Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon

Kebron said:

From my understanding the Empire had to attack from the ground due to the Ion Cannons keeping them away from bombarding the planet.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons that exist and ones that can be made up as to why. However, if they wanted to the writer could have a low-flying vehicle with the same cannons as the AT-AT's take out the shields much faster but then you don't get the cool battle in the snow.

You were inferring the reason in Rebel moon was the same as Empire. I gave you the reason I remember them saying in the movie. Unless Rebel Moon has Ion Cannons, it's a different reason.

The same as in they have a reason to do the longer drawn out more personal battle. Whatever that reason may be.

I was sold as soon as I realised I was hearing Audioslave.

Here’s the trailer for Part 2 on YT for those two lazy to click the VERO link:

With the level of violence that Zack says will be in the director’s cuts Part 2 looks to be insane.

On the topic of genre deconstruction for this movie, there’s some conspicuous overacting going in Part 1 that I’ve identified above. This is something that appears intentional to me. It’s an aesthetic that I think Snyder is intentionally using; and my best guess is that it’s therefore an element of the deconstruction.

I find it throughout his films, actually. Snyder walks a kind of tightrope between grounded realism and plausible believability, on the one hand, and a viewing experience obviously created to provide fantasy escapism, on the other. He’s most often trying to bring those polarities together in a way that feels a bit surreal and uncanny. And I think it does succeed extremely well in films like 300, Man of Steel, and Watchmen—and, yes, BvS. Especially with BvS, honestly. Although BvS stretches it nearly to the limit.

Or at any rate I feel I can safely deduce that the overacting is intentional. Snyder knows how to direct a scene without that aesthetic—he’s directed plenty of low key acting performances in his films as well. He’s typically using accomplished actors that certainly have the demonstrated ability to not overact. Even for less experienced actors that came from other forms of entertainment. Sofia Boutella started out as a dancer and fashion model but she has given really excellent relatively grounded, low key performances in a number of films including Kingsmen, Atomic Blonde, and Star Trek Beyond. No one should blame her for the Mummy’s overall underwhelming performance. And former pro wrestler Dave Bautista delivered a wonderfully understated performance in AotD. Again, problems folks may with that movie feeling underwhelming I don’t think fall at the feet of Dave Bautista. Such performances that are not “over the top” are presumably at Snyder’s direction.

Now, Zack has mentioned that in his director’s cut there’s a “Heavy Metal (magazine aesthetic) over-the-top-ness” to his director’s cuts. I’m going to go ahead and posit that the possibly intentionally overacted moments belong to that. Maybe some of that bleeds over into the “serious and earnest” PG13 cuts.

One way of being “over the top” or excessive is to have tremendously graphic violence. Another is to add sex. And yet another is to have actors be highly stylized and overly emphatic in their delivery. Myself I’ve only watched the Heavy Metal movie from 1980. I’ve never seen or read a single Heavy Metal magazine. But I would assume that the characters and dialogue tend to be heavily stylized and exaggerated in the magazine.

All this being said, I’ll be honest that critics and the general audience… based on the overall reaction to the PG13 cut of Rebel Moon Part 1 anyway… probably won’t be receptive to what he’s trying to do here. Just look at how upset fans got with Superman and Batman being deconstructed! Star Wars is every bit as much of a sacred cow. Perhaps even more so.

Comic books fans at least had superheroes deconstructed in 1986 by Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns. Although I suspect the fans aggrieved by what Snyder did with superheroes either didn’t really understand those comics, are attached little importance to them as crazy elseworld runs that don’t affect the core canon of the classical mythology for the characters.

I’m not aware of any movies that have done what Zack is going for here for the sci-fi genre. Admittedly I haven’t watched much sci-fi over the last couple of decades. Star Wars and Star Trek have been lampooned by Spaceballs, Galaxy Quest, and Star Trek: Lower Decks. But those are humorous parodies that communicate unmistakable love and fondness for the source material. I’m not aware of anything as philosophical and artsy as what Snyder is aiming for with Rebel Moon. I could be wrong about that, and if I am please share what you know! But as I see it there’s a darkly cynical and subversive aspect to Rebel Moon, a scathing social commentary about corporatism at the root of Americanism, that I suspect isn’t nearly as friendly as a garden variety fun spoof is.

Always with the deconstruction why can’t he just… construct?

ironwez20 said:

Always with the deconstruction why can’t he just… construct?

Click to expand...

Don't worry about it. You wouldn't like it if he did.

ironwez20 said:

Always with the deconstruction why can’t he just… construct?

Click to expand...

Why does he like to take myths apart to see what makes them tick? Probably more productive to ask what is about that that makes people uncomfortable.

The execution?

T8OO said:

Don't worry about it. You wouldn't like it if he did.

Click to expand...

I probably would. lol.

Alatar said:

Why does he like to take myths apart to see what makes them tick? Probably more productive to ask what is about that that makes people uncomfortable.

Click to expand...

What Dave said. Lmao. And I don’t think he’s taking the myths apart to see what makes them tick I think he just wants to be edgy mc edge lord. He kinda reminds me of shadow the hedgehog.

What if we gave sonic the hedgehog a gun and made him say curse words.

Dave_W said:

The execution?

Click to expand...

Hey, it’s fine if some people don’t care for that. But I think it’s executed extremely well. And I’m undeterred to detail (exhaustively!) why.

I would say that Snyder doing deconstruction in general is also simply aggravating to many because 1) they don’t at all get what he’s doing, and 2) they don’t want deconstruction. Rather, they want their heroes and myths to remain on pedestals. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen the comment that Zack Snyder “doesn’t get Superman and Batman.”

But I concur that there is something about his storytelling style, his execution, that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. That’s a perfectly fair complaint.

And I think Snyder has a bit of a disconnect going on with this. Something maybe he’s still working out within himself. On the one hand, he has stated that wants the films to be polarizing and controversial because he believes it’s healthy for people to inspect the issues that he’s raising with the deconstruction. Fair enough. But on the other hand, there’s something nearly masochistic to it for him, lol. He pokes the bear so much that he now regularly gets mauled. It has made him into artistic hero for those that appreciate what he does, and pariah to those that can’t stand it.

When Snyder is having the strongest emotional and psychological impact on the viewer, I don’t see that coming through standard, straightforward linear exposition. He’s using a combination of things that push the envelope for how to open the psyche up to the mythic experience. One is obviously his cinematography. He uses painterly archetypal visual imagery. Snyder formally studied painting and is an avowed Jungian/Campbellian. So visual images serve as symbolism to represent aspects of human experience of myth. This is not speculative on my part—that’s from him. For example BvS is chockfull of it, he’s identified over 100 visual Easter eggs that he intentionally planted in the film.

And I think the other things he does is to show things contextually without clearly explaining it through dialogue and diegetically. Diegesis in film means that there is a distinction between what the viewer sees on the screen, and what takes place in the greater world of that story outside of what the viewer is shown. The film can’t show everything, obviously. There are things at play outside in the world of the film that are “off screen.”

And this is rather like real life. Even to the point that our conscious relationship to our own unconscious is to a fair degree represented by this aspect of storytelling in cinema. It also mirrors the fact that real life itself does not conveniently explain or make clear everything that is going on outside of anyone’s consciously aware experience. It’s up to the individual human brain to gather data, assess, make connections between things, understand context, connect dots, make inferences and speculations, do reality testing, and so forth.

People typically… unconsciously, self-protectively, and instinctively… seek to be comforted, soothed, and reassured by familiar aesthetics and conventions of storytelling that uphold various cherished beliefs, and myths. Myths ritualize a problem for the social community that is actually not resolvable, but creates an illusion that it can be.

Alatar said:

... without clearly explaining it through dialogue and diagetically. Diagesis in film means that there is a distinction between what the viewer sees on the screen, and what takes place in the greater world of that story outside of what the viewer is shown.

Click to expand...

Do you mean Diegesis?

Wor-Gar said:

Do you mean Diegesis?

Click to expand...

I do indeed, autocorrect did give it to me second choice over but I missed it, thank you! Corrected.

I think he’s actively and intentionally playing with it at times. If that’s the case by definition it creates a kind of ambiguity to what one is seeing.

The subtext that corporatism is at odds with pure artistic creativity and freedom seems pretty clear. I mean, I’m pretty sure there’s an allegory going on here. Veldt represents the artist’s connection to pure creativity, i.e., creativity as it arises from Nature for it’s own sake, and the Imperium represents the forces of capitalism that oppose it. At one point the villagers even try to convince themselves that “Yes, our work (labor) will fight for us!”

But things like Boutella doing her own stunts, the blurred backgrounds, and some Heavy Metal magazine style cheesy line delivery, I think may be part of the commentary. I’m beginning to wonder if Zack is doing the boldest and riskiest thing of all by at times deliberately forcing us out of the soothing comfort zone of innocent escapism. And this may be why that will go into overdrive with the sex and violence of the director’s cuts.

Oh, and all the unabashed and open use of inspirations from other sources in Rebel Moon is part of this too. It’s not outright parody. But it’s self-consciously done to remind us how the sausage is made. I’ve posted this many times by now, but just take some time to sift through what Star Wars is constructed from, which George Lucas has always been very open about: Star Wars sources and analogues

So fans… and admittedly most of them Zack Snyder superfans… that have seen fan-only screenings of Rebel Moon Part 2 The Scargiver are not unexpectedly giving it raves. But what is most interesting to me is I’m consistently reading that some feel the action is the best Snyder has ever done. That is saying a lot! If this has merit… if the action is at least on par with say, 300, Man of Steel, and BvS, let’s say… for most people that’s reason enough to watch and enjoy it.

It’s releasing on Netflix April 19th.

A couple other things I found worth noting is that we do indeed get all the backstories for each team member in Part 2. Also that Part 2 is “very much a war movie.” And that it “goes full Seven Samurai mode” in terms of the defense of the village. In that sense sort of quasi-remake in the spirit of the Magnificent Seven.

It’s still the PG13 2 hour version, and the 3 hour R-rated director’s cuts are coming out together some time this summer. I really like the PG13 cut of Part 1 and I’m sure I’ll appreciate this film as well. But it’s really that 6 hour experience of the two director’s cuts back-to-back that I’m looking forward to the most. It was shot as a single film, just broken into two parts for practical reasons. I’ll be setting aside a day to watch it same as I would Peter Jackson’s LotR trilogy or binge watch a season of Stranger Things, etc. It becomes a kind of special event that way.

The six hour length will bother many no doubt. Just a coincidence but interesting to note that James Cameron has said he wants to do basically what Zack has done here: https://www.slashfilm.com/708873/ja...-hour-movie-and-a-six-hour-streaming-project/

Alatar said:

So fans… and admittedly most of them Zack Snyder superfans… that have seen fan-only screenings of Rebel Moon Part 2 The Scargiver are not unexpectedly giving it raves. But what is most interesting to me is I’m consistently reading that some feel the action is the best Snyder has ever done. That is saying a lot! If this has merit… if the action is at least on par with say, 300, Man of Steel, and BvS, let’s say… for most people that’s reason enough to watch and enjoy it.

It’s releasing on Netflix April 19th.

A couple other things I found worth noting is that we do indeed get all the backstories for each team member in Part 2. Also that Part 2 is “very much a war movie.” And that it “goes full Seven Samurai mode” in terms of the defense of the village. In that sense sort of quasi-remake in the spirit of the Magnificent Seven.

It’s still the PG13 2 hour version, and the 3 hour R-rated director’s cuts are coming out together some time this summer. I really like the PG13 cut of Part 1 and I’m sure I’ll appreciate this film as well. But it’s really that 6 hour experience of the two director’s cuts back-to-back that I’m looking forward to the most. It was shot as a single film, just broken into two parts for practical reasons. I’ll be setting aside a day to watch it same as I would Peter Jackson’s LotR trilogy or binge watch a season of Stranger Things, etc. It becomes a kind of special event that way.

The six hour length will bother many no doubt. Just a coincidence but interesting to note that James Cameron has said he wants to do basically what Zack has done here: https://www.slashfilm.com/708873/ja...-hour-movie-and-a-six-hour-streaming-project/

Click to expand...

Yeah I highly doubt it's his best action ever but even 50% would be great! I'm waiting for the director's cuts to do them back to back.

Just so you know because Zack made this it's too long at 6 hours. If you can't tell a story in 2 hours bad writer etc etc

…. That is to long. Who the hell is gonna sit still for 6hrs to watch a movie? Seriously a lot of other people can do it what makes him so special that he needs 6 hrs to tell a coherent story on the screen? If he can’t do that then he should write books from now on .

Cameron can do it cause the man is literally a legend who proved himself by making instant classics and billion dollar films but even he probably wouldn’t cause he knows ain’t nobody willing to sit still for six hrs for one film.
Like even one of the greatest trilogy of all time lord of the rings got flack cause it seemed like it would never end during return of the king