|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Apr 14, 2019 0:58:59 GMT
The most unfortunate thing about Zack Snyder’s plans is that any of them actually made it into theaters. Okay, but why do you keep saying the Snyder cut of Justice League doesn't exist when there is so much evidence out there?
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 14, 2019 2:11:31 GMT
The most unfortunate thing about Zack Snyder’s plans is that any of them actually made it into theaters. Okay, but why do you keep saying the Snyder cut of Justice League doesn't exist when there is so much evidence out there? Unfortunately, the visual effects for that cut supposedly aren’t done, so unless WB inexplicably decides to spend a few additional millions of dollars on the movie, we’re probably never going to see the Snyder cut.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Apr 14, 2019 5:17:19 GMT
Okay, but why do you keep saying the Snyder cut of Justice League doesn't exist when there is so much evidence out there? Unfortunately, the visual effects for that cut supposedly aren’t done, so unless WB inexplicably decides to spend a few additional millions of dollars on the movie, we’re probably never going to see the Snyder cut. Didn't say it wasn't done-done, but a version does exist despite not being "big screen ready"(Smaller screens and mobile devices? Maybe).
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Apr 14, 2019 20:19:54 GMT
Unfortunately, the visual effects for that cut supposedly aren’t done, so unless WB inexplicably decides to spend a few additional millions of dollars on the movie, we’re probably never going to see the Snyder cut. Didn't say it wasn't done-done, but a version does exist despite not being "big screen ready"(Smaller screens and mobile devices? Maybe). If it doesn't have visual effects then it isn't a "cut" of the movie. When the director's cut is formally released on home video or streaming or TV, then it will exist. Until then, it's just a bunch of stuff on the cutting room floor. Just IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 14, 2019 21:30:28 GMT
Didn't say it wasn't done-done, but a version does exist despite not being "big screen ready"(Smaller screens and mobile devices? Maybe). If it doesn't have visual effects then it isn't a "cut" of the movie. When the director's cut is formally released on home video or streaming or TV, then it will exist. Until then, it's just a bunch of stuff on the cutting room floor. Just IMO. The movie finished filming months before Snyder left, and they did manage to put a theatrical trailer together, so they probably did have a rough cut for test screenings. Of course, the key word here is “rough”.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 5:03:34 GMT
The most unfortunate thing about his plans are that he was in a position to make plans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Apr 15, 2019 15:10:41 GMT
By this point, it’s already been established that Zack Snyder had a five movie plan laid out for this franchise, which would’ve consisted of Mos, BvS, JL, JL2, and (possibly) JL3. We also know that Darkseid was intended to be the major villain of this five movie arc. In terms of release dates, JL2 was supposed to be released in June 2019. While there’s no way of knowing when the fifth movie of the Snyderverse was supposed to be released, I’m gonna go ahead and assume that they probably would’ve been eying a release somewhere in 2021. Anyway, the thing that’s really unfortunate about this entire situation is that even if Snyder’s plans ended up being realized, the MCU would’ve already been long since finished with its big story arc involving Thanos. This would’ve meant that not only would’ve there have been all kinds of inevitable comparisons between Thanos and Darkseid, but no matter how ambitious Snyder’s plans might’ve been, DC wouldn’t have been the first ones to finish a major story arc in a shared universe, so the impact never would’ve been the same. People have argued in the past that DC supposedly didn’t have a clear plan with their shared universe, but that’s obviously not correct. They did have a plan. The problem is that even ignoring Snyder’s own divisiveness as a filmmaker, DC weren’t the first ones to do a shared live action superhero universe (unless you count that old Supergirl movie, which you shouldn’t). Marvel had already beaten them to it, so DC never would’ve had the same kind of impact. Frankly, that’s why I think it’s for the best that DC and WB are no longer concerned about measuring up to Marvel, and are more or less doing their own thing by focusing solely on individual movies. ^^^THIS^^^
But, now that Snyder is out of the picture, and they seem to be on an up swing doing things a bit differently, I don't see why they couldn't course correct and build up to another Justice League movie again. I wouldn't even think of it as a sequel or a reboot, rather just another adventure involving these characters.
As for Batman and Superman... just fucking re-cast and move along.
It's what they need to do and will do... But I lament for the Superman Henry Cavill could have been...because if given the chance, I wholeheartedly believe he would have rivaled or potentially surpassed Christopher Reeve.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Apr 15, 2019 15:31:05 GMT
^^^THIS^^^
But, now that Snyder is out of the picture, and they seem to be on an up swing doing things a bit differently, I don't see why they couldn't course correct and build up to another Justice League movie again. I wouldn't even think of it as a sequel or a reboot, rather just another adventure involving these characters.
As for Batman and Superman... just fucking re-cast and move along.
It's what they need to do and will do... But I lament for the Superman Henry Cavill could have been...because if given the chance, I wholeheartedly believe he would have rivaled or potentially surpassed Christopher Reeve. With a director that cares about acting and is good at pulling a performance out of an actor, Cavill could have been the bee's knees. Still could. He was really good in Mission Impossible Fallout. Not brilliant, but better than in Superman.
A) He needs a good director, and B) he needs to be trusted to do more than just look like the character. If you hired him then you should let him do his thing, not hold him back.
Of the two I still think he might be able to come back as Superman. One can hope. In the meantime, there's The Witcher...
|
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Apr 17, 2019 15:29:41 GMT
It's what they need to do and will do... But I lament for the Superman Henry Cavill could have been...because if given the chance, I wholeheartedly believe he would have rivaled or potentially surpassed Christopher Reeve. With a director that cares about acting and is good at pulling a performance out of an actor, Cavill could have been the bee's knees. Still could. He was really good in Mission Impossible Fallout. Not brilliant, but better than in Superman.
A) He needs a good director, and B) he needs to be trusted to do more than just look like the character. If you hired him then you should let him do his thing, not hold him back.
Of the two I still think he might be able to come back as Superman. One can hope. In the meantime, there's The Witcher...
He's a charismatic guy and has gravitas when he needs it...which is really what you need as Superman. You need a guy you can believe would show up in a school cafeteria and sit with the friendless kid at lunch just as much as facing down Darkseid. And I think Cavill has that, if he had been allowed to show it. He'll never be as good a Clark Kent as Christoper Reeve, but most directors seem to want to forget that adult Clark Kent is a disguise, so it isn't required. But he could be at least as good, if not better than Reeve as Superman. If I had millions of dollars, I would hire Amy Adams and Henry Cavill to re-enact the balcony interview from the Donner Superman (with their own spin, not an imitation) just to show everyone they could do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 17, 2019 16:31:16 GMT
With a director that cares about acting and is good at pulling a performance out of an actor, Cavill could have been the bee's knees. Still could. He was really good in Mission Impossible Fallout. Not brilliant, but better than in Superman.
A) He needs a good director, and B) he needs to be trusted to do more than just look like the character. If you hired him then you should let him do his thing, not hold him back.
Of the two I still think he might be able to come back as Superman. One can hope. In the meantime, there's The Witcher...
He's a charismatic guy and has gravitas when he needs it...which is really what you need as Superman. You need a guy you can believe would show up in a school cafeteria and sit with the friendless kid at lunch just as much as facing down Darkseid. And I think Cavill has that, if he had been allowed to show it. He'll never be as good a Clark Kent as Christoper Reeve, but most directors seem to want to forget that adult Clark Kent is a disguise, so it isn't required. But he could be at least as good, if not better than Reeve as Superman. If I had millions of dollars, I would hire Amy Adams and Henry Cavill to re-enact the balcony interview from the Donner Superman (with their own spin, not an imitation) just to show everyone they could do it. I don’t like the idea that Clark Kent is a “disguise”. Superman should be Clark Kent first and foremost, not Kal-El. Superman was raised on Earth. He has no memory of his time on Krypton. He should identify as the son of and Martha Jonathan Kent before he identifies as the son of Lara and Jor-El.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Apr 17, 2019 16:37:24 GMT
On the show "Lois and Clark", Superman says "Superman is what I can do, Clark is who I am." I agree with this.
This is also why, the George Reeves version of Clark is still the best. Clark does not have to act like an awkward bumbler.
|
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Apr 17, 2019 18:55:09 GMT
He's a charismatic guy and has gravitas when he needs it...which is really what you need as Superman. You need a guy you can believe would show up in a school cafeteria and sit with the friendless kid at lunch just as much as facing down Darkseid. And I think Cavill has that, if he had been allowed to show it. He'll never be as good a Clark Kent as Christoper Reeve, but most directors seem to want to forget that adult Clark Kent is a disguise, so it isn't required. But he could be at least as good, if not better than Reeve as Superman. If I had millions of dollars, I would hire Amy Adams and Henry Cavill to re-enact the balcony interview from the Donner Superman (with their own spin, not an imitation) just to show everyone they could do it. I don’t like the idea that Clark Kent is a “disguise”. Superman should be Clark Kent first and foremost, not Kal-El. Superman was raised on Earth. He has no memory of his time on Krypton. He should identify as the son of and Martha Jonathan Kent before he identifies as the son of Lara and Jor-El. I believe that "Adult" Clark Kent is a disguise, and one he adopts out of necessity to keep those he loves safe. Nobody would look at Christopher Reeve's Clark and say "Wait a minute, you're just Superman in glasses." They may think, "Well, kinda...if you stood up and fixed your hair, maybe you could have a decent cosplay..." but the argument about the glasses disappears with that portrayal. (Of course I am of the opinion that nobody would assume Superman HAS a secret identity, they would just think he lives his life as Superman so they wouldn't be looking at Clark and deducing an identity, but still...) I don't disagree that he is "Clark" but the whole argument in "Kill Bill" is pretty accurate. Bruce Wayne wakes up Bruce Wayne and adopts the persona of Batman. Superman wakes up Superman and adopts the persona of Clark Kent. Of course that's part of what makes him a fascinating character...because he's inherently BOTH to an extent that 99% of other heroes are not. Bruce is Nature, Batman is Nurture. Superman is Nature, Clark is Nurture.
|
|
