The Daily Planet - Superman News and Speculation Thread (🚨TAG SPOILERS🚨)

[donuts]

For me it's the other way around For MOS I remember being very surprised by the Terrence Malick vibe, muted colors and shaky cam, bc it was unlike anything Snyder had done before. With Gunn's Superman, I'm expecting it to look great, but essentially like an extension of his GOTG visuals, considering it's the same cinematographer. Although I'd love to be surprised and for it to also look like this big departure with an experimental new look

To be fair, each of the Guardians of the Galaxy movies is a slight departure from the previous one, both tonally and stylistically.

And the same can be said of The Suicide Squad, which in many ways was suprisingly more of a big budget "relative" of his early movies such as Slither and Super than a traditional superhero blockbuster.

So, it's hard to preemptively pinpoint what a James Gunn Superman could feel and look like. Especially considering how the character itself is very different from Gunn's previous protagonists.

As for Henry Braham being the cinematographer: his work in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is vastly different than it is in The Suicide Squad and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (the latter two of which have somewhat of a visual throughline).

 

[flickchick85]

I was already surprised by the look of the film just in the first look pic alone.

 

[DyeLorean]

Not much, but there's something there

 

[Tra-El]

Not much, but there's something there

I like what I'm hearing. No matter how you feel about him, Gunn sure is an interesting dude in his own right.

 

[donuts]

Not much, but there's something there

Hilarious interview!

 

[Deck Rickard]

The part about someone asking him if he is Snyder is hilarious. I wish I could have seen that in person.

 

[Herolee10]

So any thoughts regarding that

Spoiler

quick tease of Superman being crucified in the future from "Creature Commandos"?

 

[Tra-El]

So any thoughts regarding that

Spoiler

quick tease of Superman being crucified in the future from "Creature Commandos"?

I love it. That imagery is a part of the Superman lore and mythology. Hope anger doesn't ensue. I know those metaphors were an issue with people from previous versions.

 

[Herolee10]

I love it. That imagery is a part of the Superman lore and mythology. Hope anger doesn't ensue. I know those metaphors were an issue with people from previous versions.

In your opinion, do you find it weird that

Spoiler

Gunn would introduce Superman like that for the new DCU?

 

[donuts]

In your opinion, do you find it weird that

Spoiler

Gunn would introduce Superman like that for the new DCU?

No.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

In your opinion, do you find it weird that

Spoiler

Gunn would introduce Superman like that for the new DCU?

Super weird, but im gonna wait and see the context

 

[Tra-El]

In your opinion, do you find it weird that

Spoiler

Gunn would introduce Superman like that for the new DCU?

No, not at all. If it ties into the storyline from a certain perspective of what the vision of the creators want to say, then more power to them. It also shows that moans and grumbles from certain fanbases won't detour them from creating the necessary imagery the story needs. Those metaphors have been used, will be used, and will be used again in future iterations with the Superman character. They go hand in hand.

I also love what I'm hearing about what Frank Grillo said about David and his ability to be stoic and serious. That character still needs that. Gunn will give us that balance the character needs.

 

[flickchick85]

In your opinion, do you find it weird that

Spoiler

Gunn would introduce Superman like that for the new DCU?

I’d have to see the context but if it’s just some flash forward to a hypothetical future, not even a little bit?

 

[AndrewGilkison]

So any thoughts regarding that

Spoiler

quick tease of Superman being crucified in the future from "Creature Commandos"?

Spoiler

Wouldn't be the first time this has happened to Superman in animation.

 

[Herolee10]

Given Gunn's recent comments about the Sucide Squad being considered canon to the DCU, does that now mean it was David's Superman that Bloodsport shot and put in the ICU?

 

[WatchProtect]

Gunn said only some things in The Suicide Squad are canon, he actually said they're a little less canon in reference to Peacemaker S1 being mostly canon besides the JL scene.

I wouldn't mind it being Corenswets Superman, would be pretty cool to see Elba back as as Bloodsport too! I

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Given Gunn's recent comments about the Sucide Squad being considered canon to the DCU, does that now mean it was David's Superman that Bloodsport shot and put in the ICU?

I think that would make the most sense.

 

[Tra-El]

Given Gunn's recent comments about the Sucide Squad being considered canon to the DCU, does that now mean it was David's Superman that Bloodsport shot and put in the ICU?

Gunn should go that route. When you name-drop Superman in the series of your own creation and then end up being the one to direct and write the next iteration of the character on the big screen, you should acknowledge and follow through with something. Even if it's like a small aspect in an earlier portion of Kal's Earthly life, like an American Alien angle of some sort.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Not much, but there's something there

My takeaways:

I am happy he talked about how scary and imposing Hoult's Lex is (and how we've never seen it on film). That indicates to me that this Lex is going to be much closer to a John Bryne, or STAS style Lex than the various live action goofballs we gotten since Gene Hackman.

The first thing I thought of when Gunn was announced as the Superman director and everyone was debating whether he was a fitting choice or not, was how he built a lot of the cosmic world of the MCU with the Guardians movies and that Superman has a TON of that type of stuff, so I felt validated when he mentioned the "Silver Age Weirdness". There is actually a lot of quirky weird stuff in the Superman mythos that Gunn could have a ball with, if you think about it.

 

[Tra-El]

My takeaways:

I am happy he talked about how scary and imposing Hoult's Lex is (and how we've never seen it on film). That indicates to me that this Lex is going to be much closer to a John Bryne, or STAS style Lex than the various live action goofballs we gotten since Gene Hackman.

The first thing I thought of when Gunn was announced as the Superman director and everyone was debating whether he was a fitting choice or not, was how he built a lot of the cosmic world of the MCU with the Guardians movies and that Superman has a TON of that type of stuff, so I felt validated when he mentioned the "Silver Age Weirdness". There is actually a lot of quirky weird stuff in the Superman mythos that Gunn could have a ball with, if you think about it.

I hope it comes in the form of turning the Fortress to a laboratory of goodness where we see fun and whacky Kryptonian Technology being worked on there where everything is guarded and weaponry is tested. Man, I would loveeee that.

 

[Sawyer]

Given the All-Star inspiration, I’ve been expecting some Silver Agey-ness for awhile. That book was basically a modernized Silver Age Superman comic.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Hope he finally wrote a good villain with Lex here. Most of his superhero flicks were lacking in that.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Given Gunn's recent comments about the Sucide Squad being considered canon to the DCU, does that now mean it was David's Superman that Bloodsport shot and put in the ICU?

Not exactly. Here's the simplest way to put it. Anything from TSS or Peacemaker S1 could have happened (with exception of the JL cameo in the Peacemaker S1 finale), but it is not officially DCU canon unless explicitly stated somewhere in the new filmverse. That is to say, unless the Bloodshot incident is mentioned in an upcoming DCU film or show, it never even occurred.

 

[Gu3ree]

Just a theory. I'm looking forward to what Nicholas Hoult brings to the character. Lex always seems complicated. I've always preferred the CEO corrupt business man than the real estate criminal version even though I have a soft side for Gene Hackman. He was funny and charming. He just wasn't that intimidating as an actual villain imo.

As for the CEO version, I prefer this Lex Luthor much more, however I think years back, I misinterpreted his character. Mt interpretation was that Lex knew he was evil and embraced it, but I guess that wasn't necessarily the case.

He just hated Superman and envied him and wanted his power and reputation. I feel like this concept seems dated now, and it doesn't make that sense. Why should a billionaire like Lex care and take it personal, as opposed to everyone else on the planet? He takes Superman personally and feels like Superman is taking what he wants.

 

[Sawyer]

Not exactly. Here's the simplest way to put it. Anything from TSS or Peacemaker S1 could have happened (with exception of the JL cameo in the Peacemaker S1 finale), but it is not officially DCU canon unless explicitly stated somewhere in the new filmverse. That is to say, unless the Bloodshot incident is mentioned in an upcoming DCU film or show, it never even occurred.

I think it’ll also come down to how long David’s Superman has been at it. Flag Sr. put the events of TSS at about two years ago. If this Superman has been on the job 2+ years, it’s possible. Any more recent arrival on the scene, then probably not.