Justice League **Spoilers from post 980 onward**

FunLover18

The White Wolf wrote: »

How does the Mandolorian work as a comparison in terms of reviews? Are they released in advance of each episode? From what I recall it's pretty tight if not same day which suggests they're watching same time as everyone else.

Don't see how this is any different to be honest.

I may have misunderstood, I got the impression you were suggesting only certain critics who helped the campaign should get advanced screenings. There's a strong possibility this would skew early reviews in the films favour which I don't think is right.

kerplun k

ThePott wrote: »

Vanity Fair just did an in-depth article on the Snyder Cut.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/02/the-true-story-of-justice-league-snyder-cut?utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=twitter&mbid=social_twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_brand=vf

People are only talking about one thing though

I just finished it. Not sure why people are taking about Leto, the piece barely mentions him.

After reading it I want this film to succeed more than ever. Snyder Just sounds like a really nice guy and I hope this film can bring him and his family some closure.

Can’t believe WB wanted to release the unfinished, uncut, B&W version from his laptop just to get that Snyder cut monkey off their backs.

CramCycle

The truth is, no matter how good or bad it is, it can't be as bad as justice league was and I sat through that. Zack has the ability to make good movies so hopefully someone half decent was there quietly helping with the editing.

I'm looking forward to it, might even take the day of work I have so many holidays built up.

dublinman1990

If Sky Cinema had permission from WB to promote ZSJL; they could use the same strategy to promote the film as something similar to a Sky Original movie. That could allow more Sky customers to actually see the movie if they had a interest in it. But we don't actually know how many Sky customers here in Ireland have the Sky Cinema channels included with their own Sky subscriptions or other platforms. If people are fans of this movie & don't have those packages with them; where does that leave them; iTunes, Google Play or Blu-ray.

senordingdong

[Deleted User] wrote: »

4 hours is gonna put a lot of people off I suspect. And if the initial response is bad then it could flounder after that.

I'm not sure it will. The Irishman was a huge success and I'm not comparing Snyder to Scorcesse but I presume one of the biggest concerns WB had about ZSJL was how bloated it was. But if it is carrying a four hour runtime, alot of the problems associated with the bloat could mellow out.
Putting in a streaming service or even making it episodic are legitimate alternatives now.
I think it's going to be the shakeup that the superhero genre needs.

I think that DCEU were damned if they do and damned if they don't in regards to copying MCU or going their own path.

Need a Username

I don’t understand how being 4 hours long would put people off.

They can stop it whenever they like and take a break or resume another day.

I will want to watch it in one viewing myself.

pixelburp

Need a Username wrote: »

I don’t understand how being 4 hours long would put people off.

They can stop it whenever they like and take a break or resume another day.

I will want to watch it in one viewing myself.

I think it comes down to pacing and flab: if it's 4 hours of essential moments, scenes and so on, great! If it's just extra time spent spinning wheels then I can see a reluctance. Like, the Knightmare scene. I just don't see the point in returning to it, beyond Synder thinking it's cool to have Batman in a big trenchcoat. It's a dream sequence and doesn't really say or do anything to the story (assuming it follows the same pattern from BvS that is)

The Irishman dragged IMO because a lot of scenes added very little; it was mostly in small ways, shots going on way longer than what seemed necessary against what the scene was trying to sell. I can't recall whole scenes I speculated could be dropped mind you. Comparing that with something like the Expanded Cut of the various LOTR movies, and while beefy themselves, added useful context, character moments and even whole set-pieces. They felt "more", but in a good way.

Need a Username

Need a Username wrote: »

I don’t understand how being 4 hours long would put people off.

They can stop it whenever they like and take a break or resume another day.

I will want to watch it in one viewing myself.

There's only a handful of movies that have that runtime. With The LOTR extended cuts it just about works but I would say the cinema cuts work out better. Something like a cinematic masterpiece eg Once Upon A Time In America, it does work and I'd happily watch it in one run.

But then something like wonderwoman 84, think it was just over 3 hours and I was looking at my watch and waiting for it to end. The fact I'd have to contemplate splitting a film into pieces tends to be more a reflection of the quality of the film. If it turned out to be a fantastic 4 hours, I'd happily dedicate an afternoon to it. If it's a director given too much freedom then I'll tend to just not watch it. And everything about this film seems like egoism could be a serious issue.

FunLover18

Need a Username wrote: »

I don’t understand how being 4 hours long would put people off.

They can stop it whenever they like and take a break or resume another day.

I will want to watch it in one viewing myself.

It's not an issue for people genuinely interested/invested but as I've said previously I think that's a a small number. For people who are just looking for a movie to watch on a night in, 4 hours is a big commitment. I love superhero movies, I wasn't phased one bit by the runtime of Endgame but I was fully invested and I think a lot of people turned out for the event. The JL and DCEU doesn't come close to having the same level of interest amongst the general public. I reckon I could ask everyone at work if they knew about the Snyder cut and only a handful of people would know what I was talking about let alone willing to sacrifice 4 hours to watch it. At the moment the only reason I want to watch it is so I can have an opinion but I honestly dont think that's worth 4 hours of my time so I'll probably give it a miss.

johnny_ultimate

I’ve no problem with extended running times - I’ve seen a good few films that are several hours longer than four hours, and they’ve all justified that time investment as they have a strong formal or thematic motivation for it.

The problem with a lot of modern blockbusters is not that they’re longer, but that they don’t really justify their running times. They overload the films with plot and character, at the expense of pacing. The truth is a lot of modern superhero films are inherently shallow, silly things - and 150 mins plus of self-serious, convoluted plotting can’t overcome that. Something like Avengers Endgame for me really overestimated how interesting some of its various plot threads and characters actually were.

Even a film as acclaimed and significant as Apocalypse Now - which has multiple different cuts to compare and contrast - shows how important pacing can be, and how adding in stuff that’s technically strong and substantial on its own terms can detrimentally impact the flow of the movie.

If Snyder’s Justice League is four hours of good, clever ideas and storytelling, then four hours will 100% be justified. If it’s two hours of strong material and two hours of glorified deleted scenes and fan service, it likely won’t be worthwhile. A filmmaker is perfectly entitled to make a long film - they just need to ensure the audience is properly rewarded.

Need a Username

FunLover18 wrote: »

It's not an issue for people genuinely interested/invested but as I've said previously I think that's a a small number. For people who are just looking for a movie to watch on a night in, 4 hours is a big commitment. I love superhero movies, I wasn't phased one bit by the runtime of Endgame but I was fully invested and I think a lot of people turned out for the event. The JL and DCEU doesn't come close to having the same level of interest amongst the general public. I reckon I could ask everyone at work if they knew about the Snyder cut and only a handful of people would know what I was talking about let alone willing to sacrifice 4 hours to watch it. At the moment the only reason I want to watch it is so I can have an opinion but I honestly dont think that's worth 4 hours of my time so I'll probably give it a miss.

I agree that the amount of people who know about the Snyder Cut is probably small and yes 4 hours is long time.

But my point is that no one has to watch it in one go. So I don’t see why anyone would be put off.

senordingdong

I was presuming that much of the excess was the introduction of main characters who weren't afforded a solo movie.
I certainly hope its not more brooding from the main two.

FunLover18

Need a Username wrote: »

I agree that the amount of people who know about the Snyder Cut is probably small and yes 4 hours is long time.

But my point is that no one has to watch it in one go. So I don’t see why anyone would be put off.

You don't see why someone wouldn't want to sacrifice four hours for something they only have a mild interest in? It doesn't matter if it's one go or spread out, it's still four hours.

pixelburp

senordingdong wrote: »

I was presuming that much of the excess was the introduction of main characters who weren't afforded a solo movie.
I certainly hope its not more brooding from the main two.

Given the surprising return of the Knightmare world, and the inclusion of Joker within it, I daresay we're getting precisely the latter.

FunLover18 wrote: »

You don't see why someone wouldn't want to sacrifice four hours for something they only have a mild interest in? It doesn't matter if it's one go or spread out, it's still four hours.

Yeah, it's a 4-hour investment I'd get that. And I think the mental math works differently with a movie than, say, four 1 hour instalments of a mini-series.

FunLover18

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah, it's a 4-hour investment I'd get that. And I think the mental math works differently with a movie than, say, four 1 hour instalments of a mini-series.

I hope I didn't come across too snarky. Your point about the 1 hour installments is a good one though, if this is edited as a movie there aren't going to be natural breaks like 1 hour installments would have, meaning there aren't going to be lures to bring you into the next episode, it's a four hour film where the director is trusting the audience to stick with it and that's a different beast entirely.

Need a Username

FunLover18 wrote: »

You don't see why someone wouldn't want to sacrifice four hours for something they only have a mild interest in? It doesn't matter if it's one go or spread out, it's still four hours.

If someone considers watching a movie a “sacrifice” then I think maybe they just don’t like movies.

Four hours is two movies. Or an hour each evening.

It isn’t as big a deal as people are making out here.

Many people binge a TV series in a day or a few days even when only being a casual viewer. A four movie is just the thing.

ThePott

I am surprised that they haven't split it into two two hour chunks. If nothing else because Snyder has said that if it were to play cinemas there was an intermission built in, from a purely promotional standpoint splitting it in two would make sense.

senordingdong

pixelburp wrote: »

Given the surprising return of the Knightmare world, and the inclusion of Joker within it, I daresay we're getting precisely the latter.

Hopefully the knightmare scene has reasonable context.
But this thread has helped to tame expectations.

pixelburp

senordingdong wrote: »

Hopefully the knightmare scene has reasonable context.
But this thread has helped to tame expectations.

The only context I can think that would make this work, would be a subplot where The Flash shot into the future to see how bad the threat of Darkseid was. That he bums about with Trenchcoat Batman for a spell, returns home with dire portents. THAT would work for me, it gives the scene some value to establish the stakes. It has purpose.

If it's just another pointless dream sequence via Bruce Wayne's imagination, then GTFO I say.

Need a Username

Need a Username wrote: »

If someone considers watching a movie a “sacrifice” then I think maybe they just don’t like movies.

Four hours is two movies. Or an hour each evening.

It isn’t as big a deal as people are making out here.

Many people binge a TV series in a day or a few days even when only being a casual viewer. A four movie is just the thing.

The thing is, four hours is a time investment that a lot of films fans won't invest in something that's a mediocre film. They would probably be more willing if it's 2 hours. With such a long film, there really needs to be a demonstrable reason for the length of the film.

This is even more apparent in genre cinema imho. Eg I'd be apprehensive about watching a 3 hour comedy but in the case of something like Toni Erdmann, I'm happy to invest the time as it's a superb film and the length is justifiable.

I do actually hope it's a decent film cause I'm a comic book nerd. But everything that surrounds it atm seems more like hype than anything else. Particularly given the previous output of the director.

FunLover18

Need a Username wrote: »

If someone considers watching a movie a “sacrifice” then I think maybe they just don’t like movies.

Four hours is two movies. Or an hour each evening.

It isn’t as big a deal as people are making out here.

Many people binge a TV series in a day or a few days even when only being a casual viewer. A four movie is just the thing.

I don't know if we got our wires crossed but you're talking as if everyone has the same level of interest in this film. I really amn't that interested in this movie so I am going to take the runtime into account when I consider whether I actually watch it as will a lot of people.

Like you said four hours is the equivalent of two movies I might actually be more interested in, or four episodes of a series I'm watching. Four hours is my and most people's evening, so yes, it's a factor.

It's a huge leap to suggest someone not willing to watch a four hour movie they're only mildly interested in maybe doesn't like movies at all.

Need a Username

Deleted User wrote: »

The thing is, four hours is a time investment that a lot of films fans won't invest in something that's a mediocre film. They would probably be more willing if it's 2 hours. With such a long film, there really needs to be a demonstrable reason for the length of the film.

This is even more apparent in genre cinema imho. Eg I'd be apprehensive about watching a 3 hour comedy but in the case of something like Toni Erdmann, I'm happy to invest the time as it's a superb film and the length is justifiable.

I do actually hope it's a decent film cause I'm a comic book nerd. But everything that surrounds it atm seems more like hype than anything else. Particularly given the previous output of the director.

How can anyone know that they will think a movie is mediocre (or even brilliant or terrible) before they see it?

Did you know Toni Erdmann was good before watching it?

You are already viewing this movie negatively.

pixelburp

Need a Username wrote: »

How can anyone know that they will think a movie is mediocre (or even brilliant or terrible) before they see it?

Did you know Toni Erdmann was good before watching it?

You are already viewing this movie negatively.

In fairness, while ordinarily, I'd agree about pre-judging any film, this is not an entirely unknown quantity either. The number of people who are going to see this without bias prior knowledge or pre-judgement will be fairly low IMO. I'll be viewing this with as open-minded as I can manage, but I also have a good idea of what I'm going to get too. This will be the ZackSynder'est thing ever ZackSynder'ed.

Need a Username

FunLover18 wrote: »

I don't know if we got our wires crossed but you're talking as if everyone has the same level of interest in this film. I really amn't that interested in this movie so I am going to take the runtime into account when I consider whether I actually watch it as will a lot of people.

Like you said four hours is the equivalent of two movies I might actually be more interested in, or four episodes of a series I'm watching. Four hours is my and most people's evening, so yes, it's a factor.

It's a huge leap to suggest someone not willing to watch a four hour movie they're only mildly interested in maybe doesn't like movies at all.

You definitely getting wires crossed becasue that last remark is not remotely what I said. I said if someone considers the time spent watching a movie as a “sacrifice” (your words) then maybe they don’t like movies. That is very different to what you said above.

As to the length - if you’d be more interested in a four part mini series then you can just watch an hour each evening. I don’t understand why the film needs to cut in four parts. You just stop watching when you want to.

Need a Username

pixelburp wrote: »

In fairness, while ordinarily, I'd agree about pre-judging any film, this is not an entirely unknown quantity either. The number of people who are going to see this without bias prior knowledge or pre-judgement will be fairly low IMO. I'll be viewing this with as open-minded as I can manage, but I also have a good idea of what I'm going to get too. This will be the ZackSynder'est thing ever ZackSynder'ed.

Other people are arguing that not many people are aware of this project at all.

Others are saying that amount of people is low.

I think people’s opinion of what other people think is biased by what they themselves think. I think so anyway.

The Synder Cut might be a known project to people love superhero movies, who follow movie news, etc. but how many people is that?

Most won’t know anything about it until a promotional campaign starts and how many will associate it with the previous release or even be aware of the previous release. And how many will care?

No one can tell how many have a mild interest or no interest.

Need a Username

Need a Username wrote: »

How can anyone know that they will think a movie is mediocre (or even brilliant or terrible) before they see it?

Did you know Toni Erdmann was good before watching it?

You are already viewing this movie negatively.

Based on his films to date, yep I'm more inclined to believe that this is a film that has more to do with hype than anything else. If it was a different director with an established positive reputation I'd likely have some level of optimism for it. Eg Batman Versus Superman managed to bore me.

Erdmann was a critically acclaimed film, I might have hated it but it has a pretty great reputation behind it. Similar for something like Once Upon a Time In America. In this case, a film is primarily being hyped up and I'm not sure if there's much to justify the hype.

And fair play to him if he has managed to create a 4 hour film that does for the most part work. But I'm most definitely not watching it based solely on hype.

Need a Username wrote: »

You definitely getting wires crossed becasue that last remark is not remotely what I said. I said if someone considers the time spent watching a movie as a “sacrifice” (your words) then maybe they don’t like movies. That is very different to what you said above.

As to the length - if you’d be more interested in a four part mini series then you can just watch an hour each evening. I don’t understand why the film needs to cut in four parts. You just stop watching when you want to.

But so far, you're making it sound like a chore if you need to break it up to such a degree.

Need a Username

Deleted User wrote: »

Based on his films to date, yep I'm more inclined to believe that this is a film that has more to do with hype than anything else. If it was a different director with an established positive reputation I'd likely have some level of optimism for it. Eg Batman Versus Superman managed to bore me.

Erdmann was a critically acclaimed film, I might have hated it but it has a pretty great reputation behind it. Similar for something like Once Upon a Time In America. In this case, a film is primarily being hyped up and I'm not sure if there's much to justify the hype.

And fair play to him if he has managed to create a 4 hour film that does for the most part work. But I'm most definitely not watching it based solely on hype.

Just because you don’t like a filmmakers previous movies doesn’t mean you won’t like his last.

And critical acclaim has nothing to do with what I asked. Prior to seeing it did you know Toni Erdmann was good and was worth 4 hours of your time?

Need a Username

Deleted User wrote: »

But so far, you're making it sound like a chore if you need to break it up to such a degree.

You seem to be confused here.

I’m not the person saying it needs to be broken up.

Another poster said people would be put off by the length and that he himself would be more willing to watch it in episode..

I was pointing out that it can be watch in any way that the viewer desires. If you are any an hour a night then do so.

I said I want to see it as a movie. I don’t need it broken up.

pixelburp

Need a Username wrote: »

Other people are arguing that not many people are aware of this project at all.

Others are saying that amount of people is low.

I think people’s opinion of what other people think is biased by what they themselves think. I think so anyway.

The Synder Cut might be a known project to people love superhero movies, who follow movie news, etc. but how many people is that?

Most won’t know anything about it until a promotional campaign starts and how many will associate it with the previous release or even be aware of the previous release. And how many will care?

No one can tell how many have a mild interest or no interest.

For the purposes of sanity, my point of view in my previous point would be from within this thread. Fair to say everyone here chatting has some familiarity with the previous film, Synder's CV, and so on. To a certain degree we all know what we're going to get.

On a broader scale? Yeah who knows and I'd revert back to my very original speculation that the poverty of choice in the field of blockbusters may mean Justice League: Electric Re-do does very well for itself, by dint of starvation alone.

Need a Username

pixelburp wrote: »

For the purposes of sanity, my point of view in my previous point would be from within this thread. Fair to say everyone here chatting has some familiarity with the previous film, Synder's CV, and so on. To a certain degree we all know what we're going to get.

On a broader scale? Yeah who knows and I'd revert back to my very original speculation that the poverty of choice in the field of blockbusters may mean Justice League: Electric Re-do does very well for itself, by dint of starvation alone.

Is this thread a good basis for the judging opinions of the masses though?

mikhail

Need a Username wrote: »

Is this thread a good basis for the judging opinions of the masses though?

4 of the last 6 posts are yours, so I'm thinking it's becoming mostly a good basis for judging the opinions of yourself.

johnny_ultimate

The internet as a whole is not a good basis for judging public sentiment around this film.

Need a Username

mikhail wrote: »

4 of the last 6 posts are yours, so I'm thinking it's becoming mostly a good basis for judging the opinions of yourself.

Have you a problem with me for me for some reason?

FunLover18

Need a Username wrote: »

You definitely getting wires crossed becasue that last remark is not remotely what I said. I said if someone considers the time spent watching a movie as a “sacrifice” (your words) then maybe they don’t like movies. That is very different to what you said above.

As to the length - if you’d be more interested in a four part mini series then you can just watch an hour each evening. I don’t understand why the film needs to cut in four parts. You just stop watching when you want to.

I was specifically talking about a movie I'm only mildly interested in but also you seem to be interpreting "sacrifice" in a very negative sense, I would argue any time spent on a film or a TV series is a sacrifice in some way given that we don't know whether it will be time well spent or not.

Of course you can just stop whenever you want but if you do you've still lost whatever time you've already spent on it. I really don't see an issue with taking runtime into consideration when deciding to watch a movie tbh. Of course if it's something you really want to see, it won't be an issue.

Need a Username

FunLover18 wrote: »

I was specifically talking about a movie I'm only mildly interested in but also you seem to be interpreting "sacrifice" in a very negative sense, I would argue any time spent on a film or a TV series is a sacrifice in some way given that we don't know whether it will be time well spent or not.

Of course you can just stop whenever you want but if you do you've still lost whatever time you've already spent on it. I really don't see an issue with taking runtime into consideration when deciding to watch a movie tbh. Of course if it's something you really want to see, it won't be an issue.

I don’t any other way to interpret sacrifice here other than negatively.

You’ve now gone onto a different topic of time. Recovering time spent doing something that you found unsatisfactory.

That wasn’t the issue being discussed. It was whether people would be put off by the 4 hour length. My point was that you don’t have to watch it all the way through if you don’t have the time or desire to give four hours I one sitting. You are I the comfort of your own home and have complete control over how to watch it.

That you cannot get back the time spent watching any movie or show or part thereof is a different matter. And has nothing to do with the film being 4 hours long.

The same can be said of anything - a half hour sitcom, etc.

Worry about that is too negative for me.

And I don’t have an issue with taking runtime into account.

I was simply saying that no one has to watch it as a 4 hour movie.

FunLover18

Need a Username wrote: »

That wasn’t the issue being discussed. It was whether people would be put off by the 4 hour length.

They would. /Discussion

mikhail

Need a Username wrote: »

Have you a problem with me for me for some reason?

Yeah. I have a problem with anyone spamming a thread. Learn to multi-quote.

Need a Username

FunLover18 wrote: »

They would. /Discussion

Some people would. Others wouldn’t.

Others would split the movie into parts that suited them.

It is that simple.

Need a Username

mikhail wrote: »

Yeah. I have a problem with anyone spamming a thread. Learn to multi-quote.

How am I spamming?

Show me the posts that are spam.

IncognitoMan

Wonder why they changed back from the 4 parts. From a business POV releasing it in parts makes more sense. You keep people subscribed for longer = more revenue

The film must not split un into 4 parts. No natural arc in each hour.

IncognitoMan

ThePott wrote: »

With most shows they get the first few episodes, in the case of WandaVision for example they got the first 3 episodes.

Which was brave considering those first 3 episodes :pac:

Need a Username

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Wonder why they changed back from the 4 parts. From a business POV releasing it in parts makes more sense. You keep people subscribed for longer = more revenue

The film must not split un into 4 parts. No natural arc in each hour.

I think the idea of a mini series was only speculation.

If as a film it should not be split then then episodes shouldn’t be an option.

For the viewer they can stop at any point they wish.

ThePott

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Which was brave considering those first 3 episodes :pac:

Ouch haha. I remember reviewers kept being like, it really steps up in the third episode :pac:.
The only reason I can think that they ditched the episode structure was that after announcing the WB slate coming to HBO Max they figured there was no need to make it episodes and figured it would mess with the final release or face some backlash like the Boys Season 2 did.

FunLover18

Need a Username wrote: »

Some people would. Others wouldn’t.

Others would split the movie into parts that suited them.

It is that simple.

Jesus, I never said everyone would. Some people just don't have four hours to spare on a movie they're not that interested in.

senordingdong

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Wonder why they changed back from the 4 parts. From a business POV releasing it in parts makes more sense. You keep people subscribed for longer = more revenue

The film must not split un into 4 parts. No natural arc in each hour.

I wonder had it something to do with piracy? It struck me that it has the same release date worldwide.

Re:wandavision, I think we all know that tv shows take a few episodes to 'get going' and praising/slating on the pilot alone would be silly.

Need a Username

FunLover18 wrote: »

Jesus, I never said everyone would. Some people just don't have four hours to spare on a movie they're not that interested in.

People who are interested are not going to watch it regardless of the length.

So what is the point of worrying about that?

Why is this making people upset?

Need a Username

Need a Username wrote: »

People who are interested are not going to watch it regardless of the length.

So what is the point of worrying about that?

Why is this making people upset?

I don't think it's making anyone particularly upset. We're simply stating that people who might have given it a chance if it were 2/2.5 hours long are less likely to give it a chance with such a substantial runtime. That applies more than anything to more general audience rather than that of the hype machine. If it turned out to be exceptional or even decent to pretty good, then the runtime would probably be viewed as more okay. As pixel has said though, it may benefit from the lack of blockbusters to some degree as well.

Need a Username

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think it's making anyone particularly upset. We're simply stating that people who might have given it a chance if it were 2/2.5 hours long are less likely to give it a chance with such a substantial runtime. That applies more than anything to more general audience rather than that of the hype machine. If it turned out to be exceptional or even decent to pretty good, then the runtime would probably be viewed as more okay. As pixel has said though, it may benefit from the lack of blockbusters to some degree as well.

A couple of people here do seem upset.

And likewise I’m simply stating that since the movie can be watched at home then it doesn’t matter how long it is because people don’t have to watch it in one sitting.

I don’t know why that idea is so upsetting or causing some to be narky.

FunLover18

Need a Username wrote: »

And likewise I’m simply stating that since the movie can be watched at home then it doesn’t matter how long it is because people don’t have to watch it in one sitting.

I don’t know why that idea is so upsetting or causing some to be narky.

Because it's irrelevant!

Four hours is still four hours. The issue isn't whether I can watch it in one go or spread it out, the issue is whether I want to see this film so badly I'd be willing to spend four hours with it. I don't, so why would I even start it?

CramCycle

The biggest benefit ZS has at the minute is the pandemic but anyone looking at twitter as a sign of something doing well is reaching. Twitter actually does quite poorly in regards active engagements and have only done well by getting into news reports and being recognised by traditional media when oddly it actually doesn't do well at what people think it does well. INstagram has 3 fold as many users, Fb 5 fold but yet somehow it is the one quoted on news outlets constantly.

I'd be interested to see the number of likes on the most liked tweet about the snyder cut vs how many people actually watch it. I imagine that it won't actually be meaningful as a metric, just interesting and something someone in a studio will use in the future.