Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


this is the ugliest film i have ever seen

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


Neo Rasa posted:

Yeah like some of the CG was inevitably spotty but in general I thought it looked really good, loved how it was shot.

I don't mean that it looks cheap (some of the CG and ADR definitely is, but it's not that noticeable and given the circumstances it's pretty forgivable). I mean that the way the film looks, from the lighting and color, to the way scenes are shot and paced is exceedingly unpleasant. I don't know how someone managed to make a film that manages to look so lifeless and drab, yet simultaneously bright and garish. The whole thing is like watching an extended music video set inside the fever dream of a dying psychopath and I hate it. I'm sure it's better than the theatrical cut, but clearing the bar of better than a frankenstein's monster assembled at the behest of studio execs by the most insufferable man in hollywood is the lowest possible bar to clear.

Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

This is just a word salad and means nothing other than "it looks bad".

Something in the aesthetic bothers you, that's clear. And that's fine. But your description of "lifeless and drab but also bright and garish" and your analogy above is just terrible criticism. It tells the reader nothing beyond "I thought it looked ugly".

This is just word salad that means nothing other than "i disagree with your criticism."

Since you don't get it, let me break it down for you:

music video: The constant use of slow motion and weird overly dramatic shots (like the hilariously lovely scene with aquaman standing out on a pier in the waves) is straight out of a 2000s music video. I don't see how "looks like a music video" is even a remotely controversial take on any of Snyder's work especially considering his background.

lifeless and drab but also bright and garish: The color grading is incredibly muted. this isn't even an opinion, just a description of the visual style of the film. A lot of action scenes are practically monochrome. They're also incredibly busy with tons of huge (also monochrome) explosions going off everywhere.

psychopath: Even people who liked Snyder are usually able to admit that he doesn't give a poo poo about anyone in his movies but the central heroic figures. The amount of death and destruction for what's basically a schlocky action adventure film is weird. It's not as bad as some of his previous work but it's still there.

teagone posted:

ZSJL is not a film I'd describe as "garish" lmao. Art is subjective and all, but there has to be a point where you realize that maybe your perspective is a bit misguided. The film uses very muted tones, high contrast, and isn't that heavy on saturation/vibrancy. Whedon's cut is what I'd describe as garish because it's almost as if they basically just dialed up the saturation and called it day. Can you provide some scene examples of what you considered to be explicitly garish from the film?

Garish isn't a synonym for "oversaturated," it means generally overly showy, bright and, for lack of a better term, "loud." This describes pretty much every big action scene but the "age of heroes" darkseid invasion is a decent example. Pretty much everything is in a narrowly constrained shade of brown. It's also really busy and obnoxious with tons of huge explosions, over the top violence and gore.

Caridean fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Mar 23, 2021

Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


teagone posted:

This is contradicting. Something cannot be garish but also muted/monochrome. If it can, please explain and provide examples because I can't compute this.

explained above

Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


Arkage posted:

It's like some people really do live in an alternative universe where they think "criticisms" like this are actually convincing anybody of anything.

I'm not trying to convince you the film was bad, I'm describing why I did not like the film. You are perfectly free to enjoy this film, you have my approval.

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

I'm not going to engage with you further because this is a dumb RLM meme that just got posted yesterday and became "common knowledge" in about 10 minutes. If you're going to let 3 mediocre white guys give your opinions to you at least pick a better trio.

I'm pretty sure that if I let RLM dictate my opinion of the film, then I would like the film. The fact this is the first time you've seen this particular criticism of snyder, doesn't mean it's the only time it's ever been made lol.

teagone posted:

Please provide visual examples from the film of what you mean, because I'm super curious. I'm still unable to parse how a photographed image can be both garish and monochrome/muted just through text.
Can't really adequately get across how busy scenes are with stills, but hopefully this at least clears up what I mean by monochrome while also being really bright
https://imgur.com/a/vn99cLz

Caridean fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Mar 23, 2021

Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


teagone posted:

These images are heavy on sepia tones more than anything, emphasizing antiquity. You're using "garish" as a wrong descriptor. Bright =/= garish.

This semantic argument doesn't really matter much, and hopefully you at least have some idea of my complaint at this point but I have to ask what you think garish actually means, because you don't seem to be using the definition the rest of the world uses.

Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


Burkion posted:

Hi, you're wrong, have a nice day.

Want me to explain why or would you rather stew in ignorance?

Also, fun fact, garish is not, in fact, something you also call lifeless. You cannot be lifelessly garish. Unless you're Zombie Elton John I suppose.


Once you find a dictionary sure, but I'm not really interested in your opinion until you have a baseline understanding of the english language

Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


Burkion posted:

But instead if you would like to continue using psychopath as an easy insult and attributing it to a man who has done nothing to you, we can talk about that too.

He's a wildly successful hollywood film director worth 10s of millions of dollars. I think he can take it, man. You don't need to protect him.

Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

"I'm not actually letting the idiots give me my opinions, I'm merely independently coming to the same conclusions that they do" is not the own you think it is.

It's a very simple and obvious observation if you're at all familiar with his body of work.

Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


Guy A. Person posted:

Or if you're familiar with the list of buzzwords and catchphrases that people use to describe his work. Next you're going to be calling him objectivist, and it will be obvious that you didn't think of that on your own either.

indeed goon sire, tell me more about how my opinions are "factually wrong."

Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


teagone posted:

"Bright" also doesn't necessarily mean garish.


Garish implies using a combination of different colors that are overly vivid/heavily saturated to jarring effect imo. Being "bright" alone doesn't make something garish. The resulting effect of employing a garish palette can be considered "bright" or "showy" or whatever the gently caress, but that is dictated by contrasting color choices. You really can't have a monochrome image with muted tones be garish because a monochrome image with muted tones is just that: a monochrome image with muted tones, lol. But sure, if you want to argue semantics don't matter much, by all means.

Holy poo poo. Someone else even posted the literal dictionary definition and you still dont get it. You're completely hopeless, I give up.

Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


Bongo Bill posted:

Everyone else seems to be arguing that the movie isn't actually garish. If the dictionary isn't useful in helping others understand what is meant by calling that, maybe an example would communicate it better.

I provided several.

Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


McCloud posted:

I'm still not sure what "Shot like a music video" means, or why he's a psychopath for doing that.

Weirdly, the only people calling Snyder a psychopath are the people defending this movie.

Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


SuperMechagodzilla posted:


You are very bad at this.

hilarious coming from you

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Caridean
Jan 5, 2021

by Pragmatica


2house2fly posted:

Your use of the word was a non sequitur, and then you followed it up by saying that in Zack Snyder movies the story focuses on the main characters, which is another non sequitur. It's one of those things where people are talking on different wavelengths

I specifically said what I meant by that, you should go back and read it.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

(USER WAS PERMABANNED FOR THIS POST)

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply