DCU Movies

[manwhohaseverything]

I agree with you. This cynicism toward comic books is unfortunately a pervasive problem industry wide. It comes with this notion that the films/adapted media are somehow better than the comics and that being faithful doesn't matter. It's absolutely abhorrent and gross. I don't know why people think Gunn can be trusted on that front given his track record. The whole Guardians franchise as good as they are, is essentially fan fiction, not a true adaptation of those characters. And The Suicide Squad felt like a PARODY of Ostrander and other comics, not an adaptation. Peacemaker as well is a farcical parody show. He hasn't exactly proven that he gives a damn about faithfully adapting source material.

I tend agree with those people in a general sense.Anythung with start,finish and middle is automatically better than never-ending soap opera with incoherent shlock in the name of continuity.Moreover serious conformity that lacks creativity.Heck!the old days of comics where there used to be other genres and episodic anthology storytelling was 100 times better.

Totally agree. And like I said, I totally get that film is a different medium and that these movies need to appeal to a much broader audience than just comic fans. I don't mind creative liberties being taken at all, but if you're changing it so much that none of the recognizable aspects from the source material remain, why even bother doing an adaptation at all?

And I agree about TSS feeling like a parody of the Ostrander run. It was a relatively entertaining movie, but it left a bad taste in my mouth for that reaaon.

It depends on the guy at the directors chair how losely or closely they want to adapt.They don't have to adapt at all.It's can be a spin on characters by taking some aspects from pre existing version.Have ever heard of stan lee's superman?

[Refrax5]

I tend agree with those people in a general sense.Anythung with start,finish and middle is automatically better than never-ending soap opera with incoherent shlock in the name of continuity.Moreover serious conformity that lacks creativity.Heck!the old days of comics where there used to be other genres and episodic anthology storytelling was 100 times better.



It depends on the guy at the directors chair how losely or closely they want to adapt.They don't have to adapt at all.It's can be a spin on characters by taking some aspects from pre existing version.Have ever heard of stan lee's superman?

Right, I'm not sure what point you're making. Obviously it's up to the directors. I'm just saying it seems pointless to adapt a property if you make it so unrecognizable and different that you may as well just be doing an original property anyway.

I also wasn't suggesting adapting the "never-ending soap opera" format of a comic book, either. I just said that the basic essence and spirit of the characters should be maintained, not that it has to be an exact 1:1 translation of the comic books.

[Prime]

I just wonder if we are actually getting other villains that Lex Luthor in Superman legacy. Like come one man let’s move away from Lex already.

[James Cameron]

I just wonder if we are actually getting other villains that Lex Luthor in Superman legacy. Like come one man let’s move away from Lex already.

My guess is Stormwatch will be the primary antagonists, like the Elite.

[Primal Slayer]

I just wonder if we are actually getting other villains that Lex Luthor in Superman legacy. Like come one man let’s move away from Lex already.

Rumor has it Brainiac is the real big bad. Lex will likely be a thorn in Supes side for the entire trilogy, pulling strings bts.

[amerigo178]

I agree movies are made more for the general public not much fore fanboys
After all if your going to make a billion dollars, like studios are want to, then you need them
There are more of them than us. Also, I like when the follow established canon to some degree.
A lot of them change the material too much where it becomes completely different.
After all, anyone can work outside the box. It takes real creativity to work inside guidelines.

[James Cameron]

I tend agree with those people in a general sense.Anythung with start,finish and middle is automatically better than never-ending soap opera with incoherent shlock in the name of continuity.Moreover serious conformity that lacks creativity.Heck!the old days of comics where there used to be other genres and episodic anthology storytelling was 100 times better.



It depends on the guy at the directors chair how losely or closely they want to adapt.They don't have to adapt at all.It's can be a spin on characters by taking some aspects from pre existing version.Have ever heard of stan lee's superman?

I mean, Stan Lee's DC characters are pretty lame. What we're saying is adaptations should at the very least capture the spirit of what they're adapting, otherwise what's the point? It's not like it has to be 1:1, but in the same way Reeves' Batman revered the source material, other CBMs should as well. Gunn in particular leans more into the farcical parody stuff, which is worrisome. In the case of the Korean Huntress thing, it's something that feels so far removed from the comics that they might as well just come up with their own original character.

[Refrax5]

I agree movies are made more for the general public not much fore fanboys
After all if your going to make a billion dollars, like studios are want to, then you need them
There are more of them than us. Also, I like when the follow established canon to some degree.
A lot of them change the material too much where it becomes completely different.
After all, anyone can work outside the box. It takes real creativity to work inside guidelines.

And it's been shown to work. Look at some of the movies that really started the modern comic book movie boom: Raimi's Spider-Man, X-Men and X2, Iron Man, and Avengers. All of those movies took some liberties, sometimes big ones (although the fan outrage over Maguire's organic webs seems quaint now), but they all very much had the basic essential elements of the source material. And they were hugely successful. The Dark Knight is another one where it's definitely not exactly like the comics, but it's still very much in the spirit of those characters. Batman is still recognizably Batman. Even the Burton Batman, which was made by a director who couldn't care less about the comics and took some very large liberties, still kept a lot of the basic ideas (and even adapted some parts directly from Detective #27) and ironically made one of the most comic book-feeling comic book movies ever...and it was a pop culture phenomenon.

I think there's something about these characters that's very resonant with people, which is why they've lasted so long and have such a devoted fanbase. I think that adapting them for the larger audience works best when you stay true to the characters and the ideas and themes that surround them, while still making sure it's accessible and interesting to a broader audience. That seems to be largely when it's worked the best historically. Raimi's Spider-Man movies worked because the audience fell in love with Peter Parker, nerdy guy with flaws and human struggles, who had to balance his life with the responsibilities of being a superhero. The heart of that Lee/Ditko creation was very present in those movies and is adapted in such a sincere way because Raimi understood its what has made the character so beloved. If you had some slapstick comedy with Peter being some foul-mouthed, irreverent James Gunn type character or depicted him as an unhinged, homicidal vigilante, I think it would have turned people off immediately.

[marhawkman]

I mean, Stan Lee's DC characters are pretty lame. What we're saying is adaptations should at the very least capture the spirit of what they're adapting, otherwise what's the point? It's not like it has to be 1:1, but in the same way Reeves' Batman revered the source material, other CBMs should as well. Gunn in particular leans more into the farcical parody stuff, which is worrisome. In the case of the Korean Huntress thing, it's something that feels so far removed from the comics that they might as well just come up with their own original character.

I wouldn't call "Just Imagine" lame. the point of Just Imagine is to take the basic concept... as defined by the Man himself, and redo it. It's intentionally different.

And yeah, Gunn isn't good at taking source material "seriously". his take on Scooby Doo wasn't terrible, but apparently he had people telling him he wasn't allowed to ruin it. So we didn't actually see what he really wanted to do with it. How over-the-top was he trying to make it?

[James Cameron]

I wouldn't call "Just Imagine" lame. the point of Just Imagine is to take the basic concept... as defined by the Man himself, and redo it. It's intentionally different.

And yeah, Gunn isn't good at taking source material "seriously". his take on Scooby Doo wasn't terrible, but apparently he had people telling him he wasn't allowed to ruin it. So we didn't actually see what he really wanted to do with it. How over-the-top was he trying to make it?

"Not my cup of tea" would have been more appropriate. Just didn't care for it.

IIRC, he wanted Scooby Doo to be an R-rated adult stoner comedy. And, he basically did do that, but for children with the adult stuff mostly subtextual.

[Robotman]

My guess is Stormwatch will be the primary antagonists, like the Elite.

Yeah it sounds like we’re getting an adaptation of “What’s so funny about truth, justice, and the American way?” but with the actual Stormwatch/Authority and not their stand ins.

Which I guess may be Gunn’s way of differentiating his DCU from the last movieverse where the heroes didn’t have a problem with killing bad guys in their way (like The Authority). Batman mowing down thugs with machine guns, Wonder Woman smashing skulls in the bank scene, etc.

There’s rumors that Michael Rooker will be cast as Sam Lane. It would be interesting if he was one of the people behind Stormwatch. So really, Sam Lane would be the main villain. Even though in his mind he’s just defending the country from a potential unstoppable alien menace.

Maybe Stormwatch disbands at the end of Legacy and forms The Authority.

[Primal Slayer]

I agree movies are made more for the general public not much fore fanboys
After all if your going to make a billion dollars, like studios are want to, then you need them
There are more of them than us. Also, I like when the follow established canon to some degree.
A lot of them change the material too much where it becomes completely different.
After all, anyone can work outside the box. It takes real creativity to work inside guidelines.

There has to be a fine line though.

The DCEU I would say wanted to change that it ultimately failed. Characters have persisted for 80+ years for a reason that you have to respect source material to a certain degree.

The MCU doesnt adapt characters 100% faithfully but enough to the point where you can recongize who they are (Ms.Marvel being the biggest deviation powers wise from the comics) vs. say.....Cassandra Cain who is NOTHING like her comic counterpart except that they're both Asian.

No one is interested in seeing a Batman who goes around shooting villains left and right.

[manwhohaseverything]

I mean, Stan Lee's DC characters are pretty lame. What we're saying is adaptations should at the very least capture the spirit of what they're adapting, otherwise what's the point? It's not like it has to be 1:1, but in the same way Reeves' Batman revered the source material, other CBMs should as well. Gunn in particular leans more into the farcical parody stuff, which is worrisome. In the case of the Korean Huntress thing, it's something that feels so far removed from the comics that they might as well just come up with their own original character.

Stan lee's superman is just an example.Do you disney movies adapt tarzan by rice borough or Hercules?Heck!do you think marvel's thor is thor?do you want a batman with guns like shadow ( in his inception )by finger or kane?they are spins on myths,characters..etc.No one can be finger,kirby ..etc.Creators of these characters are long gone.There is no such thing as canon.All anyone can do is spin it in which way they can or see it fit.what people want for writers to adhere to the broad stokes vague conceptions of pop culture ie palimpsest.which i deem not necessary.As these broad strokes came to be because of new reinventions that were deemed good or accepted by the culture.Eg:-sherlock homes and all his iconic things.

[Pinsir]

I feel that faithfulness to comic adaptations is something that is usually applied in bad faith. Movies that are good, but are not at all faithful to the comics usually never get called out (Gunn's GotG is the exception here because it use to be that MCU fans insisted all those works were 'true to the comics' to which they got called out on). When it is a movie you don't like and it happens to be unfaithful to the comics, well, it's bad because it isn't faithful to the comics.

I think direct adaptations can help structure a movie, especially with less experienced creators, but if you have a strong creator like Gunn I think it is less of a concern.

[Pinsir]

There has to be a fine line though.

The DCEU I would say wanted to change that it ultimately failed. Characters have persisted for 80+ years for a reason that you have to respect source material to a certain degree.

The MCU doesnt adapt characters 100% faithfully but enough to the point where you can recongize who they are (Ms.Marvel being the biggest deviation powers wise from the comics) vs. say.....Cassandra Cain who is NOTHING like her comic counterpart except that they're both Asian.

No one is interested in seeing a Batman who goes around shooting villains left and right.

> Shazam and Aquaman are the most faithful adaptations of a comic book storyline probably ever
> Batman killed people in almost every adaptation, including the Nolan films
> The Cassandra Cain thing is a pet gripe. You can have have a pet gripe, but you shouldn't convince yourself that this is a broader grievance shared by society. Like, has Cassandra Cain ever appeared in a tv show?

If you want to argue why the DCEU failed, there is an easy answer; they were made too late. We only started to get movies consistently in the DCEU in 2016 with BvS and Suicide Squad. That means they got only three years until 2020 and Covid changed everything, leading to 2023 being the year when both the MCU and DCEU died.