Another overhaul for DCEU

[InCali]

IMO, Marvel had a vision for where they wanted to go. I remember seeing the Iron Man theater previews with my son and I leaned over to him and said "I am SO going to see that". Then we had the Avengers tease at the end and it was really exciting. When MCU became popular beyond most people's dreams, DC saw a lot of money on the table and decided they wanted some of it. At that point in time the difference was that one company came up with the concept and the other wanted to copy the concept. If there had been a careful, well laid out overall plan for the DC SH genre, it could have been wildly successful.

 

[Zarex]

Seems Zaslav is intent on focusing on the shared universe (DCEU) as the Arrowverse is essentially dead (Flash on its final season, two cancelled shows with more to come). Wouldn’t be surprised to see Doom Patrol, Titans, Stargirl, Penyworth and SM&L all cancelled after their upcoming season as well. DCEU and Reevesverse seems to be the direction they’re heading in and the latter will only run for a short while (3 films and a few spin-offs)

I think it makes a lot of sense to build a connected universe off of the Reevesverse. Coates' retro Superman seems like he would be a nice fit with Pattison's post vengeance Batman. Make a World's Finest film after the Superman series is launched and build off of that.

 

[Filmfreak]

Reeves' overly realistic Batman doesn't fit with the more fantastical elements that pretty much all other heroes have in DC. And I remember how well it went the last time the suits forced a shared universe out of a film the director and writer created to stand on its own. Sure, Reeves is much more competent than Snyder and his film much more beloved, but they literally gave him freedom to create something separate back in 2018, instead of pushing him to do a DCEU entry. It makes no sense to take it back and the very reason it works is exactly because it doesn't have any crossover baggage. They should stop trying to copy the success of the MCU, their biggest and best movies are by far the stand alone solo ones.

 

[Prison Mike]

I think Snyder is pretty competent and he had a specific vision. It was just not something most people wanted. I don’t know why people act there’s only one way to do these characters when there’s so many iterations in the comics.

 

[Iceman]

IMO, Marvel had a vision for where they wanted to go. I remember seeing the Iron Man theater previews with my son and I leaned over to him and said "I am SO going to see that". Then we had the Avengers tease at the end and it was really exciting. When MCU became popular beyond most people's dreams, DC saw a lot of money on the table and decided they wanted some of it. At that point in time the difference was that one company came up with the concept and the other wanted to copy the concept. If there had been a careful, well laid out overall plan for the DC SH genre, it could have been wildly successful.

Part of the problem was that the one thing they should have copied, the structured buildup, they didn’t bother with. They jumped straight into the teamup after a very mixed reception without even a Bat solo, and the reception/success level couldn’t have been much different. That didn’t just mean terrible numbers for a first JL film, it meant the future potential to build off the back of it was blown too.

 

[Zarex]

Reeves' overly realistic Batman doesn't fit with the more fantastical elements that pretty much all other heroes have in DC. And I remember how well it went the last time the suits forced a shared universe out of a film the director and writer created to stand on its own. Sure, Reeves is much more competent than Snyder and his film much more beloved, but they literally gave him freedom to create something separate back in 2018, instead of pushing him to do a DCEU entry. It makes no sense to take it back and the very reason it works is exactly because it doesn't have any crossover baggage. They should stop trying to copy the success of the MCU, their biggest and best movies are by far the stand alone solo ones.

Eh, Tony Stark wasn't much more fantastic in his solo appearances than Bruce Wayne was in his recent reboot. I'd buy a billionaire putting on a suit of robot armor to battle terrorists more easily than I would a billionaire putting on a bat themed outfit to combat urban crime.

Batman is usually gritty and grounded in his solo comic appearances. Then in the issues of Justice League he hangs out with Green Lantern. Reeves can keep Batman grounded in his trilogy regardless of whether or not Pattinson also appears in team up films. Though I don't know why the fella known for making movies about kaiju, vampires and talking apes believes it to be of utmost importance that a bat themed hero be grounded.

Just because Snyder was the wrong guy to lead a connected universe doesn't mean new management shouldn't give it another ago. Character crossovers and Batman have been synonymous since The Brave and the Bold comic became a Batman team up mag back in the 1960s. There's too much money being left on the table for WB Discovery not to de-silo their most popular character.

 

[InCali]

Part of the problem was that the one thing they should have copied, the structured buildup, they didn’t bother with. They jumped straight into the teamup after a very mixed reception without even a Bat solo, and the reception/success level couldn’t have been much different. That didn’t just mean terrible numbers for a first JL film, it meant the future potential to build off the back of it was blown too.

I watched the LOOOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGGG Justice League movie and really liked it. Why not take the approach of developing the characters first??? Baffling......it really had a lot of potential.

 

[Iceman]

I watched the LOOOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGGG Justice League movie and really liked it. Why not take the approach of developing the characters first??? Baffling......it really had a lot of potential.

The GA were so up for the shared universe concept at that time and I think another massive superhero team with some characters they knew very well along with some new ones introduced ahead of time would have led to a big success. Aquaman itself went on to do a billion so that would have been a boost by itself.

 

[Filmfreak]

I think Snyder is pretty competent and he had a specific vision. It was just not something most people wanted. I don’t know why people act there’s only one way to do these characters when there’s so many iterations in the comics.

I'm not judging his competency based solely on his DC movies. I think he's a poor storyteller in general. And having a vision doesn't mean it's a good one. But my point is he and Goyer had a different idea in Man of Steel. One that was far away from anything crossover related. What happened afterwards was basically him trying to do the best he could to please the studio that was forcing him to change route.

Eh, Tony Stark wasn't much more fantastic in his solo appearances than Bruce Wayne was in his recent reboot. I'd buy a billionaire putting on a suit of robot armor to battle terrorists more easily than I would a billionaire putting on a bat themed outfit to combat urban crime.

Batman is usually gritty and grounded in his solo comic appearances. Then in the issues of Justice League he hangs out with Green Lantern. Reeves can keep Batman grounded in his trilogy regardless of whether or not Pattinson also appears in team up films.

You can't make a shared universe with completely different tones in each film and you certainly can't have Reeves' Batman as a template. That's one of the biggest issues the MCU had to face from the very start. Pretty much all their films feel too similar but they have to, if you want to buy that they're in the same world. You can't crossover The Batman with Shazam. Not without making it feel forced and unnatural. And at the same time you can't maintain enough creativity if your film has to fit in with other ones. And again, both in DC comics and in DC films the best and most popular stories are by far the solo unconnected ones, so I don't see why everything has to be part of a whole. They can continue with their DCEU that they've already been building and at the same time allow completely separate stories with some characters. It's proven time and again that it's what resonates more with the audience when it comes to DC.

Just because Snyder was the wrong guy to lead a connected universe doesn't mean new management shouldn't give it another ago. Character crossovers and Batman have been synonymous since The Brave and the Bold comic was launched. There's too much money being left on the table for WB Discovery not to de-silo their most popular character.

Snyder being the wrong guy was only a part of the problem. Forcing him to fast track a universe out of something that was intended as something completely separate is the main issue. There was no proper planning, it was just WB seeing more box office potential and thinking they barely have to do any build-up. Doing the same thing with Reeves is them repeating a mistake and I doubt that he would be interested in doing so, anyway. Otherwise he would have done it from the start. He wanted his own thing. And it should stay that way.

 

[InCali]

Problems generally start from the top. Snyder was kinda up there and I don't think he really understood what would be liked. There were people who thought BvS was the next coming of Dante Alighieri; and I respectfully disagree....that's coming from someone who had one "Hell" of a time getting through The Divine Comedy. Someone can come up with something that they like, and that's not a bad thing, but that's not really the job of the people making movies. I was fine with BvS and saw it the first day it was out, but, let's be honest, most people didn't like it and that's part of the gig of a director.

I really like Watchmen BTW.

 

[Prison Mike]

In a different universe, BvS was loved by everyone

 

[Frodo]

Reeves' overly realistic Batman doesn't fit with the more fantastical elements that pretty much all other heroes have in DC. And I remember how well it went the last time the suits forced a shared universe out of a film the director and writer created to stand on its own. Sure, Reeves is much more competent than Snyder and his film much more beloved, but they literally gave him freedom to create something separate back in 2018, instead of pushing him to do a DCEU entry. It makes no sense to take it back and the very reason it works is exactly because it doesn't have any crossover baggage. They should stop trying to copy the success of the MCU, their biggest and best movies are by far the stand alone solo ones.

I personally hope the new " ideas" don't mean that WB will now try to shoe horn other non Batman related DC heroes and characters into the Reeves-verse.

Let the Reeves-verse be it's own thing.

As much as the new management may want a shared universe, it's not gonna work by setting it up in the Reeves version and trying to add superpowered beings and heroes to it imo.

Yes, they can always attempt to do it, but I don't think it's the best idea.

Frankly, if they're intent on making The Batman a jumping off point for another shared universe of non Batman related characters, than Reeves should be the archetype of that world or universe of superbeings and aliens, and he should call the shots.

They're not gonna do that ,since I doubt think they'll want him to have that much power and a creative veto.

If they want to bring Superman back, either make due with the Snyderverse / Cavill version already established ,or create yet another universe for the new Superman film to serve as a launching off point for other versions of characters.

Even the latter option would be a mistake imo , but it's a better option than trying to use the Reeves-verse as a platform to try to create a shared universe.

 

[king666]

I personally hope the new " ideas" don't mean that WB will now try to shoe horn other non Batman related DC heroes and characters into the Reeves-verse.

Let the Reeves-verse be it's own thing.

As much as the new management may want a shared universe, it's not gonna work by setting it up in the Reeves version and trying to add superpowered beings and heroes to it imo.

Yes, they can always attempt to do it, but I don't think it's the best idea.

Frankly, if they're intent on making The Batman a jumping off point for another shared universe of non Batman related characters, than Reeves should be the archetype of that world or universe of superbeings and aliens, and he should call the shots.

They're not gonna do that ,since I doubt think they'll want him to have that much power and a creative veto.

If they want to bring Superman back, either make due with the Snyderverse / Cavill version already established ,or create yet another universe for the new Superman film to serve as a launching off point for other versions of characters.

Even the latter option would be a mistake imo , but it's a better option than trying to use the Reeves-verse as a platform to try to create a shared universe.

I'd be fine with it if Matt Reeves actively wanted to introduce other DC characters to his Batman universe... the initiative should come from Matt Reeves, not from WB executives. IMO that's the only way it would work. And he's clearly not interested right now:

(...) at the moment, to me, this world [Batman's] is the place that I want to focus.”

 

[metaphysician]

I think Snyder is pretty competent and he had a specific vision. It was just not something most people wanted. I don’t know why people act there’s only one way to do these characters when there’s so many iterations in the comics.

One word: budget. Weird, divergent, even outright poorly conceived takes on a character can work fine in comics, where a new comic story costs very little and a replacement take is trivially easy. Movies, by contrast, cost actual money, and as a result there can only ever be a very limited number of them relatively speaking, and those that are made need to actually be *successful*, with numbers of people almost infinitely greater than the comic-reading audience. A badly designed adaptation of Superman, for example, can hurt the prospects of ever seeing a good adaptation for years, potentially even decades. . . because once one take has lost money and damaged the popularity of the character, its that much harder to justify spending 9 digits on making a new movie.

 

[metaphysician]

Part of the problem was that the one thing they should have copied, the structured buildup, they didn’t bother with. They jumped straight into the teamup after a very mixed reception without even a Bat solo, and the reception/success level couldn’t have been much different. That didn’t just mean terrible numbers for a first JL film, it meant the future potential to build off the back of it was blown too.

I think part of it is that they misunderstand why certain parts were important. They correctly saw that the connected universe was important, but they thought this was primarily to introduce characters and establish fanboy easter eggs. Those are certainly helpful and nice, but the real thing it let them do was grant the writers ( and actors and directors and. . . ) a testbed for developing stories. Going into Avengers 1, the creative staff didn't have to spend nearly as many man-hours working out how to tell a story for these characters, because a ton of the ground work for "Who is this character and what makes them tick?" was done already as part of prior movies. They could look at that, carry on what worked and fix what didn't, without having to start from scratch. Its basically Hollywood beta-testing on a grand scale, and IMO this matters *far* more than whether any specific audience member has seen any specific prior movie.

Naturally, WB completely missed this, with Batman v Superman not only focusing primarily on newly introduced characters without any of that prior "beta testing" before the giant team-up, but also taking the one character who *was* previously established, and where they had a ton of beta feedback about what worked and what didn't, and. . . basically not actually fixing *anything*. No, "Having a narrator stand-in declare how many people died in the prior movie, or how many people are in this neighborhood of the city" is not a fix to problems in character concept and portrayal.

 

[metaphysician]

The GA were so up for the shared universe concept at that time and I think another massive superhero team with some characters they knew very well along with some new ones introduced ahead of time would have led to a big success. Aquaman itself went on to do a billion so that would have been a boost by itself.

That's actually the irony. While it probably wouldn't have hit Avengers-level heights, WB almost *could* have just done a Justice League movie, given the generally higher profile and popularity of the characters. I mean, they effectively used a ton of narrative shortcuts in the movies they actually made *anyway*, they really should have just leaned in, trusted that the audience would either recognize or be able to quickly understand most of these characters, and aim for the big time adventure antics. People at a bare minimum have an iconic idea of Superman and Batman, so use those fixed points to characterize the rest.

Of course, the key thing for making this work is "Not having it all revolve around Zach Snyder and his creative orbit". They would need to both actively lean into the iconic portrayal, rather than reject it, and also, it helps if the characters and story are actually appealing and fun.

 

[metaphysician]

In a different universe, BvS was loved by everyone

View attachment 55355

In a different universe, BvS was actually a good movie.

 

[BobJM]

An interesting write-up on the ever-staying tumult at DCEU:

The DC Cinematic Universe Can’t Outrun Its Casting Curse

“The MCU has persevered on the strength of its brand’s pure power, while DC is stuck in the mud, with WB wondering if it needs to recast The Flash in The Flash.”

 

[metaphysician]

An interesting write-up on the ever-staying tumult at DCEU:

The DC Cinematic Universe Can’t Outrun Its Casting Curse

“The MCU has persevered on the strength of its brand’s pure power, while DC is stuck in the mud, with WB wondering if it needs to recast The Flash in The Flash.”

I don't agree with everything here, but they definitely hit most of the high points. I think one important difference is that Marvel consistently has had a creative plan behind each movie, even if its just "Hey, here is a good idea for a story to tell about this character". None of the movies had to live or die purely on hype and marketing, and this gave them a solid foundation to keep things steady even when stuff goes wrong. Whereas most of the DCEU movies existed as marketing exercises first, and creative exercises later if at all, meaning that when something went wrong, it went really wrong.

( It probably doesn't hurt that Marvel has accumulated enough success that they have an earned *confidence*. They can treat a setback as just a setback and a learning opportunity, rather than a catastrophe, because they know that what they do generally works and will work in the future. WB, meanwhile, is plagued with organizational doubt and uncertainty. )

 

[Erzengel]

Marvel Studios was an autonomous studio prior to Disney purchasing it. DC Films was "created" in the wake of BvS and even that is essentially producers by committee running it. I know Zaslav wants a Feige and even if they do and make DC Films autonomous, regardless of restarting/retconning, you are essentially trying to dig out of a 9 year hole.

You separated your prize character into his own universe. Gadot's WW is on her last solo movie. And Superman is up in the air figuratively and literally. You have to probably recast the Flash. So all you have is Momoa.

Not only that is people don't realize how Marvel is having these characters show up on almost a yearly basis making them invested with the general audience. You have a movie about Dr Strange and Wanda that may reach $900M. That will put it at #14th all time in the genre. Imagine if they just did a similar Dr Fate and Zantana movie? I don't' think it'd do as well.

 

[Boy Scout]

I’m kind of at the point where I think I’d prefer Justice League exist as a separate franchise from the solo films. They can use the same actors for marketing purposes (assuming they’re all popular) but I think we’re too far gone to expect WB to get their **** together and make a universe as cohesive as Marvel’s. And if you ask me, that’s not a bad thing.

 

[Frodo]

I think trying to make a cohesive Universe ala Marvel at this point is a big mistake, and if that's what Zaslav wants, I think he's gonna be in for a rude awakening.

To get that type of cinematic universe, you have to start from scratch with a new , rebooted , cinematic universe in which all the actors are recast for a new continuity.

That takes time, and alot of money, and all the while, Marvel will be miles ahead of you ,down the road, moving on the Secret Wars, and other things.

I think they just need to move forward in making good films , without getting hung up on trying to establish the shared universe model.

 

[Filmfreak]

Also that's a good model that is successful in the right hands, but not the only model that works and should exist for superheroes. Having a shared universe is cool for crossovers, but it also puts the brakes on creativity and diversity and makes the experience less unique.

 

[metaphysician]

I think trying to make a cohesive Universe ala Marvel at this point is a big mistake, and if that's what Zaslav wants, I think he's gonna be in for a rude awakening.

To get that type of cinematic universe, you have to start from scratch with a new , rebooted , cinematic universe in which all the actors are recast for a new continuity.

That takes time, and alot of money, and all the while, Marvel will be miles ahead of you ,down the road, moving on the Secret Wars, and other things.

I think they just need to move forward in making good films , without getting hung up on trying to establish the shared universe model.

I actually disagree, and think that this thinking is part of what is hamstringing WB's efforts to get there. The problem is not primarily Watsonian, and it can't be fixed on Watsonian terms. The problem is on the creative side. Simply put, they need better writing and directing, following a coherent creative direction for the franchise that exists above and beyond the individual movies and their creative teams. Or put even more simply, their problem is quality control, they need someone at the executive level who has a good sense for "No, this is a terrible idea, don't do it", as well as the authority for the veto to actually stick.

If they had this, they wouldn't need to reboot anything, they could just go onward and make *good* movies. Without this. . . well, you get stuff like the theoretically-upcoming Flash movie, where they spend nine figures of cash making a movie to retcon stuff in their setting, as if in-story retcons will somehow keep future writers and directors from making bad story decisions.

 

[Frodo]

I actually disagree, and think that this thinking is part of what is hamstringing WB's efforts to get there. The problem is not primarily Watsonian, and it can't be fixed on Watsonian terms. The problem is on the creative side. Simply put, they need better writing and directing, following a coherent creative direction for the franchise that exists above and beyond the individual movies and their creative teams. Or put even more simply, their problem is quality control, they need someone at the executive level who has a good sense for "No, this is a terrible idea, don't do it", as well as the authority for the veto to actually stick.

If they had this, they wouldn't need to reboot anything, they could just go onward and make *good* movies. Without this. . . well, you get stuff like the theoretically-upcoming Flash movie, where they spend nine figures of cash making a movie to retcon stuff in their setting, as if in-story retcons will somehow keep future writers and directors from making bad story decisions.

Well, then you and I don't disagree in that respect.
But my quote wasn't talking about quality.

My Quote was referring to the idea of ditching what they're doing now, in favor of having an interconnected Universe with one continuity and everything being connected in that one continuity.

That would entail basically rebooting everything, quality regardless, since the films as a whole, as they stand now, aren't unified in terms of continuity the way that Marvel is.

There's Reeves Batman, Phillps Joker, ZS JLA which is different from JW JLA, There's Batgirl which is gonna be it's own thing with Keaton as Batman etc.

That means you would possibly ditch Reeves Batman because it's not "in continuity", ditch any Joker sequels for the same reason, etc.

If that's what Zaslov wants to do , that's a mistake at this point, no matter how you slice it.

Between The Batman, Joker, Wonder Woman ,etc, the universe isn't cohesive and unified , and trying to make it unified for the sake of everything connecting is a mistake.

That time is past.

You're point about quality is what i've been saying a few years now. Make good films.

So I don't disagree with you there.

I agree with you that they need good quality films.
But they don't need to be all connected to get good quality films , and the goal shouldn't be for the films to be all connected.

My point is to keep the good films regardless of whether or not they're all connected and just focus on making good films as opposed to trying to emulate Marvel's shared universe model.

If they want to emulate Marvel's reputation of making good films, i'm all for that, and if that's what Zaslov wants to do, i'm fine with that.

If Zaslov wants to chase the dream " of connecting everything at all costs" , that's a mistake.