DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)

[The Realist]

It could be that some of these characters will just appear in the background on TV news reports, say. Or there could be one brief scene where Superman helps a team of them out of a jam, before the story refocuses just on Superman and his immediate cast. Just enough to establish, as theenglish said, that this is a world where multiple heroes exist, without the story actually being about them.

Think about how the first Shazam! movie engaged with the wider DCEU. The other heroes were there, the characters were aware of and influenced by their existence, but they were incidental to the story being told. They were just part of the background texture of the world.

Or, heck, since it's a James Gunn movie, maybe the best analogy is how Gunn handled the cameos of several big-name stars as Reavers in Guardians 2. They were basically just there in one scene, IIRC, enough to establish them without taking up a significant piece of the story.

You could well be right, and I hope you are. I'm really not doomcrying here, just looking at this one aspect of the movie with concern, based entirely on my own priorities and preferences. Most of what I hear is much more encouraging, from Lois's casting to Luthor's presence (despite calls from some fans for him to be omitted -- which is ground you and I have been over before).

 

[Christopher]

You could well be right, and I hope you are. I'm really not doomcrying here, just looking at this one aspect of the movie with concern, based entirely on my own priorities and preferences.

Well, movies have many aspects, and the attention they get in the press isn't necessarily proportional to their importance in the movie. If you think about it, a casting announcement is going to sound the same whether it's for a lead character or a bit player who's onscreen for 30 seconds.

Most of what I hear is much more encouraging, from Lois's casting to Luthor's presence (despite calls from some fans for him to be omitted -- which is ground you and I have been over before).

I'm not necessarily opposed to Luthor's inclusion, and Nicholas Hoult's casting is promising. I just disagree with the generalized statement that Lex Luthor would be a required element in any Superman debut movie. I'm not a fan of generalized statements, well, in general -- particularly ones that assert a limit on what's possible or acceptable. Many great creations have resulted from people doing what conventional wisdom said could not or should not be done.

 

[Set Harth]

WB wants a franchise

They had one, and they intentionally burned it to the ground.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

They had one, and they intentionally burned it to the ground.

Most certainly. That will stand as the carved-in-stone example of a strong vision/execution for a film franchise (or "universe") needlessly screwed with thanks to listening to those who wanted DC movies and characters to wear the trappings of other IPs--a failed experiment not uncommon in film and TV history.

 

[JD]

It could be that some of these characters will just appear in the background on TV news reports, say. Or there could be one brief scene where Superman helps a team of them out of a jam, before the story refocuses just on Superman and his immediate cast. Just enough to establish, as theenglish said, that this is a world where multiple heroes exist, without the story actually being about them.

Think about how the first Shazam! movie engaged with the wider DCEU. The other heroes were there, the characters were aware of and influenced by their existence, but they were incidental to the story being told. They were just part of the background texture of the world.

Or, heck, since it's a James Gunn movie, maybe the best analogy is how Gunn handled the cameos of several big-name stars as Reavers in Guardians 2. They were basically just there in one scene, IIRC, enough to establish them without taking up a significant piece of the story.

That's pretty much what I've been expecting.

 

[The Realist]

Fingers crossed.

 

[theenglish]

Most certainly. That will stand as the carved-in-stone example of a strong vision/execution for a film franchise (or "universe") needlessly screwed with thanks to listening to those who wanted DC movies and characters to wear the trappings of other IPs--a failed experiment not uncommon in film and TV history.

The Execs messed with the movies from BvS onward. Sadly, the same thing happened/is happening to the MCU where the Execs demanded so much content that Feige wasn't able to do his job properly. (And I liked most of what we got post Endgame, but I can see where the connected universe has become frayed and lacking cohesiveness.)

 

[Dee1891]

The WB screwed up when they hired Joss Whedon to finish "Justice League" their way. The DCEU has been inconsistent to me ever since. I don't know why they hired James Gunn. That man hasn't done a movie I liked since the first ,"Guardians of the Galaxy" movie in 2014.

 

[theenglish]

The WB screwed up when they hired Joss Whedon to finish "Justice League" their way. The DCEU has been inconsistent to me ever since. I don't know why they hired James Gunn. That man hasn't done a movie I liked since the first ,"Guardians of the Galaxy" movie in 2014.

They screwed up when BvS was edited to the point where it didn't make sense. (EDIT: I don't know if that is actually what I meant--you could follow the movie, but the longer cut filled in a lot of gaps in the story.) I maintain that the movie would have been much better received if Snyder's extended cut had been the theatrical release.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I don't know why they hired James Gunn. That man hasn't done a movie I liked since the first ,"Guardians of the Galaxy" movie in 2014.

They're obviously going for the opposite target demographic that houses your opinion.

Which is quite a lot of people!

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The WB screwed up when they hired Joss Whedon to finish "Justice League" their way.

AKA the MCU way.

 

[JD]

The WB screwed up when they hired Joss Whedon to finish "Justice League" their way. The DCEU has been inconsistent to me ever since. I don't know why they hired James Gunn. That man hasn't done a movie I liked since the first ,"Guardians of the Galaxy" movie in 2014.

Because they obviously feel very differently about what he's been doing lately than you do.

 

[The Realist]

Over on his Threads account, Gunn has denied (twice) the Kurt-Russell-as-Jor-El rumor.

 

[Ovation]

Over on his Threads account, Gunn has denied (twice) the Kurt-Russell-as-Jor-El rumor.

Russell as Jor-El CONFIRMED!!!1!1!1!1

 

[Dee1891]

They screwed up when BvS was edited to the point where it didn't make sense. (EDIT: I don't know if that is actually what I meant--you could follow the movie, but the longer cut filled in a lot of gaps in the story.) I maintain that the movie would have been much better received if Snyder's extended cut had been the theatrical release.

I don't agree with you. Although I prefer the extended version of BvS more, I still love the theatrical version as well.

However, I had felt uneasy when I learned that Marvel had changed the plot for the third Captain America movie and listed RDJ as the movie's co-lead. When I finally saw "Civil War", my fears were realized.

 

[The Realist]

James Gunn has now officially confirmed Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor in Superman: Legacy. Hoult was reported as being "in talks" by the trades a few weeks ago and essentially treated as a done deal, but this is the first official confirmation. Gunn writes:

Yes, finally I can answer, nicholashoult is Lex Luthor in #SupermanLegacy and I couldn’t be happier. We went out to dinner last night to celebrate & discuss how we can create a Lex that will be different from anything you’ve seen before and will never forget. “But, James, we heard this weeks ago, why didn’t you tell us it was true?” Because, although we were discussing it, it wasn’t final until a couple days ago and I don’t want to tell you all something that isn’t certain.

https://www.threads.net/@jamesgunn/post/C0uICIzA08i

"[A] Lex that will be different from anything you’ve seen before and will never forget." That's certainly intriguing hype. Here's hoping Gunn and Hoult can pay it off.

 

[Ovation]

James Gunn has now officially confirmed Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor in Superman: Legacy. Hoult was reported as being "in talks" by the trades a few weeks ago and essentially treated as a done deal, but this is the first official confirmation. Gunn writes:

https://www.threads.net/@jamesgunn/post/C0uICIzA08i

"[A] Lex that will be different from anything you’ve seen before and will never forget." That's certainly intriguing hype. Here's hoping Gunn and Hoult can pay it off.

This Lex will have, curiously and randomly, a lush, blue-tinted fur coat.

 

[Set Harth]

Boobs.

 

[The Realist]

One thing it doesn't mean, evidently, is that he will have hair. Asked if Hoult's Lex will be bald, Gunn replied, "ofc."

Which, IIRC, is the exact same answer he gave a while back when asked if Jimmy Olsen would be in the film. I like that when Gunn is asked whether classic Superman elements will be in his Superman film, the default answer is "ofc."

 

[wayoung]

Were their people who thought Nicolas Hoult, Nux from Mad Max, wouldn't go bald for a role?