The Snyder Cut

[Lemmy]

Snyder is great at making stylish visuals... And nothing else.

The only movie he made that I consider good is 300, because it's a cool action flick with little to no plot... And he has a simple, short source of inspiration to draw from.

Watchmen is... Not bad. But it's not very good either, and is poorly paced. Even with a runtime long as its has, the movie still feels rushed and incomplete. It's what happens when he tries to adapt a story much longer and much more complex than "Bad guys are coming! Let's stab them!"

Everything else he made ranges from mediocre to awful, with some cool scenes and visuals here and there.

Suckerpunch is a perfect example... Has some great action scenes, but feels like a waste of time.

I feel sorry for him for the reason why he left the DCEU... But honestly... Him leaving was the best thing that happened to the franchise.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kitten Champion
The simplistic adulation of Spartan society and harsh - and somewhat literal - demonization of the Persians is pretty huge and obvious in 300….

This was overwhelmingly evident in the few minutes that I watched, and the main reason I didn’t watch any more.

Hollywood typically distorts the ancient world into cartoonish caricature as a matter of course, but this is warping on an entirely different level.

Originally Posted by Aedilred
But the film that made up my mind was Sucker Punch.

I remember how thoroughly ludicrous this looked when it first came out. Just watched the trailer again and it’s far worse than I’d remembered.

Seems pretty clear the movie was made for teenage boys, especially given the, ah, camera angle during one of the samurai fight scenes. And the line about retrieving five items makes the rest of it seem like a long string of flashy-but-empty action sequences straight from a video game.

There are apparently women who enjoy the movie, more or less as a guilty pleasure, so it’s possible to take something from it. But rewatching that trailer just makes me glad I didn’t see this in the theater, or anywhere else.

Originally Posted by Aedilred
The idea therefore that there's a "Snyder cut" of, really, any of his other movies that will somehow redeem them seems vanishingly unlikely.

Apparently there’s a "Snyder cut" of Sucker Punch. No word on whether that somehow redeems it.

[Trafalgar]

The simplistic adulation of Spartan society and harsh - and somewhat literal - demonization of the Persians is pretty huge and obvious in 300, and kind of nauseating if you think about it beyond "cool violent people doing cool violence". Especially within the context of Frank Miller's broader work.

What I thought was weird is that they kept Frank Miller's homophobic dialogue. I mean, did Frank Miller or Zach Snyder actually read up on Spartan society before writing/directing 300?

[Rynjin]

What I thought was weird is that they kept Frank Miller's homophobic dialogue. I mean, did Frank Miller or Zach Snyder actually read up on Spartan society before writing/directing 300?

...Gonna go with "lolno". Frank Miller went on to write Holy Terror, remember?

[warty goblin]

What I thought was weird is that they kept Frank Miller's homophobic dialogue. I mean, did Frank Miller or Zach Snyder actually read up on Spartan society before writing/directing 300?

Given that there's a solid argument that Sparta is the worst society humans have ever devised, I'm going with "no". Or they did and decided to ignore it, it really makes no odds.

(Its also necessary to point out that the Spartites were hardly unstoppable super soldiers. They were better than average at the classical style of Greek phalanx, but even in that context were hardly undefeated, and one could argue that in terms of actual fighting ability they were solidly second fiddle to Thebes. )

Edit: on the actual topic my interest is minimal. Justice League was aggressively mediocre, I don't see how adding another two hours of it will in any way help. At the end of the day it's still a movie about a bunch of people in funny costumes with goofy usernames who have to beat up another funny costume dude with a really silly name so he doesn't do a bad thing with a glowy doodad. This is not exactly an underrepresented genre in anno dominae 2021, there are plenty of high quality versions of the formula already available. And at some point the well of actually interesting and meaningful ideas that can be explored in this context is pretty much played out.

[Aedilred]

Given that there's a solid argument that Sparta is the worst society humans have ever devised, I'm going with "no". Or they did and decided to ignore it, it really makes no odds.

(Its also necessary to point out that the Spartites were hardly unstoppable super soldiers. They were better than average at the classical style of Greek phalanx, but even in that context were hardly undefeated, and one could argue that in terms of actual fighting ability they were solidly second fiddle to Thebes. )

To be fair, the idea that Spartans were badasses, the pinnacle of ancient warfare, is so solidly ingrained in traditional western history and consequently in pop culture, and the countervailing suggestion that actually they were pretty mediocre so revisionist, that I'm not going to blame a comic book or a film for getting that one wrong. You could read a lot about Spartan history without reaching the conclusion that they were anything other than the greatest warriors of the ancient era. That blog post by Bret Devereux hadn't been written yet.

Even the Greeks fighting the Spartans, who really should have known better, rated them very highly for a long time and even after Sparta had finally been put in its place by Thebes that was put down to Spartan decline rather than that it had never actually been all that.

I felt that even at the time when I was watching it. Obviously large swathes of the film were wrong, or improbable, or pure fantasy. But this is also a battle that has been mythologised since the moment it ended, and viewed through that lens, some of the preposterousness becomes a feature as much as a bug, and I found I was quite happy to turn that part of my brain off.

There may be a time when the world is ready for a revisionist movie about Sparta, but 300 was never going to be that, and I think it's unfair to blame it for not being. I've never been convinced that "instead of this movie they had made a completely different movie" (or by extension "the cinematic and pop cultural context which informs this movie should be different so that the movie I want them to have made could have been made" are valid criticisms of films as they exist.

For another example of the sort of thing I mean, see any show or film featuring gladiators. It's now pretty conclusively established that "thumbs up = live/thumbs down = die" is not how it worked, and it may well have been the reverse. But that visual image is so ingrained that it's probably beyond the ability of any film now to challenge it and any that tries is just going to confuse its audience. I will notice when they get it "wrong", but I'm not going to hold it against them. Print the legend, and so on.

Which is not to excuse some of the portrayals of the Persians: there's a lot to take issue with there. To the extent that that was imported from the comic, I might purse my lips at Snyder but to be honest I think he's so incapable of engaging with anything on a deeper level than the visual and superficial that I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't notice, and in any case it's always difficult to know how closely an adaptation should cleave to the original. Where that's a problem, Snyder isn't blameless, but most of the blame should probably rest with Miller.

Which elements do you mean?

I’ve only seen snippets of the movie, which were such grotesque distortions of the actual history that I had no interest in watching more. Is that what you’re referring to, or something else?

For want of going into detail, yes.

[Morty]

I have no horse in this race, because I have not seen this movie and don't intend to, but I certainly share the bafflement that this exists and that people have apparently been clamoring for it. Does anyone seriously think a longer version of what sounds like a pretty mediocre movie is going to be amazing?

[Cikomyr2]

Snyder has a lot of talent for certain aspect of directorial work. Top tier talent for certain things. And these things lend themselves more to certain style of stories than others.

Telling you guys. A pseudo-fascism worship of the Supermen and the Betters of Humanity cut would be perfectly suited. Hence the Justice Lords.

Strangely, I Think Snyder would be *the* best director to tell the story of the Justice Lords. As long as he doesn't know the Justice Lords end up being bad guys.

[Talakeal]

Zack Snyder is probably my favorite director, I don’t think he has ever done a movie that wasn’t great. 300 and Man of Steel are probably the weakest and Watchmen and Sucker Punch probably the strongest.

I would say Sucker Punch is solidly my sixth favorite film of all time.


I am mostly ambivalent toward Justice League. It will probably be about the same as the original and only good as riff fodder, but I am still holding out hope for something good.

So it's not that we (who weren't impressed with the movie) didn't get it, we got it fine, we just thought it failed (hard). There's also a 'twist' near the end of the film that sort of changes who the supposed protagonist of the film is that... changes nothing about the messaging, meaning, or ideas (not) explored therein.

I am really curious here as to what the “it” was that you got.

Because yeah, a lot of people seem certain that they know what Snyder was going for, but they never seem to agree on it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Talakeal
I would say Sucker Punch is solidly my sixth favorite film of all time.

Why in particular?

[Dienekes]

To be fair, the idea that Spartans were badasses, the pinnacle of ancient warfare, is so solidly ingrained in traditional western history and consequently in pop culture, and the countervailing suggestion that actually they were pretty mediocre so revisionist, that I'm not going to blame a comic book or a film for getting that one wrong. You could read a lot about Spartan history without reaching the conclusion that they were anything other than the greatest warriors of the ancient era. That blog post by Bret Devereux hadn't been written yet.

Even the Greeks fighting the Spartans, who really should have known better, rated them very highly for a long time and even after Sparta had finally been put in its place by Thebes that was put down to Spartan decline rather than that it had never actually been all that.

I suppose it is worth pointing out that even among historians the view of Sparta is being debated. While everyone is pretty much in agreement that Sparta emphasized their own prowess as a spot of myth making, how much they exaggerate is kinda going back and forth. And while Devereux’s blog post is great for getting the idea that Sparta wasn’t a culture of elite super soldiers out into the forefront. He does kinda cherry pick evidence on what he decides to include in his blog. Skipping over a lot of battles Sparta wins in his rundown of their great battles. Missing Hodkinson’s excellent research on Messenia which points toward it not being as bad as Sparta’s enemies portrayed (while still being very bad mind you. Sparta was not the good guys of history. I don’t think any of the Greeks were).

Edit: I guess I should talk about Snyder.

I find the older I get the less I like him. Or more I find his flaws more egregious. The opening scene of Watchmen is brilliant. The rest of the movie feels like he’s stripped out all the subtlety and somehow missed the point while changing very little of the major action.

300s an overglorified look at a pretty horrific culture. But there are these little nods to Snyder’s opinions that were definitely not held by the Spartans and weren’t even in the comic that are pretty bad.

MoS is alright all things considered, it wasn’t great. It made decisions I don’t agree with. But whatever. BvS I thought was terrible. Somehow getting a Randian Superman facing off against a Randian Batman and a Randian Lex Luthor which that one at least should work if he wasn’t doing a weird Joker-ish take on the character.

The only time watching his movies I think I’m watching Superman was the end of TJL where he’s joking with the rest of the team while working together. That was it. And that scene was so clearly written by Whedon it isn’t even funny. And the scene wasn’t funny. But it at least had Superman in it.

[Tyrant]

Which is not to excuse some of the portrayals of the Persians: there's a lot to take issue with there. To the extent that that was imported from the comic, I might purse my lips at Snyder but to be honest I think he's so incapable of engaging with anything on a deeper level than the visual and superficial that I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't notice, and in any case it's always difficult to know how closely an adaptation should cleave to the original. Where that's a problem, Snyder isn't blameless, but most of the blame should probably rest with Miller.

I've only watched the movie and not read the book, but isn't the whole thing Dilios telling a story meant to rally the troops? And as such should be assumed to be full of embellishment/distortions/lies? Would it not stand to reason that he will portray the Persians in an extremely negative light while also playing up their ferocity to make the Spartans sound that much greater for being able to resist them so long?

As for the larger topic, I actually like Watchmen (preferably the extended cut). In my list of favorite comic book movies I rank it fairly high. Yes, it does miss some of the context of the book. I think that is inevitable. But, if one of the biggest arguments* against it is that the book is better and the book in question is considered one of the best books in the genre (or medium in this case I suppose), I'm not so sure that is a huge black mark. I also like the remake of Dawn of the Dead. Not a big fan of Sucker Punch though. I'll check out the reworking of Justice League. It wasn't the worst DCEU entry (flip a coin on BvS or Suicide Squad) so maybe this will improve it.

*I know there are other arguments, just somewhat addressing this one.

[Sapphire Guard]

Historians are historians. They debate everything.

Watchmen is as good as an unfilmable story like Watchmen can be as a film. The one liners are lifted straight from the comics.

300 is exactly what it says on the tin, you know what you're getting going in.

MoS and BVS are good films, and JL may or may not be. But I still want to see it, because what we got was Joss Whedon spray painting over someone else's work.

[Peelee]

I have no horse in this race, because I have not seen this movie and don't intend to, but I certainly share the bafflement that this exists and that people have apparently been clamoring for it. Does anyone seriously think a longer version of what sounds like a pretty mediocre movie is going to be amazing?

This could have been written by me verbatim.

[Zevox]

Snyder has a lot of talent for certain aspect of directorial work. Top tier talent for certain things. And these things lend themselves more to certain style of stories than others.

Telling you guys. A pseudo-fascism worship of the Supermen and the Betters of Humanity cut would be perfectly suited. Hence the Justice Lords.

Strangely, I Think Snyder would be *the* best director to tell the story of the Justice Lords. As long as he doesn't know the Justice Lords end up being bad guys.

You know, I was going to question you on that, but then it dawned on me that you mean that it would be their story before they stumble upon the main Justice League's universe, not the specific story of A Better World. Which... maybe. Though the thing there is that the Justice Lords are still supposed to have some actual good in them even after everything they do, and if what I've heard of Snyder's Batman in particular is true, I'd have my doubts about if he'd capture that. Especially given what the Justice Lords Batman ends up doing.

[Talakeal]

Why in particular?

All female main cast.
Sword-fighting.
Dragons.
Mixes elements of high fantasy and psychological horror, my two favorite genres.
Characters are allowed to be simultaneously girly and powerful.
Ambiguous story that often operates on dream logic.
Amazing soundtrack.
Themes of martyrdom, redemption, and rebellion.
Tragic story that emphasizes friendship and sisterhood instead of traditional romance.

[quinron]

Snyder is great at making stylish visuals... And nothing else.

The only movie he made that I consider good is 300, because it's a cool action flick with little to no plot... And he a simple, short source of inspiration to draw from.

Watchmen is... Not bad. But it's not very good either, and is poorly paced. Even with a runtime long as its has, the movie still feels rushed and incomplete. It's what happens when he tries to adapt a story much longer and much more complex than "Bad guys are coming! Let's stab them!"

Everything else he made ranges from mediocre to awful, with some cool scenes and visuals here and there.

Suckerpunch is a perfect example... Has some great action scenes, but feels like a waste of time.

I feel sorry for him for the reason why he left the DCEU... But honestly... Him leaving was the best thing that happened to the franchise.

I had the same experience with Sucker Punch that I had with Avatar: the first time I watched it I thought it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen, and by the third time I turned it off halfway through because I was so bored.

Sucker Punch seems to have been the film Snyder had the most control over to that point. It's also under two hours. I can't possibly imagine what a three-and-a-half-hour version of Zack Snyder's unmitigated vision would be like, but I am certain I wouldn't be bothered to find out.

[Talakeal]

I had the same experience with Sucker Punch that I had with Avatar: the first time I watched it I thought it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen, and by the third time I turned it off halfway through because I was so bored.

Sucker Punch seems to have been the film Snyder had the most control over to that point. It's also under two hours. I can't possibly imagine what a three-and-a-half-hour version of Zack Snyder's unmitigated vision would be like, but I am certain I wouldn't be bothered to find out.

I really like long movies, and I really like Sucker-punch.

That being said, the Sucker-punch extended edition is terrible.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Talakeal
That being said, the Sucker-punch extended edition is terrible.

Interesting. Given how much you like the theatrical version, what don't you like about the extended edition?

[Rynjin]

Interesting. Given how much you like the theatrical version, what don't you like about the extended edition?

Given that everything I've seen of it seems to be an unabashedly shallow action movie, kind of the entire reason they're entertaining is that they're short and, well, punchy.

Making a 3+ hour version of a schlock action flick is like deciding what that rollercoaster REALLY needs is about 10 minutes of slow, stately movement at roughly ground level to really POP.

[warty goblin]

To be fair, the idea that Spartans were badasses, the pinnacle of ancient warfare, is so solidly ingrained in traditional western history and consequently in pop culture, and the countervailing suggestion that actually they were pretty mediocre so revisionist, that I'm not going to blame a comic book or a film for getting that one wrong. You could read a lot about Spartan history without reaching the conclusion that they were anything other than the greatest warriors of the ancient era. That blog post by Bret Devereux hadn't been written yet.

Even the Greeks fighting the Spartans, who really should have known better, rated them very highly for a long time and even after Sparta had finally been put in its place by Thebes that was put down to Spartan decline rather than that it had never actually been all that.

I felt that even at the time when I was watching it. Obviously large swathes of the film were wrong, or improbable, or pure fantasy. But this is also a battle that has been mythologised since the moment it ended, and viewed through that lens, some of the preposterousness becomes a feature as much as a bug, and I found I was quite happy to turn that part of my brain off.

There may be a time when the world is ready for a revisionist movie about Sparta, but 300 was never going to be that, and I think it's unfair to blame it for not being. I've never been convinced that "instead of this movie they had made a completely different movie" (or by extension "the cinematic and pop cultural context which informs this movie should be different so that the movie I want them to have made could have been made" are valid criticisms of films as they exist.

For another example of the sort of thing I mean, see any show or film featuring gladiators. It's now pretty conclusively established that "thumbs up = live/thumbs down = die" is not how it worked, and it may well have been the reverse. But that visual image is so ingrained that it's probably beyond the ability of any film now to challenge it and any that tries is just going to confuse its audience. I will notice when they get it "wrong", but I'm not going to hold it against them. Print the legend, and so on.

Which is not to excuse some of the portrayals of the Persians: there's a lot to take issue with there. To the extent that that was imported from the comic, I might purse my lips at Snyder but to be honest I think he's so incapable of engaging with anything on a deeper level than the visual and superficial that I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't notice, and in any case it's always difficult to know how closely an adaptation should cleave to the original. Where that's a problem, Snyder isn't blameless, but most of the blame should probably rest with Miller.

To be clear, my comment was intended less as a dig at 300 in particular, and more as a general disclaimer about Sparta. I really don't expect accurate history from movies, still less the ones where dudes in leather thongs fight war rhinos. I didn't really enjoy 300 all that much; I thought it had one really excellent action scene (the first one) and everything after that just kept getting more dumb and less interesting, but I don't think they should have somehow made a completely different film or anything. It's a mediocre action movie with a really distinctive visual style, some iffy political implications, and a very tenuous relationship to reality.

Although one thing I do have to give Snyder, I've enjoyed the style of his action scenes in Justice League (and assorted other DCU movies that crib it) way, way more than most of the Marvel action scenes. If the premise is that these are superpowered dudes, really sell that to me with every single frame, camera move and edit. I wanna feel that this is the most intense, epic thing ever. Marvel fight scenes to me generally have the intensity of the midwestern idea of 'hot sauce.' Careful analysis indicates there is some heat there, but it ain't gonna set you back on your heels.

I've only watched the movie and not read the book, but isn't the whole thing Dilios telling a story meant to rally the troops? And as such should be assumed to be full of embellishment/distortions/lies? Would it not stand to reason that he will portray the Persians in an extremely negative light while also playing up their ferocity to make the Spartans sound that much greater for being able to resist them so long?

Where that argument falls apart for me is that it's basically an unreliable narrator argument, and there's absolutely no evidence that the narrator is unreliable. The only thing it really rests on is that there's a frame narrative, so the dude telling the story could be embellishing it

[Tyrant]

Where that argument falls apart for me is that it's basically an unreliable narrator argument, and there's absolutely no evidence that the narrator is unreliable. The only thing it really rests on is that there's a frame narrative, so the dude telling the story could be embellishing it

Didn't he have to literally make up the ending since he wasn't around to see it? And if a storyteller makes up one part of the story out of thin air to make it sound good, why not the rest?

[warty goblin]

Didn't he have to literally make up the ending since he wasn't around to see it? And if a storyteller makes up one part of the story out of thin air to make it sound good, why not the rest?

Sure he made up the ending, but it isn't like the film does any work to make him seem like an unreliable narrator. And why would he go making up a lot of the weirder stuff in the movie? "Don't worry men, they have giant monster elephants! Also all our allies are completely worthless and will leave us to die!" isn't exactly a moral booster.

To me at least, if a film (or anything else) is going to play the unreliable narrator card, it needs to do at least some work to justify that. The default assumption is that we can believe what people in a movie tell us, particularly when the cinematography and everything else also agrees with them. Whatshisface the narrator was there for the really out there stuff like the monster elephants and so on, so it's not even doing something subtle like suggesting the more fantasy elements are being made up ex post facto because he doesn't know what happens and needs to make up something good. So I get the argument, he's telling a story and he could be lying. But within the movie's universe, there's absolutely no reason to think he is, at least to me.

[Talakeal]

Interesting. Given how much you like the theatrical version, what don't you like about the extended edition?

Let me clarify, its terrible in comparison. I am sure that if I saw the extended edition in a vacuum, I am sure I would still really like it, just not as much as I like the theatrical version.

I would need to watch them again back to back to remember exactly what is difference, its been a few years, but what sticks out strongly in my mind is the new musical number in the first act which is, while not bad, isn't nearly as good in either the visual or audio departments as the rest of the movie, and really deflates a lot of it. The bigger offender is the new scene at the end where Don Draper explains the symbolism over and over again until all subtlety is gone.

Apparently this was because Snyder didn't want anyone to accuse the scene of being a rape scene, so he went in the opposite direction, trying to justify consent in painful detail. But in a movie that is all about mystery and symbolism and surreal dream logic, having a long drawn out exposition right at the climax kills everything.

Given that everything I've seen of it seems to be an unabashedly shallow action movie, kind of the entire reason they're entertaining is that they're short and, well, punchy.

Making a 3+ hour version of a schlock action flick is like deciding what that rollercoaster REALLY needs is about 10 minutes of slow, stately movement at roughly ground level to really POP.

"Schlock" is pretty subjective and circular. While the movie is certainly part action flick, and imo the best one ever made, that really isn't all there is to it. I am pretty sure Snyder intended to make an art film here, of course whether or not he succeeded is up for debate.

[Psyren]

I'm baffled that it's something that anyone wants to see, personally. His other DC movies have a terrible reputation, and the impression I have is that DC's films only started to improve when he stopped having anything to do with them (Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam), so it sounds like something that can only go badly. Obviously I don't intend to see it, though I look forward to hearing the likely stories about what a train wreck it is.

This. But I can harbor a general appreciation for the fact that the internet is able to get more things greenlit that wouldn't have otherwise seen the light of day than before. (See also the Sonic the Hedgehog rework, rehiring James Gunn etc.)

I'm curious where it goes from here too. The absolute best case scenario for proponents is that it does better than the original, but then that either convinces DC to (a) pick up where they left off with rickety DCEU convergence instead of continuing the good momentum they had going, blunted by WW84, of focusing on good solo movies before trying that again... and/or (b) they decide what really helped this one succeed was Darkseid, which I can only see turning into Thanos 2.0 and being generally mediocre as a result.

Meanwhile the worst case is that it sucks, DC says "see, this is why we shouldn't listen to social media" and in a year or two it becomes a curiosity that nobody remembers. Where is the win here?

[Tyrant]

Sure he made up the ending, but it isn't like the film does any work to make him seem like an unreliable narrator. And why would he go making up a lot of the weirder stuff in the movie? "Don't worry men, they have giant monster elephants! Also all our allies are completely worthless and will leave us to die!" isn't exactly a moral booster.

"The enemy is a hoard of weirdos and rampaging monsters that lesser men ran from, but our brave king and 300 men fought them for days and killed a whole lot of them. Now we, the whole army, can crush them. For those who die, it will be a glorious death." That sounds a lot better than "Well, we picked a strategically sound position that allowed us to kill a whole lot of Persians, but ultimately they remembered they could climb and our guys got turned into Swiss cheese after their arrows blotted out the sun. But even though they still wildly outnumber us and now we're going to fight on open ground, we've got this." You have to make the enemy sound strong so your losses so far are understandable, but also beatable so you can inspire courage and valor.

To me at least, if a film (or anything else) is going to play the unreliable narrator card, it needs to do at least some work to justify that. The default assumption is that we can believe what people in a movie tell us, particularly when the cinematography and everything else also agrees with them. Whatshisface the narrator was there for the really out there stuff like the monster elephants and so on, so it's not even doing something subtle like suggesting the more fantasy elements are being made up ex post facto because he doesn't know what happens and needs to make up something good. So I get the argument, he's telling a story and he could be lying. But within the movie's universe, there's absolutely no reason to think he is, at least to me.

I don't think you can take it as an unreliable narrator in the sense that he is lying to us. The movie clearly shows he is telling a story to get the troops ready for battle and we know he had to have made up the end. He's (potentially) being an unreliable narrator to the Spartan army, not to us. We aren't his audience. The movie is telling us he is telling someone else a story, and in that respect the movie is being honest with us. He is akin to Peter Faulk in The Princess Bride. Fred Savage is the one being told a story, not us. That movie uses the set up of him obviously telling a story from a book, this one shows Dilios trying to rally the troops where I feel it is safe to assume he will embellish. I guess what I am saying is that, to me, the fact he is trying to rally the troops and get them ready for battle is enough to assume he isn't being honest about events and is trying to paint them in such a way that he believes will achieve the desired effect. This scenario, to me, is the equivalent of seeing someone read from a storybook. It tells me what I am hearing is likely fictional. I accept that I could be wrong though.

[Clertar]

This. But I can harbor a general appreciation for the fact that the internet is able to get more things greenlit that wouldn't have otherwise seen the light of day than before. (See also the Sonic the Hedgehog rework, rehiring James Gunn etc.)

It can also backfire, like getting Trevorrow's Duel of the Fates cancelled and bringing back Abrams for Rise of Skywalker after the backlash and outrage against The Last Jedi.

[Peelee]

It can also backfire, like getting Trevorrow's Duel of the Fates cancelled

Having seen the Jurassic World series, I am not so certain that was "backfiring".

[Imbalance]

I have no horse in this race, because I have not seen this movie and don't intend to, but I certainly share the bafflement that this exists and that people have apparently been clamoring for it. Does anyone seriously think a longer version of what sounds like a pretty mediocre movie is going to be amazing?

Not amazing, probably not even better. What I'm looking for is "more complete."

[Gallowglass]

I have no horse in this race, because I have not seen this movie and don't intend to, but I certainly share the bafflement that this exists and that people have apparently been clamoring for it. Does anyone seriously think a longer version of what sounds like a pretty mediocre movie is going to be amazing?

You are living in a forum that seems to be composed of 99% people who hate Zack Snyder and hated Justice League (yet still feel compelled to take time to post in a thread that's about both of them for some odd reason). This isn't indicative of the overall feelings in the community of people who "have a horse" in it

There is a massive lot of "horse-havers" who are interested in this for several reasons:

not inclusively:

They love Comic Book Movies, didn't like Justice League and hope this will be better
They love Justice League, didn't like the movie and hope this will be better.
They hate Joss Weedon (always or just now)
They love Zack Snyder
They hated Justice league, but since then were enamored with Wonder Woman and Aquaman and hope this will be better
They have HBOMax subscriptions and are just happy to actually get some content