Would The Zack Snyder Justice League Been Successful?

[Aahz]

Using any of these as a primary influence for a mainstream shared universe with DC's characters is asinine.

If find also the Idea of allready starting with a Batman, who comes already out of retirement nd has been batman for over 20 years, when everybody else is just starting is kind of wired.

It is imo also really bad for Batman solo movies, either they make it like in TDKR were all the Batman characters and villains are much older then usual (Dick Grayson would have had to bee in his mid 30s), but then you don't really get the iconic version of them on the screen, or you just use the normal ages (like they did with Harley Quinn in Suicide Squad) but that's screws up that time, and raises the question why did go for the TDKR version of Batman in the first Place.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think some of that was the result of course-correction post-BvS.

Snyder's Aquaman was set to be a lot different then what we ultimately ended up with.

Didn't Wan come on board before BvS even came out though?

If find also the Idea of allready starting with a Batman, who comes already out of retirement nd has been batman for over 20 years, when everybody else is just starting is kind of wired.

It is imo also really bad for Batman solo movies, either they make it like in TDKR were all the Batman characters and villains are much older then usual (Dick Grayson would have had to bee in his mid 30s), but then you don't really get the iconic version of them on the screen, or you just use the normal ages (like they did with Harley Quinn in Suicide Squad) but that's screws up that time, and raises the question why did go for the TDKR version of Batman in the first Place.

Dick was also going to be the only Robin and would have been killed off before the events of the movie. Better than his actual fate in the TDKR universe and if there are movie adaptations of that take I can see the logic in streamlining it down to the main Robin who the casuals are going to be the most familiar with.

But for a mainstream shared universe that is an answer to Marvel where you want to see all the iconic characters (and maybe gradually build up to the others down the line) interact with each other on screen? REALLY dumb. We have movies where Iron-Man shows up in Spider-Man movies and Rocket Racoon and Groot are household names, but we wouldn't get to see friggin Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson teaming up in the present?

[Pinsir]

You can, but that still doesn't mean Watchmen and TDKR weren't anything but self contained works when they were created and for a long time afterward.

yes the Authority shows it can work another way, but that way does not apply to Watchmen and TDKR. They are simply not what you are talking about. And the Authority is its own deconstruction take away from a mainstream superhero universe, as is Watchmen and TDKR is a possible future.

Using any of these as a primary influence for a mainstream shared universe with DC's characters is asinine.

The same dude who wrote Watchmen also wrote some famous Superman stories in which he does similar things. This is the problem I have with criticisms of MoS by a certain portion of the Superman fanbase that have head cannoned their ideal version of Superman to the point they view other, perfectly legitimate versions of the character as false. There is no better evidence of this then people objecting to Superman killing Zod in MoS. John Byrne's Superman run is widely considered to be one of the better in-continuity runs and Supes kills Zod in it, not even in the same context of MoS either. If I recall correctly, Supes kills Zod for punitive reasons, where as MoS Supes kills Zod as a preventative measure. Yet, the response you'll hear to this is basically, "That doesn't count!"

They are literally in the business of making money. This movie made money, but mostly in its first week and then dropped steeply. Yeah people paid for those first tickets, but that's no guarantee that they actually enjoyed the experience (both times I saw it, it was like a funeral got let out afterward). And it pretty much confirmed that people wouldn't be duped twice and turn out for more of the same.

Studios are perfectly content to produce 150 mill budget films that make 600 mill in the box office. And the thing is, these films usually the good ones too.

Also I know there is this meme that studios are only there for the benjamins, but they don't actually behave like this. Studios actually do want to have a resume of critical hits as it increases their studios prestige. When Martin 'Does Nothing Wrong' Scorsese said that MCU films aren't cinema, Bog Iger and co. didn't just say, "Who cares fam, we're in it for the dolla dollas!" They were clearly upset by the remark because they actually think they're creating worthwhile media. This obviously isn't true for investors, but it is true for most of the staff at the company.

Also, people like good movies regardless of tone. These were not great movies.

Not really, my mom doesn't like most Martin Scorsese films because of their tone. My grandma didn't like MoS because it veered more into a sci-fi direction.

MoS has more appeal. But you are conveniently ignoring the steep box office drop in BvS's second weekend, which speaks volumes. It had a huge opening weekend because people were hyped to see the Trinity on screen for the first time ever. You had to really **** up for a movie like that to have terrible legs, and they did. It's a big, loud and very public embarrassment.

Because the drop doesn't matter. The movie lacking legs doesn't mean that there wasn't a lot of excitement to see the movie. You know this, in the next paragraph you reiterate my point;

A Superman story with that tone is questionable, but not necessarily impossible. Snyder just didn't deliver a good example of how it can be done. MoS was better, but any potential this version had was killed by BvS and neither version of JL (the planned one or the one we got) was going to save it.

Just to rephrase your statement; disliking a single movie of a certain tone is not a personal indictment on other media that shares that tone or the tone itself.

It's not all about tone. That's a strawman argument at this point. Basically, WW, the Nolan trilogy and Joker were just more competently made all around and had characters people cared about and an engaging story. Snyder did not have any of those things for most people.

But it is all about tone, nearly every criticism against MoS is based around the tone of the film. I actually don't think I've ever heard the claim that a film like MoS was incompetently made before, because it...isn't? Character motivations are clear, the script is coherent, the cinematography and scene composition are good, there isn't any glaring faults in the editing, etc. The vast majority of MoS "criticism" is "Argh! Man of Murder!" "It's too dark!"

The thing with Wonder Woman is people spout out the talking point, "The third act is bad!" By which they mean, "We didn't like the Ares fight!" They don't dislike the Ares fight because because of tonal reasons, but because the cgi is off, and the villain looks silly with a mustouche. For me personally though, I dislike it because I kind of wish Ares didn't exist and I think it would have been better if Wonder Woman had to accept that humanity has an internal compulsion to commit violence and such motivations are not caused by an external entity (i.e a tonal complaint).

[Frontier]

Didn't Wan come on board before BvS even came out though?

Maybe? But to be honest I think the need for a course-correct impacted Wan's approach even if he made the movie he knew he was going to make when he got the gig.

[Osiris-Rex]

The lack of success of Justice League was because of Zack Snyder. People had grown weary of his nihilistic approach to the characters. Most people assumed that the movie that was put out was just more Snyder, so that is why they stayed away.
And from everything I have heard about the Snyder cut, it is just more of the same grim, dark, pretentiousness.

[manwhohaseverything]

The lack of success of Justice League was because of Zack Snyder. People had grown weary of his nihilistic approach to the characters. Most people assumed that the movie that was put out was just more Snyder, so that is why they stayed away.
And from everything I have heard about the Snyder cut, it is just more of the same grim, dark, pretentiousness.

Nihilistic?

This was what zack snyder wanted to say with his movies. But, it was not meant to be. What bruce said at the end of bvs ain't nihilism. If Believing "man are still good" is nihilism then you need to check the definition.
Superman nowadays is like a torch light in the middle of the day-pointless.

[SiegePerilous02]

The same dude who wrote Watchmen also wrote some famous Superman stories in which he does similar things. This is the problem I have with criticisms of MoS by a certain portion of the Superman fanbase that have head cannoned their ideal version of Superman to the point they view other, perfectly legitimate versions of the character as false. There is no better evidence of this then people objecting to Superman killing Zod in MoS. John Byrne's Superman run is widely considered to be one of the better in-continuity runs and Supes kills Zod in it, not even in the same context of MoS either. If I recall correctly, Supes kills Zod for punitive reasons, where as MoS Supes kills Zod as a preventative measure. Yet, the response you'll hear to this is basically, "That doesn't count!"

Moore's stories actually engage with the character instead of making him a bland Jesus figure put up on a pedestal. One story was also wrapping up his career instead of just starting out and launching a new shared universe. Plus they were just better written.

I agree about the hypocrisy of the Byrne run, and him killing Zod in Superman II, but I'm not a fan of either of those either. The fact that it happened so much may be a sign to try something else.

Also I know there is this meme that studios are only there for the benjamins, but they don't actually behave like this. Studios actually do want to have a resume of critical hits as it increases their studios prestige. When Martin 'Does Nothing Wrong' Scorsese said that MCU films aren't cinema, Bog Iger and co. didn't just say, "Who cares fam, we're in it for the dolla dollas!" They were clearly upset by the remark because they actually think they're creating worthwhile media. This obviously isn't true for investors, but it is true for most of the staff at the company.

Which they weren't getting with Snyder's films, but which they did get with the Nolan films and Wonder Woman, which is why we're getting WW84 and Snyder, Cavill and everything else attached to that vision have been dropped.

Not really, my mom doesn't like most Martin Scorsese films because of their tone. My grandma didn't like MoS because it veered more into a sci-fi direction.

To each their own. Generally speaking though, that's how that works because we have a wide array of classic and successful films regardless of genre and tone. Because they are good films.

Because the drop doesn't matter. The movie lacking legs doesn't mean that there wasn't a lot of excitement to see the movie. You know this, in the next paragraph you reiterate my point;

Lol of course it matters. It was the most severe second weekend drop in a film featuring either Batman or Superman, let alone both of them, plus Wonder Woman. You stating there was a lot of excitement to see the movie doesn't change anything, that was before release. Once people actually saw it and word of mouth got out it dropped severely. That means it wasn't just blind fanboy hate, the casuals were not buying what the studio was selling. And this impacts the studio's prestige.

Because ask anyone irl, they will either consider it a laughing stock or damn it with faint praise like "it wasn't great, but I didn't think it was that bad" at most. They still consider it kind of bad

But it is all about tone, nearly every criticism against MoS is based around the tone of the film. I actually don't think I've ever heard the claim that a film like MoS was incompetently made before, because it...isn't? Character motivations are clear, the script is coherent, the cinematography and scene composition are good, there isn't any glaring faults in the editing, etc. The vast majority of MoS "criticism" is "Argh! Man of Murder!" "It's too dark!"

Those have all been criticized constantly.

The thing with Wonder Woman is people spout out the talking point, "The third act is bad!" By which they mean, "We didn't like the Ares fight!" They don't dislike the Ares fight because because of tonal reasons, but because the cgi is off, and the villain looks silly with a mustouche. For me personally though, I dislike it because I kind of wish Ares didn't exist and I think it would have been better if Wonder Woman had to accept that humanity has an internal compulsion to commit violence and such motivations are not caused by an external entity (i.e a tonal complaint).

That is exactly what happened and that is exactly the lesson she learned. Ares tried to make things worse and gave them inspiration, but he didn't make them do anything. This is clear in the movie. We even had another world war after he was killed.

[The Darknight Detective]

I agree about the hypocrisy of the Byrne run, and him killing Zod in Superman II, but I'm not a fan of either of those either. The fact that it happened so much may be a sign to try something else.

I can personally respect that position (and also your lack of amnesia regarding the other times Clark has killed prior to the DCEU ).

[Thomas Crown]

Well, taking into account the psychotic hatred this forum has for Zack, I'm not really surprised with the poll results. After all, this the place where "fans" side with studio execs and their stupid decisions over the artistic vision of a director. This the place where "fans" are TOTALLY OKAY with a studio pushing a father still grieving for his daughter out of his own movie because they want to see Superman smiling and saying things like "I'm a big fan of justice", while the John Williams theme plays along.

About the OP's question, yes, I think a theatrical edit of Zack's original version would have been more financially successful than the Frankenstein monster that we got. Mainly because it probably would get a more positive word of mouth from the fans that supported the franchise since the beginning. Critically, I'm pretty sure that a lot of reviews were written way before the movie was released. But even without the mutilation of Zack's work, I still doubt it would have reached the one billion mark because there was a MASSIVE sabotage campaign going on against this movie, both from the outside and the inside.

[SiegePerilous02]

I can personally respect that position (and also your lack of amnesia regarding the other times Clark has killed prior to the DCEU ).

lol, can't forget him killing Mxy in Moore's story and of course Doomsday either.

The killing isn't the issue, more that it seems to have been done just for the sake of being edgy instead of having anything very interesting to say. And some of the prior examples are guilty of the same thing.

Well, taking into account the psychotic hatred this forum has for Zack, I'm not really surprised with the poll results. After all, this the place where "fans" side with studio execs and their stupid decisions over the artistic vision of a director. This the place where "fans" are TOTALLY OKAY with a studio pushing a father still grieving for his daughter out of his own movie because they want to see Superman smiling and saying things like "I'm a big fan of justice", while the John Williams theme plays along.

The hyperbole is strong with this one.

If you want psychotic, look at the Snyder Cut crowd bombarding every twitter announcement with their crap even on projects that have nothing to do with Snyder's films. There is enough insanity to go around. And one can dislike Snyder's vision and still consider some of the studio's actions as tasteless.

[Vordan]

lol, can't forget him killing Mxy in Moore's story and of course Doomsday either.

The killing isn't the issue, more that it seems to have been done just for the sake of being edgy instead of having anything very interesting to say. And some of the prior examples are guilty of the same thing.



The hyperbole is strong with this one.

If you want psychotic, look at the Snyder Cut crowd bombarding every twitter announcement with their crap even on projects that have nothing to do with Snyder's films. There is enough insanity to go around. And one can dislike Snyder's vision and still consider some of the studio's actions as tasteless.

I don’t think he can read your posts, he puts everyone who criticizes Snyder on ignore lmao. It is pretty funny that he can’t seem to comprehend that one can despise WB executives for being incompetent while also thinking Snyder is also incompetent.

[WebLurker]

[Superbat]

The Snyder Cut would have done much worse at the box office. There is zero chance it would have made more or been a success.

BvS's critical reception, its weekend drop and its failure to reach $900 million worldwide are proof that the DCEU was in a downward spiral under Snyder.

Man of Steel wasn't a bomb but it was critically divisive, and made less than a $100 million more worldwide than Iron Man did in 2008. At the time, DC had the goodwill of the Dark Knight movies. Movies that audiences and critics loved.

Man of Steel was not as well received as any of those movies, so Snyder stumbled right out the gate. This should have been the first sign that he needed to change his approach, but instead he doubled down.

BvS was a disaster.

The interest generated by a new Batman and the first movie Wonder Woman quickly fizzled. It was critically reviled, and audiences weren't showing up for subsequent showings. It had the 2nd worst next day box office drop for a superhero movie, and this is because the movie that did worse than it, TDKR, had a mass shooting happen at one of its screenings.

The last two Batman movies made a billion worldwide, but BvS couldn't make it to $900 million.

People that defend BvS say $900 million isn't a bad worldwide gross, but they're missing the point. Before it was released, BvS was generating a lot interest. Pre-release ticket sales were record breaking, it was outperforming TDKR and AOU, and it had a record breaking opening day.

People were interested, until they saw the movie.

BvS killed interest in the DCEU.

Every DCEU movie since it has had to work against it. It was the opposite of the Avengers effect.

Wonder Woman opened lower than MOS and BvS but it went on to gross more than both in the US.
Aquaman opened even lower but is now the highest grossing DC movie ever.

BvS had a director's cut but it still sold less than MOS on DVD and Blu-Ray.

If the Snyder Cut had made it to theaters, it would not only have to deal with all of that but it's longer run time and it being closer to Snyder's vision would have hurt it even more at the box office, because as BvS showed, audiences didn't like Snyder's approach to superheroes. Snyder's fans liking it more wouldn't have mattered.

If we pretend that everyone who signed the Release the Snydercut petition was from the US and that they all skipped seeing Justice League in theaters but would have seen the Snyder Cut in theaters, that would add less than 3 million to Justice League's gross.

At an hour and a half longer, it would have been a miracle for the Snyder Cut to gross $200 million in the US and $500 worldwide.

[Superbat]

The hyperbole is strong with this one.

If you want psychotic, look at the Snyder Cut crowd bombarding every twitter announcement with their crap even on projects that have nothing to do with Snyder's films. There is enough insanity to go around. And one can dislike Snyder's vision and still consider some of the studio's actions as tasteless.

It gets worse.