Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Oddly enough, my brother and I were discussing the Jonathan Kent death scene just a few days ago. We came to the conclusion that it was probably one of the more important scenes for Clark's overall arc, to get him from the life he needed to have as a child (protected, safe, secret) to the life that he has an adult (the hero).

It's a really layered scene, that people don't think about enough.

Jonathan and Martha needed to tell Clark to keep his abilities a secret growing up. They were his parents, and it was their job to protect him above all else. They were terrified of what would happen to him if anyone ever discovered his secret. So they hammered it into his head, over and over again, not to use his abilities.

As we see with the bus crash, that lesson goes against what his parents taught him about being a good person. It's not who they are, and it's not who he is. But they're parents and they're scared. Jonathan's reaction to Clark saving the bus was understandable, because at the moment when Jonathan is having that doubt, the only threat is to Clark, his son. Even Jonathan doesn't believe that Clark should have done nothing, but he's not sure what he should have done, because people saw it. Ultimately, saving the bus is what exposed Clark as an adult.

So, the tornado scene. Clark wants desperately to fight the lessons that he's been taught for as long as he could remember, but he's terrified. I've experienced moments of danger (when younger) that happened in such a way where my body and mind were at odds. I couldn't think or process, so I fell back on what I knew. When Clark does that, he falls back to doing what his father tells him to do (despite having been arguing with his father about this very subject only minutes earlier). Clark is still young, and scared, and his instinct isn't lined up with his teachings.

In that moment, Clark does what his father tells him to do. He plays it safe. He ignores his instinct and everything that he is as a person, and he follows orders. Because he does this, he loses his father. He loses everything that he had been taught, because it didn't matter. He played it safe, and he still lost. He let fear keep him from action that he knew was right, and his father died because of it.

But the scene is more than that. Because despite what Jonathan Kent taught his son out of fear of losing his son, Jonathan sacrificed himself for someone else. His actions and his words didn't line up. Jonathan, the man, was a hero. Jonathan, the father, was just scared. Every day. For decades.

The scream that Clark lets out when Jonathan dies mimics the scream that he lets out when he kills Zod. It's the loss of something vital to the core of who he is. Action or inaction, it didn't matter. He still lost. But without Jonathan's death teaching Clark that lesson, i'm not sure that he could become the hero that he was meant to be. Sure, Clark wanted to do something good, but that was a childish desire to act for his own sake. It was rebellion. At that point, he wasn't capable of being what he needed to become in order to use his powers responsibly and safely.

The scene can probably be discussed and perceived in different ways, if we really wanted to get into it. But I don't think that it was a scene that was ill-conceived or careless. I don't think that it was a scene that could easily be removed from the movie without removing something vital to the arc of Clark's character, as well as Jonathan's. It's easy to say that the scene could just be removed and that it was a bad scene, because most people don't need to character arc at all. A lot of people would be happy with the basic, cotton-candy version of the Superman origin that we've seen a hundred times before. But for this movie, and this Clark's development as a character, I think that losing that scene would do a lot of damage.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Henry Cavill has been fired????  If true, this is totally absurd. … up-1142306

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

If true, that's upsetting. Mostly because the biggest problem for the DC movies has been Warner Bros, not any of the actors or writers/directors. However... I don't know that I trust the report. It states that they want to shift the focus to a Supergirl movie, and that this would boot Superman because he'd be an infant when she's around. This isn't remotely true. In fact, you'd NEED an established Superman in order to tell a Supergirl story, and telling the story of her before that would mean telling the story of Krypton, without any superpowers at all.

And all of this is assuming that a Supergirl movie happens at all, which is unlikely since there is a Supergirl series, so this would cause the same issues that the Flash movie has had.

Cavill has never struck me as someone who wanted out of the role. His social media posts seem rather enthusiastic about the role, honestly. And his signing on to another project doesn't really impact the Superman productions at all. Especially since it's a Netflix series, so they're probably working around his prior commitments.

According to him, he's probably already contracted for one more movie at least:

This sounds like more bullsh*t news surrounding the DC movies. They've been unable to confirm that Affleck is leaving, and that rumor is nearly a year old. While I think that there are some major issues with the Warner Bros side of things (mostly, they have no idea what the f--- they're doing with comic book movies and they are constantly panicking and trying to adjust), I think that a lot, lot, lot of the news surrounding the DCEU has been crap. And it seems to be a constant cycle of the same rumors, over and over again, just swapping out names.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The main problem, in regards to the media, is the fact that no one is the face of DC right now.  I hate to keep harking on the Feige thing, but if Feige says something, it's news.  It's official.  At DC, it's the Wild West so rumors are free to run wild and rampant.

With dozens of ideas floating around tied to dozens of creatives, it's hard to tie down what's really happening at DC.  Only a couple of movies are official, and it does seem like DC is in the process of going from more of a shared universe to more of a multiverse concept with a standalone Joker movie and a potentially-standalone Batman movie among the likelier films to get made.

Rumors like this don't happen at Marvel - good or bad.  I think that's because everything flows through Feige.  If he hasn't confirmed it, it's not real.  When there's no one to confirm or deny, anything is potentially true.


Speaking of rumors, there was a thought that WB might want Kit Harrington star as Batman.  That's just such a bad idea that I'm hoping Informant's thoughts on the media is 100% right.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I do agree that they need to have a dedicated DC person/department. I don't think it would solve all of the problems, but it would probably help with a bunch of them.

The problem is that people expect Marvel-type news. They want a schedule 200 years in advance, and they want to know every detail of every decision made about those movies. The fact is, DC isn't doing that. They can't give us details on when Man of Steel 2 is coming out because they won't know until they have a solid idea of what that movie is going to be. It doesn't mean that it's not happening. It just means that nothing is set right now.

That's great in terms of quality of their products, but it's not great for the news outlets, who will then go on to publish any random crap they hear, because there's no news otherwise.

In general, I'm sick to death of the media. They report bullsh!t, knowing full-well that it's not true, but they also know that people will believe it, because they read it from a "reliable" source. And nobody goes back to check to see if those stories are altered later (official retractions don't happen as much as unadvertised rewrites these days).

I hate the media. Not just with entertainment, but in general. The big news outlets need to just go away.

And why is nobody else mentioning how stupid it is to say that Cavill's age would stand in the way of him appearing with a teenage Supergirl? Some of these geeky sites have to know Supergirl's story, and therefore know that this age issue is crap. Why aren't they saying it?

Now, all that said... if we have seen the last of his Superman, I think his arc plays well. It's not the complete arc that we were hoping for, but it does resolve his overall arc in a lot of ways. He went from being a lonely young man, scared of his own powers, to being a hero, surrounded by a team of friends and allies, celebrating his abilities. That's pretty solid.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The new rumor is that they're considering Michael B. Jordan as Superman.

Because that worked really well last time....

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, they’ve got a few existing options for a black Superman.  One is the bold choice to essentially make Obama be Superman.

Then there is Val-Zod who has a better story and a more direct tie to Supergirl:

And then there’s the Sunshine Superman, but he’s just silly. … 005-62027/

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I have nothing against Michael B. Jordan, and I'm sure that there are many characters that he'd be great for. But no. If these rumors were true (and I don't believe them), I'd probably just walk away. They have a good thing going in the movies, so if they choose to much that up for some silly reason, I'm out. The DC tv shows crumbled (at least a couple of them because of their over-politicization) and I find this whole environment exhausting.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Refreshing myself on the history, I believe Jordan would be good as Val-Zod.  It would be pretty easy to rework the Earth 2 story by just saying Kal-el disappeared and save the Darkseid / Apokolips invasion for later.  It could actually work as the soft continuation of the DCEU Warner seems to want; and Val had closer ties to Supergirl as they were both older when launched from Krypton.

As for the finale to the Kal-el arc, they could have the villain in full body armor (ala Darth Vader), and when he’s defeated we see through the crack in his chest plate that the S shield of Cavill’s costume is showing through.  It would still be open to bring Cavill back down the road as even the Earth 2 story had that initial evil Superman as just one of an army of clones Darkseid created.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The problem is, they already killed him off... and brought him back.
They already made him bad... and turned him good (though, very quickly)

They spent Suicide Squad and Justice League showing us a world without Superman. It wasn't good. So if they then turn around and boot Superman from the DCEU, they undermine everything that they've built.

I have no problem with them deciding to bring in some other characters, no matter how obscure. But they need to leave Superman alone.

It just doesn't make sense, which is why I have a hard time buying these rumors. If Warner is doing this to try to appease all of those people who whined about "Not my Superman" when they saw Man of Steel, why would they choose to make an even bigger move away from Superman, right as they've positioned Clark to become the person that everyone wanted him to become in the first place?

And again, why does a "teenage Supergirl" concept mean that Cavill is too old? Is there a continuity where she becomes Supergirl while he is still a baby? None of this makes any sort of logical sense, even from a panicked, reactionary position. Bringing in a new director to make a Man of Steel sequel, with Clark as he is now, seems to be the answer to everyone's problems. And it's what Cavill was talking about a little while ago... which is the only legitimate information we have on any sort of talks that have taken place.

I never believe news just because people tell me to. Every major news outlet is referring back to The Hollywood Reporter, which is itself basing its story on an anonymous source, who doesn't seem to know anything about the source material, or the contracts that are in place. They play down the comments from Warner Bros, but that is the only legitimate part of the whole story.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, I think WB has no idea what they're doing.  I think they gave Snyder the bandwidth to make his three-part story, and that's essentially all they had.  Without Snyder, they're scrambling for someone to have a vision.  In the mean time, they had Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman, which had their own separate visions that really didn't tie into the Snyder movies.  With Wonder Woman 1984 still keeping itself separated from the regular continuity (as another prequel), Aquaman doing its own thing, and the Joker movie being in a completely separate continuity (unless they surprise us all and end it with a Jared Leto cameo of Joker being someone like Jason Todd or Dick Grayson), they're moving away from a shared universe.

I don't think their strategy is a bad one.  All these movies don't have to tie together like Marvel does.  There's no need to shoehorn Cyborg into an Aquaman movie to make it work.  Wonder Woman has a huge hole to fill in her history, and doing a movie in the 80s makes sense.  And if Joker is an Elseworld, then it opens up the idea of doing other Elseworlds.  It might even make it easy to replace actors or follow the model from the animated movies (where each movie is its own thing, and voices are always changing).

But I'm still looking for someone to have a vision for where this universe/multiverse is going.  WB has been very reactionary, and it's messed with the tone of both the universe itself and the individual movies.  They're trying to copy everything about the Marvel model except for the stuff that makes Marvel feel cohesive - singular leadership at the top whose sole purpose is to keep the universe feeling connected and moving forward.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I think you're looking for the wrong things from DC. So far, the movies have felt like the same universe to me, but more than that, they've felt like the comic books. Yes, different stories have different tones or even styles, but they still fit into the same world. Suicide Squad felt like BvS to me. Wonder Woman feels like Man of Steel (in terms of universes, not overall story).

But if you're looking for "Where is this going", I think you'll be waiting for a while. The DC universe isn't about where we'll be ten years from now. It's about the movie we're watching right now. This probably makes it look more chaotic than it is, in the press, because they're looking for "In six years, we'll have Darkseid show up, but we have to set up Jason Todd and Booster Gold first", and that's just not happening.

Shazam is in the DCEU. As is Aquaman. They might not have a ton of crossovers, but that's not any sort of correction. It's been the plan all along.

Anyway, does anyone follow Henry Cavill on Instagram? He is either trolling all of the people who are upset at his leaving (which would be out of character for him), or he is making fun of the needless chaos. … snwxs5vqh4

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I'd be more inclined to believe that there's a singular vision for this if there wasn't a standalone Joker movie.  It's not a DCEU prequel because they're looking to hire someone to play Thomas Wayne, and they haven't approached Jeffrey Dean Morgan.

Then there's all the talk that the Batman movie is outside of continuity.  That Aquaman doesn't really connect to the DCEU (it, at least, has consistent actors). It seems, at least, that they wanted/still want Superman to appear in Shazam, and there's a lot of DCEU references in that movie.

It just seems inconsistent on whether or not they're committed to sticking with what was essentially Zach Snyder's universe.  I don't think they need to replicate Marvel - the way they're doing things is okay.  I just would like for there to be some sort of indication that they have a plan.  If they want to do a shared universe, cool.  If they want to do Elseworlds, cool.  But if they do a little bit of this and a little bit of that, I think they're going to lose the non-comic audience.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The Joker movie is a different thing. I have no idea what it is, or how to judge it just yet. Sometimes it sounds cool, and like it could be disconnected from the Batman character entirely. It could just be a crime story, based on the character. But at other times, the movie sounds like a disaster, filled with poorly-conceived political commentary and horrible casting.

I guess we'll see.

Aquaman does connect to the DCEU. It features at least two characters/actors from Justice League. I don't see how that's viewed as any sort of step away from the established continuity. The movie is about Aquaman, and will be its own thing, but it's the same universe, the same characters, the same mythology created as a backstory in Justice League.

And the Batman movie... we know nothing about. There's talk that it's a whole new thing, with a whole new cast... but these rumors are born from not having any actual information. We have to separate out the wild speculation and sloppy ponderings from the actual reality of the situation.

Is it me, or could we just swap out comic book themes for politics and just as easily be talking about any other story in the news right now? smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The only reason I mention that Aquaman is a step away from the DCEU is that Wan has repeatedly said that it's "isolated" from the rest of the DCEU.  Which is I said, there don't have to be shoehorned Justice League cameos for no reason.  But if the movie doesn't address the growth Arthur's character went through in Justice League, it'll be weird.

I heard something about DC finally naming their universe officially "The Worlds of DC" - but that might be a more-inclusive label for all their properties, including animation, TV, and video games.

And, again, this is where a spokesman/figurehead/centerpiece would be beneficial.  Just someone to stand up when rumors happen and say "listen, I'm the only one who is speaking officially on this.  Cavill is not out.  Aquaman and Shazam are very much in our connected universe, which is proceeding.  The Joker movie is (blank).  We're excited about developing movies for (whoever) and you'll get more information on that when it's ready."

It doesn't have to be anyone with any real power at DC.  If they don't want a Kevin Feige, they don't need one.  But someone who can speak for the company when rumors start swirling.

But maybe they don't care.  Maybe they like the rumors.  Maybe they create the rumors themselves to float ideas.  I have no idea.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I think they just mean that, like Wonder Woman or Suicide Squad, the movie is its own thing, while existing in that universe. Whereas Marvel will bring Spider-Man into Civil War and then his whole movie has to revolve around that Peter/Tony angle, Aquaman won't be feeding into any larger DCEU stories, or following up on any from before, which makes sense. It's very much in keeping with the comic books, whereas the Marvel approach is to create one large painting with all of these characters in different corners of the same canvas.

I don't think non-comic book people are going to follow the DCEU. I think that well probably dried up a while ago (at least for Batman and Superman), so they have to take those characters who have already been in a ton of movies, and try to play a different angle. This is another reason why the Aquaman/Shazam/Wonder Woman movies would be handled differently than the Batman/Superman movies.

It would be nice to have someone officially representing the franchise. I thought Geoff Johns was supposed to be doing that, but he doesn't seem to be.

That said, letting the press go crazy is sometimes a smart tactic. Warner can release all of these rumors about Cavill being fired, which will bring more support to Cavill (because people like him as an actor). Then the next Superman movie, which non-DCEU fans would probably not care about, suddenly becomes a rallying point... all while Warner Bros gets to shrug and ask what all of the fuss was about, because they never fired anyone. They have no movie in production, but they still have headlines.

Knowing how to manipulate the swarm of hack reporters is a talent that people underestimate.

TMZ is reporting that the whole thing is fake: … ch_Results

Negotiating in the press? Maybe. I love how they're keeping open the possibility that someone else would come in to play him. At face value, it seems like Warner Bros is trying to keep Cavill on his toes during negotiations. However, I'm inclined to believe that they're keeping the rumor mill spinning. Cavill has another movie on his contract (probably with a big pay raise over his previous movies). The Shazam movie would have been a new negotiation, and it (apparently) fell through (thought there has been some interaction between Cavill and Zachary Levi on social media). Cavill loves playing with the minds of the fans (as he did while teasing Green Lantern stuff before Justice League came out), so he knows what he's doing here.

People (and by this, I mostly mean entertainment reporters) need to spot BS. There were a lot of tells in that original report, which anyone with a passing knowledge of DC characters, or Cavill's position on the DCEU should have picked up on.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Firstly, it was The Hollywood Reporter, reporting on backroom Hollywood negotiations.  I don't see what the big deal is.  It's GOSSIP.  Also, the "news" that there is no active Superman project still stings, and, honestly, proves that Cavill's time wearing the cape is likely over.  They need a young director with a strong vision to come forward.  Heck, maybe this will do that?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

They've said repeatedly, they're working on the next Man of Steel movie. They have nothing to move forward with because they're trying to put the project together. There are about a hundred movies in the same position, which you'll be sitting down to watch in a couple of years.

And yeah, it's gossip. But it was sloppy gossip that shouldn't have been picked up by nearly as many of the media outlets as it was. Especially the geekier sites, which reported it despite the obvious flaws in the story. I can never understand why people will believe whatever they're told, regardless of how credible those reports are. If I could look at that report and tell that it was fake, the Hollywood Reporter, and all of the other people who make a living at this crap, have no reason not to do the same. Which mean, they reported it despite knowing that it stank.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

See, I really don't think anything nefarious is going on.  It could be nothing more than an adjustment to the way an industry like Hollywood releases news.  If WB is, in fact, leaking stuff to negotiate in the media, then there used to be a very simple way that this was done - they'd tell a reporter at variety or whatever and it'd get released as a rumor through an outlet or two.

Now any of us could have a web site or a twitter, and it wouldn't take much to start a rumor.  And with all these people trying to one-up each other for a scoop, some people could tweak the rumor to be "right" when it happens.  And it works the other way too.  People could make up a rumor, claim to be an anonymous source, and then get a story on a smaller site.  Then the bigger sites, trying for a scoop, report it.

I hope that they get it worked out.  I liked Cavill in Justice League, and I think he wants the role.  And it's a cameo...this is something they need to figure out.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Geoff Johns seems to have been, in practical terms, kicked to the curb except for projects that were already in development.  The exception may be the Berlanti shows, but time will tell.

Johns and Diane Nelson made a mistake in trying to fix the Justice League movie; they should have let it stand or fall for what it was, and then picked up the pieces afterward to do it right with the films that followed.  By stepping in, all Johns and Nelson accomplished was to take a share of the blame; and it cost them.

Johns was already on shaky ground after Green Lantern, though.  He fought tooth and nail to get it done his way; but because Warner only half listened to him, it ended up being messy.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

What did Johns want for Green Lantern?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Never saw any details leaked; just reporting about the struggle.

By the time Johns was given the Green Lantern comic, he was popular enough and established enough at DC Comics to have the freedom to do what he wanted; so I would say look to his comics run for how he would do it.  In those comics, Krona is not Parallax; Abin Sur dies of his own fear and paranoia that grew from a prophecy an enemy shared; Sinestro trained Jordan personally (which led to Sinestro being thrown out of the Corps when Jordan exposed that Sinestro was using his ring to control his home world like a fascist dictator).  That’s just a few things off the top of my head; but I feel confident Johns comics likely show what he wanted.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Joker. … ker-makeup

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, this doesn't sound very good. … e#/slide/1

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

It depends, really. In a weird way, Harley kidnapping Dr. Phil sounds like something that the old cartoon Harley would do.

As with everything having to do with these movies, I'm just going to have to wait and see. Who knows what's going on at this point? The Joker movie could be interesting, but I wonder if they'll even tie it to the DC world/characters, or just use the Joker as inspiration for some crazy 1980's serial killer story.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Apparently Thomas Wayne is going to be in it so it'll definitely have connections to DC.  I think it could actually be one of the "better" DC movies because it's so simply its own thing, and it won't have to worry about franchises or anything like that.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, I'm looking forward to AQUAMAN. I've never read a single issue of his comic, but I really enjoyed Jason Momoa in JUSTICE LEAGUE. I'm excited for the next WONDER WOMAN and SHAZAM features Zachary Levi from CHUCK, so I'm eager for that. BIRDS OF PREY has a 2020 release date and I love the old TV show although it wasn't actually good.

... as for the swirling fog that is DC after these three films -- whatever. There's not much to discuss in terms of specifics.

When it comes to generalities, though -- what we're looking at is that the bubble has burst on the blockbuster feature film extravaganza which is globally successful to audiences who don't speak English, see subtitled versions and enjoy computer generated lunacy. TRANSFORMERS really tapped into this subliterate, visual-seeking market.

Since then, the cost of movie tickets and the rise of streaming services has more of the audience staying home. Movies like JUSTICE LEAGUE simply cost too much and profit too little and I think Warner Bros. is going to have to seriously rethink how much they spend and on what they spend it.

SUPERGIRL presents Superman-powers on a TV budget and while its effects would most definitely not pass muster on the big screen (and struggle already for the small), there's got to be some mid-point between two million an episode (a guess) and 300 million for a two hour JUSTICE LEAGUE movie at which a 660 million dollar gross for movies like JL is a success instead of a failure.

There is probably a way to make good, modern, $80 million dollar SUPERMAN and BATMAN movies -- but I suspect that you can't make them with Henry Cavill and Ben Affleck as their current contracts were designed with the TRANSFORMERS-style model in mind. You could probably make SUPERGIRL and ARROW movies for $80 million as Melissa Benoist and Stephen Amell charge a lot less.

I remember, maybe 10 years ago, I said that the best medium for superhero movies was animation. The technology has advanced; the days of SMALLVILLE restricting Clark's powers to the budgetary minimum is over and even on a CW budget, Supergirl can fly in every episode, but currently, the most profitable medium for superheroes is the TV model and market. Maybe it's time to bring Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Green Lantern to the Arrowverse -- and let them rise from there to the big screen, but on a budget closer to TV. I suppose that's the DC streaming service?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, I wonder if WB could've used a successful tactic from the days of old and done serials of sorts.  What if, instead of two $300 million movies, they did 12 $50 million movies?  Hire young actors/actresses and lock them into 10+ movie contracts, and do stories that don't require a bunch of special effects.  Every month, release a movie.  A Batman noir detective story.  The origin of Barry Allen.  A grounded Wonder Woman story.  Green Arrow.  Every movie is about 90 minutes, and if you want, do a 10-15 minute mini-movie about someone like the Question or Blue Beetle or someone like that.

Maybe after the first year, they start bumping into each other.  Batman meets Flash.  Cyborg meets Wonder Woman.  And then you start seeing some blue woosh every once in a while.  Characters start talking about an invulnerable man with incredible strength.  Maybe Barry sees a man running pretty fast - maybe as fast as he is.  Maybe you get a Supergirl movie where Kara is trying to understand what's happened to her and looking for her cousin.

Then you do one big budget film as Superman shows up, steps out of the shadows, and the Justice League rises to face some big villain.

So it's the ireactions idea - small-screen stories bumped up for the big screen, told like they were on television on a budget that's fairly easy to get back.  Probably too much to coordinate but I think you'd just need to run it like the Arrowverse is run and churn everything out as best as you can.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I think that the future is in television. The old excuse was that tv was a cheap, shallow way to tell stories, but that isn't true anymore. The Netflix Marvel shows probably look better than the MCU movies. The Veronica Mars revival will be filming from October through March for eight episodes. So TV is no longer cheap, shallow crap that is produced in bulk, as quickly as possible. Is Man of Steel 2 were to become an 8 episode miniseries on a streaming platform, that might be cool. And Cavill might even be into it.

That said, nothing should ever he done in the fashion of the Arrowverse. That franchise has become such a huge mess, I've been considering dropping it entirely. The Arrow writers made a post on Twitter the other day, celebrating how diverse their writers room is, and it made me kinda mad. Not because I'm against diversity or whatever, but because they think their room is worth celebrating when nobody there knows how to do their job. This mentality is showing in all of the Arrowverse shows, and it is frustrating to me because it is so unnecessary. I used to really look forward to Arrow and The Flash, and now they're garbage, because the writers don't actually give a damn.

I hope that the DCU shows are better, but there is some crossover behind the scenes, so I don't know.

Anyway, a really solid series for Superman or Batman, or others from the DCEU would he cool. It just needs to be made by the right people, with the right motivation. If the DCU platform were the only place to find the continuation of the DCEU, I'd subscribe. As it is now... I will wait until Titans finishes their season and then do the free trial. We'll see how it goes from there.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I don't think the divide between MAN OF STEEL and SUPERGIRL is in terms of the amount of effects but rather how elaborate the process is. MAN OF STEEL spent a year or two preparing conceptual work for how it would look when Superman lifted things, punched enemies or flew; SUPERGIRL took maybe a month. MAN OF STEEL's fights unfolded across an entire town and then a city; SUPERGIRL's fights are isolated to a single space. The TV scale is more minimalistic, and maybe movies need to start doing the same thing in process and visualization too.

MAN OF STEEL, BVS and JUSTICE LEAGUE were filmed all around the globe; SUPERGIRL and THE FLASH are filmed entirely in Vancouver these days.

So, if you were to have done MAN OF STEEL and BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN and JUSTICE LEAGUE on a closer to TV budget, you wouldn't have Ben Affleck, Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne or any other movie star performers with their movie star quotes. You wouldn't have non-Vancouver location filming, so any non-urban environments like Smallville, Africa or the Arctic would be natural Vancouver areas without buildings, stock footage, greenscreen work and sets. Superman and Zod would fight in the sewers, not across a whole city. There would be an emphasis on superheroes using their powers in one specific way in one powerful slow motion shot rather than lengthy sequences of them using their powers in different ways.

Whatever their faults, MAN OF STEEL, BVS and JUSTICE LEAGUE showed superheroes at full power without SMALLVILLE's offscreen power usage, without THE FLASH and SUPERGIRL's reliance on standing sets and a generic city background and without single-room fights. Can an audience that's seen MAN OF STEEL level supeheroics accept stepping back to a superhero film that's closer to ARROW than BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN? I do not know.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, Marvel / Disney is doing what Informant suggests with their streaming service next year.  They’re doing two multi-episode series for Loki (starring Hiddleston) and Scarlet Witch (starring Olsen).  It will be the movies translated directly to the tv format - actors included.  Marvel / Disney is once again ahead of the curve while DC / Warner is left to play catch up.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The simple answer for the question of whether a Man of Steel audience would accept Supergirl level stories is... no. I think the CW shows worked when it was Oliver fighting for one city, at street-level. It was gritty and grounded. One you started introducing larger elements like magic, superpowers, or even Felicity's hacking in every episode, the series fell apart. This could be fixed with better writing. But Supergirl (when last I watched, which was a while ago) looked horrible.

I think a TV audience would accept these characters shifting to TV, but we can't be talking about CW-style TV here. We have to be talking more along the lines of Game of Thrones, Man in the High Castle, or Stranger Things... not all necessarily large spectacles, but all carefully considered. The world building still needs to be there. The quality has to be movie-level. The budget would still need to be much higher than what we see on network TV, but there's no reason why a Batman series can't be done on a Netflix budget. Superman would be tricky, because he needs the scale of what we saw in Man of Steel... but we wouldn't necessarily need extended space scenes, massive government forces fighting alien space ships, etc. Some stuff could be trimmed.

Warner Brothers needs to stop throwing money out the window, for sure. The next Batman movie doesn't need a $200 million budget. Batman is a normal people, fighting mostly crazy-but-normal people. With Batman, bigger isn't necessarily better.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

TemporalFlux wrote:

Well, Marvel / Disney is doing what Informant suggests with their streaming service next year.  They’re doing two multi-episode series for Loki (starring Hiddleston) and Scarlet Witch (starring Olsen).  It will be the movies translated directly to the tv format - actors included.  Marvel / Disney is once again ahead of the curve while DC / Warner is left to play catch up.

I read about that! I'm curious to see if they turn out more like the Netflix shows, or more like the movies. Loki should have probably been retired a long time ago though...

Honestly, I don't know if I'll ever bother to try the Disney service. Disney quality isn't what it used to be.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Hiddleston’s Loki is popular with fans; but without him, I think people wouldn’t care much for the character.  I’m curious if they’ll pull other stars into it too.  They recently did a storyline where Loki stole Doctor Strange’s mantle as Sorcerer Supreme; and with Benedict Cumberbatch receptive to television, I could see him joining the project to explore that story.

With Olsen, I’m not sure where they could go with that; her solo stories have usually included more than her (either co-starting her brother Quicksilver, Vision or the entire Marvel U such as in House of M).  But, her series would be an opportunity to give a soft introduction to the MCU’s version of mutants and the X-men universe.

Of course, one could argue the DC Universe service is taking steps toward this too.  The new Doom Patrol series has cast Timothy Dalton as The Chief; and he’s a recognizable name.  But even with that, it’s still Berlanti and the feel of an extension to his CW universe.  That’s not a bad thing; it’s just not the theatrical to tv model we’re discussing.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

James Gunn might be the guy to write and direct the new Suicide Squad movie.

His personal life aside, I think that might be a fantastic match for him, content-wise.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

No. No. No. Not only do they not need to bring in a guy who immediately makes people think of pedophilia, but they also don't need to bring in another Marvel outcast.

I don't know how true this is, but if rumors like this are true, it's like Warner Bros is actively trying to bring down the DCEU at this point.

James Gunn is no great and special talent. He made one good movie in his multi-decade career, and a sequel that, while great by Marvel standards, was not a good movie. If Warner wants to work with Gunn, they should let him go off and make his own original content. He shouldn't be tied to a franchise like this.

837 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2018-10-09 14:41:26)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I mean, again, putting aside whatever happened in Gunn's personal life, if DC is going to hire him (and it was widely reported that they want to), I think Suicide Squad is the franchise to give him.  It's a quirky, sorta off to the side, group of misfit characters in a distorted/zany universe of its own.  Guardians worked with a nice ensemble cast of characters, and I think Gunn could do the same with the Suicide Squad cast (which, if anything, was well cast).

It'd be better than giving him something like Flashpoint, Cyborg, New Gods, etc.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The question is, are they just looking for him to write a Guardians movie and swap out the names? Because while the movies had some similarities, they weren't exactly the same type of movies.

I just don't get why, with all of the talent out there in the world, Warner Bros keeps bringing in Marvel's table scraps. They're the home of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. They don't need to chase anyone, and yet they keep doing it. And that is what is ultimately doing them the most harm.

Disney fired Gunn because they didn't want their brand mentioned in the same articles as those horrible tweets and pictures. Warner Bros is actively pursuing those articles. Why?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Informant wrote:

The question is, are they just looking for him to write a Guardians movie and swap out the names? Because while the movies had some similarities, they weren't exactly the same type of movies.

Well, it could be argued that Suicide Squad could be more up Gunn's alley than Guardians ever was.  Gunn, obviously, has an affinity for more violent, adult content than he ever got to play around with at Marvel.  Letting him play around in a sandbox with a bunch of charismatic criminals might actually be something perfectly suited for him.

As for why they're pursuing him, I think he's obviously got some talent.  Is he a pedophile...I really can't say.  All I can say is that he seems like a decent guy from his social media, and if he didn't do anything legally wrong and if he's sorry for being immature...then I'm willing to give him another chance.  And if he got Suicide Squad, it'd be another in the line of strong directors bringing a unique voice to DC movies.  I'd be pretty psyched to see what he can do with it.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah, I don't know that he is actually a pedophile, and he shouldn't be blacklisted for the tweets (though far less offensive people have been banned for far less offensive material). I just think it is a bad visual all around. Not only will those tweets be mentioned in every article about his connection to Suicide Squad, but it looks like Warner is desperate to chase Marvel, when they shouldn't be.

I do think that this would bring in some viewers who would otherwise be anti-DCEU, but who were upset about Disney firing him. But will that balance out the loss of people who are creeped out by him? While I don't think he should be blacklisted, I'm honestly in no rush to watch one of his movies right now. If I'm being honest, he does gross me out a bit. I'm not boycotting, but I'm also not a fan.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Really, I kind of wonder if the credit is a little misplaced on Gunn.  Guardians 1 was better than Guardians 2; and the way these things usually work is that the first movie is overseen more carefully by the studio, but after a success they give the creator more freedom.  I think Guardians 2 is more true to what Gunn has to offer, and it’s frankly not that great (at least in my opinion).

Now with this DC opportunity, they could give him more freedom up front based on his prior success (even though that’s against Warner’s instincts), so we’ll end up with Guardians 2 type stuff.  At the very least, if Warner does oversee Gunn more stringently - well, Warner has a pretty horrible track record in allowing things to go too far on micro-management.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

It's possible that Gunn wasn't the main reason why Guardians 1 was great.  I don't know.  I just feel like a quirky, edgier ensemble film is the right place for him at DC.  If it sucks, it's not a key cog in the DCEU.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I don’t believe James Gunn is a pedophile. I believe he was raped when he was a boy by a teacher and his tweets and the costume party and such were a troubled attempt to deny his trauma.

That said, I also didn’t believe Bryan Singer to be a rapist only for many Hollywood actors (Evan Rachel Wood, Jessica Chastain) to describe it as an open secret...

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I don't have any reason to believe that Gunn is a pedophile. What he did, however, was make it harder to shrug off the idea. Was he raped as a kid? Or was that just a vibe that you get? I have never heard that before.

Bryan Singer is just gross. The most shocking (but not really, if you know Hollywood history) thing about him is that he apparently never tried to hide it. Everyone knew all along, and his career still kept sailing along. Big actors continued to work with him. Studios kept working with him. He shows us how cancerous Hollywood is. Roman Polanski still gets Oscars, while A-list celebrities give him a standing ovation and make excuses for him all the time. He drugged and raped a child, and they love him. Victor Salva did time for molesting a kid, and still got hired by Disney. The list goes on and on, and anyone who believes that the #MeToo movement in Hollywood was ever sincere, or anything but a publicity game is fooling themselves. Half of the people speaking up for #MeToo were the ones applauding Polanski at the Oscars.

Sorry. I'm ranting. This is a topic that always drives me crazy.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Gunn attended Catholic school in Manchester, Missouri and the school pastor was Russell J. Obmann. In a tweet, Gunn named this man and described him as giving him meals and an education. "Simultaneously, he fucked us." On his personal blog, Gunn described Obmann as a child molester and how he reported this to his parents but was ignored.

This combined with that awful party where Gunn dressed as a pedophile priest suggest to me that Gunn was dressing as his rapist in an attempt to reappropriate the likeness of his monster as something he could control, mock and dismiss. It didn't work, he spiraled deeper into those horrible essays and tweets. I've also heard that Gunn had a penchant for roleplay where he asked adult women to pretend to be teenaged girls when they had sex together. After a time, I believe Gunn climbed out of that darkness, those dark days remained online and destroyed his career at Marvel.

It's interesting that you mention Salva. Gunn did a book reading at a 2011 event where he recognized Salva in attendance -- and Gunn expressed outrage at Salva and called him a pedophile.


When Bryan Singer was first accused of raping Michael Egan, I did not find Egan credible as he accused Singer of raping him in Hawaii during a period when friends of mine knew for a fact that Singer was basically on lockdown in Toronto, desperately assembling the first X-MEN movie. Financial records and studio documentation would eventually confirm that Singer was in Toronto during the period Egan claimed that Singer had raped him.

Since then, I have heard other stories -- from the same people who told me that Allison Mack was in a sex trafficking cult and had manuevered Kristen Kreuk into a threesome with the cult leader. I didn't take these tales seriously, but ever since Mack was arrested for sex trafficking, I have been forced to reconsider. I've heard stories of a law firm taking on a fraudulent rape case where the lawyers knew the so-called victim was making it all up, but also knew that his lies going public would draw out genuine victims of a prominent film director with rock-solid evidence which the lawyers would use, not in court, but to make this film director pay out massive financial settlements, in perpetuity and outside the legal system -- a far more lucrative proposition than a conviction for sex crimes.

I don't know that any of that is true. Maybe none of it is true.


Recently, I was struck by Singer's interview on TMZ. Singer was all charm and grace, speaking warmly of a director who'd replaced him on a FOX project from which Singer had been fired, generously answering any and all questions, declining to be angry at FOX for firing him. When the interviewer asked Singer if he would ever work with Kevin Spacey again. Singer said it'd depend on the project. Asked if he thought Spacey would ever work again, Singer said that Spacey would always be able to work, it was merely a question of whether there'd be an audience for that work.

Singer's gentleness and kindness were sweet and touching -- except he was speaking of Spacey, a pedophile, a harasser, likely a rapist -- and there wasn't a flicker of condemnation, outrage, anger or hurt. Singer described himself as having helped launch Spacey's career and there wasn't a hint of guilt or shame at having enabled Spacey to acquire a career that allowed him to assault others with the immunity of power and influence. Unlike Gunn, Singer didn't seem to be troubled at having been in the presence of a known sex criminal.

... it scared me and I am no longer able to give Singer the benefit of the doubt.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Wow. I'd never heard that about Gunn before. It certainly adds a different dimension to the situation. I don't know that clears it up necessarily, but it does shine a new light on him. Specifically, the costume that he wore.

As far as Singer is concerned, I watched a documentary a while back (I forget the name) that focused on the pedophilia in Hollywood, and Egan was one of the people featured in that documentary. I really don't know what to make of him or his accusations. I believe that he was present when people he knew were assaulted. One friend was drugged and raped, and wound up brain damaged after complications from alcoholism that resulted from that rape. I don't know if Egan made up his story. I don't know if he would have made it up because that other guy can no longer speak for himself. I don't know if he made his story for selfish reasons, or to shine a light on what was happening. But I do believe that at the very least, his accusations have some basis in truth. The evidence points toward Singer being creepy, and by making those accusations, Egan did change the way people look at Singer.

I'd be willing to hear Singer's side to this and weigh all of the information accordingly, but if he has spoken out in his own defense, those interviews are harder to find than the accusations (which go back at least 20 years).

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Singer has never given his side of the story, only blanket denials. I don't have any real facts to offer, but in that TMZ interview, Singer did not condemn Kevin Spacey, a known and self-confessed child molester who assaulted Anthony Rapp. Singer did not rule out working with Spacey. Singer did not express any shame or regret for, as he said, having helped launch Spacey to stardom. Singer did not show any sign of anger or outrage towards a child abuser. And what I didn't see there really disturbed me.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Agreed. Growing up, I always loved film and television. I was always fascinated by the process of bringing world's to life. But learning about the absolute evil and corruption that the industry has always been rooted in was what made me look elsewhere for my creative outlets. I used to dream of working there, and now it's more of a nightmare. I don't think everyone there is necessarily evil, but I think the evil is like a cancer that keeps spreading.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Another word about Gunn -- I see see his 'jokes,' 'joke' essays and 'party costume' as his trauma. His tweets included: "I like it when little boys touch me in my silly place. Shhh!" "Wondering which Disneyland character would be the worst to get raped by. I think it's Goofy. But Sleepy would suck too." "The best thing about being raped is when you're done being raped it's like, 'Whew, this feels great, not being raped!'"

Even before reading Gunn's scant remarks about his school priest, I felt Gunn's words were clearly the thoughts of an child assault victim, later a twisted adult bleakly voicing his boyhood grief and theorizing as to the mindset of his rapist.

The 'humour' of these words and dressing like the priest who abused him is an attempt to talk about what he endured while hiding behind the guise of 'jokes' to avoid an outright public revelation, something he clearly wasn't (and isn't) ready to do.

When fired, he *could* have said, "I was raped. Those 'jokes' were me trying to talk about what happened to me. It was disgusting, I was wrong, I'm so sorry." I think Disney was right to fire him and declare they found his views unacceptable. That way, Disney didn't come off as attempting a cover up.

I think Gunn was right to issue a statement in which he accepted and understood Disney's decision. That way, he wasn't presenting himself as the victim (of Disney). He didn't try to justify his actions. Which is why I (currently) feel confident that James Gunn is not Bryan Singer.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Agreed. I have no reason to believe that Gunn is anything like Singer. If he was abused as a child, I hope he gets whatever help is necessary to help him work through those issues. I can't begin to understand what that would be like.

From a publicity standpoint, I still don't understand why Warner Bros would put him on a DC project. The fact remains, his name is tied to some really disturbing tweets and images, and those things will be brought up in every article about the Suicide Squad sequel if he directs it. I just don't understand the logic behind inviting that sort of connection for a franchise like that. If they wanted to work with Gunn, maybe they could have allowed things to cool down by having him do some original work for a while before putting him on a big franchise.