Justice League Spoilers from post 980 onward

Penn · 27-03-2017 12:25pm

PooArse wrote: »

...and why is Aquaman acting like a teenager? Isn't he meant to be royalty??

Really? I genuinely don't see that. If anything, I get an air of superiority from him. That Batman is a mere mortal compared to him.

27-03-2017 12:35pm

CGI looks fine, and this is only a trailer so it's unlikely that the CGI is anything close to finished. The trailer does look a little drab in places but it's early days and I'm happy to watch the film before forming an opinion on it. I like that DC aren't doing origin films for every character, Marvel did it and it worked but so many of the stand-alone films are just dull, Iron Man 2, Thor 2, Ant Man, etc. I'm one of those people who finds the Avengers films to be incredibly boring and cheap looking, to me they stink of film making by committee and look like they were made for TV. DC's colour palette may not be the most striking but at least the films look cinematic and I think that the decision to keep the TV series and films separate was a wise move. I have little interest in any of the DC TV shows bar that rather damn great one series of Constantine we got so it's nice that I don't have to watch an awful show like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. in order to get all the plot points and know what characters are up to.

Penn · 27-03-2017 12:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I have little interest in any of the DC TV shows bar that rather damn great one series of Constantine we got so it's nice that I don't have to watch an awful show like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. in order to get all the plot points and know what characters are up to.

Sorry but this is incredibly wrong. The tie-ins to the movies featured on Agents of SHIELD are basically easter eggs at this point. They're connected in the loosest way possible and you could easily watch either without the other. Plus while AoS definitely struggled in the first season, it's come a long way since then and is a pretty good show in its own right (though that's subjective and up for debate).

AoS makes the occasional reference to something happening in the MCU movies but as far as having to watch it for plot points and additional info, not even a little bit. Any links and references are tenuous at best and are used to further plots for the TV show, never the other way around. The movies will always be viewable without the need to have seen AoS.

27-03-2017 12:55pm

Penn wrote: »

Sorry but this is incredibly wrong. The tie-ins to the movies featured on Agents of SHIELD are basically easter eggs at this point. They're connected in the loosest way possible and you could easily watch either without the other. Plus while AoS definitely struggled in the first season, it's come a long way since then and is a pretty good show in its own right (though that's subjective and up for debate).

AoS makes the occasional reference to something happening in the MCU movies but as far as having to watch it for plot points and additional info, not even a little bit. Any links and references are tenuous at best and are used to further plots for the TV show, never the other way around. The movies will always be viewable without the need to have seen AoS.

I'm aware that you do not need to see the show but the plan from that start was to have the shows echo what occurs in the film, and let's be honest, the only reason that the show is even on air still is because Marvel use it as a handy advertising tool for the films. I tried to watch the first series and it was beyond bad, it was like someone wanted to make a show like the 90s Hercules but with less money and in a modern setting. It wasn't even fun in a so bad it's watchable manner, it was just bad.

pixelburp · 27-03-2017 1:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

[...]I tried to watch the first series and it was beyond bad, it was like someone wanted to make a show like the 90s Hercules but with less money and in a modern setting. It wasn't even fun in a so bad it's watchable manner, it was just bad.

Agents of SHIELD is its own thing now, bar the occasional nod to tangential events in the films. But quality-wise it's a long, long way from the shaky beginnings of Season 1. No question the first half was total garbage, and it dipped midway through Season 2, but outside of that is now an excellent show in its own right, not at all beholden to the MCU (bar the back-half of Season 1 that essentially gave the show a kick up the backside). Season 3 was definitely the high point & would call it one of the stronger Network TVs shows out there on the back of it.

27-03-2017 1:12pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Agents of SHIELD is its own thing now, bar the occasional nod to tangential events in the films. But quality-wise it's a long, long way from the shaky beginnings of Season 1. No question the first half was total garbage, and it dipped midway through Season 2, but outside of that is now an excellent show in its own right, not at all beholden to the MCU (bar the back-half of Season 1 that essentially gave the show a kick up the backside). Season 3 was definitely the high point & would call it one of the stronger Network TVs shows out there on the back of it.

I tried to watch some of series 2 one night in a friends but the episode was deathly dull and cheap to boot, felt like something from Andromeda or the like. It may have improved but the start was so poor that you have to invest 16 hours of awfulness to get to anything half decent and even then, from what I've seen it only became middling entertainment.

PooArse · 27-03-2017 1:21pm

Penn wrote: »

Really? I genuinely don't see that. If anything, I get an air of superiority from him. That Batman is a mere mortal compared to him.

Just from his whole "I dig it" line and when he's surfing on the batmobile and shouts "Wahoo" when he jumps off. Have a feeling he's going to be one of those characters that ignores his duties and then realizes he has to step up......(Thor).....

Bacchus · 27-03-2017 1:47pm

Deleted User wrote: »

CGI looks fine, and this is only a trailer so it's unlikely that the CGI is anything close to finished. The trailer does look a little drab in places but it's early days and I'm happy to watch the film before forming an opinion on it. I like that DC aren't doing origin films for every character, Marvel did it and it worked but so many of the stand-alone films are just dull, Iron Man 2, Thor 2, Ant Man, etc. I'm one of those people who finds the Avengers films to be incredibly boring and cheap looking, to me they stink of film making by committee and look like they were made for TV. DC's colour palette may not be the most striking but at least the films look cinematic and I think that the decision to keep the TV series and films separate was a wise move. I have little interest in any of the DC TV shows bar that rather damn great one series of Constantine we got so it's nice that I don't have to watch an awful show like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. in order to get all the plot points and know what characters are up to.

Have to agree with Penn. That's just plain wrong. I don't watch AoS, I stopped watching after 3 or 4 episodes and I've no problem watching and following the movies. I've been watching the Netflix shows and all are great and none impact the plots of the core movies. Same universe but completely doing their own thing.

BTW, where are you getting this info that DC aren't doing stand-alone movies? Superman had one. Look at their slate... WW, Flash, Cyborg, Aquaman, Batman, Shazam are all getting solo movies too. On top of that, WW is an origin movie (after she's already been set up) so it's quite possible some of those other solo outings will be origin movies.

EDIT: Actually, you didn't say that they aren't doing solo movies but you implied that DC's approach of doing these big ensemble movies is better than Marvels approach with the stand-alone movies... but DC are doing the same thing, just in a different order.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm aware that you do not need to see the show but the plan from that start was to have the shows echo what occurs in the film, and let's be honest, the only reason that the show is even on air still is because Marvel use it as a handy advertising tool for the films. I tried to watch the first series and it was beyond bad, it was like someone wanted to make a show like the 90s Hercules but with less money and in a modern setting. It wasn't even fun in a so bad it's watchable manner, it was just bad.

Yes, because Marvel have an advertising budget that basically funds an entire show. I don't have any interest in the show myself but come on. The show is obviously popular enough to warrant its existence.

Penn · 27-03-2017 2:05pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm aware that you do not need to see the show but the plan from that start was to have the shows echo what occurs in the film, and let's be honest, the only reason that the show is even on air still is because Marvel use it as a handy advertising tool for the films. I tried to watch the first series and it was beyond bad, it was like someone wanted to make a show like the 90s Hercules but with less money and in a modern setting. It wasn't even fun in a so bad it's watchable manner, it was just bad.

Again, links and references to the movies are few and far between and are more easter eggs than advertisement. The show is definitely going in its own direction and is largely considered to be completely separate to what's happening in the movies (certain big things have happened in the show which should realistically have been mentioned in the movies for example).

I agree that the first season was largely awful (picked up a lot for the last 5-6 episodes though), and Season 2 was iffy for a large chunk too. But Season 3 was brilliant and Season 4 has been great so far too.

Anyway, probably going a bit off topic. Just trying to make the point that for both Marvel and DC, the movies will always be made to stand alone without the need to have seen any linked TV shows. They have to, not only to avoid alienating viewers who don't watch the TV shows, but also for pure expositional reasons to avoid having to explain additional stuff which may be surplus to requirements. So regardless of whether DC are keeping their movie & TV universes separate, or Marvel having them linked, the movies for both will always take precedence.

27-03-2017 2:09pm

Bacchus wrote: »

Have to agree with Penn. That's just plain wrong. I don't watch AoS, I stopped watching after 3 or 4 episodes and I've no problem watching and following the movies. I've been watching the Netflix shows and all are great and none impact the plots of the core movies. Same universe but completely doing their own thing.

BTW, where are you getting this info that DC aren't doing stand-alone movies? Superman had one. Look at their slate... WW, Flash, Cyborg, Aquaman, Batman, Shazam are all getting solo movies too. On top of that, WW is an origin movie (after she's already been set up) so it's quite possible some of those other solo outings will be origin movies.

EDIT: Actually, you didn't say that they aren't doing solo movies but you implied that DC's approach of doing these big ensemble movies is better than Marvels approach with the stand-alone movies... but DC are doing the same thing, just in a different order.

That was my point, that we do not have to sit through origin story after origin story but can actually get to some of the good stuff straight off the bat. The Wonder Woman film is the only Origin story that I want to see and am glad that we are getting it as it's going to be a period piece and I hope that subsequent sequels are set during the great wars and don't go the route of Captain America and fly through the best bits in a montage. From the trailer of Wonder Woman it appears that she will be Wonder Woman from that start and that we aren't going to spend three quarters of the film getting to that point which makes for a nice change of pace if it is true.

Bacchus wrote: »

Yes, because Marvel have an advertising budget that basically funds an entire show. I don't have any interest in the show myself but come on. The show is obviously popular enough to warrant its existence.

It's ratings are beyond poor and the fact that it airs in a 10pm slot says it all. AoS is a series that is basically dead in the water and were it not for the Marvel tag would have been cancelled last series, as it stands now it's very much in doubt of a renewal.

Bacchus · 27-03-2017 2:33pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That was my point, that we do not have to sit through origin story after origin story but can actually get to some of the good stuff straight off the bat. The Wonder Woman film is the only Origin story that I want to see and am glad that we are getting it as it's going to be a period piece and I hope that subsequent sequels are set during the great wars and don't go the route of Captain America and fly through the best bits in a montage. From the trailer of Wonder Woman it appears that she will be Wonder Woman from that start and that we aren't going to spend three quarters of the film getting to that point which makes for a nice change of pace if it is true.

You don't have to sit through ANY origin story. They do help to set the context and background of the characters though, something that is very hard to do in a big ensemble movie and it's something (IMO) that BvS failed to do with Batman, WW and Lex. BvS felt rushed and a bit scattered. You may think it was "the good stuff" but to me it was just a lot of noise and punches without any setup. Batman fought Superman... just because? And then they became BFFs... just because? The extended edition cleared it up a bit but to use your own argument, why should I have to watch an extended edition on DVD months later to figure out what all the plot points are. Marvels movies have their failings but they have developed their characters (the heroes at least) well over the phases.

To be fair to Marvel too... Thor was Thor in his first movie. As was Black Panther, Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Hulk (Norton was the first Hulk movie of the MCU) and Hawkeye. Then you have characters like Vision, Spiderman and Falcon who didn't get origins but came into being during other stand-alone/ensemble movies. Winter Soldier's development wasn't a straight on origin either, rather the evolution of the character across a number of movies. In fact the only true origin movies Marvel have done are Iron Man, Captain America and Ant Man (and at that the original Ant Man (Michael Douglas) was already Ant Man in that origin movie).

I agree with you that more Captain America in WWII would have been neat to see. I doubt though that WW will stay in that period beyond her first movie. It would only halt any momentum in the DCMU that builds from JL. Also what trailer did you watch for WW? It clearly shows her origin as a child growing up with all the training. She's not WW from the start. Final product may show this as flash backs or something but that doesn't come across in the trailer.

Bacchus · 27-03-2017 2:36pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It's ratings are beyond poor and the fact that it airs in a 10pm slot says it all. AoS is a series that is basically dead in the water and were it not for the Marvel tag would have been cancelled last series, as it stands now it's very much in doubt of a renewal.

Alright, I can understand you saying that the Marvel tag kept it floating as Marvel products will draw enough of a fanbase to keep it going even if the quality isn't there. That's fine, I was only objecting to the suggestion that the show was only still going because is was an advertisement for the movies.

Ben Gadot · 27-03-2017 3:16pm

PooArse wrote: »

Just from his whole "I dig it" line and when he's surfing on the batmobile and shouts "Wahoo" when he jumps off. Have a feeling he's going to be one of those characters that ignores his duties and then realizes he has to step up......(Thor).....

If that is the approach they're taking it's not as if Marvel and Thor have exclusive dibs on that kind of characterisation.

Arthur Curry struggling with his responsibilities to both the surface world and Atlantis is in line with the comics.

Does he have to be an immature "dude" type character (which BTW I don't believe he is based on this trailer alone)? Of course not, but this is what the critics asked for from DC/WB i.e. lighter characters. I see no harm anyway in letting Momoa let loose ultimately, as the guy has presence and charisma in the bucket load.

Mitch Connor · 27-03-2017 3:18pm

Just as AoS is being mentioned.... It is awesome. the current season is brilliant.

ps3lover · 27-03-2017 3:40pm

I just think this looks ugly, you never feel like you are looking at really people or places, you feel like you're looking at a bunch of actors on a soundstage, the CGI is way too heavy in these films that nothing looks real anymore. Whenever you see Batman fight you feel like you're watching a cut scene from the Arkham Asylum games. The color palet is unappealing to look at, drab and dull.
For me personally the problem feels like we've gotten so many superhero movies recently that we're starting to get sick of them. Then you get Guardians Of The Galaxy, Doctor Strange, Deadpool, Logan, all movies that feel fresh within the superhero genre. This just looks like the kind of movie that I was getting tired of about 4 years ago. I really want that Wonder Woman movie to be good but if it's another stinker, I'd say I'm done with this universe.
It's quite funny that the producers are blaming rotten tomatoes for the uderperformance of their last few films.

27-03-2017 4:06pm

Bacchus wrote: »

You don't have to sit through ANY origin story. They do help to set the context and background of the characters though, something that is very hard to do in a big ensemble movie and it's something (IMO) that BvS failed to do with Batman, WW and Lex. BvS felt rushed and a bit scattered. You may think it was "the good stuff" but to me it was just a lot of noise and punches without any setup. Batman fought Superman... just because? And then they became BFFs... just because? The extended edition cleared it up a bit but to use your own argument, why should I have to watch an extended edition on DVD months later to figure out what all the plot points are. Marvels movies have their failings but they have developed their characters (the heroes at least) well over the phases.

To be fair to Marvel too... Thor was Thor in his first movie. As was Black Panther, Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, Hulk (Norton was the first Hulk movie of the MCU) and Hawkeye. Then you have characters like Vision, Spiderman and Falcon who didn't get origins but came into being during other stand-alone/ensemble movies. Winter Soldier's development wasn't a straight on origin either, rather the evolution of the character across a number of movies. In fact the only true origin movies Marvel have done are Iron Man, Captain America and Ant Man (and at that the original Ant Man (Michael Douglas) was already Ant Man in that origin movie).

I agree with you that more Captain America in WWII would have been neat to see. I doubt though that WW will stay in that period beyond her first movie. It would only halt any momentum in the DCMU that builds from JL. Also what trailer did you watch for WW? It clearly shows her origin as a child growing up with all the training. She's not WW from the start. Final product may show this as flash backs or something but that doesn't come across in the trailer.

Don't forget Strange and the Guardians (as a group)

IncognitoMan · 27-03-2017 5:32pm

ps3lover wrote: »

It's quite funny that the producers are blaming rotten tomatoes for the uderperformance of their last few films.

Where did you see this?

ps3lover · 27-03-2017 5:34pm

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Where did you see this?

http://ew.com/movies/2017/03/23/ratner-tomatoes-scores/

It's quite funny cause BvS still made about $850 million but they're moaning cause they feel it should have made more. It was expected to cross the 1 billion mark.

IncognitoMan · 27-03-2017 6:09pm

Yeah I seen that the other day. Thought there might be something new said when you brought it up.

What he's really complaining about there is the fixation on a movies number on rotten tomatoes, and he's not wrong. The rotten tomatoes system isn't a great system.

10 critics can go and see a film and all score it 6/10 and rotten tomatoes will have the film at 100% fresh. It's not very clear to the average user exactly what that score means. Now it's also up to the user to find this stuff out for themselves but I'd imagine most just Google and quick glance at the % and think nothing more of it.

I think there could be place for a better system, one that gives a clearer picture of what sort of reviews a film is getting. e.g my example above having a score of 6/10 or 60% instead of 100%.

There's some decent films with poor enough scores on that site and some bad films that just got enough 6/10s to get it a decent score.

Rotten tomatoes is OK to get a general feel of how a film is doing critic wise but it's just the very minimal amount of information and shouldn't have any real bearing on the perceived quality of a film.

27-03-2017 6:13pm

I'm really not that hard to please when it comes to these kind of movies, but even at that I was underwhelmed by this trailer. I don't really care for DC vs Marvel, I just really like Batman and/or a good comic book movie/story. (I finally got to watch CA: Civil War and GOTG last month, two really good comic book movies IMO)

Apart from the opening with Bruce/horse/wilderness, presumably on the search for Arthur Curry, I get no sense of actual place from this trailer or that any of the exterior shots take place in a specific world. Just like the heavy action scenes from BvS - like the Batmobile chase/Superman interception, the actual BvS fight and the Doomsday battle. I'm not talking about poor CGI, or CGI vs real locations, it's that the world this is set in looks bland and a complete afterthought to the shiny characters.

It seems so generic, even dull. Like the director thinks "It doesn't matter what the background looks like or where they are once our heroes are doing cool shít in slow motion and look very cool doing it."

Then there's the dialogue. I get that they are trying to fill in your average movie-goer on a few important details in as few lines as possible, but "We have to be ready, you, me, the others...there's an attack coming from far away...it's not coming, it's already here" is so bad.

Sure there are some things in there that I liked, even really liked - Aquaman, Flash, "I'm rich", but unfortunately I didn't get the 'Wow' from this trailer that I was hoping for or the hype for the movie. Of course I'll watch it when it comes out, but I think this is the movie which will ultimately decide whether I watch any more from this run of the DC movie universe.

So far in this DC run...

I liked MoS, it was nowhere near perfect or a great movie but I enjoyed it as its own movie and have had one or two rewatches of it since it came out.

I was disappointed with BvS in the cinema but recently watched the Ultimate Edition and found that to be a much better movie. The UE added layers to the characters of Lex Luther and Clarke Kent, which really helped. From the UE, I could see Lex actually had a plan, and Clarke Kent did some investigative journalism before he just decided one day to go after 'The Bat'. Also, the bat-branding/death sentence thing wasn't as ludicrous once it was revealed to be part of LL's plan to build animosity between Batman and Superman. I will watch that cut of BvS again, never again the theatrical cut though.

Suicide Squad was atrocious. No extended edition or ultimate cut would improve it. With BvS, there were context issues and establishing shots which I felt were missing until I saw the UE. With SS there is just simply nothing there to add any cut footage to in order to make it better IMO. "We're family"...enough said there.

Anyway, expectations are seriously in check for JL.

Ben Gadot · 27-03-2017 6:19pm

ps3lover wrote: »

http://ew.com/movies/2017/03/23/ratner-tomatoes-scores/

It's quite funny cause BvS still made about $850 million but they're moaning cause they feel it should have made more. It was expected to cross the 1 billion mark.

I don't think he has a beef with the money it made. He more or less said that as well by referring to "the cloud over an incredibly successful film." But Ratner is admittedly barking up the wrong tree getting into this argument. Best to leave it alone.

RT is what it is, and is what the internet made of it. Obviously it has become important to people in judging a film rightly or wrongly.

My only real problem with it is the insufferable ****e it causes once the embargo is lifted on films within the genre. By the time I saw BvS I was already utterly exhausted by its discussion.

ps3lover · 27-03-2017 7:05pm

I don't think rotten tomatoes makes that much of a difference, we've seen movies get terrible scores and still do really well (Transformers series, Fifty Shades series) and we've seen movies get fantastic reviews and do not very well (Dredd, The Nice Guys, Edge Of Tomorrow). I think word of mouth has a bigger impact than rotten tomatoes.
Batman V Superman opened very well indicating people ignored the poor reviews, it dropped like a rock afterwards meaning people where not telling others to see it or going back.

Ben Gadot · 27-03-2017 7:07pm

Is finishing with 850m dropping like a rock? All things considered I'd say WB are happy enough with the returns on BvS, MOS and SS given the reviews.

ps3lover · 27-03-2017 7:15pm

It had a massive opening weekend and suffered big drops after that, some country's had a 70% drop weekend 2.
After weekend 1 everyone was saying 1 billion was locked, after weekend 2 people started having doubts.
I'm not saying the movie did badly or didn't make profits, it just didn't do as well as was expected or it could have done.

Nervous Wreck · 27-03-2017 7:29pm

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Is finishing with 850m dropping like a rock? All things considered I'd say WB are happy enough with the returns on BvS, MOS and SS given the reviews.

BvS, if it had been a good film, would have easily broken $1bn. I'm sure that's what they were hoping/aiming for.

Ben Gadot · 27-03-2017 7:51pm

ps3lover wrote: »

It had a massive opening weekend and suffered big drops after that, some country's had a 70% drop weekend 2.
After weekend 1 everyone was saying 1 billion was locked, after weekend 2 people started having doubts.
I'm not saying the movie did badly or didn't make profits, it just didn't do as well as was expected or it could have done.

From what I remember after the big drop off began, analysts were predicting it might struggle to even get to 700m+ so it ended up showing decent enough legs in the end given how bad reviews were.

Getting anywhere near 850m certainly seemed unlikely at one point. And yes getting to 1bn was the expectancy at one point but the vibes in the month or 2 before release (that it was another polarising film) had readjusted hopes fairly sharply on that score.

JL should match BvS's final figure at the very least, there's no excuse not to really. I'd be amazed if it doesn't regardless of quality.

Bacchus · 27-03-2017 8:00pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Don't forget Strange and the Guardians (as a group)

Ah yes, forgot Strange. That's 4 origin movies out of over a dozen characters.

In GotG all the heroes are already in play. There's no origin story there. In fact that movies aligns perfectly with the approach Darko was suggesting is better than what Marvel do.

27-03-2017 8:30pm

Bacchus wrote: »

Ah yes, forgot Strange. That's 4 origin movies out of over a dozen characters.

In GotG all the heroes are already in play. There's no origin story there. In fact that movies aligns perfectly with the approach Darko was suggesting is better than what Marvel do.

I was not talking about sequels but rather how for each of the main heroes we got a 2 hour film setting them up and while I have yet to watch Dr. Strange, from everything I have seen of the trailers and heard from people who have seen it is, it is an origin story. Guardians of the Galaxy is also an origins story, sure the heroes may already be who they are but the film is about them becoming the Guardians. The problem Marvel then has is that often the sequels aren't all that good, Iron Man 2 is beyond awful, Thor 2 is dull and relegates Thor to a supporting role, Captain America 2 is decent but again, more concerned with setting up The Avengers than telling a Cap story.

My biggest issue with the marvel universe is that each stand alone film is pretty much there to set up part of the next Avengers film, hell Captain America 3 was The Avengers 3 in everything but name and that was a huge shame given that Captain America was by far the best stand alone film Marvel released, followed by Thor, which is a film that does not stand up to repeat viewing.

The Marvel formula is well and truly established at this stage and the manner in which each film sticks to it is a shame, given just what could be done in the universe. The final third of Avengers, Avengers 2, Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor 2, Captain America 2 are all pretty much interchangeable with a threat looming over a city and our heroes racing in to save the day. Hell, even Deadpool staged it's finale in a similar fashion.

I would love for Marvel to pull a great film out of the bag, I really would and rate some of the quieter moments in Guardians of the Galaxy to be genuinely beautiful (the firefly scene is stunning" but by and large each subsequent Marvel film is just more of the same. They all look the same and that's great but when the look is drab, washed out made for TV aesthetic then not so much. That Marvel are only now working on a female led film is also disappointing, though I have high hopes for Ms. Marvel. It's a shame that Black Widow hasn't gotten to stand on her own is a shame, Johanson in a more adult Black Widow tale could be great fun, she's proven she can kick ass with the best of them and can more than hold a blockbuster film.

DC fall down just as often as Marvel, their reactionary approach to extended cuts is the other extreme of Marvel's forced reshoots and I do fear that they will start to reign in their directors which is a shame as they were going after genuinely interesting filmmakers and not just up and comers that they could dictate to. I think that the biggest misstep by DC so far was not letting Ayer go mad with an R rated Suicide Squad. It's too early to know if DC will simply go ahead and do an origin tales but by introducing the characters in an ensemble piece there's a real hope that we can do away with telling the same old origin tale.

Nervous Wreck · 27-03-2017 9:07pm

Sorry, what's the problem with an origins movie...?

Bacchus · 27-03-2017 9:25pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I was not talking about sequels but rather how for each of the main heroes we got a 2 hour film setting them up

Did you not see where I pointed out that only 4 (Cap, IM, Antman, Strange) of all the heroes in the MCU got an origin movie. None of the other superheroes had an origin movie. So you're just wrong in that statement.

Deleted User wrote: »

and while I have yet to watch Dr. Strange, from everything I have seen of the trailers and heard from people who have seen it is, it is an origin story. Guardians of the Galaxy is also an origins story, sure the heroes may already be who they are but the film is about them becoming the Guardians.

How is that any different to BvS or Justice League (which you seem to be hailing as a fresh take on superheroes)? JL has the heroes already as heroes but is about them becoming the JL. Talk about double standards.

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem Marvel then has is that often the sequels aren't all that good, Iron Man 2 is beyond awful, Thor 2 is dull and relegates Thor to a supporting role, Captain America 2 is decent but again, more concerned with setting up The Avengers than telling a Cap story.

Fair enough if you think the movies aren't great. To each their own. IM2 and Thor2 are probably the weakest of the MCU. Cap 2 is possibly the best MCU movie though with one of the strongest stories out of all of em.

Again, double standards here you criticize Cap 2 for setting up further MCU movies but you'll turn a blind eye to BvS doing the same (and in a far more in your face way). BTW, I personally love how events from MCU movies influence other movies. It's a shared universe afterall.

Deleted User wrote: »

My biggest issue with the marvel universe is that each stand alone film is pretty much there to set up part of the next Avengers film, hell Captain America 3 was The Avengers 3 in everything but name and that was a huge shame given that Captain America was by far the best stand alone film Marvel released, followed by Thor, which is a film that does not stand up to repeat viewing.

They're all linked, there's no doubting that but for most people that is part of the appeal. Pretty sure I had this debate with you before. You give out that Marvel is all linked but you don't seem to see that DC are doing the same thing. If it's an issue you have with Marvel, then logically you should have that same issue with DC.

Deleted User wrote: »

The Marvel formula is well and truly established at this stage and the manner in which each film sticks to it is a shame, given just what could be done in the universe. The final third of Avengers, Avengers 2, Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor 2, Captain America 2 are all pretty much interchangeable with a threat looming over a city and our heroes racing in to save the day. Hell, even Deadpool staged it's finale in a similar fashion.

With the exception of Cap 2 and Deadpool (where did that come from, the ending isn't a looming threat over a city) I agree and it is a bit tiresome. Strange, Cap 3 and Antman are examples though of Marvel shaking up that formula with recent movies.

One more time

Double standards? All three of the DCMU movies have a threat looming over a city and the heroes race in to save the day. That's 3 out of 3 and JL looks to be doing the same again. WW looks like it might do something new though.

Deleted User wrote: »

I would love for Marvel to pull a great film out of the bag, I really would and rate some of the quieter moments in Guardians of the Galaxy to be genuinely beautiful (the firefly scene is stunning" but by and large each subsequent Marvel film is just more of the same. They all look the same and that's great but when the look is drab, washed out made for TV aesthetic then not so much. That Marvel are only now working on a female led film is also disappointing, though I have high hopes for Ms. Marvel. It's a shame that Black Widow hasn't gotten to stand on her own is a shame, Johanson in a more adult Black Widow tale could be great fun, she's proven she can kick ass with the best of them and can more than hold a blockbuster film.

Some fair points in there. BW deserves her own movie. At least she is a major character in the Cap sequels. Hopefully it'll still happen though. A bit more directorial flair would be great too. GotG and Strange did bring a lot of new visual scope to the universe though. Going back to the DCMU, they all look the same too... perpetual night and a moody colour palatte.

Deleted User wrote: »

DC fall down just as often as Marvel, their reactionary approach to extended cuts is the other extreme of Marvel's forced reshoots and I do fear that they will start to reign in their directors which is a shame as they were going after genuinely interesting filmmakers and not just up and comers that they could dictate to. I think that the biggest misstep by DC so far was not letting Ayer go mad with an R rated Suicide Squad. It's too early to know if DC will simply go ahead and do an origin tales but by introducing the characters in an ensemble piece there's a real hope that we can do away with telling the same old origin tale.

Ok, at least you seem to see the cracks in DC. I think you're being far too optimistic about that universe though. It was never anything unique. Synder was allowed one movie with free reign and the committee cuffs came on. What we ended up with was SS and BvS, two movies that are guilty of everything you complain about in the MCU (and more). This hope you have in the ensemble piece approach is not some directorial vision, it's DC looking at the numbers Marvel are bringing in and scrambling to catch up. I'd have more hope for the DCMU if they had built up their universe in a more considered way instead of plaguing movies with flashbacks and flashforwards to connect everything together.

Bacchus · 27-03-2017 9:35pm

BTW, watched the trailer there. First reaction, are DC using another cool soundtrack to mask a weak trailer? There is some cool stuff in it though... Aquaman looks like he'll steal the show. Batman looks like he'll be one of the best things in it again. The Flash effects... I'm not sure. They look kinda cool but also kinda naff with the lightning. Cyborg doesn't look anything special and WW is given a few cheesy lines there. That giant battle at the end with the Amazon warriors and the parademons does not inspire much confidence either. Hopefully it's a flashback to a previous invasion they fought off or something.

the baby bull elephant · 27-03-2017 10:09pm

I feel the term Aquabro is going to catch on, based on the limited footage available it does seem applicable for this interpretation.

the baby bull elephant · 27-03-2017 10:09pm

I feel the term Aquabro is going to catch on, based on the limited footage available it does seem applicable for this interpretation.

EDIT: Why is every post of mine double posting lately?

constitutionus · 27-03-2017 10:37pm

i actually really liked the trailer and im in the camp thats not expecting all that much from justice league.

i cant believe the way things are working out that aquaman is the one im most looking forward to seeing.

PooArse · 28-03-2017 9:14am

the baby bull elephant wrote: »

I feel the term Aquabro is going to catch on, based on the limited footage available it does seem applicable for this interpretation.

My thoughts exactly!!!

Skerries · 29-03-2017 10:51pm

Skerries · 19-05-2017 7:43am

first look at Mera from Aquaman

flangemeistro · 19-05-2017 8:49am

Skerries wrote: »

first look at Mera from Aquaman

Are they doing a crossover with Star Trek?
https://www.google.ie/search?q=star+trek+badge&client=ms-android-samsung&site=webhp&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6w4jzu_vTAhXJK8AKHcupDYkQ_AUICSgB&biw=360&bih=512

Tazzimus · 20-05-2017 12:44am

I approve

JP Liz V1 · 22-05-2017 11:15pm

Joss Whedon is filling in as director to finish the film as Zack's daughter Autumn Snyder died

22-05-2017 11:26pm

Christ

IncognitoMan · 22-05-2017 11:38pm

http://www.tracking-board.com/zack-snyder-leaves-justice-league-to-deal-with-family-tragedy-joss-whedon-to-finish-superhero-film/

Hopefully he takes as much time as he needs. Some things are just more important.

constitutionus · 23-05-2017 9:24pm

thats fuking horrible.

i can understand his initial instinct as that can help some people, but he's right to step back and have time with his family. hell its mostly made now anyway.

god to have to deal with that though.

Foxtrol · 23-05-2017 10:02pm

Has a director switch happened at this stage for a big blockbuster previously (late enough that the bulk of the film is shot but not late enough for additional re-shoots/extra scenes and a lot of editing left)? Would the incoming director try to put the finishing touches to the movie (possibly even looking at it as how they believe the original director would have wanted) or would they go through and switch up large portions as much as time allows. To me Snyder and Whedon are two very different directors.

IncognitoMan · 23-05-2017 10:14pm

In my very limited knowledge, I wouldn't say there would be massive changes. Maybe some dialogue scenes or extra dialogue shot for scenes and those are kinda normal re-shoot stuff anyway. The main story will stay the same and the big set pieces of the film I'd imagine (as special effects teams are probably way into the process already).

Although there's only a very small number of people that know 100% exactly whats happening right now.

Penn · 24-05-2017 9:49am

Foxtrol wrote: »

Has a director switch happened at this stage for a big blockbuster previously (late enough that the bulk of the film is shot but not late enough for additional re-shoots/extra scenes and a lot of editing left)? Would the incoming director try to put the finishing touches to the movie (possibly even looking at it as how they believe the original director would have wanted) or would they go through and switch up large portions as much as time allows. To me Snyder and Whedon are two very different directors.

From what I've read, Whedon was already working with Snyder on the film for a couple of months, mostly on scripting for reshoots (which were generally planned to occur anyway) and just being there as a general sounding board given his experience with Avengers/Marvel. So Whedon would already be very familiar with what Snyder wants from the film and the changes he wants made etc. Although they are generally very different directors, Whedon isn't going to take the whole thing over and try put his own stamp on things. His job is to bring Snyder's film to completion.

Bar reshoots which in many cases are just done to change plot dialogue or exposition (eg. they may have decided to cut a scene but need a piece of dialogue from that scene imported into another scene), or maybe some small action sequences, the film is too far along for Whedon to do anything with that would have any real impact on what the film was going to be anyway. Whedon's biggest influence will come over what's left of the editing.

pixelburp · 24-05-2017 10:05am

Foxtrol wrote: »

Has a director switch happened at this stage for a big blockbuster previously (late enough that the bulk of the film is shot but not late enough for additional re-shoots/extra scenes and a lot of editing left)? Would the incoming director try to put the finishing touches to the movie (possibly even looking at it as how they believe the original director would have wanted) or would they go through and switch up large portions as much as time allows. To me Snyder and Whedon are two very different directors.

The only ones I can think of, and not even sure of the facts without googling so I'm probably misremembering, would be the directorial swap for the original '78 Superman film and its sequel. Richard Donner shot both films back to back, but got the sack and Richard Lester came in & re-shot a bunch of scenes for the sequel. IIRC, Lester amped up the campy comedy & goofiness (even more so when he returned to direct Superman III - man, Superhero films have come a LONG way...) although home releases now come with the supposed 'Donner cut' of Superman II.

Another & arguably more famous example of sudden changes, though not involving directors, would be Back to the Future. Eric Stolz was the original Marty McFly and I believe had shot most of his scenes before the production team decided he was garbage & recast the role mid-filming. Supposedly Michael J Fox was still tied to a TV sitcom at the time and had to double-job; shooting the sitcom during the day before hopping over to the BttT set to re-do all the scenes already filmed. Some of the docs from the BluRay have snippets of Stolz' footage, no dialogue, but you still get a sense of how flat & charmless his version was...

Mulkoln · 24-05-2017 10:22am

[font=Arial, sans-serif]Ezra Miller looks so cute with the shorter hairstyle. The caravan makes it look like a fun time at the movie but I can't get excited for a Zach Snyder movie.[/font]

Sad Professor · 24-05-2017 10:35am

Really awful personal tragedy for Snyder's family.

Re: Whedon, if these reshoots are a minimal as claimed, then he will just be there to make sure the actors don't fluff their lines. Directors rarely direct all the scenes themselves. Most movies have a second unit, sometimes even a third. The are usually, though not always, following instructions laid out by the director. The important creative decisions that contribute to what we think of Zach Snyder's "style" would have been made in pre-production. It's not like Whedon has a distinctive directing style anyway. It's his writing that's more likely to stick out, but at least if he's directing these scenes himself he can make them work. I dunno, but he seems like the ideal person to finish this film.

I wonder a bit about the timeline. The Batgirl announcement seemed to come out of nowhere. Is it possible Whedon was hired to replace Snyder in March after this happened and they offered him free reign on a DC film of his choosing in exchange? I'd imagine a studio's first reaction to something like this would be to immediately hire the biggest, most reliable name they could find and offer them whatever they want. It might also explain why Snyder was initially eager to return to the film but then ended up publicly stepping away. I suspect he's not the kind of guy who wants people whispering about a ghost director regardless of the circumstances, where as the studio probably would have preferred that all this be kept under wraps.

Penn · 24-05-2017 10:50am

Sad Professor wrote: »

I wonder a bit about the timeline. The Batgirl announcement seemed to come out of nowhere. Is it possible Whedon was hired to replace Snyder in March after this happened and they offered him free reign on a DC film of his choosing in exchange? I'd imagine a studio's first reaction to something like this would be to immediately hire the biggest, most reliable name they could find and offer them whatever they want. It might also explain why Snyder was initially eager to return to the film but then ended up publicly stepping away. I suspect he's not the kind of guy who wants people whispering about a ghost director regardless of the circumstances, where as the studio probably would have preferred that all this be kept under wraps.

Again, from what I've read Whedon was already working with Snyder before March helping out with script changes. I'd strongly assume the Batgirl deal was already done by that stage (think when it was first announced it was claimed the deal had been done a few months prior) and just waiting to be announced (maybe waiting until Comic-Con). If anything, I'd say they announced the Whedon news in March to detract attention away from Snyder's family tragedy.

I'd be happy enough to take what they're saying at face value, especially since Snyder himself said he wanted to get back to work but once he did, he realised his family needed him more and that he needed them too.

Justice League **Spoilers from post 980 onward**

Comments

Justice League Spoilers from post 980 onward