Sliders.tv → Sliders Bboard → DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024)
Y'know, this thread is starting to sound a lot like the political thread.
Eh, I'm just prepping myself. I really like these characters and really want these movies to be good. I was genuinely excited about a Affleck directed/written movie, and I'm just worried that we aren't getting that. I just don't want to lose what, in my opinion, has been the best part of these movies. Because if the next news is "Affleck out entirely" then it'd be a genuine emergency.
The new screenwriter is a former Affleck collaborator, so I imagine they were always going to bring him in.
No idea if there's anything to the rumor or more anti-DC media fun, but there's a rumor that Affleck wants out. If that's the case....Justice League better be flippin' awesome or I might bail on the whole thing.
Although Mr Sunday Movies did a really interesting video on the whole situation, and he discussed replacing Bruce with Dick Grayson. Dick might be my favorite DC character, and I'd love for him to get a better portrayal. They could even change the BATMAN movie to be a version of the fan-made Grayson movie from a few years ago, and make it about Dick solving Bruce's murder and taking over the mantle of the Bat.
I'd actually really like to see a Nightwing movie. If the rumors are true about Affleck (and I'm not sure they are. There are always "mysterious sources" saying a lot of crap about these movies, and usually it's BS), I hope they don't just replace Affleck with someone else playing Bruce. They should negotiate a reduced role for him, like in Suicide Squad. That way they could have Dick, or even Terry come in and take over that position on the team. I think the Batman family is big enough that they don't just need to focus on Bruce all the time.
That said, I'd even be fine if they didn't go forward with the Batman movie, but kept Affleck on as Batman for the other movies. The Batman movie was always an add-on for this franchise, and Affleck always said that it wouldn't happen unless everything was lining up just right. So if we end up with no Batman movie, but Batman playing a role in the rest of the franchise somehow, that's fine with me.
Either way, if the rumors are true, I just don't want to see them throw another actor into the same role with no explanation. It's not necessary and we already have a ton of Batman movies anyway.
On another note, the Batman Lego Movie made about $90 million worldwide this past weekend. I think it's an interesting strategy for Warner Bros. Rather than making one franchise and hoping to appeal to all audiences with that one franchise, they've created a children's franchise (which will also undoubtedly make a zillion dollars in tie-in merchandise) and then the more adult franchise, with the BvS/Suicide Squad movies. We were talking before about how they'd cut off a chunk of the audience by not making BvS a movie that kids would love, and I guess this is the answer to that. Yeah, they're probably not going to see billion dollar earnings for each movie, but they will see a pretty steady stream of cash throughout the year.
I always wanted a younger Batman, and I really like Dick Grayson as a character. It'd be something I'd be really interested in seeing.
It would feel pretty natural too, I think. They started this Batman's story out after Dick was gone and Jason was dead. We don't know about Tim or Damien, but we know that this Batman is in his later years. I think a transition to Nightwing would be pretty smooth. Maybe have Tim Drake as his sidekick?
Then they could negotiate a deal where Affleck appears, but isn't the lead. He can give background story for Dick.
Yeah, I would be interested in that too.
Well, this is one problem I have with the whole thing. There doesn't need to be a mystery about Batman's history. We've had a full movie where Bruce was the star and another movie where most of the cast was Batman villains (and Batman appeared).
Is the dead Robin Jason? Is it Dick? Is it someone else? Were there multiple Robins? I understand "we'll get to it" but Robin's death was supposedly a huge part of Batman crossing his own line and killing people. Robin's death was supposedly the reason why Harley was jailed and a huge victory for the Joker. Why are they keeping *key* motivations a secret when they could explain them with dialogue?
If they were holding that for The Batman and doing Red Hood, that's fine....but that'd be at least a movie or two featuring Batman away. Tell us now, show us later.
Because there's a chance there was only one Robin, Dick Grayson, and he's the one that's dead. Robin wasn't part of Bruce's campaign to kill Superman, wasn't there (by his own request or by Alfred's) to stop him, and he won't be there for Justice League. All signs, in my opinion, point to the idea that there was just one Robin and he's dead.
They could do Terry and do a Batman Beyond situation (maybe Batman can't take any more punishment after Justice League), and that could be cool.
It doesn't matter in the long run, but it's hard to speculate because we don't really know what Bat-Family we're dealing with.
I don't see it as a huge mystery. A lot of it is implied, for those who don't know the comics. But it is also put out there for those of us who do know the story. Jason died. Dick and Bruce are estranged. Tim is a question mark, I guess, but that's the only mystery that I see. If that story is given to us in bits and pieces instead of one big movie, I'm fine with that. Even if they never fully explain it in detail, that story influences what we see on screen. It's an interesting way to do it.
But unless I missed something, there's zero evidence that it's Jason, right? We know a story, but we don't know this story. We can't use the comics to fill in holes....we can only use what we know on screen.
- We know *a* Robin died. Visual evidence from the suit in BvS implies that it was the Joker, and Harley's cutaway says that she was a party to the death of "Robin" - no name given.
- We know that Batman is on a one-man crusade to kill Superman. At no point does he seek any help in this quest (either training himself or as backup), so we know that, if any Robin is alive, Bruce didn't contact him. Similarly, at no point does anyone reach out to stop Bruce from going after him. This is a mission that everyone, including Bruce, regards as a potential suicide mission, and no one reaches out to try and stop him. So if Robin is alive, the Robin never tries to contact Bruce.
- All the above is fine if they're estranged. Maybe Dick and Bruce are *so* estranged that they literally don't care if the other lives or dies. Which is more estranged than they usually are (Dick usually reaches out if he legitimately thinks his surrogate father is in too deep because it's his surrogate father), but I get it. But what about Alfred? He spends *the entire movie* trying to talk Bruce out of it, and he never plays the Dick card. Why not? Is Dick so far underground that Alfred can't reach him? Or is Dick not in the picture (because he's dead or never existed)?
- Harley's number one reason for being locked up is being an "accomplice to the murder of Robin" and yet doesn't mention it. Was Robin a kid? A grown man? It's probably her first (only?) murder? If she's going to have a redemption, shouldn't she mention that? Atone for that?
It's a big part of Batman's story and a big part of Harley's story. It's either Batman's entire motivation for going too far to fight Superman or, at the very least, a catalyst for it. It's a huge part of Harley's history. In a movie starring Batman and a movie starring Harley, it's not mentioned in dialogue at all...just two visual clues.
If we're supposed to assume Dick and Jason, that's fine. But the movie has to give me some indication that that's the case. Any piece of dialogue from Alfred or Bruce or Joker or Harley or Amanda Waller....all people who would know exactly what happened. Who died and who didn't. Since the movie is withholding that information, I have to assume that it's on purpose and will be "revealed" at some later date.
The Robin story kinda occupies the negative space in these movies. The events happened and they're rippling out, and the events that we're seeing are happening around those stories, but the Robin story isn't the story that we're seeing, so it isn't being addressed. I don't know if they're waiting to tell some larger version of that story, or if it is intended to stay in that negative space.
Of course, there's always the rumor that the Joker we're seeing is actually Jason Todd. I don't really buy that, but it would be a spin on an idea that was used in Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker.
It's hard to say for sure which Robin it is, just by looking at the suit. Warner Bros. did confirm that it was Jason's suit, by labeling it as such on one of their tour websites. This could be changed, of course, but it probably won't be. So I think we're supposed to use the information that we have from the comic books and extrapolate what that suit means.
The Harley element is interesting. The way she was written in the Suicide Squad movie gave her so many layers to play with. She wants a normal life, but she wants a normal life with the Joker. Does that mean that she is simply tolerating his craziness because she loved him? She gave El Diablo hell for killing his family, which potentially hints at her feeling some amount of guilt over killing a "kid" herself, or being a party to it at least. I think they really got her character right in that movie. I was worried that they would just make her hot and crazy, but they managed to hold onto the humanity that has always been a part of Harley.
She did kill someone else in the extended cut, in order to win over the Joker. So Jason wouldn't have been her only murder.
Story idea:
Assuming that they can get Affleck to play the lead in the Batman movie, what if they did a story where Batman responds to a call at Arkham Asylum and finds that the prisoners are going insane... While fighting to get them all put back in their cages, Batman finds himself in an abandoned wing of the asylum and is attacked by the Spectre, who has come to make Batman pay for his crimes.
So, you have Batman in the Asylum, battling his enemies, but also battling his worst moments as Batman, which include falling out with Dick, getting Jason killed and getting Barbara injured. The story would be an insane frenzy, somewhere between Suicide Squad and A Christmas Carol. In the end, we could have Dick show up as Nightwing and pull Bruce back from the edge.
People would hate it. Spectre isn't really a villain, so the movie wouldn't have the same engine as most comic book movies. It would be about Batman's psyche and coming to grips with what he's been through while wearing that costume. A trial, of sorts Is he Bruce or is he Batman? Is he a murderer for bringing Jason into this? Does he deserve the justice that Spectre is threatening?
I mean, I get all that. But it's like the issues I've had with comic books and other stuff...I don't want key information in novelizations, deleted scenes, or studio tours 
Trust me, I hope you're right. I've said this whole time that if they're going to do old Batman, I want Bat-Family. Jason Todd is a character I don't have a ton of love for so if he's dead, so be it. The problem with using comic lore to fill in the gaps is that the lore is so inconsistent. In current continuity, Tim Drake was *never* Robin - he was always Red Robin. Damian Wayne is such an inconsistent character who has become so relevant now. Will they completely pass over Tim to focus on Damian?
My fear is that Hollywood hates Robin and considers him too campy. So Batman had a partner, and he's dead. Period. Because even if Bruce is estranged from Dick, where *was* Barbara? If Tim exists, where was Tim? If Alfred legitimately thought Bruce was going to die, why didn't Alfred try to get anyone to help save Bruce's life? To me, BvS didn't show me a guy who drove everyone in his life away....he was a guy who didn't have anyone left. And, at least to me, there's a difference.
Plus, if Bruce really thought that the world was going to end if Superman wasn't killed....wouldn't he be willing to put down a silly squabble to get the help he definitely needed? Wouldn't he want to go in with every bullet in his chamber? He's freakin' Batman.
So, to me, the evidence that there's no living partners outweighs any evidence that anyone is left. Because there's no indication that any Bat-Family is going to be in Justice League. If Bruce drove all his people away, he also doesn't trust any of them to help. Or they're really petty to never forgive a Bruce that supposedly has learned from all the darkness.
And if Dick or Barbara or Tim or Damian show up, I'm going to need an explanation for where the Hell they were when Superman and Doomsday and Steppenwolf and Darkseid were trying to destroy the world.
And regarding your idea, I like it. I might do something a little different and move the series in a different direction.
Movie opens with Batman and Nightwing on a rooftop. They're investigating something. Shows that they work well together - both good detectives and good fighters. They end up getting to a place where they can overlook a warehouse where Joker is. Nightwing says they should scope the place out. Batman says he's already sent someone in. Dick is shocked - Jason has only been active for a few months and isn't ready. Bruce says he is. They get in and find Jason dead. Dick runs off, furious. Bruce is devastated.
The Battle of Metropolis. Dick watches. He reaches for his phone. Wants to call Bruce. Doesn't. Months later, another call he ignores from Alfred. Then, as he watches Superman's funeral, one from Bruce. Ignored. All the while, Dick is training. Working the streets. Taking in bad guys. Sometimes, some of Bruce's bad guys.
Present day - Batman takes someone into Arkham. Say...Penguin. Dick watches on TV as the former mayor of Gotham is turned in by Batman. Then the TV goes blank. The feed is cut. The anchors don't know what happened.
The next day, it's revealed that Arkham has been taken over by someone. The police can't get in. There's been no word from the inside. The standoff lasts for days. The media wonders if Batman is dead. Dick can't take it anymore. He collects Barbara. Goes to Alfred. Apologizes. They all go down into the Batcave and find a kid at the computer. They scare him off without getting his name.
Dick and Barbara get a clue from some mysterious source that the siege was done by a mercenary named Deathstroke. They also find, in Bruce's computer, a secret entrance to Arkham. As Dick scopes out the entrance, the kid is there again. He wants to help, but Dick knows (from Jason) that kids can't be a part of this life. He proves it by kicking the kid's ass, hoping he'll learn. The kid runs off, licking his wounds.
With Barbara working as Oracle, Dick breaks in. It's chaos inside as the inmates are running amok. Dick, in his Nightwing costume, battles his way through C, B, and A level DC villains, collecting intel. He hears that Deathstroke has Batman in the main office. Along the way, Dick finds clues and weapons. Gauntlets. Batarangs. Smoke pellets. Just when he needs them.
Finally, right before he reaches Deathstroke, he finds a note from Bruce. He always knew Dick would be a great hero. Despite their estrangement, he's always kept tabs on him. Made sure he was safe. But more and more, he was able to let his protege fly. And now....
Dick finds a Batsuit. Custom fit for him. Putting on the Batsuit, he enters the office and fights Deathstroke. He wins. But Bruce isn't captured. He isn't anywhere. Deathstroke doesn't even know where he is - it's all been rumors.
The movie ends with Dick as Batman. Out of the shadows comes Tim (or Damian), the kid from earlier, as Robin. Dick is ready to embrace the life as Batman, to forgive Bruce and forgive himself. To take up Bruce's mantle and do it his own way. Hopefully, a better way.
Post-Credits - Superman (or Wonder Woman or Flash or whoever) shows up and offers Dick a role in the Justice League per Bruce's request.
... I don't even understand what's going on anymore. Why does Affleck want to quit playing Batman?
He probably doesn't want out. If he does, it could have something to do with his family or the physical demands of the role (most people playing superheroes are taking steroids these days. I know Cavill refused).
Anyway, it's fun to come up with story ideas either way.
... I don't even understand what's going on anymore. Why does Affleck want to quit playing Batman?
Well, if I can enter his mind....
My guess is it's reactionary to Live By Night. I think he poured a lot of himself into it, and he was expecting it to be accepted at the same level as The Town or Argo. Instead, it fell on its face, and he spent most of the publicity tour talking about Batman. His passion project was a bust, and people only care about something that, I have to assume, has been disappointing. He wanted the DC Cinematic Universe to be fun, and it's been critically panned and commercially underwhelming. Maybe he thinks it wasn't what he signed up for.
The Batman stuff might be involved too. If he poured himself into it and the studio interfered (both if statements), then it might've been disappointing to have to drop out. Maybe he's worried about making another mixed Batman movie, and maybe he's worried about doing something he doesn't fully believe in.
All speculation on my part. I'd be shocked if he left, but I'd understand why he did.
If Affleck quits Batman, the DC Expanded Universe can pretty much give up on ever being taken seriously again. A studio that can't retain its lead actor for an A-list cultural icon is simply incompetent and incapable. As much as I'd love to see Informant's rhetorical gymnastics to spin it positively, I hope this isn't true.
James Bond.
It'd depend on how it was handled. If Affleck took part in a passing of the torch (as he'd have to in both my idea and Informant's), I think it'd be okay. That's why I wanted to make my version of The Batman be a movie about Dick Grayson literally becoming Batman piece by piece (which was actually sorta a reference to the end of the Knightfall, in reverse). Then I think people would take it seriously and Dick could just be Batman going forward.
If they recast (like James Bond), I think it'd be taken less seriously. It was fine with the Hulk (because no one saw The Incredible Hulk) or even Rhodey (because it's not a huge part), but this is Batman. The difference between Bond and Batman would be the shared universe/shared continuity side. And the fact that Affleck has seemingly been the glue that has held the story together (since he'll have appeared in every DCEU movie if the rumors about his part/cameo in Wonder Woman are true).
I think it'd be a disaster. And that's why I don't think it's true....if he's thinking about leaving, he'll almost certainly spin it into more money. Because I think he's the guy that DC can least afford to lose. By far.
I agree that it's a great way to renegotiate his contract. Even when it comes to the Justice League, Batman isn't always a huge player unless he has to be. It's entirely possible for Affleck to make a killing on relatively little work over the next few years, if that's what he wants.
Would it be a disaster if Affleck left entirely?
I've stopped trying to figure such things out. I thought it was a mistake the get a British Superman (which is like hiring an American Doctor, or Bond), but Cavill's performance was outstanding. I thought it was a mistake to hire Affleck in the first place, and freaked the hell out when my brother let me know about that. Diane Lane as Martha Kent?! Are you serious?! Kevin Costner... actually, that one was always pretty awesome.
Then again, I'm not as big a fan of this Joker as a lot of people. I'm fine with his role being smaller than people expected in Suicide Squad.
For all the defending of the DC movies that I do, people often forget that I've actually been pretty vocally opposed to some of these decisions in the past, and then I had to eat my words because Cavill and Batffleck both worked out pretty well. So would it be a disaster if Affleck left? Would it ruin everything?
I f---ing hated when they swapped out actresses playing Rachel Dawes in Nolan's movies. I still don't like it, really. That said, I get that sometimes, recasting happens. It's always happened, since before film or television existed. So while it my be a bummer and I may not like the idea of a recast, I can't say that it will ruin everything. The Dark Knight was a truly great film, despite having an actress that I personally don't care for very much.
There's a good chance that it will be horrible and ruin everything, but there's also a good chance that we will forget that it happened by the time we reach the halfway point in whatever movie this happens in. This isn't Iron Man. Ben Affleck doesn't define Batman. He just plays the part well.
Rumor has it that WB is looking at Mel Gibson to direct Suicide Squad 2. This could be interesting. He is a great director. I guess he won't be working with RDJ on an Iron Man movie if this happens!
Ben Affleck's performance as Batman is one of the best things about the DC Extended Universe and absolutely critical in a consistent continuity that's being built film by film -- as opposed to the pre-Daniel Craig Bond films where each film seemed to pick, choose and reinvent previous films for the sake of the present. The DC Extended Universe has been marketed with Affleck's talents being a massive draw for an audience. If Warner Bros. puts so much weight and prominence and responsibility on Affleck and then can't maintain a relationship with him, then they prove themselves unable to manage this cinematic continuity or any movies at all. It will be a public relations disaster and the DC films will be the laughingstock of superhero films.
That is... an exaggeration.
This is strictly a personal opinion:
This is "The Exodus" for the DC Extended Universe. John Rhys-Davies defined SLIDERS; Ben Affleck defines the DCEU and when you hire a big name actor who is highly in demand and whose name brings prestige and weight to your series and then you can't make things work with him, then it's over.
A version of SLIDERS that couldn't keep John Rhys-Davies around wasn't worth airing; a DCEU where Ben Affleck wants to quit after one major appearance isn't worth any further consideration. If Ben Affleck's out, I give up, I'm not giving more money to a film series that can't do something as unbelievably basic as not losing the actors who play the main characters.
Oh, we just lost Matt Reeves, too.
And you're free to do that. But the loss of JRD didn't kill Sliders. It was the entire production that killed Sliders. That failing production is what resulted in JRD leaving, it wasn't boredom or whatever. Many franchises have lost their lead and carried on just fine.
If you're looking for an out, you should take whatever you can get. I have liked the movies thus far, so I'm not declaring the franchise dead until the product itself calls for it.
The Thor movies have suffered the loss of directors and actors. That branch of the franchise has actually been a pretty big mess. But the overall franchise continues in nonetheless.
Also, Affleck would be leaving after two major films, and one (possibly two) smaller roles in other films.
And Matt Reeves was never signed as director. We didn't lose him.
If you look at Marvel, they had a big change with Hulk when Ruffalo took Ed Norton's place; and it didn't affect anything. Personally, I've never liked Ruffalo in the part. I would have much rather had Norton, but he tried to take control of the production like he usually does and that's that.
With these DC movies, the thing with Affleck is that I really don't care if he stays or goes. I don't care if any of the actors stick around; it's still going to be the same quality no matter who goes in there. For me, that means largely unenjoyable.
My mom recently came across Batman v Superman on HBO. She enjoys a wide range of movies; loved the first two Nolan Batman movies and likes the Marvel movies. With Batman v Superman she had two main comments. She thought the story jumped around all over the place and was hard to follow; and she asked me why Batman and Superman were depicted as evil. She's a casual consumer of this stuff at best; a good representation of the average watcher. But that was her take away - Batman and Superman were evil.
The actors aren't the problem; but the real problem is what could drive away the actors. The real problem is the tone. Nolan's Batman had a darkness to it; but you knew who the hero was.
In my case, I really like the actors and losing Affleck is simply unprofessional especially at this early stage. In the case of the Marvel movies, I missed Edward Norton as Bruce Banner and preferred Terence Howard as Rhodey, but they were used as supporting characters when new actors took over. Affleck is a star and a lead. To lose him at the start is just awkward and embarrassing no matter how anyone may try to spin it.
It's not really the start at this point, is it?
I guess I just see it differently. It isn't unprofessional, because it has always been a part of the profession. It sucks when it happens. I'm not saying that I like it at all. But it happens. I know that it is Ben Affleck on the screen. I am never convinced that he is actually Batman. So while he may do that job well, I know that others have played that same role well in the past. I would say "oh well, that sucks" and then go on watching the movies, the same way I would if they recast the lead in a Broadway show. I like Angela Lansbury in Sweeney Todd, but Helena Bonham Carter was also good, in a different way.
But then, I watch movies differently than most people. And of course, this is all still hypothetical. There is no evidence that Affleck actually wants out, any more than there is evidence that massive reshoots completely changed Suicide Squad. And if they do recast, they may end up with someone I hate. I have no interest in watching Leonardo DiCaprio or Matt Damon in the role.
And screw Norton! I want Eric Bana back as the Hulk!
Well, Affleck has been the glue so far. He's the connection between BvS and Suicide Squad. He's the guy doing the legwork in organizing the Justice League from the trailer. If he's gone, it's a huge hole to fill and would have to be done correctly.
We've discussed this a lot, but the main problem with the characterization in BvS is the way the script seemed to be altered. From what I can figure from interviews with different people behind the scenes, the script was supposed to be Superman saving Batman from the depths of his own demons. Batman is blinded by rage and ends up like one of the villains that he's fought his whole life.
The problem is that Snyder or the studio or whoever wanted to make a Batman film. So Batman had to be the hero. If Batman is the hero, Superman has to be someone that Batman should rightfully fear/hate. So Batman, while essentially filling the same role as Lex Luthor in the film, is painted as the hero. Superman, while not doing much of anything to deserve the hatred from Batman, is painted in a villainous way to justify Batman's crusade.
I've said it before, but a movie where Batman is the villain would've been amazing. It'd humanize Superman, continuing the work done in Man of Steel, and Batman's redemption would move right into Justice League. Because Batman is a bad guy, even in the final cut. He's a brutal vigilante, an obsessive maniac, and a murderer.
Instead, we get a movie where Bruce is painted as the hero, while Lex Luthor is identical and is painted as a villain. Where the hero, Superman, gets very little humanizing and whose own mysteriousness comes off as "dark" or "uncaring", and where it's hard to understand anyone's motivations. Throw in the massive cuts, and the movie just struggles to form an identity.
I would disagree with that view of BvS (even if we are just discussing the theatrical cut). But we've discussed that a bunch already, so I won't go into it.
You really do need to watch the Ultimate Edition.
My view is that actors matter, people matter, because these are the specific faces and characters we're letting into our hearts. The unprofessional part of Affleck leaving (if he leaves) is that the DCEU is being sold on the strength of Affleck's acting and reputation at this point. They asked their audience to invest in the construction of the DCEU with Affleck as one of the pillars.
And Affleck isn't playing Jimmy Olsen or Chloe Sullivan's street coffee vendor; he is playing Batman. If you're going to have someone play that role that prominently, you should make sure this actor is locked in to play this character long-term and make sure the relationship between the actor and the studio is solid and if you can't do that, find another actor. If Marvel replaced Robert Downey Jr. a few movies in, the MCU would be game over for me too, and that's what I see happening here if Affleck's departure comes to pass.
The problem with Batman, though, is that I don't really see any reason for Batman to be so angry. Yeah, people died as a result of the fight in Metropolis, but from the looks of things, pretty much everyone was okay with it. The world seems to understand that the collateral damage was a result of Superman trying to save the world, and that's that. They built a statue to him in the same city that he participated in destroying, so it's hard to say that he's hated. No one tries to arrest him at any point. The military wanted to talk to him at the end of Man of Steel, but they seemed to trust him. The government wants to talk to him, but it's not about Metropolis.
Superman has proven himself in the public eye, and he spends months doing nothing but good. It doesn't take much investigation on Lois' part to find that Superman isn't guilty of the attack in Africa, and that's the *only* thing that Superman has done since the Battle of Metropolis that isn't heroic. Batman being angry in the immediate aftermath of the Zod fight is understandable, but he's one of the few people who doesn't let it go...especially as Superman continues to save people.
The only other people in the movie who are openly anti-Superman are Lex and Wally, who are both insane and murderous. The villains of the story. Batman is clearly unhinged, murderous, and villainous.
It has nothing to do with the studio. If we believe the rumors about him leaving, we probably have to believe the rumors about why. A movie didn't do as well as he had hoped, and he is in a funk about it. That has nothing to do with the studio or the DCEU, it has to do with Ben Affleck. Unfortunately, he can afford to break contracts and turn down work. I'm not entirely sure that anyone in the MCU has that ability on that level, aside from maybe Samuel L Jackson (though Chris Pratt is getting there). Even RDJ's comeback and newer success is very closely tied to Iron Man.
Maybe it's because I've spent most of my life reading as much about what goes into making a movie as I have spent time actually watching movies, but I'm firmly in the "sh*t happens" camp. No matter what business you're in, things happen. People come and go. This is why they invented the saying "the show must go on".
How they handle it will be what matters. If they choose to find a new actor, they need a good one. But they don't even really have to. There is enough story to survive with Batman off camera. He isn't the glue that holds it all together. He is a character who has served a purpose in some of the stories. The DCEU doesn't fall apart without him. He wasn't in Man of Steel and that was a great movie. They won't edit him out of Justice League (probably...) so by the time this becomes an issue, Superman will be back, Wonder Woman will be well established, the team will be put together, and the Aquaman movie probably won't need him anyway.
Man of Steel 2 doesn't need him either.
Gotham City Sirens would actually be a good place to introduce other Bat-family members, so that could work too.
I'm not saying that he hasn't served a purpose, but he isn't the sun around which the whole thing revolves.
Batman isn't villainous. He and Superman are both being manipulated into destroying each other. The way Lex manipulates people in the movie, while coming across as this annoying millennial, is actually pretty well done.
Batman is also being thrown off by the visions that he is seeing.
Alright, I've had enough of this. As the moderator, I have decided that some opinions are simply unwelcome and unacceptable. Slider_Quinn21, I forbid you from voicing any further opinions about BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN from this moment forward on this board and declare this ban to exist in perpetuity --
Unless you watch the god-damn Ultimate Edition for goodness' sake we can't have any productive conversation about it until we have a common frame of reference holy S-word I will Paypal you the thirteen bucks for the DVD when will we move on!?
As for Affleck -- I just don't see why anyone would do JUSTICE LEAGUE with Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman but then no Batman. Why do a JUSTICE LEAGUE film series with the trinity if the trinity is to be reduced to a duo? I mean, I guess you could make the movie anyway just as you could keep making SLIDERS without Professor Arturo and do a HARRY POTTER movie without Hermione or a THREE MUSKETEERS movie without D'Artagnan -- but these projects would ultimately be hobbled and crippled.
Yes, the JLA has had periods where Green Lantern and Vixen and Bloodwynd and the D-list were headlining the team, but at the end of the day, films are for a mainstream audience and the version of the JLA embedded in cultural consciousness is Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman -- and that version is not not Kon-El, Donna Troy and Dick Grayson, nor is it John Henry Irons, Hippolyta of Themyscira or Jean-Paul Valley/Terry McGinnis/Jim Gordon. It's Clark, Diana and Bruce. Yes, you could probably film and distribute a JLA movie without Bruce, but wouldn't that defeat the purpose of this series -- which was to have these versions of these icons exist in this consistent and developing continuity?
I'm not saying that it would be ideal. Obviously, that isn't the plan. But I think it could be done, and the resulting movies could be solid. We have the icons for the introduction at least, so by the time it becomes an issue, we have other established members. Plus, it seems like Justice League is being used as a way to introduce the new characters before spinning them off anyway. It is the launching pad, so it makes sense to have characters come and go from the JL movies.
Or recast him. Either way wouldn't be the best option, but either one could work well enough. The MCU is full of characters that most people never heard of before the movies, and they still manage to make money despite their horrible writing.
I had to add a jab.
Alright, I've had enough of this. As the moderator, I have decided that some opinions are simply unwelcome and unacceptable. Slider_Quinn21, I forbid you from voicing any further opinions about BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN from this moment forward on this board and declare this ban to exist in perpetuity --
Unless you watch the god-damn Ultimate Edition for goodness' sake we can't have any productive conversation about it until we have a common frame of reference holy S-word I will Paypal you the thirteen bucks for the DVD when will we move on!??
Hahah, it's not a matter of money. I've overloaded myself with TV shows and haven't had the patience to devote 3 hours to it. In addition to the couple dozen shows I'm watching, I'm also trying to get through the original run of Twin Peaks before May. And Rick and Morty.
This summer, I'll get to it. Until then, I'll abide by the ban!
Oh, we got Matt Reeves to direct THE BATMAN after all!
http://www.superherohype.com/news/39150 … wing-movie
We're also getting a Nightwing movie. I guess he'd have to be introduced in the Batman? Either way, this is the first official confirmation that Dick Grayson exists!
Good news all around. I'm really excited to see Nightwing on the big screen. DC continues to make me happy with these movies.
If anyone really wants to come to appreciate the DCEU, check out The Death of Superman Lives. It's available from Showtime now.
Wow. So many people making so many wrong decisions, and taking it completely seriously. Nothing about the new DC movies is anywhere near as wrong as this. Their whole approach to Clark/Superman was backwards and wrong, and it informed their whole project.
Well the DCEU is Oscar-winning now 
Yeah! So ha!
Of course, the Oscars are a completely meaningless sham and I wouldn't want one of those things in my house if you paid me (is it really an honor to get the same award that they give to child rapists?)... But ha anyway.
All that matters is
DCEU 1
MCU 0
Exactly!
It was justified too. Not only was Killer Croc really cool, but Harley's look became iconic before the movie even came out.
Now they're saying that Wonder Woman is good, but Justice League is a mess.
I'm going to go ahead and believe that all of these super secret insider reports are BS.
Okay, since the dust has been kicked up online again, I have to get back into this...
I keep seeing articles about how the DC slate needs to be scrapped and how it's such a failure. They say that even if they made money, they're being ripped to shreds by critics (which is a bit like a politician being ripped by pundits... it doesn't actually matter in the end).
Math time!!!
Suicide Squad had a budget of $175 million.
Domestic earnings: $325,100,054
Foreign earnings: $420,500,000
Total: $745,600,054
Doctor Strange had a budget of $165 million.
Domestic earnings: $232,532,923
Foreign earnings: $443,382,684
Total: $675,915,607
Now, the fun thing to point out about the foreign earnings is that Suicide Squad was not released in one of the biggest world markets, China. Therefore, the Chinese earnings for Suicide Squad are $0. Meanwhile, Chinese earnings for Doctor Strange are $109,194,913. So if we want to test "success", rather than "earnings", as these articles claim to be doing, we should probably lose $100 million from the Doctor Strange numbers then, right?
Yes, Civil War made more money than BvS. As we've discussed before, this is largely due to the fact that the DC movies aren't aiming for younger audiences, so families aren't likely to go see them over and over again. However, DC did make up for this by releasing a movie which was specifically targeted at children, the LEGO Batman movie. No articles written about the great DC/Marvel war (which I still say isn't a thing) have acknowledged the fact that Warner's plan isn't entirely dependent on the DCEU movies. Batman, the brand, has appeared in three movies within the past 12 months. Each of those has been successful in reaching their desired target. I'm not aware of any Marvel projects that are doing this same thing, making hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office, but feel free to mention any that I don't know about.
So let's review overall profits (subtracting budgets):
Marvel/Disney (Civil War + Doctor Strange) - $1,414,220,102
DC/Warner (BvS, SS, Lego Batman) - $1,341,335,084*
*The LEGO Batman movie is still in theaters and earning money
The difference in profits (not counting any licensing deals or marketing budgets, because Hollyood accounting is impossible to navigate): $72, 885, 018
In conclusion... It's China's fault.
LEGO killing it, but remember that's a children's comedy. As for Dr. Strange, that one was never counted on as a blockbuster for Marvel. It's esoteric. However, it's part of the Marvel roadmap, and keeps the fans happy. Suicide Squad fits where? The biggest carryover characters are Harley and Joker. Harley I feel is a terrible character to be the lead, and despite Margot's hotness, won't carry a film. The Joker without Batman? No thanks.
That's what I like about the way DC did this past year. The Lego movie is 100% for kids, but it frees up the other movies to be more for adults. They didn't need to dumb down or clean up BvS or Suicide Squad, yet they still made profits on the same level as Disney/Marvel.
I disagree about Harley. I think she is a very complex character, so I can see her anchoring a movie. But keep in mind, Gotham City Sirens is really another ensemble.
As for Doctor Strange, I think it was about the same level as Suicide Squad, in terms of what level the character is in the grand scheme of things. It's a B-level Marvel movie, like Suicide Squad is B-level DC. I would put Ant Man in there too. Thor should be A-level, but he really isn't. I don't expect much from his movie.
New Wonder Woman trailer. Looking really good so far.
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/ben-a … 202009104/
Affleck has been in rehab. Probably explains why he has lightened his load a bit.
http://www.superherohype.com/news/39318 … d#/slide/1
No. No. No. No. No. No. NO.
Don't rush a movie out. Don't do it. Do not.
Again, I think that people are blowing this up into more than it is. The studio is looking at options and seeing if there is anything that they can shift around and put out sooner. Their schedule is always shifting, usually for good reasons, so I don't think we should panic yet. If they decide to force an FX-heavy film out too quickly, they will regret it. They can't afford to get GL Corps wrong after the last movie flopped.
A movie without any huge visuals could be put together pretty quickly, and DC has many characters who could be used for a relatively low budget, visually simple movie. Their visual style for the franchise even supports something less grand. So that's an option. Even Nightwing could be more grounded and require less post-production work.
But odds are, they won't force anything that they're not certain of. Most of the options listed would require too much pre-production and post-production work. Anything Green Lantern, Flash or Justice League Dark will take too much work. Suicide Squad 2 is an option, depending on how much of a concept they already have. Same for Sirens, I suppose. They would only have nine months to do this... It isn't impossible, but I'm not going to invest too much in this right now.
Just for some perspective, Sony just announced a Venom movie that I believe is scheduled for October 2018. They haven't written it yet, so it is probably pretty early on. There is a chance that some of these DC ideas are further ahead in the process.
Just for some perspective, Sony just announced a Venom movie that I believe is scheduled for October 2018. They haven't written it yet, so it is probably pretty early on. There is a chance that some of these DC ideas are further ahead in the process.
I think the Venom movie is also a terrible idea. I think Sony is doing some really bizarre things with the Spider-Man property. He's part of the MCU, but there's going to be a spin-off that isn't? And there's going to be an animated Spider-Man movie that's unrelated to anything?
I know that Lego Batman is running at the same time as the DCEU, but that feels more like a Lego movie than a Batman movie. The Spider-Man movie is just going to be a Spider-Man movie. Maybe that's a weird line that I'm drawing, but it's just strange that Sony is going to have three entirely separate Spider-Man franchises going at the same time.
Agreed. And the animated movie (which may be Miles Morales, not Peter Parker) will have to be worthy of a theatrical release. Most of these animated movies are straight to DVD, so it is odd to release this in theaters. It seems like they're upset about Disney getting Spider-Man, or they're trying to hold onto the rights... I don't know.
Well, at the end of the day, everyone wants what Disney has right now. Say what you want about the MCU and Star Wars, but they're licenses to print money. It's a series of movies that will carry on until the genre falls off. Star Wars is going to do a movie a year for the rest of our lives, and I'm sure it's nice to have 1-2 Marvel movies that they can count on generating some profit.
WB wants that with the DCCU. Sony wants that with a Spider-Man universe (which they were trying before they decided to share the rights with Disney). Universal wants it with their MonsterVerse (which they tried to start with Dracula: Untold and will now restart with the Mummy), and Legendary wants it with their MonsterVerse.
And I get it. DC wants to slot these movies and make their money while they can. But I don't ever advocate rushing a movie, especially when the previous movies have had mixed reactions. Take your time and make sure the movies are good.
Because, honestly, making a movie more about a release date than a movie is what Marvel does. It's why their movies are so generic and cookie cutter
Yeah, I always give credit to Disney for their marketing skills. Like Apple, it doesn't even matter what they put out most of the time. They have it a bit easier with the Marvel movies, because this is really the world's first on-screen exposure to most of these characters, so they can do basic origin stories and basic sequels. DC has a lot more history to compete with. They have to be different, but critics don't like different. It's a hard balance.
I'm curious to see how Homecoming does, because this is the first time that Marvel will have the problem that DC has. People will be comparing actors, costumes and directors like Marvel has never seen before. I'm sure it will do well, but it isn't as simple as Iron Man or Captain America.
The Star Wars movies are a whole other story. The franchise thrived when it was three movies. Nostalgia helped a lot. The second trilogy is mostly forgotten. The Force Awakens did well, but really wasn't good. I'm curious to see how much the franchise can be diluted before fans lose interest. Just as Marvel hasn't had to face DC problems until now, Star Wars hasn't had to deal with Star Trek issues until now.
Do we think Superman is going to show up in the promotional campaign for Justice League, or are they going to pretend like he's actually dead?
They should reveal him, but maybe later. He could be "dark" Superman when he returns, so maybe have him facing away, or hovering above the others. But we all know he is in it. Henry Cavill keeps posting about it, so it isn't any kind of mystery. They should just own it and use it in their promotional material somehow.
Sliders.tv → Sliders Bboard → DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024)
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.