Official Justice League Movie

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

I kind of feel like corniness is kind of ingrained into it by its very nature, though. No matter how serious and dark the stories get, you still have that underlying concept that these are people with often bizarre and sometimes unnaturally possible abilities and powers. And to be honest, ancient mythology itself has always been a bit on the corny side. Tales of gods turning themselves or mortals into animals, statues, or other things, ridiculously incredible deeds, and on and on, head of animals, six arms, or anything else, it's all pretty silly, at the end of the day. The idea of a literal jackal-headed god presiding over the entry to the afterlife, or a god turning into a mare and then giving birth.... Well, modern heroes are really no different, when you have guys who fly or have metal infused in their bones, laser vision, etc. It's all just as absurd on its face as guys barehandedly fighting a three headed dog in the underworld, or women getting turned into a spider for winning a weaving contest, or a woman getting impregnated with godlings by a shapeshifted swan.

This still sounds like an End-User problem, to me.

Absolutely anything can be as "silly" or as "serious" as the person on the receiving end wants to take it as, but it says nothing about the material being presented and everything about what's going on in their own head.

"Some people can read 'War and Peace' and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."


Pretty sure you saw that movie.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

I was speaking to the innate absurdity of the stories. I mean, we know that it would be physically impossible for a man to reroute a river using an animal bone as a plow just to clean some nasty stables, or for a baby to create the Milky Way by spewing milk after being thrown from a nursing woman's breast. Those are just- well, ridiculous. I mean, I'm pagan and follow the Old Gods, but do I believe Zeus literally turned himself into a swan or a sunbeam to diddle mortal babes? No. The myths are, quite frankly, kind of out there in terms of realism or believability. Looking at them objectively, they are completely absurd and impossibly ridiculous. But we still read those stories, and yes, we can take away some profound lessons from them. Doesn't mean they aren't still silly, at their core. They were always meant to be more of moral tales to show human faults and triumphs, but with some humorous or absurd situations thrown in to make those points. Myths are at heart, a way to illustrate human frailties and virtues- they just do it by way of a mix of pathos and camp.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

I mean, I'm pagan and follow the Old Gods, but do I believe Zeus literally turned himself into a swan or a sunbeam to diddle mortal babes? No. The myths are, quite frankly, kind of out there in terms of realism or believability.

I believe it. Just depends on how gorgeous the mortal babes were. If changing into a sunbeam is what it takes to get some of dat, well then...

[Leo656]

I personally choose not to laugh at or try to take the piss out of stories which invoke the end of the world or the destruction of the entire universe. I don't care that the protagonists wear capes. If the material is presented "straight", I'm not going to try and laugh at it, I'm going to accept it at face value.

Once more, if a person read a story like "Emerald Twilight" or "Infinite Crisis" or "Final Crisis", just to give a few examples, and found anything at all humorous about them, I'd question their values and their ability to "play along" with what's been presented. Again, it's an End-User issue. If a person insists that they have to poke fun at stuff that's being presented as horrific or tragic or whatever, just because "These people fly and wear fancy dress!", then once again, that says everything about the person, rather than the material.

I also feel it disrespects the writers who go to great lengths to try and create real emotional responses in their audience, when someone comes along and says, "Y'know, it's cute that you want me to feel bad about this guy's girlfriend getting stuffed in the fridge by Major Force, but y'know what? I can't, because he's a Space Cop with a magic ring and I can't feel bad that his girlfriend was brutally murdered on account of this entire premise should be a lark." It's not being presented as "funny", it's being presented as horrific. If I'm laughing then I'm an asshole, simple as that.

I don't need to laugh at everything, nor do I want to. If I want to laugh, there's MLP. For me, super-hero stories are about tragedy, heroic sacrifice in pursuit of an ideal, and generally averting the end of the world. I don't think any of it's funny, and it hasn't been presented that way for decades. I don't read that stuff to laugh, outside of books where that's the entire point.

Yes, anything is "silly" if one absolutely insists on taking the piss. But again, that's not the materials' fault if people insist on doing that.

When I studied mythology in school I didn't sit there and poke fun at those "silly" ancient people and the stories they built their entire belief systems around, either, just because in my infinite modern "wisdom" I "know better". As a general rule, I try and interact with literature/material the way it's intended to be presented.

Pretty sure that's where the suspension of disbelief comes in. I know, mileage varies. But I, personally, don't want to poke fun at stories - regardless of medium - that are presented as "straight". If they wear capes, then so be it. I'm not gonna laugh unless they tell me I'm supposed to. Otherwise I'm kind of a dick.

[sdp]

Rumor that ryan Reynolds will have a small cameo as Green Lantern, I don't believe it but if it happened I'd be sold on the movie.

[MikeandRaph87]

Originally Posted by sdp

Rumor that ryan Reynolds will have a small cameo as Green Lantern, I don't believe it but if it happened I'd be sold on the movie.

Yes, having Cyborg present and not Hal Jordan really took away from it for me. That and facing a villain big DC fans never heard of.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by sdp

Rumor that ryan Reynolds will have a small cameo as Green Lantern, I don't believe it but if it happened I'd be sold on the movie.

0 chance. Plus if they intended to sneak the GL movie into the DCEU then Angela Bassett would still be Amanda Waller and not Viola Davis.

[MikeandRaph87]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

0 chance. Plus if they intended to sneak the GL movie into the DCEU then Angela Bassett would still be Amanda Waller and not Viola Davis.

There could be a Reynolds esque remark that she was New 52ed. I could not tell it was Amanda Waller during that stretch so it would work, audience would appreciate it and we move on without other characters questioning the remark.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

There could be a Reynolds esque remark that she was New 52ed. I could not tell it was Amanda Waller during that stretch so it would work, audience would appreciate it and we move on without other characters questioning the remark.

Green Lantern isn't Deadpool. No 4th-wall breaking.

[sdp]

The sources of the rumors seem pretty BS to me, especially if it involves filming anything new that could cost money for a streaming service. But DC seems to be totally in on the multiverse concept for their live action stuff now, it's the only way to make sense of the DCEU after it collapsed yet having some movies that did do well. I'd like to see it, the movie wasn't that bad and JL needs a GL I don't care if it's Jon to have more representation in the team.

[MikeandRaph87]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Green Lantern isn't Deadpool. No 4th-wall breaking.

Just an idea to tie it altogether.

[Andrew NDB]

Yeesh. Ray Fisher (Cyborg) retracts all support from the Whedon cut:

https://www.darkhorizons.com/whedons...borgs-support/

Also, further confirmation that only "10%" of Snyder's actual footage was in there at all.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Yeesh. Ray Fisher (Cyborg) retracts all support from the Whedon cut:

https://www.darkhorizons.com/whedons...borgs-support/

Also, further confirmation that only "10%" of Snyder's actual footage was in there at all.

On one hand, I understand the pressure of contractual obligation and your need to...lie to audiences and defend your movie.

At the same time, it makes me sort of cringe to see him all like "I was just lying before! BOOYAH!". I mean, it's good to know you can't be trusted?

[Sumac]

Trusting anyone from Hollywood is a bad mistake in itself.

Majority of those people are professional liars, who can outlie most politicians.
Unless they are deranged power-tripping pieces of ****. And in this case you shouldn't trust them too.

[Andrew NDB]

Like these fine bunch of people:

[Leo656]

I automatically assume that everything a performer says Before and During the release of a movie is pure spin. Maybe they feel that way, maybe they're shilling for the paycheck, but they ARE getting paid to Be Positive all the same. The year AFTER the project comes out is when you might get the truth out of 'em, sometimes less if the movie bombs. Like how much fun Linda Hamilton had making the new Terminator... until it tanked and she revealed how it sucked and she hopes they don't ever call her back again. Stuff like that.

Ray made it a point to dramatically reveal his "I <3 ZS" shirt at a convention right before the theatrical cut of JL came out, and has openly given Zack credit for everything while almost never once publicly mentioning Joss's name, even in the pre-release. You'd have to be downright terrible at reading between the lines to not know what his true feelings were.

I'd hesitate to say he was "lying" before when it was patently obvious that everything positive he said about the theatrical cut, was said while he had a metaphorical gun to his head. He was just trying to hang onto the promised solo Cyborg movie he was supposed to star in; now that that's not happening he has no reason to grind his teeth anymore. I mean, sure, there's the "This is Zack's vision" lie, but the entire cast was forced to sign off on that one. Those of us who were paying attention knew it was a lie, but just rolled our eyes at WB's spin machine. It's not the actors' fault for wanting to keep their jobs.

You gotta remember before you get too mad that these people lie for a living. It's all of what they do. Sometimes they're in costume and sometimes they're not, but if a camera is on them they're playing pretend. If you can't "get" that, or if you can't read between the lines to figure what people are "really" saying when they're obviously working you, well, I can't help you.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I personally choose not to laugh at or try to take the piss out of stories which invoke the end of the world or the destruction of the entire universe. I don't care that the protagonists wear capes. If the material is presented "straight", I'm not going to try and laugh at it, I'm going to accept it at face value.

Once more, if a person read a story like "Emerald Twilight" or "Infinite Crisis" or "Final Crisis", just to give a few examples, and found anything at all humorous about them, I'd question their values and their ability to "play along" with what's been presented. Again, it's an End-User issue. If a person insists that they have to poke fun at stuff that's being presented as horrific or tragic or whatever, just because "These people fly and wear fancy dress!", then once again, that says everything about the person, rather than the material.

I also feel it disrespects the writers who go to great lengths to try and create real emotional responses in their audience, when someone comes along and says, "Y'know, it's cute that you want me to feel bad about this guy's girlfriend getting stuffed in the fridge by Major Force, but y'know what? I can't, because he's a Space Cop with a magic ring and I can't feel bad that his girlfriend was brutally murdered on account of this entire premise should be a lark." It's not being presented as "funny", it's being presented as horrific. If I'm laughing then I'm an asshole, simple as that.

I don't need to laugh at everything, nor do I want to. If I want to laugh, there's MLP. For me, super-hero stories are about tragedy, heroic sacrifice in pursuit of an ideal, and generally averting the end of the world. I don't think any of it's funny, and it hasn't been presented that way for decades. I don't read that stuff to laugh, outside of books where that's the entire point.

Yes, anything is "silly" if one absolutely insists on taking the piss. But again, that's not the materials' fault if people insist on doing that.

When I studied mythology in school I didn't sit there and poke fun at those "silly" ancient people and the stories they built their entire belief systems around, either, just because in my infinite modern "wisdom" I "know better". As a general rule, I try and interact with literature/material the way it's intended to be presented.

Pretty sure that's where the suspension of disbelief comes in. I know, mileage varies. But I, personally, don't want to poke fun at stories - regardless of medium - that are presented as "straight". If they wear capes, then so be it. I'm not gonna laugh unless they tell me I'm supposed to. Otherwise I'm kind of a dick.

I wasn't talking about laughing at or poking fun of serious stories- point of fact, it was a serious story that first got me really hooked on Spidey- their 9-11 tribute issue tale where heroes and villains alike joined in with helping rescue and clean up in the aftermath. Great story, super serious, sure. But again, it still would seem a bit disingenuous to look up in the sky at some guy in red and blue tights webbing across town to rescue people from toppling buildings, and not feel that something was a bit "weird" about the whole situation. Heck, bizarre and surreal, even.

I think you are misunderstanding my use of the concepts of absurdity and ridiculousness in the sense of "funny", rather than the more unreal and illogical or improbable sense of applying those terms to mythology in any form. Superman, for example, is basically an amalgamation of Christ, Krishna, and probably a few others, all of whom are mythological savior-heroes. Simple enough. But that just illustrates how much like mythological heroes of old he is- godlike powers, involvement in unlikely incidents (Jesus walked on water and multiplied five fish to feed thousands, after all), and was sent to rescue humanity from itself.

Myths are, and always have been, stories told to make a point, teach a lesson, explain some facet of nature we don't understand, or to show vices we abhor or virtues we admire. But they do so in ways that no none really ever believes could actually happen (unless one suspends belief in basic laws of nature) which is where the absurdity comes in. The story of Arachne is a case in point. She is so good at her craft she wins a contest against the very goddess who invented that craft! But what did she get for it? Punished by a petty, spiteful sore loser goddess who turns her into a small and insignificant creature, whose weavings will never do more than catch flies. Sad. Point of fact, MOST of those stories are not funny at all, but instead rather tragic. Doesn't mean they aren't still a bit out there, which is kind of the point of them in the first place. They are meant to be ridiculous so they are more easily remembered and learned from.

Spider-Man is a good example himself. He's a modern-day version of Anansi the trickster in human form. In fact, his connection to Anansi has even been explored in the comics themselves! He's a jokester, his powers derive directly from a spider (and in at least one story arc, this was always fated to hapoen) and yes, he's lost loved ones along the way, but he still retains that roguish nature.

To say that comics can't be a blend of the dark and the ridiculous is to deny that life itself is exactly that. And so were most ancient myths, because the people who told those tales understood the absurdity of life, where a hero could kill the monster kidnapping his bride, only to die from its poisoned blood years later! Life itself IS exactly like those stories, just without the godlike powers. And that is at the root of what modern mythological heroes like Supes and Spidey represent. Heck, even Batman cracks a smile on occasion. We should be able to do the same, even in the face of world-ending drama. Because that's the nature of the epic tale. Drama and pathos, mixed with a bit of whatthefuqery. And that's perfectly okay.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by sdp

Rumor that ryan Reynolds will have a small cameo as Green Lantern, I don't believe it but if it happened I'd be sold on the movie.

I'd be okay with this. GL had it's flaws, but the DCU simply should have stuck it all the way through. It probably could've continued to improve.

I didn't hate JLA either. There was a lot to like in the movie. I could've used a more brooding Batman who didn't care if he was on the fringe of the team.

[Leo656]

I feel like contemporary opinion on Green Lantern is starting to come around. Whenever I see an article about it, it's usually very negative but the Comments are all full of people saying "I don't get why it was bad?" I don't think it was GREAT, but I mean... that's "Green Lantern", right there, that's how the story goes and who the characters are. I don't think they needed Hammond or "Amanda Waller" (WTF was she involved in this for?) in there and that if you cut all'a that stuff it's probably a much better movie, but I'unno. I'm really not sure how to do a "better" Green Lantern movie, they essentially did everything straight from the books, people just didn't care for it. I hear a lot about the CGI, but... that's like the ONE time when "unnatural-looking CGI effects" are exactly what you SHOULD be doing, on account of that's the whole point, that's the aesthetic. "The costume and the constructs looked fake!" Right, because they're unnatural, hard-light constructs, and it makes sense that they would look "unnatural". GL isn't wearing a "costume", it's more like a holographic mirage. I felt like the filmmakers got the point but the audience didn't, with those choices. And again, I see a lot of people echoing that opinion, more recently. Altogether it has this reputation for being a "bad" comic book movie but I don't feel that's even close to being true.

That said, everyone loves Ryan Reynolds, and he's spent way too much time bashing that movie and his own part in it to ever walk back on it NOW or he'd look like a dumbass. So no, I highly doubt he'd even show up as a cameo. I'd be fine with it, I liked him just fine as Hal, but aside from playing Deadpool that's like all he does with his time nowadays is bash Green Lantern. He'd look like an idiot if he went back to it.

I can see a GL cameo happening because he was always supposed to show up eventually, but I don't think Ryan would do it.
---------

Based on what I saw and know of Snyder's storyline set-up, Bruce trying to set up and lead the team was a bit more in line with "That's what Clark would have wanted but he isn't here, so I have to do it," and I feel like that it was maybe put over a little bit better the way Zack wrote it than how Joss executed it. We'll see how it plays out, but flipping Bruce's switch from Brooding and Damaged Introvert to Jokey, Team-Player Extrovert was seriously some tonal whiplash between BvS and the theatrical cut of JL. Even when he's all-in with the League, Batman's never the "Rah-Rah, Team Spirit!" kinda guy that he was presented as being in JL, so while I definitely enjoyed seeing him interact with all the other characters, and some of it even rang true, a lot of it felt really, really forced. Hell, seeing him having a Big Huge Fight in broad daylight, in front of tons of witnesses, when previously nobody was even sure if he existed as anything but an urban legend, was pretty jarring in and of itself. Just some really questionable choices all-around, there.

Like the stuff with Bruce and Clark at the farm was some of the best, or at least most heartwarming and "real"-feeling stuff that Bruce got in the whole movie, and that, again, was one of Zack's scenes. And I definitely missed "I'm real when it's useful". Not sure Joss Whedon "gets" Batman; he cut all the best stuff and what he kept in, he made way too "light" for who the character is, both in general and also as established in the previous film. I know that he ended BvS in a more hopeful place than he started it but people don't change THAT much. I'unno. Batman was still one of the best parts of the theatrical JL cut, for sure, but I definitely had some problems with it.

[Shark_Blade]

He retracted but doesn’t say anything bad yet some people are still mad at him lol