Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon

ironwez20 said:

lol I really am just kidding tbh. I don’t necessarily think that about the whole film

Click to expand...

I gave this movie a rewatch tonight hoping that it might give me more insight into whatever Zack Snyder was trying to do with it. Interestingly, just beforehand I happened to watch an interview Snyder did a few days ago on the I Minutemen YT podcast where he stated (I’m paraphrasing here) that he loves taking myths and seeing how far he can go towards breaking them through deconstruction. And that he does this as a sort of test of their strength. Like if they can survive that then they’re worthy in a sense. He gave an example of breaking the convention of Batman killing in BvS as a kind of test to see if Batman can still remain heroic after falling off the pedestal in that way.

Anyway, I’ve never read the Owls of Ga’Hoole books. But this movie is hella strange, I gotta say. This film strikes me as a form of genre subversion, i.e., that Snyder is taking the animated children’s adventure tale and making it into something that actually evokes an “ick” factor. For example, the opening scene shows an owl soaring majestically through the golden sky. And through this imagery we vicariously experience the freedom and joy of flight. But it then swoops down on a cute adorable little mouse—who obviously becomes dinner when he brings it home to his children to feed them.

The owls are very cool looking and the animation is first rate. It’s gorgeous looking. But there’s an also a kind of repulsive aspect to these creatures. True to the genre conventions the owls constantly mug to be cute and cuddly. But they’re actually kind of ugly and creepy.

And there’s some outright weirdness with a snake… which in real life is definitely food for an owl.. being a sort of nanny-like companion to the kids in the owl family. Like what?

Virtually all attempts at humor fell flat. Was this intentional?

The story itself… which I’m assuming is from the books… is just very, very odd. The fur pellets that owls cough up after eating furry rodents contain some sort of tiny metallic flecks imbued with a sort of magical ‘mana’ that evil owls are using to construct a super weapon to dominate owls everywhere. And there are some mythical owls in a great tree that according to legend are super warriors who have a code of nobility and honor. Kind of an owl Camelot. The protagonist discovers that they are in fact real and he makes contact with them, and convinces them to intervene against the evil owls. And the good owls defeat the bad owls.

I have to be brutally honest that at times I found myself losing interest. It was a struggle to complete the watch.

I honestly think this almost has to be another example of Snyder’s genre subversion—which usually I love. And listen, I’m probably one of the biggest Zack Snyder fans out there. I’ve written blogs and made YT videos about what I love about his work. I think he’s a legit misunderstood artistic genius. I love his deconstruction in Watchmen and BvS. But in this case I have to ask: why on earth do this to the children’s animated film genre? And it’s not that I have any stake in that, really. That genre means nothing to me personally. But why go to this trouble? There’s almost nothing I can find that’s satisfying in any way about this.

I mean, nevertheless this movie remains a curiosity to me. I’m mainly just puzzled why Zack would go to the trouble. It’s just so damned bizarre.

Click to expand...

Alatar said:

Given how massively upset so many fans were at seeing their DC heroes deconstructed, for Snyder next to deconstruct the beloved “Star Wars” space opera film—the genre and its mythology both—seems like a sort of career death wish. It’s incredibly subversive from an artistic standpoint.

Click to expand...

FattyMoBookyButt said:

It wasn't upsetting...but it also wasn't wholly entertaining (to me) either. That's the problem with deconstruction. If you mess around with the formula enough, it distracting and you lose that buy-in that is so necessary for suspension of disbelief in a superhero/sci-fi/fantasy story. I think by messing with the tropes, you're messing with the core of what is intriguing about a character in the first place. That's barely a winning proposition and should be really tough to build a career off of, but Zack has done it. It's more acceptable on re-watches, so his multiple version movies plays well into this. In the future, when the Batman franchise has 47 reboots, with each having a their own trilogy, will his method be enough to make his movies stand out or will they be considered an interesting but unimportant exercise in the mythology?

I mostly enjoyed Rebel Moon and will definitely watch the 2nd part and R-rated versions when I have the time. I liked the kingdom robot's design. Most of everything else was predicable/forgettable but I still have interest in for what's coming, even if the formula limits the results. Part of this is the state of entertainment right now. We have more media than ever. And only a very, very, very small percentage will be "great".

Click to expand...

I was a Frank Miller fan for a long time. I thought I would do Dark Knight Returns. Frankly, that was the movie I wanted to make. I still want to do it. I always tell everyone if I could do Dark Knight Returns I’d be done with comic book movies. Because if you’ve done Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns, for me, you’re good. Your legacy is set. Batman v Superman literally steals a lot from Dark Knight Returns. I’m not going to say it didn’t. It did. But it’s still not Dark Knight Returns. So that’s still out there [for me to do].

Click to expand...

I’ve always been fascinated with genre and the deconstruction of genre. I’m a genre filmmaker. What’s a genre filmmaker? In genre you can explore philosophy. You can explore mythology. Especially myth. We make modern myth movies.

Superhero movies are modern myth. Like we have Superman and Batman. Are they not the mythic answer to a lot of modern questions about how we should live? Like Superman, is he not a 20th century invention that says to us like when we run up against ****, like against war or against class struggle, or like interrelationships between different countries, does Superman not appear to us in answer to our primitive brains trying to figure out where we are? You make a guy like Superman so he can answer some of those questions. He can represent a point of view that is not helpless in the face of the insanity, the problems of the 20th century.

And I think of Batman in the same way. He’s an answer to the urban jungle. The urban jungle needs a myth. Just like the ancient jungle needed a myth. In ancient days a volcano would erupt and they’d say I guess the gods are mad. But now the problem is why do I feel helpless in the face of technology? So we need an additional answer. Genre has always allowed me to make those comments.

The thing that I always find fascinating about the movies I’ve made is how they’ve landed on pop culture. Like in an article it said “Zack Snyder love him or hate him.” And I’m like hate him? What? I don’t understand. It’s just a movie!

Look at Rebel Moon. It’s not weird or offensive enough to hate me for, in my opinion. I have no issue with someone not liking the movie. That’s not the question. Who cares? The (strange) thing is personalizing it.

Like Batman and Superman is a lifestyle choice for a lot of people. It’s not just a movie. If I made a romantic comedy you’d be okay, that was fun. [But] I love that people feel this passionately about it. In no way would I criticize that because I feel the same. Because for me it’s morning, noon, and night. So for those guys it’s not just a movie.

On some level you have to acknowledge that this is their religion. And they feel strongly about it. And by the way it’s my religion too! I tend to get in trouble because I do take a deconstructivist point of view. Because of Dark Knight Returns. Because of Watchmen. If you’ve read those two comics it’s hard to go back.

I care about Batman and [so I] want to take him apart. People are like “Batman can’t kill,” right? Batman can’t kill is canon. And I’m like, okay, the first thing I want to do when you say that is I want to see what happens in a situation where he has to kill someone! You’re just protecting your god in a weird way. You’re making your god irrelevant if he can’t be in that situation that he has to now deal with. If he does do that [kill] what does that mean? What does it tell you? Does he stand up to it? Can he survive that as a god? Can Batman survive that?

In the Dark Knight Returns there’s a scene where—and I copied it kind of in Batman v Superman—he bursts through the wall and grabs the M60. In the comic book the mutant’s got this kid with a gun to his head and he’s like “I’ll kill him, I swear I’ll do it.” And Batman says “I believe you” and shoots him straight in the head because it’s a no-win scenario.

It’s like the Kobayashi Maru of Star Trek, the test they put Kirk through to see how you’ll react when there’s no way to win. Because if you’re going to be the commander of a starship you’re going to be in situations where it’s life or death, especially when there’s no tricking death in this case. And the famous thing with Captain Kirk is he hacked the machine and made it so that there is a solution. So his response to the no-win situation was to create a scenario where he wins. Which is a cool character move. But I kind of felt that’s what they would say: “don’t do that to Batman!” Don’t put him in that no-win situation. Because we can’t see him lose. He has to maintain this godlike status.

That’s the cool thing that Frank Miller said. **** it. I want to see who this guy is. So you’re saying to me that I’ve got a gun to this kid’s head, and you’re Batman, and there’s no trick like throwing the batarang, there’s no dust ball to distract me… Like I’ve just got to pull the trigger and kill this kid… So you’re saying in that scenario what’s Batman supposed to do? Like, yeah he’s gonna lay down his gun? The guy says “I swear I’ll do it.” [So] “I believe you” is perfect. And: (then Zack gestures firing the gun).

That’s where Frank Miller takes Batman and just tears him half. And you’ve now got to come out other side of that—and Batman is still the hero. Batman still does the right thing. He maintains his code [here to protect innocent life above all else]. He doesn’t change that. Our perception of him changes.

And I have run afoul of that. But a lot of the fandom have gotten to the same place I have with the characters, where they need to test them. And my experience is that the characters have not let us down. These myths have not let us down. They put you to the jagged edge, into that scenario, and they come out the other side.

Click to expand...

Nite Owl not being able to get it up because he’s not in his costume—that’s cool to me. That’s boiling down the superhero to its purest thing. I don’t get turned on unless I get to go out and ******* save some people and do some crime fighting. And now I’m ******* ready to go. That as a superhero movie concept took a long time to land, like with The Boys. And with these other kind of superheroes where now it’s cool to deconstruct superheroes. It’s kind of fun. Everyone’s having a good time with it. I was doing it almost 15 years ago. I just don’t think superheroes were as deep in the culture as they are now. Where all those things would land.

All the deconstructive work that we were doing at the time was really in reference to comic books, not comic book movies. Because Watchmen [the comic book run/graphic novel] was written in response to the comic book industry. Comic book movies [to the degree that they exist today] didn’t exist when the book was written [published 1986]. Alan Moore was very much obsessed with the morality of comic book heroes. So he took an adult look at it. He’s smart. A pure genius.

I was obsessed with Heavy Metal growing up. Basically what happened is that I was 12, maybe 13. I bought a copy of Heavy Metal because it says “adult illustrated fantasy magazine” right under [the title]. It’s in small letters but it’s there. I would cover it with my thumb when my mom was around. But one Christmas she got me a subscription to it. She didn’t know. She just thought it was a cool comic book. And I didn’t say anything of course…

When you see the R-rated version of the Rebel Moon at the end of the summer that are like two three hour versions that are hard R-rated [they’re] exactly what I wanted to do. I totally get the economics of wanting to make a PG13 version of this insane genre movie. Because what I’m asking from a budgetary standpoint is high for a boutique space movie that’s a Heavy Metal comic! People who love that will love it more than anything else. If I can land that they’ll think it’s the coolest thing ever. But for a mass audience it might not be exactly be what you would imagine. So I [did] both, and that’s why. When you see the R-rated version you’re going to be like ****, this Heavy Metal come to life is really what it is. That’s what I really wanted to do. The was the thesis of my whole being turned on by this sci-fi. Because the thing you can do with that format was that you could really deconstruct sci-fi.

Like when Luke Skywalker walks into the cantina and is confronted by walrus man, that is sexual. Like he’s [mentally] ******* Luke. Luke’s some farm boy in this rough bar. What’s going to happen to Luke? That’s a conversation you cannot have in the context of Star Wars. There’s no chance. That’s not gonna happen. But like in Heavy Metal that threat is real. And it’s not anything other than like a naive farm boy walking into a gritty city bar. But he doesn’t know ****. He’s out of his element. Other than that he’s our hero. And he’s got to go through a crucible. And he’s got to learn. These are like Joseph Campbellian parts of his journey.

But anyway, I’ve always been the hugest fan of Heavy Metal. Like it was the coolest thing. Heavy Metal was amazing. It kind of broke me for comics a little bit. Because it was always like super sexy and super violent. So you’d get a normal comic and be like, uh, when are they going to start *******? So underground, so cult, so weird. That’s what I loved about it and what I wanted to do with the movie [Rebel Moon]. What does the cult, underground, raw sci-fi movie look like?

So it’s hard to do with the PG13 version. The PG13 version was hard. It was very hard. It was super conflicted. But I was liberated by the fact that the R-rated version exists. So I was super grateful to Netflix. I’m happy to do whatever you guys [Netflix] think is right for the PG13 version. I’m a good soldier and I’m proud of it. AndI love it [the PG13 cuts]. But yes it is different [than what I actually wanted to do].

Click to expand...

jye4ever said:

Go to 19 minute

Click to expand...

Alatar said:

Getting back to Rebel Moon, I gave it a rewatch last night and there were some things that struck me.

Things I like:

main characters and story - I enjoy all the main characters all pretty much. I definitely want to know more about all of them. In Part 2 I expect to learn their backstories. And for Part 1 for some characters we’ll learn much more in the director’s cut as well. I want to see them at least die gloriously as they defend Veldt against the Imperium.

worldbuilding/lore - I’m curious about such things as the history of Issa (three different incarnations dating back to an ancient original goddess), the order of knighthood for the Jimmies, how the Imperium’s neural link network works, the royal family, and the creepy tech-religion of the Imperium.

Jimmy - Jimmy is awesome! We’ll see a fair bit more of him in the director’s cut of Part 1. For a character this good to be almost entirely cut out of the PG13 cut is almost criminal. Anyway, every time he’s on screen it makes me happy.

Scribes - the scribes are creepy af. Here too one of the best features of this whole mythos we only get a few glimpses of, which is a shame. We know from the novelization that they for some bizarre reason pull teeth out of the slain leaders of the planets and moons that they conquer and place those molars around a portrait of the slain Princess Issa, which they carry around. Wtf? I just want to learn more about them.

King Levitica - In the novelization (which will basically be the director’s cut) we get to see a fair bit more about this king and his planet, and its culture. He’s nearly as awesome as Jimmy. We only get to see the slightest bit of him in the PG13 cut. It’s a shame.

Kai - At the first watch I didn’t realize it, but I really did want to see him become a good guy! So I bought into his treachery. In subsequent watches I’ve enjoyed watching how he pulls that off. Charlie Hunam did a really nice job with the role. He’s a charmer. And from a deconstructive angle, in a more realistic or grounded approach to Star Wars a character like Han Solo would almost certainly have screwed the rest of the party early on, i.e., sold them out for a profit, etc. So I do appreciate this character. But at the end of the day ironically he ends up serving a greater purpose to bring the team together regardless of his sinister motives.

Things I’m ambivalent about:

Fight choreography - Sofia Boutella was a trained dancer and in that sense is athletic. It does give her fight scenes some air of believability. And dramatically speaking, as an actor, she does a very good job selling the fight scenes. She does the best job in her final fight scene with Noble—I really bought that one. The scene in the barn is decent, although a few movements don’t read as natural feeling. And in fact soldiers make themselves too easy targets for the blows. The bar fight scene felt a bit obligatory and worn. Anyway, although Sofia makes it work well enough, it’s not as satisfying as it ideally could be if a professional stunt woman had been used. This is sort of a mixed bag for me.

Gunnar - He’s relatively likable and endearing but there’s a sort blushing “awe shucks” vulnerability to him that feels overdrawn. Sort of like the Disney character Goofy. It’s almost annoying. I’m assuming this is a matter of direction, the actor doing as instructed. If it’s genre deconstruction is that something that’s being emphasized for a reason?

Things that bothered me:

Jerks are overdrawn - This is a problem I have come to have with many of Zack’s films. Anyone who is a dick is needlessly exaggerated. The soldiers (except for Private Aris who aids the villagers) are particularly cringe in that respect. Ray Porter’s smuggler (?) character falls into this category, for the most part. The dog faced dude in the bar that hits on Gunnar as well.

Noble’s slack jaw - Ed Skrein I’m sure is doing this as he was directed by Zack, but much of the time he puts a kind of a slack into his jaw (with mouth remaining closed). It’s overdone. He’s at his most satisfying to watch when he’s pretending to be nice in order to get what he wants. The slack jaw (as much as he uses it) isn’t necessary.

Bloodaxes overact - Ray Fisher rocked it as Cyborg. IIRC he’s actually done some Shakespeare. Evidently he’s got some real acting chops. But much… eh, most… of his performance in this movie feels exaggerated and overdrawn. To his credit he sells the motivation to join the rebels fine. And his sacrificial death scene is decently performed. But there’s some cringe to the delivery for a lot of his lines. The guy can act, so this I have to attribute to the direction. Ditto for the actress playing Devra. I highly doubt that it’s her fault as an actor. It seems a directorial choice.

Click to expand...

chrisstbh said:

I can't believe that Netflix put so much into this. Yet they cancel actual good shows.

Click to expand...

Random_Retard said:

Almost looks like a video game trailer...

Quick question to anyone who cares to enlighten me:
All of those big bad battleships... Why don't they just bomb the whole planet and be done with it...? Please don't tell me it's because of the grain...

Click to expand...

Random_Retard said:

Almost looks like a video game trailer...

Quick question to anyone who cares to enlighten me:
All of those big bad battleships... Why don't they just bomb the whole planet and be done with it...? Please don't tell me it's because of the grain...

Click to expand...

T8OO said:

Probably a similar reason the Empire decided to leave their spaceships and get inside slow unstable walking machines, it makes the battles more interesting.

Click to expand...

T8OO said:

I tend to agree with most of this. I do think/hope that the fights will improve having not been cut for violence.

Click to expand...