A Few Words About A few words about...™ Batman v Superman (extended) -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[tenia]

I'd tend to say that if these 2 things are enough to make the whole thing falls apart, then I probably never got it right because it didnt bother me a second and I would have a hard time thinking it's enough to say it's a complete failure.
I understand people might get angry when things are placed out of their context, but it doesnt mean they suddenly dont make any sense at all anymore all the sudden. Specificities often are, well, specificities, meaning they dont influence alone the sum of the mood and underlying themes. Sure, you can always focus on that shot there, yes that one, but at some point, maybe you're just starting to look way too close and forget the feeling brought by the larger picture.

And it's interesting to say the UC is the best because it's an awful chore to watch. While the Black Freighter inserts were working as a printed narrative, it actually heavily hampers the pace of the movie, which to be honest was already very fragile in both its TC and DC. To me, the DC is the more balanced cut.

 

[Oblivion138]

I would have been more enthusiastic about a film where Snyder condensed and even changed the story a great deal, had he used the opportunity to focus on the central themes. Instead, I got a film that tells the exact story of Watchmen, beat for beat, with virtually no changes, and one which left me feeling hollow. The Theatrical Cut of Watchmen is TERRIBLE. The Director's Cut is only slightly better. The Ultimate Cut is okay, for the reasons stated above, but I still loathe the way it handles John and Adrian, and their dynamic. At least it reintroduces the themes that the live action scenes clearly don't care about.

Full disclosure, I consider Watchmen to be among the best novels of the 20th Century. I only wish I could include Watchmen among the best films of the young 21st Century. But sadly, I cannot. And most of that is down to Snyder's seeming ignorance of what Watchmen is actually ABOUT.

And if the "Nothing ever ends" line still means something thematically, please tell me WHAT it means, as it flops out of Laurie's mouth. Also, at what point in the film do we see a vulnerable Adrian? And if it's not important for him to ever be vulnerable, why not? And in what way does the film address the question of Who Makes The World?

 

[Brandon Conway]

You would need a 10-hour film to dive into all of that. There's a reason a lot of it was excised or paired down for the themes that were retained - runtime and a cleaner narrative. (Which is still more complex than what most general audiences are willing to accept these days).

 

[Cory S.]

The Watchmen film was a complete thematic failure. Probably Snyder's biggest failure to date. He tells the exact story (of a novel whose author says the story is beside the point), he recreates the visual setting precisely, and yet he drops the entire central theme of Watchmen by reducing Watchmaker to an Incredible Hulk style origin for Dr. Manhattan. The question of Who Makes The World is jettisoned in favor of hammering the story beats. He also removed the ONLY instance in the entire novel wherein Adrian was vulnerable. Where he essentially asks God (Dr. Manhattan) for absolution, God treats him like the child that he is, then leaves him cold and empty when he departs for points unknown in the universe beyond. Instead, Snyder has him kiss the girl before he leaves, then wedges his famous parting shot to Adrian ("Nothing ever ends") into Laurie's mouth, completely out of context. Once again demonstrating that Snyder wants to include everything that's iconic, without understanding WHY it's iconic. That line is incredibly important to the book. In the film, it's a throwaway, and it doesn't mean much of anything.

I don't question Snyder's enthusiasm for the material, which is apparent. I merely question his ability to actually understand and articulate the deeper themes of the material. And in Watchmen, at least, he fell flat on his face. The Ultimate Cut is the only watchable cut for me. Because as much as he fails in the main narrative, the Black Freighter sequences at the very least reintroduce some of the main themes. Sadly, they are no longer parallels and counterpoints to the main action (as in Moore's original Godfather Part II inspired structure), since those themes have been buried under the avalanche of plot points that he tried to cram into the picture. When you make the Story Version of a book where the story is fairly inconsequential, it cannot possibly represent the source.

But that's actually not really the point of Snyder's version of WATCHMEN...on film. If anything, Snyder was way early on making WATCHMEN because at the heart of the film version, no matter what version you watch, Snyder's actually deconstructing superhero...in cinema.

Had Snyder's version hit after the explosion of the "cinematic universe" bandwagon that every studio is jumping on, I think the film would've been hailed as his masterwork. As such, it came out about 5 years too early.

 

[RJ992]

But that's actually not really the point of Snyder's version of WATCHMEN...on film. If anything, Snyder was way early on making WATCHMEN because at the heart of the film version, no matter what version you watch, Snyder's actually deconstructing superhero...in cinema.

Had Snyder's version hit after the explosion of the "cinematic universe" bandwagon that every studio is jumping on, I think the film would've been hailed as his masterwork. As such, it came out about 5 years too early.

Agreed. Other directors tried but could not crack Watchmen (including Terry Gilliam). Al to be the best costumed-hero movie ever madean Moore has stated that he wrote it it in such a way that it could NOT be made into a film. But Snyder nailed it. And he DID change some things, including an ending that would have been silly if it were a squid. I consider the UC version to be the best costumed-hero movie ever made.

I recently had a friend (female) watch BvS (3D theatrical version). Even though she thought it seemed "choppy", she LOVED it...thought it was leagues beyond other super-hero movies ("much more mature" she thought, and visually beautiful.) I just told her today about the extended cut and she was thrilled. So much so that she's going out to buy her own copy tonight (and she hasn't bought a video in the past 3 years!) It's odd...when I speak to people in the real world who have seen it, nearly all say they liked it. On the Internet...a different story.

 

[Oblivion138]

The movie's ending made no sense, either. If the threat were Dr. Manhattan, America's lapdog, the world would not set aside their differences, they would converge on America as the home of the enemy, even if American targets were hit, as well. At the very least, Adrian could never be SURE of it working, the way he was sure when it was a phony "outer space" threat. The enemy has to come from without in order to unite all humanity. In Snyder's scenario, the threat comes from America.

But I don't flog that horse because it's not nearly as big a deal as the fanboys made it out to be. Again, I'd rather Snyder change the story...even make STUPID changes to it...and keep the themes intact. Losing the themes of a book that's all about the themes, in order to tell a story that's beside the point...just isn't a smart way to handle it. And even the completely nonsensical ending could have been overlooked if Snyder had simply retained the parting shot from Dr. Manhattan to Adrian, instead of saying "Dr. Manhattan should kiss the girl instead!"

I've always been dubious of a Watchmen movie, and at least the way Snyder made it, he proved it was a bad idea. Except as something to watch for the production design aspect. It's not as bad as Before Watchmen...but it's still a poor representation of Watchmen. It's the dumb version of Watchmen. I'll stick with the smart version. I keep hearing people (albeit a small minority) say that Watchmen is masterful, and that it's a good adaptation of the source material. I never quite hear why.

And I still haven't heard what the new, improved thematic meaning of "Nothing Ever Ends" is.

 

[DavidMiller]

I didn't like the film in the theater... However, the new 3 hour cut is much better, the ending is much improved. This is a fantastic UHD disk with amazing contrast, blacks where insane. This cut changed my mind about the movie, it isn't one of my favorite super hero movies but it has at least taken its place as a good movie.

 

[RJ992]

Now let's see the original 4 hr cut!

 

[Brandon Conway]

Now let's see the original 4 hr cut!

Let's not. The context it was discussed in was an assembly cut.

 

[RJ992]

No, it was more than just an assembly...that was even longer, from what I've been told Four hours was the first cut. T

 

[Brandon Conway]

No filmmaker releases their first cut.

This reminds me of the talk of the 4-hr cut of The Wolf of Wall Street. That was simply never gonna be released.

 

[TravisR]

Yeah, the 3 hour cut is basically a watchable version of the 4 hour cut.

 

[Mark_TB]

I hated the theatrical cut when I saw it in the theater. I have to admit, though, that I enjoyed this extended edition quite a bit. It still has its problems, but I thought the added footage helped explain a lot of what was going on, and also helped it to "breathe." I was surprised to find that I can now recommend it.

 

[Bryan^H]

The movie's ending made no sense, either. If the threat were Dr. Manhattan, America's lapdog, the world would not set aside their differences, they would converge on America as the home of the enemy, even if American targets were hit, as well. At the very least, Adrian could never be SURE of it working, the way he was sure when it was a phony "outer space" threat. The enemy has to come from without in order to unite all humanity. In Snyder's scenario, the threat comes from America.

But I don't flog that horse because it's not nearly as big a deal as the fanboys made it out to be. Again, I'd rather Snyder change the story...even make STUPID changes to it...and keep the themes intact. Losing the themes of a book that's all about the themes, in order to tell a story that's beside the point...just isn't a smart way to handle it. And even the completely nonsensical ending could have been overlooked if Snyder had simply retained the parting shot from Dr. Manhattan to Adrian, instead of saying "Dr. Manhattan should kiss the girl instead!"

I've always been dubious of a Watchmen movie, and at least the way Snyder made it, he proved it was a bad idea. Except as something to watch for the production design aspect. It's not as bad as Before Watchmen...but it's still a poor representation of Watchmen. It's the dumb version of Watchmen. I'll stick with the smart version. I keep hearing people (albeit a small minority) say that Watchmen is masterful, and that it's a good adaptation of the source material. I never quite hear why.

And I still haven't heard what the new, improved thematic meaning of "Nothing Ever Ends" is.

Off topic concerning Watchmen, and The Dark Knight Returns including spoilers from comics
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I enjoyed the movie version of 'Watchmen', I always had a funny feeling about it like the people that have never read the comic are missing so much. They are indeed getting a weak version of the comic book, and now consider themselves huge fans of 'Watchmen' without ever having read what made it great.
But at least they got introduced to Rorschach-- lets face it was brilliantly cast, and represented--
And without the blessing of the writer to convert it to screen can it even be accepted as a faithful retelling? I know Alan Moore wasn't on board with the project.
When asked in an interview with ReelzChannel.com about original Watchmen writer Alan Moore's dismissal of his movie, [director Zack] Snyder was quoted as saying "Worst case scenario - Alan puts the movie on his DVD player on a cold Sunday in London and watches and says, 'Yeah, that doesn't suck too bad.'" When this was brought up with Moore himself in a later interview in the British Tripwire comics fanzine, the writer commented "That's the worst case scenario? I think he's underestimated what the worst case scenario would be... that's never going to happen in my DVD player in 'London' [Moore very famously lives in Northampton]. I'm never going to watch this fucking thing."
Moore considered Terry Gilliam making a Watchmen movie in the 80's. Snyder had a small dig at that idea He made Watchmen to "save it from the Terry Gilliams of the world".
Overall, I say he did a pretty good job fitting all the material in a movie, but think of it as a companion piece to the much better graphic novel.


In addition to Alan Moore's 'Watchmen' 1986 also gave us Frank Miller's 'The Dark Knight Returns'. Both comic books are considered brilliantly groundbreaking in the comic book medium. Comparing the two is like comparing Picasso to Renoir. It isn't a question of who is better but why isn't there more like them?
Zack Snyder took general themes, a strong visual presence, and direct lines of dialogue from TDKR and entered them in his movie 'Batman V Superman'. So why in the world didn't he enter in Bruce Wayne's inner monologue from TDKR? Those of you that haven't read the book think Dexter Morgan from the Showtime series(and if you haven't seen that I can't help you). Bruce Wayne's thoughts throughout the entirety of the series are funny, sad, macho, and sometimes scary. In other words it makes the book great.
Had Snyder added that to BvS, I think it would have not only gotten many more positive reviews, it would have helped bridge the gap in story structure(in the theatrical cut anyway) and to help the audience along the path of the movie. Also giving us a better understanding of what makes Bruce Wayne tick.

 

[Tino]

‘Batman v Superman’ Shoots to Top of Disc Charts

http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/batman-v-superman-shoots-to-top-of-disc-charts-1201825810/

 

[Oblivion138]

And sadly, the team behind Batman: The Killing Joke just went one (or SEVERAL) further than Snyder, in completely misrepresenting the source material. And with Bruce Timm, Kevin Conroy, and Mark Hamill on board, I had high expectations of these guys in the "Gets What This Story Is About" department. Turns out - at least as far as Timm, Alan Burnett, and Brian Azzarello are concerned - I put too much faith in the creative team to expand if they must, but to understand and respect the themes, and the spirit, of the original. They clearly did not understand Killing Joke, or they wouldn't have "adapted" it the way they did.

DC needs to clean house from the top down, as far as I'm concerned. Ever since the institution of the New 52, their output has been on a consistent downward trajectory. It's not just the "reboot the entire universe every few years, to dig ourselves out of the hole we dug a few years ago" mentality...it's the lack of care and good judgment that such a mentality ultimately brings about in the actual storytelling. I mean, who cares if you do something incredibly stupid and insulting with a beloved and iconic character? You can just hit RESET again, and everything's fine 'til you screw it up all over again.

This is just not my year, as a Batman fan.

 

[Bryan^H]

That isn't surprising to me at all. The Dark Knight Returns animated feature was butchered. Missing most of what made the book great.....including the Bruce Wayne internal monologue.

 

[Matt Hough]

I spent the afternoon watching the Ultimate Edition version of this movie, and I'm still gathering my thoughts.

I do think there should have been a Ben Affleck solo Batman outing before this movie came about. I felt very cheated by not seeing his version in Batman in action without all of the other Lex Luthor business going on around him (actually, his nefarious plan wasn't bad, but would have completely fallen apart if the two heroes had just sat down and talked things out). I wanted to see more of the relationship of Alfred and Batman. I wanted to see more of Bruce Wayne at work and play. It just felt like we were being shortchanged. Also, Batman has the best rogues gallery in the business, and instead we had to make do with Batman fighting one of Superman's biggest enemies. Felt like a real waste.

I did like Affleck's Batman. In a solo movie where we get to study his characterizations of Bruce and Batman, I think he can be memorable. Maybe not as individual as Christian Bale but nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[RJ992]

‘Batman v Superman’ Shoots to Top of Disc Charts

http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/batman-v-superman-shoots-to-top-of-disc-charts-1201825810/

And stayed there until the week of 09/04! With $ sales (last I heard) $150 million (and counting)...it may have fallen just shy of the billion mark theatrically but it's over that now. (By the way, the movie had already made 400 million before it even opened, from merchandising deals.

 

[TJPC]

The movie's ending made no sense, either. If the threat were Dr. Manhattan, America's lapdog, the world would not set aside their differences, they would converge on America as the home of the enemy, even if American targets were hit, as well. At the very least, Adrian could never be SURE of it working, the way he was sure when it was a phony "outer space" threat. The enemy has to come from without in order to unite all humanity. In Snyder's scenario, the threat comes from America.

But I don't flog that horse because it's not nearly as big a deal as the fanboys made it out to be. Again, I'd rather Snyder change the story...even make STUPID changes to it...and keep the themes intact. Losing the themes of a book that's all about the themes, in order to tell a story that's beside the point...just isn't a smart way to handle it. And even the completely nonsensical ending could have been overlooked if Snyder had simply retained the parting shot from Dr. Manhattan to Adrian, instead of saying "Dr. Manhattan should kiss the girl instead!"

I've always been dubious of a Watchmen movie, and at least the way Snyder made it, he proved it was a bad idea. Except as something to watch for the production design aspect. It's not as bad as Before Watchmen...but it's still a poor representation of Watchmen. It's the dumb version of Watchmen. I'll stick with the smart version. I keep hearing people (albeit a small minority) say that Watchmen is masterful, and that it's a good adaptation of the source material. I never quite hear why.

And I still haven't heard what the new, improved thematic meaning of "Nothing Ever Ends" is.

I stopped reading comic books when I entered high school and had never heard of Watchman until the movie came out. I absolutely loved the movie and have the theatrical, extended, and directors cuts.
Later, I read the "graphic" novel and can't understand what the controversy is about. Except for a few minor changes to the ending, it is identical!
My least favourite version of the movie is the one that has the incomprehensible "Black Freighter" sequences inserted into it. I have seen the movie a dozen times and read the comic book, and still do not see what this has to do with the rest of the story at all. I just find the sequences endless and boring. If the only way to see the movie was with these intact, I would be fast forwarding.