Justice League **Spoilers from post 980 onward**

ThePott

Agent Coulson wrote: »

The full trailer is out on February 14th.

Yep, bit of a tease here if anyone wants to check it out.

https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/1359913640212631555

Kirby

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Gina seems she would be formidable speaking up

I doubt Joss Whedon will work successfully on big projects again

Why?

I mean what is he accused of exactly? "He was mean to me and made jokes that I thought were cruel". Okay. Let's say it's true and he's a dick. So what? He wouldn't be the first director who was difficult to work with.

I'm not exactly sure what the big drama here is to be honest. Seems like a bit of a nothing burger.

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

Why?

I mean what is he accused of exactly? "He was mean to me and made jokes that I thought were cruel". Okay. Let's say it's true and he's a dick. So what? He wouldn't be the first director who was difficult to work with.

I'm not exactly sure what the big drama here is to be honest. Seems like a bit of a nothing burger.

In fairness, work place bullying even in hollywood is far less acceptable than it was previously. In Carpenter's case he got in a strop over a pregnancy and fired her. So a couple of decades ago all this was okay, Eg Kubrick's infamous bullying of Duvall in The Shining. But it really isn't fine any more. It's also likely to hit him a bit more since he was part of a hit show about female empowerment.

Penn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In fairness, work place bullying even in hollywood is far less acceptable than it was previously. In Carpenter's case he got in a strop over a pregnancy and fired her. So a couple of decades ago all this was okay, Eg Kubrick's infamous bullying of Duvall in The Shining. But it really isn't fine any more. It's also likely to hit him a bit more since he was part of a hit show about female empowerment.

It's Michelle Trachtenberg's comments that are most interesting at the stage. Given that she was underage even if it was just bullying similar to the rest, it'd be far worse if he was doing it to her too. Depending on if she speaks out or what she has to say, hers could be the most damning of all.

Kirby

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, work place bullying even in hollywood is far less acceptable than it was previously. In Carpenter's case he got in a strop over a pregnancy and fired her. So a couple of decades ago all this was okay, Eg Kubrick's infamous bullying of Duvall in The Shining. But it really isn't fine any more. It's also likely to hit him a bit more since he was part of a hit show about female empowerment.

If memory serves his strop was over the fact that she hid it and he had to re-write an entire year of the show due to it. She glosses over this fact in her twitter post by saying "Oh my agent just couldn't get in touch with him to tell him!" which seems a bit of an after-the-fact lie, to be honest. It's extremely weak reasoning.

Now, she is obviously well within her rights to keep this information to herself but there comes a point in Hollywood where you have to acknowledge that changes to your physical appearance / inability to perform your role in a show has consequences.

As we are in a DC thread, Henry Cavill's mustache would be a good example of this. Something as simple as a bit of hair on his face cost the studio millions.

So he gave her the heave-ho. Misogynistic? Some might say so. For example, other actors have gotten pregnant and had their shows accommodate them. But ultimately she wasn't the star and the show went on without her.

Regardless of the reason, if you cause a problem to production something like this might happen. It isn't an isolated incident even today. That's the industry.

I don't know. If more cast members of his stuff come out with some specific instances and not just generic "I stand with victims" mantra, I'm sure I'll rethink it but if this is the only specifics we know on a career spanning 30 years........it just seems like much ado about nothing from a couple of folks not thrilled with their careers.

The White Wolf

If Carpenter hid it from Whedon, his reaction justifies that decision as she was clearly afraid of him based on previous interactions. What kind of little tyrant on a power trip rants at an "employee" about whether she's going to terminate her pregnancy?

The more I read about the Buffy stuff he comes across as someone with the ego the size of a planet towards women, almost trying to take ownership of them.

pixelburp

The White Wolf wrote: »

If Carpenter hid it from Whedon, his reaction justifies that decision as she was clearly afraid of him based on previous interactions. What kind of little tyrant on a power trip rants at an "employee" about whether she's going to terminate her pregnancy?

The more I read about the Buffy stuff he comes across as someone with the ego the size of a planet towards women, almost trying to take ownership of them.

He does all right, and I wonder how much of his own hype he believed; easy to forget that at the time of Buffy and after, a lot was written about how transformative and influential Whedon was in regards to the representation of women on-screen. Perhaps he simply started thinking he was "owed" fealty from female cast-members

Kirby wrote: »

If memory serves his strop was over the fact that she hid it and he had to re-write an entire year of the show due to it. She glosses over this fact in her twitter post by saying "Oh my agent just couldn't get in touch with him to tell him!" which seems a bit of an after-the-fact lie, to be honest. It's extremely weak reasoning.

Now, she is obviously well within her rights to keep this information to herself but there comes a point in Hollywood where you have to acknowledge that changes to your physical appearance / inability to perform your role in a show has consequences.

As we are in a DC thread, Henry Cavill's mustache would be a good example of this. Something as simple as a bit of hair on his face cost the studio millions.

Seems a bit reductive to compare a pregnancy with a moustache. And on the moustache, there was more to it than that. It cost WB millions because Cavill was shooting Mission Impossible: Fallout at the time, and Paramount REFUSED to allow Cavill to shave it off, despite the obvious point that it would have been trivial to give him a fake moustache to replace it. WB were forced to use that horrendous looking CGI because of what can only be seen as extreme pettiness from Paramount. That entire situation didn't need to happen at all.

Think for a second what would happen if in a normal office, the boss ranted at an employee for getting pregant, or not revealing it soon enough to his (and let's be honest, it would be a "he") liking. Hollywood is a toxic work environment writ large; an actor shouldn't feel afraid to reveal her pregnancy because the showrunner conducted himself like a little tyrant. I've only worked in one especially horrible, nasty work environment and I can only imagine how much worse it would be for women having their pregnancy held against them. As protonmike remarks, too much in Hollywood is excused or written off as simply the mercurial manner of "the auteur". The power structure is still very pronounced from the studio, to the director, to the actors.

yourdeadwright

Sorry for my ignorance

Is this the same movie but a lot of it is new unseen stuff ? like an extra 20 minutes or something added ? or is it going to be a different movie with parts of the original ?

Do you get what I mean
Is it more of a new movie or more of the old movie ?

Kirby

pixelburp wrote: »

Seems a bit reductive to compare a pregnancy with a moustache. And on the moustache, there was more to it than that. It cost WB millions because Cavill was shooting Mission Impossible: Fallout at the time, and Paramount REFUSED to allow Cavill to shave it off, despite the obvious point that it would have been trivial to give him a fake moustache to replace it. WB were forced to use that horrendous looking CGI because of what can only be seen as extreme pettiness from Paramount. That entire situation didn't need to happen at all.

I'm well aware of the details surrounding it, I used it as an example because Justice League involved him and this is that thread.

Off the top of my head I can think of a couple other examples. Jennifer Esposito on Blue Bloods. She got sick with celiac disease Which meant she could only do half days. Now getting sick wasn't her fault but production felt she was milking it so they canned her because production won't deal with an actor who doesn't fit their schedule.

Another more recent one would be Afton Williamson from The Rookie. She accused several different people on the show of sexual harassment. An investigation found the accusation without merit but while it was ongoing obviously no filming could happen. Now, maybe she was telling the truth, maybe she wasn't. Either way, they didn't want the hassle so they canned her.

These are just two examples off the top of my head. There are hundreds more. The bottom line is, if you show up to set and tell them you can't do the job.....for whatever reason.....you stand a good chance of getting the boot. It's standard practice. If you aren't an A-lister, they aren't going to move mountains for you.

Charisma crying foul over a decade later just comes off as disingenuous to me. If she was traumatized by the whole thing, why did she agree to return for her send off episode a year later?

FunLover18

Kirby wrote: »

If memory serves his strop was over the fact that she hid it and he had to re-write an entire year of the show due to it. She glosses over this fact in her twitter post by saying "Oh my agent just couldn't get in touch with him to tell him!" which seems a bit of an after-the-fact lie, to be honest. It's extremely weak reasoning.

Now, she is obviously well within her rights to keep this information to herself but there comes a point in Hollywood where you have to acknowledge that changes to your physical appearance / inability to perform your role in a show has consequences.

As we are in a DC thread, Henry Cavill's mustache would be a good example of this. Something as simple as a bit of hair on his face cost the studio millions.

So he gave her the heave-ho. Misogynistic? Some might say so. For example, other actors have gotten pregnant and had their shows accommodate them. But ultimately she wasn't the star and the show went on without her.

Regardless of the reason, if you cause a problem to production something like this might happen. It isn't an isolated incident even today. That's the industry.

I don't know. If more cast members of his stuff come out with some specific instances and not just generic "I stand with victims" mantra, I'm sure I'll rethink it but if this is the only specifics we know on a career spanning 30 years........it just seems like much ado about nothing from a couple of folks not thrilled with their careers.

She doesn't say her agent couldn't reach him, she says Whedon refused to take her agent's calls. I can't think of another production where someone was fired for getting pregnant and even if you can that doesn't justify it. Most productions would accommodate a actors pregnancy either by camera/costume tricks or by writing the character out temporarily, HIMYM comes to mind and The Blacklist. It's not unreasonable for an actor or anybody to have a life outside their work. If someone's attitude towards women is that they can just fire them when they get pregnant because it's an inconvenience then yes, they are 100% a misogynist.

pixelburp

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Sorry for my ignorance

Is this the same movie but a lot of it is new unseen stuff ? like an extra 20 minutes or something added ? or is it going to be a different movie with parts of the original ?

Do you get what I mean
Is it more of a new movie or more of the old movie ?

It's a new movie, essentially. Synder dropped out after the tragic death of his daughter, and Joss Whedon replaced him, reshooting huge chunks of the film. The runtime for the Synder Cut is going to be about 4 hours, literally twice the length of the theatrical cut. The extra content I believe will be a mix of footage already shot and a bunch of new material Synder was allowed to produce especially for this version. IIRC the budget for this cut sits around the $80 million mark. He is also adding new material supposedly never part of the original feature, such as the addition of Jared Leto's Joker.

It started off as a Cut that would show the film as Synder intended, had he been able to finish the original production. It has kinda morphed into something large since then, its scope expanding past merely being "the Synder Cut" into a bit of a pudding.

yourdeadwright

pixelburp wrote: »

It's a new movie, essentially. Synder dropped out after the tragic death of his daughter, and Joss Whedon replaced him, reshooting huge chunks of the film. The runtime for the Synder Cut is going to be about 4 hours, literally twice the length of the theatrical cut. The extra content I believe will be a mix of footage already shot and a bunch of new material Synder was allowed to produce especially for this version. IIRC the budget for this cut sits around the $80 million mark. He is also adding new material supposedly never part of the original feature, such as the addition of Jared Leto's Joker.

It started off as a Cut that would show the film as Synder intended, had he been able to finish the original production. It has kinda morphed into something large since then, its scope expanding past merely being "the Synder Cut" into a bit of a pudding.

Ah cool so basically a new movie,
Any idea of the running time yet ,

Penn

Michelle Trachtenberg has now said that there had to be a rule that Joss wasn't allowed to be in a room with her alone again, I'm guessing after some sort of incident.

https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/entertainment/michelle-trachtenberg-says-rule-buffy-041530998.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr&__twitter_impression=true

She says that's the last comment she'll make on the matter.

Stick a stake in him, he's dust.

Also Whedon's reputation existed in Buffy too. There's a reason why half the cast didn't get on with him. He was known for treating them extraordinarily poorly and pitting cast members against him. Also definitely not acceptable to treat Carpenter that way over a pregnancy...

Tazzimus

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Ah cool so basically a new movie,
Any idea of the running time yet ,

It's in the comment you quoted. Expected to be about 4 hours as the original plan was 4x1 hour parts on HBO max, which was then changed to a 4 hour movie.

yourdeadwright

Tazzimus wrote: »

It's in the comment you quoted. Expected to be about 4 hours as the original plan was 4x1 hour parts on HBO max, which was then changed to a 4 hour movie.

Sorry I thought that was just how much he shot but it would be cut ,

CastorTroy

Deleted User wrote: »

Also Whedon's reputation existed in Buffy too. There's a reason why half the cast didn't get on with him. He was known for treating them extraordinarily poorly and pitting cast members against him. Also definitely not acceptable to treat Carpenter that way over a pregnancy...

Emma Caulfield had a hard time on set as well. Can't remember off the top of my head if it was him or the whole production.

Anyway, I think at this point should this get its own thread? Or I think there's an existing thread for this subject.

As for Justice League, it's out next month?

The White Wolf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Also Whedon's reputation existed in Buffy too. There's a reason why half the cast didn't get on with him. He was known for treating them extraordinarily poorly and pitting cast members against him. Also definitely not acceptable to treat Carpenter that way over a pregnancy...

It's interesting they agreed to do that reunion photo shoot for the 20th anniversary a few years ago. I'd say they did it for the fans.

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

Also Whedon's reputation existed in Buffy too. There's a reason why half the cast didn't get on with him. He was known for treating them extraordinarily poorly and pitting cast members against him. Also definitely not acceptable to treat Carpenter that way over a pregnancy...

beware the resentful nerd who rises to the top in Hollywood

FunLover18

FunLover18 wrote: »

She doesn't say her agent couldn't reach him, she says Whedon refused to take her agent's calls. I can't think of another production where someone was fired for getting pregnant and even if you can that doesn't justify it. Most productions would accommodate a actors pregnancy either by camera/costume tricks or by writing the character out temporarily, HIMYM comes to mind and The Blacklist. It's not unreasonable for an actor or anybody to have a life outside their work. If someone's attitude towards women is that they can just fire them when they get pregnant because it's an inconvenience then yes, they are 100% a misogynist.

HIMYM was episodic. Angel had a story arc blocked out and when she got pregnant the whole series for that year was ruined. That season of Angel was really rubbish. Supposedly they had a reduced budget for the coming year and most of the budget was Actors so they got rid of her character and hired Mercedes McNab at what I expect was a fraction of the price. Carpenter may have been OK for levity but wasn't a good enough actor for the darker direction he wished to go. She was doing pilots for sitcoms at the time which never came to pass. She also did put on a lot of weight but not as much as Boreanz .
She was a victim of circumstance and Joss Whedon is not the nicest person in the world.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

HIMYM was episodic. Angel had a story arc blocked out and when she got pregnant the whole series for that year was ruined. That season of Angel was really rubbish. Supposedly they had a reduced budget for the coming year and most of the budget was Actors so they got rid of her character and hired Mercedes McNab at what I expect was a fraction of the price. Carpenter may have been OK for levity but wasn't a good enough actor for the darker direction he wished to go. She was doing pilots for sitcoms at the time which never came to pass. She also did put on a lot of weight but not as much as Boreanz .
She was a victim of circumstance and Joss Whedon is not the nicest person in the world.

I'd actually say she was a great character in Angel, honestly found the show drastically diminished in the seasons after she was effectively gone. And McNab was most definitely not a replacement for her character that probably showed the greater amount of character progression. And I wouldn't say you're a victim of circumstance if you're fired for the reasons she was, a victim of targeted bullying, yes.

Dushku has now come out in support of her.

The White Wolf

In case some are avoiding spoilers just fair warning, Snyder is releasing teasers for the trailer on Sunday and the latest one below has what looks to be our first shot of Darkseid (as opposed to Uxas) and what looks to be

Granny Goodness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBk1t6vvm1E

Headshot

pixelburp wrote: »

It's a new movie, essentially. Synder dropped out after the tragic death of his daughter, and Joss Whedon replaced him, reshooting huge chunks of the film. The runtime for the Synder Cut is going to be about 4 hours, literally twice the length of the theatrical cut. The extra content I believe will be a mix of footage already shot and a bunch of new material Synder was allowed to produce especially for this version. IIRC the budget for this cut sits around the $80 million mark. He is also adding new material supposedly never part of the original feature, such as the addition of Jared Leto's Joker.

It started off as a Cut that would show the film as Synder intended, had he been able to finish the original production. It has kinda morphed into something large since then, its scope expanding past merely being "the Synder Cut" into a bit of a pudding.

As we dont have HBO Max over here how does Irish viewers watch this cut legally at least

ThePott

Headshot wrote: »

As we dont have HBO Max over here how does Irish viewers watch this cut legally at least

Still unannounced, smart money says Sky as HBO have a deal with them. Presumably will be a VOD, mind you till recently other HBO Max titles haven't been made available over here. Wonder Woman being the exception.

If you have a VPN you can sign up for HBO Max, then again that's a legal grey area :pac:

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd actually say she was a great character in Angel, honestly found the show drastically diminished in the seasons after she was effectively gone. And McNab was most definitely not a replacement for her character that probably showed the greater amount of character progression. And I wouldn't say you're a victim of circumstance if you're fired for the reasons she was, a victim of targeted bullying, yes.

Dushku has now come out in support of her.

Dushku has not confirmed anything and the post amounts to nothing more than sympathizing.
Valley Girl Cordy was a great character but the showrunners tried to make the character grow and found the actor not up to the extra demands placed upon them.
Cordy was answering the phones in Season 1, McNab was answering the phones in episode 5.
...and Whedon is still not a nice guy.

Need a Username

ThePott wrote: »

Still unannounced, smart money says Sky as HBO have a deal with them. Presumably will be a VOD, mind you till recently other HBO Max titles haven't been made available over here. Wonder Woman being the exception.

If you have a VPN you can sign up for HBO Max, then again that's a legal grey area :pac:

Doesn’t it require a credit card with a US address?

Need a Username

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd actually say she was a great character in Angel, honestly found the show drastically diminished in the seasons after she was effectively gone. And McNab was most definitely not a replacement for her character that probably showed the greater amount of character progression. And I wouldn't say you're a victim of circumstance if you're fired for the reasons she was, a victim of targeted bullying, yes.

Dushku has now come out in support of her.

Angel went seriously downhill without Carpenter.

And none of the cast of either show are great actors. So what?

They played the characters well and Cordelia was one of the best of them.

Whatever became of that reboot?

The White Wolf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Dushku has not confirmed anything and the post amounts to nothing more than sympathizing.
Valley Girl Cordy was a great character but the showrunners tried to make the character grow and found the actor not up to the extra demands placed upon them.
Cordy was answering the phones in Season 1, McNab was answering the phones in episode 5.
...and Whedon is still not a nice guy.

I don't know if I'd agree there.

I did a recent rewatch and what struck me was that Carpenter was out-acting her peers even in Season 1 of Buffy; she was playing a layered character before Willow came out or Xander found himself with no purpose after school so for me Carpenter was definitely talented.

I have to do a rewatch of Angel but what I recall at the time is the show started to tank from Season 4 on which is when the character assassination of Cordelia began.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Dushku has not confirmed anything and the post amounts to nothing more than sympathizing.
Valley Girl Cordy was a great character but the showrunners tried to make the character grow and found the actor not up to the extra demands placed upon them.
Cordy was answering the phones in Season 1, McNab was answering the phones in episode 5.
...and Whedon is still not a nice guy.

Never said she confirmed although others have confirmed he behaves like that, have absolutely no reason to doubt it. Carpenter did far more than answering the phone in Angel and it was pretty much always about the ensemble. So no, I'm really not believing the rewrite of history that the role was too demanding. She was a pretty key character over the years and it never really came back after she was written out. Plus even her disappearance from the show was weirdly and poorly written tbh. Which is a bit of a red flag in retrospect.

The White Wolf

The White Wolf wrote: »

I don't know if I'd agree there.

I did a recent rewatch and what struck me was that Carpenter was out-acting her peers even in Season 1 of Buffy; she was playing a layered character before Willow came out or Xander found himself with no purpose after school so for me Carpenter was definitely talented.

I have to do a rewatch of Angel but what I recall at the time is the show started to tank from Season 4 on which is when the character assassination of Cordelia began.

She was obviously being coached in series 1 and 2 of Angel. Angel had gone downhill from the start of season 3.
I remember reading an Actor indelicately complaining that he nothing to act off when he was acting against her in another series where she was a guest actress.
Whedon is to blame for writing himself in to a corner and slashing and burning to get himself out of a hole and Carpenter being on the chopping list. If she had got the sitcom gigs which she seemed to be lined up for then it would have all been forgotten and Angel would have been seen as a springboard for other roles.