The Zack Snyder's Justice League *Respectful* Film Discussion

[Doctor Know]

I still kinda feel the plot for this version was basically the plot from Avengers 1 though

You're bound to run into that, with both being maguffin, alien invasion, team coming together.

The presentation, story elements and universe lore is what separates them. Snyder presents his world as serious, while the MCU keeps things light. Marvel and DC have their own respective 80+ year of story and history. Some things are bound to mirror the other.

With regards to lore, Avengers 1 pulled from was Asgard and the MCU WWII. With both Cap 1 and Thor 1 being set-up for what the Tesseract is and why everyone wants it. ZSJL established the Mother Boxes coming from Apokolips and being left in the charge of Atlanteans, Amazons and Mankind (Feudal and Modern). After a failed invasion by Darkseid.

Avengers 1 showed that since Cap 1 (the 40s), mankind really had not learned their lesson about how dangerous the Tesseract is. Nor did they have any plans to stop exploiting it. The Mother Box being studied by Star Labs was unanalyzable and functionally useless. It couldn't be exploited to make weapons like SHIELD and HYDRA wanted for the Tesseract. They could be used to bring Victor and Clark back to life. Of course, the villains had other plans for their respective cubes.


There are parallels, but you can watch both films and not see the eyerolling similarities Whedon, Johns and Berg wanted to insert by making the JL a clone of the popular Avengers movies.


Remember kids: The Whedonisms were totally there. Joss Whedon, film maker, extraordinaire! Haha

[Factor]

I rewatched the studio version after Snyder's and Whedon's treatment of Wonder Woman for cheap sexual innuendo really irked me.
I don't love Snyder's take on the character, but she was treated with a lot more respect in his version.

[CosmiComic]

You're bound to run into that, with both being maguffin, alien invasion, team coming together.

The presentation, story elements and universe lore is what separates them. Snyder presents his world as serious, while the MCU keeps things light. Marvel and DC have their own respective 80+ year of story and history. Some things are bound to mirror the other.

With regards to lore, Avengers 1 pulled from was Asgard and the MCU WWII. With both Cap 1 and Thor 1 being set-up for what the Tesseract is and why everyone wants it. ZSJL established the Mother Boxes coming from Apokolips and being left in the charge of Atlanteans, Amazons and Mankind (Feudal and Modern). After a failed invasion by Darkseid.

Avengers 1 showed that since Cap 1 (the 40s), mankind really had not learned their lesson about how dangerous the Tesseract is. Nor did they have any plans to stop exploiting it. The Mother Box being studied by Star Labs was unanalyzable and functionally useless. It couldn't be exploited to make weapons like SHIELD and HYDRA wanted for the Tesseract. They could be used to bring Victor and Clark back to life. Of course, the villains had other plans for their respective cubes.


There are parallels, but you can watch both films and not see the eyerolling similarities Whedon, Johns and Berg wanted to insert by making the JL a clone of the popular Avengers movies.


Remember kids: The Whedonisms were totally there. Joss Whedon, film maker, extraordinaire! Haha

I see what you're saying. To me though keeping things light isn't the big difference. To me it's actually caring about the characters from beforehand, and seeing how the movie resolves the plot points of previous movies while continuing the universe. I feel the MCU did it better than the DCEU

I hate stuff like this. I'm glad Whedon's gone tbh

[Castling]

You're bound to run into that, with both being maguffin, alien invasion, team coming together.

The presentation, story elements and universe lore is what separates them. Snyder presents his world as serious, while the MCU keeps things light. Marvel and DC have their own respective 80+ year of story and history. Some things are bound to mirror the other.

With regards to lore, Avengers 1 pulled from was Asgard and the MCU WWII. With both Cap 1 and Thor 1 being set-up for what the Tesseract is and why everyone wants it. ZSJL established the Mother Boxes coming from Apokolips and being left in the charge of Atlanteans, Amazons and Mankind (Feudal and Modern). After a failed invasion by Darkseid.

Avengers 1 showed that since Cap 1 (the 40s), mankind really had not learned their lesson about how dangerous the Tesseract is. Nor did they have any plans to stop exploiting it. The Mother Box being studied by Star Labs was unanalyzable and functionally useless. It couldn't be exploited to make weapons like SHIELD and HYDRA wanted for the Tesseract. They could be used to bring Victor and Clark back to life. Of course, the villains had other plans for their respective cubes.


There are parallels, but you can watch both films and not see the eyerolling similarities Whedon, Johns and Berg wanted to insert by making the JL a clone of the popular Avengers movies.


Remember kids: The Whedonisms were totally there. Joss Whedon, film maker, extraordinaire! Haha

That's totally a stuntwoman with Ruffalo.

[HsssH]

Probably, I can't see any woman wanting to be a part of that scene if she doesn't have to.

[Robotman]

That's totally a stuntwoman with Ruffalo.

And a stunt woman in place of Gal. She apparently refused to do that ridiculous scene.

[Vakanai]

And a stunt woman in place of Gal. She apparently refused to do that ridiculous scene.

Good on her.

[NaVi]

the scene was ridiculous and it is okay to remove it, but apparently there is nothing wrong with aquaman removing his shirt every 5m, that for some reason superman resurrects half naked. I wonder what they would say if it was ww who took off her shirt or came out with her breasts in the air, and before someone tells me that it is not the same, half naked superman and aquaman taking off his shirt every 5m, it is a form of sexualize the male figure.

[Doctor Know]

the scene was ridiculous and it is okay to remove it, but apparently there is nothing wrong with aquaman removing his shirt every 5m, that for some reason superman resurrects half naked. I wonder what they would say if it was ww who took off her shirt or came out with her breasts in the air, and before someone tells me that it is not the same, half naked superman and aquaman taking off his shirt every 5m, it is a form of sexualize the male figure.

The chiseled Adonis is what people (manly men), go to see in this films. Thor is shirtless in all 3 Thor films to show off his form. Did T’Challa, M’Baku and Killmonger need to be shirtless for their duel over the mantle of king? Hell, we got a beef cake scenes of Star Lord in prison, Peter in front of Ned Leeds, and Scott Lang in front of Hope. The latter of which, was so Hope could check him out and start becoming attracted to him.

Arthur has an excuse, because he’s in the water a lot and didn’t want to wear his armor. Supes was shirtless for a fight with the league. Mainly to show off his form. Bruce was only shirtless for his training montage.

I don’t think people would feel compelled to see and or film pantless posterior shots Wanda, Widow or Wonder Woman in these movies. Because they’d never get away with topless shots of women.

If you doubt me, think of Rebecca Romijin and JLaw as Mystique in the X-men movies. No one was showing up to these films because these women were practically naked. In skin tight suits, with prosthetics on their faces, sexual organs and derrière. People wanted to know why they never put either actress in the famous white dress. Or why JLaw’s mystique could sometimes shapeshift with cloths on, but other times she’s fully nude again later in the movie.

[CosmiComic]

the scene was ridiculous and it is okay to remove it, but apparently there is nothing wrong with aquaman removing his shirt every 5m, that for some reason superman resurrects half naked. I wonder what they would say if it was ww who took off her shirt or came out with her breasts in the air, and before someone tells me that it is not the same, half naked superman and aquaman taking off his shirt every 5m, it is a form of sexualize the male figure.

Well, I didn't like those scenes either tbh. Men shouldn't be sexualized anymore than women should be

however, women are far more sexualized historically and even today in some cases. Plus, these actors may have wanted to have pointless shirtless scenes, when we know the actresses didn't want to suffer those scenes.

[NaVi]

Well, I didn't like those scenes either tbh. Men shouldn't be sexualized anymore than women should be

however, women are far more sexualized historically and even today in some cases. Plus, these actors may have wanted to have pointless shirtless scenes, when we know the actresses didn't want to suffer those scenes.

Many films have received destructive criticism for sexualizing women, but when the figure of the man is sexualized, everyone is silent. either both are criticized or neither is criticized.

[CosmiComic]

Many films have received destructive criticism for sexualizing women, but when the figure of the man is sexualized, everyone is silent. either both are criticized or neither is criticized.

I don't think people should be silent about male sexualization. But a lot od the time I only see male sexualization brought up to ignore female sexualization

[Thezmage]

It's not female sexualization that people complain about, it's objectification. Nobody cares that Wonder Woman looks attractive, it's when she's portrayed as a sex object without agency (for example, Flash falling in her boobs) that it's a problem. No matter how shirtless Aquaman gets, he's never portrayed as lacking power or agency because of it.

Although the woman sniffing his sweater is creepy

[The Darknight Detective]

Many films have received destructive criticism for sexualizing women, but when the figure of the man is sexualized, everyone is silent. either both are criticized or neither is criticized.

Probably because the number of times it happens to men are 1) not close to the numbers regarding women and 2) not nearly as egregious, either.

[CosmiComic]

It's not female sexualization that people complain about, it's objectification. Nobody cares that Wonder Woman looks attractive, it's when she's portrayed as a sex object without agency (for example, Flash falling in her boobs) that it's a problem. No matter how shirtless Aquaman gets, he's never portrayed as lacking power or agency because of it.

Although the woman sniffing his sweater is creepy

Makes sense. And yeah, that was creepy.

Probably because the number of times it happens to men are 1) not close to the numbers regarding women and 2) not nearly as egregious, either.

That's what I was trying to say