Rate Justice League!

[The Dark Knight]

And then there's the scenes we don't know about. There's also the final battle, which was clearly re-worked, and a huge chunk of Superman's role in the film was clearly re-shot, given the CG mouth. And that's not taking into account if Superman was truly evil for a chunk of the film.

Yep, it's a lot of content. I took a flip through the art of JL book, and it only covers the theatrical cut. Naturally, deleted scenes aren't featured, save for a couple of stills from unused trailer footage. The general public who simply bought a ticket for something to watch, and didn't have any emotional investment in the film's journey, don't know the real story about the film. But the fans aren't being fooled. The cut content is too big to ignore. JL is like getting a bicycle when you know a motorcycle was the original plan. The replacement does the job but you're left feeling hollow.

[The Laughing Fish]

The no man's land scene in Wonder Woman (the best moment of the film) was nearly cut out too. These executives need to leave. JL is okay but this stuff really pisses me off.

I'm replying to this again, because a fan site called Man of Steel Answers has addressed that executives never considered deleting that scene. Contains quotes by Patty Jenkins herself.

In a Fandango interview, May 2017, Director Patty Jenkins is quoted regarding the No Man's Land scene:

"It's my favorite scene in the movie and it's the most important scene in the movie.  It's also the scene that made the least sense to other people going in ... When I started to really hunker in on the significance of No Man's Land, there were a couple people who were deeply confused, wondering, like, 'well, what is she going to do?  How many bullets can she fight?' and I kept saying, 'It's not about that.  This is a different scene than that.  This is a scene about her becoming Wonder Woman.'"

Clear and direct right?  This is the director herself, quoted on the record.  However countless outlets ran this story after injecting an additional false narrative.  A few are listed purely to corroborate the point with evidence.  No other commentary is being made about these publications or the authors.  In each case, they add a narrative of Jenkins against short-sighted studio executives unable to understand a creative vision:

Slashfilm  – "when she laid out the scene to people at the studio before filming" / "in order to convince the higher-ups that it was necessary"
Business Insider  – "Jenkins said to convince others at Warner Bros. this would work"
CBR  – "the sequence was harder to sell to studio execs than one might imagine"
io9  – "someone at Warner Bros. thought at one point it wasn't worth being part of Wonder Woman's runtime" / "the scene did not go down well at all with her colleagues at Warner Bros."
Vox – "But it's also easy to see why a studio might suggest cutting the sequence." / "What's interesting about this isn't that Jenkins had to talk some of her bosses into signing off on the No Man's Land sequence."
The Mary Sue  – "For some reason, none of this registered with the higher-ups at Warner Bros, who apparently saw this entire sequence as a waste of time"
However, Jenkins had said nothing about the studio, executives, higher-ups, or Warner Brothers.  A director quote is an impeccable source, but still vulnerable to the imposition of false narratives.  At a June 11th DGA event in Los Angeles, Jenkins sat down with Richard Donner for a brief Q&A where she corrected the narrative.

Warner Brothers had not opposed the scene:

"It's funny, I feel badly about this cause it's been reported that Warner Bros. was against it, which it was not Warner Bros., it was my own people in England. It was our own crew at points, who were like, 'Why are you doing this scene? She's not even fighting anything,' So Warner Bros. was not unsupportive of the No Man's Land scene. It was much more in-process that everybody was like, 'What's this scene for? There's no one to fight. We've already seen her block a bullet in the alley and then she's going to go in and save this church tower, why do you need this other scene?'" (transcription via CinemaBlend)

The video of the event is currently down, but audio is available here in the DGA's podcast, episode 77 at 18m22s.

In other words, Patty was not battling with studio executives but her own creative team.  The fight was not about the soul of the film versus corporate interests, but between like-minded, supportive, creative individuals attempting to collaborate towards the best film.

The objections to the No Man's Land scene were based in story-beats, presenting novel challenges, and characterization (not logistical, as I claimed in error in my own Wonder Woman episode).

The concern was that Diana had already faced gunfire on the beach, the alley way, and would do so again against the village sniper; How many of their marquee moments did they want to spend on Diana and bullets yet again?  Moreover the enemy is abstract and impersonal: Wonder Woman against machine guns.  Finally, given that they would immediately start the Veld action sequence, was this scene necessary?

These are good questions and good notes, creatively, character, and story driven.  Thankfully, Jenkins had her own creative instincts to insist upon the scene.  But look how different the narrative!  Instead of a David and Goliath struggle between art and suits, this is a collaborative push-and-pull to polish a picture.  Resistance is not the enemy but the assurance that something deserves to be in the film.

Considerably fewer outlets published this correction of the narrative.

Imagine if you only knew and believed the injected false narrative. What kinds of unnecessary anger and judgment you'd bear against the studio who were, in fact, innocent of your accusation?

Fortunately, Jenkins quickly clarified and does so again in our second case.

Source: http://www.manofsteelanswers.com/dont-believe-everything-you-hear/

[thecolorsblend]

Fans have a way of wanting to simplify things a bit. With movies about heroes and villains, I guess it's easy for fans to project a hero/villain dichotomy onto the production of the movie itself. And there are probably cases where that's actually true too. But not always. Probably not even most of the time, in fact.

[The Laughing Fish]

I don't doubt that the studios interfere with the film production for the majority of the time either, I just learned that the Wonder Woman example turned out to be false.

I've seen some fans suggest that JL turned out to be a product, and not a film that Zack Snyder intended to make, and Joss Whedon had far more control than we were told. I don't doubt that Whedon had a big influence in this film.

But here is my gripe with this claim:if it were true that Whedon's reshoots significantly changed to what was originally conceived, then how come Whedon wasn't officially credited for directing the film instead of Snyder? I'm basing my logic according to what happened to Superman II. As everybody knows, Richard Donner was fired by the producers and was replaced with Richard Lester, who had to reshoot a large majority of Donner's footage in order to get full credit for directing the movie. As you can see, there are significant differences between Lester's version and Donner's version of the film, which he got to release back in 2006. Unless there were changes to the director's guild or whatever it's called that determines creative rights in Hollywood, surely Whedon would've been given recognition as the official director of Justice League if the version of the movie we saw in cinemas wasn't what Snyder had intended.

If anybody can prove me wrong, please tell me.

[thecolorsblend]

I don't think it's known for certain yet exactly what footage Snyder shot compared to what Whedon shot. But that seems to be the main criterion in terms of who gets credit. If Whedon only shot 10% of the final product, he might not be entitled to credit.

The other thing is that union rules are guidelines. They're not necessarily chiseled in stone. Exceptions can be made.

[Travesty]

If anybody can prove me wrong, please tell me.

What you're not really understanding, is the new director credit only applies to a certain percentage of re-shoots. What happened with JL, is Whedon used a lot of existing footage, but rearranged it to a new script. One of the first scenes in the original script, was Bruce trying to get Arthur/Aquaman. It's why there was such a weird edit with his beard. In the version we got, Batman/Bruce was clean shaven, and then out of nowhere, he has a full beard, and then the reshoots make a point of Bruce saying he has to shave again. It was all rearranged in a completely different order.

So Whendon just used a bunch of preexisting footage, and then shot a few new scenes, to then come up with a different version of what was originally supposed to be. You basically get a completely different movie altogether, with only having to re-shoot a certain percentage of the film.

[Azrael]

If anybody can prove me wrong, please tell me.

What you're not really understanding, is the new director credit only applies to a certain percentage of re-shoots. What happened with JL, is Whedon used a lot of existing footage, but rearranged it to a new script. One of the first scenes in the original script, was Bruce trying to get Arthur/Aquaman. It's why there was such a weird edit with his beard. In the version we got, Batman/Bruce was clean shaven, and then out of nowhere, he has a full beard, and then the reshoots make a point of Bruce saying he has to shave again. It was all rearranged in a completely different order.

So Whendon just used a bunch of preexisting footage, and then shot a few new scenes, to then come up with a different version of what was originally supposed to be. You basically get a completely different movie altogether, with only having to re-shoot a certain percentage of the film.

Agreed. Even a fanedit that re-arranges existing footage can result in a very different movie, let alone a professional job by a studio director who shoots additional footage.

The entire JL affair is very depressing, really.

[The Dark Knight]

If anybody can prove me wrong, please tell me.

What you're not really understanding, is the new director credit only applies to a certain percentage of re-shoots. What happened with JL, is Whedon used a lot of existing footage, but rearranged it to a new script. One of the first scenes in the original script, was Bruce trying to get Arthur/Aquaman. It's why there was such a weird edit with his beard. In the version we got, Batman/Bruce was clean shaven, and then out of nowhere, he has a full beard, and then the reshoots make a point of Bruce saying he has to shave again. It was all rearranged in a completely different order.

So Whendon just used a bunch of preexisting footage, and then shot a few new scenes, to then come up with a different version of what was originally supposed to be. You basically get a completely different movie altogether, with only having to re-shoot a certain percentage of the film.

Well said, Travesty. This is exactly what happened with Justice League. Snyder kept his directors credit, but the final product was different to what he actually had in mind. If we get an extended version on home video, I'd guess it's another 15 minutes but that's about it.

[Wayne49]

I'm pretty late getting to this film, but I finally saw it and I thought it was a descent movie. The footage on Youtube and elsewhere do it a complete disservice because it doesn't translate the actual appearance of those effects well. I thought from a CGI perspective they more than met the standard for something this heavy in application. At times it looked like 300 to me, especially when Steppenwolf goes after the Mother box from Themyscira. The only place where Superman's painted chin really jumps out (for me) is the opening sequence with the kids video taping him while asking questions. That looked sloppy. No where else did I really spend time looking too close because I was into the story and I guess nothing of note stood out on its own for me. I'm sure it will after I get the movie on Blu-ray and watch it ten times. That happens with most films though.

In terms of the characters, I thought Batman shined really well here. I  loved that opening sequence where he is fighting that thug. That whole scene and the way it was lit was about as comic bookish a moment as I have ever seen placed to film and I really liked it. THAT was Batman. Of course now that I am finally getting comfortable with Affleck, WB is getting ready to kick him to the curb so that frustrates me to no end. But I digress.

Cavill really brought Superman home in this movie, so I was thrilled about that and now I WANT a Man of Steel II which I understand is in the works. I didn't care that Clark Kent's reappearance was not explained for the Daily Bugle because Superman came in late and we only saw Kent for essentially one scene in the closing sequence, so it was unnecessary. That can be picked up in the following film. With the comics giving Superman his red shorts back, it will be interesting to see if the movies follow. I hope so. That would be great for Superman to finally gel with his iconic look in the comics.

I thought Wonder Woman was great and was utilized exceptionally well in this story. I have zero issues with her. I think Gal Gadot plays her perfectly in all phases and I can't wait for Wonder Woman II. WB keep doing what you;re doing here. For me, her performance really resonates with how I see the character. Just a superb job all around.

The Flash was a mixed bag for me. I really liked his back story and thoroughly enjoyed Snyder using Billy Crudup as Barry's dad.  Nice use of the old cast from Watchmen. How many has he used now from that cast? I know he used Harry Dean Morgan for Thomas Wayne, but I'm sure there are more. I just can't think of them at the moment. but having Barry be this insecure and naive hero was not really an issue for me. Where it got a little off kilter for me was using that as comic relief where it just wasn't needed. There were great scenes where his injection of idiotic comments just made me go, " WTH?" I think he should play that a little more straight and let the humor come from the essence of his insecurities and inexperience rather than it being the punchline for a deliberate joke. I liked most of his running sequences, just didn't understand the last scene where he's running goofy against Superman. Didn't quite understand what the thinking was behind that.

I accepted Aquaman with his general appearance, but I really took issue with his personality. His personality was just too.... whats the word... socially stylized?  I didn't envision a man from a underwater civilization carrying all of the rhythms of someone better suited for a person you and I might know, possessing all of the expressions used in the lexicon of modern society. He just felt too integrated to be from a world that exotic. It will be interesting to see how that plays in his own movie coming out later this year.

I was pleasantly surprised by Cyborg. I really liked how they flushed him out. A surprisingly human portrayal from a more fantastical concept that could have been played very generic. And I enjoyed his ability to be essentially "plugged-in" to anything that has a network. I liked that whole set up and I felt the effects on him were actually quite descent. I'm looking forward to seeing more from him. A total treat and I'm glad he's now part of the DCU theatrically. They nailed it.

I was relieved to see J.K. Simmons play Commissioner Gordon straight and not try and spin his J Jonah Jameson character into that role. He did a really good job and contrasts nicely with what he did in the Spider-man films. He'll do a really good job if they keep him in whatever Batman project eventually gets made.

I was fine with Steppenwolf and his general application to the story. I felt that Justice League already had enough story responsibilities in introducing many of the heroes, that it would have been too much information to cater to a brand name villain as well. I think the havoc Steppenwolf created presented enough backstory to bring in Darkseid at a later date. Fans tend to like their popular villains properly flushed out. I don't think this movie had enough time to do that. Had all of these heroes already been in separate movies and their stories properly told, then yes, they could have focused considerable more time to a brand name villain. Justice league did not get that advantage and I accepted that. I was there to see the heroes.

In terms of the CGI treatment on him, he was clearly a CGI character. That felt more obvious with his facial movements when he spoke. But overall he integrated into the overall look of the picture, so his presence never took me out of the story. They made him a big enough a-hole that it certainly played well when Superman showed up. So I think his villainy was properly carved out to give him all the necessary relevance needed here. I enjoyed watching him get his arse kicked at the end. I was essentially watching a very expensive version of the Sueprfriends, so some leniency and a healthy suspension of disbelief is needed to watch this kind of film. I came in expecting a train-wreck and walked out pleasantly surprised. Critics were WAAAAAAY to hard on it. I think Snyder captured the necessary essence of the comics and I would LOVE to see his official version of this film. I think the lighthearted stuff was the worst part of this movie. The film already had a pretty decent tonal balance in place, so I didn't see where the added jokes brought any real value to the story telling experience. A definite thumbs up for me. I think Snyder redeemed himself and the movie is getting a really bad rap that is not deserved.

[Catwoman]

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.