Justice League film

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Ughn.. that does sound retarted.. whatever idiot who though those things were a good idea certainly deserves whatever negative feedback this brings..
If you dont have a coherent vision for the movie then you should not begin to shoot it.

As I have said, they did have a coherent vision for the movie. MovieBob makes a very good case that on paper, MoS -> BvS -> JL1 -> JL2 was a solid framework.

But when MoS is a mess, and BvS is an even bigger mess, then plowing on with the original plan is folly. But that's the thing, JL was started before BvS was completed, because these films do take years to do and it makes sense to overlap them to a degree (e.g. as long as things go to plan, you don't keep your screenwriters idle while the previous film is in editing. You get them to start writing the next one. Same with principal photography: idle actors are the devil's playthings. Last thing you would want is for them to get cast in some other film where they need to change their hairstyle and then you have to CGI the one you need or put them in a terrible wig or something).

From a strictly "upper management" PoV, they did not do anything wrong. All their decisions have been fairly rational. Their problems stem from wrong facts: that Snyder can make a "dark and edgy" superman film, for example. Yes, hindsight says they should've cut their losses at MoS, but that's just hindsight (and a certain degree of Sunk Costs fallacy, I'll grant you).

Grey Wolf

[Dr.Samurai]

The coherence did take a hit though with Whedon stepping in. I'm not sure what the extent of the differences are, but JL does seem disconnected from BvS and MoS.

One glaring (though admittedly minor) example is Zack Snyder's vision of Superman's strength (similar to Bryan Singer with Superman Returns). Snyder mentioned in the promotions for MoS that it was important for the physics to make sense with Superman. So when we see Superman holding up a space shuttle in BvS, it is bending beneath its own weight and he needs to set it down or it will break at some point (like Superman stopping the place from crashing in Superman Returns). But then in JL we see Superman carrying an entire building like a scene straight out of a Saturday morning cartoon.

I think we were supposed to see the world reacting to Superman's death when it was originally supposed to be two movies. But instead we're just told that the world is in despair over his death, which doesn't really jive with the previous movies.

The dirt floating over his casket doesn't jive with a resurrection from the mother box.

"We need to form a team for the coming invasion" doesn't jive with "we need to resurrect Superman to save the day".

I don't know. It doesn't really seem coherent. Maybe it could have been, but that's not what we got.

[GloatingSwine]

[*]A police procedural in a world with superheroes

I'd love someone competent to do a Top Ten movie.

But then I'd also like to see DC chucked in the bin WRT all the ABC properties as well.

[Lord Joeltion]

Only if you're an insane person.

ps Warner Bros are the ones who actually own 30% of Rotten Tomatoes.

Then all fanboys are insane (?)

ps It's funny because WB executives are having a good strike of business decisions that backfire. They keep doing it wrong

No. I means you have no idea how the RottenTomatoes rating system works.

What I have no idea is how and why you reached such an unrelated assumption. I wasn't referring to the system they offer. I was speaking about the absolute arbitrariness of scores at user level.

As I have said, they did have a coherent vision for the movie. MovieBob makes a very good case that on paper, MoS -> BvS -> JL1 -> JL2 was a solid framework.

But having a "concept" is not the same as having a good project. Look how it goes for the comics (specially these days in DC) where the writers all go composing a supposedly "crucial" crossovers for the franchise but they still keep writing their own title without following a general direction because they keep working isolated (and sometimes they are excluded from projects altogether). There's a reason why some crossovers work and some others clearly don't hold any water.

Obviously, "on paper", all the origin you really need is about the Trinity; but that clearly wasn't even what WB's initially intended. We are lucky to have a WW film.

But when MoS is a mess, and BvS is an even bigger mess, then plowing on with the original plan is folly. But that's the thing, JL was started before BvS was completed, because these films do take years to do and it makes sense to overlap them to a degree (e.g. as long as things go to plan, you don't keep your screenwriters idle while the previous film is in editing. You get them to start writing the next one. Same with principal photography: idle actors are the devil's playthings. Last thing you would want is for them to get cast in some other film where they need to change their hairstyle and then you have to CGI the one you need or put them in a terrible wig or something).

Of course. But making different films at the same time isn't the issue. Marvel tried that and also somewhat "failed" until the Phases were set in stone and the whole project started moving "practically" by itself.

The coherence did take a hit though with Whedon stepping in. I'm not sure what the extent of the differences are, but JL does seem disconnected from BvS and MoS.

I'm undecided about Whedon yet. Yeah, some of his decisions were truly inane (he wanted to open the film making the Batman scene into a gag sequence); but on the other hand I am unaware how much of the "not as dark and edgier as BvS/MoS" wasn't thanks to him. I mean, he made a lot of reshoots and apparently many of them stayed. And "artistically", I would say the JL film has the same "color" WW has, it's just that what makes them "gritty" is the setting. Unlike BvS/MoS/SQ which are all shadydarksomber4coolz&edgy.

One glaring (though admittedly minor) example is Zack Snyder's vision of Superman's strength (similar to Bryan Singer with Superman Returns). Snyder mentioned in the promotions for MoS that it was important for the physics to make sense with Superman. So when we see Superman holding up a space shuttle in BvS, it is bending beneath its own weight and he needs to set it down or it will break at some point (like Superman stopping the place from crashing in Superman Returns). But then in JL we see Superman carrying an entire building like a scene straight out of a Saturday morning cartoon.

Personally, for me trying to make sense of Supes feats is like trying to tie a cat to a helium balloon. Even if you can, it will blow up. Very loudly and in your face.

I think we were supposed to see the world reacting to Superman's death when it was originally supposed to be two movies. But instead we're just told that the world is in despair over his death, which doesn't really jive with the previous movies.

The dirt floating over his casket doesn't jive with a resurrection from the mother box.

"We need to form a team for the coming invasion" doesn't jive with "we need to resurrect Superman to save the day".

I don't know. It doesn't really seem coherent. Maybe it could have been, but that's not what we got.

In MoS people fear Superman. In BvS people apparently hatelove him. In JL we are to believe he suddenly became the avatar of Mandela/Jesus for the average people (and all hope is lost, cuz S is for Shope!). I mean, while the "theme" is obvious, it doesn't make sense for the time frame the movies are supposed to be set.

[GloatingSwine]

Then all fanboys are insane (?)

Well, yes....

ps It's funny because WB executives are having a good strike of business decisions that backfire. They keep doing it wrong

Of course.

Movie executives are notoriously crap at learning things. I mean these are people who would always have said Wonder Woman was a "risky" project because prior female led superhero movies were unprofitable, but they don't take the lesson "Elektra and Catwoman did bad because they were crap", because that would mean admitting "we made a crap movie" but "Elektra and Catwoman did bad because female leads".

[Mechalich]

Movie executives are notoriously crap at learning things. I mean these are people who would always have said Wonder Woman was a "risky" project because prior female led superhero movies were unprofitable, but they don't take the lesson "Elektra and Catwoman did bad because they were crap", because that would mean admitting "we made a crap movie" but "Elektra and Catwoman did bad because female leads".

In fairness to movie executives, most of them are doubtless very cynical about the ability to consistently produce a quality film. It is fairly obvious that the best way to make money in movies is to make good films that appeal to a wide audience (it is entirely possible to make good films that don't appeal to wide audience and thereby lose money if you can't wrangle awards buzz). However, it is very difficult to predict whether a movie will be good or whether it will suck when greenlighting a project. In fact, by the time you have any idea whether resulting project is decent or not the movie may be essentially finished and then you're stuck releasing it anyway to try and recoup whatever you can - this year's best example of this would be Geostorm. Everyone knew that movie was going to be terrible and the studio sat on it for a while but they still managed a 65 million dollar global gross to make back some of what they lost making the thing.

The ideal movie, if you're a studio executive, is the one that will turn a profit regardless of whether or not it sucks. This year's best example of that would be Pirates 5 - which somehow pulled in close to 800 million dollars globally.

This actually cuts to the heart of the issue with Justice League. The actual movie is simply below average; not good but not a true disaster. The box office disappointment is the unexpected part. JL is by almost any measure a better film than BvS but is doing massive worse at the box office, which is genuinely unexpected and suggests that the DC movies are affected by franchise fatigue in the fashion of something like Transformers rather than what has happened with Marvel which for some reason doesn't track as a single unified thing.

[Olinser]

In fairness to movie executives, most of them are doubtless very cynical about the ability to consistently produce a quality film. It is fairly obvious that the best way to make money in movies is to make good films that appeal to a wide audience (it is entirely possible to make good films that don't appeal to wide audience and thereby lose money if you can't wrangle awards buzz). However, it is very difficult to predict whether a movie will be good or whether it will suck when greenlighting a project. In fact, by the time you have any idea whether resulting project is decent or not the movie may be essentially finished and then you're stuck releasing it anyway to try and recoup whatever you can - this year's best example of this would be Geostorm. Everyone knew that movie was going to be terrible and the studio sat on it for a while but they still managed a 65 million dollar global gross to make back some of what they lost making the thing.

The ideal movie, if you're a studio executive, is the one that will turn a profit regardless of whether or not it sucks. This year's best example of that would be Pirates 5 - which somehow pulled in close to 800 million dollars globally.

This actually cuts to the heart of the issue with Justice League. The actual movie is simply below average; not good but not a true disaster. The box office disappointment is the unexpected part. JL is by almost any measure a better film than BvS but is doing massive worse at the box office, which is genuinely unexpected and suggests that the DC movies are affected by franchise fatigue in the fashion of something like Transformers rather than what has happened with Marvel which for some reason doesn't track as a single unified thing.

I don't think you're using 'below average' accurately.

It certainly wasn't a fantastic movie, but its been received fairly positively by viewers. It definitely has flaws but 'below average' is just a laughable exaggeration.

[Keltest]

I don't think you're using 'below average' accurately.

It certainly wasn't a fantastic movie, but its been received fairly positively by viewers. It definitely has flaws but 'below average' is just a laughable exaggeration.

From what ive seen, there is substantial evidence that the viewers for JL were fairly self selecting, and the only people who actually saw it were the ones who were already predisposed to like it for whatever reason.

[Ramza00]

So not about the Justice League Film (except it really is about it in an indirect way).

So the voice actor who plays Superman in Justice League cartoon and its sequel Justice League Unlimited is this guy



Besides playing Superman you may remember him as this guy from Friends.



Aka the Yeti that Rachael bug bombed when he accidentally sneaked up on her when it was dark. Only to date Rachel later on after Mr. "Yeti" cut his hair due to the smell of the bug bomb.



And thus acting with physical people is just like voice acting.



And here is Superman from Hereafter in Justice League

[Avilan the Grey]

I don't think you're using 'below average' accurately.

It certainly wasn't a fantastic movie, but its been received fairly positively by viewers. It definitely has flaws but 'below average' is just a laughable exaggeration.

No, "Below average" is maybe not exactly right. Below the average of what? is a better question.
Below average of Superhero moves made after 2000? Yes. Indeed. Below average of all movies released in theatres since Cinema was invented Probably not. For every Citizen Cane there's 10 Plan Nine From Outer Space after all.

So, yes, it most definitely is below average counting modern era superhero movies. I would also judge it below average on modern era blockbusters-type movies.

[GloatingSwine]

This actually cuts to the heart of the issue with Justice League. The actual movie is simply below average; not good but not a true disaster. The box office disappointment is the unexpected part. JL is by almost any measure a better film than BvS but is doing massive worse at the box office, which is genuinely unexpected and suggests that the DC movies are affected by franchise fatigue in the fashion of something like Transformers rather than what has happened with Marvel which for some reason doesn't track as a single unified thing.

Again though, "Franchise Fatigue" is the wrong lesson. It's the movie executive lesson.

The actual lesson is that releasing a substandard product into a saturated market causes that product to fail in the market.

Marvel are consistently proving that "franchise fatigue" is irrelevant as long as you continue to make at least decent movies (because even the worst Marvel movies are "okay").

[Clertar]

Agree ^. And for making a case for franchise fatigue rather than the movies being bad, comparing the DCEU with the Transformers movies doesn't particularly help that point

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm undecided about Whedon yet. Yeah, some of his decisions were truly inane (he wanted to open the film making the Batman scene into a gag sequence); but on the other hand I am unaware how much of the "not as dark and edgier as BvS/MoS" wasn't thanks to him. I mean, he made a lot of reshoots and apparently many of them stayed. And "artistically", I would say the JL film has the same "color" WW has, it's just that what makes them "gritty" is the setting. Unlike BvS/MoS/SQ which are all shadydarksomber4coolz&edgy.

Yeah, I'm not complaining about Whedon. But the two are very different and I suspect that whatever Snyder's original intent was, his movie alone would have fit better with the DCEU than the frankenstein that we got.

Personally, for me trying to make sense of Supes feats is like trying to tie a cat to a helium balloon. Even if you can, it will blow up. Very loudly and in your face.

Well, if your intent is to make serious movies to be taken seriously (and I think all the talk about gods and demons suggests that's the intent ) then you do have to make sense of Supe's powers. Flying around with an entire building in his hands just looks goofy.

Here's another disconnect from the other movies: the Flash scene from BvS. No payoff from the Flash-from-the-future scene. No hint at it. Nothing. I mean... I guess they could be saving it for another movie (how presumptuous lol), but a nod to it would be called for I think. Maybe a more light-hearted scene between Bruce and Barry where Bruce is asking him about the extent of his powers, and he's like "You only run fast?" and Barry's like "Well, it's really fast. Like... you're making it sound... lame." and Bruce is like "No, I know, it's very fast. But, is that it? Nothing else? Like... time travel?" and then Barry would have some hilarious slapstick reaction to such a ludicrous suggestion and the whole audience would erupt into uncontrolled laughter.

In MoS people fear Superman. In BvS people apparently hatelove him. In JL we are to believe he suddenly became the avatar of Mandela/Jesus for the average people (and all hope is lost, cuz S is for Shope!). I mean, while the "theme" is obvious, it doesn't make sense for the time frame the movies are supposed to be set.

Agreed. JL was supposed to be two movies originally. I'm wondering if the first movie would have better demonstrated the world's arc between BvS and now, with people recognizing Superman's sacrifice and... I don't know, being really impacted by his death. I'm guessing we lost some of that in the move from two movies to one, and then from one long movie to one movie underneath two hours.

[GloatingSwine]

Yeah, I'm not complaining about Whedon. But the two are very different and I suspect that whatever Snyder's original intent was, his movie alone would have fit better with the DCEU than the frankenstein that we got.

Yeah, but apart from Wonder Woman the rest of the DCEU is toss. And it's mostly been toss under Snyder's directorship because he's a bad director and a bad fit for DC properties.

The only comic book movie where he didn't butcher the tone of the original is 300 because that was written by Frank Miller after he went crazy and so it perfectly fit Snyder as a director.

An all-Snyder JL movie might have fit better with the rest of the garbage, but it would still have been garbage.

[Dr.Samurai]

An all-Snyder JL movie might have fit better with the rest of the garbage, but it would still have been garbage.

Yeah, I'm not saying it would have been good had it been 100% Snyder. I don't like what he did with the DCEU and it's part of the reason that I'm expecting it to fail. But Whedon coming in didn't help, because even though Whedon lightened things up, the movie just doesn't gel with the rest of the series. You're bound to lose whatever fans there were so far, and not gain many new ones.

I disagree with someone up above that the execs aren't to blame though. They tripled down on Snyder after one failure to the next. Someone has to take responsibility for that. You can't blame Snyder. He's being given the go ahead to complete his vision for the DCEU. Someone higher up should have said "let's cut our losses and go with someone else".

[GloatingSwine]

The execs didn't back out on Snyder earlier because Man of Steel and BvS were nominally "successful" in that they made money in spite of the large quantity of criticism about them.

However, what this misses is that consequences can be delayed several years after the action that produces them. Man of Steel turned some people off the DCEU but they'd already paid so it "succeeded", BvS turned some people off the DCEU but they'd already paid so it "succeeded", and now Justice League assumed audience goodwill where there was very little to be found and so it made far less than expected for the "big ticket" property.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

You're bound to lose whatever fans there were so far

Evidence suggests that is not the case, though. I mean, you'd think it'd be the case, but the one solid conclusion you can draw from the Rotten Tomatoes public score is that the people that did go to see it did love it.

As per the old (ancient, really, by Internet standards) theory of "1000 true fans", any creative endeavor can become self-supporting thanks to the true fans, who will gladly fork over money to support said endeavor (this is not in any way an insult, btw - I am a True Fan of OotS and GG myself). DCEU of course needs quite a few more than 1000 True Fans, but they have found them. They just need to adjust budgeting to account for that core, and the rest is gravy. I have long suspected that the Transformers series knows exactly how many True Fans it has, for example, which is why we are up to 6 of the damned things.

Grey Wolf

[Lord Joeltion]

The only comic book movie where he didn't butcher the tone of the original is 300 because that was written by Frank Miller after he went crazy and so it perfectly fit Snyder as a director.

I literally burst in laugh at my office Lucky for me I wasn't drinking my Pepsi at the same time...

Yeah, I'm not saying it would have been good had it been 100% Snyder. I don't like what he did with the DCEU and it's part of the reason that I'm expecting it to fail. But Whedon coming in didn't help, because even though Whedon lightened things up, the movie just doesn't gel with the rest of the series. You're bound to lose whatever fans there were so far, and not gain many new ones.

I disagree with someone up above that the execs aren't to blame though. They tripled down on Snyder after one failure to the next. Someone has to take responsibility for that. You can't blame Snyder. He's being given the go ahead to complete his vision for the DCEU. Someone higher up should have said "let's cut our losses and go with someone else".

I'm sure that despite it's obvious Whedon tried to change a lot of the movie (I mean, even after the edition, it's evident) he surely was unable to change enough of the plot. Otherwise he would have had to reshoot the whole film isntead of a couple dozen scenes. I still have my suspicions if the prominence of WW and her becoming basically the field leader of the league (leaving Batman as the planning guy) probably IS something that Whedon was looking for the movie anyway. Given his obsession with female leads, I mean.

Personally, I don't blame Snyder for being himself. I think I'd blame first whoever thought any single director with zero to no comic background (unlike Whedon, who has some experience in both fields) could ever truly understand how to make a proper adaptation on the big screen. They could have given the project to Snyder AND a couple of comic book writers (retired or not). A group of assistants to at least throw ideas and make suggestions wouldn't have hurt, I think. For me, it's mostly the executives for choosing Snyder and letting him ruin both ensemble (male) heroes in the franchise. Then the executives again, for not working along with DC and borrowing some creatives from the field (altho, maybe DC executives didn't want, so they are also to blame). Then the executives again for keeping their horses on Snyder and his very peculiar vision of super heroes after the first films. Last of all, I blame Snyder, for not taking a step aside once criticism proved his style was one of the biggest problems.

The execs didn't back out on Snyder earlier because Man of Steel and BvS were nominally "successful" in that they made money in spite of the large quantity of criticism about them.

However, what this misses is that consequences can be delayed several years after the action that produces them. Man of Steel turned some people off the DCEU but they'd already paid so it "succeeded", BvS turned some people off the DCEU but they'd already paid so it "succeeded", and now Justice League assumed audience goodwill where there was very little to be found and so it made far less than expected for the "big ticket" property.

The funny thing is that JL sincerely had the potential to resurrect the franchise by its own; if it was at least as well written and directed/edited as Wonder Woman was. I mean, the movie isn't THAT much worse than WW, but by being below average (while WW is on par or above average quality) it already bummed the people that were already bummed. It's like WW was a tiny ray of hope that was completely blocked by the giant finger of executives saying NOOOOPE! I'm sure if JL was a second WW (in terms of general quality) we wouldn't be discussing why the franchise should be killed with fire.

As per the old (ancient, really, by Internet standards) theory of "1000 true fans", any creative endeavor can become self-supporting thanks to the true fans, who will gladly fork over money to support said endeavor (this is not in any way an insult, btw - I am a True Fan of OotS and GG myself). DCEU of course needs quite a few more than 1000 True Fans, but they have found them. They just need to adjust budgeting to account for that core, and the rest is gravy. I have long suspected that the Transformers series knows exactly how many True Fans it has, for example, which is why we are up to 6 of the damned things.

I think it's more like 50/50. The strongest defenders and detractors of the franchise I found were hardcore fans (and I mean more hardcore than average). I'm sure that most people who aren't as engaged in comics or superheroes can enjoy these kind of films; specially the kind of JL, which isn't as pretentious as BvS or MoS.

For some franchises, this kind of business design works (Star Wars, Transformers) but I think what makes them special is the fact that they are generations old and they need refreshing for the new ones. Comic books, while old enough (older in fact) don't represent a specific generation of people. They are more pervasive than SW or TF ever where. It's odd to find a father taking a kid to the cinema without the kid already knowing everything about Superman, Spiderman, etc; while it is more common to find kids dragging parents instead. Yet I know a lot of hardcore fans that hate "the new movies" (prequel haters; bayformers haters) that are STILL eager to take their kids to the cinema (whether the kid wants or not ) because they are at least passing on the legacy. I don't know how much this affects to the majority of franchises; but having been on a lot of SW/TF fans groups; I noticed this kind of trend which doesn't seem as common among comic book fans.

[GloatingSwine]

The funny thing is that JL sincerely had the potential to resurrect the franchise by its own; if it was at least as well written and directed/edited as Wonder Woman was. I mean, the movie isn't THAT much worse than WW, but by being below average (while WW is on par or above average quality) it already bummed the people that were already bummed. It's like WW was a tiny ray of hope that was completely blocked by the giant finger of executives saying NOOOOPE! I'm sure if JL was a second WW (in terms of general quality) we wouldn't be discussing why the franchise should be killed with fire.

Only in as much as "another good movie in a row" could have resurrected the franchise.

In hindsight, in order to actually have lived up to that idea there would have to have been a stronger creative vision about what the DCEU was going to be and what all the characters would be like in it much further back and higher up the production chain.

Like, people are talking about how the problem with Justice League is compressing a three hour movie into two hours, but the real problem was letting someone start making the three hour movie in the first damn place not have a proper goal for a movie with a proper length.

There's another case of "wrong lessons" in the whole direction of the DCEU though, which was that the execs listened to the reductive internet criticism of Superman Returns and so wanted to have "moar punching" in Man of Steel. But that wasn't the problem in SR, the problem in SR was that the action scenes generally didn't express character goals for Superman (and so the audience doesn't feel invested in the tension in them), he just Did An Action.

Which is the same as the problem with Man of Steel, the action scenes don't express character or goals for Superman, he just Does Punching.

[Dr.Samurai]

Evidence suggests that is not the case, though. I mean, you'd think it'd be the case, but the one solid conclusion you can draw from the Rotten Tomatoes public score is that the people that did go to see it did love it.

I misspoke a little there. I didn't mean to imply you'd lose all of them. But I suspect you've lost some of them. JL is a departure from the Snyder-verse. And there are some serious fans of the Snyder-verse that defend it. Whatever those people are seeing and enjoying in those movies, they're not really getting it in JL, and they may not like the idea of extensive re-shoots as a reaction to everyone else.

I know there are people that like JL, and lots of them. But I'm not sure that everyone that enjoyed MoS and BvS and defend it are going to like JL because it deviates from what, presumably, they liked in the previous films.

[Cikomyr]

I think MovieBob is right regarding the future.

They need the next DC movie to be a bona-fide action-comedy.

[Olinser]

No, "Below average" is maybe not exactly right. Below the average of what? is a better question.
Below average of Superhero moves made after 2000? Yes. Indeed. Below average of all movies released in theatres since Cinema was invented Probably not. For every Citizen Cane there's 10 Plan Nine From Outer Space after all.

So, yes, it most definitely is below average counting modern era superhero movies. I would also judge it below average on modern era blockbusters-type movies.

Even in the context of Superhero movies made after 2000 its still not accurate.

That's a category that includes the Fantastic 4 train wrecks, Superman Returns, The Punisher, Ghost Rider, the Hulk travesties, Green Lantern and even crap like Catwoman and Elektra. All of which are pretty unambiguously worse than Justice League. And that's not even talking about debatable ones like some of the X-Men movies, Iron Man sequels, or Man of Steel.

Once again calling it 'below average' even in the context of superhero movies is to forget the huge number of legitimately BAD superhero movies that have been made in just the last 15 years.

[Starbuck_II]

Even in the context of Superhero movies made after 2000 its still not accurate.

That's a category that includes the Fantastic 4 train wrecks, Superman Returns, The Punisher, Ghost Rider, the Hulk travesties, Green Lantern and even crap like Catwoman and Elektra. All of which are pretty unambiguously worse than Justice League. And that's not even talking about debatable ones like some of the X-Men movies, Iron Man sequels, or Man of Steel.

Once again calling it 'below average' even in the context of superhero movies is to forget the huge number of legitimately BAD superhero movies that have been made in just the last 15 years.

The reason why Fantastic 4 reboot sucked was they tri4ed to redo Ultimate series in the movies.

Ghost Rider was awesome though. 2 was good in some moments, less in others.

[Legato Endless]

The reason why Fantastic 4 reboot sucked was they tri4ed to redo Ultimate series in the movies.

Ghost Rider was awesome though. 2 was good in some moments, less in others.

Ghost Rider is definitely unique in that the climax features Satan getting everything he wanted...and then rage quitting when the hero refuses to acknowledge this fact. Apparently even the father of lies has limits to tolerating self deception?

[Avilan the Grey]

Now compare this to the Avengers: Infinity War trailer that dropped...

[Kyberwulf]

I wasn't that impressed with the trailer.

[BWR]

Now compare this to the Avengers: Infinity War trailer that dropped...

You mean how JL was enjoyable and the Infinity War trailer looks kinda meh?

[Androgeus]

Saw the film last night, it was very meh.

I do have the nittest of nitpicks though. Why does the English terrorist in an English city measure the bombs radius in city blocks? That just isn't a unit of measurement over here.

[Lord Joeltion]

Like, people are talking about how the problem with Justice League is compressing a three hour movie into two hours, but the real problem was letting someone start making the three hour movie in the first damn place not have a proper goal for a movie with a proper length.

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.

Which is the same as the problem with Man of Steel, the action scenes don't express character or goals for Superman, he just Does Punching.

To be fair, most writers treat Superman (I mean, his alter-ego; not Clark) as 'The Guy that Saves the Day by Punches'. I mean, for some stories, that's fine (specially JL stories); but for a film focused on him, it's probably not at all.

I know there are people that like JL, and lots of them. But I'm not sure that everyone that enjoyed MoS and BvS and defend it are going to like JL because it deviates from what, presumably, they liked in the previous films.

I for once, liked JL. Because it wasn't awful. It was just 'normal' for a hero movie (with all the normal flaws and average good points, I mean). The problem is that JL should have been fugrengrikkinFANTASTIC; because it's the Justice League of America, goddamyu! And yeah, I didn't like MoS much; and only liked BvS because of the cool fighting scenes. I also kind of hate the comic it was based on.

The reason why Fantastic 4 reboot sucked was they tri4ed to do a Fantastic 4 movie

Fix4d that 4u

I wasn't that impressed with the trailer.

Don't take it the wrong way, Kyber; but sometimes I wonder how does something that honestly "impresses" you would be like.

I do have the nittest of nitpicks though. Why does the English terrorist in an English city measure the bombs radius in city blocks? That just isn't a unit of measurement over here.

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?

[The Glyphstone]

The most properly English unit of measurement is the biscuit.