|
Post by jonesjxd on Apr 2, 2021 0:07:08 GMT
Yes, it's not Whedon's Justice League at all, he didn't write the script, he came in and finished a movie and fulfilled the studios wishes for a 2 hour movie. They should just be referred to as the Theatrical Cut and the Directors Cut. He has screenwriting credit for it. Credit for doing rewrites to somebody else's incoherent script.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 2, 2021 2:44:19 GMT
Don't know about that. A lot of the questionable scenes were also present in the Snyder Cut. The only reason they weren't as "questionable" there was because there was more time dedicated to explaining the scenes. The entire scene with Batman and the robber, the woman ranting about aliens probing her husband, Martha calling Lois “thirsty,” and the Flash falling on Wonder Woman’s breasts are all pretty questionable. I get Flash falling on WW but why would the other scenes be questionable? They certainly weren't more questionable than some of the scenes we got from the Snyder Cut like Martian Manhunter talking with Lois or that Icelandic choir singing for Arthur.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 2, 2021 2:52:22 GMT
The entire scene with Batman and the robber, the woman ranting about aliens probing her husband, Martha calling Lois “thirsty,” and the Flash falling on Wonder Woman’s breasts are all pretty questionable. I get Flash falling on WW but why would the other scenes be questionable? They certainly weren't more questionable than some of the scenes we got from the Snyder Cut like Martian Manhunter talking with Lois or that Icelandic choir singing for Arthur. The scene with the burglar is just dumb and overly cartoony. Everything about it is just awkward. It’s like something out of a Saturday morning cartoon. As for the alien probe thing and thirsty Lois, they come across as really stupid and out of place attempts at comedy. Everything about them feels like a self-parody. Like the movie is treating itself as one big joke.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 2, 2021 18:45:07 GMT
I get Flash falling on WW but why would the other scenes be questionable? They certainly weren't more questionable than some of the scenes we got from the Snyder Cut like Martian Manhunter talking with Lois or that Icelandic choir singing for Arthur. The scene with the burglar is just dumb and overly cartoony. Everything about it is just awkward. It’s like something out of a Saturday morning cartoon. As for the alien probe thing and thirsty Lois, they come across as really stupid and out of place attempts at comedy. Everything about them feels like a self-parody. Like the movie is treating itself as one big joke. That's a matter of personal preference though. For example, even though you feel the burglar was dumb and overly cartoony, it still made far more sense in the story than the random icelandic singing choir. And while you may not appreciate some of the humor in the Lois scene, it still provided way more character development for Martha and Lois than the corresponding scene in the Snyder Cut.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 2, 2021 19:21:33 GMT
The scene with the burglar is just dumb and overly cartoony. Everything about it is just awkward. It’s like something out of a Saturday morning cartoon. As for the alien probe thing and thirsty Lois, they come across as really stupid and out of place attempts at comedy. Everything about them feels like a self-parody. Like the movie is treating itself as one big joke. That's a matter of personal preference though. For example, even though you feel the burglar was dumb and overly cartoony, it still made far more sense in the story than the random icelandic singing choir. And while you may not appreciate some of the humor in the Lois scene, it still provided way more character development for Martha and Lois than the corresponding scene in the Snyder Cut. The difference between the burglar scene and the Icelandic singing choir is that the former is supposed to be an important scene that gives out key information and exposition to the viewer. The singing choir is weird, but it doesn’t effect the plot of the film. The burglar scene is just plain dumb and clumsily written. Also the attempt at “character development” with the Lois and Martha scene in the theatrical version is severely undercut by the dumb jokes Whedon makes in the scene. The Lois and Martha scene in the Snyder Cut is much more heartfelt, even if it’s somewhat undercut by the Martian Manhunter reveal.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 2, 2021 19:52:00 GMT
That's a matter of personal preference though. For example, even though you feel the burglar was dumb and overly cartoony, it still made far more sense in the story than the random icelandic singing choir. And while you may not appreciate some of the humor in the Lois scene, it still provided way more character development for Martha and Lois than the corresponding scene in the Snyder Cut. The difference between the burglar scene and the Icelandic singing choir is that the former is supposed to be an important scene that gives out key information and exposition to the viewer. The singing choir is weird, but it doesn’t effect the plot of the film. The burglar scene is just plain dumb and clumsily written. Also the attempt at “character development” with the Lois and Martha scene in the theatrical version is severely undercut by the dumb jokes Whedon makes in the scene. The Lois and Martha scene in the Snyder Cut is much more heartfelt, even if it’s somewhat undercut by the Martian Manhunter reveal. Again, all of these are merely your opinion. The things I mentioned, on the other hand, were facts. It's a fact that the burglar scene was more integral to the movie than the icelandic choir. It's a fact that the Lois/Martha scene in the theatrical version gave more development to Martha and Lois and their relationship since it wasn't even Martha in the Snyder Cut. Now if we're simply going with our personal opinions, I'd say it's questionable that nobody other than Aquaman objected to bringing Superman from the dead in the Snyder Cut. It's questionable how this decision, using a man like a weapon, didn't cause any complaints from Cyborg and WW. It's questionable how Superman could completely ignore an axe blow from Steppenwolf, not even budging, when a headbutt from Wonder Woman was enough to snap his head back and daze him for a bit. It's questionable why WW needs to destroy half a floor just to kill off a single terrorist who had already run out of bullets. And doing so in front of a big crowd of kids. I could keep on going but I hope you get the point. If we resort to our own opinions, we could easily nitpick both movies endlessly.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 2, 2021 20:07:36 GMT
The difference between the burglar scene and the Icelandic singing choir is that the former is supposed to be an important scene that gives out key information and exposition to the viewer. The singing choir is weird, but it doesn’t effect the plot of the film. The burglar scene is just plain dumb and clumsily written. Also the attempt at “character development” with the Lois and Martha scene in the theatrical version is severely undercut by the dumb jokes Whedon makes in the scene. The Lois and Martha scene in the Snyder Cut is much more heartfelt, even if it’s somewhat undercut by the Martian Manhunter reveal. Again, all of these are merely your opinion. The things I mentioned, on the other hand, were facts. It's a fact that the burglar scene was more integral to the movie than the icelandic choir. It's a fact that the Lois/Martha scene in the theatrical version gave more development to Martha and Lois and their relationship since it wasn't even Martha in the Snyder Cut. Now if we're simply going with our personal opinions, I'd say it's questionable that nobody other than Aquaman objected to bringing Superman from the dead in the Snyder Cut. It's questionable how this decision, using a man like a weapon, didn't cause any complaints from Cyborg and WW. It's questionable how Superman could completely ignore an axe blow from Steppenwolf, not even budging, when a headbutt from Wonder Woman was enough to snap his head back and daze him for a bit. It's questionable why WW needs to destroy half a floor just to kill off a single terrorist who had already run out of bullets. And doing so in front of a big crowd of kids. I could keep on going but I hope you get the point. If we resort to our own opinions, we could easily nitpick both movies endlessly. If you want to talk about scenes that aren’t integral to the movie, the Lois and Martha scene in the theatrical cut also has that weird bit with that coworker. Why did that need to be in the movie? For that matter, why did Barry Allen’s rambling about brunch need to be there? On the subject of the Superman resurrection, I don’t recall Aquaman voicing any real objections to it in the Snyder Cut, but that brings up another question. Why did we need that scene where Wonder Woman gets into an argument with Batman about bringing Superman back to life? It doesn’t have any greater impact on the film, and she ends up going along with bringing Superman back anyway. It’s basically only there because Whedon wanted to recreate the team conflict from the Avengers movies. I actually much prefer the team dynamic in the Snyder Cut, where everyone seems to more or less get along.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 2, 2021 22:03:02 GMT
Again, all of these are merely your opinion. The things I mentioned, on the other hand, were facts. It's a fact that the burglar scene was more integral to the movie than the icelandic choir. It's a fact that the Lois/Martha scene in the theatrical version gave more development to Martha and Lois and their relationship since it wasn't even Martha in the Snyder Cut. Now if we're simply going with our personal opinions, I'd say it's questionable that nobody other than Aquaman objected to bringing Superman from the dead in the Snyder Cut. It's questionable how this decision, using a man like a weapon, didn't cause any complaints from Cyborg and WW. It's questionable how Superman could completely ignore an axe blow from Steppenwolf, not even budging, when a headbutt from Wonder Woman was enough to snap his head back and daze him for a bit. It's questionable why WW needs to destroy half a floor just to kill off a single terrorist who had already run out of bullets. And doing so in front of a big crowd of kids. I could keep on going but I hope you get the point. If we resort to our own opinions, we could easily nitpick both movies endlessly. If you want to talk about scenes that aren’t integral to the movie, the Lois and Martha scene in the theatrical cut also has that weird bit with that coworker. Why did that need to be in the movie? For that matter, why did Barry Allen’s rambling about brunch need to be there? On the subject of the Superman resurrection, I don’t recall Aquaman voicing any real objections to it in the Snyder Cut, but that brings up another question. Why did we need that scene where Wonder Woman gets into an argument with Batman about bringing Superman back to life? It doesn’t have any greater impact on the film, and she ends up going along with bringing Superman back anyway. It’s basically only there because Whedon wanted to recreate the team conflict from the Avengers movies. I actually much prefer the team dynamic in the Snyder Cut, where everyone seems to more or less get along. A person in a scene who doesn't make sense is a lot less questionable than an entire scene that doesn't make sense. I agree that the guy who talked to Lois in the theatrical cut doesn't have to be there, but that entire scene was still more integral than the Lois scene in the Snyder Cut. And note that I never said the theatrical cut was perfect, merely that it didn't have any more questionable scenes than the Snyder Cut outside of Flash being on top of Wonder Woman. WW questioning why they should bring back Superman is consistent with her personality and a discussion about whether you should bring somebody back to life simply to fight your battle is a realistic discussion for a team to have in that situation. That's a scene that served to set up team dynamics and conflict... something that is essential in team up movies if you want your team to feel organic.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 2, 2021 22:27:00 GMT
If you want to talk about scenes that aren’t integral to the movie, the Lois and Martha scene in the theatrical cut also has that weird bit with that coworker. Why did that need to be in the movie? For that matter, why did Barry Allen’s rambling about brunch need to be there? On the subject of the Superman resurrection, I don’t recall Aquaman voicing any real objections to it in the Snyder Cut, but that brings up another question. Why did we need that scene where Wonder Woman gets into an argument with Batman about bringing Superman back to life? It doesn’t have any greater impact on the film, and she ends up going along with bringing Superman back anyway. It’s basically only there because Whedon wanted to recreate the team conflict from the Avengers movies. I actually much prefer the team dynamic in the Snyder Cut, where everyone seems to more or less get along. A person in a scene who doesn't make sense is a lot less questionable than an entire scene that doesn't make sense. I agree that the guy who talked to Lois in the theatrical cut doesn't have to be there, but that entire scene was still more integral than the Lois scene in the Snyder Cut. And note that I never said the theatrical cut was perfect, merely that it didn't have any more questionable scenes than the Snyder Cut outside of Flash being on top of Wonder Woman. WW questioning why they should bring back Superman is consistent with her personality and a discussion about whether you should bring somebody back to life simply to fight your battle is a realistic discussion for a team to have in that situation. That's a scene that served to set up team dynamics and conflict... something that is essential in team up movies if you want your team to feel organic. How is it more integral? The scene in the Snyder Cut is an important character scene for Lois. It establishes that she still hasn’t recovered from her grief. How is it consistent with her personality? What about her personality would suggest that she’d be morally opposed to bringing Superman back to life? Besides, why would the team need to be in conflict with each other to begin with? If anything, I think the fact that the team gets along pretty well in Snyder’s version is a refreshing change of pace. We already had superheroes at odds with each other in BvS.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 6, 2021 17:20:11 GMT
A person in a scene who doesn't make sense is a lot less questionable than an entire scene that doesn't make sense. I agree that the guy who talked to Lois in the theatrical cut doesn't have to be there, but that entire scene was still more integral than the Lois scene in the Snyder Cut. And note that I never said the theatrical cut was perfect, merely that it didn't have any more questionable scenes than the Snyder Cut outside of Flash being on top of Wonder Woman. WW questioning why they should bring back Superman is consistent with her personality and a discussion about whether you should bring somebody back to life simply to fight your battle is a realistic discussion for a team to have in that situation. That's a scene that served to set up team dynamics and conflict... something that is essential in team up movies if you want your team to feel organic. How is it more integral? The scene in the Snyder Cut is an important character scene for Lois. It establishes that she still hasn’t recovered from her grief. How is it consistent with her personality? What about her personality would suggest that she’d be morally opposed to bringing Superman back to life? Besides, why would the team need to be in conflict with each other to begin with? If anything, I think the fact that the team gets along pretty well in Snyder’s version is a refreshing change of pace. We already had superheroes at odds with each other in BvS. Both scenes establish Lois' grief. In the Snyder Cut this is shown by her not wanting to go back to work. In the theatrical cut this is shown by her not willing to take on any new stories. The difference between these two scenes is that the theatrical cut shows the relationship between Martha and Lois and their shared grief. It's character and relationship development. You don't get that in the Snyder Cut because it wasn't Martha who was talking to Lois. As for Wonder Woman, this is someone who's opposed to the war-like nature of men. Now you're telling me she has no qualms about bringing back someone from the dead to merely use him as a weapon of war? You may like that the JL doesn't argue about the morality of bringing back someone from the dead in the Snyder Cut but this is a complex discussion that Whedon handled with far more nuance.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 6, 2021 19:14:56 GMT
How is it more integral? The scene in the Snyder Cut is an important character scene for Lois. It establishes that she still hasn’t recovered from her grief. How is it consistent with her personality? What about her personality would suggest that she’d be morally opposed to bringing Superman back to life? Besides, why would the team need to be in conflict with each other to begin with? If anything, I think the fact that the team gets along pretty well in Snyder’s version is a refreshing change of pace. We already had superheroes at odds with each other in BvS. Both scenes establish Lois' grief. In the Snyder Cut this is shown by her not wanting to go back to work. In the theatrical cut this is shown by her not willing to take on any new stories. The difference between these two scenes is that the theatrical cut shows the relationship between Martha and Lois and their shared grief. It's character and relationship development. You don't get that in the Snyder Cut because it wasn't Martha who was talking to Lois. As for Wonder Woman, this is someone who's opposed to the war-like nature of men. Now you're telling me she has no qualms about bringing back someone from the dead to merely use him as a weapon of war? You may like that the JL doesn't argue about the morality of bringing back someone from the dead in the Snyder Cut but this is a complex discussion that Whedon handled with far more nuance. I’d argue it doesn’t really matter that it’s actually Martha speaking to Lois in the theatrical version, because their conversation in that paints Martha as an out of touch old woman. It’s not really a heartfelt moment. Even though it’s not really Martha in ZSJL, Lois still thinks it’s her, and the conversation isn’t ruined by any forced jokes. On the subject of Wonder Woman, the movies have never tried to paint her as a pacifist, not even the theatrical version of JL. The Justice League is in a war that Apokolips started, where the fate of the Earth is at stake, and she recognizes that Superman is needed to help end that war. Her grievance against reviving Superman in the theatrical version has nothing to do with him being used as a weapon. It’s purely because she thinks it goes against nature to try and bring someone back from the dead, and she accuses Bruce of doing it because he can’t move on from his own guilt. Besides, I’d hardly call Whedon’s handling of the ethical debate surrounding bringing Superman back “nuanced.” There’s one conversation about it, then Wonder Woman ends up going along with it. That’s not to say that it couldn’t have made for an interesting discussion, but as it’s presented in the movie, it just comes across as a forced attempt at creating tension between the characters.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 6, 2021 19:57:44 GMT
Both scenes establish Lois' grief. In the Snyder Cut this is shown by her not wanting to go back to work. In the theatrical cut this is shown by her not willing to take on any new stories. The difference between these two scenes is that the theatrical cut shows the relationship between Martha and Lois and their shared grief. It's character and relationship development. You don't get that in the Snyder Cut because it wasn't Martha who was talking to Lois. As for Wonder Woman, this is someone who's opposed to the war-like nature of men. Now you're telling me she has no qualms about bringing back someone from the dead to merely use him as a weapon of war? You may like that the JL doesn't argue about the morality of bringing back someone from the dead in the Snyder Cut but this is a complex discussion that Whedon handled with far more nuance. I’d argue it doesn’t really matter that it’s actually Martha speaking to Lois in the theatrical version, because their conversation in that paints Martha as an out of touch old woman. It’s not really a heartfelt moment. Even though it’s not really Martha in ZSJL, Lois still thinks it’s her, and the conversation isn’t ruined by any forced jokes. On the subject of Wonder Woman, the movies have never tried to paint her as a pacifist, not even the theatrical version of JL. The Justice League is in a war that Apokolips started, where the fate of the Earth is at stake, and she recognizes that Superman is needed to help end that war. Her grievance against reviving Superman in the theatrical version has nothing to do with him being used as a weapon. It’s purely because she thinks it goes against nature to try and bring someone back from the dead, and she accuses Bruce of doing it because he can’t move on from his own guilt. Besides, I’d hardly call Whedon’s handling of the ethical debate surrounding bringing Superman back “nuanced.” There’s one conversation about it, then Wonder Woman ends up going along with it. That’s not to say that it couldn’t have made for an interesting discussion, but as it’s presented in the movie, it just comes across as a forced attempt at creating tension between the characters. Reading through all your replies, I've come to the conclusion that your argument basically lies with one specific item: You think Whedon's jokes are forced. Well, that and you don't seem to like that Whedon gets his characters to approach discussions with differing point of views. Problem here is that, as I mentioned multiple times already, these are all just your opinions. I'm not going to debate these with you because they're your opinions and you have a right to them. Just wish you'd realize that they're your opinions and they aren't necessarily shared by the rest of the audiences. A lot of audiences actually preferred Whedon's lighter tone than the bleak one given in BvS. I can try to explain why WW not being a pacifist is not the same thing as being a calloused warrior who's completely lacking morality or how Whedon being more nuanced than Snyder doesn't mean that Whedon handled it perfectly... but I feel like I'm arguing against a brick wall here. It seems to me you're deadset on hating on Whedon's scenes and are of the mind that ZSLJ was done better in all aspects. So I'll just stop trying to convince you otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 6, 2021 20:07:34 GMT
I’d argue it doesn’t really matter that it’s actually Martha speaking to Lois in the theatrical version, because their conversation in that paints Martha as an out of touch old woman. It’s not really a heartfelt moment. Even though it’s not really Martha in ZSJL, Lois still thinks it’s her, and the conversation isn’t ruined by any forced jokes. On the subject of Wonder Woman, the movies have never tried to paint her as a pacifist, not even the theatrical version of JL. The Justice League is in a war that Apokolips started, where the fate of the Earth is at stake, and she recognizes that Superman is needed to help end that war. Her grievance against reviving Superman in the theatrical version has nothing to do with him being used as a weapon. It’s purely because she thinks it goes against nature to try and bring someone back from the dead, and she accuses Bruce of doing it because he can’t move on from his own guilt. Besides, I’d hardly call Whedon’s handling of the ethical debate surrounding bringing Superman back “nuanced.” There’s one conversation about it, then Wonder Woman ends up going along with it. That’s not to say that it couldn’t have made for an interesting discussion, but as it’s presented in the movie, it just comes across as a forced attempt at creating tension between the characters. Reading through all your replies, I've come to the conclusion that your argument basically lies with one specific item: You think Whedon's jokes are forced. Well, that and you don't seem to like that Whedon gets his characters to approach discussions with differing point of views. Problem here is that, as I mentioned multiple times already, these are all just your opinions. I'm not going to debate these with you because they're your opinions and you have a right to them. Just wish you'd realize that they're your opinions and they aren't necessarily shared by the rest of the audiences. A lot of audiences actually preferred Whedon's lighter tone than the bleak one given in BvS. I can try to explain why WW not being a pacifist is not the same thing as being a calloused warrior who's completely lacking morality or how Whedon being more nuanced than Snyder doesn't mean that Whedon handled it perfectly... but I feel like I'm arguing against a brick wall here. It seems to me you're deadset on hating on Whedon's scenes and are of the mind that ZSLJ was done better in all aspects. So I'll just stop trying to convince you otherwise. I do think many of his jokes are forced, but that’s not the main problem I have with the movie. It’s ultimately just a really bland and by the numbers superhero movie that desperately wants to be like Marvel. It doesn’t present anything interesting for the genre. It’s just a bargain bin Avengers movie.
|
|