DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)

[Nerys Myk]

Zero knowledge of character or actress, so I guess I have no strong opinion on this? Other than the fact she's being described as a "villain" (and evidently also part of the Authority, another property about which I have no knowledge, other than that Gunn has a movie in the works), so at least not another C-list DC superhero taking up screentime.

Not sure she and the Authority will be villains in the usual sense, rather a team of heroes with an outlook opposed to Superman's. The Authority has a take no prisoners proactive approach. I wonder if the Authority/Wildstorm Superman analog, Apollo, will be on the team?

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, but here's my thing: I have no desire for any other superheroes in a Superman movie -- A, B, C, D, all the way to Z. (Folks like Supergirl and Steel excepted, because they are actual Superman family characters.)

Okay, that's a fair point. For later movies, maybe, but for the debut Superman movie, it makes sense to keep the focus on Superman more exclusively. I mean, I did like the animated Superman: Man of Tomorrow movie, which was a good, fresh take on his origin story, but it seemed odd that Superman had to share so much of his origin movie with Martian Manhunter and Lobo.

 

[The Realist]

Not sure she and the Authority will be villains in the usual sense, rather a team of heroes with an outlook opposed to Superman's. The Authority has a take no prisoners proactive approach.

That could work, I suppose -- though I've never been as impressed with "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, & the American Way?" (featuring a similar premise with an Authority analogue) as I'm supposed to be.

Though one advantage of Gunn's approach might be appearances by Superman in other movies -- such as the Authority's, if they're introduced as antagonists in Superman: Legacy.

 

[theenglish]

Some casting news for Superman: Legacy, with Venezuelan actress María Gabriela De Faría joining as The Engineer https://deadline.com/2023/11/superman-legacy-maria-gabriela-de-faria-villain-role-1235612761/

This may be where the "darkness" of the movie creeps in.

 

[The Realist]

Latest from Gunn's social media re Superman: Legacy:

• Both dark and light tones -- all things for all fans?
• Hopefully "running out of characters to announce" means we're done or almost done with non-Superman Family DC goobers.
• Nice tease on characters like Grant and Lombard. Yes, please, James!
• Lots of love for the great Superman for All Seasons on that production office wall. An encouraging sign.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

Latest from Gunn's social media re Superman: Legacy:

• Both dark and light tones -- all things for all fans?
• Hopefully "running out of characters to announce" means we're done or almost done with non-Superman Family DC goobers.
• Nice tease on characters like Grant and Lombard. Yes, please, James!
• Lots of love for the great Superman for All Seasons on that production office wall. An encouraging sign.

I wonder if that means the red trunks will make an appearance.

 

[The Realist]

I wonder if that means the red trunks will make an appearance.

Because of the Superman for All Seasons imagery? I don't know that I would read that into it (though I'm a trunks partisan myself).

 

[Set Harth]

"please tell us the terrorist threat in the middle east rumor isn't true"

"Well, it isn't true now...."

 

[Mage]

https://www.joblo.com/superman-legacy-david-corenswet-james-gunn/

Another needless 'Cavill was dark and gritty' comment. Last night, I watched Man Of Steel with someone who had never seen it before. He loved. And also agreed it was a movie showing a learning curve to a character and displayed a lot of hope and optimism.

 

[FreezeC77]

Yeah, but here's my thing: I have no desire for any other superheroes in a Superman movie -- A, B, C, D, all the way to Z. (Folks like Supergirl and Steel excepted, because they are actual Superman family characters.)

I well realize this is not an opinion shared by all, or even most. I have also been sagely counseled that it's too early to doomcry. Maybe Gunn has some genius plan that will make my concerns seem silly to me in retrospect. I sincerely hope so, because I so want to love this movie.

Agreed. It seems like the Gunnverse intends to start by taking the steps Disney has done to try and cram other superheroes into stories so they then can push them into their own movies or shows... but Disney stated the foundation of the MCU off by letting their main superheroes basically be the only main hero in their own first movie.

Having the Authority show up in the first Superman movie in the new DCU would be like having the Eternals show up and be a significant element in the original Iron Man movie.

I wanted a Captain America or Iron Man type 'start' for Superman. Focus on him entirely. Maybe someone shows up at the 'end' to set-up future connections...

 

[The Realist]

https://www.joblo.com/superman-legacy-david-corenswet-james-gunn/

Another needless 'Cavill was dark and gritty' comment. Last night, I watched Man Of Steel with someone who had never seen it before. He loved. And also agreed it was a movie showing a learning curve to a character and displayed a lot of hope and optimism.

The Corenswet quote? That's old news (2019, per the article). Anyway, Man of Steel isn't going anywhere for those who love it, but the franchise is moving on.

Agreed. It seems like the Gunnverse intends to start by taking the steps Disney has done to try and cram other superheroes into stories so they then can push them into their own movies or shows... but Disney stated the foundation of the MCU off by letting their main superheroes basically be the only main hero in their own first movie.

Having the Authority show up in the first Superman movie in the new DCU sounds like having the Eternals show up in the first Iron Man movie.

I wanted a Captain America or Iron Man type 'start' for Superman. Focus on him entirely. Maybe someone shows up at the 'end' to set-up future connections...

Gunn denies that the other heroes are included to set up future projects, and insists they are there only to serve Superman's story. Guess we'll see ....

 

[JoeZhang]

The Corenswet quote? That's old news (2019, per the article). Anyway, Man of Steel isn't going anywhere for those who love it, but the franchise is moving on.

Gunn denies that the other heroes are included to set up future projects, and insists they are there only to serve Superman's story. Guess we'll see ....

Contractually that seems unlikely...

 

[Christopher]

Contractually that seems unlikely...

I don't think Gunn is saying they wouldn't be in future projects, just that they were included in the Superman movie because they had meaningful roles to play in the story, rather than being stuff like the Cyborg, Aquaman, and Flash cameos in BvS that served no purpose except to set up later movies.

 

[Mage]

I don't think Gunn is saying they wouldn't be in future projects, just that they were included in the Superman movie because they had meaningful roles to play in the story, rather than being stuff like the Cyborg, Aquaman, and Flash cameos in BvS that served no purpose except to set up later movies.

If we are to take the Snyder cut a bit more serious, both Cyborg and The Flash had a much more integral part to the plot and story than just to be there. But yes, in the Whedon shitshow they were just eyecandy.

ETA: I actually really love the Snyder cut.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

If we are to take the Snyder cut a bit more serious, both Cyborg and The Flash had a much more integral part to the plot and story than just to be there. But yes, in the Whedon shitshow they were just eyecandy.

ETA: I actually really love the Snyder cut.

BvS, not Justice League.

 

[Christopher]

If we are to take the Snyder cut a bit more serious, both Cyborg and The Flash had a much more integral part to the plot and story than just to be there. But yes, in the Whedon shitshow they were just eyecandy.

Uhh, Whedon did not make Batman v Superman. I'm referring to the BvS subplot where Diana was trying to get her photo back from Lex and there was that totally gratuitous scene where she opened Lex's surveillance files on the other heroes. That whole sequence was nothing but a teaser for Justice League and contributed nothing whatsoever to BvS's own story.

Indeed, the fact that it's so easy to confuse a mention of BvS for a mention of Justice League is illustrative of the problem. Too much of BvS was just about setting up JL.

 

[Mage]

BvS, not Justice League.

Uhh, Whedon did not make Batman v Superman. I'm referring to the BvS subplot where Diana was trying to get her photo back from Lex and there was that totally gratuitous scene where she opened Lex's surveillance files on the other heroes. That whole sequence was nothing but a teaser for Justice League and contributed nothing whatsoever to BvS's own story.

Indeed, the fact that it's so easy to confuse a mention of BvS for a mention of Justice League is illustrative of the problem. Too much of BvS was just about setting up JL.

Ugh, I was in a rush to leave the house and just got back. I didn't read your post well enough.
Yes, no. The cameo's in BvS were indeed not needed for the overall movie. My bad on reading to fast.

Also really enjoyed BvS btw.

 

[Aragorn]

It's being reported that Nicholas Hoult is in negotiations to play Lex Luthor.

 

[The Realist]

Numerous outlets are reporting it as a done deal. The Hollywood Reporter says "Superman: Legacy has found its Lex Luthor," but then qualifies that categorical statement by saying Hoult is "in talks."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...-legacy-nicholas-hoult-lex-luthor-1235507781/

I imagine we'll know very shortly. In any case, I'm so pleased that Lex is apparently going to be in the film. I sometimes see my fellow Superman fans claiming Luthor is overused in the movies and clamoring for other villains instead, but to me, Lex is THE Superman villain. More than that: He's an essential member of the Superman character ensemble, exceeded in importance only by Lois Lane and Clark himself. I'm glad Gunn, like most other Superman filmmakers, recognizes that, even if not all fans do.

 

[Christopher]

In any case, I'm so pleased that Lex is apparently going to be in the film. I sometimes see my fellow Superman fans claiming Luthor is overused in the movies and clamoring for other villains instead, but to me, Lex is THE Superman villain. More than that: He's an essential member of the Superman character ensemble, second in importance only to Lois Lane.

I dunno. Sure, he's the #1 Superman villain, but that doesn't mean he has to be the villain in every Superman debut story, any more than every Batman reboot has to start with the Joker or every Sherlock Holmes movie needs to be about Moriarty. When you're doing the latest iteration of many, it doesn't hurt to mix it up a little. If the universe succeeds in becoming a series, there's room for Luthor later. Build up to the ultimate foe instead of starting with him.

Of course, he could always be present in the first movie as a prominent Metropolis business executive, setting up a subsequent movie focusing on him as the big bad. Although Hoult is only 33, which suggests (assuming they don't just want to copy Eisenberg's version) that Luthor might not be established as a business titan yet.