scans_daily | NS: The Snyder Cut Justice League movie

NS: The Snyder Cut Justice League movie

As most here in this fine community are without a doubt aware, the Snyder Cut version of the Justice League movie came out on HBO Max today, in the full glory of four hours. Having just finished It, I decided to create a discussion post here about it while posting some of my thoughts on it.

Before digging deeper in to the movie itself, a couple of caveats. First of all, I really like both Man of Steel and Batman Vs Superman, so Snyder's sensibilities works for me. Second, while I was fine with the original Justice League when I first saw it, but as time has gone by, I've found myself disliking more and more. It is a film that aims to be okay and that emptiness at the heart of it really became heavier for me in retrospect. Still I realize there are people who like it, nothing away from that.

So with that to this version of the movie itself and I will begin the discussion by a simple statement. I FUCKING LOVED THIS FUCKING MOVIE. Now that I have that off my chest, to more collected points.

-This movie is a weird success as it is in structure in many ways the same movie as the original Justice League movie, but almost every scene feels better here. Some of is just the additional depth majority of characters are given here, but it has a flow that isn't the original. However, the most important aspect is that here everyone in the Justice League feel absolutely epic and like a god with the action sequences espeically managing to convey that sense of power.

-With that said, the movie has a lot of stumbles to it as well. The exposition is ridiculously clumsy at times and there is a really bziarre plot hole in the film. So there is a world which had the Anti-Life Equation and where Darkseid was defeated, but apparently the Apokalips crew has forgotten which world it is somehow. Yet they know they lost the Mother Boxes on that world and know that the Mother Boxes are on Earth, but only realize that Earth is the world that repelled Darkseid after Steppenwolfe tells them that. I couldn't figure it out for the life of me. Fortunately didn't bother me at all.

-On Steppenwolfe, while he was still a generic comic book movie villain, I thought this version managed to give him a lot more depth as I got the character and motivations surprisingly better.

-Continuing on that note, it isn't difficult to understand why majority of the actors involved wanted this version to be released as they are allowed to do more here, wtih one notable exception, and have far more impactful character moments.

-Still the first Martian Manhunter cameo was really dumb. Not only that, it felt like a big misstep as the Martha/Lois scene before that was actually really emotionally powerful.

-"You have a satellite?" "I have six."

-Barry's final run was epic. Hell, the whole final fight concept and choreography was excellent and managed to sideline characters in a way that wasn't Clark leaving a massive fight to big brother Barry.

-On that note, this was something baffled me. Comparing the original and this version makes it abundantly clear how much Johns influenced the original theater release as evidenced by the lack of those weird Superman fawning scenes in this version. Seriously, I sighted out of relief when they didn't have that bizarre 'You think you could beat me' scene between Clark and Bruce here. Now that makes sense, but what I couldn't figure out it is that Johns absolutely loves Barry, but the Flash was so much better here and allowed to do more. Like seriously that final run.

-I will never stop shipping Bruce and Diana. While it will never get fulfilled in this film series, at least it was nicely set up.

-What genuinely shocked me was that Bruce being suicidal arc was completley from Whedon and Johns. It had the best emotional scene in the theater version, the talk between Bruce and Diana, but still as an arc it was a really weird one which I had assumed was from Snyder.

-To return to the comparison between the theater version and this cut, what makes the theater cut so astonishing looking back now is that it made almost every scene worse. Like they actively cut and added to all action scenes stuff that made them inferior. It is such an accomplishment.

-The only note I will make on Whedon, despite there being a lot to be said because of this version and recent allegations, is in comparison to Snyder. To put it simply, Whedon is nowhere the level Snyder is on in capturing superpowered action. Actually I would put Snyder as among the best when it comes to that specific skill as his ability to really give that sense of power to those scenes is genuiinely impressive.

-Real sad we will never get that Batman/Deathstroke film as it would have been dope. Having written that, the Knightmare stuff was superweird as that was apparently the only new scene Snyder shot after his cut was greenlit. Which means that the only thing Snyder added was a cliffhanger scene that will never be resolved. I'm conflicted on that as on one hand it is stupid, but on the other hand I can't help but respect that level of committment.

-With all that positivity, there is something that does leave me conflicted. The toxicity for and against Snyder, and his DC films, is a huge problem in online discussion. It also cannot be denied that the fact that there were some pretty questionable actions by the fanbase that wanted the Snyder cut released that led to it now being available. This isn't to justify what they did, but rather a part of me feels torn on enjoying something that is born out of such poisoneous fruit.

-Rotten Tomatoes score is at the time of writing at 77% and there's a lot of good buzz on it, at least based on what I've seen. From the critical stand point, this had to exceed WB's expectations, which is a good signal when they think of similar projects in the future.

With that I end and would love to hear others thought on this as they get around watching it. Apologies on the many words, hopefully at least a few of them made sense. And seriously, I loved this movie so much.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All

Thank you for the review. I've been reading the reviews here and there. They are mixed - which is to be expected. Snyder isn't for everyone. Snyder kind of reminds me of a geek/poor man's take on Terence Malick - to be honest - into visuals more than plot or story or dialogue. (Not that it isn't there - and from your review above - it may be more there than I thought from other reviews.)

I've not seen it yet - that's my current plan for the weekend. Although I may space it out a bit.

Having seen all of Snyder's films (with a few exceptions) and all of Whedon's - I honestly don't think those two director's styles work well together at all. That was my difficulty with the Whedon version of Justice League - it was jarring. Whedon isn't really a director so much as a screen-writer and television writer. And I honestly think he works better as a television writer - smaller scale, and more conversation. He can't do big action scenes well - at all. All you have to do is watch the Avengers/Avengers AoU and compare that to Thor:Ragnarock, when the Russo's started to take over. The Russo's have a good grasp of cinematic action sequences. Whedon sucks at action sequences - he's at his best when he's doing smaller character moments or a big emotional character moment - such as that scene he wrote between Bruce and Diana that you mentioned. That's his strength.
And that stuff often works better in television than film - because it requires more build-up to get there. An example of Whedon's brilliance is The Body episode on Buffy and possibly HUSH.

Snyder in marked contrast is excellent a large action sequences and creating visual paintings on the screen. He's not great at dialogue (not necessarily horrible). But he is a painter, his background is in fine arts and painting, he thinks visually. And wants to use film to play out a graphic novel. Alot of what the Russos did in MCU was in a way grabbed from Snyder - who started the whole slow motion action paintings, where you freeze frame on a character. I think Snyder did it in 300, and it was also done by Ang Lee in his take on the Incredible Hulk (which does have interesting visuals.)

What Snyder and Whedon unfortunately have in common - is neither are very good at plotting, or continuity. That's been a problem I've had with Whedon throughout his works - he is a horrible plotter. Snyder, from your review, and my memory, isn't much better.

Which kind of begs the question - why on earth did Johns and Berg hire Whedon of all people to cut and complete a Snyder film?

I know they wanted something lighter - but it was kind of too late at that point. I mean they hired Snyder because he was similar in style to Christopher Nolan. If they didn't like the direction Snyder was going after Batman vs. Superman, why not scrap it there?

I really don't understand what WB was thinking. Nor do I understand why they hired Whedon - considering they hated his Wonder Woman script. And Whedon isn't a DC guy - he's Marvel. Whedon doesn't get the characters, he's not written for them previously...it made no sense. While with the Avengers - Whedon was a huge Marvel fan. He even wrote for the comics, and worked on scripts for some of the films prior to The Avengers. It would be like having Snyder direct Avengers Age of Ultron.

Thanks for the excellent points and I hope you drop back here to give your thoughts on the movie once you watch it.

Two kind of points on why the choice of Whedon became somehow even more baffling after seeing the Snyder Cut. First, the Whedon isn't actually that much lighter than the Snyder Cut. I mean it has more flippant jokes, but in the Whedon they're more jarring, while the Snyder cut uses the character work to sell a lot fo the jokes better. Furthermore, as I mentioned, a lot of the best jokes in the theater version are also in the Snyder Cut. It was genuinely shocking to me.

Second, and this stunned me, not only did they bring Whedon on-board, but he messed with Snyder's action sequences. Like both versions have the same action scenes, but the Whedon version took stuff out or put things in there. The result, I would argue, was always a worse scene in the Whedon version. So if you brought in Whedon to work on the film, who is not good with action scenes, and had that part already apparently largely done by someone who excels in it, why retool that? Why on Earth would you think Whedon could improve them?

By the way, the big name missing from a lot of this discussion is Johns as, especially having seen the Snyder Cut, was clearly a huge influence on the Whedon version. And not in a good way.

First, the Whedon isn't actually that much lighter than the Snyder Cut. I mean it has more flippant jokes, but in the Whedon they're more jarring, while the Snyder cut uses the character work to sell a lot fo the jokes better. Furthermore, as I mentioned, a lot of the best jokes in the theater version are also in the Snyder Cut. It was genuinely shocking to me.

That's really odd. I mean, I don't think of Snyder as necessarily humorous - not that is necessarily a bad thing. (I'm among the faction that doesn't require superhero films or comics to be funny or light. Particularly where Batman is concerned.)

I'm going to have to see this - because I was jarred by the Whedon version, in part because of the flippant jokes. I felt they came out of nowhere. Also, Whedon has a specific sense of humor - kind of flippant, snarky, self-deprecating, and heavy on the sarcasm. I like his sense of humor and for the most part it works for me - but it did not work in Justice League at all. While Tony Stark (and in particular Robert Downy Jr) is a snarky character, Bruce Wayne (and in particular Ben Affleck) is definitely not. The character voices in the Whedon version were completely off.

What I don't understand is why didn't Geoff Johns and Jon Berg pick up on that?

Second, and this stunned me, not only did they bring Whedon on-board, but he messed with Snyder's action sequences. Like both versions have the same action scenes, but the Whedon version took stuff out or put things in there. The result, I would argue, was always a worse scene in the Whedon version. So if you brought in Whedon to work on the film, who is not good with action scenes, and had that part already apparently largely done by someone who excels in it, why retool that?

Agreed. That's truly baffling. I'd argue expense? But it would cost more to change it. Also why did they change it from one type of film stock to another? And why shoot it digitally? Was it because they wanted it in 3D? (I didn't see it in 3D - because 3D gives me a headache, and I saw it on television instead.) Also didn't Zack also intend to put in 3D? I know his other films were in 3D.

I can't come up with a reason for them to do that. I thought, prior to your review, that they'd left in Snyder's action sequences, and the Whedon additions were the character moments, and the jokes. But that's clearly not the case here.

What were they thinking?

Geoff Johns from what I've read apparently clashed with Zack Snyder, and didn't like Snyder's take. But I'm unclear as to why. I'm equally unclear as to why he preferred Whedon or wanted Whedon?

Hmm. Maybe Johns thought he could manipulate and control Whedon? Whedon came off of a huge failure with Age of Ultron, and had something to prove.
Clearly Johns wanted script control and control over the film? Was that it?
But that doesn't explain the jarring choices they made.

It sounds like a lot of oversized egos got in the way of making the movie? (shrugs)

I kind of fell down a rabbit hole looking into the background of this - and am baffled by how screwed up it got.
I mean, it's crazy even without the toxic social media in-fighting.

Not that they don't re-shoot films all the time. My brother worked on a re-shoot of Lizzie Borden's Love Crimes - the original version was a mess, so another director was brought in to fix it. My brother was an intern - who worked as the hired gun director's assistant (the hired gun was Kit Carson - the Director of Texas Chainsaw Massacre II and Paris, Texas). So I kind of know how it works. It never turns out well - by the way. I don't why Hollywood insists on doing this. But they do. That film was a mess too.

I also know they did the same thing to Richard Donner with the Superman films. He directed I and II back to back. The producers didn't like Superman II - and wanted it to be "lighter" in tone - so a new director came in to fix it. The film is jarring as a result. I never saw Donner's director's cut which came out years later - but according to a review I read online - that cut unlike Snyder's failed in that Donner - didn't change it that much nor added anything new. So it felt like the same film, just not as goofy.

So it's not like they don't do this all the bleeding time. But what happened on Justice League, and why it happened is..just baffling. Also it hurt a lot of people, upturned a lot of careers, and with little to no positive returns.

Yeah, seeing the Snyder Cut makes the Whedon absolutely absolutely insane. Before this, I also assumed the easy answers because they made sense, but now none of those changes in the Whedon version are understandable. Even the argument, as someone made here, that it was about editing it down doesn't work because the Whedon version adds stuff or changes in scenes in a way where they're about the same length.

On that rabbit hole, someone did side comparisons and they even changed aspect ratios on the Snyder scenes. Which again feels... Why?

By the way, there was a little bit of a typo from me in my original comment as I meant to state that there aren't that many flippant jokes in the Snyder Cut. Although Bruce's 'I'm rich' is still there.

Even the argument, as someone made here, that it was about editing it down doesn't work because the Whedon version adds stuff or changes in scenes in a way where they're about the same length.

That was my guess as well - since Snyder's was four hours and Whedon's 2 and 1/2. So I assumed when I saw the Whedon cut - that he cut the portions not required, and edited the remaining, with a few isolated reshoots and CGI to ensure it hit the 2 and 1/2 hour running length.

But what I read later - perplexed me. I mean if they decided to redo the entire movie - then why not just redo the whole thing, extend the release date by one year, and remove all of Snyder's content - it would made it a little less jarring. Granted it may have been more expensive.

So, instead of editing the film - to meet a better running time, and lightening it up slightly - they re-shot about 85% of it, added dark character moments, changed the film stock to digital, shifted the color scheme? Why? Isn't that more expensive?

I can see why it became a toxic set - my god. Can you imagine spending three-four years shooting a film, liking what you shot, only to have someone you don't know come in and make you redo it all, and not as well?
Ugh. Talk about expensive nightmare shoots. I mean this sort of thing isn't easy to do normally - but they managed to make it 100 times worse for everyone involved. What a mess.

Again I hope that you check back in once you've seen the film because the comparison even more baffling once you see the actual Snyder Cut and realize all the changes they made to it.

Also the point about the set is a very astute one and, for example, I feel I get a lot more about Fisher's complaint after seeing this as what the Whedon did with Cyborg is beyond comprehension. However, the one actor I'm shocked hasn't spoken up more is Ezra Miller. So, and this is a big claim I'm about to make, Flash's final run the third act is on my short list for greatest superpower moments I've ever seen put on screen. Stunning does not do it justice. So Miller signs on to the film, does the motion capture for it and is sold that epic image.

Then the reshoots are done, where suddenly Barry's sole contribution to the final fight is to push a family to safety in a car, only to instantly have even that small accomplishment undercut by watching Superman fly away an apartment building of people. I can't even begin to imagine what a gut punch that had to have been to deal with.

By the way, as I'm enjoying this discussion, the comparison of Whedon and Snyder because of this film kind of sharpened a theory I've had for a while in that I think one of the issue's with Snyder was in a way due to good he was filming superhero action. This isn't meant as a defense, but rather perhaps how complicated reactions are.

After Man of Steel, which I have no problems admitting is a flawed film no matter how much I liked it, a big constant criticism about it was the destruction caused by the final fight between Superman and Zod. The reaosn I always to comprehend that was that Avengers had come out a year earlier where aliens utterly wreck multiple city blocks in New York City and not only do none of the Avengers seem to actively be minimizing civilan casulties, they cause several of the big flying snakes to crash through apartment buildings. This isn't to argue that people were wrong to dislike MoS, but the lack of consistency in the argument always puzzled me. And now I suspecta partial reason for it might have been that Snyder is so good at capturing that sense of power that there was a more visceral of destruction in MoS than in Avengers where it did in a way feel like a regular action sequence.

I'm enjoying this discussion as well. I really enjoy analyzing these kind of things.

However, the one actor I'm shocked hasn't spoken up more is Ezra Miller.

Is Ezra in the Flash Movie? Because if he is - that may be the reason he stayed silent?

If not, maybe he didn't - and we just don't know about it? Or maybe both.

It's hard to know.

Regarding the differences in how the directors or rather MCU under Whedon and the DCU under Snyder handled violence (and also by extension Nolan) in film?

I remember a friend explaining to me once that she could handle the action sequences in the Avengers - because they were fun and "comic bookish" (her words not mine), and easier to watch. She didn't like "realistic" violence.

I am of two minds about it. I get her point, and I admit I don't always like violence in film - I struggle with at times, but if you are going to show it - I prefer being honest about it. The fun version kind of romanticizes it a little.

Sam Peckinpah - created a kind of slow-mo violence in the Spaghetti Westerns, and 70s Westerns, that changed how people depicted violence in film. Coppola followed his example in the Godfather films, as did Scorsese. Violence in those films is visceral.

Nolan also makes the violence visceral. I adore Nolan's Dark Knight Returns - but I can't rewatch it - the violence is painful.

Snyder's violence is not quite as visceral - actually Snyder's is closer to Peckinpah's old 70's Western epics. It's like watching a dance. It feels like looking at paintings of violence - and it is graphic and painful, and epic.

I honestly think Endgame and Infinity War came close to that, as did Thor Ragnarock (which was a blend of comedy and epic - maybe the WB needed the director of that film - which actually is an amazing director by the name of Taika Waititi. Not that he'd have agreed to do Justice League.

I'm trying to remember what I thought of MoS. I did not dislike it. I appreciated it - for being somewhat innovative. I liked the idea of Superman being alienated, and less the humorous Clark Kent.
My mistake - was I saw it in 3D, so the action scenes gave me a headache. I may re-watch on HBO Max at some point. Along with Batman vs. Superman (which actually had some great scenes).

I think DCU's problem was they were going up against the MCU juggernaught. Snyder states in an interview with NY Times - that WB wanted what MCU was doing, and he didn't think that was a good idea. MCU was doing a great job with it. Why copy it? Snyder didn't want to copy, he wanted to do something different. Which is the conflict between artists and well business executives/marketing folks. The artist wants to create something new, the business guy/marketing guy wants something that is well easy to sell, and guaranteed to bring in a profit. He doesn't want risk. And if XYZ is making billions, he wants something just like it so he can make billions too.

I agree that was a central problem of the DCEU. It didn't help that the execs at WB never quite could figure out what was that approach. They knew what they had with Snyder, but instead of just taking or leaving it, they tried to force it in to something that didn't work by cuts and intervention. When the backlash from BvS arrived, they took an absolutely insane approach with the Suicide Squad cut despite the test audiences reportedly being really high on the original cut. It did lead to a better place now, as I do think we're now seeing them allowing much more freedom with the characters instead of trying to force them in to this one epic story, but it has been messy getting here.

However, even writing that, after seeing the Snyder Cut, the WB business approach explains to me less what happened with it before I saw it as there are some countless baffling decisions there. It's the core reason why I'm less sympathetic towards Whedon's position now as if it was just the case of being rushed, I don't think it would have led to this. It's the reason I stated in another comment how this was really bad for Whedon as I do think it really challenges certain creative perspectives on him.

The Peckinpah comparison is really good and to me, as I mentioned elsewhere here, one of the big misfortunes that Snyder never found that collabarotive partner that could balance out his plotting issues and balance certain aspects out is that he is an absolute master when it comes to the actual portrayl of power. On Waititi, I personally disagree because I think a huge problem with his style is that he could not allow any emotional beat to exist, but had to undermine with a comedic effect instantly. It makes him a good comedy director, and the action was good, but I think unless he is able to work that out, he will never really succeed as an epic director. Although I don't know if he would even want to be that.

By the way, the funny thing I realized is that we will probably get a reboot Justice League film in about a decade, once the current actors age out and the new Batman trilogy is finished. And if they get that right director for it, I am pretty hopeful it as now there is perhaps a clearer idea how to do that as a base to have the rest of the DCEU grow out of.

I've started watching the Snyder cut - and I've begun to realize that I don't remember the Whedon cut well enough to know for certain what changed on a "content" level or "story" level. I do however see the obvious differences on a stylistic level. Snyder is operatic, Whedon is not. It would be...like having Woody Allen do a Coppola film.

I mean Whedon is not a cinematographer, while Snyder definitely is. There are some beautiful shots in the first hour - I've seen Part 1 and Part 2.

That said, the film still suffers from poor CGI - which may be because it was added digitally to film stock? I can't remember if Whedon had the same problem or not. I may have to re-watch the Whedon film to get a better idea. The scenes with Aquaman under the sea with William Dafo don't quite work as well with the CGI, nor does portions of the flashback battle, or the aliens. Some do, some don't. Use of CGI in film however - is problematic across the board - in some films its cleaner than others. I thought it was very clean in Infinity War and Endgame, but less so in Suicide Squad, and here. If used poorly the film can feel like you are watching a video game - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, some video games I'm told have great visuals. (I'm not a gamer, so I don't consider myself qualified to speak on that score.) But it does jar me a bit. Again, I'm not sure this is just Snyder who struggles with CGI, I think others have as well. And it was a problem I had with Aquaman movie, and the Suicide Squad film (which I agree is a mess).

On Watitiki - after I wrote my post, I looked up Thor Raganorck, only to realize that I was in the minority - in that I really enjoyed the film, and most fans disliked it. LOL! The comedic undercut didn't bother me - because I tend to do the same - to laugh at tragedy. Waitiki kind of does that - I think he did it with Jojo Rabbit. Kind of shows you how subjective all this is? It makes it hard to review this stuff or to know if you'll like it from someone else's review.

By the way, the funny thing I realized is that we will probably get a reboot Justice League film in about a decade, once the current actors age out and the new Batman trilogy is finished.

Oh definitely. As long as there's an audience - they'll do it. They are already rebooting the Superman franchise again. This round with a black Superman, written by Ta-Nehisi Coates, who wrote Captain America comics, and Black Panther comics, and is now over at DC. He's a writer though not a director - so curious to see who they get to direct.
A lot of it will depend on who is cast in the role.

My guess is they'll keep Gadot's Wonder Woman for a bit - since it's been successful. And the next film up is The Flash.

What they appear to have figured out - from Marvel - is to build up to the epic films gradually, not rush it. Rushing it is always a bad idea. You want to have an invested audience. So if you build up slowly through numerous films - you'll get there.

Snyder has moved on to zombie flicks again. He's doing a Netflix series - Army of the Dead. So, it's not a big deal to Snyder.

Some of the changes I remembered, some I've read. You'll note, for example, that Bruce does not seem to worship Superman's memory in this version or speak about how Clark was the best of them. Then the missing stuff with Cyborg and how Flash was completely retooled for the Whedon version. They're not changes that don't, for me, feel stylistic in a sense, but weird choices in telling a story. Seeing this, there's a sense of spitefullness in the theatre, which isn't Whedon, not at least not all of it, but it is baffling. There's also been really interesting social media threads how they changed shot ratios and angles for the Whedon version which almost always reduced the scene.

Little bit surprised that there's been a turn on Ragnarok as it very well received when it came out. I actually even liked the film, but something that did annoy me was the constant undercutting emotional moments. To compare it to Jojo Rabbit, when Jojo sees his mother hanged, the movie doesn't within seconds make it in to a joke, which something Ragnarok does and which is why I couldn't really connect with any of the character arcs as the movie constantly told you it doesn't matter. To be fair, though, the most infuriating part of the film wasn't on Waikiki as it was the removal of the small scene that established Valkyrie's bisexuality. I knew of it going in to the film, but it had been downplayed as not really mattering, but when watching the film I realized it was actually a crucial detail as it contextualized why that one woman had sacrificed herself to save Valkyrie from Hela and really provided a lot of additional depth to the whole Valkyrie character's current emotional situation.

On the Justice League movie, I actually meant that in ten years they will be in a situation where they need to reboot the franchise because a lot of actors will be aged out and I'm betting they are going to do what they tried to do here again by having Justice League be the launching pad to introduce the new iterations of the characters. Something I think got lost in the conversation overall about the Snyder approach was that there wasn't anything fundamentally bad at using the Justice League to introduce new characters. For all the blame, deservedly so, the WB execs get, it needs to be admitted there was a vocal critical and fanbase voice pushing the idea that it should be Marvel-lite and that dark superhero movies are inherently bad as they need to be light and fun. So it's no wonder if being bombarded by that message WB execs reacted to it, they just also managed to do it increasingly stupid ways.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject