Which doesn't actually mean anything with regards to the actual future of the character's journey on film, THR, Variety, and Deadline article headlines not withstanding.
I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but if it was, I was just sharing what I read on IGN. I think this version of the DCEU has finally found it's footing, and I wouldn't mind seeing it continue, and I would hate to lose Gadot and Momoa, I love them in these roles. These casting has been consistently great, and I'd really hate to lose any of the actors we've seen so far.
"So. As for the story yesterday in the Hollywood Reporter, some of it is true, some of it is half-true, some of it is not true, & some of it we haven't decided yet whether it's true or not." Have fun working out which is which. (If he's using "some" correctly it's definitely more than one thing they're right about.) https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/1600920132691189760?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1600920132691189760|twgr^3b2baa65325e0412cc8419c3d1d93ab4f86d6ef3|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://bleedingcool.com/tv/james-gunn-responds-to-dcu-snyderverse-rumors-urges-patience/
No Wonder Woman 3 or Aquaman 3? Big oof. James Gunn is sitting in the burning house of WB, acting out the "this is fine" meme.
I like that the picture Gunn chose to cap that Twitter thread (following the concluding comment, "We are giving these characters & the stories the time & attention they deserve & we ourselves still have a lot more questions to ask & answer") has Superman front and center, where he belongs: I hope there's some significance to that.
Probably more than the significance of the Atom standing on Superman's shoulder (which is presumably just so we can see him).
Since Gunn has used this image from Kingdom Come to illustrate an earlier Twitter post about making DC movie plans, I'd say the significance is that he likes Alex Ross. Back then, it sparked a few clickbait articles speculating that he planned an adaptation of Kingdom Come.
Deadline weighing in following the Hollywood Reporter piece: https://deadline.com/2022/12/dc-wonder-woman-james-gunn-man-of-steel-1235193778/ Supposedly it was Jenkins who walked away from WW3 after getting studio notes on her existing plans. Still pretty vague on the Cavill front. And really not loving the reference to a Supergirl "cameo" in The Flash. I'm hoping that's just imprecise wording. My understanding was she was an important player in the thing (and my main reason for wanting to see it).
"Cavill took it upon himself to announce his return as the Man of Steel on Instagram on Oct. 24, the day before Safran and Gunn were named as heads of DC. De Luca and Abdy before the duo’s arrival heard a pitch from Man of Steel producer Charles Roven and a writer. They didn’t like it and wanted to wait for Safran and Gunn’s plan to come into place. Hence, Man of Steel 2 was never greenlit, didn’t have a director nor was it packaged."
What's astonishing is that she doesn't seem to be willing to acknowledge any flaws with WW84 up to and including making the hero a rapist.
Allegedly the cancelled Keaton Film was Batman Beyond inspired. https://twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1601039861288689665
All I was saying, is I originally read her tweet as a good-bye, but in light of learning that the tweet came before the announcement of the rejection of the script, it clearly seemed like the tweet was meant as Gadot believing the script was done and the project would move into production.
Marvel/Sony: Make almost two billion dollars by bringing back old Spider-Men DC: Cancel almost everything with Michael Keaton as Batman, including a literally complete film Hopefully Gunn & Associates can turn this shit around, Zaslav has just been burning shit to the ground. As for Wonder Woman 3, I would like to see Gadot return but I'd be happier if Jenkins didn't. She's a decent director but a terrible writer, and I really don't want another WW84 situation.
This is a very fair point, and I would still be happy to see Cavill back as Superman in a different take on the character. But I know a lot of people, including me, will be bummed that we might not be getting an actual sequel to MoS. However, considering BvS and JLSC were both in fact sequels to MoS in a way, I can also understand that with the entire Snyder-build continuity being dropped, they can only really make a sequel to MoS by ignoring BvS and JLSC. Which, the more I think about it, could be intriguing.... Again, very fair point Christopher.
I wonder if and how they will make an actual transition movie or scenes or if they will ignore the Snyderverse completely and just start over. First option would be to either make a complete transition reboot film aka the universe ends cataclysmically by known comic book means ( time travel, supervillain plans, anything else) and the result after a big event series in the comics is a completely new continuity. Comics have been doing it for decades now when the existing continuity was burdened down by too many issues or you devote part of the first new continuity film explaining the reboot somehow ( hard to do and not a very good option). The advantage is that you could retain some key actors because the audience can follow why and what happened. Second option is really nuclear - sever all ties with the previous movies and start casting your new Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern etc. and not even acknowledge the previous movies. However this also carries the risk of alienating fans who have been very supportive of Cavill, Gadot and Momoa and want to see them continue in their roles. To be in the conference room when Gunn lays out his plan - i'd pay money to be there and surely i wouldn't have enough to even come close to a fictional sum required for that ticked
I'm not. I like Cavill as the character, but there's little about the specific MoS continuity that I'd want to see followed up on. Better to make a fresh start without the baggage, whether it's a new continuity or just a continuity-neutral story that's nominally set in the DCEU but doesn't dwell on past events (i.e. pretty much the way the DCEU has been working for the past few years). The best approach might be something like Marvel's The Incredible Hulk, which just jumped right into a post-origin story in such a way that casual viewers could believe it was a sequel to Ang Lee's Hulk even though it was actually a reboot. See also Star Wars: The Clone Wars vis-a-vis the earlier Clone Wars "microseries." It initially seemed like a continuation, because it picked up microseries characters like Asajj Ventress as if they were already established rather than giving them new origins, but it turned out to be a separate continuity. Please, no. The Arrowverse managed to pull that off in a messy way with Crisis on Infinite Earths, but that would just make it repetitive for the movies to try it, and it would be way too cluttered a story to fit into just one movie. And it's just an unnecessary gimmick. Audiences have seen multiple different versions of Superman, Batman, etc. over the decades, and of other fictional franchises too. They don't need a new continuity "explained" in-story. Just tell a story about the characters, instead of getting all twee and metatextual and playing continuity games that get in the way. As I said, there's absolutely no reason why the same actors couldn't play the same roles in two different continuities. It happens all the time. If audiences in the 1940s could "follow" Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce playing Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson in the present day fighting Nazis after having previously seen them in two Victorian-era movies, then audiences today should be able to "follow" an actor continuing a role in a new continuity.