The good people at JLU Podcast have begun their analysis on JL. They've been analysing scenes from the Wonder Woman movie too.
http://jluniverse.podomatic.com/
Alternatively, you can also check out the host of the podcaster on his YouTube page. Samuel Otten uploads each episode here, analysing the themes and giving commentary to nearly every DCEU film. The podcasts for JL will grow over time, but feel free to check his other analyses for BvS, Wonder Woman and Suicide Squad. In the meantime, here are the podcasts discussing first three scenes of JL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I82-HWHCED8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RExSieteRQs&t=975s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjocvqtNe34
While Sam is fairly observant in his praise for the DC films, he's not afraid to give his critique. For example, he finds the Batman rooftop scene to be reminiscent to a Burton Batman film in terms of how it's staged, acted and how the score sounds, but he doesn't think it fits the gritty tone established in BvS. An interesting critique, but as I said elsewhere, my complaint about this scene is how Elfman's score, particularly in this scene, just sounds surprisingly flat and the way it ends awkwardly where Batman suddenly forgives the thief. As if the threat of the Parademon somehow makes the guy's crime null and void.
In the opening credits, he analyses the despair and impact following life after Superman, with a sense of despair and anger feeling widespread across Metropolis and with Lois and Martha. A great connection is made how the Kent family home is breaking down and somewhat abandoned; a little similar how Wayne Manor is wrecked and left behind in BvS, born out of loss and vanquished hope. But going back to the opening credits again, my only critique is the inclusion of the man getting arrested for harassing a Muslim family. I'm not totally convinced how that sort of prejudice has got to do with mourning for Superman, unless you want to claim it goes back to how powerless and loss of hope turns men cruel as it's established in BvS.
I dunno, I don't feel like there's that much to analyze over JL. I don't see it as a very deep movie. It's very much a surface level movie. I enjoyed it and had fun with it, but there's not much going on there. It reminds me of episodes of the animated JL. Fun to watch, but not much going on, other than the heroes getting together, to defeat the obvious threat.
And I'm not saying that to take a dig at it, but it is what it is. There's not much going on with the story. After Snyder stepped down, it turned into more of an easily digestible product.
Quote from: Travesty on Tue, 16 Jan 2018, 17:14After Snyder stepped down, it turned into more of an easily digestible product.
For all the good that did in the end, eh? The movie tanked it at the box office.
Bingo. Warts and all Justice League would've been a much more interesting film to discuss.
Quote from: Travesty on Tue, 16 Jan 2018, 17:14
I dunno, I don't feel like there's that much to analyze over JL. I don't see it as a very deep movie. It's very much a surface level movie. I enjoyed it and had fun with it, but there's not much going on there. It reminds me of episodes of the animated JL. Fun to watch, but not much going on, other than the heroes getting together, to defeat the obvious threat.
And I'm not saying that to take a dig at it, but it is what it is. There's not much going on with the story. After Snyder stepped down, it turned into more of an easily digestible product.
Judging the film as a final product (forget about the drama behind the scenes for a moment), I think its biggest handicap is it doesn't explore how the world regains hope and joy once Superman returns at the end of the story. You build an introduction where places around Metropolis and the rest of the world is heartbroken over his death, but we're robbed of an opportunity to see Superman fully embraced for his heroics for the first time. The lack of seeing a closure here does undermine the theme of witnessing humanity joining Kal-El into the sun, as Jor-El foreshadowed in MOS.
Otherwise, I'm actually okay with how Superman is brought back here. I know some people here are going to disagree with me, but I perceived his behaviour as a gratitude for being alive again with a new set of focus, that he doesn't have to go save the world alone anymore, and that he's passed the guilt for now.
But my biggest concern is the future. WB may say they're moving forward with the rest of the DC franchise, but I have no idea where they're going next.
If Flashpoint pulls some X-Men bullsh*t by cherrypicking continuity, or worse - rebooting the entire timeline and makes the previous films obsolete, count me out. I gave up on the Fox franchise because of that rubbish. I have no tolerance for that at all.
Quote from: Travesty on Tue, 16 Jan 2018, 17:14
It reminds me of episodes of the animated JL. Fun to watch, but not much going on, other than the heroes getting together, to defeat the obvious threat.
After Snyder stepped down, it turned into more of an easily digestible product.
I'm returning to these points because I have more to say after rewatching the film yesterday.
Yeah, I have issues (mostly cut content), but there's still a lot that I like. And I'm going to focus on that here.
The roles are perfectly cast. Affleck, Gadot, Cavill, Momoa, Miller, Fisher, Irons, Simmons and Adams are all likeable in their roles and fit them like a glove. For that reason I feel the need to keep watching the film. The studio nailed it. The same thing can be said of Suicide Squad. Say what you want about that outing (I give it and JL a 7.5 these days) but the cast members are also fun to watch and drive the film.
Batman studying the Parademon? Overall it's breezy fun (despite some quibbles). We get some nice visuals and Batman is presented as an athletic wraith who backflips, glides and interrogates foes. Jumping onto the Parademon in flight and shielding his face from the explosion without taking a backward step is something right out of the Arkham games. Leaving the criminal on the rooftop raises some eyebrows, but perhaps Batman thinks the ordeal was punishment enough? Either way, we do get some nice action here. And Affleck makes it work.
Wonder Woman stopping the terrorists? Again, breezy fun. The shot of her standing on the statue is great, and capturing the goon with the lasso and lifting him up is visually exciting. The Zimmer theme is reworked but still works a treat.
The transition to Bruce meeting Aquaman is rather abrupt, but the sequence itself is okay, even though inserts are noticeable. The charm of Affleck and Momoa makes it work I think. In fact, the scenes right up to Steppenwolf's arrival are all fine. I'd argue the issue is letting the film breathe and transition a little better because it does start to get jam packed with several plot points coming into existence.
The arrival of Steppenwolf is a highlight of the film for my money. It gives direct continuity to the previous film in the DCEU. Nobody comes off looking bad. Steppenwolf is depicted as a ruthless warlord who kills a bunch of people, and the Amazons are depicted as fearless warriors who never give up. The scene works in every way, and the transition to Diana watching the television afterwards is more seamless.
The sequence with Lois and Martha is something out of a television show. I like the actresses but it's not my favorite scene or anything.
Bruce and Diana meeting in the bat cave is a minor but pleasant scene - no issues with it. We see Bruce Wayne as the mechanic, which is a big plus for me. Just as we saw Keaton's Bruce working on the Batmobile in Batman Returns.
The story about Steppenwolf is condensed and, again, probably makes the film feel jam packed considering the runtime and the plot threads they establish. But it's an okay scene. The real strength for me is the dialogue scene with Bruce and Diana by the lake. Especially Bruce's clothing, which strongly evokes The Dark Knight Returns. Anything with Bruce and Diana is worthwhile.
Bruce meeting Barry? Another breezy little scene. I'm miffed the ending of it has been trimmed (it had Bruce speeding away up a highway ramp) but the general scene remains intact (even if a reshoot insert is noticeable).
Steppenwolf stealing the box from Atlantis isn't as dramatic or visceral as the sequence on Amazon island, but there's nothing seriously wrong with it.
The sequences with the little girl and family don't do anything for me, sadly. They'd be my least favorite sections.
But everything from Gordon being revealed, Bruce/Barry exiting the plane, the rooftop meeting, the tunnel sequence and the Knightcrawler escape is gold to me. I really like this stretch of the film. The discussion inside the bat cave also works for me. I love how we see the Knightcrawler back in the cave under a green tarp - strongly suggesting Batman recovered the vehicle and will repair it later. I'm a big fan of DIY Batman.
Folks, I think the dialogue scene in the bat cave is perhaps the single best moment for any cinematic Bruce Wayne. If Whedon shot the scene I don't care, because again, Affleck makes it work. He's wearing a classic vest, ala BTAS Bruce. This scene allows him to be compassionate and firm. The man who has interest in science and will take calculated risks. But the best part? When he grills Diana about Steve Trevor. That's the ruthless and personal Wayne we all know and love. Hr's punched back by a metahman but he still doesn't back down.
Superman's revival gets the job done. We see him at full power, easily dispatching the League. For what it's worth that's fun.
Any dialogue scene with the League members (in the cave or Flying Fox) are worthwhile to me. Batman destroying the shield in the final battle, driving around the streets in the Batmobile, etc are harmless. You can have a good time with this stuff. But indeed, it's doubtful this is everything Snyder had in mind - a suicidal Batman who redeems himself was likely on the cards. But that's a what if now.
Superman returns and punches Steppenwolf around. Good to see, I guess. But indeed, there could've been more done with Superman. But again, it is what it is. Steppenwolf is defeated and on the whole, he isn't the best villain but I also don't dislike him.
The shot of the League overlooking the town is nice, and the small scene with Bruce buying Clark's old house is a standout. The final montage is actually pretty good (the ruined Wayne Manor becoming the Hall of Justice is a completely new concept). I like Amy Adams, but do think her voice is too quiet for the closing monologue, however. The short rip is a big treat for Superman fans, but we don't get any explanation as to how Clark returned to work. Nor do we see how the world has reacted to Superman's return.
The film doesn't have serious depth as a BvS sequel, but it manages to get the job done. The same can be said of Danny Elfman's score. I wanted to hear more of the Zimmer themes, and was let down in that regard. But again, it is what it is.
It's not the exact version of the film I would've liked, but I'm not going to pretend I dislike everything they did. The cut scenes really tore a hole in me, but it's something I've had to come to terms with. Justice League is not a bad film - it just could've been something more. But I won't throw the baby out of the bathwater. Affleck, Gadot and the team provide chemistry that should still be enjoyed.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 24 Jan 2018, 01:11
Folks, I think the dialogue scene in the bat cave is perhaps the single best moment for any cinematic Bruce Wayne. If Whedon shot the scene I don't care, because again, Affleck makes it work. He's wearing a classic vest, ala BTAS Bruce. This scene allows him to be compassionate and firm. The man who has interest in science and will take calculated risks. But the best part? When he grills Diana about Steve Trevor. That's the ruthless and personal Wayne we all know and love. Hr's punched back by a metahman but he still doesn't back down.
Indeed. Dare I say it, it's good to see an alpha male stay strong and call somebody out. Come to think of it, Affleck's Bruce Wayne was never shy when being confronted, i.e. dismissing Clark Kent's skepticism over Batman by suggesting Superman is an even bigger existentialist threat when they first met in BvS. It's great to see Batman has balls, I hadn't seen that in a long time.
But who knows, I guess in today's heavily PC-influenced society, people don't really like that.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 24 Jan 2018, 01:11
It's not the exact version of the film I would've liked, but I'm not going to pretend I dislike everything they did. The cut scenes really tore a hole in me, but it's something I've had to come to terms with. Justice League is not a bad film - it just could've been something more. But I won't throw the baby out of the bathwater. Affleck, Gadot and the team provide chemistry that should still be enjoyed.
Agreed. The chemistry between the actors playing these characters is enough to make JL watchable. It would've been a much poorer film without the camaraderie.
Another good scene I like and I suspected it was directed by Whedon, was the scene where Wonder Woman cheekily used her Lasso of Truth on Aquaman to confess his fears and sensitive side before the team prepares for battle. Added some good-natured humour there. But nah, according to critical consensus, Drax's sexist comments at Mantis and Flash Thompson calling Spider-Man 'Penis Parker' are great examples of how Marvel really bested DC at humour. Give me a bloody break!
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 26 Jan 2018, 01:04
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 24 Jan 2018, 01:11
Folks, I think the dialogue scene in the bat cave is perhaps the single best moment for any cinematic Bruce Wayne. If Whedon shot the scene I don't care, because again, Affleck makes it work. He's wearing a classic vest, ala BTAS Bruce. This scene allows him to be compassionate and firm. The man who has interest in science and will take calculated risks. But the best part? When he grills Diana about Steve Trevor. That's the ruthless and personal Wayne we all know and love. Hr's punched back by a metahman but he still doesn't back down.
Indeed. Dare I say it, it's good to see an alpha male stay strong and call somebody out. Come to think of it, Affleck's Bruce Wayne was never shy when being confronted, i.e. dismissing Clark Kent's skepticism over Batman by suggesting Superman is an even bigger existentialist threat when they first met in BvS. It's great to see Batman has balls, I hadn't seen that in a long time.
But who knows, I guess in today's heavily PC-influenced society, people don't really like that.
I really love it. He's surrounded by people much stronger than him, but he's not intimidated. Instead of backing away he turns up the volume. They're all being transported via his vehicles and they're huddled inside his cave. He's a human being but he's the money man and still the top dog. Honestly, the only quibble I had with JL's Batman was one out of place/awkward line about something definitely being broken. There's a lot to like about this portrayal.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 27 Jan 2018, 09:16Honestly, the only quibble I had with JL's Batman was one out of place/awkward line about something definitely being broken. There's a lot to like about this portrayal.
There were a few lines from Batman that seemed out of place. Like you said, the part where Superman throws him around, he says something feels broken. The other line, was at the end, when he's talking to Superman, he says something to Batman about him hating on him, and Batman says something like, "I don't...not like you".
Both of the lines felt a bit out of place, and I know those were both Wheadon's scenes.
Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 27 Jan 2018, 17:30
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 27 Jan 2018, 09:16Honestly, the only quibble I had with JL's Batman was one out of place/awkward line about something definitely being broken. There's a lot to like about this portrayal.
There were a few lines from Batman that seemed out of place. Like you said, the part where Superman throws him around, he says something feels broken. The other line, was at the end, when he's talking to Superman, he says something to Batman about him hating on him, and Batman says something like, "I don't...not like you".
Both of the lines felt a bit out of place, and I know those were both Wheadon's scenes.
I forgot about that line, and I don't like it either. But yeah, apart from those things, it was a balanced interpretation of a Batman that I can enjoy. I dig how he glides, grapples and descends like the comics/video games. The Knightcrawler is one of my favorite Bat vehicles now, and its use in the film is spot on. Batman in trouble against a muscular Parademon, asks for help, manages to recover and shoot down the rest. The visual of the vehicle climbing the shaft with the flooded river underneath is rather spectacular, too. Superman was simplified in JL, but Batman still comes off well.
Personally I think they did about as much with that movie as they could based on WB's decision to make it. Of all the heroes, only Wonder Woman and Superman had stand alone films with an ongoing narrative. Batman is thrown in from BVS while the others have cameos so brief you would miss them if you blinked. That's absolutely zero backstory for most of the principle players versus a movie like the Avengers where you already know them and are looking forward to seeing how they gel against a bigger threat which the writers can focus on for an entire film.
With Justice League, the writers were burdened with the weight of having to explain these heroes and gauge what was "enough" backstory to justify their presence. Only THEN could they start mapping out some kind of reason to have them show up together. It was a daunting task at best and could NEVER play out like a film that didn't have those considerations. When you add in the two hour limit (and correct me if I'm wrong) that includes the credit scroll, then you're telling allot of these origins AND trying to build a conflict to resolve all in UNDER two hours. I'm sorry but that is allot of information to dissect and correlate into a story people could walk out and feel satisfied. By it's very blueprint, the story was going to have to be paper thin. Add to that all of the variables of what people will like or not like and that doesn't leave you with allot of room to come out with a winning hand in the bigger picture.
Let's be honest. This project was rushed. WB was slow to get going with their endless gallery of heroes and by the time they were making Man of Steel, Marvel product was already setting the pace. Justice League was their attempt to catch up at the expense of good story telling and it shows. No one needed a ensemble piece at this stage, but WB felt they had to since Marvel was in the midst of making their third Avengers film. I think they saw the big money and that's why they made it.
Ben Affleck will likely go down as the first actor in modern times to play Batman in three films but NOT get his own movie. I think that influenced how people saw him and why he's lost support by so many. Personally I like him better now. But it took all of that exposition to get me there. In an ideal situation, I could have made that assessment with one film dedicated to his character. So those are the sacrifices WB has made in trying to mimic the pacing that Marvel has gotten to by putting in the time. Sadly people are clamoring for a complete reboot of the DC universe already. That just goes to show you if you want to do something well, do it right.
I don't like comparing Marvel and DC, because the argument should never settle on something that simple. But I'm left with that consideration more than I want BECAUSE of the way WB rushes to make projects that the Marvel license has spent years and countless movies getting to. THAT is the rub and THAT is why it gets compared. Sure there will always be the natural compare that comes from sharing the same genre. That's unavoidable. When I was a kid, I did that with the comics. But that doesn't mean you can't be expressive in your own way to the story you tell. And quite honestly being that kid that read comics in the early 70's when Neal Adams was penciling Batman and John Romita Sr (along with Gil Kane) were illustrating Spider-man, I just feel like the people on the projects for Marvel heroes have a better understanding of what their making than Warner Bros. My God. Look at Black Panther. What an amazing film! Look at Ant Man, Dead Pool, Dr Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy. All very different films with different sensibilities yet all under the Marvel Universe (and by different studios). No one can question the clear love that goes into crafting those characters and that world. And that seems to be missing at Warner Bros. They're simply trying to create a cash cow, instead of embrace the material.
Do I like Justice League? Yeah I do. But for me (and I know I'll be scorned for saying this) it plays like a slightly more serious version of Batman & Robin. It's like watching the SuperFriends if I have to place a value on the weight of story. But that does'nt make it a bad film for coming out that way. I think that's the best they could do with all of that information they chose to juggle and this is the end result.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 21 Feb 2018, 15:51
Personally I think they did about as much with that movie as they could based on WB's decision to make it. Of all the heroes, only Wonder Woman and Superman had stand alone films with an ongoing narrative. Batman is thrown in from BVS while the others have cameos so brief you would miss them if you blinked. That's absolutely zero backstory for most of the principle players versus a movie like the Avengers where you already know them and are looking forward to seeing how they gel against a bigger threat which the writers can focus on for an entire film.
With Justice League, the writers were burdened with the weight of having to explain these heroes and gauge what was "enough" backstory to justify their presence. Only THEN could they start mapping out some kind of reason to have them show up together. It was a daunting task at best and could NEVER play out like a film that didn't have those considerations. When you add in the two hour limit (and correct me if I'm wrong) that includes the credit scroll, then you're telling allot of these origins AND trying to build a conflict to resolve all in UNDER two hours. I'm sorry but that is allot of information to dissect and correlate into a story people could walk out and feel satisfied. By it's very blueprint, the story was going to have to be paper thin. Add to that all of the variables of what people will like or not like and that doesn't leave you with allot of room to come out with a winning hand in the bigger picture.
Let's be honest. This project was rushed. WB was slow to get going with their endless gallery of heroes and by the time they were making Man of Steel, Marvel product was already setting the pace. Justice League was their attempt to catch up at the expense of good story telling and it shows. No one needed a ensemble piece at this stage, but WB felt they had to since Marvel was in the midst of making their third Avengers film. I think they saw the big money and that's why they made it.
Ben Affleck will likely go down as the first actor in modern times to play Batman in three films but NOT get his own movie. I think that influenced how people saw him and why he's lost support by so many. Personally I like him better now. But it took all of that exposition to get me there. In an ideal situation, I could have made that assessment with one film dedicated to his character. So those are the sacrifices WB has made in trying to mimic the pacing that Marvel has gotten to by putting in the time. Sadly people are clamoring for a complete reboot of the DC universe already. That just goes to show you if you want to do something well, do it right.
I don't like comparing Marvel and DC, because the argument should never settle on something that simple. But I'm left with that consideration more than I want BECAUSE of the way WB rushes to make projects that the Marvel license has spent years and countless movies getting to. THAT is the rub and THAT is why it gets compared. Sure there will always be the natural compare that comes from sharing the same genre. That's unavoidable. When I was a kid, I did that with the comics. But that doesn't mean you can't be expressive in your own way to the story you tell. And quite honestly being that kid that read comics in the early 70's when Neal Adams was penciling Batman and John Romita Sr (along with Gil Kane) were illustrating Spider-man, I just feel like the people on the projects for Marvel heroes have a better understanding of what their making than Warner Bros. My God. Look at Black Panther. What an amazing film! Look at Ant Man, Dead Pool, Dr Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy. All very different films with different sensibilities yet all under the Marvel Universe (and by different studios). No one can question the clear love that goes into crafting those characters and that world. And that seems to be missing at Warner Bros. They're simply trying to create a cash cow, instead of embrace the material.
Do I like Justice League? Yeah I do. But for me (and I know I'll be scorned for saying this) it plays like a slightly more serious version of Batman & Robin. It's like watching the SuperFriends if I have to place a value on the weight of story. But that does'nt make it a bad film for coming out that way. I think that's the best they could do with all of that information they chose to juggle and this is the end result.
I think one of the problems is that WB is asking too much of their audience. It feels almost as though it is expected for the viewer to have background knowledge in these characters (specifically Batman and the Flash) due to the lack of explanation and development of the characters not named Wonder Woman or Superman. Flash and Cyborg were undeveloped for sure and as you stated, Batman has three appearances and no solo film in the DCEU.
Marvel seems to know what it wants to do better than DC. You don't hear Marvel projects getting announced and then cancelled. Nor do you hear the running time of films getting cut near post-production. This isn't to say they haven't had seamless productions; Banner and James Rhodes had to be recast and it does seem Thor's love interest Natalie Portman is moving on from the MCU.
As far as what we got within the constraints, I agree they did as well as they could have done but a little patience would have gone a long way. Especially after Wonder Woman proved successful, DC should have taken the time to absorb what they did right and apply it to future comics. Justice League felt like one step forward, two steps back.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 21 Feb 2018, 15:51
Let's be honest. This project was rushed. WB was slow to get going with their endless gallery of heroes and by the time they were making Man of Steel, Marvel product was already setting the pace. Justice League was their attempt to catch up at the expense of good story telling and it shows. No one needed a ensemble piece at this stage, but WB felt they had to since Marvel was in the midst of making their third Avengers film. I think they saw the big money and that's why they made it.
I thought JL was rushed judging by the poor quality of the CGI and underwhelming score by Danny Elfman. It was unwise to delay the release date for the film, and deleting potentially integral scenes from the theatrical cut (as they did with BvS) certainly doesn't help matters.
But where I'll disagree is the belief that DC should've used the Marvel formula with solo films before the team-up. Let's face it, if WB did that, they would've been accused of having no imagination and just copying anyway. With that said, I have no love for WB. They had the rights for these characters for years, and didn't really begin to entertain the idea of a shared universe until The Avengers came out.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 21 Feb 2018, 15:51
I don't like comparing Marvel and DC, because the argument should never settle on something that simple. But I'm left with that consideration more than I want BECAUSE of the way WB rushes to make projects that the Marvel license has spent years and countless movies getting to.
To be honest, I'm becoming jaded by ALL of these blockbuster movies nowadays. Three and a half years ago, I thought the MCU could do no wrong and only made one bad movie, but nowadays, they're very hit or miss, and seem to border on complacency. Frankly, the last time a superhero film has really WOWED me was Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The rest of the movies that have come out since make me take a more middle-ground approach. I take the good and bad, both DC and Marvel.
I enjoyed Doctor Strange and Ant-Man a lot more than the last two Avengers team-up movies, which I thought were rather disappointing. But even then, the one criticism I have for those two solo movies is they borrow a lot from the Iron Man movie. Benedict Cumberbatch as Stephen Strange, in particular, is more or less a magical version of Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark.
Another problem I have with these blockbusters is the hype surrounding certain movies because of identity politics. Don't make me wrong, Black Panther and Wonder Woman were good. But I didn't think either were AS good as people make them out to be.
In BP's case, I enjoyed it because it reminded me of the MCU's Phase One era, where it had a balanced tone between drama and comedy, it had interesting socio-political themes and so forth. It was certainly better than any of the 2017 Phase Three movies, which I hated (except for Ragnarok, I haven't seen it but I have no desire to). But at the same time, I can only say it was good, but not great.
Same thing goes for WWW. I find it ironic that it has Snyder's influences, in terms of slo-mo action (which didn't actually appear much in his own DCEU movies), CGI actionfest, colour grading, dark themes etc. Even more ironic that people praise Diana in comparison to Superman and Batman in this franchise, while ignoring the fact she kills too. Even going so far to believe the only way to end a conflict is to kill Ares with a sword called "the God Killer".
I did enjoy Deadpool (which was made by Fox, not the MCU), but it's not something I'd ever watch again. I suspect it's one of those films where you get sick of the jokes very easily, and it gets old if they repeat the same formula in a sequel. I have a similar feeling GOTG. The first film was a lot better than I expected, but the second one was an extremely poor follow-up. Deadpool and GOTG feel more like novelties, if anything. The less said about Spider-Man, the better. In my opinion, he offers absolutely nothing to the MCU.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 21 Feb 2018, 15:51
Do I like Justice League? Yeah I do. But for me (and I know I'll be scorned for saying this) it plays like a slightly more serious version of Batman & Robin. It's like watching the SuperFriends if I have to place a value on the weight of story. But that does'nt make it a bad film for coming out that way. I think that's the best they could do with all of that information they chose to juggle and this is the end result.
If I were to compare the JL movie to a cartoon, I'd have to say that it reminds me of the JL animated series. In any case, good to hear that you enjoyed the film for what it is. It's definitely not a masterpiece by any means, but it has a lot of good things going for it.
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 18:22
I think one of the problems is that WB is asking too much of their audience. It feels almost as though it is expected for the viewer to have background knowledge in these characters (specifically Batman and the Flash) due to the lack of explanation and development of the characters not named Wonder Woman or Superman. Flash and Cyborg were undeveloped for sure
I disagree about Flash and Cyborg being underdeveloped. I thought JL covered enough backstory to justify their participation in the film, particularly the situations with their fathers, how Cyborg got to become who he was because Silas used the Mother Box to "save" his life etc.
But I do think Aquaman is the one character who definitely got short-changed.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 24 Feb 2018, 01:05
Quote from: riddler on Fri, 23 Feb 2018, 18:22
I think one of the problems is that WB is asking too much of their audience. It feels almost as though it is expected for the viewer to have background knowledge in these characters (specifically Batman and the Flash) due to the lack of explanation and development of the characters not named Wonder Woman or Superman. Flash and Cyborg were undeveloped for sure
I disagree about Flash and Cyborg being underdeveloped. I thought JL covered enough backstory to justify their participation in the film, particularly the situations with their fathers, how Cyborg got to become who he was because Silas used the Mother Box to "save" his life etc.
But I do think Aquaman is the one character who definitely got short-changed.
See I have the opposite opinion as yourself on the three 'newbies'
Cyborg's relationship with his father is glossed over in the film. I suspect some of the deleted footage dealt more with their complicated relationship.
The Flash's treatment was decent. The big debate on the character seems to center on whether or not Flash's comic relief helped or hindered the film. Personally I was fine with having one character as the comedic one and you can't argue with the choice. Cyborg as comic relief would have been too morbid and Aquaman being comedic would turn the character into the joke he was until the new 52.
Speaking of the new 52, if you read Aquaman Volume 6, battle for Atlantis, you will see a lot of character similarities for Arthur Curry.
I liked the Aquaman treatment. They used what worked in the new 52 and turned him into a reluctant hero with a chip on his shoulder. Jason Mamoa really gave the character the edge he needed. I do wonder if Atlantis was part of the cut footage? It would have been nice to get a glimpse into his world because it does add to the characters persona to understand that he is a relied upon hero in two worlds already which explains why he isn't interested in joining Bruce.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 24 Feb 2018, 06:16
See I have the opposite opinion as yourself on the three 'newbies'
Cyborg's relationship with his father is glossed over in the film. I suspect some of the deleted footage dealt more with their complicated relationship.
I don't know about that. The relationship between the two does get explored in the film. Victor clearly showed angst and even anger at his father for practically turning him into a Frankenstein, even if it saved his life. I don't buy that it gets completely glossed over. But for all we know, maybe there is deleted footage that does expand this further. All I know is there is definitely a backstory of Victor before becoming Cyborg, as you can see him as the high school jock in the trailers.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 24 Feb 2018, 06:16
The Flash's treatment was decent. The big debate on the character seems to center on whether or not Flash's comic relief helped or hindered the film. Personally I was fine with having one character as the comedic one and you can't argue with the choice.
Admittedly, the Flash as the comedic relief was a hit or miss for me. Apart from drawing over a man's face while visiting his dad in prison, nothing else really stood out as that funny. Except for maybe his reactions to Superman when they share the screen together.
Quote from: riddler on Sat, 24 Feb 2018, 06:16
Speaking of the new 52, if you read Aquaman Volume 6, battle for Atlantis, you will see a lot of character similarities for Arthur Curry.
I liked the Aquaman treatment. They used what worked in the new 52 and turned him into a reluctant hero with a chip on his shoulder. Jason Mamoa really gave the character the edge he needed. I do wonder if Atlantis was part of the cut footage? It would have been nice to get a glimpse into his world because it does add to the characters persona to understand that he is a relied upon hero in two worlds already which explains why he isn't interested in joining Bruce.
Keep in mind, I'm not criticising Jason Momoa or making him 'edgy' for the lack of a better word. I'm just saying he didn't really have any backstory that stood out for me compared to the rest of the League. I think you're quite right about Atlantis being affected by the deleted footage. After all, Willem Dafoe was supposed to appear as an assistant in this film, but his part got cut out.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 24 Feb 2018, 01:05
I did enjoy Deadpool (which was made by Fox, not the MCU), but it's not something I'd ever watch again. I suspect it's one of those films where you get sick of the jokes very easily, and it gets old if they repeat the same formula in a sequel.
I'm glad I am not the only one who feels this way. I enjoyed the film when it came to theaters, but I haven't been motivated to watch it again.
On the subject of the MCU, I haven't been connecting to the material the way I've wanted to because the focus on humor and the desire to be light and breezy is taking away from the emotional core. Also, I'm just getting sick of intentionally awkward dialogue. On one of things that made Thor: Ragnarok weird for me was that some of the dialogue reminded me of those How It Should Have Ended videos.
Another issue I am confronted with is the trend-riding that happens with some of these films. A movie becomes the "in" movie to talk about, to get pumped for, to shout about how fun and awesome they are, and anyone who disagrees, even just a tad enough, even to make a tiny, but genuine criticism, they get on their high horse with rants about "hipsters" ruining their fun. Meanwhile, they silently move on to something else, never talking about the film nor watching it again.
To make matters worse, I genuinely can't explain why many have seemingly branded BvS as one of the worst movies of all time. It just seems to me like a movie is either the best thing ever or the worst, it can't fit in between.
I guess this rant has very little to do with this thread, but this is something I've genuinely been thinking about lately in regards to how DC's films have been received up to date.
Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 17:19
On the subject of the MCU, I haven't been connecting to the material the way I've wanted to because the focus on humor and the desire to be light and breezy is taking away from the emotional core. Also, I'm just getting sick of intentionally awkward dialogue. On one of things that made Thor: Ragnarok weird for me was that some of the dialogue reminded me of those How It Should Have Ended videos.
Considering how popular garbage like How It Should Have Ended is, I reckon Marvel panders to that type of audience nowadays - lazy, teeny-bopper level of comedy. Another example is Ryan Reynolds playing Deadpool in an Honest Trailer for Screen Junkies making fun of his own movie. People are free to enjoy this stuff if they want to, but to me, it's gets annoying playing the same joke over and over again. That goes for HISHE's "I'm Batman" joke too.
Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 17:19
Another issue I am confronted with is the trend-riding that happens with some of these films. A movie becomes the "in" movie to talk about, to get pumped for, to shout about how fun and awesome they are, and anyone who disagrees, even just a tad enough, even to make a tiny, but genuine criticism, they get on their high horse with rants about "hipsters" ruining their fun. Meanwhile, they silently move on to something else, never talking about the film nor watching it again.
To make matters worse, I genuinely can't explain why many have seemingly branded BvS as one of the worst movies of all time. It just seems to me like a movie is either the best thing ever or the worst, it can't fit in between.
I've come to suspect any consensus concerning films based on comics is influenced by groupthink. More so than any other genre of film or medium, in my opinion. If critics praise or condemn a movie, I've noticed comic fans tend to use that excuse to shield any dissenting point of view. Had the critics praised BvS as a masterpiece, I doubt you'd see many people cashing in on the hate for it. If critics were more critical of something like TDK, which shares a lot of issues BvS is criticised for and worse, it wouldn't be so highly regarded as it is now. Had last year's MCU movies been scrutinised for its humour undermining the story as some critics did with JL, more people would begin to question the quality of the MCU right now. In contrast, The Last Jedi was praised by critics, but the majority of Star Wars fans see it as an abomination, and more people are criticising the characters for being Mary Stus or a complete bastardisation to the entire canon.
As you might've guessed, and some people are going to find what I'll say as very contentious, but judging by the fuss over selective criteria people have for comics, and the passion for Star Wars, I believe people care a lot more for the latter. Whereas, more often than not, the success and failures for anything that's Marvel and DC is based on people's ignorance.