DC Universe

[Ben]

To be fair, yes, you could *approximate* a b/w edition by turning your color off, but there is more to a "gray edition" than that, since it’s not just desaturated (or, as you say, *more* desaturated!), but would have carefully graded increased contrast that brings out different layers and highlights, and won’t just crush blacks and lose detail.

That said, one could get a pretty close idea of what it would look like by tuning off the color and upping the contrast, hence why there’s that fan-service change of footage at the end to make them buy it all again. WB have to try and make that $40m back somehow, right!?

[EricJ]

For some reason only known to George Miller, they tried the same stunt with making Mad Max: Fury Road look like a different experience in "Chrome edition".
And, Warner being Warner, they thought it would work for everything the house brand wants to sell. We'll probably be getting "Space Jam: Black on White" any day now.

[Ben]

Well, it don't matter if you’re black or white...

No, this is nothing new. Fox also did it with Logan ("Logan Noir"), and for many years from the last two or three decades, most "black and white" films are actually shot in color (as a "precaution" by jittery producers) and then processed in b/w. Indeed, you can’t shoot digital without color, so anything like WandaVision's sitcom stuff is desaturated in post (although that also underwent processing to make it look like old broadcasts too). Some "modern" films are natively b/w because of low budgets and access to cheap 35mm stock, or because the directors have the sway to demand it, as did Tim Burton on Ed Wood and Frankenweenie, although that was actually made "in color" but with greyscale puppets and backgrounds for a completely unique effect.

Obviously, these efforts are intentional, or because the filmmaker thinks the b/w aesthetic more fits the subject or tone of their film so, no, we won’t be getting a b/w Space Jam 2 anytime soon...

Anyway...back to the League: anyone managed to sit through it yet?

[Randall]

I'm waiting for the Blu-ray, which should be announced any day now.

I did watch a trailer on my big screen last night, and while the 4:3 is certainly an unconventional choice, I didn't mind having a squarer image. More vertical space on a home screen doesn't have to mean "less epic" - it's all in the framing. And when you have flying characters, and a talented director and cinematographer, it can work. At home, I find that Scope films can seem disappointingly tiny unless one has a huge screen. Mine is 8 feet, and even then I find that Scope films can feel diminished at home. An argument could be made to have had ZSJL at 1.66:1 or 16:9; but like any other film, once you start watching, you forget to worry about it. I was watching Thank Your Lucky Stars last night (the old Warner Bros. musical), and had a blast with it; the 4:3 framing didn't hurt it a bit. And I wouldn't want to change a thing about the 4:3 Wizard of Oz, either. I think ZSJL can work at 4:3, too.

[Ben]

If only they had a talented director...

There’s no suggestion that this should be presented in a Scope ratio.

But it’s kind of a shame when we know it was framed for 1.85, which even though I still think that is an odd choice for something so epic, would at least fill a 16:9 screen and be "taller" in relation to the Imax framing.

And of course Academy ratio films should be watched in the Academy ratio...but then they were framed for that size. Imax films are, by nature, framed for the eye to be drawn to the center of the frame, with a lot of essentially "open matte'" space top and bottom. Which is great on a huge screen which fills your vision. But not so great even on a big screen home setup. The film was framed for 1.85 for regular exhibition and home video...so let’s see it that way! Already it looks like a weird open matte version...I'll def be blowing up to 1.66 at least with the disc.

[Randall]

But the director says his intended ratio is 4:3. As he has full control now, I'd say I can go along with it, odd as it is by today's standards.

[EricJ]

Some of us have old 00's memories of when Warner was dragged kicking and screaming into the audience demand for widescreen DVD or dual releases (which they didn't think was "necessary" for mere family and top-selling catalog titles when they still had the validating love of their mass-market full-frame releases) trying to convince us that it was a GOOD thing they were first releasing Willy Wonka as 4:3, since we were getting the whole open-matte image that audiences never got to see in theaters!...

...It didn't work.

[Ben]

Snyder's *intention* was to show this on an Imax screen. Hence the Imax ratio (which at 1.43:1 is not 4:3, wider than the Academy ratio of 1.37 and the television ratio of 1.33, which is 4:3).

And the film was framed to crop top and bottom for standard movie theatres and home screens. From Den Of Geek:

"However, prior to the Snyder Cut, the intent was always to present the film in a square frame in Imax while cropping the upper and lower portions of the image for regular movie theaters (and presumably home media), creating a 1.78:1 aspect ratio..."

Imax is *not* a ratio, and you do not "frame" a shot for Imax in the same way as for non-large format viewing. You essentially produce a giant open matte image, where the center of the frame draws your eye and top and bottom are just filling the rest of the huge space in the auditorium.

Naturally, this doesn’t work at home, and it’s a shame we can’t get the originally intended widescreen framing. He still hopes to show it in Imax, which would be great, but showing the entire 1.43 ratio within the 16:9 actually winds up doing the exact opposite of what Imax does, which is to expand the picture hugely. In this case it’s going to feel "smaller", with detail more marginal in the frame.

I just think it’s a shame that we don’t get a choice of a standard widescreen color version, and the directed preferred 1.43 black and white edition, because *that's* what his ultimate intention is. Right now it’s not even his full preferred option since the movie is still in color!

[Daniel]

One difference from the original is the Snyder Cut fixed an error regarding the birth year of Flash. Now instead of 2010 (making him 7) it was changed to 1997.

[Dacey]

My take is now up:

https://animatedviews.com/2021/zack-sny ... ce-league/

Took longer to get posted than I might've liked, but the internet has been an absolute pain on my end lately.

[Daniel]

Awesome review. Surprised you didn't bring up Joker.

[Dacey]

I was going to, but the moment kind of falls into "spoiler territory," which was the only reason I didn't.

However, since spoilers are probably allowed here by now, I can now say it's definitely very cool, and provides a taste of what Leto's Joker would've been like playing against Batman. Given the more grounded nature of the characters in the Snyderverse, him being over-the-top bonkers works perfectly, and he does get a chance to shine here in a way which Suicide Squad ultimately didn't allow given how little he was in that movie (part of me wishes that Amber Heard weren't brought back for this given the controversy surrounding her, but if they do recast her, I suppose this wasn't the time to do it). Plus we get a glimpse of Superman under Darkseid's control (something that already happened in the finale of the 90s animated series), which is also neat

At the end of the day, it is a fanboy film--but it's an exceptionally good one, and also one which I think has broad appeal going beyond the fanbase alone. It's easily Snyder's most "accessible" DC film, and might even be his best movie period.

Comparing it to Josstice League, while it's not fair to say Whedon "ruined" Snyder's vision, he definitely didn't help it. Snyder already had plenty of humor in his movie, but it feels organic. What Whedon added was the sillier stuff, jokes that I didn't necessarily mind much personally (heck, I laughed at the lasso gag), but it isn't missed at all, and I'm not sure when I'll ever revisit it now that the Snyder Cut is out as the definitive (and much better) version.

And while Snyder of course never would've been able to release a four-hour version to theaters, there's certainly a comfortable runtime which should've been included here. Removing all of Cyborg's backstory was a completely stupid move, and there was a way to have some of it even if not as much as is in the Snyder Cut. Same goes for Flash's introduction, which is great and would've been awesome to experience with an audience.

Most importantly, Snyder's tone is consistent here, balancing old school superhero corniness with his more intense storytelling in a way that never feels jarring. Even little moments--like a choir of women in Aquaman's village singing a hymn as he goes into the ocean--add so much to separate this from what Marvel is doing--in a good way, and speaking as someone who loved the Aquaman movie and enjoyed Shazam! well-enough, both of those are arguably "DC does Marvel" films. Even The Suicide Squad looks that way, albeit on a much crasser R-rated level that seems to be relishing every f-bomb.

On that note, it's worth repeating that Justice League is a very tame R, even with a little more violence and some language. While it earns the R rating, it's R-rated in a T2 kind of sense--meaning that it's still family friendly? If I had kids, I'd probably let them watch it if they felt they were up for it.

As for the framing, it didn't bother me at all. You get used to it extremely quickly (or at least I did watching it on a laptop), and it seems most audiences are reacting the same way. I can't wait to watch it again when it comes to disc (since I can't get HBO Max to work on my television), where it will hopefully include a commentary by Snyder.

[Ben]

Hid your extra bits, Dace, as not everyone will be up to speed.

I’ve been wanting to add my thoughts on this since last Friday night but haven’t had the time yet, suffice to say that I *hated* the extra added scene. The film — a great, big, massive, glorious mess — had concluded VERY nicely as it was, but all the extra scene did was act as fan-bait to try and start up online pressure for sequels.

It was not part of the original film, felt like it was directed by a different director, ironically, and rather than wrapping things up, left a sour taste and added nothing to the plot, since we already knew that things were probably looking bleak for the future given the unresolved dreams Batfleck was still having...

[Dacey]

Whoopsie! Sorry for that.

But I will take Snyder at his word on it being a tease for a "hypothetical" sequel more than anything, rather an attempt at drumming up another internet campaign...especially since he's publicly given away everything that was going to happen in his intended trilogy.

[Ben]

...to further stoke the flames! The new hashtag is already trending, after all...

But giving him $70m to finish a film that was already shot (and was pitched and budgeted at $30m to finish it) is one thing. Giving him $250-300m to make a film for HBOM is much more of a stretch. There is the talk about the solo Batfleck Batfilm, but that could be a quite scaled back proposition, maybe with a $150m cap, which is still way more than the $60-100m most streamer films are made at (not counting huge tentpoles originally intended for theatrical, natch).

But why tease a sequel at all if there wasn’t a bit of mischievousness at play? After all, this was his chance to at least offer his full version of his original intention for the film, and that scenes is not only unneeded, but wasn’t part of that version. And it really, really feels it.