What can DC/WB do now to move forward? Is there hope?

[DrCosmic]

What parts of MOS conflict with the DCEU? How do you explain away the fact that BVS was plainly a sequel to MOS?

You simply point out all the ways BvS failed as a sequel, no matter how plainly it was intended to be.

What parts of MOS conflict with the DCEU? How do you explain away the fact that BVS was plainly a sequel to MOS?

You simply point out all the ways BvS failed as a sequel, no matter how plainly it was intended to be.

First, there is little cohesion between these films. There is no continuity of theme, and the characters from the first movie have not evolved or learned their lessons here. Its as if MOS never happened for them, or only happened in the broadest of strokes. Their character beats are gone, and the entire theme of MOS, Superman as a figure of hope, is MIA.

Second, there are conflicts in continuity: Batman shows up in Gotham, not to help save the world, or deal with these aliens, something his arsenal would have been helpful with, but to personally escort his Metropolis branch to safety. This is the film's great attempt to pass itself off as a sequel,and it makes little sense. That nonsense is then doubled down on as we reveal Wonder Woman and Aquaman also stood by for this singular event, if not Flash and Cyborg as well. Insane.

The only place the film succeeds as a follow up to MOS is keeping setpiece story points and cast members. Superman fought Zod. Zod was killed. Without these points, BvS would in no way be considered a spiritual successor to MOS, and it is, in many ways, a sequel-in-name-only.

But a lot of movies are made with no intended sequels in mind. Then circumstances led to them getting one. Intentions and outcomes don't always go hand in hand.

True. I don't think any others this big have done so little to actually follow up the previous film. If anything, most forced sequels are just repeats of the first installment.

 

[Patchwork Man]

Second, there are conflicts in continuity: Batman shows up in Gotham, not to help save the world, or deal with these aliens, something his arsenal would have been helpful with, but to personally escort his Metropolis branch to safety. This is the film's great attempt to pass itself off as a sequel,and it makes little sense. That nonsense is then doubled down on as we reveal Wonder Woman and Aquaman also stood by for this singular event, if not Flash and Cyborg as well. Insane.

Re: Black Zero: That which transpires onscreen unfolds in real time. By the time Batman got there, it would've been over, anyway. The beginning of BvS shows Bruce Wayne (who is nowhere near his nuBatcave) arriving via chopper in order to haul ass in an SUV to the Wayne Building as fast as he can, all things considered. And he still has to run the last proverbial hundred yards.

We're not sure if Cyborg "exists" yet during the events of MoS, which take place before BvS. We have no idea where Flash is, but he's obviously not a hero (yet).

[YT]alUuXNVOal0[/YT]

 

[ehh]

Yeah, count me as someone who does not consider MOS an actual DCEU film. It was clear that MOS was meant to be a standalone kind of thing, Snyder even said as much back in the day.

But MoS is a DCEU film... it's the first DCEU film... it's the grounds for the entire DCEU...

 

[Flint Marko]

Second, there are conflicts in continuity: Batman shows up in Gotham, not to help save the world, or deal with these aliens, something his arsenal would have been helpful with, but to personally escort his Metropolis branch to safety. This is the film's great attempt to pass itself off as a sequel,and it makes little sense. That nonsense is then doubled down on as we reveal Wonder Woman and Aquaman also stood by for this singular event, if not Flash and Cyborg as well. Insane.

Eh, I give Marvel a pass for these sort of things so I won't get hung up on it in this case either. Bruce deciding to go to Metropolis out of costume is probably a stretch too far though.

 

[Fincher]

BvS isn't an appropriate sequel to Man of Steel, but it is a sequel.

 

[Timebomb]

BvS isn't an appropriate sequel to Man of Steel, but it is a sequel.

And alas this is the ultimate truth whether what was meant, this is what we have.

 

[Mjölnir]

It's pretty irrelevant that MoS was created to just be a Superman thing. The fact remains that they changed their minds and used that movie as the base to build on.

Whether they did it poorly or well isn't relevant to whether it happened.

 

[Osiris-Rex]

Yeah, count me as someone who does not consider MOS an actual DCEU film. It was clear that MOS was meant to be a standalone kind of thing, Snyder even said as much back in the day.

MoS is a DCEU film in the sense the same actors play the same characters in all the films. Cavill and Adams play the same Superman and Lois Lane in both MoS and BvS. And then to further the idea of a DCEU, Ben Affleck plays the same Batman in BvS and SS. As will Gal Gadot play the same WW in BvS and WW.

 

[Mandon Knight]

MoS is part of the DCEU, clearly.

 

[DrCosmic]

Re: Black Zero: That which transpires onscreen unfolds in real time. By the time Batman got there, it would've been over, anyway. The beginning of BvS shows Bruce Wayne (who is nowhere near his nuBatcave) arriving via chopper in order to haul ass in an SUV to the Wayne Building as fast as he can, all things considered. And he still has to run the last proverbial hundred yards.

We're not sure if Cyborg "exists" yet during the events of MoS, which take place before BvS. We have no idea where Flash is, but he's obviously not a hero (yet).

[YT]alUuXNVOal0[/YT]

I mean, that's cool and all, but Wonder Woman and Aquaman still failed to show a desire to live, if we commit to the idea that MoS occurs in the same world as BvS.

Eh, I give Marvel a pass for these sort of things so I won't get hung up on it in this case either. Bruce deciding to go to Metropolis out of costume is probably a stretch too far though.

I scarcely give Marvel a pass, and partially because they don't have singular world-changing events occur, where first contact aliens camp out for days and no one but the titular hero shows up at all.

BvS isn't an appropriate sequel to Man of Steel, but it is a sequel.

But what really is a sequel, if not an appropriate follow up to a previous film?

 

[BestGirl]

You simply point out all the ways BvS failed as a sequel, no matter how plainly it was intended to be.



You simply point out all the ways BvS failed as a sequel, no matter how plainly it was intended to be.

First, there is little cohesion between these films. There is no continuity of theme, and the characters from the first movie have not evolved or learned their lessons here. Its as if MOS never happened for them, or only happened in the broadest of strokes. Their character beats are gone, and the entire theme of MOS, Superman as a figure of hope, is MIA.

I'll echo Fincher and say that just because the sequel wasn't well managed doesn't mean MOS isn't its prequel.

Second, there are conflicts in continuity: Batman shows up in Gotham, not to help save the world, or deal with these aliens, something his arsenal would have been helpful with, but to personally escort his Metropolis branch to safety. This is the film's great attempt to pass itself off as a sequel,and it makes little sense. That nonsense is then doubled down on as we reveal Wonder Woman and Aquaman also stood by for this singular event, if not Flash and Cyborg as well. Insane.

The only place the film succeeds as a follow up to MOS is keeping setpiece story points and cast members. Superman fought Zod. Zod was killed. Without these points, BvS would in no way be considered a spiritual successor to MOS, and it is, in many ways, a sequel-in-name-only.



True. I don't think any others this big have done so little to actually follow up the previous film. If anything, most forced sequels are just repeats of the first installment.

Batman was pretty damned useless against Doomsday so I doubt he'd've been able to help against Zod. And as for Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Cyborg, etc being absent for the battle, you could make the same complaint about Marvel films. Why don't Thor and the Hulk help Iron Man defeat his villains? The real answer is that IM is in a solo movie, yet all these guys are part of the same MCU.

 

[Erzengel]

Really thinking about this, more than I should.

It's really the Phase 2 movies that you can ask where are the other heroes because all the events in Phase 1 prior to the Avengers were regional and short. Stark vs. Stane, Abomination vs. Hulk and Thor vs. Destroyer. 99% of Cap's movie takes place in the past and Avengers is the first global event.

With Phase 2, Thor: Dark World is pretty much what MOS on a higher level as it deals with the universe. That's an Avenger's event.

On a lesser scale, IM3 and TWS, both could have used help other than War Machine and Black Widow & Falcon respectively.

However, it could be said that between the Avengers movies, that Banner is always hesitant to turn into the Hulk. And that Thor after Avengers was too busy with Asgard prior to TDW and obviously was working with the Avengers through AOU before he goes back to Asgard.

GOTG takes place in space. Ant-Man is a personal battle between Pym & Lang against Cross. AOU was another global event but obviously the entire Avengers team was there.

Civil War featured everyone and only Doctor Strange could handle the mystical battle in his movie.

However, WW's fighting Doomsday because that's a global event BUT didn't want to help during the Kryptonian invasion is a bit of a stretch on the level of Thor: Dark World.

 

[Fincher]

But what really is a sequel, if not an appropriate follow up to a previous film?

Even if you called it a spinoff, despite carrying over the same characters played by the same actors and having the events of the previous film impact the new one, a spinoff is set in the same universe.

 

[Wildcard]

Really thinking about this, more than I should.

It's really the Phase 2 movies that you can ask where are the other heroes because all the events in Phase 1 prior to the Avengers were regional and short. Stark vs. Stane, Abomination vs. Hulk and Thor vs. Destroyer. 99% of Cap's movie takes place in the past and Avengers is the first global event.

With Phase 2, Thor: Dark World is pretty much what MOS on a higher level as it deals with the universe. That's an Avenger's event.

On a lesser scale, IM3 and TWS, both could have used help other than War Machine and Black Widow & Falcon respectively.

However, it could be said that between the Avengers movies, that Banner is always hesitant to turn into the Hulk. And that Thor after Avengers was too busy with Asgard prior to TDW and obviously was working with the Avengers through AOU before he goes back to Asgard.

GOTG takes place in space. Ant-Man is a personal battle between Pym & Lang against Cross. AOU was another global event but obviously the entire Avengers team was there.

Civil War featured everyone and only Doctor Strange could handle the mystical battle in his movie.

However, WW's fighting Doomsday because that's a global event BUT didn't want to help during the Kryptonian invasion is a bit of a stretch on the level of Thor: Dark World.

Damn, dude. I never even thought about that. But it does make sense 100%. And that's the precise problem I have with SS. It's an end of the world event that takes place on the heels of BvS, but Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, etc. are nowhere to be found.

 

[Boy Scout]

Yeah, I have that problem with the movie too. Didn't they say that the event lasted for DAYS before the Squad was deployed?

 

[DrCosmic]

I'll echo Fincher and say that just because the sequel wasn't well managed doesn't mean MOS isn't its prequel.



Batman was pretty damned useless against Doomsday so I doubt he'd've been able to help against Zod. And as for Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Cyborg, etc being absent for the battle, you could make the same complaint about Marvel films. Why don't Thor and the Hulk help Iron Man defeat his villains? The real answer is that IM is in a solo movie, yet all these guys are part of the same MCU.

Well, generally speaking, IM's villains don't change the world in the way that first contact does, neither do they threaten the entire world over the course of a week. So I can't make the same complaint, because my issue is not that they weren't there for Superman's movie, my complain is that they did not act on an event that was worldwide, lengthy and life threatening to them and everyone they care about. Should we believe MOS happened or not?

Really thinking about this, more than I should.

It's really the Phase 2 movies that you can ask where are the other heroes because all the events in Phase 1 prior to the Avengers were regional and short. Stark vs. Stane, Abomination vs. Hulk and Thor vs. Destroyer. 99% of Cap's movie takes place in the past and Avengers is the first global event.

With Phase 2, Thor: Dark World is pretty much what MOS on a higher level as it deals with the universe. That's an Avenger's event.

On a lesser scale, IM3 and TWS, both could have used help other than War Machine and Black Widow & Falcon respectively.

However, it could be said that between the Avengers movies, that Banner is always hesitant to turn into the Hulk. And that Thor after Avengers was too busy with Asgard prior to TDW and obviously was working with the Avengers through AOU before he goes back to Asgard.

GOTG takes place in space. Ant-Man is a personal battle between Pym & Lang against Cross. AOU was another global event but obviously the entire Avengers team was there.

Civil War featured everyone and only Doctor Strange could handle the mystical battle in his movie.

However, WW's fighting Doomsday because that's a global event BUT didn't want to help during the Kryptonian invasion is a bit of a stretch on the level of Thor: Dark World.

There is no such thing as thinking about it too much!

I think Thor TDW comes close to MOS, but as far as it's impact on earth, that happened pretty quickly. It's not illogical for Iron Man to be unaware of the twenty minute war for the universe in London while it was happening, it's not even likely that he could have gotten that information at the moment. There was no worldwide broadcast saying "aliens are here and we mean business."

I thought it odd that Cap and IM were alone during Phase 2, but because the characters were cut off from their support systems, it isn't a break in logic or character assassination to say they didn't want to break each other into that, or didn't trust any of their lines of communication. If IM had lived in DC, for instance, showing up at Falcon's house would have been weird. As it was... what were they going to do?

Even if you called it a spinoff, despite carrying over the same characters played by the same actors and having the events of the previous film impact the new one, a spinoff is set in the same universe.

Offering the alternative nomenclature doesn't answer the question. Without trying to address the DCEU specifically: what makes a sequel a sequel? What makes something set in the same universe? The filmmakers say-so? Recasting the actors? If it's continuity, how much continuity to discontinuity ratio is enough to qualify something as a sequel? Or is one point of continuity enough and any discontinuity is simply a plot hole?

In working vernacular, I think we generally call something a sequel if there is A) At least one point of continuity and B) The filmmakers say it is a sequel.

However, if you tell me two films are set in the same universe, and I can point out that in universe A the sky is red and in universe B the sky is blue, can't I then say that I have proof they do not, in fact, occur in the same universe, even if everything else about them is the same?

 

[Erzengel]

There is no such thing as thinking about it too much!

I think Thor TDW comes close to MOS, but as far as it's impact on earth, that happened pretty quickly. It's not illogical for Iron Man to be unaware of the twenty minute war for the universe in London while it was happening, it's not even likely that he could have gotten that information at the moment. There was no worldwide broadcast saying "aliens are here and we mean business."

I thought it odd that Cap and IM were alone during Phase 2, but because the characters were cut off from their support systems, it isn't a break in logic or character assassination to say they didn't want to break each other into that, or didn't trust any of their lines of communication. If IM had lived in DC, for instance, showing up at Falcon's house would have been weird. As it was... what were they going to do?

I do think that with MCU not trying to be a Marvel fanboy, there's a lot of giving the benefit of the doubt and lesss of a suspension of belief. Such as, and still spending too much time thinking about it. It's not a far stretch that during the timing of IM3 that Steve and Nat were on a covert mission with Shield/Strike. Whereas by the events of TWS, Tony is still recovering from surgery and "trying" to just be Tony.

On the other hand with the DCEU.

Yeah, I have that problem with the movie too. Didn't they say that the event lasted for DAYS before the Squad was deployed?

And here's the kicker, the Flash is in Central City (Ohio) and the events of SS take place in Midway City (Michigan). That's a 6 hour drive by car. More of a suspension of belief because they showed Flash in SS. Not to mention Ohio to Gotham/Metropolis (Delaware/South Jersey) would be an 8 hour drive. For the events of BvS, the only "explanation" I can think of is Flash doesn't want to encroach on Superman's territory.

 

[Fincher]

Offering the alternative nomenclature doesn't answer the question. Without trying to address the DCEU specifically: what makes a sequel a sequel? What makes something set in the same universe? The filmmakers say-so? Recasting the actors? If it's continuity, how much continuity to discontinuity ratio is enough to qualify something as a sequel? Or is one point of continuity enough and any discontinuity is simply a plot hole?

In working vernacular, I think we generally call something a sequel if there is A) At least one point of continuity and B) The filmmakers say it is a sequel.

However, if you tell me two films are set in the same universe, and I can point out that in universe A the sky is red and in universe B the sky is blue, can't I then say that I have proof they do not, in fact, occur in the same universe, even if everything else about them is the same?

I tend to go by whether the filmmakers say so. If there is a line when something is too far removed to qualify, I don't think BvS is close to that line. If characters don't learn anything, well, sometimes people are slow to learn lessons, sometimes they never learn, and sometimes they backslide. If the other superheroes weren't available to fight the Kryptonian threat, maybe they were busy, or maybe they didn't know about it. Aquaman could have been sleeping off a bender. Plot holes don't amount to inherent contradictions. A movie can have plot holes within itself, but we can't say that it's in a different universe from itself.

 

[BestGirl]

The ting is, there's plenty of continuity between MOS and BVS. The movie opens with Bruce trying to save his employees from Zod's invasion. The Capitol is blown up inadvertently by a crippled man who bears a grudge against Superman for the events of that day. Lex is trying to lay his hands on the Kryptonian tech Zod and co. left behind. We even see Zod's corpse at one point. You can't just pretend MOS isn't related.

 

[Timebomb]

Yeah, I have that problem with the movie too. Didn't they say that the event lasted for DAYS before the Squad was deployed?

Yes they did. That's the problem, I can go along with Stuff happening for a short period of time and nobody else showing up to support but when you are talking days. Yeah some actual heroes should have shown their faces in SS. But you know, story.....or lack there of.

 

[dnno1]

Definitely recast their Barry Allen would be a good start...

Actually, Ezra Miller is a really good actor. That would be a mistake since he's probably going to carry that solo film franchise.

 

[ManWithNoName18]

Thoughts on Ayer returning for a Gotham City Sirens movie?

I got some thoughts

- on the fence with Ayer. I think he has better potential than Snyder, and it seems Suicide Squad had a lot of turmoil behind the scenes. However some of the decisions he mad like the Enchantress character and Joker IMO lie solely on Ayer.

- However a Sirens movie starring Harley as a main character with Catwoman, Ivy, Batgirl, etc. Plus inevitable Joker/Batman cameos I can see it making easily over 500 million

- Also while I do understand that Harley is coming off being the most popular character in movie that preformed pretty well. It sure is weird a Harley centric movie has better traction than a GL, or MOS sequel.

 

[Luke234]

People saying "should we believe MOS happened or not ?" Just stop. You're being pathetic trollers. It's the entire set up of Batman's conflict well spelled out. Nearly everything in the movie revolves around what happened . Just enjoy your marvel movies and stop hoping for DC to fail. It's ridiculously transparent.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Actually, Ezra Miller is a really good actor. That would be a mistake since he's probably going to carry that solo film franchise.

Yeah, I kinda feel bad for Miller. The guy is a great actor but he faces an uphill battle because:

1. Some fans are loyal to the Grant Gustin version and therefore won't give him a chance
2. He doesn't look much like the comic book version of Barry (even though this is a common issue with a lot of superhero casting)
3. His solo film has already lost two directors
4. The DCEU is already off to a rocky start.

 

[ManWithNoName18]

Sort of related news, Greg Silverman is out at WB. He oversaw WB movie production and by extension the DCEU since 2013.

Toby Emmerich (President of New Line) will be his replacement.

I guess all those flops finally caught up to him