Directors who put Style over Substance.

[P-Rock]

Originally Posted by warrian

Sucker Punch is a perfect example of style trumping substance in every respect. Maybe THE perfect example.

And it's not that there's no substance there either.

My problem with that film is that all three stages of subjective reality are stylized beyond what is reasonable to get the point across. Our hero goes from a hyper-stylized dark and gritty world of murder and abuse to a hyper-stylized Moulin Rouge-like musical theatre sex slave prison, which is such a living nightmare that we need to psychologically escape to a hyper-stylized digital anime war-zone game-world so that we can somehow feel empowered again.

Nothing in that movie is anchored in anyway to any known reality, rendering it virtually meaningless outside the accomplished visuals.

And I'm at least a mild Zack Snyder fan.

I think the director's cut of Watchmen is a masterpiece, but Sucker Punch is like watching a movie while getting sucker punched in the head repeatedly. Also, the fantasy worlds are very standard fare and unimaginative.

[doctor_who]

Originally Posted by P-Rock

I think the director's cut of Watchmen is a masterpiece, but Sucker Punch is like watching a movie while getting sucker punched in the head repeatedly. Also, the fantasy worlds are very standard fare and unimaginative.

Truth truth truth.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by warrian

Sucker Punch is a perfect example of style trumping substance in every respect. Maybe THE perfect example.

And it's not that there's no substance there either.

My problem with that film is that all three stages of subjective reality are stylized beyond what is reasonable to get the point across. Our hero goes from a hyper-stylized dark and gritty world of murder and abuse to a hyper-stylized Moulin Rouge-like musical theatre sex slave prison, which is such a living nightmare that we need to psychologically escape to a hyper-stylized digital anime war-zone game-world so that we can somehow feel empowered again.

Nothing in that movie is anchored in anyway to any known reality, rendering it virtually meaningless outside the accomplished visuals.

And I'm at least a mild Zack Snyder fan.

See, the reasons you don't like it are exactly the reasons I do like it. I don't feel like it needs to be anchored. I mean, it is anchored in one sense: Baby Girl's dissociation is very real and a realistic (in a psychological sense, not how the dissociation actually is realized) response to the trauma she's experienced.

Plus, the performances by Browning, Cornish, Malone (when isn't she awesome?), and the rest were really good. They knew that this was some sort of fantasy world, and they acted within that world very well I thought.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

See, the reasons you don't like it are exactly the reasons I do like it. I don't feel like it needs to be anchored. I mean, it is anchored in one sense: Baby Girl's dissociation is very real and a realistic (in a psychological sense, not how the dissociation actually is realized) response to the trauma she's experienced.

Plus, the performances by Browning, Cornish, Malone (when isn't she awesome?), and the rest were really good. They knew that this was some sort of fantasy world, and they acted within that world very well I thought.

I don't get the hate for it either, it is what it is. Though I didn't really like the film at least the guy had a vision and followed it right through to the end regardless of what anyone else was gonna think of it which is something to be admired these days.

[warrian]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

See, the reasons you don't like it are exactly the reasons I do like it. I don't feel like it needs to be anchored. I mean, it is anchored in one sense: Baby Girl's dissociation is very real and a realistic (in a psychological sense, not how the dissociation actually is realized) response to the trauma she's experienced.

Plus, the performances by Browning, Cornish, Malone (when isn't she awesome?), and the rest were really good. They knew that this was some sort of fantasy world, and they acted within that world very well I thought.

Sure, and don't take my arguments against it as trying to convince you not to like it. Too much of that around here.

For me it was just fantasy upon fantasy upon fantasy, which ultimately robbed me of any emotional impact. And without being emotionally involved, it became a slog. I wouldn't even care if I didn't actually like the central idea in the first place.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by warrian

Sure, and don't take my arguments against it as trying to convince you not to like it. Too much of that around here.

For me it was just fantasy upon fantasy upon fantasy, which ultimately robbed me of any emotional impact. And without being emotionally involved, it became a slog. I wouldn't even care if I didn't actually like the central idea in the first place.

If I remember correctly it was a fantasy world on top of reality that had another fantasy world placed on top when she started to sing or dance, right? Been a couple of years since I watched the film but I do remember the fantasy world stuff was way heavy handed.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

This is a major problem with audiences: we expect filmmakers to make the same film again and again and not explore.

That's just it though - do we? Certainly we expect the same level of quality, etc but I don't expect every Nolan movie to be a Memento or Batman Begins. Look at Spielberg or Ron Howard - they have build careers making very different movies. I mean, Jaws, ET, Schindler's List - these are not the same movie done time after time. I think the problem is more with certain directors and their style - we expect to see the same movie again and again because that is what they try and do. Look at say David Fincher - he was know early on for a very specific style that he used all the time. Is it unreasonable for the audience to expect that when he does a number of films that way? I think the audience only expects it when the director tries building his career off of that style.

Style over substance = JJ Abrams. The story can be garbage as long as it looks good on the screen. That whole lens flare thing is a perfect example - digitally adding something that is supposed to be a natural result. I mean, he has lens flare coming off the uniforms in his Trek films - not the metal insignia, the actual uniform. Seems whether is is tv or movies, he is more concerned about how it looks and a style rather than making the story matter.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

Style over substance = JJ Abrams. The story can be garbage as long as it looks good on the screen. That whole lens flare thing is a perfect example - digitally adding something that is supposed to be a natural result. I mean, he has lens flare coming off the uniforms in his Trek films - not the metal insignia, the actual uniform. Seems whether is is tv or movies, he is more concerned about how it looks and a style rather than making the story matter.

Fringe was fantastic, what are you talking about?

[Buscemi]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Huh? Russell hardly makes the same film over and over. How are I Heart Huckabees, The Fighter, Three Kings and American Hustle at all similar in style, tone or narrative?

It lays in the characters. Almost every one of his characters seem to be selfish, single-minded, ego-driven, and cruel. Much like Russell himself, a man with a history of treating his actors like pieces of meat (a big reason why many actors who have worked with him refuse to reteam with him). And yet, audiences still come back for more.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by John Klein

Fringe was fantastic, what are you talking about?

As was Alias. OK, OK, it kinda fell apart near the end. But man, that show rocked. And the post-Super Bowl premiere is still to this day one of the most thrilling things I've ever seen on TV.

And Jennifer Garner kicked so much ass on that show.

[DragonOfTheBlackPool]

I'm going to throw Rob Zombie's name into the mix. IMO his movies = all style, little to no substance. Unfortunately, his style is complete shit.

[Blu Titan]

Terrence Malik.

[P-Rock]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

Terrence Malik.

God yes.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

Terrence Malik.

I thought we were friends.

[Samus Aran]

I don't know how involved Baz Luhrmann was in the editing process of Moulin Rouge, but what's the point of singing and dancing routines if they're all quick cut Michael Bay style to the point where you have no sense of any of it?

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Samus Aran

I don't know how involved Baz Luhrmann was in the editing process of Moulin Rouge, but what's the point of singing and dancing routines if they're all quick cut Michael Bay style to the point where you have no sense of any of it?

But they aren't all like that. Some? Sure. All? No.

We're talking about Baz here, though. It should have been expected, right?

[lesco]

Originally Posted by Samus Aran

I don't know how involved Baz Luhrmann was in the editing process of Moulin Rouge, but what's the point of singing and dancing routines if they're all quick cut Michael Bay style to the point where you have no sense of any of it?

Because Luhrmann's MTV "style" of smash zooms and shaky cam and rapidfire editing is precisely to disguise the fact there is no "substance". The first half of MOULIN was fun, but once you knew that was all there was to it, the second half was interminable.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by lesco

Because Luhrmann's MTV "style" of smash zooms and shaky cam and rapidfire editing is precisely to disguise the fact there is no "substance". The first half of MOULIN was fun, but once you knew that was all there was to it, the second half was interminable.

I absolutely love it. But then, I'm a very big Nicole Kidman fan. And she was simply beyond stunning in that movie. I also loved the music. And I'm always a fan of the tragic love story.

In other words, that movie was pretty much made for me.

[Impossible]

I loved Strictly Ballroom and Romeo and Juliet, but everything else the man has ever done I despised.

The less I say about Malick the better

[P-Rock]

The thing with Malick is that he starts out with a good script, but then he makes an incoherent mess of it in the editing room. I wonder what would happen when someone would edit his movies following the script...