Which do you prefer Zack Snyder’s Justice League or Infinity War-Endgame?

[Tofali]

I will wait forever for someone to pin point something that I have ever said that was factually bias. lol

Oh sweet lord Thy opinions are all biased my dear. It is just most ppl find it fruitless pointing it out now because you never acknowledge when someone directs your attention to it

[Jack The Tripper]

I was talking of both because they are linked and have to flow well. The design/concept is also linked to how the VFX looks in the end.
A lot of directors who opt for more adult story telling, will never favour cartoonish looking very colourful looking CGI that Disney has favoured since MCU phase 2. These directors tend to go more a more grounded looking or scaled back VFX many times practical effects. Which many times give a gritter, high fantasy vibe or modern science fiction vibe. We know there is a difference between how GOTG and Thor looks to Interstellar and Gravity.

To make another objective comparison to another franchise. The star wars prequels. One of the biggest criticisms of the prequels was those movies relied more on generic CGI that lacked the art sense of the original trilogy because George Lucas had become too obsessed with selling toys. By Attack of the clones, this criticism had become a big sour spot. Lucas had to scale back for Revenge of the Sith. Episode 3 did not look as cartoonish as Attack of the Clones.

Well now you are been subjective and as I said, on the box office Avatar thread, I dont get how fans will tell other fans, my series gave me emotional feelings and yours did not. that is been subjective. Some MCU fans also made the case that the Navis barely had any emotional story, which was objectively not true because Avatar at best is even a love storyÂ…a chick flick.

You can argue how thanos became a big iconic character from a fans point because of how he looked , however this is not objective , that has to do with VFX, Make up, CGI, practical effects and so on. Thanos was not even among the best 3 VFX films in 2019. Not when there was Alita Battle Angel , 1917 and Ad Astra

I donÂ’t think thanos pushed the envelope to be frank. I think Thanos was the breaking point with comic book movies. It was after Endgame in 2019 that Martin Scorsese said marvel movies are not cinema and are theme parks and many other directors took his side, while some comic book directors tried to distance themselves from MCU films, If thanos pushed the envelope in film making, many film makers would not have a problem with avengers films. why donÂ’t they hate Avatar or LOTR or Star Wars? these directors wont even attack the star wars prequels and the lord of the rings prequels as they do with Avengers films.

While I am not the biggest fan of Scorsese , however he did just not get it anywhere that these movies are theme parks. He must have seen something that made him get to that conclusion. And this, my dearest friend, takes comic films backward not forward because many directors donÂ’t take comic films seriously anymoreÂ….again because they look like theme parks to them and are not real enough.

Re-watch the final fight with him and captain America. Thanos felt very bulky and could barely move smoothly. I cannot understand how anyone can say this movement were realistic objectively.


With too much green screen. When I look the scene of thanos fighting steve, I appreciate why Bryan singer as a film maker, slimmed down the Sentinels in DOFP from the comics in films. These are just some good film instinct many directors have with handling the more cartoonish still picture aspect of comic books on live action screen, However since MCU is so hugely cooperate , they lack a lot of this instinct. Are you also aware that the MCU producer once said the entire IW took place on a green screen. We cannot sit here in good faith say thanos movement felt artistic and also same the same about Gollum from LOTR or even the Goblins from Harry Potters.

Artistic vision has never been enough for fans, that is why we will always be stuck in superficial fan battles of marvel is better and dc is bad and marvel is bad and dc is better however they matter most in judging a movie as an art piece. Which is what I am doing here and I seem to be one of the few.

Good trivia about artistic visions.

Many people in Hollywood deslike James Cameron, he barely has actor fans but the reason he has so much power and respect is because they cannot deny he is a great artist and folks will be in his movies only on that factor.

Here is another sicker but more twisted truth.

Many people also know Woody Allen is dirty for marrying his ex girlfriend's daughter and maybe a paedophile but they all will ignore this and star in his movies, because they all want to win Oscars for best actress and supporting actress and a Woody screenplay can guarantee that because he is that good of an artistic writer.

This is why the artistic minded has always been the best standing when it comes to judging movies objectively over what fans says or feel based only on agape love attachments to a series.

Ironically, Fiege said he made IW/Endgame for fans. Maybe he should think about changing this opinions and start to look at comic films as serious cinema.

There's a lot to unpack here, so I'm gonna do a cliff notes version so as not to waste my time:

The implication of a more mature story does not objectively mean better art. I would happily wager that kids shows such as Adventure Time have better story telling prowess, animation, and episodes than many adult animated shows that may try to reach a more mature audience. Colourful does not automatically mean cartoonish or childish. Even if it did, it would not make something less artistic. The moment you limit yourself to believing that, you're being subjective. There's no point in comparing MCU films to Gravity or Interstellar because they are not in any way similar, nor are they going for the same feel.

I don't see why you're bringing up the Star Wars prequels.

I am not being subjective - I am telling you that one of the frequently praised aspects of those films is that Thanos' expressions and animation were realistic. I backed this up with a video featuring professionals expressing why the animation is so good. This is also part of the reason as to why Avatar is lauded as a VFX masterpiece - the CGI models have great, expressionistic, and dynamic rendering. Whether or not the emotional weight of the story is conveyed well is another thing, but you can't dispute that the characters looked good.

I did not say that IW/Endgame are SFX masterpieces or that their VFX was the best of their respective years. I am saying that what they did was push the envelope with Thanos more so than Justice League did with Darkseid, which is what you brought up. Objectively, his animation was great for the most part. Again, this could change if Darkseid had as much screen time, but he hasn't. It seems to me like bias when you say that Darkseid's 3 or 4 minutes of screen time pushes the genre more than Thanos did.

I can see what you're saying and understand where you're coming from, but Thanos' design or animation did not push CBM's to breaking point. What you're implying is that Infinity War/Endgame did that, and that's fine. The Theme Park criticism doesn't come from a CGI figure, it comes from the CGI third act. There is a big difference. The reason why Marvel (and I guarantee you Scorcese was talking about DC movies too) are getting flack moreso than other franchises is because there has never been a franchise that has dominated the market for this long, this consistently. LotR was 3 movies over 3 years. Star Wars was 3 movies over 6 years. Harry Potter was 8 movies over 12 years. Marvel releases 3 to 4 movies a year now, and they are seen as cinematic events, which is why they earn so much. This is why they get flack - because it's lonely at the top etc etc.

Scorsese is allowed to say what he wants. I think he's right, MCU movies are like theme park rides, in the best way possible - Sitting through IW and Endgame in the cinema were 2 of the best cinema experiences of my life, sharing such great moments with other people in a packed out screen. However, I don't think what elderly white men think of superhero cinema is particularly interesting or prevalent: We're getting actually interesting up and coming talent directing new superhero movies for both Marvel and DC, and honestly I'd rather watch any new Taika Waititi/Chloe Zhao/Mohammed Diab/Ava DuVernay film than a new Scorsese or Cameron film.

[Jack The Tripper]

Post was too long so here's the last part

There's a reason I said the cgi wasn't perfect - it's common knowledge that CGI figures fighting has not been perfected (Alita, Avatar, JL, Raimi's Spider-Man, LotR/Hobbit all suffer from this). The main point I was trying to get across was that Thanos' expressions and movements in the quieter moments - Asgardian Ship, Talking to Dr Strange, Vormir, his throne room with Gamora, Gamora's childhood flashback - all are exceptionally crafted: He looks great, the lighting on his skin is great, the environments are interesting, and his face has human expression - all of which objectively led to him being a successful creation that had him connect with the general audience. That green screen comment is void in this conversation - JL, Avatar, Alita and many other films you seem to be championing over IW/Endgame use green screen extensively. The use of a green screen (no matter how much it is used) does not objectively prove anything about a film's artistic merit.

I'm not gonna reply to the "trivia" you've included because it's off topic and just all sorts of wrong. To paraphrase Ray Fisher: Accountability over Art.

If I'm honest, I think you should try to respect other people's opinions and realise that if fans like these movies, they like them. They do not need to be "shown the light" and see how "serious cinema" is infinitely better than well made superhero films. Because it just isn't true. Judging something purely based on artistic merit is not actually objective - you are still judging it based on a subjective metric. You can say that you prefer Snyder's films because you prefer his style, aesthetic, voice etc over the Russo's - but stop trying to pass it off as an objective truth. As I said before, you may feel Tommy Wiseau's "The Room" has more artistic vision than an MCU film, but that does not mean it's objectively better.*

*I'm not saying Snyder is like Wiseau just to be clear.

This is likely my last response to this, as I feel it will go around in circles.

[tyusmax]

Post was too long so here's the last part

There's a reason I said the cgi wasn't perfect - it's common knowledge that CGI figures fighting has not been perfected (Alita, Avatar, JL, Raimi's Spider-Man, LotR/Hobbit all suffer from this). The main point I was trying to get across was that Thanos' expressions and movements in the quieter moments - Asgardian Ship, Talking to Dr Strange, Vormir, his throne room with Gamora, Gamora's childhood flashback - all are exceptionally crafted: He looks great, the lighting on his skin is great, the environments are interesting, and his face has human expression - all of which objectively led to him being a successful creation that had him connect with the general audience. That green screen comment is void in this conversation - JL, Avatar, Alita and many other films you seem to be championing over IW/Endgame use green screen extensively. The use of a green screen (no matter how much it is used) does not objectively prove anything about a film's artistic merit.

Darkseid himself not having human expression in the little screentime he's had doesn't bother me, b/c Darkseid in the comics is pretty stoic and non-expressional in the first place.

However, I will point out that Steppenwolf has a lot of human expression in the movie.
When Desaad tells him he still owes 50k more worlds, Steppenwolf had puppy dog eyes that made me feel so sorry for him.
And this has been expressed by lots and lots of people.

So no, Thanos is not the only one that does this.

[Jack The Tripper]

So no, Thanos is not the only one that does this.

Didn’t say he was.

[SiegePerilous02]

Anything would've been better than Darkseid forgetting where Earth was

We also need more intimidating female villains in general.

Big, beefy Heggra armored for war? Yeah it'd be a departure, but so is everything about Steppenwolf. Sign me up.

[tyusmax]

Didn’t say he was.

Sorry, I thought that's what you were saying.

I mostly skip over all the CGI/VFX and Castle posts.
To me it's very subjective, though other people seem to disagree.

[CosmiComic]

We also need more intimidating female villains in general.

Big, beefy Heggra armored for war? Yeah it'd be a departure, but so is everything about Steppenwolf. Sign me up.

Don't forget Granny Goodness

[WebLurker]

1/2

I was talking of both because they are linked and have to flow well. The design/concept is also linked to how the VFX looks in the end.

Frankly, I think that the MCU and DCEU/Snyderverse movies (that I've seen, which is most of them) are generally pretty comparable in terms of VFX quality (it varies from production to production, as always, but still). In my experience, though, while good VFX are always desirable, the audience getting invested in the story and and characters tends to carry more weight. Case in point, there are a lot of older movies where the VFX haven't aged that well, but people still love them because the other elements still work. (If you want to see a case study, research how Pixar went out of their way to "future proof" Toy Story so it would stand the test of time even when the CGI become primitive looking.)

A lot of directors who opt for more adult story telling, will never favour cartoonish looking very colourful looking CGI that Disney has favoured since MCU phase 2. These directors tend to go more a more grounded looking or scaled back VFX many times practical effects. Which many times give a gritter, high fantasy vibe or modern science fiction vibe.

And yet there are entire studios entirely devoted to making cartoony and unrealistic-looking movies that are also designed to have substance and something to them (and sometimes are more "mature" then the gritty live action stuff). Besides, juxtaposing the mature with a "cartoony" design does have a long tradition; consider the graphic novel Maus, which is arguably more mature and adult then anything by Marvel Studios or Zack Snyder). Or DC's recent Superman Smashes the Klan graphic novel.

Also, realistic isn't always better, more mature, emotional, adult, etc. Remember when someone got the bright idea to make this in "live action?"

We know there is a difference between how GOTG and Thor looks to Interstellar and Gravity.

Yeah, that's a good thing; different style for different stories. I don't see how that proves or disproves anything. (Besides, both Gravity and Guardians of the Galaxy were telling different kinds of character-centric stories in different ways and did well at the goals they had in mind. They don't need to compete with each other.)

To make another objective comparison to another franchise. The star wars prequels. One of the biggest criticisms of the prequels was those movies relied more on generic CGI that lacked the art sense of the original trilogy because George Lucas had become too obsessed with selling toys. By Attack of the clones, this criticism had become a big sour spot. Lucas had to scale back for Revenge of the Sith. Episode 3 did not look as cartoonish as Attack of the Clones.

Got a source? Since I recall that the idea of the prequels was to start with a retro-Flash Gordon style to show the Old Republic at its height and then slowly evolve into the utilitarian look of the originals as we marched to the rise of the Empire (e.g. compare the Attack of the Clones Clone Trooper armor to the Revenge of the Sith ones). While I do think that Attack of the Clones does have more dodgy VFX in comparison to the others, George Lucas never lost his eye for detail and creativity in the sets and designs. (Put it bluntly, Lucas is one of the masters of visuals on screen in regards to using the sets to tell the story, bar none. Snyder is not on that level; I think he's follows "coolness" over what tells the story and if you're going for that, you're basically a poor man's Michael Bay

Well now you are been subjective and as I said, on the box office Avatar thread, I dont get how fans will tell other fans, my series gave me emotional feelings and yours did not. that is been subjective. Some MCU fans also made the case that the Navis barely had any emotional story, which was objectively not true because Avatar at best is even a love story…a chick flick.

It's what speaks to people and you can make a case that the film in question didn't live up to the intent. I thought Avatar was pretty hollow and the emotional aspects of the story didn't land that well (I was more invested in Sigourney Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez's characters then literally everything else), but fair enough if others found something in it. To bring things back, I found the Snyderverse movies I saw to be really flat and without anything to invest in, while I find the MCU movies generally do that very well, given how character-centric they are. Disagree if you will, but does that at least make sense why some would prefer the MCU over the Snyderverse in that regard?

You can argue how thanos became a big iconic character from a fans point because of how he looked , however this is not objective , that has to do with VFX, Make up, CGI, practical effects and so on. Thanos was not even among the best 3 VFX films in 2019. Not when there was Alita Battle Angel , 1917 and Ad Astra

Maybe, maybe not, but consider how invested people got into Thanos as a character, with the VFX bringing him to life being a distant second.

I don’t think thanos pushed the envelope to be frank. I think Thanos was the breaking point with comic book movies. It was after Endgame in 2019 that Martin Scorsese said marvel movies are not cinema and are theme parks and many other directors took his side, while some comic book directors tried to distance themselves from MCU films, If thanos pushed the envelope in film making, many film makers would not have a problem with avengers films.

Scorsese was criticizing the superhero genre as a whole (including the DCUE/Snyderverse, I think), not a specific character, and Thanos had had his starring role three movies prior in Infinity War. One doesn't connect with the other. (Also, not sure that quoting noted directors proves much. I mean, I could point out that Steven Spielberg, one of the greatest directors of our time, praised Guardians of the Galaxy.)

[WebLurker]

2/2

why don’t they hate Avatar or LOTR or Star Wars? these directors wont even attack the star wars prequels and the lord of the rings prequels as they do with Avengers films.

Are you sure? I mean, Avatar is kinda considered a joke at this point (all the "why are there going to be sequels?" chatter online), and the Hobbit movies seem to be just forgotten extensions of the originals. The Star Wars prequel backlash is on record and much worse then anything the MCU ever got. Heck, the Avengers movies have gotten a consistently warm reception from critics and audiences, nothing like the other franchises you've mentions. Not sure where you're going here.

While I am not the biggest fan of Scorsese , however he did just not get it anywhere that these movies are theme parks. He must have seen something that made him get to that conclusion. And this, my dearest friend, takes comic films backward not forward because many directors don’t take comic films seriously anymore….again because they look like theme parks to them and are not real enough.

And yet we have another great director who disagreed with him on at least one of them. Frankly, I found that Scorsese did a really bad job explaining himself, not to mention that art is more then just one thing, so I'm not sure this's your best argument.

Re-watch the final fight with him and captain America. Thanos felt very bulky and could barely move smoothly. I cannot understand how anyone can say this movement were realistic objectively.

Sorry, not seeing it. Not sure which part bothered you.

With too much green screen. When I look the scene of thanos fighting steve, I appreciate why Bryan singer as a film maker, slimmed down the Sentinels in DOFP from the comics in films. These are just some good film instinct many directors have with handling the more cartoonish still picture aspect of comic books on live action screen, However since MCU is so hugely cooperate , they lack a lot of this instinct. Are you also aware that the MCU producer once said the entire IW took place on a green screen. We cannot sit here in good faith say thanos movement felt artistic and also same the same about Gollum from LOTR or even the Goblins from Harry Potters.

Translation: "Practical effects > then digital effects." That's not how it works; it's all about how the tools are used, not which ones are used (see Jurassic Park). (Besides, seeing how the Snyderverse is also part of the heavy CGI film club like the MCU, I don't see how attacking CGI helps your case.)

Artistic vision has never been enough for fans, that is why we will always be stuck in superficial fan battles of marvel is better and dc is bad and marvel is bad and dc is better...

Because the execution of the vision always outweighs the intent of the vision. A filmmaker may have the greatest idea ever, but if they can't make it work onscreen, it's still going to be a bad movie and a "lesser" movie that reached its goals will probably be better received. To put things into perspective, you think Snyder is great because he has artistic vision; Michael Bay is another director with his own artistic vision and we know what his reputation is.

(I do think there is a place for stuff that had ambitions but didn't quite make the cut; I have a soft spot for some imperfect films that I can see a better version of itself had things gone differently and do see some of them as being more worthwhile then some stuff with better craftsmanship but less imagination. However, artistic vision is only the starting point, not the final point as you seem to believe.)

...however they matter most in judging a movie as an art piece. Which is what I am doing here and I seem to be one of the few.

Not really; it's the same spiel about why you don't like the MCU, prefer dark, gritty movies, and think that light-hearted, colorful fare is cotton candy filmmaking. To be perfectly candid, I feel like I've learned nothing about your perspective, which makes it very hard to come to any understanding.

Good trivia about artistic visions.

Many people in Hollywood deslike James Cameron, he barely has actor fans but the reason he has so much power and respect is because they cannot deny he is a great artist and folks will be in his movies only on that factor.

Here is another sicker but more twisted truth.

Many people also know Woody Allen is dirty for marrying his ex girlfriend's daughter and maybe a paedophile but they all will ignore this and star in his movies, because they all want to win Oscars for best actress and supporting actress and a Woody screenplay can guarantee that because he is that good of an artistic writer.

This is why the artistic minded has always been the best standing when it comes to judging movies objectively over what fans says or feel based only on agape love attachments to a series.

Sadly it is hard for powerful people to be held accountable. Hopefully that will change.

Ironically, Fiege said he made IW/Endgame for fans. Maybe he should think about changing this opinions and start to look at comic films as serious cinema.

"Don't try to be a great man. Just be a man, and let history make its own judgements." - Star Trek: First Contact

[Rev9]

I think Snyder revealed that that was what he was called in the flashback scene to the first age, but wasn't named as such in the movie itself.

So I can pretend it's still just Darkseid

Actually, it may have been better if his mother Heggra would have been the ruler at that point who lead the invasion that was repelled. Then she could have expunged the records of the shame of the loss, explaining why Darkseid no longer knows the location or name of the planet that dealt him the one memorable defeat.



****, so would I lol

Tagline would be "Get away from him you bitch!"

The idea of heggra is pretty cool.To me although this was never hinted at explicitly, but I took it to mean that Darkseid came to earth the first time not necessarily because it already had the anti life, but because it had a means for him to get to where the anti life actually was in the multiverse.I do think there are plenty of examples in comic stories where earth had for example the box of Pandora ,a interdimensional gateway to earth 3 that was visited by AMonitor and he had the antilife, alternatively in JLD 9 the earth had the eight dimensional map that could help locate the pillars of reality in the multiverse.So I think it would be jumping the gun to presume Darkseid knew that anti life was on earth from the get go but rather was looking for an item on earth that was the 'key' or 'Rosetta stone' to find the anti life wherever it was.

Plus we presume Darkseid forgot to look for earth whilst knowing AL was here ,but what if he didn't but just like Zod ,got a break with the boxes waking up? We could have a similar scenario to MoS ,until Clark used the Kryptonian key in the old ship, no ping went to Zod's ship to reveal the location of earth. Now it seems similar if the motherboxes on top of being change machines were like a compass sensing AL.By going into sleep mode for millennia, there could be no other way for Darkseid to locate earth if they guided him here the first time despite all attempts to find AL in the interim period.So even if anti life was confirmed to be here the first time. Darkseid couldn't get here until the boxes woke and called out to Steppenwolf ,who wasn't anywhere near Darkseid to invade immediately when they beamed the message. All of this is speculation ,but remember Desaad at the end was like 'with the motherboxes destroyed, how will you get your great prize?' So I think this explanation has a ring of truth..Darkseid doesn't care if it makes him wonder our galaxy for another century , but the fact that he knows anti life is found he is ready to do this literally blindfolded to get it.It doesn't mean Darkseid forgot anything! Also his mention of revenge on those who robbed him of his glory could mean he had it out for earth for millennia but just couldn't locate it without the boxes. I know then people may wonder why the boxes had not called out for centuries even though AL was always here, my guess would be it was not so much that they were afraid of Kal who had been on earth only like 30 years, but because they sensed a unique signature in the waves that was the codex, that piqued their interest if the codex is some other mysterious 'thing' as rare as the AL itself and so their primary directive kicked in once they sensed the codex.

When Darkseid spoke to SW, and asked 'can it be true that you have found it?' hints at a third option...though Darkseid knew AL was on earth the first time,it was cloaked from him.That is why he was excited with SW finding it. It is one thing to sense using the boxes that the AL was located on earth, but another to actually find it and harness it.If he felt guided to earth but could not really find or sense it on earth the first time because it was cloaked.It would explain why he didn't give earth a second glance even after being repelled and bearing the shame, that is because he didn't feel his prize was really here. Maybe I'm reaching ,but isn't it peculiar that the box that called out to SW was the Themyscira one? The Amazon's island is presumably cloaked by magic not tech, so if AL was cloaked by something magical as well, the two fields could have been interfering and while the box was asleep it was fine, but once it was woken by Kal's cry then there was no stopping the distress signal to SW.Plus it is only when he had two boxes that they revealed the AL was here, so keeping the boxes apart had a role to play in keeping them quiet as well.

I think we should be open to more plausible scenarios than waiving it as a plothole or concluding that Darkseid forgot about earth, without anything in film to give us that logical conclusion.

[CliffHanger2]

I think we should be open to more plausible scenarios than waiving it as a plothole or concluding that Darkseid forgot about earth, without anything in film to give us that logical conclusion.

Agreed with this. I think ppl are making this assumption based on thinking Darksied found the ALE in the battle scene where he strikes the ground. But that's not the ALE just the symbol of it, the same symbol that's on his ship. A guy wrote an article based on this misinterpretation and ppl took it and ran with it.

[80sbaby]

Agreed with this. I think ppl are making this assumption based on thinking Darksied found the ALE in the battle scene where he strikes the ground. But that's not the ALE just the symbol of it, the same symbol that's on his ship. A guy wrote an article based on this misinterpretation and ppl took it and ran with it.

I think it has more to do with the fact that Steppenwolf was able to determine the ALE was there by seeing the same symbol Darkseid saw.

[CosmiComic]

But how did Darkseid forget about the one planet which defeated him and kept the 3 boxes?

[Rev9]

But how did Darkseid forget about the one planet which defeated him and kept the 3 boxes?

As I said above there is no incling that he forgot, he either couldn't locate the earth again because the motherboxes were silent and since the boxes called to Steppenwolf(persona non Grata) Darkseid got second hand information that earth was back on the menu..The why is not too important it could be that Steppenwolf got the message first because he was nearer to our star system and Darkseid got it later or indeed the AL was cloaked.. "Can it be true that you have found it?" Does not scream 'Darn I forgot earth had the AL' but more like 'I looked there and didn't see it,are you sure you did?'