Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 17:36:54 GMT
no need to apologize, and no need to argue. i just like a civil discussion about movies. and i don't care if it's Marvel, DC or Fox, to me it only matters that i like the movie. cheers! Cheers! I'd also like to add that I'm not against filmmakers having their visions fulfilled.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Jun 23, 2017 17:49:26 GMT
no need to apologize, and no need to argue. i just like a civil discussion about movies. and i don't care if it's Marvel, DC or Fox, to me it only matters that i like the movie. cheers! Cheers! I'd also like to add that I'm not against filmmakers having their visions fulfilled. That's what I say: let the visionary directors make their movies,and hire the directors that can do the job for franchises and cinematic universes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 17:56:52 GMT
Cheers! I'd also like to add that I'm not against filmmakers having their visions fulfilled. That's what I say: let the visionary directors make their movies,and hire the directors that can do the job for franchises and cinematic universes Fair enough. Of course, who exactly is a visionary director and who isn't can be a very gray area to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Jun 23, 2017 18:08:52 GMT
That's what I say: let the visionary directors make their movies,and hire the directors that can do the job for franchises and cinematic universes Fair enough. Of course, who exactly is a visionary director and who isn't can be a very gray area to discuss. Ok,visionary is a bit much. How about directors with a distinctive style?
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Jun 23, 2017 18:13:52 GMT
That's what I say: let the visionary directors make their movies,and hire the directors that can do the job for franchises and cinematic universes Fair enough. Of course, who exactly is a visionary director and who isn't can be a very gray area to discuss. Basically a director who you can identify immediately from either a still frame or from the way the film is edited. For example take Fincher and Danny Boyle, both who recently worked with Sorkin screenplays, but who managed to add their distinct styles. You can group Scorsese, Bay, Snyder, Wright, Refn in that category. now, some are more malleable, like a Scorsese, others less so; furthermore visionary director doesn't mean great, but simply visionary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 18:47:30 GMT
Fair enough. Of course, who exactly is a visionary director and who isn't can be a very gray area to discuss. Ok,visionary is a bit much. How about directors with a distinctive style? So, Kenneth Branagh, James Gunn, and Scott Derrickson?
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Jun 23, 2017 19:13:04 GMT
Ok,visionary is a bit much. How about directors with a distinctive style? So, Kenneth Branagh, James Gunn, and Scott Derrickson? I'd maybe say Gunn, since his style of humor is present throughout his films, but Branagh and Derrickson less so, you watch Cinderella or Jack Ryan and nothing shouts "THIS IS A KENNETH BRANAGH FILM!" and same goes for Derrickson.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 19:37:37 GMT
So, Kenneth Branagh, James Gunn, and Scott Derrickson? I'd maybe say Gunn, since his style of humor is present throughout his films, but Branagh and Derrickson less so, you watch Cinderella or Jack Ryan and nothing shouts "THIS IS A KENNETH BRANAGH FILM!" and same goes for Derrickson. I have to disagree. Branagh's films always feel big and sweeping, like the first Thor did. Plus, there's the clever application of Shakespeare-style dialogue he's so famous for. The entire film has given a very strong Branagh-style Shakespearean angle that worked well for it. And Feige has confirmed that Derrickson was hired for his visual style. He also ended up having a lot to do with how spirituality was explored int he film.
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Jun 23, 2017 22:30:54 GMT
I'd maybe say Gunn, since his style of humor is present throughout his films, but Branagh and Derrickson less so, you watch Cinderella or Jack Ryan and nothing shouts "THIS IS A KENNETH BRANAGH FILM!" and same goes for Derrickson. I have to disagree. Branagh's films always feel big and sweeping, like the first Thor did. Plus, there's the clever application of Shakespeare-style dialogue he's so famous for. The entire film has given a very strong Branagh-style Shakespearean angle that worked well for it. And Feige has confirmed that Derrickson was hired for his visual style. He also ended up having a lot to do with how spirituality was explored int he film. I'm not saying they're incapable of scale or don't have strengths, but again I'm talking about a stamp, a signature style. Like a Michael Bay film have a look, oversaturated colors, low-angle sweeping shots, those firework looking explosions, with Scorsese it's with his hyperkinetic camera movements, narration or music, with Snyder it's desaturation, slowmotion, very much a still-frame look, Edgar Wright has an even more hyperkinetic feel to his films, Fincher it's his aim for a very brown, green, yellow, pale blue look, very clinical at times. You can take Spielberg as an example of a director who isn't really a "visionary director", he doesn't really have a distinct look to this films, he tosses in his "one-ers," but aside from that he's just a quality director, probably one of the best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 22:44:02 GMT
I have to disagree. Branagh's films always feel big and sweeping, like the first Thor did. Plus, there's the clever application of Shakespeare-style dialogue he's so famous for. The entire film has given a very strong Branagh-style Shakespearean angle that worked well for it. And Feige has confirmed that Derrickson was hired for his visual style. He also ended up having a lot to do with how spirituality was explored int he film. I'm not saying they're incapable of scale or don't have strengths, but again I'm talking about a stamp, a signature style. Like a Michael Bay film have a look, oversaturated colors, low-angle sweeping shots, those firework looking explosions, with Scorsese it's with his hyperkinetic camera movements, narration or music, with Snyder it's desaturation, slowmotion, very much a still-frame look, Edgar Wright has an even more hyperkinetic feel to his films, Fincher it's his aim for a very brown, green, yellow, pale blue look, very clinical at times. You can take Spielberg as an example of a director who isn't really a "visionary director", he doesn't really have a distinct look to this films, he tosses in his "one-ers," but aside from that he's just a quality director, probably one of the best. I know what you were saying. I still strongly disagree. I think there is plenty in Thor especially that's signature to Kenneth Branagh.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 24, 2017 7:52:05 GMT
she neither contributed to the story nor the screenplay Zach Synder came up with the story but a story is basically a synopsis that's a just a few pages. It's the Director of the movie who's responsible for filling in the details to turn that synopsis into a movie. It's like someone writing an outline for a thesis or research paper and then someone else actually writing the thesis or research paper based on the outline. The scene of Diana and Steve talking on the boat ride to London. That wasn't in Synder's story or the script. In fact, that whole scene wasn't even scripted. Patty Jenkins had Gal Gadot and Chris Pine ad-lib the dialogue for that scene. Even some of the battle scenes. For example, the beach battle between the German soldiers and the Amazons. The script may indicate a beach battle but that scene involved dozens and dozens of actors and actresses and the script isn't going to describe in detail what each of those dozens and dozens of actors and actress do during that scene. It's the Director's job to fill in the details of exactly how that scene goes and what each of the dozens and dozens of actors and actresses do during that scene and which actors and actresses the camera is following during that scene.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 24, 2017 7:54:40 GMT
WB allowed Patty Jenkins to have the creative freedom to make the Wonder Woman movie that she wanted to make and it turned out to be a great movie that's better than all of MCU's movies. Wrong again. Wonder Woman was only good because it copied Marvel. Nope. Wonder Woman doesn't copy Marvel. Marvel copied Superman: The Movie.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 24, 2017 11:00:51 GMT
she neither contributed to the story nor the screenplay Zach Synder came up with the story but a story is basically a synopsis that's a just a few pages. It's the Director of the movie who's responsible for filling in the details to turn that synopsis into a movie. It's like someone writing an outline for a thesis or research paper and then someone else actually writing the thesis or research paper based on the outline. The scene of Diana and Steve talking on the boat ride to London. That wasn't in Synder's story or the script. In fact, that whole scene wasn't even scripted. Patty Jenkins had Gal Gadot and Chris Pine ad-lib the dialogue for that scene. Even some of the battle scenes. For example, the beach battle between the German soldiers and the Amazons. The script may indicate a beach battle but that scene involved dozens and dozens of actors and actresses and the script isn't going to describe in detail what each of those dozens and dozens of actors and actress do during that scene. It's the Director's job to fill in the details of exactly how that scene goes and what each of the dozens and dozens of actors and actresses do during that scene and which actors and actresses the camera is following during that scene. Yes Snyder may have come up with synopsis and story, but there was a Screenplay and it was written Allan Heinberg NOT Patty Jenkins. I don't give a damn about the boat scene or the battle scenes...I am responding to your claim that she "adapted elements from Greek mythology" when they were already in the comic books and the screenplay. It's not an angle she introduced, which is somehow your defence that turning Thor into Romeo & Juliet would have been a success.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 24, 2017 11:55:30 GMT
Wrong again. Wonder Woman was only good because it copied Marvel. Nope. Wonder Woman doesn't copy Marvel. Marvel copied Superman: The Movie. Not really, Superman the Movie was just a basic archetypal film so it's easy for people to say that without it being the truth.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 24, 2017 18:58:20 GMT
Wasn't the reason he left/got booted was that he was taking his time with the movie? He went off making another movie instead of Ant-man (which was suppose to be out before Avengers so he'd be in it). This caused a whole shift in how the MCU was suppose to be. We would have had Ant-man and the Wasp in the 1st Avengers movie. I don't think any directors that cries "creative differences" understood what the MCU was about. They were/are still in that frame of mind that they were making a singular movie with no connections to other movies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2017 19:06:04 GMT
Wrong again. Wonder Woman was only good because it copied Marvel. Nope. Wonder Woman doesn't copy Marvel. Marvel copied Superman: The Movie. Since you hate Marvel you must hate Superman: The Movie too. How can you? That movie is awesome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2017 1:49:09 GMT
Wrong again. Wonder Woman was only good because it copied Marvel. Nope. Wonder Woman doesn't copy Marvel. Marvel copied Superman: The Movie. If that's what allows you to sleep at night, kiddo.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 25, 2017 16:54:39 GMT
Zach Synder came up with the story but a story is basically a synopsis that's a just a few pages. It's the Director of the movie who's responsible for filling in the details to turn that synopsis into a movie. It's like someone writing an outline for a thesis or research paper and then someone else actually writing the thesis or research paper based on the outline. The scene of Diana and Steve talking on the boat ride to London. That wasn't in Synder's story or the script. In fact, that whole scene wasn't even scripted. Patty Jenkins had Gal Gadot and Chris Pine ad-lib the dialogue for that scene. Even some of the battle scenes. For example, the beach battle between the German soldiers and the Amazons. The script may indicate a beach battle but that scene involved dozens and dozens of actors and actresses and the script isn't going to describe in detail what each of those dozens and dozens of actors and actress do during that scene. It's the Director's job to fill in the details of exactly how that scene goes and what each of the dozens and dozens of actors and actresses do during that scene and which actors and actresses the camera is following during that scene. Yes Snyder may have come up with synopsis and story, but there was a Screenplay and it was written Allan Heinberg NOT Patty Jenkins. I don't give a damn about the boat scene or the battle scenes...I am responding to your claim that she "adapted elements from Greek mythology" when they were already in the comic books and the screenplay. It's not an angle she introduced, which is somehow your defence that turning Thor into Romeo & Juliet would have been a success. You didn't know? The Director does everything when the movie comes out good. And I'm glad he admitted that the Directors in DC aren't autonomous when it comes to the movies. So Snyder came up with the synopsis and story, eh? That sounds even more in control than it does in the MCU. They only want them to add in things that will further the overall story in the MCU.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Jun 25, 2017 22:07:35 GMT
it echoes what john landis said is the problem with mcu films...all mcu movies are the same. they are the same because mcu and not the directors make the films.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 25, 2017 22:13:03 GMT
it echoes what john landis said is the problem with mcu films...all mcu movies are the same. they are the same because mcu and not the directors make the films. The only thing they're "the same" in being is that they're good. That and they thumb the nose at the types who want all CBMs to be Nolanized.
|
|