DC Universe

[Randall]

I think it's still fixable, if Snyder takes the criticism of BvS to heart (and actually understands it), and Geoff Johns is able to inject his vision more.

Squad was more fun overall, but I thought it failed worse conceptually, and really fell flatter than it should have. BvS was basically the film Snyder wanted to make, for better or worse, and it at least aimed for some depth; but I don't think Squad really came together like its director would have liked. Its development was simply too rushed, and its "the Squad fights a menace from within" plot was wrongheaded from the start. And while Snyder was at least able to put scenes back in place that he'd had to cut for time, so that his film flowed better in its Ultimate Cut form (so many have said; I haven't watched it yet), one gets the impression that Squad's deleted scenes just have lots of Joker vamping, without fleshing out things more. I mean, does anyone think that Slipknot has more scenes to share? Maybe, but I suspect not. And deleted scenes would not solve the problem of the film's big bad.

[EricJ]

I think it's still fixable, if Snyder takes the criticism of BvS to heart (and actually understands it),

IOW, no, and no.

[Randall]

You may be right.

[ShyViolet]

"Batman Go"--hilarious Batman/Superman cafe sketch:

https://youtu.be/KntOy6am7CM

[Dan]

Took me a while to respond to Randall about the Ultimate Cut of BvS because I wanted to sort of get a spectrum of what the general opinion was compared to how I felt.

I noted in my review of Civil War that I would have been fine if the film ran a little longer, like maybe 10-20 minutes. Ben said that would not have been a good idea as the film was paced ideally and to make the film longer would have made it feel like it was going on for too long. After seeing the Ultimate Cut of BvS, I completely agree him.

The theatrical cut of BvS had pacing issues. The Ultimate Cut does not fix this, in my opinion. Some plot points were fleshed out, though it raised a few new issues in the process. But most importantly, the film just dragged even more. It really felt like nothing was happening for the first two hours. I actually walked away from the TV screen a number of times for a few seconds each.

Is the Ultimate Cut the preferred version, sure. But it didn't improve my opinion of the film from my initial critique: That while it wasn't bad, it wasn't as good as it could and probably should have been.

[Ben]

Good to hear more measured opinions!

As you know, I didn't like the film theatrically for the $250m+ it blew (when anything short of awesome would have been a disappointment) and was so on the fence on if to pick up the UE disc (I even flirted with going 4K!), but I just figured that, going by the way the film had been made in the first place, that it was only going to drag things out further.

Yes, I'm sure some plotting is better resolved; it usually is in director's cuts. But those cuts can also sport a lack of self-editing and include scenes that still didn't really need to be in there to make the story work, and I've heard this longer cut does that as well (as in, there's a reason they were cut in the first place).

When I said Civil War was perfect as was, that's because it made for such a good film that *of course* we wanted more of it. But had that film actually been 20 minutes longer, it wouldn't have been the film we loved, and as much fun as it may have been to spend more time in that tone it created, my bet would be that we'd be saying it was near perfect b was 20 minutes too long!

So I'm having trouble getting around the fact that this film was already too long, especially in its first half, so why on earth would anyone want to add to that!? The storytelling was lousy from a VERY basic standpoint, and although certain things can be fixed by adding more back in, surely it should have been done right first time, and one should be either *trimming* the film to make it less cluttered, so that when adding things back it was just making the "awe" more "awesome".

But...no...even at the current $15 on Amazon I can't bring myself to buy this to see. I didn't hate the film like I do Superman Returns or, to an extent, Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, since it's so ineptly made that one can only kind of just feel sorry for it rather than despise it for what it is. It is a pathetic attempt.

But just as I ended up owning Returns and Skull in box sets of their franchises, I will concede I will end up getting BVS (just as with Suicide Squad, which I didn't even bother with) as part of some Justice League collection down the line, just as I did with Potter and do with the Marvel films.

That's if any of the other DC films are actually any good...

[Vernadyn]

I occasionally give in to reading comments on DC movie news on various sites, and I'm surprised how many people think the Ultimate Cut is leaps and bounds better than the original. It's perhaps no surprise that such people liked the film in the first place. (The comments often go something like, "The theatrical cut was OK, though better than any of the kiddie Marvel movies, but the Ultimate Cut is the best superhero movie ever made!")

But I agree with Dan that the Ultimate Cut doesn't really make the movie appreciably better.

One thing I do like about DC better than Marvel is their copious Blu-ray special features. Starting with the first Thor, Marvel has been skimping in that department. Then again, Disney's been doing that in general.

[EricJ]

(The comments often go something like, "The theatrical cut was OK, though better than any of the kiddie Marvel movies, but the Ultimate Cut is the best superhero movie ever made!")

Yeah, even though they're already going ahead and making the Justice League movie, there still remains a bit of a "culture war" where defending DC movies at all costs concerns.

But I agree with Dan that the Ultimate Cut doesn't really make the movie appreciably better.

The main problem with BvS was not that there wasn't enough of it...

[Dacey]

Pretty cool find...

http://comicbook.com/2016/09/09/really- ... confirmed/

[manga raw]

after all of his minions got sent to the Phantom Zone and the World Machine got destroyed was so awesome. Shannon nailed it. I genuinely felt compassion for him right there. Imagine your whole life purpose just being completely destroyed by one dude and any hope of reviving your race gone.

[gaastra]

Here we go again! (rumor)

http://www.batman-on-film.com/batman-fi ... -9-17.html

[Ben]

I have friends on WW and JL, and both are said to be "troubled", WW a confused mess and JL struggling to find the balance of tone between what Snyder wants and what WB *think* the audience wants.

Of course, both could end up being decent, but I don't think this incarnation of the DC Universe is going to run a full course too smoothly.

It'll take the *next* reboot and some proper, pure faith in a filmmaker who *really* gets the material, like KF at Marvel, to shepherd all the films through. At the moment, I'm hearing that it's something of a tussle between the major players and WB, hence Affleck's thinly veiled threat to just walk away...

[gaastra]

And ben might want out of playing batman! Good job WB.

Movie Talk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuBxbSWZrkM

Den of geek

https://twitter.com/bholliday/status/831537547448836096

[Dacey]

Er...I would take all of that with a (huge) grain of salt. And it hardly matters regardless. He's no doubt contractually signed on for at least three more films.

[Ben]

Batfleck would have been signed to a three picture deal, likely BVS and Justice League Parts I and II. Suicide Squad would have been a bonus added on when he was the best thing in BVS and WB saw how they could integrate SS more with the DC films by having Affleck shoot some scenes - the payoff for Ben being that he would get to write and direct a solo Batman movie.

Flash forward to the shooting of Justice League, which he apparently hated, and the concern from WB that he can't open a film based on the bombing of his recent noir thriller (even though they don't take into account that while Affleck maybe can't open a film, Batfleck can), and one can see that he's becoming more and more frustrated with the whole thing.

So he departs The Batman as director, because he isn't being given the promised carte blanche and they're insisting on script changes, and the actor will follow soon. If his heart isn't in it to direct it, he's certainly not going to like being under another helmer (who wants a tonal change, whatever that means) and watch his original take get bent out of shape, unable to put his foot down (from what I understand, he was uneasy at losing final cut after his last movie flopped and is wary of reshoot-happy WB imposing late changes).

Again, from people I know, WW is a confused mess, and everyone pretty much hated each other by the end of JL. Snyder still has much input and exec producer sway, and that's where the root of all DC's troubles lie. Take that grain of salt, but wash it down well, because the great thing about contracts is that they can be broken or renegotiated.

I would not be in the least surprised to see Batfleck become Affleck again once JL2 is done...