But I'll watch.
But I'll watch.
I think it's about half an hour of new footage but not sure.
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?
No movie should be three hours long.
I highly doubt this one will be good.
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.
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".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?
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.