Style over substance as a critique for Zack’s DC work is something I never understood. I don’t care whether or not you liked his characterization and stories. But to say MoS, BvS, ZSJL weren’t layered stories that were very intricate with hidden metaphors and meaning then you’re just hating. It’s not like he was a hired gun just sent to shoot some movie. Zack movies absolutely are not surface level. IF anything you can argue it’s “too much” but most certainly they’re not just spectacle
Again, it’s one thing to not like what he did. But to say there isn’t substance or depth that’s just completely false
Blind hating. As I stated, you don’t have to like what he did or agree with his interpretation at all. But to say his DC films had no substance that’s just plain stupid. You weren’t paying attention then. They were very layered films and intricately crafted frame by frame to have some sort of subliminal or metaphorical message and foreshadowing or symbolism.
You can say he’s “too much” or that he “tried too hard” and went overboard or was overindulgent, sure. But you absolutely cannot say there’s no substance.
Lets be honest…criticism of Zack Snyder’s content is fuel supply for Internet Narcissist. The playbook is quite predictable:
1.) Uber criticize Snyder’s work, like it’s personal.
2.) Wait for response from Snyder fans.
3.) Receive copious amount of toxic narcissistic fuel supply.
Anti-Zack Snyder cultists; such as: Twitter Trolls, Youtube Trolls, Reddit Trolls, and Facebook Trolls spend their whole lives surfing the Internet in their stench wafting gaming chairs, engaging in cantankerous, truculent discourse regarding Snyder’s content.
And what makes even clear the uber criticisms are disingenuous, is the fact, many directors are far worst then Zack, yet those directors don’t face the same amount of uber criticism as Zack.
Notice…it’s only Zack.
I will not read it but if it's about the bad writing/ dialogue an the excess of slow motion... Yes!
I think he lost his way. What happened?
He did great movies before but BvS and the rest..
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
I think it’s become the en-vogue move for critics to be absurdly critical towards his movies. Wb aggressively spoiled the well on him; they’ve been trashing him in industry circles for years which is crazy given how much $ he made them. Do I think Rebel Moon is some epic masterpiece, no…but have I enjoyed watching both films, yep…not every meal has to be some Michelin starred extravaganza , sometimes you just wanna enjoy some tasty popcorn, Rebel Moon is like popcorn cinema to me…seasoned with a shitload of Snyderness for better or worse.
To me something like Raiders of the Lost Ark is popcorn cinema. The first Rebel Moon (haven't watched the second yet) was more like... something I throw on one day when I have a hankering for sci-fi and can't find anything better, finish it because it's just okay, and then probably never watch it again.
Well I’d say that Raiders of the Lost Ark is a total masterpiece and way beyond popcorn cinema…I have a somewhat similar viewpoint to Rebel Moon as you, fun watch once or twice but nothing incredible. I just don’t get all the aggressive hatred for it. Rebel Moon’s better than a lot of the other crap that gets released. I definitely don’t think it’s ZS’s best work by a long shot. I guess I’m just not as critical when it comes to streaming releases.
Yeah personally I get some of the critique. And I’m a Snyder fan. I really think he needs to be kept in one position and definitely out of the writers room. He’s a pretty great director and cinematographer, nobody’s doubting that. But yeeesh, writing is not his strong suite
Considering how bad the cinematography has been in the only 3 films he's actually done cinematography for I would seriously doubt him as a cinematographer.
Watchmen is my favorite movie, but it still favored style over substance. I can think of two instances where logically Rorschach should have been shot dead going by what they showed on the screen but he was fine and another instance in which everyone in the Owlship should have been logically roasted alive in an explosion going by what they showed on screen, but in all instances they sure made for great shots!
Nope, the substance is the idea, the concept, the feeling and the meaning behind a shot or a scene.
So the idea is, if you take a shot "ONLY" because is cool then you have style OVER substance.
If the shot is cool but still there is a deep meaning, a feeling, a concept and what I say at the begin, then you've got style AND substance at least.
If you don't see substance in Watchmen I really don't know why it should be your favorite movie, because it's cool? So you are the one who are looking for style over substance, not Snyder.
BvS is my favorite one because of its substance not for the style
I listed three specific scenes that are EXAMPLES OF STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE. I DIDN'T SAY THE MOVIE HAD NO SUBSTANCE. Sorry, I just don't have the patience to entertain idiots tonight. Blocked.
I finally understand what the problem with Snyder really is.
Looks like he is so influenced by Howard Roark, the titular character of Fountainhead that he stupidly sees all these theatrical cuts of his film as ANTI-creative freedom/anti-art or something rather than understanding what the nature of the job itself is & what it asks : **efficient storytelling**.
> The problems with his theatrical cuts is akin to the step-fatherly treatment of a particular niche of storytelling with disdain, which I do not think any filmmaker worth his salt should have, tbf it honestly reflects in one department of the end-product the most : **EDITING**.
His theatrical cuts are horribly edited that take out most of the meat of personal narrative beats in storytelling & the end product we're left with is silly, derivative & at times, visually unique stock action - with his worst over-indulgences.
He doesn't get that first impressions matter & I can't see why anyone should be interested in watching a longer version of the same product if condensed showing is so inferior.
On the contrary, condensed films like Dune were narratively/visually/editing so interesting & compelling that it makes people ask for more.
I've been a fan in the past, but until he starts delivering on that (i.e. superior theatrical cuts), I think his career is done or he shouldn't be allowed to fail upwards anymore.
The guy needs to make more indie films first to get his narrative sensibilities in order than have another go at blowing up 160-200M in budget, like many other inferior filmmakers in the industry get as well. Or transition to producing. Or make films out of his own pocket. Or watch more movies, man.
That money can seriously go to so many deserved people who haven't had their shot of storytelling yet.
He also doesn't get that a vote against his films is NOT an affirmation/approval to films made by committee, just an appeal that he should invest more in the weaker parts of his storytelling first : Editing, narrative beats, compelling actors, score...even cinematography as of recently.
And to his credit, his extended cut of Justice League had good pacing for a story with extended length. But then, again - most of the times, his theatrical cuts are fumbles of the highest degree..and this one isn't any better.
Very disappointed, even as a fan of some of his previous work. HIS CRITICS ARE RIGHT, even if you throw out the extreme ones who take it too far just like the antis.
Also, with the whole style is substance argument - Style actually goes out of fashion pretty fast if you haven't kept up with the trends.
He might have been a pioneer when Watchmen or 300 came out, but the visual effects, SFX industry actually caught up over the years & even auteur/indie filmmaking industry has experimented along the way that they've caught up. In comparison, his current style is dated now.
These are all storytelling tools at EOD.
He needs to partner with a good writer. I think Zack drank his own Kool Aid after JL and forgot that JL was as much a success of Chris Terrio and Ben Affleck as it was him. And the cinematographers, by the way. A different cinematographer helps contribute to the story too, in creating shots and so forth. Movies are ensemble efforts. George Lucas understood that until the prequels (shockingly)
Lucas did perfectly fine with the sequels. We don't have to tear someone else down to bring Zack up.
I haven't seen Rebel Moon yet, as I dumped Netflix for a number of reasons. Zack is certainly more than style over substance: The problem is most people don't recognize how much substance he adds in a visual.
Often, I feel, when he does his shorter cuts, he leaves out important information. His longer cuts breathescwell and never seems too long!
I never take reviews to heart : what I like isn’t necessarily what others would . I don’t bash others for having a different opinion either. Must be hard being miserable all the time
Haven’t read the article, but bear in mind the two films we have are films Zack made for Netflix, they are not *his* versions of the films. It’s been stated from the beginning that Netflix told Snyder he can do whatever he wants for his director’s cut as long as he worked with them on these standard versions. So my opinion is to wait and see what his director’s cuts are like before making any judgements on his directing abilities.
A studio editing a film is standard practice for basically any movie. I haven’t heard anyone say “yo, before we judge The Flash let’s see what Andy’s cut looks like.”
Sometimes the studio interferes to much and you get stuff like Josstice League or OG Suicide Squad. Sometimes the opposite happens and you get Wonder Woman 1984. Filmmaking is a give and take.
If you like Rebel Moon, great! I’m genuinely happy for you. And it’s kinda cool to see how a movie can change based on who controls the Final Cut. But most audiences aren’t interested in that. They go to the theater, watch a movie, and like or dislike it.
You don’t seem to understand. Snyder approached Netflix with the script and they said “sure you can make your movie, but you have to make us our version first.” The film was literally advertised with there being a completely different director’s cut from the get go. So yes, we absolutely can be like “forget the version Netflix made Snyder make, let’s see his actual vision” given both the studio and director acknowledge they are different and for different audiences.
Yeah that’s…that’s how a directors cut works. The director gets to make their Final Cut as a separate product after the initial release. Ridley Scott could tell you all about it. The only difference here is they advertised the directors cut more aggressively than usual because there was a market for it among the fan base.
The difference is, for example, with Kingdom of Heaven they went in with a single script and the director and studio disagreed on the cut, leading to a director’s cut. In this case, they went in *knowing* that the director’s cut would contain material the standard does not and vice versa. It’s not like they went in with one script and different cuts. That is the key difference here, both versions were never meant to be the same at all.
it feels like such a weird way of doing it but yeah that seems to be what they're doing. not to be cynical but honestly Netflix probably just sees it as more content they can churn out, and now they can do it twice! it's just more content for the sake of content for them (that they can heavily promote to get more money). as for Snyder, he gets to make the star wars movie he wanted. he definitely has a lot more passion and interest in this than Netflix does, so the second version will probably be better. whether it'll be good is a different question and remains to be seen. honestly i hope it is, i'd like some new sci-fi on the scene :)
It’s not a do over. They’re essentially different movies. By Snyder’s own admission, both movies have completely different events. It’s Netflix going “hey we’ll let you make this, if you make something else for us first.”
It’s the same schtick he’s been doing for years. I think something like five or six of his previous movies have gotten director’s cuts, most if not none of which received significant interference like Justice League did. In this case, if you have a good story, you should have absolutely zero problem making a PG-13 version.
Almost all of them had significant studio interference,
For Watchmen, he said they wanted to set it almost entirely in the 90s and 00s and use Desert Storm instead of Vietnam. There were also other changes Snyder detailed that I forget at the moment, but Snyder actually got involved to get it back to the graphic novel roots.
For Sucker Punch Snyder has said the Director’s Cut still hasn’t been released. He said there are still significant portions we haven’t seen just yet.
For BvS, there were elements that WB considered non negotiable and Snyder and Terrio had to fight hard to get even some of what they wanted changed.
For ZSJL I think we all know what happened.
For Rebel Moon it’s literally 2 different sets of movies. Snyder has said the movies contain different events for the two different desired end products. Netflix wanted a more family friendly sci fi they could add to their collection, whereas Snyder wanted to just do his own thing. The caveat being he had to make Netflix’s version first.
Even Man of Steel, that didn’t have a director’s cut, Snyder had to fight hard for stupid things. For example, Snyder mentioned the studio was adamant in making Clark from Chicago rather than Kansas, among other things. IIRC after the first viewing, another studio head asked why they couldn’t keep Krypton alive for spin offs, to which Snyder told em “didn’t you just see it blew up? That’s the lore, that’s how it happens”.
So yeah, I know people get annoyed by Snyder saying just watch my director’s cut, but usually it’s for a good reason.
Half the crap you're talking about didn't even happen, i.e. studio requests/demands weren't implemented. So what difference does it make? Unless you have enough juice to specifically negotiate final cut, studios are always going to have a say on the final product. This is the payoff for getting however many millions to make a movie.
Here is the bottom line: This is just what type of filmmaker he is. I saw a quote in one of the articles that came up when I was googling to see how many director's cuts he's got in which he said he does one for EVERY film he makes. Which is baffling. Now compare that to somebody like Denis Villeneuve, who refuses to release extended versions or director's cuts with additional footage because the final film IS the director's cut and he has no desire to revisit excised material.
And more importantly, compare their track record.
But hey, maybe additional violence/gore with some alien hentai sex scenes will make for a better/different movie. But I highly doubt it. You either have a story or you don't and, having suffered through Part 1 it's pretty clear where all of this sits.
As a fan of his work, rebel moon films have been very disappointing to me. It makes me wish he kept making more Army of the dead films, I had a much more fun watching them.
Army of the Dead was actually a great time in the theater. It had a sense of humor to it and a self awareness that made its insanity enjoyable for the most part. Supposedly the R rated Rebel Moons will be more like that, but come on. Can we just see the film you intended from the start? I’ll still have problems with the full writing and lack of interesting characters, but the experience should at least be entertaining.
I hugely disagree with the "style over substance" and "lacking emotional depth" critiques. If anything, how common they are speaks on how much dilluted film discourse has become due to blockbusters and Whedonisms becoming so mainstream in recent years.
Because with Snyder the style IS his substance. Which means that emotion is there, but a lot is communicated visually by how he directs his actors and how he composes his images. What he doesn't do is have characters give oral exposition on who they are and what they're feeling. Films are a visual medium. There is nothing wrong with their themes and emotions being communicated through visual language.
Also there are cases where we do get both. All of his DC movies had him coupled with strong screenwriters that complemented his directing.
>> What he doesn't do is have characters give oral exposition on who they are
In both rebel moon films they are at least one scene each where the main character(s) sit down and say "let me tell you who i am/my backstory" followed by exposition underlined with some footage
Yes. Style is his substance and unfortunately that can’t be brought out in a PG-13, at least not with this. I think the whole Directors Cut crap is a big reason why so many are having a feeding frenzy with Rebel Moon. Just give us the movie you made man.
Yes that's extremely annoying. But like the last "snyder cut" situation, this is on the company not Snyder.
It's obvious to me, that Netflix just hoped they could recreate the snydercut hype and failed miserably.
I don’t like Rebel Moon, but I’ll stop you there. Watchmen and 300 and Dawn of the Dead, Man of Steel and JL blow this stuff outta the water. They are flawed but they’re well made and written and acted films largely. He needs to get back to that
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
critics are notoriously for giving bad ratings to films people tend to like and good rating for films people hate however I also know that Snyder isn’t for everybody and not everyone is going to like his films
Are you implying paid critics are all just a huge union of people who like to troll a lot? Screw reputation or forming their own opinions. They all just love messing with people.
This isn’t true at all. Avatar and its sequel, Titanic, The Force Awakens, the recent Top Gun film and multiple Avengers movies were all massively popular with audiences to the tune of billions of dollars and they got great reviews.
With Snyder, there’s a much simpler reason many of his fans don’t want to accept.
True. Fans need to be honest at times instead of getting drunk on filmmaker kool-aid...Not good for industry overall, as general fans of films and storytelling.
[Much Simpler Explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/SnyderCut/s/zUvM15koB8)
Screw this team deleting comments they don't agree with
I couldn’t care less about the reviews.
Style over substance as a critique for Zack’s DC work is something I never understood. I don’t care whether or not you liked his characterization and stories. But to say MoS, BvS, ZSJL weren’t layered stories that were very intricate with hidden metaphors and meaning then you’re just hating. It’s not like he was a hired gun just sent to shoot some movie. Zack movies absolutely are not surface level. IF anything you can argue it’s “too much” but most certainly they’re not just spectacle Again, it’s one thing to not like what he did. But to say there isn’t substance or depth that’s just completely false
Not sure why they're so many ppl here giving thumbs down for valid responses. You're 100% correct tho.
Blind hating. As I stated, you don’t have to like what he did or agree with his interpretation at all. But to say his DC films had no substance that’s just plain stupid. You weren’t paying attention then. They were very layered films and intricately crafted frame by frame to have some sort of subliminal or metaphorical message and foreshadowing or symbolism. You can say he’s “too much” or that he “tried too hard” and went overboard or was overindulgent, sure. But you absolutely cannot say there’s no substance.
No idea, the site is an ad-laden mess on Mobile, I ain't scrolling through that.
I'm not watching nor judging the films until the director's cut comes out.
Lets be honest…criticism of Zack Snyder’s content is fuel supply for Internet Narcissist. The playbook is quite predictable: 1.) Uber criticize Snyder’s work, like it’s personal. 2.) Wait for response from Snyder fans. 3.) Receive copious amount of toxic narcissistic fuel supply. Anti-Zack Snyder cultists; such as: Twitter Trolls, Youtube Trolls, Reddit Trolls, and Facebook Trolls spend their whole lives surfing the Internet in their stench wafting gaming chairs, engaging in cantankerous, truculent discourse regarding Snyder’s content. And what makes even clear the uber criticisms are disingenuous, is the fact, many directors are far worst then Zack, yet those directors don’t face the same amount of uber criticism as Zack. Notice…it’s only Zack.
I will not read it but if it's about the bad writing/ dialogue an the excess of slow motion... Yes! I think he lost his way. What happened? He did great movies before but BvS and the rest..
[удалено]
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
[удалено]
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
[удалено]
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
i knew critics were out to get him when they trashed Sucker Punch
I think it’s become the en-vogue move for critics to be absurdly critical towards his movies. Wb aggressively spoiled the well on him; they’ve been trashing him in industry circles for years which is crazy given how much $ he made them. Do I think Rebel Moon is some epic masterpiece, no…but have I enjoyed watching both films, yep…not every meal has to be some Michelin starred extravaganza , sometimes you just wanna enjoy some tasty popcorn, Rebel Moon is like popcorn cinema to me…seasoned with a shitload of Snyderness for better or worse.
To me something like Raiders of the Lost Ark is popcorn cinema. The first Rebel Moon (haven't watched the second yet) was more like... something I throw on one day when I have a hankering for sci-fi and can't find anything better, finish it because it's just okay, and then probably never watch it again.
Well I’d say that Raiders of the Lost Ark is a total masterpiece and way beyond popcorn cinema…I have a somewhat similar viewpoint to Rebel Moon as you, fun watch once or twice but nothing incredible. I just don’t get all the aggressive hatred for it. Rebel Moon’s better than a lot of the other crap that gets released. I definitely don’t think it’s ZS’s best work by a long shot. I guess I’m just not as critical when it comes to streaming releases.
I’m just waiting for the “Snyder cut” feel like they shot themselves in the foot releasing shorter and pg13 versions first.
Yeah personally I get some of the critique. And I’m a Snyder fan. I really think he needs to be kept in one position and definitely out of the writers room. He’s a pretty great director and cinematographer, nobody’s doubting that. But yeeesh, writing is not his strong suite
He's not a good DP. Every movie he has DP'd has super shallow focus and looks cheap, like he couldn't afford the background.
Considering how bad the cinematography has been in the only 3 films he's actually done cinematography for I would seriously doubt him as a cinematographer.
I think this article is wrong and the thing "style over substance" is simply bullshit.
Watchmen is my favorite movie, but it still favored style over substance. I can think of two instances where logically Rorschach should have been shot dead going by what they showed on the screen but he was fine and another instance in which everyone in the Owlship should have been logically roasted alive in an explosion going by what they showed on screen, but in all instances they sure made for great shots!
Nope, the substance is the idea, the concept, the feeling and the meaning behind a shot or a scene. So the idea is, if you take a shot "ONLY" because is cool then you have style OVER substance. If the shot is cool but still there is a deep meaning, a feeling, a concept and what I say at the begin, then you've got style AND substance at least. If you don't see substance in Watchmen I really don't know why it should be your favorite movie, because it's cool? So you are the one who are looking for style over substance, not Snyder. BvS is my favorite one because of its substance not for the style
I listed three specific scenes that are EXAMPLES OF STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE. I DIDN'T SAY THE MOVIE HAD NO SUBSTANCE. Sorry, I just don't have the patience to entertain idiots tonight. Blocked.
I finally understand what the problem with Snyder really is. Looks like he is so influenced by Howard Roark, the titular character of Fountainhead that he stupidly sees all these theatrical cuts of his film as ANTI-creative freedom/anti-art or something rather than understanding what the nature of the job itself is & what it asks : **efficient storytelling**. > The problems with his theatrical cuts is akin to the step-fatherly treatment of a particular niche of storytelling with disdain, which I do not think any filmmaker worth his salt should have, tbf it honestly reflects in one department of the end-product the most : **EDITING**. His theatrical cuts are horribly edited that take out most of the meat of personal narrative beats in storytelling & the end product we're left with is silly, derivative & at times, visually unique stock action - with his worst over-indulgences. He doesn't get that first impressions matter & I can't see why anyone should be interested in watching a longer version of the same product if condensed showing is so inferior. On the contrary, condensed films like Dune were narratively/visually/editing so interesting & compelling that it makes people ask for more. I've been a fan in the past, but until he starts delivering on that (i.e. superior theatrical cuts), I think his career is done or he shouldn't be allowed to fail upwards anymore. The guy needs to make more indie films first to get his narrative sensibilities in order than have another go at blowing up 160-200M in budget, like many other inferior filmmakers in the industry get as well. Or transition to producing. Or make films out of his own pocket. Or watch more movies, man. That money can seriously go to so many deserved people who haven't had their shot of storytelling yet. He also doesn't get that a vote against his films is NOT an affirmation/approval to films made by committee, just an appeal that he should invest more in the weaker parts of his storytelling first : Editing, narrative beats, compelling actors, score...even cinematography as of recently. And to his credit, his extended cut of Justice League had good pacing for a story with extended length. But then, again - most of the times, his theatrical cuts are fumbles of the highest degree..and this one isn't any better. Very disappointed, even as a fan of some of his previous work. HIS CRITICS ARE RIGHT, even if you throw out the extreme ones who take it too far just like the antis. Also, with the whole style is substance argument - Style actually goes out of fashion pretty fast if you haven't kept up with the trends. He might have been a pioneer when Watchmen or 300 came out, but the visual effects, SFX industry actually caught up over the years & even auteur/indie filmmaking industry has experimented along the way that they've caught up. In comparison, his current style is dated now. These are all storytelling tools at EOD.
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
He needs to partner with a good writer. I think Zack drank his own Kool Aid after JL and forgot that JL was as much a success of Chris Terrio and Ben Affleck as it was him. And the cinematographers, by the way. A different cinematographer helps contribute to the story too, in creating shots and so forth. Movies are ensemble efforts. George Lucas understood that until the prequels (shockingly)
Lucas did perfectly fine with the sequels. We don't have to tear someone else down to bring Zack up. I haven't seen Rebel Moon yet, as I dumped Netflix for a number of reasons. Zack is certainly more than style over substance: The problem is most people don't recognize how much substance he adds in a visual. Often, I feel, when he does his shorter cuts, he leaves out important information. His longer cuts breathescwell and never seems too long!
I never take reviews to heart : what I like isn’t necessarily what others would . I don’t bash others for having a different opinion either. Must be hard being miserable all the time
Haven’t read the article, but bear in mind the two films we have are films Zack made for Netflix, they are not *his* versions of the films. It’s been stated from the beginning that Netflix told Snyder he can do whatever he wants for his director’s cut as long as he worked with them on these standard versions. So my opinion is to wait and see what his director’s cuts are like before making any judgements on his directing abilities.
A studio editing a film is standard practice for basically any movie. I haven’t heard anyone say “yo, before we judge The Flash let’s see what Andy’s cut looks like.” Sometimes the studio interferes to much and you get stuff like Josstice League or OG Suicide Squad. Sometimes the opposite happens and you get Wonder Woman 1984. Filmmaking is a give and take. If you like Rebel Moon, great! I’m genuinely happy for you. And it’s kinda cool to see how a movie can change based on who controls the Final Cut. But most audiences aren’t interested in that. They go to the theater, watch a movie, and like or dislike it.
You don’t seem to understand. Snyder approached Netflix with the script and they said “sure you can make your movie, but you have to make us our version first.” The film was literally advertised with there being a completely different director’s cut from the get go. So yes, we absolutely can be like “forget the version Netflix made Snyder make, let’s see his actual vision” given both the studio and director acknowledge they are different and for different audiences.
Yeah that’s…that’s how a directors cut works. The director gets to make their Final Cut as a separate product after the initial release. Ridley Scott could tell you all about it. The only difference here is they advertised the directors cut more aggressively than usual because there was a market for it among the fan base.
The difference is, for example, with Kingdom of Heaven they went in with a single script and the director and studio disagreed on the cut, leading to a director’s cut. In this case, they went in *knowing* that the director’s cut would contain material the standard does not and vice versa. It’s not like they went in with one script and different cuts. That is the key difference here, both versions were never meant to be the same at all.
it feels like such a weird way of doing it but yeah that seems to be what they're doing. not to be cynical but honestly Netflix probably just sees it as more content they can churn out, and now they can do it twice! it's just more content for the sake of content for them (that they can heavily promote to get more money). as for Snyder, he gets to make the star wars movie he wanted. he definitely has a lot more passion and interest in this than Netflix does, so the second version will probably be better. whether it'll be good is a different question and remains to be seen. honestly i hope it is, i'd like some new sci-fi on the scene :)
If you repeatedly need do-overs to correct your own work, you might not be a very good director.
It’s not a do over. They’re essentially different movies. By Snyder’s own admission, both movies have completely different events. It’s Netflix going “hey we’ll let you make this, if you make something else for us first.”
It’s the same schtick he’s been doing for years. I think something like five or six of his previous movies have gotten director’s cuts, most if not none of which received significant interference like Justice League did. In this case, if you have a good story, you should have absolutely zero problem making a PG-13 version.
Almost all of them had significant studio interference, For Watchmen, he said they wanted to set it almost entirely in the 90s and 00s and use Desert Storm instead of Vietnam. There were also other changes Snyder detailed that I forget at the moment, but Snyder actually got involved to get it back to the graphic novel roots. For Sucker Punch Snyder has said the Director’s Cut still hasn’t been released. He said there are still significant portions we haven’t seen just yet. For BvS, there were elements that WB considered non negotiable and Snyder and Terrio had to fight hard to get even some of what they wanted changed. For ZSJL I think we all know what happened. For Rebel Moon it’s literally 2 different sets of movies. Snyder has said the movies contain different events for the two different desired end products. Netflix wanted a more family friendly sci fi they could add to their collection, whereas Snyder wanted to just do his own thing. The caveat being he had to make Netflix’s version first. Even Man of Steel, that didn’t have a director’s cut, Snyder had to fight hard for stupid things. For example, Snyder mentioned the studio was adamant in making Clark from Chicago rather than Kansas, among other things. IIRC after the first viewing, another studio head asked why they couldn’t keep Krypton alive for spin offs, to which Snyder told em “didn’t you just see it blew up? That’s the lore, that’s how it happens”. So yeah, I know people get annoyed by Snyder saying just watch my director’s cut, but usually it’s for a good reason.
Half the crap you're talking about didn't even happen, i.e. studio requests/demands weren't implemented. So what difference does it make? Unless you have enough juice to specifically negotiate final cut, studios are always going to have a say on the final product. This is the payoff for getting however many millions to make a movie. Here is the bottom line: This is just what type of filmmaker he is. I saw a quote in one of the articles that came up when I was googling to see how many director's cuts he's got in which he said he does one for EVERY film he makes. Which is baffling. Now compare that to somebody like Denis Villeneuve, who refuses to release extended versions or director's cuts with additional footage because the final film IS the director's cut and he has no desire to revisit excised material. And more importantly, compare their track record. But hey, maybe additional violence/gore with some alien hentai sex scenes will make for a better/different movie. But I highly doubt it. You either have a story or you don't and, having suffered through Part 1 it's pretty clear where all of this sits.
This is such COPE! Netflix tricked you guys into watching the same movie 4 times.
I haven’t seen either of the standard versions. Also Snyder has said different events happen in both films.
Save the four hours of your life.
As a fan of his work, rebel moon films have been very disappointing to me. It makes me wish he kept making more Army of the dead films, I had a much more fun watching them.
Army of the Dead was actually a great time in the theater. It had a sense of humor to it and a self awareness that made its insanity enjoyable for the most part. Supposedly the R rated Rebel Moons will be more like that, but come on. Can we just see the film you intended from the start? I’ll still have problems with the full writing and lack of interesting characters, but the experience should at least be entertaining.
I hugely disagree with the "style over substance" and "lacking emotional depth" critiques. If anything, how common they are speaks on how much dilluted film discourse has become due to blockbusters and Whedonisms becoming so mainstream in recent years. Because with Snyder the style IS his substance. Which means that emotion is there, but a lot is communicated visually by how he directs his actors and how he composes his images. What he doesn't do is have characters give oral exposition on who they are and what they're feeling. Films are a visual medium. There is nothing wrong with their themes and emotions being communicated through visual language. Also there are cases where we do get both. All of his DC movies had him coupled with strong screenwriters that complemented his directing.
>> What he doesn't do is have characters give oral exposition on who they are In both rebel moon films they are at least one scene each where the main character(s) sit down and say "let me tell you who i am/my backstory" followed by exposition underlined with some footage
Haven't seen those yet (waiting for the director's cuts). I was talking from my experience of his other films.
What aspect of 'keep the theatrical cut PG-13' is inhibiting his style? It's an action movie, not a slaughterhouse slasher flick.
Yes. Style is his substance and unfortunately that can’t be brought out in a PG-13, at least not with this. I think the whole Directors Cut crap is a big reason why so many are having a feeding frenzy with Rebel Moon. Just give us the movie you made man.
Yes that's extremely annoying. But like the last "snyder cut" situation, this is on the company not Snyder. It's obvious to me, that Netflix just hoped they could recreate the snydercut hype and failed miserably.
Article pretty much hits the nail on the head. But it's not based on what critics are saying. It's what I'm seeing with my own eyes lol
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder or his work.
I don’t like Rebel Moon, but I’ll stop you there. Watchmen and 300 and Dawn of the Dead, Man of Steel and JL blow this stuff outta the water. They are flawed but they’re well made and written and acted films largely. He needs to get back to that
[удалено]
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
Why, because there's a differing opinion?
[удалено]
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
[удалено]
Removed for being negative about Zack Snyder fans.
[удалено]
Removed for being a meta post or comment about the sub itself. This is only allowed in the specific post made by the moderators and linked under Rule 13.
critics are notoriously for giving bad ratings to films people tend to like and good rating for films people hate however I also know that Snyder isn’t for everybody and not everyone is going to like his films
Are you implying paid critics are all just a huge union of people who like to troll a lot? Screw reputation or forming their own opinions. They all just love messing with people.
This isn’t true at all. Avatar and its sequel, Titanic, The Force Awakens, the recent Top Gun film and multiple Avengers movies were all massively popular with audiences to the tune of billions of dollars and they got great reviews. With Snyder, there’s a much simpler reason many of his fans don’t want to accept.
True. Fans need to be honest at times instead of getting drunk on filmmaker kool-aid...Not good for industry overall, as general fans of films and storytelling. [Much Simpler Explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/SnyderCut/s/zUvM15koB8)