Why is it okay for George Lucas to talk about Kurosawa heavily influencing him but not Zack Snyder?

Why is it okay for George Lucas to talk about Kurosawa heavily influencing him but not Zack Snyder?

Why is this board so stupid?

Other urls found in this thread:

slashfilm.com/james-cameron-inspirations/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Because Zack Snyder's an overgrown twelve year old in his edgelord phase that thinks comics are unrealistic because Batman isn't getting raped in them.

That doesn't answer my question though.

Why are people shocked about Kurosawa influences? They're fairly common in film. A Bug's Life is based on Seven Samurai for example.

That's what i'm saying. But now we have new round of calling Snyder shit just because he talked about liking a movie.

Because George Lucas took inspiration to serve what he was making, because for all his flaws he was clearly really into his own creation and wanted to build it up as what it was. Snyder, on the other hand, thinks that what he's working to create is shit to begin with and wants to turn it into something else to "elevate" it.

Lucas had some small twisted idea of what was likeable about what he was making and used his inspirations to prop it up further, Snyder has either no idea or a totally wrong idea why people like his source material, so he's hollowing out what he's supposed to be making and filling it in with what he already likes.

>thinks that what he's working to create is shit to begin with
Stop being reductionist.

>Snyder has either no idea or a totally wrong idea why people like his source material
I disagree. I've been reading DC for 20 years i'm liking his stuff so far.
I could also link you a video of a fat nerd how was hosting/announcing for a comic convention where Snyder was there and told him the same thing, that he'd been reading Supes for 25 years and Snyder did him justice.

>Because George Lucas took inspiration to serve what he was making, because for all his flaws he was clearly really into his own creation and wanted to build it up as what it was. Snyder, on the other hand, thinks that what he's working to create is shit to begin with and wants to turn it into something else to "elevate" it.

This is very bizarre speculation. Snyder revels in the superficial pop qualities of comics and superheroes, which paradoxically make them much resonant.

Lucas saw the movie when it was new and it made a lasting impression. 20 years later it influences his own filmmaking.

Snyder was born too late is why. He was the same age when Star Wars came out that Lucas was when Seven Samurai came out.

>Snyder has either no idea or a totally wrong idea why people like his source material,

Well you just have to look at why people do like the source material.

All the shrill complaints about Superman not saving enough people or not smiling make it clear that people wanted reassurations and comfort. Snyder instead gave a conflicted but genuine portrait of a superhero, which people hate.

It's not hard to see how completely bonkers the weird cult of hatred around Snyder is. It all boils down to fear and insecurity.

saved

>Stop being reductionist

But he's right, though. Snyder - and to a larger extent, the Warner Bros. corporation bigwigs - are practically ashamed to be fans of these bright, colorful, well-known comic book characters. Why else do you think they have tried turning them into "serious" films with "serious" storylines rooted in a "gritty" form of reality? They want to "elevate" these goofy, campy comic book characters into something that can be seen as art (or, dare I say it, "kino").

>Why is it okay for George Lucas to talk about Kurosawa heavily influencing him but not Zack Snyder?

Because one did it well and one did it poorly.

This isn't a hard concept. Just like how people were fine with the Stranger Things writers talking about how Spielberg influenced their work but rolled their eyes when JJ said the same thing making Super 8, execution is everything.

Any retard can be inspired by great works, there's an entire decade of shitty Tarantino and Fincher knockoffs we got in the 90's that are proof of that. it's execution that matters.

> Snyder revels in the superficial pop qualities of comics and superheroes

Only insofar as he can use them to masturbate of his thematic concepts. He's no better then the Wachowskis when they made the Matrix sequels.

>Snyder instead gave a conflicted but genuine portrait of a superhero, which people hate.

You can repeat that till the cows come home, what we got at the end of the day was a plot device poorly acted by a performer out of his depth and written to have zero emotional range.

Take the Superman name off the character and he would still be terrible. Actually he would be even worse because most of Snyder's characterisation comes through the iconography instead of making him a person in the context of the narrative.

Because it doesn't look like he's going to do anything with the themes of the movie that he's referencing and is just using the basic plot line of "Good guys team up and beat the bad guy."

You can be damn sure he isn't going to be influenced by the directing or editing style of Kurosawa either.

>Take the Superman name off the character and he would still be terrible. Actually he would be even worse because most of Snyder's characterisation comes through the iconography instead of making him a person in the context of the narrative.

THIS MOTHERFUCKING SHIT RIGHT HERE.

>yeah but it's shit
Is an argument guys.
You could say that all day, and it would never be true.

Because it's like Tommy Wiseau saying he was inspired by Robert Altman.

>Why else do you think they have tried turning them into "serious" films with "serious" storylines rooted in a "gritty" form of reality?
Because we've already had FIVE campy silly Superman movies and Batman 66 and the Schumucher films?

Variety good.
Same thing forever bad.

No?
What a dumb comparison.

Because you're looking for some sort of "logical explanation" when it comes to art criticism.

You're no better then those "Objective criticism of art totally exists u guise, and coincidentally ii always agrees with me" people.

So we agree that you're not being objective?
Good.

>So we agree that you're not being objective?

Sure.

Neither are you.

Neither is anyone who has ever reviewed a piece of art.

Congratulations, you unlocked the code.

Superman Returns wasn't campy or silly. If anything, we've been drowned in so many "dark Superman" stories like Injustice, Irredeemable, and Man of Steel that a silly live-action Superman movie would add variety.

Who said MoS had to be campy and silly? Why couldn't most of the film have been even as remotely uplifting and positive as the First Flight? Why did the movie - and its sequel - have to be so dour and cynical about everything?

Fuck, at this point, I will take campy and silly because I would rather laugh at fucking "Batman & Robin", ironically and sincerely, over watching "Man of Steel" and feeling like slitting my own throat.

But the moviegoing audience isn't familiar with that crap.
The knew Reeve.

>Fuck, at this point, I will take campy and silly because I would rather laugh at fucking "Batman & Robin", ironically and sincerely, over watching "Man of Steel" and feeling like slitting my own throat.
Oh man. I disagree.

Your version of objectivity does not exist, user. Movies are not viewed in a vacuum and cannot be judged entirely on their own merits. We all have pre-existing biases and subjective ideas about what makes for a good story, a good movie, and so on. We cannot ignore those biases, no matter how hard we try.

An objective look at a film would only be looking at objective facts (e.g., "Man of Steel stars Henry Cavill as Superman"). Everything else is subjective and open to interpretation and value judgments, just like any other film. Get the fuck over your "view from nowhere" version of objectivity because it can never exist.

He explained how he thinks the movie was bad, though. It's okay you disagree with him, but maybe you could bother to answer his points? You're complaining about simplistic unjustified statements and then making one yourself.

Maybe I enjoy Snyder movies because I overlap with him on Randian issues of objectivity.

> semantic trick
But that user does have a point. Are you telling his opinion worth nothing because there is no opinion that can be truly objective in formal philosophical way? That is just pathetic.

A shit director (Wiseau/Snyder) says he took inspiration for his shitty work (the room /JL) from a great director (Altman /kurosawa).

It is disrespectful to the original creator, and by no means the cult followers of the inspired idiot should call him a visionary because of that.

What, so you would rather have another decade of depressing Superman movies? You would prefer another ten years of DC movies that are "super-serious" "kino"? Fuck that shit. I want something fun.

Superheroes are campy by nature. So why does "campy" automatically mean "shitty" if it is connected with superhero media? Why can't we have a "campy" superhero film that is also good?

Ah, so you suck Ayn Rand's dead dick. Good for you.

>You're complaining about simplistic unjustified statements and then making one yourself.
Exactly.
going
>buh he fundamentally misunderstand Superman becuase uh moping and whining and uh bad acting and uh uh uh
Isn't an argument.

Before you reply to this thread, let me remind you that you're getting into an argument with a retarded Snyder fan.

Playing fast and loose with a general consensus isn't a solution to your dilemma of having an unpopular and undefendable opinion.

Escaping to increasingly broader and vague contexts is just an exercise in mental gymnastics, moving the goal post further and further back until literally nothing matters or holds any value in any meta-cognitive spectrum of interpersonal communication.

tl;dr, if your only recourse in defending a movie is the reductionist defense mechanism of crying "subjectivity" while goose-stepping the burden of proof onto the other person any time you're held accountable for your words, then you're either intellectually ill-equipped for this kind of discussion and/or have poor taste.

> Isn't an argument

Nor is anything you've presented. All you've done is make equally if not more-so dubious and unsubstantiable claims while demanding the other side foot undisputed empirical proof. Not to mention your guerrilla tactics hit-&-run method of arguing in which you only respond to what you can exploit.

It is an argument, though. Most people know of the Superman character through cultural osmosis - be it the old films, the Justice League cartoon, the comics, or whatever. They have a preconceived notion of what Superman is "supposed" to be as a character. You cannot expect people to drop all that and view "Man of Steel" (or BvS, for that matter) in a vacuum where every other iteration of Superman does not and will not ever exist. They will compare Snyder!Superman to all other versions of Superman, including the one that exists only in their head - the amalgamation of their views on the character - and they will make a judgment about Snyder!Superman based on that.

I hate Snyder fans. They remind me of the Bronies who kept harping on how MLP was a multilayered tapestry of art, or those fucking Undertale fans who say their lives changed for the better because of playing the game.

>Superheroes are campy by nature

You can have something that's both campy and peppered with real moments of darkness or humanity at the same time.

Just look at Farscape.

>Are you telling his opinion worth nothing because there is no opinion that can be truly objective in formal philosophical way?

What? No. I'm saying that his "Why are Snyder haters so subjective and biased unlike us enlightened gentlemen Snyder enthusiasts :^)" argument is bullshit because everyone has a bias in their appreciation of art.

Mate, that will leave the snyderkek in a coma

>They remind me of the Bronies who kept harping on how MLP was a multilayered tapestry of art
But I don't think his movies are deep art.
I just think they are good movies.

Stop trying to push a narrative.

Because ANH is a really, really good film, and in fact one of the pivotal entries in western filmmaking. Whereas nothing Snyder makes is worth his weight in shit.

Also, Lucas merely revealed his influences afterwards, he didn't go around comparing the film to Hidden Fortress before it was out.

>I just think they are good movies.

Okay, so...why are they good stories?

>Whereas nothing Snyder makes is worth his weight in shit.
Directors disagree with you.
see

>Stop trying to push a narrative

Friendly reminder that the geniuses that appreciate Snyder's work fell for the Sup Forums meme known as KINO

Because I enjoy the approach they take?

I'm not trying to convince you mate.
I'm just stating my opinion.
You guys """know""" Snyder is shit, and that's fine. Just know that you're delusional.
see

>Directors disagree with you.

Director. Singular. One.

Not all of them.
Again, stop pigeonholing.

Directors aren't necessarily good filmmakers, user.

Snyder is proof of that.

>I just think they are good movies.

Except they fail as pure movies tot he point that the only defence point that has any legitimacy is as art-house thematic tapestries.

If you look at BvS as pure surface level it's a boring nightmare punctuated by dollops of unintentional comedy in the action scenes.

Praising one of the most passable things Snyder has ever done isn't really an open endorsement of the man's filmography or his current work.

Though an overused comparison, it is a more than fair one in this context. If for no other purpose than to illustrate the utter lack of self-awareness that people who defend MLP and Snyder exhibit.

>Because I enjoy the approach they take?

That alone is not reason enough. Convince me why they are good stories. Go deep into that shit. If you truly appreciate his films, you can answer the question with more than "BUT I LIKED THEM". If you liked them, tell us why.

I’m also inspired by — these are established filmmakers now, but I remember being very inspired by them when they first broke on the scene — like Zack Snyder and Robert Rodriguez, guys that were just creating their own new cinematic language. So I can be inspired by somebody whose name I don’t even know if they do something that’s unique and remarkable and nobody’s seen it before.

slashfilm.com/james-cameron-inspirations/

What's my motivation though?
I say something, you pick it apart.
You don't agree with me about Snyder. That's fine.

fug forgot my
>meme arrows

>I say something, you pick it apart.

Yes, that is how discussion works. Don't like it? Stick with "BUT AH LAHKED IT" and move on. Otherwise, dig deep into why you liked that shit and give us something of substance to work with.

Again mate, what is my motivation?

> Attacks other people's arguments and Opinions
> His gets backed into a corner
> "We'll just have to agree to disagree"

Also citing analogues to other directors and using terms like "cinematic languages" doesn't prove or establish anything other than superficial contexts at best. And to be fair, the only "cinematic language" snyder has created is lens filters.

>> "We'll just have to agree to disagree"
see
What would be my "carrot on a stick" so to speak?
How do I benefit from wasting my time going back a forth with a guy who has his opinions on the issue fairly set in stone?

You tell me, you're the one still posting in this thread backed into a corner after having attacked other people's opinions. Suddenly it's not only everyone else's burden of proof to defend what they're saying but to convince you to defend your own?

If you want to be able to hold your own in discussions like these, you have to understand your arguments. So dig deep and figure it out. Otherwise, stick with "BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKED IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT" like the bitch you are.

>And to be fair, the only "cinematic language" snyder has created is lens filters.

And wasting talented cinematographers.

That dipshit Kong movie used Larry Fong better then fucking BvS, He got an amazing artist to frame his movie and then shot the whole thing in close-ups.

I really hate how BvS looks.

wat
Why is this question so hard?
I'm asking you- what go I gain from arguing this issue?

A better understanding of why you like Snyder's shit beyond "BUT I LIKED IT, YOU SPERM-SWALLOWING SEALCLUBBER".

>I really hate how BvS looks.
BvS looks great IMO.

You guys just don't like muh no colors muh low light.

You seemed to have plenty of motivation above, only now that you've been put in your place do you pull this "what's my motivation" defense mechanism.

Funny, because if that truly was the case what is your motivation for posting "What's my motivation", to get the last word in?

You should have asked yourself that when making this thread? Did you expect everyone else to do all the work?

>A better understanding of why you like Snyder's shit
I highly doubt that.
I think it would be more along the lines of me getting a better understanding of why Sup Forums has foaming at the mouth hatred over it.

That fight scene with the cave troll left a bit to be desired.

Because fuck DC and fuck you

>You guys just don't like muh no colors muh low light.

Well, yes, generally being able to see what is going on and comprehend it through visual cues is kind of paramount in trying to enjoy a film.

Yes, and that is a problem, how?

>You seemed to have plenty of motivation above, only now that you've been put in your place do you pull this "what's my motivation" defense mechanism.
>Funny, because if that truly was the case what is your motivation for posting "What's my motivation", to get the last word in?
Again, this is super simple stuff.

I say I liked it.
You ask me why.
I've noticed that you seem set in your opinions.
I ask you what I would gain from arguing with you.

As far as getting the last word goes, if you insult me i'm probably going to respond, don't know what to tell to you.

>Yes, and that is a problem, how?
Because I've spend years here and have heard it a thousand times?

>Well, yes, generally being able to see what is going on and comprehend it through visual cues
I can do that with that image (and the whole film) though.

Zack is a hack with bad ideas

Lucas is a hack with good ideas

Disney should take over for DC like they did Star Wars since they make it better

Did it though? Did it REALLY?

>You guys just don't like muh no colors muh low light.

There's a difference between muted colors and turning the dial to "murky" and leaving it at that.

A Cure For Wellness had a muted color palette but it still looked absolutely gorgeous, because for all of Verbinski's faults the man has never made an ugly movie in his life. Outside of Watchmen all of Snyder's movies look like bad early 2000's music videos.

It's not so much that Sup Forums hates it as anyone in the human race with a high functioning neurotypical brain hates it or at the very least finds it offputing.

Again you've only shown you're childish and unrealistic expectations of interacting with others. Classic tell of autism.

Yet you created a thread for this and now that it's come time for you to defend your side of the argument you've got cold feet. So everyone has to explain themselves to you, but not vice versa?

Are you embarrassed that the real reason you like BvS is because you're high functioning austistic?

>you seem set in your opinions

And here's the thing: Even if I am somehow "set" in my opinions, they can still be changed if the argument is good enough. So maybe try harder with your arguments, and you might change my mind. Or stick with "BUT I LIKED IT I LIKED IT I LIKED IT" and see where that gets you.

>ad hominem
For a guy trying to take the intellectual stance, you're not doing so hot.

>they can still be changed if the argument is good enough.
I don't think that's true though.
I've been in this exact situation before with a guy who hated Snyder's movies.

I don't believe that you believe that you will ever like BvS.

I don't think anybody thinks that. You probably saw one comment and assumed EVERYONE thinks like that.

It's perfectly fine to have influences, it's okay if they show that much, and he can talk about them as much as he likes. BvS has problems because of many, MANY other factors, and people disliked it because if those factors. Not because it looked like a fucking painting at times and not because it made a callback to other works.

I feel like I'm using too much effort replying to bait, but I like writing, I guess.

>bait
It's not bait.
Calling things you don't like bait IS bait though.

It would only be ad hominem if that was the entirety of the argument. The core of my argument is that you're expecting a one sided discussion which isn't realistic or serving to your stance.

Also your response is simple deflection, another logical fallacy much like ad hominem. Are Snyder's works really so weak that you can't even make a single compelling argument in their defense.

Is claiming: "b-b-b-but you're set in your ways" any less pathetic than not being able to offer a single reason as to why you like something and think others should too?

yes I dislike the visual choice to intentionally make things hard to see or make out

its literally a film techniques whose only real merit is that it can allow people to cut corners since the audience can't tell something looks bad when they can barely tell what they are looking at anyway

>Is claiming: "b-b-b-but you're set in your ways" any less pathetic than not being able to offer a single reason as to why you like something and think others should too?
I don't know, but what I'm confident of is this
>I don't believe that you believe that you will ever like BvS.

Also, that's a pretty cool wallpaper, do you happen to have it in higher rez?

>I've been in this exact situation before with a guy who hated Snyder's movies.

And I bet you pulled the exact same shit - you say you liked them, he asked why, and you said "whoa, hey, what do I get out of this argument" until he punched you in the throat and left you to die in a ditch like your mother should have done after she spat you out of her diseased vagina 13 years ago.

>make things hard to see
Are you blind?

For one
>Sup Forums
You're barely even talking about movie adaptations, you're literally talking about filmmakers and film influences.

Also Snyder is considered far more of a hack by a good portion of Sup Forums, and unsurprisingly people are far less interested in the influences of a filmmaker they don't respect.

George is considered a hack too, but he still has the original trilogy on his resume and is capable of showing good cinematic influences when he's kept in check by people willing to tell him no.

yikes
Why are you angry?

Cool, even better, then refer to the rest of the post.

>even better
How?

It is bait if you're not willing to engage in any actual form of constructive discourse and keep defaulting on:

> "What's my motivation for defending myself?"
> "You're set in your opinion so there's no point in arguing with you."

Then what was the point of making this thread if you're not willing to engage in any kind of constructive discourse?

>Then what was the point of making this thread
To make people think.

Because of people like you, who expect to be agreed with no matter what and try to shut down arguments whenever you are confronted with disagreement or even the tiniest bit of spite. Because you think you can get away with "BUT I LIKED THEM" and subsequently conflate all criticism of MoS and BvS with "NOT MUH SUPES". Because you are an underaged asshole with no real appreciation of film, superhero or otherwise. Because you refuse to dig deep into your own head and come up with a better reason for liking Snyder's shit other than "just because".

>To make people think
>About literal Sup Forums threads on Sup Forums.

Then why are you not giving us any goddamned substantive arguments to think about?

All you've done is make us think how completely childish and vapid people like yourself who defend Snyder are. A mentally fragile child incapable of dealing the criticism of his own unpolished and immature opinions yet expects everyone else to defend and explain theirs despite his utter refusal to accept anything they say.

That sounds like over generalizing but here's my take on it:
If Snyder is being influenced by a Kurosawa movie, good for him, Kurosawa is a pretty fucking good director. Nothing revealed about his most recent movie screams "Kurosawa", but then again neither did the promotional material for Star Wars.

Have a (you) on the house and stop trying to defend a very mediocre director from the meanies of the internet.

Because there is a difference between saying you have drawn inspiration from something vs. traight up saying your movie is like a superior source material.

Lucas was never under the impression he was making something as good a Kurosawa.

/thread

George is also self-aware of his shortcomings as a writer. Like he's always called himself the "King of Wooden Dialog".

He wanted his friends and people from the OT to help out on the prequels, but they were either busy with other projects or just felt like George should do it himself.

Because it's a little frustrating to have a discussion with someone who's just trying to make people mad.

That and Lucas openly admits all of his works are composites of other artists works that he's admired. Fuck, the entire premise of the first Star Wars movie was adapted largely from Jordowosky's script for Dune.