Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:49 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman. 
Author Message
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
MGamesCook wrote:
Having watched the three clips (which many may want to avoid), I can say...

The Zod clip is impressive; in terms of action, far bolder than anything in Nolan's career, and just in 75 seconds. But...

The Lane/Perry clip: Snyder seems to be imitating Nolan's style. Well, maybe not. We'll see.

And Cavill's performance...I dunno. Too early to call. Superman is always a tough character in terms of likeability. He needs the comic relief scenes present in the first two films, and I'm not sure he's gonna get them here.

Is this really necessary?

At this point, all of us are aware that you dislike Nolan tremendously. Do you really have to state your disdain for him in every post?

If you are trying to let us know that you don't care for his films, then the message has been heard loud and clear.

If you're trying to change our opinions, then you aren't really doing a particularly good job of it. At this point, I know that I am a fan of Nolan's films. I can see how many might feel that he is a good, but not great, filmmaker. At the same time, I have no desire to try to change the way they think of his work.

This is a legitimate question. I honestly want to know why you give Nolan so much flak.


Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:53 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1361
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Quote:
This is a legitimate question. I honestly want to know why you give Nolan so much flak.


Well since you ask, I believe Nolan, as a director, consciously stands against everything I've loved about movies for my entire life: a sense of fun, adventure, self-deprecating humor, visual beauty, exotic wonder, larger than life plots, characters, and situations, and a spectacular display of emotions. There are so many great films which exemplify these qualities. I wouldn't go so far as to say Nolan detests all of those things. Clearly he wants his plots and characters to be larger than life, anyway. I think he simply lacks the competence to pull any one of them off. The experience of watching one of his movies is just as unpleasant either way. His sickeningly ugly compositions, total lack of pacing, and a self-seriousness which suggests he shot out of his mother's womb already wearing a white shirt and jacket.

Quote:
Is this really necessary?


Not only is it necessary, it's actually...100% relevant to this thread :?

Two years ago, when I first started railing against Dark Knight, I was in a much smaller minority than I am now. At the time, talk of a "Nolanite" fanbase was considered bad manners. Now, after Rises, it's common knowledge. It's also a different time now. With 007 becoming a billion dollar franchise once more, and even what was once a B-series, Fast and Furious, completely dominating its summer slot, Nolan ain't the only talk of the town anymore; which he WAS at the time.

But the real reason I have trouble letting it go is the onslot of verbal abuse I have received not online, but IN PERSON from his fans for the last several years. My girlfriend was verbally attacked in a theater when a man who looked about 45 started railing on her after she spoke the words "The Dark Knight is overrated." The reason I keep bringing it up is two fold:

1. His movies continue to be violently hyped.

2. Because I believe, and I'm not the only one, that there is something strangely wrong with Nolan's fanbase. I've experienced in on the internet, and in person, from more incidents besides just the above example. And even after all this time, I have no explanation for it. I'm completely stumped. Maybe you can enlighten me as to why the initial praise for what might have been at best a solid batman movie, devolved into a relentless cult obsession which can only be explained by...I dunno, a sort of tangential frenzy that took off at the time. But the difference between that frenzy and the Star Wars frenzy is that people actually took The Dark Knight to be serious! As serious as a movie could be. And that, in my opinion, is the secret of what's wrong with the Nolan fanbase. Why so serious indeed. I love movies, but I don't feel the need to take them as seriously as all that.


Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:28 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2892
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
I like Nolan's films for the most part, though I do find him overrated as a whole and Cook is spot on about one thing, some of his fans are seriously deranged. I remember reading all those hateful comments in RT towards any critic who dared give The Dark Knight Rises a not-so-positive review, and there were actual death threats towards critics and anyone who disagreed, and not just a few, there were dozens of them, it was pretty unsettling to see people that obsessed with Nolan.


Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:24 pm
Profile
Online
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1059
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
I am sorry for your girlfriend being verbally attacked, but I'm curious: did she express this opinion normally, like if she just finished the movie (it is a very weird phrase to throw out in theater except she just finished watching the movie that she commented on), or did she express it like you do on this board, randomly and baiting and condescending? If it's the latter it still doesn't excuse that person to be verbally abusive, but it might clear up why someone takes an issue to your opinions (and this doesn't stop at Nolan topics).

And there is something very wrong with your logic: just because you feel it's unjustly hyped or people are unjustly shunned asides when they fairly criticize the movie in a levelheaded way (which so far on this board you don't do it that way), so you feel the need to do the same but in opposite direction, spraying your hate and indignant feelings around in a way that ire people. How is that not taking the films seriously like you claim you don't (just opposite way of those fans)? There are a lot of people on this board that hate or don't like the Nolan batman films as much as the most devoted fan (for example Vexer), but they don't get the flak that you do because they don't feel the need to insult or bait or condescendingly assume things about those with different opinions.

As for me personally, when I see someone expressing dislike or criticism of the films, I see if it's the things that are worth discussing further (aspects of filmmaking, characters, scenes) or if it's just a total opinion that they don't care for the film. If it's the latter, we just agree to disagree. I'm sorry if you don't have this kind of respectful disagreeing on internet or in real life, but that doesn't excuse having the same trollish behaviors to other people.


Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:25 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1361
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Quote:
did she express this opinion normally, like if she just finished the movie (it is a very weird phrase to throw out in theater except she just finished watching the movie that she commented on)


It's normal for me, pretty much every conversation I have with anyone is related to movies one way or another.

Quote:
And there is something very wrong with your logic


A lot of the time, I should remember the closing lines of Masculin Feminin: "desire to obtain objective consensus is really just a mode of being judgmental."

But this is a loaded statement:

Quote:
they don't feel the need to insult or bait or condescendingly assume things about those with different opinions.


There's a lot of ambiguity about the word "bait." You could say the expression of any strong opinion is baiting because inevitably there's someone who strongly disagrees. "Who shot first" doesn't always have a clear answer.

But I've never consciously tried to assume things about anyone. About large groups, yes, like Nolanites or Trekkies. But not about individuals. But I am interested in studying peoples' responses to movies, and the reasons for them. Deeply interested in that. I'm sorry if I come off as too angry, or too negative, but I'm comfortable so long as my feelings are honest.

I reserve my right to bothered by the fact that one person has usurped control of not one, but both of the top two superheroes of all time. And I have no problem mounting the argument that Nolan himself feeds the flames of his fanbase. At first, I thought handing the reins to Snyder was an act of humility, but boy by these reviews it sure doesn't sound like it. A little humility isn't a lot to ask for IMO.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:17 am
Profile
Online
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1059
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Yeah at first I'm debating myself whether to use "bait". I seem to remember one instance of conversation that make me really believe that so I go with it, but since it's some time ago and I can't remember the specifics to support it I suppose it isn't a fair word to use now.

And if you really don't see in the "when 2013 is going to get good" thread, for example, how your generalization of people that might put some of the blockbusters in their end of year top 10 as a guaranteed thing and of people who don't like Bullet to the Head or Resident Evil as being prejudiced (the latter generalization is especially rich in irony) are condescending in their broad assumption, you and I have a very different meaning for those words and I suppose there is nothing that can be done with that.

(And, sorry I just couldn't resist just this once, your last paragraph just makes me sigh again in your truly fantastical assumption about Nolan's "feeding the flame" and "humility", and that thought doesn't even occur from any interview or any word ever coming out of his own mouth, but on a few reviews of a movie you haven't yet seen. Your mind really works in mysterious ways)


Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:43 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1361
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Quote:
people who don't like Bullet to the Head or Resident Evil as being prejudiced (the latter generalization is especially rich in irony)


It is rich in irony, no matter which side you're on or what angle you look at it. I pointed out how some people are prejudiced against low budget B movies, and someone else pointed out how I'm equally prejudiced in the opposite direction. But consider this: the early action directors, Raoul Walsh, Anthony Mann, Howard Hawks, Robert Siodmak worked with the kind of budgets that would make Taken look like Avatar.

Films like White Heat and Winchester '73 made with what in today's dollars would be something around 15 million on average. But they were action movies! Extremely high octane and forceful for their time, and they still come across just as much so today (for me at least). They new how to make spectacle out of very limited means. And I do believe Winchester is a greater spectacle, specifically, than Inception, any of the Bourne films, etc. To see that final shootout on a big screen is extraordinary. Then later, more money started being spent, but even Ben Hur, adjusted for inflation, is absolutely nothing next to these superhero movies. And the simple truth I'm seeing here is this: those people were auteurs. They were intimate auteurs, and you can feel them speaking to you in every frame while simultaneously managing to translate their voices into grand presentations.

Even the action movies today that I like, Bullet to the Head, Transporter, Resident Evil, Good Day to Die Hard, Skyfall, Fast 6, I can't honestly say affect me as much as those old ones. The intimacy, sharpness, and pacing of the oldies are simply incomparable. Maybe the characters in Avengers are pretty cool. Maybe The Dark Knight Rises does have powerful themes. Maybe Gatsby was a good adaptation. But it's hard for me to see those things with the big pile of money blocking the screen.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:20 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Cook,

So you enjoy and were moved by Skyfall and Fast and the Furious 6? Well, from Wikipedia, Skyfall's budget was between $150-200 million and Fast 6 took $160 million to make.

You said "but it's hard for me to see those things with the big pile of money blocking the screen."

I don't know, but $200 million is a hell of a lot of money. The Avengers cost $220 million to make. The Dark Knight cost $185 million to make.

You sound an awful lot like a hypocrite.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:59 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
people who don't like Bullet to the Head or Resident Evil as being prejudiced (the latter generalization is especially rich in irony)


It is rich in irony, no matter which side you're on or what angle you look at it. I pointed out how some people are prejudiced against low budget B movies, and someone else pointed out how I'm equally prejudiced in the opposite direction. But consider this: the early action directors, Raoul Walsh, Anthony Mann, Howard Hawks, Robert Siodmak worked with the kind of budgets that would make Taken look like Avatar.

Films like White Heat and Winchester '73 made with what in today's dollars would be something around 15 million on average. But they were action movies! Extremely high octane and forceful for their time, and they still come across just as much so today (for me at least). They new how to make spectacle out of very limited means. And I do believe Winchester is a greater spectacle, specifically, than Inception, any of the Bourne films, etc. To see that final shootout on a big screen is extraordinary. Then later, more money started being spent, but even Ben Hur, adjusted for inflation, is absolutely nothing next to these superhero movies. And the simple truth I'm seeing here is this: those people were auteurs. They were intimate auteurs, and you can feel them speaking to you in every frame while simultaneously managing to translate their voices into grand presentations.

Even the action movies today that I like, Bullet to the Head, Transporter, Resident Evil, Good Day to Die Hard, Skyfall, Fast 6, I can't honestly say affect me as much as those old ones. The intimacy, sharpness, and pacing of the oldies are simply incomparable. Maybe the characters in Avengers are pretty cool. Maybe The Dark Knight Rises does have powerful themes. Maybe Gatsby was a good adaptation. But it's hard for me to see those things with the big pile of money blocking the screen.

Well, I don't believe that it is fair to lump all "Nolan-ites" into one category. I have come to the realization that The Dark Knight Rises is not one of Nolan's masterpieces, but I still believe that it was the best blockbuster of last summer. I have no problem with the way in which Nolan's films are shot. Pfister did an excellent job as cinematographer, and it will be interesting to see who Nolan picks to film Interstellar. I can understand how many might feel that Nolan is too self-serious, but I would much rather have a comic-book film steeped in realism rather than one which takes itself too seriously. TDKR did not have the impact on me that TDK had, but it still did a fine job blending contemporary themes with the more fantastical story elements.

It all boils down to this: Nolan is a much, much smarter blockbuster director than many other filmmakers working in the industry today. With Inception, he managed to prove that a summer movie did not have to be on the same level as Transformers; he showed that a film could be visually stunning, yet also captivating on an intellectual level. Now, with the Batman films over, I hope to see him return to his roots. I want to see what he can do with other genres, especially sci-fi and crime films. In fact, there are times when I wonder what Nolan could have accomplished had he continued to make lower-budget dramas and thrillers. I just hope that Interstellar matches the standard that he has set.

Obviously, discussion of Nolan's involvement with MoS is relevant, but that doesn't mean that you have to constantly attack him with every opportunity that you get. You're more than welcome to, but after a while, it just becomes predictable. Obviously, you are not the only person who dislikes his films, but I think that many are being far too critical when it comes to Nolan. It's almost as if some would much rather go through another summer of mindless blockbusters, without having to see a flawed, yet intelligent, big-budget movie.

Can you explain to me why you believe that someone like Adam Sandler is operating on a much higher artistic plane than Nolan?


Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:41 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1374
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
in 2010, Cook posted a youtube video calling Dark Knight one of the 10 best movies of the decade(2000-2009) which I'm sure some of you are aware of. so why are you wasting your time debating this over and over again? bored?


Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:51 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
calvero wrote:
in 2010, Cook posted a youtube video calling Dark Knight one of the 10 best movies of the decade(2000-2009) which I'm sure some of you are aware of. so why are you wasting your time debating this? bored?

I'm just looking for concise, specific reasons. Otherwise, I really don't care.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:54 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1361
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Quote:
Can you explain to me why you believe that someone like Adam Sandler is operating on a much higher artistic plane than Nolan?


I've never claimed that Sandler was on any artistic plane, his films are amusing.

Quote:
You sound an awful lot like a hypocrite.


If you think the expenditures of Avengers stopped at 220 million, you're being blissfully ignorant.

Quote:
but I would much rather have a comic-book film steeped in realism


Realism you mean like the hover craft?

Quote:
With Inception, he managed to prove that a summer movie did not have to be on the same level as Transformers; he showed that a film could be visually stunning, yet also captivating on an intellectual level.


No, he proved that enough people believed that to be true for Inception to be a box office success. That's all.

Quote:
It's almost as if some would much rather go through another summer of mindless blockbusters, without having to see a flawed, yet intelligent, big-budget movie.


Almost as if some of us aren't pretentious. And tell me something, if it's so intelligent and intellectual, with such a compelling story, why does it need so much action?


Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:13 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Cook,

Do you know how much Avengers went over $220 million? How can you say im being blisfully ignorant without proving it with figures? Do you have actual figures that say otherwise? How do you know Skyfall and Fast 6 didn't go way over $200 mill and $160 mill? I'm going to venture you have no clue, and you have admitted that you like at least those 2 movies that have extreme budgets, but also admitted that all you see is money on the screens of other big budget films, and thus can't relate /enjoy the characters, themes, actual movie, ect.

Well which is it? It's ok for some movies to use a big budget but not others? You are the definition of a hypocrite.

You can't even come up with anything other than I'm being ignorant...same cook bullshit, differnent day.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:31 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
Can you explain to me why you believe that someone like Adam Sandler is operating on a much higher artistic plane than Nolan?


I've never claimed that Sandler was on any artistic plane, his films are amusing.

Quote:
You sound an awful lot like a hypocrite.


If you think the expenditures of Avengers stopped at 220 million, you're being blissfully ignorant.

Quote:
but I would much rather have a comic-book film steeped in realism


Realism you mean like the hover craft?

Quote:
With Inception, he managed to prove that a summer movie did not have to be on the same level as Transformers; he showed that a film could be visually stunning, yet also captivating on an intellectual level.


No, he proved that enough people believed that to be true for Inception to be a box office success. That's all.

Quote:
It's almost as if some would much rather go through another summer of mindless blockbusters, without having to see a flawed, yet intelligent, big-budget movie.


Almost as if some of us aren't pretentious. And tell me something, if it's so intelligent and intellectual, with such a compelling story, why does it need so much action?

1. Because an intelligent movie without action has very little, if any, potential to become a tremendous summer blockbuster. Warner Bros. wanted to make millions of dollars. Nolan wanted to take a break from Batman. You can fill in the rest.

2. An action movie can be intelligent. A movie can have lots of intricate set pieces and yet still manage to make its audience (how did James put it?) "engage the intellect".

3. How is it pretentious to hate big-budget movies which kill brain cells? You were just saying that a pile of money obscures anything that Nolan attempts to make.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:25 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1361
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Quote:
You can't even come up with anything other than I'm being ignorant...same cook bullshit, differnent day.


Sure, sure. It's a well known industry fact that studios now understate the budgets of their biggest films. It's also a well known fact (and I don't have to cite an internet source, I've spoken directly with primary sources) that studios often try to make it seem like the box office intake from big movies came in part from smaller movies. For example, it's well known that Avatar, at the end of the day, cost close to half a billion. I suspect Avengers cost well over 300 million to produce. If those industry facts aren't good enough for you, how bout simple observation of the movie itself? It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that a realistic-looking hover craft and a completely CGI new york with CGI metallic worms cost a wee more than a well-photographed trip to Scotland.

Quote:
1. Because an intelligent movie without action has very little, if any, potential to become a tremendous summer blockbuster.


So why didn't Nolan just make a cerebral sci-fi film for like 40 million? Who's the director, Nolan or Warner Bros?

Quote:
2. An action movie can be intelligent.


What about the action itself? Can't action be intelligent just on its own, in terms of choreography, editing, etc.? Action has aesthetic standards too, just like storytelling.

Quote:
3. How is it pretentious to hate big-budget movies which kill brain cells?


It's not. I hate them too. Transformers 3 = one of the worst movie experiences I've ever had. What's pretentious is saying that some big budget action tentpoles are okay. I mean, maybe I just hallucinated people praising The Dark Knight for its lack of reliance on CGI. In fact, that was one of the few positive things about it. No CGI; right on. That's also what the Bourne series was praised for. But those are the same people who praise Avengers 4 years later, which easily has as much CGI as Transformers, probably a lot more. Roastbeef, you were saying something about hypocrites...

I'll revise my original statement. I can't see through all that money on the screen...mainly when it comes in the form of CGI.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:58 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
You can't even come up with anything other than I'm being ignorant...same cook bullshit, differnent day.


Sure, sure. It's a well known industry fact that studios now understate the budgets of their biggest films. It's also a well known fact (and I don't have to cite an internet source, I've spoken directly with primary sources) that studios often try to make it seem like the box office intake from big movies came in part from smaller movies. For example, it's well known that Avatar, at the end of the day, cost close to half a billion. I suspect Avengers cost well over 300 million to produce. If those industry facts aren't good enough for you, how bout simple observation of the movie itself? It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that a realistic-looking hover craft and a completely CGI new york with CGI metallic worms cost a wee more than a well-photographed trip to Scotland.

Quote:
1. Because an intelligent movie without action has very little, if any, potential to become a tremendous summer blockbuster.


So why didn't Nolan just make a cerebral sci-fi film for like 40 million? Who's the director, Nolan or Warner Bros?

Quote:
2. An action movie can be intelligent.


What about the action itself? Can't action be intelligent just on its own, in terms of choreography, editing, etc.? Action has aesthetic standards too, just like storytelling.

Quote:
3. How is it pretentious to hate big-budget movies which kill brain cells?


It's not. I hate them too. Transformers 3 = one of the worst movie experiences I've ever had. What's pretentious is saying that some big budget action tentpoles are okay. I mean, maybe I just hallucinated people praising The Dark Knight for its lack of reliance on CGI. In fact, that was one of the few positive things about it. No CGI; right on. That's also what the Bourne series was praised for. But those are the same people who praise Avengers 4 years later, which easily has as much CGI as Transformers, probably a lot more. Roastbeef, you were saying something about hypocrites...

I'll revise my original statement. I can't see through all that money on the screen...mainly when it comes in the form of CGI.

So, what about Die Hard 5 and the Resident Evil movies?

I think that the action sequences in Nolan's films work, and I don't believe that CGI is a bad thing. It becomes a problem when it's combined with weak storytelling.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:37 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1361
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Quote:
So, what about Die Hard 5 and the Resident Evil movies?


They use CGI sparingly, which is how it should be used. Die Hard 5 wrecked 160 real cars, not CGI cars. RE5 is mostly elaborately built sets like Skyfall. The only pure CGI sequence was the flooding of the compound and most of the final shot.

Quote:
It becomes a problem when it's combined with weak storytelling.


CGI IS weak storytelling. This is a visual medium. You can't just say visuals and story are two separate things. It's all of a piece. In Notorious, Hitchcock's camera swoops down from the top story to reveal the key in Ingrid Bergman's hand. That's the visual aspect, and that's the storytelling. When the shark rips the pier off in Jaws, and the pier turns around to come chase the guy, that's visual storytelling. So tell me how a bunch of ones and zeros punched into a computer can possibly make for strong visual storytelling.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:59 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
So, no truly great film can feature tremendous amounts of CGI? Is that what you're saying?


Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:00 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1361
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Sean wrote:
So, no truly great film can feature tremendous amounts of CGI? Is that what you're saying?


Absolutely. Apart from animation, which is quite arguably a different art form. Besides, once you go past a certain threshold with CGI it basically IS an animated film. Isn't the point of a live action superhero to contrast with cartoons? Otherwise, might as well just watch the cartoons.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:12 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
You seem excited about Man of Steel. That has plenty of CGI, right?

It seems fairly prejudiced to dismiss all CGI-heavy films as lazy. What if Man of Steel succeeds in terms of direction, acting, editing, cinematography, score, costume design, production design, choreography, sound design, and makeup, but just happens to make use of extensive CGI? Would you still hate it?


Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:35 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], peng and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr