Alatar
Super Freak
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2018
- Messages
- 3,042
- Reaction score
- 2,419
I disagree with you on so many levels. I feel Snyder is a hack. He doesn't understand or comprehend his source materials on the heightened level he attempts so he fills in the cracks with either MTV visuals or gothic "it's so dark and brooding" feels or a fancy word ("deconstruction") that someone else used to great effect.
His only movie that was wholly entertaining was 300, because it stuck to the source material, which played to his strengths. And it had Frank Miller standing right next to Snyder guiding his hand. I would think it's the least "Snyder" version of a film he is attached to. I'm thankful Watchmen was finally made so that I could view it in cinematic form, but it missed so many beats from the source material that it was like a game of telephone 27 steps down the communication chain.
You could prescreen BvS to 100 Rhodes scholars, it isn't going to make the film any smarter. The truth is the movie is a baffling slog to watch. It's a visual essay that failed to deliver its main theme. That's why it doesn't get the reaction from the masses that you may feel when you watch it. It's not fun.
I personally feel Snyder's legacy will ultimately be that he "tries" to do things...make a modern Watchmen movie, deconstruct the trinity of DC, make fetch happen with 1.33:1 aspect ratio.
I never read Phillip's junket for Joker, I never knew it existed. But I can tell you that Joker delivered on so many levels because I felt it when I watched it. That's what movies need to do. And they need to do this on their own, not with a PR blitzkrieg or social media meddling or someone explaining the why or intentions of things. It needs to happen when a viewer is planted in their seat in the theater or watching on a tablet in bed. Cinema is about the end result. We may enjoy the craft and learning more about how ideas and theories became something tangible in film form. But the movie itself needs to be good for people to care about it. That's what Snyder fails to do when he attempts to be an intellectual. This isn't little league t-ball, you shouldn't receive accolades for trying.
Being an auteur doesn't mean that his movies are good. It only means that he made them his way.
(I'm using "good" as a catch-all above. It can mean many things, enjoyable, thought-provoking, disturbing, important.)
Of course you’re entitled to that opinion, and you’re not alone. Would it be fair to say, though, that what isn’t to your own personal liking isn’t “bad” or “poor filmmaking?” Obviously many of us experience the films very differently than you do.
Actually I’d be genuinely curious what you think of the basic tenets for film criticism that I express here: Why Man of Steel Works
For convenience sake a quick copy/paste of the salient part:
…[F]or me, a film succeeds in the most basic terms if:
1) I care what happens to the characters (they matter to me, their fate matters to me)
2) I become interested and engaged in the story itself and how it unfolds (it takes me on a journey, and I’m willing to go on it)
3) I appreciate the cinematic craft of storytelling, i.e., specifically through the medium of film.
The latter consists of cinematography, the screenplay and script, acting performances, pacing of the action, CGI (where applicable), etc., and how well the director orchestrates all the various elements of the film. We can offer objective evidence for these three criteria in our own appreciation of a film. But I assert again that the deepest reasons why one might appreciate a film as such ultimately varies individually, from person to person. I will add that I can often enjoy a film for the most part even when only one or two of these elements are mostly in place, and even without them succeeding brilliantly. (I tend to be pretty forgiving as a viewer.)
This second basic idea I wish to posit is that comic books and film are fundamentally different mediums; and what “works” in the comics should not be expected to always translate well to the silver screen. The comic book uses exaggeration of what it is to be human through a kind of fantastic surrealism in which the actors (usually) possess god-like powers. The panels of a comic book are typically a saturated form of soap opera themes brought to life through the wildest realms of the creative imagination. The comic book is an imaginative space that is unfettered by “realism.” The dream world gives us much the same thing. But when it comes to serious film-making, it probably makes more sense bridge the gap between the purely imaginative and how such circumstances and events might actually take shape “in the real world” if they could actually happen.
So the comic book superhero film, in order to connect with the greatest number of fans, is most likely to be an adaptation of the comic book foundation. That is the most reasonable and mature expectation for a viewer to have, I would say. I can only speak for myself here, but I am happy for it. The source material in the comics can retain its own integrity as an art form—but the film adaptation makes it more relatable to everyday life. Myself, I prefer to see something fresh and more relatable done with the mythic and human psychological themes of the comic book superhero through cinema.
