Official Justice League Movie

[AquaParade]

Leo, I agree with your point about the destruction. Saving people on a "macro scale" is a good way of putting it.

But Anderew, you have a strong point in regards to Superman making out over a thousand corpses - it's a little distracting and not a good look for Superman, whether or not our minds should be going there.

Ironically, Leo said even if they showed him saving bodies from rubble, people would move the goal post - yet that declaration itself feels like you are moving the goal post. It was a fair point.

[Leo656]

It is but isn't. From Lois The Character's perspective, having just almost died I can completely understand why Lois would instinctively jump to kiss the guy who just saved her from going "splat". Those things happen all the time.

Meanwhile, from a "Things a Superman Movie Needs" perspective it's pretty important to have a scene where they kiss and there really wasn't any other place where it would have fit even a little bit. I don't know, it could've been done better, maybe, sure.

I can understand the point, I just don't agree that it's worth getting hung up on, is all. Like a lot of things people complain about, I can understand them but still thoroughly disagree that they're any sort of big huge deal. I can honestly say that the first time I watched MoS I definitely had some issues with it - all of which went away upon time and repeated viewings - but That Thing was never one of them for me at any point. I hadn't really even though much of it until someone else pointed it out.

[AquaParade]

Yeah, me neither. I'm fine getting lost in the poetry of the moment. I can understand that complaint though. It is more justified to me than everyone complaining about how Superman behaved during the actual batttle.

[Leo656]

I mean, I understand lots of complaints about lots of things. I go out of my way to play Devil's Advocate sometimes. Quite often, really.

It's just that These Movies Specifically get a ton of people hung up on stuff that would never matter otherwise. I don't get it, I don't like it, and it's very, very annoying sometimes. That's not in reference to Andrew's cited complaint or anyone else's specifically, just in general. Snyder's DC movies are held under a completely different microscope, with a completely different set of "rules" for what's "allowed" and what isn't, than just about any movies that have ever been made.

Allow me, if you will, to vent in service of a larger point.

Random one out of thin air, the scene in "The Dark Knight" where Batman and Rachel are making goo-goo eyes at each other on top of the car they just flattened, while upstairs for all we know the Joker is slaughtering an entire room full of people. We don't SEE him do it, I guess he didn't or the movie would have mentioned it (Why Wouldn't He, though?), but the movie never addresses it again anyway and that particular moment is played for laughs right after an entire scene that's meant to be horrifying. Talk about odd juxtaposition, "tonal whiplash", bad editing, bad scene structure, whatever you wanna call it. But nobody... f*cking... CARES. Because "The Dark Knight" is a "perfect" movie and saying anything to the contrary gets you yelled at for being "nitpicky".

Or the "Superman not rescuing people" thing, or even "Batman killing people" thing. I've mentioned this a hundred times, but go back to the scene at Ra's compound in "Batman Begins" where the place gets set on fire... that was Bruce's fault, and mark my words, ALL of those people f*cking DIED, including the one Bruce refused to kill initially. Don't believe me? Where was the scene of guys escaping the blaze? The guy being let out of his cage, even? Nope, they all burned to death so Bruce Wayne could try and make A POINT, one which he then immediately screwed up by "accidentally" killing everyone. We're not supposed to dwell on this; we're supposed to see him saving Ducard and being all "Awww", and not dwell on the fact that the entire scene makes no f*cking sense. And then "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you"? Umm... so you let him die on purpose when you could have saved him... which is TECHNICALLY killing him, guy. Love you, Batman, but you're a f*cking asshole anyway and your "One Rule" has more holes than Swiss cheese.

But this is what I mean, though. I love those movies, even if those are some Pretty Big Problems that people just "magically" overlook and ignore. But why are Snyder's movies held to such an impossible standard by comparison? THAT is what gets on my nerves. If other movies were held to the same standards as his, then they're ALL "terrible", if you go over them with a fine-tooth comb and decide to go crazy with the red pen, issuing demerits. NO movie holds up to that kind of scrutiny which is seemingly only reserved for HIS movies.

One ZSJL reviewer said it was better than the theatrical cut, "But it's STILL a four-hour super-hero movie about saving some magic boxes." Yeah, and "Lord of the Rings" is a ten-hour "epic" about two guys with dwarfism taking a f*cking walk to throw a ring into a volcano, if you wanna be a pedantic slapnuts about it, jack. Like, come ON with some people, y'know?

It's biased, it's unfair, and I don't like it. People arbitrarily decide when it's okay to build giant f*cking mountains out of tiny little molehills and get hung up on nitpicky sh*t when it suits them, and completely dismissing it out of hand when it doesn't.

[Turo602]

The problem with DC being overly criticized is that Batman and Superman specifically, are so overexposed and well known that people THINK they know them based on what they've been exposed to, being films and TV, that they find it problematic when someone like Zack Snyder explores a different aspect of the character they've yet to be exposed to.

Superman having actual character growth and real problems? Unheard of! He must be saving kittens from trees and spouting statistics about planes! But when that sh*t is done, the character is looked at as lame and boring and outdated because it is ultimately very lame and shouldn't be used to define his character at all. That sh*t isn't interesting or even fun.

Meanwhile, people never knew sh*t about The Avengers or characters like Aquaman that they don't hold them to the same standards and just absolutely love their films because they got some giggles from it and think the actors are adorable and cute or some sh*t. The Flash is a good example of the same exact thing. No one knew sh*t about The Flash until the CW show and suddenly you have a cult of clowns thinking Grant Gustin owns the character.

[CyberCubed]

I'm still shocked we've never had a movie Batman who doesn't try to kill the villains or use guns. It's like every movie director purposely makes scenes where Batman kills people or sometimes uses a gun...going against what Batman is supposed to be about.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Turo602

The problem with DC being overly criticized is that Batman and Superman specifically, are so overexposed and well known that people THINK they know them based on what they've been exposed to, being films and TV, that they find it problematic when someone like Zack Snyder explores a different aspect of the character they've yet to be exposed to.

Superman having actual character growth and real problems? Unheard of! He must be saving kittens from trees and spouting statistics about planes! But when that sh*t is done, the character is looked at as lame and boring and outdated because it is ultimately very lame and shouldn't be used to define his character at all. That sh*t isn't interesting or even fun.

Meanwhile, people never knew sh*t about The Avengers or characters like Aquaman that they don't hold them to the same standards and just absolutely love their films because they got some giggles from it and think the actors are adorable and cute or some sh*t. The Flash is a good example of the same exact thing. No one knew sh*t about The Flash until the CW show and suddenly you have a cult of clowns thinking Grant Gustin owns the character.

Yep. You and I have had these conversations often, and you know we agree on much.

It does come from a sense of "ownership" in part, absolutely, and in thinking they know a character better than they actually do. A person needs to compartmentalize that stuff. Especially if they don't actually "know", and not be disrespectful when someone who does know says "Okay, I respect your opinion but Here's What You Don't Understand..."

Like, I love the Flash Gordon movie (fight me ). I love it for what it is. Turns out, some people who know that character a lot better than I do really hate it. It's literally all I know of the character, so I'm just looking at it as a fun fantasy film, but to them it's something different. I can disagree 100% with their assertation about whether or not it's a bad movie, but I won't disrespect them. In fact I'm very interested in hearing their more educated opinion on the subject. It won't change MY opinion, any more than hearing a Tolkien fan's dissertation on why the Lord of the Rings movies are "bad" at what they do in adapting their material, but I'm open to the conversation as long as it is, indeed, a conversation and not a mugging.

In the case of Snyder's DC work, when he's pulling from Very Specific Source Material for his movies, it's unfair of fans of a cartoon, an older movie, or even different comic books to say "Well it isn't like THIS, though!" It wasn't supposed to be, guy. Like, if a fan of Morrison's "All-Star Superman" said "I don't like this material," that makes sense based on their perspective. But you can say, "Well, it's not based on Morrison, it's based on Byrne, Jurgens, Ordway and Stern," and at least provide the context even if you're not going to change their opinion. "Well it SHOULD HAVE been like THIS, though!" That's arrogant.

It's arrogant and self-absorbed and even narcissistic for "fans" - yes, even comic book fans - to say that Snyder's take was "wrong" simply because he chose to pull from comics they either didn't read or didn't enjoy. I strongly feel like knowing which material went into "the soup" is a huge mitigating factor towards overall enjoyment. For what material they DO pull from - "Crisis", "Final Crisis", "Legends", "A Lonely Place of Dying", etc. - they do a VERY good job in streamlining parts of all of those disparate stories into a cohesive Whole. "Too much?" Perhaps. I can't argue that there's a lot going on all at once... but again, it's like that in the comics, too. It's just one more way in which the movies follow the books more closely than anything that's ever been done, spiritually at least.

Knowing what we know now about where JL2 and JL3 were headed, it sounds like the entire Snyderverse was always going to be a streamlined adaptation of Final Crisis, with elements of other DC stories used as the build-up to that as the Main Course. Well... I love that story. I would have had zero complaints about that. Others certainly would have felt differently, but again, a take is not "wrong" just because it isn't What They Would Have Done.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

I'm still shocked we've never had a movie Batman who doesn't try to kill the villains or use guns. It's like every movie director purposely makes scenes where Batman kills people or sometimes uses a gun...going against what Batman is supposed to be about.

There's a nuance missing there. There's a line between "If Bad Guys get killed while I'm doing my Batman thing, that's kind of on them" (which is consistent with canon) and a Batman who's just The Punisher in a bat costume, which would be Incorrect.

There is no version of Batman (aside from the 50s version) where he would have lost a minute of sleep over guys getting blown up by their own grenades, or getting blown up while in the process of shooting at him with a bazooka. That is complete "Not MY fault, you're a dumbass" stuff and Batman's actual involvement in that is incidental.

I'd honestly argue that the Burton and (to a lesser degree) Nolan movies take it to worse places than Snyder's did, because Batman's killing of the villains seems less necessary and more avoidable in-context of the scenes they happen in. He didn't HAVE to necessarily throw that guy down the bell tower; he didn't HAVE to stick that bomb on the clown's chest. Yet these scenes are played for laughs in the movies themselves, and it's very... odd. Like, THAT isn't who Batman is, and I do feel that things like that took it too far (and yet NOBODY ever complains about them and those movies are still Brilliant). Knocking a guy's grenade back at him? Yeah, that's harsh, but options in that scenario are limited and the guy kinda dug his own grave with that one. And at least it isn't supposed to be "funny", like the thing with the clown and the bomb in "Batman Returns".

I personally think the line with Batman is, or should be, "If someone does something stupid while trying to kill ME, and they in turn get killed, then that isn't my fault and it's Fair Game." But he himself should not be overtly TRYING to kill people because he does know better and aspire to be better. But I definitely think there ought to be a "Sh*t Happens" loophole, just the same. There always has been.

[ZariusTwo]

Finished watching it.

Spoiler:

This was a cracking good way to spend a morning and early afternoon, with little boys' breaks in between. I don't think it'd have won any wars between the big two if it came out the way it is here in theatres, but it would have been a very satisfying film.

Ezra is great when he's given very little comedy, the relationship between Victor and his father lends the film it's emotional gravitas, they are the two most fleshed out League members, Arthur is kind of interesting at the start, but once his scenes with Dafoe and Benson are over, he sadly has very little to do and plays very much a 'straight man' role, and I think I would have included the bit from the Whedon cut where he asks Mera for things instead of just leaving...because the next time he shows up he has the armour and trident, and he's all of a sudden helping the team out with no explanation of why he changed his mind.

I suspect the drama Diana had with Bruce in the Whedon cut was to give her at least some kind of agency and more lines and emotional moments. The scene where she has tea with Alfred and the small hint at WonderBat with the hand touching are very sweet but fleeting. Could have done with more of that

Lex's conversation with Deathstroke goes slightly differently...setting up the unmade Ben Affleck Batman movie. The Knightmare sequence 'cliff-hanger' is saved to the very last act of the movie as the epilogue (Henry didn't film any new scenes so Snyder reused a shot from Batman v Superman for him), Joker gets the lions share of the dialouge in the exchange between him and Bruce and it's a reined-in performance that comes off quite well. The film still ends on a hopeful note with Bruce talking to Martian Manhunter...who I don't think really needed to be there in either this epilogue or the scene with Lois.

[Leo656]

Yeah, I don't think that THIS version would ever have come out in theaters, anyway. It still might, maybe, if this gets a GREAT reception - there was talk - but even if Zack had been allowed to finish it the first time around, I have to feel like they would have forced it down to three hours, maximum, in 2017. I feel like this version being four hours is mostly a mix of "reparations" on behalf of WB as well as taking advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime situation. Snyder allegedly included every single thing he shot, and "real" movies are never made that way. If it wasn't exactly this situation then it probably wouldn't be that way.

Likewise, perhaps MM didn't specifically "need" to be there, but it was in the script and half-shot, so... there ya go.

Conversely...

Spoiler:

I had HEARD - don't know if it's true - that originally as-written and conceived, it wasn't going to be J'onn but actually two Green Lanterns who were going to visit Bruce at the end. But that was changed when WB declared the Lanterns hands-off in advance of the upcoming TV series they're doing, and so Zack had to retrofit the scene into one with J'onn.

Does that make sense or seem at all like it could be true based on the version of the scene that you saw?

Anyways, glad you had a good time with it. You f*cking thief.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Anyways, glad you had a good time with it. You f*cking thief.

I'm still recording the SKY Premiere version airing tomorrow morning. I will still support the official release.

[Leo656]

Well, that's nice. I do still buy the records containing the songs I listen to on YouTube. So that's something.

Lissen, it's St. Pat's and I'm a Mick and you're a damn dirty bangers-and-mash-eater. So please allow me to get my kicks when I can, and just know it ain't nothin' personal.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

I'm still shocked we've never had a movie Batman who doesn't try to kill the villains or use guns. It's like every movie director purposely makes scenes where Batman kills people or sometimes uses a gun...going against what Batman is supposed to be about.

But Batman is only about that in specific interpretations. I think the character works fine whether he kills or not. All that matters is how you go about it.

On one hand, it makes sense that people would die in such insane, violent situations. It also stands to reason that Batman would need to kill in order to save, in at least one of the crazy situations he finds himself in. Death can help emphasize and convey what is at stake.

At the same time, there is something poetic about a man who's real enemy, in a way, is death itself. And that's what he goes out and fights against every night. But it's a harder sell, at least to mainstream movie audiences.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I keep reading a lot of good things about this. Yes, it's Snyder's vision. But it's apparently fulfilling everything I hoped would come from it: infinitely better and more serious than Whedon's Frankenstein.

I can take the flaws. VERY excited to see this, and really hope there's a physical media release at some point.

[CyberCubed]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

I'm still recording the SKY Premiere version airing tomorrow morning. I will still support the official release.

So this is "out" already on the, "usual sites?"

I'm surprised. It doesn't come out on HBO till tomorrow, I don't know how this is "out there in the wild" already. I don't have time to watch this today but I might check it out tomorrow.

[AquaParade]

Hard to believe we are getting this and an episode of the MCU straight to our homes in one week. It’s just so cool. I’m sitting at home, enjoying my vices, making food. kicking back and watching these on an above average audio/video set up.

Kick ass.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

I keep reading a lot of good things about this. Yes, it's Snyder's vision. But it's apparently fulfilling everything I hoped would come from it: infinitely better and more serious than Whedon's Frankenstein.

I can take the flaws. VERY excited to see this, and really hope there's a physical media release at some point.

I heard something about May 21 for a disc release, but I don't know if that's true. I also don't know if it will be standard Blu-ray or 4K only, same with the remastered Ultimate Edition of BvS that's coming out, with a new aspect ratio and color-correction. They're only TALKING about a 4K release but that doesn't mean it won't come out in standard Blu-ray as well; it could just be that's the format they're pushing harder, because they make more money that way.

[AquaParade]

Disclaimer: I’m buying two copies of this movie.

I’m about 45 minutes in and so far I’m enjoying the crap out of it. I can’t speak for the whole film, but as of now, it doesn’t feel whatsoever like I am watching the same movie I’ve seen before. None of us would have ever called this a simple “director’s cut” but watching it now, it’s satisfying how tonally different it really is to the 2017 movie.

For me, there are always awkward bits in the Zack Snyder films, that I tend to ignore in favor of all that is great. That’s true here, as well. There are still moments or characters that feel a little stiff or hard to digest, but there is so much offsetting that, about an hour in, that I hardly pay it any mind. And right now most of the scenes I am thinking of were bits that were in the 2017 version as well. It’s like they kept all the bad **** in the 2017 one.

Anyways, these are just first impressions. Truth is, I needed a distraction and this is really doing it for me. I’ll report back later and we’ll see if maybe I was just in the honeymoon phase.
Hell, it could just be the weed. Anyone had “alien og”? It was really hyped up. Anyway, I hope this holds up for another three hours, my lord.

[Leo656]

I think my wife has had that stuff.

I broke down and watched a couple very short clips on YouTube, including some Superman/Steppenwolf stuff. All I can say is... My. GOD.

One of my favorite things about Zack's Superman is how much he puts over how INSANELY powerful this guy really is. Some people argue that it's at the expense of the "human element". I strongly disagree - Clark, after all, rides a bike to work. And for me that juxtaposition of his humility as Clark and the awe-inspiring Raw Power of his Superman is just really awesome to see. He wields "godlike power" but is so very selective in his use of it. In these movies when he's just Clark, he's "Just Clark", but when he DOES have to unleash his power, it's like "Jesus. Thank GOD this guy is on Our Side." You really get the sense that this guy would walk straight into Hell and punch Satan in the mouth without breaking a sweat, if need be. That's My Superman.

I cannot WAIT to watch this thing as soon as possible. We're actually gonna do MoS and BvS after we get home from the gym so tomorrow we can jump into ZSJL as soon as we get up.

[Turo602]

Of the clips I've seen, I gotta say, Wonder Woman is a f*cking beast here that I think many will appreciate, especially after Wonder Woman 1984. I hope the rumors are true about WB wanting Zack to direct the next Wonder Woman because I can easily see how they would come to that conclusion after watching her here.