If Batman has been cast a surprise cameo in Clayface would maker more sense, wouldn't it?
I liked the way the post-Justice League DCEU approached it. The movies shared a common universe, but it was just background texture, and the stories were self-contained and very eclectic, serving their own stories first and just using the larger universe in support of that. Which, people forget, is how the MCU did things in the early years. The reason so many other "cinematic universes" flopped is because the studios made the individual movies to serve the larger continuity rather than the other way around, and that meant the parts weren't strong enough for the whole to be strong. Too many movies were just made to set up later movies rather than to tell satisfying stories in themselves. Which, in the case of films like Amazing Spider-Man 2 and Tom Cruise's The Mummy, meant that the movies weren't good enough to win an audience, so those later movies never got made. They did it the wrong way around, just assuming the audience would stick around for a shared universe rather than earning the audience's interest by telling good individual stories.
Part of the problem, though, is that even in successful shared universes where the continuity serves the individual works instead of vice-versa, a lot of audience members still assume the continuity is the only thing that matters. I can't tell you how many times people in the Trek Literature forum asked "What earlier novels do I have to read to understand this new one?" Ideally, the answer to that should always be "none of them" -- every book or film in a shared universe should be enjoyable by itself, filling the audience in on anything they need to know to follow the story. (Every story depends on past events whether it's a continuation of a series or not -- for instance, the very first Star Trek pilot's story was driven by the aftermath of an unseen battle on Rigel VII, and the very first Star Wars movie was presented as a chapter in an ongoing serial and depended on decades of history that the movie explained clearly for the audience. Exposition about relevant past events is fundamental to all storytelling.) The continuity is supposed to be just a bonus for those people who are interested in following the wider series, not a barrier to appreciating an individual work. A shared universe should be optional, something where people are free to pick and choose just the individual works that interest them, and only follow the greater whole if that's what they want. It should never be an obligation to follow the whole thing. There's no test at the end to study for.
Correct. They aren't. But they are trying to create a cinematic universe with crossovers. Live action and animated shows. Movies. ts too much. Mando failing at the box office is not a good sign.
Totally agree Christopher.
I thought Ashoka was an interesting show but I was lost on the characters. I knew that Ashoka knew them years before but that was it. Fans if the cartoon understood all the history abd picked up on several things I totally didn't know about. I just didn't have the time to watch all those cartoon episodes but they are clearly back story and canon.
Last edited:
They started as a cinematic universe.
The movie infamously avoided moving the overall plot of the Filoniverse forward in any discernible way, other than killing off a few minor characters from the streaming shows. Though it included a TCW character, it mostly acted as a standalone rather than as a crossover project, and may have suffered as a result.
"Explained clearly" is a stretch there; the audience got a few vague references and enough to get a feel for the overall timeline but the specifics of those decades of history weren't revealed to the public for 22-28 years.Christopher said:
Or both? Or you have Bruce Wayne appear in Clayface and Batman in MOT?
Sure but I'd do it the other way around, have Batman show up in Clayface at the end, basically a Batman story from the villains point of view where Batman only show sup at the end out of nowhere and knocks their lights out.
Bruce Wayne could more easily show up in MOT as a guest at an event for example.
Thanks, but I didn't mean it was a made up quote--I was hoping that they actually meant what they said.
Some industry analysis.
www.thewrap.com
Where Does DC Go After ‘Supergirl’ Box Office Crash? | Analysis
Where does DC go next after Supergirl crashed at the box office? James Gunn and Peter Safran's strategy is now under the microscope.
www.thewrap.com
I think there's a decent chance that, after this past weekend, WB tells Gunn to back several Brinks trucks up to Matt Reeves and Robert Pattinson's respective homes and "pretty, pretty, please" ask them to integrate their Batman into the DCU.
This past weekend box office
Toy Story 5
$585 million worldwide
Supergirl
$68 million worldwide
From BoxOfficeMojo.com
People are still willing to go to the theater so long as the movie interests them. My own preference would be Supergirl as I hate kids movies.
But If I had to choose on which one to take children too, it would have been Toy Story because I would have seen that as the safer bet as far as entertaining them. I would never have said that ten years ago.
Last edited:
Quite true, as Barbie ($1,447,138,421), Oppenheimer--the most successful war-related film ever made ($975,811,333), Michael ($977,456,401) and other films have proven by being artistically and in some cases, intelligently crafted films audiences wanted to see. However, I see others are still using the "post-Covid" excuse as a cover-all to explain why certain superhero films were--and continue to be historic failures. The three aforementioned movies were also released in this "post-Covid" era, yet they were undeniable global blockbusters, indicating moviegoers are still willing to fill theatres if they are not being fed certain concepts or productions they perceive as garbage from the start. Of course, I do not expect defenders of garbage movies to admit to that fact, as they are still scrambling to scapegoat and pull excuses from where the sun doesn't shine, which will only lead to their continued, undying support for misguided films, as Supergirl appears to be, according to its disastrous performance.
Hopefully, that does not happen.
That Batman appears to live in a non-supernatural universe without true supers, much like, uh, another Batman universe it sometimes emulates...
It still is, especially among people in their 20s, and young women in their 20s also commonly call their male peers boys. This has never changed since the 1960s, I assure you.
If you really need and want it spelled out, Gal Gadot was universally acknowledged as stunningly beautiful in '18 (not to imply she isn't still), and her debut movie featured lots of shots and posters of her bare shoulders, arms, and thighs:
In short, Wonder Woman 2018, regardless of its other qualities, offered plenty of appeal to the male gaze, as the marketing and trailers made clear, and it was a huge hit with an overwhelmingly positive audience response from both genders.
This Supergirl movie's appeal to the male gaze, on the other hand, seems far less pronounced, despite men making up 60% of its opening weekend audience, when it made about 12% of its estimated box office break-even figure.
Make of this what one will.
I make of that that Wonder Woman was simply a better movie.
She's also a better known character with the general movie going audience than Supergirl.
She's also a better known character with the general movie going audience than Supergirl.
Perhaps, but also, Gal Gadot was widely known to male audiences worldwide for this bikini scene from Fast Five, where she (not quite plausibly) stole the baddie's fingerprints by getting him to caress her bum:
(slow-mo is from the movie itself)
One can play the
game all day, but the box-office numbers are the box-office numbers.Similar threads
