|
Horizon Burning posted:I've seen people bring up the lighthouse, usually saying something like 'it had artistic purpose and meant something, Snyder using it just means he is up his own rear end' I'm so fed up of criticisms like "indulgent" and "up its own rear end" they're totally meaningless
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
Red Rox posted:I liked the part where they all walked up the stairs for no reason. I unironically liked the stairs part, because the way it was set io made me think they were gonna use their skills to climb up that shaft but nope, they just take the stairs like normal people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
smoobles posted:It's interesting to me that the Snyder Cut includes sequel hooks for at least 3 movies that won't get made (including Deathstroke). I would've edited around those to make the movie work standalone, but 2021 Zack instead created the exact cut 2016 Zack had in mind with all the sequel bait intact.   [edit] source — https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a35886906/zack-snyder-cut-justice-league-interview/ As an aside, people tryna dunk on the film for using 4:3 AR.... imagine an artist choosing a square canvas, and you—not the artist using the canvas—getting mad they didn't choose a rectangle canvas or whatever. What a dumb criticism, lol. My initial reaction to the AR spec a little while ago was "oh, maybe Snyder is paying homage to the original JL cartoon?" but then felt that was too simple. Clearly the way shots are framed are meant to look/feel a certain way within 4:3 compared to a wider AR as has been pointed out many times ITT. That anyone be bothered that their cape poo poo isn't in 16:9 or whatever of the many others ARs there are, is pretty funny. Criticize better, like drat, lmao. teagone fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Mar 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
They will end up doing something, who is anybody kidding at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
Based on what I've seen and heard, I kinda think Snyder would be good to direct a Kingdom Come adaptation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
Milkfred E. Moore posted:No, that's Pa Kent. Eh, this movie hits a lot of different ways for a lot of different people. Zack Snyder is a really divisive director -- there's a lot about his style that can turn viewers off, but it's undeniable that he's got a gift for cinematography and knows how to make a movie feel epic, so it makes sense that even people who usually don't like his movies want to see if the good outweighs the bad this time around. I came into the movie planning to hate it too, but came out giving it a grudging B- despite myself just because of all the cool poo poo he shoved in there (some of which may have even been better left on the cutting room floor!) He reminds me a lot of Garth Ennis in that he really does do a lot of cool things with his work, but he desperately needs a good co-writer and editor working with him, in Snyder's case to prevent him from turning every movie into a joyless slog. This movie was actually not as bad as I thought it would be as far as "uncut Snyder", there were a lot of scenes that dragged on and a ridiculous number of unnecessarily-long visual montages, but even all the "extraneous" stuff that probably should have been cut was pretty interesting and out-there, and the main storyline was a lot stronger than in the Whedon version. 2house2fly posted:I'm so fed up of criticisms like "indulgent" and "up its own rear end" they're totally meaningless I dunno dude, that seems like a pretty good description of this movie's flaws. What else are you gonna call it when the first nine(!) minutes of the movie are spent on a montage of landscape porn with no dialogue or action? And again, I liked this movie. I'm even gonna upgrade my score to a solid B now that I'm thinking about it. Phenotype fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Mar 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
The ending managed to strike a nice "and the adventure continues" balance; there's more the heroes will have to do, but if this is where the Snyderverse ends then it's a satisfying enough place to leave it. I wish it had more Superman if that's the case tho
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
The people who watch this movie without liking Zack Snyder are whatever, what strikes me as odd is how he’s managing to catch the flack for the flaws of comic books. Like “ugh there’s an EVIL MATH EQUATION!? And their planet is named APOCALYPSE!?” like, did you expect him to “fix” comic books for you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:16
|
|
|
Do they think Zack invented the evil death equation or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:18
|
|
|
teagone posted:As an aside, people tryna dunk on the film for using 4:3 AR.... imagine an artist choosing a square canvas, and you—not the artist using the canvas—getting mad they didn't choose a rectangle canvas or whatever. What a dumb criticism, lol. "Release the Wider Cut."
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
Is there some compelling reason that DC haven’t just told WB to gently caress themselves and copied Marvel, bought all the rights back and opened their own studio? Before anyone says ‘money’, I assume they’d be able to get a loan on the strength of the $75 billion* Marvel properties have earned since the MCU started. *an estimate from the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
Two of the people I watched the film with last night said Barry saving Iris came across super creepy and it kinda bummed me out because I love that scene so much. Main complaint they had was why Barry was taking so long to save her, spending most of the time just staring at her lololol. To be fair though, one of those two hasn't seen BvS (lol), and she had already decided that she hates Ezra Miller because of the whole choke slam incident with the fan—guessing that informed her reaction. I didn't want to like dunk or her to be polite, but drat, not seeing the beauty/artistry of that scene and immediately going into "wow this is creepy" instead caught me off guard. I'm glad I reined it in retrospect and just didn't say anything, but I think I was just so dumbfounded that someone would have that sort of kneejerk reaction to the scene. Neo Rasa posted:"Release the Wider Cut." 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:26
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:They will never specify what artistic purpose it served though. I mean if you watch the lighthouse I think you immediately understand the purpose and effect of the boxier, more vertically focused aspect ratio and don't really require an explanation of how it projects a claustrophobic cramped feeling. It doesn't need justified because it's immediately understood as an essential component of its visual language. Then there's the more geeky layer that the specific aspect rate, closer to 1:1 than 4:3, is very uniquely associated with german expressionism and the use of shadow throughout the movie is wearing the influence of this period on it's sleeve
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
garycoleisgod posted:In MoS when Superman breaks his cuffs and approaches the window during his interrogation with Lois, Martian Manhunter is the only one who doesn't flinch or back away. During Zods " you're not alone speech", when he says"one of our own are hiding on your planet." The camera shot starts with MM then cuts to Clark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
Would make a lot of sense that MM has little to no real idea how to interact with people on an equal basis after hiding amongst humanity as a psychic changeling for so long. Also funny that yes, the US military is infiltrated by little green men at the highest level, and said little green man is probably the biggest voice of reason among them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:I mean if you watch the lighthouse I think you immediately understand the purpose and effect of the boxier, more vertically focused aspect ratio and don't really require an explanation of how it projects a claustrophobic cramped feeling. It doesn't need justified because it's immediately understood as an essential component of its visual language. OK, but films used to be commonly shot in this aspect ratio. Are they all meant to be claustrophobic? Why is Meek's Cutoff in a similar ratio?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
Torquemada posted:Is there some compelling reason that DC haven’t just told WB to gently caress themselves and copied Marvel, bought all the rights back and opened their own studio? Before anyone says ‘money’, I assume they’d be able to get a loan on the strength of the $75 billion* Marvel properties have earned since the MCU started. DC is a fully owned subsidiary of AOL Time Warner
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:What else are you gonna call it when the first nine(!) minutes of the movie are spent on a montage of landscape porn with no dialogue or action? And again, I liked this movie. I'm even gonna upgrade my score to a solid B now that I'm thinking about it. Why is that a bad thing though? If Godfrey Reggio can make full movies of it like Koyaanisqatsi, why can't Snyder include some of it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:OK, but films used to be commonly shot in this aspect ratio. Are they all meant to be claustrophobic? Why is Meek's Cutoff in a similar ratio? Well yes it was once the standard aspect ratio and selecting it wasn't really a deliberate choice but a restriction. But selecting a non-standard aspect ratio is a deliberate choice. I'm all for weird aspect ratios with intention but I think if someone comes away from a movie unsure why the movie was in that aspect ratio you havent really been that succesful expressing your intent. For Meeks Cuttoff, Reichardt was pretty open about here intent quote:"I felt like the square [aspect ratio] gave you an idea of the closed view that the women have because of their bonnets," Reichardt says. "You'd be traveling in this big community where you'd never have privacy. But also, it's a really lonely journey. And I think cutting out the peripheral, it does leave you with the idea that something could be there that you don't know about — and so it offers that kind of tension." I would also add that Reichardt is incredibly focused on the theatrical release, like she's said that when it comes to First Cow if she knew it going VOD she would have reconsidered the aspect ratio because the effect of watching 4:3 on a tall cinema screen is very different from watching it on a small home screen. That medium awareness is also I think an important factor in selecting an aspect ratio - Nolan for example shoots his stuff for IMAX but doesn't expect you to watch it in that aspect ratio on a conventional screen so simultaneously frames for 2.2, or how The Irishman was shot in 1.85 rather than a more 'cinematic' scope because it was always intended to be presented on home screens kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Mar 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
Rewatched josstice last night and I don't see how anyone could like that movie just for the way it treats everyone not Batman and superman. Batman is the aggressive dad that has to teach everyone, including Diana, how to be a leader. Meanwhile, as soon as Superman comes back, they immediately minimize the rest of the league for a couple quip moments. I had just read greg berlanti's(CW DC czar) writing room motto is losing the plot point but saving the character moment and that's pretty much the whole movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
The aspect ratio controversy is the dumbest poo poo, and it's really disheartening to see it in CineD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
The only reason people bring up 4:3 in relation to why Snyder uses it is because they look down on him. They don’t think he deserves to use it. He’s not been setup as an “artiste” like Wes Anderson. So why is this dude jock bro using it? That’s all it is. It’s the same old bullshit we’ve been hearing for years now except now instead of outright saying it people go, “4:3 in 2021??!? Bro I have a widescreen tv!!!!!” It’s dumb poo poo. He clearly uses the format to its max capacity making the heroes or villains appear to be much taller by keeping the camera angles low. Action is centred and vertical space is well used. Look at the Flash scene, most shots when he’s saving Iris are shot from below or up high.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Well yes it was once the standard aspect ratio and selecting it wasn't really a deliberate choice but a restriction. But selecting a non-standard aspect ratio is a deliberate choice. I'm all for weird aspect ratios with intention but I think if someone comes away from a movie unsure why the movie was in that aspect ratio you havent really been that succesful expressing your intent. So knowing this, wouldn't you assume this decision was made with intent? Seems bizarre to think otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:So knowing this, wouldn't you assume this decision was made with intent? Seems bizarre to think otherwise. That's the weird thing. 4:3 is an aspect ratio a filmmaker can choose. He chose it because he thought it looked good. It does. Edit: It just seems to have nothing to do with anything. The Avengers is in a totally hosed aspect ratio, but fixing that wouldn't mean it was a good movie. So what the hell? LesterGroans fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Mar 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
quote:"Superheroes tend to be, as figures, they tend to be less horizontal. Maybe Superman when he's flying. But when he's standing, he's more of a vertical. Everything is composed and shot that way, and a lot of the restoration is sort of trying to put that back. Put these big squares back." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_Kg6Cxwn18&t=958s Anyway, not sure if this is perverse or subversive, kinda cloudy on all that. The thing that sticks out and this is something that carries over from BvS. The limitations are all kind of predetermined. Like, the singularity is Clark’s death and from that point on as has always been said, it depends how they interpret that event, his sacrifice. The overarching story itself is in the middle of some kind of time loop. Where a future is being seen through dreams, but almost as some sort of ripple effect of a transmission from some other already doomed future. This impression was always there since BvS knightmare stuff, where the whole thing just keeps giving off a Prince of Darkness vibe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:So knowing this, wouldn't you assume this decision was made with intent? Seems bizarre to think otherwise. Well yes you would assume so but no one really seems interested in understanding/expressing the intent. Some people in here have tried to but the attitude of "he just likes squares let it go" just dismisses the question of why as somehow unnecessary
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
He should have committed and embraced 3:4
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Well yes you would assume so but no one really seems interested in understanding/expressing the intent. Some people in here have tried to but the attitude of "he just likes squares let it go" just dismisses the question of why as somehow unnecessary Is there a good reason for it to not be in 4:3? Other than "Some people will have black bars on the side of their screens" which doesn't really factor into my thinking when I'm watching a film. RBA Starblade posted:He should have committed and embraced 3:4 Now we're talking
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Well yes you would assume so but no one really seems interested in understanding/expressing the intent. Some people in here have tried to but the attitude of "he just likes squares let it go" just dismisses the question of why as somehow unnecessary You're going at this backwards, because nobody needs to "express the intent." The 4:3 ratio's been in use since the dawn of film. Do you need us to express the intent of, probably, half of the movies ever made?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You're going at this backwards, because nobody needs to "express the intent." The 4:3 ratio's been in use since the dawn of film. Did most of those movies select that ratio intentionally for effect or because it was the standard? It's a non-standard practice now and choosing to use it is a choice in much the same way as choosing to film in b&w or choosing to use vintage lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
Several people articulated the effect of the more narrow frame, the intent doesn't really matter except as a citation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:The people who watch this movie without liking Zack Snyder are whatever, what strikes me as odd is how he’s managing to catch the flack for the flaws of comic books. Like “ugh there’s an EVIL MATH EQUATION!? And their planet is named APOCALYPSE!?” like, did you expect him to “fix” comic books for you? This is extremely well-tread territory, but this seems very explainable. My view is that the complainers don’t actually care about the comicy-ness, but the fact that Snyder takes it all quite seriously in his presentation. It’s not as though the marvel films don’t have comic silliness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
I don't have any issue with the aspect ratio on principle, but I feel like I have the narrative mixed up a bit. My understanding is that when Snyder filmed the movie both for IMax and general release which was presumably going to be in widescreen. So, Snyder shoots the movie for both, but as he is working tends to favor how things are looking in the Imax version. But most likely Snyder is shooting knowing must people will see the widescreen version. Then all the bullshit happens and years later, HBO is like, "Here is a shitton of money to produce what may or not be a niche product." Like obviously the movie is doing pretty well, but there was a chance that the movie was only going to appeal to a size-able but already invested group. Hence why it's four hours. So, Snyder asks if we can use the aspect ratio we're getting because it's what he ended up preferring. That's what happened right? I ask because I think that people are interpreting it as this was always the vision of the film, how the movie was always intended to be seen, and that's not really the case. Obviously Snyder can do whatever he wants in post and this is his preference for this film which is very different than what he was planning to make four years ago. But I feel like it does matter if he shot this initially thinking most people were going to see widescreen because: A) There are some people who are comparing with the 2017 shots and saying Whedon ruined shots. But that's not really true barring lovely color correction, right? In terms of composition, the shots that are being regarded as lesser are probably similar to what WB would have released in 2017 if they didn't screw over Snyder? B) I think with that, there is some critique still worth having to the framing. An early example was of the Flash running to Superman while Wonder Woman is thrown off screen. The shot was deemed better because Wonder Woman is in frame, but I'm not sure I agree. Wonder Woman being on screen doesn't add much and confused the focal point for me. In the widescreen shot, Flash becomes the focal point. Wonder Woman is off screen, Superman's action is complete, and our eyes are drawn to him charging to Superman. In the full screen version you lose that sense of focus because Wonder Woman is still flying off screen making Superman's action incomplete while the Flash runs to him. You also get a lot of empty space on the bottom of the screen where no action is happening. This isn't really a dis on Snyder, I can't imagine what it's like to plan scenes for two very different aspect ratios and I can see the moments where it benefits. Kevin Smith's comment about a lot of the movie feeling like a splash page is right on. But I don't know if the original version's aspect ratio was ruining the movie because I assume that it was always the plan to have a widescreen version. But I think it also means that while the current ratio is best, the fact the film was always being shot with different skews is probably going to mean that not every shot is going to be perfect one way or another unlike The Nightingale or The Lighthouse. But this just my understanding and I am perfectly fine eating poo poo if I missed something. teagone posted:Two of the people I watched the film with last night said Barry saving Iris came across super creepy and it kinda bummed me out because I love that scene so much. Main complaint they had was why Barry was taking so long to save her, spending most of the time just staring at her lololol. I do like the concept of a superhero meet cute. The big explosion in the end is funny. And to be clear, Snyder also understands the scene can read as creepy. That's why Iris is checking him out before the car accident. It kind of hangs a lantern on things because Iris is interested, but it is also weird how Iris is checking him out from like across the street. It's a thing that Snyder knows needs to happen, but it happens in an awkward or vestigial way. Like the truck driver is at fault, but Iris isn't able to brake sooner because she is so smitten about this guy across the street and in a store. And like I don't think that is bad conceptually in the sense of it being a Zack Snyder version of a meet cute. But it's staged in such an odd way. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Mar 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
smug n stuff posted:This is extremely well-tread territory, but this seems very explainable. My view is that the complainers don’t actually care about the comicy-ness, but the fact that Snyder takes it all quite seriously in his presentation. It’s not as though the marvel films don’t have comic silliness. I think this is true, it's the fact that Snyder is very earnest or respectful of the campiness that makes it stand out to people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:The people who watch this movie without liking Zack Snyder are whatever, what strikes me as odd is how he’s managing to catch the flack for the flaws of comic books. Like “ugh there’s an EVIL MATH EQUATION!? And their planet is named APOCALYPSE!?” like, did you expect him to “fix” comic books for you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Well yes you would assume so but no one really seems interested in understanding/expressing the intent. Some people in here have tried to but the attitude of "he just likes squares let it go" just dismisses the question of why as somehow unnecessary Didn’t Snyder also pretty explicitly say it was because of the verticality of the image of the superhero, with its connection to flag waving heroes on propaganda posters, and the shape of traditional comics panels? Also he shot the movie for imax originally. It’s well framed for 4:3 certainly. What did you like...think about it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
Danger posted:Nah. It’s loving dire to say you cried over that poo poo. Also the idea of “fandom” as community is incredibly hosed up. Different movies can hit people in ways they didn't expect. GotG2 got me at the end, much like Field of Dreams. Why? Because my dad wasn't around when I was little. In short, get hosed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
My main thought on ZSJL is that, critical analysis aside, it's easily the most comic book comic book movie. Watching it is exactly like opening up Crisis on Infinite Earths. It's got all the same flaws and triumphs of superhero comics. It simultaneously reminds me why I don't really read cape books anymore and also reminds me why they're rad. It's the perfect translation of a DC event comic onto screen, warts and all. For people who have never read a superhero comic, I can see this coming as quite a shock.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
The 4:3 doesnt bother me but I watch lots of old TV that's all in 4:3 so it doesn't seem weird to me like it did to a friend that sticks to more modern stuff. I was really surprised how much I ended up enjoying this version of Justice League. The first one didn't keep my attention and I think a huge part of the problem was there was no feeling of investment in the characters, Wonder Woman/Aquaman/Flash/Cyborg were all blank slates; since then WW1 and Aquaman were both enjoyable and the extra scenes for the characters that didn't get their own movies helped. Steppenwolf no longer looking like a melted action figure was a great change. The original JL's Steppenwolf looked so incredibly bad. 90% of the epilogue felt unnecessary and weird because there will be no sequel to this, so why bother shooting some of those extra scenes? Anyways a minor complaint.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Didn’t Snyder also pretty explicitly say it was because of the verticality of the image of the superhero, with its connection to flag waving heroes on propaganda posters, and the shape of traditional comics panels? Also he shot the movie for imax originally. It’s well framed for 4:3 certainly. I mean, I can understand his reasoning to a degree but it still seems an unusual choice. A lot of the actual photography leaves significant bare headroom in a way that I think you can tell while watching it it was framed to also be presented in flat without excluding much information. I'm not sure the more square frame actually adds much, it certainly doesn't make it feel 'towering'. I've got a personal bugbear about aspect ratio selection for stuff produced for home screens (TV shows) largely due to creeping use of animorphic which in many ways annoys me more than what Snyder's done
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 16:51
|
|