I remember watching a video interview with Deborah Snyder during the last two weeks and she made mention of the movies original run time before they cut it down so that theater owners wouldn't have a coronary and start protesting. From that interview she made mention that when they first took it to editing the movie was something like 3 hours and 15 minutes long and after the first editing process the first official cut of the movie was just under 3 hours long. That is nearly 40 minutes of missing or extended scenes and potential character development from the first official cut that we didn't get in the final release. Wonder if another "Kingdom of Heaven" scenario is playing out especially for those of you who wanted a whole lot more character development. It will be interesting to see if we get that longer cut when the dvd is finally released.
This explains a lot. So they opted to keep in all the action---makes sense; cost a lot of time and money---and discarded a lot of backstory (see also, "scenes where characters talk and don't throw each other through buildings"). Of course, it doesn't say the movie would have been a lot better. It depends on the quality of those cuts. But I would've been down with more character development. Maybe we'll get a Director's Cut much like this director's "Watchmen". Might depend if he's busy with the sequel, which they supposedly are jumping into. I think the film got an A- from CinemaScore or whatever. Astounding to me, but I'm glad others weren't profoundy disappointed.
That's actually good to know. It certainly felt like there were character development parts missing and that the whole thing was composed for me to care more about the supporting cast.
Hopefully so. The Director's Cut of Watchmen was about a hundred times better than the theatrical version. It actually made Malin Akerman look like she could act a little bit..
I was damn disappointed with the theater version of "Kingdom of Heaven" but love the hell out of the DC. I love the hell out of DC. This totally makes sense. Even his DC for Watchmen had great characters development. Some of his flashback were great especially with his Pa Kent and his biological father Jor-El. Their story were very well developed and the rest were pretty much left on the cutting room floor. Some people might be complaining about the the flashback but I thought it was very effective and emotionally powerful especially when Spoiler Clark say that he wished Pa Kent could have been alive to see him become that man he always hope he would one day become and his Ma Kent told him he did and you have the wonderful flashback of young Clark playing in the back yard with the red cape draped around his neck and Pa Kent looked on proudly. Also the Krypton at the beginning was also great but kinda rushed. So hopefully MOS make tonnes of money and with the badly rated on RT will get them to give the audience a DC on Blu-ray.
I agree. Spoiler in the end..she was inside the train station within seconds..like wtf..how does she travel so fast
It's a reboot of a well established comic book series spanning 65 years How much story and romance can one re-imagine over that tine? let's ask Spiderman.... People are picky as hell. This is not a chick flick
People are too picky. I liked it, and the fact it was dark at some points. The same people that didn't like it probably thought that superman returns was good. I couldn't watch more than 20 minutes of that movie. In terms of returns thus far its made 197 mil with all ticket sales and 117 mil due to commercials. Already broken past even.
People doesn't mean me does it? Because I liked the movie. But I see flaws. I don't need anything re-imagined honestly, just give me something true to the original and story and I'm happy.
The problem with Superman is that he's just too damn powerful. There's no physical struggle, so you have to give him an ethical or moral one (almost like Dr Manhattan).
anyone else keep picturing a possible DBZ movie when they showed krypton and a baby was being launched in a space pod to earth while the planet was on the verge of destruction?
Yeah, characters with no flaws are boring. Dr. Manhattan was a great character, top 10 for me. Showed an interesting take of what could happen to someone like Superman.
I agree. I personally don't like superman, never have. I still thought it was a good movie though. Speaking of Blue Penis, didn't Watchmen get **** on by the critics too? That was A GREAT movie.
I wasn't a big fan but I never saw the Director's cut. I read the book, there was never any way a movie could have held a candle to it. Many said it couldn't be done and I kind of agree. An animated movie would probably have worked much better for me.
IIRC, much of the criticism centered around Snyder staying TOO faithful to the source material and not being willing enough to deviate from it to perhaps better adapt it for the big screen. Watchmen has a 64% fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes. Not great, but better than Man of Steel.
No that was once his problem. From his creation up until the the mid eighties that was true. He was once a man that could blow out a star or move a planet. That character doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for some time now. With the comics from the mid eighties on his character began a slow but consistent change. His powers were reigned in and the powers of his rouges gallery were enhanced to give him more of a challenge and to even put some of them on par with him. Though he will inevitably win in the end he can be beat and defeated in the process of ultimately obtaining that victory both in mind and body. Today's Superman is man with many moral quandaries that is prone to screwing up especially through rash decisions that can lead to getting his ass handed to him every now and then...this is even more so the case now with the "New 52" version of Superman. Problem is most at large outside of those who read comics don't know this version exists. All that they think exists is his earlier depiction which has been cemented into place with the Donnerverse and following movies as well as the earlier Tv series (Smallville excluded). If they keep on track with this more "comically" aligned character with that which exists in the comics today (along with more overall character depth to this new DC world) and they expand his rouges gallery with that which exists today as well this franchise will do very well from here on out.
I know the movie wasn't necessarily as good as ...lets say..."The Dark Knight", but I thought it was very good, probably about as good as a "Superman" movie could be. I really enjoyed it and I look forward to future installments!
When I read Watchmen originally, I loved it. But then, the more I thought about it, and really settled in on the themes and concepts, I realized that it does not deserve all the accolades. Yes, it's a great graphic novel, but it has a flaw which ruins it for me. And that is actually the character of Dr. Manhattan. If you know what a Deux Ex Machina is, the story demands it, and in fact won't work without one, and that is exactly what Dr. Manhattan is. Deus Ex Machina literally means 'God Machine'. In the very very early days of live theater, I'm talking way WAY back, the morality plays which were being put on for the masses would inevitably end with 'God' swooping down at the end to pass judgment on everyone, and decides how the story would end. The God character would be lowered in on a crane of some sort, or a boom, but however they did it, the device they used was called 'The God Machine' - the Deus Ex Machina. The phrase came to mean 'any arbitrary, device-like resolution to an otherwise untenable quandary' as a resolution to a dramatic story. In other words, imagine a movie with someone lost at sea, and just as he is about to be eaten by sharks, at the end of the movie all of a sudden, from out of nowhere, an empty boat appeared right next to him, he climbs aboard, radios in that he is ok, turns on the engine and goes home. It's unsatisfying dramatically. It's not a real resolution, it's completely arbitrary. and people don't like it - they consider it a cop-out, or worse. Dr. Manhattan is the fulcrum upon which the entire Watchmen story hinges, and he is entirely arbitrary as a character. The situations he is in, the things he does, that character simply would not ever DO those things. A Godlike being just would not have ever been involved with a small gang of wannabe heroes in the first place. He more than likely would never have taken sides in a war, he wouldn't have been unaware of Veidt's plans, now would he have been unaware of the cancer in his friends and acquaintances. And so on and so on. If the character had behaved in a manner consistent with what he actually was, the story of Watchmen would have been impossible. So, rather then being brilliant, the story is fatally crippled by being based entirely upon one large 'Deus Ex Machina'. It's still a good book, but hardly one of the 'Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century', as it has been hailed. Ah well, just my 2 cents about Watchmen. And yes, the DC is MUCH better, if you have the Blu, do watch it. But anyway, it is that Deus Ex affliction which has always dogged the character of Superman - he has been written as invincible, invulnerable, super intelligent, super nice, able to win any conflict, never truly challenged, can fly, breathe in space, fly into a sun, shoot lasers out of his eyes, freezy breath, everything. Basically he is just one walking Deus Ex Machina himself. And that is why so many people find the character dull, or just uninteresting. And also why he has had to be toned down over the last several years.
