Justice League (2017)

After reading all the lousy reviews, I still saw it this weekend with my kids.
It was entertaining and I did enjoy it. Flash portray was a bit weak, but overall it was pretty good.

 

Watched it. Loved it. Enough said.

 

He was the best part of the movie, in my opinion. I'm not a huge comic book fan in general (although I have familiarity with all the different characters, of course), nor have I really ever watched any of the associated TV shows or anything, so I'm not tied to any previous portrayals of that particular character. But in this movie, at least, he was the only one that made me laugh with any consistency.

Overall, I liked the movie. Even knowing about "Mustache-gate" going in, I wasn't too distracted by the CGI lip. I agree that it was probably a mistake to rush the "team" movie without giving much of a backstory to many of the major players. I assume the plan was to back-fill those stories in future stand-alone movies (which may or may not happen now).

 

No it's not the opposite of what I said in the Thor thread!

It's not bringing extra baggage to expect to see the CORRECT CHARACTER! In Justice League I expected to see Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman etc. now imagine if Batman started cracking a bunch of jokes and made everyone laugh over and over, fans would have a cardiac arrest! Some are complaining right now about the few very light moments he does have!

The character in Thor Ragnarok wasn't the Mighty Thor AT ALL, they completely took the character OUT OF CONTEXT! So bring me what you've got now, but bring me the REAL CHARACTER not someone you just MADE UP! Justice League took no OUT OF CONTEXT LEAPS like that!

Jack Kirby didn't create Thor to be FUNNY, Thor is a SERIOUS HARDCORE WARRIOR, not some joke a minute character! Once that was confirmed, I knew it wasn't Thor.

So once again, show me what you've got now, but at least show me the REAL CHARACTER, Justice League did just that!

 

Never saw the 60s TV show huh...

 

Naw, not any more, not when they're shooting 6K digital and deliberately adding film grain at the end of the process. There's a point where you just can't tell. When they scan the image to digital, from that point on, it's just high-res digital files anyway. I've got 200 grain samples sitting on a hard drive, and I can take any really great digital image and tweak it to the point where it will fool most people.

However: all things being equal, I would always rather the production shoot on film simply because I think it handles highlight overload better and retains more detail. But when you get a great DP like Roger Deakins -- who only shoots on Arri Alexa today -- he can make really, really beautiful pictures with fantastic color and rich detail. I think it's the cinematographer that gives the image an aesthetic, not the medium. And the colorist also helps, but only to a point (kind of like the assistant who prepares the artist's paints and canvas). BTW, note that many high-end products are shooting in 6K or even 8K digital today. It's a nightmare to deal with in post, but if you throw enough time and money at it (which Marvel and Disney do), it can be done.

Justice League did look very good to me, and I think it's the best-looking of all the DC Comics films that have come out in the last 10-15 years.

I was looking very carefully at that and did detect it in maybe a dozen shots, particularly closeups in the last half hour of the film. The basic problem is they had to animate Cavill's mouth & upper teeth and make it realistically enunciate vowels and consonants, and that had a little bit of "Uncanny Valley" to me. It wasn't horrible, but it did take me out of the scene a little bit.



There are a thousand huge effects films where certain shots look marginal simply because they ran out of time. As the poet Paul Valery once said, "a poem is never finished... only abandoned." And VFX shots are definitely like that.

The effects work in Thor was much, much worse. As I noted in another thread, there were 16 VFX houses that worked on Thor, and it was the biggest mish-mash of crap I've seen in a long time. I felt that 1/3 of the shots were great, 1/3 of the shots were kind of OK, and 1/3 of the shots were horrible... and this is a movie with about 2500 shots, so that's not good. I was bracing myself for Justice League to look haaaaarible, but it didn't annoy me too much. But I enjoyed Thor much more in terms of story, character, and as pure entertainment.

 

Have you actually read any Thor? Like when he was turned into a frog? There is a lot of humour in it. You can't take the premise 100% seriously.

I doubt you've seen it anyway so you have zero right to make any judgement.

 

Are you talking about the first one or the most recent? The lady of the house won't watch the first one anymore b/c the terrible wig on Hemsworth is plainly visible.

 

Very beefy in the first one, the latest Thor film his body mass looks out of proportion to his biceps.

 

Agreed; it's not for nothing that the only two digitally-shot films that I've seen thus far that can even remotely compare to 35mm film were both shot by Deakins and both used the wonderful Arri Alexa; namely Skyfall and Blade Runner 2049... the Alexa's capture has such a rich and creamy character that looks really filmic, much better than, say, Red Epics in my opinion, which look very 'digital' and always have done (on Neil Blomkamp's films, for example, but others too).

Actually, come to think of it, The Witch was also shot on Arri Alexa (for budgetary reasons)... and that film looked both gorgeous and highly filmic too.

If you're gonna go digital, Arri Alexa for the win!

 

As a comic book artist, and someone who has every Jack Kirby Thor comic, I think I have the capability to look and analyze the character!
The original Mighty Thor created by Jack Kirby, was not intended to be funny, it's the original source material I refer to!

 

Well, you missed 30 years.

Presumably, you loved ThorDark World, unlike everyone else.

 

He likes anything people hate, and vice versa.

 

I've not even seen Justice League yet, but all this talk of Henry Cavill's mouth reminds me of that scene in the Batman movie from 1989 where a similar effect was used on two "dead" models that had fallen victim to Smilex... Was it really such an issue to let him shave off a little facial hair or come back to film insert shots later?

 

You presume TOTALLY WRONG! Thor Dark world was ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE!

See except for maybe the first 30 minutes of the first Thor movie, Marvel hasn't got him right since! The Thor in Dark World was a total WEAKLING, it seemed everyone was beating him!

A Thor movie should be like Gladiator, Troy and 300, I would love for Ridley Scott to get his hands on Thor, he's a director that understands the type of scope and epic vision a Thor movie should have! He also understands the type of tone these movies should have. He wouldn't take the character completely OUT OF CONTEXT!

I didn't miss all of the 30 years because I loved Dan Jurgens and John Romita Jrs run on Thor!

 

I agree with Maccafan.. Thor is a god.. not half god like Hercules..
Sad, Disney/ Marvel did screwed his character up..
Whats next Hulk , takes Broadway..

 

I really would have preferred the classic lineup, with Green Lantern / Martian Manhunter replacing Cyborg.

 

Yes, Cavill was cast as the villain for the upcoming Tom Cruise Mission: Impossible film for Paramount, and he was contractually forbidden to shave the mustache during production. When he was unexpectedly called back to Justice League, they had no choice but to let him keep the mustache and digitally remove it. Paramount specifically told Disney, "no, we will not allow him to wear a fake mustache for this production. Period." I think it was really one studio trying to screw over another one, just a power play.

I'm talking about the most recent move, Thor: Ragnarok. Horrible composites, really dodgy CG lighting, marginal characters, just a lot of sloppy work. Some of it was exceptionally good, but I'm looking pretty closely at this crap.

I don't know if Hemsworth was wearing a wig at all, but he looked fine to me, and I usually see this stuff. He does get a haircut as part of the plot, so there is that: he's only got long hair for I think the first 15-20 minutes of the film.

 

Still doesn't explain why it was done so poorly!

 

I went and saw JL. It was ok. Not great, not awful.

 

Haircut ?
Stan Lee

 

What's the best D.C. film?

 

I'm kinda partial to these (yes, they're animated):
1) Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
2) Batman: Under the Red Hood
3) Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths
4) Batman Beyond: Return of The Joker
5) Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox

 

In no particular order, my choices would be:

Swamp Thing
Batman
V For Vendetta