Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Now talk of the Schumacher Cut of Batman Forever:

https://bleedingcool.com/movies/batman- … acher-cut/

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I've seen the Schumacher cut of BATMAN FOREVER in the theatre of the mind -- which is to say I've read the adult and junior novelizations which adapted the original script and not the final cut that went to theatres. The original cut is definitely an improvement in specific and isolated areas: there's a more psychological arc for Bruce Wayne with an amnesia arc where he loses all memory of Batman, remembering only his Bruce Wayne identity, and has to decide whether or not he wants to be Batman again.

There's a peculiar and poorly-conceived (but beautifully dialogued) resolution where Bruce is haunted by guilt, feeling that as a child, he pleaded for his parents to take him to a movie and if he hadn't, they wouldn't have been robbed and murdered -- and the resolution is Bruce finding his father's journal and realizing that his parents didn't take him to the movie, that he has remembered it wrong, and that his parents' death wasn't his fault (but it wouldn't have been his fault regardless!) -- and he puts the Batsuit on again.

There are darker scenes throughout the film, but they exist within the day-glo, Vegas-style look of BATMAN FOREVER surrounding it, so the overall tone of the film wouldn't have changed. It wouldn't have been a better film, just a longer one and a more complete one. It wouldn't have been less silly; it would have just had the same silliness spaced out and diluted with darker scenes.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Batman Forever gets a pass with many fans, but I was never fond of it.  Schumacher (RIP) reversed what Burton did and went way too campy.  Shame that Burton's "Continues" was derailed by McDonald's of all things.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I liked FOREVER when I was a kid. I can't imagine what I'd think of it today. I found the first two Burton movies joyless and depressing and Batman was barely in them. Call me crazy, but I think the title character should actually be the star.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I probably saw Forever twenty times at the theater; but I had free passes to any movie because of my brother’s radio job; I was in high school; and I was apparently bored.   I do remember laughing every time I walked out of a showing, though.

Fun footnote - one of the ushers at that theater was a guy a few years under me in high school - Clay Chamberlin.  For the past 15 years or so, he’s been doing a lot of stand-in work on films. It started with several turns for Ryan Reynolds; but lately he’s been doing it a lot for Chris Pratt.  Clay pops up on screen occasionally too - such as the training video at the end of the Ryan Reynolds film “Waiting”:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Zej_1n_uN0

I still remember the time Clay had to escort my group out of the theater because my brother got in a shouting match with a co-worker during a showing of the first X-men movie.  Good times.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Ha ha ha!  Laughing.  Oh, and I loved Waiting and that usher guy was incredibly annoying in that video, too.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I remember liking Batman Forever too.  It wasn't as campy as Batman and Robin or as dark and depressing as Batman Returns.  I probably think Forever is just as good as Batman 89 just in a different way.  I never liked Returns - it's just too dark and weird for me.

I think if Schumacher had dialed back the neon, I think it would've felt right as a sequel to Returns.  But I also think the neon makes sense in a lot of ways.  After the insanity of the Burton movies, I think the city would've gone neon to try and brighten itself after the dark insanity of the beginning of Batman's era.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I remember enjoying BATMAN FOREVER: Val Kilmer was convincing as a troubled and capable warrior. Chris O'Donnell was a bit too old to play Robin but very enjoyable. The costumes were cool and I craved all the action figures of Batman in the sonar suit and Robin in his garb. The Riddler was disturbing. Two Face didn't really stand out to me. Kilmer and Nicole Kidman had amazing chemistry. The action was exciting although a bit random at times with Batman randomly driving around and then being attacked in a coordinated assault (because the scenes had been moved around). I remember liking the novelization from Peter David a lot.

There's a lot of silliness in FOREVER that's at odds with the psychological tone of the film. Two Face is just a clownish presence. The henchmen are irksome. The competing clowning between Two Face and the Riddler is annoying. But the silliness seems quite isolated unlike BATMAN AND ROBIN where it went crazy with Batman attending charity balls.

I didn't consider the film to be in continuity with the Burton movies as Bruce says in this film that he's never been in love when he was clearly in love with Vicky Vale in BATMAN and certainly infatuated with Catwoman in BATMAN RETURNS.

It wasn't a great exploration of Batman, but it had all the charm and fun of creators playing with their Batman action figures and there was care and thought put into the story such as hiring puzzle creator and crossword designer Will Shortz to write all of the Riddler's riddles. It's a good effort and a fun time. It isn't THE Batman movie for me, but compared to the unpleasant BATMAN, the bleak BATMAN RETURNS, the obnoxious BATMAN AND ROBIN and that racist BATMAN TV serial, BATMAN FOREVER hits the dizzying heights of good enough.

**

Matt Reeves' THE BATMAN will apparently have a TV show called GOTHAM CENTRAL. No word on whether Robert Pattinson (Batman) and Jeffrey Wright (Commissioner Gordon) will appear. But -- it'd make sense if they didn't. How often would any police officer be in the same room as the city's police commissioner? How often would any cop encounter Batman in person?

If Batman were to appear, from the point of view of the police, wouldn't Batman be a distant or shadowy figure glimpsed only in silhouette? And to communicate with any GOTHAM CENTRAL characters through notes? It makes more sense for Batman to (not) appear in this fashion, played by a barely on-camera stuntman, than it did for, say, Dick Grayson's flashbacks to his childhood in TITANS where Bruce lives in the same house as Dick but inexplicably chooses to talk to him through handwritten letters.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Affleck will return (!) and co-star with Michael Keaton in THE FLASH movie (!).

https://www.cbr.com/ben-affleck-return- … ash-movie/

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

It's crazy, but I think it's necessary.  The film shouldn't rely on a cheap trick (some sort of newspaper clipping of Bruce Wayne or something) to pull off the Flashpoint-level shock that Batman has changed (in the comics, that it's Thomas and not Bruce, here that it's Michael Keaton and not Ben Affleck).  So it could be a simple scene shot with Affleck out of costume and filmed at his easiest convenience to establish that Affleck is Wayne before transitioning to Keaton as Wayne.  Think of it as the Tom Welling approach.

I guess the biggest question is...who will be playing the Flash?

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I'm starting to wonder if WB is going to stick with Ezra Miller and just refuse to address his on camera assault. He hasn't addressed the video. He is going to be at an online DC convention to promote THE FLASH film. I'm still doubtful this film will ever be made.

I'm starting to wonder if we should find some new adjective for "crazy" when describing a story idea that seems outside the bounds of the established conventions of a specific format or genre. Crazy is when someone's actions are in contradiction to their goals -- such as starting a new shared universe with Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and the Flash only to somehow alienate the actor playing Batman and fail to maintain a contract with the actor playing Superman while hiring a violent loon to play the Flash.

But we've been seeing so much joyfully 'crazy' stuff in recent years -- accepting all DC comic book adaptations as part of a TV and film multiverse and having Ezra Miller meet Grant Gustin; having Tom Welling and Brandon Routh and Tyler Hoechlin play Superman in the same story; and now, having Ben Affleck and Michael Keaton play Batman in a movie for... THE FLASH. All this makes our 'crazy' magnum opus where we had the sliders fight all the Season 3 monsters attacking San Francisco seem rather mundane by comparison.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Snyder cut trailer: https://youtu.be/z6512XKKNkU

I'm not a huge fan of Zack Snyder, but I think that when a studio hires Zack Snyder, they should expect a Zack Snyder movie instead of a Joss Whedon movie and as much as I enjoyed JUSTICE LEAGUE (and I enoyed it a lot) -- WB, Geoff Johns, Diane Nelson and Jon Berg should have just let Snyder make the movie he was hired to make and let his team complete it instead of bringing in Whedon to change it. Would a Snyder film have been more successful? It would have at least had the benefit of standing or falling on its on merits.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

THE BATMAN trailer: https://youtu.be/NLOp_6uPccQ

Goth rock version of Batman.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Quick thoughts from this stupid DC Fan day or whatever.....

Synder Cut JL - This is like when you play the same video game over, make different choices, and get new cutscenes, right?

The Batman - As I often bickered with Info over, just too dark, sadistic, graphic, violent, etc. for me.  I truly don't understand the need for these films.  Leave the gore for horror and violence for war movies. 

Wonder Woman 84 - Glad to see it's still got humor in it.  The film though will rise/fall based on the villainous performance of Kristin Wiig, and that is probably too tall an order.  She's just not "menacing."

Suicide Squad Roll Call - What was the point, had no footage?

And so have to be honest, at least WW84 looks like fun, and The Suicide Squad is a combat adventure.  The other two, blehhhhh, I mean, they're joyless.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

While I'm not a fan of Zack Snyder making a horror movie version of the JLA, he might as well be permitted to finish it.

There are so many versions of BATMAN that Matt Reeves should do whatever he wants. If it's bad, it won't matter and won't define the character in perpetuity.

I'm sure that both, whatever our enjoyment levels may be, will turn out as professional, presentable products.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Snyder’s movie should have been allowed to rise or fall for what it was.  As it is, Geoff Johns damaged himself trying to fix it.  Why get down in the mud like that?  All Geoff did was make himself look guilty for the failure when he could have stood back, watched it burn, and then stepped in after to rebuild it.  It was just a really dumb move on Geoff’s part; but maybe that’s a signal that he couldn’t have done any better than Snyder at developing DC movies.  Green Lantern with Ryan Reynolds was a signal too.

Geoff is a really talented writer; I’ve been a big fan since he started.  But now he’s pretty much pushed out in the comics scene.  Maybe he’ll get to come back with the recent changes; who knows.  And they do at least still let Geoff have involvement in the CW shows.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

ireactions wrote:

Snyder cut trailer: https://youtu.be/z6512XKKNkU

I'm not a huge fan of Zack Snyder, but I think that when a studio hires Zack Snyder, they should expect a Zack Snyder movie instead of a Joss Whedon movie and as much as I enjoyed JUSTICE LEAGUE (and I enoyed it a lot) -- WB, Geoff Johns, Diane Nelson and Jon Berg should have just let Snyder make the movie he was hired to make and let his team complete it instead of bringing in Whedon to change it. Would a Snyder film have been more successful? It would have at least had the benefit of standing or falling on its on merits.

So.....I don't get it. 

I understand why everything happened the way that it did.  WB was all in with Zack Snyder because they spent the early 2000s wasting most of their IP.  They had the Dark Knight the same year the MCU started.  They had the better movie, and the better cast of characters, but they were so late to the party that they had to try and catch up.  So they give Snyder full reign to get the universe kickstarted.  And because there was no one there with a love for the characters, Snyder's pitch of "EVERYONE IS BATMAN" worked because Batman was successful both critically and financially.  And because they were so rushed to compete with Marvel, they didn't have time to see if BvS worked.  It got a standing ovation internally and that was good enough.

But then like they did with everything before and after, they panicked.  And instead of letting Snyder do his thing, they literally got the Avengers guy to put a cheap Halloween costume on Zack Snyder's movie.

And now there's a pandemic and HBO Max needs content and they can give him a few million bucks to finish his movie.  A hundred things had to go this exact way for us to get here....


....but here's the thing.  I cannot get excited about this movie.  Because we saw it.  Sure, there were some dumb things that were obviously added by Whedon, but Whedon also gave us the first likable version of Superman.  I think there are fun character beats that I think were Whedon.  And I think the biggest thing is...Whedon was given a broken movie.  I don't think Whedon would've made the Justice League that his name is attached to.  It's completely unfair to refer to the theatrical version as Whedon's.  One is Whedon/Snyder and one is Snyder.  Snyder had a hand in both.

We aren't getting a totally new film.  It's the Ultimate Edition of BvS again.  Sure, it cleaned some stuff up, but the Ultimate Edition didn't solve my biggest problems with BvS.  And the Snyder Cut isn't going to solve my biggest problems with Justice League.  I mean, heck, Snyder essentially outlined his version for the Justice League trilogy and it sounded terrible.

I admire Zack Snyder because I think his vision is uncompromised.  And I'm glad that he's getting to finish his version of the movie because I'm sure he feels like he's going to finally heal from what was a very horrible and traumatic time in his life.  But BvS was Snyder's vision.  Snyder likes cool visuals and fun action sequences, but he doesn't have any interest in real character.  And that's why all his characters are essentially the same.  They're all Batman.  But not even the real Batman - a stylized version of Batman that only vaguely corresponds to the comic version.

I watched the trailer and it's just a new coat of paint on a movie we've already seen.  So I watched it and haven't thought about it since.

978 (edited by ireactions 2020-08-24 11:27:48)

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I'm not that keen on THE SNYDER CUT personally -- but it's important to remember that Snyder's approach has an audience and is very popular. It just wasn't popular to the point of earning the one billion in box office that WB hoped for. But a lot of people watched and enjoyed MAN OF STEEL and BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) and a lot of people wanted THE SNYDER CUT. The majority of the people who watched JUSTICE LEAGUE were not happy with it. The only people I know to enjoy JUSTICE LEAGUE are you, me, Informant and Kevin Smith. I've personally never met or talked to anyone else who had any fondness for it.

Snyder, to me, is like Bryan Singer: Singer came aboard the X-MEN film for 2000 and he didn't like the X-Men. He found the costumes, codenames, backstories and the superhero universe to be ridiculous.

A lot of the X-MEN movie is making an effort to be serious, to take these absurd concepts and place them in a world that resembles our own except for the one fantasy element -- mutants -- spurring all other fantasy elements. And redressing them in a genre that Singer actually did like. So you have the school for mutants and technology and surroundings that, if they aren't like our world, exist due to mutants -- but everything else is close if not identical to our reality and with the look of a high tech military espionage thriller rather than the superhero genre.

Snyder's genre is horror. And with MAN OF STEEL and BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title), he made a superhero film both times that used the style of a horror film, redressing superheroes in that style. Whether that worked or not is purely subjective, but JUSTICE LEAGUE suffers from Snyder's horror aesthetic having been ripped out of the film, replaced with Batman and Superman cracking jokes and pretty much every surviving frame of Snyder's film having been recoloured and brightened. The way in which a story is told is just as important as the content itself and for people who liked MAN OF STEEL and BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title), the SNYDER CUT version of JUSTICE LEAGUE will offer a satisfactory conclusion.

I've personally never met or spoken to any of those people outside of Informant, but they exist in sizable numbers and enough of them will subscribe to HBO Max.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

One thing we haven't gotten into -- there were recently MASSIVE layoffs across all of Warner Bros. and the DC Comics division took huge hits. At last 12 senior editors were laid off and their office staffers were shuttered, leading to about one-third of DC Comics being let go as part of the 800 WB dismissals. Of course, CEO compensation remains at an all time high in WB. A small fraction of CEO salaries could have easily covered most of the costs of the lower level staffers being cast aside.

Looking at DC Comics and comic book publishing, however -- comic books aren't working economically and have not been working for a long time. As Temporal Flux has pointed out, you could buy 2 - 3 chocolate bars for the cost of one DC comic, buy a video game for the cost of 10 issues and you could get 15 - 30 hours out of the average video game but finish all 10 comic books inside 45 minutes. Comic books are overpriced, offer poor value for the content, and the industry has refused to change its format and business model because it is being kept afloat by comic stores that have a dwindling number of readers come in every Wednesday to buy the latest issues.

Marvel has survived because publishing isn't required to be particularly profitable and notorious cheapskate Ike Perlmutter ran Marvel Comics like a startup on the grounds that it was the Marvel movies and television shows and video games and merchandise that earned money. The comics were treated as research and development. DC Comics, in contrast, has never had that kind of protection or minimalism, and it was likely viewed as a publishing arm that generated a lot of product with a lot of labour for very, very, very little reward. With Marvel, the comics division was for a long time also working on TV and film. There was a separation around Season 3 of AGENTS OF SHIELD where TV and comics were under Perlmutter and film was under Kevin Feige. Last year, however, Feige was promoted to handle the TV and comic book branches as well.

In contrast, DC Comics has very little influence over DC properties in film, television and merchandising. While individual DC creators are hired to specific DC properties (comic book writer Geoff Johns runs STARGIRL and consults on CW shows), the DC branch was not considered to be part of the TV and film teams. With a third of DC Comics gone, the output of the comics will likely be cut as well. There could come a point when WB no longer sees the value in publishing DC characters in monthly comics that few people read and they'll exist in TV, film, video games, audio dramas and commercials -- but not comic books.

But it doesn't have to be that way, of course. If comics can be made affordable and accessible, it can work, but the industry is currently locked into monthly 20 page pamphlets sold by specialty stores. I stopped reading comic books regularly around Season 2 of SUPERGIRL, realizing that I wasn't a fan of comics as much as superheroes and everything I wanted from superheroes was now on Netflix, especially when the SUPERGIRL comic book was an unfathomable mess while the SUPERGIRL TV series was a delight.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

So I finally saw Birds of Prey.  I think the movie itself was fine, but I just kept thinking that it was incomplete.  I think the tone and the aesthetic are good.  I think if all the DC films were like this, it would've accomplished what Snyder seems to have wanted to do.  It feels like a world where Shazam and Superman and the Flash can exist with street level heroes.

The problem is that it's another movie set in Gotham where they don't really do anything with it.  They mention Joker but the entire movie takes place in Gotham's underbelly.  Where's Penguin and Riddler and Two-Face?  And not even just not shown - there's no clue of any of them existing.  Batman is briefly referenced but where is he?  And outside of the one in-joke to Boomerang, where is the reference to Suicide Squad?  Where's Waller?  Where's Flagg?  Is Harley wanted by any of them?

I mean, heck, where's Katana?  She's a badass female hero.  Why not throw her on the team?  She wasn't used in the last movie - flesh her out here?

I know it's a spinoff and Iron Man doesn't drop in to say hi in Ant-Man.  But this is a huge DC universe - why not go all out?  If you can't get Affleck or Leto, that's fine.  Get someone else.  Bring in Barbara Gordon or Jason Todd or Tim Drake.  Tease another movie.  Hint at the bigger established Gotham.  A ton of people were after Harley but they were all nobodies. 

I get it - DC is doing standalone films now with a light connection to everything else.  But at least use something from the movie Harley debuted in.  If you want it to be Girl Powered, Katana and Waller and Ivy and Batgirl are all women that would fit naturally into this story.  Instead you have a movie that barely features the Birds of Prey themselves in a plot about the Gotham underworld with just one comic book character.  It just felt like a missed opportunity.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

And to catch up from 8 months ago....on the title.

I don't understand the titling either.  Birds of Prey is a cool title, and I think there's a version of this movie that works both as a Harley movie and a jumping off point for a Birds of Prey franchise.  But since this movie has no idea what it wants to be, I blame it all on a lack of focus.

I think they could've easily taken some notes from the Harley cartoon.  I think it would be interesting if Harley, after Suicide Squad, tries to go back to being a straight up villain.  She finds herself in a situation where her plan is working.  She and Joker have Batman incapacitated (so no need for Affleck, a body double would do) and they're about to release Joker gas across the whole city.  When she realizes....why is she doing this?  She doesn't *really* want to hurt people.  She is months away from saving the world from Enchantress...she liked being the good guy.  So she rewires the device, rescues Batman, and blows up the Joker's hideout instead of releasing the gas.  Is Joker dead?  Maybe - the movie won't say.  Where's Batman the rest of the movie - recuperating.

So with no Batman, Harley decides to try and recreate the team she had with the Suicide Squad.  But instead of people like them, she tries to find people like her.  A lounge singer who's in too deep with a mobster.  A vigilante out for revenge.  A pickpocket.  A cop who doesn't get the respect she deserves.  And a woman she and her ex really hurt.  No one trusts her, but she's able to prove to them that she's trying to be good.  She wants to be heroic.  And gets them to fight as a team.  And at the end of the movie, Harley realizes that she's not the right person to lead this team - Barbara is.  She shouldn't even be on the team - she's not a hero and she's not a villain.  She's her own thing.  Maybe she even turns herself in so that she can be back on THE Suicide Squad.

And so you have a Harley vehicle that has a clear connection to the rest of the universe (direct connections to both the first and forthcoming Suicide Squad movies, a Batman tie in that explains his absence, etc) while also sending the characters in a new direction.  Now there's a Birds of Prey team ready to protect Gotham.  Now Harley has grown as a character.  There's a vision from point A to point B and point B to point C and D.

But I wouldn't have called that Birds of Prey either.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I feel like Margot Robbie's insistence on an R-rating and the title BIRDS OF PREY really harmed the success of the film. I like Slider_Quinn21's vision of a more DC Extended Universe oriented Harley Quinn movie. But I like the BIRDS OF PREY movie exactly like it is except that it has the wrong name and it has a few expletives that, if cut, would have allowed teen girls to watch it in theatres. I didn't even realize this was a Harley Quinn movie because of the title until my cineplex changed the marquee and online ticket listings to read HARLEY QUINN AND THE BIRDS OF PREY. Teenaged girls who would love to imagine themselves as Harley Quinn or in Harley Quinn's girl gang could not see this movie. It hid itself from the audience to whom it would have meant the most and even if they could find it, they wouldn't be allowed to see it.

With BIRDS OF PREY, Margot Robbie insisted on keeping a title and a rating that were ultimately irrelevant to her content, simply because she had a vision of Harley Quinn in an R-rated movie called BIRDS OF PREY. And it was pointless and self-destructive and I just do not understand this person at all and neither could the movie theatres which changed the name of the movie in their listings.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I too finally got around to watching Suicide Squad and Birds of Prey.  I thought both were pretty good.  They had a clear formula, well acted and with good effects.  Light years better than the Justice League trash and frankly I'd put Aquaman in there too.  My only complaint was they were too violent, but I actually expected them to be far more so.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

ireactions wrote:

But I like the BIRDS OF PREY movie exactly like it is except that it has the wrong name and it has a few expletives that, if cut, would have allowed teen girls to watch it in theatres.

I would also add that, if it were me, I'd have moved the movie out of Gotham.  Again, this is a movie within the underground of Gotham and featuring the Gotham PD where there are no A-list Batman villains nor any real mention of Batman himself.

If this was all happening anywhere else, then there's no narrative issue.  You can even have a plot where Sionis has moved out of Gotham because it got too weird and moved to a place that was more-easily conquered.  The one plot change you'd have to make is the whole "everyone in town wants to kill Harley" but you could either have that at the beginning of the movie before she moves or give any other reason why Harley is hated (my thought - Harley goes "home" after the breakup and the town hates her because their claim to fame is being home to Harley Quinn).

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

In 2016, Batman in the pages of JUSTICE LEAGUE (written by Geoff Johns) encountered a New Gods machine, the Mobius Chair. It contained all knowledge in all existence. To test it, Batman asked the Chair a question that no one could possibly answer: "What is the Joker's real name?"

The Chair's reply haunted Batman. "No!" he exclaimed. "That's not possible!" Months later, in the pages of DC REBIRTH,  he confided Hal Jordan. "'There are three,'" Bruce told him. He didn't know what the Chair meant by that. And four years later, Geoff Johns released BATMAN: THREE JOKERS in which Batman, the Red Hood (Jason Todd) and Batgirl (Barbara Gordon) team up to finally track down the truth.

I just finished reading all three issues and... it really says something quite beautiful about what Batman is and it truly speaks to the heart of what this character is all about and what superheroes should be for us all.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

THREE JOKERS isn't getting very good reviews. People find it conventional, predictable and weak. I think it's really good; I think it understands Batman in the way that Zack Snyder so fundamentally does not, in the way that Frank Miller completely fails to grasp. And I think it uses its three 48-page issues beautifully. Spoilers follow...











Geoff Johns has had some setbacks in recent years. His progress from 90s Warner Bros. intern to DC Comics freelancer to DC Entertainment President hit the brick wall that was the failure of JUSTICE LEAGUE. Now Johns is a freelancer again, running individual DC projects like STARGIRL and writing WONDER WOMAN 1984 and consulting on some shows but no longer leading the DC characters. He wrote DOOMSDAY CLOCK in which Superman confronted WATCHMEN's Dr. Manhattan who had turned the DC Universe from optimistic and hopeful to being darker than a Zack Snyder movie -- a story in which Superman redeemed Dr. Manhattan and saved both their worlds.

Standing Apart
DOOMSDAY CLOCK was originally the big event for 2017, but as Johns' falling star had it standing alone without any tie-ins and without particularly influencing the other DC monthlies until after it was done. Now Johns releases BATMAN: THREE JOKERS, another DC Comics publication that is outside the main line of comics and a special prestige product. A standout project, but one that stands apart DC rather than one that is leading it.

Inside Baseball
Like every Johns comic, THREE JOKERS has a strong and meaningful grasp of the heart of DC superheroes. Also like most Johns comics, you need to have some familiarity with other comics written by other people to appreciate it. In this case, BATMAN: THREE JOKERS draws on THE KILLING JOKE (in which the Joker shot and crippled Barbara Gordon and ended her career as Batgirl). THE KILLING JOKE also posited that the Joker was a failed standup comedian who went mad after his pregnant wife died in a home accident. The story also draws on A DEATH IN THE FAMILY (in which the Joker smashed the skull of the Jason Todd incarnation of Robin with a crowbar, then blew him up and left Batman to find the boy's corpse). And UNDER THE RED HOOD in which Batman discovers that due to an alternate universe Superboy pounding on the walls of reality, time was altered to resurrect Jason inside his coffin. And that Jason has now returned to Gotham City to finish Batman's war on crime with lethal force. And on the FLASHPOINT/NEW 52 cosmic event in which Jason's resurrection was altered to Talia Al Ghul wanting to help Bruce Wayne (whom she loves) by resurrecting Jason in a Lazarus Pit only for Jason's brain damage to leave him feral and unstable for years. And the NEW 52 BATGIRL where Barbara regains her mobility and resumes her role as Batgirl. And DEATH OF THE FAMILY in which Batman and Jason (now the Red Hood) come to an uneasy truce where Jason agrees to stop actively assassinating villains unless in the heat of combat. And BATMAN: ETERNAL where Batgirl and Jason develop a flirtation that leads to Batgirl almost kissing him until Jason stops her, saying he knows she just misses Dick Grayson and won't take advantage of her. And that JUSTICE LEAGUE storyline where Batman asked a New Gods computer: "What's the Joker's real name?" and the computer replied: "There are three."

True Identity
With THREE JOKERS, Batman, Batgirl and the Red Hood begin investigating how the Joker staged three violent murders that took place at exactly the same time. They soon find themselves confronting three Jokers: the Criminal, a master planner who is the original version of the Joker. Then there's the Clown, the Joker who is focused on sight gags and pranks, the version from the 60s. And then there's the Comedian, the version of the Joker who has become a grotesque serial killer, further obscuring the mystery that the Bat-Family now wants answered: who is the Joker? Where did he come from? What's his real name?

The Joker Army
And worse -- Batman, Batgirl and the Red Hood discover that all of the Joker's victims have been dosed with the same toxin that first drove the Joker insane and then mutilated to mimic the Joker's hair and frozen smile; the three Jokers are attempting to create new Jokers with one prime candidate being Jason Todd himself. And this is not the first time: it's revealed that the Joker, since the beginning, has periodically sought to duplicate himself by exposing some mentally deranged criminal to his toxin. He has succeeded on two occasions: this is why the Joker has had so many shifts in appearance, demeanor and personality over the years, and at this point, none of the three Jokers can even remember which of them (if any) are the original.

The First Candidate
The Jokers torment the Red Hood by reminding Jason of something that has never been revealed: that when the Joker was beating Jason's head in with a crowbar, Jason begged for his life and even pleaded for the Joker to let him become his henchman and betray Batman if he'd be spared. Jason loses control and shoots one of the Jokers through the head and kills him. Batgirl is horrified and even more aghast when Batman says he intends to allow Jason to get away with murder; he has been all along -- because imprisoning Jason would only ever expose the Bat Family in court. The Jokers express glee at having created the Red Hood who might as well be working for the Joker with all the agony he causes Batman.

The Favourite
The Jokers remind Batman that even if he stops one of them, they'll constantly create more of themselves and then reveal they have ultimately chosen someone to be a new Joker -- Joe Chill, the man who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents who has been dying of cancer in prison until the Jokers broke him out. The Jokers are irritated that Batman's greatest torment is not the Joker or any member of his rogues gallery but instead a convicted criminal who has only ever commited one crime of notoriety. Their plan: they'll expose Joe Chill to the Joker toxin that will restore his health and give him the Joker-madness matched with his status as the cause of Batman's greatest trauma. The Joker will always create chaos; even in death, he'll simply have a successor.

Remorse
The Jokers interview a captive Joe Chill and records it, torturing Chill into confessing why he killed Thomas and Martha Wayne. Chill says he saw the Waynes walking down the alley, wealthy and happy, and he blamed them, feeling that their money and joy could only have come by making someone else poor and miserable. He whipped out a gun and fired, only seeing the boy he'd orphaned after he'd gunned down the parents. In jail, he learned that his victims had been generous philanthropists who'd done more to alleviate poverty than anyone in Gotham and Chill became ashamed. He wrote Bruce Wayne letter upon letter of apology but could never send them, and he grovelled before God for forgiveness only to learn he was terminally ill, a fate he decided he deserved. The Joker taunts Batman, saying Joe Chill will be a Joker who is everything Batman fears, embodying both madness and trauma that will override any order Batman tries to build or offer while condemning the source of Batman's grief to eternal insanity.

Forgiveness
But Batman saves Joe Chill being dropped into a vat of Joker toxin. A terrified Chill thanks Batman for saving him, and Batman accepts the gratitude of his parents' killer. One of the Jokers tries to blow them up, but is shot through the head by the now last surviving Joker -- the Comedian serial killer. This last Joker reveals: he knew it would turn out this way. He let the Criminal and the Clown run their plan and fail, knowing it would end with Batman forgiving the man who killed his parents, healed of his trauma -- and now the Joker will be Batman's greatest terror instead of a sick old man in jail. Chaos to Batman's order.

The Secret
Bruce puts the last Joker in Arkham Asylum and then tends to Joe Chill. He reads all of Chill's letters of apology and accepts them and holds Chill's hand as he dies of cancer and buries him peacefully. Alfred and Bruce begin cleaning up the Three Jokers files in the Batcave and Alfred wonders if they will ever know who the Joker really is.

Bruce Wayne:
Not to sound like people think I do, Alfred, but I'm Batman.

I knew the Joker's name one week after we first met.

Bruce tells Alfred: the Joker, before his transformation, had a pregnant wife. A woman he abused horribly. A woman who feared him. She faked her death and went into hiding with her son. She now lives far from Gotham City with her boy. Ever since Batman first encountered the Joker, Bruce has been hiding the Joker's true identity, obscuring the trail from the clown to his wife and child.

Bruce regularly checks in on the mother and boy to ensure that they are provided for and protected. Bruce has known the Joker's secret all along and kept it safe because ultimately, Batman is not a creature of order or rule or law. Batman is a character who can find it in himself to forgive his parents' murderer, a warrior who ensures that his greatest villain's true identity will always be hidden, a hero who uses his power to spare others from suffering and bring them to redemption and peace. To Geoff Johns, Batman is a superhero defined by his mercy.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

So, I guess there could be a hypothetical Ayer cut of SUICIDE SQUAD that is very different from the extended version already on DVD.

https://www.cbr.com/suicide-squad-bvs-d … avid-ayer/

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

JUSTICE LEAGUE in the Snyder Cut edition will apparently have a whopping, massive amount of newly filmed footage not produced during the original shoot. There will be extensive new material shot with the actors this past year. There will be four whole minutes. :-)

Snyder's interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsY_bdXTmJ8

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I just can't get myself excited about this.  I didn't even hate Justice League, but I've seen it.  And while not scientific at all, I've read all there there is from research on what was cut, and it doesn't seem all that different.

I'll definitely watch it, and I think it could be better.  But I wish Snyder had done a new project entirely in animation.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I'm distantly interested in JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT. I love watching different versions of the same story and seeing how the editing can present different things differently. I'm happy that the DCEU will get a four hour finale. I'm pleased that someone I care about will get something that he wanted badly and that is harmless in its existence. I'm moderately intrigued by Zack Snyder's horror-driven version of superheroes and would like to see it concluded. And I'm glad that he's getting to do it.

I'm more invested in STARGIRL and THE FLASH and LEGENDS and SUPERGIRL, of course. And I need to get into BLACK LIGHTNING. I'm not really a very big fan of horror. Despite all I've written about THE X-FILES, I don't really like it; I just learn from it. And that's how I feel about Zack Snyder movies. I'm sure there's an audience for it.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

WW84 dropping for free to subscribers on HBOmax December 25

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/18/215 … dune-tenet

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Conversation with the niece!

ME: "You'll recall that after that time with that thing and the dogs, you agreed that you would watch JUSTICE LEAGUE with me and comment on it while we ate a pizza."

LAUREN: "Yeah. You just never called it in. And now you can't because we're socially distancing! Ha! Although I guess someday you could when we're not."

ME: "Are you aware that JUSTICE LEAGUE will now be four hours long? And with the theatrical cut, you'll likely have to watch this movie for six hours while providing commentary for the entire time while eating a pizza."

LAUREN: "Oh God."

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I watched WW84.  Non-spoiler review: I really liked so much of it.  I thought the performances were fun.  I thought the story was compelling.  I loved how they seemed to have fun with the 1984 setting, and the romance stuff was good. 

But while I liked all the pieces, the overall movie just sorta didn't work for me.  I was excited to come back and watch (I watched it in three sittings), but when it was over, I felt disappointed.  I thought they spent a lot of good time making everything worked, and I felt like the ending was completely rushed and unsatisfying.  And while I liked Pedro Pascal, I didn't buy Max Lord as a character for about 2/3 of the movie.  I also think the dynamic with the dreamstone didn't quite work.

Patty Jenkins is a good filmmaker and I think a lot of it worked.  But something about it bothered me enough to not really love the film as a whole.

Anyone else see it?

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I'm seeing it tonight. Admittedly, I've said that two nights in a row and gotten sidetracked by other things. Haha!

DC Films president Walter Hamada says that going forward, DC movies aren't going to be focusing on building ongoing continuity between their superhero movies. There will be multiple versions of Batman (with Affleck and Keaton in THE FLASH and Robert Pattinson in THE BATMAN) and it'll just be viewed as one big multiverse even as WONDER WOMAN, SHAZAM and AQUAMAN see sequels continuing from their DC Extended Universe origins. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/27/busi … ovies.html

News outlets paint this as Earth 1/Earth 2, but looking at the actual strategy, the goal seems to make sure that WONDER WOMAN  movies are consistent with WONDER WOMAN movies, AQUAMAN movies are consistent with AQUAMAN movies, SHAZAM movies are consistent with SHAZAM movies -- but with no particular concern for whether or not Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam will be exist in the same reality or crossover with each other -- and THE FLASH will introduce multiple versions of Batman to indicate why Batman is played by different actors in theatres and on television and why the individual character/team movies will unfold separately going forward.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I understand why they're saying that, but I think it's typical WB/DC overreacting.  Did Justice League fail?  Absolutely.  But it didn't fail because fans don't want connected stories.  It failed because fans didn't connect with Zack Snyder's vision and....nothing else?  Fans generally liked the non-Snyder films, and the Snyder films still had a huge following.

If I were running WB, I wouldn't have the same kind of reaction.  Obviously I wouldn't have done the same thing that they did from the beginning but I think, even now, they could be doing a much better course correction:

STEP ONE - I like the multiverse concept.  Run with it.  If you want to do a Robert Pattinson Batman with no connection to the main universe, go for it.  If you want to do JOKER or Heart of Ice or DC Universe shows, go for it.  Marvel essentially had different multiverses for Agents of SHIELD, Runaways, the Netflix shows, etc.

STEP TWO - Do not abandon the shared universe.  People didn't love Joss Whedon's Age of Ultron movie either, and they didn't abandon the MCU - they moved to a different visionary.  See if Patty Jenkins would do Justice League 2.  Or James Wan.  Or find someone else.  It shouldn't be Zack or nothing.  We should have another movie with Gadot and Mamoa together.  If you want Cavill back, bring him in.  If Affleck is out or in, you don't need Batman for it to work.  If you need to scale back the budget, scale it back.  If you want to just pair certain people together, throw Cavill in Shazam 2.  Put Cyborg in Aquaman 2.  Introduce Green Lanterns in Flashpoint.  You can enrich your universe without spending a billion dollars.

STEP THREE - Give Snyder another project.  Again, scale back the budget if you want.  Give Snyder a Batman movie and see if Affleck comes back.  Or give him something else.  Do what you did with James Gunn and say "what do you want to do?"  It's obvious that some fans like Snyder DC movies.  It doesn't have to be Justice League 2.  Especially if the Snyder Cut works, give him something else.

If you want movies to be standalone, that's fine.  But it shouldn't have to be a decision between ONLY STANDALONE and BILLION DOLLAR CROSSOVERS.  Thor Ragnarok teamed up two people and it was fun.  Same with Spider-Man Homecoming.  Not every Marvel movie is Civil War.  Black Panther was huge and was barely connected.  Their big cameo was the barely-named federal agent and Bucky in a post-credits scene.

Don't learn the wrong lessons.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I have to say, I don't really understand why so many trade magazines are claiming that DC movies will now have "Earth 1" and "Earth 2" established through THE FLASH featuring Affleck and Keaton to bridge the two Earths when, as far as we know, Robert Pattinson's Batman will not be in THE FLASH, so what Earths are being bridged? It's probably due to some trade journalists just not really grasping the multiverse concept and not being overly familiar with so much as the TV version of CRISIS.

**

I suspect that the reason DC has decided to no longer pursue a shared universe going forward: it builds the expectation of a crossover movie featuring all the individual characters together -- and that's proven highly expensive and not profitable.

It was very expensive to feature Henry Cavill AND Ben Affleck AND Gal Gadot AND Jason Momoa in one movie that also showcased the powers of Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, the Flash, Cyborg and the gadgets of Batman. AVENGERS had the benefit of having as many street level type heroes like Captain America and Hawkeye and Black Widow as it did more effects-demanding characters like Iron Man and the Hulk.

The Justice League is very costly to show on camera together with these specific actors unless it earns a billion dollars at box office and DC movies are more in the low to mid hundred million range. And since they're not aiming to do another very expensive, not terribly profitable JUSTICE LEAGUE movie featuring all the characters together, they've elected not to worry about keeping them all in the same continuity.

**

I've never understood why AGE OF ULTRON was so hated. Or why JUSTICE LEAGUE was so loathed either. But that's personal taste for you!

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Never know how much of this is true, but it is amusing to imagine Matt Reeves trying to direct the film in a zipped up puffy jacket and ski goggles.

https://www.cbr.com/the-batman-pattinso … -troubles/

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I hope it's not true that Reeves and Pattinson aren't getting along. Matt Reeves -- I don't really know his work, but Slider_Quinn21 seems to like his stuff.

Robert Pattinson is a cool guy. I think he's hilarious. His blunt assessment of TWILIGHT movies and novels as silly fantasy in which the vampires never do anything to even qualify as vampires is spot-on. His disdain for the abusive Edward Cullen character and his admission that he took the role to pay his rent is wonderful. He has a delightful story about how a female fan was stalking him, so he approached her and asked her out to dinner and spent half the dinner whining about his life and the other half of the dinner sitting alone because she had fled. He used to earn pocket money in school by shoplifting pornographic magazines and selling them to his classmates. When he got his first paycheque for TWILIGHT, he bought a $1,000 car off Craigslist. Most actors of his stature would try to play heartthrobs (like Jerry O'Connell did), but Pattinson has always gravitated to playing dysfunctional characters.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I ended up rewatching WONDER WOMAN and JUSTICE LEAGUE instead of WW1984 -- just to revisit what I feel is some very good work. Patty Jenkins has jumped aboard the anti-Whedon train, saying that Whedon's portrayal of Diana in JUSTICE LEAGUE contradicted her work in WW and WW1984.

I have to say, I don't know how fair that is. Whedon's behaviour is not defensible. But in terms of his work -- the primary contradiction for Diana actually started with BATMAN VERSUS SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) in which Diana claims that after the first World War, she walked away from humanity forever.

This is blatantly at odds with what we see in WONDER WOMAN where Steve Trevor's sacrifice inspired Diana to remain involved with humanity and also at odds with JUSTICE LEAGUE where Bruce tells Diana that she walled her off from the human race after Steve's death.

The contradiction is not Whedon's fault; Snyder set up a cynical, defeatist Wonder Woman; Jenkins decided to go for an optimistic, inspired Wonder Woman -- and imply that Diana was just having a bad week when she said what she said in BATMAN VERSUS SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title). If anyone's responsible for the mismatch, it's Jenkins, although I don't think any viewers complained as the lively, societally naive but combat seasoned Diana of WONDER WOMAN was a vastly preferable depiction. Jenkins also portrays Snyder as helping her set up her version of WONDER WOMAN. If that's true, that's more Snyder being a supportive collaborator to his colleague rather than anything he produced in BATMAN VERSUS SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title).

That said -- there is one thing in JUSTICE LEAGUE that Whedon did that I actually do take issue with and Jenkins probably does too -- Diana Prince wears extremely low cut civilian clothes. Low cut tops that trace the bra line, jackets that are left open to show plenty of cleavage on those tops, jackets that end right at the waist to highlight the curve of her tight pants -- and this actually is wrong as Diana in WONDER WOMAN at one point is given the chance to wear whatever civilian she wants and she chooses what's effectively a female variant on men's business attire: a long coat with a skirt-like layering, a dress shirt -- and even her combat armour is arranged to show no bared cleavage despite wrapping around her chest. Diana Prince doesn't dress for the male gaze in WONDER WOMAN, but she does do so in JUSTICE LEAGUE and that strikes me as highly uncharacteristic.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I feel like Jenkins was just supporting Snyder.

I do think Snyder should have a place at DC if he wants.  He's got talent.  He's a good filmmaker.  It certainly doesn't make sense for him to make another Justice League movie (even if the Snyder Cut is successful and becomes canonized).  But if he wants to make a Booster Gold movie or a Batfleck movie or a Red Hood movie - go for it.  It'll make money if the budget doesn't explode out of control, and that's on WB to make work.

For what it's worth, WW84 also massively contradicts BvS.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Going to watch WW1984 later today.

As for Snyder -- I'm not really a fan of his stuff, but I certainly appreciate the physicality he gave Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman in contrast to the relative weightlessness of the Donner SUPERMAN films. A lot of Snyder's decisions are fundamentally at odds with why superhero fans enjoy superheroes. The first is collateral damage: very simply, superheroes SAVE people, so presenting Superman standing victorious around the shattered wreckage of the city of Metropolis is horrific and Snyder's blindness to how this would come off to his audience -- that's a serious failure as a director. A director has to be aware of how the audience will react to his content and the fact that he didn't think smashed skyscrapers full of people would be disturbing and his neglecting to have the MAN OF STEEL acknowledge it in any fashion is inept.

Snyder has a deeply disdainful attitude to superheroes, snarking that it's absurd that Superman and Batman don't kill. While I'm not a purist on the subject, Snyder's decision to have Superman kill Zod and Batman knife henchmen to death has a certain contempt for the source material behind it like he's embarrassed to be doing a superhero movie in the first place. This attitude is also present in his comments that he thought it was "fun" to kill off CIA agent Jimmy Olsen in BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) and that it would be "fun" to do a prequel comic book where we get to see the Joker murder Dick Grayson.

I think that a creator who feels he has to show Superman and Batman killing should simply say that these are his versions of Superman and Batman, but Snyder actively attacking the non-lethal Superman and Batman presented elsewhere shows a marked disrespect for the characters and other creators. And creators who create based on contempt and trying to denigrate other creators are fundamentally cynical and defeatist and that's also not really why superheroes appeal, at least not to me.

The best I would say of Snyder is that he is technically brilliant and he clearly encouraged Patty Jenkins to do PATTY JENKINS' WONDER WOMAN and not worry about making it match ZACK SNYDER'S WONDER WOMAN.

1,002

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

WW84 was vapid, and like everything else these days, 45 minutes too long.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I got distracted again, this time by work and THE KARATE KID: REBORN (or COBRA KAI, as Netflix insists on calling it).

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

ireactions wrote:

I think that a creator who feels he has to show Superman and Batman killing should simply say that these are his versions of Superman and Batman, but Snyder actively attacking the non-lethal Superman and Batman presented elsewhere shows a marked disrespect for the characters and other creators. And creators who create based on contempt and trying to denigrate other creators are fundamentally cynical and defeatist and that's also not really why superheroes appeal, at least not to me.

If this were Marvel, I'd just give him the Punisher.  Who would be a good DC character that would work for Snyder?

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

If this were Marvel, I'd just give him the Punisher.  Who would be a good DC character that would work for Snyder?

First that comes to mind is Lobo.  It would fit perfectly with his visions of violence, blood, gore and surrealism.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Grizzlor wrote:

WW84 was vapid, and like everything else these days, 45 minutes too long.

It's interesting for you to say that because I had the opposite thought.  I think somehow this movie needed to be longer - which I know is crazy.  But I feel like if you chopped out 45 minutes, it would suffer from the BvS syndrome of the plot no longer making sense.  I think there's a version of this film that makes sense and be 45 minutes shorter, but I think you'd need to completely remove the Cheetah subplot.  Then the movie loses a couple action sequences and the climax is Wonder Woman making an empassioned speech.  I think it's more likely that they'd cut the Steve Trevor stuff, which is really where the movie works best.

I think the BvS Ultimate Edition is a great comparison because I think the movie is really compelling but falls apart when under scrutiny.  It also has an insane runtime but also doesn't spend the time wisely or efficiently.  BvS had several scenes with Batman and Alfred, but almost none of it helps explain why Batman is acting the way he's acting or whether or not things were ever different.  There's a ton about Superman but almost nothing in it humanizes him.  A ton with Lex but very little to explain his motivations.

So you have a bloated movie that tells a big story but struggles to answer any questions.  And that's what happens with WW84.  I have a ton of questions about how the Dreamstone works, and despite a 150 minute runtime, they don't seem terribly interested in explaining it.  Did Lord have a supernatural understanding of what people cherish the most, or was he randomly picking things he wanted?  With the first Arab oil baron, he asks for the oil without knowing the the oil wasn't his.  Then he takes the security team.  So it seems like he can just take what he wants but he doesn't have any supernatural knowledge.  But then at the end, how does he know what to take?

Are Diana's powers really what Diana treasures the most?  That seems odd.  I know she likes being a hero, but maybe she should've lost her concern for civilians?  Her heroism? 

And what did Lord lose?  I kept thinking that he'd lose his son, but that never happened.  I'm sure they didn't want to kill a kid, but it seems weird that Lord didn't seem to have any downside to his wish.  Did he also lose his humanity?  He definitely went power hungry, but was he always like that?

And the rules seemed different.  Some people lost everything immediately.  Barbara and Diana seemed to lose their treasured thing gradually.  But Max's partner was taken to jail almost immediately.

What was the point of Steve inhabiting some stranger?  Even the movie seemed to forget that plot point at times.

All in all, I don't think cutting things would work unless you cut things and then added other things.  The dreamstone part was the part that was the most confusing, but you can't cut that part out or the movie makes even less sense.  Again, you could cut Barbara, but you lose some fun scenes and lose some action beats.

TemporalFlux wrote:

First that comes to mind is Lobo.  It would fit perfectly with his visions of violence, blood, gore and surrealism.

I actually had that thought.  I think that would be really interesting.

1,007

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I finally watched Justice League, and do not understand the complaining???  Movie was fine, yeah sure it was stupid and dull, like any other comic book teamup is.  So?  Ray Fisher's Cyborg character had plenty of screen time, despite his whining.  The infamous Ezra landing on Gal moment lasted all of about 0.75 seconds.  I cannot see how Snyder's additional footage will do anything but bore you even further.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I think your distaste for superhero movies is probably a factor. Which is fine. Superheroes are a problematic genre to begin with and we’re all going to have genres we don’t like. I myself don’t like horror.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

What I don't understand about the Snyder Cut is the fact that the movie will still have the same skeleton.  Whedon didn't have the time or ability to completely re-write what Snyder had done.  So the story going to be, at its heart, what we've already seen.  I've never seen a movie re-cut to be something completely different.  The Ultimate Edition of BvS added scenes but didn't change how I felt about the movie as I watched it.

I get that it's essentially gonna be a second movie's worth of footage, but at best, it would be a sidequel.

I think this money and energy would've been better used to do his whole triolgy in animation.  They could've rushed through the "Justice League" part (since we've seen it) and then do his finale.  Because at least that would've been new.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Well, if you saw JUSTICE LEAGUE, a Joss Whedon film -- and if you saw BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN DAWN OF JUSTICE ULTIMATE EDITION, a Zach Snyder film -- I think it's pretty clear what the difference will be in tone and style.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

https://film.avclub.com/zack-snyders-ju … 1846373611

Apparently, JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT will end on a cliffhanger that will never be resolved.

Congratulations, DC Extended Universe; you now have your equivalent of "The Seer."

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Okay, I have watched Part 1 of JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT. "Don't Count On It, Batman" is pretty good. There is a terrible sense of dread and danger as eldritch abominations from worlds unknown are emerging across the globe. The parademons are disturbing and eerie and Steppenwolf is a bulky mass of spikes and sharp edges. The Amazon army tries to contain them, several hundred women valiantly sacrificing themselves to contain a strange MacGuffin, the Mother Box, and to no avail; Steppenwolf survives hundreds of arrows and even being buried in the sea in a rigged-to-crumble landmass.

The body count is horrific, but Zack Snyder is surprisingly tender and thoughtful, giving Queen Hippolyta moments of grief and regret as her soldiers give themselves up or die in combat, and Connie Nielsen sells each loss well. This is something at MAN OF STEEL failed to convey in its destruction porn finale; it's something the theatrical cut of BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) also failed to offer but the ULTIMATE EDITION did provide -- which has me wondering if the problem has always been that Zack Snyder films scenes of people grieving the deaths in his films, but the studio always cuts them.

Diana has her scene of rescuing hostages from terrorists and Snyder and Whedon's competing versions of this sequence really shows the difference. Whedon is quick and minimalist, keen to make using superpowers feel effortless. Snyder, however, wants to show the weight and force of each application of speed and strength as Wonder Woman throws each punch, blocks each bullet and coils herself to leap into the air to detonate a bomb in the sky. And Snyder gives Wonder Woman a tender moment of kindness to the hostages after the fight is over -- something I don't really expect from a brutalist storyteller like Snyder, but once again, maybe he does shoot these scenes but studios make him cut them while HBO Max is letting him keep them for a four hour version of JUSTICE LEAGUE.

I'm not particularly in favour of Snyder's approach of depicting superheroes as mythological beings removed from humanity, but he's not really removing them from humanity at all in JUSTICE LEAGUE. I'm not particularly fond of Snyder's work in general, but objectively, JUSTICE LEAGUE is (at least in Part 1) a well-told, well-paced (!), well-done episode of a big budget JUSTICE LEAGUE TV mini series. It isn't the JUSTICE LEAGUE series that I want to see, but it's still a good series regardless.

I'm looking forward to Part 2 when I have time for it, but right now, I have to go to bed and go to work in the morning.

1,013 (edited by ireactions 2021-03-20 09:21:03)

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I watched JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT: PART 2: "The Age of Heroes" (actual title) last night. Once again, this is a very good, big budget JUSTICE LEAGUE TV mini series that surely appeals to those who enjoyed the darker fare of TITANS and WATCHMEN. It's not to my taste, but just because something isn't tailored to my obsessions (like the Flash rambling about brunch) doesn't mean it isn't well-made and well-performed and well-presented.

Mythology
JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT: PART 2: "The Age of Heroes" (actual title) is all about establishing the past mythology of the last war against Darkseid, some sort of inhuman behemoth of infinite dark power whose army of Parademons seem to combine magic and sci-fi technology into demonic abilities into singlehanded planetary scale war against all of Earth's civilizations in the distant past. "The Age of Heroes" is shown to be when the Greek gods of WONDER WOMAN, the Atlanteans of AQUAMAN, the Green Lanterns and humans joined together and successfully drove back a Darkseid and Parademon army from Earth -- not defeating them wholly, but stalling them for eons.

Scale
There isn't much superhero action here with the Justice League, but Snyder establishes a previous "age of heroes" and explicitly compares Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, the deceased Superman and the currently unrecruited Flash to be a new generation of Greek gods and demi gods except they are so divided and damaged they are unlikely to make it happen -- a situation for which Batman holds himself responsible. Compared to fake feminist Joss Whedon, I find that Snyder is really keep to establish an epic, mythological scale to the previous Darkseid incursion whereas Whedon brushed past it quickly with a fast montage and a voiceover. Whedon deconstructs the mythic scale, Snyder builds it up.

Positivity
Snyder's version of Batman in this story is guilt-ridden -- but in a very positive way. He transmutes his self-loathing and shame into action, travelling across the globe in private jets and on horseback, eschewing the luxuries of a billionaire to search for superpowered metahuman heroes, seeking to rebuild something of what he destroyed when he drove Superman to his death. He will go for weeks without shaving, allow a fisherman to mock and assault him, personally attempt to bring a failed troop carrier jet into working order and sink his fortune into this foolhardy pursuit. He is a man who will not be denied even if he has to reduce himself to begging for help -- all to bring heroes back into this cold and lonely world.

This is in stark contrast to Whedon's version where Batman's search for heroes was -- like many feats for Whedon style superheroes -- fast and effortless and barely a few minutes of screentime. Whedon is an abomination of a human being, but I'm not dismissing his approach; I'm just noting that Snyder doesn't like shortcuts.

Sliders and Snyder vs. Whedon
If Snyder were doing SLIDERS: SEASON 6, he'd probably spend an hour splitting the Quinns, an hour recovering Wade, an hour revealing that the wrong Professor slid, an hour having the sliders defeat the Kromaggs and discover that the Earth Prime in "Exodus" and "Genesis" was not their true home and Quinn is not from Kromagg Prime and that Colin is a clone -- he'd do the PVTOnline version of Season 6 where writer Michael W. Hill faced down all these situations one novella at a time. And by the time he'd gotten everyone back, he'd burned himself out and couldn't finish his series (I assume).
https://web.archive.org/web/20020312120 … seasonsix/

In contrast, Whedon's SLIDERS: SEASON 6 would just get to the endpoint and have the sliders alive and well on Page 1 and a quick explanation by Page 23 or so with the sliders back to basics and sliding and all the running arcs cleared away by Page 46 -- Whedon would do Tracy Torme's "Slide Effects" just to get the job done with a minimum of fuss. Whedon is a TV creator and he operates in a world of limited time and mandated minimalism.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11KF … sp=sharing

Both have their merits.

Style
Zack Snyder's direction in JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT: PART 2: "The Age of Heroes" (actual title) is discoloured, dour, dark and grim, but the story and the hope of these characters is fundamentally hopeful -- and once again, I have to wonder if the cynicism and brutality and savagery identified with a Zack Snyder movie is due to truncation. When Snyder's hypervisceral violence is shown in a hurried and fast pace, it seems indifferent and more concerned with the cool visual moment than with human emotion. But in a four hour cut, that indifference is replaced with a search for empathy that Ben Affleck's Batman presents beautifully.

1,014

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I found it was okay.  I thought Joss's final battle was better, granted it wasn't an HOUR long either.  The backstory for Cyborg was definitely needed, but obviously quite a bit of what is in this cut intends to setup a sequel we'll never get.  Really can't stand the 4:3 ratio though.  In the end, it's just okay, which was what I thought of the theatrical release.  The main issue is that Snyder took zero effort in cutting this down to anything resembling a feature-length film.  This is NOT Apocalypse Now where the director comes back and recuts a super long version (which is inferior) but you give him a pass.  People want to compare this cut with Whedon's but it's impossible because Snyder was lazy and didn't even attempt to release a "film."

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

The Snyder Cut was better than the Whedon Cut, but of course it was. Snyder was able to not only put together a cut of his movie that was WAY longer than he’d ever be able to release in theatres, but he also was able to use four years of hindsight to add scenes based on reaction to Snyder Cut leaks and reactions to the Whedon cut. He essentially had the best test screening in cinema history.

Snyder is clearly talented, but he can’t tell a cohesive story in two hours. To me, he shouldn’t be in film. He should be in television. With TV getting movie budgets and the lines between TV and film getting blurred, I think he’d thrive there. Because I think if he had to cut out 90 minutes of this, it would lose most of its impact and wouldn’t be much better than the theatrical cut.

I still don’t like his Superman. Like with BVS, Superman doesn’t seem to care about anything but Lois. And like with BVS, Snyder wants to rewrite Superman to be a universally loved figure when there was no evidence that Superman was anything but very controversial. He’s a little more personable but it’s offset by making him the villain of the new Knightmare sequence again. If Superman is only good as long as Lois is with him, is he really a good guy? What if she wants to leave? Would he threaten the world to make her stay?

And Batman’s change, even in the 7+ hour BVS/JL extended cuts, doesn’t feel earned. Does he regret the murders? Has he made peace with what he’s done? Made peace with what happened to Robin? What does Alfred think? Why does Gordon trust Batman after the branding from BVS?

To me, Snyder likes some aspects of the mainstream universe but also wants to do as much as he can to throw chaos into that. Batman can’t be a killer but also have a great relationship with the GCPD. Superman can’t be this cold alien who seems to reluctantly save people who brings out protests but also be universally loved. 

I did like the other characters. Diana didn’t quite mesh with her solo films but she’s still great. I thought making Barry less awkward made him more competent.  Obviously Cyborg was better. I still don’t know they went with the air bubbles and trilling (?) in the undersea scenes in direct opposition to Aquaman, but I liked Arthur.

I’d watch more of this but I’d prefer another director work on it.

1,016

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Funny you should say TV, because Warner's actually offered Snyder to do a mini-series, but he decided just to do the 4 hour job.  He really has no place in either medium.  Great points on Superman, as he has been largely pointless since Man of Steel.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I have watched JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT: PART 3: "Beloved Mother, Beloved Son" (actual title). Once again, Snyder excels in a format where he can take the time to showcase both the brutality and tenderness of his vision of the DC Universe. Steppenwolf is terrifying in his gargantuan size and intimidation factor and the humans on the ground like Commissioner Gordon seem like helpless paper dolls. Victor Stone's Cyborg is both grotesque in visage and beautiful in spirit as he uses his power as a technological marvel to rescue a single mother and her child from eviction and despair.

There is a stunning beauty in seeing the Flash save a woman from a truck. Such moments are 10 seconds of screentime in THE FLASH television show, but in Snyder's hands, it's an operatically romantic ballad as we see every shard of glass become elastic with the Flash manipulating kinetic energy to step through it and pluck Iris West from the horrific fate suffered by a hot dog cart. When Bruce Wayne appears in Barry Allen's flat, there's a true sense of two titanic powers meeting: Wayne is a man of wealth and will, Barry Allen is a boy of spirit and ability, and they are exactly what the other needs.

Amber Heard's accent as Mera is jarring after she went American in the Whedon cut and AQUAMAN.

As for the length -- I don't take issue with it because I love the characters and am happy to have four hours with them instead of two. One of my favourite criticisms of SLIDERS REBORN: Tom of REWATCH PODCAST was relentless and merciless in mocking the length of the scripts. "This one's four pages." "This one's 90 pages -- just a bit longer, just a little bit longer." "This is a ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE PAGE script -- have you noticed how it's like the Harry Potter books, you start to notice each one gets longer and longer?" "This ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR PAGE script... was a good way to go out."

And I see that. However -- if you like Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo hanging out and cracking wise and snarking endlessly, are you really going to object to the maximum amount? And I feel the same way here as well; if someone loves Batman, Wonder Woman, Cyborg and the Flash, if a viewer is invested in these concepts and characters, then that hypothetical superhero fan will be happy to have enjoyed two installments of them, will have enjoyed seeing them in JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT: PART 3: "Beloved Mother, Beloved Son" (actual title), and will be pleased that there seems to be another two hours left.

That said -- I'm not watching this all at once. I'm watching one episode a night at the most.

1,018

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Her accent was quite bizarre indeed.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

Okay, I have watched JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT - PART 4: "Change Machine" (actual title) and once again, it's good. The first Justice League action sequence is dour and dark with the League still not entirely in tune with working with each other. The Flash trips over his own feet, Victor Stone's priority is his father, Wonder Woman and Batman are outmatched, but they manage to survive and win a round.

The most effective part is that Snyder has the space and time to establish the grandeur of the Mother Box which, in Whedon's cut, was just an empty MacGuffin of plot convenience that the heroes nonsensically left lying around for the villains to steal. In JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT - PART 4: "Change Machine" (actual title), the Mother Box represents power; power that is potentially twisted and antithetical and destructive to our world, power that is potentially healing and restorative, life that is almost certainly unpredictable.

Whedon delights in how power draws out the inherent humanity of his characters, but Snyder is a much more suspicious storyteller who is unsure if tampering with life and death can possibly turn out well for anybody. But the true moment of teamwork comes when the heroes agree: they must resurrect Superman.

Whedon didn't really worry about that in his version; in his version, the heroes quickly learn how to work together because they're innately suited. In his version, they coordinate well during the fight scene because superpowers means super teamwork. In his version, superpowers make everything effortless; in Snyder's version, power is another heavy burden.

The Martian Manhunger's appearance was curious and intriguing.

Re: DC Superheroes in Film (Theatrical and Streaming)

I have watched JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT: PART 5: "All The King's Horses" (actual title).

It's good. It presents the resurrection of Superman not as a lighthearted bit of fun with an amusing fight scene, but as a moment of terrifying otherworldly power being reawakened, potentially for good or evil. Superman's heat vision is so often a lightweight laser in comic books, TV and film. Superman used it to reheat coffee in LOIS AND CLARK and vaporize glass in SUPERMAN RETURNS. In JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT: PART 5: "All The King's Horses" (actual title), it is a demonic fire that explodes cars and could conceivably melt anyone with a glance. The glimpse of a horrific future in which Darkseid somehow possesses Superman and turns him into an agent of Apokalips is, I assume, something the movie won't be able to address in full because it was a tease for a sequel that'll never be made.

I'm not sure Superman should ever be presented in such a disturbing, frightening fashion. It's fine to render the Punisher or Wolverine this way, but Zack Snyder has created a Superman that no one would ever trust or feel safe being around and I personally don't feel what this children's character is for. I can see why Warner Bros., having already tolerated MAN OF STEEL and BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN, balked at this and summoned fake feminist Joss Whedon to lighten things up.

The loss of the Mother Box was, in the Whedon cut, presented as a moment of bizarre incompetence. The heroes leave the Mother Box on top of a car and forget about it until Steppenwolf claims it. Here, they and an ally fight to protect it and the sequence ends with a terrible sacrifice. This makes a lot more sense than the Whedon cut -- but I have to admit, I miss all the jokes ("Pet Semetary!") and the Knightmare material is a road to nowhere and I see why it was removed.

I personally enjoy the Whedon cut a lot, but I see why few people did and why JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT: PART 5: "All The King's Horses" (actual title) is preferable even if I really don't want to see Superman attacking civilians and would prefer a world without that image.