It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Yes, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I have read all 120+ issues of 'JLA' and boy, let me tell you, between some of Grant Morrison's incomprehensible drug-induced fever dreams and many of the weaker plots that came later, not a lot is going on besides just action, spectacle and superheroes showing off what they can do. The few truly amazing stories in this series can be counted on one hand, and even they can get crazier sometimes than what I've seen in the DCU so far. But that's OK. I'll turn to Nolan's Dark Knight films if I want to engage my brains; I'll pick a Snyder film if I want to throw my eyes and ears a juicy bone to feast on.
I doubt the plot can be improved on. And I hope that Snyder isn't doing this to satisfy the critics because they've made up their minds ages ago. They're not going to like this film because Snyder + DCU = Rants in their playbook. Unless you inject the film with social commentary, an all-inclusive cast and real-world drama, the DCU will not be shown any kindness, unlike the Marvel films, which get away with pretty much everything because they did it first and because they provide family entertainment, which cannot be said of the DCU.
I think it's more because the Marvel films are generally pretty good at what they do, and the DC films have mostly been not terribly good. It's not the content in particular, it's just that they haven't been made all that well: nothing more complicated than that.
DC films have plenty of those elements you mention (massive 911 allegories going on all over the shop for example, plus the biggest female superhero there is at the moment) so it's not those stopping them.
As to family entertainment, well I find that a bit baffling from both because pretty much all of these films -Marvel and DC- are rated 12 and over, which seems mad to me when they're full of superheroes and you're selling toys to 7 year-olds. I'm sure they're watching them anyway, but I don't know why they aren't pitching them to be more suitable for kids.
This is a pretty dodgy claim given that MOS and BvS both deliberately incorporated visual and storytelling comparisons to things like the War on Terror, the ethics of vigilantism, and 9/11.
I've liked plenty of movies disliked by critics (such as Man of Steel) and even films that are far MORE hated than anything Snyder has ever put out, but I don't spend my time complaining that they have an agenda.
There doesn't have to be a conspiracy behind why sometimes the public/critics hate movies I like and vice versa.
The DC animated output is overall awesome, despite the failures steadily increasing in recent times. It's hard to watch the DARK KNIGHT RETURNS adaptation and not think, why oh why couldn't they do something like this as a live-action film? I agree.
Well, I agree that MOS and BvS include strong commentary but many critics choose to ignore that since most of the backlash was aimed at Superman just destroying stuff instead of doing things as he so very gentlemanly did in '78. I love Superman The Movie but I also love MOS and I wish that people could finally appreciate the fact that Reeves isn't coming back, that the world has changed since the '70s, and that Donner's particular version of Superman is but one of many and certainly not the only "great" one.
Also, I'm a little fed-up with those condescending life-lessons about how critics who disagree with me aren't part of some secret cabal conspiring to take their famous targets down. I can easily turn that around and say that there doesn't have to be an accusation of some conspiracy behind me saying critics are ready to hate, either. I don't think critics gather in secret before a film's premiere and discuss how hard they will rail against it. I love films that some critics hate and vice versa; I'm not a 12-year old. It's merely my impression that it's "trendy" to write most of Snyder's films off as bad. Now I'm not saying that people have to love these films--I mean, we can't debate taste, surely--but while the barely enjoyable WW1985 seems to get a pass, a competent film (IMO) like BvS was burned at the stake within minutes after its premiere. It was called a bomb even before it had opened globally. The press famously focused on Affleck's sad face when confronted with some initial responses, and not on much else. People who like the film were called people "who don't understand Batman", which I found an insultingly arrogant thing to say. Look, I'm not going into much more detail here since this is, after all, subjective, merely my opinion and all that jazz. And I'm not going to lose any sleep over how others think about a film. All I'm saying is that I find it difficult to shake off the feeling that Snyder is today what Tom Cruise was in the days of M:I 3: the guy people love to see bleed. And maybe he is a bad filmmaker, I don't know. This isn't an exact science so we'll never know. But I can still share my impressions, whether objectively correct or not, and my impression is that Snyder has to work twice as hard as some other folks to please some critics. But I don't want to belabour the point either: it's really not that big a deal. ;-)
Maybe they didn't ignore it, they just don't think it's as important to a film as you seem to imagine that they think it is...?
I don't see why there has to be any ulterior motive to it, though. It's just people having differing opinions. No one's saying you're not allowed to enjoy them.
They're different films though. There's no logical fallacy there.
You would hope.
I hope I'm not giving any impression of thinking these films "important". I just love discussing them and how people respond to them. Perhaps I'm showing my cards as a "fanboy", but I'm not typing my comments red-faced or with increased blood pressure. ;)
I think the truth is rather in the middle here. No one is saying that, correct. Not explicitly, at least. But statements such as (and I'm not quoting anyone verbatim here), "anyone who loves this film doesn't understand Batman" bring a hint of that. I have, of course, used similar phrases to express my discontent with certain films myself. I'm well aware of how meaningless they are. ;-)
The problem for me is that when I say, "critics seem to agree that it's a terrible film", others are quick to point out that "critics don't conspire against a film", which is true, something I'm perfectly well aware of but also irrelevant when I'm trying to sort out mere trends. Surely we can agree there. Critics never speak 100% unanimously, but a vocal majority can respond to the same film differently in 1969 versus in 1979... They can dismiss a film in 1982 and call it a classic twenty years later. Again, I'm not talking about ulterior motives, I'm only saying that there can be a majority opinion, which leads to expressions such as "universally panned" or "received universal acclaim." And if these majority votes repeatedly swing the same way, I can point out a trend, no? I'm not even saying that critics are wrong since there is no right or wrong here. But when people point that it's unlikely the Snyder Cut of JL will be heralded as the next awesome superhero film, I see nothing wrong with agreeing while referencing past criticisms of Snyder's films and some of the points that were raised then and can be expected to be raised again.
And this has what to do with what? Yes, they're different films. So, we cannot compare the reactions to one versus the to the other? Because we might as well terminate this film discussion forum altogether then. Next time someone points out how funny it is that people didn't embrace the Bond of LTK while they did embrace the Bond of QOS, rather than amuse the poster by engaging in a discussion about what could be the cause of that, I'll just say, "different films, move on". So can I politely ask to take the heat off my shoulders? I'm just looking for an interesting discussion about something built on taste, opinion, personal biases, and pretty much every other form of subjective interpretation--all for fun. If we first have to check the waterproof logic behind our statements, this community has nothing left to discuss but math, law and philosophy.
Yes, WW1984 is a different film than BvS. But they are "bother and sister", no? Part of the same "film universe"? Released in more or less the same decade? Based on characters from the same comic book universe? With shared characters, producers, actors and distributors? All discussed in this very same thread? Well, yes. But different films. So what was I even thinking comparing the responses one got to the ones the other got...
I'm here for some fun, mate. I respond to imperfect posts with my own imperfect posts. I respond to one man's opinion with my own. That's all there is and that's how this game has always been played. :)
it really should be 2 films Justice league part 1 and justice league part 2 rather then a 4 hour film
You mean the new release should be cut in two or do you mean that this new release should have been a straight-up sequel to 2017's JL, @Risico007?
If you mean the first option, then I guess you can always choose to break it up halfway and finish the second half the other day, no? ;-)
I meant the first option Again my only issue is I kind of am annoyed we wont get a big screen Justice league vs injustice league but after what i have heard from Wonder Woman 1984 Maybe that isnt a bad thing lol
also I actually loved BVS and while The Batman looks good I am pissed Affleck didnt get his own film
Well I'd have to actually see someone saying that to comment on it.
Well you can, but that's just what's called a consensus. It happens on the majority of films. Godfather 2 is generally seen as a classic by most, Godfather 3 isn't. Consensus of opnion. They're not doing it because of the reasons you suggest like 'not enough diversity': they just happen to share the opinion that the film is, on the whole, not great.
Well not directly, no. You can't suggest they're biased against the one director for nefarious reasons when the most obvious reason is: they thought one film was better than the other.
They're not directly comparable because there are so many differences. If they were the same script being directed by two different people then you'd have more of a control in the experiment to say that they're picking one director over another; but there's nothing wrong with preferring the work of one director to another. The director is massively responsible for the quality of the film!
Gus Van Sant / Hitchcock. One film was great, one was rubbish, despite being practically identical. It wasn't people bashing Van Sant because it was trendy or not woke enough: they just thought it was bad.
That's not the same thing, no. No-one is suggesting that the critics were all poised against Dalton's movies because they had some nefarious reason. You're saying they think it's 'trendy' to write him off, and that Marvel films get an easy ride because they have more real-world incidents and diverse people in them.
You're suggesting all sorts of reasons as to why they gave it poor reviews, most of which reflect badly on the reviewers, but isn't it more likely that they just think they're better?
I've seen plenty of reviews I don't agree with: I just chalk it up to people having different opinions, not that reviewers are deficient or biased in some way.
Well me too, and part of that is being open to having your opinion challenged.
Hold on. Somewhere in this forum, I copied several sections from reviews that had problems with, amongst other things, Gal Gadot being "too pretty" as Wonder Woman and thereby undermining the importance of giving less attractive women a chance in these films and whatnot. I just can't seem to find this post... Either way, I recall looking for similar comments on contemporary Marvel films but couldn't find any. I'm not pulling these things out of thin air. My original statement may have involved hyperbole, but I didn't just make stuff up.
You're honestly saying that such a bias cannot exist among critics? Okay then.
I mostly agree but I also think you're giving some critics a lot of credit, @mtm. Armond White calling Michael Moore something akin to "a paranoid left-wing idiot" (the first example that springs to mind) doesn't exactly sound like he's going to review the movie but rather the man, no?
Of course, they do. And since you insist on getting so bloody technical in a film discussion for heaven's sake, fine, next time I'll academically rethink my statements before posting. I know what I've read in all these years, but I haven't kept records of reviews and such, so I'll leave it at an agree to disagree. But I strongly disagree that film critics are overall symbols of honesty who cannot ride a certain wave.
This isn't the first time we've discussed this, @mtm. Whenever discussions about woke or PC people are brought up, you are always quick to suggest that the ones who are worried about their films being censored or evaluated for social justice and whatnot are making the exact same mistakes they're blaming on others. It's one of your pet peeves, and that's fine. You're taking this seriously and I respect that. But at the same time, I've got a feeling that you can't even imagine some of that to factor in. And I will stand by it. As I said, I haven't been building a collection of saved reviews on my hard drive. I just know what I've read. And since this isn't a courtroom, I can include impressions from memory in my posts.
So do I.
But in some cases, I firmly believe that bias counts for a lot.
And that's what I love about this forum. But there are various ways to challenge an opinion about films, and semantics or predicate logic aren't ways I personally enjoy.
I suspect Snyder is playing coy and still hopes HBO Max to greenlight a proper miniseries in order to wrap up the Snyderverse. He already has a story, he just needs the money.
WarnerMedia gave him 70 millions just to finish and expand the mythology of a film that came out only three years ago and lost a lot of money. If you think about it it’s something unprecedented and after that everything can happen, especially because the potential sequel would be technically a HBO Original and the decisions are up to WarnerMedia’s bosses, not the WB Pictures executives that caused the 2017 debacle... and that still “hate” Zack.
Well there isn't really a prominent Marvel female superhero in the same way, is there? I know they've got Marvel now but she wasn't hugely memorable or as iconic as Wonder Woman. So that's a subject which would come up in a WW review rather than an Iron Man one.
I'm sure several reviewers have taken issue with points in Marvel films that you could probably apply to DC ones. I'm not seeing the conspiracy here.
It's not my first thought just because they don't give something I like a positive review; that's what I'm saying.
Again, you're looking to attack critics because you don't share their opinions; why not just accept that other people have different opinions?
With regards to Moore, his films are massively authored opinion pieces: it's pretty much impossible to review one of his movies without mentioning his political stance. That critic does sound a bit rubbish yeah, but if your hypothesis is that all critics are bad because you've found some examples of bad ones, then it sounds like you're as biased against them as you claim they are against Snyder.
You don't think it's possible that they can just be speaking their opinions and reactions on a movie? Their thoughts on Snyder's films have to be underhand in some way?
Didn't they turn their thumbs down at Justice League, anyway? And that was a Whedon film as an end product, so if they're all gunning for Snyder they should have been saying 'wow Whedon really saved this one!' shouldn't they?
Well I didn't bring it up; it was you who said that they're biased against these films because they're not, for a better word, woke enough and don't contain enough real world allegories; but you missed all the 911 talk, the racially diverse Justice League, one of whom is non-binary, and the most iconic female superhero there is. Who comes in and saves Batman and Superman incidentally! :)
I don't think anyone is talking semantics, and logic is just part of the world. I think a person having to attack the form of the argument is one method of challenge I personally don't enjoy. You are basically accusing critics of being underhand or biased for no real other reason that you've displayed other than you just don't like their opinions, and that's not really what forums like these are about.
I happen to not enjoy the Snyder DC movies because... I don't think they're very good. I think the atmosphere overwhelms them, I think they're too silly in places (Martha...), take themselves too seriously, are overly CG heavy so I don't believe anything I'm seeing, the stories are dull and the action uninvolving. Does that mean I'm part of the bias too? If not, and I can have that reaction, why can't some of the people who review movies for newspapers happen to have a similar one?
With the main actors coming back do you think? That would be an impressive feat to pull off.
So it's not quite been made by the same people who made the original? So it is kind of new movie from their point of view I guess.
Me: X
You: You're wrong.
Me: Let me explain then, and rephrase where I can.
You: But you say X, so you're wrong.
Me: I see your point but here's my attempt at explaining where I come from.
You: But you say X, so you're wrong.
...
Well, you've made your point. Thank you. This was all unbelievably amusing. I've had so much fun playing this game of walking in circles. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll just go back to discussing things with people who don't feel like they're peer-reviewing a college thesis, people I'm actually having a good time exchanging opinions with. Again, thank you.
More like:
You: X
Me: I don't agree with that
You: X again, you're wrong.
Me: I don't agree with that either because that's the same thing as before, let me explain why.
You: There's something wrong with you
Well that's fine but it's not like it was a good-humoured proposition you were putting forward: you're saying why you think these peoples' opinions aren't valid, which isn't very nice. And now you're getting angry (or certainly using sarcasm in a way which suggests you're angry) with me because I have different opinions to you, so much like the critics, there must be something wrong with me. Maybe it comes down to a tolerance towards the viewpoints of others.
I was happy to have a good time, I wasn't nasty, I was calm and chose language as detached as possible; it shouldn't have come to this really. If my points weren't making sense then I was more than happy to have them challenged just as I challenged yours, but for some reason it became personal and insulting rather than a discussion. My intention was certainly never to insult you and I don't think I did.
So it’s not a typical Director’s Cut, more like a total Redux. This time, commissioned by WarnerMedia and not WB Pictures (WB is a subsidiary of WarnerMedia). WB Pictures is not even promoting the film on social networks.
EDIT: The film is longer than Snyder’s original 214 minutes cut, obviously. This beast is 240 minutes. 250 with the intermission. The 2017 Whedon Cut was barely two hours and at least half of the film was reshot. Cyborg has only one scene directed by Snyder in the 2017 cut for example. Snyder said his cut has 80% of unseen footage.
@Risico007
That is too bad, isn't it? I think Affleck was a good Batman and I'd have loved to see him get his own, stand-alone Batman film. In fact, I wish they had squeezed such a film in the mix somewhere before Jl, so we'd get a chance to get to know this Batman a little better.
I didn't know they'd shot new scenes with all of those actors.
It is fascinating about the WB Pictures thing; kind of surprising they did that just in terms of the internal politics of it must've created some bad blood, you'd think? There's probably a very interesting book to be written about it in 20 years time! :)
MOS didn't do that. Snyder went for his grimdark take on the Superman mythos. I can accept that if it's an elseworlds kind of thing, but that's not the proper Superman.
As much of a mess the theatrical cut was, I was ECSTATIC to finally get a Superman that wasn't depicted as being emotionally tortured and conflicted. When he uses his powers, he isn't screaming in agony because IT'S THAT INTENSE BRO. Sure, the erasure of the mustache was pretty awful, but I was just happy to finally see Cavill play a serene Superman who actually gets joy out of being a hero, instead of getting speeches from his Ayn Rand parents about how altruism is not that great. And most damning of all, he was EXCELLENT in those Whedon shot scenes. However misused he was by Snyder, he was perfectly cast for the part. It reminded me of how Chris Pine's James T. Kirk was initially written and portrayed as a sleazy dudebro in the J.J. Abrams Star Trek films. But once you brought in a new set of writers and director for STAR TREK BEYOND, suddenly Chris Pine is playing a much more mature and thoughtful version of Kirk that aligns more closely to the classic version played by Shatner. And Pine NAILED it without ever having to imitate Shatner's style.
But I suppose we'll get more of Cavill looking angry as he shoots laser-beams from his eyes.
And MORE SCREAMING!
But yeah, that's all my opinion anyway. I'm glad those who want more of SnyderMan are getting it in a month!
I believe one of the reasons WB originally green lit the Snyder Cut was because they wanted to have at least one big original movie to debut on HBO Max, and there was an unfinished one sitting right in their archives.
However, now with COVID and all their movies being dumped onto the service, it's slightly pointless now.
Certainly, it's good PR from the fanboys, and they'll likely do the Netflix thing of claiming "60 million people watched this but no you can't see our figures" but I remain doubtful that a sequel will materialize.
It's reaching The Last Jedi discourse levels of boring by now.
https://www.cbr.com/dc-batman-89-superman-78-digital-first/
That certainly seems like an interesting development. I know that a Batman Returns sequel comic was pitched back in 2016 but DC never bought it.
I hope they don't do what they did with the Adam West comics and direct to DVD animations though, and basically just write a boring normal Batman/Superman story and then just dress it up in the aesthetic of the old property.