Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom

[achilles]

True, the majority of audiences have never read a comic book in their lives.

Adapting the Winter Soldier storyline paid off.'

Adapting the Infinity Gauntlet storyline sold well.

Adapting the Civil War storyline into a Captain America movie paid off.

Making Jane Foster the new Thor went very well.

I agree, up till that last point. Love and Blunder didn't pay off well for anyone, let alone Ms. One Last Paycheck Before Checking Out Of The Hated MCU.

But the difference between those movies and others is that the ones you list above, sans Love and Blunder, were....good. Studios ought to try doing that again, making good movies. It just might help.

As for Aquabro, I have no idea about it. That they regurgitated a bunch of CGI of varying quality doesn't bode well to me, but who knows.

[achilles]

To me that's the biggest reason it's an incredibly stupid thing to try. It'd be like having Indiana Jones go to Auschwitz...it's just not supposed to be that kind of story.

I'm kind of surprised they didn't go that way.

[Captain Craig]

Agreed. It is sufficiently telegraphed.

[Amadeus Arkham]

The DCEU comes to an end this December. Still doesn’t feel real.

[achilles]

The DCEU comes to an end this December. Still doesn’t feel real.

And it will be replaced with a mishmash of things James Gunn likes, but not necessarily your average movie goer. Oh well.

[Sutekh]

And it will be replaced with a mishmash of things James Gunn likes, but not necessarily your average movie goer. Oh well.

Eh, I thought the same when Guardians of the Galaxy was introduced. 'Who asked for this? WTF!' And then it was awesome. I was wrong, and I loved it. And then he swerved massively with Guardians 3, which was painfully serious at times, and like a punch in the gut when you were expecting a laugh. So he's got more range than I expected.

Ditto Peacemaker. Very darn close to the *last* DC character I wanted to see more of (played by someone I thought was a terrible fake wrestler, pretending to be an actor), in a storyline that had nothing to do with anything I remember from DC. And it was amazing. Gunn keeps making me eat crow (and I feel like I should apologize to John Cena personally!).

I'm a slow learner, but *this time,* I won't dismiss Gunn's questionable-sounding choices for the DC lineup he's announced. DC itself has failed to launch some of the strongest characters in their toolbox, IMO, so maybe this is the direction they should have gone from the outset, learn to make a damn movie first, firm up your skills with C-listers like Blade and B-listers like Iron Man, before shooting your wad with the big properties (and popular storylines).

[choptop]

And it will be replaced with a mishmash of things James Gunn likes, but not necessarily your average movie goer. Oh well.

I still think the DCEU will continue somehow.

[thwhtGuardian]

And it will be replaced with a mishmash of things James Gunn likes, but not necessarily your average movie goer. Oh well.

He's been pretty good at delivering well loved films so that doesn't seem to be the case.

[achilles]

He's been pretty good at delivering well loved films so that doesn't seem to be the case.

Of a certain kind. Within that area, he's shown competence. The question is can he do it line wide? Can he put together a proper Superman movie?

[Scott Taylor]

Well I feel pretty confident in what Gunn's style is going to involve. The question isn't so much - "could he do a proper Superman movie?" - but rather "would people accept and love a Gunn-directed Superman movie"? Gunn has a tendency to mock and make fun of goody two-shoes characters like Superman in his movies. So I expect some of that. But Gunn also tends to have his characters learn how to become better people - so I also expect some of that.

The safe way to handle Superman is probably the "Captain America Approach" - just to have him be this static icon who has little to no character development and is basically a symbol who inspires the people around him. It worked in all the MCU movies involving Cap and it worked with Superman in the two Donner films. I don't know if Gunn would do a treatment that is so light-handed, but I bet someone other than me has noticed that it has been a successful approach.

[80sbaby]

While I agree that they should write Superman the way they did Cap, you're completely wrong in saying he had no character development.

[Frontier]

I think most people are worried his Superman is going to be too much of an "aw shucks" type.

[Scott Taylor]

While I agree that they should write Superman the way they did Cap, you're completely wrong in saying he had no character development.

Maybe. Would you accept "very little" character development instead?

[80sbaby]

Maybe. Would you accept "very little" character development instead?

Hmmm honestly no. If you look at his arc over his entire MCU appearances, he changed quite a bit. And in realistic, organic ways. How he started was quite different than where he began, imo.

[StickMin]

I agree, up till that last point. Love and Blunder didn't pay off well for anyone, let alone Ms. One Last Paycheck Before Checking Out Of The Hated MCU.

But the difference between those movies and others is that the ones you list above, sans Love and Blunder, were....good. Studios ought to try doing that again, making good movies. It just might help.

As for Aquabro, I have no idea about it. That they regurgitated a bunch of CGI of varying quality doesn't bode well to me, but who knows.

The fact you refuse to just say the title correctly and refer to Natalie Portman makes it hard to take you seriously because you clearly aren't talking in good faith