Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon

[Mandible]

I'm in the dislike camp - an absolute amateur-hour mess. It was like nails on a chalkboard for me

Snyder (like a lot of them) is getting worse with the more power he gains. No one telling him, no.

 

[Alatar]

Merry Christmas Alatar! Glad to see you've returned to the thread. I gave your thesis a read just now and found your ideas with respect to Snyder's influences/inspirations quite interesting. I'm sure you're well versed on ZS but without him coming out and stating said influences directly it's all speculation, but not preposterous by any means.

I do think the preface you laid down prior to your ideas illustrates how reasonable people differ in their interpretation of Snyder in general. You point to his Watchmen-style deconstruction of BvS as the reason so many critics & fans panned the movie, whereas for many of us it was his odd choices in doing so (putting Gotham & Metropolis across a bay from each other, having Clark be utterly clueless about Batman's heroic past across said bay prior to his vigilante streak, Batman's indiscriminately killing criminals, casting Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, the Martha moment, etc.). The studio's requiring him to trim down his cut didn't help, but it also illustrates another difference in how BvS was viewed as well as why things went to hell thereafter. You describe it as the WB "ruthlessly destroying HIS planned DCEU universe", whereas many would point out that it wasn't HIS DCEU at all but rather theirs and he wasn't delivering what they wanted/expected. How they went about ousting him was deplorable but many feel that he wasn't without any blame. If BvS had been part of the MCU no doubt Feige would have let him know early on that he needed to make some changes (like Feige's done countless times with other directors) and ZS would have either had to make some compromises or hit the bricks. Sadly WB didn't have someone like that minding the store and you know the rest.

The other part of your thesis I'd like to address is the "writer's should write what they know" observation that Zack is commenting on his own experiences through his art (specifically Rebel Moon). While that may be the case, I think another adage applies - "Know your limitations as well as your strengths". I think it's no coincidence that his best films are probably Man Of Steel (written by Christopher Nolan and David Goyer) and 300 (a straightforward adaption of the Frank Miller graphic novel). Snyder can stage some great battles and is capable of putting spectacular images on the big screen (RM included), but IMO he's not really a great writer and should probably stay in his lane (or at the very least collaborate with people whose strengths compliment rather than duplicate his own). Rebel Moon has a great Magnificent Seven style framework on which to build, but Snyder could have really used someone to steer him clear of some of the derivative and/or indulgent choices he made as well as insist on the character development & camaraderie/team interactions that this release lacked.

Merry Christmas! I just want to say that I can't tell you how much I appreciate your tone! But I don't want to give the impression of having a fragile ego, lol! Could be seen as a prima donna buy checking out of the thread and then returning because you and Wor-gar are being good peeps.

Anyway, they're all fair views that you're expressing. Naturally, I have a rejoinder for each.

About odd choices in BvS... I took them as being Watchmen-like or in the spirit of Watchmen (and that BvS is massively inspired by Watchmen is per Zack himself.) Watchmen takes place in a sort of ersatz, alternate universe, right? It's set during the 80s but it's not our 80s. It's an alternate timeline where things turned out a bit differently. I see Zack's DC universe as being similar in that way.

About the studio's reaction to BvS, I was mainly referring to what WB did to Justice League. Especially in the context of Snyder stepping away after his daughter suicided. That's the really brutal part. I mean... that speaks for itself imho. But yeah, definitively other studios would do that as well, and would be similarly brutal. That was more or less my point: studios tend to be ruthless, and that certainly applies to Kevin Feige!

With respect to Zack's best films... I agree with your assessment about the mainstream tastes, i.e., 300 and MoS are arguably his biggest crowd pleasers. But my favorite, and that of many Snyder fans, is in fact BvS. I love BvS for the reasons a lot of folks are bothered by it or hate it. I appreciate it most of all his films precisely because it is so artistically bold with the deconstruction. But I tend to love movies that are offbeat. I think my favorite western, for example, might be Missouri Breaks just to give a flavor. But anyway, I usually prefer the films that take chances. Even when they don't always fully succeed.

I love what Snyder does with Rebel Moon, but I also acknowledge that my tastes may differ from a lot of folks.

Addendum:

Just a little bit to add about BvS taking place in a “slightly off” sort of universe similar to the way Watchmen works with that, i.e., using that inspiration. To some extent I think we see it by having Alexander Luthor Jr. instead of Lex Luthor Sr. And Jimmy Olsen being a CIA operative.

But at a broader level Alan Moore’s genius was to place superheroes in the real world to examine what that might look like; and his conclusion was it would actually be a very bad thing. And that’s the main point. You’re going to see disturbing things in that scenario. (The Boys uses the same idea.) Plus if those sorts of things existed in reality they would have a ripple effect, with interacting ripples, and so on.

Anyway, the deconstruction means that if superheroes were real there would be things flowing from that that would not be good! Part of that is that a guy like Batman is acting out of early trauma that he hasn’t resolved—so yeah, despite his early convictions to never kill, practically speaking that’s impossible; and he over time he slides down the slope into indifference about killing criminals that are trying to kill him, and becomes “fallen.” He even becomes Punisher, essentially, by branding the worst of them.

Similarly Superman using his superpowers makes him akin to a god. But he’s raised with midwestern values and believes also in democracy. How is he to use his powers in such a world? How can he use them most effectively? He knows he can’t trust the US government because it is so corrupted, we see that with Luthor’s control over the senate. Should he use his powers at all then? But if he doesn’t use them at all, is that actually worse than him using them unilaterally? Anyway, if Superman seems a bit inwardly troubled, that’s more or less why.

In response to Snyder having his own stories ideas versus adapting other people’s ideas, that is a very interesting problem. He does arguably at times get carried away with enthusiasm about things he wants to say, to the extent that he loses people. Sucker Punch is the strongest example. But at least with BvS he had the idea to apply the basic concept of Watchmen to Superman and Batman and then had Chris Terrio write the script. But it’s totally his brainchild, and if you can mentally go along for the ride it works. Or it does for many, anyway.

Nolan and Goyer are credited with the story for MoS but you can tell from interviews with Snyder that Zack must have had many long talks with them about his vision for the character. MoS is very much Zack’s vision.

Some of the stories can’t really be assessed in the standard way, though. 300 is literally almost panel-for panel the graphic novel in terms of how it was storyboarded and scripted. Owls of Ga’Hoole is similarly based on a series of children’s books (which I’ve never read, so no idea how faithful the adaptation to film is).

Anyway, I think Zack is using some fascinating ideas with Rebel Moon, and I’m excited to see how they get developed. I’m certain that in cobbling together a universe that draws from so many diverse influences he’s making a commentary about the artistic creative process. But I’m going to have to see the director’s cut, and goth cuts of Part 2 in order to be able to begin ciphering that out. And to read the books, actually. There’s comic runs, novelizations, and lore books.

 

[Random_Retard]

Watched the movie last night.
Really don't understand what all the fuss is about. Apart from some pretty shots this flick is totally forgettable... Like so many others out there.
Don't really see anything that could invoke such a passionate response, neither positively nor negativly.
It's like one of those direct to home video releases back in the day that no one really cared about.
If it wasn't for this forum I wouldn't even have heard about it.

 

[jaztermareal]

Watched the movie last night.
Really don't understand what all the fuss is about. Apart from some pretty shots this flick is totally forgettable... Like so many others out there.
Don't really see anything that could invoke such a passionate response, neither positively nor negativly.
It's like one of those direct to home video releases back in the day that no one really cared about.
If it wasn't for this forum I wouldn't even have heard about it.

The strong positive response is due obviously to Zack Snuder fans who desperately want it to be amazing, the very negative responses meanwhile are due to the film being so hyped up as basically the new star wars. If your movie is bad or at the very least forgettable mediocre fare then there will be mocking. Honestly I have yet to watch it myself but based on some reviews and clips I watched it has some pretty major issues in terms of writing, particularly the dialogue, editing and many creative choices such as the excessive slomo shots and continued Hollywood trend of having small women but up big guys over and over again. I assume there are multiple redeeming factors but crappy b movie is what I fully expect the film to be overall. More meh to add to the meh pile.

 

[Random_Retard]

More meh to add to the meh pile.

That's basically it.
The movie is 2 hours + but still it kinda felt like fast forwarding most of the time. There's just no depth at all to none of it.
The robot at the beginning is the only character that managed to draw any interest or pique curiosity and he was never to be seen again till the very end for 5 seconds...
The dialogue feels uninspired and blunt.

based on some reviews and clips I watched it has some pretty major issues in terms of writing, particularly the dialogue, editing and many creative choices such as the excessive slomo shots and continued Hollywood trend of having small women but up big guys over and over again. I assume there are multiple redeeming factors but crappy b movie is what I fully expect the film to be overall.

B movie sounds about right.
I didn't mind the slomo shots but I never really cared for them either since The Matrix.
And the fight scenes... well... it's just more of those fake Hollywood fights. I really don't care if it's guys or girls beating up whoever since it's all so fake anyway. 'cause if you've ever seen real people fight you just know it doesn't look or sound anything like that It's all just really stylized to look cool on the screen which is okay but even those aren't really memorable in this film.

 

[TheClient]

and continued Hollywood trend of having small women but up big guys over and over again.

I keep seeing this complaint and I guess I’m not watching the movies where this happens all the time ( at least when it is not explained by the small lady having super powers or whatever) but part of this might be the trend we see of action heroes not getting beat up as much.

Today we have stars like Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham having contracts that dictate their characters can never lose a fight, and even counting how many times they can be punched in a movie. All to make them look tougher and “more badass than thou”. This ignores why we liked the action heroes of yesterday like Indiana Jones, and also why Mando was so endearing. They get hurt. A LOT. They get BEAT UP. And then they win anyway by being smart, or lucky, or both. That’s why we like them, not because they are “more badass than thou” or great at arm wrestling.

So of course if you match a up a big tough guy with a small model of a pretty lady (since we as a society still generally don’t like muscles on our babes, apparently) and you write it in a way that is just a contest of physical prowess, it won’t come of as believable. Haven’t seen Rebel Moon, so I don’t know what happens specifically, but these are just musings on the general trend.

I miss clever heroes. I’ll take clever over tough any day.

Anyway, I’m happy that some of you are enjoying Rebel Moon, and I hope you don't let the ones who dislike it get you down. I know what it’s like to love a movie that is reviled my many. It ultimately does not matter. They may hate the movie but can never take away your love or the joy it brings to you.

 

[Akiratang]

Watched last night, had a great start but slowly started getting worse as time went on. Charlie's Irish accent gave me nightmares.

 

[MeatHookGekko]

I keep seeing this complaint and I guess I’m not watching the movies where this happens all the time ( at least when it is not explained by the small lady having super powers or whatever) but part of this might be the trend we see of action heroes not getting beat up as much.

The advantage of casting Boutella is her background in dance. Fight choreography in film/TV is mostly about timing and blocking (i.e. being in the right place/right spot at said right time) The above video, everyone dancing is a professional dancer/choreographer. There's a lot of complex choreography here. Something else to consider is elite dancers can hold their form and move at speed. Holding your form at slow speed is one thing, holding it and holding pace to other dancers around you is another animal entirely.

The faster you can get it "right", the fewer takes you need to do and the less set up you need (in theory), which translates to time, which translates to money. The faster you can shoot and the shorter your overall production schedule, that's one of your best paths to limiting your budget. The lower your budget, the greater the odds of you turning a profit on the film. When that happens, you get more creative freedom.

The problem you start to run into is most mainstream actresses broke though in the industry for reasons other than their ability to do action films. Or action scenes. The ones who can do it effectively tend to have an aesthetic that doesn't market well ( i.e. the Carano or Rousey body type) Also those with a real fighting background tend to be limited as actresses.

We won't see a major industry shift until some of these institutional level investors get sued. You can't make a film unless it can get financing. It won't get financing unless, in many cases, it measures up to some ESG mandates in place. However many of the decisions being made are breaching basic fiduciary duty. You can't make a kids movie and having certain characters kissing and discussing themes that are controversial and "adult" and expect it not to generate some horrible word of mouth. Alternatively, the majority of female lead action films tend to crash and burn at the box office. It's just as bad as a bet as most westerns and most sci-fi films. Some areas in filmmaking becomes high risk/low reward by established trends. That's basically setting investor money on fire. A good portion of this money is coming from public pensions too. Movie fans are being told what they must enjoy and what they must consume, even if the numbers dictate that they won't actually do that.

Do I have a problem with female action stars or female leads in action films? Not really, but it has to make logistical sense. It has to serve the actual narrative in place. And for pure pragmatism, it has to align with real market forces at work. You can't keep making things that everyone knows will lose money. Another issue is how to market to women in their prime earning years in the most desirable demographics is not easy. The WNBA fails , in major part, because the average American woman will not watch it. It's seen as an inferior product to the actual NBA. A large cross section of NBA fans are actually women. A lot of women aren't going to go out of their way to see a Gina Carano movie. Even before her controversy. Who will they go out of their way to see? Tom Hanks. Tom Cruise. Denzel Washington. Leo DiCaprio. And previously they would climb the walls to see Mel Gibson before his scandal. Meryl Streep has her own dedicated fanbase, but for women in general, it's more rare.

But it still comes down to this. If you don't have a great script and there are clear structural problems in a film's concept, you need a performer who uplifts the material. Someone like Florence Pugh takes whatever she gets and makes it better. I linked a video above to Steve Carrell in The Office, where he just takes a scene that could go wrong, but he uplifts it and carries it on his back. If you get a limited actress, for whatever reason, you need to protect her with a bullet proof script and a fundamental story that works on all levels. Rebel Moon is an unfortunate case where Boutella simply doesn't have the skill to uplift a bad script, try as she might. And Snyder didn't do much to help Boutella on his end.

 

[MeatHookGekko]

 

[Sassafras]

The strong positive response is due obviously to Zack Snuder fans who desperately want it to be amazing, the very negative responses meanwhile are due to the film being so hyped up as basically the new star wars. If your movie is bad or at the very least forgettable mediocre fare then there will be mocking. Honestly I have yet to watch it myself but based on some reviews and clips I watched it has some pretty major issues in terms of writing, particularly the dialogue, editing and many creative choices such as the excessive slomo shots and continued Hollywood trend of having small women but up big guys over and over again. I assume there are multiple redeeming factors but crappy b movie is what I fully expect the film to be overall. More meh to add to the meh pile.

Dunno about the new Star Wars but I was very mildly hyped because while I expected it to be tropey "scrappy rebels take on the evil empire" thing I was up for it - why not, I can't watch Reacher until I can binge all the episodes and there looked like - from the trailer - some cool visuals. The lead wasn't conventionally pretty, or looked teeny-tiny, so maybe she'd be like a Black Widow or something.

I didn't expect it to have such bad writing it was just - stupidly bad writing. Some hints of what might have been like the Hopkins droid. There was so much ripping off of other movies at one point I thought they were actually going to do the speech from Snow White and the Huntsman
"You have eyes but you do not see...she is life itself....she will heal the land" word for word. Couldn't believe the Harry Potter thing. &^%$#

Like if I'd been at a test audience, I would have written on the comment page "You know, the Bible has some good stuff to learn by, like "Thou shall not steal". I could add "Thou shall not include PG tentacle smut or disrespect the Rogue One Bor Gullet". "Thou shall not have your big bad cast as a teenager in a fake beard". "Thou shall not do a cut rate version of the Alien Queen". "Thou shall not cast Daniel Day Lewis hair noble Native American". "Thou shall not re-create the end fight from Mask of Zorro whose actors and choreography and charisma far out-class this *&^$"

 

[Mandible]

A friend was dying for this and couldn't accept all the hideous reviews online - even me also saying I though it was bad.

He watched it last night...

God, I laughed.

 

[jaztermareal]

A friend was dying for this and couldn't accept all the hideous reviews online - even me also saying I though it was bad.

He watched it last night...

God, I laughed.

One of us. One of us. One of us!

 

[Alatar]

Now reading the novelization, which is the director’s cut, and it’s obvious that there needed to be two versions if kids were going to be able to watch it. The director’s cut will be way superior, and there will be criticism of Netflix for not simply releasing that. But I still suspect that Zack wanted it to proceed this way to make the point about what is required for the studio and GA, legitimately, and what the artist must do in order to be a true artist, if you will. Like those two forces are ever present in making a film, and they are at odds, and it’s always a struggle to bring them together into a whole. Anyway, we’re going to get a lot of graphic violence in the director’s cut, and there will be *** as well. And in fact to do justice to a story of war, which this is, those things do belong.

Only a couple chapters in, but I can already see how much more context for the rebellion we’re going to get in the director’s cut. This is a good story. I mean I’m definitely engaged all the more by the deeper layers the director’s cut will add.

There’s a tremendous amount of backstory to everything we’re going to see. Not everything will get explained directly in the film, rather it’s just going to exist there with it’s rich history and context. So there’s a sense of discovery then about what it means as you learn more and more about the universe itself. This is for me as a D&D fan like entering a setting such as the Forgotten Realms. Or simply as a fan of fantasy-adventure the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. Or Frank Herbert’s world of Dune. (Never got into Harry Potter, but I’m sure that setting is similar in terms of scope and level of detail.)

The two big lore books that I believe are connected to the video game, but were developed originally for the tabletop game will release in June of 2024. I hope that the lawsuit for the tabletop game is settled satisfactorily for Evil Genius Games, because it certainly does sound like Netflix screwed them. But anyway I have them on preorder because, again, as a D&D fan I love the lore.

And getting back to the story itself… Part of my fascination with Zack Snyder’s films has become this “[the dress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress?wprov=sfti1#Scientific_explanations)” phenomenon. BvS was like that. And we’re in similar territory here with this cut of Rebel Moon. I really enjoy this story and how it is told. But as we have seen, some see it exactly the opposite. I genuinely love the work itself, and it’s mostly a chore having to defend what I like. But that people can look at the object, and for that object of perception to elicit such radically different responses, is remarkable at times. I mean, it’s also familiar. We see it all the time in life. That phenomenon is age-old. But it’s pretty astounding to me at times to see it in action for entertainment and art.

 

[Turtle882]

I watched the movie. I found it to be completely fine. Not groundbreaking, but Seven Samurai meets Heavy Metal was never going for ground breaking. It's a comfort movie, and on that point for me it succeeded. (Charlie Hunnam's space Belfast accent didn't quite work for me though, and I honestly think the movie overall would have been stronger if he had stuck with a strong Newcastle accent.)

Edit: the way this movie was shot with two versions planned is also kind of bonkers but neat. Interested to see the Rated R Version. It feels weird to call it a directors cut though, since both cuts will be the director's realized vision.

 

[Otomofan]

I genuinely love the work itself, and it’s mostly a chore having to defend what I like.

So why defend it? You're never going to change our minds. We watched the movie. We gave it a chance. It was a real stinker.

I understand that you love the movie. But "defending" the movie isn't going to make the movie appreciate all of your efforts and love you back.

My favorite movie is AKIRA. I used to get angry at people that didn't "get it" and tell them that they were "wrong." But one day I finally took a step back and admitted to myself that yes, if they hadn't read the manga a hundred times before seeing the movie, then yes indeed the film has some serious narrative problems. And despite the beautiful animation, not everyone is into the hyper-violence in the movie. So I stopped trying to push it on people. If they don't like it, that's fine.

Now I wonder why I ever gave a **** what other people think in the first place. It's still MY favorite movie, so who cares?

So you like a movie that almost nobody else likes. Yet you still have this air of "I'm right about this movie and everyone else on the planet is wrong!!" in your posts.

It's OK to like or even LOVE a bad movie.

 

[JacktheRipper]

It's OK to like or even LOVE a bad movie.

I like how you still had to turn the knife.

 

[Mr. Awesome]

The very fact that there's a ridiculous amount of people claiming this is "essentially the worst film they've seen in years" says volumes. And it's hilariously entertaining to read. The hate is bone deep for this guy.

I liked it. I don't believe for a moment the level of the overwhelming majority of reviews and forum comments.

I guess it's all just "cope" on my part lol

Also, Man of Steel was awesome. I literally wouldn't change a single thing about it. Nothing. I know that film scarred more than a few self proclaimed Superman fans and that never sat right with them.

I sincerely hope Gunn gives you the Supes movie you're hoping for. Because that is the single film that put hate in a lot of folks heart regarding ZS.

 

[Otomofan]

Well, just to be clear, I'm not dogpiling on the movie cause I hate Snyder. I'm a fan. I really like a LOT of his stuff. I saw what he was doing with BvS and I loved it.

This certainly isn't the worst movie I've ever seen. The things I found most egregious were the typical current-day Hollywood tropes, (tiny woman defeating hordes of huge men, etc.) not necessarily the "Snyder-isms."

I guess there are people out there that just wanna hate everything this guy does, but that's just silly. I strongly dislike most of Nolan's output and I realize that makes me a minority. But I still watch his movies and at least hope for it to be good this time, instead of automatically deciding I'll hate it before I see it.

Same with Wes Anderson. What a thoroughly unlikable smug face that pretentious ****** has. I liked Rushmore and Tenenbaums, but with each subsequent release, the guy crawled further and further up his own *** to be closer to that precious fart smell he loves so much. But I gave "Henry Sugar" a chance and I found it utterly delightful.

Dislike "Rebel Moon" because it's one of the most utterly lazy rehashes of tired cliched tropes in movie history, not because Zak Snyder directed it.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Come on in, the bubble's fine...

 

[Mr. Awesome]

Well, just to be clear, I'm not dogpiling on the movie cause I hate Snyder. I'm a fan. I really like a LOT of his stuff. I saw what he was doing with BvS and I loved it.

This certainly isn't the worst movie I've ever seen. The things I found most egregious were the typical current-day Hollywood tropes, (tiny woman defeating hordes of huge men, etc.) not necessarily the "Snyder-isms."

I guess there are people out there that just wanna hate everything this guy does, but that's just silly. I strongly dislike most of Nolan's output and I realize that makes me a minority. But I still watch his movies and at least hope for it to be good this time, instead of automatically deciding I'll hate it before I see it.

Same with Wes Anderson. What a thoroughly unlikable smug face that pretentious ****** has. I liked Rushmore and Tenenbaums, but with each subsequent release, the guy crawled further and further up his own *** to be closer to that precious fart smell he loves so much. But I gave "Henry Sugar" a chance and I found it utterly delightful.

Dislike "Rebel Moon" because it's one of the most utterly lazy rehashes of tired cliched tropes in movie history, not because Zak Snyder directed it.

Fair.

I wasn't in love with the female lead either and it will and has definitely cast a shadow of my opinion of the film. Especially the black "general". I'm sick to death of him being cast for these same roles over and over.

That actor has become a one trick pony at this point and I absolutely hate seeing him star in.. anything.

I'd say casting hurt the film in the worst way, above all else. The one character I connected with and loved was Ray Fisher. I loved him in that role and damn if they didn't throw him away.

Casting was just not great in this.