Justice League 4K UHD (2017)

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by zodwriter

Why would Snyder want WB to invest in his version of the movie if he didn't like his cut? None of what you guys are saying makes sense. It's a fact people have seen his version and enjoyed it, it's a fact that Snyder supports the release of his directors cut, and it's a fact that WB and Whedon butchered Snyder's vision. The only thing I can agree with is that WB probably won't release it because they want to move on. WB will be leaving a lot of money on the table by not releasing it, but that's their prerogative.

Every big-budget movie goes through reshoots, it's not a WB or DC or Snyder thing. Justice League re-edited with just material from principal photography would still be an incomplete movie. Snyder's cut was an assembly that only existed after principal photography. He still wanted to direct reshoots and pickups to make the movie he actually envisioned. But obviously that didn't happen and Whedon was brought in to create the hybrid we got in theaters. Any extended cut is gonna be born out of that, not entirely the work of one director or the other.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

Per DGA rules, does a director's cut have to have completed VFX?

No, not at all.

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No, not at all.

[Geoff D]

Think of it as being their personal 'edit' of the film rather than the more final sounding 'director's cut' as we think of it. You don't need complete VFX in order to make the majority of the editing choices that you want to make, those scenes will exist as animatics or temp renders and they're used as placeholders while the cut is refined and the final VFX shots roll in. You can very much 'lock' a picture edit whilst still waiting for VFX, most big-budget movies usually have VFX shots that go right to the wire in terms of delivery.

I know what you're thinking: "Hah! So Snyder COULD have completed his cut then!" but the point in this case is that he was taken off the show before he could even complete his personal cut of the film. Same thing goes for Alien³, say. Fincher never even delivered his own cut before it was taken away from him, hence the extended DVD/Blu version being officially referred to as the 'Assembly Cut' for quite a while, they didn't know what else to call it because it wasn't the final vision that Fincher had for the film, it was edited to confirm to a certain stage in its editorial evolution. And even though some of the original SW films weren't made under DGA auspices (Lucas having fallen out with that organisation after the 1977 original, I think?) even their directors-for-hire had the contractual right of delivering a 'director's cut', their personal edit, after which Lucas could do what he wanted with it.

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Think of it as being their personal 'edit' of the film rather than the more final sounding 'director's cut' as we think of it. You don't need complete VFX in order to make the majority of the editing choices that you want to make, those scenes will exist as animatics or temp renders and they're used as placeholders while the cut is refined and the final VFX shots roll in. You can very much 'lock' a picture edit whilst still waiting for VFX, most big-budget movies usually have VFX shots that go right to the wire in terms of delivery.

I know what you're thinking: "Hah! So Snyder COULD have completed his cut then!" but the point in this case is that he was taken off the show before he could even complete his personal cut of the film. Same thing goes for Alien³, say. Fincher never even delivered his own cut before it was taken away from him, hence the extended DVD/Blu version being officially referred to as the 'Assembly Cut' for quite a while, they didn't know what else to call it because it wasn't the final vision that Fincher had for the film, it was edited to confirm to a certain stage in its editorial evolution.

I'm way past the point at which I accepted that a watchable Snyder cut exists. However, I was just curious about the DGA rule that the other forum member mentioned. When he says that a director is entitled to their own cut of a film, does he mean that said cut must be released if the director wishes or that it just has to technically exist?

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by zodwriter

Why would Snyder want WB to invest in his version of the movie if he didn't like his cut? None of what you guys are saying makes sense. It's a fact people have seen his version and enjoyed it, it's a fact that Snyder supports the release of his directors cut, and it's a fact that WB and Whedon butchered Snyder's vision. The only thing I can agree with is that WB probably won't release it because they want to move on. WB will be leaving a lot of money on the table by not releasing it, but that's their prerogative.

The VFX is not finished on Snyder's cut. It would cost a fortune to finish it. VFX is not cheap at all.

Snyder's cut is not one he was happy with. He intended to do reshoots and pickups to create the movie he wanted. Most directors only realise they need to film new material when screening an early cut.

Snyder's cut was the earliest of earliest cuts. Yes people in early screenings may have enjoyed it, but Snyder himself was not happy with it. To Snyder, that cut is an incomplete version of the film. Much like how Fox couldn't label the Assembly cut (which was more accurately a workprint) of Alien 3 as a "Director's cut" as to Fincher that cut, even though it more closely matched his vision, was still an incomplete version of the film. In fact, I'm fairly certain Alien 3 is one of the only times a studio has gone back and released an earlier cut of a film that was made before their meddling. And that cut was released in 2003; 11 years after the film was released and the Alien franchise considered "dead".

Snyder has never said anything about supporting the petition to release his cut. He has just liked a post.

But if you want Snyder's cut, you'll have to deal with a film that has unfinished VFX, is missing sequences Snyder intended to film and, to Snyder, is not the film he wanted to release. So, in theory, it wouldn't be a Snyder cut at all. It would be exactly like Alien 3; an unfinished version of the film that, even though it's much closer, still doesn't represent the director's true intent.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

I'm way past the point at which I accepted that a watchable Snyder cut exists. However, I was just curious about the DGA rule that the other forum member mentioned. When he says that a director is entitled to their own cut of a film, does he mean that said cut must be released if the director wishes or that it just has to technically exist?

The latter: it just has to technically exist to satisfy contractual regulations. The legal term that would demand that something be released is 'final cut', that's the golden goose that every director is after but very, very few get to exercise that right.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

I'm way past the point at which I accepted that a watchable Snyder cut exists. However, I was just curious about the DGA rule that the other forum member mentioned. When he says that a director is entitled to their own cut of a film, does he mean that said cut must be released if the director wishes or that it just has to technically exist?

The studio has no obligations to release a director's cut of any film. The director is allowed to make their cut but it's entirely up to the studio if they want to release it. The studio owns the film not the director.

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The latter: it just has to technically exist to satisfy contractual regulations. The legal term that would demand that something be released is 'final cut', that's the golden goose that every director is after but very, very few get to exercise that right.

Interesting. I don't see the point of such a director's cut if it isn't guaranteed a release.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

The studio has no obligations to release a director's cut of any film. The director is allowed to make their cut but it's entirely up to the studio if they want to release it. The studio owns the film not the director.

Yep. Follow the money...

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You can very much 'lock' a picture edit whilst still waiting for VFX, most big-budget movies usually have VFX shots that go right to the wire in terms of delivery.

Case in point, the final VFX shot for the first Hobbit film (the closing shot of Smaug opening his eye) was only completed on the morning of the film's premiere in New Zealand. It got to the point where they were worried they'd have to screen the film without the final shot.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep. Follow the money...

Suicide Squad is the perfect example of this. There were two cuts of the film (David Ayer's cut and the cut made by the trailer company) and the final cut of the film is a pick and mix of what the studio (and test audiences) liked about both cuts. This is ultimately why the movie's pace, tone and editing is all over the place; it's a mix of two completely different cuts that shouldn't have been edited together.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

Interesting. I don't see the point of such a director's cut if it isn't guaranteed a release.

Well, as I tried to stress above: you're putting too much emphasis on the term 'director's cut' as being this final finished idealised version of x movie, for in the biz that term has long meant the version that a director will 'complete' in terms of their preferred editorial decisions (incomplete VFX, sound mix etc notwithstanding) but it may never be the one that sees the light of day.

I think we've all just got to count ourselves lucky that Snyder DID get to have his definitive version come to light on BvS, but JL was always going to be an indulgence too far for the suits at Warners. Even if he didn't step aside I reckon they would've gutted his version regardless.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Even if he didn't step aside I reckon they would've gutted his version regardless.

This.

His daughter's suicide was perfect (sic!) situation for them.

[dallywhitty]

Yeah, reportedly Warners were already considering giving him the boot.

[Geoff D]

Warners do have a certain historical precedence for this on their superhero movies though, it's Dick Donner on Superman II all over again. I just hope that if we do ever get The Snyder Cut of JL that Warners spend more than a buck fifty to complete the VFX, some of that stuff in the Donner Cut of Supes II would even make a bedroom programmer blush with embarassment.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Yeah, reportedly Warners were already considering giving him the boot.

According to the latest reports, the big bosses at Time Warner were furious with Warner Bros for not firing Snyder from Justice League after the response to Batman v Superman. As we know Snyder's first cut of Justice League was set to be more of the same, I wouldn't be surprised if Time Warner put the pressure on to give Snyder the boot. Him leaving voluntarily was probably a huge relief for them as they wouldn't have to navigate the PR nightmare of firing a director midway through production.

And apparently Time Warner are even more furious about Justice League's critical and financial reception. This was meant to be their biggest film of the year and it's now looking likely IT will outgross it by about $100 million (if Justice League doesn't reach $600 million this weekend then it never will).

In terms of profit, IT and Annabelle: Creation were much more profitable movies than Justice League. Both made around 20 times their budget at the Box Office while Justice League has yet to double it. A film about a possessed doll and a film about a killer clown were more profitable for Warner Bros than a Justice League film. No matter what you thought of the film, the box office performance was an embarrassment for Warner Bros.

I'm fully expecting Time Warner to step in and remove Tsujihara and replace him with someone with a better track record and more willing to follow their demands (similar to how Sony fired Amy Pascal and replaced her with Tom Rothman).

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

A film about a possessed doll and a film about a killer clown were more profitable for Warner Bros than a Justice League film. No matter what you thought of the film, the box office performance was an embarrassment for Warner Bros.

Domestic box office after 22 days:

Wonder Woman: $300,601,483
Justice League: $205,010,371

It's almost sad.

[Geoff D]

Yep. Whichever way it's sliced there's no doubting that JL has been a colossal **** up for all involved.

[imsounoriginal]

Make a DC cinematic universe, they said. They'll be popular and lucrative movies, they said.