75% on Rotten Tomatoes is much better than I was expecting
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/zack_snyders_justice_league
75% on Rotten Tomatoes is much better than I was expecting
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/zack_snyders_justice_league
Well damn, who knew that having the original director actually direct the whole movie would make it better?
75% on Rotten Tomatoes is much better than I was expecting
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/zack_snyders_justice_league
That'll likely drop once they allow actual reviewers to review it. It's being bolstered heavily by youtube critics and predisposed fans. About 80 of the 100 reviews currently are from places you've never heard of, or have no affiliation at all. The 2017 version had 4x as many reviews.
Most of the positive current reviews, if you click on their source will say " ____ is not a Tomatometer-approved publication. Reviews from this publication only count toward the Tomatometer when written by the following Tomatometer-approved critic(s)"
Also, RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON is currently at 94% and it is absolutely not a 94% movie.
maybe the meter is just broken by the pandemic and people are willing to love anything right now.
Well damn, who knew that having the original director actually direct the whole movie would make it better?
Also it being two hours longer? Lot of films do better if you literally double the length. Lot more room to breathe there.
Makes you think of old-timey Hollywood where it wasn't unheard of for films to have intermissions. I'm looking at you, Gone With the Wind, Ten Commandments, and Spartacus.
Almost Famous is one of my favorite movies and then the blue ray added about an hour and it became one even more so.
That said, I think Avengers 3 and 4 would be infinitely better if you cut off about an hour and half and got them down to one film, Dark Knight would be better if it was shorter, and the Hobbit absolutely did not need to be 3 movies if they weren't going to flesh out every dwarf and works just dandy in a ~4 hour cut instead of 9 hours.
I've never seen Amadeus in its original cut but a lot of people think the theatrical (award wining) was superior to the extended.
So it goes both ways but yeah, having a lot more room to work with helps with a team film.
Makes you think of old-timey Hollywood where it wasn't unheard of for films to have intermissions. I'm looking at you, Gone With the Wind, Ten Commandments, and Spartacus.
Return of the King needed one. Oh, my poor dad's legs that day…
I disagree on that, to me all the Avengers movies, except for age of ultron, are basically perfect, I love everything about them
This is an interesting article I found when looking up the Snyder cut
That said, I think Avengers 3 and 4 would be infinitely better if you cut off about an hour and half and got them down to one film, Dark Knight would be better if it was shorter, and the Hobbit absolutely did not need to be 3 movies if they weren't going to flesh out every dwarf and works just dandy in a ~4 hour cut instead of 9 hours.
I think the Avengers movies are fine, but I totally agree about The Hobbit. Peter Jackson originally only wanted to do 2 (which I could see), but the stupid studio forced him into making 3. The only good that came out of it was getting more Smaug.
I love the LotR extended cuts though.
The studio didn't force Jackson to make three films. Or they never would have originally advertised it as two. He suggested it after he had like 7 hours of footage and couldn't bear to cut anything, so minimal reshoots got it up to like 8 hours and three films.
Same thing happened on Kong.
The Hobbit movies are horrible
The Hobbit movies are horrible
As is, yea. But there's a good movie in there. Some fan edits cut it down to 4 hours and its really solid then once you take out Jackson's excesses and stuff that was there to pad the length
The Bilbo Edition is the cut I watched and it's pretty strong. Not quite perfect because they only had the footage they had to work with, but its so close. If Jackson had filmed with just that version in mind with another few minutes to bridge the content better it would be beloved.
https://goldfishblues.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/the-hobbit-the-bilbo-edition-3-0-the-final-cut/
Re Avengers:
I definitely think they could have re-edited the films a bit. That first half of Infinity War should have been from Thanos' POV up until he left Titan for Earth. They could do an The End of Evangelion fake-out with the credits (or partial credits) and then do the Earth stuff all the way up to the snap. Alternatively the first twenty minutes could be then attached as a third 'post-credits' piece of the movie but I suppose Marvel wanted to continue to throw us for a loop by having scenes from the prologue to use in trailers.
Anyway, I really don't think this film have nearly enough material to match the length of a one cour anime. I honestly don't think two hours was a bad runtime for the theatrical cut, it's just shittily structured and written.
The Hobbit movies are horrible
Good parts and bad parts, like any movie. Martin Freeman is awesome as Bilbo, and hey, if you get Bilbo right, you've got half the movie right. Smaug is great, partly from the animation and partly because you could tell Benedict Cumberbatch was having fun hamming it up. The dwarves were . . . all right, not great not bad. Legolas and co. were completely unneeded. Do I even need to say anything about Gandalf?
I'm completely happy with the runtime of both Infinity War and Endgame. I honestly didn't feel their length at all while watching. Squishing them into one movie seems like a horrible idea and I'm glad they didn't do that.
Three hours for a movie is already pushing it, particularly today where intermissions are not a thing.
Four hours is absolutely beyond the pale, particularly for a movie made by Zach Snyder.
Metacritic for Snyder Cut is at 53. Most reviewers saying "slightly better than the old version."
That's a bit closer to what I expected, compared to RT's pass/fail metric where even reviews that say "it's mediocre but the visuals are nice, 3/5" count as a positive..
I'm completely happy with the runtime of both Infinity War and Endgame. I honestly didn't feel their length at all while watching. Squishing them into one movie seems like a horrible idea and I'm glad they didn't do that.
Taking the movies as they are and cutting them down to one film would be an impossible nightmare and a mess, yes. But if they'd been scripted and filmed as a single film?
You didn't need TWO big showdowns with Thanos on top of all the little fights. You don't need to kill him and then have his past self attack. If you don't have the snap you cut basically the first hour of Endgame entirely. and all the timetravel "lets revisit our greatest hits" stuff was fun but mostly unneeded. You pick out one or two of the dozen subplots (Say, Hawkeye, Wanda and Vision) and cut it back and save that material for that group's own films.
They could have been a single two and a half hour film and it would have worked. Basically you take the ending from Endgame and plop it onto the end of Infinity War and it would work.
Obviously the films we got where the heroes lose halfway required two full films, there was no way to do that and process it and undo it in a single go. and we see them cope with that, and it gives us a victory lap to see them all one last time and revisit their greatest hits and give us Captain America versus himself and whatnot, and so it works for what they intended to do, but on the conceptual level it didn't NEED to be that.
Also, over 5 hours of movie and they STILL had to off-camera the resolution to the Bruce/Hulk plot. Partly because they paced it to be two films and put all his development in the time skip as a surprise.
I'm just here to chime in with the opinion that The Hobbit movies are horrible from bottom to top. There wasn't a single thing I liked about them including Martin Freeman as Bilbo. He constantly made weird faces that were more "ACTING" than acting and it irritated me to no end.
Taking the movies as they are and cutting them down to one film would be an impossible nightmare and a mess, yes. But if they'd been scripted and filmed as a single film?
You didn't need TWO big showdowns with Thanos on top of all the little fights. You don't need to kill him and then have his past self attack. If you don't have the snap you cut basically the first hour of Endgame entirely. and all the timetravel "lets revisit our greatest hits" stuff was fun but mostly unneeded. You pick out one or two of the dozen subplots (Say, Hawkeye, Wanda and Vision) and cut it back and save that material for that group's own films.
They could have been a single two and a half hour film and it would have worked. Basically you take the ending from Endgame and plop it onto the end of Infinity War and it would work.
Obviously the films we got where the heroes lose halfway required two full films, there was no way to do that and process it and undo it in a single go. and we see them cope with that, and it gives us a victory lap to see them all one last time and revisit their greatest hits and give us Captain America versus himself and whatnot, and so it works for what they intended to do, but on the conceptual level it didn't NEED to be that.
Also, over 5 hours of movie and they STILL had to off-camera the resolution to the Bruce/Hulk plot. Partly because they paced it to be two films and put all his development in the time skip as a surprise.
I mean, it`s hard to argue with that - if they left out major story points, some of the really fun, but not so important scenes, and some characters storylines completely, they probably could have fit it all into one single movie. But the end result would have been a very different film, and I'd argue a much more lackluster affair. You lose a lot of the impact if Thanos doesn't actually manage to do the snap and defeat the heroes. You lose all of the emotion of the heroes having to deal with what they've lost. And you'd loose lots of very fun, enjoyable scenes.
To me, it's like saying "Hey, if you'd cut out the battle of Helm's Deep, Merry and Pippin's storylines and Sarumans character out of LotR, the story could have been told in two films instead of three". That's probably true, but who'd want that? So I don't really see the point of arguing about it, I guess. I mean, I'm sure not absolutely everybody enjoyed Infinity War and Endgame, but they were really well-received in general and most people would probably agree that splitting the story up into two movies was a good move. Which is the exact opposite of the Hobbit movies were basically everybody agrees that there were no reason to blow that story up into three lengthy movies.
To me, it's like saying "Hey, if you'd cut out the battle of Helm's Deep, Merry and Pippin's storylines and Sarumans character out of LotR, the story could have been told in two films instead of three".
They did exactly that in the theatrical cuts though. Merry and Pippin were cut down to cameos in the second film, the build up to Helm's Deep and the battle were much shorter, and Saruman was left out of the third movie entirely. And the movies worked fine with those cuts.
Are the movies BETTER with that material in there? Absolutely, I haven't watched the theatrical cuts since they were in theaters, I only watch the Extended Editions, to the point I can't tell you anymore what was added and what wasn't. But the extended editions between the three of them added more than two hours to the films, the equivalent of an entirely extra film.
Again, Infinity War as framed, where the heroes lose big then have to recover wouldn't work as a single film, but talking about just the components? The stuff the story NEEDED? It could have been done in 1.
I know I'm in the minority but I was incredibly bored with most of Endgame, and I'm unlikely to ever watch that plodding depressing first hour again. But I'm also the weirdo who hasn't liked any of the Russo films, even though I know Winter Soldier is a lot of people's favorite and Civil War had that airport fight. Like their movies are there on a technical level and the critical reception is obviously positive, but none of their movies have worked for me.
Which is the exact opposite of the Hobbit movies were basically everybody agrees that there were no reason to blow that story up into three lengthy movies.
There was no reason… given what Jackson ended up making. But had the studios not dicked around DelToro for years? If the studios had given him time to board and edit the scripts for an extra year like they did on LoTR instead of having basically no prep time basically making up the last movie on the fly? If he'd taken the time to really give each of the 13 dwarves a personality and gave them all a little something to do, instead of just three of them? Had Jackson embraced that challenge instead of going "hell no I'm neot dealing with 13 dwarves"?
There were enough characters and enough action beats to warrant three films. Especially with the appendices materials added in.
Following the book strictly? There was no reason for it to be more than two. But there COULD have been a reason to make it three. There just wasn't because Jackson had no real plan or desire to do three until the end of filming and he didn't really do anything with all that extra screentime..
Saruman disappearing after the TreeEnts assault his tower in Two Towers was pretty damn noticeable in Return Of The King.
Saruman disappearing after the TreeEnts assault his tower in Two Towers was pretty damn noticeable in Return Of The King.
It was noticeable, yes. But Gandalf saying "His power is gone, lets move on" worked for the sake of cutting 10 minutes off the already 200 minute movie. For the casual audience who hadn't seen the previous movie in a year, for the sake of getting the story going without dragging down the first half hour cleaning up the previous movie, that was fine.
Note that Jackson DIDN'T do that in the Hobbit, and the last movie having to spend its opening concluding the stuff with Smaug was really weird and made it clear that stuff should have just been in the previous movie.
Like I said, obviously the extended cuts are better for having the extra content in there. 4 hours of canvas to play with will usually have more to them than a 3 hour canvas (assuming the pacing isn't killed in the process.)
But rather than pointing at main characters and super important plot points to make extreme examples of "they couldn't dare cut any content" , you should instead think about "what if they just completely removed Alfrid Lickspittle? Would anything at all be lost? Nope, not a thing.
Like, in Endgame it was a nice scene to have Thor speak to his mother again. But… why did Rocket need to be in that sequence? I like Rocket, he's great, but... Or, why did they have to have a whole thing about undoing Loki's death scene so he can break the timeline? (besides to make a tv series) Did Thanos really need to send a starter squad of four goons when three would have served the same narrative? And so on.
A lot of stuff in those movies was there purely to push the spinoff material.
While I did enjoy the part as an action scene, they could have cut out the whole "let's turn Smaug into gold" thing. Wasn't in the book, wasn't needed.
It was noticeable, yes. But Gandalf saying "His power is gone, lets move on" worked for the sake of cutting 10 minutes off the already 200 minute movie. For the casual audience who hadn't seen the previous movie in a year, for the sake of getting the story going without dragging down the first half hour cleaning up the previous movie, that was fine.
It worked, but dammit you can't waste an iota of Christopher Lee if you have him. Guy was the only one in the whole crew who actually MET Tolkien.
Again, I don't agree with cutting that scene, I think it was important enough it should have outweighed something else, but I get WHY.
Extended Edition is the only one I ever watch anyway.
Metacritic for Snyder Cut is at 53. Most reviewers saying "slightly better than the old version."
That's a bit closer to what I expected, compared to RT's pass/fail metric where even reviews that say "it's mediocre but the visuals are nice, 3/5" count as a positive..
But that's the problem with all movies on RT. From all the marvel movies that have 85%+ certified fresh, how many of the reviews are ''mediocre'' reviews? RT should only be the 3/5 rating instead of this 100% ''positive reviews''.
The tomato meter works fine when movies are really good or really bad and there's a general consensus on that.
It mostly falls completely apart on movies that are mediocre in the middle. It will fluctuate wildly there, usually erring towards the positive.
The tomato meter works fine when movies are really good or really bad and there's a general consensus on that.
It mostly falls completely apart on movies that are mediocre in the middle. It will fluctuate wildly there, usually erring towards the positive.
Thats why I´ll always look at the average score. This is by far more accurate than the tomatometer. Example: Raya got 95% but the score is 7.7 out of ten (which in my opinion reflects Rays better). Nomadland has 94 % but a score of 8.8. So Raya is better in terms of positive reviews, but Nomadland by far exceeds Raya in terms of quality…. (based on all critics)
They did exactly that in the theatrical cuts though. Merry and Pippin were cut down to cameos in the second film, the build up to Helm's Deep and the battle were much shorter, and Saruman was left out of the third movie entirely. And the movies worked fine with those cuts.
Are the movies BETTER with that material in there? Absolutely, I haven't watched the theatrical cuts since they were in theaters, I only watch the Extended Editions, to the point I can't tell you anymore what was added and what wasn't. But the extended editions between the three of them added more than two hours to the films, the equivalent of an entirely extra film.
Bwah, wow, you totally busted me there. I had actually totally forgotten about the theatrical release version of LotR because I'm so accustomed to the Extended Version, and it's kinda hilarious that I mentioned exactly the things they actually did cut outTalk about a bad example! But I guess what I'm arguing is more along the lines of cutting so much stuff out that you could fit all of LotR into two movies instead of three. I'm sure it could be done, but you'd lose a lot of what made the films so good. And I'd argue that for me at least and most fans of the MCU, the last two Avengers films were fine as they were.
I mean, I guess I can understand getting bored with the first hour of Endgame. I personally appreciated that they went that way and actually allowed a more (appropriately) somber tone that is rather unusual for the MCU as a whole. If the whole movie had been like that, I wouldn't have been happy either, but it's nicely counterbalanced with the sheer fun of the time travel plot and the epicness of the finale. It was exacly the appropriate amount of seriousness and gloom, as opposed to the joyless affairs that most of the DCEU movies were.
It's interesting that you are no fan of the Russo's films - is it the tone or do you think they don't get the characters right?
It's of course your fair right to feel that way. I guess I was just taken a little aback because you lumped the last two Avengers films and the Hobbit trilogy together even though the general fan perception for both is so different. "The Hobbit should not have been three movies" seems to be the general consensus, whereas "Infinity War and Endgame should have been one single movie" seems like a more "out there" opinion.
The action scenes in the MCU are so bad that I'm more interested in the non-action scenes, so in that respect I actually enjoyed Endgame a lot more. Infinity War is cool for, like, five seconds when Cap shows up to save Wanda and Vis and then it goes back to being a visual mess.
It's interesting that you are no fan of the Russo's films - is it the tone or do you think they don't get the characters right?
I don't know. On a technical level they're fine, the action is fine, I can see why they're some people's favorites, but for whatever reason none of them have worked for me.
I think its probably because unless Spiderman or Ant Man are on camera there's not a lot of joy or fun in their movies. (Yes I know, there's still one liners and character moments, I'm not saying there aren't.) It's just sort of all plot and drama all the time. I don't know how to quantify or explain that exactly. I just… don't get invested in their films for whatever reason, they never pull me in.
If it was just one of the movies I'd put it on the script for that given movie, but when its all four of them there's obviously just something to their scripting/pacing/directing style that doesn't work for me.
Which... is a problem when they're 2.5-3 hours long.
I know I'm in the minority there and their films are mostly the most loved ones. Is what it is.
Chernin Entertainment and DC Films are developing an Hourman film. Gavin James and Neil Widener will be writing. No decision on which Hourman, but most likely gonna use Rex.
Just watched Snyder cut with a couple of buddies. 4 hours passed like a breeze for all of us. It's A LOT better than the theatrical cut. Of course, it's just goes to show how limited, and frankly, outdated, theatrical releases of around 2 hours can be. With all the changes and financial damage Corona has caused, I wonder if we aren't witnessing a turning point in the way blockbusters are made.
I felt that the film was way, way too bloated. Like…scenes just went on and on, long pans and slow-mo with no energized pacing or interesting use of color and camera angles. For as long as the film is I don't feel like many of the characters are particularly fleshed out, either. Clark continues to have no personality, Steppenwolf's not sympathetic and all we know about him is...he wants to go home. Okay, but why does he want to go home?
I enjoyed some of what they were trying to do with Victor but it still felt lacking. Having a not entirely offensive autistic stereotype like Barry was nice but I still feel like there is a missing link in his arc. Okay, we can ascertain that the film is supposed to be about Barry becoming a neurotypical member of society...but how does joining the JL help him do that? We don't really see him struggle in that respect or exactly how being with the JL develops him. Or how Henry is suddenly okay with his son getting into the law enforcement industry when earlier in the film he expressly begged him not to.
…scenes just went on and on, long pans and slow-mo with no energized pacing or interesting use of color and camera angles.
That's the trademark Snyder special that his fans love so much, pretentious slow-mo using a darkening filter.
Snyder Cut was pretty much what I expected. Some of the new scenes were pretty good, others dragged on too long or were totally unnecessary.
! Martian Manhunter and Darkseid were pretty cool, as was Cyborg's expanded backstory. And the climax, I thought, was overall stronger and more fun.
! That post-apocalyptic dream at the end though was so out-of-place and went on way too long.
I'm completely happy with the runtime of both Infinity War and Endgame. I honestly didn't feel their length at all while watching. Squishing them into one movie seems like a horrible idea and I'm glad they didn't do that.
You can practically skip Infinity War and not lose anything of substance for Endgame.
Everything, including character stuff, is basically already given in Endgame.
Infinity War was nothing more than a big advertisement for Endgame, which is the real meat and potatoes of the story.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Not a Snyder fan. Never gave a shit about his films before. Never really liked his politics in his movies as I'm a Pakistani-Canadian.
But absolutely loved the shit outta Snyder Cut. Probably the only 4-hour movie I have watched that didn't bore and instead made me feel a bit disappointed when it finished. I WANTED to know what will happen next. That is very rare with comic book movies that are endlessly trying to setup garbage characters to get their own movies but don't actually earn the right or place for that said movie.
Compare to watching the same formulaic Marvel flick with predictable character beats and every character feeling like being cut from the same template, this movie felt like a breath of fresh air. Definitely buying this on 4k to support Snyder's vision. For better or for worst, he owned this. And I hope he gets to direct the future sequel to JL.
And can I just say how utterly awesome it was to witness that Amazonian women scene. Compare to the very-on-the-nose female empowerment poorly executed scenes in Hollywood(Endgame's worst scene was basically all the paper-thin female characters lining up together to give us the most laughably bad modern Hollywood female empowerment crap) just amounts to nothing more than beating of fodders in order for them to look cool, Amazonian scene with amazon women trying their best, struggling, not backing down and being heroic was fucking awesome.
Definitely enjoyed this farrrrrr more than Endgame, which was the only and genuinely good film that Marvel ever produced for me.
Snyder cut is okay, definitely better than the original version
Still it’s sad that this is DC’s answer to the Avengers
Hell I’d take any of the Avengers movies over this in a heartbeat even age of ultron
I mean it was fun to watch but I’m really not understanding the love
It has a vision.
That is more than what you can say about Marvel flicks as they are driven by factory supply-and-demand. They maybe popular or far more liked but at the end of the day, it is still entertainment created specifically to pander.
And thank god, it wasn't like Avengers. The theatrical version was basically like Avengers and it fucking failed.
And I don't even give a shit about Snyder but at least, he has a vision and specific way of filming. Good or bad, it is still Snyder way.
As for the movie; everything worked here for me. Nothing really felt forced or just there to be there for the sake of it. It has very similar elements to Avengers and yet feels different and greater.
Maybe Snyder has changed from the…..event that happened. Or maybe he was restricted here but either-way, it felt much better a bit unlike Snyder.
Yeah why would anyone want to be like Marvel? All they have are great critic reviews and great fan reviews, not a single rotten critical consensus score on Rotten Tomatoes, they make tons of money become huge pop culture phenomenon and have become one of the highest grossing media franchises of all time within a decade :ninja:
I love how you are pretending that somehow says something about Marvel other than being successful at pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Garbage strawman aside, just a daily reminder that Nausicaa manga sold over 10 million and yet Fifty Shades of Grey sold over 125 million.
It feels like people who enjoy Marvel are afraid of admitting that they enjoy factory-made shit and have to consistently bring up the sales in an attempt to be like "HERP DERP EVERYONE ENJOYS IT SO IT GOOD" when it really isn't.
Come back when you something of substance to say lol.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Ah yes, the classic "It's just a joke bruh" tactic.
I love how you are pretending that somehow says something about Marvel other than being successful at pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Garbage strawman aside, just a daily reminder that Nausicaa manga sold over 10 million and yet Fifty Shades of Grey sold over 125 million.
It feels like people who enjoy Marvel are afraid of admitting that they enjoy factory-made shit and have to consistently bring up the sales in an attempt to be like "HERP DERP EVERYONE ENJOYS IT SO IT GOOD" when it really isn't.
Come back when you something of substance to say lol.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Ah yes, the classic "It's just a joke bruh" tactic.
It was a joke, hence the ninja smilely face
I do agree that just because something does well doesn't mean it's good
look at Transformers, it makes tons of money with each new entry in franchise, but it's a burning garbage dump of a series, that lacks anything good about it
I'd argue to tell weather something is truly good or not, is not judged solely by success but how well it's reviewed,
for example, Transformers, Twilight and Fifty Shades of grey all have horrible reviews by critics
where as the avengers movies (outside of Ultron) all rank it high eighties to low 90's on Rotten Tomatoes
also despite how much I love Marvel (I grew up reading the comics as a kid) I don't think all the MCU movies are good, I don't like Iron Man 2 or 3, or Thor Dark World at all, I thought Captain Marvel was meh, and the first cap and thor movie were just slightly okay etc.
And sure if your looking for movies of quality like Saving Private Ryan, Shawshank Redemption, Parasite, Pulp Fiction, The Godfather or Goodfellas than Marvel movies won't be for you
But if you enjoy some super hero action, funny lines and often feel good stories to watch for an hour or two, then yeah I think there pretty fun to watch and I'm not gonna apologize for that
and again it was a friendly little joke that you blew up way out of proportion, it was never meant to be offensive
Seriously look at the critic reviews
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/marvels_the_avengers
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avengers_infinity_war
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avengers_endgame
Now check them for other popular stuff that don’t have the same quality
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_dark_of_the_moon
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/twilight
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/twilight_saga_new_moon
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1210749-eclipse
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_twilight_saga_breaking_dawn_part_2
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fifty_shades_of_grey
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fifty_shades_darker
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fifty_shades_freed
Again you not liking something doesn’t make it a bad movie, for example I hate Frank Sinatra’s music, never liked listening to it, doesn’t mean he’s a bad musician, I know he’s great, it’s just not my cup of tea
Plenty of people here on the threads love the Avengers movies, there’s no need to insult there tastes and act like your opinion is infinitely superior simply cause you disagree, if you want a friendly debate as to why this is better or why you don’t enjoy marvel that’s absolutely fine
but don’t act like we’re brain dead cattle who are being spoon feed crap movies and are to dumb to understand why there bad
I'm amazed that the 2017 version is only two hours long. That's absurd. Endgame is nearly three hours. Many a film are nearly three hours. Many drama films are nearly three hours! Maybe the studio mandated it. Maybe Whedon didn't like the remainder of the material.
Anyways, I enjoyed Snyder's a great deal more! You could've cut it down to three hours and released that in the theater just fine. Obviously it just flowed better. The way it starts, the way we're introduced to the boxes, the way action scenes are given more space to play out and have more weight. Cyborg is better. Steppenwolf is better.
Obviously all superheroes kill one way or another, directly or indirectly, but Wonder Woman just outright blowing that guy to pieces at the beginning was too much. And all that rubble falling onto the street.
It's very easy to tell in Whedon's version which scenes were reshot because Affleck looks a tad different in the reshoots. Different hair, face a bit puffier. And Batman is much better in this version. In Whedon's version he's just fawning over Superman.
And ending fight is many times better. No odd Russian family. Flash actually plays a vital role.
A lot of scenes are overly drawn out. Too much slow-mo on the simplest things! Odd music choices etc. Cut out the epilogue..
I would have liked a sequel to this, actually (though get a better writer ffs). Such a shame. Now that Marvel has the rights to almost all of their characters, it means that there'll be even less diversity in the comic book film genre. Not that I don't like their films, but too many follow a certain formula, have a similar tone and are plagued with sitcom humor. I wanted DC to be darker, to feel different. You can have something be dark, but then have Superman who is the light. Snyder just fells short on adding light. Though Aquaman and WW84 were much lighter in tone. Silly humor here and there.
The problem I had with the DCEU was never that it's too dark in general, just that it felt rather pretentious, like Snyder wanted it to appear to be all deep, emotional and complex, but it just felt hollow and secretly really dumb. Plus I just really didn't like their version of Superman and what they did with him. It's good to hear that the Snyder cut is actually watchable, if flawed. I think I might check it out once it's available somewhere for me. (Never watched the 2017 version; after Batman v Superman I just lost all interest in the DCEU for a while).
The problem I had with the DCEU was never that it's too dark in general, just that it felt rather pretentious, like Snyder wanted it to appear to be all deep, emotional and complex, but it just felt hollow and secretly really dumb. Plus I just really didn't like their version of Superman and what they did with him. It's good to hear that the Snyder cut is actually watchable, if flawed. I think I might check it out once it's available somewhere for me. (Never watched the 2017 version; after Batman v Superman I just lost all interest in the DCEU for a while).
It’s definitely an improvement to his other movies, but again I just can’t stand a dark and gloomy Superman, he’s supposed to be a representation of hope and all that is good, I just can’t stand seeing him this way
They must have thought it worked for batman so why not superman?
But the Snyder cut may not be on the same level as Avengers (in my opinion at least) but it still a good enough movie
Four hours is a bit long though
Obviously all superheroes kill one way or another, directly or indirectly, but Wonder Woman just outright blowing that guy to pieces at the beginning was too much.
Could be worse she could've snapped his neck or decapitated him:ninja:
I do find it funny that no one seems to care when Captain America kills people by the dozens in his movies but everybody loses there mind when Superman killed Zod
I guess we just don’t expect that behavior from the big guy
I do find it funny that no one seems to care when Captain America kills people by the dozens in his movies but everybody loses there mind when Superman killed Zod
I guess we just don’t expect that behavior from the big guy
I only remember Steve killing nazi/fascists, that's fine and dandy by my book.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
The problem I had with the DCEU was never that it's too dark in general, just that it felt rather pretentious, like Snyder wanted it to appear to be all deep, emotional and complex, but it just felt hollow and secretly really dumb after Batman v Superman I just lost all interest in the DCEU for a while).
Same here, Snyder Clark is Jesus representation and the pretentious slow-mo for nothing killed all my hope for the DCEU.
I do find it funny that no one seems to care when Captain America kills people by the dozens in his movies but everybody loses there mind when Superman killed Zod
I guess we just don’t expect that behavior from the big guy
Cap is a soldier. Also for me DC has always been more inspirational while Marvel is relatable. I want to inspire to not kill people (DC) even if in some dire situation I might (Marvel).
Did Cap kill anyone in Winter Soldier or Civil War?
Snyder has the better movie and better characters. But I still think Whedon has the better superman. Its not as bad in this mostly because his only job in this is the fight. But supes being in a bright supe trying to chat with his struggling allies to release tension, smiling and focusing on civilians. I like that sappy stuff with my superman. Not just he's super mega strong.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Johnny:
Did Cap kill anyone in Winter Soldier or Civil War?
I dont think so? Not hand in hand to hand or with guns at least. He's mostly in the run in those and I remember him saving that one guy Bucky almost killed when escaping.