Jump to content

The DCU - DC Universe


Jay

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree that Whedon is a very inappropriate person to complete Snyder's work.  But I also hate Snyder's style with every fiber of my being (300 is on my list of most miserable cinema experiences ever) except Dawn so it's pretty much a lose-lose for me.  Never going to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

(300 is on my list of most miserable cinema experiences ever) 

 

Strange, because it's one of the most expressive visuals ever put on film.

 

Indeed, James Cameron and I were quite impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 300 was AMAZING from a visual standpoint.

 

Unfortunately, I don't go to movies for the visuals.  The story and acting were so, so, so rough, so it just came off as unpleasant, greased up softcore muscle eye candy.  I'd rather see a movie shot on a VHS camcorder that was interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

I agree that Whedon is a very inappropriate person to complete Snyder's work.  But I also hate Snyder's style with every fiber of my being (300 is on my list of most miserable cinema experiences ever) except Dawn so it's pretty much a lose-lose for me.  Never going to see it.

 

Did you see Baz Lurhman's Australia? If so, what did you think of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not!  I think Moulin Rouge was the last Luhrman film I saw.  And actually I think Romeo + Juliet is the only other one I've seen.  I liked both of those.

 

 

2 minutes ago, mstrox said:

I think 300 was AMAZING from a visual standpoint.

 

Unfortunately, I don't go to movies for the visuals.  The story and acting were so, so, so rough, so it just came off as unpleasant, greased up softcore muscle eye candy.  I'd rather see a movie shot on a VHS camcorder that was interesting.

 

This!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

This is why you fail! Film is a visual medium afterall.

 

 

Tell that to bollemanneke!

 

There are of course plenty of movies I like purely for their visual flair.  But in that specific case, I can't just ignore how it's fucking horrible Frank Miller bullshit too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mstrox said:

I think 300 was AMAZING from a visual standpoint.

 

Unfortunately, I don't go to movies for the visuals. 

 

 

Well, that's like saying "I don't read books for the writing (the words or language)" or "I don't listen to music for the music".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Well, that's like saying "I don't read books for the writing (the words or language)" or "I don't listen to music for the music".

 

It's not like that at all, actually.  I'm not saying I agree with mstrox 100% here, but movies are more than just something to look at, they're telling a story.  A movie can have interesting visuals and be a real shitty story.  A novelist can use language in an interesting way and still be crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Well, that's like saying "I don't read books for the writing (the words or language)" or "I don't listen to music for the music".

 

Film isn't just a slideshow of pictures.  The essential foundation of almost every film is a script!  Everything after that is a building block to realize the script.  The direction, the acting, the cinematography, the 16 week ab core strengthening regimen, the bucket of torso grease, the perfect nipple color correction - all of those things come later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stefancos said:

Indeed. 300 is all about the visuals. The story doesnt matter that much. It's how it's told.

 

With Watchmen it's about both, IMO.

 

So they could be singing Britney Spears songs throughout the movie and you'd still like it as much as you do?  Literally nothing else about the film contributes to you liking it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stefancos said:

Indeed. 300 is all about the visuals. The story doesnt matter that much. It's how it's told.

 

With Watchmen it's about both, IMO.

 

I'll stand by Snyder's Watchmen, AND his changes from the overrated graphic novel, any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stefancos said:

Indeed. 300 is all about the visuals. The story doesnt matter that much. It's how it's told.

 

 

 

Steef gets it! Bravo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

I did not!  I think Moulin Rouge was the last Luhrman film I saw.  And actually I think Romeo + Juliet is the only other one I've seen.  I liked both of those.

 

 

I'd recommend you in particular see this film...Australia. I have a theory about it (I think you'd enjoy it).  Anyway, if you ever get a chance, I'd like to hear what you think. I've been meaning to mention it to you since you recommended Little Shop Around the Corner to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought 300 was pretty remarkable. 

 

I don't know if it's held up for me quite so much with repeat viewings (which you'd expect from a film of this kind) but I really dug the look and tone of the film. Probably why I more or less like Snyder's take on the DCU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

1 minute ago, Stefancos said:

Did you read my post before you decided to post a dumbass reponse to it?

 

Britney Spears, really?
 

 

You're the one who said nothing about the film matters but what you're seeing.  So presumably if they had clown music and the actors just saying "blah blah blah" you'd like it just as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Disco Stu said:

 

You're the one who said nothing about the film matters but what you're seeing.  So presumably if they had clown music and the actors just saying "blah blah blah" you'd like it just as much.

 

You extrapolated that from my post? Wow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Disco Stu said:

 So presumably if they had clown music and the actors just saying "blah blah blah" you'd like it just as much.

 

Are you suggesting Steef is a connoisseur of French cinema?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think any time someone says the story doesn't matter they're lying to themselves.  The quality of the visuals is one thing and I have nothing bad to say about the technical achievements there, but if you hate the story they're being used to tell, you respond negatively.

 

If Cremers ever got off his fucking high horse and talked to people as equals, these debates wouldn't be so goddamn annoying.  He's back on the ignore list, the jerkoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

I thought 300 was pretty remarkable. 

 

I don't know if it's held up for me quite so much with repeat viewings, but I really dug the look and tone of the film. Probably why I more or less like Snyder's take on the DCU.

 

Snyder never went full throttle on the DC movies though. It's a different style (as opposed to 300 or Watchmen) because he was hired to bring some kind of realism to the movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's an argument to be made for a movie that is completely carried by Snyder-style visuals, but in my opinion 300 doesn't work.  Snyder's successes (Dawn of the Dead and Watchmen) and entertaining missteps (MoS and BvS) are all story driven, and his biggest failures (300 and Sucker Punch) rely almost entirely on his cool visuals to drive the narrative.  I haven't seen JL yet, and nobody on earth saw the owl movie - so I can't comment on those.

 

From my standpoint, Snyder makes beautiful visual art, but doesn't have the directorial chops to carry a story on that alone.  The scripted story has to do the heavy lifting.  I'd love for him to prove me wrong someday.

 

Again, obviously some people, including some of you, really like these things.  But my opinion is the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

 ... and talked to people as equals ...

 

This means "agreeing with Disco Stu".

 

41 minutes ago, mstrox said:

 ... and his biggest failure '300' ...

 

His biggest failure? 300 has put him on the map of Hollywood.

 

41 minutes ago, mstrox said:

and his biggest failures (300 and Sucker Punch) rely almost entirely on his cool visuals to drive the narrative. 

 

Sounds exactly what film should do. Visuals as words. If one judges from a 'character and dialogue' perspective then 300 would be nothing special indeed. Give Alien poor BBC visuals from the '70s and the film would have been forgotten by now. It's the world that they are able to create with visuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

No one likes Sucker Punch.

 

Jay kinda likes it, I believe. It's a complete mess. Not to be compared with 300 or Watchmen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Tell me, brother, when did Nick1066 abandon reason for Tauriel?

 

I know your face. BloodBoal...BloodBoal...

 

Dark have been my dreams of late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched it once, though it was fine, haven't thought about it much since.  I should watch it again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best Snyder movies (IMO) is when he takes a graphic novel and transfers it to the screen, as if he is using the drawings of the graphic novel as a storyboard. Somehow I think that's the only way Snyder should be making movies. So, I talked about the visuals as if that is the only thing that matters. Of course, that isn't true. Even movies that drive on storytelling images need a firm foundation in the form of story. That doesn't mean the story is always the most important 'raison d'être'. Movies like 300, Watchmen, The Duellists, Alien, Blade Runner, 2001: ASO or the two war scenes of Saving Private Ryan (to name a less cliche example) are not acting movies or plot movies, they are 'experience' movies. They are about creating a world and letting the viewer to experience that world in a very strong sensory way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aquaman, Shazam, and Wonder Woman 2 will come out as scheduled. 

 

James Wan has creative control on the first due to Furious 7's $1 billion success (and his Conjuring history at WB). David F. Sandberg made two profitable genre films at New Line (also with Wan's help), so they're letting him do Shazam. Warners would be stupid to mess with Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman sequel, she's their golden goose after the first made $800 million worldwide.

 

The films after those three are a BIG question mark. Affleck will be out, no question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.