BvS The Official Zack Snyder Directs Everything Thread - Part 3

[FunkMiller]

Mate...Zack Snyder was contracted to make a 2.5 hour, PG film.

If he couldn't do that, that's on him - NOT the studio.

The studio was well within its rights to ask him to cut it down.

This.

The dude just doesn't appear to be a particularly good film-maker. Not the worst, but certainly not the best either.

 

[Jekecy]

Mate...Zack Snyder was contracted to make a 2.5 hour, PG film.

If he couldn't do that, that's on him - NOT the studio.

The studio was well within its rights to ask him to cut it down.

^ Yep.

Most studio releases are designed to be under 3 hours. He should have realized a script that translates into 4 hours should be more rewritten to accomodate a more reasonable runtime.

I find it hard to believe WB didn’t know there was a 3+ hour cut early on in the game. On a script level you can tell how long the story is going to be (roughly). I’m of the mind WB got cold feet and cut it down for the final cut. Otherwise they would have never allowed Zack to shoot all the scenes he did. It was a long shoot and is one of their biggest budgeted movies. It’s logical WB had all the foreknowledge every step of the way.

 

[FunkMiller]

I find it hard to believe WB didn’t know there was a 3+ hour cut early on in the game. On a script level you can tell how long the story is going to be (roughly). I’m of the mind WB got cold feet and cut it down for the final cut. Otherwise they would have never allowed Zack to shoot all the scenes he did. It was a long shoot and is one of their biggest budgeted movies. It’s logical WB had all the foreknowledge every step of the way.

You're probably right.

Nolan cuts long to begin with. TDK and TDKR both had over three hour rough cuts.

sadly, somebody needs to kidnap every member of the WB board of execs and tattoo the following onto their foreheads:

ZACK SNYDER IS NOT CHRISTOPHER NOLAN.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Russo Bros original cut for CW was also only 10 mins longer than what it was cut down to.

Impressively economical.

 

[OcStat]

Mate...Zack Snyder was contracted to make a 2.5 hour, PG film.

If he couldn't do that, that's on him - NOT the studio.

The studio was well within its rights to ask him to cut it down.

Really? First I've heard of that. And we are getting an R-Rated 3 hour version in a few months? I don't have high hopes for that.

I think it is kind of sad that DC has been cranking out movies that are pretty hard for a youngster to really enjoy.

 

[All-Father]

You're probably right.

Nolan cuts long to begin with. TDK and TDKR both had over three hour rough cuts.

sadly, somebody needs to kidnap every member of the WB board of execs and tattoo the following onto their foreheads:

ZACK SNYDER IS NOT CHRISTOPHER NOLAN.

You shouldn't mention these two in the same sentence.
Snyder should be placed alongside Michael Bay.

 

[Anita18]

You're probably right.

Nolan cuts long to begin with. TDK and TDKR both had over three hour rough cuts.

sadly, somebody needs to kidnap every member of the WB board of execs and tattoo the following onto their foreheads:

ZACK SNYDER IS NOT CHRISTOPHER NOLAN.

I heard from Wally Pfister (at a cinematography panel) that TDK was not cut down much. I also know someone (who made the TDK viral games) who saw an early cut and he also said they didn't edit much to the final. TDKR definitely had too much story for 2.5 hours, but TDK was planned out really well.

But yeah, in general, you're right. TDKR went long, but Nolan did touch on the themes he wanted, supported those themes with character-motivated plot, and didn't linger on random visual stuff because it looked cool or whatever.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

You shouldn't mention these two in the same sentence.
Snyder should be placed alongside Michael Bay.

Maybe now, but I think some of Michael Bay's earlier stuff (particularly Bad Boys and The Rock) are far better than anything Snyder's done.

 

[FunkMiller]

I heard from Wally Pfister (at a cinematography panel) that TDK was not cut down much. I also know someone (who made the TDK viral games) who saw an early cut and he also said they didn't edit much to the final. TDKR definitely had too much story for 2.5 hours, but TDK was planned out really well.

But yeah, in general, you're right. TDKR went long, but Nolan did touch on the themes he wanted and didn't linger on random visual stuff because it looked cool or whatever.

Ah well, if you've heard it straight from Pfister's mouth, then I'll defer to you on TDK. I'd heard a three hour rough cut did exist, but the man himself would know!

Point stands... WB gave Snyder the same carte blanch they gave Nolan, and it's bitten them on the arse. Snyder isn't half the filmmaker Nolan is.

 

[samsnee]

I bet it was three hour BvS cut that got the standing ovation from Warner Bros execs.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Why would they chop down the cut they themselves gave a standing ovation to? Do make some sense.

 

[jmc]

I dunno, I feel like WB/everyone being "taken aback" by the critical response and scrambling about what to do with Snyder is inaccurate. We didn't start getting reviews of BvS until a few days before release - they were embargoed until then. Now, they obviously didn't know the critical response would be THAT bad, otherwise they would have held the embargo until the day of release, which studios have done before.

But WB has also been on the opposite end with TDK, where they let the reviews fly in two full weeks before release, because they knew they had something magical. (Marvel is experiencing the same thing right now with Civil War.) Studios know when they have lightning in a bottle or a dud on their hands, they're not as clueless as we take them to be.

Now, it obviously isn't smart that WB scheduled JL to start filming mere days after BvS's release, before seeing what the reception would be. But they must have felt that they had no choice (for whatever reason) and it was a bet they were willing to make. You don't jump whole hog into something like that without considering the consequences, unless you had a TDK-type guaranteed phenomenon.

They know. They took a bet, and that's why they're sticking to Snyder (at least for the moment) - it was a possibility they foresaw and they decided it was something they were willing to risk.

Now come the matter of, how to solve the previous movie's issues, or if the suits are going to start freaking out and shaking up the filming/release schedule left and right.

The thing is though, it was a dumb gamble. I have trouble believing they didn't know for months BvS wasn't great. The only reason I can think of as to why they scheduled JL on they date they did was to just instil that they were confident in BvS. That's it, a bluff tactic to make it look like BvS was going to be great.

But then the critical and fan response was toxic, probably more than what they anticipated. The problem is, they should have seen this as a real possibility given the reception of MoS and who the director was. Were they really that stupid assume there would be a Transformers like audience reaction to this? If so then they are more incompetent than I thought, because Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman were always going to be held to a higher standard than Transformers.

It might go down as one of the stupidest moves made by a studio where they painted themselves into a corner, having to stay with a director who's films are getting worse and having to deal with a universe that is tonally not what people want to see featuring bastardised versions of characters they love. Boy, they WB were spoiled by Nolan for 7 years, and yet they learned nothing from him or the MCU.

 

[batman1]

When your director thinks Bruce Wayne should have some weird stuff happen to him in jail to make him more dark we have a problem. His philosophy on comics is the issue.

 

[The Guard]

When your director thinks Bruce Wayne should have some weird stuff happen to him in jail to make him more dark we have a problem. His philosophy on comics is the issue.

So...did you even read the thing you're referencing?

 

[Knight_SV]

Snyder answer for why he had jimmy olsen killed is just.... Full of plain stupidity

 

[Lily Adler]

Why would they chop down the cut they themselves gave a standing ovation to? Do make some sense.

Because they're WB.

 

[bluearth]

So Rotten Tomatoes really does give the green light to love OR hate a film unconditionally. Thats just plain sad. Hail Caesar should sweep the Razzies but it wont because Rotten Tomatoes gave it their blessing. Instead BvS will be thrown to the wolves when the real worse film of 2016 by miles, Hail Caesar, gets out of jail free thanks to Rotten Tomatoes

I mean you guys are really reaching. Digging up interviews from 8 years ago? Yet when somebody claims a Star Wars character is a Mary Sue you go ape because Rotten Tomatoes made that film untouchable. But Rotten Tomatoes says its OK to dig up interviews from 8 years ago to dog pile on the hate.

BvS has messy editing in the first hour, it feels a bit crowded, but it also has moments of brilliant filmmaking which nobody is allowed to acknowledge because Rotten Tomatoes says so.

I think what people like more then anything is to see someone fail. And then they like to rub it in, like what they did to Chris Stuckmann's re-write. It seems some people were just itching at the chance to burn this film down, and use it as the figurehead for some sort of anti-Zack Snyder campaign to get him removed from future films so they can bring in an empty suit like JJ Abrams and make a fan service movie.

 

[All-Father]

So Rotten Tomatoes really does give the green light to love OR hate a film unconditionally. Thats just plain sad. Hail Caesar should sweep the Razzies but it wont because Rotten Tomatoes gave it their blessing. Instead BvS will be thrown to the wolves when the real worse film of 2016 by miles, Hail Caesar, gets out of jail free thanks to Rotten Tomatoes

I mean you guys are really reaching. Digging up interviews from 8 years ago? Yet when somebody claims a Star Wars character is a Mary Sue you go ape because Rotten Tomatoes made that film untouchable. But Rotten Tomatoes says its OK to dig up interviews from 8 years ago to dog pile on the hate.

BvS has messy editing in the first hour, it feels a bit crowded, but it also has moments of brilliant filmmaking which nobody is allowed to acknowledge because Rotten Tomatoes says so.

I think what people like more then anything is to see someone fail. And then they like to rub it in, like what they did to Chris Stuckmann's re-write. It seems some people were just itching at the chance to burn this film down, and use it as the figurehead for some sort of anti-Zack Snyder campaign to get him removed from future films so they can bring in an empty suit like JJ Abrams and make a fan service movie.

It doesn't change anything. Snyder is a bad director and BvS is an awful movie.

 

[Eros]

So Rotten Tomatoes really does give the green light to love OR hate a film unconditionally. Thats just plain sad. Hail Caesar should sweep the Razzies but it wont because Rotten Tomatoes gave it their blessing. Instead BvS will be thrown to the wolves when the real worse film of 2016 by miles, Hail Caesar, gets out of jail free thanks to Rotten Tomatoes

I mean you guys are really reaching. Digging up interviews from 8 years ago? Yet when somebody claims a Star Wars character is a Mary Sue you go ape because Rotten Tomatoes made that film untouchable. But Rotten Tomatoes says its OK to dig up interviews from 8 years ago to dog pile on the hate.

BvS has messy editing in the first hour, it feels a bit crowded, but it also has moments of brilliant filmmaking which nobody is allowed to acknowledge because Rotten Tomatoes says so.

I think what people like more then anything is to see someone fail. And then they like to rub it in, like what they did to Chris Stuckmann's re-write. It seems some people were just itching at the chance to burn this film down, and use it as the figurehead for some sort of anti-Zack Snyder campaign to get him removed from future films so they can bring in an empty suit like JJ Abrams and make a fan service movie.

You could call it “high-brow” movies, but to me, the movie was just pretty sexy! I had a buddy who tried getting me into “normal” superhero movies, but I was all like, “No one is having sex or killing each other. This isn’t really doing it for me.” I was a little broken, that way. So when batman v superman came along, I was, “This is more my scene.”

 

[Tony Gunk]

So Rotten Tomatoes really does give the green light to love OR hate a film unconditionally. Thats just plain sad. Hail Caesar should sweep the Razzies but it wont because Rotten Tomatoes gave it their blessing. Instead BvS will be thrown to the wolves when the real worse film of 2016 by miles, Hail Caesar, gets out of jail free thanks to Rotten Tomatoes

I mean you guys are really reaching. Digging up interviews from 8 years ago? Yet when somebody claims a Star Wars character is a Mary Sue you go ape because Rotten Tomatoes made that film untouchable. But Rotten Tomatoes says its OK to dig up interviews from 8 years ago to dog pile on the hate.

BvS has messy editing in the first hour, it feels a bit crowded, but it also has moments of brilliant filmmaking which nobody is allowed to acknowledge because Rotten Tomatoes says so.

I think what people like more then anything is to see someone fail. And then they like to rub it in, like what they did to Chris Stuckmann's re-write. It seems some people were just itching at the chance to burn this film down, and use it as the figurehead for some sort of anti-Zack Snyder campaign to get him removed from future films so they can bring in an empty suit like JJ Abrams and make a fan service movie.

What a load of nonsense. I couldn't give a crap about rotten tomatoes, the interview coupled with the absolute mess he made of the film just shows his complete lack of respect and understanding for the characters and the source material.

Bits of brilliant film making you say, where? They must have edited those parts out of the absolute calamity that I sat through.

 

[FunkMiller]

So...did you even read the thing you're referencing?

Have to say, this whole Batman getting raped in prison thing isn't actually fair to Snyder. What he meant was that if Batman were in a movie like Watchmen, then that's the kind of thing that could happen. He explains it badly, but that's his intent.

However, he also said he didn't like comic books without violence and sex, he thinks superheroes shouldn't hold conversations in character, doesn't know The Dark Knight Returns properly, makes Batman a murderer and thinks Superman should say that no one stays good in this world.

 

[FunkMiller]

So Rotten Tomatoes really does give the green light to love OR hate a film unconditionally. Thats just plain sad. Hail Caesar should sweep the Razzies but it wont because Rotten Tomatoes gave it their blessing. Instead BvS will be thrown to the wolves when the real worse film of 2016 by miles, Hail Caesar, gets out of jail free thanks to Rotten Tomatoes

I mean you guys are really reaching. Digging up interviews from 8 years ago? Yet when somebody claims a Star Wars character is a Mary Sue you go ape because Rotten Tomatoes made that film untouchable. But Rotten Tomatoes says its OK to dig up interviews from 8 years ago to dog pile on the hate.

BvS has messy editing in the first hour, it feels a bit crowded, but it also has moments of brilliant filmmaking which nobody is allowed to acknowledge because Rotten Tomatoes says so.

I think what people like more then anything is to see someone fail. And then they like to rub it in, like what they did to Chris Stuckmann's re-write. It seems some people were just itching at the chance to burn this film down, and use it as the figurehead for some sort of anti-Zack Snyder campaign to get him removed from future films so they can bring in an empty suit like JJ Abrams and make a fan service movie.

Yes, we're all awful people because we'd rather have a critically acclaimed and commercially successful film that acts as a decent foundation for a cinematic universe.

Rotten Tomatoes nothing to do with why we dislike BvS. It's because of Zack Snyder. He made a poor movie, and we're allowed to say that he should,be removed so someone else can make a good movie.

 

[matt47]

Russo Bros original cut for CW was also only 10 mins longer than what it was cut down to.

Impressively economical.

It really is. Marvel must love them for that.

 

[batfreakforever]

Zac delivered the sequel I thought he would. BVS was thought provoking. Continued the story directly from MOS. Had a Badass new Batman. WW was way better than I could ever hope. Superman was the Superman that I wanted. A natural progression for these two films for Superman and can't wait to see how they continue his story with JL. Snyder just nailed there's characters perfectly. Glad he's continuing with the two JL films.

 

[mightiest_mortal]

oh my days. I just read that old EW interview with Snyder.

It's so hilarious it's hard to believe it's real. It reads like a really on-point piss take of Snyder and his love of violence. No wonder BvS ended up like it did.

http://www.ew.com/article/2008/07/17/watchmen-chat-director-zack-snyder

Some great quotes for anyone that's not read it yet -

You could call it "high-brow" comics, but to me, that comic book was just pretty sexy! I had a buddy who tried getting me into "normal" comic books, but I was all like, "No one is having sex or killing each other. This isn’t really doing it for me." I was a little broken, that way. So when Watchmen came along, I was, "This is more my scene."

Everyone says that about [Christopher Nolan’s] Batman Begins. "Batman’s dark." I’m like, okay, "No, Batman’s cool." He gets to go to a Tibetan monastery and be trained by ninjas. Okay? I want to do that. But he doesn’t, like, get raped in prison. That could happen in my movie. If you want to talk about dark, that’s how that would go.