DC Extended Universe

The only real difference in approach I see between the MCU and the DCEU is that the latter had no one person in charge of everything like Feige, which has since been rectified with the appointment of Johns and Berg.

And honestly, for something as grand as this you need that kind of oversight. You need an editor that will give creators freedom to take directions and add flourishes while still keeping them in check.

There was news about them bringing in Geoff Johns a while back, not anywhere of anyone else.

That was it. Some reason I had Goyer as the name.

Wasn't this just a rumor?

Yep, creative freedom is all well and good, but if it goes too far you end with something like Iron Man 3 which certainly has its good points, but does create a giant continuity problem by contradicting Iron Man 2 (and we are talking about the same franchise here!). One of the reasons why the Captain America Franchise works so well is because it had the same writing team from start to finish. Now that the DCEU finally has something like an official leader (hopefully), they also need to figure out the right set of writers.

l have to disagree with you with the idea of Mavel being unexpected, they have a pretty define formula so far: light comedy,gags,jokes, a charmable lead and so far pretty forgettable villians, sometimes it work(Iron man 1,first capitan america) other...it dosent(both Thor movies,Iron man 2 and Antman who most generic movie of all) in fact Winter soldier is good because it goes away from typical formula while CW stumble a little bit because of it.

with Bv S....yeah, it have pretty damn awsome scene(Bruce in metropolis or him in the dugeon) but the editting is awfull.

One thing we know pretty well is that Snyder was given free reign to make the movie he wanted to make, and there ended up being some lose-lose discussions on the theatrical version late in the game. Even though the Ultimate Edition has been better received, that version is rated R and something needed to change to make it PG-13.

I'm not hugely familiar with James Gunn's work but of the films he's directed he seems to be more in the realm of black comedies and horror films, of which Guardians of the Galaxy is definitely not. In fact, Gunn wrote for the Scooby-Doo movies and THAT is closer to the tone of GOTG. Amusingly, he and Snyder are both responsible for the Dawn of the Dead remake.

A lot of these discussions are difficult to answer without knowing the stuff behind the scenes. You can be listed as the writer of the movie and you were still told what to make by the studio. Marvel has become kind of famous for not having a lot of repeat directors, the Russo's are the third to do two movies and will be the first to do three. Half the directors have said they were frustrated at having their movie taken away from them in one way or another, because Marvel Studios is always looking at using one film to promote another. The director of The Dark World hated the stinger hinting towards GOTG, Jon Favreau didn't like the increased emphasis on "the Avengers are coming" in Iron Man 2 (which apparently took away from scenes better developing Vanko as a villain).

Which might end up being what happens with the DCEU, it's the natural order of things when you have so much money going into these films. But currently it seems like it worked the other way around, Zack Snyder said the Wonder Woman picture was originally made specifically by the BVS production team, but during post production they figured it would be nicer to include one with Chris Pine in it and help promote Wonder Woman. It's encouraging comradery between the filmmakers instead of competition.

Do we even know who was responsible for the theatrical cut? WB required the theatrical cut be PG-13, but I didn't think it was so certain that they went behind Snyder's back to "fix" it, like Fox did to Trank.

And a lot of people online really undersell just how big of a deal it is that the Ultimate Edition, Snyder's intended version, is rated R. Even The Dark Knight Trilogy was able to keep it PG-13.

I have yet to see the Ultimate Edition I want to get it on Blu-ray but from my understanding the R-rating is just something that the MPAA gave but it was almost a PG-13.

They main thing people bring up is that Snyder really wanted it to be 3 hours long but the studio wanted the movie to be shorter so they can have more showings in theaters. If they wanted it to be 3 hours long Snyder could've just cut out the part that made it R rated or edit the scene so it didn't have an R rating anymore.

Snyder said the reason it was shorter is because "I'm not James Cameron" he could've got away with releasing a 3 hour film if he was James Cameron or that caliber of a director.

It' just some blood that caused it, and maybe some Batbutt, the R rating stuff is near-completely irrelevant to the ultimate cut.

Zack and the editor of the movie made the theatrical cut.

But, you know, there was no salvaging it because the movie was always meant to be 3 hours, then at the last minute they're told to trim it down to 2:30:00

Bat-ass, blood, violence and the Doomsday impaling Superman shot. In the theatrical version, it's more cropped so you can't see the bone protruding from his back, or him really pulling himself up on the bone (boy that sounds wrong... or very very right).

Also, after seeing the ultimate cut, the blood and violence definitely are needed. They really sell Batman's brutality, KG Beast as a villain and Batman's problem with Superman.

edited 1st Jul '16 3:00:22 PM by Cruherrx

you colud cut some scene like nightmare or justice league stingers, That would help

There's no way WB would allow the Knightmare scene to be cut. For one, that shit looked expensive as heck. Secondly, it featured the Knightmare Batsuit, which is merchandising 101.

Justice League stingers wouldn't be cut for similar reasons.

edited 1st Jul '16 3:01:41 PM by Cruherrx

Depends on if they got concerned about cutting during the editing phase or during the script phase. In the script phase it would stand out immediately; after filming it's too late.

I am also waiting for the Blu-Ray, I prefer physical copies and special features, but I've read a few articles outlining the differences. It's a few things that are not all that crazy but just edged it into R rated territory. In the murder of the Waynes, when Martha's necklace got tangled up with the gun there is a shot of her with the gun in her face and she is recognizing what is about to happen, and that cuts to the gun going off and shattering the necklace. And in the warehouse fight when Batman flings the wooden crate and smacks the thug back against the wall, there is a blood smear on the wall coming from his head when he collapses. And in both versions there are things like Superman getting stabbed in the chest by a bone spike that is intense enough already.

The big thing is that the story features a lot of overlapping plotlines that converge as you near the climax. One sub plot informs the other. The theatrical cut includes almost every major event that is needed to understand the story, but is so truncated that it comes off clumsy. For instance it's stated repeatedly that Clark is investigating the Batman against Perry's instructions, and that explains why he doesn't like him, but in the extended cut we have scenes of Clark actually going to Gotham and asking questions. When you have a choice of what scenes to keep, you often stick with the major characters played by the major actors, even if Perry is just telling us what Clark is up to instead of bit characters showing us.

Still haven't seen the Ultimate Edition yet (I do have it though), but I'm curious now as to how a PG-13 Ultimate Edition would be like, aka what would've been shown in theaters had WB not been concerned about the length.

I'd imagine mostly the same minus the Affleck ass-shot.

Which is a pretty big loss, but I think I'd manage.

edited 1st Jul '16 3:58:23 PM by Watchtower

Yeah, Shirtless Chris is good and all but Bataffleck ass shot thump that, Marvel will need something better for the ladies now

What are the factors that determine if Batman or Superman win a fight between the two? Kryptonite and how far Clark is willing to go seem to be the main factors to me. Ignoring that the writer decides which one will win. Batman defeating Superman is likely more interesting than Superman defeating Baan. And the victor often looks like a bully if Mind Control isn't involved.

Batman looked like a bully in Bv S because Superman didn't want to fight him. If Clark went in intending to kill and lost, it would be a case of "Fuck yeah, the underdog won!" instead of "Holy shit, Batman, stop being crazy!"

Pretty much, also it depend on how strong super is in the moment, since the consesus about Super power is pretty much "fucking OP" it require a LOT of luck for Batman to win

A lot of luck and two Kryptonite gas grenades. It also helps that Clark doesn't actually know how to fight, just throw his strength around. He should really learn how to fight.

Indeed. DCEU!Clark needed to go to some superhero school to learn how to fight and be the most efficient as he can be. Of course, that would have been impossible considering that Clark is in a rather unique position. If only Wonder Woman and Batman could have helped the rookie out.

The theatrical cut was certainly not about the r-rating but about shaving off half an hour somehow.

It was probably both.

Simmons on Gordon.

edited 2nd Jul '16 9:48:27 AM by LordofLore