DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Christopher]

The point of this argument was to show that you can't use one example to make a generalization. It is similar to people using looters in the U.S. to criticize the entire BLM movement. The logic doesn't work--it is using one point to defend pre established opinions and prejudices.

That analogy doesn't really work for Marsdin, since most of the looters are white people either trying to get black people blamed for their violence or just exploiting the unrest as cover. A better analogy would be, say, Cadmus or Agent Liberty faking an alien attack in the middle of a peaceful alien protest. I think they actually did a plot like that at some point.

 

[Anwar]

That depends on if she was born in the U.S. and was an American citizen, doesn't it?

She wasn't. She said she came to Earth as a Teenager.

And this back story certainly gives the character some dimensionality and creates some empathy for the character. But the point is, that just like in real life, just because you get some bad breaks that may or may not be related to a racial group different than your own doesn't justify criminal and terrorists actions.

Yes. But it also shows how innocent people suffer from collateral damage and this can lead them down paths that could have been avoided. The heroes don't even stop to wonder if maybe steps could be taken to prevent other Agent Liberties from being created.

It's difficult to see how the series "refuses to acknowledge any of these systemic problems," when it created the problems, the system, and the entire world in which they exist.

It never stops to think "Huh, can anything be done to prevent other innocent people from snapping and becoming the next Agent Liberty? Can collateral damage like this be better dealt with and more done to help humanity keep up with the waves of advanced aliens so they aren't left obsolete?"

 

[theenglish]

Yes. But it also shows how innocent people suffer from collateral damage and this can lead them down paths that could have been avoided. The heroes don't even stop to wonder if maybe steps could be taken to prevent other Agent Liberties from being created.

That aspect wasn't really part of the story. And there is no difference between a reactionary alien who has been treated unfairly and Agent Liberty--both situations we have seen on the show. But the analogy remains intact--you can't blame all racial minorities or immigrants for the actions of a few. This scenario plays out time and time again in real life. You can't defend the actions of incels or white supremacists just because they feel they have been dealt a poor hand in life.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Sure, but he's also not going around depressed and brooding all the time. I'm saying Superman should just ignore all of the bad stuff going on, but there are ways to acknowledge all of that kind of stuff without going dark and depressing.

No one buys someone prancing around grinning when times--and the people he's sworn to protect are in grave danger. Most superhero movies deal with some sort of threat of this kind, whether it targets an individual or a larger group of people; the tone of the film would be off and utterly unrealistic if the hero is grinning his way through it all, spitting out quips in the face of what should present as dangerous situations to the audience as well as the characters.

Contrary to the deliberate lies of some "fans" (not meaning you), original Superman was not running around grinning and winking like George Reeves, the later Weisinger/Swan/Plastino period, or someone from Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. He was a creation of a violent period of American history, where people believed in harsh or brutal consequences for criminals, which is why early Superman took dark satisfaction in the death of criminals, as seen in examples posted on this board recently. That Superman was reacting realistically to criminals, and it resonated with readers because he was acting as their emotional / ideological representative with a power that was attractive to anyone who wished they could deal with crime in that way. If you have a superhero not taking a problem--or the course of bad events around him seriously, the audience does not either, and its just silly or spectacle.

 

[JD]

No one buys someone prancing around grinning when times--and the people he's sworn to protect are in grave danger. Most superhero movies deal with some sort of threat of this kind, whether it targets an individual or a larger group of people; the tone of the film would be off and utterly unrealistic if the hero is grinning his way through it all, spitting out quips in the face of what should present as dangerous situations to the audience as well as the characters.

Contrary to the deliberate lies of some "fans" (not meaning you), original Superman was not running around grinning and winking like George Reeves, the later Weisinger/Swan/Plastino period, or someone from Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. He was a creation of a violent period of American history, where people believed in harsh or brutal consequences for criminals, which is why early Superman took dark satisfaction in the death of criminals, as seen in examples posted on this board recently. That Superman was reacting realistically to criminals, and it resonated with readers because he was acting as their emotional / ideological representative with a power that was attractive to anyone who wished they could deal with crime in that way. If you have a superhero not taking a problem--or the course of bad events around him seriously, the audience does not either, and its just silly or spectacle.

There is also a middle ground between the what you're talking about and what we got in MOS and BvS, that is all I'm looking for.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

There is also a middle ground between the what you're talking about and what we got in MOS and BvS, that is all I'm looking for.

MoS and BvS presented problems where the heroes reacted in a believable manner. Anything less would have been completely out of place, as there was no room for quips, winks and grinning, considering the situations faced.

 

[JD]

Yes, but Snyder and Goyer wrote situations into the movies where the heroes had the react that way, and there is no reason that other writer couldn't put them in situations that weren't so fucking grim.
These are not documentaries, everything that happens in it is a creative choice, and there is no reason that different creative choices couldn't have been made.

 

[Ovation]

there is no reason that different creative choices couldn't have been made.

That works both ways. No one choice is inherently more valid than the others. You are free to dislike (to whatever degree of intensity you wish) a particular choice, but your like or dislike is irrelevant to the choice itself.

The plethora of “less grim” choices already extant is a factor supporting Snyder’s version, as it makes his choice stand out as something different. That someone doesn’t like his choice doesn’t make it illegitimate.

 

[Anwar]

That aspect wasn't really part of the story.

Which was a big missed opportunity.

But the analogy remains intact--you can't blame all racial minorities or immigrants for the actions of a few. This scenario plays out time and time again in real life. You can't defend the actions of incels or white supremacists just because they feel they have been dealt a poor hand in life.

And what about the systemic issues left unresolved that caused them to go down those paths in the first place?

 

[theenglish]

And what about the systemic issues left unresolved that caused them to go down those paths in the first place?

That is a larger issue with many false paths. The fault lies in the economic system, not in issues of immigration. It is just easier for some people to blame immigrants/visible minorities for their plight. The truth is that if you compare a poor white guy with a poor black or latino guy living in the same area with the same income, same familial circumstance, etc--the white guy still comes out ahead in society most of the time.

 

[Christopher]

That is a larger issue with many false paths. The fault lies in the economic system, not in issues of immigration. It is just easier for some people to blame immigrants/visible minorities for their plight.

Yup. Throughout history, it's always been the rich elites who've screwed over everyone else, then convinced the poor to blame other groups of poor people so they'd fight against each other instead of uniting against the real threat. It's not the immigrants working for a pittance who've stolen other people's prosperity, it's the CEOs giving themselves gigantic raises and the legislators handing out huge corporate subsidies while gutting the support networks for everyone else.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Huge if true. https://screenrant.com/flash-movie-...dium=Social-Distribution&utm_campaign=SR-FB-P

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Yes, but Snyder and Goyer wrote situations into the movies where the heroes had the react that way, and there is no reason that other writer couldn't put them in situations that weren't so fucking grim.

These are not documentaries, everything that happens in it is a creative choice, and there is no reason that different creative choices couldn't have been made.

Introducing a new movie/comic universe required situations to challenge and give a great, defining purpose to the heroes, and light, quip-ridden films fail to achieve that, as the situations are deflated by misplaced humor. MoS perfectly challenged / gave purpose to Superman finding himself in a world of aliens (humans) he's trying to relate to even after reaching adulthood, which was helped by fighting against people of his own, lost species. BvS was the logical sequel to show the split in humanity's reaction to an alien seemingly electing himself earth's protector, but in one of the few scripts realistically dealing with the consequences of superheroic damage, the main characters--Wayne at the top of the list--showing the trauma of larger than life action on mere mortals. Perfect motivation for Wayne/Batman's hatred of the alien.
Similarly, Superman's interest in/resentment toward Batman was born from thinking the latter was a violent, "lawless" menace who is his own law, not even pretending to care about working within what Superman saw as a moral code. He did not know that in playing that kind of judge, he justified both Batman's fears of an alien overlord and Luthor's atheistic rantings about Superman being some "god" above the station of man (when he should be the one sitting in a seat of lone human superiority). Each had a solid reason (in their minds and one the audience understood) for their reactions. It was quite natural for the Bvs conflict to not only happen, but for the exact reasons presented, and there was no place for levity in that.

These are not documentaries, everything that happens in it is a creative choice, and there is no reason that different creative choices couldn't have been made.

That works both ways. No one choice is inherently more valid than the others. You are free to dislike (to whatever degree of intensity you wish) a particular choice, but your like or dislike is irrelevant to the choice itself.

All true, Ovation..and...

The plethora of “less grim” choices already extant is a factor supporting Snyder’s version, as it makes his choice stand out as something different. That someone doesn’t like his choice doesn’t make it illegitimate.

Well said. Some are looking for the MCU model (undeniable, since that is the current example often used for comparisons with other superhero films) and even some MCU fans have soured on the rinse-and-repeat format of most of their movies--characters being quip machines being one of the issues.

 

[Christopher]

Following the Arrowverse's lead? Hmm, the studio did ask the Berlanti people to include Ezra Miller in Crisis.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Huge if true. https://screenrant.com/flash-movie-...dium=Social-Distribution&utm_campaign=SR-FB-P

Whoa, that's kind of cool. The one advantage DC really has over Marvel is their history of these characters on screen. And I see nothing wrong with tapping into that at all, they can tell superhero stories that really only DC can tell.

 

[Kirk Prime]

Whoa, that's kind of cool. The one advantage DC really has over Marvel is their history of these characters on screen. And I see nothing wrong with tapping into that at all, they can tell superhero stories that really on DC can tell.

He's be Thomas Wayne, not Bruce. If this follows the comic, then basically, Thomas was the one who survived and Bruce and Martha died.

Flashpoint is a smart idea because it allows them to recast and reset.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Everything seems to indicate (IF true) that he'd be Bruce, not Thomas.

"If confirmed, Keaton will reprise the character of Batman from his movies in the late 80s/early 90s and The Flash film will reveal what's happened to the superhero since Returns."

Also, "There is no Thomas Wayne Flashpoint Batman. He hasn't been in the script for years. Now you know the reason why."

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

That is a larger issue with many false paths. The fault lies in the economic system, not in issues of immigration. It is just easier for some people to blame immigrants/visible minorities for their plight.

In the case of black vs. Mexican immigrants (particularly in the American Southwest), the conflict dates back to the pre-WWII era, where innumerable Mexicans would consciously move into more affordable (read: cheap) neighborhoods, and often being illegal, would take jobs from black employees who were seasoned in trying to fight for their rights through protest, unions (if the unions were typically screwing them over) and other means, which angered employers looking to pay a penny for labor worth dollars. Knowing how they (Mexican immigrants) were displacing black workers, but frankly not caring, you had generations of blacks (who correctly felt they were--once again--booted from a place they earned (but wanted to rise above) as a major part of the people who truly built America.
This conflict was often linked to violence between the groups, especially during the late Civil Rights movement era, where the historic fight / gains that changed a nation (and influenced other countries) were being piggybacked by Mexican immigration advocates (like the astoundingly racist Council of La Raza), who in turn, would drive them from once-traditionally black towns, overwhelming districts (with endless illegal immigrants), elections to influence officials to purposely supplant blacks in an official manner, and the take possession of gains / programs they fought and died for in favor of Mexicans and Mexicans alone.

This problem exists to this day, with black activists laying out the current issues supported by history, but you won't hear that from certain people who are quick to hit "repeat" on what they see as a single cause: the "Eeevilll white corporations" as if they were puppeteering all events in this regard, which is as far from the truth of history (part of which I experienced in California and later covered) as Little Red Riding Hood.

A long-lived state of hostility exists between blacks and Mexicans, and much of it comes from racist perceptions born in Mexico, so conflict and displacing black people was an agenda, not happenstance, but certain people (not meaning you, theenglish) still preach the same, tired political lines used during every election cycle.

 

[Samurai8472]

Following the Arrowverse's lead? Hmm, the studio did ask the Berlanti people to include Ezra Miller in Crisis.

I guess if they can't form a cohesive timeline/ vision then they might as well tap into their multiverse ideas

Spider-man's already doing it(Into the Spider-verse and Doctor Strange will be too.

WB/DC said that the movies won't be as connected as before(since they failed) and they're just going to focus on making good movies

https://collider.com/future-dc-movies-will-be-less-connected/

“The upcoming slate, with Shazam, Joker, Wonder Woman 1984 and Birds of Prey, feels like we’re on the right track. We have the right people in the right jobs working on it.



The universe isn’t as connected as we thought it was going to be five years ago. You’re seeing much more focus on individual experiences around individual characters. That’s not to say we won’t at some point come back to that notion of a more connected universe. But it feels like that’s the right strategy for us right now.”

 

[JD]

That works both ways. No one choice is inherently more valid than the others. You are free to dislike (to whatever degree of intensity you wish) a particular choice, but your like or dislike is irrelevant to the choice itself.

The plethora of “less grim” choices already extant is a factor supporting Snyder’s version, as it makes his choice stand out as something different. That someone doesn’t like his choice doesn’t make it illegitimate.

They can obviously do whatever they want with the characters, all I'm doing is trying to explain why I didn't like the direction they went in, and why I think it was mistake to go that way.

Introducing a new movie/comic universe required situations to challenge and give a great, defining purpose to the heroes, and light, quip-ridden films fail to achieve that, as the situations are deflated by misplaced humor. MoS perfectly challenged / gave purpose to Superman finding himself in a world of aliens (humans) he's trying to relate to even after reaching adulthood, which was helped by fighting against people of his own, lost species. BvS was the logical sequel to show the split in humanity's reaction to an alien seemingly electing himself earth's protector, but in one of the few scripts realistically dealing with the consequences of superheroic damage, the main characters--Wayne at the top of the list--showing the trauma of larger than life action on mere mortals. Perfect motivation for Wayne/Batman's hatred of the alien.
Similarly, Superman's interest in/resentment toward Batman was born from thinking the latter was a violent, "lawless" menace who is his own law, not even pretending to care about working within what Superman saw as a moral code. He did not know that in playing that kind of judge, he justified both Batman's fears of an alien overlord and Luthor's atheistic rantings about Superman being some "god" above the station of man (when he should be the one sitting in a seat of lone human superiority). Each had a solid reason (in their minds and one the audience understood) for their reactions. It was quite natural for the Bvs conflict to not only happen, but for the exact reasons presented, and there was no place for levity in that.

Yes, I've seen the movies and understand why the characters acted the way they did in the movies, what I'm saying is I'd have rather seen movies where the characters were in different situations and didn't need to act the way they did in those movies. You keep treating this like this was all real and the people who made the movies had no control over what the characters did. But everything that happened in these movies was a choice made by Zack Snyder, and David Goyer, the director and writer of Man of Steel and Dawn of Justice, and it was their choices to put the characters into the kind of situations that they did, that I disagree with.

Well said. Some are looking for the MCU model (undeniable, since that is the current example often used for comparisons with other superhero films) and even some MCU fans have soured on the rinse-and-repeat format of most of their movies--characters being quip machines being one of the issues.

They didn't have to mimic the MCU exactly, but they could have gone for something that wasn't as far in the opposite direction as they went.

Huge if true. https://screenrant.com/flash-movie-batman-michael-keaton-cast/?utm_source=SR-FB-P&utm_medium=Social-Distribution&utm_campaign=SR-FB-P

Cool.​