I am not watching Justice League until I see Snyder's Cut of the Movie.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Hawki:

thepyrethatburns:

As somebody who appreciates all three universes

Three?

I consider the X-men/Fox universe it's own universe. Thusly, three universes. (I am aware of the Disney/Fox talks but, as of this writing, nothing has actually gone through.

Random Smartass: Do you consider the Fant-

Fox hasn't made any Fantastic Four movies since 2005/2007 and even those were kinda meh. 2005 had some good moments but otherwise really forgettable.

Random Smartass: Actually, in 2015...

2007. WAS. THE. LAST. ONE.

Hawki:

thepyrethatburns:
In fact, the worst part of Justice League is seeing the second After-Credits scene and finding out that they're not done with the Eisenberg Luthor, to say nothing of the Legion of Doom BS.

But we have Deathstroke... :(

I mean, I'm not a fan of Eisenberg Luthor either, but, y'know, Deathstroke...

(Granted, my only real Deathstroke exposure is the Arrowverse version, so go figure.)

In some ways, Deathstroke makes it worse because.....why would Deathstroke even WANT to be part of a Legion of Doom? While his motivations can and do range beyond just money, he is, in the end, a mercenary. He doesn't really have a "rule the world" motivation. If that scene had introduced him as "the guy who got Luthor out of prison", that would make sense. But having him there so an already-free Luthor can invite him to his new club.....groan

Samtemdo8:
Will you stop insulting the man, what has Zack Snyder did to you? Did he fuck your dog?

He was only hired to do what WB bros told him to do, WB wanted him to make the movies like Nolan movies because Green Lantern failed.

(out of curiosity, do you ever try to edit down quotes, or do you always just roll with the Quote button? because it wastes a lot of screen space)

Ah, so Zack was just following orders. Like Joss, then?

I'm with you on blaming Warner, btw, but Snyder's the biggest and most overt architect of this whole debacle, so yeah, he deserves a cussin'. And sure, it's neither big nor clever to just insult a guy's intelligence, but frankly I think his films are dumb because he's not exactly much of a bright spark, so in this instance it's kinda relevant as critique. Creations reflect their creator (so do remarkably dense things they say in interviews to try to justify the nonsense they shove into their films).

Darth Rosenberg:
I'm with you on blaming Warner, btw, but Snyder's the biggest and most overt architect of this whole debacle, so yeah, he deserves a cussin'. And sure, it's neither big nor clever to just insult a guy's intelligence, but frankly I think his films are dumb because he's not exactly much of a bright spark, so in this instance it's kinda relevant as critique. Creations reflect their creator (so do remarkably dense things they say in interviews to try to justify the nonsense they shove into their films).

That's kind of my read on Zack's movies, actually. He can shoot well, but... Well, it's a mild version of something I heard about an interview with M. Night Shyamalan. I think it was in Newsweek, where they called him the Next Spielberg, and he said something to the effect of "I could make a Pokemon movie and it'd actually be about the Holocaust", but... No, you're not that clever, Shyamalan.

I think Snyder's the same way. He's got some talent in some areas, but he doesn't have NEARLY the talent he thinks he does. I'm sure he fully intended Sucker Punch to be a critique on the Male Gaze culture in movies or whatever bullshit Moviebob tried to claim that it was, but it doesn't really come through because he's not clever enough to make it work.

This kind of plays into one of my bigger problems with BvS and its defenders. The ones who claim that the people who don't like BvS just don't get it.

No, we get it. We get the Jesus imagery, the dichonomy of God vs Man, and we get that you were TRYING to build Superman as representing hope despite the movie itself hammering in that people were distrusting Superman so it's honestly not the shock it should have been.

But here's the thing: No matter the Symbolism or the Deeper Meaning of your movie... It needs to work on the most basic level. If nobody gives a shit about this Batman or this Superman, nobody will give a shit about the ideological implications. If the story is badly told through sloppy editing, nobody will care if you tell them afterwards about the themes.

And if your Lex Luthor in no way shape or form resembles Luthor as the fans know him, and the performance isn't like ANY Luthor, then people won't give a shit.

(Aside: I admit before I found out Eisenberg was playing LUTHOR, I thought he was going to turn into the new Joker or say, play Mad Hatter, or the Riddler, and honestly those would have worked SO much better)

So, original topic... I'm not gonna watch Justice League. I wrote it off on the first trailer, and each successive trailer made me irrationally angry because WB hadn't yet shown it could pull this off. Like, Avengers WORKED. I saw it in theaters, I saw the leadup movies, I liked all of them (yes even Thor, while recognizing it was Dumb Fun Action with a Loud Muscle Man), and the characters meshed and the plotlines intersected, and it worked and I loved it.

Justice League... It hadn't set itself up correctly. DC was asking us to get onboard with these visions of characters, some of whom we'd never seen before and weren't established, and with others... Well to quote a friend of mine "You killed your Superman in his second movie. Most of us weren't even sure if we LIKED the guy, you can't expect us to care when he dies."

So when I saw the Justice League trailers, I saw them trying to quip, trying to play up "OH SEE WE'RE FUN! WE'RE COOL! WE'RE HIP AND WE KNOW HOW THIS WORKS!" and no... WB, you don't. You haven't earned this.

Honestly I'm expecting the upcoming Flashpoint movie to justify rebooting their Cinematic Universe.

Kyman102:
That's kind of my read on Zack's movies, actually. He can shoot well, but... Well, it's a mild version of something I heard about an interview with M. Night Shyamalan. I think it was in Newsweek, where they called him the Next Spielberg...

Wasn't Abrams also another The Next Spielberg for a little while? I've enjoyed a few of his films well enough, and he's more conventionally competent than Snyder, but he's not exactly an auteur unless you count a proclivity for lens spares as a sign of identity.

I think Snyder's the same way. He's got some talent in some areas, but he doesn't have NEARLY the talent he thinks he does. I'm sure he fully intended Sucker Punch to be a critique on the Male Gaze culture in movies or whatever bullshit Moviebob tried to claim that it was, but it doesn't really come through because he's not clever enough to make it work.

Heh, I spent years defending Sucker Punch pretty much on those grounds, but honestly it's been so long since I first saw it that I can't productively have any opinion on it anymore. I remember admiring just how daringly bleak it was, and some of the performances being good.

This kind of plays into one of my bigger problems with BvS and its defenders. The ones who claim that the people who don't like BvS just don't get it.

No, we get it. We get the Jesus imagery, the dichonomy of God vs Man, and we get that you were TRYING to build Superman as representing hope despite the movie itself hammering in that people were distrusting Superman so it's honestly not the shock it should have been.

Given how shallow and threadbare BvS is, it's kindof impossible to not 'get' (the worst instance is always the 'Jeese, you just don't GET the Martha line!'). It has all the subtlety and nuance of a sledgehammer. Pretentious text, as opposed to subtext. It's a con job; dropping words and phrases, winking and nodding to the audience throughout all its overbearing bombast, trying to project grandeur and worthiness.

The whole concept is just baffling, as in why on earth anyone could think all of those plot threads could work at the same time whilst introducing all of those new characters. And that's why I still find it morbidly fascinating...

If nobody gives a shit about this Batman or this Superman, nobody will give a shit about the ideological implications. If the story is badly told through sloppy editing, nobody will care if you tell them afterwards about the themes.

To be fair to Zack, and to maybe reel back some of my ire, he didn't write it... and no director could really have transformed the garbage script, story, and overall extended-universe-on-fast-forwardskip lunacy from lead to gold.

(Aside: I admit before I found out Eisenberg was playing LUTHOR, I thought he was going to turn into the new Joker or say, play Mad Hatter, or the Riddler, and honestly those would have worked SO much better)

I don't particularly like him in any role. Adventureland, maybe?

But jeese, talk about a bizarre tonal fit for the rest of the film, to have him go up against a violently idiotic non-detecting Batman and a miserable Superman.

Justice League... It hadn't set itself up correctly. DC was asking us to get onboard with these visions of characters, some of whom we'd never seen before and weren't established, and with others... Well to quote a friend of mine "You killed your Superman in his second movie. Most of us weren't even sure if we LIKED the guy, you can't expect us to care when he dies."

Not only that, but he ostensibly comes back in the same frikkin' film he's supposedly killed.

Reading Zack's defences of these kinds of decisions is what largely supports my less than stellar opinion of the man himself, at least in terms of his highly questionable approach to critical thinking. He likes to adapt things, but I'm not sure he really ever understands the source material. He just seems to just be attracted to visuals and nebulous ideas behind the material. Neither MoS or BvS feel at all like works made by people who actually have any real affection or connection to the characters.

I've had JL thoroughly spoilered, as there's no way I'm adding to its box office, and it seems like Warner already did some soft retconning (which potentially directly contradict some of the pretentious 'themes' of BvS). I'm tentatively, sorta-maybe looking forward to the next Superman film? So long as Snyder won't be directing, and it has new/different writers.

And I'm definitely curious about Matt Reeves' solo Batman film, as whilst I wasn't keen on where the Apes trilogy ended up (quite literally in terms of location, but also its characters and plot focus), Dawn was superb, and even the - in my view - misguided War had some genuinely great moments. I admire and enjoy those films more than anything Snyder's put out, so as long as Warner get their shit together, hopefully Reeves can knock one out the park.

Samtemdo8:

Laggyteabag:
I mean, If I recall correctly, wasn't the Snyder cut deemed to be "unwatchable", by early viewers?

I'd probably watch the Snyder cut out of sheer hilarity, but I wouldn't go into it expecting a better version of Justice League.

As far as I am concerned, the only thing that can save DC's film lineup at this point, is a straight up reboot. Keep Gal Gadot, though. She's cool.

THIS WHOLE THING WAS A REBOOT FROM GREEN LANTERN 2008!!!!

There was a Green Lantern film in 2008?

Lol I'm kidding.

Are you implying to me that Green Lantern 2008 was actually a good movie and that they should have continued on from there?

No, but you could have done something to build off from Green Lantern and tried to improve upon that. However, it feels like it just wants to catch up with Marvel instead of making its own universe.

Alright, plenty of folks here have said how there ain't gonna be no Snyder cut (and frankly, I highly doubt there's gonna be any Snyder at all in the DCEU going forward with how badly JL is bombing, regardless of the movie's merits), so there's no need to go over that again.

Your source sucks. Don't listen to them anymore. Superman was never gonna have a mustache, and the Green Lanterns DO make an appearance in a flashback as part of the set up for the main plot. I was actually surprised to see them, they were nice and prominent for their 30 second cameo, they didn't try to hide them at all and their place in the movie makes some sense. That was a Good.

But the movie does have a lot of Bads. Very, very many Bads. And you can't even blame me by saying I wanted the movie to be bad. Yes, I had to be dragged to the picture. Yes, I went in there prepared and even looking forward to hating a certain part of it. Yes, I'm a big fan of the MCU.

But none of that actually ended up impacting my opinion of the movie.

For one, the part of the movie I expected to hate? That was Cyborg. I never forgave the New 52 for giving Martian Manhunter the shaft and putting up fucking Cyborg in his place. I never forgave the New 52's new backstory for Cyborg making him a walking Apokolips MacGuffin, or the New 52's revised origin of the Justice League that had their formation be in response to a really bad version of Darkseid's Invasion, or Justice League War for pretty much toeing the New 52 line instead of trying to be a more classic depiction of the League like Young Justice (I cannot say enough good things about how wonderful Young Justice was for embracing DC history).

But you know what? Even though the Snyderverse once again looked to the Nu52 as its main DC inspiration, despite even DC admitting it was terrible and trashing it over a year ago, and brought that Cyborg into the DCEU wholesale... I couldn't hate him. The writing for him was kinda bland and full of contrivances and dropped plot points, but the actor did good with what he was given. I couldn't hate the actor's representation. So that was a surprise. I mean, Martian Manhunter would still have been better in every way for being a more interesting character in every way than Nu52 Cyborg, but it's what we've got.

No, what I came out hating was the Flash. Jesus Christ. Barry Allen. They fucked up Barry Allen so, so, so badly. How do you fuck up Barry Allen that badly. Barry Allen is the god damn heart of the entire god damn DC universe in general, and the god damn Justice League in particular, and the DCEU made him... a bad Wally West. Him being Wally West wouldn't be a bad thing. Wally was a good heart for the DC universe too for the 20ish years Barry was dead. But this is a bad Wally West. This is Wally West back in his bumbling sidekick stage but also he's autistic. That's not a perjorative. He's actually portrayed as autistic; he's obsessive, he "doesn't get people", he has social and performance anxiety. And I'm not against giving people on the spectrum representation, far from it, but in this case it's two things: primarily, it's played for cheap fucking laughs which is disgusting, and following from that, it prevents him from being his comic book character. That part would be okay if it was part of taking the Flash in a new direction, if maybe they want to portray how a person on the spectrum can become the heart and soul of a team of remarkable people. That's beautiful. But it's not what they're going for. It's just for laughs. It's just for cheap millenial humor.

Fuck everybody involved in the production of this movie who thought this is how you portray Barry Allen, and how dare they bother to give Gardner Fox credit when he'd never recognize the character on the screen.

But yeah, Sam, you oughtta just go on and watch it if the theater's are back open by you. There's no extended cut coming. This is what you get.

The very kindest thing I can say about JL is that it's like ripping off a band-aid. Maybe this just needed to be crunched out so that the DCEU can feel comfortable building up its universe. Aquaman and Flash were both well received (baffling so, in the latter case), and Cyborg wasn't panned. None of them got more than the barest development (Flash and Cyborg each got just enough to have a character, Aquaman didn't. That said, Aquaman was my favorite character in the movie, which is a huge surprise for me). But now that they've been pushed out, they can get their own movies, which can make an actual franchise out of this thing. I think JL is a bad movie, but conversely, it gives me hope for the DCEU going forward, if they can just inject some fun while having an epic scale (by the way, nothing about JL is epic, so I'm afraid you're gonna have to put that defense back on the shelf Sam. "Saving the world" comes down to "Saving this one Russian village in the middle of nowhere").

By the way, the Lord of the Rings had fun moments in addition to epic scale. That's what made them so beloved.

thepyrethatburns:

I consider the X-men/Fox universe it's own universe. Thusly, three universes. (I am aware of the Disney/Fox talks but, as of this writing, nothing has actually gone through.

Oh, right. Thought it might have been, but no-one seems to talk about the XCU (is that a name? Screw it, it's what I'm using) much these days, and if they do, it's about selling the rights back to Marvel (MCU can have the F4 far as I'm concerned, not so much the X-Men).

thepyrethatburns:
2007. WAS. THE. LAST. ONE.

Poking the dragon here, but I don't think FF 2015 was that bad. I mean, it's not good by any means, but I'd still rank it above BvS. At the least, it's first two thirds are competent, it's the last 30 minutes that tank the film.

Darth Rosenberg:

I've had JL thoroughly spoilered, as there's no way I'm adding to its box office, and it seems like Warner already did some soft retconning (which potentially directly contradict some of the pretentious 'themes' of BvS). I'm tentatively, sorta-maybe looking forward to the next Superman film? So long as Snyder won't be directing, and it has new/different writers.

It does, in regards to Supes, and in the context of the DCEU as a whole, it's one of the worst cases of tonal whiplash I've seen.

As I've said before, if they want boyscout Superman...okay, fine, but don't retroactively force in boyscout Superman into the BvS timeframe. But while MoS is my #2 DCEU film, for a MoS 2 with boyscout Superman...bleh. JL hammers home how irritating he can be, and how overpowered he is.

Hawki:
It does, in regards to Supes, and in the context of the DCEU as a whole, it's one of the worst cases of tonal whiplash I've seen.

As I've said before, if they want boyscout Superman...okay, fine, but don't retroactively force in boyscout Superman into the BvS timeframe. But while MoS is my #2 DCEU film, for a MoS 2 with boyscout Superman...bleh. JL hammers home how irritating he can be, and how overpowered he is.

Sure, I wasn't alluding to tonal whiplash being a good thing, just a--- thing. I can't imagine how the series could get any worse via the poutily pretentious route, so what's there to lose by just doing something much closer to classic Supes? After all, Warner are chasing something/anything audiences and critics will respond to, and I've heard some general praise for JL's Superman - not for how the DCEU got to that place, but just because we don't have its miserable Supes anymore.

I've never liked the character/icon-on-legs, and so MoS could've been genuinely great (I still really like the original teaser, with its Malick-esque photography and air of hope), but they pretty much fluffed their lines, and - like Justice League - they don't get a second chance at a first impression.

In a perfect world they could just shelve the entire continuity, try to figure out a real vision for another attempt, and kickstart it again in five or so years. But clearly that's not going to happen... Business is business, after all.

Darth Rosenberg:
Sure, I wasn't alluding to tonal whiplash being a good thing, just a--- thing. I can't imagine how the series could get any worse via the poutily pretentious route, so what's there to lose by just doing something much closer to classic Supes?

Well, JL has been less succcessful both critically and financially than MoS, so...

Darth Rosenberg:

In a perfect world they could just shelve the entire continuity, try to figure out a real vision for another attempt, and kickstart it again in five or so years. But clearly that's not going to happen... Business is business, after all.

Please no. Just no.

There's a few cases of reboots done well in film (see Star Trek 2009 for an example), but generally, if you reboot something, it's usually a tacit admission that you're out of ideas and/or have written yourself into a corner (with a few rare exceptions like the Archie Sonic reboot being dictated by legal fanwankary from Ken Penders), not to mention that reboots are already too common in comics (well, superhero ones at least). Course in this case it could be called a "re-adaptation" rather than a "reboot," but I don't see any need for it. Every DCEU film has its issues, but continuity isn't among them. If anything, it could be argued that it's done a better job of continuity than Marvel, in as much that each film has more or led sequentially into the other.

Hawki:
Well, JL has been less succcessful both critically and financially than MoS, so...

My point was that JL's nu-old Supes seems quite popular with fans, so that element of moving him away from MoS and BvS's tone has been if not embraced, at least kinda sorta welcomed.

There's a few cases of reboots done well in film (see Star Trek 2009 for an example), but generally, if you reboot something, it's usually a tacit admission that you're out of ideas and/or have written yourself into a corner (with a few rare exceptions like the Archie Sonic reboot being dictated by legal fanwankary from Ken Penders), not to mention that reboots are already too common in comics (well, superhero ones at least). Course in this case it could be called a "re-adaptation" rather than a "reboot," but I don't see any need for it.

Well, yeah - the DCEU's a veritable dumpster fire. It's unsalvageable as far as a continuity with any vision or confidence goes, hence scrapping it and going again makes sense.

It's not a perfect parallel, but there was a gap of nine years between Batman And Robin and Batman Begins. Same character, entirely different expression with a real vision. Give the DCEU as a whole a break (that doesn't stop them doing smaller scale, perhaps riskier IP's in the meantime), then do it - ahem... - justice.

I've never really liked the DC universe, but I'd love to see a great film focusing on just the trinity done well. Warner had the most famous and iconic superheroes in comicbook history and pissed it all down the drain, especially with BvS. They can never have that awesome hero shot The Avengers took years to earn, and that line-up - in terms of recognition and cultural impact - pales into insignificance to the trinity.

Every DCEU film has its issues, but continuity isn't among them. If anything, it could be argued that it's done a better job of continuity than Marvel, in as much that each film has more or led sequentially into the other.

I'm using the C word not in any sense of events following on from one another, just the overall structure and execution. Demonstrably Marvel Studios have built their extended continuity far more successfully, as there was actual forethought involved with a long game they've largely delivered on.[1]

[1] Though as a tangential aside I've no confidence they'll do justice to Thanos, given how underwhelmingly small-fry they made Ultron. see also how they've generally wasted his appearances ever since the now rather iconic post-credits Avengers reveal. also-also; give him his frikkin' armour back...

Darth Rosenberg:
Well, yeah - the DCEU's a veritable dumpster fire. It's unsalvageable as far as a continuity with any vision or confidence goes, hence scrapping it and going again makes sense.

Don't agree. The DCEU isn't some paragon of quality, but the only film I can call a "dumpster fire" is BvS. Likewise, each film has kept to an established continuity. So even if I agreed with the dumpster fire sentiment, what's the point of rebooting it?

Darth Rosenberg:

It's not a perfect parallel, but there was a gap of nine years between Batman And Robin and Batman Begins. Same character, entirely different expression with a real vision. Give the DCEU as a whole a break (that doesn't stop them doing smaller scale, perhaps riskier IP's in the meantime), then do it - ahem... - justice.

Yeah, okay, I'm not going to defend Batman & Robin, and history has validated giving the reigns to Nolan (and hey, I like his Dark Knight Trilogy myself), but few points in this scenario:

1) I'm not complaining, but there was no obligation to reboot the Batman films after Batman and Robin. Ever heard of Batman Triumphant, how it would have returned to the tone of the Burton films? Creatively speaking, there was no reason to reboot the films.

2) Even that aside, the DCEU is more than just Batman, so you're effectively throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you reboot it. You mention the trinity (more on that later), but at this point, what need is there? Everyone and their mother knows the origin stories of Batman and Superman (one piece of credit I can give the DCEU is that it thankfully skips a Batman origin story, and wisely goes with a veteran Batman), and Wonder Woman is the best film in the bunch. What's the point of doing another Wonder Woman origin movie when the one we have is pretty decent?

Darth Rosenberg:

I've never really liked the DC universe, but I'd love to see a great film focusing on just the trinity done well. Warner had the most famous and iconic superheroes in comicbook history and pissed it all down the drain, especially with BvS. They can never have that awesome hero shot The Avengers took years to earn, and that line-up - in terms of recognition and cultural impact - pales into insignificance to the trinity.

Except Justice League does have its own hero shot, and it does work in the scope of the movie. I mean, I don't think either JL or Avengers are "good" movies per se, but while Avengers is the superior film, JL still works, despite its many flaws.

I basically lost hope in the cinematic DC movies. After Wonder Woman I thought it could be salvaged, but with Justice League out, that seems like a fluke. Luckily there's the animated ones already. And their Suicide Squad and Justice League movies were great!

Hawki:
Don't agree. The DCEU isn't some paragon of quality, but the only film I can call a "dumpster fire" is BvS.

So MoS, BvS, Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman and Justice League represent a coherently realised, well thought out cinematic universe? And not some kind of braindead, reactionary, defined-by-boardrooms creative failure?

I've not seen Suicide Squad, but I've had it spoilered to bits and I'm fairly sure I'll despise it. At best I think I might enjoy some moments in JL, but overall continue to facepalm as with the rest of the series.

JL's opening box office was a disaster when taking into account its grossly bloated budget, and I understand their openings have kept dropping after, I think, BvS? For JL - 'Warner's Avengers' - to be one of the worst performing in the series is a humiliation. So yeah, dumpster fire seems an apt description.

So even if I agreed with the dumpster fire sentiment, what's the point of rebooting it?

As I said; to do it - and especially the trinity - justice league. Perhaps they don't need nine years off, given when it's done well a quickly turned around recast-reboot of a franchise can work, as Homecoming proved (I've not seen it yet, but by all accounts it was a commercial and critical success).

1) I'm not complaining, but there was no obligation to reboot the Batman films after Batman and Robin. Ever heard of Batman Triumphant, how it would have returned to the tone of the Burton films? Creatively speaking, there was no reason to reboot the films.

Er, isn't Chris Nolan directing his own take a pretty spectacularly huge reason to reboot? As oppose to another from Schumacher?

I personally dislike all the other Batman films, so any return to Burton's lopsided, puddle shallow vision would've been fairly terrible in my eyes. Batman Begins and TDK were veritable genre revelations.

Everyone and their mother knows the origin stories of Batman and Superman (one piece of credit I can give the DCEU is that it thankfully skips a Batman origin story, and wisely goes with a veteran Batman), and Wonder Woman is the best film in the bunch.

Re the underlined; 'wisdom' is meaningless if the idea is executed poorly. This Batman's better at CrossFit than detecting...

What's the point of doing another Wonder Woman origin movie when the one we have is pretty decent?

As you said, you don't necessarily need to do conventional origins at all. MCU Spidey's debut was way after all the power/responsibility chitchats, and Homecoming did incredibly well.

Gadot's--- kinda good in the role... but she's still a fairly two dimensional actor with an incredibly limited range, and for me Wonder Woman had a lot of posturing in it, but little of it rang true (some of the editing and timing of the trench sequence is awful, but generally that's one of Gal as Diana's best moments). I still feel someone like Jaime Alexander would've done better, and feck knows the MCU were completely wasting her.

Either way, one option's to retain Cavill and Gadot (I'm not sold on her entirely, but clearly she's been immensely popular), and maaaaaaaybe Affleck, provided he bothers to give a shit this time (I've only heard he seems rather disconnected and bored in JL), and 'fix' the DCEU in one big Flashpoint-esque event.

I mean, that worked great for Fox's X-Men...

...okay it really didn't [other than somehow allowing Logan to get made], but it could work. I think the MCU's one of the most impressive feats in mass-market cinema history, but even it needs some fresh ideas and risks, which it'll hopefully take after Infinity War. I think audiences are now comicbook/superhero savvy enough to accept some audacious reworkings, and that's a far better bet than to just limp on as the DCEU's currently doing. It is Gotham City as described by Neeson-al'Ghul in Batman Begins.

Cut out the dead wood, ditch actors who can't seem to be arsed, and set up a major arc worth a damn (it's rather sheepishly ironic the DCEU is ostensibly mirroring the MCU's 'giant genocidal lunatic from space' arc given the creative history re Thanos and Darkseid). Retcon the fuck out of it, and do it with some real flair. That would be something the MCU's not done yet, so Warner have lots of reasons to double down on that kind of in-'verse retconning.

Warner confirmed they have an adaptation bearing the Flashpoint title in the works, but I'd put money on it not being what I feel it needs to be.

Except Justice League does have its own hero shot, and it does work in the scope of the movie. I mean, I don't think either JL or Avengers are "good" movies per se, but while Avengers is the superior film, JL still works, despite its many flaws.

Oh c'mon... An iconic hero shot cannot exist in a mediocre film where the general defence of it is 'Eh, it's not terrible/It's good enough'. A Justice League film should be entire dimensions ahead of 'good enough'.

The hero shot in The Avengers was a kind of pop-cultural milestone and watershed moment. Any hero shot in a production disaster like JL (with so divisive a take on key characters) isn't 'earnt' as the 360 in the streets of NYC of the Avengers was. In a way that shot was the culmination of the MCU up to that point - and it worked so well because it more or less felt like a triumphant moment of 'Well I never - they actually pulled it off'.

Imagine that for DC's trinity, after years of careful, well thought out build-up and rock solid films. That's what the fans of these characters deserved, and they did not get it.

Darth Rosenberg:
So MoS, BvS, Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman and Justice League represent a coherently realised, well thought out cinematic universe? And not some kind of braindead, reactionary, defined-by-boardrooms creative failure?

Can I take a third option that exists between those two extremes?

Darth Rosenberg:

As I said; to do it - and especially the trinity - justice league. Perhaps they don't need nine years off, given when it's done well a quickly turned around recast-reboot of a franchise can work, as Homecoming proved (I've not seen it yet, but by all accounts it was a commercial and critical success).

You've not seen Homecoming yet it "proved?" something?

Well, anyway, I like Homecoming. It's my #1 MCU film (and one of the four genuinely good MCU films I can name), and #3 Spidey film. That said, it's an MCU film first and a Spider-Man film second.

Darth Rosenberg:
Er, isn't Chris Nolan directing his own take a pretty spectacularly huge reason to reboot? As oppose to another from Schumacher?

1) You could get a different director from Schumacher. Even if you got Nolan, you could do a continuation rather than a reboot (I'm not complaining that it was rebooted, I just don't think it was the only avenue available.

2) Nolan directing a film isn't much of a seller for me nowadays. I can't comment on his pre-Batman films, but his post-Batman films...bleh. Even Dark Knight Rises is easily the weakest installment of his trilogy.

Darth Rosenberg:
Batman Begins and TDK were veritable genre revelations.

But I do agree there.

Darth Rosenberg:
Oh c'mon... An iconic hero shot cannot exist in a mediocre film where the general defence of it is 'Eh, it's not terrible/It's good enough'. A Justice League film should be entire dimensions ahead of 'good enough'.

Except it was done in The Avengers, which was also a mediocre film, so...

Samtemdo8:

Laggyteabag:
I mean, If I recall correctly, wasn't the Snyder cut deemed to be "unwatchable", by early viewers?

I'd probably watch the Snyder cut out of sheer hilarity, but I wouldn't go into it expecting a better version of Justice League.

As far as I am concerned, the only thing that can save DC's film lineup at this point, is a straight up reboot. Keep Gal Gadot, though. She's cool.

THIS WHOLE THING WAS A REBOOT FROM GREEN LANTERN 2008!!!!

Are you implying to me that Green Lantern 2008 was actually a good movie and that they should have continued on from there?

Uhhhhhhhhh, no?

I didn't even mention The Green Lantern - in fact, I forgot that film even existed, especially seeing as I never watched it in the first place.

Some pretty impressive logical gymnastics on display, there.

(Although I do find it funny that 2011's Green Lantern film was scored the same as Suicide Squad and is 1% lower than BvS on Rotten Tomatoes.)

Im just saying that the Snyder-verse of DC is just so goofed up right now.

There aren't any stakes, the superheroes are dumb, Superman just trumps everyone, a big-bad villain has barely been established, and we barely know who any are the characters are - aside from what we can assume from their counterparts from other media.

They've just done a poor job with this universe, and these characters deserve better.

And hey, we have seen 3 Spiderman since 2002. I see no reason as to why they can't just hit the reset button again. I'd much prefer that, than to watch DC drag their characters through more sub-par films, and watch this shambles dig itself into a deeper, darker hole (though it will continue to be hilarious).

Laggyteabag:

Samtemdo8:

Laggyteabag:
I mean, If I recall correctly, wasn't the Snyder cut deemed to be "unwatchable", by early viewers?

I'd probably watch the Snyder cut out of sheer hilarity, but I wouldn't go into it expecting a better version of Justice League.

As far as I am concerned, the only thing that can save DC's film lineup at this point, is a straight up reboot. Keep Gal Gadot, though. She's cool.

THIS WHOLE THING WAS A REBOOT FROM GREEN LANTERN 2008!!!!

Are you implying to me that Green Lantern 2008 was actually a good movie and that they should have continued on from there?

Uhhhhhhhhh, no?

I didn't even mention The Green Lantern - in fact, I forgot that film even existed, especially seeing as I never watched it in the first place.

Some pretty impressive logical gymnastics on display, there.

(Although I do find it funny that 2011's Green Lantern film was scored the same as Suicide Squad and is 1% lower than BvS on Rotten Tomatoes.)

Im just saying that the Snyder-verse of DC is just so goofed up right now.

There aren't any stakes, the superheroes are dumb, Superman just trumps everyone, a big-bad villain has barely been established, and we barely know who any are the characters are - aside from what we can assume from their counterparts from other media.

They've just done a poor job with this universe, and these characters deserve better.

And hey, we have seen 3 Spiderman since 2002. I see no reason as to why they can't just hit the reset button again. I'd much prefer that, than to watch DC drag their characters through more sub-par films, and watch this shambles dig itself into a deeper, darker hole (though it will continue to be hilarious).

What makes you think another reset would result in better movies? For all I know we might get a Amazing Spiderman rather than a Spiderman Homecoming.

I cannot imagine a Snyder cut would be all that much better the what we got now. Maybe fewer quips, but the underlying problems with the WB DCU would still be there.

Really, they should try going small. Give us a Booster Gold or Oracle movie, do some world-building, make us care about what happens. Then, when something shows up that our smaller heroes can't handle, THEN you give us the big heroes.

Too late for that now but still.

I just want a Superman and Batman that actually fights and kills thier enemies when they have to.

Hawki:
Can I take a third option that exists between those two extremes?

When looking at the budgets, IP's, potential, expectations, and the competition? Nnn---nope.

You've not seen Homecoming yet it "proved?" something?

I've never ran in front of a train, but I know it'd hurt... Homecoming demonstrably proved a fairly quick turn around on a recast-reboot can work. It doesn't really matter what my own opinion of it might be (I'm not keen on Spider-Man in general, so I doubt it'll get anywhere near my personal faves in the MCU).

1) You could get a different director from Schumacher. Even if you got Nolan, you could do a continuation rather than a reboot (I'm not complaining that it was rebooted, I just don't think it was the only avenue available.

If something's not working, then doing something different is kindof a given. Schumacher killed the property cinematically, so the best thing was for a long break and a clean slate. Two things the DCEU could benefit from immensely.

2) Nolan directing a film isn't much of a seller for me nowadays. I can't comment on his pre-Batman films, but his post-Batman films...bleh. Even Dark Knight Rises is easily the weakest installment of his trilogy.

Well, it might not for you, but it is for the industry and pop-culture in general, frankly. No one else is doing quite what he's doing. Someone like Villeneuve is too defiantly, er, creatively sincere, let's say, to be mass-market, so Nolan's one of the only real directors worth a damn in the mainstream.

I think everyone would rather take Nolan's sweeping scope and style than someone like Bay, and Abrams is pretty generic, despite his clear competency. There are a handful of other decent directors, but none that have carved out anything as influential or as highly praised a body of work.

Except it was done in The Avengers, which was also a mediocre film, so...

Oh c'mon, that's just quaint contrarianism.

Samtemdo8:
I just want a Superman and Batman that actually fights and kills thier enemies when they have to.

Do you have some kind of murder fetish, or summat? Why do you seem to need to see death and killing from superheroes?

Well that's good. It'll save you from seeing the most insipid, bland and forgettable superhero movie of possibly the entire decade.

I'll say this: the approach taken for Man of Steel was okay for maybe one movie, or a movie trilogy with Superman, and precisely Superman only. But as a template for the tone of an entire movieverse it was completely disastrous. It's like Man of Steel is a big, massive steak. Sure, I love steak, I'll eat that! And BvS is another massive steak, but this time it's been slightly burnt. Are you still that hungry for steak? Maybe, maybe not. Then you hear rumors of there being even more steak cooking in the kitchen (in this analogy the DC movies teased in BvS). Then Suicide Squad trudges along, promising to be yet another massive steak which you're getting sick of at this point. But then the cooks notice the customers are getting sick of steak, and add gummi bears and ice cream to make it different or something, and the result is exactly as pleasant as you'd expect. This analogy is dragging on, but I'll conclude with that Justice League is like a stew made out of burnt steak, gummi bears, ice cream, croutons and a salmon salad: a complete mess that tries to be everything, and as a result is nothing.

And I still can't believe they didn't just make a Man of Steel sequel with the name "Man of Tomorrow" and introduce Batman, and his eventual distrust of Superman in that. It was so obvious.

Samtemdo8:
I just want a Superman and Batman that actually fights and kills thier enemies when they have to.

So you want Watchmen?

jademunky:

Samtemdo8:
I just want a Superman and Batman that actually fights and kills thier enemies when they have to.

So you want Watchmen?

Yes to a degree.

Samtemdo8:
I just want a Superman and Batman that actually fights and kills thier enemies when they have to.

So wait... you mean you don't actually want Superman and Batman then. Because supes and the b-man, as known in the public conscious, don't do that. I'm sure you'll be able to drag up a comic book or 2 where they did kill someone, but that's not "who they are" according to popular culture.

Avnger:

Samtemdo8:
I just want a Superman and Batman that actually fights and kills thier enemies when they have to.

So wait... you mean you don't actually want Superman and Batman then. Because supes and the b-man, as known in the public conscious, don't do that. I'm sure you'll be able to drag up a comic book or 2 where they did kill someone, but that's not "who they are" according to popular culture.

Fuck "who they are" according to popular culture. Fuck if that's what they are in the Comic Books.

I wanna see Superman go Dragon Ball Z on his enemies and only kill when he has too. I wanna see him lead an army of other Superheroes (as in more than 4 other people) against Darkseid and his army of New Gods in a War of the Gods.

I am getting tired of seeing Superman being pitted against Lex Luthor, I want Superheroes to actually use their godlike powers to do godlike things.

Samtemdo8:

Avnger:

Samtemdo8:
I just want a Superman and Batman that actually fights and kills thier enemies when they have to.

So wait... you mean you don't actually want Superman and Batman then. Because supes and the b-man, as known in the public conscious, don't do that. I'm sure you'll be able to drag up a comic book or 2 where they did kill someone, but that's not "who they are" according to popular culture.

Fuck "who they are" according to popular culture. Fuck if that's what they are in the Comic Books.

I wanna see Superman go Dragon Ball Z on his enemies and only kill when he has too. I wanna see him lead an army of other Superheroes (as in more than 4 other people) against Darkseid and his army of New Gods in a War of the Gods.

I am getting tired of seeing Superman being pitted against Lex Luthor, I want Superheroes to actually use their godlike powers to do godlike things.

There's a reason the best Superman stories don't involve him using brute strength to win.

Darth Rosenberg:
Oh c'mon, that's just quaint contrarianism.

If we're defining contrarianism has having an unpopular/opposing/minority opinion for the sake of it, then no it isn't.

I've never liked The Avengers. I've never considered it to be a good film. I didn't develop that opinion for the sake of it, that opinion came up from actually watching it. I can accept I'm in the minority there, but I'm not going to lie to myself or others for the sake of conforming.

Hawki:

Darth Rosenberg:
Oh c'mon, that's just quaint contrarianism.

If we're defining contrarianism has having an unpopular/opposing/minority opinion for the sake of it, then no it isn't.

I've never liked The Avengers. I've never considered it to be a good film. I didn't develop that opinion for the sake of it, that opinion came up from actually watching it. I can accept I'm in the minority there, but I'm not going to lie to myself or others for the sake of conforming.

I have only seen the Avengers once. I never bothered to watch it again on TV if it passes on FX or something.

Heck I haven't seen X-Men 1999 for YEARS now.

Infact I never go out of my way to re-watch any Superhero movies with the exception of Batman v Superman.

Samtemdo8:

Hawki:

Darth Rosenberg:
Oh c'mon, that's just quaint contrarianism.

If we're defining contrarianism has having an unpopular/opposing/minority opinion for the sake of it, then no it isn't.

I've never liked The Avengers. I've never considered it to be a good film. I didn't develop that opinion for the sake of it, that opinion came up from actually watching it. I can accept I'm in the minority there, but I'm not going to lie to myself or others for the sake of conforming.

I have only seen the Avengers once. I never bothered to watch it again on TV if it passes on FX or something.

Infact I never go out of my way to re-watch any Superhero movies with the exception of Batman v Superman.

And I find that amazing since there is so much wrong with BvS. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there are people who can find enjoyment in it, and I won't deny some of the action sequences are pretty entertaining, but it's full of so much nonsense that I find it difficult to watch. And I even picked it up on Blu-ray so that my brother-in-law could see it before we all went to see Justice League, which even with its flaws was a far better film than BvS in my opinion.

I could go into all the problems, but that's been done to death by this point, and they are obviously things you do not see as flaws. You apparently want a Superman that's more in lines with the Injustice comic, and that's fine, but while it's fun as an Elseworlds storyline, it is apparently not what a majority of Superman fans want to see on the big screen.

I prefer a symbol of hope and an ideal for humanity to strive for over some conqueror who mows down anyone who really gets in his way or represents any kind of significant threat to him. And if he does have to kill someone, as he and Batman both have rarely done in the comics, then I want to see repercussions for it. In MoS, Superman lets out a great scream after killing Zod, but then the act of killing him is never touched upon again. I want some mental anguish, a drive to do better, etc, something to show it affected him.

COMaestro:

Samtemdo8:

Hawki:

If we're defining contrarianism has having an unpopular/opposing/minority opinion for the sake of it, then no it isn't.

I've never liked The Avengers. I've never considered it to be a good film. I didn't develop that opinion for the sake of it, that opinion came up from actually watching it. I can accept I'm in the minority there, but I'm not going to lie to myself or others for the sake of conforming.

I have only seen the Avengers once. I never bothered to watch it again on TV if it passes on FX or something.

Infact I never go out of my way to re-watch any Superhero movies with the exception of Batman v Superman.

And I find that amazing since there is so much wrong with BvS. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there are people who can find enjoyment in it, and I won't deny some of the action sequences are pretty entertaining, but it's full of so much nonsense that I find it difficult to watch. And I even picked it up on Blu-ray so that my brother-in-law could see it before we all went to see Justice League, which even with its flaws was a far better film than BvS in my opinion.

I could go into all the problems, but that's been done to death by this point, and they are obviously things you do not see as flaws. You apparently want a Superman that's more in lines with the Injustice comic, and that's fine, but while it's fun as an Elseworlds storyline, it is apparently not what a majority of Superman fans want to see on the big screen.

I prefer a symbol of hope and an ideal for humanity to strive for over some conqueror who mows down anyone who really gets in his way or represents any kind of significant threat to him. And if he does have to kill someone, as he and Batman both have rarely done in the comics, then I want to see repercussions for it. In MoS, Superman lets out a great scream after killing Zod, but then the act of killing him is never touched upon again. I want some mental anguish, a drive to do better, etc, something to show it affected him.

I don't want Superman being a dictator thats for sure.

I don't want Batman to be seen as the true leader and face of DC again.

Samtemdo8:

jademunky:

Samtemdo8:
I just want a Superman and Batman that actually fights and kills thier enemies when they have to.

So you want Watchmen?

Yes to a degree.

But Superman!

I don't know what else to say here, unless he is

Supes doesn't murder people. Except for that other time Anyywaaaaayyyy.... you might have a point there.

COMaestro:

I could go into all the problems, but that's been done to death by this point, and they are obviously things you do not see as flaws. You apparently want a Superman that's more in lines with the Injustice comic, and that's fine, but while it's fun as an Elseworlds storyline, it is apparently not what a majority of Superman fans want to see on the big screen.

I prefer a symbol of hope and an ideal for humanity to strive for over some conqueror who mows down anyone who really gets in his way or represents any kind of significant threat to him. And if he does have to kill someone, as he and Batman both have rarely done in the comics, then I want to see repercussions for it. In MoS, Superman lets out a great scream after killing Zod, but then the act of killing him is never touched upon again. I want some mental anguish, a drive to do better, etc, something to show it affected him.

There's miles of difference between Injustice Supes and MoS Supes. One of them is a dictator who rules through fear, and even kills his own subordinates when they call him out for his actions. The other is someone who gives their all for the people of Earth, and is torn up by taking lives.

As an aside, MoS Supes struck me as being a symbol of hope as well, and one that's far more relatable than something like, say, Superman Returns, where Supes has no real challenges to overcome, and certainly no character flaws. It's far more engaging to see a flawed character overcome obstacles than a perfect character do so.

Samtemdo8:

Laggyteabag:
SNIIIIIIP

What makes you think another reset would result in better movies? For all I know we might get a Amazing Spiderman rather than a Spiderman Homecoming.

Because even if we did get an Amazing Spider-Man DC Edition, it would still result in better films.

Laggyteabag:

Samtemdo8:

Laggyteabag:
SNIIIIIIP

What makes you think another reset would result in better movies? For all I know we might get a Amazing Spiderman rather than a Spiderman Homecoming.

Because even if we did get an Amazing Spider-Man DC Edition, it would still result in better films.

Amazing Spiderman 2 was the worse Superhero movie I have seen yet, completely the opposite to the Raimi's movies, even Spiderman 3 was better.

I don't give fuck if people think the romance between Gwen and Peter was actually good, they are wrong the romance is garbage, its cringy, its corny, it has no place in a story about Superheroes. I want to see Superheroes fight monsters and supervillains, not what's their personal and dating life. If there must be romance in Superheroe stories it MUST be between 2 Superheroes for me.

Its why I prefer a Romance between Superman and Wonder Woman aswell as Batman and Catwoman. I don't care about Lois Lane, I don't care about Mary Jane.

Samtemdo8:

Laggyteabag:

Samtemdo8:

What makes you think another reset would result in better movies? For all I know we might get a Amazing Spiderman rather than a Spiderman Homecoming.

Because even if we did get an Amazing Spider-Man DC Edition, it would still result in better films.

Amazing Spiderman 2 was the worse Superhero movie I have seen yet, completely the opposite to the Raimi's movies, even Spiderman 3 was better.

I don't give fuck if people think the romance between Gwen and Peter was actually good, they are wrong the romance is garbage, its cringy, its corny, it has no place in a story about Superheroes. I want to see Superheroes fight monsters and supervillains, not what's their personal and dating life. If there must be romance in Superheroe stories it MUST be between 2 Superheroes for me.

Its why I prefer a Romance between Superman and Wonder Woman aswell as Batman and Catwoman. I don't care about Lois Lane, I don't care about Mary Jane.

I actually want to know the personal or dating life for a superhero. Its a good way to understand the characters as well as their interaction with the outside world when it doesn't involve being the hero.

Also I agree with Amazing Spider-Man 2. Its not the worst superhero film for me, but its up there.

I care about Lois Lane and Mary Jane. I do kinda have a like/dislike thing about the Catwoman/Batman romance, but Tom King's current run on Batman Rebirth has made me really fascinated with it a lot more. As for Superman and WW, I've tried to like it, but tbh I find it really boring.

Samtemdo8:
I just want a Superman and Batman that actually fights and kills thier enemies when they have to.

That kinda goes against who they are and what they stand for.

 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