Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2017/11/17 04:47:24
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
gorgon wrote: While "rushing" is an easy narrative, I really don't think WB's problem has anything to do that, and it doesn't really fit the facts anyway. Marvel had their team-up after only five movies, and two were IM. JL is the fifth movie in the DCEU. And Marvel needed to take a little more time because the characters they had left weren't A-list, and other than the Hulk really weren't in the public consciousness.
Nothing about WW's success had to do with taking more time with the film. It was shot and conceived in a normal timeframe. What it had was a director with a clear vision for the film (she had lobbied WB for years about a WW film) that matched what WB needed from it. They could have given Snyder two more films before JL, and we still would have had divisiveness just because the dark and deconstructionist story he wanted to tell wasn't what a fledging universe needed or general audiences wanted.
Yes. DC isn't rushing any more than Marvel was. The one that sticks in my mind if Antman, which burned through a couple of directors without pre-production ever slowly down. The Marvel schedule is a train that will not slow down, even if the driver jumps off. Same as DC. And it wasn't a problem for Antman, that was a really fun movie.
And in both cases, the time for each movie is more than long enough, if you start with some clarity about the story you want to tell. With Marvel's weaker efforts, like Iron Man 2 and Avengers 2 it seems to me there was no clarity, and apart from Wonder Woman this has been the problem with all the DC movies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: I have a feeling that Aquaman is going to be good too. James Wan is a real pro who just knows how to make a popular, successful film.
Huh? So far Wan's career has been jump scare nonsense like the Conjuring movies. I'm not saying he can't make a good Aquaman movie, and so far his films have been commercially successful, but I really don't see how we could look at his career and say he definitely has the chops to produce
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: And I think we also need to collectively recognise the frankly phenomenal achievement of the MCU.
Yes and no. There's two different elements - the actual quality of the movies, and their commercial success.
On their actual quality, I don't think things are anywhere near as rosy as you suggest. They certainly put out quality way more than most efforts - in film as in most things, 90% is crap is the golden rule, and Marvel is batting well over 50%. But you only list 3 missed films, when others like Iron Man 2, Age of Ultron and The Incredible Hulk were also bad movies (and yes, The Incredible Hulk was a Marvel branded film, even if Edward Norton was such a dick that Marvel decided to just throw a new actor in as the Hulk in Avengers).
But more than that, there's a lot of Marvel films that are... fine. Slick productions that come and go, and if someone asks you about it a week later you can maybe remember a clever line or two. Nothing wrong with making slick films to a formula, but it should be recognised that only scoring in terms of bad vs not bad will flatter a studio focusing on safe products.
Marvel's extraordinary commercial success should be seen in the context of that. They've released a long list of movies with only a few bad movies and no really bad, FF4 reboot disasters. So there's a brand there, an audience expectation of a certain level of quality. It's how something like Antman, a c-list comic character, played by a good actor with no star power at the time, can be a solid hit despite the crowded film market. Marvel's achievement isn't that they've somehow managed to string together 17 hit movies in a row. Marvel's achievement is that they've built a brand that's strong enough that even the weaker concepts and poorer films still get dragged up by the overall brand. So for instance, The Dark World was a bad movie, and a sequel to a bad movie, and it still grossed more than $600m. Most of that is due to Thor drawing goodwill from the rest of the MCU, particularly his inclusion in Avengers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: Okay, maybe I'm a bit lost. What made MoS overly dark or grim? It was still an alien raised with homegrown American values and morals who held to those morals. Because he killed Zod? He did that in Byrne's comic reboot after Crisis, named Man of Steel funnily enough.
There's the actual, literal colour of the film. Everything that isn't black is washed of its colour. It looks bleak, and this was deliberate.
But more than that the central question of the movie is Superman figuring out if he should actually help people. Should he follow his earthly father and hide away even if it means people die? Or should he follow his space ghost dad, who said he should protect the people of Earth? If I have awesome powers that I can use to help people, should I bother? That's a miserable question, and the film gives a miserable answer. That answer shows us Clark Sr lecturing his son for saving some kids, and then shows us Clark taking that advice on board and letting his own Dad die rather than reveal his powers.
Then, after space ghost Russel tells him to use his powers, and Zod basically forces him to, we get the showdown between Kal-El and Zod, but also with a whole lot of Kryptonian extras. And that fight focuses on the carnage and destruction inflicted on the city, rather than the spectacle of super powered beings fighting.
That all ends with superman breaking Zod's neck. That bit was fine, I thought. Zod was straight up telling Kal-El kill me or I'll murder these hapless extras, and Superman chose the humans. It was a clear character choice, and perfectly justified, albeit a little on the nose. But everything that came before then was so bleak that people reacted against that moment.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/11/17 05:53:24
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2017/11/17 06:32:41
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
Saw it. Liked it. Everyone in the group of a dozenish people I went with liked it. Overall I’d say not as good as Wonder Woman, but certainly better than BvS. One weird thing, for all the aliens and super powers and flashy stuff, Batman looked the most fake/cgi to me when he moved.
Also yes, two after credits scenes. A comic one early on, and a story one at the very end.
2017/11/17 07:03:59
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
Just Tony wrote: Okay, maybe I'm a bit lost. What made MoS overly dark or grim? It was still an alien raised with homegrown American values and morals who held to those morals. Because he killed Zod? He did that in Byrne's comic reboot after Crisis, named Man of Steel funnily enough.
There's the actual, literal colour of the film. Everything that isn't black is washed of its colour. It looks bleak, and this was deliberate.
But more than that the central question of the movie is Superman figuring out if he should actually help people. Should he follow his earthly father and hide away even if it means people die? Or should he follow his space ghost dad, who said he should protect the people of Earth? If I have awesome powers that I can use to help people, should I bother? That's a miserable question, and the film gives a miserable answer. That answer shows us Clark Sr lecturing his son for saving some kids, and then shows us Clark taking that advice on board and letting his own Dad die rather than reveal his powers.
Then, after space ghost Russel tells him to use his powers, and Zod basically forces him to, we get the showdown between Kal-El and Zod, but also with a whole lot of Kryptonian extras. And that fight focuses on the carnage and destruction inflicted on the city, rather than the spectacle of super powered beings fighting.
That all ends with superman breaking Zod's neck. That bit was fine, I thought. Zod was straight up telling Kal-El kill me or I'll murder these hapless extras, and Superman chose the humans. It was a clear character choice, and perfectly justified, albeit a little on the nose. But everything that came before then was so bleak that people reacted against that moment.
To me, the tone of the movie represented the weight of responsibility of Kal-El, as he tried to juggle his powers with a normal life. Yes, his dad stressed keeping his powers unrevealed, but if you remember from the movie, there were several instances where he DID use his powers to save people, which was the reason he lived that Bill Bixby/David Banner sort of nomadic existence. And I won't argue that there was far too much catastrophe porn in that movie, but that was, to me, the worst of it. Well, hologram ghost Jor-El was pretty much up there, but as it stands I actually liked the movie. I also liked BvS, but then again I went into it under the impression that it wasn't going to jive with the comics.
And I'll reiterate because it needs reiteration constantly: they should have gotten Thomas Jane to play Batman.
Just Tony wrote: To me, the tone of the movie represented the weight of responsibility of Kal-El, as he tried to juggle his powers with a normal life. Yes, his dad stressed keeping his powers unrevealed, but if you remember from the movie, there were several instances where he DID use his powers to save people, which was the reason he lived that Bill Bixby/David Banner sort of nomadic existence. And I won't argue that there was far too much catastrophe porn in that movie, but that was, to me, the worst of it. Well, hologram ghost Jor-El was pretty much up there, but as it stands I actually liked the movie. I also liked BvS, but then again I went into it under the impression that it wasn't going to jive with the comics.
Yeah, that's a good reason to take the tone to a darker place. But your question wasn't why there was a darker or tone or if the material could justifying going there, it was why people thought it was a darker movie.
As to whether that darker tone cuold have been justified, I think it wasn't a bad choice in itself. It was a good way to move past Superman Returns, and to move differentiate from the jokier tone in the Marvel movies. And the film certainly had some interesting ideas. The problem was the tone was so unrelentingly bleak, that it didn't give any answers to its questions. And then while maintaining that bleak tone it also gave us a world with space dragons and space ghost Russell Crowe, which it asked us to take absolutely seriously.
I also liked Batman v Superman. On an objective level it isn't a good movie, but there's enough stuff in there that I like that I've enjoyed it both times I've watched it.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2017/11/17 09:30:19
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
I think you made the same point as me when it comes to Marvel, albeit far more eloquently.
Despite internal consistency issues, all their films have turned a tidy profit, and the public perception is ‘Oh it’s a MCU film? I’ll probably enjoy it then’
By no means are they fine fare films. Their production values put them up above a Junk Food analogy, but not beyond Chain Restaurant. You’re not gonna be eating Michelin Star food, but you know you’ll get a certain value for money regardless.
The MCU is a one off for me. It can’t be repeated, because so much of its momentum is from ‘right place, right time’ luck. People make a big thing about Superhero movies being the Big Thing - but given the issues most other studios have (Logan being the main exception), I think it’s farier to say it’s simply Marvel are the Big Thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think you made the same point as me when it comes to Marvel, albeit far more eloquently.
Despite internal consistency issues, all their films have turned a tidy profit, and the public perception is ‘Oh it’s a MCU film? I’ll probably enjoy it then’
By no means are they fine fare films. Their production values put them up above a Junk Food analogy, but not beyond Chain Restaurant. You’re not gonna be eating Michelin Star food, but you know you’ll get a certain value for money regardless.
The MCU is a one off for me. It can’t be repeated, because so much of its momentum is from ‘right place, right time’ luck. People make a big thing about Superhero movies being the Big Thing - but given the issues most other studios have (Logan being the main exception), I think it’s farier to say it’s simply Marvel are the Big Thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/17 09:30:33
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Just Tony wrote: To me, the tone of the movie represented the weight of responsibility of Kal-El, as he tried to juggle his powers with a normal life. Yes, his dad stressed keeping his powers unrevealed, but if you remember from the movie, there were several instances where he DID use his powers to save people, which was the reason he lived that Bill Bixby/David Banner sort of nomadic existence. And I won't argue that there was far too much catastrophe porn in that movie, but that was, to me, the worst of it. Well, hologram ghost Jor-El was pretty much up there, but as it stands I actually liked the movie. I also liked BvS, but then again I went into it under the impression that it wasn't going to jive with the comics.
Yeah, that's a good reason to take the tone to a darker place. But your question wasn't why there was a darker or tone or if the material could justifying going there, it was why people thought it was a darker movie.
As to whether that darker tone cuold have been justified, I think it wasn't a bad choice in itself. It was a good way to move past Superman Returns, and to move differentiate from the jokier tone in the Marvel movies. And the film certainly had some interesting ideas. The problem was the tone was so unrelentingly bleak, that it didn't give any answers to its questions. And then while maintaining that bleak tone it also gave us a world with space dragons and space ghost Russell Crowe, which it asked us to take absolutely seriously.
I also liked Batman v Superman. On an objective level it isn't a good movie, but there's enough stuff in there that I like that I've enjoyed it both times I've watched it.
I see your point, and we definitely found something we agree upon.
AduroT wrote: Saw it. Liked it. Everyone in the group of a dozenish people I went with liked it. Overall I’d say not as good as Wonder Woman, but certainly better than BvS. One weird thing, for all the aliens and super powers and flashy stuff, Batman looked the most fake/cgi to me when he moved.
Also yes, two after credits scenes. A comic one early on, and a story one at the very end.
I saw it too. The critics aren't wrong about some things. But I think audiences will generally like it and have a good time.
Folks definitely want to stay for the mid-credits scene, at least. It's something really classic and fun.
P.S. Really, really hard to believe they don't have a MoS sequel lined up yet.
I think they are still struggling with what to do with a stand-alone Superman film after MoS. I mean, what do you do with the guy? What story do you want to tell?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2017/11/17 16:35:09
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
LunarSol wrote: If I was trying to make another Superman movie right now, I'd be eyeing the "President Luthor" era pretty heavily.
I don't really know the comics but would that fit with the current world? They have had one really good film - Wonder Woman so they would be sensible to tie anything new to that character?
Of course anything associated with Lex Luthor needs a new actor/character directing to avoid the dismal and shockingly awful train wreck of a portrayal of that character in Bats vs Sups.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
AduroT wrote: Saw it. Liked it. Everyone in the group of a dozenish people I went with liked it. Overall I’d say not as good as Wonder Woman, but certainly better than BvS. One weird thing, for all the aliens and super powers and flashy stuff, Batman looked the most fake/cgi to me when he moved.
Also yes, two after credits scenes. A comic one early on, and a story one at the very end.
I saw it too. The critics aren't wrong about some things. But I think audiences will generally like it and have a good time.
Folks definitely want to stay for the mid-credits scene, at least. It's something really classic and fun.
P.S. Really, really hard to believe they don't have a MoS sequel lined up yet.
Same here!
I enjoyed it quite a bit - even more than I thought I would.
It did feel rushed in places, and many of the League could have used a bit 'more' (Aquaman in particular), but I understand why we got the shorthand versions of their origins.
Also, now having seen JL, any reviewer that calls it 'garbage' or 'terrible'? Well, I won't be trusting their reviews anymore...
Overall - a fun, enjoyable movie.
Now, a question!
Spoiler:
IF Superman could only have been revived how he was, what was up with the ending of BvS? The floating dirt heavily implying some form of regeneration was already under way?
Did things change that much between BvS, the less than favorable reactions to BvS, and the reshoots on JL?
Also:
Spoiler:
Kudos to how much they hid Superman's presence in this movie and how they marketed it! Sure, it was going to happen, but wow! And there are a few scenes from the trailers that didn't make it into the movie. Interestingly enough, most of the ones involving...Superman! Almost like they were shot only for the trailers?
I find myself looking forward to the 'extended cut' DVD release too...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/17 18:27:10
-
2017/11/17 19:09:27
Subject: Re:Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
One of my favorite parts of the film was when Flash was trying to run behind Superman and realized Superman could see him. Really that scene overall was good but that part really stood out to me.
As to the question of the floating dirt vs. Mother Box regeneration I also found that a bit odd.
I thought Steppenwolf worked fine as the villain. He isn't top tier cinema comic villain but he worked well enough to seem like a threat that would get this group together.
Also I was under the impression DC didn't want to do post credit scenes as it would seem like they were ripping off Marvel so I didn't see the one all the way after the credits. Did see the Superman/Flash race though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: It did feel rushed in places, and many of the League could have used a bit 'more' (Aquaman in particular), but I understand why we got the shorthand versions of their origins.
Apparently the studio had a directive that it had to be under 2 hours, which is why with credits it is two hours and one minute. Considering they had to introduce a lot of characters, reintroduce at least one, and get the plot going they did pretty good for having to make it under a time limit. I'm hoping there is a longer cut for the Bluray but the two hour limit explains why it comes across as rushed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/17 19:13:04
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2017/11/17 19:18:45
Subject: Re:Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
You missed that Luthor has escaped (and he's still somewhat...loopy0, he's not happy that Superman is back, and he's going to get together a group of his own. And he's starting with...Deathstroke.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/17 19:19:18
-
2017/11/17 20:01:04
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
Yeah I love the scene where they fight the newly ressurected Supes and his Eyes first move to follow Flash. I Do wish they had shown him to be more obviously not quite as fast as him. Hell, they really did just make Flash a comic relief bafoon. Like every time he did something heroic or cool he then had to immediately trip and face plant or have someone else just instantly upstage him.
2017/11/17 20:10:20
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
Yeah I love the scene where they fight the newly ressurected Supes and his Eyes first move to follow Flash. I Do wish they had shown him to be more obviously not quite as fast as him. Hell, they really did just make Flash a comic relief bafoon. Like every time he did something heroic or cool he then had to immediately trip and face plant or have someone else just instantly upstage him.
One of my favorite exchanges in DC comics is during Flash: Rebirth when Superman is trying to chase Barry down.
2017/11/17 21:01:59
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
I just saw the film and I thoroughly enjoyed it. However I can very easily be described as a fan boy. But to try to be more neutral in my reaction is...
First and possibly most important, there was nothing really 'wrong' with the film. Nothing like loopy Lex or gangsta Joker is the like.
I'd also say that there are no real 'cinema sins' committed in the film either. The plot is nice and straightforward - villain gathers maguffins in order to conquer the world.
The cast are good together, enjoyable to watch. Fun action and so on.
I suppose the downside is, there isn't much that would exactly bring the art of cinema forward. It's a fun popcorn action movie that I would like to think most people would rather watch than, for example, some Michael Bay fare.
Oh, there's 2 scenes, one mid credits, one post credits.
One last big thing I want to say. Pay attention to the music, particularly during the second half of the film.
2017/11/17 21:59:24
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
Yeah I love the scene where they fight the newly ressurected Supes and his Eyes first move to follow Flash. I Do wish they had shown him to be more obviously not quite as fast as him. Hell, they really did just make Flash a comic relief bafoon. Like every time he did something heroic or cool he then had to immediately trip and face plant or have someone else just instantly upstage him.
Spoiler:
He did explicitly say he had really not used his abilities much in the movie so the fact he is a newbie when it comes to using them shouldn't be a surprise. Superman was the first time he had ever even run into someone with nearly as much speed as him and it wasn't until later when Superman pushed him that he blew Superman away with speed.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2017/11/18 03:30:03
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
Yeah I love the scene where they fight the newly ressurected Supes and his Eyes first move to follow Flash. I Do wish they had shown him to be more obviously not quite as fast as him. Hell, they really did just make Flash a comic relief bafoon. Like every time he did something heroic or cool he then had to immediately trip and face plant or have someone else just instantly upstage him.
Spoiler:
He did explicitly say he had really not used his abilities much in the movie so the fact he is a newbie when it comes to using them shouldn't be a surprise. Superman was the first time he had ever even run into someone with nearly as much speed as him and it wasn't until later when Superman pushed him that he blew Superman away with speed.
That sequence admittedly had me laughing out loud. The look of Miller's face with each beat was hilarious.
Wtf? WTF?!? WTF!!!?!!!
Something roughly similar happens in the first New 52 issue of JL.
Apparently the studio had a directive that it had to be under 2 hours, which is why with credits it is two hours and one minute. Considering they had to introduce a lot of characters, reintroduce at least one, and get the plot going they did pretty good for having to make it under a time limit. I'm hoping there is a longer cut for the Bluray but the two hour limit explains why it comes across as rushed.
It's interesting to consider that there were effectively 3 versions of the film. You have the 'part 1' version (never actually shot) that would have set up Darkseid and presumably would have ended with an evil Superman. Then there's the revised-in-response-to-bvs-reactions version that Snyder shot. Then there's the Whedon rewrite and reshoot.
I agree that the film actually did a solid job of introducing the characters. There's plenty for the critics to pick at with the film, but I thought the handling of characters was good and does make you want to see more of them.
Edit: I thought the cold open with the Superman interview was a nice touch.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/18 03:49:15
The cold open was one of the Whedon reshoots. You can tell because his face is a bit weird because they had to post production out the mustache he had grown for working on his next movie.
So it turns out when you come back from the dead, the thing you lose isn’t your heart or your soul, but rather the stick up your arse.
2017/11/18 08:23:13
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
Apparently the studio had a directive that it had to be under 2 hours, which is why with credits it is two hours and one minute. Considering they had to introduce a lot of characters, reintroduce at least one, and get the plot going they did pretty good for having to make it under a time limit. I'm hoping there is a longer cut for the Bluray but the two hour limit explains why it comes across as rushed.
It's interesting to consider that there were effectively 3 versions of the film. You have the 'part 1' version (never actually shot) that would have set up Darkseid and presumably would have ended with an evil Superman. Then there's the revised-in-response-to-bvs-reactions version that Snyder shot. Then there's the Whedon rewrite and reshoot.
I agree that the film actually did a solid job of introducing the characters. There's plenty for the critics to pick at with the film, but I thought the handling of characters was good and does make you want to see more of them.
Edit: I thought the cold open with the Superman interview was a nice touch.
And there were still a bunch of deleted scenes from Version 3.
I wonder if we'll ever get to see (or just know) what Versions 1 and 2 were like - and I wonder if I actually want to?
I think I'd be happy with a 'full' Version 3. If that exists?
-
2017/11/18 19:04:08
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
It sems questionable as to whether one could even assemble anything coherent out of the full Snyder shoot and the Whedon revision. For Whedon to have gotten a writing credit means he must have written at least 30% of the script, I think. That means a LOT of footage was never used.
Seems like it'll be one of those mysteries we'll never get an answer for. And that goes double for the original two-part vision. While I've (wrongfully) been accused of being a Snyder fanboy, I suspect the studio had legit reasons for concern about the Snyder shoot...although obviously some of the issues may have been sparked by their demands to changes to his original vision and plan post-BvS. Everyone has a share of the blame, I guess.
The lack of drama around the Aquaman film may be a good sign, as it turned out to be with WW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/18 19:05:29
To be honest, my main thought walking out was how much I want to see Snyder's version of this film, before reshoots and Whedon's involvement and studio plans reshuffling and all that. Like him or hate him as a director, he has such a unique style that I personally really enjoy and that seems almost invisible here. Yes, it's lightened up which will probably make a lot of people happy but with that, I feel the film kind of threw away any sense of gravitas and weight; The threat of Steppenwolf, ostensibly the largest this universe's Earth has faced, came across as far less intense than that posed by Zod or Doomsday or even Ares in WW.
People go on about the first half of BvS taking too long to set stuff up before any action, but here we have the opposite; the action starts in the first few minutes and doesn't really pause for more than about 5 at a time until the end, and as a result the stakes feel far less palpable. The world is going to end, yes, but without the zealotry of Zod or the insanity of Luthor or the primordial rage of Doomsday, Steppenwolf is just a guy who's good at smashing things and to beat him, all you have to do is smash harder. That single family is followed as shorthand for the human stakes, but without any setup beyond 'if he wins, everyone dies' there's no suspense building, just a succession of larger and larger punch-ups.
Now, this doesn't make it a bad film. It's fun, it's flashy, it's an enjoyable watch in spite of this, but it's very much a by-the-numbers team-up movie, it's Avengers Assemble with a Find And Replace on the names. I don't know how much was Whedon's in the final cut, but I'd suggest most of it probably was. Some scenes, such as the Batcave argument, seemed just lifted from his other work. Again, not something that makes it a bad film, but it feels generic where the rest of the DCEU (for better or worse) has been notably original and avoided these conventions.
I'm happy with it as it stands. I'd be even happier with an extended cut that added in another 20-30 minutes just to flesh out the story and add some bridging scenes between the relentless action. But ultimately, I can't help but feel that Synder's version of the film is the one I've been looking forward to since that first Comic Con trailer last year and that wasn't recognisable at all in Whedon's Leaguers Leaguesemble....
All that said...
Spoiler:
There were some absolutely awesome moments and scenes that the film deserves credit for.
- That Green Lantern cameo in the 5000 Years Ago flashback was just awesome, had me practically jumping out of my seat. Kind of reminds you how much this film really should have had GL in it from the start, but I'm glad they've had the confidence to just throw them in as an established part of the universe, that speaks well for their stance going into GL Corps.
- The two post-credits scenes were great. The Superman/Flash race is just something straight from a comic page (even if I find it odd Superman is waaay faster in this than he was in MoS/BvS... ) and the Injustice League setup is very promising. I look forward to whatever form that takes, hopefully the wait isn't too long.
- The Superman open was great. Drives the point home that he was always the hero even when the world was turning against him in BvS and that he's not changed in his resurrected form, he's just more of what he already was.
- Once again, Wonder Woman steals the show in pretty much every scene she's in. Gadot just has a knack for turning fairly ordinary dialogue into gold through sheer charisma, and her interactions with everyone as the 'heart' of the team are fantastic.
I did have one major issue, the manner in which they bring back Superman (or rather, the fact they do bring him back rather than him coming back. Leaving aside the pointless fight with the League just to reestablish how powerful he is, I don't feel like the use of the Motherbox when, going back to the original Death of Superman, coming back after a period of regeneration is just something Superman can do under his own power. It also reduces him to kind of a weapon that the League breaks out to fight Steppenwolf, I think his return would have been much more powerful if he'd healed, revealed himself to Lois as Clark then immediately set off to join the fight without ever being asked, immediately stepping back into the role of the hero.
Anyway.... that's quite enough for now. I shall definitely be seeing it again, I want to appreciate it for the good film it is rather than the great film I felt cheated out of the first time round.
2017/11/18 20:56:05
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
Saw it last night, and while it was certainly not the best thing ever, I really enjoyed it. There were some dumb things sure, but I've come to expect that from pretty much everything. I enjoyed the characters and their interactions and ultimately it ended up feeling like an episode of Justice League or JLU and that I think is really all it needed.
Spoiler:
I would have liked the ressurection of superman to have been longer, maybe as I've seen pointed out by other people and some reviewers done as its own movie. But I liked it, and I liked that Henry Cavil got to finally play a Superman more people will relate with or find enjoyable.
Deathstroke in the stinger was all sort of yes, Im ready for more.
2017/11/18 21:32:04
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
The fight v Supes actually has a subtleish point. Everyone else went violent on Supes while Batman was the only one who didn’t fight him. His “big guns” was calling in Lois to talk him down. Something he actually learned from BvS where he saw the nightmare future where Supes was evil but Flash told him Lois was the key.
2017/11/18 21:43:55
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
The fight v Supes actually has a subtleish point. Everyone else went violent on Supes while Batman was the only one who didn’t fight him. His “big guns” was calling in Lois to talk him down. Something he actually learned from BvS where he saw the nightmare future where Supes was evil but Flash told him Lois was the key.
Spoiler:
Yeah, I get that point. It's just the fight itself I feel was unnecessary. Why couldn't Lois just have been there when they brought him back, to calm him immediately? Hell, why not just have Batman yell 'Martha' at him as soon as he woke up? (Ok, I'm being slightly facetious with that, but at the same time I do think some kind of reversal of the Martha scene could have actually worked and helped people who missed the point of it in BvS 'get it', so to speak. Maybe too soon for most, though. )
It's possible I'm just bored of hero-on-hero fight scenes after BvS, Civil War and X-men Apocalypse, but it just felt like a waste of 10 minutes in a film that was already struggling to fit in everything it needed to thanks to WB's 2 hour run-time order. I'd happily trade that sequence which is basically there to show how powerful Superman is (err, we know, he's flipping Superman, it's kind of his main thing...) for more early development for Barry or Victor or even Steppenwolf.
Hardly a major thing, just something I think could have been handled a lot better or cut entirely without making much of a difference to the film. But that would require Whedon to have written and directed something other than punching and quipping, which is hardly his strong suite...
Automatically Appended Next Post: On an unrelated note...
Spoiler:
Did anyone notice the John Williams Superman theme in the film? I saw it in the credits, but couldn't place it in the soundtrack.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/18 21:47:11
2017/11/18 22:15:25
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
Did anyone notice the John Williams Superman theme in the film? I saw it in the credits, but couldn't place it in the soundtrack.
It was when
Spoiler:
Supes was taking swings at Flash and Flash was dodging the hell out of them
My opinion is that this movie took place in a completely different universe than BvS. Here, we see the world mourning a heroic and beloved icon of hope, instead of the mopey git that everyone hated and protested in BvS. It's the only way the opening of the film makes any kind of sense, since in Snyder's deconstructionist take on the DC Universe, everyone was anti-Supes (except for Lois and Martha). For the world to roll out huge black banners with the Superman logo on them after his death fighting a monster that threatened an empty stretch of dockyard, they would have had to have had a much higher opinion of him than anyone in MoS or BvS ever displayed. So this is some kind of parallel-universe soft-reboot and I don't mind at all. It's nice to see a world where iconic avatars of good get to be good and heroic instead of bitter and cynical. And they included color in the film! That was a nice surprise, considering WB's tendency to drain all color from a film based on a very colorful medium.
I actually thought Aqua Man came across very good in this. He was a lot cooler than I thought he could be. Batman seems to have mellowed out a bunch. He's still the most world-weary of the characters, but he really does seem to have rediscovered the "hope" that everyone in the movie tells us Superman represented. WW is awesome, of course. Flash is fun, but I think the movie's tendency to make him the butt monkey was a bit much. As someone else here pointed out, every single time he does something cool, it is immediately followed by a pratfall or him screwing up in some way. I would have liked for him to finish one action beat without egg all over his face. I don't really have an opinion on Cyborg, because I've never in my life had an opinion on Cyborg. He was definitely in this movie, that's for sure.
The movie was fast-paced, due to the runtime and the need to cram three new characters into the story, but I think it was handled well. I can't think of a single wasted scene in this film. Everything is either directly important to the plot, or it sets up a later scene which delivers a payoff. I enjoyed this movie far more than I thought I would. I wouldn't put it on the same level as Wonder Woman, but it is definitely far superior to the other three films WB has put forward.
The best scene for me was
Spoiler:
right before the team's first fight with Steppenwolf, when Flash reveals he is in over his head and doesn't think he should get involved, Batman turns to him and says "Save one. Just go in there, save one person, and get out." It's awesome because it is all Batman needs to say. He knows Flash can save one person, even if he can't fight, but he also knows that Flash won't stop after saving just one. He knows Flash will go back in for number two. And number three. And number four. And so on, until the hostages are clear of the danger.
That little bit made the movie for me.
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)
2017/11/18 23:57:56
Subject: Justice League Movie Discussion (Nov 17 Release)
(Ok, I'm being slightly facetious with that, but at the same time I do think some kind of reversal of the Martha scene could have actually worked and helped people who missed the point of it in BvS 'get it', so to speak. Maybe too soon for most, though. )
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)