Zack Snyder’s Justice League is slightly more than a fan cut of a film that Warner Bros. gave an earlier release. The original version appeared way back in 2017 at a 120 minute running time.



With Snyder, the original filmmaker back in charge, the film has been given 4k, Dolby Atmos, an extended running time, and enough data throughput to warrant two 4k discs.

I viewed this earlier in the year – via HBO streaming, and the new 4k is night and day in it’s appearance in projection.

Originally released in 1.85, the new cut is the proper 4:3, a new aspect ratio being used here for the first time. You’ll note that it’s far higher than it is wide, and allows for a rather different perspective than we’ve ever seen.

This cut runs 242 minutes – that’s longer than Lawrence, GWTW or Ben-Hur.

Shot primarily in S35 in this 1.33 format, it appears magnificent in projection.

And I believe it’s a good film.

Actually, a terrific film, demanding to view, and worth the investment.

A magnificently produced 4k release.

Image – 5

Audio – 5 (Dolby Atmos)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors – Yes

Makes use of and works well in 4k – 5

Very Highly Recommended

RAH
Post Disclaimer

Some of our content may contain marketing links, which means we will receive a commission for purchases made via those links. In our editorial content, these affiliate links appear automatically, and our editorial teams are not influenced by our affiliate partnerships. We work with several providers (currently Skimlinks and Amazon) to manage our affiliate relationships. You can find out more about their services by visiting their sites.

Published by

Robert Harris

editor,member

View thread (55 replies)

MovieBill

Auditioning
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
6
Real Name
Bill Fisher
yet, in a terrible drought of good options in theatres, WB refused to release it theatrically. fan boys would eat it up.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,053
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
yet, in a terrible drought of good options in theatres, WB refused to release it theatrically. fan boys would eat it up.

It certainly could use a true IMAX theatrical release. I'd like to see it that way, but not really this odd choice release (and at such a premium price) -- really wish Zack Snyder would put out a version that expands to 16x9, not 4x3, which makes little sense to me...

_Man_
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
14,470
Real Name
Robert Harris
It certainly could use a true IMAX theatrical release. I'd like to see it that way, but not really this odd choice release (and at such a premium price) -- really wish Zack Snyder would put out a version that expands to 16x9, not 4x3, which makes little sense to me...

_Man_
It is running “expanded.” 16 x 9 would be cropped. It works.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,053
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
4x3 would feel like it shrunk from 2.4:1 in most of the rest of the film, especially if the transition naturally leads one to notice a change in the size/geometry of comparable/same elements in the image, no?

But maybe Snyder was very careful (enough) to not yield such effect in how various scenes/shots are composed and edited together for this version...

I guess I need to find a way to see it (probably at nominal cost) before buying...

_Man_
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
21,629
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
4x3 would feel like it shrunk from 2.4:1 in most of the rest of the film, especially if the transition naturally leads one to notice a change in the size/geometry of comparable/same elements in the image, no?

There are no transitions. The entirety of the film is 1.33:1.

The theatrical version from 2017 crops this footage to 1.85:1. The intention, before Snyder had left the project, was for the film to fill the entirety of IMAX screens and be cropped to 1.85:1 for conventional theaters. When he got to do this version for HBO, he went with the originally intended IMAX framing.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,053
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
There are no transitions. The entirety of the film is 1.33:1.

The theatrical version from 2017 crops this footage to 1.85:1. The intention, before Snyder had left the project, was for the film to fill the entirety of IMAX screens and be cropped to 1.85:1 for conventional theaters. When he got to do this version for HBO, he went with the originally intended IMAX framing.

Oh... ok, that's completely different than what I had thought.

Hmmm... that makes a true IMAX theatrical release that much more desirable then...

Thanks for the clarification!

_Man_
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
21,629
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Oh... ok, that's completely different than what I had thought.

Hmmm... that makes a true IMAX theatrical release that much more desirable then...

Thanks for the clarification!

_Man_

They did an Omaze charity fundraiser thing with one screening at Lincoln Square..alas, I was not one of the ticket winners but I bet it was something.

I gotta say, in home projection via HBO Max, it looked like a large scale project - even if 1.33:1 doesn’t fill the screen, the composition of the images has the grandeur to make you lose sight of that. I know you and I are running similar setups visually and if it looked good on mine, it’s gonna look pretty good on yours too.
 

dpippel

Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems
Premium
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
10,235
Location
Sonora Norte
Real Name
Doug
For those of us viewing on panels (65" here) instead of projection, it's not quite as impressive at this aspect ratio IMO. It just seems to be a weird choice for a superhero film in the 21st century, and for me anyway it draws attention to itself that should be focused on the story instead. I do like the movie far more than the Whedon theatrical release though, and I'm glad that Snyder was able to get it made.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
14,470
Real Name
Robert Harris
They did an Omaze charity fundraiser thing with one screening at Lincoln Square..alas, I was not one of the ticket winners but I bet it was something.

I gotta say, in home projection via HBO Max, it looked like a large scale project - even if 1.33:1 doesn’t fill the screen, the composition of the images has the grandeur to make you lose sight of that. I know you and I are running similar setups visually and if it looked good on mine, it’s gonna look pretty good on yours too.
A wonderful turn of phrase.

The new format can be heralded as Grandeur, or possibly GrandeurVision. The magnificent stature of our National Parks comes to mind.

Imagery using height vs width may catch on.
 

RichMurphy

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
660
Location
Alexandria, VA
Real Name
Rich
A wonderful turn of phrase.

The new format can be heralded as Grandeur, or possibly GrandeurVision. The magnificent stature of our National Parks comes to mind.

Imagery using height vs width may catch on.
Everything old is new again.

I remember when Jurassic Park came out using Digital Theatre System's new sound system, which featured the soundtrack on a disc synchronized to the film. Vitaphone reborn!
 

BobO'Link

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
8,827
Location
Mid-South
Real Name
Howie
Originally released in 1.85, the new cut is the proper 4:3, a new aspect ratio being used here for the first time. You'll note that it's far higher than it is wide, and allows for a rather different perspective than we've ever seen.
That's impossible. 4 units wide and 3 units tall will never produce an image taller than it is wide. That's as bad as calling 4:3 a "square" image - which it is not. 4:3 is a rectangle that's 25% shorter than it is wide.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
24,515
Location
Albany, NY
That's impossible. 4 units wide and 3 units tall will never produce an image taller than it is wide. That's as bad as calling 4:3 a "square" image - which it is not. 4:3 is a rectangle that's 25% shorter than it is wide.
Christopher Reeve Reaction GIF
 

Stephen_J_H

All Things Film Junkie
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,733
Location
North of the 49th
Real Name
Stephen J. Hill
A wonderful turn of phrase.

The new format can be heralded as Grandeur, or possibly GrandeurVision. The magnificent stature of our National Parks comes to mind.

Imagery using height vs width may catch on.
Please, dear Lord, no! I picture a world where vertical 16:9, or 9:16 becomes an acceptable format. I don't want to live in that world.
 

sbjork

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
122
Real Name
Stephen
It is running “expanded.” 16 x 9 would be cropped. It works.
The framing looks natural at 4x3. I played around with zooming and while it still works that way, it did feel a bit too tight in comparison. 4x3 also has the weird psychological effect of appearing more "open" -- it's funny how 16x9 felt more open when we were used to 4x3 televisions, but in the 16x9 area, it felt the opposite. However -- and it's a big however -- that's really only true when watching it on a large projection screen. I do understand how people viewing it on a smaller flat panel would feel differently. (Possibly some people with 2.35:1 screens, too.)
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,053
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
The framing looks natural at 4x3. I played around with zooming and while it still works that way, it did feel a bit too tight in comparison. 4x3 also has the weird psychological effect of appearing more "open" -- it's funny how 16x9 felt more open when we were used to 4x3 televisions, but in the 16x9 area, it felt the opposite. However -- and it's a big however -- that's really only true when watching it on a large projection screen. I do understand how people viewing it on a smaller flat panel would feel differently. (Possibly some people with 2.35:1 screens, too.)

Hmmm... wonder how it'd look zoomed to say ~1.5:1 (almost 1/2 way between 4x3 and 16x9)?

True IMAX would be ~1.43:1, no?

_Man_