Justice League Justice League: News and Speculation - Part 10

[The Shape]

Gotham looks like a natural NYC

Metropolis does look unnatural compared to those above.

You're also comparing those shots of Gotham and NYC to a shot taken from Zod's spaceship in the sky. Of course one is going to look more unnatural than the other.

Here are a few things to think about:

Not everyone has lived in or visited Chicago. For a wide majority of people who watched TDK, I'm sure there was no issue. To most, Nolan's Gotham looked like its own city because not everyone is familiar with the locations he used. Also, hardly anyone besides us (borderline obsessive fans) followed the filming of TDK and TDKR on a daily basis. Sure, we knew pretty much every real location they used because, in most cases, we watched them film (thru pics and set videos). But that wasn't the case for everyone. So while many folks might have been "taken out of the movie" when they recognized things in Chicago and Pittsburgh...there are way more people in the world who did NOT have that problem (if you can even really call it a "problem".

However, it's not like we saw the same locations over and over throughout three films. We had soundstages and CGI Narrows in Batman Begins, Chicago in TDK, Pittsburgh and NYC in TDKR. So we saw a lot of 'Gotham' in Nolan's film, but it seems Nolan was shooting for more of a real-looking city starting with TDK compared to what we got in BB. No problem with that IMO since that's how he treated his whole series.

Also, from the very little we've seen of 'Metropolis' in MOS, I don't know how anyone in their right mind could make a judgement call on whether it looks more "real" or "stylized" than Nolan's Gotham. However, you wanna know why it WILL look more stylized and maybe a little more fantasical than the city we saw in TDK trilogy? Because there will be men flying through the air punching each other through buildings, spaceships invading the city, and a massive gravity beam shooting down from the sky.

One last point: The word 'metropolis' by definition means "large city", often referring to the capital city of a country, whereas 'gotham' was a journalistic nickname for NYC. By nature, in this new DCU, I think Metropolis should look huge (which is probably why Snyder added a bunch of buildings with CGI) and slightly more futuristic while Gotham is a little smaller, more gothic, and as someone suggested...dingier.

 

[shauner111]

I don't know. Metropolis pretty much just looks like any big city to me, judging from that picture above. (not that I have a problem with that)

Where exactly are the identifying elements that make it 'stylized'?

I agree, stylized isn't the word id use. It's definitely different from Gotham but it has to be. If they're filming in Chicago they need to change some things around so it doesn't seem like Superman is in Gotham City

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Metropolis looks like New York City to me. QUICK, SOMEONE POST PHOTOS OF THE NEW YORK CITY IN TASM AND AVENGERS AND LET'S COMPARE THEM TO MAN OF STEEL!!!!

 

[Travesty]

Also, from the very little we've seen of 'Metropolis' in MOS, I don't know how anyone in their right mind could make a judgement call on whether it looks more "real" or "stylized" than Nolan's Gotham.

Because it doesn't look like Chicago, it doesn't look like NYC, it doesn't look like Pittsburgh, it looks like its own city, hence, saying its "stylized". It looks like its own thing from everything we've seen. I don't know why that's so "crazy" to say, when its completely apparent from what we're able to see, so far.

 

[shauner111]

Do we know if the scoop of El Mayimbe has for this week is DC related?

1 is probably DC, 2 are marvel.

In that case, we have found the solution to everyone's problems t:. Now all it takes is for WB to find this too.

Plus, he would be a fellow Snyder to Zack and the term "Snyderverse" for the shared universe would fit perfect .

It's still my second option but yep ur right! Snyderverse Batman. Scott Snyder and Zack Snyder, a match made in heaven!

I still don't buy any of those reasons for rebooting it. You're saying they need to build up a universe like Marvel. I think they shouldn't try to copy Marvel's formula, instead say TDKT is their "phase 1". It would place the DCU three years ahead of Marvel's by starting with Batman Begins.

And what's the point with how Metropolis looks? Look at Tokyo and Hong Kong and the new buildings being erected in London and NYC. Why would you assume because Nolan's Gotham looks like New York and Chicago that a Metropolis (within the Nolanverse) should also look like New York and Chicago? It's a different fictional city. It's not like there's flying cars or anything. It's noticeably different from TDK's Gotham, that doesn't make it a fantasy city or not able to be part of the same fictional universe. That picture of Metropolis doesn't look that far out there. Obviously if they were tying it together with Nolan's Batfilms they would put effort into making Metropolis not look like Gotham. And voila!

Here's some other pics of Nolan's Gotham lest we forget:

Spoiler

There's parts that look like New York and other parts that look more comic-like... It's all meshed together.

Great post. It doesn't look like a city that couldn't exist in the real world but its different from Gotham cuz it's shot in the same place, it HAS to look different from Gotham cuz its Metropolis. Those shots from BB make the city look a bit outlandish.

Metropolis does look more like the Gotham we see in BB.

Ya for sure.

Because it doesn't look like Chicago, it doesn't look like NYC, it doesn't look like Pittsburgh, it looks like its own city, hence, saying its "stylized". It looks like its own thing from everything we've seen. I don't know why that's so "crazy" to say, when its completely apparent from what we're able to see, so far.

But we've only seen a few shots, the rest in the actual film may suggest that it's just Chicago looking.

BB had a Gotham that to me look stylized.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Gotham looks similar to NYC. But Metropolis definitely looks similar to Chicago here.

 

[The Shape]

Because it doesn't look like Chicago, it doesn't look like NYC, it doesn't look like Pittsburgh, it looks like its own city, hence, saying its "stylized". It looks like its own thing from everything we've seen. I don't know why that's so "crazy" to say, when its completely apparent from what we're able to see, so far.

Um, I think you're using the wrong word to make your point. 'Stylized' refers to conforming or adopting a particular style to create a particular effect...usually something that's not natural. Sure, you can say that MOS looks like its own city, but it still looks like a fairly generic "real-world" city at this point.

What's so stylized about it? What is everyone seeing that I'm not? People just keep posting the same two screenshots of the new Metropolis. Besides a few added buildings, it just looks like a city, similar to New York but without any noticable landmarks. If you want to think of a city that looks stylized, you can talk about Schumacher's Gotham as a prime example.

Edit: Just want to mention that Schumacher's Gotham is definitely OVER-stylized. Just way too much going on. I do like the stylized, fictional version of NYC that we saw in Watchmen, though.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Gotham looks similar to NYC. But Metropolis definitely looks similar to Chicago here.

It looks like it could be any big city. Downtown Vancouver looks just like this as well.

It's the lighting between the two photos that make it look similar.

 

[The Shape]

Also, I don't know how anyone could make the judgement that Metropolis completely looks like its "own thing" at this point. I mean, we've only seen a few cityscape shots and pretty much no real-life locations at this point. I'm not sure where Snyder shot in Chicago if he did at all, but who knows whether or not we'll see a building or two that we recognize in MOS? Though I highly doubt that Snyder shot on location as much as Nolan. Different strokes for different directors.

 

[Travesty]

But we've only seen a few shots, the rest in the actual film may suggest that it's just Chicago looking.

And I mentioned that in one of my posts on the last page. Sure, it could be, but from everything I've seen, the buildings are completely different, the layout of the city is different, the architecture is a bit different. It doesn't look like a city I've ever been to. And that was my point. I'm not debating on whether or not Nolan's Gotham can work with MOS or not, cause I don't think Nolan is coming back, so I don't care. I'm just saying, for a new Gotham, or other parts of JL, they should keep up with the way MOS has, so far. And that's to say, make it its own thing.

 

[Travesty]

What's so stylized about it? What is everyone seeing that I'm not?

Layout of the city, architecture, buildings, etc etc. Its designed in it's own particular way.

I feel a semantical debate coming.....

 

[Rodrigo90]

When I mean "stylized", I mean in terms of colour. Like this

 

[shauner111]

Also, I don't know how anyone could make the judgement that Metropolis completely looks like its "own thing" at this point. I mean, we've only seen a few cityscape shots and pretty much no real-life locations at this point. I'm not sure where Snyder shot in Chicago if he did at all, but who knows whether or not we'll see a building or two that we recognize in MOS? Though I highly doubt that Snyder shot on location as much as Nolan. Different strokes for different directors.

Yeah exactly.

 

[The Shape]

Layout of the city, architecture, buildings, etc etc. Its designed in it's own particular way.

I feel a semantical debate coming.....

Nah, I'm not going to debate you. I just don't understand how you can tell any of that from what we've seen, but if you don't want to share your source of info, that's fine.

What I've seen so far looks like a big American city. Haven't seen any striking architecture or anything that indicates a special layout, since pretty much all cities have different architecture and layouts depending on their size, when the cities were built, and where they are located.

 

[Travesty]

What I've seen so far looks like a big American city. Haven't seen any striking architecture or anything that indicates a special layout (since pretty much all cities have different layouts depending on their size and where they are located).

Yeah, it looks like an American city(which is the point), but are you saying that all American cities look the same, with the same architecture, and none of them have their own style to them? So NYC looks like Chicago, which looks like Austin, which looks like Seattle, which looks like Nashville, which looks like LA, etc? All of those cities I just listed have their own completely unique style to them, and yet, the overview of Metropolis doesn't look like any city I've been to. The buildings look different, the architecture looks different, etc.

Now I'm just repeating myself, and apparently you'll never get the point. I think I'm just representing the word "stylized" to different aspects of a city, that you seem to not care about. I think you're thinking along the terms of atmosphere or something, I dunno? Just because something is stylized, doesn't mean it has to be as abstract, as say, Burton's Gotham in his Batman movies. Sure, it's stylized, but not everything stylized has to be so drastic, it just has to have its own particular style, which, from the overview shots I've seen, seems to be that way. The layout alone doesn't look like a city I've ever been to.

 

[The Shape]

Yeah, it looks like an American city(which is the point), but are you saying that all American cities look the same, with the same architecture, and none of them have their own style to them? So NYC looks like Chicago, which looks like Austin, which looks like Seattle, which looks like Nashville, which looks like LA, etc? All of those cities I just listed have their own completely unique style to them, and yet, the overview of Metropolis doesn't look like any city I've been to. The buildings look different, the architecture looks different, etc.

Now I'm just repeating myself, and apparently you'll never get the point. I think I'm just representing the word "stylized" to different aspects of a city, that you seem to not care about. I think you're thinking along the terms of atmosphere or something, I dunno? Just because something is stylized, doesn't mean it has to be as abstract, as say, Burton's Gotham in his Batman movies. Sure, it's stylized, but not everything stylized has to be so drastic, it just has to have its own particular style, which, from the overview shots I've seen, seems to be that way. The layout alone doesn't look like a city I've ever been to.

No, you're actually missing my point. Of course American cities don't all look the same...other than the fact that most are near bodies of water and are filled with massive skyscrapers. But I'm just curious, where are you seeing all the different architecture of Metropolis? Are there photos or clips that havent been posted in this thread yet?

At this point, the only thing that sets this new Metropolis apart from, say, NYC or Chicago is that it's missing the landmarks of those cities that we would recognize...at least in the two or three pics I've seen. And unless I missed something, I don't think we've even seen the Daily Planet yet, which is almost like the Empire State Building of Metropolis. So I'm just not sure how you could say that the architecture or layout of Metropolis is particularly unique or "stylized" at this point in time.

I think you should using the word "design" instead of "stylized", and by that I mean that you seem to be indicating that the design of certain aspects of Metropolis sets it apart from other American cities (though I don't see how right now). Style is different than stylization. Cities have individual styles, which does not necessarily make one more stylized than another.

And no, I was talking about stylization (which is usually applied to art like 'film'), so yes, color, atmosphere, and the way a city is shot (cinematography) can make it appear to be more stylized than a real-life. We just haven't seen enough of the way Snyder shot and created Metropolis to make a proper judgement on it yet.

 

[Travesty]

I think you should using the word "design" instead of "stylized", and by that I mean that you seem to be indicating that the design of certain aspects of Metropolis sets it apart from other American cities (though I don't see how right now).

Hmmm, maybe, who knows? (though I don't see how you can't, seeing the overview of Metropolis)

 

[erehwon0]

Hey! Was that news about Colin Firth bagging the role in Mark Millar's "Secret Service" one third of the scoops he's talking about? He posted it on Latino Review. And he never said which comic book property it was.

Yeah. I think it was. So no DC news.

On another note, I saw Iron Man 3 last Thursday and It was good. But I think I might already have CBM fatigue. Coming out from the cinema, I honestly didn't feel anything for the movie. There was no more novelty. It was just another Iron Man movie. And I sort of feel annoyed by RDJ.

The thing I seem to take away from this is: This is probably the last Iron Man solo movie for RDJ. He will probably do another Avengers but I don't see him doing another Iron Man. Now here is the conundrum Marvel will face. What will they do once RDJ leaves? If the other cast for the other properties keep going and do another Avengers past 2, how will they fill the role? And as Goyer said "I cannot see anyone else playing Batman" I think the same applies for RDJ and Iron Man. In fact, I think RDJ now owns the role. I doubt the Tony Stark written in comics acts like the one in the movie. But if someone asks you who Tony Stark is, I bet RDJ is the image that pops in your head. Marvel will have a hard time replacing him, but they're going to have to.

That's one of the reason I don't want Bale back. Unless he signs for 3 or more movies, I rather not have him back. That's where I have disagreements with the Nolanites. Sure Bale and Nolan will bring the attention for their return and undoubtedly make money (not a guarantee mind you). But how about the movies after? If you're starting a DCCU, wouldn't you prefer actors close to the same age and will probably sign up for the amount of movies that you're planning for. I know everything will be re-booted in the long run, but having the same group of actors in the JL for at least three movies is probably ideal. And I really don't think Bale will come back for 2. WB rebooting now will save them a lot of headaches in the long run. After a set number of movies, they reboot the whole set of actors. I think peppering solo or team up movies in between will lessen the impact of rebooting the entire thing. Thing is you cannot avoid rebooting or a soft reboot.

 

[Great Mind(s)]

The problem is that people want DC to follow the same exact formula of Marvel. They already have people hooked on Batman...they could try something different and not constantly go back to his solo movies like they're doing with Iron Man.
It take time and money and effort to write all these solo films. I find it a waste spending it all on a reboot of Batman that shares lots of similarities to the Nolan films. And to those who are denying Nolan's part in MOS just stop! Its evident youre just in massive denial.

 

[dnno1]

Hey! Was that news about Colin Firth bagging the role in Mark Millar's "Secret Service" one third of the scoops he's talking about? He posted it on Latino Review. And he never said which comic book property it was.

Yeah. I think it was. So no DC news.

On another note, I saw Iron Man 3 last Thursday and It was good. But I think I might already have CBM fatigue. Coming out from the cinema, I honestly didn't feel anything for the movie. There was no more novelty. It was just another Iron Man movie. And I sort of feel annoyed by RDJ.

The thing I seem to take away from this is: This is probably the last Iron Man solo movie for RDJ. He will probably do another Avengers but I don't see him doing another Iron Man. Now here is the conundrum Marvel will face. What will they do once RDJ leaves? If the other cast for the other properties keep going and do another Avengers past 2, how will they fill the role? And as Goyer said "I cannot see anyone else playing Batman" I think the same applies for RDJ and Iron Man. In fact, I think RDJ now owns the role. I doubt the Tony Stark written in comics acts like the one in the movie. But if someone asks you who Tony Stark is, I bet RDJ is the image that pops in your head. Marvel will have a hard time replacing him, but they're going to have to.

That's one of the reason I don't want Bale back. Unless he signs for 3 or more movies, I rather not have him back. That's where I have disagreements with the Nolanites. Sure Bale and Nolan will bring the attention for their return and undoubtedly make money (not a guarantee mind you). But how about the movies after? If you're starting a DCCU, wouldn't you prefer actors close to the same age and will probably sign up for the amount of movies that you're planning for. I know everything will be re-booted in the long run, but having the same group of actors in the JL for at least three movies is probably ideal. And I really don't think Bale will come back for 2. WB rebooting now will save them a lot of headaches in the long run. After a set number of movies, they reboot the whole set of actors. I think peppering solo or team up movies in between will lessen the impact of rebooting the entire thing. Thing is you cannot avoid rebooting or a soft reboot.

Bond has been doing it for more than 40 years without really rebooting the franchise. I don't see why Batman or Iron Man can't be the same way.

 

[Rodrigo90]

A new actor does revitalise things.

For the better or worse? That's up to the viewer.

 

[shauner111]

I don't think Iron Man is a strong enough character outside of RDJ to become a Batman or Superman type franchise. Or Bond. If it wasn't for RDJ and his delivery and chemistry with others on screen, that first movie would have never worked.

I think they'll wait quite a long time to do another solo movie and it will be another actor and it will probably bomb. I just don't see it as a franchise that can last.

Hey! Was that news about Colin Firth bagging the role in Mark Millar's "Secret Service" one third of the scoops he's talking about? He posted it on Latino Review. And he never said which comic book property it was.

Yeah. I think it was. So no DC news.

On another note, I saw Iron Man 3 last Thursday and It was good. But I think I might already have CBM fatigue. Coming out from the cinema, I honestly didn't feel anything for the movie. There was no more novelty. It was just another Iron Man movie. And I sort of feel annoyed by RDJ.

The thing I seem to take away from this is: This is probably the last Iron Man solo movie for RDJ. He will probably do another Avengers but I don't see him doing another Iron Man. Now here is the conundrum Marvel will face. What will they do once RDJ leaves? If the other cast for the other properties keep going and do another Avengers past 2, how will they fill the role? And as Goyer said "I cannot see anyone else playing Batman" I think the same applies for RDJ and Iron Man. In fact, I think RDJ now owns the role. I doubt the Tony Stark written in comics acts like the one in the movie. But if someone asks you who Tony Stark is, I bet RDJ is the image that pops in your head. Marvel will have a hard time replacing him, but they're going to have to.

That's one of the reason I don't want Bale back. Unless he signs for 3 or more movies, I rather not have him back. That's where I have disagreements with the Nolanites. Sure Bale and Nolan will bring the attention for their return and undoubtedly make money (not a guarantee mind you). But how about the movies after? If you're starting a DCCU, wouldn't you prefer actors close to the same age and will probably sign up for the amount of movies that you're planning for. I know everything will be re-booted in the long run, but having the same group of actors in the JL for at least three movies is probably ideal. And I really don't think Bale will come back for 2. WB rebooting now will save them a lot of headaches in the long run. After a set number of movies, they reboot the whole set of actors. I think peppering solo or team up movies in between will lessen the impact of rebooting the entire thing. Thing is you cannot avoid rebooting or a soft reboot.

But isn't Secret Service under the Icon/Marvel umbrella? Maybe im mistaken. Never read the comic.

 

[Great Mind(s)]

But the Bond thing is a gimmick now. Batman became a gimmick in the 90s when 3 different actors played versions of him and the franchise died.
Rebooted Bond and Batman have been successes because of the writing, the realism and the fact that the same actor is in continuity. I bet if they did a new Bond without Craig the GA wouldn't be as interested.

 

[Rodrigo90]

They wouldn't. Not at first any way.

 

[Rodrigo90]

But saying that.
Kilmer made more money for BF than Keaton did in BR.

However I don't think things were as beloved back then as they are today.

And TDK-R had the highest success rate possible. ..how can we go better than that?