I don't think Soong-type Android is just talking about the difference in storytelling tone, but about the inconsistency in the way the characters are perceived in-universe. If Superman and Batman were known mainly as scary, lethal vigilantes, would there be action figures of them marketed to kids? It's one thing to say that Ant-Man and the Punisher exist in the same universe; it'd be another thing to retcon the Punisher himself into a figure merchandised to children. One is just variety, the other is inconsistency. But in this case, it's an inconsistency we're okay with, because we prefer the reinterpreted version of the heroes anyway.
Well, BvS did have Lois and Clark putting out puff pieces to talk up Supes as a good for humanity. Something both Swanwick and Bruce bring up to each respective character. We can see news clippings on Billy's wall about Superman. Markets are markets. So they'll make products people will want to buy. Supes is personable, while everyone loves a vigilante who fights evil by moon light (Batman, Green Arrow, Daredevil, Punisher etc). In Arrow, there are both GA and Flash toys. Ollie's son plays with both. In-universe, Supes and Bats only targeted people who deserved to targeted. No one weeps for criminals and super villains. In the same way that Iron Man is a product, brand and celebrity in-universe in the MCU and he does things like this. And no one complains. Because they don't care. Come to think of it, Wolverine had his share of hero worship in Logan with the X-Men comics and the general public knowing his previous career was an X-Man.
^You can reconcile anything if you want to, but the point is that the filmmakers themselves have quite clearly changed the tone and approach of the DC movies, and that is not a bad thing, because the original approach didn't work.
Shazam is the outlier, not the norm. Its a goofy film that subverted the character from anyone who ever read the Fawcett or various DC comics. To the uninitiated, he was just silly. The MCU is just as "all over the place" with lightweight films such as the stumbling-over-itself-to-be-funny Thor: Ragnarok, the Ant-Man and GOTG films, which are the polar opposite of the Captain America films, The Incredible Hulk, Black Panther, and at least half of the Avengers movies. The MCU is far from having a consistent tone, and the best movies in that franchise are the darker films. The DCEU was consistent and successful with the superior entries in the line: MoS, BvS and Wonder Woman. That is a film universe with its own voice, not trying to be a wrongheaded "comedy in tights," or as lightweight as certain superhero TV series. .
Comme Ci, Comme Ca. Massive financial successes but not critical ones (MOS, BVS, JL). The reverse problem the reboot Star Trek films have. Massive critical praise, moderate financial success (if you include Beyond flopping). And now the film division of the IP is on indefinite hiatus. Can't win for losing sometimes. I think the Snyder DC films were judged a lot harsher than they should've been. Culminating in JL being hacked to pieces to please the vocal section of the audience. Who I am convinced don't know what they want.
In real life, go to Beverley Hills in California and try to reconcile it with what's been going on in Syria for the last 8 years. Life just has that variety.
I don't think Man of Steel was supposed to start a Marvel style cinematic universe and wasn't an appropriate film to start one from. It was the product of Warner Bros. believing that their DC movies should all be like the Nolan Batman films as those were successful, even if such a tone didn't suit a character like Superman. Then after it under performed studio interference demanded Batman and Wonder Woman be shoehorned into the sequel. The utter garbage that was Justice League was the nadir of the franchise, sitting as one of the worse superhero movies ever made alongside Batman & Robin, the Josh Trank Fantastic Four reboot and Catwoman. Some Snyder bronies seem to believe there's a mythical "Snyder cut" of Justice League which of course would be a hundred times better than the Whedon version we ended up with.
I think the harsh judgment was entirely deserved, but we've all been through that debate a million times now. I used to think so, but I think I found out recently that there was always a "cinematic universe" plan from the start.
Under-performing films don't get sequels. MOS was a success. WB's expectation was allegedly $800 million. MOS ended with $670 million. A good start. Smelling money, they did push for Batman to be the villain in the next one. While Snyder and Goyer originally wanted Brainiac. Keep in mind, at the time Nolan's Batman films and Snyder's Watchmen were big successes for WB. They hadn't taken the super hero genre serious at the time, but now they wanted their piece of the pie. And yet, critics said JL was an improvement. My comments are made in reference to bandwagon nature of those critcisms and the people who made them. I can't find it now, but years ago, I recall some professional critics admitting to liking MOS and BvS but submitted negative reviews regardless.They saw the trend moving negative and wanted to be apart of the action to drive traffic to their sites and channels. When confronted with evidence to the contrary in the films themselves (i.e. Superman not smiling, not saving people, not inspiring anyone) the detractors would bring up something else that they found fault with the film. Like you said, a never ending wild goose chase. This is why I'm of the opinion now, that none of it matters because people don't care. I seem to recall Snyder getting the same kind of deal Nolan got for Batman. But with the MCU picking up steam and the XCU making a comeback, WB changed the goal. Snyder still got his three films. But without him now, we've lost Batman, Flash, Cyborg, Lois and potentially Superman. Major bummer. And seeing how dark the Joker movie is looking to be. I doubt WB is moving away from the dark drama stories that Nolan and Snyder tried telling. Hell, I remember WB floating a Superman Red Son (Soviet Supes) story. Another dark tale brought to you by the guy who penned Old Man Logan. They'll chase money anyway they can find it. Odds are, Matt Reeves Batman origin (yeesh, another origin already?) will be dark as well.
"Without him?" I'd say it's more likely because of him -- they wouldn't have cancelled those films and phased him out as a filmmaker if the movies he directed had been better-received.
Snyder cast them, and as head director and producer, he was the fighter in their corner. Without him or someone to replace him, these are the consequences. Gadot has Patty, the MCU has Feige, Jackman had Mangold, Reynolds had Jackman to back him for Deadpool solos, DCTV has Guggenheim and Berlanti, Mission Impossible has Tom Cruise, Fast and the Furious has Vin Diesel, etc. Superman is a lot like Star Trek on film now. Nobody wants to touch it and stay. It's a valuable IP, but not many people are volunteering to tackle the project. Even when Snyder was there, WB couldn't nail down directors for all movies on their slate. Idk what direction they're moving in now. It's a shame to see so much talent walk out and potential stories left untold.
Yeah, but again, if his movies had worked, they wouldn't have gotten rid of him. It's disingenuous to ignore that part. Exactly. Those characters have successful people backing them, which is why they succeed. It's the filmmakers who don't succeed -- e.g. Alex Kurtzman with the Universal Monsters reboot or Marc Webb with Spider-Man -- who get their plans cancelled. Hollywood is not a charity. Filmmakers have to earn the right to carry their plans forward, and Snyder failed to do so.
That's an excellent point. Still a shame the actors who left didn't get a crack at the whips with new directors. I really wanted to see a big budget Flash movie. You know my idea. WB should just make ensemble movies akin to X-Men. Flash and Cyborg!
The GOTG movies and Thor Ragnarok are right up there with Black Panther and Civil War, possibly even a bit higher for me. Wow, could not disagree more, I enjoyed Justice League quite a bit.
I agree with that part. I liked a lot about Justice League, and I particularly liked Flash and Cyborg, so it's too bad their solo movies seem to have been backburnered at best. Although I don't think I would've wanted to see them do Flashpoint. I've seen two screen versions of that already.
Yeah, I have to agree with you. I mean, I don't think JL was great, but it was ok (which makes it the best Snyder directed DC movie for me, although I'm sure Joss Whedon is the reason JL is any good at all). It certainly isn't at the level of Catwoman or Fant4stic (although to be fair Fant4stic is better then BvS).
...and his insight was spot on in MoS, BvS and WW. For anyone to claim they were not "well received" (BvS and WW in particular) when by any measure they were, it pushing a very thin agenda because the DC movies were not played like a silly cartoon.
So "silly cartoon" is the ONLY other way to make a movie different than what Snyder did in your opinion?