Would The Zack Snyder Justice League Been Successful?

[The Darknight Detective]

Tell that to all the version of the character that had.Even byrne post crisis superman has killed.This notion is ridiculous. Generally even the post crisis is like gohan.When push comes to shove he would make choices and take sides.

Yep. In reality (I know, a very bad word here ), there wouldn't be a deux ex machina or someone shouting "there's always another way!" for get him out of every single jam (not to mention a no-kill rule that was created when comics were meant to be read by pre-adolescents).

[Adekis]

I honestly have no idea, but Snyder's cut was over 3 hours long, which means more time devoted to each character, which means Cyborg and Wonder Woman don't get sidelined, truncated arcs. I'm inclined to say that's better by default.

Also, Snyder's a better action director than Whedon, not to trash Whedon's action scenes, and I wish we got some more of those great Snyder epic shots in JL.

Things I'll probably miss from the theatrical cut when I see the Snyder Cut: some of the jokes, Kal's obvious joy at having a large team of super-hero peers, Barry will probably not be quite as lovable, Batman's ability to poke fun at himself...

But I still want to see it. If mostly for Di an Cy's sakes.

[SiegePerilous02]

Yep. In reality (I know, a very bad word here ), there wouldn't be a deux ex machina or someone shouting "there's always another way!" for get him out of every single jam (not to mention a no-kill rule that was created when comics were meant to be read by pre-adolescents).

The thing is, Superman pulling off another way usually requires him to actually work to pull off the impossible. To utilize all his power and intellect. It can be either a Deus Ex Machina, or well thought out. And since there are a limited number of films with a more finite continuity, the odds of Zod ever breaking free and killing again are much slimmer than a monthly comic, so its not as if heroes not killing results in the same cyclical bullshit we get in the comics.

There is precedent for Superman crossing the line when he needs to, and within the context of the film I don't even think he made the morally wrong choice. But with the lack of follow up, both within the film itself and (more importantly) in the following films, it comes across as a waste of time done for shock value. A lot of us thought it would lead to a character arc where a more experienced Superman would develop his no kill rule. Except nope, he is immediately presented with Doomsday who he has to kill, and would have apparently helped Wonder Woman kill Steppenwolf. None of those situations are unreasonable (especially Doomsday) but it is way too much literally back to back.

[walk]

I'd imagine in another world we'd all be pondering the potential Wheadon-cut that never came to be.

"Man did you here the rumours that Josh the Boss Wheadon himself was up for it, I mean sure things after BvS were pretty dire but a lot of those early MCU movies were pretty meh, I'm sure he could've worked his Avengers magic and got the DCEU finally up and running"

[manwhohaseverything]

The thing is, Superman pulling off another way usually requires him to actually work to pull off the impossible. To utilize all his power and intellect. It can be either a Deus Ex Machina, or well thought out. And since there are a limited number of films with a more finite continuity, the odds of Zod ever breaking free and killing again are much slimmer than a monthly comic, so its not as if heroes not killing results in the same cyclical bullshit we get in the comics.

There is precedent for Superman crossing the line when he needs to, and within the context of the film I don't even think he made the morally wrong choice. But with the lack of follow up, both within the film itself and (more importantly) in the following films, it comes across as a waste of time done for shock value. A lot of us thought it would lead to a character arc where a more experienced Superman would develop his no kill rule. Except nope, he is immediately presented with Doomsday who he has to kill, and would have apparently helped Wonder Woman kill Steppenwolf. None of those situations are unreasonable (especially Doomsday) but it is way too much literally back to back.

Yeah! No. I have seen most stories gloss over "the effort" part. The main complaint regarding the character is that he doesn't put effort. clark going on a journey to find a third option doesn't happen at all.Things like the fullmetal alchemist or rurouni kenshin rarely happens . Why is a follow up or foreshadowing needed? If that's done.how will someone that had to take a life to defend someone suddenly, Feel the catharsis.

Yeah! I am not going to sit around for superman mourning some genocidal manic like zod. I can get behind him mourning the people that were lost. If superman is feeling, so bad he broke his code and sorry for himself. he can sit under a tree and get nirvana or something. But, i wouldn't care if he even became the buddha . Please, he uses violence as a means and a vigilante. Escalation is plausible outcome. Yet, he cries about having to take a life. Why? Just so people can think of superman better than someone like jason todd, morally . When he ain't. He is the same as jason is. I am so tired of that. Respecting the death of a monster is one thing,that's honorable and human. Mourning having to stop him, is another. Superman that doesn't have a "no kill code" isn't sin.

[SiegePerilous02]

Yeah! No. I have seen most stories gloss over "the effort" part. The main complaint regarding the character is that he doesn't put effort. clark going on a journey to find a third option doesn't happen at all.Things like the fullmetal alchemist or rurouni kenshin rarely happens . Why is a follow up or foreshadowing needed? If that's done,how will someone that had to take life to defend someone suddenly, Feel the catharsis.

So the writers should strive to be better than the stories that gloss over it. Someone else's laziness is not an excuse for laziness of your own.

If there is no follow up, no ultimate point, why even do it? Its just shallow shock value to get attention.

[manwhohaseverything]

So the writers should strive to be better than the stories that gloss over it. Someone else's laziness is not an excuse for laziness of your own.

If there is no follow up, no ultimate point, why even do it? Its just shallow shock value to get attention.

It isn't laziness,though.it had a specific purpose. And this superman doesn't have a "no kill" code. It isn't just shock value, either. The guy was literally put in a place of a cop. That isn't necessary. I have edited my post above. I had a thing to do so, sorry about that.

[Korath]

Yes, it'd have made a far better run than the Frankenstein monster of a movie that we got to see, at the very least.

[D88M]

Is a complex question.

In an artistic sense? Absolutely, by default and in every single aspect, for several reasons.

In a economic sense? Hard to say, while the original movie made by Snyder was kinda forced to be lighter, and a little more mainstream i assume (without reaching the extreme of the studio cut) Snyder is still Snyder and a 3 hours and a half superhero epic with not many jokes and action scenes (that is all that casual audiences go to see in the "genre") it would had a difficult time to connect with general audiences, maybe.

Oh, and you have to take into account also the Snyder hate and mass "critics" that bash anything that is not fom the mcu and basically brianwash people into accepting a reality that does not exist.

Personally a almost 4 hour movie about the Justice League is a comic book fan come true, and given the quality of most superhero movies, is a shame that we could not seen the original film, seems like there is barely anything to enjoy left at this point, the movie industry has completely consumed comic book adaptations and transformed it into basically macdonald hamburgers, with disney being of course the prime example of that.

[Pinsir]

But what you said had nothing to do them being self contained or not.

They are still self contained works and evergreen sellers. No sequels or prequels were in sight when they were first created, and they don't mean much to them as works by themselves, especially as they came out long after the fact and have no impact on the stories themselves. TDKSA is much maligned by the fandom by TDKR is still held up as a classic. And Moore has nothing to do with any of the Watchmen sequels. Plus neither of them were initially part of the mainstream universe. And also, them being influential has nothing to do with them being self contained or not. That's not what that means.

Okay, a work like The Authority are also in the same vein as Watchmen and TDK. You can have long form story telling using this style. I legit don't understand why you think that because these some of these stories were self contained doesn't mean much. Its style of comic writing, of course it can be applied to a shared universe because it has been before.

Also, any shared universe is probably going to have multiple authors writing it. It doesn't matter that the writers are different. Different people wrote MoS and BvS.

And again, using any of these as influence for expensive movies that need to have as broad as possible appeal to make money is very dumb even if the final product is good. Which these are not.

The concept that a product fails because it didn't make all the imagined possible money it should have is the dumb idea though and frankly kills companies. According to your reasoning horror films should be dead genre because they don't have mass appeal, companies should endeavour to only produce Marvel style super-hero flicks, which would of course doom the industry.

Also, you're basically arguing that because 2 films were bad that this means the entire style of film has no public appeal, which is wrong. If you look at MoS and even BvS box office there is evidence to prove that these sort of films have public appeal. MoS made more money then most superhero movies during that period and the fact that BVS had such a huge opening proves there was a lot of interest in that film.

Not to mention, I know people have convinced themselves that MoS is grimdark and hopeless, but tonally it is not that different then Wonder Woman or even the Dark Knight trilogy and a film like Joker made tons of money and it was far more grounded. People want this type of film, maybe not all of them, but enough that its a viable market.

[katefan]

Snyder's conception of DC superheroes was stylized to the point of not recognizing the ideal they're meant to represent. His style, no matter how much money and faith he might have cobbled behind it, was never going to be enough to surmount the expectations the public had when comparing it to the MCU movie machine.

That said, using Darkseid as a central antagonist when the MCU was building up Thanos was mind-bogglingly stupid.

Well said. I would also add that I think Snyder peaked with 300.

[chamber-music]

I'm going to say no.

Outside of Snyder's vision devotes you could tell his movies were becoming more divisive and polarizing among general audiences.

Snyder's Justice League may of been a more coherent film but the people turned off by his take on the characters with the previous two DC films by Snyder would not of turned up for a third film. A box office drop was probably inevitable with Snyder attached at the helm.

[Agent Z]

Snyder's conception of DC superheroes was stylized to the point of not recognizing the ideal they're meant to represent. His style, no matter how much money and faith he might have cobbled behind it, was never going to be enough to surmount the expectations the public had when comparing it to the MCU movie machine.

That said, using Darkseid as a central antagonist when the MCU was building up Thanos was mind-bogglingly stupid.

Why? Darkseid and Thanos have almost nothing in common. You might as well say we shouldn't get a Wonder Woman movie because Marvel was doing Captain Marvel.

[Skullkid]

Is a complex question.

In an artistic sense? Absolutely, by default and in every single aspect, for several reasons.

In a economic sense? Hard to say, while the original movie made by Snyder was kinda forced to be lighter, and a little more mainstream i assume (without reaching the extreme of the studio cut) Snyder is still Snyder and a 3 hours and a half superhero epic with not many jokes and action scenes (that is all that casual audiences go to see in the "genre") it would had a difficult time to connect with general audiences, maybe.

Oh, and you have to take into account also the Snyder hate and mass "critics" that bash anything that is not fom the mcu and basically brianwash people into accepting a reality that does not exist.

Personally a almost 4 hour movie about the Justice League is a comic book fan come true, and given the quality of most superhero movies, is a shame that we could not seen the original film, seems like there is barely anything to enjoy left at this point, the movie industry has completely consumed comic book adaptations and transformed it into basically macdonald hamburgers, with disney being of course the prime example of that.

Is it really so hard to comprehend that people didn't like Snyder's work just on the basis they didn't think it was good?
Seriously, this whole thing where you try to blame the MCU does not work, for the simple fact we've had other DC movies come out and be well received by fans and critics.
You can like Synder all you want but you have to accept the fact other people don't and its not because they're being brainwashed its because they didn't like what he did.

Why? Darkseid and Thanos have almost nothing in common. You might as well say we shouldn't get a Wonder Woman movie because Marvel was doing Captain Marvel.

Thanos and Darkseid have nothing in common?
The fact someone can even say that with no irony whatsoever is just hilarious.

[phonogram12]

Thanos and Darkseid have nothing in common?
The fact someone can even say that with no irony whatsoever is just hilarious.

No joke.

10 characters.