Official Justice League Movie

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

You know what amazes me?

We're still talking about Justice League, and Batman V Superman by extension, and nobody gives a $hit about Infinity War or Endgame anymore. MCU movies just don't STICK in people's minds.

Hell, I have most of them on my DVD shelf (no Iron Man 3 or Captain Marvel) and I haven't rewatched a single one of them since seeing Endgame in theaters last year.

Controversial is good.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

You know what amazes me?

We're still talking about Justice League, and Batman V Superman by extension, and nobody gives a $hit about Infinity War or Endgame anymore. MCU movies just don't STICK in people's minds.

Hell, I have most of them on my DVD shelf (no Iron Man 3 or Captain Marvel) and I haven't rewatched a single one of them since seeing Endgame in theaters last year.

Controversial is good.

Leo will appreciate this

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

You know what amazes me?

We're still talking about Justice League, and Batman V Superman by extension, and nobody gives a $hit about Infinity War or Endgame anymore. MCU movies just don't STICK in people's minds.

Hell, I have most of them on my DVD shelf (no Iron Man 3 or Captain Marvel) and I haven't rewatched a single one of them since seeing Endgame in theaters last year.

Controversial is good.

People mostly bitch about the bad not talk about the good. End Game was a once in a lifetime experience, it was awesome. But like many good movies, it's time has passed.

But a bad movie... Oh, we will never let them live that down. Like the horrible Bay Turtles films.

If you want a DC example, look at Joker. It was amazing but it's time has passed, no one's talking about it anymore. But had that movie tanked....

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

People mostly bitch about the bad not talk about the good. End Game was a once in a lifetime experience, it was awesome. But like many good movies, it's time has passed.

But a bad movie... Oh, we will never let them live that down. Like the horrible Bay Turtles films.

If you want a DC example, look at Joker. It was amazing but it's time has passed, no one's talking about it anymore. But had that movie tanked....

We don't talk about X-Men Apocalypse. THAT was a terrible movie. Batman V Superman was divisive, as was Justice League.

There's a difference between divisive and controversial, and boring.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

If you want a DC example, look at Joker. It was amazing but it's time has passed, no one's talking about it anymore. But had that movie tanked....

Really? I still see the movie talked about everywhere online, to the extent where people have the entire film memorized verbatim.

Not to mention all the parody videos online, with some really popular ones being made mere weeks before today.

[sdp]

DC has the bigger names, Marvel has just had the attitude and stories that kept people watching. If DC handled their heroes right it would be different. But who knows, a whole generation has now grown with Marvel being the A brand and DC the B brand tho.

[Leo656]

It's actually been that way since the 90s. Marvel always had a larger presence in pop culture since then, and have always produced far more toys, cartoons, video games, etc. than DC. It's not "my brand" but it is what it is. More people have grown up paying attention to Marvel since roughly around the time of the X-Men cartoon. I was one of the only kids in my school who preferred DC, and even back then people were tribal and stupid about that kinda thing.

Part of why I confess to an inherent annoyance/mistrust of Marvel fans. All my life, I've noticed that DC fans are generally more "live and let live", and don't care what other people like, while Marvel fans are more consistently the type to go around doing the "That thing you like sucks" stuff. That's my own anecdotal experience but it's been consistent for over 30 years both in Real Life and online, so I generally don't bother with a lot of those people because such behavior is immature. I know it's not true of everyone but it's definitely a large number of people. And I'll never understand why those people consistently have to try and upset people for laughs instead of staying in their own sandbox, liking what they like and leaving everyone else alone. I have my own theories, but they're rather mean-spirited and elitist so I won't go there.

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

https://images-eu.ssl-images-amazon....6ud%2BgERL.jpg

Leo will appreciate this

Bischoff is my Spirit Animal.

[Sumac]

I respect comic books and consider them to be an art, which doesn't mean that everyone on the planet should be aware of existence of the select few stories among the thousands, to really appreciate some movie.
It is an unreasonable expectation.

I see constant memes about Endgame, but not much so about BVS, Justice League, aside from occasional "Martha" popping out somewhere.

Also, true, people talk more about bad things, because, "everyone's a critic" and there is not much to talk about Endgame, aside from saying that it was awesome.

[Leo656]

It's not an unrealistic expectation if you specifically did not set out to make a populist film or piece of entertainment, though. If your mission statement at the jump was, "This is aimed first and foremost at people who are familiar with the source material," I don't feel it's fair to take points off when you completely nail what you set out to do.

People can argue back and forth forever about whether the point of any movie is to be populist and suitable for ages 3 to 103, but that's not really the point. The point is, when they put Zack Snyder in charge of the DC project, at that time they weren't chasing the billion-dollar mark because that wasn't even a realistic goal for anyone, yet. The entire point from Day One was, "If Marvel films are funny and mainstream, we'll make ours darker and more aimed at 'hardcores'." It was about establishing their own brand identity and cultivating their own audience, and they knew going into it that it wasn't going to be for everyone. They said so multiple times. "If it's not for you, then it's not for you." That was implicitly understood by all, early on, even if not everyone was thrilled with that decision.

Then "Avengers" made a billion dollars and WB started panicking and chasing money rather than sticking to what they set out to do. Before that, they were perfectly fine with not "everyone" being a fan of what they were doing. They wouldn't have hired a director who people run so Hot and Cold on to steer the ship in the first place, if being "mainstream" was the goal. It's not like "Watchmen" set the world on fire; they hired him specifically because his style caters more to purists, not because his stuff is universally crowd-pleasing and makes tons of money. It was 100% because his style was what WB wanted the brand to be at that time, before everything became a race and a war between brands.

But you can't fault people for not pleasing you when you maybe weren't the audience in the first place. The people they set out to please were mostly pleased. "If it's not for you, then it's not for you."

Again, some would say "Every super-hero movie should be aimed at everyone in the casual audience", but 1. I strongly disagree, and 2. There are already plenty of movies that do that.

But if you say from the outset, "We hope everyone will like this, but it's mostly aimed at These People Over Here," and then you execute that vision to the letter, then one can hardly call that a failure. If they said it wasn't predominantly aimed at comic book fans vs. casuals in the first place, it would be a different conversation. They didn't make MoS or BvS for casuals. One can argue that they should have, but again, that's a different conversation entirely.

I don't measure artistic merit by dollars earned or critics pleased, so since most comic book movies are NOT aimed at comic book fans, I'm glad there are some that are. There's about 80 other super-hero movies aimed at casuals. There can be a few that aren't populist. All super-heroes are inherently Objectivist, anyway, it's weird that so many of them are adapted into stories aimed at mainstream audiences when the very concept of the ubermensch as portrayed in modern fiction is totally Randian by design in the first place.

Like, I'm so totally, totally shocked that an outspoken Objectivist got hired to make movies directly inspired by said concepts and theories, and then it didn't play well with the mainstream. That's kind of the entire idea behind Objectivism vs. Populism in the first place: That not everything Is or even Should Be for "everyone". And while I certainly don't agree with every piece of Objectivist theory, that is one part I very strongly agree with.

[AquaParade]

I don’t think the quality of BvS rests on whether or not you pick up on references or Easter eggs, personally. I think it just lives or dies of it’s own merits. In some ways it is faithful to the comic and in some ways it veers, as most memorable DC stories do.

It’s great because of its visuals, music, casting, acting, and direction. It fails due to being a bit crammed with a compacted story, as well as having a lot of awkward and unlikeable characters and writing (Lex, the senator, and the general come to mind as somewhat stilted, off-putting characters with hokey lines.)

I personally don’t see BvS as the most faithful comic adaption ever or anything. I think all the studios doing comicbook adaptions have had their chance to shine when it comes to being faithful to the comics. MCU may be mainstream but they bend over backwards to please comicbook fans. Kevin Feige is doing a great job keeping the movies relevant and financially funded while bringing highlights from the comics to life. It’s commendable. FOX was probably the most off-base until Deadpool, in which they gave us a book extremely reverent of the comics (somewhat by accident).

Personally, I’m fine with my comics being my comics and my movies being my movies. They are never going to share the same strengths based on the fact that they are different mediums and have to exploit different techniques. It’s a balancing act when it comes to being faithful to the comics and bringing something new to the table. Each studio has succeeded and failed at that.

[Leo656]

Fair points well-spoken. Regarding fidelity, Easter eggs, etc., I don't think enjoyment rests on that and that alone. I'm saying, those specific movies are packed with things that if you do get them, you're simply more likely to enjoy the overall experience because a lot of what's in them is specifically for Those People. Pretty much every frame of MoS or BvS is wall-to-wall "Easter Eggs" and deep-cut references that pull from 80 years of material and trying to weave it into a new, cohesive whole. And if on the other hand you're a person who doesn't know why those things are in there, or what they represent/foreshadow/etc., then of course they won't mean anything to that person, because how could it mean anything to them? Like, how could anyone who never read "Phantom Zone" know what the shattered moon on Krypton is there for? To them, it's just a visual choice, but to anyone else, it's a "Holy Sh*t" moment that implies/foreshadows all kinds of wonderful things.

It's all merely added value, which is representative of the amount of work that went into the product. I don't think it's the entire point of the experience but it definitely enriches the experience. And I think filmmakers should be celebrated rather than vilified when they go the extra mile like that, because they certainly don't "have" to and they generally often don't bother.

I don't think it's any surprise that among the people I've spoken with who dislike those two films the most vociferously, when I ask them, they tell me plainly they've never read a DC comic, or only a few. "I don't recognize these versions of the characters, I don't know what's going on in the story, I don't like the movie." Okay. That's fair and fine, and I'm honestly not even surprised. They'll say the movies are lazy and off-the-mark and "not faithful" and whatever else. Whereas to someone who does recognize what's being pulled from, they'll see how much work actually DID go into making them and how they are faithful in This Way or That Way. If you recognize the "ingredients" it changes the entire conversation about the movie(s), for most people.

It's like how Kevin Smith said the first time he saw BvS, he was mixed about it because he was looking at it through his "filmmaker/business man lens", and how "This or that maybe wasn't a wise business decision," etc., but then when he saw it with Mewes, Jay was constantly marking out about all the stuff from the comics, at which point Kev was like "Okay, yeah, I get what they were doing with this," and looking at it from a different perspective increased his overall enjoyment of the movie from that point forward.

It's not universal and every movie is different. And as you said, obviously there's a lot more to appreciate about the films than JUST their fidelity. But with MoS and BvS, especially, a person's entire opinion CAN and often does generally rest on whether or not they recognize the "ingredients" or "building blocks" of the material. Broad general statement that's also nonetheless true, people who know the comics simply like those two films a lot more than people who are more casual about the characters. If you poke around, you see that come out in people's expression of what they did or didn't like, and why they did or didn't like it. It is what it is, it's not by accident, and it simply shouldn't surprise anyone. Maybe not in every individual's case, but in Most People's case. More "hardcores" liked the movies than casuals did, and that was mostly by design and shouldn't surprise anyone. Those people simply saw more to like about the movies altogether. Yes, they liked the acting, the music, the cinematography, , etc., but they also liked all The Other Stuff. And The Other Stuff is what often elevates a person's opinion on those films, at least somewhat. And people who didn't care about The Other Stuff at all, generally didn't like the movies at all. That's all I'm saying. It happens far too often to be mere coincidence.

I just think it's completely unfair that anyone would paint something as terrible, and say it like it's a definitive statement of fact, when they simply don't recognize the material that was researched or the work and care that went into adapting it. All they can say is whether or not a particular movie spoke to them, not whether it was "good" or "bad" because it didn't subscribe to their personal, subjective, and arbitrary criteria. A person can't say "They didn't do their homework" if they simply aren't aware of how much they actually did. That kind of "criticism" simply isn't fair.

And obviously, movies like Batman '89, The Dark Knight, etc. prove that you don't have to be supremely faithful to still make a good or great movie! I'm just saying, it's great to me when filmmakers DO try and be as faithful as possible, I wish it were more common, and I think that when they go that route they deserve a little credit for it, rather than be vilified for not aiming towards a more casual audience. It takes a lot more work to try and weave several elements into a new, cohesive whole, than it does to say, "Let's keep the names the same and change everything else." The latter is more of a clean slate to work on, but the former sets established guidelines to work within, which can be a lot more tricky to pull off.

But that's just my perspective on it.
--------------------

Getting back to the Kryptonian Moon thing again, apparently that was some huge foreshadowing in and of itself:

Spoiler:

So, in the comics, Jax-Ur destroyed the moon (known as Wegthor), which is why he was exiled to the Phantom Zone. In Zack's version, this was foreshadowing Doomsday - the real one, not the "larval stage" prototype seen in BvS - who is confirmed to still be alive and "out there somewhere", and was most likely going to appear in Justice League 2 or "Man of Steel 2". Which is why in BvS they specifically had the Kryptonian ship mention to Lex that Doomsday had been created once before, and also why the one in BvS was not the fully "evolved" form. The plan was always to have the actual monster show up later on, requiring the full power of a unified Justice League to stop once and for all (since Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman only barely managed to stop the "Baby Doomsday"). I'm pretty sure it would have been in Justice League 2, since Darkseid using Doomsday as a weapon against the League is another thing that's been done before in the comics.

But yeah, Doomsday's the one who smashed the moon of Wegthor. That part's new to me, but I think it's really cool foreshadowing and a neat twist on the mythos that totally fits. Like, the first five minutes of MoS foreshadow what was supposed to happen like three movies later. That's neat.

The rest of the plan, I always suspected, but it's nice to hear it confirmed. Would have been cool to see it go that route. Ah well.

See, that's another thing, if you do know what's in the comics, you can also kinda predict where the stories are gonna go down the road, which is exciting and gives you something to look forward to. You feel like you're on the same page as the storytellers and that they're booking it just for you, and that's a nice feeling.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's not an unrealistic expectation if you specifically did not set out to make a populist film or piece of entertainment, though. If your mission statement at the jump was, "This is aimed first and foremost at people who are familiar with the source material," I don't feel it's fair to take points off when you completely nail what you set out to do.

Do you seriously think that WB aimed Batman vs Superman at small audience? Like really!?

Originally Posted by Leo656

The point is, when they put Zack Snyder in charge of the DC project, at that time they weren't chasing the billion-dollar mark because that wasn't even a realistic goal for anyone, yet.

I call ******** on this one - Man of Steel was released a year after Avengers. Not to mention WB already tried to establish cinematic universe with the Green Lantern in 2011.

And Man of Steel reboot was done specifically, because, WB wanted Superman to make them money again (you know being the most recognizable superhero in the world and all that), not just make few geeks happy. They've started panicking only after BVS, which was everything that Snyder wanted, complete opposite of Avengers and a failure.

They put Snyder in charge, because, he was hip at the time, thanks to release of 300 and Watchmen (as well as Sucker Punch and Legend of the Guardians) and hoped that his visionary style will be sufficient to make WB cinematic universe cool and different. Well, they achieved one of the goals.

Originally Posted by Leo656

"If Marvel films are funny and mainstream, we'll make ours darker and more aimed at 'hardcores'." It was about establishing their own brand identity and cultivating their own audience, and they knew going into it that it wasn't going to be for everyone. They said so multiple times. "If it's not for you, then it's not for you."

I'd like to have a citation on this one.
I don't believe that WB no matter how deluded they were, would say, that their cinematic universe, which is supposed to go toe to toe with MCU "is not for everyone". It's like doing the worst possible advertisement for your project.

[Coola Yagami]

Not sure where all the casual vs comicbook geeks argument is coming from. Sure, the MCU is popular with casuals, but a lot of fans that love them are comic book fans. And a lot of people that disliked BVS and JL were comic book fans, not casuals. I mean Batman is such a big icon, you can't tell me everyone that absolutely hated BVS wasn't a Batman fan. It's probably cause people are huge DC fans that the movies got so much hatred. They just did their characters wrong in so many ways. You got Batman branding people. Yeah, I'm out.

[Leo656]

Not sure where the "I have a compulsive need to forever chime in on something I don't like and have already said so a thousand f*cking times sh*t comes from either. Again, by this point people are trying to annoy people on purpose. Which is stupid. Be great if You and Yours f*cked right off on this topic once and for all after 5 years running. You said your piece on it, now you're just jerking off. And simultaneously pissing me off, frankly, because it's redundant. If you and one or two other people are gonna continue to jump in with "Nah, it sucks" every time other people here try and have an actual conversation about the movie(s), then guess what? It's gonna be locked, like every other thread about these movies where people can't just move on instead of banging a drum for no reason other than to irritate and annoy.

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Yeah, I'm out.

Promise? Like seriously. I will PAY you to be "out" on this topic, since you and other people have absolutely nothing to say that you haven't already said a hundred times. The rest of us were trying to have a conversation.

Again, I could write lengthy dissertations on why stuff like "Ragnarok" is "trash", no matter how much money it made. But no, I let people have theirs, like a mature adult. When you go around like a gnat in someone's ear telling them "That thing you like sucks", over and over and OVER again, for five f*cking years, then guess what? At that point you're just an asshole, which means any point you might be trying to make no longer matters. I know I'm certainly not going to value the opinion of anyone who acts like that. I'm not even going to listen to it because I'm considering the source.

We get it, you hate the movie(s). So please go fawn over those MCU cartoons and leave those of us who do like these other movies, and who are excited about Justice League, to talk about it in peace as we are clearly trying to do. It's not that you're not allowed an opinion, it's that you've already beat it into the ground for years already and now you're just being obstinate on purpose. You CAN'T let people just like things. It's not part of your function. I've watched you and the others for years, it's part of who you are as a human being regardless of topic. You HAVE to flog the horse to death even when someone begs you to move on. That's immature. It's not exclusive to you, but it's unbecoming and childish from anyone. And it's why this forum is full of trash people and trash behavior. "That person likes a thing I don't like! I know I told 'em they're stupid yesterday, BUT I'm gonna do it again today, anyway!" Too much of this sh*t. You said it already, you're not adding anything new, just repeating yourself, after being asked politely to simply move on from the discussion.

Be a grown-up, not a troll. Ignore things you don't like rather than "clap back" at people who do. Very, very simple. Can't do that? That's a You Problem.

You already said before you were done with the conversation. Don't lie to me again. I can't abide dishonest people.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Not sure where all the casual vs comicbook geeks argument is coming from. Sure, the MCU is popular with casuals, but a lot of fans that love them are comic book fans. And a lot of people that disliked BVS and JL were comic book fans, not casuals. I mean Batman is such a big icon, you can't tell me everyone that absolutely hated BVS wasn't a Batman fan. It's probably cause people are huge DC fans that the movies got so much hatred. They just did their characters wrong in so many ways. You got Batman branding people. Yeah, I'm out.

Being a Batman fan doesn't make you a comic book reader. We live in an age where people cherry pick stuff from the comics that they learned on the internet and use that as their source of validation for being part of a fandom they weren't part of until they started making movies about it. Comic book fans don't say sh*t like bring back Christian Bale for Batman because he was the best but then b*tch and moan about Henry Cavill's Superman not smiling enough.

[Leo656]

Man, I really hope you're handsome as well as intelligent and witty. There's so few of us.
----------------

There's also the insane number of people who "read" things like books or comics but don't understand them, yet deem themselves experts anyways. "War and Peace, chewing gum wrapper, 'Secrets of the Universe'," yadda yadda, you saw the movie. It applies to films as well, obviously.

"Functional Illiteracy" is a thing, and it's grown rampant in the Age of the Internet since "everyone gets an opinion (but most people don't deserve one)". Most people on this entire forum have never taken a class or even a workshop where they all have to read something and then go around the room discussing tones, themes, symbolism, metaphor, personal interpretation vs. authorial intent, etc., and it shows so much. They look at something once, mostly only at a superficial level, don't get it, don't want to get it, and declare themselves worthy of an authoritarian position on the work. If they ever did take a class on literature or creative writing, they'd fail it, if for no other reason than insisting that only their point of view is the valid and correct one. But they'd probably make pretty good internet "journalists", seeing as how arguing from a position of ignorance is part of the job description in that field.

Like, instead of heckling people on the internet, why not get a job for Entertainment Weekly and get paid for it? It kills me. Masturbating is fun but it's something that should be kept private.

[Spike Spiegel]

With Ava DuVernay working on New Gods, what are the chances of certain story elements getting retooled to lead into that?

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Not sure where all the casual vs comicbook geeks argument is coming from. Sure, the MCU is popular with casuals, but a lot of fans that love them are comic book fans. And a lot of people that disliked BVS and JL were comic book fans, not casuals. I mean Batman is such a big icon, you can't tell me everyone that absolutely hated BVS wasn't a Batman fan. It's probably cause people are huge DC fans that the movies got so much hatred. They just did their characters wrong in so many ways. You got Batman branding people. Yeah, I'm out.

Some people here pretend that MOS and BVS were made for a small audience of geeks, for some reason.

Also, I've said several times that I don't consider MCU particularly amazing. They are decent watchable movie, nowhere near super good stuff, like Batman'89, Batman Returns or Blade.

Of course, in this thread everyone who don't worship ground under Snyder's feet are automatically "wannabe comic book fans who can only enjoy cartoons", while its perfectly OK to **** on MCU and praise dour mediocrity.
Which is fairly ironic, giving the topic at hand.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Spike Spiegel

With Ava DuVernay working on New Gods, what are the chances of certain story elements getting retooled to lead into that?

Probably pretty likely, IF it ever gets made.

Of course, given the density and complexity of the New Gods mythology, I don't expect most movie-goers to "get it" even if and when they do. It's also not lighthearted or comedic stuff, so I imagine that it'll be dismissed as more "pretentious nonsense" if it ever gets that far. Darkseid will be called a "ripoff" of Thanos, the whole exercise will be called "dour" and heavy-handed, and so forth and so on.

But all the Darkseid and New Gods stuff is simply too important to the DC mythos to be discarded or ignored, so yeah, it would be great to see it finally done in live-action. MoS and BvS were leading towards a storyline that heavily riffed on "Final Crisis", anyway, so obviously they know what they need to build towards and lean into. The question is whether or not the general audience even wants that kind of movie from DC. It's not lowbrow enough to make a billion dollars, and if you're not making a billion dollars there's no point in making your movie anymore, apparently.

Good question, though, and I've often wondered that myself. Of course, I'm highly, highly skeptical they'll even make the movie in the first place.

In the meantime, the "Masters of the Universe" movie is more or less a New Gods movie in everything but name and visual aesthetic, so... there's always that. Seriously, once you see it, you'll never un-see it. Skeletor is so totally, totally Darkseid. The entire project changes once you find out it's "actually" a New Gods movie, and I think it honestly enhances it quite a bit.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I have to admit, I'm getting excited for this.

Gave my wife a crash course on the history of the movie, Zack Snyder, Joss Whedon, and WB/DC politics. She put up with it and finally asked, "Will this version be less boring?"

Pretty sure the answer is yes.

I even began to wonder--what if Ezra Miller's Flash is entirely different? What if the majority of those dumbass jokes were Joss? They certainly FELT like Joss.