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.

 AduroT wrote:
Lex was really only in the post-credit-but-it-happens-befor-the-credits scene. I still think he’s poorly cast, but isn’t really given enough time to be all loopy. He recruits Deathstroke still, who has a grudge against Batman implied to be over his missing eye, and Lex tells him who Batman really is.

Yeah, that was the lead-in to the Affleck Batman film that never happened. Was going to be about Deathstroke hunting and taking down Batman by targeting everyone around him, and ending with a fight scene out of the video game.

Edit: I would have watched it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I dunno if it’s a self imposed perception filter, but it doesn’t seem to have really wowed anyone.

Most of the comments seem to be “it’s better than the theatrical cut, but”.

I think it's just a movie that people went into with the correct expectations and pretty much everyone got what they were expecting. My friends who petitioned for it were SUPER happy, my friends who didn't appreciated the improvements but weren't exactly blown away, and my friends who didn't care continue to not care. We live in an era where setting expectations matters as much as the actual product. Wishing them luck with JJ on that matter....

First I've heard that Abrams is getting his hands on DC. What an awful decision, how does this man keep getting the big jobs with his track record?

His actual initial reboots do extremely well. That's why I thought getting him for just Ep 7 was one of Disney's best decisions and why bringing him back for 9 was easily their worst.

But Ep 7 set up the failure of the sequel series. The lack of long term story planning and reliance on mystery boxes took a sledgehammer to the series’ legs by the end of the first movie. Just because it was fast paced and had fun scenes doesn’t mean it was a good movie or a good franchise opener.

Same thing with Star Trek 09. By the end of the first movie, Kirk was unlikeable, Starfleet had lost its credibility, and the setting was broken. It was fun nonsense at the expense of everything that made TOS a viable franchise.

He’s also brought in several billion dollars.

To misquote Jones out of Robocop?

I had a guaranteed marketing sales with each movie - toys, plastic cups, bedding, underoos... Who cares if it sucked or not?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
But Ep 7 set up the failure of the sequel series. The lack of long term story planning and reliance on mystery boxes took a sledgehammer to the series’ legs by the end of the first movie. Just because it was fast paced and had fun scenes doesn’t mean it was a good movie or a good franchise opener.

Same thing with Star Trek 09. By the end of the first movie, Kirk was unlikeable, Starfleet had lost its credibility, and the setting was broken. It was fun nonsense at the expense of everything that made TOS a viable franchise.

I don't really have a problem with anything in 7 and I think 8 sets up a great finale that we just never got. Part of that is just that I don't think Star Wars has ever relied on or benefitted from long term story structure. It's movies have always been self contained with huge time skips that make prior events less important than the immediate story. While I don't have an ounce of love for JJ's love of mystery boxes without care for how they're answered, I've also seen just how much of that damage is created by the community. WandaVision is probably the most recent example of people demanding the rabbit hole go all the way to the Earth's core and being disappointed when it's just its own story instead of being about continuity management. Fans put so demand into forcing 7 into a rigid set of cliches, but for my money, the failure was 9's attempts to appease them.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
He’s also brought in several billion dollars.

To misquote Jones out of Robocop?

I had a guaranteed marketing sales with each movie - toys, plastic cups, bedding, underoos... Who cares if it sucked or not?

Short term thinking. He made Avengers money at the expense of making MCU money.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
He’s also brought in several billion dollars.

To misquote Jones out of Robocop?

I had a guaranteed marketing sales with each movie - toys, plastic cups, bedding, underoos... Who cares if it sucked or not?

Short term thinking. He made Avengers money at the expense of making MCU money.

Kinda? Perhaps? What we do know is that despite a few attempts, no other studio has pulled off an MCU. Disney might be getting there with the TV series approach to Star Wars. But the MCU, Universal Dark Universe etc have all crashed and burned.

He’s still a financially successful director, and reliably so. That’s all movie studios really care about. Film A succeeding allows Films B and C to be made, and they needn’t be otherwise related. A few bum notes and losses and the whole thing can come to an end.

The MCU is successful because, well, who really knows? The films are all good fun, though quality varies. And it wasn’t really until Avengers Assemble that they made the really, really big bucks. What probably helped was that Iron Man, the first out the gate, was a really, really good film. RDJ was something of a hasbeen at the time, yet he made for an interesting Tony Stark. Recognisable to existing fans, accessible to newcomers.

But what we are seeing now is studios being possibly too risk adverse. If their first entry doesn’t do megabucks, they pull the plug or go interfering. Consider The Mummy. Oh gods that is a terrible film. Yet, the premise of a Universal Monsters series is a solid one. They’re well established in the public consciousness, to the point their Dracula et al have become the default look - like how many people call any vacuum cleaner a Hoover etc. It wasn’t entirely unsolvable as a problem, but they changed course and dumped the whole thing, which feels massively premature.

And when they do, it’s people like JJ Abrams and Michael Bay they turn to. Because their movies may not be great, but they’re reliable money spinners.

Yet, there are two notable MCU-a-likes, if you look carefully.

First, The Fast and the Furiverse. Loads of films, all making decent money.

Second? The Conjuring Universe. Those have all been profitable and healthily so, because they’re cheap to produce (not cheaply produced, which I consider a different matter). To date, according to the link to follow? A total production budget of $139,500,000, for a total box office take of $1,904,011,496. So not exactly massive compared to the MCU’s takings - but definitely wildly profitable.

And now I’ve waffled myself to the degree I’ve forgotten my point. Bugger.

From JJ's perspective, Avengers money is much better than MCU money.

The funny thing about the MCU is that most of its success has been built by making good movies that aren't really connected outside of the post credit sequence. This lets them gloss over things that don't work like the Incredible Hulk or Red Skull and focus on things that click, like RDJ and Loki. The post credit sequence is something that can be spun up pretty close to the film's release to tease movies that have already begun to take shape.

Iron Man promised the Avengers, but never let that drive the movies that came after.
Thanos is probably the best example of a long term promise that really only worked because the movies didn't become set up for his. He gets all the stones in Infinity War.

There was a similar break in the MCU fandom around Ultron. This was the movie where a lot of people got really upset it wasn't about things in other movies and really didn't reward them for consuming every film and theorizing what it all means. It was it's own thing that ironically, is at its weakest when its forced to explain magic space rocks that don't have anything to do with the film. Iron Man 2 is similarly one of the low points in the franchise due to a similar focus on setup over standing on its own.

 LunarSol wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
But Ep 7 set up the failure of the sequel series. The lack of long term story planning and reliance on mystery boxes took a sledgehammer to the series’ legs by the end of the first movie. Just because it was fast paced and had fun scenes doesn’t mean it was a good movie or a good franchise opener.

Same thing with Star Trek 09. By the end of the first movie, Kirk was unlikeable, Starfleet had lost its credibility, and the setting was broken. It was fun nonsense at the expense of everything that made TOS a viable franchise.

I don't really have a problem with anything in 7 and I think 8 sets up a great finale that we just never got. Part of that is just that I don't think Star Wars has ever relied on or benefitted from long term story structure. It's movies have always been self contained with huge time skips that make prior events less important than the immediate story. While I don't have an ounce of love for JJ's love of mystery boxes without care for how they're answered, I've also seen just how much of that damage is created by the community. WandaVision is probably the most recent example of people demanding the rabbit hole go all the way to the Earth's core and being disappointed when it's just its own story instead of being about continuity management. Fans put so demand into forcing 7 into a rigid set of cliches, but for my money, the failure was 9's attempts to appease them.

Fans didn't really demand anything of 7. The writer/director forced those cliches in (maybe with help of the studio). People just reacted to what was presented- they didn't (and couldn't have) forced those all those cliches into the film. 9 failures were directly attached to not having an overall trilogy plotted out BEFORE 7, and instead dealing with the feuding director's takes on what it should be, as they made their individual films with no regard to anything like an overall story.

Similarly with WandaVision. That's like 80% continuity porn. Some wrap-up for characters that were neglected at the end of infinity war and a LOT of set up (here's where they are now for Monica, Woo & Darcy; Darkhold/SW->Dr Strange 2, creating another Vision & origin story). The actual story of WandaVision is actually fairly tiny. And mostly irrelevant given the writer's insistence on it not 'being about' consequences for the characters' actions.

Kind of? The only major mysteries 7 asks is what happened to Rey's parents and what happened between Luke and Ben. Fan's built way more mystery into Snoke than the film ever did.

WandaVision is only continuity porn if the only thing you take out of it is the events that pertain to some kind of nebulous larger story. Literally nothing of importance happens to Woo or Darcy and pretty much everything mentioned here is the stuff from either the last episode or AFTER the last episode.

Like.... no one enjoyed Return of the Jedi specifically because of the questions it asks regarding the challenges of rebuilding the republic in the wake of a successful rebellion. That's the danger of continuity; we focus on finding our happiness in the future rather than enjoying what we have.

WandaVision has a lot of merit as its own thing. It's got a great arc about the stages of grielf wrapped in desire at the heart of it to struggle to accept a new reality beyond loss. It would be good as its own thing; arguably, it would probably be better. Regardless, the meat of the story is definitely not the end, but its easy to overlook when we focus entirely on what's next.

 LunarSol wrote:
Kind of? The only major mysteries 7 asks is what happened to Rey's parents and what happened between Luke and Ben. Fan's built way more mystery into Snoke than the film ever did.

I think we're referring to different things here. When you said 'fans forcing 7 into a rigid set of cliches' I thought you were talking about 7, not the stuff the carried into the next film. Or rather failed to be carried, because the directors are hacks.

Snoke, I disagree entirely on. You don't introduce a big bad without intending some payoff. Villains need development as much (or even more) than the protagonists. Heroes can be reactive because stuff affects them personally (you killed my parents and burned my town!), villains needs a motive, and a background. Snoke is wretched, because he's a ball of nothing that adds zero to 7, actively wastes screen time in 8, and is just a joke in 9. Put Ren in charge from the beginning and nothing of note changes.

WandaVision is only continuity porn if the only thing you take out of it is the events that pertain to some kind of nebulous larger story. Literally nothing of importance happens to Woo or Darcy and pretty much everything mentioned here is the stuff from either the last episode or AFTER the last episode.

Continuity porn doesn't need to be important. It honestly usually isn't. But its written for the fans- if the writers didn't want it, not including those characters would have been simple- they're of such little use its clear that their only function _is_ continuity porn in the shape of 'where are they now?' As a political science intern, Darcy becoming a real astrophysicist is straight up a surprise that has zip to do with the Wandavision story.

WandaVision has a lot of merit as its own thing. It's got a great arc about the stages of grielf wrapped in desire at the heart of it to struggle to accept a new reality beyond loss. It would be good as its own thing; arguably, it would probably be better. Regardless, the meat of the story is definitely not the end, but its easy to overlook when we focus entirely on what's next.

Again, the continuity porn isn't restricted to the end. Its scattered about all over, but 'We interrupt this program' (ep 4) is huge, and continuity with the MCU is really the only purpose. It actually derails Wanda's story a fair bit by existing. (And I say Wanda's story for a reason. Vision exists to be rebooted as a character, but not much else other than a signpost to demonstrate where Wanda is falling apart)

But I would argue that the meat of the story _is_ at the end. The Wanda's fantasy is neat, but by its very nature its hollow. The show really only starts mattering when she starts learning about consequences. The rest is pure self-indulgence- that's important to the setup, but it doesn't really matter.

Rian Johnson is NOT a hack director. Brick and Knives Out is proof of that.

He IS a terrible choice to direct a Star Wars movie in the middle of a trilogy, but he is no hack.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But the MCU, Universal Dark Universe etc have all crashed and burned.

The MCU crashed and burned?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yet, there are two notable MCU-a-likes, if you look carefully.

First, The Fast and the Furiverse. Loads of films, all making decent money.

The Fast franchise is nothing like the MCU. The Fast franchise is a single series of linier sequels (with the exception of the Hobbs/Shaw film). It's not an interconnected universe of different characters that overlap and work with one another from time to time.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But what we are seeing now is studios being possibly too risk adverse. If their first entry doesn’t do megabucks, they pull the plug or go interfering. Consider The Mummy. Oh gods that is a terrible film. Yet, the premise of a Universal Monsters series is a solid one. They’re well established in the public consciousness, to the point their Dracula et al have become the default look - like how many people call any vacuum cleaner a Hoover etc. It wasn’t entirely unsolvable as a problem, but they changed course and dumped the whole thing, which feels massively premature.

So the roles of studios and directors is something that's more interesting to discuss about ZSJL (at least to me). It seems like some critics 'came around' to some degree just because the thing is classic auteur filmmaking. The kind you don't see much with blockbuster films and extremely rarely with superhero movies. And it's a huge contrast with the theatrical cut, because that was clearly a film that had been chopped up and mashed together and reprocessed seemingly without care from anyone.

https://www.vulture.com/article/movie-review-snyder-cut-justice-league-hbo-max.html
https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/movies-tv/review-zack-snyders-justice-league-turns-a-bad-movie-into-an-epic-piece-of-art

I can't get my head around why the studio would have thought what they released was a better option. Or even ready for theaters. But clearly, somehow they thought it SAFER. ZSJL isn't a masterpiece exactly, but it's at least SOMEONE'S vision and undeniably theirs. Not a Frankenstein monster result of overactive and incompetent execs and two very different directors. Not everyone may enjoy the meal that Snyder cooked up, but at least it's a coherent dish and not a bunch of gak thrown in a blender and handed to us with a straw stuck in it.

If that seems like a low bar to clear, well...yeah, it probably is. But we're in a low bar era full of big-budget brain candy theater films that are completely forgettable. This is going to sound like I'm picking on the MCU. Well, I do have my MCU favorites, and they're mostly the ones where some personal style leaks around the edges of the template. But then maybe half of the MCU is completely forgettable to me. I can't tell who the hell directed them and I don't even think I'm supposed to care. But I should care...that's part of what makes movies interesting. At least to me.

So as a fellow creative professional...FETH YEAH ZACK SNYDER! Congrats on getting your vision out there and creating something that's memorable and discussion-worthy.

The original cut was clearly made with 3 parameters:
- Make it colorful
- Make it funny
- Make it not one second longer than 2 hours

These are 3 things that the Snyder Cut makes abundantly clear were not features of the raw source material and could only be accomplished by mangling it into an unnatural form. It's pretty clear that even Whedon considered it an impossible demand if the opening credits are to be believed:

I can't get my head around why the studio would have thought what they released was a better option.

Honestly, this one is easy. They were tired of spending money on it and wanted to get some of it back.

They didn't have much confidence after Batman v Superman, and didn't want to take anymore risks.

The new cut is less 'artistic vision' than it is a chance to cash in again. The screaming fans made them realize there were still cows to milk.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But the MCU, Universal Dark Universe etc have all crashed and burned.

The MCU crashed and burned?

I think/hope that's meant to be the DCU, but I'll let the Mad Doc confirm.

 LunarSol wrote:
The original cut was clearly made with 3 parameters:
- Make it colorful
- Make it funny
- Make it not one second longer than 2 hours

These are 3 things that the Snyder Cut makes abundantly clear were not features of the raw source material and could only be accomplished by mangling it into an unnatural form. It's pretty clear that even Whedon considered it an impossible demand if the opening credits are to be believed:

Spoiler:

Realistically, most films have upwards of 4-5 hours of footage and half or more will never make it into the final cut. Justice League's reshoots probably gave it more than most, thus making it easy to flesh the film out even longer. Without a doubt, JL would have benefited from another 30 minutes of run time. It would still be profoundly mediocre imo, but far less stupidly mediocre.

Do you mean JL theatrical cut or ZSJL? Just asking because based the way I would define a mediocre film...putting ZSJL in that category doesn't make sense to me. It's a lot of things, but plain, room temperature oatmeal it ain't. Strong like or dislike, or complicated feelings would all be more understandable, lol.

Now Captain Marvel...to me, that was truly mediocre. I saw it...and hardly remember it. Didn't have anything interesting or memorable going on with its visuals or style or performances or script or story. It just kinda existed. Larson's a good actress...I just don't think there was much there for her to work with. But lots of people sucked that one up through a straw, so I guess there's a market for it.

It feels like that's what the studio wanted when they brought in Whedon...'it doesn't have to be good, but DO NOT OFFEND'. Anyway, I'm happy to see that ZSJL wasn't that. And that current management is letting the creators create more now, even if it means it's not the same kind of universe as Marvel.

 gorgon wrote:
Now Captain Marvel...to me, that was truly mediocre. I saw it...and hardly remember it. Didn't have anything interesting or memorable going on with its visuals or style or performances or script or story. It just kinda existed. Larson's a good actress...I just don't think there was much there for her to work with. But lots of people sucked that one up through a straw, so I guess there's a market for it.

I guess people were afraid to criticise Captain Marvel for fear of being called misogynists.

Of course that means that any attempt to have an honest discussion about Captain Marvel's biggest failing (it's directors!) gets drowned out by "You just hate stronk wymyn!!!!" nonsense.

This is why I'm hoping the new director for Captain Marvel 2 can actually do something good with it. In the end they just should'a hired Lexi Alexander to make the first one. She knows how to direct action.

 gorgon wrote:

Now Captain Marvel...to me, that was truly mediocre. I saw it...and hardly remember it. Didn't have anything interesting or memorable going on with its visuals or style or performances or script or story. It just kinda existed.

Agree 100%.

 gorgon wrote:
Do you mean JL theatrical cut or ZSJL? Just asking because based the way I would define a mediocre film...putting ZSJL in that category doesn't make sense to me. It's a lot of things, but plain, room temperature oatmeal it ain't. Strong like or dislike, or complicated feelings would all be more understandable, lol.

I definitely qualify it as mediocre.

Now Captain Marvel...to me, that was truly mediocre.

This too, though less offensively so.

For me, JL was like a baby who wanted to sprint the 100m before it had learned to crawl and it cropped up throughout the movie by being really really wonky. Captain Marvel was in comparison just incredibly run of the mill and bland.

I saw it...and hardly remember it.

That's because it's not very memorable I can't help but feel a movie presumably about Captain M.'s one woman war against the Kree would have been more interesting given it's supposed to be a back drop to several other films in the MCU (mostly Guardians). As it was, the actual movie fel like going through the motions of an origin story while having nothing interesting to add. Doctor Strange was much the same for me.

I liked Captain Marvel on the whole. The Skrull twise was nice and its hard to hate Samuel L. Jackson befriending a cat. It lacks punch though, in no small part because it was released in the middle of Infinity. Need to watch it again out of that context.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Of course that means that any attempt to have an honest discussion about Captain Marvel's biggest failing (it's directors!) gets drowned out by "You just hate stronk wymyn!!!!" nonsense.

Realistically, that was ruined by a lot of nonsense about how Brie Larson doesn't smile enough, and other stupid crap, taking over the internet about the film before the movie even came out. Then it did come out, her performance and the film were profoundly 'meh' and instead of talking about that it was hard to talk through the haters masturbating to how right they were for being pigs.

This is why I'm hoping the new director for Captain Marvel 2 can actually do something good with it. In the end they just should'a hired Lexi Alexander to make the first one. She knows how to direct action.

It didn't help that Captain M. really feels like a cardboard cut out as a character. Someone presented to fit a mold more than an actual person. I don't feel like we really learned anything about her as a person in the first movie. We basically just saw her doing what almost anyone in her situation would do. That's not a whole lot to really build a unique character on. Reminded me a lot of The First Avenger, where I thought Evan's performance and the film suffered from being particularly bland. EDIT: Thinking of it, I think I feel the same about Doctor Strange. That character really didn't come into his own until he started bantering with Thor and Tony in later movies. In his own origin film, I found him to be bland and the film was only cool for being very different from other MCU films with the magic and all.

Makes me reappreciate Black Panther a bit. The third act was cliche and soured me on the rest of the film, but at least the film presented T'Challa and others with something of a defining personal conflict that went beyond being a nice person surrounded by donkey-caves.

Samuel L. Jackson befriending a cat

I'd completely forgotten about that XD

When the feth are we going to get a Nick Fury movie? Ever? Please?

We're getting a Nick Fury series (Secret Invasion) so that's like extra Nick Fury than you'd get from a simple 2ish hour movie.

Not a movie, but Secret Invasion is supposed to be a Nick Fury centric tv show, in the style of Falcon and the Winter Soldier.

On topic.

Launching tonight. 'Justice is Grey.' - Zack Snyders Justice League, but in black and white.

 Compel wrote:
Not a movie, but Secret Invasion is supposed to be a Nick Fury centric tv show, in the style of Falcon and the Winter Soldier.

On topic.

Launching tonight. 'Justice is Grey.' - Zack Snyders Justice League, but in black and white.

Do I want to know what the rationale behind that is?
Is Snyder just obsessed with stripping out every possible signature aspect of comic books so he can prove how above them he is? Even going as far as color?

Or is it just the money? Resell the resell, but this time an even easier change so it costs less?

I mean, there's nothing to really resell, people would still be subscribed to HBOMax. If you were wanting to resell, you'd release it a month later.

So uh, pure ego stroking I guess? Or trying to put it into the same league as Logan and Fury Road?

People are also now being encouraged to leave the movie on repeat, too to get the viewing numbers up.