Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon

The director’s cut trailer is pretty dope, actually. I’m feeling more hopeful. Some of the violence oddly does justice to the devastating fire power that plasma blasters would presumably have. Like basically turning enemies into a pink mist. And that is true of some present day weapons but he’s really going all out with it in the futuristic setting. Still not sure how the sex scenes will come across. But it might work. I’m definitely looking forward to watching this to see what he had up his sleeve.

Directors cut of a movie he had full control over lmao

Netflix insisted on a PG13 two hour version of Part 1 & 2. The version Snyder pitched and actually wanted to make was R-rated and 3+ hours each. So the deal they worked out was that he filmed both versions concurrently. But you know that. What you’re observing is a non-issue.

Yea. So what’s gonna be the excuse when nobody watches this one and he makes the 24hr cut? Will that be the true vision? Orrrrrr

ironwez20 said:

Yea. So what’s gonna be the excuse when nobody watches this one and he makes the 24hr cut? Will that be the true vision? Orrrrrr

Click to expand...

Netflix considers 30M view hours (repeat, hours) for the first week to be a solid hit. PG13 cut for Part 1 got 54M view hours and Part 2 got 44M view hours. By that core metric neither film was a failure. Both were successful.

We’ll see how these R-rated cuts do in terms of the same metrics.

Eh. Sure but it wasn’t a “Star Wars killer” like many wanted

ironwez20 said:

Eh. Sure but it wasn’t a “Star Wars killer” like many wanted

Click to expand...

I agree. And I wanted that too. I’ve reconciled myself with the fact that it’s more of a popcorn flick. But for me at least it’s actually got good bones for what we both want as it continues, if it does get a Part 3.

I had no interest in the PG-13 versions, but I might watch these out of morbid curiosity. Snyder rarely disappoints when it comes to blood and gore in his movies.

I'm sure they'll still be awful though due to how heavily involved he was in writing them.

Good lord! There’s so many new scenes in that trailer, looks sufficiently bonkers.

chrisstbh said:

Directors cut of a movie he had full control over lmao

Click to expand...

He was given a 4-hour time limit and a PG-13 age limit on his 6.5-hour, R-rated movie.

That isn't full control hence the director's cut. But like Alatar said, you knew this already.

He didn’t know. Hence why he said that. A lot of us are confused as to why he can’t just make a good 1hr or 2hr film. The “directors cut” is always the true vision .

ironwez20 said:

He didn’t know. Hence why he said that. A lot of us are confused as to why he can’t just make a good 1hr or 2hr film. The “directors cut” is always the true vision .

Click to expand...

Sure, he might not know. Considering how much he has been in here and how much it's been discussed I find it highly unlikely.


"The “directors cut” is always the true vision ."

Now we are getting somewhere!!!

​

As far as I know it’s not customary to film two distinctly different versions of the film side by side, where one is PG13 and around 2 hours and the other R-rated and 3+ hours. Usually it’s just one big shoot which after reshoots and pickups results in an assembly cut. The studio has a hand in whittling that down in post production for the theater release (unless the director has final cut control which is exceedingly rare). And the director can edit together longer versions that typically include more scenes for a director cut or even multiple director cuts.

But what happened for the filming of Rebel Moon is not customary, i.e., making two distinctly different versions of the film without studio interference, but ironically where one version is the director making the version that he feels would likely have resulted from studio interference, basically that is more widely marketable for family friendly streaming platforms such as Amazon Prime, Roku, Tubi, Pluto, et al.

That being said, I would not be surprised if Zack pitched the concept of doing two versions and Netflix agreed to let that be the official stance. I think he likes the idea of drawing out a contrast between the two forms, i.e., one perfectly true to the pure creative vision and the other shaped by market forces. If that is what happened then I’m sure he would be using it consciously and artistically to make a subversive point about the industry.

Alatar said:

As far as I know it’s not customary to film two distinctly different versions of the film side by side, where one is PG13 and around 2 hours and the other R-rated and 3+ hours. Usually it’s just one big shoot which after reshoots and pickups results in an assembly cut. The studio has a hand in whittling that down in post production for the theater release (unless the director has final cut control which is exceedingly rare). And the director can edit together longer versions that typically include more scenes for a director cut or even multiple director cuts. But what happened for the filming of Rebel Moon is not customary, i.e., making two distinctly different versions of the film without studio interference, but ironically where one version is the director making the version that he feels would likely have resulted from studio interference, basically that is more widely marketable for family friendly streaming platforms such as Amazon Prime, Roku, Tubi, Pluto, et al.

Click to expand...

I'd say you summed it up quite well either. This is obviously different to how it is typically done.

I'm pretty sure the assembly cut is done immediately after filming by the editor putting all the shot footage together. Pick-ups will be done at the best opportunity at some point in the editing phase. The director has 10 weeks after being the first one to view the footage to create the director's cut. Then the studio gets involved in whatever capacity depending on what happens.
That isn't what happened here. He purposely took on the role of creating his version and version with their mandates attached.

If there was a gun put to people's heads to watch any of it I couldn't understand the problem.

ironwez20 said:

He didn’t know. Hence why he said that. A lot of us are confused as to why he can’t just make a good 1hr or 2hr film. The “directors cut” is always the true vision .

Click to expand...

A film doesn’t have to be under two hours to be good or to be successful. It certainly can be the case and often is. But I love the long form. Most of the films I love the most are long.

My favorite film experience of all time is Peter Jackson’s LotR trilogy extended editions which clocks in at a whopping 11 1/2 hours. Other films I love on the long side (3+ hours) include:

The Godfather II
The Right Stuff
The Deer Hunter
Once upon a Time in America
Watchmen (Ultimate Cut)
Ben-hur (1959)
The Seven Samurai
Barry Lyndon
Endgame
Gone with the Wind
Lawrence of Arabia
Doctor Zhivago
Spartacus
Apocalypse Now
Malcolm X
Dances With Wolves
The Last Emperor
Gettysburg

T8OO said:

Sure, he might not know. Considering how much he has been in here and how much it's been discussed I find it highly unlikely.


"The “directors cut” is always the true vision ."

Now we are getting somewhere!!!

​

Click to expand...

Well hey not everyone knows the ins and outs of some bland director guy. We all thought he had free control over this movie hence why he moved to Netflix.

Alatar said:

A film doesn’t have to be under two hours to be good or to be successful. It certainly can be the case and often is. But I love the long form. Most of the films I love the most are long.

My favorite film experience of all time is Peter Jackson’s LotR trilogy extended editions which clocks in at a whopping 11 1/2 hours. Other films I love on the long side (3+ hours) include:

The Godfather II
The Right Stuff
The Deer Hunter
Once upon a Time in America
Watchmen (Ultimate Cut)
Ben-hur (1959)
The Seven Samurai
Barry Lyndon
Endgame
Gone with the Wind
Lawrence of Arabia
Doctor Zhivago
Spartacus
Apocalypse Now
Malcolm X
Dances With Wolves
The Last Emperor
Gettysbur

Click to expand...

ah Malcolm x? Love that movie and yea I get what you’re saying but none of these are the directors cut except 1 which was directed by yours truly .

I will say this tho. Atleast rebel moon isn’t as bad as the acolyte apparently

ironwez20 said:

Well hey not everyone knows the ins and outs of some bland director guy. We all thought he had free control over this movie hence why he moved to Netflix.

Click to expand...

Considering the amount posts you have written in here, how you could have missed that is quite incredible.

ironwez20 said:

ah Malcolm x? Love that movie and yea I get what you’re saying but none of these are the directors cut except 1 which was directed by yours truly .

I will say this tho. Atleast rebel moon isn’t as bad as the acolyte apparently

Click to expand...

Watchmen Ultimate ISN'T the director's cut, Dances with Wolves IS the director's cut.

Do you know all these aren't the director's cuts specifically? For all I know all of these might have been the director's cuts (bar Watchmen).

T8OO said:

Considering the amount posts you have written in here, how you could have missed that is quite incredible.

Click to expand...

Because he had free control did he not? Isn’t this his directors cut? Isn’t the movie his vision? No studio interference? So I’m just baffled like he was and everyone else why it needs a directors cut when he had free rein from the get go.
Sooo yea the question is valid.