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

[jmc]

That Elfanboy Podcast is 100% right BTW. You can't be both director driven and have a consistent universe with an overarching plan in place. You've either got to commit to treating it like a TV series, or you have each director just do their thing.

 

[2kt09]

That Elfanboy Podcast is 100% right BTW. You can't be both director driven and have a consistent universe with an overarching plan in place. You've either got to commit to treating it like a TV series, or you have each director just do their thing.

The directors form a cabal like the committees of writers or producers.
It's like that whole whiteboard thing they have.

 

[Jekecy]

That Elfanboy Podcast is 100% right BTW. You can't be both director driven and have a consistent universe with an overarching plan in place. You've either got to commit to treating it like a TV series, or you have each director just do their thing.

Depends just how deep they want to connect everything. If it's like the MCU where there's characters and subplots constantly being weaved in-between IPs, then sure, obviously there has to be a larger body overlooking everything to ensure consistency.

But if WB only wants to focus on event movies as the true cohesion of their universe, then it's more of a "problem" for the creative team tackling that ensemble film/series.

I don't see why the solo properties can't each have their own unique voices telling the stories and stay autonomous from the "shared films" (i.e. Justice League). There conceivably would be far more solo titles combined than there would be ensemble pics. It would only be every couple of years where that one team has to figure out how to bring together all these people again and honor the continuity from their solo titles.

The directors form a cabal like the committees of writers or producers.
It's like that whole whiteboard thing they have.

That too. It wouldn't be too arduous for the teams of each solo title, to give a "heads-up" to the other teams of the general direction they're going. Rather than a singular voice guiding everyone (ala Feige), it'll be the communication of all the different teams to have a broad idea of how to eventually come whole every once in a while.

 

[jmc]

Depends just how deep they want to connect everything. If it's like the MCU where there's characters and subplots constantly being weaved in-between IPs, then sure, obviously there has to be a larger body overlooking everything to ensure consistency.

But if WB only wants to focus on event movies as the true cohesion of their universe, then it's more of a "problem" for the creative team tackling that ensemble film/series.

I don't see why the solo properties can't each have their own unique voices telling the stories and stay autonomous from the "shared films" (i.e. Justice League). There conceivably would be far more solo titles combined than there would be ensemble pics. It would only be every couple of years where that one team has to figure out how to bring together all these people again and honor the continuity from their solo titles.

That too. It wouldn't be too arduous for the teams of each solo title, to give a "heads-up" to the other teams of the general direction they're going. Rather than a singular voice guiding everyone (ala Feige), it'll be the communication of all the different teams to have a broad idea of how to eventually come whole every once in a while.

You can't properly build up to anything if there's no clear direction or someone calling the shots saying what directors can and can't do now. You need leadership for something overarching like this, otherwise what's the point in doing it other that to claim you have a shared universe? Why do a half arsed cinematic universe that people aren't invested in? WB seems to be trying to make work a concept whereby they'll let the director do what they want, and then figure out what to do later on with cross over movies. You can't do a proper cross over film with no structure in place leading up to it. Hell, we don't even know what's happening with Batman and Superman yet. I don't understand how people can think taking this path lends itself to the best possible outcome for future team up movies or that its even a viable option considering the **** storm over the last 5 years. It essentially leaving it up to chance that something good comes out of it which is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.

 

[2kt09]

You can't properly build up to anything if there's no clear direction or someone calling the shots saying what directors can and can't do now. You need leadership for something overarching like this, otherwise what's the point in doing it other that to claim you have a shared universe? Why do a half arsed cinematic universe that people aren't invested in? WB seems to be trying to make work a concept whereby they'll let the director do what they want, and then figure out what to do later on with cross over movies. You can't do a proper cross over film with no structure in place leading up to it. Hell, we don't even know what's happening with Batman and Superman yet. I don't understand how people can think taking this path lends itself to the best possible outcome for future team up movies or that its even a viable option considering the **** storm over the last 5 years. It essentially leaving it up to chance that something good comes out of it which is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.

Watchumean? it's been working til' we got to JL where none of it really mattered.
MoS-> first contact
BvS-> reaction/death
Suicide Sqaud-> sanctioned response
WW-> explanation of absence

JL...rebirth?...

 

[Jekecy]

You can't properly build up to anything if there's no clear direction or someone calling the shots saying what directors can and can't do now. You need leadership for something overarching like this, otherwise what's the point in doing it other that to claim you have a shared universe? Why do a half arsed cinematic universe that people aren't invested in? WB seems to be trying to make work a concept whereby they'll let the director do what they want, and then figure out what to do later on with cross over movies.

I don't see how this is inherently wrong. As I recall you are a fan of Nolan's films. He took that entire Batman trilogy one film at a time. All of them roughly ended up in a great spot and were all thematically connected in spite of not being outlined from day 1. This isn't some unique puzzle. With each subsequent film, you pick up on the threads from your predecessor(s) and try to segue a new link which continues the narrative. There's no cemented rule requiring all this to be prepared at the very beginning.

You can't do a proper cross over film with no structure in place leading up to it.

People are placing far too much value in the set-up. This is similar to the argument that a superhero's first film must be an origin in order to work. I fundamentally disagree with that. Ensemble pics have existed long before the concept of superhero team-ups. The basic premise of a bunch of people from different "worlds" coming together as one, is even older.

Hell, we don't even know what's happening with Batman and Superman yet. I don't understand how people can think taking this path lends itself to the best possible outcome for future team up movies or that its even a viable option considering the **** storm over the last 5 years. It essentially leaving it up to chance that something good comes out of it which is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.

There's a version the DCEU which still worked within the same timeline of: MOS > BVS > SS > WW > JL. Just because it eventually crashed and burned because of consistent individual failures, is not a condemnation of their approach to an ensemble. Citing the path to their team-up, rather than execution of their individual movies, is losing sight of where they actually went wrong. Conversely, MCU's Avengers didn't work because of their little planted seeds across every film. Ultimately it worked because at the end of the day it was a four-quadrant blockbuster which satisfied people's needs for entertainment. That other stuff are just sweeteners on top of a fully developed meal. It's nice, but it wasn't the secret ingredient to their success.

The animated series got up and running in one episode, only standing on the shoulders of two previous character series which had no foresight to eventually bring them together into a larger universe. If anything the Timmverse is proof positive if you take enough care to handle each IP one at time, you don't have to excessively plan out the future in order to still come out with a grander product featuring the culmination of all the years' work prior.

 

[jmc]

I don't see how this is inherently wrong. As I recall you are a fan of Nolan's films. He took that entire Batman trilogy one film at a time. All of them roughly ended up in a great spot and were all thematically connected in spite of not being outlined from day 1. This isn't some unique puzzle. With each subsequent film, you pick up on the threads from your predecessor(s) and try to segue a new link which continues the narrative. There's no cemented rule requiring all this to be prepared at the very beginning.

And it was one man's story where he was free to go in the direction he felt best, a story free of any constraints associated with having other character present. We're now talking about a shared universe situation where the studio isn't sure where the balance lies between giving freedom to the individual directors and path for the overall universe. Let's be honest with ourselves, WB hasn't really had a clear idea of where to draw the line or what path they are taking. Marvel does. As long as that vagueness exists then you're going to get films of varying qualities, as has been demonstrated so far in the DCU as well as the X-Men universe.

People are placing far too much value in the set-up. This is similar to the argument that a superhero's first film must be an origin in order to work. I fundamentally disagree with that. Ensemble pics have existed long before the concept of superhero team-ups. The basic premise of a bunch of people from different "worlds" coming together as one, is even older.

There's a version the DCEU which still worked within the same timeline of: MOS > BVS > SS > WW > JL. Just because it eventually crashed and burned because of consistent individual failures, is not a condemnation of their approach to an ensemble. Citing the path to their team-up, rather than execution of their individual movies, is losing sight of where they actually went wrong. Conversely, MCU's Avengers didn't work because of their little planted seeds across every film. Ultimately it worked because at the end of the day it was a four-quadrant blockbuster which satisfied people's needs for entertainment. That other stuff are just sweeteners on top of a fully developed meal. It's nice, but it wasn't the secret ingredient to their success.

The animated series got up and running in one episode, only standing on the shoulders of two previous character series which had no foresight to eventually bring them together into a larger universe. If anything the Timmverse is proof positive if you take enough care to handle each IP one at time, you don't have to excessively plan out the future in order to still come out with a grander product featuring the culmination of all the years' work prior.

I think what Marvel have ultimately demonstrated is the value of getting audiences invested into your characters. Yes, you can start with an ensemble and spinoff from there, but with an ensemble you're left with little time for each character to be done real justice too. Yes, Avengers does work on its own, but it works as a popcorn movie first and foremost. It works even better however with the movies that precede it. Would it have done the crazy numbers without the solo films? Most likely not, hell I didn't even think it would reach a billion dollars. The DCEU problem was ultimately putting too much stock into the characters they had, assuming the names alone were enough to do the work for them. The stark reality is as Marvel demonstrated it doesn't matter if your name is Batman or Superman, you still have to do the basics and that's get the audience invested in your characters. Good will gets you so far, and then it gets you Justice League.

As for the DCUE timeline, I would argue there is no version of the DCEU timeline that would have worked because the structure in place was so poor to begin with. It makes absolutely no logical sense to start with a solo Superman film in MoS, then follow it up with BvS story where the characters had never met before, followed by SS movie that had no baring on anything, followed by a Wonder Woman prequel set a hundred years prior, and finishing off with a team up movie featuring 3 characters and a villain no-one cared about. This is the result of bad planning. I don't even know how to describe the path WB took for this series, it's neither a solo movies or ensemble films path, what it is is a frankenstein's monster of a structure devoid of any direction filled with reactionary decisions. This set of films was doomed the moment MoS 2 become BvS. I don't think there was any way of salvaging this mess.

 

[MbJ]

I think another important point Robbles raised was the fact that a more traditional shared universe has someone in charge up top who can veto changes they view as harmful to the brand, or even fire people who they don't think are a good fit. As he said, there are pros and cons to each approach; it can result in very cookie cutter movies like Doctor Strange and Ant-Man, but it also means the MCU has never had a PR disaster the likes of Batman v. Superman or Justice League.

Part of the reason WB is currently in such a precarious position with this franchise is they wanted to give their directors care blanche, but by the time they stepped in and started meddling, the damaged to the brand was already done.

 

[Jekecy]

And it was one man's story where he was free to go in the direction he felt best, a story free of any constraints associated with having other character present. We're now talking about a shared universe situation where the studio isn't sure where the balance lies between giving freedom to the individual directors and path for the overall universe. Let's be honest with ourselves, WB hasn't really had a clear idea of where to draw the line or what path they are taking. Marvel does. As long as that vagueness exists then you're going to get films of varying qualities, as has been demonstrated so far in the DCU as well as the X-Men universe.

We can certainly agree on WBs incompetence of handling this universe, thus far. If we can remove that component for the sake of this topic however, what prohibits someone like Reeve from moving forward with a purported planned trilogy while still letting other filmmakers "borrow" his Batman once in a while?

Say WB gives him full reign over the character, what's wrong with him having final say of what can/can't happen to him in something like a JL movie? Same question for Jenkins/WW and so on. An understanding between the creative teams of who controls these characters' fates would help alleviate the confusion in many teams having a hand in these stories.

I think what Marvel have ultimately demonstrated is the value of getting audiences invested into your characters. Yes, you can start with an ensemble and spinoff from there, but with an ensemble you're left with little time for each character to be done real justice too. Yes, Avengers does work on its own, but it works as a popcorn movie first and foremost. It works even better however with the movies that precede it. Would it have done the crazy numbers without the solo films? Most likely not, hell I didn't even think it would reach a billion dollars. The DCEU problem was ultimately putting too much stock into the characters they had, assuming the names alone were enough to do the work for them. The stark reality is as Marvel demonstrated it doesn't matter if your name is Batman or Superman, you still have to do the basics and that's get the audience invested in your characters. Good will gets you so far, and then it gets you Justice League.

The solo titles are where you have the opportunity to give each character their own timely shine. Superhero ensemble flicks are called team-ups for a reason. GoTG did not require solo titles to popularize absolute nobodies. Groot and Rocket became instant sensations off incredibly limited screentime and dialog. You telling me DC's pop icons would have a harder time gaining traction with similar execution?

In any case it's up to the director/writer to direct their focus where appropriate. The X-trilogy showcased you can always prop up a singular star among a supporting cast even though they're technically a whole. Ideally that wouldn't happen for obvious reasons.

As for the DCUE timeline, I would argue there is no version of the DCEU timeline that would have worked because the structure in place was so poor to begin with. It makes absolutely no logical sense to start with a solo Superman film in MoS, then follow it up with BvS story where the characters had never met before, followed by SS movie that had no baring on anything, followed by a Wonder Woman prequel set a hundred years prior, and finishing off with a team up movie featuring 3 characters and a villain no-one cared about. This is the result of bad planning. I don't even know how to describe the path WB took for this series, it's neither a solo movies or ensemble films path, what it is is a frankenstein's monster of a structure devoid of any direction filled with reactionary decisions. This set of films was doomed the moment MoS 2 become BvS. I don't think there was any way of salvaging this mess.

At the end of the day the DCEU is made up of poorly received films, of course it can't be sustained in the long run.

You string together a handful of great films that audiences simply are entertained by, the universe is slowly built by just being. Like I said before, MCU's cross-seeds are nothing without the foundations of a competent movie. They're not that integral to supporting the property collisions. They're ultimately teases and nothing more. You remove them in Phase 1, Avengers still exists as a complete package and it's still communicated to audiences these characters are all in the same playground because....well, they've witnessed 2 hours of just that.

Part of the purpose in follow-ups/sequels is to introduce new information and solidify history (even retroactively). I again will go back to the Timmverse which firmly established Batman's history for a good decade without anyone from the surrounding DC universe appearing. Until STAS. Within one episode, we understood perfectly fine that the Gotham we've been watching this whole time, has had Metropolis and eventually Superman within the same universe. 10 years after that, we learned of the rest of the League. Without hints prior. Before long we went from street-level crime to intergalactic wars.

Universe expansions don't need to be slowly spoonfed to the people via easter eggs and post-credit scenes. It just works well enough for the MCU because the execution has paid off. But let's not give them more worth than they actually deserve.

 

[2kt09]

Part of the reason WB is currently in such a precarious position with this franchise is they wanted to give their directors carte blanche, but by the time they stepped in and started meddling, the damage to the brand was already done.

This does not compute when even the immediate sequel to this shared universe had to be something else and still pushed back a year with an oscar winning writer having to page one-rewrite whatever was previously cooked up and shrink that film down further in the editing bay. That's just enough time and resources.

It doesn't matter if I think that sequel is still the best one by far, giving directors carte blanche was the PR talk.

 

[MbJ]

This does not compute

Given the number of films I've actually seen of his, I really don't buy the narrative that whatever he cooked up with was great and that it only got bad reception because of the studio. We have it on record that the most controversial scene in Man of Steel (which people still won't shut the hell up about 5 years later) was not in the script and Nolan didn't want it, but Zack pushed for it because he thought it was a better ending. And I'm sure the very polarizing "reimaginings" of certain characters weren't studio mandates either.

In a more structured franchise, it would never have gotten that far.

We can certainly agree on WBs incompetence of handling this universe, thus far. If we can remove that component for the sake of this topic however, what prohibits someone like Reeve from moving forward with a purported planned trilogy while still letting other filmmakers "borrow" his Batman once in a while?

Say WB gives him full reign over the character, what's wrong with him having final say of what can/can't happen to him in something like a JL movie? Same question for Jenkins/WW and so on. An understanding between the creative teams of who controls these characters' fates would help alleviate the confusion in many teams having a hand in these stories.


The solo titles are where you have the opportunity to give each character their own timely shine. Superhero ensemble flicks are called team-ups for a reason. GoTG did not require solo titles to popularize absolute nobodies. Groot and Rocket became instant sensations off incredibly limited screentime and dialog. You telling me DC's pop icons would have a harder time gaining traction with similar execution?

In any case it's up to the director/writer to direct their focus where appropriate. The X-trilogy showcased you can always prop up a singular star among a supporting cast even though they're technically a whole. Ideally that wouldn't happen for obvious reasons.


At the end of the day the DCEU is made up of poorly received films, of course it can't be sustained in the long run.

You string together a handful of great films that audiences simply are entertained by, the universe is slowly built by just being. Like I said before, MCU's cross-seeds are nothing without the foundations of a competent movie. They're not that integral to supporting the property collisions. They're ultimately teases and nothing more. You remove them in Phase 1, Avengers still exists as a complete package and it's still communicated to audiences these characters are all in the same playground because....well, they've witnessed 2 hours of just that.

Part of the purpose in follow-ups/sequels is to introduce new information and solidify history (even retroactively). I again will go back to the Timmverse which firmly established Batman's history for a good decade without anyone from the surrounding DC universe appearing. Until STAS. Within one episode, we understood perfectly fine that the Gotham we've been watching this whole time, has had Metropolis and eventually Superman within the same universe. 10 years after that, we learned of the rest of the League. Without hints prior. Before long we went from street-level crime to intergalactic wars.

Universe expansions don't need to be slowly spoonfed to the people via easter eggs and post-credit scenes. It just works well enough for the MCU because the execution has paid off. But let's not give them more worth than they actually deserve.

This is why I'd really like to know how the George Miller Justice League would've gone over. I've read the script and it pretty much hits the ground running and doesn't bother explaining the origins.

 

[2kt09]

Given the number of films I've actually seen of his, I really don't buy the narrative that whatever he cooked up with was great and that it only got bad reception because of the studio. We have it on record that the most controversial scene in Man of Steel (which people still won't shut the hell up about 5 years later) was not in the script and Nolan didn't want it, but Zack pushed for it because he thought it was a better ending. And I'm sure the very polarizing "reimaginings" of certain characters weren't studio mandates either.

In a more structured franchise, it would never have gotten that far.

I'm not implying that platitude. I was talking about the directors getting carte blanche and how the studio got involved too little too late.

There was no question MoS had to happen the way it happened post-TDKT and the top brass made sure Nolan & Goyer signed off on it.

 

[Powerman34]

They could carve out a little Superman cinematic universe if they wanted

The mainline Superman movies
Supergirl
Steel
Superboy and the Legion of Superheroes

That would be sweet. A good Batman universe introducing his friends allies and enemies; a WW universe introducing her allies and enemies; GL Flash and Supes with theirs with just the tiniest of Easter eggs between them and THEN we get a JL 2 or JLDark.

 

[MbJ]

Back in July, we were the first to tell you that Rupert Wyatt was attached to Warner Bros. Green Lantern Corps film. At the time of the report, that was accurate but, in the world of film making, especially for DC films, things are always dynamic and Wyatt is no longer attached. With the restructuring of DC’s film slate at the end of 2017, some films found themselves moved down the list and others off the list in general, but Green Lantern Corps made the cut and the studio still hopes to have it in theaters sometime in 2020 (February 14 and June 5 have been set aside for as yet Untitled film in that year). As such, the search for a new director is ongoing and we have heard from a source that they are looking at Christopher McQuarrie to helm the sci-fi adventure!



After writing the Academy Award winning script for The Usual Suspects back in 1995, McQuarrie’s profile has been on the rise over the past several years thanks to his work behind the camera on, Jack Reacher, Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation and the upcoming Mission: Impossible-Fallout. McQuarrie has also been at work behind the scenes, crafting screenplays for Jack the Giant Slayer, The Edge of Tomorrow and 2017’s The Mummy.

In looking at his work, it doesn’t take too long to see that star Tom Cruise is a staple in a McQuarrie film and it doesn’t seem entirely crazy to at least wonder if McQuarrie signing on for the film might help draw Cruise’s interest to the project. The current draft of the film would give us an older, experienced Hal Jordan who is already a Green Lantern Corps vet when he meets newcomer John Stewart. The studio is looking to cast an actor in the 39-50 age range and while Cruise sits just a bit outside that box (55) he’s certainly an exception to most rules.

For now we’ll keep our eye on this story while it develops and see if McQuarrie does in fact sign on the dotted line. If he does, we won’t be the only ones wondering if Cruise, whose time to find himself attached to one of these major comic book IPs is winding down, won’t be too far behind him.

http://thathashtagshow.com/2018/03/...topher-mcquarrie-to-helm-green-lantern-corps/

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Yeah, I need a Hal who will be around for sequels and JL films

Sounds to me like they want to say they covered Hal, but want to focus on John Stewart which I don’t like considering he has the personality of a block of wood in just about ever incarnation, but I’m sure they’ll change the character around a little to make people get behind him.

 

[Juan1193]

Seems like John Stewart will be the main GL of the DCEU (or whatever it's called now) and I couldn't be happier! Smart move by DC/WB!

 

[MbJ]

 

[Frodo]

Seems like John Stewart will be the main GL of the DCEU (or whatever it's called now) and I couldn't be happier! Smart move by DC/WB!

I like the idea as well. I also like Hal being a veteran much like Affleck's Batman and Gadot's WW.

Bringing on McQuarrie to this project would be a good move.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Damn Tom Cruise is about to be Hal Jordan. Guess that report was correct from a while back...

 

[Jonwo]

I can't see Cruise accepting a superhero film especially one that'll be as CGI heavy as GLC. As interesting as an older Hal Jordan is, it does make you wonder why the GLC didn't get involve with any of the previous conflicts on Earth but it's easy to explain.

I could see Matt Damon as Hal and he's in the right age range as well, I have no idea who could play John Stewart, I wouldn't be surprised if they approached John Boyega or maybe even someone like Leslie Odom Jr. I would love to Jessica and Simon but I doubt they'll be introduce in a first GLC movie.

 

[flickchick85]

If Cruise would ever do a superhero gig, it would be the one Chris McQuarrie offers him. He loves that dude.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

They gotta release an official photo soon

 

[Juan1193]

I can't see Cruise accepting a superhero film especially one that'll be as CGI heavy as GLC. As interesting as an older Hal Jordan is, it does make you wonder why the GLC didn't get involve with any of the previous conflicts on Earth but it's easy to explain.

I could see Matt Damon as Hal and he's in the right age range as well, I have no idea who could play John Stewart, I wouldn't be surprised if they approached John Boyega or maybe even someone like Leslie Odom Jr. I would love to Jessica and Simon but I doubt they'll be introduce in a first GLC movie.

Trevante Rhodes is still my pick for John. I could see Mahershala Ali too.

I hope we get Jessica in a future movie as well! Really all you need is Hal, John and Jessica imo.

 

[the last son]

Agree about Rhodes.

 

[Iceman]

I would be fine with McQuarrie and Cruise being attached. Veteran Hal could work well. John Stewart could get a big role and push things forward and hopefully we see Jessica too. Should be enough to keep most fans happy for a first film.