Chris Nolan
Best film Visual effects Oscar : 3 noms and 2 wins
Best production design Oscar : 2 noms
Best art direction Oscar : 2 noms
Best cinematography Oscar : 3 noms
Hack Snyder
0 noms or wins in any of those categories and in general kek.
Also before any of you autists say "Oscars are out of touch old men" excuse , I would like to remind you that vfx , cinematography, and other similar Oscar Judges are truly industry experts and do know better than you plebs.
Other urls found in this thread:
Biggest faggot on earth: OP 10 noms and 10 wins
Watchmen looks better than anything Nolan has ever done. Sucker Punch has more depth than Dunkirk. Nolan is a hack.
Although the technical categories in the Oscars are fairly accurate, it's still a bit stupid to compare directors by Oscars.
But I agree, Nolan is atleast an ambitious original filmmaker with full artistic integrity compared to Snyder who makes literal degenerate capeshit studio infested CGI shitfests with on the nose biblical references and copypaste frame by frame visuals right from the comics.
>Watchmen looks better than anything Nolan has ever done.
You're one of those guys whose idea of good visuals doesn't go beyond "flashy CGI". Almost every mid to big budget Nolan film looks better than any Snyder film.
True but there are seem to be a lot of autistic faggots and r/DC_Cinematic pajeets perpetuating this meme, so I think this post puts it to rest.
DC pajeets on suicide watch. Also did you Punks hear? Whedon is doing the directors equivalent of cucking to Snyder.
>Sucker Punch has more depth than Dunkirk
Don't forget his slow-mo and his comedically bad dialogue that he tries to pass for being smart.
I think this board will benefit a lot from a pajeet IP ban.
I think people like you should stop watching Snyder films. It's pretty obvious you can't appreciate subtlety or nuance let alone Snyder's hyper stylyzied visuals.
More like Snyder's hyper inconsistent visuals. His films have some of the most poorly done vfx and uninspired design in CBMs.
It's better than anything marvel has done.
Your competition here is Nolan not marvel so the "i-it's better than marvel" excuse doesn't work. You have to be more than mediocre.
friendly reminder that Nolan doesn't need to slather his movies with computery color grading to make them look cool and achieve a good mood and atmosphere
>Snyderfags
I think he uses CGI effectively, you know to enhance practical effects and only use when practical effects are not possible.
Kek I don't agree with him a lot but he will always be based for his Hilarious Snyder reviews.
Why do you instanstly compare him to marvel instead of some critically acclaimed director?
Why compare shit with shit?
He's actually pretty spot on about his intuitions about Snyder, even the way he sounds when he talks.
But, complementary colors and dark figures clear backgrounds!
While I don't think Nolan is a hack, I think Snyder is capable of conveying more narrative through his visuals than Nolan does. That may just be differing approaches to their work, but I've never seen a single image in one of Nolan's films that says even half as much, nor carries a fraction of the narrative significancet of pic related.
I just think a lot of people have it in for Snyder.
Snyder is good at making good images, but he fails at narrative.
Why is Supes just looming around instead of rushing to help?
>Sucker Punch has more depth than Dunkirk.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
But this isn't an argument about who is the better visual story teller but who is better at technical elements like Visual effects, editing, lightingcinematography ,art direction and make up.
A lot of Snyder fans Idea of visual story telling doesn't go beyond "look how many references , Symbolisms and Easter eggs in a single frame" which is Something a lot of people would consider a negative. Most of the Easter eggs and references are just clutter that distracts from the actual story. Someone like PTA or Edgar wright can tell a better story visually without all those symbolisms.
But also one thing I've noticed is his fans will claim his films are 10/10 from the day of it's release but 99% of his references are noticed after while it's been released and their fans use it as a reason to call it great but you were calling the film 10/10 from the beginning, you never noticed them in the first place , so these references enhanced your score beyond perfect or did not do much to increase your viewing experience of it.
Because they know comparing him to anyone who is more just competent will expose Snyder as the hack that he is.
It's bait so stop giving him (you)s
>But also one thing I've noticed is his fans will claim his films are 10/10 from the day of it's release but 99% of his references are noticed after while it's been released and their fans use it as a reason to call it great but you were calling the film 10/10 from the beginning, you never noticed them in the first place , so these references enhanced your score beyond perfect or did not do much to increase your viewing experience of it.
Oh shit, I never thought about this before. Snydercucks don't really give a fuck about Snyder's heavy-handed symbolism, they just use that shit to defend their awful taste.
>conveying more narrative through his visuals
It's funny because if there's anything that Snyder isn't capable of is narrative.
Do you even know what it means? Because there's no narrative at all in that picture. It's just Superman hovering around long enough to make the Jesus analogy clear, but there's absolutely no narrative at all there. If anything, those moments completely stop the narrative flow in order to insert religious analogies that were pretty fucking clear already. Snyder has absolutely no sense of rhythm, tonal consistency and overall, building an engaging narrative.
If you were to talk about action sequences, that's where Snyder obviously advantages Nolan.
Times I've rewatched a Nolan movie: 0
Times I've rewatched a Snyder movie: 8
Pretty cut and dry, bake em away boys.
Watchmen and DOTD2004 are KINO
OP is fucking right, Nolan is better than Snyder is almost every way. The only thing Snyder is better at is shooting hand to hand combat scenes.
George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead >>> Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead
Although I'll admit that Snyder's version is good. It's Snyder's best movie.
>Dawn of the Dead >>> Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead
Of course.
The one thing i hate about DOTD2004 is the CGI baby. I wish the pregnant bitch wasnt written into the movie at all really.
Might have gotten something even better story wise.
>The one thing i hate about DOTD2004 is the CGI baby. I wish the pregnant bitch wasnt written into the movie at all really.
Yeah, I really don't get what James Gunn and Zack Snyder were thinking with that shit. I guess they wanted to do some gross shit that hadn't ever been done in a huge mainstream movie before but it's really dumb and hurts the movie.
>I guess they wanted to do some gross shit that hadn't ever been done in a huge mainstream movie
Snyder in a nutshell
So you've just confirmed they have shit taste.was that really relevant to the thread?
This is why I mostly don't care about vague symbolisms and or references to other works of art in most movies. If the story is actually interesting you're not gonna notice any of that shit and if it is bad you're not going to notice it on the rewatch because you are not going to watch it again. They're cool stuff for people to find when rewatching the movie.
>Why compare shit with shit?
Because then they'd have zero arguments
Nonsense because they can still argue that he is a Chad filmmaker who is buff and tal... Wait they really don't have any arguments.
Kek Nolan is also a six foot Chad.
I fully agree, referencing other works of art isn't deep or interesting.
Yeah, it's fine if a film references other works of art but if that's the only thing your film has going for it then your film is shit. No amount of references and symbolism negate the fact that BvS is a slog. The characters are unlikable and uninteresting, the CGI fight scenes are dull, and the plot is an overstuffed mess.
Because earlier, we see him starting to realize that who he chooses to save and even how does it, sends a message. In that scene, he's looking down at pic related. What sort of message does he send saving them first? How about last?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to that image.
micheal bay is best at cinimatogrophy but hes shit at everything else
>we see him starting to realize that who he chooses to save and even how does
We see him floating above. We don't even see his face to know what he is thinking or feeling. You're making assumptions to justify your delusions.
You don't know how many other people are still trapped so that we can feel the weight of his decisions. Heck they might be the last people who need to be rescued considering it's obvious they've been there for a while.
And by the time all those assumptions are made in your head the montage would have been over. This shit never enhances your cinema experience because I am pretty sure you didn't think up all the bullshit while watching the film.
Making up shit with insufficient information is the hallmark of a Snyder fag so better ignore that shit.
What you say has nothing to do with him floating around enough for Snyder to get his Jesus analogy down our throats.
Because Nolan made three CMBs, and the visuals of the films were in no way comparable to what Snyder has to offer. No one praises the Nolan trilogy for mind-blowing visuals, and with good reason. They don't really have any. They've got a couple of decent stories(ignoring the smartardation factors present in all three villain schemes) and some truly great practical effects, but they've got not a lot to offer in visual appeal, and next to nothing in true visual storytelling.
Disney has made 14, and the only time they even come close to what Snyder and Nolan have to offer is Iron Man, TWS, and GotG.
The funniest thing is that 90% of what snyderfags call "symbolism" is nothing but references and not real symbolism. It's like a guy who tries to sound smart by constantly quoting people smarter than him, but doing it completely out of context.
>and the visuals of the films were in no way comparable to what Snyder has to offer.
So you think marvel actually has comparable visuals to snyder? Is that your argumentative point you are defending here?
1) He starts the rescue montage with a smile that falters as soon as he sees people reaching to worship him like a holy relic. The entire montage is narrated by talking heads discussing the significance of the existence of a Superman as well as the potential dangers. The montage ends with him above the flood, realizing that Mexico wasn't a fluke - people really are starting to see him as a god. That's why it's called visual storytelling, dumbasses.
2) It's not even a Jesus reference, you semi-literate, uncultured fuck.
...
No. I think Gunn's the only director they've got that is even remotely worth mentioning in the visuals department.
>Put in charge of adaptation of the ultimate superhero deconstruction.
>Makes characters that are supposed to be losers, delusional or downright psychopaths look "cool".
>Put in charge of straight superhero adaptations that are supposed to be the foundation of a shared universe of ongoing superhero stories.
>Goes into full deconstruction mode, turning everybody into pathethic losers, violent whackos or unlikeable assholes.
Snyder makes better looking movies
Both make shitty movies
AHAHAHAHAHAH
t. kid who gets awed by flashy things.
>>Suicide Squad won an Oscar.
this is sad. The majority of people genuinely prefers CGI shit to real shots. I'm depressed. George Lucas was right, the prequels are better than the original trilogy, cinema is dead
>The entire montage is narrated by talking heads discussing the significance of the existence of a Superman as well as the potential dangers
>People explaining shit
>This is what's called visual storytelling dumbasses
Not only did you not address any of the criticisms I raised you unironically used that montage where people literally talk about superman being viewed as a God as an example of great visual storytelling.
Not only do we learn that through dialogue that reference is entirely pointless and is just clutter because one can assume(and this would be the normal assumption) that she is reaching out to him to save her and not fucking worship him while her life is on the line.(the only part of the montage where there is clear worship is the Mexico one)
Lol this is actually hilarious. We have a pajeet and the science meme man explaining the entire dilemma that scene is supposed evoke and Snyderfags unironically call that visual story telling.
Well, snyderfags call the movie subtle, even though pretty much every single line of dialogue is exposition.
He's a uniquely stupid hack.
For best makeup. What's your point? Suicide Squad winning a makeup Oscar doesn't invalidate what OP said.
>judging films by number of material items given by people who were paid off
Hmmmm.....
I do like the look of nolans movies more, but I don't know if it could work with something like justice league. Making comic book movies is where Zac should be, just not have too much influence in it
>Even at his most pedestrian or bombastic, Snyder makes a far more engaging film than Christopher Nolan ever did—because Nolan presumes to know and to show, whereas Snyder wants to see. Even his slender philosophical world seems like he’s discovering it, not delivering it.
>Watchmen looks better than anything Nolan has ever done.
This credits montage alone is better looking and more interesting that Nolan's entire body of work.
No one gives a fuck about that pretentious kike. He's diet Armond White.
You poor young memer. Your knowledge of films, and film criticism, is restricted to this shithole.
>muh big words
Fuck off
Snyder is a hack who misunderstood many of the key themes of Watchmen. It's supposed to be a deconstruction of superheroes but Snyder turned it into standard capeshit. Rorschach and Ozymandias are the biggest examples of Snyder's hackery, Rorschach is supposed to be a worn out loser and Ozymandias is supposed to be a charmer but Snyder portrays Rorschach as a badass and Ozymandias as stereotypically evil.
>B-BUT IT LOOKS PRETTY!
>But it looks pretty
Are we not arguing about which looks better?
True, I just wanted to point out Watchmen isn't a good film. Anyway, I'm pretty sure Snyder's opening montage scene just recreates panels from the graphic novel but I haven't looked at the graphic novel in a while so I'm not sure. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>I'm pretty sure Snyder's opening montage scene just recreates panels from the graphic novel
>I'm not sure
Goddamn it, I meant to say
>I THINK Snyder's opening montage scene just recreates panels from the graphic novel
Nolan flicks have had shit editing since Bateman Begins
I see people say this all the time but no one ever elaborates. How is his editing bad?
>Snyder makes better movies 'cause he's an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing
Really activates my Armonds.
If that's what you got out of it, you really need to work on your reading compression anonymous.
If you read anything else, you've been ACADEMISIZED
Snyder is a hack and Nolan has some of the most praised movies.
On that basis alone not even going into a 10 page discussion, I'd say nolan.