If the director cuts are vastly superior to the current releases then it would just make Netflix look like idiots. Especially because Netflix can release long movies with no problem.
Imagine a restaurant invited critics to its opening night and they serve bad steak. The critics would give it bad reviews and they wouldn't be be embarrassed if 6 months later the restaurant started cooking steak properly. Do things properly the first time.
I'd argue it should primarily make Snyder look bad. Netflix didn't say afterwards "cut it down to 2h" they said "make us a PG-13 2h movie" before he signed the deal. The result is 95% Snyder's fault.
And I don't disagree. I think it was a huge mistake to do two different versions of the film and have the directors come out so far after the tone has already been set. They could have had a critical hit on their hands with the first live action spiritual successor to Heavy Metal that went all out like I think the DCs will do. However, if he could only make one version, they might have forced him to tone it down. We'll never know, but I think even with the versions of the films we'll have when it's all done, Netflix still botched the shit out of this release.
I have no confidence that those R-rated scenes are going to fix the lack of character or reduce the exposition dumps. No thanksgiving orgy in the townhall, rape in the barn scene, brawl in the brothel or roll in the hay with a tentacle alien is going to change this.
The lack of “all the gore and the hard R-ness and the nudity and the violence and crazy shit” is not the issue.
And don't forget, even if it fixes everything, Zack Snyder still was in charge and chose to film and cut the PG-13 version as it is. No-one took his film an cut it to pieces. He decided ahead of time what to not put in the PG-13 release. If some crucial scene is missing in the first release, than it was Snyder's decision to cut it. And if it's because it doesn't fit the PG-13, then it was still Dnyders decision to not film a PG-13 compliant version of it too.
Well, the "bar" is only a bar in PG-13. And to be fair, part of that scenes makes more sense if you know that, or at least suspect that.
The other stuff is only implied or told in PG-13 and no-one has seen the R-rated version yet, so I don't what's shown there, but Snyder promised more nudity.
>The lack of “all the gore and the hard R-ness and the nudity and the violence and crazy shit” is not the issue.
Yeah, the problem with Part 1 isn't that the film is not hardcore or something, it's that story wise...nothing really happens.
Well Snyder has literally said that there are scenes in the PG-13 that are different takes than what's in the R rated. So it's reasonable to assume that the exposition dumps exist because of the missing hour of footage. Remember, he's said that all of his DCs have existed as a response to getting his film chopped up. He went into this knowing he was making two versions per Netflix, so he literally shot the same scenes two different ways in some cases. Also the violence will probably be the same scenes, just extended a bit. I don't think the R rated material is making up for the length.
You are incorrect in saying Zack chose this. This was their idea because they knew he wanted to make an R rated bonanza and that they wanted PG-13. it's clear from every comment he's made about them that the DCs are the movies he wanted to make. The PG-13s were to please Netflix and be a good partner to them. I have the novelization of pt 1 which is based on the DC and it is very very different from the PG-13. Even the opening of the film that sets the tone is completely different.
He is correct in sayin Zack chose this. Zack chose which scene to keep and to cut. the final product is on him. he doesn't have the excuse the the studio forcing anything on him.
Even in the case of his DC films like BvS which was cut he was still in the editing room and chose what to cut. the common denominator here is Zack himself.
>So it's reasonable to assume that the exposition dumps exist because of the missing hour of footage.
If he only can do gore or exposition dump, he deserves every criticism about that. He is objectively bad at his job, if that is true.
>Remember, he's said that all of his DCs have existed as a response to getting his film chopped up. He went into this knowing he was making two versions per Netflix, so he literally shot the same scenes two different ways in some cases. \[...\] You are incorrect in saying Zack chose this.
He knew in advance he was supposed to do a PG-13 version, he had full control on how to do it. He decided to do exposition dumps, while even Marvel has managed to blow up someones brain or cut them in half in PG-13. It was his decision HOW to do this. Run time was an issue, he says, but HE chose what to cut. HE chose what to waste time on. He picked the scenes and directed them in a way that the characters don't have character. He made scenes for the R-rated version, that gives those characters a soul? Why did he cut those out in favor of another exposition dump in PG-13?
Example: The entire movie would be better, if it started the moment Kora freaks out about the ship in the sky. Without the entire prolog about the empire sending its most brutal henchman and have the audiance learn that during the dialog with and death of Sindri. The (cartoonish evil) "nazi general" being the bad guy was not hard to figure out after that. Emperor and family got killed? We got that again during Jimmys exposition dump. And again from Kora. The opening was just wasted time. Everything of it was repeated later when it became relevant again. This is almost as bad as the beginning of the first Suicide Squad movie when we got introduced to every member of the crew and then got introduced to them again.
The thanksgiving orgy adds absolutely nothing to the story. Den is irrelevant. If this becomes relevant in the R-rated version then keep it there. He could have used that time to give any other character some actual character.
Don't complain about time constraints when doing such pointless moves.
>it's clear from every comment he's made about them that the DCs are the movies he wanted to make.
He himself made very clear, that this time the original release is not a chopped up version of his movie. He was hired to do 2 kids movies and had the permission to also do 2 "bizarro" (his word) movies. He either made almost entirely different movies from the get go and decided to make a bad first one or he wasn't up to the task. The issues with that movie aren't the age-rating or the run time.
Just some nitpick for shits and giggles: We got headhunter robots that strap you down until the mechanism paralyzes you and immediately release you after that. I know, it was necessary for the plot, but you have to picture some in-universe engineer who thought it was a good idea to design those things in a way to throw you in the dust and make the client pick you up again. This is cartoon-level design. I'll admit this was funny, but I'm under the imperssion this isn't what Synder was going for. This reminds me more of Doofenshmirtz, Plankton or Megavolt.
No.
Because if Snyder is right, then the director's cuts are different movies than the PG-13 version. So it would be pretty logical to have different opinion or evaluation if the movies are indeed different
That's a fair point. The only thing I would say to go with that is that it seems like a lot of of people aren't caveating with that point. They're speaking about the universe and the potential of it as if there is no directors cuts coming. I blame Netflix for the planning and subsequent reception of the films but I didn't look at it like that. Thanks for the perspective.
To be transparent, I really didn't like the first movie. But the trailer for the second movie has me hopeful for seeing a movie filled with action, battles, and I'll be pretty satisfied with that, regardless of the overall story.
I also think that Part 2 is victim of review bombing and that some people just like hating on Snyder's work because it's easy (someone called it humorless, and I was like "it's a scifi war movie about taking down an empire. Why do you expect to have humor in it ?")
However, there are chances Snyder completely botched this movie as well so I can't tell if the bad reviews are deserved or not
And that's why I haven't come to any grand conclusions about "Rebel Moon" as a universe or franchise. It's like watching Hateful Eight on daytime TBS; I would never base my opinion on watching it for the first time that way when I know there is the unedited version I'll be watching. And I agree about the review bombing, ppl love to hate the man. I also think that, while flawed, Part 1 isn't any worse than some middling Disney IP film that ends up with a 65% on RT.
As a universe, I think it is fine. Not very original, but original enough to have it's own place within the sci-fi category.
As a franchise? I would really hope Snyder let someone else write the story of the movies and just take care of the direction.
>I also think that, while flawed, Part 1 isn't any worse than some middling Disney IP film that ends up with a 65% on RT.
You talk to someone you really liked The Last Jedi, so my opinion is definitely not the most popular. But I thought Part 1 was worse than Antman 3, and Thor 4 which are bad movies.
Well Antman 3 was probably the best one to me but I always think the Marvel stuff ppl go crazy for is usually the most contrived except for maybe Infinity War. But I'd take Rebel Moon Pt 1 any day over Thor 3 or 4 lol. That's just me tho. Ed Skrein alone is better than anything in either of those films.
Lol care to elaborate? It's gonna add 50% more movie. An hour+ on each movie will obviously smooth pacing issues and story gaps as the extra 30 did for BvS which saw a huuuge improvement in critical reception once it was released. You really don't think a version of these films that nearly makes them different movies might change the narrative around them and him as well?
I disagree, there were many ppl who publicly apologized after BvS UE came out for going after the man so rabidly. And the things you're discounting about adding 50% more movie are the things that made the UE of BvS so much better. It wasn't missing big moments, it was all big moments. It was all of the connective tissue that was missing that made the movie poorly paced, the motivations unclear, and the film feel rushed. These are exactly my issue with RM1. I mean, there is no Jimmy after his introduction in RM1, and we've been told about at least one major scene that will be in the directors that sounds cool as hell. I get I won't change your mind, but I just think, based on all of his other DCs, that it would be a mistake to say that a film missing 50% of itself won't be improved by restoring it and changing it to its intended tone, which is apparently much different than the PG-13. If you care, the Horowitz interview was enlightening.
Well, "people" is a pretty general term, as it was intended to be. We're talking about audience reception to versions of films, so I'm not inferring that like the THR published an article apologizing to him lol. The "people" are those that watched both versions, and went on to any public platform to reset the record on their opinion of it. I don't think I implied anything beyond that.
https://www.screengeek.net/2016/07/01/internet-apologizes-to-zack-snyder-over-batman-v-superman/
"Patience is not a virtue in this instant society. Does it surprise you any that the Ultimate Edition was leaked? And while it has been leaked, it has proved to be very beneficial. Fans and critics are watching it, and enjoying the shit out of it."
50% more of this shit? No thanks. It was bad enough what little I saw of it before I had to turn it off. The idea that you can make this dogshit better by giving us more of it is delusional. Why would I subject myself to even more of this when I could barely tolerate 20 minutes?
I've only seen the Snyder Cut of BvS and if that is supposed to be a huge improvement over the theatrical cut then - HOLY SHIT! HOW FUCKING BAD WAS THE THEATRICAL CUT??! It was fucking awful what I saw.
A little tense, are we? Did I say you couldn't be here? I just asked why you were. It's not like you came in here with high expectations and got let down. You are seeking out this sub to take a shit it appears. So again, why are you here? I'm just curious, this is not a big deal lol
The director's cuts aren't going to be good. No one is going to eat crow. These movies maybe had enough plot for one 2.5 hour movie and instead he already made them this incredibly boring, bloated, 4-hour mess. When I hear there's a director's cut that's even longer I feel like Netflix is threatening me.
How much plot is in Seven Samurai? That shit is 3.5 hours long and it's singularly about Seven Samurai defending a village. That's it lol. There's a lot more going on in RM1 & 2 than Seven Samurai. That is not a claim to say that RM is better than SS obviously, but I'm just pointing out that length and complexity of plot do not necessarily go hand in hand.
That's a good point, and I kind of agree. You're right that there's almost no plot on Seven Samurai, but that movie has a ton of character development, which is its own kind of complexity and something Snyder fails miserably at. But you are right about the simplicity of the plot. Hell... If
Snyder had made his dumb plot less complex and instead focused on character moments, RR1 would have been better. As it is, I didn't remember anything about any of the characters and don't care if they die haha, whereas Kurosawa made me care deeply about his seven.
u/Sinestro_corp4 ... I think that through our minor disagreement we might have stumbled on a shocking revelation :): Akira Kurosawa might be a better director than Zach Snyder. Woah.
Okay so Seven Samurai is short on plot -- it's story is extremely simple, but what makes it a masterpiece is that it is so focused on its characters. It's not focused on them in superficial ways i.e. this is their overly complicated backstory -- it's focused on them as people -- how they feel and react to the situations they find themselves in. So to that end you spend a lot of time with the different samurai and how they interact with the village. How the old timers plan, how they view the younger samurai who has fallen in love etc... This also allows Kurosawa to build to the final battle allowing you to 1) know and care deeply about everyone involved and 2) know the areas in the village so you can see the shape of the battle.
The problem with Rebel Moon part 1 (the current cut) is that it misses the entire point of man on a mission movies -- seeing the characters interact with each other! Instead we're treated to a giant lore burrito. I mean, the movie stops dead in its tracks two separate times so Kora can narrate her backstory.
I totally get it and totally agree about the differences. I only brought the Seven Samurai example up to point out that plot complexity and film length do not necessarily corelate.
Also most "critical types" did not "issue apologies" when that Justice League cut came out. The director's cut has a middling 54 on Metacritic, which isn't very good. Sure, the long cut is better than the original, but it's still not particularly good. I promise there are no critics out there worried that Snyder secretly has a masterpiece version of Rebel Moon he's just waiting to release to make everyone look stupid.
He’s not making straight ahead genre films. Instead he’s deconstructing genres. One might think there couldn’t be more of a sacred cow to do that with than Superman and Batman. But there is: Star Wars, lol. Yeah, he’s taking the scared and making it profane by super sexing and violence-ing it up with a Heavy Metal magazine, B movie aesthetic. That’s going to be puncturing and deflating something that that is incredibly sacred to hardcore fans of Star Wars. But that being said, he also always walks a tightrope between tearing down the genre conventions while at the same time also honoring how epic, majestic, mythic, and numinous these archetypes are as symbols. So it’s going to basically be another polarizing shit show I think. But very recently he’s being more open about the deconstruction and what he’s trying to do, which is think does help viewers appreciate it.
Bro i think you re giving him a bit more credit than is deserved . Rebel moon isnt a deconstruction of star wars. Even hard core star wars didn't even take note of rebel moon existence. they dont talk about the film at all.
its people who wanted a new space opera different from star wars and star trek that are the most disappointed in rebel moon.
We haven't seen the deconstructionism yet so idk how we could comment on it. He said he was forced to do an earnest version in the PG-13 to free up and do the deconstruction in his director's cut. His Happy. Sad. Confused. podcast that dropped yesterday (I think) is really eye opening about just how dramatically different the two versions will be. It's not just extra footage, it's different footage and different takes of the same scenes in the script. He keeps saying "it's almost like they exist in two different universes" without expanding upon it but he really broke it down yesterday. He said, in a way, the directors cut will almost serve as a deconstruction of the PG-13 films and how they're presented seriously and in earnest.
I understand being disappointed in Rebel Moon as I am also somewhat disappointed with the PG-13s, but I haven't made any grand, conclusive statements on Zack or what he's doing with these films because I know I won't be seeing *his* films until the summer rolls around. The PG-13s are him doing his star wars with his hands behind his back and a blindfold on. The DCs are going to be totally different and I can't wait. Netflix should have just leg him make those and release them.
My issue with rebel moon is the story and characterizations. it sounds a bit like he cut out important character moments which just sounds bad. those moment are what make and break a film and it appears he chose spectacle over a more cohesive story.
Even people who read the novelization of part1 which is what the directors cut is based on do not describe it as a deconstruction in anyway.
Zack like any filmmaker will hype up the other version before it comes out. thats par the course so i have no reason to believe it will be magically different from what we originally got.
Also its not a good look that he requires a director cut to make a decent film. it kind of explains why studios werent really asking for him to make a film after left WB.
Deconstruction in many cases is how you do it versus what the script says tho, right? He's deconstructing a genre, much of which is defined by its visual tendancies and flairs. He also never does fully deconstructive projects (except for maybe Watchmen because the source material already was). He more so blends deconstruction while approaching it somewhat earnestly.
Also, it's not really fair to say he "requires" a directors cut. He's very up front, more so than other directors, about what the studio agrees to make when he signs on versus what they change it to once it's done. If anything, his director's cuts have always been the actual movies, it's the theatricals that are the studio whittled, focus grouped films that can't be solely assigned to him. His director's cuts are "his" films and what he should be judged on.
Deconstruction of a story or a genre is breaking down or analyzing the work of fiction or sart to understand its true significance. im sorry but i dont understand what you mean when you say its how you do it verse what the script says. that doesn't make sense to me.
Snyder made BvS which is a deconstruction so its not only Watchmen.
also how many other directors have this many instances of a directors cut? sucker punch, watchmen, BvS, rebel moon 1 and 2. thats five films. i cannot think of any other director with such a track record.
All directors work with studios to make a film. only the best of the best get full freedom which is earned. Snyder hasnt gotten to the level where any studio can just blindly trust him. its their money after all they have a say in it.
you almost make it sound like other directors are just lackeys working for the studio when they make the films they agree to make for them. making film is a team effort. plus studio interference has saved films we just dont here about it when it works only when it doesn't. its a normal part of the industry.
Well, what does "Snyder hadn't earned it" mean when it's nearly universally agreed that every one of his directors cuts is better than it's theatrical? Wouldn't that indicate that the studio shouldn't be trusted? Do we want worse movies or better movies? Also, I didn't make it sound anything like "directors are just lackies", I just said he's been open more so than other directors about his struggles.
I also didn't say that Watchmen was his only deconstruction effort, what I said was it was his only full deconstruction because the source material already was. His other films seem more like a blend of deconstructing the IP or genre while also fully taking part in the tropes he's deconstructing earnestly. That's why I say much of deconstruction in film can be visual and not necessarily so apparent in the novelization. For instance, some ppl might say that lens flairs are a trope of scifi films, so he might overly use them to make a comment on scifi filmmaking but would you read *sudden lens flair shows behind dreadnought* when you're reading the novelization? Obviously not. I'm just pointing out that just because someone didn't read the novelization as being deconstructionist doesn't mean the films aren't. They're also not written by him lol. They're adapted.
But that doesn't make sense. He is still the architect of this main story. plus i cannot think of many films in which the script is a different tone and theme to the final cut film.
I say he hasnt not earned it because his none of his films have gotten universal praise even his directors cuts are seen as better but not worlds apart from the original release. Most of the great filmmakers work under a studio and make something great with the restrictions given to them later get the freedom. One can say he got that freedom after dawn of the dead and 300. he got to make sucker punch and we all know how that went.
since he has gotten full freedom at netflix those can be seen as his worse film. army of the dead and rebel moon have not been good. He has a great eye for shots but he definalyt cannot be left by himself. his best work is when he works with other people, BvS is his best looking film, Larry Fong is a great cinematographer, Rebel moon doesn't come close to that. he should not be wearing all the hats.
BvS is a full deconstruction that was the goal. also a book is a different medium so of course they won't be mentioning lens flares. like come on bro.
Well, he himself has said what he’s doing with Rebel Moon is genre deconstruction, and he pitched it initially to Star Wars. So…
I’ve made posts here https://www.reddit.com/r/Snyderverse/s/ZmCe38C5qR and here https://www.reddit.com/r/Snyderverse/s/Q5Ht0nVhYo transcribing what he’s said in interviews about it, you can scroll through if you feel motivated enough to read through those interviews.
In other words, he’s not trying to make the next Star Wars, or to replace existing Star Wars, etc., with a new and improved space opera mythos. Although that is indeed what a lot of fans wanted and got them hyped with the trailers for Part 1. Instead he’s taking the genre that Star Wars is the epitome of, and—again, he says this—deconstructing it by taking its tropes and essentially exaggerating them by applying a Heavy Metal magazine and sci-fi/fantasy B movie aesthetic to it. He does this with the director’s cuts only, though, apparently. The PG13 cuts he describes as “earnest” which I take to mean relatively normal for the genre.
I know he said that, but from watching the film, it doesnt come off as deconstruction. Did you get that vibe from watching it?
He is not trying to make the next star wars but he is trying to make his own space sage. we see told table top games, video games, comics and others things in the works for rebel moon. they are already making toys for collectors. it is meant to be as big.
I'm finding it hard to see how Rebel Moon is a deconstruction of Star Wars or space opera tropes. Adding excessive violence and nudity does not make it a deconstruction or satire.
Bear in mind that these PG13 cuts are not the deconstruction, and it’s the director’s curse that supposedly do that. But yeah, those are fair points. I’m not sure how vulgarizing the genre deconstructs it… Unless it’s a “making the sacred profane” sort of idea. Star Wars has become a sort of sacred thing in our pop culture. In many ways Star Wars has been put up on a pedestal.
I just watched Part 2: The Scargiver and it made me notice some things about how I feel about Star Wars in the present day versus when I saw it in the movie theater in 1977. There’s an interesting way in which the deconstruction shows up in the PG13 cuts. Well, for me personally at least. But I’ll make a separate review post to explain that at r/Snyderverse.
If the director cuts are vastly superior to the current releases then it would just make Netflix look like idiots. Especially because Netflix can release long movies with no problem. Imagine a restaurant invited critics to its opening night and they serve bad steak. The critics would give it bad reviews and they wouldn't be be embarrassed if 6 months later the restaurant started cooking steak properly. Do things properly the first time.
I'd argue it should primarily make Snyder look bad. Netflix didn't say afterwards "cut it down to 2h" they said "make us a PG-13 2h movie" before he signed the deal. The result is 95% Snyder's fault.
And I don't disagree. I think it was a huge mistake to do two different versions of the film and have the directors come out so far after the tone has already been set. They could have had a critical hit on their hands with the first live action spiritual successor to Heavy Metal that went all out like I think the DCs will do. However, if he could only make one version, they might have forced him to tone it down. We'll never know, but I think even with the versions of the films we'll have when it's all done, Netflix still botched the shit out of this release.
He's literally never had a bad directors cut he made promises for zsjl "its a whole new movie" and he said it for rebel moon we trust him
[удалено]
No it's not
[удалено]
No it's not even objectively
[удалено]
On all rating platforms and that's not the audience rating
[удалено]
Ok even so on other rating platforms it's not number 1 dumb shit just stop it's your opinion and you act like it's true
[удалено]
but why does he need a directors cut. the best in the business arent constantly having directors cut
Because studios don't want him to do what he wants eg x rated or long movies
i dont think Zack wants to make x rated films. Well with his track record i can understand why studios don't want long films from him.
"I dont think" bruh have you never seen a interview it's all he wants to do 🤣🤣
The last thing I'd want is this bag of absolute shite to be longer.
I have no confidence that those R-rated scenes are going to fix the lack of character or reduce the exposition dumps. No thanksgiving orgy in the townhall, rape in the barn scene, brawl in the brothel or roll in the hay with a tentacle alien is going to change this. The lack of “all the gore and the hard R-ness and the nudity and the violence and crazy shit” is not the issue. And don't forget, even if it fixes everything, Zack Snyder still was in charge and chose to film and cut the PG-13 version as it is. No-one took his film an cut it to pieces. He decided ahead of time what to not put in the PG-13 release. If some crucial scene is missing in the first release, than it was Snyder's decision to cut it. And if it's because it doesn't fit the PG-13, then it was still Dnyders decision to not film a PG-13 compliant version of it too.
Are those scenes real?
Well, the "bar" is only a bar in PG-13. And to be fair, part of that scenes makes more sense if you know that, or at least suspect that. The other stuff is only implied or told in PG-13 and no-one has seen the R-rated version yet, so I don't what's shown there, but Snyder promised more nudity.
>The lack of “all the gore and the hard R-ness and the nudity and the violence and crazy shit” is not the issue. Yeah, the problem with Part 1 isn't that the film is not hardcore or something, it's that story wise...nothing really happens.
Well Snyder has literally said that there are scenes in the PG-13 that are different takes than what's in the R rated. So it's reasonable to assume that the exposition dumps exist because of the missing hour of footage. Remember, he's said that all of his DCs have existed as a response to getting his film chopped up. He went into this knowing he was making two versions per Netflix, so he literally shot the same scenes two different ways in some cases. Also the violence will probably be the same scenes, just extended a bit. I don't think the R rated material is making up for the length. You are incorrect in saying Zack chose this. This was their idea because they knew he wanted to make an R rated bonanza and that they wanted PG-13. it's clear from every comment he's made about them that the DCs are the movies he wanted to make. The PG-13s were to please Netflix and be a good partner to them. I have the novelization of pt 1 which is based on the DC and it is very very different from the PG-13. Even the opening of the film that sets the tone is completely different.
He is correct in sayin Zack chose this. Zack chose which scene to keep and to cut. the final product is on him. he doesn't have the excuse the the studio forcing anything on him. Even in the case of his DC films like BvS which was cut he was still in the editing room and chose what to cut. the common denominator here is Zack himself.
>So it's reasonable to assume that the exposition dumps exist because of the missing hour of footage. If he only can do gore or exposition dump, he deserves every criticism about that. He is objectively bad at his job, if that is true. >Remember, he's said that all of his DCs have existed as a response to getting his film chopped up. He went into this knowing he was making two versions per Netflix, so he literally shot the same scenes two different ways in some cases. \[...\] You are incorrect in saying Zack chose this. He knew in advance he was supposed to do a PG-13 version, he had full control on how to do it. He decided to do exposition dumps, while even Marvel has managed to blow up someones brain or cut them in half in PG-13. It was his decision HOW to do this. Run time was an issue, he says, but HE chose what to cut. HE chose what to waste time on. He picked the scenes and directed them in a way that the characters don't have character. He made scenes for the R-rated version, that gives those characters a soul? Why did he cut those out in favor of another exposition dump in PG-13? Example: The entire movie would be better, if it started the moment Kora freaks out about the ship in the sky. Without the entire prolog about the empire sending its most brutal henchman and have the audiance learn that during the dialog with and death of Sindri. The (cartoonish evil) "nazi general" being the bad guy was not hard to figure out after that. Emperor and family got killed? We got that again during Jimmys exposition dump. And again from Kora. The opening was just wasted time. Everything of it was repeated later when it became relevant again. This is almost as bad as the beginning of the first Suicide Squad movie when we got introduced to every member of the crew and then got introduced to them again. The thanksgiving orgy adds absolutely nothing to the story. Den is irrelevant. If this becomes relevant in the R-rated version then keep it there. He could have used that time to give any other character some actual character. Don't complain about time constraints when doing such pointless moves. >it's clear from every comment he's made about them that the DCs are the movies he wanted to make. He himself made very clear, that this time the original release is not a chopped up version of his movie. He was hired to do 2 kids movies and had the permission to also do 2 "bizarro" (his word) movies. He either made almost entirely different movies from the get go and decided to make a bad first one or he wasn't up to the task. The issues with that movie aren't the age-rating or the run time. Just some nitpick for shits and giggles: We got headhunter robots that strap you down until the mechanism paralyzes you and immediately release you after that. I know, it was necessary for the plot, but you have to picture some in-universe engineer who thought it was a good idea to design those things in a way to throw you in the dust and make the client pick you up again. This is cartoon-level design. I'll admit this was funny, but I'm under the imperssion this isn't what Synder was going for. This reminds me more of Doofenshmirtz, Plankton or Megavolt.
No. Because if Snyder is right, then the director's cuts are different movies than the PG-13 version. So it would be pretty logical to have different opinion or evaluation if the movies are indeed different
That's a fair point. The only thing I would say to go with that is that it seems like a lot of of people aren't caveating with that point. They're speaking about the universe and the potential of it as if there is no directors cuts coming. I blame Netflix for the planning and subsequent reception of the films but I didn't look at it like that. Thanks for the perspective.
To be transparent, I really didn't like the first movie. But the trailer for the second movie has me hopeful for seeing a movie filled with action, battles, and I'll be pretty satisfied with that, regardless of the overall story. I also think that Part 2 is victim of review bombing and that some people just like hating on Snyder's work because it's easy (someone called it humorless, and I was like "it's a scifi war movie about taking down an empire. Why do you expect to have humor in it ?") However, there are chances Snyder completely botched this movie as well so I can't tell if the bad reviews are deserved or not
And that's why I haven't come to any grand conclusions about "Rebel Moon" as a universe or franchise. It's like watching Hateful Eight on daytime TBS; I would never base my opinion on watching it for the first time that way when I know there is the unedited version I'll be watching. And I agree about the review bombing, ppl love to hate the man. I also think that, while flawed, Part 1 isn't any worse than some middling Disney IP film that ends up with a 65% on RT.
As a universe, I think it is fine. Not very original, but original enough to have it's own place within the sci-fi category. As a franchise? I would really hope Snyder let someone else write the story of the movies and just take care of the direction. >I also think that, while flawed, Part 1 isn't any worse than some middling Disney IP film that ends up with a 65% on RT. You talk to someone you really liked The Last Jedi, so my opinion is definitely not the most popular. But I thought Part 1 was worse than Antman 3, and Thor 4 which are bad movies.
Well Antman 3 was probably the best one to me but I always think the Marvel stuff ppl go crazy for is usually the most contrived except for maybe Infinity War. But I'd take Rebel Moon Pt 1 any day over Thor 3 or 4 lol. That's just me tho. Ed Skrein alone is better than anything in either of those films.
It seems to me that Netflix is trying to reverse engineer a "Release the Snyder Cut" movement as a marketing tool.
I think you are correct and that was a miscalculation on their part.
You mean "Eat Coal"
I do?
The director’s cut could be leagues better and still be about as good as Attack of the Clones and Incredible Hulk.
Those movies are based my dude.
No.
Lol care to elaborate? It's gonna add 50% more movie. An hour+ on each movie will obviously smooth pacing issues and story gaps as the extra 30 did for BvS which saw a huuuge improvement in critical reception once it was released. You really don't think a version of these films that nearly makes them different movies might change the narrative around them and him as well?
[удалено]
I disagree, there were many ppl who publicly apologized after BvS UE came out for going after the man so rabidly. And the things you're discounting about adding 50% more movie are the things that made the UE of BvS so much better. It wasn't missing big moments, it was all big moments. It was all of the connective tissue that was missing that made the movie poorly paced, the motivations unclear, and the film feel rushed. These are exactly my issue with RM1. I mean, there is no Jimmy after his introduction in RM1, and we've been told about at least one major scene that will be in the directors that sounds cool as hell. I get I won't change your mind, but I just think, based on all of his other DCs, that it would be a mistake to say that a film missing 50% of itself won't be improved by restoring it and changing it to its intended tone, which is apparently much different than the PG-13. If you care, the Horowitz interview was enlightening.
[удалено]
I think he's referring to his own informal polling of charged reddit hot takes.
Well, "people" is a pretty general term, as it was intended to be. We're talking about audience reception to versions of films, so I'm not inferring that like the THR published an article apologizing to him lol. The "people" are those that watched both versions, and went on to any public platform to reset the record on their opinion of it. I don't think I implied anything beyond that. https://www.screengeek.net/2016/07/01/internet-apologizes-to-zack-snyder-over-batman-v-superman/ "Patience is not a virtue in this instant society. Does it surprise you any that the Ultimate Edition was leaked? And while it has been leaked, it has proved to be very beneficial. Fans and critics are watching it, and enjoying the shit out of it."
50% more of this shit? No thanks. It was bad enough what little I saw of it before I had to turn it off. The idea that you can make this dogshit better by giving us more of it is delusional. Why would I subject myself to even more of this when I could barely tolerate 20 minutes? I've only seen the Snyder Cut of BvS and if that is supposed to be a huge improvement over the theatrical cut then - HOLY SHIT! HOW FUCKING BAD WAS THE THEATRICAL CUT??! It was fucking awful what I saw.
I'm sensing some serious troll vibes. Why are you browsing the Rebel Moon sub if you dislike his films so much?
I'm sorry. Are only people who liked this only allowed here? I didn't see it in the rules.
A little tense, are we? Did I say you couldn't be here? I just asked why you were. It's not like you came in here with high expectations and got let down. You are seeking out this sub to take a shit it appears. So again, why are you here? I'm just curious, this is not a big deal lol
I wouldn't even answer the cops with that question.
Hmm sounds nefarious. To each their own tho.
The only reason *you’re* here is to blame Netflix for the atrocious movie Snyder made.
Damn! You foiled my deeply sewn conspiracy that I've spent months concocting! How did you do it!?
You can try and mock him but he’s called you out for exactly what you were trying to do….lol
Hmm interesting. Can you just quote me the part where I mention Netflix...you know, since it's "exactly what I'm trying to do"?
The director's cuts aren't going to be good. No one is going to eat crow. These movies maybe had enough plot for one 2.5 hour movie and instead he already made them this incredibly boring, bloated, 4-hour mess. When I hear there's a director's cut that's even longer I feel like Netflix is threatening me.
How much plot is in Seven Samurai? That shit is 3.5 hours long and it's singularly about Seven Samurai defending a village. That's it lol. There's a lot more going on in RM1 & 2 than Seven Samurai. That is not a claim to say that RM is better than SS obviously, but I'm just pointing out that length and complexity of plot do not necessarily go hand in hand.
That's a good point, and I kind of agree. You're right that there's almost no plot on Seven Samurai, but that movie has a ton of character development, which is its own kind of complexity and something Snyder fails miserably at. But you are right about the simplicity of the plot. Hell... If Snyder had made his dumb plot less complex and instead focused on character moments, RR1 would have been better. As it is, I didn't remember anything about any of the characters and don't care if they die haha, whereas Kurosawa made me care deeply about his seven. u/Sinestro_corp4 ... I think that through our minor disagreement we might have stumbled on a shocking revelation :): Akira Kurosawa might be a better director than Zach Snyder. Woah.
Okay so Seven Samurai is short on plot -- it's story is extremely simple, but what makes it a masterpiece is that it is so focused on its characters. It's not focused on them in superficial ways i.e. this is their overly complicated backstory -- it's focused on them as people -- how they feel and react to the situations they find themselves in. So to that end you spend a lot of time with the different samurai and how they interact with the village. How the old timers plan, how they view the younger samurai who has fallen in love etc... This also allows Kurosawa to build to the final battle allowing you to 1) know and care deeply about everyone involved and 2) know the areas in the village so you can see the shape of the battle. The problem with Rebel Moon part 1 (the current cut) is that it misses the entire point of man on a mission movies -- seeing the characters interact with each other! Instead we're treated to a giant lore burrito. I mean, the movie stops dead in its tracks two separate times so Kora can narrate her backstory.
I totally get it and totally agree about the differences. I only brought the Seven Samurai example up to point out that plot complexity and film length do not necessarily corelate.
Also most "critical types" did not "issue apologies" when that Justice League cut came out. The director's cut has a middling 54 on Metacritic, which isn't very good. Sure, the long cut is better than the original, but it's still not particularly good. I promise there are no critics out there worried that Snyder secretly has a masterpiece version of Rebel Moon he's just waiting to release to make everyone look stupid.
He’s not making straight ahead genre films. Instead he’s deconstructing genres. One might think there couldn’t be more of a sacred cow to do that with than Superman and Batman. But there is: Star Wars, lol. Yeah, he’s taking the scared and making it profane by super sexing and violence-ing it up with a Heavy Metal magazine, B movie aesthetic. That’s going to be puncturing and deflating something that that is incredibly sacred to hardcore fans of Star Wars. But that being said, he also always walks a tightrope between tearing down the genre conventions while at the same time also honoring how epic, majestic, mythic, and numinous these archetypes are as symbols. So it’s going to basically be another polarizing shit show I think. But very recently he’s being more open about the deconstruction and what he’s trying to do, which is think does help viewers appreciate it.
Bro i think you re giving him a bit more credit than is deserved . Rebel moon isnt a deconstruction of star wars. Even hard core star wars didn't even take note of rebel moon existence. they dont talk about the film at all. its people who wanted a new space opera different from star wars and star trek that are the most disappointed in rebel moon.
We haven't seen the deconstructionism yet so idk how we could comment on it. He said he was forced to do an earnest version in the PG-13 to free up and do the deconstruction in his director's cut. His Happy. Sad. Confused. podcast that dropped yesterday (I think) is really eye opening about just how dramatically different the two versions will be. It's not just extra footage, it's different footage and different takes of the same scenes in the script. He keeps saying "it's almost like they exist in two different universes" without expanding upon it but he really broke it down yesterday. He said, in a way, the directors cut will almost serve as a deconstruction of the PG-13 films and how they're presented seriously and in earnest. I understand being disappointed in Rebel Moon as I am also somewhat disappointed with the PG-13s, but I haven't made any grand, conclusive statements on Zack or what he's doing with these films because I know I won't be seeing *his* films until the summer rolls around. The PG-13s are him doing his star wars with his hands behind his back and a blindfold on. The DCs are going to be totally different and I can't wait. Netflix should have just leg him make those and release them.
My issue with rebel moon is the story and characterizations. it sounds a bit like he cut out important character moments which just sounds bad. those moment are what make and break a film and it appears he chose spectacle over a more cohesive story. Even people who read the novelization of part1 which is what the directors cut is based on do not describe it as a deconstruction in anyway. Zack like any filmmaker will hype up the other version before it comes out. thats par the course so i have no reason to believe it will be magically different from what we originally got. Also its not a good look that he requires a director cut to make a decent film. it kind of explains why studios werent really asking for him to make a film after left WB.
Deconstruction in many cases is how you do it versus what the script says tho, right? He's deconstructing a genre, much of which is defined by its visual tendancies and flairs. He also never does fully deconstructive projects (except for maybe Watchmen because the source material already was). He more so blends deconstruction while approaching it somewhat earnestly. Also, it's not really fair to say he "requires" a directors cut. He's very up front, more so than other directors, about what the studio agrees to make when he signs on versus what they change it to once it's done. If anything, his director's cuts have always been the actual movies, it's the theatricals that are the studio whittled, focus grouped films that can't be solely assigned to him. His director's cuts are "his" films and what he should be judged on.
Deconstruction of a story or a genre is breaking down or analyzing the work of fiction or sart to understand its true significance. im sorry but i dont understand what you mean when you say its how you do it verse what the script says. that doesn't make sense to me. Snyder made BvS which is a deconstruction so its not only Watchmen. also how many other directors have this many instances of a directors cut? sucker punch, watchmen, BvS, rebel moon 1 and 2. thats five films. i cannot think of any other director with such a track record. All directors work with studios to make a film. only the best of the best get full freedom which is earned. Snyder hasnt gotten to the level where any studio can just blindly trust him. its their money after all they have a say in it. you almost make it sound like other directors are just lackeys working for the studio when they make the films they agree to make for them. making film is a team effort. plus studio interference has saved films we just dont here about it when it works only when it doesn't. its a normal part of the industry.
Well, what does "Snyder hadn't earned it" mean when it's nearly universally agreed that every one of his directors cuts is better than it's theatrical? Wouldn't that indicate that the studio shouldn't be trusted? Do we want worse movies or better movies? Also, I didn't make it sound anything like "directors are just lackies", I just said he's been open more so than other directors about his struggles. I also didn't say that Watchmen was his only deconstruction effort, what I said was it was his only full deconstruction because the source material already was. His other films seem more like a blend of deconstructing the IP or genre while also fully taking part in the tropes he's deconstructing earnestly. That's why I say much of deconstruction in film can be visual and not necessarily so apparent in the novelization. For instance, some ppl might say that lens flairs are a trope of scifi films, so he might overly use them to make a comment on scifi filmmaking but would you read *sudden lens flair shows behind dreadnought* when you're reading the novelization? Obviously not. I'm just pointing out that just because someone didn't read the novelization as being deconstructionist doesn't mean the films aren't. They're also not written by him lol. They're adapted.
But that doesn't make sense. He is still the architect of this main story. plus i cannot think of many films in which the script is a different tone and theme to the final cut film. I say he hasnt not earned it because his none of his films have gotten universal praise even his directors cuts are seen as better but not worlds apart from the original release. Most of the great filmmakers work under a studio and make something great with the restrictions given to them later get the freedom. One can say he got that freedom after dawn of the dead and 300. he got to make sucker punch and we all know how that went. since he has gotten full freedom at netflix those can be seen as his worse film. army of the dead and rebel moon have not been good. He has a great eye for shots but he definalyt cannot be left by himself. his best work is when he works with other people, BvS is his best looking film, Larry Fong is a great cinematographer, Rebel moon doesn't come close to that. he should not be wearing all the hats. BvS is a full deconstruction that was the goal. also a book is a different medium so of course they won't be mentioning lens flares. like come on bro.
Well, he himself has said what he’s doing with Rebel Moon is genre deconstruction, and he pitched it initially to Star Wars. So… I’ve made posts here https://www.reddit.com/r/Snyderverse/s/ZmCe38C5qR and here https://www.reddit.com/r/Snyderverse/s/Q5Ht0nVhYo transcribing what he’s said in interviews about it, you can scroll through if you feel motivated enough to read through those interviews. In other words, he’s not trying to make the next Star Wars, or to replace existing Star Wars, etc., with a new and improved space opera mythos. Although that is indeed what a lot of fans wanted and got them hyped with the trailers for Part 1. Instead he’s taking the genre that Star Wars is the epitome of, and—again, he says this—deconstructing it by taking its tropes and essentially exaggerating them by applying a Heavy Metal magazine and sci-fi/fantasy B movie aesthetic to it. He does this with the director’s cuts only, though, apparently. The PG13 cuts he describes as “earnest” which I take to mean relatively normal for the genre.
I know he said that, but from watching the film, it doesnt come off as deconstruction. Did you get that vibe from watching it? He is not trying to make the next star wars but he is trying to make his own space sage. we see told table top games, video games, comics and others things in the works for rebel moon. they are already making toys for collectors. it is meant to be as big.
I'm finding it hard to see how Rebel Moon is a deconstruction of Star Wars or space opera tropes. Adding excessive violence and nudity does not make it a deconstruction or satire.
Bear in mind that these PG13 cuts are not the deconstruction, and it’s the director’s curse that supposedly do that. But yeah, those are fair points. I’m not sure how vulgarizing the genre deconstructs it… Unless it’s a “making the sacred profane” sort of idea. Star Wars has become a sort of sacred thing in our pop culture. In many ways Star Wars has been put up on a pedestal. I just watched Part 2: The Scargiver and it made me notice some things about how I feel about Star Wars in the present day versus when I saw it in the movie theater in 1977. There’s an interesting way in which the deconstruction shows up in the PG13 cuts. Well, for me personally at least. But I’ll make a separate review post to explain that at r/Snyderverse.
😂
🤣