Quote:
Originally Posted by Since1984
Oh I know, but this is what I am getting based on the reviews and the people who did the reviews:
Those who like JW's JL really like ZS' JL and those who hated JW's JL have had generally negative reviews of ZS' JL.
Also a lot of the critics on RT who have given it a fresh rating, pretty much use it as a "Was it better than the original?" button....some piles of garbage are better than others.
|
I've read much different reviews.
I've read quite a few that HATED the JW version and LOVE the ZS version.
They are two totally different movies, and not just a longer piece of crap as you state..
Here's a good opinion piece not just about the movie but also the artistic vision of a director.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/15/opini...oqi/index.html
Dig a little deeper, and you find a testament to directorial freedom. That said, what is artistic integrity in an industry fueled by the bottom line? When does a film turn from director-friendly to committee-driven?
The story of "Justice League" sheds new light on these questions, changing the way we understand filmmaking freedom.
"Zack Snyder's Justice League" is more than a traditional director's cut, and it changes the standard that studios must hold themselves to moving forward. Filmmaking and artistic integrity go hand-in-hand. Every director, writer, actor, cinematographer, composer, photographer, and production member is an artist.
There will always be a natural tug-of-war between artist and corporation, a mixture of ideas in the final product. The inequity arises when that tug-of-war becomes too one-sided. Enter the Snyder Cut movement to redeem the sense of balance so many have been yearning for.