182 minutes and 29 seconds directors cut version

>182 minutes and 29 seconds directors cut version

Will you watch it?

Don't have anything else to do.

no

obviously i will

>182 minutes

Yeah ok

>and 29 seconds

FUCK THAT. TOO LONG

Fuck yeah I will. The biggest problem with the movie was the editing; I'd love to see what the full product looked like.

182 minutes of why the fuck would I

Not long enough. Where's the 4 hour version?

I suppose

i will... so i have more material to hate Zack!

Remember before BvS came out Snyder said he had final cut and DC let him make the movie he wanted to make and desperate apologists used this as evidence that this would be watchable?

I bet it'll turn out better than the cinematic cut like Watchmen did. Snyder make good movies that are made much worse by cutting them down. I think he's just incapable of shortening plot threads

Yes. Do we have any idea about release date yet?

No. I won't.

DELETE THIS

yes but not by legal means

24 hour version where?

yeah no shit.
anyone buying this PR is burying their heads

For free?
Yes
Actually buying it?
Pffft no

maybe, if someone pays for my ticket or I'm an asshole and decide to pirate it or borrow a bootleg from a friend, then again that still sounds like too much effort to see a movie that I'm not really anticipating to watch

I think we have all suffered enough, and I am not a masochist

july 19th

I'll find it online. If I really liked it, I'll go buy it.

Hope it has commentary by Snyder. Terrio, Affleck, and Cavill.

That might be true but it explains only about 1/4 of the film's huge flaws

>Hope it has commentary by Snyder. Terrio, Affleck, and Cavill.

God, I can imagine Snyder in his usual mouth-breathing idiocy trying to defend his intent for 3 hours while Affleck and Cavill offer awkward anecdotes.

BvS's problem was not that it was too short

The only problem was that it didn't pander to idiots.

I felt like it did
I felt like it was feeding to retards that just wanted Bats and Sups to hate on each other and beat each other up

>The only problem was that it didn't pander to idiots.

Which is shame, because BvS's script is stupid as fuck.

Equating superheroes to religious figures doesn't mean anything if the film completely forgoes any real characterization.

The problem is that it pandered only to idiots.

Of course, interested to see the full project.
Hope it somewhat improves the film much like the uncut improved Watchmen.

Exactly. Like when Sam pushed the Allspark into Doomsday's heart. Some people just don't understand allegory.

I hate to play the "you were too dumb for this movie" card, but after watching Civil War this weekend, I've noticed the big difference between it and BvS that is probably causing such a dissonance with audiences:

All throughout Civil War, the emotional messages were extremely heavy-handed. Tons of scenes subsisted on characters having a conversation about their feelings regarding the Sokovia Accords, even when it was just retreading the same conversation that another character had earlier. It sets a strong emotional tone, and makes sure the audience is invested and knows how to feel and why. Of course, the unrelated issue here is that the Accords are stupid as fuck, and nobody ever questions exactly how they are supposed to help the Avengers avoid more casualties, and also the fact that they completely ignore the damage caused by Iron Man vs. Hulk and that Tony was responsible for Ultron, which are really the bigger issues here that prove the Avengers DO need higher management.

Batman v Superman doesn't ever really stop to have the characters blatantly talk about how they feel or what is conflicting them. Instead it shows it. It expects the audience to be invested enough to realize why characters are doing what they're doing. It builds characterization through events, not through dialogue.

Obviously individual mileage varies as to how effective this is. The Civil War way of doing it is far more accessible and agreeable to the average audience, but the downside of this is that the movie becomes incredibly bloated and slow-moving for the sake of making sure everybody is on board. It also makes it very boring during future viewings, since dialogue making a point that the audience already knows is essentially useless.

>Batman v Superman doesn't ever really stop to have the characters blatantly talk about how they feel or what is conflicting them. Instead it shows it.
>It expects the audience to be invested enough to realize why characters are doing what they're doing. It builds characterization through events, not through dialogue.

Very little of this is true.

A neutral interpretation of BvS is that Batman is envious of Superman's ability to kill more people than him.

Superman seems to literally interpret his job as flying in, saving people, then flying away and being flummoxed that people don't universally love him.

The Superman identity is retconned as being "A farmer's dream" despite nothing in Man of Steel showing Joanthan Kent wanted Clark to become a Superman.

BvS isn't always internally consistent and Superman is barely given anything to do.

>The Superman identity is retconned as being "A farmer's dream" despite nothing in Man of Steel showing Joanthan Kent wanted Clark to become a Superman

He was talking about himself I guess

I'm hype for it

I'll probably just watch some of the scenes on youtube.

I have no desire to sit through that whole movie ever again, especially when it's a 3 hour+ version.

People often complained about Superman not having much dialogue, but his scenes say a lot without him having to speak a single word. That's one of the things I liked about this movie.

Of course. I'm even willing to pay for it.

Yes, Snyder's Watchmen DC was superior to the theatrical in my opinion, so maybe this will improve BvS somehow at least pacing wise. Though I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah, that's what I thought as well

If it's at the library or in a torrent.

>A neutral interpretation of BvS is that Batman is envious of Superman's ability to kill more people than him.

How is that neutral in any way? Bruce loves his employees very much and is angry that they died senlessly. How does this translate to Bruce being jealous that he doesn't have the power to kill the entire human race?

>Superman seems to literally interpret his job as flying in, saving people, then flying away and being flummoxed that people don't universally love him.

Superman is glad that people are happy and that he's bringing hope to them, but was that they treat him like a god. He is troubled because he is unsure how to remove the latter while still keeping the former. Even saying "I'm not a god, I'm just a guy!" would have mixed results because people would just say he's being humble.

>The Superman identity is retconned as being "A farmer's dream" despite nothing in Man of Steel showing Joanthan Kent wanted Clark to become a Superman.

I don't know what this is referring to. I always thought that it was Jor-El's dream of Kal being the savior of mankind or whatever.

>BvS isn't always internally consistent and Superman is barely given anything to do.

I don't see the inconsistency, and Superman does a lot despite not having very many lines.

For someone who is arguing against the intelligence of Civil War, you sure don't give it much analysis.

I mean, they NAME DROP SOKOVIA. It's apparently to big a leap to make to Ultron for you, I guess.

I'm sorry to be blunt like that, but that's how it is.

But does it address collateral damage? Perhaps, it's not explicit said (something you state to be a fan of), but they do talk about the parameters regarding deployment in some depth (IE: Respecting Sovereign Borders) as well as having official actions taken for said destruction and loss of life.

It's talked about in the Cap/Tony scene right after the chase if I recall correctly.

So I don't find your argument all that strong. In fact, I find it shallow.

Visual storytelling is nice, but you admit that the audience didn't get very invested in it.

Which is admitting to a Deadly Sin beyond all others for the sake of appearing more 'artistic'.

>People often complained about Superman not having much dialogue, but his scenes say a lot without him having to speak a single word. That's one of the things I liked about this movie.

Which is a read that requires prior investment in the character to really work,. It's not wrong, just flawed.

And the reason why it failed as a film. It works on prior attachment and builds none of its own.

>A neutral interpretation of BvS is that Batman is envious of Superman's ability to kill more people than him.
>hyperbole for the sake of argument
Terrible.
>Superman seems to literally interpret his job as flying in, saving people, then flying away and being flummoxed that people don't universally love him.
Superman doesn't know what his job is. He's taking on a responsibility that no other person has ever had the power to do before. His entire conflict for the length of the film is that despite wanting to save humanity, he is both vilified and admired in ways that he dislikes. He's realizing that what he wants to do isn't simple for the world to take at face value.
>The Superman identity is retconned as being "A farmer's dream" despite nothing in Man of Steel showing Joanthan Kent wanted Clark to become a Superman.
This ties in with how I said people want a movie to blatantly explain shit to them. On the flipside of that coin is the fact that not all dialogue should be taken literally. You've gone and latched on to a line that Superman says in a moment of self-doubt and disillusionment and you consider it a "retcon" for some retarded reason. Pa Kent went on and on about how Superman would change the world, not as guidance, but instead as a warning. He wanted Clark to believe he was sent there for a reason. That was the dream of a Superman, and for that moment, Clark had so much trepidation about what he was doing that he was considering giving it up.

I'd have to hear very, VERY good thing to ever consider sitting through that shit again

The movie already felt too long

>How does this translate to Bruce being jealous that he doesn't have the power to kill the entire human race?

Because as Batman he regularly dispenses lethal justice against enemies he has decided are irredeemable monsters. Imagine you've never heard of Batman or Superman prior to watching the movie, and Batman's weird warped envy becomes more clear.

>Superman is glad that people are happy and that he's bringing hope to them, but was that they treat him like a god. He is troubled because he is unsure how to remove the latter while still keeping the former. Even saying "I'm not a god, I'm just a guy!" would have mixed results because people would just say he's being humble.

You didn't address my point. If Superman hates being perceived as a god why does he linger in long looming shots in the sky as he peers down over people? Why doesn't he engage in a dialog with others? He allows for a negative space in his public image that people project into, which is exactly what he enables by not talking more.

Why doesn't Superman pursue charities like boiling water clean with his heat vision, deliving silos of grain, or dig canals, waterways, or roads for developing nations? Superman could save billions of dollars and help billions of people with productive, constructive, and charitable acts.

>I don't know what this is referring to. I always thought that it was Jor-El's dream of Kal being the savior of mankind or whatever.

It's either before or after the Ghost Dad hallucination. Superman laments his earth dad's vision for him, even if none of that was actually previous established.

No, you guys don't get it. Superman didn't have to say "look at how much of a great guy I am" he just showed it. He immediately dropped his investigation of Bruce to save the girl on the news. He stopped fighting Doomsday because he heard a person in need, not to mention that scene with all the news articles about the stuff he's done.

Yeah but his problems could have been fixed by talking.

An example that really irked me was after the bombing. I realized that Superman couldn't have done anything about the bomb because he didn't detect it; that isn't what I find weird.

It's the fact that he just flies away, almost intentionally for it to look like he blew it up.

I wasn't arguing that point. I was arguing that the film does nothing to make the audience care about the character of Clark Kent. He may do nice things, but the look on his face is negative and overly contemplative.

Which basically blocks any attempt to form attachments to him from an audience perspective.

A smile does a LOT. Altruism does a lot.

But Altruism is literally an alien concept to the director.

And that's the key problem.

>Why doesn't Superman pursue charities like boiling water clean with his heat vision, deliving silos of grain, or dig canals, waterways, or roads for developing nations? Superman could save billions of dollars and help billions of people with productive, constructive, and charitable acts.
Read Peace On Earth

>It's the fact that he just flies away, almost intentionally for it to look like he blew it up.

A Superman's job is never done. He must always fly away.

If he doesn't fly away without a thought to any lingering problems, can he even call himself Superman?

Later he can go look pensive and clenched on a mountain!

>Remember that shitty movie? Here's more of it.

No thanks.

>Read Peace On Earth

I have, I wish Zack Snyder had as well.

imo if it doesnt do a good job getting me connect with the characters, it shouldnt expect me to be invested in them. My problem with the movie is that i was never really compelled to care.

Yeah, I will buy it. I am withholding my judgement until I can finally see this.

Comment of the Thread.

Enjoying these movies seems to require a goldfish memory

It was already bloated with plot-points that could have been cut, so the idea of even more sounds like a fucking nightmare.

No cut of this movie can be good, the scenes in the film itself are bad enough that clearing up plot-holes won't fix the inherent problems with the film itself.

The problem with "Snyder didn't tell the audience, he just shows it" is that Snyder has everyone looking grim and depressed 90% of the tme. Expecting audience to tell one scowl/pout from the next is kind of silly. Oh, Clark is sad because the everyone in the senate died? Ten second ago he was sad he was even there in the first place. There's no goddamn range.

Clark isn't really established as "a farmer" himself. At least the association isn't similar. And even were that the case, being Superman wasn't his dream either, because Clark spends the vast majority of Man of Steel moping around the continental US looking for a purpose and being steered by plot points rather than his own agency.

Superman was Jor El's dream at best And Jor-El isn't a farmer.

>A Superman's job is never done. He must always fly away.
Here he flying away to do something other than mope on a mountaintop I might agree with you.

Cavill's just too wooden in this franchise. It's a tragic waste of a resource.

>Even saying "I'm not a god, I'm just a guy!" would have mixed results because people would just say he's being humble.
Yeah but do you at least see how the lack of an attempt on that front ALSO characterizes him? Ignoring whether or not you believe that characterization is positive or negative, do you recognize that the lack of a reaction informs on his character as much as getting one would?

I'll just skip to this scene, do some mirin, then click the x button.

You guys are fucking dumb. Sorry, but you are. Jonathan in MoS had faith in Clark and thought that he'd change the future.

>he just wanted to drawn kids

Whatever.

Superman is altruist in the film. What's wrong with you people?

Jonathan didn't even have faith that Clark could save him without revealing the big secret.

Which turns out not to matter anyway since the exactly one person that shouldn't find out about said secret does so immediately and with no real explanation as to how he did it.

That sounds gay, brobro.

I mean has the dvdscr leaked yet?

>Jonathan didn't even have faith that Clark could save him without revealing the big secret.

Jonathan thought that Clark wasn't mature yet to handled the enormous pressure and responsibility, but he had faith in his son that in the future he would. That's why he sacrificed himself.

Goddamn, Sup Forums. You guys are really obtuse when it comes to MoS. Extremely so.

>Will you watch it?
Maybe if the 182 minutes didn't include the parts that were shown in the theaters.

He flew away because he was angry with himself. He was mad at himself for not detecting the bomb, and when people are mad at themselves they want to be alone.

Forget it, dude. Sup Forums decided to hate the movie and they will hyperbole the shit out of it to bash the movie.

Just give up.

I'll watch it, but I don't plan to pay for it.

I bet the commentary tracks will be unintentionally hilarious though.

You are just seeing things that aren't in the movie and using your headcanon to justify the obvious flaws in storytelling

They decided to hate it because it was bad

Do you want me to post the Youtube videos?

It was different, not outright bad. Batman was different, Superman was different, Lex Luthor was different. This triggered people.

Dumbass.

>they were different

Yes, being bad is pretty different.

>It was different
Different in this case means bad

I want you to understand that the "show don't tell" approch only works if you actually show something, but I already know you are gonna disappoint me.

They were so different they could have been different characters

>Jonathan thought that Clark wasn't mature yet to handled the enormous pressure and responsibility, but he had faith in his son that in the future he would. That's why he sacrificed himself.
>Goddamn, Sup Forums. You guys are really obtuse when it comes to MoS. Extremely so.

You've projected that interpretation to fill in a storytelling gap.

>no one will ever repost the webm

Hell yeah, I will.

...

Just watch the movie again.

They weren't so different, but different enough to trigger the autism of purists. For example they complain about Batman killing despite Batman doing so in almost every live action production. BvS even gives you a good context for said change something that previous movies always brushed aside.

And no, being different isn't bad.

Movie was shit, why would I spend more money on it?

>but it's the extended cut and snyder's true vision
Should have been released in cinemas then.

I can't believe people are still defending this turd. Snyder's filmography is mediocre-to-crap, but now he's a genius, apparently.

Everyone wants to think they're smarter and more erudite than everyone else, but they want everyone to KNOW they're smarter so they latch onto something well-known

Will i? No idea, i'd assume yes, but then again when i watched the third Hobbit movie in the cinema i was like
>Holy shit this is bad, can't wait to see the extended edition or a fan edit even, surely it will be better
And yet i never bothered since, the memory of the bad was too persistent

He had some good ideas but didn't manage to make a good movie out of them. His fanboys seem to think that the ideas alone justify the movie.

>will you watch it
Sure
>will you pay for it
No

It wasn't a bad movie, because it needed something MORE

>despite nothing in Man of Steel showing Joanthan Kent wanted Clark to become a Superman
>"You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be, Clark, because whoever that man is--good or bad, he's going to change the world."

i liked the longer cut of Watchmen i think i will like this