I feel like DC still doesn't know what they're doing

[extra skater]

I definitely think that's a part of it. There's no way you should do both the death of Superman and the Dark Knight Returns in your cinematic universe's second movie.

Yes, that's another point to me. Here we have three (or at least two) major plots that deserve an own film each: death of Superman, the return of Batman to his vigilante job and, maybe, a brawl between them both. So they go and, bam, mashed the three in a single film.

 

[writer0327]

Here's a question going off this: could Superman Returns and Batman Begins had a crossover? Both of those movies were standalone auteur movies with their own unique tone and voice, but I think a crossover could have worked in the right hands.

Oh yeah, absolutely, although with that, I would have preferred something that felt along the line of a cameo, like Stark in SM:H. I feel like many here that there was no need to do Justice League-lite with BvS that early in the DCEU. A better approach would've been a Batman film where Superman makes an appearance or vice versa. Superman Returns had room to bring in Nolan's Batman and vice versa.

And the key is "in the right hands", as we are seeing with the DCEU. All of this works in the right hands, but the problem is we don't have the capable hands.

 

[extra skater]

Here's a question going off this: could Superman Returns and Batman Begins had a crossover?

The first thing I thought when I saw this Jonathan Kent kid in DC Rebirth was "HA! Bryan Singer was right!" t:

 

[jmc]

Here's a question going off this: could Superman Returns and Batman Begins had a crossover? Both of those movies were standalone auteur movies with their own unique tone and voice, but I think a crossover could have worked in the right hands.

The think the biggest obstacle with merging those two was the intentions of both directors. One one aiming for a interpretation that was modern and grounded, where the concept of a superhero didn't even exist, and one was set as a continuation of a series that began 30 years prior. Biggest problem IMO - Return showed that audiences had moved on from Donner's version of the character. I think had the Returns not been set in the Donner verse then the answer is maybe. After TDK however the answer is a firm no.

 

[extra skater]

The think the biggest obstacle with merging those two was the intentions of both directors.

I got that.

The auteur film classification probably answers by itself: two different filmmakers leading their own film the way they wanted with new additions to the Universe of both characters. They probably wouldn't be interested in making a film that would leave loose ends for a sequel/crossover. That would only work if: both films were by the same filmmakers and/or if they were told by the beginning of negotiations that their films would be part of a cinematic universe. I believe Singer would have worked under this agreement, but I doubt Nolan would.

 

[jmc]

I'm willing to put money on it Nolan would never have done Begins if there was a stipulation saying it had to work in tandem with Returns for a future team up.

 

[Skrilla31]

The think the biggest obstacle with merging those two was the intentions of both directors. One one aiming for a interpretation that was modern and grounded, where the concept of a superhero didn't even exist, and one was set as a continuation of a series that began 30 years prior. Biggest problem IMO - Return showed that audiences had moved on from Donner's version of the character. I think had the Returns not been set in the Donner verse then the answer is maybe. After TDK however the answer is a firm no.

The only thing Returns had in common with Donner's version was the musical score.

If anything the reception to Returns, MOS and BVS show that people are actually longing for something inspired by the Donner version.

 

[BestGirl]

I don't think people are longing for a return to the Donnerverse so much as a more positive Superman who has actual fun, thrilling adventures.

 

[The Guard]

The only thing Returns had in common with Donner's version was the musical score.

That's just patently false.

 

[Skrilla31]

That's just patently false.

STM was fun, lively, joyous. It had spirit. The dialogue was snappy. Reeve had a commanding presence and had plenty to do. He had real energy with Kidder.

Returns was the opposite of all these things.

 

[The Guard]

STM was fun, lively, joyous. It had spirit. The dialogue was snappy. Reeve had a commanding presence and had plenty to do. He had real energy with Kidder.

Returns was the opposite of all these things.

You said, and I quote:

"The only thing Returns had in common with Donner's version was the musical score."

If what you meant was that they were tonally different, had different energy, etc, you probably should have said that.

That is not what you said, though.

 

[jmc]

Returns is very much a semi-sequel to Superman II.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Returns is very much a semi-sequel to Superman II.

They even put it in the same DVD box set with the Reeve films.

 

[extra skater]

What annoys me the most about it is to see that fans seem to have better ideas about how to build the cinematic universe than the guys that get paid to do it t:

 

[writer0327]

It only makes sense to set up a cinematic universe as Marvel did it, film by film, in phases. It seems like DC wanted to skip a few steps first by launching it with one film instead of over the course of 3-5 films. Maybe this was in an effort to hurry up and catch up with Marvel, or maybe this was truly an artistic choice, but utilizing the Trinity in order to establish the universe, while not the worst idea in the world, certainly was one that required extremely careful handling.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

It only makes sense to set up a cinematic universe as Marvel did it, film by film, in phases. It seems like DC wanted to skip a few steps first by launching it with one film instead of over the course of 3-5 films. Maybe this was in an effort to hurry up and catch up with Marvel, or maybe this was truly an artistic choice, but utilizing the Trinity in order to establish the universe, while not the worst idea in the world, certainly was one that required extremely careful handling.

DC shot themselves in the foot trying to play catch-up. I've always said that Marvel really nailed it the way they approached it. The solo movies with the sprinkles and teases of the connection to the other films was and is the best way to start a shared universe. DC just needed to bite the bullet and follow Marvel's formula. They might have looked like they were copying Marvel's formula, but who gives a ****? If something works, it works. There may be some other way to get a shared universe going, but idk how. I don't get paid millions of dollars like these guys do, and sadly, the fans are who are getting punished. Now DC is having to backtrack and stumble all over their own fit trying for a course correction. This has all been said a million times by now though. DC needs to think about going forward and churning out the absolute best movies they can. You put a solid product out there, fans can and will forgive ALOT.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

They even put it in the same DVD box set with the Reeve films.

Not to mention events from Superman 2 are directly referenced. I thought this was more than obvious.

 

[Grillz]

DC shot themselves in the foot trying to play catch-up. I've always said that Marvel really nailed it the way they approached it. The solo movies with the sprinkles and teases of the connection to the other films was and is the best way to start a shared universe. DC just needed to bite the bullet and follow Marvel's formula. They might have looked like they were copying Marvel's formula, but who gives a ****? If something works, it works. There may be some other way to get a shared universe going, but idk how. I don't get paid millions of dollars like these guys do, and sadly, the fans are who are getting punished. Now DC is having to backtrack and stumble all over their own fit trying for a course correction. This has all been said a million times by now though. DC needs to think about going forward and churning out the absolute best movies they can. You put a solid product out there, fans can and will forgive ALOT.

Ehhh Idk, when it did appear they were "copying Marvel" in Suicide Squad, the new-found geek general audience went apes*** with how DC needed to "get their own identity". Also, I think it's becoming romanticized of how Phase 1 Marvel dealt with Easter Eggs (Not sequel hooks) post Iron Man; other than RDJ popping up in Hulk, and Coulson appearing in only Iron Man 2 and Thor before Avengers, Fury appearing in Iron Man 2 and Cap, it was just little nods at a bigger universe...like Diana appearing in BvS (albeit more Black Widow like but still) or having Carol Ferris appear in MOS and BvS as a fly on the wall.

And of course, you can't forget that Marvel had 5 films before Avengers while DC has 4 before Justice League, but how else would you make a JL film? If you introduce every single member singular, it could get messy.

IMO when you do follow the MARVEL formula to a T, you get Iron Man 2, Thor 2, Age of Ultron, the weaker elements of Dr Strange and the lackluster stakes of Civil War. It's a shame when that formula means "just set up future team up movies and worry about villains and plot dynamics later". Marvel has an amazing catalogue of villains alone, but other than Loki and Thanos, who else is a serious threat that could change the status quo for Marvel? I think that's my issue, it feels a TV show in that regard, villain of the week shows up, makes thing crazy, everything's fine at the end. Tony's PTSD and the things that happen post Civil War will change that, but seriously: Red Skull should've appeared again. Abomination should've been used as Hulkbuster 2.0. That's just 2 examples.

DC has a chance to do something very different, that hopefully doesn't copy any other formula. WW felt different because it wasn't meant to be a sequel to BvS, Suicide Squad felt different because of new characters, MOS was different because it wasn't Donner or Timm's version. The world building feels a bit more natural and not so matter of fact when everyone is not 2 feet away from each other...even though Aquaman should've totally saved Lois in BvS...but Lois shouldn't have put the spear in the water in the first place...ugh.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Ehhh Idk, when it did appear they were "copying Marvel" in Suicide Squad, the new-found geek general audience went apes*** with how DC needed to "get their own identity". Also, I think it's becoming romanticized of how Phase 1 Marvel dealt with Easter Eggs (Not sequel hooks) post Iron Man; other than RDJ popping up in Hulk, and Coulson appearing in only Iron Man 2 and Thor before Avengers, Fury appearing in Iron Man 2 and Cap, it was just little nods at a bigger universe...like Diana appearing in BvS (albeit more Black Widow like but still) or having Carol Ferris appear in MOS and BvS as a fly on the wall.

And of course, you can't forget that Marvel had 5 films before Avengers while DC has 4 before Justice League, but how else would you make a JL film? If you introduce every single member singular, it could get messy.

IMO when you do follow the MARVEL formula to a T, you get Iron Man 2, Thor 2, Age of Ultron, the weaker elements of Dr Strange and the lackluster stakes of Civil War. It's a shame when that formula means "just set up future team up movies and worry about villains and plot dynamics later". Marvel has an amazing catalogue of villains alone, but other than Loki and Thanos, who else is a serious threat that could change the status quo for Marvel? I think that's my issue, it feels a TV show in that regard, villain of the week shows up, makes thing crazy, everything's fine at the end. Tony's PTSD and the things that happen post Civil War will change that, but seriously: Red Skull should've appeared again. Abomination should've been used as Hulkbuster 2.0. That's just 2 examples.

DC has a chance to do something very different, that hopefully doesn't copy any other formula. WW felt different because it wasn't meant to be a sequel to BvS, Suicide Squad felt different because of new characters, MOS was different because it wasn't Donner or Timm's version. The world building feels a bit more natural and not so matter of fact when everyone is not 2 feet away from each other...even though Aquaman should've totally saved Lois in BvS...but Lois shouldn't have put the spear in the water in the first place...ugh.

You certainly make some valid points. How was Suicide Squad copying Marvel though? That statement thoroughly confuses me. Marvel had 5 standalone films, and yes, they were standalone character films, but I think that's the way to go. They have a solo film to set up each character, and then they get brought together. I just feel that that works best, but that's just me. Now I'll agree that Marvel definitely has a villain problem. None of them have been all that memorable except the ones you stated, but they need to stop killing them off. Hopefully Hela will make an impression. I feel like the low points you pointed out could also have been director fatigue, but who knows. Now, I VERY much enjoyed MoS. I don't mind mopey Supes because I think it's all leading up to the Supes we know and love. I hated Suicide Squad. Idk how anyone thought that was a good idea, and BvS was a huge misstep. I just don't think they lined up JL to succeed. I really hope I'm wrong, but you def make some good points.

 

[2kt09]

You certainly make some valid points. How was Suicide Squad copying Marvel though? That statement thoroughly confuses me.

Guardians of the Galaxy

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Guardians of the Galaxy

Hmm...I don't get that comparison at all...

 

[Grillz]

Hmm...I don't get that comparison at all...

It's more of a shallow comparison, but characters that general audiences aren't familiar with (except Harley) put together as a rag-tag group of "heroes" who take on a bigger threat while they are watched over by a policing force. Shallow, yes, but it is what it is.

 

[2kt09]

It's more of a shallow comparison, but characters that general audiences aren't familiar with (except Harley) put together as a rag-tag group of "heroes" who take on a bigger threat while they are watched over by a policing force. Shallow, yes, but it is what it is.

I assumed that's what you were talking about when you posted this:

Ehhh Idk, when it did appear they were "copying Marvel" in Suicide Squad, the new-found geek general audience went apes*** with how DC needed to "get their own identity"

It's shallow as it's hard not to notice the emphasis on being more of that particular kind of comedy and having songs on the soundtrack.

Also, on some of the stellar points you've made between the 2 cinematic universes.

 

[terry78]

What exactly are they trying to do now?

 

[Grillz]

What exactly are they trying to do now?

Who knows, between the multiverse stuff, and the main DCEU narrative it feels like the new direction is in the same mindset as the animated films. Ever since Flashpoint (or was Batman vs Robin), everything was connected with voice actors and animation.