• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Movies/TV Shows

zeke said:
I think it's about half an hour of new footage but not sure.
Click to expand...

Snyder cut is almost 4 hours, Whedon's theatrical cut was just over 2 hours.

Snyder only reshot something like 10-15 minute of purely new footage for this cut after he took the project on, but there's a fuckton of material that didn't make Whedon's hatchet job and 11th hour reimagining, that we'll see in the Snyder cut. A lot of character building and backstory, a bunch of additional characters.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
What I don't get is how did they have a whole second movie's worth of footage in the can. Like what, they decided to shoot two movies for the same money in case the first one was trash?
Click to expand...

Snyder always wanted this to be 3+ hours and finished that much footage. It got hacked to shit when Joss Whedon was brought on to lighten it up after Snyder stepped down (his daughter died)
 
LeafOfFaith said:
No movie should be three hours long.

I highly doubt this one will be good.
Click to expand...

A movie should only be 3+ hours long if the story warrants it and it can be paced well. LOTR with all 3 installments being 3+ hours long is just fine, way better than if they had cut it into 4 movies instead. Avengers Endgame was 3 hours and could have easily been 10-20 minutes longer. Godfather 2 is maybe the greatest mob movie ever and is well over 3 hours.

3+ hours is ambitious but doable.

As for this attempt at going over 3 hours, I think this is a plot that was rich enough and had enough available fan service and action to get it done decently.
 
MindzEye said:
A movie should only be 3+ hours long if the story warrants it and it can be paced well. LOTR with all 3 installments being 3+ hours long is just fine, way better than if they had cut it into 4 movies instead. Avengers Endgame was 3 hours and could have easily been 10-20 minutes longer. Godfather 2 is maybe the greatest mob movie ever and is well over 3 hours.

3+ hours is ambitious but doable.

As for this attempt at going over 3 hours, I think this is a plot that was rich enough and had enough available fan service and action to get it done decently.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for these sort of epic mash-ups of movies, 3+ is no problem. If every superhero movie went 3+, then yeah, that'd be a problem. But they're basically more like epic miniseries than a regular movie, so give me as much as you can.

That being said, 4+ hours is kind of crazy if it actually comes out at that. At that point, especially if it's not getting a theatrical release, almost feel it should be split into like a 4-5 episode miniseries.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
What I don't get is how did they have a whole second movie's worth of footage in the can. Like what, they decided to shoot two movies for the same money in case the first one was trash?
Click to expand...
As an aside, The Salkind's were notorious for this in the 1971 Three Musketeers movie. They cut the movie into two movies where they basically 'pocketed' most of the money for the 2nd film (as the actors & crew wouldn't be 'paid' essentially for the "2nd film"). This outright thievery led to the "Salkind clause".

www.imdb.com

The Three Musketeers (1973) ⭐ 7.1 | Action, Adventure, Romance

1h 46m | PG
www.imdb.com www.imdb.com

www.imdb.com

The Four Musketeers: Milady's Revenge (1974) ⭐ 6.9 | Action, Adventure, Romance

1h 48m | PG
www.imdb.com www.imdb.com

I *could* be wrong, but I think the Salkind's did something similar for the Superman movie (re: Christopher Reeve) later.
 
MindzEye said:
Snyder cut is almost 4 hours, Whedon's theatrical cut was just over 2 hours.

Snyder only reshot something like 10-15 minute of purely new footage for this cut after he took the project on, but there's a fuckton of material that didn't make Whedon's hatchet job and 11th hour reimagining, that we'll see in the Snyder cut. A lot of character building and backstory, a bunch of additional characters.
Click to expand...

I’ll be checking it out just to see darkseid
 
I know habsy's been on this, but Yellowstone is really good.

It has very much a sons of anarchy vibe....some good looking guys and ladies, a veteran actor to play the main, and a constant flip flopping of who's the bad guys.

It's,good
 
A question on Quora asked for recommendations of great sci-fi films that aren't widely known.

Steve Jones' answer (top one at the link) lists several recent & mostly indie films that sound quite interesting. I haven't seen any of these, and have only even heard of a couple on the list.

Anybody here seen any of these movies?

www.quora.com

What is the best sci-fi movie that most people haven't seen?

Answer (1 of 108): In the below list I have tried to include movies which have been released in. the past 5 years as well as old movies which failed to gain the recognition that they deserve. Alita: Battle Angel Alita is a humanoid who does not have any memory of her past. she wakes up in a per...
www.quora.com www.quora.com
 
More horror than Sci fi but The Descent is a damn good flick that nobody seems to have seen for some reason.

Try your best to watch the UK version instead of the US version for a small but imo key editing difference at the end.
 
Two that came to mind for me were Sunshine, directed by Danny Boyle (great movie) and Moon, starring Sam Rockwell (very good).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top