(Thread IKs:
Roth)
|
I want to see that percentage as low as possible. If it goes above 50% I'mma explode like the bus from Speed.
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Warner Bros. cutting 30 mins out of BVS totally kneecapped the movie, so Netflix is doing the smart thing and cutting twice that much out of Moon lol
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2023 00:12
|
|
|
Obvious solution is to cut all longer films on Netflix down to two-hour versions, and have them re-reviewed on the tomato site. That’ll adjust the scores to something more accurate. The Irishman: 2 Hour Cut, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2023 02:08
|
|
|
If these streaming sites care so much about analytics, releasing both versions at the same time would have provided an insane amount of data about people’s preferences. I’ve seen the theories that Netflix is trying to build Snyder-Cut hype, but the more basic explanation is that they want people to double-dip - forcing them to either re-subscribe or remain subscribed for longer.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2023 23:13
|
|
|
Papercut posted:It's the worst movie I've ever seen What’s the second worst.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
Papercut posted:That's a good question, there are a lot of d-level horror movies my partner watches but I don't even remember the names usually “D-level” horror rules. Get outta here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2023 02:58
|
|
|
oshuaj posted:I'm just going to wait for the Snyder Cut, I've learned my lesson about watching chopped-up versions I’m leaning that way as well, but I had no major issues with Watchmen theatrical, and BVS theatrical is at least interesting for having a full-on alternate plot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
Thread’s getting many of lengthy posts from people who don’t usually go to the movie forum, mulling over ideas like ‘the basic concept of fiction’, so it seems like the movie’s a success. Like when Snyder Cut came out, and people were suddenly really interested in aspect ratios.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2023 15:18
|
|
|
Watched the first 30 mins of the Netflix Cut out of curiousity, and this is mainly a genuinely unnerving ‘Nazi home invasion’ kind of deal that recalls Inglorious Basterds. The only noticeable slow-mo was an Obviously Symbolic pouch of seeds being dropped on the ground, and the moment was clearly slowed down for emphasis on the Obviously Symbolicness (coming shortly after a big speech about how this religious community values fertility, and a subsequent smaller speech about how the protagonist is uncomfortable with the idea of ‘settling down’). All the cinematography is better than most stuff I’ve seen this year, the score is unsettling, the editing flows seamlessly, and they have both genetically-engineered future-horses and a Chappie. So what are people getting mad about, again? There’s absolutely nothing objectionable here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2023 22:43
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:The brilliant subversion he's seeing is Alan Moore's work and subversion of comics and what they were doing when he was writing Watchmen. It's very goofy and shows you think overly highly of your industry and your peers if he thinks that brilliant subversion came from Snyder when its just the base concept of the work he was adapting. His entire comment is really "boy it would have been cool if Watchmen came out after the movies that remade all those comic stories its subverting and commenting on" which is nothing and has nothing to do with Snyder. Other folks have responded to this, but it’s worth specifically pointing out that Watchmen’s “subversion” of comic-book movies includes its ostensible status as an adaptation. What this means is simply that Snyder’s film copies much of the plot and imagery, but makes so many subtle changes to the narrative that the film functions more as a companion piece or sequel to the comic (long before the ‘canonical’ Watchmen sequel TV series). It’s a whole other story. This was to the chagrin of fans who don’t particularly care about narrative, loudly complaining that Snyder translated the comic inaccurately. Like, as if his job was just to change it from English to French. I’ve always pointed out that Chris Nolan’s Dark Knight 2: The Dark Knight is much closer to the Watchmen comic in both theme and tone. Snyder’s Watchmen consequently serves as a nice companion to that film. They both function as satires of liberalism, but in very different ways.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
It doesn't really make any sense to fret over 'originals'. Like, Snyder's Dawn Of The Dead has nothing to do with the Romero version at all, outside the base concept of zombies attacking a shopping mall.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
Now one hour into the movie, we've gotten the first actually-weak effects shot, with the Nazi baddies' CG drug-sex tentacle pet still looking somewhat pasted overtop of a rather complicated lighting setup. Otherwise, the movie has been totally fine. In keeping with recent discussion about the slow motion, there's a very interesting purposefulness to how it's employed. In the 'present-day' action scenes, it's used to highlight Kora's decision-making processes. Like, for example, the first gunfight slows down to show specifically how she's using bodies and other objects to obscure the gunman's line of sight. In the second action scene, there's the usually-cliché moment where the final baddie sneaks up behind her - only to be taken out by someone else(!!!). The scene slows down here to show that she's actually fully aware that this is what's happening, and that she allows it to happen. It's not really 'cool' except insofar as it illustrates her gun-fu abilities - definitely not just making pointlessly 'cool', images. In the flashback sequence, as a contrast, speed-ramping is used to give things an uneasy, stuttering start-stop quality. It doesn't clarify anything about the action, and instead highlights just rudimentary, disconnected images of 'jumping off a ship', 'taking cover', 'firing a gun', etc. It's exactly like if you had to tell her backstory with only a handful of comic-book panels - but the speed-ramping intermixes those still images with the mess of fire and shrapnel. Since this sequence is accompanied by voiceover, it's easy to see that this is specifically how Kora now sees her past self - and it's easy to keep track of which parts of the story she omits in the telling. Otherwise, yeah, the part where they fly off with Hunnam Solo seems really obviously slashed for runtime. Halfway into the film, this is where the missing 33% starts to be conspicuously absent. I had the same feeling watching BVS theatrical. Still no reasons to be angry yet, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2023 04:32
|
|
|
Well, that was hour one. Hour two is basically hacked to poo poo and not worth watching. Once the cuts start, around the halfway point, they get progressively worse until the final action scene is genuinely incomprehensible. You simply cannot go in and truncate a sequence that has that many moving parts. Like, it's a gunfight involving a dozen named characters, and they've cut it down to focus on just two or three of them. That's insane. And it means that, retroactively, those other characters don't even actually belong in this cut of the movie. Netflix hosed up this so hard that the smarter choice would been to go in, remove the recruitment montage, and digitally erase all the protagonists besides Kora, Gunnar, and Darian. My advice for Snyder fans: watch until they get on the first spaceship, then just shut it off and wait for the real version.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2023 06:29
|
|
|
Nephthys posted:On the whole, I actually doubt that this movie can be saved by a directors cut. MAYBE the sequel will be better and have some pay off to things this movie has set up but I'm not invested enough to be really looking forward to it. Given that the first half of the movie seems untouched, it's safe to assume that the second half was originally twice as long. 60 minutes is enough to give 10-15 minutes to each new character and account for all the missing footage in the final fight scene. And, of course, much of that runtime would have included scenes of the characters interacting with eachother. Because of that overlap, each new character may have had like 20 minutes of fleshing out. Think of how much is conveyed about Jimmy and the one good soldier in just a few minutes. Netflix, insanely, chose to shorten the film by focusing exclusively on Kora and reducing nearly all the recruited characters to macguffins. Literally, they are just powerful objects that the protagonist and antagonist are attempting to collect. At the same time, because they preserved some of the action scenes, a good 25% of the film grinds to a halt to advertise the power of the macguffins. I don't think we can pin this on the director, because I can't see any director doing this intentionally.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
Majkol posted:Bit of a tangent- you usually have some unusual or underseen recs. Anything particularly interesting you've seen this year that you might recommend? I need to catch up on a lot of 2023, and I dunno how 'underseen' it is, but I reckon my pick for the year is The Oldest View [Parts 1-4]. Nephthys posted:I pin it on the director because I don't think any of those other characters should be in the movie, even if they get an extra 15 minutes each. The movie would be much stronger if they were removed and it focused on the characters we already know instead. You could easily replace their roles in the story with the robot and soldier guy and save the extra hour or use it for something more interesting. As with the Wachowskis' Matrix sequel(s), Netflix ultimately paid Snyder to make a ~6 hour movie with an intermission. That's why those other characters are there. Netflix just also made the baffling decision to cut that down severely and release it in two parts, with a promise to release the real version eventually.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
YggdrasilTM posted:Yeah, but I would find very funny if after all this speculations the cut parts were really those scenes. I don't expect huge reams of expository dialogue or anything, but look at how the first hour is paced, when there's strictly not much going on in the plot. There's a lot of characters silently interacting by just walking around, standing around, looking at eachother, etc. The first scene of the movie is Gunnar the farmer watching Kora from a distance as she touches the ground for reassurance(?) and then pretending he's only just arrived. That's the exact kind of thing that's missing from the later scenes. Like, it basically cuts directly from the crew's arrival on COBALT MINING PLANET to them already silently riding in an elevator with Nemesis. Something's blatantly missing, even if it's just Nemesis chilling in her house or workplace and then receiving a call about the spider problem.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2023 18:42
|
|
|
It's tough to speculate exactly what they were thinking, but it's looking like Netflix execs are still treating their PG cut as a single film despite releasing it in two parts. If you're a dumbass who wants to reduce a six-hour runtime by two hours, you could rationalize slashing all the characterization for the supporting characters now, because they'll get things to do in the second half. If they'd released everything simultaneously, this might've seemed like just a hiccup in the narrative. Like, BVS's theatrical cut had obvious "SCENE MISSING" moments, but it worked decently well because the ending was intact.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:And it did and was quite a good scene then it ends with martha transforming into green goblin and winking at the camera, making it even worse than the boiiiiing whedon original in terms of female characterisation, in a way no one could have predicted. Worse for female characterization, or better for genderfluid characterization?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2023 07:56
|
|
|
YggdrasilTM posted:Isn't just that with those lens only the center of the scene is on focus? Not necessarily the center; Snyder’s lens does have that spot focus, but you can do some pretty wacky stuff by changing the orientation of the lens in relation to the image sensor. It’s entirely possible to have two objects, side-by-side and equidistant from the camera, but only one of them in focus because the plane of focus is no longer parallel with the camera. Snyder’s custom lens here is pretty similar to the “Deakinizer” used on The Assassination of Jesse James, where they likewise weren’t concerned with keeping everyone’s faces sharp at all times. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Dec 30, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
Blood Boils posted:Well it did contain more & better characterization than Whedon's (who as awful as it was was also characterization - it still counts even if we wish it didn't!). Snydercut scene characterizes 3 characters: Lois, Martha, then after the reveal, Manhunter and Martha by her absence. Justice League was also never precisely the movie Snyder wanted to make, as the studio basically pushed him into doing something much closer to Guardians Of Gahoole during pre-production (i.e., making a kids' movie). The final Snyder Cut was also assembled in a context where Snyder knew there would be no future movies in the series, so it's not a precise recreation of what would have appeared in the theatres in 2017, but an attempt to repurpose the available footage. Hence new scenes showing Lois is gonna get disintegrated in the future, and so-on. Harry Lennox's footage was filmed as part of the Snyder Cut reshoots, so it's likely that the scene was invented specifically for that cut, and the Swanwick reveal would have originally occured elsewhere (maybe in Justice League 2 or something). This is especially likely because Secretary Of Defense Swanwick is not actually a character in Justice League, so having the alien briefly morph into that character is more like an easter egg for fans than a proper plot twist. (Similar to the inclusion of Joker and the line of dialogue about Harley Quinn in the epilogue.) The scene feels a bit forced because it ultimately was. It was Snyder's last chance to get the twist onscreen, and you'd have to fit it in somewhere. So, MM would need to be one of the human characters, and one with a role relevant to what Swanwick did in previous films. That doesn't leave many options.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:I’m not arguing that it isn’t derivative, but I don’t really see a meaningful difference between the derivativeness of one vs the other. They’re both derivative in their own ways, and there’s nothing wrong with that in itself. Ok, you need to be more clear what you’re talking about. The aesthetic of Rebel Moon is nothing like Star Wars at all; it’s way further into ‘high fantasy’ territory. Just look at how they depict the concept of a giant spider monster, as an example. Even Lord Of The Rings has a more scientifically plausible giant spider, but that’s obviously not the point because Rebel Moon is just straight-up like ‘yeah this is basically a centaur’. The aliens are closer to orcs, and there’s a dang gryphon right out of Harry Potter. If you think of Dex’s Diner from Star Wars 2, that’s at the extreme end of the Star Wars aesthetic but still recognizably a retro diner as filtered through upscale, urban Star Wars. The farm at the start of Rebel Moon goes way further, being ‘just’ an old European-style farmstead with automatic Star Trek doors added in almost as a joke. In that specific case, it’s because the characters are some kind of space-conservatives who deliberately constructed their village that way - but it’s fairly consistent across the rest of the film. The arena looks like The Coliseum, and so-on. The characters’ distinct planets are more like genres. There are references to Star Wars in the narrative, but they’re overt where they exist. The introduction to Gryphon dude is ripped directly from the podracing subplot with baby Anakin from Star Wars 1, and everyone knows that Hunnam is playing a variant of Han Solo. However, this has nothing to do with the film’s aesthetic, except insofar as both it and Star Wars included references back to gladiator movies, westerns, etc. The overall narrative of the film is unlike any Star Wars movie - except maybe Star Wars 9, when it collapses into poo poo in the edited second half. Rebel Moon: The Netflix Cut Part 1 looks like a “putting a team together” movie but, as I believe I’ve noted earlier, it uses the new recruits as macguffins rather than as actual characters. And of course the plot isn’t like any Star Wars movie either. Even the closest example, Rogue One, was about three characters going on a mission behind enemy lines and picking up a few stragglers along the way. Rebel Moon’s not that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:I literally have no clue what you're talking about or why you're responding to me with your post. Nothing you wrote contradicts or contends with what I said: that Rebel Moon has aesthetic differences from Star Wars, but I don't consider those differences to be enough to fully distinguish it as non-derivative of Star Wars, or that one isn't derivative while the other is. You wrote that the aesthetic isn't different enough to fully distinguish it from Star Wars, but the aesthetic is kinda extremely different. I've mostly pointed out the production design, but other things like the shot choices and the controversial LENS are unlike Star Wars. There's no dialogue in Star Wars that's shot and edited like the Jimmy scene. So, what are you referring to, then? Because it doesn't seem to be the plot or narrative either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2024 19:21
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:In the post that you initially quoted, I said "I don’t consider the aesthetic or lore differences to be wide enough to distinguish it as anything remarkable", not "I don't think it's visually different from Star Wars". Right, and that would mean that you consider the aesthetics and "lore" of the movies are 'too similar'. When asked what you mean by 'similar lore', though, you repeatedly dodge the question. In this case, you are also writing that the differences are 'unremarkable' and therefore you won't remark on them either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2024 19:30
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:I didn't say the differences aren't vast enough, I said the differences that are there don't make the end product remarkable. Ok, being as charitable as possible here. The only pertinent difference between these phrases: "The differences aren't vast enough". and "The differences that are there don't make the end product remarkable." is the concept of "enough" - implying that no amount of difference [from Star Wars' aesthetics and lore] could make the film remarkable to you. There cannot be enough. But, then, we can go back to the earlier post, where you say the exact opposite: "I’ll give Rebel Moon some credit for telling a modified version of that story, but I don’t consider the aesthetic or lore differences to be wide enough to distinguish it as anything remarkable." So, to summarize: "I don’t consider the ... differences to be wide enough". and "The differences aren't vast enough." those are two similar phrases, but only one of those is your true opinion, you claim. So what's going on here? Are you quibbling over the difference between 'width' and 'vastness' as metaphorical distance, or are you just not in control of your thoughts and actions?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2024 19:53
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:I'm done responding to this pointless back and forth where you misinterpret what I write, and then shift tactics, respond with several paragraphs and demand I rebut your new points. It's tedious and meaningless and going no where, and it bores me. I am the ultimate killing machine. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2024 19:59
|
|
|
It’s different because “exactly 2 hours” is the Extremely Suspicious runtime, silly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 02:57
|
|
|
There's like a 95% chance that the spider monster's going to have nipples, so get ready for that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 17:25
|
|
|
I guarantee these guys are wrong about the grain, but it’s also not because they’re overthinking the economics of grain farming. Probably they’re like the libertarians who got mad at Elysium because they didn’t understand artificial scarcity. I’m just going to hold off on a proper analysis because the actual movie isn’t even out yet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:This is a good point, and the fault of Netflix (and, to a point, Snyder for agreeing to this messed up release schedule). But do you really think the longer cut will get into the grain subplot? Grain is the plot, but I don’t necessarily mean more exposition about the farming. We’re undoubtedly going to get a better picture of the whole socioeconomics of this setting in the actual movie.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2024 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Ya, that part with the Volvo is apocryphal.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2024 16:15
|
|