What is it about his films that trigger people so much?

What is it about his films that trigger people so much?

They're not good but they're pretty so people who have the same level of knowledge of film that Zack Snyder has will say they're good.

Really couldn't tell you. All his capeshit films have been really good.
300
Watchmen
Man of Steel
Batman v Superman

>They're not good but they're pretty
Daily reminder that in a visual medium, style IS substance.

>Man of Steel
>BvS
>good
I'll give you the other two though.

Pretty much this desu

>it looks decent
>muh student-film-teir religious imagery and symbolism
>this is art and i'm smarter than everyone else for liking it

Perfect b8 for Sup Forums contrarians

he's literally the only good capeshit director in hollywood.

>style is substance

Ladies and gentleman, Zach Snyder's fanbase

lol okay nabokov
You're right. But his style isn't that great either.

>I can't read
I'll reiterate: *in a visual medium*, style is substance.


>Ladies and gentlemen
pic related

>pretty pictures>narrative, character, depth

This is what film school is teaching kids these days

While I agree with you, Zack's style isn't even good enough to warrant the terrible characters, plot, and writing.

>pretty pictures>narrative, character, depth
Firstly, "pretty pictures" provide depth.
Secondly, plot is for plebs.

Yes, film is communicated visulally. But that means you actually need something to communicate. No amount of good cinematography can save a piss-poor story.

>Zack's style isn't even good enough to warrant the terrible characters, plot, and writing.
But BvS is extremely well written.
MoS is definitely not so hot scriptwise though.

>pretty pictures provide depth

Objectively wrong. Any idiot can mock up a nice-looking shot. If what you're saying was true, every first year student art film would be nominated for an Oscar.

True catharsis comes from a film deeply entrenched in story and characters. And yes, even the obscure art-house directors who made movies with plots so obscure most filmgoers couldn't see them on first glance understood this.

Snyder doesn't. That's why people don't like his movies.

It's not even well written.

In film, this is obviously the case. Few "great films" have even reached the characterization and plot depth of most outdated novels. Judged by that standard, film is worthless.

What about it was well written? The only things that come to mind are Batman and Lex Luthor's motivations, and the Flash scene. Otherwise it was "meh"

If Supes monument didn't get to you, then that's a (You) problem.
I'll keep enjoying these rare quality blockbusters.

You're missing my point senpai-desu. I'm saying that making up a nice shot is no replacement for plot and characters. However, done right, it can communicate more than a novel ever could.

this
get it together plotfags

Don't feel like writing up a whole thing like that one crazy fan guy (much love too him), but suffice it to say that I thought it was refreshing to have a plot that just drops you in, and gives you clues for things like why Bats is unhinged, but doesn't spoonfeed it to you in a monologue like Nolan would.
I enjoyed digging.

*to
fuck it's to early

>owever, done right, it can communicate more than a novel ever could.
The shot maybe, but the I doubt if that's true of for characters. If the two are used to augment each other, perhaps.

But the shot is essential to film imo, and I don't believe that every bright film school graduate film an hour's worth of good ones.

*too
go to bed, dingus.

That one was a jab at myself.
lrn2 deadpan humor

The reason the Superman monument got to you is because of the weight it carries. You didn't just see a pretty statue and think "awwww."

What you see in that statue is the power of a God in the hands of a man. It's symbolic of superman and his effect on the world. That's the power of a good symbol derived from character. Of Snyder had a lot more of that and a lot fewer pretty shots and external imagery, he'd be real good.

I enjoyed your insight but I was actually talking about the "if you seek his monument" part.

jab or not. go two bed.

Can you tell me what Zach is communicating here?

okay butt than you have too to

Shit like this is why BvS is a masterpiece and MoS is not.
I think Goyer was behind all that blatant shit.

okay I well, good knight. sea Yu tomorrow

Bad writing.

>external imagery
>religous, no less

Classic student film

Zach never grew out of babby's first visual storytelling

sleep tite kubo

I'm convinced it was Goyer.
BvS in comparison to MoS was much more subtle in its allegory.

>Snyder writes his films
Troll or retarded?

What does his writing or not writing his films have anything to do with what I said?

>subtle

Yeah, very subtle.

What's the story then?

Because some of his films have good writing some do not.
And we both know you were just bashing Snyder, and not answering OP's question.

>you will deny this post three times

>the reason the Superman monument got to you is because of the weight it carries

A HAHA HAHA oh you're serious

>thousands of people killed as "collateral damage" when Man of Murder keeps attacking Zod by flying right into him and pushing him through gas stations, tower block etc despite this being a totally ineffective technique
>scowl man
>grudgingly saves a few people while striking Jesus poses with an ass-pained expression
>42 lines of [shit] dialogue in his own 2.5 hour movie
>having any weight

Supes=yeezuz cripes=gourd

Really basic-level imagery. It's kinda to be expected in a superman movie (he's pretty much god) but Snyder goes all-out. It's like watching a porn with too many graphic close-ups.

I don't see any cross or Jesus poses.
I qualified my statement anyway.
Keep on shitposting though.

>hurr can't raise the issue of people perceiving a super powered alien a god like figure

Hey, dubs, i'm not defend this movie. Just trying to point out that pretty pictures alone don't create and emotional response.

>Man of Murder
had to drop your post there bud
trolling is a art u know

...

>Diety in front of the sun being reached up to by a man in robes

Yeah, you're right, no religous imagery there.

but it's so stupid and bad because ad populum
but it's shit because I say so
it's shit and I hate it
I hate you
I hate myself
I want to die

>no religous imagery there.
DIdn't say that at all.
If you can't stop intentionally misconstruing my words, I'm gonna need you to go ahead and kill yourself.

Sublte as fuck

He'd be a fantastic director of photography, but Snyder fails at literally everything besides composing a shot

Then you're a pleb who didn't get.

You have to put that shot into context.

Jorel tells Superman
>you can save her, you can save A L L of them.
>superman does a pose to symbolize that in response to what what Jorel said and that he chooses to accept his role as a SAVlOUR for man kind.

It's simple to get but not as simplistic as the way you are.

I don't understand how context changes anything
All your post said was what I said, only longer. "Supah=Jeezutz=gawd."

You're right, it is simple. Simple enough for the mind of a pseudopatarican to both understand and convince himself he's smart for getting

Not trolling.

""""" Superman""""" repeatedly attacks the Kryptonians by shooting himself at them and punching them through buildings. Occupied buildings. I believe the first time he does it he blows up a gas station in Smallville, killing the cashier, two attendants, and a family of five who'd stopped to get some crunchy snacks for a long car journey

Because it's not about superman is jeezuz which you imply, it's about telling you through visuals that this is WHEN superman has decided to accept his role as a SAVlOUR. which is a part of the storytelling

Are you looking at some other image than me?

It's Superman becoming Jeansus. You can phrase that however you want, it doesn't change how vapid and shallow it is.

>What is it about his films that trigger people so much?

testosterone.

and some time ago this would have been a joke but I honestly don't know now. I mean it's like everyone doesn't understand the very process of conflict between two Alphas. everything has to be light hearted with a silly smart witted comment.

They're pretentious garbage and his films are all as american as can be.

Nobody likes america, not even americans, and having to sit through hours of americanism being shoved down your throat pisses people off.

>It's Superman becoming Jeansus.
>becoming

I like how you added that, so you do learn.

Symbolizing how and when did Superman decide to side with man and against his own people seems like a pretty big point in the story.

They are bad. If Nolan outdoes you as a filmmaker then you should really reconsider your life choices.
Also, it would help to have a script that isn't a complete mess because you want to catch up with your competition.

And it's done so over-the-top, unsutble, and artlessly that it's impossible to take seriously.

Snyder wannabe art films are full of this.

The assertion that an alien, let alone a mortal, can be in any way, shape or form divine is moronic to begin with.

Fuck when I saw this pitiful shit in imax3d my fedora nearly blew off my head

It's a direct reference to the transfiguration of Christ.

He promotes masculinity

Why would he make this subtle though? He's trying to communicate through visuals that superman made an importan decision, he wants people to see this.

Because doing the equivalent of typing an all-caps Sup Forums post saying "THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING. THIS IS WHAT IT'S SYMBOLIC OF. PAY ATTENTION TO THIS." doesn't make for a good story, especially when your script in general is already muddy and weak.

>Moving the goal posts

I'm talking about this specific shot, that's about superman making his decision to side with us and how you misiinterpreted something this simple because you assumed it was too simple.

>killing the cashier, two attendants, and a family of five
Sauce?

Pretty much this
NOT MUH SUPERMAN
NOT MUH BATMAN
NOT MUH LEX
NOT MUH DOOMSDAY
NOT MUH LIGHTHEARTED CAPESHIT
NOT MUH LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF DC COMICS BECAUSE ALL I KNOW OF DC IS THE CHILDREN CARTOONS THAT GREW UP WITH.

Is he daijobu?

Ma ma ma, heiki heiki

His DC movies are glorified pretentious art films that always disappoint fans and truly show off how desperate DC is to catch up with Marvel.

Capeshit is killing him! Nolan was smart to get away from this shit.

It's systematic criticism. Its been established that he's never made a good film, therefore every future endeavour is a bad film, even though I'd argue his only "bad" film is Sucker Punch, which mostly has script and soundtracking problems but is visual eye candy

>but it's shit because I say so

Actually it's shit because many people say so.

I'm a Marvel fan and I didn't enjoy his BvS, but I recognize his visual style and themes are interesting.

And yes, it's true: Marvel tends to look neutral, like a car commercial. I thought GoG was a step in a more aesthetically exploratory direction... but Civil War proved me wrong. I really appreciate DC Movies on the visual side.

I agree. He seems to understand that capeshit and action are two different genres that should be produced differently.

For example, an action film can have capeshit elements (Marvel), and a capeshit can have action elements (DC) and that's fine.

stress can age you big time just look at any president before and after they come into office

good ad populum family

it's called triggerkino :^)

He's essentially the new Michael Bay, he makes below average films that plebs love to shit on them to give them the illusion of having good taste when their favorite movie is Pulp Fiction or some other entry level film.

but only necause its a 1:1 adaptation, he had the screenplan in comicbook format

>circlejerking dcfanboys

>What is it about his films that trigger
not the films, their fanbase does

>those bags under his eyes
H-How do we save him bros?

BvS extended cut*

>BvS extended cut

whats new in it?

the fact that it paved way for an inferior Wonder Woman

>liking something is a circlejerk

Because apart from some of the actors doing the best they can with the shitty materiel they had, the movie is pure shite.

It starts off by trying to make Jor-El into some fucking action hero riding a dragon (!) on Krypton, and it continued in that same contrived way throughout the entire film, which of course includes the hilarious scene with Kevin Costner as Superman's dad telling him to let him die just to make a totally pathetic point...

Only part of the movie I enjoyed somewhat was the fight in Smallville (at least I think it was), the drawn out and totally tiresome fight against Zod at the end had me tune out completely, oh, I have an idea, let's crash through a building, and again, and again...

The story was something out of a ten minute fan-fiction contest with it's insanely forced plot devices.

Oh, and that fucking blue-green tint on every scene.... wtf...

No depth. In BvS.
A movie where people complained there was too much exposition and plot building up to the action at the end of the film.

>image.jpg

>the extended cut
>what's new

Lex is still garbage.
The "Batman's dream vision" sequence is still unnecessary.
The JLA setup scenes are still jarringly inserted in.
Wonder Woman still has zero development and is just pasted in to set her up for other movies.

Generally speaking the whole approach is flawed.
In MCU most, if not all, superheroes were previously established by the time Avengers rolled out. Even the primary villain in the movie, Loki, was previously established.

In BvS Superman had a previous movie where he was a reluctant autist and it was a first showing for Batman, Wonder Woman, Lex and all the other cameos.
And considering how uncharismatic Superman is the whole thing ends up just being weird.
It's like they're trying to do a serious movie but the elements just don't add up.
Also an additional problem is that Snyder is still in his Watchmen mode of directing where the only mood anyone has is "depressed".
The yet another DBZ final segment with the entire landscape being reduced to rubble is yet another poor choice

Oh yes, let's not forget that in his first DCU showing Batman is already in his DKR mode, Superman in his second movie is already in his Death of Superman mode and the JLA doesn't even exist.
The entire thing is just poor choices stacked into an unsound whole.

Maybe you prefer reading scripts to watching finished films, but I don't.

...

I didn't like Jesse einsenberg but how lex puppeteers the entire events of the movie was pretty well written.

>falling for the bait of renaming images

It's so easy to trick you.

It's a terrible movie.

The plot is pointless and full of holes, the characters are dour and depressed all the time, the story makes exactly the same mistake literally every bad Superman story makes (making him an allegory for Jesus), the symbolism is hamfisted, the subtext doesn't exist, and Superman doesn't actually have a character.

It's a bad movie. That's literally all there is to it.

pic related

you're not the same guy tho