There's nothing classified as "worst" about ZSJL, but I can name truly inferior, pointless superhero TV series and movies of the past 20 years that have earned the "worst" distinction with ease.
Justice League official "Zack Snyder" cut on HBO Max
- Thread starter Ar-Pharazon
- Start date
There's nothing classified as "worst" about ZSJL, but I can name truly inferior, pointless superhero TV series and movies of the past 20 years that have earned the "worst" distinction with ease.
By the way, almost every review out there agrees that the Flash's scene in the ending was a great addition to the movie. Well, execs demanded its removal because "they did not understand it". Now, we can discuss the artistic merits of that particular scene, but considering that 1978's Superman movie did the same trick, it's clear how intelligent are these "execs".
Barry's scene is the single really good thing in the first two hours of this murky shitstorm. Still, given that the flick needed to lose at least an hour and a half to be marketable, it would have been hard to justify keeping it. One might guess that Warners saw more immediate upside to promoting Diana - keeping an abbreviated version of her action scene - than Barry in 2017. And they were almost certainly right.
The notion that the people who run the studios are dullards who don't know what they're doing is a popular conceit on the Internet, a world where everyone believes they can do a better job than the folks who've actually done the job, but it's a non-starter. These people get paid to manage projects, see that deadlines and release dates are met by the delivery of product that is sellable and has a good chance of earning profit. If they don't do that well, most of them don't last long.
The notion that the people who run the studios are dullards who don't know what they're doing is a popular conceit on the Internet, a world where everyone believes they can do a better job than the folks who've actually done the job, but it's a non-starter. These people get paid to manage projects, see that deadlines and release dates are met by the delivery of product that is sellable and has a good chance of earning profit. If they don't do that well, most of them don't last long.
I'm sure they are capable to run the everyday aspects of movie industry, but often they absolutely don't know what can do a better movie. Or simply they don't understand the movie. A great example is Proyas' Dark City. Execs didn't understand the movie's twist, so they demanded that a voiceover revealed the big mistery of the movie before the movie actually begins.
It would be as if the Sixth Sense producers had asked the director "Can you immediately clearly say during the opening credits that
Bruce Willis is a ghost
@Serveaux: Given your obvious disdain for Snyder as a director, I'm curious how that squares with your high opinion of Man of Steel. Were other elements of the film strong enough to overcome Snyder's deficiencies for you? Or did you find his work on that film uniquely successful by his standards?
Put another way, did MoS work for you because of Snyder, or in spite of him?
Put another way, did MoS work for you because of Snyder, or in spite of him?
Which has nothing to do with their intelligence.
They didn't get what Flash did at the end of the movie (spoiler, reversing time).
Sounds like the Prequel Trilogy to me! Star Wars was really hurt by the loss of Marcia Lucas and the general lack of anyone able to tell George when his creative instincts were wrong.
Again, these are the same people who had the MCU so far up their assess that they hired the ever-questionable Whedon (for so many reasons) and for their desperation, WB was rewarded with nonsensical, quip-battered rubble. They (the WB suits) received what they deserved, and their decision to finally listen to the fans and spend 70 million bucks on the Snyder cut was a bigger, well deserved slap in their face for wanting to MCU-ize an inherently different property.
And Internet critics and fans do?
They do not.
There is an uncertainty of outcome on every film project. When the suits can see a disaster in the making like a four-hour dirge like this one it would have been irresponsible to their stockholders not to intervene. And they did intervene. Well before Snyder "stepped away" they brought in other directors and writers, including Jenkins and Whedon, to try to figure out how to salvage this mess. That they managed to pull something out of it that did as well as Justice League did was quite an accomplishment.
And?
And I find a little strange if someone want to eliminate a plot point because s/he didn't get it, when everybody else did?
Agreed, and for all of the "Superman is selfless" arguments put forth by Donner/time reversal advocates, they predictably and conveniently skip over how selfish it was to reverse time only to save the person he cared about, and no, it had nothing to do with reversing the effect of Luthor's missile strike.
Sure, it could be strange. I don't question intelligence because of it.
I'd put money on the fact that she was willing to tell him he was wrong as a contributing factor to their divorce.
Only because it wasn't supposed to be the end of Superman: The Movie in the first place.
Superman breaking the rule set down by his father at the climax of the 1978 film to do something for himself personally (i.e. save the person he cared about the most) was when he became his own man, and that was precisely the point. Who didn't get that? I did. It makes perfect sense, by the way. It always did.
I didn't. But, then, I found that film overrated at the time.
I vividly recall the criticism of that scene in 1978, and it was seen as Superman being selfish and not accepting loss as he had to with Jonathan Kent. Moreover, by disobeying the rules as imparted by Jor-El, he was playing God. Its the reason that one scene has been the film's most consistently derided for over four decades.
Similar threads
