it ain't good y'all
autuer film was such a fucking mistake
abolish directors. a 'single vision' for a film is not something to applaud if that vision is bad.
Wow have you thought about just leting people enjoy things? You must be fun at parties!
Gotta be honest, this bit gets me every time until I see the username.
I just started it. So much cringe and awfulness so far. I never saw the Whedon version. Already half the run time is slo mo montage. Wonder Woman just told a little girl she can be anything she wants but 1984 said wishing for a better future is selfish and evil. I can tell this is going to be a real slog.
Edit: finished. what a piece of shit. it's not even so bad it's funny or interesting. it's just so much useless stuff.
spoiler
also, lol @ marvin the martian showing up at the end.
Wonder Woman's mom is running in slow motion but the rocks falling off the building are not falling in slow motion.
bruh the character design on
spoiler
marty martian
was so bad i had no idea who it was
autuer film was such a fucking mistake
Stop giving bad directors the label of autuers.
i'm not sure what else to call a pet project of an undeniably unique director that exists to be the uncorrupted vision of that director? i don't think good is a necessary criteria for auteur.
Why though, does it really have anything to do with quality? If auteur films can be said to exist, is The Room not one?
I hate to be a snob, but calling the over indulgent shit Snyder craps out auteur film is a bit of a stretch. A bunch of drooling morons on the Internet who think he’s a genius provided Warner’s with a big enough market that they were willing to release an over bloated unedited mess that was true to Snyder’s “vision”, I wouldn’t say that makes him an auteur. Most auteur film knows how to use editing well and is a result of the director having more creative control than the studio. In this case Snyder didn’t have more control than the studio, the studio saw an opportunity to appeal to a market without spending much money and they took it.
Doesn't auteur just mean he has a distinct style, that sounds like snyder. Slow motion with super oily muscular men but also vaguely libertarian ideology with dreary colors is what snyder does
So does Michael Bay. He had a scene in Transformers age of extinction about why it’s ok that a characters fucking an underage girl. If that isn’t vaguely libertarian ideology I don’t know what is.
I was always under the impression that auteur film means writer and director are the same person. I mean, it literally means "author's film" and that's how the translation of that term is used in my language.
I could be wrong and there's a different definition in French and / or English, but that's how i've always seen the term being used. ofc that would mean that Snyder movies are very definitely not auteur films.
all auteur is is the cult of the director & "vision". the snyder cut is a monument to vision & directorial fiat, the director is just happens to be awful.
I just like Tarenteno, the Coen Brothers, and Moulin Rouge ok?
The director's cut of Blade Runner is a much better film. The initial cut is unwatchable garbage and I truly mean that.
Disagree. The director's cut is an improvement in many ways, but retconning Deckard into a possible replicant breaks the story's narrative since the whole point of the film is that the creation of man has more humanity than what humans have devolved into.
Deckard is a human - a broken one. Making him a replicant when the other models have all these emotions and self-awareness cheapens the story.
Which is why it's super funny that Harrison Ford and Dennis Villeneuve get that but Ridley Scott doesnt.
He literally wrecked his film to shoehorn in a half baked idea. I still don't understand it.
The original release has a distracting Harrison Ford narration explaining the events on screen as they're happening. Plus the original release has no unicorn.
oh yeah, I only saw the original cut when I was quite a bit younger and staying up way past my bedtime, I think the narration helped keep me invested in it
oh, well you know that's fine. you're not a monster. you're cool
An awful film that was shaped by a coked up weirdo who is obsessed with the farts up his own ass will always be a million times better than a dogshit film created by a boardroom of coked up weirdos obsessed with general audience appeal.
Which is why every Michael Bay movie is better than every new Marvel or Star Wars movie
You have a point, but have you actually watched Transformers?
Yes and Marvel would never have the balls to make a 200 million dollar movie with a joke about a transformer having massive testicles
Micheal Bay is a genuine auteur who has a vision that he executes to a tee. His vision just sucks in the first place
i want my films from a pack of coked up weirdos on the street
Auteur theory blows ass, it's literally the great man theory but for media, unless someone physically controlled every aspect and performed every performance in a work, their influence should never eliminate consideration for the whole team involved in crafting the art.
Most of these auteur directors have so much to thank their cinematographers or special effects crew or any other crew member part of the creative process but auteur theory just steamrolls it all into "geniouous kojumbo" type bullshit. It also often paradoxically excuses abusive behavior as "serving the art" when the same theory credits the art as the will of the single person, its all self serving.
Auteur theory blows ass, it’s literally the great man theory but for media, unless someone physically controlled every aspect and performed every performance in a work, their influence should never eliminate consideration for the whole team involved in crafting the art.
In theory, a director has a team of people they rely on to consistently produce a given style. So, like, John Carpenter and Wes Craven went to these exceptional costume and design specialists to produce all the outfits for their most hideous monster-villains. George Lucas founded a company specifically for lighting and special effects, because he wanted all his movies to have a certain visual flare. James Cameron, similarly, worked with engineers to create very specific techniques for shooting and post-editing.
I agree that the director gets too much individual credit. LucasFilm, Industrial Light and Magic, Marvel Animation, and the like do work far above and beyond what the individual directors can offer. But they exist in large part because these directors establish a film style and need a massive team to consistently reproduce it. It isn't unreasonable to say James Cameron, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Jon Favreau, and the like have created these distinct artistic styles that have become the benchmarks for future films. (Whether you think those styles are good is another question, but they're clearly distinct to what came before and what lacks their firms' input).
It also often paradoxically excuses abusive behavior as “serving the art” when the same theory credits the art as the will of the single person, its all self serving.
In theory, it should reach a point of escaping this excuse, as once you've built a massive franchise around a production studio, you've made yourself redundant. I don't need Spielberg in the room to make a Spielberg-style film. I have an army of film students who grew up on his work and can reproduce it near-perfectly.
But, eventually these students will want to do their own things. They'll have their own ideas with how to employ existing and novel technologies and techniques. And they'll generate their own styles (and, if successful, their own cottage industries) built to replicate those techniques. Coming from the Spielberg school and producing your own original popular distinct work deserves recognition apart from Spielberg.
In theory, we should be able to draw out whole genealogies and celebrate scores of people. Build museums to the legacy and stylistic evolution that was spawned less than a century ago. Give enthusiasts an ocean of talent to appreciate and perhaps even to speculate about what may-have-been based on business or popular turns-of-fate.
on the other hand, without autuer films we wouldn't get batshit stuff like The Room
(the measured criticism is mostly about hostile work enviroments fostered by director worship)
I'm genuinely baffled at how this movie is getting so many positive reviews. It isn't much better than any of his other movies
me sobbing you can't just use a jesus metaphor on everything
zack snyder pointing at a seagull JESUS METAPHOR
Christian pandering works on test audiences, and that is all that matters to studio execs.
We have entered the liberal phase of cinema where random focus groups of people who are going to movies at 9 AM are given more weight than some directors.
The worst part is that if the movie succeeds we’ll get more edgy Snyder takes on DC characters just when it seemed like they were pulling themselves out of that crap.
there was a startling amount of sequel bait for a movie coming out several years late
So how's the Joker as a tacticool operator?
:jokerfication:
kind of a spoiler but joker literally aint in it until tge second to last scene i actually forgot he was supposed to be in it
What the fuck lol.
:agony-mescaline:
Abolish Snyder cut films
Jared Leto Joker, cut out of another movie becuase he was just too twisted
Snyder is a literal objetivist. So what do you expect?
He's not actually an objectivist he's like a generic gen x dad liberal. His politics are just so incoherent that he likes libertarianism as an aesthetic but endorses kamala and shit
I thought he straight up liked ayn rand and shit? I only watched this video, so i might also be wrong. But i think he despises being selfless at least.
I don't think he really ever explicitly stated he likes Ayn Rands for the politics or anything like that. He just thinks the aesthetics of it is cool. He also made chuds mad, so at least there's that.
i was thinking the same way but uh 4 hours is too long to maintain focus while drinking; for my friends at least.
unfortunately its divided just by cards in the film not like episodes
I have some old High school friends who are into DC enough to where it might be an enjoyable watch with them.
there are some wtf funny parts but there's so much boring mess in between it's not a party movie.
is it called justice league? dawn of justice? snyderfest 2021? idk
Justice League was bad too. The Snyder Cut being bad was a foregone conclusion, the only question is if it's bad in an interesting way.
I want to see Zach Snyder make a Bioshock movie where Rapture is a magical amazing place and Andrew Ryan is the hero
