Why Zack Snyder is the Perfect Director for Superman: Man of Steel
It's only human nature to watch something as loathsome as Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch and worry about what the director will do with Superman: Man of Steel. I get that. Still, despite Sucker Punch's abysmal critical showing and underwhelming opening weekend, I'm even more excited today about seeing what Snyder does with his much-anticipated follow-up. I'd even go so far as to argue that Snyder is the best director for this job -- even more so today.
First of all, it's not like this is unprecedented in Hollywood. Sucker Punch is Snyder's fifth full-length feature film and the first that can be considered an all out misfire. In comparison, do you know what Steven Spielberg's fourth film was that hit theaters? 1941. Have you ever seen 1941? It is terrible (though, contrary to popular belief, it did make money). I promise you, patrons who paid their hard earned money to see 1941 were not happy with Mr. Spielberg that day, either. What happened next? Spielberg learned, despite past success, that not everyone will just magically love everything he throws on the screen. Should Spielberg have been removed from his next project -- something called Raiders of the Lost Ark -- as a result? Raiders became the classic that it is today in part because of the lessons Spielberg learned from the drubbing he took on 1941.
Of course Snyder, who's been a Hollywood golden boy of sorts thanks to successes like Dawn of the Dead and 300 (and, to a lesser extent, Watchmen, which was a lot of things but hardly a bomb), may not have made Jaws. But insofar as he earned his creative freedom to make Sucker Punch, he also learned a very valuable lesson over the weekend: Everybody, even Zack Snyder, needs an editor. In other words, just because you think that the world is going to enjoy your own personal two-hour weaponized slo-mo masturbation fantasy, it's not necessarily the case. Everyone has an ego, and however challenged his might have been while toning down his sci-fi burlesque, we're witnessing the scathing alternative. There's no question that Snyder's ego is rattled right now, but that's the thing: He'll get over it -- he has to -- and he will make a much better Superman movie as a result.
Of course, a conservative Zack Snyder is still going to make one hell of a stylized film. Which, for any Superman story, is a great thing because, all in all, Superman as a character is boring. Really, in a movie setting, how much can you really do with Superman? It's telling that both the successful television series Smallville and Lois & Clark both focused more on Clark Kent's personal life than it did on a hero who is invincible -- invincible, that is, except for one item I promise you don't own. It's not like Superman films have ever been artistically sure things anyway: One is excellent (Superman), one is good (Superman II -- but choppy due to the Donner/Lester fiasco), one is serviceable (Superman Returns), one is bad (Superman III) and one is unwatchable (Superman IV: The Quest for Peace). How can Snyder screw something up that has such a proportionately low success rate in the first place? And considering the lukewarm response for Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, it's not like the world has been clamoring for more Man of Steel.
But with Zack Snyder attached, it almost by default becomes very interesting.
Interesting on two levels, actually. Snyder is at his best when he has some sort of preordained characters to work with -- see Dawn of the Dead, 300 and The Owls of Ga'Hoole (the source material for The Legend of the Guardians). Watchmen was... OK, but it's not like Snyder had this team of heroes and could do anything he wanted with them; he had to follow an extremely complex storyline. Superman is interesting because Snyder has an iconic character and he also has some freedom -- but thankfully, now, not carte blanche like he did with Sucker Punch. What we're looking at is quite possibly (or at least hopefully) the best of both worlds: a hybrid of all the good things about Watchman and some of the freedom with his characters from Sucker Punch. Additionally, Snyder did not write the script as he did with Sucker Punch; that job went to David Goyer, the co-writer on something called The Dark Knight.
The other interesting aspect is the personal one: How does Snyder rebound from Sucker Punch? Name one other realistic directing candidate out there today with more to prove than Snyder. Every fast, loose, indulgent decision that Snyder made on Sucker Punch is going to be given more consideration this time around (with the ghost of Jack Warner hovering over him, I'm sure). Snyder got cocky, but ultimately this is just a bump in the road -- a really, really bad bump, but still. Has he learned his lesson? How can he not have? As a result, personally, over the weekend, I went from "mildly interested" to "very excited" about the prospects of Zack Snyder's Superman: Man of Steel. Frankly, Zack Snyder's career depends on it.
Follow Mike Ryan on Twitter
Follow Movieline on Twitter
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Excellently stated.
100% agree with this article. People shit on Snyder way too much. He might not be the best writer (Sucker Punch) but he knows visuals !
1941 is a good comparison. A big failure can remotivate an artist to great heights. We learned that Spielberg was no comedian and now that Zack Snyder is no art house director.
But Sucker Punch did prove that Snyder is still a blood-thirsty creative force. Love the movie or hate it, the director clearly hasn't been compromised by mainstream success and has no plans on playing it safe. (Can we say that about Verbinski?)
And let's face it, that's what a dusty old property like Superman needs... a sense of danger.
Bryan Singer's sequel played it safe. He geeked the dated Donner film and incorporated the Peter Jackson post 9/11 sincerity... producing a family drama pretending to be an action tentpole. It wasn't bad... but all felt too neat and polished.
If Snyder's previous films are any indication, his new Superman will be tough and operatic and morally messy. Nothing wrong with that.
Sucker Punch is a dud. Too bad, it could have been a campy mess if they'd abandon all hope of making a good movie.
http://t.co/DUJP92a
See...this is what I really don't understand about the criticism Sucker Punch has received. I disagree with the "teenage fantasy" line. Sucker Punch to me was in fact about women being violently controlled by men and working out their relationship with regard to the men that are violently controlling them. Just because a woman might fantasize that she is in a brothel does not necessarily mean she wants to be in brothel (hence the other layer of fantasy). I think the audience was made successfully uncomfortable by the movie. Yes, you could ignore the premise of the film and go home and fap but you can do that with any film. Unless teenage boys are either a lot more sadistic or masochistic than I realized, this is no more fap material than most movies, and in fact is much less so, because it is challenging you on that premise all the time.
However that explanation of the movie is not something a 14 year old is necessarily going to come up with. So I think it should've been rated R.
I'm tired of watching Superman getting his @ss kicked in every one of his movies. I'm tired of people figuring out his secrets and I'm especially tired of Kryptonite (which seems to be available at every corner drug store). I want Superman to be SUPER!! My Superman doesn't have bastard children with Lois Lane. My Superman doesn't evesdrop on her private conversations. My Superman is a the ultimate role model of morality, decency, kindness, inner-strength and honesty. If you want to make a great Superman movie you have to start with the "man" and then afterwards add the element of "super". I mean think, what would your life be like if you suddenly had Superman's abilities? What would really change for you - especially if you were still determined to work a real job? Despite all your powers, you're still just one person among billions. If you think about it that way, Superman seems a whole lot smaller. So just what would a super man do once he gets off work? Drive home, eat supper, , pay bills, watch TV? How do decide what super activities to engage in? Do you help the police solve murders? Do you fly to Japan to carry the nuclear reactor into outer space? Do you stop the BP oil leak in the Gulf? Or do you smell out meth labs and put out forest fires? What would your life truly be like?
"I'm sure that in 1985 Kryptonite is available at every corner drugstore, but in 1985 it's a little hard to come by."
Theory: critical failure means your ego will take a painful but necessary hit, and this will drive you to make a better movie next time.
I don't know - have you ever heard of a guy named M. Night Shyamalan?
"Has he learned his lesson? How can he not have?"
Well, M. Night Shyamalan made THE VILLAGE then LADY IN THE WATER then THE HAPPENING and then LAST AIRBENDER and still suffers from the delusion that they are good movies. So it may take a few more progressivly worse films for Snyder to learn that lesson, if he does at all.
"So just what would a super man do once he gets off work? "Drive home, eat supper, , pay bills, watch TV?"
I presume he watches television like the rest of us. Perhaps he likes The Good Wife? I'm assuming he doesn't have to eat, but I would imagine he pays his bills on time. He is Superman, you know.
"How do decide what super activities to engage in? Do you help the police solve murders?"
Probably not. Perhaps if it were a serial killer of some sort.
"Do you fly to Japan to carry the nuclear reactor into outer space?"
Definitely. I mean, he flew to Paris in Superman II (granted, Lois was in trouble).
"Do you stop the BP oil leak in the Gulf?"
Definitely.
"Or do you smell out meth labs and put out forest fires?"
No and sometimes.
I have. He's the guy who released a movie last summer that grossed $319 million worldwide. That's a big difference than what's going on with Sucker Punch.
There's someone called M. Night Shyamalan whose work shows your "bounce back" theory is completely and utterly ridiculous. And he's a better filmmaker than Synder ever was. Not to mention it's based on your personal belief that the character itself isn't interesting and so needs flourishing like poorly cooked steak needs a ton of sauce.
No, if Sucker Punch would have done well financially, despite being awful, THEN you have M. Night. The Last Airbender -- which is the worst movie of 2010 -- made $319 million. So Night continues trucking on.
You mentioned Spielberg, but I think there's a much better comparison in another director that was also hailed as another Spielberg in waiting: M. Night Shyamalan.
Like Snyder, Shyamalan had an explosive debut (technically his second movie) that captured everyone's attention. But each subsequent movie became increasingly disappointing until the mere sight of his name on a trailer inspired derisive hoots and hollers.
It ain't that bad for Zack yet, but the pattern's there. His Dawn of the Dead was great, 300 I thought was terrifically campy fun, but Watchmen was a chore to watch, Owls a loud, clanging bore, and Sucker Punch was simply the worst movie I've seen all year.
What concerns me most is that Snyder seems to have precious little sense of plotting, pacing or character. How can anyone give three-quarters of a sh*t about any of the action scenes when there was no weight or reality given to them? Hidden behind two separate layers of fantasies, they were so far removed from any sort of consequence or stakes that they just became monotonously dull. What happens when Cobb in Inception gets shot in the dream? We know exactly the consequences. What happens when Amber & Blondie get shot? Hell if I know. Are they alive? Are they hurt? Visuals are all fine and good but if there's no base in story and character to root them, then it's not a movie, it's a video game cut scene with delusions of grandeur.
I don't know if I agree with the idea that Zack has screwed himself so thoroughly that he's got nowhere to go but up; that's the same type of thinking that got us Jay Leno at 10, The Last Airbender and George W. Bush's second term. There's always a deeper hole to fall into, my friend.
Heh. Can you tell I had this in my hopper awhile before posting. Suffice to say, I agree with Jeff P., Shannon, and Death Itself.
Why would we compare Snyder to Spielberg? Dawn of the Dead is overrated, 300 was boring as hell (Every fight scene was the same), and the rest were duds. Stop trying to claim Dawn of the Dead was some classic. It wasn't anything special.
The problem with Snyder is he is a horrible casting director. Example: Watchmen. Every hero was horribly miscast. Same is happening with Superman, did any of you guys see that Cavill act?? Horrible.
One thing not mentioned: Christopher Nolan is producing Superman. After the pummeling Sucker Punch took as well as Nolan showing he can make bank off something not named Batman, there should be little doubt who will have more clout with Warner Brothers as this picture comes together. Here's to hoping Nolan will be in a position to assert some control over Snyder -- no doubt a visually talented director but whose storytelling skills remain suspect.
Here's the thing, you're kind of preaching to the choir about Snyder. And, as stated, I despised Sucker Punch. But! I do think he can bring something interesting to Superman -- especially with the career stakes and being reined in. Airbender is awful but it made a ton of money. If SP had done that, despite the reviews, I would not have written this piece and I would have just assumed that Superman would be terrible (with some faint hope because Nolan is involved).
Is this article for real? Or written by some desperate Warner Bros PR hack desperate to get behind their man when they know the whole world is - justifiably - reeling at what was *always* a terrible choice of director?
And comparing Snyder to Spielberg? Are you kidding me?? Yes, 1941 was a dud. But prior to that came Jaws and Close Encounters. Are you seriously saying that anything Snyder did prior to Sucker Punch came remotely close to being worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as those two? And is Sucker Punch *really* his only dud? Even his best film - 300 - was, at best, mediocre, (great box office. But soulless and empty film). Owls of Ga'Hoole? Watchmen? Jeez.
I'm delighted - and heartened - by Nolan and Goyer's involvement. It gives me *some* hope. But Syder is a one-trick pony who seems only capable of making films that are like watching someone else play a video game for 2hrs +. Totally soulless, entirely un-engaging and with *zero* threat or danger in any part of the movie for the simple reason that you know you're watching pixels being shifted about. No substance. In any sense.
I am with Kudos and Jason.
Spielberg circa 1980 is here.
===
And Snyder today is here.
In between the two are hundreds of directors I don't have the time to type out. Dawn of the Dead: fun movie and the only one of his I enjoyed. All of his films put together don't even add up to the creative contribution of Sugarland Express.
*meanwhile, the time-clock ticks away on WB's Superman copyright*
Yes, I'm the Warner Bros. PR hack who wrote in his Vanity Fair review of Sucker Punch that it was an "amazing spectacle of bullsh*t." If you want to make a point, fine, but don't start out with a-hole accusations like that.
There is no way that Sucker Punch can be worse than Drive Angry shot in 3D.
I've seen both. And I didn't like Drive Angry, either. But they're hard to compare because Drive Angry is kinda trying to be bad.
Then you need to define what "bounce back" means. Is it a financial comeback or a creative one? The use of Spielberg and "1941" strongly suggests you meant "creative" as you make a point of telling us "1941" made money.
Are you seriously on crack comparing Spielberg to this guy? Uh, his last three films bombed. In Hollywood, three strikes you're out. Warner Bros. is in serious panic mode right now and if any one of them has even the slightest iota of rational sense they would pull the plug fast.
Next »