Okay, after looking at this guy's work and reading other anons comments about his work, I think I've finally reached a conclusion as to why his work irks us so much, even though the actors are good for the most part.
The reason is that Snyder lacks awareness the material he uses in his movies.
Synder is like one of a philosophy 101 students who look at things that they believe to be mature, but miss the entire point of it. Its kind of like watching the Sopranos or Breaking Bad and thinking throughout it, 'Tony/Walter is a good guy who is doing nothing wrong.' Or for a /co/ example, reading the Killing Joke and thinking that Joker is right and that one bad day is all that it takes to make a man insane.
I mean take movie Rorschach and compare him to the comic version. The movie version within the narrative is always treated as being right in his beliefs and ideologies. When the others decide to side with Ozy in the movie it is obvious that we are meant to see it as being morally wrong. In the comic however, Rorschach is seen in the narrative and universe as being a holier than thou, hypocritical lunatic, who thinks that he is in a black and white world when in actuality he is in a world of grey.
Its the same with the DCverse, Snyder seems to be believe making the story dark and bleak is a mature way of telling superhero stories. However, he misses the point of what Superman is supposed to be, or at least misinterprets to such a huge degree that he might of well missed the point. Superman sees that most people are good, or at least try to be, so he is the guy who helps them. Who does what they can't do, not because of fear, but lack of ability. Yet, all Synder wants to is make that icon of hope into a morally ambiguous person who in the comics would at best, be considered an anti-villain.
Do you agree with this /co/? What are your thoughts on other writers or directors you either love or hate?
Snyder didn't misinterpret Superman.
Snyder interpreted Superman through a mindset that doesn't actually understand (or appreciate) actual heroism and optimism. Snyder hates what Superman actually represents, so Snyder decided to filter Superman through a Watchmen lens and make Kal-El a massive asshole in the process.
>>81153845
But why does he hate heroism? Does he honestly think tat his fellow man is incapable of any good whatsoever?
>>81153897
He's an objectivist, from what I hear, so...probably, yeah.
>>81153815
I'd agree with this, anon. I think he just assumes that grimdark + no humor = srs writing, and he failed to recognize that the Nolan approach couldn't work for either Superman or a combined comic-universe (and if we're being real, the Nolan approach only had a 1/3 success rate, even for Nolan.)
>>81154011
>Wacky Zack wants to do a Fountainhead adaptation
God, I hope he does it. Nothing says lighting your own career on fire like a fucking Ayn Rand adaptation.
>>81154152
Just look at the careers of everyone involved with Atlas Shrugged.
...do they still have careers?
>>81154184
The lead from the first movie is the star of Orange Is The New Black.
Apparently she literally only did it to pay off her apartment right before getting the Orange role, so she came out unscathed.
>>81154011
Christ... That would explain why he loves the work of Frank Miller and Rorschach. And now I'm surprised he doesn't want to do a Question movie and at this moment, praying to he doesn't.
>>81154219
Good for her.
Zack Snyder is like you retards, only on the opposite end of the line - He does not understand what Objectivism means and tries to interpret it from whatever quotes he reads and then dogmatically follows it. You dogmatically oppose it. People have been known to invoke the names of her books whenevr they want publicity and in this case, it's true because Zack does not have an open schedule for the next couple of years.
>>81154011
>Zack Snyder is an Objectivist
no.
>>81153897
>Does he honestly think tat his fellow man is incapable of any good whatsoever?
dafug
>>81154152
It's one of the best books out there.
>>81154219
Everyone else is a D grade actor from that movie, because the trilogy was funded by some businessman's personal fortune and he wasn't what people would call "rich".
>>81154228
>Frank Miller and Rorsarch are Objectivists
When will this meme end
>>81154961
>>It's one of the best books out there.
It's a terrible book and Rand is a fucking awful writer, to say nothing of her philosophy.
When you spend 3 whole chapters of your protagonist who can do no wrong and is only kept down by them evil no-gooders fucking some self-loathing skank you have a terrible book.
Go read Nietszche and forget that awful novelist.
>>81155058
>It's a terrible book and Rand is a fucking awful writer, to say nothing of her philosophy.
kek
>When you spend 3 whole chapters of your protagonist who can do no wrong and is only kept down by them evil no-gooders fucking some self-loathing skank you have a terrible book.
lol wut
>Go read Nietszche and forget that awful novelist.
kekkats
>>81155116
Go back to /tv/.
Nietszche is everything Rand wanted to be but a thousand times superior.
At the very least he's an actual intellectual instead of a soviet rape baby angry that commies fucked her over for being a filthy kike.
>>81155166
>Go back to /tv/.
lol
>Nietszche is everything Rand wanted to be but a thousand times superior.
prove it, faggot.
>At the very least he's an actual intellectual
kek
>instead of a soviet rape baby angry that commies fucked her over for being a filthy kike
lol wut
Stop pulling statements out of your ass and prove them.
>>81154961
Is it so difficult to add on an h to the 'tat', especially when another anon seems to have got the point?
>>81155310
>He doesn't use the highlight feature
literally why
And out of everything, why is that a typo is all you have to criticize?
>>81154961
>It's one of the best books out there
Are we still talking about Ayn Rand?
>>81155340
>And out of everything, why is that a typo is all you have to criticize?
Because this anon is proving to be quite amusing and I really want to see what he says next.
>>81154961
>>Frank Miller and Rorsarch are Objectivists
>When will this meme end
The implication of this is that a sociopath who genuinely believes the philosophy of personal fulfillment over helping someone would enjoy either the writer or the character at face value.
Also there are quite a few similarities between Frank's characters and Rand's so take that as you will.
What are your feelings on future Black Panther director, Ryan Coogler?
His past work includes writing and directing Creed (2015) and Fruitvale Station (2013).
>>81153815
Snyder is the movie version of Bendis in his ability to completely miss the point of characters and reduce them to "edgy", "gritty" interpretations which are actually simplistic, childish, and stupid.
>>81155381
Yes
>>81155400
kay
>>81155462
>The implication of this is that a sociopath
Objectivists aren't any -paths.
>who genuinely believes the philosophy of personal fulfillment over helping someone
That's called not being an idiot.
>would enjoy either the writer or the character at face value.
so?
>Also there are quite a few similarities between Frank's characters and Rand's
Literally none.
>so take that as you will.
kek
>>81155482
>What are your feelings on future Black Panther director, Ryan Coogler
A man who takes directs a movie bout a black nations just because he's black is not worth paying attention to.
>>81153815
Maybe, But mostly he does it because up till now it's mostly worked for him. He has a good eye for visuals. Things that will look cool. And that's always been his strong point. I guess fortunately for him up until now he worked on properties without a large knowledgeable audience or characters people didn't have set opinion on. And with Superman he, to be kind, slipped a little maybe missed the mark but not so bad that it seemed unrepairable. Then with BvS even though he made claims that this would fix or explain Supes better he kind of dropped the ball. I still think it's Goyers fault mainly. But Zack ultimately signed off on this shit. I'm not even sure he puts the kind of thoughts you ascribe to him into it I think he reads through scripts looking for awesome stuff to do. And everything he says in interviews is making up meaning for the things he's done after he's already done it.
>>81155528
Yes, how dare he take a job he was offered? He should have said no, because it offends your sensibilities for him to take said job.
>>81153815
He doesn't really read comics. Not that extensively anyway.
He's familiar with the characters moreso then the average person it's true, but other then that when you ask him his "influences" he just draws a fucking blank.
>>81153815
>us
I like Zack Snyder though
>>81155528
>Yes
Well that's hilarious, because Rand is a terrible writer. Her philosophy may be good or whatever the fuck, but she can't write a book.
>>81155058
>>81155116
A writer should never try to tell the audience/reader what to think, or set out to convey a "message". If the story and characterization are good, something fascinating happens; the ideas and messages emerge organically.
Tell a story, don't make the characters into your mouthpieces, and don't bend the story to fit your ideology.
Good writers can tell stories that contradict their own views because they are open to their creativity.
>>81155593
Actually most serious philosophy students (if such a thing can be said to exist) agree that her philosophy is nonsensical and self-contradictory in many ways as well as poorly thought out.
It just gets recognition because it was in a best-selling novel.
>>81155593
She's the best writer I've ever come across.
>>81155558
literally what
>>81155691
>A writer should never try to tell the audience/reader what to think,
lol
>or set out to convey a "message".
how about you smear some poop and sell it?
>If the story and characterization are good,
And you still don't want a message.
>something fascinating happens;
literally wut
>the ideas and messages emerge organically.
>organically
more like by pure chance at the end of the reader, and even then the writer has no clue what he has written because he wrote it because of his "muh feels"
>Tell a story, don't make the characters into your mouthpieces,
what's the fucking point then? Answer: none.
>and don't bend the story to fit your ideology.
Who is writing the book? That's right, the writer.
>Good writers
lol
>can tell stories that contradict their own views because they are open to their creativity.
>open to their creativity
kek
You're retarded. Answer this : What's the point of writing a book?
>>81155745
>Actually most serious philosophy students (if such a thing can be said to exist)
>agree that her philosophy is nonsensical and self-contradictory in many ways as well as poorly thought out.
prove it.
>It just gets recognition because it was in a best-selling novel.
lol no
>>81153815
>mfw fedora nerds eat this shit up
Making things dark and depressing =/= mature storytelling. You can make a Superman story about him savings cats from trees or playing baseball with little kids or some shit and still make a good story if you're a good writer. The people who make these movies are hacks that use grimdark bullshit as a crutch. What's worse is he seems to revel in pissing off long time fans of the character. He's live a live action Dan Slott
>>81155781
>She's the best writer I've ever come across.
You for real? You should read some Vonnegut or Hemingway.
>>81155745
That's what I had heard from my philosopher friends, but I figured I'd respect Anon's beliefs and treat Rand's philosophy with respect.
>>81155745
> Teenagers apparently like her work
> She tells the reader "you are a special snowflake"...to a teen this is the equivalent of being given a handjob.
> Some of those teen students never grow out of the "you are a special snowflake" philosophy of Rand.
>>81155781
Dude, you have the problem where you love to respond to every comment someone's made all at once to be some sort of contrarian god, but because of that your general response quality degrades to "no you", and "no, you're wrong because i said so"
Next time, pick one response and actually think about it.
>>81155781
You're a waste of space. Do us all a favor and kill yourself. Preferably in the most painful way possible.
>>81155781
>lol
>wut
>kek
Are these the only replies you know or something?
>>81155838
>You for real? You should read some Vonnegut or Hemingway
I didn't like them.
>>81155874
>> Teenagers apparently like her work
>> She tells the reader "you are a special snowflake"...to a teen this is the equivalent of being given a handjob.
>> Some of those teen students never grow out of the "you are a special snowflake" philosophy of Rand.
Literal strawman
>>81155883
>Dude, you have the problem where you love to respond to every comment someone's made all at once to be some sort of
>contrarian god,
never said I was one
>but because of that your general response quality degrades to "no you", and "no, you're wrong because i said so"
It will when people are making bland assertions
>Next time, pick one response and actually think about it.
I thought through every response.
>>81155890
Thanks for the advice
>>81155935
No.
>>81155995
>I didn't like them.
Then you have tremendously bad taste. Do us all a favor and go read The Road or No Country For Old Men, which are actually good books, unlike the fucking Fountainhead.
>>81155995
kek
>>81155781
You know what... Fuck you. Fuck you right to hell and back.
Before, this was funny. Now... Now its just aggravating. You say that we don't properly explain ourselves, yet whenever we say something you disagree with, you attack our characters, just use incredibly stupid phrases and a comprehension for writing so low its disgusting.
Why is Ayn Rand shit? Simple. Unlike other writers such as George Orwell, who use a story as tool to demonstrate their philosophies and beliefs. Ayn Rand slams her philosophy in our face as the anon who you replied to pointed out.
So either create a good argument which justifies your beliefs or be quiet until you can consider both sides of the argument and come up with a constructive comment. If you can do neither of those things, shut up.
>>81155995
>"If we keep replying he'll leave"
>>81156122
He reads and unironically enjoys Ayn Rand. What did you expect? This is exactly how her characters act. It's pathetic.
>>81156038
>which are actually good books
By what standard?
Hippies and Drugs and two robbers trying to kill each other isn't really something that serves a purpose.
>>81156096
lol
>>81156122
>You know what... Fuck you. Fuck you right to hell and back.
okay :^)
>Before, this was funny. Now... Now its just aggravating. You say that we don't properly explain ourselves,
> yet whenever we say something you disagree with, you attack our characters,
prove it.
>just use incredibly stupid phrases and a comprehension for writing so low its disgusting.
okay :^)
>Why is Ayn Rand shit? Simple.
But she isn't.
> Unlike other writers such as George Orwell, who use a story as tool to demonstrate their philosophies and beliefs.
>Ayn Rand slams her philosophy in our face
You have a choice not to read her books, you know. No one's slamming their philosophy in your face.
> as the anon who you replied to pointed out.
lol no
>So either create a good argument which justifies your beliefs
I'm not going to write paragraphs for stupid one -line assertions
>or be quiet
nope
>until you can consider both sides of the argument
I actually do
>and come up with a constructive comment.
I will when you will first
>If you can do neither of those things, shut up.
I won't.
>>81156137
maybe. Maybe not.
>>81156242
Literally all I have come across in all these replies is Ad Hominem.
>>81155305
>>81155528
>>81155781
>>81155995
>>81156298
You have to be 18+ to post on this website.
>>81156385
And more ad hominem.
>>81156298
Coming from someone who is hated around here to the point of being asked to drink bleach: you're not really coming off as someone this board is going to take seriously. Kindly fuck off back to Facebook.
>>81158140
>Kindly fuck off back to Facebook
How about you go there?
>>81153815
Thats your interpretation of Rorschach, and it will vary person to person, when first reading Watchmen, I thought Rorschach was a naive idealist and stuck to his convictions, whereas the rest where realists and stood on Ozy's side of the line. Never did I think Rorschach was hypocritical or holier than thou, just dissappointed people would abandon their beliefs when it came to the 11th hour. I thought the characterizations in the movie where really close too.
>>81155482
I really like Coogler. Great fit for Black Panther, he'd be outright perfect if he had more experience with blockbusters.
I hope he doesn't pigeonhole himself into "I only do black movies" though.
>>81156298
Tell me Anon, what makes Ayn Rayn good?
I've actually never read her books. What ones are worth reading? What do you like about them?
>>81155691
>Good writers can tell stories that contradict their own views because they are open to their creativity.
This is the truest thing I've ever seen on 4chan.
>>81154961
Objectivism is Anti-Life
>>81159343
That question has a really long answer, but I'll just list the essentials:
She's honest.
She says it like it is - no filters, no pretension, just the truth. She derived a philosophy that actually works in the real world, and stands on its own while going against everything that had been in the field prior to her. It's not because she wrote something new or because it "feels good", it's because she is right. Her fiction paints a view of the world as it is and as it should be, and I like that. She proves and expresses the fact that you are the master of your own ship, and that that is the only thing that can bring you untainted joy and happiness without any fear, pain or guilt. Her work tells you that the world is not a place where you have to suffer and feel pain - you can live for yourself, and do what you want to bring fulfillment to your own self as long as long as you do not sacrifice yourself to others, or others to yourself. She expresses man as a being with infinite ambition, as a being that can and will achieve whatever he wants as long as he never fails to pronounce moral judgement, and act on it.
Her work shows moral men who never give up in the face of reality, and move towards a definite goal - and achieve it even when facing incredible odds. Honestly, nothing else comes close.
If you are going to read these books, you need to give up any previous notions that you have about her work - or else you will just keep searching for those certain paragraphs that prove your "point" that she is wrong when you take them out of context. Nobody has yet given a proper refutation of her philosophy, and most misrepresent her very badly. Read these books in this order :
The Fountainhead
Atlas Shrugged
The Virtue Of Selfishness
If, at this point, you don't like her work, then don't bother reading the next few books.
We The Living
Capitalism : The Unknown Ideal
Anthem
Philosophy : Who Needs It
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hlJD0i_WwdQ
>>81160161
No.
>>81160380
>She says it like it is - no filters, no pretension, just the truth. She derived a philosophy that actually works in the real world, and stands on its own while going against everything that had been in the field prior to her. It's not because she wrote something new or because it "feels good", it's because she is right. Her fiction paints a view of the world as it is and as it should be, and I like that. She proves and expresses the fact that you are the master of your own ship, and that that is the only thing that can bring you untainted joy and happiness without any fear, pain or guilt. Her work tells you that the world is not a place where you have to suffer and feel pain - you can live for yourself, and do what you want to bring fulfillment to your own self as long as long as you do not sacrifice yourself to others, or others to yourself. She expresses man as a being with infinite ambition, as a being that can and will achieve whatever he wants as long as he never fails to pronounce moral judgement, and act on it.
I'll be honest, this sounds like the sort of thing someone desperate for control in their life would cling to. These concepts are inherently childish, like telling yourself that you're special and important to make yourself feel better. Its on thing to recognize your own individuality and drive as being important, but this kind of thinking ignores the reality of the world, and places the blame entirely on the self for failing to excel, because you didn't wish hard enough.
>>81160484
>>81160380
Forgot to add I would still check out the books.
>>81160380
>She derived a philosophy that actually works in the real world
Didn't a bunch of people try to make a real-life Galt's Gulch based on the principles of Objectivism only to watch it all go horribly wrong?
http://gawker.com/ayn-rands-capitalist-paradise-is-now-a-greedy-land-grab-1627574870
WELL WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT.
>>81154152
Hey, what's your outlook on BvS: DoJ? I just saw it again today and finally came to the conclusion that it was good. Like, really good man.
>>81160525
>based on the principles of Objectivism
No. They're Libertarians, not Objectivists.
They used "galt's gulch" because it was the best literary reference they could get. The goverment of Chile first told them that they could have a water supply to that land they bought, and then later revoked it because of some clerical error on their part. So, initially all the owners refunded everything and it was looking bad but in three monts everyone got their money back. Leter, these same guys started another project called FortGalt and managed to get the water supply from a private company. This project is up and people are living there. You can buy your own land and house there.
fortgalt.com
>>81160484
>I'll be honest, this sounds like the sort of thing someone desperate for control in their life would cling to.
Why would you NOT want control of your own life?
> These concepts are inherently childish, like telling yourself that you're special and important to make yourself feel better.
no, she stresses that you need to have a reason to feel that way.
> Its on thing to recognize your own individuality and drive as being important, but this kind of thinking ignores the reality of the world,
What "reality"?
>and places the blame entirely on the self for failing to excel, because you didn't wish hard enough.
It's not about wishing, but about doing. And hes, if you had food in front of you and still starved to death because you were too lazy to get up, then it was your fault.
Honestly, read the books first.
>>81160813
>Why would you NOT want control of your own life?
That's just it: you can only control your life up to a certain point. You can't control, say, the weather or the decisions of others or any of the other myriad variables of existence that affect your life beyond the decisions you make every day. I could choose to go start writing a novel right now, but I'd still have to deal with outside influences and distractions. I can't just decide to write a novel and cut myself off from the rest of existence to do it.
>>81160813
you know you're wrong when even /pol/ won't back Rand lmao
>>81160890
>That's just it: you can only control your life up to a certain point. You can't control, say, the weather or the decisions of others or any of the other myriad variables of existence that affect your life beyond the decisions you make every day.
So?
>I could choose to go start writing a novel right now, but I'd still have to deal with outside influences and distractions. I can't just decide to write a novel and cut myself off from the rest of existence to do it.
Obviously, but you can minimize it, and that's what counts.
>>81160948
>you know you're wrong when even /pol/ won't back Rand lmao
Argumentum Ad Populum.
/pol/ is inherently socialist, bashes Bernie and has people asking what socialism means. It's be bad if they did accept her.
>>81161033
>It's be bad if they did accept her.
It'd be bad if they did accept her.
>>81160813
>Why would you NOT want control of your own life?
Because the world doesn't always change just because you want it to, and are willing to do something about it. Either there will be obstacles that can't be overcome, or you'll just fail. Making your philosophy centered on that desire for control is likely to just make you bitter, either with the world for its interference with your will, or with yourself, for failing to pull yourself up where you should be.
>no, she stresses that you need to have a reason to feel that way.
Right, so you're supposed to take action, and by simply doing that, attain self-worth.
>What "reality"?
Reality like the one we live in, where other people have as much agency as you do, where organizations, rules, and governments exist, preventing people from just making what they want into reality.
>It's not about wishing, but about doing. And hes, if you had food in front of you and still starved to death because you were too lazy to get up, then it was your fault.
Sure, if the food is right in front of you, without any catch. Start adding obstacles like walls, locked doors, and suddenly its not that simple an analogy.
>>81161267
>Because the world doesn't always change just because you want it to, and are willing to do something about it. Either there will be obstacles that can't be overcome, or you'll just fail. Making your philosophy centered on that desire for control is likely to just make you bitter, either with the world for its interference with your will, or with yourself, for failing to pull yourself up where you should be.
It won't make you bitter with yourself, only woth the world. And for the right reasons.
>Right, so you're supposed to take action, and by simply doing that, attain self-worth.
Depends on the kind of action.
>Reality like the one we live in, where other people have as much agency as you do, where organizations, rules, and governments exist, preventing people from just making what they want into reality.
Obviously, you stop where you can no longer see a way that does not harm you in a way you find irreparable.
>Sure, if the food is right in front of you, without any catch. Start adding obstacles like walls, locked doors, and suddenly its not that simple an analog
Yeah, and that's where reaosn helps you.
It's not about controlling the world, but achieveing whatever you want to the extent of your own capabilities.
>>81161798
>It'll make you bitter with the world
I want to add that it won't make you bitter to life or the kind of world you want to achieve, but will only let you know that the world you thought existed does not, but you don't have to wallow in misery and anger for the rest of your life, because that isn't going to change anything.
Snyder didn't write BvS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism
>>81160380
>>81160813
>>81161798
hi
you are a dumb person
Well bye
>>81161798
You sound like a self help book- completely devoid of substance. What you are saying is basically the "plot" of The Secret.
>Zack Snyder is a bad director
>>81163435
He is a bad director. He's good at recreating shots from comic books because he's completely incapable of forming a coherent narrative in his movies. He should just be a production designer/art director. He needs to stay away from the camera.
>>81163325
Another Ad Hominem
>>81163397
That book is completely different, and I was just answering the questions some people were asking me and NOT giving you the fundamentals of the philosophy.
>>81163795
You are
>dumb
>bad
>stupid
>fat
>an athiest
>>81163954
Out of those five, I'm only an atheist, and even then not the regular kind.
>>81164485
>Out of those five, I'm only an atheist
being an atheist automatically means you're at minimum two more of those tho
>>81164641
No. Not in my case.
>>81165143
Sounds like you might be all of them, fampai.
You'll have to prove that you aren't, because I'm crunching the numbers over here and your claims just aren't adding up.
>>81160484
>I'll be honest, this sounds like the sort of thing someone desperate for control in their life would cling to.
As someone who used to be a fan of Rand, can confirm.
