DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
With much due respect, I get that some enjoyed the movies very much but that doesn't seem to be the general takeaway from the audience at large. I watched it in the movie theater as well and thought it was terrible. I had arguments with friends about how they loved this 'kick ass killer Superman'. Same for BvS.
I'm new to the site so I'm sure the likes/dislikes for this movie and DC in general has been talked to death already. But it really shouldn't surprise anyone by now why DC is going for a clean slate. I just wish there was more thought about picking and sticking with elements that worked(Cavill, even Affleck) and getting rid off the rest that didn't.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not it was "working," there's no reason in principle that rebooting a continuity requires recasting an actor. They kept Judi Dench as M when they rebooted Bond. They brought back J.K. Simmons as Jameson in the MCU, and have brought back Daredevil's Charlie Cox and Vincent D'Onofrio in what might be rebooted versions of their characters (jury's still out). Titans and Doom Patrol used the same actors for (most of) the Doom Patrol despite turning out to be in different universes, and Stargirl used John Wesley Shipp as Jay Garrick despite being in a different universe from The Flash (though in that case I suspect it's implicitly the same Jay crossing universes). And how many times has Terminator been rebooted with Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton still being included, or Halloween with Jamie Lee Curtis still included?
As someone mentioned above, replacing Cavill is probably more about having a younger lead that they hope can sustain a long-running series.
Depends on the continuity. Some versions have been depicted as nigh-immortal, others have aged just a bit more slowly than humans (e.g. the Kingdom Come Superman or Ron Ely's alternate-universe Clark in the syndicated Superboy series).
Oh. I agree. It can be done. I said that elsewhere on here and I wish it were even as some sort of passing of the torch. Schwarzenegger and Hamilton ain't exactly the best examples though. LOL!!!
Superman is way more of a popular and iconic character than those you mentioned and unfortunately Cavill is associated with this iteration of DC. This argument hinges on whether a person believes that what DC was doing was working or not. If you(not 'you') like what you saw then you are angry/upset/disappointed(pick your feeling) about this rebooting. If you didn't like what DC was doing then this makes sense. But even past subjective perspectives there is the objective perspective of finance. From that perspective, the DC movies were not working.
Agreed. Said that as well elsewhere. There are multiple reasons for wiping the slate clean so to speak. None of it is about an anti-Cavill attitude by some at WB as some here seem to be suggesting.
For sure. And while I think Cavill deserves every penny, Gal Gadot was reportedly going to get about $20 million for WWIII. She's gorgeous but not a good actress at all ("Kal El, no").
No, it doesn't. The one has nothing to do with the other. As far as I can recall, even most people who criticize the DCEU have praised Cavill. I don't think anyone blames him for the problems with the series; on the contrary, many of us feel that he deserved better than he got and wish he'd get a second chance to get it right. (In the same way that many critics of Superman Returns were still glad to see Brandon Routh get a chance to play Superman better in Crisis on Infinite Earths.)
For sure. And while I think Cavill deserves every penny, Gal Gadot was reportedly going to get about $20 million for WWIII. She's gorgeous but not a good actress at all ("Kal El, no").
That's grossly unfair. One bad performance does not make someone a bad actor. Cavill's a terrific actor overall, but he was terrible in Batman v Superman. Natalie Portman's an excellent actress who was wooden in Star Wars. Actors need good directors and good material to bring out their best work.
This sounds disgusting familiar. Well, Warner Bros is welcomed to its new and younger Superman. I won't be watching.
For me, the DCEU movies stopped working in 2017 with Whedon's cut of "Justice League".
GONG!!!For sure. And while I think Cavill deserves every penny, Gal Gadot was reportedly going to get about $20 million for WWIII. She's gorgeous but not a good actress at all ("Kal El, no").
I am talking about the flagship character of DC, Superman. Fair or not, he does represent DC and Cavill's Superman represents this DC iteration. I'm not sure why that's difficult to understand. Again, I'm not saying I like it or not. Just that I understand the perspective of why they're starting fresh.
WW, WW84? She wasn't good in those either. Maybe you thought she was ok in them. That's cool. Granted, I haven't seen her in anything else to know if she's a fantastic actress like Portman but as you mention her and Cavill, both have a lot more under their belt proving their skills.
And yet that movie seemed to have connected better with audiences. I'm not saying it was a hit but it was better received.
It's not. It just isn't about that. Superman is a character. Henry Cavill is an actor. They're two different things. There are many, many people out there in the movie audience who don't much care about Superman one way or the other but are big fans of Henry Cavill. The whole reason that moviemakers cast big-name stars is that they know that many moviegoers follow the actors rather than the characters. And there are also many people who will follow the characters but couldn't care less what continuity they're in.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying but it's the first time I'm hearing that Superman isn't the DC flagship character. That's what I think you're saying. Please correct me. It sounds like you're saying that people care more about Cavill than Superman? Equal to? That people are more drawn to see Cavill play Superman than watch Superman who happens to be played by Cavill or any other actor for that matter? Am I understanding what you're saying?
I might be in the minority but I didn't know who Cavill was prior to donning the cape. Forgive me, but I don't think he was a big name star prior to Superman. I just looked at his film list. I don't recognize anything prior to MoS.
I kid you not. This is what was on a page at CNN at the bottom where those random website ads usually are
Cavill's iteration of Superman was very popular even amongst audiences who didn't really like anything else about the MoS SCU; Gunn forcing him out after he'd already been allowed to announce that he was going to be returning to the role is, for those of us who are both fans of his version of the character and the SCU he inhabits, both a low blow and a clear signal that Warner Bros. Discovery thinks that money is the only thing that matters; sadly for them, however, it is going to cost them money because it is also a clear signal that the MoS SCU is now a dead end despite the fact that the majority of the company's upcoming slate of DC-related films take place in it.
I never understood why many people continue to claim that hardly anyone liked the early DCEU movies, considering that I've been aware of a large fanbase for them.
I think people in here are a bit too willing to assume that what makes sense to them will 'clearly' be a near universal thing. This is not a case where *everyone* has to suddenly stay home for these movies to be seriously affected. If even a quarter of the audience (or maybe even less than that) has their enthusiasm for the films reduced, that could be a major financial hit. And that's not even just about people not seeing the movie at all, it's also about people who might've been enthusiastic enough to go multiple times now only seeing it once, and about people who might've been enthusiastic cheerleaders helping to push the WoM now feeling less interested in engaging with that sort of situation.
No matter how logical some people think it sounds that this issue shouldn't matter at all, that doesn't mean everyone's behavior will actually line up with that expectation.
And yet most audience measurements are actually very close between JL and BVS, while JL's box office nosedived relative to the previous film. Most of the positive reviews for JL at the time, ime, weren't even saying it was a good movie. They were saying it was closer to what they expected from the character of Superman. And I've seen quite a few people who gave it this kind of 'positive' review at the time turn around a few years later to say that, looking back, the movie was really just bad all along.
Meanwhile, if you compare JL to MOS instead, MOS easily clears JL's rating in pretty much every searchable measurement.