Why do people keep giving Zack Snyder money to make movies?
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
35 points (90.7% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
2087 readers
21 users here now
A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.
Rules:
- Be civil.
- Please do not link to pirated content.
- No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
- Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The vast majority of people just go through life buying whatever they see on TV. Snyder's name pops up on TV and tickets get sold.
Has there ever been a worse version of seven samurai? That movie was less than tolerable.
Yeah... Steven King wrote it. 5th book in the Dark Tower series... "Wolves of the Calla". If they get a film or tv show adaptation off the ground they really need to merge 5 and 6 together and remove like 1/2 the content.
Probably the least memorable part of that whole series. It came after a really long wait, for me at least, and I was happy just to re-encounter the characters. I suspect that made it acceptable.
How quickly you can write a film isn't something to be proud of, Screenwriter Guy.
One 6-drafts film will always be better than 6 1-draft films.
Seems like writing 6 films so quickly would be super tough?
Actually super easy, barely an inconvenience!
Well okay then.
The first one was absolute dog shit.
Also the stage / setting / scale and interaction of the final battle ... you get those in a 25 minute Star Wars Clone Wars episode.
And the pacing was just bad even for a brain dead action flick. Like the first act was okay but then the second act was just a series of boring fetch quests and unnecessary flashbacks which they should’ve saved for the second movie, imagine that George Lucas revealed who Luke’s father was in the first Star Wars movie that’s basically what Snyder did. And it took way too long while at the same time it pushed the story barely forward. And introducing every new character in the second act with a long action sequence didn’t make any sense, like at that point I wasn’t invested at all in the new characters, I couldn’t care less if they died.
And then the 3rd act was super short and just slapped at the end. It went immediately from betrayal to the final act battle.
They can’t even write a basic three act story for a simple action movie.
Why? This is one of the few movies I've turned off because it was so bad.
The first one was all over the place. It felt both rushed and lacking in content at the same time, and the characterisation was some of the worst I can remember seeing in a 'mainstream' movie. By the time the credits rolled my partner and I just kinda sat there like WTF the did we just watch?
I don't mind Synder's stuff - he's the very definition of style over substance for the most part, and that's fine if you go into things expecting that, but this was a straight up mess. It almost felt like it got absolutely butchered by the editor or something. Zero interest in seeing the rest of the 'trilogy'. How Netflix can be so apparently invested in this bollocknaise is a mystery. All I can imagine is that they've invested so much money in it, expecting it to be the next big thing that they're now desperate to try and hype it up.
I mean, they kind of did this with the Lord of the Rings theatrical and extended cuts.
1 - 178 minutes (2 hours, 58 minutes) / 228 minutes (3 hours, 48 minutes)
2 - 179 minutes (2 hours, 59 minutes) / 235 minutes (3 hours, 55 minutes)
3 - 201 minutes (3 hours, 21 minutes) / 263 minutes (4 hours, 23 minutes)
Total 558 minutes (9 hours, 18 minutes) / 726 minutes (12 hours, 6 minutes)
Of course, that was adapting a beloved book of well over 1,000 pages.