# Justice League: So, who's seen the Snyder Cut?



## Morrus (Mar 18, 2021)

I have it ready to watch, but my Pathfinder game is tonight, so I have to wait until tomorrow night.

It's doing well -- so far! -- on Rotten Tomatoes, but it'll get review-bombed at some point.









						Zack Snyder's Justice League
					

In ZACK SNYDER'S JUSTICE LEAGUE, determined to ensure Superman's (Henry Cavill) ultimate sacrifice was not in vain, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) aligns forces with Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) with plans to recruit a team of metahumans to protect the world from an approaching threat of catastrophic...




					www.rottentomatoes.com


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 18, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I have it ready to watch, but my Pathfinder game is tonight, so I have to wait until tomorrow night.
> 
> It's doing well -- so far! -- on Rotten Tomatoes, but it'll get review-bombed at some point.
> 
> ...



Judging by how my film making friends are reacting to it, you're not wrong.


----------



## Campbell (Mar 18, 2021)

I loved it. There's some real genuine emotion here and quality film making. It just feels cohesive to me in a way that most comic book films do not. I'm most impressed by how much it feels like each character had a real purpose and somewhat of their own narrative trajectory.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 19, 2021)

I have not seen it. The first of two reviews that I read stated that it was both had a cohesion and was better than the Whedon version, but needlessly too long at 4hrs.  In the conclusion, the reviewer wrote, "The drawn-out nature of this relatively simple heroes-save-the-world plot often just amounts to a gratuitous exercise in style" and gave it a final grade was a C.  
The other review gave it a 2 out of 4.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Mar 19, 2021)

I hear the Snyder fandom giving it rave reviews; but why should they not? They lobbied (some even threatened) for it and now they feel vindicated.  I'll have to wait until when I get back to the US in a few months as I don't subscribe to HBO-Max and I'm not about to subscribe just to see it.  So, Looking forward to the hot take on it from Mssr. Morrus.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 19, 2021)

Just finished it, after watching on and off all day. Hot take: Snyder is the junk auteur du jour who made one of the best superhero movies, period. You could probably nominate some of the performances for Oscars.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 19, 2021)

I’ve not finished watching yet, and am taking a break (its long) but right from the very first scene you can see that this is a very different movie. The long form really works to give it emotional depth and cohesion - so far its excellent even with the strange disonance of seeing many of the same scenes again but in new and more compelling context 

and just for context I thought the Whedon movie was meh and I absolutely hated BvS and still think its one of the most ridiculous attempts at the Supes story ever,


----------



## Aeson (Mar 19, 2021)

I enjoyed it. I couldn't watch all the way through in one sitting, only because I had to stop to go to work at nearly the hour mark. Once I got home I finished it. I really liked the Batman trilogy and Man of Steel a lot. Wonder Woman was good also. I didn't need Aquaman. I always saw the DC movies as actual films. The Marvel movies were just that, movies. The DC movies I could rewatch like Star Wars or Star Trek, at least the older ones. This really was an improvement over the original release. Due to its length I may be less likely to rewatch as often as some of the others.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 19, 2021)

Tonight for me! At 4 hours I’m not sure we’ll do it in one shot though. We’ll see how it goes. I’m cautiously optimistic.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 19, 2021)

Aeson said:


> If Steppenwolf was this much of a challenge,  does the Justice League stand a chance against Darkseid?



Unless they give snyder the go ahead for a sequel, we'll never know.

I'll have to rewatch the Whedon edition, but this one really gave more depth to Cyborg, along with Flash who got a few more funny moments.

I do wonder, the original plan before Snyder stepped back, was for the movie to be in two parts and how much of the four hour version would have been in the second part.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 19, 2021)

I watched about half of it last night. So much better than the Whedon version. I still don't like the fact the villains are all CGI, but adding Darkseid makes it far more interesting. I really hope they are able to do a part 2, even if it too closely mirrors the Thanos story arc.


----------



## Flamestrike (Mar 19, 2021)

It takes the gonzo nature of the DCU that we've already seen and dials it up to 10.

Seriously, they're depicting the supes as Golden Age supers++. Aquaman falls through a building unharmed and survives full strength Superman hitting him square FFS. He's on nearly the same power level as Thor in the MCU. Cyborg is expressly stated to be able to control the worlds economy, end poverty and literally launch every single Nuke in existence with a thought.

How Batman is actually surviving _anything _going on around him is beyond me. Like in the earlier films, he spends most of his time avoiding getting hit (which he seems to do better than the Flash who can now move faster than light speed, and Wonder Woman who can move fast enough to watch a bullet fly past her, and deflect a full auto burst, and fly), while taking out the odd mook.

They conveniently left him out of the final fight with Steppenwolf; he had his hands full dealing with mooks (again).

He uses no stealth, just charging in everywhere. He displays no foresight (Lois just happens to turn up at the Kryptonian ship by coincidence) or detective skills, and his technological advantage is rendered moot by Cyborg (who can just remote control everything).

With the _insane _power level of the heroes, and Batmans ridiculous plot armor, I shudder to think what Darkseid is going to be able to do, and how even more useless Batman is going to look in comparison.

I really wish they'd gone for early Silver age power levels instead of Dragon Ball Z levels of gonzo OTT madness.


----------



## embee (Mar 19, 2021)

I'm "watching" it in the background now as I do some pretty rote data entry at work. Overall, I like it so far. 

Then again, I loved "Watchmen" and firmly believe that "Man of Steel" is the best Superman movie there is, mainly because, sorry to say, the other Superman movies are pretty much on par with the Batman '66 movie.


----------



## Flamestrike (Mar 19, 2021)

I just really wish they'd played to Batmans strengths (insight, planning, tactical and strategic genius, always one step ahead, detective skills, stealth) and then leave the muscle work to the actual supers. It would help him belong.

Snyder just doesn't know how to write him.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Mar 19, 2021)

Mercurius said:


> I really hope they are able to do a part 2



Judging by the epilogue I'd say the probability is 100%, regardless of  what WB & Snyder have said to the contrary.  Joker was always meant to be a stand alone film until its was so successful, but last I read there's a sequel in the works.  This movie proves theirs an audience willing to pay & sit through a 4 hour super hero movie.


----------



## cmad1977 (Mar 19, 2021)

I’ve watched around half.
Don’t remember enough of the Whedon version to really compare the two but my feels are....

1)Snyder was given a lot of leeway to be self indulgent in his directing because this cut wouldn’t be a theatrical release. At four hours... and being only 2 in, already I can see a lot of languid takes and slow scenes. I don’t think this is bad per se. I actually think it allows more “comic book/graphic novel” shots that fit the genre. Lots of action(not punching but action) in a single slow pan, wide takes with lots of characters doing things. 

2)it’s not as “punchy” as the whedon version. Fewer snappy zingers and gags. 

3) I’ll probably like it well enough but I bet it would have made a better series than film.


----------



## cmad1977 (Mar 19, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> Judging by the epilogue I'd say the probability is 100%, regardless of what WB & Snyder have said to the contrary. Joker was always meant to be a stand alone film until its was so successful, but last I read there's a sequel in the works. This movie proves theirs an audience willing to pay & sit through a 4 hour super hero movie.




Um.... this doesn’t at all prove that people will go to a theatre to watch a 4 hour movie. A lot of folks in this thread are watching this film in pieces or “in the background”. 

Then there’s the theatre financials which will prevent a 4 hour movie being shown. Can’t get enough butts in seats on a daily basis for a 4 hour movie. I suppose that could change in response to the fallout from the pandemic. 

And I suppose if there were an intermission(which no theatre will do now) you could get me to a 4 hour movie. I watched Lawerence of Arabia in theatres and that was amazing.


----------



## embee (Mar 19, 2021)

cmad1977 said:


> Um.... this doesn’t at all prove that people will go to a theatre to watch a 4 hour movie. A lot of folks in this thread are watching this film in pieces or “in the background”.
> 
> Then there’s the theatre financials which will prevent a 4 hour movie being shown. Can’t get enough butts in seats on a daily basis for a 4 hour movie. I suppose that could change in response to the fallout from the pandemic.
> 
> And I suppose if there were an intermission(which no theatre will do now) you could get me to a 4 hour movie. I watched Lawerence of Arabia in theatres and that was amazing.



I agree.

I've seen precisely one four-hour movie in the theatre: Das Boot. In a repertoire theatre and those don't exist anymore. It left me wiped, drained, and disorientated. 

That said, this is a good test run for a post-theatre world.


----------



## cmad1977 (Mar 19, 2021)

embee said:


> I agree.
> 
> I've seen precisely one four-hour movie in the theatre: Das Boot. In a repertoire theatre and those don't exist anymore. It left me wiped, drained, and disorientated.
> 
> That said, this is a good test run for a post-theatre world.




Edit: totally misread what you wrote. So deleted.


----------



## TheAlkaizer (Mar 19, 2021)

embee said:


> I agree.
> 
> I've seen precisely one four-hour movie in the theatre: Das Boot. In a repertoire theatre and those don't exist anymore. It left me wiped, drained, and disorientated.
> 
> That said, this is a good test run for a post-theatre world.



What left you drained like that? I've never seen such a long movie in a theater. But I've seen my share of 4 hours movies at home. They're long, but by themselves they don't leave me feeling like that.


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 19, 2021)

embee said:


> I'm "watching" it in the background now as I do some pretty rote data entry at work. Overall, I like it so far.
> 
> Then again, I loved "Watchmen" and firmly believe that "Man of Steel" is the best Superman movie there is, mainly because, sorry to say, the other Superman movies are pretty much on par with the Batman '66 movie.



There's a fanedit called Man of Steel: A Symbol of Hope, which removes a few bad lines of dialogue they make Superman or his dad look naughty word, removes the dreary color grading, and cuts a few bits here and there that make it seem like Superman is ignoring human suffering. And they make more use of heroic music.

It really elevated the movie, in my opinion, while keeping it grounded in the complex morality of heroism that Snyder seemed to want.


----------



## embee (Mar 19, 2021)

TheAlkaizer said:


> What left you drained like that? I've never seen such a long movie in a theater. But I've seen my share of 4 hours movies at home. They're long, but by themselves they don't leave me feeling like that.



It's a four hour German antiwar movie, entirely in German, that takes place within the claustrophobic confines of a U-boat with no intermission and everyone dies.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 19, 2021)

Regardless of which cut you prefer, comparing the two is a fascinating study of two very different directors. I'm going to be re-watching both versions several times!!

I got through parts 1-5 last night, will finish tonight. The pacing is slow, but the tension builds well so far . . . I'm enjoying the movie so far, but this definitely didn't need to be 4 hours to properly tell this story!

Now we have to wonder . . . how different is the "Snyder Cut" from what Zack Snyder would have released theatrically if he hadn't had to step back from the film? I don't think they would have been the same movies.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 19, 2021)

cmad1977 said:


> 2)it’s not as “punchy” as the whedon version. Fewer snappy zingers




yeah, I missed the “I hear you can Talk to fish” line

I also did a quick watch of Whedons version of the Amazon escaping the temple scene and think Whedons was better action (Snyder had Hippolyta stopping to mourn her dying warriors too often).


----------



## Morrus (Mar 19, 2021)

Halfway through. Taking a break, because it's loooong! But we're really enjoying it.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 19, 2021)

A run down of the differences spoilers How 'Zack Snyder's Justice League' differs from Joss Whedon's 2017 version — and why Zack Snyder never watched it


----------



## Morrus (Mar 19, 2021)

Phew! Finished! That was a long film!

I liked it a lot. But then I liked MoS so take that as you will.


----------



## embee (Mar 19, 2021)

Not gonna lie...

I liked the interaction between Batman and Joker in the Epilogue. Especially when Batman says that yes he will kill Joker.

Contrary to TDKR, we've never really seen a broken Batman. And that right there is a broken Batman.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 19, 2021)

My quick and dirty take:

Overall its a better movie than the original. The story is more cohesive, and the stakes feel more appropriate to a true Justice League movie. That said, its too long, 4 hours is not really necessary, and it definitely drags at certain points. Ultimately, its a better movie, but its still not a great movie, and I don't think it "redeems" Justice League.

My longer take:
I think the real winners are Steppenwolf and Cyborg. Steppenwolf was upgraded from a cardboard cutout to a generic villain suitable for a marvel movie....aka good enough. Cyborg gets a much bigger chunk of story and characterization this time. Flash meanwhile gets the coolest new scene of the movie.

The biggest losers are Batman and Wonder Woman. Some of Batman's best lines are not in this cut, and the change to this scene 



Spoiler



Lois Lane now comes to Superman out of coincidence instead of Batman's fallback strategy


 just removes the last bit of Batman's actual plan making and scheming. I honestly don't know why he is even in this cut. Zack wanted to make a movie about gods and nothing wrong with that, but I think he really had trouble putting Batman in that league.

Wonder Woman also got some of her best character lines removed. She does get a few new ones, so not as bad as Batman, but I think the scene 



Spoiler



where Diana tends to Batman's shoulder and they have a heart to heart


 adds a tremendous amount of characterization in a short scene, and the lack of it I really felt.


Ultimately, both movies have the same fatal flaw at the end: 



Spoiler



Superman just clobbers Steppenwolf without even trying, once again showing that the entire rest of the league was unnecessary to that fight. If the league had delayed the unity that would have at least been something, but they don't, so honestly Superman could have just flown through the shield, dropped Cyborg and Flash off, kicked Steppenwolf's butt....and you would have had the same plot.



At the end of the day, I feel that the 4 hours is mainly Synder going....hey, I'm going for broke, lets just show everything I wanted to show. And a lot of it was probably cut by Whedon for good reason, as much of it is really not necessary to the film. I think there is about 30 minutes of Synder material that is truly "better", and it would be neat to see a movie where that 30 minutes was inserted/replaced on top of the original.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 19, 2021)

Compared to the Whedon version, it (a) looked so much better and (b) every character felt real. Cyborg was just a different character to the one in Whedon's film; he had depth, and a full story arc. Aquaman was less surfer quip dude. The bad guys felt like genuine threats. And not having a CGI face on Henry Cavill is a relief.


----------



## jaycrockett (Mar 20, 2021)

I had to stop watching at 2 hours because I disliked it so much.  I liked but didn't love the theatrical release, but this was worse in every way I could think of.  Every scene was 50 percent too long.  Most of the added scenes were extraneous and every scene that was removed (the whedon reshoots I assume) were missed by me.  Some of the best lines were gone.  The music selection is also terrible.
Like someone else said it really is amazing the difference two different people can have on the final product of a movie.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 20, 2021)

One of the best comments i've seen about liking is it makes the original look like it was bought on wish.com


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 20, 2021)

jaycrockett said:


> I had to stop watching at 2 hours because I disliked it so much.  I liked but didn't love the theatrical release, but this was worse in every way I could think of.  Every scene was 50 percent too long.  Most of the added scenes were extraneous and every scene that was removed (the whedon reshoots I assume) were missed by me.  Some of the best lines were gone.  The music selection is also terrible.
> Like someone else said it really is amazing the difference two different people can have on the final product of a movie.



There's something off about the special effects too . . . they seem incomplete in a lot of spots . . . can't remember if I felt this way with the theatrical cut.


----------



## payn (Mar 20, 2021)

Tries to do too much which is why it is 4 hours. I do think it looked better. I want the bruce wayne mad max dream movie instead.  I also love Jared Leto and am fine with being the only one.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 20, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Compared to the Whedon version, it (a) looked so much better and (b) every character felt real. Cyborg was just a different character to the one in Whedon's film; he had depth, and a full story arc. Aquaman was less surfer quip dude. The bad guys felt like genuine threats. And not having a CGI face on Henry Cavill is a relief.



I actually preferred Whedons approach to Cyborg, I liked the “whose the monster” quote and Victor learning about his powers gradually rather than his father providing an exposition dump via taperecorder. 
And really Cyborg can autorepair crushed machines and has control of all the worlds nukes and its economy too?

The only one I think had an improved story was the Flash (and we got to see Iris too). I agree with others that Batman was lacking in his tactical planning and trying to keep him up with the otherwise gonzo crew missed an opportunity

The final assault on Steppenwolf was better, especially without the red sky  
but what was the point of putting Superman in the black suit?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 20, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> but what was the point of putting Superman in the black suit?



Straight homage to the Death of Superman story in the comic books. They didn’t give him the beard and the mullet though!


----------



## Morrus (Mar 20, 2021)

jaycrockett said:


> Like someone else said it really is amazing the difference two different people can have on the final product of a movie.



Next you'll be saying art is subjective!


----------



## Morrus (Mar 20, 2021)

So my overwhelming feeling after watching that film is one I get when finishing a great book series — that sense of loss that you’re at the end and you won’t see more of these characters. That’s what happens when you get to know characters and they resonate with you emotionally, like when Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings ended. I didn’t feel that at all after the Whedon version.


----------



## payn (Mar 20, 2021)

Morrus said:


> So my overwhelming feeling after watching that film is one I get when finishing a great book series — that sense of loss that you’re at the end and you won’t see more of these characters. That’s what happens when you get to know characters and they resonate with you emotionally, like when Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings ended. I didn’t feel that at all after the Whedon version.



I get what you are saying, except GoT was written into the ground by the end and it killed the feeling.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 20, 2021)

payn said:


> I get what you are saying, except GoT was written into the ground by the end and it killed the feeling.



Well, OK. I wasn't trying to begin another GoT ending debate.


----------



## GreyLord (Mar 20, 2021)

I haven't seen it, but I'm not sure this is the vision he would have come out with if he had continued it initially and was the final director for the theatrical release.

First...an R-rated Superman and Justice League movie?

I don't think that would have worked for the theaters at the time or been allowed by the distributors.  I think they would have demanded a PG-13/PG-12 cut.

Secondly, as some have noted in the thread and critics, it is going to take a LOT of persuasion for a studio to release a 4 hour cut these days to the theaters.  A LOT of persuasion.  I don't think it would have been done.  I think the movie would have been cut down to at least 3 hours, probably more to 2.5 hours.

That's a LOT of cut content.

This is the Snyder cut though, and it's the middle ground between what I'd see as his vision and what would have been released as a Director's cut...but NOT the theatrical cut.

In that way, comparing a director's cut without knowing what his theatrical cut would have appeared like probably is unfair to Whedon in the comparisons...at least to my initial thoughts without having seen the Snyder Cut yet.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 20, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Straight homage to the Death of Superman story in the comic books. They didn’t give him the beard and the mullet though!



Thanks for reminding me of the mullet.....


----------



## Eric V (Mar 20, 2021)

My daughter noticed right away how Snyder removed the lecherous moments from Steppenwolf's dialogue with the Amazons ("You will ALL love me...") and replaced it with respect for them as warriors.

No Flash falling on WW, either.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 20, 2021)

Eric V said:


> My daughter noticed right away how Snyder removed the lecherous moments from Steppenwolf's dialogue with the Amazons ("You will ALL love me...") and replaced it with respect for them as warriors.
> 
> No Flash falling on WW, either.



Didn't that kind of get replaced with the Amazons doing sexy fighting poses though? So I've been told.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 20, 2021)

Eric V said:


> My daughter noticed right away how Snyder removed the lecherous moments from Steppenwolf's dialogue with the Amazons ("You will ALL love me...") and replaced it with respect for them as warriors.
> 
> No Flash falling on WW, either.



Yeah there was also the line where Martha Kent describes Lois as a “Thirsty young woman” (rather than Hungry) which was deleted


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 20, 2021)

Eric V said:


> My daughter noticed right away how Snyder removed the lecherous moments from Steppenwolf's dialogue with the Amazons ("You will ALL love me...") and replaced it with respect for them as warriors.
> 
> No Flash falling on WW, either.



Snyder also removed Aquaman's flirting with her,while sitting on the lasso of truth. In fact the interactions between the two was redone better.

EDIT: I'll also point out that when Whedon had the Flash falling on WW, Gal refuse and so they brought in a body double.


----------



## Eric V (Mar 20, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Didn't that kind of get replaced with the Amazons doing sexy fighting poses though? So I've been told.



No, it did not.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 20, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Didn't that kind of get replaced with the Amazons doing sexy fighting poses though? So I've been told.



No? The Amazons still wear boob-form armour but other than that I cant recall any gratuitousness in the Amazon stances


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 20, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Well, OK. I wasn't trying to begin another GoT ending debate.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Mar 21, 2021)

*Pure Excellence!!!*​


----------



## embee (Mar 21, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> Snyder also removed Aquaman's flirting with her,while sitting on the lasso of truth. In fact the interactions between the two was redone better.
> 
> EDIT: I'll also point out that when Whedon had the Flash falling on WW, Gal refuse and so they brought in a body double.



Snyder also got rid up Whedon's upskirting.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 21, 2021)

On the whole I liked the Whedon version better, but that was still a movie barely able to hold it's head above water.  This just seems like a weird choice to even release.


----------



## John R Davis (Mar 21, 2021)

WayneLigon said:


> On the whole I liked the Whedon version better, but that was still a movie barely able to hold it's head above water.  This just seems like a weird choice to even release.



Anyone have an idea how much budget was used to make the Snyder cut? Very different to the original. Can't believe how much new stuff there was


----------



## Campbell (Mar 21, 2021)

John R Davis said:


> Anyone have an idea how much budget was used to make the Snyder cut? Very different to the original. Can't believe how much new stuff there was




Around $70 million. What I have seen indicates it was almost all spent in postproduction. There weren't a lot of reshoots.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 21, 2021)

Yeah, there's only about 4-5 minutes of newly shot footage. The rest of it was original footage shot by Snyder that Joss Whedon didn't use or reshot himself. The Whedon JL film, only 30% of it is Snyder's footage.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2021)

embee said:


> I agree.
> 
> I've seen precisely one four-hour movie in the theatre: Das Boot. In a repertoire theatre and those don't exist anymore. It left me wiped, drained, and disorientated.
> 
> That said, this is a good test run for a post-theatre world.



I saw all three Lord of the Rings movies, in their directors cut version, in a row, in a theater. It was epic. My butt was sore from sitting by the end.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2021)

Morrus said:


> So my overwhelming feeling after watching that film is one I get when finishing a great book series — that sense of loss that you’re at the end and you won’t see more of these characters. That’s what happens when you get to know characters and they resonate with you emotionally, like when Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings ended. I didn’t feel that at all after the Whedon version.



I love that feeling!


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 21, 2021)

What could have been Every Canceled DCEU Movie Set Up In Zack Snyder's Justice League


----------



## Wolfram stout (Mar 22, 2021)

So, the family spent a big chunk of Saturday watching it.  It was me (uber geek), 15 year old son (who loves MCU, hates DC movies) and my wife ( general fan of superhero movies).  The wife and I also generally don't like Snyder's style.  But I have read for years from people who love him that his movies are big and grand and are like Operas.  So, I cleared my mind and went into the movie with that expectation.
Sidenote-- I didn't think the original was bad just very forgettable.

We all enjoyed the Snyder cut.  As others have said, I don't think this 4 hour monster would ever be a theatrical cut, but it was good.  If you can get in synch with his style it is a sweeping epic.


----------



## embee (Mar 22, 2021)

Wolfram stout said:


> So, the family spent a big chunk of Saturday watching it.  It was me (uber geek), 15 year old son (who loves MCU, hates DC movies) and my wife ( general fan of superhero movies).  The wife and I also generally don't like Snyder's style.  But I have read for years from people who love him that his movies are big and grand and are like Operas.  So, I cleared my mind and went into the movie with that expectation.
> Sidenote-- I didn't think the original was bad just very forgettable.
> 
> We all enjoyed the Snyder cut.  As others have said, I don't think this 4 hour monster would ever be a theatrical cut, but it was good.  If you can get in synch with his style it is a sweeping epic.



That's why it meshes with Snyder. 

DC superheroes are gods. It's the constant refrain. Look at titles like Kingdom Come or Justice or at heroes like Wonder Woman and Shazam. There is a grand scale to it that Marvel heroes don't seem to have. 

This isn't to say that Marvel is inferior in any way. Just that the tone and scale of DC is inherently different. And that difference lends itself to a "serious" director like Snyder. 

My wife did think a lot of the stuff is ridiculous. You could get good and drunk if you took a belt of whiskey every time someone smelled a Mother Box. But much of the ridiculosity stems from the psychedelic psyche of Jack Kirby.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 22, 2021)

Question -- the big red shield dome protecting Steppenwolf's base. What was its purpose? Who was it supposed to protect against, given that basic human weaponry dealt with it very quickly? Just in case random civilians wandered in?


----------



## embee (Mar 22, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Question -- the big red shield dome protecting Steppenwolf's base. What was its purpose? Who was it supposed to protect against, given that basic human weaponry dealt with it very quickly? Just in case random civilians wandered in?



It's the next step in the Giant Beam In The Sky arms race.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 22, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Question -- the big red shield dome protecting Steppenwolf's base. What was its purpose? Who was it supposed to protect against, given that basic human weaponry dealt with it very quickly? Just in case random civilians wandered in?



I was thinking that too . . . how un-amazing Apokoliptan technology is . . .

I was also noticing how somehow, Darkseid held a grudge against the world that DARED to fight back . . . but forgot which one it was?!?!

I think it's the usual for movies and comic books . . . how easy something is to defeat isn't based on solid world-building or carefully though out logic . . . it's what serves the story, or sometimes a way to pull the story out of a corner the writers put it in . . .

It's only bad when it's noticeable . . . and it was noticeable!


----------



## ART! (Mar 22, 2021)

Undisclipined filmmaking. Indulgent. Pacing designed for people with nothing else to do - which I don't blame just him for: WB gave him money and said "make the movie you wanted". He said he could have made a 6-hour cut. There's a reason these kinds of movies are usually 2 hours long. Otherwise just make a tv series - which this kind of feels like, especially in terms of pacing...if a binge-watched tv series didn't care about each episode's dramatic arcs. And there's so many digital effects that they can't all look good - and they really don't. Also: murdery Wonder Woman. Great.

Maybe after watching the 8 hours I haven't watched yet I'll like it more.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 22, 2021)

ART! said:


> Undisclipined filmmaking. Indulgent.



Ugh. Y'know, people like different things. Can we just go back to saying what we liked or didn't like, rather than declaring ultimate truths like they're some kind of objective reality? This was completely up my alley. I loved it.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 22, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Question -- the big red shield dome protecting Steppenwolf's base. What was its purpose? Who was it supposed to protect against, given that basic human weaponry dealt with it very quickly? Just in case random civilians wandered in?



I went with the notion that it shielded them from satellite scans.....otherwise the world governments should have already known where Steppenwolf's base was. Batman probably as well as he has himself some satellites of his own.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 22, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> Batman probably as well as he has himself some satellites of his own.



I know! 6 whole satellites! Elon Musk must be laughing at Bruce Wayne.

Which brings up a question. In a world with American billionaires like Bezos, Musk, and Gates, who have $100B+ would anybody even notice the Waynes?


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 22, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Which brings up a question. In a world with American billionaires like Bezos, Musk, and Gates, who have $100B+ would anybody even notice the Waynes?



Which is probably just as Bruce likes it. Rich enough to have all the toys he needs, but gets to fly at least a little bit under the radar compared to some others.

Although one of the interesting things about this "older" Bruce Wayne is he really is not that careful with his secret identity anymore. Aquaman throws his identity around casually in the fish village scene and Bruce doesn't even "bat" an eye.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 22, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> Which is probably just as Bruce likes it. Rich enough to have all the toys he needs, but gets to fly at least a little bit under the radar compared to some others.



The narrative never has Bruce Wayne flying under the radar. He and Lex Luthor were generally the two richest guys.The problem is that reality has overtaken the fiction, and people like Bezos and Musk are so ridiculously wealthy, that even fictional super-rich people look poor. Even superhero comic book writers ever imagined that much wealth.


----------



## Larnievc (Mar 23, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I have it ready to watch, but my Pathfinder game is tonight, so I have to wait until tomorrow night.
> 
> It's doing well -- so far! -- on Rotten Tomatoes, but it'll get review-bombed at some point.
> 
> ...



I saw it. I really liked it. I like Snyder films for their epic spectacle and the DC universe fits the bill (for me).

I’m not the biggest DC reader so if the characters did not exactly match the comics I did not really notice or get hot and bothered about it.

I thought it was a perfect 8.2/10.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 23, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Ugh. Y'know, people like different things. Can we just go back to saying what we liked or didn't like, rather than declaring ultimate truths like they're some kind of objective reality? This was completely up my alley. I loved it.



And his post is different from your post at #30 in this thread where you declare that it looked so much better and the every character felt real?

Does every opinion have to be prefaced with “in my opinion” to keep fans from insinuating that a critic is making unwanted objective declarations when they’re just stating their opinions in the same structure as fans are?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 23, 2021)

billd91 said:


> And his post is different from your post at #30 in this thread where you declare that it looked so much better and the every character felt real?
> 
> Does every opinion have to be prefaced with “in my opinion” to keep fans from insinuating that a critic is making unwanted objective declarations when they’re just stating their opinions in the same structure as fans are?



Sure. OK. You're technically correct.

It's just hard liking stuff on the internet these days. Once upon a time (man I sound old!) the internet was all people enjoying their shared interests. Now it's the exact opposite of that thing and nobody is allowed to like anything. I haven't been allowed to enjoy a shared positive conversation about stuff I like for over a decade. Here. Facebook. Twitter. Anywhere. You get shouted down everywhere.

I know. That's my problem.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 23, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Sure. OK. You're technically correct.
> 
> It's just hard liking stuff on the internet these days. Once upon a time (man I sound old!) the internet was all people enjoying their shared interests. Now it's the exact opposite of that thing and nobody is allowed to like anything. I haven't been allowed to enjoy a shared positive conversation about stuff I like for over a decade. Here. Facebook. Twitter. Anywhere. You get shouted down everywhere.
> 
> I know. That's my problem.



Clearly your experience doesn't date back to the usenet days


----------



## billd91 (Mar 23, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Sure. OK. You're technically correct.
> 
> It's just hard liking stuff on the internet these days. Once upon a time (man I sound old!) the internet was all people enjoying their shared interests. Now it's the exact opposite of that thing and nobody is allowed to like anything. I haven't been allowed to enjoy a shared positive conversation about stuff I like for over a decade. Here. Facebook. Twitter. Anywhere. You get shouted down everywhere.
> 
> I know. That's my problem.



A shared interest doesn’t means you‘re always liking the same things. You can discuss likes and dislikes without taking things personally - like movies, art, games. If it’s all positive like unicorns and fluffy bunnies, it’s not a discussion - it’s an echo chamber.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 23, 2021)

billd91 said:


> A shared interest doesn’t means you‘re always liking the same things. You can discuss likes and dislikes without taking things personally - like movies, art, games. If it’s all positive like unicorns and fluffy bunnies, it’s not a discussion - it’s an echo chamber.



Thank you for the lesson, sensei.


----------



## Eric V (Mar 23, 2021)

billd91 said:


> A shared interest doesn’t means you‘re always liking the same things. You can discuss likes and dislikes without taking things personally - like movies, art, games. If it’s all positive like unicorns and fluffy bunnies, it’s not a discussion - it’s an echo chamber.



I don't think anyone is asking for that.  At all.

OTOH, when ART! writes "Pacing designed for people with nothing else to do" and Morrus _just _wrote how he likes it, the conclusion is Morrus has nothing else to do.  That's an unnecessary scatter shot against people who liked it.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 23, 2021)

Eric V said:


> I don't think anyone is asking for that.  At all.
> 
> OTOH, when ART! writes "Pacing designed for people with nothing else to do" and Morrus _just _wrote how he likes it, the conclusion is Morrus has nothing else to do.  That's an unnecessary scatter shot against people who liked it.



Yeah, yeah. Fans always get riled up when people criticize stuff they like. Happens all the time sound here.

But a 4-hour director’s cut could certainly be called indulgent.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 23, 2021)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, yeah. Fans always get riled up when people criticize stuff they like. Happens all the time sound here.
> 
> But a 4-hour director’s cut could certainly be called indulgent.



I would go as far as to ask if 4 hours could be considered a "cut."


----------



## Hatmatter (Mar 23, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Sure. OK. You're technically correct.
> 
> It's just hard liking stuff on the internet these days. Once upon a time (man I sound old!) the internet was all people enjoying their shared interests. Now it's the exact opposite of that thing and nobody is allowed to like anything. I haven't been allowed to enjoy a shared positive conversation about stuff I like for over a decade. Here. Facebook. Twitter. Anywhere. You get shouted down everywhere.
> 
> I know. That's my problem.



It is the problem of many. Up to my twenties, when I would role-play with friends, or go to the occasional convention, or what have you, it was enthusiasm for fantasy, science fiction, mythology, comic books, and so forth that dominated. People had different opinions and it was fun to talk about this stuff, hear the different opinions, but enthusiasm dominated.

In forums online, it seems like the enthusiasm must be there...it is hard to imagine it being anything but the motivation that brings people to places like right here. Yet, once the conversation online gets started, so often there are wet blankets or people who want to prove they are right at the expense of others. It is a story repeated ad infinitum across the Web. It is discouraging because, like a wet blanket, it stifles my enthusiasm and desire to even participate online.

I think it is a problem intrinsic to a media where we are anonymous and not physically present with one another and able to read one another's non-verbal cues. I see this whether it is forums on music, role-playing games, or even religion where participants aspire to love and forgive each other yet their anonymous online communications with one another online can be rife with the omnipresent online impulse to _have to_ win an argument, meanness, and sometimes name-calling.

My reaction has been to adopt, years ago, a "only participate with the positive" approach to these kinds of online forums. When someone responds with something negative, I just try to emphasize what might be positive in the post or I simply do not respond. In my non-online-hobby life I have to problem solve and work through personal relations issues, but for my online hobby I have found trying to give up the natural instinct to "win" every argument helps me. Also, realizing that if I don't have anything positive to write, I can simply not respond has helped me. But, over time, my interest in participating online has dwindled as a consequence.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 23, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Now it's the exact opposite of that thing and nobody is allowed to like anything.




I don't think anyone feels that you're not allowed to like this movie. We can all agree and disagree on things we like about any movie or tvshow, without implying that the other is not allowed to hold their opinion.

For example, I have been highly critical of The Mandalorian, but I've never expressed that others were not allowed to like it. In fact, I can see that there are things to like... but also to dislike. And there are people who don't have the patience for Wandavision; a show that I loved. And that's fine. I enjoy discussing our disagreements.

Likewise, I don't think I'll be watching the Snyder Cut. I wasn't interested in Justice League to begin with, since Snyder's style of filmmaking rubs me the wrong way. But even after hearing that the Snyder Cut is a large improvement over Justice League's theatrical release, that is not a very high bar to clear.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 23, 2021)

Hatmatter said:


> Also, realizing that if I don't have anything positive to write, I can simply not respond.



I think I try to do that, although definitely not always successfully (and its one of the reasons I don't write reviews). I always enjoy it when people talk about stuff they love.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 23, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I think I try to do that, although definitely not always successfully (and its one of the reasons I don't write reviews). I always enjoy it when people talk about stuff they love.




As a general forum rule, I don't post on any forum, unless I feel like I have more than one sentence to say about the subject, good or bad. Anything less and I feel like I'm wasting space. Great one-line jokes excluded of course.

Just stating "I hate X" or "I like X" is pointless in my opinion. It has no value to anyone, because without adding my reasons, there is nothing for others to discuss. And that is the point of a discussion forum after all.


----------



## Hatmatter (Mar 23, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I think I try to do that, although definitely not always successfully (and its one of the reasons I don't write reviews). I always enjoy it when people talk about stuff they love.



I have noticed. I think if more people do that, it might end up having a net positive effect. It is hard to know for sure, though, because an entire thread can be dominated and exhausted by only two people who decide to argue to the death about X issue. It is another version, I suppose, of the squeaky wheel gets the grease.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 23, 2021)

Hatmatter said:


> I have noticed. I think if more people do that, it might end up having a net positive effect.




Honestly, I think an entire thread full of only people raving how great something is, would bore me to tears.
Variety is the spice of life after all. I'm happy when people on the forum dislike something I like, because a contrary opinion is of interest to me.

Likewise, I don't understand it when people express frustration when I state that I don't like something they like, and I also bother to explain why. Surely a polite discussion is the whole point of a forum?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 23, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Likewise, I don't understand it when people express frustration when I state that I don't like something they like, and I also bother to explain why. Surely a polite discussion is the whole point of a forum?



I can't speak for other people, but I don't mind that you don't like it (in fact, I don't care whether you like it), it's that I personally find it hard to find a space to enjoy something with other people and just discuss it, ask questions about it etc. Stuff that I enjoy doing. But there's no space for that activity in a thread like this.

Like I said, that's my problem, not yours.

I guess the answer is to do the [+] thread thing more. Make a different type of thread.



> Honestly, I think an entire thread full of only people raving how great something is, would bore me to tears.




No, I wouldn't like that either. Very much not the experience I'm after. I'm after much more in-depth discussion of it.

And of course now we're way off topic.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 23, 2021)

Well back on topic, it seems like Batman is kind of the odd one out in this whole ensemble. All of the other characters have super powers, and 3 of them are pretty much gods. So I can't help but feel that Batman is kind of in the wrong movie or the wrong team. What is Batman going to do while the others are fighting the big bad? Stop muggers? Shoot minions? 

Having not seen the movie myself, does Snyder address this problem in his cut of the film? Is Batman some what useful, or is he the fifth wheel?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 23, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Well back on topic, it seems like Batman is kind of the odd one out in this whole ensemble. All of the other characters have super powers, and 3 of them are pretty much gods. So I can't help but feel that Batman is kind of in the wrong movie or the wrong team. What is Batman going to do while the others are fighting the big bad? Stop muggers? Shoot minions?
> 
> Having not seen the movie myself, does Snyder address this problem in his cut of the film? Is Batman some what useful, or is he the fifth wheel?



That’s always been a problem with the JLA. The comics and stuff get around it by making him the planner and the detective (and the rich one who provides the gear). In this, he is those things (though it being a superhero movie the plan isn’t exactly Oceans 11). But yeah in the action sequences the others are fighting the likes of Steppenwolf while he handles mooks.

So he has an important narrative role in the story, but not so much the big fights.


----------



## ART! (Mar 23, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Ugh. Y'know, people like different things. Can we just go back to saying what we liked or didn't like, rather than declaring ultimate truths like they're some kind of objective reality? This was completely up my alley. I loved it.



In can be undisciplined filmaking and/or indulgent, and still worthy of being liked. 

It is - literally and by definition - indulgent. WB gave him tens of millions of dollars after a fan campaign to make a version that would never had made it to theaters, because of the length, and that length is because Snyder got to put everything in the movie that he wanted. It's practically if not actually a vanity project. 

The "undisciplined filmmaking" charge stems from the above: the discipline required to make a movie that the studio was prepared to release theatrically was removed from this project. Without that requirement, the pacing isn't like that of a 2-2:45 hour movie, nor is it like that of a tv miniseries. It has no structural requirements other than what the artist wanted. Sometimes that can result in "great art" (and I'm not going to go into what that means or where this work lies on that spectrum), but mostly it results in indulgent messes.

Having now watched the whole thing, I find it less onerous. The first hour and a half or so is just too full of prolonged set-up sequences. It's like if the first 1.5 hours of the LOTR movies was like the FOTR movie's prologue.

Once things finally come together, it starts feeling like a movie rather than a stream of consciousness exercise or like reading the Old Testament. I'm glad Snyder got to make this version, and give everybody the story he had in mind originally. It's a weird beast of a movie-like-thing.


----------



## embee (Mar 23, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Well back on topic, it seems like Batman is kind of the odd one out in this whole ensemble. All of the other characters have super powers, and 3 of them are pretty much gods. So I can't help but feel that Batman is kind of in the wrong movie or the wrong team. What is Batman going to do while the others are fighting the big bad? Stop muggers? Shoot minions?
> 
> Having not seen the movie myself, does Snyder address this problem in his cut of the film? Is Batman some what useful, or is he the fifth wheel?



It's kind of addressed but, ultimately, not really. Batman is there to put the team together and to absolve himself of his own stupidity because in BvS, he decided to be the World's Most Hotheaded Detective. 

Batman, ultimately, has the INT 18 problem. How do you create a character that is infinitely smarter than you are? The result, all too often, is the Batman/RDJ Sherlock solution. You make him an naughty word who's really good at punching people. Because punching people in super slo-mo puts asses in the seats better than hours of a smart person calmly staring at a wall or running batteries of tests and meticulously comparing the results.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 23, 2021)

ART! said:


> Having now watched the whole thing, I find it less onerous. The first hour and a half or so is just too full of prolonged set-up sequences. It's like if the first 1.5 hours of the LOTR movies was like the FOTR movie's prologue.
> 
> Once things finally come together, it starts feeling like a movie rather than a stream of consciousness exercise or like reading the Old Testament. I'm glad Snyder got to make this version, and give everybody the story he had in mind originally. It's a weird beast of a movie-like-thing.




I can't think of any movies that have been in this strange state; To be halted due to a terrible tragedy, and to then have another director come in to finish the movie, only for the original director to come back and do a 4-hour long cut of his version of the film, post theatrical release. It is nuts.

That said, I feel that sometimes movies are cut down for dumb reasons, and to the detriment of the quality of the movie, while other times movies are just way too long and desperately need cuts. I'm looking at you Peter Jackson!

The Hobbit Trilogy for example, did not need to be 3 movies. It could have been easily trimmed down to 1 movie, and it would have probably made for a better movie to boot. 

Cutting Saruman's death from Return of the King was a crime, and left a bad taste in my mouth, considering how much filler there is in that movie. Plus it felt like a trick to motivate people to buy the extended cut on DVD. Plus the extended editions add more meandering scenes to the Two Towers with Treebeard, which jarringly interupt the action several times. Seeing more of Middle Earth is a nice novelty, but it comes at the price of pacing. So I find myself in the odd position of both liking the extended cut for 1 or 2 scenes, and hating them for the filler, long run time and bad pacing.

Aliens Special Edition includes some wonderful scenes that I really think should have been included in the theatrical release, but not all of the scenes that are now in the special edition. There is way too much exposition in the special edition, which spoils several of the movie's surprises. Plus I don't think we needed another scene of Newt's high pitched screaming.

Kill Bill was clearly intended to be one movie, and not two volumes. But frankly, I like that it is two movies. Tarantino may have added some filler here and there to pad out the runtime for both movies, but I like most of what he may or may not have added.

With its 4 hour run time, I think Snyder's cut could have easily been made into 2 movies.


----------



## Eric V (Mar 23, 2021)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, yeah. Fans always get riled up when people criticize stuff they like. Happens all the time sound here.
> 
> But a 4-hour director’s cut could certainly be called indulgent.





He didn't just criticize _the work_; by extension, he criticized _the viewership_ who enjoyed it by writing "Pacing designed for people with nothing else to do."  The former would have been fine; the latter is an unnecessary shot at viewers who liked it.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 23, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> That said, I feel that sometimes movies are cut down for dumb reasons, and to the detriment of the quality of the movie, while other times movies are just way too long and desperately need cuts. I'm looking at you Peter Jackson!



Yeah, the editor is a relatively little known factor by the public but really important aspect of movie making. It can really make a movie great (Star Wars) or it can make a movie notoriously bad (Manos: The Hands of Fate - if you haven't seen this, its editing and pacing are *soooooooo* bad).


Imaculata said:


> The Hobbit Trilogy for example, did not need to be 3 movies. It could have been easily trimmed down to 1 movie, and it would have probably made for a better movie to boot.



I think the two as initially planned could have been OK, but padding to three meant a lot of pointless filler. I watched the trilogy once in the theaters only because my family wanted to see it - I was done after the first one even though I liked Martin Freeman as Bilbo.


Imaculata said:


> Aliens Special Edition includes some wonderful scenes that I really think should have been included in the theatrical release, but not all of the scenes that are now in the special edition. There is way too much exposition in the special edition, which spoils several of the movie's surprises. Plus I don't think we needed another scene of Newt's high pitched screaming.



I think Aliens is a particularly interesting case. I have no idea if the laserdisc version I saw, which had cuts restored, is the same as the Special Edition, but there were some of the cuts that were cool and others were pretty obviously good cuts to make. The automated gun defense scene was kind of cool, until you realized how dumb it made the aliens seem compared to the original theatrical cut. They're a lot more impressive if they come in via the ceiling spaces *without* having tried the frontal rush against the automated guns first...


----------



## ART! (Mar 23, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I can't think of any movies that have been in this strange state; To be halted due to a terrible tragedy, and to then have another director come in to finish the movie, only for the original director to come back and do a 4-hour long cut of his version of the film, post theatrical release. It is nuts.
> 
> That said, I feel that sometimes movies are cut down for dumb reasons, and to the detriment of the quality of the movie, while other times movies are just way too long and desperately need cuts. I'm looking at you Peter Jackson!
> 
> ...



You're absolutely right: ZS'sJL is a hard thing to assess, because there's nothing else like it. 

You mention Tarantino, whose movies I react to similarly to how I react to Snyders: I get that he has real strengths as a filmmaker, and some aspects are really amazing and it's fascinating what he can pull off, but I almost always wind up at least kind of regretting having watched their movies.

Don't even start me on The Hobbit trilogy. Ugh. I found a fan-edit of those that cut it down to a 4-hour movie, and that's a 4-hour movie that actually works at all levels.


----------



## embee (Mar 23, 2021)

billd91 said:


> I think the two as initially planned could have been OK, but padding to three meant a lot of pointless filler. I watched the trilogy once in the theaters only because my family wanted to see it - I was done after the first one even though I liked Martin Freeman as Bilbo.



500 minutes of movie from a 300 page book.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 23, 2021)

billd91 said:


> I think Aliens is a particularly interesting case. I have no idea if the laserdisc version I saw, which had cuts restored, is the same as the Special Edition, but there were some of the cuts that were cool and others were pretty obviously good cuts to make. The automated gun defense scene was kind of cool, until you realized how dumb it made the aliens seem compared to the original theatrical cut. They're a lot more impressive if they come in via the ceiling spaces *without* having tried the frontal rush against the automated guns first...




Exactly. The sentry guns are cool though. If it were up to me, I'd probably lean towards keeping them, just because I like how the scenes with them build suspense, and suggest a much larger force of Aliens than we get to see on screen. Because at the most we see like 6 extras in alien suits, but as viewers we have to believe there are hundreds. 

But I don't like the inclusion of the Delerict Ship. It spoils too much, and the dialog at the colony is not very good. Plus I feel it is more interesting to let the viewers piece together what happened themselves, by watching the marines investigate the colony. By giving away exactly what happened, those scenes lose a lot of their suspense. They also added dialog later on in the movie, that spoils that we are going to see an Alien Queen. And I hate it.

I do really like the scene where Ripley finds out her daughter has died of old age while she was away. It is well acted, and considering how the movie is about motherhood, it seems very important to me to include. It makes the bond between Ripley and Newt carry a lot more weight.

There's also a scene with a cocooned Burk in the alien hive, which has not been included with any of the Special Editions to my knowledge. But now having seen it, the acting is not very good, so it got cut for a good reason. Sorry Paul Reiser. I thought I wanted to watch Burk die. But as it turns out, no I don't.


----------



## ART! (Mar 23, 2021)

embee said:


> 500 minutes of movie from a 300 page book.



The studio switched the plan from 2 movies to 3 movies when Jackson was _well into filming the planned two movies_. As soon as that news broke, I knew the movies would be a mess. Logistically, that's just a huge mistake.


----------



## Hatmatter (Mar 23, 2021)

ART! said:


> The studio switched the plan from 2 movies to 3 movies when Jackson was well into filming. As soon as that news broke, I knew the movies would be a mess. Logistically, that's just a huge mistake.



Agreed. I have a fan edit of _The Hobbit_ that cuts out the material that was not in the book and the film is terrific, absolutely terrific.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 23, 2021)

ART! said:


> You mention Tarantino, whose movies I react to similarly to how I react to Snyders: I get that he has real strengths as a filmmaker, and some aspects are really amazing and it's fascinating what he can pull off, but I almost always wind up at least kind of regretting having watched their movies.




Tarantino really loves dialog. His movies are all about the dialog. So when a movie studio tells him to break his movie Kill Bill into two separate volumes, he's going to add all that dialog that he was going to otherwise have to cut. I tend to like his dialog, so for the most part, this means more stuff for me to enjoy. 

But there was one scene near the end of Volume 2 with Estaban that really killed the pacing in my view. Plus the scene at the stripclub also felt a lot like filler, and not the good kind.


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 23, 2021)

Hatmatter said:


> Agreed. I have a fan edit of _The Hobbit_ that cuts out the material that was not in the book and the film is terrific, absolutely terrific.




I have seen both a cut that brings it back to 2 movies, and even a cut that brings it down to 1 movie. The first focuses mostly on cutting out all the unnecessary cameos. So everything with Legolas and Gandalf, except for the scenes where Gandalf is actually in the book. 

The other cut is even more harsh. It keeps most of the shire stuff and the songs, but it gets Bilbo on the road to adventure much quicker. Lake Town is cut down dramatically, with the side characters removed. It does keep Bard and his family. But the Master of Laketown and his annoying sidekick are gone almost entirely (Sorry Stephen Fry, you only get a brief cameo and thats it). Also, no Tauriel (Sorry Evangeline Lilly). 

What I found interesting, was how the editor of this last version tried to bring the focus of the movie back on Bilbo. It wasn't just a matter of cutting down the movie to make it shorter, but also to improve the story telling. It should be Bilbo's story, but early into Battle of the Five Armies it seems Bilbo disappears from the movie almost entirely.

If you're interested in this version, and/or want to hear the editor's thoughts on the editing, he has a video on it:


----------



## billd91 (Mar 23, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> What I found interesting, was how the editor of this last version tried to bring the focus of the movie back on Bilbo. It wasn't just a matter of cutting down the movie to make it shorter, but also to improve the story telling. It should be Bilbo's story, but early into Battle of the Five Armies it seems Bilbo disappears from the movie almost entirely.



To be fair, in the Battle of Five Armies, he isn't much of a factor so he should disappear in the battle. But that does kind of heighten the filler-ness (filleriarity?) of so much of the action sequences and drawing attention away from Bilbo's story.


----------



## Hatmatter (Mar 23, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I have seen both a cut that brings it back to 2 movies, and even a cut that brings it down to 1 movie. The first focuses mostly on cutting out all the unnecessary cameos. So everything with Legolas and Gandalf, except for the scenes where Gandalf is actually in the book.
> 
> The other cut is even more harsh. It keeps most of the shire stuff and the songs, but it gets Bilbo on the road to adventure much quicker. Lake Town is cut down dramatically, with the side characters removed. It does keep Bard and his family. But the Master of Laketown and his annoying sidekick are gone almost entirely (Sorry Stephen Fry, you only get a brief cameo and thats it). Also, no Tauriel (Sorry Evangeline Lilly).
> 
> ...



Thank you!


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 23, 2021)

Morrus said:


> That’s always been a problem with the JLA. The comics and stuff get around it by making him the planner and the detective (and the rich one who provides the gear). In this, he is those things (though it being a superhero movie the plan isn’t exactly Oceans 11). But yeah in the action sequences the others are fighting the likes of Steppenwolf while he handles mooks.
> 
> So he has an important narrative role in the story, but not so much the big fights.



I think in Synders cut they promoted cyborg at the expense of Batman, because some of the planning and detective work gets shifted to Cyborg.

they also cut some of Batman’s “mentoring” moments. Example: In the Joss cut, an inexperienced Flash has an understandable freak out in his first real fight. Batman calms him down, and tells him “just save one”. And of course once Flash does that he gets in the rhythm and goes to work. Synders cut removes those elements, which removes another niche for Batman.


----------



## ART! (Mar 23, 2021)

It'd be nice to see a list of things in Whedon's cut that aren't in Snyder's, or vice versa. I'm sure someone is working on that even as I type this.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 23, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> I think in Synders cut they promoted cyborg at the expense of Batman, because some of the planning and detective work gets shifted to Cyborg.
> 
> they also cut some of Batman’s “mentoring” moments. Example: In the Joss cut, an inexperienced Flash has an understandable freak out in his first real fight. Batman calms him down, and tells him “just save one”. And of course once Flash does that he gets in the rhythm and goes to work. Synders cut removes those elements, which removes another niche for Batman.



Honestly, one of the most interesting things they could have done with Batman is watching him "step down". Basically pull an Alfred, and realize that in this battle of gods he has absolutely no place on the battlefield. And instead he returns to the batcave and calls the plays while the rest of the league executes.

It would be a controversial take of course, people want Batman to be BATMAN, but considering this is the "20 year gnarled veteran Batman", its a valid way to go.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 23, 2021)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, the editor is a relatively little known factor by the public but really important aspect of movie making. It can really make a movie great (Star Wars) or it can make a movie notoriously bad (Manos: The Hands of Fate - if you haven't seen this, its editing and pacing are *soooooooo* bad).



Literally nobody needs to see "Manos: Hands of Fate." It's absolutely horrible in a barely describable way. If you must, watch the MST3K show they did for it. Or just watch the film whose title was inspired by it (damned film students) "The Gamers: Hands of Fate."


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 23, 2021)

Finally saw it.  I find a good indicator on whether or not how much I enjoy a movie is by how fast time goes by when I'm watching.  For a four hour movie, time went by pretty fast.  Which stands to theory, as I enjoyed it much better than the first version.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 23, 2021)

So,waht are we talking about here? Editing movies? Synder's version of JL, folking just wanting to actually talk about talking?


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 23, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> So,waht are we talking about here? Editing movies? Synder's version of JL, folking just wanting to actually talk about talking?




I think all of the above. 

But I wonder if people will create their own cut of the Snyder cut, like they did with The Hobbit. Surely someone will be up to the task of making the Snyder cut shorter than 4 hours. Perhaps some scenes from Josh Whedon's cut will be reinserted?


----------



## ART! (Mar 23, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I think all of the above.
> 
> But I wonder if people will create their own cut of the Snyder cut, like they did with The Hobbit. Surely someone will be up to the task of making the Snyder cut shorter than 4 hours. Perhaps some scenes from Josh Whedon's cut will be reinserted?



This is pretty much inevitable, and I look forward to this kind of "ultimate cut". I think you could get a pretty tight 2:45 movie out of all this.

BTW, Flash realizing Superman can track him visually is still the best moment in either version of this movie! 

Also: I really love the visuals for Flash running (in both versions). I could do with a bit less time spent at slow-mo, but it's so graceful and dancer-like, practically not even running at all - more like skating or sliding - and how his arms aren't rigid and pumping but kind of "soft" and flowing. It's all a pretty cool re-imagining of how to portray it.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 23, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> But I wonder if people will create their own cut of the Snyder cut, like they did with The Hobbit. Surely someone will be up to the task of making the Snyder cut shorter than 4 hours. Perhaps some scenes from Josh Whedon's cut will be reinserted?



Yeah I personally think an insertion of about 30 minutes of the new material, and a few of the synder scenes swapped back to the Joss verions....would really give us the best of both worlds.


----------



## Hatmatter (Mar 23, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> So,waht are we talking about here? Editing movies? Synder's version of JL, folking just wanting to actually talk about talking?



I was writing about writing.


----------



## Hatmatter (Mar 23, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I think all of the above.
> 
> But I wonder if people will create their own cut of the Snyder cut, like they did with The Hobbit. Surely someone will be up to the task of making the Snyder cut shorter than 4 hours. Perhaps some scenes from Josh Whedon's cut will be reinserted?



I am sure it is happening as we speak, Imaculata!


----------



## Hatmatter (Mar 23, 2021)

ART! said:


> This is pretty much inevitable, and I look forward to this kind of "ultimate cut". I think you could get a pretty tight 2:45 movie out of all this.
> 
> BTW, Flash realizing Superman can track him visually is still the best moment in either version of this movie!
> 
> Also: I really love the visuals for Flash running (in both versions). I could do with a bit less time spent at slow-mo, but it's so graceful and dancer-like, practically not even running at all - more like skating or sliding - and how his arms aren't rigid and pumping but kind of "soft" and flowing. It's all a pretty cool re-imagining of how to portray it.



I agree. It looks (and works) terrifically.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 23, 2021)

Hatmatter said:


> I am sure it is happening as we speak, Imaculata!



Maybe someone should give Topher Grace an email?


----------



## Rabulias (Mar 24, 2021)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, the editor is a relatively little known factor by the public but really important aspect of movie making. It can really make a movie great (Star Wars) or it can make a movie notoriously bad (Manos: The Hands of Fate - if you haven't seen this, its editing and pacing are *soooooooo* bad).



_Manos: The Hand of Fate _is not a good example here, as just about _everything _about it was bad. You want to find a film that has the potential to be good, but the poor editing drags it down. Editing might be the _least _of_ Manos_' sins...


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 24, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> I think in Synders cut they promoted cyborg at the expense of Batman, because some of the planning and detective work gets shifted to Cyborg.
> 
> they also cut some of Batman’s “mentoring” moments. Example: In the Joss cut, an inexperienced Flash has an understandable freak out in his first real fight. Batman calms him down, and tells him “just save one”. And of course once Flash does that he gets in the rhythm and goes to work. Synders cut removes those elements, which removes another niche for Batman.




Yes! that was one of the most glaring differences to me and one of the two scenes I think Whedon did better
1 Cyborgs introduction gradually learning his powers instead of taperecorder exposition dump (which I mentioned earlier) AND
2 “the just save one” scene. The Whedon scene both showed The Flash’s iconic save the crowd motif _and_ that as a hero Batman is High Wisdom, physically he cant compete with Supes or WW, and he doesnt have the knowledge of Cyborg but He does have Wisdom, Planning, Tactics and Will to achieve what he needs to do.
The saddest scene in Snyders cut was Cyborg slowly carrying the scientist out and the Flash being largely irrelevant to it


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 24, 2021)

In the topic of only saying positive things... my wife and I discuss this often. If a product is bad, and no one says so, others will buy it....I don't think saying you don't like something is wrong, I think you just have to say it in a helpful way. 

As for the hobbit movies, they made me sad.  I don't know if I'll ever see this movie.....


----------



## billd91 (Mar 24, 2021)

Rabulias said:


> _Manos: The Hand of Fate _is not a good example here, as just about _everything _about it was bad. You want to find a film that has the potential to be good, but the poor editing drags it down. Editing might be the _least _of_ Manos_' sins...



On that, I disagree. The pacing of Manos is a master study in how bad editing can be.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 24, 2021)

billd91 said:


> On that, I disagree. The pacing of Manos is a master study in how bad editing can be.



... and casting... and writing... and lighting... and foley...


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 24, 2021)

There are bad films, where with the right editing a good movie can be found underneath. As word has it, the first cut of Star Wars was pretty terrible. But some solid editing can fix a lot... but not everything. A terrible movie will remain a terrible movie, no matter how good the editing.

Could Manos be a good movie with some good editing?

I haven't seen Manos the Hand of Fate, but I have seen Tommy Wiseau's The Room. The Room has plenty of filler that could be cut to make the movie better. But then you're left with a movie that is shorter than it already is, and there's no cutting around the bad acting and Tommy's terrible accent.

Justice League arguably had the potential to be good. Jack Snyder's style of storytelling and directing may not be to everyone's liking, but it didn't need to be as bad as it was when released in theaters. However in the case of Justice League, it wasn't just a matter of editing; the movie was left unfinished, and the studio hastily shot new footage to get it done. 

It is unheard of for a director to be given the freedom to re-edit and reshoot a movie that had already been released, and then make it 4 hours long. Just think of all the work that is being thrown away in the process of making this new version. The actors are probably glad to see Snyder's original vision restored (since Justice League was critically panned by critics and viewers), but I would not be surprised if they had mixed feelings about a lot of their hard work now ending up on the cutting room floor. Not to mention the hard work of CGI artists being thrown away. That is a lot of money being burned.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 24, 2021)




----------



## trappedslider (Mar 24, 2021)

‘Zack Snyder’s Justice League’ Ranks Behind ‘Wonder Woman 1984’ In HBO Max Households


----------



## BRayne (Mar 25, 2021)

Of all the 4 hour, 6 chapter movies I watched this week. It's the second best.


----------



## Marc_C (Mar 25, 2021)

My wife said the first version was boring and didn't want to watch the 4 hour extended version.
After watching it I told my she was wrong. It wasn't 'boring'... (insert slow mo) it was 'borrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiinnngg'

She loves me more when I make her laugh! (and she is right at the same time).


----------



## Older Beholder (Mar 26, 2021)

I gotta admit, I'm interested in seeing the black and white version.
Without HBO Max though, no idea when I'll get the chance.
It's more a curiosity factor for me at this point. The original cut was clearly mixing scenes and felt very unfinished. 
Generally I don't like the idea of directors cuts, but I think this was a pretty unique case and warranted. (although the campaign of abuse and harassment that it took to get made wasn't)

Other director/movie cuts I'd be into....

'Solo': the Lord/Miller cut
'Fan4stic': the Josh Trank cut (This is probably the least likely thing we'll ever see)


----------



## Mallus (Mar 26, 2021)

My dream director's cut: Lynch's Dune.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 26, 2021)

ModestModernist said:


> I gotta admit, I'm interested in seeing the black and white version.



Can't you just turn down the colour on your TV?


----------



## Older Beholder (Mar 26, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Can't you just turn down the colour on your TV?




It‘s worth a try.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 26, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Can't you just turn down the colour on your TV?



Thats how they got Whedon red sky innit?


----------



## Imaculata (Mar 29, 2021)

So, it seems there's been another glitch in the Matrix. 

Just as we were discussing director's cuts in this thread, and Mrs Doubtfire in another thread, word gets out that apparently there's an R-rated cut of Mrs Doubtfire that exists. One in which Robin Williams improvizes and says things that are absolutely not PG!

_"According to the filmmaker, Williams -- who portrayed both Daniel Hillard and his alter ego, British matriarch Euphegenia Doubtfire -- would do "one or two, three scripted takes. And then he would say, 'Then let me play.'"
Columbus recalled doing "anywhere between 15 to 22 takes."
"He (Williams) would sometimes go into territory that wouldn't be appropriate for a PG-13 movie, but certainly appropriate and hilariously funny for an R-rated film."_

Unfortunately it seems an R-rated cut is not going to be released, as Columbus has stated that the version that everyone saw is the definitive cut of the film. However:

_"I would be open to maybe doing a documentary about the making of the film and enabling people to see certain scenes re-edited in an R-rated version," Columbus said. "I think that would be the best approach."_


----------



## Retreater (Apr 4, 2021)

My wife and I finally started it last night. It was a struggle to make it the first hour into the film, and I had to take a break. My initial impression: slow pacing, irrelevant scenes, and so far, completely a trite retread of other superhero films. I'll try to watch the rest of it and see how it goes.


----------



## cmad1977 (Apr 5, 2021)

I mean.... it’s fine. I think it treats WW better even if she’s a more ancillary character in this movie. In general it seems more consistent in tone. Less... goofy?

Ultimately I’m convinced that Warner Brothers saw what the MCU was doing and felt like they needed to “catch up” for some reason. The emotional payoff/tension involved in the epic stakes of Justice League just haven’t been earned in the same way. IMO the DC movies would be better if they just followed their own path in their own time.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 5, 2021)

cmad1977 said:


> Ultimately I’m convinced that Warner Brothers saw what the MCU was doing and felt like they needed to “catch up” for some reason.



To be fair, they are not wrong. When your main competitor is churning out one billion dollar movie after another (not to mention the tv shows, merchandising, etc etc), you can't help but go "holy crap, we have to get in on this!!!"

Marvel changed the paradigm and uncovered a new gold mine, and a lot of people were caught scrambling trying to get a piece of it. Now I agree with you at the end of the day, Justice League would never work like avengers without the initial lead up movies....we like Avengers because we organically grew with this characters. But I don't blame the DCU execs from trying to catch the comet as fast as they could, you can't leave billions of dollars on the table with no challenge.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 6, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> To be fair, they are not wrong. When your main competitor is churning out one billion dollar movie after another (not to mention the tv shows, merchandising, etc etc), you can't help but go "holy crap, we have to get in on this!!!"
> 
> Marvel changed the paradigm and uncovered a new gold mine, and a lot of people were caught scrambling trying to get a piece of it. Now I agree with you at the end of the day, Justice League would never work like avengers without the initial lead up movies....we like Avengers because we organically grew with this characters. But I don't blame the DCU execs from trying to catch the comet as fast as they could, you can't leave billions of dollars on the table with no challenge.



I disagree with some of that. Yes, the DCU execs thought they had to catch the comet as fast as they could, but they've taken a lot of flak for it that they may have avoided by not rushing things and building up a bit more organically. It's possible they feel that the bottom could drop out on super hero movies at any time - and maybe that's true, and then maybe it's true that we'd get tired of the same characters and injecting DC's characters as Marvels' are waning would be the winning play. 
The fact is - neither of us, the fans debating the issues nor the DCU execs know what's going to happen in the market. They made their play and got dragged over some coals for it. They've got some good anchor franchises started with Shazam and Wonder Woman. Aquaman wasn't bad. They should figure out how to reinforce those successes and develop into a better cinematic universe.


----------



## Tonguez (Apr 6, 2021)

billd91 said:


> I disagree with some of that. Yes, the DCU execs thought they had to catch the comet as fast as they could, but they've taken a lot of flak for it that they may have avoided by not rushing things and building up a bit more organically. It's possible they feel that the bottom could drop out on super hero movies at any time - and maybe that's true, and then maybe it's true that we'd get tired of the same characters and injecting DC's characters as Marvels' are waning would be the winning play.
> The fact is - neither of us, the fans debating the issues nor the DCU execs know what's going to happen in the market. They made their play and got dragged over some coals for it. They've got some good anchor franchises started with Shazam and Wonder Woman. Aquaman wasn't bad. They should figure out how to reinforce those successes and develop into a better cinematic universe.




At this point I think that WB and DC should abandoned the shared cinematic universe format and instead go with the Worlds of DC brand, a series of Elseworld tales that allows each story arc to stand alone (including sequels) with only vague overlaps when needed.

The Joker Movie showed that it can be done and it gives WB more flexibility to catch the zeitgesit without having to catch the MCU.


----------



## Imaculata (Apr 6, 2021)

Their goal should be to make good movies, not to launch a million dollar cinematic universe. Marvel planned out the story for each of the characters carefully, so that each movie references events from previous movies, even when switching to a new character. Iron Man 3 for example, is all about Tony's trauma from the events during The Avengers. But Tony doesn't become a different character in Captain America Civil War, or the next Avengers film. These movies can stand on their own, but they also all follow the same canon.

In comparison, did Justice League acknowledge any of the events from Wonder Woman 84? No, it didn't. It acted like Diana had abandoned the world for decades and never gotten over her lost lover. If you're going to put these characters in a movie together, they have to still be the same characters canonically. Otherwise you get just a giant mess. 

Remember how Universal tried and failed to launch their dark universe with the Tom Cruise lead The Mummy movie? Yeah, that project was dead on arrival, because The Mummy was such a stinker. They had dozens of other Universal monsters cast already! Guess all that is in the trashcan now. I wonder if contracts had already been signed?

DC should just focus on making good movies based on their properties. Their 2nd attempt at a Suicide Squad movie is clever, because Margot Robbie is great as Harley Quinn, and that property has potential if done right. Letting James Gunn have a go at it was the right thing to do. Lets hope it will make us all forget the first movie.

And if it IS a success, then they should spin off some of the characters into their own movies, before making a Suicide Squad 2.

Are they still obligated by contract to give Jared Leto his own Joker movie? I hope not.


----------



## Ryujin (Apr 6, 2021)

I'd be quite happy if they just stopped giving Leto roles, period.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 6, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Their goal should be to make good movies, not to launch a million dollar cinematic universe. Marvel planned out the story for each of the characters carefully, so that each movie references events from previous movies, even when switching to a new character. Iron Man 3 for example, is all about Tony's trauma from the events during The Avengers. But Tony doesn't become a different character in Captain America Civil War, or the next Avengers film. These movies can stand on their own, but they also all follow the same canon.



So funny enough, Marvel is actually not as on the ball as people think plotwise. An easy example, in Age of Ultron we see Iron Man fighting alongside the other avengers, awesome opener! Just one small problem, Tony is retired! He hung up the armor, he was done. But in Age of Ultron he's right back into it, no explanation.

However, where you are right, and in my opinion the most important part of the argument....is that the *characters *are consistent, even when the plot is not. And when they change...you understand why they changed. Thor is a very different character between Thor 1 and 2....because Thor 1 both softened him up and taught him greater responsibility. Iron Man goes from playboy to the "man on the wire" because of the events of the movies. But otherwise the characters remain who they are movie to movie.

Even when the plot goes a little wonky (another fun fact, Thanos was not intended for the main villain, Marvel didn't even have a main villain in mind when they made the first series of movies. Joss Wedon put in the Thanos cameo, and the rest was history), the characters see you through. And that is something I think DC dropped the ball on. Of there main 3 (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman), only WW really showed her character in her first movie, and thats one of the reasons everyone like it so much.


----------



## Rabulias (Apr 6, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> So funny enough, Marvel is actually not as on the ball as people think plotwise. An easy example, in Age of Ultron we see Iron Man fighting alongside the other avengers, awesome opener! Just one small problem, Tony is retired! He hung up the armor, he was done. But in Age of Ultron he's right back into it, no explanation.



They kinda address this after the fact with a few lines in _Captain America: Civil War_, when Tony tells Cap that he gave up Iron Man for Pepper, but could not really give it all up, so he started again, and now he and Pepper are taking a break from each other.


----------



## Tonguez (Apr 6, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> So funny enough, Marvel is actually not as on the ball as people think plotwise. An easy example, in Age of Ultron we see Iron Man fighting alongside the other avengers, awesome opener! Just one small problem, Tony is retired! He hung up the armor, he was done. But in Age of Ultron he's right back into it, no explanation.




um you seem to be forgetting that Ultron was suppose to be Tonys retirement plan - created as a mechanism for global defence so Tony and the others didnt have to. When that plan failed, Iron Man had to be brought back to fix the problem he had created and it is addressed that Pepper isnt happy with that decision.
I came to realise just last year that the entire Avengers Arc is essentially Tony Starks story, he is the throughline who begins the story as self absorbed warmonger, does the heroes journey, then ends the arc as selfless hero. he impacts everyone and has the biggest transformation and launches the new post blip era.
.
DC has not been able to maintain the same through line, even though it appears Snyder had intended Superman to be the central link. Marvel mastered the principal of show not tell - portraying character personality through their actions, DC hasnt even got a good handle on what their character personalities are and relies on telling the audience what they should think about their symbols instead


----------



## wicked cool (Apr 13, 2021)

Finally watched it (over 2 nights). Was excellent. Far superior to the original cut which I never finished 

the comparison to the Dracula/mummy movie isn't fair. Those movies are just bad movies. However the invisible man works and the best invisible man movie I have ever seen. the invisible man has tension drama etc while the mummy is more action leads to more action and no real horror 

The Snyder cut ending begs for a sequel. I cant spoil much I would be first in line  (it take a a lot for me to even think that ) to see the ending spun into something by Snyder.  I can see why Leto shows such promise as a joker (hints of Jim carrey craziness)


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Apr 20, 2021)

So I watched it ... in one sitting ... this past weekend.

Let me start by saying that I am not a huge fan of the Snyder. I do make fun of him on occasion. I think that _300 _was good for its time, but that since then he has had a tendency to go back to the same well of directing tricks and tics with diminishing returns. 

He's like Wes Anderson, except instead of twee and intellectual, he's more proto-fascist, and color-desaturated and ... so ... much ... slow .... mo .... and .... excruciatingly on-the-nose imagery. "Really, Superman flies up and lifts his arm in a t-shape? What could that possibly represent?"

_ahem_

That said, I truly enjoyed this. Look, this was never going to be the theatrical release (four hours??!!??!). And as much as the Whedon cut (the final version) pales in comparison, he had to struggle with using a lot of Snyder's footage, re-purposing it while shooting new scenes (and living up to WB's demands that it be funnier, more Marvel-like, etc.), and creating a streamlined cut that you could actually release in theaters.*

But this was really good. I am reminded of _BvS_; I never saw it in theaters, and by the time I saw it, I watched the extended version, which was fine (it wasn't great... it still had the "Martha" moment). But the additional material actually solved a few of the problems with the theatrical cut, so I would have these conversations with people who only saw the theatrical cut and hated it, and kept getting confused because the problems that they had were no longer there. 

But watching this cut of _Justice League_ also made me sad, because this is likely it. Yes, it was indulgent- but Martian Manhunter? The weird post-apocalyptic (Darkseid) world with Batman and the Joker? The extended scenes with Flash and Cyborg? There was just a lot of really good stuff in here that I really enjoyed watching. 

The greatest sin of Snyder is that he can take himself (and his subject matter) too seriously at times; but it was also incredibly refreshing to see someone actually take the genre, well, seriously.  


*I am not addressing the other issues that have come to light w/r/t Whedon's time on the set.


----------

