Should we be OK that they're going to #ReleaseTheSnyderCut?
3rd June 2020
When Justice League was released two years ago, the sound heard 'round the world from this long-awaited film was not a bang but a whimper. Before its release, the knowledge that Zack Snyder had been forced to leave the project due to a terrible family tragedy became public. When we think about what has transpired with this film, from inception to abortive release, we have to remember the factors that brought it to the place it was in on its release date. During the production of Batman Vs Superman, I found myself in a conversation with a visual effects artist who was working on the film and had worked on Man of Steel (as well as working on various MCU films). Out of respect for this person and their anonymity, I can't give you their name. I asked them if they'd like to guest on the podcast I was running with Liz Jordan at the time. They politely refused. Still, my curiosity got the better of me, as it usually does, and I asked: What's the biggest difference between working with Marvel versus working with DC? Their answer was definitive, fast. “When you're working with Marvel, the process and the films are great, but you have to run each decision by a group of people. When you're making a DCEU film, you just deal with Zack Snyder”
This memory came back to me when I heard the news about Snyder leaving Justice League. I have to say, I initially thought he'd realised he'd made a turkey and quit before the storm hit. I regret feeling that way now, especially since I was quickly apprised of what happened via the internet. Regardless of how you feel about his films, your heart has to go out to the man and his family for the tragedy they've gone through. But what should be clear is this: his commitment to his projects is total. The buck stops with him. And this, in a way, is part of the problem. There are many that hate Snyder. Many that hate his films. I myself was pretty unhappy with BVS, disappointed in Man of Steel. But that was because he'd shown so much promise in the early days. Dawn of the Dead was one of the best post-Romero zombie films ever made. A re-watchable gore-fest, true. But also a brilliantly sketched story of survival politics with a wonderfully bleak ending. Snyder came off like a cynic. But a talented one. Dawn was expertly staged, and surprisingly when stacked up against some of Snyder's later work, emotionally and cinematically coherent. He then progressed to an adaptation of Frank Miller & Lynn Varley's 300 for Warner Bros, the studio that was to become his home for the next decade or so.
300 showcased the visual stylings that would dominate Snyder's film-making and be the source of both delight and anger among film fans and comic buffs. The film attempted to replicate the look and feel of the original Dark Horse comics' panels, replete with extensive slow-motion scenes of bloodletting, muscular fighting, heavy doses of sexuality and a healthy disregard for anything resembling restraint. Add to this, the film eschewed location shooting for the more controllable environs of soundstages and following the style of Sin City, was made using CGI in place of sets. If I'm being honest, it might be his best film. It showed a grasp of emerging technology that few directors seem to possess and a willingness to bring stylisation to the world of the sword and sandals epic, which had been given a rebirth a few years earlier with Ridley Scott's Gladiator, was already in danger of vanishing from the multiplexes as fast it reappeared. Snyder then did something that would become a trademark of his career. He managed to thrill and anger comic-book fans all at once. And he did it by doing something that other filmmakers such as Terry Gilliam and Paul Greengrass, hadn't managed to pull off. He made the motherlode of Graphic Novels into a movie. Zack Snyder made Watchmen.
Whilst the many arguments surrounding the morals of even making a film based on the seminal comic by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons aren't something I'm going to get into here, Snyder had achieved something previously thought impossible. The long-gestating adaptation had been stuck in development hell for over a decade, with no filmmaker, regardless of their talent, seemingly willing or able to break the deadlock. But just making the film wasn't enough. The movie was a hard 'R' rating in the US, meaning the core audience of film-goers wouldn't be able to see it without a parent or guardian. The film's screenwriter, David Hayter (who had once been in the frame to direct the film) encouraged fans to see the film more than once whilst it was still in theatres to prove that comic-book films targeted at more mature audiences could work. Sadly, the film was released only a year after Marvel began its onslaught on film-goers with Iron Man, indicating a lighter, brighter comics universe, more in keeping with the wider public’s assumptions about the medium than Watchmen offered. The film was a success, but not the billion-dollar hit other comic-book movies were shaping up to be.
With Batman Begins (released in 2005), The Dark Knight (released in summer of 2008) and then Watchmen, DC seemed to be setting its stall with darker, more emotionally complex fare. That was fine for the Nolan Batman films. They were considered objectively good, intelligent, and well-directed... Not everyone felt that way about Watchmen. The film was darker, sure. But many felt the subtleties of Alan Moore's groundbreaking work had been worn down by Snyder's more bombastic style. The film also garnered controversy when Alan Moore began speaking out against it, with Snyder further angering Moore when he made a statement, attempting to quell the situation. The film itself wasn't terrible but didn't strive to move away from the source material. That worked for 300, but not for this. More content to be a replication of the comic's panels, it left many viewers cold. Despite financial success, it was not a project heaped with praise Nonetheless, Snyder now had a reputation for being able to get difficult projects – especially those based on comics – off the ground. It's also worth noting that this did not lead to a landslide of more adult comics being ushered to the screen.
Snyder used his newfound weight to make Sucker Punch, a somewhat heady mix of Manga, video games, psychosis and women's lib. Whilst it was packed with ideas and visual stylisation, the overall tone was somewhat pornographic and the film ended up having the opposite message to the one Snyder seemed to intend. The subtext was out of sync with the text, making the film resemble a tame Hentai animation. Again, Snyder found himself on the wrong side of the critics if not his audience, which was really solidifying around this time. It was now seemingly made up of toxic male stereotypes who saw Sucker Punch as a masturbatory wish-fulfilment fantasy, even though it seems Snyder had wanted the film to serve as a critique of those things. In its defence, at least Sucker Punch was original material in a movie landscape becoming increasingly crowded with sequels, remakes, reboots and adaptations. Despite the film's lack of success for its parent studio, Warner Bros., Snyder was offered the opportunity to shepherd one of Warner's crown jewels back to the screen. His decision to say yes set the course for what was (temporarily) to become the DCEU…
There have been more abortive attempts to reboot the Superman film series than any other comic-book character in history. After Bryan Singer's homage/sequel to the Donner films, Superman Returns, failed to give the studio the all-important combination of critical acclaim and financially dominating success, many felt they were heading back to the creative whirlwind periods that led to aborted projects such as JJ Abrams Superman: Flyby and Superman: Lives (covered in the excellent documentary Superman Lives: What Happened). After their failed attempts to restart the series and the disappointing reaction to Singer's film, Warner's decided to go back to the source and invited several of the comics' more prominent writers to pitch their ideas for the direction that WB should take with Superman. Grant Morrison's pitch was not unlike his All-Star Superman comics series. Waid's was similar to his Birthright comics. Mark Millar and Matthew Vaughn attempted to pitch an eight-hour trilogy, with a new film released every year like Lord of the Rings.
None of these was to WB's liking. Eventually, the studio asked Christopher Nolan and David Goyer, whose talents had been key to the runaway success of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, to generate a story from which Goyer would then create a screenplay. The search for a director proved trickier. Nolan had no interest in making another superhero movie, especially one that wasn't Batman. Besides, his heart resided with Donner's legacy, no matter how much his ideas moved away from them. Robert Zemeckis was courted, along with Darren Aaronosfsky, Guillermo Del Toro, Ducan Jones and yes, Ben Affleck. All turned it down. Warners decided to stake the future of the series on Snyder. Snyder's vision was a darker affair than fans of the previous Superman films had grown accustomed to. He created a relatively sombre film that, whilst not without its merits, revelled in large-scale destruction. Lacking the charm that even Superman III mustered, Snyder's film was beautifully directed and photographed but cut its own legs out from under its body by employing a non-linear structure and placing the scenes in a somewhat awkward order.
Despite this, the film was a success and Warner's celebrated by giving Snyder control of its big-screen DC Universe. Snyder elected to create a second film that whilst not named as such, would serve as a continuation to Man of Steel, but shift the focus to the other cornerstones of DC comics, fandom – Wonder Woman and more centrally, Batman. Rather than taking Marvel's approach of individual films that led to an ensemble movie, Snyder elected to do, big key storylines, featuring large ensemble casts, rushing to get to a place that Marvel took five films to get to, Snyder wasn't coy about his intentions. This new film would be called Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice. Starring Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne, this film would be dark and miserablist. Merging a key storyline from Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns and the news-worthy Death of Superman comics from the '90s, the film would see Batman attempt to kill Superman after being manipulated by a hipster businessman Lex Luthor. Snyder's goal was to get to an even larger scale, two-part Justice League film.
BVS was an enraging film. Attempting to adapt Dark Knight Returns, but doing it with an actor who had starred in zero previous Batman films rendered the movie inert. Rather than feeling the emotions as we did with Nolan's Batman films, here we’re expected to believe in decades of history for the character simply because we’re told to. The film's macguffins were numerous and confusing, especially considering where Snyder wanted the series to go. Surely the focus of the story should have been the data that Gal Gadot's Diana Prince steals from Lex Luthor – data that proves the existence of super-powered beings? Surely the bullet that becomes important to the plot in its early stages should have somehow, symbolically been tied to the shooting of Thomas and Martha Wayne? The choices Snyder took may have been interesting by and of themselves, but strung together in his apocalyptic vision meant we were treated to another joyless escapade, just like Man of Steel.
None of this is to knock the cast or production team. There's clearly a lot of skill and talent involved. But Snyder's choice of story direction meant the film was propelled to not one, but three big fight scenes, none of which satisfied the character requirements or made you believe in anyone's motivations. Sure, it looked pretty. Gloomy, but pretty. But it was this film that most obviously stated the issues with Snyder's directorial style. As the Nerdwriter (video essayist Evan Puschack) pointed out in one of his excellent videos, Snyder is a director obsessed with moments but not scenes. Of course, BVS made money, meaning Snyder's Justice League plan was all but writ in stone. But what was the fan response to this? What did our fellow geeks think about the prospect of Snyder creating the template that could set the tone for the DCEU's future projects – and in fact did, with Suicide Squad following the Snyder template to a tee... Well, they reacted in a manner that would become all too familiar to the more reasonable corners of fandom. They started a petition to have Snyder removed as architect for all future DC movies.
I like Whedon's films. His characters have a snappy patter that is pop-culture aware which makes them feel real, even when they're doing the unreal things we saw happening in Avengers and Age of Ultron. It was also probably considered quite a coup for the DCEU to get Marvel's own boy. That realness worked wonders for the MCU, whose whole bit was the heroes that lived just down the street. But DC's heroes lived in un-real places. Fake cities with fake names. Those heroes were Gods. And Whedon isn't a person who likes being reminded that Gods walk the earth. He likes his heroes emotionally grounded. Yet, this suited Warner's just fine since the accusation most often flung at Snyder's DC films was that they were moribund, morbid. Grim n' gritty. This was not an unfair statement. But I think it's because Snyder knew that essaying Gods was a serious business and he took it seriously. even if the results were mixed. Whedon would know how to bring the funny. Again, criticisms about individual films aside, I'm not knocking either filmmaker. To reiterate: I like Whedon's creations. I like some of Snyder's. There were a lot of critics who used BVS as an excuse to attack Snyder personally. For his religious beliefs. For his love of Ayn Rand novels (Snyder is, apparently, an Objectivist). This is always the kind of thing I find strange. We can argue that art is political and laugh at people who claim they just want good stories without politics and that's fine. But that means sometimes we're going to have to be faced with politics that we don't like. And I'll tell ya, from the little I know about objectivism, I don't like it. But should we hate the guy's entire oeuvre because we don't like his political beliefs? Maybe. If he was advocating fascism or, say anti-immigration messages. But it's kind of hard to do that when you make a film that focuses on the world's most powerful immigrant. And besides, we all had a choice after we'd seen Watchmen and Man of Steel. We didn't have to buy the ticket for BVS.
With Whedon at the helm and the clock ticking, a slew of changes was instigated, including reshoots, rewrites, changes to the plot and a significantly reduced runtime. Runtime is actually fairly key in the financial success of films. On a big movie, even with the onset of multiplexes, the more times a day you can show a movie the better. With the film slashed to a hard two hours, the chances of WB recouping their investment were increased. But it also meant the multi-film epic we were expecting was pretty much dead in the water. Fans began murmuring their dislike of these developments even louder than they had when they wanted Snyder off the film. The resulting movie was a mess, critically it seems for one reason: Henry Cavill's moustache. He'd grown a full porn star for Mission: Impossible – Fallout and paramount refused to let him shave it off for the JL re-shoots meaning WB had digitally replace his face for every new shot in Whedon’s version. Every shot. I suspect this was part of the reason his resurrection was kept to the last thirty minutes of the film. It didn't take long for the fan community to make its feelings known. Spurred on by tweets and Instagram posts from Snyder and the customers suggesting there was a longer, more substantial film hidden away by Warner's. In the subsequent two years, the fans’ voices grew. And that was the problem.
It would have been one thing if the fans, who were broadly labelled under the Release The Snyder Cut hashtag, had conducted their campaign politely. But they didn't. There were threats, anger and an awful lot of 'snowflakes' thrown around in the direction of other fans who disagreed with their calls for Snyder's version to be released. This saw the Snyder Cut fandom lumped in with the despicable comicsgate movement and indeed, there was a lot of crossover between the camps. This was unfortunate, to say the least, and created an environment where the Snyder fans were seen as an entitled annoyance. People now wanted the film released just to shut them up. But at the same time, given their behaviour, You have to wonder if they deserved a second go-round. Remember that the fans also petitioned WB to remove Snyder from the movie. I'm willing to bet a lot of the same fans clamouring for the Snyder cut were the same ones calling for his head a few months before.
WB stayed silent, probably because they felt that no matter what they did, there would be a fandom that would be upset. The world of comics and comic book movies is changing and becoming more inclusive meaning their heroes are going to have to change too. Personally, I don't have a problem with stories becoming more inclusive and progressive because that's what good stories should be. But some feel this is weaponising entertainment. And there's a sense of entitlement attached to all fandoms nowadays. The sheer proliferation of geek culture and its assimilation into the wider cultural landscape means that the fandoms are no longer niche. It's a big risk for a studio to run against the wishes of fans, especially since they're the ones who will help sell the movie to non-comic readers. Enthusiasm goes a long way. But that enthusiasm can sometimes be weaponised, especially by the fans themselves, meaning other fan communities rally against them. And since we're now living in a world where you have to pick one side or the other, somebody somewhere has to lose.
However, the real loser in WB's refusal to even make a statement on The Snyder Cut was Zack Snyder himself. You may not have much sympathy. And that's understandable, but there's something to consider: How studios have treated other filmmakers when it comes to alternate cuts of their films. Look at Ridley Scott. Of the twenty-five films he's directed, he's been given the studio support to re-cut or extend the running time of ten of those. At one time, there were five cuts of Blade Runner commercially available. Two for Legend, two for The Counselor, two for Alien, two for Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, The Martian... I could go on. And remember, some of those underperformed at the box office. And speaking of under-performing, Michael Cimino sunk an entire studio with Heaven's Gate in 1982. He was rewarded years later with a director's cut of that film being made readily available. In fact, the 'Director's Cut' of a film is now practically a commercial guarantee, so much so that it begins to lose its cache. Some of the films given a second chance are deeply mediocre (not Scott's, I have to stress).
And then there's the comparative quality of modern franchise films. There are a couple of franchises that are quite frankly crap, yet people heap praise on them. And I suspect that if the filmmakers said they wanted to re-cut those tomorrow, no one would have a problem despite the fact that some of those films are genuinely toxic examples of the American film machine. I'm looking at you, Fast & Furious. The people that make them are rewarded with the chance to make more. And none of us speaks up and says that this is trash, we just blindly queue for our tickets. So why were so many willing to see Snyder's cut of Justice League buried? Partly, it has to be spite. In a lot of fans' eyes, Snyder ruined a perfectly successful series of films before it ever really had a chance to get off the ground. But you also have DC to blame for that, since they were in such a rush to get to the heady atmospheres and cultural recognition with their films that Marvel now occupied. Snyder was a filmmaker given an opportunity to decide the form and direction that would take. I don't think anyone in that position would turn that opportunity down.
The question I find myself asking is this: should Snyder be allowed another chance to finish the film the way he saw fit? WB seem to think so. Following two years of fan pressure, they've agreed to fund a period of re-shoots and to finish the visual effects for the film. However, the other facet of the fan community doesn't want this to happen. There's a sense that since the Snyder fans have been so aggressive in their calls for the film to be completed, they simply don't deserve to have the film they're asking for. And then there's the segment of people who just want the film done and out to shut the Snyder fans up. So should the film be buried just because a group of the fans are assholes? My vote is no. Films are a director's medium. Directors need a certain amount of freedom and support to make the films they want to make. If we start asking for the curtailing of that vision, we run the risk of losing films further down the line. Probably not Snyder's, since Netflix are producing his next movie, Army of the Dead. But if it's not Snyder, it will be some other director who is less equipped to mobilise their fan base and use that to their advantage. Also, this is an industry that throws money around like crazy. Using some of that to get a possible better version of a film out there isn't a bad thing. Ultimately, we're the ones who will pay for it anyway. But there is something to be said for fan behaviours here. There's an arrogance to the way some have reacted that needs to be addressed and to be honest, Snyder needs to be the one to do it. He needs to lead the way and tell these fans that their bullying isn't the way to get things done. If we want films to get better and filmmakers to improve, we're going to have to do the same. Ultimately, I'm not expecting The Snyder Cut to be a good film. But I'll see it. Maybe I'm part of the problem too, then?. Maybe we get the films we deserve.