Justice League **Spoilers from post 980 onward**

astrofool

pixelburp wrote: »

Sooo. Fair to say then Tony you won't be watching the Synder cut so, if even out if curiousity over an original vision?

He will watch it, analyse it in detail, and proclaim that no one else should watch it.

Mr Freeze

Im interested to see the Snyder cut and I lost all interest in DC movies once this DCEU got going.

I am no fan of Synder, but I watched that interview above, even that ladies voice nearly drove me mad, I think Synder came off quite likeable in it. I hope his version is better than the theatrical cut but that won't be hard and even if its worse, his borderline cultist fans are gonna proclaim it the greatest film ever. (maybe they aren't as bad here but elsewhere online, jebus!)

kerplun k

Tony EH wrote: »

^
That's easy, when you're more concerned with visuals than story.

As I said earlier, the likes of Snyder and Abrams are in the same boat. They can knock up a visually interesting piece of multiplex mulch. But it'll be as shallow as a puddle of rain water and won't stand up to too much examination.

I think you're being a bit harsh on Abrams here. He's a far more competent filmmaker than Snyder.

While Abrams screenwriting isn't groundbreaking, he's definitely more adept than Snyder. Abrams will never colour outside the lines, but I don't think anyone could accuse him of prioritising his visual style over his storytelling.

Penn

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Im interested to see the Snyder cut and I lost all interest in DC movies once this DCEU got going.

I am no fan of Synder, but I watched that interview above, even that ladies voice nearly drove me mad, I think Synder came off quite likeable in it. I hope his version is better than the theatrical cut but that won't be hard and even if its worse, his borderline cultist fans are gonna proclaim it the greatest film ever. (maybe they aren't as bad here but elsewhere online, jebus!)

The trouble is JL was obviously a film made by two writing/directing teams with different takes. Snyder's sole version of it, even if it's not great, will at least be one singular take on it which most will either like or not, but for those reasons alone it's almost certain to be much better received.

Unfortunately that's just going to embolden people to complain about any film with a little bit of behind the scenes turmoil and demand a redone version of it, particularly the so called Ayer-cut of Suicide Squad.

Agent Coulson

The screenplay for Army of the Dead is written by Joby Harold (Awake & Obi-Wan Kenobi Disney series) and Shay Hatten (John Wick 3)along with Synder so it will be interesting to see how Synder works with others.

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

I might give it a watch some time, some where. But I won't be going out of my way to do it and I'm in no hurry.

To be honest, I can't see it being THAT much different to the theatrical cut. These things rarely are, when 90% of a film remains the same.

I really don't know what people are expecting from it.

But that's why this is even a talking point. Synder dropped out of the project because of the death of his daughter, and the studio mandated Joss Whedon to basically rewrite and reshoot a huge chunk of the film. Not sure it was on a par with "Solo" but the theatrical release simply wasn't Synders vision. At least Solo was a from the ground up sea change.

Your mind is obviously made up, but there's a legitimate enough case of comparison to be had here. I hated both Batman v Superman & Justice League but the former was an infinitely more interesting, cohesive, and aesthetic choice than the Alan Smithee style hack job JL was.

I don't agree with the manner in which the Synder Cut came to be, but now that it's here there's a value to be had looking at a "lost" piece of an auteur's work.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

But that's why this is even a talking point. Synder dropped out of the project because of the death of his daughter, and the studio mandated Joss Whedon to basically rewrite and reshoot a huge chunk of the film. Not sure it was on a par with "Solo" but the theatrical release simply wasn't Synders vision. At least Solo was a from the ground up sea change.

Your mind is obviously made up, but there's a legitimate enough case of comparison to be had here. I hated both Batman v Superman & Justice League but the former was an infinitely more interesting, cohesive, and aesthetic choice than the Alan Smithee style hack job JL was.

I don't agree with the manner in which the Synder Cut came to be, but now that it's here there's a value to be had looking at a "lost" piece of an auteur's work.

Well, yeh, my mind is pretty much made up re: Snyder, Abrams et al. Judging them by their own work so far, there's nothing to write home about there.

As far as 'Batman v Superman' & 'Justice League' are concerned, I thought they were ok, and have said so on here before. I don't think they deserved all the nonsense that they were on the end of. I certainly don't think that they were great films. Just adequate superhero movies and in a number of ways I found the grumpy take on Batman and Superman quite interesting, although and 'Justice League' definitely suffered from WB/DC (and Snyder himself) chickening out from their formula and trying to do a Marvel by lightening tone and adding "humour".

But as I said, I can't see myself going out of my way to the Snyder cut. Especially when there are films that I have more interest in on my to do list, that I've yet to make the time for. I may...ahem..."acquire" it and give it a look at some point. But I cannot honestly see it being that much different that the film I already viewed.

Re: comparisons to 'Solo', which was an entire reshoot of an enormous amount of footage, I don't think that applies here. But, bare in mind that the public has never seen L+M's footage, so it's impossible to make any attempts to compare and contrast at all. But from what I can gather, this is going to more of a reedit of existing footage, with some re-scoring and added CGI effects. I've read that Whedon (another guy I don't have much tome for) only used 20% or something of the original film shot, but I'm not too sure I buy that really.

In any case, if it turns out that it's an entirely different movie, I'll soon hear about it. But I guess, at the end of the day, I'm just not all that enthused by the people involved.

Agent Coulson

Trailer to drop on the 22nd for the Snyder Cut.

The White Wolf

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Trailer to drop on the 22nd for the Snyder Cut.

Broadcast during DC Fandome I would assume, looking to forward to it.

pixelburp

I'll be curious to see how much new footage is shown in the trailer; you'd imagine quite a bit given the excitement over this.

The White Wolf

I'd say he'll be cute enough and not give too much. New steppenwolf design, some new shots of Superman and a Darkseid voiceover at some point would be my guess as the main takeaways.

The White Wolf

Affleck is back:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/08/ben-affleck-returns-batman-the-flash-multiverse-keaton

Must of been afraid it was going to leak before Saturday.

pixelburp

I'm genuinely surprised. Affleck seemed utterly done with the role, wonder what changed. Like, beyond any question of money.

The White Wolf

I won't mention any names on here who told me there was no chance and that it was fantasy. After Snydercut all bets were off.

Lithium93_

The White Wolf wrote: »

Affleck is back:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/08/ben-affleck-returns-batman-the-flash-multiverse-keaton

Must of been afraid it was going to leak before Saturday.

Holy **** seems appropriate.

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm genuinely surprised. Affleck seemed utterly done with the role, wonder what changed. Like, beyond any question of money.

Totally guessing here, but maybe Ana de Armas talked him into it.

CramCycle

The White Wolf wrote: »

Affleck is back:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/08/ben-affleck-returns-batman-the-flash-multiverse-keaton

Must of been afraid it was going to leak before Saturday.

I am both excited and terrified in equal measure. Flag to the mast, I think Ben was a good Batman, alas put in bad movies.

pixelburp

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Holy **** seems appropriate.

Totally guessing here, but maybe Ana de Armas talked him into it.

Must be something like that. He doesn't seem the money chasing kinda guy, but he seemed so utterly burned out by and done with the role as well.

Or, maybe.

This is The Flash Affleck's set to appear, which AFAIK is still going to be based on Flashpoint right? So Affleck pulls a Harrison Ford and stipulates he'll come back ... ... so long as he's killed off / wiped from the timeline. So Barry Allen returns to his timeline. Everything looks ok, then a strange batmobile rolls up. Out gets Robert Pattinson. Roll credits.

Psychiatric Patrick

I was reading about another movie and I saw a headline that Warner Bros. are investigating the Whedon Justice League production.

Ray Fisher is apparently waffling on social media that Whedon, Johns and other "abused their power on the set".

The last time I heard about Fisher (which was the first time since the movie was released) it was all reported that hr was complaining about the movie.

What are Whedon and the others supposed to have done?

My first reaction was that he just on kicking up stink on social media for attention because he hasn't been in anything since because that is what social media is for. :P

The White Wolf

Well....both Fisher and a source via Variety have said WB/AT&T haven been conducting interviews with crew and cast over the last 5 weeks. The only conclusion is that they found enough to warrant a 3rd party investigation.

Psychiatric Patrick

The White Wolf wrote: »

Well....both Fisher and a source via Variety have said WB/AT&T haven been conducting interviews with crew and cast over the last 5 weeks. The only conclusion is that they found enough to warrant a 3rd party investigation.

I Googled but everything I find is about the current investigation.

How Fisher specified what this abusive behaviour is and who it was directed at besides himself?

I assume Cavill, Gadot and Affleck were not treated that way. And since no heads were removed from bodies during the production hat neither was Momoa.

As to the movie itself, how much of what we got was Snyder's footage and how much was Whedon's? I thought that Snyder had actually finished filming when he left the production. I have a memory of Whedon himself claiming he ws simply standing in for Snyder for the post-production process.

Agent Coulson

It will be interesting to see if HBO/Warner find against Joss especially since he is making there marquee series for next year and they paid a Fortune for it in a bidding war with the likes of Netflix and Amazon.

Psychiatric Patrick

Agent Coulson wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if HBO/Warner find against Joss especially since he is making there marquee series for next year and they paid a Fortune for it in a bidding war with the likes of Netflix and Amazon.

Is his new show really the big one for the streaming service?

Would it be a factor in this? Contracts, etc, are signed and such another is little Whedon can do other than threaten sabotage of the project - which could end his career. What studio would work with him again?

The White Wolf

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

I Googled but everything I find is about the current investigation.

How Fisher specified what this abusive behaviour is and who it was directed at besides himself?

I assume Cavill, Gadot and Affleck were not treated that way. And since no heads were removed from bodies during the production hat neither was Momoa.

As to the movie itself, how much of what we got was Snyder's footage and how much was Whedon's? I thought that Snyder had actually finished filming when he left the production. I have a memory of Whedon himself claiming he ws simply standing in for Snyder for the post-production process.

There were (alleged, relax now) stories of Gadot being threatened by Whedon with her career for not wanting to do a scene, and also of Affleck being torn into in front of cast and crew for deviating slightly from Whedon's script, so at the very least it sounds like he fostered a very uncomfortable and difficult environment probably out of belief he was the new big dog for WB/DC.

Regardless, I'm happy to sit back and see what this investigation does or doesn't unfold.

Psychiatric Patrick

The White Wolf wrote: »

There were (alleged, relax now) stories of Gadot being threatened by Whedon with her career for not wanting to do a scene, and also of Affleck being torn into in front of cast and crew for deviating slightly from Whedon's script, so at the very least it sounds like he fostered a very uncomfortable and difficult environment probably out of belief he was the new big dog for WB/DC.

Regardless, I'm happy to sit back and see what this investigation does or doesn't unfold.

First, I'm not going to get on a high horse about the need for words like "allegedly".

I certainly wasn't expecting Affleck to have been a "victim". I have it in my head that he is movie star and doesn't get spoken like that and certainly not by the likes of Whedon - I like his stuff and he is a big deal to nerds he is not a big deal I the movie business. His filmography is tiny.

I forget the actors are people and the film set is like any job.

Any idea what the scene was that Gadot didn't want t do and why? I hear that and initial thought it sex or nudity related but I don't recall anything like that in the movie.

I read this morning that Fisher did reach out to people higher at Warner Bros. during the production but it got back to Geoff Johns.

I wonder did he try again afterward or did he speak to the rest of the cast. Have they commented? How often has Fisher talked abut it all?

Also, who would the third party investigators be? And why might they be necessary? WB clearly has enough evidence or statements to justify taking it further but wouldn't that also be enough to haul Whedon and others in for a slap on the wrists?

The White Wolf

I think Affleck was beaten down at that point between everything going on personally for him, and that Whedon had Geoff Johns backing him up.

The scene Gadot refused to do allegedly was where Flash falls on too of her face to boob, so they used a body double instead.

It was strange that Fisher wasn't backed up by the cast but who knows what the legalities are in divulging information on productions where NDAs would have been signed. I assume that why Fisher was being vague himself.

And yes also strange that WB hired a 3rd party to investigate, one could see both good and bad outcomes from that.

CramCycle

The White Wolf wrote: »

And yes also strange that WB hired a 3rd party to investigate, one could see both good and bad outcomes from that.

I would have thought that was good corporate governance, so that their can't be claims of covering up or bias. HR would deal with it to a point but if there is a hint that due to the seniority of those involved it would be prudent to remove any strong biases or protectionism.

Psychiatric Patrick

The White Wolf wrote: »

I think Affleck was beaten down at that point between everything going on personally for him, and that Whedon had Geoff Johns backing him up.

The scene Gadot refused to do allegedly was where Flash falls on too of her face to boob, so they used a body double instead.

It was strange that Fisher wasn't backed up by the cast but who knows what the legalities are in divulging information on productions where NDAs would have been signed. I assume that why Fisher was being vague himself.

And yes also strange that WB hired a 3rd party to investigate, one could see both good and bad outcomes from that.

It seems that I think movie stars get treated like royalty all the time and I forget that people in all walks of life can be bullied and such.

I didn't much attention to Fisher's first complaints for the very reason that none of the other cast said anything. I assumed he was moaning because it didn't kick start a big career for him. It have as you say - contracts - some were headed for solo movies and probably didn't know what to say and Affleck as you point out had other problems.

Maybe the WB investigation hit a roadblock dealing with Whedon and Johns or WB needed outsiders for protecting their investment in Nevers and other stuff these guys are working on.

Anyway I do regret rolling my eyes at Fisher as he does seem to have been standing up to bullies

Psychiatric Patrick

CramCycle wrote: »

I would have thought that was good corporate governance, so that their can't be claims of covering up or bias. HR would deal with it to a point but if there is a hint that due to the seniority of those involved it would be prudent to remove any strong biases or protectionism.

It is the kind of decision I would expect in reaction to something with a big public outcry like sexual misconduct. Something to keep it quiet.

There has been much publicity around this "classic" bullying that I'm aware of.

So I am very impressed by decision from WB.

pixelburp

Teaser for the teaser time; not much to be gleaned beyond there'll be more Cyborg backstory - and the big JL v. Superman dust up happens at night (rather than the washed out daytime fight from the Whedon version)

https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/1296437963224690694

Psychiatric Patrick

pixelburp wrote: »

Teaser for the teaser time; not much to be gleaned beyond there'll be more Cyborg backstory - and the big JL v. Superman dust up happens at night (rather than the washed out daytime fight from the Whedon version)

https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/1296437963224690694

That is disappointing. Scenes like that look more epic in daylight.

How much of the principle photography had Snyder completed and how much of the theatrical release was his footage?