Why does Zack Snyder Keep getting work?
- Thread starter Gunslinger
- Start date
- Status
The difference is I really adore Pixar and I just 'like' Batman. I don't have to see everything that comes out batman related and I haven't even read any of the comics. I just liked the Burton and Nolan-films and the Arkham games a lot. So I can easily miss out on BvS without feeling I have missed out on something. Especially as it is also a Superman film, in which I have no interest at all. In comparison I do check out everything Pixar makes, the good and the mediocre, because i can call myself a fan.
And I didn't thing The Good Dinosaur was a terrible movie, but I wouldn't call it a very good one either. It's a mixed bag. I have that avatar because I really like that image.
Also, before the Good Dinosaur hit I had great interest in it. Before BvS hit I was pretty meh about it. Especially after the trailers.
I gave a 'to be fair' disclaimer because I haven't seen them all, and Dawn of the Dead for example I don't really remember, nor did I know he had anything to do with it. Do you want me to just outright say he's a trash tier director or a godlike director? There is an in between, you know. Edit: Sorry, that came across a bit strong. I should've re-worded my original post as it wasn't clear what I meant.
At no point did Ultron feel like he was the apocalyptic threat to the world he should've been. That's what didn't work for me. I agree with most of your other points, including the Marvel humour which I always enjoy, but it didn't work with Ultron's character.
Not to be completely negative( this is my first post on gaf!) but could you point out which of his movies were actually profitable ?
IIRC 300 is the only movie which made money among his movies. Even MOS was apparently not profitable at the box office but only through the merchandising and AD placements.
Yikes
Ol No Bones
Banned
Most his films are good to watch. He gets a lot of crap but I don't think he's as bad as people let on. MOS isn't trash like people say either.
Monochromaticx
Member
He is a good action director and made some good films.
Stop crying just because bvs was shit ffs.
Stop crying just because bvs was shit ffs.
The problem I have with Dawn is that the original exists, and to me that's a masterpiece.
I liked his ver, but it doesn't hold a candle to the original.
IMO he's worse than Uwe Boll and Michael Bay. At least with Bay and Boll you just know that they are self-aware. Bay just makes mindless action flicks because he knows damn well that's the only thing he can do. Boll makes terrible films, but he's doing so while aiming at the bad film crowd, he knows he will never make a quality film.
Snyder on the other hand is so convinced that what he's doing is great, that it's scary. No one's telling him that maybe something is a bad idea and he seems fully convinced that he actually can tell good stories. Sucker Punch could've been his self-aware film, but for some reason he still tried to include some sort of 'twist' and a hilariously misguided message at the end. And even though that got all the flak it deserved, Snyder doesn't seem to have learned a single thing from it. His comments on the Batman vs. Superman criticisms just prove that Snyder is completely ignorant of anyone but himself and that he's convinced that he can do no wrong.
Snyder on the other hand is so convinced that what he's doing is great, that it's scary. No one's telling him that maybe something is a bad idea and he seems fully convinced that he actually can tell good stories. Sucker Punch could've been his self-aware film, but for some reason he still tried to include some sort of 'twist' and a hilariously misguided message at the end. And even though that got all the flak it deserved, Snyder doesn't seem to have learned a single thing from it. His comments on the Batman vs. Superman criticisms just prove that Snyder is completely ignorant of anyone but himself and that he's convinced that he can do no wrong.
He knows how to give a good visual spectacle,which is enough for the superficial viewer who wants to be entertained for a few hours,leave the theater and never give a second thought about the movie.
I usually do that with blockbuster movies like Avengers etc,i just turn my brain off and take it at its face value.
Of course,the comic book fan will never be satisfied when it comes to superheroes movies.
I usually do that with blockbuster movies like Avengers etc,i just turn my brain off and take it at its face value.
Of course,the comic book fan will never be satisfied when it comes to superheroes movies.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
People are literally saying that the Walking Dead TV show is better than Dawn of the dead.
This is getting nuts!
This is getting nuts!
thehypocrite
Member
Gimmick poster alert.
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
I don't know what people have against him.
Yeah, he directed one or two turds (The Spirit Legend of the Guardians and now apparently BvS) but I actually like quite some of his movies. Watchmen was BRILLIANT and propably one of the best comic/graphic novel-to-film adaptations, Sucker Punch was beautiful and his Dawn of the Dead remake was really, really good.
300 was passable.
I didn't watch Man of Steel or Legend of the Guardians. (All of this, mind you, are my own opinions, not generalizations)
I'd say he made more good movies than bad movies.
I won't say he's one of the best directors out there, but he does deliver good movies.
And that's why he still gets work.
Comparing him to Michael Bay and even Uwe Boll is just ridiciulous.
Yeah, he directed one or two turds (
300 was passable.
I didn't watch Man of Steel or Legend of the Guardians. (All of this, mind you, are my own opinions, not generalizations)
I'd say he made more good movies than bad movies.
I won't say he's one of the best directors out there, but he does deliver good movies.
And that's why he still gets work.
Comparing him to Michael Bay and even Uwe Boll is just ridiciulous.
thehypocrite
Member
It lacked soul.....
OK dude. Yeah, let's burn Snyder at the stake and pile up the hate on a person just because starchild didn't saw a soul in his work. That's a ridiculous criticism and illustrated your inability to articulate whatever visceral dislike you felt for it.
Also, I'll agree that Sucker Punch was a failure but I'll take it any day over safe cookie cutter movies shat out by the dozens by other directors. But you can continue to eat your cookies don't worry.
thehypocrite
Member
He didn't direct the Spirit. That was Miller.
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
Dawn of the Dead
Budget: $26 million
Box office: $102.4 million
300
Budget: $65 million
Box office: $456.1 million
Watchmen
Budget: $130 million
Box office: $185.3 million
Legend of the Guardians
Budget: $80 million
Box office: $140.1 million
Sucker Punch
Budget: $82 million
Box office: $89.8 million
Man of Steel
Budget: $225 million
Box office: $668 million
(source: Wikipedia)
At least look stuff up on the web before you spout nonsense.
None of his known movies actually lost money.
Whoops, should follow my own advice.thehypocrite said:
DAVIDHUXLEY
Member
The box office return on some of these movies would not qualify as making money from the studios pov.
thehypocrite
Member
Let me guess you are an expert on Hollywood accountancy? There's plenty of ways films make money outside of theatrical cume.
NightShift
Member
Because he makes trailers first, movies second.
DreamingCrazy
Banned
I thought what qualified making money was to have your profits be above costs, but what do I know?
This.
Dude probably delivers movies on time and on budget, and listens to what the studio wants/doesn't put up a major fuss if they want to cut shit or change stuff. He knows the pipeline of big budget action movies. Yeah some of his stuff hasn't been up to snuff with critics, but it's (mostly) all made money.
What's the alternative here? They're not going to give a massive budgeted hugely costly movie to some indie director. There aren't exactly a ton of people with Snyder's resume around, and the ones that are around might have other demands. Nolan doesn't seem to want to do superhero movies anymore really, for instance.
Not sure about that. The past couple of years more and more indie directors with no big budget exp have been picked.
Trevorrow, Webb, Edwards, Russo's and even Nolan didn't have any big budgets under his belt.
The studio's take is ~50% from the BO totals, though. Rule of thumb: a movie has to make at least double of it's production cost to turn profit. From the looks of it, Snyder had one major hit (300), two hits (DOTD and MOS), one "it has a chance of making some money if it does really well on home video / digital" (Watchmen), and two flops (the owl movie and Sucker Punch).
It's not that bad. He's probably reliable, works effeciently and on budget, and fully understands the technical side of these CGI-heavy action extravaganzas. Just like his college buddy (true story!),Michael Bay.
He always strikes me as someone who needs to answer to a higher up. Watchmen title sequence is genius, as are the musical choices throughout the film, but someone else needed to tell him when to pull back or go for something less flashy.
It worked great in 300 because that was all flash.
It worked great in 300 because that was all flash.
People always forget that theatres make money for showing films.
For a ballpark figure of what the studio saw, take 55% of the domestic take, 40% of the international take, and 25% of China's take.
Individual movie deals fluctuate 5% or so from those numbers, but it provides a decent rough estimate.
Watchmen brought in around $90M on a $130M + Marketing budget. Man of Steel was roughly $300M on a $225M + Marketing budget.
You don't need to be an insider to see that films such as Sucker Punch, Watchmen, Legend of the Guardians are not exactly bringing in profit. Most of those budgets exclude marketing.
We get people mistaking a film's WW gross being over the production budget as being in the black all the time. Even though we have had numerous articles about Disney taking $100M+ writedowns on John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and Tomorrowland in recent years. All of those films had WW totals that were higher than their production budgets. Should be a hint.
Almost all of the big blockbusters that we have poked fun of in recent years for bombing topped their production budget worldwide. It's an achievement not to when the films are releasing in 70+ territories (Pan was able to accomplish that feat last year though!).
starchild excalibur
Member
lol. Nothing in my post was mean spirited or personally dismissive of you, but based off your response you come across as a Snyder stan who thinks that anyone who shares a different opinion about his work is "misguided" or a "hater."
The fact that you think I "hate" Snyder is equally laughable. I've mentioned several times before that he seems like a cool, very affable guy, but that as a director (you see the difference between criticizing someone's work and the person himself, right?) he's not blown me away.
Yeah, I didn't "saw" a soul in his work. And if you want me to articulate that better, then fine: Cavill was a poorly directed, humorless, soulless Superman who lacks any charisma that he as an actor - based off what I've seen in interviews - actually possesses. In MoS, they set him up as being this great pariah for good, but never even begin to tackle the moral dilemmas great pariahs face about sacrifice. Despite Zod being a maniacal villain, compared to Superman, at least Zod even raises the issue of loyalty to one's homeland. Superman never had to agree with Zod's practices, but the fact that the people he's saving still - in some pockets - consider him a threat, Superman possesses no dilemma or questioning of where his loyalties may lie.
The film - when not soaked in sepia-toned Hallmark-esque "idyllic" flashbacks - jumps back and forth between rubbery composite CGI fighting and banal Lois Lane relationship building. Making a film gritty doesn't automatically imbue it with a sense of purpose much like casting solid actors doesn't automatically make their performances good.
But yeah, lol, label me as a hater. You can prefer Sucker Punch over whatever the fuck you want to, although the fact that you think that a film featuring scantily clad girls "kicking (CGI) butt" was somehow an "unsafe" or non-cookie cutter film gives me pause. But hey, enjoy it. And maybe next time work a little harder to engage in critical discourse instead of simply labeling someone who disagrees with you a hater.
starchild excalibur
Member
There is no backlash to him. Much like with just about any director, there have always been people who aren't fans of him. The only difference now is that there are more threads about him since he has a new, big film, coming out to give those people more of a voice.
Not directed at you, but I swear if Uwe Boll had a $200m comic book film out that people didn't care for, there'd still be people saying, "People are just riding on the Uwe Boll hate train."
Gamer @ Heart
Member
General rule of thumb. 2.5x budget is usually need for profit at the box office level, excluding secondary markets. That estimate takes into account the marketing that is very rarely included in listed budgets.
It is never black and white like this. Not a single studio puts up the whole cost up front when financing a film. There are a ton of shell companies and tax rebates in place to soften any blow. BvS will make a ton of money for Warner when all is said and done and Snyder will go on to direct other DC universe movies and GAF will cry.
Whedon wrote Alien Resurrection.
Itaremustbedangeres
Member
Hoooold on son, 300 was a gift from the heavens! Gerard Butler with that beard in those shorts? Fabulous. The dialogue? Brilliant! The tension, the fights, that father losing his son moment. It had everything! <3
But yeah, after that he went pretty downhill with his movies. Haven't checked out the new BvS movie yet, but then again I'm not really a DC fan :/
It's the most visually striking CG animated film ever made other than Rango.
The One and Done
Member
What the hell with this thread topic/title....Sucker Punch was his low point but I loved 300, thought Watchen was good, thought MoS was good and loved BvS. Some have called him Bay Lite but tbh, I like Michael Bay films too.
Sue me.
Sue me.
Most of the time, studios don't report the tax rebates as part of the budget. I think we had a good example of that with the financials for Guardians of the Galaxy. Marvel reported something like $185M for GOTG's budget. The numbers they filed with the British government before rebates was over $232M ($195M after rebates)
Alex Stroud
Banned
He makes his employers money. Critical revulsion aside, he's done as he was asked. It's up to the fans to do less teeth-gnashing and more avoiding of his films.
As others have already pointed out, this doesn't mean that those movies actually made money. Apart from the obvious Marketing budget, this is just the gross of the movie or the actual ticket sales. Not the money that the studio gets end of the day after the theater cuts(not even counting the tax cuts). It is usually anywhere between 35-65% of the gross based on if it is the International or Domestic market.
In short, I don't think any of his movies other than 300 or Dawn of the Dead made money for the studios based on their theatrical runs.
Edit: I do use web, maybe you should too; to learn about how movie collections work and the difference between gross and share of a movie.
Afro Samurai
Banned
Zack Snyder gets work because a lot of people watch his movies.
RealityCheque
Banned
I loved watchmen but aside from that he clearly has pics of every major Hollywood exec sexually abusing livestock.
Pilgrimzero
Member
Man of Steel made bank because it's a Superman movie. It could have been written and directed by an unknown and people still would go see it.
- Status