DCU Movies

[skyvolt2000]

Yeah, I think that's a fair way of putting it. Stuff like Sinestro War and Blackest Night are great comic book events, but it feels very hard to imagine making those into a movie for a variety of reasons. Some of his stuff obviously does work in live action as I think Frontier pointed out some examples like the Flash show and the first Aquaman movie.

As Dwayne McDuffie said some of that stuff can't be put on screen from the comics.
Be it story cue to certain special effects.

Stuff like Sinestro War would have to be watered down and exclude some folks.

Star Girl could get away with it.

Funnily enough Gunn and Johns have very similar sensibilities, both of them prefer the B/C-Listers over the A-Listers, so we’ll see if Gunn can succeed where Johns failed.

It's called having more freedom and certain things like interference is a lesser issue.

And certain changes probably don't happen.

In other words-the bosses would have you make Jimmy Olsen black versus using Ron Troupe-whose already there.
If it was Booster Gold-that wouldn't happen.

[Ascended]

I thought her acting was pretty mediocre at the time. I'm not really the kind of person that pretends a person isn't talented just because I dislike them personally. Klaus Kinski was a horrifying human being, but he could act. Mera is a cool character, but I don't find Heard to be an especially charismatic actress in general. I don't think Momoa is an especially good actor either, but he's charismatic and has presence, which counts for something.

This. And Wan deserves his share of the blame too, but Heard just didn't have the passion and presence that I equate with Mera. Mamoa himself isn't what I'd call a Shakespearian actor either, but he makes up for it by being really fun.

While I'm not the hugest fan of either of those characters, I dread how the upper ups are going to use this to fuel the next 34,623 remakes of Batman, using these flops as 'proof' that fans won't watch anything other than Batman.

Didn't The Batman underperform as well? A little?

Gunn gets the benefit of the doubt based on his past success.

He said the League are there to serve the story.

Mostly, yeah. I'm still feeling pretty good about what Gunn is saying and his past work makes me pretty confident. But I still call BS on using the League. I agree with the idea that 'Superman' has to have his own supporting cast, removed from the Planet staff. Gunn is 1000% correct there. But there were characters from the Superverse who could have fit that role. Obviously we don't know the particulars and how much screen time these guys are gonna eat up or how important they'll be to the plot, and I'm not saying we're gonna get another BvS or anything. But this movie could have built up the Superverse and introduced audiences to stuff in Clark's mythos that they have never seen before. Really fun, weird, cool stuff that normies have no idea exists. We missed an opportunity here to reinvigorate and repair Clark's solo material.

[Refrax5]

This. And Wan deserves his share of the blame too, but Heard just didn't have the passion and presence that I equate with Mera. Mamoa himself isn't what I'd call a Shakespearian actor either, but he makes up for it by being really fun.



Didn't The Batman underperform as well? A little?



Mostly, yeah. I'm still feeling pretty good about what Gunn is saying and his past work makes me pretty confident. But I still call BS on using the League. I agree with the idea that 'Superman' has to have his own supporting cast, removed from the Planet staff. Gunn is 1000% correct there. But there were characters from the Superverse who could have fit that role. Obviously we don't know the particulars and how much screen time these guys are gonna eat up or how important they'll be to the plot, and I'm not saying we're gonna get another BvS or anything. But this movie could have built up the Superverse and introduced audiences to stuff in Clark's mythos that they have never seen before. Really fun, weird, cool stuff that normies have no idea exists. We missed an opportunity here to reinvigorate and repair Clark's solo material.

I'm so mixed on it. Gunn has an excellent visual style and his sense of humor and mine align in some ways, but he takes a lot of his characters extremely far from the source material so as to be almost unrecognizable and I think he doesn't know when enough is enough with the humor. I'm encouraged that he said he isn't going to be writing Superman in his usual filmmaking style and trying to do something more sincere. I do feel weird that Superman's big screen comeback has all these non-Superman characters appearing in it because it feels like we haven't had a good, solid Superman film since Reeve. On the other hand, the idea of seeing Guy Gardner in live action is kind of wild to me and it'll really boil down to the execution.

I don't especially like Gunn and his previous work is a mixed bag for me, but I'm cautiously optimistic for the new DCU. I guess we'll see how it goes.

[Refrax5]

[QUOTE=skyvolt2000;6536316]As Dwayne McDuffie said some of that stuff can't be put on screen from the comics.
Be it story cue to certain special effects.

Stuff like Sinestro War would have to be watered down and exclude some folks.

Right. Film and comics are very different mediums and what works in one won't necessarily work in another. It's why I'm pretty lenient with live adaptations. It's cool when you get something that feels like it leaps right off the page when watching this stuff, but it's not always something that translates that well.

[manwhohaseverything]

DC Infinite officially listed Superman: Brainiac, Birthright and All-Star Superman as the inspirations for the upcoming film.



Yeah, that is a possibility.

Though I'm not quiet sure if the likes of Hawkgirl or Guy Gardner should be serving that purpose.

Like, if its someone like Manchester Black, then yes, it makes sense that the audience is supposed to support 'Boy Scout' Superman over this psychopathic anti-hero.

But if 'Boy Scout' Superman is put opposite the badass anti-hero Green Lantern Guy Gardner? The audiences might just end up justifiably supporting Guy and finding him 'cool' over that outdated 'dork' Superman!

I mean, this is pretty much how Batman has eclipsed Superman in popularity.

I'm not saying it can't work. But Captain America as a character came with fewer preconceived notions from the audiences on what he should be like as compared to what will be the case with Superman. Cap's loyalty to the government led him to become a SHIELD agent until he discovered the darker side of SHIELD (namely, HYDRA), and later he sparked off a civil war within the Avengers in a bid to save his childhood-friend turned brainwashed terrorist/assassin. So while he's a character with a strong moral compass, there were enough grey areas to Cap in the movies to make him a more rounded character. I'm not sure how much Gunn will be able to play around with Superman in a similar vein.

Actually,i liked manchester better than clark in what's so funny..whenever a guy stand above people..it just doesn't work.People don't like guy because he's badass like a wolverine or batman.They like him because he can get py in the face.He has no filters.He is funny.He is ******* with a heart and will power to boot

[bat39]

Actually,i liked manchester better than clark in what's so funny..whenever a guy stand above people..it just doesn't work.People don't like guy because he's badass like a wolverine or batman.They like him because he can get py in the face.He has no filters.He is funny.He is ******* with a heart and will power to boot

Fair enough. I can understand why you find Manchester Black more appealing. Frankly, as I grow older, I find him more appealing too

But the point is that DC didn't want you to be rooting for Manchester Black. The intended reading of the story is that Superman is in the right. Manchester Black is supposed to be the 'villain' of the story, ideologically speaking.

Now it'll be a lot harder to pull that of with the likes of a Green Lantern (even if its not one of the 'iconic' ones) or Hawkgirl. There may be a few people like you who support Manchester Black over Superman, but there will be a lot more who will support GL and Hawkgirl over Superman. Which is why I don't think its a good idea to have Superman preaching to these characters about his 'Boy Scout' virtues.

[Last Son of Krypton]

Black and silver Batfleck suit from the deleted original mid-credits scene of The Flash:





https://twitter.com/FlashFilmNews/st...38147894964224

[Castling]

Right into a brick wall at 100 MPH, I'm thinking, considering just the number of characters in that movie already..

Gunn introduced Quill's origin, Rocket and Groot, Drax, Nebula and Gamora, the Ravagers, Ronan, and the Nova Corp as well as handled the B-story of Thanos all in one movie and told a complete story in 2 hrs. One shouldn't underestimate his ability to handle a large cast. He repeated this successfully in two more Guardians films, The Suicide Squad, and Peacemaker.

I'd be surprised if he fumbled the ball with Superman Legacy.

[Castling]

A month or two ago I was reading some old threads and I remember some poster, 7-8 years ago, claiming that Johns' work has no mainstream appeal. He was ridiculed by other posters and I even had him on ignore list, but I guess he knew more than we did.

I don't believe this one bit. Johns had his share of hits, especially on TV. Stargirl, Flash, and Superman & Lois were well-received and even the schlock he was behind, i.e. Titans was still incredibly popular.
If the man had been given a slate and storyline to develop, I suspect he'd be more successful than Snyder and company, especially since everyone (particularly Snyder) was mining his work for the films.

[Ascended]

I think Johns would be good in a consultant, co-architect kind of role. Say what you will about him, he had an eye for franchise building. I'd trust him to lay out the basic foundation and make sure all the pieces fit together. Just the bullet points. But that doesn't mean he should be too deeply involved in the day-to-day or that adaptations need to squeeze 'all' the world-building into one film. I'd trust him to lay out the basics and key into the main themes/topics/subtexts, and then let other writers and directors do what they will, within those boundaries. I think there's still a lot of value to having the guy's voice in the room, but I don't think he should be calling the shots.

[Vordan]

Fair enough. I can understand why you find Manchester Black more appealing. Frankly, as I grow older, I find him more appealing too

But the point is that DC didn't want you to be rooting for Manchester Black. The intended reading of the story is that Superman is in the right. Manchester Black is supposed to be the 'villain' of the story, ideologically speaking.

Now it'll be a lot harder to pull that of with the likes of a Green Lantern (even if its not one of the 'iconic' ones) or Hawkgirl. There may be a few people like you who support Manchester Black over Superman, but there will be a lot more who will support GL and Hawkgirl over Superman. Which is why I don't think its a good idea to have Superman preaching to these characters about his 'Boy Scout' virtues.

I really doubt that Guy Gardner and Hawkgirl have massive fanbases. Guy in particular is abrasive and annoying, deliberately so.

[numberthirty]

Give the guy a shot.

[Sodam Yat]

Yeah, the Flash movie is actually pretty good, I thought. Not as good as it was hyped up, obviously, but I thought it was fun and even poignant. The GL movie has some cool bits in there, but it's not a great movie. I wish it was, but it just ain't.

I agree 100%

[achilles]

Gunn introduced Quill's origin, Rocket and Groot, Drax, Nebula and Gamora, the Ravagers, Ronan, and the Nova Corp as well as handled the B-story of Thanos all in one movie and told a complete story in 2 hrs. One shouldn't underestimate his ability to handle a large cast. He repeated this successfully in two more Guardians films, The Suicide Squad, and Peacemaker.

I'd be surprised if he fumbled the ball with Superman Legacy.

Well then, if his Superman is about a mismatched group of misfits learning to get along whilst fighting whatever, than I'm sure he'll be great. Of greater concern for me is his ability to handle the whole lineup of his entire DCU movie slate. There are some character types in there for example that I'm not too sure he's going to be great with.

[achilles]

I think Johns would be good in a consultant, co-architect kind of role. Say what you will about him, he had an eye for franchise building. I'd trust him to lay out the basic foundation and make sure all the pieces fit together. Just the bullet points. But that doesn't mean he should be too deeply involved in the day-to-day or that adaptations need to squeeze 'all' the world-building into one film. I'd trust him to lay out the basics and key into the main themes/topics/subtexts, and then let other writers and directors do what they will, within those boundaries. I think there's still a lot of value to having the guy's voice in the room, but I don't think he should be calling the shots.

Good point. I'd not trust him to run the show, but I might trust him to advise the guy who is while not having a daily operations position.