Justice League Spoilers from post 980 onward

DrumSteve · 15-02-2021 04:25PM

pixelburp wrote: »

It's not a question of Synder getting people animated, I think that's a tiny bit unfair; cherished characters in pop culture engender a certain protectionism that's understandble, but I think this thread is all in good spirit - so far To speak for myself, it's more that difference for its own sake, is not immediately a good thing. In this instance, Zack Synder deviates so much from what could be called ... I dunno. The core of characters, their essence, that I get annoyed that of the rare pearls of live-action adaptation, we get these outliers of representation, instead of the boilerplate. That Christopher Reeve remains the "best" version of Superman to this day, feels weird.

Batman's the easiest to parse IMO, because it's the most egregious in terms of those deviations (even if ironically, he's the most represented by on-screen adaptations). I hadn't even twigged at first, but that "Knightmare" scene from the trailer is the SECOND time Synder's using that setting. Why does that matter? Because Batman uses a gun in these scenes, and it's COOL. Or rather, you can really tell Synder thinks it's cool, because in BvS we had an elaborate scene of Batman gunning down monsters. Balletic slow-motion. Pew-pew-pew. Same with a batmobile scene, where he destroys/kills henchmen by the dozen.

So why does THAT matter? Because, while you can portray Batman in all sorts of ways, time periods etc - a fundamental lodestone of the character is that he doesn't kill - and he DOESN'T USE A GUN. It's literally the object that defines Bruce Wayne's entire life arc. Batman, boiled down to a one-line reduction, is a ninja-detective (heck, one Elseworld adaptation literally made him a ninja in feudal Japan) and seeing him run around gunning down folk is antithetical to whatever those foundational principles of the character.

So fine: the argument could be made that Synder's Batman is some kind of "fallen" hero, a desperate man who lost his way. But I don't buy that, because that reading runs contrary to the portrayal on-screen; at no point does the body of the film try to tell us this Batman has dropped the ball. Like I said, the aforementioned BvS scenes are not supposed to be shocking, they're meant to be cool. Alfred kinda chides Batman, but the script never once stops us to imply any actual problem with Batman.

And that's the core of what I find around with most of Synder's attempts to do characterful depth: his imagery often clashes violently with the intent of the character. All that brooding and angst is fine, were it not for the fact Synder wants to make it all look as cool and "music video"y as possible. Darkness. No parents. PewPewPew!

... and I just realised I've typed all this, and it's you Drumpot. The guy who likes, and consistently defends, BvS. so I feel this is entirely wasted bytes here cos I know we'll just agree to disagree again lol

2 thoughts come to mind:

1) Nothing from Snyder's past work indicates to me that this will be Citizen Kane, but it should be watchable enough.

2) Will Arnett's Lego Batman is a far more faithful (and better) adaption than the one from the DCEU.

johnny_ultimate · 15-02-2021 04:35PM

I'm always happy to acknowledge Snyder has a clear, distinctive style compared to the pedestrian, bland filmmakers who dominate big-budget filmmaking these days. That is something to his credit.

Of course, that is not to say said clear, distinctive style is in any way engaging or appealing.

McFly85 · 15-02-2021 04:40PM

pixelburp wrote: »

It's not a question of Synder getting people animated, I think that's a tiny bit unfair; cherished characters in pop culture engender a certain protectionism that's understandble, but I think this thread is all in good spirit - so far To speak for myself, it's more that difference for its own sake, is not immediately a good thing. In this instance, Zack Synder deviates so much from what could be called ... I dunno. The core of characters, their essence, that I get annoyed that of the rare pearls of live-action adaptation, we get these outliers of representation, instead of the boilerplate. That Christopher Reeve remains the "best" version of Superman to this day, feels weird.

Batman's the easiest to parse IMO, because it's the most egregious in terms of those deviations (even if ironically, he's the most represented by on-screen adaptations). I hadn't even twigged at first, but that "Knightmare" scene from the trailer is the SECOND time Synder's using that setting. Why does that matter? Because Batman uses a gun in these scenes, and it's COOL. Or rather, you can really tell Synder thinks it's cool, because in BvS we had an elaborate scene of Batman gunning down monsters. Balletic slow-motion. Pew-pew-pew. Same with a batmobile scene, where he destroys/kills henchmen by the dozen.

So why does THAT matter? Because, while you can portray Batman in all sorts of ways, time periods etc - a fundamental lodestone of the character is that he doesn't kill - and he DOESN'T USE A GUN. It's literally the object that defines Bruce Wayne's entire life arc. Batman, boiled down to a one-line reduction, is a ninja-detective (heck, one Elseworld adaptation literally made him a ninja in feudal Japan) and seeing him run around gunning down folk is antithetical to whatever those foundational principles of the character.

So fine: the argument could be made that Synder's Batman is some kind of "fallen" hero, a desperate man who lost his way. But I don't buy that, because that reading runs contrary to the portrayal on-screen; at no point does the body of the film try to tell us this Batman has dropped the ball. Like I said, the aforementioned BvS scenes are not supposed to be shocking, they're meant to be cool. Alfred kinda chides Batman, but the script never once stops us to imply any actual problem with Batman.

And that's the core of what I find around with most of Synder's attempts to do characterful depth: his imagery often clashes violently with the intent of the character. All that brooding and angst is fine, were it not for the fact Synder wants to make it all look as cool and "music video"y as possible. Darkness. No parents. PewPewPew!

... and I just realised I've typed all this, and it's you Drumpot. The guy who likes, and consistently defends, BvS. so I feel this is entirely wasted bytes here cos I know we'll just agree to disagree again lol

People felt the same with MoS. Superman engaged in a battle across Metropolis which would have resulted in thousands of deaths which ran counter to the expectations of the character, who would have been distraught at the huge loss of life. I recall one bit where Zod chucks a petrol truck at Superman, who just jumps over it and lets it explode behind him, destroying a multi story car park. Who knows how many people were in there!

15-02-2021 04:48PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm always happy to acknowledge Snyder has a clear, distinctive style compared to the pedestrian, bland filmmakers who dominate big-budget filmmaking these days. That is something to his credit.

Of course, that is not to say said clear, distinctive style is in any way engaging or appealing.

I would also say the focus on style over anything else ends up with a bland end result. I don't end up caring about his characters, I don't get excited by set pieces etc cause I simply struggle to become emotionally invested in the characters.

McFly85 · 15-02-2021 05:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I would also say the focus on style over anything else ends up with a bland end result. I don't end up caring about his characters, I don't get excited by set pieces etc cause I simply struggle to become emotionally invested in the characters.

This is why his trailers tend to look great I think, plenty of spectacle but without context.

I remember being so hyped for MoS after seeing the third trailer below, I thought he nailed the tone of what a Superman film should be. Since then though, lesson well and truly learned!

Drumpot · 15-02-2021 05:14PM

pixelburp wrote: »

It's not a question of Synder getting people animated, I think that's a tiny bit unfair; cherished characters in pop culture engender a certain protectionism that's understandble, but I think this thread is all in good spirit - so far To speak for myself, it's more that difference for its own sake, is not immediately a good thing. In this instance, Zack Synder deviates so much from what could be called ... I dunno. The core of characters, their essence, that I get annoyed that of the rare pearls of live-action adaptation, we get these outliers of representation, instead of the boilerplate. That Christopher Reeve remains the "best" version of Superman to this day, feels weird.

Batman's the easiest to parse IMO, because it's the most egregious in terms of those deviations (even if ironically, he's the most represented by on-screen adaptations). I hadn't even twigged at first, but that "Knightmare" scene from the trailer is the SECOND time Synder's using that setting. Why does that matter? Because Batman uses a gun in these scenes, and it's COOL. Or rather, you can really tell Synder thinks it's cool, because in BvS we had an elaborate scene of Batman gunning down monsters. Balletic slow-motion. Pew-pew-pew. Same with a batmobile scene, where he destroys/kills henchmen by the dozen.

So why does THAT matter? Because, while you can portray Batman in all sorts of ways, time periods etc - a fundamental lodestone of the character is that he doesn't kill - and he DOESN'T USE A GUN. It's literally the object that defines Bruce Wayne's entire life arc. Batman, boiled down to a one-line reduction, is a ninja-detective (heck, one Elseworld adaptation literally made him a ninja in feudal Japan) and seeing him run around gunning down folk is antithetical to whatever those foundational principles of the character.

So fine: the argument could be made that Synder's Batman is some kind of "fallen" hero, a desperate man who lost his way. But I don't buy that, because that reading runs contrary to the portrayal on-screen; at no point does the body of the film try to tell us this Batman has dropped the ball. Like I said, the aforementioned BvS scenes are not supposed to be shocking, they're meant to be cool. Alfred kinda chides Batman, but the script never once stops us to imply any actual problem with Batman.

And that's the core of what I find around with most of Synder's attempts to do characterful depth: his imagery often clashes violently with the intent of the character. All that brooding and angst is fine, were it not for the fact Synder wants to make it all look as cool and "music video"y as possible. Darkness. No parents. PewPewPew!

... and I just realised I've typed all this, and it's you Drumpot. The guy who likes, and consistently defends, BvS. so I feel this is entirely wasted bytes here cos I know we'll just agree to disagree again lol

Its funny cause this same argument comes up in Star Wars newer movies and recent Alien movies where some fans of the universes were not happy with the direction taken. The prequels (that were disliked at the time) are now more popular because of the perception of what Disney are doing!

I loved Aliens and Star Wars originals, but was not as upset with the newer versions as some. In fact I really enjoyed the recent Alien movies and was sorry to hear there probe wont be another. I thought they were beautifully made and would of been much better received as individual standalone movies outside of the Alien Universe. This happens alot where good movies are panned because of the perceived effect on the wider universe, not because the movies are bad. Rogue one was a superb addition, the new trilogy was fine but not as disasterous as some have been going on about.

But the key ingredient in these difference of opinions is the perception of how the characters or movie is impacting the original idea or source material. Honestly, I don't care if Batman has a gun or if people die during a superman fight scene, it really makes no difference to me. I can watch the original Aliens movies and the newer ones make absolutely no difference to my enjoyment.

In terms of things looking cool, again it doesn't bother me if it actually looks cool. I suppose I just let myself be taken along for the ride with Snyder, don't really think about it too much. I don't get upset about what I think a director is trying to do, I prefer to try and enjoy movies and focus on what I like. Don't care what a director is going for , only thing I care about is if I enjoy a movie or not.

I really do not know what it is about Snyder Movies, I do not consider myself a fan who would die on the sword defending him, more I generally seem to enjoy his movies. Mind you, its happened where I didnt like his movies on first watch but they do tend to grow on me so I expect to not like his JL on first watch. Maybe Snyder is my "guilty pleasure" director.

The White Wolf · 15-02-2021 05:28PM

pixelburp wrote: »

It's
So fine: the argument could be made that Synder's Batman is some kind of "fallen" hero, a desperate man who lost his way. But I don't buy that, because that reading runs contrary to the portrayal on-screen; at no point does the body of the film try to tell us this Batman has dropped the ball. Like I said, the aforementioned BvS scenes are not supposed to be shocking, they're meant to be cool. Alfred kinda chides Batman, but the script never once stops us to imply any actual problem with Batman.

Batffleck was quite jarring to me and I don't agree with the best Batman ever stuff you see that's part of the Snyder Cut movement, but he clearly has dropped the ball and it's portrayed on screen.

He's full of guilt over his actions towards Superman and talks of how he now realizes men are still good, and I believe Snyder will pursue this line of thought in Justice League because Bruce (well allegedly this was the direction at one point) is meant to be

suicidal

over his guilt.

The problem is there was no buffer film before BvS where we were able to follow Bruce throughout his downward spiral to explain all the crazy sh1t he was doing in BvS. People need linear storytelling especially with such an extreme interpretation and Snyder should of realised this.

Trying to retroactively explain it away just doesn't work because people will always be cynical towards Snyder, and believe any depth or reasoning he adds to the character's actions are because of reaction to criticism rather than planning.

But hey, I saw a fan video recently with a supercut of Snyder talking about his Films in the DCEU. He speaks of wanting to make films where friends will argue with each other about how they each don't get it. The ****er has certainly achieved his wish anyway.

You have to admit that his films are living long into the memory for better or worse compared to other films in the genre.

mikhail · 15-02-2021 05:31PM

No, that's not it, Drumpot. Batman remains Batman, just like he did after the WWII serials in which he fought "sinister Jap spies", or the high camp of the Adam West TV show. I've enjoyed a few of Sneider's movies, but none of the DC ones. He's just too deaf to character: his heroes are established by the superficial links to the characters we know, where Batman wears a cape and a cowl, is rich and has a butler named Alfred. It's just a bit joyless, and I'm no talking about the plot.

techdiver · 15-02-2021 05:45PM

I approach it a bit like Drumpot. I do like the Snyder movies whist also acknowledging that there are obvious flaws.

I've been a fan of these characters as far back as I can remember as a child. Superman was always my favourite movie series to watch as a youngster (and still is). I liked the different approach rather than trying to make another sequel type movie like Superman Returns.

I like the larger scale of the Snyder movies also. The character canon thing is an interesting argument. I do like and invest myself in the canon and did recoil a bit with the killing in the Snyder movies. What must be noted though, that if you make movies purely for the dire hard fans, you won't make much money and the wider audience doesn't give a **** about canon as much as the likes of me would.

I've no issues with Batman killing Aliens etc such as Parademons, as what else are you going to do in that scenario. The scene that most people don't like is the warehouse chase in BvS. He kills quite a few guys in that scene. Now perhaps it can be explained with the obvious broken man character arc they were going for in BvS.

Now it is disingenuous to think that Snyder is the first director to have Batman kill. All live action depictions of Batman have killed. Keaton killed, even Bale's Batman killed Harvey Dent and at least one of Talia's goons before forcing her truck off the road and the ensuing crash killing her too. Now the difference there is Bale's Batman did that as a last resort. Either tackle Harvey and let him fall or let Harvey kill Gordon's boy. Easy decision. I suppose the issue with BvS is Batman always finds a way to do it without killing if at all possible. In BvS he didn't. He just went all second amendment on their asses.

In MOS Superman killing Zod was another one. I've no major issue with the scene itself, because he was left with the choice of doing it of letting the family in Zod's firing line die. What annoys me is the lack of creativity in the writing team, of not coming up with a more "clever" way of stopping Zod.

In saying all that I really like both movies and firmly believe they are both underrated, especially the Ultimate Edition of BvS where much of the plot holes were filled in.

I still think Superman hasn't been treated fantastically in the trilogy of movies thus far. Perhaps the Snyder Cut will fix that. Call me old fashioned but a good old action set piece where Superman saves a load of people from a perilous situation wouldn't go amiss. The scenes in BvS where he is actually being Superman is accompanied by dour depressing visuals and music.

pixelburp · 15-02-2021 05:45PM

The White Wolf wrote: »

Batffleck was quite jarring to me and I don't agree with the best Batman ever stuff you see that's part of the Snyder Cut movement, but he clearly has dropped the ball and it's portrayed on screen.

He's full of guilt over his actions towards Superman and talks of how he now realizes men are still good, and I believe Snyder will pursue this line of thought in Justice League because Bruce (well allegedly this was the direction at one point) is meant to be
suicidal
over his guilt.

The problem is there was no buffer film before BvS where we were able to follow Bruce throughout his downward spiral to explain all the crazy sh1t he was doing in BvS. People need linear storytelling especially with such an extreme interpretation and Snyder should of realised this.

Trying to retroactively explain it away just doesn't work because people will always be cynical towards Snyder, and believe any depth or reasoning he adds to the character's actions are because of reaction to criticism rather than planning.

But hey, I saw a fan video recently with a supercut of Snyder talking about his Films in the DCEU. He speaks of wanting to make films where friends will argue with each other about how they each don't get it. The ****er has certainly achieved his wish anyway. You have to admit that his films are living long into the memory for better or worse compared to other films in the genre.

To the last point, I think they live long in the memory because, to pivot back to Superman for a second, Synder insists on subverting the template of a character rarely shown "just" as he is in the first place. Creating this vacuum of desperation in fandom. Ok, Henry Cavill is only the 3rd live-action Superman (maybe four? Had George Reeves played him on film?), so there aren't many to choose from, but you gotta go back to the Richard Donner era to get a simple, heroic Superman. That's kinda nuts for such an iconic, global, character.

Brandon Routh's version is ... weird, coming off the accidental stalker and Deadbeat Dad, but I guess its heart was in the right place. The movie itself was curiously low-stakes and lacking scope. And even then, in many respects, the 70s films have aged pretty badly, both in terms of FX and their strangely childish tone - this was an era prior to the likes of Alan Moore, Frank Miller etc. etc.

Man of Steel came along during what can only be described as a Golden Age of Superhero Cinema: the anticipation was that we'd see a Superman, pure of heart, without that embarrassment over the material visible in the Christopher Reeves films - and all wrapped up with the mega-budget of a modern blockbuster. Nope. Synder instead wanted to make a film about Clark Kent struggling to cope with being Space Jesus, and to revel in demolishing both his home town and city. Even the infamous Nicholas Cage production from the 90s couldn't help deviating away from a simple "hero in a cape" mould - though that was down to John Peters' influence and fascination with spiders lol.

I don't really like Superman TBH, so can't speak as a "true" fan, but I imagine those that are must be gagging for a simple, big-budget adventure with Supes, saving the day and showing himself the paragon.

The White Wolf · 15-02-2021 05:50PM

mikhail wrote: »

No, that's not it, Drumpot. Batman remains Batman, just like he did after the WWII serials in which he fought "sinister Jap spies", or the high camp of the Adam West TV show. I've enjoyed a few of Sneider's movies, but none of the DC ones. He's just too deaf to character: his heroes are established by the superficial links to the characters we know, where Batman wears a cape and a cowl, is rich and has a butler named Alfred. It's just a bit joyless, and I'm no talking about the plot.

I don't know if I'd say his Batman has superficial links to the source as there are a couple of inspirations I see in Snyder's versions, all of them admittedly from one side of the fence.

The extreme mistrust of gods in his midst.

The internalizing of the trauma caused by his "soldiers" dying in the field of battle.

The equal use of his human persona and cowl in order to investigate crimes.

Holding himself to a freakish standard in trying to take care of those around him.

I mean it's all Bruce/Batman straight from the source and it's hard to insert forced levity or joy into such an interpretation. But I do believe the Bruce we see in Justice League is more the inspiration we want to see.

His Superman is a more straightforward Injustice type portrayal.

Agent Coulson · 16-02-2021 12:53PM

https://twitter.com/ray8fisher/status/1361487583793074177?s=20

ThePott · 16-02-2021 01:03PM

Agent Coulson wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ray8fisher/status/1361487583793074177?s=20

What has he actually said though?

CastorTroy · 16-02-2021 01:10PM

That's just it. People are listening now that Charisma has made her post giving examples and details of what she went through while Ray was basically saying "They did something bad" "What?" "Something. Oh they know". For all we knew, Joss cut in front of him at catering

Agent Coulson · 16-02-2021 01:12PM

Part of me wonders did he sign a non disclosure and get a nice big pay off and is trying to get someone else to say what actually happened so he doesn't break the non disclosure.

pixelburp · 16-02-2021 01:25PM

At this stage, it's going to have to be something bordering on bad taste to justify this ludicrous, constant vague handwaving by Fisher. Maybe he's trying to strategise his way into a book deal, cos there's coyness, and then there's this. He's doing the movement against abuse no favours by acting with this haughty"oh, they know..."

CastorTroy · 16-02-2021 01:36PM

Think the only thing close to details we've heard is that he had his role shortened in some capacity.

ThePott · 16-02-2021 02:02PM

An NDA would be void if something illegal occured to my understanding.
If it's just sh1tty behaviour then he should be able to speak presumably. All we've heard is that he wasn't a fan of saying "Booyah!" and he mentioned something about his skin being recoloured but I that could have been just colour correcting a scene in general. The fact that he seems to throw each subsequent person who steps up under the bus as well just doesn't pass the sniff test either imo.

To be honest, the fact that Carpenter said she was part of the WB investigation considering it was a show that's over 20 years old by now and wasn't even produced by WB that tells me that they did a pretty thorough investigation. It sort of feels like to me he had issues with Whedon and now it's snowballed into being something much bigger and whatever gripe he did have would now seem minor.

kerplun k · 16-02-2021 02:20PM

I wonder how Snyder feels about the timing of these tweets. Does it help or hinder the hype for JL.

I am actually really looking forward to seeing this now. The trailer looks like a piece of art, there’s so much story behind this already, it’s almost like a quasi documentary. I just find the whole thing fascinating.

HBO need to go all out on this and do a proper documentary for JL, from start to finish, cover everything.

The problem is that there’s probably too many top heads at WB still working there and would look bad if the whole thing was to be fully exposed. Tis would probably make WB look bad as well. On the other hand, if it increased HBOmax sub count, who cares.

Drumpot · 16-02-2021 02:30PM

kerplun k wrote: »

I wonder how Snyder feels about the timing of these tweets. Does it help or hinder the hype for JL.

I am actually really looking forward to seeing this now. The trailer looks like a piece of art, there’s so much story behind this already, it’s almost like a quasi documentary. I just find the whole thing fascinating.

HBO need to go all out on this and do a proper documentary for JL, from start to finish, cover everything.

The problem is that there’s probably too many top heads at WB still working there and would look bad if the whole thing was to be fully exposed. Tis would probably make WB look bad as well. On the other hand, if it increased HBOmax sub count, who cares.

I’d of thought anything bringing attention to his version of the movie is good for the promotion, particularly as he’s not at the centre of the bad press.

Everybody is expecting this to be bad or not great, wonder what WB would do if it’s really well received and popular. Seems like this is just a unique situation which won’t ever be repeated to this level (80 million to redo an already release movie to increase subscribers to platform and a period of no cinemas). A lot of things came together to make this a worthwhile venture for WB, they effectively now have a brand new blockbuster movie for 80 million. It’s not just 10 mins of extra footage, it’s over Double the time of the TR version.

Seems like there’s no losers in this. If it’s bad wb prob still made their money back on a franchise version they had already written off. It it’s good and well received they might even make a few quid and can maybe still salvage something from it. And people will of gotten to see whether Snyder’s version was better or not. What’s not to like?

CastorTroy · 19-02-2021 05:55PM

https://twitter.com/snydercut/status/1362778980554846210

Zack Snyder’s Justice League will be available worldwide in all markets on the same day as in the U.S. on March 18 via on-demand, digital download, linear, or streaming

The White Wolf · 19-02-2021 06:02PM

Lovely stuff, hope everyone here puts their hand in their pocket. :pac:

IncognitoMan · 20-02-2021 10:49AM

Do we know where we'll actually get it from?

Sky? Google movies?

senordingdong · 20-02-2021 10:55AM

The White Wolf wrote: »

Lovely stuff, hope everyone here puts their hand in their pocket. :pac:

Would love to pay for it, but I can't see how that'll be an option.

kerplun k · 20-02-2021 11:37AM

I hope if it shows up on PPVOD it doesn’t show up months later like WW84 did.

dublinman1990 · 21-02-2021 01:14AM

Has anyone heard this?

Oh merciful lord; JunkieXL is a flipping genius. This piece from his score is absolute perfection. It just ebbs & flows so beautifully.

And it's nothing like what Danny Elfman did for his score of Whedon's version of the film. Oh no bloody way. It's nothing like it at all.

Prepare to have the trousers blown off ya when you listen to Junkie's take on it. It's just bloody brilliant.

The Phantom Pain · 21-02-2021 07:00AM

pixelburp wrote: »

At this stage, it's going to have to be something bordering on bad taste to justify this ludicrous, constant vague handwaving by Fisher. Maybe he's trying to strategise his way into a book deal, cos there's coyness, and then there's this. He's doing the movement against abuse no favours by acting with this haughty"oh, they know..."

Vague? He's already stated what Whedon did and his claims of abuse have been backed up by the JL cast and the Buffy cast. You just don't want to believe him.

pixelburp · 21-02-2021 09:03AM

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

Vague? He's already stated what Whedon did and his claims of abuse have been backed up by the JL cast and the Buffy cast. You just don't want to believe him.

Can you send the link please? Don't put words in my mouth and turn this into some insinuation about what I do or don't believe. As far as I've seen Fisher hadn't shared any detail to the same degree of Carpenter, for instance. Why would Buffy stars confirm his experience?

Beyond eyebrow waggling that "they know!!". If you're saying he has, then please share instead of making cheap shots

CramCycle · 21-02-2021 10:04AM

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

Vague? He's already stated what Whedon did and his claims of abuse have been backed up by the JL cast and the Buffy cast. You just don't want to believe him.

To be fair, I can't actually find where he said anything specific. I put that down to legal advice, and I'd say his lawyers keep telling him to not post anything without prior approval. I believe him, it is unlikely something didn't happen based on the softly softly replies and the backing from others, but I still can't find specifics. To be fair, I'd prefer not too until its resolved as a trial by media is a bad idea IMO although in the states, quite possible you might not have a choice.

pixelburp · 21-02-2021 10:40AM

CramCycle wrote: »

To be fair, I can't actually find where he said anything specific. I put that down to legal advice, and I'd say his lawyers keep telling him to not post anything without prior approval. I believe him, it is unlikely something didn't happen based on the softly softly replies and the backing from others, but I still can't find specifics. To be fair, I'd prefer not too until its resolved as a trial by media is a bad idea IMO although in the states, quite possible you might not have a choice.

Right, so as I thought so cos I was wondering had I missed some definitive incident shared ala Carpenter and everyone else willing to share. At this stage it's just a leering desire to know the salacious details on my part, and morbid curiousity why Fisher is reluctant to share said details.

TBH the public "I'll never work with WB again" ensured that whatever did or didn't happen, Fisher won't be working in Hollywood again. There's a sibling thread here about actors who just disappeared from the big leagues... He's on his way there already

Justice League **Spoilers from post 980 onward**

Comments

Justice League Spoilers from post 980 onward