Justice League 4K UHD (2017)

[Bolty]

I liked a lot of the additions in BvS but not others -- so it didn't really bring the movie up for me. But somewhere in that 3 hours of included footage there is a pretty darn good 2 and a half hour movie -- but the theatrical ain't it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bolty

I liked a lot of the additions in BvS but not others -- so it didn't really being the movie up for me. But somewhere in that 3 hours of included footage there is a pretty darn good 2 and a half hour movie -- but the theatrical ain't it.

That sums up BvS nicely for me. I'm one of the loons who thoroughly enjoyed the theatrical cut and also UNDERSTOOD (amazing, right?) the main thrust of the plot, but I can also see why folks would think it too jarring and abrupt. Trouble is the Ultimate cut belabours the whole thing, dragging it out far too much for my taste. Something in-between with the right focus on the right elements would've been the MVP Goldilocks cut for sure.

[guachi]

My friend of 34 years saw it yesterday. Really forgiving of films. He thought it was a trash fire. He was most disappointed with the look of Steppenwolf.

In his opinion, the best version of Steppenwolf in a movie was when "Magic Carpet Ride" appeared in Star Trek: First Contact during the warp scene.

Every time Steppenwolf appeared on screen he sang the song.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

If we get an extended cut for this, it’ll be like Suicide Squad. It won’t be a hugely different version of the film; it’ll just be a few deleted scenes sprinkled in here and there that don’t really change the film at all. Having a hugely different cut of the film on Home video would confirm the narrative that WB greatly altered Snyder’s vision when they’ve been pushing the narrative that the released film IS Snyder’s vision. Just as Suicide Squad didn’t have a hugely different cut to avoid confirming the narrative that WB had recut Ayer’s film, Justice League will be the same. It will probably be called “the director’s cut” and will be just a slightly longer version of the theatrical cut just to help WB’s narrative.

After the critical failure of the film and it currently being on track to be a commercial failure as well (the film is currently on track for a sub $110M Opening Weekend at the US Box Office which will be an embarrassment for WB) all the blame is going to be heaped in Snyder.

In the coming weeks, the narrative that Snyder left WB with a mess of a film that they and Whedon had to try and salvage will be everywhere. It might even be true, but that’s beside the point. WB will accept no responsibility for this misfire.

As for the DCEU going forwards; Snyder is out 100% and will not return. His attachment is poison at this point (if JL does get a sub $110M OW, his career as a big budget blockbuster director is likely over). Affleck will likely be out as well.

It ain't.

[Laserdisk]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That sums up BvS nicely for me. I'm one of the loons who thoroughly enjoyed the theatrical cut and also UNDERSTOOD (amazing, right?) the main thrust of the plot, but I can also see why folks would think it too jarring and abrupt. Trouble is the Ultimate cut belabours the whole thing, dragging it out far too much for my taste. Something in-between with the right focus on the right elements would've been the MVP Goldilocks cut for sure.

Same, if it had the IMAX stuff at home I would be happy

[BluRayHiDef]

Cyborg Deleted Footage

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

In the coming weeks, the narrative that Snyder left WB with a mess of a film that they and Whedon had to try and salvage will be everywhere. It might even be true

I can tell you what I've heard, well before release day, which is that Snyder is done at WB directing these movies. Their choice, not his. He will probably have his name attached to future films as an executive producer only.

[film11]

Affleck's been out since February.

[LexInHD]

Originally Posted by Laserdisk

Same, if it had the IMAX stuff at home I would be happy

JL has no IMAX stuff. It was mostly shot on the older Arri Alexa cameras, with an aspect ratio that is favorable to IMAX DMR. The big reason for no IMAX is that all the IMAX film cameras, lenses, and film - Snyder and WB would have preferred to use digital for quick turnaround anyway - were in use on Dunkirk and the handful of digital Arri 65's that are now used for IMAX shooting were all booked on other tent-pole productions at the time. Of course, the biggest issue with doing it in IMAX is the CGI, as the film is literally a 105-minute CGI buffet, with the rest of the 120-minute run-time spent on actual locations and set pieces. There is no way the amount of CGI used could have been done at appropriate resolution for IMAX and certainly not in the amount of time left over from the extensive Whedon reshoots, which necessitated getting the work done as quickly as possible to fit the new script and vision. That being said, I've seen the film in IMAX - at a reference-grade flagship location - and it's passable, though not great. If you're okay with missing out on HDR, the Blu-Ray will be a perfectly acceptable way to watch it in your home. Though, I certainly expect the HDR to be quite colorful, especially if the DV version is put out on home video next year.

[Resettito]

Most of Whedon's stuff was Alexa, what's surprising is that apparently the Batman opening is Whedon's (when it looks totally like Snyder's) and it's shot on film.

Some more details for a VFX artist on how they butchered Zack's cut:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DC_Cinemati...hey_are_still/

It's WB's ****ing fault, they keep releasing inferior cuts: Watchmen, BvS, now this. Make no mistake, this is NOT Zack's full vision, Elfman was brought very last minute as he said in an interview, scoring to storyboards, all the third act is Whedon's (VFX artist says that's why the CG is sloppy, because not enough time). 95 % of Superman was reshot (LDR says that the scenes are very similar to what was there before, lord knows why they reshot it, many reshoots in the film (Bruce recruiting Aquaman, etc) are useless. Most of what Whedon brought (and we know from detailed breakdowns available from folks who worked on it) is bad, some of it good, most of it bad.

OH & about the CG stache removal (which looked fine honestly, distracting sure), the artist in question says they were all pissed off to have to work on that, that they did tests on adding a fake CG beard for MI6 instead of doing what they had to do, and it worked great, and is much easier to do than basically remodeling an entire face, which is what they did and had too little time to do. WB offered to pay for it, Paramount were a-holes and refused.



WB has been working with Zack since 300, 6 films together, and yet they keep messing with his vision, they know what they're getting, there's no "oh poor WB, the evil Zack is ruining it", support the filmmaker is all I'm saying goddam it. You might not like Snyder, but love him or hate him, his films are uniquely his and get people talking, I actually like substance, layers, visual flair & character in my superhero films, not the cookie cutter stuff. He's not all surface, never has been. MOS is the one film (maybe because Nolan had his back) that they supposedly didn't meddle with and to me and many others, it is a masterpiece, without a doubt.

[ncraft]

I saw the movie last night and it was entertaining. It would have benefitted greatly from an additional 15-20 minutes. The action sequences were great, and the performances from Ray Fisher and Ezra Miller were particularly good. IMO it's much better than what it's Rotten Tomatoes score would indicate, the same way I felt BVS was better. I would put this 3rd, behind Man of Steel and BVS as my favorite DCEU movies, slightly ahead of Wonder Woman.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by LexInHD

JL has no IMAX stuff. It was mostly shot on the older Arri Alexa cameras, with an aspect ratio that is favorable to IMAX DMR. The big reason for no IMAX is that all the IMAX film cameras, lenses, and film - Snyder and WB would have preferred to use digital for quick turnaround anyway - were in use on Dunkirk and the handful of digital Arri 65's that are now used for IMAX shooting were all booked on other tent-pole productions at the time. Of course, the biggest issue with doing it in IMAX is the CGI, as the film is literally a 105-minute CGI buffet, with the rest of the 120-minute run-time spent on actual locations and set pieces. There is no way the amount of CGI used could have been done at appropriate resolution for IMAX and certainly not in the amount of time left over from the extensive Whedon reshoots, which necessitated getting the work done as quickly as possible to fit the new script and vision. That being said, I've seen the film in IMAX - at a reference-grade flagship location - and it's passable, though not great. If you're okay with missing out on HDR, the Blu-Ray will be a perfectly acceptable way to watch it in your home. Though, I certainly expect the HDR to be quite colorful, especially if the DV version is put out on home video next year.

He's talking about BvS, not JL...

[LexInHD]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

He's talking about BvS, not JL...

Yeah, I know that. I posted it because he was gaga for the IMAX stuff for BvS, which doesn't exist for JL. It's been put forth in adverts and articles that the movie was filmed in IMAX, even though it wasn't. It was just shot in an aspect ratio that is easy to adjust for an IMAX presentation.

[Geoff D]

Okay, but I think he's aware of that too...

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Ouch. $96 million Opening Weekend domestically. Second lowest opening weekend for a Superhero film this year (Logan has the lowest) and the first DC film to open under $100M Domestically since Green Lantern. For a high budgeted superhero film like this that was supposed to be DC's Avengers, an under $100 million opening is a disaster. To put this into perspective, Justice League had a lower opening weekend than the first Iron Man film; with and without adjusting for inflation.

Heads are going to roll at Warner Bros on Monday morning.

There'll probably be an extended cut of some kind on the UHD/Blu-Ray now in order to try and boost home video sales by offering a more "complete" version of the film similar to BVS and SS (although I doubt the extended cut will be that much different to the theatrical bar a few new added scenes here and there).

It's looking very likely Thor: Ragnarok, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Wonder Woman and Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 will outgross Justice League. I guess it proves that no matter what your thoughts are on the films, Batman v Superman managed to alienate the general audience.

[film11]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

Ouch. $96 million Opening Weekend domestically. Second lowest opening weekend for a Superhero film this year (Logan has the lowest) and the first DC film to open under $100M Domestically since Green Lantern. For a high budgeted superhero film like this that was supposed to be DC's Avengers, an under $100 million opening is a disaster. To put this into perspective, Justice League had a lower opening weekend than the first Iron Man film; with and without adjusting for inflation.

Heads are going to roll at Warner Bros on Monday morning.

There'll probably be an extended cut of some kind on the UHD/Blu-Ray now in order to try and boost home video sales by offering a more "complete" version of the film similar to BVS and SS (although I doubt the extended cut will be that much different to the theatrical bar a few new added scenes here and there).

It's looking very likely Thor: Ragnarok, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Wonder Woman and Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 will outgross Justice League. I guess it proves that no matter what your thoughts are on the films, Batman v Superman managed to alienate the general audience.

Doubt that's true. And by that logic, the better-received WW should have compensated. No, the culprit is the studio interference (hopefully, Kevin Tsujihara is one of the rolling heads) and a supposedly $300 million movie that doesn't even remotely reflect such a budget.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by film11

Doubt that's true. And by that logic, the better-received WW should have compensated. No, the culprit is the studio interference (hopefully, Kevin Tsujihara is one of the rolling heads) and a supposedly $300 million movie that doesn't even remotely reflect such a budget.

Audiences hated Batman v Superman. The box office tanked as soon as word of mouth spread. The film should have made $1 billion but fell short due to it's poisonous WOM.

Audiences don't know or care about behind the scenes politics. All audiences know is that it's a sequel to a movie they hated and they checked out. Much like last year's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows, the course correction from dark and edgy to "more jokes" was too little too late for many.

People just don't like Snyder's take on Batman and Superman and this proves they're not willing to come out and see them again.

Wonder Woman attracted people who don't normally go see superhero movies. Wonder Woman was an event. Justice League was not. Audiences have already seen Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman together in one film. They've already seen a group of superheroes team up to fight an alien invasion and stop an evil baddie from getting his hands on a cube shaped macguffin. The people who went to go see Wonder Woman won't flock to Justice League just because she's in it. By that logic, Spider-Man: Homecoming should have grossed over $1 billion because Iron Man was in it. It doesn't work like that.

The audience disinterest, some shoddy marketing and the reviews confirming audience's fears that the movie was bad all lead to this.

And I doubt the movie was a masterpiece before Snyder left. According to reports, most of the things people hate about the film were Snyder's (the final film is reportedly about 70% Snyder and 30% Whedon).

It's important to note as well that this year has seen audiences turn against franchises that continually disappoint (Transformers) and films just designed to set up sequel after sequel (The Mummy). Justice League falls into both categories.

[film11]

One doesn't need to know all the politics to sense a shoddy film. (Although the forced sub-2 hr running time mandated was well-publicised.) And from all I've seen and read, it's Whedon's stuff that is getting negative marks...with many hoping we get to see a more Snyder-centric cut on video. (40 minutes of which were cut.) Regardless, it's pretty apparent that the studio screwed the theatrical, just it did for BvS and SS. Hopefully, they will refrain from messing with Wan' s Aquaman (which will be light and "fun"!!!)

[Brad1963]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

Ouch. $96 million Opening Weekend domestically. Second lowest opening weekend for a Superhero film this year (Logan has the lowest) and the first DC film to open under $100M Domestically since Green Lantern. For a high budgeted superhero film like this that was supposed to be DC's Avengers, an under $100 million opening is a disaster. To put this into perspective, Justice League had a lower opening weekend than the first Iron Man film; with and without adjusting for inflation.

Heads are going to roll at Warner Bros on Monday morning.

There'll probably be an extended cut of some kind on the UHD/Blu-Ray now in order to try and boost home video sales by offering a more "complete" version of the film similar to BVS and SS (although I doubt the extended cut will be that much different to the theatrical bar a few new added scenes here and there).

It's looking very likely Thor: Ragnarok, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Wonder Woman and Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 will outgross Justice League. I guess it proves that no matter what your thoughts are on the films, Batman v Superman managed to alienate the general audience.

Funny, I never really thought of Logan as a superhero. "Logan" the did end up being a critical and commercial success though. Something JL will not.

Yes, I'm all for heads rolling at Warner Bros.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by film11

One doesn't need to know all the politics to sense a shoddy film. (Although the forced sub-2 hr running time mandated was well-publicised.) And from all I've seen and read, it's Whedon's stuff that is getting negative marks...with many hoping we get to see a more Snyder-centric cut on video. (40 minutes of which were cut.) Regardless, it's pretty apparent that the studio screwed the theatrical, just it did for BvS and SS. Hopefully, they will refrain from messing with Wan' s Aquaman (which will be light and "fun"!!!)

From what I've read, there are some things in the film that people have attributed to Whedon but are in fact Snyder's (not sure what as I'm trying to stay vaguely spoiler free until I see the film). The things Snyder is usually criticsed for (shoddy storytelling, style over substance, prioritising the "moment" over the story) are still mentioned in reviews. Whedon's additions are mostly being praised (character interactions, witty dialogue). The only Whedon additions being criticised I can see is the score, a certain joke with Wonder Woman and Flash and things beyond his control (Cavill's moustache, Affleck's physical shape, the CGI being unfinished).

Justice League and BVS weren't hated because they weren't "light" or "fun" enough. They were hated because they were shoddy movies. It's a real misunderstanding of the situation to think that's the reason. Audiences are just tired of bad movies trying to set up sequel after sequel.