The biggest difference between the Snyder cut and the studio cut is that the Snyder cut has more shit to shovel through before you mercifully get to the end.
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
Yah.
Snyder Cut was better because the story made since, The Whedon Cut not so much.
Plenty of 2 hour or less movies have a lot of character development and story. Its actually kind of ridiculous to think a movie needs to be long to have those elements. Also, The Eternals had barely any character building or story even at its runtime, so it certainly could have cut 40 minutes out of the bloated mess and had at least a more tolerable movie, although it would probably still be trash. What it really needed was a competent writer/director, but at least a shorter run time would have made the very slightly interesting events happen at a better pace.
Since I consider the Snyder Cut to be completely inferior in every way to the (admittedly mediocre) Theatrical Cut, I'm going to have to disagree with this.
The Whedon Cut has problems, but its story was completely coherent, unlike the 4 hour edgelord version. The Whedon Cut also had much more likable characters, a better (but still shitty, to be clear) villain and we didn't have to see Jared Leto, so overall I'll take the (to me) 5/10 Whedon Cut over the horrendous Snyder cut any day of the week.
I've always gone with the "a story takes as long as it takes" attitude. That goes both ways of course, so if there's only 20 mins of story and I feel satisfied with it, then 20 mins is the right length. Conversely if there's enough a story that it takes three to four hours to tell and it can keep me engaged for that time, then three to four hours is the right length.
Agreed.
Snyder's version was the Justice League film, with the necessary elements from the previous DCEU films all pointing toward and having their logical resolution in the Snyder Cut, which is rare to say about most superhero films, particularly those where its just wall-to-wall fights and jokes every other 2 minutes.
Another 'Nah' from me as well.
This is why I love the Snyder Cut so much. Sure, it is flawed, most movies are. But the flaws were not big enough for me to dislike the movie. Could it have been 30 minutes shorter and still have the same impact? Quite likely. It would mean cutting some stuff that would have set-up the sequels Snyder had planned. But that's why it's so important those scenes are still there. Otherwise it wouldn't have been the Snyder Cut he would have wanted to make back then. It would have been the one he would do right now knowing there would be no sequels.
That seems like a weird way to look at it considering he would never have been allowed to make a 4 hour cut if it had been intended as a theatrical release that the rest of the dceu was actually depending on rather than an after the fact what if version specifically made for streaming.
I reckon the ‘Snyder theatrical cut’ would have been around 2:45 and that cut’s directors cut around 3:15.
It's a good thing I'm weird then. Means it works peachykeen in my brain.
4 hours of pure garbage.
The ability of some people to formulate opinion as pure fact and thinking that's normal is still the best form of online entertainment for me. Thank you for that.
I watched it. I stand by my opinion. Garbage. And there's already a thread where you can drool over that garbage.
Good for you. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
I see the Snyder Cut as two hours of a decent movie bracketed by two hours of needless self-indulgence. But that's just me.