![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatSo, I've been reading comparisons of Justice League movies, and more and more tempted to do my own. Mainly because they aren't satisfying me. I do however agree with one of the reviews/comparisons - from Slate who states that doing a back to back comparison of the Whedon Cut and Snyder Cut is akin to attending a 6 hour film class. And they should teach it in film courses. (Although Scalzi does make a good point that there are better films to do this with - such as The Magnificient Ambersons - which was a film yanked from Orson Wells, and then he did his director's cut of it. My only issue with that - is I find Wells films deathly dull. Talk about dark films, where the director is obsessively self-indulgent, and more into visual metaphors than story. I'm not a fan of Wells style of movie making, but white male film geeks adore him for some reason that I've never understood. I've debated this with so many white male film geeks over the years. Female film geeks tend to prefer people like Jane Campion. Film geeks like all geeks are a rowdy argumentative bunch that rarely agree on anything - but art is subjective.)
I've always been fascinated with subjective vs. the objective elements of the art form, and the degree to which it can validly be reviewed or critiqued. Much like a fictional novel, a painting, or any other form of art for that matter.
Film also as an art form - fascinates me. I am a frustrated film major. My favorite courses in undergrad often focused on the analysis of films, television shows, or visual medium. And I spent a lot of time as a child watching old movies on television, or going to the movies. I love movies.
I like to lose myself in them - in someone else's head for a bit.
Comic books and graphic novels also fascinate me - because they are basically film story boards on paper. Visual way of telling a complicated story in serialized format through art and dialogue. You have the visuals and the dialogue right there. Why they weren't made into movies - puzzled me in my 20s, then sometime in my adulthood, they began to be in droves. Apparently what was holding them back was the FX and technical aspects required? I've watched a lot of Japanese Anime in my lifetime. (The Japanese Anime artists were kind of ahead of everyone in bringing the graphic novels to the big screen.) Not so read that many Magna though.
My difficulty with a lot of superhero films and action films in the US - is they often copy video game action sequencing, which doesn't work for me. I find it jarring. (I do not like video games or the special effects of video games. We all have our line the sand regarding cultural mediums - mine is video games. I can appreciate the fact that others love them, but the appeal is lost on me, and apparently all of my immediate family members. This my brother, his wife, niece and parents all share in common. None of us have the patience for the things. But we also aren't into playing any sort of games. When we do, we're kind of annoyed with either the game or each other.)
Anyhow...the comparisons I've seen to date on the Justice League cuts, seem to focus heavily on the film stock vs. Digital (I'm not sure if they realize it - the digital is cleaner, and less realistic than film stock. There's more photo-shopping, and in it Affleck varies from young to old, and his gray hair shifts in Whedon's film, it doesn't in Snyders.) Also since Whedon had to switch Snyder's filmed action sequences to digital - it's clunky in Whedon's take. That was one of the big issues, Whedon was using a different aspect ratio, film method (digitial as opposed to stock), and color schemes.
Snyder used the aspect ratio for IMAX- which is taller and square, Whedon zooms in and uses the wide aspect ratio. This is somewhat ironic if you watched Buffy? Because in Buffy, Whedon used the square aspect ratio and was opposed to the other. So he knew what he was doing here, as did Snyder.
Color scheme? Kind of the difference between hyper-realism and campy impressionistic style. A lot of viewers on twitter and elsewhere complain about the Snyder films being too dark - they prefer the lighter colors and film stock. And why wouldn't you? Except, if you think about it - hyper-realism in both fantasy and other series - particularly on HBO, go with a darker color tone and film schematic. See The Wire and Game of Thrones. Drenched of Color. Same with Nomadland, which is darker in tone. Or look at WandaVision - which has dramatic shifts in tonal quality to get across mood.
Whedon did use the darker tonal set in Angel - to get across that it was a darker more adult series about a violent vampire. But brighter tones in Buffy, a series directed towards tween viewers - as Buffy wore on though, the color scheme shifted with it. Also its brighter in Avengers, which is also, if you think about it, campier than some of the other films.
Snyder prefers a more realistic and darker tone - more the hyper-realism horror motif. The monsters look like monsters - they are scary. He doesn't undercut them with humor like Whedon does in Buffy or The Avengers. Snyder directs superhero films for an adult audience. Kind of similar to say Netflix's Marvel films, which are also darker in tone, and content, plus graphically violent. The difference between DC and Marvel, was DC went with a lighter/campier tone for its television series - on the CW (and at least for the most part) with a few exceptions, and much darker tone in color scheme for its movies. Marvel did the exact opposite up until Disney + (that is). It went for a lighter campier tone for its films, and a darker more realistic tone for its television series. Both with mixed results.
The problem with the comic book industry - is mainstream viewers don't know that about 65% of comics are rather dark and violent. They aren't for the kiddies. Comic book and graphic novel fans do tend to know this - for the most part. I've read Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and various others. Miller's and Moore's stuff is really dark and violent. It's R-Rated, some of Moore's is NC-17. Also, so do Magna fans - if you've ever seen or read Battle Royal (a Japanese Magna about a bunch of high school students sent to an island to basically decimate each other), you know whereof I speak. Comics aren't really meant for kids, the industry makes very little off of kids. No, the big money is off of adults. I know I read and look through comics - most of them I wouldn't let kids read. They are graphically violent and sexually suggestive. There's graphic sex scenes in some of the Magna Romance Comics.
DC Universe - where Miller spent a lot of his time, is very dark. Batman comics were basically noir mystery comics with a dark vigilante hero. And Wonder Woman was written as a Dominatrix. Marvel was actually more kid fare than DC for a long time.
I know this because I didn't really discover comics until I was in college, in my younger years - what I knew of comics was Tin-Tin, Astrix, comic pages, and the cheap colorful superhero comics my brother read and drew off with a friend of his. I'm doing a seque-way into comics, because it's important to understand that tonal shifts exist in that industry as well, and DC is a dark verse, as is Marvel in certain areas. Batman actually has more in common with Daredevil in some respects than Tony Stark - he has Stark's money, but Daredevil's sensibility. Miller worked on both the Daredevil and the Batman series.
Tone in both comics and film is important. It's shown in these mediums visually with color schemes. Take Game of Thrones for example, it's a very dark color scheme. Drab. And for a reason - the story is a grim one. BTW, Snyder's Justice League is relatively tame in comparison to Game of Thrones.
If you can watch Game of Thrones or Hannibal, you can watch Justice League.
Justice League's violence didn't bother me at all - and I've struggled with violence lately. Actually I found the violence in Snyder's Justice League easier to watch than the Violence in Teen Titans (on HBO Max).
Anyhow back to color schemes - Whedon uses a lot of "red" in his version, and a lot of bright colors. It's shot mostly during the day - it seems. It's sunny. Everything is rich technolor. Snyder in stark contrast shoots his in gray and a sort of darker tones. More somber. The world is grieving. Or rather those who have lost Superman are grieving. This shown more than told through the color scheme. Also these a threat on the horizon or a sense of impending doom that is kind of missing from Whedon's cut. You never really feel the impending doom with Whedon, since he undercuts the threat constantly with a light sunny tone.
Color in film or art can convey so many things - mood, impending threat, fear, uncertainity, cheerfulness, happiness, etc. It's has a subtle emotional quality that affects the overall mood of the film and the story as whole.
Just by utilizing a more somber color scheme - Snyder tells his audience from the beginning that his characters are in a dark place, mourning, and struggling. That this is not a happy world. And the idea of hero, gods, and even superman is under question. He questions the concept from Man of Steel through Justice League, along with whether someone with this much power is truly heroic, or only so when it serves their purpose. He gets all of this across with a darker more somber tone - telling us right off the bat, to take him seriously - that this is an adult film, and with a more realistic undertone.
Whedon in stark contrast uses the technolor scheme of brilliant reds, blues, and yellows to get across a sense of childlike hope. His is a fantasy. It's humorous. Light-hearted. Not to be taken seriously. Campy. Silly fun. Watched and easily forgotten. Comic booky. For kids.
I've done paintings and photographs with shifts in tone. Below is an example of two photos I took at a graveyard on Sunday, to give you an idea of how color scheme and angle shifts things mood wise.
Take 1 - shot of graveyard caretakers house with green grass, blue sky, and
shadows.
Take 2 - shot of graveyard caretakers house with shadows and darkers aspect.
Take 3 - shot of graveyard caretakers house in black and white, no colors at all..
See how I changed the story I was telling just by changing the color scheme of the film, and in one shot the angle? It's that simple.
Same here with Justice League..Go HERE for some composites showing differences between Snyder's original cut and Whedon's reshoots.
Also you can go here with a video comparions - 2021 vs. 2017
These comparisons show how you can change the tone, meaning, and how a movie is viewed merely with color scheme and aspect ratio. It also shows how angles and shots, and cinematography matters.
Whedon's film is a campy mess, there's more coherence in Snyder's version and deeper meaning, and his use of color and angels - conveys more of a cinemagraphic scope to the piece, a sense of watching a graphic novel come to life on the screen, while Whedon's feels more like an episode of a television show, cheaper somehow, with less depth of scope.
Oh, almost forgot - the ironic thing about all of this is way back in the 1990s, Whedon got upset with how the Kuzie's ruined Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He'd sold his script to them, and they directed it, and rewrote his script - actually Donald Sutherland, Rutgher Hauer, and Paul Stuben all had a hand in it, improvising lines. Whedon was furious and incredibly upset with how they ruined his movie.
Cue about thirty years later? Whedon does the same thing to Zack Snyder's Justice League, and except the actors and Director are furious with him, along with Christopher Nolan.
I've always been fascinated with subjective vs. the objective elements of the art form, and the degree to which it can validly be reviewed or critiqued. Much like a fictional novel, a painting, or any other form of art for that matter.
Film also as an art form - fascinates me. I am a frustrated film major. My favorite courses in undergrad often focused on the analysis of films, television shows, or visual medium. And I spent a lot of time as a child watching old movies on television, or going to the movies. I love movies.
I like to lose myself in them - in someone else's head for a bit.
Comic books and graphic novels also fascinate me - because they are basically film story boards on paper. Visual way of telling a complicated story in serialized format through art and dialogue. You have the visuals and the dialogue right there. Why they weren't made into movies - puzzled me in my 20s, then sometime in my adulthood, they began to be in droves. Apparently what was holding them back was the FX and technical aspects required? I've watched a lot of Japanese Anime in my lifetime. (The Japanese Anime artists were kind of ahead of everyone in bringing the graphic novels to the big screen.) Not so read that many Magna though.
My difficulty with a lot of superhero films and action films in the US - is they often copy video game action sequencing, which doesn't work for me. I find it jarring. (I do not like video games or the special effects of video games. We all have our line the sand regarding cultural mediums - mine is video games. I can appreciate the fact that others love them, but the appeal is lost on me, and apparently all of my immediate family members. This my brother, his wife, niece and parents all share in common. None of us have the patience for the things. But we also aren't into playing any sort of games. When we do, we're kind of annoyed with either the game or each other.)
Anyhow...the comparisons I've seen to date on the Justice League cuts, seem to focus heavily on the film stock vs. Digital (I'm not sure if they realize it - the digital is cleaner, and less realistic than film stock. There's more photo-shopping, and in it Affleck varies from young to old, and his gray hair shifts in Whedon's film, it doesn't in Snyders.) Also since Whedon had to switch Snyder's filmed action sequences to digital - it's clunky in Whedon's take. That was one of the big issues, Whedon was using a different aspect ratio, film method (digitial as opposed to stock), and color schemes.
Snyder used the aspect ratio for IMAX- which is taller and square, Whedon zooms in and uses the wide aspect ratio. This is somewhat ironic if you watched Buffy? Because in Buffy, Whedon used the square aspect ratio and was opposed to the other. So he knew what he was doing here, as did Snyder.
Color scheme? Kind of the difference between hyper-realism and campy impressionistic style. A lot of viewers on twitter and elsewhere complain about the Snyder films being too dark - they prefer the lighter colors and film stock. And why wouldn't you? Except, if you think about it - hyper-realism in both fantasy and other series - particularly on HBO, go with a darker color tone and film schematic. See The Wire and Game of Thrones. Drenched of Color. Same with Nomadland, which is darker in tone. Or look at WandaVision - which has dramatic shifts in tonal quality to get across mood.
Whedon did use the darker tonal set in Angel - to get across that it was a darker more adult series about a violent vampire. But brighter tones in Buffy, a series directed towards tween viewers - as Buffy wore on though, the color scheme shifted with it. Also its brighter in Avengers, which is also, if you think about it, campier than some of the other films.
Snyder prefers a more realistic and darker tone - more the hyper-realism horror motif. The monsters look like monsters - they are scary. He doesn't undercut them with humor like Whedon does in Buffy or The Avengers. Snyder directs superhero films for an adult audience. Kind of similar to say Netflix's Marvel films, which are also darker in tone, and content, plus graphically violent. The difference between DC and Marvel, was DC went with a lighter/campier tone for its television series - on the CW (and at least for the most part) with a few exceptions, and much darker tone in color scheme for its movies. Marvel did the exact opposite up until Disney + (that is). It went for a lighter campier tone for its films, and a darker more realistic tone for its television series. Both with mixed results.
The problem with the comic book industry - is mainstream viewers don't know that about 65% of comics are rather dark and violent. They aren't for the kiddies. Comic book and graphic novel fans do tend to know this - for the most part. I've read Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and various others. Miller's and Moore's stuff is really dark and violent. It's R-Rated, some of Moore's is NC-17. Also, so do Magna fans - if you've ever seen or read Battle Royal (a Japanese Magna about a bunch of high school students sent to an island to basically decimate each other), you know whereof I speak. Comics aren't really meant for kids, the industry makes very little off of kids. No, the big money is off of adults. I know I read and look through comics - most of them I wouldn't let kids read. They are graphically violent and sexually suggestive. There's graphic sex scenes in some of the Magna Romance Comics.
DC Universe - where Miller spent a lot of his time, is very dark. Batman comics were basically noir mystery comics with a dark vigilante hero. And Wonder Woman was written as a Dominatrix. Marvel was actually more kid fare than DC for a long time.
I know this because I didn't really discover comics until I was in college, in my younger years - what I knew of comics was Tin-Tin, Astrix, comic pages, and the cheap colorful superhero comics my brother read and drew off with a friend of his. I'm doing a seque-way into comics, because it's important to understand that tonal shifts exist in that industry as well, and DC is a dark verse, as is Marvel in certain areas. Batman actually has more in common with Daredevil in some respects than Tony Stark - he has Stark's money, but Daredevil's sensibility. Miller worked on both the Daredevil and the Batman series.
Tone in both comics and film is important. It's shown in these mediums visually with color schemes. Take Game of Thrones for example, it's a very dark color scheme. Drab. And for a reason - the story is a grim one. BTW, Snyder's Justice League is relatively tame in comparison to Game of Thrones.
If you can watch Game of Thrones or Hannibal, you can watch Justice League.
Justice League's violence didn't bother me at all - and I've struggled with violence lately. Actually I found the violence in Snyder's Justice League easier to watch than the Violence in Teen Titans (on HBO Max).
Anyhow back to color schemes - Whedon uses a lot of "red" in his version, and a lot of bright colors. It's shot mostly during the day - it seems. It's sunny. Everything is rich technolor. Snyder in stark contrast shoots his in gray and a sort of darker tones. More somber. The world is grieving. Or rather those who have lost Superman are grieving. This shown more than told through the color scheme. Also these a threat on the horizon or a sense of impending doom that is kind of missing from Whedon's cut. You never really feel the impending doom with Whedon, since he undercuts the threat constantly with a light sunny tone.
Color in film or art can convey so many things - mood, impending threat, fear, uncertainity, cheerfulness, happiness, etc. It's has a subtle emotional quality that affects the overall mood of the film and the story as whole.
Just by utilizing a more somber color scheme - Snyder tells his audience from the beginning that his characters are in a dark place, mourning, and struggling. That this is not a happy world. And the idea of hero, gods, and even superman is under question. He questions the concept from Man of Steel through Justice League, along with whether someone with this much power is truly heroic, or only so when it serves their purpose. He gets all of this across with a darker more somber tone - telling us right off the bat, to take him seriously - that this is an adult film, and with a more realistic undertone.
Whedon in stark contrast uses the technolor scheme of brilliant reds, blues, and yellows to get across a sense of childlike hope. His is a fantasy. It's humorous. Light-hearted. Not to be taken seriously. Campy. Silly fun. Watched and easily forgotten. Comic booky. For kids.
I've done paintings and photographs with shifts in tone. Below is an example of two photos I took at a graveyard on Sunday, to give you an idea of how color scheme and angle shifts things mood wise.
Take 1 - shot of graveyard caretakers house with green grass, blue sky, and
shadows.
Take 2 - shot of graveyard caretakers house with shadows and darkers aspect.
Take 3 - shot of graveyard caretakers house in black and white, no colors at all..
See how I changed the story I was telling just by changing the color scheme of the film, and in one shot the angle? It's that simple.
Same here with Justice League..Go HERE for some composites showing differences between Snyder's original cut and Whedon's reshoots.
Also you can go here with a video comparions - 2021 vs. 2017
These comparisons show how you can change the tone, meaning, and how a movie is viewed merely with color scheme and aspect ratio. It also shows how angles and shots, and cinematography matters.
Whedon's film is a campy mess, there's more coherence in Snyder's version and deeper meaning, and his use of color and angels - conveys more of a cinemagraphic scope to the piece, a sense of watching a graphic novel come to life on the screen, while Whedon's feels more like an episode of a television show, cheaper somehow, with less depth of scope.
Oh, almost forgot - the ironic thing about all of this is way back in the 1990s, Whedon got upset with how the Kuzie's ruined Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He'd sold his script to them, and they directed it, and rewrote his script - actually Donald Sutherland, Rutgher Hauer, and Paul Stuben all had a hand in it, improvising lines. Whedon was furious and incredibly upset with how they ruined his movie.
Cue about thirty years later? Whedon does the same thing to Zack Snyder's Justice League, and except the actors and Director are furious with him, along with Christopher Nolan.