DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Morpheus 02]

Shazam is the outlier, not the norm. Its a goofy film that subverted the character from anyone who ever read the Fawcett or various DC comics. To the uninitiated, he was just silly.



The MCU is just as "all over the place" with lightweight films such as the stumbling-over-itself-to-be-funny Thor: Ragnarok, the Ant-Man and GOTG films, which are the polar opposite of the Captain America films, The Incredible Hulk, Black Panther, and at least half of the Avengers movies. The MCU is far from having a consistent tone, and the best movies in that franchise are the darker films.

The DCEU was consistent and successful with the superior entries in the line: MoS, BvS and Wonder Woman. That is a film universe with its own voice, not trying to be a wrongheaded "comedy in tights," or as lightweight as certain superhero TV series.




.

I think there is a difference in spectrum of tone as opposed to characters not fitting an appropriate tone.

So I think Thor and ANt Man wouldn't be a s fun if they were as serious as Black Panther and Captain America. Or, even moreso, many people would have hated Black Panther and Captain America had they had the same tone as Thor Ragnarok or ANt Man or Guardians of the Galaxy.

I grew up enjoying Ambush Bug and the Keith Giffen Justice League International, with Crisis on Infinite Earths & New Teen Titans in between. Huge tonal range...but they were ALL a part of the same DC Universe I enjoyed. Had Teen Titans played like Ambush Bug (or the Teen Titans Go of today), I would've hated it... but it was great for the characters and how they were treated.

Though I think GotG2 and Rangnarok were at times a bit over the top...it still felt a part of the same universe.

I think the other thing @Christopher pointed out was the inconsistency of how Superman was portrayed... as a menace the first 2 films, to a beloved hero that everyone mourned in Justice League. That just didn't seemed to vibe... I mean a Captain America montage of the in-between years (where Cap went from mascot to bona-fide hero and leader) would've have helped that make sense.

Snyder cast them, and as head director and producer, he was the fighter in their corner. Without him or someone to replace him, these are the consequences.

Gadot has Patty, the MCU has Feige, Jackman had Mangold, Reynolds had Jackman to back him for Deadpool solos, DCTV has Guggenheim and Berlanti, Mission Impossible has Tom Cruise, Fast and the Furious has Vin Diesel, etc. Superman is a lot like Star Trek on film now. Nobody wants to touch it and stay. It's a valuable IP, but not many people are volunteering to tackle the project.

Even when Snyder was there, WB couldn't nail down directors for all movies on their slate. Idk what direction they're moving in now. It's a shame to see so much talent walk out and potential stories left untold.

The thing is Geoff Johns was supposed to be that for the DC FU....but Snyder seemed to ignore him/ not have a working relationship with him (as opposed to Patty Jenkins, who seemed to work really well with Johns)

It seemed to be the only way Shazam was produced.

Some (not meaning you) have this long-disproven fantasy that DC was the equivalent of Archie comics, when the source--the comics--have not seen any treatment like that (with most of its mainstream characters) since the mid-late 1960s. This desire for DC movies to embrace that silly direction also reads like people who thought the horrid Super Friends cartoons was the "true" DC, despite the fact the comics were the polar opposite of that all along. No one is going to take a DC film seriously if it comes off like the aforementioned Super Friends...or the George Reeves Adventures of Superman, West Batman or Carter Wonder Woman. Audiences do want to see how fantastic characters would look in a more realistic environment, but that cannot be achieved with a two hour tribute to quips and Saturday morning action.

Well, for me, it was specifically CHALLENGE of the Super Friends that I really really liked. (and that one episode where Superman switched places with his evil self).

What I think many fans would like is a movie that respects previous adaptations , and evokes some of those fond memories, while being it's own thing. I think the Raimi SPiderman movies and DCTV's Flash do that -- and thus helped with the popularity of those.

Flash and Supergirl have used actors from previous incarnations , and did so in a smart way, so that those characters were embraced, while still allowed to be its own thing.

I'm talking about the MCU in general, and overall they've managed to find a good balance between the darker and lighter elements. Some movies do go more in one direction or the other, but overall as a franchise it's in a pretty good middle place.
Sure Thor might have ended up comic relief in Endgame, but the rest of the movie is definitely darker than a lot of the MCU movies have been. Overall Endgame is one of the best when it comes when it comes to balancing the lighter and darker moments.

If the movies are built from the ground up with this kind of tone in mind, then I don't see how that would be a problem. The only time they come off disjointed is when they've gone back in later to try to change the tone.






You say that like it's a bad thing. The changes made to Thor from Ragnarok on are the best thing to happen to the character yet. Endgame did take things to a temporary extreme with how he handled the post-Snape world, but they had already toned it back down to where it was before the Snap by the end of the movie.

 

[Turtletrekker]

The MCU is actually kind of dark underneath all the jokes and snarkiness. This is a universe where a fighter pilot was ordered to fire a nuclear missile at NYC, and he didn't even hesitate. There was no beginning-of-WarGames moment. He was just like, "You got it!"

The scene in Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2, a movie that on the surface is a laugh-a-minute romp, where Yondu executed his traitorous crewmates while Rocket and Groot gleefully joined in the slaughter while rocking out to the music was actually dark as hell. See Also-- Ego putting a tumor in Peter's mothers head.

 

[USS Firefly]

Or in Thor Ragnarok, everything with Thor was funny and meanwhile there was an genocide on Asgard

 

[Christopher]

Or in Thor Ragnarok, everything with Thor was funny and meanwhile there was an genocide on Asgard

That's kinda what bothered me about Ragnarok, really. Every serious and emotional moment was just glossed over and dealt with in a cursory manner because the director was more interested in getting to the next quirky comedy moment. So this huge, apocalyptic stuff and massive tragedy happened, but the film didn't let it land with any real weight.

It's certainly possible to balance tragedy and comedy -- Joss Whedon has proven that a number of times -- but I don't think Ragnarok achieved that balance.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

The thing is Geoff Johns was supposed to be that for the DC FU....but Snyder seemed to ignore him/ not have a working relationship with him (as opposed to Patty Jenkins, who seemed to work really well with Johns)

Hiring new directors for Flash, Aquaman, Shazam and Cyborg was on Johns. Both Aquaman and Shazam adapted stories authored by Johns. When it came to the Flash, there was a bit of a row. As Famuyiwa and Johns couldn't come to an agreement over the interpretation/vision. See Flash TV for Johns' vision of Barry Allen on display. Since Johns' 2009 reboot of Barry Allen. Snyder hired Patty for WW and helped her craft the interpretation for the Amazons.

With JL, Snyder's vision was curtailed to be more upbeat and positive. Johns and another fellow were brought on to produce it. While Whedon was brought on to replace Snyder as director. Since JL lost the studio money, Johns, Snyder and the other producers were fired and reassigned.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

IIf the movies are built from the ground up with this kind of tone in mind, then I don't see how that would be a problem. The only time they come off disjointed is when they've gone back in later to try to change the tone.

Because Aquaman was not a reboot of the DCEU--its a part of it, so that kind of tone cannot upend the fairly steady direction of previous DC movies. Aquaman is his own character, but what was presented in the solo movie cannot take the wheel of the franchise to go off in a completely different direction never intended for the films.

You say that like it's a bad thing. The changes made to Thor from Ragnarok on are the best thing to happen to the character yet. Endgame did take things to a temporary extreme with how he handled the post-Snape world, but they had already toned it back down to where it was before the Snap by the end of the movie.

Drastically altering characters is rarely a good thing. For example, its one of the reasons generations of Bond fans generally dismiss the Roger Moore era, as he (with the exception of perhaps two of his seven films) was more parody of the spy genre than a continuation of the Connery (or Lazenby) Bond. Connery occasionally had tongue-in-cheek moments, but his Bond was ultimately driven and ruthless during Connery's run (pre-return in Diamonds Are Forever). Moore's interpretation tossed that out the window, which no one would have noticed--if he was not portraying the same character in the same, established universe. On that note, Thor's first two solo films (and The Avengers / Age of Ultron) painted him as a serious person, including his trying to come to terms with not being a prisoner of destiny (i.e., replacing Odin one day), which is his unique character journey. The sudden, out-of-nowhere transformation of Thor into comic relief sweept away what made him unique among the MCU characters, turning him into that "Surfer Dude Thor" from the 1988 Incredible Hulk Returns TV reunion movie, then a sloppy drunk who is more interested in his next bottle than the fate of...anything.

Bad for the character, and it had no place in the end of the Thanos arc, for all that would mean for the MCU (in-universe).

 

[USS Firefly]

That's kinda what bothered me about Ragnarok, really. Every serious and emotional moment was just glossed over and dealt with in a cursory manner because the director was more interested in getting to the next quirky comedy moment. So this huge, apocalyptic stuff and massive tragedy happened, but the film didn't let it land with any real weight.

It's certainly possible to balance tragedy and comedy -- Joss Whedon has proven that a number of times -- but I don't think Ragnarok achieved that balance.

That is the reason why I was disappointed in the movie, and of course because lady Sif wasn't in it

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I think the other thing @Christopher pointed out was the inconsistency of how Superman was portrayed... as a menace the first 2 films, to a beloved hero that everyone mourned in Justice League.

I don't know what films he was watching, but in MoS, the government (predictably) feared him, with Superman ultimately proving himself to the people by being the only thing standing between humankind and extinction at the hands of his own people. In BvS, the central plot has Luthor resenting Superman (who we see has become a celebrated figure by most people / others calling out for him during natural disasters / erecting statues, etc.) because he held the erroneous belief that Superman the alien was treated as the hated God, similar to Batman despising Superman not only due to the disaster which took innocent lives in the climax of MoS / BvS recap, but his own issues with unchecked superpowers seemingly running "loose" on earth, while the Daily Planet--in so many words--acted as Superman's publicity machine. There's a consistent development with the Superman character in those films, including the contrast--the government still having issues with his actions/presence--which is the most logical response from authority ever presented in any live action Superman adaptation. The same with Luthor's hatred of the "God figure" he sees in Superman, or its how he believes human beings see him. He's not some perceived as a universal "menace" unless someone was watching an entirely different movie.

Well, for me, it was specifically CHALLENGE of the Super Friends that I really really liked. (and that one episode where Superman switched places with his evil self).

Overall, the Super Friends was a very silly franchise, leading some to think superheroes (in general) meant the Wonder Twins, bad jokes at the end of an adventure, so many Bat-gadgets that the 1966 Batman series seemed tame in that department by comparison, among other issues. Then, there's the near total useless status of Aquaman--so glaring that he was turned into a running joke in a number of Cartoon Network bumpers.

What I think many fans would like is a movie that respects previous adaptations , and evokes some of those fond memories, while being it's own thing. I think the Raimi SPiderman movies and DCTV's Flash do that -- and thus helped with the popularity of those.

I can agree with the Raimi Spider-Man movies. He understood the lore, heart and characters of the comics like the back of his hand, and with the exception of the tinkering with ASM3 (which he did not agree with), he still gave the movie going world the far and away best Spider-Man ever adapted for film.

 

[Christopher]

That is the reason why I was disappointed in the movie, and of course because lady Sif wasn't in it

Also that they gave Thor another evil sibling but did absolutely nothing with the relationship, leaving her just as one-dimensional as most other MCU villains.

 

[JD]

Because Aquaman was not a reboot of the DCEU--its a part of it, so that kind of tone cannot upend the fairly steady direction of previous DC movies. Aquaman is his own character, but what was presented in the solo movie cannot take the wheel of the franchise to go off in a completely different direction never intended for the films.

Why can't it? It was probably the best received movie in the franchise yet, and I don't see where every movie in the Worlds of DC franchise has to have the same tone as the earlier ones. The comics vary wildly in tone, from outright comedies like Harley Quinn, to darker more serious ones like Batman. I don't see why the movies can't be the same. OK, so I realize I just made an argument against myself, but the same way all the movies don't all need to have the same tone as Aquaman, they also don't all need to have the same tone as BvS and MoS.

Drastically altering characters is rarely a good thing. For example, its one of the reasons generations of Bond fans generally dismiss the Roger Moore era, as he (with the exception of perhaps two of his seven films) was more parody of the spy genre than a continuation of the Connery (or Lazenby) Bond. Connery occasionally had tongue-in-cheek moments, but his Bond was ultimately driven and ruthless during Connery's run (pre-return in Diamonds Are Forever). Moore's interpretation tossed that out the window, which no one would have noticed--if he was not portraying the same character in the same, established universe. On that note, Thor's first two solo films (and The Avengers / Age of Ultron) painted him as a serious person, including his trying to come to terms with not being a prisoner of destiny (i.e., replacing Odin one day), which is his unique character journey.

If it helps to make the character more interesting, and massively improves the quality of his movies, then I say it's a good thing.

then a sloppy drunk who is more interested in his next bottle than the fate of...anything.

The way Thor was in Endgame was a one time thing in reaction to The Snap, so you can't judge the whole presentation of the character by that. It's pretty much the same as judging the entire presentation of Jean-Luc Picard based on his actions in First Contact (the movie, not the TNG episode)

Bad for the character, and it had no place in the end of the Thanos arc, for all that would mean for the MCU (in-universe).

It definitely had a place in the end of the Thanos arc, since it was an example of the different ways of dealing with life in the post-Snap world. I can see some people having a problem with it for making fun of overweight people, or people dealing with trauma, but it's ridiculous to say it had no place in the movie.
And yes, it was bad for the character, but that was whole point, he lost it and ended up hitting rock bottom after The Snap.

 

[The Realist]

^ Good luck with this argument, man. Pretty much everything is Very Serious Business to our friend TG1, and frivolity and fun are never to be countenanced.

 

[Set Harth]

I think the other thing @Christopher pointed out was the inconsistency of how Superman was portrayed... as a menace the first 2 films, to a beloved hero that everyone mourned in Justice League. That just didn't seemed to vibe...

You don't think maybe saving the world from Doomsday might have had something to do with that?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Why can't it? It was probably the best received movie in the franchise yet, and I don't see where every movie in the Worlds of DC franchise has to have the same tone as the earlier ones. The comics vary wildly in tone, from outright comedies like Harley Quinn, to darker more serious ones like Batman. I don't see why the movies can't be the same. OK, so I realize I just made an argument against myself, but the same way all the movies don't all need to have the same tone as Aquaman, they also don't all need to have the same tone as BvS and MoS.

Films are more of a finite field; any series is not going to have 200 - 300 movies (the way comic have with decades' worth of monthlies) to play around with tones, the influence of different editorial regimes, or an overall message, so the film series will work when its world has a consistent tone / message. In other words, you cannot have a series that's primarily
Law and Order: SVU with The Big Bang Theory sprinkled every few films, derailing its main emotional, character and plotting drivers.

If it helps to make the character more interesting, and massively improves the quality of his movies, then I say it's a good thing.

Thor had a very unique personality / motivators in the films I referenced--he was truly set apart from the human behaviors of the other characters, yet he could interact when he had to. In making him a fat drunk, he's no different than any random human slob on the street, completely lacking his once one-of-a-kind presence and the sense of purpose for one in his position as an Asgardian and superhero.

The way Thor was in Endgame was a one time thing in reaction to The Snap, so you can't judge the whole presentation of the character by that. It's pretty much the same as judging the entire presentation of Jean-Luc Picard based on his actions in First Contact (the movie, not the TNG episode)

Ah, but becoming a walking drunk joke subverts the personality developed over several films all for what boiled down to a running sight gag/comedy relief. It would be one thing if he--like Picard--had a longstanding mix of anger and fear (in the wake of the events of "The Best of Both Worlds") which justifies his First Contact behavior. In fact, Thor should have suffered from a similar trauma after learning beheading Thanos changed nothing, so when he learns time travel is the only way to set things right, he--above all others--would be the most committed and serious minded, almost to the point of being obsessive, as Picard was about the Borg in First Contact.

 

[dahj]

James Gunn did an interview about the firing and everything that ensued.

On doing Suicide Squad:

The Suicide Squad, it just instantly started flowing. I don’t think I’ve had as much fun writing a script since maybe Dawn of the Dead. That’s what this whole movie has been like.

 

[Anwar]

Films are more of a finite field

Says who?

Thor had a very unique personality / motivators in the films I referenced--he was truly set apart from the human behaviors of the other characters, yet he could interact when he had to. In making him a fat drunk, he's no different than any random human slob on the street, completely lacking his once one-of-a-kind presence and the sense of purpose for one in his position as an Asgardian and superhero.

Character development isn't always positive.

Ah, but becoming a walking drunk joke subverts the personality developed over several films all for what boiled down to a running sight gag/comedy relief. It would be one thing if he--like Picard--had a longstanding mix of anger and fear (in the wake of the events of "The Best of Both Worlds") which justifies his First Contact behavior. In fact, Thor should have suffered from a similar trauma after learning beheading Thanos changed nothing, so when he learns time travel is the only way to set things right, he--above all others--would be the most committed and serious minded, almost to the point of being obsessive, as Picard was about the Borg in First Contact.

It wasn't just what happened with Thanos that reduced Thor to what he was in Endgame, it was the culmination of everything that had happened to him since Dark World. His whole family is dead, his world is destroyed, most of his people are wiped out, and the one last shot he had turned out to be useless. It's perfectly reasonable he'd just wallow in misery after all that. And he didn't wholly believe in their Time Heist plan either.

Hell, Thor had better justification for turning into a lazy drunk than Xavier did in DOFP. And him pulling himself back from that was handled more realistically than how Xavier got over years of drinking and bum behavior in ONE SCENE.

 

[crookeddy]

@TREK_GOD_1 how in the world do you justify saying BVS was well received? 27% critic score on RT (and a pretty low 63% audience score) 44 on Metacritic, 6.5 on imdb, and just a B Cinemascore. How is that "well received"? That ranges from mediocre audience reactions to skewered by the critics.

And I don't have some anti-Snyder agenda because I actually liked the movie!

 

[Set Harth]

27% critic score on RT (and a pretty low 63% audience score)

What a difference!

 

[crookeddy]

What a difference!

Not uncommon. Critics are forced to watch movies because that's their job. Audiences only watch what they want to watch, so they are more likely to like it, since they were able to make their decisions based on marketing and other things like that.

 

[JD]

Films are more of a finite field; any series is not going to have 200 - 300 movies (the way comic have with decades' worth of monthlies) to play around with tones, the influence of different editorial regimes, or an overall message, so the film series will work when its world has a consistent tone / message. In other words, you cannot have a series that's primarily
Law and Order: SVU with The Big Bang Theory sprinkled every few films, derailing its main emotional, character and plotting drivers.

But this is not one series, this is a collection of separate series which share a universe. And there's a pretty good chance that the different series will have a consistent tone, since so far most of them are going to be sharing the same writer/director teams.
As for the MCU, there was a pretty massive shift in tone between The Dark World and Ragarok, but TWD also had one of the worst reactions of any MCU movie up to that point, and the first one tends to be toward the middle, so a change in the series is understandable.

Thor had a very unique personality / motivators in the films I referenced--he was truly set apart from the human behaviors of the other characters, yet he could interact when he had to. In making him a fat drunk, he's no different than any random human slob on the street, completely lacking his once one-of-a-kind presence and the sense of purpose for one in his position as an Asgardian and superhero.

He wasn't a fat drunk in Ragnarok or Infinity War, and what we got there will be the standard version of the character, not what we got in Endgame.

Ah, but becoming a walking drunk joke subverts the personality developed over several films all for what boiled down to a running sight gag/comedy relief. It would be one thing if he--like Picard--had a longstanding mix of anger and fear (in the wake of the events of "The Best of Both Worlds") which justifies his First Contact behavior. In fact, Thor should have suffered from a similar trauma after learning beheading Thanos changed nothing, so when he learns time travel is the only way to set things right, he--above all others--would be the most committed and serious minded, almost to the point of being obsessive, as Picard was about the Borg in First Contact.

This was also a lot more extreme situation than what Picard went through, and Thor wasn't exactly a non-drinker in the other movies, so it's not like he went from never touching alcohol to what we saw in Endgame.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I'll leave this here about Robert Pattinson playing Batman....

*waits for internet to explode.*