• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

Headlines notwithstanding, the actual text of THR and Deadline's articles about WW3 lines up pretty squarely with that article from The Wrap, so color me unsurprised that the only thing that this means is that things are in flux now with Wonder Woman whereas they weren't previously.
 
Last edited:
FPAlpha said:
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.
Click to expand...

After building a solid film universe with only a couple of creative hiccups (WW84 rocketing to the top of that list), it would be unwise to end a series which has built such a loyal, global following who want more.

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.
Click to expand...

The only rational plan is what the rumored script elements of The Flash suggest: the Snyderverse continues (probably sans the dark future of Bruce Wayne's vision), but in typical comic book form, the Flash discovers the alternate universe / world, which now opens the DCU to be free to tell stories not always connected to the original continuity / Earth Prime, but those well-established characterizations remain and can be involved in occasional crossovers (see: DC's team-up titles, The Brave and the Bold and DC Comics Presents). This would avoid the kind of muddled, slapped-together mess that was Berlanti's Arrowverse "Crisis" episodes, which made little sense and created situations that were not always referred to (or fit) in its wake (see: the final season of Batwoman).

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.
Click to expand...

That would be disastrous, as Cavill, Affleck, Gadot & Momoa have so thoroughly defined DC characters in a successful manner rarely seen in any comic book adaptation. Getting rid of them in favor of re-casting would count as empty-skulled a decision as a guy cradling a cake made of dynamite in his lap while lighting the candles with a blowtorch.
 
Last edited:
^ Also, with it having been officially confirmed that Black Adam will end up turning a profit (despite claims to the contrary), abandoning the specific Shared Continuity Universe started with Man of Steel would mean risking cutting ties with The Rock at a point when his name recognition and clout can only be an asset.
 
That would be disastrous, as Cavill, Affleck, Gadot & Momoa have so thoroughly defined DC characters in a successful manner rarely seen in any comic book adaptation. Getting rid of them in favor of re-casting would count as empty-skulled a decision as a guy cradling a cake made of dynamite in his lap while lighting the candles with a blowtorch.
Click to expand...


It's possible that WB and Gunn will do a good job in recasting the famous DC characters. But I'm tired and I'm just not invested in the franchise's future.
 
I would love to know what Patty Jenkins' version of Wonder Woman 3 was like, that the executives apparently disliked it so much, but she was so passionate about it.
 
JD said:
I would love to know what Patty Jenkins' version of Wonder Woman 3 was like, that the executives apparently disliked it so much, but she was so passionate about it.
Click to expand...

Well, she said she didn't think the executives understand character arcs, so my guess would be that she wanted to show Diana evolving in some way that was too far from the status quo the execs would prefer for the character (or rather, for "the IP"), or that she wanted to bring Wonder Woman's journey to a conclusion and the execs wanted something more open-ended.
 
Taken from twitter:

Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman 3 pitch involved Diana Prince placing Steve Trevor into the Lazarus Pit, where the League of Assassins would use his enhanced strength to go to war against Themyscira. The film ends with Diana leaving him in the care of Task Force X (Source: DEADLINE)
Click to expand...

You what?
Wasn't the last film about Diana letting Steve go?
How do you put him in the Lazarus Pit when he got all exploded a hundred years ago?
So Diana was going to fall in love, lose them, bring them back via a wish which takes some other dude's body, give up the wish, somehow put the dead guy in a resurrection pit, fight him to protect her home, then leave him to the tender mercies of a person who puts explosives in people to force them to follow orders?

Poor Steve. :lol:
 
While I did enjoy Wonder Woman 1984 more than a lot of people, even I acknowledge the way it handled Steve was a mess, and the whole thing with her having sex with "Steve" was just wrong on a lot of levels. From the sound of things, this could have been just as much of a mess.
 
Tosk said:
Taken from twitter:



You what?
Wasn't the last film about Diana letting Steve go?
How do you put him in the Lazarus Pit when he got all exploded a hundred years ago?
So Diana was going to fall in love, lose them, bring them back via a wish which takes some other dude's body, give up the wish, somehow put the dead guy in a resurrection pit, fight him to protect her home, then leave him to the tender mercies of a person who puts explosives in people to force them to follow orders?

Poor Steve. :lol:
Click to expand...

If that's all true... then she, too, doesn't understand character arcs

At least her leaving Thor 2 seemed a more graceful exit. She can try Marvel again so long as she doesn't touch the story.
 
Tosk said:
Taken from twitter:
Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman 3 pitch involved Diana Prince placing Steve Trevor into the Lazarus Pit, where the League of Assassins would use his enhanced strength to go to war against Themyscira. The film ends with Diana leaving him in the care of Task Force X.
Click to expand...
That's a joke, right?
 
Tosk said:
Taken from twitter:



You what?
Wasn't the last film about Diana letting Steve go?
How do you put him in the Lazarus Pit when he got all exploded a hundred years ago?
So Diana was going to fall in love, lose them, bring them back via a wish which takes some other dude's body, give up the wish, somehow put the dead guy in a resurrection pit, fight him to protect her home, then leave him to the tender mercies of a person who puts explosives in people to force them to follow orders?

Poor Steve. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah--if any of the twitter business is true, it illustrates--and reveals that Jenkins did not know what a character arc was...for the main character...and the fact WW84 already explored that it its disturbing manner.

It appears the tone and overall drive leading to the 1st film's success was not due to Jenkins alone (contrary to what some in the media were quick to bark), but what was apparent all along: it played out and appeared like a continuing chapter of the DC films created up to that point.
 
DigificWriter said:
^ Also, with it having been officially confirmed that Black Adam will end up turning a profit (despite claims to the contrary)
Click to expand...

Wait--that means it pours water on all of those "DC films are dead" YouTube screamers just lost material for another 80 videos.

abandoning the specific Shared Continuity Universe started with Man of Steel would mean risking cutting ties with The Rock at a point when his name recognition and clout can only be an asset.
Click to expand...

^ Strong point; for all of those still gnashing teeth with their angry dreams of the original continuity disappearing, they must remember that Johnson and his representatives had been working not only to bring Black Adam to the screen, but the specific task of bringing Cavil back as Superman--and it must be mentioned that Johnson was not talking about some generic performance with Cavill in the suit, but the character as developed in Superman's previous DECU appearances (leading to his statement that Cavill is the Superman of this generation).

Now that both have been accomplished, WB would only betray / threaten their relationships with Johnson and Cavill to pull the narrative rug out from under both in some pointless reboot attempt.
 
Wonder Woman 1 was superb.

Wonder Woman 1984 was awful.

You want to make money?

Wonder Woman marries Black Adam, and Aquaman

Then when Adam and Arthur figure out that that they are brother husbands, we have a movie.
 
WB has so far never given the slightest indication that they actually really care about their relationship with Cavill.

And this idea that the Rock is some unmissable asset that they would be insane to let go is just delusional.

The *best case* anyone reputable has put forward for Black Adam's profitability is Deadline's estimate that the movie will make between 52-72 million (the difference depending on whether or not Warners is lying about the full extent of their marketing budget which Warners claims was 80m but other sources claim was 100m). That's both still an estimate and also already includes *all* revenue sources, including domestic and international home video and streaming, which is a figure that somehow never gets brought up in defence of other movies that failed to profit in theaters. And even if you take that entire estimate as gospel, you're still talking about a 200m dollar tentpole movie that couldn't even eke out 75m in profit.

It's possible it could be an acceptable franchise starter if WB chooses to move forward with it, but it's nowhere close to being a financial win as it currently stands so the idea that a sequel is a slam dunk which obviously has to happen is ridiculous.
 
Guy Gardener said:
Wonder Woman 1 was superb.

Wonder Woman 1984 was awful.
Click to expand...

Yep--and that was the one Jenkins claimed to be under her control more than the first.

You want to make money?

Wonder Woman marries Black Adam, and Aquaman

Then when Adam and Arthur figure out that that they are brother husbands, we have a movie.
Click to expand...

What's frightening is that I know of a good number of writers from certain outlets who would seriously support your joke.
 
Grendelsbayne said:
this idea that the Rock is some unmissable asset that they would be insane to let go is just delusional
Click to expand...

The Rock is a Producer as well as an actor, one who can potentially provide WB Discovery with a lot more than just his contributions to the MoS Shared Continuity Universe as Black Adam.

Risking the potential loss of a producing partner like The Rock by abandoning both the Black Adam character and the entire rest of the MoS Shared Continuity Universe would be a bad move for a company that needs to make money making Theatrical movies.

The *best case* anyone reputable has put forward for Black Adam's profitability is Deadline's estimate that the movie will make between 52-72 million
Click to expand...

So you're saying that The Rock himself isn't a reputable source? Because he's the one who first confirmed that Black Adam would make a profit.
 
Last edited:
DigificWriter said:
The Rock is a Producer as well as an actor, one who can potentially provide WB Discovery with a lot more than just his contributions to the MoS Shared Continuity Universe as Black Adam.

Risking the potential loss of a producing partner like The Rock by abandoning both the Black Adam character and the entire rest of the MoS Shared Continuity Universe would be a bad move for a company that needs to make money making Theatrical movies.



So you're saying that The Rock himself isn't a reputable source? Because he's the one who first confirmed that Black Adam would make a profit.
Click to expand...

How much content he theoretically could make for them doesn't matter if they don't believe his content will sell well.

And the only actual information the Rock gave about the movie's profitability was a link to the exact Deadline article I just quoted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top