DC Films Were “Too Dark” Admit Johns and Berg

Variety has published an interview with DC Films producers Jon Berg and Geoff Johns in which they discuss the success of “Wonder Woman”, why “Batman v Superman” received poor reviews, and what the DC Universe of films will look like moving forward. Here’s part of the interview…

Why did audiences embrace “Wonder Woman”?

Berg: It’s a fun movie. It’s positive and optimistic. The early films may have been too dark in parts.

Johns: Most of the DC Universe is known as being a hopeful and optimistic place. It’s known for characters that are inspirational and aspirational. Anyone who knows and loves the DC Universe knows that a lot of that has to do with its hope and optimism.

“Suicide Squad” and “Batman v. Superman” made money, but critics hated them. Did you learn anything from the poor response to the films?

Berg: There are lessons from every movie. You would be silly not to analyze how a movie was received – what went right and what went wrong on the making of a movie.

On “Suicide Squad,” the movie did incredibly well commercially. It didn’t work narratively. You had some great casting and some great characterizations, but where the story fell down was on narrative, on plot. We could do better. “Batman v. Superman” was tonally dark. People didn’t respond to that.

Johns: “Wonder Woman” celebrated exactly who the character is, but looking at it, it’s not like we should change everything to be about hope and optimism. There’s nothing to change. That’s what these characters are.

You can read the full review at Variety.com.

Tell your friends
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Guest

I’d say it was more bad pacing, clunky plot, confused story telling, bad characterization, forced ideas and having the story serve the visuals rather than the visuals serve the story that hurt Batman v Superman more than “dark tone.”

Marnoman
Member

Yes yes and yes.

NeoRanger
Member

There is no point in arguing any of that again, is there?
Here’s another one; a butchered edit making it to the theater is what hurt BvS. And the tone. Can’t dismiss the tone, when it’s constantly pops up as the primary issue in all arguments since Man of Steel.

Guest

I didn’t dismiss it. I said those things hurt it more than.
I feel “dark tone” is a minor problem compared to the laundry list of bigger issues.
And IMO, UE edit didn’t help much. I think it’s just as bad. It makes up for some glaring plotholes, but it does this at the expense of pacing and storytelling. It also ends up with plot dead ends.

NeoRanger
Member

My point is that when Berg says that the tone is what hurt BvS, he’s not off-mark. Even in this thread and in pretty much every single BvS thread, the primary complaint is, has been and will be the tone. You think the film had structural issues that hurt it a lot more; I disagree with how much those were to its detriment (especially in the case of the full movie), but at least they’re arguments about the film from a movie-making standpoint. They’re also arguments that are comparatively rarely made.

Guest

They’re also arguments that are comparatively rarely made.

If you really think that, either you’re not paying attention to any of it or you just like to type argumentative stuff this.

NeoRanger
Member

Literally the post below yours.

Guest

The one saying bad characterization and writing for the character Superman were a bigger problem for the movie than the tone and you could keep the tone if you fix Superman?
That post?
That post is saying characterization of Superman is a bigger problem than tone.
I see your problem, it’s cognitive bias.

NeoRanger
Member

And yours is clearly projection.

That post, assuming we’re talking about the same one, makes no points that fall under “characterization”. The character being “celebrated” and providing “light tones” has nothing to do with characterization and everything to do with tone. Superman in BvS was not acting out of character and he was not written in contrast to Superman in the comic books. The only potentially valid argument on characterization is within the film’s own internal workings. The arguments that have been cited are entirely about tone.

“Fix Superman”.
Bah.

Guest
Well how about we agree to disagree? I mean you clearly feel that you know more and better than anyone, especially me, so why bother yourself? Either that or again, you just get off on trolling. I try to never say anything to you unless you do so to me first. And when you do it’s always this talking down from your golden thrown manner. I mean, at this point I would have learned from constant down votes and lack of agreement from almost everyone on almost everything, but you haven’t. But I digress, how about we just stop this?… Read more »
NeoRanger
Member

What’s wrong with you? You escalate the tone of the argument at every turn, you move on to insults and you somehow still manage to project your issues all over me. At every turn during your presence in this board I’ve tried talking to you and because I won’t concede to your points, somehow *I* am the one talking down to you? Did you read back this little thread right here, before typing this?

You are right, though; we’re done here. Have fun patting yourself in the back and enjoy the upvotes. Clearly, bubbles are the future of Internet discourse.

Marnoman
Member
Woah…bit of a debate going on haha. I see my comment has been mentioned. Just to make it a bit clearer, cause even I’m starting to confuse myself, I’ll explain what I mean in reference to characterisation and tone regarding Superman in these films. For me, I think characterisation and tone kinda fall into the same thing. ‘Tone’ is affected if a character is written a certain way and if they do or say certain things. I sometimes think people possibly construe tone as the aesthetics of the film. The superficial elements like colour, lighting, music…obviously all help to set… Read more »
Marnoman
Member
“Wonder Woman celebrated exactly who the character is”. That is exactly what Batman V Superman lacked. Amongst the obvious of course. There was a complete lack of celebration regarding Superman. Nothing about his character was inspirational or showed any glimpse of hope or optimism. He was essentially a silent robot who only loved Lois Lane….for reasons we are to make up for ourselves. It could be argued the film celebrated Batman even if it was a poor characterisation. Regardless of how ill conceived his actions and motivations were, there was clearly a lot of love being displayed for him. Superman… Read more »
Guest

Yeah that’s how I feel about it too.
For Tomorrow is a Superman story with a dark tone, Geoff Johns and Gary Fink’s Brainiac run had a dark tone, just about every Darkseid story has a dark tone.
But as you said it’s juxtaposed with Superman’s hope and optimism, that’s why those worked.
I also feel BvS would have worked much better with that as well.

manofsteel
Member

WB are gutless if they go kiddy mode.

JasEl
Member
A lighter tone doesn’t mean it’s kiddie mode. Are adults not allowed to smile? Are we not allowed to have fun? Superman should be optimistic, he should be able to enjoy himself. Superman does what he does because he genuinely takes pleasure from helping people. He didn’t smile once while in costume during BvS, not once. There was no sense of joy, no hope. Superman came across as a manic depressive and that is just plain wrong. I’m not saying they should turn it into a comedy, but a little levity wouldn’t be out of place for the character. Not… Read more »
manofsteel
Member

He did smile in costume, I recall the day of the dead rescue straight off the top of my head. Being hounded by the media non stop isn’t going to equal and bright and happy personality anyway.

JasEl
Member

I just watched that scene and he doesn’t look anything other than depressed or constipated. And there are all manner of famous people in the real world that are constantly “hounded by the media” and still manage to smile out in public.

manofsteel
Member

You clearly didn’t watch the scene because he smiles when he hands over the child he rescues.

JasEl
Member
He’s not even facing the camera when he hands the kid over. In fact, he’s kneeling down and covered by the crowd. When he finally does turn to where you can see his face he looks like he’s about to cry, utter joylessness stamped across his features. So unless you have some of his X-ray vision, you didn’t see him smile. Let’s say, for the sake of your non-existent argument, that you do have kryptonian eye acuity and you did see him twitch his lip in an upward direction. That scene, if run in real time, would have had him… Read more »
manofsteel
Member

Utter nonsense. He doesn’t face the camera so it doesn’t count. Heh. Good one. We clearly see him smile in the scene. Your language is hyperbolic to the extreme. He smiles and that’s that. All you are doing is lying to yourself because of an unhinged hate of the movie. Downvote away, you’re still wrong.

JasEl
Member
I never said that I hate the movie, I’m saying you should remove your rose colored glasses. And how can you clearly see him smile when you can’t even see his face? The only time during that scene when his face is fully visible is when he get back up and the crowd is reaching out to touch him and he looks like he’s about to cry. Period. All of which is beside the point, even if he did smile for a fraction of a second where you can’t even see his face, no where else in the movie does… Read more »
zendog
Member
Sounds like Geoff Johns and co are going to be a much better mix for future DC productions. I liked Man of steel, and BvS only to a certain degree. Yes I’m an old git! – But I prefer this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=394jYH82s2o Cheesy 70s this may be – but it was simple and had just the right amount of humour while also thinking ‘Wow’ he can fly! I think Man of Steel and BvS were far too rushed. It crammed too many things in too quickly and poor Henry Cavill never gets the chance to take that frown off his forehead.… Read more »
NeoRanger
Member

Sounds about right.

redcape
Member
Well, with WW getting all the credit as to,”that’s how they should do it”! I didn’t see a “bright” tone in WW. If fact she slices and dices her way through the movie and we end up with as in all these superhero movies, one bloodless fight after another. It was carefully crafted so that the movie goer was mesmerized with WW and not the effects of what she does. I for one didn’t find BvS too dark. I thought it fit in with the present direction. I hope they don’t make an about face and change everything so drastically… Read more »
sundevil82
Member
I think it helped having someone else directing. As much as I think Snyder’s visual style is unparalleled, his story telling abilities are extremely lacking. Same thing with Goyer and as we’re finding out, Terrio. Jenkins knew where she wanted to take the character and where she wanted to draw inspiration from. I still can’t tell you what exactly went wrong with BvS during the creative process… The ambition was there, but the execution was terrible. As many have stated here, a number of things contributed to its downfall… A silent brooding Superman (it was clear to me that he… Read more »
redcape
Member
Good points to be sure….BUT…..I for one am not going to agree on the definition of Batman and murder. In every single case he was been threatened to be killed by thugs and criminals. All with weapons. That’s what made it so satisfying every time he did away with one. Way more believable and as far as I’m concerned accurate. It makes way more sense unless you want to keep these movies moving in a directions that would never happen. Case in point WW. Giant sword that chops, slices,dices and nary a drop of blood. Humor…well, if we need humor… Read more »
JasEl
Member

No, Deadpool got a pass with the killing and humor because THAT is exactly who he is, he’s a mercenary that kills people and cracks inappropriate jokes. Batman, on the other hand, is pretty much the opposite of that. Batman has one rule in the comics, he DOES NOT KILL, so, yeah, wanton murder is going to irk people. And Superman is not a dark and dour character, that’s why all the complaints about the tone of these movies so far. You can have a serious movie without going dark and gritty.

redcape
Member
It’s amazing that your describing what Deadpool does as killings but what Batman does as murders! Like you said,”one rule in comics”! This isn’t comics. The scene in BvS where Batman saves Martha ranks up there, if not the best, as Batman representing what an actual Batmen would do if confronted that way. Not pull some gas pill out of his utility belt. Besides, THEY were all thugs and murderers. For trying to kill Batman they deserved what they got. I for one after all these years appreciate seeing Batman in an environment that’s proper for his caliber. As for… Read more »
JasEl
Member
Fine, semantics, Deadpool murders people, but that doesn’t take anything from my argument. Deadpool murders people, in usually gruesome ways, It’s his whole schtick, hence people not being upset when his movie shows him doing exactly that. Batman, on the other hand, has one defining character trait that is being completely ignored, HE DOES NOT KILL. He didn’t even try to subdue in nonlethal ways, he flat out kills, first and only. There is no argument that you can make that says that isn’t totally out of character for him. Even in The Dark Knight Returns, the basis for this… Read more »
redcape
Member
Well yea…the point is, is that you can see his face! And yes, he’s not smiling at every entrance. But that’s the point. His face show’s emotion. You don’t like the emotion that he conveys, ok. But that’s why a character like Deadpool gets away with what he does right? Once the mask goes on there’s nothing to see except the entire costume. And at that point since you don’t see any human visuals he now becomes a killing machine that’s almost robotic. Any of these characters that have their faces fully covered are never going to be able display… Read more »
JasEl
Member
No. Deadpool “gets away with it” because it’s in line with his character. It’s who he is and who has always been. And as far as Superman’s utter lack of positive emotion being in the flow of the movie, THAT’S THE PROBLEM. Superman is supposed to be friendly. He’s supposed to convey an air of approachability, that, despite his godlike powers, he is still one of us. He’s supposed to inspire hope, they say as much multiple times in the movie. Superman is a well adjusted, optimistic and overall happy person. A person who helps people because it is the… Read more »
redcape
Member

Well sure, Superman in some peoples worlds should always be doing perfect things. Peoples definition of him seem to be the problem. Oh..bright,light,friendly,warm and the rest of the barf-o-la descriptions are simply in the past. This IS how he should be in this and age and time. Lets get on with it!

JasEl
Member

Yeah, because there are no warm, friendly people in the real world. No hope, no optimism. Never , in this day and age, do people smile.

Wow, you must be a real drag at parties.

redcape
Member

We are talking about a comic book character, right?

JasEl
Member

Yes, a character historically depicted as open, friendly and optimistic. Although you keep saying that it doesn’t fit in this day and age. To which I am saying you are wrong. Even now, in this world, there are happy, well adjusted people, and that’s how Superman SHOULD be presented.
This depiction is one application of guyliner and black hair dye away from being a whiny goth kid. Although since you seem to enjoy Batman being a cold-blooded killer, a scene kid, emo Supes is probably right up your alley too.

JasEl
Member

WW had a lot going for it besides the tone(although, I admit, it was definitely refreshing). The pacing was well done, the plot made sense, and yes, tone. And color! Visually speaking, I loved that you could see the colors! I am so sick of that washed out palette that Snyder has been force feeding us. Even after they left Themiscyra and came to they grey and dreary battle fields you could see the vibrancy of color in WW’s costume. In BvS none of that was present. FFS man, They are superheroes, they are supposed to be colorful.

Kent-Darr
Member
Johns: “Wonder Woman” celebrated exactly who the character is, but looking at it, it’s not like we should change everything to be about hope and optimism. There’s nothing to change. That’s what these characters are. That right there tells you everything!! So what if there is a darker tone, how many “Elseworlds” stories have been dark and yet been brilliant? This is the DC EXTENDED Universe after all. The characters may have all smiled and saved kittens from trees in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, but times change and with it so do some aspects of these characters while still… Read more »
redcape
Member

Well who the character is, almost always works in most movies that are origin movies. and WW is no exception.

MattComics
Member

Excessive grimdark is just as obnoxious as excessive camp. Two dumb extremes in opposite directions neither of which serve these characters well. Like the comics, these movies were trying so hard to run away from one that they just hit a wall on the other side.

jer
Member

Funny thing is there is already a great blue-print for Superman but these film-makers refuse to use it. As these so-called creative types of today, try to re-make and re-image something that doesn’t need to be!

redcape
Member
Has anyone else seen that picture on yahoo home page of Superman? It’s a facial shot of him with long hair, beard and glowing red eyes. There’s a claim that in the next trailer he will be shown wearing a black suit. How much of him we will actually see no one knows. If I was to take a guess it looks like he will come out of this in some kind of disoriented state. I just sure hope he’s not going to be battling the JL. As much as I would like to see him a considerable amount of… Read more »
Hollywood
Member
I would argue that if there was any one thing that hurt DC’s first three connected universe films — although, admittedly, there is a large number of relevant critiques already mentioned here — it would be that WB hasn’t taken a vested interest in these properties. Say what you will about Marvel (and Disney, if you like). Call their movies kiddie affairs, call them Muppet Superheroes, call them formulaic and predictable. But one thing you cannot accuse Marvel Studios of doing is operating in a half-assed manner. WB, meanwhile, almost seems like they only just realized they own equally profitable… Read more »
redcape
Member
A lot of perceptions on your part to be sure. Marvel has brought on board many characters that weren’t really all that well known. So they were to an extent starting new with them. Batman and Superman(could argue Wonderwomen as well), have been around for a long time. I for one don’t believe for a minute that the WB would spend the amounts they have on these movies and NOT take them seriously. As time goes by it’s going to get more challenging bringing stories from all these different characters to the screen and keep them interesting and desirable. We… Read more »
Hollywood
Member
Sure these are my perceptions. That’s all any of us are expressing. Without gaining entry into DC’s editorial offices or WB’s executive suites, our perceptions of the products they deliver are all any of us have. But my perception — and probably the perception of quite a few others — is that Marvel proved a shared universe could be done, and then WB/DC decided they wanted to do it too. They had the tools to do it long before Marvel even considered it. WB has owned DC Comics since at least 1990 (maybe longer? I’m not positive), and yet they… Read more »
redcape
Member
Obviously we have a difference in taste, to an extent. I also like the CW universe. I watch them all and have had plenty to say regarding the handling of Superman on Supergirl. I like the serious tone that the WB/DC has to offer. I for one am grateful that WB didn’t go the Marvel route. Most of the Marvel movies are for the most part a one and done for me. Guardians with it’s talking piece of wood and talking racoon are aimed at the younger crowd. Certainly don’t want to see that in the present mix of WB… Read more »
Kal-Elvis
Member
Wonder Woman was definitely the shot in the arm WB/DC needed. A movie that uses color tones to affect the feel of the various scenes and push the narrative. Good chemistry from so many of the characters, especially the leads. Side characters that you actually care about. But above all else, characterization that respects core aspects of the characters – shown in ways that make you care about them, feel for them, and root for them. Can you find the few moments where Superman shows the strength of character and optimism that are foundational aspects of who the general public… Read more »
sundevil82
Member
i agree with what you’re saying here. I truly think though that WB sees Superman as being the actual problem and buying into the whole narrative that he is boring and doesn’t fit into modern times. That is completely false, the reason the audience hasn’t connected with him yet is because they’ve given him very little to do. He barely spoke in both movies as though they were afraid to let him be anything other than a very broad generic version of himself. I still have hope that they fix this going forward and I think having Geoff Johns in… Read more »
Kal-Elvis
Member
Oh, certainly – they’ve been in that mode for over a decade, which is one reason I was so surprised by their about-face with “Rebirth” and “Reborn”. What I’m hoping happens is that they look at the general positive reception of “Rebirth” and apply that to the movies. Here’s another irony of WB – they want to make Superman more relatable, and then in BvS especially he’s almost “seen from afar” – this kind of “distant sad god”.. the opposite of what you’d think would be done to make a character more relatable to an audience. The “modern mythology” angle… Read more »
jer
Member
Superman most certainly can be done in a very serious (Film Noir) manner, actually this has already been accomplished by taking a look at the first season of the “Adventures of Superman” those episodes had great balance and character and character development and use there of with elements of; crime-drama, murder mystery and science. Also, there was a very good character interaction along with a dynamic balance of Superman’s appearance via Clark Kent’s leg work, with Kent playing the pseudo reporter / detective and Superman being the enforcer and mop up man batting clean up. The main thing here is… Read more »
Kal-Elvis
Member

“The Stolen Costume” excluded, I absolutely agree.

A number of people seem to think it’s either Snyder or Donner – there are numerous possibilities in between those. It’s not “dark and emo” vs “smiles and unicorns”. Wonder Woman shows that you can have a strong character who is more than the plotline’s punching bag – they can be strong and heroic and we’ll still root for them.

It’s good to see mass-audiences finally breaking from mass-cynicism (at least in their entertainment).

redcape
Member
WW was good to be sure. But it certainly had a few things going for it right off the bat. First, the movie didn’t have a limp web site that apparently has gained some kind of false market place of movies, good or bad, namely Rotten Tomato’s, poisoning it. WW was an origin movie and there was considerable film time that revolved around that. Also the past time frame that the movie revolved around. It was an easy movie to do and not get to tied up in a need to be overly intricate. There for, easy and light to… Read more »
Kal-Elvis
Member

Well…yeah. But MoS had a lot of that at first, too. It’s also an origin movie.

WW may not have had Rotten Tomatoes on it’s back, but it did have the stigma of following up two/three movies that have at the very least been labeled divisive and did have lesser scores, meaning that it’d have to live up to an expectation of “saving” the DCEU. MoS didn’t have that to mess with.

I don’t know why, but comparing the MoS and WW movies reminds me of this:

https://youtu.be/bjAM2J_D4UY?t=2m32s

redcape
Member
Well I for one would be on the side of calling WW more dark than light. WW for the most part hasn’t been pick picked apart in any capacity compared to Mos, BvS and Suicide Squad. Instead they made the most out it being directed by a women. I haven’t read one article that has gone any where near critiquing it. It’s all about female empowerment! Apparently that makes the movie good. The movie since day one has been hyped up more so because of two females than the actual movie itself. I’m glad it’s a hit for the WB… Read more »
Kal-Elvis
Member
Well… your opinion is your own, of course.. but I didn’t know the director was a woman until after the movie. And it had no sway on my experience watching it. Frankly, I just found it to just be a better movie than the last three. “Girl power” is great, but it won’t save a movie’s reviews or box office – “Ghostbusters” from last year would be exhibit A on that. And now WW is within 2.5 million of topping BvS’s domestic total. I don’t know if it’ll beat SS’s or BvS’s worldwide total, but it’s 5 million away from… Read more »
redcape
Member
I don’t think for the most part what I conveyed is actually classified as an opinion. WW garnered more positive comments or reviews that were for the most part based on a women directer. I’ve not read, “oh my god WW is so terrific, it’s the absolutely the best”! I’m not going to use it’s final box office amount as any kind of a barometer as that suggests quality over MoS or BvS for that matter. But…it was good. The last thing I want to hear is that the WB should hand the reins over to a women as a… Read more »
Kal-Elvis
Member
If you haven’t read opinions that WW is great having nothing to do with a woman director, then you’ve absolutely missed some. Many of the reviews I’ve seen have been glowing, and not just because it’s a woman director or large female cast. So drawing the conclusion that the “gimmick” is the main reason WW is getting better reviews is certainly an opinion and not a fact. Not saying it wasn’t an added bonus, but it’s just that: an added bonus. To that point, I brought up the comparison to “Ghostbusters” for a reason – the GB movie’s really not… Read more »
redcape
Member
I’m sure I probably have missed some. The one’s I did read at one point made issue that WW was the first of these kinds of films to go over a certain money amount which was directed by a women. Not the reason for it. Gimmick was maybe the wrong word but it didn’t stop there. And after it was insinuated that maybe she could “correct” all that was supposedly wrong in the WB/DC word, that didn’t and doesn’t sit well with me. You bring up GB as a parallel point but GB was a remake. A substantial amount of… Read more »
sundevil82
Member
as Kal-Elvis said, I think the word of mouth is what made or breaker these films. If they had released the ultimate cut instead of the theatrical cut then I have no doubt it would have been better received. Most people will tell you that it’s a superior version. Word of mouth killed the theatrical version and I’m not surprised at all. Admittedly it is very hard to defend. Both BVS and suicide square were poorly edited and I mean poorly. It’s not like anyone went into those movies wanting to not like them. They brought on their own criticism.… Read more »
Kal-Elvis
Member
I have seen a number of reviews that tout the female cast/director aspect, especially as the movie gains in both popularity and box office, but I’ve seen quite a number that also make a point of saying that’s not why it’s good – just a bonus. You make a good point about GB being a remake. I’d say reboot, but either way. WW didn’t have that to contend with, but did have the looming “reputation” of the Snyderverse movies to contend with. If the DCEU was getting full “blanket hate” as some have said, this should have been no different.… Read more »
redcape
Member
Kal…..can’t disagree with anything your saying. WW for the most part carefully stayed away from or had certain what might have been considered controversial environments edited out of the final draft. Yes…as in all movies you can pick a couple of things out but for the most part, there wasn’t any of the questionable scenes we saw in MoS or BvS. WW moved pretty quickly and stayed away from, as an example, in MoS allowing his father to die. There weren’t any real controversial moments in WW the way there was in MoS and BvS. And I think they did… Read more »
Spidey2878
Member
Here’s a thought. I know that the DC movie continuity and tv continuity are seporate, and I know that there are no plans to merge them together, however might it be possible to change their minds? The multiverse was introduced on the flash so they could do something with that. Just think of how could it would be to have not one, not two, but three or more actors playing the role of superman. Tom Welling,Brandon Routh,Dean Cain, Tyler Hoechlin, Gerard Christopher. It could help with the what happens after season 4 of Lois and Clark.They all could play the… Read more »
Spidey2878
Member

I was just thinking of a way for everyone to be happy with Superman. I just see that there is a lot of debate about the subject. Whoever reads my comments may or may not agree with my idea, that’s fine. It was just a nice idea is all.

Spidey2878
Member

Yes I forgot Henry Cavill in the group of actors who would play the man of steel in this idea of a film. My fingers got ahead of my typing. He would be in it as well as Superman too.

Spidey2878
Member

Different Supermen for every Superman fan. Everybody wins. It could work.

Kal-Elvis
Member
Honestly, it wouldn’t take much for Cavill’s Superman to have the same likeability as any other. Just give him more of a positive backbone and bring his smarts to the forefront. Cavill would make such a good Superman that a LOT could be “swept under the rug”. As redcape basically said, the controversies in MoS were a problem for the franchise – I’d not shy away from a potentially controversial idea, but make absolutely certain that it fits with the core ideas of the character and doesn’t require an few off times before as “evidence” that it fits. Above all… Read more »
Spidey2878
Member

I had heard possible spoilers for Justice League. I’m not going to say what they are in case they are true, and I don’t want to spoil the movie for people in case it’s true. Although YouTube can not be the best source for info on movies sometimes.My question is did they decide to do the reshoots because of the possible spoilers? I know that the tragic loss that Snyder is going through may be a reason why some of the reshoots are happening, but is it possible that they are doing this to stop plot leaks?