Early screening of Justice League deem it 'unwatchable'

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Is this from the same guy who called Wonder Woman "A mess"?

McMarbles:
Is this from the same guy who called Wonder Woman "A mess"?

Wonder Woman was a mess, but it was at least watchable.

In fairness Wonder Woman was not an exception. Suicide Squad I would deem equal to Wonder Woman.

Apparently the cut that was unwatchable was Snyder's, before the Whedon reshoots.
http://screenrant.com/rumor-justice-league-unwatchable-reshoots-zack-snyder-joss-whedon/
I can't say I'm surprised.

I can understand why Cyborg is an issue. In the trailers he seems much more machine then he does man. Very lifeless and boring.

McMarbles:
Is this from the same guy who called Wonder Woman "A mess"?

Maybe it was the guy who also said the Amazons were going to be descended from Kryptonians.

Or the one who claimed there was going to be a love triangle between Superman, Lois and Wonder Woman in BvS.

Or the genius who was so sure the Joker was going to turn out to be Jason Todd in Suicide Squad.

Captain Marvelous:
Apparently the cut that was unwatchable was Snyder's, before the Whedon reshoots.
http://screenrant.com/rumor-justice-league-unwatchable-reshoots-zack-snyder-joss-whedon/
I can't say I'm surprised.

I can understand why Cyborg is an issue. In the trailers he seems much more machine then he does man. Very lifeless and boring.

has anyone noticed that when it comes to Warner Bros. and specifically the section involved in the production of DC movies, everyone and their uncles have anonymous sources inside the studios, while on the other hand such sources are almost as rare as chicken teeth when it comes to Disney, Fox, Sony, etc.?

It always seemed a little weird to me, too.

And Cyborg's always been more machine than man.

Natemans:

Samtemdo8:

Silentpony:

This is apparently after the reshoots. Its still unwatchable

What makes them think it won't be even more unwatchable with thier interference? After what happened to Suicide Squad?

So Pacing Issues, even with all the reshoots and changes this movie has to introduce Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg, The New God Steppenwolf's invasion of the world, and Superman's Return and than some. I think you need 4 hours to tell this story.

Dark Tone, I prefer a Dark Tone because I am not a little kid anymore and because I read Vertigo Comics and Watchmen. And most definitively do not want another Marvel esque tone, and Joss Wheadon's involvement is not doing any favors. And its baffling because WB wanted their DC movies to be dark like the Nolan Batman movies, everything about Man of Steel is made to be like Batman Begins, now they are saying they don't want a Dark tone because Money.

Cyborg, I guess its because from the trailers he's not the "BOOYAH" shouting teen and more like his New 52 personality. (As far as I read of him in the first Justice League issue)

Look, here's the thing: you can have dark while giving some levity or feel of fun to give some weight. That's why the Nolan films, MCU and Wonder Woman work well. Minor note: they said that the film was 60% done when Zack was on board and the early cut was called that unwatchable. So now is when they do reshoots.

Yeah, I'm genuinely surprised they found this unwatchable yet they made a production mess of Suicide Squad and that dumpster fire BvS passable, but this made them cross the line. I'm cool with Joss Whedon coming to help with the film since I love his work as he does a great job with character building, solid dialogue and team-ups. However, I don't think he can salvage this.

Okay, not being insensitive, but you don't need to address Steppenwolf as just the New God. You can just refer to him as just Steppenwolf. Not being a dick. Just offering a suggestion and not being mean.

See, there's a major problem with the DCEU since Man of Steel: I kinda feel like they don't know who their films are aimed at (well, except WW). Nolan's Dark Knight films weren't good because of a dark tone; they were good because of this thing called a good script, solid direction or a clear understanding of the characters. Dude, being grown up doesn't always have to mean you can appreciate dark and hate goofy stuff. Hell, like I said, you can have a nice balance of serious and lighthearted moments. Hell, Tom Baker said it best, "You can't be grown up without being childish sometimes."

Well, to be fair, Cyborg did start out as a dark, serious character from the comics. Plus the original Teen Titans cartoon did focus on some dark parts of the character despite doing the goofy stuff. Goofy isn't bad for anything; its how you utilize or execute it. Though based on the trailers, I'm not impressed sadly. Mainly because I find not much to his character from what I'm seeing and I know they got until November to finish it, but the CGI is really bad on him. Plus yeah, I found New 52 Cyborg really boring.

The DC movies are more dark in aesthetic rather than content. In regards to the latter, they're no more dark than any other superhero adaptation in the last decade or so. The MCU rather just ignores the implications of their universe until it is convenient and even when they do it's swept aside for soap operic BS like the destruction of Steve and Tony's non-existent friendship.

Agent_Z:

Natemans:

Samtemdo8:

What makes them think it won't be even more unwatchable with thier interference? After what happened to Suicide Squad?

So Pacing Issues, even with all the reshoots and changes this movie has to introduce Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg, The New God Steppenwolf's invasion of the world, and Superman's Return and than some. I think you need 4 hours to tell this story.

Dark Tone, I prefer a Dark Tone because I am not a little kid anymore and because I read Vertigo Comics and Watchmen. And most definitively do not want another Marvel esque tone, and Joss Wheadon's involvement is not doing any favors. And its baffling because WB wanted their DC movies to be dark like the Nolan Batman movies, everything about Man of Steel is made to be like Batman Begins, now they are saying they don't want a Dark tone because Money.

Cyborg, I guess its because from the trailers he's not the "BOOYAH" shouting teen and more like his New 52 personality. (As far as I read of him in the first Justice League issue)

Look, here's the thing: you can have dark while giving some levity or feel of fun to give some weight. That's why the Nolan films, MCU and Wonder Woman work well. Minor note: they said that the film was 60% done when Zack was on board and the early cut was called that unwatchable. So now is when they do reshoots.

Yeah, I'm genuinely surprised they found this unwatchable yet they made a production mess of Suicide Squad and that dumpster fire BvS passable, but this made them cross the line. I'm cool with Joss Whedon coming to help with the film since I love his work as he does a great job with character building, solid dialogue and team-ups. However, I don't think he can salvage this.

Okay, not being insensitive, but you don't need to address Steppenwolf as just the New God. You can just refer to him as just Steppenwolf. Not being a dick. Just offering a suggestion and not being mean.

See, there's a major problem with the DCEU since Man of Steel: I kinda feel like they don't know who their films are aimed at (well, except WW). Nolan's Dark Knight films weren't good because of a dark tone; they were good because of this thing called a good script, solid direction or a clear understanding of the characters. Dude, being grown up doesn't always have to mean you can appreciate dark and hate goofy stuff. Hell, like I said, you can have a nice balance of serious and lighthearted moments. Hell, Tom Baker said it best, "You can't be grown up without being childish sometimes."

Well, to be fair, Cyborg did start out as a dark, serious character from the comics. Plus the original Teen Titans cartoon did focus on some dark parts of the character despite doing the goofy stuff. Goofy isn't bad for anything; its how you utilize or execute it. Though based on the trailers, I'm not impressed sadly. Mainly because I find not much to his character from what I'm seeing and I know they got until November to finish it, but the CGI is really bad on him. Plus yeah, I found New 52 Cyborg really boring.

The DC movies are more dark in aesthetic rather than content. In regards to the latter, they're no more dark than any other superhero adaptation in the last decade or so. The MCU rather just ignores the implications of their universe until it is convenient and even when they do it's swept aside for soap operic BS like the destruction of Steve and Tony's non-existent friendship.

But the DCEU films have mostly been dark in aesthetic and content. The only exceptions being Suicide Squad and WW. The MCU doesn't really and utilizes it well plus they did a really well-handled job of Steve and Tony's friendship.

Agent_Z:

Captain Marvelous:
Apparently the cut that was unwatchable was Snyder's, before the Whedon reshoots.
http://screenrant.com/rumor-justice-league-unwatchable-reshoots-zack-snyder-joss-whedon/
I can't say I'm surprised.

I can understand why Cyborg is an issue. In the trailers he seems much more machine then he does man. Very lifeless and boring.

has anyone noticed that when it comes to Warner Bros. and specifically the section involved in the production of DC movies, everyone and their uncles have anonymous sources inside the studios, while on the other hand such sources are almost as rare as chicken teeth when it comes to Disney, Fox, Sony, etc.?

It always seemed a little weird to me, too.

Not really. I follow movie news through a podcast and it never seems like DC has more leaks or anonymous sources than other studios. Just recently we've been hearing a lot of bad stuff about The Solo Han Solo movie, and previously before that we also heard the same things about Rogue One. Fox if anything has the most rumours, and a lot of them end up being true.

It just so happens that the DCEU rumors are almost always negative and therefore get more press.

And Cyborg's always been more machine than man.

That is just wrong. That is literally the opposite of his entire character. His human components being more than his computer bits was the focus of an entire episode of Teen Titans. It is the one thing that makes him even remotely compelling.

Even his New 52 comics, which are shiiiiittttttt, the theme of still being human is constant.

I wonder what will happen if Justice League turns out to be another critical failure.

Reboot it again after a few years, ie, Sony's Spider-Man and Amazing Spider-Man, or just stick with it and carry on with a critically panned franchise, that is at least commercially successful?

To be fair, I think everyone and their mum knows that this film is going to turn out like trash, but I am really interested to see just how bad it really is.

Wonder Woman was condemned as a "Mess" due to late reshoots, etc, but then it went on to massive success both in the states and worldwide. Heck, I may be going to see it tomorrow.

I don't get the Joss Whedon hate. One thing WW taught Warner Bros was that "lighter" films than Snyder's were better received by a broader audience.

The unwatchable wreck that was Snyder's original version sounds pretty bad--too much being shoe horned into one movie. Cutting back and lightening things up should help.

And given that this is a Snyder movie "lightening things up" could simply mean stopping it from being an Emo "Life is pain--slash your wrists" flick. That doesn't directly mean Joss is turning it into "My Little Pony". :D

Basement Cat:
Wonder Woman was condemned as a "Mess" due to late reshoots, etc, but then it went on to massive success both in the states and worldwide. Heck, I may be going to see it tomorrow.

I don't get the Joss Whedon hate. One thing WW taught Warner Bros was that "lighter" films than Snyder's were better received by a broader audience.

The unwatchable wreck that was Snyder's original version sounds pretty bad--too much being shoe horned into one movie. Cutting back and lightening things up should help.

And given that this is a Snyder movie "lightening things up" could simply mean stopping it from being an Emo "Life is pain--slash your wrists" flick. That doesn't directly mean Joss is turning it into "My Little Pony". :D

Joss Whedon would make it worse still. His entire oeuvre is about taking something gritty and "realistic" and then slapping a ton of cheese all over it. He's the reason every Marvel comic book movie now has to be full of smart ass quipping, and if his Wonder Woman spec script is anything to go by, he'd do the exact same for DC.

For better or for worse, DC movies have chosen to be far more self-serious in tone, and whilst that looks terrible in movies like BvS, it's also part of the reason Wonder Woman was so good - no one else is making sincere, straight faced superheroes anymore, especially now that X-men has finally dried up. I don't want DC to start trying to be the next Guardians of the Galaxy or Jonathan Strange.

Basement Cat:
I don't get the Joss Whedon hate. One thing WW taught Warner Bros was that "lighter" films than Snyder's were better received by a broader audience. / And given that this is a Snyder movie "lightening things up" could simply mean stopping it from being an Emo "Life is pain--slash your wrists" flick. That doesn't directly mean Joss is turning it into "My Little Pony". :D

Snyder makes grimdark films for angsty teenage boys - or angsty teenage boys trapped in men's bodies... Joss does not.

So any project one hands off to the other is in for a hard transition. I'd absolutely dread for a Whedon project to be tampered with by Snyder.

Did WB ask Joss to step in, or was it Snyder? Either way, it seems like they're throwing Joss under the bus if the original cut's as bad as is rumoured. If Zack asked him personally after what happened, I'd understand why he agreed to it. But if it was the WB and he didn't know about the family tragedy, then Joss was a fool to agree to it. I can only see this becoming a black mark on his career.

Laggyteabag:
I wonder what will happen if Justice League turns out to be another critical failure.

Does it matter as long as it's a commercial success? Critical opinion is just fake news, after all... Moviegoers surely shouldn't burden themselves with trifling issues over whether a film might be good or not.

maninahat:
Joss Whedon would make it worse still. His entire oeuvre is about taking something gritty and "realistic" and then slapping a ton of cheese all over it. He's the reason every Marvel comic book movie now has to be full of smart ass quipping, and if his Wonder Woman spec script is anything to go by, he'd do the exact same for DC.

Er, no. Favreau's Iron Man and RDJ set the tone for the MCU - not Joss Whedon.

Two Iron Man's, a Thor, and a [brilliantly] pulpy Captain America helped solidify precisely what the MCU was about. And after The Avengers we had The Winter Soldier, whose tone was markedly darker and more serious than The Avengers or anything before it. Ditto Civil War.

...and no, his entire oeuvre isn't that at all - or it is if you're not familiar with his full body of work, or you somehow count any ounce of humanity and humour as evidence of "cheese".

Can't judge the earlier edits without seeing them, but getting the suits involved is the worst thing they can do. It was what ruined most WB/DC movies since Superman 3. Batman & Robin? Suits fault. Suicide Squad? Suits fault. Dark Knight Rises? Suits fault. In fact, one good reason why Batman Begins and is a good movie and a single unified vision is because they gave Nolan the character and just leave him alone.

Not that the movie could would not be unwatchable before, but if they are reshooting on orders from the suits, I can guarantee the end result will be unwatchable.

Darth Rosenberg:

Laggyteabag:
I wonder what will happen if Justice League turns out to be another critical failure.

Does it matter as long as it's a commercial success? Critical opinion is just fake news, after all... Moviegoers surely shouldn't burden themselves with trifling issues over whether a film might be good or not.

As a Moviegoer, I would much rather spend time watching a good film than a bad one. In fact, I am not a DCEU producer, so I won't burden myself with trifling issues like whether a movie is successful or not (in fact, that is an easy question given the subject; even Batman & Robin made a profit)... except to get angry that bad successful movies means more bad movies are on their way.

hermes:
As a Moviegoer, I would much rather spend time watching a good film than a bad one. In fact, I am not a DCEU producer, so I won't burden myself with trifling issues like whether a movie is successful or not (in fact, that is an easy question given the subject; even Batman & Robin made a profit)... except to get angry that bad successful movies means more bad movies are on their way.

So 'good film = more good films', and bad = more bad? That's not exactly a hard and fast rule. Commercial success surely guarantees a property can either continue, or will have an impact in terms of other studios chasing similar styles or flavours of properties. A film that's perceived to be good but doesn't do well commercially has a very hard time impacting anything (it'll be interesting to see precisely what kind of a legacy Logan will leave, given it was certainly a commercial success relative to its budget and rating).

My point was obviously that, increasingly, it seems some studios are becoming actively resentful of critics and YT'ers having the cheek to form opinions and try to warn punters away from bad films. Quality evidently isn't their watchword.

And this isn't just any ol' studio or IP. BvS and Suicide Squad betrayed an ill thought out, poorly marketed, and indecisive shared universe[1]. It seems WB don't really give a shit about critique or sensible world building. So if Justice League is a clusterfuck yet does well commercially, my point is that WB won't really give a toss. They'll barrel ahead as they've been doing thus far.

[1] I'd say it was doomed from the start, given it's clear Zack Snyder has a surface level - at best - understanding of superheroes and comicbook mythos. Also I genuinely believe he might be a bit dimwitted... going from some of the facepalm inducing things he's said in interviews to try to justify MoS and BvS.

edited post.

Natemans:

Agent_Z:

Natemans:

Look, here's the thing: you can have dark while giving some levity or feel of fun to give some weight. That's why the Nolan films, MCU and Wonder Woman work well. Minor note: they said that the film was 60% done when Zack was on board and the early cut was called that unwatchable. So now is when they do reshoots.

Yeah, I'm genuinely surprised they found this unwatchable yet they made a production mess of Suicide Squad and that dumpster fire BvS passable, but this made them cross the line. I'm cool with Joss Whedon coming to help with the film since I love his work as he does a great job with character building, solid dialogue and team-ups. However, I don't think he can salvage this.

Okay, not being insensitive, but you don't need to address Steppenwolf as just the New God. You can just refer to him as just Steppenwolf. Not being a dick. Just offering a suggestion and not being mean.

See, there's a major problem with the DCEU since Man of Steel: I kinda feel like they don't know who their films are aimed at (well, except WW). Nolan's Dark Knight films weren't good because of a dark tone; they were good because of this thing called a good script, solid direction or a clear understanding of the characters. Dude, being grown up doesn't always have to mean you can appreciate dark and hate goofy stuff. Hell, like I said, you can have a nice balance of serious and lighthearted moments. Hell, Tom Baker said it best, "You can't be grown up without being childish sometimes."

Well, to be fair, Cyborg did start out as a dark, serious character from the comics. Plus the original Teen Titans cartoon did focus on some dark parts of the character despite doing the goofy stuff. Goofy isn't bad for anything; its how you utilize or execute it. Though based on the trailers, I'm not impressed sadly. Mainly because I find not much to his character from what I'm seeing and I know they got until November to finish it, but the CGI is really bad on him. Plus yeah, I found New 52 Cyborg really boring.

The DC movies are more dark in aesthetic rather than content. In regards to the latter, they're no more dark than any other superhero adaptation in the last decade or so. The MCU rather just ignores the implications of their universe until it is convenient and even when they do it's swept aside for soap operic BS like the destruction of Steve and Tony's non-existent friendship.

But the DCEU films have mostly been dark in aesthetic and content. The only exceptions being Suicide Squad and WW. The MCU doesn't really and utilizes it well plus they did a really well-handled job of Steve and Tony's friendship.

We've had four DCEU movies thus far. Two were light-hearted (well as light hearted as a movie about WW1 and a team of criminals being blackmailed into carrying out clandestine missions for the U.S government can be) and two skewed darker but no moreso than any other superhero film released in the past decades. Really, most of what we've seen in MoS and BvS (city-wide destruction, heroes being mistrusted by the public, heroes killing bad guys) isn't all that new and does not grim and gritty make. They have a sense of versimillitude that the MCU movies lack but that's it really. And frankly, I felt way more optimism when I say how ordinary people were helped by and in turn helped Superman in MoS and BvS than in the MCU depicting regular people as nothing but bodies to be tossed into the grave by the villain. That is when they weren't also turning them into straw men.

Tony and Steve's friendship is non-existent. In the three movies they've appeared in together, they've done nothing but be at each others throats. This is most evident in Civil War were Rogers spits in Tony's face at every turn and casually throws him under the bus for Bucky.

Darth Rosenberg:

hermes:
As a Moviegoer, I would much rather spend time watching a good film than a bad one. In fact, I am not a DCEU producer, so I won't burden myself with trifling issues like whether a movie is successful or not (in fact, that is an easy question given the subject; even Batman & Robin made a profit)... except to get angry that bad successful movies means more bad movies are on their way.

So 'good film = more good films', and bad = more bad? That's not exactly a hard and fast rule. Commercial success surely guarantees a property can either continue, or will have an impact in terms of other studios chasing similar styles or flavours of properties. A film that's perceived to be good but doesn't do well commercially has a very hard time impacting anything (it'll be interesting to see precisely what kind of a legacy Logan will leave, given it was certainly a commercial success relative to its budget and rating).

My point was obviously that, increasingly, it seems some studios are becoming actively resentful of critics and YT'ers having the cheek to form opinions and try to warn punters away from bad films. Quality evidently isn't their watchword.

And this isn't just any ol' studio or IP. BvS and Suicide Squad betrayed an ill thought out, poorly marketed, and indecisive shared universe[1]. It seems WB don't really give a shit about critique or sensible world building. So if Justice League is a clusterfuck yet does well commercially, my point is that WB won't really give a toss. They'll barrel ahead as they've been doing thus far.

They have been talking about a lighter tone since before BvS was released and Geoff Johns has been given greater control over the DCEU. Snyder understands comic book mythos just fine and frankly I've seen far more idiotic things said by both superhero writers and fans like Grant Morrison.

[1] I'd say it was doomed from the start, given it's clear Zack Snyder has a surface level - at best - understanding of superheroes and comicbook mythos. Also I genuinely believe he might be a bit dimwitted... going from some of the facepalm inducing things he's said in interviews to try to justify MoS and BvS.

Darth Rosenberg:

hermes:
As a Moviegoer, I would much rather spend time watching a good film than a bad one. In fact, I am not a DCEU producer, so I won't burden myself with trifling issues like whether a movie is successful or not (in fact, that is an easy question given the subject; even Batman & Robin made a profit)... except to get angry that bad successful movies means more bad movies are on their way.

So 'good film = more good films', and bad = more bad? That's not exactly a hard and fast rule. Commercial success surely guarantees a property can either continue, or will have an impact in terms of other studios chasing similar styles or flavours of properties. A film that's perceived to be good but doesn't do well commercially has a very hard time impacting anything (it'll be interesting to see precisely what kind of a legacy Logan will leave, given it was certainly a commercial success relative to its budget and rating).

My point was obviously that, increasingly, it seems some studios are becoming actively resentful of critics and YT'ers having the cheek to form opinions and try to warn punters away from bad films. Quality evidently isn't their watchword.

And this isn't just any ol' studio or IP. BvS and Suicide Squad betrayed an ill thought out, poorly marketed, and indecisive shared universe[1]. It seems WB don't really give a shit about critique or sensible world building. So if Justice League is a clusterfuck yet does well commercially, my point is that WB won't really give a toss. They'll barrel ahead as they've been doing thus far.

Bob_McMillan:

Agent_Z:

Captain Marvelous:
Apparently the cut that was unwatchable was Snyder's, before the Whedon reshoots.
http://screenrant.com/rumor-justice-league-unwatchable-reshoots-zack-snyder-joss-whedon/
I can't say I'm surprised.

I can understand why Cyborg is an issue. In the trailers he seems much more machine then he does man. Very lifeless and boring.

has anyone noticed that when it comes to Warner Bros. and specifically the section involved in the production of DC movies, everyone and their uncles have anonymous sources inside the studios, while on the other hand such sources are almost as rare as chicken teeth when it comes to Disney, Fox, Sony, etc.?

It always seemed a little weird to me, too.

Not really. I follow movie news through a podcast and it never seems like DC has more leaks or anonymous sources than other studios. Just recently we've been hearing a lot of bad stuff about The Solo Han Solo movie, and previously before that we also heard the same things about Rogue One. Fox if anything has the most rumours, and a lot of them end up being true.

It just so happens that the DCEU rumors are almost always negative and therefore get more press.

And Cyborg's always been more machine than man.

That is just wrong. That is literally the opposite of his entire character. His human components being more than his computer bits was the focus of an entire episode of Teen Titans. It is the one thing that makes him even remotely compelling.

Even his New 52 comics, which are shiiiiittttttt, the theme of still being human is constant.

I was talking more in physical appearance not personality. That's what the poster I replied to was talking about.

[1] I'd say it was doomed from the start, given it's clear Zack Snyder has a surface level - at best - understanding of superheroes and comicbook mythos. Also I genuinely believe he might be a bit dimwitted... going from some of the facepalm inducing things he's said in interviews to try to justify MoS and BvS.

Darth Rosenberg:

Basement Cat:
I don't get the Joss Whedon hate. One thing WW taught Warner Bros was that "lighter" films than Snyder's were better received by a broader audience. / And given that this is a Snyder movie "lightening things up" could simply mean stopping it from being an Emo "Life is pain--slash your wrists" flick. That doesn't directly mean Joss is turning it into "My Little Pony". :D

Snyder makes grimdark films for angsty teenage boys - or angsty teenage boys trapped in men's bodies... Joss does not.

So any project one hands off to the other is in for a hard transition. I'd absolutely dread for a Whedon project to be tampered with by Snyder.

Did WB ask Joss to step in, or was it Snyder? Either way, it seems like they're throwing Joss under the bus if the original cut's as bad as is rumoured. If Zack asked him personally after what happened, I'd understand why he agreed to it. But if it was the WB and he didn't know about the family tragedy, then Joss was a fool to agree to it. I can only see this becoming a black mark on his career.

Laggyteabag:
I wonder what will happen if Justice League turns out to be another critical failure.

Does it matter as long as it's a commercial success? Critical opinion is just fake news, after all... Moviegoers surely shouldn't burden themselves with trifling issues over whether a film might be good or not.

maninahat:
Joss Whedon would make it worse still. His entire oeuvre is about taking something gritty and "realistic" and then slapping a ton of cheese all over it. He's the reason every Marvel comic book movie now has to be full of smart ass quipping, and if his Wonder Woman spec script is anything to go by, he'd do the exact same for DC.

Er, no. Favreau's Iron Man and RDJ set the tone for the MCU - not Joss Whedon.

Two Iron Man's, a Thor, and a [brilliantly] pulpy Captain America helped solidify precisely what the MCU was about. And after The Avengers we had The Winter Soldier, whose tone was markedly darker and more serious than The Avengers or anything before it. Ditto Civil War.

...and no, his entire oeuvre isn't that at all - or it is if you're not familiar with his full body of work, or you somehow count any ounce of humanity and humour as evidence of "cheese".

Didn't realise "humanity" was an endless barrage of inappropriate jokes and people acting like Looney Tunes on sugar rush. Whedon's characters might as well be from another planet and I'm not just talking about the alien god.

maninahat:

Joss Whedon would make it worse still. His entire oeuvre is about taking something gritty and "realistic" and then slapping a ton of cheese all over it. He's the reason every Marvel comic book movie now has to be full of smart ass quipping, and if his Wonder Woman spec script is anything to go by, he'd do the exact same for DC.

Are we talking about the same Whedon? Joss "Happiness is boring" Whedon? The guy who rose to prominence for his tendency to inflict ever increasing amounts of darkness and pain on the characters, before callously killing off a few of them for dramatic effect?

Sure, part of Whedon's writing style is his quippy, buffyspeak dialogue, but the other part is all about putting characters in bad situations that hurt them and watching the fallout of them dealing with that pain. So for the kind of movies what WB is going for, he seems like a good fit for re-shoots and editing. Especially since he's among the best in Hollywood when it comes to bouncing characters off of one another.

Re-editing these movies is basically just like sticking it in the microwave. Yes... it's a quick fix. Yes... it will resemble a final product. But, by hell, you have just taken something and taken all the flavour out of it. It will be as bland and texture-less as a wet piece of bread.

I agree with @Maninahat... leave it be and let it be a consistent, if mediocre film. Then a collective consumer feedback can pick up on what we didn't like, not the grey suited movies-by-numbers guys.

Agent_Z:
Didn't realise "humanity" was an endless barrage of inappropriate jokes and people acting like Looney Tunes on sugar rush. Whedon's characters might as well be from another planet and I'm not just talking about the alien god.

Strikes me that you've not really closely watched much of his work across the years, because I'm fairly sure the critical consensus regarding acting and characterisation across shows and comics like Buffy, Firefly, even Dollhouse, Astonishing X-Men, and so on would not be as you try to describe. His characters have dynamic range, yes, and being an auteur his work tends to be recognisable (themes of found family are primary, usually found alongside a deep mistrust of power structures/hierarchies. humanist hope and fatalism also run through, I'd say, all his works. the final brilliant chitchat between Vision and Ultron in AoU is pretty much his own personal belief system cut down the middle. what profoundly humane scenes reveal Snyder's soul, I wonder?) - which is a positive trait, unless you're an opponent of anything approaching auteur theory.

His success across the decades hinges on his creations accessibility and relatability. Hell, even Dr Horrible is horribly empathetic and tragic.

If you simply object to his style, then fair enough. But questioning his works depth of humanity is clearly reaching.

Agent_Z:
They have been talking about a lighter tone since before BvS was released and Geoff Johns has been given greater control over the DCEU.

Snyder understands comic book mythos just fine and frankly I've seen far more idiotic things said by both superhero writers and fans like Grant Morrison.

Really? MoS and BvS represent any level of understanding of these two characters (since when was 'complete idiocy' a defining trait of the World's Greatest Detective, or Supes, for that matter)? Or any level of understanding of how to build an extended universe? I mean, I know they were fast-tracking copying Marvel Studios and Disney, but it takes a very special level of incompetence to pull off what BvS did.

Is Snyder wholly to blame for that? No, clearly not given he didn't scrawl the script out. But he was responsible for setting the tone, and trying to cohere a narrative worth a damn in editing, so he certainly takes a decent portion of the blame (had he half a brain he could've tried to fix the whole Martha nonsense. had he any self-awareness he might've just admitted early on that Eissenberg really wasn't right for an appallingly written role. were he not such a selfish lover of violence, he might've not executed Jimmy Olsen off-hand in case someone else down the line had stuff for Supes' iconic sidekick to do. and so on).

It's clear he's not overly willing to divert away from surface-level masculinist fantasies where these kinds of stories are concerned, so I'm deeply skeptical he could've successfully steered Justice League into slightly less self-serious territory. Like Whedon's style or not, but he will go down in pop-culture as an incredibly adept comic writer in TV, film, web series, and comicbooks (and as director, as Much Ado About Nothing demonstrates). Snyder will never be known as someone with a natural grasp for the ebb and flow of banter. He can compose violent visual frames suffocated in CG--- aaand what else? He's orgiastically smashed towns and cities to pieces with the morose MoS, made Batman a relentlessly sadistic - and bewilderingly unintelligent - murderer, but what else can Snyder offer with these characters and this muddled universe?

As for Johns: I've read only the tiniest slither of DC comics (enough to know Joss should really be writing and directing a Kate Kane Batwoman film, not Batgirl), and never anything by him, but I'm reliably told he's known as a conservative, particularly with the key characters including the trinity? If so, how the hell did he let Warner and Snyder piss all over Batman and Superman and jam all they tried to into BvS (which was still trying to sort out its narrative details in the extended edit, so hapless was the theatrical pass)?

Warner and DC's Kevin Feige he ain' - at least not yet. The apparently troubled production of Justice League (where Whedon, of all people, will be helping reshape it) doesn't suggest that'll change anytime soon, either.

Darth Rosenberg:
Strikes me that you've not really closely watched much of his work across the years, because I'm fairly sure the critical consensus regarding acting and characterisation across shows and comics like Buffy, Firefly, even Dollhouse, Astonishing X-Men, and so on would not be as you try to describe. His characters have dynamic range, yes, and being an auteur his work tends to be recognisable (themes of found family are primary, usually found alongside a deep mistrust of power structures/hierarchies. humanist hope and fatalism also run through, I'd say, all his works. the final brilliant chitchat between Vision and Ultron in AoU is pretty much his own personal belief system cut down the middle. what profoundly humane scenes reveal Snyder's soul, I wonder?) - which is a positive trait, unless you're an opponent of anything approaching auteur theory.

I?ve watched Whedon?s work just fine. At best I get something like Buff which I start out as liking but over time the cracks start to show. This isn?t even getting into more troubling aspects of his work like his fetshism is skinny, white women clobbering things twice their size (no one would have been whining about Gal Gadot?s body if she were cast by Whedon) or his creepy self inserts like Xander Harris. If thst stuff floats your boat, good for you. It doesn?t do much for me these days.

Darth Rosenberg:
If you simply object to his style, then fair enough. But questioning his works depth of humanity is clearly reaching.

I can say the same of your attitude towards Snyder?s DCEU work.

Darth Rosenberg:
Really? MoS and BvS represent any level of understanding of these two characters (since when was 'complete idiocy' a defining trait of the World's Greatest Detective, or Supes, for that matter)?

If you define idiocy as not being omniscient and being unable to read the script to know the plot ahead of time, I suppose I can see how they come across as idiots to you.
I mean, Batman?s status as the World?s Greatest Detective has always been laughably overrated given it amounts to him chasing blatantly obvious clues left by criminals who in many cases don?t care if anyone knows about their crimes and in others want want to be caught. Given he?s done more detective work in BvS than previous films, it seems you really want a detective, you want Sherlock Holmes, standing over a footprint and extrapolating the gross national income of India.
And frankly, given how notoriously contradicting the depiction of DC?s characters are across stories and media, sometimes even within the same month of released comics, I can?t take Snyder just doing his own thing like everyone else has as reason to rip him apart.

Darth Rosenberg:
Or any level of understanding of how to build an extended universe? I mean, I know they were fast-tracking copying Marvel Studios and Disney, but it takes a very special level of incompetence to pull off what BvS did.

If one assumes that everything Marvel does is Holy Writ, then of course, every other way is the bad way it seems.

Darth Rosenberg:
Is Snyder wholly to blame for that? No, clearly not given he didn't scrawl the script out. But he was responsible for setting the tone, and trying to cohere a narrative worth a damn in editing, so he certainly takes a decent portion of the blame (had he half a brain he could've tried to fix the whole Martha nonsense. had he any self-awareness he might've just admitted early on that Eissenberg really wasn't right for an appallingly written role. were he not such a selfish lover of violence, he might've not executed Jimmy Olsen off-hand in case someone else down the line had stuff for Supes' iconic sidekick to do. and so on).

Snyder has zero control in editing. And between being wall paper in every film he?s appeared in, getting killed off in Smallville and basically having to be re-written into a completely unrecognisable character on Supergirl, I can hardly blame Snyder for being one of many to come to the conclusion of ?yeah this guy really adds nothing of value, does he??.

Darth Rosenberg:
It's clear he's not overly willing to divert away from surface-level masculinist fantasies where these kinds of stories are concerned,

I have a lot of difficulty taking this argument seriously when you champion the MCU, whose version of Steve Rogers is nothing more than a self righteous, hypocritical war hawk whose only true skill and calling is beating the crap out of people and yet has somehow amassed a ridiculous amount of popularity.

Darth Rosenberg:
so I'm deeply skeptical he could've successfully steered Justice League into slightly less self-serious territory. Like Whedon's style or not, but he will go down in pop-culture as an incredibly adept comic writer in TV, film, web series, and comicbooks (and as director, as Much Ado About Nothing demonstrates). Snyder will never be known as someone with a natural grasp for the ebb and flow of banter. He can compose violent visual frames suffocated in CG--- aaand what else? He's orgiastically smashed towns and cities to pieces with the morose MoS, made Batman a relentlessly sadistic - and bewilderingly unintelligent - murderer, but what else can Snyder offer with these characters and this muddled universe?

Are you Whedon?s auto biographer or something? Cause I really do not get why you?re trying this hard to shill him to me and honestly, it?s getting a little creepy.
As for what Snyder could do with them? How about actually focusing on their role as superheroes while acknowledging the fears and concerns of the people they protect. Something the MCU has avoided in Phases 1 and 2 and fantastically bungled in Phase 3 in Civil War. It?s amusing to me how Snyder is accused of promoting fascism in his DCEU films, yet the MCU is the one that champions putting unearned faith in charismatic individuals, while depicting the authorities put in place as inherently corrupt and incompetent, while the people they defend are helpless peons with no agency, their voices drowned out by the sounds of the melodramatic whining by the main characters. Civil War was supposed to be a valid examination of the Avengers? actions. But I guess the writers thought that wasn?t sexy enough so instead we got more drama with Bucky with the Good Hair and the destruction of Steve and Tony?s non-existent friendship. Had the MCU stuck to what they know best, quippy, bright action comedies, I?d have been more or less fine with it. But when Age of Ultron and Civil War decided that teen level melodrama was secondary to the themes they were meant to be examining, this universe went from mildly entertaining to outright offensive. These movies do the exact same crap the CW DC shows get slammed for except movies have less of an excuse given the shows don?t even have the budget for high octane adventure the films do and thus the soap opera crap is meant to fill in time between the punching.

And frankly, the Martha thing has been taken out of context so often for a cheap shot, I'm not even going to bother dignifying it by trying to explain it for the millionth time to someone who doesn't bother actually paying attention to that scene.

Darth Rosenberg:
As for Johns: I've read only the tiniest slither of DC comics

And yet here you are crying about how Snyder got it all wrong.

Darth Rosenberg:
(enough to know Joss should really be writing and directing a Kate Kane Batwoman film, not Batgirl), and never anything by him, but I'm reliably told he's known as a conservative, particularly with the key characters including the trinity? If so, how the hell did he let Warner and Snyder piss all over Batman and Superman and jam all they tried to into BvS (which was still trying to sort out its narrative details in the extended edit, so hapless was the theatrical pass)? Warner and DC's Kevin Feige he ain' - at least not yet. The apparently troubled production of Justice League (where Whedon, of all people, will be helping reshape it) doesn't suggest that'll change anytime soon, either.

You know it helps if you actually pay attention to what people say or do some damn research instead of saying, ?I heard it from a guy? (which interestingly enough describes just about every click bait report on the DCEU). Johns had next to zero control over what happened with BvS. His role amounted to a glorified consultant that WB mostly ignored. It wasn?t until May of last year, he was appointed the role of running the DCEU so maybe wait until the new films come out before you decide what he is and isn?t? Or maybe actually read something by the guy so you don?t come across like as talking about crap you don?t know about like the idiots spreading these rumors.
Whedon is not reshaping anything. he's the guy directing some additional acenes and completing the post-production work already started by Zack. At least, that's what we've been told DOZENS of times. Of course, this movie could be a Snyder movie from top to bottom and people would insist was the Holy Grail just because Whedon was involved in it. Only climate change deniers are as disconnected from reality.

Even after hearing that JL is "unwatchable" ever since SDCC I have actually had a little hope for the future of the DCEU. I have been nothing but "reboot please" ever since I left the theater having been tortured sitting through the awful Man of Steel. I haven't actually paid money to watch a DC movie since. But, now that they have scrapped whatever they were doing for the Flash movie and have replaced it with Flashpoint... they finally may be using their soft reboot. I was advocating for Crisis on Infinite Earths, but Flashpoint works as well. As long as it resets the timeline and erases the events of Man of Steel, Suicide Squad, and BvS... there may be hope yet. It gives them the chance to purge the Snyderverse, do some much needed recasting, and even keep the one or two things they got close to right. And they can make the deep changes to the story needed to correct how badly they've gotten the characters so wrong. With Flashpoint, maybe they can turn it around.

immortalfrieza:

Hawk of Battle:
I did hear the other day that Henry Cavill has been called back in to do reshoots, but he's currently working on the new Mission Impossible movie where he has grown out a mustache for the role, and he has been told not to shave it off because they're still filming. So he's had to do all his Superman reshoots with a mustache and they now have to digitally remove it in post and it's gona cost a fortune.

I find this hilarious.

What I don't get is why they don't just have Cavill shave the mustache off and just have him put on a fake mustache, it's not like they can't afford to have some decent makeup, if it was good enough nobody would notice the difference, and it would be WAY cheaper than digitally removing the real mustache over at Justice League.

It's 2 different movie studios doing two different movies. Justice League is WB, Mission Impossible is Paramount, the mustache is for Mission Impossible.

Why would Paramount inconvenience themselves and have extra make-up time and costs just to let Henry Cavill shave his mustache so that he can better play Superman in a different movie by a different studio which will not make Paramount any money?

Gethsemani:

The Dark Knight trilogy is good for all those reasons you mentioned and the fact that the Nolan's absolutely knew where they were going with their stories. The trilogy is a character study of Bruce Wayne and the toll it takes to be the Batman and the sacrifices it requires. What the Dark Knight movies do and the MCU does that the DCEU so far fails at is giving enough time for set-up. Batman Begins spends a lot of time with setting up Wayne's struggles to become Batman and we are an hour into the movie before he even puts on the suit.

How long does it take in MoS and WW for the characters to wear their suits? I'd wager a similar amount of time.

Gethsemani:
The MCU, notably were 5 movies in before the Avengers, were we finally got to see the Avengers together. In the DCEU we got BvS as the second film, which then had to quintuple duty for setting up Batman as a character, setting up Lex as an antagonist, setting up Superman's growth from MoS and finally setting up the conflict at the heart of the title.

The DCEU probably doesn't lack direction, but the direction seems to be too pre-occupied with darkness and getting to the "good bits" of playing characters of one another. For Justice League the only character in there that has gotten its' own movie will be Wonder Woman (and Superman, since he'll return for sure), which means that instead of having 6 well introduced heroes, we'll have 2 (3 with supes) that are introduced and three or so that JL has to introduce us to, while setting up its' antagonist and plot. That's a lot of work for one movie.

BvS suffers from a bloat in worldbuilding, but I don't buy the idea that you need pre-existing films for an ensemble piece. If you want an MCU example, take Guardians - it sets up a crew of five, and all receive some degree of characterization. That number increases in films like Star Trek 2009 (seven; Kirk and co. each get at least one moment to shine) or nine (Fellowship of the Ring). Looking at the Avengers, alright, fine, every one of the titular characters had appeared in at least one film. That isn't enough to make it a good film in my eyes, since it's plagued by a cliche script, with cliche characters going up against a cliche villain.

I don't have much hope for Justice League, but the lack of pre-existing films isn't an issue in of itself for me.

DrownedAmmet:
I think the "Dark" is a problem because they made "all" their movies dark, so when Batman met Superman they were practically the same person
Had they gave their superman movies a bit lighter tone they could have brought in Batman as an interesting foil. They are both on the same "side" but superman could have believed in truth justice and the American way, and batman could have brought up the point that the only way to stop crime is to brand pedophiles for murder or something

That's a fault with BvS. I disagree it's a fault with MoS or SS. And Wonder Woman isn't a dark film by any means. I mean, okay, it treats WWI with more gravitas than Captain America treats WWII, but that's a very low bar to surpass.

Basement Cat:

I don't get the Joss Whedon hate. One thing WW taught Warner Bros was that "lighter" films than Snyder's were better received by a broader audience.

Okay, fine, but is this what we're lowering expectations to? Wonder Woman is arguably the best DCEU movie (for me it is at least), but it's also the 'safest.' I agree that execution trumps conception, but great, and even simply good films are able to do both.

At the end of the day, the DCEU and MCU have the opposite problems. The DCEU has produced flawed films, but conceptually interesting ones. The MCU has produced more solid, but conceptually vapid films, with the exception of Iron Man 3, and people loathed it for it. At this point in time, I can't see the MCU breaking out of its comfort zone of giving undemanding popcorn entertainment. The DCEU had the potential to do that (and I've seen films of this genre do such a thing with stuff like The Dark Knight and Logan), but if that's what audiences and producers are after, then I guess that possibility's gone up in smoke.

Basement Cat:

And given that this is a Snyder movie "lightening things up" could simply mean stopping it from being an Emo "Life is pain--slash your wrists" flick. That doesn't directly mean Joss is turning it into "My Little Pony". :D

Snark aside, I could see Whedon directing MLP - let him loose on the Mane 6, and let the character dynamic speak for itself.

maninahat:

For better or for worse, DC movies have chosen to be far more self-serious in tone, and whilst that looks terrible in movies like BvS, it's also part of the reason Wonder Woman was so good

Wonder Woman was "serious?"

I mean, okay, it took its subject matter more seriously than its contemporaries, but like I've said, that's a low bar to surpass.

maninahat:
no one else is making sincere, straight faced superheroes anymore, especially now that X-men has finally dried up.

Um, Logan?

Yeah, I know, Deadpool 2 is coming up and my heart weeps at the prospect of that piece of garbage getting a sequel, but still, credit where credit is due - Logan was damn good. Best X-Men film for me personally, and at this time of writing, the #5 film I've seen in cinemas this year.

Darth Rosenberg:
I can only see this becoming a black mark on his career.

As opposed to Titan A.E., Alien: Resurrection, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, etc.

Whedon isn't infalliable.

Darth Rosenberg:
Er, no. Favreau's Iron Man and RDJ set the tone for the MCU - not Joss Whedon.

I can't agree there. Iron Man is relatively light-hearted, but it does at least take itself seriously. It helps that Tony has an actual character arc, and Stane, while not the most brilliant of villains, is at least a villain with some menace and actual motivations. In contrast to...

Darth Rosenberg:
Two Iron Man's, a Thor, and a [brilliantly] pulpy Captain America helped solidify precisely what the MCU was about.

Undemanding popcorn entertainment with shallow good guys fighting shallow bad guys?

"Brilliant" is also the last word I'd use to describe Captain America, but whatever.

Darth Rosenberg:
And after The Avengers we had The Winter Soldier, whose tone was markedly darker and more serious than The Avengers or anything before it. Ditto Civil War.

How the heck was Civil War dark?

I mean, okay, at the very, VERY least, you could say that Civil War has some level of analogy to contemporary issues with the debate of security vs. freedom and the nature of oversight, but they're such broad strokes and so academic to the overall product, I can barely give it credit for it. I mean, the scene everyone remembers from that film is the airport fight scene, which, to quote another piece of work, is "a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Heck, at least the fight between Tony and Steve at the end has some level of emotional gravitas.

And okay, fine, a film doesn't need to have some kind of underlying theme or message to be good, but if Phase 1 sets the standard for the MCU, then it's little wonder why there's so few MCU films I can consider "good," considering how vapid the characters are (especially the villains).

Hawki:
How long does it take in MoS and WW for the characters to wear their suits? I'd wager a similar amount of time.

Haven't clocked them, but that sounds about right. My point was aimed at BvS and how hastily and sketchily Batman gets introduced, set up and then set off so he can drive the plot of the titular showdown with Superman.

Hawki:
BvS suffers from a bloat in worldbuilding, but I don't buy the idea that you need pre-existing films for an ensemble piece. If you want an MCU example, take Guardians - it sets up a crew of five, and all receive some degree of characterization. That number increases in films like Star Trek 2009 (seven; Kirk and co. each get at least one moment to shine) or nine (Fellowship of the Ring). Looking at the Avengers, alright, fine, every one of the titular characters had appeared in at least one film. That isn't enough to make it a good film in my eyes, since it's plagued by a cliche script, with cliche characters going up against a cliche villain.

I don't have much hope for Justice League, but the lack of pre-existing films isn't an issue in of itself for me.

It isn't, and I think I might have put forth my argument rather poorly. The problem with BvS, SS and what is likely to happen to JL is that the DCEU wants to reach the same level of character interaction and conflict that Avengers had. Avengers had the luxury of having six out of seven characters set up (Black Widow having been characterized in Iron Man 1/2 and Hawkeye being the only real newcomer) going in, so it could immediately start setting up the tension and most of Avengers is driven by the tension of those six (not counting brainwashed-Hawkeye) characters trying to work together. As the cherry on top the main villain (Loki) had already been set-up by Thor so he needed no introduction either. BvS tried to do the same, but since Batman and Luthor were new to the franchise they both needed establishing and the movie crammed Batman's establishing piece, the conflict with Luthor and the Supes/Bat showdown into one movie.

The deal with GotG is that the characterization is very, very sweeping and there's very little inter-personal drama. Groot is groot, Rocket is a sociopathic raccoon with a heart of Gold, Star Lord is a laid back dude, Gamorra is an emotionally distant killer with a troubled past and Dax is the comic relief powerhouse. GotG runs on cliches to cut down its' need for establishing scenes, which saves it a tremendous amount of time. BvS didn't want to do that and JL seems to try for deeper characters too, which you just can't fit into a ensemble piece where 3 or 4 people must try to hug the spotlight while the plot drives forward and the big bad is established too. To make that work you need to go the Star Trek/Suicide Squad way and establish a pair of main characters (Spock/Kirk and Deadshot/Harley) and leave the rest of the ensemble as sidekicks. Which doesn't seem to be the route JL wants to take either.

To try and put all this rambling into something concise: The DCEU runners seems to want the same meaningful character interactions that the MCU has, where the ensemble films are largely driven by the conflicts in the group. At the same time the DCEU runners seem unwilling to properly establish their cast and get straight to the "cool stuff". As you said, the lack of pre-existing films doesn't have to be a problem, if the DCEU runners are ready to sideline Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman in favor of Bats, WW and Supes. That way JL can deliver an evenly paced story. But since it seems as if they want Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman to get proper introductions and characterizations, there's a very real risk that JL will end up with the same kind of plodding bloat that plagued BvS and SS. Simply because the showrunners wants to do too much with not enough time.

[quote="Natemans" post="18.1006337.24089420]But the DCEU films have mostly been dark in aesthetic and content. The only exceptions being Suicide Squad and WW. The MCU doesn't really and utilizes it well plus they did a really well-handled job of Steve and Tony's friendship.[/quote]So out of 4 films so far released in the DCEU 50% count as "most".

Gethsemani:

The deal with GotG is that the characterization is very, very sweeping and there's very little inter-personal drama. Groot is groot, Rocket is a sociopathic raccoon with a heart of Gold, Star Lord is a laid back dude, Gamorra is an emotionally distant killer with a troubled past and Dax is the comic relief powerhouse. GotG runs on cliches to cut down its' need for establishing scenes, which saves it a tremendous amount of time.

I agree with that, but The Avengers is equally reliant on archtypes and cliches to propel its plot. If anything, they're practically the same movie as far as plot beats go - McGuffin is fought over, heroes meet and fight, heroes fail to stop badguys and learn how to work at a team, cue major city battle, heroes save city from bad guy.

If anything, it might explain why I like Guardians slightly more, in that the heroes have more discernable arcs and have to be built up within the scope of the movie itself, whereas in Avengers, I don't think any of the characters can really be said to have an arc per se - maybe Banner, but that's about it.

Hawki:
I agree with that, but The Avengers is equally reliant on archtypes and cliches to propel its plot. If anything, they're practically the same movie as far as plot beats go - McGuffin is fought over, heroes meet and fight, heroes fail to stop badguys and learn how to work at a team, cue major city battle, heroes save city from bad guy.

If anything, it might explain why I like Guardians slightly more, in that the heroes have more discernable arcs and have to be built up within the scope of the movie itself, whereas in Avengers, I don't think any of the characters can really be said to have an arc per se - maybe Banner, but that's about it.

Yup. This is really my point about the need for establishing movies in a proper ensemble movie. If you've watched Iron Man 1/2, Hulk, Thor and Captain America you know these characters going in and you can see that they still operate on the personalities established in those movies. They don't get much establishing or arc on their own (Black Widow and Banner being the ones who get that) since the movie is about their team dynamic. Watched on its' own it works as a quick thrill action movie, but watched in sequence with the other movies you can see how the dynamic is based in established personalities, which gives an added depth.

DCEU seems to be going for that depth, but are not ready to put in the effort needed to make it work. Which is why BvS becomes bloated and probably is why JL keeps getting slammed for pacing issues at pre-screenings. You don't have to like the MCU in any way, but it has worked to earn its pathos by establishing its' characters before trying to elicit emotion by bouncing them off each other. It doesn't work for everyone (you and Film Crit Hulk share that critique), but you can't deny that Feige and his team have put in effort to reach the point where A:AoU and CA:CW can generate most of its' tensions by bouncing the primary cast off of one another. DCEU badly seems to want that, as BvS and SS proved, but doesn't lay the groundwork necessary. The result are bloated messes of movies that try to do too much at once and ends up collapsing on themselves (BvS) or get edited into a weird mess (SS).

Laggyteabag:
I wonder what will happen if Justice League turns out to be another critical failure.

Reboot it again after a few years, ie, Sony's Spider-Man and Amazing Spider-Man, or just stick with it and carry on with a critically panned franchise, that is at least commercially successful?

To be fair, I think everyone and their mum knows that this film is going to turn out like trash, but I am really interested to see just how bad it really is.

Honestly they should reshoot the whole thing. Scrap the entire movie, start with a new script, and spend a few years doing it all again. At this point they can't afford another critical failure. Who cares if it'll cost twice as much? If its a good movie, they'll make a few billion dollars and easily cover costs.

But the DCEU can't take another terrible movie. Better to have a super expensive good movie than what they have now.

Hawki:
As opposed to Titan A.E., Alien: Resurrection, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, etc.

Ah, this again - the very weak go-to approach for any Whedon critic, although usually it pops up late in a conversation.

On Atlantis he was one of six writers. On Titan he didn't contribute to the story, and is one of three writers. Alien Resurrection was a failure of a project across the board, and I can't fathom who thought pairing Joss with that franchise was a good idea (though in retrospect AR's probably been displaced by Scott's newly atrocious Prometheus flicks for the joint wooden spoon in the franchise).

Whedon isn't infalliable.

Care to quote where I said he was? All artists have weaknesses in their body of work, but it's safe to say Joss has done his worst work in the least important projects.

(I might try to say Angel was his worst work in terms of a whole project, but I never really liked the character or the actor - as far as his acting went - and so to this day I've not watched the entirety of Angel)

I can't agree there. Iron Man is relatively light-hearted, but it does at least take itself seriously. It helps that Tony has an actual character arc, and Stane, while not the most brilliant of villains, is at least a villain with some menace and actual motivations.

Well, yeah, we'll agree to disagree on that one. I'm not sure you'd find many people with a thorough knowledge of the MCU who'd try to assert RDJ didn't set the tone for the entire universe, though.

As for Stane? The MCU's always had a weakness with its antagonists and/or villains, and for the most part I'm fine with that (I could say Malekith in Thor 2 was one of the most pointless antagonists I've ever seen in a film, but the entire film was treading water so he's not exactly deserving of special criticism); I'd rather a story biased heavily towards its protagonists than anything else, at least in the kinds of narratives the MCU tells.

Undemanding popcorn entertainment with shallow good guys fighting shallow bad guys?

You might be incapable of connecting to them, but the MCU's built its globe conquering success on its lead characters, and on regular audiences - and a lot of nerdier fans - being able to relate to and empathise with them.

As for "undemanding popcorn entertainment": and? Are mass market comicbook universes supposed to be something else specific? What do you expect, Denis Villeneuve or Lars Von Trier in the directors chairs?

Most would agree Marvel Studios have crafted a world of heart and smarts just fine, and that more than services the requirements of populist entertainment. I feel we're living in a golden age of mass market entertainment, and we're sure as hell living in the best era in history when it comes to comicbook properties being adapted worth a damn, across the bigscreen and small.

How the heck was Civil War dark?

If you actually read the context of the very sentence you quoted, you'll see my line was specifically about films being tonally darker than The Avengers, disproving the false claim that somehow Joss defined what the MCU can or can't be. Civil War is certainly tonally darker and more 'serious' than The Avengers. No 'puny god' lines to break up a fairly grim action finale.

I mean, okay, at the very, VERY least, you could say that Civil War has some level of analogy to contemporary issues with the debate of security vs. freedom and the nature of oversight, but they're such broad strokes and so academic to the overall product, I can barely give it credit for it.

You're responding to your own points given you either ignored or misread what I said about Civil War, but I'll briefly address that anyway.

I'd say The Winter Soldier had more socially relevant depth and punch than Civil War, and I'd personally never try to make the case for Civil War having anything particularly worthwhile to 'say' about anything. That's not the point, surely. I adore The Winter Soldier, and feel it's one of the very best thriller action films ever crafted, and certainly a highlight of comicbook properties. But I remember Comicbookgirl19 gushing about its sociopolitical relevance (ditto the frequently superficial bordering on dim Chris Stuckman, I think) and I feel that's mostly bullshit; it's mostly structural text as opposed to subtextual theme, and as nice as it is to have these kinds of films tying into such realworld concerns, the true focus is always on these rather mythic characters and their own internal universes.

TWS had some nice elements to ground it (enough to feel a sense of heightened reality, that it was connected to our own world and daily lives), but it was still really the story of supersoldiers and 'man out of time' conflicts.

I mean, the scene everyone remembers from that film is the airport fight scene, which, to quote another piece of work, is "a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Heck, at least the fight between Tony and Steve at the end has some level of emotional gravitas.

Er, a setpiece action sequence isn't really a "tale, told" at all, so the comparison doesn't really work.

The Russo's knew the end was going to be relatively grim, they had a plot point to provide a low stakes yet still consequential conflict, and so they crafted a phenomenal sequence out of it to wow the audience before the tone shifted. Isn't that, y'know, kinda the point of populist entertainment? That's the director's raison d'etre?

The audience could never quite 'enjoy' in the same way Cap and Stark potentially fatally beating the shit out of each other over a decades old betrayal, and so we have a scene introducing Spider-Man, no less, as well as showing off Giant Man where the goal is to stop or evade each other.

And no, not everyone immediately thinks of the airport scene. Personally, I do tend to think of the final fight, but mostly the ridiculously awesome staircase fight/escape featuring Bucky and Cap, as well as the superb final scene between Black Panther and Zemo (great actors with a great script).

And okay, fine, a film doesn't need to have some kind of underlying theme or message to be good, but if Phase 1 sets the standard for the MCU, then it's little wonder why there's so few MCU films I can consider "good," considering how vapid the characters are (especially the villains).

What's your ideal comicbook film, then?

Gethsemani:

Hawki:
How long does it take in MoS and WW for the characters to wear their suits? I'd wager a similar amount of time.

Haven't clocked them, but that sounds about right. My point was aimed at BvS and how hastily and sketchily Batman gets introduced, set up and then set off so he can drive the plot of the titular showdown with Superman.

Hawki:
BvS suffers from a bloat in worldbuilding, but I don't buy the idea that you need pre-existing films for an ensemble piece. If you want an MCU example, take Guardians - it sets up a crew of five, and all receive some degree of characterization. That number increases in films like Star Trek 2009 (seven; Kirk and co. each get at least one moment to shine) or nine (Fellowship of the Ring). Looking at the Avengers, alright, fine, every one of the titular characters had appeared in at least one film. That isn't enough to make it a good film in my eyes, since it's plagued by a cliche script, with cliche characters going up against a cliche villain.

I don't have much hope for Justice League, but the lack of pre-existing films isn't an issue in of itself for me.

It isn't, and I think I might have put forth my argument rather poorly. The problem with BvS, SS and what is likely to happen to JL is that the DCEU wants to reach the same level of character interaction and conflict that Avengers had. Avengers had the luxury of having six out of seven characters set up (Black Widow having been characterized in Iron Man 1/2 and Hawkeye being the only real newcomer) going in, so it could immediately start setting up the tension and most of Avengers is driven by the tension of those six (not counting brainwashed-Hawkeye) characters trying to work together. As the cherry on top the main villain (Loki) had already been set-up by Thor so he needed no introduction either. BvS tried to do the same, but since Batman and Luthor were new to the franchise they both needed establishing and the movie crammed Batman's establishing piece, the conflict with Luthor and the Supes/Bat showdown into one movie.

The deal with GotG is that the characterization is very, very sweeping and there's very little inter-personal drama. Groot is groot, Rocket is a sociopathic raccoon with a heart of Gold, Star Lord is a laid back dude, Gamorra is an emotionally distant killer with a troubled past and Dax is the comic relief powerhouse. GotG runs on cliches to cut down its' need for establishing scenes, which saves it a tremendous amount of time. BvS didn't want to do that and JL seems to try for deeper characters too, which you just can't fit into a ensemble piece where 3 or 4 people must try to hug the spotlight while the plot drives forward and the big bad is established too. To make that work you need to go the Star Trek/Suicide Squad way and establish a pair of main characters (Spock/Kirk and Deadshot/Harley) and leave the rest of the ensemble as sidekicks. Which doesn't seem to be the route JL wants to take either.

To try and put all this rambling into something concise: The DCEU runners seems to want the same meaningful character interactions that the MCU has, where the ensemble films are largely driven by the conflicts in the group. At the same time the DCEU runners seem unwilling to properly establish their cast and get straight to the "cool stuff". As you said, the lack of pre-existing films doesn't have to be a problem, if the DCEU runners are ready to sideline Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman in favor of Bats, WW and Supes. That way JL can deliver an evenly paced story. But since it seems as if they want Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman to get proper introductions and characterizations, there's a very real risk that JL will end up with the same kind of plodding bloat that plagued BvS and SS. Simply because the showrunners wants to do too much with not enough time.

I see nothing from JL that suggests the plot will be driven by the conflicts of the cast. Indeed, one way that the DCEU has set itself apart from the MCU is that it doesn't just focus on petty drama between the characters but acknowledges the impact of their actions on the world around them as well as the actions of the villains and other forces. If this where an MCU film, the Apokalips invasion would be background noise for the main plot of Bruce trying to score with Diana.

I know that a lot of writers and audiences have been convinced that a bunch of good looking people standing around and arguing like school children but their are stories where that is more detrimental than helpful to the story (see pretty much all of the CW DC shows). There's only so much disbelief people can suspend that the world must rely on a bunch of increasingly unstable loons and that's pretty much been the issue with the MCU since Iron Man 2. For all the talk about how Snyder's movies are immature, I find the MCU's disregard for the normal people of it's universe far more egregious. And I don't think it will be too difficult to get decent characterization out of Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman without sidelining any of the other three and frankly Superman seems like he'll be left out of much of the movie any way, so that's one less guy to hog the spotlight.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here