And there were a lot who loved it. It might not be "one size fits all", but experience still counts when it comes to looking for someone to take over a big movie like Justice League. Whedon spent years working on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, wrote several superhero comics, and directed one of the biggest superhero movies of all time, so I'd say all of that more than qualified him for taking over JL. He's also written and directed stuff with different styles and tones over the years, so it's not like everything he did was always done in the exact same style. No, us getting the Snyder cut has nothing to do with Whedon, and everything to do with the fact that the Snyder fans would not shut up about it, and that WB needed something to put on HBO Max.
I would say, rather, that the way the DCEU had been set in motion up to that point was wrong -- certainly in the minds of the DCEU's creators. Remember, at the time JL was being made, BvS and Suicide Squad had been savaged by critics, Wonder Woman was a runaway hit, and WB was already reacting to that by reworking its plans to be more along WW's upbeat lines and less along Snyder's dark 'n' dismal, Watchmen-esque take on DC. We knew even then that JL would probably be Snyder's last DCEU film, and that the studio was pivoting away from his critically panned approach. So it's revisionist history to speak as though the way the DCEU had been "set in motion" by Snyder was the intended plan until Whedon came along and ruined it somehow. The studio was already changing course well before Whedon came aboard. That's why they brought him aboard, because Snyder hadn't been able to give them the kind of JL film they wanted.
To be fair, when I was 8 Batman: The Animated Series and the Fox X-Men cartoon started, and then Spider-Man when I was 10. So... my standards may have been a bit high.
No. We didn't. A good story is still good even if it's different from the comics. I will never understand how anyone can grow up on *comics* of all things and still come out so hidebound and utterly unwilling to accept multiple different versions of a character or story. How many alternate universes, hypothetical futures and blatant retcons does it take to make people understand that stories and characters are malleable, not rigid and permanent?
Reminds me of the guy from a local BBS back in the late '90s, who hated the Paul McGann Doctor Who movie with a fanatical, violent passion because it was inconsistent with the original series. Didn't he even see the original series and recognize how wildly inconsistent it was within itself? The problem is that people tend to distill inconsistent information down into a self-constructed mental model that makes sense to them, and then they forget that their streamlined model of the thing is different from the actual thing.
...and this means what? You made a claim as if that "made for kids" beleif invalidated the fact that there were children of the 1970s--who also read the JLA comics--thought the Super Friends was garbage. Being comic fans, I would say they had a stronger position on how to judge any series based on comic book characters/situations, because they knew how the JLA was meant to be presented. The DePalma example is applicable to Whedon, and it was proven by the end result of the JL film. He did not know what he was doing. More to the point, there are some MCU fans who cannot stand Age of Ultron, thinking it either made no sense, or was superheroes on screen doing action movie things "just because." The JL movie certainly did not need that. In other words, when it comes to directors who worked on genre films, one size does not fit all. Just as DePalma would not have been right for The Godfather 3 or Goodfellas, Whedon directing Avengers movies was no qualification for Justice League. Different style, characters/demand / tone across the board means whatever he did on the Avengers would not--and did not work on JL. Attacking Snyder's supporters (something that happens quite often, rather than making a reasonable argument) does not rewrite history: Whedon put his mark on JL and the bad results rest at his feet; Snyder always had a far different vision for the film, one fans were aware of and wanted to see, and contrary to the opinion of some people, that is a good thing for film.
Wrong. I was a kid in the 70s, so cartoons such as the Super Friends were aimed at my demographic. However, the success of a cartoon depends on the strength of content and execution, and again, many comic-reading kids of the 70s thought Super Friends was garbage. Why? Because it was awful and not a good representation of the source. That's why I contrasted that with the reaction to H-B's Fantastic Four cartoon, which captured much of the spirit, tone and content from the source, while SF did not, nor did the terrible FF cartoon from 1978 (Herbie the Robot version).
Same here. I read several comics prior to watching any adaptation. I had no issue going from one medium to the other. Hell, for the longest time my favorite character was Spider-man and I went from comics to several iterations (Fox cartoon, the Cartoon with Neil Patrick Harris, Sam Rami films). Each was its own distinct thing, as I were the comics. And that's OK. That's my preference. I want adaptations, I want changes, I want different perspectives. I will never understand the rigid perspective that there is one "true" way in a fictional universe.
All I meant was that it was popular back in the day, so not all kids felt the same way that you did. I'm one of the few people who liked the theaterical version of JL, and I'd say Whedon knew perfectly well what he was doing. At that point the man had directed 3 movies, and 42 episodes of TV, so it's ridiculous to try to say he didn't know what he was doing. Yes, you might not have liked the end result, but that doesn't mean he was incompetent. OK, yes Whedon does have a different style from Snyder, but I don't really see why that had to mean he couldn't direct JL, especially since at that point WB was trying to move away from Snyder's style. And if they were looking for something more serious than Avengers, Whedon has done some more serious stuff, like the Buffy episode, The Body, so he's more than capable of cutting back on the humor if that's what is wanted from him. It's also worth keeping in mind that there's a pretty good chance that a lot of the changes in tone and style that he brought into JL probably comes from the people at WB more than just Whedon all by himself. One that some fans wanted to see, I was pretty happy with the theatrical version, and have no real desire to the see Snyder's version. If I eventually sign up for HBOMax, I might watch it just to see how different it is, but it's not something I'm really anticipating.
I also liked JL, and I'm confident that the parts I liked were mostly Whedon's. It's bizarre how attached many fans today are to hyperbole. It's never enough to say you were disappointed by one thing a filmmaker did -- you have to rewrite history and denounce everything they ever made as absolute trash, even if they had a stellar reputation in fandom for years before doing the one thing people didn't like. Whedon was celebrated by fandom as a towering genius thanks to Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse, Serenity, and Avengers, but the one Zack Snyder film he partially reshot was disappointing, so suddenly he has to be a complete incompetent who never had any worth at all. Whaaaaaa?? Couldn't it have anything to do with the fact that it wasn't primarily his work? Or just that nobody knocks it out of the park every single time, that someone can fail once in a while yet still be good overall?
Or rather, the most extreme-minded fans shout the loudest and make it hard for the more moderate majority to get a word in. Which is true of other things like politics and religion as well.
Whedon’s version of JL is a studio-hobbled Frankenstein’s monster of a movie. It’s entertaining enough, but it’s by no means a good film. Snyder’s version will be ... Snyder, which is never a good thing. There is not a good Justice League movie to be constructed from the parts that exist. The only way to salvage it would be to go back in time, and do everything different from the beginning.
I think what The Realist is suggesting would be more along the lines of a 100% Whedon cut -- starting from scratch with Whedon rather than bringing him in to try to patch up the mess Snyder left them.
Not so sure Whedon would be my choice (though certainly he would have been a better option than Snyder from the outset). Somebody with a more Richard Donner/Patty Jenkins sensibility would be the sweet spot — able to balance the mythic, the dramatic, the romantic, and the humorous, and to treat the characters and their world with respect and affection.
May you find yourself strapped to a chair, forced to watch the 1997 Justice League pilot, the 1990 Captain America movie and the aforementioned 1978 New Fantastic Four cartoon in a loop for a solid month. Mind rot..sweet revenge! ...and I'm pointing out to you that those who defend the Super Friends tend to paint a rosy picture as though all kids enjoyed it, when that was not the case at all. What part of "one size does not fit all" are you missing? Whedon's past work did not automatically qualify him to work on JL. that is patently illogical, as no one has ever been a fit for all concepts in a genre. Again, if the director is not fit for the specific tone, characters/demands and overall material, he will prove to be a bad fit with equally bad results. To argue otherwise is the equivalent of a false assumption that reads, "Well, Nicholas Meyer directed great sci-fi films like Time After Time and Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, so those kind of credits made him qualified to direct Return of the Jedi!" No, it did not. Meyer is a far different kind of filmmaker than Marquand (or Lucas, for that matter) with an approach and sensibility that lives on the polar opposite side of what Star Wars needed at that time to achieve its kind of goal. Take Francis Coppola: he directed two among the greatest mafia/dramas--Hell, films--in history with The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, but his talent and mafia films of such Brobdingnagian stature did not mean he would have been a fit for / get anywhere near as successful a result as Scorsese with Goodfellas or Casino by any stretch of the imagination. Talent never works that way, and it did not with Whedon on Justice League. Filmmakers do not always speak the unique language necessary for every film they might work on. WB was as mistaken as some moviegoers who clearly wanted to copy+paste the MCU, when that series was not a universal model for all superhero movies, and its internal tone and characterization is not what works for DC at all. It would have been as misguided to take the DCEU in that direction as it would have been to adapt The Walking Dead, only using Return of the Living Dead's bouncy, comedic approach to a very different, very serious kind of survival horror story. Similarly, ROTLD (well, the first one) was a solid breakout within a genre because it "lived in its own skin" and was not trying to be another Romero film. TWD is the success that it is because it too "lived in its own skin", not trying to be like any other production within its genre (even if there was the occasional wink). Snyder's approach to the DCEU worked for that reason--the characters, environments, source and tone required something completely different, not merely being a MCU film in DC trappings. This reads as passing the buck; a filmmaker of Whedon's level is not brought in to just nod in agreement with others, or have his strings pulled. Filmmakers do make mistakes or are a bad fit for certain productions. Oh well--that's your choice and view. Meanwhile, its not a stretch to say there are a large number of fans extremely excited to see JL as they understood it had intended to be produced, instead of the obvious mistake-ridden production that played in theatres.