Podcast analysing Justice League

[Wayne49]

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.

[riddler]

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.

[The Laughing Fish]

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.

I thought JL was rushed judging by the poor quality of the CGI and underwhelming score by Danny Elfman. It was unwise to delay the release date for the film, and deleting potentially integral scenes from the theatrical cut (as they did with BvS) certainly doesn't help matters.

But where I'll disagree is the belief that DC should've used the Marvel formula with solo films before the team-up. Let's face it, if WB did that, they would've been accused of having no imagination and just copying anyway. With that said, I have no love for WB. They had the rights for these characters for years, and didn't really begin to entertain the idea of a shared universe until The Avengers came out.

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.

To be honest, I'm becoming jaded by ALL of these blockbuster movies nowadays. Three and a half years ago, I thought the MCU could do no wrong and only made one bad movie, but nowadays, they're very hit or miss, and seem to border on complacency. Frankly, the last time a superhero film has really WOWED me was Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The rest of the movies that have come out since make me take a more middle-ground approach. I take the good and bad, both DC and Marvel.

I enjoyed Doctor Strange and Ant-Man a lot more than the last two Avengers team-up movies, which I thought were rather disappointing. But even then, the one criticism I have for those two solo movies is they borrow a lot from the Iron Man movie. Benedict Cumberbatch as Stephen Strange, in particular, is more or less a magical version of Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark.

Another problem I have with these blockbusters is the hype surrounding certain movies because of identity politics. Don't make me wrong, Black Panther and Wonder Woman were good. But I didn't think either were AS good as people make them out to be.

In BP's case, I enjoyed it because it reminded me of the MCU's Phase One era, where it had a balanced tone between drama and comedy, it had interesting socio-political themes and so forth. It was certainly better than any of the 2017 Phase Three movies, which I hated (except for Ragnarok, I haven't seen it but I have no desire to). But at the same time, I can only say it was good, but not great.

Same thing goes for WWW. I find it ironic that it has Snyder's influences, in terms of slo-mo action (which didn't actually appear much in his own DCEU movies), CGI actionfest, colour grading, dark themes etc. Even more ironic that people praise Diana in comparison to Superman and Batman in this franchise, while ignoring the fact she kills too. Even going so far to believe the only way to end a conflict is to kill Ares with a sword called "the God Killer".

I did enjoy Deadpool (which was made by Fox, not the MCU), but it's not something I'd ever watch again. I suspect it's one of those films where you get sick of the jokes very easily, and it gets old if they repeat the same formula in a sequel. I have a similar feeling GOTG. The first film was a lot better than I expected, but the second one was an extremely poor follow-up. Deadpool and GOTG feel more like novelties, if anything. The less said about Spider-Man, the better. In my opinion, he offers absolutely nothing to the MCU.

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.

If I were to compare the JL movie to a cartoon, I'd have to say that it reminds me of the JL animated series. In any case, good to hear that you enjoyed the film for what it is. It's definitely not a masterpiece by any means, but it has a lot of good things going for it.

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.

[riddler]

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.

[The Laughing Fish]

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.

I don't know about that. The relationship between the two does get explored in the film. Victor clearly showed angst and even anger at his father for practically turning him into a Frankenstein, even if it saved his life. I don't buy that it gets completely glossed over. But for all we know, maybe there is deleted footage that does expand this further. All I know is there is definitely a backstory of Victor before becoming Cyborg, as you can see him as the high school jock in the trailers.

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.

Admittedly, the Flash as the comedic relief was a hit or miss for me. Apart from drawing over a man's face while visiting his dad in prison, nothing else really stood out as that funny. Except for maybe his reactions to Superman when they share the screen together.

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.

Keep in mind, I'm not criticising Jason Momoa or making him 'edgy' for the lack of a better word. I'm just saying he didn't really have any backstory that stood out for me compared to the rest of the League. I think you're quite right about Atlantis being affected by the deleted footage. After all, Willem Dafoe was supposed to appear as an assistant in this film, but his part got cut out.

[GoNerdYourself]

I did enjoy Deadpool (which was made by Fox, not the MCU), but it's not something I'd ever watch again. I suspect it's one of those films where you get sick of the jokes very easily, and it gets old if they repeat the same formula in a sequel.

I'm glad I am not the only one who feels this way. I enjoyed the film when it came to theaters, but I haven't been motivated to watch it again.

On the subject of the MCU, I haven't been connecting to the material the way I've wanted to because the focus on humor and the desire to be light and breezy is taking away from the emotional core. Also, I'm just getting sick of intentionally awkward dialogue. On one of things that made Thor: Ragnarok weird for me was that some of the dialogue reminded me of those How It Should Have Ended videos.

Another issue I am confronted with is the trend-riding that happens with some of these films. A movie becomes the "in" movie to talk about, to get pumped for, to shout about how fun and awesome they are, and anyone who disagrees, even just a tad enough, even to make a tiny, but genuine criticism, they get on their high horse with rants about "hipsters" ruining their fun. Meanwhile, they silently move on to something else, never talking about the film nor watching it again.

To make matters worse, I genuinely can't explain why many have seemingly branded BvS as one of the worst movies of all time. It just seems to me like a movie is either the best thing ever or the worst, it can't fit in between.

I guess this rant has very little to do with this thread, but this is something I've genuinely been thinking about lately in regards to how DC's films have been received up to date.

[The Laughing Fish]

On the subject of the MCU, I haven't been connecting to the material the way I've wanted to because the focus on humor and the desire to be light and breezy is taking away from the emotional core. Also, I'm just getting sick of intentionally awkward dialogue. On one of things that made Thor: Ragnarok weird for me was that some of the dialogue reminded me of those How It Should Have Ended videos.

Considering how popular garbage like How It Should Have Ended is, I reckon Marvel panders to that type of audience nowadays - lazy, teeny-bopper level of comedy. Another example is Ryan Reynolds playing Deadpool in an Honest Trailer for Screen Junkies making fun of his own movie. People are free to enjoy this stuff if they want to, but to me, it's gets annoying playing the same joke over and over again. That goes for HISHE's "I'm Batman" joke too.

Another issue I am confronted with is the trend-riding that happens with some of these films. A movie becomes the "in" movie to talk about, to get pumped for, to shout about how fun and awesome they are, and anyone who disagrees, even just a tad enough, even to make a tiny, but genuine criticism, they get on their high horse with rants about "hipsters" ruining their fun. Meanwhile, they silently move on to something else, never talking about the film nor watching it again.

To make matters worse, I genuinely can't explain why many have seemingly branded BvS as one of the worst movies of all time. It just seems to me like a movie is either the best thing ever or the worst, it can't fit in between.

I've come to suspect any consensus concerning films based on comics is influenced by groupthink. More so than any other genre of film or medium, in my opinion. If critics praise or condemn a movie, I've noticed comic fans tend to use that excuse to shield any dissenting point of view. Had the critics praised BvS as a masterpiece, I doubt you'd see many people cashing in on the hate for it. If critics were more critical of something like TDK, which shares a lot of issues BvS is criticised for and worse, it wouldn't be so highly regarded as it is now. Had last year's MCU movies been scrutinised for its humour undermining the story as some critics did with JL, more people would begin to question the quality of the MCU right now. In contrast, The Last Jedi was praised by critics, but the majority of Star Wars fans see it as an abomination, and more people are criticising the characters for being Mary Stus or a complete bastardisation to the entire canon.

As you might've guessed, and some people are going to find what I'll say as very contentious, but judging by the fuss over selective criteria people have for comics, and the passion for Star Wars, I believe people care a lot more for the latter. Whereas, more often than not, the success and failures for anything that's Marvel and DC is based on people's ignorance.