DC Movies & TV

Topic

We probably need a thread for this!

Looking forward to ‘Joker’.

Replies

There’s a petition on Change.org to get Amber Heard removed from Aquaman 2:

https://www.change.org/p/dc-entertainment-remove-amber-heard-from-aquaman-2

That’s sure to be successful.

It’s also just a really nasty thing to do. My life has not been enhanced by hearing about these arseholes and their petty fucking petition.

The Flash’s Sue Dearbon Is Found: Natalie Dreyfuss Lands Recurring Role

It took me quite a long time to figure out that was referring to Sue Dibney.
.
I will be handing in my silver-age-fan-club membership badge now :(

So suddenly yesterday cast and crew of Justice League started posting with #releasethesnydercut so it’s pretty obvious it’s coming in some form.

What I find funny is that even if it’s completely shit in the end nobody will admit it.

I guess they might as well try and milk it as much as they can from it given that the whole DCU shared universe has been such a disaster.

I think they’ve got the right idea to keep pursuing solo movies with characters that click with audiences. Aquaman was pretty standalone and I wouldn’t be surprised if they row back on the connections with the wider DCU in Wonder Woman 2.

No more opening emails with descriptions of other superheroes in them?
.
To be honest, of course I’ll take a look at it (and I hope it’s good) but I’m far more interested in whatever has been going on behind the scenes to get to this point.
.
#releasetheJLmeetings

They probably see some sense in keeping a shared universe with the characters that people liked (Wonder Woman, Aquaman) and having another shot at iterations of the characters that shouldve been hits but weren’t (Superman, Batman). Particularly now that the MCU is “rebuilding”.

I guess that makes Flash and Cyborg the deadwood.

It wouldn’t surprise me if this is one of the reasons the Flash movie is slow going. Flashpoint is the perfect device to reset the universe while still keeping the casting choices that audiences liked.

garjones wrote:

What I find funny is that even if it’s completely shit in the end nobody will admit it.

And if it’s actually good, nobody on the other side will admit it either… so yeah…

I was going to start a petition for #stopbeingshit but, well, it’s a bit shit, really.

Jon wrote:

garjones wrote:

What I find funny is that even if it’s completely shit in the end nobody will admit it.

And if it’s actually good, nobody on the other side will admit it either… so yeah…

Your confirmation bias is showing

The people who criticised Justice League are no where near as invested in it as those campaigning for the bloody Snyder cut. At the end of the day, for most folks, its just a movie

Anonymous wrote:

The people who criticised Justice League are no where near as invested in it as those campaigning for the bloody Snyder cut. At the end of the day, for most folks, its just a movie

What, you mean there’s not a Snyder-bashing trend out there? Come on… That’s bullshit and you know it. In fact, I believe there’s more people invested in hating anything Snyder-related than people invested in the Snyder cut… weird case, for sure, because it’s usually not the case, but yeah…

Maybe im just confused by the hashtag campaign and podcasts and articles about a fan demand cut.

But maybe. All publicity is good publicity

Jon wrote:

garjones wrote:

What I find funny is that even if it’s completely shit in the end nobody will admit it.

And if it’s actually good, nobody on the other side will admit it either… so yeah…

Nobody on the other side will see it.

Jon wrote:

In fact, I believe there’s more people invested in hating anything Snyder-related than people invested in the Snyder cut…

I doubt it, but even if true, the number of both sides are very much dwarfed by the huge number of people for whom this was just a movie, and one that was somewhat average and didn’t inspire people to want more of the DCU in movies.

(Could’ve been worse, mind you. I thought it was alright, overall.)

Christian wrote:

Could’ve been worse, mind you

That’s what the Snyder cut is for.

Dave wrote:

That’s what the Snyder cut is for.

to be worse? or to make needed corrections?

To make a mediocre thing worse, was the joke.

There are now three people bashing Snyder in this thread!

It’s not quite as many as the hundreds of thousands that signed a petition to release the edit, but it’s a start.

Anonymous wrote:

There are now three people bashing Snyder in this thread!

It’s not quite as many as the hundreds of thousands that signed a petition to release the edit, but it’s a start.

You’re welcome?

To the anti-Zack mobile!

Anonymous wrote:

There are now three people bashing Snyder in this thread!

It’s not quite as many as the hundreds of thousands that signed a petition to release the edit, but it’s a start.

 
proportionately though…
 
Anyways, I don’t care all that much about the Snyder cut… unfortunately I’m fully aware that WB would need to spend a lot of money to make it into something visually appealing and that’s not gonna happen… I’m not all that interested in a work-copy, might as well just release the script. Also, it’s irrelevant since they canned that whole DCCU plan anyways. The true Snyder cut would be JLA part 1, and part 2 ain’t happening, so what’s the point?

So … no one wants to ride in the anti-Zack mobile?

But I just had it resprayed

With what?

Anonymous wrote:

So … no one wants to ride in the anti-Zack mobile?

But I just had it resprayed

I’ll ride with you, Pip.

This guy Pip is annoying. I miss Tim.

Yeah.

Wait…

SteveUK wrote:

With what?

Blood mostly.

Some of Jesse Eisenbergs urine.

Anonymous wrote:

SteveUK wrote:

With what?

Blood mostly.

Some of Jesse Eisenbergs urine.

I’ll say this about Pip, he knows how to make a girl horny.

Just taking my cues from the master, The Zack Attack

Release the Schneider cut!

Dave wrote:

Nobody on the other side will see it.

Probably true. I liked Justice League more than BvS but it was a pretty run of the mill movie. I don’t think anything other than a complete remake is really going to change that. The inside story I read was Whedon reshot at most 20% of it.
.
We have precedent for this with the Donner cut of Superman II. It was supposed to be this holy grail of perfection and then when it came out it was mostly responded to with apathy.

Yeah, I don’t see myself ever watching this Justice League movie again in any form.

garjones wrote:

We have precedent for this with the Donner cut of Superman II. It was supposed to be this holy grail of perfection and then when it came out it was mostly responded to with apathy.

Ya, it didn’t get much hoopla once it was out but I really enjoyed the Donner Cut and thought it removed most of the elements in the original theatrical cut that I didn’t care for. Cellophane S, anyone?
.

.
I would actually really like to see the Snyder cut. From the trailers and other reports, there seemed to be a lot of material in the backstory that was trimmed into the single flashback. Amazons, Greek gods and Green Lanterns fighting the armies of Darkseid? Yes, please. There also seemed to be a bit more of an arc for Superman’s resurrection or introducing someone else (Green Lantern, Supergirl?) from the Alfred scene in the trailers. I was a big fan of the path Snyder was taking and would like to see anything that explores that more.
.

Which is fine to be interested in (and those ideas sound cool) but just saying with only 20% of the film redone by Whedon I don’t think the end product could be radically different. It could very likely be better (although equally possibly worse) but I sense some of the #snydercut fans are imagining a fairly standard movie to be transformed into Citizen Kane and quite frankly that’s not going to happen here.

garjones wrote:

Which is fine to be interested in (and those ideas sound cool) but just saying with only 20% of the film redone by Whedon I don’t think the end product could be radically different. It could very likely be better (although equally possibly worse) but I sense some of the #snydercut fans are imagining a fairly standard movie to be transformed into Citizen Kane and quite frankly that’s not going to happen here.

Agreed. 20% of a 120 minute film is still almost 1/2 an hour (24 minutes) though. That’s an eternity in film time. I would assume any of the scenes with the CGI’d away mustache would be part of that.
.
I’m not sure what changed but even watching scenes like my favorite one below, you can see where reshoots were spliced in (like when Fatman shows up) due to the coming and going of the weird mouth CGI.
.

.
I think the biggest thing that could change (similar to the Donner cut) would be tone. I’m sure some people will find it worse as I would assume it would be more like Man of Steel and BvS which they seemed to try to veer away from. That was the direction I liked though.
.
I agree that it probably won’t be Citizen Kane but it should at least be worth a watch for me. Anyone else will take it or leave, I assume.

I’m pretty sure it was more than 20% but I have zero proof right now.
.
As much as anything this will be a rare opportunity to see the before and after of an ongoing creative process at the top budget level.

I’m rather uniquely divorced from the ‘tone’ argument. I loved a lot of Man of Steel although the narrative went off the rails in the second half, the start is amazing.
.
My problem with BvS is it narratively makes no sense although it looked very pretty as everything by Snyder does. Justice League was just ‘okay’. It did what it did but continued the BvS problem of unearned depth to the characters’ relationships.

SteveUK wrote:

I’m pretty sure it was more than 20% but I have zero proof right now.

Could be but I Googled that off an article from a guy that worked on it. In fact he said 15-20%.

I think there’s also some of it all entangled in the original concept Snyder had of 2 films and Darkseid being in it etc which may have been better but that was all dropped long before any filming.

SteveUK wrote:

As much as anything this will be a rare opportunity to see the before and after of an ongoing creative process at the top budget level.

Definitely. I do hope that they keep what Snyder originally wanted to keep and don’t just switch things out for the sake of releasing more footage.
.
One of my minor disappointments with Superman II: The Donner Cut was that to use as much original footage as possible, they substituted audition and other footage for the originally preferred footage. The more notable ones being Clark revealing himself to Lois as Superman and the sequence to turn the world backwards.
.
What is the percentage of the film that has to be reshot for a change in director or co-director credit? I thought it had to be something like 40% from my memory of Superman II stuff.

garjones wrote:

I’m rather uniquely divorced from the ‘tone’ argument. I loved a lot of Man of Steel although the narrative went off the rails in the second half, the start is amazing.

I have always assumed that’s the reason Whedon was brought on, for his more jokey (what has now become the MCU style) tone.

garjones wrote:

My problem with BvS is it narratively makes no sense although it looked very pretty as everything by Snyder does. Justice League was just ‘okay’. It did what it did but continued the BvS problem of unearned depth to the characters’ relationships.

You’ve never fought someone and become friends after? I’ve known guys that wouldn’t fight people because they didn’t want to become friends.

garjones wrote:

Could be but I Googled that off an article from a guy that worked on it. In fact he said 15-20%.

Here’s the exact quote from Wikipedia.

In an interview, producer Charles Roven said: “Let’s just say 80, 85 percent of the movie is what was originally shot. There’s only so much you can do with other 15, 20 percent of the movie”.[101] Whedon received a screenwriting credit on the film alongside Chris Terrio,[102] while Snyder received sole director’s credit.[103]

RonnieM wrote:

garjones wrote:

Which is fine to be interested in (and those ideas sound cool) but just saying with only 20% of the film redone by Whedon I don’t think the end product could be radically different. It could very likely be better (although equally possibly worse) but I sense some of the #snydercut fans are imagining a fairly standard movie to be transformed into Citizen Kane and quite frankly that’s not going to happen here.

Agreed. 20% of a 120 minute film is still almost 1/2 an hour (24 minutes) though. That’s an eternity in film time.

Yeah, I actually think movies can be changed quite dramatically by even relatively minor tweaks.

It’s interesting to look at other Directors Cuts and see how much can change with just a few alterations. Blade Runner is a good example, and the Special Editions of a lot of Cameron movies too – Aliens, The Abyss, T2 and Avatar all benefit a lot from the re-edits in my opinion.

In all those cases, they’re largely the same film in terms of the bulk of the footage appearing in both versions, but the changes make the recut versions quite a different experience to watch.

And, of course, BvS changed quite a lot in the extended edition with only around half an hour of changes.

Dave wrote:

In all those cases, they’re largely the same film in terms of the bulk of the footage appearing in both versions, but the changes make the recut versions quite a different experience to watch.

I won’t deny they change the experience but none of them turn a turkey into a masterpiece or vice versa. I just think those strongly invested in the campaign are expecting that and it won’t happen. It could well be better but it it’l be mostly the same film as those previous examples were.

RonnieM wrote:

I have always assumed that’s the reason Whedon was brought on, for his more jokey (what has now become the MCU style) tone.

I think that’s true but just saying that personally none of the issues I have with the 3 films are about tone. I’m down with the very serious approach if done well, which I think it only was in Man of Steel.

garjones wrote:

I won’t deny they change the experience but none of them turn a turkey into a masterpiece or vice versa.

True. The closest one of those examples comes is Blade Runner, I guess – another case in which studio-mandated changes supposedly hurt a film, which was improved once the director could reverse that interference.

But I agree that those examples were all pretty decent movies to begin with.

RonnieM wrote:

Agreed. 20% of a 120 minute film is still almost 1/2 an hour (24 minutes) though. That’s an eternity in film time. I would assume any of the scenes with the CGI’d away mustache would be part of that.

Technically, if Whedon’s 20% is removed and Snyder’s 20% is added back in, that’s 40% of the film that’s different

garjones wrote:

Could be but I Googled that off an article from a guy that worked on it. In fact he said 15-20%.

Chuck Roven, the producer? That’s the official position and I’ve no proof he was downplaying anything. My information is entirely hearsay.
.
I’ll be honest, I’ve never seen a film I though was better for a director’s cut after the fact. That includes all of Cameron’s films, and Ridley Scott’s.
.
I like some of the restored scenes, but I can see why all were cut; generally they clarify things that didn’t need clarification, belabour points already made properly, or flesh out things that distract from the story being told. Often they just take a long film and make it longer, to no real benefit.
.
This, I feel, is different. I’m not saying it will be better, or worse, but it will (I believe) be substantially different.
.
And that’s really interesting.

Dave wrote:

And, of course, BvS changed quite a lot in the extended edition with only around half an hour of changes.

I’d forgotten about that one and agree. I knew there was something out there and can’t believe I couldn’t remember it in the context of this conversation. I liked the original theatrical cut though and the additions only improved that for me.
.
Daredevil with Ben Affleck is another film that I think benefited greatly from relatively minor adjustments (adding the Coolio secondary story back). Once again, I liked the original theatrical cut too.

SteveUK wrote:

I’ll be honest, I’ve never seen a film I though was better for a director’s cut after the fact. That includes all of Cameron’s films, and Ridley Scott’s.
.
I like some of the restored scenes, but I can see why all were cut; generally they clarify things that didn’t need clarification, belabour points already made properly, or flesh out things that distract from the story being told. Often they just take a long film and make it longer, to no real benefit.

That’s true for some of those scenes, but not all. Some of them can often be smaller character moments or story details that they couldn’t make time for in the original, but which enrich the story when they’re added back in. I certainly felt like Avatar was improved by those kinds of scenes in the special edition.

RonnieM wrote:

DaveWallace wrote:

And, of course, BvS changed quite a lot in the extended edition with only around half an hour of changes.

I’d forgotten about that one and agree. I knew there was something out there and can’t believe I couldn’t remember it in the context of this conversation. I liked the original theatrical cut though and the additions only improved that for me.
.
Daredevil with Ben Affleck is another film that I think benefited greatly from relatively minor adjustments (adding the Coolio secondary story back). Once again, I liked the original theatrical cut too.

Definitely. I agree on all counts.

If they release a Snyder cut and the only difference is that Superman has a moustache, I will personally buy ten copies.

saga wrote:

If they release a Snyder cut and the only difference is that Superman has a moustache, I will personally buy ten copies.

This.

The Snyder Cut will be the version without the need to CGI out the moustache.
.
It will need a boatload of other CG though.

SteveUK wrote:

It will need a boatload of other CG though.

Sounds like someone in the special effects business wants a job.

Got one.
.
IF this is really happeneing then a lot of people are working on it already,
.
I just looked at the Wiki page and it says the last cut that Synder showed Warner Bros was over three hours long.
.
So; I’m wondering if that’s the version that would be completed? Or would they bring it down to the two hours of the theatrical cut. If Snyder had stayed on the film, he’s have had to trim his version further.

The #Arrow spinoff takes place in 2040. We already spoiled that Oliver is dead by that time, so his not appearing in Arrow 809 (the spinoff episode) isn't affected by what happens in Crisis (or, for that matter, the series finale). https://t.co/BkrFGnj6Fl

— Marc Guggenheim (@mguggenheim) November 19, 2019

Dave wrote:

It’s interesting to look at other Directors Cuts and see how much can change with just a few alterations. Blade Runner is a good example, and the Special Editions of a lot of Cameron movies too – Aliens, The Abyss, T2 and Avatar all benefit a lot from the re-edits in my opinion.

In all those cases, they’re largely the same film in terms of the bulk of the footage appearing in both versions, but the changes make the recut versions quite a different experience to watch.

With the Cameron movies, he had a personal policy of cutting full plotlines out of movies to get them down to studio-mandated runtimes, so adding them back in neatly returned a chunk of story rather than being a mish-mash of scenes.

Also, while Whedon might’ve reshot 20% – I don’t believe it’s as little as that, but let’s say it is – that doesn’t mean he didn’t modify that remaining 80% of the footage in some fashion during post. We know Whedon changed A LOT of the CGI, for exemple, over the Snyder footage, it might be minor things like color grading or minor FX on backgrounds and such (like Snyder’s original battle vs Superman was at night, not during the day, for exemple), but he could’ve also used other takes, and even moved the order of some scenes for exemple… so changing it back to Snyder’s original could potentially make it a vastly different movie… but again, that would necessitate an amount of money I’m not sure WB is willing to spend on it for it to be truly worth watching.

SteveUK wrote:

I’ll be honest, I’ve never seen a film I though was better for a director’s cut after the fact. That includes all of Cameron’s films, and Ridley Scott’s.

 
Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven extended/director’s cut was substantially better than the theatrical because they made it a lot longer and fleshed out a lot of scenes and characters with some of those deleted (for runtime presumably) scenes. I liked KoH’s theatrical cut when I saw it in the theater, but the extended one is definitely superior… but quite longer =P

RonnieM wrote:

Here’s the exact quote from Wikipedia.

In an interview, producer Charles Roven said: “Let’s just say 80, 85 percent of the movie is what was originally shot. There’s only so much you can do with other 15, 20 percent of the movie”.[101] Whedon received a screenwriting credit on the film alongside Chris Terrio,[102] while Snyder received sole director’s credit.[103]

It’s entirely possible this is down to the DGA rules – they have a strict “One Director” rule and rarely break it, unless its a genuine collaboration i.e. the Coen brothers. I think there’s even a percentage rule which applies to the release containing footage as shot by the credited Director. – I’m guessing it’s 80 – 85%. This opens a can of worms, but I’d say Snyder had some contractual claim to a one director credit and, even if Whedon and the WB wanted to, they probably couldn’t (nor would time allow) to recut the film anymore. A good example of this is the Island of Dr Moreau – which basically had two directors: Stanley, and then significant reshoots by Frankenheimer. Frankenheimer receives the credit, not Stanley (who gets a writers credit). I don’t think we’ve ever seen Stanley’s original scenes but they were more than just 20% of the film.

Point being, I agree with everyone here that a Snyder cut isn’t going to transform the film into something transcendental. It’ll probably please the fans begging for it, and it would seem to suggest the bigger universe that Snyder was setting up, but it will be the same film in a lot of ways and not a complete transmutation of something.

I wrote a post but it’s vanished.

Gareth I refuse to be silenced!

Anyway, it was about the DGA, proportionate credits, and the One Director rule, 1986s Heat, The Island of Dr Moreau and other films with director changes which have gone to arbitration.

Point being was I agree with the folks saying they shouldn’t expect a transcendantally different film. Snyder remains the sole directors credit on the theatrical release and there’s a reason for that.

Tom Welling’s Clark Kent Is a Sexy Lumberjack in New Crisis on Infinite Earths Photos
.
Look, it’s Bruce Wayne!

Yeah, Snyder’s preferred cut would likely be nearer to three hours, so if you remove all of the Whedon stuff that could be well over an hour of new footage. The promise was that it was going to be the Seven Samurai of superhero movies, and while I’m not asking for Kurosawa, I’d at least like to see some of Bruce’s epic journeys to try and convince the team to come together. After all, that was the reason that they killed Superman in the first place.

I agree that we’re never going to get the full thing without them putting a lot of work into it. Dropping the Danny Elfman score and getting Junkie XL to record a new one, for example. Obviously fixing and finishing all of the effects. I’ll be the first to watch this thing if it does ever come out, but I’d rather they release some glossy coffee table book with Terrio’s scripts for the two-parter and all of the concept art and storyboards that were created. Alternatively they could adapt them into comic books, but I’d hate for them to stick a run-of-the-mill d-list artist on something that’s supposed to represent a Zack Snyder movie.

Dave wrote:

That’s true for some of those scenes, but not all.

.

Jon wrote:

I liked KoH’s theatrical cut when I saw it in the theater, but the extended one is definitely superior…

.
As I said, I’ve seen a lot of extended cuts including Cameron’s and Scott’s. I don’t think any of them were better, even when I liked some of the restored material (and I didn’t like all of it).
.
Directors have a lot of power in the decades since the auteur theory took hold, but they (like any other author) benefit hearing from the opinions of others.
.
We all form irrational attachments, we all have favourites, we all “should get out more” and that applies to directors as much as the rest of us.
.
I do think the restored version of ‘Touch of Evil’ has a lot going for it, but since it was completed after Welles had died, I’m not sure it can be called his cut? It was based on his long ignored notes, but had he completed post on the film, it would’ve been re-shaped even futher.

Todd wrote:

Look, it’s Bruce Wayne!

 
That looks like Lionel Luthor… u_u
 

SteveUK wrote:

I don’t think any of them were better

 
That’s fine, but I do think that one at least is better… it being a favorite of mine has no real bearing on it. For exemple, Donnie Darko is a favorite of mine too… the DC is not better (except for the newer FX they used), and it was honestly quite unnecessary.

I wrote a post about the DGA and the sole director credit, The Island of Doctor Moreau, and Heat (1986).

BUT GARETH REFUSED TO MAKE IT HAPPEN VECAUSE HE HATES ME! ON MY BIRTHDAY EVEN!

Long story short – the theatrical release was a Zack Snyder film and the Snyder Cut will just tweak that a bit and expand the universe, not fundamentally alter the film.

Anonymous wrote:

Long story short – the theatrical release was a Zack Snyder film and the Snyder Cut will just tweak that a bit and expand the universe, not fundamentally alter the film.

Oh no, it’s not a Snyder film, I reject that notion… The one thing Snyder has is visual quality… what came out… not so much. Don’t take that away from the poor man, it’s the one thing he’s got… xD

Yeah that was the substance of my post.

The DGA have rules about this otherwise they take it to arbitration, like they did in the movies I said.

To get a sole director credit, 4/5ths of the running time has to be shot by the credited directors team. That’s why Roven says that 80% of the film is Snyder.

Rewrites happen on shooting scripts all the time (Solo too) but there’s union mandated proportionality of content which decides as to who gets a sole credit and who doesn’t.

You can reject the notion all you want, but the fact of the matter is that Zack Snyder directed the film in the eyes of the DGA, and by extension the eyes of Hollywood and the Law. If the film won an Oscar for Best Directing, it would be awarded to him and Whedon couldn’t contest it because, due to the DGA rules, he did not contribute enough.

Snyder obviously had a bigger vision then what was released, but what everyone has said so far is right. Don’t expect fundamental changes, but rather maybe a different c or d plot, and some scenes expanding the universe. At the end of the day, they were shooting from the same script and 4/5ths of the film shown had to be shot by Snyder to receive the credit.

Jon wrote:

Todd wrote:

Look, it’s Bruce Wayne!

That looks like Lionel Luthor… u_u

Yeah, Kevin Conroy and John Glover are starting to favor one another.

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah that was the substance of my post.

The DGA have rules about this otherwise they take it to arbitration, like they did in the movies I said.

To get a sole director credit, 4/5ths of the running time has to be shot by the credited directors team. That’s why Roven says that 80% of the film is Snyder.

Rewrites happen on shooting scripts all the time (Solo too) but there’s union mandated proportionality of content which decides as to who gets a sole credit and who doesn’t.

You can reject the notion all you want, but the fact of the matter is that Zack Snyder directed the film in the eyes of the DGA, and by extension the eyes of Hollywood and the Law. If the film won an Oscar for Best Directing, it would be awarded to him and Whedon couldn’t contest it because, due to the DGA rules, he did not contribute enough.

Snyder obviously had a bigger vision then what was released, but what everyone has said so far is right. Don’t expect fundamental changes, but rather maybe a different c or d plot, and some scenes expanding the universe. At the end of the day, they were shooting from the same script and 4/5ths of the film shown had to be shot by Snyder to receive the credit.

The film that was released Snyder’s film. The three hour cut was his rough. He took the notes he got from showing it around and hired Whedon to do the rewrites for his reshoots. When he had his family tragedy he stepped down and asked Whedon to take over directing the reshoot. The film we got was the film Snyder planned/wanted. It might not have been shot or edited exactly how he would have done it but it’s the he was making.

Which is interesting because the narrative is usually that the studio interfered with the directors vision

This time Whedon appears to be the scapegoat/culprit.

Anonymous wrote:

BUT GARETH REFUSED TO MAKE IT HAPPEN VECAUSE HE HATES ME! ON MY BIRTHDAY EVEN!

Happy birthday, Pip.

Why do you people keep insisting on stuff that plenty of people working in the movie have already said ain’t true? Eh… whatever…
 
Either way, besides all technicalities about percentages of shoots and whatnot, again, there’s a whole process post-shoots to make a movie, like editing, music, VFX, etc… we KNOW that a lot of scenes got tweaked, even those that weren’t reshoots. Whedon wouldn’t necessarily need to reshoot anything in order to change it in a big way…
 
What I mean is that technically one could, for exemple, change the score/SFX/OST, change the editing (remove scenes or change the order, for exemple), change the VFX (CGI, lightning, color grading, moustache removal, etc…), use alternate takes (if available), and all that sort of stuff and substantially change a movie without even doing one single day of reshoots. In fact, that’s how some studios have attempted to salvage movies in the past. There’s plenty of stories of studio interference out there with a lot directors not particularly happy about that process.
 
The technicality of how much of the footage was shot by the director isn’t a guarantee of the end result being their vision. That’s my point, wether anyone believes or not the JL we got was Snyder’s vision is irrelevant to the overall point.
 
Speaking of the technicalities though, I do wonder how they handle things like that with big productions that employ 2nd and 3rd (or more) units… I wonder if a second unit’s footage has to remain under that 20% rule, or if it’s counted differently in those instances…

Anonymous wrote:

Which is interesting because the narrative is usually that the studio interfered with the directors vision

This time Whedon appears to be the scapegoat/culprit.

 
Btw, most “release the Snyder cut” people don’t blame Whedon, they blame WB, so yeah, studio intereference… Honestly, poor Whedon stepped into that big pile of shit. I’m sure he had a mandate to do certain things that came directly from the studio heads at WB… most probably starting with cutting down the run-time, knowing Snyder’s proclivities for uber-long movies.

Damon Lindelof is stirring up trouble.

#ReleaseTheSynderCut: Damon Lindelof Teases That He’s Seen It As ‘Justice League’ Actors Gal Gadot & Ben Affleck Show Their Support

Jon wrote:

Speaking of the technicalities though, I do wonder how they handle things like that with big productions that employ 2nd and 3rd (or more) units… I wonder if a second unit’s footage has to remain under that 20% rule, or if it’s counted differently in those instances…

It’s not, it’s part of the directors shooting schedule.

Second and third units aren’t the director.

Perhaps Steve might be able to explain this.

As a side note – I cant wait to see this totally different movie, based on the inference made in your posts.

Anonymous wrote:

ON MY BIRTHDAY EVEN!

Happy Birthday, Pip!!

More importantly,

Its also Christian’s birthday.

I know this because we are part of the same entity, forever cursed to walk separate sides of the earth, one tall, one short, one smart, one a lawyer, one handsome, one a lawyer, until the end of days.

Also, because me and Christian sharing a birthday has always been a thing.

Anonymous wrote:

we are part of the same entity, forever cursed to walk separate sides of the earth, one tall, one short, one smart, one a lawyer, one handsome, one a lawyer

So there’s six of you altogether?

Today is my wife’s birthday too, but I’m pretty sure she is neither Tim nor Christian.

.

Not positive, but pretty sure….

It’s ridiculous that an episode of Batwoman is going to form part of the crossover while it still seems that there are no plans to show Batwoman in the UK.

It’s this kind of nonsense that made me stop buying “event” comics

 

Speaking of Snyder and his DC flicks… I’ve been seeing quite a few videos like this one pop out recently:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IslGylvkjPE

 

Not posting it so you people watch it (it’s long and too overly-dramatic), but just as an exemple… As I predicted, it seems people are starting to turn around on the Snyder-verse… mind you, it’s not like a huge trend yet, but it’s getting noticeable.

 

Anyways, my point being: I wonder if this is due in some wat to the incredible success of the Joker and stuff like Logan, and even the Boys… This newer stuff that feels fresh and deeper than usual (even though it might not be).

 

It’s certainly gonna be interesting to see how this develops… well to me, at least, since I’ve always thought people would eventually change their minds about MoS and BvS, sort of how it happened with Watchmen. It does seem to reinforce my notion that Snyder tends to be a bit ahead of the pack more often than not… though I have to agree with some of the things said in that video, and I kinda said the same recently, that he could definetly do with reigning in more his tendency to go ALL IN UR FACE!!!! all the time. I’ve always said, subtle, he’s not… xD

njerry wrote:

Today is my wife’s birthday too, but I’m pretty sure she is neither Tim nor Christian. . Not positive, but pretty sure….

Hi Sweetheart

Please dont overcook the casserole.  I’ll be home at 6

 

Does his wife know?

Interesting that videos about the Snyder Cut are starting to pop up more too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anything new, or do they all cover exactly the same ground?

SteveUK wrote:

Anything new, or do they all cover exactly the same ground?

Mostly recaps of what we’ve discussed.  The interesting thing is mainly in the first video the change in viewpoint on Batman v Superman.

Ok… so the moment the guy in the first video says everyone was turned around in their (our) opinions by the recut of ‘Batman vs Superman’ is the moment he loses me. Because it didn’t change my opinion.

.

It was a tweaked cut, with some added exposition here and there. It was still the wrong story as far as I’m concerned.

.

I think he’s talking bollocks.

I think there’s a tiny bit of confirmation bias going on here.

 

Speaking in general terms, if you liked Snyder’s previous films  you’ll probably like what he does with his ‘Directors Cuts.

 

If you didn’t, then added exposition and scenes colour graded to night time are probably unlikely to change your mind.

 

For the record, I kind of liked Man Of Steel, liked some moments of Bvs but thought it didn’t hang together as a whole, and thought JLA was okay but at that point the films were locked into a direction I’m not sure I loved.

 

Evidently people did (REALLY did) otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about it years later.

This is really what I was saying at the start. I’m perfectly open to the idea that the Snyder cut may be a better version of a pretty mediocre film but it’s ridden a hype train from fans that I think probably makes it impossible for them not to declare it a masterpiece.

I’m not a Snyder hater, I don’t mind the serious tone, I loved it for 60  minutes of Man of Steel but it has become very factionalised and quite divorced from reality at this point.

I want to see it. I may not like it, I MAY like it, but I’m fascinated in how the film developed over time.

One of things I want to see is a film that sidelines Superman and Wonder Woman in favour of Cyborg and (to a lesser extent) the Flash.

That’s pretty radical.

OMG Zack Speaks!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1udUe_BePw

I’d rather get a documentary about the whole thing at this point than a DC that’s not up to snuff in terms of quality… humm… now that I think about it, that might be what the releasethesnydercut hastag ressurgence might be about…

SteveUK wrote:

OMG Zack Speaks!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1udUe_BePw%5B/quote%5D
 
Oh ye, that was the original idea that was canned after BvS tanked… now THAT would’ve been amazing to see, but that’s not what the Snyder cut would be… hence why I keep saying it’s not all that important to get it… that original idea for the 2 part JL movies was the cool one =(

Wait, when did BvS tank? It grossed around $875 million. Sure, it can be argued that it should have made $1 billion, but it certainly didn’t tank. Justice League making nearly $220 million less than BvS…now that movie tanked.

 

Unless we’re just saying it tanked from a critical perspective?

In the sense that it failed to make a profit, I think.

I remember discussions at the time that it was kind of crazy for DC to have banked on a film needing to make $1bn+ to be profitable.