-
[QUOTE=mburns;5488348]The Snyder cut is leagues better than the theatrical version. Whedon really s**t the bed on that one but it still doesn't make it a good movie. Maybe if they had cut the 4 hour version of Snyder's film down to 2.5 hours it would qualify as good. As is there is still much pointless stuff in that movie and some of the scenes Snyder left in were god awful like the Icelandic woman singing hymns to Aquaman and that Flash scene with Iris.[/QUOTE]
Whedon did the best he could, but there was no real way to fix the mess Synder left him with. At the very least though, he added a few scenes that gave characters logical reasons for doing things and bits of humanity, something Snyder's version definitely needed.
If "the Whedon cut" had as much time, resources, and supporting going behind it as the Snyder cut did, I don't think we'd be taking about it being a bad movie at all.
-
[QUOTE=Alan2099;5488522]Whedon did the best he could, but there was no real way to fix the mess Synder left him with. At the very least though, he added a few scenes that gave characters logical reasons for doing things and bits of humanity, something Snyder's version definitely needed.
If "the Whedon cut" had as much time, resources, and supporting going behind it as the Snyder cut did, I don't think we'd be taking about it being a bad movie at all.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Joss did the best job with the tools at his disposal.
Hell, calling Snyder's work 'The Snyder Cut' is deceptive, because what hit HBO max isn't what would have hit the theaters, if Snyder had been able to see his vision through. It would have been trimmed down and certainly not R rated.
...Joss is still a douche otherwise.
-
[QUOTE=Bunch of Coconuts;5488397]Ugh. That Flash scene with Iris was creepy/rapey.[/QUOTE]
How so? I think I fast forwarded through that part (oh, irony)
-
[QUOTE=Alan2099;5488522]Whedon did the best he could, but there was no real way to fix the mess Synder left him with. At the very least though, he added a few scenes that gave characters logical reasons for doing things and bits of humanity, something Snyder's version definitely needed.
If "the Whedon cut" had as much time, resources, and supporting going behind it as the Snyder cut did, I don't think we'd be taking about it being a bad movie at all.[/QUOTE]
Idk if Whedon would've made a great movie though. He was already falling off by AoU
-
[QUOTE=Mik;5488614]Idk if Whedon would've made a great movie though. He was already falling off by AoU[/QUOTE]
I think that if you step back and look at it, Joss made the same mistake that most comic book movies make, focusing on the known/popular characters at the expense of the others in the cast. Like how Wolverine took over X-Men, he devoted too much time to Wonder Woman and Batman.
But in his defense, it hardly seems like they had a solid idea of where to go with Aquaman, Cyborg, etc. It seems to me that Warner Bros is so afraid of making a misstep that they hesitate constantly, and misstep naturally.
*Edit*
Most comicbook movies that aren't MCU
-
[QUOTE=The Cool Thatguy;5488651]I think that if you step back and look at it, Joss made the same mistake that most comic book movies make, focusing on the known/popular characters at the expense of the others in the cast. Like how Wolverine took over X-Men, he devoted too much time to Wonder Woman and Batman.
But in his defense, it hardly seems like they had a solid idea of where to go with Aquaman, Cyborg, etc. It seems to me that Warner Bros is so afraid of making a misstep that they hesitate constantly, and misstep naturally.[/QUOTE]
I agree WB had no idea what to do. That it took as long as it did to get a live action WW movie is amazing, and not in a good way. Cyborg's story was cut in the theatrical release, and Aquaman's and Flash's didn't really even connect to the plot IMO. And we barely get MM and not a single GL. Even Superman was barely in it. WB seems to only care about Batman, or at least it did before Aquaman made so much money. Hopefully they've learned to branch out now
But at least they all had more to do than most live action X-Men not named Wolverine
-
[QUOTE=tyusmax;5487654]Just b/c you like the cgi for Thanos better doesn't [B]objectively make it so.[/B]
I thought Darkseid looked awesome, better than Thanos.[/QUOTE]
Very much agreeing with this.
One thing this discussion is missing is the chance for objective POV.
I said Darkseid looked better and I proved it by talking about the VFX style, the cinematography and even referencing many LOTR villains examples. that is what is means to be objective. Those who are saying thanos looks better are not doing the same. to them he is better, because he is just better. there is no substance. it's an empty bottle.
Some here just says thanos looks better because they are fans of IW/Endgame and will always side with MCU no matter what. While there is nothing wrong with this, what they dont understand is, this is the what bias is , that they always say I am doing.:cool: when all I do here is just break down all comic book movies to the best of what I see and even hear, many times because I have a background in film.
If I was to say something is better or worse, I just dont say it with no evidence of at least 80% logic.
What is even odd, is that Phase 1 VFX Marvel, would have had Thanos look more like Darkseid because Phase 1 MCU was not overthinking trying too hard to appeal to kids or overly mindful that marvel studios was a small film production warehouse of making movies.
-
[QUOTE=The Cool Thatguy;5488603]How so? I think I fast forwarded through that part (oh, irony)[/QUOTE]
Try watching it first and see if you get the same reaction.
-
[QUOTE=Alan2099;5488522]Whedon did the best he could, but there was no real way to fix the mess Synder left him with. At the very least though, he added a few scenes that gave characters logical reasons for doing things and bits of humanity, something Snyder's version definitely needed.
If "the Whedon cut" had as much time, resources, and supporting going behind it as the Snyder cut did, I don't think we'd be taking about it being a bad movie at all.[/QUOTE]
IDK, Joss doing the best he could involved anal probe lady, thirsty Lois and a lot of male gaze stuff for Wonder Woman and the boob joke. There isn't really any more logic to why anybody does anything in that cut. If anything, it's overall better in the Snyder Cut. Diana and Arthur bonding over their respective peoples similarities for example, instead of Arthur sitting on the lasso and saying Diana is hot because Joss is 12 years old or something.
The only real issues, IMO, for the Snyder cut are some instances of self indulgence (all the slow mo, Wonder Woman's first scene, yet another Jesus pose for Superman), but overall it's an entertaining if silly film that is brought down by the movie that preceded it and the tacked on Knightmare stuff. I used to say a full Whedon vision from start to finish would be better than either full Snyder or a mix of the two, but now I'm not so sure. Snyder's never done anything as good as those early seasons of Buffy, but those are also becoming increasingly Joss's only claim to fame (yes, Firefly is overrated too).
-
[QUOTE=Dark Soul # 7;5488219]Nobody is questioning her capabilities.
But when she's not mind controlled or a dark alternate version of herself that nobody likes, [B]Wonder Woman usually doesn't try to kill her opponent in a way that would fit in a Mortal Kombat game or cause excessive amounts of property damage when all she needed to do was to punch the guy.[/B][/QUOTE]
Wonder Woman like many comic characters have a rich myth. it is up to the writer to decide where and how far they want to take it, with the consent of the studio or publisher. while the ends may be controversial to some , many or a few, it is completely bad logic for a person to judge how wonder woman fights in a DC Universe film only based on how limited MCU is in blood and violence and this is what you are doing here.
You cannot fault Wonder Woman's fighting style just because MCU would be against it. The fault does not lie in Wonder Woman.
-
[QUOTE=Castle;5488980]Wonder Woman like many comic characters have a rich myth. it is up to the writer to decide where and how far they want to take it, with the consent of the studio or publisher. while the ends may be controversial to some , many or a few, it is completely bad logic for a person to judge how wonder woman fights in a DC Universe film only based on how limited MCU is in blood and violence and this is what you are doing here.
You cannot fault Wonder Woman's fighting style just because MCU would be against it. The fault does not lie in Wonder Woman.[/QUOTE]
It's Wonder Woman's own publication history we're looking at here. She has a long history, but the stories that depict her as overly brutal are not well liked by her fans (and are not that common before the 21st century). Especially the ones that make her one note and violent while ignoring what her character stands for. Perez and Rucka have her take the lives of villains as a last resort and those are some of the better takes. Injustice and Flashpoint though are godawful, as are the early instances of Geoff Johns writing her in the New 52.
The MCU has absolutely nothing to do with it. Nor is the fault with Wonder Woman. It's the fault of WB/DC allowing or encouraging creators to make her more brutal than she needs to be. In this instance for her first scene at least, it's Snyder's fault for not getting it at all.
-
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;5489087]It's Wonder Woman's own publication history we're looking at here. She has a long history, but the stories that depict her as overly brutal are not well liked by her fans (and are not that common before the 21st century). Especially the ones that make her one note and violent while ignoring what her character stands for. Perez and Rucka have her take the lives of villains as a last resort and those are some of the better takes. Injustice and Flashpoint though are godawful, as are the early instances of Geoff Johns writing her in the New 52.
The MCU has absolutely nothing to do with it. Nor is the fault with Wonder Woman. It's the fault of WB/DC allowing or encouraging creators to make her more brutal than she needs to be. In this instance for her first scene at least, it's Snyder's fault for not getting it at all.[/QUOTE]
Her fans so far, dont seem to have a problem that she was brutal in an r rated dc film, I am guessing they have seen the cartoons.
the mcu has everything to do with here because the thread is about JL Cut/IW Endgame. the people saying she was too violent are a few MCU fans, let me even say huge MCU-Disney fans because not all MCU fans buy into the.... too much violent narrative.
You see it as a fault of WB/DC. I see it as a win because it means they can even push more comic book boundaries after this. something we know IW/Endgame type of films wont do.
-
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;5489087]It's Wonder Woman's own publication history we're looking at here. She has a long history, but the stories that depict her as overly brutal are not well liked by her fans (and are not that common before the 21st century). Especially the ones that make her one note and violent while ignoring what her character stands for. Perez and Rucka have her take the lives of villains as a last resort and those are some of the better takes. Injustice and Flashpoint though are godawful, as are the early instances of Geoff Johns writing her in the New 52.
The MCU has absolutely nothing to do with it. Nor is the fault with Wonder Woman. It's the fault of WB/DC allowing or encouraging creators to make her more brutal than she needs to be. In this instance for her first scene at least, it's Snyder's fault for not getting it at all.[/QUOTE]
The juxtaposition of Batman's "I don't have to save you" policy, Superman's "no kill" policy, and Wonder Woman's "only if I have to" policy was a nice part of the trinity. Made for nice drama and morality plays.
Batman is the brutal one. Wonder Woman may kill, but she is a warrior, so it was usually portrayed rather cleanly. Superman is never brutal, either.
I think that is the biggest issue I have with Snyder's DC stuff ... he made everyone so brutal for the sake of violence. There is no need for Superman or Wonder Woman or even Aquaman to be so brutal. Batman being brutal was fine for me up until he started killing people. He felt like Batman finally until the guns started coming out ...
-
[QUOTE=Alan2099;5488522]Whedon did the best he could, but there was no real way to fix the mess Synder left him with. At the very least though, he added a few scenes that gave characters logical reasons for doing things and bits of humanity, something Snyder's version definitely needed.
If "the Whedon cut" had as much time, resources, and supporting going behind it as the Snyder cut did, I don't think we'd be taking about it being a bad movie at all.[/QUOTE]
True. Judging just the work, Whedon had a horrible job to do. He was brought in to finish someone else's movie partly because test audiences said they hated it and were done with the DCEU. He was mandated to cut it to two hours by the studio and to add some humor to it and make it more lighthearted and to increase the "humanity factor".
Had he been the person making the movie from scratch, it might have been different. But he was tasked with jury-rigging something that could not help but be a Frankenstein Monster.
Just to show what the relative opinions about Snyder and Whedon were at the time, one reviewer said that there is debate as to what parts were Snyder and what parts were Whedon and concluded that it seems obvious: any parts that are dark, grey, depressing, humorless and lack in all life and humanity were Snyder while any parts bright, vibrant, uplifting, funny and filled with life and humanity were Whedon.
Unfair? Probably. But hardly a unique opinion.
-
Wonder Woman fans aren't upset with her being too violent? LOL try actually checking out the WW board here. That is a pretty constant debate amongst the fandom. A lot of WW fans don't want her to be Xena: Warrior Princess.
