Justice League **Spoilers from post 980 onward**

HandsomeBob

Slydice wrote: »

This showed up on my youtube

Music feels like it works in the screen

Works better than what we got but still doesn't feel right. Just makes me yearn for what we should have got.

Slydice

Agree. It feels right but the brighter colouring and some of the lines didn't

Falthyron

I watched this last night and although the start of it felt very disjointed (perhaps due to the re-shoots, etc.), I was starting to enjoy it by the end. Having said that, the CGI is awful. Truly terrible. It looks very poor and very jarring when you can tell most of the film is green screen. The scene where the league fights Superman is obviously a sound stage, even some of the surfaces the actors are walking on look fake. I can only guess that because of the re-shoots the CGI team were under a lot of pressure to get the film out on time and didn't have an opportunity to polish the effects. Some of the worst CGI I have seen in a modern blockbuster.

There was quite a bit to enjoy in the film though. Flash was good, I thought the humour that character brought to the film was on point and just under the radar enough to get a laugh, but not really affect the overall tone of the film. I keep hearing that there is a Snyder cut, or an extended cut, but we won't be getting it in the first DVD release. I would be really interested in seeing an extended cut of this film. I felt it was a little rushed in parts and maybe the disjointedness of the first half of the film could have been expanded upon a little to create a more wholesome film.

All things considered (the re-shoots, Snyder's daughter dying, Whedon coming in, time pressure), its not an awful film. I switched off the brain and enjoyed it, to be honest. Not sure what was the point of the Russian family... to remind us of the human element? In short, I think I enjoyed this film more than its opposite: Avengers. I wanted to know more about the Flash's background and I enjoyed the solemn, patient, calculated performance of Cyborg. Avengers, to me, is a giant blur filled with very little substance. I think there is a little more substance to the League franchise over the Avengers one.

splashthecash

Falthyron wrote: »

I watched this last night and although the start of it felt very disjointed (perhaps due to the re-shoots, etc.), I was starting to enjoy it by the end. Having said that, the CGI is awful. Truly terrible. It looks very poor and very jarring when you can tell most of the film is green screen. The scene where the league fights Superman is obviously a sound stage, even some of the surfaces the actors are walking on look fake. I can only guess that because of the re-shoots the CGI team were under a lot of pressure to get the film out on time and didn't have an opportunity to polish the effects. Some of the worst CGI I have seen in a modern blockbuster.

There was quite a bit to enjoy in the film though. Flash was good, I thought the humour that character brought to the film was on point and just under the radar enough to get a laugh, but not really affect the overall tone of the film. I keep hearing that there is a Snyder cut, or an extended cut, but we won't be getting it in the first DVD release. I would be really interested in seeing an extended cut of this film. I felt it was a little rushed in parts and maybe the disjointedness of the first half of the film could have been expanded upon a little to create a more wholesome film.

All things considered (the re-shoots, Snyder's daughter dying, Whedon coming in, time pressure), its not an awful film. I switched off the brain and enjoyed it, to be honest. Not sure what was the point of the Russian family... to remind us of the human element? In short, I think I enjoyed this film more than its opposite: Avengers. I wanted to know more about the Flash's background and I enjoyed the solemn, patient, calculated performance of Cyborg. Avengers, to me, is a giant blur filled with very little substance. I think there is a little more substance to the League franchise over the Avengers one.

Ah I wouldn’t say it’s better than the avengers...more substance to the justice league over marvels equivalent!? How do you make that out? There is a fraction of the setup movies for DC as there are for Marvel

Falthyron

splashthecash wrote: »

Ah I wouldn’t say it’s better than the avengers...more substance to the justice league over marvels equivalent!? How do you make that out? There is a fraction of the setup movies for DC as there are for Marvel

Music is a big thing for me. I can't recall any pieces of iconic music from the Avengers, but there are some wonderful themes in DC's Batman/Superman/League films.

As for setup, I haven't really watched many of the Marvel character films. The same can be said for DC's, although there has only really been Man of Steel. As stand-alone films, I find the DC ensemble to have more substance than the Marvel one. Maybe, I just prefer the darker tones, but there is something a bit too 'light' about Marvels and I think it suffers diminishing returns by having too many heroes on screen; there is very little time afforded to developing each character. It just isn't possible in a two or two and half hour film. Hence the character based films, I guess.

Slydice

See Gee Eye!

dublinman1990

I lol'd at this reply.

https://twitter.com/daveglee1907/status/968886930518757377

Gbear

It's funny. I just watched this there, and there were quite a lot of head in hands it was so terrible moments, wheteher from CGI, **** monologuing, Galbot attempting to do an act, or the generally terrible dialogue, but I wasn't bored either so that's something.

I can't really pick anything good out of it, but it was a string of somewhat stimulating flashing lights and noises, and the occasional amusing quip.

Utterly forgettable, but that's good and bad, because it wasn't offensive and I'm not annoyed about it like I have been about some terrible films. I will continue not going to see any DC films in the cinema. So far I haven't regretted that decision.

Even Wonder Woman was bang average, sort of Thor: The Dark World level if you're comparing across IPs, and even that generous a rating is quite a lot down to getting to look at Gal Gadot for an extended period of time. Good lord that woman.

I wonder what it'll take for them to stop flogging this DCCU horse.

jaxxx

We're how many films in now, 5?

Man of Steel: Very average
Dawn of Justice: Horse poop
Suicide Squad: Worse than a horse's poop's poop
Wonder Woman: Average
Justice League: Very very very very very average

Wonder Woman is simple the best of a bad lot. Justice League, while not as bad as Dawn of Justice (which should have just been called Dawn of Justice and not with the prefix 'Batman v Superman') or Suicide Squad, was still pretty damn bad. It was all over the place. Bruce's pathetic 'Superman was a symbol of hope' malarchy. So he went from 'Superman hater' to 'symbol of hope' just like that? Rubbish. Even going back to Dawn of Justice when he had the kryptonite spear in hand and the only thing that stopped him from shving it through Superman's chest was "Martha!!!".

I absolutely hated the way Supes was resurrected. What the hell was the point of that screen at the end of Dawn of Justice showing the dirt levitating above his coffin when he was just gonna be brought back by some completely BS motherbox hacking? Then there was the fight between him and the team. As strong as Supes is, he should not be able to completely destroy Aquaman or Wonder Woman as he did, the latter especially.

Hopefully Flashpoint will do a much better job... though I'm thinking it's too late to save the DCEU now. Give it a few years and reboot it.

Penn

jaxxx wrote: »

Then there was the fight between him and the team. As strong as Supes is, he should not be able to completely destroy Aquaman or Wonder Woman as he did, the latter especially.

In fairness, that could be explained by way of the rest of the JL trying to contain Supes and purposefully trying to not hurt him, whereas Superman was somewhat feral and unleashing on all of them.

jaxxx

Penn wrote: »

In fairness, that could be explained by way of the rest of the JL trying to contain Supes and purposefully trying to not hurt him, whereas Superman was somewhat feral and unleashing on all of them.

Yeah maybe, still think it was way OTT though.

In other news (unofficial/yet-to-be-confirmed): there are rumours aflutter on the internet that

Tom Cruise is to play Green Lantern

... Yup DCEU definitely dead if that's true!

Brief_Lives

where did you read that?

IncognitoMan

Think it's just people putting 2 and 2 together because the director of one of the mission impossible films is meant to be doing Green Lantern.

Actually think Cruise could make a good villain at some stage.

Brief_Lives

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Think it's just people putting 2 and 2 together because the director of one of the mission impossible films is meant to be doing Green Lantern.

Actually think Cruise could make a good villain at some stage.

I'd suggest M.O.D.O.K, but he's a different universe...

Mitch Connor

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Think it's just people putting 2 and 2 together because the director of one of the mission impossible films is meant to be doing Green Lantern.

Actually think Cruise could make a good villain at some stage.

Based on the speculation I assume GL would be outside of the Universe that we have currently had (if it exists anymore).

Speculation has Cruise as Hal Jordan, mentoring John Stewert (SP?).


On the face of it that could be a good story and a good movie, but if Jordan is mentoring Stewert, then he has been a lantern for a while and just straight up ignored Zod/Doomsday/Steppnwolfe? Seems even more unbelievable than the missing Avengers in Marvel movies.

GavRedKing

I only seen this at the weekend, wanted top avoid it as long as possible after BvS.

I'm glad I didnt pay money to see it anyway, put it that way, which is where I stand on Suicide Squad, which I still havent seen, nor am I in a rush to get too.

It seemed rushed and lot of the "jokes" between the cast were pretty terrible, IMO.

IncognitoMan

I watched a fan edit of it last week titled Justice League Ultimate Fan Cut or something along those lines. Seems to have been taken off vimeo now though. I'm sure it's not too difficult to track it down.

It cuts a lot of the unnecessary jokes out and removes the down right weird jokes (Martha calling Lois a thirsty young woman). In truth I think it's a better cut of the film.

It adds back in the Superman and Alfred scene and uses some scenes from BvS to remind the audience where we are with the story. I think it uses the original music as well. It can feel like it moves through the plot very quickly though and that's probably because of how the original movie was cut with the same problem.

Overall I was impressed by the work done by a couple of fans. Fair play.

theteal

I watched this last night. I think because I was expecting it to be utter muck, in the end I thought it was. . .alright. There's a lot that you need to overlook or you'll get annoyed e.g. did WW needs to explain the whip thing?, some of the dialog - "thirsty", really? The CGI was terrible. What did Aqua bring to the party apart from some dodgy lines? I'm sure there's more I've forgotten.

In saying that, some of the jokes landed with me, it's nice that they're used sparingly as opposed to Avengers where it's non-stop (in the face of the end of the world, cool the quips, seriously). So all in all, I didn't hate it.

Tony EH

Haven't seen this yet, but why is it that studios feel the need to force "jokes"? Do they think that audiences can't take some tension or drama for any sustained period of time?

I can't understand this modern cinematic obsession with trying to land a smart arsed remark or quip, especially at the most inopportune moments. It rarely clicks and comes off as desperate most of the time. Not only that, they often wreck a scene completely.

It's interesting to see that in a lot of fanedits, the first thing to go is usually the shitty attempts at humour that studios jam into films, because it's largely unfunny and compelled upon the writers (who aren't comedians) by figures other than themselves.

Unlike a lot of folk I actually liked 'Mand of Steel' and 'Batman vs Superman', but I've heard so much bad feedback about 'The Justice League', I might just skip the theatrical cut altogether and go straight for the fanedit IncognitoMan mentioned.

One of things I absolutely loath is bad humour - and obviously bad humour - in movies. All of that shit used to end up on the cutting room floor. Now, it's shoehorned in.

IncognitoMan

That fan edit seems to have been taken down but I'm sure you could find it somewhere.

I thought it was better than the theatrical cut anyway. Some of the "Jokes" in the theatrical are painful alright.

After a bit of distance, I would say Justice League actually ended up being the weakest of the DC films just above Suicide Squad for me. It felt like it tried to copy the Marvel formula but because it tried to change halfway through the making of it, JL ending up being nothing really. I liked BvS and Man of Steel as well but this isnt like those. There's hints of that style there but it's covered in Joss Whedon's style.

But yeah the fan edit, I'd recommend it even if it is possibly a bit rough with cuts in places. Still for the film, I would keep expectations low and maybe you'll enjoy it a bit more :pac:

Tony EH

Joss Whedon?

I'm even less bothered.

Greyfox

Tony EH wrote: »

Haven't seen this yet, but why is it that studios feel the need to force "jokes"? Do they think that audiences can't take some tension or drama

Because when the jokes land it makes a better film, in infinity war and GOGalaxy the humour makes the film far more entertaining but when jokes don't land they stand out like a sore thumb. I seen justice league and I can't remember what it was about. Wonder woman is the only recent DC film that was any good

Tony EH

Greyfox wrote: »

Because when the jokes land it makes a better film,

Not always.

Even if they're humorous, they can destroy the mood of a scene.

But, far too often, they're not even remotely humorous and can end up wrecking the entire film.

IncognitoMan

Yeah, Ah most of his Jokes are cut in the fan film. Google Justice League Reborn and reddit has it.

Actually this is my first time seeing the poster for it. My god is it beautiful. Too big to link though and I'm too lazy to resize.

https://i.imgur.com/dRiQ0Mt.jpg

Edit: Actually Justice League Reborn might be a different fan edit to the one I seen. I seen Justice League Ultimate fan cut. My bad. It's very confusing :pac:

IncognitoMan

Tony EH wrote: »

Not always.

Even if they're humorous, they can destroy the mood of a scene.

But, far too often, they're not even remotely humorous and can end up wrecking the entire film.

I said it at the time but with JL you can tell the jokes were added in after, almost like they are trying to hit a gag quota or something at times.

Batman flips between dark/moody/weight of the world on his shoulders and telling jokes way too much in the film. You can clearly see it has two different directors with two different styles giving input on the character and it lessens his scenes hugely.

Slydice

Usually I recommend the Ultimate Cut of BvS.

I think this is the cut of JL for that:
https://vimeo.com/276498216

Einstrahlung50

Thor Ragnorak was spoiled with too many jokes, the scenes lose their impact if you go over the top trying to add humour.

dublinman1990

Zack Snyder gave some big information about JL in his recent Q&A out in the U.S.

He said that there was a total of 10 cuts made for JL. One of those cuts that is finished is the definitive cut which lasts for 214 minutes or 3 hours 34 minutes. It is not a chopped up of the movie at all. Every scene filmed Snyder's definitive version of the movie is in there. But he said the VFX & score are not finished on the movie. The movie should be released on home video when it's approved by Warner Brothers. But there is no definitive timeline for it yet.

Snyder also confirmed that Joss Whedon's version of the film was a rewrite of his story to shorten it even further.

More details about what's been done with JL is here on Reddit.

The White Wolf

I saw that Snyder said that the original script that was initially approved before BvS went out the window as well, so what we ended up getting was a Whedon bastardisation of a bastardisation already undertook by Snyder on his own vision. What an utter hatchet job WB did on this film.

Sabrebo

Tony EH wrote: »

Not always.

Even if they're humorous, they can destroy the mood of a scene.

But, far too often, they're not even remotely humorous and can end up wrecking the entire film.

Thor Ragnorak would be the perfect example, the tone was ruined with too many jokes, jokes that put people out of character to fit them in.

Drumpot

Slydice wrote: »

Usually I recommend the Ultimate Cut of BvS.

I think this is the cut of JL for that:
https://vimeo.com/276498216

BvS gets better and better on rewatch and the UC is brilliant.

When I See WW and worse still Aquaman and captain marvel doing so well I can’t get my head around what audiences want/appreciate cause it’s definitely not good movies.

pixelburp

He also said people need to "wake the f*ck up" over his version of Batman that straight-up murders people, saying:

Once you’ve lost your virginity to this f*cking movie and then you come and say to me something about like ‘my superhero wouldn’t do that.’ I’m like ‘Are you serious?’ I’m like down the f*cking road on that.

It’s a cool point of view to be like ‘my heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t f*cking lie to America. My heroes didn’t embezzle money from their corporations. My heroes didn’t commit any atrocities.’ That’s cool. But you’re living in a f*cking dream world.

Zack Synder does seem to passionately love pop culture, and comic-book properties in particular, but he also keeps taking all the wrong lessons and meanings from these stories, just appearing to be completely tone deaf in terms of character. I honestly don't think he knows how characters or human beings work. Or cares to know.

Penn

pixelburp wrote: »

He also said people need to "wake the f*ck up" over his version of Batman that straight-up murders people, saying:



Zack Synder does seem to passionately love pop culture, and comic-book properties in particular, but he also keeps taking all the wrong lessons and meanings from these stories, just appearing to be completely tone deaf in terms of character. I honestly don't think he knows how characters or human beings work. Or cares to know.

I think the issue is though that he accuses fans of "living in a f*cking dream world", while he lives in a f*cking nightmare world. He takes the darkest possible interpretation of the characters and focuses on that. Watchmen was a great fit for him. Superman was not.

He also seems to show disdain for the fans and what they want. People wanted Jimmy Olsen in MoS, so Snyder put him in BvS and killed him unceremoniously without even mentioning that he was Jimmy Olsen. People would have loved Robin/Nightwing to eventually show up in the DCU. Snyder instead shows that he was killed years ago (and confirmed years later it was Dick Grayson, not Jason Todd).

The more he goes on about what he was going to do with JL and the DCEU in general, the more I'm glad it never came to pass. I have no issues with a darker take on the films and characters than what the MCU does. But especially with BvS, Snyder went so dark as to not make the characters in any way likeable. He made it difficult to actually root for or care about either of the characters.

Penn

Also, I should note I personally didn't have an issue with Batman killing people. That in itself wasn't the issue. The Batman in the Nolan films killed people when he had to. Most of the MCU heroes have killed their enemies or random henchmen. Hell, Captain America was a soldier in WW2, he probably has a higher kill count than some of the MCU villains.

The issue was that the Joker killed Robin. The fact that Batman has no issue killing random henchmen who are simply transporting something on behalf of Luthor, in order to get the Kryptonite to kill Superman, based just on the 1% chance Superman might some day turn evil... yet he never killed The Joker as revenge for killing Robin?

The Joker killed Dick Grayson, who was supposed to be at the very least Batman's partner, never mind his adoptive son, and Batman seemingly gave up the hunt for The Joker and gave up being Batman for several years while the Joker was still out there, yet he decides to come back out of retirement, kills random henchmen so he can kill Superman in case Superman might turn evil ("If there's even a 1% chance then we have to take it as an absolute certainty")... It makes no sense. The version of Batman Snyder gave us in these films, he should have spent every day hunting down The Joker until he found him and killed him.

pixelburp

Penn wrote: »

I think the issue is though that he accuses fans of "living in a f*cking dream world", while he lives in a f*cking nightmare world. He takes the darkest possible interpretation of the characters and focuses on that. Watchmen was a great fit for him. Superman was not.

I vacillate wildly on whether I think Watchmen was a 'good' adaptation, but in terms of directors having a voice or a message behind the superficial, on average I believe Synder was a bad fit and was a crystallised summary of what Synder's key flaws as a filmmaker.

The adaptation was visually a near-perfect recreation of the original comic, and you can clearly see Synders love & passion for those original art panels. Yet scratching under the surface, it's not hard to find how Synder didn't 'get' the core ideas behind the comic - or as I suggested, chose to ignore them. The book didn't want us to like these characters, not as such & it cast a critical eye on just how dangerously messed up vigilantism could be; Synder however, fetishised the characters. He kept saying "these guys are messed up - but AREN'T THEY SO COOL! SLOW-MO SHOT!". Cool images of Dr. Manhatten splattering mobsters yet there was nothing behind it saying "this isn't normal behaviour"

RayCun

Penn wrote: »

Watchmen was a great fit for him.

Watchmen was a terrible movie, and a terrible version of the comics.

The pornography of violence is antithetical to the themes of the comics.

Penn

Sorry, not saying it was a good film (well, I liked a lot of it, didn't like some of it). Just it's a comic book/characters more suited to Snyder's own inclinations and views than the likes of Superman & Wonder Woman.

RayCun

Penn wrote: »

Sorry, not saying it was a good film (well, I liked a lot of it, didn't like some of it). Just it's a comic book/characters more suited to Snyder's own inclinations and views than the likes of Superman & Wonder Woman.

But it really isn't.

Snyder's whole thing is loving depictions of violence. Slow motion scenes with a weird colour scale of muscular people beating each other up.

That is completely not what Watchmen is about.

Snyder would be better off with The Dark Knight, or some early 90's GrimandGritty (TM) comics.

Penn

RayCun wrote: »

But it really isn't.

Snyder's whole thing is loving depictions of violence. Slow motion scenes with a weird colour scale of muscular people beating each other up.

That is completely not what Watchmen is about.

I agree, and those were some of the bits/changes I didn't like. But on the whole I enjoyed the film and there were large portions of it that I did like and which I didn't feel were antithetical to the comics.

Tazzimus

I just watched Watchmen for Rorschach, brilliant bit of casting there.

I have the extended version, which has black freighter spliced into it, quite strange.

Fysh

I think it was the Every Frame A Painting team who described him as a "moments"-fixated director. I think his problem is that, in the hierarchy of Film, Scene and Shot he gets it the exact wrong way round - I forget who coined the phrase but I've seen Soderbergh mention it in interviews. The idea is that, when editing a film, you have to consider the needs of the film first, then the scene, and then the shot. Whereas Snyder has long struck me as a director who spends too much time thinking about "How kewl is this?!?" type images, rather than any kind of narrative or theme.

My pet hate for how he failed to get what Watchmen was about is the shot of Hollis Mason's garage & flat that was faithfully recreated from the comic. In the comic it's an elegant way of using a world-building element (Dr Manhattan's creation of highly efficient batteries that allow electric cars to replace combustion engine cars sometime between the 50s and 60s) to comment on Mason's obsolescence in the face of changing times (and his replacement by the more technologically sophisticated Dan Dreiberg as Nite Owl II), by having Mason's sign include the line "Obsolete models a specialty!". Except that Snyder's decision to change the plot so that Manhattan is still working to solve "the energy crisis" (rather than having done so decades back) means that the wording here doesn't have the same resonance - Mason wouldn't have used "obsolete" on his sign, because combustion engine cars aren't obsolete yet - at best, you'd get something like "classic cars a specialty", which is significantly different.

Bringing things back around to how Snyder got into the DCEU, you have no further to look than the clowns who were running DC comics around 2011. Dan Didio, Geoff Johns and Jim Lee seem to have collectively decided that what DC comics needed was an embarassingly unsubtle grim n gritty reboot in fine 90s style, which they duly did with the New 52 relaunch (a classic DC comics ballsup where, in an effort to make things "more accessible to new readers" they contrive some farcical reason to partially reboot the universe. But in order to not alienate the hardcore collector fanbase whose money is what actually keeps DC's periodical arm going, they have to retain a bunch of previous continuity and, worse, find some convoluted way to graft this onto the relaunch. So what they actually get is something that's *still* bafflignly obtuse and convoluted for new readers, but also a mangled version of ehat existing readers want). It's this version that WB foolishly decides to look at when trying to catch up with Marvel for its movie universe, and what really puts the boot in is the use of Geoff Johns, a writer with a similar focus on "kewl moments first" writing and unnecessary gore to Snyder, as a Chief Creative Officer. At that point Snyder's presence makes perfect sense, and never mind that he's the directorial equivalent of a teenage boy who thinks Mortal Kombat is the best fighting game purely because it has tons of gore and the ability to murder your opponents in gruesome ways. That's the version of the DC comics universe that DC has for some reason chosen to offer audiences.

In the comics, it was less than 5 years before the "wild success" of the New 52 got papered over with another similarly clumsy (though this time, at least, driven by better motives) relaunch exercise. That doesn't seem to have trickled down to the films yet, but give it time...

spacecoyote

Fysh wrote: »

At that point Snyder's presence makes perfect sense, and never mind that he's the directorial equivalent of a teenage boy who thinks Mortal Kombat is the best fighting game purely because it has tons of gore and the ability to murder your opponents in gruesome ways.

A Mortal Kombat reboot might actually be perfect fodder for a Snyder movie. No real depth of history/story plus lots of opportunities for sweaty muscle-bound kewl moments!!!

Penn

Fysh wrote: »

At that point Snyder's presence makes perfect sense, and never mind that he's the directorial equivalent of a teenage boy who thinks Mortal Kombat is the best fighting game purely because it has tons of gore and the ability to murder your opponents in gruesome ways. That's the version of the DC comics universe that DC has for some reason chosen to offer audiences.

Can't remember who said it, possibly Kevin Smith, but after BvS they said it was like Zack Snyder had only read one comic book in his life and it was The Dark Knight Returns, and that's what he thought all comic books were like.

Drumpot

I thought watchmen was one of the greatest super hero movies of all time. The UC was even more epic but I suppose like BvS if you don’t like the shorter version the longer one will hardly change your mind.

There is always some underlying beauty to snyder movies that I enjoy, even his lesser quality stuff.

It’s great not to be shackled with the expectations of whatever it was the comics promised.

pixelburp

Drumpot wrote: »

I thought watchmen was one of the greatest super hero movies of all time. The UC was even more epic but I suppose like BvS if you don’t like the shorter version the longer one will hardly change your mind.

There is always some underlying beauty to schnyder movies that I enjoy, even his lesser quality stuff.

It’s great not to be shackled with the expectations of whatever it was the comics promised.

Ah I dunno about that: there's a difference between not being 'shackled', and just misinterpreting or misreading the original message from the comic. What Synder did was like adapting the Handmaids Tale and making Gilead some cool-looking, exciting place, or presenting those Handmaids outfits as awesome designs. Synder screwed too much with - or just didn't understand - the underlying tone and themes from the original comic, and ultimately what a story is about is as important as the plot or characters. Lose that and it becomes a lesser adaptation. It can survive a character or setting change, but IMO not a change to its themes or tone.

Watchmen the comic was about human failures and the dangers of vigilantism; Rorschach was not someone to admire, but fear and detest. Watchmen the movie had the iconography of the comic, but instead fetishised its characters and you could tell Synder loved Rorschach's unblinking psychopathy.

Drumpot

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah I dunno about that: there's a difference between not being 'shackled', and just misinterpreting or misreading the original message from the comic. What Synder did was like adapting the Handmaids Tale and making Gilead some cool-looking, exciting place, or presenting those Handmaids outfits as awesome designs. Synder screwed too much with - or just didn't understand - the underlying tone and themes from the original comic, and ultimately what a story is about is as important as the plot or characters. Lose that and it becomes a lesser adaptation. It can survive a character or setting change, but IMO not a change to its themes or tone.

Watchmen the comic was about human failures and the dangers of vigilantism; Rorschach was not someone to admire, but fear and detest. Watchmen the movie had the iconography of the comic, but instead fetishised its characters and you could tell Synder loved Rorschach's unblinking psychopathy.

I thought Human failures and the dangers of vigilantism was a clear message throughout. The comedian was a horribly savage “goody” and the main protagonist gave the appearance of good but killed millions to achieve peace. The entire world was depressingly dark with vigilantes no better or worse then the people who populated it. Super hero’s who are as flawed as the people they “protect”. I also though the message was about humans needing a common enemy to unit them, another major human flaw.

Nite owl was the only remotely balanced main character in the movie. I thought he was the most redeemable character but I don’t know what his original character was meant to be. Rorschach was sort of admirable but why do you think it HAS to be closer to the source material? Was the comedian made into a meaner character? Or maybe they thought it made the comedian a stronger character by not going OTT on Rorschach?

I had no expectations on characters therefore was able to enjoy what we got. I don’t really understand why I should care or make it a thing that the director changes aspects of the original material. Therefore I dont believe I’m shackled or in anyway prejudiced by it.

RayCun

Drumpot wrote: »

I thought Human failures and the dangers of vigilantism was a clear message throughout.

That was what the book was about, but the movie's message was
"Look at these cool guys in their spandex! Ooh, feel those bones crunch - wasn't that cool! Oh, this bit is so cool I have to show it to you in slow-motion! And now let's play some really cool music over the fight scene!"

Drumpot

RayCun wrote: »

That was what the book was about, but the movie's message was
"Look at these cool guys in their spandex! Ooh, feel those bones crunch - wasn't that cool! Oh, this bit is so cool I have to show it to you in slow-motion! And now let's play some really cool music over the fight scene!"

I didn’t read the comics but I still got that message. Perhspd it’s a case of people just not liking how Snyder makes movies or tells stories which is fine and a reasonable reason to not enjoy his movies. I just don’t agree with the reason given for why it was perceived to be not a good movie.

RayCun

Drumpot wrote: »

I didn’t read the comics but I still got that message. Perhspd it’s a case of people just not liking how Snyder makes movies or tells stories which is fine and a reasonable reason to not enjoy his movies.

His particular aesthetic is not a good match for certain themes.

Give him an anti-war script and he'll give you

Drumpot

RayCun wrote: »

His particular aesthetic is not a good match for certain themes.

Give him an anti-war script and he'll give you

:pac:

I think I am happy that , as I have gotten older, when it comes to movies, I am generally happy to just mostly enjoy them for what they are and what we get.

I still have a tendency to over think or over analyze other pastimes and I enjoy them less as a result. Just look at some of my posts in the Man united forum to see how much I get annoyed when things arent meeting my expectations. I feel its very similar here for some people when it comes to movies.