Opinions are like excuses and pogs, everybody has them. In a pop-culture where trends are currency, and remakes, sequels and prequels are, well, also currency, it might be difficult for IGN's readers to get a word in edge-wise. IGN Stars' Edge Wise makes those opinions easier to be said and heard. Stars' new column will editorialize on the state of pop-culture, and what – and how – it affects you. Remember, this is a column for you, the reader, so if you have a topic you would like to see us tackle, send it in!
He did better than expected with Dawn of the Dead. He took ancient combat and excessive ab shots to new levels in 300. And now, Zack Snyder tries to make fans happy and prove naysayers wrong with his much-anticipated, please-don't-suck adaptation of Watchmen. But is the director any good, or just another student of the Michael Bay school of making things shiny?
This week's Edge Wise tackles a director who seems to be as hot as Christopher Nolan in certain circles, a director who may have to give back a lot of his recent geek cred, depending on how the masses react to Dr. Manhattan and company's story. But is the guy just hype? A fanboy who got lucky and confuses storytelling with making things look cool? Edge Wise asks:
Full disclosure: I have read Watchmen. And I have seen the film adaptation. Reviews are for IGN Movies, but I will say that fans and typical moviegoers will be, divided, to say the least. But like most Hall H attendees last year, I, too was impressed with Zack Snyder's presentation; with his take on the unfilmable. After all, the guy has made a career telling the stories of those that told them before. 2004's Dawn of the Dead remake delivered more than expected, and showed that Snyder had a knack for juggling genre and some character development.
300, while pretty to look at, didn't do anything other than show us that yep, one can slow down an action scene, and then speed it up, ad nauseum, for fanboy effect. Regardless, Zack Snyder became the cool director, a guy who seemed to effortlessly please the toughest audience of all: Us. He took that trust, that geek street cred, into his latest film. and in doing so seems to prove that he is quite confident in working on telling someone else's original material, with more loyalty to translating panels to the screen than applying his own personality signature outside of overdone stylistic choices.
Here's the thing: The word visionary has been thrown around a lot in Snyder's direction, in all of the Watchmen ads. That's fine, but just because a guy can shoot around green screen well and slave faithfully to source material that should be adapted freely (with respect to the whole, with respect to the fundamentals fans love), doesn't mean he is a visionary. The visual aspect is only a part of that title. Would we call Bay a visionary? Or McG?