Justice League of America >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 9,780
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 9,797
Subj: Agreed 100%. *NT*
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 at 07:57:32 pm EST (Viewed 564 times)
Reply Subj: Re: A more coherent defense of the Justice League film...
Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 at 08:50:12 am EST (Viewed 788 times)

Previous Post

    The movie creates the proper emotional resonance as it assembles the pantheon of heroes at their respective tiers.

Outside of Wonder Woman and Flash, no, the movie doesn't. Batman comes off as meek and befuddled. Aquaman is a one dimensional dude. Cyborg is just bland. Superman is still lacking in personality.

    The movie is also not a three hour deep psychological look into the complexities and motivations of the villain.

But would it have hurt the movie to spend more than 3 seconds on making the villain more complex and less generic?

    It’s their movie, they get the focus. In this case, the evil forces are there to be a threat requiring the team up.

But if the threat is not interesting, then the reason for the team is not that interesting. The reason for the team is even less interesting when it looks like Superman can do most of what the team can do by himself. If he's about as fast as Flash, that makes Flash redundant.

    Individual character development is for their solo movies. The development here was of the team dynamic and how they each fit into it. besides, as Iconic characters, they are archetypes, we already know who they are.

Except the movie characters aren't the same archetypal characters they are in the comics. Flash is now the newbie comic relief. That's definitely not Barry in the comics. Aquaman is now macho alpha male. He's a far more level-headed, noble character in the comics. And the movie does try to do too much character development - Aquaman on his loner status, Flash's feelings about his incarcerated father, Cyborg's resentment of his father turning him into half machine - but the movie simply doesn't have time to do any of this justice or does it ineptly.

    Steppenwolf is the bad guy, and fairly one dimensional, along with his Parademons. This is exactly what the story needs.

Not EXACTLY. The Avengers had a bad guy with his own army, but man, Loki is a hundred times more interesting as a villain than Steppenwolf and that helped The Avengers a lot. Steppenwolf just makes Justice League less interesting.

    Steppenwolf needed to be a foe requiring the entire League to form together to oppose, and an indication of greater Darkseidy threats inspiring them to stay together and expand their ranks.

Except for one mention of Darkseid, the movie doesn't impart any massive forthcoming threat, so no, that doesn't work. Also we see Superman alone putting a beat down on Steppenwolf, so that certainly doesn't make him seem like a foe "requiring the entire League to form together to oppose." Steppenwolf himself gives the reason for invading now due to Superman being dead, implicitly acknowledging that Superman alone is too much of a threat to him.

    In both areas he was successful. He was a plot driving evil force, not a complex multi layered adversary…because it’s not his movie.

This sounds like intense rationalizing of something bad into something good in order to justify your liking of the movie. Admitting Steppenwolf is just a transparent plot device is basically admitting the movie didn't know how to do its job. A "complex multi layered adversary" is not a bad thing. Would you really prefer a "Steppenwolf" to a "Loki"?

The rest of your post was TL;DR.


It's interesting that a hero/villain performs one amazing feat, or use a power they haven't used for 20+ years, and that automatically propels them to a high status despite scans and evidence to the contrary. I don't know what is worse, selective feat picking that has only been done once or twice 20, or more, years ago or ignoring evidence from scans or the lack thereof. We need to stop putting our favorite heroes/villains on pedestals and start putting them where they really belong. But it's evident that people never will because they would rather accuse others of cherry picking feats, when they don't, and being 'morally superior' when they aren't. I guess being honest and as fair as possible only opens one up to being the target of childish accusations and fault finding by those who insist on acting petty and childish. What happened to a good debate between two civil, mature, adults?
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software