Jump to content

Talk:Justice League (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 23:06, 20 May 2020 (Signing comment by 70.112.229.80 - "→Charles Roven quote in post-production section: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Abin Sur

So, is Julian Lewis Jones actually confirmed to be playing the Green Lantern, Abin Sur, or did somebody just put that on here as a wild guess? -DCTrinity (talk) 1:38, 2 February 2017

Deadline predicts a $110-120M opening weekend for Justice League

While Box Office Pro is saying JL will open to $150M in it's opening weekend, Deadline is saying JL will open to $110-120M in it's opening weekend: http://deadline.com/2017/10/ben-affleck-justice-league-gal-gadot-box-office-projection-1202195005/

(Urgent) Vandalism Incoming

https://screenrant.com/justice-league-movie-snyder-cut-wikipedia-controversy/

I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but apparently the Snyder cult doesn't like what the article has to say about the Snyder Cut. The Snyder Cut Twitter is now urging all fans to create accounts and change the article in their favour.

Yeah, this is bad. Expect a flood of single-purpose accounts and POV-based WP:COI editing very soon. I'm about to alert WP:ANI of this nonsense. Bignole, you probably want to see this. DarkKnight2149 16:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, they mention that it's the Justice League article, but it isn't. It's actually the Versions of Justice League article, which should probably be cleaned up and better titled, that contains the information they are referencing. All of it is sourced. It probably contains a bit too much detail considering the "toxic" fanbase is a small portion of the entire group. So, I would suggest it is pruned a little, but the overall idea that there are people who are actively aggressively to get a Snyder Cut should stay. It ensures a neutral stand, as we point out the good (raising money for suicide awareness) with the bad.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed it was talking about both articles. Either way, I already requested page protection for Versions of Justice League just in the nick of time. Only one WP:COI IP editor got through before the protection was put in place, which was reverted. I left a notice at WP:ANI just so administrators are aware of the situation. I'll leave any decisions related to the content itself in the hands of those who have been shepherding the articles since 2016.
Personally, I don't see how anyone can complain about being called "toxic" when they spend years relentlessly harassing a studio to release an unfinished rough cut with incomplete green screen, and refusing to listen anyone who informs them of such. The film itself was already an expensive flop, and people made fun of WB for using a DLC model for Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad. Why would they spend more money completing and releasing another version that wasn't meant for public consumption? DarkKnight2149 05:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The real bodget

The real bodget is 600m Mohamadwolf (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Says??  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snyder Cut

Nothing actionable will come of this.--Jorm (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Snyder cut section has som serious bias issues. One the video he released isn't proof of a cut, anyone could have dressed that up. Two everyone else on the production says there is no cut, who would be in the know to say so. But that isn't covered in the section. Like https://www.geekfeed.com/justice-league-vfx-artist-says-no-snyder-cut/ That this troll campaign has spread to wikileaks and wikileaks has allowed it is really sad. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, generally we would trust a director saying there is a cut versus a random particular production person that worked on 1 aspect of the film (not the whole thing like a director). Secondly, people's understanding of "cut" can be different. What many of them are referring to when they say "no cut" is that there isn't a useable cut because the SFX were not completed, not that it wasn't filmed. I'm not sure I see where the "bias" is that you're referring to. That section is a summary section, not the entire thing. It includes language like: "In the belief that Snyder had shot enough material for a finished film". There could probably be some word swapping in some of the later stages, but we don't cover everything here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't one random person, it is several that is one of several articles of people who worked on the film, besides studio and others with knowledge saying the same, so the random jab seems a personal attack there. So you can take that language elsewhere. There is no cause for them to be any less trustworthy a source than the director so again that points to bias. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how you define "cut"... he did an edit of the film.. his first assembly of the material as it was shot... that exists... it is not by any real definition a finished edit with sound and effects. Spanneraol (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which has what to do with the bias of the section, in not fairly covering it given there are plenty of other reliable sources saying otherwise? No one is arguing the definition of a cut. My point is there are more than one equally reliable sources and points of view on the topic that the article isn't showing... hence biased. Those working on the project and studio are just as credible a source as Snyder, and dispute him. That should be included. This is one of the key principles of wikipedia articles being ignored. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "personal jab" you are referring to, as I made no such personal attack against you. I don't know that I would say that Danny Elfman is an "equally reliable" party compared to the guy that filmed the movie. It was well documented that the movie was in post production when Snyder left. That means there was a cut of the film before Whedon refilmed and recut the movie. So, multiple people saying there's "no cut" cannot be referring to the idea that Snyder didn't finish filming, because we know he did based on when he left the production. Deductive logic means they are referring to a finished product, which I don't think the section implies exists. There are differences of opinion on how much post work was completed. Junkie XL has said he actually did complete the score. The VFX supervisors have said they did quite a bit of the work. The people that claim there isn't a cut only saw the pieces they needed to see. Which is normal for any film. The link you originally posted says: "“1000% bulls**t. As I’ve said, of course, there is an assembly cut Zack had gone before he left, but that was 9 months ago. He himself said he hasn’t touched or interfered or been a part of the process since March. There is no cut. People like this guy (who spread the rumor) are the worst, perpetuating rumors of processes they don’t understand.”" --- The key part of that statement is "there is an assembly cut Zack had gone before he left." -- He isn't saying that a cut doesn't exist, only that a finished product doesn't exist. I'm not sure of what bias exists on the page, because this page just really talks about the movement associated with the Snyder Cut. There is an entirely different page for all the details.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
calling him some random as if I was just grabbing just anyone out of desperation is a job. Two, "because this page just really talks about the movement associated with the Snyder Cut" Then it should be its own page or not here. And those calling to question the cut is absolutely relevant to the movement, so yes is bias. You aren't covering all sides without prejudice. That is bias. That is the core of wikipedia. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to a random production person as a random production person isn't a personal attack. it's a description of what they are. Feel free to check out personal attacks. The point was the people that know the state of the movie are more likely to be Snyder and Warner Bros. No one else, unless they've seen something first hand. A "random" VFX person only knows what they've seen. I'd trust the VFX Supervisor over a random VFX person who only works on what shots they give them. None of that is a personal attack on them, just merely pointing out that putting undue weight on the opinion of people that do not determine the "state" of a finished film seems a little....odd to me.
As for "Then it should be its own page or not here"....I'm thinking you didn't actually thoroughly vet that section because there's a link to the full page in that section. When pages are split you leave behind a brief summary, you don't simply create a section that contains only a link to another page. That's what we did here. Again, this section is about the community reaction and the movement of the "Snyder Cut"....that's why it's called "Community reaction and the 'Snyder Cut'". It isn't a section about whether or not the cut exist. It's a section about the fact that a very vocal and well documented group of people (include people that worked on the film) believe it to exist and have called for its release. The full page is the place that would outline different opinions about whether it exists or not. It doesn't matter if a cut DOES or DOES NOT exist, because the movement to have a cut released still exists. So I go back to the fact that I don't see a "bias" as you claim, because the section isn't about taking a side, it's about the movement.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You referred to it as me just pulling out some random person trying to DISHONESTLY discredit me, and someone with relevance to the production. That absolutely is a personal attack. And irrelevant to you opposing RELEVANT FACTS to the topic. Part of community reaction and Snyder cut is ALL relevant claims about it. With holding details because it doesn't support the 'synder cut' view absolutely is bias. And it is clear you are part of that Snyder crowd protecting that bias. Everything you've said has continued to prove that bias with the objections of relevant material that fits the wiki criteria of additional information. You are part of the bias. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're a little mixed up. I didn't refer to you about anything. I merely pointed out that a random production person (I know they exist, I read the articles when they first came out) doesn't trump the director. So no, I'm sorry, but you are mistaken in that being a personal attack. A personal attack would be calling you an insulting name, or at least insinuating it. I did no such thing. I attacked nothing about you but the argument itself. It's clear that there is no rational argument that can be made to you regarding the section. Anyone that argues differently is just going to be called "bias" by you. I'm bowing out. Have a good day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Justice League (2017 movi)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Justice League (2017 movi). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 17#Justice League (2017 movi) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Roven quote in post-production section

I think it's a bad source of information for two reasons: 1) it's grammatically incorrect (probably a typo by the article writer) and 2) Roven was putting spin on a bad situation. Since the movie's release, numerous people involved with the production have gone on record stating how much Whedon's footage deviated from Snyder's script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who added it back, I think it should be kept. It is grammatically correct, but most importantly I think it's sort of a testimony to how WB brazenly lied about the theatrical cut IMO. JOEBRO64 22:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not grammatically correct: "There's only so much you can do with other 15, 20 percent of the movie." There should be a "the" between "with" and "15, 20 percent". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justice_League_(film)&oldid=957878083"