• 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

TerryTrek said:
Not at all. I'm going by metrics that show that mainstream audiences didn't respond to him as a lead, and his wooden performances didn't resonate.

You're basically just covering your ears and believing that your own opinion of him is somehow more valid here, that's what the hardcore DCEU fans have been doing for years in their small circles... so that's not surprising.

Ultimately, in the end, he didn't work for what WB wanted with the character and now they are rebooting. They didn't want to give him a new expensive contract, given how his Superman was received. They tested the waters with Black Adam and general audiences just had apathy for him. So now we're getting a clean slate.
Click to expand...

You have a point... but we can't really pinpoint that Henry Cavill as theblead was the problem, as opposed to the story. I mean, the Rock has had blockbuster films (like Jumanji, of all things), but also failures like Black Adam.

In that case it was story, which i would argue is the case with the Snyder trilogy... case in point... how Superman dies in the 2nd movie..and we are to believe that the whole world mourns.... thenfolmmaking never built him up the way Captain America First Avenger did
 
He wasn't the only problem for sure. There were some major missteps with the franchise. BvS unable to crack a billion and dropping 70% in week two was what essentially killed the DCEU. They've been 'course correcting' ever since.
Morpheus 02 said:
In that case it was story, which i would argue is the case with the Snyder trilogy... case in point... how Superman dies in the 2nd movie..and we are to believe that the whole world mourns.... thenfolmmaking never built him up the way Captain America First Avenger did
Click to expand...

I think that's because they wanted to set up Affleck as the franchise lead. Gave him top billing for BvS and JL. Reactionary to MOS being divisive, just add Batman.
 
I'm gonna have to side with @Christopher here, the fact that the movie didn't do that well in theaters has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Cavill gave a good performance. There are plenty of movies with fantastic performances that ended up bombing for other reasons. The success or failure of a movie tends to have very little to do with the actual quality of the movie, there have been some outstanding movies that have bombed, and some absolutely horrendous movies that were massive hits.
As for Cavill, he might not be one of the greatest actors ever, but I've never had a problem with any of his performances I've seen in the DCEU movies, Mission Impossible: Fallout, and The Witcher.
Grendelsbayne said:
They have options at any rate (and who knows, they may just plunk for the modern world as we know it without fantastical style places).

But if you go fantastical you don't actually have to choose between futuristic and 'period piece feel'. For instance, they go easily go retro-futuristic, ie, the feel of what people in the 50s and 60s thought the future would be like. Something that is both in the future and reasonably advanced yet also feels familiar from the past.
Click to expand...
Ooo, I like that idea.
 
The Realist said:
Here you are singing the praises of Henry Cavill as this talented, versatile, nuanced actor, while you're admittedly indifferent to Amy Adams, who IMO is about ten times the actor Cavill is. From where I sit, her incredibly smart and soulful performance as Lois absolutely runs rings around Cavill's colorless Clark. So yeah, opinions, amirite?
Click to expand...

Yup. Different people see different things, and it can be hard to quantify what the reasons are. I've got absolutely nothing against Amy Adams, finding her perfectly competent and reasonably pleasant, but I just can't see the greatness or charisma others perceive. No matter what character she plays, I just don't find her especially interesting. (Much the same goes for Jeremy Renner, so Arrival was a lesser movie for me than it could've been with a different cast.)

Is Cavill the greatest actor around? No. But I find it interesting that a leading-man type like him, someone who's always recognizably himself, still manages to be subtly and meaningfully different in all of his roles. I believe in his goodness as Superman, his cold ruthlessness in Fallout, his roguish-thief charm as Napoleon Solo, and his intellectual reserve as Enola Holmes's big brother Sherlock. Four extremely different men who wouldn't get along well at all, and he works for me as every one of them. I've never felt he was wrong for a part. Okay, maybe he's more Supermannish than Sherlock Holmes should ideally be, but that works in the context of Enola Holmes because we're seeing Sherlock through her eyes and she somewhat idealizes him.
 
He's actuallly really good in The Witcher too. Yeah, the character is rather stoic, and monosyllabic most of the time, but there times where he shows a bit more of his real personality, especially when he's with Ciri, and Cavill is really good in those scenes.
 
Supervisor 194 said:
To say that MOS and BVS were divisive and did not catch on with general audiences to the extent desired by Warner Brothers is a statement that can be reasonably supported by the box office numbers.
Click to expand...

Films that 'don't catch on' with general audiences to the extent desired by the studios that produced them don't generally spawn franchises that last an entire decade, so this argument does hold as much weight as the people spouting it think that it does (or should).
 
Superman: Legacy will need to go in a different direction than what's come before. Something that will stand out from the rest and... electrify the audience, if you will.

Blue Superman it is.
 
JD said:
I'm gonna have to side with @Christopher here, the fact that the movie didn't do that well in theaters has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Cavill gave a good performance. There are plenty of movies with fantastic performances that ended up bombing for other reasons. The success or failure of a movie tends to have very little to do with the actual quality of the movie, there have been some outstanding movies that have bombed, and some absolutely horrendous movies that were massive hits.
As for Cavill, he might not be one of the greatest actors ever, but I've never had a problem with any of his performances I've seen in the DCEU movies, Mission Impossible: Fallout, and The Witcher.

Ooo, I like that idea.
Click to expand...

Gunn recently talked about how one of the major differences we'll see in the new films is world building. The DC universe is already distinct from our own in that it has its own cities and locales and we will see that in the new films. I like that he is focusing on that--regardless what the aesthetic is, it will give the movies a sense of being connected in their own world even when the plot of the movie is standalone. Just like the comics already are.

The Realist said:
Gotta love the bird and the plane. :hugegrin: I'm really excited, I trust she's gonna kill it.
Click to expand...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
JD said:
He's actuallly really good in The Witcher too. Yeah, the character is rather stoic, and monosyllabic most of the time, but there times where he shows a bit more of his real personality, especially when he's with Ciri, and Cavill is really good in those scenes.
Click to expand...

Okay, maybe I'll give the show another chance once I get around to renewing my Netflix subscription. But IIRC, I found it too gory for my taste.
 
Rich Watson said:
Having a mobile block of wood as Superman isn't a problem?

I don't even really understand how Cavill has a career. Is it just because he a pretty boy, because I can't think of any amazing performances of his.
Click to expand...

"Mobile block of wood" is definitely underselling him. He's not Daniel Day-Lewis or Sidney Poitier but then... he doesn't need to be?

Christopher said:
And I've enjoyed all his performances I've seen except Geraint, though I lost interest in The Witcher halfway through episode 2 so I don't have a large sample.
Click to expand...

Geralt. Geraint was a knight from the Arthurian mythos. ;)
 
DigificWriter said:
Films that 'don't catch on' with general audiences to the extent desired by the studios that produced them don't generally spawn franchises that last an entire decade, so this argument does hold as much weight as the people spouting it think that it does (or should).
Click to expand...
Except the idea was that they were trying to match Marvel's success... which would in fact be a SOLID business decision. In the comics world, DC is indeed a match for Marvel, as much as Coke vs. Pepsi...

So it makes sense to make a big attempt to match it (as it succeeded in the comic world). And the DCFU has been up and down, with Wonder Woman being the biggest Domestic win, and Aquaman an astounding billion dollar win with International gains. Then wonder woman 2 came out during Covid

Weren't those first 3 movies kinda already panned (with Snyder as director of all of them) ALREADY set up. Also, comparing it to the attempted Universal Monster Cinematic Universe... the first 3 DC movies didn't do AS BAD, so they had incentive to go on (especially with the positive buzz of Wonder Woman)

Covid got in the way, as did the issues with Ray Risher and Joss Whedon, which wound up trashing the CYborg movie...and the different issues with the Flash (i.e. 6 different directos and how many scripts), pushed the release...and again, COvid stopped it from getting anywhere near the 2020 expected date..

Zaslav IS right -- Superman OUGHT to be a Billion Dollar movie... we will see if his constraints will help or hurt a new iteration.... I see it, however, as just a money grab, like what doomed Andrew Garfield's Amazing SPiderman --- there wasn't a "need" to do a new one (as opposed to Tom Holland's version, who came in at just about the time Tobey would have retired anyway) .

The DCFU has been just a mess from the start (i.e. not capitalizing on the CW Arrowverse start, which would have provided more synergy, and certainly NOT an issue with the Flash star)... The DCOU might not do any better.
 
Morpheus 02 said:
Except the idea was that they were trying to match Marvel's success... which would in fact be a SOLID business decision. In the comics world, DC is indeed a match for Marvel, as much as Coke vs. Pepsi...

So it makes sense to make a big attempt to match it (as it succeeded in the comic world). And the DCFU has been up and down, with Wonder Woman being the biggest Domestic win, and Aquaman an astounding billion dollar win with International gains. Then wonder woman 2 came out during Covid

Weren't those first 3 movies kinda already panned (with Snyder as director of all of them) ALREADY set up. Also, comparing it to the attempted Universal Monster Cinematic Universe... the first 3 DC movies didn't do AS BAD, so they had incentive to go on (especially with the positive buzz of Wonder Woman)

Covid got in the way, as did the issues with Ray Risher and Joss Whedon, which wound up trashing the CYborg movie...and the different issues with the Flash (i.e. 6 different directos and how many scripts), pushed the release...and again, COvid stopped it from getting anywhere near the 2020 expected date..

Zaslav IS right -- Superman OUGHT to be a Billion Dollar movie... we will see if his constraints will help or hurt a new iteration.... I see it, however, as just a money grab, like what doomed Andrew Garfield's Amazing SPiderman --- there wasn't a "need" to do a new one (as opposed to Tom Holland's version, who came in at just about the time Tobey would have retired anyway) .

The DCFU has been just a mess from the start (i.e. not capitalizing on the CW Arrowverse start, which would have provided more synergy, and certainly NOT an issue with the Flash star)... The DCOU might not do any better.
Click to expand...
Is there a reason for not using the acronyms DCEU and DCU that the actual makers of each have self identified? It’s like arbitrarily altering EU, NATO, UN, USSR, USA, etc. for no discernible reason.
 
TerryTrek said:
He wasn't the only problem for sure. There were some major missteps with the franchise. BvS unable to crack a billion and dropping 70% in week two was what essentially killed the DCEU. They've been 'course correcting' ever since.


I think that's because they wanted to set up Affleck as the franchise lead. Gave him top billing for BvS and JL. Reactionary to MOS being divisive, just add Batman.
Click to expand...


"BvS" wasn't able to crack a billion at the box office in 2016 and therefore we're all supposed to believe it was a terrible movie? We're honestly supposed to accept box office performance as a sign of a movie's quality? How long are we supposed to accept this method of judging a film? Are we supposed to pretend that the DCEU never had any fans or a large fanbase of its own? Are we supposed to assume that the MCU is automatically better than the DCEU? Because I don't. Although I have found the DCEU problematic since Whedon's version of "Justice League", I also believe the MCU has been problematic for years now and having so many people declare that it's the bees' knees is not going to change my mind.
 
Dee1891 said:
We're honestly supposed to accept box office performance as a sign of a movie's quality?
Click to expand...

I don't and never have.

The MCU is popular and most of its component films have made money; that doesn't mean said films have any absolute value or that they're objectively better-quality films than those that comprise the DCEU (or, as I've re-termed it, the MoS Shared Continuity Universe/MoSSCU).

I personally own exactly one MCU film - Spider-Man Homecoming - and actually want to get rid of it because I only bought it for the sake of being a completionist, whereas I bought most of the MoSSCU films because I genuinely wanted to own and (re)watch them (and fully intend to buy the others that I don't yet own as well).
 
Dee1891 said:
"BvS" wasn't able to crack a billion at the box office in 2016 and therefore we're all supposed to believe it was a terrible movie? We're honestly supposed to accept box office performance as a sign of a movie's quality? How long are we supposed to accept this method of judging a film? Are we supposed to pretend that the DCEU never had any fans or a large fanbase of its own? Are we supposed to assume that the MCU is automatically better than the DCEU? Because I don't. Although I have found the DCEU problematic since Whedon's version of "Justice League", I also believe the MCU has been problematic for years now and having so many people declare that it's the bees' knees is not going to change my mind.
Click to expand...
DOn't try to convince us....convince David Zaslav. He's the one making the shots....James Gunn did NOT decide to reboot Superman -- he is only guiding how it will look.

It's happening because of Zaslav's decisions... i think they messed things up, but they could have course corrected.... but it looks like WB-D is following Sony;s lay with Amazing SPider Man... and might get similar results.... which is a shame. Superman himself HAS the potential to be a billion dollar IP...but it isn't....
 
Dee1891 said:
"BvS" wasn't able to crack a billion at the box office in 2016 and therefore we're all supposed to believe it was a terrible movie? We're honestly supposed to accept box office performance as a sign of a movie's quality? How long are we supposed to accept this method of judging a film? Are we supposed to pretend that the DCEU never had any fans or a large fanbase of its own? Are we supposed to assume that the MCU is automatically better than the DCEU? Because I don't. Although I have found the DCEU problematic since Whedon's version of "Justice League", I also believe the MCU has been problematic for years now and having so many people declare that it's the bees' knees is not going to change my mind.
Click to expand...

General audiences thought it was a terrible movie. Obviously there are small groups that like it, but WB consider them irrelevant when the film didn't meet expectations with mainstream moviegoers.

70% 2nd week drop is really bad. BvS had poor Word of Mouth. It didn't work with Critics as well. All the measurable metrics for it weren't where WB expected for such a major investment, and therefore they had to course correct from then on out.

So how does one judge quality for a film of this budget and scale if not for these measurable metrics, valued by studios and the industry?
 
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