Page 22 of 34 FirstFirst ... 12 20 21 22 23 24 32 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 660 of 1010

Thread: Worlds of DC Thread

  1. #631
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    2,916
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Re: a sequel, I think it all depends on how successful the Snyder Cut is upon its release. I personally don't think it will be successful enough to convince DC & Warner Bros to let Snyder make one. But who knows, maybe HBO will be interested in generating more exclusive content for their streaming platform? When you look at the amount of Marvel and Star Wars shows coming to Disney+, it's not hard to imagine DC/Warner/HBO wanting to generate as much competing content as possible. I wouldn't be surprised either way.

    Quote Originally Posted by marodi View Post
    Whatever they have planned for this year, it will be without Gal Gadot; she's pregnant with her third child. Mazel Tov!

    It's really hard to follow what they are doing; we have a new Batman, they want to reboot Supes but it seems they are going on with Ezra Miller as The Flash. Meanwhile, the Batfleck was tied-in in Suicide Squad and my man James Gunn's The Suicide Squad is soft rebbot/sequel with some of the same actors as the first movie. Where does that leave the shared universe?

    They sure don't make it easy for us fans.

    Yeah, the DCEU is an absolute MESS and has been for some time. Their strategy seems to be a combination of "throw a bunch of shit at the wall and see what sticks" and being reactive to fans' reactions and constantly course-correcting or even starting over when something's not well-received.
    Last edited by sonic_discord; 03-02-2021 at 02:51 PM.

  2. #632
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    7,333
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    well, the Snyder Cut was helped enormously by him not taking any money.

  3. #633
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Monterey Bay, Ca
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sonic_discord View Post
    Re: a sequel, I think it all depends on how successful the Snyder Cut is upon its release. I personally don't think it will be successful enough to convince DC & Warner Bros to let Snyder make one. But who knows, maybe HBO will be interested in generating more exclusive content for their streaming platform? When you look at the amount of Marvel and Star Wars shows coming to Disney+, it's not hard to imagine DC/Warner/HBO wanting to generate as much competing content as possible. I wouldn't be surprised either way.




    Yeah, the DCEU is an absolute MESS and has been for some time. Their strategy seems to be a combination of "throw a bunch of shit at the wall and see what sticks" and being reactive to fans' reactions and constantly course-correcting or even starting over when something's not well-received.
    Yeah... Maybe there's something to be said about DC needing to learn as much from the original Thor and Captain America movies or other less successful, less memorable or even bad MCU movies, like Age of Ultron.

    These are all places that Marvel fell short. They didn't go back and re-edit the movie or recast the characters. They leaned into what worked and threw away what didn't. And there's still a lot of places where the MCU struggles but the worst mcu movies now are by and large better than the worst mcu movies from the earlier days. They've still got that villain problem to chew on though.

    The DC movie universe is in such a state that the concept seems very much worth abandoning for the kinds of sturdier, standalone movies where dc used to shine.

  4. #634
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    8,550
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Whoops.


  5. #635
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    7,333
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    I was going to say something snarky about how you're expecting a bad movie and then you get a worse movie but that's being disingenuous.

    Let's leave it at "I wonder if they'll just release it early then?"

  6. #636
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    7,333
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)


    So who's the guy with lightning? Zeus? And I def see a Green Lantern, right?

  7. #637
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    2,916
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    I still think Steppenwolf looks dumb. Which is funny, because he looks a LOT better than he used to.

  8. #638
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,117
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Justice League: The Video Game

  9. #639
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    2,434
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    @allegate They are indeed Zeus and Green Lantern and we did see them in the original cut. I also remember Artemis, with her bow and arrow and we are supposed to see Ares (Thewlis is listed in the end credits) but I was never able to spot him. Maybe it will be clearer in the Snyder Cut.

    New Steppenwolf is so chromy. He's like the ultimate muscle car.

    The Snyder Cut is 4 hours long. If it's truly bad, it's 4 hours of our lives we're never getting back.

  10. #640
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    7,333
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Huh. haven't seen it since the original release so I didn't know they were in there.

  11. #641
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,117
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by marodi View Post

    The Snyder Cut is 4 hours long. If it's truly bad, it's 4 hours of our lives we're never getting back.
    Wait...
    People are actually expecting this to be good?

    I mean, there was like almost zero universe building with the DC movies, and now they expect to get some Endgame feels over a universe they barely built up?

    You can't begin a universe with an Endgame pretty much at the start. It's actually baffling how hard WB/DC failed at this.

  12. #642
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    2,434
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by neorev View Post
    Wait...
    People are actually expecting this to be good?
    I can't speak for everyone but I'm expecting it not to be worse then the original cut? I guess? Although it's twice the run time... I understand deleted scenes being put back and scenes getting extended but enough of it to make a four hours movie out of a 2 hours one?

    It's terrifying. But I really need to know!

  13. #643
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    7,333
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    it was already a three-plus-hour cut minus any CGI so this is the true 100% unfiltered version of the film.

  14. #644
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,117
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    I remember when I first watched the Director's Cut of Batman V Superman, which I never saw either cut before...

    And I fell asleep a little over an hour in.

  15. #645
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    8,550
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by neorev View Post
    I remember when I first watched the Director's Cut of Batman V Superman, which I never saw either cut before...

    And I fell asleep a little over an hour in.
    Saw it opening night in theaters... 'what the fuck was that.'

    Cue what, 2 years later or whatever it was? Director's Cut on blu ray!

    'Maybe I was just too harsh on it...I'll give it another crack.' Credits roll...

    'what the fuck was that.'

  16. #646
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Does anybody in this DC thread actually like BvS director's cut? Does anybody in this DC thread think the Marvel movies are just bad cgi video game, power rangers type cringey shit?

    I'm only asking for a friend.

    I think if the answers to the questions above are both no. You will not enjoy the Snyder cut so don't waste time with it.

  17. #647
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    8,550
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Pretty sick 25 min short fan film.



    Also, without spoiling...a few minutes in...is that? As Bullock? And....the Riddler? Is that?
    Last edited by october_midnight; 03-12-2021 at 09:18 AM.

  18. #648
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,110
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Reactions from fans and critics coming in. Words like masterpiece and phrases like” why they decided not to release this version “ are being thrown.

    Other quick snippets

    “Best dc movie since dark knight “
    “4 hours fly by”


    Seems like it’s an actual good movie ( I mean, I knew I was going to like it )

  19. #649
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    8,550
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Aight fuck it. I wanna see it.

  20. #650
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    This is a pretty good watch before the new movie drops. I think there was a lot of hive mind going on back in 2015-2017. Back then no one wanted a dark comic book movie. I watched the ultimate cut back then and I remember thinking 'what the fuck is wrong with people this shit is awesome.' I still feel that way.


  21. #651
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,117
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    This box aspect ratio is annoying as hell. Makes a movie that's supposed to be so "epic" feel so small and crushed into a 4:3 aspect ratio. I love having 1/3 of my TV not being used. Think it's really dumb Snyder chose this., especially being aimed as a home movie release.

  22. #652
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by neorev View Post
    This box aspect ratio is annoying as hell. Makes a movie that's supposed to be so "epic" feel so small and crushed into a 4:3 aspect ratio. I love having 1/3 of my TV not being used. Think it's really dumb Snyder chose this., especially being aimed as a home movie release.
    So, don't watch it. Easy fix.

    I watch a ton of film. Aspect ratios vary. This one in particular gives the image more height. Modern widescreen smushes everything down. Also modern cinematic widescreen (with black bars on top and bottom) actually cuts out quite a lot of picture on a 16:9 TV. People whine and bitch whenever something is in 4:3 because the black bars are on the sides instead of the top and bottom and they're not used to it. 4:3 was the standard for quite a while actually. And many modern films have been in 4:3 or similar ratios and they are excellent films. First Reformed, The Lighthouse, Grand Budapest Hotel (most of it anyway) all come to mind and it was a joy watching those. Watch it in a dark room and the image is the only thing that will be visible, the way it should be.

  23. #653
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by neorev View Post
    This box aspect ratio is annoying as hell. Makes a movie that's supposed to be so "epic" feel so small and crushed into a 4:3 aspect ratio. I love having 1/3 of my TV not being used. Think it's really dumb Snyder chose this., especially being aimed as a home movie release.
    Also, this video was made for you


  24. #654
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,117
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by burnmotherfucker! View Post
    So, don't watch it. Easy fix.

    I watch a ton of film. Aspect ratios vary. This one in particular gives the image more height. Modern widescreen smushes everything down. Also modern cinematic widescreen (with black bars on top and bottom) actually cuts out quite a lot of picture on a 16:9 TV. People whine and bitch whenever something is in 4:3 because the black bars are on the sides instead of the top and bottom and they're not used to it. 4:3 was the standard for quite a while actually. And many modern films have been in 4:3 or similar ratios and they are excellent films. First Reformed, The Lighthouse, Grand Budapest Hotel (most of it anyway) all come to mind and it was a joy watching those. Watch it in a dark room and the image is the only thing that will be visible, the way it should be.
    I watched the trailers on my TV, not my phone or computer. It stuck out to me.

    Grand Budapest Hotel and The Lighthouse aspect ratios were to represent their time periods. Grand Budapest has multiple aspect ratios. Three to be exact, as the movie takes place in three different time periods. The Lighthouse is old fashioned box ratio because it is a movie inspired by and mimicking the time period. I haven't seen Reformed to give am opinion.

    Snyder decided to go with this aspect ratio because of IMAX. Choosing a format that suits IMAX is silly to do for a movie that's gonna be mostly watched at home, not on giant IMAX screens.

    P.S. Grand Budapest Hotel and The Lighthouse are art. Now, Batman v Superman... ☺

    I enjoyed both GBH and Lighthouse, but I still prefer the widescreen cinema look. Then again, when it comes to massive epicness, I don't think of GBH nor Lighthouse. Personally, I find the box aspect ratio kills the epic feeling. It feels smaller to me.
    Last edited by neorev; 03-15-2021 at 12:51 AM.

  25. #655
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by neorev View Post
    I watched the trailers on my TV, not my phone or computer. It stuck out to me.

    Grand Budapest Hotel and The Lighthouse aspect ratios were to represent their time periods. Grand Budapest has multiple aspect ratios. Three to be exact, as the movie takes place in three different time periods. The Lighthouse is old fashioned box ratio because it is a movie inspired by and mimicking the time period. I haven't seen Reformed to give am opinion.

    Snyder decided to go with this aspect ratio because of IMAX. Choosing a format that suits IMAX is silly to do for a movie that's gonna be mostly watched at home, not on giant IMAX screens.

    P.S. Grand Budapest Hotel and The Lighthouse are art. Now, Batman v Superman... ☺

    I enjoyed both GBH and Lighthouse, but I still prefer the widescreen cinema look. Then again, when it comes to massive epicness, I don't think of GBH nor Lighthouse. Personally, I find the box aspect ratio kills the epic feeling. It feels smaller to me.
    Fair enough. GBH and the Lighthouse used those aspect ratios for historical reasons, but those weren't the only reasons, nor were they the most important reasons. The Lighthouse is actually smaller than 4:3 by just a bit. Eggers stated that the ratio made the film taller, just like a lighthouse. It was able to make the shots of the lighthouse more epic while also making the scenes of Defoe and Pattinson more cramped. Two birds with one stone. I'd definitely say GBH is an epic film, not so much the Lighthouse. GBH is directed by Wes Anderson, a meticulous director. He's using the aspect ratio to frame the film like a painting. The aspect ratios switch during the movie but the large majority of it is in the square formats. Batman v Superman is art. You may not like the art, that's fine, but you not liking it doesn't change what it is. The video I posted above actually discusses how the images were created to reflect historical paintings and how the film expects an audience to think vs the amusement park comic book movies we usually get. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's perfect, it's not Kubrick or Bergman. But it sure is standing the test of time a lot more than all the other 100 comic book movies of the last decade, save for maybe Joker and The Dark Knight.

    As far as the aspect ratio being used here, Imax comes into play but it isn't the only reason. I also don't have a problem with a director finishing their film so that it looks the best in the best possible format, and in this case that's imax. I'd rather see the full image than a cropped pan and scan version just so it fits my 16:9 tv but to each their own.

    Think of it this way. If you were going to make a painting of a tree, and you wanted to emphasize how tall the tree was, you would choose a tall canvas that was more narrow. You wouldn't want to put it on a wide canvas with tons of empty space on the sides that dwarf the tree. Film works on a similar level. When Iron Man levitates off the ground in cinematic widescreen there's a ton of useless sky on both sides of him and two feet of sky underneath him. The picture looks unimpressive and uneven. In 4x3 he could fly to the top of the screen and he is going to have more sky underneath with less on the sides. It emphasizes the height of the image, not the width. It is more epic, not less.

    Just to be clear, I'm not saying you need to like this film, or even that you should watch it. It's just, some of your earlier posts make it seem as though you don't like the past films and you are pretty negative about this before even seeing it. Your last comment on the aspect ratios just seemed misinformed and that's why I replied, but maybe I just misread you and you already knew all of this.

  26. #656
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,117
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by burnmotherfucker! View Post
    Fair enough. GBH and the Lighthouse used those aspect ratios for historical reasons, but those weren't the only reasons, nor were they the most important reasons. The Lighthouse is actually smaller than 4:3 by just a bit. Eggers stated that the ratio made the film taller, just like a lighthouse. It was able to make the shots of the lighthouse more epic while also making the scenes of Defoe and Pattinson more cramped. Two birds with one stone. I'd definitely say GBH is an epic film, not so much the Lighthouse. GBH is directed by Wes Anderson, a meticulous director. He's using the aspect ratio to frame the film like a painting. The aspect ratios switch during the movie but the large majority of it is in the square formats. Batman v Superman is art. You may not like the art, that's fine, but you not liking it doesn't change what it is. The video I posted above actually discusses how the images were created to reflect historical paintings and how the film expects an audience to think vs the amusement park comic book movies we usually get. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's perfect, it's not Kubrick or Bergman. But it sure is standing the test of time a lot more than all the other 100 comic book movies of the last decade, save for maybe Joker and The Dark Knight.

    As far as the aspect ratio being used here, Imax comes into play but it isn't the only reason. I also don't have a problem with a director finishing their film so that it looks the best in the best possible format, and in this case that's imax. I'd rather see the full image than a cropped pan and scan version just so it fits my 16:9 tv but to each their own.

    Think of it this way. If you were going to make a painting of a tree, and you wanted to emphasize how tall the tree was, you would choose a tall canvas that was more narrow. You wouldn't want to put it on a wide canvas with tons of empty space on the sides that dwarf the tree. Film works on a similar level. When Iron Man levitates off the ground in cinematic widescreen there's a ton of useless sky on both sides of him and two feet of sky underneath him. The picture looks unimpressive and uneven. In 4x3 he could fly to the top of the screen and he is going to have more sky underneath with less on the sides. It emphasizes the height of the image, not the width. It is more epic, not less.

    Just to be clear, I'm not saying you need to like this film, or even that you should watch it. It's just, some of your earlier posts make it seem as though you don't like the past films and you are pretty negative about this before even seeing it. Your last comment on the aspect ratios just seemed misinformed and that's why I replied, but maybe I just misread you and you already knew all of this.
    Except a TV is a fixed size. The canvas ain't getting any bigger. The image is just getting smaller and skinnier to fit the fixed height of the TV. My TV ain't getting any taller. Perhaps I should turn my TV on its side so I can enjoy this movie then and get the real experience. Because that's the only way the canvas is gonna get taller. The more you see above, the more everything else has to be compressed or shrunk to fit the fixed height of my TV. My TV ain't growing in height. Characters have to be smaller on the screen to represent a difference in size with something massive. I watched the video showing aspect comparison and they seem to negate that little tidbit. They act like the image just magically expands further up as if you're TV grew taller when, in reality, the image is shrinking to fit within the fixed height of the TV in order to show that sky.
    Last edited by neorev; 03-15-2021 at 03:41 AM.

  27. #657
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Belarus
    Posts
    4,201
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    I haven seen either version of JL, but is the new 4:3 version is cropped on the sides, or un-cropped top and bottom, compared to the original version?

  28. #658
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,117
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by fillow View Post
    I haven seen either version of JL, but is the new 4:3 version is cropped on the sides, or un-cropped top and bottom, compared to the original version?
    "The taller ratio not only delivers the director's original vision for the film but also restores the top and bottom of the frame, which 2017's Justice League cropped off to create its 1.85:1 widescreen image."

  29. #659
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,117
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    When I watch the theatrical cut of Justice League on HBO Max, there are no black bars.



    For example, this image makes no sense. I found it on a site trying to compare ratios. Let's say those yellow lines are like how Justice League theatrical cut is currently on HBO Max, with no black bars. Let's just say those yellow bars are the shape of your TV since that's how it looks on HBO Max with no top or bottom black bars. Those blue bars would make you believe your TV suddenly grew beyond the boundaries of the yellow bars. In reality, those blue bars on top and bottom would have to be squeezed down to fit the height of the yellow bars aka the height of your TV, hence the image is shrinking. Now you have a smaller image with black bars on the side. Sure, it may help distinguish short versus taller better, but it's also making certain things smaller. It may look great on a giant IMAX screen, but not your normal 40-60 inch TV at home.
    Last edited by neorev; 03-15-2021 at 04:03 AM.

  30. #660
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    616
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by neorev View Post
    Except a TV is a fixed size. The canvas ain't getting any bigger. The image is just getting smaller and skinnier to fit the fixed height of the TV. My TV ain't getting any taller. Perhaps I should turn my TV on its side so I can enjoy this movie then and get the real experience. Because that's the only way the canvas is gonna get taller. The more you see above, the more everything else has to be compressed or shrunk to fit the fixed height of my TV. My TV ain't growing in height. Characters have to be smaller on the screen to represent a difference in size with something massive. I watched the video showing aspect comparison and they seem to negate that little tidbit. They act like the image just magically expands further up as if you're TV grew taller when, in reality, the image is shrinking to fit within the fixed height of the TV in order to show that sky.
    Yes, correct. But it sounds like your real problem here is the size of your tv? Do you complain when a film is in cinema widescreen as opposed to widescreen? Because in terms of pixels used, that and 4x3 are quite similar. They both cut off a whole lot of real estate on a 16:9 TV screen, but for some reason people only complain when its 4x3. The image itself IS taller. Not your tv. To fill your tv, the image would have to have the top and bottom cut off. If you really want a bastardization of the original image, you can just zoom in, it will look like shit though. I'd rather have the full frame. It still takes up a good chunk of the screen.

    In your first post you mentioned you thought Snyder was dumb to release in this format because it's intended for home release. That's actually not true. When he filmed it he very much intended to release it in IMAX theaters. Back in 2017 who could have foreseen the shit we're in now. Then his daughter died and he never finished the film. If he were starting from scratch he may have gone a different route. Hbo came to him and asked if he'd finish it and he told them he would only if he could do it his way. It was shot in 4x3 so thats what it's going to be. Also I'm sure one day it will get a theatrical run. Imax uses a taller image for a reason.

    I don't blame him. Every Snyder director's cut is better than the studio version they force him to do. It's happened before and I expect this version of the movie will be a whole lot better than that Marvel wannabe shitshow that the 2017 version was. 4x3 or not.

Posting Permissions