How fans are trying to remove Zack Snyder from the Justice League

[Wayne49]

At the end of the day we all have to decide how we like these films and make peace with that fact. If the Batman franchise has taught fans anything it's that a new vision is not always in lockstep with the general public. And quite honestly when I look at movies that I personally like, they're all over the place in terms of a general crowd liking them with me or I myself feeling like the only person on the planet who enjoyed it. So I don't feel like I need validation from a crowd around me to like something. I trust my own instincts and let the outside world fall where it may.

So honestly the more I hear about conspiracies and broad-stroking "the critics" as one mass body of sheep out to "get" this film, I really have to shake my head at the insecurity of those statements. WHO CARES? If you like the film, LIKE IT.  If you hold so little regard for these "critics" then why are you validating their scorn by obsessing over them? Because you must want their validation. It's a movie made by a divisive director. Well... guess what? He got a divisive reaction. In terms of box office, it's second weekend plunge is besting B&R and is just barely above that movie in terms of audience opinion. So this idea that the critics are out of lockstep is pretty outrageous given the evidence of it's collapse not only domestically but on a global scale.

But none of that really means a thing if you like the movie. Enjoy this film if that's your pleasure. We all have our personal best list and I'm sure many of those films are not critical darlings. This is not a new experience. Like others have said, maybe this film will find it's audience years later like other Batman films have. But right now, in terms of the studio looking forward, they have to consider the huge drop in business and what that means for their future projects. Whether we agree with their direction or not will not impact anything we personally do, least of all our checking account. They're in this to make money, so any indicators that suggest that could be a problem are on the table for review.

BTW, the Suicide Squad is now having new scenes filmed to lighten the tone of that picture. So the impact of this film is being felt far and wide on the WB lot. But no matter how this plays out, I'm a big believer that you have to have enough faith in how you see these films to be satisfied at that level. Opinions evolve over time and perhaps one day this film will find mass consensus, but for now it's hit a few bumps in the road. So what? Enjoy it while it's in theaters and look forward to the endless variations I'm sure they will put out on Blu Ray and DVD to recoup their investment in the aftermarket.

[Paul (ral)]

the Suicide Squad is now having new scenes filmed to lighten the tone of that picture.

No, that's not the reason for the reshoots.

[The Dark Knight]

Indeed. It's a myth that is being perpetuated, mainly to prove BvS has been a failure and WB are reactionary.

I'm hoping Eisenberg does appear in SS. That would really get the connective tissue going with the new universe.

[Wayne49]

the Suicide Squad is now having new scenes filmed to lighten the tone of that picture.

No, that's not the reason for the reshoots.

Here's the article.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwja0trM-fTLAhVFVyYKHVroAhoQqQIIHDAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nydailynews.com%2Fentertainment%2Fsuicide-squad-reshooting-scenes-add-humor-article-1.2587155&usg=AFQjCNE5Md_zIFa3XPPvpOz3Gt5cHKAJ8w

[johnnygobbs]

I'm hoping Eisenberg does appear in SS. That would really get the connective tissue going with the new universe.

In that case I suppose I'll have to miss SS too.    Which would be a shame because it looks good, otherwise.

The fact is Eisenberg's performance has been universally savaged throughout the web and people are already talking about Razzie nominations.  I'm genuinely pleased for you and others if you managed to get something from his bastardisation of Lex, but I'm afraid to say, by all accounts you're in the minority, and with a massive 80% second weekend drop or so (so much for the critics being the ones who damaged BvS's BO chances...), WB simply cannot afford to keep putting out divisive DCEU movies.  Eisenberg's performance/characterisation being one of the most divisive elements of BvS (with even many fans of the film, including various posters here, saying he was by far the weakest element), it would be utter insanity on WB's part to bring him back.  It's now time they started listening to the criticisms (not the critics...but the criticisms, from genuine DC fans and regular audience-members).

[The Laughing Fish]

the Suicide Squad is now having new scenes filmed to lighten the tone of that picture.

No, that's not the reason for the reshoots.

Hey Paul, I read that you said there might have been reshoots booked to accomodate actors' schedules, but I can't see the link to that anywhere. Do you know where you got that information from?

So honestly the more I hear about conspiracies and broad-stroking "the critics" as one mass body of sheep out to "get" this film, I really have to shake my head at the insecurity of those statements. WHO CARES? If you like the film, LIKE IT.  If you hold so little regard for these "critics" then why are you validating their scorn by obsessing over them? Because you must want their validation. It's a movie made by a divisive director. Well... guess what? He got a divisive reaction.

As someone who thought that the film is merely okay and normally not too bothered by what critics say, I do sympathise with some of the fans who are getting frustrated over the negative reaction. I think it's extremely rich for people - whether it's critics or movie goers - to complain about the tone of BvS, but then praise nihilistic crap like The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. That, and some of the negative reviews that I noticed are unnecessarily vitriolic and sensational beyond belief. I can understand if anybody thought the film felt short of the mark because they thought the plot wasn't up to scratch, the pacing was sloppy, or even if they thought characters were underused or whatever. But as I already said, there have been some bad reviews that went overboard. BvS, in my opinion, definitely could've and should've been better, but it's nowhere near this disaster that it's being made out to be.

The fact is Eisenberg's performance has been universally savaged throughout the web and people are already talking about Razzie nominations.

If that is true, well, that's absolutely ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. And this is coming from somebody who wasn't even the biggest fan of that characterization. He wasn't my ideal of Lex either, but he did well for what he had, and he's not more of a bastardisation or deviation to the source material than TDK Joker (I don't care how critically acclaimed that take was), TDKR Bane or even BR's Penguin.

And no, I'm NOT saying Eisenberg's Lex is better than DeVito's Penguin (and for that matter, and I'm not even saying he's better or worse than the other two aforementioned villains either). I just think this criticism against him is getting blown way out of proportion.

[The Dark Knight]

If that is true, well, that's absolutely ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. And this is coming from somebody who wasn't even the biggest fan of that characterization. He wasn't my ideal of Lex either, but he did well for what he had, and he's not more of a bastardisation or deviation to the source material than TDK Joker (I don't care how critically acclaimed that take was), TDKR Bane or even BR's Penguin.

And no, I'm NOT saying Eisenberg's Lex is better than DeVito's Penguin (and for that matter, and I'm not even saying he's better or worse than the other two aforementioned villains either). I just think this criticism against him is getting blown way out of proportion.

Yep. I find it incredibly childish and pathetic to boycott a film and cite negative stories surrounding the DCU, parroting critic sentiment - when said person hasn't even seen the movie for themselves. And has no plan on ever seeing the movie. It's annoying to say the least. I actually saw the movie and EisenLex is far from a bastardisation. The ingredients are there. People may not like the characterisation, and that's entirely fine, but to call it a bastardisation is not worthy of reply. There are many interpretations of characters out there.

[johnnygobbs]

For all the criticisms levelled at this film, if it wasn't for Eisenberg's Lex Luthor (and from everything I've read and heard, surely he's more 'deserving' of a Razzie nomination that Danny DeVito ever was as The Penguin) I'd be much more willing to embrace the film for what it is.  But turning Lex into a weedy, whiny, effeminate, insane kid with daddy issues, well not only is it a complete desecration of the character, but unlike the examples you give Laughing Fish, it's an utterly undignified characterisation that the rest of this Extended Universe is going to be unable to shift.  At least as pathetic as DeVito's Penguin was, Burton, thanks to his affinity with life's outsiders and oddballs, gave him a few moments of pathos instead of simply turning him into an easy hate-figure for the alpha males and popular kids to rag on.

And for what it's worth, I do think some of the criticism being aimed at the overall film is possibly unfair, but I cannot accept this version of Lex (it makes it even worse that my hunch about him was right from the very moment he was cast) and at the very very least, I hope he will not be allowed to tarnish further DCEU films, so I can enjoy those...otherwise, I guess I'll just keep hoping for a swift reboot, which judging from the general negative audience reaction for this movie, and the 80% second weekend drop, may be sooner than I thought. 

[johnnygobbs]

If that is true, well, that's absolutely ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. And this is coming from somebody who wasn't even the biggest fan of that characterization. He wasn't my ideal of Lex either, but he did well for what he had, and he's not more of a bastardisation or deviation to the source material than TDK Joker (I don't care how critically acclaimed that take was), TDKR Bane or even BR's Penguin.

And no, I'm NOT saying Eisenberg's Lex is better than DeVito's Penguin (and for that matter, and I'm not even saying he's better or worse than the other two aforementioned villains either). I just think this criticism against him is getting blown way out of proportion.

Yep. I find it incredibly childish and pathetic to boycott a film and cite negative stories surrounding the DCU, parroting critic sentiment - when said person hasn't even seen the movie for themselves. And has no plan on ever seeing the movie. It's annoying to say the least. I actually saw the movie and EisenLex is far from a bastardisation. The ingredients are there. People may not like the characterisation, and that's entirely fine, but to call it a bastardisation is not worthy of reply. There are many interpretations of characters out there.

I'll ignore the nasty attacks on my character.    And I'll simply say this, I don't see why I should have to see a film I know I'll most likely dislike because of its interpretation of a character I feel very strongly about...forcing someone to see this film would be almost as absurd as forcing someone to eat Jolly Ranchers. 

And there are many interpretations of Lex out there but most, in fact all, of them have been superior to this.  Everything I have so far read confirmed what I thought from the start, so I think it's unfair that I should have to see it for myself to have an opinion.  That would simply be rubbing more salt into the wound after having been confirmed right. 

If this franchise is to continue and if I am to root for these films, as I'd like to, I only ask one thing: no more EisenLex.  If it was a purely personal thing and there wasn't such universal vitriol towards his performance on practically every other site apart from perhaps this one, my personal feelings would, I confess, be entirely selfish...but the fact is, I am in the majority when it comes to EisenLex, and the very few supporters of the performance/characterisation (most of whom seem to have big reservations) are in the overwhelming minority...and Hollywood being a business should surely be catering to what sells. [giveup]

[Wayne49]

So honestly the more I hear about conspiracies and broad-stroking "the critics" as one mass body of sheep out to "get" this film, I really have to shake my head at the insecurity of those statements. WHO CARES? If you like the film, LIKE IT.  If you hold so little regard for these "critics" then why are you validating their scorn by obsessing over them? Because you must want their validation. It's a movie made by a divisive director. Well... guess what? He got a divisive reaction.

As someone who thought that the film is merely okay and normally not too bothered by what critics say, I do sympathise with some of the fans who are getting frustrated over the negative reaction. I think it's extremely rich for people - whether it's critics or movie goers - to complain about the tone of BvS, but then praise nihilistic crap like The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. That, and some of the negative reviews that I noticed are unnecessarily vitriolic and sensational beyond belief. I can understand if anybody thought the film felt short of the mark because they thought the plot wasn't up to scratch, the pacing was sloppy, or even if they thought characters were underused or whatever. But as I already said, there have been some bad reviews that went overboard. BvS, in my opinion, definitely could've and should've been better, but it's nowhere near this disaster that it's being made out to be.

For me, I don't think it's so much about not sympathizing with fans who really liked the film, as much as measuring what they are reacting to. First, I think the Rotten Tomato system is incredibly flawed and I feel like fans of any film take these to heart way more than they should. Okay so it has a "rotten score" of 29%. But if you look at the OTHER rating system they have (where critics grade it 1-10), the film is averaging 5 out of 10 while the audience score has a 1 to 5 scale. So the site uses multiple grading systems which can contrast against one anther. Why give the audience 1 to 5 but critics get 1 to 10? And if you look at past films, their opening scores are not preserved so there is no historical context to apply to any film once it has a decade or more under it. Batman Forever was a hugely popular film but the site allows time and changing opinions to warp that number just as they take once unpopular films and make them "classics" today. So if there's no historical preservation then why even reference the site? It's just reflecting current attitudes controlled by parties inside that organization.

So when fans of a film get upset with these scores, I think that drives them to obsess over the really negative ones they find so there is some kind of "blame" to assign. I think that is a waste of time. For every over-the-top bad review, I find some really ridiculous good reviews that show a bias the other way. Should those get a pass just because it caters to the fans or should we be fair and throw out the high and low critiques and just look at the average? Allot of what I'm reading, good and bad, show plenty of reserves for the plot structure and the general motivation of the characters. Having finally seen it this past weekend, I can see all sides to this equation. I didn't dislike the film, but I was not overly fond of its pacing and moments of self-importance. I thought Wayne/Batman was more schizophrenic than heroic so his judgement was pretty diluted. And the "Martha" sequence that snapped Batman out of his deeply entrenched prejudices was fairly weak when weighed against his troubled psyche that was built over years of suffering in the role. But I liked the look of the movie, so I'll most likely end up enjoying this more in the aftermarket (especially with a director's cut that may fill in the blanks). I think the visuals are really what is selling it right now.

But, at the end of the day, it's the general public that anoints these films popular or not. Profitable? That's never even a question in the Batman franchise. The merchandising leg alone would most likely pay for this film along with the vendors who pay big money upfront for exclusive rights. Add in the DVD sales and this is why studios fight for licensing rights to these characters. So why anyone thinks there's a campaign to make this movie "look" unsuccessful is, to me, jumping to conclusions and making knee-jerk reactions without really seeing the bigger picture. WB will have their day in the financial sun. But moving forward they have to keep an audience to make other films because, without it, they lose those upfront deals with vendors and support dries up. So yes, changes will most likely have to happen to keep those financial backers on board for more films.

The business of BVS is acting very much like a front-loaded film where fans and the curious pile in opening weekend, but do not sustain the film after that initial viewing. And unlike some films that get one kind of reaction here at home but seem immune overseas, this film is dropping worldwide, so that is not something you ignore. There is clearly a problem with audiences and not just critics out to get revenge on the genre. Personally I think critics go pretty easy on films in this genre because they bring in such big business. So these movies have to really push some buttons to knock critics out of that cycle of passing the buck and saying nice things. Snyder is the kind of director that seems to relish that confrontation. Not necessarily the kind of guy you want building a new theatrical universe of classic licensed heroes.