DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[JD]

I was reading an interview with the guys in charge of Young Justice where they were talking a lot about Darkseid and the Fourth World, and it got me thinking. It's kind of a shame that, after all the set up in BvS, it looks like we probably won't be getting Darkseid or any other Fourth World elements in the Worlds of DC.
EDIT: But on the other hand, that could leave it open for the Arrowverse, or Krypton, which would probably be a better place to handle something that complex.

 

[The Realist]

I was reading an interview with the guys in charge of Young Justice where they were talking a lot about Darkseid and the Fourth World, and it got me thinking. It's kind of a shame that, after all the set up in BvS, it looks like we probably won't be getting Darkseid or any other Fourth World elements in the Worlds of DC.

Methinks you forget Ava DuVernay's New Gods movie that, last I heard, was still in development.

 

[JD]

Oh..... yeah, I did.

 

[Anwar]

The sad thing is, due to MCU getting to Thanos first and reinventing him in a way that the audience responded VERY positively to him, when the general audience sees Darkseid they'll think he's a knock on Thanos when historically it was the opposite.

Yes, I know DC will advertise the heck out of how Darkseid came first, but it won't matter by then.

 

[theenglish]

I don't know about that. The MCU Thanos is pretty different in both appearance and motivation than Darkseid. As long as the DCU portrays Darkseid as a New God and the ruler of Apokalips rather than just a shallow Steppenwolf style villain it should be fine.

 

[dahj]

In a parallel universe, Justice League, Part II feat. Darkseid is coming out this year.

Meanwhile over here I'm still kinda mad we didn't even get the proper Part I.

 

[Christopher]

The original plan, apparently, was for Steppenwolf to be the baddie in Suicide Squad, which means that it probably would've led to Darkseid being the baddie in JL.

I liked JL overall, at least where the character work was concerned, but the villain was indeed rather one-dimensional.

 

[Dick Whitman]

If done right Darkseid is much more interesting than Thanos. He has all the Fourth World mythology of characters attached to him as well. To avoid comparisons they can do something different than another traditional alien invasion. Have part of the Justice League go right to Apokolips.

 

[Marsden]

Darkseid was done really well on the Teen Titans Go! episode where he captured the Justice League and the Teen Titans had to rescue them. https://teen-titans-go.fandom.com/wiki/Darkseid

 

[LJones41]

The sad thing is, due to MCU getting to Thanos first and reinventing him in a way that the audience responded VERY positively to him . . .

I'm not so completely sure about that. I have encountered a lot of complaints about his portrayal in "Infinity War" - from fans and various articles. My reaction is mixed. I was very impressed by Josh Brolin's performance. However, I found Thanos' motive for committing genocide rather idiotic.

The original plan, apparently, was for Steppenwolf to be the baddie in Suicide Squad, which means that it probably would've led to Darkseid being the baddie in JL.

Steppenwolf as the big bad in "Suicide Squad" is a major mistake to me. Big mistake. I'm glad it never happened. WB/DCEU can still use Darkseid in a second Justice League movie.

 

[Anwar]

I'm not so completely sure about that. I have encountered a lot of complaints about his portrayal in "Infinity War" - from fans and various articles. My reaction is mixed. I was very impressed by Josh Brolin's performance. However, I found Thanos' motive for committing genocide rather idiotic.

No more than Joker's random nihilism, folks LOVE that for some reason.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

No more than Joker's random nihilism, folks LOVE that for some reason.

No, see, the Joker had an actual philosophy, (and nihilism is an actual philosophy, even if you don't agree with it) and the filmmakers were smart enough to keep his origin a mystery in order to not have to come up with one that has to justify it.

And while Thanos' philosophy was reasonable for the time when he was just travelling through space killing people, once he has control over reality itself, his modus operandi of killing half the people is just plain dumb, because with that power he could have just doubled the resources, and he would have had nobody oppose him on that.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

It's like people forget about the "mad" part of "mad titan". The phrase isn't about anger issues. People are silly for trying to rationalize crazy with logic.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

It's like people forget about the "mad" part of "mad titan". The phrase isn't about anger issues. People are silly for trying to rationalize crazy with logic.

But that's the thing, the comic book Thanos was the Mad Titan, while the movie tried so hard to make him a sympathetic character they gave him a "noble" motivation, which turned out to be flawed in its logic. The MCU's Thanos was not the Mad Titan.

 

[Anwar]

No, see, the Joker had an actual philosophy, (and nihilism is an actual philosophy, even if you don't agree with it) and the filmmakers were smart enough to keep his origin a mystery in order to not have to come up with one that has to justify it.

That just makes him a living plot device, not a character. Lazy.

And while Thanos' philosophy was reasonable for the time when he was just travelling through space killing people, once he has control over reality itself, his modus operandi of killing half the people is just plain dumb, because with that power he could have just doubled the resources, and he would have had nobody oppose him on that.

Has it occurred to you that he CAN'T permanently create with it? The Reality Stones' focused effect always faded after he stopped concentrating, it can destroy but it cannot truly create.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

That just makes him a living plot device, not a character. Lazy.

It's not lazy, it's the way the character has been portrayed in comics for most of his existence. How often do you hear the Joker described by comics writers and filmmakers as a force of nature? Because that's what he works best as. By depicting the Joker that way, the makers of TDK actually kept the spirit of the character from the comics.

Has it occurred to you that he CAN'T permanently create with it? The Reality Stones' focused effect always faded after he stopped concentrating, it can destroy but it cannot truly create.

Well, no, that had not occurred to me. Why should it have occurred to me? It's not how it worked in the comics.

When Thanos created his female mate after Death rejected him in Infinity Gauntlet, he didn't have to constantly focus to keep her existing, he was perfectly able to deal with the attack of the heroes.

And the films didn't show the Reality Stone the way you describe, either, as Malekith was perfectly able to create new limbs for himself in The Dark World, and it would be a hard sell to say he had to constantly focus to keep them. And that was before the stones were combined and could complement each other.

And Thanos says himself: "Reality is often disappointing. That is, it was. Now, reality can be whatever I want."

That certainly didn't sound like the Infinity Gauntlet had the limitations you speak of.

 

[Anwar]

It's not lazy, it's the way the character has been portrayed in comics for most of his existence

Which I've always found to be lazy, it's why Joker never intrigued me too much. You can't have someone preach a philosophy and then say "Oh, well he's not really a character so you don't have to question anything he says." that's epic laziness.

Well, no, that had not occurred to me. Why should it have occurred to me? It's not how it worked in the comics.

Movies aren't going to be 100% the comics.

And the films didn't show the Reality Stone the way you describe, either, as Malekith was perfectly able to create new limbs for himself in The Dark World, and it would be a hard sell to say he had to constantly focus to keep them. And that was before the stones were combined and could complement each other.

He'd infused the energies of the Stone into himself rather than as a separate gem, and there was that thing about how the Convergence would give it more power to do anything.

And Thanos says himself: "Reality is often disappointing. That is, it was. Now, reality can be whatever I want."

That certainly didn't sound like the Infinity Gauntlet had the limitations you speak of.

You don't know a boast when you hear it?

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Which I've always found to be lazy, it's why Joker never intrigued me too much. You can't have someone preach a philosophy and then say "Oh, well he's not really a character so you don't have to question anything he says." that's epic laziness.

Again, it's not lazy. The villain's role is to challenge the hero, and the Joker does that best as the personification of chaos to challenge the Batman's goal of order. To give him a nihilistic/absurdist philosophy is only consistent. You may call it lazy, but it is how the character works best, and it has made him the most popular comic book villain, one of the most popular villains across all media, of all time.

Movies aren't going to be 100% the comics.

Stating the obvious doesn't make your argument any stronger. No, the movies aren't completely faithful to the comics, but unless the movies openly contradict them, the rules established in the comics are at the very least a good point of referrence.

He'd infused the energies of the Stone into himself rather than as a separate gem, and there was that thing about how the Convergence would give it more power to do anything.

Infusing himself with the energies of the Reality Stone could just as well be due to the fact that the Infinity Stones are very hard to even handle. Malekith would just have done so to gain better control over the Stone. It was also just the one Stone, the others weren't there to compliment its power. And Malekith was still able to recreate his limbs.

You don't know a boast when you hear it?

Just because it's a boast doesn't mean it's not true. As far as I'm aware, it has not been contradicted on-screen, or even by the makers of the film.

All I'm hearing from you sounds like your personal head canon. Aren't you the one who always complains when others try to explain Wonder Woman's power in battle against Ares with her role as the Godkiller?

So, please, if you have a point of referrence, whether it's an on-screen statement, or an off-screen explanation given by the Russos, Kevin Feige, or the two writers of the movie, please, share it.
Because, by your own standarts, anything less doesn't count, and my question stands: Why should it have occurred to me (or anybody) that Thanos could not use the Infinity Gauntlet to create more resources?

 

[Anwar]

Again, it's not lazy. The villain's role is to challenge the hero, and the Joker does that best as the personification of chaos to challenge the Batman's goal of order. To give him a nihilistic/absurdist philosophy is only consistent. You may call it lazy, but it is how the character works best, and it has made him the most popular comic book villain, one of the most popular villains across all media, of all time.

Well, Batman's villains usually tend to drive the story due to Batman being more archetype than full character. So they get more of the spotlight.

It's still a lazy cop out to say "Well, Joker is a force of nature so his random nihilism is unassailable."

Infusing himself with the energies of the Reality Stone could just as well be due to the fact that the Infinity Stones are very hard to even handle.

And handily explain also how the one Stone was supposed to be key to destroying the Universe on its own whereas Thanos needed all of them to do similar damage.

All I'm hearing from you sounds like your personal head canon. Aren't you the one who always complains when others try to explain Wonder Woman's power in battle against Ares with her role as the Godkiller?

Because their explanations are fairly nonsensical.

Because, by your own standarts, anything less doesn't count, and my question stands: Why should it have occurred to me (or anybody) that Thanos could not use the Infinity Gauntlet to create more resources?

Because he didn't. He used it to destroy instead of create, the implication being that it cannot permanently create in the MCU.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Well, Batman's villains usually tend to drive the story due to Batman being more archetype than full character. So they get more of the spotlight.

And yet, the Joker stands out even among Batman's rogues gallery.

It's still a lazy cop out to say "Well, Joker is a force of nature so his random nihilism is unassailable."

The question is what the story is supposed to do. As you say, Batman and the Joker are pretty much archetypes, so they are standing in for specific ideas and philosophies. And their battles are about the battle between said philosophies. You may not like this, but it's still not lazy.

And handily explain also how the one Stone was supposed to be key to destroying the Universe on its own whereas Thanos needed all of them to do similar damage.

So, was Malekith more capable than Thanos, or less capable?

Because their explanations are fairly nonsensical.

No less nonsensical than "the Stone that gives you power over reality can only destroy, but not create". Changing reality is changing reality, and nothing indicates any exception to that.

Because he didn't. He used it to destroy instead of create, the implication being that it cannot permanently create in the MCU.

First off, by that rule, Wonder Woman not using her Godkiller powers against Doomsday are an implication that she can't. At least show some consistency of principle, not just of partisanship.

Second, even if it were the case that Thanos could only destroy but not create, why did that question never even come up? Tony Stark is maybe the most brilliant mind on MCU-Earth, so why didn't he stop at one point and ask the question why Thanos didn't just double the resources of the universe?

And that's not even adressing the fact that lives are resources as well. Food chain, and all that.