Bleats

Oh Great, Jason Momoa Is Hyping Up That Mythical Zack Snyder Cut Of Justice League Only Salty Fans Want

Can't we just move on from Zack Snyder's mythical version of Justice League, please?

From trying to save sacred land in Hawaii to shaving his beard in order to get people to recycle, Jason Momoa is quite the lovely chap. But even he isn’t immune from doing some questionable things that warrant some critical rethinking of him as a person.

Case in point: He’s apparently seen the mythical “Snyder Cut” of the fustercluck that was Justice League and is hyping it up as, ahem, “ssssiiicccckkkkkk.”

He also apparently can’t spell “Snyder” properly but that’s not as important as him shining the spotlight once again onto Justice League.

For those who aren’t aware of what’s going on here, the “Snyder Cut” is a much-talked-about-but-seen-by-almost-nobody version of Justice League Zack Snyder had cobbled together before he left the project and the film was rejigged by new director Joss Whedon.

This new version of Justice League – known as “Josstice League” – ended up flopping big time and Snyder began talking up his original version of the film, which salty fans under the delusion that Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is a great film (it isn’t) have been demanding to see.

It’s actually quite heartwarming to see Jason pay tribute to Zack for casting him as Aquaman but his unreserved praise of the mythical Justice League “Snyder Cut” will ensure that fans will keep talking about it until the end of time, which is quite annoying for all those who want to forget that dreary period of the DC Extended Universe.

It’s been two years, folks, and the DC Extended Universe is in a far better place without the need for Batman and Superman. And let’s be honest here, the possibility of seeing the “Snyder Cut” is less than zero since it’s by all accounts still unfinished and there’s no way Warner Bros. will shell out the money to release another version of a film that utterly failed.

So to all those “Snyder Cut” loyalists out there, just take Jason Momoa’s word that it is “ssssiiicccckkkkkk” and let’s all move on because there’s no convincing argument that will get people believing that Batman V Superman is a good film and Justice League was going to be a masterpiece.

The Russo Bros' Explanation For Hulk's Arc In Avengers: Endgame Is A Massive Cop Out

The movie was already 3 hours long, what's another 2 minutes for ol' Bruce?

Part of what made Avengers: Endgame work was the considerable amount of emotional energy dedicated to the original cohort of heroes. But whereas Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanoff, Clint Barton and Thor got great wrap ups for their stories, Bruce Banner was given the red-headed step child of character arcs.

The Russo brothers decided to finally address the green elephant in the room by explaining (via Wired) why Bruce/Hulk got the short end of the narrative stick in Endgame and their answer was… well, it wasn’t great.

To recap Bruce’s Endgame character arc, he merges with Hulk to become Professor Brulk – which is explained away with two minutes of expository dialogue – he explains time travel to everyone, he snaps the dusted back into existence aaaand that’s it basically. Pretty lame to be brutally honest.

But rather than dig into why they gave Bruce the story he got, the Russo brothers copped out of giving a substantial answer by simply regurgitating what we already saw in Endgame. No explanation of why we didn’t get any footage for Bruce and Hulk merging. Nothing.

Look, it’s fair enough that not everyone could get enough screentime in Endgame given how it clocks in at a bladder-bursting 3 hours, but Bruce/Hulk’s character arc (if you want to call it that) could’ve been given more just than a lame scene set in a diner where he explains what happened.

Rule no.1 of making a film.

Even a short flashback into how Bruce merged with Hulk would’ve gone a long way in servicing the character’s arc, which ultimately amounted to “oh hey, only I can wear the Infinity Gauntlet and survive”. The movie is already 3 hours long, what’s another extra couple of minutes?

And it’s not like Marvel could save Bruce’s character arc for a standalone film because that’s next to impossible due to a mindboggling rights issue, so there’s no real reason to hold any material back.

Ah well, we’re just going to have to settle for what we got with Bruce/Hulk in Endgame. But hey at least we got to see what happens when Hulk got Bruce’s intellect and it proved to be quite an entertaining – if emotionally unsatisfying – ride in the end.

Today I Learned: It Chapter One Cut Out A Really Cooked Scene That Would've Made You Sick

Pennywise would've needed therapy had he seen it.

Stephen King’s It is a behemoth of a novel and is far too large to squeeze into one film. To get around this little conundrum, the filmmakers of the 2017 adaptation by splitting the novel into two films, It: Chapter One and It: Chapter Two.

It was a smart move by the filmmakers. They get two bites of the box office cherry while also avoiding the pressure of figuring out what material to cut out and what to leave in.

This allowed the filmmakers to adapt basically everything from the novel across the two films. Having said that, they did cut one notable sequence and it was for the best because it’s something that would’ve traumatised you.

Traumatise you say…

The novel is split into two time periods, one when the characters are kids and one when they’re adults. The kid timeline is depicted in It: Chapter One and ends with the Losers’ Club defeating Pennywise in the sewers of Derry before managing to escape and swearing a blood oath to come back to the town should the clown ever return.

In the novel, this segment unfolds a bit differently. The Losers’ Club defeat Pennywise but get lost in the sewers, which causes the group to fracture under the stress. Beverly, the only female member, comes up with a solution to restore unity to the group: have sex with each of the boys.

Yeah.

King doesn’t skimp out on the details either as he gets nice and deep into this cooked, underaged orgy: “Mike comes to her, then Richie, and the act is repeated. Now she feels some pleasure, dim heat in her childish unmatured sex, and she closes her eyes as Stan comes to her and she thinks of the birds.

Beverly’s ridiculous plan ultimately works as when the orgy is over, one of the boys remembers where they had made a wrong turn in the sewers and they manage to escape.

As for why King included the orgy scene in It, he said it had nothing to do with sex and was more about the connection between childhood and adulthood.

“Intuitively, the Losers knew they had to be together again. The sexual act connected childhood and adulthood. It’s another version of the glass tunnel that connects the children’s library and the adult library. Times have changed since I wrote that scene and there is now more sensitivity to those issues.

Nice one, Stephen King.

It’s perhaps no surprise the filmmakers for It: Chapter One decided to cut this scene. There’s enough scary stuff going on in the film already and making everyone sick with an orgy featuring children might’ve just been a step too far.

But hey, we all learned something here: Next time you get lost in the sewers somewhere with your friends, get your orgy on because apparently what you need to remember where you need to go.

#Trending

Show More Show Less

Pop-up Channel

Follow Us