Are Whedon and Warner Bros. actively trying to ruin Justice League?

Are Whedon and Warner Bros. actively trying to ruin Justice League?

Just look at this shit.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Stm36fxS_0A
youtube.com/watch?v=aYgNoMpsIog
youtube.com/watch?v=agMIrd1c7dc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>turn contrast up to 11
>filter everything for more Orange 'n Blue
Look Ma! Imma seereeus direktor nao!

I think I get OPs ire. You can see the attempt at least in the first, the contrast and the shadows, to give it the feel of a film. How it translates to you, that's subjective. The second one looks like it belongs on a TV screen instead of a theater.

I'm glad he got rid of the fake film grain effect. I fucking hate that shit

My god, Ben makes a handsome Bruce.

The problems with the DCEU have never been about cinematography, or even visual effects, the bar for those get lower every year.

The main issue is unlikeable autistic "heroes" jumping through nonsensical plot developments trying to stop unappealing or just plain ridiculously bad villains from hatching Full Retard evil schemes.

Those are MCU problems actually

You're aboslutely right but to the kind of audience that loves making infographs, wallpapers of screenshots, and thinks "looks like a tv show/video game" is an instant win to arguments, stuff like story or likeable characters doesn't matter. And they're not wrong; they just have different priorities.

I don't care either way; Superman's fucked so these films are dead to me.

>You can see the attempt at least in the first, the contrast and the shadows, to give it the feel of a film

That really ought to be done in-camera.

I'm not even talking about the latter, dude. I didn't even mention it ONCE in my statement. What I said was I understood why OP was annoyed by the changes in visuals. I didn't even mention once anything about how Lex Luthor was disappointing or how Superman was unlikable. At this point, it's like you're trying to step away from a topic that OP and I have managed to at least get a hold on and just want to inject a negative opinion through another pathway because that first door was locked or had someone holding the knob.

I said I agreed with OP on the matter and stated as to why I supported his opinion. I didn't even mention the second part of your post at all--and it's irrelevant because it doesn't even double back as to what OP said in the first place.

The second picture looks visually unsatisfying and doesn't look like it wants to be put up as a movie but rather, a TV series. That's it.

>the text "Snyder's original" has a higher contrast than "Whedon's revision"

Any particular reason you're trying to trick me?

It looks like a movie; a digitally shot movie, without all the fake grains and contrasts added to make it look older than it actually is.
I don't see why that's necessarily worse, or bad. The sentiment that real movies have to look like they're shot on 8mm is like those hipsters that only listen to music on vinyl.

>The second one looks like it belongs on a TV screen instead of a theater.

This is 100% one of those confirmation bias things where if we switched those pictures and said if the top picture was Whedon you'd be arguing that it looked more like a TV show instead.

Post-facto film contrast and added film grain has nothing to do with something looking cinematic. The Whedon TV meme has become so pervasive that no matter what he does you're going to get kinoposters arguing that it looks like a TV show regardless of context.

>Superman's fucked so these films are dead to me

This so much. No amount of the coming hamfisted redemption scenes or forced use of the OG superman theme will ever make me like him.

I would probably enjoy him more if he was the Sentry or any of the innumerable superman expy characters.

(You)

The DCEU smirks at genre conventions, as though the film-makers consider the basic pillars of Superhero Comic mythology to be puerile and ridiculous.

They turn into horribly self-conscious crapola that spends too much effort trying to ensure the audience isn't laughing at them, with the result of making overly self-important garbage that's unintentionally hilarious.

The MCU takes some delight in the genre tropes, and simply asks that the audience share in the lighthearted pleasure of exploring them. They assume that since you Paid money to sit through a Super-Hero adventure movie, you are comfortable with a bit of suspension of disbelief.

DCEU is finally getting closer to that, but inadvertently in the process of becoming a knockoff MCU in a desperate attempt at not being #2 forever.

2010 to 2013 is the absolute nadir of WB's superhero effort. Everything past that has been an attempt to rehabilitate.

"Unlikeable characters" is a sure sign of bullshit criticism.

>The MCU takes some delight in the genre tropes

Maybe the problem is that you think on the level of "tropes," which is moronic

MCU doesnt even have light-hearted pleasure, it's extremely dark, cynical, and unheroic past the immediate impression of friendliness (note how the "feelgood" Spider-Man: Homecoming features nothing heroic going on).

>The DCEU smirks at genre conventions, as though the film-makers consider the basic pillars of Superhero Comic mythology to be puerile and ridiculous.

Dark Knight Rises is explicitly mythological, the entire story is painting in brad strokes. Just because it isn't referencing specific comic book panels and jerking off fanboys with Easter eggs doesn't somehow make it embarrassed to be a comic book story.

>2010 to 2013 is the absolute nadir of WB's superhero effort

What? BvS and Suicide Squad come out in 2016, and even if you want to somehow fucking defend Dawn of Marthas Suicide Squad is Catwoman/Steel tier.

There's a reason Direct-To-Video shots are Direct-to-Video shots and rarely come up to cinematic quality. I'm not going to pretend that I'm a specialist, but seeing as a friend of mine works in a production house for advertisements as an editor of sorts after interning at a local big-name studio, he has a lot to rip into the quality of "film" in general. It's why certain things look great on the small screen but when you put it up for the audience, it looks horrid. He even broke down the contrast of Netflix shows and the use of lighting and contrast so you can actually tell how much "love" was put into the films.

I don't want to start shit here, but he considers the first two Captain America movies and the first two Iron Man films the only ones that make use of proper "film magic" among the Marvel movies. He has some very interesting things to say about Age of Ultron, however, as he thought the "tracking shot" in the aftermath of Hulk's mind-controlled rampage to be pretty damn good, but that the rest of the film feels like it was a Hallmark mini-series.

4 Movies have managed to make Harley Quinn and Wonder Woman likeable.
And Gadot isn't going to be able to play Wonder Woman as a ditzy bubblehead moving forward.

Batfans like the Batman mythos, the villains, the cars and gadgets. That's the reason they've thrown several actors with wildly different styles into the gear with success. Affleck won't be missed either. Everyone but Sup Forums's vocal faggot contingent is pretty meh on Cavill.

>Batfans like the Batman mythos, the villains, the cars and gadgets.

That's a harsh but fair condemnation of how juvenile fandoms are.

>Dark Knight Rises is explicitly mythological, the entire story is painting in brad strokes.

Dark Knight Rises is about the ass-headed terrorist idiots from the first film trying to blow up Gotham a second time. It occasionally spouts some pseudo-intellectualism straight from Goyer's ass, but in the end it's mainly about jamming an entire police force in a sewer so Batman has to get rid of (his own) bomb.

If you think Rises is DEEP, you are probably at least slightly retarded.

Batman appeals really well to the lowest common denominator. It's why he's popular.

very related - youtube.com/watch?v=Stm36fxS_0A

>I don't want to start shit here, but he considers the first two Captain America movies and the first two Iron Man films the only ones that make use of proper "film magic" among the Marvel movies

That's absurd, Iron Man 2 looks like shit outside of the raceway sequence, which doesn't even look that great considering Faverau clearly doesn't have a great handle on directing action. Hell, that movie started the "360 spinning action hot" shit in the MCU which has always looked like hot trash.

>He has some very interesting things to say about Age of Ultron, however, as he thought the "tracking shot" in the aftermath of Hulk's mind-controlled rampage to be pretty damn good, but that the rest of the film feels like it was a Hallmark mini-series.

Age of Ultron looked fine, I have no idea what your friend is talking about.

>If you think Rises is DEEP, you are probably at least slightly retarded.

I never said it was deep you idiot, find anywhere in that post where the word deep showed up once.

I said it was clearly telling an epic story with mythological connotations and it wasn't embarrassed about being a comic book movie.

Likable as in I enjoy the character. Frank Castle isn't likable, but he's a character that you like. Words have multiple definitions user

Most infuriating thing in mainstream filmmaking today is the inability to construct the look of a film in camera and during production. Instead the fix-it-in-post attitude has prevailed.

What part of being explicitly mythological means repeating your narrative arc unnecessarily twice in the same story?

That's a different conversation, user. I'm not talking about if Rises is a good movie or not.

>I said it was clearly telling an epic story with mythological connotations
I'm saying that it relied on Bruce Wayne being a weaked-willed fuckstick for a setup, and every law enforcement officer in the city to be an utter moron, in order for the retarded plot of almost COMPLETELY un-comic book villains to get anywhere.

The story isn't Epic, it's complete shit. At one point it relies on smuggling motorcycles into a world trading exchange and pulling of a caper that anyone remotely aware of stocks knows simply wouldn't work. And that's the least farcical element of the LoS.

It's the "epic" story of a villain who just ends up being a minion, the real villain is just some boring chick who dies in a car-wreck. Then the minion gets blown up by the girlfriend.

Probably the worst thing Goyer has ever written if you've successfully purged Blade 3 from your mind like I have until just now.

The top looks fucking horrible.

Doing it in camera is way too risky and expensive in an industry that's got razor thin profit margins because they keep bloating their marketing and cocaine budgets.
I've shot student films on film and digitally; spending an additional $100 in film and having to get an extension for your project because an entire reel was overexposed is bad enough, I can only imagine the anus clinching terror I'd feel if I was dealing with thousands of dollars in film and man hours, and a practical effects or action shot that I could only do once. Digital's safer. Might not look as good initially, but safer and cheaper by far.

>Iron Man 2 looks like shit outside of the raceway sequence
I'm not saying I thought it looked good. I'm saying he said it felt like it was shot like a movie.

>Age of Ultron looked fine
I thought its problem was its dialogue, personally. I liked the Barton Homestead well enough and I can't remember his picking apart word-for-word, but he really thought that certain set pieces in the film needed to be taken out to the back of the shed and had a bullet put in them.

1. The opening scene, especially that "steady shot" after Captain America gets hit.
2. In rare criticism, he compared RDJ's acting here to Reeves from Bill and Ted--especially the "dream" scene. This was probably the only time we agreed on dialogue with this film.
3. The "chase" scene where he pointed out every horrid camera shot and "weightlessness" of movement.
4. The rubble looking like styrofoam in the final battle.

This is off-topic, but what do you have to say about Michael Bay's editing/camera work on Transformers?

You say it paints the story in broad strokes; that's talking about the story. You say it's not embarrassed by the source material; there's ways to get that sense that go beyond "doesn't recreate panels" and its disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Put on a fucking suit Alfred you're a disgrace to butlers everywhere.

This. It's nice that films like Sin City try to recreate panels, but absolutely unnecessary for super hero films.
I simply ask that the capture the essence of the character and his mythos. I'll watch OC Superman knockoff if I want someone's OC Superman,.

>I'm not saying I thought it looked good. I'm saying he said it felt like it was shot like a movie.

It was a lot of basic two-shot conversation stuff. It's not really any more cinematic then, say Ant-Man. It has less weird bloom-y color grading then a lot of the later MCU movies, I guess.

>those bullet points

The opening scene was a little choppy, but it's nowhere near as bad as your friend is claiming. If you want bad in the MCU, look at literally every fight scene in the first Guardians.

>4. The rubble looking like styrofoam in the final battle.

That I can agree with, some of the sets looked like shit. Thor's cave looked like something out of Legends of the Hidden Temple.

I can tell from the way he cuts his movies and his use of color that he got his directorial start doing commercials and music videos and hasn't really evolved his sensibilities past that. Which, ironically, makes him ideal for a toyetic line like Transformers that's all about the slow motion close up of the brand name.
It's horribly effective, but it's also really, really elementary and doesn't go beyond the basics you get taught freshman year.
And the thing is, I get that exact same feel for Zack Snyder. But at least Bay owns it by sticking to toy commercial schlock rather than trying for something deeper.

>Are Whedon and Warner Bros. actively trying to ruin Justice League?
I don't think that's possible

...

This film just shit itself at the halfway point

>If you want bad in the MCU, look at literally every fight scene in the first Guardians.
Black Widow's karate flips in Iron Man 2 felt choreographed as Hell and you can tell the stuntmen were just waiting for their turn. They seriously should have brought in Jackie Chan or Sammo Hung for a consultant for that scene. I did not like it at all.

Thanks.

>turn saturation down to 11
>filter everything to look gray and lifeless
look ma i made a serious comic book movie

If this Flash is good, Wallyfags will say they gave him Wally's personality.

>Black Widow's karate flips in Iron Man 2 felt choreographed as Hell
The stuff that WB/DC was putting out at the time looked backyard cosplay tier. And Iron Man 2 wasn't about martial arts heroes, as was TDKR.

>If this Flash is good
he's not

youtube.com/watch?v=aYgNoMpsIog
youtube.com/watch?v=agMIrd1c7dc

Source for this claim? 'cause the top one looks like absolute garbage, to the point I doubt even Snyder would be up to releasing something like that.

Also
>Are Whedon and Warner Bros. actively trying to ruin Justice League?

Not as eagerly as Snyder was trying to ruin every DC property he got his hands upon.

The funny thing is that the problems with the DCEU have been both, and Marvel's too, except maybe for the unlikeable heroes thing, since people seem to actually like them.

the 60's tv show literally has better choreography than the Nolan "Epics".

Generally speaking, the villains have been better in the MCU than in the DCEU, which is unbelievable. They actually have motivations beyond just blowing up everything for raisins.

I mean, even Ludendorff and Dr. Poison just wanna kill both sides for lulz.

>Age of Ultron looked fine, I have no idea what your friend is talking about.
literally most clueless person in the thread

>top one hurts my eyes
>bottom one is JP3 tier of composting

>This DC movie looks like ass
>But Marvel tho...

Every time. Every damn time.

The opening brawl in begins always puts me in stitches. He's pretty much just dog piling with the prisoners and then he gets separated and they say they are protecting them from him.

yea the Nolan fight choreography was trash.

>Snyders Original is a clearly amateur contrast raised still image made by you in photoshop

wow what could have been

Why are you trying to counter someone pointing out something is bad with the reasoning that something else is equally bad? How does that enforce any opinion you would have in the context of the discussion?

>trying to ruin Justice League?

Is it possible to ruin shit?

>the villains have been better in the MCU than in the DCEU
Yeah, who the fuck saw that one coming? MCU's collection of The-Hero-But-Evil, rich white businessmen, and Infinity MacGuffin wielding bland extremists have actually turned out to be slightly ahead of the straight-up jokes of villains with nonsensical plans and laughable performances the DCEU's been producing.

I agree Black Widow in IM2 wasn't a Kung Fu masterpiece, but for god's sake it might have well been compared to the company projects you knight for.
And let's not pretend you aren't in this thread exactly for that.

They have nothing else

Everyone who doesn't love DC is a marvel shill and deserves harassment and death threats and every news story they don't like is LE FAEK NOOS XD

>expecting sources
>implying OP isn't Whedon here to shill his own movie

I would take Stane, Pierce or even Killian over EisenLuthor.
Zod and Ludendorff are low Malekith/Ronan/ R Skull-tier.
Dr. Poison and Joker are Justin Hammer hambone-tier
Ares, Enchantress and Dr Poison are sub-MCU altogether, they are Doomachev/Apocalypse-tier.
Incubus and Doomsday join Parallax in the "are you even fucking trying" tier.

Nothing in the DCEU even approaches Loki, Ego, Vulture, Zemo or Zola

And JL is effectively the League fighting Ares again with an army of bug men.

I really hope it doesn't end with the big cgi mess battle.

But I fear it will.

>Snyder
>Not ending with a CGI lightning-smoke vomit punch party

It's going to be the Doomsday fight scene for an entire movie. If anything is going to be kept from Snyder's cut, it's his fucking awful fight scenes.

THIS.

Jesus Christ does it show that Whedon is a TV hack. He killed all the texture, depth and chiaroscuro of the original shot and made it look like flat soap opera lighting. Just like the first Avengers movie.

>Buys into the obvious shoop.

Fuck off, Mouseketeer.

>he is 40 years old and his main hobby is arguing with teenagers about superhero on Sup Forums

I'd tell you to get a life, but I feel like it's too late. Good night Alfred P. Another productive day.

I'm not knighting for fucking anyone, mate. Bad is bad, no matter how you color it. The basis, the very core of my argument is that bad and horrid as it is, Snyder and his lackeys are trying to make a FILM. I can at least appreciate that, even if it looks pretentious to the masses. In complete contrast, while the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been entertaining to the masses, my friend and I definitely feel it's not for the theater, but the small screen. Flat lighting, budget CGI, choreography that is obviously more concentrated in some scenes and mediocre in the others, they're all indicators of a presence that is meant to be a continuous series rather than a proper cinematic experience.

Superman Man of Steel is horrid because the acting and dialogue was wooden as Hell and BvS was bad because the dialogue couldn't stand on one leg and the conflict didn't feel organic. Bad is bad, I'm not taking sides: at the end of the day I'm a bloody customer and I want the money I drop into the box office slot.

>Ludendorff and Dr. Poison just wanna kill both sides for lulz.
Are you dumb or you didn't even watch the movie?

My point with this is that I do not understand why Marvel movies get a pass.
As a cinema fan, I'm equally offended by both.

>Snyder and his lackeys are trying to make a FILM. I can at least appreciate that
People don't cram into Multiplexes with their families to see FILM, they go to them to watch movies.
Studio's don't drop $250-400 MILLION into a budget to get a product with limited elitist appeal.

Snyder doesn't get credit for abjectly failing to make something he wasn't asked to make in the first place. Which is a well-regarded Superhero Movie. Not some weirdly lit allegory about the second coming of Christ.

Ludendorff spouts off some inane nonsense about "war bringing out the best in man" or some shit, before deciding to unleash a gas that will effectively annihilate both sides of the conflict. AFTER killing off the German high command, which would make him a pariah in Germany even before killing hundreds of thousands of German troops along with the British and French.

Dr. Poison is given no motivation in the movie whatsoever, she's just this giggling psychopathic murderer who craves Ludendorff compliments.

>which would make him a pariah in Germany even before killing hundreds of thousands of German troops along with the British and French.
Not if he managed to win the fucking war.
Also, you forget they were being mindfucked by Ares.

>Dr. Poison is given no motivation in the movie whatsoever
Did you really needed it spelled out for you? Her motivation was absolutely clear in her dialogue with Steve. She had an inferiority complex due to her looks and was craving for Ludendorff's approval at any costs.

,>Also, you forget they were being mindfucked by Ares.
Ares gets introduces as the Satan-analogue who corrupts mankind and drives them mad, as handed down by the Greek Gods, but WAIT he's really just this Arms Developer who's supplying the means to crazy people because "theres bad in all of us" but WAIT now he wants to wipe mankind out to create a Paradise on Earth, but WAIT now he's dead, and suddenly the German soldiers are hugging with the Commandos that were killing them minutes ago so Ares was driving them crazy, but WAIT...

And then there's Peace and Love Diana, who while thoroughly convinced the Germans are being driven mad by a Supernatural force, is mercilessly cutting down soldiers she could quite easily subdue, with no remorse.

And no, Ludendorff would not get "credit" for "winning" a war where he killed off both sides.

,>Also, you forget they were being mindfucked by Ares.
Ares gets introduces as the Satan-analogue who corrupts mankind and drives them mad, as handed down by the Greek Gods, but WAIT he's really just this Arms Developer who's supplying the means to crazy people because "theres bad in all of us" but WAIT now he wants to wipe mankind out to create a Paradise on Earth, but WAIT now he's dead, and suddenly the German soldiers are hugging with the Commandos that were killing them minutes ago so Ares was driving them crazy, but WAIT...

And then there's Peace and Love Diana, who while thoroughly convinced the Germans are being driven mad by a Supernatural force, is mercilessly cutting down soldiers she could quite easily subdue, with no remorse.

And no, Ludendorff would not get "credit" for "winning" a war where he killed off both sides.
That's like saying that McNamara would have gotten Kudos for winning Vietnam if he nuked both armies.

The soldiers just survived a clash of 2 gods and were confused, that's why they were not fighting anymore and Diana was in shock because her boyfriend just died, ares didn't caused the war he was just making it worse so it could lead to mankind extinction

>My point with this is that I do not understand why Marvel movies get a pass.

Is this a Marvel movie? If not, then bringing up Marvel movies is an attempt to change the subject.

>My point with this is that I do not understand why Marvel movies get a pass.
Because they're GOOD

That's just it. You're a cinema fan. You're looking for a specific a aspect of the work. Your enjoyment hinges on the expression of that aspect being done to your liking. And, you may even think that one aspect is all there is to the thing.
Meanwhile The entire rest of the planet outside of such a specific concern either cares more about a different aspect, or, more likely, the overall experience. And in those other aspects, and in the overall experience, Marvel manages to get Bs and Cs, and even the occasional A. Whereas WB has been struggling just to pass in many of those cases.
You're not wrong, but neither is anyone else. You're just in it for different reasons and can't see the perspective of anyone else.
It's kind of like how MvC:I has divided so many people between "But the gameplay!" and "But everything else!"

Nope

I know I'll be in the minority here on /zdy/ but I think it looks better.

WB is not struggling at all to get As, IT,Dunkirk and Wonder Woman are all highly praised

Worst part is, it seems they finally fucking found him.

Wonder Woman is the only one relevant in this conversation (admittedly I should've said DCEU instead of WB) and a part of its success is that its generally regarded as a departure from the previous stuff in a lot of ways, tone chief among them.

>You're just in it for different reasons and can't see the perspective of anyone else.
No, I do, and I understand what you're saying. For general audiences, actually, DCEU isn't that bad either since most of their movies have done pretty well, except for BvS.
What I mean by "I don't know why Marvel gets a pass", is I don't know why critics, who are supposed to care more about the art form itself than anything else, give the shittier Marvel films a thumbs up while ganging upon much smaller movies that, even if they're bad, they're actually trying to be movies and not just another entry in a franchise.

You must be unfamiliar with discussions and conversations, specially on the internet. They tend to go off on tangents. That's how normal humans work.

>The second one looks like it belongs on a TV screen instead of a theater.
That's how all of Whedon's movies look because he's a TVshit hack. Avengers was the most expensive made-for-TV movie I've ever seen.

Two reasons.
First, your misconception as to the totality of the job of a critic. Yes, they're supposed to care about the art form, but they're also supposed to be a (if not the) bridge between the art form and the masses, so a part of their job is to say "you may enjoy this". Not "you should enjoy this because of these reasons that I understand because I went to film school". Which is why you get a bunch of 9 image infographs in DCEU threads that miss the point that if they have to explain why Snyder's a genius in that great a detail they've already failed.
The second reason is again, you're looking at it from your perspective and your definition of what makes a movie. To you, the DCEU is "trying to be movies" and the MCU isn't. But that's because of your definition of the term, which is not the same, or has the same requirements as, it does for other people. For other people the MCU isn't just trying to be movies, they *are*. You do get that, right?
Especially with regards to genre.

None of that's ever done in-camera anymore, user.

No. It's a subject change meant to draw attention away from the arguments aimed at what people were initially talking about.

>Ares gets introduces as the Satan-analogue who corrupts mankind and drives them mad, as handed down by the Greek Gods
First off, he's not that in the Greek mythology so stop talking out of your ass.
And the whole point about Ares is that he's influencing men, but they act on their own will. That's how Greek Gods work. They fool people but not force their will upon them. The whole point of the movie is that men is capable of both the most noble and the most vile actions, and that an influence like Ares could be the thing to tilt the balance on one side, so Diana decides to stay as a positive influence to counter-weight the balance on the other side.

Diana going mad on the soldiers was a moment when Ares was actually influencing her, and it's after she's about to crush Dr. Poison that she realizes this and stops. It's the typical moment of weakness where the villain seems to be winning.

I sometimes seriously think some people are going out of their way to "not understand" this movie, 'cause it's pretty fucking straight forward.

No, it isn't. I'm not trying to distract from the fact that Snyder movies are shit. I'm just trying to point out that I don't know why critics say Marvel movies are good when they're not. I mean, they've got enough criteria to realize this when it's from one company but not from another? That's bullshit.

>You can see the attempt at least in the first, the contrast and the shadows
Dude, it's just some guy who upped the contrast of a still pic in photoshop.

>I'm not trying to distract

Then stay on topic.

>I'm just trying to point out that I don't know why critics say Marvel movies

Marvel movies are not the topic what was initially discussed.

You may think this is an okay way to have a debate or conversation but frankly, most people can't debate worth a damn. Defend the subject with aspects of that subject.

>Then stay on topic.
Again, you obviously are not very good at human interaction. Most conversations among normal people don't stay autistically focused on a single topic. They branch out and go on tangents. In online conversations, where many people interact and many tangents occur, you can just ignore those that don't interest you and engage in those that do.

Or you can be a fucking autist and start claiming that everybody should stay on topic because these are the "rules" or whatever.

2nd looks better