CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › DC Cinematic Universe Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DC Cinematic Universe Discussion - Page 2

post #51 of 3550

Piggy-backing off Schwartz's point, the result a lot of times of that unbalanced feeling is a need by the creators to push Batman and downplay the others - especially Superman - to try to justify his inclusion.  Even the best creators can fall prey to it - see particularly the first season of Justice League and Grant Morrison's run on JLA (where "Batgod"/the preptime meme was so infamously created).  It can sometimes feel like Batman and the idiot superhumans he keeps having to save, versus the Justice League.  Now, it's understandable why creators would feel that need to justify why he's there beyond just having him sit behind a computer and work out cases, but at the same time it's very easy to go overboard with having him always be the one to save the day.

post #52 of 3550

Matt Wagner's Trinity mini has the best portrayal of Batman, Superman and (yes!) Wonder Woman that I've seen.

 

Wagner's interpretation is that it's Batman's perspective and stubbornness that make him a valuable ally to Superman, not his IQ. Supes being the Ultimate Boy Scout means he can't think like depraved criminals like Ra Al Ghul, while Batman can Profile them and anticipate their moves.

 

Regarding Schwartz's comments about Nolan's Batman being aspirational, I think that's not nearly as true of Nolan Batman as it is of the comics version. Nolan's Batman wouldn't get very far without his family's Billions to fund his weapons, and by the beginning of TDKR he's physically almost destroyed (which makes me wonder how he really got along with Selina Kyle after that movie ends: he'd be practically a cripple by that point).

post #53 of 3550
Thread Starter 
R.I.P. Jimmy Olsen's Legs

"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice," directed by Zack Snyder (2016)
"Suicide Squad," directed by David Ayer (2016)
"Wonder Woman," starring Gal Gadot (2017)
"Justice League Part One," directed by Zack Snyder, with Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill and Amy Adams reprising their roles (2017)
"The Flash," starring Ezra Miller (2018)
"Aquaman," starring Jason Momoa (2018)
"Shazam" (2019)
"Justice League Part Two," directed by Zack Snyder (2019)
"Cyborg," starring Ray Fisher (2020)
"Green Lantern" (2020)
post #54 of 3550

Wonder if Green Lantern will be a re-boot.

 

I'd love to see someone take a crack at the Alan Moore version of Swamp Thing.

post #55 of 3550

I'm pretty sure that was sarcastic Cylon, but "I wonder if they will reboot Green Lantern" made me laugh all the same.  Poor Ryan Reynolds!  A good charismatic performer surrounded by people off their game.  He's the cursed rabbits foot of actors. 

post #56 of 3550

I keep thinking that if Deadpool tanks I should start a Kickstarter to send Reynolds a Fruit Basket or something.  Then I remember he's been in relationships with Scarlet Johannson and Blake Lively and this is probably just the universe balancing itself out.

 

Getting back on-topic, I like the look of that slate.  Weirdly, I was thinking just yesterday that I would really dig a Shazam movie.

 

Hopefully they'd have dropped the no jokes rule by that time since a grimdark Shazam would be fucking weird.  And not in a good way.

post #57 of 3550

Who is Ray Fisher? His imdb-page only lists a short film and BVSDWOJSTCQWERTY. A quick youtube-search only finds a mushy clip that's shot with a cellphone. And what are the ods for Warners really using the title AQUAMAN? Do they go with grimdarker A-MAN or plural A-MEN?

post #58 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

Logistically, sure, but tonally it's still a rough fit.  It just doesn't gibe with with the Nolan trilogy's thematic thrust about what an aberration Batman is, and how destabilizing he is to the fabric of Gotham, that this would be a world that has already been familiar with a godlike alien superhero for years. 

 

In fact, I was thinking about this, and I don't think it's so entirely Nolan's aesthetic that makes Batman so difficult to integrate into a broader universe, so much as something more inherent to the character's position within the DC universe.  And that is that the appeal of Batman changes drastically when you put him in a Justice League context vs a solo adventure.  On his own, Batman is essentially a superman in a Nietzschean sort of way.  He's aspirational, in that he's the best at absolutely everything he does (on top of being the richest and handsomest there is).  But surround him with Superman and Green Lantern and so forth, and his lack of overt superhumanity makes him something of a scrappy underdog, a prospect that is ludicrous for someone with his resources and fantastical skillset in any vaguely "real world" setting. 

 

So it's not just Nolan's overly grounded style that makes it difficult to wed a Batman solo series to an expanded universe (not that it does any favors on that score).  It's certainly possible to pull it off, but it would require a creative team to have two distinct takes on the character at the same time (and it's hard enough to find one that's successful), and the ability to flip between and reconcile them to the point that it feels like the same character.  That's a more difficult prospect than most realize, I think.

 

Let's put this more simply: "real life"/conventional/non-super-powered heroes have almost no logical role in a universe filled with Gods.  It doesn't make any sense, and what's barely plausible in comics becomes completely ridiculous when translated to screen.  How is Batman supposed to compete with a character like the Flash, let alone Superman. 

 

 

**Why are they recasting Flash for the movies?  What's the point of having a television series set in the DC universe and then wrecking actor continuity?

post #59 of 3550

I think this is where animation (and the fact that it's meant to be a kids show) helps something like the Justice League cartoons.

 

You can get away with Batman hanging out with gods more believably because they're all icons anyway.  Also they're better written!

post #60 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

 

Let's put this more simply: "real life"/conventional/non-super-powered heroes have almost no logical role in a universe filled with Gods.  It doesn't make any sense, and what's barely plausible in comics becomes completely ridiculous when translated to screen.  How is Batman supposed to compete with a character like the Flash, let alone Superman. 

 

 

**Why are they recasting Flash for the movies?  What's the point of having a television series set in the DC universe and then wrecking actor continuity?

 

It's not just that, though. There's no room for Bruce Wayne in a Justice League context, only Batman.  Whereas a solo story for him is going to revolve around that dichotomy.  So what I was saying is, it's a tough for one actor/director to have a strong take on the character for both these contexts, and be savvy and flexible enough to flip between them as needed without having one undermine the other.

 

 

Different note, but why is everyone not flabbergasted that the announced line-up has Cyborg, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern solo flicks, but seems to leave Batman solely to the JL "event" films?

post #61 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

Different note, but why is everyone not flabbergasted that the announced line-up has Cyborg, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern solo flicks, but seems to leave Batman solely to the JL "event" films?


I'm not flabbergasted because they probably don't think Batman needs his third cinematic reboot of the last 15-20 years.  Also, they may be waiting to see if people hate Affleck's guts. 


 

Quote:

 

It's not just that, though. There's no room for Bruce Wayne in a Justice League context, only Batman. Whereas a solo story for him is going to revolve around that dichotomy.  So what I was saying is, it's a tough for one actor/director to have a strong take on the character for both these contexts, and be savvy and flexible enough to flip between them as needed without having one undermine the other.

 

Yeah, I don't think that has anything to do with it.  I think the problem is what I stated.  The travails and battles of mere mortals really don't count for shit when Ubermensch are leveling mountains and destroying cities.  The real dichotomy is how will Batman stand for [INSERT GOAL] when he's up against superhumans?  How many times can that be made interesting?  How implausible is it already?  For example, regardless, what the fuck is he supposed to do against an opponent who can move superfast?

post #62 of 3550
Thread Starter 
Plan ahead and outsmart him.
post #63 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun H View Post

Plan ahead and outsmart him.

 

It's crazy difficult to outsmart someone who can drop an aircraft carrier onto your lair or move so quickly that no modern technology can keep up (near the speed of light if they're going with comic book powers). 

 

One thing Batman has going for him is that superman is the biggest sandbagger in the history of superheroes, consistently using only the barest fraction of his powers in any given situation. 

post #64 of 3550

Technically speaking his super brain makes him smarter and better than The Worlds Greatest Detective could ever be, which is fucking bullshit and where he's over powered. 

post #65 of 3550

Yeah Freeman but Superman does know the dark souls of Criminals the way Batman does!

post #66 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

It's not just that, though. There's no room for Bruce Wayne in a Justice League context, only Batman.  Whereas a solo story for him is going to revolve around that dichotomy.  So what I was saying is, it's a tough for one actor/director to have a strong take on the character for both these contexts, and be savvy and flexible enough to flip between them as needed without having one undermine the other.


Different note, but why is everyone not flabbergasted that the announced line-up has Cyborg, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern solo flicks, but seems to leave Batman solely to the JL "event" films?

Depends on what kind of deal Affleck signed. He's in a different tier than say most of the people at Marvel with multi-film contracts. I sort of doubt he's willing to have so much of his time sucked up with an ensemble and solo franchise. He will no doubt be the highest paid actor out of anyone in these things and he clearly still wants to be a movie star, but he's got other shit to do.
post #67 of 3550

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post


Depends on what kind of deal Affleck signed. He's in a different tier than say most of the people at Marvel with multi-film contracts. I sort of doubt he's willing to have so much of his time sucked up with an ensemble and solo franchise. He will no doubt be the highest paid actor out of anyone in these things and he clearly still wants to be a movie star, but he's got other shit to do.

 

Well, yeah, but it's not like they hadhadhad to sign Affleck.  If it was Bale you could kind of assume that he had them over a barrel contract-wise but they were desperate to keep their train rolling.  But as is, it seems that they planned to spin an entire cinematic universe out of a Batman/Superman movie, but didn't bother casting a Batman that they could use freely?

post #68 of 3550
This will never be anything but conjecture, but I think that with the loss of Bale, the WB wanted a big, familiar name and since they have a good relationship with Affleck, he was the guy. So in a sense, Affleck is make-up for the familiarity/continuity they lose with Bale declining.*

If they're easing up on Batman solo films (which hasn't been totally confirmed yet), it likely has to be because they were willing to compromise in landing Affleck. That said, they could still be working out a plan for him to potentially helm a new series of Batman films (he's already flexed his muscles on BvS with Chris Terrio being brought in for the re-write). Who knows.





*If the rumors are true, they were desperate enough to keep Bale to offer him some ridiculous sum.
post #69 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

This will never be anything but conjecture, but I think that with the loss of Bale, the WB wanted a big, familiar name and since they have a good relationship with Affleck, he was the guy. So in a sense, Affleck is make-up for the familiarity/continuity they lose with Bale declining.*

If they're easing up on Batman solo films (which hasn't been totally confirmed yet), it likely has to be because they were willing to compromise in landing Affleck. That said, they could still be working out a plan for him to potentially helm a new series of Batman films (he's already flexed his muscles on BvS with Chris Terrio being brought in for the re-write). Who knows.



*If the rumors are true, they were desperate enough to keep Bale to offer him some ridiculous sum.

 

That's all perfectly plausible, it just baffles me (particularly in hindsight) that they would think Affleck was such a get that it was worth hampering their ability to exploit the character fully to sign him.  Bale-as-Batman is a huge, established draw.  I don't think any other actor is currently a bigger draw than the Batman character, though.  Certainly not 2015 Affleck (and I like the guy).

 

Basically, I'm wondering why they would let any star dictate terms for their crown jewel instead of scouring the globe for a Chris Hemsworth-level talent that they could sign into indentured servitude for 12 pictures. 

post #70 of 3550
Well, Henry Cavill hasn't exactly set the world on fire, so I suppose the logic is that if you're doing BvS, you need a Batman with a face behind the mask as opposed to say, someone like Richard Armitage, (who was rumored) to even things out. If you see all of the articles and press releases on BvS, it's *all* about Batman. I can see how the WB might think it easier to hype a movie star as Batman, than an actor as a "would-be movie star" who happens to be playing Batman.

Frankly, I think it can largely be put down to WB's house not being in order. I mean, this DC Cinematic Universe began with a film that literally had to be made lest they lose the rights. That's not a great position to start from.
post #71 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

This will never be anything but conjecture ...

 

Why?  Did the people involved take a vow of silence upon pain of death, and the torture and slaying of all they love? 

post #72 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Well, Henry Cavill hasn't exactly set the world on fire, so I suppose the logic is that if you're doing BvS, you need a Batman with a face behind the mask as opposed to say, someone like Richard Armitage, (who was rumored) to even things out. If you see all of the articles and press releases on BvS, it's *all* about Batman. I can see how the WB might think it easier to hype a movie star as Batman, than an actor as a "would-be movie star" who happens to be playing Batman.

Frankly, I think it can largely be put down to WB's house not being in order. I mean, this DC Cinematic Universe began with a film that literally had to be made lest they lose the rights. That's not a great position to start from.

 

Exactly!  They went the relative-unknown route for Superman, whose face is permanently on display and movie needed to be a smash out of the gate to get this jalopy running, and now that they've established the world they decide to bog down the future of the franchise by signing a more-famous-than-popular movie star to be the face hidden behind the mask in the team-up movie?  It's just so ass-backwards.

 

Occam's Razor does say it's just a lack of direction, and  I'm not asking you personally to justify any of this, I'm just kind of amazed that the house could've still been so out of order so late in the game.

post #73 of 3550
Thread Starter 
Rumors of Tom Hardy being sought for a Suicide role, but it would conflict with Apocalypse, another role he's eying.
post #74 of 3550
Wait, X men's apocalypse? I can't see him in that role.

The more important question: who is playing Killer Shark?
post #75 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post


The more important question: who is playing Killer Shark?
Sleepy+Hollow_7.JPG
post #76 of 3550
Thanos, Apocalypse, and Ultron will all make it to the screen before either Darkseid or Brainiac.
If I worked at WB / DC Entertainment, I would be pissed all to hell. Brainiac could have so easily been the primary antagonist of MoS, with the slightest of alterations you could substitute him for Zod.
post #77 of 3550

Depending on how they use him, Brainiac doesn't have to really evoke Ultron at all.  He has drones, but his motives and methodology are completely different from Ultron, especially if they go with the "shrinking cities" attack (which would be such a striking and unique visual for this kind of film that I have to imagine they'd use it).  I am a big fan of the character, though (especially due to his usage in the DCAU), and am pleased that he gets to be a true global threat for his film debut - even if Snyder will undoubtedly mangle it.

 

But yeah, Thanos and Apocalypse do fuck Darkseid over pretty badly.  And agreed that with modification Brainiac totally could've been the villain in MoS.  Give him the same backstory from Superman: The Animated Series and there you go.  Have him shrink Metropolis instead of the World Engine destruction porn and you've got Superman saving the city and a lot of issues are fixed right there.

post #78 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

That's all perfectly plausible, it just baffles me (particularly in hindsight) that they would think Affleck was such a get that it was worth hampering their ability to exploit the character fully to sign him.  Bale-as-Batman is a huge, established draw.  I don't think any other actor is currently a bigger draw than the Batman character, though.  Certainly not 2015 Affleck (and I like the guy).

 

Basically, I'm wondering why they would let any star dictate terms for their crown jewel instead of scouring the globe for a Chris Hemsworth-level talent that they could sign into indentured servitude for 12 pictures. 

 

'Young Batman' prequel solo films. Or a Batman Beyond/Nightwing type thing with Batfleck training the male Gal Gadot.

post #79 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by avian View Post
 

 

'Young Batman' prequel solo films. Or a Batman Beyond/Nightwing type thing with Batfleck training the male Gal Gadot.

 

There's nothing stopping them from going those routes, but the schedule laid out above indicates no Bat movies at all on deck until at least 2020.

post #80 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

There's nothing stopping them from going those routes, but the schedule laid out above indicates no Bat movies at all on deck until at least 2020.

The schedule also says they're making a Cyborg movie, and that's not happening.

post #81 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Thanos, Apocalypse, and Ultron will all make it to the screen before either Darkseid or Brainiac.
If I worked at WB / DC Entertainment, I would be pissed all to hell. Brainiac could have so easily been the primary antagonist of MoS, with the slightest of alterations you could substitute him for Zod.

 

Supes also could have killed him willy nilly and people probably wouldn't have bitched as much since Brainiac is just a computer program/robot.

post #82 of 3550
Kirby always pictured Jack Palance as Darkseid. Its a shame that never happened.

I'm failing at coming up with a modern equivalent.
post #83 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Thanos, Apocalypse, and Ultron will all make it to the screen before either Darkseid or Brainiac.
If I worked at WB / DC Entertainment, I would be pissed all to hell. Brainiac could have so easily been the primary antagonist of MoS, with the slightest of alterations you could substitute him for Zod.

 

Thanos and Apocalypse have already appeared on-screen in movies. 

post #84 of 3550
What DC stories would be recognizable, popular, and easily adapted?

Crisis on Infite Earths?

Kingdom Come?

Blackest Night/Brightest Day?
post #85 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post

Thanos and Apocalypse have already appeared on-screen in movies. 

Pedantry.
post #86 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

What DC stories would be recognizable, popular, and easily adapted?

Crisis on Infite Earths?

Kingdom Come?

Blackest Night/Brightest Day?

I always felt that an animated Kingdom Come, perhaps done in rotoscope, would work well.
post #87 of 3550

It does seem odd, with a number of animated movies reaching blockbuster status, that neither DC nor Marvel has shown interest in trying that. Superheroes tend to work better in animation, anyway.

post #88 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pither View Post
 

It does seem odd, with a number of animated movies reaching blockbuster status, that neither DC nor Marvel has shown interest in trying that. Superheroes tend to work better in animation, anyway.

I think animated movies still have that family movie status in some way, which they don't want to associate with superhero/action films. Just my guess. 

post #89 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pither View Post
 

It does seem odd, with a number of animated movies reaching blockbuster status, that neither DC nor Marvel has shown interest in trying that. Superheroes tend to work better in animation, anyway.

 

Not financially*.

 

*It terms of overall grosses, anyway.  Animated superhero movies might be as or more profitable by weight, I don't really know, but they've never threatened to make a billion dollars in BO.

post #90 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

Not financially*.

 

*It terms of overall grosses, anyway.  Animated superhero movies might be as or more profitable by weight, I don't really know, but they've never threatened to make a billion dollars in BO.

I didn't phrase things very clearly. What I was getting at was that in recent years, there have been animated movies, not superhero related, that have done very well financially (and critically). DC and Marvel, as far as I know, show little interest in branching out into animation, which seems like a more natural medium for adapting superhero comics. I was just saying it might seem like an avenue worth exploring. Looking at the numbers, though, I guess there's not enough to suggest that there'd be significantly more profit to be had.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by potatoes View Post
 

I think animated movies still have that family movie status in some way, which they don't want to associate with superhero/action films. Just my guess. 


That could be. There is still the stigma that animation is less legitimate, as well as the lingering desire to prove "comics aren't just for kids".

post #91 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pither View Post
 

 


That could be. There is still the stigma that animation is less legitimate, as well as the lingering desire to prove "comics aren't just for kids".

 

And they aren't, just.  What sucks about the DC movieverse is the sense that they're intent on proving it by only making movies that are not for kids at all.

post #92 of 3550

Animation still has that stigma of equalling kiddie fare to a lot of people though.  They'll watch CGI guys in tights jump around for two hours, but they'd never be caught dead at a cartoon.  And considering that superhero films originate from a medium widely considered for kids as well, I can see why the studios would want to distance themselves from that.

post #93 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

And they aren't, just.  What sucks about the DC movieverse is the sense that they're intent on proving it by only making movies that are not for kids at all.


Yeah, that sums it up. I'm still trying to preserve some optimism, though. We might see some more variations in tone as the whole thing expands. Zach Snyder can't direct all the movies, right?

post #94 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pither View Post
 


Yeah, that sums it up. I'm still trying to preserve some optimism, though. We might see some more variations in tone as the whole thing expands. Zach Snyder can't direct all the movies, right?

 

That sounded more pessimistic than it was, really.  I don't have the same affection for the DC characters as I do the Marvel stable, but they've got some interesting casting and a pretty good, distinct visual look going on.  I'm interested to see how well the gritty vibe takes on the non-Superman characters (who is both my least favorite hero overall and the worst suited to such a take, imo).

post #95 of 3550
Thread Starter 
I don't find animation to purely be the territory of children, but for whatever reason it causes my attention span to go out the window. The same could be said for the overuse of CGI, though not quite as much. I imagine most people who have such an aversion are more in my camp.
post #96 of 3550
There's no chance, NO CHANCE IN HELL the Synder creative brain trust is letting brainiac be the shrink ray villain. Wayyyyyy too silly for that universe, which unfortunately is extremely grim and grounded.
post #97 of 3550

How the flying fuck do you do Shazam! while being grim and grounded?  That mandate will have to change for some of DC's characters.

post #98 of 3550

And The Flash!

post #99 of 3550

Wasn't it announced that Shazam! is not part of the JL universe?

post #100 of 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

Wasn't it announced that Shazam! is not part of the JL universe?

Seriously!? Man alive, what are they doing!?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › DC Cinematic Universe Discussion