I don't have HBO though, so I would have to pay their fee to watch it. I think they charge something like 15.00 per month! All of these paid services are a freaking joke, man. And to be honest, I can't bring myself to watch that portrayal of Superman again. I hate what they did to him
Justice League official "Zack Snyder" cut on HBO Max
- Thread starter Ar-Pharazon
- Start date
I was always under the impression that the film was originally meant to be two films, roughly 2 hours each. Did I get that wrong? I've been puzzled by some reviewers questioning the reason for the length.
I don't understand what your issue is> If you can't bring yourself to sit through it no one is forcing you to.
As far as $15 goes, most streaming services give you the first month as a free trial (not sure about HBO, we don't get it here.) Anyway, whatever you paid in the theatre a few years ago doesn't entitle you, or me, or any of us, a free movie this week. If you want to watch it get a month and then cancel. At the theatre I pay more than $15 for the movie and the popcorn.
Last edited:
Nope. Snyder has said this was always part 1.
So don't watch it. I don't understand what is your point.
Ha ha. Bullies like you make me laugh. There's always a comment like this in every thread
I'll never understand this idea either. Not everything is for everyone.
Think I'll put on some popcorn.
There is literally nothing about their comment even remotely close to being in the neighborhood of “bullying”.
Also you’re complaining about what, 15 bucks or so? On a board where numerous posters have dropped far more than that each time a Trek series gets upgraded to a new home video format? Or spent who knows how much on comics and toys? I spent more than the price of Justice League on lunch alone this week. Not really a compelling argument there.
Ironically, while he ignores his godlike father in favor of his human one, it results in the most overpowered ability ever seen in any iteration of Superman.
"Divine"? He's a sullen loner who is mostly just looking out for himself, his mother, and Lois. Sounds like a lot of ordinary humans that I know.
The R-rating doesn't really matter. If you compare the R-rated & PG-13-rated versions of Batman v. Superman or Daredevil, there's not that much of a difference in terms of "child appropriate" material. On the other hand, try comparing the PG-13 versions of those movies with something like Ant-Man, which got the same rating. PG-13 covers such a broad range of material and tones that it's practically meaningless.
I don't see anything child inappropriate about Jurassic Park. There's almost no blood. And while the Alien movies do up the gore factor a little bit, I think it works for children too, at least up to a point. They're scary movies that kids understand are supposed to be scary because the notion of being eaten by an alien or dinosaur is universally terrifying for people of all ages. We show kids cartoons about cats trying to eat mice & birds all the time. This is just taking that concept and making it less safe. But the whole point of horror is the thrill of simulated danger. And the other thing that we need to remember is that the reason why these sorts of things appeal to kids is specifically because they're not made FOR kids. When you're a little kid, you start out on a diet of nursery rhymes and Sesame Street. Then you move up to action cartoons and Looney Toons. But eventually, while you are still a kid in every way that counts, you develop an interest in more "adult" properties aimed at general audiences. It's a rite of passage (and one of the few that we have in Western civilization). The proper age to start getting into that is going to vary from child to child. And sometimes it will happen in fits and starts, hiding under the blanket or behind the chair during some of the more intense moments. And you won't always understand every nuance of the film that you're watching because it's aimed at a more experienced age group than you. But everyone starts somewhere.
Thinking back to my own childhood, I remember catching bits of Batman (1989) when my dad & uncle watched it on cable back when I was probably 8 or so. I didn't follow much of it but I thought that the Batmobile was cool and that the whole thing seemed incomprehensibly huge & epic & sophisticated in a way that an animated Disney movie just couldn't muster. That being said, there's a certain grim joylessness to the Snyder movies that I don't think I would have had the patience for at that age. But I probably would have liked Suicide Squad.
But unlike Jesus, it's taken him 5 years to rise from the dead.
I don't think that it was the tone that made Superman Returns underperform. I think it was the slavish devotion to the Richard Donner continuity that put people off. It had been too long and all of the actors were new anyway, so I think that people were hoping for & expecting a reboot. Or at least something with a more distinct identity and not just Singer's fanfilm homage to the Donner films. (Also, I suspect people want to see Superman punch somebody at least once. Lifting a giant rock into space just doesn't cut it as far as action climaxes these days.)
I don't disagree but, even in my 30s, I'm still in touch with my edgy adolescent self and can find some enjoyment in Snyder's movies, even if I think they miss the point.
It depends on what you're trying to do. If you want to achieve the best possible version of the movie that Snyder was trying to make, Whedon is completely unsuited to that task. But that's not what Warner Bros. was trying to do. They were trying to do a massive course correction to the franchise right in the middle of making the movie. I would have warned them against it. I understand their dissatisfaction with what Snyder was doing but getting Whedon to reshoot the movie like that is kinda like trying to steer a car while also jumping out of it. It's a shame because I think that if they had taken their time and gotten Whedon to do a pass on the script BEFORE Snyder started shooting it, they might have succeeded in getting the best of both worlds, rather than the theatrical mess we got.
Geez! Zack Snyder and his endless reservoir of extended cuts!
I remember reading an interview where he said that he has an extended cut of Sucker Punch that's half an hour longer than the extended cut we already have. Guy doesn't know when to quit! (He's not in terrible company though. Compare that to the endlessly tweaked edits of Alexander and Blade Runner or Coppola spending most of the last few years re-editing old works like Apocalypse Now, The Cotton Club, and The Godfather, Part III.)Y'know, Green Lantern wasn't great but it's far from the worst DC movie ever made. (We live in a universe where Batman & Robin, Catwoman, and Superman IV exist, after all.) And while it was kinda funny the first few times Ryan Reynolds made some digs at it, it's quickly becoming tiresome. It's not so terrible that he needs to apologize for it every time he speaks in public. (He could at least mix it up and apologize for Blade Trinity every once in a while.)
Objection, your honor! Judged by the standards of what kind of movie it was trying to be rather than what kind of movie fans at the time wanted it to be, Batman & Robin is good, actually.
Wow! Finally I managed to bully someone!
Virtual Red Carpet Premiere hosted by Kevin Smith:
I'm about an hour in and so far my general impression is that (unsurprisingly) the overall quality is much more coherent. The pace is glacial to say the least, but I already knew that going in. Honestly I feel like between this and the extended cuts for both Watchmen and BvS, I think Snyder is in the wrong medium. He should be making high end TV/streaming projects not theatrical films. He's clearly more of an episodic/anthology/vignette type storyteller than a long form film maker (ironic claim given the 4hr runtime I know, but there we are.)
I should note however that my memory of the theatrical cut is very vague. I only watched it once when it came out on home video some years back, so I can't really make any real direct comparisons. Also just for clarity; I have no skin in this game. I did not care for the original cut, but at the same time I did not really care whether the Snyder cut released or not. I'm watching mostly out of detached curiosity.
I should note however that my memory of the theatrical cut is very vague. I only watched it once when it came out on home video some years back, so I can't really make any real direct comparisons. Also just for clarity; I have no skin in this game. I did not care for the original cut, but at the same time I did not really care whether the Snyder cut released or not. I'm watching mostly out of detached curiosity.
And so far... anything warranting the R rating ?
My wife wanted to watch with my kids... I don't plan on watching it twice
Somehow i missed this in the onslaught of trailers, featurettes and reports but that damn thing is 4 hours long!
So i'll watch it on the weekend at the earliest, i'm in no rush since i have already seen JL but i hear/read good things about it. I'm curious if this superextended cut will actually help to make it a good film. It has happened before with Kingdom of Heaven where the theatrical cut is ok but the Directors cut really turned it into one of my favorite movies.
So i'll watch it on the weekend at the earliest, i'm in no rush since i have already seen JL but i hear/read good things about it. I'm curious if this superextended cut will actually help to make it a good film. It has happened before with Kingdom of Heaven where the theatrical cut is ok but the Directors cut really turned it into one of my favorite movies.
ETA: Annnd I'm done. Pretty good all things considered. Certainly not to everyone's tastes, but I liked it much more than the theatrical cut (which I mostly recall as a noisy and confused mess.) It may be slow paced at times, overly deliberate and occasionally bordering on indulgent, with a few moments that feel forced or on the nose, but it knows what it is and it's not ashamed of itself.
A bit glib perhaps, but the first thought that came to mind when trying to sum up the style and approach was "...if Michal Bay made a movie where he actually cared about the subject matter."
Honestly, I think if WB has any sense, they'll treat this as the definitive version going forwards (if they have any intention of picking up any threads.) It feels much more in tune and of a piece with Snyder's previous two entries and not as at odds with the Wonder Woman or Aquaman movies as one might think.
Really though, I'd be surprised if kids of any age will want to sit still for the whole thing. I'm at around the 2:25 mark now (been pausing it every 40 mins or so to get up, make a drink and do other stuff for a bit so I don't get to tired of paying attention) and while there's already been like 8 action set pieces already, it still feels like the plot is only just now coming together (they're at the ship and about to try resurrecting him.)
I think the best way to approach this is not to think of it as a movie, but a VERY lavish miniseries. It's certainly structured more like a (graphic) novel than a three act movie. Indeed there are even title cards dividing up the "parts", like chapters.
A bit glib perhaps, but the first thought that came to mind when trying to sum up the style and approach was "...if Michal Bay made a movie where he actually cared about the subject matter."
Honestly, I think if WB has any sense, they'll treat this as the definitive version going forwards (if they have any intention of picking up any threads.) It feels much more in tune and of a piece with Snyder's previous two entries and not as at odds with the Wonder Woman or Aquaman movies as one might think.
I don't know what constitutes an R rating, but over here it's rated 15, which should be self-explanatory in terms of how old a person should be to watch it. Broadly though; it's more violent than most MCU films, but not Watchmen violent. About on-par with BvS and MoS. Whether it's appropriate for your kids honestly depends on your kids. I was watching things like Robocop, Candyman, Child's Play, Nightmare on Elm St, and the Terminator movies when I was like 8-10 years old and it never phased me. But then I know full grown adults that couldn't handle even one of those, much less all, so it'll be down to your judgment I'm afraid.
Really though, I'd be surprised if kids of any age will want to sit still for the whole thing. I'm at around the 2:25 mark now (been pausing it every 40 mins or so to get up, make a drink and do other stuff for a bit so I don't get to tired of paying attention) and while there's already been like 8 action set pieces already, it still feels like the plot is only just now coming together (they're at the ship and about to try resurrecting him.)
I think the best way to approach this is not to think of it as a movie, but a VERY lavish miniseries. It's certainly structured more like a (graphic) novel than a three act movie. Indeed there are even title cards dividing up the "parts", like chapters.
Last edited:
Agree to disagree on this point, though I think it largely depends on the kid. Alien I certainly don't see as kid appropriate, nor do I care for it when I watched it at 8. "It's a scary movie and kids know it's supposed to be scary" doesn't work for all kids.
But, my larger point still stands. If kid's can understanding something like Alien and still watch it, even if not marketed to kids, then why can't Superman and Batman be marketed to adults and not kids, but kids still watch it?
It comes out on physical disc in a few days.
Similar threads
