WB's Justice League 2017 movie pre-discussion thread
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
Copying and pasting my own post from the WB superhero thread, in case some people aren’t reading both:
The WSJ has a subscribers-only article on Justice League and the WB superhero slate in general:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/offbeat-super-heroes-take-on-batman-wonder-woman-1509997635
As I assume most of us aren’t subscribers, here’s a potted summary of it:
https://batman-news.com/2017/11/06/...e-under-two-hours-plus-more-interesting-info/
One thing I note is that the studio demanded that JL be under 2 hours.Guess they can’t help interfering...
The WSJ has a subscribers-only article on Justice League and the WB superhero slate in general:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/offbeat-super-heroes-take-on-batman-wonder-woman-1509997635
As I assume most of us aren’t subscribers, here’s a potted summary of it:
https://batman-news.com/2017/11/06/...e-under-two-hours-plus-more-interesting-info/
One thing I note is that the studio demanded that JL be under 2 hours.Guess they can’t help interfering...
Seems really stupid and WB just can't help themselves. First we had BvS cut stuff that it clearly needed though other stuff could of been removed completely in fairness. Justice League needs to introduce Aquaman, Cyborg, The Flash and maybe even Green Lantern? (GL is a pure guess on my behalf). The film has to deal with the return of Superman and the introduction of the larger DC-Verse with the whole concept of Darkseid and his followers with the main threat being Steppenwolf. I've not even mentioned Batman & Wonder Woman and any side characters like Lois Lane & Martha Kent etc...Sub 2 hours (which includes credits) IS going to lead to some dodgy pacing and I bet alot of content cut that the movie probably needs.
WB seems to have rushed the DCEU from day one and I don't understand why, the comic book bubble isn't going anyway anytime soon, if it's good then people will see it. We rushed into BvS without setting up Batman in a Standalone film, which affected BvS IMO and even Suicide Squad because that movie had to introduce the new Joker when a Batman film could of done that. They are using JL to introduce 3 heroes in Cyborg, Aquaman & Flash (could be 4 with a GL) when at least one of them could of been introduced in their own movie.
Still fairly buzzed to see JL but WB have very little of my faith/trust when it comes to planning out the DCEU.
Sigh...
Literally the entire text of that actual article is about how WB is committed to making DC movies driven more by director's visions rather than any corporate mandate on strict order and continuity.
It also says that test screenings for Justice League had as positive reactions as those for Wonder Woman.
And then there's one sentence in it that claims that an unnamed source said Tsujihara wanted JL to be under 2 hours long.
So what do we put in the title? Of course, the one thing we can spin and whinge about!
Clickbaiters gonna clickbait...
A more streamlined movie seems like a bonus. BVS was just blotted with exposition and setting up for "Justice League"
Maybe that's why we won't get Iris West or Henry Allen. They distract from the main plot
Maybe that's why we won't get Iris West or Henry Allen. They distract from the main plot
Sigh, no producer is ever going to say they intend to interfere with a director's vision, because critics (both professional and armchair) obsess over the directorial position as if the person with that job is necessarily the author of a film in the way a writer is the author of their work. Even when they know that not to be true, they act as if it is. How many MCU movie reviews mention Feige by name? A fraction of those that mention the director of the various movies at hand, though Feige exerts huge control, not least by choosing (and sometimes canning) said directors in the first place.
IOW: all of WB's hifalutin talk about how much they respect directors is just that, unless they actually walk the walk. And this is the studio that drastically recut Ayer's Suicide Squad (by letting the trailer editors have their go), argued that Patty Jenkins shouldn't have made Wonder Woman's most iconic scene, has hired and fired two Flash directors, may have dissuaded Affleck from directing a solo Batman movie, and has apparently asked Whedon to significantly overhaul JL's tone and bring it down to a strict two-hour length. That's a lot of interference to date. Maybe they'll do less of the same in the future, but taking sound bites to that effect at face value is quite simply misguided.
The same studio said their BvS previews were rapturously received, also.
The point, in case you missed it, is that an entirely positive sounding article has a negative sounding title so that people like you can predictably whinge about it. Carry on.
Yeah, it's a shame they didn't trust the director's instincts and cut that scene from the final movie. Oh, wait ...
That’s standard studio operating procedure. How many directors has Disney hired and fired so far in their Star Wars films?
Legally, no film studio or producer can actually exert as much control over the released version of a film as people seem to think they can, nor can they 'stonewall' a director into doing something against their will.
For all of this whining and moaning about how DC and Warner Bros. have made decisions that 'overruled' the will of the individual directors they've hired, a full examination of all the facts, especially in light of the high-profile firings of directors from Lucasfilm's Star Wars franchise, reveals the truth, which is that, for better or worse, DC's most recent superhero films as released were in fact signed off on, ultimately, by the credited directors of said films because, legally, they had to be.
For all of this whining and moaning about how DC and Warner Bros. have made decisions that 'overruled' the will of the individual directors they've hired, a full examination of all the facts, especially in light of the high-profile firings of directors from Lucasfilm's Star Wars franchise, reveals the truth, which is that, for better or worse, DC's most recent superhero films as released were in fact signed off on, ultimately, by the credited directors of said films because, legally, they had to be.
What scene are we talking about...
WB needs to stop thinking that every damn movie needs to be as long as The LOTR movies. Holding JL to under two hours can only be a good thing, in my opinion, and Marvel could stand to try that sometime, too. Sometimes, less is more and not every movie needs to be super long.
This particular movie, with all the characters, seems like it absolutely does need to be kind of long though.
Not just WB, too many films now are overlong. Unfortunately both BvS and Suicide Squad suffered from bad editing and somehow manage to be both overlong and to have cut out vital scenes. However, there is no reason why his film can't be adequately told in 2 hours. The 1960 Magnificent Seven is just over 2 hours, the Ocean's Eleven remake 116 minutes.
The JL animated movies are about 1h 15min long and they have more characters...
By the way, the social media reactions embargo lifts tomorrow, and the full review embargo has been moved up a day to Tuesday.
Studio's rarely move up embargoes, from what I've noticed. Maybe it means they're hearing good things. I honestly want JL to be good. If DC can pull out another good movie after WW, I'll be happy (although if its good I'm sure it will be because of the influences of Geoff Johns and Joss Whedon, any success will be despite its main director).
lol... "I could never be wrong about someone or something. There are other factors at work"
Well, since Zach Snyder has made literally zero movies that aren't shit (and I'm not just talking about his comic book movies), and we keep getting reports of Johns and Whedon specifically changing a lot of Snyder's grimdark, moody, unheroic shit, it's safe to say that if JL succeeds it will be because it was saved from Snyder, despite his normal crap.