So the R rated Extended Cut of Batman v Superman will come to Theaters.

[chozo_hybrid]

As someone who thought it was just okay, film definitely has problems, I hope they don't release it in theaters. It would make me feel a bit cheated really, especially if it actually improves the film (doubtful, but hey, could happen.) to a point of making it work better.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

This has apparently been floating around for a couple of days but I have only just seen it, and it is perfect.

Zack Snyder and David Goyer's reboot of Spider-Man

Again using theories:

This is a Batman that is unhinged because Joker in this universe killed Robin. His whole Moral Comapass changed. So there is that point in Batfleck's life that he was the traditional "No Kill" Batman.

 

[MCerberus]

The only thing more annoying than someone who claims brilliance while having no single creative thought in their heads: someone who does that while being an edgelord.

So the movie was already on-track to be profitable. My question is how much of WB's overhead was supposed to come out of profits for this film. In any case, there's something drastically wrong with the structure of the movie division, even if it's just a ton of people desperately attempting to save their performance bonuses.

 

[WonkyWarmaiden]

Christ, I could barely sit through it the first time so why the hell would I want to sit through it AGAIN? To see Jesse Eisenberg twitch around like a jackass for thirty more minutes of run time as they try and tie all the scattered story threads together into some semblance of a cohesive plot? Yeah, no thanks. Just wait for the Blu-ray and fast forward to the cool parts.

If they're just going to release the extended cut anyway then why did they even cut anything from the initial release? It's not like an R rating would stop people from seeing a movie that has Batman and Superman going head to head in it and Deadpool did very well a couple of months ago. DC/WB should have seen that and released the uncut version first off.

 

[hermes]

Yes, that is what that movie needs... more "adult" content.

But I digress... if the question is whether I will see it or not, count me out. Maybe I will download it when it gets available, and that is a big "maybe". I feel like I wasted enough of my time with that movie with a single screening, there is no way I would pay twice to double the pain since it was clear that, if they believe R rated content is what that movie needs, they and I are not on the same page.

 

[maninahat]

I hope this idea crashes and burns and makes WB look like complete morons, because if not then this blatantly desperate attempt to make their movie look successful is going to set a terrible precedent. Do we really want to see a trend where seeing the movie in the first month means you're not going to see the whole movie? Or where crap movies have a whole bunch of cut footage re-edited back into them to try to fool people into seeing it a second time? And don't fool yourself, we're talking about Hollywood, if this foolishness actually brings in some noticeable money for WB, then you know full well it's not stopping with this movie.

In practise though, all that will happen is that the people who really enjoyed a movie the first time around are going to watch it again (as they would anyway), and the people who disliked it are going to ignore the re-release (as they would anyway). I don't think it will work well for BvS because the movie sucked and too few people liked it, but in principle I have no problem with re-releasing a different version of something. Which version of Blade Runner, Star Wars originals and Apocalypse Now are we up to now these days?

 

[mduncan50]

I hope this idea crashes and burns and makes WB look like complete morons, because if not then this blatantly desperate attempt to make their movie look successful is going to set a terrible precedent. Do we really want to see a trend where seeing the movie in the first month means you're not going to see the whole movie? Or where crap movies have a whole bunch of cut footage re-edited back into them to try to fool people into seeing it a second time? And don't fool yourself, we're talking about Hollywood, if this foolishness actually brings in some noticeable money for WB, then you know full well it's not stopping with this movie.

In practise though, all that will happen is that the people who really enjoyed a movie the first time around are going to watch it again (as they would anyway), and the people who disliked it are going to ignore the re-release (as they would anyway). I don't think it will work well for BvS because the movie sucked and too few people liked it, but in principle I have no problem with re-releasing a different version of something. Which version of Blade Runner, Star Wars originals and Apocalypse Now are we up to now these days?

I have no issue with a directors edition DVD/Blu Ray or whatever, but releasing a different edition of a movie into the theaters a month after it was first released is just insulting. Of the movies you listed the quickest turn around from the original cut to the Director's Cut was ten years for Blade Runner.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Yes, that is what that movie needs... more "adult" content.

But I digress... if the question is whether I will see it or not, count me out. Maybe I will download it when it gets available, and that is a big "maybe". I feel like I wasted enough of my time with that movie with a single screening, there is no way I would pay twice to double the pain since it was clear that, if they believe R rated content is what that movie needs, they and I are not on the same page.

I will at least just say this:

This movie will be irrelevent for the years to come once the other DC/WB movies will come out.

But one thing I am worried about and this is something I dread about the Marvel movies aswell is that these Superhero movies will be less about standalone stories and more about "setting up future movie plots"

I mean Civil War's main plot with Captain America and Iron Man's conflict will be deluted with the side plots of setting up Black Panther and Spiderman. Heck Spiderman's appearence was probably a reshoot.

 

[hermes]

Yes, that is what that movie needs... more "adult" content.

But I digress... if the question is whether I will see it or not, count me out. Maybe I will download it when it gets available, and that is a big "maybe". I feel like I wasted enough of my time with that movie with a single screening, there is no way I would pay twice to double the pain since it was clear that, if they believe R rated content is what that movie needs, they and I are not on the same page.

I will at least just say this:

This movie will be irrelevent for the years to come once the other DC/WB movies will come out.

But one thing I am worried about and this is something I dread about the Marvel movies aswell is that these Superhero movies will be less about standalone stories and more about "setting up future movie plots"

I mean Civil War's main plot with Captain America and Iron Man's conflict will be deluted with the side plots of setting up Black Panther and Spiderman. Heck Spiderman's appearence was probably a reshoot.

Yeah, that has definitely been a problem with Avengers 2 and even the Antman vs Falcon scene in Antman, they have a distinct feeling of being disconnected with everything else around it. Which was a problem with a lot of scenes in the BvS movie...

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Yes, that is what that movie needs... more "adult" content.

But I digress... if the question is whether I will see it or not, count me out. Maybe I will download it when it gets available, and that is a big "maybe". I feel like I wasted enough of my time with that movie with a single screening, there is no way I would pay twice to double the pain since it was clear that, if they believe R rated content is what that movie needs, they and I are not on the same page.

I will at least just say this:

This movie will be irrelevent for the years to come once the other DC/WB movies will come out.

But one thing I am worried about and this is something I dread about the Marvel movies aswell is that these Superhero movies will be less about standalone stories and more about "setting up future movie plots"

I mean Civil War's main plot with Captain America and Iron Man's conflict will be deluted with the side plots of setting up Black Panther and Spiderman. Heck Spiderman's appearence was probably a reshoot.

Yeah, that has definitely been a problem with Avengers 2 and even the Antman vs Falcon scene in Antman, they have a distinct feeling of being disconnected with everything else around it. Which was a problem with a lot of scenes in the BvS movie...

Exactly as I fear with Civil War. Its not Captain America movie its an Avengers movie (and inspired by a Comic Book that was more a entire Marvel event comic)

And honestly when it comes to BvS I knew it was gonna be "Setting Up the DC universe: The Movie" the moment they revealed Wonder Woman and called it "Dawn of Justice"

 

[JamesStone]

How much are we willing to bet we actually see him brand people?

Is this a big issue for Batman? It's not a lethal injury, and he's never been afraid to seriously injure people to stop crime. Broken bones, broken limbs, internal damage, lost teeth, etc. Those are all fair game. But branding is "going too far" ?

I don't get it.

In the movie it is explained that when a criminal is branded by Batman he is immediately murdered by the other criminals because... reasons? Now in the movie it is not made clear whether he is aware of this consequence or not, but I find it silly to think that the "World's Greatest Detective" isn't able to put two and two together when the people he brands turn up dead, I think he just doesn't particularly care. So yeah, believe it or not, it actually is a lethal injury. I'd actually love to see the Joker brand people with Batman's mark to get rid of people while keeping his own hands clean.

The Batman brand is reserved for the type of people that tend to get lynched in jail if their crimes become known, IE, pedophiles, rapists, sex traffickers and the sort. Usually, unless the case is overtly public, these dudes can live out their sentence without too much hassle because asking "what're you in for" can get you a swift punch in the teeth in an American prison so it's not too asked, and the guys ballsy enough to ask can be lied to. The Batman Brand ensures they have no way to hide what they did.

Essentially, the Brand is like a judge's signature for a death sentence if it was called by mob rule.

 

[JamesStone]

Triple post apparently. Man, that's fucking up, hein?

 

[JamesStone]

Double post please ignore

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Again using theories:

This is a Batman that is unhinged because Joker in this universe killed Robin. His whole Moral Comapass changed. So there is that point in Batfleck's life that he was the traditional "No Kill" Batman.

What kind of moral compass says "Kill dudes, but only with vehicle-mounted weapons. Killing fools with conventional fire arms or in hand to hand combat is a no-no."?

And then there's the whole "Zack Snyder doesn't really think Batman kills" thing.

Something to factor into the equation though is that in the recent Suicide Squad trailers, the Batmobile has no machine guns. So either Batman didn't kill at that point, which is probably before Man of Steel, and Joker killed Robin after Harley Quinn was captured, or Batman decided that after his bestest friend of a whole 5 minutes died, he should honor his memory and stop killing people. Unless again, Batman doesn't really kill in the DCEU and they'll sweep it under the rug like they did with Superman.

 

[springheeljack]

Why are people talking about this movie like it was a box office bomb? It has been extremely successful though no doubt less profitable then they originally intended

 

[mduncan50]

I will at least just say this:

This movie will be irrelevent for the years to come once the other DC/WB movies will come out.

I truly hope you're right, and that they are able to get back on track so that there are good DC movies being released for years to come.

But one thing I am worried about and this is something I dread about the Marvel movies aswell is that these Superhero movies will be less about standalone stories and more about "setting up future movie plots"

We've talked about this before, but I'm not particularly concerned about this, because every time it happens it bites the studio in the ass, specifically Sony's Amazing Spider-Man 2, that ended the franchise it was trying to kick start, and WB with BvS, which I'm hoping doesn't have such a lasting effect, but that they learn their lesson.

I mean Civil War's main plot with Captain America and Iron Man's conflict will be deluted with the side plots of setting up Black Panther and Spiderman. Heck Spiderman's appearence was probably a reshoot.

Well, since we've not seen the movie yet, I can't say you're completely wrong about that, however everyone from the directors to the actors to the early critic reviews are saying that it is very much Caps movie, and his story, he's just brought some friends along for the ride. And if I remember correctly, when they were writing the movie they were very much aware of the negotiations that were happening with Sony, so there were basically two slightly different scripts written up, one with him and one without him. Even with that, the deal was reached just before filming started, and they delayed shooting just to make sure everything was properly in place for his involvement.

 

[twistedmic]

If i recall correctly only two known people have been branded by the bat but that was back before we knew as the audience he was okay with killing criminals in the streets so it's kind of a moot point in the aftermath of it all to Bruce or it should be at least... Why would Alfred even bring it up with concern if this Universe's Batman is already okay with killing people anyway?... gah more inconsistency in the writing.

From what I recall, Batman only killed a handful of criminals in certain situations-

Spoiler

He killed when he was trying to hijack the Kryptonite shipment to make a weapon to kill Superman if/when he tried to destroy the world (fairly extreme situation).
He also killed when he was rescuing Superman's mother (and possibly his own by proxy/symbolically), and even then the person he directly and deliberately killed (the guy with the flamethrower) he didn't have very many options to get himself and Martha out of the room alive. Yes, two guys were blown up by a grenade that Batman kicked towards them, but they threw the grenade in the first place and there's not much you can do to dispose of a live grenade on such short notice (Batman kicking it away could possibly have been sheer reflex).

So while Batman did kill in this movie, when he was shown to have grown crueler, more violent and more unhinged than previous versions, he did not kill to the extent of the Punisher, Judge Dredd, Robocop or any number of comic book and movie characters.

 

[Something Amyss]

Christ, I could barely sit through it the first time so why the hell would I want to sit through it AGAIN? To see Jesse Eisenberg twitch around like a jackass for thirty more minutes of run time as they try and tie all the scattered story threads together into some semblance of a cohesive plot? Yeah, no thanks. Just wait for the Blu-ray and fast forward to the cool parts.

If they're just going to release the extended cut anyway then why did they even cut anything from the initial release? It's not like an R rating would stop people from seeing a movie that has Batman and Superman going head to head in it and Deadpool did very well a couple of months ago. DC/WB should have seen that and released the uncut version first off.

Warner is very tied to traditional "logic," which dictates R movies are a death kiss and longer runtimes generally mean fewer seats sold. With a huge budget and a lot riding on this, it's not surprising they opted to play it safe. This would basically be trying to salvage what they could from their "safe bet."

Yeah, that has definitely been a problem with Avengers 2 and even the Antman vs Falcon scene in Antman, they have a distinct feeling of being disconnected with everything else around it. Which was a problem with a lot of scenes in the BvS movie...

I didn't mind it so much in Age of Ultron, but when I read about what Ant-Man was going to be before Marvel's intervention and enforced MCU material? Yeah, I want to see that movie instead.

Also, Iron Man 2 could have been an awesome movie if they didn't work around building up other plots. Well, I say awesome, but I mean relatively so. I don't think most of the MCU is particularly brilliant. I think there are a few bright moments and most of the other movies are...good. And I think if you strip out the extra layers, Iron Man 2 would have been sort of in the high "good" tier.

TBH, I'm not sure he world building is BVS' problem, though. I think the problem is that they tried to cram like four movies into one. Man of Steel 2, a Battfleck movie, the actual BVS stuff, and the Death of Superman. These are all fertile soil for a good movie to take root, but crammed together, it was always going to be a mess. They could have done world building in those movies and I think it would have worked better than this final product.

I would actually love to have a movie exploring whether Superman is needed and whether he's dangerous (In the DCEU, he is definitely dangerous). It just seems like maybe you shouldn't be burying that in the three other movies that this one was trying to cram together.

 

[axlryder]

Great, now I can not go see it TWICE! Such value.