Spoilers Justice League - Grading and Discussion

​

 

For the most part, a Pixar film will outperform anything...

 

A combination of fans tying these films to their ego and basic insecurity.

I find the whole thing silly and a bit pathetic. Marvel Studios is entertaining and DC is capable of it based on Wonder Woman and a few moments in the others. Both are essentially fluff though. They’re fun, but they aren’t the deep, thoughtful masterpieces that some try to make them to be.

 

Growing up, I probably read more Marvel than DC comics for the simple reason that the former were easier to come by where I lived. But Ive always loved the characters of Superman and Batman and have seen all of their films in the cinema (yes, including Superman IV & Batman and Robin).

Basically, I want to be entertained by a film, including comic book films. It's not partisan - if DC make a great film, I want it to inspire Marvel to make a better one and vice versa. I would say that the first 2 Nolan Batman films are my favourite comic strip movies but the Marvel cinematic universe have consistently entertained me across the board in a way that the DCEU hasn't quite managed, though I've liked most of the DCEU films to date.

 

I don't disagree, but I would add that I feel as though the salient difference between the two is that the Marvel movies know they're fluff, whereas (for the most part) WB's takes themselves *way* too seriously, which is why most of the Snyder movies have come off as schizophrenic to say the least.

That grounded, "realistic" approach worked well with Nolan's movies because they were designed that way from the ground up. With the exception of Wonder Woman, the Snyder-era DC movies try to bring that same gravitas, but fails to fully integrate it with the central character's fundamental ethos. Ayn Rand is not a good fit for Superman (though it would have worked great if they were going to do an alternate Earth/Justice Lords bait and switch.)
As a result, I think there's just something fundamentally *off* about the whole thing and that reverberates through every other aspect of the movies. The attempts to course correct have so far only served to deepen the confused tone.

Because the Marvel movie's know what they're about, they're more confident in the material and overall make for much more relaxed, entertaining experiences. SS & JL positively reeked of creative insecurity.

 

Boxofficemojo predicts 60 million for the second weekend. That is solid.

 

In China, adverts for the new JL movie show DC superheros killing Marvel characters. LOL.

 

Screw it, I've seen it four times in a little over a week, and I still love it to bits. Changing my rating from an A to an A+. Yes, it has some flaws, but these are my favorite characters acting like my favorite characters in a big blockbuster fitting these characters.

I'm considering going again, and I haven't seen any movie more than four times on the big screen before.

 

If it’s lucky, it will make its money back before it leaves theaters at that rate.

 

Loved Man of Steel but gave this a C+

- As with a lot of recent comic book movies/shows, including the Arrowverse, we don't get a sense of how these heroes affect ordinary people and their lives. It's just heroes fighting an over-the-top villain. We don't even see how the world reacts to Superman's return. I wish that these movies would get back to showing us heroes in our world and not just in their own world.

- I still like Affleck's Batman but he didn't shine as much in this movie. And Batman himself was too cartoony.

- I've never felt that Gal Gadot captured the spirit of Wonder Woman but she was pretty good here and was very impressive when she deflected the machine gun fire.

- Mamoa was great as Aquaman.

- Miller was good. Still on team Gustin tho.

- Glad I stayed until the end of the credits. I didn't know that there would be a scene. I thought that maybe Eisenberg would have wanted out. Guess not.

I didn't know about the CGI until I got home and looked it up. I was wondering why Cavill looked so weird. It wasn't just his mouth. His whole face changed and his skin was too smooth and shiny like a baby's. So was Affleck's, actually.

As did I. And it looks like they did away with the CGI outfit. I liked the CGI outfit.

 

I'm talking about how after they damaged the brand with Quest for Peace and Singer's pathetic attempt at doing a love letter to Richard Donner did nothing to alleviate that.

Of course, the first Superman worked for being the only one of its kind. Put IT out today and it wouldn't do as well either. And Superman II isn't that good either, considering how unheroic Superman acts throughout.

 

Whenever I see this crap that Snyder is pushing some "Randian agenda" I can't help but chuckle, because you're talking about the guy who made 300, a movie that glorifies Sparta, a city-state that was quite literally the complete antithesis to absolutely everything Ayn Rand stood for

 

300 doesn’t really have any themes, other than xenophobia and homoeroticism.

Also the man does want to adapt The Fountainhead. But let’s ignore that.

 

Never read it, looked at the synopsis.
It reads like his fucking career.

 

Is slow motion and a muddy color pallet really innovative? His “style” is similar to Michael Bay, frequent use of slow motion and constant attempts at “iconic shots” but without any significance. Most movies have moments we remember because of how it’s shot. But he just makes a movie of nothing but moments, which makes none of them stand out. His best movie is Dawn of the Dead because it didn’t rely on his standard tricks, most of which he picked up during 300 where it was done purposely to replicate the comic panels. I guess it’s cool, but that’s about it. The best he can do is the faux depth of the forced Jesus imagery in MoS which was as subtle as a brick to the head.

 

I made no such claim of pushing an agenda. Simply that for this specific character, that appears to be where he's taking his philosophical inspiration from and that it's a poor fit.
As I said, it might work if one were doing a 'Justice Lords' story or an adaptation of 'Red Son', but not Superman proper.

As for 300: honestly I've never given it much thought and haven't seen it since it came out so my memory is a little fuzzy. That said, if for the sake of argument one were to characterise that movie's presentation of the nation of Sparta as an individual character, then it suddenly become quite obvious where someone who digs Rand might see the appeal.
That aside, obviously Snyder's tastes aren't limited to half-baked philosophy as he also likes the aesthetics of violence and lots and lots of greased up half naked bodies. And it shows.

I think it;s also worth pointing out that Snyder's approach to such things has always been shallow, as if he doesn't even fully understand what he's trying to say. This is especially evident in BvS and Lex Luthor's nonsensical motivations. It's all very scattershot and erratic, like someone trying to look smart but very aware they're out of their depth.

 

It's really rather hard to take people's arguments seriously when they're predicating said arguments on completely untrue - and provably untrue - things.

There is nothing whatsoever about the DCEU Superman that is in any way at odds with more traditional depictions of the character, on a fundamentally philosophical level, and never has been, even going back to Man of Steel.

I don't understand how it is that I, someone who was not a fan of the character prior to 2013, can recognize that and yet people who claim to have been fans of the character for years can't.

 

That's how I'd describe much of criticism of Snyder

I disagree with that, he's a guy who selflessly risks his life for others all the time, to the point of dying to protect everyone. Who, as a reporter, fights for the rights of prisoners, people who nobody cares about. He's someone who questions how best to help people and who doesn't just know he's right all the time.

He's less individualistic than the "traditional" version.

This is kind of typical of any discussion of Snyder's work. One can write pages and pages why it's not shallow, indeed you can find a wealth of material all over the interwebs on why people enjoy his movies, but that all gets thrown out with a simple "it doesn't look like anything to me."

And that's fine, not everything has to speak to everyone, nor is anyone required to like everything, but why be immediately so dismissive of other peoples impressions? Why this stubborn insistence that it shouldn't mean anything to anyone if it doesn't mean anything to you?

Besides, if there's really "nothing there" why even bother discussing it years after the fact every.bloody.time it gets brought up?

 

Well, Cavill's portrayal of the character certainly is more interesting and nuanced than Reeves'.

 

Being a god among men, half of whom want to kill you and the other half to worship you, is one hell of a burden.

I wouldn't smile too much in his place. Man of Steel/Batman V Superman version of Supes > Justice League > Christopher Reeve's (who ideal for his Superman's world, but wouldn't work in anything in any way more realistic)