Jump to content

Snyder cut is happening


Recommended Posts

So, just for sake of discussion, what if instead of a Snyder Cut, someone created a whole new movie using cut footage from JL, reshooting or shooting new scenes, and some limited use of theatrical footage of JL, with the premise of a reboot, instead? Maybe under the premise of a timeline disruption similar to how the Xmen franchise handled it with DOFP (in fact the Flash has done exactly that in the past), or Crisis on Infinite Earths type of storyline? Would that be more palatable than a Snyder cut?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As long as this cut gives us more sexy shots of Gal Gadot, I'll be happy.

It's alright, Seth. I still think you Rose to the occasion.

Relax yourselves, I was being intentionally dramatic because Im sick of Star Wars.

I think that's technically what Snyder cut is, save for shooting anything new. So is the problem what they ate doing, or just Snyder specifically?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem, as much as it exists, is two things:

 

1) Snyder - the dude has never made a movie Ive enjoyed. Heck, hes never made a movie Ive been able to complete in a single viewing.

 

2) Let a thing stand for what it is. Justice League is what WB chose to put out. Maybe it wouldve been better, maybe it wouldve been worse, well never really know, but you did what you did. Move on and be better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's technically what Snyder cut is, save for shooting anything new. So is the problem what they ate doing, or just Snyder specifically?

Yeah that's kind of the question.

 

 

My problem, as much as it exists, is two things:

 

1) Snyder - the dude has never made a movie Ive enjoyed. Heck, hes never made a movie Ive been able to complete in a single viewing.

 

2) Let a thing stand for what it is. Justice League is what WB chose to put out. Maybe it wouldve been better, maybe it wouldve been worse, well never really know, but you did what you did. Move on and be better.

You won't get an argument from me, because I agree, most of his movies are pretty mindless. I was not a fan of MOS. But I did get what he was trying to do, which was present a story about how the world might react to Superman, in modern times, but id devolved into people kicking each other in the heads for half the movie. On #2 specifically, that is kind of the problem with multiple cuts. Which one is the "official" story line. For example, people have fought for years over which version of Blade Runner is the "official" version.

 

Maybe they should just film a JL 2, and do a soft reboot from there. They could incorporate whatever cut footage, if feasible. They have to have a new Batman, anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill also add that, in the end, I dont have a real problem with it. If it makes some people happy, great. Its not for me, its for the people who care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must confess, I am not THAT into the DCEU. The main reason I was interested in this, was the fact I saw some parallels with the Donner Cut of Superman II, and was interested in peoples' reactions. Thing is, it turns out to be apples vs oranges. Primarily because the Theatrical Cut of JL is pretty horrible. I thought so...at least story wise. The visuals and audio are awesome, but the story itself is lame. I am just interested in the so called Snyder cut in what might have been. Kind of in a "The Star Wars" kind of way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the Snyder Cut comes out, the Donner Cut comparison can't be had. For all the drama behind that production Superman 2 was a well received movie. The Donner Cut doesn't make Superman 2 better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a director's cut of a movie starring Superman made by a director who left the movie early. The comparison is pretty obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Primarily because the Theatrical Cut of JL is pretty horrible. I thought so...at least story wise. The visuals and audio are awesome, but the story itself is lame. I am just interested in the so called Snyder cut in what might have been. Kind of in a "The Star Wars" kind of way.

Yeah I mean aside from the precedent it sets, I'm interested to see it from that perspective as well. I'm no fan of Snyder and agree with the general consensus but this will more than likely be better than the Theatrical. It's much worse than your average Snyder movie and that's because the movie is just a cluster**k every which way. Snyder and Whedon are so far apart in terms of approach that the theatrical cut never had a chance anyway.

 

So will it be good? 90% chance of not. Better than the theatrical? 100% most likely. But I'd rather have just put their money into something else when all is said and done. I'm interested in how the Snyder cut would have been different but not enough to see it realised.

 

EDIT: Though don't agree that the visuals and audio were awesome in JL. The bad guy in that look copy and pasted from a PS3 game. The Danny Elfman score was passable but obviously rushed - keeping Zimmer and Junkie XL at least would have kept it consistent with the last two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the very idea of a Snyder cut not come from fans, but from the actors playing the League? I seem to recall people were initially very unsure whether they were joking about it or were serious. I stay away from so many places where fans get crazy about things, so I have no idea about the types of things people had been saying recently, but earlier on, I remember people mainly saying that it would be cool to see if the cut actually existed, if for no other reason than to see how different it was. I am sure people have gotten crazy about it, though, as so many people seem to get now about every little thing.

 

In general, I don't think this sets that horrible of a precedent, really, as the circumstances of Snyder leaving were pretty exceptional. Granted, I don't know how often a director is replaced mid-shoot, but I can't imagine it happens frequently due to family reasons like this. Does it happen more frequently than I am thinking it does? OR do you guys think it sets a bad precedent primarily because of the way people were acting online about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a director's cut of a movie starring Superman made by a director who left the movie early. The comparison is pretty obvious.

Movie quality wise. The Donner Cut does change aspects of Superman 2, but it's not that much better.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the very idea of a Snyder cut not come from fans, but from the actors playing the League? I seem to recall people were initially very unsure whether they were joking about it or were serious. I stay away from so many places where fans get crazy about things, so I have no idea about the types of things people had been saying recently, but earlier on, I remember people mainly saying that it would be cool to see if the cut actually existed, if for no other reason than to see how different it was. I am sure people have gotten crazy about it, though, as so many people seem to get now about every little thing.

 

In general, I don't think this sets that horrible of a precedent, really, as the circumstances of Snyder leaving were pretty exceptional. Granted, I don't know how often a director is replaced mid-shoot, but I can't imagine it happens frequently due to family reasons like this. Does it happen more frequently than I am thinking it does? OR do you guys think it sets a bad precedent primarily because of the way people were acting online about it?

I haven't heard about actors talking about a Snyder Cut one way or the other. Would not surprise me, though.

 

I have to say I have a morbid curiosity about the Snyder cut. I'm not a fan of Snyder, either, but I'd like to see what he would have done, had he didn't have to drop out. I have no idea if this is a common occurrence, but I would tend to think it is rare. I mean we have recent examples of films having changes in directors, producers, and show runners, including the MCU, CBS Star Trek, and Disney Star Wars. I would tend to think that because movie technology has improved to allow for directors to be changed midstream, and it not being as catastrophic a change as it would have been in say the 1980s.

 

 

 

Primarily because the Theatrical Cut of JL is pretty horrible. I thought so...at least story wise. The visuals and audio are awesome, but the story itself is lame. I am just interested in the so called Snyder cut in what might have been. Kind of in a "The Star Wars" kind of way.

Yeah I mean aside from the precedent it sets, I'm interested to see it from that perspective as well. I'm no fan of Snyder and agree with the general consensus but this will more than likely be better than the Theatrical. It's much worse than your average Snyder movie and that's because the movie is just a cluster**k every which way. Snyder and Whedon are so far apart in terms of approach that the theatrical cut never had a chance anyway.

 

So will it be good? 90% chance of not. Better than the theatrical? 100% most likely. But I'd rather have just put their money into something else when all is said and done. I'm interested in how the Snyder cut would have been different but not enough to see it realised.

 

EDIT: Though don't agree that the visuals and audio were awesome in JL. The bad guy in that look copy and pasted from a PS3 game. The Danny Elfman score was passable but obviously rushed - keeping Zimmer and Junkie XL at least would have kept it consistent with the last two.

 

Yeah, and there is that most widely cited example of the CGI used to remove Cavell's mustache digitally.

 

I agree this isn't one of those "sets a bad example" situation. Studios don't typically appease fans to the point or rebuilding a movie because enough of them cry about it. Except maybe JJ Abrams movies, anyway. :p To me, this is strictly business and some suits made this decision based on money, not the desires of fans.

 

That said, I think a lot of DC people who wanted to see a JL movie for decades (I did.. I'm a Marvel guy mostly, but my two favorite superheroes are Superman and Batman) and were let down. Whether they were part of the push for a Snyder cut or not, it seems many DC fans would welcome it. Maybe not necessarily the casual fans, or fans who like superhero movies but don't care too much about DC. Like I said when I started this thread, it can only get better. I thought JL was pretty bad, and if they have enough footage to re-edit it, I'm OK with it. Not that I asked for it, really, but I welcome it nonetheless.

 

 

 

 

It's a director's cut of a movie starring Superman made by a director who left the movie early. The comparison is pretty obvious.

Movie quality wise. The Donner Cut does change aspects of Superman 2, but it's not that much better.

 

Maybe not quality wise, but my intent was to draw a comparison to the two for the reasons Brando cited.

 

Also, before the Donner cut was released, people had heard rumors about it for years, and wanted to see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OR do you guys think it sets a bad precedent primarily because of the way people were acting online about it?

That’s my main problem with it, and not specific to the DC / Snyder fan base either. I think it’s already been covered here but my issues these days are with the current generation of fandom in general - the sense of entitlement has gotten too extreme. The way all fan bases react now at the smallest of things, a lot of the time now I don’t want them to get what they want even if it means I probably won’t either.

 

E.g. the way the Marvel fanboys reacted when Martin Scorsese said he didn’t like the MCU. . .after that I wanted him to win the Oscar for the Irishman just to spite them all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Entitlement is exactly it. There are fans that feel that their following and devotion is what made their thing popular and big and successful, therefor they should be catered to.

 

The notion isn't completely wrong, creators shouldn't want to actively piss off their fanbase. GOTs last season and TLJ are both examples of the creators working in favor of subverting expectations instead of delivering on them. In a vacuum that's a great approach, but when you do it with something that has a deep mythology you're running a giant risk.

 

The problem is that every superfan thinks they can do it best. Maybe some of those angry internet voices become screenwriters and maybe COULD DO BETTER-- but most of the time the average superfan thinks they have a great idea but if you put it down on paper and try to structure a narrative around it, you'll find it was really just a cool moment or scene or turning point.

 

So the trick to pleasing superfans is to give them what they want but also subvert and give them something new. And TBH, the bigger the franchise, the deeper the mythology, the more diverse and widespread the fandom-- that bullseye gets smaller and smaller.

 

SW and superheroes is all I wanted as a kid, so I am hardwired to be in on all these movies... and I'll still go see them and enjoy them if they are well made, but they stopped truly giving me feels or surprises a long time ago.

 

The only times I can think of marking out in this golden age of nostalgia driven event films is the Avengers Assemble moment in Endgame, and Red and Gold Leader showing up in Rogue One.

 

Maybe Luke vs Kylo in TLJ. Not saying I've disliked these movies, I enjoy most of them. Maybe I just know/see too much about how the donuts are made?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Entitlement is exactly it. There are fans that feel that their following and devotion is what made their thing popular and big and successful, therefor they should be catered to.

 

The notion isn't completely wrong, creators shouldn't want to actively piss off their fanbase. GOTs last season and TLJ are both examples of the creators working in favor of subverting expectations instead of delivering on them. In a vacuum that's a great approach, but when you do it with something that has a deep mythology you're running a giant risk.

 

The problem is that every superfan thinks they can do it best. Maybe some of those angry internet voices become screenwriters and maybe COULD DO BETTER-- but most of the time the average superfan thinks they have a great idea but if you put it down on paper and try to structure a narrative around it, you'll find it was really just a cool moment or scene or turning point.

 

So the trick to pleasing superfans is to give them what they want but also subvert and give them something new. And TBH, the bigger the franchise, the deeper the mythology, the more diverse and widespread the fandom-- that bullseye gets smaller and smaller.

 

SW and superheroes is all I wanted as a kid, so I am hardwired to be in on all these movies... and I'll still go see them and enjoy them if they are well made, but they stopped truly giving me feels or surprises a long time ago.

 

The only times I can think of marking out in this golden age of nostalgia driven event films is the Avengers Assemble moment in Endgame, and Red and Gold Leader showing up in Rogue One.

 

Maybe Luke vs Kylo in TLJ. Not saying I've disliked these movies, I enjoy most of them. Maybe I just know/see too much about how the donuts are made?

Whats funny about that 2nd paragraph about Thrones and The Last Jedi subverting expectations is that both those franchises were so popular, in part, because of how they subverted expectations all along. I mean the end of ESB could not have been what people expected. Thats exactly why it's so loved. Thrones did this many times between Ned dying, the Red Wedding etc. I guess the longer these franchises go on the more people just want what I'd call pointless nostalgia and comfort food and it becomes harder and harder for these franchises to actually keep doing what made them great in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Entitlement is exactly it. There are fans that feel that their following and devotion is what made their thing popular and big and successful, therefor they should be catered to.

 

The notion isn't completely wrong, creators shouldn't want to actively piss off their fanbase. GOTs last season and TLJ are both examples of the creators working in favor of subverting expectations instead of delivering on them. In a vacuum that's a great approach, but when you do it with something that has a deep mythology you're running a giant risk.

 

The problem is that every superfan thinks they can do it best. Maybe some of those angry internet voices become screenwriters and maybe COULD DO BETTER-- but most of the time the average superfan thinks they have a great idea but if you put it down on paper and try to structure a narrative around it, you'll find it was really just a cool moment or scene or turning point.

 

So the trick to pleasing superfans is to give them what they want but also subvert and give them something new. And TBH, the bigger the franchise, the deeper the mythology, the more diverse and widespread the fandom-- that bullseye gets smaller and smaller.

 

SW and superheroes is all I wanted as a kid, so I am hardwired to be in on all these movies... and I'll still go see them and enjoy them if they are well made, but they stopped truly giving me feels or surprises a long time ago.

 

The only times I can think of marking out in this golden age of nostalgia driven event films is the Avengers Assemble moment in Endgame, and Red and Gold Leader showing up in Rogue One.

 

Maybe Luke vs Kylo in TLJ. Not saying I've disliked these movies, I enjoy most of them. Maybe I just know/see too much about how the donuts are made?

Whats funny about that 2nd paragraph about Thrones and The Last Jedi subverting expectations is that both those franchises were so popular, in part, because of how they subverted expectations all along. I mean the end of ESB could not have been what people expected. Thats exactly why it's so loved. Thrones did this many times between Ned dying, the Red Wedding etc. I guess the longer these franchises go on the more people just want what I'd call pointless nostalgia and comfort food and it becomes harder and harder for these franchises to actually keep doing what made them great in the first place.

 

Totally-- the trick is the endpoint. You can subvert subvert and subvert some more, but if you get big enough, you're going to eventually start to show some consistency. Generally, it's plot subverting things and the character adapts. People don't love characters who flip flop or constantly change, what the like is a character that is consistent, or a character on a clear linear arc, and the enjoyment comes from watching them struggle along with you as the plot and story subvert expectations.

 

But all stories end-- and in the case of GOT, instead of going toward the logical ending they had been setting up, they wanted to keep on subverting expectation. But they were out of story to do it with, so they started subverting characters and that's when it all fell apart.

 

We don't need to talk about TLJ in yet another thread, but you can apply what I am saying to Luke and see why people who didn't like what went down felt what they did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Entitlement is exactly it. There are fans that feel that their following and devotion is what made their thing popular and big and successful, therefor they should be catered to.

 

The notion isn't completely wrong, creators shouldn't want to actively piss off their fanbase. GOTs last season and TLJ are both examples of the creators working in favor of subverting expectations instead of delivering on them. In a vacuum that's a great approach, but when you do it with something that has a deep mythology you're running a giant risk.

 

The problem is that every superfan thinks they can do it best. Maybe some of those angry internet voices become screenwriters and maybe COULD DO BETTER-- but most of the time the average superfan thinks they have a great idea but if you put it down on paper and try to structure a narrative around it, you'll find it was really just a cool moment or scene or turning point.

 

So the trick to pleasing superfans is to give them what they want but also subvert and give them something new. And TBH, the bigger the franchise, the deeper the mythology, the more diverse and widespread the fandom-- that bullseye gets smaller and smaller.

 

SW and superheroes is all I wanted as a kid, so I am hardwired to be in on all these movies... and I'll still go see them and enjoy them if they are well made, but they stopped truly giving me feels or surprises a long time ago.

 

The only times I can think of marking out in this golden age of nostalgia driven event films is the Avengers Assemble moment in Endgame, and Red and Gold Leader showing up in Rogue One.

 

Maybe Luke vs Kylo in TLJ. Not saying I've disliked these movies, I enjoy most of them. Maybe I just know/see too much about how the donuts are made?

Whats funny about that 2nd paragraph about Thrones and The Last Jedi subverting expectations is that both those franchises were so popular, in part, because of how they subverted expectations all along. I mean the end of ESB could not have been what people expected. Thats exactly why it's so loved. Thrones did this many times between Ned dying, the Red Wedding etc. I guess the longer these franchises go on the more people just want what I'd call pointless nostalgia and comfort food and it becomes harder and harder for these franchises to actually keep doing what made them great in the first place.

 

Totally-- the trick is the endpoint. You can subvert subvert and subvert some more, but if you get big enough, you're going to eventually start to show some consistency. Generally, it's plot subverting things and the character adapts. People don't love characters who flip flop or constantly change, what the like is a character that is consistent, or a character on a clear linear arc, and the enjoyment comes from watching them struggle along with you as the plot and story subvert expectations.

 

But all stories end-- and in the case of GOT, instead of going toward the logical ending they had been setting up, they wanted to keep on subverting expectation. But they were out of story to do it with, so they started subverting characters and that's when it all fell apart.

 

We don't need to talk about TLJ in yet another thread, but you can apply what I am saying to Luke and see why people who didn't like what went down felt what they did.

 

The issue with Thrones for the mast part is that the characters did act just as you'd expect if you really followed the characters and knew them. Anyone who didn't think Dany was going to turn into that kind of tyrant simply wasn't paying attention. Alot of times people see the story they want and then want the story to end that way. When in reality that was never the story that was being told. If you thought that Thrones was this crazy dark story that was going to end with the 2 main characters defeating the bad guys and being in love, you just didn;t know what you were watching.

 

And Im not really defending the ending of the show, but that was a matter of quality and fitting too much into too few episodes. However the people who named their kids Daenarys and then felt betrayed that she burned Kings Landing to the ground just didn't see the character for what she really was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can spin this off to a new thread, but Dany going tyrant was NOT destined to turn. The chance was definitely there, but she was the great liberator and unifier, and only the truly evil caught her wrath. Her arc was overcoming the legacy of her father.

 

For her to slaughter thousands of innocents after seeing Jon Snow's leadership being earned with love, her turning evil was pure crap. That's what broke the show for me. I was still in up until that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree. This is a person who started to threaten to burn cities to the ground the moment she got her dragons. This is a person who constantly wanted to use her dragons in that way only to be talked out of it by advisors. This is a person who burned prisoners of war to death, which is exactly the same thing her father did which started Robert's Rebellion.


We can spin this off to a new thread, but Dany going tyrant was NOT destined to turn. The chance was definitely there, but she was the great liberator and unifier, and only the truly evil caught her wrath. Her arc was overcoming the legacy of her father.

For her to slaughter thousands of innocents after seeing Jon Snow's leadership being earned with love, her turning evil was pure crap. That's what broke the show for me. I was still in up until that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I read the books. Im not trying to "pull rank" as a bookreader, just saying you cant seperate the two. Jon really HAD to kill her to fulfill prophecy. The prophecy of Azor Ahai states that he tried to temper his sword in ice but it didn't work. Then tried to temper it in the heart of a lion, also didn't work. Then finally tempered it by stabbing his beloved Nissa Nissa to death. He was then able to wield the sword and save the world. Ofcourse Jon tried to save the world by fighting ice (the white walkers), lions (the lannisters) and then finally had to fight his beloved.

 

You can claim and we can argue that the show did or didn't do a great job with setting up her turn to evil, but that is her arc. That was always her arc. Its her arc in the books as well as the show.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah.

 

The books should have no relevance, especially once they passed them up. You can just use them as false evidence to back up what you like. Adaptions have no need to be sacrosanct to their source material.

 

Now maybe the books had the time and space to make that arc work, but going by what was on screen? It wasn't satisfying.

 

But this illustrates my bigger point. You also like broken Luke Skywalker, and as you know, a lot of people don't. So back to the point of the thread, the deeper the mythos the more fans get invested and develop their own of what should happen. You literally can't win when working with well-established characters, you can't please everyone. So when studios try, just to make a buck, you get Synder cuts and Rise of Skywalker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing so much about the whole hypocricy of Westeros and everytihng Dany and so many other characters do. Dany crucifies i believe 163 people and lines the road to Meereen with them. But this is ok because they were mean, evil slavemasters. Go Dany!! Kill those slavemasters!!

 

However Dany wants to make herself the master of every single person who lives in Westeros. There is almost no difference between a Lord or Queen in Westeros and a slave master in Essos. A peasant is a slave to their Lord. Does Dany go and kill every Lord in Westeros? Nope. Does she kill all her Dothraki who also owned slaves? Nope. She is a hypocrite from the very beginning.

 

This is a character who as early as season 2 says:

 

"When my dragons are grown we will lay waste to armies and BURN CITIES TO THE GROUND"

 

"I will take what is mine with Fire and Blood"

 

"Enough with the clever plans. I have three large dragons. I'm going to fly them to the Red Keep"

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really struggle when people don't see things the way you do, don't you?

 

You don't have to cite examples. Your point was well understood. You are detailed and well-spoken with your thoughts. Just because I don't agree with them that doesn't mean you have to keep explaining them. It's not that I don't get what you are saying, I just don't agree with it, for reasons I said pretty clearly in my previous post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not that I have a problem with people disagreeing with me, not in the least. I mean it would be pretty boring and pointless to post here if everyone just agreed all the time. The fact is I don't really have a problem if someone didn't like Dany burning the city. I even said in my first post that Im not defending the season and it could have used more time accomplish what it was trying to accomplish. Which isnt really much different than when you said something like "maybe the books had the time and space to do it better".

 

I think with Dany the thing is it is a very difficult balance. You don't want her to already be "evil" by that point. You want her to be at the point where she can go either way. You want it to be where you've seen she is capable of this kind of thing but still she may not do it. Was she perfectly balanced on that point? Maybe not, but I think she'd shown enough where it wasn't completely out of character by any stretch.

 

As for the first thing about having an issue when people disagree. I'll admit Im not an "agree to disagree" kinda person. I like to argue things down to the nit. Really thats the only reason I come to this board. I can talk "surface level" Star Wars or other nerdy crap with whoever. I come here because I kinda figure anyone else posting here also wants to go down the rabbit hole of arguing and discussing this crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Down to the nit is great, obviously I love to debate and go deep as well. This just wasn't a Game of Thrones thread and we had started off with agreeing with each other on the general point. You're the only person I've ever agreed with and then still end up in a debate with anyway lol.

 

Final thought on GOT-- I binged it. I did all in a couple weeks after years of ignoring it. Overall I didn't have anywhere near the level of issues other people did. I will admit though, had I been been forced to wait a week between each episodes and months, if not years, between seasons, I would probably have started to dissect it much more with the time on my hands.

 

As for Dany-- again, you're not wrong in saying there was clear evidence she'd go the way she did. But I'd argue there was just as much showing that she could have gone the other way. I think that was well-played and intentional. I think her relationship with Jon could have found her accepting that her most dedicated followers were the ones that loved her, not the one that feared her. She could have ruled with Jon as King and Queen. I know Tyrion threw out a line saying why it wouldn't work, but that was just because the writers didn't want it to.

 

Wondering which way Dany would go was the best part of her character, cause she could go either way. I am not arguing that. I just think deciding to have her go the evil route was a bad choice. Not a question if it was a out of left field or in character, I'm just saying a happy ending for her and Jon would have been more satisfying for me.

 

Which loops it back to the main point-- the writers probably felt everyone wanted that happy ending, and they were more interested in subverting the expectation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...