>Actually my other version is much better...
It's just massive cope for everyone realizing what a shitty director/writer he was when Rebel Moon came out.
No it's shit because Zack Snyder is a homosexual who can't direct or cast or do anything right not because "waaahhhhh cut it down to 2 hours and censor it!!!!"
You could still make a very good very watchable movie with great casting, acting, dialog, music, production design, effects, and action. It would not be anywhere as good as the theatrical versions but would still be 100x better than Snyder slop. Snyder can't do any of that.
Just imagine. Netflix comes to you and offers you $160m for 2 movies, and you can make your own R rated version plus a PG-13 version of each. Then they force you at gunpoint to sign the contract and accept the money. No wonder Snyder is so angry at having to make PG-13 versions of his movies, he was coerced and bullied by corporate interests.
He literally said he sold it to them as getting two different movies on one budget and then seemed to imply that he created the concept of movies having 'director's cuts'.
Never seen a movie of his and never will, but how come this homosexual always has a "director's cut" for every single one of his movies that somehow he wasn't allowed to produce/release?
He can't make a good movie so he has to bullshit and play some sort of victim even though he's calling the shots. Orson Welles got screwed as a director. Zack is no Orson.
Director's Cuts used to be versions of the film the director released many years after the original. They expanded on the original, but usually the original was often regarded as a good movie, thereby justifying a new updated/expanded version. Snyder is already talking about Directors Cuts before finishing primary filming, and his original cuts are just downright terrible and not worthy of release. He is just using Directors Cut as a way to get more product out there for much less work, eg 4 releases on Netflix instead of 2.
Back in the DVD era, it was very common to have director's cuts. The movie quality or success didn't factor in at all. Almost every major release at the time, even those that bombed, had director's cuts for home release in the early to late 2000s, sometimes several different cuts for the same movie you could buy. Why is this a problem now?
Probably just a few theaters for weird Netflix corporate reasons, They did the same with the first part, released it in 2 or 3 theaters one week before it was online.
Will they have Rebel Moon Scargiver branded merchandise? I didn't even know the second part was about to release, Netflix seems to have abandoned it as a lost cause and pulled marketing money from it.
So the Rebel Moon Cinematic Universe is really happening. It must have been a huge success, eve though it has not been mentioned here since 2 weeks after release.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes, Zack Snyder recently gave an interview that there are projects on pause right now, like his animated movies, all because Netflix is pushing for more Rebel Moon content. Specially now with the new Netflix boss who's pushing for more genre specific goyslop.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>...that would be fun
No "That will be fun". Meaning he has no contract yet.
Of course Netflix is going to say they are committed to the Rebel Moon franchise before Part Two releases, otherwise a lot of people will just not bother to watch it. I have a feeling they have soft-cancelled it and are just waiting for the numbers and some time to pass to quietly announce it.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's his catchphrase. He says that about everything.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>That's his catchphrase. He says that about everything.
Indian hands.
>Ridley Scott: Wish I could release my 4 hours Napoleon movie the studio didn't let me release >Zack Snyder: I made Netflix the PG13 Rebel Moon they wanted, for the merchandizing potential, and in return they allowed me to make my Director's Cut without compromise >Internet with no knowledge of filmmaking: just make it good the first time lmao
Zack only good movies are 300 and Watchmen. Nobody cares about Rebel moon, DC capeshit were all subpar except maybe for Nolan´s Batman (which are good but still fail as Batman movies) and Sucker Punch was the very definition of style over substance and good idea poor execution.
He is a good craftsman with great technique to achieve insanely good visual (he can even do so with a foocking cellphone) but he somewhat falls short on using those skills to enhance narration and convey emotion. In other words, his style is cool but shallow.
Authors are great because they are capable of sharing more than just their ideas, they share their feelings, they expose themselves and make us care. It takes quite a lot to do so and not everybody is willing to do it. For those carrying the kind of pain he is carrying it´s probably even harder but honest film making requires that level of compromise. It´s just how it is.
If any of what you wrote was true he wouldn't have such a rabid fanbase. His movies resonated with them on such a deep level they will go crazy for the man's work.
Disagree. Man of Steel is a legitimately good film, bordering on great. Dawn of the Dead is also quite good. But yeah, pretty much everything else he's done besides the Snyder Cut of JL is bad.
Dawn of the Dead was good. 300 was okay, but mostly because he aped the comic book storyboards and his storytelling work was done for him by a far better story teller, plus he had a good cast. Everything else he has done is pure juvenile garbage.
I will add that even though a lot of his films suck, Snyder has a flair for visuals and especially action scenes. He's also very earnest and honest with his films; there's no irony there and I think that's why they didn't resonate with the post-modernist, layers of irony, no true hard feelings-style movie making that's been in vogue for the last decade and a half.
>Snyder has a flair for visuals and especially action scenes. He's also very earnest and honest with his films; there's no irony there and I think that's why they didn't resonate with the post-modernist, layers of irony, no true hard feelings-style movie making that's been in vogue for the last decade and a half.
Indian hands
Snyder has been teasing the porn and rape angle of the R rated cut for many months now. That's all he has to offer, some sleaze for people who are too timid to go to an actual porn site.
I don't think Zack Snyder can write for shit but studios are the ones that force the lame PG-13 rating onto every movie. If I was a filmmaker I would probably do the same thing -- you can chop up my movie any way you want but at least let me put my version out there.
>you can chop up my movie any way you want
But he had the final cut on the PG-13 version, Snyder got to cut it any way he wanted as long as it was PG-13. And it was shit.
>And it was shit.
That's probably always going to be the case when you try to make a watered-down PG-13 movie from an R-rated one.
That does not mean the R-rated version will be good either mind you since Snyder insisted on writing it himself.
>And it was shit.
That's probably always going to be the case when you try to make a watered-down PG-13 movie from an R-rated one.
That does not mean the R-rated version will be good either mind you since Snyder insisted on writing it himself.
there's functionally no difference between pg13 capeshit and r rated capeshit especially in his edition
nothing he could make would be emotionally transgressive, disturbing or provocative
all he can evoke is distaste and eyeroll
he's a moron smashing action figures together IN SLOW MOTION and and adding breasts and swearing is about as fundamental as changing hairstyle on one of the characters
I find it frightening that there's still such a large astro-turfing attempt by twittertrannies to try and stop people from enjoying Snyder's films.
I can't think of a single hate campaign that's lasted this long when you consider that it started before BvS released
>competent filmmaker understands that different audiences want different things and decides to appeal to both >twittertards: REEEEEE WHY ISN'T EVERYTHING ABOUT ME?
>cash grab
I chose not to watch when I heard about it being split in half and an unrated cut being produced (with no dates set for anything).
That and no great buzz about gimped cut part one has probably deadened my interest in the IP altogether.
I have better fricking things to do than wait for a single mediocre story to be presented properly.
>"The thing I'm most excited about people seeing when they watch the director's cut is, rather than it being an extended or different version of these movies, they're kind of like this alternate universe version of the movie," Snyder tells us. "That's kind of how I describe them. Even though, of course, there's many scenes that are the same, there's so much that's different, even the points of view are slightly different. The protagonist is different. And I think that'd be fun for audiences to see this much deeper dive. Each of them is one hour longer, the two movies together are six hours. And I think that that's going to be fun for fans. And also, this is very adult as a difference."
>Ed Skrein, who plays the villainous Admiral Noble, has more to say on the adult nature of the new versions. "We had a 179 page script, so the first 11 pages of that, no one's ever seen, because by nature it could only be in the R-rated cut," he says. "It is horror. And that was fun to shoot, and I'm excited for people to see that."
>There's one other scene in particular, though, that has Skrein's attention. "Also, I don't know whether to be worried or excited, because the people at Netflix keep saying to me, 'Have you seen the R-rated cut yet?' and they say, 'Have you seen your alien sex scene yet?'" he says. Noble is seen in a dalliance with an alien creature in the standard version of A Child of Fire, though the movie cuts away before we see anything too graphic... >"They're like, 'It's crazy. You really went for it, didn't you?'" he continues. "And I'm like, 'I go for it every take and scene, I don't hold back.' So I'm super excited to see that. And I hope I don't become too much of a meme."
>Actually my other version is much better...
It's just massive cope for everyone realizing what a shitty director/writer he was when Rebel Moon came out.
Zack talked about this on JRE it was Netflix's decision to do that. He wouldn't bother with a PG13 version but that was the deal with Netflix
If he can't make a good 2 hour PG13 movie from his long 6 hour uncut epic saga, then his movie is shit.
No it's shit because Zack Snyder is a homosexual who can't direct or cast or do anything right not because "waaahhhhh cut it down to 2 hours and censor it!!!!"
I don't think you could make a good PG 2 hour version of the LOTR trilogy, does that mean those movies are shit too?
You could still make a very good very watchable movie with great casting, acting, dialog, music, production design, effects, and action. It would not be anywhere as good as the theatrical versions but would still be 100x better than Snyder slop. Snyder can't do any of that.
I'm sure I'm forgetting one but are there any really good medieval PG movies? That genre just doesn't lend itself to children's fare.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Wow thats crazy no director has ever been asked to change or edit some content of their movie. I can't believe Netflix would do this
Just imagine. Netflix comes to you and offers you $160m for 2 movies, and you can make your own R rated version plus a PG-13 version of each. Then they force you at gunpoint to sign the contract and accept the money. No wonder Snyder is so angry at having to make PG-13 versions of his movies, he was coerced and bullied by corporate interests.
He literally said he sold it to them as getting two different movies on one budget and then seemed to imply that he created the concept of movies having 'director's cuts'.
Snyder should be making tv series if he's that incapable of making movies at a norma lenght.
he most definitely shouldn't be doing any of that
maybe he can stock shelves
>why not just make one good movie
People are still in deep denial over zack.
Never seen a movie of his and never will, but how come this homosexual always has a "director's cut" for every single one of his movies that somehow he wasn't allowed to produce/release?
He can't make a good movie so he has to bullshit and play some sort of victim even though he's calling the shots. Orson Welles got screwed as a director. Zack is no Orson.
Snyder likes to think of himself as a Welles or Cimino type when really he's just a one-trick pony
Director's cuts aren't some novel concept. Ridley Scott have something like 12 director's cuts. Blade Runner alone have like 5 director's cuts.
People being surprised about this just tells me that they know nothing about cinema and are being exposed to this type of thing by capeshit directors.
Director's Cuts used to be versions of the film the director released many years after the original. They expanded on the original, but usually the original was often regarded as a good movie, thereby justifying a new updated/expanded version. Snyder is already talking about Directors Cuts before finishing primary filming, and his original cuts are just downright terrible and not worthy of release. He is just using Directors Cut as a way to get more product out there for much less work, eg 4 releases on Netflix instead of 2.
Back in the DVD era, it was very common to have director's cuts. The movie quality or success didn't factor in at all. Almost every major release at the time, even those that bombed, had director's cuts for home release in the early to late 2000s, sometimes several different cuts for the same movie you could buy. Why is this a problem now?
>Why is this a problem now?
Because Snyder is a shit director who is using it as a gimmick?
So... the problem is Zack Snyder. Got it.
Always has been
>Ridley Scott have
>Blade Runner alone have
Hello Ranjeet. Looking forward to the Rebel Moon Snyder Cut, saar?
cause he's a homosexual
Rebel Moon Part Two already out in theaters, but reviews are still apparently embargoed, or no one cares to see it and review it.
In theaters where?
Probably just a few theaters for weird Netflix corporate reasons, They did the same with the first part, released it in 2 or 3 theaters one week before it was online.
Yes, select theaters in several countries. For what reason? I don't know.
Will they have Rebel Moon Scargiver branded merchandise? I didn't even know the second part was about to release, Netflix seems to have abandoned it as a lost cause and pulled marketing money from it.
They already made them. I've seen some.
So the Rebel Moon Cinematic Universe is really happening. It must have been a huge success, eve though it has not been mentioned here since 2 weeks after release.
Yes, Zack Snyder recently gave an interview that there are projects on pause right now, like his animated movies, all because Netflix is pushing for more Rebel Moon content. Specially now with the new Netflix boss who's pushing for more genre specific goyslop.
>...that would be fun
No "That will be fun". Meaning he has no contract yet.
Of course Netflix is going to say they are committed to the Rebel Moon franchise before Part Two releases, otherwise a lot of people will just not bother to watch it. I have a feeling they have soft-cancelled it and are just waiting for the numbers and some time to pass to quietly announce it.
That's his catchphrase. He says that about everything.
>That's his catchphrase. He says that about everything.
Indian hands.
why for the oscar eligibility of course
zack snyder is going to get award for writing and cinematography any minute now
All those Snyder Cut homosexuals created this. It's his brand now.
>/ourguy/ Zack
Good morning saar!
This.
With justice league there was a legitimate reason. This is planned in advance. Pure cancer.
the reason was watching longer shit
>Ridley Scott: Wish I could release my 4 hours Napoleon movie the studio didn't let me release
>Zack Snyder: I made Netflix the PG13 Rebel Moon they wanted, for the merchandizing potential, and in return they allowed me to make my Director's Cut without compromise
>Internet with no knowledge of filmmaking: just make it good the first time lmao
Honestly I understand the Snyder hate here but how is this thread so fricking moronic?
>thinks making a shitty movie in a shitty universe will be better with sex and violence
This guy talks like a person who's never, ever had one genuine solitary human emotion or time alone with his own thoughts in his entire life.
Zack only good movies are 300 and Watchmen. Nobody cares about Rebel moon, DC capeshit were all subpar except maybe for Nolan´s Batman (which are good but still fail as Batman movies) and Sucker Punch was the very definition of style over substance and good idea poor execution.
He is a good craftsman with great technique to achieve insanely good visual (he can even do so with a foocking cellphone) but he somewhat falls short on using those skills to enhance narration and convey emotion. In other words, his style is cool but shallow.
Authors are great because they are capable of sharing more than just their ideas, they share their feelings, they expose themselves and make us care. It takes quite a lot to do so and not everybody is willing to do it. For those carrying the kind of pain he is carrying it´s probably even harder but honest film making requires that level of compromise. It´s just how it is.
If any of what you wrote was true he wouldn't have such a rabid fanbase. His movies resonated with them on such a deep level they will go crazy for the man's work.
The young generation must have pretty low expectations, IDK.
Having India as a fan base isn't a good thing
Disagree. Man of Steel is a legitimately good film, bordering on great. Dawn of the Dead is also quite good. But yeah, pretty much everything else he's done besides the Snyder Cut of JL is bad.
Dawn of the Dead was good. 300 was okay, but mostly because he aped the comic book storyboards and his storytelling work was done for him by a far better story teller, plus he had a good cast. Everything else he has done is pure juvenile garbage.
I will add that even though a lot of his films suck, Snyder has a flair for visuals and especially action scenes. He's also very earnest and honest with his films; there's no irony there and I think that's why they didn't resonate with the post-modernist, layers of irony, no true hard feelings-style movie making that's been in vogue for the last decade and a half.
>Snyder has a flair for visuals and especially action scenes. He's also very earnest and honest with his films; there's no irony there and I think that's why they didn't resonate with the post-modernist, layers of irony, no true hard feelings-style movie making that's been in vogue for the last decade and a half.
Indian hands
Pff, man of steel was mid. Too grounded. JL was just bad.
Zack Snyder wasted VFX money on tentacle porn. LMAO.
Snyder has been teasing the porn and rape angle of the R rated cut for many months now. That's all he has to offer, some sleaze for people who are too timid to go to an actual porn site.
The 1st cut was an amazing train wreck, could this be even more glorius of a train wreck?
sequel is cumming friday, but when is the dir cuts dropping? the messaging here is terrible
Nobody knows. I was under the assumption that the director's cut of 1 would come out before the netflix cut of 2, but here we are.
Sofia Boutella is unironically the hottest woman alive
I don't think Zack Snyder can write for shit but studios are the ones that force the lame PG-13 rating onto every movie. If I was a filmmaker I would probably do the same thing -- you can chop up my movie any way you want but at least let me put my version out there.
>you can chop up my movie any way you want
But he had the final cut on the PG-13 version, Snyder got to cut it any way he wanted as long as it was PG-13. And it was shit.
>And it was shit.
That's probably always going to be the case when you try to make a watered-down PG-13 movie from an R-rated one.
That does not mean the R-rated version will be good either mind you since Snyder insisted on writing it himself.
there's functionally no difference between pg13 capeshit and r rated capeshit especially in his edition
nothing he could make would be emotionally transgressive, disturbing or provocative
all he can evoke is distaste and eyeroll
he's a moron smashing action figures together IN SLOW MOTION and and adding breasts and swearing is about as fundamental as changing hairstyle on one of the characters
Honestly frightening how much stock zoomers put in the opinions of these fricking loser streamoids who never leave their bedroom
I find it frightening that there's still such a large astro-turfing attempt by twittertrannies to try and stop people from enjoying Snyder's films.
I can't think of a single hate campaign that's lasted this long when you consider that it started before BvS released
>competent filmmaker understands that different audiences want different things and decides to appeal to both
>twittertards: REEEEEE WHY ISN'T EVERYTHING ABOUT ME?
>Why not make less money instead of making more money?
Non-Jews are NOT human
Why pay for shitty movies?
No idea what you're asking, moron
>cash grab
I chose not to watch when I heard about it being split in half and an unrated cut being produced (with no dates set for anything).
That and no great buzz about gimped cut part one has probably deadened my interest in the IP altogether.
I have better fricking things to do than wait for a single mediocre story to be presented properly.
Zack Snyder answering questions about filmmaking.
>"The thing I'm most excited about people seeing when they watch the director's cut is, rather than it being an extended or different version of these movies, they're kind of like this alternate universe version of the movie," Snyder tells us. "That's kind of how I describe them. Even though, of course, there's many scenes that are the same, there's so much that's different, even the points of view are slightly different. The protagonist is different. And I think that'd be fun for audiences to see this much deeper dive. Each of them is one hour longer, the two movies together are six hours. And I think that that's going to be fun for fans. And also, this is very adult as a difference."
>Ed Skrein, who plays the villainous Admiral Noble, has more to say on the adult nature of the new versions. "We had a 179 page script, so the first 11 pages of that, no one's ever seen, because by nature it could only be in the R-rated cut," he says. "It is horror. And that was fun to shoot, and I'm excited for people to see that."
>There's one other scene in particular, though, that has Skrein's attention. "Also, I don't know whether to be worried or excited, because the people at Netflix keep saying to me, 'Have you seen the R-rated cut yet?' and they say, 'Have you seen your alien sex scene yet?'" he says. Noble is seen in a dalliance with an alien creature in the standard version of A Child of Fire, though the movie cuts away before we see anything too graphic...
>"They're like, 'It's crazy. You really went for it, didn't you?'" he continues. "And I'm like, 'I go for it every take and scene, I don't hold back.' So I'm super excited to see that. And I hope I don't become too much of a meme."
Zack is the only guy that can sell me the same movie 5 times and be glad he did
Zack Snyder wants to do other shit but Netflix won't let him.