DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[TREK_GOD_1]

I never said that all kids enjoyed it, just that a lot did.

..and? It still does not invalidate the fact other kids thought the Super Friends was garbage, and again comic reading kids of that period who were very familiar with the JLA comic would know how a cartoon using that source should work, and when it fails.

They would have been different, but that doesn't mean those director wouldn't have been able to make good movies.

Again, one size does not fit all. Individual talent is not applicable to every subject within a genre and when it was attempted with Whedon on JL--it did not work at all. The examples I provided illustrate how the approach/tone/characters of one concept--especially one with an established universe--cannot be handled the way a director and/or producer handled films from another, distinct film universe. In other words, Coppola's approach and shaping of The Godfather did not make him qualified to direct or even understand the material in Goodfellas. Completely different creative languages/demands that cannot cross over to any degree.

That approach might have worked better for you, but obviously not for everyone, since Aquaman, which was one of the least Snyder style movies in the DCEU, has made the most money.

Its the same Aquaman, with his characterization the same as it was in JL--as crafted by Snyder. It was not a MCU close, or some misguided comedy, such as the disaster that was Shazam.

The whole reason they brought in Whedon was to lighten up the movie and add snappier dialogue and more humor, and that was exactly what he did.

They wanted to MCU-ize the film with quips and characterization not in keeping with what was established and it failed, as the successful, consistent world established in Man of Steel, Dawn of Justice and Wonder Woman was not to be found in JL, which was tonally deaf for how off-message it was.

I question if there's really that many, it seems to me that's it's mostly just a loud, smaller group. If there was really that many people in love with Snyder's style Batman v Superman would have made a lot more than $330,360,194 domestically. It's the first movie with fucking Batman & Superman together onscreen, and it couldn't even break $500,000,000, that is just beyond pathetic.

Nonsense. What you are engaging in is the same sort of exaggeration used by a board member who habitually trolls DC threads making wild claims all because the DCEU successfully established a film universe and took no cues from the MCU in any way, shape or form, which was a wonderful thing to see.

...and yes, there is a large number of fans who were always aware of Snyder's vision for JL, disappointed in the Whedon/MCU-ized failure that was JL, and wanted to see Snyder's true version. No studio invests a dime into the desires of a "loud, smaller group". That has never been a financially sound model to base decisions on.

We got that though, twice--The Avengers.

Yes, and Avengers movies--or any part of the MCU--is not what the Justice League needed to be.

While everyone's waving their dicks, I'd just like to say I LOVE Synder's version of the DC universe. A Superman creating a sharp divide between people worshipping and fearing him? That's what would actually happen. A Superman questioning his own place in the universe? That's what would actually happen.

Exactly. You could not start a DC film universe and have everyone grinning and waving at a superpowered alien as if he's your next-door neighbor. That would have been absurd. No one in the real world would ever act that way, and yes, fear would set in, as the alien--even if he claimed to be benevolent--would not be trusted, as he does not have to answer to any human authority. The reaction from Lex Luthor and congress in Dawn of Justice perfectly laid out the two poles of reaction: the former, part atheistic rant, part rant against someone existing beyond his human capabilities, the latter about confronting alien existence and attempting to control something they were never prepared to address. What took the MCU 12 films to go through before addressing the public reaction in its 13th movie (Civil War), the DCEU faced almost from the start, because that's how fast public fear/concern would realistically move in the face of an alien presence of that magnitude.

I can't wait for the Snyder Cut of Justice League

Same here.

No. Just because it doesn’t appeal to you doesn’t mean it “is simply not an option”. That’s just absurd.

Agreed.

Exploring the idea of how the world would react to the existence of a Superman is entirely legitimate as a project. I have no problem with people not liking such a project. I will NEVER accept that such a project is invalid in and of itself. It might be poorly executed (I don’t think it was in the case of DCEU, especially Man of Steel)

But arguing the attempt itself is illegitimate?

No...x1000.[/QUOTE]

Agreed x1000.

The only people who complain about the idea of how humans would react to a Superman in any manner other than cheers and are still conning themselves into thinking the "original" interpretation of the character was that camp counselor/uncle figure of the George Reeves TV series, or the Weisinger/Swan/Plastino comics era--which was not how the character was created, which has been proven time and again with panels from the early Superman and Action Comics with the hero taking satisfaction in the death of criminals. That's who that Depression-era, vigilante-era character was, not that "boy scout" mischaracterization that would come years later, one DC's editors would wisely make the effort to break away from by the end of the 1960s.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I don't think it's mutually exclusive, I think Superman can raise us up from a "realistic" world. Maybe we're getting our terms crossed, like I think you can have a Superman who is a sheep among wolves or who is there to raise us from the muck as it was put but still within a convincing backdrop.

I don't think presenting a credible world means Superman can only be some dour asshole. Given the state of things I'd love to see a figure who purposely fights not to just stop criminals but for the justice that so often seems missing, a shining beacon of hope in the darkness. I think there's a lot of room between Snyder and Superfriends and while I've enjoyed both to different degrees I don't think those are the only options for the character.

 

[Christopher]

I think it's very realistic for Superman to be a paragon of goodness. I mean, for him, interacting physically with humans is like trying to handle soap bubbles. His every thought must reflexively be about the safety and well-being of the people around him; it would be impossible for him to function otherwise. So it's unrealistic to imagine that he could ever be selfish or inconsiderate or negligent, or that he would ever contemplate compromising his reverence for life. Choosing not to kill people is something he has to do every waking moment of his life, even train himself to do unconsciously (imagine if he flailed in a nightmare, or sneezed in his sleep). He'd have to condition himself to be so completely, unthinkingly dedicated to not killing people that he'd be incapable of turning it off.

I just finished rewatching the 1988-92 Superboy TV series on DC Universe. It was pretty cheesy in its first two seasons, but in its last two seasons, it became much richer and more sophisticated, and was the first TV show that ever made a real effort to delve into Clark Kent's psychology and what it was like for him to be a hero. One of the best, most revealing moments was in the season 3 episode "Mine Games," written by the show's Lex Luthor, Sherman Howard. Superboy was trapped in a cave-in with Luthor (who brought kryptonite) and they had a chance to argue out their worldviews and lay bare their inner selves. There was a point where Lex pushed Superboy to confess what he really wanted, and he admitted he wanted a normal life without powers -- "the freedom to compromise." They really got it. Superman (or -boy) isn't flawlessly good because he's a simplistic character. He's flawlessly good because he has to be, because he can't function in a world of cardboard if he ever relaxes his control.

 

[suarezguy]

Superman as a character exists to raise us up, not to get dragged down into the muck with us.

I think it's very realistic for Superman to be a paragon of goodness.

He can be both a good person and inspirational without being or having to be a Boy Scout-y paragon.

I mean, for him, interacting physically with humans is like trying to handle soap bubbles. His every thought must reflexively be about the safety and well-being of the people around him; it would be impossible for him to function otherwise. So it's unrealistic to imagine that he could ever be selfish or inconsiderate or negligent, or that he would ever contemplate compromising his reverence for life. Choosing not to kill people is something he has to do every waking moment of his life, even train himself to do unconsciously (imagine if he flailed in a nightmare, or sneezed in his sleep).

First he doesn't have to be and his best version isn't necessarily that overwhelmingly strong, second from being raised by and with humans, he would have some negative interactions, frustrations, selfish aspects.

 

[JD]

..and? It still does not invalidate the fact other kids thought the Super Friends was garbage, and again comic reading kids of that period who were very familiar with the JLA comic would know how a cartoon using that source should work, and when it fails.

I never said it it did. You were talking about how bad it was, and how you and other comics readers hated it, and I was just pointing out that obviously that wasn't the case with a lot of the people who watched it, since it ran for 8 seasons, and is considered a classic today.

Again, one size does not fit all. Individual talent is not applicable to every subject within a genre and when it was attempted with Whedon on JL--it did not work at all. The examples I provided illustrate how the approach/tone/characters of one concept--especially one with an established universe--cannot be handled the way a director and/or producer handled films from another, distinct film universe. In other words, Coppola's approach and shaping of The Godfather did not make him qualified to direct or even understand the material in Goodfellas. Completely different creative languages/demands that cannot cross over to any degree.

No they would not have been the exact same movies, the tones and styles probably would have been different, but as long as they brought their A-game they could still probably been good movies.

Its the same Aquaman, with his characterization the same as it was in JL--as crafted by Snyder. It was not a MCU close, or some misguided comedy, such as the disaster that was Shazam.

It felt a lot closer to the MCU than BvS to me.

They wanted to MCU-ize the film with quips and characterization not in keeping with what was established and it failed, as the successful, consistent world established in Man of Steel, Dawn of Justice and Wonder Woman was not to be found in JL, which was tonally deaf for how off-message it was.

The problem wasn't with Whedon's style, it was the mashing together of Whedon and Snyder's styles.

Nonsense. What you are engaging in is the same sort of exaggeration used by a board member who habitually trolls DC threads making wild claims all because the DCEU successfully established a film universe and took no cues from the MCU in any way, shape or form, which was a wonderful thing to see.

...and yes, there is a large number of fans who were always aware of Snyder's vision for JL, disappointed in the Whedon/MCU-ized failure that was JL, and wanted to see Snyder's true version. No studio invests a dime into the desires of a "loud, smaller group". That has never been a financially sound model to base decisions on.

Streaming services are exactly the place for studios to invest in the desires of loud, smaller groups. If they were really confident in the number of people who wanted to see the Snyder cut they would be waiting and releasing it in theaters, not putting it up on HBOMax.

Yes, and Avengers movies--or any part of the MCU--is not what the Justice League needed to be.

They might not have needed to become clones of the MCU movies, but they definitely needed to lighten the fuck up, and the fact that the ones that did have been better received proves it.

Exactly. You could not start a DC film universe and have everyone grinning and waving at a superpowered alien as if he's your next-door neighbor. That would have been absurd. No one in the real world would ever act that way, and yes, fear would set in, as the alien--even if he claimed to be benevolent--would not be trusted, as he does not have to answer to any human authority. The reaction from Lex Luthor and congress in Dawn of Justice perfectly laid out the two poles of reaction: the former, part atheistic rant, part rant against someone existing beyond his human capabilities, the latter about confronting alien existence and attempting to control something they were never prepared to address. What took the MCU 12 films to go through before addressing the public reaction in its 13th movie (Civil War), the DCEU faced almost from the start, because that's how fast public fear/concern would realistically move in the face of an alien presence of that magnitude.

Decades worth of comics and TV shows have proven that a story where Superman receives a more positive reception can work fine.

The only people who complain about the idea of how humans would react to a Superman in any manner other than cheers and are still conning themselves into thinking the "original" interpretation of the character was that camp counselor/uncle figure of the George Reeves TV series, or the Weisinger/Swan/Plastino comics era--which was not how the character was created, which has been proven time and again with panels from the early Superman and Action Comics with the hero taking satisfaction in the death of criminals. That's who that Depression-era, vigilante-era character was, not that "boy scout" mischaracterization that would come years later, one DC's editors would wisely make the effort to break away from by the end of the 1960s.

I don't know why you are so obsessed with the "original" version of the character, the comics haven't used that version in decades, and I haven't seen anybody wanting to see that version in the adaptations. What people want to see is the version they are familiar with from the last several decades of comics, TV shows, video games, and movies.

 

[Christopher]

I don't know why you are so obsessed with the "original" version of the character, the comics haven't used that version in decades, and I haven't seen anybody wanting to see that version in the adaptations. What people want to see is the version they are familiar with from the last several decades of comics, TV shows, video games, and movies.

All these so-called originalists I see online who insist that Superman and Batman were intrinsically dark and violent characters for decades and weren't lightened up until the Comics Code are just revealing the fact that they haven't actually read the early comics and have no idea what they're talking about. I have read those comics -- I've gone through all the Golden Age collections to date and have continued from there issue-by-issue on DC Universe, and I'm currently up to 1946 for Superman and 1945 for Batman -- and the fact is that both Superman and Batman were dialed down from their early violence within a couple of years. By the mid-1940s, they'd both become wholesome, fun characters who never intentionally killed and whose adventures were often quite comical and fanciful. A lot of the stuff we associate with the Comics Code era -- fantasy/dream-sequence stories, time travel, magic, supervillains being flamboyant bank robbers rather than killers -- was actually firmly in place by the end of WWII. If anything, I've gotten to the point where I'm growing less interested because many of the stories are too frivolous and silly even for me. (A recent one I read involved Clark Kent falling asleep while reading a child a bedtime story and dreaming that Superman took the place of the fairy godmother in Cinderella. And Batman by this point had a regular backup feature with Alfred, the comedy butler and wannabe detective, stumbling into mysteries and solving them by accident.) Although there are some good ones that involve clever criminal schemes (like the Prankster giving away large sums of money to a series of banks so that the one he targeted will let him in so he can steal a much greater sum) or clever stratagems by the heroes to outwit the criminals. What they don't involve is a lot of violence, aside from Batman and Robin having fistfights with the villains that are in the same vein as Bat-fights from the '60s TV series, except with a lot more wisecracks and humor from the Caped Crusaders.

So the originalists are ignorant and wrong. What they extol is not the "true" version of the characters, just the embryonic rough drafts that only lasted a few dozen issues as the characters evolved into their fully realized forms and their creators realized that pulpish violence didn't suit characters who were breakout successes as role models for children.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I never said it it did. You were talking about how bad it was, and how you and other comics readers hated it, and I was just pointing out that obviously that wasn't the case with a lot of the people who watched it, since it ran for 8 seasons

Do not gloss over facts: The Super Friends was not a consistent production or success at all. One, it premiered in September of 1973 and was cancelled after one season--the bottom line being kids did not like H-B's kiddie spin on the Justice League. The reason ABC wanted H-B to produce more--starting several years later with 1977's The All-New Super Friends Hour was only due to the proof of superheroic content success with ABC's The Six Million Dollar Man and the first season of Wonder Woman. So, it did not return on its own merits. It would be cancelled again, with its final revival being a retooling with 1985's The Legendary Super Powers Show and yet another retooling with the final entry, The Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians. The interpretation most associated with the series--the silly end--is exactly that which had been cancelled twice in its history.

and is considered a classic today.

As for you calling it a classic? Nope. To be quite honest, there are only a few network TV cartoons of the previous century that ever earned anything close to "classic" status, and the S-F is not one of them.

No they would not have been the exact same movies, the tones and styles probably would have been different, but as long as they brought their A-game they could still probably been good movies.

Once again, talent does not work that way. Some filmmakers are ill-equipped to handle / interpret certain kinds of content. No one is a fit for everything, otherwise, Coppola's musical One from the Heart would have flowed as well as his true successes, as his ability would have "just fit" for that genre/content. Instead, it was a critical and commercial disaster because he was not capable of working with that kind of content at all.

It felt a lot closer to the MCU than BvS to me.

I've never heard anyone claim Aquaman, with his characterization/template the same as it was in JL/DCEU, respectively, felt like a MCU film.

The problem wasn't with Whedon's style, it was the mashing together of Whedon and Snyder's styles.

No. You can like Whedon and his Avengers work all you want, but he--and his influence / style--was the fact remains that he was wrong choice for a Justice League film, and the end result stands as a testament to that fact.

Streaming services are exactly the place for studios to invest in the desires of loud, smaller groups. If they were really confident in the number of people who wanted to see the Snyder cut they would be waiting and releasing it in theaters, not putting it up on HBOMax.

Sorry, but WB (and the other production companies involved) do not undertake any project based the voices of a few. That is a business, and in order for this JL project to have gone forward, it needed more than a handful of allegedly "noisy" people talking about it. It was no secret a large number of fans knew the film was supposed to have a far different outcome early on--those fans--the same who were invested in the DCEU films which preceded it--was significant enough for the project to get the green light.

They might not have needed to become clones of the MCU movies, but they definitely needed to lighten the fuck up, and the fact that the ones that did have been better received proves it.

Yes, because Shazam is the biggest DC movie to date. Nope, and if you actually watched a film like Wonder Woman (which some try to claim was light) it was not some quip-splatterd romp (like the worst of the MCU), but one constantly drawing the lead into a filthy world torn by war, after learning there was no other way in dealing with the forces at work. She was not popping off jokes left and right in inappropriate moments, and the film's main story ended on a somber note, as the audience learned why she disappeared for so long, and what that photo (introduced in Dawn of Justice) meant to her. The tone was consistent with the DCEU up to that point.

I don't know why you are so obsessed with the "original" version of the character, the comics haven't used that version in decades

Ridiculous basis for an argument. If DC was left in your hands in the late 1960s, then the Robbins/Novick, then Adams/O'Neill return to the darker Batman (that which made the character relevant again) would have never happened, because at the time Robbins began his run on Batman titles, "the comics haven't used that version..." (the original, darker version) "...in decades". Clearly, those creative teams did not share that belief, and as a result of shedding the remnants of the stale-to-light-to camp-esque mid-60s scripting, their work with the character was so creatively pleasing & powerful, its influences are still here today in one way or another. Still celebrated.

Further, I've seen another making an erroneous claim that the pro-original argument points to the Comics Code as some point when Superman was turned into a camp counselor. That would be a lie, as no one here said any such thing or made a reference to the Code and its influence on comics. For anyone who actually read the original Superman comics--as I have time and again throughout the years--they know the original, Depression-era version of the character was quite satisfied when criminals met their violent end, was not a Boy Scout/camp counselor--in other words, in that original period he was not what the character would become in the Weisinger era (which started before the invention of the Code, so...). Any claims of that kind proves certain people have not only not read the earliest comics at all, but are Hell-bent spinning their agenda to say the character was always a camp counselor because that is their nervous desire alone. The published record does not support said agenda.

Again, for the camp counselor set, they should drop the "Superman was originally that way," as it is a lie easily disproven by the comics which are unambiguous about the periods when certain talents' influence ended, and when others began to change the titles. That, or learn the meaning of the word "original".

and I haven't seen anybody wanting to see that version in the adaptations. What people want to see is the version they are familiar with from the last several decades of comics, TV shows, video games, and movies.

You are the only one making that astoundingly sweeping claim. Name any large group who wants present day Superman productions to be a version of the character from the Super Friends. You cannot. George Reeves TV series? Again, you cannot. The Weisinger-era Superman? No one. Many a comic book film fan have have admitted that the even the Donner version would not work today, and its not what they want to see (and when tried with Singer's Superman Returns, the results were disappointing). To even suggest it would be as absurd as arguing that the Dozier Batman TV version could have been the template for the Nolan films or DCEU's version and work. No, it would not, nor do you have legions of fans wanting to see the handling of Dozier's Batman TV series grafted to current productions. That applies to Superman.

 

[JD]

Do not gloss over facts: The Super Friends was not a consistent production or success at all. One, it premiered in September of 1973 and was cancelled after one season--the bottom line being kids did not like H-B's kiddie spin on the Justice League. The reason ABC wanted H-B to produce more--starting several years later with 1977's The All-New Super Friends Hour was only due to the proof of superheroic content success with ABC's The Six Million Dollar Man and the first season of Wonder Woman. So, it did not return on its own merits. It would be cancelled again, with its final revival being a retooling with 1985's The Legendary Super Powers Show and yet another retooling with the final entry, The Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians. The interpretation most associated with the series--the silly end--is exactly that which had been cancelled twice in its history.

Plenty of shows that went on to be popular ended and came back. Once it came back it right for another eight years, so it to have been pretty damn popular, because a show is not going to run that long if people don't watch it and like. Yeah, some people will hate watch a show, but I doubt it will be enough to support it for 8 years.

As for you calling it a classic? Nope. To be quite honest, there are only a few network TV cartoons of the previous century that ever earned anything close to "classic" status, and the S-F is not one of them.

To this day, I am constantly seeing the show referenced, and parodied, that's enough for me to call it a classic.

Once again, talent does not work that way. Some filmmakers are ill-equipped to handle / interpret certain kinds of content. No one is a fit for everything, otherwise, Coppola's musical One from the Heart would have flowed as well as his true successes, as his ability would have "just fit" for that genre/content. Instead, it was a critical and commercial disaster because he was not capable of working with that kind of content at all.

Or he just he took an approach to it that didn't work.

I've never heard anyone claim Aquaman, with his characterization/template the same as it was in JL/DCEU, respectively, felt like a MCU film.

I didn't say that it felt like an MCU film, just that out of all of the DCEU movie, it was one of the closest to the feel of the MCU.

No. You can like Whedon and his Avengers work all you want, but he--and his influence / style--was the fact remains that he was wrong choice for a Justice League film, and the end result stands as a testament to that fact.

No it does not, it just shows that it's a mistake to try to mash two very different creators styles together into one movie.

Sorry, but WB (and the other production companies involved) do not undertake any project based the voices of a few. That is a business, and in order for this JL project to have gone forward, it needed more than a handful of allegedly "noisy" people talking about it. It was no secret a large number of fans knew the film was supposed to have a far different outcome early on--those fans--the same who were invested in the DCEU films which preceded it--was significant enough for the project to get the green light.

Sure they do, there are plenty of niche projects that end up on places like HBOMax. Pretty much every show that didn't have a big enough audience to continue on a network or cable channel would qualify.
When I say few, I'm talking about on the scale of the number of people all around the world who see these kind of movies. So I'm talking about hundreds of thousands, or a few million people here. Which is a lot of people, but when we start talking about worldwide audiences, it's a few.

Yes, because Shazam is the biggest DC movie to date. Nope, and if you actually watched a film like Wonder Woman (which some try to claim was light) it was not some quip-splatterd romp (like the worst of the MCU), but one constantly drawing the lead into a filthy world torn by war, after learning there was no other way in dealing with the forces at work. She was not popping off jokes left and right in inappropriate moments, and the film's main story ended on a somber note, as the audience learned why she disappeared for so long, and what that photo (introduced in Dawn of Justice) meant to her. The tone was consistent with the DCEU up to that point.

I have seen Wonder Woman twice so far, and I'm probably going to watch it at least once more before the sequel comes out and I read the Art and Making of... book. I never said it was constantly one liners and jokes, but it still had quite a bit of humor and fun moments.

Ridiculous basis for an argument. If DC was left in your hands in the late 1960s, then the Robbins/Novick, then Adams/O'Neill return to the darker Batman (that which made the character relevant again) would have never happened, because at the time Robbins began his run on Batman titles, "the comics haven't used that version..." (the original, darker version) "...in decades". Clearly, those creative teams did not share that belief, and as a result of shedding the remnants of the stale-to-light-to camp-esque mid-60s scripting, their work with the character was so creatively pleasing & powerful, its influences are still here today in one way or another. Still celebrated.
Further, I've seen another making an erroneous claim that the pro-original argument points to the Comics Code as some point when Superman was turned into a camp counselor. That would be a lie, as no one here said any such thing or made a reference to the Code and its influence on comics. For anyone who actually read the original Superman comics--as I have time and again throughout the years--they know the original, Depression-era version of the character was quite satisfied when criminals met their violent end, was not a Boy Scout/camp counselor--in other words, in that original period he was not what the character would become in the Weisinger era (which started before the invention of the Code, so...). Any claims of that kind proves certain people have not only not read the earliest comics at all, but are Hell-bent spinning their agenda to say the character was always a camp counselor because that is their nervous desire alone. The published record does not support said agenda.

Again, for the camp counselor set, they should drop the "Superman was originally that way," as it is a lie easily disproven by the comics which are unambiguous about the periods when certain talents' influence ended, and when others began to change the titles. That, or learn the meaning of the word "original".



You are the only one making that astoundingly sweeping claim. Name any large group who wants present day Superman productions to be a version of the character from the Super Friends. You cannot. George Reeves TV series? Again, you cannot. The Weisinger-era Superman? No one. Many a comic book film fan have have admitted that the even the Donner version would not work today, and its not what they want to see (and when tried with Singer's Superman Returns, the results were disappointing). To even suggest it would be as absurd as arguing that the Dozier Batman TV version could have been the template for the Nolan films or DCEU's version and work. No, it would not, nor do you have legions of fans wanting to see the handling of Dozier's Batman TV series grafted to current productions. That applies to Superman.

I think you misunderstood me here, all I meant was that when I see people about what they want, I have never once seen someone say want to see the character as he was back in the 1940s, they seem to be looking for the character as he's been portrayed for the last few decades of modern comics.

 

[Christopher]

I think you misunderstood me here, all I meant was that when I see people about what they want, I have never once seen someone say want to see the character as he was back in the 1940s, they seem to be looking for the character as he's been portrayed for the last few decades of modern comics.

Right. The myth that Batman was always dark and violent until the Comics Code or the Adam West show or whatever reflects a desire by fans of the modern interpretation of Batman to back-project that version onto the past, to assert that it's the one "real" way of portraying him.

Which is wrong, of course. Batman, Superman, and others have been portrayed in a range of different ways, and that flexibility is part of their enduring appeal. You can like one version without having to dismiss or devalue alternative versions, and there's never an excuse for misrepresenting the facts in order to support an agenda. It's a mark of insecurity to try to shoot down versions besides the one you like rather than respecting people's right to like different things.

Let's see... I'd say there are at least three major eras of Batman. Four if you count the embryonic pulpy/violent stage, which only lasted maybe 2-3 years. After that there's the wholesome, cheerful Dynamic Duo era from the early '40s through 1970. There's the O'Neil/Englehart/Barr era where the idea of Batman as a serious, driven, emotionally distant figure emerged, but he was still a team player capable of warmth and humor and a hero respected by authority figures worldwide; that ran from about 1970-86. And there was the Frank Miller era which defined our modern perception of Batman as an obsessive, violent loner with mental health issues. So the modern version has been around for less than half of the character's existence.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Not entirely DC movie related but not unrelated either: looks like DC Universe may be in the process of being wound down: https://batman-news.com/2020/07/22/dc-universe-annual-subscriptions/

 

[Skywalker]

Makes sense. I can see it eventually sticking around as DC's version of Marvel Unlimited.

 

[JD]

Not entirely DC movie related but not unrelated either: looks like DC Universe may be in the process of being wound down: https://batman-news.com/2020/07/22/dc-universe-annual-subscriptions/

If it does go bye-bye, I wonder if they'll just move all of the content on there over to HBOMax?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Plenty of shows that went on to be popular ended and came back.

Once it came back it right for another eight years

No. You're implying it was a consistent success, which it was not, and it was cancelled twice--the first time needing external creative influences (other ABC superhero series) to even get the network to reconsider after its initial failure. The second time required a reboot (1985's The Legendary Super Powers Show and The Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians) attempting to move away from the very silly image and tone the franchise is best known for. That means there were always inherent problems with the way H-B handled the concept.

To this day, I am constantly seeing the show referenced, and parodied, that's enough for me to call it a classic.

References and parodies do not automatically mean the subject is a classic.Trash such as Bride of the Monster or Manos, the Hands of Fate have also been constantly referenced and parodied...because they are awful, not classics. The Super Friends fell into that category, hence the reason many of the old Boomerang parody bumpers based on the series were mocking its characters and tropes--because the original was often bad / ridiculous.

Or he just he took an approach to it that didn't work.

No. Coppola was not a director of musicals, and was completely out of his element on One from the Heart, and he was rewarded with it being one of the biggest flops of the 1980s that nearly sank his career. Its rather silly to think every director can direct any kind of film or has no weaknesses with certain material.

I didn't say that it felt like an MCU film, just that out of all of the DCEU movie, it was one of the closest to the feel of the MCU.

Still a "no" on that one. Aquaman was very much a natural part of the DCEU film in tone and execution.

No it does not, it just shows that it's a mistake to try to mash two very different creators styles together into one movie.

The film failed only because the original vision was not carried out--that happened thanks to Whedon. He was never the right fit for that film, its characters or content. This is not conjecture about what Whedon would have done--the result was what happened at the theaters and the rest is history.

Sure they do, there are plenty of niche projects that end up on places like HBOMax.

The DCEU is not niche--anything. JL is part of a major film franchise with audiences around the world interested in it--and the forthcoming Snyder cut of JL. That kind of production does not happen because of a handful of people. Everything is an investment and recognition that the millions you refer to might lead to major profits.

I have seen Wonder Woman twice so far, and I'm probably going to watch it at least once more before the sequel comes out and I read the Art and Making of... book. I never said it was constantly one liners and jokes, but it still had quite a bit of humor and fun moments.

The humor in WW would not fill one script page (unlike other superhero films, where jokes are fired off so often, they're practically ricocheting off the walls and hitting the characters), and anything more would have derailed the gritty, serious nature of the film and her arc explaining her 21st century decisions.

I think you misunderstood me here, all I meant was that when I see people about what they want, I have never once seen someone say want to see the character as he was back in the 1940s, they seem to be looking for the character as he's been portrayed for the last few decades of modern comics.

Yes, but that's still a false notion, as no one is wanting to see the continuation of the Weisinger aberration that even DC started to move away from in its late Silver Age titles (spurred on in part by letters DC received about Superman being corny and out of sync with the times in and out of the comics). That includes not wanting to see anything in the neighborhood of George Reeves, the Super Friends, and yes, even Donner, with the latter's influence on the revival only leading to a major misfire in Superman Returns. That was an example of playing Superman as he had been in an older version and it failed, which many fans predicted would be the case. There's a reason moviegoers are not asking for any of those versions--because it is not speaking the language of the DC they're interested in, and the DC movie world as they see it.

Further, as noted yesterday, its similar to the fact that no one is asking for a return to the Dozier Batman, a feeling evident in the late 60s comics, which made the dramatic shift to darker, often serious themes famously recapturing his dark roots, particularly in the wake of DC being flooded with letters complaining about removing any trace of influence from Dozier's TV series. Robbins and Novick's work--and their legendary successors, or course--sent Batman to the level of a major character again, one as complex and fascinating as the best comic characters of that day, and again its had a lasting impact decades later. No one would be talking about Batman today if that seismic creative shift had not occurred, and the same applies to Superman as an adapted character.

 

[The Realist]

^ There was a strong backlash against Snyderman, which continues to this day. Yes, he has his vocal adherents, but he was far from universally embraced and accepted by all moviegoers as representing "the DC they're interested in, and the DC movie world as they see it."

You're not the only Superman fan, nor the sole arbiter of his proper portrayal. Personally, I would rather see any prior screen interpretation of the character revisited before I'd want to see more of Snyderman. You can sneer at Reeves all you want, or even damn Reeve's version with faint praise, but those actors and portrayals embodied the essence of the character in a way the DCEU doesn't even begin to understand.

 

[crookeddy]

Not entirely DC movie related but not unrelated either: looks like DC Universe may be in the process of being wound down: https://batman-news.com/2020/07/22/dc-universe-annual-subscriptions/

To the surprise of just one poster on this board lol

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

^ There was a strong backlash against Snyderman, which continues to this day. Yes, he has his vocal adherents, but he was far from universally embraced and accepted by all moviegoers as representing "the DC they're interested in, and the DC movie world as they see it."

Yet there is no call for the DCEU Superman to be anything like George Reeves, the Super Friends version, or Donner's--the latter, as noted earlier--was tried in recent film history and failed. Few ever wanted to see Superman return to the Reeve/Donner version, as it simply does not speak the language fans want to see in a present-day Superman. The Cavill version is a representation of who the character would be in a close-to-real world, which is what many a DC fan wanted to see.

 

[The Realist]

^ Your opinion and personal preference, which you try to present as universally shared. No screen version of the character in his long history has ever been as divisive as Snyderman, as even the most superficial acquaintance with his critical and popular reception demonstrates. And, like it or not, most of Snyderman’s many, many detractors make no secret of their preference for the older versions of the character that you are so eager to consign to the dustbin.

 

[JD]

No. You're implying it was a consistent success, which it was not, and it was cancelled twice--the first time needing external creative influences (other ABC superhero series) to even get the network to reconsider after its initial failure. The second time required a reboot (1985's The Legendary Super Powers Show and The Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians) attempting to move away from the very silly image and tone the franchise is best known for. That means there were always inherent problems with the way H-B handled the concept.

You're still refusing to acknowledge the fact that it ran for 8 fucking years, a show cannot run for 8 fucking years if it's a failure that nobody likes. To this day it still tends to be one of the most consistently referenced version of the characters, hell even in the Arrowverse they call their teams "The Super Friends" rather than the Justice League. The current comics have even included a Wonder Twins series.

References and parodies do not automatically mean the subject is a classic.Trash such as Bride of the Monster or Manos, the Hands of Fate have also been constantly referenced and parodied...because they are awful, not classics. The Super Friends fell into that category, hence the reason many of the old Boomerang parody bumpers based on the series were mocking its characters and tropes--because the original was often bad / ridiculous.

Something doesn't have to be good to be a classic. Plan 9 From Outer Space is considered one of the worst movies of all time, and it is definitely a classic.

No. Coppola was not a director of musicals, and was completely out of his element on One from the Heart, and he was rewarded with it being one of the biggest flops of the 1980s that nearly sank his career. Its rather silly to think every director can direct any kind of film or has no weaknesses with certain material.

I make a point of saying it is impossible for directors to only be able do a certain kind of movies, or that they could never do a certain type of movie.
Just look at somebody like Steven Speilberg, who has directed Jaws, E.T., The Color Purple, Shindler's List, Raiders of the Lost Arc, The Terminal, and is now working on West Side Story. There are plenty of other directors out there who have done a huge variety of different projects in different tones, styles and genres. Another one would be Ron Howard, who directed Splash, Cacoon, Willow, Apollo 13, a Beautiful Mind, and Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Still a "no" on that one. Aquaman was very much a natural part of the DCEU film in tone and execution.

Yes, that was how I felt. I can't believe you actually think you can tell me how I felt.

The film failed only because the original vision was not carried out--that happened thanks to Whedon. He was never the right fit for that film, its characters or content. This is not conjecture about what Whedon would have done--the result was what happened at the theaters and the rest is history.

He was a better fit for the characters and content than Snyder was.

The DCEU is not niche--anything. JL is part of a major film franchise with audiences around the world interested in it--and the forthcoming Snyder cut of JL. That kind of production does not happen because of a handful of people. Everything is an investment and recognition that the millions you refer to might lead to major profits.

The DCEU might not be niche, but the Snyder Cut is. The fact that this is going on HBOMax and not to theaters is all the proof we need that this is not something WB is expecting to be a huge mainstream hit.

The humor in WW would not fill one script page (unlike other superhero films, where jokes are fired off so often, they're practically ricocheting off the walls and hitting the characters), and anything more would have derailed the gritty, serious nature of the film and her arc explaining her 21st century decisions.

But it was still there.

Yes, but that's still a false notion, as no one is wanting to see the continuation of the Weisinger aberration that even DC started to move away from in its late Silver Age titles (spurred on in part by letters DC received about Superman being corny and out of sync with the times in and out of the comics). That includes not wanting to see anything in the neighborhood of George Reeves, the Super Friends, and yes, even Donner, with the latter's influence on the revival only leading to a major misfire in Superman Returns. That was an example of playing Superman as he had been in an older version and it failed, which many fans predicted would be the case. There's a reason moviegoers are not asking for any of those versions--because it is not speaking the language of the DC they're interested in, and the DC movie world as they see it.

Further, as noted yesterday, its similar to the fact that no one is asking for a return to the Dozier Batman, a feeling evident in the late 60s comics, which made the dramatic shift to darker, often serious themes famously recapturing his dark roots, particularly in the wake of DC being flooded with letters complaining about removing any trace of influence from Dozier's TV series. Robbins and Novick's work--and their legendary successors, or course--sent Batman to the level of a major character again, one as complex and fascinating as the best comic characters of that day, and again its had a lasting impact decades later. No one would be talking about Batman today if that seismic creative shift had not occurred, and the same applies to Superman as an adapted character.

I've seen a lot more people wanting a return to the older versions of the character than I have who want more of the Snyder version.
Oh, and I would love to see a return to the Dozier style of Batman, and the fact that Batman: Brave and the Bold, and the Harley Quinn animated series have both been successful are proof that there are plenty of people out there who are very open to a comedic version of Batman and his associated characters.

 

[theenglish]

The Hall of Justice from the old Super-Friends series is now the Justice League headquarters both in the comics and in the Arrowverse. The series has had a long term impact on popular culture and comics culture. Sure, some people probably didn't like it. Many of us were disappointed it wasn't like the comics at the time--yet it was THE DC program on television at the time and I watched it and enjoyed it for what it was--even if it was a poor imitation of the Justice League.

One might as well say similar things about Smallville. It was disappointing in many ways; it wasn't like the comics--yet, many of us enjoyed it for what it was not what we wanted it to be.

 

[Christopher]

The Hall of Justice from the old Super-Friends series is now the Justice League headquarters both in the comics and in the Arrowverse. The series has had a long term impact on popular culture and comics culture. Sure, some people probably didn't like it. Many of us were disappointed it wasn't like the comics at the time--yet it was THE DC program on television at the time and I watched it and enjoyed it for what it was--even if it was a poor imitation of the Justice League.

I'm not much of a Super Friends fan, but I love the Hall of Justice, because it's based on my favorite building here in Cincinnati, the Union Terminal train station (now the Cincinnati Museum Center). I've visited it periodically since childhood (though I don't think I knew then that it was the HoJ's inspiration, despite the obvious similarity), I worked there briefly as an exhibit guide quite a few years ago, and I can see it from the park near my apartment. So it's cool to see its design enduring as the HoJ, and I loved it that the Arrowverse actually used digitally altered photos of Union Terminal to create its HoJ exterior shots (though the real building has a far more beautiful interior than the hangar in the shows).