Topic: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

(had this one written up before the other board went out)

The Suicide Squad...

Okay, seeing Harley is pretty cool, but when I saw Katana, a switch in my brain flipped and now I'm just asking myself what DC is doing. At least five of the characters in this movie are already recurring characters on Arrow and/or The Flash. I am cool with DC splitting the movie universe from the TV universe, but they're using too many of the same characters. Like with the Flash... Why the **** would I pay money to go see that story in a movie theater when I can watch it for free at home, and done well? Why go to a Suicide Squad movie that uses all of the same players when the characters are already being done on TV?

I think they should have made two lists. A TV list and a movie list. Split the characters between them and don't double any of them. I really like what DC is doing with their movies, don't get me wrong. This could be a really awesome movie and might not take anything away from the shows at all. But they're still diluting the formula here. I saw a picture of Katana on Arrow with her mask and then saw this picture of Katana not long after and I just don't get it. It's not like they don't have a lot of characters to play with. Why are they doubling so many of them?

This movie might play well because the characters and the Squad aren't regulars on TV. But when it comes to The Flash, the question "Why?" is going to be a huge thing for them to overcome. And they risk shooting themself in the foot by making a movie that people don't like as much as the TV series, and then bringing that element into the group movies.

Marvel is a mess already. There is a lack of continuity in their products and the quality isn't what it should be. I don't hate DC's strategy when it comes to separating the universes... but they should be smarter about it.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well here's my thing..... is this the third movie in the DCCU?  I just don't see how that's "universe building" - how many of these characters are going to be relevant going forward?  Even if they wanted Amanda Waller to be the "Nick Fury" of this universe, this seems like a really weird stepping stone to Justice League.  It's like Iron Man....then Guardians of the Galaxy to start the MCU.  It's fun - it's got some cool connections to the universe - but at the end of the day, it doesn't really have a relevant place in the picture.

I'd rather do Batman v Superman, then a Flash/Green Lantern movie (with a couple other minor characters), then Justice League.  Suicide Squad might be really cool, but it seems like a really odd decision as far as universe building goes.  And maybe they don't care, but it just seems really strange to me.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well. I'll see it before I judge.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well I'm not judging.  It just seems like they're already doing a spin-off.  I honestly do equate it to Guardians of the Galaxy - it could be really fun but doesn't really belong in the universe.  And if it's just a cool one-off movie, that's fine. 

It's just a little odd as a decision.  They do a straight Superman movie with no ties to anything - no tease - just a couple easter eggs implying that a universe exists beyond what we're seeing (although, at the same time, I think Bruce Wayne would've found his way into the war room during the whole Zod incident but maybe that'll be explained).

So it's Superman!  And BATMAN!  And also Wonder Woman and Aquaman!  Dawn of Justice!

Then a bunch of obscure villains, an extended Batman cameo.  Maybe Lex.


Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant … n#/slide/1

Once again, it's not the fact that Metropolis was almost destroyed.  That was fine.  If Superman and Zod fought, the destruction was realistic (or, hell, might've been toned down).  These are gods fighting in a restricted space, and I think Clark did about as well as he could minimizing the damage.  That's not the problem.

The problem is that the scenes immediately after the movie are light-hearted and fun.  They're from a different movie that doesn't care that millions just died.  That's the problem.  And I'm *thrilled* that there will be consequences in the next movie because there should be.  But I'm also one of the people that loves connected movies/universes, and it bothers me less that the consequences are delivered outside of the movie that incited the incident. 

But people complain that Captain America and Iron Man 2 were meaningless because they were just setting up Avengers.  But in this current model, the entire 3rd act of Man of Steel is going to be paid off in Batman v Superman.  That, to get the entire story, you have to watch both movies.  Which is fine with me....but I think that's the reason why people are upset about the ending.  I don't think they're upset that people died or that there weren't consequences.  I think they're upset that the movie basically forgot it happened after it happened.  Which was just really....really weird.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

It was so weird. It is weirdly common in many blockbusters -- GI JOE RETALIATION had London, England destroyed entirely and nobody even mentioned it afterwards.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, I think blockbusters tend to forget that the entire world changed so much after a couple thousand people died in one event on 9/11.  Whether you're talking about devastation in movies like GI Joe, Transformers, Avengers, or Man of Steel, you're talking about events that would make 9/11 look miniscule. 

And all the scenes after Zod dies are creepily serene.  Yes, the military is keeping tabs on Superman, but there's no real fear or worry in the general's voice.  More curiosity than anything, and there's no indication that Clark was just involved in an incident that all-but destroyed the country's best city.

Then the Daily Planet scene.  The city shows no sign of any damage.  The newsroom is really quiet.  There's talk of going to a basketball game.  Does this scene take place decades later?  Because there's no way that the newsroom would be that quiet.  There's no way there'd be a basketball game.  I'm not even sure the newspaper would be able to hire someone new considering the financial implications of an American city being practically destroyed.

It's weird.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Okay this might be a terrible idea, but I wanted to throw it out there.

I was thinking about BvS and old Batman vs. young Superman.  And I sorta get it.  I like the idea of a young, impuslive Bruce Wayne thinking he's indestructible and rushing to Metropolis to save the day.  But I think it's sorta implausible for that to be Bruce's inspiration.  So he just throws on a bat costume and goes in? goes against Batman's mythology.  So they'd have to use an established Batman who's already doing it for his own reasons.  But which Batman makes more sense to go?  A young Batman with a couple victories under his belt (think Dark Knight) or an older Batman who's been to war a couple hundred times and thinks he can handle anything?  I think the latter, actually.  And you get as close to Dark Knight Returns as we'll probably ever get live-action.

But what bothers me is this: what's best for BvS isn't necessarily what' best for the DCCU or Justice League.  So here's my idea.  It's probably a terrible idea, definitely not that original, and I haven't thought it through at all.

Batman vs. Superman : The SQ21 Edition

GOTHAM - Alfred watches footage of the Battle of Metropolis.  Buildings are falling.  People are dying.  He looks over to the clock that leads to the Batcave.  It's just closed.  Alfred tenuously to the cave and sees (from behind) Bruce putting on the cowl.  "You can't do this.  You can't win.  He's too powerful" Alfred says.  Bruce (still from behind) pauses.  It's clear that he doesn't want to but he has to.  Quick cut to the Batmobile rushing off - still no clear image of the Batman himself.

Months later.  There hasn't been a clear sighting of Superman since the big battle.  The city is coming together, and people are being rescued by what people have to assume is Superman.  Public opinion seems to be turning around on Superman, who seems to be the force of good everyone wants him to be.  But two radical camps are forming - one that worships him as a savior and one that wants him taken down (funded by Lex).  Batman watches on from the Batmobile - still can't see who he is.

Until something happens - cliche plane crash or construction incident where Superman has to stick around long enough to be seen by the public.  He decides to stand and talk to the crowd for a second when an object flies at his head.  Superman easily catches it.  A Batrang.  "We need to talk" with a time and date carved into it.

Superman arrives.  Batman is already there.  And it's finally revealed to be Batfleck.  He's old.  He's a veteran.  He's cautious but confident -he's beaten strong people before.  He's beaten superhumans before.  And he has this super-powerful suit.  Batman talks about danger and power and making sure Clark is who he says he is.  They fight.  It's a draw.

Plot plot plot plot plot.  Lex fights Superman in a suit similar to Bruce's.  Clark confronts Bruce.  They fight and Clark rips off the helmet in the fight.  It's not a similar suit - it's the same suit.  Bruce says he stole it and painted it black.  Added bat ears.  It's Lex's "old suit" - Batfleck is from the future.  Says he came back to set things right.  That he came running to Metropolis when he was younger and fought Clark.  But that young Bruce was too impulsive and Clark was too strong - he broke Bruce's back.  Then things went to Hell.  Unchecked, Clark took drastic measures and ran the world with an iron fist.  And heroes were afraid to step up.  And when "he" finally showed up, the planet wasn't ready.  Bruce used futuretech to heal his back and come back to set things right.  Young Batman is knocked out somewhere.

Old Bruce and Clark team up to fight Lex - Bruce teaches Clark some stuff.  Blah blah blah.  Bruce sacrifices himself to save Clark from Doomsday or Lex or something.  Dies.

Clark goes and finds young Bruce.  They meet.  Clark hands him a message from Bruce to Bruce.  Old Bruce has made a recording for Young Bruce telling him how to be the hero Clark needs him to be.  That troubles are coming, and they need to work together to win.  That he can trust Clark.  Only together can they take down the darkness that is coming.  And there's a few names.  Barry.  Diana.  Hal.  J'onn.  Bruce goes off to find them.

It's basically Star Trek with Bruce instead of Spock.  But they get their cake and get to eat it too - you get a young Batman alongside a young Superman, but you get your DKR stuff.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

And yeah I decided to throw time travel BS and paradoxes in a DC movie.  Sue me smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Hmm. I wonder if BvsS might open with a reprise of the attack on Metropolis -- but from Batman's point of view.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I think it has to.  The footage where Affleck is staring at something in the trailer is probably Metropolis footage and not him staring at the cowl.

Apparently Affleck is writing and directing the Batman solo film.  He's better at either of those things than acting so that's good news.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Act, write and direct an action movie?  Can you say Expendables?  Never works.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant … e#/slide/1

I take everything back.  Not worried about this movie at all.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

So, some moody lighting and grimly intoned statements are all it takes to win you over, huh? :-)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, the color palate is bad.  And I think putting Bruce *in* Metropolis during the attack is a little too on the nose.  And, as per usual, I think they're teasing us with a Batman/Superman confrontation that will be resolved before the 2nd act.  And there's just *WAY TOO MUCH* happening - I just don't see how this movie is either a) unacceptably long or b) edited to a level of near-nonsense.

But as far as getting Superman and Batman fighting each other on the big screen, I'm freakin' satisfied.  The movie might suck, but we'll always have this trailer.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

It's already better than most of the Marvel movies!

I like the look of the movie. I like that it seems to be plot-driven. I can see how it started out as a MoS sequel and grew into something else. I think that Wonder Woman looks great, which is surprising, since nobody ever makes that stupid character look good.
So far, I like what I'm seeing.

That said, it could go wrong pretty easily. These movies tend to add politician characters who ruin the movies by being insulting. Usually, it's liberal writers who want an evil totalitarian political character and they make that character and eeeeeevil conservative, even though the whole idea of a big government politician who wants to control everyone goes against most conservative ideals.
But the bottom line is really about lazy writers who don't put thought into their evil political characters. They are offensive because the writer is stupid and never takes advantage of legitimate politics. (disclaimer: I am not saying that I am above this)

The question is, can this movie avoid cartoonish politics and make the back and forth between sides into a legitimate argument? Or will it be extremist ideals written by a lopsided writer?

In terms of conflict, it looks cool. All of the pieces are in place. But the political aspects could easily turn this movie sour very quickly.

But besides that, it looks like a good followup to MoS, and a good way to introduce the larger DC universe... even if the idea of a new Barry Allen right now is beyond stupid. Not to mention the fact that a large chunk of the Suicide Squad is already recurring on Arrow. I still don't get why they expect me to pay to see what I'm already watching for free.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

This looks pretty awesome. And while it seems strange to make this one of the big DC movies, it also gives us a chance to see some great DC characters that we would never see in a movie otherwise.

I like the DC style. Marvel chose to play up the cartoonish elements of their comic books. DC chose to play up the more serious, elements. They chose to not compete, but to do their own thing. Smart.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Found this over at TrekBBS; it's pretty uncanny how well Kate Willaert could match the poses using what appears to be spliced art from multiple sources.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

There was a really funny post on reddit regarding the Will Smith line "So that's it, huh?  We're just some kind of suicide squad" - the guy said Will Smith should do a cameo in every movie where he says the movie title out loud.  Some of the funnier ones:

"So that's it, huh?  The Force Awakens?"
"So that's it, huh?  We just go Back to the Future?"
"So that's it, huh?  It's just the Dawn of the Planet of the Apes?"
"So that's it, huh?  They just a bunch of Mean Girls?"
"So that's all we do, huh?  Just Eat, Pray, Love?"

and my personal favorite

"So that's it, huh?  Its some sort of Superman 4: The Quest for Peace?" big_smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant


The question I have is how much he will Will Smith-ize the role. Will he just make it the same character that he always plays?

It seems like Harley is being played up. That is good. She is probably the biggest name (character wise) in the movie. I am curious to see how they play her. In the trailer, she seemed crazy, but not bonkers. And they need to remember that she isn't normal crazy. She kinda chose to go crazy. She is really smart. She could totally play with the minds of the other characters.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

(There might be a minor spoiler in this, but it's barely a spoiler and I'm just speculating on a trailer.  But if you want to be completely blind on this movie going in, you can see yourself out)

Okay.  BvS trailer 2.....geez.  What a disappointment.  I could go into the myriad of reasons why the trailer really concerned me (on a movie I was basically already sold on), but I want to focus on one thing.  This is something the movie will almost certainly explain, but it ties in with my biggest problem with this movie since day one - what I'm seeing about Batman is very contradictory, even between trailers.

So the whole point of Batfleck is that he's older.  He's been Batman for a while, and he comes out of retirement to take on Superman - since he's the only one who can.  And I've come to peace with that - the DCCU can *sorta* be a sequel to the Dark Knight trilogy in the sense that Batman is old and retired - the continuity will be different than the Nolanverse but people can pretend that Bruce returned, got partners, fought Joker again, etc.  And unlike Marvel, DC decided to go with an older version of a popular/established character instead of rebooting him again.  It's a side to the Batman story that, unlike Spider-Man, they'll actually show us.  Whatever.  That's fine.

And in the three trailers we've seen, there's tons of evidence that this is true.  Robin suit.  Riddler question mark.  Jared Leto Joker stuff in both this and Suicide Squad.  This is very clearly a Batman who has done his thing, retired for whatever reason, and moved on.  Heck, the Keep Calm and Call Batman sign from Man of Steel backs up this story. 

Cut to trailer 2.  Bruce shows up at a fancy gala, and Clark asks him about his thoughts on the "Bat vigilante" in Gotham.  And they have a philosophical argument about civil liberties and the media and blah blah blah.

Now, again, I know this is material that will 100% be covered in the movie.  But....what?  Why is Clark Kent asking that question, and if this isn't the exact moment that Bruce learns that Clark is Superman, then Brucefleck isn't smart enough.  If Bruce has been Batman long enough to have an established rogues gallery (and he does), then there's zero reason for Clark Kent to get a quote from Bruce.  It would be like getting a quote from someone about the OJ story.  Or 9/11 - it would've been a story that was covered over and over again.  I'm sure there would've been a hundred quotes from the Son of Gotham regarding the bat vigilante.  And there's no way anyone would call him that - they'd know he was Batman.  He'd probably have his own damn statue in Gotham to match Superman's in Metropolis.

Clark would've been on Earth and in the US for Batman's whole career - he would've known about Batman.  It would've been a big story.  And Batman's disappearance would've been a big story.  But both of those stories would've died out.  The way Clark's investigating Batman ("nobody cares about Clark Kent taking on the Batman") makes it seem like this happened:

Batman's career in Gotham was either completely spotless (say, 1960s Batman level) or his career was completely that of legend (say, first half of 1989 Batman).  Either way, Batman returns to Gotham and uses infinitely more brutal tactics to take down criminals (backed up by the Gotham article and Clark's comment about "civil liberties").  But I'm sorry, I don't buy that.  I could see an angry Bruce coming back out of retirement to fight Superman, but why would he brutally fight criminals first?  Why would he alert Superman of his presence?  Is he training to get back into shape by taking it out on criminals?

Then there's the whole timeline of this.  The trailers have implied that Batman was already retired when Superman showed up.  That Bruce was in Metropolis and ran into the chaos and saved that girl and then became Batman again.  That's fine.

But when the movie starts, tons of time seems to have passed.  Metropolis seems fine so it was completely rebuilt.  Not only that, Superman has won over the public in Metropolis enough that he's universally revered (if it was 50/50, there's no way that statue gets built - it would need to be overwhelming - "False God" graffiti notwithstanding.  And the Senate is now finally having hearings (it took almost 3 years for the 9/11 report to be published - this would probably be more extensive since it deals with alien life and much more destruction).  I'd guess that at least 2-3 years had to have passed since the Superman/Zod fight.

So Bruce is all pissed off, comes out of retirement, brutally beats up criminals to such an extent that reporters start reporting on his new tactics.  But he doesn't go to Metropolis - he stays in Gotham.  And for the years he's waiting, Clark would've built an impressive amount of goodwill - enough to win over everyone in Metropolis - that Bruce simply ignores?  Superman would've done an interview before the Senate hearings, I assume, where he'd explain that Zod was bad and that he did his best to save people in Metropolis.

And in the mean time, Lex is (spoiler) so (spoiler) can (spoiler) in the 3rd act.  Does that take 2-3 years?  And if he's manipulating a fight between Batman and Superman, why does *that* take 2-3 years to pull together.

Which brings me to my complaint, finally.  None of the above really makes sense to me at the moment.  It almost seems like they wanted to use an older Batman for story reasons, but their plot is almost universally describing a new/younger Batman.  Someone who decided to be a hero and train after seeing the destruction in Metropolis.  Someone who would've just burst onto the scene in Gotham who the media (including Clark) don't know much about.  And that his battle with Superman is Batman's real coming out party.

Except that Batman is older and retired and famous enough for Perry White to know him and for him to have a rogue's gallery and a Robin that lived and died, but the media still refers to him as the "bat vigilante" and getting opinions on him and his tactics are still newsworthy.  And Batman himself was so mad about what happened with Zod/Superman that he waited 2-3 years before doing anything directly about it?  Except, of course, doing random Batmanning in Gotham, enough to be newsworthy.  Lex, despite being just as scared/suspicious as Bruce, has his own plan that also takes 2-3 years to pull off.  That he knows Clark well enough to know by name but hasn't ever met/shook hands with.

It seems like a jumbled mess.  And while the movie can answer most of my questions, the dialogue when set side to side with themselves still implies a disparity in logic.

Anyone else bothered by this?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

No. I am not bothered by it.

I may be bothered *after* I see the movie. We only have snippets of dialogue without context.

Still. Very interesting speculation. It could be accurate. It could be inaccurate. I think these are interesting issues and you've detailed precisely why it could be a problem, but I'd personally stick to speculating until seeing the movie -- then, I could legitimately claim it's a jumbled mess. I dunno -- it's a creative challenge! I'll be interested to see how the creators address it or fail to.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah and there's enough from the trailers to show that they're going to do some work with the timeline to explain what's going on.  Not only are there newpaper clippings of what Batman's been up to, there's a couple actual shots from Batman fighting crime in Gotham (or at least fighting street-level crime somewhere).  There's at least one scene in Gotham (riddler question marks would only be there, right), and we saw the DCCU's version of the Thomas/Martha Wayne deaths.  Not to mention seeing Man of Steel from Bruce's perspective.  So they'll explain who Bruce is and what he's been doing and how it relates to Superman.

And what's funny, it's the the way the question is phrased that bothered me - and that could be fixed in editing or taking a different take (which happens all the time).  "Mr. Wayne, what do you think of the reappearance of the Batman?" is a question that seems to cover all Clark's bases within the true context of the movie.  Batman disappeared.  Now he's back.  Let's ask the biggest man in Gotham about that.

I can break down my other issue in SPOILERVISION


Lex's characterization.  I don't get it.  He's worn the wig in every appearance, and he just comes across as a goofy character.  I don''t see Lex that way.  Even when he's trying to be scary, it doesn't come off as intimidating, and I just never really bought Eisenberg's casting (I didn't buy Ledger's casting either so this one is just a thought now).  I've always thought Lex should be the same size or bigger than Superman.  Where Lex is an imposing man who still looks at Superman and thinks he can take him.  Someone who might shatter his hand trying to punch Superman.  I actually thought Kevin Spacey was cast correctly, and I thought he did a great job.

Now the Doomsday thing really didn't bother me.  It's just a tease.  I think the Zod twist is kinda cool.  Doomsday is a guy who can realistically fight the DC Trinity on his own.  And unlike the Avengers movies, we're going to see 3-on-1 as opposed to 7-on-150 or whatever.

But Affleck's Batman voice?  Isn't it just as bad as Bale's?  And just like the end of Dark Knight Rises, where Bruce is using the voice even though EVERYONE THERE knows who he is, Batman is using the voice when talking to Superman in a scene that's gotta be in Act 3 - when Superman has to know his identity by now.

I'm going to see it.  And it's going to get it's full chance.  But, man, that trailer brought up a ton of concerns.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I'm late to this party... blame work and my lack of ability to think of a friggin title for my next book. But I have thoughts!!!

I can see where your concerns are coming from, but I am going to wait and see how the movie turns out before I criticize any actual plot. Half of the time, the trailers are cutting random scenes together to look like one flowing story, but it doesn't reflect the actual product at all. So, we'll see.

In a lot of versions of Batman, he isn't played as something as public as Superman. He is a legend within Gotham that people know about, but never really know for sure. So if this is the version that they're going with, then even an older Batman could be big news, as long as this is the first time he's shown himself to the public.

As for how well the press covers things... In the real world, there are plenty of issues that the press dances around and avoids all the time. It's the difference between a "mass shooting" and a "terrorist attack". Referring to a "bat vigilante" paints a very different picture than "Batman". So basically, I'm saying that when it comes to the press, I don't necessarily look for or expect common sense, logic, or reason.

The trailer was interesting, but it confused me. And I'm not sure that it's painting the right picture. This Superman doesn't look like the character from Man of Steel. He is angry and bitter and apparently has an army of Nazi soldiers bowing before him. I want to get a sense of the character from before. If he's changed, I want to know what happened. I get the intrigue of presenting him this way, but that really only works with the trailer from Batman's POV and I think it only works if there is another trailer from Superman's POV. This is a sequel to his movie, after all. I feel like they're making "Batman" trailers because they think there's more of a market for Batman than Superman. But people want to see both of these characters equally!

Batman in the trench coat. I've seen that before, but I can't remember where exactly. Damien as Batman? Or is it just ringing a Hush bell? Is this really Bruce Wayne? It's a cool image though.

The voice is Batman. It makes sense that he would use it even around people that he knows, because he is Batman. Unlike Superman, Batman is closer to his true self than Bruce would be (in Batman Beyond Bruce even thinks of himself as Batman in his own head).

The trailer overall just confuses me. I'm excited about the movie, but the trailer didn't give me a sense of what that movie is actually about. I find it kinda frustrating.

And Lex... I really hate the way he looks in the trailer. The portrayal seems completely wrong. He looks stupid. His voice is annoying. The question is, is this just his costume?

Wonder Woman. We didn't see much, but what we saw was pretty cool.

I am tempted to compare this to the Civil War trailer (which just feels like a response to BvS to me), but another part of me doesn't even want to go there. The two companies aren't even really competing at this point. They're playing completely different games, with completely different rules. I'm sure there's something worth talking about with Civil War, but if I do that here it could just muddy this conversation.

26 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2015-12-06 20:14:43)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Informant wrote:

I'm late to this party... blame work and my lack of ability to think of a friggin title for my next book. But I have thoughts!!!

Friggin Title For My Next Book.  Done. smile

I can see where your concerns are coming from, but I am going to wait and see how the movie turns out before I criticize any actual plot. Half of the time, the trailers are cutting random scenes together to look like one flowing story, but it doesn't reflect the actual product at all. So, we'll see.

No, I agree.  I'm 100% sure there will be *an* answer to my concerns.  I'm just worried it won't be a good one based on what I'm seeing.

In a lot of versions of Batman, he isn't played as something as public as Superman. He is a legend within Gotham that people know about, but never really know for sure. So if this is the version that they're going with, then even an older Batman could be big news, as long as this is the first time he's shown himself to the public.

Agreed.  But the contradiction is Perry White calling him "The Batman" in the first trailer.  And the "Keep Calm" sign calling him Batman.  So people know he's Batman.  And are pretty sure he exists.

As for how well the press covers things... In the real world, there are plenty of issues that the press dances around and avoids all the time. It's the difference between a "mass shooting" and a "terrorist attack". Referring to a "bat vigilante" paints a very different picture than "Batman".

Yeah.  I definitely see that.  And I read somewhere that Affleck said that both characters sorta come into meeting each other already knowing the other's identity (I don't know if that's a spoiler since it's a 3rd person account of an interview with zero context) and if that's the case, that scene's context changes a bit.  Either way, Clark is definitely slanted.  What's weird is that both characters should know better.  If Batman and Superman showed up on the scene at the same time, that's one thing.  But if Batman has rescued Gotham a hundred times from at least 3-4 members of his rogues' gallery.  Superman should know that Batman is a good guy, whether or not his methods are a little out there.  And if this is 2-3 years after Metropolis, Bruce shouldn't be as skeptical as Lex.

I mean, again, Clark would've been a teenager during Batman's career?  Maybe even a preteen?  Wouldn't every kid at Smallville Middle/High School be going bonkers for the masked vigilante in Gotham?  Wouldn't Clark have been a big fan of Batman?  And that's what bothers me about the age thing - these guys aren't contemporaries anymore.  Bruce is a hero that Clark grew up watching.  That's really really weird to me.

The trailer was interesting, but it confused me. And I'm not sure that it's painting the right picture. This Superman doesn't look like the character from Man of Steel. He is angry and bitter and apparently has an army of Nazi soldiers bowing before him.

Possible spoiler - ****

Word is that that whole sequence is a dream.  Not sure where people are getting that, but it makes sense.  Batman is a soldier living in some sort of post-apocalyptic Superman-dominated society.  That's why Superman looks evil, has soldiers, and Batman is in fatigues.  No idea if that's accurate, but it makes sense.


The voice is Batman. It makes sense that he would use it even around people that he knows, because he is Batman. Unlike Superman, Batman is closer to his true self than Bruce would be (in Batman Beyond Bruce even thinks of himself as Batman in his own head).

Yeah.  Actually reminds me of one of my favorite Max Landis tweets of all time.  Someone asked him why, in scripts, he always refers to Bruce as Batman and always refers to Superman as Clark.  His answer is genius to me.

"Because Superman is just Clark in a costume.  Bruce Wayne died in an alley.  That thing in the suit is Batman." 

I think that's a pretty awesome way of looking at those characters.

And Lex... I really hate the way he looks in the trailer. The portrayal seems completely wrong. He looks stupid. His voice is annoying. The question is, is this just his costume?

Maybe.  We know it's possible from this image

But every time we've seen Lex (in 3-4 different scenes), he's wearing the wig.  Looks like he's worn it in all three acts - even when he's acting menacing.  Lex is what I'm most worried about.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I wonder... if Batman did exist in our world, how would people react to him? If you look at Gitmo, people who disagree with their tactics call it torture and want it shut down immediately. People who agree with their tactics don't remotely see it as torture and see no option but to keep the place (or somewhere like it) around. And as I stated above with attacks, many refuse to use terms like "terrorism" or "Islamic terrorists" because they don't want to concede certain points, politically speaking.

So if Batman existed, I can totally see a world where to Perry White he is Batman, the masked hero of Gotham who is willing to do whatever it takes to fight the bad guys. But to someone else he is "the bat vigilante", the madman who runs around in a costume, declaring himself the law. The subtle phrasing that people use, especially in the media, says a lot about those people.

I don't know if they're putting that much thought into such things, but in a world like I'm talking about, Clark could totally use that phrasing to get under Bruce's skin. I wouldn't mind seeing the movie reflect that part of the media, since so few movies or shows acknowledge that the "impartiality" thing flew out the window long ago.

Weird idea about Lex. When I looked at the picture, I started to wonder if Lex actually was Doomsday in the trailer (a failed attempt to make himself super)... but this could just be because both of them are bald. That is flimsy reasoning. smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well we all know Dark Methods are used by Alphabet Soups regardless but Gitmo rankles many because they stopped hiding what they were doing partially but also because if it is no longer a hidden thing then why not do it with full honesty on US Soil instead of more Double Dealing, Rules Lawyering, Bullshit from the Politicians and Intel Agencies.

Either keep it hidden or go fully transparent and own it.

Whether it is right or wrong ironically is not really the driving force behind the outrage and discomfort even if many try to claim it is.

Sadly most people just want clarity and to get on with things so Gitmo is kind of a festering sore they dont want to think about but are unable to fully reconcile.

"It's only a matter of time. Were I in your shoes, I would spend my last earthly hours enjoying the world. Of course, if you wish, you can spend them fighting for a lost cause.... But you know that you've lost." -Kane-

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah I think the world as a whole would be pretty split on someone like Batman.  In a lot of ways, J. Jonah Jameson should be in Batman comics instead of Spider-Man comics.  It's easy to see Batman as a criminal.  He's violent, and he's a textbook vigilante instead of a costumed superhero.  I think most adults would be torn on whether or not he's good for the city, not even including the thought that Batman is the *reason* many of his villains are created (which wouldn't necessarily be public knowledge).

But a 12-year-old?  He'd love it.  There'd be no politics.  There'd be no shades of gray.  There'd be a badass ninja who dresses like a bat and beats up criminals, and boys that age would love that.  Absolutely love it.  So if we're looking at Clark's childhood happening while Batman's career is at it's peak, I can virtually guarantee that Clark dressed up as Batman for Halloween.  Or he had close friends that did, and Clark didn't because he didn't want to look like a follower.

I know I harp on the age thing, but part of me is convinced that Superman should WORSHIP Batman because of that part of his childhood.  That he should trust that the Batman would never be bad.  Because it'd be his hero.  And that would be a cool thing to add to the movie - the reason Batman and Superman is such a "fair" fight is that it *kills* Clark to have to fight his idol growing up.

And I just don't think stuff like that has even been considered.  Batman would've been the only costumed hero in the world.  No powers.  Just a guy out there doing his best to clean up the streets.  Clark would respect that.  Especially a young Clark without a full grasp of the world.  And Clark's a nostalgic guy - I think he'd have a soft spot for Batman - not hate him.

The timeline is just weird to me.  I hope it makes more sense than I'm fearing it does.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I really like that bit of Head Canon pf yours Slider_Quinn21.
Seems very plausible.

"It's only a matter of time. Were I in your shoes, I would spend my last earthly hours enjoying the world. Of course, if you wish, you can spend them fighting for a lost cause.... But you know that you've lost." -Kane-

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I'm just going to back away from the Gitmo topic for now. smile

I agree about Clark's view of Batman, but I could also make an argument for him not being a fan. Clark grew up with strict rules about how his power should be used. To him, Batman could feel reckless and dangerous and Clark could easily fixate on all of the bad things that happen around Batman, because it would rationalize his own inaction for years.
Batman would be a legend, onto which people projected their own stories and ideals. To Clark, Batman could sound like an alien that has come to Earth and now uses his powers to force his will on people. I doubt there would be Halloween costumes if this Batman never showed himself, so he could be the monster under the bed for a lot of people (which is kinda what he was going for)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah but if Batman never showed himself, wouldn't that make him even a bigger hit to young kids?  Their imaginations would go crazy thinking about what he'd look like.  Would he have actual wings?  Would he have fangs?  Is he a literal half bat / half man?  I'm sure some of the kids in Clark's middle school would have family in Gotham, and they'd claim they saw him. 

And if Clark didn't idolize Batman as a kid, then Barry Allen might've.  Or Hal Jordan.  Or Oliver Queen.  Or Victor Stone.  That's been my problem with this from the beginning.  Batman is a legend and the rest are getting started.

And there'd definitely be Halloween costumes.  They might not be accurate to Bruce's actual suit, but they'd exist.

But we know that Batman ran with Robin.  We know that Robin's costume is colorful - I doubt Batman was strictly a legend his whole career.  Robin tends to lighten up Batman a bit, and I bet he made some sort of public appearance at some point.

In fact, speaking of Robin, Clark/Barry/Hal/Oliver/Victor are all Robin's age.  Maybe even younger.  You could've had a young Clark Kent *wishing* he could be Robin.  Heck, there could be a DCCU elseworld where Clark Kent *was* Robin.  That's just....way too weird.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

That is a weird notion.

My hope is that the Robin suit and the older Batman mean that we might finally get a Nightwing movie at some point. That would make the older Batman worth it, right?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yes.  I think Dick Grayson is a great character that needs a spotlight.  Like I said a while back on the older board, I was hoping we'd get the full gambit.  Original Robin leaves, Teen Titans, Jason Todd, Death in the Family, Barbara/Killing Joke/Oracle, Tim Drake, etc

My fear is that there's one Robin, Dick Grayson, and he's the one that's dead.  Robin hasn't been in any of the promotional material outside of the vandalized suit.  A Robin is dead.  Now maybe Bruce doesn't want to include Dick (if Jason is dead) in his war on Superman, but he brings Alfred.  And even if Bruce/Dick had a falling out and he's out there Nightwinging it - Bruce has been working on this plan for years in that case.  Dick's a smart guy.  He'd figure it out, right?  And just show up?  Which is maybe what happens but if Dick Grayson shows up in a weird blue/black costume randomly, I think that's gonna confuse the heck out of some people.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

There's also rumors (not necessarily spoilers) that Jared Leto is playing an older Dick Grayson-turned-Joker.  But there's also rumors that DC really wants to do a Red Hood story/movie - that it might even be the first Batman solo film directed by Affleck.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

No time to type up my thoughts on SUPERGIRL. You'll have to settle for stuff I sent Matt in Hangouts.

MATT: "Is SUPERGIRL any good?"
ME: "I like the cast of SUPERGIRL and I like the basic concept, but they've made some awkward choices that have more to do with marketing than characterization. Basically, the stories they tell with Supergirl would be more effective if she were 19 - 21 and in college instead of 25+ and in a steady job. There's an overreliance on voiceover to communicate what is completely obvious on a visual level."
MATT: "The worst offender of that was QUANTUM LEAP."
ME: "There's constant references to an off-camera Superman which is clumsy and feels more like a lawyer authoring the script rather than actual storytelling. The special effects are more impressionistic than realistic, but they're vivid."
MATT: "Well, the DCU has to start somewhere, right?"
ME: "It's a FUN show -- but it's full of logical errors and awkward choices due to legalities and marketing rather than choices in how to depict this character. They have done something very smart -- every version of Superman in LOIS AND CLARK, the animated series, and SMALLVILLE had super-speed -- moving, thinking, reacting and acting like the Flash. Supergirl doesn't have superspeed -- she can just move fast, but it takes time for her to accelerate just to fly at hypersonic speed. So, instantly, the character can be put in difficult situations. Also, Supergirl is not indestructible. Gunfire doesn't harm her, but explosions, blows, heavy duty missiles and other ballistic armaments are established as being an actual threat -- the force could shatter bones or snap her spine or flatten her brain. Again -- most Superman shows have Superman immune to all that, which made him really hard to write. I'm engaged by it, but it's filled with problems. Melissa totally convinces as a hapless, awkward innocent who can become absolutely terrifying because she's angry and has laser eyes."
MATT: "Hahahahahahahaahh!"
ME: "There's this scene where Supergirl has used up all her solar energy and is powerless and she comes across a convenience store robbery and she goes in and convinces the gunman to put down his weapon. And it's not well written, but the actress totally sells the stark terror that she could die and the resolute commitment to saving these people."

ME: "I'd say the main problem is characterization -- Supergirl has no clear backstory. Where did she go to school? Why is she working in media? Who are her friends? What made her decide to hide her powers? How could she have gone 25 - 30 years before seeing a situation that called for her direct intervention? None of this is filled in and Supergirl is written as a dorky college girl who just got off the bus. She doesn't seem to have any body of knowledge on any subject or any specific interests -- she's so blandly defined on paper . The actress has to fill in all these gaps via heartfelt sincerity and earnestness -- and at first, it doesn't seem like a performance -- but there's a couple episodes where Supergirl loses her temper and it is so scary and all the cute, awkward body language just vanishes and Supergirl seems like a demonic force of rage and Melissa puts these lines in her face that make her seem 20 years older. So, she's a very good actress."
MATT: "The absolute glut of superhero programming is frying your brain to a crisp. Haha! You and the Bboard! Living the superhero dream!"
ME: "The SMALLVILLE years were very bleak."

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I've paid no attention to Supergirl.  Should I try and catch up?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

While I'm flattered that you'd like me to give you your opinion for you, I feel like this is something you need to decide for yourself. But if you do watch it, please post at length here about what you thought.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Ha, don't give me my opinion.  But I certainly value yours.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

SQ21 Complaint 9548 regarding Old Bruce / Young Clark:

In the universe, Bruce can call Clark "son" and it's not super weird.


Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

What I find super-weird is your peculiar fixation on Batman's age. I admit, I didn't find your feedback on SLIDERS REBORN to be super-detailed aside from being your usual encouraging and positive self -- but I was half-expecting you to protest Quinn being 43-years-old given your odd animosity towards Ben Affleck being 43-years-old.


SUPERGIRL continues to be enjoyable (to me) but critically flawed and deficient in many, many areas with curious choices that don't make any sense to me. Areas of concern:

Winn and Jimmy Olsen: There's an odd redundancy here; the show simply doesn't need both Winn and Jimmy to be Kara's civilian friend. It's like there's one role (best friend and ally) split across two actors (the tall one and the shorter one). At the pilot scripting stage, both roles should have been made one character -- probably Jimmy -- and probably someone like Percy Daggs III (Wallace from VERONICA MARS) should have been cast in a geekboy role. The show does some neat stuff with Winn and Jimmy stumbling over each other's roles, but the presence of one always feels like it's at the expense of the other. It'd probably be best to find Winn some other role -- perhaps as Alex's helper at the DEO rather than Kara's helper at Catco.

General Sam Lane: The Sam Lane character doesn't work. His characterization is completely nonsensical and it's not remotely plausible that he hasn't been relieved of command. He orders Supergirl to beat up his Red Tornado robot and then gets angry at her for beating it up because beating it up makes it go rogue. His distaste for Jimmy is, as far as what's onscreen indicates, due to being unable to control Jimmy, yet he is shown to be consistently incapable of controlling his responsibilities. When tasked with rescuing a captured Hank Henshaw, Lane engages in a foolish plan, falls into a trap and gets an entire task force killed except for one person. He's never had a single onscreen success. He looks incompetent. The character is simply there for Hank Henshaw to score points as a more reasonable authority figure. I'd hire Colonel Rickman to run the army again before letting this Sam lane get within five feet of it.

Alex: I love Alex. Great performer. Terrific character. Her presence makes either Winn or Jimmy superfluous. But it highlights how Kara has no post-Krypton/pre-Pilot backstory. I have almost no sense of what Kara was like as a child on Earth or why she chose the field she does or what brought her to where she is now. It's odd how the actresses really convince that they're adoptive sisters, but the scripts have no idea who Kara is beyond Melissa Benoist's excellent performance.

Maxwell Lord: I think he's intriguing; he's a Lex Luthor type character who has a reasonable argument and isn't afraid to get his hands dirty to do what's right, but he also has a painful lack of scruples in achieving otherwise reasonable goals. I'm finding the sexual tension with Alex a little too overt, at least at this early point in their association.

Clark Kent: His texting Kara without ever flying in to talk onscreen is ridiculous.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

ireactions wrote:

What I find super-weird is your peculiar fixation on Batman's age. I admit, I didn't find your feedback on SLIDERS REBORN to be super-detailed aside from being your usual encouraging and positive self -- but I was half-expecting you to protest Quinn being 43-years-old given your odd animosity towards Ben Affleck being 43-years-old.

Yeah, I mean it's definitely weird of me.  But it's just so bizarre that Batman and Superman aren't contemporaries.  I'm almost to the point where I want to write an alternate version of the DCCU where a teenage Clark idolizes Batman and sneaks off to Gotham in his spare time (he has super-speed so it'd be like running down the street) to watch Batman do his thing.  Something happens where Clark reveals himself and fights his way out of it.  Bruce is impressed and makes him a Robin. Clark is beside himself and throws himself into being Robin (even lying to his parents about some sort of summer camp/internship/whatever).  When fighting some random minions, Clark loses control for a second and seriously injures one of them.  Batman looks at him with fear, and Clark runs off.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Anyone watch the DC special that aired on the CW a couple of days ago?

Batman v Superman still looks cool. I think too many people are basing their opinions on early rumors or fan desires rather than what we have actually seen. The criticism that the movie is too dark and depressing makes no sense, since we haven't seen the movie. The ad campaign has clearly been leaning toward Batman, which is a mistake in my opinion. They should have had an equal Superman push, that was a bit brighter and more colorful.

Wonder Woman actually looks interesting! Go figure. She is usually so bland.

The Suicide Squad looks better with each new trailer. The whole thing looks pretty awesome, but Harley steals the show. They could have given her a movie of her own. Maybe they still can.

Anyway, if you haven't seen the new trailer:

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Suicide Squad does look fun.  It looks crazy, and I hope that carries over.

My big question is: does it appeal to the general public?  Was Guardians of the Galaxy successful because it was fun, or was it successful because it was in the Marvel brand (so far, there is no DC brand)?  Is Will Smith enough?  Is buzz going to be enough?

Because I see a ton of comics people getting excited, but I wonder if that extends beyond comic people.

BvS seems to be touching a lot of the right bases, but have you heard that Jesse Eisenberg based his Luthor on Max Landis?  I'm a big fan of his and that's still super weird to me.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I have seen a couple of people say that they normally don't touch comic book-related stuff, but Suicide Squad has caught their eye. DC took the approach of selling this as a good movie, rather than a comic book movie.

Man of Steel was like that, in a way. Even if it didn't have an iconic main character, it still had enough story and character to make it interesting as a film.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

So the final BvS trailer came out.  An, honestly, I'm surprised we didn't get a trailer from Superman's perspective.  In every single trailer we got, Superman is pretty much the bad guy.  Batman thinks he's the bad guy.  Lex thinks he's the bad guy.  The US government thinks he's the bad guy.  You have the weird dreamlike sequence where Superman is menacing with guards and rips off Batman's mask.  You have him walking/standing alone in a defendant's podium in a courtroom.  There's the weird sequences where he's hovering over flood victims and standing/doing nothing while people worship him.  There's the threats to Batman "If I wanted it, you'd be dead already" and "The Bat is dead."  There's even the odd scene with Ma Kent where she tells Clark that he never owed the planet anything.

The only truly heroic thing we've seen in any of the promotional materials is him saving the NASA-looking rocket.

Snyder has said that this isn't a sequel to Man of Steel.  And we all know the controversy regarding the end of that movie where audiences have criticized how Superman handled the last fight.  But I'm just really surprised that we haven't seen much defending Superman in this movie.  Clark tries to vilify Batman, but it seems like Bruce and Perry are there to defend Batman when he does. 

So I wonder if that's what this movie is.  Batman's story where Superman is sorta distant so it seems like he's worse than he is, Superman convinces Batman that he's good, and they team up with various Justice Leaguers to fight Doomsday.

Because that's just another weird artistic choice that I don't necessarily like.  Just throw it on the pile, I guess.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The movie looks really good, don't get me wrong, but the advertising is definitely skewing this toward being more of a Batman movie than a Superman movie. Is Superman a POV character, or just something that Batman is facing?

The thing that annoys me is, people complained that Man of Steel wasn't "Superman". I agree with Snyder when he says that this is Superman, just not the Superman from the familiar movies. I saw optimism and hope in Man of Steel. I'm on board with this Superman. The problem is, the trailers are all playing into that image of Superman that people were complaining about. Broody, and angry and too willing to sacrifice people. And I'm fine with this being Batman's point of view in the movie (for a while), but they needed to counter that vibe with Superman's side of things. Superman shouldn't be a side character in this movie, he should be an equal. I have little doubt that the movie will do him justice, but the trailers have been hitting the Batman side a little too hard. It even has me wanting to see Superman in a daylight scene.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I watched a video on HitFix today, and they were saying that Warner Bros. is *very* worried about this movie being a springboard for the DCCU.  That there are two things that work in the movie - Batman and Lex.  And that everything else sorta falls flat.  And if this last trailer is any indication, they're hoping to drive that point forward.  That, hey, this might be the best Batman we've ever seen on screen.  That, hey, this is really BATMAN vs superman.  And that maybe we'll see Justice League pushed back, and DC is going to let the real foundation for the DCCU ride on Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, and the new Batfleck solo film.

And I can definitely see that.  I think it was you who said that you expected to see a Batman trailer, a Superman trailer, and a joint one.  And what's weird is that we know there are Clark-centric scenes in the movie.  We see him and Ma Kent.  We see him and Perry.  But even those scenes paint Clark in an odd way.

What's bizarre to me is that this is so the opposite of how this relationship usually works.  Superman is the freakin' boy scout - everyone loves him.  Batman is the Dark Knight - he's often painted as a villain even in his solo work.  Gotham has this uneasy relationship with him because he's this vigilante.  No one ever calls Superman a vigilante.  So the idea that this movie is somehow Batman as the hero and Superman as the villain is just so backwards to me.  But for most of the trailers, that's sorta what we're seeing.  Clark is distant and menacing and very alien.  Batman is this underdog who puts on the suit to show this guy what humans are all about.

But it's also playing the more traditional angle - "Bat vigilante" - "trampling on civil liberties" - "thinks he's above the law" - but these are all quotes from Clark.  So it almost plays into the villain side of things - Clark is jealous of Batman for some reason, and he uses his job at the Daily Planet to battle for the public's admiration.

I know Superman isn't the villain, but if this were an original property, it's definitely how I'd think it was set up.  Batman is the hero and Superman is the villain. 

I've been skeptical about this movie from day one - I just want it to work out so well, but I just wasn't a big fan of Man of Steel.  I wasn't a fan of the Affleck casting.  Wasn't a fan of older Batman.  Wasn't a fan of so much so soon (Superman...and Batman!  And Wonder Woman!  And Lex!  And Doomsday!  But also Aquaman and Cyborg and Flash!  But also Superman's side characters!  But also Alfred!  And maybe Robin!...etc).  Wasn't a fan of the Eisenberg casting.  Wasn't a fan of the darker tone.  And now I'm worried that it isn't going to be as fun as this movie *needs* to be.  I think the tone is going to be wrong, and I think the creative direction is going to be wrong.  I don't think Zach Snyder is the right guy for this.  I watch that trailer and it's *so close* to exactly what I want, but I find myself almost wishing it was closer to this ( more than what we're getting.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I watched that HitFix video, and read some of the comments following it. And... I don't know. It seems like they're making a lot of assumptions and commenting on rumors that not many other media outlets are hearing. If this film was in big trouble, I think that we would be hearing more about the panic by now, and that it might even be pushed back for reshoots, since DC/Warner has so much riding on it. I definitely don't think that DC/Warner would have doubled down on this movie by airing a special on the CW, outlining all of the plans for the future movies. If they did that and this movie wasn't what it should be, they would have nothing but bad publicity moving forward with any film, because they made such a huge presentation of their plans and everyone would know that they failed.

Will this movie top The Avengers? I really don't know. I think it will be a better movie, by far. However, it isn't the Saturday morning cartoon that parents are going to take their kids to seventeen times in a row. I think they're playing to a different audience, and it's really hard to say what the outcome of that will be (just like Deadpool will not make Avengers money). It's a big movie, which could massively flop or massively succeed. Marvel doesn't rely on story for its movies. They use the same template for most of them, so they can easily predict what the reaction will be. I think BvS is a gamble, but I think it's far too early to suggest that Warner Bros. is wiping the entire DC slate.

Pre-production is under way for Justice League. While I think that the full schedule may be tweaked a little bit (I'm still in denial about The Flash being made), I don't think that it will collapse as much as is being discussed in the HitFix video.

Also, my reaction to the trailer was a little different than theirs. I was wondering how Batman flew up through the floor. I was wondering why he seemed to have super-human strength. They were talking more about the fact that he could move, but I'm wondering if that is supposed to be normal Bruce Wayne strength, or if he has augmented his strength somehow.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah, I think it just depends on where you're coming from on this issue.  Superman and Batman mean so much to so many people, and I think people want it to be perfect.  So if you didn't like Cavill or you don't like Affleck or you don't like Eisenberg as Lex or Snyder's tone/feel then the movie is already starting off on a bad foot.  And then you have people that are sorta rooting for the movie to fail before it comes out.

I dislike a lot of the angles they took - I admit that.  But I also really want this to be good.  I'm a bigger DC fan than a Marvel fan.  I religiously watch the Arrowverse, and I recently started Supergirl after they finally connected the DC universe together (the only outlier is Gotham and that doesn't really fit with the others).  I enjoy the Marvel stuff too, but I've always been DC > Marvel. 

But I think the problem with this approach is over-ambition.  They planned all these extra films based on the success of a sequel to a movie that wasn't universally loved.  Marvel didn't do that until after "phase one" succeeded.