All of Snyder’s Films Rumored To Be Erased In The Flash; Cavill Out Also

[NaVi]

They have given up on Clark I think it is something that no one can deny, the tv series is a spin off of Supergirl, the animated series I think no one would be surprised if it is suspended, in video games he is the official villain of DC, it just needs to be The villain of the WW game, in comics, has lost one of his series, and if Jon sold more surely he would keep the other, but although it is a situation that I do not like, I think it will end up being the best for the character, at least They are not going to destroy it even more. Batman on the other hand they are simply saying that he is too good to be part of the same universe, if they want to make a retired Batman the boss of all.

[Vordan]

@Myskin

When you say “making a good Superman movie is borderline impossible” what level of “good” are we using here? Saying it’s borderline impossible to make a good Superman movie on the level of The Dark Knight is something I’d probably agree with. But saying it’s impossible to make a Superman movie on the level of Aquaman, or Iron Man 1, or Thor 3? Don’t agree with that sentiment at all. Superman’s film failures come from
1. An inability to strike a happy medium between Donner’s wholesomeness and Snyder’s edge. We don’t need Superman standing in front of the American flag but we also don’t need him sobbing as he stands in the ashes of Metropolis with Zod’s corpse besides him. There’s a happy medium that we’ve seen elsewhere so the idea that it’s simply not possible to bring to the big screen doesn’t hold true imo
2. A refusal to show us aspects of Superman’s world we haven’t seen. Instead of Zod and Lex why haven’t we seen Brainiac, Mongul, or Metallo? Instead of Lois why not bring in Maxima?

While I would love a Superman movie that made me think, I’m perfectly ok with dumb fun like Aquaman. Saying that just isn’t possible to do with Superman feels false when there’s a freaking Krypto movie on the way that looks like it’s delivering exactly that.

[Frontier]

@Myskin

When you say “making a good Superman movie is borderline impossible” what level of “good” are we using here? Saying it’s borderline impossible to make a good Superman movie on the level of The Dark Knight is something I’d probably agree with. But saying it’s impossible to make a Superman movie on the level of Aquaman, or Iron Man 1, or Thor 3? Don’t agree with that sentiment at all. Superman’s film failures come from
1. An inability to strike a happy medium between Donner’s wholesomeness and Snyder’s edge. We don’t need Superman standing in front of the American flag but we also don’t need him sobbing as he stands in the ashes of Metropolis with Zod’s corpse besides him. There’s a happy medium that we’ve seen elsewhere so the idea that it’s simply not possible to bring to the big screen doesn’t hold true imo
2. A refusal to show us aspects of Superman’s world we haven’t seen. Instead of Zod and Lex why haven’t we seen Brainiac, Mongul, or Metallo? Instead of Lois why not bring in Maxima?

While I would love a Superman movie that made me think, I’m perfectly ok with dumb fun like Aquaman. Saying that just isn’t possible to do with Superman feels false when there’s a freaking Krypto movie on the way that looks like it’s delivering exactly that.

Nothing is truly impossible...

[Myskin]

@Myskin
When you say “making a good Superman movie is borderline impossible” what level of “good” are we using here? Saying it’s borderline impossible to make a good Superman movie on the level of The Dark Knight is something I’d probably agree with. But saying it’s impossible to make a Superman movie on the level of Aquaman, or Iron Man 1, or Thor 3? Don’t agree with that sentiment at all.

I am not 100% sure of what you are asking me here. If you are asking my opinion about what an average fan would like, well, obviously a Superfan would watch an average superhero movie (on the same level as Iron Man 1) called "Superman" and enjoy it. Heck, some fans watch stuff like MOS and consider THAT a masterpiece. I know that it may sound quite incredible to say, but fans are relatively easy to please - easier than most people think. But fans are not the determining factor in the success of a movie - general audience is, and general audience is an entirely different thing, and sometimes it may be unpredictable, too.

I am not entirely sure that an Iron Man 1-level Superman movie would necessarily be a success, for one simple reason - Iron Man 1 was released more than one decade ago. The genre has evolved in so many different directions (including experimental stuff such as the Spider-verse cartoon) that I really can't see anyone getting excited for another, generic superhero movie only because Superman is in it. Or Brainiac is in it. Or Maxima is in it. I mean, if The Flash movie was the first superhero multiverse-focused movie everyone would be excited about it, right? Well, the problem is that it will be released after Spider-Verse. And the Loki TV series. And Dr Strange Multiverse of Madness. And No Way Home. So how can anyone actually be excited about a story whose most remarkable points have already been told at least three, maybe four more times in other movies?

Since we are in the realm of possibilities, I really can't see why they shouldn't try to do something actually new and explore new territories with Superman - I mean, as far as I am concerned they could just go with animation and create Pixar-level, or Laika-level, or Spider-verse level animation movies with Superman. But first and foremost they should try to find a goddamn way to make the character work again - maybe in comic books too - something we have been repeating for decades at this point. Will the forthcoming Superman cartoon series help in that regard? Maybe. The main point IMHO is getting a strong idea, something which could make any movie, or franchise focused on Superman worth watching. And we are quite far from that.

However, if you were just asking my personal opinion on what I would like to see... Well, I'd rather have way fewer superhero movies (including Superman or Batman or Marvel heroes) and I'd rather have new mythologies which were not reboots or remakes or sequels.

[DochaDocha]

Part of the reason why I want the next Superman film to be more sci-fi, with emphasis on the "sci," is that there are so many movies about flying bricks punching and shooting bad guys. You need to come in with a real angle on how to make Superman stand out, something much more substantive than "But this time, he's EVIL!" It might seem boring, and maybe a bit slow-paced, but we already tried and largely "failed" (I still stand by my liking for MoS so I'm qualifying "fail" here) by making Superman punch a lot of stuff.

And I'm also of the opinion they should try to dominate animation. I mean, why not?

[Myskin]

Part of the reason why I want the next Superman film to be more sci-fi

I see your point and I may actually agree, but again - you need a strong idea. Superman being sci-fi doesn't mean much. Sci-fi as a genre consists of hundred of subgenres. Blade Runner is not Alien is not Star Wars is not the Guardians of the Galaxy etc. So I can actually see good reasons for giving Superman a full sci-fi direction, but they should actually know and understand what they are going for - again, a strong idea. And it is no secret that a strong, distinctive direction in terms of atmosphere/themes has been missing in Superman comic books as well since the late 1990s. A very similar reasoning would apply if it was an animated movie, too.

[manwhohaseverything]

Having scifi requires you to tackle some subjects or problem that's scientifically rooted.Stars wars? and guardians of the galaxy?those are space fantasies.Not scifi.I consider something like gravity, Interstellar..etc as scifi.Maybe matrix,akira..etc stuff like that fall into scifi because of the concepts and subject they tackle,but is pushing it as scifi.

So far science in superman is just a window dressing.So,Not science fiction.Just a fantasy.Sure a fantasy with science as magic and stuff like that.And if it's fantasy you can do anything.Make any kinda verse.

[HsssH]

Part of the reason why I want the next Superman film to be more sci-fi, with emphasis on the "sci," is that there are so many movies about flying bricks punching and shooting bad guys. You need to come in with a real angle on how to make Superman stand out, something much more substantive than "But this time, he's EVIL!" It might seem boring, and maybe a bit slow-paced, but we already tried and largely "failed" (I still stand by my liking for MoS so I'm qualifying "fail" here) by making Superman punch a lot of stuff.

And I'm also of the opinion they should try to dominate animation. I mean, why not?

Funny how Superman was the first in comics and other characters/brands/companies had to stand out somehow to work, but today it is Superman who has to stand out.

[Myskin]

Funny how Superman was the first in comics and other characters/brands/companies had to stand out somehow to work, but today it is Superman who has to stand out.

It actually makes sense if you think about it. Yes, Superman was the first, but this also means that he is the oldest. He was conceived in a time when comic books were free to be naiver and - for modern standards - more generic. It's not that current Superman comic books are particularly complex (to a degree, I'd say that they have actually regressed since the 1990s and they have become dumber); it's just that today you couldn't introduce Superman by using the same approach they used in the Golden Age, or even later, in the character's most successful years. One of the main problems with Superman (in comics and in adaptations) is that the character still carries the stigma of never having evolved beyond a certain point - something Batman did in his countless adaptations and revisions. Superman didn't, and is paying the price for that.

Also: let's not forget that here we are talking about adaptations, which is a completely separate world from comic books. A character predating all the other ones can be completely irrelevant if other characters have already been introduced, with a more successful approach, or in a way that people gladly remember. I mean, we all know that Thanos was inspired by Darkseid, but in movies - the only field which actually counts today - Thanos was introduced first. And in such a successful way that no matter what, Darkseid will always seem Thanos' rip-off. Well, unless they really put an effort in recreating Darkseid for the screen, basically trying to find a way for Darkseid to stand out (no, Snyder didn't find it).

I mean, hasn't it always been like this? Being the first version of a character doesn't necessarily mean being the most successful, or the one people will remember. Superman made people forget Doc Savage or John Carter, even if they came first and they served as Superman's inspiration. And Barry Allen is THE Flash, even if Jay Garrick came first.

[Prime]

@Myskin

When you say “making a good Superman movie is borderline impossible” what level of “good” are we using here? Saying it’s borderline impossible to make a good Superman movie on the level of The Dark Knight is something I’d probably agree with. But saying it’s impossible to make a Superman movie on the level of Aquaman, or Iron Man 1, or Thor 3? Don’t agree with that sentiment at all. Superman’s film failures come from
1. An inability to strike a happy medium between Donner’s wholesomeness and Snyder’s edge. We don’t need Superman standing in front of the American flag but we also don’t need him sobbing as he stands in the ashes of Metropolis with Zod’s corpse besides him. There’s a happy medium that we’ve seen elsewhere so the idea that it’s simply not possible to bring to the big screen doesn’t hold true imo
2. A refusal to show us aspects of Superman’s world we haven’t seen. Instead of Zod and Lex why haven’t we seen Brainiac, Mongul, or Metallo? Instead of Lois why not bring in Maxima?

While I would love a Superman movie that made me think, I’m perfectly ok with dumb fun like Aquaman. Saying that just isn’t possible to do with Superman feels false when there’s a freaking Krypto movie on the way that looks like it’s delivering exactly that.

Vordan has a very valid point here. They have explored Spiderman and Batman lore. Why haven't we explored Superman's? Why are we stuck with Zod and Lex and not other villains? Lois can wait. Maybe put Lana or Maxima as the main love interests for the first movie?

[Myskin]

Vordan has a very valid point here. They have explored Spiderman and Batman lore. Why haven't we explored Superman's? Why are we stuck with Zod and Lex and not other villains? Lois can wait. Maybe put Lana or Maxima as the main love interests for the first movie?

As said above, I strongly doubt that the presence of other villains or love interests is the key to the success of a Superman movie. These are details.

[Prime]

As said above, I strongly doubt that the presence of other villains or love interests is the key to the success of a Superman movie. These are details.

Of, yeah of course. Superman's characterization being the main thing. But make so mistake, what Vordan wrote applies too.

[DochaDocha]

Having scifi requires you to tackle some subjects or problem that's scientifically rooted.Stars wars? and guardians of the galaxy?those are space fantasies.Not scifi.I consider something like gravity, Interstellar..etc as scifi.Maybe matrix,akira..etc stuff like that fall into scifi because of the concepts and subject they tackle,but is pushing it as scifi.

So far science in superman is just a window dressing.So,Not science fiction.Just a fantasy.Sure a fantasy with science as magic and stuff like that.And if it's fantasy you can do anything.Make any kinda verse.

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. A space setting alone doesn't really make it SCI-fi (emphasis on SCI), or at least not in my book. Kind of reminds me of when people used to argue that The Jetsons was educational because it's set in the future.

Fantasy stories like to handwave away explaining things like how travel from one star system to the next is sort of like driving on some cosmic expressway. A sci-fi story might go into the mechanics of how that's done, be it FTL travel or wormholes. I generally like sci-fi, so I do appreciate it when sci-fi movies and TV take a real problem for us and explain the theory on what would need to be done to overcome the obstacle. I think some good examples of sci-fi in Superman stories include All-Star when Superman used the gravity gun to speed up Luthor's relativistic time and make the serum wear off quicker, and the issue where Superman was able to observe Krypton blow up, something theoretically possible under the right conditions and proper tech.

I think the problem here (and no offense to non-US folks here) is that US audiences tend to be OK with dumb, brainless action films, and non-US audiences may actually prefer watching the action-packed, thinly-written blockbuster over something that's a little heavier in the dialogue. I figure that's part of why Nolan's Batman films only did OK overseas, but Transformers and Vin Diesel's pet franchise were massive hits. So making a brainier Superman film might flop in the box office even if it resonates well with the critics.

EDIT: Since this post can potentially come across as inflammatory, let me attempt to explain it a bit better. All billion-dollar franchises seem to be some combination of visually spectacular and action-oriented. I think part of the allure of these blockbusters is that they can accomplish the visuals in part due to really massive budgets. A non-English speaker can appreciate these qualities. I think that's what pulls in non-US audiences to see TF and F&F even though they are unapologetically otherwise dumb flicks. If you make a movie that is visually mediocre, you can't make it up to non-US audiences by improving the writing and such. Most people would rather not watch a run-of-the-mill-looking movie that forces you to read subtitles all along the way. Those viewers' home movie studios can accomplish that and tell the story in the native tongue. So I'm not saying that smarter dialogue and better writing are unattractive to non-English speakers. I'm just saying if you slow down the movie to improve narrative, but don't deliver something visually unique and pleasing, you're going to lose non-US audience revenue.

[Korath]

(COLUMBO MODE ON) Just one more thing...

To be 100% fair, there actually is ONE thing they are doing right, and that is creating some micro-franchises on different platforms entirely focused on one single character.
I am referring to Reeves' The Batman (what else?) and the spin-offs they are planning to launch more or less at the same time the movie is released, so one series about the GCPD, one about the Penguin, etc. Of course, a crucial element is that the series are supervised by the same people who are behind the movie and that these people are actually talented creators - Matt Reeves has basically become the Kevin Feige of the Batman universe, so to speak. And I'd say that this approach makes more sense than trying to force characters who don't have much to do with each other, like Superman and Batman, into the same shared universe. IMHO we are going to see more examples of these micro-franchises in the next years (they are planning to do something similar with the Dune universe).

I'm not feeling Reeve's Batman at all sadly, so i'm not interested in it one bit but I agree, and I feel it bears to be said : Batman's corner of the DCU (and movies/series) works coherently on itself, very much like the X-Men's part of the Marvel universe do. I'm just sad the more "fantasy" elements of the settings seems to almost never be exploited by creators.

[Myskin]

I think the problem here (and no offense to non-US folks here) is that US audiences tend to be OK with dumb, brainless action films, and non-US audiences may actually prefer watching the action-packed, thinly-written blockbuster over something that's a little heavier in the dialogue. I figure that's part of why Nolan's Batman films only did OK overseas, but Transformers and Vin Diesel's pet franchise were massive hits.

I don't know whether this actually applies - I think that there are more factors at work, even I am not sure which ones. Here in Italy, for example, Harry Potter, Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings were (and still are) huge, Fast & Furious made decent/good money, MCU movies are literally everywhere and DC movies are more or less irrelevant (including the well-received ones, for example Wonder Woman) except for a few exception - Joker went well and - as far as I remember - The Dark Knight too. You should take into account that in addition to US movies there are some non-US national franchises which are popular inside non-US countries and 100% unknown everywhere else. For example, some Italian comedians are very popular and they make one movie per year which - albeit generally of poor quality - a lot of people watch as some kind of annual date. So basically some US movies cannot actually compete with some non-US ones and a lot depends on the date of release. The fact that some franchises were originally shot in English is irrelevant, because in Italy US movies which are released in theaters have been dubbed since the 1920s (it's basically the norm). And I am not even sure that subtitles would be such a huge problem - everyone here has seen Squid Game in its subtitled version and has been hugely popular (they have released a dubbed version too, but it happened after it boomed as a cultural phenomenon).