Justice League **Spoilers from post 980 onward**

beakerjoe

senordingdong wrote: »

It may have looked better but it didn't add anything to the film

I would argue that as it looked better (IMO), it added to the overall presentation of the film. It was visually more appealing.

senordingdong

beakerjoe wrote: »

I would argue that as it looked better (IMO), it added to the overall presentation of the film. It was visually more appealing.

That's a fair point. But could it be said that by leaving bad cgi in other scenes it detracts? Maybe if it was better spread across the movie.

beakerjoe

senordingdong wrote: »

That's a fair point. But could it be said that by leaving bad cgi in other scenes it detracts? Maybe if it was better spread across the movie.

Completely agree. What someone perceives to be bad cgi may reflect negatively on the movie.

My point was I just liked the look of SW in the ZS cut. Its a small thing in the grand scheme though.

senordingdong

beakerjoe wrote: »

Completely agree. What someone perceives to be bad cgi may reflect negatively on the movie.

My point was I just liked the look of SW in the ZS cut. Its a small thing in the grand scheme though.

I share the sentiment of another boardster that it said he looked like Michael Bays Megatron. They could have kept JW steppenwolf and I would still have preferred the Snyder cut.
I'll admit steppenwolf is a big part of the movie and probably deserved more detail.

siblers

Thought it was pretty poor, somewhat better than the original but still a bit of a mess.Im surprised with the positive reviews it has been getting

There's zero chemistry between any of the cast, there's no real flow to the film, no element of excitement or tension. The plot is awful, the script t isn't any better

Using slow mo shots with atmospheric music doesn't automatically make the film more atmospheric. It's very dull and very slow.

It does look better than the first but that does little to make the film any better

I'd say it's better than the original, Suicide Squad and WW 1984 but WW, Aquaman and BvS are better, which is saying something

CramCycle

Do people really think Aquaman was better? I mean hard to compare the two but I thought it was pretty awful, I'd agree on the other two being better

pixelburp

Aquaman had the unintentional hilarity of showing that James Wan has no idea how to transition scenes without the use of JUMP SCARES.

Tony EH

CramCycle wrote: »

Do people really think Aquaman was better? I mean hard to compare the two but I thought it was pretty awful, I'd agree on the other two being better

I thought both 'Aquaman' and 'Wonder Woman' were pretty mediocre and that's being kind. But they seem to have had a lot of people go "yeh this is the way things should be...cos mOrE LiK mAvEl..."

CramCycle

Tony EH wrote: »

I thought both 'Aquaman' and 'Wonder Woman' were pretty mediocre and that's being kind. But they seem to have had a lot of people go "yeh this is the way things should be...cos mOrE LiK mAvEl..."

Wonder Woman was very Marvel, and if you like Marvel style movies, it works really well but Aquaman was just bad whether you are a DC or Marvel fan (or both), it was like a Hallmark movie with a budget (used badly).

Tony EH

CramCycle wrote: »

Wonder Woman was very Marvel, and if you like Marvel style movies, it works really well but Aquaman was just bad whether you are a DC or Marvel fan (or both), it was like a Hallmark movie with a budget (used badly).

I thought 'Wonder Woman' died as soon as she gets to the war. The fish out of water stuff was good, but all too brief. But it's absurd the level of praise that movie got.

'Aquaman' was just terrible all the way through though. But that's largely because Aquaman is terrible. I mean, I think Wonder Woman and Thor are stupid superheroes and I was never able to get with that whole ancient god thing. It's just a really bad idea for a superhero character. But Aquaman is just always one snigger away from collapse.

Glico Man

I watched this in two parts on Thursday and Friday with the missus as we're determined to see the DC universe to the end, but could only stomach a 2 hour slog each time.

I haven't read the thread so apologies if this has been discussed ad nauseum, but for me the music and when it is used is so jarring and distracting.

If you were blind you can tell every single moment Wonder Woman is in the scene as her 'theme' plays and is so in your face each time it is off-putting. I don't know who gave the thumbs up for that, but it was an awful decision.

Overall the film was better than the original, but not by much.

Homelander

Aquaman was awful I thought. Worse than original Justice League, would probably put it about on-par with WW84 - watchable, but just about.

I think the difference with Marvel and DC is that Marvel kick-started everything with Iron Man, which was incredibly good. The first Captain America, Thor, Hulk, all pretty average at best, but they were book-ended by Iron Man and Avengers.

So you end up with an overall very positive perception of the first phase and there's also massive consistency to the universe that was easy to build on, in line-up with the original vision.

I liked what ZS was doing. Man of Steel, BvS, now his Justice League - consistent films that feel like a cohesive universe when lumped together and very distinct from the MCU. Wonder Woman is a lot more "Marvel" but earns a pass for being consistently entertaining and having charm.

But the likes of Aquaman, Suicide Squad, original Justice League, Birds of Prey, have zero organic feel to them at all. It's just a load of random crap thrown at the universe-wall when they decided to drop the original plan and poorly imitate Marvel.

It's insane watching the ZS Justice League compared to the theatrical. I can't even begin to imagine what the actors and ZS himself felt when watching that final cut, particularly given his name was still attributed to it and he couldn't be further from what he envisioned.

I really like the ZS cut and delighted it exists, but also there's an argument as to - why? Why continue to muddy the waters, like what's the game plan here? Release the ZS cut, make some money and some goodwill, then wave it off into the sunset and go back to the crappy theatrical version with its wafer thin characters being canon?

I'm really mystified they chose to release it at all. Sure it makes them a few dollars but it makes them look grossly incompetent.

siblers

pixelburp wrote: »

Aquaman had the unintentional hilarity of showing that James Wan has no idea how to transition scenes without the use of JUMP SCARES.

Aquaman and the first Wonder Woman are very average films but I think Aquaman was at least a bit of fun and Jason Mamoa made a decent lead same with Gal Gadot (the WW1 element made it a bit more interesting for me) but still a very average film. WW 1984 is one of the worst films I've ever seen

I just found Justice League to be a very bad film and nothing was particularly enjoyable or interesting about it, it's saying very little about Justice League that I preferred Aquaman and WW.

johnny_ultimate

Birds of Prey is the best post-Nolan DC film I’ve seen don’t @ me.

mikhail

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Birds of Prey is the best post-Nolan DC film I’ve seen don’t @ me.

Interesting. I think you'd be in a minority there. Is that a condemnation of the rest of them, or did you actually like it? I still haven't seen it, but those movies have never once risen over "I didn't hate that" for me so I'm not in a hurry.

johnny_ultimate

mikhail wrote: »

Interesting. I think you'd be in a minority there. Is that a condemnation of the rest of them, or did you actually like it? I still haven't seen it, but those movies have never once risen over "I didn't hate that" for me so I'm not in a hurry.

I liked it! Not going to pretend it’s a masterpiece or anything like that, but it’s colourful and fun and lively. Cathy Yan’s a talented new director and I think she did a good job with the material (along with some great collaborators). Its big problem is it gets caught up in flashbacks within flashbacks for a stretch in the middle, but otherwise I had a good time.

I haven’t seen Shazam, granted, or Aquaman for that matter. But I’d rate BOP comfortably above the Snyder films and the two Wonder Woman ones.

SMC92Ian

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I liked it! Not going to pretend it’s a masterpiece or anything like that, but it’s colourful and fun and lively. Cathy Yan’s a talented new director and I think she did a good job with the material (along with some great collaborators). Its big problem is it gets caught up in flashbacks within flashbacks for a stretch in the middle, but otherwise I had a good time.

I haven’t seen Shazam, granted, or Aquaman for that matter. But I’d rate BOP comfortably above the Snyder films and the two Wonder Woman ones.

I couldn't even finish it, turned it off halfway through the prison bit. It was just a poor poor Deadpool rip off.

ThePott

Personally I think it's up there. I have Shazam as my favourite overall though.

kerplun k

Personally I didn’t rate it. Dead Pigs was class but thought Yan was the wrong choice for it, you could tell she was out for her depth and the film really struggled IMO. Good director, but wrong type of film for her. The politics alone would have crushed even the most experienced film makers, so yeah, guess she didn’t do too bad to get something out with her little stamp on it, but was very mediocre. I was looking at the suicide squad trailer you can clearly see Gunn has a better handle on Harley Quinn from the few brief scenes that I saw..

The White Wolf

I would have put Joker as number 1 post Nolan quite comfortably. In terms of execution, original thought and performance I just can't see how it's not, given all the post Snyder DCEU films are weighed down by the baggage of what came before (not blaming Snyder for that, more WB's idiotic decisions).

Joker to me was a chance to shift away from the botched DCEU and they didn't take it. A film that made over a billion dollars on a reduced budget. It really is mind boggling because I can guarantee whatever they're trying to do with The Flash is going to lead to a further sh1tshow.

MOR316

Speaking of The Flash...

That scene where he reverses time and stops the Mother-Boxes from exploding and killing everyone in the world...Well, would that not make everything else moot?

Like, if he can do that, he can just do that every single other time something goes tits up. Instead of him coming back to warn Bruce about Lois Lane, could he not just go back and stop that from initially happening?

SMC92Ian

MOR316 wrote: »

Speaking of The Flash...

That scene where he reverses time and stops the Mother-Boxes from exploding and killing everyone in the world...Well, would that not make everything else moot?

Like, if he can do that, he can just do that every single other time something goes tits up. Instead of him coming back to warn Bruce about Lois Lane, could he not just go back and stop that from initially happening?

Yeah it didn't seem like there was any risk or change, just back in time, grand.

Mitch Connor

SMC92Ian wrote: »

Yeah it didn't seem like there was any risk or change, just back in time, grand.

Flashpoint - which is what his movie was supposed to be - would probably have covered that off.

ManOfMystery

MOR316 wrote: »

Speaking of The Flash...

That scene where he reverses time and stops the Mother-Boxes from exploding and killing everyone in the world...Well, would that not make everything else moot?

Like, if he can do that, he can just do that every single other time something goes tits up. Instead of him coming back to warn Bruce about Lois Lane, could he not just go back and stop that from initially happening?

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Flashpoint - which is what his movie was supposed to be - would probably have covered that off.

Can't remember where but I read somewhere recently exactly that; Flashpoint was set to show the Flash that when he tampers with time - even in a miniscule way - there can be huge repercussions.

With great power comes great responsibility, blah blah blah.

Penn

MOR316 wrote: »

Speaking of The Flash...

That scene where he reverses time and stops the Mother-Boxes from exploding and killing everyone in the world...Well, would that not make everything else moot?

Like, if he can do that, he can just do that every single other time something goes tits up. Instead of him coming back to warn Bruce about Lois Lane, could he not just go back and stop that from initially happening?

I think there are limits to his ability to do it. With the mother boxes exploding, he only had to go back a few seconds. I think for things like going back to warn Bruce, he had to use the Cosmic Treadmill which amplifies his power (and seems to be what Batman's team in the Knightmare future were trying to get to), and even then he landed at the wrong place and could only warn Bruce before being pulled back.

He mentioned he has his own rule to not go back in time because weird stuff happens, and as others above said, the whole crux of the proposed Flashpoint story is that he accidentally changes the timeline in a huge way and things change horribly. Unforeseen consequences / butterfly effect of changing the timeline.

pixelburp

The White Wolf wrote: »

I would have put Joker as number 1 post Nolan quite comfortably. In terms of execution, original thought and performance I just can't see how it's not, given all the post Snyder DCEU films are weighed down by the baggage of what came before (not blaming Snyder for that, more WB's idiotic decisions).

Joker to me was a chance to shift away from the botched DCEU and they didn't take it. A film that made over a billion dollars on a reduced budget. It really is mind boggling because I can guarantee whatever they're trying to do with The Flash is going to lead to a further sh1tshow.

Is that a fair comparison though? Joker is, ultimately, just a man. It's rare enough the comics ever portrayed him as anything except a totally demented Agent of Chaos figure, and it's debatable if Todd Phillip's film even aimed towards that essence. The Wayne stuff felt a little shoe-horned, perhaps the one deference to a studio who might have been looking at this crime story and wondering what it had to do with Batman at all. And I'd stick my neck out to say that its success was as much the baffling Barbara Streisend Effect whipped up in the weeks prior to release.

Flash is a much goofier character from whatever angle you come at it, and his powers are hard to do without a significant budget attached (the CW version saves the shekels for Barry Allen's FX 'cos everything else usually looks like crap). The actual production has been a hot mess, with a rotating door of directors and writers, to the point it began to smell like Sunk Cost. And the news that it'll still involve Batman (albeit Michael Keaton's version) tips the hat that DC are still super insecure about their own properties.

Lithium93_

ManOfMystery wrote: »

Can't remember where but I read somewhere recently exactly that; Flashpoint was set to show the Flash that when he tampers with time - even in a miniscule way - there can be huge repercussions.

With great power comes great responsibility, blah blah blah.

What was it Wells/Thawne said in episode 15 or 16 of The Flash's first season when Barry needed someone to talk to about what he experienced after time travelling the first time.

Think the gist was; Imagine the havoc you could wreak.

Even Barry himself in the film when they were resurrecting Clark said crazy things happen to time when he approaches the speed of light.

That and he reversed time twice in the film. So who knows what ripples in universe that will have caused when The Flash film arrives next year...

Lithium93_

Penn wrote: »

I think there are limits to his ability to do it. With the mother boxes exploding, he only had to go back a few seconds. I think for things like going back to warn Bruce, he had to use the Cosmic Treadmill which amplifies his power (and seems to be what Batman's team in the Knightmare future were trying to get to), and even then he landed at the wrong place and could only warn Bruce before being pulled back.

He mentioned he has his own rule to not go back in time because weird stuff happens, and as others above said, the whole crux of the proposed Flashpoint story is that he accidentally changes the timeline in a huge way and things change horribly. Unforeseen consequences / butterfly effect of changing the timeline.

I'm taking a massive guess here and theorizing, that what Barry did in Justice League by phasing into the Speed Force as the mother boxes went boom undoing the Unity by reversing time is what will set in motion the events of his solo film instead of Barry going back and stopping Eobard Thawne from murdering his mother Nora.

MOR316

Thanks for the answers...

Also, it might just be me but, I found it telling and interesting how when Superman appeared in The Knightmare scene, all of Cyborg, Mera, Flash and even Deathstroke looked ready for battle and had expressions on their faces of wanting to kill Superman
Where as Batman, looked hesitant, remorseful and almost fearful.

Which also brings up another point...Why was Batman alone in the Knightmare scene in BvS? Where were the rest to save him before Superman killed him?
Were they dead? Had Darkseid won?

(I know, I know...First movie, characters need to be introduced slowly etc)