What happened with JL and bvs + more info

So I've spent a lot of time away from all of this, but I thought I'd share a few things I've heard. You can read my previous leak here: https://old.reddit.com/r/DCEUleaks/comments/70pawe/an_apology_and_some_very_important_information/?st=ji1461o7&sh=8149640a.

I'll write more about that later in this post, but I suggest reading it now so you get some context.

Disclaimer: I'm not here to suck Zack Snyder's dick. I'm telling you what I believe to be true.

The Snyder cut. Apparently it exists...It's all there, but needs more vfx work. Secondly, it's not that good. That's what I've heard. Obviously that's what everyone from the inside felt which is what triggered the reshoots and major overhaul and it could still be good to the passionate Snyder fans, but I've heard it's not worth fussing over. I've heard it described as a Zack Snyder movie without the Zack Snyder visuals. Very long, darker than it needs to be and the cinematography just didn't work. The humour also falls flat in many places and is worse than the Marvel quips. Right from the beginning this film was doomed to be shit (sorry for the brutal honesty)

Backstory: I've leaked this before but here it is in more detail because I KNOW this is true. I'm 100% confident. I challenge anyone to disprove this. Zack Snyder pitched Batman v Superman as a 3 hour movie delving into the philosophy of the characters so as to separate themselves from Marvel. Warner Bros approved it. Zack Snyder makes the movie. All the way, everything is getting approved. It's a 3 hour movie during pre-production but during production and post it turns into 3 and a half. He screens the movie and the studio is happy at the quality but not the length. They say, "Hey, how about cutting it down to 3 hours?". Zack obliges, because that was the plan. The 3 and a half hour cut (and this is an assumption on my behalf. **Not explicitly verified**) has a different way of integrating the Justice League characters. The thing is, to cut the film down, much of that had to go. It's not the Batman v Superman stuff, so Snyder decides to shave that stuff off and contemplates doing a credits sequence with JL cameos. This DEFINITELY existed at some point, but for some reason just never made the final cuts. The 3 hour cut is made and the JL cameos are still different from what we got. This is screened to more people and it gets a standing ovation. Now here's where it gets hilarious - Warner Bros requests more cuts. Snyder refuses and continues his merry way, even though WB isn't budging on this. When WB sees he hasn't cut anything there's some issues. Warner is now certain that the general audience is going to hate the movie and ask it to be trimmed down. Zack finally agrees and for it work he shoves the JL cameos in through an email scene. No idea why the longer cut has the same cameos, but I guess it's a canon thing. Zack is convinced his movie was unfairly cut but the people at WB and everyone who has spoken to me say this: "He always shoots too much then fights with the studio to keep it in."

The reception to bvs movie upsets everyone. They get reactionary. They are strict with Snyder about a few things: the length, the tone, the color. The original script is like 2 hours and 20 minutes long. Super simple. Very streamlined. It tries to be funny but it isn't. Superman is still not what the GA wants. It's not a bad script. Zack Snyder comes back with like 3 hours of footage though because he's full of ideas (as is the writer who tried making this thing super deep and philosophical) and oops, he's done it again. He makes a film that is apparently okay but it's just too long and not what the studio wanted. By this point the studio is pretty fed up. They love Snyder but he keeps delivering something that the studio can't handle. Movie is screened. Everyone involved doesn't really like what Snyder has because it's more of the same and it isn't viable. Geoff Johns is particularly pissed about Superman STILL not being as hopeful as he should be. Joss is brought on board to spruce it up and everyone is loving his ideas, but his ideas practically boiled down to "And then this character cracks this joke" and the studio is loving it. Snyder is never in the same room as Joss and he's getting these notes and hating life. Things like: We can't show evil Superman, we can't show the desert stuff, we can't have Batman want to kill himself, we can't show Cyborg's mom dying, we can't depict cyborg as depressed, the score/colors/tone is not hopeful etc. In fact, most of the original stuff they shot is gone and I'm impressed that Whedon managed to not get credited as director (He did not want his name on this). By all accounts, he HATED working on Justice League and he hated what Snyder had created. He didn't like the film and wanted it to be completely different. Johns is loving Whedon's stuff and when Snyder leaves, he gets Whedon to direct. Whedon has literally peanuts for a budget to shoot his stuff, so he just shoves the actors in front of a green screen and does his thing. Everything is rushed. The actors don't even want to be there. The set environment is apparently depressing and Whedon is acting like he doesn't give a shit. He doesn't have the money, he's being whipped around by the studio who has given him an insurmountable task. He knows he's making a bad movie but he powers through. He cuts down the villain stuff and adds in an entirely new B story which is weird because he was told to make the film shorter. He was given the task to work with Snyder's stuff and make it lighter but he went a bit far and started making A LOT of changes. To sum up JL is film that was created by two stubborn directors with completely different visions. Phew. That's that. I have even more to say about it but this post is giant as it is.

Ask anyone about what I'm saying. I know for a fact that most of that is true. Multiple sources have told me that's the behind the scenes. That summary makes Snyder look bad but the studio still likes him. They just want him to go back to making his own thing and not limiting him. They had to put a leash on him for the DC stuff but they pretty much gave Snyder the go ahead to do his thing going forward with other stuff.

People love to pin the blame on Whedon but guess what: It's on everyone involved. I'd personally blame Whedon the most though followed by Snyder. Ron Howard did a fine job replacing Miller/Lord and respected the material. Whedon was stubborn from the start and dismayed at the situation, and he carried himself poorly on set. The shoot was very "dirty" (meaning quick and rushed). There was no care and he probably could have given more of a damn.

Other stuff I've heard but less sure about: Jared Leto's future as the Joker is up in the air. Not because of his performance, but because of his behaviour towards women. During the height of the MeToo movement the studio was sure that Leto would be outed and were freaking out a little bit. Not sure what the current situation is but that's a thing. Some cast mates are a bit uncomfortable with his behaviour as well.

ONLINE PRESENCE: Disney has way more money to spend on social media marketing. Look at this site for example. Read my previous leaks and you'll find what I have to say about that. A few guys have been PMing examples they've been finding on that front which is cool.

Here's what I wrote in my previous leak in September

> Don't trust everything you read on social media. Especially on the main areas of this site. Big companies have a lot of money and it doesn't take a lot of money to send a reddit post to the front page. Stay attentive. The main sub reddits are probably compromised. Moderators of forums all over the place are very much focused on certain agendas. Surely you have noticed it?

> When Thor is about to come out, I guarantee you that there will be some "hilarious" memes related to Chris Hemsworth or Taika Waititi on the front page of this site. These posts will have thousands of upvotes (15k+) and then the other posts in that same subreddit below it will have significantly less. It doesn't add up because those votes aren't real people. It's marketing. Marketing will pump money into the initial votes a post receives because that gives it momentum and sends it to the front page.

Tell me....was I right? Were there posts in /r/pics, /r/movies about Waititi and the cast and the film itself that shot up to the front page? It's such a simple tactic. Manipulate the upvotes and comments, make people think something is more popular than it is and get people to jump on the bandwagon. It's called astroturfing and it's prevalent online. Again just look at politics (bots on social media, media companies with vested interests in certain parties) and look at music (fake subscribers, followers etc to bloat popularity) and ask yourself why it wouldn't be the same for Disney? They can afford it...so why on earth wouldn't they?

BIAS IN MEDIA: This whole thing fascinates me and it's clear as day. The media is clearly biased towards certain studios. It's not a clean field. I have no idea why armchair experts who know nothing try and laugh away these claims as if it's conspiracy. Sports media, music media and political media are driven by agendas and people pleasing...but nooooooo, there's nothing to see in film media! It's squeaky clean I tells ya. What a joke. I heard from someone that they had to screen their reviews for the latest Taylor Swift album through Swift's people before publishing. Otherwise they'd be put on the naughty list so to speak. Swift's team made edits and THEN it was allowed to be published. It's despicable. So why are people so sure that doesn't happen in film media? Knowing what I know, you'd have to be a braindead moron to deny that film media is walking on eggshells when it comes to anything Disney.

Disney treats the media RIGHT. That is, they hold toys over their heads and if they don't play nice, they don't get to play. They don't bribe anyone. They don't threaten them (overtly). They play by the rules and they play smart. They kiss the media's ass at the right times and they hold power over them at other times. People within this trade know that if they badmouth Disney they'll be treated worse. Disney has so much power and they've cultivated an intimidating reputation that earns them considerable protection. I LOVE how people tried saying bullshit like "No one wants DC to do better than Marvel, because then everyone is happy and I'm a naive little child".

I've always loved this scene from The Founder which sums it up: https://youtu.be/_6N-4k1N9Hc?t=49s

Why on earth would Disney let DC grow their film universe. They worked themselves into a position where the third Thor movie was more anticipated than Justice League. They’re winning. It's really that simple. And a big reason as to why they are winning (aside from their movies being competent) is because they have power over the media and they have great control from within. WB is the complete opposite. Nobody gives a shit about them and they have nothing over the media. We profit from the bad news of DC and we profit by printing positive things about Marvel. That's the landscape that has been shaped by Disney. I fucking hope someone goes full WikiLeaks on film media so people can see for themselves. Someday. WB are trying to tackle this issue by shutting down rumours as soon as they arise and by kissing the media's ass but I don't know how well that will go.

I mean, compare the coverage of Solo reshoots compared to JL reshoots. Compare the coverage of the The Last Jedi reception to the Batman v Superman reception. The media will always have Disney's back. I know it sounds ridiculous to refer to "the media" as a single entity because it's diverse as hell but I hope you get what I mean ... this is an issue that relates to most of the media.

I feel I spelled this out better last time so I'll paste it here again to hammer home this point

> I love how naive people were to say "Disney wants DC to do well more than anybody because it's good for the genre". Grow up and stop pretending that business is friendly. Disney would much rather the opposition be endlessly smeared and their own product be praised. They'd much rather ensure that down the line they have zero competition to worry about. Studios are run by very rich suits. Ask yourself how these guys get rich. Every time I shake hands with a big suit in the industry, I know that they aren't good people. They're nice because they have to be. In order to get to where they are, they had to screw over a lot of people. Business is competition. You don't succeed by allowing your competitor to do their thing in peace while crossing your fingers hoping that they succeed in a way that doesn't effect your business...you succeed by beating them and if you see a way to make sure of it, you make fucking sure of it. Think of the most successful people you know. Do you honestly think they didn't screw over a single person to get to where they are? Now apply that to the most successful companies. Don't be naive. The film industry is corrupt. I left because it sucked the soul out of me. Nobody was my friend. Nobody could be my friend. It was “scoop” this and “exclusive” that. Bullshit.

Last time someone replied saying that this was obvious. Sad thing is it isn't to many people. I will keep saying this and being open and upfront with you.