DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Christopher]

I can understand where directors who are used to more or less having free rein to do whatever they want might have a problem with the MCU approach, but I think a more hands on approach by the people in charge of the universe makes sense when you're movies are as connected as these cinematic universes are.

Which is exactly why I liked it that the DCEU from Aquaman onward has barely been connected at all, with each film free to be its own entity with its own tone and approach, just sharing the general background. Its strength was that it wasn't just a copy of the MCU's approach, but an alternative to it, a looser, more anthology-like take on the shared-universe idea. And that's why I'm sad that the new approach is to scuttle that in favor of Yet Another MCU Copy, a strategy that has failed miserably for almost every studio that's tried it, including the early DCEU.

It is free rein right, as in letting up on the reins so the horse has more freedom to movie? Or is it free reign, as in a ruler having the freedom to rule how they want?

The former, yes. The full expression is "to give free rein," to grant the horse more freedom of movement. Nobody gives someone reign; you're either born with it or you take it for yourself.

 

[Dee1891]

Which is exactly why I liked it that the DCEU from Aquaman onward has barely been connected at all, with each film free to be its own entity with its own tone and approach, just sharing the general background. Its strength was that it wasn't just a copy of the MCU's approach, but an alternative to it, a looser, more anthology-like take on the shared-universe idea. And that's why I'm sad that the new approach is to scuttle that in favor of Yet Another MCU Copy, a strategy that has failed miserably for almost every studio that's tried it, including the early DCEU.

I haven't been that impressed with the franchise's movies post-"Aquaman", aside from the Snyderverse "Justice League". The only DCEU movie I didn't like between 2013 and 2018 was Whedon's theatrical version of "Justice League". I did like "Birds of Prey" a lot, but I had an issue with it regarding the Joker's missing presence or news about what happened to him before the film.

 

[Set Harth]

And that's why I'm sad that the new approach is to scuttle that in favor of Yet Another MCU Copy, a strategy that has failed miserably for almost every studio that's tried it, including the early DCEU.

With the exception of Marvel itself! Mainly because they didn't panic, choke and tear it all down every few years.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

That Affleck interview is interesting. He is obviously very much behind Zack's vision. How he discusses turning down the chance to direct a future Batman movie under Gunn is a bit sharp. But I can understand and respect his opinion.

Snyder, et al., certainly had a clear vision of their then-growing film universe, and Affleck was very interested in building on that. Its such a shame that is not going to happen. Regarding Gunn, Affleck is wise to turn down directing any film in a series that is believed to be so controlling over the vision / authority of the director--its both an anti-creative handcuff and potentially draining the enthusiasm out of anyone working on the film.

It is free rein right, as in letting up on the reins so the horse has more freedom to movie? Or is it free reign, as in a ruler having the freedom to rule how they want?

In Affleck's case involving directing a Batman film, I'd say it was the former; originally, he was going to direct the film during the Snyder series era, and he would be able to approach the film his way, but there would be some connections to the rest of the DCEU (like the majority of the films in the series).

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Has anybody considered that Affleck's comment could maybe not mean not having free reign, and just possibly be about Gunn & Safran wanting to do a more upbeat Batman movie as to differentiate it from the Matt Reeves films? Just a thought.

I did like "Birds of Prey" a lot, but I had an issue with it regarding the Joker's missing presence or news about what happened to him before the film.

...

What, that he broke up with Harley Quinn?

 

[Supervisor 194]

Snyder certainly had a clear vision, but the general audience did not respond to it as enthusiastically as to warrant its continuance---at least by Warner's standards.

It remains to be seen whether the audience will respond to Gunn's vision.

Affleck's comments are interesting, and suggest that Gunn's vision will be enforced across all the DC movies. From a director's point of view, I can see how that might feel stifling.

 

[JoeZhang]

I wonder how Shazam will do this weekend.

Early numbers suggest it's a disaster.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Has anybody considered that Affleck's comment could maybe not mean not having free reign, and just possibly be about Gunn & Safran wanting to do a more upbeat Batman movie as to differentiate it from the Matt Reeves films? Just a thought.

Hell, it could be nothing more than him having zero interest in being part of any shared universe project anymore, period. He clearly had a terrible time on JL, and not an extraordinarily great time even before that. Why should he want to go back into another multi-film contract just on the hope that it will be different this time?

 

[YLu]

He clearly had a terrible time on JL, and not an extraordinarily great time even before that. Why should he want to go back into another multi-film contract just on the hope that it will be different this time?

That’s what he pretty much says, isn’t it?

But I was going to direct a Batman, and [Justice League] made me go, “I’m out. I never want to do any of this again. I’m not suited.” That was the worst experience I’ve ever seen in a business which is full of some shitty experiences. It broke my heart. There was an idea of someone [Joss Whedon] coming in, like, “I’ll rescue you and we’ll do 60 days of shooting and I’ll write a whole thing around what you have. I’ve got the secret.” And it wasn’t the secret. That was hard. And I started to drink too much. I was back at the hotel in London, it was either that or jump out the window. And I just thought, “This isn’t the life I want. My kids aren’t here. I’m miserable.” You want to go to work and find something interesting to hang onto, rather than just wearing a rubber suit, and most of it you’re just standing against the computer screen going, “If this nuclear waste gets loose, we’ll …” That’s fine. I don’t condescend to that or put it down, but I got to a point where I found it creatively not satisfying. Also just, you’re sweaty and exhausted. And I thought, “I don’t want to participate in this in any way. And I don’t want to squander any more of my life, of which I have a limited amount.”

Doesn’t sound like it’s anything to do with Gunn and Safran specifically.

 

[Rich Watson]

Early numbers suggest it's a disaster.

Coming in even less than the already low projections. At least Peyton Reed will have a good weekend.

 

[Dee1891]

Snyder certainly had a clear vision, but the general audience did not respond to it as enthusiastically as to warrant its continuance---at least by Warner's standards.

Some of the general audience, not all of them. And honestly, I tend to judge movies based upon my own views, not the views of movie critics or the majority opinion.

Coming in even less than the already low projections. At least Peyton Reed will have a good weekend.

I think Peyton Reed will continue thinking about his own situation with "Ant-Man 3".

 

[fireproof78]

Some of the general audience, not all of them. And honestly, I tend to judge movies based upon my own views, not the views of movie critics or the majority opinion.

Indeed. The opinion of the majority will not change mine.

 

[Supervisor 194]

The opinion of the majority shouldn't change yours, as an individual. I thought Superman Returns had a lot of potential and would have loved to seen that universe developed more. Unfortunately, not enough audience members agreed and that was that.

For the company footing the bill and expecting a return on their investment, that's a different story. And no matter what artistic merits could be argued for the Snyderverse, it did not deliver the general audience and that's why it has been junked.

I like what Gunn has been saying so far, especially in regards to Superman: Legacy, and will give it a shot when it comes out. Hopefully it will click for a wide audience and develop into a great saga for the Man of Steel.

 

[thribs]

It’s a shame the SmyderVerse ended where it did. I wantedto see Darkseid beat the living #### out of the JL.
Maybe we’ll get a novel one day.

 

[Samurai8472]

Affleck's comments are interesting, and suggest that Gunn's vision will be enforced across all the DC movies. From a director's point of view, I can see how that might feel stifling.

This new direction specifically demands that EVERYTHING be under one roof.

If you're movie batman for example then you're also the voice of the animated version and all other media that follows.

 

[Dee1891]

With the exception of Marvel itself! Mainly because they didn't panic, choke and tear it all down every few years.

True. But I feel that the franchise's writing has been in serious decline since 2016. But the media and so many fans continue to celebrate the franchise's past glories and congratulate it for more or less sticking to the "MCU formula", something I have grown to loathe.

 

[thribs]

Anyone watch the Legion of Superheroes animated movie? It was pretty good but the twist was fairly obvious. Nice cliff-hanger at the end.

 

[Dee1891]

Has anybody considered that Affleck's comment could maybe not mean not having free reign, and just possibly be about Gunn & Safran wanting to do a more upbeat Batman movie as to differentiate it from the Matt Reeves films? Just a thought.


...

What, that he broke up with Harley Quinn?

Where was he? Why did he leave Gotham, which led to Roman Sionis aka Black Mask making an attempt to take over Gotham's crime scene? At first, I thought the Joker was dead. But he wasn't. Why did he leave Gotham after dumping Harley?

 

[JD]

The former, yes. The full expression is "to give free rein," to grant the horse more freedom of movement. Nobody gives someone reign; you're either born with it or you take it for yourself.

OK, that's what I thought, I just wanted to make sure.

In Affleck's case involving directing a Batman film, I'd say it was the former; originally, he was going to direct the film during the Snyder series era, and he would be able to approach the film his way, but there would be some connections to the rest of the DCEU (like the majority of the films in the series).

I understood that, I meant the origins of the phrase itself. I've seen people use both versions of the phrase, and I wasn't sure where the phrase came from. And @Christopher answered that for me.

 

[Christopher]

Anyone watch the Legion of Superheroes animated movie? It was pretty good but the twist was fairly obvious. Nice cliff-hanger at the end.

It isn't on HBO Max yet, so no. I wonder when it'll show up there.

I watched the previous movies in the current, loose "Tomorrowverse" continuity recently. Superman: Man of Tomorrow was the best by a wide margin, which is bad considering that it was the first. Justice Society: World War Two wasn't bad. Batman: The Long Halloween was faithful to a story I didn't like in the comics, and I wish they'd done an original take on Batman as interesting as their take on Superman. The Green Lantern movie was okay but flawed, and the nominal lead character John Stewart often felt like a supporting player in his own movie. And it's weird how much these movies jump around the continuity they supposedly share, with only tenuous connections.

On the other hand, I also recently did a marathon rewatch (and first watch in a few cases) of the previous DC Animated Movie Universe. While it had a terrible start with Justice League: War, it's otherwise much better and more consistent overall than I remembered, and it was getting even better toward the end, so it's a shame they chose to end it in favor of a new (nominal) continuity which has mostly been inferior.