The Justice League & The Snyder Cut (2021)

Rate this film


  • Total voters
    148

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
But it is the only valid comparison to be made, apart from outliers like Hancock.

In reality I believe Marvel are successful because they manage to strike the right balance nearly every time between honoring the comicbook and translating to cinematic, and satisfying hardcore fans, without embracing general audiences. It really is Kevin Feige, who has built a 'smart' machine in terms of the MCU and its output.

An example is Falcon. How do you translate the comicbook to film. Feige knew. Ex-Military Paratrooper using top-secret wing tech. What about Redwing? Make it a drone?, of course you do. And fans don't care because you instantly appreciate those decisions and why they were made. In hindsight it's common-sense, but you just know that DC Films in the same position would F it up.


I think Marvel are nothing special.

They just put loads of films, time and money into the Marvel film franchise. That dedication and good casting got them to where they are.
DC didn't although their casting is decent.


I'd say over around 60-70% of the Marvel films are 5-7 out of 10. Its nothing amazing (Iron Man 2, GOTG 2, Ant man, ant man and the wasp, the incredible hulk, avengers 2 etc.) They have 23+ films to create and characterise the Avengers IW/End game masterpices. With that much backstory and time, you're going to do well.

Its like an anime which has 150 episodes and has an amazing pllot and characters... well of course.. u had 150 episodes.




DC haven't put time, money, continuity or future planning into their films.

But they still have the Nolan trilogy and Joker film which minute for minute quality wise IMO DESTROYS most of what Marvel has ever made.


Even the jewel in Marvel's crown (Endgame) had to rely on a very crap time travel mechanic. Infinity War was pretty amazing tho but again.. many films of storytelling and characterisation to make it easier for them.
 

scrowe

Distinguished Member
I think Marvel are nothing special.

They just put loads of films, time and money into the Marvel film franchise. That dedication and good casting got them to where they are.
DC didn't although their casting is decent.


I'd say over around 60-70% of the Marvel films are 5-7 out of 10. Its nothing amazing (Iron Man 2, GOTG 2, Ant man, ant man and the wasp, the incredible hulk, avengers 2 etc.) They have 23+ films to create and characterise the Avengers IW/End game masterpices. With that much backstory and time, you're going to do well.

Its like an anime which has 150 episodes and has an amazing pllot and characters... well of course.. u had 150 episodes.




DC haven't put time, money, continuity or future planning into their films.

But they still have the Nolan trilogy and Joker film which minute for minute quality wise IMO DESTROYS most of what Marvel has ever made.


Even the jewel in Marvel's crown (Endgame) had to rely on a very crap time travel mechanic. Infinity War was pretty amazing tho but again.. many films of storytelling and characterisation to make it easier for them.
On niche forums such as this everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. But for the studios it’s about box office (at least pre-pandemic). The Marvel films through strategic ramp up have grossed in excess of $1bn per movie. You only do those numbers by tapping into a large diverse worldwide audience, which like it or not is what movies all aspire to.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
On niche forums such as this everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. But for the studios it’s about box office (at least pre-pandemic). The Marvel films through strategic ramp up have grossed in excess of $1bn per movie. You only do those numbers by tapping into a large diverse worldwide audience, which like it or not is what movies all aspire to.


I think you're missing my point.

I'm not saying what Marvel has done is wrong.

I'm stating DC should have done the same which is a simple strategy of support your universe with loads of films about all your different characters with a few crossovers.

Its not rocket science. Its actually really simple what Marvel has done. They've committed to a universe and whether the super character is popular or not, they've committed to making a film with them and making them as good as they can be.



DC just seem unable to do this.
 

scrowe

Distinguished Member
I think you're missing my point.

I'm not saying what Marvel has done is wrong.

I'm stating DC should have done the same which is a simple strategy of support your universe with loads of films about all your different characters with a few crossovers.

Its not rocket science. Its actually really simple what Marvel has done. They've committed to a universe and whether the super character is popular or not, they've committed to making a film with them and making them as good as they can be.



DC just seem unable to do this.
I think its worse than that. Marvel had IM,Capt,Thor - who to general public weren't massively well known but committed to trilogies, alongside the wider Avengers buildup. DC have the 2 most well known superheroes in the world with Superman and Batman, and they aren't even making those movies! Dumb as fudge springs to mind.
 

gavinhanly

Distinguished Member
The Terrio interview is very interesting and backs up much of what I thought the earlier Fisher piece in the Hollywood Reporter indicated. Namely that Warner's is led by the money-men and hasn't realised - as Disney has - that giving the creatives some room to breathe delivers better quality, and ultimately makes more money in the long run.

This isn't new though. I think Warner's occasionally manages to make some great genre movies despite all the interference. I also think it only happens when the spotlight is off them. So the first Batman essentially kicked off a genre and no one knew what they had. That creative freedom carried on with Returns, but by Forever it was starting to fall apart as Batman was now a huge deal.

Then with Begins, the spotlight was off Batman to the degree it was before thanks to B&R. That allowed Nolan to make a great film - and get more creative freedom for the follow ups (and all his other Warner movies).

Then there's Joker - massively outperforming expectations in what was supposed to be a low key side project but again with a great deal of creator freedom.

If there's a lesson for Warner's - it's that when you leave the creatives room to breathe - there's more potential for success. Not always the case - see WW84 - but it should be showing them the way. Needs someone at the very, very top - see Bob Iger at Disney - to recognise this first though and put the ringfences in place.

They have HBO though. I'd be using that as a template.
 

VisionMan

Distinguished Member
In my opinion - and I'm no expert - it seems Marvel gave the creatives a massive degree of freedom. DC did not and the money men called the shots and look at the disaster that turned out to be. The DC universe is a mess, if it even has one?

To me, Marvel's creatives had a story arc, a canvass of 23 films, many of them average or below, but they worked, because they were all building towards one massive climax and boy did it work. DC & WB are nowhere. With the release of this 4 hour Justice League directors version, Snyder showed them how to do it and they cut him. Madness.
 

gavinhanly

Distinguished Member
What's interesting from the MCU perspective is that there used to be a creative commitee that was based from an overall Marvel perspective (not MCU) and included comic writers like Bendis that would occasionally hold them back. When Feige took more control (Guardians 2 onwards) he was able to break from that - while still keeping an overall vision.

DC has almost had the same problem with Johns (again highlighted in the Variety piece). He's a little too connected to the comics to be able to take the great leaps needed to make the movies a proper success.
 

scrowe

Distinguished Member
DC has almost had the same problem with Johns (again highlighted in the Variety piece)

Interesting, because across the Hollywood Reporter and Variety pieces he (or his reps statements) in my opinion restored his credibility. People may not like those decisions in the current climate, but to me they were (or should be seen as) perfectly acceptable views.
 

gavinhanly

Distinguished Member
Interesting, because across the Hollywood Reporter and Variety pieces he (or his reps statements) in my opinion restored his credibility. People may not like those decisions in the current climate, but to me they were (or should be seen as) perfectly acceptable views.
It's more this bit in particular:

Look, I admire Geoff as a writer of DC comics. He’s been nice to me, and it’s a perfectly cordial relationship. As an executive, you get into very thorny territory when you have a person who’s a writer who also is making executive decisions and sitting in the chair where on other films the writer would have been.

What I mean is that the person in charge of the movies needs to be someone who won't be inclined to try and write one themselves. That's why it works so well with Feige, I think. He's a fan - but he brings in other people to realise his vision. Someone who is a writer at heart will always be keen to butt in. I've always thought that about Johns' role TBH.
 

scrowe

Distinguished Member
It's more this bit in particular:

Look, I admire Geoff as a writer of DC comics. He’s been nice to me, and it’s a perfectly cordial relationship. As an executive, you get into very thorny territory when you have a person who’s a writer who also is making executive decisions and sitting in the chair where on other films the writer would have been.

What I mean is that the person in charge of the movies needs to be someone who won't be inclined to try and write one themselves. That's why it works so well with Feige, I think. He's a fan - but he brings in other people to realise his vision. Someone who is a writer at heart will always be keen to butt in. I've always thought that about Johns' role TBH.
OK, I think its a valid viewpoint, but arguably that was his job at the time. It's not as if he didn't know what he was talking about when he came to these characters. I guess its a bit like having the author of an original novel, invited onboard as a creative consultant during the film-making process. There's times this has happened and gone really well, and others not, I don't think it's that unusual a situation to be in.

On Feige, with some posts, I think he's being given too much hindsight credit, e.g. he has fallen out creatively with people he has brought onboard to implement his vision as well, and as The Producer he also won those battles. I'll post more on this later.
 

scrowe

Distinguished Member
To me, Marvel's creatives had a story arc, a canvass of 23 films, many of them average or below, but they worked, because they were all building towards one massive climax and boy did it work. DC & WB are nowhere. With the release of this 4 hour Justice League directors version, Snyder showed them how to do it and they cut him. Madness.
So I am the first to applaud Kevin Feige's achievements, and he is the undisputed God of Superheroes on film, no doubt. But he really isn't all-seeing, and all-knowing.

Firstly, he was a named <insert-type-of>Producer on 12 movies of other studios featuring Marvel Characters.

X-Men, Spider-Man, Daredevil, X-Men 2, Hulk, The Punisher, Spider-Man 2, Blade:Trinity, Elektra, Man-Thing, Fantastic Four, X-Men 3, Spider-Man 3, Fantastic Four 2. No doubt he didn't really have authority or decision-making powers across those. But he clearly learned a lot of how to make these types of movies and how to best translate comicbook to film, given there are a fair few less well regarded titles in there. So he's not so much genius, as working producer, climbing the ladder, and learning from some amazing creatives, and filmmakers along the way. Also an undoubted comicbook and sci-fi/fantasy genre fan, which helps as well.

When Iron Man was made, he had no plan, he may have had a tiny inkling of what he would love to do, but no plan. It's well documented that the post-credits scene was an after-thought and only intended as a fun Easter-Egg. That being said, he clearly had the instincts in Favreau, and by extension Downey Jr, Paltrow, etc. that he is an expert at employing the right people, and approval-stamping their choices, even if he himself has to fight on behalf of his Director. All good, but then you have The Ant-Man situation, The Edward Norton situation, The Terence Howard situation, The Patty Jenkins situation, and more recently the Scott Derrickson situation where he doesn't always agree the direction his chosen Director or Actor is going in, and has his own fallings out, where he doesn't get his own way either.

The World-building was I think more organic than planned , but because Iron Man 1 (massive), Incredible Hulk (somewhat) and Iron Man 2 (big) the possibilities could start to be practically realised, so they planned the roadmap to Avengers via Thor and Captain America, and it was a virtual steamroller with Box Office increasing, which then allowed them to widen the scope. I think that's why he calls everything Phase 1, 2,3, etc. because that's as far as he plans in detail/intent, each phase at a time.

By this time the films were starting to unlock wider audiences of wives/girlfriends, younger kids, older audiences that had fallen out of the comicbook loving genre, they truly tapped into a worldwide box office audience. The box office increased, so the budgets could increase, so the calibre of production, and hiring of 'name' guest stars, could just continue to feed the machine. But the criticisms here and there of cookie-cutter movie-making is not exactly unfounded, but the audience didn't care too much, and more discerning types like we get on these forums are almost the minority voices at this point, To the general public at large Marvel has never made a worse-than 7/10 film.

Feige has also had his battles as referenced above with the 'Marvel Story Committee' formed and chaired by Ike Perlmutter, where Bob Eiger was smart enough to see a problem and solve it, knowing that Feige and Marvel were the real Crown Jewels as far as Disney were concerned.

So the point I'm trying to make here is I don't subscribe to the 'Marvel had a plan from the start, and they just executed it.' versus DC who didn't.

I subscribe to the 'Kevin Feige is a really smart guy, who hires really smart people' most of the time'. And he really knows his source material and his audience.
 

scrowe

Distinguished Member
Nowt wrong with Ant Man, man. I laughed my bollocks off. It was filmed very tongue in cheek and very much came across that way. Well to me anyway.
I meant the parting ways with writer/director Edgar Wright who had worked on the movie for years on and off, and pulled out literally weeks before filming due to start, with the usual ‘creative differences’, similarly Patty Jenkins pulled out of Thor 2 for same reason.
 

VisionMan

Distinguished Member
I meant the parting ways with writer/director Edgar Wright who had worked on the movie for years on and off, and pulled out literally weeks before filming due to start

Cheers for clearing that up. Do you know the real reason for it?
 

scrowe

Distinguished Member
Cheers for clearing that up. Do you know the real reason for it?
Only hearsay, it was in development for years and was a pure standalone heist movie with Wright’s quirky/wit spin as you would expect. But due to the success of the MCU he was asked to rewrite parts to fit into the wider cinematic world, and plot threads. He had a go, struggled, and then found out Marvel had commissioned and received a rewrite he had nothing to do with. And I think he decided it was either going to be his movie or not, and it was clear he wasn’t going to get his way, so walked.
 

maverick177uk

Distinguished Member
One of the main problems in the DCU is that Superman is unkillable, yes I know he died in BvS (conveniently) but he is basically a God. All the other films have been Lex Luthor and you just know how it’s going to go. Unless they go down the Injustice route I don’t see how they can develop the Superman character, there literally is no jeopardy, oh look more Kryptonite, it gets boring after a while.
in Marvel I thought it was great how they dealt with the Hulk and Thanos handing him his arse, in the past Hulk has been Superman’s equivalent, indestructible, unbeatable yet in 10 seconds they destroyed that with great story telling.
The Darksied story line wouldbe been great, but it seems we are getting a multiverse the same as Marvel and there will inevitably be comparisons, Marvel will win hands down as they are 12 years ahead and already have phase 4/5 lined up and presumably know where they are going with it, DC are winging it and that’s why they will fail.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
One of the main problems in the DCU is that Superman is unkillable, yes I know he died in BvS (conveniently) but he is basically a God. All the other films have been Lex Luthor and you just know how it’s going to go. Unless they go down the Injustice route I don’t see how they can develop the Superman character, there literally is no jeopardy, oh look more Kryptonite, it gets boring after a while.
in Marvel I thought it was great how they dealt with the Hulk and Thanos handing him his arse, in the past Hulk has been Superman’s equivalent, indestructible, unbeatable yet in 10 seconds they destroyed that with great story telling.
The Darksied story line wouldbe been great, but it seems we are getting a multiverse the same as Marvel and there will inevitably be comparisons, Marvel will win hands down as they are 12 years ahead and already have phase 4/5 lined up and presumably know where they are going with it, DC are winging it and that’s why they will fail.

Their plan was to go down the Injustice route.

If they wanted a darker, more gritty Superman; its not hard to make Superman interesting. BVS/MOS touched on it but Superman is a god; but the people he tries to save aren't.

Having a villain clearly play on this and put him in tortorous decisions where he has to choose who save and break him emotionally would have been a much more powerful exploration of Superman.

Afterall, isn't that what the Joker did to Batman in the TDK (twice) which was god damn amazing.



You think Hulk in Marvel is good storytelling? I thought it was near universally though that Marvel totally messed up the Hulk over the course of the Marvel franchise and has left him simply not true to his character with an incongruent power level.
 

maverick177uk

Distinguished Member
Their plan was to go down the Injustice route.

If they wanted a darker, more gritty Superman; its not hard to make Superman interesting. BVS/MOS touched on it but Superman is a god; but the people he tries to save aren't.

Having a villain clearly play on this and put him in tortorous decisions where he has to choose who save and break him emotionally would have been a much more powerful exploration of Superman.

Afterall, isn't that what the Joker did to Batman in the TDK (twice) which was god damn amazing.



You think Hulk in Marvel is good storytelling? I thought it was near universally though that Marvel totally messed up the Hulk over the course of the Marvel franchise and has left him simply not true to his character with an incongruent power level.
No I didn’t say Hulk was good story telling I just thought that if you go off the comic books he’s basically unbeatable, even when Ironman beat him in Avengers I thought it wasn’t right but how do you deal with a character that is indestructible? They have to change it I suppose and to have Thanos beat him down when he would’ve easily been able to match him sort of suited the storytelling, but with Superman it’s just Kryptonite.
 

Garrett

Moderator
No I didn’t say Hulk was good story telling I just thought that if you go off the comic books he’s basically unbeatable, even when Ironman beat him in Avengers I thought it wasn’t right but how do you deal with a character that is indestructible? They have to change it I suppose and to have Thanos beat him down when he would’ve easily been able to match him sort of suited the storytelling, but with Superman it’s just Kryptonite.
It said Thanos is as strong as the Hulk.
All Hulk does is rely on brute strength where as Thanos is a lot smarter and has skills in fighting and a staggering high intellect, its just a shame he's mad.
 

maverick177uk

Distinguished Member
It said Thanos is as strong as the Hulk.
All Hulk does is rely on brute strength where as Thanos is a lot smarter and has skills in fighting and a staggering high intellect, its just a shame he's mad.
But hulk is supposed to get stronger the madder he gets so this should counter that, still I think the infinity saga was brilliant
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: LG C1 OLED + JBL Synthesis SDR-35 First Thoughts, plus TV Show & Disc Reviews & more
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

What's new on Netflix UK for June 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 12th May 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Bluesound unveils new generation of Node and Powernode audio players
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Naim launches Uniti Atom Headphone Edition
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sennheiser announces flagship IE 900 earphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom