All Things DCEU News, Discussion, and Speculation - Part 4

[Greens]

Who says they would have done a good job with Darkseid? Darkseid as a name doesn't draw ****.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Darkseid wasn’t even in the movie so all we have is Steppenwolf, whose lamer than even Malekith.

And knowing that requires seeing the movie, when the problem is that not enough people did.

Very few villains are well-known and popular enough to make a difference on their own based soley on name value. Joker, for sure. Loki in recent years. Probably Magneto. Darkseid is not one of them. He could become that after being in a highly popular film, but as of right now he isn't.

Again, the only people who know who Darkseid is are comic fans. Him being in JL would mean nothing in terms of getting average moviegoers in the seats.

 

[Flint Marko]

Who says they would have done a good job with Darkseid?

We should thank our lucky stars they didn't waste the ultimate DC baddie on JL.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Who says they would have done a good job with Darkseid? Darkseid as a name doesn't draw ****.

Lex Luthor is far, FAR more well-known than Darkseid is and look at what they did with him.

 

[Flint Marko]

Lex Luthor is far, FAR more well-known than Darkseid is and look at what they did with him.

Not to mention....

 

[misslane38]

So, the villain makes no difference at all? If average people can't tell the difference or don't feel differently about anyone from Steppenwolf to Darkseid, then changing the villain just for the purposes of creating a better draw would have been meaningless. Same for any Superman movie. If average people can't be assumed to know or care, then one might as well make a movie with Toyman instead of Brainaic. Where the choice of villain would make a difference is potentially in the experience of watching the film, since Darkseid and Brainiac just make more compelling villains, but not in marketing or as part of an appeal to the average audience member.

 

[Limonade]

So, the villain makes no difference at all? If average people can't tell the difference or don't feel differently about anyone from Steppenwolf to Darkseid, then changing the villain just for the purposes of creating a better draw would have been meaningless. Same for any Superman movie. If average people can't be assumed to know or care, then one might as well make a movie with Toyman instead of Brainaic. Where the choice of villain would make a difference is potentially in the experience of watching the film, since Darkseid and Brainiac just make more compelling villains, but not in marketing or as part of an appeal to the average audience member.

People shouldn't be assumed to know or care about anything in a superhero film. Period. Heroes or Villains.

It's up to the film itself to state the case of a Villain compared to the Hero. If it can't do that properly... then the film is just wasting people's time.

 

[Zarex]

So, the villain makes no difference at all? If average people can't tell the difference or don't feel differently about anyone from Steppenwolf to Darkseid, then changing the villain just for the purposes of creating a better draw would have been meaningless. Same for any Superman movie. If average people can't be assumed to know or care, then one might as well make a movie with Toyman instead of Brainaic. Where the choice of villain would make a difference is potentially in the experience of watching the film, since Darkseid and Brainiac just make more compelling villains, but not in marketing or as part of an appeal to the average audience member.

As we've seen, the A List for film and comic book villains has a very different roster. Dr. Doom, for example, is up there with Joker in the pantheon of comic book villains. But based on his three prior onscreen appearances Victor is looking up at Kaecilius. The best villains on the page are swimming with potential, but they aren't selling tickets on their names.

 

[misslane38]

As we've seen, the A List for film and comic book villains has a very different roster. Dr. Doom, for example, is up there with Joker in the pantheon of comic book villains. But based on his three prior onscreen appearances Victor is looking up at Kaecilius. The best villains on the page are swimming with potential, but they aren't selling tickets on their names.

Who is saying that Darkseid would be sold to the audience on name recognition alone? The benefit of a villain like Darkseid is that he's just a more versatile and cooler villain. The vision of the film -- its scope, its meaning, its tone -- would be shaped around Darkseid. What he brings to the film would be brought to the marketing and promotion. Simply marketing the character with Omega symbol over months would prime the audience to be intrigued by the character. Cast an amazing actor to play Darkseid. Steppenwolf doesn't promise the viewer anything.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

As we've seen, the A List for film and comic book villains has a very different roster. Dr. Doom, for example, is up there with Joker in the pantheon of comic book villains. But based on his three prior onscreen appearances Victor is looking up at Kaecilius. The best villains on the page are swimming with potential, but they aren't selling tickets on their names.

Some other recent examples:

Captain America's arch-nemesis and easily most well-known villain is Red Skull. The lowest grossing film with Captain America was the one with him in it.

Apocalypse is one of the most well known and popular X-Men villains. Maybe second to Magneto (who was also in the film). His movie was a massive disappointment and he was outgrossed by Bolivar Trask in DOFP, Francis in Deadpool, and Generic Scientist Guy/Generic Mercenary Guy in Logan.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 featuring Spider-Man's arch-nemesis and greatest foe the Green Goblin (doing the famous Death of Gwen Stacy storyline, no less) was the lowest grossing Spider-Man film ever. Both its predecessor with the Lizard and its successor with D-List villain Vulture did better.

And those are films starring the same characters.

If there is anything the last few years have taught us is that importance of characters in the comics is mostly irrelevant to success. Z-Listers like the GotG can be turned into sensations and films jam-packed with icons like Justice League can be duds. It all comes down to how they are used.

 

[Zarex]

Who is saying that Darkseid would be sold to the audience on name recognition alone? The benefit of a villain like Darkseid is that he's just a more versatile and cooler villain. The vision of the film -- its scope, its meaning, its tone -- would be shaped around Darkseid. What he brings to the film would be brought to the marketing and promotion. Simply marketing the character with Omega symbol over months would prime the audience to be intrigued by the character. Cast an amazing actor to play Darkseid. Steppenwolf doesn't promise the viewer anything.

I agree that a better villain than Stevey Wolf may have helped. It certainly wouldn't have hurt. But I dont think an initial All Star mash up like Avengers or JL necessarily need a compelling baddie. Hiddleston's Loki was fine in the Marvel mash up, but the character is better known for taking a beating than for anything else he accomplished during the film.

No, what should have sold JL was seeing the Trinity together onscreen for the first time. But the folks previously in charge just couldn't wait to get to the fireworks factory

 

[Zarex]

Some other recent examples:

Captain America's arch-nemesis and easily most well-known villain is Red Skull. The lowest grossing film with Captain America was the one with him in it.

Apocalypse is one of the most well known and popular X-Men villains. Maybe second to Magneto (who was also in the film). His movie was a massive disappointment and he was outgrossed by Bolivar Trask in DOFP, Francis in Deadpool, and Generic Scientist Guy/Generic Mercenary Guy in Logan.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 featuring Spider-Man's arch-nemesis and greatest foe the Green Goblin (doing the famous Death of Gwen Stacy storyline, no less) was the lowest grossing Spider-Man film ever. Both its predecessor with the Lizard and its successor with D-List villain Vulture did better.

And those are films starring the same characters.

If there is anything the last few years have taught us is that importance of characters in the comics is mostly irrelevant to success. Z-Listers like the GotG can be turned into sensations and films jam-packed with icons like Justice League can be duds. It all comes down to how they are used.

Yup. And I enjoyed the heck out of the murderers row of baddies in GOTG2 - Taserface, Ayesha and Ego. When you don't have Galactus (yet!) ya gotta make do.

 

[Superchan]

Some other recent examples:

Captain America's arch-nemesis and easily most well-known villain is Red Skull. The lowest grossing film with Captain America was the one with him in it.

Apocalypse is one of the most well known and popular X-Men villains. Maybe second to Magneto (who was also in the film). His movie was a massive disappointment and he was outgrossed by Bolivar Trask in DOFP, Francis in Deadpool, and Generic Scientist Guy/Generic Mercenary Guy in Logan.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 featuring Spider-Man's arch-nemesis and greatest foe the Green Goblin (doing the famous Death of Gwen Stacy storyline, no less) was the lowest grossing Spider-Man film ever. Both its predecessor with the Lizard and its successor with D-List villain Vulture did better.

And those are films starring the same characters.

If there is anything the last few years have taught us is that importance of characters in the comics is mostly irrelevant to success. Z-Listers like the GotG can be turned into sensations and films jam-packed with icons like Justice League can be duds. It all comes down to how they are used.

Well said, it isn't so much the character as it's how it's used. Lex, Joker, Doom, Apocalypse, Venom and Goblin are some of the most well known villains around yet each of these characters' most recent outings have been abysmal and forgettable, meanwhile a B-lister like Loki has hit the big time.

I really doubt that merely putting darkseid in the film would've made any difference since I would imagine he would've been another CGI construct who just wants to take over the world i.e. Steppenwolf.
Thank god Snyder didn't get to ruin him like he did superman and batman and maybe if Vaughn directs the next superman he'll use him like he and millar originally planned.

 

[UltimatePyro9]

I think its good they didn't use Darkseid. He doesn't deserve to be a one-and-done villain in JL's first film. It'll be like having the Avengers fight Thanos in the first movie. IW's trailer made me realize how the MCU built up Thanos as a threat. As lame as Steppenwolf was, at least he was a one-shot villain.

 

[ludovica]

I never really got Darksied.
Anyone cares to explain to me how it could translate in live action in a way that the general audience would be excited?
I could see it if we got a series for the New Gods but otherwise?

 

[Kane52630]

Anyone cares to explain to me how it could translate in live action in a way that the general audience would be excited?
I could see it if we got a series for the New Gods but otherwise?

 

[ludovica]

[/QUOTE]

You are a riot. :woot:
Seriously though, that's an additional reason why I can't picture Darkseid having appeal.
I would be glad to be shown the error in my view.

 

[BH/HHH]

While most people might agree with you for me personally it’s took so long to get to Thanos that I’ve lost interest. I personally think he should have been built to be the Avengers 2 villain and then the films thereafter should have built towards another threat for Avengers 3. The pacing has been all wrong and I don’t care about a character that they tease when they feel like.

 

[Flint Marko]

While most people might agree with you for me personally it’s took so long to get to Thanos that I’ve lost interest. I personally think he should have been built to be the Avengers 2 villain and then the films thereafter should have built towards another threat for Avengers 3. The pacing has been all wrong and I don’t care about a character that they tease when they feel like.

Thanos in the second Avengers? Where would you even go from there? Talk about blowing your wad early.

That'd be almost as bad as using Dark Knight Returns and the Death of Superman in your second film

 

[BH/HHH]

Thanos in the second Avengers? Where would you even go from there? Talk about blowing your wad early.

That'd be almost as bad as using Dark Knight Returns and the Death of Superman in your second film

By doing it you’d build towards it better. Where would you go from there? You introduce something new and maybe don’t waste Ultron the way they did it. End of the day it’s not like they’ve massively built up Thanos as some great threat. He’s made a few very minor cameos up to now. To me it all feels like oh yeah it’s the purple guy we’ve seen a few times who has practically done sod all. They haven’t made me care about Thanos one bit.

Oh look another excuse to have a dig at BvS. Yawn!

 

[Steyin]

Never disputed that. I am asking whether or not those people would have checked JL out had it received good reviews and positive buzz opening weekend and beyond.

Ah. Doubtful. The same people I know who didn't like BvS avoided WW also even though it had great reviews and WoM. BvS was a huge turnoff to them.

 

[Erzengel]

Even if a more well received JL that was on the level of the the top comic book movies, may have stilled only grossed between $900M and $1B because of BvS.

And while that may be cause for some fans to say that JL wasn't a flop and that the DCEU is vindicated, it still would fail in comparison to how much the Avengers movies made.

 

[Flint Marko]

Even if a more well received JL that was on the level of the the top comic book movies, may have stilled only grossed between $900M and $1B because of BvS.

And while that may be cause for some fans to say that JL wasn't a flop and that the DCEU is vindicated, it still would fail in comparison to how much the Avengers movies made.

If JL were well-received 800 million would be a long-shot. 900 is just out of the question.

Those lackluster trailers, the stiff competition, and BvS made sure of that.

 

[Erzengel]

If JL were well-received 800 million would be a long-shot. 900 is just out of the question.

Those lackluster trailers, the stiff competition, and BvS made sure of that.

If we're using the reality stone and after BvS dropped, and they were able to rewrite the script, get a new director, sets, etc. even new actors, maybe. I still think BvS would have been such an albatross that would of hampered JL's performance regardless of how good it was. See Batman Begins, First Class.

Unfortunately, JL was doomed the second that BvS was released as everything was ready to start shooting a month later.

 

[ludovica]

If we're using the reality stone and after BvS dropped, and they were able to rewrite the script, get a new director, sets, etc. even new actors, maybe. I still think BvS would have been such an albatross that would of hampered JL's performance regardless of how good it was. See Batman Begins, First Class.

Unfortunately, JL was doomed the second that BvS was released as everything was ready to start shooting a month later.

Are you Thanos?