The problem here is the American Consumer. We have built a culture where it is not only acceptable, but encouraged, for you to berate and abuse your way through a company to get what you want. That you are entitled to have what you want, when you want, however you want it, and should feel no shame in bulldozing anyone who stands in the way of that. This attitude has carried over into the way we view entertainment. It’s incredibly irritating, and much like some soccer mom throwing a temper tantrum over not having enough salt on her fries, or having her expired coupon rejected, it takes everything I have not to reach out and throttle these people.
Well I think there’s a difference between fans not being happy about a film completely destroying the established IP that they’ve cared for and then getting criticized for it by the people who destroyed their established IP Vs an artist getting reprimanded by his own fans to change his own original work to fit their liking (much like George Lucas and the prequel trilogy). Studio heads and producers aren’t artists, they’re self privileged narcissists who only care about the consumer when they’re getting feet shoved ten feet up their own asses. I support artists 100% and allowing Zack Snyder to finish and present his director’s cut of the film is exactly what that is.
What I’m tired of is that people look at a work, whether good or bad, and see whatever mistakes they think they saw as a moral failing on the creator’s part.
That’s definitely toxic although erasing certain versions of a work like the original versions of the original Star Wars trilogy can be seen as a moral failing in terms of erasing history but a rather trivial one at best
@@GringoXalapeno Keep in mind, the STAR WARS Special Editions were something George wanted to do. He didn't look at making them as erasing history, but as improving his previous work, since he now had the resources to do so (even if the previous flaws still exist, like the Stormtrooper bonking his head; it also was a great way of integrating the Prequels with the Original Trilogy). Now if Disney had bought STAR WARS, but didn't put George's movies on Disney Plus, only the Disney-made STAR WARS, then I think there would need to be questions of moral failure (It'd be like parents adopting a child, but ignoring them because their newborn children are more important!).
I think it doesn't matter what the quality of the final product is. The Snyder Cut could be a perfect masterpiece beloved by critics and audiences alike, but it still encourages a response of corporations bending over backwards to cater for the audience and ignore the wishes of the creators/artists
Director of Sonic movie was an animation director. It was the executives that chose the realistic Sonic, it wasn’t the directors first choice, just the entire staff slowly grew to like the new design over time including the director.
Ah the never-ending commericalization of art. The days of a person just making a movie without any consideration of whether it will please both 15 year olds and 35 year olds are pretty much dead.
Going through the playlist of your vids, and I gotta say... This one aged like milk. There's a lot of things you can say about Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) that could be called hyperbole, but damn, it might not be hyperbole calling it the most significant director's/alternate cut to a mass release film ever made. And yeah: it's on par with the Extended Director's Cuts of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Until the End of the World, Once Upon a Time in America, and Kingdom of Heaven, if not outright exceeding all of those (because rather than just expanding things or altering them, as you put it, it did *both*, and DRASTICALLY). I don't know about it being a 'great' movie per se (it has a couple notable shortcomings holding it back from being a 'great' movie, if you ask me), but it's a bigger, deeper, more robust, more earnest, and more artistically gratifying work in nearly every single way to its theatrical counterpart. The lone thing the 2017 Theatrical Cut may have over ZSJL is pacing, though saying that, it's pretty much a backhanded compliment. You can say a lot of things about fan movements, but the irony of your video here (partly, in hindsight) is that the ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement was about restoring the artistic vision to a singular artist that was trampled upon by WB in 2017. You rightly point out that fan campaigns can contain high amounts of toxicity and reek of 'entitlement', but your examples failed in acknowledging some of the bigger pictures. You used Once Upon a Time in America and Blade Runner as your go-to examples of restored classics, while failing to account how ZSJL fit in comparison to those, while also failing to acknowledge the other successful fan campaigns of that have been similar to them, like those for Richard Donner's cut to Superman II, Blade Runner, Brazil, Serenity (2005), Sense8, and others. All of which, I pedantically point out, served art more than fan gripes. Moreover, the results of some of these campaigns speak for themselves. Sonic's redesign has been praised inside and outside the industry as having been the right move (the original version notably suffered from uncanny valley issues and served to push the movie's core audience away before the movie had even been released), and it's been widely attributed for boosting the movie's earnings well beyond the studio's initial projections. The Snyder Cut restored an artistic vision that had been lost, and in the long run, its streaming/home video success has more than justified the investment into its efforts, in addition to spawning fan campaigns for things as those for Joel Schumacher's restored director's cut to Batman Forever, which looks like it may bear fruit. *These are good things, and have yielded results in service to art, not results antithetical to it.* Sometimes, it's not just fans whining. Sometimes, it is about the art. Just because Zack Snyder's a mixed bag filmmaker doesn't mean art wasn't part of the equation.
I strongly disagree with this analysis as you mostly talk about unfinished endings to media. And there are notable examples where unfinished endings caused an outcry in something that wasn't a franchise. I think you're focusing too much on artistic films in this respect. There are also notable examples where fans were able to get essentially what everyone wanted through enough backlash. A really good example occurred with the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion. While you can argue a television show counts as a "franchise" or not. Its ending was met with an enormous backlash from a 1990s era Japanese audience that were highly invested in the characters and were met with an ending that was effectively nonsensical and unfinished. This amount of attention to "fix" the ending allowed its creator to secure more funding to fund a properly made ending that is on every level better and actually satisfied viewers. While there are people who see the original ending as more artistic next to nobody believes the new ending isn't a more satisfying conclusion to a 26 episode story. Mass Effect 3's ending is a very similar example where its ending is clearly unfinished and rushed but could've easily been fixed had the developer been given time to work on it. It's something that the DLC could've fleshed out considerably but didn't probably because it also didn't have enough budget to call voice actors back in. As average as the rest of the game was landing the ending still could've saved the entire thing and made experiencing the trilogy from beginning to end worth actually doing. The Sonic film's CGI was clearly the result of a low budget/time situation and it's clear the creators were able to successfully petition more money to fix it based on the backlash. It's less of a "the consumers demanded we fix our product" and more "if we release this it will be an embarrassment, please give us more money to fix this mistake". I can't see a scenario where the creators of the Sonic film look back and go "I wish we could've released our original vision" because the original vision was clearly a compromise based on time/budget. The reason franchises in a sense cause this backlash has more to do with the much longer time investment given to something. A 2 hour movie with a definitive ending is far less of a time investment. It's less of an issue of "this product is bad please fix it" and more "I invested 20 hours into this and your ending feels like it took 5 minutes of work." When you invest a lot of time and emotion into something especially if it took years to complete seeing that the ending amounts to that part in the Simpsons where Poochie goes "I have to go now my planet needs me" rightfully should call for people to ask the creators to go back and fix it. To me it's as broken as the creators leaving a bug in that crashes your hard drive. Nobody would say it's an artistic statement to do that. In almost all of the examples you bring up (sans Last Jedi since Rian was clearly extremely proud of his work) these are examples of endings the creators were unsatisfied with and fans were rightfully annoyed at the severe drop in quality. And such a backlash can actually lead to substantive change that actually pleases both the artist and the consumer.
I'm late but I want to bring this up, I respect the argument, but the movies (and games) you mentioned are movies I wouldn't consider "Art" they are franchises, and franchises are built on fans, were as Art is built on... well not really anything but the work of that artist, that Art can turn into a franchise as big as Star Wars, but can't be used to describe "modern" Star Wars. Ps: I would have liked to hear a review of the Snyder Cut.
ReleaseTheSnyderCut is about defending artistic vision not denying it, I'm certain no version of that movie is the ideal Cinematic Justice League I want to see, but Snyder actual vision that was butchered by Warner caving to dumb criticisms of BvS is a work of Art that deserves to be seen. Also I pretty like the theatrical movie as is, it's perfectly entertaining and gets the characters right. Your argument that the Snyder cut is Bad no matter what assumes it's objectively true that BvS was bad, and the people who want the Sndyer cut reject that opinion. And JL having a lighter tone was Snyder's plan before BvS was even filmed, that was always the structure of this Trilogy. Given how Video Games were being done already before 2012 the eventual release of Mass Effect with more endings was always the plan and the fan outrage only effected how they marketed that, if it wasn't itself always part of the plan.
I have no sympathy for you or your cause...because you're lying to yourself. This is you and all your fellow travelers trying to rewrite history into something that hurts a little less. It won't change what happened nor make you feel any better in the highly unlikely event you achieve the goal. Anyone demanding "artistic integrity" out of a company with licensed characters is the second worst kind of delusional.
@@Kuudere-Kun Umm, did you mean NOT traumatized by chance? The rest of the post kind of indicates that's so. And we all want lots of things that we never get. Perhaps you might get lucky enough the way folks who wanted the Donner cut of Superman II. But that's one of the exceptions, not the rule. The final decision rests with AT&T, WB's new landlord. If they don't see enough profit in making it happen, it won't happen. And after this many years, I doubt demand has risen enough for it to be something they'd think is worth the extra money to make it so.
I feel people do sometimes confuse fan entertainment with complaints. People are allowed to not like things. In the same way no creator should be forced to change their ideas due to backlash, nobody should be forced to like media that they don’t like. I feel criticism to the new Star Wars has all been tarred with “entitlement” even through there are major flaws. (In my opinion, people are allowed to like those films as well)
That also sounds like a rather convenient excuse to justify trolling and related bad behavior. When you don't like something, you say so, you say why, you move on. But...when you make video after video talking about how awful it is and go on and on and on like someone killed your next of kin or do something similar with comments that run forever and do not end...THAT'S entitlement. Small wonder why white supremacists, misogynists and other repressive types use such gateways to find fresh recruits.
Johnathon Haney Notice how I never mentioned even one of those things? Also, was there any need to escalate it to such a silly degree? You know you don’t need to go around complaining at every comment I’m sure he doesn’t need nor want you white knighting
@@theunwatchables6982 I used SPECIFIC examples to illustrate the entitlement mentality in action...as if the creators involved owed anyone anything else other than what was given. Such large investments of time and energy towards something that has already been made and likely will never be changed...moving on to something you DO like just seems a better use of both. And I've been around enough not so good people to know there's always a market in profiting off that kind of anger. Oh and I'm black knighting, thank you.
Johnathon Haney I have never seen a worse case of projection. You’ve came here with a problem and regardless of what anyone else is saying you’re just going on with what you already had planned. Grow up, people can like/not like what they want.
@@theunwatchables6982 To be fair, not everyone who gets pissed off about how any film, TV series or game went falls under the category. But again, those typically do what I said at the top: say they didn't like it, say why, move on. But what possible good can there be to just stay fixiated on how something let you down so bad like a jilted lover to where you scarcely talk about anything else, including what they'd consider a better version of the story? The only thing it seems to be good for is clickbait and the derived rewards from said clickbait. It's something to think about.
Hello Eyebrow, I’ve recently come to your channel through your Batman Returns and Daniel Craig Bond film videos, and I really enjoy the work you put out, especially your Hitchcock video. But I think that you may be misinterpreting the point that Release The Snyder Cut was trying to make. It was about allowing filmmakers to tell their story. You may not like what Snyder did with DC, and that’s fine. But studio interference is one of the worst things that could happen to a filmmaker, and I think we can both agree on that. The campaign was also about pointing out how Warner Brothers took advantage of the unfortunate suicide of Zack Snyder’s daughter in order to completely remove him and retool his vision behind his back, and now with Ray Fisher coming out, and accusing Joss Whedon of being rude and aggressive towards the cast and crew, I have to say, I’m with the Snyder Cut guys on this. Granted I like those movies, but because people may perceive one filmmaker/film as bad, doesn’t mean that the original vision should not be told. I agree with the overall point of Fan Entitlement that you make, but I think to really center this video around Zack Snyder and his fan base might be a stretch when they’ve raised over $150,000 for Suicide Prevention, and have shown their genuine love and respect for the filmmaker. But anyways, that aside I enjoy the quality of the content you put out, it’s the deep analysis and discussions on films that make me a huge film fan, so keep up the good work!
Good God, man, you nailed it. Real artists only have one response when someone says change their works: "Shove it up your arse. It stays as it is." Entitled fanbases are no better than the Hollywood committees who churn out the very bland sausage that the fanboys end up complaining about. It is literally the same thing. The please-all effect guarantees an end result that will be inconsequential. Criticism as a catalyst for dialogue is another thing altogether -- yet another point you slam-dunked here.
These long quotes are how I feel. “I posted this under a different comment but I thought it was a very relevant response here as well and I did modify it a little bit to fit what you said.. If it's a whole "woke" culture, where everything has to be politically correct, everything has to be super inclusive to the point where it doesn't make any sense, we are pushing a certain person or idea for marketing and not for the story or not because it's organic and anyone who does some sort of perceived slight or steps out of line in mindset is the enemy, I don't like people like that at all or that ideology. I don't think they're actually caring compassionate people, I think that they're genuinely racist and bigoted in other ways and if you look closely at a lot of their lives, many of them are projecting or are using their causes to make money off people who genuinely care about them. But also I think that there is this anti-woke thing which is incredibly annoying and disingenuous about a lot of stuff. Like for example, there's a lot of people who would call anything woke or anything politically correct when it's not because of one minor element or one decision they didn't like. And a lot of those people excuse those same mindsets and ideologies in previous things they liked and won't recognize them. A great example of this is Star Trek. I genuinely believe that if Star Trek the next generation launched today, people would call it woke and hate on it. But it's not. Literally all it is is a bunch of stories that try and teach empathy and compassion and sort of show that nobody is 100% in the right all the time. I think the big issue I have is that everyone has convinced themselves that they're on the right side of history and the other person is the enemy. They're part of the anti-woke group so they must be racist or they're part of the group who made a story that's maybe a little more left-leaning so they must be a hardcore socialist who wants to destroy America. I found that most people fall somewhere reasonably in the middle and aren't actually a religious zealot for their non-religious cause or belief systems. I believe the vocal minority on both extreme sides of any issue or ideology are just that - the minority. Most people care about good writing, acting, gameplay, etc when it comes to their media.”-Degenerate Jay “I'm talking about. I think there's a lot of things that are more on the popular side I'm not as big of a fan of as some people and a ton of obscure things I like and there's a lot of things I have some very critical points on, but I was just talking about the people who literally cannot enjoy things. And they can't let other people enjoy them either. It's almost like an affront to their sensibilities if they see someone liking or enjoying something they don't, somehow it offends them. I just find that kind of stuff to be overboard and kind of boring personally.”-Degenerate Jay “I more just don't like how certain people have to have a problem with absolutely everything and drag down every conversation. It's just getting boring and obnoxious and it doesn't make people stand out in a positive way... It just makes them somebody I don't personally want to be around or care about their opinion. It's different to be selective and have those criticisms selectively and actually be able to form your opinions then it is to parrot whatever people are around you say and hate on absolutely everything with an ounce of popularity or fandom because it'll get you attention.”-Degenerate Jay “I think a lot of people disregard the fact that normal conservative/normal Republican people don't actually use that language very often, that's language that has actively been appropriated by the far far right leaning people. I'm talking extreme. I've seen it used casually sometimes, but generally a lot of the people who use that sort of thing are not center right or center left or even open to discussion, the ideology of that term being appropriated has basically become I'm awake and your asleep and a sheep who can't think. It's basically turned people who were willing to have discussions and talk about things and think into people who have brainwashed themselves into believing no one is right but them and they can't have a conversation, which I think is what happens on any extreme political or religious leaning where people are no longer willing to talk. I think that the word woke has been ruined by one side and the whole red pill thing was ruined by the other side. I always took that quote to basically mean that they were bringing it back to a place of reason versus a justification for being right all the time. And personally, I don't think these terms should really be overused and taken by anybody. They certainly can be, but I think that whenever groups of people appropriate a symbol or a piece of language it very quickly gets co-opted and grabbed by the most extreme version of those people and then associated with very bad things. To me, saying something negative about either the extreme extreme extreme right or extreme extreme extreme left is not demonizing them, it's pointing out the fact that some people are so far into zealotry of their own beliefs that they don't want to have a conversation or think anymore. They just want an echo chamber. And that goes for people on both sides of any issue.”-Degenerate Jay
This implies that fans have no say. I'm sorry but the auteur is not the only one that matters. The original version of the creator is still there but sometimes fans can also have a deep interpretation. I think fans have the right to see a version that at least matches a good idea of their interpretation. I get that it can go too far with alterations. But I think it is not intrinically bad to get something considered better. Its a case by case situation. And I dont belive in the slippery slope of it will cause the doom of auteur cinema for just a fee games or movies if you contain it.
when the consumer wants a good product?? really weird take and horrible examples, as sonic was received well. justice league Snyder cut did come out (unlucky take). all your examples seems to have make better art? where is the problem??? what a megacorp brainwashed opinion, franchises are a product
This aged like milk. Snyder cut came out and was actually good. I don't give a shit about DC or Snyder as a director but his long ass movie that you said would be awful, wasn't? I understand we shouldn't treat art like products but why is it so hard to admit that sometimes, the fans are right?
I’d say, it’s the corporation’s fault for commercializing art to such a degree. While harassing an author, or a small team of indy developers because you don’t like their art would be bad and uncalled for, I have no sympathy for corporations who market and brand their franchise in a specific way so as to *create* expectations, or “hype.”
I think the sad problem with this mentality is it’s great in a vacuum but falls apart as soon as we have to acknowledge I paid money for it. And the second sad revelation which is that I am more likely to receive a better product if I demand it than I am to receive my money back.
I love Director's cuts, though sometimes I get pissed and excited at the same time 'cause now I have to buy a movie again...but then I happily do so for the director's or extended cuts of movies I love.
He tells you later in the video. The director's vision, in this case, is probably still incomplete based on when Snyder departed production and what was actually filmed / available. As the video states, this isn't like Blade Runner where the divergence from the director's vision wasn't a product purely of cutting what had already been shot. The deviation happened in a way that resulted in some of Snyder's intended work never even getting shot: the "director's vision," in totality, is simply not available.
This is why I prefer NOT to be like all those at Comic Con. The top lesson: NEVER grant requests from others who don't really know what they really want or need!
Nice really nice you made some really good points with the video but I am pretty surprised that you made a video about fan entitlement at the current moment and somehow you did not mention The Last of Us Part II leaks and the controversy with fans being really pissed about what happened in the game
The Snyder cut did fix the mess ! The story is meaningful , characters now have depth and the overall result is 1000 times better ... so maybe next time do not be so sure of your ability to read the future ...
Release the Snyder-cut is Ostalgie if ever I saw it (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostalgie): feelings of nostalgia for a great past that demonstably wasn't great to begin with.
When art becomes a product to this extent when people start talking about changing the media as an act of “customer service” all we will get is, well the mcu. Art that is good from a technical aspect, that will entertain but nothing that really challenges you. My favorite book for example is Johnny got his gun and with out spoiling anything I can tell you it’s no one’s definition of “fun” but it challenges you challenges the way you understand the world around you challenges you for what you take for granted living day by day, it challenges how you interact with others. It affected me so that I actually grew to hate “one” by Metallica because it took the hard experience of reading through the whole book and waters it down almost makes it fun, and it’s not supposed to be fun. When you walk into restaurant or car dealership no one is going to give a car that you WON’T enjoy driving, no one’s going to intentionally serve you food you won’t enjoy eating but film, games, and other forms of art are most impactful when you’re not having fun. Like a hard fighting game when art challenges you that’s when you’re faced with two options, get angry and give up, or reconsider what you’re doing.
I love your videos! Discovered you yesterday and I am loving your content!! But I have mixed feelings on this one... I don't have twitter, I never attempt to interact with creators directly, but I still get so frustrated by badly adapted versions of things, or just bad additions to an IP. And I DO think I'm owed a better one. And I know that's crazy. But it's a very deep feeling that I haven't yet discovered how to change. It really just doesn't seem that difficult to make a good tv show or film. All you have to do is stick to the established norm of the world/characters/plot that you are adapting into a new story. How is that hard? Fanfic writers manage to do it, for free, every damn day!!! (Granted, they're not all amazing either but there are a lot of fics I consider more canon than the recent entries into a franchise these days....)
I used to somewhat be like you, and the biggest lesson i've learned on overcoming disappointment in your favorite franchise, series, etc is recongnizing that it's not YOUR story. They are works of fiction, all fabricated by an author and executed by a company and they will not have any significance on your real life. On the topic of how writers don't always hit the mark, when you work on something for an extended period of time, you tend to get tunnel vision and lose awarness of the surrounds of what in this case would be the story. It's also the case a lot of times that the company controlling you does not want the story to end in such way or go in such direction, or even end at all; we've all seen our fair share of TV shows, movie franchises and book series that went on for way too long
How is it hard to make a good tv show film? The problem is that the fanfics you like were able to be made easily by one person with a computer who can change their mind and pivot and edit whenever they want. Once there is a large team of people needed to make things, there is LOTS of money and employees and tight schedules and stakeholders and advertisers involved, demanding audiences that want it yesterday, etc., it goes to turbo-hard mode. And I would bet big $ that the fanfic concept / ending you like is hated / thought cringey / boring / stupid by enough other people / stakeholders with different tastes that it won't get to be made that way, and you can't fight it unless you have lots of money or you're a major director w clout. It's a shitty dynamic, but the better you can empathize with all the obstacles, the better you can come up with a solution
personal story about this issue: i think batman returns is a vastly inferior sequel to 1989 and completely undermines the strengths and accomplishments of the previous films in pretty much every aspect. and you know what, as a batman fan, i wish the movie was better and not the boring and tedious slog it is. and it's OK. i don't like batman returns and that's OK. i would never tell tim burton he's a terrible person for ruining batman and making a movie i didn't like.
I mean, I think that whether you liked it or not, the Snyder cut is objectively a better film. It actually did have more than an hour cut out of it, but I don't think it would have been included in the original if Snyder had been able to stay with it. Ironically what we got was better than what we would have otherwise. That said, I think that your thesis holds: we view these films as commodities instead of art, and that changes how we engage with them.
"If you don't like pickles you should absolutely say so. Just don't think that means you are owed a better burger." I will be quoting that forever. On freakin' point.
Except it's a shitty analogy because he didn't liken it to getting a better made burger, he likened it to demanding that the food you ordered that was made wrong gets remade. That's how literally every restaurant where the chef doesn't have a stick up their ass functions If you order a Big Mac no pickles and they put them on anyway, the customer IS entitled to a new, second sandwich that was made to their specifications.
@@Madara8989 “made wrong” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Movies aren’t made based on fan “specifications”. But some entitled little shits don’t understand this.
@@Madara8989 The studio says they'll stick to the previous recipe, and then the triple decker burger comes out with a whole beef pattie missing, and with weird colour sauces, and extra pickles, and the blame still goes to the original chef because of a technicality
Amazing video!!! You really should be getting more attention, I love your channel. Maybe you should consider making your video thumbnails more eye-catching? They seem more amateurish than the content of the videos themselves... I think that could help your channel gain more traction!
Well Snyder’s Cut exists and for me it’s probably the best comic book film I’ve watched in the last decade. A complete graphic novel in plain sight. I like it very much.
There is a certain commonality of arrogance between creators doing sub-par crap and fans feeling entitled. A core of "idiocy" that transcends classes or power. Arrogant creators not only are overly comfortable with some third-rate trash, but they make lots of assumptions about what will be popular, what "passes" (absurdly often seen as the same). And there is a typ of entitlement that is egocentric and about the own "voice" without regard for the fictional product, that is sort of just about those people making aware of themselves, as an end in itself or ideological ploy.
I honestly think it’s because people don’t see Justice League, Mass Effect, or Star Wars really as pieces of art, just entertainment. It could be related to the fact that people view these things as products of the companies rather than the actual people who worked on them. When it is actually viewed as a piece of art less people will demand change because they see it is a product of the artist’s soul, (I guess with the exception of Sherlock Holmes). An example I’d say is Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. I am not a big fan of the ending, I find it awfully depressing, but I would not change it for a second. I do not see it as a corporate cash grab in any way, and I know there is a person behind it so I will take it as it is and not demand its change.
To ask that something get re-done to suit me, is just childish and proves the complaint should be ignored. If I don’t like the treatment of something I love I just vote with my wallet. If it’s something I don’t like but need it because I am a collector. I will purchase it second hand. I didn’t like QoS but since I collect Bond films, I purchased it 2nd hand. The money doesn’t go to the film makers.
If fans make complaints based on subjectivity than they dont have to have the last word, but when fans make objective complaints, they deserve to be heard and not criticized for it. It's up to the companies at that point, but this isnt fan entitlement. It also depends on what the fans ask for. It wasn't too much to ask for sonic to look like sonic. Their mistake was not designing him faithfully from the start. The fans also tend to reward the creators when they at least respect what the fans want and try doing better. The snyder cut is also fair because DC pushed him off the film. Last Jedi? Disney can just decanonize it. If fans ask for the impossible or for extremely irrelevant things to be changed i.e. your ships not being validated, than they shouldn't change for the fans. Right now, fans are asking for things that make sense; dont make a star wars film that intentionally destroys what the others had built up, have characters actually look like the characters they are, storytelling that doesnt go out of its way to attack the fandom that loves the franchise (I'm not just talking about star wars here).
I respectfully disagree. Firstly, my understanding was that Snyder left the production after a family tradegy, he wasn't pushed away by the studio. (Though he did have to keep up with the dreaded studio interfererens that is common in those kinds of blockbusters.) Secondly, what is objective complaints in this case? If TLJ is disrespectful towards the fans, why did I like it? I'm such a geek that I know about the Wolf Boars of Endor and the Greater Krayt Dragon of Tatooine, and I thought the movie was decent, had no idea it'd be so polarizing. (Sidenote, I'm 100% convinced that the reception to TFA is what led to the writing of TLJ having more creative freedom. And then the reception of TLJ led Disney to change even more in TROS, resulting in a trilogy that feels very uneven.) Thirdly, what the video is asking is, just what's it worth changing a movie like this, will it truly be better? Yeah, I've heard that the Sonic movie worked better when he has his new, cute design, but the whole debate surrounding the TMNT reboot just led to a pretty boring Shredder character.
@@YggdrasilAudio you're right about Snyder leaving for personal reasons. You can like the last Jedi, as a fan or a newcommer, but what i meant is that they made choices in such a way that were very intentionally used to belittle the other movies (this is more prevelent in the rise of skywalker by bringing back the emporor, therefore making anakin's sacrifice pointless). Luke sensed the dark side growing in ben solo, and rather than try keeping him on the right path with guidence, he ignights his lightsaber, thinking of killing him for a short moment. Even though he regreted it immediately after, it doesnt change the fact that he thought of killing his nephew, his sister's and best friend's son without trying to save his soul. Luke wouldn't have done something like that. The whole point of the original trilogy is that Luke didn't want to kill Vader when he learned he was his father. Everyone was telling him that he should kill Vader, but he wouldn't. He went on a suicide mission to save his father's soul, a man he actually doesnt even know. So, when he drew a lightsaber on ben solo, a nephew we can assume he's spent years with, training, etc. it made no sense for him as a character. As far as objective criticisms, that's one of them. I don't have the time to make a list, but another criticism would be the out of place 'yo mama' joke, and the 30 minutes on kantobyte. Kantobyte stops the whole plot whenever we're there. Finn and Rose's friends are beeing or going to be killed, and they decide to take a moment to tell us how bad capitalism is. And regardless of where you stand on that issue, it doesn't belong in this story. They rescue the horse dog things but leave the enslaved children. This is insanity. If they were going to do this at all, they should've saved the kids. Overall, the addition makes no sense and doesnt add anything to the story or plot in a positive way. The guy who betrays them happened to be in the same cell and unlocks the door for them. Why was he still there up untill they came if he could already unlock the door? There's a lot of things like this that makes its critical praise baffling. I can see why someone might like it, but that doesnt make it good. I like the prequels... alot. But i can still see the objective errors in it. The story of the prequels is excellent, the execution? Not so much. The acting, not very good at all (except for ewin mcgregor). Another reason that the movie became so polarizing is that the creators of the movie and the people who work at lucasfilm went out of their way to say "if you don't like it, you're a racists/sexist, etc." The fans that are so vocal now would still be upset by this movie, but Lucasfilm fanned the flames whenever they got the chance. I hope this better explains my position. Thanks for responding to the first comment. It's good to have a real discussion and not just attack each other. Have a good day!
@@HORSESNDOGS9 I understand were you're coming from (I can go on record and say that I didn't really care for a lot of the parts of TLJ you mentioned, as I personally thought the film picked up more steam in the second half). Thing is, I think we have different definitions of objective and subjective. For me, the adjective 'objective' means something that's based on facts, while 'subjective' describes how one intereprets and present those facts. I think there are a lot of things in movies that you can discuss objectively, I'm more against the way the word objective is used a lot today. Like you can say: "TLJ intentionally destroyed a lot of things the previous movies built up", but saying that it's a bad thing is subjective. I'm not saying you feel this way, but I feel like the word subjective has a bad rep these days. The fact that films create subjective experiences are what make them so fun, the fact that they make people feel things and think differently. It's okay to say subjective things about stuff you're passionate about, that's what makes film discussions interesting. If some films are objectively good or bad, then what's the point of talking about them? You don't have to make arguments to support your positions.
@@YggdrasilAudio character assasination is objectively bad. I believe our definitions of subjective and objective are the same. I love a lot of moies people say are bad, but that doesnt mean they arent bad. I'd argue that discussing things through an objective lense is more interesting, only because it helps us learn why some things work and others dont. I'm writing fiction alot and this sort of annalysis is very important. I want to make a good story with well written characters. If i praised or criticised based on my subjectove opinion, than how could i know what's actually good? The reason we should point out the flaws and successful moments in a film is that it should be praised for what it does right and called out on what it does wrong. Should good films be put on the same level as a badly crafted one? That would be insulting to the people who actually gave it their all and succeeded at their craft, which is a huge achievement. That's like putting a gold medalist from the olympics on the same level as someone who finsished the race without placing. Subjective arguements are fun, but they don't actuelly matter. If subjectivity was far more important the objectivity, than why should we praise the Prestiege over the Chipmunks movie? It doesnt matter that the chipmunk movies are lazy and contrived, boring pieces of garbage if everything is subjective. You should be allowed to enjoy what you enjoy, but to give it critical praise based on someone's subjective emotional expirience is meaningless. If something bad emotionally touched you or got you invested, that's great. It doesnt take away your right to enjoy something others dont. But objective is objective without emotions dictating things as good or bad, and what's subjective is based on an individuals personal reaction to something. Also, argueing objectively can lead to getting better films. If a studio realizes we arent satisfied by mediocrity, there's a better chance we'll get better quality films in the future, so long as they realize we're more willing to pay for a good film.
@@YggdrasilAudio another thing that should be said is if there are things objectively bad about a film, it doesnt automatically make it a bad film. A film can be flawed without being bad, and that dictation will depend on how severe the flaws are. For example, a 30 minute sidequest that doesnt go anywhere and distracts from the plot is a HUGE flaw. 30 minutes is very hard to ignore. A yo mama joke in the middle of a space battle breaks the tension the scene was building up. That pulls the audience out of the experience. Character asssasination is always unforgiveable, because if they had shown luke going through a decent of madness that made sense, put a movie's worth of content that was carefully written to explain his change in character, it wouldnt get the same critisism and would be more emotionally satisfying at the same time. You cant explain away a whole character's new personality when we've had years of character development showing us how luke behaves in different situations. A few flashbacks cannot be used as an excuse to completely change a character the audience has known for so long. Another thing I'd argue is if something is objectively good, it will be satisfying, subjectively as well
There's a good thing that came out of the movement along with the film is that the money they have gained they gave it to charities for suicide prevention. It isn't only for Snyder, but for the cast and crew and his deceased daughter Autumn.
Good video, the message you where exploring is sound, but you're definitely missing a lot of points that go into the production of media projects. Your conclusion about entitlement is true for the most part, but you're choice of comparisonism and analysis is not fully informed. While true. Snyder's version might have had the same problems, Snyder's direction and execution make the world of difference.
>Thinks criticism of TLJ and forced diversity is bigotry >Says this nonchalantly like everyone inherently agrees with this take >Links to all left wing media outlets bashing fans for not liking their movies ruined by leftists Well now we're getting the Snydercut, hopefully you are seething.
It's incredible how it falls along political lines. Even though it shouldn't but that's where we're at. And for some reason it requires accusations of the worst things. The Sonic design change is an example of CORRECT communication and consumer service not entitlement. It's basically like test screening and studio listening to the remarks of the audience. And lots of franchises quite frankly fail the fans lately and then the writers or directors attack those who didn't like it. To ignore that is to side against legitimate pro-consumer arguments.
I think most fans dont demand a re-do. Thats unrealistic in most cases. We just want them to do better going forward. You cant redo The Last Jedi. Just make a better trilogy next time (actually have a plan) You cant re-do Ghostbusters 2016, but you can ignore it and make a Ghostbusters sequel that gives us the actual sequel and passing of the torch movie fans were asking for. Thats how you do it. The Sonic redesign was done before the movie was completed, so they could change it. The Snyder cut was a special case because HBOMax wanted content that would push subscriptions. Oh by the way, your analysis of why the Snyder Cut wouldnt work didnt age well. As I type this the Snyder cut blu ray just released and is sold out everywhere. Guess Warner Brother chose poorly betting against the Snyder Cut, didnt they?
@@ButterCookie1984 whether or not its entitlement is irrelevant. The fans want what the fans want. There is nothing wrong with voicing what you want. Its up to the artists if they want to give the fans what they want or not.
12:54 Fucking Thank you, that parrot phrase is not only over used but completely blind to how criticism actually works. The whole point of looking at things with a critical eye is that at some point, the viewer has seen enough films that like and emotionally resonate with them on some level that they can automatically tell whether something is interesting to them or not. Not whether it's good or bad because that's reductive and annoying, but whether they are going to like it or not. EDIT: Also I like the slickness of the choice of Bubble Bass, because he was hiding the pickles under the whole time. He was just doing it to look like he had superior taste.
Exactly. One of my biggest pet peeves is the idea recently that entertainment is either "perfect" or it's "trash". There's almost no subtlety anymore. Someone will find one "flaw" that particularly triggers them, and tear it apart as a result, ignoring literally everything else in the process. It also seems like a lot of people legitimately believe that "criticizing" means "talking bad about" or complaining, and most analysis these days is...sub-par at best.
I find it how interesting we are, as consumers of media, essentially in what comes down to a toxic relationship. After all, the best way to punish content-makers who make what is essential soulless swill for the purposes of lining their wallets is to just not engage with their media. Don't talk about it online, don't go see it, definitely don't buy their merchandise. But we keep coming back, somehow expecting the next one to not be a turd covered in gold leaf. Sometimes, when we get something that isn't shitty, we come back to slob on the corporate knob like it's bought us a box of shitty dollar store chocolates and some condoms as an apology. My point is, these big corporations have made consuming media a part of our identities, to the point where we are basically obliged to consume even when we hate it; which is where most of the fanboy toxicity comes from in the first place.
I'm not sure Sonic and Mass Effect are fan entitlements. The Sonic we were first given looked monstrous and didn't evoke Sonic and if you want my money then Sonic should at least feel like Sonic. The studio is asking for my money and if it's asking for my money I have every right to say that I wont pay for that product so if you want my money you'll make changes. The same holds true for Mass Effect. It delivered and underwhelming ending that was really just three color codings. That wasn't the product people were paying for. The problem with the art narrative is that the artist isn't making art for the sake of art. This isn't the Mona Lisa. The Sonic movie and Mass Effect may be artistic visions but they are artistic visions being made with the soul purpose to make money. Therefore the artist is entering into an a relationship with the consumer in which the consumer needs to be happy. If they want to make art for the sake of art and fall back on artistic vision then they need to do so independently of trying to win over my money. But if you are making art with the goal of winning my money then you need to make that art something I want to pay for. Also, it can't be ignored that such demands have lead to improvements. Odds are strong people wouldn't have seen the original Sonic. The change prompted people to support the overall artistic vision of the movie if nothing more than to support a studio that doesn't ignore the fans. The Snyder cut is actually a better movie and really does change your experience with Justice League. Cyborg and the Flash are more realized characters. The Flash actually does important things aside from be the comic relief. And most importantly Zack Snyder got to actually tell HIS story. The Joss version was not his vision and he Zack said as much. In this case "fan entitlement" actually supported and realized the original artists vision as opposed to the vision of the studio. Do you mean to tell me there is no artistic merit in Zack getting to show people the movie he wanted to make? Even if it wasn't a better movie it still would have been a movie true to his vision and if you are going to argue artistic merit and the freedom of the artist to create the art they want then the Snyder cut is a no brainer. However, in a more general sense, when art is being made for the purpose of profit, such as most movies, then the whims of the fans takes is of higher importance than the artistic vision. The art is not being made to express the vision of the artist but to appease fans and shareholders. The problem here isn't fan entitlement but the entire idea of producing art for profit. In such a situation the artist vision is made tertiary to the concerns of fans who are paying customers and studio executives who are wanting a big return on thier money. Under such a situation the artist is only as important as thier ability to deliver a product that will make fans and studio executives happy. If those aren't being met the artist has failed. That's why independent movies and games are generally regarded as more artistic. Thier goal isn't to make money. Their value isn't in how much money they will make and as such don't have to worry about fans and studio executives. But so long as an artist is making art for profit thier vision is not a primary goal or concern. An artist can't ask me for my money and then scream artistic vision when I say that is ugly and if you want my money then you will make it in a fashion that I like. The artist has a choice stick with their vision or gain my money. But if they want my money they'll make it something I want to buy, just like any time i have paid an artist for a picture of a character in a D&D game I'm playing in. Making art for mass consumption and profit puts artistic vision as last and it only matters in as much as the artists ability to make money. You can't ask for my money and then tell me I'm wrong for saying what I will and will not pay for and stating what it takes to earn my dollar. If you want to hide behind artistic vision then stop asking for my money and just make art. Don't try to sell it to me because the moment you do that you become a product and service, not art.
I stopped watching when you said Snyder Cut is not gonna fix Justice League. In the end it's just a matter of opinion, you just don't like Snyder's take on these movies. I thought your gonna say some eye opener stuff.
Failure? Snyder's DC movies are great to me, that's why I wanna see his true vision for JL. What's next? You're gonna say that I have bad taste bla bla. By the way don't act like your opinion is the truth.
@@mlp405 It won't make you feel better to see that alleged "vision". If anything, it will make you feel worse because nothing more will ever come from it. You're confusing your like for what he did with what he actually accomplished. Learn to differentiate that if you wish to be a functional adult someday.
I actually like Snyder more than you think. I don't like BvS or Justice League, but I was a huge supporter of Man of Steel back in 2013 and still think of that film fondly. Moreover, my point in saying a Snyder Cut wouldn't fix Justice League was not because the film is objectively bad, but because the general criticisms that people (fans and critics) had of the movie would not be resolved by a Snyder Cut. All of those elements were present throughout production. If you loved Justice League and just want more of it then fair enough, but my video isn't really about that. Even if you didn't finish the video, I appreciate that you took some time to give it a chance. Cheers.
Hey Johnathon, I appreciate your response to the video and I'm glad you like it, but can I ask that you tone down the rhetoric a bit? I don't think we need to talk down to Snyder Cut enthusiasts who come here.
dreadful fucking take, josstice leauge wasn’t just “a bad product that fans disliked” as you insinuate here, it was a corporation forcefully stealing an auteur’s work from him and turning it into what they thought was more marketable. and yes, the snyder cut DID fix justice league. it wasn’t just “more of the same” or “an extended cut”, it was a completely different work with different themes, morals, messages and basically a completely different story that facelifted absolutely every single moment of the “original” film. fans demanding a whole finished movie or season of a show be reshot when that show was clearly the creators vision is one thing, but fans asking for what was originally promised to them is not.
Putting out the cut was even more of an insult, they basically paraded Frankenstein’s monster to be viewed as a freak for a couple of extra sUbscribers on hbo max. Snyder and his rich wife should’ve just released it independently.
@@plaidchuck That’s an opinion lol, the overwhelming majority if viewers; snyder fan or not agreed that the snyder cut was a massive improvement and fixed almost all of the issues that people hated about josstice leauge. calling it a “frankensteins monster” is completely missing the point, feels like you are going out of your way to miss the point just so you can “own the snyder fans” or whatever but either way that’s not the point i was making. the point it warner took zach’s project away from him and the fans wanted him to have his chance to get it back that is it
To answer that question, I'm first gonna quote one of my personal heroes here: "It isn't about giving people what they want, it's about doing your best to make people want what you most of all want to give them. You're suppose to wish and hope that they'll want it, and in all ways work on making them take it to their hearts, by being clear, distinct, concise, effective, aware of tempo, light, sound and if it's a theatre production things like comfortable seatings, the right temperature, friendly cashiers, everything. In every conceivable way you have to work to make people enjoy what you enjoy. And that is an active process, not the attitude of "giving people what they want", which is to say the same thing they've always gotten before." - Tage Danielsson, author, director, entertainer. Now, another problem with "give the fans what they want" is the fact that "the fans" aren't a monolithic structure. It's made up of people who all love the thing, wether that be Batman or Star Wars or whatever, for vastly different reasons. Sure, there are "camps" but which one will bring in the most money? You can't second guess it, really. You'll have to write what you as a fan would like to see instead of chasing trends. As an example, I'd say that one of the problems with the new Star Wars trilogy was that it kept second-guessing what the fans wanted. "Force Awakens" was "Oh, the fans don't want the prequels. We'll make a movie that's as close to the original trilogy as possible." And when they got the reaction to that film it was like "Oh, the fans thought it was bad because it was just like the old films? Okay... We'll need to subvert their expectations!" And when they took that too far they had no idea what to do. Rise of Skywalker just felt like a long chain of "Are you happy now fans? Please love what we're trying to sell you!!! Look, look! It's Palpatine. You like him, right? Please, please, please, buy the product that we're trying to sell you!" Sure, even if it is a dedicated fan writing the Batman or Superman or whatever story they've always wanted to write it can still fail to please the larger fanbase. Either the creator failed some of the other selling points like tempo, characterisation, dialogue etc. or their interpretation of the character was simply in a minority (or a combination of the two). Because once again, the fanbase isn't monolithic.
Because what they want isn't always what they need to hear. Case in point: Patrick Mcgoohan's The Prisoner, the world's first TV miniseries. Fan anticipation for the finale hit fever pitch, especially with the episode that came before it "Once Upon A Time". But when that finale aired, it knocked the fans headcanon so hard, McGoohan had to flee to the mountains for a couple of weeks to get away from the backlash. And he was DELIGHTED. Pissing them off by making them think rather than giving them what they wanted (which would have been pretending to make them think, see X-Files) made it way more memorable and full of artistic integrity. So there's merit in going the other way.
Pathetic, yes I am a customer I owed a certain kind of story because that's what I pay for. You want to do your own liberal soap box preaching comic, fine just don't do it with my established a d beloved franchises and characters, create your own characters. But you can't because you know it won't sell so you infuse your SJW crap in my established characters and franchises using fan loyalty to try and sell stories no one would care about if it stood on its own.
My problem with many of these fandoms is simple they can't accept a poor conclusion yet they want there tv show video game or movie to go on indefinitely I had this problem with many people who don't seem to understand the longer the run is extended the harder it becomes to stick the landing and deliver a satisfying conclusion don't get me wrong exceptions are there but don't complain if a piece of art becomes a product if you won't let it end gracefully !
I just found your channel after watching your video on the "death of the American gangster film" and I really like your videos. Also I feel your mass effect 3 pain.
I'm not sure if Sonic is the best example here, because they didn't change the story, just the character design. And the change worked - Sonic did decently well at the box office, and was generally liked. Contrast this to CATS, which was also mocked for its offputting character designs, but it stuck to its guns... and became one of the most infamous cinematic disasters in awhile. If a large number of people are upset by the design of the main character(s), that's going to completely sabotage a movie. Changing Sonic's look was almost certainly the right call. Although speaking of musicals, another great example here would be Phantom Of The Opera. Or rather, its sequel. Saying the words "Love Never Dies" in a room full of theater geeks is *still* a really good way to start people ranting.
@Meat Grinder Mike Relevant? Sure - but as a counterpoint. The Sonic movie bowing to Internet mockery was almost certainly the right call, and probably saved the film from flopping. This isn't a good example for a video which is suggesting such decisions are wrong and that art doesn't work that way.
Kind of, although TBG was (to me at least) more about the philosophical dangers involved with a person projecting their own interpretations onto the work of an author, to the point of incorrectly assuming authorial intent. But then, TBG rubbed me the wrong way because I felt like the bad guy won, and that the game sort of sends a mixed message as a result. That said, one game which is applicable here - which more people should play - is "The Magic Circle." It's a first-person puzzle-action game that's also a satirical deconstruction of the game design process, including a LOT of discussion of the role fans play in the development of products. The plot involves a four-way struggle for control of a sequel that's been trapped in development hell for a decade, with one of the participants being a fan who's secretly scheming to open the servers up to the fans to make their own game. (Seriously, The Magic Circle is REALLY good and I'm sad that almost nobody played it.)
In the age of instant gratification, many people can't handle a movie that doesn't do exactly what they were hoping for. And instead of living with a disappointing movie for a while and trying to come to terms with it and trying to see what the filmmakers wanted to say with it, they simply demand the thing be erased and remade. The result is that more and more franchises play it safe and bring only the familiar and never dare to experiment or think outside the box. Franchises aren't allowed to evolve anymore, they have to stay stagnant and do the same thing over and over. I'd personally take the occasional disappointment if it also means we can get something brilliant once in while too.
Fan entitlement definitely goes back further than Sherlock Holmes being killed off. People were really pissed at Louisa May Alcott for Laurie and Jo not getting together at the end of Little Women.
Yep to go even further someone was mad that Cervantes didn’t do a sequel to Don Quixote so they essentially wrote a fan fiction sequel. Cervantes was so pissed that he wrote his own killing off Don Quixote and writing this long intro complaining about the whole ordeal.
well now that it’s out, it did in fact redeem the movie significantly i don’t know how well it would’ve worked in theatre though as the 4 hour run time helped to significantly develop characters like the flash and cyborg
It did and I love it, but what the video prophesied was fulfilled. Martian Manhunter, Darkseid and the dreampocalypse scenes with the Joker were all convoluted and setup nonexistent sequels. I could have lived without them. The tone was better but still, there was some cringey humor. Still, at least is watchable at the minimum and great in places particularly Flash. He was 1000 times better in the Snyder Cut.
Snyder was willing to cut it down to three hours for theatrical. But of course WB will want to chase the MCU success but won't let the big epic team up films be longer than two hours let alone three soooooo
Well, this didn't age well. LOL I agree with many of your points, but...man...The Snyder Cut may have still been a big messy stew, but it's miles and miles and miles better than Whedon's studio-note-driven massive shrug. I'll take a mess with a point of view over a mess that is just...nothing. Not bad, not good, just there. Frankly, Whedon versus Snyder is a TERRIBLE example for the point you're trying to make. One was an artistic statement was made by an artist with a point of view (which is worthy of any criticism it gets), and the other was a McDonald's hamburger Whedon made to studio-note-order based in the criticism of BvS.
The Snyder cut is out and I have to disagree with your point on it not fixing anything/being an abhorrent mess. It was way more realized and earnest. I have some problems with it like it suffering from return of the king syndrome with its epilogue but I found it to be one of the best comic book movies I've seen in years, meanwhile I've almost completely forgot about the 2017 studio vandalism job aside from the continuing saga about all the abuse and toxicity that went down. But even if it were bad and your point was proven, I still am happy that a filmmaker who had to suffer the tragedy of losing one of their children while fighting a losing battle with one of the biggest studios in the industry got to release their vision that they and all the actors and crew members poured their heart and soul into despite all the abuse they were going through from the studio. I agree with your sentiment on fan entitlement, I just dont think this is the same case as Mass effect 3 or The Last Jedi even if there are many toxic Snyder fans who disguise their fan entitlement with the issues I just laid out.
Ive been binging through a lot of your channel since finding it yesterday and am LOVING IT. Awesome work and great points raised here in retrospect. Obviously "The Snyder Cut" has changed since the making of this video - And that kind of makes this even more interesting actually!
Great video, man. I have a lot of thoughts on it, but generally agree with everything you said. I am big into supporting the Snyder Cut, but that's because I want that tone matching what we saw in Batman v Superman and Man of Steel (both of which I have faults with, but I do genuinely love Man of Steel). Do I think Justice League is going to 'fix' everything? Well, not really, no. Affleck has moved on. Cavill is completely quiet. Wonder Woman looks like the tone has completely changed. DC/WB has NO clue what they're doing. Like you said, JL is going to be A LOT of set up, set up that I'm not entirely sure will pay off (Hey, Deathstroke...but he was going to have a HUGE role in The Batman...which isn't happening (Affleck's vision)). I'm excited, but I have tempered expectations. I think the movement could have been far more 'friendly' and done so without constantly insulting celebrities or bullying each other. I think you were, for lack of better wording, brave in making this video. I know how PASSIONATE this base is and they will go full depth to remind you how 'wrong' you are. That being said, the attention to detail and your writing are all absolutely phenomenal.
I appreciate that my man. I was certainly concerned that the video be seen as inflammatory or mocking so I tried to make sure I wasn't coming from that perspective. Glad that seemed to come through. And so far comments have been good for the most part. Haven't had to police anyone really and nothing's really come close to harassment. Maybe it's because the initial surge of emotion has largely died down and people are more level-headed about the whole thing.
Personally, I am more of a MARVEL Fan, and the dark tone of the DC Universe movies or comics did not agree with me (though I do like some BATMAN comics like "BATMAN: Hush"). I thought "MAN OF STEEL" was really long, and the death of Zod was a nerve-wracking end to a "boy scout superhero". I never watched "Wonder Woman", not so much because I thought it was going to be dumb, but because it would probably be similar too "CAPTAIN AMERICA: The First Avenger". When "BATMAN vs SUPERMAN" was announced, I predicted Batman would overall win, even if it was also going to be a team-up movie. Still, never watched it. No interest in "AQUA MAN" either. Never watched it. And I heard most DC Fans were displeased with the Whedon Cut of "JUSTICE LEAGUE". So when the Snyder Cut was being demanded, I wasn't part of the crowd. However, when the Snyder Cut actually was released, I decided to do some research. When I realized that Zach Snyder was supposedly the Kevin Feige or Jon Favereu of the DC movies, I decided to give it a go. And, I'm gonna be honest, it was entertaining, probably the best of that series of DC movies. However, by the end of it, taking it into overall context of where DC was today, I couldn't help but be disappointed that we would be unable to recieve all the answers to set-up questions and not continue the stories were teased in it (Deathstroke fighting Batman because he knew his identity in particular). I posted a #RestoreTheSnyderVerse as a result. Why am I telling you all this? To show you that MARVEL is better than DC. I'm kidding, the reason is to see the irony between my dislike for these DC movies, yet I posted a tag that basically said I wanted more DC films, even if I knew they would never happen given the circumstances of that time. And a part of me knew I wouldn't like them even if they were released, since my motivation was based more on curiosity rather than emotional-investment. I must also admit, I admire Zach Snyder not only because of his Cut, but for the following: "I've decided to step back from the movie to be with my family, be with my kids, who really need me." Snyder knew what was really important, to be with his family in time of crisis instead of finishing a vision that may or may not please the DC Fanbase. As human beings, we should be able to be invested in characters in a story, but not at the cost of being human. Sometimes, where there is a feeling of entitlement, hypocritical toxicity is not far behind. It's like with George Lucas and his Prequel and Special Editions for STAR WARS. "True and loyal fans" were very toxic to George and his vision when it was completed, unappreciative of his willingness to take risks and tell a well-rounded story. Since it was clear fans didn't want anymore of his work (it was being "saved" by Dave Filoni's Clone Wars) and making the movies took time from his family anyway, he sold STAR WARS to Disney. Suddenly there are "leaks" of George Lucas' visions had he done episodes VII, VIII, and IX (I find it funny that these were never brought up anytime BEFORE Disney bought STAR WARS) and that there are "George Lucas cuts" of "The Rise of Skywalker". I think a longing for what has gone before is really picking up speed in many fandoms (The recent release of "SPIDER-MAN: No Way Home" comes to mind. SPOILERS After Peter #3's performance, the latest hashtag is #MakeTASM3, when the irony is, there was a time before TASM was compared to the Raimi Spider-Man films, and people didn't like him more than Peter #2.), meaning that the motivation for making a movie is to make fans have nostalgic moments instead of creating something new and unexpected to inspire the imagination or give new perspective (Holland's Spidey was not meant to be Maguire's Spidey, "The Last Jedi" was never meant to be what fans expected: THAT'S THE POINT, to attempt something new by being something new.) This leaves audiences failing to appreciate what they get and instead moan for the past because it's what they know while leaving newer audiences confused at why the movie is supposed to be appreciated. My final thought is if such hypocrisy and entitlement continues, future movie-makers will go on the internet to find fanfictions as the basis for their scripts, creating more nostalgia-based movies that will leave half of audiences pleased in the moment, but inevitably disappointing both the nostalgia-filled and the casual as time goes on. Anyway, sorry for the long post, I just like to give context so people can know where I am coming from, and these were my thoughts after I watched your video, which I liked by the way. Keep up the good work!
The reason people have more specific expectations regarded franchises is because due to it being an already established franchise, there's an identity and a quality standard attached to it, and I don't see it as entitlement for people to criticize on that basis. If a Batman film came out that felt very alienating, people aren't entitled for voicing their disappointment. That isn't just any character. It's fucking Batman, and it's more than reasonable to expect it to feel like Batman.
@@GringoXalapeno Too true, I fear. I like some forms of interpretation, but not at the cost of completely throwing out what makes a character a character. Different audiences interpret what makes a character a character. For instance, what makes Batman "Batman"? Is it his cool gadgets, his cape and cowl, his fighting skills? Is it his relationship with Selina Kyle? Is it his origin story? It's a hard question to answer, but (for me at least) one thing that would ruin Batman is by making him into a woman. It's not because I'm a man, or will hate the person who came up with the artistic interpretation of how a genderflipped Batman may change his origin story (like the scenario differences of Harry Potter between "Harriet Potter"). It's something about his name. If Batman is not "Batman", he's not Batman. Then again, not every interpretation of a Batman story will be good if it doesn't stick with him fighting crime. Say that someone were to turn him into a criminal, a villain that literally commits all forms of evil and immorality. For me, this version of Batman works if it's an alternate-universe version for Batman to fight, but if it were to become the face of Batman entirely throughout merchandising and advertisements, it would ruin his character. Does that make sense?
@@bridgerhibbert2993 i suppose but I don’t care as much as I used to because I have franchise fatigue I just want good art to be able to stand on its own brand or not
Except this video literally goes out of its way to distinguish between criticism and entitlement. Not liking a movie and expressing your disappointment is fine, healthy even. But demanding the creator issue an apology, signing petitions to retroactively change the art, throwing temper tantrums…all of that is whiny entitlement and is a serious problem. One of the biggest differences between a childish person and a mature person is the way they deal with disappointment. It’s gotten to the point where the behavior of fully-grown “fans” in their 30’s, 40’s, even 50’s is actually starting to scare me. It’s a sign that people these days might get older, but they’re not growing up.
Maybe we should be a little more distant with the movies and games, I really dont understand why people hate a movie, or a ending, or a game. I think its because people let media become part of themselves, like their identities are affected by it. I wasn't affected by ME3 ending, i wasn't affected by ME:A and i really enjoyed those games.
A lot of people considered Luke, Superman, Batman their heroes, have spent decades with their previous adventures and looking forward to further or newer, not surprising there would be a lot of disappointment, even anger if they consider the characters in the new versions to be ruined.
@@suarezguy That's where the power of the personal private head canon. If I don't like an entry in one of my favorite franchises, I just ignore it, and continue to cherish and return to the ones I love.
@@Serocco I have a few things to say but they are by far less aggresive than the "internet fans" say. If i were to listen to fans ME:A would be a buggy hellscape with awful faces everywhere. But it isnt, in fact the lady that appears in 50% of the images is a really small character that you dont talk after the first part of the game. And ME3 would be the worst ending ever, its not good but its plainfully average. In fact... the worst part isnt the ending.
I disagree strongly, art is a product at the end if the day, you make what people want to see not your own grand creative vision. If you want to do your own vision that's fine, just do not make me pay for it when I expect something else. Also the political pandering started from the left, every story must have a on the nose liberal political message. When last did Hollywood do a movie encouraging on the nose conservative values, it's always liberal values on full soap box display. I like your videos but they are tainted by you liberal bias a whole lot and it makes some of them unwatchable
Well, fan entitlement is one thing, but it's a whole other thing to do something as important as fan input, why, because the company is abandoning fans to appeal to people who are not fans and are never going to be fans, so why ruin consistency and turn a product into something that it's not? Regarding the Snyder Cut its a manner of unfinished business and respecting something that isn't just a movie, it's culture, so if you can fix it, fix it.
People are demanding that Britney Spears completely redo her 8th album 2013's Britney Jean. And not in a simple Beatles Let It Be remix but her getting in the studio to rerecord vocals, rewrite songs and have a different producer.
@@EyebrowCinema These long quotes are how I feel. “I posted this under a different comment but I thought it was a very relevant response here as well and I did modify it a little bit to fit what you said.. If it's a whole "woke" culture, where everything has to be politically correct, everything has to be super inclusive to the point where it doesn't make any sense, we are pushing a certain person or idea for marketing and not for the story or not because it's organic and anyone who does some sort of perceived slight or steps out of line in mindset is the enemy, I don't like people like that at all or that ideology. I don't think they're actually caring compassionate people, I think that they're genuinely racist and bigoted in other ways and if you look closely at a lot of their lives, many of them are projecting or are using their causes to make money off people who genuinely care about them. But also I think that there is this anti-woke thing which is incredibly annoying and disingenuous about a lot of stuff. Like for example, there's a lot of people who would call anything woke or anything politically correct when it's not because of one minor element or one decision they didn't like. And a lot of those people excuse those same mindsets and ideologies in previous things they liked and won't recognize them. A great example of this is Star Trek. I genuinely believe that if Star Trek the next generation launched today, people would call it woke and hate on it. But it's not. Literally all it is is a bunch of stories that try and teach empathy and compassion and sort of show that nobody is 100% in the right all the time. I think the big issue I have is that everyone has convinced themselves that they're on the right side of history and the other person is the enemy. They're part of the anti-woke group so they must be racist or they're part of the group who made a story that's maybe a little more left-leaning so they must be a hardcore socialist who wants to destroy America. I found that most people fall somewhere reasonably in the middle and aren't actually a religious zealot for their non-religious cause or belief systems. I believe the vocal minority on both extreme sides of any issue or ideology are just that - the minority. Most people care about good writing, acting, gameplay, etc when it comes to their media.”-Degenerate Jay “I'm talking about. I think there's a lot of things that are more on the popular side I'm not as big of a fan of as some people and a ton of obscure things I like and there's a lot of things I have some very critical points on, but I was just talking about the people who literally cannot enjoy things. And they can't let other people enjoy them either. It's almost like an affront to their sensibilities if they see someone liking or enjoying something they don't, somehow it offends them. I just find that kind of stuff to be overboard and kind of boring personally.”-Degenerate Jay “I more just don't like how certain people have to have a problem with absolutely everything and drag down every conversation. It's just getting boring and obnoxious and it doesn't make people stand out in a positive way... It just makes them somebody I don't personally want to be around or care about their opinion. It's different to be selective and have those criticisms selectively and actually be able to form your opinions then it is to parrot whatever people are around you say and hate on absolutely everything with an ounce of popularity or fandom because it'll get you attention.”-Degenerate Jay “I think a lot of people disregard the fact that normal conservative/normal Republican people don't actually use that language very often, that's language that has actively been appropriated by the far far right leaning people. I'm talking extreme. I've seen it used casually sometimes, but generally a lot of the people who use that sort of thing are not center right or center left or even open to discussion, the ideology of that term being appropriated has basically become I'm awake and your asleep and a sheep who can't think. It's basically turned people who were willing to have discussions and talk about things and think into people who have brainwashed themselves into believing no one is right but them and they can't have a conversation, which I think is what happens on any extreme political or religious leaning where people are no longer willing to talk. I think that the word woke has been ruined by one side and the whole red pill thing was ruined by the other side. I always took that quote to basically mean that they were bringing it back to a place of reason versus a justification for being right all the time. And personally, I don't think these terms should really be overused and taken by anybody. They certainly can be, but I think that whenever groups of people appropriate a symbol or a piece of language it very quickly gets co-opted and grabbed by the most extreme version of those people and then associated with very bad things. To me, saying something negative about either the extreme extreme extreme right or extreme extreme extreme left is not demonizing them, it's pointing out the fact that some people are so far into zealotry of their own beliefs that they don't want to have a conversation or think anymore. They just want an echo chamber. And that goes for people on both sides of any issue.”-Degenerate Jay
I don’t see what the bad example was here tbh. Snyder was finally able to beat Warner Bros and capitalist Hollywood in general and get his vision out there for people to see. I see that as a big win for Art and Artistic Expressionism. Something which rarely happens nowadays in Hollywood, where films are made for stock markets and shareholders.
@@drstrangelove307 yeah but it's a film, I doubt they released it as a "sorry" to fans. They saw how people were literally making billboards about this, and if you're making billboards over franchise film endings you're most likely part of a very vocal group of like minded people on twitter. We can see what Twitter can do if enough people make noise, I think W. Bros thought the same and most likely released it cause they knew they didn't need much marketing - Twitter would take care of it etc. It seemed like a guaranteed money maker for W. Bros regardless of the "art" they were producing.
I don’t see how. I mean an artist was able to finish and deliver one of their greatest efforts. I haven’t seen an artist being championed for this much since Richard Donner and Superman 2. People still believe in artists and instead of defending faceless corporations and businessman who care little for us we should be backing the artists who have plans and visions as well as backing the original artists intentions when something is produced from an artists work. Movies such as the Star Wars sequel trilogy aren’t works of art because the original creator had very little or even nothing to do with the development of the projects. George Lucas stated in an interview that Disney had no intention to use his sequel trilogy rough drafts and wanted to create something “for the fans” instead of just telling a story. If a studio or studio entity plans on adapting an already established piece of entertainment then their best interest would be to either bring in the original artist/author to help develop the product as a writer/creative head or if the artist has passed or declined then having to stick to the original source material as closely as possible and making sure that the story and characters are preserved in the new adaptation.
In my honest opinion in regards to the new Star Wars trilogy the problem isn't one bad film the problem is there was no planed story to begin with both episode 8 and 9 show this in spades. Don't get me wrong 8 was bad film (and to this day the only film I considered walking out). But the problems start with scene 1 with Luke throwing his lightsaber over his shoulder. That set the tone for the entire film and was big clue that everything JJ had set up in 7 was not going to be continued and all the questions were not going to be answered. This was echoed again with Kylo said "let the past die" and killing Snoke as well as Captain Phasma. By killing those two characters we are left with no lead villain and our protagonists have no clear motivation to continue. Enter JJ once again and episode 9 the rise of retcons. That's basically it episode 9's sole purpose is an attempt to retcon episode 8 out of existence. Unfortunately JJ had to make shall we say questionable decisions not least of which is bringing back the long dead main villain of the original saga and explaining away a bunch of stuff through blink and you will miss it imagery. And when It's all said and done we are left with a group of protagonists that don't love but I don't hate either and as a result to me the are just forgettable. Which is a shame especially for Finn because I really enjoyed the idea of a storm trooper going awol I guess you could say but this is never expanded on or explained beyond episode 7. This is just one of a few situations that tells me there was no clear cut beginning, middle, and end to this trilogy. And you can rag on the prequels all you want at least Lucas went in with a clear ending which is more then I can say for the sequel trilogy. P.S. Love your videos, discovered the channel through the death of the american gangster film. Also if possible I would like to hear your opinion on the 2005 silent film Call of Cthulhu.
Commenting this because I know there's now tons of people who would say "but the Snyder Cut did fix Justice League!" and the thing is, it didn't. It was better than the original cut, sure. But what he says about the film being overly bloated is absolutely correct. The Snyder Cut jumps between a million different plot lines and characters, unsure of what it actually wants to focus on, ultimately wasting four hours of the viewers time.
am i missing some bigger point here ? the snyder cut literally did fix the justice leauge movie, the villain wasn’t nearly as lame more structured plot, more lore accuracy to the comics, if this was the original movie that came out the DCEU would probably have hope. I mean am i missing something here ? i’d go as far as to say the snyder cut its like 10x better than the original cut.
Wow, you did it! Thanks Eyebrow Cinema! 👍🏻
The problem here is the American Consumer. We have built a culture where it is not only acceptable, but encouraged, for you to berate and abuse your way through a company to get what you want. That you are entitled to have what you want, when you want, however you want it, and should feel no shame in bulldozing anyone who stands in the way of that. This attitude has carried over into the way we view entertainment. It’s incredibly irritating, and much like some soccer mom throwing a temper tantrum over not having enough salt on her fries, or having her expired coupon rejected, it takes everything I have not to reach out and throttle these people.
Well said.
Well I think there’s a difference between fans not being happy about a film completely destroying the established IP that they’ve cared for and then getting criticized for it by the people who destroyed their established IP Vs an artist getting reprimanded by his own fans to change his own original work to fit their liking (much like George Lucas and the prequel trilogy). Studio heads and producers aren’t artists, they’re self privileged narcissists who only care about the consumer when they’re getting feet shoved ten feet up their own asses. I support artists 100% and allowing Zack Snyder to finish and present his director’s cut of the film is exactly what that is.
Yeah, well the Snyder Cut is here now. I demand a video about it; just to keep in sense with the topic 🤣
Keep waiting, I'm afraid
What I’m tired of is that people look at a work, whether good or bad, and see whatever mistakes they think they saw as a moral failing on the creator’s part.
That’s definitely toxic although erasing certain versions of a work like the original versions of the original Star Wars trilogy can be seen as a moral failing in terms of erasing history but a rather trivial one at best
@@GringoXalapeno Keep in mind, the STAR WARS Special Editions were something George wanted to do. He didn't look at making them as erasing history, but as improving his previous work, since he now had the resources to do so (even if the previous flaws still exist, like the Stormtrooper bonking his head; it also was a great way of integrating the Prequels with the Original Trilogy).
Now if Disney had bought STAR WARS, but didn't put George's movies on Disney Plus, only the Disney-made STAR WARS, then I think there would need to be questions of moral failure (It'd be like parents adopting a child, but ignoring them because their newborn children are more important!).
@@bridgerhibbert2993 i agree but making the original versions unavailable isn’t right although like I said is somewhat trivial
@@bridgerhibbert2993 i don’t have a problem with the existence of the special editions just the lack of the original versions
Yea, And channels like Eyebrow Cinema don’t exactly help such behavior.
This is why I love fanedits. If you want something done right, do it yourself. It's way more fun that way anyway.
Im not gonna lie, Snyder Cut being released made me change my mind on this. Cause man Studios do be meddling a fuckton sometimes
Something for us to chew on to be sure
I think it doesn't matter what the quality of the final product is. The Snyder Cut could be a perfect masterpiece beloved by critics and audiences alike, but it still encourages a response of corporations bending over backwards to cater for the audience and ignore the wishes of the creators/artists
Director of Sonic movie was an animation director. It was the executives that chose the realistic Sonic, it wasn’t the directors first choice, just the entire staff slowly grew to like the new design over time including the director.
That's probably why the crew were able to seemingly whip the Games-Accurate Sonic design out in short notice.
I legitimately got shivers as soon as the perfect choice of having Annie on the thumbnail jump scared my feed...!
Ah the never-ending commericalization of art. The days of a person just making a movie without any consideration of whether it will please both 15 year olds and 35 year olds are pretty much dead.
Yep when average movie goers became aware of terms like four quadrant movie, counter programming, second week drop, that was the last straw.
Going through the playlist of your vids, and I gotta say... This one aged like milk.
There's a lot of things you can say about Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) that could be called hyperbole, but damn, it might not be hyperbole calling it the most significant director's/alternate cut to a mass release film ever made. And yeah: it's on par with the Extended Director's Cuts of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Until the End of the World, Once Upon a Time in America, and Kingdom of Heaven, if not outright exceeding all of those (because rather than just expanding things or altering them, as you put it, it did *both*, and DRASTICALLY). I don't know about it being a 'great' movie per se (it has a couple notable shortcomings holding it back from being a 'great' movie, if you ask me), but it's a bigger, deeper, more robust, more earnest, and more artistically gratifying work in nearly every single way to its theatrical counterpart. The lone thing the 2017 Theatrical Cut may have over ZSJL is pacing, though saying that, it's pretty much a backhanded compliment.
You can say a lot of things about fan movements, but the irony of your video here (partly, in hindsight) is that the ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement was about restoring the artistic vision to a singular artist that was trampled upon by WB in 2017. You rightly point out that fan campaigns can contain high amounts of toxicity and reek of 'entitlement', but your examples failed in acknowledging some of the bigger pictures. You used Once Upon a Time in America and Blade Runner as your go-to examples of restored classics, while failing to account how ZSJL fit in comparison to those, while also failing to acknowledge the other successful fan campaigns of that have been similar to them, like those for Richard Donner's cut to Superman II, Blade Runner, Brazil, Serenity (2005), Sense8, and others. All of which, I pedantically point out, served art more than fan gripes.
Moreover, the results of some of these campaigns speak for themselves. Sonic's redesign has been praised inside and outside the industry as having been the right move (the original version notably suffered from uncanny valley issues and served to push the movie's core audience away before the movie had even been released), and it's been widely attributed for boosting the movie's earnings well beyond the studio's initial projections. The Snyder Cut restored an artistic vision that had been lost, and in the long run, its streaming/home video success has more than justified the investment into its efforts, in addition to spawning fan campaigns for things as those for Joel Schumacher's restored director's cut to Batman Forever, which looks like it may bear fruit.
*These are good things, and have yielded results in service to art, not results antithetical to it.*
Sometimes, it's not just fans whining. Sometimes, it is about the art. Just because Zack Snyder's a mixed bag filmmaker doesn't mean art wasn't part of the equation.
I strongly disagree with this analysis as you mostly talk about unfinished endings to media. And there are notable examples where unfinished endings caused an outcry in something that wasn't a franchise. I think you're focusing too much on artistic films in this respect. There are also notable examples where fans were able to get essentially what everyone wanted through enough backlash.
A really good example occurred with the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion. While you can argue a television show counts as a "franchise" or not. Its ending was met with an enormous backlash from a 1990s era Japanese audience that were highly invested in the characters and were met with an ending that was effectively nonsensical and unfinished. This amount of attention to "fix" the ending allowed its creator to secure more funding to fund a properly made ending that is on every level better and actually satisfied viewers. While there are people who see the original ending as more artistic next to nobody believes the new ending isn't a more satisfying conclusion to a 26 episode story.
Mass Effect 3's ending is a very similar example where its ending is clearly unfinished and rushed but could've easily been fixed had the developer been given time to work on it. It's something that the DLC could've fleshed out considerably but didn't probably because it also didn't have enough budget to call voice actors back in. As average as the rest of the game was landing the ending still could've saved the entire thing and made experiencing the trilogy from beginning to end worth actually doing.
The Sonic film's CGI was clearly the result of a low budget/time situation and it's clear the creators were able to successfully petition more money to fix it based on the backlash. It's less of a "the consumers demanded we fix our product" and more "if we release this it will be an embarrassment, please give us more money to fix this mistake". I can't see a scenario where the creators of the Sonic film look back and go "I wish we could've released our original vision" because the original vision was clearly a compromise based on time/budget.
The reason franchises in a sense cause this backlash has more to do with the much longer time investment given to something. A 2 hour movie with a definitive ending is far less of a time investment. It's less of an issue of "this product is bad please fix it" and more "I invested 20 hours into this and your ending feels like it took 5 minutes of work." When you invest a lot of time and emotion into something especially if it took years to complete seeing that the ending amounts to that part in the Simpsons where Poochie goes "I have to go now my planet needs me" rightfully should call for people to ask the creators to go back and fix it. To me it's as broken as the creators leaving a bug in that crashes your hard drive. Nobody would say it's an artistic statement to do that.
In almost all of the examples you bring up (sans Last Jedi since Rian was clearly extremely proud of his work) these are examples of endings the creators were unsatisfied with and fans were rightfully annoyed at the severe drop in quality. And such a backlash can actually lead to substantive change that actually pleases both the artist and the consumer.
I'm late but I want to bring this up, I respect the argument, but the movies (and games) you mentioned are movies I wouldn't consider "Art" they are franchises, and franchises are built on fans, were as Art is built on... well not really anything but the work of that artist, that Art can turn into a franchise as big as Star Wars, but can't be used to describe "modern" Star Wars.
Ps: I would have liked to hear a review of the Snyder Cut.
And we are getting the Snyder Cut, booyah!
ReleaseTheSnyderCut is about defending artistic vision not denying it, I'm certain no version of that movie is the ideal Cinematic Justice League I want to see, but Snyder actual vision that was butchered by Warner caving to dumb criticisms of BvS is a work of Art that deserves to be seen. Also I pretty like the theatrical movie as is, it's perfectly entertaining and gets the characters right. Your argument that the Snyder cut is Bad no matter what assumes it's objectively true that BvS was bad, and the people who want the Sndyer cut reject that opinion. And JL having a lighter tone was Snyder's plan before BvS was even filmed, that was always the structure of this Trilogy.
Given how Video Games were being done already before 2012 the eventual release of Mass Effect with more endings was always the plan and the fan outrage only effected how they marketed that, if it wasn't itself always part of the plan.
I have no sympathy for you or your cause...because you're lying to yourself. This is you and all your fellow travelers trying to rewrite history into something that hurts a little less. It won't change what happened nor make you feel any better in the highly unlikely event you achieve the goal. Anyone demanding "artistic integrity" out of a company with licensed characters is the second worst kind of delusional.
@@johnathonhaney8291 I'm not fucking traumatized by anything, I like the movie as is, but I'd also like the longer version.
@@Kuudere-Kun Umm, did you mean NOT traumatized by chance? The rest of the post kind of indicates that's so. And we all want lots of things that we never get.
Perhaps you might get lucky enough the way folks who wanted the Donner cut of Superman II. But that's one of the exceptions, not the rule. The final decision rests with AT&T, WB's new landlord. If they don't see enough profit in making it happen, it won't happen. And after this many years, I doubt demand has risen enough for it to be something they'd think is worth the extra money to make it so.
@@johnathonhaney8291 The likely hood of them doing it has nothing to do with me expressing my opinion.
@@Kuudere-Kun Just saying what to expect...calibrate your expectations accordingly.
I feel people do sometimes confuse fan entertainment with complaints. People are allowed to not like things. In the same way no creator should be forced to change their ideas due to backlash, nobody should be forced to like media that they don’t like. I feel criticism to the new Star Wars has all been tarred with “entitlement” even through there are major flaws. (In my opinion, people are allowed to like those films as well)
That also sounds like a rather convenient excuse to justify trolling and related bad behavior. When you don't like something, you say so, you say why, you move on. But...when you make video after video talking about how awful it is and go on and on and on like someone killed your next of kin or do something similar with comments that run forever and do not end...THAT'S entitlement. Small wonder why white supremacists, misogynists and other repressive types use such gateways to find fresh recruits.
Johnathon Haney Notice how I never mentioned even one of those things? Also, was there any need to escalate it to such a silly degree?
You know you don’t need to go around complaining at every comment I’m sure he doesn’t need nor want you white knighting
@@theunwatchables6982 I used SPECIFIC examples to illustrate the entitlement mentality in action...as if the creators involved owed anyone anything else other than what was given. Such large investments of time and energy towards something that has already been made and likely will never be changed...moving on to something you DO like just seems a better use of both. And I've been around enough not so good people to know there's always a market in profiting off that kind of anger.
Oh and I'm black knighting, thank you.
Johnathon Haney I have never seen a worse case of projection. You’ve came here with a problem and regardless of what anyone else is saying you’re just going on with what you already had planned.
Grow up, people can like/not like what they want.
@@theunwatchables6982 To be fair, not everyone who gets pissed off about how any film, TV series or game went falls under the category. But again, those typically do what I said at the top: say they didn't like it, say why, move on. But what possible good can there be to just stay fixiated on how something let you down so bad like a jilted lover to where you scarcely talk about anything else, including what they'd consider a better version of the story? The only thing it seems to be good for is clickbait and the derived rewards from said clickbait. It's something to think about.
Hello Eyebrow, I’ve recently come to your channel through your Batman Returns and Daniel Craig Bond film videos, and I really enjoy the work you put out, especially your Hitchcock video. But I think that you may be misinterpreting the point that Release The Snyder Cut was trying to make. It was about allowing filmmakers to tell their story. You may not like what Snyder did with DC, and that’s fine. But studio interference is one of the worst things that could happen to a filmmaker, and I think we can both agree on that. The campaign was also about pointing out how Warner Brothers took advantage of the unfortunate suicide of Zack Snyder’s daughter in order to completely remove him and retool his vision behind his back, and now with Ray Fisher coming out, and accusing Joss Whedon of being rude and aggressive towards the cast and crew, I have to say, I’m with the Snyder Cut guys on this. Granted I like those movies, but because people may perceive one filmmaker/film as bad, doesn’t mean that the original vision should not be told. I agree with the overall point of Fan Entitlement that you make, but I think to really center this video around Zack Snyder and his fan base might be a stretch when they’ve raised over $150,000 for Suicide Prevention, and have shown their genuine love and respect for the filmmaker. But anyways, that aside I enjoy the quality of the content you put out, it’s the deep analysis and discussions on films that make me a huge film fan, so keep up the good work!
Good God, man, you nailed it. Real artists only have one response when someone says change their works: "Shove it up your arse. It stays as it is." Entitled fanbases are no better than the Hollywood committees who churn out the very bland sausage that the fanboys end up complaining about. It is literally the same thing. The please-all effect guarantees an end result that will be inconsequential. Criticism as a catalyst for dialogue is another thing altogether -- yet another point you slam-dunked here.
These long quotes are how I feel.
“I posted this under a different comment but I thought it was a very relevant response here as well and I did modify it a little bit to fit what you said.. If it's a whole "woke" culture, where everything has to be politically correct, everything has to be super inclusive to the point where it doesn't make any sense, we are pushing a certain person or idea for marketing and not for the story or not because it's organic and anyone who does some sort of perceived slight or steps out of line in mindset is the enemy, I don't like people like that at all or that ideology. I don't think they're actually caring compassionate people, I think that they're genuinely racist and bigoted in other ways and if you look closely at a lot of their lives, many of them are projecting or are using their causes to make money off people who genuinely care about them.
But also I think that there is this anti-woke thing which is incredibly annoying and disingenuous about a lot of stuff. Like for example, there's a lot of people who would call anything woke or anything politically correct when it's not because of one minor element or one decision they didn't like. And a lot of those people excuse those same mindsets and ideologies in previous things they liked and won't recognize them. A great example of this is Star Trek. I genuinely believe that if Star Trek the next generation launched today, people would call it woke and hate on it. But it's not. Literally all it is is a bunch of stories that try and teach empathy and compassion and sort of show that nobody is 100% in the right all the time.
I think the big issue I have is that everyone has convinced themselves that they're on the right side of history and the other person is the enemy. They're part of the anti-woke group so they must be racist or they're part of the group who made a story that's maybe a little more left-leaning so they must be a hardcore socialist who wants to destroy America. I found that most people fall somewhere reasonably in the middle and aren't actually a religious zealot for their non-religious cause or belief systems. I believe the vocal minority on both extreme sides of any issue or ideology are just that - the minority. Most people care about good writing, acting, gameplay, etc when it comes to their media.”-Degenerate Jay
“I'm talking about. I think there's a lot of things that are more on the popular side I'm not as big of a fan of as some people and a ton of obscure things I like and there's a lot of things I have some very critical points on, but I was just talking about the people who literally cannot enjoy things. And they can't let other people enjoy them either. It's almost like an affront to their sensibilities if they see someone liking or enjoying something they don't, somehow it offends them. I just find that kind of stuff to be overboard and kind of boring personally.”-Degenerate Jay
“I more just don't like how certain people have to have a problem with absolutely everything and drag down every conversation. It's just getting boring and obnoxious and it doesn't make people stand out in a positive way... It just makes them somebody I don't personally want to be around or care about their opinion. It's different to be selective and have those criticisms selectively and actually be able to form your opinions then it is to parrot whatever people are around you say and hate on absolutely everything with an ounce of popularity or fandom because it'll get you attention.”-Degenerate Jay
“I think a lot of people disregard the fact that normal conservative/normal Republican people don't actually use that language very often, that's language that has actively been appropriated by the far far right leaning people. I'm talking extreme. I've seen it used casually sometimes, but generally a lot of the people who use that sort of thing are not center right or center left or even open to discussion, the ideology of that term being appropriated has basically become I'm awake and your asleep and a sheep who can't think. It's basically turned people who were willing to have discussions and talk about things and think into people who have brainwashed themselves into believing no one is right but them and they can't have a conversation, which I think is what happens on any extreme political or religious leaning where people are no longer willing to talk. I think that the word woke has been ruined by one side and the whole red pill thing was ruined by the other side. I always took that quote to basically mean that they were bringing it back to a place of reason versus a justification for being right all the time. And personally, I don't think these terms should really be overused and taken by anybody. They certainly can be, but I think that whenever groups of people appropriate a symbol or a piece of language it very quickly gets co-opted and grabbed by the most extreme version of those people and then associated with very bad things. To me, saying something negative about either the extreme extreme extreme right or extreme extreme extreme left is not demonizing them, it's pointing out the fact that some people are so far into zealotry of their own beliefs that they don't want to have a conversation or think anymore. They just want an echo chamber. And that goes for people on both sides of any issue.”-Degenerate Jay
This implies that fans have no say.
I'm sorry but the auteur is not the only one that matters. The original version of the creator is still there but sometimes fans can also have a deep interpretation.
I think fans have the right to see a version that at least matches a good idea of their interpretation.
I get that it can go too far with alterations. But I think it is not intrinically bad to get something considered better. Its a case by case situation.
And I dont belive in the slippery slope of it will cause the doom of auteur cinema for just a fee games or movies if you contain it.
when the consumer wants a good product?? really weird take and horrible examples, as sonic was received well. justice league Snyder cut did come out (unlucky take). all your examples seems to have make better art? where is the problem???
what a megacorp brainwashed opinion, franchises are a product
This aged like milk. Snyder cut came out and was actually good. I don't give a shit about DC or Snyder as a director but his long ass movie that you said would be awful, wasn't?
I understand we shouldn't treat art like products but why is it so hard to admit that sometimes, the fans are right?
This aged sooooooo poorly
Word
Nope, still relevant. And his predictions of Snyders version of JL being an overbloated mess were damn accurate.
@@s.k.1082is this overbloated mess in the room with us
I’d say, it’s the corporation’s fault for commercializing art to such a degree. While harassing an author, or a small team of indy developers because you don’t like their art would be bad and uncalled for, I have no sympathy for corporations who market and brand their franchise in a specific way so as to *create* expectations, or “hype.”
And then fall back at the artist when things go to shit
I think the sad problem with this mentality is it’s great in a vacuum but falls apart as soon as we have to acknowledge I paid money for it. And the second sad revelation which is that I am more likely to receive a better product if I demand it than I am to receive my money back.
Word
Are you going to FIX this video?
But it like.... kinda did though.
3:04 how is it bad to relese a directors vision
I love Director's cuts, though sometimes I get pissed and excited at the same time 'cause now I have to buy a movie again...but then I happily do so for the director's or extended cuts of movies I love.
He tells you later in the video. The director's vision, in this case, is probably still incomplete based on when Snyder departed production and what was actually filmed / available. As the video states, this isn't like Blade Runner where the divergence from the director's vision wasn't a product purely of cutting what had already been shot. The deviation happened in a way that resulted in some of Snyder's intended work never even getting shot: the "director's vision," in totality, is simply not available.
This is why I prefer NOT to be like all those at Comic Con. The top lesson: NEVER grant requests from others who don't really know what they really want or need!
Nice really nice you made some really good points with the video but I am pretty surprised that you made a video about fan entitlement at the current moment and somehow you did not mention The Last of Us Part II leaks and the controversy with fans being really pissed about what happened in the game
A quirk of when this was released. Had I made this just a few weeks later that would have been a major aspect.
@@EyebrowCinema Okay but are you interested in making a video about The Last of Us Part II controversy ?
The Snyder cut did fix the mess ! The story is meaningful , characters now have depth and the overall result is 1000 times better ... so maybe next time do not be so sure of your ability to read the future ...
But what about how it fits into the canon of DCEU, i heard from multiple sources that Snyder confirmed that his cut is not canon to the DCEU
Release the Snyder-cut is Ostalgie if ever I saw it (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostalgie): feelings of nostalgia for a great past that demonstably wasn't great to begin with.
Wow this video aged like fucking milk
It did? Justice league recut was still shit, turd polishing
How?
When art becomes a product to this extent when people start talking about changing the media as an act of “customer service” all we will get is, well the mcu. Art that is good from a technical aspect, that will entertain but nothing that really challenges you. My favorite book for example is Johnny got his gun and with out spoiling anything I can tell you it’s no one’s definition of “fun” but it challenges you challenges the way you understand the world around you challenges you for what you take for granted living day by day, it challenges how you interact with others. It affected me so that I actually grew to hate “one” by Metallica because it took the hard experience of reading through the whole book and waters it down almost makes it fun, and it’s not supposed to be fun. When you walk into restaurant or car dealership no one is going to give a car that you WON’T enjoy driving, no one’s going to intentionally serve you food you won’t enjoy eating but film, games, and other forms of art are most impactful when you’re not having fun. Like a hard fighting game when art challenges you that’s when you’re faced with two options, get angry and give up, or reconsider what you’re doing.
I wish that will apply to Apple listening to users after they've axed the headphone jack.
I love your videos! Discovered you yesterday and I am loving your content!! But I have mixed feelings on this one... I don't have twitter, I never attempt to interact with creators directly, but I still get so frustrated by badly adapted versions of things, or just bad additions to an IP. And I DO think I'm owed a better one. And I know that's crazy. But it's a very deep feeling that I haven't yet discovered how to change. It really just doesn't seem that difficult to make a good tv show or film. All you have to do is stick to the established norm of the world/characters/plot that you are adapting into a new story. How is that hard? Fanfic writers manage to do it, for free, every damn day!!! (Granted, they're not all amazing either but there are a lot of fics I consider more canon than the recent entries into a franchise these days....)
I used to somewhat be like you, and the biggest lesson i've learned on overcoming disappointment in your favorite franchise, series, etc is recongnizing that it's not YOUR story. They are works of fiction, all fabricated by an author and executed by a company and they will not have any significance on your real life.
On the topic of how writers don't always hit the mark, when you work on something for an extended period of time, you tend to get tunnel vision and lose awarness of the surrounds of what in this case would be the story. It's also the case a lot of times that the company controlling you does not want the story to end in such way or go in such direction, or even end at all; we've all seen our fair share of TV shows, movie franchises and book series that went on for way too long
How is it hard to make a good tv show film? The problem is that the fanfics you like were able to be made easily by one person with a computer who can change their mind and pivot and edit whenever they want. Once there is a large team of people needed to make things, there is LOTS of money and employees and tight schedules and stakeholders and advertisers involved, demanding audiences that want it yesterday, etc., it goes to turbo-hard mode. And I would bet big $ that the fanfic concept / ending you like is hated / thought cringey / boring / stupid by enough other people / stakeholders with different tastes that it won't get to be made that way, and you can't fight it unless you have lots of money or you're a major director w clout. It's a shitty dynamic, but the better you can empathize with all the obstacles, the better you can come up with a solution
personal story about this issue: i think batman returns is a vastly inferior sequel to 1989 and completely undermines the strengths and accomplishments of the previous films in pretty much every aspect. and you know what, as a batman fan, i wish the movie was better and not the boring and tedious slog it is. and it's OK. i don't like batman returns and that's OK. i would never tell tim burton he's a terrible person for ruining batman and making a movie i didn't like.
Bro I love your videos but this did not age well
I mean, I think that whether you liked it or not, the Snyder cut is objectively a better film. It actually did have more than an hour cut out of it, but I don't think it would have been included in the original if Snyder had been able to stay with it. Ironically what we got was better than what we would have otherwise.
That said, I think that your thesis holds: we view these films as commodities instead of art, and that changes how we engage with them.
"If you don't like pickles you should absolutely say so. Just don't think that means you are owed a better burger."
I will be quoting that forever. On freakin' point.
Except it's a shitty analogy because he didn't liken it to getting a better made burger, he likened it to demanding that the food you ordered that was made wrong gets remade.
That's how literally every restaurant where the chef doesn't have a stick up their ass functions
If you order a Big Mac no pickles and they put them on anyway, the customer IS entitled to a new, second sandwich that was made to their specifications.
@@Madara8989 “made wrong” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Movies aren’t made based on fan “specifications”.
But some entitled little shits don’t understand this.
@@Madara8989 The studio says they'll stick to the previous recipe, and then the triple decker burger comes out with a whole beef pattie missing, and with weird colour sauces, and extra pickles, and the blame still goes to the original chef because of a technicality
Amazing video!!! You really should be getting more attention, I love your channel. Maybe you should consider making your video thumbnails more eye-catching? They seem more amateurish than the content of the videos themselves... I think that could help your channel gain more traction!
Well Snyder’s Cut exists and for me it’s probably the best comic book film I’ve watched in the last decade. A complete graphic novel in plain sight. I like it very much.
I made a similar video to this awhile back and I come in and discover this, well said my dude!
There is a certain commonality of arrogance between creators doing sub-par crap and fans feeling entitled. A core of "idiocy" that transcends classes or power. Arrogant creators not only are overly comfortable with some third-rate trash, but they make lots of assumptions about what will be popular, what "passes" (absurdly often seen as the same). And there is a typ of entitlement that is egocentric and about the own "voice" without regard for the fictional product, that is sort of just about those people making aware of themselves, as an end in itself or ideological ploy.
I honestly think it’s because people don’t see Justice League, Mass Effect, or Star Wars really as pieces of art, just entertainment. It could be related to the fact that people view these things as products of the companies rather than the actual people who worked on them. When it is actually viewed as a piece of art less people will demand change because they see it is a product of the artist’s soul, (I guess with the exception of Sherlock Holmes). An example I’d say is Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. I am not a big fan of the ending, I find it awfully depressing, but I would not change it for a second. I do not see it as a corporate cash grab in any way, and I know there is a person behind it so I will take it as it is and not demand its change.
To ask that something get re-done to suit me, is just childish and proves the complaint should be ignored. If I don’t like the treatment of something I love I just vote with my wallet. If it’s something I don’t like but need it because I am a collector. I will purchase it second hand. I didn’t like QoS but since I collect Bond films, I purchased it 2nd hand. The money doesn’t go to the film makers.
If fans make complaints based on subjectivity than they dont have to have the last word, but when fans make objective complaints, they deserve to be heard and not criticized for it. It's up to the companies at that point, but this isnt fan entitlement. It also depends on what the fans ask for. It wasn't too much to ask for sonic to look like sonic. Their mistake was not designing him faithfully from the start. The fans also tend to reward the creators when they at least respect what the fans want and try doing better. The snyder cut is also fair because DC pushed him off the film. Last Jedi? Disney can just decanonize it. If fans ask for the impossible or for extremely irrelevant things to be changed i.e. your ships not being validated, than they shouldn't change for the fans.
Right now, fans are asking for things that make sense; dont make a star wars film that intentionally destroys what the others had built up, have characters actually look like the characters they are, storytelling that doesnt go out of its way to attack the fandom that loves the franchise (I'm not just talking about star wars here).
I respectfully disagree. Firstly, my understanding was that Snyder left the production after a family tradegy, he wasn't pushed away by the studio. (Though he did have to keep up with the dreaded studio interfererens that is common in those kinds of blockbusters.)
Secondly, what is objective complaints in this case? If TLJ is disrespectful towards the fans, why did I like it? I'm such a geek that I know about the Wolf Boars of Endor and the Greater Krayt Dragon of Tatooine, and I thought the movie was decent, had no idea it'd be so polarizing. (Sidenote, I'm 100% convinced that the reception to TFA is what led to the writing of TLJ having more creative freedom. And then the reception of TLJ led Disney to change even more in TROS, resulting in a trilogy that feels very uneven.)
Thirdly, what the video is asking is, just what's it worth changing a movie like this, will it truly be better? Yeah, I've heard that the Sonic movie worked better when he has his new, cute design, but the whole debate surrounding the TMNT reboot just led to a pretty boring Shredder character.
@@YggdrasilAudio you're right about Snyder leaving for personal reasons.
You can like the last Jedi, as a fan or a newcommer, but what i meant is that they made choices in such a way that were very intentionally used to belittle the other movies (this is more prevelent in the rise of skywalker by bringing back the emporor, therefore making anakin's sacrifice pointless). Luke sensed the dark side growing in ben solo, and rather than try keeping him on the right path with guidence, he ignights his lightsaber, thinking of killing him for a short moment. Even though he regreted it immediately after, it doesnt change the fact that he thought of killing his nephew, his sister's and best friend's son without trying to save his soul. Luke wouldn't have done something like that. The whole point of the original trilogy is that Luke didn't want to kill Vader when he learned he was his father. Everyone was telling him that he should kill Vader, but he wouldn't. He went on a suicide mission to save his father's soul, a man he actually doesnt even know. So, when he drew a lightsaber on ben solo, a nephew we can assume he's spent years with, training, etc. it made no sense for him as a character.
As far as objective criticisms, that's one of them. I don't have the time to make a list, but another criticism would be the out of place 'yo mama' joke, and the 30 minutes on kantobyte. Kantobyte stops the whole plot whenever we're there. Finn and Rose's friends are beeing or going to be killed, and they decide to take a moment to tell us how bad capitalism is. And regardless of where you stand on that issue, it doesn't belong in this story. They rescue the horse dog things but leave the enslaved children. This is insanity. If they were going to do this at all, they should've saved the kids. Overall, the addition makes no sense and doesnt add anything to the story or plot in a positive way. The guy who betrays them happened to be in the same cell and unlocks the door for them. Why was he still there up untill they came if he could already unlock the door?
There's a lot of things like this that makes its critical praise baffling. I can see why someone might like it, but that doesnt make it good. I like the prequels... alot. But i can still see the objective errors in it. The story of the prequels is excellent, the execution? Not so much. The acting, not very good at all (except for ewin mcgregor).
Another reason that the movie became so polarizing is that the creators of the movie and the people who work at lucasfilm went out of their way to say "if you don't like it, you're a racists/sexist, etc."
The fans that are so vocal now would still be upset by this movie, but Lucasfilm fanned the flames whenever they got the chance.
I hope this better explains my position. Thanks for responding to the first comment. It's good to have a real discussion and not just attack each other. Have a good day!
@@HORSESNDOGS9 I understand were you're coming from (I can go on record and say that I didn't really care for a lot of the parts of TLJ you mentioned, as I personally thought the film picked up more steam in the second half).
Thing is, I think we have different definitions of objective and subjective. For me, the adjective 'objective' means something that's based on facts, while 'subjective' describes how one intereprets and present those facts.
I think there are a lot of things in movies that you can discuss objectively, I'm more against the way the word objective is used a lot today. Like you can say: "TLJ intentionally destroyed a lot of things the previous movies built up", but saying that it's a bad thing is subjective.
I'm not saying you feel this way, but I feel like the word subjective has a bad rep these days. The fact that films create subjective experiences are what make them so fun, the fact that they make people feel things and think differently. It's okay to say subjective things about stuff you're passionate about, that's what makes film discussions interesting.
If some films are objectively good or bad, then what's the point of talking about them? You don't have to make arguments to support your positions.
@@YggdrasilAudio character assasination is objectively bad. I believe our definitions of subjective and objective are the same. I love a lot of moies people say are bad, but that doesnt mean they arent bad.
I'd argue that discussing things through an objective lense is more interesting, only because it helps us learn why some things work and others dont. I'm writing fiction alot and this sort of annalysis is very important. I want to make a good story with well written characters. If i praised or criticised based on my subjectove opinion, than how could i know what's actually good?
The reason we should point out the flaws and successful moments in a film is that it should be praised for what it does right and called out on what it does wrong. Should good films be put on the same level as a badly crafted one? That would be insulting to the people who actually gave it their all and succeeded at their craft, which is a huge achievement. That's like putting a gold medalist from the olympics on the same level as someone who finsished the race without placing.
Subjective arguements are fun, but they don't actuelly matter. If subjectivity was far more important the objectivity, than why should we praise the Prestiege over the Chipmunks movie? It doesnt matter that the chipmunk movies are lazy and contrived, boring pieces of garbage if everything is subjective.
You should be allowed to enjoy what you enjoy, but to give it critical praise based on someone's subjective emotional expirience is meaningless.
If something bad emotionally touched you or got you invested, that's great. It doesnt take away your right to enjoy something others dont. But objective is objective without emotions dictating things as good or bad, and what's subjective is based on an individuals personal reaction to something.
Also, argueing objectively can lead to getting better films. If a studio realizes we arent satisfied by mediocrity, there's a better chance we'll get better quality films in the future, so long as they realize we're more willing to pay for a good film.
@@YggdrasilAudio another thing that should be said is if there are things objectively bad about a film, it doesnt automatically make it a bad film. A film can be flawed without being bad, and that dictation will depend on how severe the flaws are. For example, a 30 minute sidequest that doesnt go anywhere and distracts from the plot is a HUGE flaw. 30 minutes is very hard to ignore. A yo mama joke in the middle of a space battle breaks the tension the scene was building up. That pulls the audience out of the experience. Character asssasination is always unforgiveable, because if they had shown luke going through a decent of madness that made sense, put a movie's worth of content that was carefully written to explain his change in character, it wouldnt get the same critisism and would be more emotionally satisfying at the same time. You cant explain away a whole character's new personality when we've had years of character development showing us how luke behaves in different situations. A few flashbacks cannot be used as an excuse to completely change a character the audience has known for so long.
Another thing I'd argue is if something is objectively good, it will be satisfying, subjectively as well
There's a good thing that came out of the movement along with the film is that the money they have gained they gave it to charities for suicide prevention. It isn't only for Snyder, but for the cast and crew and his deceased daughter Autumn.
Good video, the message you where exploring is sound, but you're definitely missing a lot of points that go into the production of media projects. Your conclusion about entitlement is true for the most part, but you're choice of comparisonism and analysis is not fully informed. While true. Snyder's version might have had the same problems, Snyder's direction and execution make the world of difference.
You also have to be ready to accept something different.
>Thinks criticism of TLJ and forced diversity is bigotry
>Says this nonchalantly like everyone inherently agrees with this take
>Links to all left wing media outlets bashing fans for not liking their movies ruined by leftists
Well now we're getting the Snydercut, hopefully you are seething.
It's incredible how it falls along political lines. Even though it shouldn't but that's where we're at. And for some reason it requires accusations of the worst things. The Sonic design change is an example of CORRECT communication and consumer service not entitlement. It's basically like test screening and studio listening to the remarks of the audience. And lots of franchises quite frankly fail the fans lately and then the writers or directors attack those who didn't like it. To ignore that is to side against legitimate pro-consumer arguments.
I think most fans dont demand a re-do. Thats unrealistic in most cases. We just want them to do better going forward.
You cant redo The Last Jedi. Just make a better trilogy next time (actually have a plan)
You cant re-do Ghostbusters 2016, but you can ignore it and make a Ghostbusters sequel that gives us the actual sequel and passing of the torch movie fans were asking for.
Thats how you do it.
The Sonic redesign was done before the movie was completed, so they could change it.
The Snyder cut was a special case because HBOMax wanted content that would push subscriptions.
Oh by the way, your analysis of why the Snyder Cut wouldnt work didnt age well. As I type this the Snyder cut blu ray just released and is sold out everywhere.
Guess Warner Brother chose poorly betting against the Snyder Cut, didnt they?
But a demand of any kind for the artist is entitlement, no?
@@ButterCookie1984 whether or not its entitlement is irrelevant. The fans want what the fans want. There is nothing wrong with voicing what you want. Its up to the artists if they want to give the fans what they want or not.
12:54 Fucking Thank you, that parrot phrase is not only over used but completely blind to how criticism actually works. The whole point of looking at things with a critical eye is that at some point, the viewer has seen enough films that like and emotionally resonate with them on some level that they can automatically tell whether something is interesting to them or not. Not whether it's good or bad because that's reductive and annoying, but whether they are going to like it or not.
EDIT:
Also I like the slickness of the choice of Bubble Bass, because he was hiding the pickles under the whole time. He was just doing it to look like he had superior taste.
Exactly. One of my biggest pet peeves is the idea recently that entertainment is either "perfect" or it's "trash". There's almost no subtlety anymore. Someone will find one "flaw" that particularly triggers them, and tear it apart as a result, ignoring literally everything else in the process. It also seems like a lot of people legitimately believe that "criticizing" means "talking bad about" or complaining, and most analysis these days is...sub-par at best.
Thanks, friend. Your support is highly valued.
The Donner cut was a much better movie than the theatrical release of Superman II, maybe this is the case.
I find it how interesting we are, as consumers of media, essentially in what comes down to a toxic relationship. After all, the best way to punish content-makers who make what is essential soulless swill for the purposes of lining their wallets is to just not engage with their media. Don't talk about it online, don't go see it, definitely don't buy their merchandise. But we keep coming back, somehow expecting the next one to not be a turd covered in gold leaf. Sometimes, when we get something that isn't shitty, we come back to slob on the corporate knob like it's bought us a box of shitty dollar store chocolates and some condoms as an apology.
My point is, these big corporations have made consuming media a part of our identities, to the point where we are basically obliged to consume even when we hate it; which is where most of the fanboy toxicity comes from in the first place.
I'm not sure Sonic and Mass Effect are fan entitlements. The Sonic we were first given looked monstrous and didn't evoke Sonic and if you want my money then Sonic should at least feel like Sonic. The studio is asking for my money and if it's asking for my money I have every right to say that I wont pay for that product so if you want my money you'll make changes.
The same holds true for Mass Effect. It delivered and underwhelming ending that was really just three color codings. That wasn't the product people were paying for.
The problem with the art narrative is that the artist isn't making art for the sake of art. This isn't the Mona Lisa. The Sonic movie and Mass Effect may be artistic visions but they are artistic visions being made with the soul purpose to make money. Therefore the artist is entering into an a relationship with the consumer in which the consumer needs to be happy. If they want to make art for the sake of art and fall back on artistic vision then they need to do so independently of trying to win over my money. But if you are making art with the goal of winning my money then you need to make that art something I want to pay for.
Also, it can't be ignored that such demands have lead to improvements. Odds are strong people wouldn't have seen the original Sonic. The change prompted people to support the overall artistic vision of the movie if nothing more than to support a studio that doesn't ignore the fans. The Snyder cut is actually a better movie and really does change your experience with Justice League. Cyborg and the Flash are more realized characters. The Flash actually does important things aside from be the comic relief. And most importantly Zack Snyder got to actually tell HIS story. The Joss version was not his vision and he Zack said as much. In this case "fan entitlement" actually supported and realized the original artists vision as opposed to the vision of the studio. Do you mean to tell me there is no artistic merit in Zack getting to show people the movie he wanted to make? Even if it wasn't a better movie it still would have been a movie true to his vision and if you are going to argue artistic merit and the freedom of the artist to create the art they want then the Snyder cut is a no brainer.
However, in a more general sense, when art is being made for the purpose of profit, such as most movies, then the whims of the fans takes is of higher importance than the artistic vision. The art is not being made to express the vision of the artist but to appease fans and shareholders. The problem here isn't fan entitlement but the entire idea of producing art for profit. In such a situation the artist vision is made tertiary to the concerns of fans who are paying customers and studio executives who are wanting a big return on thier money. Under such a situation the artist is only as important as thier ability to deliver a product that will make fans and studio executives happy. If those aren't being met the artist has failed.
That's why independent movies and games are generally regarded as more artistic. Thier goal isn't to make money. Their value isn't in how much money they will make and as such don't have to worry about fans and studio executives.
But so long as an artist is making art for profit thier vision is not a primary goal or concern. An artist can't ask me for my money and then scream artistic vision when I say that is ugly and if you want my money then you will make it in a fashion that I like. The artist has a choice stick with their vision or gain my money. But if they want my money they'll make it something I want to buy, just like any time i have paid an artist for a picture of a character in a D&D game I'm playing in. Making art for mass consumption and profit puts artistic vision as last and it only matters in as much as the artists ability to make money. You can't ask for my money and then tell me I'm wrong for saying what I will and will not pay for and stating what it takes to earn my dollar.
If you want to hide behind artistic vision then stop asking for my money and just make art. Don't try to sell it to me because the moment you do that you become a product and service, not art.
Well I came from future and I watched the snyder cut and it’s a complete different movie. It improved A LOT the theatrical version. So ...
We ain't gonna get any follow up from OP
I stopped watching when you said Snyder Cut is not gonna fix Justice League. In the end it's just a matter of opinion, you just don't like Snyder's take on these movies. I thought your gonna say some eye opener stuff.
Can't handle the truth? Because that WAS the truth...and Snyder will continue to play you like a Stratocaster to cover for his failure.
Failure? Snyder's DC movies are great to me, that's why I wanna see his true vision for JL. What's next? You're gonna say that I have bad taste bla bla. By the way don't act like your opinion is the truth.
@@mlp405 It won't make you feel better to see that alleged "vision". If anything, it will make you feel worse because nothing more will ever come from it. You're confusing your like for what he did with what he actually accomplished. Learn to differentiate that if you wish to be a functional adult someday.
I actually like Snyder more than you think. I don't like BvS or Justice League, but I was a huge supporter of Man of Steel back in 2013 and still think of that film fondly. Moreover, my point in saying a Snyder Cut wouldn't fix Justice League was not because the film is objectively bad, but because the general criticisms that people (fans and critics) had of the movie would not be resolved by a Snyder Cut. All of those elements were present throughout production. If you loved Justice League and just want more of it then fair enough, but my video isn't really about that.
Even if you didn't finish the video, I appreciate that you took some time to give it a chance. Cheers.
Hey Johnathon, I appreciate your response to the video and I'm glad you like it, but can I ask that you tone down the rhetoric a bit? I don't think we need to talk down to Snyder Cut enthusiasts who come here.
If reddit was a person
#savedaredevil
blitz
As Bart Simpson said,
“These people are offering you hours of free entertainment; if anything you owe THEM”
You forgot the pickles!!!! That perfectly sums up the Snyder cut.
dreadful fucking take, josstice leauge wasn’t just “a bad product that fans disliked” as you insinuate here, it was a corporation forcefully stealing an auteur’s work from him and turning it into what they thought was more marketable. and yes, the snyder cut DID fix justice league. it wasn’t just “more of the same” or “an extended cut”, it was a completely different work with different themes, morals, messages and basically a completely different story that facelifted absolutely every single moment of the “original” film. fans demanding a whole finished movie or season of a show be reshot when that show was clearly the creators vision is one thing, but fans asking for what was originally promised to them is not.
Putting out the cut was even more of an insult, they basically paraded Frankenstein’s monster to be viewed as a freak for a couple of extra sUbscribers on hbo max. Snyder and his rich wife should’ve just released it independently.
@@plaidchuck That’s an opinion lol, the overwhelming majority if viewers; snyder fan or not agreed that the snyder cut was a massive improvement and fixed almost all of the issues that people hated about josstice leauge. calling it a “frankensteins monster” is completely missing the point, feels like you are going out of your way to miss the point just so you can “own the snyder fans” or whatever but either way that’s not the point i was making. the point it warner took zach’s project away from him and the fans wanted him to have his chance to get it back that is it
Damn I’m early
Welcome to the party.
The cheery on top is when after the "fix" the controversial original is seen as better. Neon Genesis Evangelion is the biggest example.
One of us has egg on their face, and it aint me.
This Justin league opinion didnt age well :/
Give fans what they want, what is so wrong about that?
To answer that question, I'm first gonna quote one of my personal heroes here:
"It isn't about giving people what they want, it's about doing your best to make people want what you most of all want to give them. You're suppose to wish and hope that they'll want it, and in all ways work on making them take it to their hearts, by being clear, distinct, concise, effective, aware of tempo, light, sound and if it's a theatre production things like comfortable seatings, the right temperature, friendly cashiers, everything.
In every conceivable way you have to work to make people enjoy what you enjoy. And that is an active process, not the attitude of "giving people what they want", which is to say the same thing they've always gotten before." - Tage Danielsson, author, director, entertainer.
Now, another problem with "give the fans what they want" is the fact that "the fans" aren't a monolithic structure. It's made up of people who all love the thing, wether that be Batman or Star Wars or whatever, for vastly different reasons. Sure, there are "camps" but which one will bring in the most money?
You can't second guess it, really. You'll have to write what you as a fan would like to see instead of chasing trends.
As an example, I'd say that one of the problems with the new Star Wars trilogy was that it kept second-guessing what the fans wanted.
"Force Awakens" was "Oh, the fans don't want the prequels. We'll make a movie that's as close to the original trilogy as possible." And when they got the reaction to that film it was like "Oh, the fans thought it was bad because it was just like the old films? Okay... We'll need to subvert their expectations!" And when they took that too far they had no idea what to do. Rise of Skywalker just felt like a long chain of "Are you happy now fans? Please love what we're trying to sell you!!! Look, look! It's Palpatine. You like him, right? Please, please, please, buy the product that we're trying to sell you!"
Sure, even if it is a dedicated fan writing the Batman or Superman or whatever story they've always wanted to write it can still fail to please the larger fanbase. Either the creator failed some of the other selling points like tempo, characterisation, dialogue etc. or their interpretation of the character was simply in a minority (or a combination of the two). Because once again, the fanbase isn't monolithic.
Because what they want isn't always what they need to hear. Case in point: Patrick Mcgoohan's The Prisoner, the world's first TV miniseries. Fan anticipation for the finale hit fever pitch, especially with the episode that came before it "Once Upon A Time". But when that finale aired, it knocked the fans headcanon so hard, McGoohan had to flee to the mountains for a couple of weeks to get away from the backlash.
And he was DELIGHTED. Pissing them off by making them think rather than giving them what they wanted (which would have been pretending to make them think, see X-Files) made it way more memorable and full of artistic integrity. So there's merit in going the other way.
6:10 when you think people don’t like The Last Jedi because they’re racists 💀 Shut up
Yeah that's definitely what I said
Insert clip of Comic Book Guy: As a loyal viewer I feel they owe me one. Worst episode ever!
Pathetic, yes I am a customer I owed a certain kind of story because that's what I pay for. You want to do your own liberal soap box preaching comic, fine just don't do it with my established a d beloved franchises and characters, create your own characters. But you can't because you know it won't sell so you infuse your SJW crap in my established characters and franchises using fan loyalty to try and sell stories no one would care about if it stood on its own.
My problem with many of these fandoms is simple they can't accept a poor conclusion yet they want there tv show video game or movie to go on indefinitely I had this problem with many people who don't seem to understand the longer the run is extended the harder it becomes to stick the landing and deliver a satisfying conclusion don't get me wrong exceptions are there but don't complain if a piece of art becomes a product if you won't let it end gracefully !
I just found your channel after watching your video on the "death of the American gangster film" and I really like your videos. Also I feel your mass effect 3 pain.
Hey, thanks a bunch! Glad you like my stuff :)
Eyebrow Cinema Just watched the gangster video too, now this one. Got a new subscriber
I entered there too :)
I'm not sure if Sonic is the best example here, because they didn't change the story, just the character design. And the change worked - Sonic did decently well at the box office, and was generally liked. Contrast this to CATS, which was also mocked for its offputting character designs, but it stuck to its guns... and became one of the most infamous cinematic disasters in awhile. If a large number of people are upset by the design of the main character(s), that's going to completely sabotage a movie. Changing Sonic's look was almost certainly the right call.
Although speaking of musicals, another great example here would be Phantom Of The Opera. Or rather, its sequel. Saying the words "Love Never Dies" in a room full of theater geeks is *still* a really good way to start people ranting.
@Meat Grinder Mike Relevant? Sure - but as a counterpoint. The Sonic movie bowing to Internet mockery was almost certainly the right call, and probably saved the film from flopping. This isn't a good example for a video which is suggesting such decisions are wrong and that art doesn't work that way.
Changing the character design is an excellent example here. How do you not understand that?
you make great videos but this one is just wrong. you're only human
I partially agree and I don't have much to say about this but I feel like The Beginner's Guide was to an extent about this and tackled it rather well.
Oh, beautiful reference...and a melancholy walking simulator.
Kind of, although TBG was (to me at least) more about the philosophical dangers involved with a person projecting their own interpretations onto the work of an author, to the point of incorrectly assuming authorial intent. But then, TBG rubbed me the wrong way because I felt like the bad guy won, and that the game sort of sends a mixed message as a result.
That said, one game which is applicable here - which more people should play - is "The Magic Circle." It's a first-person puzzle-action game that's also a satirical deconstruction of the game design process, including a LOT of discussion of the role fans play in the development of products. The plot involves a four-way struggle for control of a sequel that's been trapped in development hell for a decade, with one of the participants being a fan who's secretly scheming to open the servers up to the fans to make their own game.
(Seriously, The Magic Circle is REALLY good and I'm sad that almost nobody played it.)
In the age of instant gratification, many people can't handle a movie that doesn't do exactly what they were hoping for. And instead of living with a disappointing movie for a while and trying to come to terms with it and trying to see what the filmmakers wanted to say with it, they simply demand the thing be erased and remade. The result is that more and more franchises play it safe and bring only the familiar and never dare to experiment or think outside the box. Franchises aren't allowed to evolve anymore, they have to stay stagnant and do the same thing over and over. I'd personally take the occasional disappointment if it also means we can get something brilliant once in while too.
Fan entitlement definitely goes back further than Sherlock Holmes being killed off. People were really pissed at Louisa May Alcott for Laurie and Jo not getting together at the end of Little Women.
Yep to go even further someone was mad that Cervantes didn’t do a sequel to Don Quixote so they essentially wrote a fan fiction sequel. Cervantes was so pissed that he wrote his own killing off Don Quixote and writing this long intro complaining about the whole ordeal.
well now that it’s out, it did in fact redeem the movie significantly
i don’t know how well it would’ve worked in theatre though as the 4 hour run time helped to significantly develop characters like the flash and cyborg
It did and I love it, but what the video prophesied was fulfilled. Martian Manhunter, Darkseid and the dreampocalypse scenes with the Joker were all convoluted and setup nonexistent sequels. I could have lived without them. The tone was better but still, there was some cringey humor. Still, at least is watchable at the minimum and great in places particularly Flash. He was 1000 times better in the Snyder Cut.
Snyder was willing to cut it down to three hours for theatrical. But of course WB will want to chase the MCU success but won't let the big epic team up films be longer than two hours let alone three soooooo
Well, this didn't age well. LOL
I agree with many of your points, but...man...The Snyder Cut may have still been a big messy stew, but it's miles and miles and miles better than Whedon's studio-note-driven massive shrug. I'll take a mess with a point of view over a mess that is just...nothing. Not bad, not good, just there.
Frankly, Whedon versus Snyder is a TERRIBLE example for the point you're trying to make. One was an artistic statement was made by an artist with a point of view (which is worthy of any criticism it gets), and the other was a McDonald's hamburger Whedon made to studio-note-order based in the criticism of BvS.
The Snyder cut is out and I have to disagree with your point on it not fixing anything/being an abhorrent mess. It was way more realized and earnest. I have some problems with it like it suffering from return of the king syndrome with its epilogue but I found it to be one of the best comic book movies I've seen in years, meanwhile I've almost completely forgot about the 2017 studio vandalism job aside from the continuing saga about all the abuse and toxicity that went down.
But even if it were bad and your point was proven, I still am happy that a filmmaker who had to suffer the tragedy of losing one of their children while fighting a losing battle with one of the biggest studios in the industry got to release their vision that they and all the actors and crew members poured their heart and soul into despite all the abuse they were going through from the studio. I agree with your sentiment on fan entitlement, I just dont think this is the same case as Mass effect 3 or The Last Jedi even if there are many toxic Snyder fans who disguise their fan entitlement with the issues I just laid out.
Ive been binging through a lot of your channel since finding it yesterday and am LOVING IT. Awesome work and great points raised here in retrospect. Obviously "The Snyder Cut" has changed since the making of this video - And that kind of makes this even more interesting actually!
Great video, man. I have a lot of thoughts on it, but generally agree with everything you said. I am big into supporting the Snyder Cut, but that's because I want that tone matching what we saw in Batman v Superman and Man of Steel (both of which I have faults with, but I do genuinely love Man of Steel). Do I think Justice League is going to 'fix' everything? Well, not really, no. Affleck has moved on. Cavill is completely quiet. Wonder Woman looks like the tone has completely changed. DC/WB has NO clue what they're doing. Like you said, JL is going to be A LOT of set up, set up that I'm not entirely sure will pay off (Hey, Deathstroke...but he was going to have a HUGE role in The Batman...which isn't happening (Affleck's vision)). I'm excited, but I have tempered expectations. I think the movement could have been far more 'friendly' and done so without constantly insulting celebrities or bullying each other. I think you were, for lack of better wording, brave in making this video. I know how PASSIONATE this base is and they will go full depth to remind you how 'wrong' you are. That being said, the attention to detail and your writing are all absolutely phenomenal.
I appreciate that my man. I was certainly concerned that the video be seen as inflammatory or mocking so I tried to make sure I wasn't coming from that perspective. Glad that seemed to come through. And so far comments have been good for the most part. Haven't had to police anyone really and nothing's really come close to harassment. Maybe it's because the initial surge of emotion has largely died down and people are more level-headed about the whole thing.
Personally, I am more of a MARVEL Fan, and the dark tone of the DC Universe movies or comics did not agree with me (though I do like some BATMAN comics like "BATMAN: Hush").
I thought "MAN OF STEEL" was really long, and the death of Zod was a nerve-wracking end to a "boy scout superhero". I never watched "Wonder Woman", not so much because I thought it was going to be dumb, but because it would probably be similar too "CAPTAIN AMERICA: The First Avenger". When "BATMAN vs SUPERMAN" was announced, I predicted Batman would overall win, even if it was also going to be a team-up movie. Still, never watched it. No interest in "AQUA MAN" either. Never watched it. And I heard most DC Fans were displeased with the Whedon Cut of "JUSTICE LEAGUE".
So when the Snyder Cut was being demanded, I wasn't part of the crowd.
However, when the Snyder Cut actually was released, I decided to do some research. When I realized that Zach Snyder was supposedly the Kevin Feige or Jon Favereu of the DC movies, I decided to give it a go. And, I'm gonna be honest, it was entertaining, probably the best of that series of DC movies. However, by the end of it, taking it into overall context of where DC was today, I couldn't help but be disappointed that we would be unable to recieve all the answers to set-up questions and not continue the stories were teased in it (Deathstroke fighting Batman because he knew his identity in particular). I posted a #RestoreTheSnyderVerse as a result.
Why am I telling you all this?
To show you that MARVEL is better than DC.
I'm kidding, the reason is to see the irony between my dislike for these DC movies, yet I posted a tag that basically said I wanted more DC films, even if I knew they would never happen given the circumstances of that time. And a part of me knew I wouldn't like them even if they were released, since my motivation was based more on curiosity rather than emotional-investment.
I must also admit, I admire Zach Snyder not only because of his Cut, but for the following:
"I've decided to step back from the movie to be with my family, be with my kids, who really need me."
Snyder knew what was really important, to be with his family in time of crisis instead of finishing a vision that may or may not please the DC Fanbase. As human beings, we should be able to be invested in characters in a story, but not at the cost of being human. Sometimes, where there is a feeling of entitlement, hypocritical toxicity is not far behind.
It's like with George Lucas and his Prequel and Special Editions for STAR WARS. "True and loyal fans" were very toxic to George and his vision when it was completed, unappreciative of his willingness to take risks and tell a well-rounded story. Since it was clear fans didn't want anymore of his work (it was being "saved" by Dave Filoni's Clone Wars) and making the movies took time from his family anyway, he sold STAR WARS to Disney. Suddenly there are "leaks" of George Lucas' visions had he done episodes VII, VIII, and IX (I find it funny that these were never brought up anytime BEFORE Disney bought STAR WARS) and that there are "George Lucas cuts" of "The Rise of Skywalker".
I think a longing for what has gone before is really picking up speed in many fandoms (The recent release of "SPIDER-MAN: No Way Home" comes to mind. SPOILERS After Peter #3's performance, the latest hashtag is #MakeTASM3, when the irony is, there was a time before TASM was compared to the Raimi Spider-Man films, and people didn't like him more than Peter #2.), meaning that the motivation for making a movie is to make fans have nostalgic moments instead of creating something new and unexpected to inspire the imagination or give new perspective (Holland's Spidey was not meant to be Maguire's Spidey, "The Last Jedi" was never meant to be what fans expected: THAT'S THE POINT, to attempt something new by being something new.)
This leaves audiences failing to appreciate what they get and instead moan for the past because it's what they know while leaving newer audiences confused at why the movie is supposed to be appreciated.
My final thought is if such hypocrisy and entitlement continues, future movie-makers will go on the internet to find fanfictions as the basis for their scripts, creating more nostalgia-based movies that will leave half of audiences pleased in the moment, but inevitably disappointing both the nostalgia-filled and the casual as time goes on.
Anyway, sorry for the long post, I just like to give context so people can know where I am coming from, and these were my thoughts after I watched your video, which I liked by the way.
Keep up the good work!
criticism=my based opinions
entitlement=your cringe opinions
There I saved you all 14 minutes.
True
Nailed it
I came from future and snyder cut came and of course fixed JL
The reason people have more specific expectations regarded franchises is because due to it being an already established franchise, there's an identity and a quality standard attached to it, and I don't see it as entitlement for people to criticize on that basis. If a Batman film came out that felt very alienating, people aren't entitled for voicing their disappointment. That isn't just any character. It's fucking Batman, and it's more than reasonable to expect it to feel like Batman.
I suppose but it depends on context really what is done is done and insisting on changing an already made work is a slippery slope
@@GringoXalapeno Too true, I fear. I like some forms of interpretation, but not at the cost of completely throwing out what makes a character a character. Different audiences interpret what makes a character a character.
For instance, what makes Batman "Batman"? Is it his cool gadgets, his cape and cowl, his fighting skills? Is it his relationship with Selina Kyle? Is it his origin story?
It's a hard question to answer, but (for me at least) one thing that would ruin Batman is by making him into a woman. It's not because I'm a man, or will hate the person who came up with the artistic interpretation of how a genderflipped Batman may change his origin story (like the scenario differences of Harry Potter between "Harriet Potter"). It's something about his name. If Batman is not "Batman", he's not Batman.
Then again, not every interpretation of a Batman story will be good if it doesn't stick with him fighting crime. Say that someone were to turn him into a criminal, a villain that literally commits all forms of evil and immorality. For me, this version of Batman works if it's an alternate-universe version for Batman to fight, but if it were to become the face of Batman entirely throughout merchandising and advertisements, it would ruin his character.
Does that make sense?
@@bridgerhibbert2993 i suppose but I don’t care as much as I used to because I have franchise fatigue I just want good art to be able to stand on its own brand or not
Except this video literally goes out of its way to distinguish between criticism and entitlement.
Not liking a movie and expressing your disappointment is fine, healthy even. But demanding the creator issue an apology, signing petitions to retroactively change the art, throwing temper tantrums…all of that is whiny entitlement and is a serious problem.
One of the biggest differences between a childish person and a mature person is the way they deal with disappointment. It’s gotten to the point where the behavior of fully-grown “fans” in their 30’s, 40’s, even 50’s is actually starting to scare me. It’s a sign that people these days might get older, but they’re not growing up.
Maybe we should be a little more distant with the movies and games, I really dont understand why people hate a movie, or a ending, or a game. I think its because people let media become part of themselves, like their identities are affected by it. I wasn't affected by ME3 ending, i wasn't affected by ME:A and i really enjoyed those games.
A lot of people considered Luke, Superman, Batman their heroes, have spent decades with their previous adventures and looking forward to further or newer, not surprising there would be a lot of disappointment, even anger if they consider the characters in the new versions to be ruined.
@@suarezguy That's where the power of the personal private head canon. If I don't like an entry in one of my favorite franchises, I just ignore it, and continue to cherish and return to the ones I love.
You have no criticisms of Mass Effect 3 or Andromeda?
@@Serocco I have a few things to say but they are by far less aggresive than the "internet fans" say.
If i were to listen to fans ME:A would be a buggy hellscape with awful faces everywhere. But it isnt, in fact the lady that appears in 50% of the images is a really small character that you dont talk after the first part of the game.
And ME3 would be the worst ending ever, its not good but its plainfully average. In fact... the worst part isnt the ending.
This video aged well and not well at the same time.
Who's here after the movement to remove the red eyes from the FNAF movie?
I disagree strongly, art is a product at the end if the day, you make what people want to see not your own grand creative vision. If you want to do your own vision that's fine, just do not make me pay for it when I expect something else. Also the political pandering started from the left, every story must have a on the nose liberal political message. When last did Hollywood do a movie encouraging on the nose conservative values, it's always liberal values on full soap box display. I like your videos but they are tainted by you liberal bias a whole lot and it makes some of them unwatchable
Delete this comment
Step on a land mine plz
Well, fan entitlement is one thing, but it's a whole other thing to do something as important as fan input, why, because the company is abandoning fans to appeal to people who are not fans and are never going to be fans, so why ruin consistency and turn a product into something that it's not? Regarding the Snyder Cut its a manner of unfinished business and respecting something that isn't just a movie, it's culture, so if you can fix it, fix it.
People are demanding that Britney Spears completely redo her 8th album 2013's Britney Jean. And not in a simple Beatles Let It Be remix but her getting in the studio to rerecord vocals, rewrite songs and have a different producer.
Really?? Why they didn't speak up back when it was released? That would've made a difference.
The snyder cut was actually for sure more enjoyable than the original, but it does set a bad example.
I agree.
@@EyebrowCinema These long quotes are how I feel.
“I posted this under a different comment but I thought it was a very relevant response here as well and I did modify it a little bit to fit what you said.. If it's a whole "woke" culture, where everything has to be politically correct, everything has to be super inclusive to the point where it doesn't make any sense, we are pushing a certain person or idea for marketing and not for the story or not because it's organic and anyone who does some sort of perceived slight or steps out of line in mindset is the enemy, I don't like people like that at all or that ideology. I don't think they're actually caring compassionate people, I think that they're genuinely racist and bigoted in other ways and if you look closely at a lot of their lives, many of them are projecting or are using their causes to make money off people who genuinely care about them.
But also I think that there is this anti-woke thing which is incredibly annoying and disingenuous about a lot of stuff. Like for example, there's a lot of people who would call anything woke or anything politically correct when it's not because of one minor element or one decision they didn't like. And a lot of those people excuse those same mindsets and ideologies in previous things they liked and won't recognize them. A great example of this is Star Trek. I genuinely believe that if Star Trek the next generation launched today, people would call it woke and hate on it. But it's not. Literally all it is is a bunch of stories that try and teach empathy and compassion and sort of show that nobody is 100% in the right all the time.
I think the big issue I have is that everyone has convinced themselves that they're on the right side of history and the other person is the enemy. They're part of the anti-woke group so they must be racist or they're part of the group who made a story that's maybe a little more left-leaning so they must be a hardcore socialist who wants to destroy America. I found that most people fall somewhere reasonably in the middle and aren't actually a religious zealot for their non-religious cause or belief systems. I believe the vocal minority on both extreme sides of any issue or ideology are just that - the minority. Most people care about good writing, acting, gameplay, etc when it comes to their media.”-Degenerate Jay
“I'm talking about. I think there's a lot of things that are more on the popular side I'm not as big of a fan of as some people and a ton of obscure things I like and there's a lot of things I have some very critical points on, but I was just talking about the people who literally cannot enjoy things. And they can't let other people enjoy them either. It's almost like an affront to their sensibilities if they see someone liking or enjoying something they don't, somehow it offends them. I just find that kind of stuff to be overboard and kind of boring personally.”-Degenerate Jay
“I more just don't like how certain people have to have a problem with absolutely everything and drag down every conversation. It's just getting boring and obnoxious and it doesn't make people stand out in a positive way... It just makes them somebody I don't personally want to be around or care about their opinion. It's different to be selective and have those criticisms selectively and actually be able to form your opinions then it is to parrot whatever people are around you say and hate on absolutely everything with an ounce of popularity or fandom because it'll get you attention.”-Degenerate Jay
“I think a lot of people disregard the fact that normal conservative/normal Republican people don't actually use that language very often, that's language that has actively been appropriated by the far far right leaning people. I'm talking extreme. I've seen it used casually sometimes, but generally a lot of the people who use that sort of thing are not center right or center left or even open to discussion, the ideology of that term being appropriated has basically become I'm awake and your asleep and a sheep who can't think. It's basically turned people who were willing to have discussions and talk about things and think into people who have brainwashed themselves into believing no one is right but them and they can't have a conversation, which I think is what happens on any extreme political or religious leaning where people are no longer willing to talk. I think that the word woke has been ruined by one side and the whole red pill thing was ruined by the other side. I always took that quote to basically mean that they were bringing it back to a place of reason versus a justification for being right all the time. And personally, I don't think these terms should really be overused and taken by anybody. They certainly can be, but I think that whenever groups of people appropriate a symbol or a piece of language it very quickly gets co-opted and grabbed by the most extreme version of those people and then associated with very bad things. To me, saying something negative about either the extreme extreme extreme right or extreme extreme extreme left is not demonizing them, it's pointing out the fact that some people are so far into zealotry of their own beliefs that they don't want to have a conversation or think anymore. They just want an echo chamber. And that goes for people on both sides of any issue.”-Degenerate Jay
I don’t see what the bad example was here tbh. Snyder was finally able to beat Warner Bros and capitalist Hollywood in general and get his vision out there for people to see. I see that as a big win for Art and Artistic Expressionism. Something which rarely happens nowadays in Hollywood, where films are made for stock markets and shareholders.
@@drstrangelove307 yeah but it's a film, I doubt they released it as a "sorry" to fans. They saw how people were literally making billboards about this, and if you're making billboards over franchise film endings you're most likely part of a very vocal group of like minded people on twitter. We can see what Twitter can do if enough people make noise, I think W. Bros thought the same and most likely released it cause they knew they didn't need much marketing - Twitter would take care of it etc. It seemed like a guaranteed money maker for W. Bros regardless of the "art" they were producing.
I don’t see how. I mean an artist was able to finish and deliver one of their greatest efforts. I haven’t seen an artist being championed for this much since Richard Donner and Superman 2. People still believe in artists and instead of defending faceless corporations and businessman who care little for us we should be backing the artists who have plans and visions as well as backing the original artists intentions when something is produced from an artists work. Movies such as the Star Wars sequel trilogy aren’t works of art because the original creator had very little or even nothing to do with the development of the projects. George Lucas stated in an interview that Disney had no intention to use his sequel trilogy rough drafts and wanted to create something “for the fans” instead of just telling a story. If a studio or studio entity plans on adapting an already established piece of entertainment then their best interest would be to either bring in the original artist/author to help develop the product as a writer/creative head or if the artist has passed or declined then having to stick to the original source material as closely as possible and making sure that the story and characters are preserved in the new adaptation.
Please update this now that the Snyder cut is out
In my honest opinion in regards to the new Star Wars trilogy the problem isn't one bad film the problem is there was no planed story to begin with both episode 8 and 9 show this in spades. Don't get me wrong 8 was bad film (and to this day the only film I considered walking out). But the problems start with scene 1 with Luke throwing his lightsaber over his shoulder. That set the tone for the entire film and was big clue that everything JJ had set up in 7 was not going to be continued and all the questions were not going to be answered. This was echoed again with Kylo said "let the past die" and killing Snoke as well as Captain Phasma. By killing those two characters we are left with no lead villain and our protagonists have no clear motivation to continue.
Enter JJ once again and episode 9 the rise of retcons. That's basically it episode 9's sole purpose is an attempt to retcon episode 8 out of existence. Unfortunately JJ had to make shall we say questionable decisions not least of which is bringing back the long dead main villain of the original saga and explaining away a bunch of stuff through blink and you will miss it imagery. And when It's all said and done we are left with a group of protagonists that don't love but I don't hate either and as a result to me the are just forgettable. Which is a shame especially for Finn because I really enjoyed the idea of a storm trooper going awol I guess you could say but this is never expanded on or explained beyond episode 7. This is just one of a few situations that tells me there was no clear cut beginning, middle, and end to this trilogy. And you can rag on the prequels all you want at least Lucas went in with a clear ending which is more then I can say for the sequel trilogy.
P.S. Love your videos, discovered the channel through the death of the american gangster film. Also if possible I would like to hear your opinion on the 2005 silent film Call of Cthulhu.
Also, the prequels was Lucas vision, it's kind of hard to be mad at something that truly comes from the heart.
Considering how the Synder Cut actually happened. Hindsight really is a... you know the rest.
Commenting this because I know there's now tons of people who would say "but the Snyder Cut did fix Justice League!" and the thing is, it didn't. It was better than the original cut, sure. But what he says about the film being overly bloated is absolutely correct. The Snyder Cut jumps between a million different plot lines and characters, unsure of what it actually wants to focus on, ultimately wasting four hours of the viewers time.
am i missing some bigger point here ? the snyder cut literally did fix the justice leauge movie, the villain wasn’t nearly as lame more structured plot, more lore accuracy to the comics, if this was the original movie that came out the DCEU would probably have hope. I mean am i missing something here ? i’d go as far as to say the snyder cut its like 10x better than the original cut.
It's hard to be angry after watching Ratatouille 🐀
Too true. It's just so delightful.
This has been a disturbing trend to artist everywhere, of all kinds. Thank you.