Justice League (2017) (2 Viewers)

[Gary Seven]

Agreed. But that version had 12 years of magical wisdom instilled into him by Dad via a magical space journey. This version focuses on the man becoming Superman through age and trial and tribulations. And through it all we see his humanity grow until the ultimate sacrifice. And I am sure his development is not over yet when he comes back.

 

[dpippel]

Possibly. Whatever the reasoning, whether it's due to what you suggest or misguided direction or both, it's not working for me, and I tried REALLY hard to like MoS & BvS. I'm still holding out some hope that JL will turn the corner for me.

 

[Gary Seven]

The versions are distinctly different... one bringing you a Superman who gained his wisdom and final development through a 12 year magical space journey with Dad and the other that focused on the man becoming Superman via age, trial and tribulations. I dig them both but find the latter more relatable for obvious reasons.

Sorry kind of a double post...not sure what happened there.

 

[dpippel]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, and that's fine.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think Batman V Superman does a lot of something that my former screenwriting professor would complain about - my professor would always say "show, don't tell". The examples of dialogue that Brandon gave before, to me, illustrate that the film did a lot of telling us things but not as much of showing us things. Though, to be fair, the extended version solves a lot of problems. I am of the belief that they should never have allowed the shorter version to go out for public consumption.

The film does have things in it I like, and I actually do enjoy watching the extended version of BvS. But I think the fight between the two title characters is poorly conceived because it's not a real fight motivated by anything other than a misunderstanding. The entire fight could have been prevented if Superman merely picked up Batman, held him still, and said, "I'm not here to kill you. Lex Luther is behind everything that's happened, and he's holding my mother hostage trying to manipulate me into fighting you, which I don't want to do." The film never convinces me that Superman couldn't have just said that at the beginning and stopped the entire fight from happening. Similarly, Batman immediately assumes the worst about Superman, and immediately falls for the traps that Lex Luther is laying out. This requires me to accept that Batman is suddenly stupid, and that's something I have a hard time with. I think the problem is that they decided Batman and Superman would fight before they scripted anything else, and the justification for it is awkward. It doesn't feel like that's the place this story naturally wants to go. There are times when I watch a movie, and I don't feel like I'm watching characters onscreen, I feel like I'm watching writers writing. That scene is one of those times.

 

[RobertR]

Agreed. But that version had 12 years of magical wisdom instilled into him by Dad via a magical space journey. This version focuses on the man becoming Superman through age and trial and tribulations. And through it all we see his humanity grow until the ultimate sacrifice. And I am sure his development is not over yet when he c .

I am sure his development is not over yet when he comes back.

Get back to me when this literally and figuratively dark, moping scowling guy (maybe) figures out how to be Superman, because the character Snyder has offered up so far sure as hell isn't him.

 

[Gary Seven]

That's a good point, Josh.

Robert, you will be the first I notify.

 

[RobertR]

--
He has the power to wipe out the entire human race, and if we believe there's even a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty... and we have to destroy him.
.

"Golly gee, there's a superhero with powers I could never have! Gotta destroy him! Destroying that which is powerful is the default view! And I'm sure as hell not going to take the time FIRST to let anything challenge that view!" I have no use for a Batman who's as big an idiot as the cops who assumed HE was a bad guy.

 

[Brandon Conway]

The reaction and effectiveness of the ideas in the film for a viewer is subjective; the literal presence of those ideas is objective. They are literally there in the film. I don't doubt your lack of connection to it, but I question the suggestion that it isn't there at all.

Cavill's Superman isn't intended to be Reeves' Superman. The Superman in MoS is meant to feel isolated and reserved until he finds himself. There's kindness, but also an insecurity of role. When he gains his self identity he is then confronted with a physical manifestation to his newly found place in the world and put to the test before adequate time to prepare, and while he comes through it on the right side, it's a messy process. Which results in his continued efforts to fulfill that role being challenged in BvS until he connects his role with the personal stakes at the center of it all. So there's a grace and humanity to him in BvS, but it's clouded by constant questioning and even fear of his sincerity.

Now that he's been through this process he'll be standing there at the end of Justice League as the idealized Superman. Fortunately he'll be pitted against aliens, super beings, etc. in the post-JL Superman film so that the fully realized, mature Superman isn't just chasing down jewel thieves again.

 

[RobertR]

Josh, I compare your post about the poor justification why Batman is against Supes to the much better thought out justification in CACW. The characters had a genuine, articulated philosophical difference. I had other problems with the movie, but that wasn't one of them. The difference further points out how poorly thought out the long term DC story arcs are compared to Marvel's.

 

[RobertR]

Now that he's been through this process he'll be standing there at the end of Justice League as the idealized Superman.

Reading your post about the "process" further clarifies in my mind why I so intensely dislike what Snyder has done. I see parallels with the despised SW sequels, as we saw the "process" of making a yippee little kid and whiny pouty teenager into Darth Vader. It took Rogue One to show us who he's really supposed to be.

 

[Brandon Conway]

This requires me to accept that Batman is suddenly stupid, and that's something I have a hard time with.

It relies on buying that smart people can be blinded by obsession and anger. It's not a matter of him being stupid, but rather of him being a zealot. The UE helps out in this regard, as well as with why Superman doesn't try to just speak out more - everything Clark has learned about Batman is that he will absolutely not listen until he's physically restrained. Clark tries to talk to him and is immediately attacked, thereby backing up this claim. Clark's understanding is that Bruce is a child having a temper fit and that he won't be able to talk sense into him until he's worn himself out. Ever hold a child still in an arm/leg grip until they finally relent? It's that, except the child suddenly cuts off your arms and legs unexpectedly (kryptonite). :p

I have no problem with it in concept. The execution of it has some clunkiness, though - especially in the theatrical cut that removes a lot of Clark's perceived discoveries re: Batman.

 

[dpippel]

The reaction and effectiveness of the ideas in the film for a viewer is subjective; the literal presence of those ideas is objective. They are literally there in the film. I don't doubt your lack of connection to it, but I question the suggestion that it isn't there at all.

Sure, there are lines of dialogue and voiceovers that spell it all out, and that's the problem. When I say it isn't there at all I'm referring to its emotional honesty. THAT is missing completely from my perspective. Snyder TELLS us what he thinks we should feel about these characters, in fact he beats us over the head with it, but there's no meat up there on the screen to back it up. He doesn't get the viewer to organically buy into these themes and ideas by winning them over with craft, script, and performance. Instead, it's teleprompted to the audience like an instruction manual, with zero authenticity or emotional involvement. These two gargantuan comic book characters end up hollow, and without life.

And that's the last comment I'll make about BvS. Not only is this discussion somewhat akin to herding cats, it's flirting with being off-topic. Back to Justice League and my unrealistic hopes for it.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Reading your post about the "process" further clarifies in my mind why I so intensely dislike what Snyder has done. I see parallels with the despised SW sequels, as we saw the "process" of making a yippee little kid and whiny pouty teenager into Darth Vader. It took Rogue One to show us who he's really supposed to be.

Well, we're discussing two things here.

There's the concept, then there's the execution.

If one dislikes the concept ("Who was Anakin before he became Darth Vader?") then no version of telling that story will be something that person likes.

If one dislikes the execution (Prequel Trilogy) then it's possible another variation on the same idea would be something that person could enjoy.

So, still using the Star Wars example, lots of people were into the concept but saw the execution as lacking.

With Man of Steel the vast majority of criticisms I see are based not in the execution but in the very concept of looking at Clark/Superman from a non-fully formed version of the character angle. So, no matter how well executed the film is (and it's fairly well executed, I'd argue), if one doesn't like the idea itself it is working with it will never work for them in any form.

Batman v Superman is messier in execution than Man of Steel, but it's still mostly the concept of the film (Batman going extreme fundamentalist paranoid, Superman's heroic acts being questioned due to fear and mistrust) that people seem to take offense towards. No matter what version of that idea they told it wasn't going to be liked by those that don't care to explore those angles of the characters.


Justice League is going to be about the ability of Men and Gods to band together to confront a power that seeks to subject the world. It's going to be about overcoming the differences among them (Man, Atlanteans, Amazons, Robot Men and Powered Men) in the wake of having rejected the one who would have been their greatest defender (Superman), in having gone to the edge (Batman), of having abandoned mankind for 100 years (Wonder Woman), etc. That's the film. If that concept sounds appealing, then go see it to see if the execution works for you. But if the very concept doesn't appeal to you I don't think one will like it no matter how Snyder executes it.

 

[Brandon Conway]

When I say it isn't there at all I'm referring to its emotional honesty. THAT is missing completely from my perspective.

OK, yes - that is subjective. I think it's quite emotionally honest, but in a dramatic romanticism style. It's not emotionally honest in the dramatic naturalism sense. Snyder got to pseudo-remake his favorite film, Excalibur. You can't get much more large scale classical romanticist than that!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Josh, I compare your post about the poor justification why Batman is against Supes to the much better thought out justification in CACW. The characters had a genuine, articulated philosophical difference. I had other problems with the movie, but that wasn't one of them. The difference further points out how poorly thought out the long term DC story arcs are compared to Marvel's.

It's interesting that you mention Civil War, because in some ways the conflict between Captain America and Iron Man is created is similar to how Batman and Superman come to fight in BvS - because someone is manipulating them to fight. In both CA:CW and BvS, the villain's master plan involves getting the heroes to turn on each other. Neither fight stems solely from an honest disagreement among friends, it's a conflict they've been manipulated into.

But I think a major difference is that in the case of BvS, the second the truth comes to light, the argument should be over. In the case of Civil War, it's actually the truth being revealed that causes the fight to escalate to a point of no return. We've also had the benefit of seeing Downey as Iron Man six times before Civil War, and Evans as Cap four times before CW, and we saw the two characters on the same team twice before. It feels like a more genuine moment. Because of the time I've spent with those specific versions of those characters over a period of years, I was more invested.

And truth be told, had the BvS filmmakers been able to sign Christian Bale to reprise his version of Batman, I might started the movie with more investment in the character because that's a version of Batman I've spent time with before. Ben Affleck's Batman was for all intents and purposes a new character, where the feelings I had from the Burton or Nolan movies didn't apply.

It's going to be about overcoming the differences among them (Man, Atlanteans, Amazons, Robot Men and Powered Men)

I think one of the issues that Justice League may have, as BvS did, is that we simply don't know these characters. I'm not emotionally invested in any of them or their species other than Superman (because he's gotten two movies), Batman and maybe Wonder Woman (who will have had her own movie by then). I don't feel they've laid the groundwork for the payoffs that they hope these scenes will have.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

everything Clark has learned about Batman is that he will absolutely not listen until he's physically restrained. Clark tries to talk to him and is immediately attacked, thereby backing up this claim. Clark's understanding is that Bruce is a child having a temper fit and that he won't be able to talk sense into him until he's worn himself out. Ever hold a child still in a arm/leg grip until they finally relent? It's that, except the child suddenly cuts off your arms and legs unexpectedly (kryptonite). :p

I think that's maybe a good idea, but it's executed so poorly in the movie. As it appears onscreen, it seems entirely possible that Clark could simply lift Bruce high into the sky and hold him in place there until he's said what he wanted to say. The staging is such that it seems things happen only because it's been written that they will happen, not because the actions seem to be happening organically onscreen. Much like Superman's death in the movie - I understand that the point of the scene was that Superman was sacrificing himself. But as staged, the sacrifice was unnecessary. Superman could have simply turned to Wonder Woman and said, "I'll hold the lasso, you take the spear" - then the bad guy gets defeated and no one dies. But it just seemed so obvious that they wanted the ending where Superman dies and didn't bother to actually make his death seem necessary.

 

[Brandon Conway]

I think one of the issues that Justice League may have, as BvS did, is that we simply don't know these characters. I'm not emotionally invested in any of them or their species other than Superman (because he's gotten two movies), Batman and maybe Wonder Woman (who will have had her own movie by then). I don't feel they've laid the groundwork for the payoffs that they hope these scenes will have.

With BvS they were trusting that viewers would use all previous versions of Batman they were familiar with to provide an overall general sense of where he was before. It was a no-win situation, because some have complained that we didn't have another solo Batman film to re-establish him first, while others complained that we saw the flashback to his parents death again (even though they only included it for a very specific plotting reason). The reality is that the Batman origin / normal prime years has been mined out too much at this point on film. Rock, hard place, and all that.

The MCU is doing the same for Spider-Man by having his origin story and related experiences pass without much discussion.

For JL it's Bruce and Diana as the co-leads, and the audience is going into it with the Batman generic background understanding as well as the events in BvS and WW. Through Bruce & Diana we'll be introduced to the other three heroes, so in theory it should play more like how people were introduced to Hawkeye or Black Panther in the MCU.

I think that's maybe a good idea, but it's executed so poorly in the movie.

Yeah, that's the subjective part. For me, the romanticism of the imagery in those instances override any issues I may have with the practical / natural logic of the scenes. To me it's not a film about dotting the t's and crossing the i's of realism, but rather the paragraph and the font those t's and i's are presented in. Which is why the mechanics of Luthor's scheming is the least interesting aspect of the film in my book. I'd probably unreservedly love the film if it had a cleaner throughline to walk from A to Z. Give me the A-B-A plot of Fury Road any day over setups, schemings, and manipulations. Even the much less convoluted Man of Steel plot gets a little too cute with the codex, but at least that's a clearer MacGuffin than the Africa incident.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

the Africa incident.

The Africa incident works absolutely fine in the ultimate edition. Unfortunately, in the theatrical edition, it simply makes no sense. This is supposed to be the catalyst for everything that happens in the film, and yet, it's essentially removed from the theatrical version of the film. By returning what's probably two minutes of screen time to the film, the following two hours make a lot more sense.

There are lots of essential details in the ultimate edition that were bizarrely removed from the theatrical version like that. For instance, take the scene where the bomb goes off in the Capitol room where Superman is testifying. Superman is all powerful. He can see and hear everything. It is literally impossible for him to not notice that bomb being right next to him, unless someone has done something to the bomb to hide it from him. In the theatrical cut, we're left with the impression that Superman is just an unobservant moron, and later on, I think he even has a scene with Lois where he's like "I should have seen it" and the only response to that possible is, Yes, you should have! But in the longer version, Lois is talking to a forensic person who is perplexed that the bomb was encased in lead, which is the one thing Superman can't see through. Cutting that line saved maybe ten seconds of screen time, but rendered an important plot point nonsensical.

Whoever did the cut from three hours to 2 1/2 hours, or rather, whatever executive insisted in that, should lose their job. They crippled the film and poisoned audience response, and the release of the UE a few months later was not enough to completely heal that self-inflicted wound. If Warner didn't want a three hour movie, they shouldn't have approved a script that would run that long.

 

[Brandon Conway]

I wholeheartedly agree that the UE resolves a lot of problems. But I also think they could have written a less cumbersome plot to get them to the various character points throughout the film and that also would have played better for audiences.