Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon

[T8OO]

 

[Otomofan]

Where I’m coming from with the Jungian idea of a “conjunction” is that it’s the bringing together of the opposing poles of a duality: Jimmy is super high technology. He’s sentient AI. But he has turned to the natural world, to Nature, for answers to basic existential questions. I really like that! That does feel pretty original to me. Not sure if it’s already been done in other stories. I would imagine that it may have. But it’s the first time I’m seeing it. Anyway, regardless, as I said that really appeals to me.

 

[T8OO]

It's been decades since I've seen either of the Short Circuits. Would you say it's nature Johnny finds interesting and not people?

 

[Otomofan]

You don't remember him squishing the bug and freaking out about the existential nature of life and death and the universe?

 

[MeatHookGekko]

And am I to believe, that all those things you just, suggested essentially, would make Snyders films work?

Fundamental economical storytelling gives you a baseline. From there, you hope to create some magic. With Rebel Moon Part 1 and Part 2, Snyder basically filmed an outline. Before we can talk about making a "good movie", you have to go back to fundamentals.

Basic Scriptwriting 101 - First, break down the core conflict of your film in one sentence. If it takes longer than that, then you are trying to make more than one film at once. Then go through each character and assess what character could be completely removed and it would have zero impact on the overall film itself. Then go through the script and combine the characters left ( i.e. assess if one character can wear multiple hats and do multiple things practically in the story ) if possible. Finally, go through your script and assess what scenes could be removed entirely and would have zero impact on the overall film itself.

A simple way that screen writers assign the value of scenes is to take each scene, then assess how many different things that specific scene is doing all at once. Good storytelling means each scene should be doing 4-5 different things at one time, and if you are skilled and put in the work, maybe 7-10.





The first Godfather film, despite having a long running time just shy of three hours, is an extremely compact economical film. IMHO, the actual run time is less relevant than the efficiency at which that time is used. In the scene above, what makes it essential?

1) In order for Michael to ascend to full power and to fully develop his arc, you need to remove all the other competitors to power in his way. Don Vito, at some point, has to go. Sonny, tragically, also has to go, and Tom Hagen, the adopted surrogate "brother" also needs to be neutered. There's no way around it.

2) You need to further establish that Sonny is ill tempered, thus creating the character flaw in him that drives him to his final fate

3) Have you remove Tom Hagen from a contender status. He's "family", but he's not blood. He's smart, but he's not street capable. He's well regarded, but he's not truly respected in the criminal world. He's a reminder that, in some ways, Michael is also an outsider to his own family, by attempting to go his own way.

4) You have to foreshadow that the only true way to end all threats to the Corleone Family is to eventually just kill everyone ( Sonny has a point here, he's not completely wrong)

5) You have to establish that Sonny is not just a one dimensional cut out heavy. He loves Tom, you can see that, he cares about Tom and he knows Tom has a point, but his temper is overwhelming. It's this family oriented part of his character that allows his sister Connie, and her abuse, to be a driver to push him over the edge, to allow himself to be blinded by an ambush later.

6) You are exposed to the value of the total power of Don Vito in his absence. But you also see the impact of his flaws. There's a power vacuum, and it means you need an incredible replacement to fill those shoes, and Sonny simply is not it. He picked Sonny as his underboss. He picked Tom as his consigliere. He allowed his old friends, aging Clemenza and Tessio, too long in the tooth, to stay as his caporegimes too long, where they waned in effectiveness. Don Vito also miscalculated the total cost of saying "No" to the drug trade.

7) By showing a type of "brotherhood" that Sonny and Tom have together, that they don't share with Michael in the same way, it helps to create the isolation for Michael, to where you help the audience understand his burden to avenge his family but give up his own future to do it.

8) You need to show that to end the current war, Sonny has to be removed. He's the one with the total bloodlust ( no one is going to argue why it exists) and won't care what it costs to kill everyone who opposes the family.

9) You show the linked but separate worlds of "families" There's the criminal family at work. But also the blood family. You foreshadow how Michael will struggle to keep one intact without losing the other.

That scene is less than a minute. But it's critical to the film. You can't remove Tom nor Sonny as characters, they are too critical to the story.

What bloat can you remove from Rebel Moon Part 1 and Part 2 without missing all that much at all?

 

[ironwez20]

View attachment 699757

This man loves him some cuts

 

[pixletwin]

Reading this thread brings to mind something I often tell my music students: intellectualizing a song doesn't necessarily mean it is a good song.

In other words....

Pointing out the perceived intricacies’ and complex "whatevers" of a movie does not necessarily mean it's a good movie.

 

[T8OO]

You don't remember him squishing the bug and freaking out about the existential nature of life and death and the universe?

Nope, it was the 90's the last time I saw them.

 

[T8OO]

This man loves him some cuts

He loves his own cut.

 

[MeatHookGekko]

I don't understand exactly what you are trying to say here.

Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver (2024) Film Review

"It’s a peculiar thing to see a man who steals so liberally run out of ideas."

.....This is not only a sequel but a film absolutely dependent upon you having seen its predecessor. The skimpy introduction serves to remind us of the setting and the principal characters’ names, but little more. At the end, a character appears whose identity and motives you will have no clue about if you’re a newcomer. There is no effort made to help viewers get to know the characters....Distraction is sorely needed, because a whole hour goes by with next to nothing happening. A young local woman hands out pennants/totems/prayers flags which look more like personalized tea towels and they are duly strung up on a washing line to intimidate the enemy. There’s a bit of ceilidh dancing. Then somebody decides than in order to turn this quiet little town into a town of death they need a montage, but when you’ve seen one person blast the head off a scarecrow with an overly bulky phased plasma rifle, you’ve seen them all, and all you’ll do is feel sorry for the poor folk who must be sitting there in the background making new scarecrow heads for all the others who need to practice....

....Snyder seems to forget the thing that made the first of these films a (qualified) success: this is space opera, so we could be jetting around to different planets meeting weird aliens and watching giant monster fights and other fun stuff. Watching boring humans in dull costumes run at each other across a bit of muddy field just doesn’t deliver on the same level, even if there is a bit where the film slows down and then speeds up again as our heroes leap away from a petrol explosion into some water. The fights are choppy and not even well choreographed. Some main characters’ experiences are impossible to track. The pacing is all or nothing, quickly destroying any tension. The music does the heavy lifting, but even it draws heavily on other films, and it’s not enough to keep things interesting.....Snyder might like to think of himself as a rebel, but this is conformity all the way.

https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review...-scargiver-2024-film-review-by-jennie-kermode

 

[T8OO]

This is not only a sequel but a film absolutely dependent upon you having seen its predecessor. The skimpy introduction serves to remind us of the setting and the principal characters’ names, but little more. At the end, a character appears whose identity and motives you will have no clue about if you’re a newcomer. There is no effort made to help viewers get to know the characters.

I got this far. This tells me all I need to know and how pointless the rest of whatever they have to say will most likely be.

 

[The Buffinator]

This is not only a sequel but a film absolutely dependent upon you having seen its predecessor. The skimpy introduction serves to remind us of the setting and the principal characters’ names, but little more. At the end, a character appears whose identity and motives you will have no clue about if you’re a newcomer. There is no effort made to help viewers get to know the characters.

I got this far. This tells me all I need to know and how pointless the rest of whatever they have to say will most likely be.

To be clear, that excerpt isn't from the video (which is an analysis of RM Part 1) but rather from the eyeforfilm review linked to at the end of MHG's post. I think the video would be worth your time. In it the guy makes some for very good points, backs them up with numerous examples along with suggestions for how things could have been done better. It's not an exercise in Snyder bashing (he even states that part of his disappointment is due to knowing that ZS is capable of so much better) but he does give RM a failing grade, chiefly for not having a stronger writer on staff to steer him away from some errors that good writers learn in Screenwriting 101.

Given some of the long-winded takes that you & Alatar (OK, mostly Alatar lol) have subjected us to regarding what you perceive as his great strengths, I think it's only fair that you take the time to check out a video that impartially details where he's come up short so far with RM. You don't have to agree with any of it, but it might provide you with better context for others' perspectives.

 

[Alatar]

Reading this thread brings to mind something I often tell my music students: intellectualizing a song doesn't necessarily mean it is a good song.

In other words....

Pointing out the perceived intricacies’ and complex "whatevers" of a movie does not necessarily mean it's a good movie.

Well, for my part I’ll just reemphasize a couple things:

1) FWIW I actually do understand, appreciate, and even respect some reasons why this movie is experienced as “not good” or “bad.” (When folks take the time to articulate why.)

2) Personally I really enjoy the characters, story, and setting, overall. It all clicks with me. I can easily willingly suspend disbelief. And I enjoy the ride. Nothing I can do if others don’t have this reaction!

3) I used to teach music as well (many, many moons ago). At the end of the day whether a song touches or moves me, resonates with me, etc., is an emotional and intuitive “right brain” thing. For sure! Same thing with movies and books, of course. But anyway, this doesn’t—and shouldn’t—stop me from reflecting on aspects of the construction of the song, story, or film that appeal to me.

 

[ironwez20]

To be clear, that excerpt isn't from the video (which is an analysis of RM Part 1) but rather from the eyeforfilm review linked to at the end of MHG's post. I think the video would be worth your time. In it the guy makes some for very good points, backs them up with numerous examples along with suggestions for how things could have been done better. It's not an exercise in Snyder bashing (he even states that part of his disappointment is due to knowing that ZS is capable of so much better) but he does give RM a failing grade, chiefly for not having a stronger writer on staff to steer him away from some errors that good writers learn in Screenwriting 101.

Given some of the long-winded takes that you & Alatar (OK, mostly Alatar lol) have subjected us to regarding what you perceive as his great strengths, I think it's only fair that you take the time to check out a video that impartially details where he's come up short so far with RM. You don't have to agree with any of it, but it might provide you with better context for others' perspectives.

Nope ! You’re just a hater who hates Snyder cause he’s deep!
*puts hands over ears

LA La La LA LA La

 

[Wor-Gar]

 

[The Buffinator]

Nope ! You’re just a hater who hates Snyder cause he’s deep!
*puts hands over ears

LA La La LA LA La

 

[T8OO]

To be clear, that excerpt isn't from the video (which is an analysis of RM Part 1) but rather from the eyeforfilm review linked to at the end of MHG's post. I think the video would be worth your time. In it the guy makes some for very good points, backs them up with numerous examples along with suggestions for how things could have been done better. It's not an exercise in Snyder bashing (he even states that part of his disappointment is due to knowing that ZS is capable of so much better) but he does give RM a failing grade, chiefly for not having a stronger writer on staff to steer him away from some errors that good writers learn in Screenwriting 101.

Given some of the long-winded takes that you & Alatar (OK, mostly Alatar lol) have subjected us to regarding what you perceive as his great strengths, I think it's only fair that you take the time to check out a video that impartially details where he's come up short so far with RM. You don't have to agree with any of it, but it might provide you with better context for others' perspectives.

A valid point on the video vs the eyeforfilm review. That being said I have no interest in watching "So and so movie/show/game sucks" on a studio-mandated version of a movie that has a director's cut that exists and is on the horizon. I am somewhat curious why anyone looking at this reasonably would.

Rebel Moon isn't great, it only hits good every now and again, hence my average review on it. Both of the movies are lacking. These are neutered versions with roughly 33% missing and not what I'm going to ultimately judge them on.

 

[abake]

Yeah.
Couldn't find any fault in his critique.

 

[Alatar]

The thing about the standard approach to analysis for the PG13 cuts is if it misses the following context, I’m not sure if it’s really taking enough into account to be fair to it. I know I’m a broken record on this, but:

With the director’s cuts giving the genre a sci-fi fantasy pulp/Heavy Metal/B movie vibe Snyder is going to basically vulgarize something that’s sacred to most people. I mean, it’s not Star Wars per se, but he’s commenting on it for sure. The deconstruction of applying that pulp vibe to the “space opera” genre that 1977 Star Wars spawned isn’t in the PG13 cuts. The PG13 cuts are the version that I think Zack imagines is what any studio would mandate “by focus group.” And that takes the story of the director’s cut and declaws, defangs, and neuters it. So as we have seen, that’s probably going to rub most viewers the wrong way. And the director’s cut version that is akin to the animal in the wild, in its natural state is going to do some very weird and intense things to a genre that most viewers innocently enjoy as wholesome entertainment.

I thought Superman and Batman were about as off limits as you can get for genre deconstruction, such that people would be upset by it. But Star Wars is even more of a sacred cow. People are going to be even more freaked out by that.

People hated on BvS because they wanted to see Superman and Batman depicted in their classical genre form for the first ever live action blockbuster teamup of those two iconic figures. And here with Rebel Moon most folks wanted Snyder to take the classical form of Star Wars and just sort of dirty it up a bit, make it grittier and more adult in terms of themes, give it adult violence, and of course the cherry on top of the awesome visuals for which Snyder has become renowned.

That being said, I do believe that if he gets the chance to make Part 3 the pendulum will swing back towards reconstructing the genre, which is what he did with ZSJL in his DC trilogy. So we might yet get something much closer to what people actually wanted.

Zack definitely has an itch to deconstruct genres that evidently he needs to constantly scratch.

 

[ironwez20]

The thing is tho if he can’t do it right the first time why should he be given another shot over and over again? Like if you can’t make a good film the first time and you constantly need a “directors cut” to make the movie good. Then maybe you aren’t a good director? Seriously and each movie of his has ti be 4 hrs or more to tell a more cohesive story? Come on.

Dude should just write a book