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

[FunkMiller]

The MCU has definitely benefited from the fact that the Marvel heroes have always had a tighter continuity than their DC counterparts. The greatest DC stories are primarily "elsewords" tales, and it makes sense that stories not sharing the same continuity would make up the bulk of their cinematic output as well.

The biggest frustration is that DC have the idea of a multiverse baked into their overarching narrative and ideology. It would have been so easy to keep the DC characters seperate, only to being them together if they all proved successful in a Crisis storyline. Handled right, it would made the MCU look small and unambitious by comparison. But no... they just copied Marvel

 

[The Guard]

The MCU has definitely benefited from the fact that the Marvel heroes have always had a tighter continuity than their DC counterparts. The greatest DC stories are primarily "elsewords" tales, and it makes sense that stories not sharing the same continuity would make up the bulk of their cinematic output as well.

DC characters are constantly visiting each other, fighting each other's villains, stories are interweaving, there are crossovers, etc. It's been going on since the Golden Age. The bit about Elseworlds is arguable, but most of this is just not accurate.

 

[misslane38]

I'm well aware we see this film differently.

Okay, but it's one thing to have different interpretations and tastes; it's a whole other thing when you get basic facts wrong. Pa Kent did not rant at Clark in BvS. Such hyperbolic and wildly inaccurate takes on the film puts your different way of seeing the film into perspective. It makes it difficult to take you seriously.

 

[WereCoyote]

They probably don't even know themselves yet.

Sorry for asking that question, I just didn't want to scroll through pages of people arguing over Snyder to try to find some news, haha.

 

[Zarex]

DC characters are constantly visiting each other, fighting each other's villains, stories are interweaving, there are crossovers, etc. It's been going on since the Golden Age. The bit about Elseworlds is arguable, but most of this is just not accurate.

Continuity wasn't stressed at DC to the same degree as Marvel. Going back to the Lee and Kirby days editors notes would constantly reference goings on in other books and the characters would remain (mostly) consistent when they would appear in other stories. That was not the case at the Distinguished Competition.

DC, by comparison, was always looser with continuity, particularly in the pre COIE era. Superman and Batman stories were mainly "one and dones" as compared to the ongoing soap operas in the Marvel books. Action taking place in say Brave and the Bold wouldn't be referenced elsewhere. In fact, Bats often interacted with Earth 2 characters like Wildcat without any explanation as to how he jumped earths.

And the characters (again, especially in the COIE days) were not consistent from book to book. The Batman from Detective Comics was different from the guy in TBATB and completely different from the Super Friends version appearing in Justice League.

DC has always excelled at elseworlds tales like TDKR, Red Son, Kingdom Come and All Star Superman. A cinematic universe that follows this path would have a better chance for success imo.

 

[MbJ]

About an hour in, Mark Hughes from Forbes talks about DC's troubles with Superman.

[YT]zSKgvmoMnes[/YT]

 

[The Guard]

Continuity wasn't stressed at DC to the same degree as Marvel. Going back to the Lee and Kirby days editors notes would constantly reference goings on in other books and the characters would remain (mostly) consistent when they would appear in other stories. That was not the case at the Distinguished Competition.

DC, by comparison, was always looser with continuity, particularly in the pre COIE era. Superman and Batman stories were mainly "one and dones" as compared to the ongoing soap operas in the Marvel books. Action taking place in say Brave and the Bold wouldn't be referenced elsewhere. In fact, Bats often interacted with Earth 2 characters like Wildcat without any explanation as to how he jumped earths.

And the characters (again, especially in the COIE days) were not consistent from book to book. The Batman from Detective Comics was different from the guy in TBATB and completely different from the Super Friends version appearing in Justice League.

Which is all well and good, but DC is well past those days. I fail to see why this is an issue moving forward, and this has no direct impact on the films themselves, which invent their own continuity.

Continuity is new with each new iteration. The movies don't have the same continuity as the comics, etc.

DC has always excelled at elseworlds tales like TDKR, Red Son, Kingdom Come and All Star Superman. A cinematic universe that follows this path would have a better chance for success imo.

DC has great stories in Elseworlds and in its main comics. You could make excellent adaptions by drawing from a number of sources.

 

[misslane38]

About an hour in, Mark Hughes from Forbes talks about DC's troubles with Superman.

[YT]zSKgvmoMnes[/YT]

I don't agree with Mark's take on the trouble with Superman. The problems he cites with Superman cameos (e.g. Superman needs a sequel greenlit first to guarantee investment in the character, Superman's power levels create insurmountable plot holes) don't make much sense. First, if DCEU Superman has failed to interest or engage audiences, then having small appetizers of Superman in heroes' solo films is a chance to build up good will and momentum for a sequel. WB will see no reason to invest in a Superman sequel unless the character can reengage audiences. Cameos are a great way to do that while a sequel is in development. Second, the "Superman could fix everything" problem is only a problem if the myriad of creative solutions to the problem are ignored. He can show up and be called away to deal with his own problems. He can appear in flashbacks before the real trouble happened. He can be part of the conclusion of the film after the danger has passed and make some throwaway reference to what preoccupied him. It's not hard. It's not even new; it's been done before loads of time successfully. And it's certainly not enough of a reason to give up an opportunity for Superman to win over more people on his way to a sequel.

 

[The Guard]

Exactly. The comics do it constantly. I don't like how people seem to think that Superman's existence has to be about his powers, and simultaneously there are all these complaints about how all that is portrayed is his powers.

People seem to think he's always going to show up to save the day or something if this cameo thing comes to pass, and I just don't think that's the case. There are ways for him to show up in neat little cameos that don't involve a ton of action/effects work all the time.

I think he may very well just show up to check in on other leaguers, keep that connective tissue between Justice League projects, pop in as a mentor, etc. And I think that's a pretty unique approach.

If in fact they are building to a Black Adam/Shazam/Superman crossover scenario, then that probably won't happen right off the bat.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Okay, but it's one thing to have different interpretations and tastes; it's a whole other thing when you get basic facts wrong. Pa Kent did not rant at Clark in BvS. Such hyperbolic and wildly inaccurate takes on the film puts your different way of seeing the film into perspective. It makes it difficult to take you seriously.

Please, I respect your take on the film, but there's no need in finding faults in this particular case. I called it "rant" just for fun. I get that it's Clark's memory in form of a vision. And that Pa Kent isn't ranting. But the nature of his speech isn't important for the point I was making. The outcome is the same - Clark figures out things for himself and returns to his "world".

 

[OutOfBoose]

Sorry for asking that question, I just didn't want to scroll through pages of people arguing over Snyder to try to find some news, haha.

No, I mean WB don't know themselves.

 

[misslane38]

Please, I respect your take on the film, but there's no need in finding faults in this particular case. I called it "rant" just for fun. I get that it's Clark's memory in form of a vision. And that Pa Kent isn't ranting. But the nature of his speech isn't important for the point I was making. The outcome is the same - Clark figures out things for himself and returns to his "world".

Okay, I'll just have to remember that you use hyperbole for fun to make irrelevant points. Like I said before, it's a great way to figure out who to take seriously. I appreciate the clarification.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Okay, I'll just have to remember that you use hyperbole for fun to make irrelevant points. Like I said before, it's a great way to figure out who to take seriously. I appreciate the clarification.

wow...

 

[misslane38]

wow...

Yeah, wow.

 

[OutOfBoose]

del.

 

[Zarex]

Which is all well and good, but DC is well past those days. I fail to see why this is an issue moving forward, and this has no direct impact on the films themselves, which invent their own continuity.

Continuity is new with each new iteration. The movies don't have the same continuity as the comics, etc.

I would suggest that the commitment to continuity and character connectivity - baked into the DNA at Marvel since its 60s era launch - gave the fledgling MCU the confidence to follow the same path with its cinematic output. It enabled Feige and company to get a head start on launching a super hero "franchise of franchises" despite DC films having much more well known characters and a much better track record at the cinema. It forced WB into "catch up" mode, and we have seen the results.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I know we all disagree on things, but we all at least have to acknowledge DCEU Superman has absolutely failed to interest/engage mainstream audiences. We don't have to like it, but its absolutely a thing.

Not really Henry's fault, but the people behind the camera have absolutely let the character and the fans down. To even challenge that is to just play contrarian for the sake of playing contrarian.

 

[Superchan]

About an hour in, Mark Hughes from Forbes talks about DC's troubles with Superman.

[YT]zSKgvmoMnes[/YT]

Thanks for the vid. Yeah I totally agree with Hughes on everything.
If Warners want to have superman make cameos in movies to rev up interest in the character before giving him his own solo then fine by me but if they're planning to relegate him into cameo-appearances then WB's dumb***ry continues at full force.
Right now though it's very hard to know what's going on because apart from AM, Shaz and WW nothing is guaranteed.

 

[Superchan]

Please, I respect your take on the film, but there's no need in finding faults in this particular case. I called it "rant" just for fun. I get that it's Clark's memory in form of a vision. And that Pa Kent isn't ranting. But the nature of his speech isn't important for the point I was making. The outcome is the same - Clark figures out things for himself and returns to his "world".

I don't know if I'd call it a rant but to be honest it's hard to know what to make of that scene, the audience couldn't tell whether pa kent was a hallucination or a memory or clark being low on oxygen due to altitude or he just decided to go on a spiritual acid trip or just Snyder -again- trying to be deep.

 

[MbJ]

I know we all disagree on things, but we all at least have to acknowledge DCEU Superman has absolutely failed to interest/engage mainstream audiences. We don't have to like it, but its absolutely a thing.

Not really Henry's fault, but the people behind the camera have absolutely let the character and the fans down. To even challenge that is to just play contrarian for the sake of playing contrarian.

Yeah I don't think anyone can harbor that fantasy anymore.

 

[unholyrevenger]

Superman being relegated to supporting cast is fine. He gets to do Superman things. Show that he's engaged with the world. And Superman can remain a static character. All the things people who hated MoS and BvS want from Superman .

 

[Willi Berg]

About an hour in, Mark Hughes from Forbes talks about DC's troubles with Superman.

[YT]zSKgvmoMnes[/YT]

Thanks for the vid. Yeah I totally agree with Hughes on everything.
If Warners want to have superman make cameos in movies to rev up interest in the character before giving him his own solo then fine by me but if they're planning to relegate him into cameo-appearances then WB's dumb***ry continues at full force.
Right now though it's very hard to know what's going on because apart from AM, Shaz and WW nothing is guaranteed.

I don't agree with Mark's take on the trouble with Superman. The problems he cites with Superman cameos (e.g. Superman needs a sequel greenlit first to guarantee investment in the character, Superman's power levels create insurmountable plot holes) don't make much sense. First, if DCEU Superman has failed to interest or engage audiences, then having small appetizers of Superman in heroes' solo films is a chance to build up good will and momentum for a sequel. WB will see no reason to invest in a Superman sequel unless the character can reengage audiences. Cameos are a great way to do that while a sequel is in development. Second, the "Superman could fix everything" problem is only a problem if the myriad of creative solutions to the problem are ignored. He can show up and be called away to deal with his own problems. He can appear in flashbacks before the real trouble happened. He can be part of the conclusion of the film after the danger has passed and make some throwaway reference to what preoccupied him. It's not hard. It's not even new; it's been done before loads of time successfully. And it's certainly not enough of a reason to give up an opportunity for Superman to win over more people on his way to a sequel.

I agree with Mark Hughes that Superman is not Nick Fury, that Nick needs the help of the Avengers because he can't do it himself. Also feel that Superman always showing up for the sake of including him, in every other hero's movie, would feel contrived. He should only be there if it makes sense. A Shazam!/Black Adam cameo makes sense, as we saw in the Shazam! animated short featuring him.

This 'Nick Fury' report does seem odd, though. As one minute it looks like DC are going to focus on solos then it looks like Superman would suddenly appear trying to tie all the DC movies together. It could take away the focus on another hero starting in their solo movie. Though some team-ups would be great. Would be great to see Superman in Aquaman's world, visiting Atlantis, for instance. If they find creative ways to do it. Agree that it would help keep him popular, including Henry as Superman.

But solely doing cameos? No. Superman needs a reason for existing. He needs his solo movies to show who he is and why he is needed in the first place.

Superman being relegated to supporting cast is fine. He gets to do Superman things. Show that he's engaged with the world. And Superman can remain a static character. All the things people who hated MoS and BvS want from Superman .

There are many ways to approach Superman. The way he was approached in MOS and BvS aren't the only ways. And a move away from that doesn't automatically mean he is compromised. It doesn't have to be the JL lightness. If a writer/director finds a great take on Superman for a solo movie, then it could be great.

 

[unholyrevenger]

But solely doing cameos? No. Superman needs a reason for existing. He needs his solo movies to show who he is and why he is needed in the first place.



There are many ways to approach Superman. The way he was approached in MOS and BvS aren't the only ways. And a move away from that doesn't automatically mean he is compromised. It doesn't have to be the JL lightness. If a writer/director finds a great take on Superman for a solo movie, then it could be great.

Superman exists to help people, that includes other heroes and even villains (by help i mean inspire to reform). If anything a supporting role in other movies will solidify that.

As far great takes go that is a subjective problem. As one man's great take is another man's "Not muh Superman". "Not muh Superman" is the largest hurdle facing the character's on screen popularity.

 

[Willi Berg]

Superman exists to help people, that includes other heroes and even villains (by help i mean inspire to reform). If anything a supporting role in other movies will solidify that.

As far great takes go that is a subjective problem. As one man's great take is another man's "Not muh Superman". "Not muh Superman" is the largest hurdle facing the character's on screen popularity.

Yes, supporting role in other movies...as well as taking the lead in his solos. So there is time to tell his story. Both would be good.

That's ALWAYS the case with EVERY superhero, every known property. So because it is subjective it means to just give up on giving him his own story? Thinking that the take on Superman in MOS and BvS is the only way is just as bad, is just as much a hurdle, and is your own version of "Not muh Superman."

We all know when a movie clicks with audiences or not, generally speaking. That's what I mean when I say that it is possible for a writer and director to have a great take on Superman.

 

[unholyrevenger]

Yes, supporting role in other movies...as well as taking the lead in his solos. So there is time to tell his story. Both would be good.

That's ALWAYS the case with EVERY superhero, every known property. So because it is subjective it means to just give up on giving him his own story?

No, we should give up giving him solo movies because the character's fans bring too much baggage creating the "Not muh Superman" problem.

Thinking that the take on Superman in MOS and BvS is the only way is just as bad, is just as much a hurdle, and is your own version of "Not muh Superman."

At no point do i say or imply MoS and BvS are the only way.

We all know when a movie clicks with audiences or not, generally speaking. That's what I mean when I say that it is possible for a writer and director to have a great take on Superman.

There never will be a great take for a Cinematic Superman, because every take will be poisoned by "Not muh Superman"