That Affleck interview is interesting. He is obviously very much behind Zack's vision. How he discusses turning down the chance to direct a future Batman movie under Gunn is a bit sharp. But I can understand and respect his opinion.
Which is exactly why I liked it that the DCEU from Aquaman onward has barely been connected at all, with each film free to be its own entity with its own tone and approach, just sharing the general background. Its strength was that it wasn't just a copy of the MCU's approach, but an alternative to it, a looser, more anthology-like take on the shared-universe idea. And that's why I'm sad that the new approach is to scuttle that in favor of Yet Another MCU Copy, a strategy that has failed miserably for almost every studio that's tried it, including the early DCEU. The former, yes. The full expression is "to give free rein," to grant the horse more freedom of movement. Nobody gives someone reign; you're either born with it or you take it for yourself.
I haven't been that impressed with the franchise's movies post-"Aquaman", aside from the Snyderverse "Justice League". The only DCEU movie I didn't like between 2013 and 2018 was Whedon's theatrical version of "Justice League". I did like "Birds of Prey" a lot, but I had an issue with it regarding the Joker's missing presence or news about what happened to him before the film.
With the exception of Marvel itself! Mainly because they didn't panic, choke and tear it all down every few years.
Snyder, et al., certainly had a clear vision of their then-growing film universe, and Affleck was very interested in building on that. Its such a shame that is not going to happen. Regarding Gunn, Affleck is wise to turn down directing any film in a series that is believed to be so controlling over the vision / authority of the director--its both an anti-creative handcuff and potentially draining the enthusiasm out of anyone working on the film. In Affleck's case involving directing a Batman film, I'd say it was the former; originally, he was going to direct the film during the Snyder series era, and he would be able to approach the film his way, but there would be some connections to the rest of the DCEU (like the majority of the films in the series).
Has anybody considered that Affleck's comment could maybe not mean not having free reign, and just possibly be about Gunn & Safran wanting to do a more upbeat Batman movie as to differentiate it from the Matt Reeves films? Just a thought. ... What, that he broke up with Harley Quinn?
Snyder certainly had a clear vision, but the general audience did not respond to it as enthusiastically as to warrant its continuance---at least by Warner's standards. It remains to be seen whether the audience will respond to Gunn's vision. Affleck's comments are interesting, and suggest that Gunn's vision will be enforced across all the DC movies. From a director's point of view, I can see how that might feel stifling.
Hell, it could be nothing more than him having zero interest in being part of any shared universe project anymore, period. He clearly had a terrible time on JL, and not an extraordinarily great time even before that. Why should he want to go back into another multi-film contract just on the hope that it will be different this time?
That’s what he pretty much says, isn’t it? Doesn’t sound like it’s anything to do with Gunn and Safran specifically.
Some of the general audience, not all of them. And honestly, I tend to judge movies based upon my own views, not the views of movie critics or the majority opinion. I think Peyton Reed will continue thinking about his own situation with "Ant-Man 3".
The opinion of the majority shouldn't change yours, as an individual. I thought Superman Returns had a lot of potential and would have loved to seen that universe developed more. Unfortunately, not enough audience members agreed and that was that. For the company footing the bill and expecting a return on their investment, that's a different story. And no matter what artistic merits could be argued for the Snyderverse, it did not deliver the general audience and that's why it has been junked. I like what Gunn has been saying so far, especially in regards to Superman: Legacy, and will give it a shot when it comes out. Hopefully it will click for a wide audience and develop into a great saga for the Man of Steel.
It’s a shame the SmyderVerse ended where it did. I wantedto see Darkseid beat the living #### out of the JL. Maybe we’ll get a novel one day.
This new direction specifically demands that EVERYTHING be under one roof. If you're movie batman for example then you're also the voice of the animated version and all other media that follows.
True. But I feel that the franchise's writing has been in serious decline since 2016. But the media and so many fans continue to celebrate the franchise's past glories and congratulate it for more or less sticking to the "MCU formula", something I have grown to loathe.
Anyone watch the Legion of Superheroes animated movie? It was pretty good but the twist was fairly obvious. Nice cliff-hanger at the end.
Where was he? Why did he leave Gotham, which led to Roman Sionis aka Black Mask making an attempt to take over Gotham's crime scene? At first, I thought the Joker was dead. But he wasn't. Why did he leave Gotham after dumping Harley?
OK, that's what I thought, I just wanted to make sure. I understood that, I meant the origins of the phrase itself. I've seen people use both versions of the phrase, and I wasn't sure where the phrase came from. And @Christopher answered that for me.