Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I mean if the US government was cool paying out $1 trillion because it owned up to Superman's actions, then great.  And if Superman was willing to work to rebuild (saving billions of dollars), then I'll stand corrected.


Changing gears a little bit.

The Ultimate Edition has really got my mind going regarding Bruce Wayne.  Because we get almost no context of what his character was pre-Superman, I have to wonder about what he was like before.

There are so many things about the character that are contradictory or confusing.  Was the Bat-branding something new, or is it only new that people are getting killed for it in prison?  The movie implies that it's new (with the newspaper coverage of it), but neither Bruce nor Alfred ever mentions it.  If it's new, it's something you'd think Alfred would be upset about.  But, again, he seems almost more upset about Bruce not having a girlfriend or a social life than any new parts of Bruce's behavior as Batman (he mutters something about Bruce's love/social life 2-3 times).

If the Bat-branding is new, why is Bruce so nonchalant about people getting killed?  Or does he not care?  Superman spends a lot of time investigating the branding, but the World's Greatest Detective doesn't even seem to notice it.

Speaking of newspaper coverage, Clark treats Batman like he's a brand-new thing.  "This Bat vigilante" is what he keeps calling him.  Batman is stated to have been active for 20 years - has Clark never heard of him in 20 years?  Or is Clark just being dismissive of him, thinking that if he calls him "Batman", he's legitimizing him?

Or is it something else?  Has Batman worked way under the radar for the entire time, and is the emergence of the Bat-branding a thing that has forced the media to finally acknowledge him as real?  Alfred mentions "exploding penguins" at one point so I'm assuming there was a time when the Penguin attacked Gotham with exploding penguins and Batman saved the day.  Did this all happen outside of the media's coverage?

But there's a Bat-signal?  And Gordon seems pretty chummy with Batman.  So he can't have been *that* underground.  Plus, Suicide Squad shows that Batman has no problem jumping on cars in the middle of active streets and driving his Batmobile all over town.  He's not exactly being overly stealthy.

Then there's the killing.  Is that new?  Has this version of Batman always been okay with casualties in his war on crime?  Even after the "Martha" scene, Bruce kills a handful of people without thinking.  He's in a hurry and against a clock, but he definitely uses lethal force a lot.  Alfred doesn't mention the killing either (at the docks or at the warehouse, where he leaves multiple bodies each) so I have to assume it's not new either.  Did he start killing after the death of Robin?  That's the kind of thing that would make Bruce go dark, I'd assume.  If the killing and branding has been around since the death of Robin, Alfred would probably be used to it by now and might not mention it.

Which brings me to my idea.  The DCEU seems to be content on doing smaller, less connected movies.  Aquaman is standalone.  Patty Jenkins says that Wonder Woman 2 isn't dependent on Justice League.  There's no indication that Shazam will involve anyone else in the DCEU.  The Harley/Joker stuff might involve Batman but doesn't need to.  And there's no Justice League 2 in development.  Whenever Matt Reeves talks about The Batman, he says it stands alone.  With Ben Affleck wavering on playing Batman again.....what if they decided to take the opportunity to answer some of my questions, while also getting a chance to re-cast.

What if The Batman is a prequel?

Cast a younger actor that looks enough like Ben Affleck to make it work.  Or, if Ben Affleck wants to do it, de-age him a bit (either with makeup and hair dye or slight CGI).  Show me what Batman was like before.  Either tell the Bat-Family story or the death of Robin story.  If there's a Nightwing or a Batgirl out there, explain what happened to them and why they don't talk to Bruce anymore.  If he didn't kill before, explain why he's okay with it now.  If the branding isn't new, explain what happened there.  Bring back JK Simmons and show his relationship with Gordon.  Show his relationship with the media. 

If you cast a new actor and it works, then you can bring the new actor into the world with Flashpoint.  If you cast a new actor and it doesn't work, Affleck can take back over as the older Batman.

Batman is crucial to this universe, but we have such a little understanding to how his character works.  Fill in the gaps for us, DC.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

There are some stories that I'd definitely like to see explored with Batman. A lof of the character in the DCEU is based on the fact that we're all so familiar with the character that is just kinda fits into the Batman place that's already in our brains. But to see all of those other great characters on screen would be really cool. I'd rather see it with Affleck, but I guess we have to live with whatever we can get. There are so many directions what the character and his movies could go. I just keep waiting for the studio to completely mess up the universe. I guess we'll see how the next couple of movies go.

I wonder how much of Justice League's box office performance can be attributed to the press coverage. Typically, you'd see a bunch of fluff pieces about movies like this before they come out. The fan excitement, and the geekiness and all that. However, I can't really remember any coverage of Justice League that was anything but negative. Even when they were reporting on things like casting, it seemed like they'd always throw in some line about how disappointing the franchise is and how Marvel does it better. And even the criticisms that we see of the movie are largely based on those behind-the-scenes reports from anonymous sources. Even the demand for a Snyder cut is based on those reports, so even the fans of the franchise are rebelling against the film! Then we had the whole Affleck #metoo report that kinda fizzled out after a while, but might have still had some sort of impact.

The movie seems to get better comments than a lot of the DCEU movies, which means that it should be less divisive, right? Yet the press is still horrible and earnings were down. I'm sure the movie still made money and will make much more when it comes to the home video release(s?), but the numbers were down. It's just a weird scenario.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I don't know...I think the DCEU was behind the 8-ball even without the press.  I know, considering everything political, you're anti-media right now (and that's a discussion for another date and time), but the DCEU has been a mixed bag for a majority of people.

When you're talking about comic movies, you have to remember that the vast majority of the audience doesn't know most of these characters.  Most people know Superman and Batman, but even 1/3 of the DC Trinity (Wonder Woman) is a virtual unknown.  There was the show in the 70s, but that's about her biggest touch with mainstream America.  I'd guess most people would assume she's just a female Superman.

I'd say just about no one outside of the comic community knows who Cyborg is.  The Flash might have some extra reach because of the CW show, but I'm sure most people know he "runs fast."  Aquaman is a joke.

So here's where we get back into Marvel/DC.  The MCU has literally made billions of dollars on characters that are even less popular.  No one knew Iron Man, and now he might be one of the most popular/known superheroes out there.  People now know all about Captain America and Ant-Man and Dr. Strange.  Hell, Marvel has turned Rocket Raccoon into a household name.

And whether you like the movies or not, they play to a larger audience because they're simple premises with bright colors and lighthearted comedy.  From a box office standpoint, a mid-level MCU movie can compete with a DC movie for two reasons:

1. Children can go and see them.  Which means that parents go, and it often means that children and parents go multiple times.
2. Non-comic fans find it easier to go because they're more welcoming.

I dragged my fiancee to Dr. Strange because I wanted to see it.  Even though she'd never heard of it (and definitely not him), she ended up having a good time.  I did the same with Suicide Squad, and she couldn't get into it.  One was a fairly straightforward movie with the girl from the Notebook and a love story, and the other was a CGI explosionfest with a bunch of characters she didn't recognize. 

She's not a movie person, and she's definitely not a comic person.  She's one of those people who thinks that all comic characters exist in the same universe and wonders why Iron Man and Superman don't show up in a movie together.  And because Marvel makes movies for children and non-fans, she was able to understand and enjoy what was going on.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the DCEU movie that was the most successful was a) the story that was the most paint-by-numbers origin story and b) the one that you liked the least.  As far as a) is concerned, it made Wonder Woman the most approachable DC movie.

Because you can go see Wonder Woman without seeing anything else.  You can go see Spider-Man: Homecoming without seeing any previous MCU movies.  You might not know who Iron Man is, but the movie plays it pretty safe with his character.  Tony is a mentor character named Iron Man in an iron suit who leads a group called the Avengers that Spider-Man wants to be a part of.

The DCEU is much more stream-lined.  A lot of the character moments require you to understand and know each movie.  Man of Steel plays a huge part in Bruce Wayne's motivations in Batman v Superman (the movie shows that Superman was involved in the fight but it doesn't go into who Superman was fighting or why the collateral damage was explainable).  The scene with Kevin Costner could be confusing if you have no idea who he is, that he's dead, that he died tragically, etc.  The movie plays like a direct sequel to Man of Steel at times, but even team-up Avengers movies usually treat the audience like children when it comes to "this is (hero), this is who they are and this is what their powers are"

Then there's the tone.  The movies are too dark and too scary for young kids to go.  In BvS (the theatrical cut), neither Superman nor Batman are all that heroic or all that likable.  It ends up being a little like Batman Returns where it ends up scaring kids away.  And while Marvel movies are fun and exciting and funny, DC movies are more serious and real and dour.  So, again, you lose casual viewers who like the escapism of lighter movies.  My fiancee would be much more likely to watch a Pixar/Disney movie than a darker, action-thriller.  So she's more excited for me to drag her to Dr. Strange than a Suicide Squad.

(And, honestly, the same applies to Star Wars - those movies are safe and made for anyone to enjoy, regardless of age or awareness of the source material)

So the audience for Justice League shrinks.  BvS wasn't well-received, and Justice League looked like more of the same.  Kids weren't going to go, and they'd already lost a lot of the casual audience because of tone and story. 

Media probably didn't help, but decisions that the DCEU made had already cut out a large part of the audience.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah, that's all true. I think we've discussed those elements before, and it's fair to say that for a number of reasons, DC isn't going to be making the Disney money with these movies. From the style they're going with, to the fact that the audience is already way more familiar with these characters than the Marvel characters, I think it's safe to say that the billion dollar mark isn't realistic for these films. I wouldn't say that they're "behind" because of this. I think that if anything, it's because they're at a much more advanced stage of cultural awareness than Marvel is. I think it's wrong to really compare the DC movies with the Marvel movies (though I know I do it all the time anyway).

All of that taken into consideration, the DC movies have their following. They perform well on a consistent basis, and they do well in terms of both box office and home video sales. Even with the division amongst viewers, the franchise has proven that it has legs to stand on.

And I'm not calling Justice League a failure really. The franchise could be finding its sweet spot for all I know, but there was a noticeable dip in the box office sales between BvS (a more divisive film) and Justice League (a generally more well received film). So I'm just wondering how much of that is based on press and how much of it is just the franchise settling into its comfort zone in terms of box office.

The reason I'm down on the press isn't a recent thing or a political thing. I've been pointing out the lies and slanted reporting in news media for many years. I incorporated the subject into my writing before the term "fake news" was a thing, and long before Donald Trump was running for President. I've literally watched an actor friend appear on a "legit" national news program, playing a character. Basically, I know that the press doesn't just take the facts and put them out there for people to know and form opinions with. They are in the business of forming those opinions for people, and it's been that way for a very long time. I absolutely do see it crossing over from political coverage to entertainment coverage, and everything else.  I think it's interesting to understand the bias in news stories, and to identify the reason why that bias exists.

Generally, there is a certain approach to reporting for these franchises. The media tends to play to the fans, because the fans will visit their pages and click on their stories. They'll write a bunch of fluff pieces about the casting and filming process. They'll publish some interviews, hyping the movie. They'll publish some behind the scenes pictures, generating excitement for the movie.

With the DC movies, the reporting is usually different. Even in simple casting reports, I'll usually notice some jab at the franchise overall. They will talk about the failure of the franchise, or how disappointing it is. This was happening long before JL came out, and the reports didn't reflect either the box office success of any of the movies, or the general audience reaction (which isn't all A's across the board, but is far from, say Fantastic Four). The articles reflected critic reactions, and that's pretty much it. So the news outlets were pretty much generating their own stories at that point. Their critics down-vote the movies, and then their news coverage constantly references the critic reviews.

Then the coverage of the new movies will usually write from a negative angle. They'll constantly reference mysterious unnamed sources "close to production" (which could mean someone who was watching them film from a hundred yards away), talking about the chaos and drama behind the scenes, and how whichever movie they're reporting on is completely unwatchable. The panic! The desperation! They'll report on things that are standard for any production, but they'll talk about it as though it's a sign of sure failure for the entire franchise. Usually, they'll follow it up by posing the question of whether or not it's time for Warner Bros to admit their mistake and start from scratch.

When Justice League came out, the most vocal criticisms that I saw of the movie reflected the reports from those mysterious sources, nearly word for word, making the movie sound like one of those super embarrassing movies that studios produce just to hold onto the rights to certain characters, but which never see the light of day. The movie sounded like a total disaster, which worried me because I already had concerns about the movie.

Then I actually watched the movie. I knew about Joss coming in, but I didn't go out of my way to find a list of which scenes were his and which were Snyder's. I knew about the mustache thing, but I didn't go out of my way to study Cavill's face in every scene that he appeared in. I just watched the movie the same way that I'd watch any movie... and it was just a movie. It was a pretty good movie at that! Not my favorite of the franchise, but not my least favorite either. The mustache, which was so distracting that it totally destroyed the movie as far as the press was concerned was, I'm sure, apparent if you were looking for it specifically, but it didn't distract me at all. The "Frankenstein's monster" of a movie was really just a movie about different types of people joining forces. The panic wasn't warranted at all.

So, how much of the movie's criticisms or the lower box office can be chalked up to the press? I'm not saying it's all about the press. I have criticisms of the movie and I understand that the numbers were probably going to fall on their own either way. I'm not being unrealistic about that. However, we have fans of the franchise who refuse to even buy the movie on home video because they're demanding a Snyder cut that will probably never happen. Actual fans are refusing to support the film because they've been led to believe that Joss Whedon came in and was told to make the movie his own. They don't even seem to get that most of (if not all of) what Whedon shot was because it's what Snyder had planned and had been working on with Whedon. They don't seem to process the fact that Snyder wasn't booted from the franchise because the studio lost faith in him, he left because his daughter committed suicide and he needed to step back.

What we're seeing is a lot of the reaction to the movie being dictated by the press coverage of the movie. So now I'm left to wonder how much of the box office reflects the franchise itself, and how much of it reflects the media campaign against the movie. I'm not shifting blame for the movie's box office performance, or making excuses, but I am acknowledging another significant factor that should be taken into consideration.

And from there, we can ponder the question of whether there is some competition pushing this narrative, or if the negativity simply generates more clicks for those media outlets.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

It is weird.  If the chaos behind the scenes of the Han Solo movie had been for a DC movie, I think it'd be out of control.  But since it's Star Wars, it seems like the bad news is tempered a bit.

Does Disney pay off people to give them better press?  It wouldn't surprise me.  But I think the most likely case is that people want to hear about chaos at DC.  I think the public persona is that those movies are failures and the Marvel movies are successes.  So people will click to read a story about "behind the scenes problems at DC" or "will Affleck leave?  who will replace him?"  Right now, superhero films are the height of clickbait, and I think these sites are just playing to the crowd.

If DC films were more beloved and Marvel films more chaotic, I think it'd be swapped....Disney or no.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah, that could be so. Too much of news reporting is based on clickbait, with false or misrepresented information that's just meant to keep people riled up. With the DC movies, it seems like the press created their good guys (Disney/Marvel) and their bad guys (DC) and they play up those angles as much as possible.

The Star Wars movies make this interesting. The prequels are pretty much hated, so the new movies didn't earn any faith before they were released, and yet the drama was downplayed (along with their horribly flawed finished products). Many people thought that The Force Awakens was a bad rehash of the original Star Wars, but that didn't earn the franchise any negative press.

And even if the news stories are clickbait, the film reviews from critics should be a little more balanced, but they're not. So are the critics being told to feed I to the clickbait narrative?

I don't know whether I believe that it's a problem with the press Aline, or a campaign backed by Disney. But I do think there is a very serious problem here.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant … solo-movie

Just the concept of this movie confuses me so much.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

It doesn't really *confuse* me, since this sort of thing isn't new to comic book stories. Even now, there are two versions of Superman and the Flash out there.

If they do this, they need to make the separation clean, as with film and tv. Maybe make this a streaming platform movie? I don't know. At least call it "DC Multiverse: The Joker" or something like that.

That said, this sort of multi-dipping is what made it hard for me to keep up with comic books, and why I stopped reading them. I'm not sure that copying that particular comic book element is a great idea.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant … black-suit

It's hard to say if this was cut from Snyder's vision or Whedon's, but it's still cool to see the black suit in live action.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant … girl-movie

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I was just coming to post that link!

I am in no way surprised by this. If anything, I'm surprised that there's a Joss comment at all, because I still believe that he was let go as soon as his ex-wife spoke out. He was already very passive-aggressive toward Justice League by the time it came out, which is not the tone of a team player who is still working with the company. They probably just didn't want bad press for JL, so they waited until after the home video release to make the announcement.

Just my theory.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Now I'm wondering if we will get a new Batgirl director (probably a woman) or if they will put the character in one of the other upcoming movies instead. Nightwing, Gotham City Sirens, The Batman, or a Birds of Prey movie would all be options.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Did anyone see the Batman and Harley Quinn DC Animated movie?  It was.....very bizarre.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I have not seen it. Good bizarre, or bad bizarre?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Bad bizarre.  There were some good pieces, but it's got a weird sex scene at one point and a weird fart-joke scene in another.  And a couple different musical numbers.  It felt like a weird knock off movie, and Kevin Conroy's voice is the only thing that made me realize it was a legit thing.

I was on a plane and didn't finish it.  I don't know if I will.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

It's never good when you're on a plane and still turn off the movie. I will probably skip this one. smile

I'm interested in Gotham by Gaslight though.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I didn't turn it off.  The plane landed and I stopped caring smile

If it were good, I'd probably have pursued the ending.  But there wasn't enough good to outweigh the bad.

So is the DC Animated stuff trying to aim to a more mature audience?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Seems that way. The sex scenes are always a bit weird for me to watch in the animated movies.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Is it all new people running the animated division?  Is Bruce Timm still involved?  It doesn't seem like it from my (limited) research.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Not sure. I haven't looked into that for a while.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Bruce Timm is still writing and producing the animated films.

I just don't have the patience for DC Original Animated Films anymore. I saw everything up to JUSTICE LEAGUE: WAR. NEW FRONTIER and GOTHAM KNIGHTS were excellent, the two GREEN LANTERN features were good, but the rest suffered from a terrible combination of medicore animation, weak production and poor adaptation.

The animation isn't outright *bad*, but there isn't a lot of camera movement and the motion isn't fluid. That's a problem for fight scenes because they never feel exciting or perilous; it's like watching a turn-based animatic in a video game. All the JUSTICE LEAGUE, WONDER WOMAN, SUPERMAN and SUPERMAN/BATMAN movies were devoted largely to 'epic' fight scenes that were slow and tedious.

NEW FRONTIER dodged this because it used very simple character designs that allowed smoother animation (much like the TV shows). The GREEN LANTERN films also had smoother animation, I'm guessing because they were set in space or on barren planets and there was less to animate.

Then there's the production problems. The BATMAN AND SON, BATMAN VS. ROBIN and BATMAN: BAD BLOOD features are focused on the relationship between Batman and his homicidal son, Damian. But, for whatever reason, it sounds like actors Jason O'Mara and Stuart Allan performed separately when recording their dialogue. There is no sense of them reacting to each other or playing off each other's performances. Bruce Wayne and Damian feel like they're in different rooms due to overlong pauses between exchanges and a lack of matching in their respective vocal presences. The BATMAN AND SON series creates no chemistry between Batman and son.

And finally, the adaptations make a lot of poor choices. ALL-STAR SUPERMAN offered a charmless adaptation of the comic without any of the story's wit and humour. UNDER THE RED HOOD adapted only a fragment of Jason Todd's story and it felt like an unaired pilot that never went to series. FLASHPOINT featured an alternate universe story that failed to first establish what's going on in the original universe (as it had no continuity with previous features).

I think everyone who works on these films is very talented, but for whatever reason, the budget, production schedule and development process is leading to material that's mediocre.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

For me, the stand out of the animated films is Gods and Monsters.  By all appearances, they were just letting Bruce Timm be Bruce Timm.  There was no “adapt this” or “help us sell a comics reboot” or “make it rated R”.  Instead it seemed like someone finally said, “Hey Bruce!  You got any cool ideas?”

DC didn’t need to change the tv formula for their cartoons; it was working fine.  The only change was format to DVD.  Maybe the new, upcoming change of format (to a streaming app) will get them back on track since it feels more like tv.  They have a good start at it with a Young Justice revival by the original people.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant … challenge/

Good read. And finally, this conversation is becoming larger and less petty.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

So I finally saw a trailer for Mission Impossible: Fallout with Henry Cavill.  For the longest time, I assumed that Cavill was going to be playing a foreign agent or something (in my head, he was Russian).  Since mustaches aren't very en vogue right now, I figured it'd be some sort of choice (along with an accent) to separate him from Superman.

But, nope, he's playing an American.  Using the Superman accent, it seems.

So why the mustache?  Is there some sort of plot reason why he needs a mustache?  Was he told to grow it, or did he decide on his own?

I know Warner Bros got its ass kicked because of mustache-gate, but was the whole thing because Henry Cavill randomly decided to grow a completely-arbitrary mustache for no reason?  He didn't have one in anything else, so it's not like Henry Cavill wants to have a mustache and Mission Impossible let him be who he is.

Is Henry Cavill to blame for mustache-gate?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

No. Paramount specifically denied the request the have Cavill shave the mustache, because of the MI character. It was all them.

Any time you do a movie, they have to design the character. A lot of the time, it ends up just looking like the actor, but they probably didn't want tall, young, handsome Cavill looking too pretty next to Tom Cruise, so they needed to give him a facial oddity of some sort, while still making him appealing to the audience. Actually, that might have been in Cruise's contract.

Regardless, I watched Justice League again at home (same night as Ragnarok, actually) and the mustache honestly doesn't bother me as much as it does some people. I know it's there, just because I know it's there. And there were ways to make that less obvious (for example, having that Superman cell phone footage shown on a TV or computer screen, from a bit of a distance and maybe a slight angle), but it doesn't ruin the movie for me.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Oh it doesn't ruin it for me.  It's more funny than anything.

I know that Paramount held their ground, but I don't blame them.  They had him for their movie, and they couldn't alter their production for a rival studio's movie.  I know it'd be easier to have Cavill wear a fake mustache, but then *their* movie would be lampooned for the fake mustache.  Now Justice League gets all the jokes, and the mustache is "real" in their entire movie.

Were official reshoots done for Justice League when Cavill grew the mustache?  Because even if Snyder hadn't exited the project, reshoots are a normal part of movie-making these days.  Signing on to do a movie where he'd need facial hair is problematic for Justice League unless he was 100% sure that he wouldn't need to come back.

And unless Cruise insisted, I think the mustache choice is still strange.  Wouldn't it be a stroke of Cruise's ego to have him kick Superman's ass?  And wouldn't you *want* him to look like Superman, in that case?

I'm not one to tell an actor to turn down a multi-million dollar role.  And I'm certainly not in-the-know about Hollywood contracts.  A lot has been made of who to blame in Paramount vs. WB, but I think Cavill should share a little of the blame, at least.

(And for the record, I would say the same thing about Chris Evans' beard during the "reshoots" of the original Avengers movie.  Evans had a full beard that he couldn't shave when they shot the last-minute after-credits scene in the schwarma restaurant.  It's the reason why Cap is the only one not eating, and why Cap is awkwardly holding his fist up to his face - he's hiding his beard.  If his beard had ruined Avengers reshoots, I would've said the same thing smile )

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I don't know that Cavill is really to blame. He probably signed onto the movie and had it on his schedule for after Justice League before any sort of hair/facial hair requirements were decided upon for the movie. He was probably aware that there would be JL reshoots, because that would happen even with Snyder. It's just a convergence of events at this point. Paramount isn't going to weaken their position for Warner Bros., and Warner Bros. is going to want to try to make their position as strong as possible too. Cavill was stuck in the middle.

I know it's pretty obvious, coming from me, but I think the blame goes to Whedon for refusing to think the problem through properly. As I said, the same scene (the cell phone footage was really the only one that I remember) could be accomplished in a number of ways. Hell, they could just make it look low-res/blocky and say it was a poor internet connection. But Whedon chose to do a high-res, full screen, straight-on closeup of Cavill's face, despite the obvious problem. And I think that shows weakness as a director, as well as possibly some of the passive aggressive attitude that we've seen from Whedon in regards to his work on the movie.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah, I just think that if you're playing this iconic character in a modern time where reshoots are definitely going to happen, you have to be careful with what happens.  And the actor usually avoids the blame - Kate Mara wasn't blamed when her hair looked ridiculous during reshoots of Fantastic Four - but the production itself (and the director) were blamed for making it look horrible.

As I said, Whedon (ironically) was able to find a way to shoot around Chris Evans' beard during reshoots of Avengers.  It was just one shot that didn't require anything out of Evans besides him being there, but he was able to shoot it without anyone noticing (if, in fact, he was even there - as it's just a stationary shot inside a restaurant....I could've directed that).

And maybe no one is to blame.  I just find it odd that you get Cavill in this movie, partly because he's Superman.  Just like you saw years of trying to get Stallone and Schwarzenegger in movies together because it'd be Rambo/Rocky vs the Terminator.  They're obviously not playing Rambo or the Terminator, but people still use part of that fantasy as part of the hype.

Maybe Cavill's character is undercover.  Maybe the mustache plays some part.  Or maybe they did just want to make Cavill less pretty.  Either way, it just seems like an odd choice for Cavill to agree to....or an odd decision to force on him.  It was either petty on Paramount, naive of Cavill, or just a bizarre set of circumstances.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant … etos-joker

In addition to a potential Juaquin Phoenix Joker movie, they're also working on a Jared Leto movie.  I like that DC is willing to do anything and working on many different avenues....but it's odd that they won't let Batman in the Arrowverse or Smallville because that would confuse people....but they'll do two separate Joker movies?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I don't think that there will be two Joker movies. I think WB/DC just develops ideas to see what works, and scraps what doesn't. This is smart. I think it's a better plan than randomly picking characters and setting a schedule, and releasing a movie regardless of whether it's ready or not. But the media, and therefore the audience, doesn't seem to get this approach.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah but that's good and well, but what if both Joker scripts are great?  Do you go with the one that is better and scrap the other?  Do you throw out the Leto version because there's a great Scorcese version?

It's cool that DC is being very open with their ideas, but they need to get some forward momentum.  Aquaman is the only film they have scheduled. It comes out in six months and there's very little buzz about it*.  I even forgot it was coming out and thought Shazam was next.

* I'm actually really excited about it, but because there's been no advanced marketing for it so far, I forgot it was happening.

Then there's Shazam and Wonder Woman 2 in 2019.  Both projects are coming along nicely, but Shazam might not be connected to the overall DCEU and WW2 takes place in the 80s.  Then things get really hazy.  There's potentially a Cyborg movie and potentially a Green Lantern Corps movie - those are the only movies that have confirmed release dates but both are questionable.

Then there's the staggering list of movies that may or may not be in development.

Man of Steel 2
Suicide Squad 2
The Batman
80s Joker prequel
Leto Joker sequel
Gotham City Sirens
Birds of Prey
Harley Quinn solo film
Justice League Dark
Booster Gold / Blue Beetle
New Gods

I know there's a chance that we'll get none of these movies, and it'd be really cool if we could get all of these to work out.  But it just seems like an overwhelming list of movies that doesn't even include Justice League 2. 

So there's a chance that the DCEU could go over a year without any movies and then have 10 movies in 2020 smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Suicide Squad 2 is supposed to start filming within the next year, I think. I think that's further along than it seems. These movies just don't have a ton of talk around them. The average person probably doesn't even know that Shazam is coming (and I do believe that it is part of the DCEU, but I could be wrong). It is a very different way of going about it, since we know every Marvel movie that will be released ten years in advance, but it's probably smarter. The DCEU won't get good press, so why give people that much longer to write articles about how doomed they are?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Shazam is definitely included in the DCEU but it might not have any *outright* connections.  I know there was talk of Henry Cavill appearing in it, but that was back when the Rock was still going to be in it (now his movie, which I didn't even mention) is a solo film too.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Maybe Cavill's character is undercover.  Maybe the mustache plays some part.  Or maybe they did just want to make Cavill less pretty.  Either way, it just seems like an odd choice for Cavill to agree to....or an odd decision to force on him.  It was either petty on Paramount, naive of Cavill, or just a bizarre set of circumstances.

Christopher McQuarrie, director of MISSION IMPOSSIBLE V and VI, doesn't really like computer generated imagery when it's central. Both he and Tom Cruise prefer practical effects as much as possible.

In M:I2 (directed by John Woo), when Cruise had a hunting knife thrust within a few centimetres of his eye, that blade was a real weapon with the actor stabbing towards Cruise's face at full force at Cruise's insistence -- with the cable holding the knife back painted out in post. In M:I5 (which McQuarrie did direct), when Cruise is running across the wing of a plane and hanging onto its side as it takes off or when he's performing motorcycle students or diving into pools, he's doing it for real -- although other cars and harnesses and rigs are removed and the backgrounds are altered.

There's a genuine sense of reality in the McQuarrie's approach: there's wind blowing into Cruise's eyes when he dives off a building and his body is really coiled to anticipate the hundred-foot drop and you can see Cruise's terror and determination as he performs jumps and takes punches and handles falls as Ethan Hunt, a human crash dummy of a secret agent. And Cavill would be made to do the same things.

I don't think McQuarrie would be happy having one of his actors perform such scenes with a CG mustache; it would affect what parts of the actor's face are visible and the actor would adjust his expressions accordingly. I don't think McQuarrie would want a CG creation at the center of Henry Cavill's shots when he wants the actor to control the physicality and tone of the performance, not a special effects artist in a computer lab. CG is for adjustments, not centerpieces, in McQuarrie's world.

McQuarrie will accept CGI for painting out cars, cleaning up backgrounds, removing safety gear, changing a pool into a lake, etc., but he wants his actors to be reacting and performing according to as much physical reality as he can offer and a CG mustache is the antithesis of McQuarrie's aesthetic.

McQuarrie would also not be happy having an actor film chase sequences and fight scenes with a fake mustache that would need to be reglued, rearranged, realigned and restyled for every single shot. "That's just not Mission," he would probably say.

As for why the character had to have a mustache, well -- Cavill has a friendly face, he's playing a deadly assassin who has no issue with casualties in contrast to Ethan Hunt's decidedly non-lethal approach. A mustache makes Cavill look more sinister, it's part of the look that McQuarrie designed for this role and McQuarrie was responsible for MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - FALLOUT, not JUSTICE LEAGUE.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

For the record, I don't blame McQuarrie or Paramount for any of the mustache saga.  They signed an actor to play a role, he agreed, and they agreed on an aesthetic.  I thought it was crazy that WB would even ask them to alter their movie for their own.

Looking forward to MI:6 as well.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I don't think it is really the fault of either studio or the actor. The person directing those shots should have made adjustments for the situation. If it's raining, you adjust. If the sun is shining into the camera, you adjust. If you can't get your actor back at all, you adjust. The director has to make a million adjustments as he goes along, which is why a good director is a good leader who can make those changes.

This was Whedon, guys. He is stubborn and didn't roll with the punches at all. Honestly, they probably would have been better off letting the DP direct the reshoots (since this person would have worked closely with Snyder on designing the look of the movie), but they brought someone in who was supposed to alter the bones of the movie, yet wasn't up for the task. That part is Warner's fault.

I still like the movie. The mustache doesn't really bother me too much. But still, if it's an issue, it is Whedon who should carry that blame.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Again, it didn't really affect my opinion of the movie - if no one had said anything, I might've thought a couple of shots looked a little funny, but I don't think it's that big of a deal.

What's crazy is that, depending on how much of the Superman stuff they reshot, they could've easily worked a beard into his character (in some of the Mission Impossible trailers, it looks Cavill has a beard too).  Whether or not Clark was really dead or in a comic-accurate "healing coma" - he might've had some beard growth.  It isn't even out of canon in this series because Clark's had a beard before.

The whole thing is more just funny to me because someone probably got paid a decent amount of money to CGI a beard off someone.  They did a good job on it....the situation itself is just funny to me.

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

In very unsurprising news, Steve Trevor is back.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Wasn't this confirmed just after the first move came out?

Either way, I'm intrigued by the whole setup for the new movie. Glad that they didn't jump to the present, but I still feel like they could have kept Steve alive and allowed Diana to have a life with him, rather than kill him off.

Of all the DCEU movies, Wonder Woman gets the most praise, but I think it's the most unfocused and flawed of the bunch. It's my least favorite of the franchise, but I'm still looking forward to seeing the sequel.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Two fun DC nuggets that came out this week.

1. Remember the "Unite the Seven" poster that came out during the promotional period of Batman v. Superman with Aquaman?  For some reason, this poster really bothered people because 1) there were no subsequent posters that tied in (nothing for Flash or Cyborg or Wonder Woman, or even anything that related to Batman or Superman) 2) it didn't make any sense - there's only six Justice Leaguers, even when you include Superman (who wasn't really part of the uniting process).

Well, they've come out with an explanation that fits - it's technically a poster for the Aquaman movie (or, at least, the Aquaman character).  It's to unite the seven underwater kingdoms.  It feels like quite the retrofit, but as I said, it does fit.

2. Matt Reeves says that the first draft of his Batman movie is done.  But I felt like he already had a first draft done.  Or did he only re-write the Affleck draft?  This movie seems like it's a bit of a mess, but with the one-off movies that DC is doing (Joker), I actually think it'd fit in nicely.


Comic-Con news.

1. I'm probably most excited about the Aquaman movie, but I did feel like the trailer was pretty paint-by-numbers.  I'm interested to know how it ties in with what we saw in Justice League.

2. The Shazam trailer was pretty entertaining, and I think it'll be like another Suicide Squad - playing on the perimeter of the DCEU.  After a lighter-toned Justice League movie, I think some of the goofiness of this character fits.  And there's rumors of a Superman cameo, which I think would fit right in.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The "Unite the Seven" thing... I feel like that was meant to be part of a different plan at the time, but Warner Bros keeps meddling and throwing off the plan, so now it means Aquaman. Which is fine. I don't dislike the Warner/DC movies. I just think that there are people at Warner who see something like Rotten Tomatoes and panic, feeling like they need to change something, when they really just need to let the plan play out the way it was intended. They don't get that comic book fans will usually be divided one way or the other, and the more memorable comic book stories are the ones that fans tend to argue about the most.

It's frustrating to me, even just from a writing perspective. It stresses me out to have a story changed midway through its release (Snyder had an arc planned and it was approved... and then altered)

It hasn't been a complete disaster, but Warner Bros needs to back off and let the DC movie people run themselves. Create a separate studio for them or something.

The Batman movie -
I guess it is what it is. It feels chaotic and troubled to people because we honestly have no idea what's going on behind the scenes or what the product is supposed to look like. Whereas Marvel tells us what their plan is ten years in advance and rarely changes a release date, the DC movies seem to depend on how they develop. It's probably the right way to go about it, but it means that movies feel like they're dangling out in limbo much more than they actually are.

I am looking forward to Aquaman too, but I don't have super high hopes. The character has never been the best DC character, so if they can make a good movie, that will be awesome. However, it's hard to really get into the world of Aquaman from the trailer alone, because it's so alien and so out of context.
What I do know is that a lot of people are still complaining about Jason Momoa playing the part, and how they've changed the style of the character. I really don't care about that.

Shazam's trailer looked a lot better than I expected, actually. It looks fun, in a "Big" sort of way, without looking like a total ripoff. The characters seem to work well. The costume looks pretty good. We didn't get much in regards to the actual plot/threat, but what we did see was pretty nice.

Changing topics back to an old classic...

With updates on all of the DC movies, the press has been talking about the franchise again. What I find annoying is how they're retconning history in ways that the press always seems to do with everything. They just drop little comments in matter-of-fact ways, as though they're common facts that we all know, and then base their whole opinion around those "facts" which aren't really facts.

Two examples that you can keep your eyes peeled for:

1. I saw one article casually refer to Justice League as an "even bigger bomb than Suicide Squad", followed by some comment like "Yeesh" or something like that.

Except, Suicide Squad wasn't a bomb. At all. It actually performed better than most people (or, at least myself) expected. To compare, Guardians of the Galaxy had a similar budget and came out around the same time. Guardians of the Galaxy (a much more kid-friendly movie with talking animals, etc) made  $333,176,600    in the US and $440,152,029 internationally. It totaled  $773,328,629, which is indeed more than Suicide Squad made.

Suicide Squad made $325,100,054 in the US, and  $421,746,840 internationally. It totaled $746,846,894.

All things considered (I don't think many parents took their kids to see Suicide Squad. Even talking about the title of the movie with my nephews made me feel like I needed to have a "Thirteen Reasons Why" type disclaimer before our chat), Suicide Squad is pretty well domestically. Internationally, that number is more impressive than Guardians though. Suicide Squad wasn't released in one of the biggest markets: China.

In China, Guardians made $86,346,366. Had Suicide Squad competed in that market, their overall profits would most likely be higher than Guardians.

I'm not putting the movies in competition with each other. Obviously, they are for different audiences. What I'm saying is, Suicide Squad was not a bomb by any measure. Justice League under-performed. It wasn't totally surprising with the chaos behind the scenes, the press attacking the movie before it even finished production and the studio apparently having no idea what to do with their properties. But still, I wouldn't call it a "bomb". A bomb doesn't make hundred of millions of dollars in profits. A bomb loses money.

2. I've noticed that most articles have stopped mentioning why Zack Snyder left Justice League. A lot of articles simply say that Snyder left the movie. A lot say that the studio replaced Snyder. Most articles make it sound like Snyder was fired because the studio didn't like him. It's become pretty rare to see an article acknowledge that Snyder left because of a seriously horrible tragedy within his family. This is just dishonest reporting, and it's a symptom of a much larger problem with big media outlets.

The one upside to all of this is that we probably won't see the Carrie Kelly Robin on screen. I'm not a fan, and we haven't even gotten a proper normal Robin on screen yet. I see no reason to skip over Dick, Jason, Tim and Damian.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

One note before I get quotey - We didn't skip over Dick because he's dead (at least, according to Snyder - … -confirms/ ).  Maybe Reeves' movie will explore that a bit, or maybe it won't be in continuity.  All Reeves has said is that it isn't Year One.

I guess it is what it is. It feels chaotic and troubled to people because we honestly have no idea what's going on behind the scenes or what the product is supposed to look like. Whereas Marvel tells us what their plan is ten years in advance and rarely changes a release date, the DC movies seem to depend on how they develop. It's probably the right way to go about it, but it means that movies feel like they're dangling out in limbo much more than they actually are.

Oh, I get that it's a process.  The only thing that surprised me was the whole "first draft" thing.  I get that movies are written and re-written, but a first draft is a first draft.  There was at least one first draft because it was written by Affleck.  Then, I swear, Reeves went to work re-writing that.  I get that Reeves might have started completely over from scratch and this is a new "first draft" but that just surprised me.

I've noticed that most articles have stopped mentioning why Zack Snyder left Justice League. A lot of articles simply say that Snyder left the movie. A lot say that the studio replaced Snyder. Most articles make it sound like Snyder was fired because the studio didn't like him. It's become pretty rare to see an article acknowledge that Snyder left because of a seriously horrible tragedy within his family. This is just dishonest reporting, and it's a symptom of a much larger problem with big media outlets.

Well, the common theory is that Snyder was fired, and they (either the studio or a combination of the studio and Snyder) used the tragedy to cover to avoid the "bad press" of Snyder being fired because they didn't like his vision.  It's a bit irresponsible, but I think most comic book movie sites are just cutting to the chase.  Because there were rumors that Snyder was in trouble before the tragedy, and it makes sense that both parties would be happy to walk away from each other.  And Snyder's activity on social media shows a bit that he's not super pleased with them, meaning there was a lot of stuff going on in the background to indicate that the split was more than it was.

I don't dislike the Warner/DC movies. I just think that there are people at Warner who see something like Rotten Tomatoes and panic, feeling like they need to change something, when they really just need to let the plan play out the way it was intended.

WB/DC made a lot of mistakes along the way.  The first was to try and go head to head with Marvel at a bad time.  Man of Steel came out a month after Iron Man 3.  At that time, Marvel was just about to hit their stride - Phase 2 was just beginning after the mixed bag that was Phase One (I maintain that, outside of the first Iron Man and the fun of Avengers, Phase One is easily the worst, critically and commercially).

If DC had taken things slowly, like Marvel did, they could've been forgiven.  With the exception of Iron Man, people generally love Marvel sequels better than the originals.  Setting up the world is the hard part - playing in the world is easy.

And I'm not even talking about solo films.  I'm just talking about making mistakes.  The first Marvel film is generally considered one of the best MCU films, but the 2nd film was the Incredible Hulk, a movie where the main character was recast and the movie has been all-but-forgotten.  People hate Iron Man 2.  Thor has bleached eyebrows in the first movie.  The First Avenger is "a trailer for the Avengers"

The problem was that, in between Man of Steel and BvS, Marvel started hitting home runs.  Captain America: the Winter Soldier was a critical and financial success.  People went crazy for it, and it's definitely considered one of the best MCU films.  They hit another home run with Guardians of the Galaxy, a quirky and fun movie that surprised everyone.  Then came Age of Ultron, a movie that people generally dislike, but it was the *second* Avengers movie.

And instead of taking their time and building their universe, DC tried to catch up.  They could've released another solo film - maybe hire Affleck to do his Batman solo film before jumping into a shared universe.  Maybe the Affleck Batman movie ends with the battle in Metropolis, leaving a huge tease to Batman facing off against Superman.  Maybe you go Wonder Woman first.  Or maybe you do a Man of Steel 2.

The problem is that you jumped right into a movie that was divisive.  And I don't even mean based on reactions - I mean literally divisive - you have Batman against Superman.  And like with any battle, people are going to pick sides.

It was compared, quite unfairly, to Civil War.  Because there was a lot more nuance, from the audience, in Civil War.  Love him or hate him, we'd cheered for Tony Stark.  Boring or not, we'd cheered for Steve Rogers.  And forgettable or not, we understood all the side characters on the Tony vs. Steve fight.

With jumping right into BvS, you're forcing fans to choose between them.  And while most fans know Downey as Iron Man and Evans as Captain America, Batman and Superman are timeless.  You're not only having Cavill vs. Affleck, you're having Bale and Keaton vs. Christopher Reeve.  These characters mean something different to everyone.  And to get two good guys to fight, they had to make the other look a little sinister, screwing with the way we see the characters.

Batman has to be legitimately dangerous for Superman to treat him like any other criminal.  So Batman has to casually kill and brand people.  Superman has to be a legitimate threat to humanity for Batman to want to eliminate him.  So Superman is cold and alien whenever he's in public.  You have the World's Greatest Detective and *two* great Daily Planet reporters, and neither does enough investigation to see that both guys are, generally, pretty good.

I mentioned the Affleck solo film that ends in Metropolis.  Maybe it shows how tired Batman is.  Maybe it's one last hurrah for him - he's either sufficiently cleaned up Gotham or he's about to give up.  And Metropolis shows him that he has one more fight.  But Man of Steel could've been Superman's set up.  Maybe Superman faces off against someone like Parasite, and that fight takes him to Gotham.  A B-story could be Clark or Lois looking into this mysterious Batman.  He started off a noble and virtuous vigilante, but now something is happening to him.  Whenever Clark gets close enough, he's forced back.  The investigation doesn't end - Superman is still suspicious.

If you do stuff like this, you spend an entire movie inside the character's mind - and you can understand his viewpoint.

The other issue with BvS is that it felt so much like a catch-up.  It's the second movie in the franchise, and here's a Batman solo movie blended into a Man of Steel sequel.  And Wonder Woman is in it!  And Flash!  Aquaman!  Cyborg!  Doomsday!

It felt like an attempt to do Marvel Phase One in one movie.  Thor and Hulk and Captain America solo films were lazy so we'll just throw in bits and pieces of Wonder Woman/Aquaman/Cyborg/Flash and pretend that they were solo films that you saw and forgot about.  It's five films in one, and that's why it felt so overloaded to some.

If you take your time and make some of these movies, I think you give the audience a chance to warm up to your vision.   Like I said, make your Batfleck movie.  Make Man of Steel 2.  Make Wonder Woman.  If you want to grow the universe with each movie, do that.  There's ways to bring Aquaman or Atlantis or Atlanteans in your Wonder Woman movie like you had with the Flash cameo in Suicide Squad.  Cyborg could easily be in a Man of Steel sequel.  Batfleck could connect to Suicide Squad.

And if you want to move from Batman to Superman, don't make them immediately fight.  Have them team up but not entirely trust each other.  Or have them cross paths but not meet.  Let us meet the characters before we're forced to root against them.  Take things slowly.

It's why Marvel can make 20 films in 10 years and it felt fresh, and why DC can only make a handful in half the time and feel bloated.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I obviously disagree, but I won't rehash the entire conversation that we've had a million times. I think the only thing plaguing the DC movies is that Disney made the Marvel movies to kinda-sorta appeal to everyone in some way, to make as much money as they can (it's the Disney way), while DC played to a narrower audience. Yet they're being compared as the same thing, because they're both "comic book" franchises.

I don't view the DC movies through the lens of how it compares to Marvel or how Marvel approached their movies. There are a million ways in which we can't compare the two franchises.

I think Warner Bros was probably looking at the MCU more than the people actually making the DC movies were. The problem is that there seems to be a constant tug of war within Warner. They're not battling Marvel, they're battling themselves. Justice League under performed because someone at Warner Bros didn't get it, and panicked. This isn't unique to comic book movies. Most horror movies today aren't remotely scary, because studios believe that we need to see big spectacles in order to be scared. The opposite is actually true.

Hollywood isn't about art or artists. Ultimately, this is why so many (the majority, really) of their movies fail to connect with the audience in any significant way. Even when we see a movie that we like, we usually forget about it an hour later.

As for Snyder, I think there are a lot of people who think that they know more than they do, because of all of the things that they've read in clearly-biased articles. I do think that there was probably tension between Snyder and the studio, for the reasons that I gave above, but actual news articles have no business taking their own opinions and internet gossip, and publishing it as news.

If Snyder was in a constant battle with the studio to make the movie that he wanted to make, there is a very, very good chance that he just stopped caring about that fight once his daughter died. That fight with the studio isn't uncommon. Every director probably does it. We don't know what that struggle looked like with Justice League, and it's unfair to speculate about something that we don't really know.

If Snyder was fired before his daughter died, I think we would have known about it before his daughter died (unless the studio somehow knew that they'd have this huge excuse to use). If he was fired after his daughter died, it was most likely because he just didn't care enough to fight them anymore.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, it's one thing to say that Marvel is Disney and is going after a broader audience, but I really think that only applies to kids.  The days of comic book movies only going after comic book audiences is sorta over.  It started with Spider-Man, continued through with the Dark Knight, and Marvel has really picked up the torch and ran with it.  People that don't love comic book movies love Marvel movies, and it's not just kids.  Kids help, obviously, because it's a whole segment of an audience, and kids see movies multiple times (and come with parents/guardians that pay to see the movie multiple times too).

DC might not be trying to reach the kid audience, but they can still reach a broader audience.  And that's why I think the Marvel/DC conversations are relevant.  But it's also why the DC/Dark Universe conversations are relevant and the DC/Monsterverse conversations are relevant.  These are big studio, shared universe movies that don't exist in a bubble.

It's easy to call DC a bit of a financial mixed bag.

But it's first movie was successful enough to actually launch a series (The Mummy / Dark Universe)
It's done a good-enough job of linking the universe to feel wholly connected (Godzilla / Monsterverse)
It still feels fresh/fun after many movies (Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, Transformers franchise, etc)

Marvel is the gold standard for shared universes, but DC isn't far behind.

DC is actually doing what I'm talking about now.  They rushed in with the "Superman Trilogy" of Snyder films, but the movies they're talking about now are the smaller movies that are allowed to play in the sandbox.  Wonder Woman was a self-contained movie.  The sequel looks the same.  Suicide Squad was fun and played around its own world.  Aquaman is expanding it under water.  Shazam is experimenting with magic.  Everything about the Batman seems like it's smaller and lower stakes.  The Joker movie is going to be unique.

These are the movies that are going to build this universe into something where we look forward to team-ups and connections.  And maybe, to that grander audience, Phase One of the DCEU will be just like the Phase One of the MCU - important but not necessarily worth revisiting smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Supergirl movie? … 202440687/

Looks like WB is back grasping at what they already have instead of moving forward.  If they’re looking for a back door Superman reboot, they should take us to the 30th century Legion of Super-Heroes and look back at a new history.  Marvel is owning cosmic at the moment, but Legion gives the opportunity to play with new ground in time travel - especially if the Time Trapper is involved.

It would also serve to beat Marvel to the punch for once instead of chasing behind them.  Now that Disney has Fox, they’ve got the rights back to Fantastic Four and Kang the Conqueror.  You can bet time travel is about to be a big component in Marvel movies.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, as we've discussed, WB is throwing a lot of darts on the board and seeing what sticks.  Which, and I agree with Informant here, is a good strategy.  Get a couple dozen scripts, and produce the best ones.  Maybe they'll be big ones (Man of Steel 2, Flashpoint, etc), maybe they'll be smaller (Nightwing, Blue Beetle, New Gods, etc), or maybe they'll be out of continuity (Joker, maybe the Batman, etc).  At the end of the day, I'm interested in more good comic book movies, and this is definitely more "creative pool" than any of the other shared universes.

I think this is what really bugs me about the way DC has handled things so far.  I think DC probably could've done a bigger, badder version of what Marvel did.  Not only should they have done it first, but they had all the pieces to do it.  DC has most of the heroes that people recognize and could've done things in a really cool way.  A Superman movie, a Batman movie, a Wonder Woman movie, a Flash movie, a Hawkman/Hawkgirl movie, an Aquaman movie, a Suicide Squad movie, a Teen Titans movie.  Then BAM, Justice League with all these heroes in one movie.

They had all the rights, and name-brand characters.  There's no excuse that we're getting two Ant-Man movies before we get Aquaman *or* Flash.

You'd think it'd be Marvel who, stringing together all the characters they had rights to, throwing together a cinematic universe to try and keep up.  Iron Man (2013), followed by Iron Man and the Hulk (2016), leading to a divisive Avengers movie (2017).

And I should note that there's been a thought to doing Supergirl since the original Man of Steel.  There's an open pod on the Kryptonian ship that was a backdoor way of getting Kara involved.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The MCU movies have done a good job of marketing to everyone, while not really targeting any one specific audience. They're very accessible to non-comic book fans in the same way that cartoon series are, but they lose many of the layers that comic books build into the worlds and characters. Again, this is like we'd see in a cartoon.

And that's a very valid way to approach it. It has made it seem like everyone loves comic book stories, even though that's not really the case. The "cool kids" are into these movies now, but only as long as they don't get too geeky. The mountain went to Muhammed.

The problem is, Superman and Batman have been telling widely accessible stories on screen for 70+ years. If they release another scene of Clark hopping around in a corn field, the audience will scream. Yet at the same time, that's what the wider audience expects.

With Batman and Superman (and to a lesser extent the Flash), there isn't much chance of pleasing the wide, broad audience in the same way that Marvel does. Some people want a shot-for-shot remake of the Donner movie. Some want to see obscure comic arcs on screen. Most wouldn't recognize the comic book characters and want the cartoon characters. Some loved Bale, while others want Keaton.

DC has a ton of baggage that Marvel doesn't. Marvel can play it safe, but DC needs to change things up. Wonder Woman probably performed the best because most people know the character while not really having any expectations of the movie.

All I know is that when I get into conversations about the DC movies, people usually hate the movies because "that's not my Superman." He emotes, so he's too emo. He has doubts, so he's cold. He isn't Reeves, because Reeves would never kill Zod (an actual conversation I had, despite my linking to the scene where he kills Zod in Superman II)

It's probably more fair to compare DC movies to Godzilla or Dracula at this point. Or James Bond. Especially with Superman and Batman.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Informant wrote:

All I know is that when I get into conversations about the DC movies, people usually hate the movies because "that's not my Superman." He emotes, so he's too emo. He has doubts, so he's cold. He isn't Reeves, because Reeves would never kill Zod (an actual conversation I had, despite my linking to the scene where he kills Zod in Superman II)

Well, and I think that's another issue with the route that Snyder took with this.  In my opinion, he messed it up a couple of different times but in different ways.

Man of Steel is one of two "solo" movies that the DCEU has done - everything else is an ensemble piece with no clear protagonist.  In that movie, we get a pretty good idea of who Superman is.  There are three moments in that film that really bug people, and I think at least 2/3 of them can be written off.

- Clark kills Zod - this is what bothers people, and I don't get it.  People say that "Clark doesn't kill" but that doesn't really seem to be a guiding principle for him (and doesn't really seem to be an issue for Snyder, as I'll get to later).  Zod was a threat to humanity as a whole, and he had to be dealt with.  Clark tried to reason with him, but it didn't work.  Clark also has a bit of a breakdown after this, implying that he knew it was a bad thing to do, even if it was the right thing to do.

- Clark's fight with Zod leads to collateral damage.  This, again, isn't a problem.  A fight between two gods would result in collateral damage.  The one thing I can point to is that Clark doesn't seem overly concerned with the damage, either in Smallville or Metropolis.  If Metropolis were the only fight, I could see it getting out of hand.  But after essentially destroying Smallville (and that's something people don't usually point out), he should've been more prepared to *try* to draw the fight away from the city.  He knows the damage that a fight like that would cost, and I wish there were a line in the movie where he tries and Zod won't let him.  At the end of the day, this doesn't bother me as much - what bothers me is the way the *films* handle it, and that's not on Clark.

- Clark lets his father die.  This is the biggest "that's not my Superman" argument in my opinion.  Clark is fast enough to save Jonathan without outing himself.  I think it's an incredibly dumb scene that didn't make sense.  I almost understand what they're going for, but the idea of something killing a loved one that Clark can't fight (like the traditional heart attack) is a much better lesson to teach Clark.  Especially because, when Clark revisits Jonathan's lesson from the movie (exposing his secret), there's zero consequences.  So, in my eyes, Jonathan dies for no reason and Clark learns nothing.

If you can forgive that Clark was just doing what his father told him to do (however irresponsible), Clark's characterization in Man of Steel makes sense.  I think Man of Steel is a solid movie that provides a nice introduction to a DC Extended Universe.

The problem comes in BvS.  We've already gone over this ad nauseum, and there's no reason to go line by line again.  The main issue, for me, is that the characterization from Man of Steel doesn't seem to translate to BvS.  Clark from MoS and Superman from BvS seem like two very different characters.  And while Superman is allowed to emote without being emo, Clark's public persona always seems to be scowling or frowning.  It's hard to represent hope when it looks like you're fighting a battle that you're, at best, indifferent to.

I think that's what people liked about Superman in Justice League.  It's the same thing that people liked about Wonder Woman in her three movies - she seems to genuinely enjoy the fight.  She finds joy in defeating the bad guy and saving the innocent.  Clark finds joy in Lois, and he seems to dread every second he's wearing the costume in BvS.

With Batman, Snyder made the opposite mistake.  With no solo film, we don't really know what to make of Batman.  Like Superman, he seems to have no qualms about killing people.  I know that "Batman doesn't kill people" is a rule that doesn't really fit in the movies, but a more apt rule is "Batman doesn't try to kill people."  In BvS, he does seem to go out of his way to kill people, using unnecessary force in situations he has complete control over.  In the chase sequence, he's in an unstoppable tank doing unnecessary damage.  In the warehouse fight, he's being unnecessarily brutal against people that can't compete with him.

In the scenes where we get to look inside Batman's head, there's a clear disagreement from Alfred, but there's never a scene where it's discussed.  And because Alfred has been there the whole time, he's either okay with how Batman now operates, or it's how Batman has always operated.  Either way, it's a departure from what we've seen before.

It comes down to two things for me:

- In BvS, the characterization issues come down to the fact that they lend themselves to the story that Snyder wanted to tell.  If he's going to tell a story where Batman and Superman are both good guys that decide to try and kill each other, then they have to see each other as threats.  Batman has to be a deadly, murderous vigilante who has taken things too far.  Superman has to be a cold, distant alien.

- Snyder himself sees heroism in a very uber-masculine way.  Superman and Batman are both insanely jacked (like Leonidas before them), and they do what's necessary to save the day.  If that means snapping a neck or blowing up a car full of bad guys, so be it.  Superman and Batman don't have "no kill" rules because Snyder thinks they're dumb.  And that's fine - they're his movies.  But I think that's where the criticism comes from.

It's what makes me a little curious about Snyder's original Justice League vision.  From the bits and pieces I've figured out, it would've featured a more troubled/suicidal Victor Stone, and a depressed/alcoholic Arthur Curry.  And from the trailers, it seems like Wonder Woman would've failed to stop the bombs in Paris.  It might've taken BvS' depressing tone and turn it outright nihilistic.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The Wonder Woman failure with Paris would have explained her reluctance a little better.  That feeling was obviously already there from where we first met her, but she seemed to get past that by the end of BvS; then suddenly she was back to being reluctant about joining a team.

And what was with the Alfred scene where the green glow is in his glasses?

But who was Alfred talking to?  That whole bit was just dropped.  Did Superman go after Alfred while he was crazed?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

This was released as a deleted scene.