Justice League Real Talk - Where does the DCEU go from here? - Part 2

[DrCosmic]

Take the S off his chest just for a second, take away the cape and the curl in the hair. Take away everything, even his powers. Start from there. Humanize him. He's Clark Kent, a guy who was raised on Earth by a farmer and his wife in Smallville. He's a regular dude. He works at the Daily Planet. He loves Lois Lane, he hates criminals and crime, he laughs with Jimmy Olsen, he cries when the people he loves are in pain, especially his family. He has an apartment in Metropolis and he normally pays his rent and other bills on time, but sometimes he's late and gets hit with the $50 late charge. He has to commute to work and sometimes the buses run a little behind, so he's late there too. He likes his boss, but Perry can get on his nerves sometimes. He dreams one day he will settle down and raise a family with 2 kids, a dog and a parakeet. He is just like us.

Don't make him anything outside of that. He's a wholly good guy, a guy just like you and me, with regular flaws and daily problems like everyone else.

I'm sorry my friend, but having powers invalidates the bolded statements. People suck. Like REALLY suck. Much of the rule following and good peopling we see is because of fear of consequences and met needs. Most people don't view themselves as wholly good, with regular problems, and they certainly don't view most other people as such. Give a regular guy powers and there's a slight chance you'll get a naive idealist that sees the good in people and really believes and holds on to that no matter the evidence to the contrary. But chances are, a person with the power to ensure that his loved ones aren't hurt, or that those that hurt them are made an example of will do so. A person who has the power to make endless money 100 different ways, and that's without hurting anyone... that person just doesn't have normal guy problems. The audience is that smart, that savvy, and yes, that cynical. I DO consider myself a naive idealist, but I promsie you, if I have superman's powers, I'm set for life by the end of the month. It's just too easy and too helpful not to do. There is no late for work with Superman's powers. There is no struggling to win over a girl.

Superman, from the ground up is not designed to be relatable the way Spider-Man is, as a normal everyday guy. His powers will constantly befuddle attempts to limit his ability to affect the world around him, to be where he wants to be when he wants to be there and to know everything that's happening for miles around, and virtually all of our everday problems come from having these limitations.

He's Super Man. Above, not on par with.

Superman is only tough to write if:
A) you're lazy
B) you're only here to *********e over 'Grim n' Gritty' books from the '90's
C) you really just don't like Superman
D) All of he above (Hi Mister Snyder!)

Superman's pretty much always tough to write well. Dozens of great writers have taken cracks at Superman, very few have come up with a All Star Superman, and most of those who have have done so by doing either his origin, or the end of his career/life. Superman is easy to write if you're killing him off, and that's the only time.

If you try to take the Captain America route by challenging the grey areas of his morality, you have to take a moral stance. You have to call something about our society wrong. Even if you like Superman, are super dilligent and don't want to be grim and gritty, you have to end something large to make a moral statement worthy of a superhero movie. For Cap it was SHIELD one time, then the Avengers the second time. If you run out of meaningful things to destroy, or simply haven't built one up yet, then your morality tale lacks bite, meaning and value. It's not laziness that prevents people from doing a Winter Soldier or Civil War with Superman, it's the lack of an established universe to break to underline whatever Superman's moral point is.

It's a perception that Superman is boring...and that comes in part because most heroes, in some fashion or another, were inspired by his core character elements (powers, the mission, the secret identity, etc), so now he himself seems somewhat generic in comparison.

This is huge. The fact that when people say that Superman is a generic superhero they are 100% historically correct is a huge point that has to be addressed, and embraced, if a good Superman story is going to happen.

 

[Wheels]

I love the man who was raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent. I love the man who wants to do good and enjoys being Superman despite it's drawbacks. I don't like the idea that he has to be Superman because his space daddy said so and he's miserable because of it.

 

[FatRobin]

You guys make me want to see a totally different Superman from the DCEU one

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

Spoiler

I'm sorry my friend, but having powers invalidates the bolded statements. People suck. Like REALLY suck. Much of the rule following and good peopling we see is because of fear of consequences and met needs. Most people don't view themselves as wholly good, with regular problems, and they certainly don't view most other people as such. Give a regular guy powers and there's a slight chance you'll get a naive idealist that sees the good in people and really believes and holds on to that no matter the evidence to the contrary. But chances are, a person with the power to ensure that his loved ones aren't hurt, or that those that hurt them are made an example of will do so. A person who has the power to make endless money 100 different ways, and that's without hurting anyone... that person just doesn't have normal guy problems. The audience is that smart, that savvy, and yes, that cynical. I DO consider myself a naive idealist, but I promsie you, if I have superman's powers, I'm set for life by the end of the month. It's just too easy and too helpful not to do. There is no late for work with Superman's powers. There is no struggling to win over a girl.

Superman, from the ground up is not designed to be relatable the way Spider-Man is, as a normal everyday guy. His powers will constantly befuddle attempts to limit his ability to affect the world around him, to be where he wants to be when he wants to be there and to know everything that's happening for miles around, and virtually all of our everday problems come from having these limitations.

He's Super Man. Above, not on par with.



Superman's pretty much always tough to write well. Dozens of great writers have taken cracks at Superman, very few have come up with a All Star Superman, and most of those who have have done so by doing either his origin, or the end of his career/life. Superman is easy to write if you're killing him off, and that's the only time.

If you try to take the Captain America route by challenging the grey areas of his morality, you have to take a moral stance. You have to call something about our society wrong. Even if you like Superman, are super dilligent and don't want to be grim and gritty, you have to end something large to make a moral statement worthy of a superhero movie. For Cap it was SHIELD one time, then the Avengers the second time. If you run out of meaningful things to destroy, or simply haven't built one up yet, then your morality tale lacks bite, meaning and value. It's not laziness that prevents people from doing a Winter Soldier or Civil War with Superman, it's the lack of an established universe to break to underline whatever Superman's moral point is.



This is huge. The fact that when people say that Superman is a generic superhero they are 100% historically correct is a huge point that has to be addressed, and embraced, if a good Superman story is going to happen.

I was gonna say, I don't consider myself a bad guy. I'm pretty idealistic even. But no way in Hell am I gonna be struggling with the rent when I have Supermans powers.

Maybe they should explore that in a next Superman movie. Where is the line? Because Clark helping out on the farm could also be seen as morally wrong then as it gives the Kents an edge over any neighbouring farmers trying to sell their produce.

 

[Wheels]

There's way too much emphasis on Jor-El in the films and his plan. Whatever happened to him just being a father and husband trying to protect his people? Why is Jor-El always cast as God and Clark as Jesus In the films anyway? His creators were Jewish and he has just as much Moses in there. He's been sent to Earth with no real plan before. Superboy/Clark was friends with Lex or Ramesses if you will. Donner's ideas have really taken hold of the character.

 

[FunkMiller]

There's way too much emphasis on Jor-El in the films and his plan. Whatever happened to him just being a father and husband trying to protect his people? Why is Jor-El always cast as God and Clark as Jesus In the films anyway? His creators were Jewish and he has just as much Moses in there. He's been sent to Earth with no real plan before. Superboy/Clark was friends with Lex or Ramesses if you will. Donner's ideas have really taken hold of the character.

I believe Snyder is a christian scientist, so maybe his religious nature was partly why he leaned in so hard on that aspect of the character in his movie?

 

[Astro13Zombie]

I really like the religious themes and imagery for superman myself.
I do think it needs to be a little more subtle though.

 

[kguillou]

I love the man who was raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent. I love the man who wants to do good and enjoys being Superman despite it's drawbacks. I don't like the idea that he has to be Superman because his space daddy said so and he's miserable because of it.

See, I dont see it that way. I never took away that Clark is Superman because Jonathan and Jor El told him to. They guy has essentially BEEN Superman since he was a boy, even though his earth father advised him against it. This Clark is and always has been a good person whose first natural instinct is to help people. Him putting on the suit just puts an official stamp on it and its his way of acknowledging and honoring his familial lineage while he does it.

 

[titansupes]

My point is you start there, not start and end there. Begin with a relatable Superman, a Clark Kent that is no different than anyone else around you. Then show him leap into action and do the astounding things he does. It's not the character that's boring, it's the writing.

Writers and directors have been trying to live up to some impossible standard that they believe has been established, and as such, have ruined a lot of good opportunities. To me, the best stories about the character are the simplest. Make Superman first, humanize him, show him as a hero. Then you can get to all the deep, existential stuff in the sequel.

That's not who Clark Kent is, though. He's an advanced alien brain with (idealised) mid-western values. He's not like anyone else around us, that's the point. Even though he has an enormous swath of relatable qualities to be used very effectively, he would be different. Totally unique. It's what makes him so interesting and powerful beyond the fancy costume and super-strength.

To do less than that would be a disservice... And it's been consistently backfiring on WB and DC for a good 20 years at best.

 

[writer0327]

All I'm saying is make Supes relatable. The audience has to identify with your hero, otherwise the whole thing all goes belly up. Everyone always wants to show us how Superman is different, but we know he is different. Give us some humanity, the idealized version, and show us how Clark thrives, fails, succeeds and stumbles, but continues living the human life. He has powers, but he chooses to live amongst us as one of us. He doesn't see himself above us. That's the point of my earlier discourse. He's got the power to rule the world and live as lavish a lifestyle as he pleases, but nope! He's working the Metro beat at the Planet, living modestly while protecting the world from evil. He's like us in every way, and in every way he is completely unlike us.

 

[honestbharani]

Relatable need not be done just by the character and his brains or powers though. It can be situational as well. And at the end of the day, inspite of his powers and intellect being alien, his values and society are still (or at least, should be) relatable to the audience. And that is what you use to establish the connect. Its a bit of a misconception that you can only relate to things that are exactly like you in every way. Generally, human beings are capable of more empathy than that.

 

[kguillou]

And, in my opinion, I think at the end of the day, sometimes "relatable" can be a maleable term depending on what kind of person you are. Different people relate to different things and as a result may, or may not find tangible aspects to grasp onto with these characters. I have always liked Superman since I was a kid, I watched the George Reeves show reruns on Nick at Night, I watched the Bruce Timm animated series and of course the Justice League animated series as well, but I never LOVED the character. I always felt like I couldn't quite sink my teeth into him like I could with Batman, Spiderman, The Xmen and Daredevil (my personal favorites). Then this Superman came along in MoS and finally I felt like Superman was a character I could jive with, I connected with this interpretation: he was a good natured person but felt lost and was trying to find his place in the world, he wasnt perfect, he made mistakes, but did the best he could under pressure. He was a good person but he had an edge to him. I think, being a child of the 90's I always gravitated towards the characters that had a little edge and grit to them.

Slight tangent here, but years and years ago there was an infamous Spiderman storyline in the comics called One More Day (Spiderman fans are very much aware of this story). But basically in this story line Peter's life is completely upended when his secret ID is made public and his personal life naturally turns to ****. The Kingpin, one of Spideys greatest foes, takes advantage and has Peter's Aunt May shot and clinging to her life. This sends Peter over the edge. There is an infamous issue shortly after where Peter confronts the Kingpin and suddenly Peter is no longer "friendly neighborhood Spiderman." He is pissed the **** off that this has happened to his aunt and he decides to teach the Kingpin a lesson...by effortlessly beating the living **** out of him. After the beatdown, Peter essentially threatens the Kingpin saying "do you see how EASILY i can end you? If you EVER mess with my family again, I WILL kill you." And you saw the fear in Kingpin's eyes, you could see that he knew he screwed up by messing with "friendly neighborhood Spiderman."

Why do I bring this up? Because that issue was VERY divisive and many fans thought Spiderman was being a bully and that wasnt the proper way to avenge Aunt May. Me? I LOVED the issue, I cheered, and it remains one of my favorite Spiderman issues ever. Why? Because it shows that Spiderman, as kind and caring and harmless a person as he is, is also not someone to be ****ed with. You mess with his family and he WILL take you down. And I relate to that. I like heroes that are good natured and kind and merciful, but I like that when push comes to shove they are not pushovers and will put you in your place. Much like Superman did to Zod when he attacked his mom (another divisive scene). That was relatable to me and maybe its reflective of the kind of person I am, but relatability can vary person to person and finding aspects of these interpretations of these characters.

Just my opinion.

 

[Loki882]

See for me, that's the absolute WRONG way to take Superman. Maybe in MOS because it's an origin movie, but he needs to grow out of it. Trying to equate him with Batman, or Spider-Man, or Daredevil, or whatever just doesn't work. He's not that kind of character.

Also every character needing to have "an edge" or "grit" to them has gotten boring for me in recent years. I'm tired of that cliché, both in comics and on film. I DESPISED everything about One More Day when it came out, and I still do because it took a giant steaming dump all over Spider-Man's character, not to mention it was laughably contrived in-general.

So what you're left with is a tricky scenario. You take the "classic" Superman route, and some people complain that he's "boring and too perfect." But you do a more DCEU type of Superman, and some other people complain that he's too "dour and emo and boring" and "you don't get Superman."

 

[DrCosmic]

All I'm saying is make Supes relatable. The audience has to identify with your hero, otherwise the whole thing all goes belly up. Everyone always wants to show us how Superman is different, but we know he is different. Give us some humanity, the idealized version, and show us how Clark thrives, fails, succeeds and stumbles, but continues living the human life. He has powers, but he chooses to live amongst us as one of us. He doesn't see himself above us. That's the point of my earlier discourse. He's got the power to rule the world and live as lavish a lifestyle as he pleases, but nope! He's working the Metro beat at the Planet, living modestly while protecting the world from evil. He's like us in every way, and in every way he is completely unlike us.

This is probably semantic, but I think identifying with Clark is a better word than relatable. Relatable generally implies he should have problems we can relate with, but it's really just needs problems we can identify with. I can't relate to having to decide whether to keep or unseat a corrupt president, but I can identify with the desire to do so and the desire to keep democracy intact, so that makes for a believable conflict that can't be resolved by flying really fast. For someone with a good variety of planet-scale powers, his conflicts have to be epic to match. Him being late to work is something we can identify as him doing on purpose, and so it makes him quote unquote "unrelatable." Trying to make him 'like us in every way' leads to Snyder's mute Superman, and the Kill Bill idea of Superman slumming it, because that's what someone 'like us' does with his powers. He may not see himself as above us, but if the writer doesn't fully embrace the ways that he is above us, stories become utterly unrelatable.

 

[kguillou]

See for me, that's the absolute WRONG way to take Superman. Maybe in MOS because it's an origin movie, but he needs to grow out of it. Trying to equate him with Batman, or Spider-Man, or Daredevil, or whatever just doesn't work. He's not that kind of character.

Also every character needing to have "an edge" or "grit" to them has gotten boring for me in recent years. I'm tired of that cliché, both in comics and on film. I DESPISED everything about One More Day when it came out, and I still do because it took a giant steaming dump all over Spider-Man's character, not to mention it was laughably contrived in-general.

So what you're left with is a tricky scenario. You take the "classic" Superman route, and some people complain that he's "boring and too perfect." But you do a more DCEU type of Superman, and some other people complain that he's too "dour and emo and boring" and "you don't get Superman."

I hear you 100% man. Just sayin, sometimes certain interpretations resonate with different people.

Also for the record I HATED One More Day too. But that specific issue that I mentioned was a bright spot for me in what was otherwise a character assasinating story.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

So what you're left with is a tricky scenario. You take the "classic" Superman route, and some people complain that he's "boring and too perfect."

Maybe these people haven't read good Superman stories where he's a classic rolemodel, plenty relatable, and not boring.

 

[DrCosmic]

Maybe these people haven't read good Superman stories where he's a classic rolemodel, plenty relatable, and not boring.

In my experience, whatever story you're thinking about when you say that, they find boring or not good.

 

[Jekecy]

In my experience, whatever story you're thinking about when you say that, they find boring or not good.

I've never heard a solid argument from anyone who's used that textbook critique. Most times I've found out they haven't even read comic books. Simply parroting off a popularized sentiment.

It's a phantom talking point made by people with no real evidence.

 

[Nemeres]

Whether they go for a reboot or keep this version going, there are key shifts that would be pretty refreshing and that would afford a cool new perspective on old material, away from the religious martyr-ness of it all.

Always loved the idea of Clark seeing inactivity as a "full body cast" to break out of. Like he's dying to hit the floor running, it's his own decision that's been years in the making and and he ain't about to let insecurity play much of a role. Martha helping with the costume and pitching in regarding the alter ego and Superman identity seems so much more appealing to me than having it all come from Jor-El while she's all alone in Smallville, unaware of what's going on or what her son's thinking -- which is what both STM and MOS went for. Embrace Superman's mama's boy-ness. Let Martha pull her weight and have her say count for something.

 

[Wheels]

See, I dont see it that way. I never took away that Clark is Superman because Jonathan and Jor El told him to. They guy has essentially BEEN Superman since he was a boy, even though his earth father advised him against it. This Clark is and always has been a good person whose first natural instinct is to help people. Him putting on the suit just puts an official stamp on it and its his way of acknowledging and honoring his familial lineage while he does it.

What I see his biological father has always forced the idea of destiny upon him in the films, all of them not just Snyder's. He has to be the savior regardless of his good nature, so I don't see it as completely his choice.

 

[parkerpete]

All I'm saying is make Supes relatable. The audience has to identify with your hero, otherwise the whole thing all goes belly up. Everyone always wants to show us how Superman is different, but we know he is different. Give us some humanity, the idealized version, and show us how Clark thrives, fails, succeeds and stumbles, but continues living the human life. He has powers, but he chooses to live amongst us as one of us. He doesn't see himself above us. That's the point of my earlier discourse. He's got the power to rule the world and live as lavish a lifestyle as he pleases, but nope! He's working the Metro beat at the Planet, living modestly while protecting the world from evil. He's like us in every way, and in every way he is completely unlike us.

See, this is why the Donner movies work. Superman, this god-like being, is really invested in keeping Clark and Superman separate. And that gives the audience a great hook for a lot of humor and human investment.

But WHY does Superman need Clark? Forget the 'Kill Bill' monologue for a moment. It's a smart analysis but it's garbage if you actually want to dig into Superman as a character.

Superman needs to keep the integrity of his Clark Kent identity because CLARK is how Superman gets to learn from people, to see how they react and feel while they're around other normal people. But also, being Clark makes Superman FEEL normal, which to him is as precious and exotic an ability as flying is to the rest of us.

In fact, I think a really good Superman movie would end with Clark beating a supervillain as CLARK-- using his network of friends and his wits--instead of using any of his Superman powers.

I love the crazy silver-age Supermanisms and I think WB should embrace the weirdness. But surely there's a way to do that while also showing how Clark's values-- his humility, his mercy, and his sense of responsibility-- are the things that make him great. I've said it before and I'll say it again and again, Morrison's 'All-Star Superman' is a terrific template for the character.

But it has to start with a creative team that 'gets' the character. WB flopped right out of the gate by trying to 'Nolanize' Superman with Zack Snyder, who has absolutely no grasp on the character's strengths.

 

[wonder213]

1. The DCEU is fine. People will show up if it's a GOOD movie, DCEU or no DCEU. Quality matters, even for franchise movies. And people learn from their mistakes. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...

IP isn't enough - but all things being equel, IP is everything. Would Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice open to $166 million despite terrible reviews (RT 27%) if it didn't feature Batman and Superman on the big screen for the first time?

Fans were so excited they didn't care about the low RT score - critics are biased anyway! Not to mention, a lot of fans bought tickets online before the reviews came out.

Big-budget team up movies tend to do well overseas and, unlike Wonder Woman, Batman and Superman - with about a dozen solo live-action movies to date - are two of the most well-known superheroes in the world.

BvS opened huge but had no legs to speak of. Its B CinemaScore (same as Catwoman and Green Lantern!) didn't help. WORD OF MOUTH killed any hope of it crossing $1 billion. Critics may be biased, but your fellow fans?

The question is - would BvS have better LEGS if it had a RT score of 92% and an A CinemaScore, same as Wonder Woman? I'd say yes.

It's entirely possible that if BvS NEVER happened, Justice League would open to $166 million despite poor reviews. Again, moviegoers aren't stupid. From the director who brought you BvS? Fool me once...

BvS did happen, unfortunately, not to mention Justice League has a RT score of 40%. It didn't help that we've had some really good superhero movies this year: Logan (RT 93%), Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (RT 83%), Wonder Woman (RT 92%), Spider-Man: Homecoming (RT 92%) and Thor: Ragnarok (RT 92%).

2. Two or more DC movies (WB/New Line) a year sounds about right. Yes, Warner Bros. did well in 2017, but Time Warner is a public company. Doing well is not good enough. Warner Bros. is sitting on a GOLD MINE of comic book characters. They can do better.

The 4 Warner Bros./New Line movies that grossed over $1 billion worldwide to date are: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II (2011), The Dark Knight Rises (2012), The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) and The Dark Knight (2008). No original or non-IP movies on the list.

Their highest grossing movie since 2014's The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies? Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice ($873 million).

For Warner Bros., their best bet to (re)join the billion dollar club is a DCEU team up movie, so it makes sense that they didn't want to wait. After all, Marvel did so well with second-tier characters! It only looked easy.

Would Justice League do better critically and commercially if they waited until after Aquaman and The Flash had their solo movies? Probably. As long as it's NOT directed by Zack Snyder. Fool me once...

3. The fact is that superhero movies make a lot of money. Even a stinker like Justice League would be profitable if it had a LOWER BUDGET.

That's not all. The possibilities are endless: origin stories, sequels, spinoffs, reboots, heroes, antiheroes, villains, solo movies, buddy movies, heroes team ups, villains team ups, heroes team ups vs. villains team ups, and so on. That's not the case with IPs like Beauty and the Beast.

4. The cinematic universe is not dead. See Marvel. Amazon didn't kill Sears - bad leadership did. Walmart is doing fine.

Yes, The Avengers (RT 92%) did better than Avengers: Age of Ultron (RT 75%), but it's also a better movie. Quality matters. Most would agree that Thor: Ragnarok (RT 92%) did much better than Thor: The Dark World (RT 66%) because it's a much better movie.

Avengers: Age of Ultron is the highest grossing superhero movie of 2015. More importantly, The Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron are the MCU's HIGHEST grossing movies to date.

If you're in charge of the MCU, you'd want Avengers: Infinity War to do better than Avengers: Age of Ultron, critically and commercially. If your goal is to beat Star Wars: The Last Jedi, you'd be up all night. Water your own lawn, and all that.

5. The DC brand is fine. The Zack Snyder brand, not so much. As for Josh Whedon...

There's enough blame to go around. Chris Terrio, for one. Chris Nolan. Some things are SACRED: Classic Coke, Superman, and Wonder Woman. "Deconstructing" Superman in Man of Steel (Henry Cavill's debut!) and killing him off in BvS makes no sense whatsoever.

Snyder has a unique vision and I admire him for that, but "CROWD-PLEASING" is probably not in his vocabulary. Nothing wrong with that, he's just the WRONG person for the job. Stick with R-rated grimdark movies and he'll do fine. And yes, he's a genius when it comes to casting. Thank Hera for that!

Snyder fans would argue that Marvel movies are for kids... Well, what's wrong with that? Wonder Woman (PG-13) is super kid-friendly. It's also an excellent character study that seemingly effortlessly captured the essence of Diana Prince. So there.

Not sure if Whedon's still involved with Batgirl which probably won't be out until 2020 the earliest anyway. Fair or not, he's persona non grata on some female-centric sites these days. Talk about negative word of mouth.

6. Marketing. One distribution exec blamed Justice League's poor opening on the lack of Superman in the advertising. No kidding. It's beyond stupid to "HIDE" Superman from all the ads.

I feel bad for Henry Cavill who so helpfully reminds fans every chance he gets that this is the Superman we know and love... Too bad you can't tell from the trailers and TV spots!

With a bad rap (from the director who brought you BvS!) and a tortured production history, not to mention more leaks than the Titanic, it's crucial to get people in theaters OPENING WEEKEND.

Who cares if they sold the movie as Wonder Woman 2 or Man of Steel 2 or The Trinity or Iron Man 3.5 (just kidding)? Get people to buy tickets online before the reviews came out! But no.

7. The good news? The Superman trilogy is over; end of an era, if you will. Wonder Woman is proof that WORD OF MOUTH works wonders, DCEU or no DCEU. It didn't open huge, which is not surprising. BvS and Suicide Squad didn't exactly inspire confidence.

The DCEU is still young and has had its share of growing pains. As they say, good things come to those who wait. Warner Bros., fresh from the success of The Dark Knight trilogy, jumped right in at the deep end. Hindsight is 20/20.

The DC film slate revealed last weekend at Comic Con Exprience 2017 in Brazil (Aquaman, Flashpoint, Shazam, Justice League Dark, Wonder Woman 2, The Batman, Suicide Squad 2, Batgirl and Green Lantern Corps) looks familiar but promising. Suicide Squad has potential so why not - as long as David Ayer's not involved with the sequel!

So what if the Disney-Fox megadeal is approved? DC has all these amazing characters, an embarrassment of riches, really. As they say, focus on your own lawn. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Most importantly, keep the budget LOW!

 

[honestbharani]

1. The DCEU is fine. People will show up if it's a GOOD movie, DCEU or no DCEU. Quality matters, even for franchise movies. And people learn from their mistakes. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...

IP isn't enough - but all things being equel, IP is everything. Would Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice open to $166 million despite terrible reviews (RT 27%) if it didn't feature Batman and Superman on the big screen for the first time?

Fans were so excited they didn't care about the low RT score - critics are biased anyway! Not to mention, a lot of fans bought tickets online before the reviews came out.

Big-budget team up movies tend to do well overseas and, unlike Wonder Woman, Batman and Superman - with about a dozen solo live-action movies to date - are two of the most well-known superheroes in the world.

BvS opened huge but had no legs to speak of. Its B CinemaScore (same as Catwoman and Green Lantern!) didn't help. WORD OF MOUTH killed any hope of it crossing $1 billion. Critics may be biased, but your fellow fans?

The question is - would BvS have better LEGS if it had a RT score of 92% and an A CinemaScore, same as Wonder Woman? I'd say yes.

It's entirely possible that if BvS NEVER happened, Justice League would open to $166 million despite poor reviews. Again, moviegoers aren't stupid. From the director who brought you BvS? Fool me once...

BvS did happen, unfortunately, not to mention Justice League has a RT score of 40%. It didn't help that we've had some really good superhero movies this year: Logan (RT 93%), Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (RT 83%), Wonder Woman (RT 92%), Spider-Man: Homecoming (RT 92%) and Thor: Ragnarok (RT 92%).

2. Two or more DC movies (WB/New Line) a year sounds about right. Yes, Warner Bros. did well in 2017, but Time Warner is a public company. Doing well is not good enough. Warner Bros. is sitting on a GOLD MINE of comic book characters. They can do better.

The 4 Warner Bros./New Line movies that grossed over $1 billion worldwide to date are: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II (2011), The Dark Knight Rises (2012), The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) and The Dark Knight (2008). No original or non-IP movies on the list.

Their highest grossing movie since 2014's The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies? Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice ($873 million).

For Warner Bros., their best bet to (re)join the billion dollar club is a DCEU team up movie, so it makes sense that they didn't want to wait. After all, Marvel did so well with second-tier characters! It only looked easy.

Would Justice League do better critically and commercially if they waited until after Aquaman and The Flash had their solo movies? Probably. As long as it's NOT directed by Zack Snyder. Fool me once...

3. The fact is that superhero movies make a lot of money. Even a stinker like Justice League would be profitable if it had a LOWER BUDGET.

That's not all. The possibilities are endless: origin stories, sequels, spinoffs, reboots, heroes, antiheroes, villains, solo movies, buddy movies, heroes team ups, villains team ups, heroes team ups vs. villains team ups, and so on. That's not the case with IPs like Beauty and the Beast.

4. The cinematic universe is not dead. See Marvel. Amazon didn't kill Sears - bad leadership did. Walmart is doing fine.

Yes, The Avengers (RT 92%) did better than Avengers: Age of Ultron (RT 75%), but it's also a better movie. Quality matters. Most would agree that Thor: Ragnarok (RT 92%) did much better than Thor: The Dark World (RT 66%) because it's a much better movie.

Avengers: Age of Ultron is the highest grossing superhero movie of 2015. More importantly, The Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron are the MCU's HIGHEST grossing movies to date.

If you're in charge of the MCU, you'd want Avengers: Infinity War to do better than Avengers: Age of Ultron, critically and commercially. If your goal is to beat Star Wars: The Last Jedi, you'd be up all night. Water your own lawn, and all that.

5. The DC brand is fine. The Zack Snyder brand, not so much. As for Josh Whedon...

There's enough blame to go around. Chris Terrio, for one. Chris Nolan. Some things are SACRED: Classic Coke, Superman, and Wonder Woman. "Deconstructing" Superman in Man of Steel (Henry Cavill's debut!) and killing him off in BvS makes no sense whatsoever.

Snyder has a unique vision and I admire him for that, but "CROWD-PLEASING" is probably not in his vocabulary. Nothing wrong with that, he's just the WRONG person for the job. Stick with R-rated grimdark movies and he'll do fine. And yes, he's a genius when it comes to casting. Thank Hera for that!

Snyder fans would argue that Marvel movies are for kids... Well, what's wrong with that? Wonder Woman (PG-13) is super kid-friendly. It's also an excellent character study that seemingly effortlessly captured the essence of Diana Prince. So there.

Not sure if Whedon's still involved with Batgirl which probably won't be out until 2020 the earliest anyway. Fair or not, he's persona non grata on some female-centric sites these days. Talk about negative word of mouth.

6. Marketing. One distribution exec blamed Justice League's poor opening on the lack of Superman in the advertising. No kidding. It's beyond stupid to "HIDE" Superman from all the ads.

I feel bad for Henry Cavill who so helpfully reminds fans every chance he gets that this is the Superman we know and love... Too bad you can't tell from the trailers and TV spots!

With a bad rap (from the director who brought you BvS!) and a tortured production history, not to mention more leaks than the Titanic, it's crucial to get people in theaters OPENING WEEKEND.

Who cares if they sold the movie as Wonder Woman 2 or Man of Steel 2 or The Trinity or Iron Man 3.5 (just kidding)? Get people to buy tickets online before the reviews came out! But no.

7. The good news? The Superman trilogy is over; end of an era, if you will. Wonder Woman is proof that WORD OF MOUTH works wonders, DCEU or no DCEU. It didn't open huge, which is not surprising. BvS and Suicide Squad didn't exactly inspire confidence.

The DCEU is still young and has had its share of growing pains. As they say, good things come to those who wait. Warner Bros., fresh from the success of The Dark Knight trilogy, jumped right in at the deep end. Hindsight is 20/20.

The DC film slate revealed last weekend at Comic Con Exprience 2017 in Brazil (Aquaman, Flashpoint, Shazam, Justice League Dark, Wonder Woman 2, The Batman, Suicide Squad 2, Batgirl and Green Lantern Corps) looks familiar but promising. Suicide Squad has potential so why not - as long as David Ayer's not involved with the sequel!

So what if the Disney-Fox megadeal is approved? DC has all these amazing characters, an embarrassment of riches, really. As they say, focus on your own lawn. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Most importantly, keep the budget LOW!

That is as fair a post as I have ever seen in these forums by a DCEU/WB fan. Bravo!!! There are few aspects I disagree with but its minor details anyways. Great post!!!

 

[GreenKToo]

[/SPOILER]


I was gonna say, I don't consider myself a bad guy. I'm pretty idealistic even. But no way in Hell am I gonna be struggling with the rent when I have Supermans powers.

Maybe they should explore that in a next Superman movie. Where is the line? Because Clark helping out on the farm could also be seen as morally wrong then as it gives the Kents an edge over any neighbouring farmers trying to sell their produce.

agreed. He could literally take a lump of coal, turn it into a diamond and be set for life.
or, he could use his x ray vision to find lost treasures/money that would otherwise never be found and would hurt no one by finding it.
No way he would be struggling to pay the rent, no way.

 

[Predator jp]

or, he could use his x ray vision to find lost treasures/money that would otherwise never be found and would hurt no one by finding it.

wow Indiana Superman movie sounds exciting as hell lol