Red Mosquito

stip wrote:And for crying out loud Joey, watch Guardians already

Yeah, I'll get there. When's it coming to Netflix Streaming?

Oh, another great point bada. I don't know who to agree with.

stip wrote:The marvel movies generally feature snappy dialogue, colorful, well cast, entertaining main characters who have enough superficial depth to make you have to actively look to find out that they're often thinly drawn (and I'm too busy having fun to look), lots of larger than life spectacle, and the sense of thrill and discovery that comes from world building.

There is a lot to love there. Marvel movies wouldn't appear on my best movies lists, but they are fast becoming the things I am most looking forward to in the theater. They are superb popcorn entertainment that manage to be mindless without being stupid.

My whole general pre-emptive beef with the darker (which we too often and mistakenly associate with deeper) take that DC seems to be going for is that larger than life superhero movies are generally a shitty vehicle through which one can say anything meaningful about the human condition, unless your superheroes are background forces of nature that normal people are forced to interact with. And there is going to be nothing normal about a batman that can fight superman.

I think Nolan's batman movies are very smart and say lots of interesting things (I started doing preliminary work on an article about the political theory in those movies but it got shelved when I got too busy--I still regularly show dark knight in one of my classes), but they are able to do it in part by ensuring that everything that happens within these movies remains within the realm of human power and comprehension, and because the really interesting things that the movie says have little to do with people punching each other in the face.


I like the BvS trailers and I think the movie is going to be entertaining. I don't think it's going to be any smarter than the marvel movies. I suspect we will still have some variation of

Batman has to grapple with what superman means
Batman grapples with it by punching superman in the face
Something else that requires punching in the face shows up
Batman and Superman and for some reason Wonder Woman start punching it in the face together
They punch themselves to victory and await the next thing to punch.

Which, like it or not, is also the plot of every marvel movie.

For the record, what I like about DC right now has precisely nothing to do with them being "darker" or "grittier" - I think Nolan's Batman movies suck, and it's largely because he DOES confuse darkness for depth. Again, that's a superficial, tonal quality.

Wow. What is wrong with me and why is LV hitting my sweet spot.

bada wrote:For a while there you couldn't watch a doc of the ancient world on the History Channel that wasn't in the 300 style.

Well at least he's made his mark on basic cable

stip wrote:I don't know that distinctive and visionary are the same thing.

The matrix and LOTR were visionary in that they changed people's expectations for what movies should look like or what they could accomplish. The MCU was/is visionary for the same reason. Can you say that about Snyder?

His action sequences are generally what he gets credit for in terms of a "unique style". Also, probably his use of desaturated colors.
I don't find his action sequences all that engaging. And find the vast majority of his editing technics in those action sequences to be distracting and rather pointless.
Also, the movie surrounding his action sequences are generally pretty terrible.

stip wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

stip wrote:I don't know that distinctive and visionary are the same thing.

The matrix and LOTR were visionary in that they changed people's expectations for what movies should look like or what they could accomplish. The MCU was/is visionary for the same reason. Can you say that about Snyder?

Didn't 300 basically do that?

Did it? That's not a loaded question?

oh yeah I think that was very influential, though seldom in a good way (love the movie though)

stip wrote:

bada wrote:For a while there you couldn't watch a doc of the ancient world on the History Channel that wasn't in the 300 style.

Well at least he's made his mark on basic cable

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

stip wrote:The marvel movies generally feature snappy dialogue, colorful, well cast, entertaining main characters who have enough superficial depth to make you have to actively look to find out that they're often thinly drawn (and I'm too busy having fun to look), lots of larger than life spectacle, and the sense of thrill and discovery that comes from world building.

There is a lot to love there. Marvel movies wouldn't appear on my best movies lists, but they are fast becoming the things I am most looking forward to in the theater. They are superb popcorn entertainment that manage to be mindless without being stupid.

My whole general pre-emptive beef with the darker (which we too often and mistakenly associate with deeper) take that DC seems to be going for is that larger than life superhero movies are generally a shitty vehicle through which one can say anything meaningful about the human condition, unless your superheroes are background forces of nature that normal people are forced to interact with. And there is going to be nothing normal about a batman that can fight superman.

I think Nolan's batman movies are very smart and say lots of interesting things (I started doing preliminary work on an article about the political theory in those movies but it got shelved when I got too busy--I still regularly show dark knight in one of my classes), but they are able to do it in part by ensuring that everything that happens within these movies remains within the realm of human power and comprehension, and because the really interesting things that the movie says have little to do with people punching each other in the face.


I like the BvS trailers and I think the movie is going to be entertaining. I don't think it's going to be any smarter than the marvel movies. I suspect we will still have some variation of

Batman has to grapple with what superman means
Batman grapples with it by punching superman in the face
Something else that requires punching in the face shows up
Batman and Superman and for some reason Wonder Woman start punching it in the face together
They punch themselves to victory and await the next thing to punch.

Which, like it or not, is also the plot of every marvel movie.

For the record, what I like about DC right now has precisely nothing to do with them being "darker" or "grittier" - I think Nolan's Batman movies suck, and it's largely because he DOES confuse darkness for depth. Again, that's a superficial, tonal quality.

It's posts like this that taunt me for RMing on my phone.

stip wrote:I don't know that distinctive and visionary are the same thing.

The matrix and LOTR were visionary in that they changed people's expectations for what movies should look like or what they could accomplish. The MCU was/is visionary for the same reason. Can you say that about Snyder?

Calling the MCU "visionary" and comparing it to LOTR or The Matrix seems completely absurd to me. How? In what way? What are they accomplishing? What are they changing? Reducing cinema to superficial plot directed by TV hacks?

Everyone here makes a great point

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:I don't know that distinctive and visionary are the same thing.

The matrix and LOTR were visionary in that they changed people's expectations for what movies should look like or what they could accomplish. The MCU was/is visionary for the same reason. Can you say that about Snyder?

His action sequences are generally what he gets credit for in terms of a "unique style". Also, probably his use of desaturated colors.
I don't find his action sequences all that engaging. And find the vast majority of his editing technics in those action sequences to be distracting and rather pointless.
Also, the movie surrounding his action sequences are generally pretty terrible.

I consider Snyder a visionary not simply because his action sequences and style are unique, but because - crucially - those elements are expressive. They are connected to a deeper exploration of themes and ideas. Style and action kinetics are never fulfilling if they stop short of becoming expressive (this was why Fury Road left me cold). I think Snyder's over-the-top surface tends to make people write him off as an airhead (same way people write off Michael Bay), but I find a wealth of depth, intelligence, insight, and beauty in his work. History as mythology in 300. Historical heritage and its relation to coming-of-age in Legend of the Guardians. Empowerment through appropriation of tools of oppression in Sucker Punch. The American experience in the wake of 9/11 in Man of Steel. His exploration of all of these things, to me, feels cohesive, dynamic, original, and utterly his own. Not since John Milius has a filmmaker had such a profound understanding of myth.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

stip wrote:I don't know that distinctive and visionary are the same thing.

The matrix and LOTR were visionary in that they changed people's expectations for what movies should look like or what they could accomplish. The MCU was/is visionary for the same reason. Can you say that about Snyder?

Calling the MCU "visionary" and comparing it to LOTR or The Matrix seems completely absurd to me. How? In what way? What are they accomplishing? What are they changing? Reducing cinema to superficial plot directed by TV hacks?

The list of MCU directors includes some pretty cool names--certainly people I'm comfortable holding up against Zach Snyder, whose highest RT score is a 75% for dawn of the dead (I love Shane Black, and Cap 2 made me a believer in the Russo brothers). And I'm not a Joss Weadon fanboy (I never gave a shit about Buffy, though I loved Firefly), but he's hardly a hack.

But the simple fact is that the MCU changed the way the entire industry conceptualizes the idea of what a blockbuster film is supposed to be (and Snyder is a blockbuster filmmaker so this is relevant to this conversation)--that self contained stories are also part of a larger meta story that transcends the idea of a sequel (which is just a continuation of several directly and obviously intertwined plot points, or a completely independent story that happens to involve the same characters) and moving into a phase where discrete bouts of storytelling are set within a larger story where these individual unconnected moments are caught up in larger arcs that intertwine in ways that are actually somewhat challenging to the audience insofar as they require you to pay attention to small details across films, reward careful viewing, create connections that don't become relevant until later, juggle increasingly massive plots, and expect you to hold for payoffs that exist across movies and may not even come to fruition until years later.

One of the complaints of age of ultron was that there was too much going on, and that there may have been too much to follow, and too much time was spent setting up future movies. And perhaps that's a fair critique, but it also misses the mark in important ways. Age of Ultron was the first clear indication that the MCU is challenging viewer expectations for what a movie is supposed to be--where we're not necessarily supposed to evaluate them as stand alone pieces of entertainment, but as pieces of a massive puzzle that is gradually revealing itself across 20 films that will span a decade, and whose final value cannot really be judged until we see how it all plays out.

That's a pretty ballsy ambition, and I think it's fair to call it visionary when all the major movie studios are desperate to copy this formula. Look no further than the launch of the DC cinematic universe.

Am I the only one who hopes B locks this thread again?

Great point, stip.

Michael bay redefined what an action blockbuster was. And the prequel's redefined the industry's approach to special effects. I'd place a lot of superhero movies in with that lot.

All that this "universe" stuff is really accomplishing is further expanding (along with some other products) studio expectations as to how long they can keep a franchise solvent...a journey that started a long time ago but is now creating a problematic chokepoint for new or original ideas.

Oh, and mostly just being very boring movies. And I think the idea that something can be mindless, but not stupid (as if those are separate qualities) is a "feels true," nothing more.

I'm gonna be honest, stip: you totally lost me when you brought up an RT score as some kind of relevant barometer of quality. And Joss Whedon is absolutely a hack. Firefly and Serenity are good, but for completely uncinematic reasons. Visually, he is a TV hired gun through and through. The Avengers movies are some of the drabbest, flattest, dullest things I've ever seen.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:I don't know that distinctive and visionary are the same thing.

The matrix and LOTR were visionary in that they changed people's expectations for what movies should look like or what they could accomplish. The MCU was/is visionary for the same reason. Can you say that about Snyder?

His action sequences are generally what he gets credit for in terms of a "unique style". Also, probably his use of desaturated colors.
I don't find his action sequences all that engaging. And find the vast majority of his editing technics in those action sequences to be distracting and rather pointless.
Also, the movie surrounding his action sequences are generally pretty terrible.

I consider Snyder a visionary not simply because his action sequences and style are unique, but because - crucially - those elements are expressive. They are connected to a deeper exploration of themes and ideas. Style and action kinetics are never fulfilling if they stop short of becoming expressive (this was why Fury Road left me cold). I think Snyder's over-the-top surface tends to make people write him off as an airhead (same way people write off Michael Bay), but I find a wealth of depth, intelligence, insight, and beauty in his work. History as mythology in 300. Historical heritage and its relation to coming-of-age in Legend of the Guardians. Empowerment through appropriation of tools of oppression in Sucker Punch. The American experience in the wake of 9/11 in Man of Steel. His exploration of all of these things, to me, feels cohesive, dynamic, original, and utterly his own.

None of those themes are explored in any depth in his movies. How could someone glean any sense of depth out of his movies when they are so surface-level and vacant? Everything he touches is reduced to some kind of teenage masculine fantasy that doesn't lend itself to deeper analysis. You need the characters, dialogue and plot to pull off insight into those themes. None of his movies (I haven't seen the Owl movie) have any of those things and he seems more than happy to sacrifice character development for poorly constructed action sequences.

turned2black wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:I don't know that distinctive and visionary are the same thing.

The matrix and LOTR were visionary in that they changed people's expectations for what movies should look like or what they could accomplish. The MCU was/is visionary for the same reason. Can you say that about Snyder?

His action sequences are generally what he gets credit for in terms of a "unique style". Also, probably his use of desaturated colors.
I don't find his action sequences all that engaging. And find the vast majority of his editing technics in those action sequences to be distracting and rather pointless.
Also, the movie surrounding his action sequences are generally pretty terrible.

I consider Snyder a visionary not simply because his action sequences and style are unique, but because - crucially - those elements are expressive. They are connected to a deeper exploration of themes and ideas. Style and action kinetics are never fulfilling if they stop short of becoming expressive (this was why Fury Road left me cold). I think Snyder's over-the-top surface tends to make people write him off as an airhead (same way people write off Michael Bay), but I find a wealth of depth, intelligence, insight, and beauty in his work. History as mythology in 300. Historical heritage and its relation to coming-of-age in Legend of the Guardians. Empowerment through appropriation of tools of oppression in Sucker Punch. The American experience in the wake of 9/11 in Man of Steel. His exploration of all of these things, to me, feels cohesive, dynamic, original, and utterly his own.

None of those themes are explored in any depth in his movies. How could someone glean any sense of depth out of his movies when they are so surface-level and vacant? Everything he touches is reduced to some kind of teenage masculine fantasy that doesn't lend itself to deeper analysis. You need the characters, dialogue and plot to pull off insight into those themes. None of his movies (I haven't seen the Owl movie) have any of those things and he seems more than happy to sacrifice character development for poorly constructed action sequences.

Disagree with everything you just said. Like I said, I think there is a lot of depth and insight in the exploration. YOU'RE writing them off because of the surface - that's you, not the movie. There's no such thing as a work of art that doesn't lend itself to analysis. You're demonstrating what I said. Also, plot, characters, and dialogue are by no means essential to achieving depth. That's just the most common way movies do it - there are others. And I'd argue the others are often more cinematic, challenging, and complex. The medium offers huge amounts of possibilities. If what you're saying were true, than all experimental or avant-garde cinema would be meaningless.