I'm guessing he has some kind of contract for Justice League and that kind of sucks but it's what it is, but why in the world is this guy listed for JL 2?
There must be some bizarre obsession with him from some WB execs or something, otherwise I can't understand how he keeps getting the most important movies of the DCU.
I don't think BvS –the extended cut anyways– is a bad movie, it's a solid 6.5 for me. The problem is, a 6.5 is not enough for a movie so big, it's in fact absolutely terrible. I'm expecting 6.5s from Suicide Squad or Ant-Man movies, not Batman vs Superman or the first movie of the DCU (Man of Steel).
He's not as terrible as people make it seem, he's just alright, and alright is not enough to be the main person behind the foundation of the DCU. He had his chance with Man of Steel, which ended up being an okay 6/10 movie, just like the rest of his work. Watchmen is also a 6/10 to me. He's just a 6/10 director honestly, and he proved it again with BvS. Why he is being hired for movies beyond Justice League is the baffling question here.
His track record has been middling at best so far, he's responsible for the unnecessary gritty and dark tone of the DCU –which seems to be going away, fortunately– and the mediocre set up for the cinematic universe and the dissapointing deliver of one of the most anticipated comic movies ever with two of the most popular superheroes ever.
I mean look at Civil War, it does everything BvS tries to do in a much more satisfactory way while also being an enjoyable film that is entertaining, has good pacing and great, evenly spread action. It also manages to introduce two important characters in a more efficient way than BvS could ever do WW.
It's also more mature than BvS despite the latter suffering for the tryhard gritty and dark approach trademark of Snyder. Sure, the villain is terrible as usual, but the movie more than makes up for it.
All in all, his directing skills are decent at the very best, passable the rest of the time –most of the time. He's not fit for such an important role, how the hell did he get not one, but three origin movies of the most important DC characters? Especially after the meh that MoS was.
Nobody wanted to see a pseudo-horror alien invasion and Clark Kent snapping Zod's neck in a Superman movie, that's not how you build a comic universe. Does this mean Marvel's way is the only correct way to do it? No, but this "no jokes, everything's dark" approach certainly isn't the way. The Nolan trilogy is lighter in tone than what Snyder tries to do, for god's sake.
The same way nobody wanted to see Batman killing people left and right and fighting Superman for a completely stupid reason.
Apparently someone at WB decided to make JL lighter –at least the trailer looks that way–, and even if I'm 100% sure the lighter elements will feel superforced because Snyder just can't make worlds that aren't all gloomy and depressive, I think it's a step in the right direction, but they really need to get rid of him.
There's one thing he's very, very good at though, and that's the action in these movies. He's absolutely unparalleled when it comes to action in comic movies. Like, the Smallville fight in Man of Steel is probably one of the best superhero fights ever, it's utterly awesome and the Doomsday fight in BvS was spectacular too. Not to mention the Arkham fight in the warehouse.
He has proven numerous times he's godlike when it comes to action scenes, but at the sime time he's been exposed as a poor storyteller one too many times.
Can't they just have him as some kind of adviser for the action scenes while some competent director does the rest? We've had enough of him, at this point I'm more excited to see another director's take on the universe with Wonder Woman than I am to see Justice League.
It seems to me though that Warner keeps him because of their absurd, stubborn position of being "more serious" than Marvel, considering they got James freaking Wan for Aquaman. Civil War and WS proved that you can make serious comic movies without being overly dramatic, colorless and depressant.
There must be some bizarre obsession with him from some WB execs or something, otherwise I can't understand how he keeps getting the most important movies of the DCU.
I don't think BvS –the extended cut anyways– is a bad movie, it's a solid 6.5 for me. The problem is, a 6.5 is not enough for a movie so big, it's in fact absolutely terrible. I'm expecting 6.5s from Suicide Squad or Ant-Man movies, not Batman vs Superman or the first movie of the DCU (Man of Steel).
He's not as terrible as people make it seem, he's just alright, and alright is not enough to be the main person behind the foundation of the DCU. He had his chance with Man of Steel, which ended up being an okay 6/10 movie, just like the rest of his work. Watchmen is also a 6/10 to me. He's just a 6/10 director honestly, and he proved it again with BvS. Why he is being hired for movies beyond Justice League is the baffling question here.
His track record has been middling at best so far, he's responsible for the unnecessary gritty and dark tone of the DCU –which seems to be going away, fortunately– and the mediocre set up for the cinematic universe and the dissapointing deliver of one of the most anticipated comic movies ever with two of the most popular superheroes ever.
I mean look at Civil War, it does everything BvS tries to do in a much more satisfactory way while also being an enjoyable film that is entertaining, has good pacing and great, evenly spread action. It also manages to introduce two important characters in a more efficient way than BvS could ever do WW.
It's also more mature than BvS despite the latter suffering for the tryhard gritty and dark approach trademark of Snyder. Sure, the villain is terrible as usual, but the movie more than makes up for it.
All in all, his directing skills are decent at the very best, passable the rest of the time –most of the time. He's not fit for such an important role, how the hell did he get not one, but three origin movies of the most important DC characters? Especially after the meh that MoS was.
Nobody wanted to see a pseudo-horror alien invasion and Clark Kent snapping Zod's neck in a Superman movie, that's not how you build a comic universe. Does this mean Marvel's way is the only correct way to do it? No, but this "no jokes, everything's dark" approach certainly isn't the way. The Nolan trilogy is lighter in tone than what Snyder tries to do, for god's sake.
The same way nobody wanted to see Batman killing people left and right and fighting Superman for a completely stupid reason.
Apparently someone at WB decided to make JL lighter –at least the trailer looks that way–, and even if I'm 100% sure the lighter elements will feel superforced because Snyder just can't make worlds that aren't all gloomy and depressive, I think it's a step in the right direction, but they really need to get rid of him.
There's one thing he's very, very good at though, and that's the action in these movies. He's absolutely unparalleled when it comes to action in comic movies. Like, the Smallville fight in Man of Steel is probably one of the best superhero fights ever, it's utterly awesome and the Doomsday fight in BvS was spectacular too. Not to mention the Arkham fight in the warehouse.
He has proven numerous times he's godlike when it comes to action scenes, but at the sime time he's been exposed as a poor storyteller one too many times.
Can't they just have him as some kind of adviser for the action scenes while some competent director does the rest? We've had enough of him, at this point I'm more excited to see another director's take on the universe with Wonder Woman than I am to see Justice League.
It seems to me though that Warner keeps him because of their absurd, stubborn position of being "more serious" than Marvel, considering they got James freaking Wan for Aquaman. Civil War and WS proved that you can make serious comic movies without being overly dramatic, colorless and depressant.
