The Big Picture: You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

My interpretation: Sucker Punch is very good because there is a lot about it to think about. The material itself is not as important as what it meant to you.
I found it to be enjoyable, but also evil and debilitating. I mean, they all died for crying out loud! Moviebob is an intelligent guy, but he takes death way too lightly. The despicable rats in the movie are, indeed despicable rats, but they're also depicted as powerful, and significant. What the girls did to distract them was contemptible, but it was also necessary, they did it to escape, to survive. You do what's necessary to survive, it's common battlefield tactics, nothing to be ashamed of. But they failed, despite their struggle they all died except the coward. Now I'm getting to what's so evil and debilitating about it. Not that their efforts to escape weren't enough, but that they weren't trying as much as they could have. If someone imprisoned me, abused me, and held my life at their mercy I wouldn't resist them as half-arsed as they did in Sucker Punch. I wouldn't waste my time being afraid of them, I wouldn't stab once. then run. I'd defeat them, no, I would kill them. in every possible way. I'd put them at my mercy. Then snap every bone in their bodies one at a time. I'd peel the flesh from their bone, cut off all of their non-vital appendages and leave them on the floor to die like the insignificant dogs that they are.
Then I would forget them, and move on with my life. A life I would still have because I showed no mercy, no hesitation.

Oh, right, there's also that gender issue thing. It's not important. You could swap the gender of every character in that film and while it would be much less realistic, it wouldn't be any different. Victims are victims and malefactors are malefactors. It's pathetic when anyone ever prejudges another human being based on something they were born with, like gender. But what's even more pathetic is when decent people actually go out of their way to debate them as though it were an issue. The issue is that we think there's an issue, when really it's just jerks being jerks and simpleminded people overreacting to the jerks.
I don't want to have to clarify to all the idiots out there that this is just my opinion.
So I won't

I have no idea what message Sucker-Punch was trying to say, how it was trying to say it, who it was saying it to, who was even saying it, why they were saying it, or why I should care that they were saying it.

It could've been clear as day, but the lackluster acting, nonsensical action fantasies (robots? Samurai with machine guns?), dour and depressing presentation, and awful pacing robbed the movie of any vitality, passion, joy, fun, or coherence it might've once had.

I'm wrong about Sucker Punch, am I? I don't even have an opinion about it, how can I be wrong?

DVS BSTrD:

snipped out pedantic image

I just happen to think there's a difference between simply having a message as opposed to it serving a bloody point IN the story.

An image, how quaint.

And if you had any actual education in film you would know the story always serves the message, not the other way around. In the case of Sucker Punch it does.

WanderingFool:

daibakuha:

varmintx:
Give 'em a break, most people suck at analysis of every kind...especially introspection.

The only reason I didn't was because even after both of these videos he still refuses to acknowledge any other opinion than his own.

Isnt he? The fact he disagrees with Bob's opinion implies that he does acknowledge others opinions. It just so happens he is falling into the, "my opinion is FACT" mindset. A shame to say the least, but it is nothing new...

The real question is, why did no one else call him on this BS? When people state shit like this it needs to be called out. Try to elevate the discussion by sorting out the bits that are irrelevant and idiotic.

I think that Bob is probably on to something in his exploration of the layers in this movie and while I don't agree with everything he said (and am definitely not going to re-watch this movie to re-evaluate my perspective) in the end I just don't care. A flawed movie can have a message and if that message gets overlooked by (seemingly) a majority of its audience then stuff like this is needed...to a point. My issue is that no amount of deeper meaning, style over substance or is it *cue ominous music*, etc. matters when the movies pacing sucks as much as it did in 'Sucker Punch'.

If you have to explain what something symbolized, it didn't.

Lunar Templar:
i was running with the theory that all the girls where some part of babydolls psyche, the entire movie takes place in the half second it took the guy to drive the stake into her head (clearly running on DBZ time) and when the plan starts failing IE girls getting captured or killed, that's the spike sliding deeper into her brain killing them off.

Actually, as much as I liked Bob's breakdown of the movie, I may appreciate this interpretation even more.

It reminds me of the extra layer people added to Inception where the various members of Cobb's team were actually anthropomorphic renditions of the different parts of his mind. I don't know if I personally subscribe to that interpretation of that movie, but I can see strong parallels.

Li Mu:
Is this part two in the eighteen part series about why Bob believes that SuckerPunch is the greatest movie ever made in the last 120 years?

I think you're neglecting Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. :)

So if all these people are supposing that the film takes place in Babydoll's and/or Sweet Pea's psyche, centered around finding freedom of the individual spirit even in the face of a lobotomy, does that mean we're just watching One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest with cosplay babes?

bz316:
I'm not sure what's worst: having a movie pretty much call me an asshole, or (assuming Bob is correct in his assessment of the film's intentions) the fact that I totally deserved it...

You didn't, and that is the problem.

I think Bob is right on most of his topic. I too, had no interest in being called an asshole by a movie because, gasp, I'm male and attracted to fertile females.

It is true, much about male libido is in need of control, and religion and society work hard at that. But, don't ask us to sit through having our faces mushed in it.

Bob I loved the indepth retrospective examining the meaning and themes behind Suckerpunch and frankly would enjoy more of the same in other videos.

MovieBob:
You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two

Spoilers abound in this week's finale to Bob's retrospective on Sucker Punch.

Watch Video

The two most misunderstood satires in quasi-mainstream movies in a long time: this one, and Moulin Rouge.

Moulin Rouge satirizes the whole "love conquers all" motif behind so many garbage movies and songs... and far too many people missed that point, hailing the movie as being oh-so-romantic-I-love-the-music! Basically, the movie makes fun of the very people who like it, and they still like it.

Suckerpunch had the opposite problem -- the people the movie makes fun of don't like it for exactly the reason it was making fun of in the first place.

I'm glad to hear someone else come down in favor of this movie, and for the right reasons. Aaaand I guess if most people were self-aware enough to understand satirical content aimed at them, there wouldn't be much need for the satire in the first place, huh?

(Yeah, I'm in a bit of a mood today. Apologies.)

My wife's review of Sucker Punch: "If the story had just stayed in the asylum, it could have been good."

Probably true..."sympathetic, wrongfully imprisoned characters must escape" is a classic. Of course, if they did that, they might have had to explore what got these characters put into an ASYLUM in the first place. It's much easier for the characters to escape into their fantasy worlds than face reality...and that's why they SHOULD be locked up and we (the audience) shouldn't feel any sympathy for them.

bigdork:
If you have to explain what something symbolized, it didn't.

So much this. In danish we once read a book called "Det Forsømte Forår" (The Lost Spring) which is about a school class during the time where the teachers were allowed to hit the students.
Back to my point, a teacher spent some time analysing the symbol of a tree that stood in front of the school, but when the author was asked about it he said that he never thought about that.

The movie is a messy piece of shit, wrapped in a pretty neat-o message.

I didn't even realize some people didn't 'get it' on first watching. And here I was, thinking people just criticized for being shitty.

yeel:
Maybe "You guys should be ashamed that you like all this" is a bit too strong wording of the makers intent and more moviebob's intent to stir things up a bit; well in line with his choice in titles.

Though after seeing this second part, I have to admit i now do believe this probably was the intended message of the film.
(A reversal to what I said in my post in respons the first part: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.387238-The-Big-Picture-You-Are-Wrong-About-Sucker-Punch-Part-One?page=12#15480101)

I didn't get the movie but I did enjoy it. What does that make me? Is it really wrong to watch good looking girls in sexy outfits kick ass. Maybe in some way it is, I can kinda see where they're coming from.

Well my point re: that comment was more to say that Snyder isn't exactly known for making films that make people think, so I think Bob's desire to see this film as an intelligent self-examining look at sexist/whatever culture that empowers women to take sexuality into their own hands etc etc is just trying to give Snyder too much credit. I think the fact that one could see this film as being very intelligently constructed if they were desperate to have a philosophical/intellectual justification to like the film is an accident, rather than an intended purpose.

Either that or Snyder is just so terrible at writing and directing or so clueless about his own theme that he started out with this interesting idea, and then ruined it by trying to use his typical testosterone-induced aesthetic to make things look cool/sexy/exciting, and in the process destroyed like 50% of the message he set out to impart upon us (which is also possible).

As for your last point, I wouldn't personally say it's wrong to watch the film or too like it (I can see where it can be construed as sexist even despite the fact that Snyder meant it to be empowering, and I can understand why people would like less of these sorts of films to be made); my only beef is with Bob's whole "this movie is awesome and if you don't think so you're wrong and I'm going to keep telling you you're wrong until you get it" thing (he claims he doesn't care if people didn't like it...but considering how much he harps on this film, I'm skeptical). Some of us get it, and still think it sucks; some of us may not get it, but neither of these videos prove that we're "wrong" or that our criticisms aren't valid. Bob needs to get over it.

Webb Myers:
My wife's review of Sucker Punch: "If the story had just stayed in the asylum, it could have been good."

Probably true..."sympathetic, wrongfully imprisoned characters must escape" is a classic. Of course, if they did that, they might have had to explore what got these characters put into an ASYLUM in the first place. It's much easier for the characters to escape into their fantasy worlds than face reality...and that's why they SHOULD be locked up and we (the audience) shouldn't feel any sympathy for them.

I agree with your wife, though I'd have also been less annoyed at the film even if he had kept the brothel metaphor; I feel that was pushing at the issue I have with the whole film, but didn't annoy me quite as much as those fantasy scenes.

I think the implication as to why they were there was simply that they had wronged men (Babydoll had defied her stepfather to save her sister, for example) and therefore were sent there unjustly. It could just be something I assumed and not something that Snyder even considered mentioning, though. I also agree that there's something problematic to the notion that they use imagination/fantasy to escape reality; although my issue with it has more to do with the fact that this is supposedly a film about empowerment. Although maybe next year we'll get scenes in Man of Steel where Superman has to imagine he's Jesus Christ while he's battling Lex Luthor so that he can feel more empowered to rally against his foe; I dunno.

wow. i'd say my mind was blown but i never attributed that much thought into the movie. So i'd be pretty insincere to say anything other than "Interesting Movie Bob."

Anyone else think it's interesting that Bob has now done two videos explaining this movie to people who didn't "get it" after he himself was quite critical of the Mass Effect fans telling him that he didn't "get it" with regards to the dissatisfaction regarding the ending?

"...for the castle seige segment, which features the possibly deliberate submersive symbolysm of Babydoll having to kill a newborn dragon and it's mother with her sword, in other words, destroying traditional feminine gender roles of child nurturing and motherhood itself by rendering herself symbolically masculine via her cartoonishly phalic katana sword."

Sorry but what the hell did I just hear? Am I the only one who's getting the strong feeling that MovieBob thinks he knows 10x more about the "true intended meaning" of this movie than the directors/writers themselves?
This is taking "over-analysing" to a whole new level.

I would expect the conversation to go something like this:

Zack Snyder: So here is a badass scene of Babydoll slaying dragons! Exciting stuff!

MovieBob: But surely it's a lot more than just that? *long lecture of the true intended meaning*

Zack Snyder: ...what the crap? I mean...err...why yes, of course, that's exactly the subtle message I was trying to deliver! Good observation! Tee hee hee."

I didn't enjoy the film, but I enjoyed this two part special..Bob makes good points.

PsychedelicDiamond:
I think it's unfortunate that you didn't comment on the character of the "High Roller", the other sympathetically portrayed male character and the one you'd least expect to be shown that way. It's shame that his only scene was in the directors cut.

This is a good point that I will iterate with a quote from the character:

"High Roller: All I require from you is a slither of a moment. To have you not by force, but simply as a man and a women. To see in your eye, that simple truth, that you give yourself to me freely. Not because you have to, but because you want to. Now of course, for such a gem, I will give as well. I'm willing to give you freedom. Pure and total freedom. Freedom from the drudgery of everyday life. Freedom as abstract ideal. Freedom from pain. Freedom from responsibility. Freedom from guilt. From regret. Freedom from sadness. Freedom from loss. The freedom to be happy. Don't close your eyes; I need you to look at me. The freedom to love."

The other thing is: While i see where your interpretation of the movie as a commentary on the progress of feminism comes from i interprete it a bit differently. To me it's mostly a coming of age story. Babydoll, representing childhood, obviously has to sacrifice herself for Sweetpea, the adult, to survive. This happens, in the burlesque world, with the loss of her virginity to the High Roller and in the asylum world with her lobotomy. While the symbolism of sex as a rite of passage is fairly obvious the lobotomy part is far more interesting. She accepts the loss of her free will to let the other part, the adult, take control. That seems pretty brutal but it's not that bad of a representation of the transition into adulthood.

I like where this is headed, however, in accord with what the high roller has to say on the subject the implication is that "hanging on" to the virginal archetype is in and of itself a self reinforcing narrative on Babydoll's part. Couple this with Bob's observation that Baby slays the dragon and offspring, baby "cannot" be a mother, or a parent, simply due to being virginal and a "baby". This synthesizes both approaches.

The idea of loosing one's "free will" to the lobotomy is interesting but I would disagree on the face of it. That until one confronts the myriad self reinforcing projection of archetypes and personalities onto others (simply psychological projection) one is not "really" free, one is a slave to ones' own projections and (real or imagined) expectations of others.

This seems close to the concept known as hypoagency, specifically female hypoagency; simple "one agency" when in a situation with many agents/actors/people.

Waxing a little Nietzschean personally I simply found the asylum to be a metaphor for all the competing wills contained within some individual, maybe or maybe not female. The metaphor is one of psychosis. To wax a little Jungian the lobotomy is just this:

Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious C.G. Jung. -Study in the process of individuation

image

Mind you I find Sweat Pea to still be a "persona" forse. Though one persona and one mythological world (a real world with only a single set of filters) is better than half a dozen personalities and 3 worlds of psychological retreat.

As far as it goes "high roller" is not just a man, but an idealized "real man". One that creates a "space" for a woman to be a woman. He doubles as both the psychological dumping ground for all the myriad troubles that sexual responsibility entails, but also as the "safe bet", or "sure thing", in the gambit to secure a mate. It's all just smoke and mirrors though, reinforcing the character (unreliable narrator's) formation of archetype(ing) of people whom they are encountering or dealing with in the present or the past, or even that idealized future.

Could go so far as to say he is a quintessential "alpha". Sweat Pea maybe a nod to the fairy tale of the princess and the pea, princess elevates to "Queen" through male intervention, going any further than this means reading just so much into it, simply because the audience is never presented with a "male" other than the old guy, wise old man/hero's journey.

Sucker Punch = MTV + Jung + Fred. N. + Princess Pea (fairy tale) ? Don't see much more than that... could be wrong, it's art I spose.

I don't care what others think, I always quite liked this movie. I watched it after seeing your review, so my views may have been tainted slightly by that, but I do agree with your points here. You've raised some good points and I rather want to watch the film again to put your ideas to the test.

Dastardly:
Moulin Rouge satirizes the whole "love conquers all" motif behind so many garbage movies and songs... and far too many people missed that point, hailing the movie as being oh-so-romantic-I-love-the-music! Basically, the movie makes fun of the very people who like it, and they still like it.

The part that should really make your blood boil is that this film, not unlike Sucker Punch et al, has layers, and each of those layers drives home the same point.

You are correct that the film is a tale of loss, ironically set to music extolling the virtues of love conquering all. But even beyond that, it is a retelling of the Orpheus myth, someone who descends into the underworld to save the woman he loves, but unable to bear the price of saving her, looks back, and thus she dies.

As if that's not enough, when the theater troupe has to sell an idea to The Duke, they cobble together a piecemeal fictionalized version of their own story, meaning the play they are putting on is just a second layer of the same theme. This layering is extremely obvious to the lay viewer but what they miss is that just as the cast are conning The Duke with the most cunning lie of all - the truth - the movie as a whole is doing the same to the audience.

As if THAT'S not enough, when they are selling their bill of goods to The Duke, they burst into spontaneous song. The only piece of music not lifted from 80's big-hair pop, but it packs a bigger punch then all the other pieces in the soundtrack: it's the most famous piece from Offenbach's ORPHEUS IN THE UNDERWORLD.

People talk about the love conquers all theme, and then they walk out of the movie talking about what a downer the ending was, because that's not what Orpheus is about. According to the story, to love something is to lose it, and we are to leave behind these highly idealized notions of a fairy tale existence. The gaudy, garish look of the film was supposed to emphasize this. Ah well.

Aaron Sylvester:
"...for the castle seige segment, which features the possibly deliberate submersive symbolysm of Babydoll having to kill a newborn dragon and it's mother with her sword, in other words, destroying traditional feminine gender roles of child nurturing and motherhood itself by rendering herself symbolically masculine via her cartoonishly phalic katana sword."

Sorry but what the hell did I just hear? Am I the only one who's getting the strong feeling that MovieBob thinks he knows 10x more about the "true intended meaning" of this movie than the directors/writers themselves?
This is taking "over-analysing" to a whole new level.

I would expect the conversation to go something like this:

Zack Snyder: So here is a badass scene of Babydoll slaying dragons! Exciting stuff!

MovieBob: But surely it's a lot more than just that? *long lecture of the true intended meaning*

Zack Snyder: ...what the crap? I mean...err...why yes, of course, that's exactly the subtle message I was trying to deliver! Good observation! Tee hee hee."

Yeah, seriously. Not to mention, if Snyder was actually trying to make the film this intelligent, why wouldn't he create a metaphor around Babydoll confronting the nature of the actual real-life issues that got her in there (reclaiming something that was hers, or defending the people she loves from an aggressor, etc)? Why would she randomly be fighting against motherhood and female roles; unless I'm forgetting something, there was nothing to suggest that anyone was forcing her into motherhood, or forcing her to stick within gender roles other than being a sex object in the institution. You don't call a film smart for throwing in random metaphors for female empowerment just-because (and maybe the argument that they are actually are metaphors for female empowerment would seem more plausible if the metaphor itself was actually tied to the plot and not kinda just out there)...

The moment you described the dragon scene my eyes rolled off to the side so hard that they spun a 360 and now I can see through dimensions.

I'm sorry man, at that point you are just really digging. I mean, damn... what a string of complete, utter nonsense. I seriously doubt that was all planed that way, and if it was I hate this movie even more now. There is such a thing as symbolism to the point of obnoxiousness, and if that dragon scene was made to be how you said, then this movie is the most obnoxious movie ever made.

anthony87:
Anyone else think it's interesting that Bob has now done two videos explaining this movie to people who didn't "get it" after he himself was quite critical of the Mass Effect fans telling him that he didn't "get it" with regards to the dissatisfaction regarding the ending?

Are you saying that he is.... a hypocritc!? Never in my days have I heard that about Moive Bob! The man on the internet who is the frontcover for not being a hypocritc!

Thanks Bob, that was really insightful. Not necessarily accurate, but well thought out and argued and creates a discussion. Kudos.

minuialear:
Well my point re: that comment was more to say that Snyder isn't exactly known for making films that make people think

Perhaps not, but there's little denying that most of the material he chooses (or is selected) to direct tends to be based on deeper ideas.

Miller's 300, for example, is a highly stylized and fantastical retelling of the Persian siege (and Greek defense) of Thermopylae. Obviously we're not supposed to believe the Persians had giant war-beasts and the like, but what is revealed at the end places the story in its proper context: the lone survivor Dilios retelling in a grandiose fashion to rally Greeks to the cause, ending in the battle at Plataea, where the Greeks ultimately beat back the Persian invasion.

The same can be said of his adaptation of Moore's Watchmen. While Snyder gets all his geek cred for a faithful retelling that employs a lot of the money shots from the comic, keep in mind the story itself is about costumed vigilantes who, with the exception of Dr. Manhattan, have no actual superpowers. It takes place in a world where their kind, once lauded, are driven into retirement by political pressure, Nixon (apparently to the detriment of society) is in his fifth presidential term, the threat of nuclear war (already heightened in "real" 1985) hangs like a cloud over everything, and with the heroes, the populace, the geopolitical situation, everything is a powderkeg set to blow the proverbial shit directly and succinctly into the fan. Following close behind the revolutionary dystopic future of Blade Runner, it creates a dystopic present, deconstructs an entire genre built around Superman and Captain America, and burdens the reader with a titanic amount of moral ambiguity.

One might argue that his projects are based on existing works that do all the "thinking" for him, but it's not like we're talking about Bayformers here.

MovieBob:
"...this is intended more as an illustration of the danger of ascribing negative artistic intentions to a film or other work because it approached difficult subject matter and didn't quite stick the landing, because often enough it actually might have been the exact opposite of what you assume."

Or it may be that the first assumption is exactly the right one, and you're reading too much into it. I'm more inclined to believe the latter because of Snyder's own comments in regards to his movies and the fact that he didn't seem very eager to embrace any kind of second meaning behind everything.

Still, it matters little. It wasn't a matter of "sticking the landing", because that assumes you know how you want to land. The problem with the basic story and themes is pretty obvious to 90% of the people who saw it: it was completely unfocused and any message or clear theme was muddled by all the different "layers" and pretension.

It seems more likely to me, that instead of Snyder being some kind of genius who knowingly installed all of these layers and messages in the movie (which all amounts to 'you are a bad person for watching this movie' according to Bob himself), that he's just a life-long nerd and fanboy. He might be a great director, but like many (not all) life-long nerds, he has a warped few of females, femininity, and most of all feminism. He made Sucker Punch because he wanted to have girls being empowered in his warped view of empowerment, but had all the antagonists be male and protagonists be female because that's his warped view of what the feminist ideal is. As he continued writing it, he wanted to put more themes and layers in it instead of keeping it concise, because he's not a career writer of original material and like so many college students thinks that deep and complex = good.

I don't know what it's in the man's head, we could all be horribly wrong. Still, none of this affects the fact that Sucker Punch is a bad movie in pretty much every way, everything it tries to do fails and fails miserably.

Like others said before I think the High Roller should have been mentioned. In the cabaret world he didn't actually look evil, more like someone who is just oblivious to the abuse that goes on the backstage. In the "real" world, he was tricked into performing lobotomy.

King of Asgaard:
'Never meant to change my opinion'? Then you might want to change the title of your video, Bob.

It wasn't meant to change your opinion on the subject of *quality*. You can like the movie. Or don't like if you want.

But many critics were indeed wrong about the movie.

hentropy:
he has a warped few of females, femininity, and most of all feminism. He made Sucker Punch because he wanted to have girls being empowered in his warped view of empowerment

Eternal_Lament:
It's a film where Zack Snyder probably thought of when he was 13, and tried to then "update" by means of "feminist standards" to make it seem empowering, only to come out muddled.

I disagree. Nothing about the movie seems "updated".

I might have missed the point of Movie Bob's videos about the subject. I thought that the whole point was "This is okay because it empowers women, right? WRONG!"

Now this is my personal interpretation of the movie: every time the girls try to "empower" themselves with sexuality things go wrong.

I subscribe to the belief that good films don't need to be explained.

That said, this video did change the way I saw the movie.

mfeff:
This seems close to the concept known as hypoagency, specifically female hypoagency; simple "one agency" when in a situation with many agents/actors/people.

I am eternally thankful to you for finding this video.

It really opened my eyes as to the reasons behind...well, pretty much EVERYTHING that has been happening in the past few months/years regarding women in movies/games.

I wasted so much time and effort in these forums battling it out against females who were heavily into topics such as Sexism in Gaming and Tropes vs Women - I kept saying so much stuff but I myself never truly understood the root of the message I was trying to get across.
I failed to see the ultimate reason behind why certain females have always acted in such a way.

As a matter of fact I was aware of female hypoagency (had read some stuff about it) but I knew that mentioning it in arguments would get the females even angrier, and at the time it sounded more like a theory than anything 100% solid.

But the lady in that video opened my eyes with in-depth explanations and irrefutable proof. I have an immense amount of respect for her, she (and others like her) truly understand the situation.
I will no longer need to battle or argue with females in these forums (and other forums) because...the whole topic is more or less irrelevant and pointless to begin with, I know the underlying root of the female subconcious and why they act the way they act! It's like being enlightened to a whole new level of knowledge, a golden key to understanding :O

WOOT.

TheSchaef:

minuialear:
Well my point re: that comment was more to say that Snyder isn't exactly known for making films that make people think

Perhaps not, but there's little denying that most of the material he chooses (or is selected) to direct tends to be based on deeper ideas.

Miller's 300, for example, is a highly stylized and fantastical retelling of the Persian siege (and Greek defense) of Thermopylae. Obviously we're not supposed to believe the Persians had giant war-beasts and the like, but what is revealed at the end places the story in its proper context: the lone survivor Dilios retelling in a grandiose fashion to rally Greeks to the cause, ending in the battle at Plataea, where the Greeks ultimately beat back the Persian invasion.

The same can be said of his adaptation of Moore's Watchmen. While Snyder gets all his geek cred for a faithful retelling that employs a lot of the money shots from the comic, keep in mind the story itself is about costumed vigilantes who, with the exception of Dr. Manhattan, have no actual superpowers. It takes place in a world where their kind, once lauded, are driven into retirement by political pressure, Nixon (apparently to the detriment of society) is in his fifth presidential term, the threat of nuclear war (already heightened in "real" 1985) hangs like a cloud over everything, and with the heroes, the populace, the geopolitical situation, everything is a powderkeg set to blow the proverbial shit directly and succinctly into the fan. Following close behind the revolutionary dystopic future of Blade Runner, it creates a dystopic present, deconstructs an entire genre built around Superman and Captain America, and burdens the reader with a titanic amount of moral ambiguity.

One might argue that his projects are based on existing works that do all the "thinking" for him, but it's not like we're talking about Bayformers here.

I agree completely that 300 and Watchmen were deep; I'd argue they were significantly deeper than his films let on. And because of that I would say the fact that he basically glossed over what made both that deep, and went for "Oooh, shiny man-chest and crazy CGI!" kinda is exactly the reason why I say that Snyder's not exactly known for making people think. If anything, he takes things that are intelligent and drowns them with aesthetic stuff to the point where they're barely recognizable and not really all that intelligent anymore.

Also, Fun fact: Michael Bay and Zack Snyder were in the same film class. :P

Uberpig:
I'm wrong about Sucker Punch, am I? I don't even have an opinion about it, how can I be wrong?

You broke the system! We're all going to die!

bigdork:
If you have to explain what something symbolized, it didn't.

That's not entirely true. In highschool I had to study a lot of symbolism. If what you said was true then poetry would be dead.

ElPatron:
I might have missed the point of Movie Bob's videos about the subject. I thought that the whole point was "This is okay because it empowers women, right? WRONG!"

Now this is my personal interpretation of the movie: every time the girls try to "empower" themselves with sexuality things go wrong.

No, I get his point, there. I just disagree with him. I think Snyder had Babydoll fail and it was "Sweet Pea's story all along" because he wanted a twist and bittersweet ending (another thing amateur writers immediately think are cool and deep), not because he was making any statement about feminism. But it is a matter of opinion.

Very interesting show.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here