Zack Snyder sucks-

Zack Snyder sucks-

...

watchmen was pretentious shite
300 was at least enjoyable

What;s the point of this thread?

I wish my last name was as cool as "DeKnight."

>pretentious
*sighs so loudly that all windows in the vicinity shatter from the sound of my voice*

>watchmen was pretentious shite
>300 was at least enjoyable
confirmed for brainless homo

t.

300 sucked, watchmen was incredible

>Haha, I love Sup Forums culture too, I'm one of you as well guys!

the posts

Watchmen was watered down drivel compared to the complex narrative of the book.

Zack shoulda stuck to Frank Miller funny books.

The again he didn't even seem to grasp most of Dark Knight Returns.

I swear he is a barely literate idiot who just liked the pretty pictures.

Watchmen is probably one of the best comic book movies of all time to me.
I'm talking about the Ultimate Cut @ 3.5 hrs long btw.

300 was terrible.

Imagine being this much of a huge retard.

You are literally retarded if you think Snyder would've turned Superman into a Reagan puppet. Fucking idiot.

I don't remember Snyder attempting to adapt TDKR. What he did with Batman and Superman is more compelling than what TDKR did anyways.

No, he basically turned him into a manchild that needed some aliens to come out from outer space in order to find out what to do with his life, at age 33.

>the complex narrative of the book.
>durr but who watches the watchmen tho?
>durr being too powerful makes me feel lonely and isolated
>hurr durr dark noir type shit that makes nerds feel deep and philosohical

Snyder pretty much deconstructed Miller's TDKR in BvS.

Dude works on levels of irony surpassed only by Verhoeven. He's fucking brilliant.

Dawn of the Dead is the only good Zack Snyder movie.

300 is good on first watch as a joke, but it has no rewatchability. Watchmen is a worse version of the comic that includes ridiculous fight scenes that miss the point of the comic.

The funny thing is that this is probably what Snyder thinks the book is about.

what is the book about, oh wise sage?

Please enlighten us to what the book is ACTUALLY about

Didn't take much to oust the Marvelfag using dead debunked arguments. Stick to pretending to give a shit about the source material you are so ignorant about. Cocksucker.

I agree. In a way, Something that always cracks me up is that a lot of people seem to forget the reason they were even fighting in TDKR. Sure, we get to hear Clark's thoughts, but whatever he thinks of Bruce's methods, that's not not the reason they're fighting. It's not the epic clash of opposing ideologies people make it out to be. That all comes from Clark's side, and it's all blatant hypocrisy and rationalization, which is precisely what Bruce's justifications are in BvS.

He's literally the best pop director alive.

This was the moment Snyderhaters knew they'd fucked up!

Film is a visual medium.
Snyder tells his stories mostly through visuals, instead of dialogue.
People hate him for it because it's not what they're used to in big capeshit blockbusters. They'd have played better pre-~2008 before capeshit really solidified as a genre.

It's about how counterproductive is to grow up, but never grow out of the simplistic mentality of superhero comics. Even a smart man like Ozymandias hasn't grown out of that, and that's why his super smart plan is nothing but a silver comic book scheme, and it's obviously worthless because that logic doesn't apply to the real world, where all he did was cause death and pain to many people.

If you were a DC fan, you'd realize how shit this Superman was. And how was what I said debunked? Superman didn't do anything with his powers until Zod showed up, and he was in his fucking 30s.

I think that Snyder has brought back the aesthetics and characteristics from the German Expressionist era of silent film by using comics as a visual medium. I know this sounds pretentious but hear me out.
Before I can start to show that Snyder is heavily influenced by German Expressionism, we're going to learn a little art history on the genre. German Expressionism is described, by a popular blog, as "a film movement that emphasizes on the expression of inner thoughts or emotions through the control of stylistic elements. German Expressionist films are therefore notable for their dark themes of insanity, horror, death and fatality that translate prevalently into the film’s mise-en-scene and narrative." Many themes of German Expressionism included, nature, religion, war, betryal and urban life. Now typically, old German Expressionist films used contrasting shadows and distorted images to warp reality and tell a story through images.
I think that Snyder's work is heavily influenced by that to the point where he does not use distorted images or shadows to tell his story but uses the images off of the pages of comics as a medium to tell a story. People today (not bashing critics) are more used to conventional theatrical aesthetics like dialogue and realistic characterization. However, what people miss is that Snyder in his films tries to convey a metaphorical message through the images themselves. I do not think that his visuals are simply a spectacle but that they serve a purpose in developing a story. The first German Expressionist films were characterized with little to no dialogue for the main characters and they only had simple facial expressions to convey inner turmoil and emotion, however shortly after Expressionist films became popular people thought that the idea of no dialogue and only facial expressions to develop a character was boring and the idea was soon abandoned.

...

>Snyder tells his stories mostly through visuals, instead of dialogue.
You must've missed all that shitload of expository dialogue in BvS, where pretty much every time a character open his/her mouth was to ramble about his motivations.

This literally never happens. Superman never flat-out says his issue in the film, which is why somehow some people never grasped it. Batman and Alfred literally never mention the fact he kills now explicitly.

Literally non-arguments based on nothing but Marvel fanboyism. Drop the act.

No, because he doesn't even know. He goes to talk to Martha so she can say it for him.

>Batman and Alfred literally never mention the fact he kills now explicitly.
I said motivations, and they do nothing but talk about why Batman does what he's doing, and they talk about the branding stuff.

That's stupid. Ozy's plan works like a charm

How is it a non-argument? Does that thing I said not happen in the movie?

As someone who agrees, let me ask you something: Where do you think the hate comes from?

I'm really starting to think that there *is* a faction that's getting paid to push a narrative through social media, but I don't think it's something political or even Disney-related(though I don't rule anything out where money's concerned).

I think it's personal.

I think Zack pissed off some extremely rich people and at least some of them have embarked upon a smear campaign that's lasted nearly ten years. I think it started with 300, and if you think about that for a second, you'll also know who I think he's pissed off.

>Nothing ever ends

W R O N G

Now it's your turn to enlighten us.

Yeah, because of roscharc's diary, wich is another comic book thing. But Ozy's plan works in the sense that every country in the world refuses to fight eachother now that there is a bigger threat

Watchmen was only good because of tits.

Starting to believe this aswell. They are completely fanatical about this. Not even Michael Bay is attacked this much for doing nothing but upsetting online nerds. This is some dark shit going on. The twitter spambots are just the icing on the cake.

Yes, those are in fact the movies that tricked everyone in to believing Snyder was a good director
And the sucker punch happened.

>Superman didn't do anything with his powers until Zod showed up, and he was in his fucking 30s.

Just because he wasn't in the suit doesn't mean he was doing nothing. He was working his way north to the scoutship in Bill Bixby mode. I don't need to see everything or even hear about everything he'd done for people to understand that those things happened. Lois tracks him back across the country collecting an entire stack of anecdotal accounts about an "angel" rescuing people. When she meets him back in Smallville, she says, "The only way you could disappear would be to stop helping people completely, and I sense that's not an option for you."

She senses that based off what she's learned about his past. Only an autist would hand wave that away. You want to say that's bad storytelling? Go ahead. Just know that by saying so, you're barely beyond a toddler when it comes to infererring things about one of the most recognizable, internalized pop culture icons in the history of history.

see

I picked up on this as a result of BvS. It makes what they're doing allegorically with these characters all the amazing to me. And brave.

You're the most based poster to ever grace Sup Forums singlehandedly putting the paid shitposting army on suicide watch.

>I said motivations, and they do nothing but talk about why Batman does what he's doing, and they talk about the branding stuff.

Yeah, they talk about Bruce's rationalizations, but only Alfred so much as hints at what Bruce's real motivation is.

It seems like all the theatrical releases of his movies are shit, but the extended cuts make them all a million times better.

Sucker Punch was the one guiltiest of this. TC cuts away two very important scenes.

Thanks. I really appreciate that.

I think in general, any time a movie needs a director's cut, something went terribly wrong in the theatrical release. This is what happens when theaters enforce a maximum length so that they can get as many showings as possible.

>I think it started with 300, and if you think about that for a second, you'll also know who I think he's pissed off.
...The Persians?

>Watchmen was watered down drivel compared to the complex narrative of the book.
This just goes to show you how simplistic blockbusters have become because the film version STILL managed to be one of the more complex films in a long time.

Why were these enjoyable movies the first time you watch them but complete trash the second time?

I can't believe you said this to a post that just said "t." Literally nothing but "t."

Anyone have that screencap of the guy who watched nothing but Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole for like a year straight?

I swear I will never understand the logic behind these posts.

dude, at least use on of snyders good comic adaptations, watchmen is a good film but a shallow as fuck adaptation.

...

Watch MOS. Most of Zod and For -Els dialogue is exposition.

>For-el
who?

The only thing that makes sense is that they're so angry that they're not thinking right. So I take those posts as a victory because I got some idiot mad.

Why is your name SuicideAnon?

storytimed some of the 80's suicide squad comics a while back, decided to keep it

Oh, that's pretty cool of you. Do you have an archive link to the thread?

based reply-to-everyone poster

He didn't reply to me.

he should never be forgiven for what he did to Watchmen.

...

Why don't you reply to the OP?

wtf why did it get deleted?

Towerposting is against the rules.

does Sup Forums have a working archive? Happy to have a look if it does but i dont think it does.

>The Persians?

More so those for whom Xerxes and his armies were a metaphorical stand-in.

>This day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny and usher in a future brighter than anything we can imagine.

I have no idea what you are getting at here.

Anyone else notice that Gerard Butler has been in jack shit of note besides 300? What's up with that?

mel gibs cornered the scotsman market.

I don't think it was shallow. I just think they focused on the more widely applicable themes in the story, like how the presence of something truly superhuman and god-like runs the risk of making mankind come to view itself as irrelevant.

Moore' s central theme of the dangers of idolizing "socially acceptable" criminals like masked do-gooders would be utterly lost on a general audience.

By focusing on the importance of heroes lifting up mankind, Snyder's Watchmen throws Dr. Manhattan and Superman into stark contrast. His Superman is coming to understand that deeds without a voice aren't enough and that context and message are equally important, because all the heroic acts in the world won't matter if your example doesn't others to action. Manhattan, on the other hand, is too far up his own ass to even notice that.

In short, the message is that a god-like hero who doesn't inspire anything but awe runs the risk of making human achievement seem pointless.

Try 4plebs.org. You can find your thread by searching one of the images you posted in it.

Not sure why Snyder wastes his time on such complex themes when his audience is a group of people who are incapable of understanding things beyond the surface level.

Is Sucker Punch one of his good adaptations?

The Persians and the Greeks were metaphorical stand-ins for Eastern and Western culture. History looks on the war that followed the Battle of Thermopylae as the turning point for pretty much all of Western civilization.

One of the biggest, most visible terrorist organizations operating in Africa is called Boko Haram, which loosely translates to "western education is sin." There are some very wealthy, very powerful people who share this sentiment.

Suckerpunch isn't an adaptation. It's precisely what its name says it is.

Such as who? It's not like they're watching you.

300 was shit.
The fight scenes were so extremely over stylized that they became boring.
And it didn't have anything else to offer.

Low-tests won't get it.

Please.
It's a ballet masquerading as an action movie so faggots in denial can pretend they're manly.

What you said makes absolutely no sense. How the fuck can something be OVER stylized? And how the FUCK does that make it boring?

Hi, Zack.

Nice argument you enormous shitposting faggot.

Nothing can be over stylized. Just done in a style that you personally don't like.

Don't bother.

Of course it can.
The fights in the Star Wars prequels are another good example. So highly choreographed and stylized that it sucks any tension out of the scene and creates a disconnect.

He only found out about the ship from the two soldiers at the bar, but before that he'd spent 33 years doing jack shit.

And why didn't you just say this when I asked you, you dicksucker?

Why are you so angry?

I believe that defeats the purpose of a sigh