Jay G.

That's an after-the-fact article from 2016, and seems to take it as given, without providing any actual evidence, i.e. citations, that WB was using GL to launch a connected, extended universe.

I'd prefer an article from around the time of GL's actual production and release before I believe it. I just updated my previous post with this info, but I quick searched the original DVDTalk thread for that movie, and there's not even fan discussion of a larger cinematic universe. It seems like it's getting confused/conflated with the DC Entertainment news from around that time, which was about better cordination between DC comics and the WB films and TV projects, but no discussion of an connected cinematic universe.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...r10-story.html

Or maybe this later discussion from 2011 of Christopher Nolan possibly leading an expanded universe, and possibly folding in GL into it retrospectively. That obviously didn't happen:
Warner Bros Planning a JLA Movie With Christopher Nolan ? Multiversity Comics

JayTL

I thought Waller died in GL. I'm probably mistaken and will not be rewatching it to find out (even though I think the hate it gets isn't totally warranted)

Jay G.

Wikipedia's plot summary doesn't say she dies, the last mention is Hal saving her.

I also found a wiki called "Cinemorgue" that I guess lists all the deaths in a particular movie? Waller isn't listed in the entry for GL.
https://cinemorgue.fandom.com/wiki/Green_Lantern_(2011)

JayTL

I remember there being an explosion. He must have saved her or did a lantern bubble thing lol

CyberpunkCentra

JayTL

Movie looks better than I remember

JayTL

Agreed. Honestly I think (and kind of hope) that they see the success of Joker & Batman and see that they don't need to go the Marvel route and have everything connected.

If they try again and fail, then I'm sure they'll just do one-offs again before consider licensing off the properties

fujishig

Do they even want new comic book fans? They just want to mine the IP without understanding how the IP came to be so popular in the first place.

Having said that, I do think DC has done some decent work making inroads into youth with some of their projects and certainly their animated series. But yeah I would never expect them to make a movie to get more people to buy comics.

IBJoel

Honestly, most of the comics of the past 10 years have been turning me off. There's definitely gold there, but I don't know, I don't need every book to be about a world-shaking status quo change that is then never acknowledged outside of the book and erased by the next writer. And an ever-expanding roster of characters that I can't keep track of while also refusing to let the old ones go.

fujishig

As a (now) outsider looking in, it still feels like despite some nods to try to get new fans in, they often just give up and try to milk the existing fanbase for all they can with the variant covers, gimmicks, crossovers, earth shattering events, etc. It's almost impenetrable to a new reader (and I know because I've tried with my kids). But like I said before, it's a good thing they have other avenues to introduce kids to the characters outside of the normal continuity.

GLSWIA123

I rewatched the whole thing on Blu-ray today, first time I've run through it all in one day. I think it could've benefited from a tighter edit (some scenes really drag) and the ending Knightmare scene feels tacked on. But overall the movie is epic and Snyder's best work for sure imo. The Flash scene towards the end would've been amazing in theaters.

Justice League 2017 on the other hand is a strong candidate for worst major studio CBM ever released.

Draven

As someone who used to be a comic book reader, the current movies actually make me less likely to pick it up again. It’s such a huge time and monetary commitment and the current level of writing and special effects for most of these movies are what I was seeing in my head while reading the books as a kid anyway.

Now that the movies have surpassed my imagination, no reason to go back to reading comics that I’ll spend the whole time wishing would be made into movies instead.

milo bloom

I never got into the Justice League comics back in the day, not even solo character titles. My exposure was always the 70s/80s and later 90s cartoons and then the Reeves/Keaton films of course.

I still think ZSJL was one of the best superhero movies of the modern era.

Michael Corvin

I always tease my kids that we're going to watch the Snyder cut again in its entirety. I can barely get them to sit through a 90 minute movie so that's what's behind the joke with them. I teased it again the other night when we were looking for something to watch and I actually got real feedback instead of groans. My oldest liked the Snyder cut, but it's too long. But her main complaint? She hated the "square look" of the movie.

How far we have come with an entire generation having only known widescreen tvs. Pretty wild. And I'm with her. Eff that full frame nonsense on the Snyder Cut.

milo bloom

Yeah, he could have put that at 1.85 and still got the height he was wanting.

Mike86

I get that we’re all accustomed to widescreen format, but I really haven’t understood the complaint about the aspect ratio of all things since this released. We accept bars on the top and bottom, but if they’re on the sides it’s outrageous. Kinda funny to me. Basically the reverse of the old argument, only this film is in the director’s intended OAR.

GoldenJCJ

I think it’s a subconscious comfort level based on the shape of the screen. When TVs were all heavy 3:4 tube TVs, it was more pleasing to the eye to have the whole screen. People complained when that screen was partially obstructed by bars on the top and bottom. Now, people have widescreen TVs where it looks visually unpleasant to the eye to have bars on the sides. I also think it’s human nature to find letterbox/widescreen more pleasing than 4:3 square because of the shape of our eyes and vision. If our eyes were one on top of the other, maybe we’d fond 4:3 more appealing.

Of course there’s also the matter of TV size (TVs are much bigger now than they were with 4:3 TVs).

That being said, there really was no need for Snyder to film in 4:3. IMO, his IMAX reasoning doesn’t hold water but whatever, he seemed to think it was best for the film. Either way, you get used to the 4:3 AR even if Snyder to have gotten the same result with 1.85:1.

Josh-da-man

I noticed that some scenes in the Synder Cut looked like they had been cropped on the sides and felt cramped. Like they had been literally panned and scanned to fit the 4:3 aspect ratio, and not opened up to the IMAX ratio.

Not to mention it's weird watching a big action movie with lots of characters and movement and have it be in the old tv shape.

I think it would have been better if Snyder had used multiple aspect ratios instead of having the whole thing in 4:3.

Michael Corvin

On top of that most of us have probably spent thousands on nice tvs or even more with theater setups only to watch a big budget movie like I would on my CRT when I lived with my parents in the 90s? Nah, that's whack.

kd5

I disliked the 4:3 presentation but I really liked the movie, even if it was overlong. Beat the pants off the theatrical version hands down and strangely enough I got used to the 4:3 presentation after an undetermined amount of time. Glad to own it (and disown the theatrical release).

Kurt D

I'll defend Snyder's aspect ratio choice 'til the day I die, although from the amount of bitching it gets, it might not have been the proper commercial choice.

However, if any man-jack among you ever once argued in defense of movies being presented in their 'proper aspect ratio' GTFOH with your complaints!

Jay G.

The thing is, the 4:3 ratio isn't the ratio Zack Snyder originally shot and intended to present this film in. Do you think WB originally gave him hundreds of millions to shoot in 4:3? At best, a few scenes were shot in 1.41:1 IMAX film to be shown that way in IMAX cinemas, but a separate WS version (likely at least 1.85:1) would be shown in theaters, just like the eventual theatrical version actually was.

The 4:3 aspect ratio wasn't a thing until Snyder came back to the project years later. Now, maybe the reshoots were shot with that aspect ratio in mind, but there's undoubtedly footage that was originally shot 16:9 and intended to be presented in WS that Snyder later cropped to fit his new preferred ratio.

I'm fine with a film being a narrower aspect ratio if that's what was intended from the word go, like I'm Thinking of Ending Things at 4:3, The Lighthouse at 1.19:1, or The Grand Budapest Hotel and its shifting aspect ratio. Snyder's decision to go full 4:3 on his version of JL though, including with footage not originally shot or framed that way, just screams of hubris, him indulging his every creative whim regardless of whether it made sense, since WB/HBO Max gave him full creative control.

Kurt D

Fair enough, but I'll still defend his choice, even if his rationale for going 4:3 was reactionary. He chose to do it and put his name on it. That's enough for me. I personally think the framing is fine and didn't notice anything that I thought didn't work.


ETA: I have a soft-spot for Snyder's cockiness. His movies are often pretentious, awkward, and self-important, but definitely singular, and entertaining sometimes because of their flaws IMO.

Runaway

I'm sure that's what happened, but I didn't mind. It was weird in the beginning, but once I got lost in the movie, I didn't "see" the ratio.

fujishig

I mean he could also have decided that he wanted the entire movie viewed upside down. That's his choice but I will also defend the right of people to complain about it.