Reading and understanding the whole article is the opposite of nitpicking. To nitpick means to focus on small details at the expense of the whole, and that's kinda what you did -- you took the report of the shooting schedule out of context and came to the conclusion that it meant the exact opposite of what the article actually said it meant. Statistics are meaningless without context.
Besides, it's an interesting article in its own right. I recommend reading it in full.
I've read the whole article. Mark Hughes, who is a friend of mine, brings up interesting points. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but I also understand where he is coming from.
Also, without getting petty, it is amusing getting a lecture about nitpicking from you,
Christopher, as I feel that is a lot of what you do on this forum. I guess the most appropriate euphemism (if I'm using that term correctly) would be 'pot calling the kettle black'. I picked the date as an example of how long the shoot will be. Batman-On-Film has said anywhere from "6 weeks or more", but Mark's figure was more accurate from what I have heard from my own personal sources.
Which is not at all unusual. Like I said, creativity is a process. Stories don't instantly spring into being in complete form and remain immutable from the beginning to the end of their production -- they evolve through trial and error and experimentation. Scripts get rewritten countless times in pre-production and during production. Films are often significantly transformed in editing.
Heck, as a rule, you don't want your finished creation to be exactly what you were planning when you started. You want it to be better than that. When you're just starting, you haven't yet put your ideas to the test, haven't discovered what parts actually work and what parts don't. You haven't yet made the serendipitous discoveries and lucky accidents that happen along the way and give you new insights. In the case of a collaborative production like filmmaking, you haven't yet discovered the new possibilities that the actors and other co-creators will bring to the table. All of that transforms the work while it's being made, and ideally makes it better.
With all due respect,
Christopher, I am fully aware of the creative process. I didn't need a lecture on it. I've been following the filmmaking process for the last fifteen years, and I've been in the filmmaking industry for the last decade. I will admit, if anything, your written presentation of the creative process was well-worded, if slightly redundant.
Changing the composer doesn't mean changing the story. Alex North did a whole score for 2001 that Kubrick ditched, but the rest of the film wasn't changed as a result, as far as I know. Sometimes a reshoot leads to a change of composer for scheduling reasons, like when Alexandre Desplat was unavailable for Rogue One rescoring and Michael Giacchino took over, but I don't see why the cause and effect would go the other way. Yes, it's a change in tone -- a changed score always is -- but that doesn't mean the entire film is being redone. If anything, it means it doesn't have to be. You can transform a film massively with a different score or a different edit, even without reshoots. (Look at Ridley Scott's Legend.)
I never said the change in composer was changing the story. I said it was changing the tone. There's a difference there, and I feel like you're grabbing onto certain meanings because it suits your argument more. If I wasn't clear before, let me be clear now:
I don't expect Joss Whedon to completely change Zack Snyder's movie. I think what will likely happen will probably resemble the
Rogue One reshoots that happened. I suspect 40% of the film will be changed. I know that's not a very specific way to quantify what will be altered, but that's because I don't know specifics myself. However, I do know Whedon is adding and changing significant scenes and moments (again, I can't provide links, but enough information is floating around to verify this without even quoting my sources).
The fact he's bringing on Elfman, and replacing Holkenberg, is an indication of this. That is why I suspect WB will still stick to the November release date, although I wouldn't be surprised if it gets pushed back to March 2018. Whedon has done tentpoles before, and he was chosen partially because he can handle the workload of a major studio tentpole. I think from Whedon's additional material (which he is writing) and him over-seeing post-production (including editing, color correction, scoring, visual effects, etc.) he will significantly alter the tone and somewhat alter the direction of the film.
Which is all the more reason why it's illogical to think that process of change has only just started now with the reshoots. It's been going on since before the film even started shooting. That's one thing that's pointed out in the Forbes article, that this process of reconsideration and adjustment has been ongoing throughout the film rather than being some sudden afterthought.
I never said the process started with Whedon's hiring. As I said, this started when WB wanted to do a course correction on the direction of these movies. Geoff Johns worked closely with Snyder to rework the script with Chris Terrio back in the spring of 2016 after
Batman v Superman received a backlash from critics and a certain (but sizable and vocal) group of fans. However, clearly that change in direction wasn't enough and a further change in tone and direction was needed, thus the hiring of Whedon as writer (for the additional material) and director.
This is both very wrong and deeply insensitive. Snyder left the project because of a terrible family tragedy. Before that happened, he had already decided what reshoots the film needed and had asked Joss Whedon to write the new scenes that he wanted. When he decided that helping his family cope with a tragic loss was more important, he stepped back and Whedon agreed to direct the new scenes and do the final edit -- but he was following through on a decision that Snyder had already made.
I've made a separate post to touch on why I do not believe I am incorrect or being insensitive, however I will admit I could have made some information known sooner. My apologies. I haven't posted regularly on this forum in a while, so sometimes I forget not all of you are aware of what I am aware of.
Let's be clear -- I think Joss Whedon is a vastly better filmmaker than Zack Snyder. I would love it if this fantasy of all of Snyder's work being tossed out in favor of a full-on Whedon movie were true. But I know that it's a completely nonsensical notion, factually incorrect and logistically impossible. It's blowing a normal, pre-planned part of the filmmaking process absurdly out of proportion in the name of wishful thinking.
Like I said, I don't think all of Snyder's material is being thrown out. I'm just saying when
Justice League opens in November or March, it will be a completely different movie than the film Zack Snyder was directing, complete with different tone and, obviously, score.
Yes, which is exactly why it is routine for movies on this level to have extensive reshoots. It's why they plan from the start to have such reshoots, why they budget and schedule for them in advance. Like I already said, this exact same conversation has happened with virtually every major tentpole movie for the past couple of years -- certainly with every DCEU movie from BvS onward.
Is it routine for directors to get replaced this late in the process? Let's just say Snyder did simply leave because of a personal tragedy, and he wasn't experiencing problems with Warner Bros. which partially led to his departure. It is somewhat uncommon for a director of a major blockbuster tentpole to depart a film five months before release, with significant reshoots being done by a separate director who is over-seeing the remainder of post-production, which will indeed extensively alter the tone of the film and quite possibly the direction of the film.
I agree reshoots are routine with these kind of big-budget films (and really, with any film), but to not admit that this situation is somewhat unique seems a bit biased and close-minded to me.
