BvS The Zack Snyder Validation Thread (big rant)

[slumcat]

Since this is a Zack Snyder VALIDATION thread, i´m going to explain why I think he is a pretty good director.

First, let´s remember Zack Snyder hasn´t done that many movies. Second, let´s remember he has been working on genres that generally don´t produce that many RESPECTED movies. Horror, action, super heroes; these are movies that are rarely critically praised. MOST movies within those genres divide opinions and are almost never considered a masterpiece. So, Zack Snyder´s lack of "masterpieces" in his filmography isn´t really a indicator of him being a bad director.

DAWN OF THE DEAD

Honestly, how many horror remakes have been as critically successful as DAWN OF THE DEAD? Very few. Yet, Zack Snyder, an "horrible director", was able to direct one of the few modern horror remakes that don´t actually suck.

300

Critically and financially successful, i can´t say i´m a huge fan of it, but i did enjoy it for what it was. As an adaptation of a graphic novel, i can´t say this wasn´t well done. It achieved its goals by being critically and financially successful, so we gotta say this an example of a good work by Zack Snyder.

Watchmen

Many people considered this "unfilmable". Yet, once again, Zack managed to take a challenging project and make a critically successful movie out of it. This is hardly a work of a "bad director". I´ve showed this movie to many friends, and most of them loved it.

Sucker Punch

Honestly, what´s so bad about it? A lot of people simply didn´t understand this movie,and this is simply a fact. I´m also not a fan of this, i consider it to be Zack´s worst movie, but i´ve got the feeling that if this was about men instead of women, we wouldn´t have got so many people complaining about it. It´s a bold movie with amazing visuals and a story that´s actually way more intelligent than most people give it credit for.

Man of Steel

You can say whatever you want about this, but Zack did what Bryan Singer wasn´t able to do: He resurrect the Superman franchise. He made it financially successful and most people actually enjoyed it. Say what you want, but this was a challenging project and Zack was successful. The movie wasn´t perfect, but it was better than anything that has been done with the character for the last 30 years. He succeeded where others failed, so you gotta give him credit for it. Bryan Singer, so praised as a movie director, couldn´t do a better Superman movie, so it´s kind of funny to label Zack as a "bad director", when he was actually the only one to do a decent Superman movie in the last decades.

So, whether you like it or not, the fact is:

- Zack has been working on less prestigious genres, making it difficult for him to get the kind of praise some directors get from working on more "serious" genres.

- Zack has been successful where many people have failed.

- Zack has mainly worked on very challenging projects. Horror remakes, where most directors fail, graphic novels that many people considered unfilmable and a superhero reboot of a character that has been "dead" for 30 years, despite several failed efforts by several other directors.

I´m not even saying Zack is one of the best directors in the world. But he is hardly as bad as many people claim he is. And for this line of work, he is one of the best choices out there. He is on the level of Christopher Nolan? No, he isn´t. But most directors aren´t.

Watchmen is rotten on Metacritic and by Top Critics on RT. Man of Steel, Sucker Punch, the owl movie are all rotten on both sites.

I think it is safe to say that in general Snyder is not successful critically at all. There is not a single one of his movies that we can call broadly or universally acclaimed.

Snyder has strengths, I am a fan but he is almost always undone by sloppy scripts, be it Watchmen or Man of Steel. He needs good, tight, focused material and then we should be able to do wonders, like he did in 300.

 

[shauner111]

Snyder deserves praise for his visuals, his battle scenes. He has an incredible sense of style that would be a match made in heaven if he did a comic book movie. Which is what he's done with Watchmen, Man Of Steel and now Batman v Superman and soon to be Justice League. But he gets criticized for lack of substance, and i think that's fair. While i do think he adds more substance to his movies than say...Michael Bay, Guillermo Del Toro and even J.J Abrams sometimes, Zack is still a little too obsessed with physical beauty, style etc. To the point where it becomes quite clear how unbalanced his films are. The destruction at the end of MOS was fun for a while but then it became repetitive. The scenes that followed didn't make sense because he didn't care enough for the story or the emotion of what the characters went through. All that was on his mind was satisfying the fanbase who were craving for a long killer fight sequence and a lighter ending for the fans who may have thought the movie was too dark up to that point. But there should have been a logical transition between scenes. He was guilty of this a few times throughout MOS.

Snyders strengths aren't with telling a great story or dynamics.

What could save Zack in the future, with B v S or JL is a good Terrio script. You can blame his writers all you want but he is still the director, he shoots the script, he could make adjustments, and no matter what he is responsible.

 

[The Batman]

N

And you are absolutely free to make those comments. What I find puzzling is I've noticed how it's fans of the divided films who can't seem to cope with other people not sharing their appreciation. They seem personally affected by an opposing opinion.

I saw the same thing happen with fans for Superman Returns. Maybe it's just Supes fans in general, I don't know. But if you like the movie, then fantastic for you. I'm not understanding why people are making essays having to explain why their film isn't as well received. Or why there is unfair bias. Or how the market is stacked against them. It reeks of denial. Which shouldn't be the case, because again...if you like his movies, then you shouldn't be concerned if others don't feel the same way. Own your fandom. Don't start shifting blame.

Trust me, the type of fan that you described can indeed be found with any divisive film. I've seen it happen with Iron Man 3, TDKR, and its happening right now with Amazing Spider Man 2.

I was around when there was a forum for the "Catwoman" movie....even that had its fans, people willing to defend the flick solely because they were fans of Halle Berry.

 

[Diabo]

You don't think The Avengers conveyed the feeling that a true tragedy was happening? You think Man of Steel did?

None of them did it perfectly, but to me MOS was 3x times more dramatic and serious. TA had too many "jokes", too many "happy" moments, too many people simply looking good and talking like nothing was happening, and too few moments where we actually feel someone´s life is at stake. Too bright, too colorful, too absorbed in good humour. Made me feel nothing. MOS wasn´t perfect, but on this aspect it is a no contest.

You didn't see any difference in the way that The Avengers and Man of a Steel framed and presented and executed the events in their respective climaxes?

Yes, i did. TA looked like a tv show. MOS looked like a film.

As for your point about people having higher standards for Superman, that's probably a factor to an extent for some folks, but I sincerely doubt that was the sole reason the destruction in Man of Steel bothered people.

I never said it was the SOLE REASON. But if you think it didn´t play a role, you´re crazy. Judging by the amount of people and critics i´ve seen complaining about Superman´s antics and the differences between now and then, i´d say it had a HUGE impact on the way the movie was perceived. And this is not an "excuse". People call it an "excuse" because they want to believe MOS is simply a weak movie and there´s nothing else to it. But all the comments i´ve seen towards the film over the last year, tell me a very different story.

I know you just said the exact opposite, but really think about it. In The Avengers, we saw the effect that the battle had on the civilian population of New York. We saw civilians on peril and the heroes directly concerned about their safety. The film even took the time to reflect on the bittersweet nature if the Avengers' victory at the end with that news montage. Man if Steel had none of that. None of that genuine human tragedy was addressed during the battle, and none of that destruction was even acknowledged as soon as huge battle was over.

So what? You need a tiny news report scene to understand how such events could affect the population of the city? I mean, c´mon...that last scene was so redundant that i barely remember it. What i do remember was the audience laughing several times during the battle, wich leads me to believe they weren´t particulary shocked or bothered by the tragedy. Everything felt pretty light. Everything felt like a comedy, to be honest. And that was a big part of its success. That´s the Marvel Formula.

The Avengers seems like it was empty and cartoonish because that film had an overall generally lighter tone, and Man of Steel

It feels empty because it was empty. I never saw anyone referring to TA as a moving film. NEVER! Unless i come on this forum. MOS, on the other hand, had plenty of scenes that had the potential to stir emotions.

And i´m not even a HUGE fan of MOS. I gave it 7/10, the same i gave to TA. I think TA is more fun. But i think MOS is the better film. I couldn´t watch TA more than 2 times though, so to me it has no replay value.

 

[The Endless]

And a lot of those complaints came accompanied by pre-conceived notions regarding how Superman should act. "He is superman, shouldn´t be destroying the city".

The thing is: People care much more about Superman than about The Avengers. The Avengers was a new thing. It was just pure fun. Superman is something that a lot of critics grew up with. Many of them have huge pre-conceived notions regarding who Superman is and how he should act. Many of them are too attached to the easy going/romantic old incarnations of the character, so this drastic change was not everyone´s cup of tea. Is this that difficult to understand? Lol...

But if you think what you saw in Superman was that different from what we saw in TA, you´re kidding yourself. The main difference was that one made a comedy out of it, whereas the other tried to take itself seriously enough, so it could convey the feeling that a true tragedy was happening. TA felt like a cartoon. The destruction scene had no impact, that´s why it didn´t bother many people. Everything was empty and cartoonish.

It's the exact opposite.

The destruction in Man of Steel was empty. Sure it was portrayed in a more realistic and serious manner but, and this is the key here, where was the consequence?

There was none. There was literally no consequence to any destruction in Smallville or Metropolis. None. Zip. Nada.

What also doesn't help is that these fictional locations aren't given a life or personality of their own. They are just fictional CGI locations that the film makers assume we give a **** about. Avengers does have an unfair advantage here because they are real places.

But what Avengers does do is stick to it's tone. It has a very balanced tone, which is one of the most important things a director has to do. It actually has consequences to the destruction in NYC. We see news reports slamming the Avengers for causing billions of dollars worth of damage. We see the regular joe and jane on the street celebrating the Avengers and some of them even criticize them.

There is literally none of that in Man of Steel. It's like the story exists in a bubble. The destruction of Metropolis is inconsequential and therefore, has no weight. Just because it looks more realistic and has a graver tone doesn't mean it isn't empty.

What Man of Steel does is go from Superman screaming in grief... to a comedy scene... to another comedy scene set in a now seemingly restored Metropolis where the employees of the Daily Planet are laughing and joking about ****ing basketball tickets. I mean... seriously? Where is the ****ing consequences to this absolutely catastrophic event where thousands of people died?

And you say Avengers is empty because it has a lighter tone? At least it has a consistent tone. And here is something you need to learn; a film doesn't have to be deadly serious to be taken seriously or talk about serious things. Ever heard of Dr Strangelove? One of the funniest movies ever made. Also one of the most thought provoking and intelligent.

 

[Diabo]

There is literally none of that in Man of Steel. It's like the story exists in a bubble. The destruction of Metropolis is inconsequential and therefore, has no weight. Just because it looks more realistic and has a graver tone doesn't mean it isn't empty.

Just because we didn´t see news reports, it means it had no consequences? I don´t understand your reasoning. They simply didn´t take the time to show it because some things are obvious enough. Plus, that´s something that will probably be explored in BvS.

But during the battle itself, MOS actually did a better job at showing people in tragic positions. We don´t have much of that in TA. Pretty empty, i felt nothing. And this is not to say i felt much in MOS, but at least it didn´t feel like i was awatching a sunday morning cartoon.

 

[Skrilla31]

What Man of Steel does is go from Superman screaming in grief... to a comedy scene... to another comedy scene set in a now seemingly restored Metropolis where the employees of the Daily Planet are laughing and joking about ****ing basketball tickets. I mean... seriously? Where is the ****ing consequences to this absolutely catastrophic event where thousands of people died?

Perfectly legitimate argument that will get swept under the rug as usual.

We're talking about 9/11 times a thousand here. Humanity's first encounter with alien life, giant technological structures laying waste to entire regions of the globe, two god-like beings destroying at least half of a major city, probably more than 40-50 thousand people killed... etc, etc, etc.

And yet none of this stops Superman and Lois from sharing a romantic kiss amidst a barren wasteland or like you said... the Daily Planet crew carrying on as if it were just another day at the office.

Had the movie presented itself as a playful action romp these kind of things wouldn't come up. But seeing as the movie takes itself so seriously (and asks it's audience to take it seriously) we have no choice but to bring these things to attention. And it is WHY so many people were off-put by it while watching it.

 

[The Endless]

Just because we didn´t see news reports, it means it had no consequences? I don´t understand your reasoning. They simply didn´t take the time to show it because some things are obvious enough. Plus, that´s something that will probably be explored in BvS.

"we'll probably see that in the sequel" is terrible hand wave of an incomplete story.

It has no consequences because straight after the battle and destruction... the tone shifts completely in the other direction to a comedy scene. There is no real payoff, no real cap to the story. All that death and destruction means nothing because it's just pretty CGI animations of a city no one gives a **** about because it doesn't really exist and it hasn't been given a personality of itself. It's just some generic CGI city.

And then we have the Daily Planet employees laughing and joking about going to a basketball game. The city was just leveled right? How long ago was it? Days? Months? Years? It's poor story telling.

But during the battle itself, MOS actually did a better job at showing people in tragic positions. We don´t have much of that in TA. Pretty empty, i felt nothing. And this is not to say i felt much in MOS, but at least it didn´t feel like i was awatching a sunday morning cartoon.

Did it? All i saw was some shots of civilians standing around opened mouth and running in different directions.

In Avengers we see the heroes actively saving people. Formulating plans to reduce casualties and create a perimeter.

Avengers may have had a lighter tone, but it is consistent with it through out. And it isn't perfect at the end. There isn't really any tension. But there is consequence to what just happened.

But then the fight at the end of Man of Steel doesn't really have any tension either because it's two indestructible CGI characters just punching each other through a fictional CGI city with no consequence. Why should i give a ****? Sure it looks amazing, it really does. Visually, MoS pisses all over Avengers.

But who cares about pretty visuals when you don't care what those pretty visuals are portraying?

 

[The Endless]

Perfectly legitimate argument that will get swept under the rug as usual.

We're talking about 9/11 times a thousand here. Humanity's first encounter with alien life, giant technological structures laying waste to entire regions of the globe, two god-like beings destroying at least half of a major city, probably more than 40-50 thousand people killed... etc, etc, etc.

And yet none of this stops Superman and Lois from sharing a romantic kiss amidst a barren wasteland or like you said... the Daily Planet crew carrying on as if it were just another day at the office.

Had the movie presented itself as a playful action romp these kind of things wouldn't come up. But seeing as the movie takes itself so seriously (and asks it's audience to take it seriously) we have no choice but to bring these things to attention. And it is WHY so many people were off-put by it while watching it.

Exactly. And that is the problem with these inherently silly concepts desperately crying out to be taken seriously. If you wanna be taken seriously, then you gotta go all the way. You can't just hand wave something like the near annihilation of Metropolis.

The film very purposefully tries (really, really hard) to evoke 9/11 imagery. But then it just hand waves the consequences and the tone does a total 180 shift at the end.

 

[Rowsdower!]

What Man of Steel does is go from Superman screaming in grief... to a comedy scene... to another comedy scene set in a now seemingly restored Metropolis where the employees of the Daily Planet are laughing and joking about ****ing basketball tickets. I mean... seriously? Where is the ****ing consequences to this absolutely catastrophic event where thousands of people died?

To be fair, there was the scene in between where Clark and Martha visit Jonathan's grave, which I thought was really good. But yeah, I do think an aftermath scene would have been good. I would have loved a scene where Superman addresses an obviously shaken public, apologizes for what his fellow Kryptonians did, and lets them know that they never have to fear him doing those types of things.

 

[The Endless]

To be fair, there was the scene in between where Clark and Martha visit Jonathan's grave, which I thought was really good. But yeah, I do think an aftermath scene would have been good. I would have loved a scene where Superman addresses an obviously shaken public, apologizes for what his fellow Kryptonians did, and lets them know that they never have to fear him doing those types of things.

I did love the scene with Martha yea.

And what you just suggested would be perfect. Superman addressing the public. That is perfect for his character. And it would have been a totally fitting way to cap off the movie narrative wise and character wise, showing him growing into his role.

I think Snyder did some fantastic things with Man of Steel. But for me the flaws like that weird scene transition at the end are fatal flaws.

 

[Skrilla31]

I did love the scene with Martha yea.

And what you just suggested would be perfect. Superman addressing the public. That is perfect for his character. And it would have been a totally fitting way to cap off the movie narrative wise and character wise, showing him growing into his role.

I think Snyder did some fantastic things with Man of Steel. But for me the flaws like that weird scene transition at the end are fatal flaws.

Care to explain what those things were? I'm curious.

I actually love Watchmen so I know that Snyder is capable of making a great movie. But MOS was a failure to me on so many levels that it's hard for me to find the positives when they're so heavily outweighed by the negatives.

I really enjoyed the film's texture I guess? You know like the rich quality of it? Beyond that I'm hard pressed to give him any compliments.

 

[The Endless]

Yea mainly visually lol. The cinematography and production design was fantastic. I liked how he portrayed Clark and Martha's relationship. There was small things like when the fisherman saved him, he gives a knowing glance. Zod's "message" scene was suitably chilling.

It was at least ambitious and TRIED to do interesting things.

 

[The Question]

Care to explain what those things were? I'm curious.

I actually love Watchmen so I know that Snyder is capable of making a great movie. But MOS was a failure to me on so many levels that it's hard for me to find the positives when they're so heavily outweighed by the negatives.

I really enjoyed the film's texture I guess? You know like the rich quality of it? Beyond that I'm hard pressed to give him any compliments.

There were definitely a few things I liked. I really enjoyed the way the Kryptonians' speed was portrayed. I liked some of the cinematography a lot. I thought the fight with the giant tentacle monster was pretty cool. It didn't make a whole lot of sense, but I thought Superman and Zod's weird telepathic dream sequence scene was really cool. I thought the scene with Lois and hologram Jor-El was really fun. And I liked it when it was over.

 

[Diabo]

"we'll probably see that in the sequel" is terrible hand wave of an incomplete story.

Every movie that has sequels leaves questions in the air. Nothing wrong with that. Even TA don´t answer every question you might have at the end of the movie. And to me it didn´t answer any question i was curious about. It was a pretty standard ending with pretty standard and boring repercussions.

It has no consequences because straight after the battle and destruction... the tone shifts completely in the other direction to a comedy scene.

It has consequences and the consequences are shown during the battle. People certainly died and a part of the city was destroyed. And i wouldn´t call it "comedy", but a "lighter" scene, wich was a way to smooth a little bit a movie filled with tragedy. We don´t need tragedy from the beginning to the end of the movie.

At least the comedy bit was shown AFTER the tragedy, not DURING, like in TA. We don´t know how long passed between the battle and the last couple of scenes, but i think it is pretty obvious it wasn´t the day after. Not everyone needs everything explained in detail. I think you only look for too much details when you feel like knocking down a movie. It´s easy to find holes when you´re really committed to it. TA is as far from a perfect movie as MOS is. Sorry to say.

Plus, i´m glad they didn´t went the "news report" root, since i´m freaking sick of it. I´ve seen so many movies that end with news reports, that i don´t really care for it anymore. I find it boring and i think it adds nothing relevant to the story, because everything they could possibly show in the news report is way to obvious. I can live without it, so to me that´s not a fault in the movie. It´s actually something i´m happy about.

There is no real payoff, no real cap to the story. All that death and destruction means nothing because it's just pretty CGI animations of a city no one gives a **** about because it doesn't really exist and it hasn't been given a personality of itself. It's just some generic CGI city.

So what? TA were fighting CGI aliens that came out of nowhere in the last act. Am i supposed to care about that? All these movies are filled with CGI crap and TA was no different. To me it felt like they were destroying a set of NY, not NY itself.

Did it? All i saw was some shots of civilians standing around opened mouth and running in different directions.

All i saw in TA was couple of scenes of captain or whatever saving a couple of people. At least in MOS we had a scene where we saw citizens being trapped and suffering in agony. I could feel the terror of that situation, something i couldn´t in TA.

 

[The Endless]

There were definitely a few things I liked. I really enjoyed the way the Kryptonians' speed was portrayed. I liked some of the cinematography a lot. I thought the fight with the giant tentacle monster was pretty cool. It didn't make a whole lot of sense, but I thought Superman and Zod's weird telepathic dream sequence scene was really cool. I thought the scene with Lois and hologram Jor-El was really fun. And I liked it when it was over.

haha i liked that too. With Jor-El just randomly popping up around corners pointing. I actually expected Crowe to phone it in, but he was pretty good.

 

[Diabo]

Care to explain what those things were? I'm curious.

I actually love Watchmen so I know that Snyder is capable of making a great movie. But MOS was a failure to me on so many levels that it's hard for me to find the positives when they're so heavily outweighed by the negatives.

I really enjoyed the film's texture I guess? You know like the rich quality of it? Beyond that I'm hard pressed to give him any compliments.

Dude, that´s a personal preference. Some people liked the tone, the CGI, the camera angles, the slow mo, some people didn´t. I think the movie was very well shot, and by that, i´m simply saying that i liked most of the creative decisions regarding the cinematography of the movie. The scene in space, for example, where Superman saves Lois, to me that slow mo is beautifully done. Young Clark playing with his dog, wearing a red cape, that´s a beautiful shot. More artistic and memorable than anything in TA. But that´s just my opinion based on my aesthetic tastes. You don´t need to explain to me why you think MOS is not well shot. You simply didn´t like it, period.

 

[Skrilla31]

You see I really don't think that MOS was all that impressive visually. Most of the money shots were featured in the trailers but when seeing them within the context of the film... they fell short on the awe and wonder.

Like these images in and of themselves are beautiful.

But seeing them in motion were anything but. The framing of these scenes was just so awful that they came and went without me feeling ANYTHING. They didn't stick with me. The trailers did so much more with them than the film ever did.

And I know a lot of people worship Snyder for his action scenes but those fell flat for me as well. They were very boisterous and they were very loud but they imo they failed to capture the wonder and awe of Superman. The initial flying montage felt so stock.

But alas these are just one man's opinions.

 

[Diabo]

Ok. Next time you meet with the director and ask him to frame the shots the way you like it.

 

[The Batman]

It's interesting how the skeptics in that thread kept complaining about all the Snyder fans coming in and disrupting the thread , and now we have Snyder critics coming in here and doing the same thing.
Some kindof payback maybe?
That's kinda childishly petty if true.

Question: How are Snyder critics, who for the most part are having a disagreement/debate over the quality of Snyder's films and skills as a filmmaker, the same as some Snyder fans coming into a skeptics thread with the main purpose of taking shots at skeptics, all while constantly asking for the thread to be done away with?

I am generally curious.

 

[Boom]

The man is living his dream making movies and being paid handsomely for it.

I doubt he really needs validation .

 

[Bathead]

Question: How are Snyder critics, who for the most part are having a disagreement/debate over the quality of Snyder's films and skills as a filmmaker, the same as some Snyder fans coming into a skeptics thread with the main purpose of taking shots at skeptics, all while constantly asking for the thread to be done away with?

I am generally curious.

As far as taking shots at skeptics, at least one Snyder critic came in here saying he didn't understand why people were defending Snyder, and that they must be deluded fanboys who were blind to his faults.

 

[king666]

Snyder has strengths, I am a fan but he is almost always undone by sloppy scripts, be it Watchmen or Man of Steel. He needs good, tight, focused material and then we should be able to do wonders, like he did in 300.

300 is his best movie, imo.

 

[jmc]

You don't think The Avengers conveyed the feeling that a true tragedy was happening? You think Man of Steel did?

You didn't see any difference in the way that The Avengers and Man of a Steel framed and presented and executed the events in their respective climaxes?

I'm curious as to your reasoning.

I definitely disagree with your assessment that people were bothered by Man if Steel because the destruction didn't feel empty. It bothered my because it DID feel empty. The Avengers, conversely, had much more impact.

As for your point about people having higher standards for Superman, that's probably a factor to an extent for some folks, but I sincerely doubt that was the sole reason the destruction in Man of Steel bothered people. It bothered people because the action felt gratuitous, and the seriousness and the tragedy of that destruction was never actually addressed.

I know you just said the exact opposite, but really think about it. In The Avengers, we saw the effect that the battle had on the civilian population of New York. We saw civilians on peril and the heroes directly concerned about their safety. The film even took the time to reflect on the bittersweet nature if the Avengers' victory at the end with that news montage. Man if Steel had none of that. None of that genuine human tragedy was addressed during the battle, and none of that destruction was even acknowledged as soon as huge battle was over.

The Avengers seems like it was empty and cartoonish because that film had an overall generally lighter tone, and Man of Steel seems like is wasore impacts up and thoughtful and reverent because it had a darker brooding tone, but that's actually the opposite of the truth. That's all surface, not supported by the smaller details that prop the films up.

Brilliant post, you've summed up exactly the difference in MoS and Avengers finales. MoS is too busy focusing on the destruction, Avengers focuses on the heroes during destruction - it's a huge difference. To have Superman not have to deal with being the hero whilst the insanity is going on will only cause people who hold the character in such a high regard to be turned off. It's an emotional disconnect because the hero isn't actually doing much hero work, he's just fighting in glorified bar room brawl. Avengers gets a pass because there was thought put into the fight and who was doing what and the consequences afterwards, MoS was completely reckless in just wanting to show as much destruction as possible with little regard for the aftermath.

 

[Travesty]

300 is his best movie, imo.

I really do love the Ultimate Cut of Watchmen. It's extremely long, but it's definitely a lot better than the theatrical or the extended cut.