My only problem is going to be if he puts a million pounds of slo-mo into the flick.
Well, you've seen 300. And you've seen the Watchmen trailers. So you know the answer.
When every other shot in the trailer is in slow motion, it's time to ready the facepalms. I fucking hate Zack Snyder. I hated 300, and I'm going to hate this film. "
Do you realise that this is only Snyder's 3rd film?For it being only his 3rd movie he is doing rather well so far.Besides,you know what they say,3rd time is a charm."
It depends on what you regard as "well."
I mean, it all comes down to taste, hence my usage of the pronoun "I", but I don't really feel Snyder is as fucking visionary as the media likes to make him out to be.
I mean, all three of his films have been either remakes or adaptations. In 300, the directorial work was basically done for him. He just lifted the shots straight from the novel; of course, this isn't counting that horrid Queen subplot, because that looked like amateur filmmaking at its most banal. "
I would prefer the rookie movie director that has made only 3 really good movies over the guy that has been around for some 10+years and has made a lot of OKAY movies.1 other thing,Hollywood is the boss around here of doing remakes and and adaptations.Put Snyder a side for a moment,when was the last time you saw Hollywood give us something original?Its been a long time coming my friend,so you can't really throw that fact into Snyder's face.
I don't really feel Snyder is as fucking visionary as the media likes to make him out to be.
I mean, all three of his films have been either remakes or adaptations. In 300, the directorial work was basically done for him. He just lifted the shots straight from the novel; of course, this isn't counting that horrid Queen subplot, because that looked like amateur filmmaking at its most banal. "
You might want to look up the word visionary. Visionary doesn't mean that you're original and constantly innovative. According to Dictionary.com, Visionary means: "given to or characterized by fanciful, not presently workable, or unpractical ideas, views, or schemes" If following this definition, the one most likely attributed to Snyder by the media, he is very much a visionary director as his visual style is seen as wildly unpractical and outside the Hollywood norm.
"I hear the book is good but i refuse to read it,I don't want to be like everybody else,so i',m sticking to my goddamn Michelle West(Hunter's Oath) and Max Brooks(World War Z)"
Yeah, cause Max Brooks' zombie wankery is so underground and unique. You're missing out on a fantastic piece of literature which happens to be a comic which might just be gateway for you to read amazing stuff like Walking Dead, Preacher, Y: The Last Man, Transmetropolitan, Powers and Fables which you'd probably dismiss because they're comics. But go ahead, wallow in your filth and ignorance.
As for the movie. I liked Snyder's Dawn Of The Dead remake, sure it had none of the meaning of the original, but it was well made and entertaining. 300 was very close to the source material, but there really wasn't much to work with so it was just alotta cool flash. I'm afraid this will probably end up as an amalgamation of those. Entertaining flash, but with the original meaning/intent of the source material gone.
Especially in this post Dark Knight world we live in. Watchmen tore down the superhero conventions and turned it dark and gritty, I feel we've already seen the holes in that facade with that movie. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I'm not exactly filled with hope for this flick.
I'm a very big fan of the GN, I think the film has a chance of showing the story in a different light. As it will still be Watchmen it will be awesome but I doubt it will be as awesome as the GN.
Log in to comment