DCU Movies

[Vakanai]

Well, Gunn is spearheading everything so one way or another a lot of the upcoming slate is derived from the idea of a shared universe.

Unfortunately you are correct.

[El_Gato]

Again, they could've got made to begin with without the cinematic universe if WB wasn't run by idiots. You can argue that all you want, but it's truth. The incentive doesn't matter - money should've been the incentive long ago, but again WB idiots.

I fail to understand what the point of a superhero film is if it’s not in a connected universe where you’ll see them team up. Like truly what is the point? The Batman is standalone and was decent, but who cares since he’s in his own little corner (will likely get only 3 films) and never meet any other heroes. We already had that with Nolan… not interested in a disconnected DCU

[StarSpangledMan]

I fail to understand what the point of a superhero film is if it’s not in a connected universe where you’ll see them team up. Like truly what is the point? The Batman is standalone and was decent, but who cares since he’s in his own little corner (will likely get only 3 films) and never meet any other heroes. We already had that with Nolan… not interested in a disconnected DCU

A superhero and their "world" has merit outside of being a part of a connected universe, that stuff is a boon not the foundation. This applies to literally any and all characters across any and all stories.

[Vakanai]

I fail to understand what the point of a superhero film is if it’s not in a connected universe where you’ll see them team up. Like truly what is the point? The Batman is standalone and was decent, but who cares since he’s in his own little corner (will likely get only 3 films) and never meet any other heroes. We already had that with Nolan… not interested in a disconnected DCU

I fail to see the point in making movies only to set up later team up movies. The point of a superhero movie is the point of any good action movies - fun story, great action scenes, just hella fun on the screen. Who cares about Back to the Future, it was only three films that never crossed over with anything. Same with the first couple Ghostbusters from the 80s. First few Indiana Jones movies. Just standalone films and sequels in their own corner with no possible crossover potential. Pretty shitty right? No? Same with superhero films, I don't give a **** about some damn cinematic universe, I don't give a **** if there's some damn team up movie in the future, all I fucking care about is if the movie I'm watching now is good. I've enjoyed The Batman more than any of the MCU crossover films - some of the MCU solo films are close, first Iron Man or first Ant-Man, but none of the team up films do it for me. They tend to be the most forgettable ones in the franchise.

You failing to understand the point of a superhero movie that can stand on it's own as just fun good cinema without the promise of some big team up down the road saddens me. I fail to understand how the team up can be so important that everything else becomes "pointless" if the team up is removed. I prefer Nolan's Batman trilogy as a whole to the MCU, I prefer the first two OG Superman films as a whole over any Avengers movie. The team ups are only as good as the actual films they are, they're not the point or be all end all with me. I guess they are for you, but just like you can't understand me on this issue, I can't possibly comprehend your viewpoint, we're just way too far apart on this. The point of movies to me, superhero movies especially, is to be good. The point of them to you is to tie in and team up in a shared universe. You don't care as much for the former, I don't care so much for the latter.

I care about The Batman's little corner of 3 films 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0% more than I ever cared about the DCEU from day one.

[Edwin30]

I don't think James Gunn can pull off what Kevin Feige did.
James Gunn doesn't look like he has it in him to put his foot down and direct where DC universe should go.

I'd probably enjoy DC movies more if he puts out standalone projects and drop the whole cinematic universe concept.

[bat39]

Again, they could've got made to begin with without the cinematic universe if WB wasn't run by idiots. You can argue that all you want, but it's truth. The incentive doesn't matter - money should've been the incentive long ago, but again WB idiots.

Not disagreeing with you, though I wouldn't go so far as to call anyone an 'idiot'.

Though on the money part, I suppose an argument could be made that a shared universe would lead to prolonged audience investment and make certain projects less risky than they would have been purely as standalones. Certainly, this strategy paid off for Marvel for at least a decade.

Well, Gunn is spearheading everything so one way or another a lot of the upcoming slate is derived from the idea of a shared universe.

I'm okay with it as long as it doesn't completely dominate the DC slate. I'm especially concerned about non-film projects, like TV shows and animation. The Arrowverse was a thing of beauty in its own way and allowed DC to shine on the small screen at a time when its big screen endeavors were a mess. I'm worried that Gunn's plans eliminate the possibility of something like the Arrowverse existing.

I fail to understand what the point of a superhero film is if it’s not in a connected universe where you’ll see them team up. Like truly what is the point? The Batman is standalone and was decent, but who cares since he’s in his own little corner (will likely get only 3 films) and never meet any other heroes. We already had that with Nolan… not interested in a disconnected DCU

I have mixed feelings about this train of thought.

On the one hand, I'm vehemently against this notion that a movie only has worth if it connects to other movies - doesn't matter what genre. Compare the relatively standalone Iron Man (barring the post-credits scene) with Iron Man 2. Which is the better film and the one more fondly remembered? BvS is a movie I will defend to the death (well, not quiet ), but it's definitely also a flawed film that crumbled a little under the weight of having to hastily set up a shared universe. Shared universes also incentivize the creation of mediocre films like Thor The Dark World which basically get to coast by on the strength of being connected to other (better) movies.

On the other hand, shared universes do enable us fans to indulge in our desire to see all these characters interact and weave in and out of each others stories as they do in the source material. Its easy to get cynical about shared universes after 15 years of the MCU, as well as several less successful attempts including the DCEU, but I still remember the sheer joy and mindblowing awesomeness of the first Avengers movie, or even the simple pleasures of Tony Stark showing up in the post-credit scene of a Hulk movie. And I remember the theatre erupting in applause when Superman and Batman came face to face in BvS.

That said, I don't think its a binary choice. Its possible to have characters interact without a rigid shared universe. Indeed, DC was planning a Justice League film almost a decade before the DCEU was thought of. Crossovers had been planned on both the Marvel and DC sides long before shared universes were in vogue - apparently, there were plans to have Wolverine cameo in Raimi's Spider-Man at one point, and Routh's Superman and Bale's Batman were at one point expected to team up as well (though I'm sure Nolan nixed that idea pretty swiftly). My point is that its possible to have a shared universe in a looser sense - to develop properties independently and then maybe bring them together for the odd crossover if it makes sense to do so. Or simply bring characters together for team-up films like Justice League without needing to build up this complex continuity.

That's actually how the comics operate, particularly DC. You have a shared universe, and you have projects that are outside of the shared universe. And even within the shared universe, each book or line has its unique tone and sensibility, while the characters sometimes get together on a team book or universe-wide crossover that has a totally different tone and sensibility. The Batman in a Batman book can be very different from the Batman on the Justice League.

[Lightning Rider]

Yeah, I too dislike when a movie's sole reason for existence is to bridge a shared universe and serve as an advertisement for other films, but that doesn't mean we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Solo films should feel like complete adventures on their own, but superheroes teaming up is a staple concept of the genre and DC fans deserve to see iconic relationships on-screen in a satisfying way.

[marhawkman]

Yeah there's a difference between making things direct sequels and simply allowing them to fit together. You can have Superman name drop Batman without making it a specific ref to another movie. Those are cool too, but you don't need to. You can share the universe... without making it elbow-room only.

[Vakanai]

Not disagreeing with you, though I wouldn't go so far as to call anyone an 'idiot'.

Though on the money part, I suppose an argument could be made that a shared universe would lead to prolonged audience investment and make certain projects less risky than they would have been purely as standalones. Certainly, this strategy paid off for Marvel for at least a decade.

It also hasn't paid off for anyone other than Marvel for at least a decade. If five or more corporations all try the same thing and only one of them profits from it while everyone else sees it fail bomb or stagnate maybe they shouldn't all keep playing follow the leader...

[Vakanai]

Yeah, I too dislike when a movie's sole reason for existence is to bridge a shared universe and serve as an advertisement for other films, but that doesn't mean we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Solo films should feel like complete adventures on their own, but superheroes teaming up is a staple concept of the genre and DC fans deserve to see iconic relationships on-screen in a satisfying way.

But you don't need a shared universe to do crossover films. You could just make a JL film like they almost did back in the mid/late 00's. We didn't need a shared Batman/Turtles verse to get them a team up in animation. Just do a team film if that's the aim, don't need to set up a universe first just because that's how Marvel did it.

[Frontier]

I think there's merit in both standalone films or films with the idea of bridging into something more, it all comes down to execution.

But you don't need a shared universe to do crossover films. You could just make a JL film like they almost did back in the mid/late 00's. We didn't need a shared Batman/Turtles verse to get them a team up in animation. Just do a team film if that's the aim, don't need to set up a universe first just because that's how Marvel did it.

But then if you bring together characters from a bunch of standalone films people will probably think they all take place in the same universe .

[Vakanai]

I think there's merit in both standalone films or films with the idea of bridging into something more, it all comes down to execution.

But then if you bring together characters from a bunch of standalone films people will probably think they all take place in the same universe .

I never said bring people together from a bunch of standalone films. JL Mortal wasn't going to bring characters from standalone movies into it, all the takes on those characters would've been unique to it - Superman Returns' Superman and Batman Begins' Batman wasn't going to be in it, but different actors and versions of Clark and Bruce.
We got fucked out of that though thanks to a different writers strike.

[El_Gato]

A superhero and their "world" has merit outside of being a part of a connected universe, that stuff is a boon not the foundation. This applies to literally any and all characters across any and all stories.

The point of superheroes and how you get the audience invested is a shared universe where they all interact in an overarching storyline. You’ll never see those MCU numbers with solo films. That’s why Marvels highest grossing films are practically double DC’s highest grossing films

Edit: I’m not interested in non connected superhero films so if they go that route then I’m out

[Castling]

Yeah there's a difference between making things direct sequels and simply allowing them to fit together. You can have Superman name drop Batman without making it a specific ref to another movie. Those are cool too, but you don't need to. You can share the universe... without making it elbow-room only.

Gunn did this constantly in Peacemaker, where characters like Batmite, Doll Man, Kite Man and Matter Eater Lad were mentioned as asides or misadventures Chris Smith recalled.

[D.Z]

Wouldn't mind separate universes, but characters team up in multiverse crossover movies.

But what they're doing is the Rebooted DCU which started in the Flash movie. While only few movies take place in their own universe.