Justice League film

[Grey_Wolf_c]

BTW, I'm curious. How does a proper Englishman measures its blocks? In streets? In phone cabinets? In Museums?

The thing you have to keep in mind is that British cities tend to have been around for anywhere between a few centuries to upwards of a millennium, and it shows. There ain't such thing as "city blocks" in the American sense in London, or really anywhere in the UK other than Milton Keynes (and that city is the butt of every british city joke I've heard). London more closely resembles the cross-section of an anthill than it does New York's grid. So "a city block" means absolutely nothing.

Heck, after the Great Fire, someone suggested rebuilding London in a more rational, quadrangular fashion and everyone hated the idea.

Grey Wolf

[Aotrs Commander]

Maybe they were measuring it in "city blokes" instead?

BTW, I'm curious. How does a proper Englishman measures its blocks? In streets? In phone cabinets? In Museums?

Serious answer?

I think the main thing is, by and large, we don't really think of "city blocks" as a unit in the same way. (Of course, a lot of British cities are old enough that they are pretty erratically built so they are not organised into blocks in any real fashion.)

I mean, I have NO idea what size a US "city block" is. Is it a few streets (as the closest we come to "block" in my area's local parlance is the phrase "around the block" which basically means "walking in a square around the nearest street intersections")? Is it a half a mile? A mile? I genuinely have no idea other than it is an arbitatrily modest size area in regard to devasation "i.e. levels a city block."

[Anteros]

Serious answer?

I think the main thing is, by and large, we don't really think of "city blocks" as a unit in the same way. (Of course, a lot of British cities are old enough that they are pretty erratically built so they are not organised into blocks in any real fashion.)

I mean, I have NO idea what size a US "city block" is. Is it a few streets (as the closest we come to "block" in my area's local parlance is the phrase "around the block" which basically means "walking in a square around the nearest street intersections")? Is it a half a mile? A mile? I genuinely have no idea other than it is an arbitatrily modest size area in regard to devasation "i.e. levels a city block."

It varies a bit depending on where you are. It's usually a square a few hundred feet long in every direction with a few buildings on each side. Definitely nothing close to a mile unless you're considering the entire internal portion as well.

[GloatingSwine]

I would argue that trying to fit "a good story" into a specific constrain (length) is harder to do that to just write a good story and then worry about how long it would be.

Good job the film industry has over a century of experience to draw on to get it right then...

To be honest, in the majority of cases stories are improved by firm decision on what to leave out not what to add. It's why editors exist and are so valuable.

[Lord Joeltion]

The thing you have to keep in mind is that British cities tend to have been around for anywhere between a few centuries to upwards of a millennium, and it shows. There ain't such thing as "city blocks" in the American sense in London, or really anywhere in the UK other than Milton Keynes (and that city is the butt of every british city joke I've heard). London more closely resembles the cross-section of an anthill than it does New York's grid. So "a city block" means absolutely nothing.

No yeah, I know London is special (it's also BEAUTIFULLY special for me). But in my country using the "block" measure isn't much of a concern because: a) we don't care whether it makes actual sense; b) we use it mostly as an estimate (because most of the time it really doesn't "make sense" at all, strictly speaking; c) it's better than using "streets" as a quantifier anyway (because of diagonals and dead ends).

What I wasn't aware was that the "irrationality" of cities could impact that strongly in the measurement of city distances for the every day man. In my country we have very few truly rational cities and some of the crowdy cities/towns/hoods tend to be confusing for newcomers; yet we still measure distances in blocks more often than not. The other option is streets, but that has its issues too.

I mean, I have NO idea what size a US "city block" is. Is it a few streets (as the closest we come to "block" in my area's local parlance is the phrase "around the block" which basically means "walking in a square around the nearest street intersections")? Is it a half a mile? A mile? I genuinely have no idea other than it is an arbitatrily modest size area in regard to devasation "i.e. levels a city block."

To be fair, I been in Manhattan recently, and we couldn't handle distances by blocks either. I mean, the people with us kept making the same mistake in distance/time whenever we were walking either S/N or W/E. I had to come up with a simple formula to get used to it (S/N avenues are roughly 200m apart, while W/E streets are about 50m) and therefore translate it into "blocks" for them

It varies a bit depending on where you are. It's usually a square a few hundred feet long in every direction with a few buildings on each side. Definitely nothing close to a mile unless you're considering the entire internal portion as well.

In my country the most accepted definition for "block" is 100m x 100m. It only makes strict sense for the numeration of houses. Other that that, it's just a rough estimate most of the time*.

*curiously enough, a healthy person usually takes a lil more than a min to walk an "actual" block; so it serves a purpose to estimate walking distances too. Or at least it does for me.

Good job the film industry has over a century of experience to draw on to get it right then...

To be honest, in the majority of cases stories are improved by firm decision on what to leave out not what to add. It's why editors exist and are so valuable.

Uh, no? I wasn't talking about film edition (which I think is required for every movie, even if a few fell victim of exec meddling)

I was referring to JL's case where the time frame was decided (more like decreed) before they even saw the movie. Most edition of movies have the purpose of removing those parts that "stretch the film" or the editor consider is "unfitting" or "unnecesary" for the purpose of the film on executive level (ie: what are they trying to sell). I don't think there are many cases where the editor was thinking something like "Umh, I still need to cut out yet another 1:29 min to make the film exactly 2hs long"*; which is the case of JL. The producers were trying to optimize the number of viewers/theatres per day; reasoning that if the movie was shorter, theatres could exhibit the film more often.

*I also don't think many hollywood directors bother with calculating how long an scene takes; which is something you would need to if you were a director with a time constraint. Like say, you need to present a short film of 15 min for a festival or whatever.

[GloatingSwine]

I was referring to JL's case where the time frame was decided (more like decreed) before they even saw the movie. Most edition of movies have the purpose of removing those parts that "stretch the film" or the editor consider is "unfitting" or "unnecesary" for the purpose of the film on executive level (ie: what are they trying to sell). I don't think there are many cases where the editor was thinking something like "Umh, I still need to cut out yet another 1:29 min to make the film exactly 2hs long"*; which is the case of JL. The producers were trying to optimize the number of viewers/theatres per day; reasoning that if the movie was shorter, theatres could exhibit the film more often.

Well no, y'see what happened was that the decision was made when they were writing the script to make the movie three hours long.

At that point the person who made that decision should have been thrown out of the room and not allowed back in and sensible people should have written a script that would be no more than 240 or so minutes right from the start.

The problem wasn't making the movie two hours long, the problem was starting out making it three hours long then changing their mind far too late in the process of making it. The length of two hours should have been decided before pen was first set to paper, not during reshoots.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I also don't think many hollywood directors bother with calculating how long an scene takes; which is something you would need to if you were a director with a time constraint. Like say, you need to present a short film of 15 min for a festival or whatever.

I think you are wrong on this one. A director should always keep in mind how long a scene takes, because it is a crucial aspect of a scene working. "This scene is taking too much time" or "This scene feels rushed" is a common issue with a film, and one an editor cannot fix unless the director kept in mind how long the scene takes. In fact, I believe that the storyboard of a film will have time notation that already indicates how much each scene should last.

Now, admittedly, my main source of information of how a director behaves in filming is from the extras of Lord of the Rings, and Jackson was both director and part of the editing team, so maybe that's the reason why he would keep an eye on the clock. But I still think that it'd have to be part of the director's job to make sure each scene has a certain length that will fit with the length of every other scene.

Grey Wolf

[GloatingSwine]

How long scenes are taking is one of the fundamental skills of constructing movies and is built in right from the script phase.

Movies are written to a length and the director altering the pace of given scenes will only put a couple of minutes each way on that.

[Lord Joeltion]

At that point the person who made that decision should have been thrown out of the room and not allowed back in and sensible people should have written a script that would be no more than 240 or so minutes right from the start.

Well, that's just an opinion from you. I mean, what is worth more? A good writer who isn't open to make a film shorter than 2hs and a half, or a mediocre writer who will certainly stick to the clock?

My answer is: If you stick with a creative, at least let him do what he does best and try to trust his better judgement. When WB got so adamant about keeping Snyder and his team; they should have at least the decency to let him do his work. You don't hire a sushi chef and then complain he is unable to cook you a proper barbecue!

I think you are wrong on this one. A director should always keep in mind how long a scene takes, because it is a crucial aspect of a scene working. "This scene is taking too much time" or "This scene feels rushed" is a common issue with a film, and one an editor cannot fix unless the director kept in mind how long the scene takes. In fact, I believe that the storyboard of a film will have time notation that already indicates how much each scene should last.

Now, admittedly, my main source of information of how a director behaves in filming is from the extras of Lord of the Rings, and Jackson was both director and part of the editing team, so maybe that's the reason why he would keep an eye on the clock. But I still think that it'd have to be part of the director's job to make sure each scene has a certain length that will fit with the length of every other scene.

While you are not wrong; my point is that time usually isn't the main focus for a film maker. Yes, obviously storyboards serve a necessary purpose; but they are estimates more often than not. Directors don't need to stick to them like train drivers. That's why improv and reshooting* are a thing. Like in all arts, the method is more of a guide than a hard rule. Unless you are making stop motion, I guess

Also, we aren't talking about making a film that doesn't drag for more than 2 hs or that it should roughly stick to a certain length. We are talking about producers who get very adamant about making a film fit a very specific time frame (2hs, no more no less). It's two different things.

*I mean shooting again and again to see which version you keep with; not necessarily because of rewrites.

[Talakeal]

Well no, y'see what happened was that the decision was made when they were writing the script to make the movie three hours long.

At that point the person who made that decision should have been thrown out of the room and not allowed back in and sensible people should have written a script that would be no more than 240 or so minutes right from the start.

The problem wasn't making the movie two hours long, the problem was starting out making it three hours long then changing their mind far too late in the process of making it. The length of two hours should have been decided before pen was first set to paper, not during reshoots.

Isnt 240 minutes four hours? What am I missing here?

[Clertar]

I agree that a 3 hour-long Justice League film was probably not a great initial idea

[GloatingSwine]

Isnt 240 minutes four hours? What am I missing here?

Yeah, mistype. 140 (2 hours 20) is about the upper limit for well edited and constructed action movies.

My answer is: If you stick with a creative, at least let him do what he does best and try to trust his better judgement. When WB got so adamant about keeping Snyder and his team; they should have at least the decency to let him do his work. You don't hire a sushi chef and then complain he is unable to cook you a proper barbecue!

I think the DCEU to date clearly demonstrates that Zack Snyder is devoid of better judgement and is in fact almost completely incapable of making a structurally functional movie. His movies do not work on the most basic levels that movies are supposed to, they utterly fail to convey or express character through action

As for the other point, a good movie writer is someone who can get their story down to a sensible length.

[Talakeal]

Yeah, mistype. 140 (2 hours 20) is about the upper limit for well edited and constructed action movies.

That makes a lot more sense.

I personally don't agree though, all of my favorite action / adventure films have a theatrical runtime of 2 1/2 to 3 hours and (imo superior) even longer director's cuts.

[Pex]

So they bring him back to life and sure enough... we get grim angry Superman. And he's attacking the team, and we get a fight. They could have handled his resurrection any other way. Why they needed to cram this fight in is beyond me. I totally lost interest.

They wanted to show off Henry Cavill's muscular hairy chest. I was surprised (not kidding) Bruce Wayne didn't take his Batsuit off recovering from his injuries when Wonder Woman happened to walk by the door to see him. Jason Momoa did it early in the film. Henry Cavill did it. That was the perfect set up for Ben Afflek's turn to be shirtless. Need something to get the ladies interested in a superhero film I guess. Chris Pine was naked in Wonder Woman.

That's standard procedure nowadays in superhero movies and tv shows.

[Anteros]

Finally got around to seeing it today. I was supposed to go sooner but I had a death in the family.

Anyway, it was a decent mindless action flick. Surprisingly it didn't give me cancer or murder my firstborn the way the forum lead me to believe it would. If it was a Marvel film it would likely be considered somewhere in the middle of the pack.

[GrayDeath]

Saw it Monday.

It had very few good, a.few really awful (just about.everyrhing including steppenwolf and it's.horribly done cgi) and loads of mediocre moments.

Would have regretted seeing it if it wasn't Monday and hence cheap, but it's not a terrible movie.
Just too.short for what it obviously tried to do, and without any true wow.

[Reddish Mage]

Saw it Monday.

It had very few good, a.few really awful (just about.everyrhing including steppenwolf and it's.horribly done cgi) and loads of mediocre moments.

Would have regretted seeing it if it wasn't Monday and hence cheap, but it's not a terrible movie.
Just too.short for what it obviously tried to do, and without any true wow.

Given that there wasn't any more substance to what they were doing than fighting a no-personality world-conquering villain. I don't think more length would have helped matter. As it was, they expanded the movie with late added season with Whedon basically with a lot of scenes that make the heroes more awesome.

I think the villain and his agenda was clearly the weakest thing about the movie, and that Steppenwolf either had to be entirely redone, or the concept was just a weak one to begin with.

[Starbuck_II]

Saw it Monday.

It had very few good, a.few really awful (just about.everyrhing including steppenwolf and it's.horribly done cgi) and loads of mediocre moments.

Would have regretted seeing it if it wasn't Monday and hence cheap, but it's not a terrible movie.
Just too.short for what it obviously tried to do, and without any true wow.

I liked it though.
It was a great D&D movie.

Spoiler

Show

Flash is the new player (druid or Bard) so he is great, but could be better but he is learning.
Batman is the minmaxer, of course, but it helps his Fighter able to stand with the others.
Wonder Woman is an optimizer.
Same for Aquaman.
Cyborg is a good player but plays the "it is what my character would do" too much.
Superman is a minmaxer, but also a "roleplayer" so holds back.

Felt the revive from Coma moment was interesting but fight was cool but unneeded.

I admit it could be better, but it was decent.

[Olinser]

I liked it though.
It was a great D&D movie.

Spoiler

Show

Flash is the new player (druid or Bard) so he is great, but could be better but he is learning.
Batman is the minmaxer, of course, but it helps his Fighter able to stand with the others.
Wonder Woman is an optimizer.
Same for Aquaman.
Cyborg is a good player but plays the "it is what my character would do" too much.
Superman is a minmaxer, but also a "roleplayer" so holds back.

Felt the revive from Coma moment was interesting but fight was cool but unneeded.

I admit it could be better, but it was decent.

Disagree.

Spoiler: D&D

Show

Batman is the roleplayer, who is so committed to his roleplay that he completely combat crippled his character compared to the rest of his party

Superman is the dude that rolled so ludicrously well on every stat imaginable that the DM killed his character at the end of the last campaign because he made everything too easy

Cyborg is the guy who puts all his points into non-standard, but somewhat useful, skills because he doesn't want to play 'normal'

Flash is the munchkin that piled all his points and skills into a single ability and dumped Charisma and Wisdom for MOAR POINTS.

Wonder Woman and Aquaman are the 'normal' players that rolled pretty well and made somewhat specialized but still well-rounded characters

[Aotrs Commander]

Doesn't look like me and Mum are going to get to see it at the cinema; we just don't have the time at the minute.



On the other hand, today we started catching up on Supergirl and ended up watching all four parts of Crisis on Earth X. Which was fragging FANTASTIC. Especially bearing in mind that Supergirl is the only one of the four shows I watch and the rest of the characters I know only from name or not at all, yet that detracted not one whit from my enjoyment. Hell, Justice League Unlimited would be proud of that many superheroes at once!

(And how can you possibly go wrong with evil Nazi mirror universes?)

Really, the DC movie guys should be taking notes; that's how you crossover.

Hell, MARVEL should take some notes from that...!

[Pex]

(And how can you possibly go wrong with evil Nazi mirror universes?)

Because it's been done to death over and over ad infinitum. Only because of the corniness of the Arrowverse does it work since it's now a corny cliche.

[Aotrs Commander]

Because it's been done to death over and over ad infinitum. Only because of the corniness of the Arrowverse does it work since it's now a corny cliche.

Given the likely alternative of the even more tired and tedious heroes fighting heroes trope, I'll take heroes punching Nazis any day of the week.

Hell, there's something entirely refreshing about having a straigthforwardly evil set of antagonists for once.

And you say corniness almost like it's a bad thing...

[Olinser]

Given the likely alternative of the even more tired and tedious heroes fighting heroes trope, I'll take heroes punching Nazis any day of the week.

Hell, there's something entirely refreshing about having a straigthforwardly evil set of antagonists for once.

And you say corniness almost like it's a bad thing...

Yeah corniness isn't bad. Deadpool was corny as all hell in a lot of parts and I love that movie.

[BWR]

Corniness can be fun but I don't want all my superhero stories to be corny and comedic. I like having different takes on the genre and different feel to this sort of story. Marvel has recently fallen too far towards trying to make everything a joke, as evidenced by the GOTG films and Thor 3. Hopefully BP will avoid this.

I liked the Justice League movie, imperfect as it was.

[Lacuna Caster]

The thing you have to keep in mind is that British cities tend to have been around for anywhere between a few centuries to upwards of a millennium, and it shows. There ain't such thing as "city blocks" in the American sense in London, or really anywhere in the UK other than Milton Keynes (and that city is the butt of every british city joke I've heard).

I keep trying to figure out why. Doesn't Milton Keynes seems to have been reasonably successful as efforts at centralised urban planning go? We're not talking about Pruitt Igoe here.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I keep trying to figure out why. Doesn't Milton Keynes seems to have been reasonably successful as efforts at centralised urban planning go? We're not talking about Pruitt Igoe here.

It feels soulless, as I understand it. It is a city designed for cars, not for people. Americans are used to that (even though I'm finally starting to see sociologist pointing out how American obsession with creating roads through poor neighborhoods has worsened inequalities), but British people are not. They probably find this idea of having to jump into a car for anything annoying - I know I would.

Grey Wolf

[Anteros]

Yes well...that's what happens when one country is more than 40 times larger than another. Things are a bit more spread out and you need a vehicle to get around.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yes well...that's what happens when one country is more than 40 times larger than another. Things are a bit more spread out and you need a vehicle to get around.

No, it has nothing to do with country size and everything to do with urban sprawl, and designing cities with cars in mind rather than pedestrians.

GW

[Anteros]

No, it has nothing to do with country size and everything to do with urban sprawl, and designing cities with cars in mind rather than pedestrians.

GW

No offense, but that statement is purely ignorant. Things like urban sprawl and designing cities for cars are directly related to country size. Cities have to be designed this way because everyone has to own a car in order to get anywhere or do anything. Many people in Britain can reasonably walk to the store or to work. The same thing is not feasible in the US.

It would take me 6 hours to walk to work, and I live on the edge of a reasonably sized city. Public transport exists, but I would have to walk at least an hour to get to one of the stations. We're talking at least 3 hours of transport time to get to work and back if you don't own a car. It's just not practical, so everyone owns one, and cities are designed accordingly.

This is a very common condescending attitude I've encountered among Europeans, and most of it is simply because most have no idea the simple difference in scale.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No offense, but that statement is purely ignorant. Things like urban sprawl and designing cities for cars are directly related to country size.

[citation need]

That is a truly, spectacularly baseless claim. China has massively dense cities, despite having a massive country. European countries big and small all have about the same density of cities. US is the exception, not the rule. It designs cities with the expectation that everyone will have a car, instead of building them with the idea that people might want to walk places. And it has nothing to do with the size of the country, as far as I have ever been able to see, and everything to do with the fact that most US cities grew after the invention of personal affordable transportation, while every other country already had stablished cities and therefore established city expectations from before everyone was able to move at 60mph cheaply.

So if you are going to call me ignorant, by all means present the evidence that makes you so sure you know everything and I know nothing.

Grey Wolf