>>91443801>>91443906Very well done generic dark shlock, if that's your thing enjoy.
>>91443828Hey genius, B&R made money but made WB a laughing stock, Disney had some shit movies, but they never had shit movies that cost them directors. I will admit that making Oscar bait in a way does build prestige, directors choose studios as much as studios choose them, and WB has issues securing any legitimate directors in between meddling with productions, booting directors off wholesale, and pissing over creative choices, all to make generic shit preforming films. If Harry Potter didn't happen we wouldn't have WB anymore desu.
>>91443925There's having a style then there's having the same exact style over and over and over and over and over. That's one note. Even Michael Bay has more variety than Synder.
This style argument is legitimately retarded anyway. Style is supposed to shift over films. Nicolas Winding Refn's films have a very distinct style, but they look different film to film, color pallets are swapped, the set design shifts, the character's dress differently. While he's famous for neon colors and the slow pacing, his films look different film to film.
Every single Synder lead looks exactly the same, has the same exact color palate, against the same exact dark and brooding backgrounds. And that's why WB producers chose him to direct, they wanted a stylistically different film from Disney's bright and colored films, and for the most part it's working.
