Zack Snyder's JUSTICE LEAGUE on HBOmax in 2021!

[Castle]

What I don't follow is why comic book movies that aren't ultra serious are inherently bad. Isn't that just a different kind of storytelling? (To put it in reverse, how is it different then Snyder using Superman for his dark drama films?_

Because it is comic books. no one took it seriously in the first place. Ultra serious comic books movies are very important to the genre because they represent the genre development as a more serious art form from just harmless kids entertainment done to sell toys. there was a reason Chris Claremont, Alan Moore and Frank Miller all became superstar writers in the 70s and 80s.

(Also worth noting that it wasn't X-Men alone that revived the superhero genre. The original Spider-Man, a movie that was very much in line with the MCU movies down the line -- embracing the fantastic parts of the genre, n

I said it was xmen that brought it the more ultra grounded comic book story telling. also the orignal Spiderman is not in line with MCU. The original spiderman is inline with sam raimi vison of the character because he was a big fan of Spiderman. there is nothing like the mcu but mcu itself.

was also a key game changer. Heck, if anything, I think the moral to take away from that is not that serious movies are better than more lighthearted ones, but that both are legitimate ways to make good superhero movies.)

The serious comic book films are just going to be held up higher because as I said, serious comic book story telling has always stood for challenging genre progression. when the dust settles, I have no doubt The Snyder Cut will be more revered than any Avengers film because serious comic films have always gotten more respect than the light hearted action comedies.

[Castle]

So this is perfect time to show why Rotten Tomatoes is preferred by Hollywood as an aggregator here is it on Metacritic

Justice League 56

Positive 12
Mixed 18
Negative 4

RT turns most of those mixed rating into positive rating, because it is at its heart RT is a Pass/Fail system. So while people are out here being mad at RT, It actually protects movies which is why you don't see grumpy Hollywood types saying go to Metacritic. So for more clarity it is something like this

Positive goes from 100- 67
Mixed goes from 60 -40
Negative goes 38 and below

These are reviews from major sites, News papers and film outlets as well. So as you can see most most reviewers have it as mixed or 60%. Which puts a better framing on this topic it is okay to like an average movie. As much fun as to talk about it that way it isn't just Good or Bad. And that is biggest problem with RT system imo.

Agreed.

This is the kind of analysis that I personally like. Not the whole conspiracy bullshit nonsense.

The real issue with RT is that it just shows a consensus of critics liking or disliking a movie, it doesn’t really point out how well the movie is truly being reviewed. RT is almost completely binary. Metacritic actually shows what scores the movies are getting and from that you can more accurately gauge how well a film is being received.

If 90% of critics give a movie a 6/10, RT will show 90% fresh but Metacritic will show 60 meaning the movie is actually getting average reviews. That’s why I’ve long said that people should simply scan the internet for this information and make up their own minds.

Seriously, in the “Information Age”, it’s staggering and really surprising how many people don’t understand how RT even works. People aren’t meant to treat it like it’s the “final word” on a movie’s quality.

lol. All of this won't matter if none can actually show what this critics are saying. People can speculate what the percentage is or aggregate is all they want but if they don't have the meat to support it, it is meaningless. If 78% of critics are praising a movie for the intellectual commentary ,themes, story telling, and unique style of direction and 95% critics are praising a movie for been fun and nothing else. the movie with a 78% is still more acclaimed.

The person who posted the Roger Egbert review that said, Martin Scorsese needs to watch this film to be be proven wrong about comic books. that is a criticism worth talking about and why, we will learn more from this that the usual standard criticism of action, fun , comedy many of this comic films have had or gaslighted by one formula that never added to reviewing movies in a way that is credible.

There are the expected negative and positive reviews but the one thing I’m seeing that I’ve never seen from previous Snyder films is rave reviews. It’s really odd.

The superhero movies that have achieved a genuine sweeping transcendence can just about be counted on one hand… to that hallowed list I would now add Zack Snyder’s Justice League.
– Owen Gleiberman, Variety

This four-hour cut is the kind of brazen auteurist vision that Martin Scorsese was calling for when he complained (rightly) that most modern superhero movies don’t resemble cinema.
– Matt Zoller Seitz, RogerEbert.com

Thank you posting this. it's time we get the substance of reviewing films than shallow things like percentage only that tells you nothing about serious film criticism.

I also noticed that many of the good reviews are praising Snyder's as a legit film maker, who finally saw his vision come to life. this is very important, considering DC WB almost tried to go very Cooperate after all the faux backlash from BvS.

[Shunt]

I feel Snyder doesn't understand Superman

I feel Snyder doesn't understand film.

[CosmiComic]

I feel Snyder doesn't understand film.

I think he understands visuals to some extent. And he had some good action scenes.

Why are people still referencing Scorsese again? Are we still debating auteurism?

[C_Miller]

Man, this thread is exhausting. You know what the difference between most Snyder fans and most MCU fans are? Most MCU fans aren't especially hung up on whether their can classify the movies as high art. They're not high art. They're big budget action movies. Same with the DCEU movies, it's just the DCEU movies have an air of self-importance.

[CosmiComic]

I think these movies are a form of art, but not necessarily purely artistic as an independent movie would be

[Castle]

Man, this thread is exhausting. You know what the difference between most Snyder fans and most MCU fans are? Most MCU fans aren't especially hung up on whether their can classify the movies as high art. They're not high art. They're big budget action movies. Same with the DCEU movies, it's just the DCEU movies have an air of self-importance.

what is high art. saying high art must now mean objective criticism will matter and does exist. I dont even care deeply about fandoms wars because I equally like both marvel and dc in general but i have issues with some aspects of marvel and dc, which mcu and dcu are a big part of as with their comics.


the issue here is zack snyer the film maker getting to direct and call the shot of his own films again, after been an outcast, and DC getting too much into studio cooperate decision that has nothing to do with film making or even story telling or visual directing. two things very important for comic book films. calling that high art is not far off. One thing I like , taking time to read this reviews is that many have said Snyder and his fans have been vindicated. which is something I predicted will happen. that this movie will vindicate Snyder. I have said it on this thread many times, Again I was right about many things that is going on in the comic book genre.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56415738
Zack Snyder's Justice League: A 'vindication' of director's vision, say critics


Anything can be high art if it achieves the highest form of what the genre or project can be. high art is simplistic, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to make a high product, just push the boundaries very well to the highest of how far the boundaries can go and you get ......HIGH-ART. This is what high art means, it was one of those words that is actually self -explanatory in the term.

[80sbaby]

You're right. I phrased that question poorly. What makes this a good movie, especially in the context of the character arc and the underlying plot of the movie of the destruction of a realm of existence? Is it funny? Sure. Is it popular? Unquestionably. It's it good? Tell me why.

Ok well, I like it because the visuals were amazing. From Hela's costume to Sakaar, the colors, all of it looked very cool and Kirby-esque. The action was dope and I love that we got to see a real Thor vs Hulk fight. Also, ever since they announced they were doing a Thor film, I expected them to use Immigrant Song the same way they used AC/DC in the Ironman films. Yet they never did until this movie and it was just as glorious as I expected it to be! It perfectly fit the scenes both times it was played.

I liked pretty much all the characters in it. Thor was very much the Flash Gordon, hero type and learning that his true power came from within, while a bit cliché, was done in such a way that I still cared and felt compelled by. I also enjoyed his continued relationship growth with Loki. Valkyrie was a fun character and had me from her first entrance where she fell off the ship. Loki being Loki is always a treat. The humor was on point and hit exactly as it was meant to.

As for the destroying Asgard, I was ok with that because the idea of the Asgardian travelling through space in search of a new home really appealed to me. Them being literal space Vikings would have been cool to see continue.

In short, it was a well put together film that had a good plot, action, enjoyable characters, great villain and good music. It was a good action-adventure film.

[80sbaby]

Have you seen most of the criticism about MoS or BvS ?

Yes I have and those aren't objective criticisms, either. I say that despite agreeing with them.

[Triple J]

He doesn't. He constructs Man of Steel, and later B v S, using framing of shots, dialogue and plot choices to basically scream "Luthor is right!" He wants Superman to be a god-ling, completely divorced in every meaningful way from humanity and elevated above them whether by choice or circumstance. Everything in Snyder's films that makes Superman special or good comes from his Kryptonian heritage. People SHOULD be afraid of this Superman, and his inability to connect with our world in any meaningful way until he meets Lois.

Honestly, the stuff with his dad is the worst offender. Jonathan Kent in MoS doesn't give Clark hope, or the will to persevere, he gives him fear. Superman becomes a hero in spite of his human father, not because of him. That's just bonkers to me. Everything that makes Superman super, with the sole exception of his abilities, should come from his human upbringing. He's not better than us, he's the best of us.

See, I am in two minds about that- why should it come from human upbringing? To me, that kinda implies that Clark needs humans to become a good person - Why can't it be an idea he arrived on his own? It's an interesting take to explore, and I am glad that they explored it.

After all, Donner took a lot of liberties as well, which were then reincorporated back into comics (presentation of Krypton, re-visioning Luthor's motivations and writing him as an evil capitalist, rather than a scientist who grew up with Clark).

https://nerdist.com/article/how-supe...hanged-comics/

[Frobisher]

Ok well, I like it because the visuals were amazing. From Hela's costume to Sakaar, the colors, all of it looked very cool and Kirby-esque. The action was dope and I love that we got to see a real Thor vs Hulk fight. Also, ever since they announced they were doing a Thor film, I expected them to use Immigrant Song the same way they used AC/DC in the Ironman films. Yet they never did until this movie and it was just as glorious as I expected it to be! It perfectly fit the scenes both times it was played.

I liked pretty much all the characters in it. Thor was very much the Flash Gordon, hero type and learning that his true power came from within, while a bit cliché, was done in such a way that I still cared and felt compelled by. I also enjoyed his continued relationship growth with Loki. Valkyrie was a fun character and had me from her first entrance where she fell off the ship. Loki being Loki is always a treat. The humor was on point and hit exactly as it was meant to.

As for the destroying Asgard, I was ok with that because the idea of the Asgardian travelling through space in search of a new home really appealed to me. Them being literal space Vikings would have been cool to see continue.

In short, it was a well put together film that had a good plot, action, enjoyable characters, great villain and good music. It was a good action-adventure film.

Is it good from a film-making perspective only though? None of the shots were framed like a Renaissance Painting (except for the slo-mo Last Stand Of The Valkyries scene, I guess), and none of the male characters once collapsed to their knees screaming with rage. Also, even though Thor's dad died, it was not a serious and mature film like a Scorcese film because in other scenes there were jokes, which are not serious and mature.

[80sbaby]

Is it good from a film-making perspective only though? None of the shots were framed like a Renaissance Painting (except for the slo-mo Last Stand Of The Valkyries scene, I guess), and none of the male characters once collapsed to their knees screaming with rage. Also, even though Thor's dad died, it was not a serious and mature film like a Scorcese film because in other scenes there were jokes, which are not serious and mature.

Lol yeah, that's definitely how some posters define "good." And still don't see how that's not objective smh

[tyusmax]

Is it good from a film-making perspective only though? None of the shots were framed like a Renaissance Painting (except for the slo-mo Last Stand Of The Valkyries scene, I guess), and none of the male characters once collapsed to their knees screaming with rage. Also, even though Thor's dad died, it was not a serious and mature film like a Scorcese film because in other scenes there were jokes, which are not serious and mature.

I felt that the jokes overwhelmed the movie.
I did not care one bit about all the Asgardians being slaughtered or leaving on a refugee boat. I was just waiting for the next joke.

And for a movie titled Ragnarok, that left me kinda sad.

[Rincewind]

Ok well, I like it because the visuals were amazing. From Hela's costume to Sakaar, the colors, all of it looked very cool and Kirby-esque. The action was dope and I love that we got to see a real Thor vs Hulk fight. Also, ever since they announced they were doing a Thor film, I expected them to use Immigrant Song the same way they used AC/DC in the Ironman films. Yet they never did until this movie and it was just as glorious as I expected it to be! It perfectly fit the scenes both times it was played.

I liked pretty much all the characters in it. Thor was very much the Flash Gordon, hero type and learning that his true power came from within, while a bit cliché, was done in such a way that I still cared and felt compelled by. I also enjoyed his continued relationship growth with Loki. Valkyrie was a fun character and had me from her first entrance where she fell off the ship. Loki being Loki is always a treat. The humor was on point and hit exactly as it was meant to.

As for the destroying Asgard, I was ok with that because the idea of the Asgardian travelling through space in search of a new home really appealed to me. Them being literal space Vikings would have been cool to see continue.

In short, it was a well put together film that had a good plot, action, enjoyable characters, great villain and good music. It was a good action-adventure film.

I loved Ragnarok for the Thor/Loki relationship. In Thor 1 and 2 Loki was the most obvious trickster ever while Thor came off as a chump everytime he fell for one of Loki's tricks. In Avengers there's even a line "Are you ever not going to fall for that?" But in Rangnarok, Loki never manages to pull one over on Thor. Instead we got the death scene with Odin that actually feels like a father talking to his sons with love before dying. The elevator scene shows Thor has a more mature view of their relationship than even Loki realized in a way that's understanding and loving of his little brother. Even when Loki tries to backstab his minutes later, Thor is still a step ahead of him. In the end Loki chooses to save his brother and the Asgardians in a believable character moment. He still did so in a very Loki manner that glorifies himself and steals the Tessaract while he's at it. The entire movie helped develop Loki from the bad boy emo stereotype into a complex anti hero who despite everything still loves his brother. Even the jokes about turning into a snake when they were 8 fleshes out the brother relationship.

Thor Ragnarok gets flak for the use of humor. But the dramatic moments are still there, and they are effective. In the prior movies, the dramatic moments played more like melodrama than an actual complex family dynamics. Because of this, I felt more emotional connection to the characters in Ragnarok than in any other prior appearance.

Oh, and I liked the humor in Ragnarok more than the humor in the previous movies.

[80sbaby]

I loved Ragnarok for the Thor/Loki relationship. In Thor 1 and 2 Loki was the most obvious trickster ever while Thor came off as a chump everytime he fell for one of Loki's tricks. In Avengers there's even a line "Are you ever not going to fall for that?" But in Rangnarok, Loki never manages to pull one over on Thor. Instead we got the death scene with Odin that actually feels like a father talking to his sons with love before dying. The elevator scene shows Thor has a more mature view of their relationship than even Loki realized in a way that's understanding and loving of his little brother. Even when Loki tries to backstab his minutes later, Thor is still a step ahead of him. In the end Loki chooses to save his brother and the Asgardians in a believable character moment. He still did so in a very Loki manner that glorifies himself and steals the Tessaract while he's at it. The entire movie helped develop Loki from the bad boy emo stereotype into a complex anti hero who despite everything still loves his brother. Even the jokes about turning into a snake when they were 8 fleshes out the brother relationship.

Thor Ragnarok gets flak for the use of humor. But the dramatic moments are still there, and they are effective. In the prior movies, the dramatic moments played more like melodrama than an actual complex family dynamics. Because of this, I felt more emotional connection to the characters in Ragnarok than in any other prior appearance.

Oh, and I liked the humor in Ragnarok more than the humor in the previous movies.

Agree with all of this. There's more depth there than some want to admit.