DCEU: The Hare's Regret

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Well, after the Tom and Jerry fiasco last week, The invitation-only virtual premiere has been screwed up due to a microsoft server issue (for about 5 hours now) -and- a new wonder woman clip leaked today. Apparently Gal is

These clowns are making it really hard to be conspiratorial about this. I don't recall any of this nonsense going on with Soul or Mulan or WW84. They must have Black Widow under armed guard or something. 

Speaking of WW84, it picked up two razzie noms. Not to worry though; I expect Doolittle will clean up.

[Jace, Extat]

What's the conspiracy? Is the studio trying to sabatoge the FILM now? 

[Heartofice]

So just saw a review of the Snyder cut, saying it’s 4 hours long and that’s more than 3 hours of new footage?! That can’t be right surely?!

[RumHam]

From what I read Snyder had a four hour cut when he left the movie. Then Whedon supposedly shot 60-80% of what's in the final two hour movie. Then Snyder got more money to shoot more stuff. So assuming he's not using much of anything that Whedon shot that sounds about right. 

[Caligula_K3]

Watching Batman vs. Superman on a plane, I turned it off a quarter of the way through, because I thought it was truly awful. I turned off Justice League halfway through when watching it on TV, because again, not a good movie (though at least it had some entertainment in it). I'm just really confused about why we're supposed to be excited about a four hour (!) director's cut of a bad movie by a director who hasn't made even a decent movie since 2009.

 

[Heartofice]

I’ve gone from having less than zero interest in the movie to thinking I’m quite excited to watch it now. 
 

The idea that I get to watch a movie that isn’t entirely conceived by a corporate committee is quite intriguing, and even if I think Snyder is a hack I’m interested to see how his vision was so different to what was actually released. 
 

Im going to put bets on whether I manage to watch more of it than the Whedon version, which won’t be hard 

[Corvinus85]

Depending on actual reviews, I will either re-sign up for HBO Max this weekend to watch it, or wait until April, when there will also be other content to watch. I am not overly excited. I feel like people are blowing this out of proportion, like it will be anything amazing. I watched BvS Director's Cut, and it wasn't much of an improvement over the theatrical version. I did like Man of Steel. Snyder does visuals well, but he is better off when the plot is simple. 

[Ran]

Metacritic has a bunch of reviews for what they calculate to be a 55 of 100 score.

[Derfel Cadarn]

1 hour ago, Caligula_K3 said:

Watching Batman vs. Superman on a plane, I turned it off a quarter of the way through, because I thought it was truly awful. I turned off Justice League halfway through when watching it on TV, because again, not a good movie (though at least it had some entertainment in it). I'm just really confused about why we're supposed to be excited about a four hour (!) director's cut of a bad movie by a director who hasn't made even a decent movie since 2009.

 

The ultimate edition of BvS is a big improvement; makes the actual plot more coherent, tying apparently random stiff together.

We’re not talking Kingdom of Heaven inprovements but still better than bvs theatrical

 

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Metacritic has a bunch of reviews for what they calculate to be a 55 of 100 score.

lol

Yeah, I figured. I mean, it’s more Snyder than the first, so [spreads hands]

[polishgenius]

Just now, JEORDHl said:

lol

Yeah, I figured. I mean, it’s more Snyder than the first, so [spreads hands]

It's a better score than the first one, though...

[Ran]

Presently, anyways.

I think the one thing Snyder's film will obviously have over Whedon's is that Snyder has made his pure, unadulterated vision of the film, down to the extraordinary running time, whereas Whedon's version is an uneasy melding of two completely different creators, and not just that, but one tightly constrained to a 2 hour run time and whatever limitations there were on reshooting.

So, by dint of that alone, I think many critics were going to rate it (slightly) higher than Whedon's version just because it has a single guiding vision.

[Gronzag]

I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that it's four hours long. I have never watched a movie that long, what could they possibly fill it with? Mindless action scenes? Character drama (them standing around and talking)?

I guess, you could make an argument that 55/100 on Metacritic (which is far better than RT) is a great success for a film 4 hours long.

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, Gronzag said:

I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that it's four hours long. I have never watched a movie that long, what could they possibly fill it with? Mindless action scenes? Character drama (them standing around and talking)?

I guess, you could make an argument that 55/100 on Metacritic (which is far better than RT) is a great success for a film 4 hours long.

SLOW MO is what it’s filled with I’m guessing.

It’s actually just a 20 minute made for TV movie but the action scenes pad it out to a full 4 hours.

[Corvinus85]

17 minutes ago, Gronzag said:

I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that it's four hours long. I have never watched a movie that long, what could they possibly fill it with? Mindless action scenes? Character drama (them standing around and talking)?

I guess, you could make an argument that 55/100 on Metacritic (which is far better than RT) is a great success for a film 4 hours long.

Das Boot is nearly 5 hrs and has a 98% RT score and 86% metacritic. Gettysburg is 4 and half hours has 77% RT score. Both are good films.

[JGP]

Well, shit.

Gail Simone wrote a thread, and while it doesn't have spoilers, I tend to take her POV seriously, re: the Justice League. Color me cautiously optimistic.

 

 

[Jace, Extat]

42 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

Das Boot is nearly 5 hrs and has a 98% RT score and 86% metacritic. Gettysburg is 4 and half hours has 77% RT score. Both are good films.

The first place you messed up is by comparing 'Das Boot' to a Zack Snyder effort. You then further messed up by comparing 'Gettysburg' to a Zack Snyder effort.

3 hours ago, Caligula_K3 said:

Watching Batman vs. Superman on a plane, I turned it off a quarter of the way through, because I thought it was truly awful. I turned off Justice League halfway through when watching it on TV, because again, not a good movie (though at least it had some entertainment in it). I'm just really confused about why we're supposed to be excited about a four hour (!) director's cut of a bad movie by a director who hasn't made even a decent movie since 2009.

 

The internet is a helluva drug.

[Corvinus85]

4 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

The first place you messed up is by comparing 'Das Boot' to a Zack Snyder effort. You then further messed up by comparing 'Gettysburg' to a Zack Snyder effort.

 

You're right, those movies had stories. I was just pointing out that while more isn't better, it's not necessarily a detriment, either. But in this case, I expect the added seizure inducing action scenes will finally fracture my synapses.

[Ran]

2 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Das Boot is nearly 5 hrs and has a 98% RT score and 86% metacritic

RT's collated reviews are for the original theatrical release, which was 2.5 hours long. 

The best version is likely the Director's Cut, which is 3.5 hours. But the mini-series version, which makes the bulk of the so-called Original Uncut Version, is indeed nearly 5 hours long... and is not at all as good as the theatrical and the Director's Cut. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

11 hours ago, Gronzag said:

I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that it's four hours long. I have never watched a movie that long, what could they possibly fill it with? Mindless action scenes? Character drama (them standing around and talking)?

I guess, you could make an argument that 55/100 on Metacritic (which is far better than RT) is a great success for a film 4 hours long.

The extended cut of LOTR: Return of the King is 4h 12m. Two Towers: 3h 46m.

Is this the same Metacritic that Ranks WW84 and Birds of Prey higher than Joker? The Last Jedi higher than Rogue One? Here's the reality: a large portion of "certified" film critics are plain useless. They can give a film a good or bad review for reasons other than what's up on that screen. Maybe they're reviewing the production history. Maybe they're reviewing what they deem as hostile treatment by the director or producer of a film. Maybe they don't want to jeopardize their access by pissing off a studio with a bad review. Aggregating that noise doesn't make it better.

Here's an idea:

Why not do this the way that Amazon does customer reviews? A bar chart that shows you all the rankings from one to five stars, with no attempt to combobulate anything into a percentage, pass/fail, "fresh", or whatnot. The chart is hyperlinked so an average so-and-so can click on the one star reviews and quickly navigate to that section. For example, they say to themselves, "Self, these people are all assholes. I might just go see this thing."

For an additional trick: You have 4 graphs: one for critics and audience that gets locked the moment a film ends its theatrical run, and a second set that starts there and is perpetually live. This way, if you cared, you could gauge how well the film ages, which is something none of the current review sites do to my knowledge. It's still not great but it could have a hell of a lot more utility than any of the current systems. Might be too complicated for the Blu Ray packaging though.

9 hours ago, Ran said:

The best version is likely the Director's Cut, which is 3.5 hours.

...in German. The english dub loses something IMO.