Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon
- Thread starter matticus
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
If we have to change it, I suggest "What thought can ironwez pretend is a fact today" but it might get confused with other threads.Nah if t800 still gonna say some silly outrageous things I’m gonna comment on it. Besides this thread would be dead and buried if we didn’t.. The debate keeps the thread alive.
Should rename the thread “is Snyder that bad or is it a deconstruction”
18 views for him, and 18 complaints on here from you.
Yeah, the two people who like it are the ones wasting their time.For the same amount of time some people have wasted defending these two films, they could have up-skilled themselves and got a degree in a new career that doesn't allow them so much free time.
I agree with the blur outside. I really don't like it.
You really think people shouldn't try? The current Star Wars is hardly what it once was. I'd watch any of these over Book of Boba Fett in a heartbeat.
Otomofan
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,002
- Reaction score
- 3,583
I'm just one man. But I feel compelled to do my part. If my complaining saves just one person the precious two hours of their life that would be better spent mowing the lawn, painting a fence, or sitting on the toilet instead of watching this pathetic drivel, then complain I will.
Otomofan
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,002
- Reaction score
- 3,583
Part One had a "so bad you have to see it to believe it" quality, not unlike The Room.
But Part Two has a "oh god this is actually WORSE than the first one and it's so dreadfully boring...is this real?" quality that's not in any way funny....like when someone falls and doesn't get up after 30 seconds and then you start to think "oh man he must really be hurt." That's not fun for anyone.
But Part Two has a "oh god this is actually WORSE than the first one and it's so dreadfully boring...is this real?" quality that's not in any way funny....like when someone falls and doesn't get up after 30 seconds and then you start to think "oh man he must really be hurt." That's not fun for anyone.
Quite frankly: I don't care 'how good compared to a,b,c' it might be, or not be.
I'm not as deep in SW as some other people. I enjoy it way more today, ever since Mandalorian and that's it.
Boils down to the fact, that it gets dissected in a lot of people's minds and that goes for a lot of franchises, movies.
I'm not entirely free from that, at Terminator, but I CAN enjoy the movies as single pieces.
A lot of people can't nowadays.
Does this mean Alatar has to watch it two more times?
He said that on the podcast. The split between Part 1 and Part 2 is near the end of the 2nd act. Part 2 is a bit of the 2nd act and then the 3rd act.
It was in reference to you saying he's watched it 18 times.
Sounds like he shoulda just made 1 film. Maybe the extended version expands a bit more of the story, like BvS.
ScoutingForToys
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,521
- Reaction score
- 2,354
You're doing God's work. Thank you sir.
He wanted one movie but Netflix wanted it to be 2 hours or less so they agreed to split it up.
The extended versions are roughly 1 hour longer per part. So we can through all this hoopla again in August.
Last edited:
I honestly do not know if I will watch it again. It was borderline painfully generic.
I watched the 1st one a second time purely so that my family could see it. I preferred it on 2nd watch.
Granted, the quality varies, but I've always preferred his cut for every one of his movies too.
Alatar
Super Freak
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2018
- Messages
- 3,045
- Reaction score
- 2,419
So I watched Part 2 and enjoyed it. There’s nothing “bad” for me about the two PG13 cuts of Part 1 and Part 2. In particular I really like the characters, story, and universe/lore. I want to see the saga develop, and I look forward to the quest that the surviving team now has at the end of Part 2.
I’m fine with a slow burn for worldbuilding. I want to gradually learn more about all this stuff: the Imperium, The Mother World, the origins of the royal family, Issa in each incarnation/aspect, the creepy cyber-punk religion that corrupts Issa's true spiritual meaning, the rebellion, the Jimmies and their chivalric role, the cyber-punk tech including the neural link, and so on. In the first two films for a franchise like this I only expect to be introduced to those things.
I appreciate that in this mythos’ good vs. evil design the force of “good” shows up as Druidic in nature, i.e., through connection to the earth, the wild, Nature, etc. That’s fun to play with. Jimmy in particular in that aspect. Jimmy is to me a symbol of alchemical conjunction.
And I was a bit surprised but ultimately pleased to see the force of good also shows up as a collectivist farm community! With “evil” as obviously fascist and authoritarian with echoes of Nazism. But it looks like it also comments on industrialization/capitalism’s utterly depraved disregard and even disdain for anything but profit; and it’s utter zeal to ruthlessly exploit any and all resources it can find rather than care most about the quality of human experience and be a respectful steward of the planet. So much for the assumption of a “Randian objectivist” Zack Snyder!
This is hippy Snyder.
Anyway, it’s interesting to me that I find the story is the strongest part of the Rebel Moon experience for me. Because in a Snyder film usually I’m more captivated by 1) visuals, i.e., cinematography, action, fight choreography, and 2) meta-contextual themes, i.e., genre commentary (often in the form of visual Easter eggs) and deconstruction.
And therein lies the problem, I think, for this franchise. The average viewer wanted a fairly straight-ahead genre approach to “Star Wars”… maybe something more or less like the treatment of Superman in Man of Steel. And they were really excited for the first trailer for Rebel Moon Part 1. It looked like Star Wars but done in an earthier, grittier, and edgier way.
That isn’t actually what Snyder is doing here. Which was very disappointing to a lot of prospective fans. Instead, he’s deconstructing “Star Wars” by giving it a pulp sci-fi/fantasy B movie aesthetic. I suspect he went that route because the original 1977 Star Wars was actually intended by George Lucas as a B movie. And honestly, that film is pretty damn cheesy—complete with an over-the-top villain and damsel in distress to rescue.
That being said, 1977 Star Wars also raised the bar tremendously for that genre. It featured upgraded practical special effects through excellent use of scale models and clever camera angles. And it created a fresh feeling creative new fantasy mythos of the Jedi philosophy (even though ultimately derivative, there’s nothing new under the sun). Oh, and obviously the characters were great.
In any case, 1977 Star Wars is ultimately a B movie. Rebel Moon is deconstructing that aspect of it. And that is clearly not what most viewers wanted or asked for. Rather, they wanted a relatively sincere take on the genre. Not necessarily for Star Wars to be dethroned by it. But to get a worthy rival to it.
Another source of disappointment for many viewers is that people have grown accustomed to Snyder delivering truly gorgeous and epic looking cinematography, action, and fight choreography. Such as in 300, Watchmen, Man of Steel, and BvS. Rebel Moon has some nice stuff going on visually. But it is not at the god tier level of those four Snyder films just mentioned.
So at the end of the day we have something that to me is still intriguing and immersive. I’ll be fascinated to see how the “over the top” violence and graphic sex scenes in the director’s cuts vulgarize the sincerity and wholesomeness of “Star Wars,” and make the sacred profane. I think there Snyder is attempting to bring two poles of a duality together into a unity of some sort. Like trying to achieve the alchemical “coiniunctio.” But it is something that is bound to disappoint “normie” general audience viewers—and even many of his hardcore fans.
I’m fine with a slow burn for worldbuilding. I want to gradually learn more about all this stuff: the Imperium, The Mother World, the origins of the royal family, Issa in each incarnation/aspect, the creepy cyber-punk religion that corrupts Issa's true spiritual meaning, the rebellion, the Jimmies and their chivalric role, the cyber-punk tech including the neural link, and so on. In the first two films for a franchise like this I only expect to be introduced to those things.
I appreciate that in this mythos’ good vs. evil design the force of “good” shows up as Druidic in nature, i.e., through connection to the earth, the wild, Nature, etc. That’s fun to play with. Jimmy in particular in that aspect. Jimmy is to me a symbol of alchemical conjunction.
And I was a bit surprised but ultimately pleased to see the force of good also shows up as a collectivist farm community! With “evil” as obviously fascist and authoritarian with echoes of Nazism. But it looks like it also comments on industrialization/capitalism’s utterly depraved disregard and even disdain for anything but profit; and it’s utter zeal to ruthlessly exploit any and all resources it can find rather than care most about the quality of human experience and be a respectful steward of the planet. So much for the assumption of a “Randian objectivist” Zack Snyder!
This is hippy Snyder.Anyway, it’s interesting to me that I find the story is the strongest part of the Rebel Moon experience for me. Because in a Snyder film usually I’m more captivated by 1) visuals, i.e., cinematography, action, fight choreography, and 2) meta-contextual themes, i.e., genre commentary (often in the form of visual Easter eggs) and deconstruction.
And therein lies the problem, I think, for this franchise. The average viewer wanted a fairly straight-ahead genre approach to “Star Wars”… maybe something more or less like the treatment of Superman in Man of Steel. And they were really excited for the first trailer for Rebel Moon Part 1. It looked like Star Wars but done in an earthier, grittier, and edgier way.
That isn’t actually what Snyder is doing here. Which was very disappointing to a lot of prospective fans. Instead, he’s deconstructing “Star Wars” by giving it a pulp sci-fi/fantasy B movie aesthetic. I suspect he went that route because the original 1977 Star Wars was actually intended by George Lucas as a B movie. And honestly, that film is pretty damn cheesy—complete with an over-the-top villain and damsel in distress to rescue.
That being said, 1977 Star Wars also raised the bar tremendously for that genre. It featured upgraded practical special effects through excellent use of scale models and clever camera angles. And it created a fresh feeling creative new fantasy mythos of the Jedi philosophy (even though ultimately derivative, there’s nothing new under the sun). Oh, and obviously the characters were great.
In any case, 1977 Star Wars is ultimately a B movie. Rebel Moon is deconstructing that aspect of it. And that is clearly not what most viewers wanted or asked for. Rather, they wanted a relatively sincere take on the genre. Not necessarily for Star Wars to be dethroned by it. But to get a worthy rival to it.
Another source of disappointment for many viewers is that people have grown accustomed to Snyder delivering truly gorgeous and epic looking cinematography, action, and fight choreography. Such as in 300, Watchmen, Man of Steel, and BvS. Rebel Moon has some nice stuff going on visually. But it is not at the god tier level of those four Snyder films just mentioned.
So at the end of the day we have something that to me is still intriguing and immersive. I’ll be fascinated to see how the “over the top” violence and graphic sex scenes in the director’s cuts vulgarize the sincerity and wholesomeness of “Star Wars,” and make the sacred profane. I think there Snyder is attempting to bring two poles of a duality together into a unity of some sort. Like trying to achieve the alchemical “coiniunctio.” But it is something that is bound to disappoint “normie” general audience viewers—and even many of his hardcore fans.
Last edited:
Similar threads
