JohnHwangDD wrote:
On the contrary. Snyder is the only director to ever "get" that Superman is a literal God made manifest on Earth.

Thing is, for me, that's old news. How many "like Superman, only dark / inhuman / crazy / dickish" characters have there been in comics and related franchises by now? Just off the top of my head, I can think of Miracleman, Plutonian, Supreme, Ultraman, Superboy Prime, Dr Manhattan, that evil Hyperion from Exiles, Injustice Superman, every time regular Superman gets mindswapped or mind controlled....for me, it's completely tapped.

Now, the really shockingly innovative and original idea for me is that of a Superman who could rule or destroy the world....but he simply isn't interested in doing that, he'd much rather hang out, enjoy living a human life and help people whenever they need it. And Lex Luthor works as a villain because he embodies the cynicism & paranoia of those who can't imagine power not corrupting. I wasn't keen on Man of Steel, but there was one line by the end that I really liked.

"You're afraid of me because you can't control me. But that doesn't mean I'm your enemy."

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

On the contrary. Snyder is the only director to ever "get" that Superman is a literal God made manifest on Earth.

Honestly, I think this is one of the more misguided directions we've seen with Superman; not the idea that the world reacts to him as a living God, that's a great angle; but the failure to understand that what makes the character interesting is that fundamentally Clark is a pretty normal human.

Batman and Superman have always worked as opposites and one of the long standing Batman truths is that Bruce Wayne is a mask that Batman wears. The flip side often gets forgotten (famously, Kill Bill has an entire soliloquy about this). It's easy to treat Clark Kent as Superman's disguise but its not; it's who he really is. Clark Kent is a real boy with dreams of being accepted as part of humanity for who he is and not what he can do. He wants people to read his ideas and find them interesting; he wants friends that treat him like any other and he wants the girl he likes to love him in return. Superman can't really have these things because his abilities isolate him from the rest of the world; he needs to be Superman because the world needs Superman, but Clark Kent wants the world to love Clark Kent.

To me that's the biggest failing, certainly of Man of Steel but also of most of DC's attempts to rework the character in general. He needs a family back home to ground him and he needs Clark Kent to provide him with challenges he can't simply punch through.

 LunarSol wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

On the contrary. Snyder is the only director to ever "get" that Superman is a literal God made manifest on Earth.

Honestly, I think this is one of the more misguided directions we've seen with Superman; not the idea that the world reacts to him as a living God, that's a great angle; but the failure to understand that what makes the character interesting is that fundamentally Clark is a pretty normal human.

Batman and Superman have always worked as opposites and one of the long standing Batman truths is that Bruce Wayne is a mask that Batman wears. The flip side often gets forgotten (famously, Kill Bill has an entire soliloquy about this). It's easy to treat Clark Kent as Superman's disguise but its not; it's who he really is. Clark Kent is a real boy with dreams of being accepted as part of humanity for who he is and not what he can do. He wants people to read his ideas and find them interesting; he wants friends that treat him like any other and he wants the girl he likes to love him in return. Superman can't really have these things because his abilities isolate him from the rest of the world; he needs to be Superman because the world needs Superman, but Clark Kent wants the world to love Clark Kent.

To me that's the biggest failing, certainly of Man of Steel but also of most of DC's attempts to rework the character in general. He needs a family back home to ground him and he needs Clark Kent to provide him with challenges he can't simply punch through.

Indeed, excellent points - it even comes up in JLA when Batman talks about Superman having more humanity than he has.

 Elemental wrote:
a Superman who could rule or destroy the world....but he simply isn't interested in doing that, he'd much rather hang out, enjoy living a human life and help people whenever they need it

I've been reading some of the Rebirth comics recently and there's a good part about that.



There's a lot of great little interactions there, Superman and his son, basically do the natural human thing, return the high five. Then everyone else shows their personality in their own ways.

LunarSol wrote: Batman and Superman have always worked as opposites and one of the long standing Batman truths is that Bruce Wayne is a mask that Batman wears.

Another good one, in the Rebirth version of when Wonder Woman, Superman and Batman first meet together.



These are just perfect subtle moments, a few lines and a handful of panels that just capture the characters so well.

These are just perfect subtle moments, a few lines and a handful of panels that just capture the characters so well.

Exactly - I thought that JLA did a good job of similar short but encapsulating statements on screen for the various hero's

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Much like Age of Ultron, Whedon's last movie, this should have been at least 20 minutes longer and was cut down by studio interference... though that's a moot point as the version we should have got is the one that concluded Snyder's trilogy, remained true to the established tone of the universe and had even a modicum of gravitas and weight that made it work on more than just one level of shooty punchy bang bang...

We are never going to get Snyder's trilogy. Warner mucked up the 2nd film by making it JL-lite, and then thoroughly blenderized the 3rd by having Whedon heavily rework it.

Thank god for that - A third film of that trilogy would likely have killed the franchise.

On the contrary. Snyder is the only director to ever "get" that Superman is a literal God made manifest on Earth.

And did nothing with it - well except have some pathetic Joker wananbe whine about every moment he capered on screen.

That's 100% Warner making Snyder's Superman movie into a Batman movie. Don't blame Snyder for Warner's meddling.

Snyder's Superman is MoS. Everything after that is Warner.

Warner made him use Eisenstein and the pathetic parody of a charcater that he excreted onto the screen? I was not aware of that, Luthor is a Superman charater not a Batman one, was that all Warner then?

Warner made Lex into a Batman-like Joker/Riddler.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Much like Age of Ultron, Whedon's last movie, this should have been at least 20 minutes longer and was cut down by studio interference... though that's a moot point as the version we should have got is the one that concluded Snyder's trilogy, remained true to the established tone of the universe and had even a modicum of gravitas and weight that made it work on more than just one level of shooty punchy bang bang...

We are never going to get Snyder's trilogy. Warner mucked up the 2nd film by making it JL-lite, and then thoroughly blenderized the 3rd by having Whedon heavily rework it.

Thank god for that - A third film of that trilogy would likely have killed the franchise.

On the contrary. Snyder is the only director to ever "get" that Superman is a literal God made manifest on Earth.

And did nothing with it - well except have some pathetic Joker wananbe whine about every moment he capered on screen.

That's 100% Warner making Snyder's Superman movie into a Batman movie. Don't blame Snyder for Warner's meddling.

Snyder's Superman is MoS. Everything after that is Warner.

Warner made him use Eisenstein and the pathetic parody of a charcater that he excreted onto the screen? I was not aware of that, Luthor is a Superman charater not a Batman one, was that all Warner then?

Warner made Lex into a Batman-like Joker/Riddler.

Good to know who to blame - I had not seen that before - is there an interview or similar that confirms?

There's everything that Snyder has done before, and everything that Warner has done.

 LunarSol wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

On the contrary. Snyder is the only director to ever "get" that Superman is a literal God made manifest on Earth.

Honestly, I think this is one of the more misguided directions we've seen with Superman; not the idea that the world reacts to him as a living God, that's a great angle; but the failure to understand that what makes the character interesting is that fundamentally Clark is a pretty normal human.

Batman and Superman have always worked as opposites and one of the long standing Batman truths is that Bruce Wayne is a mask that Batman wears. The flip side often gets forgotten (famously, Kill Bill has an entire soliloquy about this). It's easy to treat Clark Kent as Superman's disguise but its not; it's who he really is. Clark Kent is a real boy with dreams of being accepted as part of humanity for who he is and not what he can do. He wants people to read his ideas and find them interesting; he wants friends that treat him like any other and he wants the girl he likes to love him in return. Superman can't really have these things because his abilities isolate him from the rest of the world; he needs to be Superman because the world needs Superman, but Clark Kent wants the world to love Clark Kent.

To me that's the biggest failing, certainly of Man of Steel but also of most of DC's attempts to rework the character in general. He needs a family back home to ground him and he needs Clark Kent to provide him with challenges he can't simply punch through.

Exalted.

Perhaps they should now invite QT to direct the next Superman movie?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There's everything that Snyder has done before, and everything that Warner has done.

Sorry not sure I understand - is there anything that states that Warner got Eisenstein to make such a terrible job of the role - that Synder had nothing to do with it or any of the other issues in the film?

 LunarSol wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

On the contrary. Snyder is the only director to ever "get" that Superman is a literal God made manifest on Earth.

Honestly, I think this is one of the more misguided directions we've seen with Superman; not the idea that the world reacts to him as a living God, that's a great angle; but the failure to understand that what makes the character interesting is that fundamentally Clark is a pretty normal human.

Batman and Superman have always worked as opposites and one of the long standing Batman truths is that Bruce Wayne is a mask that Batman wears. The flip side often gets forgotten (famously, Kill Bill has an entire soliloquy about this). It's easy to treat Clark Kent as Superman's disguise but its not; it's who he really is. Clark Kent is a real boy with dreams of being accepted as part of humanity for who he is and not what he can do. He wants people to read his ideas and find them interesting; he wants friends that treat him like any other and he wants the girl he likes to love him in return. Superman can't really have these things because his abilities isolate him from the rest of the world; he needs to be Superman because the world needs Superman, but Clark Kent wants the world to love Clark Kent.

To me that's the biggest failing, certainly of Man of Steel but also of most of DC's attempts to rework the character in general. He needs a family back home to ground him and he needs Clark Kent to provide him with challenges he can't simply punch through.

Actually, I don't understand the original statement. The Superman of MoS is far more grounded than anything we saw in the Donner film. MoS certainly played with the Christ thing, but so did Donner ("I have sent them you, my only son") and that's been subtly there in the comics for decades.

In Donner & Puzo's story, after he goes to the Fortress, he becomes Superman (the distance shot of the control console establishing this) and his Clark Kent identity is reduced to a mask. Note that we don't see his mother again in the film -- it's established that he directs some of his wages to her, but her absence communicates that part of his life isn't as relevant as it once was. Also note that in the comics of the era, both of his parents were dead and no longer relevant. In the Supergod tradition, Jor-El and Lara are his true parents, while Jonathan and Martha are more like earthly caretakers (similar to Joseph, if we want to return to the Christ analogy).

MoS follows post-Crisis tradition in that he *IS* Clark Kent, with Superman being the role he plays in order to do what he does and keep a normal life. The Donner Superman was the pre-Crisis Kryptonian god who *IS* Superman, with his bumbling Clark Kent identity a falsehood he wears in order to be able to easily move around Earth people. And it's important to note that one or even both of Clark's Earth parents are alive in most modern renditions. (This changed again recently in the New 52, but I have a hunch that we may see Jonathan and Martha restored after the current Doomsday Clock storyline is complete.) This is very important for the Superdude version, because while J & M aren't his biological parents, they're presented as the people who most *formed* him.

Supergod and Superdude are quite different kinds of Supermen. And to disagree with both of you, both approaches have been successful at different times. Superdude has mostly been the status quo in comics and other media for the past few decades, but Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman also successfully dusted off the pre-Crisis Supergod take.

I think it mostly comes down to picking a direction and understanding it.

I don't personally hold the Donner movies on quite the pedestal as others (bits like Gene Hackman's Lex and notably both of the random Deus Ex Superpower endings and pretty clunky) but I understand why Reeves remains the iconic Superman to many. It's worth noting that for all the pre-Crisis "powers save the day" bits of the plot, the meat of the story of the two films is still Clark wishing for normalcy.

Again, I don't actually take issue with the Christ analogue, I take issue with the character beneath it. Clark in Man of Steel simply lacks an appreciation for community that I find crucial to making the character work. He's so detached and given so little to connect with that he comes across even blander than usual.

Also, I won't argue for a moment that historically Superman has been given the Supergod treatment and ignored a lot of his humanity. My argument is that those roads have regularly lead to audiences losing touch with the character. I'm arguing that for Superman to really work as more than an overpowered boyscout, his struggles need to be rooted in his human dreams and conflicts.

Superman is interesting as a reflection of his roots; that's why Overman and Red Son work. Even Dr. Manhattan works as an answer to what happens if you strip Superman of what makes him human. I think that shows just how important Smallville is to making the character work, but far too often that seems to be left out of the equation.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There's everything that Snyder has done before, and everything that Warner has done.

Sorry not sure I understand - is there anything that states that Warner got Eisenstein to make such a terrible job of the role - that Synder had nothing to do with it or any of the other issues in the film?

I quite enjoyed his Luthor

I'd guess this more fits in to him being "Superdad" nowadays rather than "Supergod" and "Superdude."

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There's everything that Snyder has done before, and everything that Warner has done.

Sorry not sure I understand - is there anything that states that Warner got Eisenstein to make such a terrible job of the role - that Synder had nothing to do with it or any of the other issues in the film?

I quite enjoyed his Luthor

While Snyder had to have given Eisenberg direction and feedback along the way, there are almost certainly aspects of the character that were the actor's choices. You don't get an Academy Award nominee for a role and then micromanage his performance. Actors seem to like working for Snyder, so I'd also guess that he's very collaborative and gives his actors room to work and some ownership.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There's everything that Snyder has done before, and everything that Warner has done.

Sorry not sure I understand - is there anything that states that Warner got Eisenstein to make such a terrible job of the role - that Synder had nothing to do with it or any of the other issues in the film?

In no other Snyder movies is there anything like that character, but Warner has had similar characters, and still does.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There's everything that Snyder has done before, and everything that Warner has done.

Sorry not sure I understand - is there anything that states that Warner got Eisenstein to make such a terrible job of the role - that Synder had nothing to do with it or any of the other issues in the film?

In no other Snyder movies is there anything like that character, but Warner has had similar characters, and still does.

Ah so its speculation? Good to know.

I quite enjoyed his Luthor

Intrigued to know what you liked as I hated every moment he was on screen.

While Snyder had to have given Eisenberg direction and feedback along the way, there are almost certainly aspects of the character that were the actor's choices. You don't get an Academy Award nominee for a role and then micromanage his performance. Actors seem to like working for Snyder, so I'd also guess that he's very collaborative and gives his actors room to work and some ownership.

I wonder what feedback was given to make that shambolic performance what it was? I have also read several people saying its a direct rip off of Heath Ledgers work on the Joker? It certainly plays out that way on screen.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There's everything that Snyder has done before, and everything that Warner has done.

Sorry not sure I understand - is there anything that states that Warner got Eisenstein to make such a terrible job of the role - that Synder had nothing to do with it or any of the other issues in the film?

I quite enjoyed his Luthor

Having not read the comics, how was Lex portrayed in those? I'm going purely off the Gene Hackman, malicious, conniving, extremely intelligent Lex Luthor of the Christoper Reeve films. You got the strong impression of danger, and being borderline psychotic (but still in control of himself).
The Eisenberg was very much different to that as has been pointed out.

I much prefer the Gene Hackman version (not just in terms of the acting, but as a concept of character) but I would be interested to know how the character was originally conceptualised.

 Pacific wrote:

I much prefer the Gene Hackman version (not just in terms of the acting, but as a concept of character) but I would be interested to know how the character was originally conceptualised.

If you are asking how the Luther character was conceptualized in the comics, think malevolent megalomaniac with unlimited resources at his disposal. There is much more to it, but I haven't read Superman comics in a long time.

If you mean how the BvS Lex was conceptualized, I don't know.

Originally he was just a mad scientist who blamed Superman for the loss of his glorious hair. His portrayal has changed a lot over the years so there really isn't a singular version to point at.

I've not read much DC at all. But I can totally recommend Lex Luthor, Man of Steel.

Ah. I had always seen him portrayed as an extremely wealthy businessman.

 kronk wrote:
Ah. I had always seen him portrayed as an extremely wealthy businessman.

Yeah, that's the post-Crisis (i.e. since 1985) version. Eisenberg's Luthor was a little different, but then I don't think Hackman's version feels like any Lex I've seen in the comics, then or now. The pre-Crisis version was a mad scientist but also a man of action.



The post-Crisis version was a xenophobic business magnate who didn't need nukes and crazy schemes to enrich himself.



The New 52/Rebirth version has combined these two (yeah, he's wearing a cape and the 'S', long story).



I never really understood where they were going with Hackman's Lex. He seemed third-rate. "Enter...Land Grabber!"

Lex is one of those characters who is whatever the story needs him to be, but my favourite iterations are definitely the ones where he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing for the right reasons. It's why I like Forever Evil so much; yes, he stands to gain a lot for what he does in that event and he's definitely calculating that, but he's also stepping up to save the world when no one else can or will. Much like the Rebirth version, taking on the Superman 'identity' might be on one level just to try inflate his ego, but he also recognises that the world needs a Superman.

I find those version much more compelling than the outright evil ones, though there's some good stuff there to; the Lex Luthor: Man of Steel that Mad Doc suggested is phenomenal.

Yeah, the New 52/Rebirth Lex has been a borderline good guy at times, even joining the JL. Of course, as readers we get to see his internal monologue and know that he's still a self-interested guy. Still a lot less evil than some previous versions, though.

I'd say "Forever Evil" is a good place to start for the modern Lex, rather than going staight into "Lex Luthor: Man of Steel" as 'Forever Evil' does let you see him being well, classic Lex bad guy at the start and the extra layers are being revealed. Rather than vice versa.

Opening Lines of Forever Evil:

Lex Luthor wrote:
I once saved a cat from a tree. My sisters kitten had gotten itself stuck up an old white oak stretching over Elbow River. Lena's incessant pleading motivated me to climb to the rescue.

When I reached out to help the trapped animal, it did what most trapped animals do: It lashed out.

It scratched me.

So I threw it into the river.

It didn't understand.

I was only trying to save it.

There's just so much of the character in those lines. His ego, his insanity, it's all wrapped up in there. And it's not Loopy Lex's shouting at the sky insanity, it's something else... A completely amoral point of view. It just makes him so interesting as a character.

Lex is best when written as a product of ego. He's the smartest, most important man in the world; he knows what's best for everyone; and he often doesn't comprehend why everyone else isn't smart enough to realize this.

Generally speaking, when it comes to DC characters other than Batman and probably Wonder Woman, I just adore Geoff John's interpretation of them. It kind of saddens and baffles me that since he's moved to creative director we haven't seen very much of that bleed through to other properties. There's this odd phantom of his fingerprints in the mix, but not the spectacular understanding of the characters and how to make them compelling.

 LunarSol wrote:
Lex is best when written as a product of ego. He's the smartest, most important man in the world; he knows what's best for everyone; and he often doesn't comprehend why everyone else isn't smart enough to realize this.

Lex Luthor may be a smart and wealthy man, but even he must bow before Victor von DOOM!

Unlike Lex, Doom actually *does* know what's best for everyone and represents one of our few chances for utopia on Earth.

 LunarSol wrote:
Lex is best when written as a product of ego. He's the smartest, most important man in the world; he knows what's best for everyone; and he often doesn't comprehend why everyone else isn't smart enough to realize this.

Generally speaking, when it comes to DC characters other than Batman and probably Wonder Woman, I just adore Geoff John's interpretation of them. It kind of saddens and baffles me that since he's moved to creative director we haven't seen very much of that bleed through to other properties. There's this odd phantom of his fingerprints in the mix, but not the spectacular understanding of the characters and how to make them compelling.

Well, Johns' influence (and DCEU 2.0) will truly begin with Aquaman, since BvS was in theaters and JL was already filming(?) at the time of his promotion. Although he was one of the writers on the WW screenplay.

Regarding WW, I'm glad that the films are keeping some of the New 52/Azzarello elements. That run was epic. What's come since...has not been.

 gorgon wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Lex is best when written as a product of ego. He's the smartest, most important man in the world; he knows what's best for everyone; and he often doesn't comprehend why everyone else isn't smart enough to realize this.

Generally speaking, when it comes to DC characters other than Batman and probably Wonder Woman, I just adore Geoff John's interpretation of them. It kind of saddens and baffles me that since he's moved to creative director we haven't seen very much of that bleed through to other properties. There's this odd phantom of his fingerprints in the mix, but not the spectacular understanding of the characters and how to make them compelling.

Well, Johns' influence (and DCEU 2.0) will truly begin with Aquaman, since BvS was in theaters and JL was already filming(?) at the time of his promotion. Although he was one of the writers on the WW screenplay.

Regarding WW, I'm glad that the films are keeping some of the New 52/Azzarello elements. That run was epic. What's come since...has not been.

I keep forgetting how recent that promotion is because I keep thinking about his 2010 promotion to CCO of DC Comics. So much of his stuff has been the basis for DC films and shows (notably Season 1 Flash and the GL movie) that I forget he didn't really have that much control in how they were adapted.

I was really thrilled they left the Zeus thing in for sure. Didn't really get why Ares throws lightning bolts, but Azzarello has certainly written the definitive revamp of the character, which is why I primarily give Johns credit to just Hal, Arthur, Barry, and at time Clark.

So, in the movie they hint at the Old Gods were dead. Steppenwolf and his team are the New Gods.

Does the DCEU/Comics talk about that in any detail? Is there a hardback collection I should be looking for? Want happened to Artemis and Zeus and so forth.

Wonder Woman explains where Zeus and Co got to, they were taken out by Ares. I imagine Aquaman will have a similar explanation of what became of Atlantis as a civilisation.

 Mr Morden wrote:

I quite enjoyed his Luthor

Intrigued to know what you liked as I hated every moment he was on screen.

I liked the fact he was clearly very intelligent and educated, but increasingly unhinged and tended to spill into maniacal strand of consciousness. I liked him being chaotic, cunning and over the top. I really don’t take the films too seriously, maybe he’s not like how he is in the comics, but who cares? To many characters are forgettable in DC films, he at least stood out.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
To many characters are forgettable in DC films, he at least stood out.

Oh, really?

They could quite easily go into, for example...

"Poseidon, knowing his death at the hand of Areas was inevitable, entrusted his greatest weapon, his trident to those that would guard his realm after he was gone. - The people of Atlantis, who took over the stewardship of the seas, until the day that Poseidon would return again..."


The thing is, with Gods, they don't really have a tendency to stay dead. Particularly, if, for example, if there is actually a God of the Dead...

It wouldn't surprise me if eventually they do a thing of having the Gods being freed from their imprisonment in Tartarus by Wonder Woman 3 or so.

 Easy E wrote:
So, in the movie they hint at the Old Gods were dead. Steppenwolf and his team are the New Gods.

Does the DCEU/Comics talk about that in any detail? Is there a hardback collection I should be looking for? Want happened to Artemis and Zeus and so forth.

I'm not sure what's going on in the WW books at the moment, but at least until fairly recently the Greek gods weren't dead in the comics.

Are you familiar with Jack Kirby's Fourth World/New Gods stuff? It was originally its own thing, and doesn't directly tie into the DC universe's Greek gods.

If you want some great stuff involving the DC Greek gods, look for the trade paperbacks of Brian Azzarello's run on WW. I think that would be issues 1-35 of Wonder Woman during the New 52 era. It's the best run on the character ever IMO. Part of the strength of it is that it builds a family of sorts of gods and demigods (including one New God) around Diana. And so many of those gods and demigods are great characters, presented in very creative ways.

@LunarSol -- Agreed on the lightning, although I guess Jenkins figured he was also a child of Zeus?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
The thing is, with Gods, they don't really have a tendency to stay dead. Particularly, if, for example, if there is actually a God of the Dead...

It wouldn't surprise me if eventually they do a thing of having the Gods being freed from their imprisonment in Tartarus by Wonder Woman 3 or so.

Agreed that they may return. It was a mistake to 'kill' them IMO, just because Azzarello's run showed how interesting Diana's relationships with her divine brothers and sisters could be.

I've been reading Wonder Woman Rebirth.

As it stands, the Greek Gods are kind of around. There's a few wandering about, various ones are imprisoned and so on.

Overall, it looks like Diana's "patrons" are either staying on Mount Olympus, or bound to there in some way. - While they do interact with her, they're essentially avatars.

EG

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
To many characters are forgettable in DC films, he at least stood out.

Oh, really?

Well in the modern continuity. I enjoy the older films, Batman Returns especially, even though Danny Devito’s Penguin is not like that of the comics.

Kind of an interesting article here.

http://www.elfanboy.com/blog/el-fanboy-exclusive-dc-films-betting-big-on-the-legion-of-doom-moving-forward

Not sure how good the guy's sources are, although the dude at Batman on Film seems to vouch for him (although HIS sources aren't quite what they used to be either). Main takeaways for me:

- WB knew JL had issues, but the not-too-bad second weekend drop gives them hope they can break even.
- They aren't worried about what Zack Snyder fans think.
- They know that the Deathstroke/Luthor post-credit sequence has been well-received, and are looking to make the formation of a Legion of Doom/Injustice League the connective tissue for the next round of DC films.

The last item is kinda interesting as an inversion of what Marvel did with the Avengers. So presumably the post-credit sequences would be about the bad guys recruiting and forming up, similar to Marvel's Nick Fury sequences. If true, I think it shows that they learned what Marvel figured out a long time ago -- namely, that moving connective tissue scenes mid- and post-credits helps keep the film itself a lot cleaner. BvS, I'm looking at you.

Regarding the first item, I do think the evidence points to WB giving up on JL to a certain degree, and instead focusing on making sure it put the characters in a better place for future films.

Deathstroke is an inherently good character for Warner, because he's basically anti-Batman. While he's dark and gritty and human, he turns the Batman thing on its head by having a family that he cares about.

Gawds, I hope we see Rose and her bestie Raven...

Building up toward Legion of Doom instead of Avengers sounds like a really interesting idea, I'd be down to see how that pans out. Luthor himself is going to be a huge issue with that for me personally, I just can't take Jesse Eisenberg seriously as a villain. He doesn't have the presence needed to be the core of that idea.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Building up toward Legion of Doom instead of Avengers sounds like a really interesting idea, I'd be down to see how that pans out. Luthor himself is going to be a huge issue with that for me personally, I just can't take Jesse Eisenberg seriously as a villain. He doesn't have the presence needed to be the core of that idea.

Agreed - he is the consistent (very) weak point of the films - either ditch the actor and get someone who understands the character or direct him correctly but his Loopy Lex will always drag the films down as it currently being portrayed (I use the word generously).

No idea who Deathstroke is so interested to see what he is in the film universe.

 Mr Morden wrote:

No idea who Deathstroke is so interested to see what he is in the film universe.

Think Cable's brain inside Deadpool's body and you've got a decent start.

Deadpool himself was originally just a blatant ripoff of the character. The goofball persona was added later; the version Rob Liefield made was more or less a carbon copy. They even essentially have the same real name (Deathstroke is Slade Wilson).

More like Deathstroke is a copy of Deadpool. DC naming their guy "Slade Wilson" instead of "Wade Wilson" is a dead giveaway. >.>

As noted before, Deathstroke is more like an evil Batman, to put it in shorthand...

I finally saw Justice League last night. As others have said, I found it to be... OK. Not great, but not awful.

I was concerned from those screenshots I saw that they had replaced Patti Jenkin's version of the Amazons with a sexified version, but I agree with what I've read here: the only reason a few Amazons have exposed bellies is to show off their sick-ass abs as they lift that wall. Exactly the kind of power fantasy male heroes have had since they first comic.

Steppenwulf was OK, but kind of bland. I never really understood his motivations very well. He wants the infinity stones mother boxes, which by the way have a stupid name, so he can have super power, which he will use to impress death to turn earth into a hellscape so he can... leave? This is his schtick, he remakes a planet and leaves? OK.

Henry Cavill's lip wasn't as bad as I feared. Cyborg was better than I expected, although I wonder why an advanced AI that can do essentially technological wizardry can't turn down his LEDs so he can go shopping.

There were some really immersion breaking bad writing parts, though. "You smell good"??? My wife and I immediately looked at each other and started laughing. There was a second one which I can't recall now that was equally bad.

Kinda want to see more of Aquaman now.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
More like Deathstroke is a copy of Deadpool. DC naming their guy "Slade Wilson" instead of "Wade Wilson" is a dead giveaway. >.>

Its the other way around, Deathstroke premiered in 1980, Deadpool in 1991 in the comics

Steppenwolf's original motivation was simply attack Earth and convert it into a hellscape (Presumably, though it was never said in the film, as a prelude for fuel for Apokalips).

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
More like Deathstroke is a copy of Deadpool. DC naming their guy "Slade Wilson" instead of "Wade Wilson" is a dead giveaway. >.>

Its the other way around, Deathstroke premiered in 1980, Deadpool in 1991 in the comics

Deadpool came out in 2016 and Deathstroke only just appeared.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
More like Deathstroke is a copy of Deadpool. DC naming their guy "Slade Wilson" instead of "Wade Wilson" is a dead giveaway. >.>

Its the other way around, Deathstroke premiered in 1980, Deadpool in 1991 in the comics

Deadpool came out in 2016 and Deathstroke only just appeared.

I don’t think he realized you were joking. I thought the shifty eyes were a dead giveaway.

 Ouze wrote:
Cyborg was better than I expected, although I wonder why an advanced AI that can do essentially technological wizardry can't turn down his LEDs so he can go shopping.

Something I neglected to mention before is that while the (obvious reshoot) scene at the end with Vic and his dad is a small thing, it shows you how the studio feels about Snyder's contribution. It's not often that they scrap a character's intended costume/look by the end of the movie in which he/she is introduced. It's like the ending is itself is an expression of the studio moving away from the original director's vision.

There were some really immersion breaking bad writing parts, though. "You smell good"??? My wife and I immediately looked at each other and started laughing. There was a second one which I can't recall now that was equally bad.

Actually, I get it. It's about the way you miss the smell of a person when they're gone. The writer was just a little too cute with the line.

 Compel wrote:
Steppenwolf's original motivation was simply attack Earth and convert it into a hellscape (Presumably, though it was never said in the film, as a prelude for fuel for Apokalips).

Yeah, he was just paving the way for Darkseid in JL Part 2, which, um...

 LunarSol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

No idea who Deathstroke is so interested to see what he is in the film universe.

Think Cable's brain inside Deadpool's body and you've got a decent start.

Deadpool himself was originally just a blatant ripoff of the character. The goofball persona was added later; the version Rob Liefield made was more or less a carbon copy. They even essentially have the same real name (Deathstroke is Slade Wilson).

It’s hardly a ripoff if it’s clearly a parody.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

No idea who Deathstroke is so interested to see what he is in the film universe.

Think Cable's brain inside Deadpool's body and you've got a decent start.

Deadpool himself was originally just a blatant ripoff of the character. The goofball persona was added later; the version Rob Liefield made was more or less a carbon copy. They even essentially have the same real name (Deathstroke is Slade Wilson).

It’s hardly a ripoff if it’s clearly a parody.

Not sure how the original stuff is clearly a parody?

 gorgon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Cyborg was better than I expected, although I wonder why an advanced AI that can do essentially technological wizardry can't turn down his LEDs so he can go shopping.

Something I neglected to mention before is that while the (obvious reshoot) scene at the end with Vic and his dad is a small thing, it shows you how the studio feels about Snyder's contribution. It's not often that they scrap a character's intended costume/look by the end of the movie in which he/she is introduced. It's like the ending is itself is an expression of the studio moving away from the original director's vision.

There were some really immersion breaking bad writing parts, though. "You smell good"??? My wife and I immediately looked at each other and started laughing. There was a second one which I can't recall now that was equally bad.

Actually, I get it. It's about the way you miss the smell of a person when they're gone. The writer was just a little too cute with the line.

 Compel wrote:
Steppenwolf's original motivation was simply attack Earth and convert it into a hellscape (Presumably, though it was never said in the film, as a prelude for fuel for Apokalips).

Yeah, he was just paving the way for Darkseid in JL Part 2, which, um...

Which can still happen. Loki failed Thanos in Avengers. In Avengers 3.5 (CW was really Avengers 3), he’s finally coming to town. Darkseid can show up when he’s ready.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
More like Deathstroke is a copy of Deadpool. DC naming their guy "Slade Wilson" instead of "Wade Wilson" is a dead giveaway. >.>

Its the other way around, Deathstroke premiered in 1980, Deadpool in 1991 in the comics

Deadpool came out in 2016 and Deathstroke only just appeared.

Deathstroke came out in 2012 (He's a reoccurring character on Arrow)

 LunarSol wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

No idea who Deathstroke is so interested to see what he is in the film universe.

Think Cable's brain inside Deadpool's body and you've got a decent start.

Deadpool himself was originally just a blatant ripoff of the character. The goofball persona was added later; the version Rob Liefield made was more or less a carbon copy. They even essentially have the same real name (Deathstroke is Slade Wilson).

It’s hardly a ripoff if it’s clearly a parody.

Not sure how the original stuff is clearly a parody?

Deadpool came second, and is a parody/spoof rather than ripoff of Deathstroke.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Deadpool came second, and is a parody/spoof rather than ripoff of Deathstroke.

He really wasn't originally a spoof in any way though. The comedy stuff was largely added later by Joe Kelly when the character was popular enough to get a solo series. The original story was essentially just "what if Deathstroke attacked the New Mutants instead of the New Teen Titans."

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I've quite enjoyed Moviebob's overlong analysis of BvS. It's quite interesting as its less about getting hung up on things that are bad about the film and more about rooting out the good ideas at the heart of it and explaining why the film fails to get them across. It's an interesting series from a film dissection point of view at the very least.

Holy crap. I need over an hour to watch that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9juReoJxI0&index=2&list=PL1WoYVvJ35Xqeh6JGw1GPMB_HvxB8mSFe

Oof. Just finished the nearly 1-and-a-half hour Part 1. Dude has a lot to say, and he is not wrong. The narrative structure comparative breakdown was quite amusing, and only seems to highlight that these films are being managed, written and edited by Warner, rather than DC, much less the Directors.

After I decompress, I'll watch Part 2.
____

Also, this popped up:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/justice-league-edits-joss-whedon-micromanaged-zack-snyder

When you consider that Warner didn't even trust the ex-Avengers guy to "fix" JL, that kinda explains quite a bit.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I've quite enjoyed Moviebob's overlong analysis of BvS. It's quite interesting as its less about getting hung up on things that are bad about the film and more about rooting out the good ideas at the heart of it and explaining why the film fails to get them across. It's an interesting series from a film dissection point of view at the very least.

Holy crap. I need over an hour to watch that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9juReoJxI0&index=2&list=PL1WoYVvJ35Xqeh6JGw1GPMB_HvxB8mSFe

Oof. Just finished the nearly 1-and-a-half hour Part 1. Dude has a lot to say, and he is not wrong. The narrative structure comparative breakdown was quite amusing, and only seems to highlight that these films are being managed, written and edited by Warner, rather than DC, much less the Directors.

After I decompress, I'll watch Part 2.
____

Also, this popped up:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/justice-league-edits-joss-whedon-micromanaged-zack-snyder

When you consider that Warner didn't even trust the ex-Avengers guy to "fix" JL, that kinda explains quite a bit.

A film by Warner Brothers
Written and Directed by Warner Brothers
Executive Producer Warner Brothers
Producers Warner Brothers
Staring The Warner Brothers.


I suppose that's what happens when you have too much corporate meddling from people who think that because they fund movies, they know how to make movies.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I've quite enjoyed Moviebob's overlong analysis of BvS. It's quite interesting as its less about getting hung up on things that are bad about the film and more about rooting out the good ideas at the heart of it and explaining why the film fails to get them across. It's an interesting series from a film dissection point of view at the very least.

Holy crap. I need over an hour to watch that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9juReoJxI0&index=2&list=PL1WoYVvJ35Xqeh6JGw1GPMB_HvxB8mSFe

Oof. Just finished the nearly 1-and-a-half hour Part 1. Dude has a lot to say, and he is not wrong. The narrative structure comparative breakdown was quite amusing, and only seems to highlight that these films are being managed, written and edited by Warner, rather than DC, much less the Directors.

After I decompress, I'll watch Part 2.
____

Also, this popped up:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/11/justice-league-edits-joss-whedon-micromanaged-zack-snyder

When you consider that Warner didn't even trust the ex-Avengers guy to "fix" JL, that kinda explains quite a bit.

A film by Warner Brothers
Written and Directed by Warner Brothers
Executive Producer Warner Brothers
Producers Warner Brothers
Staring The Warner Brothers.


I suppose that's what happens when you have too much corporate meddling from people who think that because they fund movies, they know how to make movies.

And yet JLA is (subjectively) a far superior film in all respects to Man of Steel and Bats vs Superman.

It looks more like Warner are trying to manage the differences between the styles within the one film than it being a long term problem.

.

Mr. Morden wrote:
And yet JLA is (subjectively) a far superior film in all respects to Man of Steel and Bats vs Superman.

That isn't an accomplishment. It isn't even noteworthy.

Squeezing out a bland and inoffensive movie isn't any sort of achievement at this point. Movie studios know the basic formula by heart, what kind of music goes with what kind of scene, and the basic rhythm of patter and seriousness that a movie needs to hit as it rolls through the stations of each act. But that does not yield anything particularly interesting or impressive as a film in its own right, or give any confidence in what might follow it.

Which amazingly, those following films went from inevitable to 'maybe?' given how badly the prior films wrecked the franchise.

Is the film actually known as "Justice League of America" in the US?

 Compel wrote:
Is the film actually known as "Justice League of America" in the US?

No. Just Justice League.

There was an old comic by that title and the old cartoon that became (or spun off into) the Superfriends originally went by that title (back in the late 60s), so I suspect some people call it that out of habit, but even Warner Brothers isn't tone deaf enough to title the current film that, even in the NA market.

 Compel wrote:
It looks more like Warner are trying to manage the differences between the styles within the one film than it being a long term problem.

Complaints about meddling are misguided. WB got involved -- more than once -- because they saw JL becoming BvS 2 under Snyder's watch and knew that'd be a franchise killer. If you guys check out that ElFanboy site, I think he lays it out very well.

Where you blame WB is for 1) going all in on Snyder from the getgo, and 2) being too hands-off with him early on, requiring them to overcompensate later. Whedon was brought in as a hired gun to do emergency surgery, not to be an auteur. I think it's appropriate that the studio gets their say in that situation. It would almost certainly be different if Whedon's Batgirl film come to fruition.

Note that Geoff Johns and WB didn't meddle with WW, because they knew what Jenkins wanted fit their vision and what the universe needed.

And for the record, JL has better reviews and audience ratings than BvS, but is worse in both categories than MoS. JL also had a much lesser second weekend drop than BvS. There are plenty of issues with JL, but audiences haven't hated it and it has set up characters like Aquaman and Flash up pretty well for their films. It's VERY CLEAR that WB just wants the Snyder era to be over.

Yeah I'd agree worth that summary, Gorgon

 gorgon wrote:

 Compel wrote:
It looks more like Warner are trying to manage the differences between the styles within the one film than it being a long term problem.

Complaints about meddling are misguided. WB got involved -- more than once -- because they saw JL becoming BvS 2 under Snyder's watch and knew that'd be a franchise killer. If you guys check out that ElFanboy site, I think he lays it out very well.

Where you blame WB is for 1) going all in on Snyder from the getgo, and 2) being too hands-off with him early on, requiring them to overcompensate later. Whedon was brought in as a hired gun to do emergency surgery, not to be an auteur. I think it's appropriate that the studio gets their say in that situation. It would almost certainly be different if Whedon's Batgirl film come to fruition.

Note that Geoff Johns and WB didn't meddle with WW, because they knew what Jenkins wanted fit their vision and what the universe needed.

And for the record, JL has better reviews and audience ratings than BvS, but is worse in both categories than MoS. JL also had a much lesser second weekend drop than BvS. There are plenty of issues with JL, but audiences haven't hated it and it has set up characters like Aquaman and Flash up pretty well for their films. It's VERY CLEAR that WB just wants the Snyder era to be over.

You can also blame WB for demanding the final cut be as short as humanly possible so more showings could be crammed in to each day, and for demanding Whedon complete his dramatic "surgery" on the film for the original release date rather than pushing it back a year in order to ensure the current crop of besuited morons in charge got their year-end bonuses before "stepping down for family reasons" etc due to the abysmal decisions they've made up to this point.

The DC superfans don't get to wriggle off the hook either - recall back at the beginning of this whole debacle they were ecstatic at the idea that WB would be doing "proper, grown up" filmmaker-driven movies instead of the "stifling and juvenile McFranchise" approach of Marvel, and plenty of them loved Snyder's deconstructionist approach for the same reason they love Miller and Moore above pretty much anything before or since.

It's long, but it really is worth watching the Moviebob and Midnight's Edge dissections of this whole fiasco, they're bordering on forensic and WB do not come out well.

Voss wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Is the film actually known as "Justice League of America" in the US?

No. Just Justice League.

There was an old comic by that title and the old cartoon that became (or spun off into) the Superfriends originally went by that title (back in the late 60s), so I suspect some people call it that out of habit, but even Warner Brothers isn't tone deaf enough to title the current film that, even in the NA market.

As opposed to Marvel doing not one, but THREE, "Captain America" movies, which have done fairly well globally?

It's not the title that's the issue.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Is the film actually known as "Justice League of America" in the US?

No. Just Justice League.

There was an old comic by that title and the old cartoon that became (or spun off into) the Superfriends originally went by that title (back in the late 60s), so I suspect some people call it that out of habit, but even Warner Brothers isn't tone deaf enough to title the current film that, even in the NA market.

As opposed to Marvel doing not one, but THREE, "Captain America" movies, which have done fairly well globally?

It's not the title that's the issue.

Hmm, I wasn't even vaguely addressing success of films. There is just a big a difference between a character and a franchise. Or even an in-universe group.

When someone says Captain America, you know what you're getting, especially if you know the WWII background for the character. 'Justice League of America' makes about as much sense as 'United Nations of America.'

Voss wrote:
.

Mr. Morden wrote:
And yet JLA is (subjectively) a far superior film in all respects to Man of Steel and Bats vs Superman.

That isn't an accomplishment. It isn't even noteworthy.

Squeezing out a bland and inoffensive movie isn't any sort of achievement at this point. Movie studios know the basic formula by heart, what kind of music goes with what kind of scene, and the basic rhythm of patter and seriousness that a movie needs to hit as it rolls through the stations of each act. But that does not yield anything particularly interesting or impressive as a film in its own right, or give any confidence in what might follow it.

Which amazingly, those following films went from inevitable to 'maybe?' given how badly the prior films wrecked the franchise.

And still they get it wrong in many films - Suicide Squad tried for it and did not quite make it due to pacing /plot issues, Wonder Woman got it right and so did Justice League and they should be lauded for making good enjoyable films.

I was more replying to those who for some reason thought that MOS and BvS were "better" films due to less studio pressure. IMO they are clearly not by any measurement - artistic, creative, character, pacing, plot - all these are far less developed in the two preceding movies.

There is also a tendency to deify certain directors and when they make average or in fact very poor movies they are heavily defended despite the actual faults with the film - See:

Nolan/Synder with MoS
Synder with BvS
James Cameron with Prometheus,
Lucas with the Prequals

and others.

Ridley Scott did Prometheus.


And take that back! It was a good comedy.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Ridley Scott did Prometheus.

And take that back! It was a good comedy.

Whoops wrong director Unintentionally perhaps...but ti was still held up by some as visionary etc

 Yodhrin wrote:
You can also blame WB for demanding the final cut be as short as humanly possible so more showings could be crammed in to each day, and for demanding Whedon complete his dramatic "surgery" on the film for the original release date rather than pushing it back a year in order to ensure the current crop of besuited morons in charge got their year-end bonuses before "stepping down for family reasons" etc due to the abysmal decisions they've made up to this point.

The DC superfans don't get to wriggle off the hook either - recall back at the beginning of this whole debacle they were ecstatic at the idea that WB would be doing "proper, grown up" filmmaker-driven movies instead of the "stifling and juvenile McFranchise" approach of Marvel, and plenty of them loved Snyder's deconstructionist approach for the same reason they love Miller and Moore above pretty much anything before or since.

It's long, but it really is worth watching the Moviebob and Midnight's Edge dissections of this whole fiasco, they're bordering on forensic and WB do not come out well.

Regarding runtime, you can't point to that as a mistake unless you know the scenes that were cut and how they'd affect the overall film.

We know there's extra stuff with Vulko and presumably Atlantean politics from what Momoa said. But even he said he understands that material is probably better covered in Aquaman, and isn't necessary to the JL film. We also know there's a scene with Barry saving Iris. That's cool for the fans, but would that make JL a better film? Same goes for the rumored scene with Bruce meeting GLs. In BvS's case, a lot of stuff that was cut was near-necessary to the film, but that doesn't mean the same holds true for JL. Besides, it was completely unrealistic for BvS to be a 3 hour film. Snyder was BONKERS for thinking that would be acceptable to WB, and WB was BONKERS for giving Snyder that much slack.

Look, JL certainly has its issues, but sometimes there are no good solutions to problems. You just have to pick the 'least bad' solution and roll with it. Overall, I think WB probably chose correctly down the home stretch with JL. And I don't think pushing back JL was an option. That'd just mean extending the Snyder era that WB clearly wants to end. Whedon wasn't going to turn JL into a masterpiece and they'd already sunk FAR too much money into the movie, so I think it's reasonable for WB to want to pull that Band-Aid off quickly and get it over with. Note that these statements don't let WB off the hook for their many other missteps along the way.

I have no idea what fans have to do with anything. Fans didn't make the films or influence them. If you're commenting on hypocrisy, I don't see much of that either, since the biggest Snyder fans seem angry and busy signing petitions demanding that WB release his cut (which will obviously never happen for a variety of reasons).

 Mr Morden wrote:

Voss wrote:
.

Mr. Morden wrote:
And yet JLA is (subjectively) a far superior film in all respects to Man of Steel and Bats vs Superman.

That isn't an accomplishment. It isn't even noteworthy.

Squeezing out a bland and inoffensive movie isn't any sort of achievement at this point. Movie studios know the basic formula by heart, what kind of music goes with what kind of scene, and the basic rhythm of patter and seriousness that a movie needs to hit as it rolls through the stations of each act. But that does not yield anything particularly interesting or impressive as a film in its own right, or give any confidence in what might follow it.

Which amazingly, those following films went from inevitable to 'maybe?' given how badly the prior films wrecked the franchise.

And still they get it wrong in many films - Suicide Squad tried for it and did not quite make it due to pacing /plot issues, Wonder Woman got it right and so did Justice League and they should be lauded for making good enjoyable films.

I was more replying to those who for some reason thought that MOS and BvS were "better" films due to less studio pressure. IMO they are clearly not by any measurement - artistic, creative, character, pacing, plot - all these are far less developed in the two preceding movies.

There is also a tendency to deify certain directors and when they make average or in fact very poor movies they are heavily defended despite the actual faults with the film - See:

Nolan/Synder with MoS
Synder with BvS
James Cameron with Prometheus,
Lucas with the Prequals

and others.

m
Uh.. What? I've heard nothing but complaints about any of those films. Certainly not 'deifying' the directors involved.

Comparing JL and WW is just odd. I've seen real people actually praise the latter, even with zero knowledge of comics.
When talking about elements of JL, people have a tendency to laugh hysterically. Particularly the extended, 'well we have this box, lets violate a grave, dump it in water with the corpse and wait to see what happens. Oh no, the monster has yoinked our box' sequence.

Voss wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Voss wrote:
.

Mr. Morden wrote:
And yet JLA is (subjectively) a far superior film in all respects to Man of Steel and Bats vs Superman.

That isn't an accomplishment. It isn't even noteworthy.

Squeezing out a bland and inoffensive movie isn't any sort of achievement at this point. Movie studios know the basic formula by heart, what kind of music goes with what kind of scene, and the basic rhythm of patter and seriousness that a movie needs to hit as it rolls through the stations of each act. But that does not yield anything particularly interesting or impressive as a film in its own right, or give any confidence in what might follow it.

Which amazingly, those following films went from inevitable to 'maybe?' given how badly the prior films wrecked the franchise.

And still they get it wrong in many films - Suicide Squad tried for it and did not quite make it due to pacing /plot issues, Wonder Woman got it right and so did Justice League and they should be lauded for making good enjoyable films.

I was more replying to those who for some reason thought that MOS and BvS were "better" films due to less studio pressure. IMO they are clearly not by any measurement - artistic, creative, character, pacing, plot - all these are far less developed in the two preceding movies.

There is also a tendency to deify certain directors and when they make average or in fact very poor movies they are heavily defended despite the actual faults with the film - See:

Nolan/Synder with MoS
Synder with BvS
James Cameron with Prometheus,
Lucas with the Prequals

and others.

m
Uh.. What? I've heard nothing but complaints about any of those films. Certainly not 'deifying' the directors involved.

Comparing JL and WW is just odd. I've seen real people actually praise the latter, even with zero knowledge of comics.
When talking about elements of JL, people have a tendency to laugh hysterically. Particularly the extended, 'well we have this box, lets violate a grave, dump it in water with the corpse and wait to see what happens. Oh no, the monster has yoinked our box' sequence.

Lots of people (IMO) rightly complain about them but others stress how they are visionary, artistic etc etc

Why is it odd? - both the friends I went with enjoyed both films immensely as did I - certainly less of strain to accept the flaws than MoS or BvS which were just plot hole after plot hole but even on this thread people talk about the ambition, power etc of those films - none of which I see.

Because to hear people talk about the two films, WW is a real film, and JL is a crude skeleton filled with plot holes and moments of WTF- I was quite serious that the reactions I've seen are laughter. Still better than the reactions to the other DC films (bar suicide squad, actually), but nothing to indicate the two films are of comparable quality.

Different strokes for different folks. Morden, it's not exactly a secret that you strongly prefer lighter fare in your superhero films. JL checks that box and so you enjoy it more than those without that predilection. That's why I told you that you'd probably like it more than most of the other DC films.

I found the bit where they lost the box of awesome power, because they left it in a car park, hilarious. I don’t think it was intentional, but the sheer absurdity of it tickled me.

 gorgon wrote:
Different strokes for different folks. Morden, it's not exactly a secret that you strongly prefer lighter fare in your superhero films. JL checks that box and so you enjoy it more than those without that predilection. That's why I told you that you'd probably like it more than most of the other DC films.

Yes and no

I don't mind darkness - but I prefer these (and other genre films) to have characters that have the ability to generate an emotional connection - be that love, hate, interest, confusuion - whatever. What I donlt like is so called "big idea" films that are (to me at least) completely souless because they are only inerested in that "big idea". I liked JL because yes it was fun but also because there were people with powers in it, Wiring engaging characters is harder than people give credit for.

but as you say different strokes.

Voss wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Is the film actually known as "Justice League of America" in the US?

No. Just Justice League.

There was an old comic by that title and the old cartoon that became (or spun off into) the Superfriends originally went by that title (back in the late 60s), so I suspect some people call it that out of habit, but even Warner Brothers isn't tone deaf enough to title the current film that, even in the NA market.

As opposed to Marvel doing not one, but THREE, "Captain America" movies, which have done fairly well globally?

It's not the title that's the issue.

Hmm, I wasn't even vaguely addressing success of films. There is just a big a difference between a character and a franchise. Or even an in-universe group.

When someone says Captain America, you know what you're getting, especially if you know the WWII background for the character. 'Justice League of America' makes about as much sense as 'United Nations of America.'

You were talking about the title, and I noted a movie trilogy with a similar title, that didn't have any issues. The fact that "Captain America" did fine means that "America" in the title isn't a problem.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Voss wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Is the film actually known as "Justice League of America" in the US?

No. Just Justice League.

There was an old comic by that title and the old cartoon that became (or spun off into) the Superfriends originally went by that title (back in the late 60s), so I suspect some people call it that out of habit, but even Warner Brothers isn't tone deaf enough to title the current film that, even in the NA market.

As opposed to Marvel doing not one, but THREE, "Captain America" movies, which have done fairly well globally?

It's not the title that's the issue.

Hmm, I wasn't even vaguely addressing success of films. There is just a big a difference between a character and a franchise. Or even an in-universe group.

When someone says Captain America, you know what you're getting, especially if you know the WWII background for the character. 'Justice League of America' makes about as much sense as 'United Nations of America.'

You were talking about the title, and I noted a movie trilogy with a similar title, that didn't have any issues. The fact that "Captain America" did fine means that "America" in the title isn't a problem.

O...K...
Let me break this down, Captain America is supposed to be a representative of early 20th century American values, particularly positive ones (supposedly, anyway). And how that viewpoint interacts with the modern world. That's his point.

The Justice League are a group of heroes that save the world. If they're the Justice League of America, it implies that Supes and Friends will get an alert about South Commu-Terror-nista (or other parts of the world that the US doesn't like) being on fire, shrug, and go back to playing poker.
Many of the League members (Aquaman and Wonder Woman come to mind specifically) have no reason to care about advancing the cause of America the way that organizational name implies.

It isn't about the movie title as a marketing gimmick, it's about what the name implies for the characters.

It's worth noting that of of the New 52 reboot (or shortly after), there has been both a Justice League (the regular guys) and a Justice League of America, which is the US Government's answer to the fact they can't control the regular JL; they build a similar, US-based team that is hypothetically able to counter the JL (though really, despite them having a couple of powerhouses, it's not even close. See the early parts of Trinity War...)

And to be honest, I'd totally be up for a JLA movie. A middle ground between JL and Suicide Squad, and there's some fun characters they can draw on (I'd love a 'proper' Green Arrow, Martian Manhunter is just awesome, Hawkman could be fun, Simon Baz GL is cool).

Hold on. MM is a powerhouse and easily holds his own against WW or Supes.

Yeah, MM and Hawkman bring some power. But Catwoman, Green Arrow, one of the weakest Lanterns, Katana, they're just dead weight against the proper League.

Green Arrow is just a slightly poorer, but more sane Batman.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Green Arrow is just a slightly poorer, but more sane Batman.

Depends on which one you're talking about

Who is MM? I am not familiar with the acronym.

Is it Martian Manhunter?

Yes, that’d be my guess!

 Easy E wrote:
Who is MM? I am not familiar with the acronym.

Is it Martian Manhunter?

Yes! IN a JL context, "MM" == Martian Manhunter, and he's the best!

Unless you have a book of matches or a Bic

 Just Tony wrote:
Unless you have a book of matches or a Bic

Then, he is the best fuel amongst all the hero of the Justice League. Thus, he is still the best. Checkmate.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I've quite enjoyed Moviebob's overlong analysis of BvS.

Holy crap. I need over an hour to watch that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9juReoJxI0&index=2&list=PL1WoYVvJ35Xqeh6JGw1GPMB_HvxB8mSFe

Oof. Just finished the nearly 1-and-a-half hour Part 1.

After I decompress, I'll watch Part 2.

Hell's bells, now there's a Part 3? Feth!

I'm nearly 3 hours into this, and it's still not over? WTF did you get me into?

Is he trying to match the extended run time of the BvS movie? Is that what he's doing?

I believe the first word I used to describe it was "overlong"

I figured that it being 2 parts, with the first one over an hour, would be sufficiently "overlong". I did not expect it to be a 3-4 hour opus.

Just watched Justice league again and I enjoyed it, Much much better than star wars, both had pretty heavy faults but JL was fun, even the second time around.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I figured that it being 2 parts, with the first one over an hour, would be sufficiently "overlong". I did not expect it to be a 3-4 hour opus.

Part III came out!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuwxDLdXALc

Enjoy!

Sheesh!

People need to let it go!

Okay, so I finally rented it since my work schedule wouldn't allow a theater trip.


My takeaway? The Flash was Barry Allen in name only, and that's pretty much my only gripe about the film. Well, that and the lack of Hal Jordan. A good Hal Jordan. Michael Weatherly would have been a really good candidate.