In what way?
First off, there have been plenty of movies that have succeeded at introducing a whole ensemble cast right off the bat without needing solo movies first -- X-Men, Mystery Men, and The Incredibles are superhero examples, and there have been countless other successful ensemble films over the decades, e.g. The Magnificent Seven and Ocean's Eleven, to name a couple of obvious examples. It's the same principle -- a well-told story shouldn't need to rely on anything outside itself to be effective.
Second, I don't understand why people insist on using "Snyderverse" as a synonym for the DCEU. Zack Snyder only had significant involvement in at most four of the DCEU's 15 canonical films, perhaps only three (as I gather he contributed little to Wonder Woman despite his story and producer credits).
My whole point is that I disagree with the attitude that individual movies are nothing but building blocks for a shared universe. That's getting the priorities backward. The goal of any story should be to serve itself first and foremost. Connections to other stories are a secondary consideration. Any movie should be able to be enjoyed as a standalone work, since not everyone wants to follow an interconnected shared universe. The purpose of a shared universe should be to work on both levels, to satisfy audiences only interested in the individual standalone films as well as the audiences who want to follow the larger whole.
Yes, ensemble movies are a thing since there was Hollywood and you menioned good examples that worked but it simply didn't in the DCEU ( you can deny it all you want but within this genre Snyderverse simply is synonymous with DCEU because he made the biggest movies in that iteration). We can squiblle the entire year but in the end it's a matter of opinion and mine simply is that the DCEU is inferior to the MCU abd a large reason is that the DCEU failed to make the audience connect with these characters before the big teamup and the solo movies themselves were also kinda meh ( personally i was only impressed with the first Wonder Woman and Aquaman movies).
As to your second part you fail to realize that Marvel had it both ways, they designed their movies to work on both levels simultaneously, i.e. to tell the movie story but also to plant or continue Infinity Stone Saga elements to slowly, over the course of 22 movies, tell a huge cohesive story that was building to the climactic two parter. There were some problems, some directors were a bit unhappy to be only hirelings with little creative control because the game plan demanded that certain things needed to happen in that movie and some walked away because of it but in the end Marvel retained direct control and direction to deliver their story ( unlike the Disney Star Wars trilogy that was just a mess and went off the rails fast).
It is exactly this thought through connectivity across the movies that the audiences picked up on, spun out their theories for the next development, fueled by scenes in the movies and especially the after credits scenes that became a hallmark of that franchise. It created a fanbase of MCU Fans ( me included) that couldn't wait for the next movie to see how the big story would continue as well as be excited to see a new hero ( or several) introduced or a fan favorite continue his arc.
Without all of this you could watch the Bond series where the only connection were the characters like Bond, M, Q and Moneypenny and every movie stood for itself ( only the Craig bonds tried for a bit of an overall story/character arc) and that was fine but what Marvel did in this scope and with such a plan was not something that existed before and they pulled it off unlike the DCEU, that remained far below its potential and as a result was hut down and rebooted with Gunn at the helm.
The point being is that there wasn't the pressure for big, big hits--the movies just needed to be profitable at the time. Now the expectations are that super-hero films make a lot.
Blue Beetle made the cut and is now the "first movie" in the James Gunn DCU.
Yes, that is my point. It didn't fail because of some general requirement for every ensemble movie to follow a series of solo movies -- it failed because that one specific movie did not do it well.
Although, no, wait, actually I disagree with that assumption. My favorite parts of both versions of Justice League -- particularly my favorite parts of the Snyder Cut -- are the parts involving Flash and Cyborg, the two characters who hadn't already had their own movies. JL did a perfectly good job introducing those new characters and making me care about them, more than I cared about the returning characters from previous movies. There were parts of the movie that didn't work, but the introduction of the new team members was not one of them.
Actually, in terms of US/Canada box office grosses, the biggest DCEU movies were Wonder Woman and Aquaman, while worldwide, Aquaman was the biggest. The three Snyder-directed films were among the biggest, in the top six along with the aforementioned and Ayer's Suicide Squad, but BvS was only in third place in the US (second worldwide), and MoS and JL were 5th and 6th in both orders.
Besides, the term "Snyderverse" is often applied to the alternate, non-canonical continuity that includes the first two Snyder films and the Snyder cut of JL, in contrast to the mainstream DCEU. So it seems needlessly confusing to refer to the mainstream DCEU as the Snyderverse as well. I'm not "denying" anything, I'm just saying that using the same word for two contrasting things lacks clarity.
"Fail to realize?" I literally said that in the last sentence of the post you're responding to! "The purpose of a shared universe should be to work on both levels, to satisfy audiences only interested in the individual standalone films as well as the audiences who want to follow the larger whole."
Yeah, I saw that news so maybe not so forgotten. Either way, I still intend to watch that film at some point.
How is an officially announced DCU Batman film in development with a writer attached 'not a peep about Batman'?
I assume you're talking about the Brave and the Bold movie. I'm curious when the last time we heard something about that was?
It's been a while. It's certainly not guaranteed and could easily change or never reach production at all. But it's unquestionable Gunn signaled his intent to make his own Batman, so 'not a peep' is definitely a ridiculous characterization of his position.
That has completely passed by me, i hadn't heard.
Honestly, I can understand because I had already forgotten. Except for lots of rumors about who might be Batman in the Gunniverse, we haven't heard more about it. So yeah.
have a bunch of tv shows related to lanterns
It's currently talked about for 2028/2029 and so unless production starts, I wouldn't give it much thought...
This is 2 months late, but The Rock is no longer a full-time wrestler. Still, he shows up on WWE programming from time to time and wrestles as part of ongoing storylines. Also, he's one of the shareholders of the company that currently owns WWE. His cousins—or at least the relatives considered cousins because of their Samoan heritage—have practically taken over WWE as wrestlers. His own daughter was also the General Manager of WWE's developmental brand, NXT, for a while.
When X-MEN was first released to theaters Roger Ebert thought 10 characters were far too many to follow at once.....even though NASHVILLE (which most critics championed) had over twice as many.
Still, in DC terms, I'd love to see a deadly serious live-action three-hour LEGION OF SUPERHEROES.....provided my seven most favorite members are in it.
It was well received enough to get audiences looking forward to Wonder Woman and Justice League, although the latter crashed and burned thanks to Whedon (along with thick-skulled WB execs) attempting to "MCU-ize" the film--which meant misplaced humor, and rarely a coherent handling of superheroes.
Reaction to comic book movies--by general audiences--are not so compartmentalized as you suggest; the Nolan Bat-films were phenomenal, and the effect opened the door (and potential) to all superhero productions to follow, including the MCU.
To the point of this thread's Gunn-focus, his DCU--unlike the DCEU--has not moved from strength to strength, with a Superman movie incapable of outperforming Man of Steel, and now Supergirl-- the all-important second film has been a spectacular failure across the globe. It would be an understatement to say this is a serious problem, which few of the most vocal Gunn/DCU defenders will ever be willing to admit to themselves.
Agreed; as noted above, the straight build-up from Man of Steel to Dawn of Justice and Wonder Woman finally delivered the first strong attempt at a live action DC universe, and it certainly fueled excitement for a Justice League movie, just not the one incompetently re-shaped by WB and Whedon. As you observe, the Snyder cut of JL did save that film concept, further proving his instincts were correct about building a DC film universe.
The same cannot be said of the Gunn-DCU so far--considering what's happened with the second film just out of the gates.
--which was quite obvious to anyone not going into the theatre setting themselves up to expect yet another regurgitated, infantile version appearing anything like the Donner interpretation.
Quite true.
Selective memory prevents some from admitting that editors and writers changed Superman over the decades, and the often absurd dreck from the Weisinger/Donner/Super Friends versions were not the eternal standard--obviously not, as other writers took their own path with the character.
Last edited:
Nope.
BvS started massive, the hype was there and everybody wanted to see these characters together on-screen. On its first weekend it made $166 million domestically, and more than $420 million worldwide. That was massive
However, even on that first weekend, there was a significant Friday-to-Sunday decline of 58%. And then it had a second weekend drop-off of 81%.
This shows that anticipation was there, interest in these characters and them crossing over was there (shocker, it's just the three most iconic superheroes DC has to offer), but audiences did not like what they saw.
Now, comparing it to the two movies of the current DCU, Superman started stronger than anticipated, and it famously had legs. It had good word-of-mouth, and many who saw it went back to see it again. You keep harpening on how it made less than MoS (though that one was also very front-loaded, though not to the degree BvS was), but with the shifting popularity of the genre itself and theater attendence in general, it was the highest grossing superhero movie of 2025.
Now, Supergirl is a massive bomb, but it started with a terrible first weekend. There simply was no interest in the character.
Now, with all that said, I just have to say: stop comparing the Snyder-Verse with the current DCU. James Gunn has to succeed on todays expectations, not those from a previous era. And if James Gunn fails, WB won't bring back Snyder, those versions of the characters, or any of the actors in those roles. They would either bring in another guy to run the DC cinematic universe, or they'll shut down the idea of a shared DC cinematic universe completely, and both Man of Tomorrow and the further box office of the MCU will factor into that.
But the Snyder-Verse is done
It's cool you like it, I like parts of it myself, and there are other people who like it. That's okay.
But it is not coming back, and no kicking and screaming will change that.
Similar threads
