Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9144692" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I don't think that this is fully accurate. "Fandom" likes to dunk on Snyder ... partly because of his work, but also partly because of the incredibly toxic Snyder fanbase.It's similar to a lot of fandoms; it's not even the work, so much, as the toxicity of some of the community that makes you want to dunk on it.On a serious note, Snyder is a competent director. I would say that all of the following are true-1. He is easy to make fun of because he seemingly learned one trick, and has decided to run it into the ground. That said, other people would more charitably refer to that as having a distinctive visual style; I love Wes Anderson (for example), but I could certainly understand if someone said, "Wes Anderson looks at a scene, and thinks, 'Sure, but how can I make this more twee and more symmetrical?'"2. He is also not great with understanding the deeper themes of what he is doing, and for that reason, there is often a tonal mismatch between (a) the source material and what he chooses to present, and (b) the themes he is presenting and his visual style.All that said, most directors would kill for a 10% of the success that he has had, and most also lack the talent to film the effect-laden spectacles that he does ... which is not easy.TLDR; he's not as bad as a lot of people make fun of him for, but he's also not a great director, either. I would argue that his best movie reamains Dawn of the Dead, and that while Watchmen wasn't a great film, it was a good film and it was a perfectly adequate attempt to film a very difficult-to-adapt work and showed that he loved, if not necessarily fully understood, the source material.</blockquote>

Verification