Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah but if you're going to pick a series, wouldn't it be the one about the bad guys?  They aren't giving him Superman or even something like Shazam.  We're talking about a franchise where one of the leads has killed tons of children...

I still think his vision fits.  If he's a criminal, he shouldn't direct it.  If he's just making jokes, I think he can make a great Suicide Squad movie.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I can't really judge his actual ability to make a good Suicide Squad movie. He made one good movie with Guardians... but the sequel wasn't really good. And those were pretty much the cream of the crop from his filmography. So I honestly have no idea of what a James Gunn Suicide Squad movie would be. We could assume that it would be a lot like GotG, but as TF said, some of that style and flavor could have come from Marvel.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

It seems to me like WB is keeping DC films in development without actually proceeding to make any they can't back out of aside from WONDER WOMAN II, AQUAMAN, SHAZAM and the JOKER movie. There's a lot of scripting and considering for BIRDS OF PREY, BATGIRL, NIGHTWING, THE FLASH, THE BATMAN (which may or may not have Affleck) -- but what it comes down to is that WB is unwilling to attempt a TRANSFORMERS-level superhero project after JUSTICE LEAGUE crashed so hard even Informant wouldn't defend the financials. Superhero movies that earn 600 million dollars at box office should be made for no more than 100 million dollar budgets and preferably half that.

In terms of what makes financial sense, WB are waiting, I think. They're going to wait for WONDER WOMAN II, AQUAMAN and SHAZAM's performances before engaging in anything beyond non-committal development. Given how badly JUSTICE LEAGUE did, I wonder if the DCEU is simply going to be waiting until enough time has passed to start over. They may make a third WONDER WOMAN, a second AQUAMAN, another SHAZAM -- building on what's already been built without throwing too much more money after what's been lost. I doubt they'll want to make THE BATMAN or MAN OF STEEL II on the blockbuster level that Affleck and Cavill level salaries would demand. The DCEU with regards to Superman and Batman seems to be going the way of the SUPERMAN RETURNS sequel -- it's just not enough of an earner to press forward on this sort of financial scale.

When the LOST IN SPACE 1998 movie failed, there were no sequels, but because there was going to be some time between the next iteration, there were some novels set after the film -- just to keep the copyright going and to earn some revenue. I don't see WB demoting the DCEU to novels, but it's going to be some sort of scaled back exploitation that won't be the bold, continuing adventures of Superman and Batman.

I imagine the DCEU closing out with a final WONDER WOMAN film before making a new attempt at a live action DC Universe. I wonder if it would spin out of the Arrowverse, but the Arrowverse probably has only another 4 - 5 years left before it too is laid to rest with a good finale.

The future may be in the DC streaming service -- TV level productions that, like DOCTOR WHO, eventually make the leap to the big screen. Thirteen episode shows at 1 - 2 million dollars an episode before a $30 million feature film emerging from the shows that can make 200 - 500 million dollars at box office and be considered a strong return on investment. Perhaps in 2022, when enough time has passed, a new Superman and Batman will debut on the small screen and lay groundwork for leaping to the large.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I've read that Birds of Prey is supposed to start filming in January. They cast Ewan McGregor as Black Mask, Jurnee Smollett-Bell as Black Canary, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Huntress... Or so I've read.

The real problem for the DCEU is that the studio doesn't make flashy announcements every time they serve lunch, like Marvel. Also, the media lives to hate the whole franchise, so they don't cover upcoming films as much. Until Zachary Levi posted pictures from the set of Shazam, I wasn't even sure it was happening.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well one thing that Marvel does better than DC (and "better" is subjective) is hype.  Marvel builds hype to the next movie, to the next trailer, to the next *title*.  They have sold-out halls to announce future titles, and they have the internet going insane over speculation on what the next Avengers movie will even be titled.  They do fun little videos with the characters, and they're setting up to do more TV-style projects with some of the lesser Avengers.  Yes, it's corporate, and yes, it's ultimately pointless.  But everything Marvel does is streamlined, and I think that's to their benefit.

At DC, it just seems more like the Wild West.  Some movies are in-continuity, some aren't.  Some have stars attached but no script.  Some have a script but no cast and no director.  You've got Superman and Batman in various stages of being involved and not being involved that seems to change by the day. 

And as far as hype goes, I don't think it's consistent enough.  With Justice League, you had a trailer well over a year before the movie came out, a huge space, and then the hype got bigger.  Aquaman was radio silent for a really long time, then a big rush for the trailer, then radio silence again.  It's a movie that I really want to see, but I constantly forget that it's coming.  Same with Shazam.

It sorta goes the same thing with their streaming services.  DC has a DC-only streaming service, and they came out with a Teen Titans show.  Marvel is going to have a Loki show and a Scarlet Witch show and a Bucky/Falcon show and a Hawkeye show.  All things that are definitely in-universe and driving people towards the streaming service.  You can argue for or against their way of doing things, but it all has a singular goal and it generates profit.

DC could've done any one of their couple dozen works and made it for their streaming service.  Do Batgirl there.  Or Nightwing.  Can't get a Flash or Cyborg movie going?  Do a show.  Or Supergirl.  If it interferes with the Arrowverse, either don't worry about it or pull the plug on it.  There's a million different heroes that they could introduce on a show and cycle in and out of movies.  But all they did was Titans.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

To be fair, DC has a number of shows coming. Titans was just the first, but we still have Doom Patrol, Swamp Thing, Stargirl and Metropolis coming up. Not huge names from the movies, but it's something.

I agree, Disney is great at marketing. Their marketing is better than their actual movie making... Which is kinda sad. DC probably makes more sense when you know what's actually happening, but we don't know anything at this point.

A lot of this is Warner Bros not knowing how to handle their properties. Another part is the media, not wanting to report when there is news, and constantly making up fake news to create a negative spin.

Warner Bros really should let DC be it's own company, and they should hire people to create buzz. Pop-up mini conventions where their stars appear to give updates would be cool. Drop the Snyder cut on their streaming service on Christmas Day without announcing it beforehand, or maybe just releasing hints and teases before. Stuff like that. Marvel uses sick kids to generate positive publicity for their movies (which is wrong on some level, but tye kids still get to meet superheroes, so it works out in the end).

DC really does need to step up their publicity game.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) is coming to theaters on February 7, 2020.

Long title. Kinda seems like a joke based off of one of those Harry Potter movies. I expect that we will be getting more info as filming begins, and of course a teaser at Comic Con.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

It's definitely a comedy title.  If it's a Harley movie featuring the Birds of Prey, I could see it being a zany movie.  Which could absolutely work in a Deadpool kind of way.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Sorry for forgetting that BIRDS OF PREY was likely to go ahead. It slipped my mind. Weird, because I love the TV show.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

This is old news apparently, but Ayer says that Steppenwolf/Boom Tubes were going to be involved in the original plan for Suicide Squad.  That would've led into Justice League and Darkseid.

I also fell into the whole "Zack Snyder Cut" controversy.  I'd be interested in seeing it, just out of sheer curiosity.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Snyder is playing the Justice League thing totally right. He keeps releasing little nuggets about his cut, making the Snyder Cut a thing of legend. Warner Bros has to eventually release it, like the Donner Cut of Superman II.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah but nothing I've seen makes it seem like it would be drastically different.  Some flashback scenes with Cyborg.  A little more with Flash (saving Iris).  Lois does a bit more investigation, and she shows up to help Clark on her own (instead of with Batman).  There's a bit with the black suit (but I've seen no indication that he'd wear it at any point).  And maybe Steppenwolf would use the mother boxes to either turn Cyborg or Superman (again).

It'd be like the Ultimate Edition vs the regular edition - a bit more background and character stuff but not a huge departure from the plot.

There's also the matter would they reshoot 30% of the movie?  I don't really know how the Donner stuff worked, and I'm sure in 20 years, they'll be able to CGI whoever they want back to their Justice League performance age and recreate whatever they want.  But people are demanding the movie now....wouldn't it take months, millions of dollars, and getting the cast back together to even make that feasible?

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Hard to say. Filming was completed, and all Joss oversaw was reshoots and editing. So it would depend on how much he actually wanted to reshoot, as opposed to what the studio and Joss wanted. There is a version of his film out there, just not his final version.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The entire JUSTICE LEAGUE situation is confusing. The first question: was Snyder actually unhappy with the Whedon cut or not? By Snyder's own account, he never saw JUSTICE LEAGUE in theatres and one can hardly blame him for being unable to get back into it after his daughter killed herself.

The second question: how much did Whedon actually change? Whedon and Snyder were already collaborating during filming and planned to conduct the reshoots together, after all.

The third question: how would Snyder have handled the studio directives? He was mostly left alone on MAN OF STEEL which was very good aside from the misjudged destruction porn at the end which he clearly regretted in BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN.

BVS was a very good film, so good studio executives gave the rough cut a standing ovation before ordering that an hour be cut from it, leading to the unbalanced, confusing, incoherent, depressing mess in theatres for which Snyder was unreasonably blamed. But it would indicate that Snyder wasn't in a position to overrule the studio which had mandated a lighter tone for JUSTICE LEAGUE. It's clear from analyzing JUSTICE LEAGUE that nearly every Superman scene has been reshot due to the CGI on Henry Cavill's lip, but would Snyder have done it any differently?

The fourth question: how much did Danny Elfman's upbeat superhero score alter the tone from JunkieXL's compositions?

Ultimately, Snyder was going to reshoot the film with Whedon, so would this hypothetical Snyder cut be assembled from the pre-reshoot footage?

It confuses me a lot because I *loved* the JUSTICE LEAGUE movie. We all seemed to love it here and are clearly out of touch with the larger world. But the movie made $660 million dollars. To me, that says that the real problem with JUSTICE LEAGUE, in my view, is that it cost $300 million to make.

BVS cost $330 million, MAN OF STEEL cost $225 million. With all of these movies earning in the $600 - $700 million range and going by the calculation that films must make three times their production budget to turn a profit, none of these movies should have cost more than $200 million. WB shouldn't have assumed BVS and JUSTICE LEAGUE would make any more than MAN OF STEEL.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I watched JUSTICE LEAGUE again on the weekend and... I am astonished at how the general viewing audience really hates this movie. I'm baffled by the criticism that Whedon and Snyder don't fit well together because I felt the visual style and writing in this movie was the perfect synthesis of Snyder's dour, visceral intensity and Whedon's earnest, charming, disarming self-awareness. Barry Allen's starstruck crush on Wonder Woman is hilarious. Commissioner Gordon addressing Batman, Cyborg, Wonder Woman and the Flash and turning away briefly and discovering that everyone except the Flash has left the scene -- hilarious. Barry nervously confessing to Batman that he's never been in a fight -- hilarious. There is a perfect moment where Batman tells Barry not to fight, not to think, simply to get in, save one person and he'll know what to do next. There is another perfect moment where Wonder Woman loses her weapon and dives off a scaffold to retrieve her sword and the Flash superspeeds in front of the blade and passes his kinetic energy into the blade to send it right into Wonder Woman's grip.

There is another perfect moment where the Flash dives into Wonder Woman to rescue her from a collapsing structure and ends up with his face in her breasts. There is another perfect moment where a resurrected and angry Superman has Cyborg and Wonder Woman and Aquaman on the defensive and the Flash speeds towards Superman, confidently sure he can land a knockout punch before Superman can blink -- only for the seemingly in slow motion Superman to turn towards the superspeeding Flash and Ezra Miller gives Barry the perfect look of hapless terror. There is another perfect moment where Aquaman inexplicably starts babbling about his fear of dying and how he never chose Atlantis or humanity and how Wonder Woman is beautiful and then realizes he was sitting on Wonder Woman's lasso. There is another perfect moment where Superman returns and declares, "Well, I believe in truth and I'm also a big fan o'justice." There is another perfect moment where Superman abandons the battle to save civilians.

I just don't understand why people hate this movie so much. I'm not saying it isn't flawed -- Steppenwolf is a terrible villain who is never a convincing threat; he gets the third Mother Box because the heroes forget about it and leave it on the roof of a car; Henry Cavill's face looks bizarre in the opening scene -- but I just wouldn't trade these moments even for a more narratively coherent film. I love JUSTICE LEAGUE.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I don't remember much about it, but I definitely had more fun with the movie than I thought.  Then, after I was done with it, I had a long-ish drive and listened to a podcast about it where the hosts were ripping it apart.  And, honestly, I didn't have a great counter for a lot of their concerns.  I think, like BvS, there was a decent amount of characterization that got left on the cutting room floor.  I did think there was a decent amount of pivoting to 1) make Superman seem more heroic to the world than he actually was and 2) soften Bruce a bit.  The fact that Bruce is completely motivated by a dream he had where Superman was killing everyone, and he's the one spearheading the plan to bring him back to nuts.  The fact that Bruce uses the same logic (if there's even a 1% chance that....) to both rationalize killing Superman and then to bring him back is nuts.

But one of the podcasters kept insisting that, despite everything, he had fun with it.  And I did too.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Justice League is a solid movie. It's fun, and I don't have a problem with Steppenwolf. I think the movie could have used more time to flesh out some of the characters and stories, but that's about it. Bits and pieces here and there weren't great, but not enough to go into.

That said, I do have some problems with what went on behind the scenes, and how that spilled over into the movie. The Superman material isn't bad, but the execution is sloppy. Unnecessarily sloppy, due to poor directing of the reshoots. I don't like that Snyder was messed with the way he was (and at a very bad time, when he probably didn't care enough to fight any of it). I don't like that huge chunks of the larger plan for what was going on were thrown out the window, making it look like sloppy writing/directing, when it was really the studio's fault that things went off track and character arcs weren't properly executed.

So much of the bad taste that the film left in the mouths of audience members was because the studio itself seemed to be sabotaging the movie.

Again, I like the movie. However, I can't watch it without wondering what the real version of this story was supposed to be. At points, it's like looking at a construction site and trying to picture what the place is supposed to look like when it's finished... but it's never finished.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Informant wrote:

I don't like that huge chunks of the larger plan for what was going on were thrown out the window, making it look like sloppy writing/directing, when it was really the studio's fault that things went off track and character arcs weren't properly executed.

I'm curious to what you're referring to.  Like I said, I fell into a hole the other day of the Snyder cut stuff, and it doesn't seem like a ton of overall stuff was altered.  There was stuff at the beginning of the movie that fleshed out Barry, Arthur and Victor.  Lois came to the Superman fight on her own instead of being a weapon of Batman (and apparently had her own journalism arc like in BvS).  There's the black suit stuff, but there's also been still images of Snyder working with Cavill in the blue suit so I'm wondering if that was just an easter egg.  There's the mother box possibly corrupting Victor, but I don't know if that would've also been a minor thing in the third act.  There was a final scene with Arthur and Mera, and it looks like the final scene with Bruce and Clark might've taken place somewhere else...but that doesn't mean the meat of the scene would've changed.

As ireactions said, I don't know if the movie was altered that much.  It was definitely butchered a bit, but like the Ultimate Cut of BVS, it would've fleshed out the movie but not *drastically alter* it.

That being said, there's a chance that the stuff that was shot was already from an altered vision, and the only one who knows that would be Snyder.  There was definitely going to be two movies, and it ended up being two.  But I don't think they crammed two movies into two hours...I'm assuming Justice League ends in the same place it was supposed to end.  I think Snyder's plan was a 9-hour trilogy (BVS/JL1/JL2).

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Snyder had a plan for a second movie, and because of that, he started to set up where this whole thing would go in previous movies. Without a payoff, the Batman dream stuff in BvS looks weird. The Lex Luthor stuff at the end of Justice League sets up a plot that we probably won't see on screen. Darkseid was supposed to appear at some point, but probably won't. But even just things like Clark's character arc, where we see his journey toward this whole person, won't be properly realized because we won't get the final chapter of that arc. We saw a glimpse of it, or some version of it, but it wasn't the way it was supposed to play out, and that bugs me.

Like I said, it isn't so much about what's on screen. I'm fine with most of the material that we have on screen. It's just the behind the scenes stuff, and wondering what Snyder's vision for the movie was. And it annoys me that the studio kicked him when he was down. It was such a low thing to do, because it really does seem like Joss was brought in to reconstruct the plot in a way that was sold as "Snyder has other things to deal with, so we're going to complete his vision as a team", but which was really "We want Snyder out, so we're going to take this opportunity to undermine his vision."

It doesn't seem like there was much love lost between Joss and certain members of the team who worked closely with Snyder. It does seem like Snyder is playing into the idea that his vision was different than what ultimately made it to screen, but he's not directly badmouthing anyone. There's a lot being said between the lines amongst people who worked on the movie.

I think that we'd be having some different conversations if the essay from Joss' ex hadn't come out. I think he was probably let go from the DCEU long before he was officially released, because he had no support to offer the JL when it was being released, aside from pointing out that he was responsible for a song that people liked.

The whole thing feels very "Sliders, season 3", only I do ultimately like the Justice League movie that was released. The movie gets a 74% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes an a 6.5/10 on IMDB. I think some fans probably lower its score because they want the Snyder cut, but I'm not sure how to account for that in these numbers. It's not a bad movie at all. It's mostly Snyder's style, which I like. I think it's just tarnished by a series of unfortunate events, which makes it hard to see the movie without seeing the behind the scenes drama playing out. I can ignore Superman's face in those few scenes where the mustache was evident, as far as the movie itself is concerned, but it highlights other issues.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, it's been argued that "Lois is the key" from Flash in BvS is what led Lois to be his "big gun" in Justice League.  Presumably, it was decided in the apocalypse that Superman *did* need to be there to defeat Steppenwolf, but that they needed to bring in Lois to make it work.  Or maybe they brought her in too late, Superman killed her, and then once Superman snapped out of it on his own, he blamed Bruce and humanity for letting that happen.

But you're right, that's probably not the intention.

The whole situation kinda sucks because of bad timing.  Justice League began production two weeks after BvS hit theaters.  The studio had butchered BvS and wanted a movie closer to 150 minutes than 210 minutes.  Zack Snyder had to begin filming with a 3+ hour movie script, very shortly after audiences were complaining about BvS being incoherent and too long.  His only option at that point would've been to butcher his own script to make it work or film what he has and have the studio butcher it for him.  At that point, he was stuck.

If he'd had more time, maybe he could've found a 2-hour version of his movie that the studio would've been okay with.  Maybe he could've had time to make the movie lighter in tone while still working through his vision.  Instead, he barreled on forward, hoping that audiences or the studio would come around, and they didn't.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Yeah. The studio also should have listened to the audience feedback of BvS, rather than the critic feedback. The audience never had a problem with length, and the Ultimate Edition of BvS usually gets pretty high grades amongst fans. Most criticism comes from what the studio meddled with. The lesson is to let Snyder make his movies. The strength of the DCEU is directors with vision, making the movies that they want to make. The more the studio tries to make everything like the Marvel machine, the less it works.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Well, I think making a 3+ hour movie is a little ambitious.  People didn't have a problem with the length of BvS in the theaters, but they might've had an issue if it was an hour longer.  The problem is that he made a movie that was so dense and complicated that it couldn't be cut without chopping out huge chunks of plot and story.  And I think the main reason for that was that the story itself was so ambitious.  Between Man of Steel and Justice League, Snyder had to introduce *so many* key characters, while still following through with enough stuff to make it feel like a genuine sequel.

To be fair, I have no idea if the ambition of it was Snyder's or the studio's.  Because if I were the Kevin Feige of the DCEU and it was 2013, I might've done a traditional Man of Steel sequel with Luthor as the villain and Bruce Wayne as a side character.  Maybe end that movie with the idea that Bruce is going to go after Superman.  Then you do the Batman v Superman movie, giving time in that movie to introduce Batman's world and maybe Wonder Woman.  So while Man of Steel 2 would've been from Superman's perspective, Batman v Superman would've been from Batman's.  You'd get the fight, Luthor's revenge, and death of Superman.  Then you do Justice League as two movies.  So two BvS movies and two Justice League movies (which, I think was the original plan).

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I wonder if WB actually kicked Snyder when he was down. From what I can tell, Snyder left JUSTICE LEAGUE. He had to. Nobody should be editing and directing a major motion picture (or Season 3 of SLIDERS) under such circumstances. His daughter killed herself, a horrific, traumatizing event that put Snyder in a terrible place.

When David Peckinpah's son, Garrett, suddenly died of meningistis, Peckinpah didn't take the time to heal or mourn; he accepted stewardship of SLIDERS in Season 3 and never recovered from his torment. He dulled it with rage, affairs, heroin and cocaine. His grief never went away, he never learned to live with it or past it and in the end, it killed him.

Snyder decided to leave. When Whedon took over, he was in an impossible situation. Asked to complete a film he didn't really agree with. I think Informant himself would note: it’s not about how choice A is right and choice B is wrong: it's instead about committing to the choices one makes with style, craft, grace and conviction. Except in Whedon's case, many of these choices had been made and he was being asked to change some but not others.

I think it is very difficult for another creator to come in and complete someone else's vision when they have a completely oppositional style, and to complete it with pieces that have already been produced. If WB didn't want Whedon to be Whedon, they should have hired someone else, gotten Adam Kane or Greg Beeman or Allan Arkush (HEROES) or promoted Snyder's director of photography -- but it's clear that they wanted the AVENGERS director to make a Snyder movie more a Whedon movie and Whedon did what he was paid to do.

From what I can tell, the parademons feeding on fear was not part of the original storyline. Instead, the plot was that the parademons could consume and assimilate human beings and turn them into parademons.

This is just conjecture based on bits and pieces of what's been leaked. I think that that in the Snyder version, Superman, still unsteady after his resurrection, would be attacked by Steppenwolf's hordes and nearly corrupted into an agent of Apokolips. But during the process, Superman would have a vision of the Knightmare future -- Lois dead, the world a devastated wasteland, Batman fighting a losing rebellion, Superman under the control of the anti-life equation -- and Superman's horror would allow him to cast off the parademon infection. Superman would defeat Steppenwolf but now be struck by a new vision of the future -- the coming of Darkseid, the fear that the anti-life equation is suppressed but not gone and could turn him into a soldier for the other side in the war to be fought in JUSTICE LEAGUE II.

But Snyder left JUSTICE LEAGUE and it became clear that he needed a clean break with the DCEU and would never direct JUSTICE LEAGUE II. Whedon was instructed to conclude without a cliffhanger within the footage Snyder had shot with limited resources for reshoots.

The best Whedon could do: he shot a new opening in the film to indicate that the parademons feed on fear, something that was not a part of the original story. Whedon wrote in a line of dialogue for Steppenwolf saying his demons were hungering to feed on the humans and their fear. Then Whedon shot the end sequence where Steppenwolf, now frightened, is attacked by his own minions and in his defeat is suddenly removed from Earth.

The parademons feeding on fear -- it's not sufficiently maintained throughout the film, existing only in the opening, one line of dialogue and then the ending. The failure to address the Knightmare sequence in the previous film is peculiar. The third Mother Box being forgotten on the roof of a car is an awkward 'fix' where the original course of events couldn't be maintained. But there's other stuff I'd defend: Bruce using the same logic he had for killing Superman to argue in favour of resurrecting him is a beautiful moment of character development.

As for the DCEU, there clearly wasn't a lot of planning. MAN OF STEEL was intended as the start to a Superman film series, not a DC universe. But it was a respectable hit instead of a global blockbuster. The thinking was adding Batman and Wonder Woman could raise earnings. The results have been mixed.

Just as JUSTICE LEAGUE fails to entirely match BVS, WONDER WOMAN is also at odds with it. BVS shows Wonder Woman claiming she walked away from humanity, but WONDER WOMAN had her inspired by it; Gal Gadot and Patty Jenkins, developing the character in their film, found they had moved in a different direction in BVS, meaning BVS had introduced Diana without a clear direction in mind. JUSTICE LEAGUE attempts to rationalize the discrepency saying Wonder Woman never abandoned humanity but avoided leadership and notoriety.

At every point in the DCEU, films have been made in an extremely improvisational fashion. BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN was re-edited to shrink Superman's role; JUSTICE LEAGUE was reworked from what was clearly a superhero horror film with jokes into more of an AVENGERS movie.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I saw Mission Impossible: Fallout finally, and I just wanted to bring back up how silly the whole mustache thing was.  I know they might've wanted to separate Cavill from Superman by giving him some facial hair, but the mustache was such a weird move in today's society where mustaches are sorta out.  Cavill pulls it off, and I thought he was pretty great in the movie.  But I'd still love to know if this was Cavill's decision (if so, it was very shortsighted) or if it was Cruise/McQuarrie's decision (in which case, it's weird and maybe a little vindictive?)

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

i believe it had more to do with very late in production reshoots, after, joss took over and the studio wanted a lighter tone, wb needed the shots, paramount didnt, it was either wb take away mustache or paramount superimpose it back in

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I do think the mustache was necessary for Cavill. He's a dark haired white guy. Tom Cruise is a dark haired white guy. I need to be able to tell them apart when the camera is flying around them; I need to know who's fighting who.

According to McQuarrie, when JUSTICE LEAGUE producer Chuck Roven approached him about needing a shaven Henry Cavill, McQuarrie decided the plan was this: McQuarrie would suspend production on M:I, Cavill would shave and perform his reshoots for JUSTICE LEAGUE and then begin to regrow the mustache and resume filming M:I.

The slight growth in facial hair would be multiplied digitally for the M:I footage in order to match previously filmed material with Cavill and his mustache. Adding facial hair digitally is much easier than removing it, especially when there's a starting point in hair-to-skin texture that merely needs to be magnified. Roven and WB agreed to pay Paramount the $3 million for this added special effects cost.

But then Paramount stepped in, informing McQuarrie that he would not be permitted to shut down M:I filming for the benefit of another studio's film. They refused to even discuss it, considering WB's problems not their concern and not moved at all by McQuarrie's wish to be kind to his fellow filmmakers. McQuarrie expressed great regret and disappointment over this.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

ireactions wrote:

I do think the mustache was necessary for Cavill. He's a dark haired white guy. Tom Cruise is a dark haired white guy. I need to be able to tell them apart when the camera is flying around them; I need to know who's fighting who.

Ha besides the fact that Cavill is 6'1 and Cruise is 5'7? wink

And mild spoilers for Mission Impossible in this DC Movie Universe thread:

What's crazy is that the mustache works for a villainous character.  And I remember reading early on that Cavill had been hired to play the villain in the movie, or at the very least, in connection to his roles in each film during the mustache debate.  And yet, in the movie, he's revealed to be a villain about 2/3 of the way out.  It's a twist in the film that he's a bad guy.  So I thought it was odd that it was mentioned so much, and it sorta threw off my watching of the movie because I knew he was a bad guy the whole time.  There were times, of course, that I thought maybe I'd misread something.  But while those movies aren't incredibly subtle with their telegraphing of twists like that, I just found the whole situation bizarre.

And I get that it's a business and I understand that Cavill is signing on to do a different movie for a different studio.  Honestly, I don't blame anyone for any of it.  I just find the whole thing a bit bizarre.  Reshoots happen all the time for movies like Justice League, and for Cavill to think that he was done and grow a huge mustache just seems odd to me.  You'd think that someone at WB would be keeping up with the major star in their billion-dollar franchise to make sure he would be ready in case they needed him back.  Particularly when this movie was such a big deal for the studio.

And after this thing and the bizarre wig that Kate Mara wore in Fantastic Four reshoots, I wonder if studios need to insure themselves against stuff like that for when inevitable reshoots happen.  Maybe a "you can do this next movie but don't change your appearance until X date" clause.  Or even go back to some sort of exclusivity deal where you can only make movies for the one studio while you're headlining a multi-billion dollar franchise.

The funny thing is that this actually almost happened at Marvel first during their big team-up movie.  Chris Evans had a big beard when they shot the last-minute shwarma post-credits scene for the Avengers.  It's why Cap is covering his face with his glove.  We've probably brought this up before, but I just think it's funny to think about.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

The expectation for reshoots is that they're for a limited number of insert shots for pre-existing sequences such as, say, one shot of Captain America sitting at a table. Under this expectation, actors usually aren't asked to retain their principal photography look as a wig or a slightly different figure or a computer-generated jawline isn't going to be noticeable in brief shots added to otherwise complete scenes.

In the case of FANTASTIC FOUR and JUSTICE LEAGUE, the stories were radically restructured in the reshoots with completely new scenes that don't fit into the principal footage. The majority of Superman's scenes in JUSTICE LEAGUE were filmed by Whedon.

I am guessing that the original material with Superman set in a soft cliffhanger where the he'd fought off the Anti-Life Equation (which had infected him in the BVS Knightmare sequence), but Darkseid would be coming to Earth after Steppenwolf's failure and Darkseid might retrigger the Equation and turn Superman into an agent of Apokolips with the plot to be resolved in JUSTICE LEAGUE II. But when Zack Snyder decided to leave both JUSTICE LEAGUE and the DCEU, WB decided to reshoot all of Superman's scenes to offer conclusive closure. Just a theory, of course.

While Paramount was within their rights to refuse to shut down M:I's filming, they'd better hope they never need WB to do them a solid. Admittedly, Paramount might safeguard against that by making sure to contract their actors to maintain their filming appearance any extensive reshoots -- or by having a policy of hiring directors and writers to make movies and then let the resulting product stand or fall without attempting to turn the project into something else mid-filming. WB could have asked a new director to resolve the hypothetical Snyder plot without him.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Hey, Slider_Quinn21 -- since you've seen FALLOUT now -- what do you think of seeing Ethan Hunt in this movie as an image of what Quinn Mallory would be in his forties? Posts below:

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

Ha, I'll be honest, I didn't see it.  But I feel like you see things through some really unique eyes, especially when it comes to seeing Sliders in everything.  It's not something I'd really even consider most of the time - the only time I can even think I thought something like that was when I thought a certain episode of the Orville felt exactly like an episode of Sliders.

That being said, I think if I force myself to think about it, it does have a certain truth to it.  Quinn and Ethan are both leaders of a team that has operated successfully for a very long time despite very low odds of success.  They're both comfortable in situations where they're clearly in over their heads, and they seem to thrive on unpredictable and dangerous situations.  I also think there's a certain sense of fate to both characters - I think both of them would've been much happier living a quiet life with a family, but they were both sorta thrust into situations where they had to save the world again and again.

If I were to work it out through fanfiction (as I like to do), I'd think that Quinn never invented Sliding.  He had a promising career in something like engineering when 9/11 happened.  Feeling a duty to his country and the world, he decides to enlist.  After a tour of duty, he's approached by someone in the CIA.  Much like Jack Ryan (in the Amazon series), Quinn thrives in an analyst-level role, but he keeps finding himself in the field.  Realizing that he has the skills and the ability to save lives, he steers into that path.  Along the way, he makes connections with certain people (a communications and demolitions expert, a computer hacker, another CIA field agent, an MI6 operative, etc) that can help him on various missions.  Despite a belief in himself and his skills, Quinn always feels comfortable working as part of a team.  While he knows he's putting them in danger, he feels secure knowing that he has their back and they have his.

Something like that could easily swerve Quinn into an Ethan-like role.  But only via something like Jack Ryan smile

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

ireactions wrote:

Hey, Slider_Quinn21 -- since you've seen FALLOUT now -- what do you think of seeing Ethan Hunt in this movie as an image of what Quinn Mallory would be in his forties? Posts below:

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Ha, I'll be honest, I didn't see it.  But I feel like you see things through some really unique eyes, especially when it comes to seeing Sliders in everything.

That being said, I think if I force myself to think about it, it does have a certain truth to it.  Quinn and Ethan are both leaders of a team that has operated successfully for a very long time despite very low odds of success.  They're both comfortable in situations where they're clearly in over their heads, and they seem to thrive on unpredictable and dangerous situations.

I suspect that when you think of Quinn, you think of him in from ages 20 - 24: the brilliant but shy scientist of Season 1, the driven but inexperienced genius adventurer of Season 2, the unconvincing action hero of Season 3 or the emotionless weirdo of Season 4 -- whereas these days, when I think of Quinn, I think of the 45 year-old version in my fanfics and while you script-edited the last one, it's unreasonable to expect you to go to that as your default for Quinn.

But another area where I think of Quinn as sort of the dollar store version of Ethan (or rather, a more dysfunctional, far more imperfect version) -- I don't consider my Quinn (or any Quinn) the leader of the team. The Professor is the leader whereas I can't really see any version of Tom Cruise's MISSION IMPOSSIBLE where he isn't in charge (regardless of whether he answers to Anthony Hopkins or Laurence Fishburne or Alec Baldwin).

I'd like to move back on topic, but I didn't get around to seeing AQUAMAN.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I haven't either, but I heard it was good.

They released a TV-spot length trailer for Shazam, and I'm impressed with what I've seen so far.  I'd really like the Cavill cameo to be in there because I think it fits really well, and it could be a re-introduction of the DCEU going forward.

Re: DC Movie Universe by Informant

I was planning to see Aquaman when it came out, but I got sick and didn't want to be the annoying guy in the theater, coughing through the whole movie. Now I'm just too busy to get to a theater.

I really do want to see it though. I've heard all good things... but that usually doesn't mean much. Most people consider Wonder Woman to be the best DC movie so far, and it seemed like the weakest to me. smile