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

[Lantern Venom]

A Superman trilogy with Brainiac, Mongul, and Metallo and I'd die a happy man.

That sounds absolutely wonderful. Count me in.

 

[metaphysician]

I said in a few other threads but yeah. There is a very obvious effort to ignore parts of BVS seen in both Wonder Woman and Justice League. That's why I'm thinking any potential Flashpoint reboot is not gonna be particularly sweeping. They're just gonna pretend BVS didn't happen.

I remain convinced that Flashpoint, if it happens, will be an epic trainwreck. Its trying to "fix" the wrong problem, and will end up just providing more of that same problem. Nobody in the general audience has been demanding an *explanation* for why upcoming movies are better, they just want the movies to be better.

 

[BH/HHH]

I remain convinced that Flashpoint, if it happens, will be an epic trainwreck. Its trying to "fix" the wrong problem, and will end up just providing more of that same problem. Nobody in the general audience has been demanding an *explanation* for why upcoming movies are better, they just want the movies to be better.

Agreed

Tbh I doubt they're gonna do Flashpoint as a reset anyway. It's a very expensive way to reset something, JL didn't do well so I can't see them taking a risk like that.

 

[BestGirl]

I remain convinced that Flashpoint, if it happens, will be an epic trainwreck. Its trying to "fix" the wrong problem, and will end up just providing more of that same problem. Nobody in the general audience has been demanding an *explanation* for why upcoming movies are better, they just want the movies to be better.

The whole Flashpoint plot has always struck me as being needlessly complicated. It also shortchanges the Flash by making his solo movie be about fixing the problems of the larger DCEU rather than developing his own story.

 

[metaphysician]

That's the other fatal flaw, yes. Flashpoint only works, in the comics, because its about a character the audience already cares about, with supporting cast they also already care about. Thus, the reader cares that Barry would change history, and cares about how everyone is changed by this.

None of this applies for the movies. The audience barely cares about Ezra Miller's Flash, and they haven't even met the supporting cast. Having him screw up the timeline is, dramatically speaking, a great big "So?" They have no reason to care about these people, and it would be essentially impossible to establish the cast as people the audience will care about, while simultaneously also executing the plot of Flashpoint.

Thus, you end up with a movie, about a guy we don't know, fixing mistakes we don't care about, and screwing over a world we didn't like anyway. Oh, except for Wonder Woman. The audience actually *does* care about her. . . which means turning her into one of the villains? Not a smart move.

 

[misslane38]

The best thing WB could do with Flashpoint is tell a Barry-centric story similar to Back to the Future with the result of time travel mirroring the small changes that happened in that film. Marty's influence in 1955 helped encourage and empower his father, so the power dynamic between George and Biff inverted back in 1985. Use Thomas Wayne as the Doc Brown figure in the altered timeline and hint at the recasting change for Batman at the end of the film. There's no need for the film to go full on dystopia or to overly involve the entire DCEU, including Amazons and Atlanteans, in what should just be a story about Barry, especially when the only real reason to do Flashpoint at all would be to deal with the Affleck problem. Any other issues or concerns about the DCEU can be handled simply by making good movies.

 

[MbJ]

That's the other fatal flaw, yes. Flashpoint only works, in the comics, because its about a character the audience already cares about, with supporting cast they also already care about. Thus, the reader cares that Barry would change history, and cares about how everyone is changed by this.

None of this applies for the movies. The audience barely cares about Ezra Miller's Flash, and they haven't even met the supporting cast. Having him screw up the timeline is, dramatically speaking, a great big "So?" They have no reason to care about these people, and it would be essentially impossible to establish the cast as people the audience will care about, while simultaneously also executing the plot of Flashpoint.

Thus, you end up with a movie, about a guy we don't know, fixing mistakes we don't care about, and screwing over a world we didn't like anyway. Oh, except for Wonder Woman. The audience actually *does* care about her. . . which means turning her into one of the villains? Not a smart move.

Yup. That's why I'm convinced this isn't going to adhere very faithfully to the original story. There is likely going to be some timeline changes at the end but given how WB seems to have taken the message that audiences don't like dark movies from the reception to the previous films (Which is very myopic, but whatever), I can't see them making a movie where Wonder Woman is a genocidal maniac.

 

[BestGirl]

That's the other fatal flaw, yes. Flashpoint only works, in the comics, because its about a character the audience already cares about, with supporting cast they also already care about. Thus, the reader cares that Barry would change history, and cares about how everyone is changed by this.

None of this applies for the movies. The audience barely cares about Ezra Miller's Flash, and they haven't even met the supporting cast. Having him screw up the timeline is, dramatically speaking, a great big "So?" They have no reason to care about these people, and it would be essentially impossible to establish the cast as people the audience will care about, while simultaneously also executing the plot of Flashpoint.

Thus, you end up with a movie, about a guy we don't know, fixing mistakes we don't care about, and screwing over a world we didn't like anyway. Oh, except for Wonder Woman. The audience actually *does* care about her. . . which means turning her into one of the villains? Not a smart move.

That was the problem with BVS: two guys with no history and no solid reason to dislike one another duking it out. Obviously it didn't carry the same weight of having two colleagues and friends who have known one another for years come to blows over a conflict that has no easy resolution.

I would not put it past WB to make the same mistake twice.

 

[misslane38]

That was the problem with BVS: two guys with no history and no solid reason to dislike one another duking it out. Obviously it didn't carry the same weight of having two colleagues and friends who have known one another for years come to blows over a conflict that has no easy resolution.

I would not put it past WB to make the same mistake twice.

I hate the idea of friends "duking it out." I hate the idea of otherwise reasonable superheroes coming to blows over conflict despite having a shared history as colleagues. It's awful because, then, how does the conflict end? Heroes shouldn't be fighting to resolve ideological conflicts. Good, after all, is a conversation. There is no "weight" to a story about two heroes punching each other "over a conflict that has no easy resolution." Because heroes should know better than to use violence to resolve conflict. The only way a fight works is if the conflict is rooted in something other than ideology.

Batman and Superman can only fight in a way that makes sense and adds depth and complexity to their conflict by using their lack of history to tell a story about how trauma and powerlessness affects someone like Batman. BvS tells a story about PTSD, xenophobia, prejudice, and communication. It interrogates existential questions. Batman is ultimately sympathetic, yet flawed, because he falls into darkness as a result of trauma: the events of Black Zero tore open old wounds putting on a mask for two decades couldn't heal. Superman is sympathetic because he doesn't want to fight at all; he fights only to protect himself.

The fight is resolved as a result of grace and enlightenment. The conflict between Batman and Superman is revealed to be a result of misunderstanding rather than a breakdown of a longstanding relationship supposedly built on trust and cooperation. The story of BvS has more relevance to contemporary issues, too. Questions about the intersection of fear, trauma, truth, ignorance, power, and masculinity are explored. It's a story about how the corrupt and powerful lash out and play the public like puppets when their supremacy in the universe is challenged by the introduction of The Superman.

What sort of quagmire of conflict could old colleagues, Batman and Superman, fight over in your ideal story? How would that conflict be resolved? When does the violence end? How does your fight between Batman and Superman tell a more universal story that resonates with conflicts in our real world?

 

[MbJ]

That was the problem with BVS: two guys with no history and no solid reason to dislike one another duking it out. Obviously it didn't carry the same weight of having two colleagues and friends who have known one another for years come to blows over a conflict that has no easy resolution.

I would not put it past WB to make the same mistake twice.

I feel the same way about killing Superman in his second movie and expecting it to actually carry weight.

 

[misslane38]

I feel the same way about killing Superman in his second movie and expecting it to actually carry weight.

The problem, in my opinion, is one's expectations for the death of Superman. If the only way for Superman's death to have weight is if it follows the template of the comics story (i.e. Superman dies beloved by the public and superheroes alike), then one is setting oneself up for disappointment. In other words, if one goes into the film with the expectation that the only way Superman's death carries any weight is if he dies within the context of his existence as hero embraced by all, then one is closed off to any other narrative as an emotional experience.

The weight of Superman's death in BvS comes from the fact that he isn't beloved. It is a depth of grief and loss rooted in potential cut short due to humanity's own existential crisis that produced the fear, the hatred, the propaganda, the noise, the mistrust, and the violence leading to his death. The power of Superman's death also comes from Clark's own journey in the film. As he struggles with the effect Superman has on the world around him, including the people he loves the most, he also has to ask: Must there be a Superman? Superman's death, or rather his sacrifice, marks his affirmation of his own existence. He's saying yes to life, suffering, and love through his sacrifice.

Or, to put in another way, what sacrificial death holds more power, especially as the fodder for myth: The death of a mother who gives her life for her child, or the death of an immigrant who gives his life to save the lives of those who would see him as degenerate other to be driven out and away from opportunity? Must we only deeply mourn the death of icons, celebrities, and leaders? Why not deeply mourn the death of those who give and sacrifice with a spirit of hope in a cynical world? Is there not power in a sacrificial death that changes the way we think, the way we see ourselves, and the way we see the world?

Superman's death in BvS works so well, at least for me, because it isn't just about him as it is in other stories. It's a death that says something about us, too. The grief and emotion I feel for his death goes beyond empathy for Martha and Lois to a bittersweet feeling about our world and our place in it. There's weight there. There's power there.

 

[Zarex]

Batman and Superman can only fight in a way that makes sense and adds depth and complexity to their conflict by using their lack of history to tell a story about how trauma and powerlessness affects someone like Batman. BvS tells a story about PTSD, xenophobia, prejudice, and communication. It interrogates existential questions. Batman is ultimately sympathetic, yet flawed, because he falls into darkness as a result of trauma: the events of Black Zero tore open old wounds putting on a mask for two decades couldn't heal. Superman is sympathetic because he doesn't want to fight at all; he fights only to protect himself.

Counterpoint: PTSDs or not, Batman is portrayed as a murderous sociopath in BvS. Superman comes off as a dopey bully. Neither is sympathetic.

The fight is resolved as a result of grace.........

HER NAME WASN'T GRACE!!!!! IT WAS MARTHAAAAAA!!!!!

What sort of quagmire of conflict could old colleagues, Batman and Superman, fight over in your ideal story? How would that conflict be resolved? When does the violence end? How does your fight between Batman and Superman tell a more universal story that resonates with conflicts in our real world?

Well, the source material involved two people who at one time were quite close torn apart due to the paths they had chosen. Clark gave up his freedom in order to keep being Superman. Bruce refused to compromise his values and hung up his cowl. Clark wanted to bring Bruce to justice, but he was also extremely concerned about his one time friend's well being. Bruce wanted to avoid capture, but he also wanted to express his displeasure with Clark over the choices he has made. Neither one wanted to murder the other.

It was a better story.

 

[misslane38]

Counterpoint: PTSDs or not, Batman is portrayed as a murderous sociopath in BvS. Superman comes off as a dopey bully. Neither is sympathetic.



HER NAME WASN'T GRACE!!!!! IT WAS MARTHAAAAAA!!!!!



Well, the source material involved two people who at one time were quite close torn apart due to the paths they had chosen. Clark gave up his freedom in order to keep being Superman. Bruce refused to compromise his values and hung up his cowl. Clark wanted to bring Bruce to justice, but he was also extremely concerned about his one time friend's well being. Bruce wanted to avoid capture, but he also wanted to express his displeasure with Clark over the choices he has made. Neither one wanted to murder the other.

It was a better story.

None of the above justifies violence without compromising the integrity of either or both characters. The conflict isn't even resolved in Miller's story, which is more a tragic ending to a superhero legacy than a eucatastrophe leading to an auspicious beginning. If I recall, Grant Morrison has said he prefers Snyder's story to Miller's.

 

[Zarex]

None of the above justifies violence without compromising the integrity of either or both characters. The conflict isn't even resolved in Miller's story, which is more a tragic ending to a superhero legacy than a eucatastrophe leading to an auspicious beginning. If I recall, Grant Morrison has said he prefers Snyder's story to Miller's.

I disagree. In the original story Clark had absolutely zero interest in harming Bruce. In fact, Bruce had to goad him into violence in order for his grand escape to work. Bruce, however, was more than willing to smack around his one time pal in order to get his point across. But that doesnt compromise the character. That IS the character.

I downloaded All Star Superman and Morrison's JL run during the year end DC sale at Comixology. Great Stuff! But he's wrong on this one.

 

[misslane38]

I disagree. In the original story Clark had absolutely zero interest in harming Bruce. In fact, Bruce had to goad him into violence in order for his grand escape to work. Bruce, however, was more than willing to smack around his one time pal in order to get his point across. But that doesnt compromise the character. That IS the character.

Superman is compromised because he's made a deal to ally himself with the government. That is how Miller compromised Superman; he made him an pseudo-fascist ally of the state. Batman smacking his friend around to get a point across is not heroic in the slightest. Miller glorifies Batman's violence in TDKR; Snyder's Batman is an antagonist who finds redemption and hope. TDKR is a cynical story with a cynical ending.

I downloaded All Star Superman and Morrison's JL run during the year end DC sale at Comixology. Great Stuff! But he's wrong on this one.

Your thesis: Frank Miller is right; Grant Morrison is wrong. Okay.

 

[Zarex]

Superman is compromised because he's made a deal to ally himself with the government. That is how Miller compromised Superman; he made him an pseudo-fascist ally of the state. Batman smacking his friend around to get a point across is not heroic in the slightest. Miller glorifies Batman's violence in TDKR; Snyder's Batman is an antagonist who finds redemption and hope. TDKR is a cynical story with a cynical ending.

I dont fully agree with his choices, but Superman sacrificed his freedom so that he could continue saving lives. There is something heroic in that.

I agree that the Batman in TDKR was not a heroic character. But he was far more heroic than Snyder's Murder Man. And talk about glorifying violence! The Miller version didnt poison, torture and taunt Clark to nearly the degree that Snyder showed in BvS. And he wasnt rarin' up to stab a stranger in the face only to be stopped by a cowinky dink.

TDKR ended with Clark letting Bruce go and Bruce leading a "good enough" life in the shadows. I didnt find it cynical in the least.

Your thesis: Frank Miller is right; Grant Morrison is wrong. Okay.

It was an opinion, not a thesis.

 

[misslane38]

I dont fully agree with his choices, but Superman sacrificed his freedom so that he could continue saving lives. There is something heroic in that.

No, there isn't. He allowed himself to be a weapon of the US government. It's the complete opposite of everything the character stands for and has stood for since his inception in 1938.

I agree that the Batman in TDKR was not a heroic character. But he was far more heroic than Snyder's Murder Man. And talk about glorifying violence! The Miller version didnt poison, torture and taunt Clark to nearly the degree that Snyder showed in BvS. And he wasnt rarin' up to stab a stranger in the face only to be stopped by a cowinky dink.

You misunderstood me. Snyder's Batman isn't heroic, and Snyder makes that clear. Miller, on the other hand, gives us an equally unheroic Batman and does not make it clear that Bruce has fallen. Snyder portrays his Batman as a man who has become consumed by feverish rage in the face of trauma and powerlessness. His Batman must be saved by an act of grace and redeemed through a self-affirming heroic act. Batman's fall from grace in TDKR is not similarly criticized in Miller's work. Miller's Batman is worse because he knows Superman. He knows Superman's humanity. He has been friends with Superman. Yet, he attacks him anyway, nearly kills him anyway. Violently attacking a stranger is less redeemable than attacking a friend? Seriously?

TDKR ended with Clark letting Bruce go and Bruce leading a "good enough" life in the shadows. I didnt find it cynical in the least.

It's cynical because neither character really changes. It's a story that epitomizes the deconstructionist trend and set a standard for Superman as a government stooge Boy Scout for decades.

It was an opinion, not a thesis.

Definition of thesis: A thesis is also the main idea, opinion, or theory of a speaker or writer, who then attempts to prove it.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Violently attacking a stranger is less redeemable than attacking a friend? Seriously?

absolutely

 

[flickchick85]

I hated Miller's take on Supes. I haven't cared for Snyder's either, to be fair, but yeah Superman as a government stooge is no bueno for me. But I mean, it was a deconstruction, so I get that was the point. Doesn't mean I have to like it, lol.

 

[Superchan]

That was the problem with BVS: two guys with no history and no solid reason to dislike one another duking it out. Obviously it didn't carry the same weight of having two colleagues and friends who have known one another for years come to blows over a conflict that has no easy resolution.

I would not put it past WB to make the same mistake twice.

Agreed, BvS's tag line should've been: "mopey, mute superman vs psycho batman, whoever wins we lose".

I hated Miller's take on Supes. I haven't cared for Snyder's either, to be fair, but yeah Superman as a government stooge is no bueno for me. But I mean, it was a deconstruction, so I get that was the point. Doesn't mean I have to like it, lol.

I'm right there with ya on miller's superman hate, he and Snyder are 2 men who should've never been allowed near superman but alas.....
Still when Frank Miller deconstructed their friendship it held resonance because he was deconstructing a friendship that took over 30 years to build as opposed to Snyder who started deconstructing stuff before even attempting to put all the pieces together.

 

[misslane38]

absolutely

No way. Both are awful, obviously, but I get how fear and misunderstanding driven by mental illness can provoke one to lash out. It's inexcusable, but I get it. Using fists rather than words with an intimate friend -- a brother, really -- makes no sense at all.

 

[misslane38]

Agreed, BvS's tag line should've been: "mopey, mute superman vs psycho batman, whoever wins we lose".

The film literally makes a point to say no one won the fight: Batman and Superman won by losing. Batman's fever breaks when he chooses to abandon his coup de grace. Superman's faith is strengthened when he gets what he needs through an act of submission and holding out one last shred of hope that Bruce is not beyond saving.

I'm right there with ya on miller's superman hate, he and Snyder are 2 men who should've never been allowed near superman but alas.....
Still when Frank Miller deconstructed their friendship it held resonance because he was deconstructing a friendship that took over 30 years to build as opposed to Snyder who started deconstructing stuff before even attempting to put all the pieces together.

Snyder was deconstructing Miller. Deconstruction has nothing to do with narrative continuity and everything to do with tropes. Miller didn't construct Batman and Superman's three decade friendship. Comics did that work. Snyder deconstructed TDKR. Both relied on preexisting tropes embedded in pop culture.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

No way. Both are awful, obviously, but I get how fear and misunderstanding driven by mental illness can provoke one to lash out. It's inexcusable, but I get it. Using fists rather than words with an intimate friend -- a brother, really -- makes no sense at all.

I see, so you don't have siblings, I get it

 

[Whatupman]

I hate the idea of friends "duking it out." I hate the idea of otherwise reasonable superheroes coming to blows over conflict despite having a shared history as colleagues. It's awful because, then, how does the conflict end? Heroes shouldn't be fighting to resolve ideological conflicts. Good, after all, is a conversation. There is no "weight" to a story about two heroes punching each other "over a conflict that has no easy resolution." Because heroes should know better than to use violence to resolve conflict. The only way a fight works is if the conflict is rooted in something other than ideology.

The conflict can end in several different ways. You can change your opinion, you can move on, you can forgive etc. You know that friends fight in real life, right? There's no weight to a fight over a conflict that has no easy resolution? It's better with a simple misunderstanding? I don't see how. The conflict has weight because there's no easy resolution. It seems that you only want a conflict with an easy way out. There's no depth or complexity to the conflict in BvS. It's just bad writing. And heroes shouldn't use violence to resolve conflicts? Eeerm, that's kind of what comic book heroes do ...

The problem, in my opinion, is one's expectations for the death of Superman. If the only way for Superman's death to have weight is if it follows the template of the comics story (i.e. Superman dies beloved by the public and superheroes alike), then one is setting oneself up for disappointment. In other words, if one goes into the film with the expectation that the only way Superman's death carries any weight is if he dies within the context of his existence as hero embraced by all, then one is closed off to any other narrative as an emotional experience.

I really don't care about the comics. I felt Superman's death didn't carry any weight simply because he's one of the least interesting protagonists in a superhero movie ever.

 

[Flint Marko]

Using fists rather than words with an intimate friend -- a brother, really -- makes no sense at all.

This is straight up nonsense of the highest order. Bitter conflict between two people who love each other doesn't have to "make sense" and it rarely ever does, but it's a very real, very human thing that happens every day.

You can be as disingenuous as you'd like to try and make your point, but you're clearly not convincing anyone.