Otisburg posted:

It's weird to me that he also directed Dawn of the Dead, because that was a decent little action-horror flick before the zombie renaissance got run into the ground then fracked into the Earth's core.

ThePlague-Daemon posted:

Still too evenly lit.



Corel Painter's color correction tools aren't the best and I'm not the best at using them.

achillesforever6 posted:

CD trying to "fix" the cinematography by "Snydernizing" it

Young Freud posted:

Here's the issue with DotD: what part of it's success can be attributed to Snyder and what part is responsbile due to the screenwriter, James Gunn?

Gatekeeper posted:

I'm watchin the watchmen (lol) and like yeah, you can tell there's lots of poo poo Snyder just doesn't get about the graphic novel and there's so much poo poo he inexplicably changed and important themes he left out entirely and he tries a bunch of times to shoehorn in his own ideas alongside the ideas in the original story which are frequently completely at odds with each other because he doesn't understand that rorschach is not actually the good guy for example and the "great at slo-mo and nothing else"/"he should be making music videos, not movies" complaints are really REALLY obvious in this movie but

everyone shits crazy hard on the hallelujah scene, and i dont entirely get the hate. Is it because he's trying to be ironic by using thatsong for a sex scene but doesnt understand that the song is actually about loving? Is it that nite owls fetishism over that golden age hero poo poo was better left subtle and not with a big old sign shining "hey this guy can't get hard without wearin his fuckin costume lol"?

Huh I guess I do get why everyone hates it

achillesforever6 posted:

CD trying to "fix" the cinematography by "Snydernizing" it

Flesh Forge posted:

in the grim future of Cinema Discusso there is only brown

Flesh Forge posted:

in the grim future of Cinema Discusso there is only brown

A GLISTENING HODOR posted:

The opening credits with Johnny Cash was 100% Snyder and 100% good because it can't be stated enough he's only suited for directing music videos, not actors and narratives.

achillesforever6 posted:

CD trying to "fix" the cinematography by "Snydernizing" it

Quote-Unquote posted:

No Superman, don't help people! The free market will decide who is worthy of not being drowned in a schoolbus!

Moola posted:

close CD and ban everyone in it holy poo poo

GRANNYS PEACH TEA posted:

Unironically this. EVERYONE, including me.

Moola posted:

close CD and ban everyone in it holy poo poo

Bro Dad posted:

those are all words written about the black guy who was in the movie for maybe thirty seconds

Germstore posted:

please tell me someone in CD gave you that av. please.

Bro Dad posted:

Basically, the reading that White knows about Clark's alter-ego hinges upon interpreting all of his dialog as thinly-veiled, but acerbically witty and self-conscious "put on" for the sake of copping for this god-man. The fundamental question we need to ask is, why would Perry agree to have the Superman on his journalistic staff? Because you saved my life? What does that mean with regards to your obviously false credentials which I now need to become complicit in fabricating so that we can conveniently ignore that you're just some dirt farmer's kid who's only ever been trusted to clean tables and turn valves your whole life?

It's an almost conspiratorial way of interpreting the film, that Perry gets off on his performance of just persistently down-talking to or ignoring Clark's opinion, he's totally unafraid of the man of steel and completely cynical about his "real world skills." Like, when he says, "clicks his heels three times and goes back to Kansas, I suppose," it's his more-Marvel-than-Marvel moment where he just roots his life in the history of popular "dreams," one that he can't escape from.

The problem is Perry never acts like a guy who's as in love with the image of Superman as the Cowardly Lion is with the image of Dorothy, possessing them to strive to be more than they think they can be because of their fear (one of the "market," the other of "violence"). But "the Superman" is completely peripheral to Perry's perspective - He sees a picture of his defaced monument and, within ear-shot of the guy, vocally announces that he's going to perpetuate dialog speculating over his motives as an invasive "man from the sky" rather than criticism of the flagrantly immoral Gotham police force. Perry only brings up the Superman explicitly in private conversation once, and it's based on his relationship to him through Lois, who he cynically assumes is only out to make "her boyfriend" out to be a victim. But Perry clearly doesn't even take the idea of "a threat to Superman" seriously. He considers Superman's existence just an opportunity to sell papers, not a more complex political narrative that refers back to systemic problems.

The point is that Perry is alienated from the moral universe that people who know Superman personally are forced to occupy. He sees everything as one big "honey-pot," basically.

Bro Dad posted:

Basically, the reading that White knows about Clark's alter-ego hinges upon interpreting all of his dialog as thinly-veiled, but acerbically witty and self-conscious "put on" for the sake of copping for this god-man. The fundamental question we need to ask is, why would Perry agree to have the Superman on his journalistic staff? Because you saved my life? What does that mean with regards to your obviously false credentials which I now need to become complicit in fabricating so that we can conveniently ignore that you're just some dirt farmer's kid who's only ever been trusted to clean tables and turn valves your whole life?

It's an almost conspiratorial way of interpreting the film, that Perry gets off on his performance of just persistently down-talking to or ignoring Clark's opinion, he's totally unafraid of the man of steel and completely cynical about his "real world skills." Like, when he says, "clicks his heels three times and goes back to Kansas, I suppose," it's his more-Marvel-than-Marvel moment where he just roots his life in the history of popular "dreams," one that he can't escape from.

The problem is Perry never acts like a guy who's as in love with the image of Superman as the Cowardly Lion is with the image of Dorothy, possessing them to strive to be more than they think they can be because of their fear (one of the "market," the other of "violence"). But "the Superman" is completely peripheral to Perry's perspective - He sees a picture of his defaced monument and, within ear-shot of the guy, vocally announces that he's going to perpetuate dialog speculating over his motives as an invasive "man from the sky" rather than criticism of the flagrantly immoral Gotham police force. Perry only brings up the Superman explicitly in private conversation once, and it's based on his relationship to him through Lois, who he cynically assumes is only out to make "her boyfriend" out to be a victim. But Perry clearly doesn't even take the idea of "a threat to Superman" seriously. He considers Superman's existence just an opportunity to sell papers, not a more complex political narrative that refers back to systemic problems.

The point is that Perry is alienated from the moral universe that people who know Superman personally are forced to occupy. He sees everything as one big "honey-pot," basically.

Acne Rain posted:

Bro Dad posted:

Basically, the reading that White knows about Clark's alter-ego hinges upon interpreting all of his dialog as thinly-veiled, but acerbically witty and self-conscious "put on" for the sake of copping for this god-man. The fundamental question we need to ask is, why would Perry agree to have the Superman on his journalistic staff? Because you saved my life? What does that mean with regards to your obviously false credentials which I now need to become complicit in fabricating so that we can conveniently ignore that you're just some dirt farmer's kid who's only ever been trusted to clean tables and turn valves your whole life?

It's an almost conspiratorial way of interpreting the film, that Perry gets off on his performance of just persistently down-talking to or ignoring Clark's opinion, he's totally unafraid of the man of steel and completely cynical about his "real world skills." Like, when he says, "clicks his heels three times and goes back to Kansas, I suppose," it's his more-Marvel-than-Marvel moment where he just roots his life in the history of popular "dreams," one that he can't escape from.

The problem is Perry never acts like a guy who's as in love with the image of Superman as the Cowardly Lion is with the image of Dorothy, possessing them to strive to be more than they think they can be because of their fear (one of the "market," the other of "violence"). But "the Superman" is completely peripheral to Perry's perspective - He sees a picture of his defaced monument and, within ear-shot of the guy, vocally announces that he's going to perpetuate dialog speculating over his motives as an invasive "man from the sky" rather than criticism of the flagrantly immoral Gotham police force. Perry only brings up the Superman explicitly in private conversation once, and it's based on his relationship to him through Lois, who he cynically assumes is only out to make "her boyfriend" out to be a victim. But Perry clearly doesn't even take the idea of "a threat to Superman" seriously. He considers Superman's existence just an opportunity to sell papers, not a more complex political narrative that refers back to systemic problems.

The point is that Perry is alienated from the moral universe that people who know Superman personally are forced to occupy. He sees everything as one big "honey-pot," basically.

mind the walrus posted:

There's no way that at least one of the CD posts crossed here or elsewhere wasn't a deliberate satire and no one could tell the difference, which illustrates how poorly regarded CD-style posting is moreso than "hah they're so stupid they can't tell when we're being pompous and unfunny or pompous and unfunny on purpose".

Flesh Forge posted:

Of course it was satire, although not that many people appreciate it. I actually do, at times, and I think SMG brings a lot of joy to the forums at the expense of everybody who flips out at his posts. If he and his posts weren't here the movie forum would be pretty much "OMG RAD THAT MOVIE WAS BALLER"

Flesh Forge posted:

Of course it was satire, although not that many people appreciate it. I actually do, at times, and I think SMG brings a lot of joy to the forums at the expense of everybody who flips out at his posts. If he and his posts weren't here the movie forum would be pretty much "OMG RAD THAT MOVIE WAS BALLER"

Moola posted:

if CD is one big gimmick troll

then its an extremely lovely unfunny gimmick troll

Groovelord Neato posted:

a lot of the poo poo he says isn't supported by the film he's talking about and people get pissed when you point that out.

it's kind of annoying pointing out the emperor has no clothes and then peeps like you are all WELL HE GETS PEOPLE MAD HAHA