Tan Djarka
Sr Member
I finally got around to seeing this in a second run theater. I didn't love it, but I didn't hate it either. I guess that's all I really have to say about it .
I don't understand the issue. I see it one of only a few ways.
You go see the movie at cinemas - you like it. You want to buy the Blu-ray. -- No change.
You go to see the movie at cinemas - you don't like it. You don't want to buy the Blu-ray. -- No change.
You don't go to see the movie at cinemas - you want to buy the Blu-ray. -- No change.
You don't go to see the movie at the cinemas - you don't want to buy the Blu-ray. -- No change.
You go to see the movie at the cinema - you don't like it but you suspect it could have been a better movie - you want to buy the Blu-Ray - hopefully change
You go to see the movie at the cinema - you don't like it because you thought there would be more Jared Leto - You want to buy the Blu-Ray - hopefully change
You go to see the movie at the cinema - you don't like it but you want to find a reason to like it because you're a DC fanboy/fangirl - You want to buy the Blu-Ray - hopefully change
I see nothing wrong with it. Some people like the extra, although I prefer them to ALSO offer the theatrical as well.
But usually extended cut also means crappy version. 9 out of 10 it turns out those cuts were made for a reason.
LotR is one of the few examples where the extended is actually a better movie.
It's a small segment, to be sure, which is probably why IPs are often conflicted about releasing extended editions or spending money to produce a lot of extras when the discs would sell regardless.That is a very specific audience profile to aim for though.
The second one is probably the most encompassing/vocal complaint I've seen, and would probably have the biggest "draw" factor to an extended edition. But don't you think if someone was invested so much that they want more Jared Leto as Joker...that they would already be buying the blu-ray?
Effectively, I suppose you're saying there's an overall fifth category of:
You go to see the movie at the cinema - you dont like it. You want to buy the Blu-ray -- Change?
Which makes sense..ish. But do you think the percentage of people in that category will be significant compared to normal Blu-ray numbers? It's the only way the complaints might make sense really.
Im not really against the extended version, it just bothers me because its such a blatant cash grab from the studio. And they are banking on that "oh you should totally buy the blu ray, cause its going to have the REAL version on it", its like youre getting shanghaied and having to double down on the cash. Its the same with video game companies, they release DLC 2 weeks after the game came out, its insulting.
I haven't really thought about it but I've only really heard about extended cuts that are better to be fair.
BvS, Daredevil, Kingdom of Heaven etc.
Are there any major ones that are worse? A quick a google shows Donnie Darko perhaps isn't a better film when shown extended version.
As long as there's no alteration that chainsaws the story, the only reason studios drop scenes is because people don't like sitting for 2.5 hours in the theater. The theater experience supposed to keep you engaged and forget about the outside world for a bit, after 2 hours you start looking at your watch/phone
this is the weirdest movie I've seen. You can tell there was a good movie in there... and you can tell that somebody went in and trashed it, and some CG effects that look like amateur YouTube stuff
I didn't hate it, but it's just a wasted opportunity
You would be surprised at how much was reshot/added due to missing it on the first go round. Aside from the well known massive reshoot there was a small reshoot done after that to add missing action and even some key elements to some scenes which blew my mind how something like that could be missed, but it was, TWICE!!! Seems there was some miscommunication between first/second/third units not even multiple script supervisors could keep track of. From what I understand there is a sub plot to the Joker that was cut dealing more with Batman. Reshoots were done to make that more about a tragic love story between the Joker and Harley. Reason being the potential for yet another film was there, which is now rumored to be a stand alone Harley movie.
For me, this was a hard watch. I had prior known the ending was Ghostbusters but I didnt expect it to be so Ghostbusters that even a friend said "this is totally Ghostbusters". The main issue is there was just too much to cram into the running time. Thats the epic fail that killed the movie for me and this is where DG as the director gets blasted for doing what he could to make things work in the time allotted. There was no winning this one without an additional 30 minutes added.
As far as everything else, as a viewer yet not a fan of super hero movies/comics, Deadshot as an anti hero bad guy with a heart of gold was a dismal failure as much as the Joker and Leto. The Joker was just lacking everywhere looking more like a Halloween costume than an actual movie villain. Everything about that character made me flashback more and more to conversations with Paul Hernandez (Jet Beetle) about adding things to scripts that make no sense because a producer/studio brass thinks its a neat idea yet ruins the character/scene in general. Or just listen to Kevin Smith talk about his Superman script and what he had to work with, same thing. You cant have super villains with a basic human conscience thats based on modern society. The drive for the characters should have been mischief and mayhem not to save the world or the head of the dept thats sending them back to jail at the end of the night. Again, just too much to fit into one minimal time frame movie.
...She's just bat crap crazy, what does she bring to the table?