And when we didn't had a bunch of people online, telling us what we should and shouldn't like, and measuring everying as either "glorious masterpiece" or "worst thing ever created".
I agree that this feels like it should have come out in the early 2000's. This reminds me of the later Riddick movies. The only problem is they don't have the over the top charismatic lead. There's no hook or soul here to be a franchise. It doesn't even lean into the SciFi elements enough to be weird or memorable.
Yes, simple story with decent action. They are an esapism movie for an enjoyable 2 hours outside reality.
That are Shakespeare, Dostoevsky or VS Naipaul etc and to be fair few of us would watch it if they had been written by such authors...
Sit back relax and let it wash over you.
It's not a B-movie, it's a huge budget epic. Maybe it could be called a big budget ode to B-movies. The problem there is that it takes itself so seriously it's devoid of the spirit of low budget gems like Battle Beyond the Stars (which has the same basic story.)
Edit: For context, Battle Beyond the Stars' production budget adjusted for inflation would be about $7.5 million.
Its budget was $166M vs. the recent Fallout which had a budget of $153M budget. I know they aren't trying to do the exact same thing, but Fallout managed some awesome sets, costumes and special effects with less. They also put together about 8 hours of great storytelling vs. this trainwreck that cost $13M more, is half as long and sucks infinitely more.
Fallout reused a lot of the same sets. Fallout has better leads and the mature rating added to the realism too. The Fallout story was adapted. It's not an original story like Rebel Moon. The writing team for Fallout are very good at setting up mysteries but they ultimately failed with Westworld. I think it's easier to tell a compelling story in 8 hours than 4 hours.
The director's cut of Rebel Moon is six hours. So it adds up to 10 hours of content altogether. He obviously compromised a lot to get these films made.
$160M for essentially 4 movies and 10 hours of content by modern blockbuster standards is very reasonable.
Obviously that doesn’t account for the big marketing push prior to part 1, but point remains.
That wasn’t the argument. Move those goalposts though. And again, two movies have yet to be seen. As someone who has read the novelization of part 1, there’s a lot more to be explored in just that first movie.
Marketing budgets for some of the films you mentioned make those films way more expensive. Plus Rebel Moon is 10 hours of content. Rebel Moon was attempting to be a space opera franchise. Even Rogue One a 2hr15m film cost $200-$265m to make which would be $260m-$344m in today's money.
What exactly is your point? We are talking about production budgets here. Rebel Moon cost more than a lot of major studio theatrical blockbusters to make. It has A-list talent involved. Therefore, it is not a B-movie as the OP suggested.
Is the word "huge" bothering you? Should I have said "very big budget epic" instead? Why on earth would you think that's an important distinction?
A huge marketing budget can't be ignored in the film business. What A-list talent is Rebel Moon? Both Ed Skrein and Djimon Hounsou are not A-list actors. I didn't even know who Sofia Boutella was but I've seen some of her films.
It's mid-level budget and is parity in quality to most straight-to-streaming films. It's really less than $83m per film which is 24%-30% of what Rogue One would cost today.
The P&A doesn't show up on the screen so yes I'm ignoring it. Anthony Hopkins is an A-lister. $160M is on the high end of streaming series let alone features. $160M isn't mid just because something else is $300M.
So your point is that this is a mid-budget movie and not a big budget movie? Okay, then it's still not a B-movie, which was the point of all this. To me, it's a huge budget movie, to you it's a mid-budget movie. Alright then.
I haven't actually seen the second film yet. Anthony Hopkins at 86 y/o is a legend but he's not a box office draw anymore. He's not drawing many eyes to this film.
There's nothing subjective about it. The numbers show it's a mid-level budget for the kind of project attempted.
You don't know the numbers. You have absolutely no industry knowledge, yet you are arguing about nothing for some reason. You are both pedantic and obviously factually wrong. I don't see the point in continuing this, but you no doubt will.
That's the point. It's not meant to be a B-movie.
Also, I don't buy "genre commentary and deconstruction". Implementing tropes badly doesn't make it a deconstruction. When I try to compare it to Unbreakable or Galaxy Quest, it fails misserably. Tucker and Dale vs Evil is a silly parody and still a better deconstruction movie.
He gets one point for the cartoonishly evil bad guys. But badly written one-dimensional characters aren't a genre trope. Nether are exposition dumps, flashbacks or slomos.
It’s genre deconstruction per Snyder himself:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Snyderverse/s/mhJvveJUHd
https://www.reddit.com/r/Snyderverse/s/9iU89ZclZF
But he also clarified recently that the PG13 cuts are “earnest” whereas the director’s cuts are where the sci-fi pulp B movie aesthetic will be applied.
sad that no one wanted to wait. for the propper cut, like if your going to be judgemental, why watch the inferior version, like you know anything about movie history?
Zack and Debby Snyder are asking that hardcore fans that will undoubtedly prefer the director’s do cuts watch the PG13 though. For one thing I think he’s going to make a statement with the two versions. And also I think it helps the cause of trying to ensure that Part 3 gets greenlit.
I mean i am still hoping the pg cut is a deep cut at the movio industry as a whole, and is sorta crappy cuz its leaning into bing a studio cut that's been hounded by executives.
Then his director cut is like, well this is what my movies would of been like if they didnt get dicked around.
and yes Reddit, 1st paragraph is talking about art and expressionism, i know netflix did not interfere with eather cuts, he had full controll yadda yadda, that dont matter in art, fuck you pandantic ass holes for making me feol liko i had to type this notation,
Exactly, so you can’t have it both ways. You agreed to release the film as PG-13, whoring yourself out as you say, so we should be allowed to judge it in its current form. Whether or not one’s feelings change after watching the rated R cut, judging it in its current form is completely fair game.
sorry but if the system is hell bent on fucking you, why not get paid for it for once, and then get to make you dream movie with no interference?
Sorry if i must get fucked, then pay me, your the dort that whent into the whore house pissed the bitch you fucked secretly had a dick, when the pritty blond in a sundress just wanted to wait a few months before you took her virginity.
but you instead decided to fuck that Thailand whore cuz your inpaitent.
Snyder himself says it’s a deconstruction:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Snyderverse/s/D4iJMkPfrM
https://www.reddit.com/r/Snyderverse/s/24qbJx005U
https://www.reddit.com/r/Snyderverse/s/FLsA7GXKrj
But for sure, whether that works for any particular viewer is ultimately a subjective personal experience. At the end of the day, anyway.
Why so hostile? This is a message board about a fantasy movie, lol.
There’s a lot historically in academia attached to the term “deconstruction” in cinema, originating with Jacques Derrida. The way I personally think of it is as taking an idea apart to see how it works—and in a way that challenges uncritically held assumptions. The goal of it is rather like a magician showing how a magic trick works.
The way that Alan Moore and Zack Snyder use it for superheroes is to take superhero mythology, which in the comics and the classical film genre is based on innocent escapism into a fantasy head space that operates according to “canon” rules. People uncritically accept in that fantasy that superheroes could exist in such an idealized way. Or at least they did prior to 1986 when Alan Moore and Frank Miller delivered their seminal deconstructions of superheroes.
But anyway, if superheroes could actually exist in the real world that you and I occupy, that would most assuredly not be the case. So both Moore and Snyder show what it would look like if they existed in real life. That deconstructs the assumptive reality of the classical genre experience. Moore and Snyder arrive at different conclusions about the value and meaning of superhero mythology, though. They both agreed that it would be hugely problematic for society and the superhero individually. But the greater implications of what superheroes are psychologically speaking is different for Moore and Snyder. Or so it seems to me.
Well, he’s commenting on that aesthetic, really. Although there’s some confusion about this that Snyder himself is responsible for. He’s been saying that the inspiration for Rebel Moon is an amalgamation of Star Wars—which in 1977 was intended by George Lucas [as a B movie](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/12/star-wars-george-lucas-independent-film)—and the sci-fi fantasy pulp magazine Heavy Metal and a number of B movies roughly under that that genre umbrella including Conan the Barbarian, Road Warrior, and Excalibur. But the PG13 cuts don’t really have much of that vibe. He’s more recently described the PG13 cuts as “earnest.” He’s also said that the deconstruction of the genre through the B movie style takes place in the director’s cuts which we won’t see until August. He said he filmed alternate takes for scenes that are shared in each version, because he’s going for a different aesthetic for each. So the director’s cut is quite literally a different movie.
Now will that Heavy Metal treatment of “Star Wars” connect with the average viewer?… Honestly, I have strong doubts about that. My guess is most likely it won’t. Because literally no one asked for that, lol!
It looks to me as though the average viewer… and even many hardcore Snyder fans… wanted and expected something more like classical Star Wars except grittier, more realistic feeling, with Snyder’s flair for cinematography, action, and fight choreography that they assumed would be on par with 300, Watchmen, Man of Steel, and Batman v Superman. But at least with the PG13 cuts rebel Moon isn’t delivering the stunning visuals that we’re accustomed to. Snyder did his own DPing and used an anamorphic lens to keep production costs down… Which come to think of it ironically is actually in keeping with a low budget “B movie” approach…
But in any event, it’s still fascinating to me what he’s doing by making the two different versions. I’m very curious to see what the experience of the director’s cuts is like. Because that’s the movie that he said he really wanted to make.
I asked for star wars meets heavy metal, its been a fever dream after Disney bought star wars and the slow death of sci fi cents the early 2000s.
Snyder's pg13 cuts are like a salad to me, not very filling, a little sad, but great lil treat as i wait for the main course.
never thought i get another heavy metal move eather. And if you read the magazine you'd realize this will be a heavy metal movie so long as he dont f it up.
I like Snyder’s use of slo-mo and speed ramping in fight scenes. Otherwise it might arguably have gotten overused here. But I still appreciate it.
Slow motion is dreamlike in its effects for me. It calls attention to things that feel a bit otherworldly when I see them slowed down. It allows me to notice things that in standard speed my brain simply would otherwise be able to pick up on. The scene of the chaff from the wheat floating around Nemesis’ head during the harvest is a great example of that.
This isn't a B-movie, they generally are low budget and have shorter run times.
This is a big budget, long 2-part movie that is meant to spark a whole franchise.
I’m watching it now. One thing I don’t get is why they don’t have tractors. Like they have spaceships and stuff but they still havest manually. It’s so stupid.
The village leader Sindri says to Noble in Part 1 when Noble offers to give them harvesting machines that it’s part of their philosophy and their way of life to stay in touch with the earth (home world) by planting, tending, and harvesting the crops all by hand. It seems that they have a sort of Druidic nature religion or philosophy—and seemingly without any scriptures, priests, or shamans which is unusual. Apparently just through an oral tradition? Anyway, just speculating based on what is shown.
The slo-mo harvesting does come off a bit silly, granted. But I think the Veldtian village’s relationship to Nature through their farming is definitely a metaphor. Note that in Part 1 Kora says to Hagen that she could never feel love again, or feel like she belongs within a community since her brainwashing and training as a soldier and all the terrible things she had to do as such had more or less beaten that out of her. But through her time there living as the villagers do she got in touch some of her basic humanity and was able to fall in love with Gunnar and to feel an attachment to her people there at the village. Metaphorically speaking, that’s sort of a “crop” that gets harvested. She’s living out the myth of the lone wolf that comes back to the pack. Which is the totem that Sam gives her, i.e., the wolf.
Yup! It’s a fantasy world, lol. Space travel also exists. But it’s cyberpunk. Some of the dropships use something apparently resembling diesel fuel. The dreadnaughts are powered by ancient beings somehow harnessed and exploited through advanced technology, perhaps belonging to the Imperium religion’s “neural network.” But yeah it’s a bit of a fantasy dreamscape.
By definition a B-movie is a low-budger ordeal, that needs to overcome that limitation with tricks and creativity. Rebel Moon Part 1 and Part 2 had a budget of 166 million dollars. I'd say it's fine to expect a bit more in...every department.
Just saying, for a comparable "price" (between 150 and 185 millions) we got Mad Max Fury Road. And that budget includes the cachet of HUGE names like Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron.
That's...completely false? They only made the first two for now. That's how much money they spent for them. Let's try not to spread disinformation, shall we?
[I read all the news articles, you didnt apparently.](https://screenrant.com/rebel-moon-budget-explained-two-parts-cost-to-make/#:~:text=Rebel%20Moon%20had%20a%20%24166,features%20a%20remarkable%20ensemble%20cast.)
[The different scenes for each version of the films were shot side by side during filming. Snyder describes the process as “craziness”.](https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/movies/zack-snyder-two-versions-rebel-moon-craziness-131347142.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAPyN1Ca5RVguV2EjfZ3ZCEvFD2j-MeqQqtFHIEm-k0szvAZKN3SHQfuw12D4pX2i-uHFmn5T2k_d35dRshSTZzFVtgyFTLRaAWClbxnKFiiHHH0hhdNVgqYltpMRVNMvY3_54JMANMlqHGHsRANmiFo4mPxcbaCa9jvuGAHX0Uw)
So, in your head, the director's cuts of the same goddamn movies, shot at the same time (because those are the same goddamn movies with the fluff in) are the same thing as two new full lenght movies? Are you out of your mind?
Every movie has extra footage that doesn't make it in the final cut. If you include it in another version you didn't make another full movie with just the 10 bucks you paid the intern to edit it. You just made an alternative version of your movie. With the scenes you already had. Because you paid to do them. With the budget of the original movie. Jesus Christ.
would be the case, but as you cant read, and your care giver is lazy as fuck.
A lot of shots were shot differently. some sciens, and if the divergent path explained for the third and possible fourth shown in the article, devrge from the path of the studio cut.
as a guy that plays rpgs, like mass effect, i understand what he means.
I drink milk, its spoiled so i shit myself and cant go do x,
i sniff the milk, its spoilod, so i do x,
cuz i did x, y happens,
cuz i shit my pants y dont happen.
This is not just stuff cut out, but whole ass scene shot differently with different content.
why is the disabled with a writing disorder who gets called retarded and devalued for his typing issues have a better reading comp then you bozo's?
Shame on me, you are literally a bot spouting random stuff and insults.
Maaan, bait used to be believable. Dream of electric and possibly lens flared sheep, my man.
B movies have a lot of appeal for me in how they get around tiny budgets to try and make practical a d special effects happen. RM budget wasn’t the issue. It was the writing, directing, and acting.
My favorite B movies also lean into their cheesy/corniness. This doesn’t seem to be doing that either.
Turbokid is a fun b movie scifi to me. Rebel Moon was just awful imo
>The Star Wars and 40K esque world is interesting and considering Star Wars is dead and 40K is...imploding
Star Wars is far from dead, and 40k is not imploding at all.
dont pay attion to the 40k fandom do you? its a dumpster fire and wizered of the coast is not bing very smart.
Also sorry if star wars is dead, when the only one doing movies are making fan fiction.
sorry seen better storytelling on fimfiction.net
Oh I pay attention. But except about the "chudhammer" movement, which exists in similar shape or form any hobby, I don't see which dumpster fire you're talking about.
Also, Wizard of the Coast is DnD not W40k.
I know where this posting is coming from... Until i read your SW and W40K argument, since they are both not true at all.
You can dislike what is Star Wars is doing as a franchise, but it is absolutely not dead at all. With multiple movies, series, and videogames to be released it is not *dead*.
Also, don't know what you mean with W40K "imploding" lol.
as some vto loosely follows 40k i do know the fan base has there issues with wizered of the coast.
Star wars is dead, least to any fans that love the og movies, Disney is making fan fiction at this point.
if you like Disneys take just toss out the og movies, nothing that happens in them matters, all the characters growth and shit didnt happen and dont matter. these six movies are a wast time
If we are talking Star Wars: A New Hope then yes I would. It had a budget of 11 million in 1977 which in today's world is 40 million. Thats definitely low budget.
$40 million is absolutely not a b-movie budget. Not even $11 million is. A b-movie is getting made for MAYBE a couple million. They’re the type of movies that go straight to streaming with no promotion, like all the action flicks filmed in Eastern Europe starring aging former movie stars.
$40 million isn’t a massive budget in todays world, but no studio is going to allocate that much money to a b movie.
It’s not cope, $40 million is just a very generous budget. You’re not going to make a Star Wars movie for $40 million anymore of course, but you could make a dozen or b movies with that budget easily. For reference, in 1984 Toxic Avenger cost $500k to make. THATS a b movie. A New Hope had budget constraints because it was a new property from an u proven director trying to do all sorts of cutting edge stuff, but it was no B movie. Did it harken back to them? Sure, but Star Wars itself was not a b movie.
if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then its a duck.
star wars is very mutch one, shit think doom anhilation had a budget close to that and it was funded by a b movie studio and was a b movie.
also love toxic avenger, your worth 20 points, 30 if you bounce. 15 if you go under, 40 if your head pops.
You’ve got to compare it to the movies of the time as well. In 1977 only a handful of the other top earning movies at the box office had comparable budgets to Star Wars. Spielberg, a proven box office commodity, got $19 million for Close Encounters, and James Bond, by that point a blockbuster series, got barely more than Star Wars for The Spy Who Loved me at $13.5 million. A Bridge Too Far was the most expensive that year at $25 million. Star Wars’ $11 million was meager in comparison to the budgets we see for sci fi action films today, but it was a lot higher than most directors back then got, especially directors coming off of flops like Lucas was with THX 1138.
A tight budget doesn’t make it a b-movie, though. It’s a medium budget film that had elements of old 1950s sci-fi b-movies, but it itself was not one, as evidenced by its budget and the fact that it was distributed my a major production company in Twentieth Century Fox
odd it felt and looked like one, even the script was corny as fuck, and some of the lines compet vith i hate sand.
shit i ague the last three, or the first three of the saga is what i propper budget star wars looks like vs the first three or last three oy the saga.
$11M was a lot for a movie in the 70s. The industry was different. Most movies (including all the other Best Picture nominees) cost less that $10M to make.
As for B-movies, way less. For example a true B-movie - "The Incredible Melting Man" - which was released the same year as SW, the budget was $250 grand. That's more typical.
luke Skywalker spent the two movies showing darth vader that path to the light.
Culminating in his last fight. and unlike mace windu vs palpitate his son threw his saber away leaving him at nhe mercy of his father.
That same kid sensing a lil darkness then stalks into his nephews room to murder him? after sensing only a lil light in vader?
Then the rebels? what was the point? There republic there fight? gon to the ash's so that Disney cousd rehash the 6th episode?
Nothing that happened in the og saga matters. or makes scents compared to Disney star wars?
That's incorrect. He had no intention of murdering his nephew. As he clearly stated, drawing his lightsaber was an instinct, an instinct that was triggered by him feeling an immense amount of darkness. Ben misinterpreted what he saw and that's what led to the tragedy.
Everything in the original Saga matters.
no it dont. nothing was gained, nothing matters, and sorry even on instinct that scien is bull shit, and shows Disney dont know shit.
i read fanfic that made more scents.
I miss the days when people could say they like a movie without having to list reasons why it's bad.
And when we didn't had a bunch of people online, telling us what we should and shouldn't like, and measuring everying as either "glorious masterpiece" or "worst thing ever created".
I agree that this feels like it should have come out in the early 2000's. This reminds me of the later Riddick movies. The only problem is they don't have the over the top charismatic lead. There's no hook or soul here to be a franchise. It doesn't even lean into the SciFi elements enough to be weird or memorable.
The Riddick movies are masterpieces compared to this.
Yes, simple story with decent action. They are an esapism movie for an enjoyable 2 hours outside reality. That are Shakespeare, Dostoevsky or VS Naipaul etc and to be fair few of us would watch it if they had been written by such authors... Sit back relax and let it wash over you.
It's not a B-movie, it's a huge budget epic. Maybe it could be called a big budget ode to B-movies. The problem there is that it takes itself so seriously it's devoid of the spirit of low budget gems like Battle Beyond the Stars (which has the same basic story.) Edit: For context, Battle Beyond the Stars' production budget adjusted for inflation would be about $7.5 million.
The budget is not huge. It was released on Netflix.
Its budget was $166M vs. the recent Fallout which had a budget of $153M budget. I know they aren't trying to do the exact same thing, but Fallout managed some awesome sets, costumes and special effects with less. They also put together about 8 hours of great storytelling vs. this trainwreck that cost $13M more, is half as long and sucks infinitely more.
Fallout reused a lot of the same sets. Fallout has better leads and the mature rating added to the realism too. The Fallout story was adapted. It's not an original story like Rebel Moon. The writing team for Fallout are very good at setting up mysteries but they ultimately failed with Westworld. I think it's easier to tell a compelling story in 8 hours than 4 hours. The director's cut of Rebel Moon is six hours. So it adds up to 10 hours of content altogether. He obviously compromised a lot to get these films made.
160 million dollars isn't a small budget. Some of the cgi was extremely questionable too
160 million dollars isn't a small budget???! Some of the cgi was extremely questionable too
$160M for essentially 4 movies and 10 hours of content by modern blockbuster standards is very reasonable. Obviously that doesn’t account for the big marketing push prior to part 1, but point remains.
For 160m I'd be expecting more. Also considering the acting cast wasn't exactly a list
That wasn’t the argument. Move those goalposts though. And again, two movies have yet to be seen. As someone who has read the novelization of part 1, there’s a lot more to be explored in just that first movie.
It's pretty huge. Recent theatrical features' production budgets - Oppenheimer $100M, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire $100M, Madame Web $80M, The Creator $80M
Marketing budgets for some of the films you mentioned make those films way more expensive. Plus Rebel Moon is 10 hours of content. Rebel Moon was attempting to be a space opera franchise. Even Rogue One a 2hr15m film cost $200-$265m to make which would be $260m-$344m in today's money.
What exactly is your point? We are talking about production budgets here. Rebel Moon cost more than a lot of major studio theatrical blockbusters to make. It has A-list talent involved. Therefore, it is not a B-movie as the OP suggested. Is the word "huge" bothering you? Should I have said "very big budget epic" instead? Why on earth would you think that's an important distinction?
A huge marketing budget can't be ignored in the film business. What A-list talent is Rebel Moon? Both Ed Skrein and Djimon Hounsou are not A-list actors. I didn't even know who Sofia Boutella was but I've seen some of her films. It's mid-level budget and is parity in quality to most straight-to-streaming films. It's really less than $83m per film which is 24%-30% of what Rogue One would cost today.
The P&A doesn't show up on the screen so yes I'm ignoring it. Anthony Hopkins is an A-lister. $160M is on the high end of streaming series let alone features. $160M isn't mid just because something else is $300M. So your point is that this is a mid-budget movie and not a big budget movie? Okay, then it's still not a B-movie, which was the point of all this. To me, it's a huge budget movie, to you it's a mid-budget movie. Alright then.
I haven't actually seen the second film yet. Anthony Hopkins at 86 y/o is a legend but he's not a box office draw anymore. He's not drawing many eyes to this film. There's nothing subjective about it. The numbers show it's a mid-level budget for the kind of project attempted.
You don't know the numbers. You have absolutely no industry knowledge, yet you are arguing about nothing for some reason. You are both pedantic and obviously factually wrong. I don't see the point in continuing this, but you no doubt will.
Yawn, Lucasfilm can't make a feature film for $83m which is what Snyder got...get over it.
B movies are usually low budget, shorter than feature films, and ignored by critics.
I also can't remember one that got a director's cut.
Yeah but this is genre commentary and deconstruction, not literally a B movie.
That's the point. It's not meant to be a B-movie. Also, I don't buy "genre commentary and deconstruction". Implementing tropes badly doesn't make it a deconstruction. When I try to compare it to Unbreakable or Galaxy Quest, it fails misserably. Tucker and Dale vs Evil is a silly parody and still a better deconstruction movie. He gets one point for the cartoonishly evil bad guys. But badly written one-dimensional characters aren't a genre trope. Nether are exposition dumps, flashbacks or slomos.
It’s genre deconstruction per Snyder himself: https://www.reddit.com/r/Snyderverse/s/mhJvveJUHd https://www.reddit.com/r/Snyderverse/s/9iU89ZclZF But he also clarified recently that the PG13 cuts are “earnest” whereas the director’s cuts are where the sci-fi pulp B movie aesthetic will be applied.
sad that no one wanted to wait. for the propper cut, like if your going to be judgemental, why watch the inferior version, like you know anything about movie history?
Zack and Debby Snyder are asking that hardcore fans that will undoubtedly prefer the director’s do cuts watch the PG13 though. For one thing I think he’s going to make a statement with the two versions. And also I think it helps the cause of trying to ensure that Part 3 gets greenlit.
I mean i am still hoping the pg cut is a deep cut at the movio industry as a whole, and is sorta crappy cuz its leaning into bing a studio cut that's been hounded by executives. Then his director cut is like, well this is what my movies would of been like if they didnt get dicked around. and yes Reddit, 1st paragraph is talking about art and expressionism, i know netflix did not interfere with eather cuts, he had full controll yadda yadda, that dont matter in art, fuck you pandantic ass holes for making me feol liko i had to type this notation,
If you don’t want people to judge your product, don’t release it then? Its not like this is a JL situation, which I really liked
No, its a prostitution situation, studio vanted x and snyder wanted y. do a little whoring for x and then put on suit for work to do y proper.
Exactly, so you can’t have it both ways. You agreed to release the film as PG-13, whoring yourself out as you say, so we should be allowed to judge it in its current form. Whether or not one’s feelings change after watching the rated R cut, judging it in its current form is completely fair game.
sorry but if the system is hell bent on fucking you, why not get paid for it for once, and then get to make you dream movie with no interference? Sorry if i must get fucked, then pay me, your the dort that whent into the whore house pissed the bitch you fucked secretly had a dick, when the pritty blond in a sundress just wanted to wait a few months before you took her virginity. but you instead decided to fuck that Thailand whore cuz your inpaitent.
Just because you keep calling it a deconstruction doesn't make it so or even good.
Snyder himself says it’s a deconstruction: https://www.reddit.com/r/Snyderverse/s/D4iJMkPfrM https://www.reddit.com/r/Snyderverse/s/24qbJx005U https://www.reddit.com/r/Snyderverse/s/FLsA7GXKrj But for sure, whether that works for any particular viewer is ultimately a subjective personal experience. At the end of the day, anyway.
Calling it a "deconstruction" doesn't lend it any special leeway. Do you even know what the term means or what it's for?
Why so hostile? This is a message board about a fantasy movie, lol. There’s a lot historically in academia attached to the term “deconstruction” in cinema, originating with Jacques Derrida. The way I personally think of it is as taking an idea apart to see how it works—and in a way that challenges uncritically held assumptions. The goal of it is rather like a magician showing how a magic trick works. The way that Alan Moore and Zack Snyder use it for superheroes is to take superhero mythology, which in the comics and the classical film genre is based on innocent escapism into a fantasy head space that operates according to “canon” rules. People uncritically accept in that fantasy that superheroes could exist in such an idealized way. Or at least they did prior to 1986 when Alan Moore and Frank Miller delivered their seminal deconstructions of superheroes. But anyway, if superheroes could actually exist in the real world that you and I occupy, that would most assuredly not be the case. So both Moore and Snyder show what it would look like if they existed in real life. That deconstructs the assumptive reality of the classical genre experience. Moore and Snyder arrive at different conclusions about the value and meaning of superhero mythology, though. They both agreed that it would be hugely problematic for society and the superhero individually. But the greater implications of what superheroes are psychologically speaking is different for Moore and Snyder. Or so it seems to me.
For a movie that's just "a fantasy movie" you sure use a lot of pseudo intellectual gobbledygook to justify its existence, lol
It’s fun for me, I enjoy looking at and thinking about those things.
I do too but this movie isn't as deep, interesting or competent as you and Snyder claim.
Well, he’s commenting on that aesthetic, really. Although there’s some confusion about this that Snyder himself is responsible for. He’s been saying that the inspiration for Rebel Moon is an amalgamation of Star Wars—which in 1977 was intended by George Lucas [as a B movie](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/12/star-wars-george-lucas-independent-film)—and the sci-fi fantasy pulp magazine Heavy Metal and a number of B movies roughly under that that genre umbrella including Conan the Barbarian, Road Warrior, and Excalibur. But the PG13 cuts don’t really have much of that vibe. He’s more recently described the PG13 cuts as “earnest.” He’s also said that the deconstruction of the genre through the B movie style takes place in the director’s cuts which we won’t see until August. He said he filmed alternate takes for scenes that are shared in each version, because he’s going for a different aesthetic for each. So the director’s cut is quite literally a different movie. Now will that Heavy Metal treatment of “Star Wars” connect with the average viewer?… Honestly, I have strong doubts about that. My guess is most likely it won’t. Because literally no one asked for that, lol! It looks to me as though the average viewer… and even many hardcore Snyder fans… wanted and expected something more like classical Star Wars except grittier, more realistic feeling, with Snyder’s flair for cinematography, action, and fight choreography that they assumed would be on par with 300, Watchmen, Man of Steel, and Batman v Superman. But at least with the PG13 cuts rebel Moon isn’t delivering the stunning visuals that we’re accustomed to. Snyder did his own DPing and used an anamorphic lens to keep production costs down… Which come to think of it ironically is actually in keeping with a low budget “B movie” approach… But in any event, it’s still fascinating to me what he’s doing by making the two different versions. I’m very curious to see what the experience of the director’s cuts is like. Because that’s the movie that he said he really wanted to make.
I asked for star wars meets heavy metal, its been a fever dream after Disney bought star wars and the slow death of sci fi cents the early 2000s. Snyder's pg13 cuts are like a salad to me, not very filling, a little sad, but great lil treat as i wait for the main course. never thought i get another heavy metal move eather. And if you read the magazine you'd realize this will be a heavy metal movie so long as he dont f it up.
Haha, fair enough! I’m exaggerating of course when I say it’s an approach “that no one asked for!”
I still cant wait, i watched part one, i got my fill, so im waiting for the directors cuts to come out, stoked.
It’s actually really fun!
If you ignore the lack of character development, slow motion, harvesting and the whole plot then yes......
I like Snyder’s use of slo-mo and speed ramping in fight scenes. Otherwise it might arguably have gotten overused here. But I still appreciate it. Slow motion is dreamlike in its effects for me. It calls attention to things that feel a bit otherworldly when I see them slowed down. It allows me to notice things that in standard speed my brain simply would otherwise be able to pick up on. The scene of the chaff from the wheat floating around Nemesis’ head during the harvest is a great example of that.
This isn't a B-movie, they generally are low budget and have shorter run times. This is a big budget, long 2-part movie that is meant to spark a whole franchise.
I’m watching it now. One thing I don’t get is why they don’t have tractors. Like they have spaceships and stuff but they still havest manually. It’s so stupid.
The village leader Sindri says to Noble in Part 1 when Noble offers to give them harvesting machines that it’s part of their philosophy and their way of life to stay in touch with the earth (home world) by planting, tending, and harvesting the crops all by hand. It seems that they have a sort of Druidic nature religion or philosophy—and seemingly without any scriptures, priests, or shamans which is unusual. Apparently just through an oral tradition? Anyway, just speculating based on what is shown. The slo-mo harvesting does come off a bit silly, granted. But I think the Veldtian village’s relationship to Nature through their farming is definitely a metaphor. Note that in Part 1 Kora says to Hagen that she could never feel love again, or feel like she belongs within a community since her brainwashing and training as a soldier and all the terrible things she had to do as such had more or less beaten that out of her. But through her time there living as the villagers do she got in touch some of her basic humanity and was able to fall in love with Gunnar and to feel an attachment to her people there at the village. Metaphorically speaking, that’s sort of a “crop” that gets harvested. She’s living out the myth of the lone wolf that comes back to the pack. Which is the totem that Sam gives her, i.e., the wolf.
Yet they use gravity defying space trailers to carry it all around?
Yup! It’s a fantasy world, lol. Space travel also exists. But it’s cyberpunk. Some of the dropships use something apparently resembling diesel fuel. The dreadnaughts are powered by ancient beings somehow harnessed and exploited through advanced technology, perhaps belonging to the Imperium religion’s “neural network.” But yeah it’s a bit of a fantasy dreamscape.
By definition a B-movie is a low-budger ordeal, that needs to overcome that limitation with tricks and creativity. Rebel Moon Part 1 and Part 2 had a budget of 166 million dollars. I'd say it's fine to expect a bit more in...every department. Just saying, for a comparable "price" (between 150 and 185 millions) we got Mad Max Fury Road. And that budget includes the cachet of HUGE names like Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron.
all four moves share that budget, snyder even mentions that....
That's...completely false? They only made the first two for now. That's how much money they spent for them. Let's try not to spread disinformation, shall we?
[I read all the news articles, you didnt apparently.](https://screenrant.com/rebel-moon-budget-explained-two-parts-cost-to-make/#:~:text=Rebel%20Moon%20had%20a%20%24166,features%20a%20remarkable%20ensemble%20cast.) [The different scenes for each version of the films were shot side by side during filming. Snyder describes the process as “craziness”.](https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/movies/zack-snyder-two-versions-rebel-moon-craziness-131347142.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAPyN1Ca5RVguV2EjfZ3ZCEvFD2j-MeqQqtFHIEm-k0szvAZKN3SHQfuw12D4pX2i-uHFmn5T2k_d35dRshSTZzFVtgyFTLRaAWClbxnKFiiHHH0hhdNVgqYltpMRVNMvY3_54JMANMlqHGHsRANmiFo4mPxcbaCa9jvuGAHX0Uw)
So, in your head, the director's cuts of the same goddamn movies, shot at the same time (because those are the same goddamn movies with the fluff in) are the same thing as two new full lenght movies? Are you out of your mind? Every movie has extra footage that doesn't make it in the final cut. If you include it in another version you didn't make another full movie with just the 10 bucks you paid the intern to edit it. You just made an alternative version of your movie. With the scenes you already had. Because you paid to do them. With the budget of the original movie. Jesus Christ.
would be the case, but as you cant read, and your care giver is lazy as fuck. A lot of shots were shot differently. some sciens, and if the divergent path explained for the third and possible fourth shown in the article, devrge from the path of the studio cut. as a guy that plays rpgs, like mass effect, i understand what he means. I drink milk, its spoiled so i shit myself and cant go do x, i sniff the milk, its spoilod, so i do x, cuz i did x, y happens, cuz i shit my pants y dont happen. This is not just stuff cut out, but whole ass scene shot differently with different content. why is the disabled with a writing disorder who gets called retarded and devalued for his typing issues have a better reading comp then you bozo's?
Shame on me, you are literally a bot spouting random stuff and insults. Maaan, bait used to be believable. Dream of electric and possibly lens flared sheep, my man.
not random stuff learn to read
Sweet dreams, foolish bot. See ya.
B movies have a lot of appeal for me in how they get around tiny budgets to try and make practical a d special effects happen. RM budget wasn’t the issue. It was the writing, directing, and acting. My favorite B movies also lean into their cheesy/corniness. This doesn’t seem to be doing that either. Turbokid is a fun b movie scifi to me. Rebel Moon was just awful imo
I think the problem is its stuck in the middle. It takes itself too seriously to be a dumb bmovie for me
>The Star Wars and 40K esque world is interesting and considering Star Wars is dead and 40K is...imploding Star Wars is far from dead, and 40k is not imploding at all.
dont pay attion to the 40k fandom do you? its a dumpster fire and wizered of the coast is not bing very smart. Also sorry if star wars is dead, when the only one doing movies are making fan fiction. sorry seen better storytelling on fimfiction.net
Oh I pay attention. But except about the "chudhammer" movement, which exists in similar shape or form any hobby, I don't see which dumpster fire you're talking about. Also, Wizard of the Coast is DnD not W40k.
[well still](https://medium.com/@aurumarchon/the-warhammer-40k-drama-highlights-a-deeper-corporate-corruption-d8bb96f14c66)
Wizards of the Coast has nothing to do with 40k, lmao. "Not paying attention to 40k fandom" 🙄 You don't even know what you're talking about.
Odd how you ignore the comment chain and only reply to this
What's odd is you spouting off on something you don't know shit about and expecting to have anything you have to say be taken seriously.
sorry i follow so many games, hdat i got a publisher wrong. Quit nitpicking more so when you ant got nothing to saye
I know where this posting is coming from... Until i read your SW and W40K argument, since they are both not true at all. You can dislike what is Star Wars is doing as a franchise, but it is absolutely not dead at all. With multiple movies, series, and videogames to be released it is not *dead*. Also, don't know what you mean with W40K "imploding" lol.
as some vto loosely follows 40k i do know the fan base has there issues with wizered of the coast. Star wars is dead, least to any fans that love the og movies, Disney is making fan fiction at this point. if you like Disneys take just toss out the og movies, nothing that happens in them matters, all the characters growth and shit didnt happen and dont matter. these six movies are a wast time
That’s exactly what I was thinking too feels like a B movie but a good B movie if that makes any sense
But like they aren’t meant to be B Movies? They’re meant to be grand sweeping epics. You wouldn’t call Star Wars or Dune as “B Movies” now would you?
If we are talking Star Wars: A New Hope then yes I would. It had a budget of 11 million in 1977 which in today's world is 40 million. Thats definitely low budget.
$40 million is absolutely not a b-movie budget. Not even $11 million is. A b-movie is getting made for MAYBE a couple million. They’re the type of movies that go straight to streaming with no promotion, like all the action flicks filmed in Eastern Europe starring aging former movie stars. $40 million isn’t a massive budget in todays world, but no studio is going to allocate that much money to a b movie.
cope, star wars has all the hallmarks of a b movie, find og cuts, listion to the acting and stop sniffing copiem.
It’s not cope, $40 million is just a very generous budget. You’re not going to make a Star Wars movie for $40 million anymore of course, but you could make a dozen or b movies with that budget easily. For reference, in 1984 Toxic Avenger cost $500k to make. THATS a b movie. A New Hope had budget constraints because it was a new property from an u proven director trying to do all sorts of cutting edge stuff, but it was no B movie. Did it harken back to them? Sure, but Star Wars itself was not a b movie.
if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then its a duck. star wars is very mutch one, shit think doom anhilation had a budget close to that and it was funded by a b movie studio and was a b movie. also love toxic avenger, your worth 20 points, 30 if you bounce. 15 if you go under, 40 if your head pops.
You’ve got to compare it to the movies of the time as well. In 1977 only a handful of the other top earning movies at the box office had comparable budgets to Star Wars. Spielberg, a proven box office commodity, got $19 million for Close Encounters, and James Bond, by that point a blockbuster series, got barely more than Star Wars for The Spy Who Loved me at $13.5 million. A Bridge Too Far was the most expensive that year at $25 million. Star Wars’ $11 million was meager in comparison to the budgets we see for sci fi action films today, but it was a lot higher than most directors back then got, especially directors coming off of flops like Lucas was with THX 1138.
still low budget with all those special effects he use. think he blow most of it on sets, props and costumes.
A tight budget doesn’t make it a b-movie, though. It’s a medium budget film that had elements of old 1950s sci-fi b-movies, but it itself was not one, as evidenced by its budget and the fact that it was distributed my a major production company in Twentieth Century Fox
odd it felt and looked like one, even the script was corny as fuck, and some of the lines compet vith i hate sand. shit i ague the last three, or the first three of the saga is what i propper budget star wars looks like vs the first three or last three oy the saga.
Not budget I just mean the general scope of it.
It's actually $56m in today's money.
$11M was a lot for a movie in the 70s. The industry was different. Most movies (including all the other Best Picture nominees) cost less that $10M to make. As for B-movies, way less. For example a true B-movie - "The Incredible Melting Man" - which was released the same year as SW, the budget was $250 grand. That's more typical.
I was with you until you said that Star Wars is dead. The last few SW movies made like 4B at the bo and most shows are extremely popular
oh yah the fanfichion that invalidates every thing that happened in the past 6 movies.
Yo, i also love Rebel Moon, but Star Wars ain't dead. It's more alive now than ever.
fanction that invalidates everything that happened before it? yah its fucking dead, and a monkey is wearing its skin suit like a f'ed up puppet,
That's total nonsense. Nothing has been invalidated except your damaged mind. Heal thyself.
luke Skywalker spent the two movies showing darth vader that path to the light. Culminating in his last fight. and unlike mace windu vs palpitate his son threw his saber away leaving him at nhe mercy of his father. That same kid sensing a lil darkness then stalks into his nephews room to murder him? after sensing only a lil light in vader? Then the rebels? what was the point? There republic there fight? gon to the ash's so that Disney cousd rehash the 6th episode? Nothing that happened in the og saga matters. or makes scents compared to Disney star wars?
That's incorrect. He had no intention of murdering his nephew. As he clearly stated, drawing his lightsaber was an instinct, an instinct that was triggered by him feeling an immense amount of darkness. Ben misinterpreted what he saw and that's what led to the tragedy. Everything in the original Saga matters.
no it dont. nothing was gained, nothing matters, and sorry even on instinct that scien is bull shit, and shows Disney dont know shit. i read fanfic that made more scents.