Watchmen

[MinionZombie]

Like I said, Snyder does "pretty pictures" (well, his cinematographers and CGI nerds do), but that's nowhere near the true meaning of someone who is a "visionary". Kubrick - VISIONARY. That dude was a visionary, Snyder is not ... and nor is he out of the ordinary ... and his films completely lack substance. Ridley Scott - another visionary. James Cameron - he can also be considered a visionary, and indeed if that definition on him was shakey before, it'll be solidified by Avatar - the dude's creating epic technology just to make that movie! See what I mean? Snyder is nowhere near that calibre, and his films don't fit that box - ergo, not visionary. The term gets bandied about too easily these days, as that trailer showed. He paints pretty pictures, or uses comic books and takes pages straight out of them anyway ... which, honestly, isn't exceptionally original. And indeed, copying panels from Sin City the book to Sin City the movie isn't all that original - stylish and pretty, yes, but not that original. HOWEVER - Sin City backed it up with a good story, strong performances, interesting characters and so on.

[Neil]

Like I said, Snyder does "pretty pictures" (well, his cinematographers and CGI nerds do), but that's nowhere near the true meaning of someone who is a "visionary". Kubrick - VISIONARY. That dude was a visionary, Snyder is not ... and nor is he out of the ordinary ... and his films completely lack substance. Ridley Scott - another visionary. James Cameron - he can also be considered a visionary, and indeed if that definition on him was shakey before, it'll be solidified by Avatar - the dude's creating epic technology just to make that movie! See what I mean? Snyder is nowhere near that calibre, and his films don't fit that box - ergo, not visionary. The term gets bandied about too easily these days, as that trailer showed. He paints pretty pictures, or uses comic books and takes pages straight out of them anyway ... which, honestly, isn't exceptionally original. And indeed, copying panels from Sin City the book to Sin City the movie isn't all that original - stylish and pretty, yes, but not that original. HOWEVER - Sin City backed it up with a good story, strong performances, interesting characters and so on. Personally, really do think you're being overly harsh with 300...

[MinionZombie]

Personally, really do think you're being overly harsh with 300... And I think you're being too lenient.

[clanglee]

Personally I think that Zack Snyder just pissed in your oatmeal in a past life MZ. I think that many people on this board were personally offended by Dawn'04 and they see it as an insult against their favorite movie. This has given them a bad taste over ZS and each movie that he puts out will be slagged by them till the end of days. He would have to put out something mindblowingly genius in order to redeem himself to these guys. Even then. . there would still be the desenters. But is he a "visionary" director? Only really in the broadest sense of the word. Hell, all directors are visionaries of some sort really.

[Neil]

Personally I think that Zack Snyder just pissed in your oatmeal in a past life MZ. I think that many people on this board were personally offended by Dawn'04 and they see it as an insult against their favorite movie. This has given them a bad taste over ZS and each movie that he puts out will be slagged by them till the end of days. He would have to put out something mindblowingly genius in order to redeem himself to these guys. Even then. . there would still be the desenters. Here here... And there there come to think of it

[Danny]

neat.

[EvilNed]

300 was solidly produced, Yes it was, as was Gigli. And Batman & Robin. And Battlefield Earth. had a reasonably interesting script at least, No, it did not. Infact, the script sucks ass. and pretty unique solid visuals... Of which you grow tired after 10 minutes. One cannot substitute story or character for visuals. As my friend put it "We fast forwarded throughout all the talky bits" (so much for that interesting script, heh?). At the least it's a mediocre film, yet people will slag the hell out of it because they simply didn't enjoy it. Who are you to say it's a mediocre film and put your foot down as if that was a fact? I believe it is NOT a mediocre film, I believe it is a suck ass piece of ****. I hated it, and I'll never watch it again. It's my opinion that it's a worthless turd, and yes that is an extreme. But it's my opinion, and there's no way you can say that I am wrong in saying so. No more than you are right. And more importantly I suspect because it did so well, they feel they have to go overboard in the opposite direction with their opinion(s)... I have no idea of how well it did, but I don't care. It still sucked. You'll no doubt get many of the same people ripping the hell out of 'Titanic' because it did well, but they didn't enjoy it... And once again, at the very least there was nothign particularly wrong with the film, but people will use terms and descriptions suggesting it something worthy of only 1 or 2 out of 10, where clearly this is just not fair... You do realize that most people ripping on Titanic are boys who saw it in their teens and were probably bored to tears. A film has to justify a 3 hour running time, you know. I like Titanic, and I don't believe it deserves all the badmouthing it gets. But whatever, it's obviously their opinion. My issue is with binary unfair opinions; where there is no attempt at fairness and objectiveness... These sort of opinions are to be frank just worthless... They're obviously only worthless because you don't agree with them. If you would realize that some people actually hate 300 because it's not that very good of a film (Nor is it a very bad film. It's a work of art, and thus it's in the eye of the beholder), then maybe you'd see things more clearly. Your argument basicly states: "It's at the very least a mediocre film because alot of money was spent on it, so calling it **** is no no, but by all means, call it great." If that's not bias, I don't know what is.

[Neil]

They're obviously only worthless because you don't agree with them. If you would realize that some people actually hate 300 because it's not that very good of a film (Nor is it a very bad film. It's a work of art, and thus it's in the eye of the beholder), then maybe you'd see things more clearly. Your argument basicly states: "It's at the very least a mediocre film because alot of money was spent on it, so calling it **** is no no, but by all means, call it great." If that's not bias, I don't know what is. 'Sucks' implies nothing worse... It implies you have no lower point on your scale for films truly deserve to well below 300... It also implies your scale appears to range from just 'rocks' or 'sucks'...? There's many films I do not enjoy, and rip the hell out regularly on this very forum, but I would not suggest they 'suck' or are 'terrible'... Or even truly bad films. For example Dawn04, Indiana 4, all the new Star Wars films. I would suggest all these films have bad/weak/lazy elements to them, but they're all at worst mediocre films by any fair standard... I would suggest likewise, 300, by any fair standard is at worse, mediocre... ...if not, where are films that truly deserve lower ratings to be placed? So 'Sucks' to me just comes across as plain lazy and almost childish. So, seriously, anyone who deems 300 as 'sucks' implies it's about as bad as can be, which clearly is just nonsense... BUT, maybe this is all a mis-understanding... My interpretation of 'sucks' is 1 out of 10. Maybe yours isn't... What's you're 'range' for 'sucks' then (out of 10 for example)? Additionally, I don't believe there's any films I would (seriously) use the term 'sucks' on... So there's another difference... "It's at the very least a mediocre film because alot of money was spent on it, so calling it **** is no no, but by all means, call it great." If that's not bias, I don't know what is. Not at all... It's at least mediocre because it manages to tell a story well. It's filmed in an interesting way (& at times quite unusual/unique). There's no particularly bad film making on show, and all performance are generally good. I cannot see how anyone can give it (fairly) less than say a 4 out of 10 (ie: mediocre). TBH - I couldn't care less what the budget was... Don't see why that should really come into it at that sort of level. $30m, $60m, $100m, who cares!

[EvilNed]

'Sucks' implies nothing worse... It implies you have no lower point on your scale for films truly deserve to well below 300... It also implies your scale appears to range from just 'rocks' or 'sucks'...? No, it implies that it is a bad film. A film that sucks, sucks. That's it. Anything rated from 4/10 to 1/10 can suck, because they're bad films. They're not good films, thus they suck. Oh, and the Star Wars prequels suck. Batman & Robin sucks. They're not good films, no matter how much money you pump into them (and thus "solidly producing" them, as you pointed out). So, seriously, anyone who deems 300 as 'sucks' implies it's about as bad as can be, which clearly is just nonsense... To you, it is nonsense. To people who hate the film, it isn't. I've seen many films of which I am completly disinterested in seeing again, which usually imply that they suck. And isn't that truly the worst rating a film can get, not ever wanting to see it again? And 300 got that rating from me, so there you go. But maybe this is a mis-understanding... My interpretation of 'sucks' is 1 out of 10. Maybe yours isn't... What's you're 'range' for 'sucks' then (out of 10 for example)? I don't place the word "suck" on a scale. A sucky film is a bad film, that's it. It's another word for "bad". Not at all... It's at least mediocre because it manages to tell a story well. It's filmed in an interesting way (& at times quite unusual/unique). There's no particularly bad film making on show, and all performance are generally good. I cannot see how anyone can give it (fairly) less than say a 4 out of 10 (ie: mediocre). TBH - I couldn't care less what the budget was... Don't see why that should really come into it at this sort of level. $30m, $60m, $100m, who cares! See, now you speak as if this is all facts again. It's not. I don't bash you for thinking that 300 managed to tell the story well. It's OK to think it had a good script, but it's not OK to think it had a bad script? What the hell, have you ever heard of art, Neil? If anything is childish, it's being unable to accept another persons opinion. I rate 300 a 2 or a 3. Probably a 2. It's a piece of ****. I've seen worse, but it's still a piece of ****. You can rate it above 4 if you want, I won't hold it against you or even question it. I just find it funny that you seem to think that there are films that are factually mediocre. Hah.

[Neil]

I don't place the word "suck" on a scale. A sucky film is a bad film, that's it. LOL! There's the difference then... As I explained, I personally see 'sucks' as something far more dire... To me it would mean 1/10 basically... Now, you also said that you would see 'sucks' as meaning 'anything rated from 4/10 to 1/10'... I suggested 300 at worst could (fairly) be considered a mediocre film, getting no less than 4/10... So we, according to your scale, could sort of agree then... Now, can I suggest you improve your scale? 'Sucks' = between 3/10 and 4/10, and 'really sucks' = 2/10, and 'totally sucks' = 1/10

[EvilNed]

I suggested 300 at worst could (fairly) be considered a mediocre film, getting no less than 4/10... So we, according to your scale, could sort of agree then... No, we don't, because you still fail to realize that 300 at worst can be considered a stinking piece of ****, at 1/10 and at best a masterpiece at 10/10. Just because you think it's a good film doesn't mean that everyone has to agree. Sucks is just a word to describe a bad film.

[Neil]

No, we don't, because you still fail to realize that 300 at worst can be considered a stinking piece of ****, at 1/10 and at best a masterpiece at 10/10. Just because you think it's a good film doesn't mean that everyone has to agree. Sucks is just a word to describe a bad film. Oh well... I tried to find a happy middle ground an all... ps: "Sucks is just a word to describe a bad film." - For you... For me it's such a weak and damning term of a film, I can't even think of a film I'd use it on. Words mean different things to different people, hence me trying to clear up the confusion...

[clanglee]

Soooooo. . . . Did I mention that I am really excited about the Watchmen? Yeah. . um. . .looks like great stuff there. So. . .yeah. . .

[EvilNed]

Oh well... I tried to find a happy middle ground an all... ps: "Sucks is just a word to describe a bad film." - For you... For me it's such a weak and damning term of a film, I can't even think of a film I'd use it on. Words mean different things to different people, hence me trying to clear up the confusion... You say potato, I say potatoe. For me, a film that sucks, is just a bad film. I can name many films that suck. I'm simply awe-struck that you seem to think that nobody could, or should, rate 300 below the rating of 4 because you, personally, think it's at the very least a mediocre film. Maybe I've misunderstood you, but that's not how it works. People have different opinions, and no, I did not find the script to be interesting or engaging in any way possible. Infact, I found it horrible.

[Neil]

You say potato, I say potatoe. For me, a film that sucks, is just a bad film. I can name many films that suck. I'm simply awe-struck that you seem to think that nobody could, or should, rate 300 below the rating of 4 because you, personally, think it's at the very least a mediocre film. Maybe I've misunderstood you, but that's not how it works. People have different opinions, and no, I did not find the script to be interesting or engaging in any way possible. Infact, I found it horrible. I see some people rate fiction in the fiction section in what I'd deem a strange way. They'll give a contribution basically one of the lowest scores they can, even when the contribution is clearly well constructed, gramatically good and a reasonable amount of work has gone into trying to providing a fluid 'ride'. But the reader just hasn't enjoyed the content... Which is of course perfectly OK. But for some reason, they'll ignore all the perfectly adequate or good aspects of the contribution, and give it a low score, just because they are seemingly blinded by one or two other aspect of it... Or they work in a very sort of black and white way... Some people just work that way... I realise that... Doesn't mean I think it's fair though... IMHO Also, I have little doubt if Mr Snyder hadn't done Dawn04, some opinions of 300 would be very different here. And I'm almost certain that if Mr Romero had given us 300, then it would be declared a masterpiece by some of the very peope who currently give it a hard time...