Justice League **Spoilers from post 980 onward**

event wrote: »

This is fairly condescending.

"I am right, you are all wrong. In a few months or a year you will come around to my point on view and realise I was right"

It's only condescending if I actually said that. Which I didn't.

Opinions change over time on films. There is no "right and wrong". I'm referencing Avatar because that's what happened there. A lot of people who adored the film and waxed lyrical about it on release sat down and watched it again later and liked the film a lot less.

It didn't make their initial view right and their current view wrong. It's not a battle or competition.

I'm still torn on the ending.
I liked how visceral the new knightmare was, but this was all new footage, so what was the point in adding it if he's not guaranteed to get the sequels?

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It’s a 4:3 ratio film, it’s the way it’s intended to be displayed. There’ll be black bars on either side on your TV.

Ah ok cheers for the reply. I was able to change it with a screen zoom but was able to adjust the settings. Hasn't effected the quality for me. Will watch it again down the line as intended though. Appreciate it.

Thought it was brilliant to be honest, Blockbuster on my TV and the 4 hours flew to be honest, wasn't bored when watching.
Good job Snyder.

One thing is though, when bat, ww and flash were on the spider as the place was flooding, it just showed cyborg flying out the place. How did the rest get out when flash was wounded.

Loved how Miller and Fisher parts were fleshd out.

Overall very happy

pixelburp wrote: »

I actually wonder how Jenkins might feel about all this. This film happened after the two WW films that made pains to show Diana as peaceful but fierce. Love it or hate the shopping mall scene in WW84 showed her as a hero for all ages. Synder went out of his way to invert that, almost calling to attention the blood stained walls in that London museum. If that WW sequel wasn't so polar I'd question if there might have been more backlash. Were I Jenkins I might feel a little offended.

Exactly. Jenkins gave a late 80s/George Perez version of Diana which I preferred. But around the time of 1984s release, Jenkins said that she didnt recognise the Diana in the theatrical JL, and that she didnt consider it when making her film, so she cant say much about ZS doing the same.

Regardless, I am glad Jenkins has the 3rd WW film and not Snyder. As much as I enjoyed this JL, I'm glad its Snyders last film. It's clear he has no idea what to do with Superman given that hes shared his plans for the planned trilogy.

Kirby wrote: »

Would people really have faith in Jenkins after Wonderwoman 1984? I mean that was a trainwreck.

I would. I much prefer her films to Snyder's TBH.

CramCycle wrote: »

Maybe I am wrong, but we all agree it was better than the original release, right? Now whether that means you think it's sh1te or it's a masterpiece or somewhere in between, is there anyone who found the original release better? If there is (I know we are entitled to opinions) and in theory opinions can't be wrong but I have to say, your opinion is wrong.

For me, it's a case of:
If you like Snyders DC movies at all, then his is definitely better (some scenes and characters are better than the theatrical).
If you don't like his DC stuff, then it's more of a different kind of bad (a lot of what he added is bad, and so bad that it dilutes the good that he added).

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

I loved it to be fair, so much more time for character development with cyborg and flash, stepenwolf was a million times better with the new plot.

Was Steppenwolf really that much better? They just changed him from "bad guy wants thing to destroy world" to "bad guy wants thing to destroy world so that boss likes him again". While I don't mind the extra bit of context for what he was doing, it didn't amount to that much for me.

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

Everything was just much much better than the inconsistent mess that was the theatrical release. Hopefully some sequels come from it.

I'd rather a competent director and story teller who actually gets these characters start a new DCEU, preferably taking ideas from the Justice League/Justice League Unlimited shows (as well as the DC animated movies from the 2000s and the comics they were all based on).

Kirby wrote: »

EVERY film can be reduced to one line no matter how complex or deep it is.

Some people claim that there are only two stories: a man goes on a journey, or a stranger arrives in town. Others claim that those are the same story.

Drumpot wrote: »

Flash heals really fast (rememeber at the

end when the heroes lose cause flash is shot and is trying to heal ?

It’s a shame that mainstream audiences have been effectively groomed by Marvel in what to expect from a mainstream superhero movie. It’s why Shazam, ww and Aquaman all did so well, could of been right off the marvel conveyor belt. And now we have DC doing the end credit scene to try and disguise their product more like marvel.

I love Snyder’s chaotic, messy movies that feel so gritty, it’s a polar opposite to what we get with marvel (which I really enjoy aswell).. I also think a lot of the people complaining of Snyder movies have a tendency to ignore any good points. Some of the most memorable scenes/moments I’ve seen in superhero movies can be seen in BVS. I can’t really pick out an awful lot of “wow” or “No way” moments from the entire marvel movie catalogue and I really enjoy them.

Wonder woman’s saving Batman from doomsday in BvS and that rocking soundtrack , the shot of Batman watching the fight with the others fighting doomsday is a thing of beauty, the actual fight between Batman and Superman was far better and literally dirtier (in a toilet) then Cap/ws v iron man (you killed my mom is supposedly ok, using Martha as a plot device was a sin). Makes me think of Batman in BvS saying the daily planet writes puff pieces on superman while Batman is given a really hard time, I think there’s definitely an element of that with marvel and Snyder’s DC movies.

If you really wanted to scrutinise marvel movies, in The same way some are having a go at Snyder movies for not really having a story:

- iron man 1,2,3 - Tony fights somebody who felt undermined by him, Tony fights somebody his dad upset , Tony fights somebody he upset

- Thor - Thor’s a dick for awhile but learns not to be a dick, the elves are dicks, Thor’s sister is a dick

I could go on but I’m not looking to tear down marvel movies that I like, I just think this happens a lot in these forums. If people don’t like a movie, they find faults with it that they may give other movies a pass on. If a movie is enjoyable you don’t care about the SLO mo stuff or inferior soundtrack (that I didn’t love in this JL). The 4 hours runtime doesn’t matter if you enjoyed the movie, I didn’t think it needed to be trimmed.

Different doesn’t mean good or better but I love the fact, if nothing else, that Snyder’s movies feel alien to anything marvel does. His visualisations in the action scenes and score (from First two movies) are far superior to anything marvel have done.

I think the main difference between what the Marvel movies do and what Snyder was doing with his DCEU movies is that Marvel tries to focus on the human side of their characters. Their powers are incidental for the most part and used largely as a framing device. Snyder instead focused on the super part of the characters, and what makes them gods above normal humans. Which makes sense because most of Marvel's heroes are humans who get their powers through science or technology (with obvious exceptions like Thor), whereas DC's heroes tend to be more alien in nature being born with their powers or in a different race of people like the Amazonians or Atlanteans (with obvious exceptions like Batman).

So where Marvel tries to go for relatablity and comedy, Snyder has tried to go for spectacle and mythology. I think both largely succeed at what they try to do, but they're both going for two different styles which are always going to appeal to some and not others, and when there are failures they'll be accepted by those who the rest appeals to. For example, you mentioned about the Martha scene. For me, as much as I've joked about it, it was always just the execution of it rather than the idea of it that was the biggest issue. It was crammed in in the clunkiest way possible. I just think Snyder's biggest failing in his movies is in the connective tissue between the big visual moments he dreams of creating.

I don't think DC should be trying to ape what Marvel does, and I think the Elseworlds kind of thing they're doing now with different takes on their characters without the burden of fitting into a shared universe is great.

I've seen people make posts like this before and it's nonsense. The idea that DC's universe failed essentially because it wasn't Marvel.
It totally ignores that a film like Joker made a billion dollars or that or a film that is 'Marvelish' like a Birds of Prey underperformed.

Saying you like Snyder's 'chaotic, messy' style is fine but let's not act like it's for everyone and that the reason it isn't for everyone is because they're predisposed to liking Marvel. Blockbuster filmmaking works when you can satisfy all 4 quadrants. A Zack Snyder DC film is not that nor will it ever be, that's not anything to do with Marvel. even when the Marvel formula wasn't as well established as it is now people rejected Man of Steel. It's because if you hire a director like Zack Snyder and give him enough freedom he's going to make a Zack Snyder movie and that doesn't appeal to everyone, regardless of them liking Marvel or not.

You liking them or thinking they're great is fine but it's not going to be for everyone and people wanting a film more like an MCU entry doesn't necessarily mean they want a 'safer' film they probably want something that has the strengths of the MCU and their worldbuilding which is valid. Even though you say Aquaman is more 'Marvel', it's still a 2 and a half hour weird blockbuster film. I don't think that's a safebet and I can appreciate it for that even if I didn't like the film. You not being able to think of moments is just annecdotal for you, if anyone read the recent Empire magazine you'll see how many times moments from the Marvel universe have connected with people. Is there less 'moments', I don't think so maybe it's purely the amount of content has made them diluted.

It's cool Zack got to make films that are distinct and different and if you enjoy them great but their success or failure isn't a result of 'dumb' audiences or a predisposition to like Marvel. As for end credits scenes, they've been a thing before Marvel as much as they've been popularised by them, I think it at least doesn't disrupt the narrative or feel out of place like some sequel teasing elsewhere. I don't think your comparisons about Marvel/DC critiquing are accurate. Killing Tony's mom is a plot point and he references it but it's not like Cap and Iron Man stop fighting because of something that is total coincidence (I think better execution of the 'Martha' idea could have worked for the record just not the fact they have the same name.) I agree what others said too you can condense most films or arcs into a sentence, it means nothing, it's why we often have those 'badly explain a movie' tweets on Twitter.

Penn wrote: »

I think the main difference between what the Marvel movies do and what Snyder was doing with his DCEU movies is that Marvel tries to focus on the human side of their characters.

Heard it said before that Marvel is trying to find the Extraordinary in the ordinary and DC is trying to find the Ordinary in the Extraordinary.