotionally. And two people who choose to have sex in the aftermath of such tragedy are far more broken and compelling than two people who have a heartfelt discussion of morality. And that is one of the major themes of the story...that anyone who chooses the vigilante lifestyle is ultimately deeply, deeply broken. Of course the homophobia and stereotypes are scaled back in this, and that's fine, it is treated very controversially throughout...though I would argue that including the homosexual subplot is a lot more empowering and interesting than the tiny hint we got in the film. I liked these arguments. I still disagree. I'm deeply allergic to squid in any form. And that's all fine.
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Oct 5, 2018 18:37:09 GMT
It didn't. Nolanverse does not agree with Aquaman, Wonder Woman and even Superman. It's too realistic.
Can anybody picture Nolan's Batman riding a fucking seahorse or worse? There you go.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Oct 6, 2018 19:37:24 GMT
Before the DCEU, they were making shit movies like Green Lantern and Jonah Hex which certainly weren't inspired by Christopher Nolan. I blame WB's impatience and lack of planning contributed more in the scheme of things. With those I'd say DC saw the early rise of the MCU. Especially Green Lantern. With those movies not doing well, they then decided to go back to what did do well for them and tried to do a DKT with Superman. I think when they (and other studios) try to mimic something, they don't understand what made those movies good and why people like them. I mean, couldn't they just ask Nolan what his secret was?
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Oct 6, 2018 19:41:31 GMT
Bale's Batman should've been incorporated into a DC cinematic universe. The other movies should've had their own complementary tones/styles rather than attempting to replicate Nolan's. Note: Winter Soldier is a very different movie than Ant Man, yet the team up movies still work. TDK trilogy is not to blame for anything. And for the record, I'd take a great Batman trilogy over a great shared universe any day! And I'm glad we got it. DKT is not directly to blame. The studio is. They wanted that movie again. And from a director that has not made a movie that can match that type of movie.
|
|