Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

In listening to the Weekly Planet podcast, they were talking about recasting Affleck should he decide to leave, and they kept talking about using Flashpoint to reboot the character.  So Flash does his Flashpoint, Thomas Wayne becomes Batman in the Flashpoint universe...and then when he fixes it, Flash would track down Bruce...played by another actor.

But.....that doesn't make any sense.  I know it's a time travel story, but no one uses time travel that way.  Butterfly extent in time travel movies never extends to "people look different" (even though it almost certainly would).  And even if it did, Barry couldn't go back far enough where he could impact Bruce's genetics.  Barry would be going back in time to save his mother....whose death would've happened after Bruce was born.

Heck, due to the fact that the timeline has Bruce so much older than Barry, there's a good chance that Barry's mother could've died after Bruce's parents are dead - it shouldn't even affect that (unless they explain that the butterfly effect can, somehow, alter events in the past as well as the future - "a ripple goes in all directions, Barry.").

It doesn't make sense.  If that's going to happen, they should just recast with an actor playing Dick Grayson.  Flash comes back and finds Batman fighting crime.  Barry finds him:

BARRY - "Bruce!  Thank God...."

Batman turns around

DICK - "Bruce....?  Did someone hit you on the head, Barry?  Bruce has been dead for five years."

Dick removes his cowl.  And he's played by....I don't know, Jared Padalecki.

So now Dick Grayson is Batman.  You get that fun twist.  And if Affleck ever wants back in, you time travel and save Batman.  Or Bruce faked is death.  Or whatever.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

As we know with movies, they don’t always follow the source material.  It may be called Flashpoint, but that doesn’t mean the resolution to the story is re-writing history.  Barry could end up shattering reality as a whole which means anything could happen.

Also, the Flashpoint in the comics wasn’t cut and dried alt history.  When Barry got back, everyone was ten years younger even though he did arrive at the right date.  They’re just now exploring how those ten years got shaved off, who did it and why.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

True.  And it could easily be a soft reboot of the whole universe if that's what they want to do.  It'd just be weird if they didn't change anything but "now Bruce is Jon Hamm" big_smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I haven't seen Justice League yet, but I have a feeling that they're going to mess this up. No matter what they do, the reviewers will bash them and the audience will be torn. Because all audiences are torn.

There's nothing wrong with the universe they have. It allows them to do all sorts of movies. I hope they don't mess it up, but whatever. Man of Steel will still be the best Superman movie. smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, I don't really think they need to do a full reboot.  It sounds like, from what I've heard (still haven't seen it, either), they sorta rebooted Superman already.  Now it's just a matter of whether or not Affleck is into it.  I'd rather do a Flashpoint switcheroo with Batman than watch Affleck sleepwalk through the role.  If it's in, he's been great.  If his heart isn't into it, either recast with Flashpoint magic or pass the cowl to Dick.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

What do we think of the Terry McGinnis option? That way Affleck could play a role without having to train heavily or do complicated action stuff. He'd pretty much film on one set the whole time.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Okay I saw it.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Its early but I think it was well done.  It was fun, and I think they did a pretty good job juggling everything.  Scattershot opinions.

- The mustache thing only bothered me because I was always looking for it.  I don't know if I would've noticed it otherwise.  I still can't believe they did that, but they did an okay job with it.

- It was short, but I liked the slight adjustments to Superman.  He wasn't as jokey as I was led to believe, but he seemed like a Superman without the weight of the world on him.  I wish they'd done the black suit, but the way they did it, the regular suit was better.

- The Marvel model is simply better.  When the Avengers got together, they were four protagonists joining forces.  In this movie, it feels like three protagonists (BvS is a Batman movie) with the three new folks as guest stars.  It was Bart/Victor/AC on Smallville....big-time heroes in Clark's show.  Nothing about the quality of either set of movies, and I'm sure DC would've done the same thing if they'd had more time.

- On that same note, they did feel like they were a part of a team and not individual heroes.  I realize that they're using this movie as a leaping point for Victor/Arthur/Barry, but I can't picture this version of Barry fighting, say, the Reverse Flash.  Again, I understand that that was sort of the point of Barry's character, but why'd he even bother with a suit if he's doing anything more than just nudging and running away?  I almost think Bruce should've made the suit if Barry was going to be this green.

- I know DC already has a lot on slot, but I'd watch an Amazon/Atlantean War movie.  I know part of that is in Flashpoint, but I'm talking a whole movie.

- Atlantis was also more bizarre than I would've thought.  Is the whole Aquaman movie going to be done underwater, and does Mera have to make one of those "talking bubbles" every time they communicate?  Or was that chamber underwater and the rest of Atlantis is open-aired?

- It was cool that we got a pretty good feel for all the heroes.  The stuff with Mera, Barry's dad, and Victor's dad was cool.

- Wonder Woman continued to steal the show.

- I don't know if Affleck was sleep-walking through the role, like I'd heard.  I think he did a fine job.  But he looked weird in several parts of the movie - I don't even know how to describe it - he looked doughy maybe? 

- It felt like a soft reboot at times.  Bruce was almost a completely different character than he was in BvS.  Superman too.

- It's weird that we got a Legion of Doom tease but not a Darkseid tease.  It was cool to see the Green Lantern in the flashback, but a cameo during the Steppenwolf fight would've been better.

- I liked that they had some parademon fight scenes, but the final battle was just the team vs. the villain.  Although I thought the villain was weak.

- All in all, I thought it was done well.  The most fun of the new films and on par with Wonder Woman.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I didn't read the spoilers above, but I still want to see the movie. I think it might be too late. I have family in from out of town and my nephews want to see Star Wars, so I probably have a better chance of seeing that than JL.

Argh. smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

DC Extended Universe -- time of death: 9:48 EST. Time to call it a day when the DCEU's staunchest defender can't be bothered to see the latest movie.

**

So, are Slider_Quinn21 and I just out of touch to be liking this film?

710 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-12-29 08:54:38)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I've had some time to think about it, and I still don't really understand what people's problems with it were.  I don't even feel like ti felt like two different directors were working on it.  There was some comedy that could've been Whedon, but I went back and watched the first trailer for the movie (which would've definitely been Snyder footage), and it has the "Dressed like a bat.  I dig it." line - which is the same line of humor the film uses throughout.  I think this was going to be lighter either way.

I'm going to listen to the Weekly Planet's review in the next couple days - I already know that one of them hated it - to try and get some perspective on what they think went wrong.  But I feel like I'm not going to change my mind.

Few more notes:

1. Even though it doesn't feel choppy or two spliced-together movies, I do feel like a TON of stuff was cut out.  If you watch the first trailer, a lot of it isn't in the final film.

2. I know it's hard to judge this movie without comparing it to the previous ones - but on it's own merit, I think it's well done and fun.  I think if BvS had been this way, I think it would've been fine.  And BvS being so gloomy does help sell this universe's message.  I didn't love the road to get here, but now that we're here, I think it's set up pretty nicely.

3. Bruce's age and lack of powers is a major point in this movie - I wonder if they could sell Affleck on a mentor role?  They already alluded to a Hall of Justice.  What if Bruce became Oracle?  If all his scenes are on one set and most of them are behind a computer monitor or voiceover, would he be more likely to stick around?

4. Are we SURE that there's still Bat-Family around?  I get that Bruce might not call up Dick or Barbara when he's throwing a fit in BvS, but the world is in complete danger and he doesn't even mention them.  Not in passing, not to warn them...nothing.  Dick is literally a son to him in some cases, and he literally goes on a suicide mission in this movie.  At this point, I think it's counterproductive to have any of the Bat-Family in these movies.  There was a Robin, and he's dead.

5. I thought it was really weird that there were two no-name criminals at the start of the movie (one that Batman fights and one that Wonder Woman fights).  There are hundreds of actual DC villains that they could've used that will *never* be the main villain in any film.  I mean, make them Hush or Black Mask or someone.  Especially Batman villains - there should be a million of them, and they'd all be established by now.

6. Man, they are fast and loose with their superhero identities in this one.  I know we want them to all be friends, but they are *always* referring to themselves by their first names.  Bruce outs himself as Batman to Aquaman's village, Lois outs Clark in front of several Metropolis PD, and they call Barry by his first name when in the suit.  I don't know if Wonder Woman or Flash or Cyborg are even mentioned by name in this (or any other) film, but we know that Bruce and Clark want their identities to be a secret.  I'm not sure how they're going to resurrect Clark at the same time they resurrected Superman for people not to notice, but Clark is wearing the glasses and runs to change into the suit in the shadows at the end.  I guess they're trusting that none of those cops will spill the beans?  That the villagers are too remote to let anyone know that Bruce is Batman?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

No! I really, really want to see it and love it (though I have my concerns with it). It isn't a decision to not see it. It's just that I have the entire family in town, a book about to be published, an audiobook in production, work on a movie coming up, and I've spent the past month trying to get all of these plans in order.

Timing, not decision!


That said, I just rewatching Man of Steel and Wonder Woman with my nephews. Man of Steel is still great. Wonder Woman still falls apart directly after a really solid emotional climax, which is immediately rendered useless to the movie.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Informant wrote:

No! I really, really want to see it and love it (though I have my concerns with it). It isn't a decision to not see it. It's just that I have the entire family in town, a book about to be published, an audiobook in production, work on a movie coming up, and I've spent the past month trying to get all of these plans in order.

Timing, not decision!

Note on this: I saw it yesterday in the middle of the day on a weekday, and there were a couple dozen people in there.  I know that doesn't sound like a lot, but the movie has been out over a month.  I 100% expected it to be completely empty.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

That is pretty interesting. Especially when all of the reports are talking about the big box office drop.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, it was a $4 matinee so maybe people were taking advantage of that.  Still Christmas vacation - there were some kids.

It was still top 5 as of last week, but I think the drop-off is starting.  The main problem is that the budget was so bloated (mostly due to reshoots) that it's going to be hard to make enough money on this.  Word of mouth might help (it being more kid-friendly than BvS helps), but it's such a steep cliff to climb starting so far behind.

I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see another Justice League for a while.  I'd love to do a couple team-ups.  Maybe Flash and Superman.  Maybe Batman and Diana in some sort of mystery film.  Maybe a literal fish out of water story with Aquaman and Green Lantern?  But they should try and do smaller stories with less flaming wreckage.  In an inconsistent cinematic universe, that's the most consistent thing about it and it needs to change smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I listened to the Weekly Planet review.  Mason hated it but James said he had a lot of fun.  Even after all their breakdowns, I still agree with James.  It isn't a great movie, but it's a lot of fun.  Informant might not like this, but there's a Marvel quality to it.  You can tear apart something like Civil War, but at the end of the day, if you have fun...you don't want to. 

A lot of Mason's complaints were about the weird tonal shifts of the movies.  His complaints about Justice League were really complaints about the whole DCEU - which I think is fair in some ways and unfair to the movie itself.  I think some will disagree, but I think Justice League wants us to remember BvS happening differently that it did.  And once you accept that, the ride is a lot of fun and the universe makes more sense.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Apparently, the DC Extended Universe is so bereft of hope, so utterly beyond saving that Informant would allow "timing" to prevent him from seeing the JUSTICE LEAGUE film. It's time to face facts. The DCEU is done when a man who has filled page after page with ranting about BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN's successes and financial excellence can't find the time to see JUSTICE LEAGUE and while I applaud Informant putting a brave face on the situation, it's clear that the film franchise died the day Informant watched JUSTICE LEAGUE pass out of theatres with an indifferent wave having never seen a single frame of the movie within one of its cineplex screenings. I take no pleasure in observing this death knell, but we can't live pretending the world is something that it isn't.

**

Steppenwolf is a terrible villain. I don't see that being a problem, however, because as edited and structured, JUSTICE LEAGUE doesn't need him to be a great villain or to have meaningful motivations or philosophies. He just needs to be there so Superman can punch him. He is precisely what the movie needs, but absolutely no more and while it's a flaw, I don't feel it's a problem. It's like Snoke in THE LAST JEDI; the movie's not about the villain, you don't need to know all that much, it doesn't matter.

As for the retconning to claim Superman was more liked than he was -- I see some of it and I also don't. Superman failed to save the Senate and failed to save the village, so the idea that he was holding back the legions of Darkseid seems unlikely to me. However, BVS does enough to show that the average person feels Superman is "all some people have," as Lois said, so I can buy a mourning and a sense of loss and revering children with cell phone footage making Superman seem more meaningful without the darker elements BVS emphasized.

Ben Affleck is significantly heavier in JUSTICE LEAGUE than he was in BATMAN VS SUPERMAN, but it isn't fat. It's muscle. He's gotten even bigger since his debut.

There are a lot of oddities in the film that would have been there regardless of the directorial situation. It's not explained where the Flash got his suit; I assume he used his powers to mine and/or steal anything he needed to build it.

The secret identities were treated with total disregard in this film and I'm not sure what to say about it. I got the sense that Zach Snyder was deeply disinterested in the secret identity aspect of Superman given how Lois is in on the secret pretty quickly in MAN OF STEEL. Personally, seeing Bruce approaching Arthur in the village and Lois yell for Clark in Metropolis added a lot of tension for me: the situation is so desperate that secret identities are no longer worth the time.

I thought the chemistry between all six characters was fantastic, especially the way Henry Cavill haunted the whole film despite his absence. Bruce saying that Superman was the most human of them all because he lived like an ordinary guy was beautiful. Barry's awkward crush on Diana was very sweet, particularly his awestruck first meeting ("Hi, Barry, I'm Diana." "Hi, Barry, I'm Diana, no, that's wrong."). Barry falling face-first into Diana's breasts is a very Joss Whedon sort of moment.

**

My feeling as to why the movie is turning out to be such a bomb critically and financially: first, the release date should have been pushed back once Snyder left the film if only to finish some of the special effects rather than see them released as they were. Second, and this ties into the first point, the effects on Superman's face simply weren't finished. If WB had successfully kept a lid on Cavill's mustache, I don't think the audience would've been looking for it, but because it was in the press, the audience was looking for it and it couldn't withstand scrutiny. Third, from a PR standpoint, Whedon shouldn't have directed the reshoots as a director; he should've just been a producer -- because the whole world knows Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon have fundamentally adversarial styles and is looking for mismatches whether they're there or not. I would have hired Greg Beeman or Adam Kane (HEROES and directors who use lots of speedramping) to execute Whedon's marching orders.

But because WB did what they did, the result is that people are looking for all the seams and joins and staples rather than sitting back and appreciating the movie, and if you look for flaws, you'll find them because all movies have them.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

https://screenrant.com/justice-league-r … rner-bros/

Take it with a grain of salt, but this is potentially one reason why they didn't move the release date back.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

https://screenrant.com/justice-league-r … rner-bros/

Take it with a grain of salt, but this is potentially one reason why they didn't move the release date back.

It would fit with my impression of the Warner execs. I really think they are perplexed at why super-heroes sell.  They are fumbling in the dark with this; and they’ve either been getting bad advice or not giving enough faith to the good advice.  But that’s the problem - they can’t tell the difference between the two because they’re out of their depth.

Love him or hate him, Kevin Feige is an actual Marvel Comics fan.  He reads the comics.  A quote from this article sums it up:

https://www.ft.com/content/b2db3a84-5ec … 144feabdc0

Mr Feige’s distinctive commercial trait is to insist Marvel movies do not deviate from the source material: the comics. In a Bloomberg Businessweek interview this year he recalled, as a producer on the X-Men movies, hearing executives agonising about how to develop a particular scene or character. “I’d be sitting there reading the comics going, ‘Look at this. Just do this. This is incredible.’”

Snyder understands this too; he proved it with 300 and Watchmen. But with the DCEU, he’s been stitching together comic scenes like Frankenstein (whether it be the Batman Superman fight lifted from Dark Knight Returns or the finale of Man of Steel lifted from the death-free Action Comics Annual 11 by Geoff Johns).  It just doesn’t work if a movie is formulated on the premise of connecting cool scenes together; and I really think that’s what Snyder has been focused on and what Warner has listened to.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

TemporalFlux wrote:

or the finale of Man of Steel lifted from the death-free Action Comics Annual 11 by Geoff Johns.

I've never heard this comparison before and googling it didn't give me much.  What happened in the comic version?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

One thing about DC - they put out amazing trailers.  Since seeing Justice League, I've watched a couple of their trailers multiple times.  The Suicide Squad's trailer was so good that it, for some, ended up ruining the film (because the trailer folks were asked to edit the final film).  And I still watch the final Man of Steel to this day.

I can't say the same for any of the Marvel/X-Men/other superhero films.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
TemporalFlux wrote:

or the finale of Man of Steel lifted from the death-free Action Comics Annual 11 by Geoff Johns.

I've never heard this comparison before and googling it didn't give me much.  What happened in the comic version?

Scroll down a bit, but you can see the full synopsis here:

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Action_Comics_Annual_Vol_1_11

It was the conclusion to a story-line that saw Zod and Ursa’s son (then seven or eight years old) escape the Phantom Zone and become the foster son of Clark and Lois.  In addition to the similar plot resolution, the scene in Man of Steel where Superman strains to fly Lois away from the Phantom Zone vortex is a direct reproduction of a panel from Annual 11.

I think it’s a safe bet all of this was introduced because of Geoff Johns involvement in the movies.  It also doesn’t hurt that Johns and David Goyer (writer on Man of Steel)  worked together writing the JSA comic starting in 1999.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I've seen Justice League.


I have thoughts.


But you'll have to sit through seventeen other half-assed posts that build up to my underwhelming comments about my thoughts... nah, I'm just joking. My posts aren't Marvel movies. But I don't have time to type them all now, so I will be back later.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Informant wrote:

I've seen Justice League.


I have thoughts.


But you'll have to sit through seventeen other half-assed posts that build up to my underwhelming comments about my thoughts... nah, I'm just joking. My posts aren't Marvel movies. But I don't have time to type them all now, so I will be back later.

Sounds like you want to talk to me about the Avengers' initiative.

Or should we just form a league of our own?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Informant wrote:

I've seen Justice League.


I have thoughts.


But you'll have to sit through seventeen other half-assed posts that build up to my underwhelming comments about my thoughts... nah, I'm just joking. My posts aren't Marvel movies. But I don't have time to type them all now, so I will be back later.

I rescind my pronouncement that the DCEU is dead. Clearly, there's a flicker of life after all.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Okay, I'm going to write some thoughts on the movie. I am not reading anyone else's comments from earlier, because I want to give my own reaction. Unfortunately, I have seen headlines and critic comments, so some of my thoughts will be in response to them. I will read all of your comments later, and reply then.

First, my concerns going into the movie were that the studio had listened to the critics too much and tried to fix something that wasn't broken. I was worried that the characters would change and the feel of the universe would be ruined. I was worried that Joss Whedon would attempt to "fix" Snyder's work and would turn it into a mess. I was worried that the big CG villain would get in the way of developing characters and telling the story that had been set up in the earlier movies. I was worried that it would be too... Marvel.

So now I've seen the movie, and I am happy to report that it was a pretty big success. After the DCEU stumbled in terms of storytelling with Wonder Woman, they came back strong with Justice League. The story was big enough to require this team to come together, but gave the story some room to establish them as characters and their relationships with each other. The characters were all unique individuals, with fully formed personalities and perspectives. When they clashed, it didn't feel cheap or false. There was no conflict for the sake of conflict.

The powerful moments in the story all succeeded. When the team came together, I felt a geeky excitement. When Superman came back, I had an emotional reaction. It all worked. Even Bruce holding Superman in such high regard worked for me, because Superman not only proved himself when he died, but he also represents the moment when Bruce was completely duped by Lex. That is a deep wound.

Keeping Superman out of the story for so long allowed them to avoid scenes in which the team should have finished the fight but didn't, just because the movie needed to continue. Once Superman showed up, he was as powerful as he had to be.

And for the record, I had absolutely no problem with his face. I think the reason that people were distracted by it was because they were told to look for it. If they hadn't been told, nobody would have known or cared. I was more distracted by Cavill's accent just after he was resurrected.

The movie didn't feel disjointed or awkward to me. I think they managed to combine a lot of different characters and personalities pretty successfully. I didn't feel like this was Joss' movie, and despite some reports, I think it wasn't delayed because it didn't need to be. It was done.

Was it the deepest movie in the franchise? No. However, it managed to do better than most movies with that many major characters. It avoided pretty much all of the problems that I have with movies like The Avengers or Civil War. I enjoyed the movie a lot. I'm happy about that. It was a natural extension of what came before. It was smooth, without any moments that struck me as false. There were one or two moments that I might have edited differently, but nothing huge.

Like I said, I think a lot of opinions that I've seen were based on behind the scenes rumors, and anonymous sources. I don't think there's anything to be done about that, except just not read those reports.

I hope the studio doesn't mess this up. I hope Snyder comes back. I hope that the media just burns in flames. Lois was right. It's not about finding the truth in the world anymore. The press is about bullshit*t, no matter which section of the paper you're reading.

I probably had more to say than this, but I'm distracted, so I'm probably forgetting a lot of it. I will come back any reply to all of your thoughts when I get a chance


Oh, and I watched Spider-Man Homecoming last night. I should comment on that too, because the differences between these movies was pretty significant. Just take everything I said about JL and reverse it for Homecoming.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Informant wrote:

I was more distracted by Cavill's accent just after he was resurrected.

Yeah, I meant to comment on that.  What was up with that?

(Although I think that fight is the highlight for me.  Especially the Flash/Superman stuff).

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Maybe they were trying to bring in a hint of a Kryptonian accent?

It doesn't bother me a ton because of when that accent pops up, but I did kinda pause to ask what was up with that.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Was Barry supposed to be on the autism spectrum?  I couldn't tell if they were going for that or him just being awkward.

I think the characters were good, but since these characters were just being introduced, I think they fell behind because we didn't get a full picture of them.  We got some parent drama with all three new characters, but it wasn't half what we knew about Clark or Diana because we got full movies with them.  You felt more when Diana mentioned Steve Trevor than you did when Arthur was talking about his mother because we have no idea what happened there.  We knew Steve Trevor and cared when he died.

So while we know Diana, we only sorta know Barry/Arthur/Victor.  I feel like we got the clearest picture of Barry.  I don't know if we really know much about Arthur except that he has a good time, he likes saying "my man", and that he doesn't feel like he belongs in Atlantis.  I know we'll get more of him in Aquaman, but if we're talking about *this movie*, then I still say that the three new characters were "guest stars" as opposed to stars

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I can see that, but in terms of establishing a team full of people who don't know each other, it felt kinda natural for us to not know them either. All of the characters who knew each other were characters that we knew as well, so it felt like everyone was on the same page.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I mean, maybe.  But if you're going to go with the Avengers "model" vs. the Justice League one*, I'd rather have solo movies for everyone before they meet.  Every scene could've had more meaning if we understood where people were coming from.  The Mera/Arthur scene could've been better if we knew anything about them.  Heck, the Steppenwolf/Atlanteans fight might've meant as much as the Steppenwolf/Amazons fight if we had any idea who those guys were (or what their power level was).  The Barry/Henry scene would've had more value if we were catching up with them (instead of meeting them both).

I mean, even small stuff....when Barry trips running, it'd either be a huge shock ("BARRY NEVER TRIPS, HE MUST BE TERRIFIED") or something we're used to ("Damn!  Just like his fight against the Reverse Flash").  Arthur getting the Trident.  Victor taking command of the Tank.  These could've all been cooler moments if we had any context for what we're getting.

Granted, this could all still happen....just, in reverse.  So maybe Barry *doesn't* trip against Reverse Flash because he's already fought against frickin' Superman.  But if we're talking about elevating Justice League, I think I'd rather know these characters going in.

* Not talking about quality of Marvel or DC....just the way their leads were brought together.  If we're being fair, Barry/Arthur/Victor are the equivalent of Hawkeye/Black Widow/Coulson/Fury in Justice League - we know them, but they're side characters more than stars.  Maybe that's how it should be for the first-ever Justice League movie (the Trinity is the stars and the others are supporting), but that's how it felt to me.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah, I think Bruce and Diana were definitely the stars, with Superman coming in late and the others building up around them. The problem with the Avengers model was that it forced Marvel to set up The Avengers in those solo movies, which prevented them from telling good stories with the solo movies. Everything in Marvel revolves around the *next* movie, so nothing ever matters in the present.

Batman v Superman was a natural extension of Man of Steel, and Justice League was a natural extension of BvS. Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman exist on their own. I don't think that I have a problem with this approach. Then again, I already know a lot about these characters. The movies feel like they're meant for comic book fans who know what's going on, but I have family members who know less than I do, and they seem to enjoy the movies.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Barry is autistic. That complaint about his second favourite chair, greeting Diana with, "Hi, Barry, I'm Diana, no, that's wrong," etc..

**

Does it scare anyone as much as it scares me that we all agreed with Informant that JUSTICE LEAGUE is a highly enjoyable film?

That said, I hesitate to say it's a great work of cinematic achievement. It's fun. The weak parts of the movie like Steppenwolf are serviceable for getting a troubled vigilante, an awkward geek, a maverick monarch, a mutilated cyborg, a demi-goddess and an alien refugee in the same room to joke, banter, argue, grouse, grumble and bounce off each other hilariously.

It's a big budget episode of THE BIG BANG THEORY. It has been written entirely around starring Ezra Miller as Sheldon and matching up these personalities and these characters and it is designed as a sitcom rather than a superhero film. It has nothing meaningful to say about power, hope, despair, loss, atonement – it doesn't even have much to say about friendship except that all these people get along really well. It's just a good time.

However, I think spending 300 million dollars to make a movie length episode of THE BIG BANG THEORY is insane no matter how funny it was to watch.

That said, I spent 2015 - 2016 writing the same kind of sitcom and calling it SLIDERS REBORN.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Okay, time to reply to everyone else. Sorry for the delay. Directly after my family left town after the holidays, I was working on a movie and the hours got pretty insane, so I haven't had a chance to reply until now.

I'm going to do my best to have this post make sense, despite responding to everyone at once. smile

ireactions:

It was good-natured, cheerful, speedily-paced fun with a focus on putting favourite characters in the same room and the plot either a framework or an afterthought.

I understand this comment, but I have to disagree. The plot of this movie seemed like a direct and natural extension of what happened in Batman v Superman, which was itself a natural extension of what happened in Man of Steel. I thought that a lot of thought went into how this plot would play out, which villain would be used, how they would pace all of the story beats, etc. There were quite a few elements that could have easily gone super wrong with this, but they were avoided expertly. I think you could make the argument that any plot point in any story is just there to set up what happens next. The question is, is it natural and smooth, or is it a poorly crafted excuse?

When I look at The Avengers for example (not to compare comic book movies, but because it's low-hanging fruit), many of the plot elements seem to be there as some sort of fanboy wish fulfillment, rather than as logical extensions of the plot. As a result, a lot of the movie's big destructive moments could be avoided simply by eliminating the Avengers themselves. That's a problem.
The movie is filled with moments that serve the movie, but not the story... if that makes any amount of sense at all.

In Justice League, keeping Superman out of the picture for a while serves to build danger (this shows thought and consideration going back to BvS). Once Superman is there, the villain is quickly taken care of. The cliches of "evil Superman" or "amnesiac Superman" aren't drawn out for false drama, as they often are in other movies/shows/novels. They're addressed and resolved before they detract from the situation. Drama isn't created by any characters simply not saying a simple sentence that could resolve the story (another oft-used cliche). The banter is natural, and never feels like it's just servicing fanboys who have dreamed of this moment for decades. I never felt that the movie was false, which impressed me. I'm not saying that it was perfect, but it was never bullshitting me in the way that so many other stories do.

One part that I found to be an interesting twist on expectations was when Aquaman insists that if Clark is brought back, he will lose something. Anyone familiar with any resurrection story in scifi or fantasy expects this to be his soul or his conscience. They expect it to be dark and bad. However, when Superman returns, he (at least in the short time that we get to see him) seems to have lost some of the weight that he had carried before. The burden of death that surrounded him (purposefully) since Man of Steel didn't seem to be there. In his first two movies, we had a lot of skull imagery, which wasn't present here.

The complaints about the movie being disjointed are, I feel, the result of viewers being overly aware that Zack Snyder left the film before the reshoots and trying to identify which scenes are Whedon's and which are Snyder's and overly fixating on the computer alterations to Henry Cavill's face (which only looked awkward to me in two shots because I wasn't looking for problems).

We agree!!!! WE AGREE!!!!!!



Slider_Quinn21

- The mustache thing only bothered me because I was always looking for it.  I don't know if I would've noticed it otherwise.  I still can't believe they did that, but they did an okay job with it.

- It was short, but I liked the slight adjustments to Superman.  He wasn't as jokey as I was led to believe, but he seemed like a Superman without the weight of the world on him.  I wish they'd done the black suit, but the way they did it, the regular suit was better.

I probably should have waited for my Superman resurrection comment until I got to your thoughts. It seems random up above now, and it could have seemed more purposeful if I'd read what you said before I gave my thoughts in response to an unrelated comment by ireactions. Oh well. smile


- The Marvel model is simply better.  When the Avengers got together, they were four protagonists joining forces.  In this movie, it feels like three protagonists (BvS is a Batman movie) with the three new folks as guest stars.  It was Bart/Victor/AC on Smallville....big-time heroes in Clark's show.  Nothing about the quality of either set of movies, and I'm sure DC would've done the same thing if they'd had more time.

I'm going to disagree. This method made sense to me because we know the characters who are familiar with each other, and we don't really have a feel for the characters who aren't part of that group already. Therefore, the movie feels authentic. We are where Bruce and Diana are, and they're the eyes through which we enter the Justice League. If we were very familiar with everyone before they come together, we would have lost the element of disjointed/mismatched characters coming together. Sometimes familiarity hurts a story.

The Marvel method doesn't work for me because the individual movies suffered as a result of needing to set up The Avengers. Captain America couldn't end with Steve and Peggy walking off into the sunset, because Steve needed to be in the present for The Avengers. Therefore, his entire first movie is stripped of relevance and emotional impact. We're told that he and Peggy are in love, but we never get to see it. When all is said and done, he's trying to get into her niece's pants right after Peggy's funeral.

They should have allowed his movies to play out in the past, with the audience knowing that he will be frozen (because we see him in The Avengers), and his third movie could end with that moment of him being frozen. In terms of his character and his movie, that would have been a stronger move. In terms of the overall MCU, it is unacceptable. Therefore, Captain America is sacrificed for The Avengers. It's a pattern that is repeated over and over again in the MCU.

And this is where I have to ding Wonder Woman again. There was no need to kill Steve and it didn't make the movie better. Her movies don't need to play out in the present. She wasn't even frozen. But we all know that I have problems with Wonder Woman as a movie, partly because it was the one that tried the most to be like Marvel.

I also disagree that BvS is a Batman movie. The theatrical version may have been, but the extended cut was more of a Batman and Superman movie.

- On that same note, they did feel like they were a part of a team and not individual heroes.  I realize that they're using this movie as a leaping point for Victor/Arthur/Barry, but I can't picture this version of Barry fighting, say, the Reverse Flash.  Again, I understand that that was sort of the point of Barry's character, but why'd he even bother with a suit if he's doing anything more than just nudging and running away?  I almost think Bruce should've made the suit if Barry was going to be this green.

As we've seen in Suicide Squad, Barry has thwarted some crimes in costume. However, he designed his costume simply to be abl to run at high speeds without his clothes burning off. Bruce commented that it was made of the same material that's used to keep shuttles from burning up upon reentry from space. It's not a superhero suit, it's... a helmet.


- I know DC already has a lot on slot, but I'd watch an Amazon/Atlantean War movie.  I know part of that is in Flashpoint, but I'm talking a whole movie.

I'd watch that... Actually, Snyder could probably do really well with that story smile

- Atlantis was also more bizarre than I would've thought.  Is the whole Aquaman movie going to be done underwater, and does Mera have to make one of those "talking bubbles" every time they communicate?  Or was that chamber underwater and the rest of Atlantis is open-aired?

It's been confirmed that the air bubble will not be the main method of communication in Aquaman. Perhaps this was needed because Arthur isn't familiar with his roots and hasn't spent much time in Atlantis? Maybe he hasn't learned their language yet.


It felt like a soft reboot at times.  Bruce was almost a completely different character than he was in BvS.  Superman too.

Yes and no. Yes, they are very much changed, but not in a "reboot" sort of way. They're changed as a natural progression of what's happening to them.

Bruce is a soldier who has been through a lot of horrible things and has mental issues because of it. Losing his team made this worse by isolating him. When he finds a new team, he reconnects with who he was and his purpose in this world. So it makes sense for him to behave differently.

And as I mentioned before, Superman lost some of the weight that he carried before. But it's all natural. Even Diana has reconnected with the world through this team (starting in BvS)


- It's weird that we got a Legion of Doom tease but not a Darkseid tease.  It was cool to see the Green Lantern in the flashback, but a cameo during the Steppenwolf fight would've been better.

I thought the Steppenwolf decision was interesting. He was part of the Darkseid lore, but had been cut off from Darkseid. Therefore, his being here doesn't require Darkseid to show up at any point if they choose not to go there. I know that a lot of people didn't like the decision to go with someone like Steppenwolf, but I thought that it served the story really well and didn't feel like it was just filling screen time until the real movie happens later.

Green Lantern would have probably been too much for this movie. He's pretty powerful, so it would have lessened the impact of Superman coming back in the end. However, the movie does set up the need for the Corps to return to Earth.


I've had some time to think about it, and I still don't really understand what people's problems with it were.  I don't even feel like ti felt like two different directors were working on it.  There was some comedy that could've been Whedon, but I went back and watched the first trailer for the movie (which would've definitely been Snyder footage), and it has the "Dressed like a bat.  I dig it." line - which is the same line of humor the film uses throughout.  I think this was going to be lighter either way.

People want this to be more of a Whedon movie than it is, or was ever going to be. Some people even say that Whedon wasn't given time to execute his vision... but this isn't his movie. He was brought in specifically to execute Snyder's vision, with material that Snyder was calling for.


1. Even though it doesn't feel choppy or two spliced-together movies, I do feel like a TON of stuff was cut out.  If you watch the first trailer, a lot of it isn't in the final film.

Though we will never get it, I'd love to see a Snyder cut of the movie. Hopefully we'll at least get an extended version with more footage.


2. I know it's hard to judge this movie without comparing it to the previous ones - but on it's own merit, I think it's well done and fun.  I think if BvS had been this way, I think it would've been fine.  And BvS being so gloomy does help sell this universe's message.  I didn't love the road to get here, but now that we're here, I think it's set up pretty nicely.

Did you ever get around to seeing the Ultimate Edition of BvS? I forget.


3. Bruce's age and lack of powers is a major point in this movie - I wonder if they could sell Affleck on a mentor role?  They already alluded to a Hall of Justice.  What if Bruce became Oracle?  If all his scenes are on one set and most of them are behind a computer monitor or voiceover, would he be more likely to stick around?

4. Are we SURE that there's still Bat-Family around?  I get that Bruce might not call up Dick or Barbara when he's throwing a fit in BvS, but the world is in complete danger and he doesn't even mention them.  Not in passing, not to warn them...nothing.  Dick is literally a son to him in some cases, and he literally goes on a suicide mission in this movie.  At this point, I think it's counterproductive to have any of the Bat-Family in these movies.  There was a Robin, and he's dead.

They could use this story to set up a pretty cool Batman Begins scenario.

I think that if the Batman movie doesn't happen, they could tell the story of what happened to the team through a Nightwing movie or a Batgirl movie. That'd be cool. Maybe Bruce was focusing on superpowered people for this mission, because it'd be pointless to send in a normal human? Don't know. Maybe he did contact Dick and we just never saw it.

With the Titans series happening, and probably not connected to these movies, we will probably never see Dick on screen anyway.


Informant might not like this, but there's a Marvel quality to it.  You can tear apart something like Civil War, but at the end of the day, if you have fun...you don't want to.

A lot of Mason's complaints were about the weird tonal shifts of the movies.  His complaints about Justice League were really complaints about the whole DCEU - which I think is fair in some ways and unfair to the movie itself.  I think some will disagree, but I think Justice League wants us to remember BvS happening differently that it did.

I disagree about JL wanting us to remember BvS differently. I'm not sure that I understand what you mean.

People always think that I want things to be dark and gloomy, but that's not the case. I have nothing against movies being fun. The problem is that writers often get sloppy when they're trying to be funny. They feel like they don't need to take their work seriously, which creates a lot of problems within their stories. Marvel isn't fun to me because the writing is sloppy and weak.




ireactions

Superman failed to save the Senate and failed to save the village, so the idea that he was holding back the legions of Darkseid seems unlikely to me.

Let's not forget that Lex called Steppenwolf in BvS. My memory of JL is a little foggy... how was it explained that Superman was holding Darkseid back? It's a jumble in my head right now.


My feeling as to why the movie is turning out to be such a bomb critically and financially: first, the release date should have been pushed back once Snyder left the film if only to finish some of the special effects rather than see them released as they were.

The film didn't look bad or unfinished to me at all. Some of the stuff that looked rough in the trailers seemed much more polished in the finished product. I don't know what more time would have done. Not to compare movies again, but if you look at the Marvel movies, they have a ton of time to finish their stuff, and it usually looks much worse than BvS (at least to me).


Second, and this ties into the first point, the effects on Superman's face simply weren't finished. If WB had successfully kept a lid on Cavill's mustache, I don't think the audience would've been looking for it, but because it was in the press, the audience was looking for it and it couldn't withstand scrutiny.

There was nothing to be done about this. They couldn't wait for Cavill to shave, and the audience would have been distracted by the CG no matter what. It wasn't bad. I wasn't distracted by it at all, because I wasn't looking for it (despite knowing about it). The fact is that most of the criticisms of the movie are based on the media reports, whether those faults are actually in the movie or not. Unless Warner Bros. can buy every media outlet, like Disney does, they will continue to get horrible press. The movies themselves don't matter.

My brother said that he thought they removed Henry Cavill's furrowed brow, to make Superman look softer and more renewed after he came back. I don't recall noticing this though, so my brother could be wrong.


Third, from a PR standpoint, Whedon shouldn't have directed the reshoots as a director; he should've just been a producer -- because the whole world knows Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon have fundamentally adversarial styles and is looking for mismatches whether they're there or not. I would have hired Greg Beeman or Adam Kane (HEROES and directors who use lots of speedramping) to execute Whedon's marching orders.

The fact is, there were probably people already working with Snyder who could have directed the reshoots. Bringing in Whedon at all just wasn't necessary. However, Snyder was discussing the reshoots with Whedon before he exited the project, so Whedon probably knew what Snyder was going for. The studio probably also thought that it would look less like an abandoned ship if they put a known name out there after Snyder left. Granted, the director usually oversees the post-productions elements that Snyder wouldn't be able to do, so I'm sure Joss did work on that, but I don't think that his contribution to the film is nearly as large as people want to believe. Most of what we have in the finished product, even the things that Whedon directed, are Snyder's vision.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I get the feeling that whatever happened behind the scenes didn't go well, and Joss will probably quietly exit the franchise within a few months. He doesn't seem supportive of Justice League, and there has been little buzz about his own Batgirl movie since he finished work on JL. Why wouldn't the studio be putting Batgirl out there a little bit more, since people are already discussing Joss Whedon so much right now?


TemporalFlux

It would fit with my impression of the Warner execs. I really think they are perplexed at why super-heroes sell.  They are fumbling in the dark with this; and they’ve either been getting bad advice or not giving enough faith to the good advice.  But that’s the problem - they can’t tell the difference between the two because they’re out of their depth.

Love him or hate him, Kevin Feige is an actual Marvel Comics fan.  He reads the comics.

I agree that Warner Bros. doesn't get it. This is evident in the alterations that were made to Batman v Superman. The difference between the theatrical version and the extended cut is huge. That said, Warner Bros has managed to make the best comic book movies of all time. Putting aside the current DCEU (which I hold in high regard), they've put out Batman Begin, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Watchmen, 300, the Tim Burton Batman movies... not to mention numerous TV shows, both live action and cartoons, which are considered classics. The studio may not get why these products are popular, but that hasn't stopped them from doing them well.

And on a similar note, Feige might be a comic book fan, but he has not made many good movies (in my opinion). They are successful and have their fans. I give him that. But the difference here is quality versus success. I've seen it many times before in my line of work (sigh). The thing that sells more and which people love most isn't always better. It's just more commercial.


Snyder understands this too; he proved it with 300 and Watchmen. But with the DCEU, he’s been stitching together comic scenes like Frankenstein (whether it be the Batman Superman fight lifted from Dark Knight Returns or the finale of Man of Steel lifted from the death-free Action Comics Annual 11 by Geoff Johns).  It just doesn’t work if a movie is formulated on the premise of connecting cool scenes together; and I really think that’s what Snyder has been focused on and what Warner has listened to.

I could not possibly disagree more. I have seen a great deal of thought and care put into Snyder's work on these movies. People keep saying that he doesn't get the source material, or he doesn't know what he's doing, or whatever, but the fact is that the man has put a lot into these movies. The level of thought and care that was put into developing Clark's character is more than I've seen anyone put into it before. The flow of the stories. The way they follow through to each following movie while never feeling cheap or half-baked. The care put into building scenes and setting the tone... Yes, some of the imagery is taken from comic books, but you will see that in any comic book movie. I completely disagree that he has merely been stitching those visuals together though. He has sprinkled them in where they fit, but they have never gotten in the way of the story, or derailed the story.





And this concludes my replying for the day. I'm tired.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Okay instead of using quotes, I'm just going to put stuff in bold and hope you get the idea.

On the Avengers model vs. the Justice League model

I still think there's some disagreement here on what I mean.  I completely understand where you're coming from, but you're still talking about "how the Avengers did it" vs. "the Avengers model."  The Avengers model is simply "Do a movie for all the main characters, and then do a movie where they team up."  Man of Steel, in effect, followed the Avengers model.  So did Wonder Woman.  So did Iron Man.  I know you don't actually like Wonder Woman, but they all followed the model of "tell a story about these people."

I agree that Avengers gets bogged down in setting up sequels, but that's not really what I'm talking about.  The First Avenger doing too much to set up the Avengers isn't a problem with the model itself - it's a problem with the movie itself.  If they'd done a "Man of Steel" film for Aquaman/Flash/Cyborg, you'd agree that that's better, right?  Because that's what I'm talking about.  If we knew these characters before we came in, we'd be more invested in what's happening.  Wonder Woman drops Steve Trevor's name without an extended flashback sequence because we know who he is.  The Atlantis/Barry prison/Victor and his dad scenes would've had a lot more weight if we weren't learning who they all were on the fly.

I feel like, because I watch the Flash, I pulled some of my emotion from that for the Henry Allen stuff.  For the Victor stuff....well, I just had to look up Silas Stone's first name so that's one problem.  I also know they cut a lot of the Cyborg stuff out, but you don't think he was in desperate need of a movie?

I said a long time ago, but I think WB could've made a cool movie where they introduced all three new heroes.  Sorta like a grindhouse movie.  Three 30-45 minute adventures setting everyone up.  It'd be super-unconventional, but at least we'd know. Even if they did an in-universe animated movie like "Gotham Knight" (before The Dark Knight was released).  Give us something.

It's like the Atlantis scene - you make a couple different theories on why the air bubble is used.  Imagine if, in Avengers, there had to be an extended sequence in Asgard so that we could understand where Thor was coming from, where he lives part of the time, who Odin is, how he can send Thor to Earth, what Loki and Thor's relationship is.....it'd bog down the movie.  They can explain certain things because we've been to Asgard.  We've seen Thor and Loki, how they grew up, and how they fell apart.  We've met Odin and know about his magic.  You can just catch us up with a line of dialogue.

The Flash

I'd completely forgotten about the Suicide Squad cameo, but looking back, it feels out of place now.  Barry seems, at least to me, like early Clark on Smallville.  The convenience store robbery seems more his style (and he was able to do that without his clothes burning off).  I rewatched the cameo, and it feels like a post-Justice League Barry.  Someone who's proved himself and has more confidence.

I know there's a difference between fighting a regular guy with a boomerang and alien monsters, but Barry (in Justice League) really flips out at the idea of even being on-location for the fight with the parademons.  He doesn't seem like the kind of guy who's been a hero long enough that he does quippy one-liners when he's with Digger Harkness. 

Again, if we'd had a Flash movie before, we'd know more about his character big_smile

Steppenwolf

He's not as bad as everyone is saying, but he was completely one-dimensional villain.  Another gray CGI person with no personality.  The only thing he brought to the table was that he was good enough to fight the heroes on his own.

This is another problem with having to spend so much time introducing characters - your villains suffer.  I don't even know if the movie would've had time for a character with any sort of backstory.

I don't think the movie was necessarily hurt by a bad villain (I like tons of movies without charismatic or interesting villains) because he was simply a catalyst to get these guys to work together....so, in that sense, he "fit the story" - but I can't imagine you're actually saying that Steppenwolf is a good villain by any means.

Bat-Family

The problem with "it might've happened off screen" is a huge problem for this character.  This is Bruce's family.  We got to meet Aquaman's family and Barry's family and Victor's family.  A huge part of this movie is about how Diana closed herself off because she lost her family.  A huge part of her story is about how desperate she is to get that back.  Superman is brought back because he has connections to other people.

If Dick Grayson is alive, Bruce has to make that call on screen.  Commissioner Gordon is in this movie.  Bruce has to call the man's daughter, if she's alive, and tell her that the end could be coming.  Same with Tim Drake, Cassandra Cain...all of them.  Again, Bruce goes on a suicide mission in this movie.  He expects to die.  Calling his family, on screen, is *crucial* to rounding out his character.

There's a moment in Max Landis' retelling of the Death and Return of Superman (I know he's got his own problems now and is probably a garbage human but get passed it for this point) where Bruce is about to go on a suicide mission, and Dick realizes that his father is about to die.  Dick swoops in to save Bruce before he does something stupid, fighting Bruce to make sure that he doesn't get himself killed.  When Dick looks down and says...."Dad....", it makes me tear up every time.  Imagine if Bruce had called Dick as he was driving toward certain death.  It would've added emotional weight.

No one called Bruce when he was fighting the darkness in BvS.  Bruce doesn't call anyone when he's confident he's about to die.  If there's a surviving Bat-Family, they're too torn apart to ever come back together and don't need to be mentioned again.  It's going to do irreparable damage to the characters.

On BvS Revisionist History

Its hard to really explain because I think the movie wants to treat BvS like it happened....the way you saw it.  The only problem is that it didn't happen that way for me.  Bruce keeps talking like Superman was a beacon for hope, but he was literally on trial for murdering civilians.  He was hated by many for what happened in Metropolis.  Bruce literally tried to murder him in the previous movie.

Superman's heroism and sacrifice might've been what eventually saved Batman, but it wasn't Superman's "beacon" that brought him out of the darkness - it was a coincidence.

I think BvS did revisionist history too.  We've talked for pages about how I can't imagine that Superman did enough to be universally loved in Metropolis after what happened at the end of Man of Steel.  it seems crazy to me that he'd have a statue that wasn't constantly being protested at.

Justice League wanted us to think that Superman was a loving, charismatic hero who was universally beloved when, on screen, he should, at the very least, be a very controversial figure who *tons* of people would be happy was dead.

Zack Snyder, at least to me, is showing me one thing and telling me another.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Okay, replying section by section. smile




On the Avengers model vs. the Justice League model

I get what you're saying, but I think that there's something to be gained from not being too familiar with everyone when the team comes together. You immediately lose any sense of discovery and unfamiliarity, even if it's supposed to exist between the characters.

Honestly, The Avengers might have been a better movie if the Thor movie never happened, and he just swooped in out of nowhere, with nobody having any clue who he was. As it stands, we don't have a real Hulk movie setting up the character in that universe. We have a sorta-kinda Hulk movie with The Incredible Hulk, but that is only loosely in canon at this point. We never had movies for Hawkeye or Black Widow, or Nick Fury. I would argue that Justice League did a better job as actually building characters than Marvel did with those characters, who are more like character concepts that can be filled out as needed.

I am a fan of using negative space in movies. There is something to be gained from what we don't see on screen, but I get that everyone isn't into that. What we do get from this movie is that Arthur is a man who feels abandoned by his mother and his Atlantian heritage, so he's never felt a great connection or responsibility toward them. At the same time, he feels alienated from the place where he actually did grow up, because he is out of place in the world. He essentially takes himself off the map, but still feels compelled to help people, like the village (and possibly the oil rig/Clark in Man of Steel). There is a lot of story to be explored, but he was cut off from the world where that story would need to take place. Putting the Aquaman movie before Justice League would kinda cut the legs out from under that character in this story.

Similarly, we have Victor Stone who was removed from the world after a horrible accident where he lost his mother. His father couldn't let him go, so he ended up turning Victor into something that didn't feel like him anymore. Again, if we had a Cyborg movie before this, you would need to remove the element of Victor rediscovering himself and his purpose in JL, because he would need to become a hero in his own movie.

Barry... I see what you mean when you say that his story feels disjointed with the Suicide Squad part, but it makes sense to me. He isn't unwilling to stop crime. In fact, he has a longing for justice. He isn't unwilling to use his powers. He doesn't feel scared off by them. He built the suit specifically so that he could run long distances and push his limits. He isn't so socially awkward that he can't make funny comments around them, which we see him do with Bruce as soon as they meet. There's nothing wrong with the Suicide Squad scene. The problem is that Barry isolates himself from the world and doesn't interact with anyone except his father, who is in prison and can only speak to Barry through a piece of bulletproof glass.

So, say we have a movie for each of these people. Immediately, Aquaman has to reconnect with his Atlantian side, because that's his story. Victor has to find the hero within and become a part of the world. Barry has to discover himself and the larger world, probably with Iris in the picture.

That removed all of their arcs from Justice League. So now we lose the theme of heroes finding themselves through each other, and we have to come up with a whole new foundation for Justice League.

The Flash

Kinda already did this one, so moving on... smile


Steppenwolf

Steppenwolf's story runs counter to the Justice League's. He is isolated, and trying to be rejoined with the world that has been cut off from him. He wants to prove himself worthy of Darkseid. So his isn't just a generic "I want to destroy the world" story, as we often see. It's a story that parallels the story of our heroes. Specifically Batman, in a way. He had this family and this army, and he did great things with them, but he lost a battle and his life was destroyed because of it. Now he's seeking redemption.

The probably could have spent more time with Steppenwolf, developing those themes, but I'm not sure how to structure that element without it being too much. If you show a villain on screen too much, you usually end up with mustache twirling, or removing the sense of great danger. For example, the big powerful beings on Supernatural aren't really scary anymore, and spend a great deal of time in one location, talking about how evil they are.

Bat-Family

There's a lot that we could say might have happened here, but I guess we can't really explore it until we know more. As it stands in these movies, Batman had a partner and he died, and Batman hasn't worked with anyone else since then. However, the Batman movie might change our perspective on that, and if they do, we can discuss how well it all works together.

Then again, the Batgirl movie might be about Barbara joining Bruce as his first and only partner since Robin died. If this happens, it will be a continuation of his arc through his last two movies.


On BvS Revisionist History

I don't see it he way you do. I see a lot of people in BvS who saw Superman as their only hope in a dark world, while Clark (and Bruce) tended to focus on all of the people that he couldn't save, and the people who didn't like him. This is how people tend to be. I can probably quote more negative comments about my work than I can quote the positives. And in fact, even your comments about BvS tend to emphasize the more negative reactions to him than the positives. I love this element in the films, because it's realistic. I do agree that maybe the statue should have waited until after he died, but it worked with the themes of BvS, so it's hard to complain too much.

I think the world uniting in the loss of Superman is kinda BS, but in a realistic way. Think of 9/11 and how everyone came together with "Never Forget", and for a while, it seemed like the world was uniting in some really powerful way. But a lot of it was bull, and a lot of it was for show. Just like the actors who wore black to the Golden Globes were putting on an act. Some people want to be a part of something like that for selfish reasons, and they tend to be the loudest with it. They're probably mourning Superman for the same reasons they were bashing him before. Because it's a great community activity.

(Note: I'm not saying that all post-9/11 mourning was fake. But I think it's pretty clear that some of it was just for show)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Informant wrote:

Then again, the Batgirl movie might be about Barbara joining Bruce as his first and only partner since Robin died. If this happens, it will be a continuation of his arc through his last two movies.

See, I can get into this.  Let's say that Dick was the only Robin and he died....that clears Bruce from any wrongdoing (and the filmmakers from touching on a *very* important part of Bruce's life).  If Batgirl is about a grown-up Barbara Gordon returning to Gotham for the first time since her childhood and working with her father....and meeting Batman, I think that could be cool.  It's sorta Barbara's arc in the Lego Batman movie, when I think about it.

The way I see it, if Dick is alive out there and Bruce didn't call him, Bruce is a terrible person.  If Bruce was trying to kill Superman, and Dick didn't call him, Dick is a terrible person.  And if Alfred didn't call Dick or tell Bruce to call them, then he's a terrible person.  So for the sake of the characters, I'd just prefer for there to be no Dick (Jason Todd was the only Robin) or for him to be dead.  It's the only way to clear everyone of, in my eyes, terrible wrongdoing.

If you're right and the call might've happened offscreen, then the writers are awful for cutting out a part that could've easily been Bruce's entire emotional crux of the movie.

*******

Everything else is sorta in that whole "personal preference" thing.  I get what you're saying about cutting off Flash/Aquaman/Cyborg's stories.  And I can see some merit in using Justice League as a launching pad so that they can hit the ground running in their own movies.  Barry now has the confidence to be the hero he wants to be - his life is starting anew.  Aquaman knows the value of trusting others and working as a team - that will drive him to face his Atlantean roots.

Victor......well, Victor was the worst part of the movie....which wasn't really his fault because it seems like the emotional core of his story might've been lost in edits.  And he's the one who's least likely to get a solo film at this point so there's that.

But I think if you carve out the stories in Justice League and create solo films from them....your story in Justice League can grow exponentially.

FLASH - I actually like a Barry that's a timid version of Clark from Smallville.  He has these powers, but his primary advantage is just being able to move so fast that people can't see him.  So he shows up, saves the day, and no one even knows he's there.  It can play into the fact that he's so fast that he doesn't really feel like he's on the Earth with anyone else.  Maybe it physically affects him (he stays sorta one half/step from the rest of the world so that he can speed up immediately if anyone is in danger).  The only time he slows down is to talk to his dad.

Over the course of the movie, he learns to control the speed, gets the courage to talk to Iris, and through his dad, decides to become a forensic scientist.

In Justice League, now he's his own man.  He's built the suit, he's taken down some criminals and he's made a name for himself.  But now he's standing beside these literal gods, and it knocks him back down.  How can he stand with these guys?  He wants to, but how can he?  He has this doubt because he still doesn't know how to fight.  And maybe, when Superman comes back, there's a scene where Barry thinks, "I'm the Fastest Man Alive.  It's what defines me.  If this guy is as fast as me but can also fly and punch steel and shoot lasers from his eyes, then what am I anymore?)

Instead of his solo movie being an extension of his journey, Justice League becomes an extension of his own movie.

AQUAMAN - You can do a lot of the same stuff.  Arthur starts in the same village, but now an Atlantean scout comes to find him to bring him home.  Maybe tie it to the World Engine in Man of Steel - it's destroying Atlantis.  So he has to face these two sides to himself and his mother and feeling abandoned and all that. And the movie ends with him in command of Atlantis and feeling good about his connection to the Earth.

Now in Justice League, he's not this lone wolf who decides to help.  He's a man torn between two worlds.  He has to fight Steppenwolf to defend Atlantis, but he also has this moment where he realizes that he's about to abandon the people he just spent a movie fighting to earn the trust of.  Can he do that?  Does he even want to?  And you can tie him in with Superman, who's in a similar situation.  He identifies with everyone else, but he has this destiny that seems so alien to him.

*****

The Superman stuff we are never going to agree on smile

*****

I started thinking about Steppenwolf and the villains, and I wonder if, in hindsight, they got the villains backwards.  What if the villain of Man of Steel was Steppenwolf?  You have to change some of the Krypton stuff around, but maybe Jor-El faught against Steppenwolf back on Krypton.  Maybe a war with Darkseid is what destroyed Krypton.  I don't know how you make it tie emotionally but let's say that's how they did it.

Steppenwolf shows up, tries to destroy the world, and Clark stops him.

BvS plays similarly.  Lex re-animates Steppenwolf instead of Zod.  And in the final fight, Clark still uses the Kryptonite spear, either because it's the strongest weapon available to him or because zombie-Steppenwolf was raised with Kryptonian tech. 

So in Justice League....Zod breaks out of the Phantom Zone (maybe there's still a scene in Man of Steel where Zod, having tried something illegal to try and win the war against Darkseid, gets sentenced there) and shows up on Earth to get revenge on Jor-El's son.  Only Jor El's son is already dead.  So he just decides to try and enslave the Earth.

Now now Batman's looking at a situation where there are three evil Supermen and no good one.  Diana maybe could fight one of them, but they're still outnumbered.  Bruce starts the team, but they realize they need Superman back.  They resurrect him, and how Clark can fight Zod.  You get this big payoff from the start of the movies that's been years in the making, and you get bad guys that are truly worth the risk of bringing Clark back.

Plus, with Zod's subcommanders, you get some fun fan stuff.  You get Flash vs. the speed of a Kryptonian.  You get Batman v Superman rematch with Bruce fighting a Kryptonian with no one holding back.  You get Wonder Woman vs. a Kryptonian.  You get Aquaman vs. a Kryptonian.  All these chances for the League to show how powerful they are up against these military-trained Supermen.

Could've been a whole lot of fun.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I don't know. I think that if things were done that way, you'd end up weakening a lot of the movies and characters. If everyone can fight a Superman, Superman isn't the strongest man alive.

Then, with the individual movies... we know that you can have individual characters who then come together in a JL movie, because that's how the comic books worked. However, I think that you end up sacrificing the central theme of Justice League in favor of creating a movie where a bunch of people just come together because the movie needs them to come together. As it stands now, their coming together is what drives them to be better apart. And if you try to keep that emotional center in a JL movie after having each of them in a solo movie, you'd have to water down the solo movie and create an incomplete character arc for them.

So then we're left telling the hero stories in their solo movies and we need to come up with a JL movie that has purpose and some sort of theme. What's the theme? With Justice League, they couldn't have defeated Steppenwolf without Superman, and they couldn't have brought Superman back without everyone coming together. I just like that.

But yeah, it comes down to personal taste. I think people are used to the solo movies leading into the big group movie, but I think that it depends on the story that you're trying to tell and the theme that you're working with. For me, JL worked, and if you try messing with the recipe that created it, you're going to weaken the end product. In order to make it work, you'd have to create a whole new recipe for a whole new story, and at that point, there are a billion different ways to go.


As for the Bat-family... like I said, at this point, we can only work with what we have on screen. Anything else is wild theories. So far, it works.


And the Superman stuff, I guess we won't agree on. I just see BvS very differently than you, especially with the Ultimate Edition.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Informant wrote:

However, I think that you end up sacrificing the central theme of Justice League in favor of creating a movie where a bunch of people just come together because the movie needs them to come together. As it stands now, their coming together is what drives them to be better apart. And if you try to keep that emotional center in a JL movie after having each of them in a solo movie, you'd have to water down the solo movie and create an incomplete character arc for them.

Yeah, I just don't agree with this.  You're saying that nothing happened in any of Flash's/Cyborg's/Aquaman's lives that was worthy of a solo movie?  I just don't see that.

I think you're thinking it's going to be a paint-by-numbers origin movie, but it could be literally anything.  It could be the story of how Arthur found that fishing village and started being their protector.  It could've been a story of Barry growing up with his dad in jail, coming to terms with autism, etc, and then getting these insane powers.

Even if we got stories from all three that *don't involve superheroics*, then we'd know who these folks are.  And if we know who these folks are:

1. More time can be used telling the story because we don't have to be told who they are.
2. All the character moments have more impact.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Do you think that if we got a Flash movie that was a character piece without any superhero action and a big kiss at the end, the critics would be more forgiving than when they release a pretty good superhero movie? They would just say that Marvel would never do that, and everyone would have a good laugh.

Actually, Man of Steel was that type of movie until Zod showed up,and everyone hated it because Clark was too "emo" or whatever.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Is anyone as terrified as I am that Informant, Slider_Quinn21 and I all liked the same superhero movie?

**

The burglar at the beginning of the movie asks Batman if the parademons are descending on Earth because Superman is gone. The film never contradicts this assertion, but now that I think about it, the character could have merely been expressing an opinion as opposed to giving exposition that shouldn't be questioned.

Superman was never on trial for the murders of civilians. While the destruction porn aspect of MAN OF STEEL was very troubling especially with the end scenes paying it no mind, the film doesn't support holding Superman responsible for the damage. He was working with the military against General Zod's forces.

He helped them form the plan to stop the worldbuilder machines and he performed half of the strategy. Lois worked with the soldiers to bring Superman in and documented their collaboration. She would have reported on it in the Daily Planet: Superman was working with the army to fight the invaders. The public might blame Superman for being targeted by the invaders, but they know he was on their side and that the Kryptonians were coming for Earth regardless as they wanted a new planet to colonize.

Slider_Quinn21 doesn't seem to remember MAN OF STEEL correctly: he seems to think Superman was swooping in and out with the soldiers never clear on which side he was on. That wasn't the case. Slider_Quinn21's foggy memory of BVS is more understandable because he hasn't seen the Ultimate Edition which makes it very clear: Superman is being called to the Senate to explain his role in the village massacre.

It's confusing in BVS because the editing obscured who killed the villagers while the news reports accuse Superman of murdering civilians; the Ultimate Edition clarifies that Lex's mercenaries killed those people and burned the bodies to make it look like heat vision. Without those key scenes, there's the sense that Superman's being called in for general questioning rather than to speak on a specific event.

There is also a key scene and sequence in the Ultimate Edition which Slider_Quinn21 never saw. It's what establishes Superman as inspirational. It's a scene where Clark is investigating the jailhouse murder of a rapist/human trafficker and discovers that Batman branded the man with a bat symbol, giving him a death sentence carried out by inmates looking for targets on whom to vent their frustration.

Clark is deeply saddened by this man's death and sorry for his widow and child; despite the deceased being an abomination, Clark has compassion for him. This, combined with Superman hovering above a flooded town and coming to the rescue at a factory fire, would have sold Superman's inspiration and how he cares about everyone even when they're objectively awful.

But the theatrical cut removed this gentle humanity to Clark. And this removal has a really weird effect on the subsequent film: the scene of Superman hovering over a flooded town makes it seem like he's indifferently observing whereas the previous scene adds a new context where it feels more like Superman's figuring out how to save as many people as quickly as he can.

There's also another really poorly considered removal: when the Senate explodes, the theatrical cut shows Superman standing in the explosion blankly, then cuts to news footage of him flying away, making it seem like he didn't care about the human beings around him who have been reduced to ash. In the Ultimate Edition, we see Superman flying the dead and injured out from the wreckage to paramedics and in agony over the bodies.

In the theatrical cut, when Superman tells Lois he's giving up on his superhero identity, it comes off as self-absorbed moping; in the Ultimate Edition, it comes off as Superman feeling the helplessness of survivor's guilt.

These were all very small little edits, but the removals made it so that Slider_Quinn21, who hasn't seen the Ultimate Edition, is confused by JUSTICE LEAGUE saying that people in the DCEU actually liked having Superman around.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I actually have quite a bit of time this weekend.  Is there a way to stream the Ultimate Edition?  I don't have a blu-ray player, nor (currently) any way to watch a DVD. 

I knew that Superman wasn't on trial for the Metropolis incident, but the way I remember, he was being accused of killing the people in the village.

The problem with the Ultimate Edition is.....is it canon?  Is Justice League a sequel to one or the other?  Or....both?  Are deleted scenes generally regarded as canon?  This is more of a philosophical question than anything.  I suppose the world's love for Superman is canon, since it's said in the movies. 

I also don't doubt, watching either edition, that Superman is heroic and cares about people.  What I don't understand, mostly because it's painted as being controversial in BvS, how everyone in the world has decided, by Justice League, that he was really great.  He was being protested pretty heavily outside the Capitol Building, and this was *after* he'd saved the world from invading aliens.  Was dying during another attack enough to turn the tide completely?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The Ultimate Edition is available on Vudu, I believe. Just be careful which version you choose. It might also be available on Amazon, Google Play, and Fandango Now. If you do decide to buy the blu-ray version, you will likely get a digital copy that you can stream. I know there's a box set that has all of the (released) movies on blu-ray with digital copies. All of them were cheap during the holidays, but I don't know about now.


I think the Ultimate Edition is canon, because it's the movie that Snyder intended to be released. I also think it's canon because it doesn't contradict the theatrical version. The theatrical version tells the Superman story through the eyes of other characters (Batman, Lois, the general public), which I still say made for an interesting approach to the story. I still got the point of what Clark was going through, but I see how others found it harder to connect with him. The Ultimate Edition simply widens the lens through which we see the movie, giving us Clark's point of view. At the end of the day, I feel like the Ultimate Edition is the movie that we're supposed to watch when we go back to rewatch the movie. Justice League supports that opinion (largely because there is a pretty big setup for the Justice League which was cut out of the theatrical version).

I'm curious to see what you think of the Ultimate Edition, and if it changes any of your thoughts on JL.


And yes, ireactions, it is pretty scary that we all agree on something (even if we disagree on certain details), but I'll take it. I'm tired of people thinking that I'm just trying to be a contrarian all the time, or that I can't enjoy anything that isn't grim. smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Informant wrote:

At the end of the day, I feel like the Ultimate Edition is the movie that we're supposed to watch when we go back to rewatch the movie.

Yeah, but that's the thing....it's a special edition.  This isn't the Star Wars special editions - it doesn't override all versions.  If you watch BvS on HBO or HBO Go (where the movie is currently streaming), it's the theatrical version.  I recently moved and got rid of almost my entire video collection - I have subscriptions to the streaming services so I can see just about anything.  Combine that with the fact that I don't have a DVD player, and it doesn't make any sense for me to run out and buy the blu-ray.

If I can stream the ultimate edition on amazon prime, I can do that.  But in today's unplugged environment, asking someone to buy a specific version of the blu-ray so that you can enjoy a movie you've already paid to see in theaters is a little much.

(You guys know how I feel about having to buy tie-in material to understand the primary movie).

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I agree. I think Warner Bros totally bungled that movie's release because Batman was testing well and they thought the movie was too long. I'm usually someone who thinks that if it's edited out, it's not Canon, but this is a strange situation where the movie that was released in theaters just wasn't the whole movie.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Batman v Superman: The Ultimate Edition

You guys are right.  It's way more rounded.  I'd say it's better....there are still problems, but it's better.

Some of the cuts they make are, frankly, insane.  The parts after the Capitol attack are criminal to Superman's character.  The part where he flies off immediately after standing, blank-faced, in a room full of scorched bodies showed that Superman didn't care.  Cutting the scene where he's trying to help but doesn't really have any ability to help shows how powerless he feels.  There are a few other moments of humanity that were lost, and I honestly don't understand what the edits were going for.  The movie is bloated in other ways, and they could've found a better way to cut it.

Where I would've started was the Africa sequence.  The Ultimate Edition fills a lot of plot holes.  It makes it clearer that Lex has been setting things up for the whole time - he knows who Batman is and knows who Superman is.  He knows how to manipulate them, and he's covered all of his bases.  While the theatrical version rushed through a lot, the ultimate edition really lets it sink in.  The Africa sequence feeds into the Capitol sequence and turns the public mood against Superman enough.

The problem is....it's not really enough.  I maintain that the Capitol hearing should've been about Metropolis.  It could've been Zach Snyder's forum to defend Man of Steel through Clark, and it could've shown his humanity.  "I didn't do anything wrong.  I did my best to save as many people as I could." Clark would think.  But he'd go because he won't rest until humanity trusts him.

To me, there's still not enough of a reason for Batman to want to kill him.  To get the weapons, yes.  That's very Batman.  But the problem with the Ultimate Edition making Clark more human is that it, by association, makes Bruce crazier.  Yes, a lot of people died.  But Bruce, Lex Luthor, and Wally are the only ones in the world, it seems, who can't get passed it to see the good that Superman did.  That he continued to do.  Bruce didn't lose anyone.  He lost....Jack?  Some guy?  Not even Lucius Fox?

I'd have lost the Africa sequence and replaced it with something that relates to Bruce specifically.  Metropolis made Bruce suspicious and then you see the public's understanding.  You see the news clips and the commentators debating whether Superman is good or bad.  And then break Batman's mind with something that hits home.  Not just some guy.  Wally didn't mean much to Bruce because he didn't even know about the checks.  Either make Wally a character that Bruce really has cared about the last 18 months or do something drastic.

What if there's an incident where Alfred dies?  I think that's how you do it.  I love this version of Alfred, but replace the Africa sequence with something that causes Alfred to die.  Now Bruce, already suspicious after Metropolis, is alone in his grief.  His father died anew. 

Because, even in 3 hours, we don't get enough of Bruce to understand why he's so angry.  It's not a fit of rage...at times, he's calm and decisive.  He's lucid and he's still caring.  He's not a bad guy....but the movie has him act like the bad guys.  The only problem with Bruce's plan is that Lex's plan is better.  Otherwise, it's the exact same plan.

I know killing Alfred would be a big step, but they kill Jimmy Olson with a lot less regard.  And if not, put him in a coma or something.  Batman would still be alone, and that could put it over the top.

*****

Some other random thoughts:

1. Man I hate Jesse Eisenberg as Lex.  It's a terrible, terrible performance.  Lex is crazy the entire time, and he's still respected for some reason?  I don't understand it at all.  His company would've been taken away from him years before.

2. The dream sequence is cool, but it's a problem for so many reasons.  First, does Barry come back?  It happens in a dream within a dream, but I think we're supposed to accept it as some sort of vision?  And why does Barry say "You were right about him, you were always right about him?"  I thought maybe this would be referenced in Justice League, and some say it was ("Lois is the key!").  But Barry's basically telling Bruce that he's right to want to kill Superman.  I don't understand it.

It becomes an even bigger problem with Justice League.  Bruce does a 180 with his logic in Justice League, saying they 100% have to bring Superman back.  But even after talking about how Superman might not come back as the same person, Bruce doesn't consider that they could be *causing* his nightmare by bringing Superman back.....with an army of parademons...that are already on Earth.

3. Clark was dead.  He wasn't in a "healing coma" or anything.  Why did the dirt float at the end?

4. I still don't buy that so much hope rested on Superman.  Justice League wants us to believe that everything fell apart because Superman died, but he was only active for 18 months.  This wasn't a world that was held together by Superman - there wasn't enough time for us to adjust to it.  There's no indication that he stopped any wars or that he prevented anything catastrophic.  Yeah it was cool to have a Superman, I'm sure Metropolis would be extra sad, and a lot of his more-culty people might've gone off the deep end....but was he really that instrumental?

5. Bruce mentions that they buried an empty box.  Even if the public was told that his body was buried....what's the in-government explanation?  Did they know his secret identity following his death and let him bury the body in Kansas?

I know I've been negative, but I did have a good time.  I think it's a lot better, and like I said, they filled in a lot of plot holes.  I don't remember the "bat brand" getting explained, and they explained that.  They covered a ton of plot holes.

Informant is right...it's the complete movie.  The only problem is....how did they create a movie that had to be 3 hours to make sense?  And when they realized that....did they need to break it into two movies?  Is releasing two movies better than releasing a 3-hour movie? 

(If you want ideas on how to make the movie an hour longer so that it can be two 2-hour movies, I'd add some more Bruce backstory and add some sort of extended Superman rescue sequence - a la the plane rescue in Superman Returns.  This movie desperately needed a Superman heroic moment, and the movie is surprisingly short on them)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I think the theory behind the way they cut the film was to have us view Superman from the outside, so we could understand how Bruce would see him as a threat. In reality, Batman was probably testing well in early screenings and they wanted to make it more of a Batman movie than a Superman movie in order to win over audiences... Somehow, editing out half of the movie's plot never struck anyone as a bad idea. Snyder got torn to shreds over something that wasn't his fault.

I see where you're coming from with the Africa storyline, but I disagree. If the movie was about Snyder defending Man of Steel, it wouldn't have served the story well, and it would have looked like a petty response to criticism (even if I kinda think that criticism was petty to begin with).

As it stands BvS speaks to how our culture is fed information, how people absorb that information, and the consequences of how that is all done. It's frustrating, but not unrealistic. Can a hero like Superman exist in a world like ours? No. Someone that good would make a lot of people feel inferior. Someone that  strong would make a lot of people  feel weak. Those feelings would be  projected as hatred toward him,  and a desire to see him fail by a lot of people. And yet JL still works because just about the only way for him to be celebrated to that extent is in death.

Going forward, I think those elements will still have to be present, but Clark's focus will shift. Whereas he focused on all of the lives that he couldn't save before, maybe he can find a way to focus on the good that he can do.

I think Lex took advantage of the fact that Bruce was already at the end of his rope, suffering from what appears to be some sort of PTSD, combined with his desire to bring justice. Bruce was broken when Robin died, and he wanted to destroy the bad guys at that point. Lex just redirected Bruce's focus.

They could have made things more personal for Bruce, but that wouldn't have furthered other aspects of Lex's plans, like gaining access to the Kryptonian ship.


I do find Lex annoying, but I can live with it. He does kinda remind me of some of the childish billionaires of today. Part of me still wonders if his father was the classic Lex Luthor though.

I think that Barry does come back for real, but keep in mind that he came back too far (appearing to Bruce too soon). So his comments for Bruce weren't meant to reflect Bruce's feelings toward Superman in BvS. When Barry says that he's right about Superman, I think he means that Bruce is right when he says that they need to bring him back.

My question now is, why does Barry come back? With Snyder stepping back from these movies, we may never know what the plan was there.


Why was the dirt floating? I actually considered this and had ideas about it as I was watching JL, but I can't remember what conclusion I came to. I'm pretty sure there was a reason though.

I don't really have a response to your 4th point.

I imagine that Bruce either stole the body to return to Martha, or the government let him take it home without asking many questions. It's possible that Amanda Waller does know Clark's identity though.

I personally had no problem with a three hour movie. I don't see a need to cut it down or split it up, as long as it told the story that needed to be told. I'm happy with how BvS turned out in the Ultimate Edition.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Informant wrote:

I see where you're coming from with the Africa storyline, but I disagree. If the movie was about Snyder defending Man of Steel, it wouldn't have served the story well, and it would have looked like a petty response to criticism (even if I kinda think that criticism was petty to begin with).

Well, there's still a lot of him responding.  The movie goes out of its way to talk about how there are no civilians anywhere at night in either Metropolis or Gotham.

In our world, there are hearings on everything.  I mean, look at how involved the Benghazi stuff got with only four people dying.  Having the Senate hearings be about Metropolis would make a ton of sense.  I mean, imagine how many lawsuits Superman would be involved in?  Even if he was completely blame-free, he'd be involved in so much red tape.

I think Lex took advantage of the fact that Bruce was already at the end of his rope, suffering from what appears to be some sort of PTSD, combined with his desire to bring justice. Bruce was broken when Robin died, and he wanted to destroy the bad guys at that point. Lex just redirected Bruce's focus.

They could have made things more personal for Bruce, but that wouldn't have furthered other aspects of Lex's plans, like gaining access to the Kryptonian ship.

But here's the thing....the movie still doesn't give us enough context to understand Bruce Wayne.  Is he suffering from PTSD?  There's a lot of clues, but the movie never comes out and says it.  Alfred seems irritated by his revenge plot, but he seems just as irritated by the fact that Bruce doesn't have a social life.  If Bruce was a completely different person, the movie needed an "Alfred confronts Bruce" (sorta like a similar scene in The Dark Knight Rises) where they could drop some crucial information.

Is the mere presence of Superman enough to drive Batman to criminal insanity?  The movie fills in a lot of the plot holes in Lex's plan, but Bruce is still branding criminals and doesn't seem to care that they're getting killed in prison.  He's still willing to kill people to further his goals.  I don't know if the movie gives us enough to believe that Bruce would turn into Lex. 

In my opinion, it still needed a personal touch.  In The Killing Joke, it took attacking Jim Gordon's daughter to break him.  Killing "Jack" shouldn't been enough to break Bruce.  IMHO.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

It is impossible to write a sequel to MAN OF STEEL where Superman is charged for the attack on Metropolis. He worked with the army to fight Zod. It's a matter of public record.

The rest is pretty fair discussion!

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

ireactions wrote:

It is impossible to write a sequel to MAN OF STEEL where Superman is charged for the attack on Metropolis. He worked with the army to fight Zod. It's a matter of public record.

He worked with the army, but people sue other people all the time for all kinds of reasons.  People could easily argue that he used excessive force.  Insurance companies would probably go after him as the reason why the buildings were knocked down and lives were lost.  "Superman is liable for the destruction of the Claremont building, as he is clearly shown to be throwing General Zod into that building.  He is not responsible for the destruction of the Bakerfield building, as Zod's heat vision clearly caused that building to be destroyed."

I mean, hell, if Bruce really wanted to make Clark's life a living hell, he could go after him for the destruction of the Wayne Building.

I mean, we're talking about an incident where thousands (a ridiculously low number) of people were killed and billions (trillions?) of dollars in property damage.  It would bankrupt the city and put enormous strain on the nation to rebuild it as quickly as they did (the city looks normal 18 months later).  You don't think there'd be hearings where people would try to hold him financially responsible? 

Then there's the fact that there would need to be an investigation into Zod.  Where did the Kryptonians come from?  Are there more of them?  Are more coming?  The public would have a billion questions, and the only reliable witness is Superman.

It's also silly to think that Superman would be instantly cleared for Man of Steel but quickly roped into a hearing because a handful of people were clearly shot and then burned smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The Africa incident was situation was shrouded in confusion for the general population (and in the theatrical cut) with Superman misreported. I don't see how that could have been the case in MAN OF STEEL and as Superman was part of a US military operation and executing General Swanwick's orders, the army would have been liable for the damage to the city. The damage was estimated at 1 trillion dollars with about 380,000 people dead or missing -- except that I imagine that Superman would have been voluntarily conscripted into the US Army Corps of Engineers to aid in the reconstruction.

... But I do wish the movie had clarified this. It'd explain why the MAN OF STEEL closing scenes were so optimistic and the city had been rebuilt.

The rest of the debate on Batman's motives and backstory remains pretty fair.