Official Justice League Movie

[Leo656]

Yeah, that's a little bit underwhelming and the black suit is one of those things that while I love it conceptually, it's a little bit less impactful when removed from proper context. Unless there's more context in the final cut than what we're aware of.

I mean in the comics, it's a recovery suit, and he wasn't full-powered yet after his revival, so it makes sense. Unless there's a similar reason in the movie, it's just going to come off as, "Well, I like black, so he's wearing black." I confess, I always wanted to see it in a movie, but after seeing it in MoS - albeit just a "dream sequence" type thing - my appetite for it was whetted significantly.

I mean, I'm fine with it, I guess, but I obviously prefer him in his regular costume and I don't think everyone else is as fascinated with the black suit as Zack is. I feel like it's one of those little, easily-corrected things that needlessly invites more criticism. Feels a little bit tone-deaf.

I'm not gonna have a strong opinion on it until I see the full story, obviously, I just don't find the black suit supremely necessary unless there's a reason for it. And I feel like it misreads the audience. But we'll see. If it's given an in-story reason then I'll live with it; selfishly, I just prefer the real suit and I think everyone else does, too. Seems like a weird place to plant a flag and dig in, but it's not my movie after all.

[Andrew NDB]

I'm a bit torn. Everyone is like, "WOW! We get to see a four hour version of Snyder's cut for JL!" And that's great news, just as such. I would love to see a four hour cut of his vision, if only to see the definitive version of what he was trying to do.

On the other hand... how the heck was he ever allowed to shoot a four hour movie? It just wasn't necessary. Like, where were the missing checks and balances that allowed this to happen? If anything, this kind of reveals what a mess Snyder was running, from a production standpoint. There are millions of dollars ticking by every minute of the production, a production of this kind. It was never going to be a four hour movie but he shot one anyway.

[ZariusTwo]

Deborah Snyder confirms there will be a scene between Diana and Lois in the cut

https://www.gamesradar.com/snyder-cu.../#comment-jump

[Leo656]

By most accounts he's always made movies that way - and that's always a known factor whenever he gets assigned to a project. I don't think he's ever actually shot a movie that's less than three or 3.5 hours; it's always part of the deal that he shoots the "real" movie first and then the studio clips it down to something "theater-ready". Which is undoubtedly why his director's cuts are always much more entertaining and coherent than the 2-hour chop-fests that the theaters get. It's generally not a huge problem for the studios because they go in knowing that they're going to release his movie(s) twice anyway, the "standard" version that's been cut in half for theaters and then the "real" version on disc. His stuff sells, just about all of his movies make a lot of money and have really long "tails", selling tons of copies on disc and streaming. So letting him operate this way has only been a problem when WB was suddenly gun-shy about critical reviews. If the MCU wasn't a thing and they weren't trying to bow to market pressure, it would've just been Business As Usual.

I mean they got to sell "Watchmen" three times with different cuts. It's an unorthodox method to be sure but it seems to work out well for everyone. Just not people who live or die by theatrical releases that have a 2-hour runtime. Everyone who's ever seen a single movie of his in theaters knows they're watching the worst possible version of it, and that the real version will be out in a few months.

If JL was the one and only time he "over-shot", I could see it being odd, but again, this is the typical deal when you hire the guy. It's not like he springs it on people out of nowhere. He tells them upfront, "I'm gonna shoot four and then we'll trim it for theaters."

Does every movie need to be "Heaven's Gate"? Eh, that's a conversation. But it definitely explains why he's a lot more popular with people who lean towards Movies As Art rather than Movies As Business, and that includes people working in the industry. People who check-box every dime spent, they think he's kind of a pain. But people working on the creative side of the business hold him in the same vein as a Peter Jackson type of guy, someone who's always trying to push the boundaries of the medium and come up with new, creative ways to do things. Actors, designers, set-builders, and most other directors, they all love him and his approach to the business. It's just producers who think he's weird, and that's because he's spending their money so it makes sense.

At the end of the day, though, one can't complain unless someone was hired under false pretense. "Why does anyone let him shoot 4-hour movies in the first place?" Well, for the sake of comparison, when Hulk Hogan signed with WCW in '94, why was he given a guaranteed two-million dollar downside to only work 14 dates a year, then allowed to work half of those dates between January and March and then take the rest of the year off? Why was he paid $15,000+ to show up at events and talk for five minutes? Why was he given a flat percentage of ALL merchandise the company sold, even if it was other peoples' merch and not his? Because they looked at it as, he put eyes on the product and therefore every dollar coming into the company while he was working there was thanks to him. They did huge business while he was there, thus this insane contract was considered a wise investment by Turner Broadcasting because even though he was getting paid "way too much" he was bringing in a lot more. He always says to this day it was ridiculous, but what was he gonna do, turn down the opportunity? All he did was sign the contract put in front of him.

Snyder, same thing. With either of these guys, you know exactly what you're getting when you put the ink on the paper and nobody's ever hired either guy under false pretense. At the end of the day, your leash is only as long as your ability to generate profit for your employer. Thus, what seems "crazy" to the layman isn't actually that unorthodox if you poke around a bit.

I mean, I love longer movies so it's fine. "Two hours" is a standard running time for a movie because women and old people can't hold their bladder very long in a movie theater, and also so theaters can air more showings in a day, no other reason. It's not like there's a mathematically-proven formula that says "The perfect story arc fits neatly between 90 and 120 minutes." That's nonsense. Personally I feel like a lot of good movies are "crunched" anyway. When it comes to telling stories, especially Big Stories, it pays to let them breathe.

Frankly, the second Zack said to WB, "I envision Justice League as being a super-hero Lord of the Rings", they should have immediately mapped out a trilogy and let it ride. Even just two long-ish movies wasn't going to be enough space to tell that story properly. No chance. The ideas were Too Big.

WB's biggest mistake was trying to play it safe and follow convention, while at the same time hiring someone who is not at all about doing those things. If they wanted Marvel movies, they should have gone directly to Whedon back in 2012 and woo'ed him away. I'm glad they didn't do that, but the fact that they came in saying, "We want to do the Exact Opposite of what that guy did," and then later on hired that guy anyway once they got desperate to be "liked"... well, it tells you a lot. Mostly that they cared more about reviews and being universally liked than they did sticking to their guns or telling a coherent story. Had they in fact stuck to their guns, they wouldn't be in this position now.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Deborah Snyder confirms there will be a scene between Diana and Lois in the cut

https://www.gamesradar.com/snyder-cu.../#comment-jump

[CyberCubed Mode On]Lesbian Sex?![/CyberCubed Mode Off]

[Leo656]

If Amy Adams and Gal Gadot wanna get a little freaky, I'm gonna be too busy making popcorn and making sure they've got plenty of GHB to complain about it.

I'm actually a bit more attracted to Amy than Gal in general, but they both clean up nice.

[ZariusTwo]

An alternate ending to Man of Steel was considered

?The idea was that Superman would ? there was one of those sort of cryopods on the ship that ends up becoming the Fortress of Solitude that he?s able to put Zod back into and then throw out into space,? Goyer said. ?We did talk about it and maybe some people would?ve been happier with that, but it felt like a cop out for the story that we were telling.?

https://www.gamesradar.com/man-of-st...ing-zod-death/

[Leo656]

I've heard that story a bunch over the years. I'm very glad they didn't go with such a cheap ending. It WOULD have been a cop-out.

You can't spend the entire movie putting over the idea that "All actions have Consequences", and then pull back from that on the Money Shot. Kicking Zod into space and then shrugging it off like "Eh, I'll just deal with it If and When" would not have served this version of the story well AT ALL. It took everything he had just to stop Zod ONE time. What if Zod "woke up" in space later on and then came back to Earth with a literal army, somehow? Everything that happened next would be entirely Superman's fault, for not containing the situation once and for all when he had the chance.

Letting Zod live would have been some seriously neutered, cheesy, "We need him for the sequel" nonsense. I usually do NOT like killing off the villains in their movie series debut, as it is usually not necessary and movie writers usually just can't write an ending for this kind of story, so they fall back on killing the villain. BUT. Zod is a very extreme exception to that rule. You HAVE to kill "Space Hitler". You HAVE to.

Yes, some people would have liked the "Knock Zod into space and let it be someone else's problem" ending better: 1. Sensitive Sallys, and 2. People who don't read comics and therefore don't get that Zod is supposed to die by Superman's hand. And those people shouldn't have a say.

[ZariusTwo]

low-res image of Steppenwolf's redesign

https://vero.co/zacksnyder/rG-sSZRCQLRvZKwnw16LSrMg

[Leo656]

The actor who played him went on in several interviews and sources about how much fun he had playing the character, and all the stuff that went into his motivation and performance which didn't make the final cut. He seemed pretty well invested in it, so I'm excited to see his full performance.

[AquaParade]

One of the executives who ushered this thing in for HBO Max has been let go.

https://comicbook.com/movies/news/ju...o-warnermedia/

This does nothing to convince me this was a worthy endeavor for HBO. Excited nevertheless.

[Leo656]

F*ck it, it's their money.

At least they're not pulling a Disney by spending $200 million on a movie they can't release in theaters due to the collapse of human civilization and now have to dump online where they're guaranteed to make absolutely $0 profit.

I mean, they can't make "real" movies anytime soon without bankrupting the studio since theaters aren't coming back until a year from now at best. Might as well do this!

They'll be alright.

[AquaParade]

That's true. I'm not trying to secretly piss on the parade or anything. I've just got a hunch and I'm gonna follow it through. This seems like a crazy thing to greenlight.

That Steppenwolf comparison is crazy though. It does a great job of showing just how different this take could be. I'm going to get ultra prepped for this on release night and cozy as hell in my little apartment. Just wish it wasn't so far away, because it'd be a great time to have it.

[Leo656]

No, the movie was at least 70% "done" before they went and reshot the entire thing from scratch with Whedon's oxshit and pissed away another $200 million for no good reason. THAT was the lunatic bad investment. This is just reparations.

[AquaParade]

That was a bad investment, but it doesn't mean this is a good one. It's a great gesture, but that's not the same thing.

[Leo656]

Eh. Morally, it's The Right Thing To Do, and in the big picture that's all that really matters.

Money only exists as an abstract concept. Especially in the hundreds of millions category. It's not "real". Especially to people who have way too much of it to begin with, or spend huge sums that aren't really theirs.

WB committed a crime, and now they're doing their "community service". That's the important thing. And if they lose money in doing so... who cares? They're a corporation. Them going broke doesn't mean the same thing as you or I going broke.

The fact is, every time a corporation loses another hundred million dollars without any good reason, an angel gets its wings. Bet you didn't know that.

[AquaParade]

Yeah, but money is very real. If this were to cost HBO a ton of money that is not returned, there are real consequences. Jobs, future projects and creative directions, etc. Its not just all abstract.

I mean, I get that you're all for this happening and that people have been real douches regarding the outcome of this project, but that kind of stretch could only come from a wrestler.

Also, whether it is the right thing to do isn't so simple. Unfortunately, HBO max can not revolve around Zack Snyder. What happened to him was terrible, but would it be justified to push this project if it sinks HBO max and costs other people jobs? That's an extreme scenario but it's still a good example.

[Leo656]

Eh, I would say it's the kind of "reach" that comes from someone who simply doesn't feel any empathy or remorse for anyone who wears a suit for a living and/or works in the goddamn entertainment business. I grew up poor and humble, it's in my nature to cheer for rich people and corporations to fail. They ain't lookin' out for me, and I've literally slept on the sidewalk. Let one of 'em sell one'a their jetskis if they're hard-up. None of 'em are gonna be eating dry cornflakes three meals a day, spare the crocodile tears for people who don't even know you and save 'em for people who are more deserving of such sympathies.

I mean, I get that that sounds cold, but it's merely pragmatic. Regardless, finishing one movie and spending another $50 million to do so isn't going to break the proverbial bank for WB. Nothing to be so nervous about. The sky isn't falling, everyone is fine.

People are going to lose jobs and whatnot every day regardless of what happens to "Zack Snyder's Justice League", because that's the entertainment business, and also the pandemic has gutted literally every business. People losing jobs is unavoidable. I don't think it's fair to create an itemized checklist and say, "Well, THIS group of people MIGHT have kept their jobs, if only WB hadn't 'wasted' money on finishing a movie they were already about to be finished with five years ago! This darn JL movie took'er jerbs!" That's such a silly thing to even care about.

Like my Dad used to tell me whenever I'd remind him that women and children literally got murdered for the cocaine he would use: "You really can't go through life thinking about things that way."

He was an ass, but in that he sort of had a valid point. Worrying about anyone losing their job because WB decided to let Zack finish his movie, is like worrying about the fact that 5 year old kids sewed together the shoes on your feet while someone whipped them at gunpoint to work faster. Or about all the union leaders who were murdered in Colombia on orders and paid for in cash by the Coca-Cola corporation. DID YOU KNOW that Coca-Cola literally pays to have people murdered, like every single day? You do now! I don't know how you can relax, what will all these Very Real And Very Big Injustices happening all around us constantly. It's almost as if saying "Eh, not my problem" was a fundamental element of sanity and survival, or something.

Bottom line: Do you, or do you not, want to sleep soundly tonight? If so, then you simply can't let yourself dwell on such concerns. They do not affect you personally. If WB spending another $50 million costs someone a job, that's unfortunate but it's also entirely not my problem. And it shouldn't be your problem, either. There are Much Bigger Things Wrong that nobody ever talks about, if we wanna pretend to have a social conscience. I mean, *I* don't; I'm very, very open that all I care about in life is Numero Uno. But it seems as if you're suddenly very, very concerned about the well-being of people you don't know. Which is noble, maybe. But also silly. It's not your problem and there's literally nothing you can do about it even if it were.

If you wanna bang a drum about people in the entertainment business getting a bad shake, save the concern for the women and children in the industry, 100% of whom are raped and molested as a matter of course while people say it's "Just business". That's a Real Problem. Don't cry about someone who used to work at WB having to take a temp job at Starbucks because their boss over-spent on a Zack Snyder project. That's Life, pal.

Everyone in Hollywood is working there because they were too "special" to get a real job to begin with, so if some of them have to live humble for a while, that's perfectly fine. They can move back to Nebraska and take up underwater basket weaving or something until the industry bounces back. It'll be a good character builder for 'em.

I just think it's weird to get hung up on THIS, on THIS relatively minor project specifically. What about all those SFX houses that go out of business even though the movies they work on do huge business, like "Life Of Pi" and things like that? Movies make tons of money, win awards... the people who did the "real work" - the special effects that tie the thing together - ALL lose their jobs because the studio uses loopholes and red tape to avoid paying them anything, and then they all end up unemployed. That happens SO much, and yet, I've never heard it brought up around here, by you or anyone.

So... yeah, I don't know why THIS project, with a "mere" $50 million expenditure at stake, has you up at night when movies that actually make profit still cost tons of people jobs because of "fuzzy math" and people just shrug it off. Nobody says "Oh, those poor people who worked on the Sonic movie (or whatever movie). They got divorced and had kids they never met because they had to work through a crunch, and then they lose their jobs anyway! What a cruel injustice!" I mean those are literal screwjobs, and people also end up unemployed, in large numbers. But I don't hear any drums banging or moral outrage about those much bigger and more costly situations. It makes it sound like you just have a specific ax to grind with this one case, not with the general fact that people in the movie business lose their jobs often and for bad reasons. Because if you care that much, it's interesting that it never came up for anything else. I get the point you're trying to make, it's just strange in context.

Regardless, $50 million for WB is figuratively nothing. They'll be fine. If anyone loses a job, they were inevitably gonna lose it anyway. Unless it takes food out of your mouth, let them worry about their own problems. That's my advice. That's literally the best advice I could ever give anyone about anything. "If it ain't your money and it ain't your ass... then it ain't your problem."

You will literally go insane otherwise. Don't sweat the small stuff, guy. It ain't worth your concern.

[AquaParade]

Sounds like you want to hand wave any financial discussion away, tbh.

I'm not sweating the finances at all. I get to watch the cut, so I'm happy. Just, sometimes people will discuss the business aspects of the entertainment industry. It's part of the fun because the finances can dictate future projects, creative endeavors, and just be plain interesting to watch play out while speculating on. It's all part of the fun.
I don't know why you want to shut that down, except for the possibility that you don't like the way a negative sentiment about ZS's Justice League sounds.

Also, your morals only extend to Zack by the sound of your post. You want to extend a hand to him because its "the right thing to do." One person.
Yet too bad for anyone else affected because "that's the entertainment industry."
Trust me, Zack don't need you to stay up at night for him either, with out without this cut. There are bigger things to worry about in the world than whether or not Zack Snyder gets a JL cut. - see how that works?
Cmon man, it's a goddamn forum. Dont handwave discussions away with "first world problems" and start giving examples of people being molested and raped as real issues. Lordy.

Btw, I'm pretty sure this is going to cost more than 50M but I can't source that at this moment. The number floating around is $80M. I wish them luck.

[Leo656]

For one thing, it's just very dumb to care about the hypothetical circumstances of people who aren't affecting you directly, just as a general rule of Life. Maybe that's "mean" or "insensitive", but it's also true.

For another thing, $50 million in "Hollywood Money" is like, $50 to you or I. It's a total non-issue. The roof isn't gonna cave in at WB over post production costs on one goddamn movie. Jesus.

You're manufacturing a make-believe concern regardless of motive. "Just conversation"? "Just for fun"? Maybe. But it's silly. How many people you think lost their jobs when "Crimes of Grindlewald" underperformed? A lot, I bet. They lost more than $50-80 million on that project, I'll wager. Where was this concern when they actually already lost money when the theatrical cut of JL tanked? I don't recall seeing you clutching your pearls then, and a lot more was at stake in that situation than this one. Did you have a spiritual awakening very recently, or something? Because there's something that doesn't add up.

If nobody cared Then in those other circumstances, nobody should care Now. And absolutely nobody cared Then. Never in my LIFE have I ever heard anyone bring up, "Oh gosh, if this movie fails those people might lose their jobs!" until right now, with this specific case, and it's the most desperate straw-clutching to make Something out of Nothing I've ever seen. I give you valid examples of Real Problems, and you accuse ME of "handwaving" an issue because you're suddenly concerned that a "Key Grip" might have to get a real job? Over post-production costs of this ONE movie, when people in Hollywood lose their jobs every day - Every. Single. DAY. - and nobody says a word about it? But NOW you're up at night wondering if someone is gonna lose money because WB over-spent on JL? "Those poor people might lose their jobs!" COME ON, NIKKI!*

I care abut more than just Zack with regard to this specific movie project. He worked super hard, but so do lots of other people. Hundreds of people worked on the "real" version of JL, and some of THOSE people already lost their jobs at WB and all their work over several years was for "nothing". And guess what? Not YOU or anyone else was crying the blues for Those People THEN. Now, their work gets to be seen and it's not "for nothing", so at least there's THAT. And for what it's worth, don't ever try and rope me into a conversation about Art vs. Money, because I automatically default to Art every time. I don't care if people in the goddamn entertainment business lose money. They wipe their ass with hundred dollar bills, I don't care if any of them have to tighten their belt. Creative Freedom and Artistic Expression counts for more than nickels and dimes. Don't speak to me about financial consequences of people's creative works, I absolutely Do Not Care. All I care about is people's work being seen and their voices being heard. End of story.

Remember, I work part-time in a field that's part of or adjacent to the entertainment industry. Indie feds go out of business every day, which means people lose money. I've lost hundreds of bookings, "guaranteed" Title reigns, and lots and lots of money over the last ten years, because other people made questionable business decisions. OH WELL, man. I knew the risk when I took the gig. Nobody ever says, "Wow, man, that _____ fed went under, I hope Rikki Roxx can feed himself!" I mean if they do, then swell, but I don't ask them to. It's not their problem! If I wanna get booked I'll pick up the damn phone and get myself booked, I don't need anybody's crocodile tears. I could work every weekend if I really, really felt like it. And y'know what? So can these people working at WB that you're oh-so-worried about. They'll be FINE. If they didn't literally call you up and say, "Please cry for me," then just don't.

Don't ascribe sinister motives to people just because you get hung up on something not worth your concern, brother. It's unseemly. If you want to create Something out of Nothing just to hear yourself talk, don't imply that I'm the loon just because I call bullsh*t on Obvious Bullsh*t. No, I don't give a sh*t about what happens to people working in Make Believe-Land whom I'll never meet. Nor should you. But for one thing, at least I'm honest about it, while merely trying to plea for Rational Thought to prevail. And for another thing, since you never raised the issue before - not even when the theatrical cut of JL tanked, which also undoubtedly got people fired - I'm not gonna take your concerns seriously Now.

You either care, or you don't care. *I* don't care, but I never pretended to care. Movies lose money, people lose jobs. SO? Jesus Christ. I'm pretty sure they know that when they move out there. And you? You never cared until Just Now, literally never raised the issue until This Very Situation, despite LOTS of movies losing money and LOTS of people losing jobs ever since movies were even A Thing, so now it's MY turn to ascribe sinister motives to your sudden and oh-so-very-real "concern" for these hypothetical people you don't even know.

Since we're ascribing motives based on assumptions, I'll say it plain: I personally think you just don't want anyone being "too excited" about the project for whatever reason. Like, you say you're excited, and that's great, but there's no need to get hung up on invisible, make-believe problems that aren't gonna affect you. If you can't watch a movie without wondering how many people lost their jobs over the CGI on Batman's cape, maybe quit watching movies. That's a total You Problem.

Like really. Not trying to be a dick, I'm just dying to know why something that happens every day with no concern or consequence from anyone, suddenly has you up at night because of this One Movie. You suddenly feel Very Strongly about an issue you've never, ever ever even spoken of before even in situations where it was far more justified to feel the way you do, and I find it suspect. Sorry, can't help it.

People who get paid a LOT more than You or I, specifically get paid to count the beans for these things. You don't. So stop worrying about things that don't affect you. You're too young to have gray hair. If you wanna be excited for the movie, then just Do That, and let other people worry about their own problems.

Just a nickel's worth of free advice mixed with some genuine and heartfelt observation. If that makes me a dick, then Oh Well.
---------

* I don't know where the "Come on, Nikki!" meme started, it's just a thing a bunch of wrestlers and marks I know started doing a while ago and I think it's funny for reasons I don't get. Nobody else seems to understand it either. Just one'a those dumb things. Sorry, couldn't help myself!