I don't think I want to know....
DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
I don't think I want to know....
True, the Supergirl/Comet thing started as a joke. The problem with running jokes, though, is that people who don't know much about the subject often fail to realize that the joke is only a joke. For instance, I've encountered people who believed that William Shatner telling conventiongoers to "get a life!" was something that actually happened rather than a Saturday Night Live sketch. And the whole "the Death Star was too easy to blow up" joke -- which requires ignoring the fact that the Rebels sacrificed nearly two whole fighter squadrons to get past the extensive defenses and only succeeded in landing the nigh-impossible exhaust-port shot with help from the Force -- ended up getting taken so seriously that Lucasfilm actually felt the need to handwave it canonically in Rogue One. So it doesn't hurt to clarify these things from time to time.
Its weird mentioning Comet and Supergirl, because (having just read Peter david's Supergirl run) the only Comet I'm familiar with is the one thats actually a(nother) Earthborn angel thats merged with a human woman who wanted to get with Supergirl but Supergirl wasn't into women so rejected both forms (although they did become friends, Supergirl just wasn't romantically interested). That Comet (aka Andy) ended up dating and basically turning good a third Earthborn Angel. Yes, things could get complicated in this Supergirl run 
I had totally forgotten about Silver Age Comet until now, the centaur cursed to be a horse by Circe. Its definitely a weird character to try to adapt into another medium.
I had totally forgotten about Silver Age Comet until now, the centaur cursed to be a horse by Circe. Its definitely a weird character to try to adapt into another medium.
Aaron Pierce and Stephen James are in the running to play John Stewart in 'Green Lantern'.
Though I'm hoping the film version of Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow will be a faithful adaptation of the brilliant source material, Comet's small but important role in the story may be a little difficult to fully explicate to a mainstream audience. King assumes comics readers have some familiarity with Kara's history, and so doesn't go into a lot of explanation or background about Comet (though some of it could be picked up by implication). It's such a weird and sort of obscure backstory, however, that it might be difficult to bring movie viewers up to speed, particularly in a way that wouldn't have them going, "Wait, WTF?" Still, leaving Comet out of the movie would omit some great elements from the graphic novel (including part of the emotional crux of the story's climax).Its weird mentioning Comet and Supergirl, because (having just read Peter david's Supergirl run) the only Comet I'm familiar with is the one thats actually a(nother) Earthborn angel thats merged with a human woman who wanted to get with Supergirl but Supergirl wasn't into women so rejected both forms (although they did become friends, Supergirl just wasn't romantically interested). That Comet (aka Andy) ended up dating and basically turning good a third Earthborn Angel. Yes, things could get complicated in this Supergirl run
I had totally forgotten about Silver Age Comet until now, the centaur cursed to be a horse by Circe. Its definitely a weird character to try to adapt into another medium.
I think any adaptation that's part of a shared universe needs to adjust the story to fit the needs of that universe. Trying to make the new DC movie universe just a copy of the comics seems like a very bad, uncreative way to approach it. It should define its own identity, its own voice and style. We should hope for its creators to be capable of innovating, not just copying what different creators did. I mean, Zack Snyder made movies that were slavish copies of comics, and his subsequent attempts at original movies were deeply flawed at best.
And it makes no sense to me for the second movie in a series to be done the same way as a story that was part of a well-established history. The different contexts bring different needs.
Maybe I would be more receptive to that if I personally cared about the "shared universe," but I really don't. I'll see the DCU movies/shows that feature the small subset of characters that I care about, and pass on the rest. And WoT is my favorite graphic novel of all time, so I'm much more concerned about the movie doing that individual story justice than being a cog in a shared universe machine.
Well, you're long into the shared universe era of film, and its pretty clear Gunn's stab at DC is following that same template, so individual characters will have some of their story integrated as a reference to or set up for other planned films. Nolan's Batman movies were the last superhero film series to operate in a solo universe, and that's simply not the intent of adaptations anymore.
But that's the point. The job of the first couple of films in a new universe is to be interesting and fresh enough to make people care about it. The general public, and much of the comics audience, didn't care about Iron Man before Marvel Studios made a really good film about him. Caring is the result of a good film, not the prerequisite.
And that's exactly the danger. If they pander only to people who already care about the comics, not only is that too tiny an audience to make a movie successful, but it means they won't bring enough originality or fresh vision to the series to make it worthwhile.
And I've never understood people who equate "doing a story justice" with "slavishly copying it." If you want something exactly like the original, that's what the original is for. No copy of a thing can ever be as good as the thing itself, so a copy, by definition, cannot do it justice. After all, what makes a story great is not just the superficial level of what happens in it. What makes it great is that it was made with creativity and originality and passion. An adaptation should do justice to the spirit of the work, to how it makes the audience feel, to who the characters are and how they relate to each other and what they stand for, to what the core ideas and themes of the story are. None of that requires copying every plot beat to the letter. That's surface, not substance.
Chris Columbus's Harry Potter films are the most faithful to the letter of the text, but they're also the dullest and most prosaic films in the series, failing to capture the books' sense of wonder and mystery. So in my view, they didn't do the books justice, they just copied their plot beats. Similarly, Zack Snyder copied the visuals and most of the plot of Watchmen pretty much verbatim, but didn't do justice to its grounded, gritty tone because he made it slick and larger than life. The Watchmen sequel TV series, on the other hand, did justice to the original by faithfully carrying its worldbuilding, ideas, and sensibilities forward in a completely new story.
DC may be making a film centred on Bane and Deathstroke. Not entirely clear (to me, anyway) if this will be part of the new DC universe that includes Gunn’s Superman movie or will be standalone like eg Joker and the Matt Reeves Batman film (and its Penguin spinoff)
variety.com
DC Studios Developing Film Involving Batman Villains Bane and Deathstroke
DC Studios has tapped screenwriter Matthew Orton to write a feature film focusing on Batman villains Bane and Deathstroke
variety.com
An interesting pairing.DC may be making a film centred on Bane and Deathstroke. Not entirely clear (to me, anyway) if this will be part of the new DC universe that includes Gunn’s Superman movie or will be standalone like eg Joker and the Matt Reeves Batman film (and its Penguin spinoff)
DC Studios Developing Film Involving Batman Villains Bane and Deathstroke
DC Studios has tapped screenwriter Matthew Orton to write a feature film focusing on Batman villains Bane and Deathstroke
Don't recall if they've crossed paths in the comics. Maybe in one of those crossover events.
I dunno... generally the interesting pairings are the ones with a strong contrast. Deathstroke and Bane are both pretty much defined by being criminal masterminds calculating enough to outwit Batman and fighters skilled or strong enough to outfight Batman. Granted, Deathstroke was created as the Teen Titans' adversary, but I've seen him portrayed as a sort of anti-Batman in some versions.
Deathstroke was also set up to be the villain in Affleck's Batman solo movie.
There might have been a little sarcasm involved.
They could go with the Bane from Harley Quinn/Kite Man.
Is the Comet in that story the exact same as the silver age version or is it a more modern take? I can't see how a cursed centaur from Earth would wind up in a space story, but if its a more modernized version maybe they could just tweak him a bit to work better for the setting without needing as much explanation.
Bane only worked for one reason, and outside of that...hard pass.DC may be making a film centred on Bane and Deathstroke. Not entirely clear (to me, anyway) if this will be part of the new DC universe that includes Gunn’s Superman movie or will be standalone like eg Joker and the Matt Reeves Batman film (and its Penguin spinoff)
DC Studios Developing Film Involving Batman Villains Bane and Deathstroke
DC Studios has tapped screenwriter Matthew Orton to write a feature film focusing on Batman villains Bane and Deathstroke
Deathstroke would have been a fascinating threat as set up in the DCEU, but the character as a solo or team-up subject. Ehhh...who knows. The best of the character (including his backstory) was framed within a superhero universe.
Similar threads
