DC Film Slate Announced By WB

[Flint Marko]

t: I'm not, I'm just tired of people making out Marvel Studios are the self appointed 'savouirs' of the CBM universe. Feige makes out he cares and people fawn over him, it's f**king sickening...

I wouldn't call them the "saviors", but it's clear they changed the landscape of the CBM world for good.
Fiege is an outspoken fan of the material so I don't have any problems putting my trust in him to handle the characters well. He hasn't done or said anything to make me think otherwise, and every interview I've read or heard he comes across as a pretty passionate guy. I don't know him and I'll never meet him so I can't really make a judgement call on that though lol. Love him or hate him, his methods get the results that Disney wants so you've got to give him that.

Any studio sadly has to be in order to make more films, creativity in the end in a studio will always depressingly be thrown out of the window, hence why the faith shown in Nolan and Snyder to make the comic book they want refreshing as apposed to the Kevin Feige 'make it this way' approach or Avid Arad's Sony approach.

It's tough to really gauge all that much from WB as very few details have really been released about any of their upcoming projects, so it's tough to make a firm judgement call on how the DCCU will end up or how they are making it but from what little we do know I'd say WB is definitely handing down studio mandates. I'm not sure why you assume that Snyder and Nolan just have free reign to do whatever they want.
As it's been mentioned, this is a multi-million dollar movie set to kick off a huge multli-media franchise. Nolan probably had more free reign since his films were their own separate franchise. But WB has a lot of money tied into this, and they are going to want it to be successful and they are going to have certain things they are going to want accomplished in the movie. The inclusion of so many extraneous characters (Wonder Woman, Cyborg, Aquaman, who knows who else) strike me as a studio mandate. I can't say that for sure, but I doubt the film makers were chomping at the bit to include all those characters into a Batman and Superman movie.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Man of Steel originally intended to be a stand alone movie? That goes to show that they've meddled in the past and no doubt will again.
That's not a criticism necessarily, you have to have that to successfully world build, but to much of it and you wind up with an SM3 or ASM2 situation.

 

[Mandon Knight]

To clarify, I believe (don't know for sure obviolusly) Snyder was allowed to make 'his' Watchmen pretty much and take the risks he wanted too and for WB to put Batman in the hands of a 'arthouse' director (at the time) was brave, that's all I am saying.

I just think for all the plaudits given to Marvel, they make solid 'audience pleasers' but nothing with any edge to it at all.

For me, CA : WS was the first Marvel film to have anywhere near the required level of 'depth' required ffrom their stable as such.

 

[Flint Marko]

To clarify, I believe (don't know for sure obviolusly) Snyder was allowed to make 'his' Watchmen pretty much and take the risks he wanted too and for WB to put Batman in the hands of a 'arthouse' director (at the time) was brave, that's all I am saying.

I just think for all the plaudits given to Marvel, they make solid 'audience pleasers' but nothing with any edge to it at all.

For me, CA : WS was the first Marvel film to have anywhere near the required level of 'depth' required ffrom their stable as such.

Fair enough, I hear ya

 

[Mandon Knight]

Fair enough, I hear ya

Back atcha

 

[DeadPresident]

To clarify, I believe (don't know for sure obviolusly) Snyder was allowed to make 'his' Watchmen pretty much and take the risks he wanted too and for WB to put Batman in the hands of a 'arthouse' director (at the time) was brave, that's all I am saying.

I just think for all the plaudits given to Marvel, they make solid 'audience pleasers' but nothing with any edge to it at all.

For me, CA : WS was the first Marvel film to have anywhere near the required level of 'depth' required ffrom their stable as such.

Word They make safe movies.

 

[Iceman]

I see many studios as playing their part in saving CBMs. Blade, X-Men & X2, Spider-man 1&2 and then TDK trilogy all made big contributions to the momentum that allowed Marvel to have the confidence to do what they are doing and now really go in for the kill. And the success of Avengers in turn helped WB/DC have the confidence to greenlight JL.

 

[Flint Marko]

Word They make safe movies.

Would you describe Man of Steel as "risky"? Just a question out of genuine curiosity.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Would you describe Man of Steel as "risky"? Just a question out of genuine curiosity.

I know you are not directly asking me as such, but I'd say yes... very much so.

 

[Flint Marko]

I know you are not directly asking me as such, but I'd say yes... very much so.

In what ways?

 

[Mandon Knight]

In what ways?

Having the 'what nots' to start again, to not just play safe with coming off the back of what went before and present a modern re-telling that works as a modern 21st C Superman, to make him not 'cookie dough lovely' and show him as a three pronged character for what he is and not just play safe with Kent / Superman.

To make Lois a believable character in her own right.

To find an actor, personally, I think, born to play the parts.

To have faith in it's own story and approach and for that decision which was necessary and allows the character's 'human' element, his flaws to show and allow us as an audience 'in on them'. The arguement he shows no remorse is rubbish.

I love MOS, I really do, as much as I love the 78' and '80 films, I equally love MOS for being a more mature approach.

 

[DeadPresident]

Would you describe Man of Steel as "risky"? Just a question out of genuine curiosity.

Hmmm, good question actually I'd say it was risky in a couple of senses, the first being that Marvel very much set the tone for how the GA was primed for CBMs. As a disclaimer I love MoS, but I think that's because I prefer a story to be told in a way that feels like they're trying to make it seem like the audience would process events in the same way that the characters on screen do.

If you look at IM1 I think that had the perfect balance in terms of tone for your "general" CBM (Typical hero, not really dark/gritty like Batman or Watchmen are intended to be). IM1 had a good range of humor with Stark's interactions, conflict, human moments (Yensin, Tony's speech after his rescue) and I think the GA now looks for CBM stories to mirror that formula, which has steadily been getting more lighthearted and fun. So as a long answer I think MoS was "risky" in the sense that the studio probably knew they were deviating from the expected formula for CBMs, and also the take on Superman was noticeably more serious than how the character is written in most source material and any previous movies. That said I don't think they were being completely out of the box with MoS, they attempted a slight adjustment on the CBM formula and it was hit and miss. It would have been easier to just modernize Superman 78 because I think it would've been more successful commercially.

I think something like GotG is completely safe, because it was designed as a fun and accessible ride for everyone to relate to. I think it shows that the GA is receptive to unfamiliar characters but they need them in a package that's known, if that makes sense. Sorry man, long ass diatribe. Short answer: MoS deviated from the formula, but it wasn't massively risky from a creative perspective. If the writing in the movie was better people would've taken to it much better.

 

[DeadPresident]

And I'd agree with Knight, TWS felt like the first Marvel project I'd seen since IM1 that felt like it was more than just a popcorn flick designed to draw in 4 year olds to 84 year olds, and that had any depth to speak of. I found Avengers very fun, but it has absolutely zero maturity or "thought" from my view. It feels like it was movie-creation-by-numbers just ticking boxes, whereas TWS had decent character development and heavier themes to discuss. I thought the Cap/Falcon arc was extremely well done, Marvel needs more of that relatable material instead of gun-toting raccoons and Hulk punching Thor "moneyshots" to get audiences happy.

 

[Zordan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgSflkjVR1Y

only green lantern left - I can see it

 

[Mandon Knight]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgSflkjVR1Y

only green lantern left - I can see it

new joker anyone ? Affleck v Mr Grin himself...

 

[Flint Marko]

Having the 'what nots' to start again, to not just play safe with coming off the back of what went before and present a modern re-telling that works as a modern 21st C Superman, to make him not 'cookie dough lovely' and show him as a three pronged character for what he is and not just play safe with Kent / Superman.

To make Lois a believable character in her own right.

To find an actor, personally, I think, born to play the parts.

To have faith in it's own story and approach and for that decision which was necessary and allows the character's 'human' element, his flaws to show and allow us as an audience 'in on them'. The arguement he shows no remorse is rubbish.

I love MOS, I really do, as much as I love the 78' and '80 films, I equally love MOS for being a more mature approach.

Hmmm, good question actually I'd say it was risky in a couple of senses, the first being that Marvel very much set the tone for how the GA was primed for CBMs. As a disclaimer I love MoS, but I think that's because I prefer a story to be told in a way that feels like they're trying to make it seem like the audience would process events in the same way that the characters on screen do.

If you look at IM1 I think that had the perfect balance in terms of tone for your "general" CBM (Typical hero, not really dark/gritty like Batman or Watchmen are intended to be). IM1 had a good range of humor with Stark's interactions, conflict, human moments (Yensin, Tony's speech after his rescue) and I think the GA now looks for CBM stories to mirror that formula, which has steadily been getting more lighthearted and fun. So as a long answer I think MoS was "risky" in the sense that the studio probably knew they were deviating from the expected formula for CBMs, and also the take on Superman was noticeably more serious than how the character is written in most source material and any previous movies. That said I don't think they were being completely out of the box with MoS, they attempted a slight adjustment on the CBM formula and it was hit and miss. It would have been easier to just modernize Superman 78 because I think it would've been more successful commercially.

I think something like GotG is completely safe, because it was designed as a fun and accessible ride for everyone to relate to. I think it shows that the GA is receptive to unfamiliar characters but they need them in a package that's known, if that makes sense. Sorry man, long ass diatribe. Short answer: MoS deviated from the formula, but it wasn't massively risky from a creative perspective. If the writing in the movie was better people would've taken to it much better.

Thanks for the well thought out responses
You mention that the movie was risky in that it deviated from Marvel's tone, but I think it was simply trying to copy the tone of another successful franchise: Nolan's batfilms.
Maybe it could be called risky to portray the big blue boy scout in such a light, but I think that since they already had a billion dollar franchise under it's belt with a similar character, they put Superman in that mold expecting it to click with audiences in the same way Bale's movies had.

 

[DeadPresident]

Thanks for the well thought out responses
You mention that the movie was risky in that it deviated from Marvel's tone, but I think it was simply trying to copy the tone of another successful franchise: Nolan's batfilms.
Maybe it could be called risky to portray the big blue boy scout in such a light, but I think that since they already had a billion dollar franchise under it's belt with a similar character, they put Superman in that mold expecting it to click with audiences in the same way Bale's movies had.

Yeah, that's definitely a good point. TDKT had obviously indicated that the GA didn't mind that tone - but I think WB misjudged it because that tone was completely congruent with Batman, while it isn't with Superman. I like what MoS did with Clark's childhood, Krypton and the general interactions between characters. That said, considering Superman's character; being the optimistic "white knight" of the DCU, a little more levity could have gone a long way in making the character seem more true to his source material counterpart.

In terms of writing and technical execution MoS leaves a lot to be desired, it was below average in some regards. But I think the tone they aimed for was almost pinpoint, but it needed to have a bit more lightness to be true to the spirit of Superman's character. Personally I don't mind though, the boyscout angle isn't interesting to me.

 

[Iceman]

And I'd agree with Knight, TWS felt like the first Marvel project I'd seen since IM1 that felt like it was more than just a popcorn flick designed to draw in 4 year olds to 84 year olds, and that had any depth to speak of. I found Avengers very fun, but it has absolutely zero maturity or "thought" from my view. It feels like it was movie-creation-by-numbers just ticking boxes, whereas TWS had decent character development and heavier themes to discuss. I thought the Cap/Falcon arc was extremely well done, Marvel needs more of that relatable material instead of gun-toting raccoons and Hulk punching Thor "moneyshots" to get audiences happy.

Needs both IMO. And at least the Hulk/raccoon stuff has shown it can make money even when it doesn't have depth. A great baseline to use to make better films with the safety net of not having to bet the house and kitchen sink every time they take a risk.

 

[Loki882]

I would say that MOS was "risky" in the way that it portrayed Superman himself. Snyder had to know that that was going to be controversial, as was the massive destruction in the movie. But besides that, it wasn't particularly "risky." And I say that as someone who REALLY like the movie. Heck even the nonlinear storytelling wasn't really risky since the Nolan Batman films had already showed that that could work.

 

[Flint Marko]

Yeah, that's definitely a good point. TDKT had obviously indicated that the GA didn't mind that tone - but I think WB misjudged it because that tone was completely congruent with Batman, while it isn't with Superman. I like what MoS did with Clark's childhood, Krypton and the general interactions between characters. That said, considering Superman's character; being the optimistic "white knight" of the DCU, a little more levity could have gone a long way in making the character seem more true to his source material counterpart.

In terms of writing and technical execution MoS leaves a lot to be desired, it was below average in some regards. But I think the tone they aimed for was almost pinpoint, but it needed to have a bit more lightness to be true to the spirit of Superman's character. Personally I don't mind though, the boyscout angle isn't interesting to me.

I agree 100%.
There was a great point made by someone, I think Mark Waid, that making the entire DCCU dour and dreary doesn't really work unless you make Superman the one bright spot.
I also enjoyed the Krypton sequences and Clark's childhood, although I wasn't crazy about the disjointed storytelling.
I'm hoping that they'll give the rest of the movies a tone that is more appropriate for the character at hand, and I think they will. I don't think they would ever make a Flash movie with a somber, humorless tone.

 

[DeadPresident]

Needs both IMO. And at least the Hulk/raccoon stuff has shown it can make money even when it doesn't have depth. A great baseline to use to make better films with the safety net of not having to bet the house and kitchen sink every time they take a risk.

Yeah, fair point.

My view is just that every single movie coming out is basically a GA-aimed popcorn movie now. Bayformers, Baynager Turtles, Pacific Rim, All of Marvel's movies (Besides IM1/TWS), F&F franchise. Over the last few years we've been saturated with superficial glitz and empty fun. I just think it's highly necessary that there's a balance between movies with such broad execution that they're relevant to toddlers and pensioners alike and something with a bit more soul and thought to it.

From Marvel's perspective I liked that their characters (in source material) are flawed and relatable. That's almost completely been erased in the MCU, and for me it's gotten boring. Besides having different characters, what did CA:TFA, Thor, Thor 2, IM2, IM3 actually have to say? It feels like a rinse and repeat formula, if I've seen one I've seen them all. Same with Transformers and F&F, they're just getting people back into cinemas with even more outlandish visuals.

 

[Mandon Knight]

I think the non linear story frame would have worked in MOS if they'd edited the scenes better together, the shift in story was too abrasive in the cutting used, the concept worked, just not the delivery. IMO.

 

[DeadPresident]

I agree 100%.
There was a great point made by someone, I think Mark Waid, that making the entire DCCU dour and dreary doesn't really work unless you make Superman the one bright spot.
I also enjoyed the Krypton sequences and Clark's childhood, although I wasn't crazy about the disjointed storytelling.
I'm hoping that they'll give the rest of the movies a tone that is more appropriate for the character at hand, and I think they will. I don't think they would ever make a Flash movie with a somber, humorless tone.

Yeah, the story-telling wasn't neat enough, the writing obviously needed to be tighter in that regard. And I'd agree that turning every JL member into Batman won't help, but I doubt they'll do that. I don't mind a "dark universe" for the JL to be in, a pessimistic or cynical world view is fine by me, but they need to execute the characters accurately and give them their personalities. In the JL basically only Batman is the cynical one. Hal, Supes, Barry and WW are all pretty upbeat in general.

I think the non linear story frame would have worked in MOS if they'd edited the scenes better together, the shift in story was too abrasive in the cutting used, the concept worked, just not the delivery. IMO.

Yeah, the execution was just off. I rewatch movies regularly and MoS always turns me off after Supes' first flight, it just feels rushed after that. The Clark scenes from childhood to adulthood are the ones I can watch over and over, they should have incorporated his character into the second half better. It felt like it was 50% character scenes, followed by 50% plot scenes with no transition or interweaving.

 

[Iceman]

Yeah, fair point.

My view is just that every single movie coming out is basically a GA-aimed popcorn movie now. Bayformers, Baynager Turtles, Pacific Rim, All of Marvel's movies (Besides IM1/TWS), F&F franchise. Over the last few years we've been saturated with superficial glitz and empty fun. I just think it's highly necessary that there's a balance between movies with such broad execution that they're relevant to toddlers and pensioners alike and something with a bit more soul and thought to it.

From Marvel's perspective I liked that their characters (in source material) are flawed and relatable. That's almost completely been erased in the MCU, and for me it's gotten boring. Besides having different characters, what did CA:TFA, Thor, Thor 2, IM2, IM3 actually have to say? It feels like a rinse and repeat formula, if I've seen one I've seen them all. Same with Transformers and F&F, they're just getting people back into cinemas with even more outlandish visuals.

I can enjoy most of those you mentioned but I think the MCU is a little bit above that. But I can see how the worst of the MCU could be compared to it. I think AoU will start a move in the other direction that will continue into Civil War. And I doubt the likes of Black Panther, Inhumans or Dr Strange will be overly formulaic or typical cinema. Maybe the MCU turns a corner from Phase 3, although I don't think they'll stop with the general entertainment (and I wouldn't want them too).

 

[jmc]

I don't think MoS was risky at all, in fact I'll go so far to say it was pretty standard stuff. It just didn't do it's job very well of conveying its story.

 

[Predator jp]

i loved the tone of MoS more than the movie itself.