Film Zack Snyder's REBEL MOON

Salt Bailly

Auburn, not Ginger.
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
12,022
Location
Valinor


Blatantly obvious that this started off as a Star Wars spin-off, but it looks like it has potential. Bit weird to see Daario Naharises 1 and 2 on-screen at the same time.
 
Really don’t like his style and scene choices a lot of the time. Though I appreciate comic books fans seem to get suitably wet over it and I may not be the audience. Great trailer though.

Will probably be a shittier Dune, which isn’t that bad a thing.
 
It's looking like a mish mash of Riddick. Dune. SW. Some StarCraft and bunch of other sci-fi. Probably an entertaining watch.
 
I get shades of that shit Sucker Punch movie that Snyder did. Huge original IP he wrote that sank without a trace.
 
Will be interesting to see how well this does considering Disney shelved the idea when it was set in the Star Wars universe. It just looks like it's another seven samurai remake, but I guess it's the details that will make it work or not. The issue is Snyder himself wrote it or at least had a large hand in it, and while he has an eye for spectacle, his writing is often less so. Still. I'll be watching. I've enjoyed a lot of Snyder work, so hopefully I enjoy this too.
 
Chairman Steve said:
I get shades of that shit Sucker Punch movie that Snyder did. Huge original IP he wrote that sank without a trace.
Click to expand...
Because if there are no stakes, then all the dazzle won't mean anything. He has a bad habit of making it obvious no one important is at risk of dying, then at that point it's impossible to suspend belief. So he'll make over the top action scenes but they're boring because there isn't any risk. RLM did a good video on it
 
CGI looks horrible and underfunded.

Very loud and chaotic, don't have high hopes from the trailer.
 
Norman Brownbutter said:
Yes. 300, watchmen, dawn of the dead.
Click to expand...
300 I guess, although he seemed to miss the point of the comic, the one character was describing the 300 as these amazing hero's and the bad guys as these monsters, and Snyder decided to take it literally. Watchmen basically copied the book directly and was considered disappointing to many. DotD I remember being decent
 
Wumminator said:
watchmen was awful.

300 might be good. Not watched in years. Can’t imagine it’s held up.

But even if I give you those films - they must all be two decades old at this point?
Click to expand...

Watchmen was always going to be a hard book to translate to the screen. The version the went to cinema, yeah. Not great. The Directors cut? Brilliant. The ultimate cut... I dont feel the story of the black freighter cuts in as well as it does in the book. But worthy of a watch none the less.

300 is as good today as it was then, why wouldn't it?

As for how old they are, your question was has he "ever" not has he "recently". Dont move the goal posts just cos you wanna hate something. Its unbecoming.
 
atkar83 said:
300 I guess, although he seemed to miss the point of the comic, the one character was describing the 300 as these amazing hero's and the bad guys as these monsters, and Snyder decided to take it literally. Watchmen basically copied the book directly and was considered disappointing to many. DotD I remember being decent
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I still enjoyed it. As for Watchman, much like his other comic book efforts, his directors cut of the film is much better received. It seems he is continually saddled with executives who dont want his 3 and 4 hour cuts in the cinemas. Even though thats where his audiences tend to enjoy his work. The cuts to get the movies into the cinemas are always horrible and strip out context to other things left in. And thats always going to suck.
 
Norman Brownbutter said:
Maybe, but I still enjoyed it. As for Watchman, much like his other comic book efforts, his directors cut of the film is much better received. It seems he is continually saddled with executives who dont want his 3 and 4 hour cuts in the cinemas. Even though thats where his audiences tend to enjoy his work. The cuts to get the movies into the cinemas are always horrible and strip out context to other things left in. And thats always going to suck.
Click to expand...

Apparently he wanted this to be 3 or 4 hours long but Netflix convinced him to split it in two.
 
Wumminator said:
watchmen was awful.

300 might be good. Not watched in years. Can’t imagine it’s held up.

But even if I give you those films - they must all be two decades old at this point?
Click to expand...
300 and Watchmen (the director's cut) were okayish films, but it was quite hilarious how obviously Snyder missed the point of the graphic novels. I doubt he's a very intelligent person in general, his focus seems to be on things looking "cool".
dumbo said:
Oh nice another opportunity to not watch John Carter on Mars.
Click to expand...
That was a masterpiece.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Apparently he wanted this to be 3 or 4 hours long but Netflix convinced him to split it in two.
Click to expand...

Had a little google after reading this, and yeah, Netflix chairman Scott Stuber says movies under an 2 hours perform better. To which Zack told him "if you force me to make this 2 hours, it's going to be shit. No one will care about any of these characters" And so Scott had to offer him 2 movies.

Seems super weird that Netflix users dont like movies that are 2+ hours but will sit and binge 5 to 10 hours of a tv show when it drops.

Im a lot less enthused about it all now. I was thinking that being Synder it would be two 3 hour movies. But it appears it's just 2 sub 90 minute movies separated over 4 months. Seems kinda dumb to me.
 
Looks potentially good, only red flag there is the 'only on netflix'.
 
Netflix are consistent a$$holes but even I'm surprised they gave Zacky another chance after that god awful Vegas-heist- zombie movie.

He's a poor film director. He's Uwe Boll with a budget.

edit: And why does he overcompensate on the running time ? His films need to be 3+ hours long for nothing other than pure indulgence. There's nothing remotely interesting or insightful in the characters he creates. They're marginally 2 dimensional.
 
And 300 and Watchman, again he offers nothing other than visuals. Both 'paint-by-numbers' films.
 
I’ve got nothing against directors who are style-over-substance, as there is definitely a place for that. But Snyder’s style seems to have settled on ‘grey sludge in slow motion - for four hours’.

Off-brand Star Wars gets a hard pass from me.
 
Looks like someone put Start Wars and Dune into a blender. Presumably on the 0.5 speed setting since its Snyder
 
Snyder desperately needs someone to have a word and let him know he can make fun 1 hour 40 films too.
 
dumbo said:
Is it actually worth watching? it got such bad reviews I was almost tempted at one time to watch it but I remember it being quite long. And Stanton is an important guy in animation, so you could probably convince me.

This Snyder shit on the other hand, I will never watch.
Click to expand...
I was being somewhat facetious and I'll be honest, I don't remember it enough so I wouldn't want to lead you astray. I seem to vaguely remember not understanding why it had been killed by the reviews in such a way, and I remember it being a commercial flop, but if I remember correctly, there was also some contextual reason to that (released at a bad date? Can't remember). I think it's just one of those fascinating mammoth flops that isn't as bad as half the stuff that gets massive praise and a lot of success - but that might be my memory playing tricks 11 years down the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.