Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can’t tell if this is parody or not. 

I don't care at all about these ratios of aspect, I'm just happy the trailer finally answered one of my most lingering questions...     We do in fact live in a society. 

There’s some serious comedy gold surrounding this film.    This guy has never actually seen a Terrance Malick film, has he?

1 hour ago, TSMefford said:

 

Yes, you're right. I actually already addressed the iffy-ness about it above. I wouldn't say the platform had anything to do with it though... it is actually Snyder:

 

I suppose I shouldn't say "confirmed" but rather we only have two available options that have been mentioned by Snyder or shown through official sources. Plus, Zack Snyder may be supervising the 1.33:1 version of the film, but that certainly doesn't mean HBO or WB won't get someone on creating a 1.66:1 version, especially since it seems it was at least considered at one point. It was true at one point.

 

 

Fixed. It should work now.

 

It works. I suspect it will work in 1.85 too because that is how they shot the footage. 

 

I think a big reason to do it in 1.33 is to also distinguish it from theatrical. I think had they done it is in 1.85, people would have called this the same exact movie - which at least some of it is.

 

Let's see. It should be interesting. I am sure the day after it lands, there will be lots of fan edits offering the movie in different aspect ratios.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2/18/2021 at 11:15 PM, TSMefford said:

@rough cut It's all good! I enjoy having discussions here, especially over differences. I didn't find you to be too hot-headed. :lol: In that case, I usually don't see a point to engage as I don't think we'll ever come to understand each other, so I just step away. But it seemed like we just had some misunderstandings, which makes sense considering it's a pretty complicated and subjective conversation to an extent. I'm certainly willing to keep cool and put forth the effort in that case.

 

To reiterate. I think it is perfectly fine to have the opinion that it's a bad decision. I don't actually necessarily wholeheartedly defend the decision either in this specific case for Justice League.

 

To do my best at keeping it somewhat short: I think Director's should shoot for and release the aspect ratio they want, regardless of how any of us feel about it. We could discuss how good or bad of a decision it is forever and neither of us would be "right" necessarily. That being said, I actually think the Justice League team took the lazy route when filming and framed shots to work in both ratios while shooting, which ends up diminishing both ratios off and on throughout the movie. So, it's not a model film for 4:3 or 16:9 framing really, but if that's what Snyder wants to do then I say he should go for it. He's the dude in charge. You're totally right though that you don't have to like it. That's why I advocated using the crop in feature on TVs since thats a decision you can make to view it closer to how the 16:9 version would've looked.

 

Basically, I don't necessarily defend the framing itself, but rather his decision to release it that way. And of course I also defend a Director's ability to decide whatever ratio he wants to shoot for initially. Whether or not the ratio is a good idea is entirely up for discussion. I just don't support saying that Director's should all shoot in 16:9 from the get go as I think the ratio is a part of creative storytelling.

 

In the end, my goal was to say: Technically and factually speaking this isn't a 4:3 cropped image, it's the entire film negative (to quash the misconception that there is picture "missing") and Snyder should release the film, however he pleases. You are absolutely correct though that you don't have to like it. I just don't think we can say that he never should've had the opportunity to release it the way he wants. Does that make sense?

 

Well said. I agree with your sentiments towards discussion.

 

I kind of agree that Snyder should be allowed to release it any way he wants... In general, I think it's good that directors, actors, musicians etc can push bounderies, otherwise there'd be no progress made. So I see that I'm contradicting myself here. Let me just point out out again that I'm not against black bars per se. I certatinly don't mind black bars on "old" 4:3 content, or the letterbox bars of a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

 

Had Snyder intended JL to be a throwback to golden age Superman, á la the Fleischer cartoon, from the very beginning I might be singing a different tune. But then, it would've been released that way in the cinemas and home video as well, so...

 

So why all the drama now? Well, the thing that bothers me here, is that Snyder isn't making an indie film. And it was never intended as a throwback to Fleischer. It's a mass marketed, come-all serve-all kind of product. Should that dictate how he is "allowed" to release his movie? Maybe.

 

In the public eye, studio meddling is frowned upon. There are a ton of examples where studio meddling has led to an inferior product. And I do think that te general audience would prefer to have their screens to fill up. I certainly do. That said, I think studio meddling happens all the time. I doubt that any company will give a director $100 mill' (or even $1 mill) and let them do exactly what they want. There will be discussions, pointers, straight out interfering etc etc, the level of “meddling” differing from movie to movie. Probably, for every movie released where studio meddling has lead to an inferior product, there are 100 movies where it has lead to a better product.

 

I get that, in terms of framing, there might be subjective gains in doing it 4:3. There are a few shots that work better, the whisky glass for example. But is the gain of having a propelry framed whisky glass worth the cost of not filling up your widescreen TV?

 

In this case, I'd argue no. Mostly, considering the media which this will be distributed through (watch at home on widescreen TVs). It seems a misstep to me.

 

But, anything can be good. That goes for a new cut of JL in 4:3 as well. We'll just have to wait and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rough cut said:

It's a mass marketed, come-all serve-all kind of product.

 

I mean, it's supposed to be. Lol. But I can think of no crowd-pleaser films more divisive than a Snyder DC Flick or a Star Wars sequel trilogy. Some people legitimately love them and others (like me) absolutely hate them. But I get your point. I'm still stuck in my ways personally. I don't really care to have my screen filled up. So whatever he wants to do, for whatever reason.

 

13 hours ago, Edmilson said:

I imagine watching the 4 hours of this movie will be even worse for those who already watched Whedon's version of the movie and therefore know how the story plays out and all the major beats. 

 

That's me! I can imagine this version might feel tediously slow for that reason. I'm just hoping the new scenes are interesting and who knows, maybe there will be enough that is different about it. I mean, as an example, as far as I've been told the whole "smelling fear" thing in the final battle was an addition by Whedon and that changes the final battle quite a bit without that convenient plot device. Plus, we'll have an entirely different score by Junkie XL (I said different, I didn't say I would like it. Lol)

 

Either way, I'm gonna try to get through it, mostly for the comparative and curiosity purpose. I do legitimately worry that it'll be as hard to get through as the Batman V Superman Ultimate Edition, which I watched for the first time with friends while we all tried to follow what we happening and we all felt like crap by the end. So damn boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

In the public eye, studio meddling is frowned upon. There are a ton of examples where studio meddling has led to an inferior product.

 

Studio meddling is probably underrated actually. We generally only get one side of the story when this happens (usually from the director, but often writers also) and usually when it goes wrong.  I bet for every time the studio "meddled" to the detriment of a film, there are ten where the notes made for a better movie. Sometimes directors can't get over themselves and need to be reigned in. Even the best writers need good editors, and sometimes the best directors have crap ideas and need to be told no.  Hollywood is full of passion projects that sucked from great directors who got powerful enough to do whatever they wanted.

 

Directors very rarely have complete control over every aspect of what they make, and most films, including those most of us love and would regard as classics, represent a compromise to one degree or another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems everybody is taking a massive shit on Joss Whedon's career:

 

Quote

Warner Bros. Executive Slams Joss Whedon’s ‘Justice League’ Cut: ‘Stupefying’ and ‘Piece of Sh*t’

 

The anonymous executive tells Vanity Fair that nobody at Warner Bros. wanted to admit how horrible Whedon's "Justice League" came out.

 

With the release of “Zack Snyder’s Justice League” now under one month away from streaming on HBO Max, one Warner Bros. executive is holding nothing back about his thoughts on the theatrical release of the film that bombed with critics in November 2017. Snyder left “Justice League” in post-production due to a family tragedy, and Warner Bros. brought in Joss Whedon to oversee the film’s completion and to direct reshoots that lightened up Snyder’s bleak tone. The resulting “Justice League” theatrical cut was a critical and commercial failure for Warner Bros. Speaking anonymously to Vanity Fair, one studio executive said everyone at Warner Bros. knew Whedon’s “Justice League” was a bomb.

 

“When we got to see what Joss actually did, it was stupefying,” the Warner Bros. executive said. “Everyone knew it. It was so awkward because nobody wanted to admit what a piece of shit it was.”

 

Even before Snyder walked away from “Justice League,” the director was forced to battle Warner Bros. for creative control of the project. The studio dispatched DC Entertainment creative chief Geoff Johns and Warner Bros. co-production head Jon Berg to the production, where one of them would need to be on set every day monitoring Snyder and making sure the film wasn’t becoming too dark for Warner Bros.’ liking.

 

“You could say babysit,” Snyder said to Vanity Fair about Johns and Berg’s role on the film. “It didn’t bother me too much because they weren’t that threatening. I just felt the ideas they did have, where they were trying to inject humor and stuff like that, it wasn’t anything that was too outrageous.”

 

The studio also forced Snyder to cut out certain plot threads, including a proposed romance between Ben Affleck’s Batman and Amy Adams’ Lois Lane, and forbid him to make a version of the movie longer than two hours.

 

“How am I supposed to introduce six characters and an alien with potential for world domination in two hours?” Snyder said. “I mean, I can do it, it can be done. Clearly it was done. But I didn’t see it.”

 

To this day, Snyder has never seen Whedon’s “Justice League cut. Deborah Snyder, Snyder’s producing partner and wife, saw a private screening of Whedon’s cut before the film’s release and advised Zack to stay away from Whedon’s version. Deborah told Vanity Fair, ““It was just…it’s a weird experience. I don’t know how many people have that experience. You’ve worked on something for a long time, and then you leave, and then you see what happened to it.”

 

Deborah Snyder watched Whedon’s “Justice League” cut with Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros.’ “Dark Knight” trilogy director and one of the executive producers of Snyder’s DC films. After the screening, Nolan and Deborah went to Zack with a clear message.

 

“They came and they just said, ‘You can never see that movie,’” Zack Snyder said.

 

https://www.indiewire.com/2021/02/warner-bros-joss-whedon-justice-league-stupefying-1234618417/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. Wow. Idk about that Vanity Fair article. Some of it sounds a bit gossipy, but I honestly wouldn't be too surprised if it were true though.

 

But yeah it's a lose lose situation with this film. A Batman/Lois relationship? Ridiculous. That image of the Joker is just a bunch of WTF. It sounds like we're just getting two different kinds of trainwreck, but I'm still going to try and go in with an open mind... Try...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find I resonate most with this quote from the Varity article:

 

“I would rather watch one person’s chaos than a committee’s snooze-fest.”

 

Absolutely a fair point. It may not be good (in my opinion), but at least it's this one dudes committed "vision". I liken it to Lost River, that movie (I think) is terrible and absolutely bonkers, but no committee would ever make anything like it and it's certainly left an impression on me. Lol. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The article also briefly touches on the aspect ratio thing

 

Quote

In what may be a divisive move, he’s also presenting the movie in the boxy 4:3 format rather than wide-screen so that one day it can be watched on IMAX screens. Some may be irritated by seeing Justice League on HBO Max with black bars on either side. Snyder isn’t troubled by that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that @Jay. Wasn't gonna say anything :P

 

But good. I wouldn't be troubled by it either. His DC films are divisive no matter what aspect ratio they're in. He might as well get to do it the way he wants since plenty of people will hate it anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 8:58 AM, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

All of Snyder's ideas sound horrible and they're taking a dump on what Whedon slapped together. Seems like either way you lose.


taking a dump on a pile of shit?

Josstice League is a fun, somewhat harmless dumpster fire, and Whedon took plenty of time (allegedly) to dump all over Snyder's work so meh. 

 

Complaints about the AR make no sense to me, given people have been watching CinemaScope movies with horizontal black bars on TVs for years now. Letterboxed content. 

Also, I've been watching a shit-ton of Star Trek so I'm just seeing pillarboxed material all the time now. 

If anyone wants to fill their TVs with 16:9 content using Snyder Cut, just zoom in to approximate a center crop of the image you'd likely have seen in theaters. Nothing is missing from the AR Snyder chose. That's the point of him choosing it. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the early DVD era, the big education campaign from the studios at the time was so simplified, it led many folks to believe that all widescreen movies would reveal more information at the sides that were chopped off for pan-and-scan presentations. But we all know widescreen processes aren't a one-size-fits-all. Those campaigns neglected the nuances of various formats like spherical and Super 35, which are much more flexible than anamorphic, but that would just confuse Joe Blow who we've now converted to love his new 16:9 widescreen telly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

I just watch Enterprise. It's the only one in 16:9 and doesn't waste any of my TV's space with black bars.

 

It's been a long road...


Man Sisko should bitch-slap that song outta existence. 

1 hour ago, The Big Man said:

In the early DVD era, the big education campaign from the studios at the time was so simplified, it led many folks to believe that all widescreen movies would reveal more information at the sides that were chopped off for pan-and-scan presentations. But we all know widescreen processes aren't a one-size-fits-all. Those campaigns neglected the nuances of various formats like spherical and Super 35, which are much more flexible than anamorphic, but that would just confuse Joe Blow who we've now converted to love his new 16:9 widescreen telly.


There was one, I think Digital Bits, that had some good examples using Terminator 2, Titanic, Independence Day (that one full of hard-matted effects that didn't benefit from Super 35 the way the rest of the film did) if I recall. But any type of mass-marketing campaign was rare. Fox had their "Widescreen Series" VHS releases with promos showing side-by-side comparisons. Minor stuff. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, NL197 said:

Josstice League is a fun, somewhat harmless dumpster fire, and Whedon took plenty of time (allegedly) to dump all over Snyder's work so meh. 

 

 

Agreed. Whedon's JL is bad, but it's at least a harmless way of spending two hours. It's more watchable than Snyder's BvS, which was awful.

 

Problem is, as a DC fan, I always thought the Justice League deserved a movie as big and epic as any of the Avengers movies. It should've been the greatest super-hero team up of all time. Instead, we got diet Avengers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

I prefer trusting on Rotten Tomatoes:

 

BvS: 28% critics, 62% audience

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_v_superman_dawn_of_justice

 

JL: 40% critics, 71% audience

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/justice_league_2017

 

But yeah, neither movie are good, I just think JL is slightly less awful as BvS.

 

That's more like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Edmilson said:

I prefer trusting on Rotten Tomatoes:

 

BvS: 28% critics, 62% audience

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_v_superman_dawn_of_justice

 

JL: 40% critics, 71% audience

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/justice_league_2017

 

But yeah, neither movie are good, I just think JL is slightly less awful as BvS.

 

You can't trust RT. Disney owns the critics!  And many of the 'audience' over there follow the critics' lead. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @Edmilson and @TSMefford that RT at least seems a bit more balanced than IMDB.

 

I often feel that the score on IMDB is very arbitrary: movies of very different quality often scores between 5-7, which makes extremely hard to conclude “is it bad? Is it good?” based on the rating, if the rating is there between. It can literally mean anything.

 

Objectively “good” movies tend to be at least >7, and objectively “bad” movies tend to be <5.

 

I might even be inclined to say that it’s >8 for a “consensus” that the movie is good, and if it’s <6, it’s probably poor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just intimidated by the U.S. critics, rough cut. ;)

 

IMDb is based on an actual numerical score while RT is based on the percentage of negative and positive reviews. And how many reviewers are scared to be honest? In reality, however, I usually find both RT and IMDb to come to the same conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TSMefford said:

Of course it does. Also. I bet it's not actually that massive.

 

Problem is, there shouldn't be a cliffhanger at all. I mean, if Snyder knew that WB wouldn't produce a sequel for his JL, so why end it with a cliffhanger that will never get a resolution? 

 

It's like if the MCU ended with Infinity War.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...