Messages

Making him believe he should go easy on her since she's a woman.

I think one of the problems is that WB is asking too much of their audience. It feels almost as though it is expected for the viewer to have background knowledge in these characters (specifically Batman and the Flash) due to the lack of explanation and development of the characters not named Wonder Woman or Superman. Flash and Cyborg were undeveloped for sure

I disagree about Flash and Cyborg being underdeveloped. I thought JL covered enough backstory to justify their participation in the film, particularly the situations with their fathers, how Cyborg got to become who he was because Silas used the Mother Box to "save" his life etc.

But I do think Aquaman is the one character who definitely got short-changed.

See I have the opposite opinion as yourself on the three 'newbies'
Cyborg's relationship with his father is glossed over in the film. I suspect some of the deleted footage dealt more with their complicated relationship.
The Flash's treatment was decent. The big debate on the character seems to center on whether or not Flash's comic relief helped or hindered the film. Personally I was fine with having one character as the comedic one and you can't argue with the choice. Cyborg as comic relief would have been too morbid and Aquaman being comedic would turn the character into the joke he was until the new 52.
Speaking of the new 52, if you read Aquaman Volume 6, battle for Atlantis, you will see a lot of character similarities for Arthur Curry.
I liked the Aquaman treatment. They used what worked in the new 52 and turned him into a reluctant hero with a chip on his shoulder. Jason Mamoa really gave the character the edge he needed. I do wonder if Atlantis was part of the cut footage? It would have been nice to get a glimpse into his world because it does add to the characters persona to understand that he is a relied upon hero in two worlds already which explains why he isn't interested in joining Bruce.

Personally I think they did about as much with that movie as they could based on WB's decision to make it. Of all the heroes, only Wonder Woman and Superman had stand alone films with an ongoing narrative. Batman is thrown in from BVS while the others have cameos so brief you would miss them if you blinked. That's absolutely zero backstory for most of the principle players versus a movie like the Avengers where you already know them and are looking forward to seeing how they gel against a bigger threat which the writers can focus on for an entire film.

With Justice League, the writers were burdened with the weight of having to explain these heroes and gauge what was "enough" backstory to justify their presence. Only THEN could they start mapping out some kind of reason to have them show up together. It was a daunting task at best and could NEVER play out like a film that didn't have those considerations. When you add in the two hour limit (and correct me if I'm wrong) that includes the credit scroll, then you're telling allot of these origins AND trying to build a conflict to resolve all in UNDER two hours. I'm sorry but that is allot of information to dissect and correlate into a story people could walk out and feel satisfied. By it's very blueprint, the story was going to have to be paper thin. Add to that all of the variables of what people will like or not like and that doesn't leave you with allot of room to come out with a winning hand in the bigger picture.

Let's be honest. This project was rushed. WB was slow to get going with their endless gallery of heroes and by the time they were making Man of Steel, Marvel product was already setting the pace. Justice League was their attempt to catch up at the expense of good story telling and it shows. No one needed a ensemble piece at this stage, but WB felt they had to since Marvel was in the midst of making their third Avengers film. I think they saw the big money and that's why they made it.

Ben Affleck will likely go down as the first actor in modern times to play Batman in three films but NOT get his own movie. I think that influenced how people saw him and why he's lost support by so many. Personally I like him better now. But it took all of that exposition to get me there. In an ideal situation, I could have made that assessment with one film dedicated to his character. So those are the sacrifices WB has made in trying to mimic the pacing that Marvel has gotten to by putting in the time. Sadly people are clamoring for a complete reboot of the DC universe already. That just goes to show you if you want to do something well, do it right.

I don't like comparing Marvel and DC, because the argument should never settle on something that simple. But I'm left with that consideration more than I want BECAUSE of the way WB rushes to make projects that the Marvel license has spent years and countless movies getting to. THAT is the rub and THAT is why it gets compared. Sure there will always be the natural compare that comes from sharing the same genre. That's unavoidable. When I was a kid, I did that with the comics. But that doesn't mean you can't be expressive in your own way to the story you tell. And quite honestly being that kid that read comics in the early 70's when Neal Adams was penciling Batman and John Romita Sr (along with Gil Kane) were illustrating Spider-man, I just feel like the people on the projects for Marvel heroes have a better understanding of what their making than Warner Bros. My God. Look at Black Panther. What an amazing film! Look at Ant Man, Dead Pool, Dr Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy. All very different films with different sensibilities yet all under the Marvel Universe (and by different studios). No one can question the clear love that goes into crafting those characters and that world. And that seems to be missing at Warner Bros. They're simply trying to create a cash cow, instead of embrace the material.

Do I like Justice League? Yeah I do. But for me (and I know I'll be scorned for saying this) it plays like a slightly more serious version of Batman & Robin. It's like watching the SuperFriends if I have to place a value on the weight of story. But that does'nt make it a bad film for coming out that way. I think that's the best they could do with all of that information they chose to juggle and this is the end result.

I think one of the problems is that WB is asking too much of their audience. It feels almost as though it is expected for the viewer to have background knowledge in these characters (specifically Batman and the Flash) due to the lack of explanation and development of the characters not named Wonder Woman or Superman. Flash and Cyborg were undeveloped for sure and as you stated, Batman has three appearances and no solo film in the DCEU.

Marvel seems to know what it wants to do better than DC. You don't hear Marvel projects getting announced and then cancelled. Nor do you hear the running time of films getting cut near post-production. This isn't to say they haven't  had seamless productions; Banner and James Rhodes had to be recast and it does seem Thor's love interest Natalie Portman is moving on from the MCU.

As far as what we got within the constraints, I agree they did as well as they could have done but a little patience would have gone a long way. Especially after Wonder Woman proved successful, DC should have taken the time to absorb what they did right and apply it to future comics. Justice League felt like one step forward, two steps back.

Yes, this is definitely part of the Marvel formula that a lot of people have begun to criticise nowadays, and it's hard to argue against it. Usually, this parallel between the hero and the villain occurs in the first solo film; Doctor Strange vs Kaecillius is another example. I'm don't necessarily mind it, but I can't deny that it gets repetitive, and lacks imagination. But I'll cut Cap and Bucky some slack because Rogers trying to save his friend, the only remnant left from his past other than the terminally ill Peggy Carter.

To be fair though, just about every super hero fights villains who parallel themselves: Batman has Catwoman (and Manbat), Superman has Bizarro and Zod, Flash has Zoom and the reverse flash, the Green Lantern has the Yellow, Black, Red, and Orange lanterns etc. Black Panther has another one in the comics: The American Panther who has similar skills but is a racist and targets criminal minorities.

I think what Nolan was trying to do with Gotham is show the impact of batman.

In begins we got a heavily corrupt and dangerous city.
In the dark knight is is still dangerous but less pristine.
For the most part of Rises, Gotham is clean and proper due to the events of the Dent Act and Batman.

That being said I didn't feel this was vintage Gotham being portrayed. It felt more like Batman in Chicago and Pittsburgh instead of Gotham.

Definitely the Arkham games have the best style, this is the consensus among fans. It should be more grounded than Batman and Robin but I hope they aren't afraid to take some liberties.

I voted "Very Good." I can't pinpoint what kept me from saying "Excellent," but it doesn't matter. I totally loved it from start to finish. It wasn't quite a 9 or 10 which I guess is excellent but it was for sure in the mid to high 8s.

That's about where I put it. It doesn't stand out in any way to merit a 9 or 10 rating but it certainly does enough right to keep us entertained. Maybe the extended cut will break enough ground for a better rating? I guess we'll see.

I recently read the first run of DC's first black superhero from 1977-79 to prepare for this series. Looking back I maybe shouldn't have.

There is no origin story here. This series picks up 9 years after Jefferson has abandoned the Black Lightning mantle. I guess this is so that the show doesn't need to get bogged down with an origin story and can have the hero show up in costume sooner, rather than later. The problem is that the reluctant hero concept is drawn out over the first few episodes. Jefferson takes a long time to decide to take up the mantle. His butler wants him to come out of retirement, his ex wife doesn't. This is an interesting enough conflict but I thought it was long drawn out considering that we know which decision he will eventually make.

Three episodes in and the basic premise has yet to be explained; exactly how Jefferson can control lightning. The fight scenes in itself are decently shot.

Now in reading the initial comic, it did seem like elements of Power Man, Daredevil, Batman, and Superman were all present. As with the TV show, the main character lives in the slums of Metropolis, a corrupt suburb which is a haven for crime. The villains are the 100, a secret crime organization run by the White Whale who's comic counterpart strongly resembles the Kingpin: he's a powerful, rich, fat white dude who can handle himself physically. For the TV show, this character is altered. He's no longer obese. I'm not sure what to make of this, it is a departure from the comics but at the same time, the character had to be altered to avoid coming off as a replication of the Kingpin. Jefferson is similar to Matt Murdock in the sense that he uses his day job as a high school principal to mold the world he wants to see.

Another complaint is the writing of the two daughters. Sometimes they come off as responsible young ladies, other times they are reckless brats. I don't like that they keep ending up the damsels in distress, that is clichee and makes Jefferson come across as selfish when he only dons the Black Lightning mantle to save victims he has a connection with after sitting idly by for 9 years while corruption takes over his city.

I don't think this is a terrible show, it's not nearly as bad as the Iron Fist but suffers from similar problems (concepts way too drawn out, very little of the Hero in early episodes). If you're longing for the solo hero as opposed to DC/WB's shows which all seem to need to be ensemble casts instead of a hero acting alone, you may get it here although the butler is present.

This show has promise after three episodes.

Diana was one of the better characters in this movie, I haven't found her portrayal as sexist or gratuitous in any of her three film appearances.

With Natasha Romanoff, I think the criticisms on her portrayal may stem from the fact that for a trained SHIELD assassin, she gets flirty fairly easily. Stark, Rogers, Barton, and Banner all have moments of sexual tension with her.

It's another case of seeing one thing, and extrapolating it far beyond such as looking at the closeup shots in Batman and Robin and claiming the movie must have a gay agenda.

He still sounds better than Christian Bale.

I just chalk it up as Freeze concluding that breaking the law would be a quicker way to save his wife than going through the proper channels.

That being said I really hate how Freeze refers to himself as the villain as this implies he knows he's a bad guy. Freeze has motivations, he's not just terrorizing Gotham for no reason so based on that he should be viewing Batman as the villain from his perspective.