Will the Snyder cut appear on HBO Max?

[thecolorsblend]

It's crazy that WW84 gets a sequel greenlit, despite by all accounts most people said the film was mediocre and a step below from the first WW film, yet ZSJL gets ignored despite positive feedback and calls for a continuation.

Because Hollywood (at least up to now) has not been an industry built on good business sense, merit and profit.

Money is not irrelevant in Hollywood. But it's probably not even in the top five of most important things. If all they cared about was money and capitalizing on opportunities, maybe WW84 would get a sequel or maybe it wouldn't but ZSJL definitely would.

But it's not about money, mostly.

[The Dark Knight]

ZSJL would get a sequel in a normal situation. But nothing about this has been normal. Seems to me they won't do anything with the Snyderverse because they don't want the evil Superman/Batman sacrifice story playing out on screen. They freaked, felt pressure and moved on long ago. I'm not expecting anything to happen with HBO Max content either and that's the healthy way to be.

[Gotham Knight]

I've re-watched the Snyder cut and I watched the theatrical version for the firs time since 2017. I'm not intending to troll, I want to make that clear. I don't wish to anger anyone. I have to honest. While neither impresses me or are good movies, I think that all in all, I misjudged the theatrical version. I can now understand better what it was trying to do. The characters are better realized and I think the narrative structure is actually stronger. I can't believe I'm about to say this:

I think the theatrical cut is better.

[The Laughing Fish]

I've re-watched the Snyder cut and I watched the theatrical version for the firs time since 2017. I'm not intending to troll, I want to make that clear. I don't wish to anger anyone. I have to honest. While neither impresses me or are good movies, I think that all in all, I misjudged the theatrical version. I can now understand better what it was trying to do. The characters are better realized and I think the narrative structure is actually stronger. I can't believe I'm about to say this

I think the theatrical cut is better.

Right, if you think characters making stupid dumb Marvelesque (and sexist) one-liners and stripping away the meat of the story among Cyborg, Silas, Steppenwolf, Lois, even Flash and Aquaman qualifies as "better characterisation and stronger story structure", sure, by all means go ahead and think that. You'd be wrong, of course, but it's your opinion. FFS, Josstice League's treatment of the Mother Boxes doesn't even make any sense compared to the details that Snyder cut takes care of.

Anyway, ZSJL has been acknowledged as one of the best performing titles on HBO Max.

https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/hbo-max-q1-2021-subscribers-att-earnings-1234957719/amp/

[thecolorsblend]

I've re-watched the Snyder cut and I watched the theatrical version for the firs time since 2017. I'm not intending to troll, I want to make that clear. I don't wish to anger anyone. I have to honest. While neither impresses me or are good movies, I think that all in all, I misjudged the theatrical version. I can now understand better what it was trying to do. The characters are better realized and I think the narrative structure is actually stronger. I can't believe I'm about to say this:

I think the theatrical cut is better.

Why does Cyborg's defenses automatically target the resurrected Superman? The theatrical cut doesn't explain that. ZSJL does tho.

Why didn't the Mother Boxes send out their location when Silas Stone activated one of them to save Victor? To my recollection, the theatrical cut doesn't explain that. ZSJL does tho.

How does the theatrical cut sum up Lois? "Thirsty". How does ZSJL sum up Lois? Someone the world needs.

It's fine to have preferences. If the theatrical version is your jam, more power to you. But I simply see too many structural and technical flaws with it to ever bother watching it again.

The one meek defense I might offer for that version is the design of Steppenwolf isn't THAT bad. I can see where some people might think Snyder's Steppenwolf design is a little over the top. That doesn't justify the theatrical cut in my book. I'm just saying I could see the argument.

[The Dark Knight]

Let's not be too hard on GK.

If he sincerely believes Whedon's cut is better he's allowed to think so for the remainder of his life. As a sign of my compassion I declare he won't be hung in the morning. He will be shot.

[Gotham Knight]

I've re-watched the Snyder cut and I watched the theatrical version for the firs time since 2017. I'm not intending to troll, I want to make that clear. I don't wish to anger anyone. I have to honest. While neither impresses me or are good movies, I think that all in all, I misjudged the theatrical version. I can now understand better what it was trying to do. The characters are better realized and I think the narrative structure is actually stronger. I can't believe I'm about to say this:

I think the theatrical cut is better.

Why does Cyborg's defenses automatically target the resurrected Superman? The theatrical cut doesn't explain that. ZSJL does tho.

Why didn't the Mother Boxes send out their location when Silas Stone activated one of them to save Victor? To my recollection, the theatrical cut doesn't explain that. ZSJL does tho.

How does the theatrical cut sum up Lois? "Thirsty". How does ZSJL sum up Lois? Someone the world needs.

It's fine to have preferences. If the theatrical version is your jam, more power to you. But I simply see too many structural and technical flaws with it to ever bother watching it again.

The one meek defense I might offer for that version is the design of Steppenwolf isn't THAT bad. I can see where some people might think Snyder's Steppenwolf design is a little over the top. That doesn't justify the theatrical cut in my book. I'm just saying I could see the argument.

Lois is summed up as someone the world needs in the theatrical cut as well, it just does it without needing copious amounts of exposition to do it, which is basically my argument for the whole comparison between the two films. She speaks to Clark more naturally and in character as a love interest and despite her love for him sends him to help the League. It is funny you mention that because I'd argue that her scenes are among the strongest in the release cut, especially her push for him to get involved. in Snyder's, Superman shows up because 'might as well.' Talk about structural problems. Superman deciding to save the day after placidly shrugging, not to mention that Lois just happens to be at the monument.

I think what it comes down to is that having the theatrical cut fresh in my mind enables me to better highlight the problems I have with Snyder overall. Exposition is not characterization. Lore is not characterization. Easter egg hunts are not characterization. World building is not characterization.

His scenes don't build off one another because we only accomplish bits and pieces at a time, so scenes do not progress, they feel like detours. All of his movies in the DCEU feel like assembly cuts that have yet to find the story. They feel like a collection of scenes. The theatrical version takes on stripping the fat and trying to characterize while handling more than one piece of business at a time. Having eons of time does inherently make something deeper or more significant. Film making of this sort is about time management. The work done is ham-fisted and streamlined, but it does a better job at getting over characters while moving the story along. That was the goal.

[thecolorsblend]

Lois is summed up as someone the world needs in the theatrical cut as well, it just does it without needing copious amounts of exposition to do it, which is basically my argument for the whole comparison between the two films. She speaks to Clark more naturally and in character as a love interest and despite her love for him sends him to help the League. It is funny you mention that because I'd argue that her scenes are among the strongest in the release cut, especially her push for him to get involved. in Snyder's, Superman shows up because 'might as well.' Talk about structural problems. Superman deciding to save the day after placidly shrugging, not to mention that Lois just happens to be at the monument.

I think what it comes down to is that having the theatrical cut fresh in my mind enables me to better highlight the problems I have with Snyder overall. Exposition is not characterization. Lore is not characterization. Easter egg hunts are not characterization. World building is not characterization.

His scenes don't build off one another because we only accomplish bits and pieces at a time, so scenes do not progress, they feel like detours. All of his movies in the DCEU feel like assembly cuts that have yet to find the story. They feel like a collection of scenes. The theatrical version takes on stripping the fat and trying to characterize while handling more than one piece of business at a time. Having eons of time does inherently make something deeper or more significant. Film making of this sort is about time management. The work done is ham-fisted and streamlined, but it does a better job at getting over characters while moving the story along. That was the goal.

Fair enough. We obviously disagree here. Still, I maintain that's a positive thing. It bugs the you know what out of me when people castigate me for having a different opinion. So, treating you that way would be hypocritical. I'm glad that at least one person out there sees value in the theatrical cut. Or at least more value than I see in it.

Even so, I honestly can't imagine ever watching the theatrical cut again. For me, ZSJL is just too big for anything to ever compete with. I'm happy you get something out of Whedon's version. But in my household, it's ZSJL or bust.

[The Laughing Fish]

Lois Lane in ZSJL was done much better than how she had appeared in Josstice League. Her coming out of her constant grief thanks to Martha Kent's encouragement (albeit Martian Manhunter in disguise) after the two bonded over Clark is a lot more impactful and emotional than simply revealing she was somehow in on the plan to resurrect Superman in Whedon's version. Furthermore, it also shows MM made a vital contribution to the League in the very little amount of time we saw him on screen.

Plus, I don't find Lois Lane to be natural in Josstice League when she is the brunt of thirsty jokes and saying how Clark smelled good when the two returned to Smallville. In ZSJL, the time she spends to help Clark recognise the Kent farm that's now going into foreclosure makes the moment a very sentimental one, whereas in Josstice League Clark didn't even spend any time inside the house yet.

It has been noted by fans online the shot of the butterfly that Clark was touching has connotations to another butterfly trapped between chains in MOS, and other people have pointed out the butterfly represents the religious symbolism of resurrection itself.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210327175556/https://www.cbr.com/zack-snyder-justice-league-superman-butterfly-man-steel/

Instead, that was all replaced with CGI smiles and lazy attempts at light-hearted dialogue.

I find it ludicruous to criticise the plot structure in ZSJL when Josstice League clearly didn't even care about important details. Once again, take a look at the Mother Boxes. In ZSJL, it was established that Steppenwolf and the Parademons could track down one location after another of where the Mother Boxes were last held because each device left behind a scent. That's why you had Parademons breaking into the STAR Labs facility and the Stones' residence. As well as Steppenwolf using mind-reading apparatus to interrogate the Atlantean guard to find out the whereabouts of the second Mother Box in Atlantis.

To the best of my recollection, the Mother Box emitting scents wasn't made clear in the Josstice League, if ever such a reference was made at all. But even if it did, questions remain unanswered in the Batman prologue scene. What was a random Parademon doing on the rooftop fighting Batman? Did it find the scent of a Mother Box nearby? We don't know. What sense does it make for the Parademon to commit suicide? It doesn't really, except it was a lazy way to make Batman recognise this mark left behind resembling the Mother Boxes in Lex's notes. Again, random writing that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Speaking of Batman, I don't see how anyone could say his characerisation was better in Josstice League. As I said before, the prologue doesn't make much sense, but what's even worse is Bill Tench from Manhunter suddenly goes from thief to concerned citizen, and Batman inexplicably lets him go. Knowing the issues about Whedon as we do now, I bet the nonsensical way the prologue ended was Whedon's way to punish Affleck for opposing the changes from Snyder's vision, as Whedon threatened to do to Gal Gadot behind the scenes.

Whedon's rewrites were pointless and only served as a detriment to Batman's character instead of improving it. How could Bruce not recognise Arthur Curry was Aquaman when he already saw him in Lex's metahuman video in BvS? In ZSJL, his attack on Steppenwolf's base was a clear strategic assault, but in Josstice League, he complains the other League members coming to his rescue as "not part of his plan". No excuse for this, other than maybe to fit in Alfred's line "this is the team". That's it with Whedon, quips became more important than actually meaningful dialogue. Are you seriously tell me Batman's entire defiant "Us United" line is not in the spirit of the character compared to asking Aquaman if he stalks to fish, or something is definitely bleeding? Come on.

I could go on forever, but the differences between the Mother Boxes and Batman alone in both versions of JL should give anyone a good idea the reshoots butchered the final product, instead of improving it .I don't care if someone doesn't like ZSJL. Hell, they can dismiss the use of exposition and world building all they want, even if they ignore such set-ups were intended for future sequels and solo character films such as Aquaman back in 2016. But this whole idea of Josstice League having better characterisation and story structure is complete and utter nonsense.

One more thing: Josstice League cut out two things.

1) Lois wearing Clark's engagement ring, which we finally heard Clark saying "I take that as a yes" in ZSJL.
2) Lois appears to be pregnant with Clark's son.




So, the bassinet that Lois was holding in the original film was replaced by a box in Josstice League.

[thecolorsblend]

I must tell you, the pregnancy thing intrigues me. That subplot does shine a different light on the bathtub scene from BVS, where, obviously, it's implied that they had sex. And originally, I thought that was all there was to it. Probably like most people, I assume.

But water is a symbol of fertility since I don't even know when. So, you've got the bathwater splashing around as Lois and Clark do the you know what in BVS, which could certainly be considered foreshadowing of the pregnancy, the home test, the bassinet, the whole program from ZSJL.