DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[JD]

...and I'm pointing out to you that those who defend the Super Friends tend to paint a rosy picture as though all kids enjoyed it, when that was not the case at all.

I never said that all kids enjoyed it, just that a lot did.

What part of "one size does not fit all" are you missing? Whedon's past work did not automatically qualify him to work on JL. that is patently illogical, as no one has ever been a fit for all concepts in a genre. Again, if the director is not fit for the specific tone, characters/demands and overall material, he will prove to be a bad fit with equally bad results. To argue otherwise is the equivalent of a false assumption that reads, "Well, Nicholas Meyer directed great sci-fi films like Time After Time and Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, so those kind of credits made him qualified to direct Return of the Jedi!" No, it did not. Meyer is a far different kind of filmmaker than Marquand (or Lucas, for that matter) with an approach and sensibility that lives on the polar opposite side of what Star Wars needed at that time to achieve its kind of goal. Take Francis Coppola: he directed two among the greatest mafia/dramas--Hell, films--in history with The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, but his talent and mafia films of such Brobdingnagian stature did not mean he would have been a fit for / get anywhere near as successful a result as Scorsese with Goodfellas or Casino by any stretch of the imagination. Talent never works that way, and it did not with Whedon on Justice League. Filmmakers do not always speak the unique language necessary for every film they might work on.

They would have been different, but that doesn't mean those director wouldn't have been able to make good movies.

WB was as mistaken as some moviegoers who clearly wanted to copy+paste the MCU, when that series was not a universal model for all superhero movies, and its internal tone and characterization is not what works for DC at all. It would have been as misguided to take the DCEU in that direction as it would have been to adapt The Walking Dead, only using Return of the Living Dead's bouncy, comedic approach to a very different, very serious kind of survival horror story. Similarly, ROTLD (well, the first one) was a solid breakout within a genre because it "lived in its own skin" and was not trying to be another Romero film. TWD is the success that it is because it too "lived in its own skin", not trying to be like any other production within its genre (even if there was the occasional wink). Snyder's approach to the DCEU worked for that reason--the characters, environments, source and tone required something completely different, not merely being a MCU film in DC trappings.

That approach might have worked better for you, but obviously not for everyone, since Aquaman, which was one of the least Snyder style movies in the DCEU, has made the most money.

This reads as passing the buck; a filmmaker of Whedon's level is not brought in to just nod in agreement with others, or have his strings pulled. Filmmakers do make mistakes or are a bad fit for certain productions.

The whole reason they brought in Whedon was to lighten up the movie and add snappier dialogue and more humor, and that was exactly what he did.

Oh well--that's your choice and view. Meanwhile, its not a stretch to say there are a large number of fans extremely excited to see JL as they understood it had intended to be produced, instead of the obvious mistake-ridden production that played in theatres.

I question if there's really that many, it seems to me that's it's mostly just a loud, smaller group. If there was really that many people in love with Snyder's style Batman v Superman would have made a lot more than $330,360,194 domestically. It's the first movie with fucking Batman & Superman together onscreen, and it couldn't even break $500,000,000, that is just beyond pathetic.

 

[theenglish]

I think what The Realist is suggesting would be more along the lines of a 100% Whedon cut -- starting from scratch with Whedon rather than bringing him in to try to patch up the mess Snyder left them.

We got that though, twice--The Avengers.

 

[F. King Daniel]

While everyone's waving their dicks, I'd just like to say I LOVE Synder's version of the DC universe. A Superman creating a sharp divide between people worshipping and fearing him? That's what would actually happen. A Superman questioning his own place in the universe? That's what would actually happen.

I can't wait for the Snyder Cut of Justice League. When else do we ever get to actually SEE these "might have been" movies? I'll take the 1991 Starfleet Academy movie next.

 

[Christopher]

We got that though, twice--The Avengers.

I'm sure Whedon knows how to tell different stories with different characters and settings. Nobody would mistake Mal Reynolds for Buffy Summers.

While everyone's waving their dicks, I'd just like to say I LOVE Synder's version of the DC universe. A Superman creating a sharp divide between people worshipping and fearing him? That's what would actually happen. A Superman questioning his own place in the universe? That's what would actually happen.

I've seen both done better elsewhere. Snyder's problems lie more in execution than concept.

 

[The Realist]

While everyone's waving their dicks, I'd just like to say I LOVE Synder's version of the DC universe. A Superman creating a sharp divide between people worshipping and fearing him? That's what would actually happen. A Superman questioning his own place in the universe? That's what would actually happen.

If one is interested in things that would, or ever could, actually happen, one probably shouldn't be watching a movie about a flying superstrong invulnerable laser-eyed space alien in the first place.

I really don't get the desire for "realism" in what is inherently one of the more extravagantly unrealistic genres of fiction ever created: the comic-book superhero. Realism becomes a non sequitur the moment some goober puts on longjohns and starts calling himself "Muscly Man" or whatever. It's fun and fantasy, not a documentary.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^ That's like saying because you posit FTL travel and humanoid aliens that characters should be able to breathe and talk in space. I find that argument that being a comic book movie you can dismiss anything else as an old-fashioned and bogus argument.

 

[The Realist]

That's like saying because you posit FTL travel and humanoid aliens that characters should be able to breathe and talk in space. I find that argument that being a comic book movie you can dismiss anything else as an old-fashioned and bogus argument.

In that case, it's fortunate that's not the argument I made. All well-told stories should maintain their own internal logic and consistency. The point is not that anything goes in a superhero movie; the point is that "realism" in any meaningful sense is simply not an option on the table, because unrealistic is baked into the genre's DNA.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I have seen people dismiss arguments with such logic so I'll apologize if I misread you there.

 

[The Realist]

I have seen people dismiss arguments with such logic so I'll apologize if I misread you there.

No fookin' prob. I promise you, yours is one of the more lucid responses I'll get to that post.

 

[fireproof78]

If one is interested in things that would, or ever could, actually happen, one probably shouldn't be watching a movie about a flying superstrong invulnerable laser-eyed space alien in the first place.

I really don't get the desire for "realism" in what is inherently one of the more extravagantly unrealistic genres of fiction ever created: the comic-book superhero. Realism becomes a non sequitur the moment some goober puts on longjohns and starts calling himself "Muscly Man" or whatever. It's fun and fantasy, not a documentary.

I usually want realism in terms of characters and motivations. Tech and powers should be consistent in the world.

 

[JD]

If one is interested in things that would, or ever could, actually happen, one probably shouldn't be watching a movie about a flying superstrong invulnerable laser-eyed space alien in the first place.

I really don't get the desire for "realism" in what is inherently one of the more extravagantly unrealistic genres of fiction ever created: the comic-book superhero. Realism becomes a non sequitur the moment some goober puts on longjohns and starts calling himself "Muscly Man" or whatever. It's fun and fantasy, not a documentary.

This is pretty close to how I feel. If I want realism, I'll watch something else, the whole reason I watch superhero shows and movies is to escape from that kind of stuff.

 

[fireproof78]

It's not all or nothing.

 

[Ovation]

the point is that "realism" in any meaningful sense is simply not an option on the table,

No. Just because it doesn’t appeal to you doesn’t mean it “is simply not an option”. That’s just absurd.

Exploring the idea of how the world would react to the existence of a Superman is entirely legitimate as a project. I have no problem with people not liking such a project. I will NEVER accept that such a project is invalid in and of itself. It might be poorly executed (I don’t think it was in the case of DCEU, especially Man of Steel) but I have no issues with anyone who disagrees on that point. But arguing the attempt itself is illegitimate?

No...x1000.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

No. Just because it doesn’t appeal to you doesn’t mean it “is simply not an option”. That’s just absurd.

Exploring the idea of how the world would react to the existence of a Superman is entirely legitimate as a project. I have no problem with people not liking such a project. I will NEVER accept that such a project is invalid in and of itself. It might be poorly executed (I don’t think it was in the case of DCEU, especially Man of Steel) but I have no issues with anyone who disagrees on that point. But arguing the attempt itself is illegitimate?

No...x1000.

Agreed. That's the basic concept of some of the best superhero stories out there, including "Watchmen" (both the original comic, and the TV series).

 

[The Realist]

No. Just because it doesn’t appeal to you doesn’t mean it “is simply not an option”. That’s just absurd.

No, what's absurd is arguing that stories about flying superstrong invulnerable laser-eyed space aliens have any claim to realism. They don't, and can't, and that's not a question of what does or doesn't appeal to me, or what's valid or legitimate. It's simple observation of, well, reality.

Superhero stories, and the larger category of fantasy fiction in general, exist because they deliver things that reality can't. I'm not sure why some fans embrace the fantastic, only to try to grind it down to the mundane. I won't say it's illegitimate, because that really tends to raise your hackles. It just seems ... counterproductive.

 

[fireproof78]

I want both.

 

[Ovation]

The

flying superstrong invulnerable laser-eyed space aliens

like any sci-fi concept, offers an opportunity to explore different facets of humanity in an allegorical fashion. The “realism” is not literal in physical terms but in behavioural responses of individuals and groups. Alan Moore’s Watchmen is a great example. It has elements of the fantastic and also examines the perspective of ordinary citizens.

Not all superhero movies need be “serious”. I very much enjoyed Shazam. But I want filmmakers to have the widest possible range of options within any genre. I will judge them on the success of their intentions. I will NOT judge them for straying outside traditional boundaries of the genre (sci-fi, fantasy, western, rom-com, historical, drama, thriller, etc.).

 

[fireproof78]

The “realism” is not literal in physical terms but in behavioural responses of individuals and groups.

Yup.

 

[Saul]

A Superman creating a sharp divide between people worshipping and fearing him? That's what would actually happen. A Superman questioning his own place in the universe? That's what would actually happen.

I think that's part of the problem though. The character doesn't lend himself to be treated in such realistic terms. I think with a character like Superman people are looking to escape from the real world rather than introduce the real world into Superman.

But i'm looking forward to the Synder cut and I believe there's room for many interpretations of these characters.

 

[The Realist]

I think that's part of the problem though. The character doesn't lend himself to be treated in such realistic terms. I think with a character like Superman people are looking to escape from the real world rather than introduce the real world into Superman.

Superman as a character exists to raise us up, not to get dragged down into the muck with us.

(And before Ovation reacts: This doesn't mean Zack Snyder can't make as many pretentious tone-deaf nihilistic Superman movies as the studio will let him. It just means I won't like them.)