- Joined
- Jun 13, 2019
- Messages
- 6,933
- Reaction score
- 14,561
- Points
- 103
I honestly cannot muster a shred of interest or care for what is or isn’t good for DC studios brand management.
Especially because, again: over exposure is an issue. There should not be two live action Batmen with overlapping solo franchises. You can only stretch audience interest so far.I'm sure people are very familiarized with Batman as a character at this point.
Animated show/movie. Supporting role in other live-action projects. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, though I suspect you'll disagree.
I'll be curious to see what happens. At this rate, the overlap is inevitable. We can only hope that one doesn't undermine the other, or that they both cut the legs out from one another.Especially because, again: over exposure is an issue. There should not be two live action Batmen with overlapping solo franchises. You can only stretch audience interest so far.
I am a mix because I am both naturally cynical that movies like Reeves is making can survive in this studio atmosphere but also I have literal zero doubts that Part II will be significantly more successful than any of the DCU projects - I really don’t think it’ll be anything other than the classic DC disaster.I'll be curious to see what happens. At this rate, the overlap is inevitable. We can only hope that one doesn't undermine the other, or that they both cut the legs out from under one another.
I'm still doubtful Reeves gets to see his trilogy through when all is said and done, but there's no point in even crossing that bridge until we come to it.
in an ideal scenario, it should be a bat family movie where Bruce plays a supporting role with Dick, Damian and Babs at the forefront
that would be a nice change of pace
Tbh it sort of makes sense from a creative standpoint, but the context is just awkward and not ideal. Why give him a solo movie now? Much better to just wait until Matt Reeves is done. Let other DC characters flourish before bringing Batman in.It’s just inherently deeply funny and says such bad things about the genre and industry that having a successful, critically acclaimed Batman franchise that is at its beginning is insufficient because he can’t hang out with Superman and literally no other reason. Again: all that matters is imaginary MCU money.
So until 2032 when there's only like 3 years left in their 10 year plan?Tbh it sort of makes sense from a creative standpoint, but the context is just awkward and not ideal. Why give him a solo movie now? Much better to just wait until Matt Reeves is done. Let other DC characters flourish before bringing Batman in.
Sure, I think me and most of the people arguing this don’t think there should be a ten year plan in the first place.So until 2032 when there's only like 3 years left in their 10 year plan?
Well we're pretty lucky none of you run DC.Sure, I think me and most of the people arguing this don’t think there should be a ten year plan in the first place.
It’s just inherently deeply funny and says such bad things about the genre and industry that having a successful, critically acclaimed Batman franchise that is at its beginning is insufficient because he can’t hang out with Superman and literally no other reason. Again: all that matters is imaginary MCU money.
Another option is to restructure this into a live-action limited series on Max. You still get the Bat Family in live-action, but in a different medium and format.
A proper Bat Family series is all I want.in an ideal scenario, it should be a bat family movie where Bruce plays a supporting role with Dick, Damian and Babs at the forefront
that would be a nice change of pace
Well, maybe they’ll be real desperate in two years when Gunn is gone and we’re discussing their next desperate flailing attempt at a DC Universe!Well we're pretty lucky none of you run DC.
I really don't think the DCU is as dead on arrival as you're making it out to be. Like I said, Superman does have a path at even surpassing The Batman. I also think the "death of the superhero genre" thing is way overstared (2 years ago even a film as dog**** as Love and Thunder did over 700 million, and minus China did even better than Ragnarok. Last year made people too reactionary)Well, maybe they’ll be real desperate in two years when Gunn is gone and we’re discussing their next desperate flailing attempt at a DC Universe!
It would be pretty ironic if Matt Reeves was the last one standing post-2026.Well, maybe they’ll be real desperate in two years when Gunn is gone and we’re discussing their next desperate flailing attempt at a DC Universe!
If Superman isn't beating a movie that had a 45 day window and the aid of decent inflation, we might have to wait until a new timeline before we see the DCU Batman!I really don't think the DCU is as dead on arrival as you're making it out to be. Like I said, Superman does have a path at even surpassing The Batman. I also think the "death of the superhero genre" thing is way overstared (2 years ago even a film as dog**** as Love and Thunder did over 700 million, which minus China was better than Ragnarok. Last year made people too reactionary)