Justice League **Spoilers from post 980 onward**

CastorTroy

Think the only thing close to details we've heard is that he had his role shortened in some capacity.

ThePott

An NDA would be void if something illegal occured to my understanding.
If it's just sh1tty behaviour then he should be able to speak presumably. All we've heard is that he wasn't a fan of saying "Booyah!" and he mentioned something about his skin being recoloured but I that could have been just colour correcting a scene in general. The fact that he seems to throw each subsequent person who steps up under the bus as well just doesn't pass the sniff test either imo.

To be honest, the fact that Carpenter said she was part of the WB investigation considering it was a show that's over 20 years old by now and wasn't even produced by WB that tells me that they did a pretty thorough investigation. It sort of feels like to me he had issues with Whedon and now it's snowballed into being something much bigger and whatever gripe he did have would now seem minor.

kerplun k

I wonder how Snyder feels about the timing of these tweets. Does it help or hinder the hype for JL.

I am actually really looking forward to seeing this now. The trailer looks like a piece of art, there’s so much story behind this already, it’s almost like a quasi documentary. I just find the whole thing fascinating.

HBO need to go all out on this and do a proper documentary for JL, from start to finish, cover everything.

The problem is that there’s probably too many top heads at WB still working there and would look bad if the whole thing was to be fully exposed. Tis would probably make WB look bad as well. On the other hand, if it increased HBOmax sub count, who cares.

Drumpot

kerplun k wrote: »

I wonder how Snyder feels about the timing of these tweets. Does it help or hinder the hype for JL.

I am actually really looking forward to seeing this now. The trailer looks like a piece of art, there’s so much story behind this already, it’s almost like a quasi documentary. I just find the whole thing fascinating.

HBO need to go all out on this and do a proper documentary for JL, from start to finish, cover everything.

The problem is that there’s probably too many top heads at WB still working there and would look bad if the whole thing was to be fully exposed. Tis would probably make WB look bad as well. On the other hand, if it increased HBOmax sub count, who cares.

I’d of thought anything bringing attention to his version of the movie is good for the promotion, particularly as he’s not at the centre of the bad press.

Everybody is expecting this to be bad or not great, wonder what WB would do if it’s really well received and popular. Seems like this is just a unique situation which won’t ever be repeated to this level (80 million to redo an already release movie to increase subscribers to platform and a period of no cinemas). A lot of things came together to make this a worthwhile venture for WB, they effectively now have a brand new blockbuster movie for 80 million. It’s not just 10 mins of extra footage, it’s over Double the time of the TR version.

Seems like there’s no losers in this. If it’s bad wb prob still made their money back on a franchise version they had already written off. It it’s good and well received they might even make a few quid and can maybe still salvage something from it. And people will of gotten to see whether Snyder’s version was better or not. What’s not to like?

CastorTroy

https://twitter.com/snydercut/status/1362778980554846210

Zack Snyder’s Justice League will be available worldwide in all markets on the same day as in the U.S. on March 18 via on-demand, digital download, linear, or streaming

The White Wolf

Lovely stuff, hope everyone here puts their hand in their pocket. :pac:

IncognitoMan

Do we know where we'll actually get it from?

Sky? Google movies?

senordingdong

The White Wolf wrote: »

Lovely stuff, hope everyone here puts their hand in their pocket. :pac:

Would love to pay for it, but I can't see how that'll be an option.

kerplun k

I hope if it shows up on PPVOD it doesn’t show up months later like WW84 did.

dublinman1990

Has anyone heard this?

Oh merciful lord; JunkieXL is a flipping genius. This piece from his score is absolute perfection. It just ebbs & flows so beautifully.

And it's nothing like what Danny Elfman did for his score of Whedon's version of the film. Oh no bloody way. It's nothing like it at all.

Prepare to have the trousers blown off ya when you listen to Junkie's take on it. It's just bloody brilliant.

pixelburp

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

Vague? He's already stated what Whedon did and his claims of abuse have been backed up by the JL cast and the Buffy cast. You just don't want to believe him.

Can you send the link please? Don't put words in my mouth and turn this into some insinuation about what I do or don't believe. As far as I've seen Fisher hadn't shared any detail to the same degree of Carpenter, for instance. Why would Buffy stars confirm his experience? Beyond eyebrow waggling that "they know!!". If you're saying he has, then please share instead of making cheap shots

CramCycle

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

Vague? He's already stated what Whedon did and his claims of abuse have been backed up by the JL cast and the Buffy cast. You just don't want to believe him.

To be fair, I can't actually find where he said anything specific. I put that down to legal advice, and I'd say his lawyers keep telling him to not post anything without prior approval. I believe him, it is unlikely something didn't happen based on the softly softly replies and the backing from others, but I still can't find specifics. To be fair, I'd prefer not too until its resolved as a trial by media is a bad idea IMO although in the states, quite possible you might not have a choice.

pixelburp

CramCycle wrote: »

To be fair, I can't actually find where he said anything specific. I put that down to legal advice, and I'd say his lawyers keep telling him to not post anything without prior approval. I believe him, it is unlikely something didn't happen based on the softly softly replies and the backing from others, but I still can't find specifics. To be fair, I'd prefer not too until its resolved as a trial by media is a bad idea IMO although in the states, quite possible you might not have a choice.

Right, so as I thought so cos I was wondering had I missed some definitive incident shared ala Carpenter and everyone else willing to share. At this stage it's just a leering desire to know the salacious details on my part, and morbid curiousity why Fisher is reluctant to share said details.

TBH the public "I'll never work with WB again" ensured that whatever did or didn't happen, Fisher won't be working in Hollywood again. There's a sibling thread here about actors who just disappeared from the big leagues... He's on his way there already

ThePott

Vanity Fair just did an in-depth article on the Snyder Cut.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/02/the-true-story-of-justice-league-snyder-cut?utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=twitter&mbid=social_twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_brand=vf

People are only talking about one thing though

mikhail

Seriously? Leto is ... nothing. I can't even summon dislike for the character, he was so pathetically bad in Suicide Squad.

senordingdong

mikhail wrote: »

Seriously? Leto is ... nothing. I can't even summon dislike for the character, he was so pathetically bad in Suicide Squad.

But wasn't he butchered by the studios too?
Maybe the Ayercut will fix him.

And was he supposed to feature in a Batfleck movie too?

dublinman1990

IGN.com is having an online fan festival showing the behind the scenes process of this movie beginning on at 10am PT on the 27th of February.

FunLover18

senordingdong wrote: »

But wasn't he butchered by the studios too?
Maybe the Ayercut will fix him.

And was he supposed to feature in a Batfleck movie too?

The movie was butchered, his Joker was just ****.

Lithium93_

FunLover18 wrote: »

The movie was butchered, his Joker was just ****.

The trailers (expertly edited I'll add) made it out to be a good movie. Boy was I ****ing disappointed after wasting money to see it in the cinema.

pixelburp

mikhail wrote: »

Seriously? Leto is ... nothing. I can't even summon dislike for the character, he was so pathetically bad in Suicide Squad.

Jared Leto is a terrible, overwrought actor whose stature defies sense sometimes. Every time I see him, I'm reminded of Lawrence Olivier's snark at Dustin Hoffman's method, asking if he "had simply tried acting?". Leto isn't even Method IMO, at least Day-Lewis backed up the intensity with performances to match. Leto ... I dunno. Tries too hard. Comes out the other side into these performances that make you go "hey, that's acting there". Having almost zero charisma also doesn't help.

Lithium93_

I find, or found Jared Leto more tolerable as front-man/guitar player for Thirty Seconds To Mars, but it's clear there's no plans on the horizon for them reforming or coming back from hiatus.

Though he was actually alright in Lord Of War alongside Nicolas Cage, and in Dallas Buyers Club with Matthew McConaughey.

The White Wolf

I think after that stunt today Snyder has become self aware. Some fine trolling at this point.

FunLover18

Lithium93_ wrote: »

The trailers (expertly edited I'll add) made it out to be a good movie. Boy was I ****ing disappointed after wasting money to see it in the cinema.

The story is that the reaction to the trailer was so positive that WB hired the company that cut the trailer to cut the whole movie.

CramCycle

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

No. You do your own homework. It's googleable if you genuinely wanted to know.
The problem with the Fisher detractors is that no matter what Fisher says or does it's never enough. You are committed to not believing him and it's obvious.

I am not sure where you got that.
I've googled it. Ray has said that Joss was “gross, abusive, unprofessional, and completely unacceptable”. I believe him mainly because of other reports, we can see Joss has form for this but Ray really has not given any details that I can find. There are news outlets reaching about what it might be, but I can't find actual statements bar that one. Does he need too, not at all unless the legal process is over, at which point he should either come forward and disclose or state a non disclosure is in place or even just state he doesn't want to talk about it, which is also fine.

kerplun k

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

No. You do your own homework. It's googleable if you genuinely wanted to know.
The problem with the Fisher detractors is that no matter what Fisher says or does it's never enough. You are committed to not believing him and it's obvious.

Ah here. No one said anything about not believing him. Most are just genuinely curious about what went down and want to know some specifics. Fisher has been very vague with his comments.

pixelburp

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

No. You do your own homework. It's googleable if you genuinely wanted to know.
The problem with the Fisher detractors is that no matter what Fisher says or does it's never enough. You are committed to not believing him and it's obvious.

So as I thought you just want to have a go. Think it was a reasonable, friendly request but instead you decide to double down. Your self righteousness is obvious. Nothing I've read has been on the level of Carpenter or Trachtenberg. I'd like to believe him but find his lack of detail frustrating - lack of detail others here have noted so why not badger them too? - to the point I wonder just how bad what was done, was done. The vaguery is just weird, but I don't think whether I believe him or not really matters to the world, except to you obviously, cos you wanna make it a Thing and make use of some high horsery? Take a breath and quit the antagonism

pixelburp

FunLover18 wrote: »

The story is that the reaction to the trailer was so positive that WB hired the company that cut the trailer to cut the whole movie.

Wasn't that confirmed? Seems like it was spoken about as something that definitely happened, that after the trailer WB got the marketing company to edit the film. To hilarious results.

If nothing else, Suicide Squad is probably now a useful Case Study for film editing classes everywhere. As a cautionary tale that is ...

The White Wolf

Very good article beyond the headline grabbing of Jesus Joker.

Snyder talked about his daughter's death and the effect it had on him and his wife. She shared her father's love for the Gods and Aliens among us approach he took to the DC characters. The film will end with an alternate version of Hallelujah as tribute to her (her favourite song apparently).

He had a near 4 hour cut on his laptop that he would show to friends but with no score, effects etc.....Warner initially asked him to release this with no further work or money put it but Snyder rejected this. He waived any fee or salary and worked for free in order to ensure he had a strongest negotiating position possible as well as creative freedom.

Christopher Nolan and Deborah Snyder watched the theatrical together for Zack so he wouldn't have to. Nolan seems to be a good friend of the Snyders.

Finally Snyder acknowledged the more toxic members of the fandom and condemned it, saying in no way would he condone abuse. Given this bloke lost his daughter to suicide I think we can take his word for it on that.

Lithium93_

The anonymous studio executive certainly didn't mince words with this. Then again anyone who saw the theatrical cut was probably thinking the same thing anyways.

When we got to see what Joss actually did, it was stupefying. The robber on the rooftop—so goofy and awful. The Russian family—so useless and pointless. Everyone knew it. It was so awkward because nobody wanted to admit what a piece of **** it was.”

johnny_ultimate

I have no doubt Joss Whedon made some bad creative decisions, but having seen several ‘pure’ Zack Snyder films before the man is more than capable of making his own stupefying, goofy and awful creative decisions.

CramCycle

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

:rolleyes:

As for the rest, I'm not even going to bother waste my time with. You're disingenuous and I see through you. Like I said, you have it in for Ray Fisher and have not wanted to believe him from day 1. The dude could make an entire book about Whedon's treatment of him and you'd still be looking for holes with a magnifying glass. Get stuffed.

You could literally post a link, you made the claim it has been well documented but haven't given anything bar that one article I quoted above. I am pretty sure it is posted about across multiple forums that while no one doubts Whedon was a pr1ck, there is very little info in this case about what specifically made him a pr1ck this time around.
Repeatedly some posters are asking for a link about what you claim is well documented. I simply can't find it other than a quote saying Joss was an unprofessional and abusive pr1ck but that could cover almost anything.
I 100% believe that, leopards don't change their spots as the saying goes, particularly when he kept getting gigs in spite of his behaviour. If you have more info that would be interesting instead of this weird attack on another poster just asking for details you say exist.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I have no doubt Joss Whedon made some bad creative decisions, but having seen several ‘pure’ Zack Snyder films before the man is more than capable of making his own stupefying, goofy and awful creative decisions.

Yes,I really can't see this being rescued as his existing dc work is pretty awful in own right.

mikhail

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I have no doubt Joss Whedon made some bad creative decisions, but having seen several ‘pure’ Zack Snyder films before the man is more than capable of making his own stupefying, goofy and awful creative decisions.

I'm also willing to cut some slack for the creative decisions someone parachuted in to finish someone else's blockbuster with no time to prep.

Penn

Lithium93_ wrote: »

The anonymous studio executive certainly didn't mince words with this. Then again anyone who saw the theatrical cut was probably thinking the same thing anyways.

In fairness, seems like Whedon also agreed



Very much seems like the theatrical cut was such a mix of Snyder, Whedon and the studio that it was never going to be anything other than a sh*tshow.

The Phantom Pain

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

People keep saying WB ruined "Josstice League" but what they seem to miss is that in order for WB to arrive at a conclusion where they thought they would need to reshoot the entire film it would mean the original film... was bad.
The original reports IIRC were that Snyder's JL was "unwatchable". If I was WB I would be sh*tting myself right now knowing that a second bad JL is on the way and will only further damage the DC brand.

Tbh, I can't see it doing huge damage. It'll just be a director's cut that particularly devout fans are gonna watch.

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbh, I can't see it doing huge damage. It'll just be a director's cut that particularly devout fans are gonna watch.

In a market starved of blockbusters, I suspect this is going to do gangbusters; WW84 could hardly be called a critical success, yet according to WB/HBO's own figures it pulled amazing numbers. I suspect this will do the same: not least because of the nature of the production, and the rather unprecedented case of a director getting to return and "finish" the film how he sees fit.

The only equivalent I can think of immediately is the Donner Cut of Superman II but even then, IIRC that didn't get such a wide, highly publicised release? Aside from also being far after the original film's theatrical release.

Tony EH

^
It'll certainly get a viewership by virtue of the fact that it's the only movie type movie that's coming out in a sea of shot on digital dross that's been the feature of Covid movie fair.

But I reckon there might be a lot of people that will end up very disappointed with this when it turns out not to be the earth shattering event some people have built up in their heads.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

In a market starved of blockbusters, I suspect this is going to do gangbusters; WW84 could hardly be called a critical success, yet according to WB/HBO's own figures it pulling amazing numbers. I suspect this will do the same: not least because of the nature of the production, and the rather unprecedented case of a director getting to return and "finish" the film how he sees fit.

The only equivalent I can think of immediately is the Donner Cut of Superman II but even then, IIRC that didn't get such a wide, highly publicised release? Aside from also being far after the original film's theatrical release.

4 hours is gonna put a lot of people off I suspect. And if the initial response is bad then it could flounder after that.

FunLover18

[Deleted User] wrote: »

4 hours is gonna put a lot of people off I suspect. And if the initial response is bad then it could flounder after that.

This! Plus the fact that the Whedon cut was not even close to being a success, I think the people who will watch this will be the devout Snyder fans and the film buffs who are interested in the story behind it. Neither are very large demographics.

EDIT: I also feel Wandavision is filling the superhero hole in most people's lives at the moment.

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

4 hours is gonna put a lot of people off I suspect. And if the initial response is bad then it could flounder after that.

Oh yeah for sure, but then that's why like The Irishman, I'll be watching it in two stages at least and possibly won't be as problematic for folks at home streaming.

The White Wolf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

4 hours is gonna put a lot of people off I suspect. And if the initial response is bad then it could flounder after that.

4 hours is a challenge but people will be watching at home where they can pause and come back to as they wish. I believe there will be a Chapter breakdown on the toggle bar on HBO Max which might help people navigate the film easier. In terms of how it will do you need to look at a couple of things:

Characters that are on a pantheon of American and International Pop culture.

The steady but purposeful increased coverage it's receiving now (Vanity Fair, Variety, etc).

Being released at a time many people will be on a break from work.

It's been given a week's breathing room between its release and the release of Godzilla vs Kong.

And of course the behind the scenes sh1tshow and almost hallowed mythology it has achieved.

I'm not great at being a numbers man but I would hope all combines into a worthy venture for all involved. Snyder has been consistent in saying it's for the fans and that he's ready for nothing further to come from it, so even if the worst happens at least there's nothing more riding on it.

Just as an aside I don't think critics should get an advanced showing beyond those Snyder has used to help get the project off the ground like Grace Randolph, so their impact in the opening days should be minimal.

FunLover18

The White Wolf wrote: »

Just as an aside I don't think critics should get an advanced showing beyond those Snyder has used to help get the project off the ground like Grace Randolph, so their impact in the opening days should be minimal.

I don't think it's a good idea or even remotely fair for studios to start picking and choosing which critics get to see advanced screenings. Obviously we have to trust critics to be objective but that's still a slippery slope.

Ya, generally preventing critics from viewing something until general release comes across as a bad product trying to avoid bad pr.

pixelburp

Preventing reviews would come across as a little bit petty TBH; this isn't a new, unknown entity anyway. Chances are most of the audience will have already seen Justice League anyway, be they critics or punter. And anyone who has seen more than one Zack Synder film knows what's in store with this re-do. I don't like the phrase "Critic proof" but it's certainly a film where professional opinion is broadly irrelevant.

ThePott

It's funny because I think the most blatant example of the selective reviewers was the Wonder Woman 84 reviews.

Personally I think some people exaggerate the appeal or even awareness of this film. I think outside of fans most people are not aware of what this is or the story behind it.

The White Wolf

How does the Mandolorian work as a comparison in terms of reviews? Are they released in advance of each episode? From what I recall it's pretty tight if not same day which suggests they're watching same time as everyone else.

Don't see how this is any different to be honest.

johnny_ultimate

There is long established norms and etiquette for reviews of tv shows and films alike. To only give access to proven fans and cheerleaders is a shortcut to terrible criticism.

There is absolutely nothing remarkable or special about this particular production that deserves exceptional treatment. I’d say that about any film, btw.

CramCycle

The White Wolf wrote: »

How does the Mandolorian work as a comparison in terms of reviews? Are they released in advance of each episode? From what I recall it's pretty tight if not same day which suggests they're watching same time as everyone else.

Don't see how this is any different to be honest.

The RTE and Newstalk reviewers seem to get access to the first episode (or two) a few days in advance based on radio reviews and the RTE reviewer tends to be fairly honest. On one or two occasions one of the guest reviewers has openly admitted, they are Star Wars, Trek, whatever fans and are biased but they nearly always have another reviewer there to give a real world review as well. They will on occasion point out when something was held back and it was clearly because it was sh1te.

ThePott

With most shows they get the first few episodes, in the case of WandaVision for example they got the first 3 episodes.
For movies there's embargo dates, in this day and age that includes both social media embargo dates and then review embargo dates.
I do think there'll be advanced reviews for this, it seems unnecessary. At most possibly I could see the same people Snyder is allowing himself to be interviewed by might get an early look.

The problem as many have pointed out is that with big IPs critics can often be Youtubers and Bloggers who are will give positive reviews regardless because they get to go to special events, get merch, meet the stars etc. I think for a film like this critical reaction is largely irrelevant anyway.

The White Wolf

The White Wolf wrote: »

How does the Mandolorian work as a comparison in terms of reviews? Are they released in advance of each episode? From what I recall it's pretty tight if not same day which suggests they're watching same time as everyone else.

Don't see how this is any different to be honest.

Except you want to specifically only allow access to reviewers who will review positively. Overall, I would suspect that the Mandalorian was avoiding initial mixed reviews as they apparently didn't give out screeners for the first episode, spoilers were the claimed reason. Disney and Star Wars can get away with that more so however all of the Star Wars films did do early screenings for critics.

In this case, you seem to want to restrict critics from seeing for fear of negative reviews hence allowing positive reviewers. Personally, I don't think critic reviews matter a whole lot for this. Eg the likes of Deadpool reviewed poorly with critics and it really did not matter. If the reviews were atrociously bad, that might put off general audiences although I suspect the biggest market for this is not general audiences.