[Movie] Snyder Cut: Justice League

[Uurdz]

Which he isn’t referring to, else he’d be saying that they all had the kahunas to go toe-to-toe with Superman. He’s talking about WW specifically, and trying to explain how her headbutt against Superman shows that this single hit is comparable in power, like he just tried to explain above.

It wasn’t.

I cannot make my point any clearer or with any more evidence and your refusal to counter it or change your view indicates further discussion will bring no value. I’ve made my point, you can think it’s wrong but ultimately the Dunning-Krueger effect is too strong here.

[Kyphael]

I don’t think Superman was initially “going for a kill”, else he would have easily killed them all. Based on what we saw, it seems he was just trying to put them down cause he leaves them hurt, until he saw Batman and his whole demeanor changes. He then went after him with intentions to kill... after he fucked with him a bit. Lois snapped him outta it, tho.

Eh, I don't know. He shot Victor with eye lasers straight up. Shot the same eye lasers at a very human police officer who would have been fried. He was hitting Diana with everything he had, malice in his eyes, arrogance, annoyance. He was swinging for the fences on Flash, and only didn't hit him because even a rookie Flash is still faster (even if Superman is almost as fast to Barry's surprise.) He didn't kill anyone because they're not defenseless. He could have if the fight dragged on, sure, he left them laying, but I still think it's worth noting Diana was not at all going all out trying to hurt Superman. Remember, this is the same Wonder Woman who had a smirk on her face and was doing a better job fighting Doomsday than Superman was. Again, not saying Superman ISN'T stronger, but if Wonder Woman was fully serious, she could fuck him up and it would be a lot more of a serious fight.

[Kyphael]

You don’t think WW, knowing Superman is going after Batman (to kill him), who’s only mortal, wouldn’t give it all she has to protect him, cause she knows he’s the most vulnerable outta the group?

Nah, I don’t think so.

Could have been she was optimistic he'd snap out of it and not go through with actually killing any of them, even Batman, she's not a mind reader.

[shoc]

Justice League was just Watchmen if it was also Cloud Atlas. 5/10 for me.

But if you look at it less as a movie, and more as a visual comic book experience, I think it's actually really excellent. 8/10

It just isn't a good movie.

[everydaygamer]

Superman's black suit. Just needed the mullet.

While it was cool seeing the suit I really wish it was more than just pointless fan service. I know why he wears it in the comics but there was no reason for him to wear it in this movie. I could understand if it was meant to be foreshadowing but when we see evil Superman later he's wearing the normal suit so there really was no point to it in the end.

In the end, I think Snyder will be most remembered for how many iconic moments he managed to waste in only 2 films.

[Ophenia]

I... really liked it. Lots of nonsense scenes/texts were removed, the pace was great as I didn't see the time passing despite viewing a 4-hour movie.

Cyborg is now a complete character. The only thing I regret is that I liked his dialogue with his father in the original, which was 80% scrapped, but that's for the best I guess.
Flash is a bit better but still weird af. Glad he had a real scene during the final part (damn that time rewind), instead of him being useless saving the family and greatly overpowered by Superman.
And Steppenwolf was a lot less lame. Movie as a whole was a lot more brutal than the original and that was good.

Talking about it, the final worked better because it seemed more a teamwork than Superman saving the day and all the rest being utterly pointless that we had in the original.
Overall felt a real Justice League movie. Something I didn't like in the original was the part where they decide to revive Superman, it feels like it's out of nowhere, and only Bruce seems to bring that idea up with all the rest being against. In Zack's version, seems more to be a group decision, with logical reasoning behind.

Epilogue was okay but didn't redeem Leto's Joker. Seemed more like a glorified cameo with glorified references to their pasts, but didn't bring much to the story. And that retarded laughter damn...

All in all, that's the kind of movie I wanted to see, but no way Zack would have done this movie 4 years ago. Too violent, too long, and he very likely benefitted from post-movie critics to change stuff that were disliked. Glad he got the second chance, now we'll see if they try to continue its original vision for a trilogy...

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

But pacing and runtime are not the same is what I am getting at. One is irrelevant to the other. If you just said, "This film feels like a slog because it is poorly paced", I would agree 100%.

I did say that. And I think the longer a movie is the more important the pacing becomes.

Yea, because you have to address what they made and how it was made. Not how it could have been made better or how it might have gone.

You can do both. You can say "This is what they did wrong" and "This is what they could have done that would have been better". Otherwise the review would just be "Well, Zack Snyder made the best movie Zack Snyder could make". I mean, as far as Zack Snyder is concerned...he made the perfect movie.

And, when you have a Director's cut of the movie... You are specifically talking about what they could have done differently...because that's the what a Director's cut is. That's the Director saying "this is what I think the best cut of the movie is".

If I want to make the butler the killer at the end of my movie, fair criticism isn't; "Well, it could have been better if it was the maid who did it!"

That's absolutely fair criticism. You are basically saying "well, you can't criticize the choices the director made in the movie because he didn't make a different choice".

It is not necessarily bad writing because a film takes an approach or plays a scene weakly in our view. Such as the MMH scene, which I think we both think is pretty poor from what I gather.

But I don't think the scene has bad writing. On the contrary, I the scene itself has some of the best writing in the entire movie. It's that one single choice to make it MMH instead of Martha Kent in that scene that ruins it.

I am fairly certain they do. Can you name a film in the MCU I can take a look at where a character is not established? I'll take a look at it when I can.

Uh, they do. I forgot the names of the Infinity Gauntlet movies, but in both, there is an establishing scene for Iron Man/Tony Stark. One with Doctor Strange if memory serves and again when the plan is coming together.

I mean...it depends on what you mean by an establishing scene. If you mean "Iron Man puts on the Iron Man suit" than yeah...sure. But there's a lot they expect you to know about Iron Man before you go into any movie other than the first Iron Man movie.

They don't need to remind you, personally. But if any writer wrote a movie thinking my mother (for example) would know what Wonder Woman or The Flash do or who they are- that would be bad writing 101.

I wouldn't expect your mother to know the Flash...because, except for a brief and mostly forgettable cameo in Suicide Squad, he hadn't appeared yet in this particular iteration of the character. I would expect her to know who Wonder Woman was though...because I would have expected her to have at least seen Batman v Superman before she decides to watch the sequel to it. Just like I would kind of expect the audience to be somewhat familiar with who Luke Skywalker is before they watch The Empire Strikes Back.

I'd like to see any screenwriting course or text that supports a view such as what you saying here. Because you have to remind the audience almost constantly about the character's scope. Great examples of this The Nice Guys, Chinatown, The Hateful Eight, North by Northwest, Swallow, etc.

All of those movies are single movies. They all have new characters that the audience is not familiar with. Wonder Woman is not a new character. This is not a new iteration of a character. This is the same character that was in two of the previous movies in this series of films where she fully demonstrated her capabilities and motivations.

This is also, objectively wrong.

The scene: 1. shows WW's abilities; the clapping of her bracers together, flight, fast, strong, etc. 2. She defends innocents and fights defensively 3. She is specifically a feminist hero 4. Justice is a motivating ideological factor in her heroism. None of this exists in the film prior to WW showing up for this scene- this is the first presentation of her abilities and actions in the film.

Now, I'll go along with you for the sake of argument. Let's say every single person who saw this film knows all those things about WW before the film even starts.

Even if that were true- which it isn't, my mother has no clue about anything Wonder Woman related (ex); as presented the scene absolutely accomplishes what the filmmaker set out for Wonder Woman. The filmmakers wanted to show WW as fast, strong, defensive, able to clang her bracers together & knock people down, has a rope, etc.

Even in the case where someone has no idea what Wonder Woman can do because for some reason they decided to skip the two movies she was featured in before this one...they would learn all that information in the first fight with Steppenwolf and the Parademons. Nothing in that scene advances the plot in any way. There isn't even a reference to it having ever have happened.

The ONLY thing to critique here is the artistic intent and if they did do what was intended. What you think about the scene is another thing apart and is of no relevance to the scene's accomplishment. That's where you keep going wrong.

Those are two different things. But you're insisting on the process of artistic intent concurrent with how you feel about it- which is dropping in a lot of language about the film you would have liked to have been made rather than one made. That's a no-go.

I really don't care about the "artistic intent" of a scene. I care about what it actually accomplishes. What I am saying is "It didn't work for me...but this is what would have". And I know it would have worked better for me...because there is a version of the movie that plays out exactly like that...and it did.

I'm not sure why you think you can tell other people that they have to judge a movie by the terms you decide.

They did. It's the Iris scene. He doesn't show his abilities in full before then and by default that is the establishment of his ability. Because it is connected solely to his ability.

Once again, At best, it shows Barry using his speed before he uses his speed again a little bit later. It does nothing to advance the plot. I mean, sure, it's great that he wants to pay his own way through a criminal law degree so that one day he will have the chance to prove that his father is innocent...but that's not important to this movie. What's important to understand about Barry Allen is that he has super speed and he wants to use that speed to help people. Not just his dad. Not just cute girls he bumps into when applying for jobs. All people. I think it would have made for a better scene if he hadn't seen Iris until he was saving her. That's when he can have his long soulful look into her eyes. I also think it would have made for a better scene in a different movie.

This is a criticism of the movie that i will not direct to Zack Snyder specifically...but rather every single person involved in the decision to make a Justice League movie before establishing half of that League...because it put Snyder in a real bad position before he even started filming.

What? This is a contradiction. Demonstrating Superman's superiority is establishing Superman. That's the literal defining characteristic; Super-man.

But it isn't about Superman being powerful. It's to show how powerful he is in context to the rest of the Justice League. That's something that could only be established in this film...because Superman has only met two of the league before...and only fought Batman. There is a distinct difference that and showing how powerful Wonder Woman is when compared to regular humans.

That's fine. I agree. But you lose me when you throw anything out there that is not presented in the film.

Well, you lose me as soon as you think you can determine which terms I can review a movie by.

- - - Updated - - -

He's right though. "Going toe-to-toe" only means you are willing to put up a fight. You can still get smoked and have gone toe-to-toe with someone. It has nothing to do with how well you fight, winning or losing or being able to "go several rounds". Toe-to-toe just denotes vigor and willingness to fight/compete/face-off directly.

In that case, everyone in that scene is "Going toe-to-toe" with Superman and there is nothing special at all about Wonder Woman by saying she was able to go "toe to toe" with Superman.

- - - Updated - - -

Could have been she was optimistic he'd snap out of it and not go through with actually killing any of them, even Batman, she's not a mind reader.

Even if we say she was holding back against Clark... just compare her fights with Steppenwolf and Superman's fight with Steppenwolf and you can clearly see they aren't in the same league (pun intended) at all. Clark absolutely dominates Steppenwolf...WW can barely even slow him down. Even when she has Aquaman backing her up...they still aren't a match.

[Logwyn]

Welp, Gamespot gave it 3/10. 54% Metacritic score. General conclusion: Steppenwolf fleshed out much better but movie is still a mess. New characters bring nothing, CGI still abhorrent.

I just put this in the "Isn't Avengers and MCU" rating bin and the "ugh its 4 hours" too long for ME! bin.

[Fencers]

Which he isn’t referring to, else he’d be saying that they all had the kahunas to go toe-to-toe with Superman. He’s talking about WW specifically, and trying to explain how her headbutt against Superman shows that this single hit is comparable in power, like he just tried to explain above.

It wasn’t.

Oh yea, he's wrong about that part. I was just talking about going toe-to-toe. Which the movie did illustrate WW was and did do- regardless of how effective she was, of course.

- - - Updated - - -

You can do both.

But only one of those things, what was made & how, is valid discussion. Unless you also want to hear my ideas about Robocop 3.

And, when you have a Director's cut of the movie...

This doesn't matter. A movie is a movie.

That's absolutely fair criticism. You are basically saying "well, you can't criticize the choices the director made in the movie because he didn't make a different choice".

Correct.

But I don't think the scene has bad writing. On the contrary, I the scene itself has some of the best writing in the entire movie. It's that one single choice to make it MMH instead of Martha Kent in that scene that ruins it.

I was talking about the entire scene, which is inclusive of the MMH choice, but otherwise there isn't much more to say on this.

I would expect her to know who Wonder Woman was though...because I would have expected her to have at least seen Batman v Superman before she decides to watch the sequel to it. Just like I would kind of expect the audience to be somewhat familiar with who Luke Skywalker is before they watch The Empire Strikes Back

I can not think of a single book, class or seminar about film making I own or have attended that advises filmmakers to expect the audience to know these type of things. The opposite is the case; every single book, class, and talk I own and attended emphasized informing the audience constantly of who a character is.

And no, my mother didn't know Wonder Woman had all those powers. She literally called me and asked "Can Wonder Woman fly? I didn't know she was that strong or fast."

That is a different knowing from being aware a character named Wonder Woman exists and knowing the character of Wonder Woman in this particular film.

If you want to disagree that is fine. But I suspect screenwriters and directors will continue making films in the manner I am talking about where characters are established continually.

All of those movies are single movies.

Good screenwriting practice is good screenwriting practice. There isn't a special ghetto for writing movies that are multi-part sagas of loosely connected films. No one writes like that professionally and is repeatedly successful.

Nothing in that scene advances the plot in any way.

It didn't have to because it was an establishing scene as I already said. Establishing scenes do not necessarily have to advance the plot.

I really don't care about the "artistic intent" of a scene.

Then we have nothing to discuss. I won't engage further.

[DingDongKing]

Folks must have a lot of time on their hand if they want to sit and argue about a film they don't even like.

It would be like me spending all day arguing with people about World of Warcraft when I don't even play it anymore.

[Adamas102]

I don’t want to tell you that you shouldn’t enjoy it (I too enjoy plenty of bad movies), but saying “It has a fleshed out story” isn’t really that great a quality when it requires a 4 hour runtime to get across. There isn’t a comic book hero movie out there that couldn’t be stretched out to that extent with all the source material these types of characters have sitting around.

If this was the version that had originally been released in theaters it would have gotten absolutely pummeled. Watching a 4 hour movie from the comfort of your couch is one thing, but that’s not going to go over well with theater crowds for a variety of reasons. And if not for the Whedon version to compare it to, even more people would be calling this out for the bloated mess that it is.

I too can appreciate an extended directors cut to a certain extent (the 12 hour LotR box set on my shelf says hi), but I also recognize that editing down and still having a coherent story is also an art in and of itself. Basically I can see the Snyder Cut as a cool little novelty, but I think most people can still see it would have a lot of issues being parsed down to 2.5 hours.

[everydaygamer]

I'm honestly surprised how highly rated this film was; yeah, it's better than the Whedon cut, but it's still a mess.

Diana only exists to explain who Darkseid is; Flash gets to do some cool stuff but barely has any semblance of an arc, and while the stuff he does is pretty cool (time travel), it ultimately serves no real purpose. Cyborg is the only thing that's greatly improved in this; Superman, thankfully, isn't in it much, so not much to complain their and Batman, at the very least, is better than he was in Batman v Superman.

Still, Darkseid is portrayed as a joke and nothing like his comic counterpart (he forgot where the planet was). Steppenwolf is better but still looks ridiculous. Martian Manhunter is shoehorned there for no purpose other than teasing future movies (tell one good story first, Zack!).

Overall the film was fine, but I roll my eyes at people claiming it was better than Endgame when this shit barely measures up to the original Avengers.

[DingDongKing]

I don’t want to tell you that you shouldn’t enjoy it (I too enjoy plenty of bad movies), but saying “It has a fleshed out story” isn’t really that great a quality when it requires a 4 hour runtime to get across. There isn’t a comic book hero movie out there that couldn’t be stretched out to that extent with all the source material these types of characters have sitting around.

If this was the version that had originally been released in theaters it would have gotten absolutely pummeled. Watching a 4 hour movie from the comfort of your couch is one thing, but that’s not going to go over well with theater crowds for a variety of reasons. And if not for the Whedon version to compare it to, even more people would be calling this out for the bloated mess that it is.

I too can appreciate an extended directors cut to a certain extent (the 12 hour LotR box set on my shelf says hi), but I also recognize that editing down and still having a coherent story is also an art in and of itself. Basically I can see the Snyder Cut as a cool little novelty, but I think most people can still see it would have a lot of issues being parsed down to 2.5 hours.

So personally I think the film would be fine at around 180-195 minutes. The epilogue could’ve been pretty much skipped. The editing in other places could’ve been sharper. The notion of ‘no film needs that long’ is mildly flawed because the film is introducing 3 characters who are all main players. So that level of time isn’t an issue. 4 hours is long though, and just massively self indulgent.

[Adamas102]

So personally I think the film would be fine at around 180-195 minutes. The epilogue could’ve been pretty much skipped. The editing in other places could’ve been sharper. The notion of ‘no film needs that long’ is mildly flawed because the film is introducing 3 characters who are all main players. So that level of time isn’t an issue. 4 hours is long though, and just massively self indulgent.

Sure, but that just begs the question of why this wasn’t planned properly into two, or even perhaps three, movies?

While we’d all love to get multiple standalone movies per character before the big team up, it’s certainly possible to have a group of compelling characters work within a sub-3 hour story. The beauty of film as a story telling medium is that with a good writer, director, and actor you can set up a compelling character with a single minute long scene.

Rather than make the easy MCU comparisons (and since I already referenced LotR), take the character of Boromir from Fellowship. Introduced halfway through the movie and dead by the end, he is one of the more interesting of the NINE main characters and has a complete story arc told over four pivotal scenes (two of which clock in at under a minute). Credit to Sean Bean for being able to go from villain to hero within the span of like 10min of movie runtime.

The point is that a 4 hour movie is only necessary because a director like Snyder is far more concerned with style over substance. When he clogs his movies with slow motion action and long scenes of characters posing, of course he’s not going to be able to give us characters we’re going to care about within a reasonable amount of time. Cyborg, Flash, and Aquaman shouldn’t have NEEDED draw out establishing flashback scenes to both do their part in this movie and make us want to see them again.

[DingDongKing]

Sure, but that just begs the question of why this wasn’t planned properly into two, or even perhaps three, movies?

While we’d all love to get multiple standalone movies per character before the big team up, it’s certainly possible to have a group of compelling characters work within a sub-3 hour story. The beauty of film as a story telling medium is that with a good writer, director, and actor you can set up a compelling character with a single minute long scene.

Rather than make the easy MCU comparisons (and since I already referenced LotR), take the character of Boromir from Fellowship. Introduced halfway through the movie and dead by the end, he is one of the more interesting of the NINE main characters and has a complete story arc told over four pivotal scenes (two of which clock in at under a minute). Credit to Sean Bean for being able to go from villain to hero within the span of like 10min of movie runtime.

The point is that a 4 hour movie is only necessary because a director like Snyder is far more concerned with style over substance. When he clogs his movies with slow motion action and long scenes of characters posing, of course he’s not going to be able to give us characters we’re going to care about within a reasonable amount of time. Cyborg, Flash, and Aquaman shouldn’t have NEEDED draw out establishing flashback scenes to both do their part in this movie and make us want to see them again.

- That's because DC had a panic attack and wanted to rush shit out the door.
- A short or long film isn't the issue. A properly paced film is the right approach. There are plenty of super long films, that just work anyway.
- Zack Snyder's Justice League ought not to be compared to one of the greatest literary pieces of our time. It's not on the same playing field.
- I don't think Zack Snyder's obsession with style over substance is the issue. As someone who's worked in the industry, it's a combination of things.
- The answer is more nuanced than that. It's having a strong team that can find the answers together, rein in each other's indulgences AND then be on the same page as the studio. Some studios just have a lack of vision and clarity, which then makes creating content even harder.
- The DCEU is the perfect example of that. As much as Aquaman and Shazam were 'fun', I've got little desire to see them again. They're extremely by the numbers. I'd have them on the same level as the first Thor film or the first Antman film. Basically nothing special.
- Snyder's films actually piqued my curiosity more, but he feels like the kind of director who's in desperate need of an extremely good writer and creative producer. A framework within which someone is able to harness the immense visual talent he has and filter into a strong product.
- Or basically source material that's so set in stone that it would be hard to deviate from. It's why 300 was so entertaining (but shallow given the source is) whilst Watchmen whilst missing out on the satirical aspect of Moore's writing, is still to me one of his best films.
- Look at how talented the Russos were at bringing Captain America's story and the Avengers films to fruition. BUT, they worked with Markus/McFeeley AND Kevin Feige with the entire Marvel infrastructure backing them up. But Extraction and Cherry were dogshit.

So yeah, it's not a binary answer. There's more to it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Oh yea, he's wrong about that part. I was just talking about going toe-to-toe. Which the movie did illustrate WW was and did do- regardless of how effective she was, of course.

- - - Updated - - -

But only one of those things, what was made & how, is valid discussion. Unless you also want to hear my ideas about Robocop 3.

I would love to hear your ideas for Robocop 3. In a thread about Robocop 3.

This doesn't matter. A movie is a movie.

I can not think of a single book, class or seminar about film making I own or have attended that advises filmmakers to expect the audience to know these type of things. The opposite is the case; every single book, class, and talk I own and attended emphasized informing the audience constantly of who a character is.

Never said you shouldn't. I've just that in sequels...the audience is already informed about the characters...and you don't need to retrace your steps.

And no, my mother didn't know Wonder Woman had all those powers. She literally called me and asked "Can Wonder Woman fly? I didn't know she was that strong or fast."

Did your mother watch BvS and/or Wonder Woman?

That is a different knowing from being aware a character named Wonder Woman exists and knowing the character of Wonder Woman in this particular film.

As I said, this is the same iteration of the Character that was in two previous DCEU movies. One doesn't need to rely on information one has about other versions of Wonder Woman. One just has to have seen the previous movie in the series.

Good screenwriting practice is good screenwriting practice. There isn't a special ghetto for writing movies that are multi-part sagas of loosely connected films. No one writes like that professionally and is repeatedly successful.

These aren't loosely connected films. Justice League is a direct sequel to BvS.

It didn't have to because it was an establishing scene as I already said. Establishing scenes do not necessarily have to advance the plot.

When the movie is 4 hours long and is beginning to drag after an hour...one should really consider how to use those establishing scenes as a way of advancing the plot. Not being able to see that is just bad filmmaking.

Then we have nothing to discuss. I won't engage further.

Best news.

[Swnem]

Folks must have a lot of time on their hand if they want to sit and argue about a film they don't even like.

It would be like me spending all day arguing with people about World of Warcraft when I don't even play it anymore.

Some people really like to hate on things and DC has been a punching bag.

Despite all the movie is the highest rated DC cinematic universe movie on rotten tomatoes with a 96% audience score and 74% critic if i recall. People are loving the movie and with good reason. It's satisfying. Feels like a DC animated movie, and those are regularly good. It's DC, not marvel wanna-be.

[DingDongKing]

Some people really like to hate on things and DC has been a punching bag.

Despite all the movie is the highest rated DC cinematic universe movie on rotten tomatoes with a 96% audience score and 74% critic if i recall. People are loving the movie and with good reason. It's satisfying. Feels like a DC animated movie, and those are regularly good. It's DC, not marvel wanna-be.

Yeah, it could’ve definitely been better as I outlined above. It feels like a Snyder film before a really top notch studio - not WB - worked with him to make it a sharp and polished final product. Pity the DC characters aren’t overseen by competent producers.

[BloodyAngel12]

[Rageadon]

i did watch it and i also liked it, felt much more complete than the other version, critics here in Norway also like the movie... checkmate nay sayers