|
It would be funny if the zombie outbreak casino heist movie ends up being his Fountainhead adaptation.
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
Also, I want that Gym Jones shirt.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:Should have locked the thread after the first 2 replies bc I don't really know what else needs to be said 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
This little moment is so loving good.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:Paul W.S. Anderson's films are much more entertaining than Snyder's. Each Resident Evil film has more commentary going on than all of Snyder's films put together. I look forward to your Paul WS Anderson megathread and the Event Horizon memes that it will inspire.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Maybe if James Gunn consulted Snyder the same way James Wan did. The two already have an established working relationship since Snyder directed Gunn's script for Dawn of the Dead. Suicide Squad 2's going to be off the hook.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
gently caress me, 100 dollars for a ticket. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:My God Snyder fans are the worst. Word on the street is the opposite interpretation is true.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Do you guys think Zack Snyder voted for Hillary? If so, was he reluctant or enthusiastic? I heard he wrote in Ralph Nader. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I don't see why you'd have much faith in Snyder to make a Fountainhead that wasn't a screed, though. Probably the same reason why people didn't immediately think Kubrick was making an ode to Vietnam when he adapted Full Metal Jacket. There's this thing called "context," you should look it up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:The point is none of these happened, kiddo; The only potential film I'm worried about as "foisting propaganda" on the public is an adaptation of The Fountainhead Grimoire, which the acolyte Snyder adheres to. I never said he was spreading it through his other films (in part because barely knows how to communicate anything in his films). You just seem to have this weird fixture on criticism of Snyder's ideology or ignorance.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Verhoeven famously hated the book and was up front about how terrible it was and how little of a poo poo he gave about it. (You still get actual reactionaries latching onto "Would you like to know more?" and "I'm from [X] and I say kill 'em all!" too, even though it's about the most effective parody I could possibly imagine. I wonder if it's even possible to avoid that.) He famously hated it (to the point that he didn't even read it), but Starship Troopers, like 300, was absolutely seen as pro-fascist by its critics at the time, not just fringe reactionaries. It's weird that you're trying to rewrite history when a lot of the negative reviews from the era are still around, along with a ton of "looking back" retrospectives on how the movie was misunderstood during it's time (like 300!). Starship Troopers: One of the Most Misunderstood Movies Ever Why Everyone Gets Robocop But Nobody Gets Starship Troopers   "Roger Ebert posted:If "Star Wars'' is humanist, "Starship Troopers'' is totalitarian. Ebert's review of 300 reads very similarly to his review for Starship Troopers, funnily enough, where he's blinded by the spectacle to ever really focus on the message.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
Zack Snyder is a fashionista.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Poor Brandon Routh Routh found a home on CW's Legends of Tomorrow at least, and he's been killing it as Ray Palmer. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
ruddiger fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Mar 6, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:this thread delivers, i gotta say Agreed, Slutition's probation was pretty hilarious. Jimbot posted:Zack Snyder's upcoming zombie heist film is going to be allegory of the exploitation of the global south by capitalism. I seriously can't wait. Just thinking about the news makes me want to watch Dawn '04 again.        
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The best line in Dawn of the Dead '04 is "gently caress y'all", or the repeated answer of "we don't know" by the WH press secretary in the intro. CJ's last line is pretty great too. "loving figures..."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The beautiful thing about ga'hoole is that it doesn't have any lore. I was wondering if it was an existing IP or not, and apparently it's based off of a SIXTEEN book series.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_Ga%27Hoole
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Mekhi Phifer's in Dawn '04, not Taye Diggs. Kanye kinda made a similar mistake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JAvDgh3rxk Kanye West posted:I was In Too Deep like Mekhi Phife... Omar Epps is in In Too Deep, not Mekhi Phifer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Rap1ok1do ruddiger fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Mar 8, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
Justice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2019 09:20
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:The male gaze claim is not that an rear end is visible and you are being deliberately obtuse by trying to say it is Male gaze doesn't refer to objectifying of body parts. They are body parts. They're already objects. That shot from Vertigo is the POV of someone (the protagonist? the audience? It doesn't matter who in this case, as both are one in the same in this matter) leering at a woman who doesn't notice that she's being objectified by the leery gaze of the camera.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Actually if you take a look back at the screen shot you will see the leg remains relatively fixed in its orientation creating a parabola of motion which tends to centralize the non-moving fulcrum of motion as the focal point. Her rear end is incidental to the camera movement, not the focus of the shot. Note that the shot starts off as an over the shoulder two-fer, swings out to focus on the antagonist and Silk Spectre, then follows through on her kick, her bottom only becomes visible once the camera starts following her foot and lands on your screenshot for less than a second before proceeding to the next cut. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Some examples of those women?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Im not sure what you intend for this to prove I thought you asked for examples of female protagonists who don't fall under whatever you're claiming male gaze is. I can think of very few shots of the camera lingering on Sarah Polley's character in a exploitatively gazey way (unless it's motivated by the scene, like the hazily long shot of Sarah Polley looking out her car at the people being attacked on the highway bus for example), or any other female characters in Dawn for that matter. The one sex scene in the movie is pretty obscured by gym equipment from what I remember.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah but your gif doesnt demonstrate a cohesive whole of her depiction so it comes off as a lazy non sequitur How so? You asked for examples of characters, I gave you his very first female lead. It's not my fault you can't infer the answer to your own question.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:this is a really dumb argument because neither of you are actually going to go back and watch the movie and any gif, whether it does or doesn't depict women in a sexualized way, is going to be seen as cherrypicking from a larger whole that both of you have different memories of. I have a pretty good memory of Dawn 04, but you're right in that I should back up my stance so let's see if I leave anything out. Sarah Polley's character is first introduced in a hospital OR, wearing scrubs. Nothing male gazey from that scene comes to mind as it's all set up, giving you glimpses of the chaos to come. In the next scene, she has a chat with a little girl in the street before she comes home to her husband/lover I forgot about Sarah Polley's sex scene in the earlier part of the movie when I replied to Mel, but the sex scene is completely obscured by the steam on the shower curtain. This shot is also thematically motivated as the shower comes into play later on, when Sarah's character is being attacked by her lover turned zombie. Then the outbreak happens. Her lover is bit and turns, he chases her into the bathroom. There are shots here that can be misconstrued as male gazey, but again, they are thematically motivated and the focus is on the action, not the object. The long lingering shot of her foot as it inches toward the carpet helps establish tone, the fear of retreat/retread, and pacing. The harsh overhead shot of Polley slamming into the tub is a stark parody of the slow tracking shot of the sex scene from earlier. Then she escapes from the house, gets chased to her car, sees the bus crash (another lingering shot of Sarah Polley in the car, but again, it's to establish her hazy frame of mind. She's essentially Alice emerging into Wonderland at this point). While she sits in her car, she's attacked by the bus driver, crashes the car, wakes up at the business end of Ving Rhames' shotgun, and is reluctantly invited to join. Skipping ahead a bit, they meet some more survivors, get to the mall, do their thing, yadda yadda yadda. One thing I'm glad that they excised from the movie was the love story angle between Polley's and Jake Weber's character, another move decidedly away from the meek dependent woman, who only exists to be leered at and taken care of. She is her own agent throughout the entire mall siege, and even lambasts the other survivors during the scene of ultimate agazement (the violent dehumanization of the celebrity lookalike zombies). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFQNF1L_oi8 She's decidedly against the male protagonists actions in this scene, who are literally gazing at the crowd of zombies through binoculars, and the scene itself is a very stark indictment on male culture and the current topic being discussed. ruddiger fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I see what you're saying there, but there is a shot of Sarah Polley's bare foot. I know, I even mentioned it. quote:There are shots here that can be misconstrued as male gazey, but again, they are thematically motivated and the focus is on the action, not the object. The long lingering shot of her foot as it inches toward the carpet helps establish tone, the fear of retreat/retread, and pacing. The harsh overhead shot of Polley slamming into the tub is a stark parody of the slow tracking shot of the sex scene from earlier.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:At least consider, however momentarily, that it is a very horny shot. It's hornier than the two sex scenes in the movie, but again, that kinda goes to show how sexless Dawn '04 is, despite being a very horny movie. The two young lovers are shown star gazing during moments of intimacy, the one real sex scene (besides the shower shot from the beginning) is more about establishing the authoritative dominance of the other woman, Monica. She's belting out orders to Steve, who's more obsessed with getting the video camera to work than the action at hand. I wish I could find a clip of the dinner scene, because I feel like it's relevant to this discussion since it goes into the perceptions of relationships as it pertains to each of the characters.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:The irony of y'all reacting negatively to someone taking shots at posts in this public forum, in a thread full of people taking shots at people's tweets sure is something. How dare they mock people's words here as the thread continues mock other people's words elsewhere. They got a problem with it, they can always come here and present their side of the argument instead of hiding their comments from the person they're commenting about on some other website/in some other subforum. It's not like the thread topic was about people talking about this thread on twitter. The thread was talking about *gasp* Snyder movies (in a Zack Snyder thread? THE NERVE!), and some coward who clearly has access to the forum decided to do a "get a load of these guys" instead of actually engaging with the thread. That's some serious lame rear end poo poo, and the thread reacted accordingly. You want to justify lames, then that's on you. ruddiger fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Mar 26, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:Okay. I hit reply too early but in case you missed the edit quote:It's not like the thread topic was about people talking about this thread on twitter. The thread was talking about *gasp* Snyder movies (in a Zack Snyder thread? THE NERVE!), and some coward who clearly has access to the forum decided to do a "get a load of these guys" instead of actually engaging with the thread. That's some serious lame rear end poo poo, and the thread reacted accordingly. You want to justify lames, then that's on you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
lol at the idea that Jay Allen has any thoughts longer than 140 characters that can be used to debate with.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:There are a lot of fantasies tied up in Batman, but I think one of the main ones is the fantasy of an ideal cop. This can lead to the twisted logic of: all extant cops are bastards -- but the good cop still exists as a fantasy ideal. I literally just had a conversation with a coworker who wouldn't stop espousing the noble ideals the police were founded on and I was like, gently caress you dude, modern police departments directly trace their roots back to runaway slave catchers, and he wouldn't hear none of it because how could such a noble profession's roots coincide with the oppression of the downtrodden? I can't stand cop lovers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:Hahahahahaha. Ive never in my life been blasted on social media like this and of course the one time I am, its about Zack Snyder. Too funny. did twitter guy blast the goon who mistook calligraphy for kanji too, or is he just cherry picking quotes to suit his needs?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I remember, in particular, being struck by the fact that he doesn't immediately intervene to save civilians from the strafing gunship. Which scene is this? Which gunship? The US army gunship? Because there are no civilians on the streets when that happens (at 2:10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWTbLZCR84k There are also no civilians on the street at 4:40, when the warthog fires the cruise missile at the female kryptonian. The only time civilians are shown present is inside the IHOP (pay attention to the dialog during this scene btw), and we don't know close/far that IHOP is in relation to the rest of the scene as Clark gets power tossed out the window. Also, after the gunship shoots Clark IN THE loving HEAD, he still has the wherewithal to save the pilot after the dumbass troop gets blown out of the sky. ruddiger fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Mar 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The whole restaurant is full of people cowering. So is the bank (although you only see them in a flash). Yet what is at stake in this scene is not "How is Superman going to save all these people?" but rather "How is Superman going to win this fight?" Faora-ul (that's her name? yeesh) talks a lot about being an evolutionary superior because she doesn't care about these people's lives and "For every human you save, we'll kill a million more" but if Superman is concerned about the welfare of anyone but the one soldier, he doesn't act on it. Superman literally saves the one guy that needed saving in that scene. I mean, yeah, the military is being portrayed bloodthirsty (and realistically), but that's not the argument, the argument is that Superman doesn't save anyone from the negligent army men, but use your eyeballs. There are literally no civilians on the streets in those scenes to save. Do you want him to stand in front of the bank and protect the bank (which is probably the safest building to be in, considering how much value we put in the things that are vaulted there)? I mentioned that we do now know the location of the IHOP in relation to the gunship later on as Superman gets forcefully tossed an unknown but very large distance out of the restaurant. He also didn't bring the fight to the area, he's constantly playing on the defense and despite that, he still manages to save the one dude he saw who was in immediate danger, which goes back to the beginning of the scene where it opens up with the kryptonian woman condemning him for the ideals and actions you claim he lacks. quote:Snyder has framed Superman as a soldier here, acting in solidarity with the other soldiers, not a rescuer. The plight of the civilians is barely considered. This is all kinds of wrong. He's literally being attacked by two opposing armies, one side verbally condemns him for being empathetic to civilians, the other side shoots at him without thought of possible civilians nearby. He saves the soldiers despite their lust for war, not because of it. ruddiger fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Mar 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The argument is that Snyder emphasizes that where they're fighting is full of civilians - actual civilians, not soldiers - including someone Clark saved at significant personal expense. Faora-Ul emphasizes that the difference between her and Superman is that Superman cares about the fate of these civilians. However, Superman's caring for these civilians is expressed by beating the holy hell out of the Kryptonians for their sake, not saving them from the disaster that is a huge battle in the middle of a populated area. Snyder conceives of Superman as alike with the indiscriminately destructive soldiers (who later learn true martial heroism by his example), but barely cares about the fate of the civilians in the scene. Name one soldierly thing superman does.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:When confronted with an indiscriminately destructive force in an area full of civilians, he confronts that force head-on rather than mitigating the disaster. But he doesn't do that. He's not confronting. He's defending. Guess who he's defending? Here's a hint, it's the subject of the female kryptonians rant in the beginning of the scene.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's genocide because Superman annihilated any other hope of saving the Kryptonian people earlier in the film, without nearly the same sort of emphasis on the tragedy. Well there's your mistake right there, you don't know what a soldier is. Soldiers don't defend. They attack and enforce. And I just want to point out that you're still flat out wrong about your civilians threatened by the gunship post, despite the mental gymnastics you want to jump through to bend your take.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
*shots of superman saving astronauts and people from a burning building, literally a whole scene of rescuing oil drillers from certain death* But why doesn't he ~save~ people?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 02:40
|
|