Zack Snyder's JUSTICE LEAGUE on HBOmax in 2021!

[SiegePerilous02]

Simple.... compare a good detective story to the average Batman story. The majority of the time a detective aspect is he snuck in a building at night and found one central clue the entire plot resolved around. In the old days Robin did better detective work. Look at all the major stories. It’s mostly action stories that if you are lucky have a slight mystery that is either revealed to him by the villain or so basic it barely qualifies as some impressive detective skills.

Take two of the bigger stories where there is a mystery of who the villain is. Long Halloween and Hush. Batman catches Alberto to figure out he was Holiday, has Dent tell him he is Holiday, and never finds out about Gilda. Thomas Elliot tells him he is Hush but doesn’t confirm until another story and his “detective work” on the Riddler was that he wasn’t really involved in the plot and he used the same name as a guy who invented the cross would puzzle and all that was enough to assume it was a fake. Then he needed Riddler to tell him every single thing about the plot.

That’s about as good as it gets. In Morrison’s run he basically just wings it in RIP, has to travel through time to kinda but not really figure out who Hurt is and he doesn’t even really get the entire story.


Those are some of the most mystery heavy Batman stories. He’s never lived up to his Greatest Detective moniker

Well yeah, that's why most of these writers are writing superhero comics for kids instead of serious crime novels

Any of Loeb's writing isn't really a good example of what comic Batman is capable of. Those stories are infamously dumb/style over substance and picked apart accordingly. Loeb's Batman couldn't detect his way out of a paper bag. The likes of Morrison and Dini are perhaps better at displaying what he is capable of, even if in a primarily action/adventure capacity that doesn't get too complicated (because the genre is superhero comics). Or Doug Moench's "the Forensic Files of the Batman," or a lot of the arcs in the original "Legends of the Dark Knight" series. Even if he doesn't 100% live up to the moniker, basic fact checking is well in his wheelhouse, which he doesn't do here while he's plotting not only to take down someone who hasn't done anything, but to murder said person. If the point is that this is deliberately OOC for Batman, it's because the film is relying on us to have prior attachment and knowledge to him. We are informed that his brutality is new, but not shown and this is the first time we are seeing this version, we have no reason to think he's ever been anything but a psycho who doesn't put much effort into detecting anything.

Basically, it's using bad writing elsewhere to excuse bad writing here. When in reality, both instances suck.

[Amadeus Arkham]

Simple.... compare a good detective story to the average Batman story. The majority of the time a detective aspect is he snuck in a building at night and found one central clue the entire plot resolved around. In the old days Robin did better detective work. Look at all the major stories. It’s mostly action stories that if you are lucky have a slight mystery that is either revealed to him by the villain or so basic it barely qualifies as some impressive detective skills.

Take two of the bigger stories where there is a mystery of who the villain is. Long Halloween and Hush. Batman catches Alberto to figure out he was Holiday, has Dent tell him he is Holiday, and never finds out about Gilda. Thomas Elliot tells him he is Hush but doesn’t confirm until another story and his “detective work” on the Riddler was that he wasn’t really involved in the plot and he used the same name as a guy who invented the cross would puzzle and all that was enough to assume it was a fake. Then he needed Riddler to tell him every single thing about the plot.

That’s about as good as it gets. In Morrison’s run he basically just wings it in RIP, has to travel through time to kinda but not really figure out who Hurt is and he doesn’t even really get the entire story.


Those are some of the most mystery heavy Batman stories. He’s never lived up to his Greatest Detective moniker

You’re right. With Batman, I find the best stories he has have squat to do with any detective work. Excellent stories like Batman Ego, Batman: Year One, Batman: Prey, Batman: Venom, and Dark Knight Returns contain virtually zero detective work or any real display of Bruce being a particularly exceptional sleuth. Most of the best Batman stories are either psychological thrillers or full-on action stories like Knightfall. Was Denny ‘O Neil the one who originated the ‘World’s Greatest Detective’ moniker?

[80sbaby]

That’s nice, but the vast majority of the states criticism around that scene is “duh plot was rezolved becuz their moms have the same name”. So yes while it being hamfisted was a valid criticism worth exploring, when the majority of people have their baseline criticism as that, it loses weight as an argument.

Not at all and you're oversimplifying, which is a bit ironic considering your complaint. People have been over this many, many times and it's been explained, again in this VERY topic, what is meant. You're willingly ignoring that to make your "point" which, as I said, is ironic (or hypocritical?)

Why not address the actual criticisms that have been posted instead of trying to sweep them away by generalizing?

[Blind Wedjat]

The point was to foreshadow the potential dark future where Darkseid has taken over Earth, and by extension taken over Superman that would become a pivotal plotline in Snyder’s two-part Justice League arc. Snyder did say the Knightmare sequence was going to be explained in his version of Justice League, and Bruce would mention this vision to Wonder Woman. We know by the end of the sequence, Bruce saw a vision of a wrathful evil Superman under the control of Darkseid pull his heart out. In the Snyder Cut of Justice League this is originally why Bruce wanted to revive Superman since he believed Darkseid’s army planned a revival of Superman in order to control himC and use him as a puppet to take over the world, so he basically needed to beat Steppenwolf to the clock and revive Superman in order to prevent him from falling into Apokolips’s hands. So basically it was a race against time situation.

This kind of mirrors an episode from Superman: The Animated Series called ‘Legacy’ where Superman for some time was brainwashed to serve under Darkseid’s army and helping him conquer the Earth. The Knightmare sequence may still be addressed in Zack’s version of the movie coming next year.

...all of which has nothing to do with the film in present. Putting set-up for another future film in the middle of a movie is bad writing and bad filmmaking. Why do you think post credit scenes exist and sequel teases are usually kept to the very end of the film?

Answer honestly: if you didn't know the source material, would you have understood the Knightmare sequence? Do you think the average and casual viewer understood it? Because BvS doesn't even resolve the sequence, nor does it explain it. It SHOULD have done that. That's what a good script does.

[Amadeus Arkham]

...all of which has nothing to do with the film in present. Putting set-up for another future film in the middle of a movie is bad writing and bad filmmaking. Why do you think post credit scenes exist and sequel teases are usually kept to the very end of the film?

Answer honestly: if you didn't know the source material, would you have understood the Knightmare sequence? Do you think the average and casual viewer understood it? Because BvS doesn't even resolve the sequence, nor does it explain it. It SHOULD have done that. That's what a good script does.

If I didn’t know the source material I probably would’ve assumed it was a nightmare that was a manifestation of Bruce’s paranoia & fear of Superman, rather than an actual vision from the future, but I also would’ve thought it was also a pretty visually cool homage to Mad Max. I don’t necessarily think it was bad filmmaking placing it there as I thought Knigtmare scene only served to harden Bruce’s resolve to kill Superman and prevent this future from happening. So I think it did have purpose within the film itself all while planting the seeds for what’s to come next in Justice League.

As for whether or not the casual viewer got it, maybe they don’t necessarily need to exactly? Going off what a few people that I know who saw the movie and don’t read comics thoughts on the sequence they simply just saw it as a paranoid nightmare Bruce was having. They didn’t fully understand exactly what was going on, but they could easily infer it was vision/dream that Bruce was having about what the world could possibly end up if Superman were to continue existing. This is anecdotal obviously, but family and friends saw the film and have never read an issue of a comic in their entire lives didn’t have any real problem with the scene itself, and a lot of them thought the scene was pretty intriguing even if they were mildly confused about the content itself.

[SiegePerilous02]

Even as a supposed nightmare sequence, it still comes out of nowhere and goes on too long. The Barry cameo especially seems to be hinting at something important, Bruce has no reason to dream about Lois Lane being important. It's blatantly setting up something, but doesn't resolve it within this already overcrowded film.

Some people may have chalked it up as a dream, but it was likely impenetrable nonsense to others. A few people in my showing said "what the **** was that?", the people I overhead discussing it in more depth were fanboys. It was too self indulgent.

[Alan2099]

The dream and the Flash confused me honestly. I get that the start was just a dream (kind of an odd dream, but whatever) but having the Flash show up at that moment made me wonder if Flash was supposed to be connected to the dream somehow. Did he cause it?

Even setting aside the confusion, the dream was completely unneeded narrativly. Batman already wanted to kill Superman. Giving him a dream that shows Superman as evil changes nothing. What exactly is that supposed to show? He wants to kill Superman, then he has a dream and that makes him want to kill Superman slightly more?

Some people may have chalked it up as a dream, but it was likely impenetrable nonsense to others. A few people in my showing said "what the **** was that?", the people I overhead discussing it in more depth were fanboys. It was too self indulgent.

I remember hearing a few people wondering if that was supposed to be Ironman showing up. That was not a good design for the Flash and they did a horrible job showing who it was supposed to be.

[Synestra]

If for you personally only those who hated the film can answer the questions,criticisms and controversies raised by the film..then my bad

There is a clear difference between those who try to answer questions and/or criticism objectively and those who have a clearly biased agenda.

If Snyder had said the same thing about something you dont care about, you may not see it as belittling. Was Snyder wrong?

You're appealing to motive here by implying I care about his comments BECAUSE they were about Marvel. Looking at the comments objectively, Snyder is clearly insinuating that those characters are not important enough to deserve having movies about them.

Superman is the most iconic comic book character ever created. a character that iconic should be getting movies told if other 2nd tier characters were getting movies.

Again, that rationale doesn't make sense because Superman had numerous movies before Man of Steel.. so it isn't as if the character hasn't been getting movies. And his character has no bearing on the Marvel characters and whether or not they deserve to get movies.

Rotten Tomatoes showed the factual numbers that Joker roughly shares with Thor 2

It's becoming clear that you don't even understand the basis of the argument. When referencing these review sites, I'm referring to the audience reception, not the critics.

Joker has an 88% RT audience score, Thor: Dark World has a 76% (Joker's audience score is higher).

Hmm, I wonder why and when most people stopped caring about critics.

it wasn't just critics who had less than stellar opinions, even before Justice League.

Like I initially said in response to your original point, critics are not the only ones who had negative opinions of the movies. Not only does the audience scores reflect this, the box office numbers do too.

Did you know that Man of Steel was a better received movie than Iron man 3 in 2013? as bad as you think man of steel upset people. Iron Man 3 did worse. why isn't Iron Man 3 rated lower? it should be. the movie is worse objectively.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "objective." Additionally, Iron Man 3 didn't do worse. It made over $1 billion at the box office while Man of Steel failed to do so

Metacritic is even less of a thing than RT 20% audience global representation. Did you know Superman Returns has a better metacritic score than Avengers and Winter Solider? two of the ''top MCU movies''?

Superman retruns - 72

Winter Solider=70

Avengers =69

Again, you're referring to the critic score. I have been discussing audiences

Superman Returns has a 6.6 user rating
The Avengers has a an 8.0 user rating
Winter Solider has a 8.5 user rating

Snyder created a better cinematography and visual treat with man of steel. He told a more realistic story about extraterrestrial villains with man of steel to avengers that is basically an unrealistic comedy movie without any themes. To put it simply, Avengers is Fun. Man of Steel is more. Avengers may have made a billion, man of steel elevated the concept of super powered ET people. rt, metacritic and billion dollars does not change that, that is Disney doing their daily business of making movies of products they own. Snyder wanted to make a true film as a hired director, Whedon just did anything that Disney wanted.

What Snyder created was a movie that did not embody Superman's character, had poorly incorporated and heavy handed religious parallels, and failed to reach audiences in the way the Marvel films have, among other criticism.

You can spout fanboy opinions about Mos and BvS being better than Marvel movies all you want, it doesn't make it fact. My opinion about most Marvel movies is an opinion too, but what I have been telling you about audiences' reception is fact. And it isn't just supported by RT or metacritic, the most clear indication is the box office. As stated before, BvS brought together Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, but it still couldn't break $1 billion.

By the way, the argument that fan didn't like MoS and BvS because they were "too dark" is bullshit, when there are plenty of dark movies that are successful with audiences. But it's interesting that Wonder Woman performed better than MoS, and Aquaman outperformed BvS.

I never implied the MCU movies were better because of RT or metacritic, just that audiences reacted more favorably to the MCU, which is clearly supported by various sources.

Man of Steel rated 7.0; IMDb
The Avengers rated 8.0; IMDb

Batman vs Superman rated 6.4; IMDb
Avengers: Age of Ultron rated 7.3; IMDb

[skyvolt2000]

You're appealing to motive here by implying I care about his comments BECAUSE they were about Marvel. Looking at the comments objectively, Snyder is clearly insinuating that those characters are not important enough to deserve having movies about them.

Exactly.

Being an icon has no meaning on who gets a movie or not. Far too many times that icon title is a MAGNET to attract too many cooks that can ruin, derail or screw over a movie. Like we have been seeing at DC for movies with Batman & Superman. Probably the reason Green lantern is a mess because someone wants the icon and not the other guy as the lead.

If there were few cooks in the kitchen at DC maybe they would have more success.

[Username taken]

Exactly.

Being an icon has no meaning on who gets a movie or not. Far too many times that icon title is a MAGNET to attract too many cooks that can ruin, derail or screw over a movie. Like we have been seeing at DC for movies with Batman & Superman. Probably the reason Green lantern is a mess because someone wants the icon and not the other guy as the lead.

If there were few cooks in the kitchen at DC maybe they would have more success.

Quoted in agreement.

A character doesn't need to be an "icon" to get a movie (whatever icon means).

Batman and Superman weren't always iconic, they got that way because of media exposure and time.

[Castle]

Not at all and you're oversimplifying, which is a bit ironic considering your complaint. People have been over this many, many times and it's been explained, again in this VERY topic, what is meant. You're willingly ignoring that to make your "point" which, as I said, is ironic (or hypocritical?)

Why not address the actual criticisms that have been posted instead of trying to sweep them away by generalizing?

Its not oversimplifying, the best stories are the stories that are not simplified.

[Castle]

Quoted in agreement.

A character doesn't need to be an "icon" to get a movie (whatever icon means).

Batman and Superman weren't always iconic, they got that way because of media exposure and time.

This could not be further from the truth. lol.

you are quick to bring up media exposure, but that objectively belongs more with MCU B tier characters and the Disney machine that has pushed them. Batman and Superman were always iconic without even having the media to help them out. The media helps Marvel's B tier characters 10x more.

Batman and Superman have been around mainstream since the 40s and back then there was little mass media, or social media.

You don't think batman was iconic? Did you see the thrill and excitement people got when they announced Micheal Keaton was coming back? Keaton from the 80s and 90s?

Snyder was right about what he said about Thor, let see where Thor's franchise will be in 30-40 years. Does Thor even have a name from himself without the MCU? Batman and Superman don't need DCU or even movies.

The Snyder comments about Thor may seem hurtful to MCU fans but he was far from wrong.

[Rev9]

...all of which has nothing to do with the film in present. Putting set-up for another future film in the middle of a movie is bad writing and bad filmmaking. Why do you think post credit scenes exist and sequel teases are usually kept to the very end of the film?

Answer honestly: if you didn't know the source material, would you have understood the Knightmare sequence? Do you think the average and casual viewer understood it? Because BvS doesn't even resolve the sequence, nor does it explain it. It SHOULD have done that. That's what a good script does.

That is not entirely true because even at the very end of the film,Lex says 'the Bell's been rung and they've heard it' meaning that little foreshadowing for those in the know is already relevant, for those who do not know the lore it still is a call back to that very scene,that darkseid is coming.

How do you resolve a sequence yet to happen? In film it gives impetus to Batman's whole rationale,but you cannot resolve something yet to happen. That's like saying teasing Thanos in Avengers means by Guardians of the Galaxy,we should have the guardians attacking Titan or something

[Castle]

There is a clear difference between those who try to answer questions and/or criticism objectively and those who have a clearly biased agenda.You're appealing to motive here by implying I care about his comments ]

Its obvious at this point, it is about bias agendas.

You're appealing to motive here by implying I care about his comments BECAUSE they were about Marvel. Looking at the comments objectively, Snyder is clearly insinuating that those characters are not important enough to deserve having movies about them.

When did Snyder say Thor and others should not have movies? please send the exact words of Snyder saying this.

Again, that rationale doesn't make sense because Superman had numerous movies before Man of Steel.. so it isn't as if the character hasn't been getting movies. And his character has no bearing on the Marvel characters and whether or not they deserve to get movies.

Superman's last movie before Man of Steel was in 2006. By 2013, Marvel already had Avengers. I can see how Snyder would want Superman to have movies for that reason alone. Seriously I don't know why this is still causing a burn.

It's becoming clear that you don't even understand the basis of the argument. When referencing these review sites, I'm referring to the audience reception, not the critics.

Joker has an 88% RT audience score, Thor: Dark World has a 76% (Joker's audience score is higher).

The more you bring up rotten tomatoes, the more devalued the art of film criticism/reaction becomes.
can you explain how Star wars audience score has not changed in 7 months?

how did RT audience score get into controversies in the last few years?
You cannot use a site of constant damage control to defend anything.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "objective." Additionally, Iron Man 3 didn't do worse. It made over $1 billion at the box office while Man of Steel failed to do so

Except I understand and use the meaning of the word objective. from an objective point, Snyder's Man of steel has more value than many things out there. Snyder does not follow a shallow movie formula like Thor and Avengers.

Again, you're referring to the critic score. I have been discussing audiences

Superman Returns has a 6.6 user rating
The Avengers has a an 8.0 user rating
Winter Solider has a 8.5 user rating

Captain Marvel has a score of 3.9/10.

what you seem to be ignoring is, this are all small sample data, they mean nothing in the bigger picture of movies or what impact a movie can have on a person.
I can give a movie 9/10 because it was a whole lot of fun to watch
I can give another movie 7/10 but appreciate the style and thoughts of the movie a lot more.

What Snyder created was a movie that did not embody Superman's character,

It depends on how you view Superman's character. Snyder's Superman is closer to the superman in the death of superman story and justice league unlimited and 90s onward Superman.

Your embodiment of what superman is, is knowing him from Reeves Superman, its funny that superman has said on occasion, he is not boy scout.

had poorly incorporated and heavy handed religious parallels, and failed to reach audiences in the way the Marvel films have, among other criticism.

there is no marvel film that has the same religious parallels as superman did, If you can, you would have named them. MCU movies are fun, there are no strong themes to them like man of steel or watchmen.

You can spout fanboy opinions about Mos and BvS being better than Marvel movies all you want, it doesn't make it fact. My opinion about most Marvel movies is an opinion too, but what I have been telling you about audiences' reception is fact. And it isn't just supported by RT or metacritic, the most clear indication is the box office. As stated before, BvS brought together Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, but it still couldn't break $1 billion.

Man of Steel made 640m, its more memorable and still passionately talked about than iron man 3 that made 1.2 billion in 2013.

You bring up aidince reception as fact. I can bring up Snyder and credible directors and writers who have said MCU is nisnese and have proven it by using actual real film skills and that would be fact.
I never implied the MCU movies were better because of RT or metacritic, just that audiences reacted more favorably to the MCU, which is clearly supported by various sources.

Man of Steel rated 7.0; IMDb
The Avengers rated 8.0; IMDb

Batman vs Superman rated 6.4; IMDb
Avengers: Age of Ultron rated 7.3; IMDb

Spiderman 2 has a 7.3/10 on IMDB and it is beloved and respected classic in the genre than any current marvel film.
Seriously you want me to use a site that has Spiderman 2 (one and if not the best marvel film) and Age Of Ultron (one of the worst marvel films) as face value of quality and audiences taste?

Do you know that IMDB once released a statement years ago saying that their ratings are and were inaccurate?

Its a big let down when your issues with Snyder can only be proven with RT, metacritic and Imdb. I do see these things when studios market a film, they use it for hype. I don't see them when I watch a good documentary for movies.

[80sbaby]

Its not oversimplifying, the best stories are the stories that are not simplified.

Your response has nothing to do with mine. Are you actually paying attention to what's being discussed? Serious question.