901 (edited by Informant 2019-02-08 15:56:59)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Sorry for my delay in responses. I've been sick. Again. Ugh.

Since I'm not in the mood to keep quoting people here, I'll just give my thoughts on topics in general.


Snyder producing Suicide Squad 2:

Doesn't really surprise me. The Snyders produced the first movie, and they'd probably be listed as producers on the sequel, if only because they developed the world that those characters are playing in, and the characters that have appeared. Even if they don't do anything on this movie, they've already done a lot of development on the movie. And while people are saying "relaunch" and not "sequel" for some reason... it's a sequel. The first one made a good amount of money and while people love to talk as though the DCEU is being remade/relaunched/rebooted in the press, it's just not happening. Even Affleck's "departure" isn't as much a departure as it is just him not fitting in with the timeline of the movie.

Also, Snyder was helping to steer the character development of Aquaman, so he's still in there, even if he's not in here.

Sounds like a mess, but I'm sure it makes sense to someone.



Justice League sequels:

Some of the plans don't sound great to me, but it's hard to judge any story based on a third-hand blurb.



The budgets and box office of DC movies:

Again, I don't think we can judge the movies based on what was spent making them. We have to judge the movies based on how they performed. And all of the DC movies have performed well. Whether or not Warner Bros. has managed their money well is another story. If I made a million dollars on a book, but blew all of that money on cover art and Facebook ads, I wouldn't see the profits, but the book would have still done its job. So the movies did their job, but Warner Bros. failed to do theirs. However, they seem to be correcting things a bit. Shazam and Birds of Prey are spending way less money.  Hopefully Warner Bros is learning to spend their money wisely. A movie like The Batman doesn't need to be expensive to make (and casting a younger actor to play a younger Bruce Wayne, rather than trying to de-age Affleck is a smart move, but I do think they should maybe put in some Affleck bookends or something). They just need to learn when it's worth spending the money and when it's not. It seems like they might be learning. Maybe. Hopefully.


Batman killing:

The funny thing about the whole "Batman killing people" issue, for me, is that he's not actually more violent than we see him in cartoons. If you take away the Knightmare sequence in BvS, we see a lot of Batman killing people in car chases and hitting them with heavy objects. These are all things that we'd see Batman do in The Animated Series, except Snyder didn't pretend that people walked away from those fights unharmed. We also saw fights like the one in Man of Steel before, but it was always presented in a cartoonish way, where we weren't expected to think about the consequences. Snyder didn't really make these characters more murderous than before. He mostly just took the characters and put them into a more "realistic" world, where their actions suddenly had more weight and consequence.



The future of Batman and Superman:


As far as we've heard from anyone related to the DCEU (including actors who had spoken to Cavill recently), Cavill is still our Superman. Right now, there's no real reason to assume otherwise. If he's not in Shazam, it's because that appearance would have required a contract renegotiation, and that is a big deal at this point. It could weaken Cavill's position going into Man of Steel 2 or any other movie where they *need* him to appear. I don't want to speculate on what's happening behind the scenes, because the big thing about this franchise is that we don't really know anything until it's in production (like with Birds of Prey).

Affleck isn't out as Batman, he's just out as Batman for the movie that apparently takes place much earlier in his career. It would be silly to have Affleck play that part if this is the case. It's easy to read all of these articles and declare it the DCEU apocalypse, because the media has been training us to read every article that way since the start, but the truth is that we don't know. We don't know what's going on with Cavill's next Superman movie. We don't know what's going on with Affleck (I heard one rumor that he was going to be directing a Justice League sequel, but that's probably not true). We have a lot of speculation, which really just amounts to media fanfic (dare I say #FakeNews?) at this point.

While everyone loves to paint the whole franchise as a failure that needs to be rebooted, the fact is that most of the movies in the DCEU have performed pretty well (again, I'm not even going to try to figure out the profits involved. I'm just talking about box office performance). Certainly, we haven't seen any flops. Warner Bros is still investing in this franchise (though a bit more wisely, it seems), so there's no reason to believe any of the doom and gloom stories at this point.

Basically, we need to stop entertaining stories from "inside sources", which have been very wrong in the past, and just keep our eyes on what's in front of us. Shazam looks good. Wonder Woman 1984 should be fun. Birds of Prey has a really solid cast and style. I'd say that the current state of the DCEU is optimistic.



Closing Thoughts:


The new Joker movie should have me pretty excited, because it sounded like it could be really cool. Yet, I'm not. The more I hear about it, the less excited I am about it. I'm all for Elseworlds stories (hell, we kinda already have some with the Lego type movies, and the animated movie series), but right now I'm just not pumped to see this one. Maybe that will change. I'm still open to liking it. I'm just a little indifferent right now.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

yeah, Ben Afflec had written in his contract that he would appear as batmam/bruce wayne in up to 10 films. As the plan was to have him be the Nick Fury role of the DC Extend Universe.  No idea why all of the JLA actors wouldn't have similar deals especially being that they were following the marvel film formula.

With Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Suicide Squad being big hits Superman, JLA, BvsS making big money no idea why they would change directions, a JLA using a Aquaman and Wonder Woman that audiences apparently like, keep Calvin Superman, and if Afflec is out just workaround it with Batman not answering the call, or have bruce out of commission with Azreal showing up in the Batman costume,could do after effects of the Bane storyline, with the team dealing with Azreal Batman.

With W

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

So it was confirmed that Margot Robbie will not be in the Suicide Squad sequel.  It was also announced that the Joker/Harley movie is probably dead.  Unless something changes, you gotta think we won't see the Jared Leto Joker ever again.

I do wonder what the Suicide Squad movie will look like since it's a "soft reboot".  I'm excited to see what Gunn does with it.

I also wonder what would happen if the Joker movie does well.  Would Phoenix be merged into the existing DCEU?  Would he appear in The Batman movies?  Would he even be interested in coming back?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Something I often wished comic books would do -- I've always thought that each character's comic or line of comics should take place in their own universe but with versions of the other characters. By which I mean that SUPERMAN titles would feature a consistent universe between them, but the FLASH comic book would be set in its own universe.

The Flash could guest-star SUPERMAN or ACTION COMICS or MAN OF STEEL or SUPERGIRL or what-have-you, but it would be the SUPERMAN-universe's version of the Flash and vice versa. Over in SUPERMAN, you might have aliens emigrating to planet Earth, but in THE FLASH, there would be no indication of any such storyline. The JUSTICE LEAGUE title would feature independent versions of the characters and the writer could pick and choose what aspects of the individual titles to acknowledge and which to ignore.

I'd be quite content for each movie to serve its own purpose rather than the larger conglomerate even if that diffuses the original intent of a shared cinematic universe.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Ezra Miller made a really interesting remark about the upcoming FLASH movie -- that it's not part of a DC Extended Universe as much as it's part of a DC multiverse, almost as though each movie occupies its own continuity.

https://www.cbr.com/flash-movie-ezra-mi … ultiverse/

I think that's a very good idea. As I said, I think every comic book series should have its own continuity -- a bit like how there's a Batman on both SUPERGIRL's Earth and ARROW's Earth.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Sounds like Will Smith is out of Suicide Squad 2.  No Deadshot or Harley certainly makes me think that it's more of a "hard" reboot than a sequel.  I wonder if they'll get back Viola Davis back.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

And it seems like Idris Elba might replace Will Smith in the role.  I love Idris Elba, but if they can't get Will Smith because of scheduling, could they not just have Elba play a different character?  And maybe in a future sequel have Will Smith show back up?

It seems like the beauty of the Suicide Squad is that you can do whatever lineup you want, and you can do pretty much any villain you want.  Couldn't Elba play someone like Mr. Freeze or the Riddler or some other villain that the movies certainly aren't going to use now?  They could even introduce someone like the Reverse Flash who could then show up in a Flash movie.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I don’t know why Warner Bros. is recasting Deadshot, but the optics are certainly interesting. It suggests, along with Ezra Miller saying that DC movies exist in a cinematic multiverse as opposed to a cinematic universe, that the Worlds of DC films will only connect loosely to previous films if at all.

Much as the James Bond reboot kept Judi Dench despite starting all over again, the Worlds of DC SUICIDE SQUAD will retain some elements of the DCEU SUICIDE SQUAD while leaving others aside. It allows a future film to feature Ezra Miller’s Barry teaming up with whoever takes over from Ben Affleck; it allows post-Snyder creators to come in without needing to reboot again. Or, I dunno, there’s some sexual arrangement between Idris Elba and the WB president. Haha! (Sorry.)

From a financial standpoint, Will Smith is one of the biggest stars in Hollywood and comes with quite a pricetag. I assume Idris Elba is not remotely as expensive and indicates WB moving forward with DC as a brand name rather than a vehicle for any particular star, although that can shift. For the longest time, it seemed like Tom Cruise would play Tony Stark and few expected the role would go to a disgraced, uninsurable wreck of an actor who had been fired off a supporting role in a FOX comedy, or that said wreck would turn his life around and become the defining standard bearer for the franchise.

Anyway. Maybe Michael B. Jordan will play Superman after all!

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/featu … ip-1192660

So, leaked texts in the Hollywood Reporter seem to indicate that WB president Kevin Tsujihara offered actress Charlotte Kirk acting work in exchange for sex. SLIDERS has had some of this with the SLIDERS crew, according to Temporal Flux, having many theories on why Alan Barnette was so keen to hire Kari Wuhrer. TF says Barnette wouldn't shut up about Wuhrer's chest. From reading the HR story, I get the sense, however, that sex only bought Kirk access and opportunity but didn't actually get her any work.

It looks like Tsujihara was able to get Kirk auditions, but casting directors largely declined to hire her. In her texts, Kirk is outraged that she isn't receiving roles in exchange for sex but doesn't seem to have any thoughts on how her talent and artistic ambitions were suited to specific roles; it's just the expectation that having a physical affair with a Warner Bros. executive would get her hired regardless of the project or her ability. In addition, Kirk describes sex as though it were an activity after a business deal. My office just buys everyone pizza; Warner Bros. under Tsujihara hires sex workers. (Allegedly. This conversation is privileged.)

I don't know that there is anything untoward in that Kirk didn't actually net any significant acting work out of this supposed trade. I just know that it makes both Kevin Tsujihara and Charlotte Kirk look utterly pathetic. Tsujihara's worth $2.5 million; if he wants sex, then hiring a prostitute or going online and finding someone interested in a purely physical relationship (or delegating the task to an assistant) is well within his ability. To dangle a false offer of acting work is a childish, immature effort at feeling influential and powerful. It makes Kirk look ridiculous; she clearly doesn't have the talent to win at auditions and doesn't believe in her own skill and ability and isn't willing to take the classes and training and wants to leapfrog into success by offering sex for acting roles and it doesn't even work.

I have always been doubtful that Kari traded sex for work if only because her roles -- short-lived regular roles, small guest-appearances, direct-to-video cable filler -- were so low-budget and limited in release that I don't think she would have bothered. There wasn't exactly a shortage of softcore erotic thrillers in the 90s. And Kirk's leaked texts would suggest that it's not a remotely effective strategy.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

So Zack Snyder has come out again in defense of a Batman that kills.  His argument is, essentially, that people that don't think Batman would kill need to grow up.  He's out there fighting and people are going to die as a result.

I think that's a fair statement, but then what separates Batman from the Punisher?  If Batman kills, what separates him from someone like Azrael?  Should there be a separation?

The biggest argument against Snyder-Batman's style of killing, in my opinion, is "if Batman is willing to kill for the greater good, why is the Joker still alive?"  I think Bruce knows in his heart that he's putting people in danger by letting the Joker live, in whatever version of the story you want to consider.  The Joker regularly breaks out, people end up dead, and Batman puts him back.  It's their character dynamic.

And yet you have a version of Batman in the DCEU that is willing to kill and there's a version of the Joker that's alive.  Those two things don't jive together.  If Batman is willing to kill a random thug who just happens to be working for the real bad guy, why wouldn't he kill the real bad guy?  To be fair to Snyder, we never see anyone else in the rogue's gallery.  Maybe the Riddler and Two-Face and the Penguin are all dead.  Maybe there's a psychological block to being able to kill the Joker.

But at the same time, he let Harley live.  He let Deadshot live.

I think I'm okay with a Batman that kills.  But then he's just high-tech Punisher.  And you have to explain what his code is, if he has one.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The issue Snyder raises is one of plausibility, and I should probably put it in quote marks. "Plausibility." Is it possible for Batman to engage in the stunts and combat maneuvers he pulls and not ever kill anyone? Snyder's argument: by any sensible standard of reality, Christopher Nolan's Batman kills numerous villains in all three movies, but his attacks on the League of Shadows and the Joker's henchmen only injure them at most because Nolan declares it to be so. In the comics, the 30s Batman would kill various villains until the character was lightened significantly and all of his past kills were retroactively erased.

Within a comic book superhero reality, we can consider Batman so incredibly well-trained and attuned to human pressure points that he can hurt someone just enough to immobilize them without ever killing them or we can consider that in the DC Universe, humans and the Presence (God) exist in a cycle of one creating the other and every human, reflecting a fragment of the Presence's power, is made of slightly tougher stuff than humans in our universe, so fights that would leave us with broken necks leave DCU humans with mild bruising. It could be argued that Snyder is simply presenting human consequence to Batman's exploits, consequences that other creators were negligent to ignore.

However, superheroes are not realistic characters. Batman regularly swings through the city with a grapple gun; even an Olympic athlete with that gear could only get between a few buildings before exhaustion set in if they could even clear the street. Batman's mask blocks any peripheral vision and yet he has no problem spotting enemies in every direction. Batman's cape never gets stuck in doors and windows. And how does he go to the washroom in that suit?

For every technological explanation, the suit would become so thick with cameras and conductive cabling in the cape and a catheter that he wouldn't be able to walk five steps without falling over.

There's a BATGIRL storyline by Gail Simone I really like where Batgirl discovers her brother James, a serial killer, has come back to town. In a nasty confrontation, Batgirl throws James off a bridge to save lives and Commissioner Gordon declares her a fugitive, not knowing Batgirl is his daughter. In a key scene, Batgirl protests that she killed a murderer and Gordon exclaims that he knows his son is a killer, that he spends nights awake with shame and grief and casefiles of everything his son has done. The only reason Gotham PD tolerates Batman and his team is because they don't kill and if they do, they have to answer for it or the partnership between Gordon and the Bat family is corrupt. (Later, it turns out that James survived.)

Far more important than how Batman avoids killing is the meaning behind the character. Batman represents the belief that our traumas and losses will not define us, that we will transmute our grief into hope and positive action. Frank Miller seemed quite keen on presenting Batman as an angst machine of rage and violence, and that's one side of Batman, but Batman is also a keenly intellectual mind, a master detective and a social crusader with great compassion for the weak and someone who knows the value of family.

Does Batman kill? I think it's best to let each creator make that decision as suited to the story and situation. Snyder tells fans of a non-lethal Batman to grow up; perhaps Snyder should remember that Batman is a children's character, but regardless, Snyder's Batman doesn't have to be your Batman or mine.

I've spent more time with the non-lethal sci-fi technology Batman of the comic books. Snyder's Batman is a legitimate interpretation and I take no issue with its existence, although Snyder should not be insulting other people's portrayals of the character.

To offer Abed's perspective: there is skill to Batman. He has to be powerful, kind, aspirational, tragic and fun. He's comforting. Portrayals of Batman defeat themselves when they're pushing an agenda or proud or ashamed of being Batman or trying to defeat other renditions of Batman. Batman is our protector. He watches over us. And it has to be okay for Batman to call in sick for a day or phone in a day or go into rehab as Ben Affleck and never come back because eventually, they all will.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

ireactions wrote:

I've spent more time with the non-lethal sci-fi technology Batman of the comic books. Snyder's Batman is a legitimate interpretation and I take no issue with its existence, although Snyder should not be insulting other people's portrayals of the character.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I wanted to focus on this.  I think it's legitimate, but like a lot of the DCEU, I think there are too many inconsistencies.  Snyder definitely wanted to try and do this realistically, and some of the more realistic items are the more controversial.  Namely the Battle of Metropolis and Batman's killing.

Would a fight between Superman and Zod result in a city-destroying event?  Absolutely.  You have two gods fighting, and the evil god is the better trained one.  I think Superman did the best he could because I don't think Zod would've been drawn out of the city, and I don't think Superman could've made him if he wanted.  The fight was realistic.  My issue is with the aftermath.  The Battle of Metropolis would've been the biggest thing to ever happen, and it's, for the most part, written off.  Snyder wanted to do the realistic thing and then move on.  There's a disconnect between realistic Superman and the comic book Metropolis he wants.

Would Batman end up killing people?  Absolutely.  Not only would his strength and skill make him lethal for almost any human to fight, but Batman would need to use lethal force to quickly move in and out of dangerous situations.  To save Martha in time, Batman had to crush people quickly in the warehouse fight.  I honestly believe he used excessive force in the Batmobile chase prior to his first confrontation with Superman, but maybe he did what he needed to do.  Again, I don't have a problem with the realism - again, my problem is with the rest of it.  If Batman kills, that's fine.  But would Gordon be okay with a Batman that regularly kills?  Did Batman always regularly kill, and if so, when did he start?  Because Gordon seems pretty okay with Batman in Justice League - there isn't any sort of "as long as you've stopped killing, we're good again" stuff.  There's a disconnect between realistic Batman and the comic book Gordon he wants.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

So now Idris Elba is playing someone else (Bronze Tiger?), Viola Davis is back as Waller, and Margot Robbie is back as Harley in "The Suicide Squad"

With Aquaman and Shazam critical successes, maybe an interconnected DCEU isn't actually over.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Maybe?

Honestly, I didn't even go to see CAPTAIN MARVEL in theatres. I have a new 55 inch tv with a subwoofer and lights behind the screen so there's no reflection on the screen and it seems silly to go our and pay for movie tickets when I have so much I can watch at home and when it suits me. It probably says something that rather than running out to see AQUAMAN and SHAZAM, I stayed home to watch Jerry O'Connell fight crime.

(It doesn't say anything about the franchise. I’ll comment when I can watch it at home.)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I haven't seen Aquaman or Captain Marvel yet.

I'll probably see Marvel before Aquaman, but that's probably just because I'll want to see it before I see Endgame.  I'm actually fairly excited to see both Aquaman and Shazam, but I just haven't had a chance to go to the movies.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I saw Aquaman.  I'll have more comments later, but one note quick:

I don't understand how the DCEU is structured, and it bothers me.  I understand that each movie sorta has its own free reign to do what it needs to do, but Aquaman doesn't even feel like the same universe as Justice League. 

I wondered, going in, what the connection would be.  And the answer is....there's one line.  They mention Steppenwolf and the idea that Aquaman is a known superhero.  So the movie happened and they're not simply ignoring it.

Except they sorta are.  There's only a couple of scenes from Justice League that relate to Aquaman, and both of them have wildly contradictory parts.  The air bubble thing is fine, I guess.  It doesn't make any sense for them to have to create air bubbles to talk, but they would've also known that for the scene in Justice League.  What bothers me more is....I don't even know how Arthur knew where to go.  No one seems bothered by him inside that room where they protect the box (even though he's hated by the masses and arrested for simply going into Atlantis), and there didn't seem to be any indication of why he went there.

The relationship between Mera and Arthur seems confusing when you look at both movies, but I think it's fine.  What's stranger is that Arthur seems angry at his mother in Justice League.  Maybe he's putting on some sort of act in front of the Atlantean ("I hated my mom because she was Atlantean" or something), but there's no indication of that in Aquaman.  He loves his mother and is mad at the ones responsible for killing her.

Being separate entities is fine.  Giving directors free reign to build characters is fine.  But that's how it is on the Arrowverse, but the crossover still has mostly-consistent characterization and continuity.

As someone who, believe it or not, really wants the DCEU to survive...I just find it weird that it feels so different.  I know they want to get away from the Snyder aesthetic, but I think contrasting a gloomy, dark surface world with a colorful, hopeful Atlantis might've done well.  I don't think they needed a Justice League cameo because Arthur's a bit of a loner who's completely separated from the rest of the heroes.

But maybe it's Bruce who gets Arthur the plane?  Or maybe make the tie-ins in Justice League better/more consistent to what Wan is doing?  Because if you told me that Zach Snyder didn't talk to James Wan, I'd believe you.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

SyFy canceled Krypton after 2 seasons, and axed the spinoff Lobo.  I actually liked the show, but this is typical nowadays.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

... I still haven't watched AQUAMAN. I have it on Google Play.

Should I watch it? Is it worth watching?

Should I watch it in my home theatre or is it okay to watch it on my tablet in bed?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I thought Aquaman was a lot of fun.  I don't want to compare it to the Snyder films, but it's hard not to.  While I feel like Snyder wanted to punch us in the gut with the idea that "this is what superheroes would be like in the REAL WORLD", I don't think James Wan felt the need to do this.  I was listening to a commentary on the movie, and they started laughing at how INSANE some of the stuff in this movie is.  It feels very DC Comics, but it doesn't feel like the Snyder universe at all.

I think Momoa is great, and I think the sandbox they play in is fun.  I think the villains make sense, and I think Arthur grows in realistic ways.  The movie drags on a bit, but I think watching it over an afternoon or two is worth your time.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I watched AQUAMAN. It was good. I liked the painterly look of the undersea sequences and the special effects sequences. I enjoyed the way the rock songs highlighted and embraced the absurdity of the events. The only issue I had was Mera. She's a vivid and engaging character and Amber Heard is terrific, but I didn't understand how or why Mera rejected the caste and class system of Atlantis or what her motives her for helping Arthur and sacrificing her entire life or why she stood against her father. I understood her principles, but I didn't understand where they came from or who would have taught them to her.

Her motive seemed to be that the movie wanted the leading man to have a beautiful woman who would beat up plenty of villains and always provide him with exposition and help. Heard gives Mera a lot of inner life, but the script isn't specific as to what that life is. Even Dr. Caitlin Snow on THE FLASH had getting over the death of her fiance to explain her need to help Barry and use him as a substitute.

**

AQUAMAN is not consistent with JUSTICE LEAGUE and would require Geoff Johns sized retcons to make it fit. JUSTICE LEAGUE has Arthur declaring that his mother abandoned him as an infant, left him on his father's doorstep and never gave him another thought. AQUAMAN has Arthur raised for several years by his mother and father until an Atlantean attack forces her to flee; then Arthur thinks she was murdered. JUSTICE LEAGUE has air pockets to allow underwater speech; AQUAMAN has Atlanteans converse through water directly.

If you were determined to make it fit, you could say that during JUSTICE LEAGUE, Arthur had clues that his mother might be alive and was pretending to claim no interest in finding her to avoid raising suspicions. You could say that forming air bubbles around Atlanteans is for privacy from other water dweller or even a form of courtship and flirtation. But it's an inconsistency just as BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) had Wonder Woman declaring that she walked away from humanity after World War I when WONDER WOMAN shows no such event at all.

Ezra Miller has said that DC movies don't form a cinematic universe but a cinematic multiverse. If you are being strict about the continuity, AQUAMAN and WONDER WOMAN are set in separate universes from MAN OF STEEL, BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) and JUSTICE LEAGUE and feature doubles of the characters we met in those three films. AQUAMAN seems to have been made with Warner Bros. new approach of abandoning the DC Extended Universe in favour of a Worlds of DC approach.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

JJ Abrams directing a new JUSTICE LEAGUE?
https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/jj- … 20%251%24s

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Interesting.  I'm not the biggest fan of Abrams as a director, but I think he'd give fans what they're looking for.  I would probably rather bring Cavill back and do a Batman-less movie and make it a sequel and not a reboot.  Add in Shazam and maybe Green Lanterns.

But if they can recast Superman and Pattinson works, I'm sure Abrams can make a fun Justice League movie.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I saw Joker.

I really don't know what to say about it.  It's a disturbing movie just because it's so dingy and dirty and gross, and the movie can manipulate you in certain ways so that you're expecting things to turn around for Arthur.  And I had to keep telling myself that this is a bad guy, and he's not getting a "happy ending" (although, for him, it's a happy ending).

It reminds me of BoJack Horseman.  That's a show that's so dark that it has to be a cartoon with anthropomorphic animals.  If it was about Will Arnett as a failed child actor, it'd be too depressing to watch. 

I feel like Joker only works because it's a comic book character.  If it was just about a downtrodden white man getting revenge on people, I think it'd be destroyed because it's absolutely the wrong movie for this time.  But since it's technically a comic book movie, it gets a pass.

Although it is barely a comic book movie.  Arthur shows almost none of the trademark characteristics of the Joker.  He's neither all that smart or all that cunning, and his success is more built on luck than anything else.  I think Arthur is someone that Batman would take out in a matter of seconds.  And the other comic book characters (Thomas Wayne, in particular) isn't a version of that character that I recognize - although he's designed to be built as a sort of villain.

At the end of the day, I think it's worth seeing, but I don't think it's a movie I really have any interest in revisiting.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I didn't see it. I imagine it's good; Todd Phillips is a great director. JOKER just isn't what I look for in superheroes or even spinoffs. To me, what I want in a superhero show is best represented in BATWOMAN with Ruby Rose beating up thugs with her bare hands and representing empowerment in the face of social and institutional discrimination and rejection. That said, I have read the script for JOKER, so I can discuss the screenplay.

I think the story is effective. It explores how a socially awkward, isolated man decides that the only way he can relate to society and affect the world is through cruelty, violence, savagery in order to achieve the dominance and control he couldn't find in his day job or relationships. It's a well-told story. I would have liked for the JOKER screenplay to show how Arthur Fleck had the option of choosing another path instead of becoming a serial killer -- but that wouldn't be a JOKER story.

Slider_Quinn21 is right to say that the Joker in most media adaptations and comics has a genius-level intellect for sadism and plotting and manipulation. Arthur Fleck is incompetent. Phillips, in interviews, suggested that Fleck isn't even THE Joker -- merely the progenitor of the aesthetic which the actual Joker would adopt as his own.

I don't really know what else to say about that except to change the subject. My story of choice for addressing sociopathy and rejection is closer to BATMAN titles from 2001 - 2006.

Mark Waid wrote a JUSTICE LEAGUE story where it's revealed that Batman has developed methods of killing Superman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Aquaman, Green Lantern, Plastic Man and anyone else who's ever been on the team. The files are stolen by R'as Al Ghul who proceeds to use them all and while the team survive, the League kicks Batman out.

Subsequent writers doubled-down on this characterization with Batman as a cruel, manipulative, distant figure with nothing but disdainful, contemptuous comments towards Tim Drake (Robin at the time), Spoiler (Tim's partner and girlfriend), Huntress, Nightwing -- and at one point, when Bruce feels he's getting too close to his girlfriend Vesper Fairchild, he stages a scene where she finds him in Wayne Manor naked with various prostitutes and models -- specifically so that she'll dump him and he can spend more time fighting crime.

Bruce becomes so unbearable that Alfred quits and moves in with Robin, and then it's later revealed that Batman developed a global surveillance system to monitor all superheroes, a system that the villains gain control of leading to the 2005 INFINITE CRISIS storyline. Batman tries to save his friends, but he's turned all of them against him and no one trusts him anymore. He collapses with grief in the Batcave only for Superman to appear -- but it's not the Superman whom Bruce knows.

It's the Superman of the 1930s from an alternate timeline. This Superman tells Bruce that what's happened is not his fault: the DC Universe has become a dark, cruel, unforgiving world and Batman is merely a symptom, and Superman asks for Batman's help to reboot and overwrite this reality with a kinder, better one.

But Batman refuses, saying that what's happened is his fault, not anyone else's -- because the Dick Grayson of this universe isn't an abrasive monstrosity who's turned on his friends because the world around him got dark. Batman is responsible for his actions.

At the climax of the story, the world is saved, but Batman is so broken that he holds a gun on Alexander Luthor and has to be talked down. Truly ashamed, Bruce apologizes to the Justice League for his behaviour and asks for their forgiveness. He declares that he is taking a leave of absence as Batman and decides to revisit the travels around the world that he took in his youth to acquire his original training. He asks Tim and Dick to accompany him.

In the 52 comic book co-written by Mark Waid, Bruce realizes that he has been experiencing a psychological breakdown due to the death of Professor Arturo -- I mean, the death of Jason Todd, the second Robin. It is a grief and guilt that he buried but eventually emerged in his need to both dominate his friends and keep them distant.

"He lost it," Dick Grayson observes. "In the end, he just lost it." Mark Waid would later apologize for the impact of his original JLA story, observing that he started the path where Batman had become "a dick" and that it was his solemn mission to fix that. The post-52 Batman appeared in BATMAN #655, a re-energized and much more positive character who adored crimefighting and working with partners and was tactically obsessive as ever, but without the depression and contempt for others.

I feel this is what superheroes are for. This is the story about sociopathy that I'd want to see. But I recognize that the JOKER is not a superhero and this is not his story.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

What's weird is that I think Batman has the best rogues' gallery in comics, and I think many of them are great choices for a solo movie.  I actually think the Joker is probably the least compelling villain when it comes to his backstory.  The reason why there's only been one real attempt at telling his story is that he's a more interesting character when he's mysterious.

I think a Riddler story could be really good (although his name is silly so I think you'd need to come up with something else).  I think a story centering on Harvey Dent could be tragic and fascinating.  I think the obvious choice for "Solo Batman Villain Movie" is Mr. Freeze, but 1) that story has been done wonderfully by Bruce Timm and 2) I think Timm proved that most of these villains can have wonderful origin stories if you just take them seriously.

It's just funny because I'd be interested in a Poison Ivy movie or even a Bane movie.  The Joker one, while obviously the flashiest, is the one I'm least interested in.  And if I was going to see a Joker movie, I'd rather see the one about the Special Forces military investigator/interrogator who gets twisted by war and loss until he becomes the Heath Ledger Joker from the Dark Knight smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

This isn't related to the current DC universe, if one even still exists....

But I watched the teaser trailer for Superman Returns on repeat today.  One, I think that might be my favorite teaser trailer of all time.  It's so well done.  I don't like the movie very much.

Second, it's nuts to me that Brandon Routh, now cemented as a fixture in the Arrowverse, was the lead in a Superman franchise.  Not that he doesn't have the ability (I don't think he's the reason that movie doesn't work) but it's just crazy to think about.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Even though Routh was the big star, he had really fallen after that.  But for his accident and resulting death, I’m confident Christopher Reeve would be somewhere in the Arrowverse too (Reeve would only be 67 today).  His star never rose past Superman, though; and even his time as Superman lost its luster at the end.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah, but at the same time, I can't really see Henry Cavill doing something like the Arrowverse.

But, I agree.  The Arrowverse isn't exactly purgatory - most of the TV and film stars have come back in some form or another.  And Routh coming back as Superman sorta legitimizes it more, since Routh is technically playing the same character as Christopher Reeve played.  So while it was cool to tie the Arrowverse to the 90s Flash, it's going to be even cooler when it ties to the 70s Superman.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

This isn't related to the current DC universe, if one even still exists.... But I watched the teaser trailer for Superman Returns on repeat today.  One, I think that might be my favorite teaser trailer of all time.

Well, I liked what Ezra Miller said about how the DC Extended Universe is really a DC multiverse, hence Worlds of DC. As for SUPERMAN RETURNS -- Temporal Flux once spoke fondly of the TRANSFORMERS cartoon. I watched three episodes of it and each episode was so formulaic and near identical that I couldn't make it to a fourth. Grizzlor laughed at me for that, saying that of course it came off that way; I'm not a child and it's not the 80s. SUPERMAN RETURNS was a godsend when it arrived in 2006.

From 1997 to 2005, all the SUPERMAN movies in planning were ghastly: producer Jon Peters wanted a '90s' SUPERMAN who reflected the stylings of whatever was trendy and cool which, in his mind, was cyberpunk. He wanted Superman to wear a black costume, to be a ferocious killer, to be played by Sean Penn in full psychopathic mode. He didn't want Superman to fly. He didn't want Superman in red and blue. (Why even make a Superman movie?)

There was great dread among Superman fans for what Hollywood would spit out. This was even more severe due to SMALLVILLE which was the current vision of the character for the 2000s and it was an inept DAWSON'S CREEK with Clark killing villains and being unheroic and dull.

SUPERMAN RETURNS came out and it was slavishly reverent to SUPERMAN (1978), the most well-liked, well-known incarnation of Superman, and all this reverence was a salve to SMALLVILLE and the terror that Jon Peters threatened.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

It's so well done.  I don't like the movie very much.

Looking at the movie without its original context, SUPERMAN RETURNS is a weird little misfire on so many levels. In being reverential to SUPERMAN (1978), SR fails to present Superman in a meaningful 2006 situation.

Why does Superman resume his life as Clark Kent? The only relationship he has is with his mother; in Metropolis, he's not close to anyone and is viewed as forgettable and irrelevant. The reasoning in 1978 was Superman wanting access to information about emergencies around the globe, but in that case, why does Superman in 2006 need anything more than an iPhone?

In mimicking the 1978 setup, RETURNS also calls upon Routh to be Christopher Reeve's Clark Kent, but Routh's performance is completely different. Reeve played Superman and Clark as two separate people whereas Routh performs them as variations on a core personality. Routh can be a good Superman, but he is completely mismatched to playing Reeve's Superman and SUPERMAN RETURNS insist they're the same person when they clearly aren't. The recasting also affects Lois: in 1978, Lois was Margot Kidder as a tough, capable, sardonic, endlessly entertaining female lead. In 2006, she's Kate Bosworth who is bland and vague and at 21, far too young for the role.

In addition, we see Superman's exploits around the globe and... he stops bank robberies. There is barely any sense that Superman is addressing problems that humans can't solve themselves; even the threat of Lex Luthor earthquaking the United States apart is due to humans failing to incarcerate Luthor for his crimes. There is no sense that the world has in any way suffered for Superman's absence in a way that the world can't handle itself unless it's too incompetent to do so.

The movie is also vague due to bizarre choices in editing: why was Superman absent for five years? Why did he feel a dead world was more important than a living one? Did he know Lois was pregnant? How much of SUPERMAN II and the memory erasing kiss still stands? Does Lois remember Superman impregnating her or does she think she was raped by him? Bryan Singer's disrespect for the concept of consent is disturbingly present, especially in Superman stalking Lois being played as benevolent.

In the original script, it's explained that Lex Luthor faked a signal from Krypton so that Superman would go look for survivors; that the planet had become a giant mass of Kryptonite which hurt Superman and damaged his ship, turning what should have been a very brief absence into a five year disappearance. It's also explained that (after SUPERMAN II), Lois and Superman had a romantic and sexual relationship but that Superman didn't tell her he was Clark Kent. All this was lost in favour of reverential Richard Donner homages.

Ultimately, I think SUPERMAN RETURNS made a huge mistake in having Superman absent and then return to find the world doing fine without him. I think SUPERMAN RETURNS should have had Superman absent for five years. Then he comes back to find Lex Luthor is President of the United States, Lois Lane is Luthor's spokesperson, the Daily Planet has been reduced to a 12 person team of bloggers led by Perry and Jimmy, Metropolis has become a slum and America seems superficially normal if as troubled, but in reality, it's become a fascist dystopia and President Lex has been waiting for Superman to return to kill him. The movie could end with Lois turning out to be spying on Lex to bring him down, Luthor impeached, the Daily Planet restored and all being well until Luthor, in his dying breath, tells Lois that Clark is Superman and that he's been laughing at her the entire time, leading to Lois deciding to mount a revenge plot involving VR contact lenses and Martians and awards ceremonies and such.

TemporalFlux wrote:

Even though Routh was the big star, he had really fallen after that.  But for his accident and resulting death, I’m confident Christopher Reeve would be somewhere in the Arrowverse too (Reeve would only be 67 today).  His star never rose past Superman, though; and even his time as Superman lost its luster at the end.

I wrote a summary of Routh's career once. http://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php?pid=7938#p7938

Routh fell, but it's arguable that his rise from bartender to blockbuster was so abrupt and sudden that his descent was just as quick and inevitable. In an interview on Collider ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTGfkvhFr5s ), Routh said that playing Superman meant he'd skipped a big step in auditioning for work and he hadn't developed those skills.

He confessed that after Superman, he resented having to compete to play Technician #3 and Cop #2 and he had to over time accept that he couldn't search for another trampoline to the top; he would have to climb the ladder slowly and incrementally and for the first time. He took guest roles. He took recurring roles. He joined ensemble casts. And he rebuilt his life. Currently, his net worth is $12 million and he's happily married and he adores his son and no, he isn't a movie superstar anymore, but he's a superstar in other ways.

The same can be said of Christopher Reeve, and Reeve in many ways decided not to pursue post-Superman stardom. He turned down many, many, many roles despite the money and notoriety, sometimes because he didn't want children to see Superman's actor playing serial killers and such, sometimes because he to maintain a Massachusetts to London line of transportation to see his children.

Reeve invested what movie earnings he had appropriately so that he never had to take roles for money after SUPERMAN and he focused on advocacy and social justice. After his accident, Reeve devoted his life to medical research and when he passed away in 2004, he died with $3 million in the bank despite not having walked in nearly a decade.

I can't say Reeve lived a happy life because what happened to him was horrific, but he made the best of it and tried to live up to the role of Superman even though he hadn't played the role since 1987.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah, I don't think it's Routh's fault.  I had a lucky break, and the movie didn't perform.  I think it's okay to leave it at that.  It's more a testament to Routh, who found a way to pick great memorable roles (like in Scott Pilgrim) and then make Ray Palmer his own in such a way that I now find him to be a completely weird choice for Superman.  Even when I briefly saw him in the teaser for Crisis, it felt more like a Ray Palmer cosplay than Superman.

But I have confidence in him as an actor enough that he'll slip back into Clark and make us believe he can fly again smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Weird.  A few days after Jason Mamoa posted an image on Instagram with the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut hashtag, both Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot did the same thing on Twitter.

I can't imagine they'd do this unless they knew something.  Is there a chance that we'll get it?  My understanding was that they didn't shoot enough to finish it, but I've also read a quote from Snyder that said it was done.

I don't think Warner Bros. would be able to make back their money on such a thing.  But if it was essentially done, there's been a consistent call for this for two years now.  Maybe a release on the WB streaming service would be worth it.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

It took 20 years for the Richard Donner cut of SUPERMAN II to come out on DVD, so maybe we’ll get Snyder’s cut in 20 years on telepathic psigraph in 6D.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Agreed.  But unless Gal Gadot, Ben Affleck, and Ray Fisher all got together to just add to fan speculation, why would they all coordinate messages on the same day...unless something was actually coming?

For the record, I don't really care either way.  If it's free to me, I'll watch it.  It took me forever to see the actual Justice League movie, and it took me months after it was released to watch the Ultimate Edition of BvS.  I've given my take on the Snyder DC Universe, and I think the characterization is all wrong.  The Snyder Cut almost certainly has less color, less humor, and more sadness (Wonder Woman failing to stop the other bomb(s) in her intro scene, the whole backstory with Cyborg, etc).  The black suit in live action could be cool.  A Darkseid tease could be cool.

But at the end of the day, it'd all be teases for nothing.  Even if they released it and it made tons of money, Cavill is out.  Affleck is out (making his part in this really weird).  The universe is going away from connected movies, and I don't think think the stars will align to give us another Snyder-led Justice League movie.

A ton of people disagree with me.  And, for them, maybe it's best to get some sort of Snyder cut.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

My logic here may be fuzzy because I'm at home sick, but I think SUPERMAN II: THE DONNER CUT was made because of the lucrative DVD market and because completing a somewhat makeshift Donner cut with some CG work would lead to significant units sold at Best Buy and whatnot.

We're currently in a world where CBS couldn't justify remastering DEEP SPACE NINE and VOYAGER to high definition because streaming services destroyed the home video market to the point where CBS lost money on the remastered NEXT GENERATION blu-rays. The economics don't encourage Warner Bros. to release a second edition of a movie that already failed the first time.

That said, I find it intriguing that all the people who hated Zack Snyder's vision for the DCEU insist that his version of JUSTICE LEAGUE must be good. It's very easy to dislike the movie you saw while insisting the movie you didn't see is the epitome of excellence because it is purely hypothetical. And Snyder's JUSTICE LEAGUE, in addition to existing largely in terms of the imagination, is also the first part of a duology where there won't be a second. Warner Bros. is wise to cut their losses.

But I do expect the Snyder Cut to come out some day, just not under present circumstances. It's not a never-ever situation, just a not-right-now.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah, I also don't see the reason financially unless it was literally done when Snyder left (no evidence of that) or unless Snyder himself paid to finish it himself (not sure why he'd do that - he's probably more legendary without it being released).

The argument I've seen from a financial perspective is that if they announced that the Snyder cut would be included on Day One of HBO Max, would that encourage more subscriptions?  How many people desperately want the Snyder cut and would subscribe Day One?  Would that be enough to offset any costs?  I doubt it.  And yeah, a directors cut of a movie that was a financial disaster probably isn't the same selling point as the Mandalorian was for Disney+

Maybe Snyder asked Gal and Ben and Ray to do him a solid and post it.  Just for kicks.  But it's weird because it legitimizes the movement and gets unrealistic hype unless Zack/Ben/Gal/Ray think there's a legit reason it happens.  The evidence says that it won't.  But maybe they know something we don't.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

It's strange: I said earlier in this thread that there was no BIRDS OF PREY movie in production. Informant corrected me. Having come back from a screening, I'd say that there is still no BIRDS OF PREY movie; there is a HARLEY QUINN movie that was inexplicably greenlit with the title BIRDS OF PREY (and the subtitle "the fantabulous emancipation of one Harley Quinn"). I don't understand WHY. The Birds of Prey have never been Harley Quinn's team; they're Barbara Gordon's team.

The BIRDS OF PREY comic emerged when Alan Moore (WATCHMEN) crippled Batgirl in THE KILLING JOKE (and didn't establish her character within his story, only using her as a female body to be brutalized to make the story seem more serious). Writers John Ostrander and Kim Yale were horrified and, in their SUICIDE SQUAD title, established that the wheelchair bound Barbara had adopted a new identity, Oracle, using her hacker skills to be home base handler to superheroes in the field. Ned Leeds in SPIDER-MAN HOMECOMING remarks that every superhero has "the guy in the chair" who guides him. SMALLVILLE had Chloe Sullivan as Watchtower; ARROW had Felicity Smoak; THE FLASH had the Star Labs team; LEGENDS OF TOMORROW has Gideon -- and all these voices whispering in the ears of superheroes owe their existence to Barbara Gordon as Oracle in the BIRDS OF PREY comic books.

BIRDS OF PREY usually featured Black Canary (Dinah Lance) as the lead agent in the field while Oracle guided her via Bluetooth earpiece from the computerized information hub of the secret Clocktower location. Over time, Power Girl, Huntress and others would cycle in and out, but it was Oracle and Black Canary's comic. When Barbara regained her mobility and became Batgirl again, Black Canary was the lead for a time, but the book was eventually rebranded as BATGIRL AND THE BIRDS OF PREY. BIRDS OF PREY is Barbara's book. Why is the BIRDS OF PREY title adorning a HARLEY QUINN movie?

It's especially confusing to me because the movie was made because Margot Robbie was so delightfully popular and beloved as both a performer and as Harley Quinn in SUICIDE SQUAD. WB wanted to capitalize on both -- so why didn't they title the movie accordingly? I have this image of some Warner Bros. executive hoping to launch additional female properties out of a HARLEY QUINN spinoff. Then gathering a list of DC Comics brands that relate to female characters. Then getting BIRDS OF PREY confused with GOTHAM CITY SIRENS, a comic that featured Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy and Catwoman as flatmates.

Then approving the title and hiring a director and a writer and being too embarrassed to fix it after noticing it  and only amending the mistake now by having theatres present the title as HARLEY QUINN: BIRDS OF PREY after a weak opening.

The movie is a lot of fun. Margot Robbie's craziness is totally captivating. The editing and direction are brilliantly propulsive in telling a somewhat disjointed story that reflects Harley Quinn's madness. The high comedy and absurdity are a good match for the ridiculously cartoonish violence. The hyperspeed pacing of the film makes it fly by. It is a fun, fun film --  but the title! Harley even emphasizes in the film that she is not one of the Birds of Prey; she is not a crimefighter. She is not a superhero.

I am truly baffled by why WB allowed this movie to be called what it is and at a loss as to why they had it rated R when the only element that would prevent this from airing on the CW is the profanity.

As a girl gang movie, HARLEY QUINN could have appealed deeply to teenaged girls who will have to sneak in or find an adult to accompany them. Harley Quinn represents every young woman seeking to define herself without needing a man to do it; every girl with mental health issues seeking to assert herself and prove her worth; every adolescent female seeing that the world is weighted against women and going mad.

The film has inexplicably been assigned a title from a property largely unrelated to the lead character. It has cut itself off from the very audience to whom it would speak loudest. I don't understand how this happened.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The problem was Margot Robbie:

https://nerdist.com/article/margot-robb … r-journey/

She wanted an R-rated film.  She wanted Birds of Prey.

I remember another article that mentioned Warner wanted changes after the test screenings, but Margot fought them on it.  Ultimately Warner let Margot have her way; but I’m now thinking Warner may have seen some the same problems we see now (such as there being no need for an R rating just to preserve a few curse words).

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Thanks for the link! Margot Robbie's thought process is... puzzling and misguided, to say the least. I'm not sure if Robbie trying to co-opt the BIRDS OF PREY brand was egotistical in the way Tom Cruise (successfully) turned MISSION IMPOSSIBLE from a team-based series with a rotating cast into a star vehicle for him and him alone. Did Robbie want to become synonymous with BIRDS OF PREY in the same way and take the name for herself?

It's possible, but given how BIRDS OF PREY establishes a team called the Birds of Prey and promptly declares that Harley Quinn isn't on it, I get the sense that Robbie misunderstood and misidentified the core elements of the BIRDS OF PREY. She says in her interview that BIRDS OF PREY seemed to be open to featuring any female superhero or anti-hero in the DC Universe and she rejected GOTHAM CITY SIRENS as a title because it was about Harley, Poison Ivy and Catwoman as Gotham-based women with a penchant for seduction. That's fair, but Robbie seems to think that BIRDS OF PREY was a generic brand for any superheroine and that is simply not the case.

While the 2000 BIRDS OF PREY TV show had many, many, many faults, it was ultimately true to the concept: the show featured Barbara Gordon as a wheelchair-bound Oracle of cyberspace guiding her superhero field agents through crimefighting missions. It wasn't a completely faithful adaptation: Barbara's field agent was Huntress instead of Black Canary; the Black Canary character was represented as a teenager (later revealed to be the daughter of a more comics-accurate Black Canary); the Huntress was Bruce Wayne's daughter (which the Huntress was in a parallel universe, but in the prime universe where the BOP comic is set, she wasn't related to Batman).

The show was bound to Gotham whereas the comic was a globetrotting series; the show had Alfred who at most cameoed in the comic -- but it was still about a woman with a disability leading a superhero team from within her base of operations. It was still BIRDS OF PREY.

The BIRDS OF PREY movie is not about a woman with a disability leading a team from her base of operations. In fact, Harley Quinn is never even on the team. I think making a HARLEY QUINN movie and making a BIRDS OF PREY movie were completely at odds; at best, the Birds of Prey are a tangent. It'd be like retitling the SPIDER-MAN HOMECOMING to be called NED LEEDS: THE GUY IN THE CHAIR FOR PARKER or retitling IRON MAN to be called JARVIS: THE STARK DIGITAL ASSISTANT or retitling the JAMES BOND series to be called THE MAN WITH THE WALTHER PISTOL or retitling SLIDERS to be called MOTOROLA. The Birds of Prey are not irrelevant to the HARLEY QUINN movie, but it reflects how Margot Robbie had a truly irrational attachment to the title. This is not a BIRDS OF PREY movie. It's a HARLEY QUINN film with a supporting role for two characters (Huntress and Black Canary) who form a team at the end but well outside Harley's involvement or interest. It's like Robbie was caught between her job to make a HARLEY QUINN film and her desire to make a BIRDS OF PREY movie and tried to do both in one film.

Tom Cruise was scorned and ridiculed for what he did to the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE series, but he got through it because (a) he eventually allowed the team concept to re-establish itself and (b) he was financing the films with his own production company instead of having the studio assume all the cost and risk of his creative obsessions. I don't see that happening with Margot Robbie; she's brilliant, but she's not the only person in the world who has or will play Harley Quinn.

Creatively -- I think it works out fine. The movie is extremely enjoyable and an absolute joy. From a marketing standpoint, however, the title makes no sense whatsoever and suggests an ensemble; it suggests that BIRDS OF PREY is another team film with Harley in a supporting role like she was in SUICIDE SQUAD when it is in fact the Harley Quinn spin-off focused on Harley Quinn. And Margot Robbie seemed to also have an irrational attachment to an R-rating that is totally unnecessary; a version of this HARLEY QUINN film with "damned" instead of "fucking" would still be the same movie and teenaged girls -- the perfect audience for this story -- could have gotten in to see it.

It's a shame because Robbie is an amazing performer and creator and clearly had a meaningful and special vision for producing her film and battling for her ideas -- but she seemed ludicrously insistent on (a) making her HARLEY QUINN movie launch characters who weren't Harley Quinn (b) choosing a title that emphasizes characters who aren't Harley Quinn and (c) acquiring a content rating that would keep Harley Quinn's most devoted fans from seeing the HARLEY QUINN movie.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I would watch MOTOROLA as long as it had John Reed-Davis in it.

940 (edited by ireactions 2020-04-07 14:49:39)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Temporal Flux once expressed some concern that Warner Bros. would cancel THE FLASH on TV in order to prop up the perpetually imploding failure of the FLASH movie, a project that is perpetually unwritten and has seen multiple directors walk away from the project. After today, I am going to hazard a guess that the project is over now that the star of this unmade film has been caught on video choking a woman and throwing her to the ground.

https://screenrant.com/ezra-miller-fan- … explained/

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Informant is probably very happy right now because Zack Snyder's cut of JUSTICE LEAGUE will be released.

https://www.comicsbeat.com/zack-snyders … x-in-2021/

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I honestly don't believe it.  I have to assume that Snyder did most of the heavy lifting for free (even though I still saw they're going to spend 20-30 million on it). 

They obviously couldn't do Snyder's reshoots, but did he film everything?  I'm assuming they can do animation for stuff that was unfilmed or needed to be reshot.

I'll watch it.  But I've watched tons of videos and did a decent amount of research looking for why people care so much, and I haven't seen much that makes me think this version is going to blow anyone away.  Some more backstory, a couple of dropped subplots, and a few teases that will *never* be followed up on.  At least not in live action.

But for all the people who dedicated their lives to this, I'm legit happy for them.  This is a big win for nerddom.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

From everything I’ve read, it was pretty much done except for the editing, CGI and such.  Even the intended score by Junkie XL was already done.  But with 20 or 30 mil being thrown at it, they could probably convince actors like Cavill, Momoa, Miller and Gadot to come back and do something. They can forget getting any help from Affleck, I’m sure.

There should be some interesting things in this cut, though.  I’m curious if my theory about Wonder Woman is correct. It seemed out of place that she lacked confidence to be the leader in the final version; but I suspect that’s a fragment left from Snyder’s intended story.  I believe in Snyder’s opening gambit with Wonder Woman, she failed in stopping the bomb and people died.  That would shake her confidence.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I'll watch it.  But I've watched tons of videos and did a decent amount of research looking for why people care so much, and I haven't seen much that makes me think this version is going to blow anyone away.  Some more backstory, a couple of dropped subplots, and a few teases that will *never* be followed up on.  At least not in live action.

But for all the people who dedicated their lives to this, I'm legit happy for them.  This is a big win for nerddom.

Well, it's a cognitive bias of favouring the hypothetical over the actual, where the JUSTICE LEAGUE that wasn't seen is considered superb and truthful and masterful because there's no evidence to the contrary while the JUSTICE LEAGUE that was seen is deficient and flawed because it can actually be evaluated.

While I enjoyed JUSTICE LEAGUE a lot, it is an objective fact that the general public disliked the movie if they went to see it at all. I have literally never heard anyone other than you, me, Informant and Kevin Smith speak well of the film.

I hope that, for the sake of the Snyder fans, the film will be edited so as to not leave unfinished subplots.

TemporalFlux wrote:

From everything I’ve read, it was pretty much done except for the editing, CGI and such.  Even the intended score by Junkie XL was already done.  But with 20 or 30 mil being thrown at it, they could probably convince actors like Cavill, Momoa, Miller and Gadot to come back and do something. They can forget getting any help from Affleck, I’m sure.

There should be some interesting things in this cut, though.  I’m curious if my theory about Wonder Woman is correct. It seemed out of place that she lacked confidence to be the leader in the final version; but I suspect that’s a fragment left from Snyder’s intended story.  I believe in Snyder’s opening gambit with Wonder Woman, she failed in stopping the bomb and people died.  That would shake her confidence.

I imagine there could be some additional dialogue recording and replacement, but I doubt anybody got back into physical shape and costume to complete this film.

Anyway. I thought MAN OF STEEL was a good Zack Snyder movie that reflected the themes, interests and style of Zack Snyder. If you don't like Zack Snyder (and I'm not really a fan, but I respect his craft), you will not like MAN OF STEEL. I felt that the ULTIMATE VERSION of BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) was a good movie -- lacking in the hope and optimism I'd prefer for superheroes, but just because a project isn't aligned with my tastes doesn't mean it can't be good. I enjoyed JUSTICE LEAGUE as a hybrid of Zack Snyder's brutalism with Joss Whedon's quippy humour, but I respect that for normal people, it did not work at all.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Personally, I really liked Man of Steel except for the ending with Zod and how they handled Pa Kent’s death.  BvS was too dark for DC in my opinion; and Justice League was okay but not great.

It’s one thing that’s amazed me.  Marvel is making the tone of what I would expect from a DC movie; while DC has been making more of what I would expect from Marvel.  Total flip.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

TemporalFlux wrote:

There should be some interesting things in this cut, though.  I’m curious if my theory about Wonder Woman is correct. It seemed out of place that she lacked confidence to be the leader in the final version; but I suspect that’s a fragment left from Snyder’s intended story.  I believe in Snyder’s opening gambit with Wonder Woman, she failed in stopping the bomb and people died.  That would shake her confidence.

Hasn't this been confirmed?  There's an explosion in the trailer, and I thought I saw something about her stopping one bomb but missing the other.

I respect Snyder's vision.  I respect that he wants to create a realistic world where gods walked the earth.  They'd be controversial.  They'd be human.  They'd be fallible.   Superman would be frustrated and would miss a bomb going off.  Wonder Woman would save one group but miss another.  Batman would certainly kill people, either accidentally or on purpose.  If Superman fought another Kryptonian in a major city center, it would cause immense damage.

My only problem with Snyder's movies is that he doesn't give any of those things the proper weight.  Because I don't think he has any emotional tie to any of it.  I think he thinks its cool when two Kryptonians destroy a city, and I don't think he cares about the "people" in the buildings.  I think he thinks its cool when Batman uses Arkham-style violence to break spines, but I don't think he worries about the paralyzed "person" afterwards.  I'm putting "person" and "people" in quotes not because Snyder doesn't care about people, but I'm just not sure he's concerned with extras and faceless people in movies.  They don't have names, we don't see them for the most part so I don't think he cares.  Which I think is fair.

And honestly if he'd made an original property like The Boys, I think it would've been fine.  The problem is that he decided to twist *established* characters and didn't bother explaining anything.  He wanted cool shots and didn't want a scene where Alfred and Bruce talk about why he's changed so much.  He didn't want a scene where Superman actually rescues people.  He likes cool shots where Superman is dragging a tanker or slow-motion flying someone out of a burning building or floating above a flooded house.

I think BvS is *this close* to being a great movie.  I think the 5% that it's missing is 5% of the movie that Snyder didn't care about.  Its why I didn't have a huge uptick from watching the Ultimate version.  Yeah there's 40 minutes more but he didn't use any of those minutes to address what I think are huge problems.  And in my opinion, it's because he doesn't care.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat- … ng-1295102

There are reports that the SNYDER CUT could be a four hour mini series. Will we spend an entire episode detailing Steppenwolf's first war with the Amazons and the Green Lanterns before any Leaguers even appear? Will one installment be devoted to Bruce and Arthur sitting in a bar talking? Will an episode be set entirely in Barry's bunker as Bruce and Barry share a pizza? Will the first fight between Diana, Barry, Cyborg, Bruce and Steppenwolf be expanded to fill a whole hour?

It looks like the SNYDER CUT came about because with filming stalled on every WB project in film and TV, there was the wish to produce some new product when so much of this project was already complete. Effects, editing, dialogue recording and other post production work can be done in isolation; it doesn't require assembling people into groups. The SNYDER CUT will come because, well, it's not like DC properties have anything else going on right now.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

https://www.comicsbeat.com/the-snyder-c … ero-genre/

A lengthy editorial on why Zack Snyder's toxic fans shouldn't be rewarded with a Snyder cut.

My response is -- I don't really care about the happiness or sadness of those people and wouldn't make decisions based on validating or repudiating them. Zack Snyder had a vision and he was asked to make it come to life until he wasn't. His cut is sitting semi-finished on his hard drive during a time when superhero movies and TV shows are not being made and cannot be made, so why not finish it off and put it out there? The ARROWVERSE has been furloughed, theatres can't allow audiences to assemble for WONDER WOMAN and whatnot, so WB might as well do something with the DC property it has nearly finished that wasn't released.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

ireactions wrote:

There are reports that the SNYDER CUT could be a four hour mini series. Will we spend an entire episode detailing Steppenwolf's first war with the Amazons and the Green Lanterns before any Leaguers even appear? Will one installment be devoted to Bruce and Arthur sitting in a bar talking? Will an episode be set entirely in Barry's bunker as Bruce and Barry share a pizza? Will the first fight between Diana, Barry, Cyborg, Bruce and Steppenwolf be expanded to fill a whole hour?

This is actually a really good question.  Movies aren't structured the same way as miniseries/TV shows.  I would think he'd have to structure it in a way where the "episodes" (if that's how it's done) have a beginning, middle and end.  As much as shows like to tout themselves as "10-hour movies" they have to have a certain structure.  Even when Kill Bill was broken into two volumes, each movie had to have a beginning, middle, and an end.

Will the Snyder cut do that?  They could possibly do a Bruce hour, a Diana hour, a Clark hour, and a finale.  With Bruce recruiting Barry and Arthur in the Bruce hour and the Cyborg stuff in the Diana hour.

Other than that, just release it as a 4-hour movie like they did with the Irishman.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

And now people have moved on to Suicide Squad - Release the Ayer cut!

https://bleedingcool.com/movies/dc-lovi … ide-squad/

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

They released a special edition of Suicide Squad.  Other than the Joker stuff (that wasn't on either) and the overall non-trailer tone of the movie, do we know what would've been demonstrably different?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

https://www.ign.com/articles/zack-snyde … n-superman

No reshoots for the Snyder Cut. Just post production and effects work.

I too thought the extended home release of SUICIDE SQUAD was the Ayer cut.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The only thing I can think of is talk at the time that the movie was re-worked to add more comedy after the trailer was so well received (and reportedly that trailer featured the only comedic bits in the movie at that time).  I got the impression back then that Ayer’s version was supposed to be more in line with the Snyder vision, so the film could have had more changes than one might think.

Edit: Just saw this article illuminating a bit more:

https://www.cbr.com/suicide-squad-what- … -ayer-cut/

Looks like there was a bit more with El Diablo too:

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a3259 … avid-ayer/

And on a side note, someone briefly tried to start a “Release the Trank Cut!” of Fantastic Four, and Trank himself responded saying no need.

https://www.slashfilm.com/david-ayer-su … ctors-cut/

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Incredible! I had no idea there was so much intrigue around SUICIDE SQUAD.

David Ayer is hilarious. Someone wrote a thunderingly negative review of one of his films, BRIGHT, and Ayer proceeded to retweet the review, thank the critic for his attention and interest and detailed incisiveness, and put the review on his own fridge. It takes many years to have that good natured warmth towards negative feedback.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I respect Snyder's vision.  I respect that he wants to create a realistic world where gods walked the earth.  They'd be controversial.  They'd be human.  They'd be fallible.   Superman would be frustrated and would miss a bomb going off.  Wonder Woman would save one group but miss another.  Batman would certainly kill people, either accidentally or on purpose.  If Superman fought another Kryptonian in a major city center, it would cause immense damage.

My only problem with Snyder's movies is that he doesn't give any of those things the proper weight.  Because I don't think he has any emotional tie to any of it.  I think he thinks its cool when two Kryptonians destroy a city, and I don't think he cares about the "people" in the buildings.  I think he thinks its cool when Batman uses Arkham-style violence to break spines, but I don't think he worries about the paralyzed "person" afterwards.  I'm putting "person" and "people" in quotes not because Snyder doesn't care about people, but I'm just not sure he's concerned with extras and faceless people in movies.  They don't have names, we don't see them for the most part so I don't think he cares.  Which I think is fair.

With some time and distance, I've come to feel that BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE ULTIMATE EDITION (actual title) was a non-apology apology for the destruction porn of MAN OF STEEL. There was definitely some effort given to showing human consequence as represented by Bruce's seething rage in the Superman/Zod battle. However, the movie never outright declares that Superman failed to turn Zod's battle out of Metropolis.

Zack Snyder is not interested in ordinary people and his attitude led to bizarre scenes in MAN OF STEEL like Lois and Superman kissing and flirting when surrounded by flattened skyscrapers. When Zod and Superman smashed through buildings, the people inside them were mostly computer generated extras. He just wanted the spectacle. BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE ULTIMATE EDITION (actual title) excuses this by having the Doomsday fight happen in an area that's described as nearly empty. While Batman goes to war with Superman over what happened in MAN OF STEEL, he's ultimately convinced to let it go out of sentiment and BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE ULTIMATE EDITION (actual title) declares that Superman's actions in MAN OF STEEL were correct and appropriate.

I think it would have been possible in Batman and Superman's first confrontation to have Batman declare that Superman failed to use his powers to protect civilians and Superman saying he didn't know how at the time, that he'd never been in a fight before, that he was trying to stop someone from obliterating the planet. Maybe a shot where Doomsday and Superman are plummeting towards a residential area and Superman says, "Not again. Not this time" and steers their path elsewhere.

It's interesting that the light, funny, goofy Marvel movies have Tony Stark assuming full responsibility for civilian deaths in the fight against Ultron. He specifically says that "we dropped a building" on people even though he was, in AGE OF ULTRON, actively trying to prevent that. BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE ULTIMATE EDITION (actual title) doesn't ever give Superman any guilt because Zack Snyder ultimately doesn't feel MAN OF STEEL made a mistake and BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE ULTIMATE EDITION (actual title) simply tries to excuse itself from the same criticisms.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

And now word of a Slipknot sequence that was cut from Suicide Squad.  It depicted his original capture leading into him “joining” the team.

https://bleedingcool.com/movies/suicide … ted-scene/

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Apparently Michael Keaton is in talks to return to the Flash movie.  But the more interesting part about it is the idea that Keaton could be signing a multi-film deal.

The Flash movie is supposed to be Flashpoint.  If they're looking to swap out Batman, they have a built-in way to swap out Batman with Jeffrey Dean Morgan.  Maybe it isn't Flashpoint and the movie takes him to the Batman 89 universe, and they bring Batman back with him?

I'm very interested in catching up with the Keaton Batman.  But this seems like a really weird option.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I'd be happy for Michael Keaton to read the phone book in a movie. To play Batman again? He's not my favourite, but if it makes people happy and makes the DC movies good, then I say go for it. Personally, I'd rather they just keep going with Robert Pattinson and have Pattinson appear in a FLASH movie.

But I'm currently operating on the view that THE FLASH will never, ever, ever be made. That if they were going to make it, they would have by now. That Ezra Miller is just done and even if Ezra Miller isn't done, I am done with him.

I seriously doubt that Ezra Miller is going to play the Flash ever again. But if I am wrong, I will write you another SLIDERS REBORN script where Rembrandt confronts Colonel Rickman and the sliders do what they should have done in the first place.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I tend to agree.  I think Flash has a better chance that Cyborg, and I think the only reason for that is that a Flashpoint movie does make a "soft reboot" easier.

But if I were writing it, I'd use "flashpoint" as a way to recast Ezra too.  So I'd make Flashpoint the plot of Aquaman 2.  Just create some sort of time travel mechanic in Atlantis.  He messes with it and suddenly he's in a war with the Amazons.  And now Batman is either Jeffrey Dean Morgan or Michael Keaton, and the Flash is (insert actor we all still like).

I think Jason Mamoa would be great for the comedy and action, and I think it works for Aquaman as much as it does for Flash (as long as you get the right mcguffin)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

AQUAMAN didn't take place in the same universe as JUSTICE LEAGUE. JUSTICE LEAGUE had Arthur saying his mother abandoned him as an infant on his father's doorstep. AQUAMAN has Arthur saying his mother raised him for several years but was then attacked and presumed dead. Warner Bros. is taking the view that each film has its own continuity even if they use some of the same actors. Or director James Wan simply decided to ignore JUSTICE LEAGUE, but the effect is the same.

Ezra Miller talked about how THE FLASH movie was not just about the DC Extended Universe, but about how the Flash exists in a multiverse. I think the simplest solution: do a FLASH movie with a new actor, have him get a glimpse of the multiverse where a clip of Ezra Miller, John Wesley Shipp and Grant Gustin pass by and have someone narrate that reality takes on different forms. No further explanation is really needed; the DC Extended Universe has become a mix and match playset called the Worlds of DC rather than a clearly defined continuity.

If they want to keep Billy Crudup as Henry Allen but feature Michael Keaton as the mentor to a Barry played by Ben Wishaw or Jaleel White or Matt Smith or Jaden Smith or Corey Fogelmanis or Deron Horton or Ben Schwartz or Donald Glover, they can do that. Commissioner Gordon has gone from being JK Simmons to Jeffrey Wright.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Now talk of the Schumacher Cut of Batman Forever:

https://bleedingcool.com/movies/batman- … acher-cut/

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I've seen the Schumacher cut of BATMAN FOREVER in the theatre of the mind -- which is to say I've read the adult and junior novelizations which adapted the original script and not the final cut that went to theatres. The original cut is definitely an improvement in specific and isolated areas: there's a more psychological arc for Bruce Wayne with an amnesia arc where he loses all memory of Batman, remembering only his Bruce Wayne identity, and has to decide whether or not he wants to be Batman again.

There's a peculiar and poorly-conceived (but beautifully dialogued) resolution where Bruce is haunted by guilt, feeling that as a child, he pleaded for his parents to take him to a movie and if he hadn't, they wouldn't have been robbed and murdered -- and the resolution is Bruce finding his father's journal and realizing that his parents didn't take him to the movie, that he has remembered it wrong, and that his parents' death wasn't his fault (but it wouldn't have been his fault regardless!) -- and he puts the Batsuit on again.

There are darker scenes throughout the film, but they exist within the day-glo, Vegas-style look of BATMAN FOREVER surrounding it, so the overall tone of the film wouldn't have changed. It wouldn't have been a better film, just a longer one and a more complete one. It wouldn't have been less silly; it would have just had the same silliness spaced out and diluted with darker scenes.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Batman Forever gets a pass with many fans, but I was never fond of it.  Schumacher (RIP) reversed what Burton did and went way too campy.  Shame that Burton's "Continues" was derailed by McDonald's of all things.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I liked FOREVER when I was a kid. I can't imagine what I'd think of it today. I found the first two Burton movies joyless and depressing and Batman was barely in them. Call me crazy, but I think the title character should actually be the star.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I probably saw Forever twenty times at the theater; but I had free passes to any movie because of my brother’s radio job; I was in high school; and I was apparently bored.   I do remember laughing every time I walked out of a showing, though.

Fun footnote - one of the ushers at that theater was a guy a few years under me in high school - Clay Chamberlin.  For the past 15 years or so, he’s been doing a lot of stand-in work on films. It started with several turns for Ryan Reynolds; but lately he’s been doing it a lot for Chris Pratt.  Clay pops up on screen occasionally too - such as the training video at the end of the Ryan Reynolds film “Waiting”:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Zej_1n_uN0

I still remember the time Clay had to escort my group out of the theater because my brother got in a shouting match with a co-worker during a showing of the first X-men movie.  Good times.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Ha ha ha!  Laughing.  Oh, and I loved Waiting and that usher guy was incredibly annoying in that video, too.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I remember liking Batman Forever too.  It wasn't as campy as Batman and Robin or as dark and depressing as Batman Returns.  I probably think Forever is just as good as Batman 89 just in a different way.  I never liked Returns - it's just too dark and weird for me.

I think if Schumacher had dialed back the neon, I think it would've felt right as a sequel to Returns.  But I also think the neon makes sense in a lot of ways.  After the insanity of the Burton movies, I think the city would've gone neon to try and brighten itself after the dark insanity of the beginning of Batman's era.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I remember enjoying BATMAN FOREVER: Val Kilmer was convincing as a troubled and capable warrior. Chris O'Donnell was a bit too old to play Robin but very enjoyable. The costumes were cool and I craved all the action figures of Batman in the sonar suit and Robin in his garb. The Riddler was disturbing. Two Face didn't really stand out to me. Kilmer and Nicole Kidman had amazing chemistry. The action was exciting although a bit random at times with Batman randomly driving around and then being attacked in a coordinated assault (because the scenes had been moved around). I remember liking the novelization from Peter David a lot.

There's a lot of silliness in FOREVER that's at odds with the psychological tone of the film. Two Face is just a clownish presence. The henchmen are irksome. The competing clowning between Two Face and the Riddler is annoying. But the silliness seems quite isolated unlike BATMAN AND ROBIN where it went crazy with Batman attending charity balls.

I didn't consider the film to be in continuity with the Burton movies as Bruce says in this film that he's never been in love when he was clearly in love with Vicky Vale in BATMAN and certainly infatuated with Catwoman in BATMAN RETURNS.

It wasn't a great exploration of Batman, but it had all the charm and fun of creators playing with their Batman action figures and there was care and thought put into the story such as hiring puzzle creator and crossword designer Will Shortz to write all of the Riddler's riddles. It's a good effort and a fun time. It isn't THE Batman movie for me, but compared to the unpleasant BATMAN, the bleak BATMAN RETURNS, the obnoxious BATMAN AND ROBIN and that racist BATMAN TV serial, BATMAN FOREVER hits the dizzying heights of good enough.

**

Matt Reeves' THE BATMAN will apparently have a TV show called GOTHAM CENTRAL. No word on whether Robert Pattinson (Batman) and Jeffrey Wright (Commissioner Gordon) will appear. But -- it'd make sense if they didn't. How often would any police officer be in the same room as the city's police commissioner? How often would any cop encounter Batman in person?

If Batman were to appear, from the point of view of the police, wouldn't Batman be a distant or shadowy figure glimpsed only in silhouette? And to communicate with any GOTHAM CENTRAL characters through notes? It makes more sense for Batman to (not) appear in this fashion, played by a barely on-camera stuntman, than it did for, say, Dick Grayson's flashbacks to his childhood in TITANS where Bruce lives in the same house as Dick but inexplicably chooses to talk to him through handwritten letters.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Affleck will return (!) and co-star with Michael Keaton in THE FLASH movie (!).

https://www.cbr.com/ben-affleck-return- … ash-movie/

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

It's crazy, but I think it's necessary.  The film shouldn't rely on a cheap trick (some sort of newspaper clipping of Bruce Wayne or something) to pull off the Flashpoint-level shock that Batman has changed (in the comics, that it's Thomas and not Bruce, here that it's Michael Keaton and not Ben Affleck).  So it could be a simple scene shot with Affleck out of costume and filmed at his easiest convenience to establish that Affleck is Wayne before transitioning to Keaton as Wayne.  Think of it as the Tom Welling approach.

I guess the biggest question is...who will be playing the Flash?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I'm starting to wonder if WB is going to stick with Ezra Miller and just refuse to address his on camera assault. He hasn't addressed the video. He is going to be at an online DC convention to promote THE FLASH film. I'm still doubtful this film will ever be made.

I'm starting to wonder if we should find some new adjective for "crazy" when describing a story idea that seems outside the bounds of the established conventions of a specific format or genre. Crazy is when someone's actions are in contradiction to their goals -- such as starting a new shared universe with Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and the Flash only to somehow alienate the actor playing Batman and fail to maintain a contract with the actor playing Superman while hiring a violent loon to play the Flash.

But we've been seeing so much joyfully 'crazy' stuff in recent years -- accepting all DC comic book adaptations as part of a TV and film multiverse and having Ezra Miller meet Grant Gustin; having Tom Welling and Brandon Routh and Tyler Hoechlin play Superman in the same story; and now, having Ben Affleck and Michael Keaton play Batman in a movie for... THE FLASH. All this makes our 'crazy' magnum opus where we had the sliders fight all the Season 3 monsters attacking San Francisco seem rather mundane by comparison.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Snyder cut trailer: https://youtu.be/z6512XKKNkU

I'm not a huge fan of Zack Snyder, but I think that when a studio hires Zack Snyder, they should expect a Zack Snyder movie instead of a Joss Whedon movie and as much as I enjoyed JUSTICE LEAGUE (and I enoyed it a lot) -- WB, Geoff Johns, Diane Nelson and Jon Berg should have just let Snyder make the movie he was hired to make and let his team complete it instead of bringing in Whedon to change it. Would a Snyder film have been more successful? It would have at least had the benefit of standing or falling on its on merits.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

THE BATMAN trailer: https://youtu.be/NLOp_6uPccQ

Goth rock version of Batman.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Quick thoughts from this stupid DC Fan day or whatever.....

Synder Cut JL - This is like when you play the same video game over, make different choices, and get new cutscenes, right?

The Batman - As I often bickered with Info over, just too dark, sadistic, graphic, violent, etc. for me.  I truly don't understand the need for these films.  Leave the gore for horror and violence for war movies. 

Wonder Woman 84 - Glad to see it's still got humor in it.  The film though will rise/fall based on the villainous performance of Kristin Wiig, and that is probably too tall an order.  She's just not "menacing."

Suicide Squad Roll Call - What was the point, had no footage?

And so have to be honest, at least WW84 looks like fun, and The Suicide Squad is a combat adventure.  The other two, blehhhhh, I mean, they're joyless.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

While I'm not a fan of Zack Snyder making a horror movie version of the JLA, he might as well be permitted to finish it.

There are so many versions of BATMAN that Matt Reeves should do whatever he wants. If it's bad, it won't matter and won't define the character in perpetuity.

I'm sure that both, whatever our enjoyment levels may be, will turn out as professional, presentable products.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Snyder’s movie should have been allowed to rise or fall for what it was.  As it is, Geoff Johns damaged himself trying to fix it.  Why get down in the mud like that?  All Geoff did was make himself look guilty for the failure when he could have stood back, watched it burn, and then stepped in after to rebuild it.  It was just a really dumb move on Geoff’s part; but maybe that’s a signal that he couldn’t have done any better than Snyder at developing DC movies.  Green Lantern with Ryan Reynolds was a signal too.

Geoff is a really talented writer; I’ve been a big fan since he started.  But now he’s pretty much pushed out in the comics scene.  Maybe he’ll get to come back with the recent changes; who knows.  And they do at least still let Geoff have involvement in the CW shows.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

ireactions wrote:

Snyder cut trailer: https://youtu.be/z6512XKKNkU

I'm not a huge fan of Zack Snyder, but I think that when a studio hires Zack Snyder, they should expect a Zack Snyder movie instead of a Joss Whedon movie and as much as I enjoyed JUSTICE LEAGUE (and I enoyed it a lot) -- WB, Geoff Johns, Diane Nelson and Jon Berg should have just let Snyder make the movie he was hired to make and let his team complete it instead of bringing in Whedon to change it. Would a Snyder film have been more successful? It would have at least had the benefit of standing or falling on its on merits.

So.....I don't get it. 

I understand why everything happened the way that it did.  WB was all in with Zack Snyder because they spent the early 2000s wasting most of their IP.  They had the Dark Knight the same year the MCU started.  They had the better movie, and the better cast of characters, but they were so late to the party that they had to try and catch up.  So they give Snyder full reign to get the universe kickstarted.  And because there was no one there with a love for the characters, Snyder's pitch of "EVERYONE IS BATMAN" worked because Batman was successful both critically and financially.  And because they were so rushed to compete with Marvel, they didn't have time to see if BvS worked.  It got a standing ovation internally and that was good enough.

But then like they did with everything before and after, they panicked.  And instead of letting Snyder do his thing, they literally got the Avengers guy to put a cheap Halloween costume on Zack Snyder's movie.

And now there's a pandemic and HBO Max needs content and they can give him a few million bucks to finish his movie.  A hundred things had to go this exact way for us to get here....


....but here's the thing.  I cannot get excited about this movie.  Because we saw it.  Sure, there were some dumb things that were obviously added by Whedon, but Whedon also gave us the first likable version of Superman.  I think there are fun character beats that I think were Whedon.  And I think the biggest thing is...Whedon was given a broken movie.  I don't think Whedon would've made the Justice League that his name is attached to.  It's completely unfair to refer to the theatrical version as Whedon's.  One is Whedon/Snyder and one is Snyder.  Snyder had a hand in both.

We aren't getting a totally new film.  It's the Ultimate Edition of BvS again.  Sure, it cleaned some stuff up, but the Ultimate Edition didn't solve my biggest problems with BvS.  And the Snyder Cut isn't going to solve my biggest problems with Justice League.  I mean, heck, Snyder essentially outlined his version for the Justice League trilogy and it sounded terrible.

I admire Zack Snyder because I think his vision is uncompromised.  And I'm glad that he's getting to finish his version of the movie because I'm sure he feels like he's going to finally heal from what was a very horrible and traumatic time in his life.  But BvS was Snyder's vision.  Snyder likes cool visuals and fun action sequences, but he doesn't have any interest in real character.  And that's why all his characters are essentially the same.  They're all Batman.  But not even the real Batman - a stylized version of Batman that only vaguely corresponds to the comic version.

I watched the trailer and it's just a new coat of paint on a movie we've already seen.  So I watched it and haven't thought about it since.

978 (edited by ireactions 2020-08-24 11:27:48)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I'm not that keen on THE SNYDER CUT personally -- but it's important to remember that Snyder's approach has an audience and is very popular. It just wasn't popular to the point of earning the one billion in box office that WB hoped for. But a lot of people watched and enjoyed MAN OF STEEL and BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) and a lot of people wanted THE SNYDER CUT. The majority of the people who watched JUSTICE LEAGUE were not happy with it. The only people I know to enjoy JUSTICE LEAGUE are you, me, Informant and Kevin Smith. I've personally never met or talked to anyone else who had any fondness for it.

Snyder, to me, is like Bryan Singer: Singer came aboard the X-MEN film for 2000 and he didn't like the X-Men. He found the costumes, codenames, backstories and the superhero universe to be ridiculous.

A lot of the X-MEN movie is making an effort to be serious, to take these absurd concepts and place them in a world that resembles our own except for the one fantasy element -- mutants -- spurring all other fantasy elements. And redressing them in a genre that Singer actually did like. So you have the school for mutants and technology and surroundings that, if they aren't like our world, exist due to mutants -- but everything else is close if not identical to our reality and with the look of a high tech military espionage thriller rather than the superhero genre.

Snyder's genre is horror. And with MAN OF STEEL and BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title), he made a superhero film both times that used the style of a horror film, redressing superheroes in that style. Whether that worked or not is purely subjective, but JUSTICE LEAGUE suffers from Snyder's horror aesthetic having been ripped out of the film, replaced with Batman and Superman cracking jokes and pretty much every surviving frame of Snyder's film having been recoloured and brightened. The way in which a story is told is just as important as the content itself and for people who liked MAN OF STEEL and BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title), the SNYDER CUT version of JUSTICE LEAGUE will offer a satisfactory conclusion.

I've personally never met or spoken to any of those people outside of Informant, but they exist in sizable numbers and enough of them will subscribe to HBO Max.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

One thing we haven't gotten into -- there were recently MASSIVE layoffs across all of Warner Bros. and the DC Comics division took huge hits. At last 12 senior editors were laid off and their office staffers were shuttered, leading to about one-third of DC Comics being let go as part of the 800 WB dismissals. Of course, CEO compensation remains at an all time high in WB. A small fraction of CEO salaries could have easily covered most of the costs of the lower level staffers being cast aside.

Looking at DC Comics and comic book publishing, however -- comic books aren't working economically and have not been working for a long time. As Temporal Flux has pointed out, you could buy 2 - 3 chocolate bars for the cost of one DC comic, buy a video game for the cost of 10 issues and you could get 15 - 30 hours out of the average video game but finish all 10 comic books inside 45 minutes. Comic books are overpriced, offer poor value for the content, and the industry has refused to change its format and business model because it is being kept afloat by comic stores that have a dwindling number of readers come in every Wednesday to buy the latest issues.

Marvel has survived because publishing isn't required to be particularly profitable and notorious cheapskate Ike Perlmutter ran Marvel Comics like a startup on the grounds that it was the Marvel movies and television shows and video games and merchandise that earned money. The comics were treated as research and development. DC Comics, in contrast, has never had that kind of protection or minimalism, and it was likely viewed as a publishing arm that generated a lot of product with a lot of labour for very, very, very little reward. With Marvel, the comics division was for a long time also working on TV and film. There was a separation around Season 3 of AGENTS OF SHIELD where TV and comics were under Perlmutter and film was under Kevin Feige. Last year, however, Feige was promoted to handle the TV and comic book branches as well.

In contrast, DC Comics has very little influence over DC properties in film, television and merchandising. While individual DC creators are hired to specific DC properties (comic book writer Geoff Johns runs STARGIRL and consults on CW shows), the DC branch was not considered to be part of the TV and film teams. With a third of DC Comics gone, the output of the comics will likely be cut as well. There could come a point when WB no longer sees the value in publishing DC characters in monthly comics that few people read and they'll exist in TV, film, video games, audio dramas and commercials -- but not comic books.

But it doesn't have to be that way, of course. If comics can be made affordable and accessible, it can work, but the industry is currently locked into monthly 20 page pamphlets sold by specialty stores. I stopped reading comic books regularly around Season 2 of SUPERGIRL, realizing that I wasn't a fan of comics as much as superheroes and everything I wanted from superheroes was now on Netflix, especially when the SUPERGIRL comic book was an unfathomable mess while the SUPERGIRL TV series was a delight.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

So I finally saw Birds of Prey.  I think the movie itself was fine, but I just kept thinking that it was incomplete.  I think the tone and the aesthetic are good.  I think if all the DC films were like this, it would've accomplished what Snyder seems to have wanted to do.  It feels like a world where Shazam and Superman and the Flash can exist with street level heroes.

The problem is that it's another movie set in Gotham where they don't really do anything with it.  They mention Joker but the entire movie takes place in Gotham's underbelly.  Where's Penguin and Riddler and Two-Face?  And not even just not shown - there's no clue of any of them existing.  Batman is briefly referenced but where is he?  And outside of the one in-joke to Boomerang, where is the reference to Suicide Squad?  Where's Waller?  Where's Flagg?  Is Harley wanted by any of them?

I mean, heck, where's Katana?  She's a badass female hero.  Why not throw her on the team?  She wasn't used in the last movie - flesh her out here?

I know it's a spinoff and Iron Man doesn't drop in to say hi in Ant-Man.  But this is a huge DC universe - why not go all out?  If you can't get Affleck or Leto, that's fine.  Get someone else.  Bring in Barbara Gordon or Jason Todd or Tim Drake.  Tease another movie.  Hint at the bigger established Gotham.  A ton of people were after Harley but they were all nobodies. 

I get it - DC is doing standalone films now with a light connection to everything else.  But at least use something from the movie Harley debuted in.  If you want it to be Girl Powered, Katana and Waller and Ivy and Batgirl are all women that would fit naturally into this story.  Instead you have a movie that barely features the Birds of Prey themselves in a plot about the Gotham underworld with just one comic book character.  It just felt like a missed opportunity.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

And to catch up from 8 months ago....on the title.

I don't understand the titling either.  Birds of Prey is a cool title, and I think there's a version of this movie that works both as a Harley movie and a jumping off point for a Birds of Prey franchise.  But since this movie has no idea what it wants to be, I blame it all on a lack of focus.

I think they could've easily taken some notes from the Harley cartoon.  I think it would be interesting if Harley, after Suicide Squad, tries to go back to being a straight up villain.  She finds herself in a situation where her plan is working.  She and Joker have Batman incapacitated (so no need for Affleck, a body double would do) and they're about to release Joker gas across the whole city.  When she realizes....why is she doing this?  She doesn't *really* want to hurt people.  She is months away from saving the world from Enchantress...she liked being the good guy.  So she rewires the device, rescues Batman, and blows up the Joker's hideout instead of releasing the gas.  Is Joker dead?  Maybe - the movie won't say.  Where's Batman the rest of the movie - recuperating.

So with no Batman, Harley decides to try and recreate the team she had with the Suicide Squad.  But instead of people like them, she tries to find people like her.  A lounge singer who's in too deep with a mobster.  A vigilante out for revenge.  A pickpocket.  A cop who doesn't get the respect she deserves.  And a woman she and her ex really hurt.  No one trusts her, but she's able to prove to them that she's trying to be good.  She wants to be heroic.  And gets them to fight as a team.  And at the end of the movie, Harley realizes that she's not the right person to lead this team - Barbara is.  She shouldn't even be on the team - she's not a hero and she's not a villain.  She's her own thing.  Maybe she even turns herself in so that she can be back on THE Suicide Squad.

And so you have a Harley vehicle that has a clear connection to the rest of the universe (direct connections to both the first and forthcoming Suicide Squad movies, a Batman tie in that explains his absence, etc) while also sending the characters in a new direction.  Now there's a Birds of Prey team ready to protect Gotham.  Now Harley has grown as a character.  There's a vision from point A to point B and point B to point C and D.

But I wouldn't have called that Birds of Prey either.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I feel like Margot Robbie's insistence on an R-rating and the title BIRDS OF PREY really harmed the success of the film. I like Slider_Quinn21's vision of a more DC Extended Universe oriented Harley Quinn movie. But I like the BIRDS OF PREY movie exactly like it is except that it has the wrong name and it has a few expletives that, if cut, would have allowed teen girls to watch it in theatres. I didn't even realize this was a Harley Quinn movie because of the title until my cineplex changed the marquee and online ticket listings to read HARLEY QUINN AND THE BIRDS OF PREY. Teenaged girls who would love to imagine themselves as Harley Quinn or in Harley Quinn's girl gang could not see this movie. It hid itself from the audience to whom it would have meant the most and even if they could find it, they wouldn't be allowed to see it.

With BIRDS OF PREY, Margot Robbie insisted on keeping a title and a rating that were ultimately irrelevant to her content, simply because she had a vision of Harley Quinn in an R-rated movie called BIRDS OF PREY. And it was pointless and self-destructive and I just do not understand this person at all and neither could the movie theatres which changed the name of the movie in their listings.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I too finally got around to watching Suicide Squad and Birds of Prey.  I thought both were pretty good.  They had a clear formula, well acted and with good effects.  Light years better than the Justice League trash and frankly I'd put Aquaman in there too.  My only complaint was they were too violent, but I actually expected them to be far more so.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

ireactions wrote:

But I like the BIRDS OF PREY movie exactly like it is except that it has the wrong name and it has a few expletives that, if cut, would have allowed teen girls to watch it in theatres.

I would also add that, if it were me, I'd have moved the movie out of Gotham.  Again, this is a movie within the underground of Gotham and featuring the Gotham PD where there are no A-list Batman villains nor any real mention of Batman himself.

If this was all happening anywhere else, then there's no narrative issue.  You can even have a plot where Sionis has moved out of Gotham because it got too weird and moved to a place that was more-easily conquered.  The one plot change you'd have to make is the whole "everyone in town wants to kill Harley" but you could either have that at the beginning of the movie before she moves or give any other reason why Harley is hated (my thought - Harley goes "home" after the breakup and the town hates her because their claim to fame is being home to Harley Quinn).

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

In 2016, Batman in the pages of JUSTICE LEAGUE (written by Geoff Johns) encountered a New Gods machine, the Mobius Chair. It contained all knowledge in all existence. To test it, Batman asked the Chair a question that no one could possibly answer: "What is the Joker's real name?"

The Chair's reply haunted Batman. "No!" he exclaimed. "That's not possible!" Months later, in the pages of DC REBIRTH,  he confided Hal Jordan. "'There are three,'" Bruce told him. He didn't know what the Chair meant by that. And four years later, Geoff Johns released BATMAN: THREE JOKERS in which Batman, the Red Hood (Jason Todd) and Batgirl (Barbara Gordon) team up to finally track down the truth.

I just finished reading all three issues and... it really says something quite beautiful about what Batman is and it truly speaks to the heart of what this character is all about and what superheroes should be for us all.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

THREE JOKERS isn't getting very good reviews. People find it conventional, predictable and weak. I think it's really good; I think it understands Batman in the way that Zack Snyder so fundamentally does not, in the way that Frank Miller completely fails to grasp. And I think it uses its three 48-page issues beautifully. Spoilers follow...











Geoff Johns has had some setbacks in recent years. His progress from 90s Warner Bros. intern to DC Comics freelancer to DC Entertainment President hit the brick wall that was the failure of JUSTICE LEAGUE. Now Johns is a freelancer again, running individual DC projects like STARGIRL and writing WONDER WOMAN 1984 and consulting on some shows but no longer leading the DC characters. He wrote DOOMSDAY CLOCK in which Superman confronted WATCHMEN's Dr. Manhattan who had turned the DC Universe from optimistic and hopeful to being darker than a Zack Snyder movie -- a story in which Superman redeemed Dr. Manhattan and saved both their worlds.

Standing Apart
DOOMSDAY CLOCK was originally the big event for 2017, but as Johns' falling star had it standing alone without any tie-ins and without particularly influencing the other DC monthlies until after it was done. Now Johns releases BATMAN: THREE JOKERS, another DC Comics publication that is outside the main line of comics and a special prestige product. A standout project, but one that stands apart DC rather than one that is leading it.

Inside Baseball
Like every Johns comic, THREE JOKERS has a strong and meaningful grasp of the heart of DC superheroes. Also like most Johns comics, you need to have some familiarity with other comics written by other people to appreciate it. In this case, BATMAN: THREE JOKERS draws on THE KILLING JOKE (in which the Joker shot and crippled Barbara Gordon and ended her career as Batgirl). THE KILLING JOKE also posited that the Joker was a failed standup comedian who went mad after his pregnant wife died in a home accident. The story also draws on A DEATH IN THE FAMILY (in which the Joker smashed the skull of the Jason Todd incarnation of Robin with a crowbar, then blew him up and left Batman to find the boy's corpse). And UNDER THE RED HOOD in which Batman discovers that due to an alternate universe Superboy pounding on the walls of reality, time was altered to resurrect Jason inside his coffin. And that Jason has now returned to Gotham City to finish Batman's war on crime with lethal force. And on the FLASHPOINT/NEW 52 cosmic event in which Jason's resurrection was altered to Talia Al Ghul wanting to help Bruce Wayne (whom she loves) by resurrecting Jason in a Lazarus Pit only for Jason's brain damage to leave him feral and unstable for years. And the NEW 52 BATGIRL where Barbara regains her mobility and resumes her role as Batgirl. And DEATH OF THE FAMILY in which Batman and Jason (now the Red Hood) come to an uneasy truce where Jason agrees to stop actively assassinating villains unless in the heat of combat. And BATMAN: ETERNAL where Batgirl and Jason develop a flirtation that leads to Batgirl almost kissing him until Jason stops her, saying he knows she just misses Dick Grayson and won't take advantage of her. And that JUSTICE LEAGUE storyline where Batman asked a New Gods computer: "What's the Joker's real name?" and the computer replied: "There are three."

True Identity
With THREE JOKERS, Batman, Batgirl and the Red Hood begin investigating how the Joker staged three violent murders that took place at exactly the same time. They soon find themselves confronting three Jokers: the Criminal, a master planner who is the original version of the Joker. Then there's the Clown, the Joker who is focused on sight gags and pranks, the version from the 60s. And then there's the Comedian, the version of the Joker who has become a grotesque serial killer, further obscuring the mystery that the Bat-Family now wants answered: who is the Joker? Where did he come from? What's his real name?

The Joker Army
And worse -- Batman, Batgirl and the Red Hood discover that all of the Joker's victims have been dosed with the same toxin that first drove the Joker insane and then mutilated to mimic the Joker's hair and frozen smile; the three Jokers are attempting to create new Jokers with one prime candidate being Jason Todd himself. And this is not the first time: it's revealed that the Joker, since the beginning, has periodically sought to duplicate himself by exposing some mentally deranged criminal to his toxin. He has succeeded on two occasions: this is why the Joker has had so many shifts in appearance, demeanor and personality over the years, and at this point, none of the three Jokers can even remember which of them (if any) are the original.

The First Candidate
The Jokers torment the Red Hood by reminding Jason of something that has never been revealed: that when the Joker was beating Jason's head in with a crowbar, Jason begged for his life and even pleaded for the Joker to let him become his henchman and betray Batman if he'd be spared. Jason loses control and shoots one of the Jokers through the head and kills him. Batgirl is horrified and even more aghast when Batman says he intends to allow Jason to get away with murder; he has been all along -- because imprisoning Jason would only ever expose the Bat Family in court. The Jokers express glee at having created the Red Hood who might as well be working for the Joker with all the agony he causes Batman.

The Favourite
The Jokers remind Batman that even if he stops one of them, they'll constantly create more of themselves and then reveal they have ultimately chosen someone to be a new Joker -- Joe Chill, the man who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents who has been dying of cancer in prison until the Jokers broke him out. The Jokers are irritated that Batman's greatest torment is not the Joker or any member of his rogues gallery but instead a convicted criminal who has only ever commited one crime of notoriety. Their plan: they'll expose Joe Chill to the Joker toxin that will restore his health and give him the Joker-madness matched with his status as the cause of Batman's greatest trauma. The Joker will always create chaos; even in death, he'll simply have a successor.

Remorse
The Jokers interview a captive Joe Chill and records it, torturing Chill into confessing why he killed Thomas and Martha Wayne. Chill says he saw the Waynes walking down the alley, wealthy and happy, and he blamed them, feeling that their money and joy could only have come by making someone else poor and miserable. He whipped out a gun and fired, only seeing the boy he'd orphaned after he'd gunned down the parents. In jail, he learned that his victims had been generous philanthropists who'd done more to alleviate poverty than anyone in Gotham and Chill became ashamed. He wrote Bruce Wayne letter upon letter of apology but could never send them, and he grovelled before God for forgiveness only to learn he was terminally ill, a fate he decided he deserved. The Joker taunts Batman, saying Joe Chill will be a Joker who is everything Batman fears, embodying both madness and trauma that will override any order Batman tries to build or offer while condemning the source of Batman's grief to eternal insanity.

Forgiveness
But Batman saves Joe Chill being dropped into a vat of Joker toxin. A terrified Chill thanks Batman for saving him, and Batman accepts the gratitude of his parents' killer. One of the Jokers tries to blow them up, but is shot through the head by the now last surviving Joker -- the Comedian serial killer. This last Joker reveals: he knew it would turn out this way. He let the Criminal and the Clown run their plan and fail, knowing it would end with Batman forgiving the man who killed his parents, healed of his trauma -- and now the Joker will be Batman's greatest terror instead of a sick old man in jail. Chaos to Batman's order.

The Secret
Bruce puts the last Joker in Arkham Asylum and then tends to Joe Chill. He reads all of Chill's letters of apology and accepts them and holds Chill's hand as he dies of cancer and buries him peacefully. Alfred and Bruce begin cleaning up the Three Jokers files in the Batcave and Alfred wonders if they will ever know who the Joker really is.

Bruce Wayne:
Not to sound like people think I do, Alfred, but I'm Batman.

I knew the Joker's name one week after we first met.

Bruce tells Alfred: the Joker, before his transformation, had a pregnant wife. A woman he abused horribly. A woman who feared him. She faked her death and went into hiding with her son. She now lives far from Gotham City with her boy. Ever since Batman first encountered the Joker, Bruce has been hiding the Joker's true identity, obscuring the trail from the clown to his wife and child.

Bruce regularly checks in on the mother and boy to ensure that they are provided for and protected. Bruce has known the Joker's secret all along and kept it safe because ultimately, Batman is not a creature of order or rule or law. Batman is a character who can find it in himself to forgive his parents' murderer, a warrior who ensures that his greatest villain's true identity will always be hidden, a hero who uses his power to spare others from suffering and bring them to redemption and peace. To Geoff Johns, Batman is a superhero defined by his mercy.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

So, I guess there could be a hypothetical Ayer cut of SUICIDE SQUAD that is very different from the extended version already on DVD.

https://www.cbr.com/suicide-squad-bvs-d … avid-ayer/

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

JUSTICE LEAGUE in the Snyder Cut edition will apparently have a whopping, massive amount of newly filmed footage not produced during the original shoot. There will be extensive new material shot with the actors this past year. There will be four whole minutes. :-)

Snyder's interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsY_bdXTmJ8

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I just can't get myself excited about this.  I didn't even hate Justice League, but I've seen it.  And while not scientific at all, I've read all there there is from research on what was cut, and it doesn't seem all that different.

I'll definitely watch it, and I think it could be better.  But I wish Snyder had done a new project entirely in animation.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I'm distantly interested in JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE SNYDER CUT. I love watching different versions of the same story and seeing how the editing can present different things differently. I'm happy that the DCEU will get a four hour finale. I'm pleased that someone I care about will get something that he wanted badly and that is harmless in its existence. I'm moderately intrigued by Zack Snyder's horror-driven version of superheroes and would like to see it concluded. And I'm glad that he's getting to do it.

I'm more invested in STARGIRL and THE FLASH and LEGENDS and SUPERGIRL, of course. And I need to get into BLACK LIGHTNING. I'm not really a very big fan of horror. Despite all I've written about THE X-FILES, I don't really like it; I just learn from it. And that's how I feel about Zack Snyder movies. I'm sure there's an audience for it.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

WW84 dropping for free to subscribers on HBOmax December 25

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/18/215 … dune-tenet

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Conversation with the niece!

ME: "You'll recall that after that time with that thing and the dogs, you agreed that you would watch JUSTICE LEAGUE with me and comment on it while we ate a pizza."

LAUREN: "Yeah. You just never called it in. And now you can't because we're socially distancing! Ha! Although I guess someday you could when we're not."

ME: "Are you aware that JUSTICE LEAGUE will now be four hours long? And with the theatrical cut, you'll likely have to watch this movie for six hours while providing commentary for the entire time while eating a pizza."

LAUREN: "Oh God."

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I watched WW84.  Non-spoiler review: I really liked so much of it.  I thought the performances were fun.  I thought the story was compelling.  I loved how they seemed to have fun with the 1984 setting, and the romance stuff was good. 

But while I liked all the pieces, the overall movie just sorta didn't work for me.  I was excited to come back and watch (I watched it in three sittings), but when it was over, I felt disappointed.  I thought they spent a lot of good time making everything worked, and I felt like the ending was completely rushed and unsatisfying.  And while I liked Pedro Pascal, I didn't buy Max Lord as a character for about 2/3 of the movie.  I also think the dynamic with the dreamstone didn't quite work.

Patty Jenkins is a good filmmaker and I think a lot of it worked.  But something about it bothered me enough to not really love the film as a whole.

Anyone else see it?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I'm seeing it tonight. Admittedly, I've said that two nights in a row and gotten sidetracked by other things. Haha!

DC Films president Walter Hamada says that going forward, DC movies aren't going to be focusing on building ongoing continuity between their superhero movies. There will be multiple versions of Batman (with Affleck and Keaton in THE FLASH and Robert Pattinson in THE BATMAN) and it'll just be viewed as one big multiverse even as WONDER WOMAN, SHAZAM and AQUAMAN see sequels continuing from their DC Extended Universe origins. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/27/busi … ovies.html

News outlets paint this as Earth 1/Earth 2, but looking at the actual strategy, the goal seems to make sure that WONDER WOMAN  movies are consistent with WONDER WOMAN movies, AQUAMAN movies are consistent with AQUAMAN movies, SHAZAM movies are consistent with SHAZAM movies -- but with no particular concern for whether or not Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam will be exist in the same reality or crossover with each other -- and THE FLASH will introduce multiple versions of Batman to indicate why Batman is played by different actors in theatres and on television and why the individual character/team movies will unfold separately going forward.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I understand why they're saying that, but I think it's typical WB/DC overreacting.  Did Justice League fail?  Absolutely.  But it didn't fail because fans don't want connected stories.  It failed because fans didn't connect with Zack Snyder's vision and....nothing else?  Fans generally liked the non-Snyder films, and the Snyder films still had a huge following.

If I were running WB, I wouldn't have the same kind of reaction.  Obviously I wouldn't have done the same thing that they did from the beginning but I think, even now, they could be doing a much better course correction:

STEP ONE - I like the multiverse concept.  Run with it.  If you want to do a Robert Pattinson Batman with no connection to the main universe, go for it.  If you want to do JOKER or Heart of Ice or DC Universe shows, go for it.  Marvel essentially had different multiverses for Agents of SHIELD, Runaways, the Netflix shows, etc.

STEP TWO - Do not abandon the shared universe.  People didn't love Joss Whedon's Age of Ultron movie either, and they didn't abandon the MCU - they moved to a different visionary.  See if Patty Jenkins would do Justice League 2.  Or James Wan.  Or find someone else.  It shouldn't be Zack or nothing.  We should have another movie with Gadot and Mamoa together.  If you want Cavill back, bring him in.  If Affleck is out or in, you don't need Batman for it to work.  If you need to scale back the budget, scale it back.  If you want to just pair certain people together, throw Cavill in Shazam 2.  Put Cyborg in Aquaman 2.  Introduce Green Lanterns in Flashpoint.  You can enrich your universe without spending a billion dollars.

STEP THREE - Give Snyder another project.  Again, scale back the budget if you want.  Give Snyder a Batman movie and see if Affleck comes back.  Or give him something else.  Do what you did with James Gunn and say "what do you want to do?"  It's obvious that some fans like Snyder DC movies.  It doesn't have to be Justice League 2.  Especially if the Snyder Cut works, give him something else.

If you want movies to be standalone, that's fine.  But it shouldn't have to be a decision between ONLY STANDALONE and BILLION DOLLAR CROSSOVERS.  Thor Ragnarok teamed up two people and it was fun.  Same with Spider-Man Homecoming.  Not every Marvel movie is Civil War.  Black Panther was huge and was barely connected.  Their big cameo was the barely-named federal agent and Bucky in a post-credits scene.

Don't learn the wrong lessons.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I have to say, I don't really understand why so many trade magazines are claiming that DC movies will now have "Earth 1" and "Earth 2" established through THE FLASH featuring Affleck and Keaton to bridge the two Earths when, as far as we know, Robert Pattinson's Batman will not be in THE FLASH, so what Earths are being bridged? It's probably due to some trade journalists just not really grasping the multiverse concept and not being overly familiar with so much as the TV version of CRISIS.

**

I suspect that the reason DC has decided to no longer pursue a shared universe going forward: it builds the expectation of a crossover movie featuring all the individual characters together -- and that's proven highly expensive and not profitable.

It was very expensive to feature Henry Cavill AND Ben Affleck AND Gal Gadot AND Jason Momoa in one movie that also showcased the powers of Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, the Flash, Cyborg and the gadgets of Batman. AVENGERS had the benefit of having as many street level type heroes like Captain America and Hawkeye and Black Widow as it did more effects-demanding characters like Iron Man and the Hulk.

The Justice League is very costly to show on camera together with these specific actors unless it earns a billion dollars at box office and DC movies are more in the low to mid hundred million range. And since they're not aiming to do another very expensive, not terribly profitable JUSTICE LEAGUE movie featuring all the characters together, they've elected not to worry about keeping them all in the same continuity.

**

I've never understood why AGE OF ULTRON was so hated. Or why JUSTICE LEAGUE was so loathed either. But that's personal taste for you!

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Never know how much of this is true, but it is amusing to imagine Matt Reeves trying to direct the film in a zipped up puffy jacket and ski goggles.

https://www.cbr.com/the-batman-pattinso … -troubles/

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I hope it's not true that Reeves and Pattinson aren't getting along. Matt Reeves -- I don't really know his work, but Slider_Quinn21 seems to like his stuff.

Robert Pattinson is a cool guy. I think he's hilarious. His blunt assessment of TWILIGHT movies and novels as silly fantasy in which the vampires never do anything to even qualify as vampires is spot-on. His disdain for the abusive Edward Cullen character and his admission that he took the role to pay his rent is wonderful. He has a delightful story about how a female fan was stalking him, so he approached her and asked her out to dinner and spent half the dinner whining about his life and the other half of the dinner sitting alone because she had fled. He used to earn pocket money in school by shoplifting pornographic magazines and selling them to his classmates. When he got his first paycheque for TWILIGHT, he bought a $1,000 car off Craigslist. Most actors of his stature would try to play heartthrobs (like Jerry O'Connell did), but Pattinson has always gravitated to playing dysfunctional characters.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I ended up rewatching WONDER WOMAN and JUSTICE LEAGUE instead of WW1984 -- just to revisit what I feel is some very good work. Patty Jenkins has jumped aboard the anti-Whedon train, saying that Whedon's portrayal of Diana in JUSTICE LEAGUE contradicted her work in WW and WW1984.

I have to say, I don't know how fair that is. Whedon's behaviour is not defensible. But in terms of his work -- the primary contradiction for Diana actually started with BATMAN VERSUS SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title) in which Diana claims that after the first World War, she walked away from humanity forever.

This is blatantly at odds with what we see in WONDER WOMAN where Steve Trevor's sacrifice inspired Diana to remain involved with humanity and also at odds with JUSTICE LEAGUE where Bruce tells Diana that she walled her off from the human race after Steve's death.

The contradiction is not Whedon's fault; Snyder set up a cynical, defeatist Wonder Woman; Jenkins decided to go for an optimistic, inspired Wonder Woman -- and imply that Diana was just having a bad week when she said what she said in BATMAN VERSUS SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title). If anyone's responsible for the mismatch, it's Jenkins, although I don't think any viewers complained as the lively, societally naive but combat seasoned Diana of WONDER WOMAN was a vastly preferable depiction. Jenkins also portrays Snyder as helping her set up her version of WONDER WOMAN. If that's true, that's more Snyder being a supportive collaborator to his colleague rather than anything he produced in BATMAN VERSUS SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (actual title).

That said -- there is one thing in JUSTICE LEAGUE that Whedon did that I actually do take issue with and Jenkins probably does too -- Diana Prince wears extremely low cut civilian clothes. Low cut tops that trace the bra line, jackets that are left open to show plenty of cleavage on those tops, jackets that end right at the waist to highlight the curve of her tight pants -- and this actually is wrong as Diana in WONDER WOMAN at one point is given the chance to wear whatever civilian she wants and she chooses what's effectively a female variant on men's business attire: a long coat with a skirt-like layering, a dress shirt -- and even her combat armour is arranged to show no bared cleavage despite wrapping around her chest. Diana Prince doesn't dress for the male gaze in WONDER WOMAN, but she does do so in JUSTICE LEAGUE and that strikes me as highly uncharacteristic.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I feel like Jenkins was just supporting Snyder.

I do think Snyder should have a place at DC if he wants.  He's got talent.  He's a good filmmaker.  It certainly doesn't make sense for him to make another Justice League movie (even if the Snyder Cut is successful and becomes canonized).  But if he wants to make a Booster Gold movie or a Batfleck movie or a Red Hood movie - go for it.  It'll make money if the budget doesn't explode out of control, and that's on WB to make work.

For what it's worth, WW84 also massively contradicts BvS.