viewpoinT

THE OBSERVER | wednesday, march 24, 2021 | NDSMCOBSERVER.COM

QAnon and you(anon)

Ellie Konfrst

Butterfly Effects

Alright, I’ll admit it. In the heat of the lockdown summer, around June of last year, I found myself down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. I was consuming heaps of media centered around conspiracies, from binging The X-Files to spending sweltering afternoons watching “documentaries” on The History Channel with my dad. I found learning about conspiracy theories to be an entertaining way to distract myself from the real world, but it’s not like I was really buying anything. (Well, except for Fox Mulder’s insistence that maybe aliens are real - but that’s a topic for another time).

Unfortunately, as the heat of summer faded into the first chill of fall, learning about conspiracies became a lot less fun. In the run-up to the 2020 election, it seemed every American who considered themselves well-informed wound up reading articles titled something like “QAnon, explained.”

If you somehow haven’t, I’ll give a quick summary. QAnon is a conspiracy theory, originating in the far-right corners of the internet, based on the idea that there is a group of Democratic Satanist elites running a child sex trafficking ring, who also control American politics and media. It is also deeply intertwined with the Trump presidency — QAnon believers contend that President Trump was recruited by military officials to break up this group of elites. The theory originated in October 2017, when a 4chan poster who called themselves Q posted the first claims about the cabal.

It should go without saying, but there is no evidence that any of QAnon’s central beliefs are true, and many of its theories have been repeatedly debunked. Yet, the resilience of QAnon believers is kind of astonishing — many of Q’s predictions have very publicly failed to come true, the most recent example being the successful inauguration of President Biden in January. Yet, the conspiracy is extraordinarily malleable, and while some believers gave up after Trump left office, many seem willing to follow Q anywhere, including to Trump’s second inauguration on March 4 ... no, March 20 ... no, wait …

For a long time, it was easy to brush QAnon off as a fringe, harmless conspiracy theory, finding company among the flat-earthers and moon landing truthers. Yet, QAnon is no longer fringe, and it’s certainly no longer harmless. A December poll found that 17% of Americans wholeheartedly believe the core tenets of QAnon, with another 37% saying they are not sure whether they are true. Further, law enforcement officials found that belief in QAnon was a common thread among those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Still, it’s easy to feel like QAnon is a far-off, distant threat. Sure, your crazy uncle Steve had some weird takes on George Soros at Thanksgiving, and you’ve seen some distant relatives sharing Marjorie Taylor-Greene’s Facebook posts, but your close family and friends don’t buy into any of it. And there’s absolutely no way you’ve played a role in spreading QAnon-adjacent misinformation — right?

That’s actually a harder question to answer than you might think. While you’re probably not accidentally sharing information coming directly from Q, QAnon is a “big tent” conspiracy theory, meaning it encompasses a wide variety of other conspiracy theories as proof of the existence of a Deep State. There are detailed, extensive maps laying out the massive web of QAnon beliefs, and the ideas that are included might surprise you. Some are seemingly innocuous social media campaigns, like #SaveOurChildren (easily confused with the actual NGO, Save The Children), that spread easily because of their broad appeal — who doesn’t want to end child sex trafficking? Some seem completely unrelated, the type of thing you would expect to see on The History Channel — Atlantis, the JFK assassination, UFOs.

QAnon feeds off misinformation spread widely across the internet, even onto platforms many would consider “safe.” It’s easy to believe that wild conspiracies are being spread on 4chan — I mean, it’s 4chan — but TikTok? That kids’ app everyone downloaded when we were all stuck at home? Yeah, they removed 400,000 videos in the second half of 2020 due to misinformation. I’ve heard lots of close friends and family write off QAnon believers as “wackos,” then innocently ask me if I’ve heard about that Wayfair thing. People who liked TikToks that were tagged #SaveOurChildren are clearly not the same as those who stormed the Capitol, but the latter were probably, at some point, the former.

The dismissive discourse around QAnon is key to allowing it to continue to grow, and its nature is twofold. First, there’s the aforementioned notion that you, a sane person, could not possibly fall down the QAnon rabbit hole. The second is reliant on the first, but more sinister: since you would never believe conspiracy theories, the people who do must be completely unhinged — there’s nothing we can do.

Many psychologists see the rise of QAnon as symptomatic of larger cultural and political issues plaguing the United States: increasing community isolation, rising mistrust in government and media, and feelings of helplessness, triggered by increasing inequality. Conspiracy theories, especially broad ones like QAnon that seek to explain systematic issues, provide simple explanations for complicated problems — it’s unsurprising that as the world becomes more complex, people become more desperate for simple explanations.

Of course, the explanation of their beliefs does not excuse them — QAnon is deeply rooted in white supremacy, antiSemitism and a melting pot of other violent ideologies. And there are many people who believe in ending child sex trafficking but never spiral toward belief in a Satanist cabal of political elites. Yet, for those who recognize the reality of the threat posed by QAnon, it is vital to avoid the trap of complacency. QAnon is dangerous becauseof its accessibility, and everyone needs to be more vigilant toward misinformation and structures that make people more likely to fall down that rabbit hole. That doesn’t mean stop watching “documentaries” on The History Channel (I certainly will not), just do your due diligence before preaching to your friends about the Illuminati.

Ellie Konfrst is a junior majoring in political science, with minors in the Hesburgh Program for Public Service and civil & human rights. Originally from Des Moines, Iowa, she’s excited that people will finally be forced to listen to all of her extremely good takes. She can be reached at egloverk@nd.edu or @elliekonfrst13 on Twitter.

The views expressed in this column are those of the authors and not necessarily those of The Observer.

LeTTer TO The edITOr

Remember the names, not the stereotypes

Growing up, I dreaded the first day of school because it meant the teacher would have to say my name aloud for attendance, butcher the pronunciation, and all of my classmates would laugh at the terrible way it was pronounced.

Did I ever want to change my name? Sure, there were many times. Like that one time when it became a running joke in elementary school to say that I was “so mean.” Or that one time in middle school when someone constantly called me “salmon.” And that one time in college that a professor mispronounced my name as “semen.” Small victories were celebrated when someone could get my name right in the first try, and I’m not trying to say that the people who mispronounced my name or made fun of it were terrible people. Everyone is capable of making mistakes, so I don’t blame them. I just started to hate my name more and more.

But then I go back to thinking about why I was given my name. When I was born my mom wanted to give me a “normal English name” because she was afraid that my name would be made fun of. She had her own experience of her classmates making fun of her Korean name and didn’t want her children to experience the shame that she felt. However, my dad was adamant that I would use my Korean name as my English name because he was confident that I would grow up to be a strong, confident Korean American woman who would be able to stand up for herself and wouldn’t be looked down upon by others.

My dad was right. I am proud to be a strong, confident Korean American woman, part of the Asian American community that is composed of so many other Asian Americans like me who too are strong, confident and proud to be who they are and where their families come from.

Some of these Asian Americans were brutally murdered March 16 in metro Atlanta, by a white gunman, after he dropped by three different spas in the area to commit the heinous murders. These murders are an addition to the senseless violence and hatred against the Asian American community that has been on the rise since the start of the pandemic. According to Stop AAPI Hate, a non-profit organization that tracks incidents of hate and discrimination against the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community, from March 19, 2020, to February 28, 2021, there were almost 3,800 reported hate incidents against Asian Americans nationwide — which is only a fraction of incidents that actually occur.

It is devastating to see just how often there are reports of a 75-year-old Chinese grandmother fighting back against her attacker after she was brutally beaten in the face in the stress of San Francisco or of a 36-year-old Asian man being stabbed in the back on a street in New York’s Chinatown. All Asians, no matter what age or gender they are, are becoming victims of violence and hatred in our society, and no one should have to bear the burden of living in fear due to their identity.

The rise of hate crimes against the AAPI community has given the opportunity for strong Asian Americans to stand up for their community and advocate for change to happen. Often, the Asian American community feels like they are meant to be invisible from society due to the constant pressure of having to be as successful as the model minority myth paints Asians to be. Yet, the community refuses to be invisible this time around, as Asian Americans all across the country are joined by others who are willing to show their solidarity, in hopes of condemning racism and promoting societal changes that are inclusive and welcoming for all.

My name defines the strength that moves me forward with my life, and I am taking that strength to join other strong Asian Americans who are advocating for the safety, protection and acceptance of the AAPI community. Meaningful change goes beyond just posting something on your Instagram story that disappears in 24 hours or posting a picture with a hashtag. Change begins within the self, by recognizing the hidden biases and stereotypical views of people that we carry. We need to make a valiant effort to change the biased views we hold and to transform the rhetoric and culture that often coalesce into violence and hatred against specific groups, as has become especially evident during this pandemic.

Among those killed, there were women who were fearless mothers, wives, sisters, aunts and daughters. These are their names:

Delaina Ashley Yaun, 33; Xiaojie Tan, 49; Daoyou Feng, 44; Soon Chung Park, 74; Hyun Jung Grant, 51; Sun Cha Kim, 69; Yong Ae Yue, 63.

Remember their names and their stories. Remember that many of these women were Asian Americans, the same community that is in need of solidarity and support. Our society needs to end the perpetuating patterns of tragedy and violence, and this starts with us standing up against hate.

Here are some resources on how to be an ally with the AAPI community and stop anti-Asian violence:

“Violence Against Asian-Americans Isn’t New, but It Is Growing” by The Amber Ruffin Show on YouTube; “The Making of Asian America: A History” by Erika Lee; “Yellow: Race in America beyond Black and White” by Franklin Wu; Stop AAPI Hate; Asian Americans Advancing Justice; Send Chinatown Love; Asian Mental Health Collective.

The observer | wednesday, march 24, 2021 | ndsmcobserver.com

It isn’t enough to be seated at the table

Elizabeth Prater

sparknd

on march 18, Ali Kershner, a sports performance coach at stanford University, posted a photo comparing the weight rooms for the ncAA women’s and men’s basketball tournament. The post went viral — and for good reason. While the men’s teams had a room with power racks and olympic bars and weights, the women’s teams were merely provided with a set of dumbbells and yoga mats. many players came forward and challenged the league, demanding equal rights to equipment and space. Those who felt victimized stated that the lack of resources undermined their ability to succeed in their domain.

This same argument is plainly advocated in “A room of one’s own” by virginia Woolf. Published in 1929, the book is comprised of excerpts of a speech Woolf was asked to give about women and fiction at a writing conference.

The main message within the classic text is that women need access to both financial freedom and a space of their own in order to be creative and prosper in their fields. one of the most convincing points that Woolf makes is about the differences in her luncheons at different colleges. When she describes a person eating at oxbridge college, a men’s university, she describes the meal as having wine and rich foods. however, when describing the meal at the women’s college, it was merely plain gravy soup and dry biscuits. one of the other complaints at the ncAA tournament was that women weren’t being provided with the same quality of food as the men’s teams. Woolf believes that nourishment is vital to functioning as a person, as she states, “one cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well.” sustenance doesn’t have to explicitly refer to physical food, but in addition, emotional nourishment. muffet mcGraw, former notre dame women’s basketball coach, released a statement calling out the inequity in workout facilities, conditions at hotels and food supply. “We have taken the crumbs from the table and we don’t even have a seat at and we didn’t complain,” mcGraw wrote in a post on Twitter, explaining the complacency many women’s teams face when competing. however, she voiced her dissatisfaction towards systems set in place that discredit women in their fields. mcGraw concluded her post by stating, “This generation of women expects more and we won’t stop until we get it.”

The striking similarities between Woolf’s work and this contemporary event don’t stop there. In “A room of one’s own,” Woolf claims, “money dignifies what is frivolous if unpaid for.” If women aren’t being provided with the resources or financial sustenance to perform at their peak, then it not only undermines these women, but sends a message of subservience and apathy.

While the outrage that has followed this conference has created a stir to provide more resources to women, mcGraw points out that this is an issue “that women have been battling for decades.” If organizations and people held accountable only respond to such complaints when under fire, what does that say about the nature of these industries?

Woolf eloquently writes that it is in our idleness that “the submerged truth sometimes comes to the top.” complacency toward these issues only fuels the disappointing realities of society in that we are satisfied with such mistreatment.

To demonstrate her point, Woolf illustrates the persona of Judith shakespeare. This fictional character is the twin sister of William shakespeare, who is just as gifted as her brother, but has a vastly different ending.

Instead of being provided the time and space to create art like her brother William, Judith is forced into an early marriage and ends up escaping to pursue art. however, she is turned away with scorn from every theatre. she later becomes pregnant, which makes a life of writing nearly impossible, and Judith kills herself. had ms. shakespeare been provided the appropriate resources to pursue her desires, she may have not only lived but prospered. While this fictitious persona is conjured by Woolf, its verity is astounding in the plight of many gifted women, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries.

I can’t help but reflect on this issue more carefully during the month of march — International Women’s month. As a member of Pasquerilla West hall, I’ve heard our mantra of being a “Powerful Woman” repeated countless of times. I am constantly inspired by my rector, hall staff and fellow residents by their commitment to empowering women, especially those in male-dominated spheres.

Pasquerilla West — or more affectionally known as Pdub — was built in 1981 and was the first dorm built just for women on campus after women had entered the University only in 1972.

After generations of women not attending university, not even getting a seat at the table, it is sometimes easy to be satisfied in the amount of progress that has seemingly been made. however, mcGraw and Woolf — both vastly different in occupation and era — demonstrate their frustration towards women’s complacency.

Woolf’s call to action reminds me of the strides that my dorm and many other women make towards amplifying women’s voices that have been submerged. she concludes her book by telling the women in the audience at this conference that they have the power to be the voice that was taken from Judith. many powerful women in history have been slighted from a lack of resources or support. however, this is not the end. “Lock up your libraries if you like,” Woolf writes. “but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon the freedom of my mind.”

Elizabeth Prater is a first-year student with double majors in marketing and Program of Liberal Studies. In her free time, she manages her Goldendoodle’s Instagram account (@genevieve_the_cute_dog) which has over 23K followers. She can be reached at eprater@nd.edu or @elizabethlianap on Twitter.

The views expressed in this column are those of the authors and not necessarily those of The Observer.

Universal basic income in a COVID-19 world

Blake Ziegler

news with Zig

In 2019, I wrote a column analyzing universal basic income (UbI), a policy championed by former democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang. There, I argued the UbI debate shouldn’t center on its effectiveness. The literature on UbI suggests that it’s a necessary remedy in combating the poverty and economic injustices plaguing our nation. In an analysis of basic income policies across the world — whether implemented universally or targeted at certain groups — the overwhelming result is economic growth, improved quality of life and an overall better society.

According to the roosevelt Institute, a UbI financed in the United states through higher taxes on the wealthy and distributing the revenue to other income brackets leads to 12.56% economic growth over eight years. In Finland, a 2017 pilot program for the unemployed found higher levels of happiness, less stress and greater trustworthiness in institutions among participants. Also, one Japanese billionaire’s experiment with 1,000 participants found greater entrepreneurism among recipients. A study on Alaska’s Permanent Fund dividend, a UbI for residents drawn from the state’s oil and gas revenue, found that recipients became more educated.

The verdict is clear that UbI is a good economic policy. Yet, as I noted in my last column about UbI, its controversy is over its ethical implications. The welfare debate in the United states consistently concerns whether recipients deserve their benefits. If we cannot agree on benefits for the poorest of our nation, can we expect Americans to support benefits for all? A few years ago, the answer would’ve been a resounding no. however, the covId-19 pandemic has revealed deep economic, health and societal issues that make UbI more appealing.

A nation and world crippled by a global pandemic led to significant unemployment and drove countless families into bleak economic situations. beyond that, the pandemic revealed the difficulties many face in acquiring the resources and opportunities necessary to build a better life. UbI offers an opportunity to rectify these problems, and its support has grown in the last year. A study examining public opinion in the United states and United Kingdom found increased support for UbI during the pandemic. supporters cited UbI’s simple administration and ability to reduce stress and anxiety. beyond that, a number of UbI programs have been implemented worldwide as a response to the pandemic.

In fact, the pandemic magnified the trend of support for UbI in the United states. The economic turmoil sparked calls for stimulus relief. According to a monmouth University poll, 53% of Americans supported the $1,400 checks in the third stimulus package, while 28% wanted to see larger payments. support for UbI as a permanent policy has grown in recent years, receiving 55% of registered voters’ approval in an August 2020 hill-harrisX poll.

UbI has also seen bipartisan support. In April 2020, 83% of democrats and 84% of republicans somewhat or strongly supported the government providing direct cash relief during the pandemic. The basic Income march in september 2020 demonstrated widespread support and activism for UbI across the country. moreover, politicians are crossing the aisle to support UbI or UbI-esque policy. The Trump administration’s policy on stimulus checks was starkly similar to Andrew Yang’s UbI proposal. senator mitt romney (r-Utah) suggested a $1,000 one-time check as a starting point. senator Josh hawley (r-mo.) advocated for monthly checks during the pandemic. Former representative Tulsi Gabbard (d-hawaii) also called for monthly checks for as long as the pandemic still raged. U.s. representatives Tim ryan (d-ohio) and ro Khanna (d-calif.) proposed a UbI through a tax credit in march 2020. other notable democrats like senators cory booker (d-n.J.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (d-n.Y.) also support policies similar to UbI. The policy is gaining traction among politicians as they realize the political impetus for such a policy during the pandemic.

Yet, a roadblock to the covId-19 relief bills has been the stimulus checks themselves. despite prominent support for a guaranteed income, republicans and democrats still disagree on the policy itself. such circumstances are perplexing, and likely lie in concerns about UbI and whether it appeals to one’s political ideology. I will address those worries.

There is a concern about paying for UbI. however, analyses on UbI’s cost discovered that it has a similar price as other welfare policies, while having the possibility of significantly reducing poverty in the United states. That’s a significant return on investment. now, there is also concern that UbI would disincentivize people from working. such a claim makes little sense, according to the literature. Alaska saw little to no effect on people’s participation in the workforce. A review of UbI experiments found that there is little warrant for the claim that a guaranteed income leads to long-term, massive unemployment. concerns about the practicality of UbI are not the only problems. To overcome these divisions, the case must be made to both parties that UbI is a bipartisan policy that appeals to all Americans. UbI can appeal to republicans and democrats ideologically. conservatives would endorse a policy that significantly reduces the bureaucracy and dependency on the welfare state. Liberals would agree with UbI, as it’s a universal, unconditional program to provide relief through distributional measures.

While it’s certainly not the be-all and end-all, UbI is an important tool in addressing the systemic and unjust problems magnified by the covId-19 pandemic. even if it’s still opposed now, young Americans’ support for it indicates that UbI is the future. The question is not if, but when it will be adopted.

Blake Ziegler is a sophomore at Notre Dame from New Orleans, Louisiana, with double majors in political science and philosophy. He loves anything politics, especially things he doesn’t agree with. For inquiries, he can be reached at bziegler@nd.edu or @NewsWithZig on Twitter if you want to see more of his opinions.

The views expressed in this column are those of the authors and not necessarily those of The Observer.

The observer | WEDNESDAY, mArch 24, 2021 | ndsmcobserver.com

By NICK BRIGATI

scene Writer

Whenever I watched a young adult Tv show or movie in high school, I always found it hard to connect to the characters. This wasn’t just because of the poor acting and impractical nature of their plots (although that certainly didn’t help), but because the adolescents I saw on-screen looked anything but — they didn’t talk like teenagers, dress like them (looking at you “euphoria”), or even act like them. but the absurd depictions of adolescence seem unique to mainstream cinema and Tv as mediums. novels such as “The catcher in the rye” or “The Perks of being a Wallflower” effectively capture the apathy, angst, etc. of youth; and songs like “Wouldn’t it be nice” by the beach boys, big star’s “Thirteen” or “Growin’ Up” by bruce springsteen bring us back to the days of pubescence. The inaccuracy of adolescent depiction is not the result of some inherent flaw in Tv or film, however, as there have been numerous movies (primarily independent) that delivered accurate depictions of youth. one issue is the motion Picture Association film rating system. high schoolers and teens often engage in behaviors and use language that would prevent films depicting them from ever being PG-13 (most kids say f*** more than just once in their lives — the limit to the word’s use in PG-13 films). however, films that are r-rated are less profitable than PG or PG-13 films due to people below the age of 17 not being able to see them in theaters. This results in many coming-of-age films and shows that are unrealistic in their portrayals in an attempt to bring in more revenue. The A24 film “eighth Grade” is the perfect example of what films can achieve when not constrained by their age-rating. The film is accurate not only because the film casted actors who were actually in eighth grade, but because the characters’ struggles are applicable to their age. Whether it is the sexual pressures put upon middle school girls, the subtle yet cruel nature of cyber bullying or merely that everyone at that age is a bundle of insecurities shouting expletives. Their troubles are not those of adults (or what adults think their hardships may be), but issues that are common at that age; so much so that I was physically uncomfortable because of its accuracy in depicting our generation’s experiences. nonetheless, even though accurate depictions can result from freedom from rating limitations, it can also result in adolescent lives being overdramatized or excessive to the point of caricature. I am sure many have seen the memes on Twitter and online parodying hbo’s “euphoria” for showing high schoolers attending class in bdsm-esque outfits or having the vocabulary of a 12-year-old who just learned his first curse words. shows such as “euphoria” are the product of what adults think it is like to be a high schooler currently, rather than what is the reality, causing various depictions to be reductive and oversimplified.

even a great film such as “eighth Grade” was close to being inaccurate in a very small, albeit important way. While making the film, bo burnham — the director and writer of the film — initially had Facebook as the primary social networking service in the movie; however, he changed it to Instagram and snapchat after the film’s actors told him that no one uses Facebook anymore. This demonstrates not just the issues that adults being removed from youth creates when making films or shows, but also the solution to that very problem: having adolescent actors informing the script and directing (a technique they used when making “eighth Grade”). by consulting with real-world teenagers on what it is like to be of that age, films and Tv can effectively create realistic portraits of coming-of-age, rather than mere impressions of that experience.

While hollywood creates coming-of-age narratives and stories to give attention to youth and the genuine nature of their struggles, they are at the same time invalidating them by exaggerating the circumstance and happenings of their lives. If the entertainment industry wants to create films that young audiences can relate to, they actually have to be reflective of their experiences and reality rather than a mere caricature. It will be that much more impactful for young audiences to see someone that actually looks and behaves just like them on the screen rather than someone who pays a mortgage.

Contact Nick Brigati at nbrigati@nd.edu

By JUSTIN GEORGE

scene Writer

since the release of Joss Whedon’s 2017 cut of “Justice League,” fans of dc have been demanding the release of the snyder cut, a seemingly mythic version of the film that would fulfill Zack snyder’s original vision for “Justice League” and the dc extended Universe at large. on mar. 18, hbo max released the snyder cut. “Zack snyder’s Justice League” is not the first film to receive a director’s cut, but it is perhaps the most hyped-up director’s cut to date.

The idea of the director’s cut is quite possibly a product of Auteur Theory, which credits the director with most of the creative decisions made in a film. modern examples of directors that many consider to be Auteurs include Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, christopher nolan and Paul Thomas Anderson. Throughout the history of cinema, studio interference has been present and has been blamed for the downfall of many films. erich von stroheim’s 1924 film “Greed” is an early example of a film that was butchered by studios before its release, making it a shell of the director’s original vision. This is what many fans believed happened with 2017’s “Justice League.”

The director’s cut is by no means a new concept, but it has certainly become more popular in recent years. classic films such as “blade runner,” “Apocalypse now” and “Little shop of horrors” have all received directors’ cuts that are said to be each filmmakers’ intended vision for the films. There was even a period in the mid to late 2000s where many horror movies saw home video releases of their unrated director’s cuts. I remember seeing copies of the unrated director’s cuts of films, such as the 2009 remake of “Friday the 13th” and the 2003 remake of “The Texas chainsaw massacre,” lining the shelves of best buy and blockbuster, promising more kills, more gore and more scares than their theatrical counterparts. In an age of extremity, even “The exorcist” was not safe from a modified cut being released to cash in on the trend. snyder is no stranger to directors’ cuts, many of his films have been given blu-ray releases featuring both the theatrical and director’s cuts. his film “Watchmen” even had a three-and-a-halfhour ultimate edition released after the director’s cut. but what makes “Zack snyder’s Justice League” different from his previous director’s cuts is its release on hbo max (and in select theaters, such as notre dame’s browning cinema) as well the impact of fan culture on its release. Zack snyder has always made films for fans of comic books, with much of his work consisting of comic adaptations. one thing that has always been a part of the culture surrounding comics and has become especially present in the age of social media is fandom.

The fandom response to Whedon’s “Justice League” was less than favorable, and many fans took to Twitter and called for the release of the snyder cut, which they believed would be a superior version of “Justice League” and would represent snyder’s original vision for the film. This fan response is reminiscent of the fan response to the portrayal of Wade Wilson in “X-men origins: Wolverine,” which culminated in the 2016 release of “deadpool.” The snyder cut, much like “deadpool,” reinforces the power that fandoms can have over film studios.

The snyder cut runs just over four hours — a runtime reserved almost exclusively for the melodramatic epics of the golden age of hollywood and art house films. The decision to release “Zack snyder’s Justice League” on such a major platform and with a major promotional campaign is unheard of. It is a miracle that the snyder cut ever saw the light of day. Is Warner brother’s atoning for 2017’s “Justice League” to save face, or does the release of “Zack snyder’s Justice League” signal the beginning of a new era of creative control for filmmakers? only time will tell.