log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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

Laws of Mordenkainen, Elminster, & Fistandantilus
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.
 

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

Well, that was fun
Staff member
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.
 

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

Well, that was fun
Staff member
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!

Hero
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

Lawyer by day. Rules lawyer by night.
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 asshole 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.
 

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.
 
Last edited:

Eric V

Hero
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.
:rolleyes:

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

Hobbit on Quest
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).
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.
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!

Hero
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.
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

Lawyer by day. Rules lawyer by night.
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.
 

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!

Hero
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.
 
Last edited:

Hatmatter

Laws of Mordenkainen, Elminster, & Fistandantilus
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.
 

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.
 

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:

 
Last edited:

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
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.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top