Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2011
    It is more important to entertain than it is to have depth. If you can't keep the audience engaged, you can be telling them all the secrets in the world and no one will give a fuck.
  1.  (8644.82)
    "It is more important to entertain than it is to have depth" - Yeesh.
  2.  (8644.83)
    Hmm, this thread seems to be turning ugly. If it was for anything I said that offended, I apologize.

    So I will try to be more clear with what I say.

    I am not trying to convince you to like Zach Snyder. That is not my argument. None of what you said is false in any way. In fact, I agree with every point you have made, and I now know exactly why you hate Zach Snyder.

    My argument for liking Zach Snyder is simple. I have a sweet tooth for visual eye candy. You might say I would consider Zach Snyder the Willi Wonka of the movie industry:)

    Which is why I'm having a little problem with the tone of your posts, I'm sort of getting and undertone of arrogance in it. Like your implying that your taste is somehow better for hating Snyder and my taste is worse for liking him. If I read this wrong, than I apologize. Or if you responded this way because you read something in my posts then once again I apologize, i should have been clearer.

    I guess in the end the argument Im trying to make is this: Taste is in the eye of the beholder.

    For example, I just got a chance to finally see Visitor Q and......God help me. I think its a goddam masterpiece! Dark humor wrapped in a bizzaro, perverted family movie. Blew my mind. For the love of god. Don't see this movie! Stay the hell away from it! Yes, it's that good. Bad. Whatever.
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2011
    "It is more important to entertain than it is to have depth" - Yeesh.

    No, there's something of a fair point there. Though I tend to read "entertain" as engage. Think of any movie you liked, from Star Wars to Schindler's List. Didn't they manage to engage you when you watched them? Have you ever liked (or at least respected) any movie that failed to engage you? I thinking no.

    Hell, forget movies and think about your favorite teachers from school. Weren't your favorite teachers the ones who engaged you the most, and by extension also the ones who taught you the most? Like that.
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2011

    I don't mean to sound arrogant, I'm just used to being somewhat unforgiving when making my argument. I was trying to be careful not to point fingers or name names, and not say "Anyone who enjoys this," and rather invoke the intention of the film rather than its impacted audience. It would certainly be erroneous to assume things like "anyone who liked this movie is a genre enamored nerd," (or some similar reductive ad hominem) but I think it's a safe bet to assume that they're who Snyder made the film for.

    Again, I don't hate Snyder, I find him boring.

    It's good that you like eye candy! I'm honestly glad someone got enjoyment out of what I thought was a giant waste of time (no sarcasm). It begins to redeem my previous opinion. Like you said, different strokes and all that. I totally respect your ability to enjoy the film, and I don't take objection to you as a person or your tastes as they are at all. I'm just responding to your arguments. It really is that mechanical, so bygones, etc. Sorry about that snark at the end, there, too. That was kind of dick thing to say.

    Re: Entertainment > depth. So much wrong with this comparison. For one, it suggests they exist in binary. Yeah, movies are "entertainment," but that doesn't mean they have to be stupid. There are films that are massively entertaining for a variety of reasons that still retain their depth. As for it being more important, well, just "no" to that. Everyone has different tastes, so there are a billion ways to make something entertaining. I defy you to quantify it.
    • CommentAuthorMartinSheen
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2011 edited
    "It is more important to entertain than it is to have depth" - Yeesh.

    aaaaaa.... :)

    You guys crack me up.

    I have sat through a lot of films that I knew were going to be boring as hell, because I knew they were in some way an important peice of work. I guess I would say that it was a rewarding experience. Like listening to a lecture:) I don't know what my point is. I don't think you guys do anymore either:p I'm not trying to dig into anyone it's quite interesting reading it all:)

    edit: It's apples and oranges
    edit2: what am i saying? It's only movies with depth that do entertain me:p ! If Suckerpunch is going to be what everyone here says its like then i'll be bored stupid... unless im stoned. In which case i'll just daydream my own stories to go with the action scenes:)
  3.  (8644.87)
    I don't mean to sound arrogant, I'm just used to being somewhat unforgiving when making my argument.

    Actually, I'm the same way. I just learned to be in my best behavior at whitechapel. Something to do with an angry bald internet jesus and arse eels, it just sounds unpleasant.

    So to recap, you think Zach Snyder is boring. I think he's tasty eye candy. I think we just agreed to disagree. I think there are a few politicians that can learn from us:)
  4.  (8644.88)
    I have been quite absorbed by going over the various interpretations of the things that happened in Sucker Punch since I saw it yesterday.
    I thought it was brilliant. Yes some of the dialogue was a little on the nose and the dragon vs plane sequence didn't thrill me like I hoped. But that's it for complaints from me.
    I think Synder has constructed a film that's going to reward repeat viewings and find its audience when it gets to DVD/Blu Ray.
    It's an arthouse film being marketed as a blockbuster, people were always going to be disappointed.
    It requires people to pay more attention than you would plan to if you expect the film the trailers have been selling, sadly.
    The very first shot of the film, you can see it as a piece of visual trickery, or you can think about it later, when you have seen all the parts of the film and realise that from that opening, Synder is setting up a very particular type of story.

    In case that's not clear, I dug the hell out of this film :)
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2011
    The action sequences were stunning. The overuse of Snyder slo mo was irritating, the dialogue and its delivery was awful the less said about the story the better, but as action films go it is a feast for the eyes.
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2011 edited
    I think I should clarify my point a little. I'm not suggesting that you cannot have depth if you aim to entertain. My point is that there are movies that work without having any deeper meaning because they're entertaining, while the opposite is not true. I enjoy Army of Darkness just as much as I enjoy Citizen Kane, if for completely different reasons. They're both engaging the whole way through, even though only one of them has any real depth.

    Hell, forget movies and think about your favorite teachers from school. Weren't your favorite teachers the ones who engaged you the most, and by extension also the ones who taught you the most? Like that.

    A fine way of putting it.
    • CommentAuthorlucien
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2011 edited
    there is generally a recognizable difference between quality and personal taste.
    • CommentAuthorBankara
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2011
    As long as we are going to enter into the whole Style VS substance arguement I would recommend this article.

    To summarize if you don't want to read the whole thing: don't blame the director, blame the studios for thinking they know better than you what you want and how fucking stupid they think you are. I haven't actually seen CoochiePunch yet but as much as I like visuals I also like to be made to think a little bit when I go to the movies and I really don't think that I should be asked to choose between the two.

    I would also recommend reading the NYTimes A.O. Scotts review of Transformers 2 where he accuses Michael Bay of accidently making a Jodorowsky-esque art film because of its relentless refusal to develop a plot and its insistance on being completely visually driven. Fucking hilarious.
    • CommentAuthorMartinSheen
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2011 edited
    just saw it.
    couldn't wait for it to end.

    I kept waiting for them to get back to the bordella reality, where at least there seemed to be some kind of plot.

    Interesting failure.

    edit: *bordello
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2011
    I liked the music.
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2011
    I saw it opening night. The only thing I could say then was, "I enjoyed it, but I'm still not sure if I liked it or not."
    That sentiment still remains.
    Visually, musically.... Just fantastic.

    I'm just not sure if I LIKED it significantly more than a two hour bender of MTV2 while intoxicated.
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2011
    The plot was dire ("We need five items..." Whatever). The soundtrack was excruciating (Pixies cover - twice - kill me now). I wanted so badly to like this film but it was the emptiest, worst-written piece of crap since Avatar. Throughout, the sustained brutality towards women and treatment of them as chattel was deeply uncomfortable to watch. Pains me to say it, because I love Snyder's films, but this essentially backs up all the arguments against his work that I've ever heard. It looked pretty, but I could not wait for it to end. It's PKD for morons, through a veneer of specfic /fantasy cliches with no context or meaning, welded to an unpleasant, glossy misogyny. Felt like watching someone play a rubbish video game. What a piece of shit. Sigh.
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2011
    Weird how so many people seem to hate this, yet it's probably the most talked about film of the past few years, since... oh... Watchmen.
  5.  (8644.98)
    Plot - has me thinking a lot. I liked it because there is room in the movie for taking from it what you will. What is metaphor? What isn't? What is happening in the meta-levels of this movie while things happen in the real world?

    I found myself thinking the action would be for the men, and plot would be for the women, rounding things out rather well. A cult movie for sure.

    Want to know what my girlfriend would think of this. Is this a movie about strong females? I wouldn't say it is, but it is also a Hollywood film w/o a happy ending, which I'm sure left a bitter taste in a lot of people's mouths.