• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

DC Extended Universe |OT2| A League of xX-=DaMaGeD=-Xx Gentlemen

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IconGrist

Member
J_Viper said:
Gal's acting in that trailer
34b76e3e6aa1b0613f37dcc70b76d13c.jpg
Click to expand...

Haha, yea it was pretty rough. She still needs to get a better grasp on english. Her inflection is off. I wonder if she has a tutor.
 
A

a916

Member
I caved and I bought the digital version, just watched it...

I fleshes out a lot of parts and this definitely is the better version, by far. That said, those that have issues, will still have issues.
 
N

Ninjimbo

Member
I think she sounds fine. It's the voice though. I love it.

But it's tough to say anything definitive about her acting because she hasn't been giving anything meaty yet. She's mostly been relegated to cameos and side roles with little to no characterization. We'll finally see what she's all about with the Wonder Woman film, but I'm not that worried about it because I don't think it's that hard to play a superhero. I think any person with an ounce of charm could play a superhero.
 
I

IconGrist

Member
In one of the BvS interviews, a rare one with just her, Cavill and Affleck, she mentioned she can't improvise lines during a scene because her english is bad (she specifically said "not my first language" but we know what it means). She has to stick to the script for better or worse. So if she's not given any good direction on how her lines should sound they will sound off. She can do the lines as Affleck has attested to so the fault will normally lie with the director if she sounds bad.
 
T

Tabby

Member
a916 said:
I caved and I bought the digital version, just watched it...

I fleshes out a lot of parts and this definitely is the better version, by far. That said, those that have issues, will still have issues.
Click to expand...
After quad dipping in theatres you're now double dipping. I'm both proud and disappointed in you.

If you had to rate it?
 
S

Sambrez_

Member
Looks like Hijvu never was confirmed for JL.

Sorry folks, Kristofer Hivju has not joined the cast of Warner Bros.' upcoming DC Films adventure Justice League.

As part of their set report yesterday, IGN revealed that the fan-favorite Game of Thrones actor had signed on to portray an ancient Atlantean king, with ties to one of the three Mother Boxes, in the Zack Snyder-directed film, however, they've since retracted the report after being contacted by the studio.

The mix-up seems to have occurred because of some concept art that was spotted on-set featuring Hivju's face or at least someone that looked a lot like him, which led to a handful of attendees to assume that Hivju had joined the cast. Also, according to IGN's Jim Vejvoda, the studio even gave him confirmation while on-set and in a follow-up email that the concept art he saw did in fact feature Hivju, which could mean Hivju may have been up for the part at some point, but passed for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/justi...stofer-hivju-is-not-in-justice-league-a142840
 
A

a916

Member
Tabby said:
After quad dipping in theatres you're now double dipping. I'm both proud and disappointed in you.

If you had to rate it?
Click to expand...

It's much better, that's for sure. It's definitely better than than the theatrical cut. Needless to say, scenes breath more, the jarring editing is practically gone.
Superman really had almost all his parts cuts. Batman has remained intact. That said the issues that some people have, are still here. This one does a much better job setting up why Superman has issues with Batman and why you should care about him.

I'd have to think about it but I don't believe it's going to win anyone over though. I liked the movie before and I like it a bit more now.
 
I

IconGrist

Member
a916 said:
It's much better, that's for sure. It's definitely better than than the theatrical cut. Needless to say, scenes breath more, the jarring editing is practically gone.
Superman really had almost all his parts cuts. Batman has remained intact. That said the issues that some people have, are still here. This one does a much better job setting up why Superman has issues with Batman and why you should care about him.

I'd have to think about it but I don't believe it's going to win anyone over though. I liked the movie before and I like it a bit more now.
Click to expand...

A lot of people had a problem with Batman killing, Eisenberg Lex, and mopey Superman. The UC won't fix that. Everything else is good though.
 
T

Tabby

Member
a916 said:
It's much better, that's for sure. It's definitely better than than the theatrical cut. Needless to say, scenes breath more, the jarring editing is practically gone.
Superman really had almost all his parts cuts. Batman has remained intact. That said the issues that some people have, are still here. This one does a much better job setting up why Superman has issues with Batman and why you should care about him.

I'd have to think about it but I don't believe it's going to win anyone over though. I liked the movie before and I like it a bit more now.
Click to expand...

That's good to hear. The uneven pace and jarring editing was my only real problem with the movie.
 
I

IconGrist

Member
Bleepey said:
From what I read, the UE explains Lex Landis's eccentricities.
Click to expand...

I don't know anyone that cared about explaining his personality. It was Eisenberg they had a problem with. Unless the UC digitally replaced him with Cranston or some other fan favorite bald guy then you won't sway those people.
 
E

Effect

Member
Yeah the Lex situation always came off as a case of some people wanting one thing and not at all being open to any other interpretation. I always find it wild that those that claim to be superhero and/or comic superhero fans or fans of these characters are some of the most stubborn and resistant to alternate versions of characters or different interpretations when that's one of the biggest things superhero characters are known for. No amount of additional footage would change that. I can only hope people have gotten that out of their system when Lex show sup in Justice League making it clear that Eisenberg isn't going anywhere.
 
A

a916

Member
Bleepey said:
From what I read, the UE explains Lex Landis's eccentricities.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really explain that... it does however build on his character motivations and fleshes out his plot more.

Bleepey said:
People complained that Lex was too eccentric, however from what I read about the UE. It was all a ploy so that should his plan fail.
He can plead insanity
Click to expand...

He definitely does say that at the very end, as if it was his plan... but it's all in one line at the very end so I'm not sure if it was a ploy or a hey you got me, I'll plead insanity like everyone else and get out
 
B

Bleepey

Member
G

guek

Banned
Effect said:
Yeah the Lex situation always came off as a case of some people wanting one thing and not at all being open to any other interpretation. I always find it wild that those that claim to be superhero and/or comic superhero fans or fans of these characters are some of the most stubborn and resistant to alternate versions of characters or different interpretations when that's one of the biggest things superhero characters are known for. No amount of additional footage would change that. I can only hope people have gotten that out of their system when Lex show sup in Justice League making it clear that Eisenberg isn't going anywhere.
Click to expand...
The simpler explanation is that Eisenberg's portrayal wasn't compelling for many people.

I don't buy into this audience blaming mentality and the notion that the only reason people criticize portrayals they don't like is because they differ sharply from the source material. That's just shifting blame for when part of a movie fails to resonate with a sizeable group of people. There are plenty of comicbook movies with beloved renditions of classic characters that don't follow The source material. Most people didn't care that Burton combined Joker with Joe Chill or that Bane wasn't overtly designed after a luchador in TDKR. Heck, Raj in Batman Begins is only ever really criticized for white washed casting rather than for the actual portrayal which differs sharply from the comics version. No one cares that JARVIS is an AI instead of an actual butler in Iron Man because that would be a really dumb reason to hate on a great performance by Paul Bettany.

Another more recent example would be Zemo in Civil War whom I enjoyed quite a bit but didn't work for a lot of other people. I'm not going to pretend the reason the character was criticized was because he differed so sharply from comicbook Zemo. It's because he was incredibly understated as a villain. I thought it worked but I can also see why many others found him to be underutilized.

As for Eisenberg, I actually didn't mind him in BvS like a lot of others did but he didn't make much of a lasting impression on me either.
 
I

IconGrist

Member
I don't think the Nolan interpretations of these characters apply to that logic. Nolan was so adamant in his push that these characters share some traits from the source material but were ultimately shaped to fit in a very realistic setting. Everything had to have a real world explanation. That was mostly accepted so no one questioned Ras or Joker or Bane or Scarecrow. These versions were changed to fit that bullet point to a great degree if needed and people were okay with it because Nolan wasn't doing a comic book movie. Just using comic characters.

The MCU or the DCEU have made no such push so there's a certain expectation to present these characters as close as possible to their source. DC isn't given as much wiggle room because the characters are more well known. Everyone has their favorite Batman, Superman, Joker, Luthor, so on and so forth between the different movies, TV shows and cartoons. With Marvel's success people flock to the MCU as their favorite version (mostly because it's all they know) with only the avid comic readers having a say on other interpretations. So the audience is more trusting because of that lack of exposure elsewhere.

As an anecdotal bit of evidence go back to that DC or Marvel topic and count the people who responded Marvel with the MCU being their only exposure in comparison to those who only know the DC characters from Nolan and the DCEU.
 
D

Discotheque

Banned
suicide squad will be the first to benefit from that. aside from the joker and harley you don't have many people saying "that's not my Boomerang, Deadshot, Enchantress etc." because they're generally not aware of them.

even the awesome nolan stuff got so many people shitting on it's batman because he dared try something different there (and it worked imo, despite the messy third film I sill fucked with all of the bruce wayne stuff). there's a lot more leeway afforded to you if the character isn't as ingrained in pop culture.
 
G

guek

Banned
The Icon said:
I don't think the Nolan interpretations of these characters apply to that logic. Nolan was so adamant in his push that these characters share some traits from the source material but were ultimately shaped to fit in a very realistic setting. Everything had to have a real world explanation. That was mostly accepted so no one questioned Ras or Joker or Bane or Scarecrow. These versions were changed to fit that bullet point to a great degree if needed and people were okay with it because Nolan wasn't doing a comic book movie. Just using comic characters.

The MCU or the DCEU have made no such push so there's a certain expectation to present these characters as close as possible to their source. DC isn't given as much wiggle room because the characters are more well known. Everyone has their favorite Batman, Superman, Joker, Luthor, so on and so forth between the different movies, TV shows and cartoons. With Marvel's success people flock to the MCU as their favorite version (mostly because it's all they know) with only the avid comic readers having a say on other interpretations. So the audience is more trusting because of that lack of exposure elsewhere.

As an anecdotal bit of evidence go back to that DC or Marvel topic and count the people who responded Marvel with the MCU being their only exposure in comparison to those who only know the DC characters from Nolan and the DCEU.
Click to expand...

Batman, Superman, and Joker maybe but Luthor? Nah. There's no "definitive" version of Lex Luthor in the head of most people. But even if that were the case, it still comes down to execution and little else. If Leto's Joker is entertaining and engaging, some will still gripe about his design changes but in the end, the interpretation will by and large be accepted with open arms. A good movie is a good movie, a divisive one will cause division. Nolan doesn't get a pass just because he tried to ground the movies in realism. He gets a pass because his interpretations were enjoyable to watch! If they weren't, of course people would crucify them under a microscope. Venom in Spider-Man 3 very closely resembled well known and widely accepted versions of the character but people hated it because Topher Grace was a really shitty choice for Eddie Brock and the movie did a piss poor job of selling the character on its own merits.
 
G

GreyOcelot

Member
The Icon said:
In one of the BvS interviews, a rare one with just her, Cavill and Affleck, she mentioned she can't improvise lines during a scene because her english is bad (she specifically said "not my first language" but we know what it means). She has to stick to the script for better or worse. So if she's not given any good direction on how her lines should sound they will sound off. She can do the lines as Affleck has attested to so the fault will normally lie with the director if she sounds bad.
Click to expand...

interesting. she was great in BvS
 
I

IconGrist

Member
guek said:
Batman, Superman, and Joker maybe but Luthor? Nah. There's no "definitive" version of Lex Luthor in the head of most people. But even if that were the case, it still comes down to execution and little else. If Leto's Joker is entertaining and engaging, some will still gripe about his design changes but in the end, the interpretation will by and large be accepted with open arms. A good movie is a good movie, a divisive one will cause division. Nolan doesn't get a pass just because he tried to ground the movies in realism. He gets a pass because his interpretations were enjoyable to watch! If they weren't, of course people would crucify them under a microscope. Venom in Spider-Man 3 very closely resembled well known and widely accepted versions of the character but people hated it because Topher Grace was a really shitty choice for Eddie Brock and the movie did a piss poor job of selling the character on its own merits.
Click to expand...

There is definitely a "definitive" Luthor. The DCAU version or Smallville version get name dropped all the time. A lot of the arguments against Eisenberg were that they hoped because he was a Jr. that meant the DCAU style Luthor would emerge at some point to be Superman's true foil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Suicide : Squad; Kill The Justice League | Review Thread
Analysis Review 4 5 6 7 8
355
32K
Certinty replied
Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Gal Gadot, and Ezra Miller - not in new DC
21
2K
NahaNago replied
Jason Scheier/Bloomberg: Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League is Dead on Arrival. Rocksteady has been working on it since 2017.
Opinion 2 3 4 5
245
22K
TheThreadsThatBindUs replied
Variety: When Superman and Batman Copyrights Expire in a Decade, Will It Be Kryptonite for DC?
20
2K
Skyfox replied
Bloomberg: Behind ‘Suicide Squad,’ the Year’s Biggest Video-Game Flop
2 3
143
9K
MALpractice311 replied
Top Bottom