While I don't disagree with your eye-rolling at the Whedonites, it's probably true in this case that Whedon will have saved Cyborg. pop quiz: Name a character about which this was not the case. Haha trick question -- there wasn't one.
Yeah, I know I'm late to this part of the convo, but I just read this: Joss Whedon's Reshoots Might Save a Reportedly "Unwatchable" 'Justice League' So bad eh? Downplaying it eh? Hmmmmm..... Oh man..... Maybe they should release the movie on April 1st so we can all laugh this off as a crude joke....
@The Dark Seeker That's the kind of unsubstantiated nonsense I was afraid of once Whedon was called in to finish the project. Now, I'm no big fan of Snyder's (and his contribution to the DCEU has been divisive at best), but no matter how extensive or not Whedon's real involvement really is one of two thimgs are bound to happen after this movie is released now. If the movie is a success and well received we'll be hearing about how good old Joss Whedon "saved the Justice League". Regardless of if he did or not. If it's another DCEU mediocrity than we'll have people going on about how "not even Whedon the great could save this film". Whether it's true or not. And no matter which scenario we see we're going to have fans who will absolutely swear they can tell which director's did which scenes/shots and somehow all the best stuff will be attributed to Whedon by his rather large and blind fanbase. And the sad thing about it all is that the only reason Whedon is involved at all is because of a terribly tragic event.
I don't think we're ever going to have it "substantiated." I mean who would want to admit they fucked up like that in the first place to where they had to get someone else to come fix the boo boos? A lot of money is on the line I'm sure, and with that...I don't think they want to lose anymore money on movies that are supposed to do well.
My problem with all this really lays with how we'll never really know. But somehow Joss will walk away smelling like roses and Zack will basically be shit canned no matter how the film turns out. And Whedon is only here because a tragic event in Snyder's life made it possible. For some reason that last point really fucking bothers me when combined with the whole Whedon was brought on to save the film rhetoric the magazines and news blogs are throwing at us.
The thing with that tragedy is, and I don't know the exact timeline of things, it may have affected how he was doing job wise and mentally. If that's the case, then it makes sense that perhaps...the movie started to suck. The tragedy happened in March was it? Then he announced stepping down two months later if I recall correctly. Two months worth of work that's affected by his mental state of being. And while he said that he didn't "care about" the "internet narratives" that will be born as a result of him stepping down, you can kind of read that as....he stopped caring about the film in such a way that he cared more about his family than doing his job. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not condemning him for that. Family will always come first. But I'm just thinking...that may have affected how the movie was shot (for certain scenes). Can't really blame him for that though. After all, he did say this: "Justice League" Director Drops Out Of Filming After Daughter's Suicide Who knows. I guess we'll all see when it finally releases. But I think it's funny how the rumor mill is trying to spin it as some sort of blame game and resurrection of a movie fans have been looking forward to for a long while now. Maybe perhaps they could have delayed it and let Snyder take a break to be with his family until all this blows over and he's ready to come back? Or was the "money" aspect of it too much to where they couldn't miss the deadline and delay it/ push it back? I mean hell, Fast and the Furious 7 was pushed back out of respect for Paul Walker and the cast and crew. And you know what? Fans of the franchise appreciated it and understood it. I don't remember reading too many whiny entitled brats complaining (if none at all) about it being pushed back/delayed when the reasoning for it was well understood. Why can't they do it out of respect for the director's family? I would like to think DC fans could understand and appreciate that. Or am I wrong? Eh well, now I'm starting to feel like I'm overthinking this thing.
Whedon tends to make films that are at least watchable, though. Snyder seems to have a stubborness that rivals Lucas with Jar-Jar. Personally, I loved Man of Steel, but every single one of the many issues that the majority of people had with it, instead of addressing them, Snyder instead doubled down on them in BvS, creating a complete shit heap of a movie. He was like fuck it and fuck you, I will MAKE you like Jar-Jar. Which of course is not ever going to happen. I feel horrible for Snyder and would not wish what happened to him on anyone, but EVERY SINGLE THING we saw of Justice League prior to his leaving looked like the exact same garbage everyone hated in BvS, maybe cranked up even further. Snyder now tops the list of directors I will never watch another movie from. I will avoid anything with his name as director at all costs, probably for the rest of my life. There's a huge difference here you are not taking into account. Fast and Furious fans could wait out of respect because they loved Walker and mourned his loss. They could wait because they loved the director. But DC fans don't love Snyder. The opposite, if anything. I think the majority of DC fans feel Snyder has been taking a giant dump all over the characters and the DC universe in general. The things that made him kind of right for Watchmen are the exact same things that make him all wrong for the regular DC characters.
I don't like synder's dc movies but i'm not shocked by the "first cut is a mess." Many movies are a mess on the first cut. Wonder woman was reported a mess before they edited the film. The biggest one is a little film called star wars. The first cut was such a bad mess the studio was going to kill the film! Lucas then asked his wife to reedit the film and we got the cut we got now. (well pre special edition anyways.) Bad first cuts are nothing new. The question is can they recut it into a good movie?
If Justice League is good, people will give most of the praise to Whedon, because the last thing that Snyder directed all by himself was BvS. It may not be true or fair, but that comparison (between BvS and JL) is likely what people will use to make that determination. Anyway, the last rumor I heard stated that the final product could keep pretty much all of Snyder's action scenes, while "most" of everything else could be re-shot by Whedon. I say rumor, but speculation would probably be a better word, though I can't really see the fault in it, if this is really what is happening. Snyder is a great director when it comes to action and visuals, but he's not a great story-teller. Oddly enough, I actually think Snyder gives the audience too much credit -- assuming they'll understand what he is trying to convey with certain scenes, when frankly, we would probably be better off with some good ol' exposition. I do think Whedon can help in crafting a final product that everyone will understand, at the very least...
I agree with everyone's sentiments about how it will be perceived. However, I don't think the comment "the first cut was a mess" is based solely on Snyder's ability. I think this is more the outcome of two different directors and essentially the outcome of the first cut, was basically two distinct styles of film. Therefore, Whedon had to do reshoots in order for the style to be cohesive. Which makes the most sense to me.
At this point I just hope the movie looks like a complete movie and not disjointed scenese stitched together in an obvious way like Fant4stic making us play which directer shot this scene game.
I hope Whedon's extensive reshoots are for that exact reason, even though I'm not a Whedon fan myself, this movie would be an absoutle fucking disaster if each if the scenes had their own feel because of it. I feel bad for Snyder and understand why he quit the movie, he had every right too, but I just can't do BVS again.
So are you saying if fans love a member of cast and crew, they'd be ok. But if they hate any member of the cast and crew for whatever grievances they may have, then screw what's going on with them? As bad of movies he may have made it doesn't take away from the fact that something horrible did happen and that DC fans could consider at least extending something of a courtesy to him. But you make it sound like people are so butthurt and enraged enough over how he treated fictional characters that it's like they have the mentality of, "Ah fuck him. Don't care." Maybe Snyder has a point when he said, "In the end, it's just a movie. It's a great movie. But it's just a movie." Yet somehow folks out there want to treat it as something more than "just a movie."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. When I say Fast and Furious fans like the Fast and Furious director, I don't mean they like him as a person. None of us know him. It's doubtful any of us will ever meet him. It's irrelevant. I mean fans like the movies he makes and so will be patient to wait for a movie we're sure we will enjoy. Are you saying we should be patient and wait for Snyder to finish a movie we're sure we won't enjoy and then waste money and time watching it just because he went through something in his personal life? Unless you are the living Buddha or something, that is completely irrational. If he hadn't suffered this horrific personal tragedy and had to step away from the movie, I can 100% guarantee you I would not have paid money to go to the theater to watch the movie he made. That's NOT saying I'm glad something bad happened to him so that I can enjoy my little movie. It's not saying that at all. But at the same time, we are living in a world in which bad things are happening somewhere to people around (and including) us all the time, every day of our lives. What does that have to do with watching movies, and whether a movie is worth watching or not?
It almost sounds like you're projecting your own feelings onto it to deflect from what was being discussed. Whatever. It's not about whether you personally would pay money for it or not. It's about those who would. We're talking about those fans who would see it with the hope (whether you want to call it naive or something else) that it might be decent this time. Since you've already stated you're not going to see a Zack Snyder movie, then bringing yourself into it is what is irrelevant. While it is true that a lot of people don't like how Snyder treated the characters, there were those who didn't care (or may not have cared as much), and still enjoyed his movies. And that goes the same with the Fast and Furious franchise in and of itself. There will be people who like it, and those who won't. All I said was, if the courtesy can be extended to a deceased actor, could it not be extended to a director? Both affected by tragedy. It wasn't a declarative statement saying they should. But a suggestion on how differently things could have turned out, and my own wondering of why it didn't. If you want to talk about real world stuff or everyday life happenings, ok. When you have an immediate family member die, do you not get time off of work to mourn? I believe you would at least at most places. Hell even Walmart gave that time to a friend of mine who's husband passed away from a heart attack. But they do get to go back to work afterward. And you know why people are allowed that time off from work. I shouldn't have to explain that. And what does it have to do with watching movies? Are you seriously asking that? The movie would be his product. Much like if you were a factory worker churning out product to be sold at the market. If there was something that affected you mentally, would that not affect your productivity, and affect the product you make? One would think so. Afterall, the rumor-mill did say that the Snyder cut was bad. So bad, that JW has to come in to reshoot things. Now was it typical Snyder bad (as his detractors would say), or was it extra bad that's worse than what you would normally expect from Snyder? If so...could the tragedy been the thing that made it so? Who knows. As for your last question, that wasn't even being discussed. What was discussed was the general attitude people have and their biases towards others based upon their own personal opinion.
And the answer is no. Stop trying to turn this into something more complicated than it is. It is a MOVIE. Not a humanitarian event. We don't go to see movies out of sympathy or pity for one of the crew members. In one case, Universal had a movie that all of its fans wanted to see, in a healthy franchise everyone was happy with. In the other case, you have WB with a franchise that wasn't performing the way they expected to, and was hated by a large segment of the demographic that should have been its strongest supporters. WB has been deep in damage control and trying to right the course since production of JL began. Then on top of everything else, another director came and made a much better movie with one of their super-hero properties. Why would WB wait a year (you're not even taking into account how they depend on this movie for their yearly earnings) just so an unpopular director could continue his unpopular approach and turn in another movie that doesn't live up to what they hope for it? I wouldn't be surprised if WB execs weren't secretly relieved to be handed the excuse to replace Snyder with someone they'd have to see as more commercially and critically successful on this type of property. It's also naive to think Universal delayed Furious 7 out of "courtesy". They delayed it to see what their options were. How the movie could be completed and still make the maximum amount of money. And they didn't want to do anything that would negatively affect public sentiment and possibly hurt box office.
While I don't think you're incorrect about the idea that they could have delayed the release of the movie (personally i think it's a good thing that they didn't, but I can't say that it couldn't have been an option for them), this is where you lose me. For one, you're feading the rumor mill, and I'm fuuuuuuucking tired of people feading the rumor mill. Most especially when it comes to recent DC films. Secondly, Joss did not come in to fix the movie. The reshoots would be happening regardless of the director in-charge.
You don't like taking things into context, but rather taking things out of context don't you? Who said this was a humanitarian event? Exaggerate things much? I was merely speculating, and you come along and are turning this into something it's not based upon your obvious hatred of how one person handled something you like. But you want to say I'm trying to complicate it? Perhaps maybe you like over simplifying things? I'm starting to not care what you think anymore. So he liked it in a different way, and you project your angst onto him because it's not the way you or other people want it to be. I didn't know Burger King sponsored movies like this. Your way, right away? Whatever. Cool man. You do you. I really don't feel it unreasonable to ask what I did. I thought it was a fair question. But now that I know your answer, I know better than to expect an unbiased answer from you. Oh it wasn't out of courtesy? They weren't trying to decide how to do it in a tasteful manner as opposed to cancelling it? You're basically reiterating what I said while arguing against what I said? As I said before, they did it out of respect for Paul Walker and cast and crew. Here, read this since you seem not to believe in what I'm saying: Paul Walker's Death: 'Fast & Furious 7' Delayed But Won't Be Scrapped They could have rushed it and met the original deadline. They could have (and I'm glad they didn't even consider it) cancelled it. But no. They delayed it to ensure how they finished off the movie ultimately respected him. I would most definitely call that a courtesy to him and the fans of the franchise. Afterall, a courtesy can be a showing of respect. So I'm not sure why you're trying to twist what I'm saying into something it's not. I don't know if you'd been reading the news following his death, but it would be apparent that everyone was devastated by the loss, so I'm sure the studio's decisions weren't solely based upon PR and money alone. These are human beings we're talking about here. You mean, feeding, right? I disagree. Like I mentioned, I'm only speculating. As with anything, speculation should only be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not trying to get everyone to believe that's what happened. Again, I'm only conveying my thoughts. Otherwise, I would have said "HAI GAIZ! LOOK WHAT HAPPENED IN DIS MOVIE YO! IT MUST BE...NAY...IT HAS TO BE THIS!" Maybe instead of saying "Who knows" I should have put a disclaimer in instead? The sole reason why I laughed at the rumor in my original post was because I knew Joss Whedon was already involved in the movie. Joss only stepped up as the director after Snyder left. http://io9.gizmodo.com/turns-out-joss-whedon-has-been-working-on-justice-leagu-1795582589 How Joss Whedon Ended Up Taking Over Justice League There's plenty of other articles basically stating as such, and it's been known since end of May. And while I haven't been following this thread every single day for every single post, I do read the news from time to time. And I'm sure you and I can agree, rumors are just that. Rumors. Gossip. Until the movie is finalized and people see it, we won't know if those rumors (all this talk about the changes Joss is doing) were even true. That is if people cared enough to even remember the rumors at that point.
Do you know what spin is? That's where they phrase things in a way to pretend they are compassionate human beings instead of a giant faceless corporation that only cares about money. Welcome to reality!
