Does Zack Snyder deserve all the movie hate? 0

[Bosco685]

Last night one of the movie critics from Forbes.com wanted to point out how she felt Zack Snyder fans were using his daughter's death as an excuse for why the movie didn't turn out the way he planned. Which isn't one I heard before.

This led to a number of folks calling out how critics have not been the most friendly people towards his work, and actually making it quite personal with their 'unbiased' comments. Including jokes about his dead mother, who Snyder has even dedicated films to previously.

 

This included a comment from the critic that started the thread, where she noted the weakest parts of Wonder Woman were the scenes Zack Snyder probably had a hand in creating. Like there were some indicators which these were.

I don't remember in any of the Siskel & Ebert TV reviews (1986-1999) for them targeting a director's family, their excitement to destroy things as a form of sexual pleasure or making it a fixation for themselves to gleefully call out a director repeatedly as a focus of hate. Even someone like Gene Shalit (Today Show), serving as a movie critics from 1970 to 2010 always made the focus on the movie, and less about the individual making the film.

Is it truly about Zack Snyder's style and method of directing movies, or is it more about critics going beyond judging movie production quality and making it more personal? Especially assuming parts of a movie they can't even distinguish he contributed to being weak parts of the film.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Bosco685

[jsilverjanet]

I’m convinced that Ayers is in this group as well. Bright isn’t as bad as it was criticized but all the reviews make it seem like it’s turd on film 

[Bosco685]

It seems to be the case, as I agree. Bright was much better than critics made it out to be.

[ComicConnoisseur]

Never realized how some of those critics took personal shots at Snyder. It is one thing to not like his work,but some of their responses were below the belt.

Makes me miss Siskel and Ebert and shows anybody can be a film critic nowadays. 

[Bosco685]

That's the reality of it. If someone gains enough of a following and can publish reviews with enough details and opinions people appreciate, you can become an instant Movie Critic.

[bane]

That’s because Siskel and Ebert were respected, these are just Social Media plonkers. What’s the saying about opinions.....

In the UK I watch Mark Kermode on YouTube, I agree with him 85% of the time.

[Bosco685]

Another item Zack Snyder was beat up about (and quoted multiple times in the Batman v Superman movie thread) was that he wanted to create a movie where Batman gets raped in prison. That is NOT what he said. Yet it has been referenced by critics quite frequently.

He was actually calling this out as part of what it would take to be a director that could truly go dark enough to deliver an appropriate WATCHMEN movie, which others had attempted but backed out of the production.

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: 'Watchmen': A chat with director Zack Snyder (2008)

Quote

EW: Several filmmakers have tried to turn Watchmen into a movie and failed. One issue Hollywood has always had with the material is that it requires an intimate familiarity with the superhero genre in order to fully appreciate it. Does the fact that Watchmen is finally being made into a movie indicate something has changed in the culture?
ZS: The average movie audience has seen — well, I can’t even count the amount of superhero movies. Fantastic Four, X-Men, Superman, Spider-Man. The Marvel universe has gone nuts; we’re going to have a fricking Captain America movie if we’re not careful. Thor, too! We’re on our second Hulk movie. And Iron Man — $300 million domestic box office on a second tier superhero! And not to demean Iron Man — my point is that we all know about superheroes now. I can ask my mother, ”Mom, when the Hulk isn’t the Hulk, who is he?” ”Bruce Banner. Why? What a weird question.” I could ask her, ”What happened to Bruce Wayne’s parents?” ”They were killed at an opera.” You’re getting to that saturation level where superhero movies, it’s hard for them to figure out what more to do.

 

EW: Well, one new point of difference is make them more grim and gritty, like Hancock or The Dark Knight, which seems to also work in Watchmen‘s favor —
ZS: Everyone says that about [Christopher Nolan’s] Batman Begins. ”Batman’s dark.” I’m like, okay, ”No, Batman’s cool.” He gets to go to a Tibetan monastery and be trained by ninjas. Okay? I want to do that. But he doesn’t, like, get raped in prison. That could happen in my movie. If you want to talk about dark, that’s how that would go. I believe that pop culture is just, like, so ready for Watchmen. We tried so hard to ride that wave between satire and reality, and all the things that make you still care about the character, but you don’t miss the commentary about them. Nite-Owl is Batman. The guy has a fricking cave under his house! No doubt a fanboy will look at the movie and not get it. ”He looks just like Batman!” Precisely. When people saw our version of the Ozymandias costume on the Internet, some were like, ”It’s like a Joel Schumacher Batman movie! The costume has nipples! That’s crazy!” And I’m like, ”Yeah, but that’s the point!” With their comic, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons were saying, ”Superheroes are kinda funky, aren’t they?” We build upon that with a movie that acknowledges that superhero movies have affected pop culture.

He was trying to convey if you are truly going to take on something like Watchmen and how dark and realistic it had to be, you have to be open to taking it that far. Not "I can't wait to have a scene in a movie where Batman gets raped."

But by taking that sentence out of the source it was associated with, and what they were covering, it gets made into reality when it was actually fiction. Or at least twisted quoting to make a negative point.

[chrisco37]

I’m not a fan of his style.  It worked well enough on 300, but he’s a bit of a one trick pony.

That said, the tweets/comments from the “critics” (plonkers) are out of line.  

[SuperGrover]

3 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

I’m convinced that Ayers is in this group as well. Bright isn’t as bad as it was criticized but all the reviews make it seem like it’s turd on film 

I also think some of the Bright hate is due to fear in the industry about the Netflix challenge to the status quo.

[Mr Sneeze]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

Another item Zack Snyder was beat up about (and quoted multiple times in the Batman v Superman movie thread) was that he wanted to create a movie where Batman gets raped in prison. That is NOT what he said. Yet it has been referenced by critics quite frequently.

He was actually calling this out as part of what it would take to be a director that could truly go dark enough to deliver an appropriate WATCHMEN movie, which others had attempted but backed out of the production.

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: 'Watchmen': A chat with director Zack Snyder (2008)

Quote

EW: Several filmmakers have tried to turn Watchmen into a movie and failed. One issue Hollywood has always had with the material is that it requires an intimate familiarity with the superhero genre in order to fully appreciate it. Does the fact that Watchmen is finally being made into a movie indicate something has changed in the culture?
ZS: The average movie audience has seen — well, I can’t even count the amount of superhero movies. Fantastic Four, X-Men, Superman, Spider-Man. The Marvel universe has gone nuts; we’re going to have a fricking Captain America movie if we’re not careful. Thor, too! We’re on our second Hulk movie. And Iron Man — $300 million domestic box office on a second tier superhero! And not to demean Iron Man — my point is that we all know about superheroes now. I can ask my mother, ”Mom, when the Hulk isn’t the Hulk, who is he?” ”Bruce Banner. Why? What a weird question.” I could ask her, ”What happened to Bruce Wayne’s parents?” ”They were killed at an opera.” You’re getting to that saturation level where superhero movies, it’s hard for them to figure out what more to do.

 

EW: Well, one new point of difference is make them more grim and gritty, like Hancock or The Dark Knight, which seems to also work in Watchmen‘s favor —
ZS: Everyone says that about [Christopher Nolan’s] Batman Begins. ”Batman’s dark.” I’m like, okay, ”No, Batman’s cool.” He gets to go to a Tibetan monastery and be trained by ninjas. Okay? I want to do that. But he doesn’t, like, get raped in prison. That could happen in my movie. If you want to talk about dark, that’s how that would go. I believe that pop culture is just, like, so ready for Watchmen. We tried so hard to ride that wave between satire and reality, and all the things that make you still care about the character, but you don’t miss the commentary about them. Nite-Owl is Batman. The guy has a fricking cave under his house! No doubt a fanboy will look at the movie and not get it. ”He looks just like Batman!” Precisely. When people saw our version of the Ozymandias costume on the Internet, some were like, ”It’s like a Joel Schumacher Batman movie! The costume has nipples! That’s crazy!” And I’m like, ”Yeah, but that’s the point!” With their comic, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons were saying, ”Superheroes are kinda funky, aren’t they?” We build upon that with a movie that acknowledges that superhero movies have affected pop culture.

He was trying to convey if you are truly going to take on something like Watchmen and how dark and realistic it had to be, you have to be open to taking it that far. Not "I can't wait to have a scene in a movie where Batman gets raped."

But by taking that sentence out of the source it was associated with, and what they were covering, it gets made into reality when it was actually fiction. Or at least twisted quoting to make a negative point.

The internet has made it painfully obvious that some people read what others write just about as well as they listen to them in person with their only focus being what they have to say anyway.

[Mr Sneeze]

I thought MOS was a great film.

I can understand not being a fan of anyone's work but the hate is a bit much.

[AnthonyTheAbyss]

The "outlandish" critiques of Zack Snyder are for clicks.  Tweets have limited number of characters so you have to say something shocking in order to get attention.  Same thing with videos.  You have to stand apart from everybody else by making extreme statements.

 

So no, he doesn't deserve this level of hate but I honestly think the hate is more phony than actual (again, for the clicks).

[Larryw7]

No, he doesn't. No one deserves that kind of vitriol. Like the over the top attacks on George Lucas. It makes fandom look really bad.

[PopKulture]

8 minutes ago, AnthonyTheAbyss said:

The "outlandish" critiques of Zack Snyder are for clicks.  Tweets have limited number of characters so you have to say something shocking in order to get attention.  Same thing with videos.  You have to stand apart from everybody else by making extreme statements.

 

So no, he doesn't deserve this level of hate but I honestly think the hate is more phony than actual (again, for the clicks).

I think there is truth to what you wrote. The above examples are just evidence of a growing sickness where uncivil behavior is the norm.  

[Ken Aldred]

Watchmen Director's Cut, Sucker Punch, Man of Steel, Batman vs Superman Ultimate Edition, enjoyed them all.  

He doesn't deserve the extreme negativity.

[miraclemet]

 There's a reason it didn't "used to be that way"....Used to be every local newspaper had a movie critic, but you never read their words unless you were local (IE back in the Siskel & Ebert Days) Now many of those newspapers are gone, and the small time critics have moved online, but that didn't make them better critics, just gave them a more accessible platform.

Marquee reviewers are far more even handed in an effort to maintain access to directors/producers for future interviews/access.small time reviewers, or those with no access have nothing to gain by "pulling punches" so they are more critical (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly).

I like critics like Andy Greenwald, Firewall & Iceberg (Dan Feinburg and Andy....blanking on it), and some others who are "big time"  but sometimes their reviews are a little rounded on the corners (imo). 

If I look at all the superhero movie directors I'd have to say Snyder is my least favorite. I think Singer's Superman Returns was better directed than Man of Steel. 

[Mr Sneeze]

12 minutes ago, miraclemet said:

 There's a reason it didn't "used to be that way"....Used to be every local newspaper had a movie critic, but you never read their words unless you were local (IE back in the Siskel & Ebert Days) Now many of those newspapers are gone, and the small time critics have moved online, but that didn't make them better critics, just gave them a more accessible platform.

Marquee reviewers are far more even handed in an effort to maintain access to directors/producers for future interviews/access.small time reviewers, or those with no access have nothing to gain by "pulling punches" so they are more critical (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly).

I like critics like Andy Greenwald, Firewall & Iceberg (Dan Feinburg and Andy....blanking on it), and some others who are "big time"  but sometimes their reviews are a little rounded on the corners (imo). 

If I look at all the superhero movie directors I'd have to say Snyder is my least favorite. I think Singer's Superman Returns was better directed than Man of Steel. 

It's funny (or maybe it's not) but I am quite fond of both those movies. Singer's Superman is very well done, very much a love letter to the original.

[miraclemet]

3 minutes ago, Mr Sneeze said:

It's funny (or maybe it's not) but I am quite fond of both those movies. Singer's Superman is very well done, very much a love letter to the original.

I consider the Space plane rescue in Returns to be one of the best superhero movie sequences of the modern superhero era.

[ComicConnoisseur]

31 minutes ago, miraclemet said:

If I look at all the superhero movie directors I'd have to say Snyder is my least favorite. I think Singer's Superman Returns was better directed than Man of Steel.

According to Rotten Tomatoes most would agree with you.

Superman Returns at 75%

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

Man of Steel at 55%

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/

I have to admit I didn't realize how much people liked the Singer version.

Very surprising results to me , and I will have to watch it again.

[Bosco685]

4 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

According to Rotten Tomatoes most would agree with you.

Superman Returns at 75%

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

Man of Steel at 55%

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/

I have to admit I didn't realize how much people liked the Singer version.

Very surprising results to me , and I will have to watch it again.

Not to pick on your post, but you meant 'MOST CRITICS WOULD AGREE...'

AUDIENCE SCORE:

- Superman Returns: 61%, 3.3/5.0, 516,694 contributors

- Man of Steel: 75%, 3.9/5.0, 445,767 contributors

Continue on with the story.