wes anderson's entire career ripping off this movie.

[deleted]

agreed, they're both equally revolting and pretentious directors who put nothing of substance to the screen.

the only similarity i notice with the music was in moonrise kingdom. both directors use symmetry, but other than that i completely disagree that their styles are similar enough to claim that anderson is "ripping off" anything from this.

I'm so glad a couple other people see this apt comparison?though I enjoy both. I've asked others, and they don't see it. :/

Totally disagree. Anderson plays with colour and whimsy, and the only thing I'd agree that is similar is the use of symmetry, and in my opinion that isn't something one director can have as their own. Anderson also writes much of his films, and the stories/types of movies are so different that I'd say you can't even compare. To say that he's "Ripping his career off" of a movie created to demonstrate a visual narrative is frankly, dumb.

I disagree. I think both directors are obsessed with detail (both visual and verbal), but Greenaway's films are a lot more disturbing. Wes Anderson's films are more like children's tales in comparison. Anderson also cares a lot more about conventional narrative, whereas I think Greenaway doesn't care much about plot and more about ideas. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

I thought exactly the same!

perfect symmetry in images, unique, rich and very detailed designed scenes, dysfunctional relationships, grown ups, who behave like children, animals as important elements, a very theatrical style, sets overloaded with artifacts, color aesthetics more important then a logical continuity in the narration, scientific fragments set in a bizarre context. Wes Anderson even uses a very 80s style (everything neat and clean, doll house-like)

The main difference is the humor. Both use bizarre humor. I also laughed a lot at „A Zed and two Noughts“, but the humor is really dry, and you get some of the absurdity not before watching it again.
Wes Anderson movies focus more on a continous narration, they tell a more linear story, while „A Zed and two Noughts“ is like a poem. What happens and which scene follows next is less important for telling a tale then for drawing (random) connections and producing messages (which tend towards the absurd).
The humor and story-telling makes Wes Anderson movies much more suitable for a mainstream audience, including childen, most of whom probably find „A Zed and two Noughts“ just boring. For me its actually rather the opposite.