All Things DCEU News, Discussion, and Speculation - Part 1

[Greens]

A lot of responses to the news on social media were that it would make them less likely to see the movie.

Yeah, right. These movies are so high profile that if Gibson delivered a grade A Suicide Squad film these people would all in line at the box office.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I totally get the apprehension based on his comments. Gibson is a sleazeball for the comments he made, but he's such a damn good director, this would be a great get for DC. WB needs to not meddle if they get him.

Not defending what he said, but I don't know the guy personally, it's possible that he deserves forgiveness and a second chance. I'm not nearly informed enough to make that judgment, not even close, but until I have a better understanding of the situation, I'm on the fence, slightly leaning towards a negative opinion of the guy.

EDIT: I looked into it more, and geez this guy's comments and actions are REALLY hard to defend. If they hire him, this will invite a ton of controversy. We'll see what happens.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

He's a great filmmaker in my eyes and his battles with addiction are something I resonate with. He's made mistakes and I'm willing to forgive and forget. And if he meant all the things he said, then I guess I'm not as big a fan of Mel Gibson the person as I thought I was.

But if he delivers a good film, people will go regardless.

 

[Greens]

Honestly I'm tired of people "asterisking" their opinion when it comes to Gibson. It's like a version of Godwin's law: As an online discussion about Mel Gibson grows longer, the probability of someone admonishing him approaches 1.

Out of the people on the reported shortlist he is by far the best choice.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Honestly I'm tired of people "asterisking" their opinion when it comes to Gibson. It's like a version of Godwin's law: As an online discussion about Mel Gibson grows longer, the probability of someone admonishing him approaches 1.

Out of the people on the reported shortlist he is by far the best choice.

Fair enough. Yeah he's a far better director than all of the other guys. This news is so huge it's hard not to be excited by it.

Remember back in the Justice League Mortal days? Mel Gibson was heavily rumored to be the top choice for Maxwell Lord.

There was a shortlist that circulated that was apparently a list of who WB wanted for the Justice League. They wanted Bale and Routh back for this before Nolan turned the idea down. The list was particularly interesting because it included Jessica Biel and Columbus Short who confirmed later that they were approached for the roles of WW and GL.

I haven't been able to find any links that corroborate this since then, I think it may have originally posted on the now defunct IESB (bleh.........) but I remember it very well and we all discussed it back in the day. Here's what I remember

Superman: Brandon Routh
Batman: Christian Bale
Wonder Woman: Jessica Biel
Green Lantern: Columbus Short
The Flash: Ryan Reynolds
Aquaman: Leonardo DiCaprio (later it was confirmed that his production company Appian Way was going to produce an Aquaman movie, but that never happened)
Martian Manhunter: Laurence Fishburne

Maxwell Lord: Mel Gibson
Talia Al Ghul: Scarlett Johansson

**** I'm sorry but that would've been a way better cast than our current JL cast. I wish WB would've had their way and we would've gotten a cinematic universe years ago.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I actually really like that cast.

Flame away

 

[Rorschach2012]

Honestly i would rather have OMACs, Lord and Talia as the villains than frickin' Steppenwolf. They should've just gone with Darkseid. If Justice League sucks (it honestly might if Affleck really wants to leave, why would he want to leave if JL is amazing?), then Darkseid is just going to go the way of Sinestro in the Green Lantern movie.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I thought it was a great way to start off a cinematic universe because it allows for Batman to be reborn. Essentially, the story follows Batman as though he is re-experiencing with his childhood trauma through the lens of the aftermath of BZE. So what we get is the same sort of origin story stuff but within the context of an existential crisis. Just like Nolan takes young Bruce up to the point when he would have shot the man who killed his parents only to set a course to becoming Batman, Snyder takes an older Bruce up to the point when he would have killed the man he projected his feelings of powerless onto only to set a course to recommitting to Batman.

Batman sees Superman as the greatest threat to humanity because he is struggling with PTSD. One of the symptoms of the illness is "distorted thoughts about the trauma that lead to assigning blame for the event to themselves or another person." The Martha scene is a happy accident, but PTSD often works with environmental and emotional triggers. "Save Martha" doesn't heal or cure Bruce, but it does snap him out of his flight or fight response. As I discussed last week, The West Wing did a great episode on PTSD called "Noel," and it explicitly suggests that as soon as Josh (the PTSD patient) can identify what is triggering his PTSD responses, he can start the process of getting better. Josh experiences the sound of Christmas music as sirens that blared the night he was shot during an assassination attempt. Working on a crisis involving a pilot who became suicidal after being shot down also affected Josh because the two men shared the same birthday. "Save Martha" and seeing Lois protecting Clark the way Martha Wayne tried to protect her family allowed Bruce to finally see the truth of himself.

For me, it is a satisfying finale because what saves Batman is that he is given a chance to be Superman's hero. He gets to make a difference. He finds his purpose and power again through Superman: his trust and his forgiveness. Superman, by contrast, was beginning to believe that perhaps no one stays good in this world, so Batman's ability to see the light before crossing the line into full darkness is enormously valuable to Clark. Clark spent most of the film defending and believing that the government and the public would ultimately recognize and join him in his cause for hope and justice. He tells Lois that he doesn't care what people say about him, defends the power of the press to a cynical Perry White, and tells Bruce Wayne that the rest of the world doesn't share his negative opinion of Superman. Superman appears before Finch's committee believing that having a conversation will help, and he's so optimistic about the process and humanity that he doesn't look for bombs or threats in his midst. At his lowest point, Superman starts to lose faith, so Batman's ability to see a path back to the light matters.

It puts Batman into a very unrelatable and unsympathetic position. PTSD looks like a total deus ex machina in this case. Instead of building up certain beliefs, justified by experience and decisions he made in the past, Batman is denied in rational thinking. His war-weary, jaded state of mind means nothing, because on top of that there's that psychological trauma, which he earned accidentally, and snapped out of accidentally. It just goes on it's own. How do you even invest in a character, who is stripped of a choice? That's why his redemption means nothing for plenty of people.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

It puts Batman into a very unrelatable and unsympathetic position. PTSD looks like a total deus ex machina in this case. Instead of building up certain beliefs, justified by experience and decisions he made in the past, Batman is denied in rational thinking. His war-weary, jaded state of mind means nothing, because on top of that there's that psychological trauma, which he earned accidentally, and snapped out of accidentally. It just goes on it's own. How do you even invest in a character, who is stripped of a choice? That's why his redemption means nothing for plenty of people.

Not only that, this was also another example of the movie's poor writing. The movie tries to be this serious, timeless, genre-changing experience. However, its hard to do that with a scene that features Lex Luthor's urine.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

He just did not know about the Martha connection one simple name ruined it all

I am pretty sure he did, he said Superman's mom's name several times on the helipad. He just thought his plan was flawless and it wouldn't get in the way of one of them killing each other. He was wrong.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

He knew Clarks moms name not Bruces most likely since she was dead he likely did not bother looking up her name / forgot about it quickly since she was dead

True, I think he knew Bruce's family died judging by the letters, but that's he needed to know, he didn't need to know their names.

 

[Superchan]

Batman was prepared. Everything Batman did to prepare to kill Superman worked. PTSD does explain cognitive impairment because it is a symptom of the illness. PTSD interferes with concentration and is associated with reckless behavior, for example. PTSD distorts thoughts and memories. Even the nightmares, lack of sleep, and constant stress would impair reasoning, judgment, and clarity of thought.
It wasn't the fact that Superman and Batman had mothers with the same name that made a difference. Watch the scene. Superman says, "Save Martha" and "You're letting him kill Martha." Lois is also there. The entire context of the Martha scene is what makes a difference. Batman needs to see Lois protecting Superman the way Martha Wayne protected her family. Batman needs to see himself in the same place as Joe Chill. Batman needs to hear that Martha needs saving, and that if he kills Superman, then he essentially kills Martha. Context matters.
I don't think it is fair to judge Superman for not exercising more patience. As you said, his mother's life was on a timer, and after two attempts to communicate with Batman, Superman deduced that Batman would not listen until he could see his mission to fight Superman was pointless. Superman could not have known that "Martha" would make the difference that it did. You are judging him based on what you know happens, and what you know will be effective, but Superman did not have that sort of omniscient knowledge at the time. His experience with Batman up until that point was that he was a man who only listened to fists, so that's the tactic he resorted to when Batman passed up a first and second chance to listen.
It doesn't have to be one or the other. The grief just makes the PTSD trauma more complex.

Misslane38 you sound intelligent enough and surely an intelligent person would know that we've been through this exact discussion before and it resulted in nothing but back and forth arguments to the point that a moderator got involved, deleted alot of posts and issued a clear warning, so why waste our time?
I will never agree with you or your reasoning on most things related to BvS or Snyder's take on superman because I think these movies (BvS and MOS) are a pile of garbage that the insult the very concept of superman and his universe, however they clearly speak to your soul and you seem to have gotten a heck of alot of pleasure out of them so believe it or not I'm happy for you, happy and jealous at the same time because you seem to have gotten the superman that you want while sadly the many of us superman fans haven't.
To cut a long story short, I respect your passion but not your reasoning so I'm going to ignore any comment you make on the DCEU superman and BvS because 99% I will disagree with it and you should do the same for me, this way we'll save a heck of alot of time.

 

[misslane38]

Not only that, this was also another example of the movie's poor writing. The movie tries to be this serious, timeless, genre-changing experience. However, its hard to do that with a scene that features Lex Luthor's urine.

I don't understand the criticism you are making here. A film cannot be serious if it includes a character who makes a political opponent's folksy saying literal as a final warning and last laugh? Finch used the saying to suggest that Lex Luthor couldn't fool her, and the jar of urine is Lex's way of saying he's going to win anyway. He does it in a way to shake Finch and give that split second of horror before she meets her fate. Other serious films include a severed horse head in someone's bed. What's the big deal?

To cut a long story short, I respect your passion but not your reasoning so I'm going to ignore any comment you make on the DCEU superman and BvS because 99% I will disagree with it and you should do the same for me, this way we'll save a heck of alot of time.

I'm cool with agreeing to disagree.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I really enjoyed the urine scene. One of my favorite moments in the film.

 

[FunkMiller]

I really enjoyed the urine scene. One of my favorite moments in the film.

Ooh. That won't be a popular opinion. Urine trouble now.







...I'm so so sorry.

 

[ManWithNoName18]

The jar scene was a little awkward to me, instead of the impending dread of Finch connecting the dots of Luthor's plan

Game Of Thrones spoilers for the previous season finale

Spoiler

The death of Margery/High Sparrow at the trial is a basically a much better version of the urine in a jar scene.

 

[titansupes]

The last two Superman projects were fast-tracked when name directors pushed them forward. Otherwise, movement on Superman stalls out.

We went through several Superman projects that were on and off again until Bryan Singer set up a meeting with WB and made his pitch to them around July 2005. The movie was greenlit and production began about 12 weeks later. Routh was cast in October and filming began in March.

After Superman Returns underwhelmed the supposed sequel was pushed back several times until they decided to start over. In one of the court documents dated around 2009, WB said they currently had no script and nothing in-development. The reboot was floundering until Nolan picked up the phone and got the film greenlit with one phone call.

Singer was officially hired/announced July 2004. Filming began February 2005.

The treatment for SR2 WAS in development, it just didn't get get further than that.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Ooh. That won't be a popular opinion. Urine trouble now.







...I'm so so sorry.

Well, I liked Luthor's speech on the roof too. Martha, Martha, Martha... I think it was funny in an over-the-top and sadistic kind of way. But I'm not gonna try to convince everyone how these things are totally justified and everyone should embrace them.

 

[misslane38]

The jar scene was a little awkward to me, instead of the impending dread of Finch connecting the dots of Luthor's plan

*shrugs* I felt the impending dread.

Game Of Thrones spoilers for the previous season finale

Spoiler

The death of Margery/High Sparrow at the trial is a basically a much better version of the urine in a jar scene.

Both scenes are effective, in my opinion. The one you're referring to is different in one key respect. You're in the point of view of the attacker and, in a way, rooting for their success based on previous injustices. It's horrifying and satisfying at the same time, which works for the story being told. What was done in BvS works for the story they were telling; therefore it was effective. YMMV.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

I don't understand the criticism you are making here. A film cannot be serious if it includes a character who makes a political opponent's folksy saying literal as a final warning and last laugh? Finch used the saying to suggest that Lex Luthor couldn't fool her, and the jar of urine is Lex's way of saying he's going to win anyway. He does it in a way to shake Finch and give that split second of horror before she meets her fate. Other serious films include a severed horse head in someone's bed. What's the big deal?

I get why its there. To show that Lex Luthor is "powerful", I guess. My problem is comes from the inherent juvenile nature of it. The movie puts a massive emphasis on that jar of urine. A freakin' jar of urine. Do you realize how disgusting and stupid that is?

Oh and don't compare The Godfather to this. That scene was to show how powerful the mafia is. The man, Jack Woltz, wakes up to see the severed head of his prized stallion on his bed because he wouldn't do what they wanted. The scene is creepy, disturbing, and perfectly sets the mood of the movie. There's no reason for a jar of urine to be in a massive Hollywood blockbuster superhero movie.

 

[misslane38]

I get why its there. To show that Lex Luthor is "powerful", I guess. My problem is comes from the inherent juvenile nature of it. The movie puts a massive emphasis on that jar of urine. A freakin' jar of urine. Do you realize how disgusting and stupid that is?

Oh and don't compare The Godfather to this. That scene was to show how powerful the mafia is. The man, Jack Woltz, wakes up to see the severed head of his prized stallion on his bed because he wouldn't do what they wanted. The scene is creepy, disturbing, and perfectly sets the mood of the movie. There's no reason for a jar of urine to be in a massive Hollywood blockbuster superhero movie.

So it really is just a prudish reaction to a taboo even though it is just Lex playing with Finch's own words because she wouldn't do what he wanted, but he won anyway? Okay.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I think urine is a major theme in DCEU. Remember in MoS when we first meet Lois character, she asks, what if she needs to tinkle and gets an answer from the sexist officer, that there's a bucket in the corner? I think it's somehow related to the urine on the table in BvS. Empowered women in DCEU are strongly associated with urine.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Some people do not understand that it simply does not matter who is making these movies as long as the WB does what the WB does & that is why Mel will ultimately turn it down. The WB executives will not give up their power for nobody they do not know how to stay away this much is clear

Ha alright Negan. I'm of the opinion that director is everything. Ayer wrote that script and it had his fingerprints all over it. WB meddled yeah but the original cut was not much of an improvement

The two DC Snyder movies are so Snyder it's funny.

Look at TDKT. If a good director comes around with a good vision and the script is perfected, we'll get a good movie.

I don't think the studio meddling is that bad I think they're just approving scripts that are not ready to be made into movies. These people don't have a clear vision before theyre writing these scripts.

Mel has enough clout as a director that I think he'll mostly be left alone if he decides to sign on.

 

[misslane38]

I think urine is a major theme in DCEU. Remember in MoS when we first meet Lois character, she asks, what if she needs to tinkle and gets an answer from the sexist officer, that there's a bucket in the corner? I think it's somehow related to the urine on the table in BvS. Empowered women in DCEU are strongly associated with urine.

I know you're being facetious, but no one has made any sort of argument like this, so I'm not sure what sort of commentary you are aiming at. Anyway, for the sake of argument, Lois says the line about tinkling in order to suggest to the guys that she's not one for roughing it. She puts on the appearance of weakness to ensure that the guys won't suspect that she'd go on any after hours adventures. Finch, on the other hand, references "Granny's Peach Tea" to assert her power. She's saying she can't be fooled. The actual appearance of the "tea" is what reveals her weakness. So there is some sort of throughline related to power, but it isn't consistent or clear enough to be a genuine theme. There are also too many other empowered women in the DCCU that aren't associated with urine for the theme to, um, hold any water.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I think urine is a major theme in DCEU. Remember in MoS when we first meet Lois character, she asks, what if she needs to tinkle and gets an answer from the sexist officer, that there's a bucket in the corner? I think it's somehow related to the urine on the table in BvS. Empowered women in DCEU are strongly associated with urine.

Wow, I never thought of it that way

You just may be on to something here, you sly dog, you!