Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

New SUCKERPUNCH trailer kicks all manners of ass.... in Glorious Quicktime

Hey folks, Harry here with the latest trailer from Zack Snyder's SUCKERPUNCH - and thus far - the very best look at the film. When I saw the big show of footage at Comic Con, I have to admit - I was a little edgy about it. In some ways it was reminding me of MACHINE GIRL & CASSHERN - and while I liked those films... I just wasn't sure if seeing a bunch of scantily clad girls running around blowing up and killing badass awesome designed shit for a movie. Now, I'm thinking - who the hell wouldn't want to see a cast of hotties in nearly nothing, running around blowing up and killing badass awesome designed shit for a whole movie. Also, after surviving my Halloween Party, all I can think about is my Halloween party, post-SUCKERPUNCH - where the various killer cool girls I know might be inspired by these costumes - and that my friends, is a good thing. Watching the 1080p version of the trailer really gives you a fine impression of how cool this trailer makes this film look. Still curious to see how the real world/fantasy world gets divided up... And in particular, I'm curious to see how the musical dance numbers give way to the Fantasy world. Click here to see SUCKERPUNCH's New Trailer in Glorious Quicktime!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 3, 2010, 8:46 p.m. CST


    by wafflehaus

    whut. steampunked.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 8:46 p.m. CST


    by kittenmittens


  • Nov. 3, 2010, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Damn you, wafflehaus!!

    by kittenmittens

    Missed it by that much.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 8:47 p.m. CST

    So er...

    by Robber_Button

    How was the Trailer boys?

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 8:47 p.m. CST

    An eye fuck

    by LowDevil

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 8:48 p.m. CST

    Hot Chicks In Cosplay Fetish Wear Is The Key

    by LaserPants

    Honestly, this is starting to look stupider and stupider, but I'm totally down with the Hot Chicks in Cosplay Fetish Wear runnin' around killing giant robots and zombie nazis n' shit. I just wish it was R. Hard R. NC 17. XXX. Etc.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 8:49 p.m. CST

    What the Hell is this Horse Shit

    by D o o d

    Talking owls and now this!

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 8:50 p.m. CST

    Looks Kickass

    by Hipshot

    But then I like Snyder's style of filmmaking.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 8:50 p.m. CST

    I still don't get it

    by Mr. P. Lant

    But then again, I'm an idiot.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 8:52 p.m. CST

    The Acting Is Really Awful Though

    by LaserPants

    "With nowhere to hide. From the pain." Read lines much? Not that it matters. Just fuckin go for boobs and exploitation. Push it to the Russ Meyer meets Paul Verhoven direction or just forget it.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 8:53 p.m. CST

    Fanboy wood.

    by ReportAbuse

    But didn't South Park do something like this once?

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 8:57 p.m. CST


    by Mr. P. Lant

    Can we call an end to action films where the hero drops from a great height, landing like a cat while cracking the ground underneath them?

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9 p.m. CST

    1080p is still downloading

    by wafflehaus

    'thought i'd keep myself busy in the meantime. I couldn't resist.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:01 p.m. CST

    Zack, you fucking rock.

    by ballyhoo

    Well, I didn't see your owl movie, but that's okay right?

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:10 p.m. CST

    Zack Snyder making Superman is going to be

    by Dharma4

    fucking amazing. Guy has a gift for the visual, you have to admit it.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:17 p.m. CST

    How the hell did he get Superman?

    by vadakinX

    Are the rumors true that he got the job because he could do it quickly? Because that's the only reason that makes sense to me. His "style over substance" way of making films isn't what Superman needs in my humble opinion. Sure Superman needs to do heroic things in an epic way but I'd like the characters to actually have something to them and I'd like the action scenes to be more than just the same gimmick over and over again. It's bad enough that it's Goyer writing the script but this just compounds it. <P> Snyder's Superman is going to have to be the opposite of his usual films if its to have any sort of lasting appeal whatsoever.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:18 p.m. CST


    by enough22

    GREAT.DVD.SECTION. Really, shame you cannot be fired.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:18 p.m. CST


    by D o o d

    Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good wank like the rest of you but I'm not sure Zack has the eye for visuals. There is definitely something there but it's not classy, it's cheesy. Not sure if you get what I mean!

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:23 p.m. CST

    God that trailer was shit

    by vadakinX

    Once again, all style, no substance and the slow motion was really annoying and this was just a trailer.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:25 p.m. CST

    vadakinX yeah thats what i read too

    by KilliK

    he got the job instead of Aronofsky,because he could make the movie on schedule.typical Hollywood.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:28 p.m. CST

    led zep

    by trentmorrison

    the real story is how he got Led Zeppelin rights, its very rare

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:29 p.m. CST

    Another fanboy focused FLOP

    by joel007

    Preview looks great. Looks cool, original, the whole nine yards. But if I were a studio head, I would run screaming in the opposite direction any time somebody brought me a project like this-- another fanboy focused flop they can toss on the pile next to Scot Pilgrim, Machete, Watchmen and all the rest. These are good movies, but they have such a narrow audience. They think they have the same audience as, say Iron Man, because hey, they were both at comic con, right? WRONG. One is a mass appeal event flick that the fly over states can grab onto. The other is a limited appeal event flick that dudes in comic shops will dig.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:30 p.m. CST

    By the way...

    by joel007

    I dare Zach Snyder to make a movie without slow motion or dollying in on every shot. Interested to see what his bag of tricks would be...

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:30 p.m. CST

    It should have been Duncan Jones

    by vadakinX

    Fuck experience with big budgets, the man knows how to tell a story and tell it well. I thought Warner Brothers had learned their lesson after years of Superman development hell and Joel Schumacher Batman movies but here we go again.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:31 p.m. CST


    by AzzyAzzy

    at telling harry, in this thread, his ipad sucks.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:32 p.m. CST

    So It's Basically PAN'S LABYRINTH For Geeks?

    by LaserPants

    With a little Kill Bill thrown in? I dunno. There better be tons of boobs, absurdity, gore and craziness or else WHATever.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:32 p.m. CST

    Looks like visually orgasmic bullshit...

    by blackmantis

    ...but bullshit nonetheless. I don't know what the story is about after watching that, but what story there is doesn't seem all that interesting.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:32 p.m. CST

    Honest opinion

    by successor

    <p>It looks like garbage. Does Snyder have to shoot every other shot like an over-stylized music video, complete with lens filters, slow motion and whip pans? It screams "look at me, I'm so arty!" Whatever happened to just telling the story at its own pace and not falling back on camera tricks and special effects?</p> <p>"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Apparently Snyder is falling on Nolan's old "explicitly state your movie's theme through a character instead of allowing your audience to use their brains and figure it out for themselves" chestnut. And I like Nolan. But please, stop having characters in movies state the theme directly.</p> <p>And the plot seems like nothing more than your standard kill the generic video game baddies and find the fantasy plot coupon(s) archetype.</p> <p>I'll pass.</p>

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Superman should be old school

    by vadakinX

    At least that's how I've always felt. I'm not talking about the character or the plot, I mean in how it's actually made. Imagine a John Ford Superman or even Sergio Leone. I think Superman can be shown in a modern context but still maintain that "classic" feel. But with Snyder it's all green screen and slow mo. <p> Suckerpunch feels like Sin City-lite. I think Snyder needs to get away from the gimmicks and actually go back to his Dawn of the Dead days where his gimmicks were far less prominent and the films were a little more traditionally shot.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Crap, Snyder.

    by Read and Shut Up

    1) Slow down. 2) Speed up. 3) Zoom. 4)) Slow down. 5) Cliche' bullshit.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Wait, what?!?!

    by Royston Lodge

    That is all.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:37 p.m. CST

    it's a present for frank!

    by frank cotton

    seriously, this opens on my birthday....THANKS, ZACH!

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:38 p.m. CST


    by MJs_Cold_Dead_Pale_Corpse

    I've seen in the last...3 months. If you like this trailer then you are a retard. Kill your parents, your kids, your pets, most of your friends...and then yourself you useless piece of cat shit.

  • you know who you are. Enjoy your steaming pile.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:41 p.m. CST

    You whiny fucks!

    by rollnstns

    Most of you incestual dickbags cry when something is a remake, now something original comes out and you still bitch. Why do your moms still let you live in their basements?

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:45 p.m. CST


    by MJs_Cold_Dead_Pale_Corpse

    I thought I told you to kill yourself

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:46 p.m. CST

    rollnstns = tasteless queer

    by MJs_Cold_Dead_Pale_Corpse

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:46 p.m. CST

    Another thing...

    by rollnstns

    While i'm at it, alot of you talk about use of cameras, pace, blah, blah. News flash homeboys, there is a reason snyder is making movies, and you aren't I'd hate to be on a flight with one of you, wrongly egotistical pricks. I can see you now, banging on the cockpit door yelling at the captain that his use of banking the aircraft was all wrong. Morons.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:47 p.m. CST

    Zack Snyder Doin' A Bunch Of Blow At A Strip Club

    by LaserPants

    Comes home later, maybe he even paid for a blowjob, or maybe he was given one gratis. Anyways, he comes home, fires up a joint, downloads some cosplay fetish porn, then POW! inspiration hits. It hit all over the place! He better clean it up before the wife finds out and scolds him. A few months later? BANG! SuckerPunch is being downloaded for free by zillions.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:48 p.m. CST


    by rollnstns

    next time your mom walks in and catches you jerking off, ask her how tasteless I am, and if you want to know, go lick her chin.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:49 p.m. CST


    by MJs_Cold_Dead_Pale_Corpse

    and you can suck my nut out of your dads ass....and spit it into your other dads mouth

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:49 p.m. CST

    rollnstns = pedophile

    by MJs_Cold_Dead_Pale_Corpse

    harmless fact

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:51 p.m. CST

    I hope Superman has the same visual quality

    by Saen

    hahahaha. Its gonna suck.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:53 p.m. CST

    This movie just doesn't look very good.

    by liesandpicturesofalsolies

    He might have made a good DP but really not very compelling.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:53 p.m. CST

    New Superman "S" Symbol

    by TheJudger <P> Made this in inkscape. Trying to keep the classic look, while same modernizing it. <P> I studied as many "S" logos as I could find on the net. The New "S" is on the top of the image. The study ref "S's" images are on the bottom. Mainly admired and tried to adapt the Alex Ross's "S", The Donner Version and the Superman Peanut Butter Jar lid.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:56 p.m. CST

    "while modernizing it"

    by TheJudger

    darn typo

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 9:58 p.m. CST

    Led Zeppelin is in a Cadillac commercial

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    How hard can it be to acquire? <p>Oh yeah this movie looks like it may be unwatchable. Could also be great.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:01 p.m. CST


    by Monty Moth

    This movie looks terrible. Some 14 year old millionaire, douche-bag's idea of what strong women should look like? Hookers with swords and guns apparently? Shit's gettin' old Hollywood.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Please, please

    by hank henshaw

    don't screw up Superman: Man of Steel. I hope they can keep Snyder on a short leash, and prevent him from abusing the slo-mo, speed-up, weight-less action scenes.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:03 p.m. CST


    by wackybantha

    MAKE IT SO!!!!!!!

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:09 p.m. CST

    Jamie Chung

    by Badger23


  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:11 p.m. CST

    This looks awesome.

    by StrokerX

    Stopped watching the trailer halfway thru. Gotta save some shit for the movie.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:11 p.m. CST

    Not following

    by James_Camera_On

    "... I just wasn't sure if seeing a bunch of scantily clad girls running around blowing up and killing badass awesome designed shit [for] a movie." ". . . was a movie?" ". . . is a movie?" Sorry, but the above quote is not a complete sentence. Is there intended to be a thought here? If so, what is it?

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:15 p.m. CST

    I wanna be excited for this

    by BlaGyver

    I really do. But with each round of new footage I get less and less excited. This LOOKS great, but the dialogue and acting....damn. And this is coming from a guy that LOVED Watchmen.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:18 p.m. CST


    by archer1949

    What the hell was that? Looked like a video game trailer. Blah......

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:18 p.m. CST

    I think Harry got hit with the Typo Reaper as well

    by TheJudger

    Replace "if with "about" <P> I just wasn't sure "if" seeing a bunch of scantily clad girls running around blowing up and killing badass awesome designed shit for a movie.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:23 p.m. CST

    So what the hell is it about. Fantasty?? Dreams??

    by chadiwack

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:25 p.m. CST

    oh and the end credits music to timecop SUCKS ASS!!

    by chadiwack

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:27 p.m. CST

    What Is It About...?

    by Read and Shut Up's about two hours of fast mo/slo mo shit.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:28 p.m. CST

    fuck Quicktime (and ITunes too).

    by Rupee88

    I'll have to go look for this on Youtube now

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:29 p.m. CST

    I pray this won't be on the fake BNAT line-up

    by brightgeist

    cause i'd love to see this at BNAT ;)

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:33 p.m. CST

    ok found it...really bad trailer

    by Rupee88

    someone must be sabotaging this film...they couldn't make a better trailer than that? Acting sounded stilted and bad too.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:34 p.m. CST

    Good god, that looks like utter crap

    by kevred

    Come on, there's not a shot in either trailer that isn't a tired, cynical rehash. Put it all together, and it's just a bunch of empty eye-candy junk.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:34 p.m. CST

    Real World vets doing good

    by Titus05

    that asian chick from The Real World must be really good on the casting couch as she's getting a lot of major movie roles now...this and Hangover 2...that other dude from the Boston season won a seat in Congress too...Sucker Punch looks cheesy and the cast is pretty weak but the CGI looks first rate

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:36 p.m. CST

    The good thing about films like this...

    by kevred that they will hasten the process of 1) "Wouldn't it be cool if..." 2) Make film with supposedly-cool image in it 3) realize that it really isn't cool after all.<p>The more of that we can get out of our systems, maybe the sooner people can get back to making actual films with plots and depth and characters.<p>Giant samurai with Gatling gun? Really? *Really*?

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:38 p.m. CST

    Better music in this trailer

    by DiscoGodfather

    Second song was "Panic Switch" by Silversun Pickups, by the way. It ain't Zeppelin, but it's real good shit too. Movie also looks cool, but I'm traditionally easier to impress than most fanboy snobs. Ooh, shiny things!

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:38 p.m. CST

    First Zack Snyder film I'm not up for.

    by Hint_of_Smegma

    Love that guys stuff - know a lot of would-be film snobs around here run him down, but the guy has serious flair. Great director, if still a bit too attached to certain gimmicks. Normally look forward to everything he's done, was for this but I have to say that trailer....just doesn't make me want to see this film, the opposite in fact. I'm sure it'll be great but it's not for me, this one.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:40 p.m. CST


    by kevred

    What exactly is original about this?

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:41 p.m. CST

    Finding 5 objects is LAME

    by jrb

    Just an excuse to have five action sequences in different worlds with different bad guys and weapons. It's called lazy storytelling.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:43 p.m. CST

    haha, you're all experts...

    by brightgeist

    on judging movies you haven't even seen yet, aren't you? :D

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:44 p.m. CST

    The Spirit 2

    by vadakinX

    Think about it. Cheesy dialogue terribly delivered, overuse of gimmicks, no coherence whatsoever, cartoonish cgi with no sense of the concept of location shooting. It's The Spirit 2.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:46 p.m. CST

    Crapola of the Highest Order

    by IamZardoz

    Scott Glenn, man, what a bummer....

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:48 p.m. CST

    I kinda hope this bombs

    by vadakinX

    I don't care about this film but money talks and the lack of money is louder still. If this bombs, maybe Warners will see sense and get someone else for Superman. <p> Snyder hasn't had a hit since 300, which was a page for page copy of the comic, shot entirely in front of green screen with a modest budget. Remember Dawn of the Dead when Snyder actually went on location to shoot instead of backlots and green screen stages? Yeah, those were the days.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:50 p.m. CST

    dialogue ruined it for me

    by gk1

    that guys delivery was pretty damn flat AND cheesy. Snyder DEFINITELY borrowed from Kazuaki Kiriya...but thats not necessarily a bad thing...yet.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:51 p.m. CST

    Theron in Batman 3?

    by TenaflyViper

    "Gordon has another drink and screws around..." with Charlize! Seriously, they want to bring in the Essen character so Gordon can have an affair? Just white noise gossip at the moment, but I don't think a soap operatic subplot is required. Vera Farmiga (hubba hubba) also rumoured for love interest - would love to see her in a Batman.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Blah blah stop motion

    by Detective_Fingerling

    how many stop motion jokes will there be?

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:55 p.m. CST

    That Looks Horrible

    by Media Messiah

    It just comes off as being clumsy, and without substance.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:56 p.m. CST

    maybe they are talking about Charlize as Gordon's daugher

    by KilliK

    Dr Barbara Gordon? maybe they will use her as the Oracle in the movie,as a member the task-force made to hunt and capture Batman? maybe..

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Looks Amazing

    by Waspo

    I loved Watchmen, let's see what he can really do with Superman.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Looks Amazing

    by Waspo

    I loved Watchmen, let's see what he can really do with Superman.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:14 p.m. CST

    I think I gotta start hanging out with new friends

    by m00kiedood

    You guys just instantly smash, smash. smash, and the whole conversation devolves immediately into what sounds like a bunch of snide one liners from 15 year old smartasses who have no honest to god concept of how lucky they are to be living in a time when major dollars, studio support and directorial vision can be funneled into such a crazy array of genre films.<p> You're all going to have to get off my lawn, you overly entitled whiner boys.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:15 p.m. CST

    Gordon's daughter is a child

    by vadakinX

    In The Dark Knight his wife's name is Barbara. He does have a daughter so she could conceivably be named after her mother but she's very young in the film and at least 15 years away from becoming Batgirl, never mind Oracle.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:18 p.m. CST

    and that was some lazy writing Harry

    by Rupee88

    go back and read what he You can tell he was trying to pound something out and sound positive even though he was sleepy or distracted or just wanted to be doing something else than writing about this.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:20 p.m. CST

    When did nerds become self hating and wannabe studio heads?

    by andrew coleman

    "If I were a studio head I'd run in the other direction..." First off thank God you're not a Studio Head you fucking mindless douche. Secondly why on this site alone do nerds hate on nerd properties? What do you guys want? More Twilight movies? More generic "for the masses" type films? Pathetic fucks. It seems recently more and more lame shit heads post here. Where are the people pumped for nerdy stuff? Everything is just nasty hate on here no matter what the project or film is. It's just pathetic. Okay I will repeat this for some of you losers that think they understand the BO. How did Watchmen bomb exactly? Same with Machete? That movie was low budget and made more than it's money back even before DVD. So if a movie doesn't make Avatar numbers it's a bomb? So studio execs claimed Social Network would make 150 million... It has made what 80 so far? So did that bomb? Are the only movies that made profits this year to you Jackass 3D and SAW 3D? Fucking losers stop acting like you think you know how the business works. If you don't have anything use full to say maybe you should shut up and continue crying about how your life sucks. Synder's Superman will beat your ass and fuck your sister. Then it will steal your imaginary girl friend, but hey as least you can come on here and say "Synder's a hack and Superman sucked!" good for you.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:20 p.m. CST

    Wow, that looks really, really fucking stupid

    by darth_aig

    If this isn't a comic book movie, then they've decided to skip the immature and cretinous middle man for once. Genres collide, conventions intertwine, add hot chicks, guns, samurai swords and Catholic schoolgirl uniforms........and you have a film that will make the hairs on the neck of a thinking person stand at attention.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:21 p.m. CST

    I agree with m00kiedood

    by GeneralKael

    There seems to be alot of pretentious posts here hoping that this movie fails because it's somehow beneath you to go see it. If you don't want to go see it, fine - wishing it will fail is somewhat self-defeating. M00kiedood seems to remember the time as I do when there were very few comic, sci-fi or fantasy movies being made at all since the studios felt there was no money in it. Just remember boys and girls - if genre movies bomb, the studios will stop making them. And then you will all be bitching about that...

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:22 p.m. CST


    by 3D-Man

    SUCKERPUNCH will be too. Just you wait and see.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:23 p.m. CST

    The movie a 12 YO boy would produce if given a blank check

    by Prof. Pop-Cult

    Imagine if you were 12 years old in this day and age, and a Willy Wonka-ish movie producer gave you a blank check to have your superfuckinawesome movie idea made. It would probably be like this. I'm not sure how I feel about Suckerpunch, but have to admit that I paid to watch all of Snyder's movies in the theater and did in fact enjoy them, and now I feel dirty admitting this.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:24 p.m. CST

    Also, 300 and Watchmen are stupid fucking movies

    by darth_aig

    Somebody had to say it. Movies used to be better. They did, asshole.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:29 p.m. CST

    The idea/concept of a Rouge hired by Gotham to hunt Batman

    by TheJudger

    down is preposterous, Gordon would know of this for hires activity, and Batman and Gman would know his every move. Unless of course it was another organization or a complete vigilante doing it all by his lonesome. If you cant find the bat find those wealthy enough to be him. Murder along the upper-class, by a masked avenger, leaking tapes of his acts to the press, explain that it's a sacrifice to make to rid Gotham of it's greatest criminal. The Bat... Man. <P> I think i read somewhere someone saying the Riddler was at one point considered to be the power of Gotham city for hire type to find the batman. To puzzle him into appearance. As long as Gordon lives, this concept of Gotham hiring someone to weed out the bat, it just wont work and feel right. Gordon is clean so far, his actions are hidden, so he would be trusted, and know about this shit. <P> Then again is someone with a smile on his face said something about a partnership between bats and Gotham- to a mob boss who wants to find a way to regain control in Gotham, and after that nugget of knowledge crossed his brain matter he figured the only real way to defame a man in power under public obtain position is to make them either thieves liars or cheaters. Well it just take the right kind of woman in the wrong kind of time to make a man drop his pants. And that would end Gordon's run in the GPD. Then they could send in rouge that wants to work with the department to help find the batman, with that rouges true hidden motive to kill the batman so the mob can once again take the city back into control. Oh yes, I can see this.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:30 p.m. CST

    /\ read it and think it over

    by TheJudger

    Let it simmer. Gordon has to fall for Batman to fail. Think about it.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:32 p.m. CST

    It's spelled "rogue"

    by darth_aig

    You just talked a whole helluva lot about makeup.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:33 p.m. CST

    Can I blame lack of sleep

    by TheJudger

    and pain pills, please..

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:33 p.m. CST

    This movie = Cinematic junk food

    by 3D-Man

    And I mean that in a good way, 'cuz I loves me some junk food once in a while!

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:35 p.m. CST

    I believe the part is for DETECTIVE Essen...

    by TenaflyViper

    Probably will be on a Batman task force...

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:36 p.m. CST

    Prof. Pop-Cult

    by darth_aig

    he'd actually make something far more explicit.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:37 p.m. CST

    I was more excited about the first trailer

    by jimmy_009

    Other than Zep and Silversun Pickups on the soundtrack, this one seems like a step back. Scott Glenn seems WAY out of place. Like it was supposed to be David Carradine, but instead they had to go with Scott Glenn. A Kung-Fu master spouting off wisdom with a Texas accent = laughably bad.

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:40 p.m. CST


    by darth_aig

    THAT'S the qualm you have with the trailer? A casting quibble?

  • Nov. 3, 2010, 11:42 p.m. CST

    Looks fun to me

    by Box_Bruceleitner

    Don't exactly know what the rest of you are expecting. If you're already calling it as shit right now though maybe you shouldn't waste your time and throw down your money to see it when it comes out, just a thought. Usually if I don't like a trailer I don't see the movie but then... I also don't bitch about it to a bunch of strangers online. Cool choice of music with Silversun Pickups although they edited out the best part of the song, just a nitpick, they're so awesome live.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:01 a.m. CST

    I couldn't agree more kevred.

    by nick_noltes_neckhair

    Couldn't. Agree. More.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:06 a.m. CST

    You whiny fucks, this looks bad ass!!!

    by Tikidonkeypunch

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:25 a.m. CST

    So, I'm supposed to care because she's pretty and blonde, right?

    by BurnHollywood

    Whatever happened to homely underdogs?

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:28 a.m. CST

    Snyder not afraid to dream a little bigger

    by Arbifax

    Im glad that there is at least 1 director at Warner Bros who isn't afraid to let his imagination run wild

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:33 a.m. CST

    Scott Glen...

    by sambafreak13

    was AWFUL in that trailer..terrible lines (not his fault) and terrible line delivery (his fault). Visuals look cool, but that's it so far.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:50 a.m. CST

    I wish there was a different word

    by Spacezilla

    to describe how Zach is doing this kind of slo mo. And that is not a settup for the little bitches and like to act cunty calling Snyder a hack and shit. There is cheesy as fuck slo mo but, in Snyder's movies I love it because I can appreciate what is going on and it allows complete focus immersing me right into that particular impact and moment. Snyder is the opposite of the Mike Bay types who like to use that jumpy ADD quick cutting and style of film making. I hate that. I have really liked all of Zach Snyder's movies. It always amazes me when I read people hating on him. I find that really really weird.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:55 a.m. CST


    by Juggernaut125

    I agree with everything you had to say. Except for the stuff about Superman. He would never do that.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:56 a.m. CST

    just seems like the lady-matrix to me.

    by mr_miggs

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1 a.m. CST

    Looks great, sounds retarded.

    by ReportAbuse

    They lost me with the insipid dialogue which sounds like something out of Shyamalan's Last Airbender or Dungeons & Dragons or whatever. I liked the Inception-y / Matrixy concept but man Glenn sounded stoopid.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:20 a.m. CST

    Liked it better when it was called AMERICAN MCGEE'S ALICE....

    by BurnHollywood

    ...Or RETURN TO OZ.<p> Loved WATCHMEN, but this seem's a bit derivative...

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:20 a.m. CST

    Led Zeppelin?!

    by Ben_Richards_Bomb_Collar

    WTF? What? Licensing music ... Zeppelin ... does not compute ... NOOOO!

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:24 a.m. CST

    Movie looks badass though

    by Ben_Richards_Bomb_Collar

    Wow, that's like Tron Legacy level eye candy. Should have used the Zeppelin music for the badass cool parts though.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:31 a.m. CST

    Btw. The fifth thing she has to find?

    by Juggernaut125

    It's my penis. It'll set her free.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:36 a.m. CST

    Another "S"

    by TheJudger <P> Don't know which one I like better now. To bubble the lower curve of the S, or not to bubble: That is the question.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:37 a.m. CST

    not sure how you can tell if the acting is good by quick clips

    by brabon300

    it looks like a nice kick ass fantasy...straight popcorn movie...nothing wrong with that

  • Hope the movie doesn't have that. It's like they're trying to sell the movie but doesn't have enough drama/character beats, so they went all out visual. Considered me worried about the Superman project.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:41 a.m. CST

    Cineman Speaks!

    by Banexo 2011

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:43 a.m. CST

    CHICKS POSING: The Movie

    by monolithik

    Watch in amazement as 30 minutes of storyline/footage is slowmo'd into a 3 hour movie!

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:44 a.m. CST

    Good trailer but...

    by Cinemanno

    It's okay, it's standard Snyder movie. Now have some thoughts about Superman movie. I don't wanna this kind of Superman... slow mo, lot's of CGI...

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:45 a.m. CST

    Oh was also called SPIRITED AWAY at one point.

    by BurnHollywood

    Just sayin'.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:45 a.m. CST

    Glenn sounds like he's in a different movie.

    by AL bino

    A movie where he would make sense and not make you cringe when you hear the lines. <br> <br> Whatever movie that is.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:55 a.m. CST

    Znyder should take cue from Bay's COLOR PALETTE.

    by Se7en

    Bay does great effect movies IN COLOR, not washed out. Meaning it CAN be done. Superman Returns color was wash-out and desaturated, Didn't work. Superman should be in COLOR.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2:09 a.m. CST

    Pan's Labyrinth

    by Bruce of all Trades

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2:12 a.m. CST

    Pan's Labyrinth

    by Bruce of all Trades

    Only with 500% more CGI, about two dozen times more action, 10 times more hot girls in skimpy outfits, 200 more machine guns, a couple of samurai swords and EXPLOSIONS. Also no depth, no characters, no good acting and no story aside from a bare bones plot line. Man of Steel will be horrible. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck . . .

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2:14 a.m. CST

    Pan's Labyrinth meets the Matrix...

    by Chuck_Chuckwalla

    with a touch of Kill Bill and Brazil thrown into the pot.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2:18 a.m. CST

    And a pinch of...

    by Chuck_Chuckwalla

    ... Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2:26 a.m. CST

    Looks like Snyder has grown up :/

    by Fortunesfool

    has matured as a film-maker. Tackling adult themes and emotions again...<br>How did this f'ing kid get a job?

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2:33 a.m. CST

    I don't Harry, I tried to watch BitchSlap...

    by Toruk_Makto

    and wound up fast forwarding the whole movie.<p>Periodically I would push the FF button seeking a faster speed. <p>u -to the - g - to the- h

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2:44 a.m. CST

    This trailer was strangely unsexy.

    by pax256

    But cool still. Snyder so far can do no wrong.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:02 a.m. CST

    Great visuals but this film is miscast up the ass !

    by Grooveraider

    I'm sorry but I would've like this film more if all the chicks were Asian. These caucasian girls don't even fit into this type of combat.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:04 a.m. CST

    Holy Shit! Did you guys see the hidden Superman symbol?

    by Jobacca neither.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:11 a.m. CST

    Snyder is poet laureate of hot topic kids

    by drturing

    Owl city plus frank miller plus people landing in fighting poses = fat goth kid in mall's favorite filmmaker. And let's face it there's a lot of them.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:17 a.m. CST

    Admit it guys, you will watch the movie...

    by AsimovLives

    ... so that you can masturbate on account of the girls.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:19 a.m. CST

    Mr. P. Lant

    by AsimovLives

    Anybody who saw CASSHERN knows where Zack The Hack Snyder is stealing all his shots from.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:21 a.m. CST

    Listen up haters! Zach Snyder on Superman:

    by Righteous Brother

    "Superman is cool, the planet Krypton is like really cool, working the Christopher Nolan is cool, The Dark Knight was really cool. We wanna make Superman cool."

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:21 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I'm not impressed with "visualists" like Hack Snyder and Hack Bay. Those hacks' movies are false pretty looking movie, in tha,t the visuals might as well live independent of the movie, because they never are there to help tell the story, but to replace it. It's bad filmmaking. Those fucks should be directing perfume commerfcials instead, that's where their real talent lies.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:23 a.m. CST

    Reminds me of Alan Moore's Lost Girls...

    by king_vidor

    But without the hot sex

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:25 a.m. CST

    Looks Great, but Scott Glenn was HORRIBLE

    by ShiftyEyedDog2

    Stiffest acting I've ever seen or heard!

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:26 a.m. CST

    And this is the guy chosen to do Superman

    by syn_flood


  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:27 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The last thing that SUCKERPUNCH looks like is original. I watched CASSHERN, you know? I'm not so insular and ignorant of world cinema to be fooled by a few CGI tricks that Hack Snyder stole from somebody else.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:28 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Tel me about it. Or rather, don't, whenever i think of that, i just want to cry.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:29 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    If that's a real quote from Hack Snyde,r then the man is as stupid as i think he is. He talks like a complete retard.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:30 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Isn't that the truth? By the way, long time no see you here, pal. How are you? Good i hope.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:36 a.m. CST

    Armie Hammer for Superman.

    by UltimaRex

    Snyder's the style, Nolan's the substance. I'm not worried about Superman yet. After casting? That's a different story...

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:39 a.m. CST

    That whole glorious quicktime is a bit annoying

    by tomimt

    Quicktime ain't that great way to show internet videos unless you are an Apple user, in which case it's propably the best way. But on any other OS it's the crappiest way to portray anything.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:57 a.m. CST

    Jesus fucking Christ..

    by SlickyVonBoner

    It must be cool to hate everything. I love hearing a bunch of dorks bitch about a movie they haven't seen yet.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 4:07 a.m. CST


    by JonChambers

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 4:08 a.m. CST

    If you don't wear HEAVY MASCARA in this prison - YOU'RE OUT OF T

    by JonChambers

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 4:09 a.m. CST

    OH-MY-GOD!!! HARRY'S GONA GET 10 WOODIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by JonChambers

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 4:12 a.m. CST


    by JonChambers

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 4:22 a.m. CST


    by MorganLeafy

    Who the hell cares, as if originality is high on the list of Hollywood principles to begin with. Better well stolen than badly invented. Anyway, say with you will about Snyder but his mise-en-scene is simply better than Singer’s so that alone makes him better suited for Superman.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 4:27 a.m. CST

    The Judger

    by Rommel Catuncan

    I prefer the bubble on the first S. The bubble looks kind of big on the second one.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 4:51 a.m. CST

    Sucker does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    This looks like a whole lot of brainless fun to me.<p> Not one i'd go to the cinema to see but i'll certainly give it a rental.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 4:53 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    JonChambers, the girls aren't in a prison they're in a mental asylum. I think it's called SLUTTER ISLAND.<p> Hehe. Sometimes I crack myself up...

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 5:04 a.m. CST


    by Righteous Brother

    No I made it up, althought its not far off, Empire had a brief interview with him recently and kept a tab on how many Cools, Awesomes, and Super-Awesomes he used.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 5:41 a.m. CST

    "It's a Wankbank Jim... but not as we know it"

    by KillaKane

    Well this could all be pretty superficial on the surface, but damn Snyder's got my ticket money!

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 5:47 a.m. CST

    mixed-mode compositing orgy

    by justmyluck

    I guess Zack Snyder (and Michael Bay for that matter) have learned to keep people watching with things that crash or blow up. Would be nice to have a movie with some sort of emotional link. I saw Snyder's owl movie sort of hoping that would work on at least a Disney-ish level - but nope.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 5:59 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    There's aflipside to your coin, whihc is, when people like any shit that's thrown at them. You think that's a good thing?

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 6:11 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    So according to you, we should stick to recycled shit and we all should be so glad about it, hem? As for your coment about Zack The Hack Snyder being a better frame setting director then Bryan Singe,r there's quite a lot about filmmaking that you are still to know, i'm affraid to say. All those Snyder camera and CGi gymnastics, that's not the mark of a quality filmmake,r but one who not only borrows and steals form better filmmaker,s but one who has nothing to say or show and disguises it with show off. That shit might impress the early teens, but as an adult one should not fall for such easy tricks.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 6:12 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I never found brainless as fun. In fact, a smart movie entertains the hell out of me. Dumd stupid brainless movies insults me.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 6:18 a.m. CST

    Why are people

    by Robber_Button

    acting like this is the ONLY movie coming out next year and they're going to be forced, Clockwork Orange style, to sit through it? <br></br> <br></br> It's not the fucking movie apocalypse! Do you only watch films by the 10 most publicized directors? Jesus H Christ! There are thousands of films to go see (some of them have subtitles too) Expand your horizons, go see em or Netflix the fuckers. <br></br> <br></br> Really, you'll feel less aggrieved by films you're not even going to go see.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 6:30 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Well, i think you got him right. I saw an interview he did when WATCHMEN was released, and he sounded like a dumb ignorant fool. He barely has a vocabulary above a young teen. An ignorant dumb young teen. Hell, his audio comentary in 300 is just him talking about CGI and NOTHING ELSE! What a royal assclown this Snyder fool is.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 6:41 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Very well said, friend.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 6:48 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Asi, if it's a 'brainless' movie within the rom-com genre, or within the splatter genre, or courtroom drama or thriller - then i'll leave it.<p> But SUCKER PUNCH has dragons, and orc-like soldiers and giant samurai - so because it's a brainless movie within a genre I personally enjoy then i'll at least rent it.<p> It does at least have 'spectacle' going for it, no one can argue against that...

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 6:51 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    There's no excuses for brainsless dumb. In fact, i take it even more personal when the dumb brainsless shit is made in my favorite genre. That being SF. This is why, though by far SF is my favorite genre, i watch far less movies of that genre, because of the amount of dumb brainless shit that exists in the genre. So, no, i don't give excuses for brainless shit because if some movie is in the genre. In fact, i feel even more insulted.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 6:58 a.m. CST

    Many people mistake dumb-brainless with unpretentious.

    by AsimovLives

    And the two are very different things. Dumb brainless is what hacks like Bay, Jar Jar Abrams and Snyder do. Unpretentious fun is movies like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK or JAWMS, movies which though they aren't intellectual dissertations, they are quite very smart movies in the way they were writen and made. And that's the thing most people make huge mistakes about,and put together smart unpretentious fun movies like RAIDERS in the same sack as other truly dumb stupid brainless crap like 300, TRANSFORMERS or BREWERY TREK. Which i find very wrong and damn insuoting.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:08 a.m. CST

    Vomit set to music

    by YackBacker

    The best part of that trailer was when it stopped.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:09 a.m. CST

    Fun fun fun. . . .

    by Nice Marmot

    . . . I feel sorry for the haters.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:10 a.m. CST

    BrainDrain - Brazil, The Matrix, Pans Labyrinth, and Kill Bill

    by vic twenty

    were shitty movies in your opinion? At least your handle is accurate.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:19 a.m. CST

    And this guy is doing Superman?

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    [Weeps] <p> Judging by Snyder's previous works, this trailer is probably better than the actual film. Maybe working with Nolan will bring out another side to him, but I'm truly dreading the new Superman film at this point.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:29 a.m. CST

    by MorganLeafy

    No I do not want the same old recycled shit but I know what I like and I think Snyder can shoot action better than a lot of other directors. Everybody copies from somewhere. I recently watched X2 again and I noticed how pedestrian the action looked. Then I would rather have Snyder for this type of movie. But of course if you say I know nothing of filmmaking then you must be right, since you’ve won so many Oscars.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:34 a.m. CST

    This movie sounds familiar....

    by Sprinky

    2 of Virginia Andrews books concentrating on 3 girls trying to escape a school for girls led by an abusive woman. I mean minus that alternate reality thing you could almost say he rip offed that angle.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:36 a.m. CST

    You guys...

    by evilnerd

    I guess Nerds truly never get laid. All this masturbation-bullshit. Yaaaaawn!

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:38 a.m. CST

    So it's a Derivative Video Game?

    by FleshMachine

    seen it all before....boring eye candy...just like 300...even Scott's line was paraphrased from Rambo! (or wherever Rambo got it)!

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:38 a.m. CST

    Will Superman be a Video Game too????

    by FleshMachine


  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:39 a.m. CST


    by Beaverduck

    Fuck this movie. Fuck Zach Snyder. Fuck Superman.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:40 a.m. CST

    SUperman should absolutely be old school!!!

    by FleshMachine

    Thats what i liked about Superman spite of it's flaws, it had real heart, like the Donner picture. Non of Snyders film have any heart.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:40 a.m. CST

    Superman needs Heart NOT SNYDER!!

    by FleshMachine

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:42 a.m. CST

    When will this CGI overload crap DIE!?!?!?!

    by FleshMachine

    it is not exciting, it is not engaging, it is as shallow as it's pixels. Get costumes, shoot models, use a LITTLE CG. Watch little shop of Horrors ('85) that plants was friggin awesome..can you imagine how stupid it woudl be in cgi? but i digress.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:43 a.m. CST

    This is porn without sex

    by Suskis

    so I like it

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:58 a.m. CST

    Superman will suck because...

    by Beaverduck doesn't require flashy cool MTV bullshit film-making, it needs a passionate filmmaker that truly understands the Superman universe. The only thing that could possibly save the film is a strong foundation built by the Nolan's screenplay. But I wouldn't put it past Snyder to fuck it all up from there. There's a reason why everyone LOVED Donner's Superman, because he understood the material. Just like Nolan understands Batman, and fuck anyone who thinks it can or ever will be done better. True Dawn of the Dead fans (the original) weep at the remake because Zach Snyder failed to understand the original beyond it's potential for a DOTD 2.0 visual upgrade. Oh and for the record zombies don't run, the crazies in 28 Day s Later were infected with the rage virus. Peace out bitches.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 8:02 a.m. CST


    by HoboCode

    If you're going to do an Always Sunny reference at least do it right. It's Kitten MittOns.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 8:05 a.m. CST


    by FleshMachine

    right on, testify brother.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 8:13 a.m. CST

    meh... looks like plays like a video game

    by MurderMostFowl

    I don't mind the whole heros quest thing, but could this be any more linear of a movie? Get this, get this, get this, fight the final boss. You're free! <BR><BR>I really really hope that the whole "you'll fall for anything" thing, is actually more important to the story than a one liner.<BR><BR> If its all in her mind, she's got a really really good imagination too.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 8:17 a.m. CST

    Looks good to me.

    by ganymede3010

    However the story seems to be a little bland.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 8:20 a.m. CST

    Zack Snyder...

    by Beaverduck

    ...loves to slap his sugar-coated boner on-screen for all the mindless ants to slurp and slobber over.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 8:22 a.m. CST

    I'll spend the entire movie...

    by The_Floating_Skull_of_Robert_Loggia

    Imagining what it would be like to have my head buried between Emily Browning's ass cheeks. God, that chick is fucking hot. And she should have been Lisbeth Salander. Not that fucking alien-looking Mara chick.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 8:37 a.m. CST

    How many dicks did snyder suck to have a career?

    by alienindisguise

    all of his shit is comparable to a 10 year old having millions of dollars and studio access. A clusterfuck of 1 stupid idea after another with no concept of how to film a narrative and coherent storyline.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 8:38 a.m. CST

    Flesh Machine

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    I didn't think Superman Returns had much heart to be honest. Lois was an utter bitch to Clark, and (justly) aloof with Superman. Superman himself was a selfish prick who used his powers to be a peeping Tom and stalk her. There was a little at the end with the son, but felt forced and was born from questionable circumstances. Superman sleeping (one night stand?) with Lois and her not knowing his true identity; the possibility of her making another man think he was the father of the child. I found the characters to be very murky in Superman Returns. The one person who came across as remotely heroic was Richard White and he was being shit on by others! <p> Not that I think Snyder will inject much heart into his version, but I don't think Singer did either.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 8:47 a.m. CST

    you guts will hate this but jizz ovet Machete

    by Monolith_Jones

    Or any other Robert Rodriguez lame cheese fest. Not saying this looks amazing or that I'm running out to see it, ill wait for it to hit netflix. <p> Guess what, it looks like it was made for 14 year olds because it was. <p> <p> For the record the opening and credit scenes of Dawn Of The Dead is flawless. The whole movie is good but that opening is superb.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:01 a.m. CST


    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    I agree that Dawn of the Dead's opening credits are magnificent and the highpoint of all Snyder's films - but they were done by the excellent Kyle Cooper. <p> It's actually ironic, the two parts of Snyder's work that I think are magnificent (and occasionally watch online) are the things that he didn't actually do - Dawn and Watchmen's opening credits!

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:04 a.m. CST

    People Post Without Reading Other Posts

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    The Led Zeppelin thing was already covered, you pathetic cunts.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:05 a.m. CST

    There's something on the screen when I watch it

    by Faust_8

    wait a sec, that's on my end. My bad.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:07 a.m. CST

    Fucking funny comments...

    by WavingFlagsInSpace

    I love some of the shit posted here, mainly from people who have read a few film-theory textbooks, or maybe done a course in filmmaking at their local night school..."blah, blah, blah his scene setting is lifted from [insert any other filmmaker's name here]...blah, blah, blah this is going to be shit because his other films are shit and I have a 2 minute trailer with which I can dismiss this film...blah, blah, blah".<p>The problem is, you have to watch all of Snyder's films to be able to dismiss his oeuvre. So, you're in a catch-22, right? To throw around these pretentious dismissals means you've sat through Dawn, 300, Watchmen, etc. Yet you claim to hate him. Makes no fucking sense. If you hate Zach Snyder then boycott his movies, but if you boycott his movies shut the fuck up about judging him because you can't have your cake and eat it it, though judging by the size of some of you basement dwelling fuckhards, you clearly try to.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:07 a.m. CST


    by UltimaRex

    SR needed a sequel to patch things up. Now that situ is set in time.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:08 a.m. CST

    @ Monolith Jones

    by Beaverduck

    In Romero's Dawn of the Dead the mall was used as an opportunity to show how quickly consumers will return to a life of convenience if given the opportunity, even if it means ignoring all the horrible shit that's happening outside their walls of safety. Just like, I don't know... AMERICA? In Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, the mall was just a cool fucking place to make a zombie movie. Fuck yeah! Fuck Snyder fans. I'll take my entertainment with a dash of social commentary over his mindless bullshit any day of the week. Just to be clear, I don't care if Snyder fans get shit like "Suckerpunch" by a hack director, I really don't. I'm happy there's a market for Snyder. But what I cannot tolerate is this hack director hacking up good material like Superman and Dawn of the Dead. I won't even get into the shot by shot recreationS of Watchmen and 300 where the "visionary" credit should, but doesn't, go to the graphic novel artists and writers. Oh, and did I ,mention "fuck Zack Snyder"?

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:08 a.m. CST

    apologies for the typos

    by Monolith_Jones

    Typing on my phone, still that's no excuse. I am truly sorry.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:09 a.m. CST

    Not impressed by a bunch cgi visuals and no story

    by The Founder

    It looks like a video game. I'm not impressed at all by this.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:10 a.m. CST

    A patchwork of movie and video game cliches.

    by Tasteflex

    Does she get naked at least?

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:11 a.m. CST

    will give it a go

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    thought Watchmen was very well done and enjoyed 300, this looks like fun<br />but can understand the reservations that people have with this guy being the director for Superman.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:12 a.m. CST

    More WB $$ wasted that could've been towards an Authority film

    by The Founder

    Well that's how I feel anyway

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:13 a.m. CST

    This looks TERRIBLE. Hear me? TERRIBLE!

    by adolfwolfli

    Beyond the fact that abusive, dark, unclean mental asylums no longer exist, beyond the fact that if they *did* exist, they would be solely populated by would-be porn starlets in miniskirts, beyond all this – the "story" of this movie seems to also fall prey to "Inception Syndrome", which is, if all of these hyper-stylized, nauseatingly adolescent CG scenarios are taking place in the characters' imaginations, then there's nothing at stake? Snyder's best movie will most likely remain "Dawn of the Dead", at least until he takes some Ritalin, cures his A.D.D., and lightens up on the comic book misogyny and CG overload. Seems like he wanted to make 1) A Gilliamesque samurai movie, 2) A dragon movie, 3) A WWI alternate history steampunk war movie and 4) a robot movie, and, couldn't wait to make each one so cobbled together a half-assed plot to include all of these elements. Porn without sex is right. This movie seems like a 24 frames per-second reminder of how puerile and disconnected from reality our culture has become.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Looks like AICN is doing the fan Hype on this. Pilgrim anyone?

    by The Founder

    Oh Harry please stop jumping on board these projects and hyping them up as the next big thing, even if you personally aren't your website is.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:19 a.m. CST

    Snyder's 300 and zombie flick were hits for me, his rest were mi

    by The Founder

    Those were the only two films I liked from him. That Owl flick bored me to tears. Not sure how his Superman is gonna turn out but it has to be better then Singer. At least Singer can tell a story, it's his action that is the problem

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:29 a.m. CST

    I think....

    by simongarth2001

    ..This looks right up my alley awesome. Since nobody else exists in my dojo, my opinion is all that matters.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:32 a.m. CST

    People who hate Snyder are just upset because

    by Spacezilla

    They love fried green tomatoes and sisterhood of the traveling pants. Their lives are empty without them and are still bitching that Driving miss daisy 2 hasn't been released it. I am convinced you are all gay. Keep singing YMCA homos.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:41 a.m. CST

    @ Spacezilla

    by Beaverduck

    First of all, you're dumb. Second, our lives are not empty with Fried Green Tomatoes or Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants because they are in our lives, easily accessible at the local video store,, Netflix, etc. you moron. Third, shut the fuck up and stop thinking you're funny. It's sad.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:44 a.m. CST

    Really, really stupid.

    by jasper Stillwell

    If people are really excited by that trailer then more power to 'em. I hope Chris Nolan gets time to make an awful lot of set visits and has the key to the editing room.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:50 a.m. CST

    I find it funny that...

    by BarryConvex

    ...people sit here and bash this, but get all excited about films like "Scott Pilgrim vs the World" and "Tron Legacy". The fact of the matter is that this is exact same type of film of those: a CGI-laden, visually stylish, escapist fantasy film. I just don't get the double standards that you guys seem to have.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Know why he got the Superman gig?

    by Robber_Button

    He delivered the unfilmable Watchmen, beloved property of comic fans for many years. <br></br><br></br> On the one hand you got people claiming it's nothing like the graphic novel. On the other, you got people claiming it's shot for shot. <br></br><br></br>Know what that means in Hollywood parlance? <br></br><br></br>He must have got it right... Let's give him an established property and see what he does with it.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:54 a.m. CST

    @ BarryConvex

    by Beaverduck

    The truth is, everyone just has different criteria for what makes a good movie. I think Tron Legacy looks pretty fascinating personally, but only because it feels as if they actually have a story to tell and the CGI feels complimentary to it. I haven't seen Scott Pilgrim, nor do I wish to. My problem with "Suckerpunch" and Snyder in general is that he's just like Bay in his thinking... Very limited.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:57 a.m. CST

    More AICN pandering to Zack

    by Faust_8

    just like Scott Pilgrim

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:12 a.m. CST

    What's with all this whining?

    by WavingFlagsInSpace

    Zack Snyder is the perfect director for the Superman gig for a number of reasons:<p>1. He brings complex projects in on time. Warner Bros are up against the clock on this one, as the rights will revert to Siegel and Shuster very soon – they have to get a movie out or they forfeit the property, I believe.<p>2. Superman is a comic-book character and whatever else he handles, everyone knows that Zack Snyder can handle comic-book characters. They may not evolve much, but he takes what's on the page and puts it up on the screen. The whine that would go up from fan boys if someone tried to reinvent Superman would be monumental, so his inability to direct developing characters is actually a plus here.<p>3. His frenetic style is what tweens and teens absolutely love, at the moment. Moan away, but there is a bottom line here and it's made of dollars. Snyder caters to a broad and superficial audience base, thus going someway to guaranteeing bums on seats. It may well be the lowest common denominator but they're no trying to reinvent the wheel here, they're trying to generate income for those in the industry whilst also offering an entertaining piece of film.<p>Will it be entertaining? Not necessarily for all, but who gives a shit about the fan boys, they'll whine and watch it anyway. If they can hook a few more young kids into the Superman mythos then that might generate a few more comic book readers, lunch box purchasers, DVD/Bluray adherents.<p>Between the Donner acolytes who would bend over anything for Dick, the Singer apologists who desperately want the world to share their vision of why Superman Returns worked and the Snyder haters who are so naïve that they can't understand why a man whose films have generated $850,000,000 worldwide might still be offered work in an industry, it's a miracle there's going to be any movie in the first place.<p>In Nolan, I trust.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:14 a.m. CST

    First half of trailer looked really cool

    by PJoseph

    and then it got into all that over produced, alt-universe, art direction world and lost me.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:16 a.m. CST


    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    I've never seen 'Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants'. I saw 'Fried Green Tomatoes' once years ago, wasn't very memorable. Just because people aren't enthralled with Zack Snyder's masturbatory fantasy delivered through a blitz of CGI doesn't make them homosexual. I'd suggest that you're overcompensating; putting on a display of machismo, when really you are going to see 'Sucker Punch' to get a look at Jon Hamm's rugged features.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:23 a.m. CST

    @ WavingFlagsInSpace

    by Beaverduck

    You are absolutely right on all accounts. But I still hate Zach Snyder, and I wouldn't trust him to make me a peanut butter sandwich without explosions in it. In Nolan, I trust (and it's the only hope I have for Superman).

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:26 a.m. CST

    motorcycle boy

    by Monolith_Jones

    I meant the scenes before the credits as well, which I assume Snyder directed. <p> I actually get the criticisms of Snyder. His over-stylized aesthetic can work and has a place. Watchmen didn't work for me because stylized is the last thing it should have been. It was also overly reverent.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:33 a.m. CST

    The owl movie was tits

    by JackSlater4

    Sucke Punch will also be tits.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Spacezilla, the word you're looking for is "ramping"

    by JackSlater4

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:44 a.m. CST

    If you don't think Snyder is perfect for Superman

    by JackSlater4

    after seeing how he handled Leonidas and Manhattan, you are a fool.<P> Superman will finally be an accurate representation of what he looks like in the comics.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:46 a.m. CST

    " I just wasn't sure if seeing a bunch of scantily clad girls ru

    by 3 Bag Enema

    No clue.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:47 a.m. CST

    I jnning around blowing up and killing badass awesome designed

    by 3 Bag Enema

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:48 a.m. CST

    I just wasn't sure if seeing a bunch of scantily clad girls run

    by 3 Bag Enema

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Oh forget it.

    by 3 Bag Enema

    Remember when there was no limit to how long the title of one of these things could be? This is not an improvement. Anyway, "I just wasn't sure if seeing a bunch of scantily clad girls running around blowing up and killing badass awesome designed shit for a movie." That's all I'm saying. Want to know what it means? It means Harry doesn't give a shit.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:05 a.m. CST

    Led Zeppelin

    by fiester

    Is this the first time, as far as I know, Zeppelin has allowed any of its music to be used in a film? I know they have been notorious in the past at dying usage (for instance "Dazed and Confused", which too its title from a Zep song, could not get permission to us any Zep music). <p> So know they are allowing it for trailers? Hmmm. <p> Looks like fun though. I would go see this.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:12 a.m. CST

    I liked the 1st trailer better.

    by terquick

    The first trailer was much cooler. It had better music,it was edited great and not too much was revealed.It left me wanting more. The second trailers not so much. The music sucked,too much story was revealed and it definitely brought my expectation down. I will be going to see this movie but not as eagerly as i wanted to before.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:15 a.m. CST

    First Trailer Was Better

    by LaserPants

    The first one got me excited -- it looked like the most insane geektastic geekgasm exploitation movie ever made. This new one makes it look really, really dumb. If it comes out in PG-13, I'm skipping it. IF, on the other hand, it comes out as a hard-R flick? I'm there opening night.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:15 a.m. CST

    as you get older in life....

    by Bileranter

    Shit like this doesn't matter to you. Have a good wank kids

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:27 a.m. CST

    I am very concerned about Superman...

    by The_Samaritan

    I worry that it might be a two-hour music video. All flash no substance.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Star Wars

    by Bang!_Your_Dead

    I would still love to see Snyder make his Star Wars movie. At least he could make the Jedi badass again.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:33 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Snyder can shoot better action then most? That' a joke! You know who is a director that cna shoot action better then most? BEN AFFLECK in his movie THE TOWN. That's how you do action. That newbie director made better movie action then the so-called professionals like that assclown zack The Hack Snyder. Think about it. Stupid pseudo-cool CGI assisted shots do not good action make. Only time in Snyder's career when he actually shot good action was in his first movie. He never did it again.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:36 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    And the "if you can't make a movie you can't criticise" argument you pulled is just stupid. You know why? Can you know the difference between a good car and a bad car? You can, of course. Can you tell the difference between a good house and a bad house? You can, of course. Are you a car engineer or an architect? Do you understand it know?

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:40 a.m. CST

    By the way: Scott Glen would make the perfect Vulture.

    by 3 Bag Enema

    Don't skew young, Sony!

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:41 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Didn't Kyle Cooper also made the opening titles of ZOMBIELAND?

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:43 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    For my sins, i have watched all of Snyder's movies. SUCKERPUNCH is the one i'm going to pass on, and i'm also seriously considering SUPERMAN. When i bash Snyde,r i talk from experience, for i suffered through his movies. I was there.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Just watched Ransom last night and that slow motion

    by Spacezilla

    at the end is exactly the kind of slow motion that bugs the fuck out of me. Great example of cheesy lame slow motion. What Snyder is doing just looks cool. I sincerely do not understand any of you complaining about it. Is there anyone here who understand what I am saying about the difference between the slow motion used in most movies like Ransom and the slow motion that technique that Snyder does? Snyder is just technically brilliant in ways that people like Uwe Boll, Bay, Ratner, Anderson, McG.... fuck these people are Hacks. I honestly don't understand when someone uses the word Hack to describe Snyder. The dude takes chances, obviously has talent, has successfully branched himself out, taking on multiple different genres. Now he has been given the opportunity to do an original project created completely by himself. Why not give him a chance? <P> If it sucks then you didn't personally lose anything and your childhood wasn't raped or some shit but, what if its great and you actually have fun watching it? Holy shit! GIving it a chance and having a good time is actually possible. Really.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:47 a.m. CST


    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    I don't think he did - <p> I loved Zombieland's credits. I couldn't catch my breath for laughing when the flaming zombie approaches the fireman.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Fuck all the hate, this looks like fun

    by Saracen1

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:57 a.m. CST

    I just want to add that I watched NOTLD :Reanimated

    by Spacezilla

    Night of the Living Dead: Reanimated. In the special features there is a full on old school Comic Con panel discussing all things Zombies with all these different kind of Zombie professionals, artists working and various different Zombie projects. From comics to film, to video games.<p> At one point in the discussion they got to what projects surprised them the most. <P> They unanimously, agreed that Zach Snyder's Daw of the Dead was one of the greatest Zombie movie in 20 years. Gave lots of reasons why they thought it was great, and these Zombie geeks all gave it major props. It was very interesting and any of you who picked up NOTLD :Reanimated, should watch it. <P> Get off you high horse and give Snyder a little credit. It wouldn't kill you.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:58 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    My funniest movment of the opening credits of ZOMBIELAND was when we see the patrons of a stripper show running and one of those is running away with a beer mug. That he was running away but was saving the beer and the face the dude makes is the stuff of utter hillarity.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Dawn of the Dead

    by Spacezilla

    I really need to slow down when I type an re read it before posting. Horrible typos.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:59 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Fuck all the mindless gushing, this looks shit.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:02 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Two wrongs do not make a right. RANSOM's slow motion is shit, Snyder's slow motion is shit. It's two types of shit on slow motion. Not everybody can make slow motion, not everybody is a Brian De Palma or a Sam Peckimpah, no matter how much their publicits say.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:04 p.m. CST

    300 made me despise Zack The Hack Snyder

    by AsimovLives

    But what made me completly lose any atom of respect i had for him left was the "From The Visionary of 300" bullshit in the WATCHMEN trailer. Sur,e you might say, that was the marketing department talking. As if Snyder wouldn't had any say on that.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:08 p.m. CST

    You can't deny the look of 300 though

    by Spacezilla

    It look great, especially at the time it came out, and especially considering its budget. People don't seem to bitch about Sparticus Blood and Sand which would not exist had it not been for 300, which it completely and shamelessly rips off. And for fuck sake it attempts to do Snyder's slow motion technique accept it looks horrible when they do it. ITs clearly not something just anybody can do properly. It completely validates Snyder.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Looks good

    by disfigurehead

    The only Zack Snyder movie I hate is Dawn of the dead.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:15 p.m. CST

    I liked 300 and Dawn of the Dead

    by jimmy_009

    And any CREATIVE movie, good or bad, gets a thumbs up from me. The only thing I really don't like about this based off the trailer is Scott Glenn. He took me so far out of it I didn't want to get back in. Not too late to replace his footage guys...

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:19 p.m. CST

    This looks like a Ming Vase

    by jarjarmessiah

    Pretty on the outside, hollow on the inside.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:24 p.m. CST


    by FleshMachine

    getting the look right for superman means nothing if he's in a shallow emotionless film. you are the fool if you think Snyder has made a film with an ounce of depth.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:28 p.m. CST

    My biggest problem with DotDead

    by Juggernaut125

    was running zombies. Personally I believe zombies don't Fu, and zombies don't run. They shamble and travel in hordes which is what makes them so dangerous and scary. The motor skills for running zombies seems rigormortisly improbable to me and made the movie less enjoyable. I loved 300. I loved Watchmen. I look forward to this. I'll keep an open mind towards Superman until I see more production information.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Superman Returns did have heart

    by FleshMachine

    as much as the donner films? no...but infinitely more than any of snyder's films. i agree some of the supporting cast could have been better but routh was all heart in that movie.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:37 p.m. CST


    by rollnstns

    I agree with you this looks like fun.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Love the use of Silversun Pickups

    by chimpjnr

    One of the best bands around right now. Great live.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Looks like a Feminist's Nightmare

    by Quadrillionaire

    No self respecting girls who "kick ass" would dress up like pathetic dieseased hookers

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:42 p.m. CST


    by rollnstns

    Well, I've never seen anything like it. I ask you, What's not original about it?

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:42 p.m. CST


    by rollnstns

    Well, I've never seen anything like it. I ask you, What's not original about it?

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Why does Scott Glenn look like he's wearing mascara?

    by Bruce of all Trades

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:54 p.m. CST

    About "When the Levee Breaks"

    by I Max U Mini

    Would it blow your mind to discover it was first recorded in 1929?

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:55 p.m. CST

    @ rollnstns

    by Beaverduck

    This movie looks originally crappy.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:57 p.m. CST

    I'd say there is plenty of depth to all his films

    by JackSlater4

    Especially Guardians and Watchmen

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 12:57 p.m. CST

    I_Max_U_Mini It would blow my mind

    by Spacezilla

    "Would it blow your mind to discover it was first recorded in 1929?"<P> I know Led stole most of their songs but 1929? Hoobuddydoobuddy

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:05 p.m. CST

    the fuck is this shit?

    by Gungan Slayer

    typical Snyder fanboys sucking up everything this dude churns out. That trailer was AWFUL. Insert cliches, hot chicks, and massive amounts of SHITTY CGI, and that's what qualifies as a movie these days? PUH-Lease.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:07 p.m. CST

    Spacezilla, It was Memphis Minnie and ...

    by I Max U Mini

    <p>... Kansas Joe McCoy.</p> <p></p> <p></p>

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:19 p.m. CST


    by jackalcack

    This looks like the movie Harry so desperately wanted Inception to be, and I'm so glad it wasn't. A big, loud, obnoxious, dumb, cliche ridden CGI fest action film utterly devoid of intelligence or subtlety. This type of shit panders to the borderline sinister, hit-girl worshipping, manchild, geek crowd who use words like 'awesome' and 'kicks ass' to describe it. Yes Harry, I'm looking at you. <p> "Dragons, nazis, machine guns, robots...all in one movie, that's like just so totally awesome man" <p> Zack Snyder is such a fucking hack.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:20 p.m. CST

    20 year old girl with anime fetish clothes

    by ricarleite2

    Count me IN!

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:24 p.m. CST

    I'd a preferred her over Marra as Salander.

    by SnootyBoots

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:25 p.m. CST


    by jackalcack

    I just read your post, couldn't agree more. You absolutely hit the nail on the head.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:51 p.m. CST

    The vid game movie for Scott Pilgrim haters

    by estacado1

    I fuckin hated Scott Pilgrim. Pointless 8-bit graphic shit. This is how you make a movie. And if you're looking for some sort of meaningful story in this one, you're watching the wrong movie.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 1:58 p.m. CST


    by estacado1

    I just read your post, couldn't agree more. You absolutely hit the nail on the head. Your post describes exactly why I will LOVE this movie.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2 p.m. CST

    Superman Returns was shit.

    by Stalkeye

    That's right, I said it.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2:02 p.m. CST

    Usually I hate pretentious comments...

    by Billy_D_Williams

    but this really does look fucking awful. I don't like Snynder...great filmmaking requires subtlety of technique, even if you're doing big action (see John McTiernan, Spielberg, Zemeckis, Cameron, even Bay to a certain extent)...Snyder just seems to vomit everything into every frame without restraint and his pacing suffers for it...great filmmaking requires constant pacing...every shot in a Snyder movie screams MONEY SHOT, and that's just not how it works...the guy is about as subtle as a wrecking ball, and this trailer confirms my fears about Superman; much like he blew the musical selections in Watchmen (when you have a "times are changing" montage, you DO NOT use a song called "The Times They Are a-Changin"), Superman will be on the nose, visually excessive in the extreme and having all the restraint of a five year old ADD sufferer on Halloween-candy night. the only reason Snyder is getting hold of these big, important properties is because he made a 2 hour UFC commercial called 300...I still don't understand the appeal of that film and Snyder is still riding the box office success of that piece of shit...let's face it, the guy hasn't made a great film yet (Dawn was pretty good, but not great), but he's getting properties like Superman? what the fuck is on Nolan's mind? i heard they only hired him because he could shoot it fast and make the release date, which does not instill confidence.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2:19 p.m. CST, I mean BrainDrain..

    by Stalkeye

    ..Kick Ass was based on a graphic novel by Mark Millar and John Romita Jr. And despite being a commercial failure..(well not really.)It gain a huge cult following and very good Dvd/Blu Ray sales/revenues.<p>Pilgrim, on the other hand looks like shit to the extent that I wont even torrent the damn thing.<p>Waste of HDD space.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2:32 p.m. CST

    Snyder should not do Superman

    by blackwater

    for the same reason Tarsem would be a bad choice for Superman. Visual directors, not directors of dialogue. No heart here, or in Watchmen, or 300. Just balls. Balls is fine, but for Superman, you also gotta have heart.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2:34 p.m. CST

    I masturbated to this trailer

    by PvtTOUCH

    Not the whole thing, just the Scott Glenn parts

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2:46 p.m. CST

    On the nose is a difficult argument.

    by Robber_Button

    Is having "The times they are a changing" any less on the nose than stopping a film to explain it's theme to a character or having large tracts of exposition that you know you'll dread if you revisit the film again cause there's so damn much of it? No. <br></br> <br></br> Looky, We've got one wears a suit and tells you how serious he is about putting reality on the screen and the other is having fun with a medium he clearly enjoys and has the vocabulary of a 12 year old. Trouble is neither are particularly renowned for portraying particularly well developed emotions on screen. Something a few people have said is essential to the Superman franchise. <br></br> <br></br> Worried? Yes I am as the last and only Nolan film i felt an emotional connect in was Memento. <br></br> <br></br> So far i'm only seeing 2 thirds of the pie and want to see the last. We know the idea being that Superman "Whatever" will have that magic Nolan touch structurally and Snyder's visual flair (Argue all you want the man knows how to compose a frame) I'm looking at Sucker Punch as Snyder purging his baser instincts in readiness for a measured thoughtful project. Show me a writer / co producer with a track record of putting convincing human relationships up on screen and i'll be really impressed.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2:53 p.m. CST


    by Billy_D_Williams


  • Nov. 4, 2010, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Scott Glenn

    by Chanoc

    I´ll see anything he´s in. Loved him in Urban Cowboy as the bad guy.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3 p.m. CST

    Does anybody here remember

    by shran

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3 p.m. CST

    Real movie sets?

    by shran

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:01 p.m. CST

    And normal edit buttons and the like?

    by shran

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:02 p.m. CST


    by Billy_D_Williams

    Snyder got Superman long after he finished Sucker Punch, so he is not purging anything, other his bodily fluids all over the screen for 2 hours. Snyder knows how to compose a frame, but so does a fucking DP, which is what they do. Knowing how to compose a frame is maybe 40% of filmmaking, and if it's the only strong suit of a director, he's better suited to commercials, which thrive on blowing-your-load in every frame filmmaking. Snyder is not a good filmmaker, I don't care what anyone says, because it's got way more to do with tone and pacing, than it does with composing shots. Of course since today's audience has been conditioned to eat up bad to mediocre films, which is 90% of hollywood movies, Synder's films make bank, because 90% of audiences don't give a fuck about great storytelling as long as their eyeballs are being fucked.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Just got my u-verse installed

    by JackSlater4

    guess I needed to brag

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:12 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I can deny the look of 300. I don't have a problem with the theatricallity and artificiality of visials of 300, because i have seen such alike in BBC historical TV shows. I even dig that concerning ancient history stories. But Zack The Hack Snyder's visuals for 300 are all a pile of bullshit. Even his "pretty" stuff is questionable at best. no, i wasn't impressed. I have seen lesser budgeted movies with far less CGI crap be far mor evisually interesting and impressive. Like THE FALL. Now that's a visually stunning movie, and made on 300's lunch budget. Snyder is not that much of a visualist, no more then Michael Bay is. And Bay is shit. There's more to be a visualist then just overburden your movie with flashy CGI bullshit.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:14 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You have never seen CASSHERN, have you? Or any manga, for that matter.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:15 p.m. CST

    anybody can be a director

    by Billy_D_Williams

    the crew is what makes a movie look like a movie...any idiot off the screen can go on a set and give basic instructions, "i want the explosion bigger" or "you should run faster"...the crew is what makes the machine go and the film watchable, that's not an issue...and that is 80% of films today, just watchable and instantly forgettable upon leaving the theater...what a great director does is put a very definitive stamp on the movie...his voice supersedes that of his crew, and is the strongest element in the film...movies like Jaws, Raiders, Back To The Future, Lawrence of Arabia, Platoon, Robocop, Network, The Terminator, Empire Strikes Back, Pulp Fiction and There Will Be Blood could not have been made by just anybody off the street. They have a very distinctive voice that oversteps the crew and makes them still stuck in your mind years and years after release. Snyder is just a guy off the street...his movies could have been directed by anybody. Slow mo and dynamic angles are something any crew can pull off...great filmmaking requires more than that. Snyder doesn't have the goods.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:15 p.m. CST

    If Snyder sells this movie as an wholy original movie...

    by AsimovLives

    ... then it will bne know beyond a shadow of a doubt what a fucking lying cheatting fraud that fucker is.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Overrated hacks nobody understand why they're loved:

    by AsimovLives

    Michael Bay, Jar Jar Abrams, Stephen Norrington and Zack Snyder. How the fuck can this fucking mediocre talentless hacks get so much love at AICN? How the fuck can this be? Is it something in the water? Do people even care about movies anymore? and i really mean care about movies, and not getting excited like teengirls because there's explosiosn and fast paced edited bullshit onscreen. How the fuck this has come to be like this? How? Why? Fucking ass, man!

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:28 p.m. CST


    by Billy_D_Williams

    i'll tell ya, it's depressing...the populace has been conditioned to like crap films...what do you think the 80s was about? alot of great films, but alot of was the decade of the producer and the studio and they wanted thy needed a strong economic model for their business to thrive...that means dumbing down the public's taste in movies, so they can generate product like an assembly line in a factory to cater to each demographic...then they hire a guy off the street (Snyder, Bay, McG, Boll, Harlin, etc) and a unionized crew who will run the thing, and BAM, you have your sausage factory. it happened slowly and steadily, and now even film geeks like shitty movies, as demonstrated on sites like these. how many movies a years are actually worth watching. the only movies i've seen this year that were worth an outrageously priced ticket were Inception, The Social Network, and probably the upcoming Black Swan and True Grit.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Jesus, must be getting old but this...

    by cushing1967

    Baffled the Hell out of me. I have, up until now, liked Snyders output - I thought Dawn of the Dead was a pretty entertaining remake of a film that should have been untouchable. I thought 300 was pretty impressive when the context of the unreliable narrator is taken into consideration. When you realise that 300 isn't a History but a Propoganda told by David Wenhams character to enthuse and rouse the Spartan army then the 'ridiculous' aspects of the story become a lot more palatable. And I loved Watchmen - including the new ending (let's not forget that Alan Moore himself said in an interview well before the film was even in production that the squid ending was a satire on comic books themselves).<P>This? Jesus I have no idea what it's about and no real desire to find out what it's about - I haven't played a video game since Missile Command and I'm not wired into that who cultural thing - this looks like a bloated mess. Scott Glenn (never been that impressed with him as an actor does look especially bad in this) - dragons, zepellins, samurai...nah, I like all of them - especially zepellins (or any dirigible of similar standing) but this film doesn't look like fun to me - it looks like the kind of story that a hyperactice child might tell after too much sugar - 'AnthenthedinosaurcameandthenthespacemanshothimanthenBatmananSpidemancameanthenagiantrobotcamenanthensevenaeroplanescameanthen...'.<P>This, I'm sorry to say, looks like my worst idea of what a film should be.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Asimov Kevin Smith and RR should be at the top

    by Monolith_Jones

    Of that list. Way before Snyder. Snyder for me is where Kevin Smith and Rodriguez were a few movies back, either evolve and grow or I have to give up on his movies.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 4:20 p.m. CST

    If I ever see one more shot of someone...

    by notcher

    landing on the ground on one knee "Blade" style and looking up as we dramatically pan in, I'm gonna fucking murder everybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Am I concerned for Superman? Yes, but...

    by Cletus Van Damme

    ...consider the alternative. WB loses the rights to the creators' families.<P>What the hell are they going to do with those right except sell them to another company.<p>There go all our hopes for a Justice League movie with Superman in it, or hell, even a World's Finest movie.<p>A Zak Snyder Superman film is the lesser evil, face it.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 5:40 p.m. CST

    Mailin Akerman Cast as Lois Lane!

    by RedBull_Werewolf

    where's the story AICN?

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 5:46 p.m. CST

    malin akerman

    by jackalcack

    is a a dreadful actress

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 6:07 p.m. CST

    "This looks like the movie Harry so desperately wanted

    by KilliK

    Inception and I'm so glad it wasn't. A big, loud, obnoxious, dumb, cliche ridden CGI fest action film utterly devoid of intelligence or subtlety."<br /> <br /> <p>the funny thing? you just described Inception.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 6:10 p.m. CST

    Dear Zach,

    by Voltero

    could you please hand me a napkin so I can wipe your jizz off my face p.s. this looks SO fucking boring, better luck next time!

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Martin Sheen cast as Uncle Ben!

    by JackSlater4

    where's the story AICN?

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 6:54 p.m. CST

    Asimov and Billy D

    by GenerationMTV

    I myself am a 26 year old music video director and aspiring future filmmaker. heres my site: Guys like Bay, Tony Scott, Joseph Kahn, Hype Williams, Fincher, and Snyder are Gods to me (yes i know its the end of cinema right? lol). Not anyone can be a director. These guys were not htired "off the street". Ridley, Tony, Fincher came from TV commercials and music videos. Just making it into directing videos and ads is hard enough, trust me I am trying it now. It takes an INCREDIBLE amount of work to make a film or video or commercial. To direct a crew of HUNDREDS, extras who wont stop talking while are trying to get a shot, having a vision that your line producer or editor dont share, waking up at 3AM drawing storyboards, editing, directing arrogant actors and diva actresses, take after take after take, dealing with writers who want a different ending than you, and producers who wanna cut the budget or shorten your schedule or make it PG-13 when you want it R... ...dealing with bad weather and rainy days when you need sun, setbacks, location scouting, shooting a scene that is set in the day at night and making it look like night through practical effects and CG (ive had to do that), a deadline, red/digital/film 35mm/IMAX cameras, working with a cinematographer who doesnt speak english, controlling a WHOLE set and making it all run smooth. The director controls everything on set and must be on point or the project is lost. Directing is one of the HARDEST jobs and making a film takes 2 years of your life from pre-production to shooting to post. Not to mention sound mix, CGI, music, etc. Its a killer. Not everyone is cut out for it but you gotta love this sh*t. Every person who has risen to directing to Hollywood filmmaking has a love for film, is incredibly talented, hard working and have a vision. Dont hate because they are doing it and you're not. If you think you can do better, quit your day job, go to film school, make an indie, become a commercial/music video director, get discovered and make "Real Movies". trust me, with todays studios (dont get me started on FOX and rothman) its not as easy as it looks. As Spike Lee once said, its a miracle ANY movie ever gets made with the 568 egos on set and the 26 egos off set funding it all. Despite it all I love this industry, I love action films, I love making films. I love this sh*t.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Remember that scene in Big when the kid pitched his movie?

    by Immortal_Fish

    That's this movie.<P>This flick should be called "Big 2: In Your FACE!!"

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 7:10 p.m. CST

    GenerationMTV, amen.

    by JackSlater4

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 8:10 p.m. CST

    terrible dialog

    by Gargolito

    the "wizard" character is lame and derivative, they should reshoot it with some CGI otherwordly, if they're going to go live-action anime, do it all the way.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 8:11 p.m. CST


    by jackalcack

    You're a fucking douchebag

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:23 p.m. CST

    Ugh, Quicktime

    by Toonol

    Worst video format since Real died off. Anybody have a link to any other format?

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 9:36 p.m. CST


    by JonChambers

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:41 p.m. CST

    Why was the teaser so much better?

    by slaughterstorm

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:44 p.m. CST

    To: All the ding dong dum dums out there....

    by Khaaaaan

    ...who do not see the obvious here: This is a Heavy Metal magazine movie come to life on the big screen! Why do people who come to this site and apparently 'LOVE' fantasy, sci -fi & the like seem to have such a hard time "getting" the concept of Snyder's Sucker Punch film? It's a love letter to all things awesome and cool! Why be negative?

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:47 p.m. CST

    Snyder as a director is superior to Nolan

    by Arbifax

    Snyder makes movies that the 14 year old in everyboday can enjoy Christopher Nolan makes movies for 14 year old boys who fancy themselves grownups

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 10:54 p.m. CST

    feister re: Zeppelin song in Movies

    by DiscoGodfather

    "Tangerine" in "Almost Famous" (2000) was the first officially sanctioned use of a Zeppelin song in a movie. (Alas, Cameron Crowe attempted and failed to get "Stairway to Heaven" in the same movie.) Part of "Kashmir" was in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" (1982) but there was some special stipulation that I don't remember. Pretty sure that's all.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:06 p.m. CST

    "wearing nearly nothing?"

    by gun_will_travel

    No. Girls in southern California wear less in church. Zack should have gone hard-R, red band all the way. To describe a PG-13, approved for all audiences trailer as "kicking all kinds of ass" is just false advertising.

  • Nov. 4, 2010, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Teaser was better than this trailer

    by Prof. Pop-Cult

    I was mildly interested in seeing SP when I first saw the teaser. But after seeing this, the official trailer, perhaps not so much. That's a bad sign coming from somebody like me, because I have paid to watch of three of Snyder's movies, and have to admit to enjoying each of them. SP on the other hand looks like a mess and, worse, interesting to look at boring to sit through -- like Star Wars Episode III, Speed Racer, The Spirit, etc..

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 1:03 a.m. CST

    I thought the trailer was okay.

    by Orbots Commander

    If anything, it has the spectacle part down. I think Snyder has a great eye for visuals, and there's some good stuff here, but fuck, the speed ramping annoyed the piss out of me. Don't how much is in the movie, and how much of it is just the trailer though. <p> With a really great script, I think Snyder can do very well, but then again, so could my old Aunt Mary.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 1:07 a.m. CST

    Prof. Pop-Cult is right.

    by Orbots Commander

    Sucker Punch's trailer reminds of Speed Racer, which also had a brilliantly visual trailer. The movie itself though? Tedious, third rate story telling. I actually, no joke, dozed off during Speed Racer. Then again, that's when I was working two jobs, so maybe it was the exhaustion.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 1:24 a.m. CST

    Speed Racer was at least better than

    by Dennis_Moore

    Ninja Assassin. Now THAT was dogshit.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 1:25 a.m. CST


    by DrMorbius

    The trailer can be seen at the imdb website.<p>

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 1:45 a.m. CST


    by Billy_D_Williams

    nobody gives a shit whether you're a director or not...being a director does not validate your opinion about the merits of hollywood films, most of which are total one has to direct movies to tell you 80-90% of hollywood films are an insult to human intelligence and overpriced like a motherfucker. yes, directing is hard, old doesn't change the fact that the majority of filmmaking is like making sausage...they're making release dates and opening weekends, not cinema for the most part. it's fine to love pointing a camera at stuff and shooting it, making it blow up, or fly or whatever...none of the mechanics of filmmaking has anything to do with what actually makes a great movie, which is story, tone, pacing and originality. you can get up at 5am every day for two years to make a movie, how good it turns out is NOT in direct proportion to how early you rise, how hard you work, or how many sleepless nights you endure. i'm sure Uwe Boll, McG and Brett Ratner all work very hard and maybe even toss and turn and worry about their films. guess what? it don't change a goddamn thing, and their films still suck...horribly. and the directors you listed are actually great filmmakers, Fincher, Scott...Tony, to a certain extent...I'm not talking about them, although Tony and his brother Ridley's best days seem to behind them, Fincher is at the top of his game. there are only a handful of notable directors in Hollywood...the majority of hollywood big name directors are big name directors because their films made money, but we all know audiences flock to shit movies, so what does that say about the talent of those directors??? box office is no validation for great films. There Will Be Blood, arguably the best film of the past 25 years didn't even crack $100 million worldwide. Paul Thomas Anderson is one the of the best filmmakers in the world, yet he can still barely get his films financed (The Master, his latest just fell apart because of financing problems), yet guys like Snyder, McG, and Ratner are shitting out hundred million dollar budgeted films left and right. again i ask, what does this tell you about their talent? NOTHING...well, it tells you something. that your post is bullshit.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 1:50 a.m. CST


    by Billy_D_Williams

    forgot to mention that Joseph Kahn and Hype Williams are an embarrassment to filmmaking. all style, no substance, literally. cliched? yes, but cliches exist for a reason. getting up at 5am and being able to work a crew does not mean you're a great director. stupidest thing i've ever heard.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 2:57 a.m. CST

    Billy D Billy D

    by GenerationMTV

    you are not understanding my point. i am not saying that story, acting, tone, and pacing dont matter. i may love action and CG and t!ts as much as the next guy but guess what...even though tony scotts Domino is my fave all time film...M. Night's THE VILLAGE is my second fave all time. i know many people hate on that film but whether you agree on if its good or not you have to admit, its one of the slowest, quietest dramas EVER with a few scares here and there, a romance story at its heart, and a crazy plot twist ending. It had a very touching story that moved me greatly. I KNOW that story is important and good acting is great. Bay, Ratner, Snyder, they all make popcorn films. These types of films require a few things: Visual POP, Action, FAST pace, quick cuts, great cinematography, humor, etc. On all these fronts, these guys did their job. You cant judge them on something they arent trying to accomplish. Each film has its own requirements. Spielberg is a master at this. He didnt shoot or pace The Color Purple in the same way he shot and paced Jurassic Park or Minority Report or Schindlers List or Hook. Some movies require great acting, slow pace, well written plot, slow editing, and simple camera work. Others require over the top action, flashy visuals, lots of CGI, funny humor, bright colors, and hot babes. I dont hold it against Bay or JJ Abrams or Snyder that they cant direct an Oscar worthy performance the same way I dont hold it against Oliver Stone for not doing horror or hold it against Michael Mann for sucking at comedy or hold it against Pizza Hut for making terrible chinese food. c'mon bro, use ur common sense...

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 2:57 a.m. CST

    Billy D Billy D

    by GenerationMTV

    you are not understanding my point. i am not saying that story, acting, tone, and pacing dont matter. i may love action and CG and t!ts as much as the next guy but guess what...even though tony scotts Domino is my fave all time film...M. Night's THE VILLAGE is my second fave all time. i know many people hate on that film but whether you agree on if its good or not you have to admit, its one of the slowest, quietest dramas EVER with a few scares here and there, a romance story at its heart, and a crazy plot twist ending. It had a very touching story that moved me greatly. I KNOW that story is important and good acting is great. Bay, Ratner, Snyder, they all make popcorn films. These types of films require a few things: Visual POP, Action, FAST pace, quick cuts, great cinematography, humor, etc. On all these fronts, these guys did their job. You cant judge them on something they arent trying to accomplish. Each film has its own requirements. Spielberg is a master at this. He didnt shoot or pace The Color Purple in the same way he shot and paced Jurassic Park or Minority Report or Schindlers List or Hook. Some movies require great acting, slow pace, well written plot, slow editing, and simple camera work. Others require over the top action, flashy visuals, lots of CGI, funny humor, bright colors, and hot babes. I dont hold it against Bay or JJ Abrams or Snyder that they cant direct an Oscar worthy performance the same way I dont hold it against Oliver Stone for not doing horror or hold it against Michael Mann for sucking at comedy or hold it against Pizza Hut for making terrible chinese food. c'mon bro, use ur common sense...

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 3:04 a.m. CST

    sorry for the double post

    by GenerationMTV

    By the way, the day Bay or some of these guys attempt a small serious drama and it fails to move you, THEN you can complain. But dont fault them for doing what they were paid to do. In my opinion, theres no such thing as bad directors. A movie can be bad, but only because the story is dumb, makes no sense, the acting was bad, or i just "didnt like it". As long as the film gets made, the director did his job. Not liking a film is subjective. You and others may bash Bad Boys 2, but go on IMDB and read the boards. Go on YouTube and type in any clip of Bad Boys 2 and read the comments. That film (and the original) are loved! Those movies are hilaious and we fans cant wait for part 3. "bad" is subjective.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 3:29 a.m. CST

    And please don't throw Kick-Ass into this mess...

    by Prof. Pop-Cult

    ...Along with Scott Pilgrim and Suckerpunch. Although I preferred the comic over the movie version, the movie still showed a lot of genuine heart, humanity and cinematic artistry on the part of Matthew Vaughn. (In particular, I am thinking of the montage showing Kick-Ass and Hit Girl are preparing for their final battle. The shots and the soundtrack brought to mind Blade Runner, when Deckard is washing his bloodied face, without directly ripping off the movie, but paying homage to it.) Yeah, there were a few flaws with the movie (in particular, Katie dating Dave despite him lying to her about being gay rang false and misogynistic; she should have become angry at him, just like in the comic), but overall it's a solidly made movie. And I really would like to see a sequel to it in a few years.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 3:31 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "the only movies i've seen this year that were worth an outrageously priced ticket were Inception, The Social Network, and probably the upcoming Black Swan and True Grit."<br><br>Isn't that the truth? Indeed those movies are the only ones that made me still bother to go to the theater and watch movies, instead of just not bothering and just park my ass in front of the TV. Thank goodness that there's still some truly interested and interesting filmmakers out there like Nolan, Fincher and The Coens, filmmaker that still make me believe in cinema, despiste all the shit there's out there. Small mercies indeed!

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 3:34 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Inicially i was allowing the Unreliable Narrator angle pass by to justify the stuff in 300, until the movie put war elephants,a dn war rhinos into the picture. How the fuck could such a provincial spartan who would had never left his tiny stop of Greece ever knew what the hell an elephant or a rhino was, ro even how they would look like? Or explosive gunpowder hand grenades? No, the unreliable angle argument is not good to justify the bullshit in 300.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 4:06 a.m. CST


    by Billy_D_Williams

    "Bay, Ratner, Snyder, they all make popcorn films. These types of films require a few things: Visual POP, Action, FAST pace, quick cuts, great cinematography, humor, etc. On all these fronts, these guys did their job."--You're only 26 so I guess you weren't around for better popcorn flicks like Empire Strikes Back, Raiders, E.T., Jaws, The Exorcist, Poltergeist, Aliens, Back To The Future, Robocop, The Abyss, The Terminator, Wrath of Khan, Alien, The Thing, Carrie, etc...all popcorn flicks, all miles better than anything Snyder and co. have even imagined making. Popcorn flicks don't have to have "Visual POP...FAST pace, quick cuts" like you mentioned, that's all MTV generation bastardized horseshit.--"You cant judge them on something they arent trying to accomplish. Each film has its own requirements."--Every film has the requirement to be great, period...genre films and popcorn flicks don't have some ridiculous ration on how classy they can seem to have been brainwashed by Hollywood conditioning, which started in the 80s, with this "fast cut-action beat every 5 minutes" MTV bullshit that was created by the studios in order to develop their assembly line filmmaking aesthetic as a way of controlling the director and keeping a reign on the artistic merits of a film as not to piss off and/or alienate the dumbed down, conditioned audience of today. If Jaws had been made today, the studio would force the director to show the shark in the opening scene, PERIOD. That pretty much sums it up. Today's filmmakers are gear-heads, they can shoot, and know alot about cameras and lighting...that's pretty much it. But that's just being a glorified cinematographer. Anyone can learn the technical merits of filmmaking and make something look "cool", very few can actually elevate the material to classic status like Cameron, Spielberg, Verhoven and the rest. Today's big budget rock n roll directors are a pale shade of the greats.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 4:09 a.m. CST


    by Billy_D_Williams

    "In my opinion, theres no such thing as bad directors"--this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you're clueless about filmmaking. i've never heard a more idiotic and obtuse statement. Of course there are bad directors...who do you think makes all the shit that gets produced in hollywood? You're basically saying, by default, that there's no such thing as a bad movie. jesus.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:50 a.m. CST


    by cushing1967

    Surely the inclusion of Elephants and War Rhinos isn't Zach Snyders doing? These were elements from the source material and that's what Snyder was making - it isn't a history of Battle of Thermopylae but an adaptation of the graphic novel. So, the inclusion of these things is down to Frank Miller - who never claimed he was writing a history either but a 'theatrical retelling' of the Battle of Thermopylae. I could understand your ire if this film was presented as a truth, but it never is. I mean the only thing that truly bothers me from the unreliable narrator aspect is the exclusion of the second king of Sparta - as that would never be left out by Dilios - but even that doesn't bother me enough to spoil my enjoyment of 300.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 6:10 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives not Asimov1967

    by cushing1967

    Sorry - d'oh.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 8:58 a.m. CST

    Kick-Ass did not bomb... it made $100 worldwide

    by Prof. Pop-Cult

    On a modest production budget of $30. It is already profitable, and this doesn't count its healthy DVD/Blu-ray sales or upcoming broadcast rights on cable and satellite channels throughout the world. The movie was also not some crazy-ass CGI-fest like Scott Pilgrim was and SuckerPunch will be. Yes, these movies all appeal to the same demographic, but you have to consider the failure/success, whether creative or financial, of each under its own circumstances.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 10:48 a.m. CST

    Kick Ass, Kicked Ass.

    by Stalkeye

    As one of the posters have mentioed, the film did have heart and moments that were not clche like your average mikey bay film.I never bothered to read the comic/GN,but needless to say, I'm sure the film was very faithful to the comic counterpart but with a few exceptions.. (the jet pack scene in particular.)which would be more like a surprise for those expecting the movie to follow the events from the comic page per page.I'm personally glad KA got the girl in the end. Not every ending has to be gloomy. That's what Korean films are for anyways.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Too much text

    by gun_will_travel

    in those recent posts. Important ideas should be stated concisely. Less is more.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 11:08 a.m. CST

    there ARE "bad" movies

    by GenerationMTV

    but its all subjective. there are POORLY MADE movies (like ed wood films or uwe boll films) and there are films that are made well (like avatar) which I just DIDNT LIKE. If i didnt like the film, that doesnt mean the director is a BAD director. thats where you are getting confused. Some people dont like fish. That doesnt mean the cook didnt prepare it properly. I dont like tim burton films but i am not arrogant and ignorant enough to call him a bad filmmaker. He is very good at what he does. i just dont happen to like what he does. but my taste in film is not so ABOVE IT ALL that since little ol me doesnt like his films I have the right to denigrate him as a bad filmmaker. what gives me the right to do that? if i dont like a movie, in my eyes its "bad" (not the director, just that particular film and story he told). but you may like that same film, so to you its good. but i know from first hand experience what can happen when editors, producers, studios get in the way and muck up a vision. if Fincher made only Alien 3 then went back to videos for good (which he considered since he hated the experience) we all would have thought this david fincher guy is a bad director. you dont know what goes on behind the scenes and how hard it is to JUST get a film made. a directors vision on May 2000 may be one thing but the abundance of opinions and setbacks and changes that occur between then and when the film is finished in June 2001 can turn that vision int something totally different to the point where he is just happy the damn thing got made.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 11:08 a.m. CST


    by gun_will_travel

    "That's what Korean films are for anyways." Brilliant!

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 11:16 a.m. CST

    another thing

    by GenerationMTV

    you may not like finchers use of the tilt shift lense or jj abrams lense flares or tony scotts jump cuts or snyders slo-mo or Bays explosions but alot of people DO. from clueless ADD riddled 14 year old hot topic kids to very intelligent young filmmaking amatuers like myself. so are you right and they wrong? are they right and you wrong? NEITHER. its called an opinion. tons of people love visual flash and for students of the artform like myself its actually an education watching these guys since i steal tricks from them all the time as well as add my own new twist on it when i direct rock/rap videos and commercials as well as shorts. im so thankful for guys like these because they bring something new to cinema and they are gifted visualists, which to me is just as important as storytelling...especially in todays world.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 11:38 a.m. CST

    er no Kick Ass did bomb for the USA distributor

    by KilliK

    yeah the british producers will make a sequel,thats for sure since they had profit from the movie but it will be hard for them to find again a USA distributor who will do the same expensive promotion for the movie in USA,like they did in the original.<br /> <p>Kick Ass is in the Punisher/Hellboy comic-book-movie level of success,popular enough to be a decent hit but not strong enough to be a block-buster sensation.and i dont think this situation will change with the sequel.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 11:39 a.m. CST

    Stalkeye the movie has nothing to do at all with the GN

    by KilliK

    read the comic to understand why this is the case.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Awesome Eye Fuck!


    Fuck the Haters! Visually, this looks like something out of a "Heavy Metal" magazine...not a bad thing. Storywise, could be good but not great...For now, I'm all in. Snyder at least makes things entertaining...True, he uses a ton of slo-mo and I'm not sure that will work for Supes but on an eye candy scale, he could make on bad-ass looking Krypton (But of course not better than the Donners' version of the planet) Most of these cunt whiners will see this anyway just for a reason to get out of their mom's basement...So just drop the high and mighty shit and enjoy the candy. PS-Singer's Supes made me sleep better then Nyquil and a nite with a Thai midget.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Generation MTV

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    "Some people dont like fish. That doesnt mean the cook didnt prepare it properly." <p> Maybe he did. Maybe he burnt it, or undercooked it, and gave the the person who ate it food poisoning. <p> There are bad directors, just like there are bad singers, or bad actors, or bad cooks, or bad cleaners. Some directors can't direct actors, others choose the the wrong takes, or hire the wrong people, or get the tone wrong. It happens. <p> There was an excellent series on BBC4 in England for the last few weeks called 'History of Horror', (and I recommend all horror fans to seek it out)and an old Hammer Horror director was interviewed and he flat out admitted that he wasn't very good and it was a mistake for him to be hired for the project. <p> A lot of people on here might not have made professional work like yourself, but make no mistake, DVDs, documentaries, and the internet have exposed this generation to the difficulties of filmmaking. We are under no illusions about what challenges directors face, but that shouldn't be an excuse for every rubbish film. <p> Just like in every walk of life, there are good directors and bad ones. There are good films and bad films. There are good cooks and bad cooks.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 1:19 p.m. CST


    by Billy_D_Williams

    "you dont know what goes on behind the scenes and how hard it is to JUST get a film made."--dude, don't assume you know anything about me, unlike you i haven't offered up my resume for all to see. i know hollywood very well, very likely more than you do, let's just leave it at that (trying to prove shit over the internet is retarded), i know all about the battles, the mucked up vision of the director, etc doesn't change anything. there are bad movies and there are bad directors, just like there are bad painters, just like there are bad actors, just like there are bad sculptors, just like there are bad illustrators. having a title does not automatically make you good at that specific craft, that's just total naive horseshit. of course you're a music video director, so it doesn't surprise me that you think there are no bad directors...i've known people like you (no offense). it's like you're trying to force your way into a level playing field, "everything i do is right simply because it's my vision!" hahahahahaha, absolutely comical. why do you think Picasso is Picasso? or Pollock is Pollock? there are a million painters, but very few good ones and even fewer masters. anybody who picks up a paint brush is not automatically a good painter, and not just anyone who picks up a director's viewfinder and has his name on the back of a chair is a good director. christ man, you can't be THAT naive. you're trying to lower the bar to a mediocre level (just like the studios) as to validate your chosen profession simply because you're not interested in pushing the art form (lens flares and tilt shifts are not pushing the art form, they're pushing the technical aspect). by your logic (of there are no bad directors), you can pull any idiot off the street, teach him the basics and he's automatically a good director! that's basically what your logic dictates...that having the title makes him good enough! sorry, don't work like that.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 1:35 p.m. CST

    Generation MTV

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    Just browsing your blog and this statement "I rarely watch films prior to the 1980's and consider myself a new school fim buff." astounds me. You are doing yourself a tremendous disservice. All of the great directors and films that you aren't exposing to yourself... well, you are missing some downright masterpieces. <p> I know we all have our tastes, but, honestly, watch an Orson Welles film and you will learn so much. More than you will watching Rennie Harlin films. <p> As an aspiring filmmaker it is negligent to confine yourself largely to the past thirty years.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 1:39 p.m. CST


    by Billy_D_Williams

    the guy is trying to school us on filmmaking and he doesn't even watch films from the 70s. Comical. it's like a painter not studying the greats, just guys down at his local neighborhood art fair. when you do that, your work becomes a pale shade of mediocre. anyone can point a camera at something interesting and shoot nice images. but all you'll have is a very nice looking tone poem.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 1:48 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    There are not elephants and war rhinos in the comic of 300. And evne if there wer,e that doesn't mean the movie had to have them,, does it? I mean, the vast majority of movies adapted from books and other media make many changes for the sake of a movie presentation, and on that would be when Snyder decided that he would stick to the book tooth and nail no matter what? I mean, evne if the comic had that kind of bulslhit, elephants and rhinos at Thermo+pylae, wouldn't a good filmmaker feel the need to change and correct? And the notion that it's not supposed to be about history, well, they why the fuck even make a story about THE BATTLE OF THERMOPYLAE, which ACTUALLY HAPPENED? Why not just then invent some shit up, some fictionla battle where they could go with total abandon on what they wanted to put in it? Movies which are based on historical fact and yet take so many liberties as 300, that's wrong. All that invented crap just for the sake of some dumb vrsion of the rule of cool is just bad filmmaking. dumb filmmaking. i mean, i's not like Snyder actually felt he should be too slavish to the comic, i mean, he invented all that stupid subplot about Queen Gorgon that didn't happend in history nor it's in the comic. So, Snyder decided to adress a faul in the comic, which is, no story about the people behind and Queen gorgon in particular, but he decided to put war elephants and rhinos in a battle that was already spectacular and super dramatic to begin with? That's the typical dumb stupid retard idiotic type of mindlest that fucking Zack The Hack Snyder revels in. And the least said about how the fucking movie treated the Thermian allies the better. Fuck that movie pisses me off. not evne the "it's not suppsoed to be historical (in an historical battle story)" bullshit can cut it. 300 is shit and Snyder is a stupid untalented idiot hack with delusions of grandeur.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 1:53 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The subjective excuse is just one used by people with little to no standards. There are elemnts to a movie which can be said, without a shadow of a doubt that makes one great or not. There are bad movies, and there are great movie, and one ignorares those at their own peril. The subjectivity excuse doesn't cut it for everything. Do you also use the subjectivity to excuse about a bad car? You think it's as hard to know if a movie is good as to know if a car is good? No, man, it's not that subjective. Hell, most people evne use the term subjectivity wrongly, a bad use from it's more colloquial and incorect definition. word of advise, don't try to use the "subjective" excuse to people who hail smart intelligent movies as the good ones and derise the bad dumb ones. there's such stuff as preferences, but that says nothing about what's good or not. In fact, it even obfuscates.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 1:59 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "As an aspiring filmmaker it is negligent to confine yourself largely to the past thirty years."<br><br>Not to mention stupid. Anybody studying film and would only care for movies made from the 80s foward has no real interest of passion for films. At best he's just a nostalgia hound trying to copy. The irony is that most movies made in the 80s are very influenced by the movies made in the past decades, specially the 50s. There was a tremendous 50s nostalgia in most 80s movies. just coutn how many movies set in the 50s which tells a sort of idealized or at least rosy picture of the 50s. How many of thosse were made then? Countless.<br><br>As you well said, there is jsut no way a student of fuilm can ignore the filsm made in past decades before the 80s. All decades of film have masterpeices one should watch and study and marvel at their achievements. All the way back to the silent films from the 1910s. All the way back. Nobody can truly be a student of film and not evne have an interest and curiosity about the whole history of cinema, and not just limited to past decades, but also to countires of origin. A true student of film wants to watch movies form all decades and from all parts of the world. Movies are not american, movies are universal, don't you agree?

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 2:08 p.m. CST


    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    I agree with you. The improvements in technology means most of us can grab a Canon 5D and shoot some lovely looking footage, but as you say, it's not much use having a beautiful image if there's nothing more to it. Film is so much more than a pretty picture; it needs to connect with us on some emotional level and linger within us. It's not just about the imagery, you need to deal with the context as well. <p> I am of the same generation as MTVGeneration, and many seem to have a similar outlook to him where they haven't - and won't - watch something like 'Network' but will flock to 'Paranormal Activity 2' or something. I personally feel that you can learn something from any film, even if it's what NOT to do. But hearing a self-proclaimed aspiring filmmaker openly say that they refuse to study the great works of the past in favour of Michael Bay, modern Tony Scott (what happened to the man who made 'Hunger' and 'True Romance'? and Rennie Harlin... well, it makes me scared for the future of the medium. <p> McG can make some pretty bubblegum images in slow motion with a pretty girl doing backflips, but for all of his razzle dazzle and technical wizardry, there's not one scene from his films that really sticks in my mind. In contrast, I can't get that final shot of the window in Annie Hall out of my head, which is a single static shot.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 2:13 p.m. CST

    FFS Asimov

    by cushing1967

    Can't you just once reply to someone who disagrees with you without being so angry about it?<P><P>Seriously!<P><P>Been a long time since I read the comic and I thought the Elephants were in it.<P><P>However historical accuracies do NOT make a bad film. This was never presented as a historical document but as an entertainment - reread my post and show me where I said it was NOT about the Gates of Fire - please do and then your statement "And the notion that it's not supposed to be about history, well, they why the fuck even make a story about THE BATTLE OF THERMOPYLAE, which ACTUALLY HAPPENED?" will mean something. What I said was that Miller stated that it was a theatrical retelling of The Battle.<P>I'm curious - do you like Shakespeare?

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 2:30 p.m. CST

    300 is a LEGEND being told to inspire soldiers

    by Monolith_Jones

    In the comic it is clear that the story being told is an exaggeration of the truth. I don't remember how the movie handled It.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 2:32 p.m. CST

    Asimov - I completely agree.

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    And I really like the way you surmised it "Movies are not american, movies are universal,". <p> I love Chaplin, I love Keaton; I am floored by the technical language Welles created in Orson Welles; watching Truffaut tell the stories of Antoine Doinel inspires me; I love studying Roeg's fractured editing; I am educated by how Altman juggles so many different characters and narratives and keeps them interesting over the course of three hours. <p> I'm not saying that everybody else should love those things (but they really should ;o), but to just dismiss them outright is ignorant. Even if you do think Kubrick is overrated and A Clockwork Orange is a failure, there is still so much you can learn from watching his film, whether it is the use of slow motion or narration. <p> Can you imagine if PT Anderson had refused to watch any films pre-80s. He probably wouldn't have made multi-narrative works because he wouldn't be watching Altman's 'Nashville'. Or Christopher Nolan not watching Nic Roeg's 'Don't Look Now' and being inspired by his editing style - we might not have had 'Memento'. <p> You can learn from any film (both good and bad), whether it's a 1915 silent German film or one that your grandad just made 5 minutes ago on Windows Moviemaker.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 2:54 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives


  • Nov. 5, 2010, 3 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I'm not angry, i'm passionate, different things. And ye,s i love Shakespeare,and yes, i know why you are asking me that, because youa re going to use the old argument of "Shakespeare fucked up with history and accuracy and changed events left and right, etc". Yeah, it's all fine and dandy, until you realsie one thing: acess to historical archives was far harder back in the day of the Bard then it is today. Mosty history known back then was half stuff based on hearsay and legend then true historical accurate text. Also, Shakes was a playwriter who wrote for the people, and he kenw exactly what to show for the people, and if he knew that the public fancied a version of some historical event, however fanciful and erroneous it was, over more accurate hisoricism, he would go with what the public would like the best. The man wrote plays to earn a living, it was not his hobby, he went with themarket. That he mannaged to make populist stuff and yet they are full of artistic merit is what makes him a genious. Not that he fucked up history. So, no, the argument that "Shakespeare also fucked up history" doesn't hold water. The failings of the master fdeosn't justify the failings of others. Two wrognsdo not make a right. Beside,s Shakespeare replaced historical innacuracy with FUCKING GREAT DRAMA. Did Zack The Fuckign Hack Snyder replaced all his historical fucks up with great drama? Can anybody he as bold to claim that? I don't think so.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 3:26 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    It handled it poorly with a side order of bullshit.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 3:30 p.m. CST


    by cushing1967

    You do realise that you can be passionate without being a dick to people right?<P>Anyway, you're right – I was wondering if you were bringing up the historical inaccuracies because you hated them or were using them as another reason to hate Snyder – which you are – which makes your argument about the inaccuracies in 300 an invalid one because if you accept them in principal you can't dislike them when someone you don't like uses them.<P>And you do realise that the whole 'people's access to historical documents making history harder to know' is also invalid when it comes to Shakespeare – he knew that Macbeth did not murder Duncan and that Macbeth ruled fairly and wisely in Scotland for a good lengthy reign. Shakespeare was a learned fellow who made heroes and villains out of people where he saw fit. In fact we probably know less about the events behind 300 than Shakespeare did about MacBeth<P>I would also argue that your accurate asscertion that Shakespeare wrote what his audiences wanted him to see put him in the same camp in intent rather than execution and to hate Snyder for that is also hypocritical. Look at Raiders of the Lost Ark – great movie with some immense historical inaccuracies it doesn't damage the film. Hate Snyder all you like – I can understand why some would but use arguments that hold up otherwise you end up looking like a hypocrite. Again 300 was not an accurate historical telling of an event that we don't know that much about apart from the tale telling of Herodetus anyway. Hate his style, hate his camera angles but don't try to bolster them with reasons like – how would a made up Spartan (which Dilios was) know about Elephants and Rhinos anyway?

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 3:37 p.m. CST


    by blakindigo

    What are your reasons for avoiding films made prior to 1980? It seems strange that someone interested in directing feature films (a much different structure from music videos or commercials) would avoid some of the great movies and film history. No Film Noir? No Expressionist films? No Surrealist Film?<br><br>What about actors? Belmondo? Brando? Nicholson? Eastwood? Kinski? Dean? Poitier? Wells? All of them were working from the 50's onward.<br><br>Check out "The Sweet Smell of Success" and see how relevant that film is today.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 3:40 p.m. CST

    I don't have a problem with 300 as a propaganda-style story...

    by AsimovLives

    ... told by an unreliable narrator. In fac,t that was the thign that made me watch the movie, that angle. The thing is, Snyder fucked up. He made a movie in such a way that invalidated that very premise. with such things as a provincial lowly soldier fantasazing about elephants and rhinos. Yeah, right. Spartans were the hicks of the hicks of Greece. They knew barely anything outside of Laecedomia, their own homeland. They weren't the worldly greeks of Athens or even Thebas. They were hcisk which lived on a landlocked place except for one small port in the south.<br><br>By the wa,y th reason why the spartans fought the persians was not because they were such big ass defendersof freedom and liberty, but because they demanded from the persian emperor to be the rulers of the whole greece if they were to ally with the persians, and the emperor told them to get fucked, that was too much to ask and demand, conquering them would be less trouble. 20 years after the persian Wars, and when Sparta saw itself in war with Athens, to whom they turned to? Well, they tured to Persia, which payed them to make war with Athens. Yeah, spartans, those freedom loving dudes who look lowly on brideby, they were bribed by the persians to fight another greeks. So such for spartan honour. And in the end, the spartans were defeated by the thebans, which weren't exactly a fully militerized society liek the spartans were, and got their asses handled to them and never recouvered. Later Sparta became a tourist attraction to welthy romans. It's glory time didn't lasted little more then 150 years, which in Greece's history is nothing to brag about. And another thing, in the real battle at Thermopylae, it was not the spartans that first meet the persian army first impact on the first day of battle. you know who were? THE ATHENIANS! Yeah, an athenian phallax met the full force of Xerxe's army through the whole first day of the battle. The spartans themselves only took action int he first day after the athenians were completly exausted and the persian army had been stoped and punished beyond their resolve. And as for the thermian allies, they stuck to the battle to the veryend, were killed alongside with the spartans on the last day, and they were so brave and couragoue,s evne though they weren't an warrior people, that the spartans themselves were in awe of them and considered them their equals and brothers. so much so that Sparta declared a friend of Thermon and never ever went to war with them for the rest of their history. The thermons, which in the movie are depicted as traitorous inept cowards. Fuck snuyder, and fuck 300. A movie for retards made by a retard if ever there was one.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 3:47 p.m. CST

    cushing1967 has good points AsimovLives

    by blakindigo

    It would be better to say you don't like Snyder's stylistic excesses. It's more honest.<br><br>But, calling him a 'hack' based on lacking 'historical accuracy' of a film based on a 'fantasy re-telling' from Frank Miller is flawed thinking.<br><br>I'm extremely passionate about great filmmaking (my favourite art form), but I try to make my arguments consistent. I'm not a fan of '300' the movie (other than the beautiful visuals) and even less a fan of Miller's jingoistic rhetoric. I think Snyder has talent, the most of any of the current crop of 'popcorn' directors. I take his flawed vision more seriously (from a critical standpoint) than most of his peers, including Singer.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 4:02 p.m. CST

    So, Fuck Miller as well then?

    by cushing1967

    Not for the Elephants or the Rhinos but the general gist of the comic? <P> I know about the Spartans, I studied classical civilisation at School and for a year at University. I also know how sketchy the actual details are about Thermopylae, the actual broad strokes of the campaign are pretty well drawn out but the details are pretty much heresay and tale telling.<P>War Elephants would not have been used as the first instances of Europeans facing them was probably Alexander the Great a full 150 years after Thermopylae but it's no greater a stretch in a film than the Nazi's having a full SS Ahenerbe dig in Egypt in 1936.<P>It's the fact that you dismiss anyone who liked the film as retards that's so annoying and so arrogant and makes the rest of your arguments look like trolling hyperbole Asimov. Anyway, I'm done on this - I like 300 quite a lot you don't, I'm the retard and your the genius - etc etc etc.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 4:19 p.m. CST

    i look for visual tricks

    by GenerationMTV

    when im watching movies i want two things: to be entertained AND/OR to be showed something visually revolutionary. i HAVE watched older films in film school and on the IFC channel. i used to watch smokey n the bandit as a kid at my granmas house. we studied blade runner at film school (AWESOME FILM). i tried to watch citizen kane and fell asleep 2 minutes in. i do admire and enjoy old sam peckinpah and john ford westerns. old Bond films are cool too. I just dont have the patience for most old films. Yet stuff like bad boys 2, transformers, sixth sense, aliens, tombstone, mission impossible, goldneye, fight club, gladiator, bourne identity films ENTERTAINS ME. I dont like being bored during a film. if someone has to explain to you why this is a classic, its probably overrated. i believe modern films do what older films can do in a much better way. knowing how to tell a story is an inate skill. you either have it or you dont. i dont watch films to learn how to tell a story. i watch fincher films for tracking shots, bay films for car chases (where he places the camera), tony scott films for new editing tricks, i want to absorb the latest in innovative visuals. zack snyders work is mind blowing to me how he gets his images. thats the stuff that excites me most about cinema. despite all that, i have 4 or so scirpt ideas in my head i'd love to make into films and they are small dramas, films i'd love to do in between big action projects, one day...watching stephen soderbergs work has taught me alot about how simple static camera work can be used in a cool way to tell a small character story. and to motorcycle boy...when you said "Some directors can't direct actors, others choose the the wrong takes, or hire the wrong people, or get the tone wrong", i cringed. Ridley and Hitchcock have admitted they cant direct actors. Are they Bad Directors? As far as choosing wrong takes? The directors sees the dailies and chooses what HE FEELS is the best take for the scene. If he thinks its the best take, and you dont, guess what? Its HIS film. its the right take TO HIM. its not Jo Schmo sitting in row 3 films. Its a Antoine Fuqua film. He lieks denzels king kong aint got nothin on me adlib and he put it in. The director also chooses the actor he feels best fits the part. Again, not WRONG. His choice. His film. Tone. Same thing. His choice. Just because you disagree doesnt make it wrong. Hyperbole has become the bastardization of good film critique. everyone thinks theyre fuckin Ebert.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 4:32 p.m. CST

    No Offence GenerationMTV but

    by cushing1967

    Watching new films for revolutionary visual is deeply dismissive of the revolutionary visuals you'll get in Hitchcock movies, or Orson Welles movies - for tracking shots watch Touch of Evil. Dismissing old films is a deeply flawed view to take and dismisses some of the best story tellers in the history of story tellers. However, I'm guessing your quite young so maybe a deeper understanding of the deep and abiding importance of the works of Capra, Hitchcock, Hawks,Powell and Pressburger, Kurosawa, Truffaut, Wilder etc may come. Tastes mature and hopefully one day you'll get that and you'll try to broaden your horizons because there are some absolutely magnificent films out there and to not see them would be a damned shame.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 4:39 p.m. CST

    GenerationMTV, I reckon you'd learn more about editing

    by blakindigo

    from Wong Kar-Wai and Chris Cunningham than Tony Scott. Actually, watch "Apocalypse Now" — that's a master craft level editing class from one of the best who ever did it: Walter Murch.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 4:43 p.m. CST

    GenerationMTV also check out "Touch of Evil"

    by blakindigo

    That opening tracking shot is one of the most brazen, infuriatingly brilliant shots I've ever seen. Not only is it beautiful, but it gives vital information to the audience AND establishes character. Wells does all this in the first shot of the movie. THAT'S directing.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 4:47 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    People's rights? What people's rights are you talkign about? Where did that stuff came from? What the hell are you talking about?<br><br>As for again that sorry exccuse for Snyder's fyucks up, let me say this: you can't compare the audiences of the bloody 16th century to today's can you? You could pass a lot of invented stuff in the 16th century because the majority of the people were illeterate and ignorant of history, and most of the history they knew were the fantastical mytical versions of past events to the point of they be nothing but legends. today it's another whole ball game. what snyder did, with the knowledge we have today, is completly unexcusable. It's total complete retardness and nothing else. Total fucking retardness. Snyder made a dumb stupid ignorant movie because he is a dumb ignorant idiot with the discourse of an idiotic 13 years old who failed all classes.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 4:49 p.m. CST


    by GenerationMTV

    im not going to sit and watch a 2 hour film just to study one tracking shot. to be honest, i study music videos and commercials more than films for visual education. thats where the real innovation is these days, trust me. most movie directors have a very little imagination (or the studio just wont allow them to really let loose with the camera). im trying to learn from and outdo the best innovators of today using todays technology. there are music video and commercial directors whom i am a huge fan of whom you all probably never even heard of (and have never made a film yet) that have way more visual tricks up there sleeve than any of the stuff ive seen from hitchcock/wells, etc.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 4:52 p.m. CST


    by GenerationMTV

    i agree i am a HUGE fan of Wong Kar Wai. 2046, My Blueberry nights, his BWM film the Follow, all his commercials. WKW is one of my faves.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 4:53 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You know what, the stylistic excesses are even the least of my problems about Snyder. Yes, his visuals are overbusy, but i have seen movies that i have liked a lot, like CASSHERN, which visually are very close to Snyder's. that's not evne the problem. The problem is, if only that retard fuck Snyder could put some smart and good storytelling technique to them, then it all would be sweet. As i said before, the artificality and theatricallity of 300 is the least of my problems with that fucking piece of shit of a movie. It's the ignorance and the stupidity combined witha complete lack of an ability to tell a story in it that really pisses me off. His movies are retar and stupid and shallow dumb, and even when he tries to look smart, like in WATCHMEN, all he mananges is just to make more dumb and stupid and shallow. The fucker couldn't understand the concept of intelligence and education even if those fell on him riding an elephant... or a war rhino, for that matter.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 4:56 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "im not going to sit and watch a 2 hour film just to study one tracking shot. to be honest, i study music videos and commercials more than films for visual education. thats where the real innovation is these days"<br><br>And you have said it all there is to say about how you see movies and cinema. And if you represent the new batch of filmmakers to be, i despair for cinema. Becasue you really don't have a clue, do you? You really don't understand. "im not going to sit and watch a 2 hour film just to study one tracking shot." You really don't get it, do you? I wonder if you ever will.

  • you can hate Snyder for your own personal reasons as much as you want,but insisting that his 300 movie is bad and proves that he is a hack because it is not historically faithful to the original event while it was never this intention of the director and the comic writer who wrote the comic which the movie adapted,well it is at least retarded and expresses a lot of of blind hate and fanaticism from your part towards Snyder.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:01 p.m. CST

    Have you had a stroke Asimov?

    by cushing1967

    'People's rights? What people's rights are you talkign about? Where did that stuff came from? What the hell are you talking about?'<P><P><P>I have no idea what you're talking about? Where have I written anything about peoples rights?<P><P>And Spielberg? What about his stuff with Nazi's in British Egypt in a full uniformed Nazi dig, or the use of a plane that never existed?<P><P>Oh yeah - just rereading the graphic novel - issue 5 page 4 - Miller shows two Elephants being pushed off a cliff. So, there you go.<P>I'll let you get back to your madness about me writing stuff that I haven't.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:03 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You are very erigbnt, TOUCH OF EVIL's tracking shot is magnificent. And it's as you say, that shot is a technical marvel, but more then that, what makes it awesome is how well it helps tell the movie's story. You couldn't be mroe right about it. that's real filmmaking. Unfortunatly, what so many shallow "filmmakers" seem to learn from that, including our friend GenerationMTV, is how they use and abuse similiar type of shots and for movies which they make no sens efor, and which doesn't helpt at all in the telling of the story. It's show off filmmaking that helps nothing at all and it's just serves it's own porpose, not the movie. If it even has a porpose. It's just over-over-expanding the movie's running time for no porpose whatsoever. It's egotistical filmmaking at it's worst. Just because David Lean shot a sunset in real time, or Welles did a very long one take shot, or Jean Luc Goddard make super-rapid non-sequencial editings, that doens't mean that every filmmaker can do that just for kicks and giggles, just because "it looks cool". That's bullshit.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:07 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "You do realise that you can be passionate without being a dick to people right?"<br><br>Your words. Or did you just forgot to put a comma in there, english professor? I mean, if you are going to make such crass grammatical errors, you better not thrown stones to other's glass celiings, if you know what i mean. You know the fish dies by the mouth, do you? So easy on the smart-arsery, will you? You are not talking to a Jar Jar Abrams fanboy, you know? You have to up your game.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:07 p.m. CST


    by cushing1967

    Fair enough - I think you're being blinded by technique over structure and if you honestly think that music directors and ad directors have more tricks up their sleeve than Hitchcock or Welles then you will struggle to ever really fully grasp the art of filmmaking. However good luck to you.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:10 p.m. CST

    I don't doubt that GenerationMTV, but storytelling

    by blakindigo

    is MUCH different from innovative visuals. The former can include the latter, but, it's a mistake to confuse 'great visuals' for a great story. You'd be surprised to see how many stylistic techniques were done 80 years ago by some of the early film pioneers: Split screen, cross dissolves, step printing, compositing (analogue) etc. New isn't necessarily improved.<br><br>Look at digital colour correction — in the wrong hands it looks awful, a complete disaster in terms of over-saturated, loud and ugly. Distracting and forced, it takes the viewer out of the story. It's tasteless.<br><br>But, watch "Apocalypse Now" again. Look at how the colouring ENHANCES the story. It continually gives the viewer information and adds to the texture of the movie. The operatic feel of the photography is in sync with the colour palette, set design, costumes and props and performances.<br><br>I know that the innovative work being done in commercials and (some) music videos can be breathtaking, but, they are unique to their form. But, look at the Stash DVD's — incredible work is being showcased — but, how many of those commercials/music videos have the same goals as feature films? They aren't telling long form stories, because they're designed to tell short ones.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:11 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Saying that, i completly agree with what you said to GenerationMTV in your above post. Tehre's someting about fuindamental filmmaking that our friend GenerationMTV is not understanding. He sem to have that typical arrogance of the new kid with the new toys and who thinks that all the older stuff is just shit from old farts and should be thrown away. He probably even thinks that admiring 80s stuff is already going way back. I know that the arrogance of youth can produce admirable results, specially in art and films. But our friend GenerationMTV is missing out an important lesson about the past history of cinema: We all today stand in the shoulders of giants.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:12 p.m. CST

    every filmmaker has to find his voice

    by GenerationMTV

    his signature. his trademark. at least the great ones. theres nothing with wanting to tell unique stories and shoot them in an innovative way. thats why i dont respect brett ratner. he has no VISION or trademark. his movies have no imagination and are shot so basically and simply. i will also never forget the story about him being on his cell phone while a take for X-Men 3 was being filmed..ridiculous. whether you are a storyteller, a visualist, or both, at least have PASSION about what you do. dont be a hack or gun for hire.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Asimov - seriously

    by cushing1967

    What the Fuck are you talking about? Where have I criticised your grammar or spelling? I can you know. I can point out that in order to deal with you I would have too up my game - but I won't. I have pointed out where I think you're wrong and you start banging on about me talking about 'peoples rights' - which I haven't and now this?<P>Go and take a look at everything that I've written here and tell me what in the name of Hell you're talking about?

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:15 p.m. CST

    I also realise that my pointing out of too

    by cushing1967

    Is wrong and I am an idiot - but I am genuinely perplexed as to what you're talking about

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:19 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Exactly. Music videos/commercials are long feature movies are different things. Very different things. he reason why filmakers who came from commercials in the 70s, like ridley Scott and Alan Parker, made well the transition to feature films is because back then commercials were themselves short films. They told little small narratives. That gave them training. Even a relatively "young" filmmaker like David fincher came forma time when there was still some of that going on in both comemricals and music videos (check out his Aerosmith's video for JAMIE GOT A GUN, it's pratically a short film, and a pretty dramatic one). Most of today's commercials and music videos are abstract compositions of images oen after the other. They barely tell a story, most don't even bother. It's just a collection of "cool shots" one after the other. Small wonder this new "filmamkers2 who came from this type of comemrcial and music videos make the type of movies that hacks like Snyder, Jar Jar Abrams and Michael Bay make, movies made without any understandign of coherent narrative and storytelling. It's jsut a bunch of stuff happening one after the other, with little rhyme or reason. for them, as long the visuls are prett and comign fast, that's a movie. How wrong they are. Our friend GenerationMTV seems to be falling into that fallacy line hook and sink. I hate to be the prophet of doom, but i really don't bode too well about the new batch of filmmakers to come, specilly those from commercials and music videos.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:22 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Take a breath and read it carefully, and then you know. OK, friend? And yes, you have criticised my grammar, not in here but the other talkback. There's that. But as i said in the other talkback, if you are not fluent in a second language, you better ease on the criticism. I mean, how good is your portuguese, friend? You know what i mean?

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:26 p.m. CST

    GenerationMTV represents all that is wrong

    by Billy_D_Williams

    with modern filmmaking...he is the reason films are shit now, his generation, his thinking...totally conditioned and brainwashed by the MTV aesthetic. "i tried to watch citizen kane and fell asleep 2 minutes in"...jesus...while it's not imperative you watch every classic film in order to be a great filmmaker, it greatly improves your ability to tell a story, but i can see you're not interested in that simply from reading your statements...all you're interested in is what most studio executives are interested are their creation dude, are the embodiment of everything they strived to create back in the late 70s/early 80s when their golden directors started blowing the money factory because they wanted to make great movies--they conveniently blamed it all on Michael Cimino and Heaven's Gate (one irresponsible director fucked everything up), and it was all they needed to pounce, because they were sick of directors being in charge of the entire operation and making their bottom line business model shaky on every outing...all because directors wanted to make great films, not opening weekends. Studios like stability, a product they can control, profit...creativity is the enemy of profit, and when they took back the reigns in the early 80s, they wanted to create a new who was turned on by big, colorful, loud, shiny film frames packed with movie stars, and that would be all they needed to get in their car, drive to the theater and pluck down their hard earned money, making the studios rich and keeping their business and cashflow safe and predictable. they specifically designed movies to cater to that mindset, and they did a masterful job. the studios also had another problem to solve, but one they could solve easily, like killing two birds with one stone..."how do we get tomorrow's filmmakers to not only like shit, but be willing to do what they're told and make more of it for us?" and a new generation of filmmaker emerged...the MTV who took orders, kept their mouth shut for the most part, collected their paycheck, got to play with their expensive studio bought toys and delivered bigger explosions, faster, shinier cars, more astounding visual FX, and added absolutely ZERO to the art of storytelling. the studios did a masterful job.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:28 p.m. CST

    Generation MTV

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    So, in short, you just want to see shit blow up? And looking at your 'top ten directors' that doesn't seem an unfair assessment. If you want to watch something "visually revolutionary" watch '2001: A Space Odyssey' and study the in-camera tricky Kubrick used for some of the special effects. Oh, but you won't because it's from the 60s and is 'boring'. If you genuinely fell asleep two minutes into 'Citizen Kane' then it speaks volumes about your interest in film. The fact you can't be bothered to study one of the most influential works in cinema history... well, I don't know what to say. Do you think there is nothing you could learn from it? <p> "i believe modern films do what older films can do in a much better way." Like what? Explosions and CGI? I'd disagree with this for many, many reasons. A large part is that the studios are unwilling to take risks on new and original material, so many films are the same recycled rubbish. Cimino's 'Heaven's Gate' debacle kind of destroyed the freedom that 70s offered its directors with. Most films now are compromised due to the studios and aren't able to be as bleak or as daring. You love Fincher, so I'm sure you've heard the story how the studio wanted Se7en to have a happy ending, but he had to fight against that. The climate of films now - especially at major studios - means that the director's vision is compromised (seeing Fox trying to push PG-13 on Scott's prequel). <p> "knowing how to tell a story is an inate skill." Ah, so some people have it and others don't? But you seem to have been saying that ALL directors have that, and therefore anybody who calls themselves a director should as well. My mum's directed a few home movies - she can innately tell a story. <p> If you love car chases then you should watch the ones in 'Bulitt' and 'The French Connection', not only are they adrinelle pumping, but they also serve a purpose that car chases typically don't in a Bay film - they build character. The stunts aren't just for spectacle; they deepen the film. You seem very shallow to me for your love of visceral thrills - which I'm not entirely against in the right circumstances - and have no regard for films that strive to build plausible characters. <p> "I dont like being bored during a film." - Why does? I certainly don't. Transformers 2 was one of my worst experiences in a cinema. I was both bored and disgusted with what I saw. There are plently of films post-1980 that are terrible and boring if you don't like ADD editing, explosions, loud music and pap. <p> "if someone has to explain to you why this is a classic, its probably overrated." Great logic. Just great. Well, I'm going to have to ask you to explain to me why 'Bad Boys II' is a classic, and that means, by your logic, that it's overrated. Do you know understand how foolish that sounds? <p> That's good that you like Soderbergh's camera work. I suggest you take a look at the camerawork in Robert Altman's films as well, especially 'The Long Goodbye' even though it was made in the 70s. Watch the first five minutes of 'Touch of Evil' (don't fall asleep!) and see some astonishing camera movement - it calls to mind some of Scorsesse's work. For editing, look at Nic Roeg's films - especially 'Don't Look Now'. Sometimes the best editing is knowing when NOT to cut instead of a new shot every ten frames and filling the screen with uncessary text like Tony Scott is sometimes guilty of. And for a combination of both, 'The Red Shoes' - it's from the 40s, mind blowing, I know! - but is a technical marvel even to this day. Scorsesee swears by it, and Edgar Wright does - but what do they know? <p> "zack snyders work is mind blowing to me how he gets his images" Well, I imagine he flips to the corresponding page of the Watchmen or 300 graphic novels... yes, I am being a little facetious there, but it's also true. <p> That's funny, when I read your entire posts I cringed. Ridley Scott and Hitchcock may not have liked or been comfortable directing actors, but they still managed to get good performances from them. <p> Some directors choices ARE wrong. Have you ever watched the "Greedo shoots first" scene in the revised editions of A New Hope, for example? By changing that scene George Lucas weakens the character of Han Solo - that is a mistake. Have you listened to a DVD commentary? Many directors are quite open in them and admit to making mistakes. Coppola has admitted that Keanu Reeves was miscast in Dracula. So, is he lying? Or is it more likely that you are passing off your inaccurate belief as though it is an iron-clad truth. You seem to think that directors are infallible. Newsflash: they aren't! <p> The director picks who he THINKS is right for the part, but it doesn't always work out that way. Look at what happened with 'Back to the Future'. Why was Marty McFly recast? Because they had made a mistake and it wasn't working! Bob Zemeckis has SAID THAT in the past few weeks. So, again, how do you explain that, because according to you, directors NEVER make any errors. So of course it's (typically) HIS choice, but it isn't always the correct one. <p> The fact that you are saying that directors make no mistakes (and by proximity yourself) shows a great deal of arrogance. I make short films, and would love to be a director, but I make mistakes in my films. I can accept that; in fact, I probably learn more from my mistakes than I do my successes. There is no need to get all defensive and pissy about it. If you go through your career refusing to admit any blame then you are likely to end up making some terrible, terrible movies. <p> Everybody thinks they're a critic? My response would be that these days everybody thinks they're a director, too... <p> You are advocating everything that is wrong with film - style over substance. You're chasing a metaphorical silver wrapper that has nothing inside of it. Look, I enjoy some films that don't have much depth to them on occassion (I found 'The Losers' entertaining, but I also loved the 'The Kids Are All Right'), as I'm sure many others do, but they aren't the only things I watch or like. It's a shame because you are missing many of the greatest films ever made. I'm not suggesting everybody should love every single film, but to casually dismiss them as you do is just making you look an embarrassment. Well, as much as one can look on an internet message board.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:29 p.m. CST

    Shit, sorry lads!

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    Didn't realise I had written an essay!

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:29 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "every filmmaker has to find his voice his signature. his trademark"<br><br>That's verty true. But you don't do that my limiting your horizonts by just, like you do, only watch movies from the 80s foward. Such limitations is not protecting your vision, it's just making yourself ignorant. you don't find your vopice by blocking out, you find it by knowing. The more the better. Yopu know what Akira Kuriosawa said about cinema when he was in his 80s? That he was still learning about how to make movies. It's a never ending process. And you learn by not long looking to waht will came ahead, but by what went before. Your muse, your inspiration, you can't guess where it will come from. It might just be there, in some old part of cinema history, and you might never find her if all you care is for the enw stuff. The whoel history of cinema is made of new stuff that was new back then. And many times, the old is new. You have no idea how much you can learn from the old stuff. Much of what exists today is a continuation of what existed before. Direct continuations. A true filmmaker, never gets tired of learning, not just form the enw stuff, but from what went before, even a long time ago. And your voice, you will only find it with knowledge.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:31 p.m. CST

    Billy_D_Williams exactly that

    by KilliK

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:32 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives, Snyder is in a different category —

    by blakindigo

    although he went to the same film school as Bay and Tarsem, I think his aesthetic is MUCH different than Bay. There all talented for different reasons (I don't like Bay's work — although he shoots pretty, he loves the overblown, melodramatic moments, fetishistic military ordinance, etc.) but, I think what Snyder is doing within the confines of the studio system is exciting. He's definitely not the stupid monkey people think he is (you'd be surprised how much he knows about art).

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:37 p.m. CST


    by cushing1967

    I still want to know where I mention people's rights?<P>The other talkback where you got all pissy about me misspelling Portuguese? And I responded by asking you to spell Pakistan correctly? Asimov - seriously, you call people FOOL, RETARD, IGNORANT with no justification apart from them disagreeing with you. I have tried to have erudite and decent conversations on here with you about many things and I just end up being called names because I disagree. I have, in the past responded by calling you names - which I wish I hadn't because I come on here for fun y'know? <P> I don't doubt your passion in the slightest - but when you start bringing up things that I haven't said as arguments then it all begins to fall apart. You're a guy who has knowledge and passion that's good - but let's face it - you can be very, very dismissive of other people - I mean what did you say in another talkback to me tonight? Something like 'Learn more about the world before the year you were born, okay? What wonderful wonders you will find.' - that's a very shitty to say to someone when I think I have shown I do know a bit about world knowledge or history. It's an argumentative stance that just rubs people up the wrong way. Seriously, all I have done here is point out where I think your arguments are flawed and I've been called an Ignorant Fool and similar - it's tiresome and it's dull and it's no fun. <P>So, you take that last thing I said about people's rights and hold on to that because I'm finished here.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Billy_D_Williams + The_Motorcycle_Boy =

    by blakindigo

    TRUTH.<br><br>also AsimovLives (even if he's wrong about Snyder ;))

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:43 p.m. CST

    Finding Your Own Voice

    by cushing1967

    Is going to be an impossible task with very little experience.<P><P>There's a comedy character in the UK called Garth Marenghi and he is a spoof on all the terrible horror writers out there - he says in one episode 'I'm proud of the fact that I've written more books than I've read'.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:43 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "I still want to know where I mention people's rights?"<br><br>I already copy and pasted your own phrase in one of my previous post for your pleasure. Look it up. And i understood what you did, you forgot to put a comma in the phrase and it reads all wrong. Not your best hour.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:44 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    'I'm proud of the fact that I've written more books than I've read'<br><br>That's hillarious! God, i love british comedy!

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:46 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    What i say about Zack The Hack Snyder is nothing but the truth. The only reason why he is not as bad as Michael Bay is because nobody is as bad as Michael Bay, it's humanly impossible.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Garth Marenghi, FTW!!

    by blakindigo


  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:51 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    As for Tarsen, it's a crime to put him in the same sentense as Bay and Snyder. Tarsen can actually make a movie and tell a proper story. Just look at THE FALL. I'm so impressed with THE FALL that for me Tarsen got a free pass for a whole decade. Can't wait for his next movie, which is about ancient greek gods starring Mickey Rourke (hurrah!) and Freida Pinto (yummy!). I can believe that Tarsen loves making movies, he loves cinema. Snyder, not so much. that guy makes movies as if they are mid level animations froma video game... bad video games, for that matter. I see far much better cinematic qualities in games like any GTA or MAFIA 2 then what Snyder could ever dream of achieving even if he shitted himself to death with effort.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 5:53 p.m. CST

    yeah Garth Marenghi rulez

    by KilliK

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Nah, AsimovLives — I give Snyder a pass.

    by blakindigo

    He's a flawed, but skillful craftsmen, hopefully evolving into an artist.<br><br>Tarsem is brilliant and hopefully becoming sublime.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 6:18 p.m. CST

    motorcycle boy

    by GenerationMTV

    No I don’t just want to see stuff blow up. Stop pidgeon holing me or putting words in my mouth. I like visually innovative camera work and editing and action. The directors in my top ten have impressed me with their visuals. I said in my blog that top ten was visual directors. Ed zwick is a great director but he isn’t very visual so hes not on that list yet I love glory, blood diamond, the last samurai, and the siege. The directors on that list are the ones whose VISUALS I’d like to emulate. I have seen 2001. I watched in film school and again on my own one night when it came on TCM. The black screen with 10 minutes of overture music is one of the most pointless and pretentious nonsense ive EVER seen. I felt the same when ridley did it for kingdom of heavens directors cut (which was a great film aside from that one part). That was ridleys choice and vision but I didn’t see the point. The dolly work Kubrick did inside the space ship was cool and im sure innovative for the time but it didn’t blow me away and is nothing compared to what joseph kahn does in his music videos now. I never said all directors know how to tell a good story. That statement shows you aren’t listening (or reading) properly. I said all directors who don’t get fired at some point in the production and who keep getting work are competent at doing what they were hired to do. Car chases are something very special to me since I love cars (I have since I was a boy, especially sports cars) and I love speed and adrenaline. No one does them better than Bay simply because of how he edits it, the rush of the speed of it all, where he puts the camera, etc. The Ferrari car chase in bad boys 2 is the greatest car chase ever IMO and ive seen many many car chases from Ronin to Bourne Films to Bond films, etc. who says Bad Boys 2 is a classic. Its just a funny film that is full of humor and action and flashy visuals. Some humor isn’t for everyone. Bad boys films humor, Harold and kumar, that works for me. Seinfeld too. Family guy as well. I hate dane cook. Some love him. My point is certain classics still work today: scarface, godfather, star wars, raiders of the lost ark, etc. others just don’t translate. For me citizen kane is slow, boring, poorly acted, and poorly edited. The only thing I liked was the stunning cinematography. I have been meaning to check out touch of evil ever since I saw the poster on TV’s House and I wanna see nic roeg’s work since tony scott often sites him as a big influence (tony admits the hunger was a big rip off of roeg's "performance"). ridley and hitch didnt just SOMEHOW get good performances from them. its very hard to turn a bad actor into a good one. take it from someone whose directed actors, a good actor gives a good performance because they are a good actor. the director just provides a little guidance. IMO directors get too much credit for "getting performances out of actors". as far as directors making mistakes, yes they can make mistakes and if the director HIMSELF says later on i messed up (tony scott says now he overdid Domino's visuals and rushed the story/editing, not letting scenes "breath", which i agree) but if a director is proud of what he did and outside viewers say what he did was WRONG then thats where i take issue. thats what i meant before.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 6:34 p.m. CST

    For Emotional verisimilitude — a Car chase comparison

    by blakindigo

    1. "Bad Boys 2" (I'll give it to Bay — it was some of his best work)<br>2. "The Road Warrior" (speaks for itself)<br>3. "The French Connection"<br><br>Which one is most effective and why?

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Zack Snyder

    by GoodMovieReference

    Is a director with amazing vision and so down to earth. i remember i was at best buy in pasadena and here comes this guy walking around handing out promoting cards for 300 and he was like hey man if you get a chance go see my movie and im like...zack fuckin snyder? crazy man doin the unnecessary dirty work.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 7:48 p.m. CST

    Generation MTV

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    Apologies. I was just going by your list of favourite visualists, your admitted desire for radical visuals, and the list of films you provided, most of which contain multiple explosions. Yeah, I like Ed Zwick as well, but I actually think he has a very lovely eye. Naturalistic yes, but his films always look beautiful. <p> For me, I perfer visualists like Michel Gondry, Del Toro, Wes Anderson, Spike Jonze, Alex Proyas (well, the Crow and Dark City mainly), Darren Aronofsky, Tim Burton (up until Sleepy Hollow), David Cronenberg, Tarsem (The Fall), Edgar Wright because they don't tend to sacrifice the story for the sake of a pretty picture. But fair enough, you prefer not. I'm not saying I don't like some hollow filmmakers, but I prefer the ones who can combine style with substance. <p> You honestly think that scene in 2001 is pretentious, yet you love Michael Bay who has made some incredibly induldgent pieces? Name dropping his own films ("This is, like, a hundred times cooler than Armageddon!); the Bay Boys II poster on the wall in Transformers 2 - one that gets a nice amount of screen time too!), that is incredibly pretentious in my book. OK, you don't like 2001, but Joseph Kahn impresses you more than Kubrick?! The guy who directed 'Always' by Blink 182 and 'Toxic' by Britney Spears? I suppose that you're right - it was nothing so nobody is emulating 2001 anymore (I didn't notice the hospital room in Inception's snow level looked like the bedroom from that film) and everybody's replicating the cool bits from Torque. OK, to each his own. <p> Filmmaking and commercials/music videos are totally different beasts. Pacing isn't much of an issue in an advert - it's easy to keep something interesting for 30 seconds - and music videos are the same. It's easy to keep an audience hooked for 3 minutes with some dazzling images, but that kind of thing is a lot harder to sustain over 90 minutes. Joseph Kahn can make Britney Spears look hot for 3 minutes, but Torque was rubbish. <p> You should definitely check out Nic Roeg, and also his early career as a cinematographer, although I'm not sure you'll appreciate him. but you should give it a chance - expand your outlook. Even if you don't watch all of Touch of Evil, the start is essential. <p> How would you know Citizen Kane is slow, boring, poorly acted, and edited if you only saw two minutes of it? The fact that you suggest its poorly edited is astonishing. It is a huge part of the modern language of cinematography and editing - it changed the way people approached film. Just watch the opening and look at how Welles uses space and composition in relation to the next edit; the way it expresses the isolation and distance of Kane. The scene where the camera zooms into the photograph which then becomes a live action flashback. A trick we see constantly used in modern films, yet it was concieved with (comparatively) primative equipment. It's fair enough to say that you don't like the film, but show some respect! I'm not a fan of Snyder, but I can admit his shots look pretty. Citizen Kane poorly edited! Fucking hell, I can't believe I'm reading that on a geek film site, let alone from a film student and aspiring filmmaker! <p> "its very hard to turn a bad actor into a good one." Ah, but that's the beauty of film - it is possible. Take the little girl in 'Let the Right One In' who's original (supposedly poor) vocal performance was redubbed and became a good one. What about Jennifer Lopez as a lead actress in 'Out of Sight'? She gives a good performance in that, but not so much her other lead roles. Maybe Soderbergh talked her through all of the scenes and cut around her peformance? Made her look better than she is. If you shoot a scene with your grandma, you could make her look like a cold, calculating assassin with the right lighting, editing, music and expressions from her. That's what film is all about! Look, Hitchcock explains it right here - <p> What about when a good actor gives a bad performance? How do you explain that? Why is Nick Cage so good in 'Adaptation' (Spike Jonze), 'Wild At Heart'(David Lynch), 'Raising Arizona' (Coen Brothers), 'Matchstick Men' (Ridley Scott), but not so good in 'Ghost Rider' (Mark Steven Johnson?) and 'The Rock' (Michael Bay)? Maybe because of the differences in directors? Why is Samuel L Jackson dreadful in the Star Wars Prequels, but great in Tarrantino films? Maybe because George Lucas became crap at directing after 1977? Why do actors fall over themselves to work with Terrence Malick, and not, say, Paul W S Anderson? Maybe because they know that one director will get one of their greatst performances from them, while the other will make them look like a circus clown. You can get a bad performance from a good actor if you misdirect them (even good directors can be guility of this) - just go and watch Robert De Niro in Rocky and Bullwinkle if you don't believe me. <p> You could get a good performance from ANYONE depending you put them in a suitable role. Put Arnie as Michael Corleone, and that's not going to work. Maybe him a time traveling robot who is essentially a wrecking ball, and you have film legend. Film is all about being able to tansform people into what they are not - and that included bad actors into good ones. They have multiple takes, you can cut away when they make mistakes, you can edit around their performance, use different dialogue from different takes. That's why you don't tend to see bad actors doing theatre - because they only get one take. One chance, no extra takes, no looping. <p> Secondly, I have directed actors myself, so I 'know' - I just don't brag about it. Don't get snippy; maybe if you had directed 'Network' I'd be paying more attention. You're not special just because you have shot some shorts for a Michael Bay competition. I've directed people ranging from my friends to theatre actors, but who cares? I went to the Q&A of Garth Edwards who directed 'Monsters' - seeing as he's actually directed a proper film, I'll take him as a higher power than yourself who is wielding your seniority other others on this board - and he said you can get a good performance from anybody, hence he casted locals in Mexico who had never acted before. And guess what - they were pretty good! <p> "yes they can make mistakes and if the director HIMSELF says later on i messed up" Just because don't admit it until later one doesn't mean it wasn't always apparent. A mistake doesn't suddenly pop up on every single copy of the film just because the director finally confesses. Example: casting Sofia Coppola in Godfather 3. And what if they can't admit it and lie? What if it is completely obvious that something is a HUGE, OBVIOUS mistake, but the director is so egotistical that he can't accept it? <p> Obviously, I'm never going to convince you on the merits of watching other films and appreciating different elements of them, so I may as well end the debate. It's been fun! Good luck to you, sir.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 10:22 p.m. CST

    by GenerationMTV

    Torque wasnt meant to be taken seriously. Kahn said that was a spoof of the fast and furious films and was meant to be over the top silly and a pastiche of cartoons, anime, and a western, set on motorcycles. thats why he had over the top cuts, visuals, ridiculously obvious product placement, Bike-Fu, etc. alot of people didnt get that. hot fuzz was a parody of buddy cop films (such as bad boys 2). same thing. Bay refernecing his own films isnt pretentions. spielberg does it too. but a blank screen with 10 minutes of msuic is unacceptable. maybe in a theater play but not a feature film. if i was in the theater id walk out or ask if the projector was working. and yes joseph kahn sh*ts on the stuff Kubrick and Welles did. Maybe im spoiled by todays music videos but its hard to impress me i guess. it really really really wows me some of the crap that passes for classics or "visually groundbreaking" and i get all excited and watch the old movie and look at it and go HUH? whats the big deal? Go to and take any 20 second snippet from ONE of his videos or commercials and you will see more technical wizardry than in all of welles filmography combined BRO. as far as directing actors, from my experience they dont really like it when you are all in their face telling them how to feel, in fact they get offended by it. i made that mistake early on back when i was under the false impression that its the directors job to "get a performance from the actor". maybe its just the ones ive worked with, who knows?

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 11:25 p.m. CST

    One thing you can say about Snyder

    by Phategod2

    He will blow a fucking budget to his hearts content and wont cow tow to anyone. He will bankrupt a studio with style man. This looks like Pans Labrynth with a 100 million dollar budget.

  • Nov. 5, 2010, 11:30 p.m. CST

    GenerationMTV maks me weep for the future of modern

    by Phategod2

    cinema. Im not going go off and type a bunch of paragraphs just based off your opinions on classics styles of film making thats defined the very genre. But I'll just point out one thing, Anyone who believes style matters over substance is a fool in my book.

  • Nov. 6, 2010, 12:26 a.m. CST


    by Billy_D_Williams

    "a blank screen with 10 minutes of msuic is unacceptable. maybe in a theater play but not a feature film. if i was in the theater id walk out or ask if the projector was working."...i'm leaving that quote alone because i don't have to say anything, it speaks for itself. awe inspiring. i've said all i need to say. death of cinema.

  • Nov. 6, 2010, 3:59 a.m. CST


    by cushing1967

    How many Orson Welles movies have you seen?<P><P>If it's two minutes of Citizen Kane then you are in NO position to make wild and frankly ridiculously arrogant claims about his work compared to Joseph Khan.<P><P>Your posts are getting increasingly difficult to take seriously and to be honest with that attitude - I seriously doubt that you will get anywhere in the film making industry.

  • Nov. 6, 2010, 4:49 a.m. CST

    who are we kidding he'll probably be the next Micheal Bay

    by Phategod2

    In Opinion that not a complement but at least He'll have enough money to support his drug habit.

  • Nov. 6, 2010, 5:09 a.m. CST

    Looks like...

    by Motoko Kusanagi


  • Nov. 6, 2010, 7:27 a.m. CST

    Brain Drain

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    Do I really have to explain the difference? Spielberg produced those films, he didn't direct them. Those references are probably down to Donner and Dante. I can't recall seeing Tom Cruise drawing all over a poster of 'Hook' in his Spielberg collaborations. <p> I don't mind echos of director's previous works, that is to be expected. Example: The name "Cobb" is featured in Nolan's debut, 'Following, as well as 'Inception'. Nor do I mind them setting films in the same universe, or different characters appearing in different films. Hell, they can even homage others (Wes Craven and Sam Raimi's 80s tips of the hat). But they are entirely different to featuring a five foot poster in a scene where it is scene repeatedly throughout the film - and then to top off it, you have the main character scribbling all over it in a lovely close up. That is incredibly self-indulgent to me, but obviously not you guys. Horses for courses.

  • Nov. 6, 2010, 7:36 a.m. CST

    Billy D Williams

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    In 2001, Kubrick goes from the dawn of man to the birth of a new race in 140 minutes. In Transformers 2, Bay goes from homosexual dogs having sex to Shia Lebeouf going to robot heaven in 150 minutes.

  • Nov. 6, 2010, 8:25 a.m. CST

    Generation MTV

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    "Torque wasn't meant to be taken seriously." So the director intended his debut film (which would play a large part in whether or not he would get another job) to be shit? I wouldn't have thought so. In essence, your film mantra boils down to there being no such thing as a bad film or a bad director, unless they admit it themselves. Or that if it is bad, they intended it to be so. It's certainly a relief to discover from yourself that every shit film I have seen was meant to be that way because the director intended it to be so. <p> "Maybe I'm spoiled by todays music videos but its hard to impress me to guess." Yes, we should be eternally thankful that we have been blessed by the wonderous narratives that accompany Justin Bieber music videos. I don't know why you suffer through films when you could just watch special effects documentaries instead; none of that frustrating dialogue to sit through. <p> I have seen examples Joseph Kahn's work, so I feel in a position to compare him to Welles, Kubrick and the likes. But seeing as you have only seen the opening two minutes of 'Citizen Kane' I am not sure that you are able to do the same. There are some pretty pictures there, but precious little else. That's all they are - pretty. There's no depth to them, no substance; they don't have anything to say. They are disposable by their nature. Is anybody talking about his video for 'Toxic' six years on? No, but people are still talking about Citizen Kane, and will be fifty years from now. <p> Technical wizardry is useless if that's ALL there is to your work. It's the equivilent of having the face and body of a supermodel, but the brain of a chimpanzee. It is possible to make masterpieces without being a tech whizz - just look at Mike Nichols and Woody Allen. But it's not possible to make a masterpiece solely with technical skill - look at Bay, Snyder, Kahn, etc. By the logic that technology advances make superior films, then the Star Wars Prequels should have blown the originals out of the water, but they didn't. There's more to a film, and it all starts with the script. Most scripts are terrible these days, and not even finished before the film is started. <p> Visuals are obviously your favourite aspect of a film, and that's fine, but the way you use them to define whether a film is worth while or not suggests a very skewed understanding of film. <p> Actors vary. Some don't like direction, others demand motivation. Great directing is how you handle each person because they are all different. Whether that's sitting with them creating backstories, or why the ring they are wearing symbolises that character's obsession with materialism, or whether it's just leaving them alone for the duration of the shoot. Ridley Scott didn't give Harrison Ford much direction on 'Blade Runner' because he was too busy literally directing Sean Young beat by beat, which led to an unhappy shoot for Ford - he wanted direction. <p> To sum it up I'm going to paraphrase one of the best films ever made: "Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in cinema for 70 years they suffered World Wars, the Great Depression, racism, and McCarthyism, but they produced Kubrick, Chaplin, Hitchcock and Kurosawa. After 1980 they had advanced technology - they had 30 years of green screen, CGI and Final Cut Pro, and what did that produce? Michael Bay."

  • Nov. 6, 2010, 1:49 p.m. CST

    motorcycle boy

    by GenerationMTV


  • Nov. 6, 2010, 2:01 p.m. CST

    fixing my last post...motorcycle boy.LISTEN

    by GenerationMTV

    torque was a spoof. spoofs can be funny and taken seriously. he thought we would get it. i did. many people who are cult fans did. i spoke with kahn via twitter about his 2011 horror comedy he just finished filming Detention and it will be even darker and more serious with crazier visuals, i cant wait. heres my take on "bad" directors or films. i may think transformers is good. you may think its bad. but when it comes to directors. if you have a case where a director says this is what i intended it to be and people think i got it wrong, well then i hate that. its his movie and he did what he wanted. now if the director later says i got the tone wrong (like tony scott did with domino) then i accept that he admits he messed up (in his mind, not based off what critics say). you all hate directors who cower and bow to public opinion and make films for the "least common denominator" (like Bay) yet you call a director who sticks to his guns and vision no matter what haters say ignorant and blind. sorry but thats wrong!!! as far as vidoes, i dont look to them to learn narrative i look to them to learn visual tricks. i dont look to crappy justin bieber videos for that. i look to the rgeat videos such as hype williams video for kanye wests homecoming or his videos for missy elliot or wayne ishams nsync video for its gonna be me or finchers old madonna videos or any kahn commercial. visually innovative stuff. if you think i go to bieber videos for tips than you underestimate the visuals im talking about and what vidoes can do when done right. you keep assuming that i dont care about story or narrative or character. ive said time and again M. Nights The Village is one of my fave films ever. no technical wizardry there, just great storytelling. you keep ignoring this because it fits your cliche vision of me. you say there are no masterpieces based off technical wizardry. i disagree. the star wars films are masterpieces, and dont tell me its because of the oscar acting in those films.

  • Nov. 6, 2010, 2:07 p.m. CST

    by GenerationMTV

    i didnt just see the first 2 minutes of citizen kane. i said i got bored after the first 2 minutes ( i exagerated when i said i fell asleep). i finished watching most of it. i agree that alot of the editing and tracking shots were the forefather of what we see today. i give wells his respect for that. but if you ask me to compare what he does to fincher or kahn, i have to say fincher and kahn do it better. just because something came first doesnt make it superior. sorry.

  • Nov. 6, 2010, 4:35 p.m. CST

    another thing

    by GenerationMTV

    ridleys opinion is that decard is a replicant. many fans disagree. whose right and whose wrong? some argue neither. i argue if thats what the director intended then you gotta go with it. i mean what if chris nolan makes a dvd commentary for inception saying it was all a dream at the end? will you disagree because you think he's wrong. its HIS film. his message/meaning. i think he knows what the intentin was a little more than you do.

  • Nov. 6, 2010, 5:29 p.m. CST

    Generation MTV

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    I agree that there are some spoofs that capture the tone and critique the particular genre well (Young Frankenstein), but there are those that don't (any film by the cinematic cancer known as Seltzer and Friedberg). Personally I don't feel Kahn was successful in attempting this. It never felt as though the film was knowingly tongue in cheek. Out of interest was it pitched as a spoof before or after it was released? That's nice that Kahn keeps in contact with his fans... let's hope his next piece is more interesting fare. <p> For me I believe that it is possible to tell whether a film is good or not. All right, so it's not like maths where the sum either adds up or it doesn't, but there are tells. It might be the performances, or the script, or the editing doesn't flow. Here's an extreme (and I mean EXTREME) example: <p> I don't need a critic to point out to me that the actors deliveries are completely stilted, or the dialogue awkward; the noticeable joins of shots (0.47 "Haha, what a story, Mark!) that do not flow seamlessly and make it feel like the entire moment is continuous. Now, to me it seems pretty obvious that clip is BAD filmmaking, but because the director later stated that the film was meant to be 'a spoof' (despite this being denied by everybody else involved in the film) you would reply with a straight face 'It's not bad because that's exactly what the director meant it to be'. Despite the evidence of the actual film itself and the testimonies of the actors suggesting otherwise your belief means that the director is always right, even if he was lying like in this case. You know I can seeing that being the reason in a few cases, but not every single film in existence. <p> I was being a little bit of a smart arse about Bieber, and for that I apologise. As I have said in my earlier posts, I actually believe that you can learn from anything whether it be the new Chris Nolan film or your grandfather's home movies. Even if it's just how not to frame a shot then you have still learned something. So I understand how you can be inspired by elements of them (Best ever music video: Spike Jonze's 'Sabotage' for The Beastie Boys!!!), but discarding the majority of film history in favour of disposable pop videos is crazy. Especially when you take into account that they are completely different beasts and what works for a pretty girl miming for 3 minutes doesn't necessarily translate to a feature length work. <p> Fincher! Now you're talking! One of the best and most interesting directors of the last thirty years. I love his work (Zodiac would be my favourite) and also his dedication to detailing the filmmaking process through his DVDs. But he is really the antithesis to the names you have been putting forward. He doesn't put the visual solely over the story. Just look at what he did with the 'Social Network'. He was smart enough to realise that the actors and script were the real stars and core of the piece, so he stripped back his asthetics and put those elements front and centre. That is incredibly selfless directing, intelligence, and a lack of egotism. <p> Have you ever seen his list of favourite ever films? - Ironically it is full of names that you would refuse to watch or that you find boring. If Finch can learn from them, I'm sure you could as well. Be open minded and give it a try, you never know what you might find. <p> Yes, he has come from a commercial/video background, but I've never disputed that talented fillmmakers can emerge from that area: Scott, Alan Parker, Fincher, Duncan Jones, Spike Jonze. The difference is that they moved beyond that and used the scope film provides to grow. They didn't start making two hour music videos like Bay does; they aren't making vapid films that have no surface depth. <p> I'm sorry, but you presented yourself as a cliche when you said that films pre-1980 aren't very good and that films like '2001: A Space Odyssey' are boring and not exciting like 'Bad Boys II'. That wasn't me saying those things, so you can't blame me for using them in this discussion. It is your opinion, but when you come on to a film site and say that an N-Sync video (in which they are puppets and fight toys!) will teach us as inspire us more than Stanley Kubrick then you have to expect that your arse is going to be chewed up at least a little bit. <p> If you were trying to be a cinematographer I could understand more why you are concentrating on snazzy visuals, but as a director you should also be exploring all of the other areas as well. If you are fortunate enough to make it then you will have a cinematographer to take care of all that stuff for you and do little tricks, but if you are clueless on the other aspects of film you are going to be in a pickle. <p> I've mainly been inferring that your main interest doesn't lie in story or characterisation because of the comments you have made and films you have put forward. Can you blame me? You've been putting forward films like 'Bad Boys II' and 'Mission: Impossible' which aren't exactly nuanced works. I think 'The Village' is OK, but suffers from a ridiculous twist that I honestly deciphered in the opening ten minutes. Still, the director has some really nice moments of staging and moments of tone like the attacks, really well. <p> Which Star Wars films? The original films have more than just great visuals, ignoring the groundbreaking sound work and legendary score, but the story and characters are engaging. The power in it doesn't come from the cinematography alone, it's the journey of Luke. I would put forward 'The Empire Strikes Back' as the best Star Wars film, and that is largely due in part by the performances from the actors. Coincidently that film was directed (the portions with the actors anyway) by Irvin Kershner, and boy does it show. He put more attention on their performances than Lucas did. The chracterisation is never at that level anywhere else in the trilogy or saga. <p> OK, so Kahn can do a better dolly slide than Orson in purely technical terms (and I would expect him to be able as well with 70 years of camera advancement) but can he use them as effectively to impact his stories? I don't believe so. Is he doing a camera move to suggest isolation and distance like Welles did in Kane, or is he doing it because it looks "cool"? <p> To clarify, have you been putting forward these films and directors as ones you like, or as examples of great filmmaking? Because, although I love 'Gremlins', I would never hold it up as an example of what makes a film great. <p> Oh, and regarding Scott and Blade Runnner... it's not just many fans who disagree - the writer does, Ford does, Rutger Hauer does, some of the producers do. Ridley could say Deckard is a transsexual (that's why he has pictures of women around because he likes to imitate them), tis a shit idea but he is the director. Fair enough he can say all that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's good. For me, Deckard being a replicant weakens the thematics of the film. If he's human then it is a story of a man regaining his humanity in the pursuit of these creations. Roy Batty's gesture of saving a human at the end instead of killing them shows how he learned the true value of life in his dying moments. He now knows how precious it is, and that he has no right to take it away. His action says 'Look, I might not have a soul, but I won't take your life like you would have mine,' Batty saving a man adds another intriguing perspective to proceedings. <p> Gaff's final line "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" points to our own mortality. Yes, Rachel will die, but you are human and so will you at some stage. It makes us consider our own lifespan - Deckard is only flesh and blood and he could die before Rachel does; life life now because none of us knows how long we truly have. If you make Deckard a replicant then you lose all of that, as well as gaining a bucket load of questions like: why would you send a weaker model to fight five more advanced ones? Why does Batty say "I've seen things YOU PEOPLE wouldn't believe." if Deckard isn't a human? Blade Runner is a much better film if Deckard is a human being. But, hey, that's just my opinion. <p> And if Nolan says that 'Inception' was just a dream then I would say, 'OK, but it's not as good a film as it would be if he were actually awake'. <p> What would you do if James Cameron came out and said that 'Aliens' was all just a dream of Ripley's as her cryo chamber is malfunctioning and losing oxygen, and the entire film is an hallucination as she is dying? That would be his intention, but it would make the film weaker. <p> No hard feelings, but I just think we appreciate different things when it comes to our criteria for an interesting film. We might have to agree to disagree!

  • Nov. 7, 2010, 12:46 p.m. CST

    by GenerationMTV

    IMO Torque did succeed and you can tell from the trailers it was purposefully tongue in cheek. look at the opening scene when the red and yellow car and bike zoom past a street sign causing it to spin real fast like old Bugs Bunny cartoons and it says Cars Suck on it. Listen to the DVD commentary with Kahn over that very scene where he says "if you cant right now that this movie is tongue in cheek you dont understand movies". i say again, i saw some older films in film school as well as growing up and from time to time now and compared to newer films and todays videos/ads i just feel if i wanna to compete with todays filmmakers with todays technology i should focus on whats going on today so im not shutting anything out, ive seen what the past has to offer and ive determined its best to stay current. if you are a watchmaker you will build a watch using todays best materials and technology not old stuff. As far as Fincher, he's one of my idols but c'mon, he DOES have an ego. a huge one. the armie hammer twin CG face trickery, the CG breath in the cold at caribbean night, the rowing race with the tilt shift lens. did any of that serve the story? no. but fincher loves CG tricks. thats what gets him off. that what gets him out of bed. guys like PT Anderson just point the camera at actors and tell a story but cats like Finch get off on CG tricks. he was showing off. I never ever said films pre-1980 are no good. dont put words in my mouth. i said i am a film buff when it comes to films post 1980. i was just admitting i am not a master of knowledge of films older than that. of course films made pre-1980 are good. i could list dozens. this is all stemming from my blog where i mentioned that my top 10 VISUALLY impressive directors all come from the modern era. Films made pre-1980 dont WOW me visually. im talking VISUALS VISUALS VISUALS. not the overall film and its quality. got it? im looking for stuff that will take my music videos, ads, and films to that next level. a state of the art shot from kahns latest video will help me much more than a fadeaway wipe from old DePalma (whom i huge fan of his films but copying his tricks is pointless today) or rudamentary tracking shot from a 1940's film. Yes 2001 did bore me. its just not an entertaininf gilm. period. and yes Bad Boys 2 is one of my top 5 fave films all time i can watch it everyday all day. its overflowing with entertainment and activity. its full of action and humor and makes me laugh and has great visuals and interesting characters. torque is the same, also domino, alpha dog (minus visuals), rules of attraction, fast and furious, the covenant, the unborn, etc. i didnt say an nsycn video will inspire you more than kubrick. i said what wayne isham did in that video (which is already a decade old) is technically more relevant today than what stanley did in 2001. it just is. any visual effects student/supervisor/person with basic knowledge will tell you that. as far as star wars, there is nothing incredibly unique about that story and the acting in ALL 6 films is atrocious. just because a film is "engaging" it deserves to be called a masterpiece? c'mon now. we all know the groundbreaking FX are why star wars is seen as a landmark. i agree its a great adventure and i love all 6 films (im actually one of the crazy few who prefer the prequels) but its the FX, music and lore that have standed the test of time. but theres nothing 'masterpiece' quality about the basic seriel pop adventure those films are telling. any well done saturday morning cartoon has just as much "gravitas". yes these are directors and films i like, i never said they are examples of great filmmaking. i could be a sheep and just force myself to "love" stuff like citizen kane or gone with the wind or godfather 2 or 2001 or full metal jacket or days of heaven when i watch them or i can be honest and say MEH. Not impressed. sorry if my opinion isnt popular. and finally as far as my stance on why i hate when people second guess a director or assume their opinion of his choices is superior to his, i think it just comes from the fact that in the past 5 years i have gone from pure movie fan/watcher to filmmaker myself. im on the other side now and i know how it feels to have outsiders second guess your work and vision. i mean i know how hard it is to make a 2 day video shoot go or a 3 week short film and all the work and stress and compromises that come into play so i cant imagine what goes on in a $150 million dollar feature film that takes 2 years to complete from start to finish. to spend 2 years of your life working on something, something that caused you sleepless nights, arguments with a studio, money out your own account, hurting an actresses feelings to get her to cry, long hours that made you lose your marriage, late nights with writers and storyboard artists or editors, getting legal rights for copyrighted songs, slashed budgets forcing you to skimp on the VFX you want, all this just to have some idiot with no talent sit there and watch it for two years and tear it apart with a five paragraph review in the NY Times or some 18 year old know it all nerd wih a 2 sentence rant in a message board. i have a newfound appreciation for what directing and overall filmmaking is. i will never bad mout a director again because it may say on the DVD "A Terence Malick film" but i know now first hand that 4,000 other voices had their hands in what ends up on that DVD disc and all of it certainly wasnt what Malick envisioned.

  • Nov. 7, 2010, 12:54 p.m. CST


    by GenerationMTV

    ..idiot with no talent sit there and watch it for two HOURS..

  • Nov. 7, 2010, 2:11 p.m. CST

    Generation MTV

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    Seeing as you evaded many of my points I'm going to repay the compliment. This will be brief (for me, anyway ;0). <p> Many up and coming 'filmmakers' can cook up CGI robots smashing up their house, the market is getting saturated with guys who can make stuff look gorgeous; if you want to stand out above them all you might have to be a fucking good writer, or get searing performances from your actors to stand out even further. I'm not saying visuals are without merit, just that you need something else as well. <p> I didn't say that Fincher is without an ego, but that he reigned it in on The Social Network. Or do you disagree that 'The Social Network' lacked many of his trademarks (CGI transitions for example)? You kind of torpedoed your own argument with the Hammer point. Being able to use that face technology to allow Hammer to portray twins (who was excellent) didn't serve the story? It did exactly that! It allowed Finch to use the actor he felt best to portray the twins, who were a crucial part of the narrative - how is that not about serving the story? <p> PT Anderson just points the camera? Did you fall asleep two minutes into 'There Will Be Blood' as well? I concede he doesn't use CGI embellishment as often as Finch, but the guy has crafted some of the most memorable camera sequences in history. That's it, I'm wrapping this up before you ridicule yourself any further; I'm not a masochist. <p< Again, you are not the only person who has done film shoots! I know you like to paint yourself as a starving director, but there are a few of us on here who have done the same. We know the stresses you face when you're on location and your co-director only has one battery for his camera and it's not been charged fully, or your actresses' husband is stood there telling you what you should be doing, or there are cars going by in every single shot in a graveyard that's meant to be abandoned. Been there, done that. I know it's difficult to make stuff, especially in this climate, but it's no excuse for shoddy films or a reason to justify poor decisions by directors. <p> So, in short, Michael Ray, you encapsulate all that is wrong with the way film is heading. It's even in your AICN handle - glorifying a channel that was mostly about packaging derivative shite in shiny makeup and hair, and selling it to the masses. You say 'Fast and the Furious' has "interesting characters", but that 'The Godfather: Part II' is "meh.". May God have mercy on us all... <p> Me and this thread, we are fuckin' done professionally! <p> P.S. Malick isn't really a good example seeing as he gets to do pretty much whatever the hell he wants to. <p> P.P.S. Try using paragraph breaks in future.

  • Nov. 7, 2010, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Generation MTV - continued

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    Again, you are not the only person who has done film shoots! I know you like to paint yourself as a starving director, but there are a few of us on here who have done the same. We know the stresses you face when you're on location and your co-director only has one battery for his camera and it's not been charged, or your actresses' husband is stood there telling you what you should be doing, or there are cars going by in every single shot in a graveyard that's meant to be abandoned. Been there, done that. I know it's difficult to make stuff, especially in this climate, but it's no excuse for shoddy films or a reason to justify poor decisions by directors. <p> So, in short, Michael Ray, you encapsulate all that is wrong with the way film is heading. It's even in your AICN handle - glorifying a channel that was mostly about packaging derivative shite in shiny makeup and hair, and selling it to the masses. You say 'Fast and the Furious' has "interesting characters", but that 'The Godfather: Part II' is "meh.". May God have mercy on us all... <p> Me and this thread, we are fuckin' done professionally! <p> P.S. Malick isn't really a good example seeing as he gets to do pretty much whatever the hell he wants to. <p> P.P.S. Try using paragraph breaks in future; it's much easier on the old eyes.

  • Nov. 7, 2010, 5:30 p.m. CST

    by GenerationMTV

    i only evaded the points where i felt we agree or there is nothing left to argue. as far as paragraph breaks i try but when i press enter it still comes out as one big paragraph ot sure why

  • Nov. 7, 2010, 5:31 p.m. CST

    Not sure why*

    by GenerationMTV

    correction.. Not sure why.

  • Nov. 7, 2010, 5:36 p.m. CST

    by GenerationMTV

    i didnt mean to belittle PT Anderson. He has some beautifully composed shots for sure.

  • Nov. 7, 2010, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Paragraph breaks

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    AICN has some silly system. You have to do HTML code. <p> For a paragraph break, you to make these <> and put a p in between them. And you end up with... <p> this. <p> : )

  • Nov. 7, 2010, 6:06 p.m. CST

    Agrh, see what I mean!

    by The_Motorcycle_Boy

    < <p> > <p> The value brackets that are on your comma and full stop keys. <p> Come on Harry Knowles, just give us paragraph breaks and an edit function. You can keep the rest the same!

  • Feb. 2, 2011, 8:12 a.m. CST

    I cannot WAIT for this fucking movie.

    by Van_Dammes_Forehead_Lump

    This looks like the SHIT. I'll be there OPENING NIGHT!!!

  • Jan. 14, 2012, 3:31 a.m. CST

    Who saw that coming?

    by Xen11

    The advertising for the film built it up as an adrenaline-packed action fest that teased titillation and loads of fluff. Then it sucker punches the audience with something brilliant, emotional, and only understood by the intelligent with the film being a reflection of the individual watching. It's only as good as the person is willing to empathize. Sucker Punch's reception reflects abuse victims: Ignored and misunderstood. A masterpiece of hidden success.