DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Reverend]

I could see Idris playing the likes of Nemesis or Ravan if they're looking for characters that aren't quite so well known and so leaves them the greater latitude to reinterpret to fit into the movie.

I'd also have no problem with them going with Deathstroke and just ignoring the JL post credits cameo (or pulling some BS about him sometimes wearing a white guy disguise because: reasons.) I mean it's by far the easiest substitute character for Deadshot. The designs and power sets are similar enough that it won't require the script to change all that much.

 

[Christopher]

Unlike you and Christopher, I'm not inclined to judge the succes of a series on a curve. Being more successful than most superhero shows at the time - or being allowed to be the lead-in to major hit shows - does not make five seasons and some tv movies a roaring success that is somehow supposed to still be relevant decades later even though the production has been largely forgotten outside of genre fans in between.

I don't know where you're getting this notion that The Incredible Hulk is some obscure or forgotten show. It's always been well-remembered by fans and creators. The '90s animated Hulk series brought back Lou Ferrigno to do the voice of the Hulk, and both Hulk feature films have given Ferrigno cameos, while The Avengers also used him as the Hulk's voice. Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk used Joe Harnell's famous "The Lonely Man" theme music from the TV series and quoted its iconic line "Please don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

And it just shows how spoiled modern genre fans are to look back on a show that ran 5 seasons and dismiss it as a failure. You have no idea what it was like for me as a science fiction fan growing up in the '70s and '80s when nearly all SF shows got cancelled in a year or less, when even making it to a third season was an exceptional success. You have to remember, they didn't always have home video. It used to be that the only way a show could gain new viewers after its initial run was in syndicated reruns on TV. And short-lived shows didn't have enough episodes to be syndicated, unless they were grafted together into TV movies as was done with the '70s Spider-Man, Battlestar Galactica, Planet of the Apes, and others. So a lot of those short-lived series I grew up on vanished into obscurity after their brief runs. It was only the longer-running shows that had a perennial life in syndication and continued to gain new fans. So The Incredible Hulk was a common presence on syndicated TV long after its contemporaries had faded away, and thus it was able to continue to gain new viewers and influence the generation that grew up to make the MCU films.

 

[Captaindemotion]

People seem to forget that 5 seasons was a pretty good run for even mainstream shows back in the day. I remember Starsky & Hutch being massive but it only ran for 4 seasons. Charlie’s Angels also massive, also 5 seasons. The Bionic Woman went for 3 and its forerunner The Bionic Man for 5. Even the Rockford Files with its iconic lead actor James Garner only did 6. Kung Fu did 3.

Maybe it’s my age but all of those shows were pretty influential, have nearly all led to reboots, remakes, revivals or sequels (or planned film adaptations). So @Christopher is quite right about The Incredible Hulk.

 

[Christopher]

People seem to forget that 5 seasons was a pretty good run for even mainstream shows back in the day.

And today too. The majority of TV shows get cancelled in their first or second seasons. But they leave less of an impression on our memories than the long-running shows, so that creates the false perception that long runs are the norm rather than the exception.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I don't know where you're getting this notion that The Incredible Hulk is some obscure or forgotten show. It's always been well-remembered by fans and creators. The '90s animated Hulk series brought back Lou Ferrigno to do the voice of the Hulk, and both Hulk feature films have given Ferrigno cameos, while The Avengers also used him as the Hulk's voice. Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk used Joe Harnell's famous "The Lonely Man" theme music from the TV series and quoted its iconic line "Please don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

And it just shows how spoiled modern genre fans are to look back on a show that ran 5 seasons and dismiss it as a failure. You have no idea what it was like for me as a science fiction fan growing up in the '70s and '80s when nearly all SF shows got cancelled in a year or less, when even making it to a third season was an exceptional success. You have to remember, they didn't always have home video. It used to be that the only way a show could gain new viewers after its initial run was in syndicated reruns on TV. And short-lived shows didn't have enough episodes to be syndicated, unless they were grafted together into TV movies as was done with the '70s Spider-Man, Battlestar Galactica, Planet of the Apes, and others. So a lot of those short-lived series I grew up on vanished into obscurity after their brief runs. It was only the longer-running shows that had a perennial life in syndication and continued to gain new fans. So The Incredible Hulk was a common presence on syndicated TV long after its contemporaries had faded away, and thus it was able to continue to gain new viewers and influence the generation that grew up to make the MCU films.

I never said it was a failure or that it's fans all forgot about it. The whole point was that it's fans were never SO numerous that they could be expected to turn TIH into a massively hyped release/guaranteed franchise 30 years later. The tribulations of the 80s genre fan really aren't relevant at all, except to emphasize once again how it being more succesful than it's genre peers does not mean much.

 

[Christopher]

The whole point was that it's fans were never SO numerous that they could be expected to turn TIH into a massively hyped release/guaranteed franchise 30 years later.

Nobody said that they were. You just talked about it as if it were totally forgotten, and that was strange. You're reducing everything to binary extremes -- either it was an utter failure or a world-changing success -- and ignoring the middle ground where the reality lies.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Nobody said that they were. You just talked about it as if it were totally forgotten, and that was strange. You're reducing everything to binary extremes -- either it was an utter failure or a world-changing success -- and ignoring the middle ground where the reality lies.

No, you're putting words in my mouth instead of looking at what I actually say. I literally called it a middling success. As in, successful but not wildly succesful. Clearly more successful than some things and clearly less so than others. In other words, right in the middle ground that I'm supposedly 'ignoring'.

Also, this entire tangent started with the claim that Hulk (and Cap) were always a list icons who clearly should have had just as much draw as Bats and Supes. The tv show was only brought up as 'proof' of that, so, yes, someone is saying that they were that huge.

 

[Christopher]

No, you're putting words in my mouth instead of looking at what I actually say. I literally called it a middling success. As in, successful but not wildly succesful. Clearly more successful than some things and clearly less so than others. In other words, right in the middle ground that I'm supposedly 'ignoring'.

No. I covered this. A five-season run is not "middling" by any legitimate standard. As Captaindemotion said, five seasons is very much above average for TV shows in general, especially for pre-ST:TNG science fiction shows. Five seasons was an exceptional success, much better than "middling," but you're dismissing it because it wasn't some record-breaking extreme like 9-10 seasons.

Also, this entire tangent started with the claim that Hulk (and Cap) were always a list icons who clearly should have had just as much draw as Bats and Supes. The tv show was only brought up as 'proof' of that, so, yes, someone is saying that they were that huge.

Even so, the fact that they exaggerated doesn't make it right for you to exaggerate in the opposite direction. If that's what they said, then you and they are both wrong.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

No. I covered this. A five-season run is not "middling" by any legitimate standard. As Captaindemotion said, five seasons is very much above average for TV shows in general, especially for pre-ST:TNG science fiction shows. Five seasons was an exceptional success, much better than "middling," but you're dismissing it because it wasn't some record-breaking extreme like 9-10 seasons.




Even so, the fact that they exaggerated doesn't make it right for you to exaggerate in the opposite direction. If that's what they said, then you and they are both wrong.

I'm dismissing it because it does not rise to the level of influence that was claimed. I really don't care if you want to disagree with what I consider 'middling' or not. This discussion was never about whether that show was a success or not.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Dwayne Johnson says 'Black Adam' "should start shooting in about a year".

 

[dahj]

Dwayne Johnson says 'Black Adam' "should start shooting in about a year".

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I would love this to be done like the "Unbreakable" trilogy. 1st movie sets up and is all about the hero. 2nd movie sets up and is all about the villain. Then 3rd movie is them meeting and their conflict. (At this point, their meeting could even be the 3rd Shazam film).

 

[Morpheus 02]

I would love this to be done like the "Unbreakable" trilogy. 1st movie sets up and is all about the hero. 2nd movie sets up and is all about the villain. Then 3rd movie is them meeting and their conflict. (At this point, their meeting could even be the 3rd Shazam film).

Maybe that is what they are setting up... still makes no sense why the ROck, especially as a producer, couldn't have had an appearance as Black Adam..who they were clearly alluding to... it was more vague than Scorpion King.

If they do the 3rd movie... they need to film the kids NOW... or at least show them in the beginning, then fast forward a couple of years, when they then fight Black Adam.

ALso, they need to find an excuse why they aren't doing this all the time (especially Mary)

 

[Dick Whitman]

I somewhat understand the concern about the child actors aging. But we are dealing with movie logic here. The age difference between the kids and their adult superhero avatars will not change. They can acknowledge that the kids are growing and the avatars stay the same in a humorous way.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Unlike you and Christopher, I'm not inclined to judge the succes of a series on a curve. Being more successful than most superhero shows at the time - or being allowed to be the lead-in to major hit shows - does not make five seasons and some tv movies a roaring success that is somehow supposed to still be relevant decades later even though the production has been largely forgotten outside of genre fans in between.

You have no evidence that TIH has been "largely forgotten." The series has been in constant syndication since the 1980s in North America and in foreign markets because the series was a success, while many of the series' format, catchphrases and tropes entered popular culture and remained there into this century, used in everything from a number of TV commercials to homages on Scrubs, Family Guy and other series--all not catering to superhero genre fans, which speaks to its continued broad appeal. That's not perception, but fact.

Likewise, Captain America being 'adapted several times' to cartoons, direct to video films and a Captain America in name only serial doesn't really speak highly of the characters pop culture presence.

You can live in denial as much as you desire, but again, studios do not invest money in unintentional "jokes" or anything perceived as being of little interest. The same applies to merchandising, where Captain America has never been absent from innumerable products since the 1960s, no matter the type of product.

Nobody said that they were. You just talked about it as if it were totally forgotten, and that was strange. You're reducing everything to binary extremes -- either it was an utter failure or a world-changing success -- and ignoring the middle ground where the reality lies.

No. I covered this. A five-season run is not "middling" by any legitimate standard. As Captaindemotion said, five seasons is very much above average for TV shows in general, especially for pre-ST:TNG science fiction shows. Five seasons was an exceptional success, much better than "middling," but you're dismissing it because it wasn't some record-breaking extreme like 9-10 seasons.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

The Incredible Hulk TV show is so deeply ingrained in the public subconscious that they never even bothered explaining what his deal was in the first Avengers movie in 2012. Every other member of the team got a brief introductory scene that gave you an idea of who they are in case you hadn't seen their previous movie. But they just kept making oblique references to Hulk's abilities even though his solo movie was the least successful and his powers are arguably the most complicated in terms of what triggers them.

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.

Batman Returns is on my short list of all-time favorite movies. I can see how it wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. Your mileage definitely depends on your tolerance for Tim Burton weirdness. It's different for everyone. (I'm love Batman Returns but can't even bring myself to watch more than the few minutes that I've already seen of Edward Scissorhands.). But you certainly can't say that Catwoman is a nonentity in the film. It's very much her story. It's a gothic fairy tale revenge story with Batman as her love interest.

I really don't know what you're talking about with regards to Batman Begins not having Batman in it. I suppose it takes him a while to get the full costume but that's because it's an origin story. Bruce Wayne is in nearly every scene. I could probably count on one hand all of the scenes that he's not in. I can't think of any other live action Batman movie more heavily focused on Batman.

As for Superman III, I think I would be more forgiving if any of the comedy bits actually worked. I suppose there's Richard Pryor's speech about chemicals but that's more laughing at the movie than with it.

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.

It seems like people are always down on the Paris nuke sequence from Superman II but I really like it. I think the movie needs that action beat at the beginning. It's certainly more satisfying than just a montage recapping the missile sequence from the first movie.

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.

It's hard to believe how different the landscape was before The Avengers came out in 2012. I'm not sure that anyone thought that the whole shared universe thing would work. Most previous superhero franchises couldn't even last 3 movies without running into a ditch. That the MCU not only survived but thrived is the kind of miracle that we've come to take for granted. It's also something that DC took for granted and claimed an unearned birthright to when they jumped straight into Batman v. Superman and Justice League. I would argue that, had people been convinced from the beginning that the MCU was going to be as successful as it ultimately was, the Phase 1 movies would have easily earned Phase 3 levels of money. DC, while not putting in the necessary groundwork for their universe, nevertheless didn't need to worry about audience buy-in to the whole shared universe concept because Marvel already proved that it could be done.

And while I would concede that Captain America and the Incredible Hulk were popular properties before their MCU movies, I don't think that they rise to the level of cultural icons that DC has with Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. The only Marvel heroes that got anywhere close to that level, pre-2008, were Spider-Man and maybe Wolverine.

Ironically, Marvel turned that disadvantage into a strength. First, it forced them to focus more on character than on iconography. Second, since their characters weren't as well known, it gave them an opportunity to create definitive interpretations of them for the general public. The big screen has seen numerous Batmans and Supermans but there's only one Iron Man. (That's why I think Feige should tread very carefully with X-Men and the Fantastic Four now that he owns the rights to them.) DC, on the other hand, kinda got bogged down with attempting to deconstruct their heroes just so that they could say that they were doing something different with them.

The Bionic Woman went for 3 and its forerunner The Bionic Man for 5.

I assume that The Bionic Man is like the British title for The Six Million Dollar Man? I suppose that The Six Million Pound Man would have a very different connotation.

I finally saw the extended version of Batman v. Superman. I've heard a lot of people say that it's a significant improvement over the theatrical cut. I don't really see that. Some of the early stuff in Africa makes a little more sense but, other than that, it mostly just seems like a less disciplined edit. But then, I generally liked the theatrical cut for what it was, so I didn't think that it needed much improvement.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It seems like people are always down on the Paris nuke sequence from Superman II but I really like it. I think the movie needs that action beat at the beginning. It's certainly more satisfying than just a montage recapping the missile sequence from the first movie.

For me, the Donner alternative hits harder thematically. Superman made a bargain with the devil, so to speak, to free himself by saving Eve's mother before saving Lois and Jimmy. It has greater irony, when the nuke meant for Eve's mother would be the one to free the supervillains after Superman has redirected it into space, the very first nuke that Superman rids Earth of, than when it's just a nuke from random terrorists that does that. That's not per se a criticism of the Paris scene.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I assume that The Bionic Man is like the British title for The Six Million Dollar Man? .

No, it actually was called TSDM (though anecdotally, as I recall, most people I knew just called it The Bionic Man), that was just me being lazy when I posted!

 

[Christopher]

The Incredible Hulk TV show is so deeply ingrained in the public subconscious that they never even bothered explaining what his deal was in the first Avengers movie in 2012. Every other member of the team got a brief introductory scene that gave you an idea of who they are in case you hadn't seen their previous movie. But they just kept making oblique references to Hulk's abilities even though his solo movie was the least successful and his powers are arguably the most complicated in terms of what triggers them.

I don't think that was about audience familiarity, more about building suspense. They wanted to save the actual appearance of the Hulk for the moment when it would be most significant for the story. And they did a great job seeding the idea of the Hulk through dialogue and character reactions. Seeing Black Widow be this utterly cool, unflappable badass when tied up and surrounded by gunmen, and then suddenly being visibly terrified the moment this mild-mannered doctor raised his voice, sold the danger and power of the Hulk more effectively than all the computer graphics in the world. As Hitchcock taught us long ago, what we don't see is often scarier than what we do see.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the Bixby show was iconic, but it's always a good storytelling principle to assume your audience doesn't have prior knowledge and give them what they need to know within the story itself. Even if most of your audience will have prior knowledge, you don't want to make newcomers feel excluded or lost. And there are more ways to establish a story point than to show it overtly. By the time the Hulk showed up, the film had done more than enough to lay the groundwork for it.

I finally saw the extended version of Batman v. Superman. I've heard a lot of people say that it's a significant improvement over the theatrical cut. I don't really see that. Some of the early stuff in Africa makes a little more sense but, other than that, it mostly just seems like a less disciplined edit.

Wow. It's hard to imagine a less disciplined edit than the incoherent mess we got.

 

[kirk55555]

I really don't know what you're talking about with regards to Batman Begins not having Batman in it. I suppose it takes him a while to get the full costume but that's because it's an origin story. Bruce Wayne is in nearly every scene. I could probably count on one hand all of the scenes that he's not in. I can't think of any other live action Batman movie more heavily focused on Batman.

Having just rewatched Batman begins, I can honestly say I can't stand the film until Bruce is on the plane with Alfred going back to Gotham, and beginning to set up his Batman persona. There is about 30 minutes of film before that, and its not very compelling to me. Overall the movie uses Bruce Wayne more then Burton did, but it avoided using Batman about as much as Burton did, although I'll give it credit in that once the climax starts its basically all action for the last part of the movie, and unlike in most modern superhero movies Batman keeps his cowl on all the way through, with no dramatic mask removals to show Bale's face (although to be fair you see so much of Bruce Wayne they probably kept his mask on to compensate for that).

Having rewatched BB its better then I remembered, it has way more action then TDK did at least (although TDK had better villains), but I could cut 40-50 minutes out of the 2 hour and 20 minute movie and have something I'd enjoy a lot more.

As for Superman III, I think I would be more forgiving if any of the comedy bits actually worked. I suppose there's Richard Pryor's speech about chemicals but that's more laughing at the movie than with it.

I can agree with this. There are actually parts of SMIII that I like a good deal, like Clark vs his own evil persona. If the stuff with Pryor's character wasn't so bad, I think the movie could have been decent. Its the fact that the comedy is bad that hurts the movie more then the fact that there is comedy (also having the main villain basically just be a recast Lex Luthor doesn't help).