I agree with a lot of this. And I think this is true - many people see superhero films as "family films" and kid films, much as they see comics. They think that the superhero books and films should be for kids. I disagree - I think they can be for both, and both can exist side-by-side. I don't believe in either-or's, and there's enough room for everyone to enjoy it. But you will get a larger audience to a film that is PG-14 and you can bring your family to - than a film that is R rated, and you can't.
I've just finished watching the Snyder Cut. (I went back after Part I and 2, to rewatch Batman vs. Superman Ultimate version (which is a lot better than I remember it being in the theaters - I think they cut a lot out of it for the theater? Because it's a lot more coherent here.) )
Anyhow, I agree - the Snyder cut is in some respects a very good film. It is a tad bloated in places (the whole Knightmare stuff - probably should be cut out - but I get why it is in there, and it is needed to provide the characters with a little uncertainty regarding whether bringing back Superman is necessarily the wisest idea. Superman is a frigging dangerous being.) Also the whole epilogue could probably be cut down a bit - since all it does is open up stories that most likely will never be seen. (But I think all of that is a love letter to fans.)
What hit me about the film - is the visual spectacle - it's feels like a film for the Big Screen. There's a beauty to the cinemtography and the score, also all the characters are explored, and in a good way. Jason Momoa, Fisher, Ezra Miller, Gail Gadot, and Affleck all shine here. As do the others.
I started watching Whedon's version afterwards, and discovered something I hadn't originally picked up on. Whedon doesn't have a directing credit - Snyder does. Christopher Nolan and Deborah Snyder are listed as producers on Whedon's version. As are Jon Berg and Geoff Johns. Whedon is given the script credit. Other oddities? The film begins with a newsreel clip of kids talking to Superman. It also cuts into a clip of Batman using a robber's fear to trap one of the flying creatures to find out about the boxes. And it cuts quickly to the people who are blowing up the building in London. The action sequence there is truncated, as is the aftermath. So many of the scenes are cut down to size. It feels kind of like watching a television show? Television action is like that - because you have to put in commercials. (Not streaming, but broadcast.) It's very choppy. And you jump to the next scene, no wrap up. While in film, you often will follow through.
Apparently they were told to make it lighter, make Superman/Batman more of the focus (since Henry Caville and Affleck were the marque draw), shorter, and less cinemagraphic or operatic?
I really enjoyed the Snyder cut (far more than the Whedon version. I'd say it is hands down the better movie.). There's some jaw-dropping visuals in it. Barry's Final Flight is among them. And having seen it? I agree - I completely understand why Ray Fisher and Jason Momoa were upset with Whedon's cut. I'd be too. Fisher has a central role in this version.
Mileage varies of course. It's like Thor Ragnarock - certain things will bother one person and not another. I'm unfamiliar with the comics - so didn't notice anything one way or the other about Valkerie's sexuality (I picked up on the fact that she was into women however.) Same with the Snyder film - some people don't like small character moments like Diana and Alfred making tea, or Bruce and Diana's slight awkwardness in front of the computer (fighting mutual attraction - because neither wants that complication in their lives). I like those scenes - because it shows me who the characters are, with little to no dialogue. You can show a lot on film about a character with little dialogue - and a good director knows how to do it well - I think Snyder did - showing Bruce's long ride to see Aquaman on a horse, not via one of his expensive vehicles. Or scenes of Lois going through pictures in her apartment. Or Diana struggling with her separation from her sisters - shown in the Temple where she finds the arrow.
But someone else may grow bored of such scenes and want more action, more dialogue. (Shrugs).
It's why I've learned not to necessarily go by other's reviews - except to determine if the subject matter is of interest to me.
no subject
I've just finished watching the Snyder Cut. (I went back after Part I and 2, to rewatch Batman vs. Superman Ultimate version (which is a lot better than I remember it being in the theaters - I think they cut a lot out of it for the theater? Because it's a lot more coherent here.) )
Anyhow, I agree - the Snyder cut is in some respects a very good film. It is a tad bloated in places (the whole Knightmare stuff - probably should be cut out - but I get why it is in there, and it is needed to provide the characters with a little uncertainty regarding whether bringing back Superman is necessarily the wisest idea. Superman is a frigging dangerous being.) Also the whole epilogue could probably be cut down a bit - since all it does is open up stories that most likely will never be seen. (But I think all of that is a love letter to fans.)
What hit me about the film - is the visual spectacle - it's feels like a film for the Big Screen. There's a beauty to the cinemtography and the score, also all the characters are explored, and in a good way. Jason Momoa, Fisher, Ezra Miller, Gail Gadot, and Affleck all shine here. As do the others.
I started watching Whedon's version afterwards, and discovered something I hadn't originally picked up on. Whedon doesn't have a directing credit - Snyder does. Christopher Nolan and Deborah Snyder are listed as producers on Whedon's version. As are Jon Berg and Geoff Johns. Whedon is given the script credit. Other oddities? The film begins with a newsreel clip of kids talking to Superman. It also cuts into a clip of Batman using a robber's fear to trap one of the flying creatures to find out about the boxes. And it cuts quickly to the people who are blowing up the building in London. The action sequence there is truncated, as is the aftermath.
So many of the scenes are cut down to size. It feels kind of like watching a television show? Television action is like that - because you have to put in commercials. (Not streaming, but broadcast.) It's very choppy. And you jump to the next scene, no wrap up. While in film, you often will follow through.
Apparently they were told to make it lighter, make Superman/Batman more of the focus (since Henry Caville and Affleck were the marque draw), shorter, and less cinemagraphic or operatic?
I really enjoyed the Snyder cut (far more than the Whedon version. I'd say it is hands down the better movie.). There's some jaw-dropping visuals in it. Barry's Final Flight is among them. And having seen it? I agree - I completely understand why Ray Fisher and Jason Momoa were upset with Whedon's cut. I'd be too. Fisher has a central role in this version.
Mileage varies of course. It's like Thor Ragnarock - certain things will bother one person and not another. I'm unfamiliar with the comics - so didn't notice anything one way or the other about Valkerie's sexuality (I picked up on the fact that she was into women however.) Same with the Snyder film - some people don't like small character moments like Diana and Alfred making tea, or Bruce and Diana's slight awkwardness in front of the computer (fighting mutual attraction - because neither wants that complication in their lives). I like those scenes - because it shows me who the characters are, with little to no dialogue. You can show a lot on film about a character with little dialogue - and a good director knows how to do it well - I think Snyder did - showing Bruce's long ride to see Aquaman on a horse, not via one of his expensive vehicles. Or scenes of Lois going through pictures in her apartment. Or Diana struggling with her separation from her sisters - shown in the Temple where she finds the arrow.
But someone else may grow bored of such scenes and want more action, more dialogue. (Shrugs).
It's why I've learned not to necessarily go by other's reviews - except to determine if the subject matter is of interest to me.