Warner bros announce superhero films through 2020
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
I watched Justice League on a 13-hour flight and was surprised at how -not- horrible it was. Everyone talked about it like it was a complete mess, and it's not. It's far from perfect, kind of dull to be honest, but the whole thing genuinely holds together as a competently told story, with understandable character arcs and everything.
It's mediocre, but it's not awful.
It's mediocre, but it's not awful.
Boring as hell with terrible FX, completely ineffective 'humor', and the worst acting in the DCEU. If that's 'mediocre', then Suicide Squad is a flawless masterpiece.
I continue to struggle with (in my view anyway) how badly WB have got the DCU wrong in recent years, when you compare it with what the MCU have done.
The general trajectory of bad decisions is easy enough to trace: taking the success of Nolan's Batman movies as an indicator that "realistic," "grounded," and grimdark was the way to go with every DC property; handing the keys to the kingdom to a guy who would deliver that, and did, in spades; and backpedaling frantically from that approach once it finally penetrated the not-very-bright corporate brain that it was killing their shared superhero universe in the cradle.
Of course, by that point, they already had most of Justice League in the can by said grimdark auteur, and trying to fix that on the fly to reflect their belated corporate epiphany didn't yield a very pretty result. I agree with others who have posted it isn't as bad as it's made out to be, but it could have been so much better if it had been properly conceived, developed, and directed from the start.
But we seem to be securely in the post-grimdark age of the DCEU now, and if Wonder Woman and Aquaman are any indication, things look to be brighter going forward.
Justice League is fun, but I loved Man of Steel and Batman Vs Superman and hate the rewriting of the characters. JL is the Batman Forever to MoS and BvS' Batman and Batman Returns.
Being a god among men is a massive burden, and only Zach Snyder's films portrayed that. JL deletes all that in favour of a straight up Christopher Reeve Forever Smiling Superman.
Being a god among men is a massive burden, and only Zach Snyder's films portrayed that. JL deletes all that in favour of a straight up Christopher Reeve Forever Smiling Superman.
Last edited:
They lack a Kevin Feige and took something never intended to be a Shared Universe film and turned it into one retroactively.
Originally Man of Steel and any sequels it had were meant to be a standalone series with no other heroes in it, but then when the MCU kicked into full gear and WB saw how successful it was they chose to use MOS as a launch for the new DCEU. This created problems when later films showed that other heroes existed, because now with the big alien invasion in MOS it begged the question as to what these others were doing at the time (Wonder Woman).
Then BvS further muddled things because Superman is only NOW noticing the brutal Bat vigilante in Gotham despite him being around for 20 years and thinking something should be done about him...even though Gotham is Metropolis' sister city across the water.
Then they try to say that WW was so disgusted by what happened in WWI she swore off doing anything for humanity until now as an explanation for why she did nothing in MOS, and the makers of the WW movie realized how stupid THIS was and ignored it.
So basically it all comes down to really poor planning. Maybe if Geoff Johns had always been in charge of the DCEU instead of Snyder and thought things out for their own Phase 1 it might be different. And even he's not the best at this stuff.
Both of these things have been proven to be inaccurate, so I don't know why you keep on repeating them.
Agreed; MoS and BvS addressed the crucial, logical questions and responses to the idea of superpowered beings running around earth, not only from the average person, but to one (Batman) who was--until Superman's arrival--seen as some "enhanced" person, thanks to his advanced physical and technological assets. No modern superhero film worth its time could escape the need for that story to be told, hence the reason BvS was a success. It took care of those issues early on (the right time for that), instead of the MCU, were in-universe, it took a (typically) unrealistically long time for the public response (wafer-thin retconning backstory in Homecoming) / Accords to come up at all, which was largely forgotten, if not for the throwaway Ross hologram scene in Infinity War, all in favor of getting back to Power Ranger-ing.
Each DC character has his own tone; Superman--to anyone even mildly familiar with the comics (and even one of his best adaptations in Superman: The Animated Series) knows he is not the ginning 'ol uncle like George Reeves, or the equivalent of some elementary school teacher like that from the various Super Friends TV series, but he has dealt with very serious issues not only about antagonists, but his own place in the world. Some are upset because the DCEU's Superman did serious better (and for good reason in-universe) than those characters claimed to be based on "mature" comics (with the exception of CAp 1 & 2).
I haven't hated any of the DCEU films, though I've been disappointed with some. I think the DCEU gets a bad rap. Granted, the films are not as consistently entertaining as Marvel, but they have their positives and I feel that some of them tried to be deeper than many Marvel films, which are working that successful formula.
My take on the DCEU:
Wonder Woman
Wonder Woman is the one unqualified success for the DCEU and it's praise is rightly deserved. No film is perfect, but it got so much of it right.
Aquaman
I think it's second to Wonder Woman in terms of quality. It does have flaws, and perhaps is trying to do too much. But it was a mostly fun, though at times overlong film, with a lot of spectacle, and some of the greatest FX and production design of any comic book film.
Justice League
I don't get the hate for Justice League. The film had flaws, but it was a fun film, and the one that has the most re-watch value for me. The complaint was the Snyder films were too dark, well Justice League sought to change that. There was a lighter touch, a lighter color palette, and I think the bantering between the League members was mostly fun. I also enjoyed Batman's advice to Flash right before they fought Steppenwolf, "Save one". It was a great line. Affleck doesn't get the credit he deserves as Batman. He's a good Batman and I wish he would've gotten a solo film at least. Steppenwolf was a decent villain, though I do wish more ties to Darkseid had been made. And the end credits scene was great.
Batman V. Superman
Once again, the film had flaws. It was trying to do too much, but it had an epic scope to it, and was stuffed with ideas. It was just too much for Snyder to handle and tell a cohesive story. Batman V. Superman: The Ultimate Edition does help alleviate some-not all-of the problems with the theatrical release. Overall, I think the marketing didn't help either because it spoiled Wonder Woman in action, and I could've seen that being a big crowd pleaser when she shows up. It also spoiled Doomsday and that would've been awesome to have discovered while watching, that he was in the film (though I wish they had gone with a more comic book accurate looking Doomsday from jump).
Suicide Squad
Suicide Squad was a film loathed by reviewers, but at the time, embraced by the masses, though I feel over time the venomous reviews have altered perceptions of that film. Perhaps the detractors were stung by how great the marketing for the film was versus what was released in theaters. The biggest issue for me was that the film had no middle, but the characters, acting, I didn't have much of a problem with (except Enchantress; not a great casting choice there or a story choice for a villain because she was way too powerful for them to take on, especially for a first mission). The detractors backed off Venom despite savaging it in reviews yet have never stopped unloading on Suicide Squad. Even though that film had a very good soundtrack and won an Oscar. It wasn't a failure.
Man of Steel
I liked this one the least of the DCEU films, but still, it had some positives. I thought Michael Shannon was very good as Zod (though no Terrence Stamp), and the casting overall was good. It told a more cohesive story than most other DCEU films, and I can't fault Snyder for delivering some major Kryptonian action. I didn't care for the darker, drearier take on the material though. But this movie felt like a reaction to Superman Returns, which I liked way less, so I can't fault that either.
My take on the DCEU:
Wonder Woman
Wonder Woman is the one unqualified success for the DCEU and it's praise is rightly deserved. No film is perfect, but it got so much of it right.
Aquaman
I think it's second to Wonder Woman in terms of quality. It does have flaws, and perhaps is trying to do too much. But it was a mostly fun, though at times overlong film, with a lot of spectacle, and some of the greatest FX and production design of any comic book film.
Justice League
I don't get the hate for Justice League. The film had flaws, but it was a fun film, and the one that has the most re-watch value for me. The complaint was the Snyder films were too dark, well Justice League sought to change that. There was a lighter touch, a lighter color palette, and I think the bantering between the League members was mostly fun. I also enjoyed Batman's advice to Flash right before they fought Steppenwolf, "Save one". It was a great line. Affleck doesn't get the credit he deserves as Batman. He's a good Batman and I wish he would've gotten a solo film at least. Steppenwolf was a decent villain, though I do wish more ties to Darkseid had been made. And the end credits scene was great.
Batman V. Superman
Once again, the film had flaws. It was trying to do too much, but it had an epic scope to it, and was stuffed with ideas. It was just too much for Snyder to handle and tell a cohesive story. Batman V. Superman: The Ultimate Edition does help alleviate some-not all-of the problems with the theatrical release. Overall, I think the marketing didn't help either because it spoiled Wonder Woman in action, and I could've seen that being a big crowd pleaser when she shows up. It also spoiled Doomsday and that would've been awesome to have discovered while watching, that he was in the film (though I wish they had gone with a more comic book accurate looking Doomsday from jump).
Suicide Squad
Suicide Squad was a film loathed by reviewers, but at the time, embraced by the masses, though I feel over time the venomous reviews have altered perceptions of that film. Perhaps the detractors were stung by how great the marketing for the film was versus what was released in theaters. The biggest issue for me was that the film had no middle, but the characters, acting, I didn't have much of a problem with (except Enchantress; not a great casting choice there or a story choice for a villain because she was way too powerful for them to take on, especially for a first mission). The detractors backed off Venom despite savaging it in reviews yet have never stopped unloading on Suicide Squad. Even though that film had a very good soundtrack and won an Oscar. It wasn't a failure.
Man of Steel
I liked this one the least of the DCEU films, but still, it had some positives. I thought Michael Shannon was very good as Zod (though no Terrence Stamp), and the casting overall was good. It told a more cohesive story than most other DCEU films, and I can't fault Snyder for delivering some major Kryptonian action. I didn't care for the darker, drearier take on the material though. But this movie felt like a reaction to Superman Returns, which I liked way less, so I can't fault that either.
They haven't. Nothing in the films or interviews explains why Superman only started caring about Batman as of BvS and what WW was up to. Or that MOS was always meant to be the start of a new Universe full of DC's characters as opposed to just Superman.
Hardly.
A success at showing how NOT to do a CBM.
If you were paying attention, the Accords were merely the latest response to the MCU Superhumans and there had been prior countermeasures over the years as shown in Avengers and Winter Soldier. The first responses were to create weaponry capable of killing them.
Your complaints about "Power Rangering" merely shows how ashamed you are of Superheroes being Superheroes.
He didn't do "serious" better, he did "pretentious" better. As is the usual for DC.
Last edited:
Have whatever problems you want with the specific details of how things fit together, but the claim that MOS was never intended to start a shared universe is plainly nonsensical.
First, MOS was WB course correcting after Green Lantern failed. Green Lantern was explicitly supposed to start a shared universe, so why would MOS not be attempting to do the same? The WB was looking to follow the MCU idea long before 2015.
And more significantly, MOS deliberately included Wayne tech cameos in the movie. There was literally no reason to do that at all if not to tease fans about the possibility of a shared universe.
Last edited:
@Anwar, this has been repeated ad nauseam, but Zack Snyder, David Goyer, and others have flat-out stated that Man of Steel was always intended to be the launching point for a shared universe, and both Zack Snyder and Patty Jenkins have flat-out stated that they worked closely together while Patty was filming Wonder Woman, with Zack even showing up on the Wonder Woman set to "guest-direct" one of Gal Gadot's scenes.
Why would MOS not be attempting to do the same? Because GL didn't do well and some moron may have blamed it on the "Shared Universe" concept instead of the movie just not being any good.
Waynetech? That's an Easter Egg, that's all.
And if they did intend it to be the start, that shows they still didn't know what they were doing with how they established the later characters and how they react to one another. Like Superman only NOW caring about Batman when Batman had been doing his thing for 20 years, Gotham and Metropolis being next door to one another, Gal Gadot flat out stating they chose to ignore what Snyder had established about WW in BvS when they did the WW movie. Etc, etc.
You may be right about your overall point, but this part in isolation is not a very logical argument. "If X failed, why wouldn't they try X again?" Umm, because it failed? The failure of the previous attempt is a very good reason to try something different. Heck, isn't that exactly what Aquaman did -- respond to the previous failures by essentially ditching the whole shared-universe thing and telling its own independent story?
Again, you're overselling your case. It's true that they were hinting at a possible shared universe, but it's incorrect to say that there can be "literally" no other reason for a continuity nod. It used to be, back before studios and audiences became obsessed with shared universes, that a reference like that could simply be an in-joke, a wink to the audience. When George Clooney's Bruce Wayne said "This is why Superman works alone," that wasn't because the filmmakers were planning to expand their Batman films into a wider shared universe; it just meant they thought a joke about Superman would be funny. Works of fiction have been alluding to and homaging other works of fiction for centuries, and usually the allusions have been the end in themselves; only occasionally have they been intended to foreshadow crossovers or shared universes. So yes, there are other reasons to do that. There always have been.
She never said that.
I have no doubt that WB wanted a shared universe and was hoping MoS could launch one but they didn't do their prep work properly. The fact they didn't even have post credits early on, which might seem small but can be used as key elements to help build the universe at large and also hints they didn't know what future stories were going to be. From what I hear the call for BvS to follow MoS was made not before at the start of the DCEU but after MoS had finished production, meaning WB had no clear plan at all on how they wanted to build their Universe.
Hoping things just fall together is a shoddy way of going around doing anything.
Hoping things just fall together is a shoddy way of going around doing anything.
The massive difference in tone between GL and MOS makes it 100% clear what WB blamed GL's failure on. It wouldn't make even the slightest bit of sense to blame it on the Shared universe concept, because GL was only one movie and didn't spend the majority of its run-time setting things up for the future (some time, yes, enough to be primarily responsible for the movie tanking? Not a chance.)
Also, when the camera looks straight at something and draws your eye directly to it, that is not an easter egg. That's a deliberate shot.
The rest of that post basically just amounts to 'even if I'm wrong, I'm right' which is a stupid thing to say, especially because none of those other points have even been refuted by anyone in this discussion and they have nothing to do with the point that has been refuted.
As stated above, the idea that GL failed 'because' of the shared universe idea is laughable. The shared universe concept was one small part of the movie that can't possibly be held responsible for the movie as a whole. And the tonal shift makes it abundantly clear what aspects of the movie took the blame at WB.
The fact that you had to reference George Clooney's Batman already shows this objection to be irrelevant. If MOS were even remotely a comedy, or a small quirky referential tale of some sort, you might have a point. But people making a major franchise film which they want to see taken seriously in its own right as a completely stand-alone story don't insert random evidence of a broader universe still to come right in the middle of the camera frame. They may have a character say something referential (but almost certainly not something that actually implied the real existence of these other characters) if they really like the idea and think it works well enough, or they may insert an easter egg in the background of some scene where 99% of the audience will never notice. But in terms of inserting 'Wayne Enterprises' right in the middle of the camera frame during MOS's big fight, there is no logical explanation for that other than set-up for future movies.
On the other hand, a major reason for the film's failure was because it tried to pile on too much of the Green Lantern mythos all at once instead of telling a more focused and disciplined story. True, that was more about GL itself than the larger crossover stuff, but it could have taught savvy executives (if there ever were such a thing) the lesson that it was better to focus on making a first film a solid standalone piece in its own right and not worrying excessively about setting up sequels. If anything, for all its gigantic faults, Man of Steel is one of the few superhero-universe debut films of the past decade that managed to exercise that kind of discipline, to focus on telling its own complete, self-contained story that was just about the origin of Superman and not devote too much of its effort to setting up sequels or spinoffs. It's a pity that BvS and Suicide Squad totally failed to learn the same lesson.