All Things DCEU News, Discussion, and Speculation - Part 5

[Johnglen]

Yeah JL bo performance was shocking , esp. coming off Wonder Woman (though everybody knew that WW had a special audience but still....)

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

I feel about JL as I know many feel about BvS

 

[MbJ]

Count me as another who was shocked. I knew BVS hurt the brand but I still thought the names involved were gonna help bring a lot of attention to JL.

 

[misslane38]

Count me as another who was shocked. I knew BVS hurt the brand but I still thought the names involved were gonna help bring a lot of attention to JL.

I think the marketing and buzz were just poor. The trailers were mostly the same, the actors barely did any talk show appearances, and while social media doesn't reach or impact everyone, there was negativity and apathy surrounding the movie based on reshoot news and even, I think, at one point calls for a boycott based on Affleck's harassment issues. There was pretty hefty competition at the time, too, with Thor and Star Wars grabbing some of the attention. I think those factors, combined with the lingering effects of BvS and JL's own poor reviews, made it so it never really gained the momentum it needed.

 

[OutOfBoose]

It didn't deserve any momentum. Absolutely disposable film, that nobody wanted to make.

 

[The Batman]

Rumor via Collider.

Ugh. What a terrible, lazy idea.

Superman isn't the Nick Fury of DC. He's the Spider-Man. The Iron Man. He's one of the main franchise players. Instead of trying to develop a billion Harley Quinn films, DC/WB should be taking the time to rehabilitate their former mascot. One of the big reasons why he's the Former is because of their constant mishandling of him.

The fact that WB/DC can't make a good modern day Superman film is just one of the many blemishes on their film franchise.

 

[misslane38]

It didn't deserve any momentum. Absolutely disposable film, that nobody wanted to make.

The film we got certainly didn't.

Ugh. What a terrible, lazy idea.

Superman isn't the Nick Fury of DC. He's the Spider-Man. The Iron Man. He's one of the main franchise players. Instead of trying to develop a billion Harley Quinn films, DC/WB should be taking the time to rehabilitate their former mascot. One of the big reasons why he's the Former is because of their constant mishandling of him.

It's not an "instead" thing. They can do both. They can keep Superman fresh in people's minds and endear him to audience's with smaller appearances while giving his sequel the care it needs to be developed properly. I don't get it, though. When Batman was included in something like SS or a mention in WW, people made it seem like getting those appearances was a sign that DC/WB were too enamored with Batman. Have Superman do that or appear in Shazam in, say, the more or less the same capacity Tony Stark did in Spider-Man: Homecoming, and suddenly it's a sign of disrespect. As always, Superman can't win. If he's featured in smaller appearances before a subsequent one, it's a slap in the face. If he were to get no appearances, then it would also be a slap in the face.

The fact that WB/DC can't make a good modern day Superman film is just one of the many blemishes on their film franchise.

So many assume that it's easy to do and that Superman fans can be pleased, but it's not. They were struggling with making good Superman movies almost as soon as the first one came out in 1978. The comics haven't been in the best shape either. Part of the problem is that the first film was such a milestone that it's hard to get out of that shadow.

 

[StormC]

Count me as another who was shocked. I knew BVS hurt the brand but I still thought the names involved were gonna help bring a lot of attention to JL.

As someone who hated BVS, I felt bad for JL. It was a Frankenstein monster nobody liked or wanted. Its box office performance was just kicking it while it was down.

 

[Flint Marko]

I’d be more on board with the idea that a Superman movie is just so wildly difficult to make and the fans were so hard to please if WB’s output for the past few decades, specifically with Superman movies, hadn’t been so poor. Again it’s like serving people an over cooked steak and then going “well I guess people just don’t like steak.”

 

[misslane38]

I’d be more on board with the idea that a Superman movie is just so wildly difficult to make and the fans were so hard to please if WB’s output for the past few decades, specifically with Superman movies, hadn’t been so poor. Again it’s like serving people an over cooked steak and then going “well I guess people just don’t like steak.”

But since there's nothing to compare it to (all Superman movies after the first have struggled), then one can't really say. Not to mention it's not as simple as steak, because most could agree on what cooked/overcooked steak is. There's a lot of different opinions on what is wanted in a Superman film, so it's tricky to find the right recipe.

 

[Boy Scout]

I’d be more on board with the idea that a Superman movie is just so wildly difficult to make and the fans were so hard to please if WB’s output for the past few decades, specifically with Superman movies, hadn’t been so poor. Again it’s like serving people an over cooked steak and then going “well I guess people just don’t like steak.”

I say it all the time: it’s not Superman people dislike. It’s his movies. Make a good movie starring a Superman who acts like Superman and all will be forgiven. It’s not rocket science. I’m actually shocked that he hasn’t been given his due this century.

Oh, wait, sorry, SG did it without even trying and I can probably count the people who I’ve seen express disdain for that version of him on one hand.

I’m sorry, but I’m really sick of this ****. Superman, my favorite fictional character in the world, deserves better than what he’s been given. Straight garbage since 2013.

 

[misslane38]

I say it all the time: it’s not Superman people dislike. It’s his movies. Make a good movie starring a Superman who acts like Superman and all will be forgiven. It’s not rocket science. I’m actually shocked that he hasn’t been given his due this century.

What you think Superman is or like for Superman, others might not like. Also, as far as I can tell, most people tend to prefer Superman's origin, which keeps getting told over and over again, but struggle to get into sequels. It's like preferring the honeymoon to the marriage.

Oh, wait, sorry, SG did it without even trying and I can probably count the people who I’ve seen express disdain for that version of him on one hand.

Except that wasn't a Superman story. That was Superman as a guest in another person's story. It isn't a full picture. Not to mention all it took was one line in his last episode for some to turn against him.

 

[Boy Scout]

I haven’t the time or patience to argue with you about this. I respect your passion, diction, and fondness for the character, but we have such different views of the current situation that it’s beyond pointless to ever get into it.

 

[batdude]

Ugh. What a terrible, lazy idea.

Superman isn't the Nick Fury of DC. He's the Spider-Man. The Iron Man. He's one of the main franchise players. Instead of trying to develop a billion Harley Quinn films, DC/WB should be taking the time to rehabilitate their former mascot. One of the big reasons why he's the Former is because of their constant mishandling of him.

The fact that WB/DC can't make a good modern day Superman film is just one of the many blemishes on their film franchise.

I still say if you lost Luthor and Zod and made it with Braniac or Mxyptlk you could do a much different Superman movie. That "Nick Fury" approach sounds like trying to bench Michael Jordan. extremely stupid.

 

[misslane38]

I haven’t the time or patience to argue with you about this. I respect your passion, diction, and fondness for the character, but we have such different views of the current situation that it’s beyond pointless to ever get into it.

 

[misslane38]

I still say if you lost Luthor and Zod and made it with Braniac or Mxyptlk you could do a much different Superman movie. That "Nick Fury" approach sounds like trying to bench Michael Jordan. extremely stupid.

The options on the table: 1) Superman appears in zero films before a possible MoS2, and 2) Superman appears in some films before a possible MoS2. The former would be benching the character in a way that builds zero good will or momentum for a sequel while the latter keeps Superman in the picture for the GA in a way that renews interest in the character. I know which one I prefer. As a Superman fan, I honestly cannot understand preferring any other option.

 

[jmc]

That's a bit presumptuous, don't you think? Superheroes cameo in others' comics all the time; usually it's a sign of respect. Superman famously did so in a Shazam story that I can see them replicating just as Smallville did in its ninth season episode "Warrior."

Not at all. If Superman can do so much it's a logical question that's going to pop up in peoples minds as to why he didn't just come in and save the day. If you're going to have someone cameo it makes far more sense for it to be Batman, because at least you can argue the situation the hero was in would have been too overwhelming for him to get involved with.

 

[The Batman]

I’d be more on board with the idea that a Superman movie is just so wildly difficult to make and the fans were so hard to please if WB’s output for the past few decades, specifically with Superman movies, hadn’t been so poor. Again it’s like serving people an over cooked steak and then going “well I guess people just don’t like steak.”

This. People only peddle that excuse because they're a fan of some of the recent Superman films.

 

[misslane38]

Not at all. If Superman can do so much it's a logical question that's going to pop up in peoples minds as to why he didn't just come in and save the day. If you're going to have someone cameo it makes far more sense for it to be Batman, because at least you can argue the situation the hero was in would have been too overwhelming for him to get involved with.

It's not complicated. Superman can't stick around because he's needed somewhere else. The end.

This. People only peddle that excuse because they're a fan of some of the recent Superman films.

Not even close. Thanks for the presumptuous psychoanalysis, though. I am basing my assessment on Superman as a character and as an IP on my decades of investment in the character across all forms of media. Superman has been constantly reinvented. He's been returned to nostalgia and turned into an existential hero. His origin story has been told and retold and retold and retold ad nauseum. Every possible permutation of the character has been kicked around in the last two decades from creators who range from hack to genius alike. Not a single one has endured. I've loved many and hated some of these iterations, and so have many others. But nothing has hit the mark; there is no consensus. That's not a fan of Snyder's films talking. It's a fan of Superman.

 

[kguillou]

Its not just films though, Superman, as character has been struggling in all forms of media for decades. Superman as a character just hasn't caught fire like his pointy eared teammate since the 70's. I'm not at all saying there's an issue with Superman or that the character is broken, not at all, but perhaps there should be wider conversation as to why writers for comics, tv, and film seem to struggle with the character and not make him popular again. It's undeniable that before MoS, public sentiment towards the character was that he was old fashioned and corny, why is that and what led Superman as a multi-media IP to get to that point?

 

[Rorschach2012]

I’d be more on board with the idea that a Superman movie is just so wildly difficult to make and the fans were so hard to please if WB’s output for the past few decades, specifically with Superman movies, hadn’t been so poor. Again it’s like serving people an over cooked steak and then going “well I guess people just don’t like steak.”

Ha this is dead on!!!!

 

[batdude]

The options on the table: 1) Superman appears in zero films before a possible MoS2, and 2) Superman appears in some films before a possible MoS2. The former would be benching the character in a way that builds zero good will or momentum for a sequel while the latter keeps Superman in the picture for the GA in a way that renews interest in the character. I know which one I prefer. As a Superman fan, I honestly cannot understand preferring any other option.

If we definitely had a sequel, the extra appearances would work, I just don't want them instead of one.

 

[jmc]

It's not complicated. Superman can't stick around because he's needed somewhere else. The end.

Then he's of little use.

 

[misslane38]

If we definitely had a sequel, the extra appearances would work, I just don't want them instead of one.

Well, I don't believe anyone is suggesting it's one or the other or that a sequel definitely isn't happening. It's even possible that if a sequel is currently in doubt, the appearances would be a way of gauging and earning support for one in the future. I just can't see a downside to having him appear in other films, if it's done well.

Then he's of little use.

He's of use because he'd be being useful somewhere else. How does him not showing up in the movie solve your problem, then? He either is in the film and has an excuse, or he's not in the film and we infer he has an excuse. Either way, an excuse is made. At least if he's in Shazam or other films, he can provide some help and, more importantly, levity and inspiration that so many crave from this Superman. He can offer encouragement (moral support), instruction (help people master their abilities), or practical assistance in an early fight or heroic effort before a hero does it independently. I think there's a lot of excellent possibilities, and since this type of thing has been done in DC and Marvel comics, movies, and TV for awhile with loads of characters, I honestly don't see the problem.

 

[jmc]

He's of use because he'd be being useful somewhere else. How does him not showing up in the movie solve your problem, then? He either is in the film and has an excuse, or he's not in the film and we infer he has an excuse. Either way, an excuse is made. At least if he's in Shazam or other films, he can provide some help and, more importantly, levity and inspiration that so many crave from this Superman. He can offer encouragement (moral support), instruction (help people master their abilities), or practical assistance in an early fight or heroic effort before a hero does it independently. I think there's a lot of excellent possibilities, and since this type of thing has been done in DC and Marvel comics, movies, and TV for awhile with loads of characters, I honestly don't see the problem.

Superman's presence in helping will do nothing but overshadow the hero of the movie. That's going to be unavoidable, if you've got a hero and someone else comes in to help save the day then you've just lessoned the importance of said hero. It would be like Superman coming to help Wonder Woman in the final battle against Ares, it would change everything. Suddenly it's not too difficult for Diana to both save Steven Trevor and defeat the bad guy because she has assistance from an equally powerful hero. The hero's journey becomes completely diminished and the emotional impact isn't the same the moment someone of equal or greater power comes to help. Shazam is the worst film to attempt this with, because Shazam is basically a carbon copy of Superman in terms of abilities.