DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[TREK_GOD_1]

I don't want DC movies to follow the production line MCU template either and neither should Superman movies try to imitate the Christopher Reeve movies.

Yes. Those hung up on the Donner films--or Reeve's interpretation need to let that go. What's amusing is that some use the Reeve version--and by association the Swan/Weisinger/Coleman/Plastino, et al. Superman as some "original" or "true" version of the character, when a true originalist would go back to his earliest days, when the character was not some glorified camp counselor--

"A well-deserved fate". He's judge, jury and willing executioner. Then, there--

"One less vulture" Cold and brutal. That's not the guy who spent later years on the covers of Superman's Girl Friend, Lois Lane, pranking or spoiling her efforts to marry him, or on World's Finest playing sports with Batman and Robin. So, whenever some fans make the erroneous claim that the Cavill Superman is "not the original boy scout like Reeve and the Curt Swan comics.." I've reminded them of who Superman was in the early, truly original years, when many parts of America--including its fictional heroes created at the time--were shaped from a hard, eye-for-an-eye near-vigilante kind of mold common in that era.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

It is weird going back and reading the Golden Age Superman stories. He's a lot more rough around the edges.

 

[The Realist]

Yes. Those hung up on the Donner films--or Reeve's interpretation need to let that go. What's amusing is that some use the Reeve version--and by association the Swan/Weisinger/Coleman/Plastino, et al. Superman as some "original" or "true" version of the character, when a true originalist would go back to his earliest days, when the character was not some glorified camp counselor--

"A well-deserved fate". He's judge, jury and willing executioner. Then, there--

"One less vulture" Cold and brutal. That's not the guy who spent later years on the covers of Superman's Girl Friend, Lois Lane, pranking or spoiling her efforts to marry him, or on World's Finest playing sports with Batman and Robin. So, whenever some fans make the erroneous claim that the Cavill Superman is "not the original boy scout like Reeve and the Curt Swan comics.." I've reminded them of who Superman was in the early, truly original years, when many parts of America--including its fictional heroes created at the time--were shaped from a hard, eye-for-an-eye near-vigilante kind of mold common in that era.

You're not wrong about those Golden Age comics, but it's also true that the character has grown and changed and been refined over the years. And the Christopher Reeve version remains THE defining characterization across all media in the general public consciousness, more than 40 years later. Certainly Snyderman did not supplant him in that regard.

As for a "tougher" Superman, I always appreciated the bit in Superman and the Mole Men where George Reeves's Supes protects the rabble-rousing lynch mob leader from retaliation by the subterranean-dwelling "others" he's been persecuting and attacking the whole movie. The guy thanks Superman for saving his life, and Reeves snaps sternly, "That's more than you deserve!" A great moment in a great movie featuring a great Superman.

 

[JD]

Yes. Those hung up on the Donner films--or Reeve's interpretation need to let that go. What's amusing is that some use the Reeve version--and by association the Swan/Weisinger/Coleman/Plastino, et al. Superman as some "original" or "true" version of the character, when a true originalist would go back to his earliest days, when the character was not some glorified camp counselor--

"A well-deserved fate". He's judge, jury and willing executioner. Then, there--

"One less vulture" Cold and brutal. That's not the guy who spent later years on the covers of Superman's Girl Friend, Lois Lane, pranking or spoiling her efforts to marry him, or on World's Finest playing sports with Batman and Robin. So, whenever some fans make the erroneous claim that the Cavill Superman is "not the original boy scout like Reeve and the Curt Swan comics.." I've reminded them of who Superman was in the early, truly original years, when many parts of America--including its fictional heroes created at the time--were shaped from a hard, eye-for-an-eye near-vigilante kind of mold common in that era.

When it comes to this kind of stuff, I never hold the early version as the definitive version, they change and evolve so much over time that more often than not that early version is almost completely unrecognizable as that character. For me it's more about which version has been the most prominent and lasted the longest, and with Superman that is definitely the Reeves/Swan Big Blue Boyscout version, not the early Golden Age version.

 

[Ovation]

When it comes to this kind of stuff, I never hold the early version as the definitive version, they change and evolve so much over time that more often than not that early version is almost completely unrecognizable as that character. For me it's more about which version has been the most prominent and lasted the longest, and with Superman that is definitely the Reeves/Swan Big Blue Boyscout version, not the early Golden Age version.

That's fine. But, if anything, that makes me far MORE interested in exploring versions that are NOT "definitive" as there are thousands of stories (across all media) with the "definitive" version. My appreciation of Man of Steel is directly related to how it is not in the "Reeve/Swan" mould (which I enjoy immensely as well). But I already have that version...over and over. Nothing wrong with a different take.

 

[kirk55555]

Official Press Release:

Zack Snyder’s Director’s Cut of Justice League to World Premiere Exclusively on the Streamer in 2021



LOS ANGELES – May 20, 2020 – After global passionate fan calls to action and the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement, HBO Max and Warner Bros. Pictures announced today that it will exclusively world premiere Zack Snyder’s director’s cut of the Warner Bros. Pictures/DC feature film Justice League in 2021. Snyder surprised fans with the news this morning during a live online commentary of his film Man of Steel with Henry Cavill.



#ReleaseTheSnyderCut first became a passionate rallying social media cry among fans in 2017 and has not let up. From countless press articles and hundreds of thousands of social media mentions, it became a powerful global movement among cinephiles and comic book fans.


“I want to thank HBO Max and Warner Brothers for this brave gesture of supporting artists and allowing their true visions to be realized. Also a special thank you to all of those involved in the SnyderCut movement for making this a reality,” said Snyder.



“Since I got here 14 months ago, the chant to #ReleaseTheSnyderCut has been a daily drumbeat in our offices and inboxes. Well, the fans have asked, and we are thrilled to finally deliver. At the end of the day, it really is all about them and we are beyond excited to be able to release Zack’s ultimate vision for this film in 2021. This could never have happened if it weren’t for the hard work and combined efforts of the teams at HBO Max and Warner Bros. Pictures,” said Robert Greenblatt, Chairman, Warner Media Entertainment and Direct-To-Consumer.


“When Zack and Debbie shared the extraordinary vision of where Zack wanted to take Justice League, my team and our counterparts at Warner Bros. took it as a mission to solve the many issues that stood in the way,” said Kevin Reilly, Chief Content Officer at HBO Max, President, TNT, TBS and truTV. “Thanks to the partnership at Warner Bros. and the relentless pursuit of the entire WarnerMax team we are able to deliver this incredibly exciting moment for Zack, the fans and HBO Max.”


“Thanks to the efforts of a lot people, we’re excited to bring fans this highly anticipated version of Justice League,” said Toby Emmerich, Chairman, Warner Bros. Pictures Group. “This feels like the right time to share Zack’s story, and HBO Max is the perfect platform for it. We’re glad the creative planets aligned, allowing us to #ReleaseTheSnyderCut.”


In Justice League, fueled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s selfless act, Bruce Wayne enlists the help of his newfound ally, Diana Prince, to face an even greater enemy. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to find and recruit a team of metahumans to stand against this newly awakened threat. But despite the formation of this unprecedented league of heroes—Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Cyborg and The Flash—it may already be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.

Oh wow, so the vastly inferior cut of a mediocre film is coming out. I'm sure it will prove all Snyder fans right, and DC will cancel all its more lighthearted movies and go back to Snyder's Ayn Rand inspired grimdark bullshit

Seriously, I get that they're just doing it to get subscribers to HBO Max, and it won't be effecting their movies going forward (its not like they're going to make a sequel to Snyder's version of JL or ruin their Aquaman/Shazam/WW sequels by going back to Snyder's BS), but it still feels like giving in to loud assholes. But, hey, I'm all for taking money from assholes, but its going to make them loudly proclaim the "Snyder Cut" as the best movie ever, and every DC movie from now on will have those people yelling at it, thinking that WB will give in to the loud minority now that they've done it once. I doubt DC will do that, but its going to make Snyder fans even more obnoxious in the long run.

 

[Ovation]

Oh wow, so the vastly inferior cut of a mediocre film is coming out. I'm sure it will prove all Snyder fans right, and DC will cancel all its more lighthearted movies and go back to Snyder's Ayn Rand inspired grimdark bullshit

Seriously, I get that they're just doing it to get subscribers to HBO Max, and it won't be effecting their movies going forward (its not like they're going to make a sequel to Snyder's version of JL or ruin their Aquaman/Shazam/WW sequels by going back to Snyder's BS), but it still feels like giving in to loud assholes. But, hey, I'm all for taking money from assholes, but its going to make them loudly proclaim the "Snyder Cut" as the best movie ever, and every DC movie from now on will have those people yelling at it, thinking that WB will give in to the loud minority now that they've done it once. I doubt DC will do that, but its going to make Snyder fans even more obnoxious in the long run.

More obnoxious than serially viceral complainers about things not yet seen? Doubt it very much.

 

[Christopher]

When it comes to this kind of stuff, I never hold the early version as the definitive version, they change and evolve so much over time that more often than not that early version is almost completely unrecognizable as that character.

Yes, of course. This should be obvious. You don't expect a grown adult to act like they did as an infant. You don't expect a fully baked cake to taste like the raw batter. The earliest form isn't the correct version, just the embryonic version.

 

[The Realist]

That's fine. But, if anything, that makes me far MORE interested in exploring versions that are NOT "definitive" as there are thousands of stories (across all media) with the "definitive" version. My appreciation of Man of Steel is directly related to how it is not in the "Reeve/Swan" mould (which I enjoy immensely as well). But I already have that version...over and over. Nothing wrong with a different take.

I think the problem for many of us is not the idea of a different take in general, but its scale and significance. There was a comic book that came out a few months ago, one of the idiotic "Dark Multiverse" things DC has been self-abusing over lately. In it, Lois Lane becomes a superpowered, vengeance-driven mass murderer in the wake of Superman's death at the hands of Doomsday. It was incredibly offensive and puerile, a version of Lois that would exist in NO universe. It sucked, but it was also a one-off comic story, a tiny grain of sand on the nigh-infinite Superman beach, ultimately harmless and easily dismissed.

Snyderman is a very different story. At the time Man of Steel came out, there had only been six previous Superman feature films in the character's then 75-year history. Movies are a big deal. Movies are few and special. Movies exert an influence over public perception greater and more defining than any other medium. (For proof, see Christopher Reeve.) So while Snyderman might be shrugged off as a legitimate alternate take in an "Elseworlds" comic or whatever, in a major movie he stands potentially to define the character for a generation. And it isn't like there's going to be another Superman film next week or next month to satisfy those of us who find Snyderman objectionable. Movie-wise, this it it, baby, for years.

That's why I can't agree with you that it's okay if Snyderman is a crummy version of the character since it's just one Superman story among thousands, because it most certainly is not just one Superman MOVIE among thousands. Experiment all you want in lesser media, but movies, those rare and expensive beasts, need to be definitive every time.

 

[Ovation]

That's why I can't agree with you that it's okay if Snyderman is a crummy version of the character since it's just one Superman story among thousands, because it most certainly is not just one Superman MOVIE among thousands. Experiment all you want in lesser media, but movies, those rare and expensive beasts, need to be definitive every time.

But I don't agree that Man of Steel's Superman is a "crummy version of the character". I don't even find it strays very far from the "definitive" version (some of the peripheral bits around him do so a bit more). I found Man of Steel offered an updated version that was distinct enough to be different from the Reeve version (much more so than Superman Returns) but, unlike others, I did not find him in any way unrecognizable as Superman. Is the film itself perfect? Certainly not. There are a number of bits I would have done differently and some of the pacing of the bits I'd have kept as a director would have been different as well. But I refuse to concede that the character is fatally flawed as an example of Superman. I get that this version is not universally liked--but I find much of the complaining either misreads what actually happens on screen or imagines things that are not actually there. I also find that many people are really more bugged with how the Kents are portrayed (I am not--but I'll leave that aside for the moment) and rather than confining their complaints to the Kents, they paint their disappointment with a far wider brushstroke than is deserved.

Moreover, if I were making a Superman movie (or any movie with "iconic" characters), you better believe I'd want my version to be the new "definitive" one. I might not succeed, but I guarantee I would present what MY vision of the character is (as should be the case in ALL such situations) and let the chips fall where they may. What I would NOT ever do is "consult the fans" and simply ape the existing "definitive" version. Snyder doesn't implicitly deserve acceptance for his effort. However, he's certainly entitled to put out what he thinks is a "definitive" version of the character. There is no inherently "wrong" way to approach a character or a story, just as there is no right to "success" in terms of popular acceptance of the finished product.

In the end, I find the Man of Steel Superman character more interesting than, and just as inspiring as, the Reeve version. I accept that others see it differently. I refuse to accept that there can only be one "correct" (or "definitive") way to portray a character--whether it be in print or in "rare and expensive beasts". No character is sacrosanct. Not one.

 

[The Realist]

Sure, it's well-established you like Snyderman. My point was narrower, to address your frequent argument toward those if us who don't like him that it's just a harmless alternate take and there are bajillions of other Superman stories out there. I was just trying to clarify why that's not really true, in that a project of this scale and importance is of far greater significance in the big Superman picture than most -- and therefore more objectionable for those of us who dislike the approach.

 

[Tosk]

I refuse to accept that there can only be one "correct" (or "definitive") way to portray a character

I don't think most people think that either. The Superman that "many people want" isn't exactly the same for all those people, there is actually a reasonable amount of latitude to be had. That's why later versions of Superman have been embraced even though they aren't exactly like a previous one. Sure there is always complaining about aspects, but that goes for anything. I'd wager that the Snyder Superman wouldn't have taken much tweaking to make him both acceptable to die-hards and still deliver what MOS was striving for.

Heck, I'm not even convinced that MOS did deliver what it was striving for in some ways. It felt like the goal was just slightly out of their reach.

 

[Ovation]

Sure, it's well-established you like Snyderman. My point was narrower, to address your frequent argument toward those if us who don't like him that it's just a harmless alternate take and there are bajillions of other Superman stories out there. I was just trying to clarify why that's not really true, in that a project of this scale and importance is of far greater significance in the big Superman picture than most -- and therefore more objectionable for those of us who dislike the approach.

I guess I don't think it'll be another 30 years before there's another Superman movie (and now that there'll be a Superman TV show, with very likely a version more to your liking, as well), so I don't see it as such a big deal. I can see it would be disappointing to those who, like you, were not happy with Man of Steel. My bigger point, though, is that no movie version should, a priori, be "off the table" just because it isn't aping "the definitive model". I didn't know much about the Man of Steel approach before I saw it (I kept pretty much spoiler free), so I didn't know if it was going to be closer or further from the Reeve version than Superman Returns (I suspected less, but not strongly either way).

I have found criticism of Man of Steel's Superman very similar to Trek '09's Kirk--both in the kinds of complaints (that's NOT the Kirk/Superman I remember) and in the broader sense of not having expectations met. I admit I prefer to have my expectations challenged, rather than confirmed, and that I am more forgiving of an effort that exceeds its grasp while challenging my expectations than one that falls flat while giving me more of the same (it's also why my favourite Star Wars movie where Luke Skywalker played a prominent role was The Last Jedi). My hackles tend to rise when I encounter "the character 'should be like'" as a response to something one doesn't like, rather than "I didn't care for this approach". YMMV.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I liked Danny Elfman's nods to John Williams Superman theme and his own Batman theme, but otherwise found the score largely forgettable.

 

[EnderAKH]

If they're throwing money around, I wish they would throw $30 million toward the theatrically released version of Justice League to clean up Cavill's lip and make Steppenwolf look less like a video game character.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Just the production values alone take JL out of the group of movies you listed... And it also had some scenes that I genuinely enjoyed, such as Superman's return and fight. They finally showed how badass he really is. And it was glorious.

The production values of Justice League were unconscionably terrible. If they're actually putting new money into this version, maybe some of that will get fixed, but as released in cinemas it was easily the ugliest and cheapest looking blockbuster of the decade (that I saw - granted, I haven't seen Fant4astic).

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

When it comes to this kind of stuff, I never hold the early version as the definitive version, they change and evolve so much over time that more often than not that early version is almost completely unrecognizable as that character.

Yet would-be originalists claim the Swan, et al. version should be the default Superman because he is allegedly "the original" interpretation, when that notion is patently false and ignorant of the character's history. If they want the original Superman, then its the early Golden Age version as seen in those panel examples, not the park ranger of Swan, the winking uncle of George Reeves or even Christopher Reeve. They cannot hold such an obviously contradictory position, or hide that worn out whine-a-thon about "dark" characters while ignoring the fact Superman was that kind of character.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

If you care enough to spend 3 hours on it, here's the 3 hour long watchalong of MoS with Zack Snyder:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Yet would-be originalists claim the Swan, et al. version should be the default Superman because he is allegedly "the original" interpretation, when that notion is patently false and ignorant of the character's history. If they want the original Superman, then its the early Golden Age version as seen in those panel examples, not the park ranger of Swan, the winking uncle of George Reeves or even Christopher Reeve. They cannot hold such an obviously contradictory position, or hide that worn out whine-a-thon about "dark" characters while ignoring the fact Superman was that kind of character.

Do "originalists" even claim that they liked Superman most from his early original appearances that few people have read, though? Do they even call themselves that? Or do you just project that onto people who like Reeve and Swan?

Maybe you're simply confusing "original" with "classic". Swan Superman is classic. All characters have their classic interpretations that are far different from their originals. Green "Hulk smash" is classic. Grey "Get out of my way, insect" is original. Mutant Wolverine with retractable adamantium claws is classic. Superhuman Canadian agent with claws on his gloves is original.

It's all just semantics you're fighting over just to prove a point that most fans of the medium probably already know. That the majority of the people out there rarely care for the original as much as what they view as classic.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Do "originalists" even claim that they liked Superman most from his early original appearances that few people have read, though? Do they even call themselves that? Or do you just project that onto people who like Reeve and Swan?

Wrong. those who spent years whining about the DCEU's Superman always claimed that version is not the way Superman originally was presented in the comics--that he was not dark, when that is a false belief having no connection to the true, original Superman in the comics.

Maybe you're simply confusing "original" with "classic". Swan Superman is classic.

No, the anti-DCEU Superman group have long argued that the Swan/Weisinger Superman was the "way he was supposed to be" a claim that the Swan/Weisinger interpretation was the way the character was created, when even a casual browsing of the character's true early days paints the opposite picture. If they want to build their entire case on what is an originalist claim, then they should realize the Swan/Weisinger Superman is anything but the original Superman.