[Movie] Snyder Cut: Justice League

[Mojo03]

you can't rly say that, by all metrics the theatrical version was worse, just by having a better and more compelling character development and backstory for some of then already make this version better.

not saying one is shit and other is good, is a rabbit hole i don't want to enter, but this version is straight up better.

It has a better flow, probably mostly because it’s only his version he’s using, whereas Whedon was forced to use bits and pieces of 2 versions, with no prior experience with this DC universe and somehow make it work.

Let’s also not forget Snyder had like 6 years to think about it and make this version and pretty much an entire extra year to edit.

Without getting into the atrocious decision to make it 4:3 format, It’s still pretty much a shit movie, in my opinion, and especially bad considering how much extra time and effort he got with it, but to each his own.

[Ragedaug]

This is the incorrect understanding on your part again. Critics don't have to justify their opinion. The language you use still seems to come from a default position of critical reviews being a consumer guide.That is not necessarily it.

I mean, I guess they don't have to, but they do. The critic gives a rating, then use a bunch of big words, often pretentious, to explain why they scored a movie the way they did. Which is what I'm calling, "justifying their position". If I said, "I like this thing, and here's why", that would be me rating it then justifying my rating.

When a critic praises a movie that the general audience thinks is trash, or trashes a movie that the general audience enjoyed, I get curious how they defend/justify/explain their position. That's all I'm saying.

[Devilyaki]

I liked it, want to see what he had to do for the next one. Much better ending in this.

[Ragedaug]

I don't understand this notion that critics must agree with audiences, otherwise they're doing it wrong. It's not their job to predict how the audience is supposed to feel about a movie... Do music critics get the same flack for pointing out that X pop song of the month is yet another formulaic, soulless, autotuned, 4 chords, over-produced mess?

I would argue that the goal of a critic is to inform the public. The same reason there are professionals who critique restaurants, Broadway plays, etc. etc. The critic is supposed to be the professional who has a good eye and good taste to understand what is good & bad to the extent that they inform the audience what is enjoyable and what is not. I don't have the money or location to watch hardly any plays. So of the few plays I watch I rely on others to inform my decision on which to consume. I have to choose a new restaurant to eat at, I haven't eaten there before, so I rely on others to inform my decision on whether I should take a chance at eating there. I can't possibly make a decision before I've consumed the product, so I have no other choice than to either guess blindly or if I want a better chance at enjoying the product, look to what others have said about their experiences, which helps inform the decision I will make on whether or not to consume that product.

So to that end, if the professional critics are almost always at odds at what I find enjoyable, meaning they primarily recommend I watch movies that I do not enjoy and tell me I should not watch movies that I do enjoy, I would ask, "what's the purpose of a critic"?

[Aurrora]

Your opinion on a film can evolve over time. That 3 might've become a 2 or 1.5 by 2021 and with reflection on the original film.

- - - Updated - - -



The contrived manner in which the boxes are "woken" bothered me immediately.

Why didn't they wake up at the end of Man of Steel when Superman screamed after killing Zod?

They woke because they sensed Superman's death, not his scream.

[Witchblade77]

They woke because they sensed Superman's death, not his scream.

so those visible shockwaves accompanying the faint scream that got way WAY too much screen time and attention/notice from various characters to be accidental - were... what exactly?

[Aurrora]

If they feel they need to pause it for a while or can't sit through it all in one sitting that's already a fail.

It's got six parts and an epilogue, if it helps think of it as a Justice League streaming series. It works for the medium it was delivered in, if it was a theatrical release I'm sure they would have shaved the runtime down for people with shorter attention spans and smaller bladders.

- - - Updated - - -

so those visible shockwaves accompanying the faint scream that got way WAY too much screen time and attention/notice from various characters to be accidental - were... what exactly?

Superman's dying scream, they didn't awaken for just any scream.

[Syegfryed]

It has a better flow, probably mostly because it’s only his version he’s using, whereas Whedon was forced to use bits and pieces of 2 versions, with no prior experience with this DC universe and somehow make it work.

Let’s also not forget Snyder had like 6 years to think about it and make this version and pretty much an entire extra year to edit.

Without getting into the atrocious decision to make it 4:3 format, It’s still pretty much a shit movie, in my opinion, and especially bad considering how much extra time and effort he got with it, but to each his own.

Right, again, im not entering in the shenanigans of "if its shit or not", im saying it is, straight up, a better version, regardless of the variables.

[jonnysensible]

ive decided that the best scene was when they are rushing to get to cyborgs dad before he gets tortured and gives away the box location or whatever and they walk up 12 flights of stairs.

[Elkas]

I liked it a lot, way better than whatever it was that we got in 2017. Better than most Marvel garbage we've gotten.

Still, at 4 hours this would've never worked in theatres. I can't really blame Zack either for it, I put most of the blame with WB for not having a god damn plan in place and launching an ensemble movie after only 2-3 movies. 'End Game' worked so well because there was a decade of buildup (even if it was often of questionable quality).

Finally, I still think it would've worked better if they released it as a mini-series, instead of one long cut. Even viewing it at home, 4 hours is just too damn long.

[segara82]

does it disrupt police force? does it disrupt other countries? does it disrupt judicial proceedings outside of London to a degree that could be considered being throw several centuries back in civilization's development?

1. Yes, legal proceedings being disrupted/vaporized has serious consequences on police activity, starting by warrants and court summons not being issued over destroyed evidence/dead witnesses to trials not taking place.
2. Again, yes, since the legal proceedings can be dealing with people and companies from other countries. The proceedings halted or worse foreign citizens being blown up is disruptive.
3. Yes and no. Yes, it disrupts legal proceedings in just about every part of England, and can set judicial proceedings back for months to years. But no, not centuries.

And i am only talking about blowing up the Royal Courts, and not the surrounding buildings like the Inns of Court (all barristers must belong to one of them, further disrupting legal proceedings), the High Commission of Australia (the diplomatic mission of Australia in the United Kingdom), and other important institutions.

[DingDongKing]

Justice League. Man of Steel. BvS.

Can you provide any substantive evidence that Snyder’s production went over budget? I specifically mention his production given how much they reshot Justice League without him and to the detriment of the film. If not, let’s agree that you’re lying.

[Bodakane]

you can't rly say that, by all metrics the theatrical version was worse, just by having a better and more compelling character development and backstory for some of then already make this version better.

not saying one is shit and other is good, is a rabbit hole i don't want to enter, but this version is straight up better.

Its not. It's worse. There was no real character development at all and that was supposedly what the bloated run time was for. There's no metrics that say this was better.

[Ivanstone]

Can you provide any substantive evidence that Snyder’s production went over budget? I specifically mention his production given how much they reshot Justice League without him and to the detriment of the film. If not, let’s agree that you’re lying.

His movies cost a fuck of a lot more than most comparable movies and for what purpose? Aquaman cost much less and transported us to an "alien" world. Avengers 3/4 cost a little more but it was much bigger in scope. The worst part is we already know that Snyder can shoot a cheeper movie but didn't. JL/BVS in particular look worse than 300.

[Terminatrix]

loved this cut better then the 2017 one. musical change,darker color tone,extended scenes. started up as a 2hrs movie and he made it into a 4hrs one holding and cutting nothing. this is truly what he wanted to show as a story. fun fact in the original,at the beginning the bank fight diana goes on the upper room and throw the suitcase in the air , in this she truly fly up

[DingDongKing]

His movies cost a fuck of a lot more than most comparable movies and for what purpose? Aquaman cost much less and transported us to an "alien" world. Avengers 3/4 cost a little more but it was much bigger in scope. The worst part is we already know that Snyder can shoot a cheeper movie but didn't. JL/BVS in particular look worse than 300.

That's not called being over-budget. That's called you not liking how expensive his movies are. Difference. Also, since you were discussing Hollywood 'accounting' before, one thing to factor in for many 'franchise' films is they end up bundling development costs of previous projects under the same name into the final film's budget. So Man of Steel would have bundled the development of every Superman film since Superman Returns. Batman v Superman would've bundled the cost of every Batman vs Superman developed and ditto for Justice League. It's a cheap tactic to dodge tax.

[s_bushido]

JL/BVS in particular look worse than 300.

That could be down to a few of things: 300 took place in a relatively few locations, letting them focus their time/money on other things. He also had the comic to basically use as storyboards...so all the iconic shots in the movie are pretty much just replicating frames from that. And his broken slo-mo button was less tiresome at that point in his career.

[Ivanstone]

That's not called being over-budget. That's called you not liking how expensive his movies are. Difference. Also, since you were discussing Hollywood 'accounting' before, one thing to factor in for many 'franchise' films is they end up bundling development costs of previous projects under the same name into the final film's budget. So Man of Steel would have bundled the development of every Superman film since Superman Returns. Batman v Superman would've bundled the cost of every Batman vs Superman developed and ditto for Justice League. It's a cheap tactic to dodge tax.

I'm sure WB execs were really pleased with how much his movie's cost. With a lot of MCU movies you can roughly see where the money goes.

[Fencers]

I mean, I guess they don't have to, but they do. The critic gives a rating, then use a bunch of big words, often pretentious, to explain why they scored a movie the way they did.

This isn't really true. I can't think of any major film critic that explains why they scored something as they do. Many don't give scores, these are usually enforced by editors btw.

You would also find "I like this and here is why" to be rare film critique. But is common among armature critics and consumer reviews.

Is Raymond Carney, Phil Lopate, Katie Walsh, Christine Lemire, or Roxanna Hadid actually talk about what they liked/disliked in their reviews? They don't, only armature talk about films like that.

Read Hadid's recent review of The Fever. It thoroughly talks about the film, not in terms or basis of "what I liked and didn't like". It is all about the artistry and interpretation of the art.

I strongly suspect you are reading consumer reviews. Not film. criticism. If it works for you, cool. But there is a lot of gross misunderstanding about the purpose and intent of film critique in the context of consumption & entertainment "value". This is objectively wrong.

[DingDongKing]

I'm sure WB execs were really pleased with how much his movie's cost. With a lot of MCU movies you can roughly see where the money goes.

That's an opinion you have and is grounded in no fact. He hasn't gone over-budget, which is a claim you made and isn't true.

That said, I've found most Warner films have wonky CGI, because they're infamous for rushing projects and/or demanding extensive reworks.

They're very director-friendly when they know the director has serious clout, like Christopher Nolan for example. But they're pretty weird in other situations. Peter Jackson for example got pulled in ten different directions by WB + MGM because they wanted three movies when it was initially meant to be two. The result was an overblown mess, where the CGI in many situations was markedly worse than the LOTR films.