Movies The Snyder Cut is real...and it's SPECTACULAR!

[Kal-El814]

Also wasn't there a teaser at the end of the original cut? He's going to make a different one for this?

[skillzdadirecta]

3 hours ago, Brick said:

 

Either it was the original plan before everything shifted and he left, or he's hoping his fans will pressure WB to get him another movie as a follow up. 

 

3 hours ago, Mercury33 said:

I think I read it was the original plan. That’s the whole point of this right? To get the movie he was planning on making?

[BloodyHell]

This is definitely not the movie we would have gotten. No theater was going to play a four hour movie. This is the movie we're getting after the fact. After the public made clear they hated his shitty take on DC. I still don't expect it to be good, but whatever.

[Greatoneshere]

On 2/28/2021 at 12:31 PM, Brick said:

 

Either it was the original plan before everything shifted and he left, or he's hoping his fans will pressure WB to get him another movie as a follow up. 

 

On 2/28/2021 at 12:33 PM, Mercury33 said:

I think I read it was the original plan. That’s the whole point of this right? To get the movie he was planning on making?

 

23 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

Also wasn't there a teaser at the end of the original cut? He's going to make a different one for this?

 

I'm not saying it's a good idea or not, but the reason for the cliffhanger is it was part of the original plan. Justice League was originally going to be two parts shot back to back by Snyder. After Batman v Superman did poorly, Snyder was already a few days/weeks into shooting Justice League Part 1, so they couldn't fire him off the project by that point, instead telling him to lighten the tone, etc (hence rewrites by Chris Terrio right on set). Instead they said that both parts would not be shot back to back and that Part 2 happening at all was dependent on how Justice League Part 1 did since Snyder was on very thin ice due to Batman v Superman (remember, Man of Steel was an unqualified success, at least in terms of box office for a Superman solo film). But the "vision" for the story was always a two parter, similar to Infinity War/Endgame. We know everything else that happened from there, with Snyder leaving in March 2017 and Whedon taking over. 

 

The original cut (the Whedon cut) of the movie does end on a post-credits stinger, where Lex Luthor is on a boat, not in prison anymore, having a meeting with Deathstroke, implying he was gonna put together an evil force to combat the Justice League. But Whedon removed pretty much anything with Darkseid, who was supposed to be the "big bad" of Part 2 but by the time Whedon came aboard it was clear there was not going to be a part 2 so that was that.

 

I imagine Snyder is simply creating the original movie as he envisioned it, whether there will ever be a part 2 or not (there probably won't be) so that people can see the movie he essentially wanted to release (except a full 4-hour director's cut version instead of a 2-hour or 2.5-hour film). Maybe he's angling to try to get a part 2 made by doing this if the movie does gangbusters on HBO Max, we'll see. Either way, that's why I imagine there's going to be at least a post-credits tease/stinger/cliffhanger.

[Guest]

It still cracks me up that $870 million at the box office is seen as bad.

[Keyser_Soze]

31 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It still cracks me up that $870 million at the box office is seen as bad.

 

[Ghost_MH]

50 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It still cracks me up that $870 million at the box office is seen as bad.

 

I don't think anyone here is judging the film on its box office draw. That said, someone at WB is certainly comparing this film to Marvel's offering and trying to figure out why Batman vs Superman is only pulling in $870m when fucking Ant-Man and the Wasp is doing $622m. Yeah, that's more, but are the two biggest superheros on Earth really only worth 30% more than a hero that's never even managed to carry a Saturday morning cartoon?

 

I mean, we really should take into account that Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and Spider-Man are the most well known superheros ever put on paper. DC holds three of those and Marvel doesn't even own the film rights to the one they do. That's the issue here. It's the golden age of comicbook movies and DC/WB just have no idea what to do with the most valuable franchises the medium has to offer. They're making money on name recognition, alone, when they should be doing much more than that. I've said it before, but literally just making Disney-style shot for shot live action versions of their animated movies would be such a step up, quality-wise, that is unthinkable they haven't even tried. But, nah, let's just give Snyder another $70m to spend on a vanity project that's going straight to streaming.

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

It still cracks me up that $870 million at the box office is seen as bad.

 

I agree, but WB expected more.

 

35 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

I don't think anyone here is judging the film on its box office draw. That said, someone at WB is certainly comparing this film to Marvel's offering and trying to figure out why Batman vs Superman is only pulling in $870m when fucking Ant-Man and the Wasp is doing $622m. Yeah, that's more, but are the two biggest superheros on Earth really only worth 30% more than a hero that's never even managed to carry a Saturday morning cartoon?

 

Exactly this.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I agree, but WB expected more.

 

 

Exactly this.

 

Nobody knows what WB expected. I personally think they cared more about the critical and PR fallout than any financial issues. Once they ditched the idea of riding Disney’s coattails, they’ve had solid success. Turns out that Warner should have always done what it does better than any studio and let talented filmmakers make the films they want to make.

 

And to top it off, I think the argument is kinda weak for a number of reasons but I’ll give my number one example. Civil War, which was basically an Avengers movie or a mashup of Iron Man and Captain America as they have become the most notable super heroes of the generation made like 1% more than Aquaman. Maybe box office performances aren’t directly connected to character popularity even when the films are good  

[Greatoneshere]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Nobody knows what WB expected. I personally think they cared more about the critical and PR fallout than any financial issues. Once they ditched the idea of riding Disney’s coattails, they’ve had solid success. Turns out that Warner should have always done what it does better than any studio and let talented filmmakers make the films they want to make.

 

And to top it off, I think the argument is kinda weak for a number of reasons but I’ll give my number one example. Civil War, which was basically an Avengers movie or a mashup of Iron Man and Captain America as they have become the most notable super heroes of the generation made like 1% more than Aquaman. Maybe box office performances aren’t directly connected to character popularity even when the films are good  

 

I mean, I agree with you - it very well could have been critical and PR fallout; when I said "did poorly" I'm referencing all of the above. But I do recall WB expecting Batman v Superman to crack a billion dollars and when it didn't they weren't thrilled by that but that's probably because it was a bad movie that got critically lambasted for sure.

[TwinIon]

Think about WB's internal benchmarks. Superman, Superman II, Batman 89, Returns, and Forever were all the top hits of their respective years. TDK had broken records the same year the MCU started. Rises was only behind Avengers in 2012. They put the two most recognizable comic characters on the planet in one movie and it gets horribly panned and grosses less than half a dozen MCU films starring comparative nobodies.

 

 

I would agree that if I were at WB I'd have been more concerned about the poor reception than the total revenue. $870M is a good haul, but it must have lowered everyone's expectations for what Justice League would make. (Of course, those figures were revised higher after Wonder Woman, and then JL went on to become an actual failure.)

 

[Ghost_MH]

23 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Nobody knows what WB expected. I personally think they cared more about the critical and PR fallout than any financial issues. Once they ditched the idea of riding Disney’s coattails, they’ve had solid success. Turns out that Warner should have always done what it does better than any studio and let talented filmmakers make the films they want to make.

 

And to top it off, I think the argument is kinda weak for a number of reasons but I’ll give my number one example. Civil War, which was basically an Avengers movie or a mashup of Iron Man and Captain America as they have become the most notable super heroes of the generation made like 1% more than Aquaman. Maybe box office performances aren’t directly connected to character popularity even when the films are good  

 

You're also using the only DC movie to break the $1b barrier. I'm 2018/19, Disney had Black Panther, Incredibles 2, Captain Marvel, and Spider-Man do the same thing. That's ignoring that both Avengers movies also broke $2b each. If nobody at WB is trying to figure out why their more valuable franchises aren't doing the same then somebody/many somebodies needs to be fired. Save for a couple of shining moments, they've been pushing out movies that review badly and underperform compared to their direct competition. Unless DC is planning to go full art house, Joker-style, I can't see how they'd be happy with any of that, even if they are making money.

[Kal-El814]

24 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

Unless DC is planning to go full art house, Joker-style, I can't see how they'd be happy with any of that, even if they are making money.

 

Joker was not good, so it seems only natural that they would lean into it.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

You're also using the only DC movie to break the $1b barrier. I'm 2018/19, Disney had Black Panther, Incredibles 2, Captain Marvel, and Spider-Man do the same thing. That's ignoring that both Avengers movies also broke $2b each. If nobody at WB is trying to figure out why their more valuable franchises aren't doing the same then somebody/many somebodies needs to be fired. Save for a couple of shining moments, they've been pushing out movies that review badly and underperform compared to their direct competition. Unless DC is planning to go full art house, Joker-style, I can't see how they'd be happy with any of that, even if they are making money.

Disney is the greatest studio financially and their ability to mine billion dollar grossers is not limited to comic book movies.

 

Warner has broken 1 billion in comic movies more than once, TDK and TDKR did as well. But I think that also points to how it’s odd that people think making a good movie with a popular property is the actual issue. TDK is one of the best received comic book movies of all time and many Marvel movies have done more.

And it really comes down to Disney and their marketing machine. That is what no other studio can touch. That’s why even their terrible movies tend to make a bunch of money. It’s really only when they lose control of the pre-release media narrative that their flicks perform under expectations.

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

Disney is the greatest studio financially and their ability to mine billion dollar grossers is not limited to comic book movies.

 

Warner has broken 1 billion in comic movies more than once, TDK and TDKR did as well. But I think that also points to how it’s odd that people think making a good movie with a popular property is the actual issue. TDK is one of the best received comic book movies of all time and many Marvel movies have done more.

And it really comes down to Disney and their marketing machine. That is what no other studio can touch. That’s why even their terrible movies tend to make a bunch of money. It’s really only when they lose control of the pre-release media narrative that their flicks perform under expectations.

 

The studio of Harry Potter, The Dark Knight, and Lord of the Rings should be perfectly capable of making a ton of money on the most popular comicbook franchises on Earth. If they aren't making gobs of money, they should at least be able to make good movies. They can't do either with any regularity. We've got, what? Wonder Woman and Shazam on quality and Aquaman on money? Everything else is either horrifically OK or straight bad. All the while, they've managed, in under a decade, to build up a terribly toxic fanbase like the one Lucas took an entire four decades to build up.

[Guest]

Just now, Ghost_MH said:

 

The studio of Harry Potter, The Dark Knight, and Lord of the Rings should be perfectly capable of making a ton of money on the most popular comicbook franchises on Earth. If they aren't making gobs of money, they should at least be able to make good movies. They can't do either with any regularity. We've got, what? Wonder Woman and Shazam on quality and Aquaman on money? Everything else is either horrifically OK or straight bad. All the while, they've managed, in under a decade, to build up a terribly toxic fanbase like the one Lucas took an entire four decades to build up.

They've had one movie, Justice League, that didn’t make gobs of money relative to its budget...so what are you talking about?

[Ghost_MH]

19 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

They've had one movie, Justice League, that didn’t make gobs of money relative to its budget...so what are you talking about?

 

I'm comparing the money made on their current movies to the money made on their previous films. Nolan's movie broke $1b back when Marvel was bringing in half of that. I'm always happy making enough money to be able to save some of it, but I' m not going to be happy of I'm making less money today than I was ten years ago. Are you arguing that WB should be happy making less money than they were ten years ago? If the movies were still great, I could see that, but they also aren't pumping out anything of real quality either. If I'm a Warmer Bros exec, looking at our current portfolio, I don't see how it's anything to be happy about. I mean, Aquaman and Joker were international successes. Yay, but neither is going to keep them afloat for the next decade. There's a reason they're eager to reboot Superman while also throwing $70m at Snyder try to fix the Superman movie that came out just a few years ago.

 

I'm sure the people at WB are very nice people and I'm sure all the restructuring and such hasn't been fun, but like at some point we have to acknowledge that their mismanaging their most prestigious properties.

[Ghost_MH]

Looks like a few got the Snyder Cut early...

 

Tom and Jerry accidentally became the Snyder Cut for a hot minute

WWW.THEVERGE.COM

---

The Snyder cut of Tom and Jerry

 

 

Open debate time. Which movie will be better? Tom and Jerry or the Synder Cut? Now, I did watch Tom and Jerry. It was not good. I don't know which will be better.

[johnny]

tom and jerry was not good but i did like michael pena. it’s gonna be close 

[Ghost_MH]

2 hours ago, johnny said:

tom and jerry was not good but i did like michael pena. it’s gonna be close 

 

That's not fair to Snyder since Michael Peña is pretty great in everything.

[skillzdadirecta]

12 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

That's not fair to Snyder since Michael Peña is pretty great in everything.

[Keyser_Soze]

I started seeing ads for this on twitch in it's 4:3 glory!

[Greatoneshere]

Take this with a grain of salt since its fans commenting on the film, but hey, it's something:

 

Zack Snyder's Justice League Early Reactions Praise Film's Humor & Emotion

SCREENRANT.COM

---

Early reactions to the film are in.

 

[Brick]

Grain of salt? I'm taking it with enough to build Salt Bae a castle. These are probably the same type of people that praised BvS in early reviews. 

[Greatoneshere]

2 minutes ago, Brick said:

Grain of salt? I'm taking it with enough to build Salt Bae a castle. These are probably the same type of people that praised BvS in early reviews. 

 

I mean, yeah, probably.  

[Spork3245]

2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

Take this with a grain of salt since its fans commenting on the film, but hey, it's something:

 

Zack Snyder's Justice League Early Reactions Praise Film's Humor & Emotion

SCREENRANT.COM

---

Early reactions to the film are in.

 

So much salt that I now have hypertension. Thanks.

[Mercury33]

 

Im psyched. And if you’re not psyched? Then go fuck yourself. Bitch. 

[Greatoneshere]

12 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

So much salt that I now have hypertension. Thanks.

 

Snyder aims to please.

[SuperSpreader]

haha ppl who like the DCU

[CitizenVectron]

This is going to be the anti-TLJ: the hype online (amplified by the alt-right again) is going to be that it's great, but the vast majority of people will think it's not that great because it's bloated and still grimdark.

[Keyser_Soze]

4 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

So much salt that I now have hypertension. Thanks.

 

Should have used a grain of epsom salt and you'd totally be relaxed

[Mercury33]

I must be on the wrong message boards because I don’t see the alt right amplifying Synder’s stuff at all. 

[johnny]

i don’t really know if it’s the “alt right” but whenever i hear somebody blowing zack snyder (and also hating the MCU) irl it’s a conservative. 

[Spork3245]

5 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Should have used a grain of epsom salt and you'd totally be relaxed

Taking epsom salt orally causes a laxative effect. If you’re saying that The Snyder Cut is probably just the movie equivalent of diarrhea, I’m not going to argue, though!

[Joe]

Trailer looks decent, but this will still probably suck ass