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

[Bosco685]

Scott Mendleson writes about going a second time to see Justice League, but doing it in a 4DX theater. These sound like a wild experience.

Quote

This is a few days late, so pardon the tardiness, but I actually was able to finally check out a full-length feature film via the 4DX format. After months of near-misses on my end and putting it off (it's not a short drive), I made the trek out to the LA Live Regal theater to sample Justice League in their 4DX format. It is one of the nine theaters around the country that is playing said movie in said format, and since I wanted to see the film for a second time anyway, on opening day in order to observe the paying consumer reaction, I finally went and did it. And, to my surprise, it was... fun?

 

For those unaware, 4DX is a newfangled immersive variation on D-Box. Yes, your chair rumbles you and shakes you around during action scenes and occasionally stabs you in the back where appropriate. But this one also offers some real-world effects like water, wind and (although I sadly didn't witness this) bubbles to somewhat replicate the onscreen action.

 

The odd conundrum about technology like this is, when it's at its most successful, it is the exact opposite of immersion. Oh sure, there is a vague physical sensation meant to approximate a real-world experience. But A) this isn't virtual reality where your mind believes the illusions and B) the bumps and shakes and splashing takes you out of the movie and/or reminds you that you're in a movie theater every single time. If you want a theatrical experience that feels like a theme park ride, you'll get your money's worth, But it's an entirely different sensation that simply watching a movie.

 

One more thing, amusingly enough the 4DX experience actually increased the whole "Justice League is just a frothy superhero adventure" feeling, although fortunately the seats didn't shake during the various "surrogate family heals each other and themselves" dramatic sequences. If you want to just watch a movie, then stick with IMAX, Dolby Cinema or the various PLF auditoriums. But if you want something a little weird to spice up your big blockbuster experience, well, just make sure not to eat too much beforehand.

 

 

Not sure I would pay extra for this.

[Bosco685]

Forecast for Friday was $12.4M to match 'Fantastic Beasts' trending.

Edited November 25, 2017 by Bosco685
Updated domestic numbers

[Bosco685]

Remember those complaints how WB should have negotiated with Paramount to shave Cavill? Turns out that's exactly what they pitched to Paramount.

'Justice League': Warner Bros. Reportedly Offered To Create CGI Mustache If Paramount Would Let Henry Cavill Shave

Quote

Warner Bros. VFX artist LDN_Film recently took part in an impromptu Reddit AMA (ask me anything), where the topic of Henry Cavill's CGI mustache came up. Specifically, what the team's reaction was to the news they would have to CGI that off his face for multiple scenes.

 

"A mix - to some people it's a cool little project to get stuck in to and another problem to solve, which is what a lot of VFX is about," LDN_Film said. "Challenging. To me, as a fan, I was annoyed haha Paramount should've shaved him and stuck a fake one on for MI6. Ridiculously petty of them."

 

For context, Cavill was already involved with the new Mission Impossible when Justice League came calling again with needed reshoots. Unfortunately, Cavill has a full mustache in Mission Impossible, but according to LDN, the task didn't have to be as difficult as it became.

 

"We did tests on already shot footage of Superman to add a beard as well to show the MI6 team at Paramount it was loads easier, and Warner Bros offered to pay for all the beard adding shots in MI6. They said no," LDN_Film said.

 

LDN was also asked if the CGI on Cavill's face would've been better if Justice League had been delayed until 2018. "It would've been seamless," LDN_Film said.

They could have gone with the bearded Clark Kent. Though I wasn't really that bothered by these scenes.

[Comicopolis]

20 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Superman fighting Zod, for me, is not comparable to Obadiah Stane. Zod was one of the last of Kal-El's race, and came with a super-powered crew with the intention of converting the entire Earth into New Krypton at the cost of human life. Obadiah Stane was intent on maintaining control of Stark Industries because he had helped build it.

Vast difference in motivation and impact. And with the death of Zod, this left Kal-El a little more unique but lost while Obadiah's end left Tony Stark in charge of a corporation. Again, for me I don't see the link. But I do appreciate your intent, which was to demonstrate both sides have their weak and strong villains.

I would definitely take Lex Luthor over that Aldrich 'The Nutty Professor' Killian in Iron Man III. THAT was one of the worst villains, compared to the original plan (Maya was going to be the real villain - and a 1st female primary villain for the MCU).

Lex Luthor in BVS is the worst thing I've seen in any comic book movie, the absolute worst. I'd even take Samuel L. Jackson dressed as a Nazi in the Spirit over Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.

[NewEnglandGothic]

3 minutes ago, Comicopolis said:

Lex Luthor in BVS is the worst thing I've seen in any comic book movie, the absolute worst. I'd even take Samuel L. Jackson dressed as a Nazi in the Spirit over Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.

"The red capes are coming. The red capes are coming."  

[drotto]

3 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Remember those complaints how WB should have negotiated with Paramount to shave Cavill? Turns out that's exactly what they pitched to Paramount.

'Justice League': Warner Bros. Reportedly Offered To Create CGI Mustache If Paramount Would Let Henry Cavill Shave

They could have gone with the bearded Clark Kent. Though I wasn't really that bothered by these scenes.

I have no idea why they would go CGI.  A good makeup artist can do facial hair in their sleep, and it looks real.

Edited November 25, 2017 by drotto

[kagenish]

11 minutes ago, drotto said:

I have no idea why they would go CGI.  A good makeup artist can do facial hair in their sleep, and it looks real.

so true 

[kagenish]

so I've had a lot of my co-workers tell me they really like JL and had fun watching it. I do think the movie is going to pass $200 Million and most likely end below $300 million Domestic, but I think the movie can or could make its money overseas.

[Bosco685]

2 hours ago, Comicopolis said:

Lex Luthor in BVS is the worst thing I've seen in any comic book movie, the absolute worst. I'd even take Samuel L. Jackson dressed as a Nazi in the Spirit over Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.

Aldrich 'The Nutty Professor' Killian and Lex 'Too Cool For School' Luthor are an equal match. Aldrich going from the dorky character to the fellow that all of a sudden was cool and desired - Jerry Lewis was probably proud of the remake.

 

Yup. You can just picture Tony walking into that scene.

Edited November 25, 2017 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

50 minutes ago, drotto said:

I have no idea why they would go CGI.  A good makeup artist can do facial hair in their sleep, and it looks real.

I agree. It sounds like both ways would have worked. Just with CGI it required so much more time than the crew was allowed.

[Bosco685]

'Justice League' Photo Reveals Closeup of Ares, Artemis, and Zeus

Quote

While the official Justice League art book revealed detailed looks at Zeus and Ares' artistic concepts, a post on Reddit's DC Cinematic community shared photos on Twitter of the actors who played the gods in costume as Ares, Artemis, and Zeus.

 

The Twitter post also shared the differences between the Ares artistic concept as seen in the Justice League book and the practical costume as seen in the film. While the action scene was so fast-paced in the film, this gives fans their first opportunity to see what the Old Gods looked like and as you can see, the concept and the actual costume stayed pretty close in look for Ares, while Zeus appears more low-key in the photo, though the sheer size of his arms make his lightning-throwing in the film all the more impressive.

 

 

[Comicopolis]

59 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Aldrich 'The Nutty Professor' Killian and Lex 'Too Cool For School' Luthor are an equal match. Aldrich going from the dorky character to the fellow that all of a sudden was cool and desired - Jerry Lewis was probably proud of the remake.

 

Yup. You can just picture Tony walking into that scene.

Yes, something like that would never happen in the real world.

[Artboy99]

3 hours ago, Comicopolis said:

Lex Luthor in BVS is the worst thing I've seen in any comic book movie, the absolute worst. I'd even take Samuel L. Jackson dressed as a Nazi in the Spirit over Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.

I agree. He is way to over-the-top for me as a Lex Luthor.

[topofthetotem]

Does anybody think Affleck might be the problem?

With the recent Weinstein deluge of sexual harrasment/assault stories and his own past frat boy behaviour does anybody else think it potentially took the sheen of the shiny new Justice League movie? 

I would have no doubt that there are quite a few social justice warriors whom would have made a point to skip the  JL movie because of him.

I personally find him to be highly unlikeable at least his public persona anyways, however, I can still separate him from the character he plays in a movie some can’t. 

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, Comicopolis said:

Yes, something like that would never happen in the real world.

Hey, I wasn't trying to get your Marvel underoos in a bunch. I'm not a fan of this Lex either. But if realism is what you needed...

Martin Shkreli, hedge fund trader-turned-CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals. Very strange behavior, out of touch with reality when he raised the AIDS drug by 5000% (raised price of drug from $13.50 to $750 per pill) and then smiled about it as he was just trying to remember his investors. A multi-millionaire that some probably saw as a success story until his massive greed dominated the news. Then it became a point of pleasure when he experienced legal hurdles and went to jail.

Seems like an odd duck in a movie I've seen. Just a lot less cash and control. But another character reference point.

 

Edited November 26, 2017 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

43 minutes ago, topofthetotem said:

Does anybody think Affleck might be the problem?

With the recent Weinstein deluge of sexual harrasment/assault stories and his own past frat boy behaviour does anybody else think it potentially took the sheen of the shiny new Justice League movie? 

I would have no doubt that there are quite a few social justice warriors whom would have made a point to skip the  JL movie because of him.

I personally find him to be highly unlikeable at least his public persona anyways, however, I can still separate him from the character he plays in a movie some can’t. 

Although I like his version of Bruce Wayne/Batman, there is so much negative in the news concerning him I can see this playing into movie attendance.

I have a few woman I work with that no matter what I had to say about Justice League, Affleck's affair with Lindsay Shookus leading to a divorce was a point of dislike.

[topofthetotem]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

Although I like his version of Bruce Wayne/Batman, there is so much negative in the news concerning him I can see this playing into movie attendance.

I have a few woman I work with that no matter what I had to say about Justice League, Affleck's affair with Lindsay Shookus leading to a divorce was a point of dislike.

I agree Affleck is a great Batman, he probally is the closest physically to comic version we’ve seen so far but it wouldn’t surprise me to hear that Affleck’s likability was a partial factor in JL falling shot of projections. 

[AnthonyTheAbyss]

8 hours ago, drotto said:

I have no idea why they would go CGI.  A good makeup artist can do facial hair in their sleep, and it looks real.

Lets say they did do that and the movie makes the same amount of money...

 

General audience #1:  "What?  Why does superman have a beard?"

General audience #2:  "They should have CGI'd the mustache off"

General audience #3:  "I have no idea why they would go with the beard.  A good CGI artist can remove facial hair in their sleep, and it looks real"...

 

 

[Bosco685]

You are not kidding! One moment, the theme is 'WB should have offered Paramount an option so they were open to shaving Cavill's moustache'.

On 11/22/2017 at 1:16 PM, drotto said:

With the whole mustache thing.  I fully realize that it was in the Mission Impossible 6 contract that Cavill was not allowed to shave it.  Did anyone at WB think that maybe if they gave the MI people 1 or 2 million bucks and made sure they got a top notched makeup artist that nobody would have noticed as opposed to how much time and money WB spent to cover the thing up?

 

Maybe I am being too reasonable here and nobody wants to do anything that may make their product suffer, but there had to be a way to make it work.

Then when it turns out WB did try to be reasonable (Heaven forbid we give it credit), the new complaint is why they didn't go makeup vs. CGI. Yet if Paramount was open to this, it would have suggested makeup as an agreeable option.

17 hours ago, drotto said:

I have no idea why they would go CGI.  A good makeup artist can do facial hair in their sleep, and it looks real.

By the way, turns out Cavill pointed out prosthetics wouldn't work because of the action scenes in Mission Impossible. Most probably due to the sweat involved.

Paramount Reportedly Turned Down WB's Offer To Give Henry Cavill A CGI Mustache In MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 6

Quote

Cavill said during the DC Comics adaptation's press tour that the stunts he does in Mission: Impossible 6 make it, well, impossible to have a moustache put on via CGI/prosthetics.

NOW do some folks get it why people that appreciate these movies read these things and wonder how much we pick a production apart? It's like when business projects apply the 5 WHY'S to get to an answer, where you keep asking WHY until you get to the root of the problem. But with WB movies, it's the INFINITY WHY'S. Which then enough voices like this reach the studio, WB makes the mistake to keep second-guessing what it should do.

Not meaning to pick on you, drotto. It just fits the norm with WB/DC releases. Including Wonder Woman.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Bosco685

[drotto]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

You are not kidding! One moment, the theme is 'WB should have offered Paramount an option so they were open to shaving Cavill's moustache'.

Then when it turns out WB did try to be reasonable (Heaven forbid we give it credit), the new complaint is why they didn't go makeup vs. CGI. Yet if Paramount was open to this, it would have suggested makeup as an agreeable option.

NOW do some folks get it why people that appreciate these movies read these things and wonder how much we pick a production apart? It's like when business projects apply the 5 WHY'S to get to an answer, where you keep asking WHY until you get to the root of the problem. But with WB movies, it's the INFINITY WHY'S. Which then enough voices like this reach the studio, WB makes the mistake to keep second-guessing what it should do.

Not meaning to pick on you, drotto. It just fits the norm with WB/DC releases. Including Wonder Woman.

Actually, I think in this situation Paramount is the unreasonable one.  I think WB did everything that was expected of them, and Paramount should have been willing to compromise.  But as usual it is to much to expect two corporate entities to do anything that may benefit one and not the other. WB for whatever reason has had a string of bad luck from a production standpoint, many things were beyond their control.

 

The reason we tend to pick these things apart is just the figures for making these movies has become astronomical. Way more than 99.999% of us will see in a lifetime. The average person can't understand (and this applies to many movies), how that much can be spent and potentially known fixable flaws make it into the final product. Now I am not talking about small editing inconsistencies or a --script we may not like, but things that the company knows are sub-par, especially when they know their are legions of internet schmucks like us looking for things like this. But at the root of why we do it is ultimately we are fans and we want these movies to be good.  When we see mistakes or problems a certain measure of comic OCD kicks in, because of the notion that it may reflect badly on the movie and possibly the genre of comic films as a whole.

 

I realize that the entire previous paragraph is expecting too much out of what really is just a group of normal people.  People make mistakes, and are under pressure and time constraints just like in any other industry. It is also inherently easy to give the big faceless corporate entity a hard time.  As for why WB does not see to have a thicker skin about all this, they want to meet their two primary goals.  Make people happy and by making people happy making loads of money.  If they fail in mission one they risk failing in mission two. Which after a few missteps have  left them scrambling because their is so much money on the line.  Furthermore, the top level seems unsure about what has gone wrong so they are attempting to fix problems on the fly based on likely flawed market data (this is us) because they see their window for success as closing.  It really has become the perfect storm.

Edited November 26, 2017 by drotto