Justice League Spoilers from post 980 onward

mikhail · 02-07-2020 7:00pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Legal cover?

A lot of the responses on reddit amounted to "I guess the NDA must have just expired".

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm too lazy to Google but I think Whedon had previous accusations of abuse thrown at him

Perhaps there's something else I'm unaware of, but I remember his ex-wife said he'd had an affair with an actress who worked with him. Maybe more than one, I forget the detail, but at least no one was named. Whedon's response made no effort to deny it, so I assume it was true.

He seems to have had a good relationship with a lot of people he's worked with - actors, writers, costume designers, loads of them follow him around from project to project. Whether that's because they like him or just that he's been steady work, who knows? In any case, sleeping with one or more of his actresses left him open to casting couch accusations, and hurt his credibility with the feminist end of his fanbase.

Has anything detailed come out? All I saw yesterday was the tweet above. I'll reserve judgement in the absence of detail.

The White Wolf · 04-07-2020 12:10am

mikhail wrote: »

A lot of the responses on reddit amounted to "I guess the NDA must have just expired".

Perhaps there's something else I'm unaware of, but I remember his ex-wife said he'd had an affair with an actress who worked with him. Maybe more than one, I forget the detail, but at least no one was named. Whedon's response made no effort to deny it, so I assume it was true.

He seems to have had a good relationship with a lot of people he's worked with - actors, writers, costume designers, loads of them follow him around from project to project. Whether that's because they like him or just that he's been steady work, who knows? In any case, sleeping with one or more of his actresses left him open to casting couch accusations, and hurt his credibility with the feminist end of his fanbase.

Has anything detailed come out? All I saw yesterday was the tweet above. I'll reserve judgement in the absence of detail.

There is some stuff trickling out, some known (Gal Gadot refused to film the scene where Flash fell on her, face to tit, and they used a stunt double instead) and not known previously - Kevin Smith said in his latest Fatman Beyond podcast that he was aware of claims that Whedon was unprofessional on set, openly deriding Snyder and his cut.

All the same, Fisher is still tweeting and not getting any back up from his fellow cast and crew members. I'd like to think his persistence is born out of being aware some report is coming on the shoot.

dublinman1990 · 20-07-2020 8:51pm

Beyond The Trailer's Grace Randolph had interviewed Zack Snyder today on Youtube.

You should give this a watch. It should be quite good.

The White Wolf · 21-07-2020 1:09pm

Fair play to Snyder for giving that interview and happy for Grace given how much abuse she's taken.

She was obviously very excited as she kept talking over Snyder but all things considered it was an enjoyable 20 minutes.

Drumpot · 22-07-2020 1:08pm

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Beyond The Trailer's Grace Randolph had interviewed Zack Snyder today on Youtube.

You should give this a watch. It should be quite good.

Zach is my kind of Marmite.

I’m delighted Warner are doing this, I think it’s great and really look forward to his take on the movie. Hope it’s dark AF and he’s allowed to run wild.

CramCycle · 22-07-2020 1:49pm

The White Wolf wrote: »

Fair play to Snyder for giving that interview and happy for Grace given how much abuse she's taken.

She was obviously very excited as she kept talking over Snyder but all things considered it was an enjoyable 20 minutes.

I thought it was a poor interview to be honest, a bit hard to watch she was too jumpy and gittery and nothing really came out. I don't know who she is or anything about abuse, it was just a bit like those american interviews where nothing is said and nothing of interest is gleamed from it, just fill the time.

pixelburp · 22-07-2020 2:04pm

I don't hold anything against Synder in terms of creative output: he's clearly a talented man who can make some beautiful images. Just on that alone he's a better artist than 99% of (say) the MCU's stable of directors. It's just more often than not the scripts he oversees are garbage, or else his instincts choose to emphasise the "wrong" approach to a subject.

Drumpot · 22-07-2020 2:49pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't hold anything against Synder in terms of creative output: he's clearly a talented man who can make some beautiful images. Just on that alone he's a better artist than 99% of (say) the MCU's stable of directors. It's just more often than not the scripts he oversees are garbage, or else his instincts choose to emphasise the "wrong" approach to a subject.

I find I connect emotionally with the tone of his movies. They are quite beautifully made, but I dont appear to have the issues alot seem to have with the stories or certain human elements of his characters.

I do notice this in movie discussions, quite often your level of enjoyment will determine things you will let go and things you will highlight as a problem. Franchises like Aliens and SWs are prime examples where older movies are forgiven for similar mistakes of newer ones. Nostalgia and the massive time between movies makes it harder to be objectively fair on newer movies.

But in terms of Snyder movies, I cant quite understand myself why I really enjoy them. And quite often with Snyder movies I dont love them on first viewing but grow to really like them. Watchmen, is to me, still one of the finest superhero movies made ever. Might be OTT to call it a masterpiece, but the directors cut enhances an already superb movie. And I initially hated it when I saw it first as it marketed as an x rated X-Men, which it most definitely is not.

I think MOS and BvS are uniquely enjoyable, not least for how different they are from Marvel recipe. That on its own is not enough to qualify them as good movies, but I think it was very bold to try an alternative approach and think both work really well as complimentary alternatives to marvel. WW and AM and Shazaam are effectively marvel movies with DC characters. I am really excited to see what Snyders version of JL will be like, I am not excited about anything Marvel have in the pipeline as I know we will get a safe 6/7 out of 10 cookie cutter enjoyable movie, I dont know what JL is gonna be like .

Again, this doesnt make Snyders movies good, but I do wonder if the backlash and strong stance some have with Snyder boil down to either snobbery against visually rich movies with less substance (marvel movies are tidier/cleaner, but not necessarily full of substance or better stories) or just fans who might pretend to want different but really want more marvel type movies (that WW and AM provided).

Another thing I notice is a distinct lack of capacity for many to understand human behavior (people can change with age/pain). My "batman, Luke, superman etc Wouldn't do that". There is no harden fastened rule that should be used against a character being reinvented. Reboots can only make so many changes, so to have one character always doing the same things will make the reboot redundant.

I appreciate none of this changes what others think of these movies, I suppose I am only highlighting my reasons for enjoying his movies. I equally enjoy marvel movies, but they seem to get a much easier ride when it comes to critically assessing them as movies. Copy and paste, copy and paste movies , mostly focusing on the next movie or Avengers beast with the safest ingredients used and the odd spice (GOTG) added. I am saying that as somebody who enjoys them, but I do think their blandness gets ignored.

Agent Coulson · 22-07-2020 6:28pm

Looking forward to seeing his Netflix Zombie flick though.

Tony EH · 22-07-2020 7:10pm

If it's anything like his piss poor remake of 'Dawn of the Dead', he can keep it.

Snyder, to me, is like JJ Abrams. He's of that same school. All flash and no substance, with everything flying at the viewer at a thousand miles an hour so they don't stop to think about how poor the story telling is.

In saying that, I'd rate him above Abrams. At least here's some relative entertainment to be had from some of his movies, even if they are still utter trash at the end of the day. Abrams name on anything just makes the hairs on the back of neck stand up for all the wrong reasons. He's a plague on cinema.

pixelburp · 26-07-2020 7:36pm

A brief clip of this, which we kinda saw in one of the very original trailers, appeared via a chat with Synder:

https://www.twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1287146672703897605

astrofool · 27-07-2020 4:07pm

Tony EH wrote: »

If it's anything like his piss poor remake of 'Dawn of the Dead', he can keep it.

The well loved Dawn of the Dead remake? I mean, you do realise that lots of people really liked that movie (I'm kind of meh on it), and there's a lot to like in it critically as well. You've got to think to yourself that sometimes your opinions are purely your own, and thus carry no weight a lot of the time.

Fysh · 27-07-2020 5:26pm

astrofool wrote: »

The well loved Dawn of the Dead remake? I mean, you do realise that lots of people really liked that movie (I'm kind of meh on it), and there's a lot to like in it critically as well. You've got to think to yourself that sometimes your opinions are purely your own, and thus carry no weight a lot of the time.

Also worth noting it was written by James Gunn, which to me explains why the writing had an actual sense of identity to it. That's, for me, what lets down the films where Snyder writes himself - he's not IMO a good screenwriter and seems to overly privilege kewl moments over narrative structure or character development.

pixelburp · 27-07-2020 6:03pm

100% he's a terrible writer and his closer collaborators equally so. Very much of the era of set piece writing, where the old concept of "character through action" takes a step back for splashy set pieces and Big Dramatic Moments in lieu of any kind of earned development. I'm actually not sure Synder understands nuance TBH and don't necessarily mean it as an insult either. He understands cinema as superficial opera which absolutely has a place, but it's almost never matched by a script worth a damn.

The White Wolf · 27-07-2020 6:35pm

Drumpot wrote: »

Another thing I notice is a distinct lack of capacity for many to understand human behavior (people can change with age/pain). My "batman, Luke, superman etc Wouldn't do that". There is no harden fastened rule that should be used against a character being reinvented. Reboots can only make so many changes, so to have one character always doing the same things will make the reboot redundant.

I think Snyder's problem is that he made too many changes for the audience to be able to endure. Both his Superman and Batman are the other, alien to the people that they defend.

Bale's Batman and Bruce were both so likeable and endearing to the audience, that the shock of Affleck's Batman being literally xenophobic and a murderer was too much to process. Especially given there were 4 years between them.

His Superman is equally polarising as well.

I say all this as a fan of the things he does well, and tbh as a comic book fan you have to appreciate some of the visuals he's given us and will give us, but I don't think people's aversion to reboots is the issue here. Elseworld stories in live action have always been appreciated in the DC fandom as well.

The reality is that unfortunately Snyder just overlooks certain mechanics in storytelling that are really needed if you want to appeal to your average, non committed, cinema goer. Just to add I understand that Batffleck being a xenophobe is a part of his overall arc, but it would inevitably rub people up the wrong way in our current society.

Tony EH · 28-07-2020 5:26am

astrofool wrote: »

The well loved Dawn of the Dead remake? I mean, you do realise that lots of people really liked that movie (I'm kind of meh on it), and there's a lot to like in it critically as well. You've got to think to yourself that sometimes your opinions are purely your own, and thus carry no weight a lot of the time.

I don't care if some people liked it. There are people that like all sorts of crap.

Why should that change my reaction to it.

It's just another name rape film that ends up being grossly inferior to the original (which has its own issues to due to a low budget). In the end, all they did was take a well known, and loved title, and fuck it up.

It remains typical of movies over the last 20 years or so. A zero invention rip off, masquerading as a new product, full of noise and flash.

It had some moments, but over all it was muck.

pixelburp · 28-07-2020 10:30am

The original Dawn of the Dead is a film that hasn't aged too good. It's definitely a film requiring understanding of its 1970s context cos I remember watching this with a casual filmgoer and he was in fits laughing at the movie. I could sort of see why from his POV: choppily edited [*], its action and budget pretty low rent with that (in)famous soundtrack, even the zombies themselves often looked awful (with a few overacting extras); I could see how someone might find the original film a bit goofy if they hadn't much prior knowledge of Romero's legacy

Synders Dawn was a good movie and TBH there's no reason why both these versions can't exist in the same headspace. The remake at least didn't try to copy the original beat for beat, while James Gunns script was solid, character focused stuff. TBH it had better characters than the original.

[*] "Apparently" Romero was fond of just shooting a metric tonne of footage then arranging it into something whole, which is why Dawn has a weirdly scattershot feel to it (to me anyway)

Homelander · 28-07-2020 10:37am

Snyders Dawn of the Dead is an excellent film in my opinion, while I do think 300 and Watchmen are good films, and everything thereafter was fairly forgettable at best, Dawn was by far his best work.

It's perfectly fine to not like it, but I think it's a bit much to claim it's crap and that anyone that thinks otherwise is an idiot who can't see past noise and flash.

I'm also fairly sure it was critically quite well received.

pixelburp · 28-07-2020 10:43am

It would never happen but I'd like to see Synder get a hold of some MCU properties, the scripts still in the hands of (say) the Russos. His obvious eye for cinematic visuals would breath some life into the flat aesthetic of the Marvel films, their strength always more in their long form character storytelling. The flat directorial approach seems to be a deliberate choice though so Synders auteur sensibilities would quickly chaffe.

Tony EH · 28-07-2020 11:13am

pixelburp wrote: »

The original Dawn of the Dead is a film that hasn't aged too good. It's definitely a film requiring understanding of its 1970s context cos I remember watching this with a casual filmgoer and he was in fits laughing at the movie. I could sort of see why from his POV: choppily edited
[*], its action and budget pretty low rent with that (in)famous soundtrack, even the zombies themselves often looked awful (with a few overacting extras); I could see how someone might find the original film a bit goofy if they hadn't much prior knowledge of Romero's legacy

As I said, the original has it's issues, but they are mainly due to budget, it was made for less than 2 million and that was scrabbled together haphazardly and it had to be shot at night in a shopping mall on tight hours. Romero also couldn't get access to other locations after the initial shoot too, leading to some scenes being "choppily edited".

You probably do have to watch 'Dawn of the Dead' with its time and the money involved chucked in as a factor.

But, even with its own problems, it's still miles ahead of Snyder's rubbish.

A lot of fans, especially American, rate it as the greatest zombie movie ever. But, I've never seen it as such. That accolade belongs to 'Day of the Dead', which is untouchable for me.

pixelburp wrote: »

Synders Dawn was a good movie and TBH there's no reason why both these versions can't exist in the same headspace. The remake at least didn't try to copy the original beat for beat, while James Gunns script was solid, character focused stuff. TBH it had better characters than the original.
[*] "Apparently" Romero was fond of just shooting a metric tonne of footage then arranging it into something whole, which is why Dawn has a weirdly scattershot feel to it (to me anyway)

Well, sure, there's no reason why it can't exist. Poor rip off's have been a staple of Hollywood since its beginning. And no, they didn't do a Gus Van Sant on it, either.

But that still doesn't make it a good film.

johnny_ultimate · 28-07-2020 11:49am

Dawn of the Dead is the best Zack Snyder film, and not coincidentally the least Zack Snyder film he's made.

Still flabbergasted he made a generally faithful adaptation of Watchmen and still somehow ended up with a bad, shallow film.

Tony EH · 28-07-2020 11:57am

^
That's easy, when you're more concerned with visuals than story.

As I said earlier, the likes of Snyder and Abrams are in the same boat. They can knock up a visually interesting piece of multiplex mulch. But it'll be as shallow as a puddle of rain water and won't stand up to too much examination.

pixelburp · 28-07-2020 12:41pm

Sooo. Fair to say then Tony you won't be watching the Synder cut so, if even out if curiousity over an original vision?

Tony EH · 28-07-2020 12:59pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Sooo. Fair to say then Tony you won't be watching the Synder cut so, if even out if curiousity over an original vision?

I might give it a watch some time, some where. But I won't be going out of my way to do it and I'm in no hurry.

To be honest, I can't see it being THAT much different to the theatrical cut. These things rarely are, when 90% of a film remains the same.

I really don't know what people are expecting from it.

astrofool · 28-07-2020 2:31pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Sooo. Fair to say then Tony you won't be watching the Synder cut so, if even out if curiousity over an original vision?

He will watch it, analyse it in detail, and proclaim that no one else should watch it.

Mr Freeze · 28-07-2020 2:40pm

Im interested to see the Snyder cut and I lost all interest in DC movies once this DCEU got going.

I am no fan of Synder, but I watched that interview above, even that ladies voice nearly drove me mad, I think Synder came off quite likeable in it. I hope his version is better than the theatrical cut but that won't be hard and even if its worse, his borderline cultist fans are gonna proclaim it the greatest film ever. (maybe they aren't as bad here but elsewhere online, jebus!)

kerplun k · 28-07-2020 2:52pm

Tony EH wrote: »

^
That's easy, when you're more concerned with visuals than story.

As I said earlier, the likes of Snyder and Abrams are in the same boat. They can knock up a visually interesting piece of multiplex mulch. But it'll be as shallow as a puddle of rain water and won't stand up to too much examination.

I think you're being a bit harsh on Abrams here. He's a far more competent filmmaker than Snyder.

While Abrams screenwriting isn't groundbreaking, he's definitely more adept than Snyder. Abrams will never colour outside the lines, but I don't think anyone could accuse him of prioritising his visual style over his storytelling.

Penn · 28-07-2020 2:59pm

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Im interested to see the Snyder cut and I lost all interest in DC movies once this DCEU got going.

I am no fan of Synder, but I watched that interview above, even that ladies voice nearly drove me mad, I think Synder came off quite likeable in it. I hope his version is better than the theatrical cut but that won't be hard and even if its worse, his borderline cultist fans are gonna proclaim it the greatest film ever. (maybe they aren't as bad here but elsewhere online, jebus!)

The trouble is JL was obviously a film made by two writing/directing teams with different takes. Snyder's sole version of it, even if it's not great, will at least be one singular take on it which most will either like or not, but for those reasons alone it's almost certain to be much better received.

Unfortunately that's just going to embolden people to complain about any film with a little bit of behind the scenes turmoil and demand a redone version of it, particularly the so called Ayer-cut of Suicide Squad.

Agent Coulson · 28-07-2020 7:15pm

The screenplay for Army of the Dead is written by Joby Harold (Awake & Obi-Wan Kenobi Disney series) and Shay Hatten (John Wick 3)along with Synder so it will be interesting to see how Synder works with others.

pixelburp · 29-07-2020 3:46pm

Tony EH wrote: »

I might give it a watch some time, some where. But I won't be going out of my way to do it and I'm in no hurry.

To be honest, I can't see it being THAT much different to the theatrical cut. These things rarely are, when 90% of a film remains the same.

I really don't know what people are expecting from it.

But that's why this is even a talking point. Synder dropped out of the project because of the death of his daughter, and the studio mandated Joss Whedon to basically rewrite and reshoot a huge chunk of the film. Not sure it was on a par with "Solo" but the theatrical release simply wasn't Synders vision. At least Solo was a from the ground up sea change.

Your mind is obviously made up, but there's a legitimate enough case of comparison to be had here. I hated both Batman v Superman & Justice League but the former was an infinitely more interesting, cohesive, and aesthetic choice than the Alan Smithee style hack job JL was.

I don't agree with the manner in which the Synder Cut came to be, but now that it's here there's a value to be had looking at a "lost" piece of an auteur's work.

Tony EH · 29-07-2020 7:47pm

pixelburp wrote: »

But that's why this is even a talking point. Synder dropped out of the project because of the death of his daughter, and the studio mandated Joss Whedon to basically rewrite and reshoot a huge chunk of the film. Not sure it was on a par with "Solo" but the theatrical release simply wasn't Synders vision. At least Solo was a from the ground up sea change.

Your mind is obviously made up, but there's a legitimate enough case of comparison to be had here. I hated both Batman v Superman & Justice League but the former was an infinitely more interesting, cohesive, and aesthetic choice than the Alan Smithee style hack job JL was.

I don't agree with the manner in which the Synder Cut came to be, but now that it's here there's a value to be had looking at a "lost" piece of an auteur's work.

Well, yeh, my mind is pretty much made up re: Snyder, Abrams et al. Judging them by their own work so far, there's nothing to write home about there.

As far as 'Batman v Superman' & 'Justice League' are concerned, I thought they were ok, and have said so on here before. I don't think they deserved all the nonsense that they were on the end of. I certainly don't think that they were great films. Just adequate superhero movies and in a number of ways I found the grumpy take on Batman and Superman quite interesting, although and 'Justice League' definitely suffered from WB/DC (and Snyder himself) chickening out from their formula and trying to do a Marvel by lightening tone and adding "humour".

But as I said, I can't see myself going out of my way to the Snyder cut. Especially when there are films that I have more interest in on my to do list, that I've yet to make the time for. I may...ahem..."acquire" it and give it a look at some point. But I cannot honestly see it being that much different that the film I already viewed.

Re: comparisons to 'Solo', which was an entire reshoot of an enormous amount of footage, I don't think that applies here. But, bare in mind that the public has never seen L+M's footage, so it's impossible to make any attempts to compare and contrast at all. But from what I can gather, this is going to more of a reedit of existing footage, with some re-scoring and added CGI effects. I've read that Whedon (another guy I don't have much tome for) only used 20% or something of the original film shot, but I'm not too sure I buy that really.

In any case, if it turns out that it's an entirely different movie, I'll soon hear about it. But I guess, at the end of the day, I'm just not all that enthused by the people involved.

Agent Coulson · 20-08-2020 3:10pm

Trailer to drop on the 22nd for the Snyder Cut.

The White Wolf · 20-08-2020 3:20pm

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Trailer to drop on the 22nd for the Snyder Cut.

Broadcast during DC Fandome I would assume, looking to forward to it.

pixelburp · 20-08-2020 3:29pm

I'll be curious to see how much new footage is shown in the trailer; you'd imagine quite a bit given the excitement over this.

The White Wolf · 20-08-2020 3:57pm

I'd say he'll be cute enough and not give too much. New steppenwolf design, some new shots of Superman and a Darkseid voiceover at some point would be my guess as the main takeaways.

The White Wolf · 20-08-2020 8:18pm

Affleck is back:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/08/ben-affleck-returns-batman-the-flash-multiverse-keaton

Must of been afraid it was going to leak before Saturday.

pixelburp · 20-08-2020 9:24pm

I'm genuinely surprised. Affleck seemed utterly done with the role, wonder what changed. Like, beyond any question of money.

The White Wolf · 20-08-2020 9:28pm

I won't mention any names on here who told me there was no chance and that it was fantasy.

After Snydercut all bets were off.

Lithium93_ · 20-08-2020 9:40pm

The White Wolf wrote: »

Affleck is back:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/08/ben-affleck-returns-batman-the-flash-multiverse-keaton

Must of been afraid it was going to leak before Saturday.

Holy **** seems appropriate.

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm genuinely surprised. Affleck seemed utterly done with the role, wonder what changed. Like, beyond any question of money.

Totally guessing here, but maybe Ana de Armas talked him into it.

CramCycle · 20-08-2020 9:58pm

The White Wolf wrote: »

Affleck is back:

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/08/ben-affleck-returns-batman-the-flash-multiverse-keaton

Must of been afraid it was going to leak before Saturday.

I am both excited and terrified in equal measure. Flag to the mast, I think Ben was a good Batman, alas put in bad movies.

pixelburp · 20-08-2020 10:55pm

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Holy **** seems appropriate.

Totally guessing here, but maybe Ana de Armas talked him into it.

Must be something like that. He doesn't seem the money chasing kinda guy, but he seemed so utterly burned out by and done with the role as well.

Or, maybe.

This is The Flash Affleck's set to appear, which AFAIK is still going to be based on Flashpoint right? So Affleck pulls a Harrison Ford and stipulates he'll come back ... ... so long as he's killed off / wiped from the timeline. So Barry Allen returns to his timeline. Everything looks ok, then a strange batmobile rolls up. Out gets Robert Pattinson. Roll credits.

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 4:03am

I was reading about another movie and I saw a headline that Warner Bros. are investigating the Whedon Justice League production.

Ray Fisher is apparently waffling on social media that Whedon, Johns and other "abused their power on the set".

The last time I heard about Fisher (which was the first time since the movie was released) it was all reported that hr was complaining about the movie.

What are Whedon and the others supposed to have done?

My first reaction was that he just on kicking up stink on social media for attention because he hasn't been in anything since because that is what social media is for. :P

The White Wolf · 21-08-2020 5:51am

Well....both Fisher and a source via Variety have said WB/AT&T haven been conducting interviews with crew and cast over the last 5 weeks. The only conclusion is that they found enough to warrant a 3rd party investigation.

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 8:26am

The White Wolf wrote: »

Well....both Fisher and a source via Variety have said WB/AT&T haven been conducting interviews with crew and cast over the last 5 weeks. The only conclusion is that they found enough to warrant a 3rd party investigation.

I Googled but everything I find is about the current investigation.

How Fisher specified what this abusive behaviour is and who it was directed at besides himself?

I assume Cavill, Gadot and Affleck were not treated that way. And since no heads were removed from bodies during the production hat neither was Momoa.

As to the movie itself, how much of what we got was Snyder's footage and how much was Whedon's? I thought that Snyder had actually finished filming when he left the production. I have a memory of Whedon himself claiming he ws simply standing in for Snyder for the post-production process.

Agent Coulson · 21-08-2020 8:29am

It will be interesting to see if HBO/Warner find against Joss especially since he is making there marquee series for next year and they paid a Fortune for it in a bidding war with the likes of Netflix and Amazon.

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 8:37am

Agent Coulson wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if HBO/Warner find against Joss especially since he is making there marquee series for next year and they paid a Fortune for it in a bidding war with the likes of Netflix and Amazon.

Is his new show really the big one for the streaming service?

Would it be a factor in this? Contracts, etc, are signed and such another is little Whedon can do other than threaten sabotage of the project - which could end his career. What studio would work with him again?

The White Wolf · 21-08-2020 9:00am

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

I Googled but everything I find is about the current investigation.

How Fisher specified what this abusive behaviour is and who it was directed at besides himself?

I assume Cavill, Gadot and Affleck were not treated that way. And since no heads were removed from bodies during the production hat neither was Momoa.

As to the movie itself, how much of what we got was Snyder's footage and how much was Whedon's? I thought that Snyder had actually finished filming when he left the production. I have a memory of Whedon himself claiming he ws simply standing in for Snyder for the post-production process.

There were (alleged, relax now) stories of Gadot being threatened by Whedon with her career for not wanting to do a scene, and also of Affleck being torn into in front of cast and crew for deviating slightly from Whedon's script, so at the very least it sounds like he fostered a very uncomfortable and difficult environment probably out of belief he was the new big dog for WB/DC.

Regardless, I'm happy to sit back and see what this investigation does or doesn't unfold.

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 9:29am

The White Wolf wrote: »

There were (alleged, relax now) stories of Gadot being threatened by Whedon with her career for not wanting to do a scene, and also of Affleck being torn into in front of cast and crew for deviating slightly from Whedon's script, so at the very least it sounds like he fostered a very uncomfortable and difficult environment probably out of belief he was the new big dog for WB/DC.

Regardless, I'm happy to sit back and see what this investigation does or doesn't unfold.

First, I'm not going to get on a high horse about the need for words like "allegedly".

I certainly wasn't expecting Affleck to have been a "victim". I have it in my head that he is movie star and doesn't get spoken like that and certainly not by the likes of Whedon - I like his stuff and he is a big deal to nerds he is not a big deal I the movie business. His filmography is tiny.

I forget the actors are people and the film set is like any job.

Any idea what the scene was that Gadot didn't want t do and why? I hear that and initial thought it sex or nudity related but I don't recall anything like that in the movie.

I read this morning that Fisher did reach out to people higher at Warner Bros. during the production but it got back to Geoff Johns.

I wonder did he try again afterward or did he speak to the rest of the cast. Have they commented? How often has Fisher talked abut it all?

Also, who would the third party investigators be? And why might they be necessary? WB clearly has enough evidence or statements to justify taking it further but wouldn't that also be enough to haul Whedon and others in for a slap on the wrists?

The White Wolf · 21-08-2020 9:39am

I think Affleck was beaten down at that point between everything going on personally for him, and that Whedon had Geoff Johns backing him up.

The scene Gadot refused to do allegedly was where Flash falls on too of her face to boob, so they used a body double instead.

It was strange that Fisher wasn't backed up by the cast but who knows what the legalities are in divulging information on productions where NDAs would have been signed. I assume that why Fisher was being vague himself.

And yes also strange that WB hired a 3rd party to investigate, one could see both good and bad outcomes from that.

CramCycle · 21-08-2020 1:27pm

The White Wolf wrote: »

And yes also strange that WB hired a 3rd party to investigate, one could see both good and bad outcomes from that.

I would have thought that was good corporate governance, so that their can't be claims of covering up or bias. HR would deal with it to a point but if there is a hint that due to the seniority of those involved it would be prudent to remove any strong biases or protectionism.

Justice League **Spoilers from post 980 onward**

Comments

Justice League Spoilers from post 980 onward