JUSTICE LEAGUE: PART ONE (11/17/17) 5 5

[Bosco685]

More seriously, it is crazy the variance between these critics. I know everyone has different likes, but man what a nut roll.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Bosco685

[Artboy99]

2 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Superman did not go all 'homicidal maniac' in that scene. If anything, he realized Zod would never give up and was directly threatening the family cowering in the corner. So demonstrating the highest level of sacrifice, he killed the only other Kryptonian he was aware of leaving him alone in life.

Odd how a scene can come across so differently to people when you don't factor in the sacrifice shown, and the impact on the individual superhero.

It is quite simply horrible writing.

The act of breaking Zod's neck isn't what Superman (as we the public knows him) would do. Therefore I must conclude that it was done with purpose to show us a different Superman. I don't see why it was needed to be done that way. Write the defeat of Zod another way.

We also don't need to have Doomsday created from the body of Zod either. Write that another way as well.

 

[jsilverjanet]

I’m positive if Snyder’s name wasn’t on this film, some of the critics would probably change their score. Nothing surprises me except how blatant it comes across. 

You could substitute plenty of the reviews with Age of Ultron and they would still apply however the house of mouse doesn’t forget as easily therefore it’s full of lavish and praise and bull

[AnthonyTheAbyss]

2 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

More seriously, it is how crazy the variance between these critics. I know everyone has different likes, but man what a nut roll.

It's like Siskel and Ebert.  You have to find one that fits your movie taste (for me that was Ebert).  I don't know who these "real" critics are.  I go to Chris Stuckmann and John Campea for my reviews.  Their opinions are usually spot on for me.

 

Both say the same thing.  Enjoyable movie.  Some issues.  But worth seeing.

[Bosco685]

20 minutes ago, Artboy99 said:

It is quite simply horrible writing.

The act of breaking Zod's neck isn't what Superman (as we the public knows him) would do. Therefore I must conclude that it was done with purpose to show us a different Superman. I don't see why it was needed to be done that way. Write the defeat of Zod another way.

We also don't need to have Doomsday created from the body of Zod either. Write that another way as well.

 

It sure wasn't weak writing when Alan Moore and John Byrne individually applied the same situation in their stories. And with Byrne, Zod and his minions ended up dead.

[drotto]

20 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

I’m positive if Snyder’s name wasn’t on this film, some of the critics would probably change their score. Nothing surprises me except how blatant it comes across. 

You could substitute plenty of the reviews with Age of Ultron and they would still apply however the house of mouse doesn’t forget as easily therefore it’s full of lavish and praise and bull

Yes, Snyder has always been a very divisive director, and you are seeing it again.

 

But you have brought up many times in this thread and elsewhere you anti WB pro mouse theory, which just does not hold water.  WW critics loved, fox movies like x-men and Deadpool have gotten good reviews.  There is no grand conspiracy between 100's of critics. Even if Disney pays some of them off ( which i doubt) , they do not take the time and money to do it with so many. Disney has no connection to RT, which is imperfect and just a compiler.  JL is in the 50's on Metacritic also, so they are traking close.

 

What is a better bet is that Marvel has a formula that generally pleases critics.  They have figured out the formula.   WB has not.

[Bosco685]

2 minutes ago, drotto said:

Yes, Snyder has always been a very divisive director, and you are seeing it again.

 

But you have brought up many times in this thread and elsewhere you anti WB pro mouse theory, which just does not hold water.  WW critics loved, fox movies like x-men and Deadpool have gotten good reviews.  There is no grand conspiracy between 100's of critics. Even if Disney pays some of them off ( which i doubt) , they do not take the time and money to do it with so many. Disney has no connection to RT, which is imperfect and just a compiler.  JL is in the 50's on Metacritic also, so they are traking close.

 

What is a better bet is that Marvel has a formula that generally pleases critics.  They have figured out the formula.   WB has not.

I don't think in any way Disney has some backdoor access to influence the critics in their writeups on WB.

But it came out the other day how Disney influences critics on DISNEY MOVIES through the potential use of blacklisting and even brand defamation. That's why critics got up in arms when Disney took it as far as to blacklist the Los Angeles Times over articles it had published. And these articles didn't even have anything to do with DISNEY MOVIES. But by using its legal capabilities, it tried to influence the writing of a news outlet. There is no 'tin hat conspiracy' in that.

[drotto]

7 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I don't think in any way Disney has some backdoor access to influence the critics in their writeups on WB.

But it came out the other day how Disney influences critics on DISNEY MOVIES through the potential use of blacklisting and even brand defamation. That's why critics got up in arms when Disney took it as far as to blacklist the Los Angeles Times over articles it had published. And these articles didn't even have anything to do with DISNEY MOVIES. But by using its legal capabilities, it tried to influence the writing of a news outlet. There is no 'tin hat conspiracy' in that.

I realize that and if anything I think that woujld lead to a backlash against Disney products in the near future. But through the years there have been many positive and negative reviews on their products.  They are not immune. Even if they have influenced reviewers to go lightly on Marvel products, there is little benefit to them the getting critics to trash other movies.  In general the industry does better as a whole when everyone is putting out good product.

 

The entire idea of us vs. them with regards to Marvel against DC just buffles me.  As a comic fan I am not firmly in one camp and wish everyone the best chance of succeeding.  I just want good product.  Right now for me WW is the best superhero movie of the year followed closely by Thor. GOTG 2 was good , but a mijld dissapointment.  I just want to be entertained, I have no loyalty to one studio.

[ComicConnoisseur]

41 minutes ago, drotto said:

Yes, Snyder has always been a very divisive director, and you are seeing it again.

 

But you have brought up many times in this thread and elsewhere you anti WB pro mouse theory, which just does not hold water.  WW critics loved, fox movies like x-men and Deadpool have gotten good reviews.  There is no grand conspiracy between 100's of critics. Even if Disney pays some of them off ( which i doubt) , they do not take the time and money to do it with so many. Disney has no connection to RT, which is imperfect and just a compiler.  JL is in the 50's on Metacritic also, so they are traking close.

 

What is a better bet is that Marvel has a formula that generally pleases critics.  They have figured out the formula.   WB has not.

Plus Suicide Squad was panned by the critics and that wasn't Snyder.

For some reason other than Wonder Women the critics haven't been into the DC movies.There is something they are doing that is turning the critics off. I can't see what it is because I liked Suicide Squad, BvS and Man of Steel.

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[Gatsby77]

Ouch -- now right-wing outlets like Breitbart and Fox News are claiming collusion among Warner Bros. and Rotten Tomatoes (which is 30% owned by Warner Bros.) to delay its aggregate rating and minimize the damage to this weekend's box office:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/11/15/rigged-merger-rotten-tomatoes-protects-time-warners-justice-league-awful-reviews/

 

 

[Comicopolis]

3 hours ago, bane said:

I enjoyed MoS and BvS to a certain extent, there is no comparing these movies to the atrocities created by Michael Bay.

For the record Suicide Squad was one of the worst movies I've seen in years.

it was so bad you made me watch it.

[Gatsby77]

Flagging the San Francisco Chronicle review because it's well written - guy didn't like it, but he has a lot of fun writing this:

http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Justice-League-is-no-Avengers-12359946.php

"Basically, Superman can do everything and needs no one else. And Batman can do nothing. And there’s a few in between who can do a little here and a little there. For example, they can bring Superman coffee. The one exception is Wonder Woman, whose powers are mighty and indeterminate, and whose face in close-up is enough to make a whole audience go completely still. In 2017, Gal Gadot has the most powerful face in movies.

For long stretches, these close-ups are the only thing to look forward to. The audiences sits there waiting for Gadot, and in between must endure weak computer graphics (lots of red sparks everywhere), flying skeletons with teeth and a villain, Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds), who wasn’t born to be wild but born to look silly. Hinds, in his real incarnation, is a formidable presence, but the computer renders him ridiculous, with a weak mouth and comical-looking horns pointing down."

[Comicopolis]

2 hours ago, bane said:

There are a couple of things I would change in Man of Steel but ultimately I think its a great film that gets better with every viewing.

Superman (1979) on the other hand has aged very badly and is only enjoyable for Christopher Reeves excellent performance - IMO.

This is correct 100%.

[Comicopolis]

2 hours ago, drotto said:

I think one of the consistent problems WB is having is a result of them being impatient in wanting to catch up with Marvel.  When Marvel rolled out Avengers we had already had 4 solo movies.  The main players were established with Thor, Iron Man, and Captian.  To a lesser extent Black Widow, Loki and Hulk were also established.  There was no need for any origin stuff, and the actions of the main villain Loki and the nature of the teseract were already estiblished.  That made the move much simpler from a story perspective, and them coming together was organic, made sense and needed no explanation. 

 

DC sees Avengers and says ii want a 1.5 billi on dollar movie, because damn who wouldn't.  They had done MOS, but that was not really structured as part of a larger whole.  So they rushed into a borderline team movie in BvS, but found making it without the groundwork being done in earlier films that a lot of exposition needed to be done, leading to a somewhat confusing and disjointed film. They make WW an origin movie, much simpler and it is great.  Then they come back with JL and the movie has the same inherant problem as BvS.  How do you pack in so many new pieces without putting down the foundation first. Now this is not a problem with the hard core comic fans, because we know the stories, but makes it hard for general audiences.

 

So many people argued here and elsewhere that DC did not need to take the slower more methodical Marvel world builder approach, and it was just a different method to do the team up and then go small.  That now looks like a mistake, and may be the root to many of the issues they are having. You can't build a house without putting down the foundation, and that is basically what WB tried.

Another post I agree with 100%.

[bane]

6 minutes ago, Comicopolis said:

it was so bad you made me watch it.

Others had to share the pain.

[Comicopolis]

I'm waiting for the long term Marvel/Stan Lee conspiracy to come out.

You know, the one where they planted sleeper agents into the media decades ago, anticipating all the movie success they would have in the future, so their agents could criticize all those well written, well acted and superior DC efforts.

Damn that Stan Lee! 

[drotto]

As an interesting aside, the Mashable article relating embargo lift time to release and the eventual RT score is looking to be dead on. Provuded the leaked score is accurate.  This is going to become a new metric that movie people look at.  I wonder if it can be taken further from a statistical standpoint and correlate embargo time to actual score range. 

 

Also the RT reveal thing is turning out to be a disaster for both RT and JL.  Whatever the intent was, it just makes WB look like it was hiding something.

[ComicConnoisseur]

1 minute ago, drotto said:

As an interesting aside, the Mashable article relating embargo lift time to release and the eventual RT score is looking to be dead on. Provuded the leaked score is accurate.  This is going to become a new metric that movie people look at.  I wonder if it can be taken further from a statistical standpoint and correlate embargo time to actual score range. 

 

Also the RT reveal thing is turning out to be a disaster for both RT and JL.  Whatever the intent was, it just makes WB look like it was hiding something.

One thing is from now on going forward if someone leaves an embargo that late we all know now there is a reason.

 

[1Cool]

2 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

I’m positive if Snyder’s name wasn’t on this film, some of the critics would probably change their score. Nothing surprises me except how blatant it comes across. 

You could substitute plenty of the reviews with Age of Ultron and they would still apply however the house of mouse doesn’t forget as easily therefore it’s full of lavish and praise and bull

I kind of liked Age of Ultron so I'd be perfectly happy if JL is as enjoyable.  Age of Ulton got a 75 Rotten Tomato score so lets see how JL does tomorrow.

[comic_memories]

No production budget disclosed yet? That's a bad sign.