DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
See, Nolan? That's how you do it.
But seriously: WB, could you be any more of a disaster?
Where is the disaster? Aquaman was a mega hit, Wonder Woman a mega hit, Suicide Squad a mega hit, now Shazam is about to hit it out of the park.
Not in DC's eyes. DC has one mega hit atm - Aquaman. <---- That's the ONE DC film that broke the Billion dollar Box Office barrier; and while such wasn't expected of Suicide Squad, it was damn well expected of both BvS and Justice League.
The DCEU's weakest entry in terms of Box Office was 'Justice league' because of how much they spent to produce it. Every other DCEU film HAS been a 'hit' in terms of Box Office; but for whatever reason, WB management expects EVERY DCEU film to break a Billion because they feel they've only done Top Line DC characters (IE Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc.) so if a film featuring one of those characters doesn't break 1 billion, it's a 'flop' to them. (If you are wondering why Wonder Woman got a pass on that in terms of DC marketing, it's because it was a film critics weren't panning; and the general theater going public had a high opinion of it compared to the rest of what had been done, so they were desperate to try anything to turn the DCEU around.
If they wanted to, I believe WB COULD make a run with keeping and rebuilding their DCEU - but they're gun shy and tired of having their DCEU compared to the MCU - so they want to go back to the 'old' way they handled DC properties.
A lot of people forget that many of the starting MCU film weren't 'mega-hits' and they had one flop (The Incredible Hulk). Marvel Studios built the MCU into what it became BECAUSE they didn't ONLY look at the individual Box Office of every film and let that dictate their overall plan. The only thing that Hulk flopping did was "Okay, so no Incredible Hulk sequel with The Leader (which is what they set up. Yes, they sidelined the Hulk solo films, BUT kept going with their original plan to Marvel's The Avengers, which paid off in spades for them.
WB management doesn't like to take risks, and that's why they followed/tried to copy the MCU's 'shared universe' success without first laying a lot of the foundation for each individual character like the MCU had. Yes, they did a Superman solo film, and then a Batman/Superman film that shoehorned Wonder Woman in (and was one of the films highlights IMO) - but for the other 3 characters, they did a 15 second or so 'tease' for each and just expected 'Justice league' to be their ultimate mega hit - even though (except for Superman and Batman) we didn't get much of an attachment to any of the other DCEU versions of these characters.
'Avengers' worked really well because the previous films gave audiences a previous 'hook' into all the other characters including the villain Loki who first appeared in the first Thor film. Hell, the Avengers introduced 'Thanos' as a overarching player(and believe me - when I saw the film with my friends, who followed comics occasionally - I was the only one in that group who knew who Thanos was); BUT also built him up going forward in the after credit scenes and in Guardians of the Galaxy BEFORE they made him the big bad in "Avengers: Endgame".
Justice League had a lead Villain that even had some comic book nerds going: "Who?" - and because WB was so risk adverse, they completely took out the aspect of it all leading to an invasion by Darkseid - even though that was the big inference of the Flash's WTF time trip and Bruce's nightmare in BvS. As usual WB just expected audiences to know (or have friends who did) what was being referenced and thus 'build excitement. They again, couldn't be bothered to maybe do another 'lead in' film because hey, these comic book films are automatically mega hits now. <--- Or at least so they thought.
I like Aquaman and am going to see Shazam this coming weekend because I do enjoy comic books on film; but if the WB wants to turn things around they have to make a GOOD/ENTERTAINING FILM that can appeal to general audiences as well as comic book nerds no matter what characters they use; and they still honestly haven't been good at the latter until their last couple of films.
I don't count the Richard Donner Cut of Superman II to be a legitimate film. It's an interesting what-if exercise for those of us who are interested in film history but, as a movie, it's very unfinished. Even Donner and Mankiewicz have acknowledged that, while they had developed the time travel ending for Superman II, they wouldn't have actually used it had they been able to finish the film themselves. As far as I'm concerned, when considering Superman movie continuity, I only count the original theatrical version of Superman II.
Even just taking the Metropolis section on its own, it's still a little disjointed. Granted, Batman (1989) has moments like that too, such as the fairly abrupt transition from blowing up the chemical plant to the parade sequence.
Loki is one of those villains that audiences love so much that they kinda turn them into heroes and you just kinda have to ignore the fact that they killed people. Other examples of these include Magneto from X-Men, the Master from Doctor Who, and Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Even when they don't become heroes, the real heroes still let them go at the end for some reason. Star Trek: Deep Space 9 also did this with Gul Dukat for a little while until he turned back to full-on villainy in Season 5. And Quark was guilty of felony murder a couple of times back in Season 1 but that was forgotten because he was a beloved comic relief character. For a DC example, there's Harley Quinn but she has the potential added excuse that she was just led astray by the Joker.
Glad to hear it, especially since it was Courtney's best performance. I'd also note that he's much better looking with longer hair and facial hair. He should keep those parts of the look for future films.
Also, without Will Smith, the movie will probably rely a bit more on Captain Boomerang for the comedy in the film.
Superman by way of Freddie Mercury. Ironic, since, in his own words-- "Christ, I don't believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstein, or Superman. All I want to do is BICYCLE! BICYCLE! BICYCLE!...."
Doesn't the lack of solo Hulk movies also have something to do with Universal still having some sort of distribution rights or something?
Of course the "Donner Cut" is only an approximation of what the original film was meant to be -- an attempt at a historical reconstruction of a lost film, and thus necessarily imperfect. But it's still a damn sight better as a story than the theatrical version, up until it makes the huge mistake of recycling the time-loop ending. I've decided that on any future viewing of the Donner Cut, I'll stop it when Superman flies off Lois's balcony. It means she'll still remember he's Superman, but I have no problem with that; it actually makes Superman III make a little more sense, because it explains why Lois is jealous of Clark and Lana.
True. As I said, the film struggled with itself, trying to be grounded and naturalistic while still embracing a lot of Silver-Age absurdity. Superman III is arguably a more tonally consistent and self-confident film, since it picks a style right off and sticks with it all the way.
That film is a mess. I'm not a fan of Burton's interpretation of Batman. It's a fairly good Tim Burton film about a weird vigilante, but it's a lousy Batman film.
I don't think it's about excuses, it's about redemption. People can repent their sins and try to atone for them; a number of heroic narratives are about such journeys of atonement, like Xena: Warrior Princess.
And yet so much worse. SO. MUCH. WORSE!!
I used to think so. But that's because I was looking for something more serious and grounded, like what superhero comics were becoming at the time. But in recent years, there's been a renewal of appreciation for the goofiness of Silver Age DC, as seen in a show like Batman: The Brave and the Bold. And if you look at Superman III in that light, it's actually a pretty solid tribute to the unapologetic absurdity and whimsy of the Silver Age, and can be enjoyed in that vein. (Ditto for the '84 Supergirl.) And it has a number of things going for it besides that. Lana Lang is simply wonderful, and it's a nice change of pace to have a love interest for Clark instead of Superman. Ross Webster is a better Lex Luthor than Gene Hackman's Luthor was able to be (Hackman was great but the writing of the character was weak), and presages the evil-businessman Luthor of the post-Crisis age. And there's some pretty solid Superman action, notably the plant rescue sequence early on.
Bolded part is very true; the DCEU only has 6 films released so far (pre Shazam), with worldwide earnings nearing 5 billion, which is a success for such a young franchise.
What were the earnings of the first 6 MCU films?
Try reminding the worst of the Marvel fans of that fact, as they have a habit of spreading outright lies that the MCU was some runaway mega success from the start, when that is not supported by the numbers.
Last edited:
The MCU didn't really take off until at least the first Avengers movie.
This is pretty similar to how I approached Batman & Robin. Before I watched it, I saw someone refer to it as a big budget update of the '66 series, and going in looking for that rather than something closer to the Nolan or Burton movies, I actually enjoyed it.
Batman & Robin, in my opinion, is at least better then Batman Returns. That was a nasty, unpleasant film where Burton used Bruce wayne/Batman as little as he thought he could get away with, all so we could get more of Danny devito being gross and making weird sex jokes, while Catwoman...existed, basically. Batman & Robin is objectively a terrible movie, and probably a worse made film then then Batman returns, but I feel its at least "so bad its entertaining". Unlike Batman Returns, which is always a chore to get through, which is why its the original Batman movie series (don't know what else to call it, Burtonverse doesn't work because he only made the first two movies) film I like the least.
That said, Batman Begins is actually the Batman film I've seen the least. It hates showing Batman as much as Burton did in Returns, but it doesn't even have the weird factor of Batman Returns to make rewatches worthwhile, or villains that are even slightly interesting (nobody wants an immortal assassin leader or a guy dressed up like a creepy Scarecrow in a Batman movie, obviously, they want a bland psychiatrist and a very mortal Liam Neeson).
Also, related to the earlier Superman talk, I personally think that Superman III is really bad no matter how you look at it, worse then Superman IV or even Supergirl. Richard Pryor is so, so bad, he was never any good at acting and he's not funny at all in SMIII. As for the Richard Donner cut of Superman II, I consider it the best Superman live action film in my opinion. Superman I might tie it if the Superman/Lois flying scene didn't get so damn weird, but as it is I personally go Superman II (Donner Cut) > Superman I > Superman II > Superman Returns > Superman IV > Man of Steel > Superman III.
Quite so.
Yep, and besides it being nice to see the footage and it giving us an idea of what the original conception was and how it related to the original film, which is far more interesting than the Paris nuke in the Lester theatrical version, that's about it.
I think that had the Donner take been filmed as original intended the golden age of superheroes would have happened at least 5 years earlier then it did.
But the worst Marvel fans argue that the MCU is some unified success story when the numbers do not support that claim. That's why I compared the first 6 MCU movies (capped off by the Avengers) to the first 6 DCEU films, and DC has a better performance record, yet the usual fannish noise would have anyone believe the opposite.
The DCEU movies came out in a post-Avengers world, when comic book movies were already out of their niche - a status that the MCU helped them achieve.