• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Warner bros announce superhero films through 2020

The Realist said:
The relevance of all of which would be greatly enhanced had I asserted anything about when attempts at humor were first introduced to the script or when Whedon initially entered the production, or said a blessed thing about Snyder's daughter. And I hardly think it's a "paranoid conspiracy theory" to suggest a studio might be less than publicly truthful about the behind-the-scenes maneuvering on a troubled multimillion dollar production.
Click to expand...

If it weren't for the fact that the argument you're trying to make can be definitively proven wrong, you might have a point.

The timeline of events re: Justice League's production and the facts thereof has been thoroughly and verifiably documented, not by sites like The Nerdist, ComicBook.Com, ScrernRant, etc., but by the 3 most respected news agencies in the entertainment industry: Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline Hollywood, and such documentation definitively disproves the notion that what we know about JL's production is nothing more than "corporate spin doctoring".
 
DigificWriter said:
If it weren't for the fact that the argument you're trying to make can be definitively proven wrong, you might have a point.

The timeline of events re: Justice League's production and the facts thereof has been thoroughly and verifiably documented, not by sites like The Nerdist, ComicBook.Com, ScrernRant, etc., but by the 3 most respected news agencies in the entertainment industry: Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline Hollywood, and such documentation definitively disproves the notion that what we know about JL's production is nothing more than "corporate spin doctoring".
Click to expand...

Listen, you can keep playing your broken record routine for as long as you like with your buddy @Christopher but that won't make you two any more right. Anyone with a brain can see that Snyder was planning to work through his tragedy, and after the original "unwatchable" screening of Justice League, WB removed him and allowed him to save face. If you had the SLIGHTEST ability to read between the lines you would be able to realize this, but instead you keep citing some director's guild guidelines that everyone with eyes can see have never been enforced.

Here is the only OBVIOUS truth:

1) Snyder's daughter committed suicide, but Snyder wanted to work through it to help him cope.
2) He screened a movie that was so awful that most of the script had to be rewritten.
3) He worked on the rewrites and even hired Joss to help, but it still wasn't good enough.
4) WB asked him to step down and allowed him to save face by using the tragedy.
5) Whedon tried to save the movie by changing almost everything.

If you dispute any of those things, which are CLEAR AS DAY to anyone paying ANY attention, then I am done with this conversation as you just refuse to listen to reason and thus are an UNREASONABLE PERSON.
 
DigificWriter said:
The timeline of events re: Justice League's production and the facts thereof has been thoroughly and verifiably documented, not by sites like The Nerdist, ComicBook.Com, ScrernRant, etc., but by the 3 most respected news agencies in the entertainment industry: Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline Hollywood, and such documentation definitively disproves the notion that what we know about JL's production is nothing more than "corporate spin doctoring".
Click to expand...

WOW. You genuinely believe the corporate Hollywood media, who need to report favorable things to keep their credentials, vs passionate bloggers doing actual investigative journalism??? I have a bridge to sell you, buddy.
 
crookeddy said:
Listen, you can keep playing your broken record routine for as long as you like with your buddy @Christopher but that won't make you two any more right. Anyone with a brain can see that Snyder was planning to work through his tragedy, and after the original "unwatchable" screening of Justice League, WB removed him and allowed him to save face. If you had the SLIGHTEST ability to read between the lines you would be able to realize this, but instead you keep citing some director's guild guidelines that everyone with eyes can see have never been enforced.

Here is the only OBVIOUS truth:

1) Snyder screened a movie that was so awful that most of the script had to be rewritten.
3) He worked on the rewrites and even hired Joss to help, but it still wasn't good enough.
4) WB asked him to step down and allowed him to save face by using the tragedy.
5) Whedon tried to save the movie by changing almost everything.

If you dispute any of those things, which are CLEAR AS DAY to anyone paying ANY attention, then I am done with this conversation as you just refuse to listen to reason and thus are an UNREASONABLE PERSON.
Click to expand...

I dispute these things, yes, because they are absolutely contrary to the facts as documented. Acknowledging that rather than choosing to believe a bunch of amateur online punditry doesn't make me unreasonable, it makes me rational.

But, yes, we're done with this line of discussion because there's no reasoning with people who won't accept the facts.
 
TREK_GOD_1 said:
Patty Jenkins admitted what the rational among us already understood: Snyder shaped Wonder Woman, as in the case of all DCEU films. It was not made in a vacuum apart from his creative hand and general tone of the franchise, which stands in contrast to your opinion.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know it from the actual movie.

The DCEU takes its characters seriously, as opposed to other franchises where its overdosing on FX and routines best suited for The Laugh Factory.
Click to expand...

No, they just think they can apply Nolan's approach to everybody from DC and think it'll work. But all they've done is damaged their brand.

And I'm sorry you're so allergic to levity. Don't watch classics like Back to the Future, it won't be good for your sensitive heart.
 
My thoughts from the bits and pieces I've read are that JL is a Zack Snyder film filtered through Joss Whedon. I really think the majority of what we see in the movie pretty much has to be from Zack Snyder, Whedon just wasn't involved enough to make as many drastic changes as some people seem to think. He obviously was a able to add some stuff here and there, and put it together in the editing, but he was still working from content that was mostly from Snyder. Even if he was able to make changes in the editing process, he was still working on a story developed by Snyder, using footage that was mostly shot by Snyder.
 
Director Joseph Kahn has revealed some concept art for a failed pitch he made for Justice League Dark. My only real complaint is I would have liked to have seen him or whoever made the art work some kind of fishnets into Zatanna's design since that is her big trademark. Even the New 52 version moved them off her legs and onto her arms and something like that could have worked with the rest of the look she has there. Other than that, I like her look, and I love that take on Swamp Thing and Constantine.
 
According to the article that is her, Constantine is Dan Stevens from Legion, and Jason Blood is Doctor Strange's Chiwetel Ejiofor.
 
Damn that Zatanna is bad, even worse then the already insultingly bad New 52 "Criss Angel" Zatanna. I seriously doubt the actor in the Jason Blood image would work as Jason Blood, since Blood is a knight from Camelot (at least in the New 52 but I think also pre-reboot) and that actor just doesn't work well for that role for a really obvious reason (and yes, having Blood be connected to Camelot is very important for his/Etrigan's backstory, since merlin is the reason they're together in the first place).

As bad as the Justice League Dark comic (and animated movie) were, these images wouldn't even work for an adaptation of bad stories like those.
 
kirk55555 said:
Damn that Zatanna is bad, even worse then the already insultingly bad New 52 "Criss Angel" Zatanna.
Click to expand...
There's no way the more traditional Zatanna would work in the darker, grittier take that this would have been. So going with this kind of a look makes the most sense.
I seriously doubt the actor in the Jason Blood image would work as Jason Blood, since Blood is a knight from Camelot (at least in the New 52 but I think also pre-reboot) and that actor just doesn't work well for that role for a really obvious reason (and yes, having Blood be connected to Camelot is very important for his/Etrigan's backstory, since merlin is the reason they're together in the first place).
Click to expand...
We're not going for total realism here, so I don't see a problem with a black guy being in Camelot. If this was some historical drama like something along the lines of Vikings, or Knightfall I would agree with you, but this is fantasy, so I don't see a problem with adding a bit more diversity. Merlin already gave us a black member of the Round Table, and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword gave us a black Bedivere(OK, the movie wasn't supposed very good, but I doubt Djimon Hounsou's casting had anything to do with it, so my point still stands) so it's not like it hasn't been done before. There's also the fact the Chiwetel Ejiofor is frickin' awesome, and I'd hate to see him be passed up for a role like this, even theoretical, because of his race.
 
Last edited:
The idea that European history was 100% white is a myth. There were Africans in Britain as far back as its Roman period, because the Romans shuffled around soldiers and slaves from all over the Empire, moving them far from their home territories so that they wouldn't have any local ties to conflict with their loyalty to Rome.

http://www.blackpast.org/gah/africans-hadrians-wall
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ss-africans-living-in-roman-york-1914553.html

So it's entirely conceivable that there were Africans still living in Britain at the time King Arthur supposedly existed. Hell, it's far more plausible than the idea of Merlin cursing a guy to be bonded with a demon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top