lucean (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lucean) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
scans_daily2021-03-18 07:42 pm
lucean) wrote in scans_daily2021-03-18 07:42 pm
NS: The Snyder Cut Justice League movie
As most here in this fine community are without a doubt aware, the Snyder Cut version of the Justice League movie came out on HBO Max today, in the full glory of four hours. Having just finished It, I decided to create a discussion post here about it while posting some of my thoughts on it.
Before digging deeper in to the movie itself, a couple of caveats. First of all, I really like both Man of Steel and Batman Vs Superman, so Snyder's sensibilities works for me. Second, while I was fine with the original Justice League when I first saw it, but as time has gone by, I've found myself disliking more and more. It is a film that aims to be okay and that emptiness at the heart of it really became heavier for me in retrospect. Still I realize there are people who like it, nothing away from that.
So with that to this version of the movie itself and I will begin the discussion by a simple statement. I FUCKING LOVED THIS FUCKING MOVIE. Now that I have that off my chest, to more collected points.
-This movie is a weird success as it is in structure in many ways the same movie as the original Justice League movie, but almost every scene feels better here. Some of is just the additional depth majority of characters are given here, but it has a flow that isn't the original. However, the most important aspect is that here everyone in the Justice League feel absolutely epic and like a god with the action sequences espeically managing to convey that sense of power.
-With that said, the movie has a lot of stumbles to it as well. The exposition is ridiculously clumsy at times and there is a really bziarre plot hole in the film. So there is a world which had the Anti-Life Equation and where Darkseid was defeated, but apparently the Apokalips crew has forgotten which world it is somehow. Yet they know they lost the Mother Boxes on that world and know that the Mother Boxes are on Earth, but only realize that Earth is the world that repelled Darkseid after Steppenwolfe tells them that. I couldn't figure it out for the life of me. Fortunately didn't bother me at all.
-On Steppenwolfe, while he was still a generic comic book movie villain, I thought this version managed to give him a lot more depth as I got the character and motivations surprisingly better.
-Continuing on that note, it isn't difficult to understand why majority of the actors involved wanted this version to be released as they are allowed to do more here, wtih one notable exception, and have far more impactful character moments.
-Still the first Martian Manhunter cameo was really dumb. Not only that, it felt like a big misstep as the Martha/Lois scene before that was actually really emotionally powerful.
-"You have a satellite?" "I have six."
-Barry's final run was epic. Hell, the whole final fight concept and choreography was excellent and managed to sideline characters in a way that wasn't Clark leaving a massive fight to big brother Barry.
-On that note, this was something baffled me. Comparing the original and this version makes it abundantly clear how much Johns influenced the original theater release as evidenced by the lack of those weird Superman fawning scenes in this version. Seriously, I sighted out of relief when they didn't have that bizarre 'You think you could beat me' scene between Clark and Bruce here. Now that makes sense, but what I couldn't figure out it is that Johns absolutely loves Barry, but the Flash was so much better here and allowed to do more. Like seriously that final run.
-I will never stop shipping Bruce and Diana. While it will never get fulfilled in this film series, at least it was nicely set up.
-What genuinely shocked me was that Bruce being suicidal arc was completley from Whedon and Johns. It had the best emotional scene in the theater version, the talk between Bruce and Diana, but still as an arc it was a really weird one which I had assumed was from Snyder.
-To return to the comparison between the theater version and this cut, what makes the theater cut so astonishing looking back now is that it made almost every scene worse. Like they actively cut and added to all action scenes stuff that made them inferior. It is such an accomplishment.
-The only note I will make on Whedon, despite there being a lot to be said because of this version and recent allegations, is in comparison to Snyder. To put it simply, Whedon is nowhere the level Snyder is on in capturing superpowered action. Actually I would put Snyder as among the best when it comes to that specific skill as his ability to really give that sense of power to those scenes is genuiinely impressive.
-Real sad we will never get that Batman/Deathstroke film as it would have been dope. Having written that, the Knightmare stuff was superweird as that was apparently the only new scene Snyder shot after his cut was greenlit. Which means that the only thing Snyder added was a cliffhanger scene that will never be resolved. I'm conflicted on that as on one hand it is stupid, but on the other hand I can't help but respect that level of committment.
-With all that positivity, there is something that does leave me conflicted. The toxicity for and against Snyder, and his DC films, is a huge problem in online discussion. It also cannot be denied that the fact that there were some pretty questionable actions by the fanbase that wanted the Snyder cut released that led to it now being available. This isn't to justify what they did, but rather a part of me feels torn on enjoying something that is born out of such poisoneous fruit.
-Rotten Tomatoes score is at the time of writing at 77% and there's a lot of good buzz on it, at least based on what I've seen. From the critical stand point, this had to exceed WB's expectations, which is a good signal when they think of similar projects in the future.
With that I end and would love to hear others thought on this as they get around watching it. Apologies on the many words, hopefully at least a few of them made sense. And seriously, I loved this movie so much.
Before digging deeper in to the movie itself, a couple of caveats. First of all, I really like both Man of Steel and Batman Vs Superman, so Snyder's sensibilities works for me. Second, while I was fine with the original Justice League when I first saw it, but as time has gone by, I've found myself disliking more and more. It is a film that aims to be okay and that emptiness at the heart of it really became heavier for me in retrospect. Still I realize there are people who like it, nothing away from that.
So with that to this version of the movie itself and I will begin the discussion by a simple statement. I FUCKING LOVED THIS FUCKING MOVIE. Now that I have that off my chest, to more collected points.
-This movie is a weird success as it is in structure in many ways the same movie as the original Justice League movie, but almost every scene feels better here. Some of is just the additional depth majority of characters are given here, but it has a flow that isn't the original. However, the most important aspect is that here everyone in the Justice League feel absolutely epic and like a god with the action sequences espeically managing to convey that sense of power.
-With that said, the movie has a lot of stumbles to it as well. The exposition is ridiculously clumsy at times and there is a really bziarre plot hole in the film. So there is a world which had the Anti-Life Equation and where Darkseid was defeated, but apparently the Apokalips crew has forgotten which world it is somehow. Yet they know they lost the Mother Boxes on that world and know that the Mother Boxes are on Earth, but only realize that Earth is the world that repelled Darkseid after Steppenwolfe tells them that. I couldn't figure it out for the life of me. Fortunately didn't bother me at all.
-On Steppenwolfe, while he was still a generic comic book movie villain, I thought this version managed to give him a lot more depth as I got the character and motivations surprisingly better.
-Continuing on that note, it isn't difficult to understand why majority of the actors involved wanted this version to be released as they are allowed to do more here, wtih one notable exception, and have far more impactful character moments.
-Still the first Martian Manhunter cameo was really dumb. Not only that, it felt like a big misstep as the Martha/Lois scene before that was actually really emotionally powerful.
-"You have a satellite?" "I have six."
-Barry's final run was epic. Hell, the whole final fight concept and choreography was excellent and managed to sideline characters in a way that wasn't Clark leaving a massive fight to big brother Barry.
-On that note, this was something baffled me. Comparing the original and this version makes it abundantly clear how much Johns influenced the original theater release as evidenced by the lack of those weird Superman fawning scenes in this version. Seriously, I sighted out of relief when they didn't have that bizarre 'You think you could beat me' scene between Clark and Bruce here. Now that makes sense, but what I couldn't figure out it is that Johns absolutely loves Barry, but the Flash was so much better here and allowed to do more. Like seriously that final run.
-I will never stop shipping Bruce and Diana. While it will never get fulfilled in this film series, at least it was nicely set up.
-What genuinely shocked me was that Bruce being suicidal arc was completley from Whedon and Johns. It had the best emotional scene in the theater version, the talk between Bruce and Diana, but still as an arc it was a really weird one which I had assumed was from Snyder.
-To return to the comparison between the theater version and this cut, what makes the theater cut so astonishing looking back now is that it made almost every scene worse. Like they actively cut and added to all action scenes stuff that made them inferior. It is such an accomplishment.
-The only note I will make on Whedon, despite there being a lot to be said because of this version and recent allegations, is in comparison to Snyder. To put it simply, Whedon is nowhere the level Snyder is on in capturing superpowered action. Actually I would put Snyder as among the best when it comes to that specific skill as his ability to really give that sense of power to those scenes is genuiinely impressive.
-Real sad we will never get that Batman/Deathstroke film as it would have been dope. Having written that, the Knightmare stuff was superweird as that was apparently the only new scene Snyder shot after his cut was greenlit. Which means that the only thing Snyder added was a cliffhanger scene that will never be resolved. I'm conflicted on that as on one hand it is stupid, but on the other hand I can't help but respect that level of committment.
-With all that positivity, there is something that does leave me conflicted. The toxicity for and against Snyder, and his DC films, is a huge problem in online discussion. It also cannot be denied that the fact that there were some pretty questionable actions by the fanbase that wanted the Snyder cut released that led to it now being available. This isn't to justify what they did, but rather a part of me feels torn on enjoying something that is born out of such poisoneous fruit.
-Rotten Tomatoes score is at the time of writing at 77% and there's a lot of good buzz on it, at least based on what I've seen. From the critical stand point, this had to exceed WB's expectations, which is a good signal when they think of similar projects in the future.
With that I end and would love to hear others thought on this as they get around watching it. Apologies on the many words, hopefully at least a few of them made sense. And seriously, I loved this movie so much.
no subject
On that rabbit hole, someone did side comparisons and they even changed aspect ratios on the Snyder scenes. Which again feels... Why?
By the way, there was a little bit of a typo from me in my original comment as I meant to state that there aren't that many flippant jokes in the Snyder Cut. Although Bruce's 'I'm rich' is still there.
no subject
That was my guess as well - since Snyder's was four hours and Whedon's 2 and 1/2. So I assumed when I saw the Whedon cut - that he cut the portions not required, and edited the remaining, with a few isolated reshoots and CGI to ensure it hit the 2 and 1/2 hour running length.
But what I read later - perplexed me. I mean if they decided to redo the entire movie - then why not just redo the whole thing, extend the release date by one year, and remove all of Snyder's content - it would made it a little less jarring. Granted it may have been more expensive.
So, instead of editing the film - to meet a better running time, and lightening it up slightly - they re-shot about 85% of it, added dark character moments, changed the film stock to digital, shifted the color scheme? Why? Isn't that more expensive?
I can see why it became a toxic set - my god. Can you imagine spending three-four years shooting a film, liking what you shot, only to have someone you don't know come in and make you redo it all, and not as well?
Ugh. Talk about expensive nightmare shoots. I mean this sort of thing isn't easy to do normally - but they managed to make it 100 times worse for everyone involved. What a mess.
no subject
Also the point about the set is a very astute one and, for example, I feel I get a lot more about Fisher's complaint after seeing this as what the Whedon did with Cyborg is beyond comprehension. However, the one actor I'm shocked hasn't spoken up more is Ezra Miller. So, and this is a big claim I'm about to make, Flash's final run the third act is on my short list for greatest superpower moments I've ever seen put on screen. Stunning does not do it justice. So Miller signs on to the film, does the motion capture for it and is sold that epic image.
Then the reshoots are done, where suddenly Barry's sole contribution to the final fight is to push a family to safety in a car, only to instantly have even that small accomplishment undercut by watching Superman fly away an apartment building of people. I can't even begin to imagine what a gut punch that had to have been to deal with.
By the way, as I'm enjoying this discussion, the comparison of Whedon and Snyder because of this film kind of sharpened a theory I've had for a while in that I think one of the issue's with Snyder was in a way due to good he was filming superhero action. This isn't meant as a defense, but rather perhaps how complicated reactions are.
After Man of Steel, which I have no problems admitting is a flawed film no matter how much I liked it, a big constant criticism about it was the destruction caused by the final fight between Superman and Zod. The reaosn I always to comprehend that was that Avengers had come out a year earlier where aliens utterly wreck multiple city blocks in New York City and not only do none of the Avengers seem to actively be minimizing civilan casulties, they cause several of the big flying snakes to crash through apartment buildings. This isn't to argue that people were wrong to dislike MoS, but the lack of consistency in the argument always puzzled me. And now I suspecta partial reason for it might have been that Snyder is so good at capturing that sense of power that there was a more visceral of destruction in MoS than in Avengers where it did in a way feel like a regular action sequence.
no subject
However, the one actor I'm shocked hasn't spoken up more is Ezra Miller.
Is Ezra in the Flash Movie? Because if he is - that may be the reason he stayed silent?
If not, maybe he didn't - and we just don't know about it? Or maybe both.
It's hard to know.
Regarding the differences in how the directors or rather MCU under Whedon and the DCU under Snyder handled violence (and also by extension Nolan) in film?
I remember a friend explaining to me once that she could handle the action sequences in the Avengers - because they were fun and "comic bookish" (her words not mine), and easier to watch. She didn't like "realistic" violence.
I am of two minds about it. I get her point, and I admit I don't always like violence in film - I struggle with at times, but if you are going to show it - I prefer being honest about it. The fun version kind of romanticizes it a little.
Sam Peckinpah - created a kind of slow-mo violence in the Spaghetti Westerns, and 70s Westerns, that changed how people depicted violence in film. Coppola followed his example in the Godfather films, as did Scorsese. Violence in those films is visceral.
Nolan also makes the violence visceral. I adore Nolan's Dark Knight Returns - but I can't rewatch it - the violence is painful.
Snyder's violence is not quite as visceral - actually Snyder's is closer to Peckinpah's old 70's Western epics. It's like watching a dance. It feels like looking at paintings of violence - and it is graphic and painful, and epic.
I honestly think Endgame and Infinity War came close to that, as did Thor Ragnarock (which was a blend of comedy and epic - maybe the WB needed the director of that film - which actually is an amazing director by the name of Taika Waititi. Not that he'd have agreed to do Justice League.
I'm trying to remember what I thought of MoS. I did not dislike it. I appreciated it - for being somewhat innovative. I liked the idea of Superman being alienated, and less the humorous Clark Kent.
My mistake - was I saw it in 3D, so the action scenes gave me a headache. I may re-watch on HBO Max at some point. Along with Batman vs. Superman (which actually had some great scenes).
I think DCU's problem was they were going up against the MCU juggernaught. Snyder states in an interview with NY Times - that WB wanted what MCU was doing, and he didn't think that was a good idea. MCU was doing a great job with it. Why copy it? Snyder didn't want to copy, he wanted to do something different. Which is the conflict between artists and well business executives/marketing folks. The artist wants to create something new, the business guy/marketing guy wants something that is well easy to sell, and guaranteed to bring in a profit. He doesn't want risk. And if XYZ is making billions, he wants something just like it so he can make billions too.
no subject
However, even writing that, after seeing the Snyder Cut, the WB business approach explains to me less what happened with it before I saw it as there are some countless baffling decisions there. It's the core reason why I'm less sympathetic towards Whedon's position now as if it was just the case of being rushed, I don't think it would have led to this. It's the reason I stated in another comment how this was really bad for Whedon as I do think it really challenges certain creative perspectives on him.
The Peckinpah comparison is really good and to me, as I mentioned elsewhere here, one of the big misfortunes that Snyder never found that collabarotive partner that could balance out his plotting issues and balance certain aspects out is that he is an absolute master when it comes to the actual portrayl of power. On Waititi, I personally disagree because I think a huge problem with his style is that he could not allow any emotional beat to exist, but had to undermine with a comedic effect instantly. It makes him a good comedy director, and the action was good, but I think unless he is able to work that out, he will never really succeed as an epic director. Although I don't know if he would even want to be that.
By the way, the funny thing I realized is that we will probably get a reboot Justice League film in about a decade, once the current actors age out and the new Batman trilogy is finished. And if they get that right director for it, I am pretty hopeful it as now there is perhaps a clearer idea how to do that as a base to have the rest of the DCEU grow out of.
no subject
I mean Whedon is not a cinematographer, while Snyder definitely is. There are some beautiful shots in the first hour - I've seen Part 1 and Part 2.
That said, the film still suffers from poor CGI - which may be because it was added digitally to film stock? I can't remember if Whedon had the same problem or not. I may have to re-watch the Whedon film to get a better idea. The scenes with Aquaman under the sea with William Dafo don't quite work as well with the CGI, nor does portions of the flashback battle, or the aliens. Some do, some don't. Use of CGI in film however - is problematic across the board - in some films its cleaner than others. I thought it was very clean in Infinity War and Endgame, but less so in Suicide Squad, and here. If used poorly the film can feel like you are watching a video game - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, some video games I'm told have great visuals. (I'm not a gamer, so I don't consider myself qualified to speak on that score.) But it does jar me a bit. Again, I'm not sure this is just Snyder who struggles with CGI, I think others have as well. And it was a problem I had with Aquaman movie, and the Suicide Squad film (which I agree is a mess).
On Watitiki - after I wrote my post, I looked up Thor Raganorck, only to realize that I was in the minority - in that I really enjoyed the film, and most fans disliked it. LOL! The comedic undercut didn't bother me - because I tend to do the same - to laugh at tragedy. Waitiki kind of does that - I think he did it with Jojo Rabbit. Kind of shows you how subjective all this is? It makes it hard to review this stuff or to know if you'll like it from someone else's review.
By the way, the funny thing I realized is that we will probably get a reboot Justice League film in about a decade, once the current actors age out and the new Batman trilogy is finished.
Oh definitely. As long as there's an audience - they'll do it. They are already rebooting the Superman franchise again. This round with a black Superman, written by Ta-Nehisi Coates, who wrote Captain America comics, and Black Panther comics, and is now over at DC. He's a writer though not a director - so curious to see who they get to direct.
A lot of it will depend on who is cast in the role.
My guess is they'll keep Gadot's Wonder Woman for a bit - since it's been successful. And the next film up is The Flash.
What they appear to have figured out - from Marvel - is to build up to the epic films gradually, not rush it. Rushing it is always a bad idea. You want to have an invested audience. So if you build up slowly through numerous films - you'll get there.
Snyder has moved on to zombie flicks again. He's doing a Netflix series - Army of the Dead. So, it's not a big deal to Snyder.
no subject
Little bit surprised that there's been a turn on Ragnarok as it very well received when it came out. I actually even liked the film, but something that did annoy me was the constant undercutting emotional moments. To compare it to Jojo Rabbit, when Jojo sees his mother hanged, the movie doesn't within seconds make it in to a joke, which something Ragnarok does and which is why I couldn't really connect with any of the character arcs as the movie constantly told you it doesn't matter. To be fair, though, the most infuriating part of the film wasn't on Waikiki as it was the removal of the small scene that established Valkyrie's bisexuality. I knew of it going in to the film, but it had been downplayed as not really mattering, but when watching the film I realized it was actually a crucial detail as it contextualized why that one woman had sacrificed herself to save Valkyrie from Hela and really provided a lot of additional depth to the whole Valkyrie character's current emotional situation.
On the Justice League movie, I actually meant that in ten years they will be in a situation where they need to reboot the franchise because a lot of actors will be aged out and I'm betting they are going to do what they tried to do here again by having Justice League be the launching pad to introduce the new iterations of the characters. Something I think got lost in the conversation overall about the Snyder approach was that there wasn't anything fundamentally bad at using the Justice League to introduce new characters. For all the blame, deservedly so, the WB execs get, it needs to be admitted there was a vocal critical and fanbase voice pushing the idea that it should be Marvel-lite and that dark superhero movies are inherently bad as they need to be light and fun. So it's no wonder if being bombarded by that message WB execs reacted to it, they just also managed to do it increasingly stupid ways.
no subject
I've just finished watching the Snyder Cut. (I went back after Part I and 2, to rewatch Batman vs. Superman Ultimate version (which is a lot better than I remember it being in the theaters - I think they cut a lot out of it for the theater? Because it's a lot more coherent here.) )
Anyhow, I agree - the Snyder cut is in some respects a very good film. It is a tad bloated in places (the whole Knightmare stuff - probably should be cut out - but I get why it is in there, and it is needed to provide the characters with a little uncertainty regarding whether bringing back Superman is necessarily the wisest idea. Superman is a frigging dangerous being.) Also the whole epilogue could probably be cut down a bit - since all it does is open up stories that most likely will never be seen. (But I think all of that is a love letter to fans.)
What hit me about the film - is the visual spectacle - it's feels like a film for the Big Screen. There's a beauty to the cinemtography and the score, also all the characters are explored, and in a good way. Jason Momoa, Fisher, Ezra Miller, Gail Gadot, and Affleck all shine here. As do the others.
I started watching Whedon's version afterwards, and discovered something I hadn't originally picked up on. Whedon doesn't have a directing credit - Snyder does. Christopher Nolan and Deborah Snyder are listed as producers on Whedon's version. As are Jon Berg and Geoff Johns. Whedon is given the script credit. Other oddities? The film begins with a newsreel clip of kids talking to Superman. It also cuts into a clip of Batman using a robber's fear to trap one of the flying creatures to find out about the boxes. And it cuts quickly to the people who are blowing up the building in London. The action sequence there is truncated, as is the aftermath.
So many of the scenes are cut down to size. It feels kind of like watching a television show? Television action is like that - because you have to put in commercials. (Not streaming, but broadcast.) It's very choppy. And you jump to the next scene, no wrap up. While in film, you often will follow through.
Apparently they were told to make it lighter, make Superman/Batman more of the focus (since Henry Caville and Affleck were the marque draw), shorter, and less cinemagraphic or operatic?
I really enjoyed the Snyder cut (far more than the Whedon version. I'd say it is hands down the better movie.). There's some jaw-dropping visuals in it. Barry's Final Flight is among them. And having seen it? I agree - I completely understand why Ray Fisher and Jason Momoa were upset with Whedon's cut. I'd be too. Fisher has a central role in this version.
Mileage varies of course. It's like Thor Ragnarock - certain things will bother one person and not another. I'm unfamiliar with the comics - so didn't notice anything one way or the other about Valkerie's sexuality (I picked up on the fact that she was into women however.) Same with the Snyder film - some people don't like small character moments like Diana and Alfred making tea, or Bruce and Diana's slight awkwardness in front of the computer (fighting mutual attraction - because neither wants that complication in their lives). I like those scenes - because it shows me who the characters are, with little to no dialogue. You can show a lot on film about a character with little dialogue - and a good director knows how to do it well - I think Snyder did - showing Bruce's long ride to see Aquaman on a horse, not via one of his expensive vehicles. Or scenes of Lois going through pictures in her apartment. Or Diana struggling with her separation from her sisters - shown in the Temple where she finds the arrow.
But someone else may grow bored of such scenes and want more action, more dialogue. (Shrugs).
It's why I've learned not to necessarily go by other's reviews - except to determine if the subject matter is of interest to me.
no subject
But it is the messing with the action scenes that continues to stun me. For example that initial Diana scene was not only truncutated, but they removed the moment when Diana checks on the hostages and talks with the young girl. Regarding that, Dan Murrell really encapsulated it well within his spoiler review in that almost all the changes in the movie reduced the agency/role of female and POC characters. Like not only did they make this story about white guys, but they changed the original version more to be about white guys. Now even if you don't think it is blatant racism, it speaks a lot about how much value those in charge saw in those kinds of characters. Having seen this, I sympathize so much more with Ray Fisher as I cannot even imagine being on set and not only watching this happen to the central African American character, but also do every other minority character. And then having the producers/director not only be dismissive of it, but hostile to the point when raised.
And I cannot get over that they removed the Flash scene as the inclusion of that would have by itself given the movie a semblence of a positive legacy as at least people would refer it to having that scene. It feels like a crime that there was no chance to experience that on the big screen. What makes it worse is that the only logistical reason I can think of of removing it is that Cyborg is the end point for it, so they prioritized reducing his role so much that they were willing to sacrifice the Flash screen for that. Or then they really thought that family in a car was somehow more impressive a feat?
By the way, something that I really found myself appreciating after the movie was that only they feel more like a team here, but also how every member of the League did have an arc, even if they were not explicitly explained. The movie efficiently set up Arthur for the Aquaman by having him accept his willingness to stand for something, and I didn't realize how much the Whedon version made him into a joke. Flash's path had him truly embrace what he couild do. Cyborg doesn't need explaining. Even Superman had this moment of accepting his place in the world and finally felt the voices of his past converge.
However, to me the stories of Batman and Wonder Woman were more intriguing from a meta-context. With Batman, weirdly even though the Whedon cut had more dialogue on his path, it was really clumsy, while here we saw him accept hope and faith again as a driving force, reflecting this great change from he was in BvS. Diana, in turn, was reminded of home and her sisters there, the movie ending with her next journey there establihsed. The reason I found the Wonder Woman arc so curious is that it wasn't about Steve, but of the Amazonians. While WW84 basically made Steve the central thing that mattered to Diana. It's just really odd that she felt so much more empowered here.
To end, I realized something amusing that had completely passed me before. That first scene of Batman using a criminal to entrap a Parademon, that's directly from Geoff Johns' first issue of his run as a Justice Leagure writer. It is another exampe how much he impacted the Whedon version and a lot of changes do genuinely feel like Johns and/or Whedon wanting to prove that they had a better understanding how to tell stories than Snyder did.
no subject
You are absolutely right. I understand Fishers' allegations completely now. The Whedon version is outright offensive - once you compare it Snyder's.
Wonder Woman's sequence is an excellent example. In Whedon's version - I don't know where they are - it might be Paris? In Snyder's - I'm shown where they are - and there's a black flag flying regarding Superman. Also, in this version, we get more of an idea of how horrible the terrorist group is and how unbeatable. We're shown the scene where she throws out the bomb, and she saves the children, also why the children are even there. And, he changed the dialogue - in this scene, the man states - "I don't believe it" (he can't believe a woman can do this) and she says, "believe!" Snyder has a heavy theme about agency that is missing from Whedon's.
Then let's go to Bruce Wayne. In the Snyder version - we see the scope of Bruce's travel into the cold wilderness to find someone. It's a follow through on BvsS. He doesn't know exactly what is coming - just that something is - and he has to recruit a team.
In Whedon's version - they make the tempting choice to go the Marvel route - focus on the mystery of the "mother boxes", but that only works if you've taken the time elsewhere to build up your characters. Also, in Snyder's version the mystery of the mother boxes isn't the most important thing - so much as the theme of working together and synchronicity. Whedon drops that completely or doesn't seem to get it?
In Snyder - we have a scene with Cyborg - and his box being awoken by Superman's death cry. Lex Luther sees the image in the ship with three boxes come into being with Superman's death cry. (It's the reason he tells Batman at the very end of BvS that something is coming bigger than them all). The Snyder film opens with Superman's death scene, the Whedon with Superman's memorial service by the Government, not the family, and everyone mourning Superman. While in the Snyder - we're shown the nations are mourning, as is his family, but we're also shown that Superman awakened something.
Batman isn't investigating the boxes in this version - which he is doing in Whedon's. Also Batman's "physical" attraction makes it into dialogue in Whedon's cut. There's a scene after he visits the fishing village - that has him on the plane with Alfred discussing calling Diana. It doesn't work at all, and I found it offensive after I saw the Snyder cut.
Let's go to the scene in the fishing village? Whedon undercuts that with humor and changes the dialogue to focus on the mother boxes. Which I'm sorry doesn't work - there's no reason the fishing village would know about them. Arthur doesn't know about them either.
Also it misses the point of what should be happening here, and takes away Arthur's agency as a character and his arc.
Arthur and Diana are similar characters - Diana left the Amazons for a mortal man, who she lost. But she lost more - her family, and the people she's shut herself off from are the Amazons who she can't return to. The opening in the Snyder cut shows the box being awakened in the Amazon stronghold. Meanwhile - it's also being Awakened in Atlantis - the Atlantean stronghold. Arthur wants nothing to do with his people or anyone.
That's what the conversation between Arthur and Bruce is about. It shouldn't be about the boxes at all. Whedon, Johns, and Berg made this movie about the mother boxes or the problem - more plot focused, while Snyder's film is more character driven and not just about the mcNuffin - the boxes. The boxes and villians in Snyder's film serve as a metaphor for the darker impulses in the characters, and their need to unite and put their personal demons aside.
Also we have a bunch of loners coming together. And moving out of their comfort zone.
Add to that - Whedon/Johns/Berg do change the film from giving Diana, Cyborg and Flash agency - to giving it all to Wayne and Kent. In Snyder's film, Diana tells Wayne about the boxes and the story - she's the one who investigates and finds out about it. Also, Diana helps Wayne figure out how to recruit the team members. And it is Diana who contacts Wayne, she breaks into his flight deck. There's no idiotic and highly out of character discussion about Diana between Wayne and Alfred.
Remember how you said the problem with Waitaki was he undercuts the dramatic moments with ill-placed jokes in Thor? I see it more in Whedon's version. I mean the exchange between Bruce and Arthur makes more sense in the Snyder version. Arthur pushes Bruce against a wall after Bruce says something in the fishing village's native tongue. And instead of saying "I hear you talk to fish?" Bruce gives him a wad of cash to give to the villagers. And then they discuss why Arthur doesn't want to be part of a team and is perfectly happy doing what he does.
On top of this? How Arthur disappears? Wayne doesn't see - because he's distracted by the villagers singing. If you wanted to edit the scene? You could have just edited out the singing - although it's there in the Snyder version because Snyder is making a point about hero worship and is questioning it.
There's a lot of telling in Whedon's version and more showing in Snyder's. (Make's sense Whedon is a sitcom writer or dramedy writer - he's not a film director. He got his start writing on Roseanne, Snyder got his as a filmmaker and director.)
How about the score? Wow the difference. Whedon's starts with Leonard Cohen's Everbody Knows (which I love as a song, but I'm not sure works here - and kind of undercuts the entire visual sequence). Danny Elfman is more jaunty in his scoring of Whedon's. Snyder has a beautiful and haunting orchestration as the beginning of his film, that pulls you in immediately.
I am amazed...by what happened here. And I agree it is baffling. And it is offensive what Johns and Whedon did to this film.
no subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrmeTzMsHVA
As for that first fifteen minutes, it is genuinely astonishing. It also highlights the weirdness as Whedon is this TV writer, yet his version has so little trust of the characters and actors that they need to spell things out. It is again one of those things that probably added to the toxicity of the set as those actors have to go through these scenes where their agency is taken away and everything is made explicit after working with someone who appeared to trust their ability to convey things.
To add two things, first the score is magnificent. I've been listening to the Speed of Force theme, which played during that final Flash run, so much and it is now probably my official Flash soundtrack. And on the Amazons, even there we see their agency that was removed from the Whedon version. Not just their fight against Steppenwolfe, but also them firing that arrow because Hippolyta trusted that Diana would know what it meant. it was another small subtle moment that made it clear that she missed her daughter just as much as Diana missed her people. Or what about the comments from Diana to Arthur about their two peoples being enemies. While I think it was the Whedon version, not so certain about that, here it had another meaning as it managed to make it clear that no matter how much Diana and Arthur felt like they were outsiders, they still fundamentally considered themselves Amazonian and Atlantian, respectfully.
no subject
It's eye-opening to see it back to back. I take snatches, about fifteen minutes each - and it blows my mind how stark the differences are. I honestly didn't think the Whedon cut was sexist or racist, until I see what Snyder originally did. (And I've seen Snyder films - I'd certainly not call them politically correct or inclusive - but his Justice League cut is inclusive.) And, it Whedon's is racist and sexist in how it reshot those scenes. I was shocked when I saw it, I would never have believed it - if I didn't just see it with my own eyes.
Another thing that I just picked up on, in watching the segments where Diana tells Bruce about the mother boxes, and Arthur is talking to his people about what is going on...is how Whedon ditched the mythology completely. It's a rich mythology - and there was lot in the flashback sequence. Instead of spending time there - Whedon creates a scene with Bruce and Diana walking in along a sunny river discussing what occurred. A lot of the mythos is lost. Such "the betrayal of the Amazons", "The Atlanteans leaving the world of man behind" and the division is removed completely. Also we lose why the Amazon's sent the flaming sword - it was so Diana would take the sword and go into the temple to see what it meant. She sees the invasion of Darkseid. Then she approaches Bruce and explains it, it's also Diana who tells Bruce they'll need to step up their efforts for the recruitment.
The two films are about different things. Whedon's version is just about "power", while Snyder's is about so much more than that - his is about unity, while still having one's individual agency. Darkseid wants to unify the worlds in darkness, no agency, everyone enslaved. I'm not sure Whedon understood what Snyder's theme was? Or cared? Snyder had a lot to say - and all of that is lost in Whedon's version - all of it.
For a while I thought Whedon handled the CGI better - but I just discovered that I was wrong. Snyder's version is better. The villain is more frightening, less comical. And makes a lot more sense. It's not about a villain who wants to own you or have you love him, he just wants to redeem himself to his master, and have everyone serve Darkseid, fall into the Darkness. It's kind of deeper, more mystical.
There's more world-building here, and so much of that is dropped in the Whedon version.
Getting back to the fight with the Amazons? He not only truncated it - he changed it. It's almost comical in the Whedon version - there's no gravity to it, no suspense. Steppenwolf merely cuts an opening in their stronghold and follows them by his lonesome, fighting them. In the Snyder, the Amazons sacrifice themselves for the cause - they seal off the stronghold and send it, themselves, Steppenwolf and the paramen into the sea. It's epic, and tragic, and a beautiful piece of cinematography. The Amazon Queen watches as it and half the cliff tumble below.
Grieving and uncertain. Then Steppenwolf and his minions (paramen) fly out of the sea and leap after the box. That drives the tension up a notch. In the Whedon version it's hard to feel the gravity of it or the tension. Whedon's is kind of cheap and almost insulting to the Amazons in comparison to this.
yet his version has so little trust of the characters and actors that they need to spell things out.
I think it's even more than that - he doesn't trust the audience or viewer.
We don't need to be told what the boxes are - just shown. And you can convey a great deal with a visual on film, you don't need words. Bruce and Diana's awkward physical attraction which neither want to pursue - is conveyed simply with their brief touch of hands on the mouse.
And some of things he adds? The interaction between Bruce and Barry, where Barry has this long awkward speech about how he has difficulty making friends? Really? He's talking to Batman.
The line - "I need some friends" is enough right there. That's another huge difference - Zack errs on the side of too much visual, while Whedon errs on the side of too much banter or talking.
And the Flash? You are right - he truncates that character. There's a great scene that gets across what the flash is capable of, and his character - when he saves Iris. Also we see in Snyder's version more of the footage that Wayne saw - and Diana sees.
I cringe watching Whedon's version - there's a scene between Lois and Martha that doesn't work at all. It's at the Daily Planet. In the Snyder version, Lois has stopped working there. And Snyder tells us Martha's home has been foreclosed on by the Bank with one visual shot. No lengthy somewhat cringe-inducing dialogue, or an awkward and somewhat sexist interaction between Lois and a colleague in her workplace, that borders on sexual harassment. "Oh you have female source?" And Lois rolls her eyes. Martha asks if that's true. Lois says no, it's really a male source but he doesn't need to know that. (Why? Why is that in there? It does nothing to serve the story. And it's out of character. Lois would be shut down after Clark's death and take a leave of absence, which is what she does in the Snyder film.) I felt sorry for Amy Adams and Diane Lane.
Cyborg? Oh, I know why Ray Fisher hates Whedon's version of the film. And fought him. I totally get it now. Whedon adds a lot that isn't necessary and removed a lot that was. In Snyder's version - we get Cyborg's complete back story - he's not used as the mysterious "is the black guy in the hood a good guy or a monster" trope, like in Whedon's version. (That's actually Superman's role in the Snyderverse - which is far more interesting and far less cliche and racist.) Snyder shows us how brilliant Cyborg is, how he can see inside data systems - and how his father conveys that to him. And he does it all visually. Whedon tries to use dialogue to do it - and it is clumsy, and doesn't quite work. I care deeply about Cyborg in Snyder's version - I don't care at all about Cyborg in Whedon's. Same with Barry Allen's Flash. It's hard to care about Whedon's characters, while I do care about Snyder's.
And I agree it is odd - that a television writer who is know for character driven stories - and not great at plotting, would do a plot-oriented movie and cut out all of the character moments.
Some things - I can see why they cut them, others? And why did they add the things they did? Also, why did the change the villain completely and the mythology? It's not that dark. And you can tell the different film styles - Whedons makes the actors faces too smooth in places - Ben Afflecks wrinkles are gone in some scenes, as are Connie Nielsen's - who plays Diana's mother. There's inconsistencies in Whedon's digitization. His film feels rushed, while Snyder's feels thoughtful, and fully realized.
Oh, and Whedon took out the beautiful visual sequence where Aguaman saves the fisherman and descends into the see. It's amazing. That's gone in the Whedon version.
I could go on...and on and on..and I've only compared the first thirty minutes of the two films.
Oh, well, I know understand why Zack Snyder wishes the Whedon version didn't exist. And I do agree with you - Whedon is done as a blockbuster film director or fixer after this.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Oh, I didn't know that - that kind of explains a few things. I think you may be right Johns had a huge effect here - and may be the untitled writer of the Whedon version. Whedon's feels very...old school comic book with the snarky humor, and quips? While Snyder's has more of a graphic novel sensibility?
I get what they did in a way - they chose to reframe the story around the mystery of the mother boxes, and cut anything that didn't focus on that mystery. And Whedon has stated on more than one occasion that he sees Batman as a detective or investigator - and his frustration with the Batman films, is Batman isn't shown as the investigator or detective enough. So, that would explain why they turned the film in a way that could put Batman more in the role of investigator. But doing so, really undercuts the roles of everyone else in the movie - so they become relegated to Batman's and eventually Superman's sidekicks. When Snyder didn't go that route at all.
no subject
Also, to repeat myself here, it is astonishing how much better the team aspect functions in the Snyder Cut. One of the most bizarre decision in the Whedon version is when in the final fight Superman comes in, smacks Steppenwolfe around and then peaces out leaving the rest to handle the fight. Like what the actual hell was that? It reduced the rest of the team so much while here you are able to easily identify how crucial everyone is for the final resolution.
no subject
So they add that bit, but take out all the other scenes??
I mention this because the Whedon version used that bit to show team work between the JL, but in reality it was just Superman zipping about and saving folks, with the Flash kind of aiding him.
Snyder's version is more about unifying and being a team, but at the same time retaining your agency. It's surprising - because Snyder tends to come across as somewhat Randian at times, but his theme is the exact opposite of Rand, if anything it questions Rand. Whedon's theme on the other hand is very Randian, very pro the strongest character, and kind of anti-team. The teams there - but only as sidekicks or to support the big power at the center. Whedon's story is obsessed with power dynamics, while Snyder's is interested in team building, sychroncity, and unifying individuals to meet a common goal, without losing what makes those individuals special.
no subject
WB wanted that movie to premier in November 2017, wanted it to be less than two hours, wanted all the 'epicness' of Snyder's action shots, with Whedon's witty dialog. Oh and this has to be done in under 4 months. Like you said little wonder the set was a toxic hell hole.
And you are correct, shooting a VERY effects heavy movie on film is a bad call since you will have to convert to digital ANYWAY to insert the CGI in post, that costs time and money. So just shoot digital from the start making any future conversions/adding effects.
no subject
It sounds like they wanted an Infinity War/Endgame - but in two and 1/2 hours. Infinity War was about 3 hours, and Endgame was 3 1/2 hours = 6 1/2 hours.
Also both films had the build up of about six to seven movies prior.
Or they'd have settled for an Age of Ultron, I suppose - which from their point of view would have been hugely successful.
My guess, is you are most likely right - there was pressure from above to get the film released on time. Remember what came out in the spring of 2018? Infinity War. Marvel was dominating the box office. WB knew that coming out with Justice League at the same time as Infinity War or Endgame - 2019 - would be a big mistake. I think they were trying to get their film out of the gate prior to the other two films?
no subject
That would have given them a full year to smooth out the film maybe even time to coax Snyder back to help. Allot of people have theorized that if they had more time at minimum the rushed post FX would have been avoided.
But they didn't want to as per some other scuttlebutt the early stages of the AT&T/WB merger were happening various execs figured they'd be axed once complete so they wanted as much money as possible before that point. Hence the push to get it out in 2017 no matter what.
no subject
That said, you raise a good point about the AT&T/Time Warner merger. Having been in multiple companies and industries undergoing transformative change and mergers - I can say from experience - that's toxic in of itself. People do not tend to behave well when they are scared of losing their job, or feel that their job will change completely without their input. A chaotic work place tends to lead to hostility and bad behavior all around.
It also would lead to various people in charge pushing films to be released early. They want to add them to their resumes - before they are kicked out.
no subject
I REALLY think the merger was a factor, and if some scuttlebutt is to be believed those bonuses may never had come, either due to JL's poor receipts or were delayed/nixed thanks to the DOJ threatening to nix the merger.
no subject
I don't understand why they didn't go with it. I started watching the Whedon after it - and it's very choppy action wise, and not lighter at all.
Whoever made these decisions? I hope they got fired. Because my god, what a colossal screw up.
no subject
Wonder if the whole Knightmare vision/Bad Future was a sticking point? IF that was the point why not just as you said, edit it out and release it, even easier once Snyder left. Why re-shoot the whole darn thing?!
Agreed on the "Dear God heads need to roll into baskets for this"
no subject
Snyder has two flaws - he's not a writer, and he's not that good a plotter. Having seen it now - I'd saw that the visuals make up for the dialogue (which there isn't much of to matter). And it is better plotted than I expected - and MoS, BvS and JL work as a trilogy. With Wonder Woman as a nice side movie.
Wonder if the whole Knightmare vision/Bad Future was a sticking point? IF that was the point why not just as you said, edit it out and release it, even easier once Snyder left. Why re-shoot the whole darn thing?!
I wonder too. Because that would explain a few things. But...again, like you said, why not just edit that out? Why did they have to re-shoot the whole thing? If you edited out both Cyborg and Batman's Knightmares - that would have cut the running time down to at least three hours. Also cut all of the Epilogue. Because the Epilogue isn't needed either.
Having rewatched Batman vs. Superman Ultimate Edition - I noticed something that I don't remember seeing in the theaterical version (it may have been there - I just don't remember it) - which was Batman's Knightmare about the Flash coming to him from the future and telling him that Lois was the key. He probably felt that he needed to connect to that bit? (shrugs). Still they could have easily edited that out after Snyder left?
Having seen the Snyder cut and having started to re-watch the Whedon version on HBO Max - afterwards, I'm even more baffled by what they did.
no subject
The Flash story you are thinking about is called 'Flashpoint' and was originally a comic story and AU where Flash changes the world for the worse and eventually fixes it but its almost but not quite the same as it was. Its been bandied about post the JL disaster as a way to 'reset' the DCEU as one of the MANY plots for the much delayed Flash Solo Film which needs a three volume book series to cover all the production troubles THAT film has.
You know what I want to see now?
Snyder's original 2 hour 20 minute cut and compare that to the Whedon version that I think would be a better 'Apples to Apples' comparison. I'd like to see what Snyder decided to edit out himself and try to figure out what make the Execs to damn twitchy about it.
no subject
Interesting, because in the Snyder version, Lois is already there - and jumps in front of Bruce - stopping Clark's post resurrection rampage (he's thisclose to killing Bruce). It's actually a nice flip side of when she stops Bruce from killing Clark in Batman vs. Superman. Snyder has some nice flips there.
I was trying to remember if he had a post resurrection rampage in the other film.
You know what I want to see now?
Snyder's original 2 hour 20 minute cut and compare that to the Whedon version that I think would be a better 'Apples to Apples' comparison. I'd like to see what Snyder decided to edit out himself and try to figure out what make the Execs to damn twitchy about it.
You and me both. I'm thinking all film geeks may want to? I'm really curious why they spent so much money to reshoot that film - when they could have just gone with what they already had?
I know they weren't happy with Whedon's final film - but at that point, had no choice but to go with it.
But my god, the Snyder cut is so much better. (I should point out that I did not hate Whedon's cut. I thought it was okay, it had some good moments, but was very jarring and choppy, and the CGI didn't work for me in places.) Considering the Snyder cut is somewhat bloated in places, and has a lot of added Batman content that...well feels indulgent, that is saying something. But is a better film.
(no subject)
(no subject)