It's not the length that's really the issue - if you told folks there was a four hour cut of Thor Ragnarok I'm pretty confident they'd love it - but the person behind the camera that's making that four hour cut.
Batman vs Superman's Extended Cut was three hours long and Snyder is so bad at character development, prioritising and pacing that I'm not even sure why it exists. The original was two and a half hours long and that somehow felt like it was both least half an hour too long already and nowhere near long enough.
Four hours of Snyder is definitely two hours too many of Snyder.
And it would have been 6 hours if the producers didn´t interfere.
Kermode is a weirdo. He despises Snyder and went on long rants against him that accidentally, let´s hope, descend into ableism but is into really kinky shit otherwise.
His review will be one of the few that are destined to be interesting as it might end up being the most negative review this film will get.
Famous last words.
There's no such thing as a good or bad film. You cracked it!Era: art is subjective, how dare film snobs diss the MCU just because it doesn't fit their idea of what film should be, let people like what they like
Also Era: what if we burned Zack Snyder's movies in a fire, ha ha j/k... unless?
More likely they'll be flash forwards to the edgy bad future ala BvS, I'm expecting they just mad-max up Joker. Though I'll be interested to know what the logic is that Joker is still alive in a future where Batman is shooting criminals anyway.I can't help thinking these 4 hour cut is filled with lots of flashback, like you're probably gonna get 15minute of backstory for each of the heroes at least. I can't see how they'll add Joker into the story otherwise
I think you've misinterpreted those movies if you think Superman is presented as an objectivist. It's not about Superman and what he stands for; it's about the cynicism that's apparent all around us in this world at this moment, which is manifested in both Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor.Objectivist Superman is just one of those things that boils my blood on a level that I really can't express. It's one of the stupidest, most tone-deaf things you could possibly do with Superman. Batman? I could see Batman as a Randian objectivist. Bruce Wayne is a rich asshole who thinks he knows best.
It's a fundamental misreading of Clark Kent's character to interpret him as a Randian scumbag.
Yes and no. Bats and Sups are all fully introduced at this stage. So is WW but there is new Amazons/Old Gods lore in the film. Flash and Aquaman won´t have their origin shown for example and new characters like Atom, Crispus Allen or Martian Manhunter are just bit parts. The film was always designed to give other directors room to breathe and Aquaman and Flash were the immediate sequels. Cyborg and Darkseid will get thorough origin stories though. Even BvS will get a flashback to continue with the theme of recontextualizing the endings of the last film and there are flash forward and parallel dimension bits. The real 3rd act is the craziest shit Snyder ever put on screen so far... It made WB so afraid that most of it ended up in the trash in 2017. Long story short. The nonlinear storytelling in Snyder´s last 3 DC films (WM counts) will make a full return. The Motherbox on Themiscyra awakens 22 minutes into JLA 2017. It will be at the 1-hour mark this time to give you an idea of how this is paced. Expect the unexpected.I can't help thinking these 4 hour cut is filled with lots of flashback, like you're probably gonna get 15minute of backstory for each of the heroes at least. I can't see how they'll add Joker into the story otherwise
I think you've misinterpreted those movies if you think Superman is presented as an objectivist. It's not about Superman and what he stands for; it's about the cynicism that's apparent all around us in this world at this moment, which is manifested in both Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor.
Although I liked Snyder's prior DC films this seems pretty unsalvageable.
Snyder is indeed cynical. You don't get any disagreement from me. If I had to interpret his worldview, sometimes one needs a wake-up call and see how grim the world truly is, on the cusp of falling at the lowest point of one's life, to truly make a change. As opposed to being content with the status quo that drives us more and more into the abyss slowly but steadily. Superman is a pop culture icon that has endured for more than 80 years and, similar to how times change, he should also be subject to change. In the hands of who is another question.Snyder himself is the cynic here, he made a Superman who views altruism as an imposition and only involves himself in affairs because someone he cares about is in danger.
Superman is not a "lonely god", he's a dorky guy from Kansas trying to do the right thing with the powers available to him. I get none of that from Snyder's grim, put-upon interpretation of the character, in any of the films he's used him in.
Think of it this way: making a Superman who never smiles and considers humanity (aside from his chosen few allies) to be beneath him is like making a Spider-Man who doesn't crack jokes while fighting villains - that was literally used as a sign in the comics that there was something wrong with Peter before we found out he had been body-jacked by a villain.
This strikes me as pretty far off the mark. Superman acting to help people he personally cares about in Batman V Superman is a demonstration of him acting by impulse, doing what feels right to him. He's not forming a master plan or canvassing the globe for problems, but when he sees someone in trouble (like the oil rig crew in Man of Steel) he leaps in to help. Superman is uncomfortable and unhappy in those shots that frame him as being "above humanity," which are directly connected to how his actions are being politicized and revered. The films present a "lonely god" interpretation of the character in order to reject it.Snyder himself is the cynic here, he made a Superman who views altruism as an imposition and only involves himself in affairs because someone he cares about is in danger.
Superman is not a "lonely god", he's a dorky guy from Kansas trying to do the right thing with the powers available to him. I get none of that from Snyder's grim, put-upon interpretation of the character, in any of the films he's used him in.
Think of it this way: making a Superman who never smiles and considers humanity (aside from his chosen few allies) to be beneath him is like making a Spider-Man who doesn't crack jokes while fighting villains - that was literally used as a sign in the comics that there was something wrong with Peter before we found out he had been body-jacked by a villain.
i think a lot of movies are bad but i'm not mad that they exist the way people here are
People are mad that a universe they like was flushed down the toilet in their opinion. It's normal.i think a lot of movies are bad but i'm not mad that they exist the way people here are
No official date yet, but there have been sites saying it was coming in March... which doesn't make sense as they want people to sub to HBO Max to watch it. Realistically, I'd guess the 4K Blu-Ray will be out in the summer.
no, people being so mad at a film existing that they shit on the idea of making a fancy director's cut across a dozen threads is not normal, actually. if i posted in every mcu thread sneering "I can't believe there are people anticipating this crap" i'd cop a ban pretty quickPeople are mad that a universe they like was flushed down the toilet in their opinion. It's normal.
It's purely projection to describe that hypothetical segment of ERA and then just assert that it's the same people who don't like the Snyderverse.
This strikes me as pretty far off the mark. Superman acting to help people he personally cares about in Batman V Superman is a demonstration of him acting by impulse, doing what feels right to him. He's not forming a master plan or canvassing the globe for problems, but when he sees someone in trouble (like the oil rig crew in Man of Steel) he leaps in to help. Superman is uncomfortable and unhappy in those shots that frame him as being "above humanity," which are directly connected to how his actions are being politicized and revered. The films present a "lonely god" interpretation of the character in order to reject it.
Snyder wanted to cut this film into 2 parts and release them back to back like Matrix 2 and 3 or many Japanese releases. All sorts of things made that impossible of course. JL: Part 2, which he and the actors & crew were under contract for, and the TBA 5th DCEU film by Zack Snyder are still other (dream) projects.I'm not a Snyder hater but 4 hours seems just too long for a superhero movie. Endgame felt already a bit too much at 3 hours
I don't understand this Randian read, either. There is a character in BvS who's powerful, wants acknowledgment, and thinks people will be sorry they didn't respect/listen to him, and it's Lex Luthor. That the safety and future of the world is in the hands of Superman is the fundamental conceit of superhero fiction. Snyder very loudly declares that the model for wielding that ultimate power should be Jesus Christ, which is about the most anti-objectivist thesis possible.I would buy this interpretation if we were ever shown Superman challenging it by acting differently, by showing the audience a better way. Superman looking bored or uncomfortable in those scenes feels less like a rejection of the lonely god ideal and more like he's frustrated humanity needs him in the first place. This is why I say Snyder's Superman feels like someone who views altruism as an imposition.
Snyder's cynicism, as we've seen in his love of Randian fiction that presents the rich and powerful as the arbiters of the continued safety and development of the world, makes him portray Superman as a character we better be grateful for, rather than someone the world can count on. He feels like someone who goes "ugh, fine" when he sees someone who needs saving, rather than someone who actively wants to make the world a better place.
A cornerstone of Randian fiction is the idea that the rich and powerful are super important and the world NEEDS them and wouldn't you be sorry if they decided to stop helping you? And Snyder really seems to have internalized this idea so much that it's bled into the way he views, interprets, and writes Clark Kent.
Expect an R-rating, an aspect ratio of 1:33:1 (4:3) or something very close, a highly open ending and a release in March.
From what I've seen recently, part 4 would've been Man of Steel 2 and then part 5 would've been a Justice League sequel split into two releases. So I guess technically a six-film series overall.Snyder wanted to cut this film into 2 parts and release them back to back like Matrix 2 and 3 or many Japanese releases. All sorts of things made that impossible of course. JL: Part 2, which he and the actors & crew were under contract for, and the TBA 5th DCEU film by Zack Snyder are still other (dream) projects.
The film releasing in March is JL: Part 1 of ?/3. Outside of the new Knightmare sequence. No paperwork exists for film 5 and no finished script for film 4.
Chris Terrio further moved on from Snyder to the Batfleck script. The overall arc is mapped out though.
Snyder still insists that this is the 3rd film in a 5 part series regardless of what happens next. Budgeting and making the 2 sequels is and isn´t complicated but that is a topic for another day.
Unironically one of the best films ever made (and famously sold itself at festivals as being four hours long). Here's an introduction from Kermode:
It's the 110th highest rated film on Letterboxd (with Taxi Driver and Dr Strangelove to either side :P). It should be much higher than that!
I don't understand this Randian read, either. There is a character in BvS who's powerful, wants acknowledgment, and thinks people will be sorry they didn't respect/listen to him, and it's Lex Luthor. That the safety and future of the world is in the hands of Superman is the fundamental conceit of superhero fiction. Snyder very loudly declares that the model for wielding that ultimate power should be Jesus Christ, which is about the most anti-objectivist thesis possible.
Snyder's interest in Rand is completely clouding your judgement on his movies. I've seen this a lot. Those who don't like him take that piece of information, twist his themes in reverse, and feed their confirmation bias against him.I would buy this interpretation if we were ever shown Superman challenging it by acting differently, by showing the audience a better way. Superman looking bored or uncomfortable in those scenes feels less like a rejection of the lonely god ideal and more like he's frustrated humanity needs him in the first place. This is why I say Snyder's Superman feels like someone who views altruism as an imposition.
Snyder's cynicism, as we've seen in his love of Randian fiction that presents the rich and powerful as the arbiters of the continued safety and development of the world, makes him portray Superman as a character we better be grateful for, rather than someone the world can count on. He feels like someone who goes "ugh, fine" when he sees someone who needs saving, rather than someone who actively wants to make the world a better place.
A cornerstone of Randian fiction is the idea that the rich and powerful are super important and the world NEEDS them and wouldn't you be sorry if they decided to stop helping you? And Snyder really seems to have internalized this idea so much that it's bled into the way he views, interprets, and writes Clark Kent.
Snyder's interest in Rand is completely clouding your judgement on his movies. I've seen this a lot. Those who don't like him take that piece of information, twist his themes in reverse, and feed their confirmation bias against him.
I think her philosophy inspires Snyder's work, but in no way does that mean he follows it himself or projects that into the heroes of his films.
Snyder's interest in Rand is completely clouding your judgement on his movies. I've seen this a lot. Those who don't like him take that piece of information, twist his themes in reverse, and feed their confirmation bias against him.
I think her philosophy inspires Snyder's work, but in no way does that mean he follows it himself or projects that into the heroes of his films.
To put it in perspective, both Avengers Endgame and BvS Ultimate Edition are about 3 hours long, and yet the latter certainly felt a lot longer watching it. And that's because the way Endgame is paced there's a lot of beats meant to suck you in and let you ignore the time passing. In contrast BvS spends most of its time building slow with the UE's added time only going to said slow build, and there's good lengths where I could just feel the seconds dripping by.
I think her philosophy inspires Snyder's work, but in no way does that mean he follows it himself or projects that into the heroes of his films.
Agreeing with this. I'll like to add there's two objectivist characters in BvS and neither of them are Superman. Talking about Batman and Lex
I'm not sure how you can say that after he slobbered all over Rorschach for three hours.
I'm glad you enjoyed it :D! Sion Sono has a ton of fantastic films to enjoy whenever you feel like you're up for more.Hey man, thanks for recommending this movie, I hadn't even heard of it before your post. I just watched it on youtube and I loved it! I don't really have much to say because I only just finished it a few minutes ago and I'm still reeling from the experience, but I already know this is one of those films that'll stay in my mind for a long time. Oh, and I certainly don't think it's too long, I'd actually like to see that 6h cut now lol. I think arbitrarily deciding how long a movie is allowed to be is ridiculous, I've seen the same kind of sentiments when a movie is "too short" and it's just as silly.
This is always massively overstated.
Rorschach is made a lot cooler in the film, but then like - so does everyone. Night Owl if anything is the character who gets the most 'improvement' over his comic counterpart. Is 'slobbering' over Night Owl Randian too?
I think it's less an obsession with Rorschach than you imply
I'm super hyped to read about other people watching this lol
no, people being so mad at a film existing that they shit on the idea of making a fancy director's cut across a dozen threads is not normal, actually. if i posted in every mcu thread sneering "I can't believe there are people anticipating this crap" i'd cop a ban pretty quick