BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - - - - Part 94

[Nemeres]

If WB nails a creative bullseye that works excellently on all fronts, that entertains and thrills and moves, people will focus more on how exciting the DCU can be rather than on whether or not they're mimicking Marvel. My theory, anyway.

 

[king666]

Yeah you cant just copy what GOTG did because most characters couldnt work in a cheese filled movie like that. That isnt an insult as I have said previously GOTG was really the only Marvel movie I enjoyed and would see again. Even GOTG 2 will have trouble mimicking the charm and hilarity of GOTG it was a perfect mixture and a great origin.

The only DC property that should be like that is Shazam as the character has always had high levels of cheese and fun. Shazam should be its own beast and while it shouldnt be separate from the DCCU (like GOTG is a part of the MCU) it should also be outside those movies. Shazam's world should be about wonder and fun and amazement. It should be written as though through the eye of a kid. If done right it could be a great all ages film.

As for the rest of the DCCU let it evolve on its own. Dont ape what others do make your movies and let the characters grow in their own way. Let the fanboys worry about the nitpicky stuff and let the clickbaiters write their articles. Just because they rip or love a movie shouldnt make a difference anyways if you enjoy your experience seeing the film.

Just my unasked for $.02.

but I want the DCCU to be about wonder and fun

 

[Tv's Phil]

If WB bases its big decisions on differentiating themselves from Marvel they're gonna stumble big and often, considering that a lot of what Marvel does is just... common sense.

Seems to be they're constantly chasing after the success the TDK tone brought them back in 2008, when not only is it a very different scenario that they're working in today, but to paint their entire universe with the Batman brush is a lousy idea that could only come from a confused studio terrified of taking chances. For some reason there's this idea that WB's more "serious, grounded, high stakes" tone is gonna make for a religious experience of a movie that's gonna make Marvel's films seem small potatoes by comparison. Beats me why, based on evidence.

There's a lot more room for good movies other than just the Marvel way.
They've seemed to have found a certain footing or pattern that's working and that's fine.
WB SHOULD be trying to differentiate their product. It doesn't mean the completely opposite of Marvel in every way. It just means not letting all superhero movies fall into the same look and tone and idea rut.
That doesn't necessarily mean dark.

That being said, I know many aren't on board with a "darker" approach than Marvel. That could be argued. But I'm all for WB treating the threats in their movies as serious, villainous things. Where death is a possibility and just bc someone's a superhero doesn't mean you're just happy go lucky and cracking wise.
If that means a darker more serious tone, I'm okay with that.
I'm also fine with other approaches.

Just give me DC characters specifically, on screen.

 

[zryson]

If that means a darker more serious tone, I'm okay with that.

A darker approach is fine but again it comes down to translating the characters in a way which holds the attention of the audience. They also need actors who you care about on screen. And when I see some of the awful superhero movies studios are pumping out, and quite a few of them not performing as well as expected, ultimately the studios are going to lose millions. And I think that needs to happen, to really give the studios a massive shake-up and to rethink their strategy and lift the quality of their product.

 

[Micromind]

No need to have a unified, homogenized approach to all DC movies, each DC movie needs to have it's own tone.

Not all DC movies need to be dark, similarly not all DC movies need to be light and campy.

 

[Nemeres]

There's a lot more room for good movies other than just the Marvel way.
They've seemed to have found a certain footing or pattern that's working and that's fine.
WB SHOULD be trying to differentiate their product. It doesn't mean the completely opposite of Marvel in every way. It just means not letting all superhero movies fall into the same look and tone and idea rut.
That doesn't necessarily mean dark.

That being said, I know many aren't on board with a "darker" approach than Marvel. That could be argued. But I'm all for WB treating the threats in their movies as serious, villainous things. Where death is a possibility and just bc someone's a superhero doesn't mean you're just happy go lucky and cracking wise.
If that means a darker more serious tone, I'm okay with that.
I'm also fine with other approaches.

Just give me DC characters specifically, on screen.

Fair enough. I'm not advocating that they copy the Marvel way, just that they shouldn't go out of their way to take the directly opposite route.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Shazam won't be particularly dark apparently, so there's that. I don't think MOS was terribly dark, just full of itself.

 

[zryson]

Shazam won't be particularly dark apparently, so there's that. I don't think MOS was terribly dark, just full of itself.

Shazam is ripe for parody and humor. They could have this skinny little kid and then he meets the wizard and he's like oh wow, you're so old. And the wizard is like but I can make you a hero and the kid looks back at him and says "I wont look like you will I?" and the wizard strokes his beard and says "No.... Wait, what about my appearance?"

They could set it in another era - the 70s would be fun. Just the costume alone would fit right into that era.

 

[WitchTrialz]

There's a lot more room for good movies other than just the Marvel way.
They've seemed to have found a certain footing or pattern that's working and that's fine.
WB SHOULD be trying to differentiate their product. It doesn't mean the completely opposite of Marvel in every way. It just means not letting all superhero movies fall into the same look and tone and idea rut.
That doesn't necessarily mean dark.

That being said, I know many aren't on board with a "darker" approach than Marvel. That could be argued. But I'm all for WB treating the threats in their movies as serious, villainous things. Where death is a possibility and just bc someone's a superhero doesn't mean you're just happy go lucky and cracking wise.
If that means a darker more serious tone, I'm okay with that.
I'm also fine with other approaches.

Just give me DC characters specifically, on screen.

Totally agree,
And let me just add that this "no jokes policy" rumor is nasty and needs to stop NOW! That's 100% false! I feel like man of steel haters just have a page for batman v superman in their 'burn book' where they just write dirty untrue crap. (Yes I watched Mean Girls last night...)

 

[Bane Cook]

Sorry if this has been talked about a lot already. I rarely come to this site. Also SPOILERS if you don't look at set photos. Don't read if you're trying to avoid being spoiled.

Spoiler

Did anyone see the set footage of Affleck saving some girl from rubble falling on her? I think what's going to happen is there's going to be a flashback. It's going to show what Bruce is doing when all the destruction is going on. Basically it's going to be him running around on the ground where all the buildings are collapsing and saving people.

Also I think that scene will highlight the difference between Batman and this young Superman. Batman will be on the ground saving people and Bruce will look up and see Kal fighting with Zod, flying through buildings like a bull in a china shop. When Bruce and Kal finally have a talk, I bet Bruce is going to have a few choice words for Kal on how irresponsible he is with his powers. I can't wait.

 

[Guts]

For a while there I thought the red head is Poison Ivy from the Arkham Asylum graphic novel (I was unable to sit through the whole story)

She's Delirium and among the seven endless she is the insane one.

 

[Silliminite]

The 'no jokes' policy sounds pretty silly to me. Why would a major studio like WB limit one of it's major franchises in such a way.

 

[WitchTrialz]

Shazam is ripe for parody and humor. They could have this skinny little kid and then he meets the wizard and he's like oh wow, you're so old. And the wizard is like but I can make you a hero and the kid looks back at him and says "I wont look like you will I?" and the wizard strokes his beard and says "No.... Wait, what about my appearance?"

They could set it in another era - the 70s would be fun. Just the costume alone would fit right into that era.

I could see Shazam being the 'Guardians of the Galaxy" of the dc film franchise. They could even cameo Lobo.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

Sorry if this has been talked about a lot already. I rarely come to this site. Also SPOILERS if you don't look at set photos. Don't read if you're trying to avoid being spoiled.

Spoiler

Did anyone see the set footage of Affleck saving some girl from rubble falling on her? I think what's going to happen is there's going to be a flashback. It's going to show what Bruce is doing when all the destruction is going on. Basically it's going to be him running around on the ground where all the buildings are collapsing and saving people.

Also I think that scene will highlight the difference between Batman and this young Superman. Batman will be on the ground saving people and Bruce will look up and see Kal fighting with Zod, flying through buildings like a bull in a china shop. When Bruce and Kal finally have a talk, I bet Bruce is going to have a few choice words for Kal on how irresponsible he is with his powers. I can't wait.

That's been guessed plenty.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

No need to have a unified, homogenized approach to all DC movies, each DC movie needs to have it's own tone.

Not all DC movies need to be dark, similarly not all DC movies need to be light and campy.

Agreed, films don't need the same tone to exist in the same universe, GOTG and TWS exist in the same universe and I don't have a problem with the two films having very different tones, similarly if the Deadpool movie ever finally gets made I'll have no problem if it's in the same universe as the X-men films. Each DC film's tone should be its own in some way.

 

[zryson]

The 'no jokes' policy sounds pretty silly to me. Why would a major studio like WB limit one of it's major franchises in such a way.

Studios do silly things all the time. In fact, its shocking how many bad superhero movies have been made. Most of them fade into history with hardly any mentions but some of the more shocking examples still gain lots of press; like the infamous bat-nipples (etc), Superman v Nuclear Man (hard to see why they ever thought that was a good idea) and there was Supergirl with a screen-chewing Dunaway with lines like "Power of shadow.... Destroy her!"

 

[KillerMcQueen]

I still have a hard time registering how many people actually believe that completely bollocks "no jokes" rumor.

 

[shauner111]

I believe it, i just dont think it means what people think it means. Im sure they mean "no joke after joke like Marvel" and more of how humor is handled in TDK trilogy or MOS. It doesn't say "no humor at all", it just says no jokes, i think that means taking it to the extreme like Marvel likes to do a lot. Winter Soldier had the right balance.

 

[dhandler01]

Fair enough. I'm not advocating that they copy the Marvel way, just that they shouldn't go out of their way to take the directly opposite route.

Outside of rumor mongers has anyone said they are?

They arent going out of their way to be different anymore than Sony or Fox are. All of the studios do things their way and no way is perfect. Some people enjoy one style over another, some like all of them or none of them. Variety is best otherwise it goes stale.

As for "no jokes" I will trust the people who work with WB who call it BS over loser clickbait sites and scoopers who have proven they have zero sources or inside info.

 

[Doc Ock]

No need to have a unified, homogenized approach to all DC movies, each DC movie needs to have it's own tone.

Not all DC movies need to be dark, similarly not all DC movies need to be light and campy.

I just hope they actually DO that. Especially for Superman in the future.

 

[Juke Box Hero]

I'm not surprised one particular uZer believes the "no joke" rule.

 

[TheNextNolan22]

 

[TheNextNolan22]

 

[Dr. Remy Lebeau]

The 'no jokes' policy sounds pretty silly to me. Why would a major studio like WB limit one of it's major franchises in such a way.

I'm thinking it has to do with the failure of Green Lantern and the success of the Dark Knight trilogy and Man of Steel.

Agreed, films don't need the same tone to exist in the same universe, GOTG and TWS exist in the same universe and I don't have a problem with the two films having very different tones, similarly if the Deadpool movie ever finally gets made I'll have no problem if it's in the same universe as the X-men films. Each DC film's tone should be its own in some way.

GOTG and TWS take place in different parts of the universe (literally), so the relative differences in tone are more acceptable. The relative differences notwithstanding, I'd say both still have a very similar Marvel 'feel'. I don't think DC should experiment with varying tone until they successfully establish their cinematic universe. They need a solid identity before they start to play with their cinematic paradigm.

 

[zryson]

I'm thinking it has to do with the failure of Green Lantern and the success of the Dark Knight trilogy and Man of Steel.

Absolutely. Green Lantern was a bad film on a colossal scale. It really was such an awful film that it almost defies description. But its not the character that was at fault. Just lousy choices made in creating the movie, from picking the wrong actors, to the story, to the effects.