Justice League movie thread

[Quintus 5,399]

Actually that makes sense. It likely applies to regular superhero fans too. 

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,433]

15 hours ago, Edmilson said:

If I recall correctly my Predator, the Marvel Fans here will win and the other die. Kind of a tragic end don't you think?

[TSMefford 1,509]

7 hours ago, rough cut said:

First, I don’t have a vendetta against 4:3. I don’t wish all movies should be filmed in 16:9. I can imagine a director choosing 4:3 for artistic reasons, and liking it as a stylistic choice, but I will confess that I’m prejudiced to think that that should be quirky comedies, dramas or that it makes a point relevant to the story/setting other than what Snyder has provided.

 

My mistake. Thanks for the clarification!

 

7 hours ago, rough cut said:

But regarding JL and 16:9 vs 4:3, I do hear all your arguments, and you’re not wrong, we just don’t agree.

 

Yeah I honestly think this is a case of "creative differences" if you will.

 

For me, I don't really have a preference in aspect ratio anymore at this point in my life. I have seen marvelous cinematic experiences presented in 4:3, 16:9, and 2.39:1 among other things over the years and it has really changed my perception on ratios. Honestly, I used to think of ratios this way: 4:3 is a horrid format that crops everything off the sides, 16:9 is basic HDTV, and 2.39:1 is what actual cinema uses. But my opinions have changed a ton of this obviously. My main preference is that I am seeing whatever it is as it was intended, so seeing Friends or The Simpsons in 16:9 annoys the hell out of me because it wasn't meant to be seen that way. Seeing films shot for 2.39:1 that have been open matted to 16:9 or crops/open matted to 4:3 also annoy me because it's not how it was intended to be seen. Open mattes especially you can tell the intention if opening the matte reveals crew/equipment and what not. There's a whole category of continuity issues that only exist thanks to a change in aspect ratio. But anyways

 

I think if the Director frames it a certain way then it will look great, regardless of what ratio it's in. And there's a lot of shots in Snyder's Justice League that look perfectly framed in the full 4:3, which is why I think he went that way in the end. But again, it's weird because it's double framed, but we've been over that.

 

Another interesting thing is that I see stills, photos, and moving images, as one and the same compositionally. Sure, moving images can have the subject change location within the frame, but I don't think should make it need to be in a different ratio than if it were a still. I think the same compositional rules still apply for the most part, since video is just a bunch of stills anyway but that's just me.

 

7 hours ago, rough cut said:

Regarding your last two points, the first being that if my TV was 4:3 I’d want all movies to be 4:3 as well... well, yeah, I guess so. But would cinema still be 16:9? If yes, then I’d rather wish for a 16:9 TV rather than for all movies to be 4:3.

 

I mean... factually and historically speaking cinema was wider than television for a significant period of time, with 4:3 TVs being around from the 20s all the way through the early 2000s before the switch was finally made widely to HD, and therefore 16:9. Meanwhile, Cinemascope was introduced in the 1950s approximately. I'm oversimplifying of course.

 

But my point is, for over 50 years cinema had tons of films shot and released in 2.35:1 / 2.39:1 while televisions stayed at a measly 4:3. This is why "Fullscreen" versions of movies exist, because putting 2.39:1 in a 4:3 space annoyed the hell out of people. So, they would pan & scan or in a few cases open the matte up to "Fill the Screen". So really, it would probably be your preference at that time to have had a 2.39:1 TV I suppose. Lol. Nowadays you still would get black bars with 2.39:1 content, but it's not nearly as outrageous as it would be on a 4:3 TV. 

 

I'm rambling now, but yeah. I think we understand each other even if we don't agree. Lol.

10 hours ago, Harry Irene said:

Alright, after having watched both versions back to back, here's a scene-by-scene comparison unless someone else has already done it yet. (Spoilers of course if you haven't seen the Snyder Cut yet.)

 

I didn't go so in-depth to create a spreadsheet yet, but I did one myself a few posts above yours. My interest is more in the implications of the changes that Whedon made. I don't really go into all of the "added" Snyder scenes:

 

I am working on a highlight of some of the lines Whedon added to Snyder scenes by the way. Anyone who has an issue with Snyder's dialog...Whedon's is worse.

[Edmilson 7,448]

Now in B&W:

 

 

[TSMefford 1,509]

7 hours ago, Quintus said:

How come movie geeks go mad for shitty looking green screen CGI fests in Justice League but they get mad at shitty looking green screen fests in The Hobbit? 

 

I mean. I certainly don't go mad over it, but specifically comparing the two you mentioned here. Superheroes have, to an extent, always had CGI in my lifetime. Even Donner's Superman utilized blue screen a couple of times. I'm just so used to it now, that I don't really care about Justice League being caked in CGI. I have lower standards for most superhero films. Even the best Marvel film can only reach like a 7 or 8 out of 10 on my usual scale.

 

In the case of the Hobbit, it's frustrating because we have Lord of the Rings to compare it to. Same cast members, same Director, but quite different results. Lord of the Rings used a great deal more practical effects and miniatures that end up looking better than the CGI results. It's especially annoying to see Azog be full CGI in The Hobbit, when that would've been accomplished with make-up on LoTR most likely. I suppose standards were higher because of Lord of the Rings.

 

21 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Now in B&W:

 

 

 

Seeing a full scene in B&W looks cooler and more fun than I thought it would look, but it's still a gimmick to me.

 

I felt the same way about the Black and White version of Mad Max: Fury Road as well. It's a fun effect, but it doesn't add anything other than making it feel more film noir. 

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,433]

47 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Now in B&W:

 

 

2017:

Me: So you didn't wanted to make a 2h00 long garbage?

Snyder: No, it was originaly thought as a 3h00 long movie.

 

2020:

Me: So actually you're movie wasn't meant to be a 3h00 long one but a four hour long one?

Snyder: Yes it was the plan all along.

 

2020(later):

Me: So the movie will actually be a mini serie of four episode?

Snyder: Yes.

Me: But it still going to be your vision?

Snyder: Yes.

 

2020(later):

Me: So the movie is not in 2:35?

Snyder: No, it was think in 4:3 all along.

 

2020(later again):

Me: So four episodes are not enough, now you want six?

Snyder: Actually the film was think in six part so it's better to have six episodes.

 

2021:

Me: So you're not doing a mini-serie anymore?

Snyder: No we want to show my true vision a four hour long movie.

 

2021/03/21:

Me: Finally your movie is out, now I just need time and aspirin to watch it.

Snyder: Which one?

Me:

Snyder: Because it was actually think in black and white not in color, that's what we are going to release now.

Me:

Can't you fu}#?&!g decide what you're wanted????????????

 

2052:

Snyder: The movie is actually a ten hours long movie shot in 36:1 with the actors speaking aurebesh and with a yellow filter!

Me:

[TSMefford 1,509]

Lol. I will say, because I didn't mention it before. The 6 part thing is absurd and unnecessary. Like yeah it gives people natural stop points, but it shows me a lack of faith in the runtime. Sounds like HBO wanted a miniseries, not Snyder and this was probably a compromise.

 

I don't recall there being that much back and forth on other things though and I imagine some of that is studio based. This length seems to be the length he prefers. He has said that the assembly was ~5 hours, and he also had to keep trimming it to meet studio demands, which is probably where the 3 hours and below comes in. Ratio wise, The film was definitely never going to be 2.35. Only ever 1.85:1 for original theatrical release and then 1.33:1 for IMAX, which is the final we got. At one point 1.66:1 was mentioned but it sounded like a compromise with the studio who probably didn't want to release it in 1.33:1.

 

The black and white thing though is purely a gimmick I find to mimic what cut Snyder had on his laptop for the last several years. 

 

From what I can gather, without much studio interference, this is what Snyder wants. Black and White is extra.

[Mephariel 451]

23 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

Lol. I will say, because I didn't mention it before. The 6 part thing is absurd and unnecessary. Like yeah it gives people natural stop points, but it shows me a lack of faith in the runtime. Sounds like HBO wanted a miniseries, not Snyder and this was probably a compromise.

 

I don't recall there being that much back and forth on other things though and I imagine some of that is studio based. This length seems to be the length he prefers. He has said that the assembly was ~5 hours, and he also had to keep trimming it to meet studio demands, which is probably where the 3 hours and below comes in. Ratio wise, The film was definitely never going to be 2.35. Only ever 1.85:1 for original theatrical release and then 1.33:1 for IMAX, which is the final we got. At one point 1.66:1 was mentioned but it sounded like a compromise with the studio who probably didn't want to release it in 1.33:1.

 

The black and white thing though is purely a gimmick I find to mimic what cut Snyder had on his laptop for the last several years. 

 

From what I can gather, without much studio interference, this is what Snyder wants. Black and White is extra.

 

I always thought chapters are there just to add storytelling accents, like telling the audience what the writer is thinking. Quentin Tarantino have chapters and his movies aren't as long as JL. 

[TSMefford 1,509]

21 minutes ago, Mephariel said:

 

I always thought chapters are there just to add storytelling accents, like telling the audience what the writer is thinking. Quentin Tarantino have chapters and his movies aren't as long as JL. 

Do they? Haven’t seen Tarantino in a long time. For me, it totally breaks me out of the flow in this movie. The titles a lot of the time in Justice League are just quoting Dialog or something. They don’t add or introduce anything new to the story.

[rough cut 1,714]

I agree that it feels like a compromise: HBO wanted a miniseries. Maybe it was even agreed upon and edited that way, and quite far along, when Snyder changed his mind.

 

Maybe, if they had agreed on a movie from the get go, the final product wouldn’t be 100 hours long.

[crocodile 8,012]

 

The Wonder Woman wailing woman theme bits are hilarious. 

 

Karol

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

 

5 hours ago, TSMefford said:

 

My mistake. Thanks for the clarification!

 

 

Yeah I honestly think this is a case of "creative differences" if you will.

 

For me, I don't really have a preference in aspect ratio anymore at this point in my life. I have seen marvelous cinematic experiences presented in 4:3, 16:9, and 2.39:1 among other things over the years and it has really changed my perception on ratios. Honestly, I used to think of ratios this way: 4:3 is a horrid format that crops everything off the sides, 16:9 is basic HDTV, and 2.39:1 is what actual cinema uses. But my opinions have changed a ton of this obviously. My main preference is that I am seeing whatever it is as it was intended, so seeing Friends or The Simpsons in 16:9 annoys the hell out of me because it wasn't meant to be seen that way. Seeing films shot for 2.39:1 that have been open matted to 16:9 or crops/open matted to 4:3 also annoy me because it's not how it was intended to be seen. Open mattes especially you can tell the intention if opening the matte reveals crew/equipment and what not. There's a whole category of continuity issues that only exist thanks to a change in aspect ratio. But anyways

 

I think if the Director frames it a certain way then it will look great, regardless of what ratio it's in. And there's a lot of shots in Snyder's Justice League that look perfectly framed in the full 4:3, which is why I think he went that way in the end. But again, it's weird because it's double framed, but we've been over that.

 

Another interesting thing is that I see stills, photos, and moving images, as one and the same compositionally. Sure, moving images can have the subject change location within the frame, but I don't think should make it need to be in a different ratio than if it were a still. I think the same compositional rules still apply for the most part, since video is just a bunch of stills anyway but that's just me.

 

 

I mean... factually and historically speaking cinema was wider than television for a significant period of time, with 4:3 TVs being around from the 20s all the way through the early 2000s before the switch was finally made widely to HD, and therefore 16:9. Meanwhile, Cinemascope was introduced in the 1950s approximately. I'm oversimplifying of course.

 

But my point is, for over 50 years cinema had tons of films shot and released in 2.35:1 / 2.39:1 while televisions stayed at a measly 4:3. This is why "Fullscreen" versions of movies exist, because putting 2.39:1 in a 4:3 space annoyed the hell out of people. So, they would pan & scan or in a few cases open the matte up to "Fill the Screen". So really, it would probably be your preference at that time to have had a 2.39:1 TV I suppose. Lol. Nowadays you still would get black bars with 2.39:1 content, but it's not nearly as outrageous as it would be on a 4:3 TV. 

 

I'm rambling now, but yeah. I think we understand each other even if we don't agree. Lol.

 

I didn't go so in-depth to create a spreadsheet yet, but I did one myself a few posts above yours. My interest is more in the implications of the changes that Whedon made. I don't really go into all of the "added" Snyder scenes:

 

I am working on a highlight of some of the lines Whedon added to Snyder scenes by the way. Anyone who has an issue with Snyder's dialog...Whedon's is worse.

 

This is a little vague. Can you go into a bit more detail?

[TSMefford 1,509]

1 hour ago, Nick1066 said:

 

 

This is a little vague. Can you go into a bit more detail?

 

Lol. There's a reason why I added my new title "Long-Winded Aspect Ratio Snob"

[Mephariel 451]

4 hours ago, TSMefford said:

Do they? Haven’t seen Tarantino in a long time. For me, it totally breaks me out of the flow in this movie. The titles a lot of the time in Justice League are just quoting Dialog or something. They don’t add or introduce anything new to the story.

 

Yes. Every single Tarantino film that I remember is broken down by chapter cards appearing like JL. But you are right that the chapter titles would make more sense if they summarized the chapter rather than just being buzz words from dialogue. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I loved the bit when they said "epilogue" in the movie.

[Ollie 1,059]

I’m curious to see how they will determine whether or not this was a sound financial decision, especially with the bloated budget of the original theatrical release.

[Edmilson 7,448]

About the Knightmare scene at the end, this article is pretty much spot on:

 

Quote

Both sequences are tremendously awkward and come out of nowhere. They leave as many questions as they answer, like how Bruce is having these dreams. They also disrupt the flow of the film and are so transparent in their attempt to set up future projects that they feel more like trailers, not scenes.

 

https://www.cbr.com/zack-snyder-justice-league-repeat-bvs-knightmare/

[TSMefford 1,509]

100% agree with that article on those scenes. The most awkward thing is that it straight up cuts from present day to dream sequence with no context. VERY confusing. 

 

I don't mind seeing the scenes necessarily, but would rather them more detached from the main film like a mid credits scene or even put out as deleted scenes or something. That or integrate them into the film better.

[rough cut 1,714]

In this clip, ZS talks about the “episodic nature” of the movie.

 

It seems that the original intent when ZS and HBO got going was to do a mini series, but then they couldn’t do it due to legal reasons. I’m guessing that everybody involved in the film, crew and cast, had signed on to do a movie, not a TV-series, and you just can’t change that with regards to contracts.

 

Contracts, pay checks, distribution rights and who knows what else would’ve ended up being incorrect and to change all that last minute would probably have been a logistical nightmare.

 

But by the time they figured out it was too complicated to legally change the project from a movie to a series, they were already - practically - deeply invested in the series-format.

 

Rather than discard a lot of work, special FX etc - not considering having to rethink the format of the entire project, ie starting again from square one - they probably went with the decision “just put it all together as one piece” (oversimplified).

 

I’m guessing that, had it been conceived as a movie from the start, it would’ve been paced differently, to the benefit of the end result.

 

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The big thing I can't stand about streaming is movies aren't divided into chapter stops like they are on disc. What's stopping them from doing that with movies broadcast on the internet?

[TSMefford 1,509]

46 minutes ago, rough cut said:

I’m guessing that, had it been conceived as a movie from the start, it would’ve been paced differently, to the benefit of the end result.

 

 

Well that's ridiculous. The 4 hour movie is literally what his fanbase wanted. He made a movie. 

 

35 minutes ago, The Big Man said:

The big thing I can't stand about streaming is movies aren't divided into chapter stops like they are on disc. What's stopping them from doing that with movies broadcast on the internet?

 

Right? I was just thinking that the other day. HBO Max even has little markers where all the parts are I believe. There's literally nothing stopping them from incorporating that.

 

I feel the same about special features too. Why can't they include an extras section among where you can select the seasons and stuff. No reason to let all that good B-Roll footage and interviews go to waste. Just content for their YouTube channels I guess. This is one of many reasons I still stick with physical media whenever possible.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

2 hours ago, TSMefford said:

The 4 hour movie is literally what his fanbase wanted. He made a movie.

 

How dare you. He made a film. Or "Cinema", if you will.

 

Dream sequences, chapters, B&W, 4:3 indulgent running time, etc. are all marks of an artiste'.  Without those things, Snyder is merely a director, not an artiste', and Justice League is merely a movie, not a film. And an artiste' does not cater to a "fanbase".

 

You know who use dream sequences? Kurosowa. Chapters? Tarantino. 4:3? Kubrick. Snyder is ingenio revelatum.  Nolan, be on notice.

 

MARTHA FOREVER.

 

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

9 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 Nolan, be on notice.

 

He produced it!

[rough cut 1,714]

2 hours ago, TSMefford said:

Well that's ridiculous. The 4 hour movie is literally what his fanbase wanted. He made a movie. 

He literally says in the video I posted that his original idea was to release the Snyder Cut in parts, but that they couldn’t do it for legal reasons.

 

Go to 0:40-1:05.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

9 minutes ago, The Big Man said:

 

He produced it!

 

When Zack left Christopher he was but the learner, now Zack is the master.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Only a a master of schlock, Darth!

[TSMefford 1,509]

5 hours ago, rough cut said:

He literally says in the video I posted that his original idea was to release the Snyder Cut in parts, but that they couldn’t do it for legal reasons.

 

Go to 0:40-1:05.

 

No, no. I know what he said, I read your whole post and watched the video. I am saying that the fanbase wanted the Snyder Cut. The movie, film, whatever. Why would he go for a mini-series right out of the gate? I'm not saying you're ridiculous. I am saying that he and HBO are for seriously considering that.

[SilverTrumpet 638]

So I've never been a fan of these DC movies, not because I'm a Marvel fan or anything. I just don't like the overproduced cartoon stuff that most movies have become.

 

I'm about an hour into this movie. I have no idea what the hell is going on or what the purpose of this film is. I think I just don't like how movies are made these days, stylistically. So far it's just a bunch of characters standing there reciting movie trailer lines and looking past the camera in slow motion.

 

I'm picking on this movie because its an all encompassing example of these stylistic choices. It doesn't feel like most of the scenes of dialogue advance the story or help the characters grow. They're just there to extend the run time so the movie can seem like a bigger deal.

 

Most movie CG is also awful. They all look like cartoons. The CG backgrounds look about as believable as illustrated backgrounds from movies of yesteryear. The sound design is awful too. It's lousy, overly bassy, noisy, and a lot of times during the full CG scenes like where the villains talk, the sound effects don't even match with the movements. 

 

I know people like different things than me, I just don't understand if I'm just totally against movies like this or if they're really not that good, but people like them anyway because they present as epic.

 

I do like title cards and 4:3, though. I feel like stylistic differences like those things should be used more often when appropriate, but the big studios are too afraid of making anything different lest they'd scare the average moviegoer away.

[Romão 2,274]

7 minutes ago, SilverTrumpet said:

So I've never been a fan of these DC movies, not because I'm a Marvel fan or anything. I just don't like the overproduced cartoon stuff that most movies have become.

 

I'm about an hour into this movie. I have no idea what the hell is going on or what the purpose of this film is. I think I just don't like how movies are made these days, stylistically. So far it's just a bunch of characters standing there reciting movie trailer lines and looking past the camera in slow motion.

 

I'm picking on this movie because its an all encompassing example of these stylistic choices. It doesn't feel like most of the scenes of dialogue advance the story or help the characters grow. They're just there to extend the run time so the movie can seem like a bigger deal.

 

Most movie CG is also awful. They all look like cartoons. The CG backgrounds look about as believable as illustrated backgrounds from movies of yesteryear. The sound design is awful too. It's lousy, overly bassy, noisy, and a lot of times during the full CG scenes like where the villains talk, the sound effects don't even match with the movements. 

 

I know people like different things than me, I just don't understand if I'm just totally against movies like this or if they're really not that good, but people like them anyway because they present as epic.

 

I do like title cards and 4:3, though. I feel like stylistic differences like those things should be used more often when appropriate, but the big studios are too afraid of making anything different lest they'd scare the average moviegoer away.

 

 

Pretty much my view as well, and I'm also roughly one hour into the movie.

[A24 4,333]

I watched it too and I don't understand the people who don't understand the film's purpose. It unfolds slowly and clearly. Very easy to understand and similar to Avengers Infinity War and Endgame.

 

Pretty much my view as well:

 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

I've not seen anything connected with the DCU, past BvS (TV).

Here's a question for those who have: why did it go so wrong, for the DCU, but so right for the MCU.

[blondheim 1,157]

Because people want family movies with a little bit of everything rather than one distinct vision that can occasionally polarize but takes risks. I've said it before, Marvel is movie-by-committee. The only three directors in the MCU that have managed to maintain some semblance of a voice are James Gunn, Taika Waititi, and Ryan Coogler.

[Edmilson 7,448]

2 hours ago, SilverTrumpet said:

 

I'm about an hour into this movie. I have no idea what the hell is going on or what the purpose of this film is. I think I just don't like how movies are made these days, stylistically. So far it's just a bunch of characters standing there reciting movie trailer lines and looking past the camera in slow motion

 

2 hours ago, Romão said:

Pretty much my view as well, and I'm also roughly one hour into the movie.

The first 90 minutes are pretty bad overall, but believe me, the movie gets so much better in its second half. Once the Justice League is assembled it becomes a decent super hero movie.

[Chen G. 3,949]

2 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Here's a question for those who have: why did it go so wrong, for the DCU, but so right for the MCU.

 

I think the kind of movies that the MCU makes - thoroughly light, lots of winking and nodding at the audience - are very easy to do well. I mean, how can critics and/or audiences rib a film that's ribbing itself with the kind of "meta" humour that Marvel put into their films? And, indeed, once DC started making the same kind of movies - Aquaman springs to mind - people started warming up to them more.

 

Its much much harder to make films that are actually played straight and are sincere and have stakes, which is what early DC movies (following the example of Nolan's Batman films) have tried to do, unsuccesfully.

[rough cut 1,714]

I came across this thumbnail in my YouTube-feed.

 

It made me wonder what the movie had been like had it been in color.

 

[WampaRat 1,105]

Not sure if this has come up yet. 
But do you think (should Snyder’s JL prove financially successful) Disney is watching and might release the fabled 3-hour cut of Rise of Skywalker (aka the “JJ cut”)? Because oh boy. Did THAT film feel tinkered with...

[SilverTrumpet 638]

The difference is that NOBODY liked that movie to want to ever have to think about it again.

[TSMefford 1,509]

4 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I've not seen anything connected with the DCU, past BvS (TV).

Here's a question for those who have: why did it go so wrong, for the DCU, but so right for the MCU.

 

4 hours ago, blondheim said:

Because people want family movies with a little bit of everything rather than one distinct vision that can occasionally polarize but takes risks. I've said it before, Marvel is movie-by-committee.

 

I don't think this is remotely the main reason why they've been successful. While, I do agree that Marvel has overstepped the line when it comes to squashing voices, I do think that to make a cinematic universe work you need a set of people keeping things consistent for the most part and to make it all feel like it comes from the same Universe. The "committee" that you mention. We've seen what happens when even just a trilogy of films doesn't have the story maintained and planned out: the Star Wars Sequels. You can't have a coherent and consistent Universe if Director's decide they want to ignore what happened in a previous film. Not to say the MCU is perfect in that respect either, but they've attempted something never really done before and now everyone wants to do it. Which brings me to...

 

I think the main reason that the DCU has gone wrong (at least for me) is disregarding the huge amount of character build-up that the MCU did when they started.

Before we ever got to The Avengers in 2012 we had Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger. We had two movies with Iron Man, and one each with Thor, Captain America, and...kind of Hulk, but it doesn't really count at this point. That's a solid amount of time to get to know these characters and what they're all about before we got to the big team up film. Then we got another 4 films before the next team up film, and I think you get the idea at this point.

 

The problem is that DC was essentially playing catchup with Marvel first and building their world and characters second or even third priority. For me at least, the style and tone was not necessarily what I have an issue with when it comes to the DC films. The primary issue is the writing and lack of development for the characters. They somehow have pride for these being new interpretations of the characters and to quote an actual review at the time "not your grandfather’s Superman", but also bank on you connecting to their poorly fleshed out characters on pure recognition. You should be sad that Superman is dead because it's Superman. Lois and Clark have to be together because it's Lois and Clark. Etc. You can't boast this being uncharted territory and "not your grandfather’s Superman" while also relying on those past incarnations for the emotional connection.

 

I can go into it deeper if you want, but I figured this was long enough as it is. DC's films have had flat out silly writing at times (which clashes with the pretentious, dark, and real tone they have), convoluted plots, devoid of real character arcs or development, and trying too hard to bank on competing with the relevant Marvel film that year, especially in the case of BvS and Civil War. Hell, Batman V Superman feels like they had scripts for a Batman movie, Man of Steel 2, and a Justice League movie and the writers all smacked into each other in the hallway with the resulting pile of pages becoming the final film. BvS is also the only film that I think strays into the "too dark and depressing" territory, but that's still not really the main issue with it. It's an absolute low for the series for sure regardless.

 

Wonder Woman and Shazam were vast improvements, not because of the tone shift, but because they told simpler stories and created more in-depth characters, spending time on their stories and who they were first. I feel like I understand both of them more than I do Superman or Batman. Suicide Squad is a whole other mess, but with similar issues as the other Snyder films.

 

We've all been over Justice League in this thread. Snyder's Cut to me shows that his style was never my issue. He can make a film with a simpler story, character arcs, and also a bit of hope and victory amongst the darkness.

 

Idk that's my rambling two cents.

[blondheim 1,157]

I think Marvel wastes a lot of time and panders more often than not, over explaining, etc. and then get praised like they are crafting masterpieces. WandaVision is a perfect example. Not to mention the sad overused plot devices. Did we really have Jimmy Woo steal a cellphone in handcuffs? I like entertainment that treats me more my age. I'm not always watching movies with my friends' kids.

 

 

[TSMefford 1,509]

3 minutes ago, blondheim said:

I think Marvel wastes a lot of time and panders more often than not, over explaining, etc. and then get praised like they are crafting masterpieces. WandaVision is a perfect example. Not to mention the sad overused plot devices. Did we really have Jimmy Woo steal a cellphone in handcuffs? I like entertainment that treats me more my age. I'm not always watching movies with my friends' kids.

 

Well. 1.) Just to make it clear: I don't think any Marvel film is a masterpiece. Even the best Marvel film in my eyes only really reaches a 7 or 8 on my overall scale. 2.) I'm not sure about the pandering. What kind of pandering are you meaning? To comic book fans? If so, I would never pick-up on that. I've never read a single Superhero comic in my life. The MCU is my only experience with most of these characters.

 

Sure, the overused plot devices can be eye-rolling, but I'd rather that than whatever convoluted bullshit that was Batman V Superman. It's a god damn superhero movie. I'm fine with them being more accessible for more ages. I think my thing is, I have no issues with Marvel doing their thing the way they do it and I also don't have an issue with DC taking their own darker more stylistic approach, but they still have to abide by some standards of decent writing and good character development. There's a reason why I feel so much more connected to the Marvel characters of the current series vs the DC ones. I grew up with DC. Not through the comics, but I had the old Superman films and had the cartoons and other stuff. You'd think I'd be more excited by the DCEU, but I can't get past the poor character development, convoluted stories, and silly writing. 

 

Marvel has silly writing too, but it doesn't feel as out of place in their world as it does in DC, where they demand to be taken more seriously.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

10 hours ago, SilverTrumpet said:

The difference is that NOBODY liked that movie to want to ever have to think about it again.

 

At first I was thinking that there must be somebody, at least one person, out there who liked TROS, but given that you put NOBODY in all caps, I suppose you must be right.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Just now, Nick1066 said:

 

At first I was thinking that there must be somebody, at least one person, out there who liked TROS, but given that you put NOBODY in all caps, I suppose you must be right.

 

I didn't love it, but I didn't hate it either. I found it to be more mediocre than terrible.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

It's not a great film, or even a great Star Wars film, but it's about as good a finale to the sequel trilogy as I think we could have expected. It's OBVIOUSLY a better film than TLJ, which is CLEARLY an abomination.

[blondheim 1,157]

11 hours ago, TSMefford said:

Sure, the overused plot devices can be eye-rolling, but I'd rather that than whatever convoluted bullshit that was Batman V Superman.

 

And I would rather have Batman v Superman. I'll take a disaster with vision than another mediocre popcorn film any day. Hell, I'll take three. To each their own. I'm over here loving the Martha moment since 2016.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Overall Zack Snyder's film verion is horrible. 4 hours of poor effects,  incoherent story telling, horrific film scoring, and worst of all perhaps the worst cinematography in film history.

 

On the bright side Flash was pretty cool. Amy Adams was almost no existent and I wont ever watch this again. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

26 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

worst of all perhaps the worst cinematography in film history.

 

Probably not the worst (best viewed on an empty stomach).

 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,528]

(weakly, quietly)

I threw up.

[TSMefford 1,509]

6 hours ago, blondheim said:

 

And I would rather have Batman v Superman. I'll take a disaster with vision than another mediocre popcorn film any day. Hell, I'll take three. To each their own. I'm over here loving the Martha moment since 2016.

 

For one thing, do we have to pick one or the other? Why can't Marvel be the "popcorn" films that I don't need my brain for while DC is also something else that isn't a disaster? Marvel doesn't have to be more like DC to be enjoyable. And vice versa. I don't see anything wrong with liking both, but I don't think that is what you're saying necessarily but it's something on my mind.

 

Personally, I'd prefer a competent film, however mediocre. Marvel films are very competent at storytelling and growing their characters. Disasters never feel as good in my eyes, even if they have a vision. Ryan Gosling's Lost River, for example, has a very distinct vision and style, but is utterly incompetent at pulling it off. Therefore I will likely never watch it again. It's so much worse to see squandered potential to me than something that knows what it is and pulls it off well. At some point, the vision isn't worth a damn if I don't care an ounce about the characters and the story is utter nonsense. A "vision" means nothing to me if it is not pulled off with any sense of competency in the writing. Might as well have not had one at all. That's my thoughts on vision.

 

Back up that vision with solid writing and filmmaking and you've got a winner. Otherwise you have much farther to fall. I think Snyder's Justice League pulls off what Batman V Superman failed at.

[Edmilson 7,448]

  

 

Zack Snyder Threatened to Quit Snyder Cut After Studio Pulled New Green Lantern Scene

John Stewart, DC Comics' first African-American superhero, was removed from "Zack Snyder's Justice League."