Justice League Real Talk - Where does the DCEU go from here? - Part 1

[Mani-Man]

They have to start with that. They tried to jump directly to the "Avengers" stage of the process, but they didn't lay the groundwork.

Logically, the solution is to do some high-quality movies that don't connect with one another, except perhaps with an easter egg or minor reference here and there.

Once the audience has responded to that, and connected with the individual characters, then the crossover can eventually have the desired effect of amplifying audience interest.

Yeah.
We are at the point where you can say phase 1 of the DCCU is over.
So now you have the chance to rework the ground that you want to work with.
Now WB had their wish, they have thrown out Justice League as fast as possible and it backfired.
This itch is now gone, they wanted to compete and have their own "Avengers", didnt work as they thought.
So realize that its not going to work like this.

Instead look at what made WW so good and follow that example.
Dont rush things and team ups, let the people get used to the universe, let them accept those characters one after another and care about them.
Look at what makes those character connect with the Fans and the General Audience, take this and build your universe up from there.

After you have done that you can bring them together.

 

[Flemm]

who cares about Deadpool retconned etc, it made 800M+ WW without China!

783M worldwide, according tho box office mojo. The Numbers site has an international number that is 17M higher, but that seems to be the incorrect one, looking at other sources.

Regardless, that movie over-performed like crazy. So did Wonder Woman, and I think the first Guardians movie can be placed in that same category.

What is the common link there?

Novelty factor, I think. Avengers was also a new thing, at the time.

So, rather than fatigue, it seems that audiences are hungry for different interpretations of the genre.

That would be my takeaway, if I were the studio.

 

[writer0327]

783M worldwide, according tho box office mojo. The Numbers site has an international number that is 17M higher, but that seems to be the incorrect one, looking at other sources.

Regardless, that movie over-performed like crazy. So did Wonder Woman, and I think the first Guardians movie can be placed in that same category.

What is the common link there?

Novelty factor, I think. Avengers was also a new thing, at the time.

So, rather than fatigue, it seems that audiences are hungry for different interpretations of the genre.

That would be my takeaway, if I were the studio.

DC tried to give a different interpretation of the Batman and Superman everyone knew. How'd that work?

 

[Greenlite]

This is how I might sell it to the investors/board members/rich people.

The new era of DC Cinema

WW with critically acclaimed and highest live action superhero movie ever with ?Oscar nom Gal Gadot and Patty Jenkins

First ever underwater superhero pic of AM with Conjuring's Wan (a billion b.o. on <100M budget?)

Shazam magic superhero universe with The Rock, under New Line with 100M budget

Batman Family from Matt Reeves (critically acclaimed director of the new classics Apes series)

Jake Gyllenhaal (Oscar caliber actor and one of the hottest actor right now)

Margot Robbie/Harley Quinn (XXX number and $$$ earned from the movie and T-shirts/products). brand with her at least in the Bat series, or personally I'd like to see her as the face/lead for SS2 and its sequels GCS and/or HQ/Joker)

Spin off Nightwing with the Lego Batman director (300M on 80M budget), introduce Batgirl with a female director to target the teen/young crowds/girls/fans of DC girls platform. Lead to Titans and Birds of Prey later on. (I'd chuck DS in SS or Nightwing)

That'd be my sell for now, I'd add the first speedster movie with The Flash with Fantastic Beast star Ezra Miller with Lego Movie directors or something.

 

[Flemm]

DC tried to give a different interpretation of the Batman and Superman everyone knew. How'd that work?

Well, for one thing, that's not similar at all to Guardians, Wonder Woman, Deadpool and Avengers.

Those characters are completely new on screen, while Batman and Superman are not.

For another, doing just *anything* because it's different is obviously not the answer.

Butchering iconic characters and creating "new interpretations of the genre" are not similar activities.

 

[Greenlite]

783M worldwide, according tho box office mojo. The Numbers site has an international number that is 17M higher, but that seems to be the incorrect one, looking at other sources.

Regardless, that movie over-performed like crazy. So did Wonder Woman, and I think the first Guardians movie can be placed in that same category.

What is the common link there?

Novelty factor, I think. Avengers was also a new thing, at the time.

So, rather than fatigue, it seems that audiences are hungry for different interpretations of the genre.

That would be my takeaway, if I were the studio.

Lol thanks, for some reason kept on thinking it made 800M+

Yes, there are so many CBM movies these days, you need to be different to stand out from the pack and attract GA. Deadpool (bad mouthed R rated funny film), Logan (western/last Hugh film), GOTG (soundtrack), WW (female empowerment), movies like X Apocalypse and JL doesn't stand out as much now. Unless you have a Marvel logo on it (Homecoming and Thor 3 had the same formula, but crowdpleasers with 90+ RT scores, and Waititi's a brilliant director and his own touch)

I guess right now WB can't rely on their branding (WB, DC, DCEU etc) but probably have to rely on faces and individual characters (Gal/Patty, Jake, Margot, The Rock etc) to attract GA for now.

 

[Frodo]

I'm surprised people still say this.

The same argument was made prior to Avengers, with the argument being that, while fans were very excited, the "general audiences" would not care. It would be like an Iron Man movie, at best.

Avengers' massive box office haul refuted that notion in resounding fashion, as has the box office performance of Marvel studios movies since that time, particularly in the overseas markets. The first Iron Man movie was really only a huge hit in the domestic market, for example.

Early Marvel studios box office, with the domestic and international split:

Iron Man: 318/266
Incredible Hulk: 134/128
First Avenger: 196/173
Thor: 181/268
Iron Man 2: 312/311

Avengers: 623/895 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whether you look at the US or the international box office, there is no explanation other than simply that the audience did, in fact, care.

The domestic box office for JL basically confirms it also, in reverse, because the negative reception of the early DCEU movies seems to have really hurt JL's box office in the domestic market. Perhaps less in the overseas markets, but I don't think the film is going to match the 542M overseas total of BvS.

So, the "general audiences" obviously care, but they don't *automatically* care.

It has to be done right.

The analogy you're using of Avenger's seems to be re-writing history a bit. The argument against Avengers from fans was that it was too soon to have a team up film , not that audiences don't care about shared universes.

The Avengers and other MCU films were hits because they're good films that appealed to the GA, not because they take place in the same universe. The fact that they all came from the same company which consistently produces good films also helps . The interconnectivity is an added bonus but don't assume that that is what is the most appealing to the GA. That's a another mistaken assumption fans have.

The reality is the vast majority of people go to the Marvel films because of their good reputation for making good movies , not because they like that Antman exists in the same universe as Tony stark.

 

[Greenlite]

Well, for one thing, that's not similar at all to Guardians, Wonder Woman, Deadpool and Avengers.

Those characters are completely new on screen, while Batman and Superman are not.

For another, doing just *anything* because it's different is obviously not the answer.

Butchering iconic characters and creating "new interpretations of the genre" are not similar activities.

I think if they had made a 120M budget Elseworld movie with Sup vs Bat and market it as a one-off and R-rated to set expectations and lower break even line - that might have worked out better

 

[Greenlite]

The analogy you're using of Avenger's seems to be re-writing history a bit. The argument against Avengers from fans was that it was too soon to have a team up film , not that audiences don't care about shared universes.

The Avengers and other MCU films were hits because they're good films that appealed to the GA, not because they take place in the same universe. The fact that they all came from the same company which consistently produces good films also helps . The interconnectivity is an added bonus but don't assume that that is what is the most appealing to the GA. That's a another mistaken assumption fans have.

The reality is the vast majority of people go to the Marvel films because of their good reputation for making good movies , not because they like that Antman exists in the same universe as Tony stark.

I think if RDJ shows up in X-men and doesn't make sense continuity-wise, GA would still eat it up as long as the movie is liked.

 

[Jekecy]

It's crazy, if WB didn't jump-start Aquaman and WW well ahead of JL, I really think this would have been the complete end of the DCEU.

They're so damn lucky they secured the likes of Jenkins, Wan, and Reeves. We would have been witnessing Sony/ASM2 all over again.

 

[Greenlite]

would probably make 500M WW if Diana wasn't a mega hit in US this year.

 

[MbJ]

DC tried to give a different interpretation of the Batman and Superman everyone knew. How'd that work?

People don't get that doing something different really only works if it's executed well. I'm not a fan of Moviebob but his analysis of the situation was pretty succinct. He pointed out that people make the mistake of saying the MCU films are more successful than the DCEU films because the MCU films don't change stuff from the comics. In addition to being completely incorrect (most of the MCU films have taken quite a few liberties with the original comic canon), he noted that being true to the source material isn't the same thing as being good, using The Shining (which is often considered one of the best horror movies ever made, despite being nothing like the book it was based on) as an example. You could even make the argument that the Nolan Batfilms changed a lot of things from the comics, and are still considered great.

Audiences can accept superhero movies that change stuff from the comics, it's just that in this case, the changes WB made were not handled well and had the result of making certain characters far less likable. Conversely, Justice League still met with a mixed reception even though one of the main things it tried to accomplish was realigning the characters to be closer to their classic comic counterparts (Superman in particular).

Like most things, it all rests on the execution. A darker and more realistic take on the DC Universe could have been successful, just not this one.

 

[Frodo]

I think if RDJ shows up in X-men and doesn't make sense continuity-wise, GA would still eat it up as long as the movie is liked.

Totally. If Hugh Jackman joined the Avenger's GA would eat it up.

The connection that GA are latching on to is the connection between films were are good to excellent coming from a studio which produces good to excellent films. Its not the nitty gritty stuff that fans get hung up on.

In fact , most people who saw Avengers probably didn't see all of the films leading up to it the same way alot of people saw WW who didn't see or cared what happened in BvS. The GA is just not as much in the weeds about that stuff as fans think they are.

They do know , however if the same group keeps churning out mediocre to bad stuff to avoid it.

 

[Greenlite]

People don't get that doing something different really only works if it's executed well. I'm not a fan of Moviebob but his analysis of the situation was pretty succinct. He pointed out that people make the mistake of saying the MCU films are more successful than the DCEU films because the MCU films don't change stuff from the comics. In addition to being completely incorrect (most of the MCU films have taken quite a few liberties with the original comic canon), he noted that being true to the source material isn't the same thing as being good, using The Shining (which is often considered one of the best horror movies ever made, despite being nothing like the book it was based on) as an example. You could even make the argument that the Nolan Batfilms changed a lot of things from the comics, and are still considered great.

Audiences can accept superhero movies that change stuff from the comics, it's just that in this case, the changes WB made were not handled well and had the result of making certain characters far less likable. Conversely, Justice League still met with a mixed reception even though one of the main things it tried to accomplish was realigning the characters to be closer to their classic comic counterparts (Superman in particular).

Like most things, it all rests on the execution. A darker and more realistic take on the DC Universe could have been successful, just not this one.

Totally. If Hugh Jackman joined the Avenger's GA would eat it up.

The connection that GA are latching on to is the connection between films were are good to excellent coming from a studio which produces good to excellent films. Its not the nitty gritty stuff that fans get hung up on.

In fact , most people who saw Avengers probably didn't see all of the films leading up to it the same way alot of people saw WW who didn't see or cared what happened in BvS. The GA is just not as much in the weeds about that stuff as fans think they are.

They do know , however if the same group keeps churning out mediocre to bad stuff to avoid it.

Ya I'm not an X-men fan and heard crap about X-3 and Wolverine, then First Class was made by Kick Ass director and the trailers looked awesome, so I watched it and have seen every single X-movie since. They're far from comic accurate (J-Lo's the leader now lol) but I don't really care, and if they have 3 movies coming out a year I'll probably pick the ones that suit my family to go to i.e. not Deadpool or Mutant, but Dark Phoenix etc, so that variation within the brand is important too.

To be fair if DC string 2-3 hits together GA will start to notice and that's when you get repeat customers, they just need to make stuff GA like as simple as that.

 

[FunkMiller]

Audiences can accept superhero movies that change stuff from the comics, it's just that in this case, the changes WB made were not handled well and had the result of making certain characters far less likable. Conversely, Justice League still met with a mixed reception even though one of the main things it tried to accomplish was realigning the characters to be closer to their classic comic counterparts (Superman in particular).

Like most things, it all rests on the execution. A darker and more realistic take on the DC Universe could have been successful, just not this one.

What they clearly don’t want is for their superheroes to be turned into unlikeable *****ebags. A Superman who believes nobody stays good in this world, and a Batman willing to sadistically brand people is apparently not what people want to see from their favourite superheroes. Who’d have thunk it?

 

[WBwins]

I kind of like where you're going. It is possible to bill Reeves' Batverse as its own thing for now while winding down the Snyderverse, allowing Gal to do her thing while keeping other aspects of the verse that works.

Then if they do feel like merging the best of both verses together it can be done.....not like the source material is lacking in assisting such a merge either.

If I can get a MOS sequel with Cavill where he gets a clear run at portraying the character, then the Snyderverse will have fulfilled its duty as far as I'd be concerned.

Exactly.You also raise a good point about them merging the Reeveverse and the Snyderverse if they do wish.However the realist in me says that they wldnt bother and wld probably keep both universes seperate.

I think if we are being realistic there will be no more Snyderverse Superman solos for obvious reasons.Cavills cool but its too late for him.

I think its time we brace ourselvex for the Superman reboot in the Reeveverse.

Unpopular opinion:I wld be open to a Superman rebooted as a High budget Netflix seriss.Less risky than Bigscreen especially when you consider the fact Supermans recent big screen track record.

 

[Greenlite]

or spin off superman from the supergirl show and have a love triangle between him, Lois and Jimmy Olsen, right in CW's wheelhouse.

=p

 

[BH/HHH]

I’d be happy with a Superman TV series, I’ve said for a long time that I’d prefer a good Superman series over the films. It would mean more time spent with the character and more Superman world characters rather than three films 2 hour plus films or so.

 

[Flemm]

Its not the nitty gritty stuff that fans get hung up on.

[...]

The GA is just not as much in the weeds about that stuff as fans think they are.

Regarding this point, there's a clear distinction to be made between the minor details and minutiae that interest fans and the overall concept of having an extended universe.

Of course, yes, the minutiae tends to be the territory of fans. But that is true in the genre whether or not the movies are connected. That is just a characteristic of dedicated fans.

Interest in the extended universe as a whole is a completely separate thing, whatever term we may choose (extended universe, inter-connectivity, crossover, mash-up, etc.).

It's the idea of these characters coming together and sharing the screen, as well as having the movies tie into one another. For example: Black Panther being introduced in Civil War, having his own movie, and then appearing again in Infinity War.

So, agreed on the minor details not being very important, like recasting, or respecting continuity.

For example, having Gadot play Wonder Woman and eventually meet a Batman who has been recast. That sort of change should be a non-issue for the most part.

 

[WBwins]

I’d be happy with a Superman TV series, I’ve said for a long time that I’d prefer a good Superman series over the films. It would mean more time spent with the character and more Superman world characters rather than three films 2 hour plus films or so.

Yayyy.Good to see someone Pro tv series

 

[Cats]

What they clearly don’t want is for their superheroes to be turned into unlikeable *****ebags. A Superman who believes nobody stays good in this world, and a Batman willing to sadistically brand people is apparently not what people want to see from their favourite superheroes. Who’d have thunk it?

I'm sure everyone wants that. The execution of dark to light was just not done well.

 

[Greenlite]

to be honest if Gal shares the screen with Jake, that might be an upgrade and draw the interest of the mainstream more, and IMO has that "novelty" factor

edit: I could see WB using "who's the next Batman" with the press to lead the conversation to the next stage of DC on film.

 

[Cats]

Spoiler

Yeah.
We are at the point where you can say phase 1 of the DCCU is over.
So now you have the chance to rework the ground that you want to work with.
Now WB had their wish, they have thrown out Justice League as fast as possible and it backfired.
This itch is now gone, they wanted to compete and have their own "Avengers", didnt work as they thought.
So realize that its not going to work like this.

Instead look at what made WW so good and follow that example.
Dont rush things and team ups, let the people get used to the universe, let them accept those characters one after another and care about them.
Look at what makes those character connect with the Fans and the General Audience, take this and build your universe up from there.

After you have done that you can bring them together.

One thing they really have to learn is that you don't ask for an introduction of multiple complex characters then limit the film to under 2hrs. Even a kid should know that.

 

[Heretic]

People want trilogies because the word "trilogy" is fun to say. That is a stupid reason to make a sequel or stop making movies. If anyone can explain to me why Suicide Squad 3 needs to happen, other than the fact that the word "trilogy" tickles you, then I'm all ears.

 

[Greenlite]

People want trilogies because the word "trilogy" is fun to say. That is a stupid reason to make a sequel or stop making movies. If anyone can explain to me why Suicide Squad 3 needs to happen, other than the fact that the word "trilogy" tickles you, then I'm all ears.

If SS2 makes another 750M+ maybe 900M with China?

and quadrilogy is really hard to say